112 Prof. Pictet on the Succession of Organised Beings 



but, before defending it, it is necessary to attend to a few prelimi- 

 nary considerations. 



In the first place, this theory, which has some times, by a more 

 vague, but probably on that very account a more apt designation, 

 been called the theory of successive appearances^ ought to be de- 

 fined in a very extended sense. It consists in admitting that at 

 certain epochs new beings have appeared on the surface of the earth, 

 without having the tie of a direct generation with those that went 

 before them. The ordinary laws which we recognise in nature as 

 now existing, have not been sufficient to account for these appear- 

 ances, and the regular series of generations is found to be replaced 

 by other facts. In the scientific discussion of this theory, it ought 

 not to be complicated by considerations of another order ; besides, 

 it is probable that the human mind would seek in vain to account 

 for what has taken place at these different epochs, and that it can 

 no more comprehend these successive creations, than it can compre- 

 hend the first. It is impossible and fruitless to seek to answer the 

 question, whether, in these great events, the Creator has produced 

 each being by a direct and special intervention, or by the action of 

 unknown laws manifesting themselves perhaps at certain intervals in 

 a regular and uniform manner. 



I may remark, in the second place, that the theory of successive 

 creations or appearances has degrees, and may be understood in a 

 more or less extended manner. Some admit it in regard to all the 

 beings of the same geological epoch, and consequently connect it in 

 an intimate and necessary manner with the law of the specialty of 

 fossils. Others admit it only in the case of well-marked types, and 

 which have no analogues in the period which has preceded them. 

 It is convenient to discuss it first in the second sense, that is to say, 

 in its most restricted acceptation. 



Now when put in this manner, this theory appears to me almost 

 beyond dispute. If we admit, for example, that elephants have 

 lived on the earth only since the middle of the tertiary epoch, and 

 if we do not choose to regard them as descendants of the palseo- 

 therium, or some other type of the eocene epoch, we must consider 

 their existence as presenting something instantaneous and without 

 direct connection with what preceded it. If we are unwilling to 

 believe that man proceeds from some mammifer by way of direct 

 generation, and at the same time admit that he appeared after the 

 inferior types, in vain shall we struggle against tliis theory, or seek 

 for another explanation in the present state of the science. We 

 shall find thousands of examples equally evident. 



It remains for us to shew how far this theory may be extended. 

 Ought we to admit that at the end of each geological era all the 

 animals have been destroyed, and that at the commencement of the 

 following era an entire fauna has always been created ? This is a 



