at fossil forms
are direct creations, and were never living animals at all, is held by
any respectable person, we refer them to a book entitled 'Cosmogony, or
the Mysteries of Creation,' by Thomas A. Davies, and published by Rudd &
Carleton, of New York, of no longer ago than 1857.

[3] Principles of Geology, 9th ed., p. 740.

[4] Professor Louis Agassiz, the most patient, learned, and acute
investigator of embryology now living, finds in that science (upon
which, in truth, rests the final settlement of the so-called development
theory) _'no single fact_ to justify the assumption that the laws of
development, now known to be so precise and definite for every animal,
have ever been less so, or have ever been allowed to run into each
other. The philosopher's stone is no more to be found in the organic
than the inorganic world; and we shall seek as vainly to transform the
lower animal types into the higher ones by any of our theories, as did
the alchemists of old to change the baser metals into gold.' He also
says: 'To me the fact that the embryonic form of the highest vertebrate
recalls in its earlier stages the first representatives of its type in
geological times and its lowest representatives at the present day,
speaks only of an ideal relation, existing, not in the things
themselves, but in the mind that made them. It is true that the
naturalist is sometimes startled at these transient resemblances of the
young among the higher animals in one type to the adult condition of the
lower animals in the same type; but it is also true that he finds each
one of the primary divisions of the animal kingdom bound to its own norm
of development, which is absolutely distinct from that of all others; it
is also true that, while he perceives correspondences between the early
phases of the higher animals and the mature state of the lower ones he
never sees any one of them diverge in the slightest degree from its own
structural character--never sees the lower rise by a shade beyond the
level which is permanent for the group to which it belongs--never sees
the higher ones stop short of their final aim, either in the mode or the
extent of their transformation.' He likewise ('Methods of Study in
Natural History,' page 140) discusses the matter of breeds as bearing
upon diversities of species in a manner to justify his conclusion, that:
'The influence of man upon animals is, in other words, the influence of
_mind_ upon them; and yet the