argument has no force. Indeed, one of the most valuable and suggestive
parts of Mr. Darwin's work is that in which he proves, that the frequent
absence of transitions is a necessary consequence of his doctrine, and
that the stock whence two or more species have sprung, need in no
respect be intermediate between these species. If any two species
have arisen from a common stock in the same way as the carrier and the
pouter, say, have arisen from the rock-pigeon, then the common stock of
these two species need be no more intermediate between the two than the
rock-pigeon is between the carrier and pouter. Clearly appreciate the
force of this analogy, and all the arguments against the origin of
species by selection, based on the absence of transitional forms, fall
to the ground. And Mr. Darwin's position might, we think, have been
even stronger than it is if he had not embarrassed himself with the
aphorism, "Natura non facit saltum," which turns up so often in his
pages. We believe, as we have said above, that Nature does make jumps
now and then, and a recognition of the fact is of no small importance
in disposing of many minor objections to the doctrine of
transmutation.

But we must pause. The discussion of Mr. Darwin's arguments in detail
would lead us far beyond the limits within which we proposed, at
starting, to confine this article. Our object has been attained if we
have given an intelligible, however brief, account of the established
facts connected with species, and of the relation of the explanation of
those facts offered by Mr. Darwin to the theoretical views held by his
predecessors and his contemporaries, and, above all, to the
requirements of scientific logic. We have ventured to point out that it
does not, as yet, satisfy all those requirements; but we do not
hesitate to assert that it is as superior to any preceding or
contemporary hypothesis, in the extent of observational and experimental