( 602 ) 
[October, 
ANALYSES OF BOOKS. 
The Scientific Evidences of Organic Evolution . By G. J. 
Romanes, M.A., LL.D., F.R.S., Zoological Secretary of 
the Linnean Society. London : Macmillan and Co. 
This work is simply what it professes to be, — an epitome of the 
Darwinian doctrines presented in a clear and concise form, so as 
to meet the requirements of the busy and of the indolent. The 
author remarks the common “ ignorance of the Origin of Species 
shown by many persons who can scarcely be said to belong to 
the uncultured classes.” Nowhere, we may add, is this ignorance 
more dense than among the average hostile critics of Evolution. 
There still spring up from time to time men who, with no pre- 
vious knowledge of any department of Biology, dip carelessly 
into the works of Darwin, Wallace, and their coadjutors, and rush 
forthwith into print with the grandiose aim, forsooth, of over- 
turning the new Natural History and restoring the age of Cuvier. 
It would be well if such persons — and we have one of the class 
in our mind’s eye — would condescend to read, patiently and can- 
didly, Mr. Romanes’s little book ; they might arise wiser and 
humbler men. 
The author sets out with an explanation of “ natural selection,” 
or the “ survival of the fittest,” as the inevitable consequence of 
that “ struggle for existence ” which everyone must admit to be 
raging around us. It is curious that a recent anti-Darwinian 
writer has assumed the three terms we have placed between 
quotation marks to be the names of three distinct principles. 
It may, perhaps, be said that Mr. Romanes has scarcely been 
sufficiently careful to guard his readers against a common error, 
especially dangerous when the principle of natural selection is 
applied to social science. “ The survival of the fittest ” means, 
plainly enough, the survival of those creatures which are most 
in harmony with their surroundings. Were this point kept in 
view there could be no misunderstanding. But such expressions 
as “ The strongest will be victorious,” “ Nature selects the best 
individuals,” “ Only the flower of the race is allowed to breed,” 
&c., are, to our certain knowledge, misinterpreted to mean the 
strongest or best in some abstract sense. Now there can be no 
doubt that certain extinct Carnivora would in fair fight vanquish 
any surviving species. Nor, passing to another plane, can we 
deny that the men who fail in life are often better, both physically 
and intellectually, than the men who succeed. But the former 
are less in harmony with a foul social atmosphere. 
