mastiff of mine, some years ago, was eating from a plate full of broken
meat. It was his custom to bury the large pieces when there was more
than he could get through. While he was burying a large piece, a cat
ran off with a small fragment. The moment he returned to the plate he
missed this, and, seeing no one else near the plate, he, in his own
way, accused a little daughter of mine (some two or three years old)
of the theft. Looking fiercely at her, he growled his suspicions, and
would not suffer her to escape from the corner where his plate stood
until I dragged him away by his chain. Nor did he for some time forget
the wrong which he supposed she had done him, but always growled when
she came near his house.
[37] It may be suggested, in passing, that the association which
has been commonly noticed between prominent eyeballs and command
of language (phrenologists place the organ of language, in their
unscientific phraseology, behind the eyeballs) may be related in
some degree to the circumstance that in gradually emerging from the
condition of an arboreal creature the anthropoid ape would not only
cease to derive advantage from sunken eyes, but would be benefited by
the possession of more prominent eyeballs. The increasing prominence
of the eyeballs would thus be a change directly associated with the
gradual advance of the animal to a condition in which, associating
into larger and larger companies and becoming more and more dependent
on mutual assistance and discipline, they would require the use of a
gradually extending series of vocal signs to indicate their wants and
wishes to each other.
[38] The word hypothesis is too often used as though it were synonymous
with theory, so that Newton’s famous saying, “Hypotheses non fingo”
has come to be regarded by many as though it expressed an objection on
Newton’s part against the formation of theories. This would have been
strange indeed in the author of the noblest theory yet propounded by
man in matters scientific. Newton indicates his meaning plainly enough,
in the very paragraph in which the above expression occurs, defining an
hypothesis as an opinion not based on phenomena.
[39] I find it somewhat difficult to understand clearly Mr. Mivart’s
own position with reference to the general theory of evolution. He
certainly is an evolutionist, and as certainly he considers natural
selection combined with the tendency to variation (as ordinarily
understood) insufficient to account for the existence of the various
forms of animal and vegetable existence. He supplies the missing factor
in “an innate law imposed on nature, by which new and definite species,
under definite conditions, emerged from a latent and potential being
into actual and manifest existence;” and, so far as can be judged,
he considers that the origin of man himself is an instance of the
operation of this law.
[40] The Middle Tertiary period—the Tertiary, which includes the
Eocene, Miocene, and Pliocene periods, being the latest of the three
great periods recognized by geologists as preceding the present
era, which includes the entire history of man as at present known
geologically.
[41] Closely following in this respect his illustrious namesake
Roger, who writes, in the sixth chapter of his _Opus Majus_, “_Sine
experientia nihil sufficienter sciri potest._”
[42] Fibrine and albumen are identical in composition. _Caseine_, which
is the coagulable portion of milk, is composed in the same manner. The
chief distinction between the three substances consists in their mode
of coagulation; fibrine coagulating spontaneously, albumen under the
action of heat, and caseine by the action of acetic acid.
[43] To this article of the Professor’s faith decided objection must be
taken, however.
[44] Those whose custom it is to regard all theorizing respecting
the circumstances revealed by observation as unscientific, may read
with profit an extremely speculative passage in Newton’s _Principia_
relating to the probable drying up of the earth in future ages. “As the
seas,” he says, “are absolutely necessary to the constitution of our
earth, that from them the sun, by its heat, may exhale a sufficient
quantity of vapours, which, being gathered together into clouds, may
drop down in rain, for watering of the earth, and for the production
and nourishment of vegetables; or being condensed with cold on the tops
of mountains (as some philosophers with reason judge), may run down in
springs and rivers; so for the conservation of the seas and fluids of
the planets, comets seem to be required, that, from their exhalations
and vapours condensed, the wastes of the planetary fluids spent upon
vegetation and putrefaction, and converted into dry earth, may be
ultimately supplied and made up; for all vegetables entirely derive
their growths from fluids, and afterwards, in great measure, are turned
into dry earth by putrefaction; and a sort of slime is always found
to settle at the bottom of putrefied fluids; and hence it is that the
bulk of the solid earth is continually increased; and the fluids, if
they are not supplied from without, must be in a continual decrease,
and quite fail at last. I suspect, moreover, that it is chiefly from
the comets that spirit comes which is indeed the smallest but the most
subtle and useful part of our air, and so much required to sustain the
life of all things with us.”
[45] See my “Science Byways,” pp. 244, 245.
[46] The following passage from Admiral Smyth’s Bedford Catalogue is
worth noticing in this connection:—“We find that both the Chinese and
the Japanese had a zodiac consisting of animals, as _zodiacs_ needs
must, among which they placed a tiger, a peacock, a cat, an alligator,
a duck, an ape, a hog, a rat, and what not. Animals also formed the
_Via Solis_ of the Kirghis, the Mongols, the Persians, the Mantshus,
and the ancient Turks; and the Spanish monks in the army of Cortes
found that the Mexicans had a zodiac with strange creatures in the
departments. Such a striking similitude is assuredly indicative of a
common origin, since the coincidences are too exact in most instances
to be the effect of chance; but where this origin is to be fixed has
been the subject of interminable discussions, and learning, ignorance,
sagacity, and prejudice have long been in battle array against each
other. Diodorus Siculus considers it to be Babylonian, but Bishop
Warburton, somewhat dogmatically tells us, ‘Brute worship gave rise to
the Egyptian asterisms prior to the time of Moses.’” There is now, of
course, very little reason for questioning that Egyptian astronomy was
borrowed from Babylon.
Transcriber’s Notes
Cover created by Transcriber and placed in the Public Domain.
Punctuation, hyphenation, and spelling were made consistent when a
predominant preference was found in this book; otherwise they were not
changed.
Simple typographical errors were corrected; occasional unbalanced
quotation marks retained.
Ambiguous hyphens at the ends of lines were retained.
Some ditto marks have been replaced by the actual text.
Page 83: In the illustration, “O” should be “C”.
Page 171: There is no obvious closing quotation mark to match the
opening mark at “of most unusual age and thickness”.
Page 192: “Divided even between the ocean” may be a misprint for
“evenly”.
Page 197: No matching closing quotation mark for the opening mark at
“the small bright spot”.
Page 222: Transcriber added an opening quotation mark at “Down his
back” to match the closing mark after “He was seen by every one on
board.”
Page 230: No matching closing quotation mark for the opening mark at “a
whale of large size”.
Page 302: Transcriber added an opening quotation mark at “About fifty
years ago” to match the closing mark after “fed himself with the other.”
Page 372: No matching opening quotation mark for the closing mark after
“its lower extremity.”
Page 385: No matching closing quotation mark for the opening mark at
“sweeps off from”.
End of Project Gutenberg's Pleasant Ways in Science, by Richard A. Proctor