and evidently in the present case, this impatience grows out of a fear
that a new hypothesis may endanger cherished and most important
beliefs. Impatience under such circumstances is not unnatural, though
perhaps needless, and, if so, unwise.

To us the present revival of the derivative hypothesis, in a more
winning shape than it ever before had, was not unexpected. We wonder
that any thoughtful observer of the course of investigation and of
speculation in science should not have foreseen it, and have learned
at length to take its inevitable coming patiently; the more so as in
Darwin's treatise it comes in a purely scientific form, addressed only
to scientific men. The notoriety and wide popular perusal of this
treatise appear to have astonished the author even more than the book
itself has astonished the reading world. Coming, as the new
presentation does, from a naturalist of acknowledged character and
ability, and marked by a conscientiousness and candor which have not
always been reciprocated, we have thought it simply right to set forth
the doctrine as fairly and as favorably as we could. There are plenty
to decry it, and the whole theory is widely exposed to attack. For the
arguments on the other side we may look to the numerous adverse
publications which Darwin's volume has already called out, and
especially to those reviews which propose directly to refute it.
Taking various lines and reflecting very diverse modes of thought,
these hostile critics may be expected to concentrate and enforce the
principal objections which can be brought to bear against the
derivative hypothesis in general, and Darwin's new exposition of it in
particular.

Upon the opposing side of the question we have read with attention, 1.
an article in the "North American Review" for April last; 2. one in