SPECIES. 
investigations, Lamarck places them precisely in 
those, where they cannot be proved or disproved 
by direct observation. Where did these transi- 
tions begin? In the abysses of the ocean, where 
man has never penetrated, and where myriads of 
beings lie concealed from his observation, per- 
haps for ever. What animals owe their origin 
to spontaneous generation? Animalcules, a class 
of beings the most remote from our observation, 
and whose forms can only be traced through the 
deceptive medium of the microscope. When did 
these transitions occur? Before the historical 
era, in those remote and inaccessible ages, whose 
existence is alone attested by the organic re- 
mains imbedded within the surface of the earth. 
But, observes Lamarck, “there is a very good 
reason why we do not see those changes succes- 
sively performed, which have diversified the 
known animals, and brought them to their pre- 
sent state. We see them only when they are 
finished, and not when undergoing the change; 
and we very naturally infer that they always 
have remained as we see them.” This is a pre- 
judice. “If the average duration in the life of 
each generation of men were only a second, and 
if there be a pendulum mounted and in motion, 
each generation would consider this pendulum 
really to be at rest, never having seen it change 
in the course of their lives. The observations of 
thirty generations would not demonstrate any 
thing positive concerning the vibrations of this 
instrument.” 
We may remark, that our sole means of judg- 
ing of unknown objects is by comparing them 
with others which are known, and that it is un- 
philosophical to found a theory of what occurs, 
or has occurred, in remote and inaccessible parts 
of the creation, in direct opposition to what is 
seen to happen within our own sphere of obser- 
vation. The earth appears to be at rest, if it be 
compared with objects on its surface; and we 
reason correctly, for, on respect to them, it is at 
rest. But on referring it to the solar system, 
we at once perceive it to be in motion. Again, 
if we compare the entire solar system with the 
more remote heavenly bodies, analogy would lead 
us to expect that our system may be in motion 
towards the fixed stars, and that these stars 
themselves may only be fixed, relative to our 
own limited means of observation. To suppose 
the fixed stars to be really motionless, would be 
as great a violation of analogical reasoning, as 
those theories inflict which deny the permanent 
characters of species. All the sciences adopt 
this mode of reasoning when the contemplated 
object is inaccessible to direct experiment or ob- 
servation. On looking abroad into Nature, the 
chemist finds every thing in a state of composi- 
tion. He nowhere discovers pure oxygen, chlo- 
rine, calcium, or potassium, because nearly all 
the unions which simple substances were capa- 
ble of forming spontaneously have already oc- 
curred. The naturalist is disposed to imagine 
a 
that something similar to this may have taken 
place among the species of animals and plants; 
but the chemist analyzes the compounds of these 
substances himself, and he sees their combina- 
tions going on before his eyes. The naturalist 
cannot bring forward one single instance of the 
degeneration or transition of species from one 
form to another. The weak point of the La- 
marckian doctrine, in the absence of positive 
proof, is a violation of one of the first rules of 
analogy. Mr. Lyell correctly remarks, in his 
recent criticism on this subject, that “no posi- 
tive fact is cited to exemplify the substitution 
of some entirely new sense, faculty, or organ, in 
the room of some other rendered useless. All 
the instances adduced go only to prove, that the 
dimensions and strength of members, and the 
perfection of certain attributes, may, in a long 
course of generations, be lessened and enfeebled 
by disuse; or, on the contrary, be matured and 
augmented by active exertion, just as we know 
that the power of scent is feeble in the grey- 
hound, while its swiftness of pace and its acute- 
ness of sight are remarkable ;—that the harrier 
and staghound, on the contrary, are compara- 
tively slow in their movements, but excel in the 
sense of smelling. It is evident, that if some 
well authenticated facts could have been adduced 
to establish one complete step in the progress of 
transformation, such as the appearance in in- 
dividuals descended from a common stock, of a 
sense or organ entirely new, and a complete dis- 
appearance of some other enjoyed by their pro- 
genitors, that time alone might then be supposed 
sufficient to bring about any amount of meta- 
morphosis. The gratuitous assumption, therefore, 
of a point so vital to the theory of transmutation, 
was unpardonable on the part of its advocate.” 
We have now seen that some mammalia are 
capable of undergoing a very considerable varia- 
tion, not only in their instincts and intelligence, 
but also in their external forms; that the varia- 
tions which each individual can be made to un- 
dergo by the circumstances in which it is placed 
are but very rarely transmitted to posterity, 
while connate modifications usually end in be- 
coming hereditary ;—and that there are certain 
limits beyond which no species has been observed 
to vary, so that we are fully entitled to conclude, 
that a certain form was assigned to each species 
at the origin of things. 
If it be true that the numerous varieties of 
the cow, the horse, the dog, and other domestic 
mammalia, are the effects of the slow and con- 
tinued influence of certain causes, which in the 
first instance, induce a departure from the primi- 
tive type in the evolution of connate varieties, 
and afterwards transmit these variations to pos- 
terity, giving rise to their several distinct races ; 
—it ought to follow, that in all these artificial 
beings, whose characters man has for a time 
rendered permanent, there should be a continual 
tendency, when left to their own resources, to 
