To the discovery of the methods and course of physical evolution, i. e., the order of succession in physical phenomena, many great men have contributed. Among these, Newton stands pre-eminent.

The discovery of biologic evolution, i. e., the succession of phenomena in vegetal and animal life, is in like manner due to the researches of many men, but among these Darwin stands preeminent. By his discoveries the discoveries of all other biologists have been correlated and woven into systematic philosophy. The methods and course of anthropologic evolution have yet to be systematized. Important discoveries have been made, but this portion of philosophy is yet inchoate.

WORKING HYPOTHESES.

But Darwin's investigations have not ended research or completed philosophy. He brought scientific men to the frontiers of truth, and showed them a path across the border. Yet more than this he did. He pointed out one of the fundamental methods of research. Before his time philosophers talked about deductive methods and inductive methods. Darwin has taught us that both are fruitless.

Deductive methods are the logical or metaphysical methods which have been already described, by which men arrived at conclusions from general principles supposed to be innate in the human mind. The vanity of these methods has already been characterized.

Inductive methods have found their best expression in the Baconian philosophy. By inductive methods men are to collect facts, unbiased by opinions, or preconceived theories. They are to gather the facts, put them together, arrange and combine them to find higher and still higher generalizations.

But there are facts and facts-facts with value, and facts without value. The indiscriminate gathering of facts leads to no important discoveries. Men might devote themselves to counting the leaves on the trees, the blades of grass in the meadows, the grains of sand on the sea shore;-they might weigh each one, and measure each

one, and go on collecting such facts until libraries were filled, and the minds of men buried under their weight, and no addition would be made to philosophy thereby. There must be some method of selecting, some method of determining what facts are valuable, and what facts are trivial. The fool collects facts; the wise man selects them.

Amid the multiplicity of facts in the universe, how does the wise man choose for his use? The true scientific man walks not at random through the world making notes of what he sees; he chooses some narrow field of investigation. Within this field he reviews what is already known and becomes conversant with the conclusions already reached. He then seeks to discern more facts in this field, and to make more careful discriminations therein, and then to make more homologic classifications; and, finally, more thoroughly to discover the complexity of sequences.

If he attain to success in doing all this his investigations are always suggested by some hypothesis-some supposition of what he may discover. He may find that his hypothesis is wrong, and discover something else; but without an hypothesis he discovers nothing. A scientific man taking up a subject reviews the facts that are known, and imagines that they lead to conclusions that have not yet been reached by others. His imagination may lead him quite astray, yet he follows it, and says "Now if this be true, then there must be certain yet undiscovered facts," and he seeks for them. He may find that which he seeks, or he may find something quite other. If he be an honest thinker, a true philosopher, it matters not to him. He substantiates his hypothesis or constructs a new one. If such hypothesis leads to many new discoveries scientific men accept it, and call it a working hypothesis, and if it still leads on to discovery scientific men call it a theory; and so working hypotheses are developed into theories, and these theories become the fundamental principles, the major propositions of science, the widest generalizations of philosophy.

Sometimes the inductive method-the Baconian method-is said

to have been modified or improved by the addition of the method by working hypotheses, and then modern scientific methods are said to be inductive. With this understanding, it may be said that the deductive methods of metaphysics have been supplanted by the inductive methods of science. It would, perhaps, be better to say that deductive and inductive methods have been superseded by the method of working hypotheses.

Working hypotheses are the instruments with which scientific men select facts. By them, reason and imagination are conjoined, and all the powers of the mind employed in research.

Darwin, more than any other man, has taught the use of working hypotheses. Newton and Darwin are the two great lights of science-the Gemini in the heavens of philosophy; stars whose glory is the brightest of all.

There be good folk in the world who love mythologic and metaphysic philosophy-one or both. In the ears of such the praise of Darwin is not sweet music. Let me beg of such who may be here to consider that we come to-night to praise our dead, and to tell of our love for the man who gave us hope. You and I cannot contend over an open grave, and in my soul I find no cause for angry contention elsewhere. Every man's opinions are honest opinions-his opinions are the children of his own reasoning, and he loves his offspring.

When I stand before the sacred fire in an Indian village and listen to the red man's philosophy, no anger stirs my blood. I love him as one of my kind. He has a philosophy not unlike that of my forefathers, though widely separated from my own, and I love him as one near akin.

Among civilized men I find no one who has not a philosophy in part common with my own; and of those smaller portions of our philosophies which are not alike I see no cause why anger should be kindled between us thereby. They and I are bound together by the same cord of honesty in opinion.

In Darwin's writings I find no word of reproach. Denunciation

and ridicule, greater than any other man has endured, never kindled a spark of hatred in his breast. Wrapped in the mantle of his philosophy he received no wounds, but lived with and loved mankind.

Let us not gird science to our loins as the warrior buckles on his sword. Let us raise science aloft as the olive branch of peace and the emblem of hope.

DARWIN'S WORK IN ENTOMOLOGY.

BY CHARLES V. RILEY.

Charles Robert Darwin was one of the original members of the London Entomological Society, of whom only six are yet living. He always took the keenest interest in the science of entomology, and drew largely from insects for illustrations in support of the theory with which his name will forever be associated. Indeed, I have the authority of my late associate editor of the American Entomologist, Benjamin Dann Walsh, who was a classmate of Darwin's, at Cambridge, that the latter's love of natural history was chiefly manifested, while there, in a fine collection of insects; so that, as has been the case with so many noted naturalists, Darwin probably acquired from the study of insects that love of nature, which, first forever afterward, inspired him in his endeavors to win her secrets andi nterpret aright her ways!

Though he has left no descriptive or systematic work of an entomological character, yet his writings abound in important facts and observations anent insects, and no branch of natural science has more fully felt the beneficial impulse and stimulus of his labors than entomology. Indeed, the varying conditions of life in the same individual or species; the remarkable metamorphoses; the rapid development; the phenomena of dimorphism and heteromorphism; of phytophagic and sexual variation; the ready adaptation to changed conditions, and consequent rapid modification; the great prolificacy and immense number of individuals; the three distinct

ive states of larva, pupa, and imago, susceptible to modification, as well as other characteristics in insects-render them particularly attractive and useful to the evolutionist, and the changed aspect which natural history in general has assumed since the publication of the "Origin of Species" is perhaps more marked in entomology than in any other branch, for its author helped to replace ridicule by reason. During his voyage on the "Beagle" he collected a very large number of interesting species, especially in Coleoptera, and they formed the basis of many memoirs by Walker, Newman, and White, and particularly by G. R. Waterhouse, who named Odontoscelis Darwinii after him. These memoirs were published either in the Annals and Magazine of Natural History, and in the Transactions of the London Entomological Society, or in various entomological periodicals, and I append a list, which, in this connection, it is not necessary to read.

Scattered through his memorable works, a "Journal of Researches into the Natural History and Geology of the countries visited during the voyage of H. M. S. Beagle round the world," (which is best known by the publisher's title, "A Naturalist's Voyage Round the World,") and "The Origin of Species by means of Natural Selection," are many interesting entomological facts, and in almost every instance they are illumined by his masterly genius and his keen, penetrating mind. These are so numerous, so varied, and withal so widely dispersed, that I can only make reference, at this time, to a few of the most important and striking of them.

He pointed out the great preponderance of phytophagous over predaceous species in the tropics as exemplifying the relation of the insect and plant worlds, both of which attain their maximum in those zones. Carabidæ are few; Scavengers and Brachelytra very Rhyncophora and Chrysomelida astonishingly numerous,

(Journal of Researches, etc., p. 34-)

He showed by minute observations that the insect faunas of Tierra del Fuego, separated from Patagonia only by the Straits of Magellan, have nothing in common, and he discussed the influence