FREE BOOKS

Author's List




PREV.   NEXT  
|<   181   182   183   184   185   186   187   188   189   190   191   192   193   194   195   196   197   198   199   200   201   202   203   204   205  
206   207   208   209   210   211   212   213   214   215   216   217   218   219   220   221   222   223   224   225   226   227   228   229   230   >>   >|  
ess 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 specialised, 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 VERTEBRATA.--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 inclusively. 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 generalised type, than the modern Opossum; or a _Lophiodon_, or a _Paloeotherium_, 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 geological existence. In these groups there is abundant evidence of variation--none of what is ordinarily understood as progression; and, if the known geological record is to be regarded as even any considerable fragment of the whole, it is inconceivable that any theory of a necessarily progressive development can sta
PREV.   NEXT  
|<   181   182   183   184   185   186   187   188   189   190   191   192   193   194   195   196   197   198   199   200   201   202   203   204   205  
206   207   208   209   210   211   212   213   214   215   216   217   218   219   220   221   222   223   224   225   226   227   228   229   230   >>   >|  



Top keywords:

embryonic

 

genera

 
Liassic
 

modern

 

species

 

groups

 

generalised

 

character

 

differentiated

 

fishes


Coelacanthus

 
geological
 
Macropoma
 

evidence

 
progressive
 
modification
 

Chelonia

 

inferior

 

multiplied

 

higher


indefinitely

 

Vertebrata

 

examples

 

Pterosauria

 

Plesiosauria

 

Ichthyosauria

 

Phascolotherium

 

surely

 

lastly

 
circumstance

Opossum

 

Lophiodon

 
Tapirus
 

Cretaceous

 

Paloeotherium

 
record
 

progression

 
understood
 

abundant

 
variation

ordinarily

 

regarded

 

necessarily

 
development
 

theory

 

inconceivable

 
considerable
 

fragment

 

existence

 
testimony