Tetrabranchiates, also, are of a much simpler type than the highly complex Ammonitidæ of the Mesozoic. Similar facts are observable amongst the Vertebrate animals. The Fishes are the lowest class of Vertebrates, and they are the first to appear, their first certain occurrence being in the Upper Silurian; whilst, even if the Lower Silurian and Upper Cambrian "Conodonts" were shown to be the teeth of Fishes, there would still remain the enormously long periods of the Laurentian and Lower Cambrian, during which there were Invertebrates, but no Vertebrates. The Amphibians, the next class in zoological order, appears later than the Fishes, and is not represented till the Carboniferous; whilst its highest group (that of the Frogs and Toads) does not make its entrance upon the scene till Tertiary times are reached. The class of the Reptiles, again, the next in order, does not appear till the Permian, and therefore not till after Amphibians of very varied forms had been in existence for a protracted period. The Birds seem to be undoubtedly later than the Reptiles; but, owing to the uncertainty as to the exact point of their first appearance, it cannot be positively asserted that they preceded Mammals, as they should have done. Finally, the Mesozoic types of Mammals are mainly, if not exclusively, referable to the Marsupials, one of the lowest orders of the class; whilst the higher orders of the "Placental" Quadrupeds are not with certainty known to have existed prior to the commencement of the Tertiary period. Facts of a very similar nature are offered by the succession of Plants upon the globe. Thus the vegetation of the Paleozoic period consisted principally of the lowly-organised groups of the Cryptogamous or Flowerless plants. The Mesozoic formations, up to the Chalk, are especially characterised by the naked-seeded Flowering plants-the Conifers and the Cycads; whilst the higher groups of the Angiospermous Exogens and Monocotyledons characterise the Upper Cretaceous and Tertiary rocks. Facts of the above nature—and they could be greatly multiplied-seem to point clearly to the existence of some law of progression, though we certainly are not yet in a position to formulate this law, or to indicate the precise manner in which it has operated. Two considerations, also, must not be overlooked. In the first place, there are various groups, some of them highly organised, which make their appearance at an extremely ancient date, but which continue throughout geological time almost unchanged, and certainly unprogressive. Many of these "persistent types" are known-such as various of the Foraminifera, the Lingulæ, the Nautili, &c.; and they indicate that under given conditions, at present unknown to us, it is possible for a life-form to subsist for an almost indefinite period without any important modification of its structure. In the second place, whilst the facts above mentioned point to some general law of progression of the great zoological groups, it cannot be asserted that the primeval types of any given group are necessarily "lower," zoologically speaking, than their modern representatives. Nor does this seem to be at all necessary for the establishment of the law in question. It cannot be asserted, for example, that the Ganoid and Placoid Fishes of the Upper Silurian are in themselves less highly organised than their existing representatives; nor can it even be asserted that the Ganoid and Placoid orders are low groups of the class Pisces. On the contrary, they are high groups; but then it must be remembered that these are probably not really the first Fishes, and that if we meet with Fishes at some future time in the Lower Silurian or Cambrian, these may easily prove to be representatives of the lower orders of the class. This question cannot be further entered into here, as its discussion could be carried out to an almost unlimited length; but whilst there are facts pointing both ways, it appears that at present we are not justified in asserting that the earlier types of each group-so far as these are known to us, or really are without predecessors—are necessarily or invariably "degraded" or "embryonic" in their structure than their more modern representatives. more It remains to consider very briefly how far Paleontology supports the doctrine of "Evolution," as it is called; and this, too, is a question of almost infinite dimensions, which can but be glanced at here. Does Palæontology teach us that the almost innumerable kinds of animals and plants which we know to have successively flourished upon the earth in past times were produced separately and wholly independently of each other, at successive periods? or does it point to the theory that a large number of these supposed distinct forms have been in reality produced by the slow modification of a comparatively small number of primitive types? Upon the whole, it must be unhesitatingly replied that the evidence of Paleontology is in favour of the view that the succession of life-forms upon the globe has been to a large extent regulated by some orderly and constantly-acting law of modification and evolution. Upon no other theory can we comprehend how the fauna of any given formation is more closely related to that of the formation next below in the series, and to that of the formation next above, than to that of any other series of deposits. Upon no other view can we comprehend why the Post-Tertiary Mammals of South America should consist principally of Edentates, Llamas, Tapirs, Peccaries, Platyrhine Monkeys, and other forms now characterising this continent; whilst those of Australia should be wholly referable to the order of Marsupials. On no other view can we explain the common occurrence of "intermediate " or "transitional forms of life, filling in the gaps between groups now widely distinct. The On the other hand, there are facts which point clearly to the existence of some law other than that of evolution, and probably of a deeper and more far-reaching character. Upon no theory of evolution can we find a satisfactory explanation for the constant introduction throughout geological time of new forms of life, which do not appear to have been preceded by pre-existent allied types. The Graptolites and Trilobites have no known predecessors, and leave no known successors. Insects appear suddenly in the Devonian, and the Arachnides and Myriapods in the Carboniferous, under well-differentiated and highly-specialised types. The Dibranchiate Cephalopods appear with equal apparent suddenness in the older Mesozoic deposits, and no known type of the Paleozoic period can be pointed to as a possible ancestor. The Hippuritidæ of the Cretaceous burst into a varied life to all appearance almost immediately after their first introduction into existence. The wonderful Dicotyledonous flora of the Upper Cretaceous period similarly surprises us without any prophetic annunciation from the older Jurassic. Many other instances could be given; but enough has been said to show that there is a good deal to be said on both sides, and that the problem is one environed with profound difficulties. One point only seems now to be universally conceded, and that is, that the record of life in past time is not interrupted by gaps other than those due to the necessary imperfections of the fossiliferous series, to the fact that many animals are incapable of preservation in a fossil condition, or to other causes of a like nature. All those who are entitled to speak on this head are agreed that the introduction of new and the destruction of old species have been slow and gradual processes, in no sense of the term "catastrophistic." Most are also willing to admit that "Evolution" has taken place in the past, to a greater or less extent, and that a greater or less number of socalled species of fossil animals are really the modified descendants of pre-existent forms. How this process of evolution has been effected, to what extent it has taken place, under what conditions and laws it has been carried out, and how far it may be regarded as merely auxiliary and supplemental to some deeper law of change and progress, are questions to which, in spite of the brilliant generalisations of Darwin, no satisfactory answer can as yet be given. In the successful solution of this problem-if soluble with the materials available to our hands -will lie the greatest triumph that Palæontology can hope to attain; and there is reason to think that, thanks to the guidingclue afforded by the genius of the author of the 'Origin of Species,' we are at least on the road to a sure, though it may be a far-distant, victory. APPENDIX. TABULAR VIEW OF THE CHIEF DIVISIONS OF THE ANIMAL KINGDOM. (Extinct groups are marked with an asterisk. Groups not represented at all as fossils are marked with two asterisks.) INVERTEBRATE ANIMALS. SUB-KINGDOM I.-PROтozoa. Animal simple or compound; body composed of "sarcode," not definitely segmented; no nervous system; and no digestive apparatus, beyond occasionally a mouth and gullet. SUB-KINGDOM II.-CŒLENTERATA. Animal simple or compound; body-wall composed of two principal layers; digestive canal freely communicating with the general cavity of the body; no circulating organs, and no nervous system or a rudimentary one; mouth surrounded by tentacles, arranged, like the internal organs, in a "radiate" or star-like manner. CLASS I. HYDROZOA. Sub-class 1. Hydroida ("Hydroid Zoophytes"). Ex. Fresh- ** |