73 
neously asserted that the element of time has been assumed by 
me to play an all-important part in modifying species.” 
But this denial only extends to the hypothesis that 
“all the forms of life are necessarily undergoing change 
through some innate law.” For he goes on at once to 
assert:— 
“ Lapse of time is only so far important—and its importance in 
this respect is great—that it gives a better chance of beneficial 
variations arising, and of their being selected, accumulated and 
fixed.”—(Origin of Species, p. 82.) 
Now, if the process of the transmutation of species 
by Natural Selection were always slow but, at the same 
time, sure in each generation, it is obvious not only 
that time would be required, but also that time would be 
successful in bringing about the desired change. But if, 
as we have seen, the conditions of life do not secure 
the necessary power of selection in each generation, 
how can a repetition of failures make an ultimate success ? 
Mr. Wallace uses the same argument with respect to 
accidental death. 
“ Although in many individual cases death may be due to chance 
rather than to any inferiority in those which die first, yet we cannot 
possibly believe that this can be the case on the large scale on 
which nature works.”—(.Darwinism. p. 122S 
On what principle, we venture to ask, does Mr. Wallace 
assume the universality of a discriminative death—because 
nature works on so large a scale ? W T hence have the 
observers of nature obtained their evidence of accidental 
death if not from every sphere of organic life, from the 
rapidly-increasing aphis to the slow-breeding elephant 
and man ? Is it because spheres of nature remain to 
be explored ? But surely we can only anticipate in 
unexplored spheres the action of the principles with 
which we are already acquainted in spheres which