, and to our reason the inference of a Divine original? We
have no clear idea how Mr. Agassiz intends to answer this question, in
saying that branches are founded upon different plans of structure,
classes upon different modes of execution of these plans, orders on
different degrees of complication in the mode of execution, families
upon different patterns of form, genera upon ultimate peculiarities of
structure, and species upon relations and proportions. That is, we do
not perceive how these several "categories of thought" exclude the
possibility or the probability that the individuals which manifest or
suggest the thoughts had an ultimate community of origin. Moreover,
Mr. Darwin would insinuate that the particular philosophy of
classification upon which this whole argument reposes is as purely
hypothetical and as little accepted as his own doctrine. If both are
pure hypotheses, it is hardly fair or satisfactory to extinguish the
one by the other. If there is no real contradiction between them,
there is no use in making the attempt.
As to the dilemma propounded, suppose we try it upon that category of
thought which we call _chair_. This is a genus, comprising the common
chair, (_Sella vulgaris_,) the arm or easy chair, (_S. cathedra_,) the
rocking chair, (_S. oscillans_,) widely distributed in the United
States, and some others,--each of which has _sported_, as the
gardeners say, into many varieties. But now, as the genus and the
_species_ have no material existence, how can they vary? If
individuals alone exist, how can the differences which may be observed
among them prove the variability of the species? To which we reply by
asking, Which does the question refer to, the category of thought, or
the individual embodiment? If the former, then we would remark that
our categories of thought vary from time to time in the readiest
manner.
Pages:
79
80
81
82
83
84
85
86
87
88
89
90
91
92
93
94
95
96
97
98
99
100
101
102
103