125 
full explanation on this head, nor yet as to the still more marvellous structure 
of the eye, because time is so far gone. To my mind, neither in the least 
touches Darwin’s position. One word, in conclusion, as to hybridism. 
There are cases of animals and plants which, up to the moment when 
they were found to yield fertile hybrids were regarded by naturalists as 
species, and it strikes me the same thing would be done if it were found 
that mules were fertile : we should at once be told that horses and asses were 
one species. Such reasoning can only be described as begging the question. 
It is asserted, because the offspring are sterile, therefore the original parents 
were true species. But to establish this you have to prove, as a fundamental 
basis, that the true test of specific difference lies in this one solitary set of 
organs— those of reproduction, so that those organs and those only will be the 
true index. Until I see that fundamental basis not assumed , but proved, I 
confess I shall object to take sterility of hybrids as a fair test of what are 
species and what not. In conclusion, let me say that I do not wish to be 
considered as pledging myself to Darwinism in. any way. I do not think 
there is sufficient evidence in his book to prove his theory to be true ; at the 
same time I do feel strongly— and mainly from the discussions in this 
Institute — that the current objections against Darwinism are invalid and 
fallacious. The discussion of to-night and last evening has considerably 
strengthened that conviction. I am no nearer believing Darwinism than 
before, but I am certainly more convinced than ever that the objections 
urged against it are irrelevant or inconclusive. 
The meeting was then adjourned. 
NOTE. 
In the Anthropological Review for April last, No. 17, will be found the 
following account of a discussion which recently toot place in the Anthropo- 
logical Society of Paris, “ On the Relations between the Anthropoid Apes 
and Man” ; and which will be read with interest by the members of 
the Victoria Institute, as bearing upon Mr. Darwin’s theory as applied 
to man’s origin, in connection with the preceding discussion upon Mr. 
Warington’s Paper on “The Credibility of Darwinism” — more especially 
considering the eminence of the French Anthropologists whose views are 
therein expressed. The discussion appears to have been opened by Dr. 
Pruner-Bey, in the course of his Address upon taking the Chair as 
President of the Paris Society, vice Dr. Gratiolet. The account proceeds 
as follows : — 
On the Relations between the Anthropoid Apes and Man, by M. Schaaf- 
hausen qf Bonn, translated by M. Pruner-Bey. — The scientific portion of 
M. Du Chaillu’s work has been received with distrust by the learned. There 
