6 4 
Professor Huxley's Darwinism. 
[February, 
though those able to appreciate the difference between the 
“ only one difficulty” and “ almost the only real one ” may 
be more competent to determine whether Miss Buckley’s 
desideratum is a counterfeit of Prof. Huxley’s or no. 
The inaccessible nature of the evidence destined, if forth- 
coming, to utterly shatter Darwinism, is its conspicuous 
feature; something must be proven impossible; though 
whether a dozen, a score, or a hundred failures will suffice 
to prove the impossibility of breeding races mutually infer- 
tile from a common stock, no notion whatever is afforded. 
The fabric resembles the logic of the desideratum. First 
comes the assumption (not explicitly adopted by Prof. Huxley 
in its integrity) that “ species ” under Nature are sterile, 
much evidence to demonstrate the unwarrantableness of 
which is given by Prof. Karl Semper, in his contribution to 
the “ International Scientific Series ” ; and then the as- 
sumption that “ the antipathy of wild animals of different 
species for one another, or even of wild and tame members 
of the same species, is ordinarily so great that it is hopeless 
to look for such unions in Nature ” (“ Lay Sermons,” p. 273). 
Evolutionists possess, however, some very hopeful evidence 
on this point ; Prof. Semper cites above half-a-dozen such 
instances, and Mr. Darwin tells us that “ a female Austra- 
lian dingo in England attracted the wild male foxes ” 
(“ Variation under Domestication,” ii., 80), also that “ the 
Indians of North America cross their half-wild dogs with 
wolves ” (i., 21) ; again, “ strange as the fadt may appear, 
many animals under confinement unite with distindt species 
as freely as, or even more freely than, with their own spe- 
cies ” (ii., 133, &c.), and he gives evidence that certain 
animals breed more successfully with other species than with 
members of their own. These several fadts are not calcu- 
lated to sustain the expectations of those who “ will go so 
far as to express our belief that experiments, conducted by 
a skilful physiologist, would very probably obtain the desired 
production of mutually more or less infertile breeds from 
a common stock, in a comparatively few years,” when “it 
took Mr. Wicking thirteen years to put a clean white head 
on an almond tumbler’s body, ‘ a triumph,’ says another 
fancier, ‘ of which he may be justly proud ’ ” (Id., ii., 183). 
Prof. Huxley’s “comparatively few years ” (“ Lay Sermons,” 
p. 295) means “ a long time ” (p. 273). 
In the circumstance of the difficulty of crossing the com- 
mon rabbit and Lepus Huxleyi , Prof. Haeckel discerns the 
realisation of Prof. Huxley’s wish. Mr. S. E. B. Bouverie- 
Pusey, however, offers criticisms, and adduces evidence that 
