Once more, the prevalence of Macrurous before Brachyurous Podophthalmia is, apparently, a fair piece of evidence in favour of progressive modification in the same order of Crustacea; and yet the case will not stand much sifting, seeing that the Macrurous Podophthalmia depart as far in one direction from the common type of Podophthalmia, or from any embryonic condition of the Brachyura, as the Brachyura do in the other; and that the middle terms between Macrura and Brachyura--the Anomura--are little better represented in the older Mesozoic rocks than the Brachyura are.
None of the cases of progressive modification which are cited from among the Invertebrata appear to me to have a foundation less open to criticism than these; and if this be so, no careful reasoner would, I think, be inclined to lay very great stress upon them. Among the Vertebrata, however, there are a few examples which appear to be far less open to objection.
It is, in fact, true of several groups of Vertebrata which have lived through a considerable range of time, that the endoskeleton (more particularly the spinal column) of the older genera presents a less ossified, and, so far, less differentiated, condition than that of the younger genera. Thus the Devonian Ganoids, though almost all members of the same sub-order as _Polypterus,_ and presenting numerous important resemblances to the existing genus, which possesses biconcave vertebrae, are, for the most part, wholly devoid of ossified vertebral centra. The Mesozoic Lepidosteidae, again, have, at most, biconcave vertebrae, while the existing _Lepidosteus_ has Salamandroid, opisthocoelous, vertebrae.
So, none of the Palaeozoic Sharks have shown themselves to be possessed of ossified vertebrae, while the majority of modern Sharks possess such vertebrae. Again, the more ancient Crocodilia and Lacertilia have vertebrae with the articular facets of their centra flattened or biconcave, while the modern members of the same group have them procoelous. But the most remarkable examples of progressive modification of the vertebral column, in correspondence with geological age, are those afforded by the Pycnodonts among fish, and the Labyrinthodonts among Amphibia.
The late able ichthyologist Heckel pointed out the fact, that, while the Pycnodonts never possess true vertebral centra, they differ in the degree of expansion and extension of the ends of the bony arches of the vertebrae upon the sheath of the notochord; the Carboniferous forms exhibiting hardly any such expansion, while the Mesozoic genera present a greater and greater development, until, in the Tertiary forms, the expanded ends become suturally united so as to form a sort of false vertebra. Hermann von Meyer, again, to whose luminous researches we are indebted for our present large knowledge of the organization of the older Labyrinthodonts, has proved that the Carboniferous _Archegosaurus_ had very imperfectly developed vertebral centra, while the Tria.s.sic _Mastodonsaurus_ had the same parts completely ossified.[38]
The regularity and evenness of the dent.i.tion of the _Anoplotherium_, as contrasted with that of existing Artiodactyles, and the a.s.sumed nearer approach of the dent.i.tion of certain ancient Carnivores to the typical arrangement, have also been cited as exemplifications of a law of progressive development, but I know of no other cases based on positive evidence which are worthy of particular notice.
What then does an impartial survey of the positively ascertained truths of palaeontology testify in relation to the common doctrines of progressive modification, which suppose that modification to have taken place by a necessary progress from more to less embryonic forms, or from more to less generalized types, within the limits of the period represented by the fossiliferous rocks?
It negatives those doctrines; for it either shows us no evidence of any such modification, or demonstrates it to have been very slight; and as to the nature of that modification, it yields no evidence whatsoever that the earlier members of any long-continued group were more generalized in structure than the later ones. To a certain extent, indeed, it may be said that imperfect ossification of the vertebral column is an embryonic character; but, on the other hand, it would be extremely incorrect to suppose that the vertebral columns of the older Vertebrata are in any sense embryonic in their whole structure.
Obviously, if the earliest fossiliferous rocks now known are coeval with the commencement of life, and if their contents give us any just conception of the nature and the extent of the earliest fauna and flora, the insignificant amount of modification which can be demonstrated to have taken place in any one group of animals, or plants, is quite incompatible with the hypothesis that all living forms are the results of a necessary process of progressive development, entirely comprised within the time represented by the fossiliferous rocks.
Contrariwise, any admissible hypothesis of progressive modification must be compatible with persistence without progression, through indefinite periods. And should such an hypothesis eventually be proved to be true, in the only way in which it can be demonstrated, viz. by observation and experiment upon the existing forms of life, the conclusion will inevitably present itself, that the Palaeozoic, Mesozoic, and Cainozoic faunae and florae, taken together, bear somewhat the same proportion to the whole series of living beings which have occupied this globe, as the existing fauna and flora do to them.
Such are the results of palaeontology as they appear, and have for some years appeared, to the mind of an inquirer who regards that study simply as one of the applications of the great biological sciences, and who desires to see it placed upon the same sound basis as other branches of physical inquiry. If the arguments which have been brought forward are valid, probably no one, in view of the present state of opinion, will be inclined to think the time wasted which has been spent upon their elaboration.
FOOTNOTES:
[33] "Le plus grand service qu"on puisse rendre a la science est d"y faire place nette avant d"y rien construire."--CUVIER.
[34] Anniversary Address for 1851, Quart. Journ. Geol. Soc. vol. vii.
[35] See Hooker"s "Introductory Essay to the Flora of Tasmania," p.
xxiii.
[36] See the abstract of a Lecture "On the Persistent Types of Animal Life" in the "Notices of the Meetings of the Royal Inst.i.tution of Great Britain," June 3, 1859, vol. iii. p. 151.
[37] "Memoirs of the Geological Survey of the United Kingdom.--Decade x.
Preliminary Essay upon the Systematic Arrangement of the Fishes of the Devonian Epoch."
[38] As this Address is pa.s.sing through the press (March 7, 1862), evidence lies before me of the existence of a new Labyrinthodont (_Pholidogaster_), from the Edinburgh coal-field, with well-ossified vertebral centra.
XI.
GEOLOGICAL REFORM.
"A great reform in geological speculation seems now to have become necessary."
"It is quite certain that a great mistake has been made,--that British popular geology at the present time is in direct opposition to the principles of Natural Philosophy."[39]
In reviewing the course of geological thought during the past year, for the purpose of discovering those matters to which I might most fitly direct your attention in the Address which it now becomes my duty to deliver from the Presidential Chair, the two somewhat alarming sentences which I have just read, and which occur in an able and interesting essay by an eminent natural philosopher, rose into such prominence before my mind that they eclipsed everything else.
It surely is a matter of paramount importance for the British geologists (some of them very popular geologists too) here in solemn annual session a.s.sembled, to inquire whether the severe judgment thus pa.s.sed upon them, by so high an authority as Sir William Thomson is one to which they must plead guilty _sans phrase_, or whether they are prepared to say "not guilty," and appeal for a reversal of the sentence to that higher court of educated scientific opinion to which we are all amenable.
As your attorney-general for the time being, I thought I could not do better than get up the case with a view of advising you. It is true that the charges brought forward by the other side involve the consideration of matters quite foreign to the pursuits with which I am ordinarily occupied; but, in that respect, I am only in the position which is, nine times out of ten, occupied by counsel, who nevertheless contrive to gain their causes, mainly by force of mother-wit and common sense, aided by some training in other intellectual exercises.
Nerved by such precedents, I proceed to put my pleading before you.
And the first question with which I propose to deal is, What is it to which Sir W. Thomson refers when he speaks of "geological speculation"
and "British popular geology"?
I find three, more or less contradictory, systems of geological thought, each of which might fairly enough claim these appellations, standing side by side in Britain. I shall call one of them CATASTROPHISM, another UNIFORMITARIANISM, the third EVOLUTIONISM; and I shall try briefly to sketch the characters of each, that you may say whether the cla.s.sification is, or is not, exhaustive.
By CATASTROPHISM, I mean any form of geological speculation which, in order to account for the phaenomena of geology, supposes the operation of forces different in their nature, or immeasurably different in power, from those which we at present see in action in the universe.
The Mosaic cosmogony is, in this sense, catastrophic, because it a.s.sumes the operation of extra-natural power. The doctrine of violent upheavals, _debacles_, and cataclysms in general, is catastrophic, so far as it a.s.sumes that these were brought about by causes which have now no parallel. There was a time when catastrophism might, pre-eminently, have claimed the t.i.tle of "British popular geology;" and a.s.suredly it has yet many adherents, and reckons among its supporters some of the most honoured members of this Society.
By UNIFORMITARIANISM, I mean especially, the teaching of Hutton and of Lyell.
That great, though incomplete work, "The Theory of the Earth," seems to me to be one of the most remarkable contributions to geology which is recorded in the annals of the science. So far as the not-living world is concerned, uniformitarianism lies there, not only in germ, but in blossom and fruit.
If one asks how it is that Hutton was led to entertain views so far in advance of those prevalent in his time, in some respects; while, in others, they seem almost curiously limited, the answer appears to me to be plain.
Hutton was in advance of the geological speculation of his time, because, in the first place, he had ama.s.sed a vast store of knowledge of the facts of geology, gathered by personal observation in travels of considerable extent; and because, in the second place, he was thoroughly trained in the physical and chemical science of his day, and thus possessed, as much as any one in his time could possess it, the knowledge which is requisite for the just interpretation of geological phaenomena, and the habit of thought which fits a man for scientific inquiry.
It is to this thorough scientific training, that I ascribe Hutton"s steady and persistent refusal to look to other causes than those now in operation, for the explanation of geological phaenomena.
Thus he writes:--"I do not pretend, as he [M. de Luc] does in his theory, to describe the beginning of things. I take things such as I find them at present; and from these I reason with regard to that which must have been."[40]
And again:--"A theory of the earth, which has for object truth, can have no retrospect to that which had preceded the present order of the world; for this order alone is what we have to reason upon; and to reason without data is nothing but delusion. A theory, therefore, which is limited to the actual const.i.tution of this earth cannot be allowed to proceed one step beyond the present order of things."[41]
And so clear is he, that no causes beside such as are now in operation are needed to account for the character and disposition of the components of the crust of the earth, that he says, broadly and boldly:-- "... There is no part of the earth which has not had the same origin, so far as this consists in that earth being collected at the bottom of the sea, and afterwards produced, as land, along with ma.s.ses of melted substances, by the operation of mineral causes."[42]
But other influences were at work upon Hutton beside those of a mind logical by Nature, and scientific by sound training; and the peculiar turn which his speculations took seems to me to be unintelligible, unless these be taken into account. The arguments of the French astronomers and mathematicians, which, at the end of the last century, were held to demonstrate the existence of a compensating arrangement among the celestial bodies, whereby all perturbations eventually reduced themselves to oscillations on each side of a mean position, and the stability of the solar system was secured, had evidently taken strong hold of Hutton"s mind.
In those oddly constructed periods which seem to have prejudiced many persons against reading his works, but which are full of that peculiar, if unattractive, eloquence which flows from mastery of the subject, Hutton says:--
"We have now got to the end of our reasoning; we have no data further to conclude immediately from that which actually is. But we have got enough; we have the satisfaction to find, that in Nature there is wisdom, system, and consistency. For having, in the natural history of this earth, seen a succession of worlds, we may from this conclude that there is a system in Nature; in like manner as, from seeing revolutions of the planets, it is concluded, that there is a system by which they are intended to continue those revolutions. But if the succession of worlds is established in the system of Nature, it is in vain to look for anything higher in the origin of the earth. The result, therefore, of this physical inquiry is, that we find no vestige of a beginning,--no prospect of an end."[43]
Yet another influence worked strongly upon Hutton. Like most philosophers of his age, he coquetted with those final causes which have been named barren virgins, but which might be more fitly termed the _hetairae_ of philosophy, so constantly have they led men astray. The final cause of the existence of the world is, for Hutton, the production of life and intelligence.
"We have now considered the globe of this earth as a machine, constructed upon chemical as well as mechanical principles, by which its different parts are all adapted, in form, in quality, and in quant.i.ty, to a certain end; an end attained with certainty or success; and an end from which we may perceive wisdom, in contemplating the means employed.
"But is this world to be considered thus merely as a machine, to last no longer than its parts retain their present position, their proper forms and qualities? Or may it not be also considered as an organized body?
such as has a const.i.tution in which the necessary decay of the machine is naturally repaired, in the exertion of those productive powers by which it had been formed.
"This is the view in which we are now to examine the globe; to see if there be, in the const.i.tution of this world, a reproductive operation, by which a ruined const.i.tution may be again repaired, and a duration or stability thus procured to the machine, considered as a world sustaining plants and animals."[44]
Kirwan, and the other Philistines of the day, accused Hutton of declaring that his theory implied that the world never had a beginning, and never differed in condition from its present state. Nothing could be more grossly unjust, as he expressly guards himself against any such conclusion in the following terms:--