suppose that in primeval times a man suddenly became white or black, or copper-coloured or yellow, or big or small, or bearded or beardless, and thereby achieved such an advantage that his fellows were exterminated and his progeny alone left to continue the race? or does he believe that differences in colour, in size, in shape, in hair, &c. resulted in man from the gradual accumulation of small normal variations? I think we may say that Lord Salisbury believes that the Past Evolution of man has resulted from the accumulation of small variations, not from the accentuation of great abnormalities. And if he believes this as regards the sizes, shapes, colours, structures, &c. of men, what need is there to believe otherwise as regards the sizes, shapes, colours, structures, &c. of birds and beasts? Moreover, if a little evolution—great actually in the case of man, but comparatively speaking little—has occurred in little time, what ground is there for believing that much evolution has not occurred in immensely longer time? If varietal differences have undoubtedly arisen through evolution in a few thousands of years, why should not specific or ordinal differences have arisen during the lapse of many thousands or millions of years? Why then should Lord Salisbury return "a verdict of not proven upon the wider issues the Darwinian school has raised"? When he does so he is most illogical.
That evolution should occur, there is no need that the male and female at opposite ends of the wood who have varied favourably, should meet and interbreed and resist temptation by the way. Every individual of the species they encounter will, on the average, have varied as favourably as themselves, for those who varied unfavourably will have been exterminated. It is true that, owing to retrogression, the individuals of a new generation, on the average, are less perfectly adapted to the environment than their progenitors—that is, the
