Facts and Arguments for Darwin | Page 3

fault, like Adam,
from their previous state of perfection.
That a great part of the larger and smaller groups into which this class
is divided, might be regarded as satisfactorily established, was a further
advantage not to be undervalued; whilst in two other classes with
which I was familiar, namely, the Annelida and Acalephae, all the
attempted arrangements could only be considered preliminary revisions.
These undisplaceable groups, like the sharply marked forms of the hard,
many-jointed dermal framework, were not only important as safe

starting points and supports, but were also of the highest value as
inflexible barriers in a problem in which, from its very nature, fancy
must freely unfold her wings.
When I thus began to study our Crustacea more closely from this new
stand-point of the Darwinian theory,--when I attempted to bring their
arrangements into the form of a geological tree, and to form some idea
of the probable structure of their ancestors,--I speedily saw (as indeed I
expected) that it would require years of preliminary work before the
essential problem could be seriously handled. The extant systematic
works generally laid more weight upon the characters separating the
genera, families and orders, than upon those which unite the members
of each group, and consequently often furnished but little employable
material. But above all things a thorough knowledge of development
was indispensable, and every one knows how imperfect is our present
knowledge of this subject. The existing deficiencies were the more
difficult to supply, because, as Van Beneden remarks with regard to the
Decapoda, from the often incredible difference in the development of
the most nearly allied forms, these must be separately studied--usually
family by family, and frequently genus by genus--nay, sometimes, as in
the case of Peneus, even species by species; and because these
investigations, in themselves troublesome and tedious, often depend for
their success upon a lucky chance.
But although the satisfactory completion of the "Genealogical tree of
the Crustacea" appeared to be an undertaking for which the strength
and life of an individual would hardly suffice, even under more
favourable circumstances than could be presented by a distant island,
far removed from the great market of scientific life, far from libraries
and museums--nevertheless its practicability became daily less doubtful
in my eyes, and fresh observations daily made me more favourably
inclined towards the Darwinian theory.
In determining to state the arguments which I derived from the
consideration of our Crustacea in favour of Darwin's views, and which
(together with more general considerations and observations in other
departments), essentially aided in making the correctness of those

views seem more and more palpable to me, I am chiefly influenced by
an expression of Darwin's: "Whoever," says he ('Origin of Species'
page 482), "is led to believe that species are mutable, will do a good
service by conscientiously expressing his conviction." To the desire
expressed in these words I respond, for my own part, with the more
pleasure, as this furnishes me with an opportunity of publicly giving
expression in words to the thanks which I feel most deeply to be due
from me to Darwin for the instructions and suggestions for which I am
so deeply indebted to his book. Accordingly I throw this sand-grain
with confidence into the scale against "the load of prejudice by which
this subject is overwhelmed," without troubling myself as to whether
the priests of orthodox science will reckon me amongst dreamers and
children in knowledge of the laws of nature.
CHAPTER 2.
THE SPECIES OF MELITA.
A false supposition, when the consequences proceeding from it are
followed further and further, will sooner or later lead to absurdities and
palpable contradictions. During the period of tormenting doubt--and
this was by no means a short one--when the pointer of the scales
oscillated before me in perfect uncertainty between the pro and the con,
and when any fact leading to a quick decision would have been most
welcome to me, I took no small pains to detect some such
contradictions among the inferences as to the class of Crustacea
furnished by the Darwinian theory. But I found none, either then, or
subsequently. Those which I thought I had found were dispelled on
closer consideration, or actually became converted into supports for
Darwin's theory.
Nor, so far as I am aware, have any of the NECESSARY consequences
of Darwin's hypotheses been proved by any one else, to stand in clear
and irreconcilable contradiction. And yet, as the most profound
students of the animal kingdom are amongst Darwin's opponents, it
would seem that it ought to have been an easy matter for them to crush
him long since beneath a mass of absurd and contradictory inferences,

if any such were to be drawn from his theory. To this want of
demonstrated contradictions I think we may ascribe just the