/ 
12 Proceedings of the Newport Natural History Society. 
springing spontaneously from the earth and after them 
came the animals. Of the latter their different parts formed 
themselves independently so that, at first, eyes, arms, legs, 
etc., existed separately. These subsequently were joined 
together by Love—one of the two contending principles of 
Empedocles—and living beings were formed. As a result 
of this promiscuous combination many monstrosities were 
formed which perished, but, according to Empedocles 
(and this is where he foreshadows the “survival” theory) 
those combinations which were capable of subsisting per¬ 
sisted and propagated themselves by the ordinary mode of 
generation, while those that were incapable perished. 
To consider in detail the various evolutionary specula¬ 
tions of the ancient Greek schools, and of the mediaeval 
philosophers would extend this paper to an inordinate length 
without corresponding advantage. I must even resist the 
temptation to dwell upon the alluring speculations of the 
ingenious Lord Monboddo, who held that men were simply 
apes who had worn away their tails by sitting upon them, 
and come to the true beginning of the evolution hypothesis. 
The first of modern writers to give definite form to what 
had hitherto been vague speculation rather than logical in¬ 
duction was the great French naturalist, Lamarck, who in 
his Philosophie Zoologique endeavored to show how, by the 
influence of surroundings, habits of life, etc., all existing 
species of animals have descended from other previously 
existing different species. The propositions of Lamarck 
were well reasoned out, and from his standpoint were log¬ 
ically conclusive, but they met with but slight favor gen¬ 
erally, for the dominance of the “special creation” belief 
was too general for so radical a theory to win many fol¬ 
lowers. 
It is to be regretted that until very recently Lamarck’s 
theories have scarcely received the attention they deserve. 
His fame has been so eclipsed by that of his illustrious 
successor, Darwin, that until within a short time compar¬ 
atively few, even among naturalists, regarded his theories 
