PROFESSOR MEEHAN ON EVOLUTION. 
Professor Thomas Meehan, in response to the invi¬ 
tation extended him at the Cincinnati meeting to address 
the Biological Section on this occasion, spoke on Varia¬ 
tions in Nature, and their bearing on the Doctrine of 
Evolution, and the theory of Natural Selection. He 
premised that the Doctrine of Natural Selection, as pro¬ 
pounded by Mr. Darwin, could not be controverted in 
so far as ihe continual dropping out of intermediate 
forms was concerned, which left the extremes without 
connexions, and gave us the idea of distinct species. 
He thought there were some weaknesses in Mr. Darwin’s 
method of advocating his views, but these removed, 
only left Mr. Darwin’s position stronger than be him¬ 
self perceived. He then proceeded to show that varia¬ 
tions in nature were much greater than Mr. Darwin 
evidently had knowledge of. The popular idea that no 
two leaves on a tree were exactly alike in every respect 
was shown to be literally true. Many illustrations were 
given and specimens exhibited showing the great varia¬ 
tions in seedlings of the same species, often from the 
same seed vessel; some from the latter would be regarded 
by any botanist who found them wild, as a distinct 
species. A series of sixteen cones of Piniis rigida was 
exhibited, each from a separate tree, all growing within, 
a circle of twenty miles, and the central links being 
taken away left nominal Pinus serotina at one end and 
Pimis rigida at the other. Other species could be made 
by taking the interior series of forms. The speaker con¬ 
tended that variation was not a mere condition, but had 
to be accepted as a primary law of existence. As no 
two things have ever been produced exactly alike, so 
far as we know, the result must necessarily be a wide 
divergence in time, and, as we know that death was 
also a certainty to individuals, distinct forms must 
certainly ensue. 
Heredity, as established by Mr. Darwin, was next 
reviewed, and shown to be established as a counterpoise 
to variation. It held variation in check, but was finally 
overpowered by this, the greater force, Sex was an 
attribute of heredity. Sex in flowers had no bearing 
on the future good of the race, and therefore crossing by 
insect agency or otherwise had no reference to the good 
of the race by aiding variation in the direction of change 
to suit environments. It rather brought back what Mr. 
Darwin would imagine a useful variation toward its 
starting point. A variation, which had started from 
the centre of a circle, had to be cross fertilized if at all 
from the centre from which it sprang, and the progeny 
was thus brought back toward its parents’ starting-point. 
The next point made was that variations had no rela¬ 
tion to the good of the individual or race. Numerous 
cases were adduced to show that the forms which had 
prevailed had not the slightest physiological advantage 
over the forms displaced, and that those who argued on 
the contrary were reduced to the solitary argument that 
there must have been some advantage, or the species 
could uot have survived. It must bo so because it is, is 
au argument which has no place in researches such as 
we are engaged in now. The actions and behaviour of 
both plants and animals wore not for their own indi¬ 
vidual good. Their whole efforts wore in the interest 
of their progeny, for posterity, for the future, for objects 
wholly unkuown to the individual. Yet wo found from 
the science of the past that all this self-sacrifice — pleas¬ 
ant as it was made to be to the individual — aud ignor¬ 
ant as these individuals were of what they were work¬ 
ing for, all had resulted in present harmony. In the 
speaker's language “we and all orgauic things are the 
invited guests of nature. She makes our stay with her 
as pleasant as possible ; but she ruthlessly dismisses us 
the moment we cease to serve her future purposes.” 
The laws by which destruction was brought about were 
then considered, aud the manner in which species were 
created by the aid of this destructive power discussed ; 
and how, under the operation of the law of heredity, 
surviving forms found a temporary standing-ground 
until the greater law of variation again finally removed 
them. 
Finally, the speaker took up the objection that Mr. 
Darwin’s views were destructive of Christianity, and 
showed that they were in reality the strongest confir¬ 
mation of Christianity’s essential features. To his mind 
Christianity differed from all other systems of religion 
by insisting on the necessity of self-sacrifice. We have 
“ to do the Father’s will,” regardless of all consequences 
to ourselves, as the condition of happiness, and the 
Great Teacher Himself sealed these doctrines, which 
shine from almost every page of the New Testament, 
by the Saviour offei-ing Up His own life. This is pre¬ 
cisely what science, as he had endeavoux-ed to ti'ace it, 
was now teaching. A wiser power than any science had 
as yet been able to fathom, was directing all things to 
some far away object, to us unknown ; not for the indi¬ 
vidual benefit of anything, except in so far as it was in 
harmony with this power, holding all things together 
for good in spite of the seeming clashings of individual 
intei-est, and he was assured that the time would come 
when evolutionists, and especially those who advocated 
the theory of natural selection, would come to be re¬ 
garded as true Christianity’s warmest friends. 
A DAY IN A KAGO. 
Any day which bi'ings an entirely new sensation is 
apt to be a marked one in our calendar. Can the man 
advanced in years forget the time when he proudly as¬ 
sumed the garments of masculinity, casting “petti¬ 
coats” aside forever. Grandma, knitting placidly by 
the fireside, tells to the circle of fair young faces of her 
very first ball, its delights, its conquests. The gour¬ 
mand, “ sick with satiety,” ceases never to remember 
