have always thought that Mr. Darwin has unnecessarily hampered himself by adhering so strictly to his favorite "Natura non facit saltum.' We greatly suspect that she does make considerable jumps in the way of variation now and then, and that these saltations give rise to some of the gaps which appear to exist in the series of known forms.

Strongly and freely as we have ventured to disagree with Professor Kölliker, we have always done so with regret, and we trust without violating that respect which is due, not only to his scientific eminence and to the careful study which he has devoted to the subject, but to the perfect fairness of his argumentation, and the generous appreciation of the worth of Mr. Darwin's labors which he always displays. It would be satisfactory to be able to say as much for M. Flourens.

But the Perpetual Secretary of the French Academy of Sciences deals with Mr. Darwin as the first Napoleon would have treated an idéologue ;" and while displaying a painful weakness of logic and shallowness of information, assumes a tone of authority which always touches upon the ludicrous, and sometimes passes the limits of good breeding.

For example (p. 56):

66

M. Darwin continue: Aucune distinction absolue n'a été et ne peut être établie entre les espèces et les variétés.' Je vous ai déjà dit que vous vous trompiez; une distinction absolue sépare les variétés d'avec les espèces.'

Je vous ai déjà dit; moi M. le Secrétaire perpétuel de l'Académie des Sciences: et

· L'élection naturelle n'est sous un autre

nom que la nature. Pour un être organisé, la nature n'est que l'organization, ni plus ni moins.

46

Il faudra donc aussi personnifier l'organ isation, et dire que l'organisation choisit l'organisation. L'élection naturelle est cette forme substantielle dont on jouait autrefois avec tant de facilité. Aristote disait que‘Si l'art de bâtir était dans le bois, cet art agirait comme la nature.' A la place de l'art de bâtir M. Darwin met l'élection naturelle, et c'est tout un: l'un n'est pas plus chimérique que l'autre" (p. 31).

And this is really all that M. Flourens can make of natural selection. We have given the original, in fear lest a translation should be regarded as a travesty; but with the original before the reader, we may try to analyze the passage. For an organized being, Nature is only organization, neither more nor less.

Organized beings then have absolutely no relation to inorganic nature; a plant docs not depend on soil or sunshine, climate, depth in the ocean, height above it; the quantity of saline matters in water have no influence upon animal life; the substitution of carbonic acid for cxygen in our atmosphere would hurt nobody! That these are absurdities no one should know better than M. Flourens; but they are logical deductions from the assertion just quoted, and form the further statement that natural selection means only that organization chooses and selects organization.

For if it be once admitted (what no sane man denies) that the chances of life of any given organism are increased by certain conditions (A) and diminished by their opposites (B), then it is mathematically certain that any change of conditions in the direction of (A) will exercise a selective influence in favor of that organism, tending to its increase and multiplication, while any change in the direction of (B) will exercise a selective influence against that organism, tending to its de

crease and extinction.

Or, on the other hand, conditions remaining the same, let a given organism vary (and no one doubts that they do vary) in two directions into one forin (a) better fitted to cope with these conditions than the original stock, and a second (b) less well adapted to them. Then it is no less certain that the conditions in question must exercise a selective influence in favor of (a) and against (), so that (a) will tend to predominance, and (b) to extirpation.

That M. Flourens should be unable to perceive the logical necessity of these simple arguments which lie at the foundation of all Mr. Darwin's reasoning; that he should confound an irrefragible deduction from the observed relations of organisms to the conditions which lie around them, with a metaphysical" forme substantielle, or a chimerical personification of the powers of nature, would be incredible, were it not that other passages of his work leave no room for doubt upon the subject.

"On imagine une élection naturelle que. pour plus de ménagement, on me dit être inconsciente, sans s'apercevoir que le contresens littéral est précisément là: élection inconsciente" (p. 52).

J'ai déjà dit ce qu'il fautpenser de l'élec tio naturelle. Ou l'élection naturelle n'est rien, ou c'est la nature: mais la nature douée d'élection, mais a nature persounifiée; der nière erreur du dernier siècle : Le xix ne fait plus de personnifications" (p. 53).

66

M. Flourens cannot imagine an unconscious selection-it is for him a contradiction in termis. Did M. Flourens ever visit one of the prettiest watering-places of 'la belle France," the Baie d'Arcachon? If so, he will probably have passed through the district of the Landes, and will have had an opportunity of observing the formation of

dunes" on a grand scale. What are these "dunes?" The winds and waves of the Bay of Biscay have not much consciousness, and yet they have with great care "selected, from among an infinity of masses of silex of all shapes and sizes, which have been submitted to their action, all the grains of sand below a certain size, and have heaped them by themselves over a great area. This sand has been "unconsciously selected" from amid the gravel in which it first lay with as much precision as if man had consciously selected" it by the aid of a sieve. Physical geology is fuil of such selections-of the picking out of the soft from the hard, of the soluble from the insoluble, of the fusible from the infusible, by natural agencies to which we are certainly not in the habit of ascribing consciousness.

But that which wind and sea are to a sandy beach, the sum of influences, which we term the "conditions of existence," is to living organisms. The weak are sifted out from the strong. A frosty night "selects" the hardy plants in a plantation from among the tender ones as effectually as if it were the wind, and they, the sand and pebbles, of our

illustration; or, on the other hand, as if the intelligence of a gardener had been operative in cutting the weaker organisms down. The thistle, which has spread over the pampas, to the destruction of native plants, has been more effectually "selected" by the uncon. scious operation of natural conditions than if a thousand agriculturists had spent their time in sowing it.

It is one of Mr. Darwin's many great scr vices to biological science that he has dem onstrated the significance of these facts. He has shown that-given variation and given change of conditions-the inevitable result is the exercise of such an influence upon organisms that one is helped and another is impeded; one tends to predominate, another to disappear; and thus the liv ing world bears within itself, and is sur rounded by impulses toward incessant change.

But the truths just stated are as certain as any other physical laws, quite independently of the truth, or falsehood, of the hypothesis which Mr. Darwin has based upon them; and that M. Florens, missing the substance and grasping at a shadow, should be blind to the admirable exposition of them, which Mr. Darwin has given, and see nothing there but a" dernière erreur du dernier siècle-a personification of nature-leads us indeed to cry with him: O lucidité! O solidité de l'esprit Français, que devenez-vous ?

M. Flourens has, in fact, utterly failed to comprehend the first principles of the doctrine which he assails so rudely. His objections to details are of the old sort, so battered and hackneyed on this side of the Channel that not even a Quarterly Reviewer could be induced to pick them up for the purpose of pelting Mr. Darwin over again. We have Cuvier and the mummies; M. Roulin and the domesticated animals of America; the difficulties presented by hybridism and by paleontology; Darwinism a rifacciamento of De Maillet and Lamarck; Darwinism a system without a commencement, and its author bound to believe in M. Pouchet, etc., etc. How one knows it all by heart, and with what relief one reads at p. 65,

66

Je laisse M. Darwin!" But we cannot leave M. Flourens without calling our reader's attention to his wonderful tenth chapter, "De la Préexistence des Germes et de l'Epigénèse, which opeus thus:

Spontaneous generation is only a chimera. This point established, two hypotheses remain-that of pre-existence and that of epigenesis. The one of these hypotheses has as little foundation as the other (p. 163).

66

:

The doctrine of epigenesis is derived from Harvey following by ocular inspection the development of the new being in the Windsor does, he saw cach part appear successively, and taking the moment of appearance for the moment of formation he imagined epigenesis (p. 165.)

On the contrary, says M. Flourens (p. 167) : "The new being is formed at a stroke (tout

d'un coup), as a whole instantaneously; it is not formed part by part, and at different times. It is forined at once; it is formed at the single individual moment at which the Conjunction of the male and female elements takes place."

It will be observed that M. Flourens uses language which cannot be mistaken. For him, the labors of Von Baer, of Rathke, of Coste, and their contemporaries and succesBors in Germany, France, and England, are no-existent; and, as Darwin "imagina" natural selection, so Harvey "imagina" that doctrine which gives him an even greater claim to the veneration of posterity than his better-known discovery of the circulation of the blood.

Language such as that we have quoted is, in fact, so preposterous, so utterly incompatible with anything but absolute ignorance of some of the best established facts, that we should have passed it over in silence had it

not appeared to afford some clew to M. Flourens's unhesitating, à priori, repudiation of all forms of the doctrine of the progressive modification of living beings. Ile whose mind remains uninfluenced by an acquaintance with the phenomena of development must indeed lack one of the chief motives toward the endeavor to trace a genetic relation between the different existing forms of life. Those who are ignorant of geology find no difficulty in believing that the world was made as it is; and the shepherd, untutored in history, sees no reason to regard the green mounds which indicate the site of a Roman camp as aught but part and parcel of the primeval hillside. So M. Flourens, who believes that embryos are formed" tout d'un coup," naturally finds no difficulty in conceiving that species came into existence in the same way.

THE END.