76 
Naturalists are all at sea, it seems, as to what are varieties 
and species, or even, as to how orders and sub-orders are to 
be distinguished. But surely this is the exception and not 
the rule ; and when they know better, and can divide more 
scientifically, this overlapping and confusion, upon which Dar- 
winism wishes to found itself, would be got rid of. Mr. 
Warington himself admits that “in the majority of cases 
there is no such difficulty, the specific differences being clearly 
marked,” though he tells us the intermediate varieties of 
brambles have sorely puzzled him. The gradations are some- 
times so fine, that is, varieties are so very much alike, that 
they shade off into one another ; and this, it is argued, is just 
what Darwinism would have expected. Very good, let us 
grant so much. But how then can we also grant, that when 
differences vary exceedingly — that is, when species or varieties 
are not at all alike — that this also should be just what Dar- 
winism wants in order to prove -it ? I call that an incon- 
sistency, which Darwinism can only reconcile, because in itself 
a conglomeration of inconsistent principles. 
But I go on. If Darwinism be true, there must be “an 
enormous number of intermediate forms.” And, of course, so 
there are ; precisely what Darwinism would lead us to expect. 
But at the same time the geological record does not prove 
the continuity or universality of these gradations ; but what of 
that ? the theory does not want them. On the contrary, a We 
may safely assert [Mr. Warington says] that the geological 
formations now being produced could only most exceptionally 
give any indication of the truth of Mr. Darwin's hypothesis, 
supposing that hypothesis to be true.” So, it seems that Mr. 
Baden Powell's, Mr. Darwin's and Sir C. Ly ell's laments over 
“ the imperfection of the geological record ” are all a mistake ; 
according to Mr. Warington, the theory can dispense with 
such evidence. It is equally to be regarded as true, whether 
we find that intermediate forms existed or not. Then Mr. 
Warington pertinently asks, “ What geological evidence would 
satisfy an anti-Darwinian ? ” And I venture as frankly to 
say, not any evidence of this hind whatever. No want of it, as 
we have seen, disturbs Mr. Warington's faith in the theory. 
No amount of it could, we may be sure, ever convince any one 
whose objections to Darwinism are worthy of consideration. 
As regards geological evidence — or the want of it — “the fore- 
gone conclusion (I fear) would colour everything ” ! 
It is in this part of Mr. Warington's argument that we come 
to a tell-tale expression, which I do regret to discover. In his 
view, the peculiar variations to be found in the different genera 
of the Gonnaracece do not present to his mind such a “symmetry 
