[10] Darwin, ‘Animals and Plants under Domestication,’ passim. [11] ‘Animals and Plants under Domestication,’ vol. ii. pp. 348-351. [12] An important caution may here be quoted from Mr. Herbert Spencer. ‘An impression,’ he says, ‘has been given by those who have popularized the sentiments of Embryologists, that, during its development, each higher organism passes through stages in which it resembles the adult forms of lower organisms--that the embryo of a man is at one time like a fish, and at another time like a reptile. This is not the fact. The fact established is, that up to a certain point the embryos of a man and a fish continue similar, and that then differences begin to appear and increase--the one embryo approaching more and more towards the form of a fish; the other diverging from it more and more. And so with the resemblances to the more advanced types.’--_Principles of Biology_, vol. i. p. 143. [13] ‘Origin of Species,’ p. 270. Mr. Darwin shows how the hexagonal cells of the hive-bee can have arisen from the simple cylindrical form, by bringing the cylinders sufficiently near together, so that their outlines, if completed, would intersect. The humble-bee makes separate and very irregular rounded cells. The _melipona domestica_ makes cells that are nearly spherical, but too near together for the spheres to be complete, flat walls of wax being built where they tend to intersect. A little extra regularity, advantageous for the saving of wax and labour, would produce the symmetrical comb of the hive-bee with its two layers of hexagonal prisms. [14] See ‘Principles of Biology,’ vol. i. pp. 428-431. [15] ‘Origin of Species,’ p. 213; ‘Principles of Biology,’ vol. i. pp. 392, 394. The walking-fishes of India and the mud-fishes of Ceylon and New Zealand are described in an interesting article by Dr. Day of Torquay, in ‘All the Year Round’ for June 11th, 1870. Dr. Day seems to think the climbing powers of the _anabas scandens_ less satisfactorily attested than other attributes of these extraordinary groups. [16] Carpenter, ‘Animal Physiology,’ chap. 14. [17] The design of this Essay was not, as has been erroneously supposed, to disprove the universality of the Deluge by help of Darwinism, but to remove one great obstacle to the general acceptance of Darwinism by disproving the universality of the Deluge. Taking the Theory of Development for granted, a recent universal Deluge would be too obviously impossible to need arguing against. [18] Lyell, ‘Principles of Geology,’ ii. 332. [19] Ibid. ii. 344. [20] Lyell, ii. 336. [21] ‘The Malay Archipelago,’ vol. ii. p. 448. [22] ‘Genesis of the Earth and of Man,’ p. 117; quoted in Sir J. Lubbock’s ‘Prehistoric Times,’ p. 314. [23] A religious and supremely orthodox poet of the last century enquires, ‘Where is the dust that has not been alive?’--Young, ‘Night Thoughts,’ Night IX, 1. 87. [24] ‘Mushrooms and Toadstools.’--Worthington G. Smith, p. 17.