Species Not Transmutable, Nor the Result of Secondary Causes : Being a Critical Examination of Mr. Darwin's Work Entitled "Origin and Variation of Species"

Front matter

pneters!

See ea

SPECIES

Preface

Tue following pages were written some months ago, and their publication has been delayed by circumstances to which I need not further allude. I offer the book now to the consideration of the public, with a perfect consciousness that it has many defccts for which I must claim indulgence. The subject is one of deep importance; much more so indeed than would appear to many, from a thoughtless perusal of the work criticised. I trust I have dealt with the book fairly. I entirely disclaim all personal feeling in the strong language I have sometimes felt bound to use. No one has derived greater pleasure than I have in past days from the study of Mr. Darwin’s other works, and no onc has felt a greater degree of regret that he should have imperiled his fame, by the publication of his treatise upon the “Origin of Species.”

Cc. ht. B.

Colchester, Sep. 14th, 1860.

Contents

CHAPTER IJ.

Resuirs of Mr s enquirics, and the inevitable tendency of his theory. Objections to his inferences and conclusions. Development progressive—according to tne Darwinian hypothesis. Special creation denied by Mr. Darwin, Want of proof of Mr. Darwiu’s view: Domestic animals modify from alteration in the circumstances of existence, No analogy between such variation and that of Nature Pre-silurian world essential to Mr, Darwin’s theory. Utter want of proof of such a world. Lowest rocks. Mr. Mackie’s lirst traces, No proof of gradual succession of lower into higher forms in time, Extinct-animals. Lamarck—The Vestiges. Does Mr. Darwiu’s law of variation exist in nature? Reasons for the conclusion that it docs uot, 9 : : ° 5 : 1—24

Chapter I

Mr. Darwiy’s arrangement of his subject. V: USCS, Mr, Darwin's views of correlation untenable. Tuhe ctions to the doctrine that a pure form could have originated from an imperfect variety. Law of variation not constant, therefore not a natural law. If “divergence of form,” 2 true doctrine, lines, must have fallen in histeric period. Non-variubility of coral polypes proved by Agassiz for two hundred thousand years. 4 25—36

CHAPTER IL

“Variation under Nature” considered. Dr, B. Clemens, on fixity of species. Owen on non-variability of dog. Wollaston on the distinction between species and varieties. Agassiz on permanence of species, on the variation of domesticated animals, and the succession of created beings. Darwin's definition of a species, Dr. Clemens, Mr. Wollaston, and Dr. Carpenter's? definitions. Monsters, a degradation from normal standard, and frequently produced by unnatural mode of life. Mr. Darwin's views on progressive development. Swim bladder of fish used as an argument for transmutation of organs of respiration—its fallacy. General view of Mr, Darwin’s doctrine, as contrasted with Nature as she is. Glance of progressiye development from the monad to man, and the inevitable result of Mr. Darwin's views, being the transmutation of the ape into man, Grave objections to such an hypothesis, 3 3 5 37—tL

Viii CONTENTS,

CHAPTER IY.

SrruGcie for existence considered. Objections to Mr. Darwin’s view of the subject. Increase of animal life. Inconsistency of Mr. Darwin's prophecy of the future earthly condition of mankind. Natural selection. Does it exist? Reasons for disbelief in such a force. Accidental variation. Origin of change into species, of some varicties, Grave objections to such a view, Design, as evinced in colour of animals. Mr. Darwin’s strange views on the subject. Other illustrations considered. Comparison of Christian views of the Creator in 1860, with those of Cicero before the Christian cra, The “ Vestiges” more plausible than Mr. Darwin’s view. 62—77

CHAPTER V.

Istercrosstnc. Extinction, Objections to Mr, Darwin's views of the Jatter as applied to his theory. Does the less-favoured form become extinct? Extinction a law of Nature. Proofs of displayed in the records of geology. Owen on succession of new species. “Divergence of character” considered, Objections to proof from domestic animals, Absence of all proof of transmutation of specics, ~Egilops triticoides. Dr. Maclean’s experience. Girtner and Kilreuter’s researches, Mr. Knight’s views. Aguassiz-on hybrids. Mr. Darwin’s illustration of his subject by the simile of a largetree. The author adopts a similar illustration in answer. Mr. Darwin strains homologies into identities. Creative wisdom displayed in adoption of similar type in organization, Instances of adaptation adduced. Human hand and foot. Thoracic duct; its beautifully adapted mode of entrance into the veins. Difficulties of assuming that such organs resulted by variation from animals in which they do not exist! The blood; its various character in different animals; the size of its disc. ‘The lung. The Corpora Olivcaria. Mr. Murray on adaptation in Jellingtonia gigantea, Dr. Davy on adaptation in growth of birds, 3 . 6 a 5 - ° 5 78—103

CHAPTER VI.

Law of variation considered. Use and disuse. Wings. Mr. Murray on blind bectles. Wingless insects. Acclimatization. So-called “habits” of flowers. Mummy seed. “Correlation of growth” considered under two propositions. Anthropoid apes. The Gorilla, Chimpanzee, Orang-outang, and Gibbon. Great anatomical distinction between the highest ape and man. Summary of their different characters. Owen’s deductions. o ° . . . 101—120

_ CHAPTER VII,

- CorreLation of growth further considered. Mr. Darwin’s views upon the variable tendency of parts developed in an extraordinary manner. His reasons unsatisfactory. Second proposition considered. Objection to the inference drawn from the proposition. Fertility of hybrids. Mr. Darwin’s views of special creation, Absurdity of assuming a

CONTENTS, ix common origin to the mammalia. Difficulties of theory. Absence or rarity of transitional varictics, or the origin and transition of organic beings with peculiar habit and structure. The AZustela vison, Natural sclection only acting for the good of the indi. vidual considered. Flying lemur, Q 2 0 Q 121—135

CHAPTER VIII.

Diverstrirp habit considered. Mr, Darwin's illustrations unfortunate. Transmutation of a bear into a whale. American woodpecker, Frigate bird, Organs of extreme perfection and complication, Light objective and substantive. The eye. Irresistible proof against Mr, Darwin's theory drawn from the structure of the eye. Owen. Buckland on the vision of Trilobites. Nuttall on vision of birds. Eyes of insect. Owen on the eyes of fishes, and his deductions. 5 : 5 5 0 5 E . 5 136—149

° CHAPTER IX.

Oraays of little importance ; Mr. Darwin’s views upon them considered. The Aye-aye; Dr. Sandwith upon, Darwin's views upon the assumed identity of bones in monkey, horse, hat, and seal. Use of the skeleton. Owen upon the osteology of animated beings. Mr, Darwin’s belief that his doctrine would be upset if it could be proved that the organs of one animal were formed for the good of another. The challenge accepted, and the issue proved against Mr. Darwin. The horse not a transmuted tapir. Difference between instinct and habit. Mr, Darwin’s views upon the subject confused, The cuckoo, Slave ants. Cells of hive bee. Neuter insects. Mr. Darwin on accidental variation. The song thrush. Mr. Darwin’s canon “Multiply, vary, let the strongest live and the weakest die.” Dr. Maclean on the economy of Sphex sabulosus, Timenitis Sibylla, and Apatura iris. Professor Goodsir on the distinction between human consciousness and instinct. 150—181

CHAPTER X.

divnnipism. Geoffrey St. Hilaire’s deduction utterly opposed to the Darwinian theory. Imperfection of geological record. Admirable remarks upon the subject from the “Spectator.” Owen on the succession of species in geology. Extinction nowhere sudden. Development not in the linc from weak to stronger form. Geographical distribution. Dr. Hooker a convert to Mr, Darwin's views. The analogy between plants and animals, as it regards Darwin's doctrine not to be sustained. Dr. Asa Grey’s views upon the distribution of plants and animals. Agassiz; his views upon the same subject. 0 : r 0 6 182—206 x CONTENTS.

CHAPTER XI.

RupimmeNtary organs, The whale a Deautifal instance of design. Mr. Darwin’s views of the rudimentary teeth of the whale and calf objected to. Strictures upon Mr. Lewis’s article on the natural selection theory, and upon the notice of Darwin's book in the “Medico-Chirugical Review.” Embryology. — Error of Darwin’s statement about the larve of insects. Mr. Crewe’s list of larve. Mr. Darwin’s position on this part of the subject considered. Professor Bennet. Bischoff. “Accidental” modification of bird's wing. Simon on disease as a proof of design. : 207—235

CHAPTER XII.

Tue discussion at Oxford. Professor Huxley and Dr, Hooker's opinions considered, The opinion of a “Divine” upon secondary causes, ‘The inconsistency of such a belief with that of Revealed Truth. Mr. Darwin’s disciples not agreed upon the truth of Mr. Darwin’s book. ‘The review in the “Quarterly” and extracts therefrom, ‘The milking of aphides by ants an erroncous observation. Conclusion. . } 5 . : a 6 . A 236—256

SPECIES NOT TRANSMUTABLE. ©

CHAPTER I.

“TrerEvorE I cannot doubt that the theory of descent with modification embraces all the members of the same class. I believe that animals have descended from at most only four or five progenitors, and plants from an equal or lesser number.”

“Analogy would lead me one step further, namely, to the belief that all animals and plants have descended from some one prototype. But analogy may be a deceitful guide. Nevertheless, all living things have much in common in their chemical composition, their germinal vesicles, their cellular structure, and their laws of growth and reproduction. We see this even in so trifling a circumstance as that the same poison often similarly affects plants and animals; or that the poison secreted by the gall-fly produces monstrous growths in the wild rose or oak tree. Therefore I should infer from analogy that probably all the organic beings which have ever lived on this earth, have descended from one primordial form into which life was first breathed.” — Dazwiy, on the Origin and Variation of Species, page 483-4.

THERE can be no doubt about the meaning of the above quotations. They express clearly and with startling confidence the result of Mr. Darwin's investigations into the origin of species. But whatever may be their significance to the philo-

B sophic naturalist, these results have « still greater interest to those who pass the pleasantest hours of their life, in studying Nature as she exists in the beautiful world by which we are surrounded.

To the former they revolutionize all the theories upon which his principles of classification are based; to the latter they are destructive of all that he has ever contemplated of the harmony— the adaptation—the design—which he has dreamt

that he saw in created things.

It cannot therefore be deemed an unnecessary or uncalled-for task, to enquire critically into the grounds upon which such conclusions have been formed. The minds of the students of Nature of all classes are strongly imbued with the idea, that living things have been specially created to serve certain purposes in the world—that they in fact represent the ideas or constituent parts of the great thought by which they were called into being—that they are distinct, and though variable, yet immutable organisms—not changing one into another by any secondary law or laws, but existing as they were first produced; carrying out the Design by which their structure was adapted to their mode of life and position in the world.

It is upon no slight grounds that such a belief will be surrendered. There is so much evident Truth in the congruity of Nature—so much that is convincing in its harmony—so much that speaks in clear and unmistakeable language of a Great First and Final Cause—that the mind instinctively repels anything which attempts to weaken its convictions, or demolish the groundwork of its fuith,

And before this can be finally accomplished, there must be not only a rational and well-argued and convincing case made out by the assailing party, but there must be a complete change in the human mind! The highest powers of its reason, those by which the greatest triumphs have been effected, its inductive faculties must give way to a cold but implicit belief in assumed facts, which that reason clearly tells him never could have been realities.

Mr. Darwin has presented us with what he considers the first of these alternatives. JI am cither unreasonably. sceptical, or the change alluded to has not been effected in my mind. I have read over his book most carefully, and I am bound to confess that I am a stronger believer in a first cause and a special creation than ever; for I am now fortified with what I conceive to be the failure of a man of deservedly high reputation to convince me that I am in error,

Inu the passages above quoted from Mr. Darwin, he states that he “believes that all animals have descended from at most only four or five progenitors, and plants from an equal or lesser number;” and subsequently he “znfers that proably all organic beings have descended from some one primordial form into which life was first breathed.”

Let us briefly examine the inference first.—

If every living thing has descended from one form, it is quite clear that man was not a separate creation. Originating in some undescribed and unintelligible primordial organism, he has been progressing through countless ages by the principles of ‘natural selection,” “modification of form,” and “divergence of character,” until having passed through the various phases of organic life, he ultimately became a monkey, and then—a man.

Now there is no possibility of getting away from this position, if Darwin’s book is true. The changes taking place through ‘‘countless ages,” myriads of years in fact before the oldest known geological epoch, the latter being itself a period too immense for human intellect to grasp!

T need not stop a moment in endeavouring to prove the vast and fearful interests which are involved in such a conclusion. We are told that in discussing a scientific question, (and I agree in the propriety of the rule,) that we must not mix it up with proof which may be obtained-from the Sacred Writings. But the question as ] have placed it, or rather as Mr. Darwin has raised it, has gone far beyond the limits of a scientific discussion. Mr. Darwin, it is true, has carefully avoided opening the wider issue by reference to Biblical authority, but he has arrived at a point which has struck at the foundation of all the great truths which the Bible teaches, and therefore it is incumbent upon any one who enters into a discussion of the question, to demand clear and undoubted proof of the doctrines upon which it is founded.

Now it is because I consider Mr. Darwin’s position untenable —his facts doubtful-—his reasoning unsound—and his deductions untrue, that I venture, with a deep sense of my own shortcomings, to enter the list with him in a fair and open manner, and to state distinctly, but without flinching, that I think the grounds of my disbelief can be clearly sustained. But it may be said, why argue from Mr. Darwin's inferences? Let us therefore examine for a moment his conclusion.

It must be borne in mind, as will appear more clearly when I come to analyze his arguments, that Mr. Darwin considers all species of one genus to have arisen from one parent, all genera from one representative of an order, and all orders from one member of a class; and all members of a class from one member of a sub-kingdom. Here he stops short in his “conclusions;” going one step further in his “inferences,” and believing that all “sub-kingdoms” arose from one sole representative.

It is very essential to bear in mind that, according to this theory, there has been a progressive development of animal form. Now the animal kingdom is at present divided by naturalists into five great divisions—the Vertebrate, the Molluscous, the Articulate, the Radiate, and the Protozoa, sub-kingdoms, Of these man is the head.

of the first, and consequently is the highest development of Mr. Darwin’s original primordial vertebrate form. He was not then, according to this doctrine, specially created.

Tt will be seen further on, that Mr. Darwin arrives at his ultimate typical form, not by any special design or creation, but that in the course of myriads of ages, varieties of form occurring “accidentally” or otherwise have given certain animals a superiority over others in the “struggle for existence,” which is the great moving spring at the root of all his speculations. It is then quite clear that if these views are correct, it matters but little whether Mr. Darwin gives us four or five progenitors, or only one. In either case he denies a special creator either to plants or animals, and thus at one blow destroys all that we have so long held and cherished among the riches of our knowledge—that beautiful adaptation of structure to its varied uses, which some have called design, life, motion, development; which others have called evidence of Natural Religion; and above all, man himself, with his attributes—sensation, thought, consciousness, in a word reason —all these are swept away as a proof of special creation;—they are but the results of fortuitous variation, acting without order or even natural law! ~

But differing, as I do, from Mr. Darwin in his interpretation of facts, and denying, as I do, the soundness of his premises and the correctness of his deductions, I am quite willing to admit that he never intended that the theory he has endeavoured to establish, should carry with it the fearful conclusion to which I have alluded. A recent writer in one of our popular weekly publications contends that there is nothing irreligious in Mr. Darwin’s views, and that a Great First Cause may act with as much design by secondary means as he can by special creation. In other words, this writer would have us believe that the first primordial form, from which all others sprung, contained within itself the elements of perpetual change, each variation being adapted to the ever-varying condition of the world. Now if this were true, variation of species would be a constant natural law acting from all time with definite pre-ordained precision and regularity! But Mr. Darwin does not lay claim to that which is in itself a manifest absurdity, for the very word variation implies a type or normal form, from which the species varies.

Whatever however may be the modus operandi of Mr. Darwin’s law of variation, in affecting the astounding resulis which he ascribes to it, there can, I think, be no doubt that we are entitled to have something like evidence of the correctness of his facts, and the soundness of his arguments.

If Mr. Darwin had limited his work to the simple question of the “Variation of Species,” I could readily have joined in much of the praise with which the book has been received by some who have a knowledge of Comparative Anatomy, and. by a great many who are entirely ignorant

Ny) SPECIES NOT of it, as is evinced by their reviews. But when the question is widened so as to attempt to prove that by a new and partial law, a fish, a reptile, a bird, or a mammal are merely different expressions of the same thing—mere modifications ‘by “natural selection” and ‘divergence of form” of the same primordial organism, he opens a question so vast and so utterly opposed to all our preconceived notions—so contrary, as I conceive, to all the knowledge which Anatomy and Physiology teach us, and so utterly destructive of all belief in the constant operation of a Great First Cause, that it will be readily conceded before we assent to such a doctrine, we have a right to demand that it should be founded on some kind of proof. Now I have carefully read over Mr. Darwin's work, and I cannot from beginning to end find one atom of proof of the éransmutation of species, upon which the integrity of the whole doctrine depends.

There is a great deal said, it is true, of such ‘arguments as are to be derived from the ready belief that a flying fish might be converted by “natural selection,” etc., into a bird! How the flying Lemur might have its membranous appendage changed into the wing of a bat! How the eye of the eagle might have been “modified,” and “varied,” and developed from the black pigmentary ‘spot of the crustacean; or, How a bear swimming about with open mouth to ‘catch flies, might have been transmuted in due course into a mighty whale! But when we ask for proof—for facts to argue upon—for reasons for believing—for the scientific basis of a rational induction—alas! we get nothing but the doctrine of “natural selection !” of “modification of form!” of “divergence of character!” of “correlation of growth!” or we are cooly referred with inimitable equanimity to that dark unfathomable abyss, the “Imperfection of the Geological Record!”

That domestic animals of the same genus will modify, as Mr. Darwin has shewn, no one ever doubted. That climate, habit, difference in food, and careful and judicious crossing will alter the races of animals, as to certain unimportant points. of structure, is a truth which no naturalist ever denied. But the pigeon reared by the fancier is still a pigeon; the short-horned ox and the Devon are still most unmistakably bovine; the racer and the cart-horse still proclaim their brotherhood; the greyhound and the spaniel are still dogs! Granted, if you will, they may have been derived from the same stock. Yet how immensely different is the question of such a modification from that which by any process of natural change, could convert the water-breathing fish into the air-breathing mammal, or the bird with air-filled bones—(so beautifully adapted to give it lightness and buoyancy in the atmosphere,) and its complex flying apparatus, into the crawling reptile, the fish, or the quadruped!

Not only is there no proof tendered of anything approaching to such conversions as these, but the author has been forced to indulge in speculations the most improbable. For instance, Mr. Darwin, with commendable candour, admits that his whole theory tumbles to pieces unless the world has existed for unnumbered ages before the silurian epoch—the lowest fossiliferous stratum known to geologists. It is clear that the hypothesis must fail if this is the “dawn of creation,” for we find numerous fossil forms presenting a tolerably high organization. Below this there is no record of life. The time which geologists compute must have passed since this period, is far too vast for the mind to grasp. One of the latest geological writers however, Mr. Mackie, in his ‘First Traces of Life on the Earth,” gives us some data upon which a tolerably approximate calculation may be formed.—

“The greatest amount of sediment which, according to our present information, can be permanently laid down in our deep waters over the range of otir present seas, would probably not exceed in the aggregate, including even our littoral accumulation, a coating of more than three inches thick in ten thousand years; and yet we have at least a minimum thickness of upwards of eighty thousand feet consolidated sedimentary rock to explain as the result of natural agencies in past time.”—(Page 126.)

Thus we may calculate from the minimum thickness that at least three billions two hundred millions of years have passed since the first known living organism was deposited in its rocky grave! And yet it is absolutely necessary for Mr. Darwin

TRANSMUTABLE. il to assume that this is but a fragment in the world’s history !

But is there any proof of an animated world prior to the silurian epoch?—Not a vestige. And yet we are told by Mr. Darwin, to believe that an equally long period at least occurred before, the evidences of which are still buried beneath the sea; and upon this merely gratuitous assumption we are at once to surrender our belief in special creation and design!

I may be permitted however to remark here, that two billions and a fifth of years is no mean fraction of time. If we count two hundred a minute, it will take us nine years, or nearly, to count a billion. Surely this is something in the record of the past; and yet it tells us nothing of the transmutation of species!

In the first of all fossiliferous rocks-—the Cambrian, what do we find ?—Sertularians, Annelidans, and Trilobites, representing the Radiate and Articulate sub-kingdoms of modern naturalists. Some traces also of sea-weed have been discovered by Mr. Salter, at Moel-y-ci, near Bangor, and others have heen described in Skiddaw slates by Professor Mc’ Coy. (Mackie, p. 149.) When we get a little higher up in the scale—into the true silurian, we find the forms much more numerous. We have mollusca represented by well-developed and peculiar species in almost all its divisions, namely, Polyzoa, Brachiopoda, Lamellibranchiata, (Holostomatous Gasteropods, allied to our snails, ) Cephalopoda, containing representatives of the peautiful. nautilus, which skims along the surface of our own seas, and the delicate Cleodora, one of the most lovely and fragile monuments of the past. The class Annulosa is represented by some remarkable forms. Star-fishes like those we can pick up on our own coust, only differing in some real or imaginary structure; the curious Crinoid still represented in our fauna, and those woodlouse-like crustaceans, the Trilobites, of which Burmeister and the Ray Society have given us immortal representations.

It is clear then that Mr. Darwin’s world could not have commenced here, for we have a host of once-living things in these Cambrian and Silurian rocks, representing plants, and four out of the five great divisions of the animal kingdom.

Well, to get over this difficulty, Mr. Darwin creates in his imagination another world of an indefinite length, but at least as long before the silurian as the time which has passed away since. I must beg the reader’s particular attention to this imaginary unknown geological formation; but for the present I will leave it, and say a word or two about the immense record of which, thanks to the researches of Sedgwick, Murchison, Lyall, and others, we do know a great deal. And what does it tell us of the transmutation of species? absolutely nothing!

Through this immensity of space animal life has neither diverged in form to any «mount, or has had differentiated by the “law” of variation any additional organs. Jt has not become transmuted. There is not in this three billions and two hundred millions of years a single form which Mr. Darwin can bring forward as transitional from one phase of being to another. The wonderful records of geology display a succession of life during the past period which it occupies, as remarkable as it is positive in its details. We do not, it is true, as some have erroneously inferred, and, as according to Mr. Darwin’s views, we ought to have done, find a gradual succession of the lower into the higher organism. On the contrary, there are evident marks of degeneration in some forms, while others are exalted. We sce in fact, perfect adaptation of structure to the mode and the means of life. Where now shall we see the modified ' representative of the huge Saurian which lived in «an atmosphere, and in a condition of the earth, formed, I will not say specially for, but in accordance with its peculiar structure. Look again at the remains of the Mammoth, or the Mastodon, and other allied monsters, which have long since become extinct. They do not speak of a progressive development, or a passage in the transition of a lower to a higher form!

But like every other class of organisms in the geological record, these extinct animals tell their own tale, and display in language which no one can misunderstand, that in every great period of geological history the world has been peopled by creatures adapted to its physical and climatic condition, and that this has been done by distinct acts of special creation, by Him whose wisdum our finite minds are too apt to interpret and criticise. Instead of studying the works of nature with the light which we possess, and endeavouring to discover by the aid of the highest and most cultivated reason, the different steps in the great plan of creation; Mr. Darwin, and_ those who follov him, have erected a system of their own, which, without displaying the power and the beauty of Infinite Wisdom, has from beginning to end marked upon it the imperfections and often bungling creations of a human intellect.

It is the object of the following pages to shew that Mr. Darwin's case is not proved, and that consequently it cannot supersede that theory of special creation, of which we have the most convincing proof.

Before we examine however more minutely into the grounds upon which Mr. Darwin’s whole theory is based, let us consider for a moment two propositions.

First, What does Mr. Darwin's theory really mean ?

Most people in these reading days are aware that previous to the appearance of Mr. Darwin’s hook, there have been brought before the world two great speculations about the origin and development of species. Lamarck, like Darwin, a great naturalist, and who had a more intimate acquaintance with species than perhaps any other man of his day, conceived the extraordinary notion not only that all living things originated in one primordial form, but that they were developed in successive ages into different orders and classes, by a change produced in the animal from use. That is to say, an animal, whether mollusk, fish, reptile, or bird, might by the constant use of any one organ produce a permanent alteration in it, and thus become gradually changed into a creature having altogether different habits, form, functions, and development.

In 1854 was published the ‘“Vestiges of a Natural History of Creation,” in which the author admitting that there was a glimmer of truth in the theory of Lamarck, proceeded to demolish it by endeavouring to prove that the Creator peopled the earth with living forms, not at one time only, but at successive periods, and not by actual creation, but by the operation of a certain law, by which development in living structures was altered or arrested at different points, thus producing transmutation of species, and adapting a form living, we will say in water, to one living in air; thus believing, like Lamarck, in ultimate results, but differing as to the modus operandi.