New Thought Archives at New Thought Library

very remote parts of the vegetable and of the animal kingdom, parts so remote as to have branched very far back in development, yet present in some special organs striking resemblances to each other. Thus, that an ash-leaf maple should be found among maples, or a chestnut-leaf oak among oaks, is a result hardly to be anticipated. The gillaroo trout, the mullet and the toothless ant-eater have gizzards, an organ which lies primarily in the line of development of birds.* The eyes of insects and of crabs offer the same principles; so also the ears, and more manifestly the eyes of cuttle-fish, and those of vertebrates show a general correspondence. Yet it is quite beyond the range of chances to explain any considerable agreement between results so remote from each other in lines of causation. If we trace back these lines to the point of convergence, we shall find a common parent quite unlike either offspring. This disagreement between the two extremes has been the result of the protracted vicissitudes of entirely diverse developments, and reveals itself at length in two such different beings as a cuttle-fish and a man. Yet the eye, in its forms of structure, offers a remarkable exception to this divergence, and one not to be explained by natural selection merely. Nor can it be fairly said that the range of chances is narrow in the eye through the fixedness of optic principles. The ultimate physical result in vision is a molecular change in the brain induced by light. We are certainly not prepared to say that such a change can be induced

* Dissertations of Sir Charles Bell. PALEY'S N. Theology, vol. iv, p. 84.