1884.] 
Professor Huxley's Darwinism. 
67 
The American Addresses and Darwinism. 
The previous section shows that Mr. Darwin recognised 
in the phenomena of hybridism nothing subversive to 
Evolution, though he conceded the sterility of hybrids is 
little, if at all, explicable by Natural Selection. Now the 
theory which was to be utterly shattered, if the logical feat 
of proving something impossible were accomplished was 
according to Prof. Huxley, “ Mr. Darwin’s theory,” and this 
association of the sterility desideratum with Mr. Darwin’s 
theory has justified its examination here. The horse of the 
“ American Addresses,” on the other hand, is demonstrative 
evidence of “ Evolution so it may suffice to remark that a 
portion of this same pedigree is utilised by Dr. Mivart to 
substantiate his saltatory hypothesis ; to hint how suitably 
it may be chosen to illustrate the effects of “use”; to point 
out that if parallelism of specific evolution, independent of in- 
herited tendency to vary along parallel lines, be animpediment 
to Darwinism, horses possibly furnish an impediment ; also 
to remind the reader that if, as urged by Dr. Charles Elam, 
it is permissible for a specific creationist to maintain the 
specific identity of Equus and Orohippus ( Eohippus too ?), the 
propriety of reversing matters, and pronouncing fossil Sauro- 
psida “ demonstrative ” and fossil horses “ favourable ” evi- 
dence of evolution, suggests itself ;* and to remark that if 
the occurrence of special creation and special extinction be 
not impiobable, 4 priori , the latter may be summoned to 
explain the absence of aboriginal American horses. 
But the “ American Addresses ” are by no means devoid 
of Darwinism, inasmuch as its supremacy is maintained 
with no less confidence than in “ Man’s Place in Nature ” 
the reason assigned for this supremacy being that persistence 
is compatible with it ; and as any evolutionary theory in 
which progress is made a necessary contingent suffers patent 
suicide, Darwinism seems naturally preferable. The truth 
is, however, that the “ neutrality ” of the testimony of per- 
sistent types is debateable, and that it would have harmonised 
better with Mr. Darwin’s own views had none persisted, as 
the following quotations from the “ Origin of Species ” will 
show : — 
* Eohippus was described by Prof. Marsh the month following the delivery 
of the American Addresses ; and not only it, but Orohippus and Mcsoliibhus 
may be dispensed with without interfering with the “demonstrative ” nature 
of the evidence (p. 84). Vide also “ Manual of the Anatomy of Vertebrated 
Animals ” (p. 305). 
