109 
Andall that Comparative Anatomy has made manifest 
and Embryology implied may be freely admitted as trust- 
worthy. But not so the theories deduced from those 
sciences; to enforce which theories an immense amount 
of missing confirmation is taken for granted: and upon 
these frail premises, a quasi-solid superstructure of guessed 
facts is being built. 
For example to one who, like myself, ‘occupies the 
place of the unlearned,” it appears that Professor Parker 
takes much for granted in his remarks upon ‘Prototheria;’ 
(primary mammals) he finds in the two ‘Monotremes’ 
teatless mammals (‘ Echidna’ and ‘Ornithorhynchus;’ 
that which connects them with Reptiles, and Birds: and 
he places them on a lower stage of organisation or 
development: and because thus lowly organised, as he 
elects to describe them, he ranks them below the 
‘Metatheria,’ the Marsupials; not only in organisation, 
but also in development (which implies order of time) and 
states that they correspond with, or survive from organisms, 
ofa similar character; which shoz/d be found in an earlier 
stratum of the earth’s crust. 
He thus claims to know that there were Prototheria, 
and that two types “ dinger on this planet;” he claims 
that these being Prototheria are thus s¢z// co-exzstent with 
the Metatheria, and the Eutheria, (the clever mammals). 
This ts his structure; but he presently discloses that 
he has been guessing back, not only for the form, but for 
the very existence of these Prototheria; he says the dada 
are wanting to show what a primary ancient Protothere 
was like. 
Then he guesses that these undiscovered types 
possessed teeth; although the living types have none ; 
and proceeds further to speculate upon their character, 
as of a simpler kind of tooth than that of the Metatheria 
(Marsupials). 
