In our survey of the lively discussion which has been raised, it matters little how our own particular opinions may incline.  But we may confess to an impression, thus far, that the doctrine of the permanent and complete immutability of species has not been established, and may fairly be doubted.  We believe that species vary, and that “Natural Selection” works; but we suspect that its operation, like every analogous natural operation, may be limited by something else.  Just as every species by its natural rate of reproduction would soon completely fill any country it could live in, but does not, being checked by some other species or some other condition—­so it may be surmised that variation and natural selection have their struggle and consequent check, or are limited by something inherent in the constitution of organic beings.

We are disposed to rank the derivative hypothesis in its fullness with the nebular hypothesis, and to regard both as allowable, as not unlikely to prove tenable in spite of some strong objections, but as not therefore demonstrably true.  Those, if any there be, who regard the derivative hypothesis as satisfactorily proved, must have loose notions as to what proof is.  Those who imagine it can be easily refuted and cast aside, must, we think, have imperfect or very prejudiced conceptions of the facts concerned and of the questions at issue.

We are not disposed nor prepared to take sides for or against the new hypothesis, and so, perhaps, occupy a good position from which to watch the discussion and criticise those objections which are seemingly inconclusive.  On surveying the arguments urged by those who have undertaken to demolish the theory, we have been most impressed with a sense of their great inequality.  Some strike us as excellent and perhaps unanswerable; some, as incongruous with other views of the same writers; others, when carried out, as incompatible with general experience or general beliefs, and therefore as proving too much; still others, as proving nothing at all; so that, on the whole, the effect is rather confusing and disappointing.  We certainly expected a stronger adverse case than any which the thoroughgoing opposers of Darwin appear to have made out.  Wherefore, if it be found that the new hypothesis has grown upon our favor as we proceeded, this must be attributed not so much to the force of the arguments of the book itself as to the want of force of several of those by which it has been assailed.  Darwin’s arguments we might resist or adjourn; but some of the refutations of it give us more concern than the book itself did.