56 
Mr. Warington.-— I wish now to notice a misrepresentation of the Dar- 
winian theory towards the close of the paper. I will not discuss the merits of 
that theory, but simply point out what seems to me to be a great misunder- 
standing. He says, “ A variety thrown off by the parent plant is a species at 
once, or not at all. It is only a temporary variety ; for, when it has grown 
up and become a perfect plant, it must either die out, revert, or perpetuate 
itself” His argument goes upon this assumption, that if it perpetuates it- 
self it is a species, but if it reverts or dies out it ceases to be a variety. 
There is no possibility of an intermediate stage. Now, take the simple case of 
man ; a negro perpetuates himself, and a Chinese, and a North American 
Indian, with all their differences, most exactly ; yet we firmly believe that 
they have all sprung from one original stock 
The Chairman. — He gives the definition of that. He calls 'that hybrid, 
and says that the hybrid cannot be perpetuated. Hybrids, therefore, 
would not be species, according to him. 
Mr. Warington. — I am endeavouring to show that according to his argu- 
ment they are species, because they are reproducing and perpetuating them- 
selves, with all their characteristic differences, and, therefore, according to his 
theory they are species ; yet, having been formed from varieties 
The Chairman. — Not according to his definition of species, I think. 
Mr. Warington. — There is another serious misunderstanding on the 
same page. Mr. Wheatley says, “Where man interferes, in the way of 
improving a species or a variety — such as our culinary vegetables and our 
florists’ flowers — he is obliged to continue by industry what he acquired by 
skill ; else would the size and succulence of his parsnips and his celery, and 
the glory of his roses and carnations, very soon return to what we consider 
the insignificance of their originals — neither pleasing his palate nor delight- 
ing his eye.” Here he is speaking of arbitrary conditions, where the result 
depends on those conditions being maintained. Mr. Darwin will tell you the 
same law holds good in nature ; if the conditions be maintained, then the 
variation will remain. It is the same with arbitrary alterations as with natural 
alterations. I cannot pretend to go into any discussion on this matter ; I 
simply wish to point out an instance in which Mr. Darwin’s theory has been 
unjustly dealt with by Mr. Wheatley. I would especially urge upon every 
one who deals with the subject to be perfectly clear with regard to this 
point, that if we could show that life developed itself after the manner 
of Mr. Darwin’s theory, we should have got no nearer to the essential 
point of life’s origin. It would not be much more wonderful if that life 
should be able to develop itself with variation than that life could develop 
itself at all. That is a marvel in itself, and if life does not always in 
developing assume the same form, we are not increasing the marvel, or 
doing anything to solve the question whence the vital power springs and 
what it is. (Hear, hear.) 
The Chairman. — Mr. Wheatley has made a slight mistake with regard to 
crystals, which I should not have referred to had I not been invited to 
do so. He says, “ Crystallography has been appealed to as evidence that 
