though such work was almost entirely confined to the botanists. Apart from the fact that plants lend themselves to hybridisation work more readily than animals, there was probably another reason why zoologists neglected this form of investigation. The field of zoology is a wider one than that of botany, presenting a far greater variety of type and structure. Partly owing to their importance in the study of medicine, and partly owing to their smaller numbers, the anatomy of the vegetable was far better known than that of the animal kingdom. It is, therefore, not surprising that the earlier part of the nineteenth century found the zoologists, under the influence of Cuvier and his pupils, devoting their entire energies to describing the anatomy of the new forms of animal life which careful search at home and fresh voyages of discovery abroad were continually bringing to light. During this period the zoologist had little inclination or inducement to carry on those investigations in hybridisation which were occupying the attention of some botanists. Nor did the efforts of the botanists afford much {10} encouragement to such work, for in spite of the labour devoted to these experiments, the results offered but a confused tangle of facts, contributing in no apparent way to the solution of the problem for which they had been undertaken. After half a century of experimental hybridisation the determination of the relation of species and varieties to one another seemed as remote as ever. Then in 1859 came the _Origin of Species_, in which Darwin presented to the world a consistent theory to account for the manner in which one species might have arisen from another by a process of gradual evolution. Briefly put, that theory was as follows: In any species of plant or animal the reproductive capacity tends to outrun the available food supply, and the resulting competition leads to an inevitable struggle for existence. Of all the individuals born, only a portion, and that often a very small one, can survive to produce offspring. According to Darwin's theory, the nature of the surviving portion is not determined by chance alone. No two individuals of a species are precisely alike, and among the variations that occur some enable their possessors to cope more successfully with the competitive conditions under which they exist. In comparison with their less favoured brethren they have a better chance of surviving in the struggle for existence and consequently of leaving offspring. The argument is completed by the further assumption of a principle of heredity, in virtue of which offspring tend to {11} resemble their parents more than other members of the species. Parents possessing a favourable variation tend to transmit that variation to their offspring, to some in greater, to others in less degree. Those possessing it in greater degree will again have a better chance of survival, and will transmit the favourable variation in even greater degree to some of their