Chap. I. PROPHETIC TYPES AMONG ANIMALS. 117 



of a later period were to be established. They appear now, like a prophecy in 

 those earlier times, of an order of things not possible with the earlier combina- 

 tions then prevailing in the animal kingdom, but exhibiting in a later period, in a 

 striking manner, the antecedent considerations of every step in the gradation of 

 animals. 



This is, however, by no means the only, nor even the most remarkable case, 

 of such prophetic connections between facts of different dates. 



Kecent investigations in Palaeontology have led to the discovery of relations 

 between animals of past ages and those now living, which were not even suspected 

 by the founders of that science. It has, for instance, been noticed, that certain types 

 which are frequently prominent among the representatives of past ages, combine 

 in their structiu'C, peculiarities which at later periods are only observed separately 

 in different, distinct types. Sauriod Fishes before Reptiles, Pterodactyles before Birds, 

 Ichthyosauri before Dolphins, etc. 



There are entire families, among the representatives of older periods, of nearly 

 every class of animals, which, in the state of their perfect development exemplify 

 such prophetic relations, and afford, within the limits of the animal kingdom, at 

 least, the most unexpected evidence, that the plan of the whole creation had been 

 maturely considered long before it was executed. Such types, I have for some 

 time past, been in the habit of calling prophetic types. The Sauroid^ Fishes of the 

 past geological ages, are an example of this kmd. These Fishes, wliich have pre- 

 ceded the ajjpearance of Reptiles, present a combination of ichthyic and rejitilian 

 characters, not to be found in the true members of this class, which form its bulk 

 at present. The Pterodactyles^ which have preceded the class of Bh'ds, and the 

 Ichthj-osauri ^ which have preceded the appearance of the Crustacea, are other exam- 

 ples of such prophetic types. These cases suffice for the present, to show that 

 there is a real dift'ei-ence between embryonic t^-pes and prophetic types. Embryonic 

 types are in a measure also prophetic types, but they exemplify only the pecu- 

 liarities of development of the higher representatives of their own types; while 

 prophetic tj'pes exemphfy structural combinations observed at a later period, in two 

 or several distinct types, and are, moreover, not necessarily embryonic in their 

 character, as for example, the Monkeys in comparison to Man; while they may be 

 so, as in the case of the Pinnate, Plantigrade, and Digitigrade Carnivora, or still 

 more so in the case of the pedmiculated Crinoids.* 



Another combination is also frequently observed among animals, when a series 

 exhibits such a succession as exemplilies a natural gradation, without immediate 



* Agassiz, (L.,) I'oiss. foss., vol. 2, [.art 2. • Cuviek, (G.,) Oss. foss., as q. a. 



•^ Clvier, (G.,) Oss. foss., vol. 5, p. 2. * See above, Sect. 25. 



