CANON WILBERFORCE ON DARWIN

[From _The Quarterly Review_, July, 1860]

_On the Origin of Species, by means of Natural Selection; or the

Preservation of Favoured Races in the Struggle for Life._ By CHARLES

DARWIN, M.A., F.R.S. London, 1860.

Any contribution to our Natural History literature from the pen of Mr.

C. Darwin is certain to command attention. His scientific attainments,

his insight and carefulness as an observer, blended with no scanty

measure of imaginative sagacity, and his clear and lively style, make

all his writings unusually attractive. His present volume on the _Origin

of Species_ is the result of many years of observation, thought, and

speculation; and is manifestly regarded by him as the "opus" upon which

his future fame is to rest. It is true that he announces it modestly

enough as the mere precursor of a mightier volume. But that volume is

only intended to supply the facts which are to support the completed

argument of the present essay. In this we have a specimen-collection of

the vast accumulation; and, working from these as the high analytical

mathematician may work from the admitted results of his conic sections,

he proceeds to deduce all the conclusions to which he wishes to conduct

his readers.

The essay is full of Mr. Darwin's characteristic excellences. It is a

most readable book; full of facts in natural history, old and new, of

his collecting and of his observing; and all of these are told in his

own perspicuous language, and all thrown into picturesque combinations,

and all sparkle with the colours of fancy and the lights of imagination.

It assumes, too, the grave proportions of a sustained argument upon a

matter of the deepest interest, not to naturalists only, or even to men

of science exclusively, but to every one who is interested in the

history of man and of the relations of nature around him to the history

and plan of creation.

With Mr. Darwin's "argument" we may say in the outset that we shall have

much and grave fault to find. But this does not make us the less

disposed to admire the singular excellences of his work; and we will

seek _in limine_ to give our readers a few examples of these. Here, for

instance, is a beautiful illustration of the wonderful interdependence

of nature--of the golden chain of unsuspected relations which bind

together all the mighty web which stretches from end to end of this full

and most diversified earth. Who, as he listened to the musical hum of

the great humble-bees, or marked their ponderous flight from flower to

flower, and watched the unpacking of their trunks for their work of

suction, would have supposed that the multiplication or diminution of

their race, or the fruitfulness and sterility of the red clover, depend

as directly on the vigilance of our cats as do those of our well-guarded

game-preserves on the watching of our keepers? Yet this Mr. Darwin has

discovered to be literally the case:--

From experiments which I have lately tried, I have found that the

visits of bees are necessary for the fertilisation of some kinds of

clover; but humble-bees alone visit the red clover (Trifolium

pratense), as other bees cannot reach the nectar. Hence I have very

little doubt, that if the whole genus of humble-bees became extinct or

very rare in England, the heartsease and red clover would become very

rare or wholly disappear. The number of humble-bees in any district

depends in a great degree on the number of field-mice, which destroy

their combs and nests; and Mr. H. Newman, who has long attended to the

habits of humble-bees, believes that "more than two-thirds of them are

thus destroyed all over England." Now the number of mice is largely

dependent, as every one knows, on the number of cats; and Mr. Newman

says, "near villages and small towns I have found the nests of

humble-bees more numerous than elsewhere, which I attribute to the

number of cats that destroy the mice." Hence, it is quite credible

that the presence of a feline animal in large numbers in a district

might determine, through the intervention, first of mice, and then of

bees, the frequency of certain flowers in that district.--p. 74.

* * * * *

Now, all this is, we think, really charming writing. We feel as we walk

abroad with Mr. Darwin very much as the favoured object of the attention

of the dervise must have felt when he had rubbed the ointment around his

eye, and had it opened to see all the jewels, and diamonds, and

emeralds, and topazes, and rubies, which were sparkling unregarded

beneath the earth, hidden as yet from all eyes save those which the

dervise had enlightened. But here we are bound to say our pleasure

terminates; for, when we turn with Mr. Darwin to his "argument," we are

almost immediately at variance with him. It is as an "argument" that the

essay is put forward; as an argument we will test it.

We can perhaps best convey to our readers a clear view of Mr. Darwin's

chain of reasoning, and of our objections to it, if we set before them,

first, the conclusion to which he seeks to bring them; next, the leading

propositions which he must establish in order to make good his final

inference; and then the mode by which he endeavours to support his

propositions.

The conclusion, then, to which Mr. Darwin would bring us is, that all

the various forms of vegetable and animal life with which the globe is

now peopled, or of which we find the remains preserved in a fossil state

in the great Earth-Museum around us, which the science of geology

unlocks for our instruction, have come down by natural succession of

descent from father to son,--"animals from at most four or five

progenitors, and plants from an equal or less number" (p. 484), as Mr.

Darwin at first somewhat diffidently suggests; or rather, as, growing

bolder when he has once pronounced his theory, he goes on to suggest to

us, from one single head:--

Analogy would lead me one step further, namely, to the belief that ALL

ANIMALS and PLANTS have descended from some one prototype. But analogy

may be a deceitful guide. Nevertheless, all living things have much in

common in their chemical composition, their germinal vesicles, their

cellular structure, and their laws of growth and reproduction....

Therefore I shall infer from analogy that probably all the organic

beings which have ever lived on this earth (man therefore of course

included) have descended from some one primordial form into which life

was first breathed by the Creator.--p. 484.

This is the theory which really pervades the whole volume. Man, beast,

creeping thing, and plant of the earth, are all the lineal and direct

descendants of some one individual _ens_, whose various progeny have

been simply modified by the action of natural and ascertainable

conditions into the multiform aspect of life which we see around us.

This is undoubtedly at first sight a somewhat startling conclusion to

arrive at. To find that mosses, grasses, turnips, oaks, worms, and

flies, mites and elephants, infusoria and whales, tadpoles of to-day and

venerable saurians, truffles and men, are all equally the lineal

descendants of the same aboriginal common ancestor, perhaps of the

nucleated cell of some primaeval fungus, which alone possessed the

distinguishing honour of being the "one primordial form into which life

was first breathed by the Creator "--this, to say the least of it, is no

common discovery--no very expected conclusion. But we are too loyal

pupils of inductive philosophy to start back from any conclusion by

reason of its strangeness. Newton's patient philosophy taught him to

find in the falling apple the law which governs the silent movements of

the stars in their courses; and if Mr. Darwin can with the same

correctness of reasoning demonstrate to us our fungular descent, we

shall dismiss our pride, and avow, with the characteristic humility of

philosophy, our unsuspected cousinship with the mushrooms,--

Claim kindred there, and have our claim allowed,

--only we shall ask leave to scrutinise carefully every step of the

argument which has such an ending, and demur if at any point of it we

are invited to substitute unlimited hypothesis for patient observation,

or the spasmodic fluttering flight of fancy for the severe conclusions

to which logical accuracy of reasoning has led the way.

Now, the main propositions by which Mr. Darwin's conclusion is attained

are these:--

1. That observed and admitted variations spring up in the course of

descents from a common progenitor.

2. That many of these variations tend to an improvement upon the parent

stock.

3. That, by a continued selection of these improved specimens as the

progenitors of future stock, its powers may be unlimitedly increased.

4. And, lastly, that there is in nature a power continually and

universally working out this selection, and so fixing and augmenting

these improvements.

Mr. Darwin's whole theory rests upon the truth of these propositions and

crumbles utterly away if only one of them fail him. These, therefore, we

must closely scrutinise. We will begin with the last in our series, both

because we think it the newest and the most ingenious part of Mr.

Darwin's whole argument, and also because, whilst we absolutely deny the

mode in which he seeks to apply the existence of the power to help him

in his argument, yet we think that he throws great and very interesting

light upon the fact that such self-acting power does actively and

continuously work in all creation around us.

Mr. Darwin finds then the disseminating and improving power, which he

needs to account for the development of new forms in nature, in the

principle of "Natural Selection," which is evolved in the strife for

room to live and flourish which is evermore maintained between

themselves by all living things. One of the most interesting parts of

Mr. Darwin's volume is that in which he establishes this law of natural

selection; we say establishes, because--repeating that we differ from

him totally in the limits which he would assign to its action--we have

no doubt of the existence or of the importance of the law itself.

* * * * *

We come then to these conclusions. All the facts presented to us in the

natural world tend to show that none of the variations produced in the

fixed forms of animal life, when seen in its most plastic condition

under domestication, give any promise of a true transmutation of

species; first, from the difficulty of accumulating and fixing

variations within the same species; secondly, from the fact that these

variations, though most serviceable for man, have no tendency to improve

the individual beyond the standard of his own specific type, and so to

afford matter, even if they were infinitely produced, for the supposed

power of natural selection on which to work; whilst all variations from

the mixture of species are barred by the inexorable law of hybrid

sterility. Further, the embalmed records of 3,000 years show that there

has been no beginning of transmutation in the species of our most

familiar domesticated animals; and beyond this, that in the countless

tribes of animal life around us, down to its lowest and most variable

species, no one has ever discovered a single instance of such

transmutation being now in prospect; no new organ has ever been known to

be developed--no new natural instinct to be formed--whilst, finally, in

the vast museum of departed animal life which the strata of the earth

imbed for our examination, whilst they contain far too complete a

representation of the past to be set aside as a mere imperfect record,

yet afford no one instance of any such change as having ever been in

progress, or give us anywhere the missing links of the assumed chain, or

the remains which would enable now existing variations, by gradual

approximations, to shade off into unity. On what then is the new theory

based? We say it with unfeigned regret, in dealing with such a man as

Mr. Darwin, on the merest hypothesis, supported by the most unbounded

assumptions. These are strong words, but we will give a few instances to

prove their truth:--

All physiologists admit that the swim-bladder is homologous or

"ideally similar" in position and structure with the lungs of the

higher vertebrate animals; hence there _seems to me to be no great

difficulty in believing_ that natural selection has actually converted

a swim-bladder into a lung, or organ used exclusively for

respiration.--p. 191.

_I can indeed hardly doubt_ that all vertebrate animals having true

lungs have descended by ordinary generation from the ancient

prototype, of which we know nothing, furnished with a floating

apparatus or swim-bladder--p. 191.

Famous Reviews, Selected and Edited with Introductory Notes by R. Brimley Johnson · 第 77 / 148 题