ssion, the two foundation stones of the biogenetic law of Haeckel.
But immediately after the publication of Cuvier's _Ossemens fossiles_,
as early as 1813, Von Schlotheim, the founder of vegetable palaeontology,
refused to admit that each set of beds was the result of such a
thoroughgoing revolution.[103]

At a later date Bronn "demonstrated that certain species indeed really
passed from one formation to another, and though stratigraphic
boundaries are often barriers confining the persistence of some form,
still this is not an absolute rule, since the species in nowise appear
in their entirety."[104] At present the persistence of genera like
Saccamina, Lingula, Ceratodus, etc., from one age to another, or even
through two or more geological ages, is well known, while _Atrypa
reticulatus_, a species of world-wide distribution, lived from near the
beginning of the Upper Silurian to the Waverly or beginning of the
Carboniferous age.

Such were the views of the distinguished founder of vertebrate
palaeontology. When we compare the _Hydrogeologie_ of Lamarck with
Cuvier's _Discours_, we see, though some erroneous views, some very
fantastic conceptions are held, in common with others of his time, in
regard to changes of level of the land and the origin of the crystalline
rocks, that it did contain the principles upon which modern palaeontology
is founded, while those of Cuvier are now in the limbo--so densely
populated--of exploded, ill-founded theories.

Our claim that Lamarck should share with Cuvier the honor of being a
founder of palaeontology[105] is substantiated by the philosophic Lyell,
who as early as 1836, in his _Principles of Geology_, expresses the same
view in the following words: "The labors of Cuvier in comparative
osteology, and of Lamarck in recent and fossil shells, had raised these
departments of study to a rank of which they had never previously been
deemed susceptible."

Our distinguished American palaeontologist, the late O. C. Marsh, takes
the same view, and draws the following parallel between the two great
French naturalists:

"In looking back from this point of view, the philosophical breadth
of Lamarck's conclusions, in comparison with those of Cuvier, is
clearly evident. The invertebrates on which Lamarck worked offered
less striking evidence of change than the various animals
investigated by Cuvier; yet they led Lamarck directly to evolution,
while Cuvier ignored what was before