|
a miraculous process." |
|
| The third volume of the 'Journal of the Linnean Society' contains papers, read July 1st, 1858, by Mr. Wallace and myself, in which, as stated in the introductory remarks to this volume, the theory of Natural Selection is promulgated by Mr. Wallace with admirable force and clearness. |
|
| Von Baer, towards whom all zoologists feel so profound a respect, expressed about the year 1859 (see Prof. Rudolph Wagner,
1861, s. 51) his conviction, chiefly grounded on the laws of geographical distribution, that forms now perfectly distinct have descended from a single parent-form. |
|
| In June, 1859, Professor Huxley gave a lecture before the Royal Institution on the 'Persistent Types of Animal Life.' Referring to such cases, he remarks, "It is difficult to comprehend the meaning of such facts as these, if we suppose that each species of animal and plant, or each great type of organisation, was formed and placed upon the surface of the globe at long intervals by a distinct act of creative power; and it is well to recollect that such an assumption is as unsupported by tradition or revelation as it is opposed to the general analogy of nature. If, on the other hand, we view 'Persistent Types' in relation to that hypothesis which supposes the species living at any time to be the result of the gradual modification of pre-existing
hypothesis which, though unproven, and sadly damaged by some of its supporters, is yet the only one to which physiology lends any countenance; their existence would seem to show that the amount of modification which living beings have undergone during geological time is but very small in relation to the whole series of changes which they have suffered." |
|
| In December, 1859, Dr. Hooker published his 'Introduction to the Australian Flora.' In the first part of this great work he admits the truth of the descent and modification of species, and supports this doctrine by many original observations. |
|
| The first edition of this work was published on November 24th, 1859, and the second edition on January 7th, 1860. |
|
|
∗
Aristotle, in his 'Physicæ Auscultationes' (lib. 2, cap. 8,
after remarking that rain does not fall in order to make the corn grow, any more than it falls to spoil the
corn when threshed out of doors, applies the same argument to
and adds (as translated by Mr. Clair Grece, who first pointed out the passage to
what hinders the different parts (of the body) from having this merely accidental relation in nature? as the teeth, for example, grow by necessity, the front ones sharp, adapted for dividing, and the grinders flat, and serviceable for masticating the food; since they were not made for the sake of this, but it was the result of accident. And in like manner as to the other parts in which there appears to exist an adaptation to an end. Wheresoever, therefore, all things together (that is all the parts of one whole) happened like as if they were made for the sake of something, these were preserved, having been appropriately constituted by an internal
and whatsoever things were not thus constituted, perished, and still perish." We here see the principle of natural selection shadowed forth, but how little Aristotle fully comprehended the
is shown by his remarks on the formation of the teeth. |
|
|
→
∗
I have taken the date of the first publication
of Lamarck
→from Isid. Geoffroy Saint-Hilaire's ('Hist. Nat. Générale,' tom. ii. p. 405, 1859) excellent history of opinion on this subject. In this work a full account is given of Buffon's
conclusions on the same subject.
→It is curious how largely my grandfather, Dr. Erasmus Darwin, anticipated the views and erroneous grounds of opinion of Lamarck in his 'Zoonomia' (vol. i. pp. 500-510), published in 1794. According to Isid. Geoffroy there is no doubt that
was an extreme partisan of similar views, as shown in the Introduction to a work written in 1794 and 1795, but not published till long
→afterwards: he has pointedly remarked ('Goethe als Naturforscher,' von Dr. Karl Meding, s. 34) that the future question for naturalists will be how, for instance, cattle got their horns, and not for what they are used. It is rather a singular instance of the manner in which similar views arise at about the same
that
in Germany, Dr. Darwin in England, and Geoffroy
(as we shall immediately see) in France, came to the same conclusion on the origin of species, in the years 1794-5. |
|
|
∗
From references in Bronn's 'Untersuchungen
die
it appears that the celebrated botanist and palæontologist Unger published, in 1852, his belief that species undergo development and modification. D'Alton, likewise, in Pander and
work on Fossil Sloths, expressed, in 1821, a similar belief. Similar views have, as is well known, been
by Oken in his mystical
From other references in Godron's work 'Sur l'Espèce,' it seems that Bory St. Vincent, Burdach, Poiret, and Fries, have all admitted that new species are continually being
I may add, that of the
authors named in this Historical Sketch, who believe in the modification of species, or at least disbelieve in separate acts of creation,
have written on special branches of natural
→or
|
