[{418}] Origin, Ed. i. p. 340, vi. p. 486.
[{419}] Origin, Ed. i. p. 299, vi. p. 437.
[{420}] “Nature may almost be said to have guarded against the frequent discovery of her transitional or linking forms,” Origin, Ed. i. p. 292. A similar but not identical passage occurs in Origin, Ed. vi. p. 428.
[{421}] Origin, Ed. i. p. 291, vi. p. 426.
[{422}] Origin, Ed. i. p. 288, vi. p. 422.
[{423}] Origin, Ed. i. p. 289, vi. p. 423.
[{424}] Origin, Ed. i. p. 300, vi. p. 439.
[{425}] Ch. XIII of the Origin, Ed. i., Ch. XIV Ed. vi. begins with a similar statement. In the present Essay the author adds a note:—“The obviousness of the fact (i.e. the natural grouping of organisms) alone prevents it being remarkable. It is scarcely explicable by creationist: groups of aquatic, of vegetable feeders and carnivorous, &c., might resemble each other; but why as it is. So with plants,—analogical resemblance thus accounted for. Must not here enter into details.” This argument is incorporated with the text in the Origin, Ed. i.
[{426}] Origin, Ed. i. p. 411, vi. p. 566.
[{427}] Origin, Ed. i. p. 316, vi. p. 457.