objection to the Classification argument is, however,
more plausible. The uncertainty of opinion among Naturalists as to which
are species and which varieties, is one of Mr. Darwin's very strong
arguments that these two names cannot belong to things quite distinct in
nature and origin. The Reviewer says that this argument is of no weight,
because the works of man present exactly the same phenomena; and he
instances patent inventions, and the excessive difficulty of determining
whether they are new or old. I accept the analogy though it is a very
imperfect one, and maintain that such as it is, it is all in favour of
Mr. Darwin's views. For are not all inventions of the same kind directly
affiliated to a common ancestor? Are not improved Steam Engines or
Clocks the lineal descendants of some existing Steam Engine or Clock? Is
there ever a new Creation in Art or Science any more than in Nature? Did
ever patentee absolutely originate any complete and entire invention, no
portion of which was derived from anything that had been made or
described before? It is therefore clear that the difficulty of
distinguishing the various classes of inventions which claim to be new,
is of the same nature as the difficulty of distinguishing varieties and
species, because neither are absolute new creations, but both are alike
descendants of pre-existing forms, from which and from each other they
differ by varying and often imperceptible degrees. It appears, then,
that however plausible this writer's objections may seem, whenever he
descends from generalities to any specific statement, his supposed
difficulties turn out to be in reality strongly confirmatory of Mr.
Darwin's view.

_The "Times," on Natural Selection._

The extraordinary misconception of the whole subject by popular writers
and reviewers, is well shown by an article which appeared in the _Times_
newspaper on "The Reign of Law." Alluding to the supposed economy of
nature, in the adaptation of each species to its own place and its
special use, the reviewer remarks: "To this universal law of the
greatest economy, the law of natural selection stands in direct
antagonism as the law of 'greatest possible waste' of time and of
creative power. To conceive a duck with webbed feet and a spoon-shaped
bill, living by suction, to pass naturally into a gull with webbed feet
and a knife-like bill, living on flesh, in the longest possible time and
in the most laborious possible way, we may