serve, that the water is rising slowly, by a succession of apparently spontaneous impulses. Since I have been standing here, the water has arisen some four or five feet. Now, it is clear, that this water may arise to any height, if it be confined above, by a wall, as it is below. It is manifestly gratuitous, for any one to assume a limit to the ascension of this water. It has been ascending, during the whole time I have been standing here, and the presumption is, in default of proof to the contrary, that it ever will continue so to rise. Now, the formation of the whole river, may be clearly demonstrated by analogy with this lock. It is fair to assume that, in the river, also, there exist, and have ever existed, spontaneous impulses of water, similar to what we here observe. Given, then, those ascending, spontaneous impulses, the formation, in the past, of this river, becomes clear.

To the response of the lock-master, that Darwin evidently does not understand the reason, or the cause, why the water so ascends in the lock, he rejoins, that there is the fact that suffices for him-and that an inquiry into efficient causes is metaphysical. The lock-master explains, that the water has previously fallen below the level of the river above, that it is now returning to that level, and that his theory of the unlimited ascent of the water, is all wrong, for the limit will be reached when the water reaches the plane of the river above.

Darwin recognizes the truth of such explanation, but declares that that is but pushing the difficulty farther back in time; for, how account for these origi

facts, with a theory based upon an assumption which is not only wholly gratuitous, but in wanton derogation of a competent, known, and well-established, scientific factor. The phenomenon of the recovery of longlost characters, by means of crossing, is shown, in a future chapter of this work, to be perfectly explicable.

"In many cases," says he (p. 105, Vol. ii, Animals and Plants, &c.), "the failure of the parents to transmit their likeness, is due to the breed having been at some former period crossed; and the child takes after his grandparent, or more remote ancestor, of foreign blood. In other cases, in which the breed has not been crossed, but some ancient character has been lost through variation, it occasionally reappears through Reversion, so that the parents apparently fail to transmit their own likeness. In all cases, however, we may safely conclude that the child inherits all its characters from its parents, in whom certain characters are latent. * * * When, after a long succession of bud generations, a flower or fruit becomes separated into distinct segments, having the colors or other attributes of both parent forms, we cannot doubt that these characters were latent in the earlier buds, though they could not then be detected, or could be detected only in an intimately commingled state. So it is with animals of crossed parentage, which, with advancing years, occasionally exhibit characters, derived from one of their two parents, of which not a trace could at first be perceived."

Again he says, on the same page with the above remarks:

"It is assuredly an astonishing fact, that the male and female sexual elements, that buds, and even fullgrown animals, should retain characters, during several

generations, in the case of crossed breeds, and during thousands of generations, in the case of pure breeds, written as it were in invisible ink, yet ready, at any time, to be evolved under the requisite conditions."

"What these conditions are, we do not in many cases at all know. But, the act of crossing, in itself, apparently from causing some disturbance in the organization, certainly gives a strong tendency to the reappearance of long-lost characters, both corporeal and mental, independently of those derived from the cross.'

The purpose in quoting this, and other remarks of Darwin, upon the subject of long-lost characters, is, to show the wide-spread operation of Reversion, and its competency to cover all the variations adduced by Darwin. Having thus furnished full warrant for the assumption of Reversion as the sole cause of all positive variations, or improvements, we shall also enlighten him as to what those mysterious conditions are, of which he speaks, and as to what that curious. 'some disturbance in the organization," is.

On page 113, Vol. ii, Animals and Plants, &c., he

says:

* * *

"But in all cases" (of crossing different breeds) "there will be, during many subsequent generations, more or less liability to reversion. In considering the final result of the commingling of two or more breeds, we must not forget that the act of crossing in itself tends to bring back long-lost characters, not proper to the immediate parent-forms."

Again, on page 212, Vol. ii, Animals and Plants, &c., he speaks of

"The excessive variability of the crossed offspring due to the principle of reversion."

nal, spontaneous impulses, when they first arose, and formed the river!

The lock-master declares, that these spontaneous impulses never did form the river, but that Darwin himself started to prove that very point; and now, instead of proving it, he assumes it to obviate a fatal objection to that very idea. He also shows him that he cannot prove the origin of the river by means of the spontaneous impulses in the lock, for they are due to the action of a river already formed. Darwin, however, is proof against all objections, and departs to assure his friend Tyndall that his theory, about "giving the religious sentiments of mankind, reasonable satisfaction," is altogether Utopian.

So, in his theory of development, he assumes his very conclusion-viz., that variations formed the different species-to ward off the objection, namely, that variations did not constitute the process of development, because they are but the regain of developments lost.

As all of the individuals of a species have, generally, lost the same characters, and all have the same capacity for regaining such characters, it is to be expected, that the individuals of the several varieties of such species, will not confine themselves to the development of the peculiarities which man has assigned them, but will display their power of reversion in characters, of their species, other than those which mark their respective varieties. The fact, also, that similar varieties are produced in different countries, from individuals of the same species, attests strongly, that the

improvements or variations which arise, are due to reversion. Darwin has noted this disposition, on the part of individuals of a species, to develop all of the characters of the given species, and refers it, as he should, to the fact of these characters having once been lost, and to the capacity, in each of the individuals, to regain such characters. As if fearful, that the significance of the phenomenon, should thrust itself upon the reader's attention, to the prejudice of his hypothesis of development without a limit, he assures his readers, that he is concerned not as hitherto with the causes of variation, but with the results." He concerns himself about the causes of variation, only when he is engaged upon an enumeration of the conditions of variation (such as food, and climate, and exercise, &c.) which he is able to demonstrate, can furnish no adequate explanation of the appearance of the improvements. When, however, he trenches upon a wellknown, scientific law, such as is reversion, he hastens to add, that all discussion upon causes, has been closed!

་

On page 417, Vol. ii, Animals and Plants, &c., under the heading, "Analogous or Parallel Variation," he

says:

"By this term I wish to express that similar characters occasionally make their appearance in the several varieties or races descended from the same species. * * * We are here concerned, not as hitherto with the causes of variation, but with the results; but this discussion could not have been more conveniently introduced elsewhere."

All of the individuals, of a species, are lacking in