XXXviii PROOFS, ILLUSTRATIONS, AUTHORITIES, ETC. 



conformity with, but in strong support of, the hypothesis of deve- 

 lopment. 



Mr. Miller's tenth chapter opens with a discussion of the evidence 

 from the Silurian mollusks. He misrepresents our argument from 

 the humble character of the Brachiopoda, and insists on the high 

 standing of the Cephalopoda. It is enough for the setting aside of 

 this part of Mr. Miller's opposition, merely to point to the authori- 

 ties (Proofs, fyc., No. 6.) for both the brachiopoda and cephalopoda 

 of that age being loiv in their respective orders. 



He adds one remark on these brachiopoda, that they " consisted of 

 much larger and more important animals, than any which the group 

 contains in the present day. It [the group] has yielded to what 

 geological history shows to be the common fate, and sunk into a 

 state of degradation and decline." Mr. Miller's anxiety to make out 

 a deterioration of the works of the Almighty seems so great, that I 

 am afraid the truth will make him somewhat uncomfortable. He 

 must nevertheless be again reminded that comparative bulk, which 

 he rashly assumes as a mark of dignity, is unequivocally affirmed by 

 Professor Agassiz as an indication of inferiority. 



The remainder of the chapter is an eloquent exposition of what 

 Mr. Miller considers as the proper view to be taken of the palaeozoic 

 flora. It is impossible to withhold admiration from the ingenuity 

 of illustration and beauty of language exhibited in this pleading, 

 even while it must be condemned as wholly unsound. The highest 

 authority on the subject (Proofs, fyc., No. 9.) fully bears out the 

 view of the facts taken in the Vestiges, and even favours the infer- 

 ence drawn from the facts in favour of the development hypothesis. 

 Mr. Miller chiefly insists on two particulars. Adverting to the 

 rarity of land plants below the coal, he endeavours to account for it 

 by saying " The fossil botanist, on taking leave of the lower Car- 

 boniferous beds, quits the land, and sets out to sea ; and it seems in 

 no way surprising that the specimens which he there adds to his 

 herbarium should consist mainly of FucacecB and Confervea. The 

 development hypothesis can borrow no support from the simple fact, 

 that while a high terrestrial vegetation grows upon dry land, only 

 algse grow in the sea." Can Mr. Miller seriously expect that we 

 are to be content with his quiet assumption, that there was no 

 dry land before the Carbonigenous era? I refer him to very 

 sufficient authorities (Proofs, fyc., No. 3.) for a contrary opinion. 

 The fact is, that the long-continued existence of dry land throughout 

 the enormous ages represented by the Silurian and Devonian forma- 

 tions, without leaving us any certain evidence of a land vegetation, 

 is one of the preachings of geology most confounding to writers on 

 Mr. Miller's side of the question. 



But then, and this is the second particular, he has discovered a 

 lignite, which he supposes to be Araucarian, in the Lower Old Ked 

 of Croinart}^. This is the subject of much tine writing. It is an 

 " un fallen Adam" the " olive-leaf of Noah's dove," a whole forest 

 scene is engendered by it in the imagination of this prose poet. " A 



