IMAGE EVALUATION 
 TEST TARGET (MT-3) 
 
 
 
 1.0 
 
 I.I 
 
 1.25 
 
 
 M 
 
 IM 
 
 2.0 
 
 1.8 
 
 1-4 ill 1.6 
 
 vg 
 
 <^ 
 
 //, 
 
 '^A 
 
 '^i/ 8^ s 
 
 VI 
 
 V 
 
 
 A 
 
 /. 
 
 y 
 
 /y 
 
 
 ■^ 
 
 ^ 
 

 
 CIHM/ICMH 
 
 Microfiche 
 
 Series. 
 
 CIHM/ICMH 
 Collection de 
 microfiches. 
 
 Canadian Institute for Historical Microreproductions Institut Canadian de microreproductions historiques 
 
 1980 
 
Technical Notes / Notes techniques 
 
 The Institute has attempted to obtain the best 
 original copy available for filming. Physical 
 features of this copy which may alter any of the 
 images in the reproduction are checked below. 
 
 D 
 D 
 D 
 D 
 
 Coloured covers/ 
 Couvertures de couleur 
 
 Coloured maps/ 
 
 Cartes gdographiques en couleur 
 
 Pages discoloured, stained or foxed/ 
 Pages d^colordes, tachetdes ou piqu6es 
 
 Tight binding (may cause shadows or 
 distortion along interior margin)/ 
 Reliure serr6 (peut causer de I'ombre ou 
 de la distortion le long de la marge 
 intdrieure) 
 
 L'Institut a microfilm^ le meilleur exemplaire 
 qu'i' iui a 6x6 possible de se procurer. Certains 
 ddfauts susceptibles de nuire d la qualitd de la 
 reproduction sont notds ci-dessous. 
 
 n 
 
 D 
 
 Coloured pages/ 
 Pages de couleur 
 
 Coloured plates/ 
 Planches en :ouleur 
 
 Show through/ 
 Transparence 
 
 Pages damaged/ 
 Pages ondommagdes 
 
 Th( 
 
 PO! 
 
 of 
 filr 
 
 Th 
 coi 
 or 
 api 
 
 Th 
 fill 
 ins 
 
 Mi 
 
 in 
 
 up 
 
 bo 
 
 fol 
 
 D 
 
 Additional comments/ 
 Commentaires suppldmentaires 
 
 Bibliographic Notes / Notes bibliographiques 
 
 D 
 D 
 D 
 
 n 
 
 Only edition available/ 
 Seulf Edition disponible 
 
 Bound with other material/ 
 Reli6 avec d'autres documents 
 
 Cover title missing/ 
 
 Le titre de couverture manque 
 
 Plates missing/ 
 
 Des planches manquent 
 
 Additional comments/ 
 Commentaires suppidmentaires 
 
 D 
 D 
 
 n 
 
 Pagination incorrect/ 
 Erreurs de pagination 
 
 Pages missing/ 
 
 Des pages manquent 
 
 Maps missing/ 
 
 Des cartes gdographiques manquent 
 
The images appearing here are the best quality 
 possible considering tho condition and legibility 
 of the original copy and in keeping with the 
 filming contract specifications. 
 
 The last recorded frame on each microfiche shall 
 contain the symbol —*' (meaning CONTINUED"), 
 or the symbol V (meaning "END"), whichever 
 applies. 
 
 Les images suivantes ont 6td reproduites avec le 
 plus grand soin, compte tenu de la condition et 
 de la nettet6 de I'exemplaire film6, et en 
 conformity avec les conditions du contrat de 
 filmage. 
 
 Un des symboles suivants apparaitra sur la der- 
 nidre image de cheque microfiche, selon le cas: 
 le symbols —^ signifie "A SUIVRE", le symbole 
 V signifie "FIN". 
 
 The original copy was borrowed from, and 
 filmed with, the kind consent of the following 
 institution: 
 
 Library of the Public 
 
 Archives of Canada 
 
 Maps or plates too large to be entirely included 
 in one exposure are filmed beginning in the 
 upper left hand corner, left to right and top to 
 bottom, as many frames as required. The 
 following diagrams illustrate the method: 
 
 L'exemplaire filmd fut reproduit grdce d la 
 g6n6rosit6 de I'dtablissement prdteur 
 suivant : 
 
 La bibliothdque des Archives 
 
 publtques du Canada 
 
 Les cartes ou les planches trop grandes pour dtre 
 reproduites en un seul cliche sont filmdes d 
 partir de Tangle supdrieure gauche, de gauche d 
 droite et de haut en bas, en prenant le nombre 
 d'images ndcessaire. Le diagramme suivant 
 illustre la m6thode : 
 
 
 
 
 1 2 3 
 
 1 
 
 2 
 
 3 
 
 4 
 
 5 
 
 6 
 
■a 
 
 
 I 
 

 I 
 
 MODERN IDEAS OF DERIVATION. \ 
 
 Address of Principal Dawson, as President of the Natural History 
 Society of Montreal. Read at the Annual Meeting, May 18th, 
 1869. 
 
 The sphere -of this Society as a modest collector and preserver 
 of local facts in Natural History, does not preclude its glancing at 
 the more diflScult and abstruse questions which agitate Naturalists 
 elsewhere ; and perhaps no place is more fitting for this than the 
 annual address of the President. I propose, therefore, on the 
 present occasion, to direct your attention to the present state of 
 those exciting questions agitated in our day by Geologists, 
 Zoologists and Botanists, as to the origin of Species and Genera, 
 and the law of their creation. 
 
 Time was when Naturalists were content to take nature as they 
 found it, without any over curious inquiries as to the origin of 
 its several parts, or the changes of which they might be sus- 
 cejitible in time. Goology first removed this pleasant state of 
 repose, by showing that all our present species had a beginning, 
 and were preceded by others, and these agiiin by others. 
 Geologists were, however, too much occupied w**h the facts of 
 their science to speculate on the ultimate causes of the appearance 
 and disappearance of species, and it remained for Zoologists and 
 Botanists, or as some prefer to call themselves, Biologists, to 
 construct hypotheses or theories to account for the ascertained 
 fact that successive dynasties of species havo succeeded each 
 
other in time. In our day, Darwin has given to such speculations 
 a form and coherency which they did not before possess, by his 
 doctrine of Natural Selection ; and theories of derivation and 
 transformation are perhaps more popular than at any previous 
 time, and are impressing themselves legibly on the practical 
 every day work of science. In these circumstances it becomes 
 necessary to watch the phases of opinion on this subject, to examine 
 the various doctrines propounded, and to ascertain what progress 
 they are making, if any, toward the goal of truth. 
 
 A very important contribution to this work has recently been 
 made by Professor Owen in the concluding chapter of his great 
 book on Physiology, just completed ; and I shall take this as the 
 basis of some remarks on the present state of the question of 
 derivation. 
 
 Prof. Owen, availing himself of the privileges of a father in 
 Science, goes back to 1830 in reviewing the history of doctrines 
 of derivation, and shows that in his student days the question of 
 the origin of species was agitated by the great Cuvier and his 
 contemporary, Geoffrey St. Hilaire, and that both of these great 
 masters of Natural Science had doubts as to the permanency of 
 Kpecies in geological time, though neither had before him enough 
 of biological evidence to establish this as a fact, or to frame any 
 certain theory as to the relation of modern to extinct species ; and 
 Cuvier, at least, saw evidence against derivation in the apparent 
 want of connecting links between fossil and recent species. 
 Owen endeavours to arrange the questions raised in 1830 under 
 several heads, and to state each as then agitated, and to " po3t it 
 up," so to speak, to the present period — his evident intention 
 being to show that the views of Darwin and other recent 
 advocates of theories of derivation are by no means so original as 
 tliey are supposed to be. 
 
 The first great question agitated by the French naturalists 
 forty years ago is that grand one — Is there unity of plan or 
 final purpose in living creatures ? Are the homologies or 
 resemblances of structure in organized beings merely parts of 
 the general plan, or do they point to genetic or other relations of 
 derivation ? Are the beautiful adaptations of organs to functions, 
 and of organisms to places in nature, evidences of deliberate 
 purpose working out its ends by means, or have the external 
 necessities given form to the organs ? On this question Cuvier, 
 iu his assertion of teleology, evidently took the broader and more 
 
philosophical view, that which commends itself to the grander 
 and higher style of mind ; but neither he nor his opponent were 
 in a position to see fully the bearings of the question. Owen 
 himself, though largely in advance of most other writers of this 
 lime, is not free from misconceptions. He clearly sees, with all 
 the more profound thinkers among naturalists, that whichever 
 view we adopt, the problem can be solved only on the hypothesis 
 of a " predetermining intelligent Will." Without this, nature is 
 only a riddle without a solution — man himself a contradiction 
 and impossibility. But, admitting this, are those resemblances 
 which we call homologies, those adaptations which we call 
 analogies, results of ^direct creative acts or of the operation of 
 secondary causes? If the former, they are ultimate facts, 
 referable directly to will ; if the latter, we may study their more 
 immediate causes, and the laws under which these operate. 
 Cuvier and many of his most illustrious disciples have been 
 content to adopt the former alternative. Owen declares that in 
 this he has been led to differ from his great master. The reasons 
 which he gives under this head are, it must be confessed, feeble. 
 He found it necessary to assume an " archetype " or ideal type in 
 explaining the vertebrate skeleton ; but this would have been 
 equally suitable under the hypothesis of direct creation or that of 
 secondary causes. He saw in the recurrence of similar segments 
 in a vertebral column and other cases of repetition of similar parts, 
 something analogous to the repetition of similar crystals, as the 
 result of " polarizing force in the growth of an inorganic body." 
 But there is scarcely more philosophy in this than there is in the 
 process by which a savage, ignorant of manufiicturing processes, 
 might explain, as the result of some unknown process of 
 crystallization, the recurrence of forms in the pattern of a 
 piece of calico or in the beads of a necklace. Still we are willing 
 to allow due value even to the impressions made upon the minds 
 of naturalists by such facts, and to go on to the next question of 
 the series. Before doing so, however, we must take exception to 
 one expression of the great English naturalist, which, in various 
 forms, recurs in several places. He calls the theory of derivation 
 a principle " more especially antagonistic to the theological idea" 
 of creation. Now, if by the theological idea he means that 
 promulgated in the first chapter of Genesis, he should explain 
 "wherein the antagonism consists. The object of the writer in 
 Genesis is obviously to illustrate and enforce the existence and 
 
attributes of the Supreme Intelligent Will as opposed to 
 Polytheism, Pantheism and Atheism, and the fact of an orderly 
 and serial origin of things. But if he says that animals were 
 made " accord'ng to their kinds," has any modern naturalist a 
 right to hold that the kinds or species of Genesis are equivalent 
 to those of any school of zoologists in our day ? Further, all who 
 profess to be acquainted with this part of theology should know 
 that the word "create" is applied iu Genesis only to the first 
 animals, and to man considered as an intelligent and moral agent. 
 The other animals and all plants are said to have been " made," 
 " formed," " brought forth," implying that the writer had before 
 his mind the idea of a primary and secondary kind of origin of 
 organized beings. I endeavoured many years ago, in a work well 
 known to members of this Society, and published before Darwin's 
 Origin of Species, to illustrate this old " theological idea." Since 
 naturalists will bring up such subjects, I may be excused for 
 reminding them that if they should come to believe, on zoological 
 and geological grounds, that some of the entities which we call 
 species have been produced by a method which may be properly 
 termed creation, and others by secondary processes, they may 
 possibly find themselves to be . drfect harmony with the oldest 
 and most authoritative theologic * ^.eas on the subject. 
 
 The second great question .s to Derivation is that which 
 relates to the succession of species in Geological time. Was this 
 broken or uninterrupted ? Did new species die out and were old 
 ones created in their room, or were the new ones derived by some 
 secondary process from those which preceded them ? This 
 question can only be finally settled by inductive investigation, 
 and unfortunately our knowledge of extinct animals and plants is 
 still too imperfect to give us the necessary accumulation of facts. 
 We can only inquire as to a few cases a little better known to us 
 than others. One curious feature of the inquiry is that it seems 
 easier to show relationships between large groups of animals than 
 between particular species. The reasons of this will appear 
 farther on. Prof. Huxley, with his usual dexterity in presenting 
 these problems to the popular comprehension, has recently taken 
 advantage of this in tracing the links of connection between birds 
 and reptiles.* By a series of cleverly arranged transitions, he has 
 succeeded in constructing such a series as no doubt sufl&ced to 
 
 * Kuyal luBtilutiou Lecture ou Auimals intermediate between Birds 
 and Reptiles. 
 
 ^ 
 
convince many of his auditors that the gigantic and grotesque 
 Iguanodons of the Mesozoio rocks might have been the pro- 
 genitors, if not of wrens and titmice, at least of ostriches and 
 cormorants. Yet he could not have placed together any two 
 members of the supposed series without convincing any naturalist 
 that an enormous gap had to be filled between them. Prof. 
 Owen, writing to naturalists, does not attempt this sort of 
 intellectual sleight of hand, but presents, as a case in point, the 
 supposed progenitors of the horse. That useful quadruped was 
 preceded in the tertiary period (Miocene and Pliocene) by a 
 horse-like animal, the Hipparion, which, among other things, 
 diflfered from its modern representative in having its splint bones 
 represented by two side toes, a conformation supposed to adapt it 
 to locomotion on soft and swampy ground. The Hipparion was 
 preceded in the earlier tertiary (Eocene) by the Pateotherium, 
 in which the side toes were still further developed so as to touch 
 the ground, giving the foot a tridactyle character. These 
 relations induce Owen to believe that these forms may be an 
 actual genetic series, the species of Palaeotherium passing 
 through a succession of changes into the modern horse. Perhaps 
 this case, as put by Prof. Owen, affords as fair an example as we 
 can obtain of the bearing of a derivative hypothesis. The three 
 genera in question are closely allied. They succeed each other 
 regularly in Geological time. The horse shows in his splint 
 bones rudiments of organs, which, serving little apparent purpose 
 in him, were more fully developed and of manifest use in his 
 predecessors. Modern horses have occasionally shown a tendency 
 to develop the side toes, as if returning to the primitive type. 
 Taking this as a fair example of derivation, and admitting, for 
 the sake of argument, its probability, let us consider shortly some 
 of the questions that may be raised with regard to it. These are 
 principally two. 
 
 1. What limits, if any, must necessarily be set to such an 
 hypothesis, and what relations does it bear to the origin of life at 
 first and to the succession of animals in Geological time ? 
 
 2. What causes may be supposed to have led to such deri- 
 vation ? 
 
 Under the first head, we have to enquire as to the limits set to 
 derivation by the structure of organic beings themselves, and by 
 the physical conditions and changes which may aflFect them^ It 
 will be convenient to consider these together. 
 
6 
 
 II 
 
 : ! 
 
 Supposing that Palaoothcriuni, Ilipparion and Equus arc links 
 in a chain extending from the Eocene Tertiary to the present 
 time, can we suppose that by tracing the same scries further 
 back it might include any Mammal. We must answer 
 decidedly not, for if the whole time from the Eocene to the 
 present has been required to produce the comparatively small 
 change required from Palaeotherium to horse, that in other 
 cases would carry us back to the iMesozoic period, long before we 
 have any evidence ol' the existence of "placental mammals." In 
 other words, the Tertiary and Modern Periods will give us 
 time enough only to effect changes of Mammals within the 
 order Pachydermata, and perhaps in only one section of that 
 order. The other orders nmst therefore constitute separate 
 series, and these series must have been advancing abreast of each 
 other. Had each series a separate origin, or is there any 
 Mammalian stock in the Mesozoic from which, at the beginning 
 of the Tertiary, these several lines of types may have diverged ? 
 Here our information fails. We know only a few small Mar- 
 supial Mammals in the Mesozoic. On our hypothesis it is 
 possible that these may have been the progenitors of the more 
 varied and advanced Marsupials of the Tertiary and Modern 
 periods, but scarcely of the placental Mammals of the Eocene. 
 There may have been placental Mammals, unknown to us, in the 
 Mesozoic, which may constitute the required stock. The reptiles 
 of the Mesozoic utterly fail to give us the necessary links. If 
 they were changing into anything it was into birds, not into 
 Mammals. 
 
 Again, the time in which the horse and its supposed progenitors 
 have lived is one of continuous, unbroken succession of species. 
 More especially in the later Tertiary there seems the best 
 evidence of gradual extinction and introduction of species, without 
 any very wide-spread and wholesale destruction, and this not- 
 withstanding the intervention of that period of cold and of 
 submergence of land in the Northern hemisphere, which has given 
 rise to all the much-agitated glacial theories of our time. Can we 
 affirm that such piecemeal work has continued throughout 
 Geological time? At tliis point opens the battle between the 
 'Jatastrophists and Uniformitarians in Geology, a battle which I 
 am not about to fight over again here. I have elsewhere stated 
 reasons for the belief that neither view can be maintained 
 without the other, and that Geological time has consisted of 
 
alternations of long periods of physical repose and slow subsidence 
 in which our more important fossilifcrous formations have been 
 deposited, with others of physical disturbance and elevation, with 
 extinction of species. Dana has well shown how completely this 
 view is established by the series of Geological formations as seen 
 on the broad area of the American continent. Now the question 
 arises, how would the law of derivation operate in these two 
 different states of our planet ? Let us suppose a state of things 
 in which far more forms were being destroyed than were 
 reproduced — another in which introduction of species was more 
 rapid than extinction. In the latter case we may suppose an 
 exuberance of new species to have been produced. In the 
 former there would be a great clearance of these, and perhaps 
 only a few types left to begin new series. Do we now live in one 
 of the periods of diminution or of increase? Perhaps in the 
 former, since there seems to have been, in the case of the 
 Mammalia of the Post-pliocene, an enormous amount of extinction 
 of the grandest forms of life, apparently without their replacement 
 by new forms. If so, how far can we judge from our own time 
 of those which preceded it? They may have been far more 
 fertile in new forms, or perhaps farther in excess in the work of 
 extinction. The question is further complicated with that which 
 asks if these differences arise from merely physical agencies 
 acting on organic beings from without, or is there in the organic 
 world itself some grand law of cy^es independent of external 
 influences ? The answers to such questions are being slowiy and 
 laboriously worked out by Geologists and Naturalists, and all the 
 more slowly that so many inevitable errors occur as to the 
 specific or varietal value of fossils and tlie relative importance of 
 Geological facts, t '^e the great gaps in the monumental history 
 are only little by L.de being filled up. 
 
 Nothing can more forcibly illustrate the amount of work 
 remaining to be done toward the settlement of these questions 
 than a glance at the elaborate and most valuable " Thesaurus 
 Silur'cus" of Dr. Bigsby, recording, as it does, nearly 9,000 
 species of animals already found in the Silurian rocks. The 
 rapid increase in the number of known species shows that we 
 know as yet but a fraction of this ancient fauna, while the facts 
 relating to introduction, extinction, geographical distribution 
 and distribution ia time, show that we are still a very long way 
 
 i 
 
!l! 
 
 Ill 
 
 8 
 
 from any definite oonclusiona as to the general law of 8ucce8»iou 
 and its relations to physical changes. 
 
 Tiic application of these questions to the animals referred to by 
 Owen, will serve farther to shew their significance as to limi- 
 tations of derivation. Pictet catalogues eleven species of Eocene 
 Pala3otheria. Without inquiry as to the origin of these, let us 
 confine ourselves to their progress. Under tl e hypothesis of 
 derivation, each of these had capacities for improvement, probably 
 all leading to that line of change ending in the production of the 
 horse. If so, then each of our Palaeotheria, passing through 
 intermediate changes, may be the predecessor of some of the 
 equine animals of the Post-pliocene and Modern periods. But if, 
 as seems probable, the time intervening between the Eocene 
 and the Modern was unfavourable to the multiplication of 
 such species, then several may have perished utterly in the 
 process, and all might have perished. Supposing, on the 
 contrary, the time to have been favourable to the increase of such 
 creatures, we might have had hundreds of species of equine 
 animals instead of the small number extant at present. Again, 
 what possibilities of change remain in the horse ? Can he be 
 supposed capable of going on still farther in the direction of his 
 progress from Palaeotherium, or has he attained a point at which 
 further change is impossible ? Will he then, in process of time, 
 wheel round in his orbit and return to the point from which he 
 set out? Or will he continue unchanged until he becomes 
 extinct ? Or can he at a certain point diverge into a new series 
 of changes? We do not know any Palaeotherium before the 
 Eocene. Is it not possible that they may have originated in some 
 way different from that slow change by which they are supposed 
 to have been transmuted into horses, and that in their first origin 
 they were more plastic than after many changes had happened 
 to them ? May it not be that the origin of forms or types is 
 after all something different from derivative changes, and that 
 new forms are at first plastic, afterwards comparatively fixed — at 
 first fertile in derivative species, and aftP'-.v&r' comparatively 
 barren. Certainly, unless somethir ~ A tbii. icind is the case, we 
 fail to find in the Modem world ^ sufficient number of re- 
 presentatives of the Palaeotheria, Anoplotheria, Lophiodons, 
 Elephants and Mastodons of the tertiary. On the other hand, it 
 is scarcely possible to find a sufficient starting point in the 
 
Eocene for the multitude of Ruminants and Carnivores and 
 Quadrumana of the Modern time. 
 
 But it may be said, and truly, that these higher forms of life 
 put the doctrine of derivation to the severest test. If we take 
 marine invertebrata, we may trace Rralogues of these back into the 
 earliept geological periods, and as the species are very numerous, 
 and their structures more simple, it is easier to imagine a 
 continuous derivation with respect to them. Still, even here such 
 facts as the vnst multiplication of species of Trilobites, Ammonites, 
 Belemnites, and Ganoid Fishes, at different periods of Geological 
 time, and their disappearance without modified successors, point to 
 limitations of any law of derivation that maybe suggested. 
 
 To sum up where all is so uncertain is not easy ; but we may, 
 I think, aflSirm that if existing animals are derivative as modified 
 descendants of others — (1) They belong to a vast number of 
 lines of modification which would require to be traced backward 
 separately. (2) That many of these lines end abruptly in com- 
 paratively recent periods, perhaps in consequence of our defective 
 information, perhaps because of some other law of creation. 
 (3) That in some periods a series must suddenly bud forth 
 into many ramifications, and in others contract to a few 
 representations or be altogether dropped. (4) That the beginning 
 of such series may take place in a different manner from, 
 derivation, and that the law of new series is probably difteront 
 from that of those of longer derivation. (5) That it is ab?urd 
 to suppose that any modern animal has originated from any now 
 contemporary with it (e.g., man from the gorilla or bears from 
 seals), since all these existing species must belong to series to be 
 traced backward through species now extinct, and possibly 
 unknown to us. (6) That while it is obvious that such 
 derivation must be related to contemporary physical changes, our 
 views of the nature of that relation must depend on those which 
 we take of the causes of derivation itself. 
 
 Before proceeding farther we may remove another of the 
 " theological " misconceptions under which Owen and some other 
 writers on this subject seem to labour. They think that the 
 " Biblical flood" interposes some difl5culties in the way of their 
 speculations as to the origin of species. They may readily be 
 relieved from all embarrassment on this subject. The language 
 of the Noachian record in Genesis implies that the Peluge was 
 mniversal only in so far as man was concerned. The o ir^ of 
 
ilil 
 
 10 
 
 animals taken into the Ark, five times repeated, and that of 
 animals destroyed, twice given, show that only a very limited 
 number of species were in the Ark, and that of the rest some 
 certainly survived — others may have perislicd. Farther, the 
 catastrophe does not require us to suppose either that coral 
 polypes and other marine animals were overwhelmed with fresh 
 water or under an abyssal depth of ocean, for the submergence of 
 the dry land, or of a portion of it, by the " breaking up of the 
 fountains of the great deep," does not imply a deepening of the 
 ocean, but possibly to some small extent a shallowing of it. If 
 the Royal Institution, of London, which has recently done so much 
 in its courses of lectures to ventilate new and pomeiimes 
 questionable scientific hypotheses, would employ some one to 
 give a few exegetical lectures on tiie earlier chapters of Genesis, 
 without entering into any disputed questions of criticism, bu*^ 
 merely explaining the literal meaning of the terms of the recoid, 
 it would confer an inestimable benefit on those Naturalists who 
 seem to have derived their notions of the Biblical Creation and 
 Deluge from the picture books and toy Noah's Arks of their 
 childhood, with the comments of their nursery-maids thereon. 
 
 It still remains to us to inquire whether the doctrine of 
 derivation can throw any light on the origin of life at first. 
 Nothing in the doctrine of derivation itself necessitates the belief 
 that change has always been in the direction of improvement or 
 of increased complexity ; but the Geological history of the earth 
 and the succession of fossils lead to the belief that the general 
 tendency of creation has been from more generalized to more 
 specialized forms, and from simpler to more complex organisms. 
 Still, it is evident that this general doctrine of improvement is to 
 be held with some limitations of detail. For example, the very 
 lowest forms of life have continued down to the present, and 
 some of thera — for instance, the sponges and Foraminifera — have 
 apparently attained to their greatest extension in number of 
 species in comparatively late periods. Further, eveiy new form 
 when first introduced appears to be at its laaxinmm in point of 
 development ; or, if not so, it rapidly attains to this, and again 
 deteriorates when being supplanted by other and newer forms. 
 Numerous examples of this will occur to every Geologist. 
 Admitting, however, that development has in some cases been 
 indefinitely postponed, and that in others it has advanced by 
 successive waves, each retreating before the advance of the next, 
 
11 
 
 1 
 
 itK 
 
 still, wc may hold that it would be fair to assume a gradual 
 progress from lower to higher forms. Assuming this, and that 
 the lower have preceded the higher, wc may limit our inquiry as 
 to the origin of life to the lowest forms, and ask what is involved 
 in the question of their origin. Now, it is easy to affirm that the 
 lowest animals and the lowest plants are but Protoplasm, which is 
 only another name for ^ne chemical compound Albumen, and that 
 if we can conceive this to origi late from the inorganic union of 
 its elements, we shall have a low form of life from which we 
 can deduce all the higher forms of vital action. In making such 
 affirmation we must take for granted several things, none of which 
 we udn yet prove : — (1) That vital force is merely a modification 
 of some of the forces acting in unorganized matter ; (2) That 
 such force can be spontaneously originated from other forces 
 without the previous existence of organization ; (3) That being 
 originated, it has the power to form Albumen and other organic 
 compounds. Or, if we prefer another alternative, we may take, 
 instead of the last statement, : — (1) That Albuminous matter 
 can be produced by the union of it£ chemical elements without 
 life or organization ; (2) That being so produced it can develop 
 vital forces and organization, including such phenomena as 
 sensation, volition, reproduction, &c. To believe either of these 
 doctrines in the present state of science is simply an act of faith, 
 not of that kind which is based on testimony or evidence, 
 however slight, but of that unreasoning kind which we usually 
 stigmatize as mere credulity and superstition. It will not help 
 us here to say that vegetable and animal infusions, destitute of 
 germs, will produce a " mucous layer " or " proligorous pellicle " 
 from which organisms may arise, for in the first place such infusion 
 itself contains organic matter, and, as Tyndall has lately shown 
 incidentally in his experiments with the electric light, we have to 
 operate with air and water and vessels, which it is wholly 
 impossible by any chemical or mechanical process to free 
 completely from the sms'.llcr kinds of germinal matter. 
 
 It is rather discouraging thus to find that, on the philosophy of 
 derivation, as our tiiith advances the demands upon it increase, 
 until, from belief in the derivation of Horses from Hipparia, we 
 are finally obliged to believe tUiit life with'-all that it involves 
 is nothing but a peculiar manifestation of dead inorganic forces. 
 In order that, if possible, we may relieve ourselves from this 
 burden, let us now turn to our second inquiry, and consiuor the 
 
12 
 
 causes which are alleged to produce the transmutation of species. 
 
 Leaving out of the account many fanciful and untenable 
 hypotheses, both ancient and modern, we may notice : — (1) The 
 Lamarckian theory of Appetency ; (2) The Darwinian theory of 
 Natural Selection ; (3) The Owenian doctrine of " Innate 
 tendency to deviate from parental type ;" (4) The doctrine 
 of arrested or advanced embryonic development ; — with the view of 
 ascertaining how far these several hypotheses may be employed 
 to account for observed facts. 
 
 (1.) The Lamarckian theory is essentially that of effort in 
 certain directions giving power in those directions, a,nd conse- 
 quently altering; organs. That it has a real basis in nature 
 no one can doubt who has observed the effect of use and eflFort in 
 determining the development of organs. That it can produce 
 only varietal forms and not species, and that it is practically very 
 limited in its operation, are facts equally patent. It is a mis- 
 take, however, to suppose that Lamarck confined himself to the 
 effect of will in producing change. He considered also the 
 effect of external circumstances, and of habits induced by such 
 circumstances, in which rCvSpect his theory differed less than is 
 generally supposed from that of Mr. Darwin. The main 
 difference is, that Lamarck supposed animals to be acted on by 
 an attractive influence from before, Darwin by a propelling 
 influence from behind. In this respect Lamarck's hypothesis is 
 the more philosophical, when regarded as means of real progress ; 
 but it is less applicable to the lower animals and to plants than to 
 animals of high grade. 
 
 (2.) The most popular theory of derivation in the present day is 
 undoubtedly that of Darwin. This view is, essentially, that all 
 organized beings are engaged in a struggle for existence ; that in 
 this struggle certain varieties arise, which, being more suited to 
 the conditions, prosper and multiply more than others ; that this 
 amounts to a " Natural Selection " similar in kind to the artificial 
 selection of breeders of stock ; that members of the same species, 
 isolated from each other and subjected to struggles of different 
 kinds, will in process of time become specifically distinct. The 
 difficulties of Darwinism are many. The following may be stated 
 as fatal to it in its capacity of a sole mode of ajcounting for 
 derivation : — (1) Conditions which iuvolve a struggle for 
 existence are found by experience to result in deterioration and 
 final extinction rather than improvement, and are directly op- 
 
13 
 
 posite to those employed by breeders for their purposes. 
 
 (2) Even if we include, along with the struggle for existence, the 
 action of all conditions, favourable and unfavourable, tending to 
 change, v,e fail to find any evidence of this other than the 
 formation of varieties and races. True species, no longer 
 capable of interbreeding, have not been observed to be produced. 
 
 (3) Though it is conceivable that species may have been produced 
 during the lapse of time, yet even this is rendered improbable by 
 the enormously long periods which Mr. Darwin himself 
 admits to be necessary, and which seem to overgo the powsibility 
 of the existence of the creatures in question as far back in 
 geological time as the theory demands. 
 
 (3.) Owen desires to substitute for the above views " an 
 innate tendency to deviate from the parental type operating 
 through periods of adequate duration." According to this 
 hypothesis " a change takes place first in the structure of the 
 animal, and this when sufficiently advanced may lead to 
 modifications of habits." It is difficult to understand this as 
 anything more than a mere statement of a belief in derivation as 
 a fact. It seems to mean that species change because they tend 
 to change. We may add to this if we please that they change 
 independently of external circumstances, and by virtue of a 
 creative plan embodied in them, or rather in the matter of which 
 they are composed ; for Prof. Owen appears to stretch his theory 
 so far as to assert the formation of species spontaneously from 
 inorganic matter, thus giving us the additional thesis that species 
 tend to be before they actually exist. It is also to be observed 
 that the tendency to change, though not caused by external 
 circumstances must act in unison with physical changes, otherwise 
 it would be worse than useless. Taking the case of the Hipparion 
 and horse, Lamarck would inform us that the former endeavoured 
 to accommodate itself to drier and harder ground, and thus 
 changed the character of its feet. Darwin ^ M say that as the 
 ground became harder those individuals whi .u. the most equine 
 feet would succeed be i in the struggle for existence. Owen 
 very properly demurs to both views, holding that there were dry 
 and wet places suitable for horses and Hipparia both in the 
 Miocene and Modern periods, and that the increase of dry ground 
 would merely limit the range of Hipparia and not produce horses ; 
 but he holds that the Hipparia changed into horses merely 
 because they tended to do so, and tliat if the change suited the 
 
it 
 
 14 
 
 conditions of the case, that was a correlation arising from the 
 plans of the Creator, and with which their poor brains and 
 greater or less safety and comfort had nothing to do. If we 
 were disposed to accept this hypothesis of Owen, we should not 
 in doing so arrive at any true cause, and we should at the same 
 time find ourselves involved in the old difficulties. That a 
 Hipparion should change into a horse it would be necessary that 
 not only his feet but his teeth and other structures should 
 change in harmony with each other. This must take place 
 either at once or gradually. If at once, then a pair of horses 
 must be born from Hipparia in one herd, and must be isolated 
 from the rest so as to produce a herd of horses. This is hard to 
 believe ; and if we resort to gradual change, the required 
 isolation of the breed will be still more difficult to secure. The 
 demands upon our faith are obviously greater here than even in 
 the hypothesis of Darwin, — that is if we can be induced to place 
 any reliance on the argument of the latter as to struggle for 
 existence. 
 
 (4.) The last of these hypotheses which I shall notice, and, in 
 my view, the most promising of them all, is one which has recently 
 been ably advocated by Mr. Edward D. Cope in a memoir on the 
 " Origin of Genera," published in the Proceedings of the 
 Academy of Natural Sciences,* and which is based on the well- 
 known analogy between embryonic changes, rank in the Zoological 
 scale and Geological succession. It may be illustrated by the 
 remarkable and somewhat startling fact, that while no authenti- 
 cated case exists of animals changing from one species to another, 
 they are known to change from one genus or family to another, 
 and this without losing their individuality. Prof. Dumeril, of 
 Paris, and Prof Marsh, of New Haven, have recently directed 
 attention to the fact that species of Siredon, reptiles of the Lakes 
 of the Rocky Mountains and of Mexico, and which, like our 
 North American Menohranclms, retain their gills during life, 
 when kept in captivity in a warmer temperature than that which 
 is natural to them, lose their gills, and pass into a form hitherto 
 regarded as of a different genus and family, — the genus 
 Amhlysoma. In this case we may either suppose that the 
 Amblysoma, under unfavourable circumstances, has its maturity 
 and reproduction prematurely induced before it has lost its 
 
 I 
 
 f 
 
 I: 
 I- 
 
 V 
 
 * Philadelphia, 18G9. 
 
15 
 
 
 gills, or that the Siredon has, under certain circumstances, the 
 capacity to have its period of reproduction arrested until it has 
 gone on a stage further in growth and has lost its gills. In any 
 case the same species — nay, the same individual — is capable of 
 existing in a state of maturity as a creature half fish and 
 half reptile in regard to its circulation, or in a more perfect 
 reptilian state in which it breathes solely by lungs. Further, we 
 may suppose conditions of the earth's surface in which there 
 would only be Siredons or only Amblysomas, and a change in 
 these conditions inducing the opposite state. Here we have 
 for the first time actual facts on which to base a theory of 
 development. These facts point to the operation of two causes — 
 first, the possible Retardation or Acceleration of development, 
 and secondly, the action of outward circumstances on the organism 
 capable of this retardation or acceleration. We here substitute 
 for the tendency to vary of Owen's theory, the ascertained fact of 
 reproductive retardation or acceleration, and for the struggle for 
 existence, the action of changed physical conditions, and for the 
 question as to the change of one species into another, the 
 change of the same species from one genus into another. 
 Further, instead of vague speculations as to possible changes of 
 allied animals, we are led to careful consideration of the embryonic 
 changes of the individual animal, and as to the differences that 
 would obtain were its development accelerated or retarded. We 
 can thus range animals in genetic series within which anatomical 
 characters would show change to be possible. I cannot follow 
 these series out into the elaborate lists tabulated by Mr. Cope, 
 but may proceed to notice the limitations which his views 
 put to the doctrine of derivation. It is obvious that, if this be 
 the real nature of derivation as a possible hypothesis, then 
 derivation must follow the same law with metamorphism and 
 embryonic development. Those animals which undergo a meta- 
 morphosis must be those most liable to such changes ; for example, 
 a, Batrachian would be more likely to be so than a true reptile, — 
 consequently those lower forms of animals in which metamorphosis 
 is most decided would be those in which derivation would be 
 most active, and when they had attained to a condition in which 
 metamorphosis is of less amount, the tendency to change would 
 be diminished. When we compare this with the actual succession 
 of animals in geological time, we can see, us many Palaeontologists 
 have remarked, that order of succession in time and order of 
 
li! 
 
 16 
 
 embryonic development correspond with one another to a 
 remarkable degree. We see also, however, that in the higher 
 mimals changes of species have taken place more rapidly than in 
 those of lower grade, though in the latter metamorphosis is 
 usually more marked — a fact not apparently in accordance with 
 our hypothesis. 
 
 According to this view, also, a species once created may have 
 in itself a capacity for passing through several generic forms, 
 constituting a cycle which ever tends to return into itself, or 
 to advance and recede by steps more or less abrupt under the 
 law of retardation and acceleration, combined with the influence 
 of external circumstances. Yet the dimensions of the orbit of 
 each species must be limited, its duration in time must also be 
 limited, and its capacity to pass into a really new species must 
 still be a point subject to doubt, but open to anatomical 
 investigation and inference. As already hinted, it is a most 
 important point of this theory, that when we have ascertained 
 the series of embryonic changes of any animal, we have thereby 
 ascertained its possibilities in regard to accelerated develop- 
 ment. Its possibilities in regard to retarded development may 
 be inferred by similar studies of animals higher in the scale. 
 Now, if we knew the embryonic history of every animal recent 
 and fossil, in its anatomical details, we should be able to construct 
 out of this a table of possible afl&liation of animals, and should be 
 able to trace our existing species through the same genera, 
 families, orders and classes in which they might have existed in 
 geological time, and to predict what they might become in time 
 still to come. This hypothetical scheme of creation would 
 approach to the actual one in as far as we were able to correlate it 
 with the physical changes which have occurred or will occur on 
 our planet. Let us take as a crucial test the case of man 
 himself The actual anatomical and physiological diflFerences 
 which obtain between those races in which maturity is latest, and 
 those in which it is earliest, and a comparison of these with 
 embryonic characters, would give us the modern data. The 
 comparison of these with the most ancient human remains might 
 enable us to infer whether retardation or acceleration has been 
 the tendency in historic or geological time. From this we might 
 infer what might be the condition of man under a still more 
 accelerated development than any now known, or under that 
 antediluvian condition in which immaturity is said to have been 
 
 t 
 
17 
 
 in 
 
 protracted over half a century, or that still future time predicted 
 in Holy Writ when the days of a man shall be as those of a tree. 
 Having worked out these problems, we would be iu a position to 
 hiquire as to the possible transition of Homo from or towards any 
 other generic form. I would by no means put forward this theory 
 of embryonic development as including the whole law of introduc- 
 tion of species or genera-^ any more than the others reviewed, but 
 I must say that to my mind it appears to hold forth the most 
 promising line of investigation, with the hope of arriving ultimately 
 at some true expression of the law of creation with reference to 
 organized beings. 
 
 What that law will ultimately prove to be, and to what extent 
 it may include processes of derivation, it is impossible now to say. 
 At present we must recognize iu the prevailing theories on the 
 snbject merely the natural tendency of the human mind to grasp 
 the whole mass of the unknown under some grand general 
 hypothesis, which, though perhaps little else than a figure of 
 speech, satisfies for the moment. We are dealing with the origin 
 of species precisely as the Alchemists did with Chemistry, and as 
 the Diluvialists and Neptunists did with Geology; but the 
 hypotheses of to-day may be the parents of investigations which 
 will become real science to-morrow. In the meantime it is safe 
 to affirm that whatever amount of truth there may be in the 
 several hypotheses which have engaged our attention, there is a 
 creative force above and beyond them, and to the threshold of 
 which we shall inevitably be brought after all their capabilities 
 have been exhausted by rigid investigation of facts. It is also 
 consolatory to know that species, in so far as the Modern period, 
 or any one past Geological period may be concerned, are so fixed 
 that for all practical purposes they may be regarded as 
 unchanging. They are to us what the planets in their orbits are 
 to the Astronomer, and speculations as to origin of species arc 
 merely our nebular hypotheses as to the possible origin of worlds, 
 and systems. f 
 
 One word in conclusion with reference to our own work here 
 as a Society, and as individual collectors of facts. We may not 
 be in a position to take any leading place in the agitation of the 
 
 * It is but fair to say that Mr. Cope himself admits the action of 
 natural selection as r>no cause of change. 
 
iiit 
 
 18 
 
 questions to which I have referred ; but we are well situated for 
 the useful task of accumulating the necessary data for their 
 settlement. The broad area of the American continent, the wide 
 space occupied by its geological formations, the completeness of 
 the series of its palaeozoic rocks, the unbroken connection of its 
 post-pliocene and modern fauna and flora, the meeting on this 
 continent within recent times of multitudes of indigenous and 
 exotic species of plants and animals, the existence up to our own 
 time of feral and aboriginal conditions which arc prc-historic 
 in the Eastern continent, — these are all pohits of vantage on 
 which we can seize in dealing with these questions ; and if we 
 properly inform ourselves as to what is being done elsewhere, and 
 diligently improve our own opportunities, I see nothing to prevent 
 us from taking the lead of those who in the Old World are 
 pursuing such in(|uiries in a comparatively narrow field, and 
 under conditions in many respects less favourable. I must insist, 
 however, that this is not to be done by vicing with them in crude 
 speculations and hypotheses, or in building up specious fabrics of 
 conjecture to dazzle the popular eye, but in patient, honest, and 
 careful accumulation of facts. 
 
 We should also bear in mind that in the greater centres of 
 literary and scientific life, there is a strong temptation, especially 
 on the part of ambitious men who have their own fortunes to 
 build up, to deal in that sensation science with which the popular 
 literature of the day is deluged. In our own comparatively 
 obscure field there is little inducement to this or opportunity for 
 its display, and this is so far in favor of a healthy scientific 
 tone, which we should endeavour to preserve and cultivate. Our 
 danger arises from being too ready to follow the extreme views 
 put forth elsewhere, and from impatience with the slow returns 
 for honest and careful work.