HUXLEY AND EVOLUTION. 327 



and " beasts," has any reference to such an obscure, sparse 

 and incomplete terrestrial fauna as would be represented 

 by a few snails, scorpions and insects breathing the air of 

 Coal Measure times. Clearly, the fauna to which Genesis 

 "refers is a complete terrestrial fauna, eminently character- 

 ized by mammalia. Can Professor Huxley affirm that 

 palaeontology has found any " cattle " fossilized in our coal- 

 beds? Now a complete terrestrial fauna, such as included 

 " cattle," did not appear until the period which geology, 

 unbiased by theories of creation, has characterized as the 

 " Reign of Mammals.' 1 Every geological tyro knows this. 

 It is incorrect, therefore, to affirm that the biblical (or 

 even Miltonic) " sixth day " must be held to begin " in 

 the middle of. the Palaeozoic formations;" and hence the 

 Bible does not raise a conflict with the facts by placing 

 the advent of the cattle-fauna anterior to the advent of 

 birds. We deny, again, that the Bible declares the crea- 

 tion of " whales " upon the " fifth day," before the advent 

 of birds. It proclaims the creation of tanninim (probably 

 Enaliosaurs) and other marine creatures. We deny that 

 the biblical scheme is to find its parallel, where Hugh 

 Miller, Chalmers, Pye Smith, Silliman, et /., sought for it 

 disastrously, in that fraction of terrestrial history which 

 has passed since the beginning of sedimentation. We 

 hold that its reach is coextensive with the scientific un- 

 folding from fire-mist to man. We maintain, finally, 

 that the order of the biblical record is step by step parallel 

 with the geologic ; and that the method of origination 

 depicted by Genesis is not at all incompatible with the 

 hypothesis of evolution. We maintain, in fact, that the 

 origination of new forms by descent is only creation by 

 development; and while Professor Huxley's argument is 



