177 
(the elephant) “ had no antecedent progenitors, some such 
beginning must be assigned to him,” as that “ he fell 
from the sky,” or “ appeared out of the cleft of a tree,” &c. ; 
— anything but recognition of a personal Creator. 
What was this animal's antecedent ? As the idea of his 
first appearance on earth, in his perfect form, is held to be 
only fit. for ridicule, he of course came from some embryotic 
state, either in his existing or other form — a germ. From all 
the materials within the scope of human knowledge, the only 
notion of a germ we can establish is that of reproduction. 
The first was obviously not reproduced. I am, therefore, 
constrained to believe in a pre-existing creative Power. To 
whatever minute point we ascend, that point has life : con- 
fining ourselves to earth, no form of continuity can there- 
fore reach life's origin. 
There are some arguments, again, brought forward in 
support of continuity, which to the best of my belief are 
neither new nor true. “ If an animal seek its food or safety 
by climbing trees, its claws will become more prehensile 
.... each portion of the frame will mould itself to the wants 
of the animal, by the effect on it of the habits of the animal.” 
So continuity enforces the doctrine, that the giraffe got his 
long neck by trying to obtain food out of the reach of shorter 
vertebrata ; in fact, that animals were produced by this most 
unnatural natural system, in striking opposition to their 
former wants, brought forth for one course — the terrestrial — 
urged on to another — the arboreal — by what ? their nature ? 
their instinct ? Then they had one nature and one instinct 
in the early part of their career, and another nature and 
another instinct in a later part. This is too subtle for my 
comprehension. I can make nothing of it but a flat con- 
tradiction. The animal's requirements are at variance with 
its powers ! Desires and necessities are bestowed upon it, 
together with impotence of attainment ! What manner of 
thing is this? Transmigration of souls is as the wisdom of 
Solomon to it. I suppose it is done in what they call the 
“ way of nature ” ; nor is it a bad illustration of what we 
might look for under the rule of unreason. 
On this point Mr. Grove appears to go the whole length of 
Lamarck, one of whose illustrations is that of a bird driven 
to seek its food in the water. The wish for locomotion on 
that element induces it to strike out its feet ; the toes 
spread; a membrane between them would be very con- 
venient; sufficient practice at the new exercise induces the 
skin at their roots to extend into one, and the webbed foot is 
accomplished. 
