« ПредыдущаяПродолжить »
here taken a leaf out of the theologians' book. His statement is one which will not pass muster with those whom public opinion is sure in the end to follow.
Did Mr. Herbert Spencer, for example,“ repeatedly and easily refute ” Lamarck's hypothesis in his brilliant article in the Leader, 20th March 1852? On the contrary, that article is expressly directed against those
who cavalierly reject the hypothesis of Lamarck and his followers.” This article was written six years before the words last quoted from Mr. Wallace; how absolutely, however, does the word “cavalierly” apply to them!
Does Isidore Geoffroy, again, bear Mr. Wallace's assertion out better? In 1859-that is to say, but a short time after Mr. Wallace had written - he wrote as follows:
“Such was the language which Lamarck heard during his protracted old age, saddened alike by the weight of
years and blindness; this was what people did not hesitate to utter over his grave yet barely closed, and what indeed they are still saying-commonly too without any knowledge of what Lamarck maintained, but merely repeating at secondhand bad caricatures of his teaching
“When will the time come when we may see Lamarck's theory discussed-and, I may as well at once say, refuted in some important points - with at any rate the respect due to one of the most illustrious masters of our science? And when will this theory, the hardihood of which has been greatly exaggerated, become freed from the interpretations and commentaries by the false light of which so many naturalists have formed their opinion concerning it? If its author is to be condemned, let it be, at any rate, not before he has been heard.” 2
1 I never could find what these particular points were. 2 Isidore Geoffroy, Hift. Nat. Gen., vol. ii, p. 407, 1859.
In 1873 M. Martins published his edition of Lamarck's Philosophie Zoologique. He was still able to say, with, I believe, perfect truth, that Lamarck's theory has
never yet had the honour of being discussed seriously.” 1
Professor Huxley in his article on Evolution is no less cavalier than Mr. Wallace. He writes: 2
“Lamarck introduced the conception of the action of an animal on itself as a factor in producing modification.”
Lamarck did nothing of the kind. It was Buffon and Dr. Darwin who introduced this, but more especially Dr. Darwin. The accuracy of Professor Huxley's statements about the history and literature of evolution is like the direct interference of the Deity-it vanishes whenever and wherever I have occasion to test it.
But a little consideration showed (italics mine] that though Lamarck had seized what, as far as it goes, is a true cause of modification, it is a cause the actual effects of which are wholly inadequate to account for any considerable modification in animals, and which can have no influence whatever in the vegetable world,” etc.
I should be very glad to come across some of the “ little consideration” which will show this. I have ' searched for it far and wide, and have never been able to find it.
I think Professor Huxley has been exercising some of his ineradicable tendency to try to make things clear in the article on Evolution, already so often quoted from. We find him (p. 750) pooh-poohing Lamarck, yet on the next page he says, “How far natural selection'suffices for the production of species remains to be seen.” And this when“ natural selection” was already so nearly of
M. Martins' edition of the Philosopbie Zoologique (Paris, 1873), Introduction, p. vi. · Encyclopaedia Britannica, 9th ed., p. 750.
age! Why, to those who know how to read between a philosopher's lines, the sentence comes to very nearly the same as a declaration that the writer has no great opinion of “natural selection.” Professor Huxley continues, “ Few can doubt that, if not the whole cause, it is a very important factor in that operation.” A philosopher's words should be weighed carefully, and when Professor Huxley says “ few can doubt,” we must remember that he may be including himself among the few whom he considers to have the power of doubting on this matter. He does not say “ few will,” but “ few can” doubt, as though it were only the enlightened who would have the power of doing so. Certainly
nature,” - for that is what“ natural selection” comes to,-is rather an important factor in the operation, but we do not gain much by being told so. If, however, Professor Huxley neither believes in the origin of species, through sense of need on the part of animals themselves, nor yet in “natural selection,” we should be glad to know what he does believe in.
The battle is one of greater importance than appears at first sight. It is a battle between teleology and non
а teleology, between the purposiveness and the nonpurposiveness of the organs in animal and vegetable bodies. According to Erasmus Darwin, Lamarck, and Paley, organs are purposive; according to Mr. Darwin and his followers, they are not purposive. But the main arguments against the system of Dr. Erasmus Darwin are arguments which, so far as they have any weight, tell against evolution generally. Now that these have been disposed of, and the prejudice against evolution has been overcome, it will be seen that there is nothing to be said against the system of Erasmus Darwin and Lamarck which does not tell with far greater force against that of Mr. Charles Darwin and Mr. Wallace.
ABIOGENESIS (or spontaneous generation) 158, 196, 197
58, 79, 89, 96, 193
95, 99, 154, 155, 162
67, 167, 187, 190
63, 91, 92, 161, 162, 166, 167, 178, 189
102, 103, 114, 159
182, 189, 191, 194
73, 164, 166, 168, 172, 179
25, 26, 102, 135
61-63, 83, 196
165, 166, 173, 175, 176, 194
123, 126, 130, 135
90, 102-110, 130, 131, 134, 136, 151, 152, 155