The extinction of the larger quadrupeds, of which we imagine we better know the conditions of existence, has been thought little less wonderful than the appearance of new species; and has, I think, chiefly led to the belief of universal catastrophes. When considering the wonderful disappearance within a late period, whilst recent shells were living, of the numerous great and small mammifers of S. America, one is strongly induced to join with the catastrophists. I believe, however, that very erroneous views are held on this subject. As far as is historically known, the disappearance of species from any one country has been slow--the species becoming rarer and rarer, locally extinct, and finally lost{333}. It may be objected that this has been effected by man's direct agency, or by his indirect agency in altering the state of the country; in this latter case, however, it would be difficult to draw any just distinction between his agency and natural agencies. But we now know in the later Tertiary deposits, that shells become rarer and rarer in the successive beds, and finally disappear: it has happened, also, that shells common in a fossil state, and thought to have been extinct, have been found to be still living species, but very _rare_ ones{334}. If the rule is that organisms become extinct by becoming rarer and rarer, we ought not to view their extinction, even in the case of the larger quadrupeds, as anything wonderful and out of the common course of events. For no naturalist thinks it wonderful that one species of a genus should be rare and another abundant, notwithstanding he be quite incapable of explaining the causes of the comparative rareness{335}. Why is one species of willow-wren or hawk or woodpecker common in England, and another extremely rare: why at the Cape of Good Hope is one species of rhinoceros or antelope far more abundant than other species? Why again is the same species much more abundant in one district of a country than in another district? No doubt there are in each case good causes: but they are unknown and unperceived by us. May we not then safely infer that as certain causes are acting _unperceived_ around us, and are making one species to be common and another exceedingly rare, that they might equally well cause the final extinction of some species without being perceived by us? We should always bear in mind that there is a recurrent struggle for life in every organism, and that in every country a destroying agency is always counteracting the geometrical tendency to increase in every species; and yet without our being able to tell with certainty at what period of life, or at what period of the year, the destruction falls the heaviest. Ought we then to expect to trace the steps by which this destroying power, always at work and scarcely perceived by us, becomes increased, and yet if it continues to increase ever so slowly (without the fertility of the species in