The Origin of Species by means of Natural Selection (6th ed) | Page 7

to reconcile with each other, as I do. As far
as the mere enunciation of the principle of natural selection is
concerned, it is quite immaterial whether or not Professor Owen
preceded me, for both of us, as shown in this historical sketch, were
long ago preceded by Dr. Wells and Mr. Matthews.
M. Isidore Geoffroy Saint-Hilaire, in his lectures delivered in 1850 (of
which a Resume appeared in the "Revue et Mag. de Zoolog.", Jan.,
1851), briefly gives his reason for believing that specific characters
"sont fixes, pour chaque espece, tant qu'elle se perpetue au milieu des
memes circonstances: ils se modifient, si les circonstances ambiantes
viennent a changer. En resume, L'OBSERVATION des animaux
sauvages demontre deja la variabilite LIMITEE des especes. Les
EXPERIENCES sur les animaux sauvages devenus domestiques, et sur
les animaux domestiques redevenus sauvages, la demontrent plus
clairment encore. Ces memes experiences prouvent, de plus, que les
differences produites peuvent etre de VALEUR GENERIQUE." In his
"Hist. Nat. Generale" (tom. ii, page 430, 1859) he amplifies analogous
conclusions.
>From a circular lately issued it appears that Dr. Freke, in 1851
("Dublin Medical Press", page 322), propounded the doctrine that all
organic beings have descended from one primordial form. His grounds
of belief and treatment of the subject are wholly different from mine;
but as Dr. Freke has now (1861) published his Essay on the "Origin of
Species by means of Organic Affinity", the difficult attempt to give any
idea of his views would be superfluous on my part.
Mr. Herbert Spencer, in an Essay (originally published in the "Leader",
March, 1852, and republished in his "Essays", in 1858), has contrasted
the theories of the Creation and the Development of organic beings
with remarkable skill and force. He argues from the analogy of
domestic productions, from the changes which the embryos of many
species undergo, from the difficulty of distinguishing species and

varieties, and from the principle of general gradation, that species have
been modified; and he attributes the modification to the change of
circumstances. The author (1855) has also treated Psychology on the
principle of the necessary acquirement of each mental power and
capacity by gradation.
In 1852 M. Naudin, a distinguished botanist, expressly stated, in an
admirable paper on the Origin of Species ("Revue Horticole", page 102;
since partly republished in the "Nouvelles Archives du Museum", tom.
i, page 171), his belief that species are formed in an analogous manner
as varieties are under cultivation; and the latter process he attributes to
man's power of selection. But he does not show how selection acts
under nature. He believes, like Dean Herbert, that species, when
nascent, were more plastic than at present. He lays weight on what he
calls the principle of finality, "puissance mysterieuse, indeterminee;
fatalite pour les uns; pour les autres volonte providentielle, dont l'action
incessante sur les etres vivantes determine, a toutes les epoques de
l'existence du monde, la forme, le volume, et la duree de chacun d'eux,
en raison de sa destinee dans l'ordre de choses dont il fait partie. C'est
cette puissance qui harmonise chaque membre a l'ensemble, en
l'appropriant a la fonction qu'il doit remplir dans l'organisme general de
la nature, fonction qui est pour lui sa raison d'etre." (From references in
Bronn's "Untersuchungen uber die Entwickelungs-Gesetze", it appears
that the celebrated botanist and palaeontologist Unger published, in
1852, his belief that species undergo development and modification.
Dalton, likewise, in Pander and Dalton's work on Fossil Sloths,
expressed, in 1821, a similar belief. Similar views have, as is well
known, been maintained by Oken in his mystical "Natur-Philosophie".
From other references in Godron's work "Sur l'Espece", it seems that
Bory St. Vincent, Burdach, Poiret and Fries, have all admitted that new
species are continually being produced. I may add, that of the
thirty-four authors named in this Historical Sketch, who believe in the
modification of species, or at least disbelieve in separate acts of
creation, twenty-seven have written on special branches of natural
history or geology.)
In 1853 a celebrated geologist, Count Keyserling ("Bulletin de la Soc.

Geolog.", 2nd Ser., tom. x, page 357), suggested that as new diseases,
supposed to have been caused by some miasma have arisen and spread
over the world, so at certain periods the germs of existing species may
have been chemically affected by circumambient molecules of a
particular nature, and thus have given rise to new forms.
In this same year, 1853, Dr. Schaaffhausen published an excellent
pamphlet ("Verhand. des Naturhist. Vereins der Preuss. Rheinlands",
etc.), in which he maintains the development of organic forms on the
earth. He infers that many species have kept true for long periods,
whereas a few have become modified. The distinction of species he
explains by the destruction of intermediate graduated forms. "Thus
living plants and animals are not separated