GENESIS VERSUS NATURE iv 



have most faithfully carried on the work of the 

 chief founder of palaeontology have done most to 

 invalidate the essentially negative grounds of his 

 speculative adherence to tradition. 



If Mr. Gladstone's latest information on these 

 matters is derived from the famous discourse pre^- 

 fixed to the " Ossemens Fossiles," I can understand 

 the position he has taken up ; if he has ever opened 

 a respectable modern manual of palaeontology, or 

 geology, I cannot. For the facts which demolish 

 his whole argument are of the commonest noto- 

 riety. But before proceeding to consider the 

 evidence for this assertion we must be clear about 

 the meaning of the phraseology employed. 



I apprehend that when Mr. Gladstone uses the 

 term " water-population " he means those animals 

 which in Genesis i. 21 (Revised Version) are spoken 

 of as " the great sea monsters and every living crea- 

 ture that moveth, which the waters brought forth 

 abundantly, after their kind." And I presume that 

 it will be agreed that whales and porpoises, sea 

 fishes, and the innumerable hosts of marine inver- 

 tebrated animals, are meant thereby. So " air-pop- 

 ulation " must be the equivalent of " fowl " in verse 



20, and " every winged fowl after its kind," verse 



21. I suppose I may take it for granted that by 

 " fowl " we have here to understand birds at any 

 rate primarily. Secondarily, it may be that the 

 bats and the extinct pterodactyles, which were 

 flying reptiles, come under the same head. But 



