135 
extent convinced by his own experiments amongst do- 
mesticated doves. 
The fourth group, however, THE HOOFED ANIMALS, 
is to make up for the deficiency among the first three. 
No other group is so rich in fossils dating from the 
earlier Tertiary times: and the pedigree of one animal 
at any rate, the Horse, is shown possible, probable, or 
certain, according as the data are accepted, especially as 
to whether the earlier forms are conspecific (ancestral) or 
merely congeneric (related). 
The ancestors of other claimants are sadly too large 
to be convincing: and perhaps some may think also the 
first ancestor in the Horse's pedigree, sadly too small even 
for a pony; being of the size of a fox, and called Eohippus 
(early horse) the only likeness to the Horse gwofed by 
Schmidt is the immense dissimilarity in the toes, four 
instead of one; an difference in the teeth. 
But as the Ungulata (Hoofed Mammals) furnish the 
most comprehensible ancestral proofs, it will be best to 
point out the ancestral claims for each spectes as they are 
noted ; The lines upon which the main argument proceeds 
concern the teeth, and toes; and the reduction of both 
appears as the great feature in successful developement; 
the details of which the reader must examine for himself. 
It is however open to observation here that what- 
ever ancestral claims are made for these most important 
Mammals; it is xo such claim as ts understood by Evolution 
in the extreme sense: it appears to be only such a power of 
Differentiation, well within the genus, which the believer in 
a series of special creations need not be slow to admit. 
This also appears to be the view of Dr. Haughton, 
Professor of Geology in Dublin University, who wrote in 
1866, “the transformation of species, in my opinion, has 
not yet been proved in a single case,” and in 1876, “ We 
