PROOFS, ILLUSTRATIONS, AUTHORITIES, ETC. XXXI 



by Dr. Lund in the province of Minas Geraes, in Brazil, many of the 

 heads present "the incisor and molar teeth exactly alike." The 

 same peculiarity has been observed, not only in Egyptian mummies, 

 but in heads raised from Celtic, Roman, and Saxon tumuli, in our 

 own country. Of one found in 1838, in a barrow on the Berkshire 

 Downs, the teeth in the usual place of the incisors were " of an 

 irregular solid oval form, strongly coated with enamel, and in every 

 respect like the natural molars." The bicuspids were also molars. 

 Mr. Roach Smith, in his Collectanea Antiqua, notices such teeth as 

 frequently occurring in the ancient Celtic barrows of Britain. Letter 

 ofR. H. Allnutt, Medical Gazette, 1845, p. 867. 



If the human race be of one species, yet have teeth so different, it 

 may be asked of Professor Owen, how should fossil equidse be distinct 

 species with dentine peculiarities of smaller amount ? Why a different 

 rule in the two cases ? 



12. ANSWERS TO OBJECTIONS. 

 Mr. Hugh Miller. 



Mr. Miller formally entered the field as an objector to the present 

 work in 1849, when he published a volume entitled, Footprints of 

 the Creator, or the Asterolepis of Stromness. He is a most in- 

 genious and interesting person ; his merits as an investigator of the 

 fossils of the Old Red Sandstone are great ; his literary powers of 

 illustration are such as to require no allowance to be made for his 

 early circumstances and education in any court of criticism ; further, 

 he is an earnest and upright man. I therefore give him on general 

 grounds my respect ; but I cannot admit that his book, ingenious, 

 pains-taking, and eloquent as it is, makes the slightest impression 

 on the arguments for a natural history of creation, 



Mr. Miller acquits the Development Hypothesis of the vulgar 

 charge brought against it, of involving atheism. He admits that 

 " God might as certainly have originated the species by a law of 

 development, as he maintains it by a law of development ;" which 

 I humbly think is going nearly as far as myself, seeing that I have 

 done nothing more than suggest tiaeprobdbilify of some such method 

 having been followed by the Creator, after showing facts in the 

 history of nature which give the idea some countenance. Mr. Miller, 

 however, goes on to say, that there are " beliefs in no less degree im- 

 portant to the moralist or the Christian, than even that of the being 



t~~t T 1*1 111 " _ i * 1- 1 _ .,.! i-l-i 4 1*. 



or of beasts, are individually and inherently immortal and undying, 

 or that human souls are not so." He continues " If, according to 

 the development theory, the progress of the first Adam was an up- 

 ward progress, the existence of the second Adam .... is simply a 



