BUTTERFLIES AND MOTHS 



originally possessed teeth but had lost them, and he believed 

 that this inference from the known to the unknown might 

 at some time be verified. 



In 1888 I was working on the hair of the platypus and was 

 able to show that it retained scale-like features which have 

 been lost in the higher mammals. It was desirable to examine 

 a young specimen, and knowing that Professor Kitchin Parker 

 possessed one I asked if he would lend me some sections of 

 the head prepared by his son, Professor Newton Parker. Just 

 as I was about to examine them the thought flashed through 

 my mind, "Perhaps at this young stage the plcitypus has not 

 lost its true teeth." I looked, and there they were, complete, 

 with dentine and enamel, lying beneath the gum. The pre- 

 diction was verified. 



I cannot refrain from saying a few words about the gen- 

 erous treatment I received from that great man. I had bor- 

 rowed his sections not to look for teeth but for hair, and he 

 might well have said that I had anticipated the study he 

 intended to make and must not publish the discovery. Far 

 from it, he wrote full of enthusiasm and kindness, offering 

 himself to communicate my paper to the Royal Society. It 

 was a splendid thing for a young man to meet with so much 

 kindness from one more than twice his age. I shall never 

 forget it, and I hope the memory of it has enabled me to help 

 on my younger comrades. 



Later on Professor Charles Stewart found that the teeth cut 

 the gum and are used for a time by the young platypus, but 

 that they soon fall out and are replaced by the horny plates 

 which invade their sockets. 



Before considering the evidences of evolution furnished 

 by butterflies and moths, I will attempt to answer the objec- 

 tion that nobody has ever seen one species turn into another 

 and that nobody has brought convincing proof that species 



[177] 



