5th (p. 218), "that an ancient style of plumage, partially modified through the transference of some characters from the summer plumage, has been retained by the adults during the winter." 6th (p. 220), to account for the young of two species of humming-birds of Juan Fernandez, we have the following hypothetical suggestion: "If, then, we might assume that during some former lengthened period the males of the Juan Fernandez species had greatly exceeded the females in number; but that during another lengthened period the females had greatly exceeded the males, we could understand how the males at one time, and the females at another time, might have been rendered beautiful by the selection of the brighter-coloured individuals of either sex; both sexes transmitting their characters to their young at a rather earlier age than usual." 7th (p. 337), that "the varied tones and tadences" of the "impassioned orator, bard, or musician," are the development of the inarticulate cries of brutes. 8th, This last idea reposes on yet another hypothesis, namely, that apes may have developed their more extraordinary vocal organs in connection with the sexual instinct, and this in spite of Mr. Darwin's own admission that "little is known about the use of the voice in the Quadrumana during the season of love.” 9th (a second hypothesis ancillary to the seventh hypothesis), that "musical tones and rhythm were used by the half-human progenitors of man during the season of courtship." 10th (a third hypothesis ancillary to the seventh hypothesis), that if strong sexual emotions become connected with musical tones in certain animals, then these same tones may become connected with quite other emotions in their descendants. 11th (p. 370), that races of men separating into tribes, each isolated tribe would form for itself a different standard of beauty. 12th, and lastly, “that certain tastes as to beauty may in the course of time become inherited."

Now there is no intention here of asserting that none of these hypotheses are true, but certainly a theory which requires so many hypothetical props can hardly be deemed

as to sexual

itself to have a very secure foundation. In fact, reviewing what has been said in preceding chapters, I am Conclusion confident in the belief, and I think it can be fully selection. proved:

1. That it is evident, on strictly scientific grounds, that Mr. Darwin's hypothesis, sexual selection (the action of which he now exaggerates as he formerly exaggerated that of natural selection, according to his own present admission), cannot be maintained, and refutes itself.

2. That the opposition to Mr. Darwin's hypothesis of sexual selection will be (like that to natural selection has been) due to this exaggeration, i.e., to the representation of it as a main cause instead of a merely subordinate aid.

3. That Mr. Darwin utterly misses the point concerning the real difficulty as to man's origin through evolution, and consequently does not even tend, in the faintest degree, to surmount the moral barrier separating man from brutes.

I am also persuaded that the failure of Mr. Darwin and his coadjutors in their attempt to establish a mechanical explanation of the phenomena of the living world amounts almost to a demonstration of the impossibility of any such explanation, and therefore that essentially distinct vital powers and principles really exist in nature.

Such powers may, I believe, be made evident to every unprejudiced mind who studies the world of men, of animals, and of plants-the world of Biology.

This is the lesson which nature seems to me to teach us as to the processes of life in the living beings we see about It remains to consider what, if anything, can be learned from nature as to its own causes.

us.

CHAPTER XI.

AN EPISODE.

Mr. Chauncey Wright's criticism of the author's views having been republished and widely circulated by Mr. Darwin, the reply to that criticism is here reproduced."

A digression

special circumstances.

THE subjects of natural and sexual selection having been treated of, that which should come next (the quesinduced by tion as to causes) would be immediately entered upon, but that exceptional circumstances induce at digression which may have the effect of confirming and substantiating views put forward in the last two chapters. These circumstances are: (1) The publication in the North American Review,' for July 1871, of an elaborate criticism of the 'Genesis of Species,' by a distinguished writer of the United States, Mr. Chauncey Wright; (2) The fact that Mr. Darwin has had this criticism republished in England and very extensively circulated, a copy having been sent to almost every known naturalist in the British Isles or abroad.

By the courtesy of the editor of the North American Review,' I was enabled to publish a reply to Mr. Chauncey Wright's criticism in the form of a letter at the end of the 235th number of that Review, that for April 1872. Nevertheless, the diffusion of that reply must necessarily have been much less than the diffusion of the criticism in its original and its republished form. On this account I think it well to reproduce it here; but there are also other reasons which determine me to do so. (1) Mr. Darwin must have thought Mr. Chauncey Wright's defence of him extremely important, to have taken the steps he did in reference to it. It cannot

therefore but be interesting to many to see the sort of defensive arguments upon which Mr. Darwin relies. (2) I attach a very special value to the opinions formed in the United States. I do so on account of the warm esteem I feel for Americans I have had the good fortune to meet, and because I look forward to most important philosophical progress through the people of the United States. I am therefore anxious that my reply to the one hostile critic I have there found should be as widely diffused as possible.

without detri

the general

At the same time this republication necessarily entails considerable repetition, both of remarks and quota- May be tions, and on this account this chapter may be passed over passed over by any of my readers without detriment ment to to the course of the argument followed out in the argument. other chapters. Only such persons need read it as are interested in the Darwinian controversy, or who feel yet undecided as to "natural selection," or who are curious to consider the points raised by Mr. Darwin's "selected" champion.

My reply was as follows:

cey Wright's

"The rapid growth of physical science and the constant publication of ever-new observations, make such Mr. Chaundemands on the time of naturalists, that an author criticism. actively engaged upon a subject covering the whole field of biology cannot be expected to reply directly to critics, unless under very exceptional circumstances.

I have to thank Mr. Chauncey Wright for having been so obliging as to devote much space, and necessarily a considerable portion of his valuable time, to an examination of my recent work, the Genesis of Species.' Nevertheless I must confess that, with all respect for his conspicuous talents and for his deserved reputation, I should not have undertaken the following few words of explanation but for his paper's wide circulation in England and elsewhere by Mr. Darwin.

"Mr. Wright's criticism touches upon so many matters of detail, that it is not altogether easy to ascertain his main objects. Having, however, considered his remarks with that care which my esteem for his opinions makes incumbent on

me, I venture to express my belief that, neglecting minor matters, his criticism is mainly directed to the assertion of two points.

"One of these is, that I have misrepresented Mr. Darwin's

Mainly ad

dressed to two points.

views, and have been guilty of involuntary injustice with respect to the natural forces which, according to our great naturalist, have determined specific forms.

"The other is, that I have attributed an irreligious tendency to Mr. Darwin's writings which they do not, in fact, possess; and that this is in part owing to my defective knowledge, in part to early prejudices.

"Thus Mr. Wright speaks of my 'theological education' and my 'schooling against Democritus.' It is a matter of wonder to me who could have so misled Mr. Wright. Though reluctant, in the extreme, to obtrude such private and personal matters on the public, I must nevertheless, in justice, observe, that my schooling has been of the very opposite character, and perfectly in unison with that which Mr. Darwin himself would favour. Only at length, and with difficulty, have I struggled out of that philosophy of 'nescience,' the evils and the fallacies of which are so apparent to me because, at one time, its doctrines so completely possessed my assent.

these.

"With regard to Mr. Darwin's theory of the origin of The first of species, I should hasten eagerly to acknowledge my error if I had been guilty of injustice with respect to it, and also to thank any critic who had been so kind as to call my attention to such unintentional unfairness. I must confess, however, that I cannot detect that misrepresentation in my 'Genesis of Species' which Mr. Wright seems to there discover.

"In common with so many others, I was, at one time, a hearty and thorough-going disciple of Mr. Darwin, and I accepted from him the view that Natural Selection was 'the origin of species.' It was only by degrees, and through the evidence of a multitude of biological facts, that an opposite conclusion was gradually forced upon me. Having come to