Produced by Dave Gowan <dgowan@bio.fsu.edu>
NEW YORK:1876.
Views and Definitions of Species—How Darwin's differs from that of Agassiz,and from the Common View—Variation, its Causes unknown.—Darwin'sGenealogical Tree—Darwin and Agassiz agree in the CapitalFacts—Embryology—Physical Connection of Species compatible withIntellectual Connection—How to prove Transmutation.—Known Extent ofVariation—Cause of Likeness unknown—ArtificialSelection.—Reversion—Interbreeding—Natural Selection.—Classificationtentative.—What Darwin assumes.—Argument stated.—How Natural Selectionworks.—Where the Argument is weakest.—Objections—Morphology andTeleology harmonized.—Theory not atheistical.—Conceivable Modes ofRelation of God to Nature
How Design in Nature can be shown—Design not inconsistent with Indirect
Attainment
Alphonse De Candolle's Study of the Oak Genus.—Variability of theSpecies.—Antiquity.—A Common Origin probable.—Dr. Falconer on the CommonOrigin of Elephants—Variation and Natural Selectiondistinguished.—Saporta on the Gradation between the Vegetable Forms of theCretaceous and the Tertiary.—Hypothesis of Derivation more likely to befavored by Botanists than by Zoologists.—Views of Agassiz respecting theOrigin, Dispersion, Variation, Characteristics, and Successive Creation ofSpecies contrasted with those of De Candolle and others—Definition ofSpecies—Whether its Essence is in the Likenessor in the Genealogical Connection of the Individuals composing a Species
Age and Size of Sequoia.—Isolation.—Decadence.—Related Genera.— Former
Distribution.—Similarity between the Flora of Japan and that of the United
States, especially on the Atlantic Side.—Former Glaciation as explaining
the Present Dispersion of Species.—This confirmed by the Arctic Fossil
Flora of the Tertiary Period.—Tertiary Flora der