that Herbert Spencer saw this, and was loth to contribute to the downfall of his gossamer structure, may alone explain the omission, by a man of his philosophical acumen, of such well known phenomena as are those of Reversion.

On page 77, Vol. ii, Animals and Plants, &c., Darwin

says:

"Some flowers have almost certainly become more or less completely peloric through reversion. Corydalis tuberosa probably has one of its two nectaries colorless, destitute of nectar, only half the size of the other, and therefore, to a certain extent, in a rudimentary state; the pistil is curved towards the perfect nectary, and the hood, formed of the inner petals, slips off the pistil and stamens in one direction alone, so that, when a bee sucks the perfect nectary, the stigma and stamens are exposed and rubbed against the insect's body. In several closely allied genera, as in Dielytra, &c., there are two perfect nectaries, the pistil is straight, and the hood slips off on either side, according as the bee sucks either nectary. Now, I have examined several flowers of Corydalis tuberosa, in which both nectaries were equally developed and contained nectar; in this, we see only the re-development of a partially aborted organ; but, with this re-development, the pistil becomes straight, and the hood slips off in either direction; so that these flowers have acquired the perfect structure, so well adapted for insect agency, of Dielytra and its allies. We cannot attribute these coadapted modifications to chance, or to correlated variability; we must attribute them to a primordial condition of the species."

Is it not rather inconsistent, in an author, according to whose theory, every structure, coadaptation, rela

tion, and dependency, in organic nature, must, at some time, have arisen by variation, to assert, as Darwin does here, that he is compelled to ascribe the improvements to reversion; because it is so difficult to believe that they have arisen in any other way?

On the same, and on the following page, he cites other startling improvements, which he says, he is constrained to refer to reversion. He also says:

"The case of the fifth stamen, in the peloric Antirrhinum, which is produced by the re-development of a rudiment always present, * * * probably reveals

to us the state of the flower, as far as the stamens are concerned, at some ancient epoch. It is also difficult. to believe, that the other four stamens, and the petals, after an arrest of development, at a very early embryonic age, would have come to full perfection, in color, structure, and function, unless these organs had, at some former period, normally passed through a similar course of growth. Hence it appears to me probable, that the progenitor of the genus Antirrhinum, must, at some remote epoch, have included five stamens, and borne flowers, in some degree resembling those now produced by the peloric form.

"Lastly, I may add that many instances have been recorded of flowers, not generally ranked as peloric, in which certain organs, normally few in number, have been abnormally augmented. As such an increase of parts cannot be looked at as an arrest of development, nor due to the re-development of rudiments, for no rudiments are present, and as these additional parts bring the plant into closer relationship with its natural allies, they ought probably to be viewed as reversions to a primordial condition."

These quotations, from Darwin's works, showing

Reversion, might be multiplied indefinitely, for he gives several chapters to the subject, and almost every other page of his works, is filled with references to this factor. With one more quotation we will close the direct proofs of Reversion.

On page 80, Vol. ii, Animals and Plants, &c., he

says:

"On the doctrine of reversion, as given in this chapter, the germ becomes a far more marvelous object; for, besides the visible changes to which it is subjected, we must believe that it is crowded with invisible characters, proper to both sexes, to both the right and left side of the body, and to a long line of male and female ancestors, separated by hundreds, or even thousands, of generations from the present time; and these characters, like those written on paper with invisible ink, all lie ready to be evolved, under certain known or unknown conditions."

Assume but a tithe of the degeneration, which is above implied, and the scope of reversion is sufficiently wide to cover every variation, under domestication, or under nature. Darwin's theory lays claim to be a tenable hypothesis, only in the event, that variations are inexplicable, and may proceed forever, or indefinitely. This assumption of his, is, however, completely negatived by the facts of Reversion, which show that the sole variation possible, is the regain of characters lost, and that when all of the characters, which any species has lost, have been recovered, the limit of positive variation, for that species, is reached.

If it be conceded, that proof of a glaring hiatus, intervening between a theory and the facts upon which such

1

theory purports to rest, invalidates that theory; and, if the filling up of that hiatus, with a known, scientific law, diametrically opposed to the assumption essential to such theory, is disproof of the theory; then, the evidence already advanced, constitutes a Refutation of Darwinism. But, the Refutation does not depend upon such mere agreement, of the facts, with the hypothesis of Reversion. Demonstrative proof of the truth of the theory of Reversion is readily available; which is furnished, in the subsequent chapters, which treat of Crossing, Close-Interbreeding, and Self-Fertilization.

CHAPTER IV.

REVERSION NOT A LAW, Sui Generis; BUT A DERIVATIVE Law, ASSIMILABLE TO OTHER WELL KNOWN LAWS.

We have shown Reversion to be a most potent factor, and proven it to be abundantly able to explain every improvement which has arisen, or which may arise, under Nature, or under domestication. Although it does not explain the origin of the development of each species, it does explain, clearly and fully, what that phase of development is, which, in Biology, has been termed Progress. It does explain,-and explains them in a manner inconsistent with Darwin's theory,all those slight increments or gradations of growth, called variations or improvements, upon which Darwin endeavors to base his theory.

As heretofore used, the word, Progress, has been simply a metaphysical entity, with as little title to recognition, by science, as have “innate tendency,” "inherent aptitude," "vital force," or any of those other, barren terms by which men have shaped ignorance into the semblance of knowledge. There is a law of Progress; but that law, when rightly resolved, is Reversion, or the regain of characters, organs, faculties, instincts and powers which were once lost by the species, now progressing. Thus regarded, Progress is