Haeckel will perhaps answer that the publication of his book preceded the observation of the French savants. But such a plea itself discloses a method of procedure which is common to the majority of evolutionists, and of which, it must be added, Darwin set the example. When confronted by a question about which nobody knows anything, they appeal precisely to this want of knowledge, and draw arguments from their very ignorance. In like manner speaks the Reviewer already cited more than once. Thus:[218] The peculiarities of geographical distribution seem very difficult of explanation on any theory. Darwin calls in alternately winds, tides, birds, beasts, all animated nature, as the diffusers of species, and then a good many of the same agencies as impenetrable barriers.... With these facilities of hypothesis there seems to be no particular reason why many theories should not be true. However an animal may have been produced, it must have been produced somewhere, and it must either have spread very widely or not have spread, and Darwin can give good reasons for both results. And again:[219] We are asked to believe all these maybes happening on an enormous scale, in order that we may believe the final Darwinian "maybe" as to the origin of species. The general form of his argument is as follows:--"All these things may have been, therefore my theory is possible, and since my theory is a possible one, all those hypotheses which it requires are rendered probable." There is little direct evidence that any of these maybes actually _have been_.