444 A Characterisation of [August, 
respects, “ Mr. Darwin gains rather than loses by the neces- 
“ sity which he so often deplores, of having to curtail his 
“ evidence,” to adopt the phraseology appled by the London 
Reviewer of the Or. of Sp. to this last-named work ; while 
concerning the evidence corroborative of Evolution (the 
subjeCt-matter of the final instalment, or chiefly so) a cynic 
might say that so successful was the Or. of Sp. in assi- 
milating the dodtrine of “ descent with modification ” 
with that of “ descent with modification through variation 
“and natural selection,” that Mr. Darwin did not think it 
necessary to publish further evidence of their identity in his 
own mind,— a remark well adapted to serve as a transition 
to the discussion of the second heading. 
The Or. of Sp. is “ one long argument ” (p. 404), with 
“two distindt objedts in view ; firstly, to show that species 
“ had not been separately created, and secondly, that na- 
“ tural selection had been the chief agent of change ” 
( Descent of Man, p. 61). 
The consequence of this procedure has been now a con- 
fusion, now an identification of the theory of Evolution 
and the theory of Natural Seledtion throughout the Or. 
of Sp. ; with the result of floating the proposition that 
the issue is ‘ creation versus natural seledtion,’ rather than 
* creation versus evolution. Mr. Samuel Butlei lemaiks . 
“ To do this prevents the reader from bearing in mind that 
“the ‘evolution by means of the circumstance-suiting 
“ ‘ power of plants and animals,’ as advanced by the earlier 
“ evolutionists, and ‘ evolution by means of lucky accidents,’ 
“ [may] the one be true and the other untrue. . . . Hence 
“ [also] when he falls in with such writers as Professor 
“ Mivart and the Rev. J. J. Murphy ... he imagines that 
“ evolution has much less to say for itself than it really has.” 
To give details. In explaining similarity of pattern among 
diverse orders, choice is offered between creation and 
“ the theory of the seledtion of successive slight modifica- 
“ tions ” (p. 383), and again in accounting for serial homolo- 
gies (p. 384), in connection with palaeontology (pp. 290, 313, 
407), in connection with distribution (p. 362) ; while on the 
other hand “ the two theories of independent creation and 
“ descent with modification ” are mentioned in connection 
with the last-named topic on p. 347 ; while there is a like 
absence of qualification in the treatment of classification on 
pp. 365 and 369, and of rudimentary organs on pp. 400 and 
402, and both combined on p. 373. The same end was at 
other times gained by a substitution of one theory for the 
other in the course of a single argument. Thus the title of 
