232 
generation to the opposite sex ; thus the daughters of a clever man usually 
partake of the superiority of their sire, 'and the marked influence of a superior 
mother on the boys is, I] suppose, universally admitted, though in this case 
it is difficult to distinguish between what may be due to nature and what to 
education. The frequent resemblance of sons to their maternal uncles has 
been recognized for ages. 
(F. p. 222.) 
From the Rev. F. 0. Morris, celebrated for his)works on Ornithology. 
“ How any persons can ever have brought themselves to adduce in support 
of a preconceived theory the most extravagant idea that the exterior forms 
or appearance of (so-called) species of birds have been produced by the 
admiration of males for females, or vice versa, does seem to me one of the 
most astounding notions that has ever been promulged ; nay, as put forth, 
it appears, in the work under your review, even parts of the species, as, e.g., 
parts of the wings of butterflies. 
“ You have mentioned some eminent names who have pronounced against 
this doctrine, and you’might have added to them Dr. Carrutliers as a botanist, 
and of Mr. Davidson as a geologist. Davidson says : ‘ Year after year has 
passed away without my being able to trace the descent with modifications 
among the Brachiopoda which the Darwinian doctrine requires ’ ; and Dr. 
Carrutliers, that ‘ no single case of evolution of one species from another has 
come within the observation of man.’ 
“ Dr. Allen Thomson states in his address that it requires a practised eye 
to distinguish between the embryos of animals, birds, and reptiles, in the 
earliest stages of their existence. What is this but to admit that in these 
earlier stages of their existence there is a ‘ distinction and a difference ’ 
between them, and that it is distinguishable ? 
“ And yet again, Darwin, as all the world knows, has never yet been able 
to produce or point to any one single existing creature of any kind in the act 
of evolution from one species to another; and that for the best of all possible 
reasons. Nor has he been able to do so in the case of the creatures that have 
so long been extinct ; no, not a single one in any of the inconceivably vast 
c eons of time he is obliged to invent to build his baseless theory on. 
“ Even so it is with the embryos of them. Can Dr. Allen Thomson show 
us any one of their embryos in any such transitional state ? I trow not ; not 
one does he, because not one can he.” — A Giuird against the “ Guardian.” 
Review of “ Der Darwinismus, by Dr. Alhert Wioand, 1875-77.” 
From The Academy, August 25th, 1877. 
“In the second part Dr. Wigand leaves the narrow ground of natural 
science, and criticises Darwinism from a general and philosophical point of 
view. The theory is said to be no legitimate hypothesis, since it fails to 
