256 
Notices of Books . 
[April, 
mutation, and that new species, like new individuals, take their 
rise not from inorganic lifeless matter, but from antecedent living 
beings. Within this common doCtrine shades of opinion exist in 
vast variety, that of Mr. Darwin being one and that which Mr. 
Maclaren coolly ascribes to “ the Evolutionist ” another. An 
Evolutionist may, certainly, in common alike with Mr. Wallace 
and Mr. Darwin on the one hand, and with Professors Haeckel 
and Oscar Schmidt on the other, consider that the origin of spe- 
cies is due wholly or in great part to the agency of Natural 
Selection ; or he may, with Mr. Mivart, ascribe it rather to an 
internal force which occasions modification of structure in certain 
divinely pre-ordained directions. He may regard Evolution as a 
slow, gradual process, moving on at one uniform rate; or he may, 
with Dr. Leconte, ascribe to it a more paroxysmal character, 
having its periods of permanence followed by shorter intervals of 
rapid change. Our author, overlooking all these important dis- 
tinctions, and imputing to all Evolutionists, as a body, notions 
which many of them would most earnestly repudiate, has, at 
best, set up a straw puppet to show his skill in demolishing it, 
and has given most abundant proof of his own inability to handle 
the subjeCt. The chemical difficulties which he points out, and 
which might have been summed up in much fewer words, are not 
devoid of a certain weight as against Haeckel. As against 
Darwin and Wallace, the author himself is not very confident of 
their validity, whilst there are other schools of Evolutionists 
whom they do not touch at aH. 
We notice the following passkge : — “ Consider such a compound 
as the frightful poison aconitine, which is met with only in the 
roots and other parts of the genus Aconite. This is a distinCt 
and specific chemical compound, and is one of the most powerful 
and active poisons known, and it will at once be said the pos- 
session of such a poison must be of great advantage to the plant 
as a protection from enemies which would otherwise devour it. 
No doubt ; but the point is whether anything was gained by the 
elaboration of so very intense and aCtive a poison. Would not 
the same end have been practically attained by the development 
of an acrid poison of far less intensity ? And, if so, how came 
it that this special compound was wrought up to so unnecessary 
a point of perfection, when the energy of the plant would have 
been more usefully directed into other operations ?” But how does 
Mr. Maclaren know that the production of an intense poison is a 
greater strain upon the energies of a plant than the secretion of 
a colouring principle, of an odour, or of a non-poisonous organic 
base ? Further, much of his question can with great effeCl be 
turned upon the teleologists of the Old School. Why, for in- 
stance, is the bite of the cobra so much more venomous than is 
required for the destruction of the animals upon which it preys ? 
Against larger animals it is no real defence, for though mortally 
wounded they have ample time to take summary vengeance. 
That chemistry has evidence to give upon the question of 
