n's treatise it comes in a purely scientific form, addressed only
to scientific men. The notoriety and wide popular perusal of this
treatise appear to have astonished the author even more than the book
itself has astonished the reading world. Coming, as the new
presentation does, from a naturalist of acknowledged character and
ability, and marked by a conscientiousness and candor which have not
always been reciprocated, we have thought it simply right to set forth
the doctrine as fairly and as favorably as we could. There are plenty
to decry it, and the whole theory is widely exposed to attack. For the
arguments on the other side we may look to the numerous adverse
publications which Darwin's volume has already called out, and
especially to those reviews which propose directly to refute it.
Taking various lines and reflecting very diverse modes of thought,
these hostile critics may be expected to concentrate and enforce the
principal objections which can be brought to bear against the
derivative hypothesis in general, and Darwin's new exposition of it in
particular.

Upon the opposing side of the question we have read with attention, 1.
an article in the "North American Review" for April last; 2. one in
the "Christian Examiner," Boston, for May; 3. M. Pictet's article in
the "Bibliotheque Universelle," which we have already made
considerable use of, which seems throughout most able and correct, and
which in tone and fairness is admirably in contrast with, 4. the
article in the "Edinburgh Review" for May, attributed--although
against a large amount of internal presumptive evidence--to the most
distinguished British comparative anatomist; 5. an article in the
"North British Review" for May; 6. finally, Professor Agassiz has
afforded an early opportunity to peruse the criticisms he makes in the
forthcoming third volume of his great work by a publication of them in
advance in the "American Journal of Science" for July.

In our survey of the lively discussion which has been raised, it
matters little how our own particular opinions may incline. But we may
confess to an impression, thus far, that the doctrine of the permanent
and complete immutability of species has not been established, and may
fairly be doubted. We believe that species vary, and that "Natural
Selection" works; but we suspect that its operation, like every
analogous natural operation, may be limited by something else. Just as
every species by its natural ra