of the men of a given locality. The thistle which Adam cursed, according to tradition, is a product of de-volution, botanists assure us. By studying the laws and conditions of evolution in its total range, we have the materials for a science of prophecy, which may ultimately enable man to lay hold on the future, and greatly hasten the progress of civilization. DR. ROBERT G. ECCLES: The botan All science in one sense is pre-vision or prophecy. ical divisions of plants are arbitrary, and do not indicate an absolute separation of species. The difference between those most alike in different genera is no greater than between some which are classified as belonging to the same genera, but of distant orders. The plants of China and the northern part of America are so much alike as to indicate a common origin in the present Arctic region when the two continents were united, and a warmer climate existed in the polar regions. DR. LEWIS G. JANES: A notable distinction between the organic and inorganic kingdoms is observed in their different methods of growth- the latter by accretion, or simple addition to bulk; the former by intussusception, or displacement and renewal of particles throughout the whole tissue. On the theory of spontaneous generation, science has not yet explained how one method was exchanged for the other, in the passage from inorganic to organic structure. COLLATERAL READINGS SUGGESTED IN CONNECTION WITH ESSAY VI. Darwin's Origin of Species; Haeckel's Creation; Spencer's Biology; Huxley's Palæontology and the Doctrine of Evolution (in Critiques and Addresses), Lectures on Evolution, and On the Origin of Species; Lyell's Geology, and Lamarck and Darwin, and Various Theories as to Species; LeConte's Geology; Wallace's Contribution to the Theory of Natural Selection, Geographical Distribution of Plants and Animals, and Malay Archipelago; Chapman's Evolution of Life; St. George Mivart On the Genesis of Species; Powell's Our Heredity from God; Karl Semper's Animal Life as affected by the Natural Condition of Existence; Ransom Dexter's The Kingdoms of Nature. EVOLUTION OF ANIMAL LIFE* ANY subject displayed systematically-as, for instance, in tabular form- may be examined in two ways. We may read the columns of the table vertically, or horizontally; and each method reverses the principle of classification upon which the other is based. Thus, in Mr. Herbert Spencer's famous sociological tables, if we take the sheet devoted to a given nation, and read the columns vertically, we obtain in each column a record of the progress of that nation in some one particular, such as music, literature, mechanic arts, government, social customs, etc.; while by reading across the columns horizontally, we obtain, for the period represented by the line we follow, the condition of the nation in all these particulars. Which way is the best, depends on what we wish to study. If England in the tenth century is our special subject, we read horizontally; if the history of music in England is our subject, we read vertically. Now Evolution can be exhibited in a similar way. We may conceive the different departments of Cosmical, Inorganic, Vegetable, Animal, Human, Social and Spiritual Evolution as constituting the first vertical column, while in other columns, under the heads of Philosophical, Geological, Morphological, Embryological, Geographical, Historical and Experimental, we may give the proofs and facts of Evolution for each department. Which way should this table be read? Horizontally, if we are satisfied as to the truth and fully informed as to the nature of Evolution; vertically, if we wish to get the force of its evidences, and a comprehension of their nature. In the plan of this course of lectures, the horizontal lines have been followed; and I am to speak to you to-night on the Evolution of Animal Life, avoiding, as far as possible, the proofs and illustrations furnished by the fossil remains, the life-history, the distribution and the variation of plants. * COPYRIGHT, 1889, by The New Ideal Publishing Co. This seems to me unfortunate; perhaps because it shuts me out from those wide generalizations which are so much easier for both speaker and hearer than the patient study of details. Some one has said that any smart young man, with pen, ink, and paper, can compose a scheme of cosmogony in two hours. Something like this was done by Poe, in his essay, "Eureka," stating a theory of the universe which, he said, must be true because it was so beautiful. The trouble with such arguments is, that we are not able to say what is beautiful until we have discovered what is true. Still, they have a wonderful charm for us. I think the very general acceptance of the philosophy of Evolution which has come about within the last twenty-five years has been largely due to the perception of its beauty, as a harmonious and comprehensive arrangement of all phenomena. And if I were only permitted to traverse the table to-night vertically, instead of horizontally, I should feel much more certain of entertaining, if not instructing you. In fact, there is no telling how brilliant would be the address I am not going to make! Let me smother my regrets and awaken yours, as I come humbly down to the horizontal method, and confine myself to my theme: the evolution of animal life. Under this title, I do not understand that the origin of animal life by evolution from plant-life, or the origin of the organic by evolution from the inorganic, is meant, although a strict construction might require that meaning. In such a sense, little could be said except in demonstration of ignorance. Until a sharp dividing line between plants and animals can be established, it is not likely that we can philosophize to much purpose as to whether and how that line was crossed by evolution. And as to the doctrine of abiogenesis, or the spontaneous geheration of organic life, its truth has neither been proved by trustworthy experiments nor disproved by the failure of such experiments. Nor does that failure discredit in any degree the philosophy of evolution. Indeed, Professor LeConte, one of the latest and most lucid of writers on this subject, deduces from his second fundamental law of evolution the corollary, that if spontaneous generation ever took place, it necessarily cannot be possible now. To this extent, I do not follow him. It is sufficient here, however, to point out that the origin |