168 



THE OSPKEY. 



the work now under notice (May, 183oi also ap- 

 peared the fourth edition of Lyell's Principles 

 of Geology- Some idea had already been ob- 

 tained of the many successive faunas of the 

 past and, years before, Desnoyers, Deshayes and 

 Lyell had recognized that there were even three 

 or four distinct divisions of the Tertiary beds, 

 characterized by distinct associations of animals 

 for the most part not co-existent, and names 

 which they still bear (Eocene, Miocene and 

 Lower and Upper Pliocene) had already been 

 given. 



In short, judging by these paragraphs, Swain- 

 son appears to have believed il) that for the 

 world of history at least, there was only one crea- 

 tion; (2) that the deluge destroyed all such life 

 save that which was preserved in the ark; and 

 (3) that there might have been subsequent crea- 

 tion for other lands than the scriptural ones. 

 Even such admission as the last might have been 

 regarded as heretical in those days of strict 

 interpretation. The idea that the denial of the 

 universality of the deluge was "'directly opposed 

 to geological phenomena" was a ludicrous one, 

 even in 1835. 



The very anthropocentric proposition that 

 animals not useful to man in some way or other 

 were destroyed by the deluge was a supplemen- 

 tary proposition. 



These views, however, he shortly afterwards, 

 in the next volume of the series, modified. 



Another volume, issued in 1835, was "On the 

 Natural History and Classification of Quadru- 

 peds." This was an unusually poor work. (We 

 use the word was because we speak of it in rela- 

 tion to the time in which it was issued.) Fin- 

 example, the order of Marsupials was disin- 

 tegrated and representatives associated with 

 forms witli which they have scarcely dental 

 characteristics in common, much less anatomical. 

 Thylacinus was referred to Felidas i including the 

 Canidae): in the family of Didelphidae (Opos- 

 sums) were thrust the Carnivore genera Arc- 

 tictis and Cercoleptes and the lusectivore genera 

 Cladobates and Gymnura; the Wombat (Phasco- 

 lomys) and Koala {Phascolarctos) were referred 

 to the Rodents or Glires proper. These are fair 

 samples of the work. 



A propos of the disintegration of the order of 

 Marsupials, Swainsou concludes i pp. 166,167) 

 that "it may be expedient to advert to those 

 considerations which have induced us to sepa- 

 rate the carnivorous marsupials from those 

 which are herbivorous, and thereby to break up 

 the order Marsupiata of the Regno Animal. 

 Nearly all our leading naturalists have acknowl- 

 edged the artificial nature of this assemblage, 

 uniting, as it does, animals of the most opposite 

 natures, and of the most dissimilar organiza- 

 tion, merely from the circumstance of their pos- 

 sessing a marsupial pouch. Upon what reasons 

 M. Cuvier, by instituting this order, was in- 

 duced to violate the very first principles of his 

 own arrangement — which every one sees is 

 mainly founded upon the structure of the teeth 

 — we know not: but this single circumstance is 

 sufficient to excite the strongest suspicion that 



his arrangement is not natural. This, at least, 

 was the conclusion at which we arrived, after 

 the most matured investigation we could give 

 the subject, and after endeavoring in vain to 

 discover a circular series among the marsupial 

 animals. It j> as, therefore, with no small grati- 

 fication that we found ourown impressions con- 

 tinued by the opinions of a naturalist eminently 

 versed in this branch of zoology", E. T. Bennett. 



Swaiuson, like these whose sentiments he 

 shared, again showed his inability to look 

 beneath the skin. It scarcely need be added, 

 now. that there are innumerable points of agree- 

 ment between the different groups of Marsu- 

 pials distinguishing them from all other mam- 

 mals. 



He. however, greatly exaggerated the weight 

 of English sentiment. There were only two 

 English zoologists of prominence who had 

 given expression to similar opinions, the one 

 cited (Bennett) and Mr. Ogilby. At the same 

 time, two much more scientific men (Richard 

 Owen and G. R. Waterhotise) were engaged in 

 studies which led to opposite conclusions. 



Owen, in a memoir published in 1837, espe- 

 cially declared "The agreement of the Marsu- 

 pial animals in so important a modification of 

 the cerebral organ astheabsence [oratrophyl of 

 a corpus callosum and septum lucidum. affords 

 addition aland strong grounds for regarding them 

 as a distinct and peculiar group of Mammalia; 

 and when to this modification of cerebral struc- 

 ture are added the traces of the oviparous type 

 of structure, presented in the circulating and 

 absorbent systems, together with the peculiari- 

 ties of the oss. cms and generative apparatus, 

 we may with reason suspect that distribution of 

 the Marsupiata to be artificial, and founded on 

 an imperfect knowledge of their mutual affini- 

 ties, which, from a modification of the teeth 

 and extremities alone, would separate and dis- 

 perse the species amongst corresponding groups 

 of the Placental Mammalia."* 



Waterhouse, in a volume of the same series 

 ("The Naturalist's Library" 1 on which Swain- 

 son had co-operated, took occasion to controvert 

 his statement in a volume on the "Marsupialia 

 or Pouched Animals." He truly asserted, "it is 

 evident that Mr. Swainsou is in error, in stat- 

 ing that 'nearly all our leading naturalists 

 have acknowledged the artificial nature of the 

 assemblage;' but I think we might, on the other 

 hand, say. with safety, that all the nicest eminent 

 anatomists (these being at the same time zoolo- 

 gists) agree in uniting them — at least all who 

 have written on the subject, and who have had 

 the necessary materials for forming a just 

 opinion. I could wish, however, that this im- 

 portant question should not rest upon authority; 

 but to go through the train of reasoning, by 

 which the anatomists have arrived at their con- 

 clusions, would require more space than can be 

 spared in a volume like the present one, and, 

 moreover, would not be suited to a popular 

 work" I p. 63. 64). 



The "Marsupial Pouch" which Swaiuson sup- 

 posed to be the sole characteristic of the Mar- 



*Professor Owen 'On tlie Structure of toe Brain in M irsupial Animals, 

 for 1837. 



Philosophical Transactions, Part I. 



