57 
with gigantic but extinct species in general. “Intermediate 
forms/' if discovered in ever so great an abundance, go for 
nothing, so long as the most ancient found are as highly deve- 
loped as those now living in the same circumstances. 
Even in the recent field of domestication, of which Mr. 
Darwin makes so much, it is highly questionable whether 
“ improvement," in the sense of increased usefulness to man, 
is not degeneration in the sense of Nature. It is beyond 
question that a great many of what are called “improved breeds" 
are only helpless monstrosities apart from excessive human care. 
It is unphilosophical in the extreme to regard such monstrosi- 
ties as developments of the higher from the lower in Nature's 
sense. There is, no doubt, variation to the utmost, but it is 
not variation this theory requires — it is development of higher 
from lower forms. And this is just the idea which all Nature's 
records refuse to sanction. 
The lapse of time does not aid the theory in the very 
slightest degree. If you could prove that an eternity had fled 
since the first man whose skull has turned up was a living inhabi- 
tant of earth, it would only make the case so much the worse for 
evolution, if that skull is as fully developed as the average of 
skulls are now. So if you prove that in a few years long-horned 
oxen have been changed into a polled breed, the shortness of the 
time proves no more than its length, unless the polled, for 
Nature's use, are superior to the long-horned. There must 
be, in the great sum of change, evidence of such an advance 
as that by which, through slow degrees, the first “ few simple 
forms " have improved up to that of man. But such evidence 
is utterly wanting. 
When we estimate fairly the amount of Darwin's teaching, 
it is comprised within very narrow limits. He, no donbt, 
greatly reduces the number of imaginary “ species," and cor- 
respondingly increases that of “ varieties." If any one should 
take it into his head to count every variety of pigeons, for 
example, a distinct species having its representative, not in the 
common root of Columba livia, but in a special creation of its 
own, such a fancy would be effectually demolished by Darwin's 
reasoning. So, probably, it would happen with a similar fancy 
in relation to dogs. If any one should insist that each variety 
of elephants had its separate creation, then our author would 
probably refute him thoroughly. If we regard the multitude of 
so-called “ species " to which this sifting process would apply, 
the sweep of the system of thought wrought out by Darwin 
is very wide ; but if we regard the system itself, it lies, as it 
were, in a nutshell. It means only that varieties have been in 
many cases mistaken for true species. 
