76 Transactions. — Zoology. 



dential chair, in his inaugural address on the 14th June last, 

 placed before the Society, in very picturesque language, views 

 on this question of evolution which, in the light of modern 

 science, I cannot but regard as unorthodox and, if I may use 

 the term, pernicious. Major-General Schaw will not, I am 

 sure, object to this personal reference, because in concluding 

 his address he frankly admits that he has " thrown down the 

 gauntlet and opened the door to criticism and discussion." I 

 will give just one quotation by way of illustration. The Presi- 

 dent says, in his address, " In connection with these beetles I 

 would refer to one passage in the Manual, and employ it as my 

 text in what I wish to say on evolution, as it is in accordance 

 with the theories of evolution which are now very generally 

 accepted. The passage I refer to is at page 23, where this 

 swimming-beetle is said to be ' only what a ground-beetle 

 might naturally become if forced to lead an aquatic existence.' 

 Now, my imperfect observation leads me to believe that any 

 ground-beetle now forced to lead an aquatic existence — i.e., 

 being put into water— will not become a swimming -beetle, but, 

 if it cannot get out, will inevitably become a dead beetle." Now, 

 it seems to me that such a passage as that is worthy of the 

 Dark Ages of Science. At any rate, it shows that the author 

 of it has utterly failed to appreciate the plan and method of 

 Natural Selection, for his argument entirely ignores the neces- 

 sary postulate of Time. It is true that, later on in his address, 

 he says, " We may undoubtedly accept as a working hypothesis, 

 which has very strong arguments in its favour, that the re- 

 markable unity in structural design which we discern in the 

 animate world has been brought about in some way through 

 heredity, or natural descent, with variations" ; and, in comment- 

 ing on the complete correspondence in all essential features 

 between the Scriptural account and the facts of nature, he 

 acknowledges that " Science fills out the pictures with endless 

 and wonderful details, and teaches us that the days of creation 

 were not days of twenty-four hours, but of many thousands of 

 years." But here I fear his faith is weak ; for, instead of limit- 

 ing the Mosaic " days" to thousands of years, science claims 

 space for vastly extended epochs of time. Sir Charles Lyell 

 computes the age of the world, since the Cambrian period, at 

 270 millions of years, and in the opinion of most geologists 

 this is a very moderate estimate. And Darwin says, "If the 

 theory [as to the formation of the stratified rocks] be true, it 

 is indisputable that before the lowest Cambrian stratum was 

 deposited long periods elapsed, as long as, or probably far 

 longer than, the whole interval from the Cambrian age to the 

 present day, and that during these vast periods the world 

 swarmed with living creatures." 



Before proceeding to my subject, I may refer incidentally, 



