180 
I said, perhaps a million, or even ten millions, of years were 
necessary ^ reoa ll attention to the fact, though no doubt 
known to many present, that the famous Neanderthal skull 
of which so much was made both by Sir Charles Lye 
Professor Huxley as probably a specimen of this missmglmk 
which is still, however, missmg — between men and apes, 
been proved to be merely an abnormal forrnation arismg from 
synostosis or ossification of the sutures, and that similar de 
formed skulls of perfectly modern date are m existencc. A 
so we are still without a single specimen of the crania > that, it 
found, would be considered as bridging over the gulf between 
“Having 8, mentioned Sir Charles Lyell’s name in ^nnejion 
with Darwinism, I must observe that, m his ^ j 
he adopts the theory, and recommends it as at leasU g 
working hypothesis,” in the absence of any proof °f its Pro- 
bability! or even possibility, upon the sole v £v 
geological record, which at present contradicts it, ^ so very 
imperfect. This has been characterized as not meiely an 
instance of non- induction, or “hasty generalization, based 
upon a limited or partial knowledge of facts, which is i so > rig J 
and strongly condemned by Lord Bacon, even when the facts we 
do know are not inconsistent with the hypothesis we adopt , 
but its, indeed, a “glaring specimen of positively false : gene- 
ralization, the hypothesis being not m accordance . with any 
recognized facts or principles whatever, but directly m the 
teeth of all our knowledge and experience. , , 
Having made use of the word Darwinism I also feel bound 
to noticf, that Mr. Darwin has not himself worked up his 
theory so as to apply it to man’s development, ^ough Profes- 
sor Huxley is no doubt right in saying, plainly, that that the 
goal to which it tends. Strictly speaking, Mr. Darwin has not 
professed to prove anything beyond “ the origin of speci s 
by his theory. And all that he has proved as a natmalist, is 
the fact, that numerous varieties of plants and animals ar - 
veloped within the limits of each particular species. He has 
not proved a single instance of development beyond these 
limits of nature’s laws; and most certainly no permanence of 
development in any such case. He has indeed show - 
classifications of naturalists may probably m some cases be at 
fault, and that what they may have called different species 
are sometimes only varieties. But this rather goes againrt Ms 
theory, and may be the true explanation of the few ®* c Pf 
tional and only apparent approximations to the ori^nation 
new species which he almost claims to have obseived. B 
