FREE BOOKS

Author's List




PREV.   NEXT  
|<   336   337   338   339   340   341   342   343   344   345   346   347   348   349   350   351   352   353   354   355   356   357   358   359   360  
361   362   363   364   365   366   367   368   369   370   371   372   373   374   375   376   377   378   379   380   381   382   383   384   385   >>   >|  
'Mollusca'.--In what sense is the living 'Waldheimia' less embryonic, or more specialized; than the paleozoic 'Spirifer'; or the existing 'Rhynchonellae', 'Craniae', 'Discinae', 'Lingulae', than the Silurian species of the same genera? In what sense can 'Loligo' or 'Spirula' be said to be more specialized, or less embryonic, than 'Belemnites'; or the modern species of Lamellibranch and Gasteropod genera, than the Silurian species of the same genera? The ANNULOSA.--The Carboniferous Insecta and Arachnida are neither less specialized, nor more embryonic, than these that now live, nor are the Liassic Cirripedia and Macrura; while several of the Brachyura, which appear in the Chalk, belong to existing genera; and none exhibit either an intermediate, or an embryonic, character. The VERTEBRARA.--Among fishes I have referred to the Coelacanthini (comprising the genera 'Coelacanthus', 'Holophagus', 'Undina', and 'Macropoma') as affording an example of a persistent type; and it is most remarkable to note the smallness of the differences between any of these fishes (affecting at most the proportions of the body and fins, and the character and sculpture of the scales), notwithstanding their enormous range in time. In all the essentials of its very peculiar structure, the 'Macropoma' of the Chalk is identical with the 'Coelacanthus' of the Coal. Look at the genus 'Lepidotus', again, persisting without a modification of importance from the Liassic to the Eocene formations inclusive. Or among the Teleostei--in what respect is the 'Beryx' of the Chalk more embryonic, or less differentiated, than 'Beryx lineatus' of King George's Sound? Or to turn to the higher Vertebrata--in what sense are the Liassic Chelonia inferior to those which now exist? How are the Cretaceous Ichthyosauria, Plesiosauria, or Pterosauria less embryonic, or more differentiated, species than those of the Lias? Or lastly, in what circumstance is the 'Phascolotherium' more embryonic, or of a more generalized type, than the modern Opossum; or a 'Lophiodon', or a 'Paleotherium', than a modern 'Tapirus' or 'Hyrax'? These examples might be almost indefinitely multiplied, but surely they are sufficient to prove that the only safe and unquestionable testimony we can procure--positive evidence--fails to demonstrate any sort of progressive modification towards a less embryonic, or less generalised, type in a great many groups of animals of long-continued geolog
PREV.   NEXT  
|<   336   337   338   339   340   341   342   343   344   345   346   347   348   349   350   351   352   353   354   355   356   357   358   359   360  
361   362   363   364   365   366   367   368   369   370   371   372   373   374   375   376   377   378   379   380   381   382   383   384   385   >>   >|  



Top keywords:

embryonic

 

genera

 
species
 

Liassic

 

modern

 

specialized

 

character

 

modification

 

Macropoma

 

Coelacanthus


fishes

 
differentiated
 
Silurian
 

existing

 
Cretaceous
 
Mollusca
 

Chelonia

 

inferior

 

Ichthyosauria

 

circumstance


Phascolotherium

 

generalized

 

lastly

 

Plesiosauria

 

Pterosauria

 

Vertebrata

 

higher

 

inclusive

 

paleozoic

 
formations

Eocene

 

Spirifer

 
importance
 

Teleostei

 

respect

 
George
 

Waldheimia

 
living
 

lineatus

 
Opossum

Tapirus

 

demonstrate

 

progressive

 
evidence
 

procure

 

positive

 
generalised
 

continued

 

geolog

 
animals