Titlecase books

src/epub/text/chapter-1.xhtml

@@ -14,7 +14,7 @@
 			<section id="chapter-1-1" epub:type="z3998:subchapter">
 				<h3 epub:type="title">Causes of Variability</h3>
 				<p>When we compare the individuals of the same variety or sub-variety of our older cultivated plants and animals, one of the first points which strikes us is, that they generally differ more from each other than do the individuals of any one species or variety in a state of nature. And if we reflect on the vast diversity of the plants and animals which have been cultivated, and which have varied during all ages under the most different climates and treatment, we are driven to conclude that this great variability is due to our domestic productions having been raised under conditions of life not so uniform as, and somewhat different from, those to which the parent species had been exposed under nature. There is, also, some probability in the view propounded by Andrew Knight, that this variability may be partly connected with excess of food. It seems clear that organic beings must be exposed during several generations to new conditions to cause any great amount of variation; and that, when the organisation has once begun to vary, it generally continues varying for many generations. No case is on record of a variable organism ceasing to vary under cultivation. Our oldest cultivated plants, such as wheat, still yield new varieties: our oldest domesticated animals are still capable of rapid improvement or modification.</p>
-				<p>As far as I am able to judge, after long attending to the subject, the conditions of life appear to act in two ways⁠—directly on the whole organisation or on certain parts alone and indirectly by affecting the reproductive system. With respect to the direct action, we must bear in mind that in every case, as Professor Weismann has lately insisted, and as I have incidently shown in my work on <i epub:type="se:name.publication.book">Variation under Domestication</i>, there are two factors: namely, the nature of the organism and the nature of the conditions. The former seems to be much the more important; for nearly similar variations sometimes arise under, as far as we can judge, dissimilar conditions; and, on the other hand, dissimilar variations arise under conditions which appear to be nearly uniform. The effects on the offspring are either definite or indefinite. They may be considered as definite when all or nearly all the offspring of individuals exposed to certain conditions during several generations are modified in the same manner. It is extremely difficult to come to any conclusion in regard to the extent of the changes which have been thus definitely induced. There can, however, be little doubt about many slight changes, such as size from the amount of food, colour from the nature of the food, thickness of the skin and hair from climate, <abbr class="eoc">etc.</abbr> Each of the endless variations which we see in the plumage of our fowls must have had some efficient cause; and if the same cause were to act uniformly during a long series of generations on many individuals, all probably would be modified in the same manner. Such facts as the complex and extraordinary outgrowths which variably follow from the insertion of a minute drop of poison by a gall-producing insect, shows us what singular modifications might result in the case of plants from a chemical change in the nature of the sap.</p>
+				<p>As far as I am able to judge, after long attending to the subject, the conditions of life appear to act in two ways⁠—directly on the whole organisation or on certain parts alone and indirectly by affecting the reproductive system. With respect to the direct action, we must bear in mind that in every case, as Professor Weismann has lately insisted, and as I have incidently shown in my work on <i epub:type="se:name.publication.book">Variation Under Domestication</i>, there are two factors: namely, the nature of the organism and the nature of the conditions. The former seems to be much the more important; for nearly similar variations sometimes arise under, as far as we can judge, dissimilar conditions; and, on the other hand, dissimilar variations arise under conditions which appear to be nearly uniform. The effects on the offspring are either definite or indefinite. They may be considered as definite when all or nearly all the offspring of individuals exposed to certain conditions during several generations are modified in the same manner. It is extremely difficult to come to any conclusion in regard to the extent of the changes which have been thus definitely induced. There can, however, be little doubt about many slight changes, such as size from the amount of food, colour from the nature of the food, thickness of the skin and hair from climate, <abbr class="eoc">etc.</abbr> Each of the endless variations which we see in the plumage of our fowls must have had some efficient cause; and if the same cause were to act uniformly during a long series of generations on many individuals, all probably would be modified in the same manner. Such facts as the complex and extraordinary outgrowths which variably follow from the insertion of a minute drop of poison by a gall-producing insect, shows us what singular modifications might result in the case of plants from a chemical change in the nature of the sap.</p>
 				<p>Indefinite variability is a much more common result of changed conditions than definite variability, and has probably played a more important part in the formation of our domestic races. We see indefinite variability in the endless slight peculiarities which distinguish the individuals of the same species, and which cannot be accounted for by inheritance from either parent or from some more remote ancestor. Even strongly-marked differences occasionally appear in the young of the same litter, and in seedlings from the same seed-capsule. At long intervals of time, out of millions of individuals reared in the same country and fed on nearly the same food, deviations of structure so strongly pronounced as to deserve to be called monstrosities arise; but monstrosities cannot be separated by any distinct line from slighter variations. All such changes of structure, whether extremely slight or strongly marked, which appear among many individuals living together, may be considered as the indefinite effects of the conditions of life on each individual organism, in nearly the same manner as the chill effects different men in an indefinite manner, according to their state of body or constitution, causing coughs or colds, rheumatism, or inflammation of various organs.</p>
 				<p>With respect to what I have called the indirect action of changed conditions, namely, through the reproductive system being affected, we may infer that variability is thus induced, partly from the fact of this system being extremely sensitive to any change in the conditions, and partly from the similarity, as Kölreuter and others have remarked, between the variability which follows from the crossing of distinct species, and that which may be observed with plants and animals when reared under new or unnatural conditions. Many facts clearly show how eminently susceptible the reproductive system is to very slight changes in the surrounding conditions. Nothing is more easy than to tame an animal, and few things more difficult than to get it to breed freely under confinement, even when the male and female unite. How many animals there are which will not breed, though kept in an almost free state in their native country! This is generally, but erroneously attributed to vitiated instincts. Many cultivated plants display the utmost vigour, and yet rarely or never seed! In some few cases it has been discovered that a very trifling change, such as a little more or less water at some particular period of growth, will determine whether or not a plant will produce seeds. I cannot here give the details which I have collected and elsewhere published on this curious subject; but to show how singular the laws are which determine the reproduction of animals under confinement, I may mention that carnivorous animals, even from the tropics, breed in this country pretty freely under confinement, with the exception of the plantigrades or bear family, which seldom produce young; whereas, carnivorous birds, with the rarest exception, hardly ever lay fertile eggs. Many exotic plants have pollen utterly worthless, in the same condition as in the most sterile hybrids. When, on the one hand, we see domesticated animals and plants, though often weak and sickly, breeding freely under confinement; and when, on the other hand, we see individuals, though taken young from a state of nature perfectly tamed, long-lived, and healthy (of which I could give numerous instances), yet having their reproductive system so seriously affected by unperceived causes as to fail to act, we need not be surprised at this system, when it does act under confinement, acting irregularly, and producing offspring somewhat unlike their parents. I may add that as some organisms breed freely under the most unnatural conditions⁠—for instance, rabbits and ferrets kept in hutches⁠—showing that their reproductive organs are not easily affected; so will some animals and plants withstand domestication or cultivation, and vary very slightly⁠—perhaps hardly more than in a state of nature.</p>
 				<p>Some naturalists have maintained that all variations are connected with the act of sexual reproduction; but this is certainly an error; for I have given in another work a long list of “sporting plants;” as they are called by gardeners; that is, of plants which have suddenly produced a single bud with a new and sometimes widely different character from that of the other buds on the same plant. These bud variations, as they may be named, can be propagated by grafts, offsets, <abbr>etc.</abbr>, and sometimes by seed. They occur rarely under nature, but are far from rare under culture. As a single bud out of many thousands produced year after year on the same tree under uniform conditions, has been known suddenly to assume a new character; and as buds on distinct trees, growing under different conditions, have sometimes yielded nearly the same variety⁠—for instance, buds on peach-trees producing nectarines, and buds on common roses producing moss-roses⁠—we clearly see that the nature of the conditions is of subordinate importance in comparison with the nature of the organism in determining each particular form of variation; perhaps of not more importance than the nature of the spark, by which a mass of combustible matter is ignited, has in determining the nature of the flames.</p>

src/epub/text/endnotes.xhtml

@@ -16,7 +16,7 @@
 					<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="backlink">↩</a></p>
 				</li>
 				<li id="note-3" epub:type="endnote">
-					<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>St.</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="backlink">↩</a></p>
+					<p>From references in Bronn’s <i epub:type="se:name.publication.book" xml:lang="de">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>St.</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="backlink">↩</a></p>
 				</li>
 			</ol>
 		</section>

src/epub/text/preamble.xhtml

@@ -11,7 +11,7 @@
 			<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"><abbr>Hist.</abbr> <abbr>Nat.</abbr> 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 epub:type="z3998:given-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>In <time datetime="1813">1813</time> <abbr>Dr.</abbr> <abbr epub:type="z3998:given-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 epub:type="z3998:given-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>
 			<p>In <time datetime="1826">1826</time> Professor Grant, in the concluding paragraph in his well-known paper (<i epub:type="se:name.publication.journal">Edinburgh Philosophical Journal</i>, vol. <span epub:type="z3998:roman">XIV</span>, page 283) on the Spongilla, clearly declares his belief that species are descended from other species, and that they become improved in the course of modification. This same view was given in his Fifty-fifth Lecture, published in the <i epub:type="se:name.publication.journal">Lancet</i> in <time datetime="1834">1834</time>.</p>
 			<p>In <time datetime="1831">1831</time> <abbr>Mr.</abbr> Patrick Matthew published his work on <i epub:type="se:name.publication.book">Naval Timber and Arboriculture</i>, in which he gives precisely the same view on the origin of species as that (presently to be alluded to) propounded by <abbr>Mr.</abbr> Wallace and myself in the <i epub:type="se:name.publication.journal">Linnean Journal</i>, and as that enlarged in the present volume. Unfortunately the view was given by <abbr>Mr.</abbr> Matthew very briefly in scattered passages in an appendix to a work on a different subject, so that it remained unnoticed until <abbr>Mr.</abbr> Matthew himself drew attention to it in the <i epub:type="se:name.publication.magazine">Gardeners’ Chronicle</i>, on <time datetime="1860-04-07">April 7, 1860</time>. The differences of <abbr>Mr.</abbr> Matthew’s views from mine are not of much importance: he seems to consider that the world was nearly depopulated at successive periods, and then restocked; and he gives as an alternative, that new forms may be generated “without the presence of any mold or germ of former aggregates.” I am not sure that I understand some passages; but it seems that he attributes much influence to the direct action of the conditions of life. He clearly saw, however, the full force of the principle of natural selection.</p>
@@ -23,7 +23,7 @@
 			<p>Professor Owen, in <time datetime="1849">1849</time> (<i epub:type="se:name.publication.book">Nature of Limbs</i>, page 86), wrote as follows: “The archetypal idea was manifested in the flesh under diverse such modifications, upon this planet, long prior to the existence of those animal species that actually exemplify it. To what natural laws or secondary causes the orderly succession and progression of such organic phenomena may have been committed, we, as yet, are ignorant.” In his address to the British Association, in <time datetime="1858">1858</time>, he speaks (page li) of “the axiom of the continuous operation of creative power, or of the ordained becoming of living things.” Further on (page xc), after referring to geographical distribution, he adds, “These phenomena shake our confidence in the conclusion that the Apteryx of New Zealand and the Red Grouse of England were distinct creations in and for those islands respectively. Always, also, it may be well to bear in mind that by the word ‘creation’ the zoologist means ‘a process he knows not what.’ ” He amplifies this idea by adding that when such cases as that of the Red Grouse are “enumerated by the zoologist as evidence of distinct creation of the bird in and for such islands, he chiefly expresses that he knows not how the Red Grouse came to be there, and there exclusively; signifying also, by this mode of expressing such ignorance, his belief that both the bird and the islands owed their origin to a great first Creative Cause.” If we interpret these sentences given in the same address, one by the other, it appears that this eminent philosopher felt in <time datetime="1858">1858</time> his confidence shaken that the Apteryx and the Red Grouse first appeared in their respective homes “he knew not how,” or by some process “he knew not what.”</p>
 			<p>This address was delivered after the papers by <abbr>Mr.</abbr> Wallace and myself on the Origin of Species, presently to be referred to, had been read before the Linnean Society. When the first edition of this work was published, I was so completely deceived, as were many others, by such expressions as “the continuous operation of creative power,” that I included Professor Owen with other palaeontologists as being firmly convinced of the immutability of species; but it appears (<i epub:type="se:name.publication.book"><abbr>Anat.</abbr> of Vertebrates</i>, vol. <span epub:type="z3998:roman">iii</span>, page 796) that this was on my part a preposterous error. In the last edition of this work I inferred, and the inference still seems to me perfectly just, from a passage beginning with the words “no doubt the type-form,” <abbr>etc.</abbr>(Ibid., vol. i, page <span epub:type="z3998:roman">xxxv</span>), that Professor Owen admitted that natural selection may have done something in the formation of a new species; but this it appears (Ibid., vol. <span epub:type="z3998:roman">iii</span> page 798) is inaccurate and without evidence. I also gave some extracts from a correspondence between Professor Owen and the editor of the <i epub:type="se:name.publication.journal">London Review</i>, from which it appeared manifest to the editor as well as to myself, that Professor Owen claimed to have promulgated the theory of natural selection before I had done so; and I expressed my surprise and satisfaction at this announcement; but as far as it is possible to understand certain recently published passages (Ibid., vol. <span epub:type="z3998:roman">iii</span> page 798) I have either partially or wholly again fallen into error. It is consolatory to me that others find Professor Owen’s controversial writings as difficult to understand and to reconcile with each other, as I do. As far as the mere enunciation of the principle of natural selection is concerned, it is quite immaterial whether or not Professor Owen preceded me, for both of us, as shown in this historical sketch, were long ago preceded by <abbr>Dr.</abbr> Wells and <abbr>Mr.</abbr> Matthews.</p>
 			<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 <abbr>Mag.</abbr> de <abbr>Zoolog.</abbr></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>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 epub:type="z3998:given-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 <abbr>Soc.</abbr> <abbr>Géolog.</abbr></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>