WORK IN PALAZAONTOLOGY 155 
substantiated by the philosophic Lyell, who as early 
as 1836, in his Preuciples of Geology, expresses the 
same view in the following words: “The labors of 
Cuvier in comparative osteology, and of Lamarck 
in recent and fossil shells, had raised these depart- 
ments of study to a rank of which they had never 
previously been deemed susceptible.” 
Our distinguished American paleontologist, the late 
O. C. Marsh, takes the same view, and draws the fol- 
lowing parallel between the two great French natu- 
ralists : 
“In looking back from this point of view, the philo- 
sophical breadth of Lamarck’s conclusions, in com- 
parison with those of Cuvier, is clearly evident. The 
invertebrates on which Lamarck worked offered less 
striking evidence of change than the various animals 
investigated by Cuvier; yet they led Lamarck directly 
to evolution, while Cuvier ignored what was before 
him on this point, and rejected the proof offered by 
others. Both pursued the same methods, and had 
an abundance of material on which to work, yet the 
facts observed induced Cuvier to believe in catastro- 
phes, and Lamarck in the uniform course of nature. 
Cuvier declared species to be permanent; Lamarck, 
that they were descended from others. Both men 
stand in the first rank in science; but Lamarck was 
the prophetic genius, half a century in advance of 
his; time.* 
ever, does not mention the ydrogéologie. Probably so rare a book 
was overlooked by the eminent German paleontologist. 
* History and Methods of Paleontological Discovery (1879), Pp. 23. 
