Darwiniana | Page 2

without some grounds for suspecting that there yet
remains a fair sprinkling even of "philosophic thinkers" to whom it may
be a profitable, perhaps even a novel, task to descend from the heights
of speculation and go over the A B C of the great biological problem as
it was set before a body of shrewd artisans at that remote epoch.

T. H. H.
Hodeslea, Eastbourne, _April 7th_, 1893.

CONTENTS
I THE DARWINIAN HYPOTHESIS [1859]
II THE ORIGIN OF SPECIES [1860]
III CRITICISM ON "THE ORIGIN OF SPECIES" [1864]
IV THE GENEALOGY OF ANIMALS [1869]
V MR. DARWIN'S CRITICS [1871]
VI EVOLUTION IN BIOLOGY [1878]
VII THE COMING OF AGE OF "THE ORIGIN OF SPECIES" [1880]
VIII CHARLES DARWIN [1882]
IX THE DARWIN MEMORIAL [1885]
X OBITUARY [1888]
XI SIX LECTURES TO WORKING MEN "ON OUR KNOWLEDGE
OF THE CAUSES OF THE PHENOMENA OF ORGANIC
NATURE" [1863]

I
THE DARWINIAN HYPOTHESIS
[1859]
The hypothesis of which the present work of Mr. Darwin is but the
preliminary outline, may be stated in his own language as follows:--
"Species originated by means of natural selection, or through the
preservation of the favoured races in the struggle for life." To render
this thesis intelligible, it is necessary to interpret its terms. In the first
place, what is a species? The question is a simple one, but the right
answer to it is hard to find, even if we appeal to those who should know
most about it. It is all those animals or plants which have descended
from a single pair of parents; it is the smallest distinctly definable
group of living organisms; it is an eternal and immutable entity; it is a
mere abstraction of the human intellect having no existence in nature.
Such are a few of the significations attached to this simple word which
may be culled from authoritative sources; and if, leaving terms and
theoretical subtleties aside, we turn to facts and endeavour to gather a
meaning for ourselves, by studying the things to which, in practice, the

name of species is applied, it profits us little. For practice varies as
much as theory. Let two botanists or two zoologists examine and
describe the productions of a country, and one will pretty certainly
disagree with the other as to the number, limits, and definitions of the
species into which he groups the very same things. In these islands, we
are in the habit of regarding mankind as of one species, but a fortnight's
steam will land us in a country where divines and savants, for once in
agreement, vie with one another in loudness of assertion, if not in
cogency of proof, that men are of different species; and, more
particularly, that the species negro is so distinct from our own that the
Ten Commandments have actually no reference to him. Even in the
calm region of entomology, where, if anywhere in this sinful world,
passion and prejudice should fail to stir the mind, one learned
coleopterist will fill ten attractive volumes with descriptions of species
of beetles, nine-tenths of which are immediately declared by his brother
beetle-mongers to be no species at all.
The truth is that the number of distinguishable living creatures almost
surpasses imagination. At least 100,000 such kinds of insects alone
have been described and may be identified in collections, and the
number of separable kinds of living things is under-estimated at half a
million. Seeing that most of these obvious kinds have their accidental
varieties, and that they often shade into others by imperceptible degrees,
it may well be imagined that the task of distinguishing between what is
permanent and what fleeting, what is a species and what a mere variety,
is sufficiently formidable.
But is it not possible to apply a test whereby a true species may be
known from a mere variety? Is there no criterion of species? Great
authorities affirm that there is--that the unions of members of the same
species are always fertile, while those of distinct species are either
sterile, or their offspring, called hybrids, are so. It is affirmed not only
that this is an experimental fact, but that it is a provision for the
preservation of the purity of species. Such a criterion as this would be
invaluable; but, unfortunately, not only is it not obvious how to apply it
in the great majority of cases in which its aid is needed, but its general
validity is stoutly denied. The Hon. and Rev. Mr. Herbert, a most
trustworthy authority, not only asserts as the result of his own
observations and experiments that many hybrids are quite as fertile as

the parent species, but he goes so far as to assert that the particular
plant Crinum capense is much more fertile when crossed by a distinct
species than when