ARISTOTLE, THE SAME AS THAT OF OUR DAY. 63

species and another are anywhere discoverable, thus verifying the aphorism of M. Flourens. "Les espèces ne s'altèrent point; ne passent point de l'une à l'autre ; les espèces sont fixes." In justification of the above statement, M. Flourens says, "It is two thousand years since Aristotle lived; guided by comparative anatomy, Aristotle divided the animal kingdom as Cuvier has done in our own day. There were in it viviparous quadrupeds or mammals, birds, oviparous quadrupeds or reptiles; there were also fish, insects, crustacea, mollusks, radiates, or zoophytes. The animal kingdom of Aristotle is the animal kingdom of to-day. The animals which Aristotle has described, are recognized in the present time, even to the minutest particular."*

* Examen du livre de M. Darwin sur l'origine des espèces par P. Flourens, Membre de l'Académie Française, P. 22.

64

IMPERFECTION OF THE GEOLOGICAL

The only answer to the difficulty thus presented is, that the change of species is so slow a process, that no indications can be reasonably expected in the few thousands of years within the limits of history. When it is objected that geology presents the same difficulty, and that the genera and species of fossil animals are just as distinct as those now living, we are told that the records of Geology are too imperfect to give us full knowledge on this subject, and that innumerable intermediate and transitional forms may have passed away, leaving no trace of their existence; or, forsooth, the fossil remains of traditional links may still be entombed in some undisturbed portion of the crust of the earth, indeed, Mr. Darwin lays great stress on the fact that those regions which are the most likely to afford remains

RECORD; HAECKEL'S VIEWS THEREON. 65

connecting man with some extinct apelike creature, have not as yet been searched by geologists. Professor Haeckel dilates at considerable length upon this imperfection of the Geological Record, but whilst admitting that the "archives of creation," (Schöpfungsurkunde) are most incomplete, he endeavours to explain that the palæontological gaps are due to the fact that but a small portion, perhaps not a thousandth part, of the surface of the globe has been geologically explored. He reminds us that three-fifths of the surface of the globe is submerged, and that consequently we can never know what fossils of primitive ages may be buried at the bottom of the sea, although possibly they may be studied many thousand years hence, when, by reason of gradual changes, the bottoms of the present seas shall have become

66

THE DUKE OF ARGYLL'S VIEWS.

dry ground.* If we say that the Ape, during the historical period, extending over thousands of years, has not made the slightest approximation towards becoming a man, we are told, Ah! but you do not know what he will be in ten millions of years;

Natürliche Schöpfungsgeschichte, Pp. 355, 356. The Duke of Argyll takes a much more logical and practical view of this subject:-"It is true," says he, "that the geological record is imperfect, but as Sir Roderick Murchison has long ago proved, there are parts of that record which are singularly complete, and in those parts we have the proofs of Creation without any indication of Development. The Silurian rocks, as regards Oceanic life, are perfect and abundant in the forms they have preserved, yet there are no Fish. The Devonian Age followed, tranquilly and without break; and in the Devonian Sea, suddenly Fish appear-appear in shoals, and in forms of the highest and most perfect type. There is no trace of links or transitio na forms between the great class of Mollusca and the great class of Fishes. There is no reason whatever to suppose that such forms, if they had existed, can have been destroyed in deposits which have preserved in wonderful perfection the minutest organisms. So much for the Past." "Primeval Man." P. 44.

MR. ST. GEORGE MIVART'S VIEWS.

67

to which surely, a suitable rejoinder would be, to ask, how much is ten millions time nothing ?*

There is one consideration in connection with this branch of the subject which has been urged with great force by the author of Homo versus Darwin :-" Why are enormous periods of time required for the production of new species, but that there may be successive generations, each of

Mr. St. George Mivart in discussing the relation of species to time observes:- "The mass of palæontological evidence is indeed overwhelmingly against minute and gradual modification. Not only are minutely transitional forms generally absent, but they are absent in cases where we might certainly a priori have expected them to be present. Had such a slow mode of origin, as Darwinians contend for, operated exclusively in all cases, it is absolutely incredible that birds, bats, and pterodactyles should have left the remains they have, and yet not a single relic be preserved, in any one instance, of any of these different forms of wing in their incipient and relatively imperfect