1876.] 
Biological Controversy and its Laws . 
213 
On the hypothesis of Natural Selection the process would 
be very different, and we think more accordant with observa- 
tion. Suppose a new enemy makes its appearance in the 
country inhabited by our butterfly before mentioned. One 
modification of the original stock might escape with relative 
impunity by reason of superior swiftness ; another by being 
of a shade less easily discerned, or by simulating some more 
formidable creature ; another, perhaps, by being of an evil 
odour. Thus several species would branch out in different 
directions, whilst the original type might still exist for some 
time in gradually decreasing numbers. Thus in one of the 
very few cases where this Proteus of Mr. Mivart’s can be 
fairly bound, and forced to give a definite reply, the oracle 
is not in accordance with faCts. Whilst, therefore, we 
confess that Natural Selection has robbed us of no little of 
the pleasure with which we used to contemplate the animal 
and the vegetable world, and gladly as we should see it 
superseded, we cannot pronounce Mr. Mivart’s attempt suc- 
cessful, and we doubt whether he is working in the right 
direction. In any case a vast amount of work requires to 
be done before his theory can admit even of precise verifica- 
tion. Might we suggest that such work would be infinitely 
more useful than the metaphysical warfare in which he is 
now engaged, and would far better merit the title of Lessons 
from Nature ? 
The most unsatisfactory, and at the same time the most 
painfully instructive, portion of the whole work is the 
attempted demonstration of a “great gulf” between man 
and the rest of the animal kingdom. The difference he 
considers as one not of degree, but of kind. Hence he is at 
issue not merely with Mr. Darwin and the more thorough- 
going Evolutionist of his immediate school, but with many 
naturalists who totally rejeCt Evolution. Before Mr. Darwin 
was known, save as the author of the charming “ Voyage of 
a Naturalist,” we had carefully examined the respective po- 
sition of man and “ brutes,” and had come to the conclusion 
that the vulgar doCtrine of a great gulf, of a distinction toto 
ccelo , was utterly untenable. We saw that it was one of the 
lurking remnants of a vicious system of classification which 
has survived here longer then in other spheres of enquiry, 
because it panders to man’s egotism and vanity. Since then 
we have met with no faCts, no arguments, calculated to sub- 
vert our views, but with many, both fatfis and arguments, 
by which they are corroborated. It is our full conviction 
that Mr. Mivart’s attempt is a signal failure. His position 
may be said most nearly to approach that of Swainson ; but 
