THE INTERPRETERS OF GENESIS AND NATURE. 451 



For I can meet the statement in the last paragraph of the above 

 citation with nothing but a direct negative. If I know anything at 

 all about the results attained by the natural science of our time, it is 

 " a demonstrated conclusion and established fact " that the " fourfold 

 order" given by Mr. Gladstone is not that in which the evidence at 

 our disposal tends to show that the water, air, and land populations of 

 the globe have made their appearance. 



Perhaps I may be told that Mr. Gladstone does give his authority 

 — that he cites Cuvier, Sir John Herschel, and Dr. Whewell in support 

 of his case. If that has been Mr. Gladstone's intention in mentioning 

 these eminent names, I may remark that, on this particular question, 

 the only relevant authority is that of Cuvier. But, great as Cuvier 

 was, it is to be remembered that, as Mr. Gladstone incidentally remarks, 

 he can not now be called a recent authority. In fact, he has been dead 

 more than half a century, and the paleontology of our day is related 

 to that of his very much as the geography of the sixteenth century is 

 related to that of the fourteenth. Since 1832, when Cuvier died, not 

 only a new world, but new worlds, of ancient life have been discov- 

 ered ; and those who have most faithfully carried on the work of the 

 chief founder of paleontology have done most to invalidate the essen- 

 tially negative grounds of his speculative adherence to tradition. 



If Mr. Gladstone's latest information on these matters is derived 

 from the famous discourse prefixed to the " Ossemens Fossiles," I can 

 understand the position he has taken up ; if he has ever opened a re- 

 spectable modern manual of paleontology or geology, I can not. For 

 the facts which demolish his whole argument are of the commonest 

 notoriety. But, before proceeding to consider the evidence for this 

 assertion, we must be clear about the meaning of the phraseology 

 employed. 



I apprehend that when Mr. Gladstone uses the term " water-popu- 

 lation " he means those animals which, in Genesis i, 21 (revised ver- 

 sion), are spoken of as " the great sea-monsters and every living creat- 

 ure that moveth, which the waters brought forth abundantly, after 

 their kind." And I presume that it will be agreed that whales and 

 porpoises, sea-fishes, and the innumerable hosts of marine invertebrated 

 animals, are meant thereby. So " air-population " must be the equiva- 

 lent of " fowl," in verse 20, and " every winged fowl after its kind," 

 verse 21. I suppose I may take it for granted that by "fowl" we 

 have here to understand birds — at any rate primaril)^ Secondarily, it 

 may be that the bats, and the extinct pterodactyls, which were flying 

 reptiles, come under the same head. But, whether all insects are 

 " creeping things " of the land-population, or whether flying insects are 

 to be included under the denomination of " winged fowl," is a point 

 for the decision of Hebrew exegetes. Lastly, I suppose I may assume 

 that " land-population " signifies " the cattle " and " the beast of the 

 earth," and " every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth," in 



