196 
PRINCIPLES OF BIOLOGY. 
down. Mr. Barratt in liis brief note points out that differences 
of longevity appear to contradict Mr. Spencer’s views of the 
nature of life. This is really a very mild statement of the 
case. I think these differences make Mr. Herbert Spencer’s 
views impossible. Mr. Barratt, with the praiseworthy en¬ 
thusiasm of a disciple, endeavours to show by a method as 
novel as it is ingenious, that the differences are only apparent, 
and that to estimate longevity we must count in as divisors 
a number of what Mr. Spencer would define as “ individuals ” 
(and see the awful contradiction on p. 205, Vol. I.) who have 
never lived at all, save in some kind of Spencerian sense. 
But suppose we do this, how much nearer are we to arriving 
at a reconciliation of the facts with Mr. Spencer’s views ? 
Let us take the case of the elephant and man. I suppose 
that Mr. Barratt will admit that the latter enjoys a very much 
higher form of life than the former—if not, of course my ar¬ 
gument is gone. The elephant is an animal possessing a very 
well marked oestrus, occurring at very long intervals, preg¬ 
nancy is very protracted, being the longest that is known, and 
the number of young produced is very small. The 
longevity of the elephant is also known to be very remarkable, 
and as these animals have been domesticated for centuries, 
all these facts are indisputable. Man is an animal, on the 
contrary, with no oestrus, with a comparatively short period of 
pregnancy, and a tremendous infantile mortality. 
If Mr. Barratt is going to include “all the children of 
the tree,” he must take all the children of other animals ; and 
before that is done he must again appeal to Mr. Herbert 
Spencer’s illustration of the Anacharis Alsinastrum, and define 
strictly what is a child and what is not; for there are children 
of two kinds of begettings: there are the zoospores and the 
zygospores, the cuttings and the fertilized ovules, the 
bulbiferous ferns, and many other irreconcilables. He must 
lay down a strict statement as to whether impregnation is a 
necessary part of the definition of a “ child of a tree,” and if 
not he must include all the unfertilised ovules as well as the 
seeds of the oak, the fertilised ovules. 
Bringing this line of argument to bear on my illustrations 
of the elephant and man, as ovulation is rare in the elephant 
and as it is constantly going on in the human being from the 
cradle to the grave, as the human ova which are shed number 
probably a thousand to onfc of the ova of the elephant, as 
the children of the human race are infinitely more numerous 
and the whole race far more short lived than occurs in either 
case with the elephant, we cannot admit Mr. Barratt’s 
explanation, and I for one must adhere to this very fatal 
