'lative science, towards the end of the eighteenth and the beginning of the present century. Does the critic believe that either Newton or Brewster was ignorant of the De Rerum Natura of Lucretius ? As to both, there is the fullest proof to the contrary. Then, as to most of the other names mentioned, is it the least likely that they were not familiar with the speculative views of Lamarck? But more, one of the most interesting of Chalmers's early papers was a review of the Système de la Nature of M. Mirabaud (Baron d'Holbach). "Chalmers was only a theologian and a preacher." The author of this remark has forgotten the St. Andrew's University mathematical and chemical lectures. (5) “What can it signify whether Darwin's book is properly called the Origin of Species or not?" Turn to the numbers of Nature referred to in my paper, and it will be abundantly evident that loyal and intelligent Darwinians would be slow to regard as unnecessary verbal criticism my allusion to the new factor alleged :

To regulate the changes

Between Man and Tunicate,

In the Evolution process

And the Powers that on it wait!

(6) “As far as I can find out, almost every discovery made in palæontology and other things has tended to fill up the gaps left in Darwin's discoveries."* No weight can be attached to such assertions in the absence of illustrative instances. The author hopes he is acquainted with "almost every discovery in paleontology"; he cannot add “And other things," nor would he like to name all the gaps" referred to. He is, however, sure that recent discoveries in palæontology do not warrant this statement. But as to, at least, another great gap recently made in Darwin's argument from palæon

* A Member writes :-" Probably Lord Grimthorpe did not intend to refer to the origin of man when giving this opinion, as the evidence furnished in the new works of Sir J. W. Dawson, K.C.M.G., F.R.S., Professor W. Kitchin Parker, F.R.S., Professor Hartmann, and others is against any gaps between man and the lower animals having been bridged."-See also the Journal of the Victoria Institute, vol. xx. p. 87, et seq.-Ep.

tology he takes the liberty in this connexion to refer to a paper On some Darwinistic Heresies, by Prof. Carl Vogt (The Annals and Mag. of Nat. His., vol. xix., No. 109, Jan. 1887), a most suggestive paper from an unexpected quarter. (7) "The only theistical argument of rational men (!) now is that everything must have proceeded somehow from a Creator. What has natural selection to do with that?" It has to do with it simply because it is asserted to be the "somehow.” But those who propose it go a little farther than the critic, and say that the Creator is unknowable. "I think," said Darwin, "that generally (and more and more as I grow older), but not always, an Agnostic would be the more correct description of my state of mind." “I for one must be content to remain an Agnostic” (Life, vol. i. pp. 304, 313). (8) "That which we call chance is the result of certain laws of Nature which we partly understand and partly do not understand." What has this vague remark to do with my last paper? I do not think the word "chance occurs in it. But as it is made much of in the criticism, it may be well to notice the office assigned to it. “I am inclined," said Darwin, "to look at everything as resulting from designed laws, with the details, whether good or bad, left to the working out of what we may call chance. Not that this notion at all satisfies me. I feel most deeply that the whole. subject is too profound for the human intellect” (Life, vol. iii. 312). The details of designed laws left to the working out of chance! Take an illustration: Man is the outcome of cycles of evolution by natural law! But what of sex? Oh, it is a mere “detail” worked out by "chance." Does my critic think this mechanical hap-hazard quite as much in the lines of common sense, and, as such, of true science, as the alternative explanation,-"He which made them at the beginning made them male and female"? But more, what becomes of the doctrine of special providence? What of the words, "My Father worketh hitherto and I work"? Is there no certain, no sure, knowledge anywhere on these great and vital questions? It will not do to refuse to look at the answer which Revelation gives to them, or to put the Word of God out of court in their trial.

I confess it would have been a disappointment had the other criticisms been in the lines of that which has been noticed. I am,

however, much gratified by the able and judicious critical remarks of the gentlemen whose contributions to the discussion were read by the Honorary Secretary,

NOTE

With regard to the question of nectarines growing on peachtrees referred to in this discussion and in Darwin's Variation of Animals and Plants under domestication, vol. i., pp. 357-365:Being aware that Messrs. T. Rivers & Son, of Sawbridgeworth, were the greatest nectarine and peach growers in the United Kingdom, and that they would be able to speak from experience,-the firm having cultivated the fruit for over a hundred years, the point was submitted to it. Mr. T. Francis Rivers has most courteously replied as follows: The nectarine is merely a form or variety of the peach, and there is no more special difference than between à rough and smooth terrier. I have heard it asserted that a peachbranch had produced nectarines, but this assertion has never been to my knowledge on actual observation, but has been merely hearsay. I have had thousands of trees under my notice and have never seen the fact; it may have happened, but I believe the cause of the variations may be very easily solved, that is, that a bud of a nectarine had been inserted in the peachbranch and forgotten. The variation from seed is frequent, and indiscriminate peaches from seed produce nectarines, and vice versâ. I send an example by this post. The peach and nectarine are raised from stones of the Advain nectarine, a very early sort. One can see that the peach is late and the nectarine hard. I have raised hundreds of seedlings with the same result.—Aug. 22, 1888.” *

* To those who examined the specimens sent, the skin of the peach appeared less woolly than usual, and with a slight blush of the nectarine in one part.-ED.

THE LATE PROFESSOR ASA GRAY.

Professor Asa Gray, who is referred to in the foregoing discussion, was regarded by men in both hemispheres as occupying a foremost, if not the foremost, place among American men of science. He died on the 30th of January, 1888, in his seventyeighth year, and the following notice of such a man may well appear in these pages :—

By the death of Professor Asa Gray, which occurred lately at Cambridge, Massachusetts, the scientific world loses not only one of its most eminent minds, but also one of its most pleasing personalities. Born in the State of New York, Asa Gray was a type of the New Englander in his character and in his peculiarities. The curious mixture of simplicity and shrewdness, with a strong undercurrent of humour ever ready to make its presence apparent, which distinguishes the old-fashioned New Englander, has seldom been better exemplified than in the personality of the deceased Professor of Natural History at Harvard. Nor was the strong religious tinge of the descendants of the English Puritans wanting to complete in him the picture of an American of the old school, which is in danger of being swallowed up in the flood of heterogeneous elements which is nowadays invading the States. The pioneer in America of the Darwinian doctrine of evolution, and the intimate friend, correspondent, and admirer of Darwin, Asa Gray nevertheless declined to carry his admiration so far as to give an unreserved assent to his friend's teaching. The sincerely religious strain in his character forbade à full acceptance of the logical conclusions on spiritual subjects which must have resulted from such acceptance. He formed, indeed, a sort of common ground, a point d'appui, both for science and religion, and it was in that capacity that he appeared at Lambeth Palace at a dinner given by the late Primate to eminent scientific personages in the year 1881. On such an occasion, when science was the guest of religion, Asa Gray was distinctly in his element. By those of his countrymen who knew him, and his many and various friends in England, the death of Professor Asa Gray will be sincerely regretted as much on personal as on scientific grounds."

ORDINARY MEETING, FEBRUARY 6, 1888.

W. N. WEST, ESQ., HON. TREASURER, IN THE CHAIR.

The Minutes of the last Meeting were read and confirmed, and the following Elections were announced :--

LIFE MEMBER :-J. Deacon, Esq., M.A., Oxon, Kent.

MEMBERS :-Rev. C. Clemance, B.A., Lond., D.D., London; Rev. D. MacEwan, D.D. (Glasgow), London; Surgeon-General A. Goodall, F.R.C.S., London; Rev. A. Irving, B.A., B.Sc., F.G.S., Wellington College, Woking·ham; Rev. R. S. Tabor, M.A., Middlesex.

ASSOCIATES:-Rev. Brook Deedes, M.A., India; W. D. Glossop, Esq., London; Rev. B. G. Richardson, M.A., F.G.S., London; Rev. J. Ridley, Yorkshire; Rev. W. D. Ridley, M.A., Camb., Yorks.

CORRESPONDING MEMBER:-Colonel Philip Doyne Vigors, M.R.I.A., &c., late 11th and 19th Regiments, Ireland.

A paper, entitled "Genesis I. and its Critics," by C. B. Warring, Esq., M.A., Ph.D., of Pough Keepsie, United States, was then.read, and a brief discussion ensued. (The publication of this paper is delayed.)