1883.] The Scope and Provinces of Zoology. 345 
prehensible to anyone who will take the trouble to recognise 
that it means the furtherance of variations, and not their origin. 
“ Natural selection” is “ justly and properly to be termed” 
thus (vide “ Lessons from Nature by St. George Mivart, 
Ph.D., F.R.S., &c. ; London, 1876, p. 290), if one can only 
grasp the conception that it is but a synonym for the “ sur- 
vival of the fittest” in the “ struggle ” for existence ; but does 
history since 1859 t en d to show that that is such an easy 
task ? While even the “ struggle” receives a little counten- 
ance if one will but promise to remember that it is used in 
“ a large sense,” “ metaphorical sense,” “a far-fetched sense,” 
and “ in these several senses,” “ for convenience’ sake” (sic) 
(vide “ Origin of Species,” p. 50), but there is much virtue 
in an “ if.” But the applauder of Charles Darwin may 
attempt to demonstrate this to be a parade of cavilling by 
reminding us of the need of economy of space so often in- 
sisted upon in the “ Origin of Species.” He may plead that 
whenever Mr. Darwin speaks of “ the theory of descent with 
modification,” it is only from “ sheer want of room” that he 
does not in every instance append the words “ through varia- 
tion and natural selection,” as he does on pp. 313 and 404, 
and the applauder’s position will be unassailable, for until 
Mr. Darwin’s life and correspondence are published it is 
superfluous to attempt to decide whether we have to deal 
with a hypocrite or a simpleton. 
Until a week or two ago I intended to here expose a few 
of the self-stultifications which the applauders of Mr. Darwin 
are so prone to exhibit, to comment, for instance, on the 
alleged courtesy to opponents, and justice to Mr. Alfred 
Russel Wallace, forsooth ; but it occurred to me that the 
first-fruits of aetiology need no supplementary exposures. 
Let us therefore examine how far phylogeny and other 
divisions of “ oetiology ” harmonise together. Passing over 
Mr. Darwin’s speculations on Abiogenesis, let us assume 
that, from the pedagogic stand-point at any rate, Phylogeny 
has priority to the other branches of “ oetiology ” ; granted 
this, it is accordingly desirable to have one or two tolerably 
‘"dogmatic” genealogical trees. A Professor of Biology 
has recently made Mr. Darwin’s death the occasion to repeat 
his convidtiion that Prof. Haeckel’s phylogenies are too 
positive. His remarks are immediately succeeded, in the 
same paragraph, by a sentence containing the words 
“ Darwin’s decisions so weighty.” It is not stated that the 
latter expressed the opinion that Prof. Haeckel had “thus 
boldly made a great beginning ” ; that “ he who wishes to 
see what ingenuity and knowledge can effedt, may consult 
VOL. V. (THIRD SERIES. z A 
