Page:Lippincotts Monthly Magazine-06.pdf/35

30 species by hybridization, nor allow the descent of living species from any other living species: both these propositions are errors of misapprehension or misrepresentation.

In order to understand the history of creation of a complex being, it is necessary to analyze it and ascertain of what it consists. In analyzing the construction of an animal or plant we readily arrange its characters into those which it possesses in common with other animals or plants, and those in which it resembles none other: the latter are its individual characters, constituting its individuality. Next we find a large body of characters, generally of a very obvious kind, which it possesses in common with a generally large number of individuals, which, taken collectively, all men are accustomed to call a species: these characters we consequently name specific. Thirdly, we find characters, generally in parts of the body which are of importance in the activities of the animal, or which lie in near relation to its mechanical construction in details, which are shared by a still larger number of individuals than those which were similar in specific characters. In other words, it is common to a large number of species. This kind of character we call generic, and the grouping it indicates is a genus.

Farther analysis brings to light characters of organism which are common to a still greater number of individuals: this we call a family character. Those which are common to still more numerous individuals are the ordinal: they are usually found in parts of the structure which have the closest connection with the whole life-history of the being. Finally, the individuals composing many orders will be found identical in some important character of the systems by which ordinary life is maintained, as in the nervous and circulatory: the divisions thus outlined are called classes.

By this process of analysis we reach in our animal or plant those peculiarities which are common to the whole animal or vegetable kingdom, and then we have exhausted the structure so completely that we have nothing remaining to take into account beyond the cell-structure or homogeneous protoplasm by which we know that it is organic, and not a mineral.

The history of the origin of a type, as species, genus, order, etc., is simply the history of the origin of the structure or structures which define those groups respectively. It is nothing more nor less than this, whether a man or an insect be the object of investigation.

evidences of derivation of species from species, within the limits of the genus, are abundant and conclusive. In the first place, the rule which naturalists observe in defining species is a clear consequence of such a state of things. It is not amount and degree of difference that determine the definition of species from species, but it is the permanency of the characters in all cases and under all circumstances. Many species of the systems include varieties and extremes of form, etc., which, were they at all times distinct, and not connected by intermediate forms, would be estimated as species by the same and other writers, as can be easily seen by reference to their works.

Thus, species are either "restricted" or "protean," the latter embracing many, the former few variations; and the varieties included by the protean species are often as different from each other in their typical forms as are the "restricted" species. As an example, the species Homo sapiens (man) will suffice. His primary varieties are as distinct as the species of many well-known genera, but cannot be defined, owing to the existence of innumerable intermediate forms between them.

As to the common origin of such "varieties" of the protean species, naturalists never had any doubt, yet when it comes to the restricted "species," the anti-developmentalist denies