consists of such species as have well-marked likeness to each other, especially in structure and general appearance, but which still maintain their place as distinct species. Thus the blackbird, the song-thrush, the fieldfare, the missel-thrush, and the mountain ousel, constitute a generic group of British birds; the blue tit, the black tit, the larger and the long-tailed tits, &c., another. But both genera admit of being looked at under a much wider relation, viz., that of families, the place in which is determined by certain observed resemblances between genera, even as genera are made up of what should be distinct species. Thus in the family group to which the tits belong, we have associated with them garden warblers, willow warblers, stone-chats, &c. And proceeding on the same principles, we will rise in any satisfactory plan of classification to orders, under which families are grouped, even as genera are grouped under families, and species under genera. A little knowledge of these first principles of zoological classification, in connection with their application in the field, will lead us to the conviction, that while the more general divisions are artificial, and their limits often much dependent on the views of the student, it is not so with species. They are fixed and permanent. There may be controversy as to what place they should hold in an artificial system of classification, but not as to their individuality. We might discuss the propriety of assigning a distinct genus to the magpie, in its place in the family group Corvida, or Crows, but that it is specifically distinct from the Rook (Corvus frugilegus) admits of no doubt whatever. These methods of arrangement have greatly helped on the progress of zoology; but Mr. Darwin thinks he has discovered that there is no certainty as to the individuality of specific forms, that they are not permanent, but that they have changed, and have a constant tendency, or, shall we say, appetency, to change. This is the great point which he hopes to make good in his work on "The Origin of Species." He has been met in his zoological studies by the too common drawback-the presence of multitudes of forms of life, dignified with the name of species, in which he could not discover the usual characteristics of species, with, in short, mere varieties which have been thrust on students as distinct species; and instead of repairing the fabric, nothing would satisfy him but pulling it down and rearing a new one in its place. But he has made a grave blunder in the outset. He has forgotten the foundation. "No one," says Mr. Darwin, in his introduction, "ought to feel surprised at much remaining as yet unexplained, in regard to the origin of species and varieties, if he make due allowance for our profound ignorance in regard to the mutual relations of all the beings which live around us. Who can explain why one species ranges widely, and is very numerous, and why another allied species has a narrow range, and is rare? Yet these relations are of the highest importance; for they determine the present welfare, and, as I believe, the future success and modification of every inhabitant of this world. Still less do we know of the mutual relations of the innumerable inhabitants of the world, during the many past geological epochs in its history. Although much remains obscure, and will long remain obscure, I can entertain no doubt, after the most deliberate study and dispassionate judgment of which I am capable, that the view which most naturalists entertain, and which I formerly entertained, that each species has been independently created, is erroneous. I am fully convinced that species are not immutable; but that those belonging to what are called the same genera are lineal descendants of some other and generally extinct species, in the same way as the acknowledged varieties of any one species are the descendants of that species. Furthermore, I am convinced that Natural Selection has been the main, but not exclusive, means of modification.' -P. 6. Such, in few words, is Mr. Darwin's profession of faith. It is very clearly and distinctly made. In looking somewhat more closely at it than has yet been done, the general views of the author regarding creation should be taken into account, and then the facts alleged in support of his theory should be considered. It does not appear likely that any scheme of zoology can be trustworthy which refuses to acknowledge the presence of a personal Creator in nature. Is there on the face of nature evidence of divine plan in it? If so, then there should be the recognition of a present Creator in all quarters of creation, and at every point in its history, from the time at which he laid the foundation of the earth to the present moment, when he invites us to the examination of those works which are "sought out of all who take pleasure therein." I state this at the risk of being misunderstood, and of appearing to drag into the discussion questions which may be held foreign to it. But the fact is, you can no more come to a just conclusion as to the relations between one department of science and another, and between different forms of life, with both of which classification must deal, without the recognition of a living, purposing mind in regulating these relations, than you can form a correct estimate of the working of any piece of mechanism without looking at the intention of its inventor. Even in the fine arts, just appreciation comes to turn upon our sympathy with the artist. But if we break up the historical picture into bits, though they may be bits of beauty, and refuse to look at all the parts from the point of view of the intention of the artist, so far as he has made that known to us, we must blunder in our estimate of the parts which we have refused to look at in this light. In the case now before us, the Creator has opened up to man much which is fitted to make us acquainted with his intention; and the more we see of this, the nearer we get to an understanding of that one true plan which systematists are seeking to bring fully out, and which will attain to reliable historical expression only in the measure in which man, the interpreter of nature, shall succeed in understanding the intentions of the Creator revealed in his works. It is to be regretted that little value is attached to this thought, and that many even studiously exclude it from their researches, as if to introduce it implied disqualification for their work. Mr. Darwin is not slow to intimate how he regards this subject. Many naturalists think," he says, "that something more is meant by the natural system (than a scheme for arranging together those living objects which are most alike); they believe that it reveals the plan of the Creator; but, unless it is specified whether order in time or in space (why not both, and order in place likewise?), or what else is meant by plan of the Creator, it seems to me that nothing is thus added to our knowledge."-P. 413. Again, at p. 435, he remarks, in a way which, to say the least of it, does not bear witness to very enlarged views of creation :-"Nothing can be more hopeless than to attempt to explain this similarity of pattern in members of the same class, by utility or by the doctrine of final causes. The hopelessness of the attempt has been expressly admitted (?) by Owen, in his most interesting work on the 'Nature of Limbs.' On the ordinary view of the independent creation of each being, we can only say that so it is; that it has so pleased the Creator to construct each animal and plant." A good deal more can be said of each animal and plant than this; but if in ten thousand instances we find unquestionable evidence of final cause, are we not to conclude that, were our knowledge complete as to one instance, in which we do not at once observe this, the same testimony might be expected as in the others. What is a mystery to a child in the actions of his parent, may be well understood when he comes to be a man. What would be implied if we expressed our present knowledge of the use of the serrated claw on the anterior toe of the Goatsucker (Caprimulgus Europaeus) in the phrase, "It has pleased the Creator to distinguish this bird from all the other fissirostres by supplying it with a comb-like claw, the use of which we do VOL. I. 4 B not see?" Not, certainly, that there is no illustration of the doctrine of final causes here, but only that we are not sufficiently acquainted with the habits of the bird to be able to say what the true use of this claw is. The numerous illustrations of this same doctrine in the structural relations of animals widely differing in general form and habits, but ranged under one great type, had as true an existence from the beginning as they have now that Owen's researches in homology have given us the key by which they can be read. But is there only one great type, and one great plan? Or do we meet with a far higher thought than Mr. Darwin is willing to acknowledge, in connection with several great types whose leading divisions are constructed on different plans? Do the radiata, for example, follow in structure the plan of the vertebrata? The whole direction of the most philosophical investigations in natural science is to accumulate proofs of four distinct plans, after one or other of which all animal life has been formed. In the evolution of these, under the four great types-vertebrata, articulata, mollusca, and radiata-we find the basis for the doctrine of final causes which Mr. Darwin has no favour for, but apart from the recognition of which all nature would be a scene of confusion. It is not unnecessary to call attention to these things. There are many evidences that some most accomplished naturalists are drifting from moorings which ablest systematists and most profound thinkers, from the days of Bacon, have regarded as not only safe, but also most suited to the requirements of advancing science. The author lays much stress on his facts. These may be divided into several classes :-(1) Those drawn from the history of domesticated animals. These are produced with the view of showing that man, by a long-pursued watchful course of selecting individuals, distinguished by certain peculiarities in colour or structure, can so alter the form as to make the variations permanent. The facts given in this part of his work are not, however, beyond the reach of controversy. But were they so, the introduction of man's intelligence, as the selecting agent, vitiates the whole, seeing that the author is making out a case for natural selection-the goddess of his devotion-which is thus introduced:-"It may be said that natural selection is daily and hourly scrutinising, throughout the world, every variation, even the slightest; rejecting that which is bad, preserving and adding up all that is good; silently and insensibly working, whenever and wherever opportunity offers, at the improvement of each organic being in relation to its organic and inorganic conditions of life. We see nothing of these slow changes in progress, until the hand of time has marked the long lapse of ages, and then so imperfect is our view into long past geological ages, that we only see that the forms of life are now different from what they formerly were." (2) Alleged corroborations drawn from geology. "He would have us believe," says Agassiz, "that the oldest organisms were simple cells, or something like the lowest living beings now in existence; when such highly organized animals as trilobites and orthoceratites are among the oldest known. He would have us believe that these oldest first-born became extinct in consequence of the gradual advantage some of their more favoured descendants gained over the majority of their predecessors; when there exist now, and have existed at all periods in past history, as large a proportion of more simply organized beings as of more favoured types, and when such types as Lingula were among the lowest Silurian fossils, and are alive at the present day. He would have us believe that each new species originated in consequence of some slight change in those that preceded; when every geological formation teems with types that did not exist before. He would have us believe that the animals and plants became gradually more and more numerous; when most species appear in myriads of individuals in the first bed in which they are found. He would have us believe that animals disappear gradually; when they are as common in the uppermost beds in which they occur as in the lowest or any intermediate bed. Species appear suddenly, and disappear suddenly, in successive strata. That is the fact proclaimed by palæontology. They neither increase successively in number, nor do they gradually dwindle down; none of the fossil remains thus far observed show signs of a gradual improvement or a slow decay. He would have us believe that geological deposits took place during the periods of subsidence; when it can be proved that the whole continent of North America is formed of beds which were deposited during a series of successive upheavals. He would have us believe that the most perfect organs of the body of animals are the product of gradual improvement; when eyes as perfect as those of the trilobites are preserved with the remains of these oldest animals. He would have us believe that animals acquire their instincts gradually; when even those that never see their parents perform at birth the same acts, and in the same way, as their progenitors. He would have us believe that the geographical distribution of animals is the result of accidental transfers; when most species are so narrowly confined within the limits of their natural range that |
