1884.] Professor Huxley's Darwinism. 63 
“ Mr. Darwin’s hypothesis would be utterly shattered.” In 
“ Man’s Place in Nature” (pp. 107, 108) the little rift was 
still unhealed. In 1864, though still “ the weight of this ob- 
jection is obvious ” (“ Lay Sermons,” p. 308) ; “ the diffi- 
culties presented by hybridism ” were classed among 
“details,” “so battered and hackneyed on this side of the 
Channel that not even a Quarterly Reviewer could be in- 
duced to pick them up for the purpose of pelting Mr. Darwin 
over again ” (p. 318) ; though it is not obvious why the 
alleged terror of Quarterly Reviewers should have induced 
an authority such as M. P. Flourens, when conducting an 
“ Examination du Livre de M. Darwin sur l’Origine des 
Especes,” to ignore Mr. Darwin’s ninth chapter ; nor did 
such alleged terror of Quarterly Reviewers deter Prof. 
Huxley from reprinting from the “ American Cyclopaedia ” 
his statement that “ what is needed for the completion of 
the theory of the origin of species is, first, definite proof 
that selective breeding is competent to convert permanent 
races into physiologically distinct species,” in the same 
issue of the “ Popular Science Monthly ” in which appeared 
the editorial announcement of certain lectures in which 
some fossil horses were pronounced demonstrative evidence 
of evolution (August, 1876). It had become expedient to 
offer a modified estimate of the necessity of manufacturing 
mutually infertile breeds from a common stock ; else how 
good a cartoon for a scientific “ Punch” — the triumphant 
horse and the obstreperous mule trotting out to tournament, 
the one as “demonstrative” evidence of evolution, the 
other concerned in some plot to “ utterly shatter ” that 
dodtrine. 
It will be observed that the “ utterly shattered ” quotation 
is but an intensified repetition of what may be an erroneous 
view taught in the “ Lay Sermons.” Were it not so I should 
be more reludtant to quote from an unrevised volume, though 
it is one of the four “ chief works consulted ” by Miss Arabella 
B. Buckley in the composition of successive editions of her 
“ Short History of Natural Science.” In this work “ young 
and unscientific people” are informed that the “ one stumbling- 
block ” to Darwinism is the circumstance that “ we have 
never yet been able to trace out two varieties of an animal 
which have become so different that they do not pair to- 
gether;” and as the author proceeds to discourse upon 
choice, and never mentions sterility, one assumes the desi- 
deratum is distinct from that sought by Prof. Huxley, — not 
the production of physiological, but of emotional, properties ; 
