132 
ancestors, and differentiated descendants, ¢f they are differ- 
entiated, and not merely congeneric spectes. 
With regard to another Marsupial, two Evolutionists 
are at variance, Cope deducing ‘ Thylacoles’ from ‘ Pla- 
giaulax;’ Schmidt not agreeing; as both cannot be 
right ; it may be that neither are. is asafe guide. 
The above examples are followed by descriptions of 
extinct giant Marsupials, as the ‘Diprotodon,’ but these 
are resected, as not having left any direct lineal descend- 
ants. 
“But with tt (Diprotodon) there lived in those days 
powerful creatures, closely related to the Kangaroos, such as 
‘Palorchestes.” 
Now if the word “but” implies that ‘Palorchestes’ 
at any rate has left direct descendants; it had been 
interesting to be told wherein that species differed from 
an existing species: that some opinion might be formed 
whether the latter were only a congeneric species; or really 
the same species modified. 
And thus the second group passes; and no missing 
link established. 
What more is said refers to certain modifications 
(specific differences some will call them) in the toes of the 
American, and Australian Marsupial species: giving rise 
to the discussion as to whether of the two Continents 
were the primeval home of these Metatheria. 
The third living group specially compared with 
their ancestors (the forms conjectured as their ancestors) 
is that of the ‘epENTATA’, (Sloths; Scaly Ant-eaters; 
Armadillos.) 
Their connection is to be sought in their early his- 
tory if it really exist. But at once we have the fatal 
admission, ‘‘ wsfortunately we do not know ther early 
history,” unfortunately (it may be presumed) for the 
