IV GENESIS VERSUS NATURE 151 



The gloss to which I refer is the assumption 

 that the " air-population " forms a term in the 

 order of progression from lower to higher, from 

 simple to complex the place of which lies 

 between the water-population below and the land- 

 population above and I speak of it as a " gloss/' 

 because the pentateuchal writer is nowise respon- 

 sible for it. 



But it is not true that the air-population, as a 

 whole, is "lower" or less "complex" than the 

 land-population. On the contrary, every beginner 

 in the study of animal morphology is aware that 

 the organisation of a bat, of a bird, or of a 

 pterodactyle presupposes that of a terrestrial quad- 

 ruped ; and that it is intelligible only as an 

 extreme modification of the organisation of a 

 terrestrial mammal or reptile. In the same way 

 winged insects (if they are to be counted among 

 the "air-population") presuppose insects which 

 were wingless, and, therefore, as " creeping things," 

 were part of the land-population. Thus theory is 

 as much opposed as observation to the admission 

 that natural science endorses the succession of 

 animal life which Mr. Gladstone finds in Genesis. 

 On the contrary, a good many representatives of 

 natural science would be prepared to say, on. 

 theoretical grounds alone, that it is incredible 

 that the " air-population " should have appeared 

 before the " land-population " and that, if this 

 assertion is to be found in Genesis, it merely 



