63 
father. Some races were distinguished for their muscularity or for other 
qualities inherited through successive generations, from the exceptional 
employments of their ancestors. As instances of this, he referred to the 
hippopotamus-hunters mentioned in Livingstone's Journal, and to the New- 
haven fishwives near Edinburgh, who were distinguished for their great 
muscularity and strength. 
Mr. M. H. Habershon pointed out (as bearing upon the question whether 
the development of muscle might be referred to the individual alone, or in a 
measure also to the transmission of quality), that the iron-workers of Stafford- 
shire and Sheffield were examples of great muscular development, which 
seemed to indicate that persistence for a long series of years in a certain 
trade occupation had a marked effect on the physique of the people of the 
district. It was said, at the time of the Chartist riots, that a much greater 
number of troops would be required in the neighbourhood of Sheffield than 
among an agricultural population, on account of the greater muscularity of 
a race of men whose arms had great power from the daily use of the hammer. 
The sons of a race of blacksmiths would make stronger-armed blacksmiths 
than the sons of a race of printers or weavers. Among animals it was un- 
questionable that certain qualities developed by use were transmitted from 
generation to generation, and it would be easier to train a dog whose 
progenitors had been trained than one whose progenitors had not. 
Mr. Row asked, in reference to the peculiar qualities of pointers and 
setters, whether any dog was ever known to point or set at game without 
instruction, and simply through the transmission of qualities from one 
generation to another. 
Dr. McCann said dogs had been known to point and set without instruc- 
tion, but only very slightly. 
The Rev. G. Currey, D.D., remarked that in weighing scientific evidence 
care must be taken not hastily to conclude, because certain facts militated 
against any hypothesis as originally stated, that the hypothesis therefore was 
fundamentally wrong. It was possible that the hypothesis might have been 
too broadly stated, and so might need modification, and yet be in the 
main correct ; or, on the other hand, it might contain a partial truth, which 
ought not to be overlooked, although the main hypothesis might not be 
sustained. This seemed to be the case in regard to the theory of Evolution. 
Careful investigation seemed to discredit the hypothesis that the whole of 
creation was governed by evolution as one universal law, and yet the same 
investigation left little doubt that evolution took place within certain limits. 
To assign these limits, was a work well deserving the attention of men of 
science ; and if Mr. Darwin had been too hasty in his assumption of a 
general law, we were not to pass over the facts which he had observed, or 
to imagine ourselves concerned to deny all evolution under the general 
name of Darwinism. 
Dr. E. Haughton agreed that a scientific theory ought to be based upon 
facts 5 but before we were asked to believe that all living creatures came 
