Mr. T. H. Huxley on the Method of Paleontology, % 



^- ' Just after reproaching me at p. 482, as I conceive unjustifiably, 

 With affirming a case to be one of Cuvier^s selection, which is 

 not so, Dr. Falconer falls into the precise error which he wrong- 

 '^lly attributes to me. . ;'--'^i;i .iiJ ^nuvj m.W 



'" *' Let us now take the case as put'*by^M'r:'M3il8j/;'and'yi'pi)6^^^ 

 that the Brown and White Bears were only met with in the fossil 

 state ; but with the proviso of the other living species being 

 known to us as at present.'^ ' ^^"^^' ''^^ '' | " ' '^^ '^-^ 



What I say is, " Jf Bears were only known to us in the fossil 

 state.^' Dr. Ealconer^s proviso, in fact, is the precise nullifi- 

 cation of my argument, and yet he still ventures to quote it as 

 ttilne. So again at p. 483, after discussing the Bear question, Dr. 

 ^falconer states, " Mr. Huxley next takes in hand the opposite 

 '^'dase of the Ungulate Herbivora, as put by Cuvier." Dr. Falconer's 

 assertion is inaccurate ; I do not next take in hand the Ungulate 

 Herbivora ; any one who will read my abstract may see that the 

 discussion as to the Bears, comes at the end of the argument 

 about the Ungulata, forming not a separate question or opposite 

 ■'(ikse, but part of the same. 



"^'^But here as elsewhere, Dr. Falconer seems to forget the iiii- 

 pbrtant distinction between a question of detail and one of prin- 

 ciple. If physiological arguments are good at all in the way 

 Cuvier put them, they must be universal in their application, in 

 which case any exception is fatal ; on the other hand if they be of 

 limited application, before we can apply them in palaeontology, 

 we must first have ascertained to what group the subject of our 

 studies belongs by other means, and these can only be the appli- 

 cation of morphological laws. 



I trust I have now brought forward sufficient evidence to 

 justify my accusation of misrepresentation and misconception 

 on Dr. Falconer's part, and I would most willingly leave the 

 subject, were it not necessary in defence of myself and others to 

 advert to one or two other points in Dr. Falconer's attack. In two 

 of these, accuracy as to matters of fact is involved. The first relates 

 to the Stonesfield Mammal, a title which has been applied as 

 much to the Phascolotherium as to the Amphitherium. Dr. 

 Falconer asserts, that I have been unhappy in my citation of this 

 case, because the Amphitherium is an Insectivore, and because 

 the Phascolotherium has fewer teeth than the Amphitherium. 

 Candour might have led Dr. Falconer to quote a little more of 

 Prof. Owen's opinion as to the latter animal than he does*. If he 

 had combined careful thought with candour, he would have 



* See British Fossil Mammals, pp. 55 and 56. Professor Owen espe 

 cially warns us against concluding "too absolutely" that the Amphitherium 

 *' may not have combined the more essential points of the Marsupial orga- 

 nization" with the slighter inflection of the angle of the jaw. —■H v .i\ 



