58 
instinct of the hive-bee as an instance of his analytic and 
synthetic skill, and in confirmation of evolution. That Darwin’s 
expertments were most interesting, and afforded additional 
illustrations of the wondrous instinct of the hive-bee I gladly 
acknowledge, but that they afford evidence of this power having 
been acquired by natural selection I cannot admit. The experi- 
ments were made with hive-bees; that is, with bees already 
possessing this economical instinct, and could not, therefore, 
show how they acquired it. The hypothesis is that humble- 
bees have gradually evolved themselves into hive-bees ; to prove 
this by experiment, he must collect a number of humble-bees 
together, see if they will swarm, and then, supposing them to 
swarm, watch whether they make any progress towards cell- 
building. When he has taken some steps in this direction with 
success, he will have commenced experiments affording import- 
ant evidence, but not before. Another flaw in this explana- 
tion seems to be that the bees “ transmit by inheritance their 
newly-acquired economical instincts to new swarms.” Is this 
a fact? The bees that make the cells have no descendants, and 
the bees that have the descendants, the drones, do not make 
the cells ; how then can they have the instincts without 
doing the work? Darwin has shown how it is useful for com- 
munities to have working insects which are neuters ; but I 
cannot find where he attempts to show that non-constructing 
insects can transmit a constrncting instinct. The next import- 
ant point to which attention is called, is the important doctrine . 
of teleology. Tyndall says, “It is the mind thus stored with 
the choicest materials of the teleologist that rejects teleology, 
seeking to refer these wonders to natural causes. They illus- 
trate, according to him, the method of nature, not the 
f technic ’ of a man-like artificer.” On this point Huxley 
speaks still more decidedly. “ The teleology which supposes 
that the eye, such as we see it in man or one of the higher 
vertebrata, w r as made with the precise structure which it 
exhibits, for the purpose of enabling the animal to see, has 
undoubtedly received its death-blow.” Nevertheless, it is'neces- 
sary to remember that there is a wider teleology, which is not 
touched by the doctrine of evolution, but is actually based 
upon the fundamental proposition of evolution. That proposi- 
tion is, that the whole world, living and not living, is the result 
of the mutual interaction, according to definite laws, of the 
forces possessed by the molecules of which the primitive nebu- 
losity of the universe was composed. If this be true, it is no 
less certain that the existing world lay, potentially, in the 
cosmic vapour; and that a sufficient intelligence could, from a 
