formulated and understood by Darwin himself. We desire, however, that justice should be done to others as well as to Darwin; and if there is not in the work before us a deliberate attempt to ignore the claims of Herbert Spencer as an exponent of the theory of evolution we are greatly deceived. Turning to the index, we find the following entry: "Spencer, early publications, 215"—that and nothing more. Turning to page 215,—we find it mentioned that Spencer was "one of the few out-and-out evolutionists before the publication of the Origin of Species." A reference is made to two of his early essays as bearing this out, and the following quotation is given from one of them: "Any existing species, animal or vegetable, when placed under conditions different from its previous ones, immediately begins to undergo certain changes of structure fitting it for new conditions." In all (including the quotation), sixteen lines of large type are allotted to Mr. Spencer; and this is his share in the volume. In the bibliography at the end of the book there is no mention of his name; not even the two early essays referred to in the index are allowed a place. Yet one of the headings in the bibliography is, "The Natural Philosophers and Speculative Evolutionists." Mr. Morley is there, on the strength of his work on Diderot and the Encyclopædists; and G. H. Lewes, on the strength of an article published in Eraser's Magazine in 1857; Mr. Fiske is there, very properly, on the strength of his Cosmic Philosophy; but Mr. Spencer's works, on which Cosmic Philosophy is professedly based, are absolutely ignored. How is this to be explained? It would be ridiculous on our part to enter upon a serious argument to prove that, as a "speculative evolutionist," Mr. Spencer occupies simply the foremost position in the world to-day. Darwin fully recognized the fact; Huxley recognizes it; Mr. Sully, who has gone over very much the same ground as Prof. Osborn, says that "the philosopher who has done more than any one else to elaborate a consistent philosophy of evolution on a scientific basis is Mr. Herbert Spencer"; Mr. Leslie Stephen, in the introduction to his Science of Ethics, speaks of Mr. Spencer as "the leading exponent of the philosophy of evolution," and of his having "worked out an encyclopedic system of which his ethical doctrine is the crown and completion"; Geddes and Thomson, in their very able work on The Evolution of Sex (Contemporary Science Series), refer repeatedly to Spencer, and say pointedly that to him is due "the first adequate discussion of growth." But why multiply opinions? Mr. Spencer is not beyond disparagement, or attempted disparagement, by smaller minds; but in the judgment of the foremost men of the present day his position as an original, powerful, and most fertile thinker, in regard to the problems of evolution in general and of biology in particular, is decisively established. The omission, however, of Mr. Spencer's name is not the only peculiarity of Prof. Osborn's bibliography. We look in vain for the names of Romanes, Grant Allen, Patrick Geddes, J. Arthur Thomson, and Andrew Wilson, not to mention any others. It can not be urged in explanation that the bibliography only comes down to the date of Darwin's Origin of Species, because it contains dates as recent as 1892. We can only conclude, therefore, that a partisan effort is being made to keep as much as possible from the knowledge of Columbia students in biology not only Mr. Spencer's work in biology and the general theory of evolution, but that of other writers who recognize the commanding position which he occupies.
The historical sketch, which the work before us purports to give, is in general well done, and the student who masters it will have a tolerably correct and complete idea of the work of Darwin's predecessors. To many doubtless the information given will come as a surprise, so widespread is the idea that evolution sprang in full armor from the brain of Darwin. Darwin himself was surprised when he took to reading Buffon. "I have read Buffon," he says in a letter to Huxley; "whole pages are laughably like mine. It is surprising to see how candid it makes one to see one's views in another man's words." Darwin was a man who was candid at all times, and not only candid but generous. Were he still living he would be foremost in regretting that a book written, as we may say, in his honor should have done so much less than justice to one whom he honored and esteemed so highly.
