Remove superfluous '../text/' from internal links, as epubcheck no longer outputs errors without them

src/epub/content.opf

@@ -3,8 +3,8 @@
 	<metadata xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/">
 		<dc:identifier id="uid">url:https://standardebooks.org/ebooks/charles-darwin/the-origin-of-species</dc:identifier>
 		<dc:date>2019-01-15T04:52:30Z</dc:date>
-		<meta property="dcterms:modified">2019-01-16T01:59:59Z</meta>
-		<meta property="se:revision-number">5</meta>
+		<meta property="dcterms:modified">2019-01-20T17:52:44Z</meta>
+		<meta property="se:revision-number">6</meta>
 		<dc:rights>The source text and artwork in this ebook edition are believed to be in the U.S. public domain. This ebook edition is released under the terms in the CC0 1.0 Universal Public Domain Dedication, available at https://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/. For full license information see the Uncopyright file included at the end of this ebook.</dc:rights>
 		<dc:publisher id="publisher">Standard Ebooks</dc:publisher>
 		<meta property="file-as" refines="#publisher">Standard Ebooks</meta>

src/epub/text/chapter-11.xhtml

@@ -47,7 +47,7 @@
 				<p>Even the wide interval between birds and reptiles has been shown by the naturalist just quoted to be partially bridged over in the most unexpected manner, on the one hand, by the ostrich and extinct Archeopteryx, and on the other hand by the Compsognathus, one of the Dinosaurians⁠—that group which includes the most gigantic of all terrestrial reptiles. Turning to the Invertebrata, Barrande asserts, a higher authority could not be named, that he is every day taught that, although palaeozoic animals can certainly be classed under existing groups, yet that at this ancient period the groups were not so distinctly separated from each other as they now are.</p>
 				<p>Some writers have objected to any extinct species, or group of species, being considered as intermediate between any two living species, or groups of species. If by this term it is meant that an extinct form is directly intermediate in all its characters between two living forms or groups, the objection is probably valid. But in a natural classification many fossil species certainly stand between living species, and some extinct genera between living genera, even between genera belonging to distinct families. The most common case, especially with respect to very distinct groups, such as fish and reptiles, seems to be that, supposing them to be distinguished at the present day by a score of characters, the ancient members are separated by a somewhat lesser number of characters, so that the two groups formerly made a somewhat nearer approach to each other than they now do.</p>
 				<p>It is a common belief that the more ancient a form is, by so much the more it tends to connect by some of its characters groups now widely separated from each other. This remark no doubt must be restricted to those groups which have undergone much change in the course of geological ages; and it would be difficult to prove the truth of the proposition, for every now and then even a living animal, as the Lepidosiren, is discovered having affinities directed towards very distinct groups. Yet if we compare the older Reptiles and Batrachians, the older Fish, the older Cephalopods, and the eocene Mammals, with the recent members of the same classes, we must admit that there is truth in the remark.</p>
-				<p>Let us see how far these several facts and inferences accord with the theory of descent with modification. As the subject is somewhat complex, I must request the reader to turn to the <a href="../text/chapter-4.xhtml#illustration-1">diagram in the fourth chapter</a>. We may suppose that the numbered letters in italics represent genera, and the dotted lines diverging from them the species in each genus. The diagram is much too simple, too few genera and too few species being given, but this is unimportant for us. The horizontal lines may represent successive geological formations, and all the forms beneath the uppermost line may be considered as extinct. The three existing genera, a14, q14, p14, will form a small family; b14 and f14, a closely allied family or subfamily; and o14, i14, m14, a third family. These three families, together with the many extinct genera on the several lines of descent diverging from the parent form (A) will form an order; for all will have inherited something in common from their ancient progenitor. On the principle of the continued tendency to divergence of character, which was formerly illustrated by this diagram, the more recent any form is the more it will generally differ from its ancient progenitor. Hence, we can understand the rule that the most ancient fossils differ most from existing forms. We must not, however, assume that divergence of character is a necessary contingency; it depends solely on the descendants from a species being thus enabled to seize on many and different places in the economy of nature. Therefore it is quite possible, as we have seen in the case of some Silurian forms, that a species might go on being slightly modified in relation to its slightly altered conditions of life, and yet retain throughout a vast period the same general characteristics. This is represented in the diagram by the letter F14.</p>
+				<p>Let us see how far these several facts and inferences accord with the theory of descent with modification. As the subject is somewhat complex, I must request the reader to turn to the <a href="chapter-4.xhtml#illustration-1">diagram in the fourth chapter</a>. We may suppose that the numbered letters in italics represent genera, and the dotted lines diverging from them the species in each genus. The diagram is much too simple, too few genera and too few species being given, but this is unimportant for us. The horizontal lines may represent successive geological formations, and all the forms beneath the uppermost line may be considered as extinct. The three existing genera, a14, q14, p14, will form a small family; b14 and f14, a closely allied family or subfamily; and o14, i14, m14, a third family. These three families, together with the many extinct genera on the several lines of descent diverging from the parent form (A) will form an order; for all will have inherited something in common from their ancient progenitor. On the principle of the continued tendency to divergence of character, which was formerly illustrated by this diagram, the more recent any form is the more it will generally differ from its ancient progenitor. Hence, we can understand the rule that the most ancient fossils differ most from existing forms. We must not, however, assume that divergence of character is a necessary contingency; it depends solely on the descendants from a species being thus enabled to seize on many and different places in the economy of nature. Therefore it is quite possible, as we have seen in the case of some Silurian forms, that a species might go on being slightly modified in relation to its slightly altered conditions of life, and yet retain throughout a vast period the same general characteristics. This is represented in the diagram by the letter F14.</p>
 				<p>All the many forms, extinct and recent, descended from (A), make, as before remarked, one order; and this order, from the continued effects of extinction and divergence of character, has become divided into several subfamilies and families, some of which are supposed to have perished at different periods, and some to have endured to the present day.</p>
 				<p>By looking at the diagram we can see that if many of the extinct forms supposed to be embedded in the successive formations, were discovered at several points low down in the series, the three existing families on the uppermost line would be rendered less distinct from each other. If, for instance, the genera a1, a5, a10, f8, m3, m6, m9, were disinterred, these three families would be so closely linked together that they probably would have to be united into one great family, in nearly the same manner as has occurred with ruminants and certain pachyderms. Yet he who objected to consider as intermediate the extinct genera, which thus link together the living genera of three families, would be partly justified, for they are intermediate, not directly, but only by a long and circuitous course through many widely different forms. If many extinct forms were to be discovered above one of the middle horizontal lines or geological formations⁠—for instance, above No. <span epub:type="z3998:roman">VI</span>⁠—but none from beneath this line, then only two of the families (those on the left hand a14, <abbr>etc.</abbr>, and b14, <abbr>etc.</abbr>) would have to be united into one; and there would remain two families which would be less distinct from each other than they were before the discovery of the fossils. So again, if the three families formed of eight genera (a14 to m14), on the uppermost line, be supposed to differ from each other by half-a-dozen important characters, then the families which existed at a period marked <span epub:type="z3998:roman">VI</span> would certainly have differed from each other by a less number of characters; for they would at this early stage of descent have diverged in a less degree from their common progenitor. Thus it comes that ancient and extinct genera are often in a greater or less degree intermediate in character between their modified descendants, or between their collateral relations.</p>
 				<p>Under nature the process will be far more complicated than is represented in the diagram; for the groups will have been more numerous; they will have endured for extremely unequal lengths of time, and will have been modified in various degrees. As we possess only the last volume of the geological record, and that in a very broken condition, we have no right to expect, except in rare cases, to fill up the wide intervals in the natural system, and thus to unite distinct families or orders. All that we have a right to expect is, that those groups which have, within known geological periods, undergone much modification, should in the older formations make some slight approach to each other; so that the older members should differ less from each other in some of their characters than do the existing members of the same groups; and this by the concurrent evidence of our best palaeontologists is frequently the case.</p>

src/epub/text/chapter-14.xhtml

@@ -12,7 +12,7 @@
 				<span epub:type="subtitle">Mutual Affinities of Organic Beings: Morphology⁠—Embryology⁠—Rudimentary Organs⁠—Classification</span>
 			</h2>
 			<p>From the most remote period in the history of the world organic beings have been found to resemble each other in descending degrees, so that they can be classed in groups under groups. This classification is not arbitrary like the grouping of the stars in constellations. The existence of groups would have been of simple significance, if one group had been exclusively fitted to inhabit the land, and another the water; one to feed on flesh, another on vegetable matter, and so on; but the case is widely different, for it is notorious how commonly members of even the same subgroup have different habits. In the second and fourth chapters, on Variation and on Natural Selection, I have attempted to show that within each country it is the widely ranging, the much diffused and common, that is the dominant species, belonging to the larger genera in each class, which vary most. The varieties, or incipient species, thus produced, ultimately become converted into new and distinct species; and these, on the principle of inheritance, tend to produce other new and dominant species. Consequently the groups which are now large, and which generally include many dominant species, tend to go on increasing in size. I further attempted to show that from the varying descendants of each species trying to occupy as many and as different places as possible in the economy of nature, they constantly tend to diverge in character. This latter conclusion is supported by observing the great diversity of forms, which, in any small area, come into the closest competition, and by certain facts in naturalisation.</p>
-			<p>I attempted also to show that there is a steady tendency in the forms which are increasing in number and diverging in character, to supplant and exterminate the preceding, less divergent and less improved forms. I request the reader to turn to the <a href="../text/chapter-4.xhtml#illustration-1">diagram</a> illustrating the action, as formerly explained, of these several principles; and he will see that the inevitable result is, that the modified descendants proceeding from one progenitor become broken up into groups subordinate to groups. In the diagram each letter on the uppermost line may represent a genus including several species; and the whole of the genera along this upper line form together one class, for all are descended from one ancient parent, and, consequently, have inherited something in common. But the three genera on the left hand have, on this same principle, much in common, and form a subfamily, distinct from that containing the next two genera on the right hand, which diverged from a common parent at the fifth stage of descent. These five genera have also much in common, though less than when grouped in subfamilies; and they form a family distinct from that containing the three genera still further to the right hand, which diverged at an earlier period. And all these genera, descended from (A), form an order distinct from the genera descended from (I). So that we here have many species descended from a single progenitor grouped into genera; and the genera into subfamilies, families and orders, all under one great class. The grand fact of the natural subordination of organic beings in groups under groups, which, from its familiarity, does not always sufficiently strike us, is in my judgment thus explained. No doubt organic beings, like all other objects, can be classed in many ways, either artificially by single characters, or more naturally by a number of characters. We know, for instance, that minerals and the elemental substances can be thus arranged. In this case there is of course no relation to genealogical succession, and no cause can at present be assigned for their falling into groups. But with organic beings the case is different, and the view above given accords with their natural arrangement in group under group; and no other explanation has ever been attempted.</p>
+			<p>I attempted also to show that there is a steady tendency in the forms which are increasing in number and diverging in character, to supplant and exterminate the preceding, less divergent and less improved forms. I request the reader to turn to the <a href="chapter-4.xhtml#illustration-1">diagram</a> illustrating the action, as formerly explained, of these several principles; and he will see that the inevitable result is, that the modified descendants proceeding from one progenitor become broken up into groups subordinate to groups. In the diagram each letter on the uppermost line may represent a genus including several species; and the whole of the genera along this upper line form together one class, for all are descended from one ancient parent, and, consequently, have inherited something in common. But the three genera on the left hand have, on this same principle, much in common, and form a subfamily, distinct from that containing the next two genera on the right hand, which diverged from a common parent at the fifth stage of descent. These five genera have also much in common, though less than when grouped in subfamilies; and they form a family distinct from that containing the three genera still further to the right hand, which diverged at an earlier period. And all these genera, descended from (A), form an order distinct from the genera descended from (I). So that we here have many species descended from a single progenitor grouped into genera; and the genera into subfamilies, families and orders, all under one great class. The grand fact of the natural subordination of organic beings in groups under groups, which, from its familiarity, does not always sufficiently strike us, is in my judgment thus explained. No doubt organic beings, like all other objects, can be classed in many ways, either artificially by single characters, or more naturally by a number of characters. We know, for instance, that minerals and the elemental substances can be thus arranged. In this case there is of course no relation to genealogical succession, and no cause can at present be assigned for their falling into groups. But with organic beings the case is different, and the view above given accords with their natural arrangement in group under group; and no other explanation has ever been attempted.</p>
 			<p>Naturalists, as we have seen, try to arrange the species, genera and families in each class, on what is called the Natural System. But what is meant by this system? Some authors look at it merely as a scheme for arranging together those living objects which are most alike, and for separating those which are most unlike; or as an artificial method of enunciating, as briefly as possible, general propositions⁠—that is, by one sentence to give the characters common, for instance, to all mammals, by another those common to all carnivora, by another those common to the dog-genus, and then, by adding a single sentence, a full description is given of each kind of dog. The ingenuity and utility of this system are indisputable. But many naturalists think that something more is meant by the Natural System; they believe that it reveals the plan of the Creator; but unless it be specified whether order in time or space, or both, or what else is meant by the plan of the Creator, it seems to me that nothing is thus added to our knowledge. Expressions such as that famous one by Linnaeus, which we often meet with in a more or less concealed form, namely, that the characters do not make the genus, but that the genus gives the characters, seem to imply that some deeper bond is included in our classifications than mere resemblance. I believe that this is the case, and that community of descent⁠—the one known cause of close similarity in organic beings⁠—is the bond, which, though observed by various degrees of modification, is partially revealed to us by our classifications.</p>
 			<p>Let us now consider the rules followed in classification, and the difficulties which are encountered on the view that classification either gives some unknown plan of creation, or is simply a scheme for enunciating general propositions and of placing together the forms most like each other. It might have been thought (and was in ancient times thought) that those parts of the structure which determined the habits of life, and the general place of each being in the economy of nature, would be of very high importance in classification. Nothing can be more false. No one regards the external similarity of a mouse to a shrew, of a dugong to a whale, of a whale to a fish, as of any importance. These resemblances, though so intimately connected with the whole life of the being, are ranked as merely “adaptive or analogical characters;” but to the consideration of these resemblances we shall recur. It may even be given as a general rule, that the less any part of the organisation is concerned with special habits, the more important it becomes for classification. As an instance: Owen, in speaking of the dugong, says, “The generative organs, being those which are most remotely related to the habits and food of an animal, I have always regarded as affording very clear indications of its true affinities. We are least likely in the modifications of these organs to mistake a merely adaptive for an essential character.” With plants how remarkable it is that the organs of vegetation, on which their nutrition and life depend, are of little signification; whereas the organs of reproduction, with their product the seed and embryo, are of paramount importance! So again, in formerly discussing certain morphological characters which are not functionally important, we have seen that they are often of the highest service in classification. This depends on their constancy throughout many allied groups; and their constancy chiefly depends on any slight deviations not having been preserved and accumulated by natural selection, which acts only on serviceable characters.</p>
 			<p>That the mere physiological importance of an organ does not determine its classificatory value, is almost proved by the fact, that in allied groups, in which the same organ, as we have every reason to suppose, has nearly the same physiological value, its classificatory value is widely different. No naturalist can have worked at any group without being struck with this fact; and it has been fully acknowledged in the writings of almost every author. It will suffice to quote the highest authority, Robert Brown, who, in speaking of certain organs in the Proteaceae, says their generic importance, “like that of all their parts, not only in this, but, as I apprehend in every natural family, is very unequal, and in some cases seems to be entirely lost.” Again, in another work he says, the genera of the Connaraceae “differ in having one or more ovaria, in the existence or absence of albumen, in the imbricate or valvular aestivation. Any one of these characters singly is frequently of more than generic importance, though here even, when all taken together, they appear insufficient to separate Cnestis from Connarus.” To give an example among insects: in one great division of the Hymenoptera, the antennae, as Westwood has remarked, are most constant in structure; in another division they differ much, and the differences are of quite subordinate value in classification; yet no one will say that the antennae in these two divisions of the same order are of unequal physiological importance. Any number of instances could be given of the varying importance for classification of the same important organ within the same group of beings.</p>
@@ -25,7 +25,7 @@
 			<p>Geographical distribution has often been used, though perhaps not quite logically, in classification, more especially in very large groups of closely allied forms. Temminck insists on the utility or even necessity of this practice in certain groups of birds; and it has been followed by several entomologists and botanists.</p>
 			<p>Finally, with respect to the comparative value of the various groups of species, such as orders, suborders, families, subfamilies, and genera, they seem to be, at least at present, almost arbitrary. Several of the best botanists, such as <abbr>Mr.</abbr> Bentham and others, have strongly insisted on their arbitrary value. Instances could be given among plants and insects, of a group first ranked by practised naturalists as only a genus, and then raised to the rank of a subfamily or family; and this has been done, not because further research has detected important structural differences, at first overlooked, but because numerous allied species, with slightly different grades of difference, have been subsequently discovered.</p>
 			<p>All the foregoing rules and aids and difficulties in classification may be explained, if I do not greatly deceive myself, on the view that the natural system is founded on descent with modification⁠—that the characters which naturalists consider as showing true affinity between any two or more species, are those which have been inherited from a common parent, all true classification being genealogical⁠—that community of descent is the hidden bond which naturalists have been unconsciously seeking, and not some unknown plan of creation, or the enunciation of general propositions, and the mere putting together and separating objects more or less alike.</p>
-			<p>But I must explain my meaning more fully. I believe that the <em>arrangement</em> of the groups within each class, in due subordination and relation to each other, must be strictly genealogical in order to be natural; but that the <em>amount</em> of difference in the several branches or groups, though allied in the same degree in blood to their common progenitor, may differ greatly, being due to the different degrees of modification which they have undergone; and this is expressed by the forms being ranked under different genera, families, sections or orders. The reader will best understand what is meant, if he will take the trouble to refer to the <a href="../text/chapter-4.xhtml#illustration-1">diagram</a> in the fourth chapter. We will suppose the letters A to L to represent allied genera existing during the Silurian epoch, and descended from some still earlier form. In three of these genera (A, F, and I) a species has transmitted modified descendants to the present day, represented by the fifteen genera (a14 to z14) on the uppermost horizontal line. Now, all these modified descendants from a single species are related in blood or descent in the same degree. They may metaphorically be called cousins to the same millionth degree, yet they differ widely and in different degrees from each other. The forms descended from A, now broken up into two or three families, constitute a distinct order from those descended from I, also broken up into two families. Nor can the existing species descended from A be ranked in the same genus with the parent A, or those from I with parent I. But the existing genus F14 may be supposed to have been but slightly modified, and it will then rank with the parent genus F; just as some few still living organisms belong to Silurian genera. So that the comparative value of the differences between these organic beings, which are all related to each other in the same degree in blood, has come to be widely different. Nevertheless, their genealogical <em>arrangement</em> remains strictly true, not only at the present time, but at each successive period of descent. All the modified descendants from A will have inherited something in common from their common parent, as will all the descendants from I; so will it be with each subordinate branch of descendants at each successive stage. If, however, we suppose any descendant of A or of I to have become so much modified as to have lost all traces of its parentage in this case, its place in the natural system will be lost, as seems to have occurred with some few existing organisms. All the descendants of the genus F, along its whole line of descent, are supposed to have been but little modified, and they form a single genus. But this genus, though much isolated, will still occupy its proper intermediate position. The representation of the groups as here given in the diagram on a flat surface, is much too simple. The branches ought to have diverged in all directions. If the names of the groups had been simply written down in a linear series the representation would have been still less natural; and it is notoriously not possible to represent in a series, on a flat surface, the affinities which we discover in nature among the beings of the same group. Thus, the natural system is genealogical in its arrangement, like a pedigree. But the amount of modification which the different groups have undergone has to be expressed by ranking them under different so-called genera, subfamilies, families, sections, orders, and classes.</p>
+			<p>But I must explain my meaning more fully. I believe that the <em>arrangement</em> of the groups within each class, in due subordination and relation to each other, must be strictly genealogical in order to be natural; but that the <em>amount</em> of difference in the several branches or groups, though allied in the same degree in blood to their common progenitor, may differ greatly, being due to the different degrees of modification which they have undergone; and this is expressed by the forms being ranked under different genera, families, sections or orders. The reader will best understand what is meant, if he will take the trouble to refer to the <a href="chapter-4.xhtml#illustration-1">diagram</a> in the fourth chapter. We will suppose the letters A to L to represent allied genera existing during the Silurian epoch, and descended from some still earlier form. In three of these genera (A, F, and I) a species has transmitted modified descendants to the present day, represented by the fifteen genera (a14 to z14) on the uppermost horizontal line. Now, all these modified descendants from a single species are related in blood or descent in the same degree. They may metaphorically be called cousins to the same millionth degree, yet they differ widely and in different degrees from each other. The forms descended from A, now broken up into two or three families, constitute a distinct order from those descended from I, also broken up into two families. Nor can the existing species descended from A be ranked in the same genus with the parent A, or those from I with parent I. But the existing genus F14 may be supposed to have been but slightly modified, and it will then rank with the parent genus F; just as some few still living organisms belong to Silurian genera. So that the comparative value of the differences between these organic beings, which are all related to each other in the same degree in blood, has come to be widely different. Nevertheless, their genealogical <em>arrangement</em> remains strictly true, not only at the present time, but at each successive period of descent. All the modified descendants from A will have inherited something in common from their common parent, as will all the descendants from I; so will it be with each subordinate branch of descendants at each successive stage. If, however, we suppose any descendant of A or of I to have become so much modified as to have lost all traces of its parentage in this case, its place in the natural system will be lost, as seems to have occurred with some few existing organisms. All the descendants of the genus F, along its whole line of descent, are supposed to have been but little modified, and they form a single genus. But this genus, though much isolated, will still occupy its proper intermediate position. The representation of the groups as here given in the diagram on a flat surface, is much too simple. The branches ought to have diverged in all directions. If the names of the groups had been simply written down in a linear series the representation would have been still less natural; and it is notoriously not possible to represent in a series, on a flat surface, the affinities which we discover in nature among the beings of the same group. Thus, the natural system is genealogical in its arrangement, like a pedigree. But the amount of modification which the different groups have undergone has to be expressed by ranking them under different so-called genera, subfamilies, families, sections, orders, and classes.</p>
 			<p>It may be worth while to illustrate this view of classification, by taking the case of languages. If we possessed a perfect pedigree of mankind, a genealogical arrangement of the races of man would afford the best classification of the various languages now spoken throughout the world; and if all extinct languages, and all intermediate and slowly changing dialects, were to be included, such an arrangement would be the only possible one. Yet it might be that some ancient languages had altered very little and had given rise to few new languages, whilst others had altered much owing to the spreading, isolation and state of civilisation of the several co-descended races, and had thus given rise to many new dialects and languages. The various degrees of difference between the languages of the same stock would have to be expressed by groups subordinate to groups; but the proper or even the only possible arrangement would still be genealogical; and this would be strictly natural, as it would connect together all languages, extinct and recent, by the closest affinities, and would give the filiation and origin of each tongue.</p>
 			<p>In confirmation of this view, let us glance at the classification of varieties, which are known or believed to be descended from a single species. These are grouped under the species, with the subvarieties under the varieties; and in some cases, as with the domestic pigeon, with several other grades of difference. Nearly the same rules are followed as in classifying species. Authors have insisted on the necessity of arranging varieties on a natural instead of an artificial system; we are cautioned, for instance, not to class two varieties of the pineapple together, merely because their fruit, though the most important part, happens to be nearly identical; no one puts the Swedish and common turnip together, though the esculent and thickened stems are so similar. Whatever part is found to be most constant, is used in classing varieties: thus the great agriculturist Marshall says the horns are very useful for this purpose with cattle, because they are less variable than the shape or colour of the body, <abbr>etc.</abbr>; whereas with sheep the horns are much less serviceable, because less constant. In classing varieties, I apprehend that if we had a real pedigree, a genealogical classification would be universally preferred; and it has been attempted in some cases. For we might feel sure, whether there had been more or less modification, that the principle of inheritance would keep the forms together which were allied in the greatest number of points. In tumbler pigeons, though some of the subvarieties differ in the important character of the length of the beak, yet all are kept together from having the common habit of tumbling; but the short-faced breed has nearly or quite lost this habit; nevertheless, without any thought on the subject, these tumblers are kept in the same group, because allied in blood and alike in some other respects.</p>
 			<p>With species in a state of nature, every naturalist has in fact brought descent into his classification; for he includes in his lowest grade, that of species, the two sexes; and how enormously these sometimes differ in the most important characters is known to every naturalist: scarcely a single fact can be predicated in common of the adult males and hermaphrodites of certain cirripedes, and yet no one dreams of separating them. As soon as the three Orchidean forms, Monachanthus, Myanthus, and Catasetum, which had previously been ranked as three distinct genera, were known to be sometimes produced on the same plant, they were immediately considered as varieties; and now I have been able to show that they are the male, female, and hermaphrodite forms of the same species. The naturalist includes as one species the various larval stages of the same individual, however much they may differ from each other and from the adult; as well as the so-called alternate generations of Steenstrup, which can only in a technical sense be considered as the same individual. He includes monsters and varieties, not from their partial resemblance to the parent-form, but because they are descended from it.</p>
@@ -49,7 +49,7 @@
 				<p>As the modified descendants of dominant species, belonging to the larger genera, tend to inherit the advantages which made the groups to which they belong large and their parents dominant, they are almost sure to spread widely, and to seize on more and more places in the economy of nature. The larger and more dominant groups within each class thus tend to go on increasing in size, and they consequently supplant many smaller and feebler groups. Thus, we can account for the fact that all organisms, recent and extinct, are included under a few great orders and under still fewer classes. As showing how few the higher groups are in number, and how widely they are spread throughout the world, the fact is striking that the discovery of Australia has not added an insect belonging to a new class, and that in the vegetable kingdom, as I learn from <abbr>Dr.</abbr> Hooker, it has added only two or three families of small size.</p>
 				<p>In the chapter on geological succession I attempted to show, on the principle of each group having generally diverged much in character during the long-continued process of modification, how it is that the more ancient forms of life often present characters in some degree intermediate between existing groups. As some few of the old and intermediate forms having transmitted to the present day descendants but little modified, these constitute our so-called osculant or aberrant groups. The more aberrant any form is, the greater must be the number of connecting forms which have been exterminated and utterly lost. And we have evidence of aberrant groups having suffered severely from extinction, for they are almost always represented by extremely few species; and such species as do occur are generally very distinct from each other, which again implies extinction. The genera Ornithorhynchus and Lepidosiren, for example, would not have been less aberrant had each been represented by a dozen species, instead of as at present by a single one, or by two or three. We can, I think, account for this fact only by looking at aberrant groups as forms which have been conquered by more successful competitors, with a few members still preserved under unusually favourable conditions.</p>
 				<p><abbr>Mr.</abbr> Waterhouse has remarked that when a member belonging to one group of animals exhibits an affinity to a quite distinct group, this affinity in most cases is general and not special: thus, according to <abbr>Mr.</abbr> Waterhouse, of all Rodents, the bizcacha is most nearly related to Marsupials; but in the points in which it approaches this order, its relations are general, that is, not to any one Marsupial species more than to another. As these points of affinity are believed to be real and not merely adaptive, they must be due in accordance with our view to inheritance from a common progenitor. Therefore, we must suppose either that all Rodents, including the bizcacha, branched off from some ancient Marsupial, which will naturally have been more or less intermediate in character with respect to all existing Marsupials; or that both Rodents and Marsupials branched off from a common progenitor, and that both groups have since undergone much modification in divergent directions. On either view we must suppose that the bizcacha has retained, by inheritance, more of the character of its ancient progenitor than have other Rodents; and therefore it will not be specially related to any one existing Marsupial, but indirectly to all or nearly all Marsupials, from having partially retained the character of their common progenitor, or of some early member of the group. On the other hand, of all Marsupials, as <abbr>Mr.</abbr> Waterhouse has remarked, the Phascolomys resembles most nearly, not any one species, but the general order of Rodents. In this case, however, it may be strongly suspected that the resemblance is only analogical, owing to the Phascolomys having become adapted to habits like those of a Rodent. The elder De Candolle has made nearly similar observations on the general nature of the affinities of distinct families of plants.</p>
-				<p>On the principle of the multiplication and gradual divergence in character of the species descended from a common progenitor, together with their retention by inheritance of some characters in common, we can understand the excessively complex and radiating affinities by which all the members of the same family or higher group are connected together. For the common progenitor of a whole family, now broken up by extinction into distinct groups and subgroups, will have transmitted some of its characters, modified in various ways and degrees, to all the species; and they will consequently be related to each other by circuitous lines of affinity of various lengths (as may be seen in the <a href="../text/chapter-4.xhtml#illustration-1">diagram</a> so often referred to), mounting up through many predecessors. As it is difficult to show the blood-relationship between the numerous kindred of any ancient and noble family, even by the aid of a genealogical tree, and almost impossible to do so without this aid, we can understand the extraordinary difficulty which naturalists have experienced in describing, without the aid of a diagram, the various affinities which they perceive between the many living and extinct members of the same great natural class.</p>
+				<p>On the principle of the multiplication and gradual divergence in character of the species descended from a common progenitor, together with their retention by inheritance of some characters in common, we can understand the excessively complex and radiating affinities by which all the members of the same family or higher group are connected together. For the common progenitor of a whole family, now broken up by extinction into distinct groups and subgroups, will have transmitted some of its characters, modified in various ways and degrees, to all the species; and they will consequently be related to each other by circuitous lines of affinity of various lengths (as may be seen in the <a href="chapter-4.xhtml#illustration-1">diagram</a> so often referred to), mounting up through many predecessors. As it is difficult to show the blood-relationship between the numerous kindred of any ancient and noble family, even by the aid of a genealogical tree, and almost impossible to do so without this aid, we can understand the extraordinary difficulty which naturalists have experienced in describing, without the aid of a diagram, the various affinities which they perceive between the many living and extinct members of the same great natural class.</p>
 				<p>Extinction, as we have seen in the fourth chapter, has played an important part in defining and widening the intervals between the several groups in each class. We may thus account for the distinctness of whole classes from each other⁠—for instance, of birds from all other vertebrate animals⁠—by the belief that many ancient forms of life have been utterly lost, through which the early progenitors of birds were formerly connected with the early progenitors of the other and at that time less differentiated vertebrate classes. There has been much less extinction of the forms of life which once connected fishes with Batrachians. There has been still less within some whole classes, for instance the Crustacea, for here the most wonderfully diverse forms are still linked together by a long and only partially broken chain of affinities. Extinction has only defined the groups: it has by no means made them; for if every form which has ever lived on this earth were suddenly to reappear, though it would be quite impossible to give definitions by which each group could be distinguished, still a natural classification, or at least a natural arrangement, would be possible. We shall see this by turning to the diagram: the letters, A to L, may represent eleven Silurian genera, some of which have produced large groups of modified descendants, with every link in each branch and sub-branch still alive; and the links not greater than those between existing varieties. In this case it would be quite impossible to give definitions by which the several members of the several groups could be distinguished from their more immediate parents and descendants. Yet the arrangement in the diagram would still hold good and would be natural; for, on the principle of inheritance, all the forms descended, for instance from A, would have something in common. In a tree we can distinguish this or that branch, though at the actual fork the two unite and blend together. We could not, as I have said, define the several groups; but we could pick out types, or forms, representing most of the characters of each group, whether large or small, and thus give a general idea of the value of the differences between them. This is what we should be driven to, if we were ever to succeed in collecting all the forms in any one class which have lived throughout all time and space. Assuredly we shall never succeed in making so perfect a collection: nevertheless, in certain classes, we are tending toward this end; and Milne Edwards has lately insisted, in an able paper, on the high importance of looking to types, whether or not we can separate and define the groups to which such types belong.</p>
 				<p>Finally, we have seen that natural selection, which follows from the struggle for existence, and which almost inevitably leads to extinction and divergence of character in the descendants from any one parent-species, explains that great and universal feature in the affinities of all organic beings, namely, their subordination in group under group. We use the element of descent in classing the individuals of both sexes and of all ages under one species, although they may have but few characters in common; we use descent in classing acknowledged varieties, however different they may be from their parents; and I believe that this element of descent is the hidden bond of connection which naturalists have sought under the term of the Natural System. On this idea of the natural system being, in so far as it has been perfected, genealogical in its arrangement, with the grades of difference expressed by the terms genera, families, orders, <abbr>etc.</abbr>, we can understand the rules which we are compelled to follow in our classification. We can understand why we value certain resemblances far more than others; why we use rudimentary and useless organs, or others of trifling physiological importance; why, in finding the relations between one group and another, we summarily reject analogical or adaptive characters, and yet use these same characters within the limits of the same group. We can clearly see how it is that all living and extinct forms can be grouped together within a few great classes; and how the several members of each class are connected together by the most complex and radiating lines of affinities. We shall never, probably, disentangle the inextricable web of the affinities between the members of any one class; but when we have a distinct object in view, and do not look to some unknown plan of creation, we may hope to make sure but slow progress.</p>
 				<p>Professor Haeckel in his <i epub:type="se:name.publication.book">Generelle Morphologie</i> and in other works, has recently brought his great knowledge and abilities to bear on what he calls phylogeny, or the lines of descent of all organic beings. In drawing up the several series he trusts chiefly to embryological characters, but receives aid from homologous and rudimentary organs, as well as from the successive periods at which the various forms of life are believed to have first appeared in our geological formations. He has thus boldly made a great beginning, and shows us how classification will in the future be treated.</p>

src/epub/text/colophon.xhtml

@@ -32,9 +32,9 @@
 			<span epub:type="se:name.visual-art.typeface">League Spartan</span> and <span epub:type="se:name.visual-art.typeface">Sorts Mill Goudy</span><br/>
 			typefaces created in 2014 and 2009 by<br/>
 			<a href="https://www.theleagueofmoveabletype.com">The League of Moveable Type</a>.</p>
-			<p>This is the <span class="revision-number">5th</span> edition of this ebook.<br/>
+			<p>This is the <span class="revision-number">6th</span> edition of this ebook.<br/>
 			This edition was released on<br/>
-			<span class="revision-date">January 16, 2019, 1:59 <abbr class="time eoc">a.m.</abbr></span><br/>
+			<span class="revision-date">January 20, 2019, 5:52 <abbr class="time eoc">p.m.</abbr></span><br/>
 			The first edition was released on<br/>
 			<span class="release-date">January 15, 2019, 4:52 <abbr class="time eoc">a.m.</abbr></span><br/>
 			You can check for updates to this ebook, view its revision history, or download it for different ereading systems at<br/>

src/epub/text/endnotes.xhtml

@@ -10,13 +10,13 @@
 			<h2 epub:type="title">Endnotes</h2>
 			<ol>
 				<li id="note-1" epub:type="rearnote">
-					<p>Aristotle, in his <i epub:type="se:name.publication.book">Physicae Auscultationes</i> (lib.2, cap.8, s.2), after remarking that rain does not fall in order to make the corn grow, any more than it falls to spoil the farmer’s corn when threshed out of doors, applies the same argument to organisation; and adds (as translated by <abbr>Mr.</abbr> Clair Grece, who first pointed out the passage to me), “So what hinders the different parts (of the body) from having this merely accidental relation in nature? as the teeth, for example, grow by necessity, the front ones sharp, adapted for dividing, and the grinders flat, and serviceable for masticating the food; since they were not made for the sake of this, but it was the result of accident. And in like manner as to other parts in which there appears to exist an adaptation to an end. Wheresoever, therefore, all things together (that is all the parts of one whole) happened like as if they were made for the sake of something, these were preserved, having been appropriately constituted by an internal spontaneity; and whatsoever things were not thus constituted, perished and still perish.” We here see the principle of natural selection shadowed forth, but how little Aristotle fully comprehended the principle, is shown by his remarks on the formation of the teeth. <a href="../text/preamble.xhtml#noteref-1" epub:type="se:referrer">↩</a></p>
+					<p>Aristotle, in his <i epub:type="se:name.publication.book">Physicae Auscultationes</i> (lib.2, cap.8, s.2), after remarking that rain does not fall in order to make the corn grow, any more than it falls to spoil the farmer’s corn when threshed out of doors, applies the same argument to organisation; and adds (as translated by <abbr>Mr.</abbr> Clair Grece, who first pointed out the passage to me), “So what hinders the different parts (of the body) from having this merely accidental relation in nature? as the teeth, for example, grow by necessity, the front ones sharp, adapted for dividing, and the grinders flat, and serviceable for masticating the food; since they were not made for the sake of this, but it was the result of accident. And in like manner as to other parts in which there appears to exist an adaptation to an end. Wheresoever, therefore, all things together (that is all the parts of one whole) happened like as if they were made for the sake of something, these were preserved, having been appropriately constituted by an internal spontaneity; and whatsoever things were not thus constituted, perished and still perish.” We here see the principle of natural selection shadowed forth, but how little Aristotle fully comprehended the principle, is shown by his remarks on the formation of the teeth. <a href="preamble.xhtml#noteref-1" epub:type="se:referrer">↩</a></p>
 				</li>
 				<li id="note-2" epub:type="rearnote">
-					<p>I have taken the date of the first publication of Lamarck from Isidore Geoffroy Saint-Hilaire’s (<i epub:type="se:name.publication.book" xml:lang="fr">Hist. Nat. Générale</i>, tom. <span epub:type="z3998:roman">ii</span> page 405, 1859) excellent history of opinion on this subject. In this work a full account is given of Buffon’s conclusions on the same subject. It is curious how largely my grandfather, <abbr>Dr.</abbr> Erasmus Darwin, anticipated the views and erroneous grounds of opinion of Lamarck in his “Zoonomia” (vol. <span epub:type="z3998:roman">i</span> pages 500⁠–⁠510), published in 1794. According to Isid. Geoffroy there is no doubt that Goethe was an extreme partisan of similar views, as shown in the introduction to a work written in 1794 and 1795, but not published till long afterward; he has pointedly remarked (“Goethe als Naturforscher,” von <abbr>Dr.</abbr> Karl Meding, s. 34) that the future question for naturalists will be how, for instance, cattle got their horns and not for what they are used. It is rather a singular instance of the manner in which similar views arise at about the same time, that Goethe in Germany, <abbr>Dr.</abbr> Darwin in England, and Geoffroy Saint-Hilaire (as we shall immediately see) in France, came to the same conclusion on the origin of species, in the years 1794⁠–⁠5. <a href="../text/preamble.xhtml#noteref-2" epub:type="se:referrer">↩</a></p>
+					<p>I have taken the date of the first publication of Lamarck from Isidore Geoffroy Saint-Hilaire’s (<i epub:type="se:name.publication.book" xml:lang="fr">Hist. Nat. Générale</i>, tom. <span epub:type="z3998:roman">ii</span> page 405, 1859) excellent history of opinion on this subject. In this work a full account is given of Buffon’s conclusions on the same subject. It is curious how largely my grandfather, <abbr>Dr.</abbr> Erasmus Darwin, anticipated the views and erroneous grounds of opinion of Lamarck in his “Zoonomia” (vol. <span epub:type="z3998:roman">i</span> pages 500⁠–⁠510), published in 1794. According to Isid. Geoffroy there is no doubt that Goethe was an extreme partisan of similar views, as shown in the introduction to a work written in 1794 and 1795, but not published till long afterward; he has pointedly remarked (“Goethe als Naturforscher,” von <abbr>Dr.</abbr> Karl Meding, s. 34) that the future question for naturalists will be how, for instance, cattle got their horns and not for what they are used. It is rather a singular instance of the manner in which similar views arise at about the same time, that Goethe in Germany, <abbr>Dr.</abbr> Darwin in England, and Geoffroy Saint-Hilaire (as we shall immediately see) in France, came to the same conclusion on the origin of species, in the years 1794⁠–⁠5. <a href="preamble.xhtml#noteref-2" epub:type="se:referrer">↩</a></p>
 				</li>
 				<li id="note-3" epub:type="rearnote">
-					<p>From references in Bronn’s <i epub:type="se:name.publication.book">Untersuchungen uber die Entwickelungs-Gesetze</i>, it appears that the celebrated botanist and palaeontologist Unger published, in 1852, his belief that species undergo development and modification. Dalton, likewise, in Pander and Dalton’s work on Fossil Sloths, expressed, in 1821, a similar belief. Similar views have, as is well known, been maintained by Oken in his mystical <i epub:type="se:name.publication.book">Natur-Philosophie</i>. From other references in Godron’s work <i epub:type="se:name.publication.book">Sur l’Espece</i>, it seems that Bory <abbr class="name"><abbr>St.</abbr></abbr> Vincent, Burdach, Poiret and Fries, have all admitted that new species are continually being produced. I may add, that of the thirty-four authors named in this Historical Sketch, who believe in the modification of species, or at least disbelieve in separate acts of creation, twenty-seven have written on special branches of natural history or geology. <a href="../text/preamble.xhtml#noteref-3" epub:type="se:referrer">↩</a></p>
+					<p>From references in Bronn’s <i epub:type="se:name.publication.book">Untersuchungen uber die Entwickelungs-Gesetze</i>, it appears that the celebrated botanist and palaeontologist Unger published, in 1852, his belief that species undergo development and modification. Dalton, likewise, in Pander and Dalton’s work on Fossil Sloths, expressed, in 1821, a similar belief. Similar views have, as is well known, been maintained by Oken in his mystical <i epub:type="se:name.publication.book">Natur-Philosophie</i>. From other references in Godron’s work <i epub:type="se:name.publication.book">Sur l’Espece</i>, it seems that Bory <abbr class="name"><abbr>St.</abbr></abbr> Vincent, Burdach, Poiret and Fries, have all admitted that new species are continually being produced. I may add, that of the thirty-four authors named in this Historical Sketch, who believe in the modification of species, or at least disbelieve in separate acts of creation, twenty-seven have written on special branches of natural history or geology. <a href="preamble.xhtml#noteref-3" epub:type="se:referrer">↩</a></p>
 				</li>
 			</ol>
 		</section>

src/epub/text/imprint.xhtml

@@ -13,7 +13,7 @@
 			</header>
 			<p>This ebook is the product of many hours of hard work by volunteers for <a href="https://standardebooks.org">Standard Ebooks</a>, and builds on the hard work of other literature lovers made possible by the public domain.</p>
 			<p>This particular ebook is based on a transcription produced for <a href="https://www.gutenberg.org/ebooks/2009">Project Gutenberg</a> and on digital scans available at the <a href="https://catalog.hathitrust.org/Record/100424049">HathiTrust Digital Library</a>.</p>
-			<p>The writing and artwork within are believed to be in the <abbr>U.S.</abbr> public domain, and Standard Ebooks releases this ebook edition under the terms in the <a href="https://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/">CC0 1.0 Universal Public Domain Dedication</a>. For full license information, see the <a href="../text/uncopyright.xhtml">Uncopyright</a> at the end of this ebook.</p>
+			<p>The writing and artwork within are believed to be in the <abbr>U.S.</abbr> public domain, and Standard Ebooks releases this ebook edition under the terms in the <a href="https://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/">CC0 1.0 Universal Public Domain Dedication</a>. For full license information, see the <a href="uncopyright.xhtml">Uncopyright</a> at the end of this ebook.</p>
 			<p>Standard Ebooks is a volunteer-driven project that produces ebook editions of public domain literature using modern typography, technology, and editorial standards, and distributes them free of cost. You can download this and other ebooks carefully produced for true book lovers at <a class="raw-url" href="https://standardebooks.org">standardebooks.org</a>.</p>
 		</section>
 	</body>

src/epub/text/loi.xhtml

@@ -11,7 +11,7 @@
 				<h2 epub:type="title">List of Illustrations</h2>
 				<ol>
 					<li>
-						<a href="../text/chapter-4.xhtml#illustration-1">Diagram showing descent of varieties of species in a genus.</a>
+						<a href="chapter-4.xhtml#illustration-1">Diagram showing descent of varieties of species in a genus.</a>
 					</li>
 				</ol>
 			</nav>

src/epub/text/preamble.xhtml

@@ -8,8 +8,8 @@
 	<body epub:type="frontmatter z3998:non-fiction">
 		<section id="preamble" epub:type="preamble">
 			<h2 epub:type="title">An Historical Sketch of the Progress of Opinion on the Origin of Species, Previously to the Publication of the First Edition of This Work</h2>
-			<p>I will here give a brief sketch of the progress of opinion on the Origin of Species. Until recently the great majority of naturalists believed that species were immutable productions, and had been separately created. This view has been ably maintained by many authors. Some few naturalists, on the other hand, have believed that species undergo modification, and that the existing forms of life are the descendants by true generation of preexisting forms. Passing over allusions to the subject in the classical writers,<a href="../text/endnotes.xhtml#note-1" id="noteref-1" epub:type="noteref">1</a> the first author who in modern times has treated it in a scientific spirit was Buffon. But as his opinions fluctuated greatly at different periods, and as he does not enter on the causes or means of the transformation of species, I need not here enter on details.</p>
-			<p>Lamarck was the first man whose conclusions on the subject excited much attention. This justly celebrated naturalist first published his views in <time datetime="1801">1801</time>; he much enlarged them in <time datetime="1809">1809</time> in his “Philosophie Zoologique,” and subsequently, <time datetime="1815">1815</time>, in the Introduction to his <i epub:type="se:name.publication.book">Hist. Nat. des Animaux sans Vertebres</i>. In these works he upholds the doctrine that all species, including man, are descended from other species. He first did the eminent service of arousing attention to the probability of all change in the organic, as well as in the inorganic world, being the result of law, and not of miraculous interposition. Lamarck seems to have been chiefly led to his conclusion on the gradual change of species, by the difficulty of distinguishing species and varieties, by the almost perfect gradation of forms in certain groups, and by the analogy of domestic productions. With respect to the means of modification, he attributed something to the direct action of the physical conditions of life, something to the crossing of already existing forms, and much to use and disuse, that is, to the effects of habit. To this latter agency he seems to attribute all the beautiful adaptations in nature; such as the long neck of the giraffe for browsing on the branches of trees. But he likewise believed in a law of progressive development, and as all the forms of life thus tend to progress, in order to account for the existence at the present day of simple productions, he maintains that such forms are now spontaneously generated.<a href="../text/endnotes.xhtml#note-2" id="noteref-2" epub:type="noteref">2</a></p>
+			<p>I will here give a brief sketch of the progress of opinion on the Origin of Species. Until recently the great majority of naturalists believed that species were immutable productions, and had been separately created. This view has been ably maintained by many authors. Some few naturalists, on the other hand, have believed that species undergo modification, and that the existing forms of life are the descendants by true generation of preexisting forms. Passing over allusions to the subject in the classical writers,<a href="endnotes.xhtml#note-1" id="noteref-1" epub:type="noteref">1</a> the first author who in modern times has treated it in a scientific spirit was Buffon. But as his opinions fluctuated greatly at different periods, and as he does not enter on the causes or means of the transformation of species, I need not here enter on details.</p>
+			<p>Lamarck was the first man whose conclusions on the subject excited much attention. This justly celebrated naturalist first published his views in <time datetime="1801">1801</time>; he much enlarged them in <time datetime="1809">1809</time> in his “Philosophie Zoologique,” and subsequently, <time datetime="1815">1815</time>, in the Introduction to his <i epub:type="se:name.publication.book">Hist. Nat. des Animaux sans Vertebres</i>. In these works he upholds the doctrine that all species, including man, are descended from other species. He first did the eminent service of arousing attention to the probability of all change in the organic, as well as in the inorganic world, being the result of law, and not of miraculous interposition. Lamarck seems to have been chiefly led to his conclusion on the gradual change of species, by the difficulty of distinguishing species and varieties, by the almost perfect gradation of forms in certain groups, and by the analogy of domestic productions. With respect to the means of modification, he attributed something to the direct action of the physical conditions of life, something to the crossing of already existing forms, and much to use and disuse, that is, to the effects of habit. To this latter agency he seems to attribute all the beautiful adaptations in nature; such as the long neck of the giraffe for browsing on the branches of trees. But he likewise believed in a law of progressive development, and as all the forms of life thus tend to progress, in order to account for the existence at the present day of simple productions, he maintains that such forms are now spontaneously generated.<a href="endnotes.xhtml#note-2" id="noteref-2" epub:type="noteref">2</a></p>
 			<p>Geoffroy Saint-Hilaire, as is stated in his <i epub:type="se:name.publication.book">Life</i>, written by his son, suspected, as early as <time datetime="1795">1795</time>, that what we call species are various degenerations of the same type. It was not until <time datetime="1828">1828</time> that he published his conviction that the same forms have not been perpetuated since the origin of all things. Geoffroy seems to have relied chiefly on the conditions of life, or the <i xml:lang="fr">monde ambiant</i> as the cause of change. He was cautious in drawing conclusions, and did not believe that existing species are now undergoing modification; and, as his son adds, “<i xml:lang="fr">C’est donc un problème à réserver entièrement à l’avenir, supposé même que l’avenir doive avoir prise sur lui.</i>”</p>
 			<p>In <time datetime="1813">1813</time> <abbr>Dr.</abbr> <abbr class="name">W. C.</abbr> Wells read before the Royal Society “An Account of a White Female, part of whose skin resembles that of a Negro;” but his paper was not published until his famous <i epub:type="se:name.publication.book">Two Essays upon Dew and Single Vision</i> appeared in <time datetime="1818">1818</time>. In this paper he distinctly recognises the principle of natural selection, and this is the first recognition which has been indicated; but he applies it only to the races of man, and to certain characters alone. After remarking that negroes and mulattoes enjoy an immunity from certain tropical diseases, he observes, firstly, that all animals tend to vary in some degree, and, secondly, that agriculturists improve their domesticated animals by selection; and then, he adds, but what is done in this latter case “by art, seems to be done with equal efficacy, though more slowly, by nature, in the formation of varieties of mankind, fitted for the country which they inhabit. Of the accidental varieties of man, which would occur among the first few and scattered inhabitants of the middle regions of Africa, some one would be better fitted than others to bear the diseases of the country. This race would consequently multiply, while the others would decrease; not only from their inability to sustain the attacks of disease, but from their incapacity of contending with their more vigorous neighbours. The colour of this vigorous race I take for granted, from what has been already said, would be dark. But the same disposition to form varieties still existing, a darker and a darker race would in the course of time occur: and as the darkest would be the best fitted for the climate, this would at length become the most prevalent, if not the only race, in the particular country in which it had originated.” He then extends these same views to the white inhabitants of colder climates. I am indebted to <abbr>Mr.</abbr> Rowley, of the United States, for having called my attention, through <abbr>Mr.</abbr> Brace, to the above passage of <abbr>Dr.</abbr> Wells’ work.</p>
 			<p>The <abbr>Hon.</abbr> and <abbr>Rev.</abbr> <abbr class="name">W.</abbr> Herbert, afterward Dean of Manchester, in the fourth volume of the <i epub:type="se:name.publication.journal">Horticultural Transactions</i>, <time datetime="1822">1822</time>, and in his work on the <i epub:type="se:name.publication.book">Amaryllidaceae</i> (<time datetime="1837">1837</time>, pages 19, 339), declares that “horticultural experiments have established, beyond the possibility of refutation, that botanical species are only a higher and more permanent class of varieties.” He extends the same view to animals. The dean believes that single species of each genus were created in an originally highly plastic condition, and that these have produced, chiefly by inter-crossing, but likewise by variation, all our existing species.</p>
@@ -25,7 +25,7 @@
 			<p><abbr>M.</abbr> Isidore Geoffroy Saint-Hilaire, in his lectures delivered in <time datetime="1850">1850</time> (of which a Resume appeared in the <i epub:type="se:name.publication.journal">Revue et Mag. de Zoolog.</i>, <time datetime="1851-01"><abbr>Jan.</abbr>, 1851</time>), briefly gives his reason for believing that specific characters “<i xml:lang="fr">sont fixés, pour chaque espèce, tant qu’elle se perpétue au milieu des mêmes circonstances: ils se modifient, si les circonstances ambiantes viennent à changer. En résumé, <em>L’observation</em> des animaux sauvages démontre déjà la variabilité <em>limitée</em> des espèces. Les <em>expériences</em> sur les animaux sauvages devenus domestiques, et sur les animaux domestiques redevenus sauvages, la démontrent plus clairment encore. Ces mêmes expériences prouvent, de plus, que les différences produites peuvent etre de <em>valeur générique</em>.</i>” In his <i epub:type="se:name.publication.book" xml:lang="fr"><abbr>Hist.</abbr> <abbr>Nat.</abbr> Générale</i> (tom. <span epub:type="z3998:roman">ii</span>, page 430, <time datetime="1859">1859</time>) he amplifies analogous conclusions.</p>
 			<p>From a circular lately issued it appears that <abbr>Dr.</abbr> Freke, in <time datetime="1851">1851</time> (<i epub:type="se:name.publication.journal">Dublin Medical Press</i>, page 322), propounded the doctrine that all organic beings have descended from one primordial form. His grounds of belief and treatment of the subject are wholly different from mine; but as <abbr>Dr.</abbr> Freke has now (<time datetime="1861">1861</time>) published his essay on the <i epub:type="se:name.publication.book">Origin of Species by means of Organic Affinity</i>, the difficult attempt to give any idea of his views would be superfluous on my part.</p>
 			<p><abbr>Mr.</abbr> Herbert Spencer, in an essay (originally published in the <i epub:type="se:name.publication.newspaper">Leader</i>, <time datetime="1852-03">March, 1852</time>, and republished in his <i epub:type="se:name.publication.book">Essays</i>, in <time datetime="1858">1858</time>), has contrasted the theories of the creation and the development of organic beings with remarkable skill and force. He argues from the analogy of domestic productions, from the changes which the embryos of many species undergo, from the difficulty of distinguishing species and varieties, and from the principle of general gradation, that species have been modified; and he attributes the modification to the change of circumstances. The author (<time datetime="1855">1855</time>) has also treated psychology on the principle of the necessary acquirement of each mental power and capacity by gradation.</p>
-			<p>In <time datetime="1852">1852</time> <abbr class="name">M.</abbr> Naudin, a distinguished botanist, expressly stated, in an admirable paper on the Origin of Species (<i epub:type="se:name.publication.journal">Revue Horticole</i>, page 102; since partly republished in the <i epub:type="se:name.publication.journal">Nouvelles Archives du Museum</i>, tom. i, page 171), his belief that species are formed in an analogous manner as varieties are under cultivation; and the latter process he attributes to man’s power of selection. But he does not show how selection acts under nature. He believes, like Dean Herbert, that species, when nascent, were more plastic than at present. He lays weight on what he calls the principle of finality, “<i xml:lang="fr">puissance mystérieuse, indéterminée; fatalité pour les uns; pour les autres volonté providentielle, dont l’action incessante sur les êtres vivantes détermine, à toutes les époques de l’existence du monde, la forme, le volume, et la dureé de chacun d’eux, en raison de sa destinée dans l’ordre de choses dont il fait partie. C’est cette puissance qui harmonise chaque membre à l’ensemble, en l’appropriant à la fonction qu’il doit remplir dans l’organisme général de la nature, fonction qui est pour lui sa raison d’être.</i>”<a href="../text/endnotes.xhtml#note-3" id="noteref-3" epub:type="noteref">3</a></p>
+			<p>In <time datetime="1852">1852</time> <abbr class="name">M.</abbr> Naudin, a distinguished botanist, expressly stated, in an admirable paper on the Origin of Species (<i epub:type="se:name.publication.journal">Revue Horticole</i>, page 102; since partly republished in the <i epub:type="se:name.publication.journal">Nouvelles Archives du Museum</i>, tom. i, page 171), his belief that species are formed in an analogous manner as varieties are under cultivation; and the latter process he attributes to man’s power of selection. But he does not show how selection acts under nature. He believes, like Dean Herbert, that species, when nascent, were more plastic than at present. He lays weight on what he calls the principle of finality, “<i xml:lang="fr">puissance mystérieuse, indéterminée; fatalité pour les uns; pour les autres volonté providentielle, dont l’action incessante sur les êtres vivantes détermine, à toutes les époques de l’existence du monde, la forme, le volume, et la dureé de chacun d’eux, en raison de sa destinée dans l’ordre de choses dont il fait partie. C’est cette puissance qui harmonise chaque membre à l’ensemble, en l’appropriant à la fonction qu’il doit remplir dans l’organisme général de la nature, fonction qui est pour lui sa raison d’être.</i>”<a href="endnotes.xhtml#note-3" id="noteref-3" epub:type="noteref">3</a></p>
 			<p>In <time datetime="1853">1853</time> a celebrated geologist, Count Keyserling (<i epub:type="se:name.publication.journal">Bulletin de la Soc. Géolog.</i>, 2nd <abbr>Ser.</abbr>, <abbr>tom.</abbr> <span epub:type="z3998:roman">x</span>, page 357), suggested that as new diseases, supposed to have been caused by some miasma have arisen and spread over the world, so at certain periods the germs of existing species may have been chemically affected by circumambient molecules of a particular nature, and thus have given rise to new forms.</p>
 			<p>In this same year, <time datetime="1853">1853</time>, <abbr>Dr.</abbr> Schaaffhausen published an excellent pamphlet (<i epub:type="se:name.publication.book">Verhand. des Naturhist. Vereins der Preuss. Rheinlands</i>, <abbr>etc.</abbr>), in which he maintains the development of organic forms on the earth. He infers that many species have kept true for long periods, whereas a few have become modified. The distinction of species he explains by the destruction of intermediate graduated forms. “Thus living plants and animals are not separated from the extinct by new creations, but are to be regarded as their descendants through continued reproduction.”</p>
 			<p>A well-known French botanist, <abbr class="name">M.</abbr> Lecoq, writes in <time datetime="1854">1854</time> (<i epub:type="se:name.publication.book">Etudes sur Geograph <abbr>Bot.</abbr></i> <abbr>tom.</abbr> <span epub:type="z3998:roman">i</span>, page 250), “<i xml:lang="fr">On voit que nos recherches sur la fixité ou la variation de l’espèce, nous conduisent directement aux idées émises par deux hommes justement célèbres, Geoffroy Saint-Hilaire et Goethe.</i>” Some other passages scattered through <abbr class="name">M.</abbr> Lecoq’s large work make it a little doubtful how far he extends his views on the modification of species.</p>