i88a.] 
i95 
The “ Species ” War Reopened . 
The first point we notice is that Mr. Pusey, whilst main- 
taining the permanence of types, rejects the notion of 
species. He writes : — “ Whatever else becomes of Darwin’s 
labours, the conventional notion of species which includes 
together all human beings, and at the same time separates 
the wolf from the jackal, can never be built up again.” He 
contends that the conventional idea of species is the “anti- 
podes of a clear idea, combining as it does the notions of 
origin from one stock, real or possible ; existence in a wild 
state, even in separate areas ; fertile reproduction inter se, 
breeding together naturally without human interference, and 
a certain undetermined degree of likeness.” There is no 
subject indeed on which naturalists differ more hopelessly 
than on the number of species of a certain group which 
exist in some given area. If we ask a number of botanists 
how many native species of roses occur in Britain, we shall 
receive very discordant answers. Turn to the entomologists, 
and question them as to the species of true dung-beetles 
{Geotrupes) found in this country : some will reply two only, 
some three, some nine, besides a variety or two ! Hence we 
have among naturalists two parties, known by the inelegant 
names of “ lumpers ” and “ splitters.” The former are 
accused of overlooking weighty distinctions, whilst the latter 
are said to invent differences where none exist. The ordi- 
nary conclusion drawn from this difficulty, or rather impos- 
sibility, of defining strictly what should constitute a species, 
is that the forms of organic beings flow into each other con- 
tinuously, and that hence the transmutation of species is the 
more probable. Mr. Pusey draws a different inference. We 
all know the weight laid by French anti-evolutionist writers 
upon the so-called “ Egyptian ” argument for the perma- 
nence of species, — the fad, or alleged faCt, that the mum- 
mies and skeletons of certain domestic animals found in the 
catacombs differ not appreciably in structure from specimens 
of the same kind living in the present day. We know, fur- 
ther, the reply that this argument, if anything at all, proves 
too much, since, according to similar Egyptian evidence, 
races of mankind and breeds of cattle were as mutually dis- 
tinct as they are in this nineteenth century. To the Old 
School of Natural History, who — whilst maintaining the 
permanence and distinct origin of species — consider that 
races, breeds, and strains have been formed by what is at 
bottom a process of Evolution, this reply is fatal. But Mr. 
Pusey pronounces the variety, the race, the strain, also per- 
manent. He finds “ no difficulty in believing that at the 
first formation of animals there existed, independently, not 
