164 Darwin, and after Darwin. 



prentice hand on lower types before advancing to the 

 formation of higher. Yet, without some such assump- 

 tion, it would be impossible to explain, on the theory 

 of independent creations, why there should have been 

 this gradual advance from the few to the many, from 

 the general to the special, from the low to the high. 



I submit, then, that so far as the largest and most 

 general principles in the matter of palaeontology are 

 concerned, we have about as strong and massive a 

 body of evidence as we could reasonably expect this 

 branch of science to yield ; for it is at once enormous 

 in amount and positive in character. Therefore, if 

 I do not further enlarge upon the evidence which 

 we here have, as it were en masse, it is only because 

 I do not feel that any words could add to its obvious 

 significance. It may best be allowed to speak for itself 

 in tlfe millions of facts which are condensed in this 

 tabular statement of the order of succession of all the 

 known forms of animal life, as presented by the 

 eminent palaeontologist, Professor Cope l . 



Or, taking a still more general survey, this tabular 

 statement may be still further condensed, and pre- 

 sented in a diagrammatic form, as it has been byanother 

 eminent American palaeontologist, Prof. Le Conte, in 

 his excellent little treatise on Evolution and its 

 Relations to Religious Thought. The following is 

 his diagrammatic representation, with his remarks 

 thereon. 



When each ruling class declined fa importance, it did not 

 perish, but continued in a subordinate position. Thus, the 

 whole organic kingdom became not only higher and higher in 

 its highest forms, but also more and more complex in its struc- 



1 For difficulties and objections, see Appendix. 



