402 



NA TURE 



[Fed. 23, 1888 



fossils, as well as with other natural history objects, of which 

 we can only speak with shame and regret as havin^j been under- 

 taken unadvisedly and performed ignorantly, — -work which, 

 prompted by an unwise ambition, has been conceived in error 

 and brought forth in presumption. 



It would ill become anyone from this chair to speak lightly of 

 the great, the inestimable services rendered to our science by the 

 collectors of fossils. How many interesting and novel forms 

 have been brought to light by their patient efiForts ! How often 

 has the structure of ob cure types been rendered clear througli 

 their constant and persevering endeavours to obtain more perfect 

 specimens ! Yet sometimes the very zeal of collectors has led 

 them astray. Des])airing of finding systematic zoologists and 

 botanists who could devote the necessary time and attention to 

 the study of objects which they have obtained with so much 

 t'ouble and pains, they have unwisely undertaken, without the 

 necessary training and knowledge, the naming and description of 

 forms of life which required for their proper interpretation all the 

 skill and experience of the most able comparative anatomist or 

 vegetable morphologist. 



I feel sure that, if those who have thus erred, through acting 

 with "a zeal which is not according to knowledge," ciuld 

 realize the injury done to science by such proceedings, they 

 would pause before burdening scientific literature with preinature 

 names, imperfect diagnoses, and ill-digested materials. Fossils 

 are, it is true, "the medals of creation," and for the purposes 

 of the historian of past geological times, it may seem that any 

 name, however bad, which can be employed for purposes of 

 reference must be better than none at all. But fossils, it must 

 be remembered, are much more than mere "medals." They are 

 the precious relics of the faunas and floras of bygone times ; 

 landmarks — the only ones we can ever hope to discover — which 

 may serve to guide us in tracing the wonderful story of the 

 evolution of the existing forms of life. Reverently — as the 

 mineralogist treats meteorites, those pocket-planets and errant 

 members of the outer universe — should the biologist regard fossils, 

 the fragments of an earlier life, the collateral, if not the direct, 

 ancestors of living types. 



So far I am from thinking that the study of fossils ought in all 

 cases to be undertaken by those who are actually engaged in 

 working out their recent representatives, that I believe such a 

 practical abolition of palaeontology as a distinct branch of 

 science would tend, not to the advantage, but to the injury, of 

 both biology and geology. And I will venture to set forth my 

 grounds for this conclusion. 



It may be remarked at the outset that at a time when all the 

 tendencies of biological science appear to be towards an extreme 

 specialization, it is strange to find that there are advocates for 

 the suppression of what is now so well-developed a department 

 of biological science as palaeontology. When the work to be 

 done has become so vast that some biologists feel themselves 

 compelled to restrict their studies and labours to the morpho- 

 logical, or even to the histological department, others to the 

 embryological, the physiological, the taxonomic, or the choro- 

 logical branches of i oology or botany respectively, why should 

 not some concentrate their efforts upon the elucidation of the 

 ancient forms of life? When the study of a single group, often 

 a very lirnited group, of animals or plants is sufficient to exhaust 

 the energies of a particular naturalist, it is surely not unreason- 

 able that forms which have become extinct and have left only 

 very imperfect evidence of their structure and affinities, and^these 

 requiring peculiar methods for their study, should attract the 

 attention of special investigators. 



The study of fossils, we may remark, if it be undertaken by 

 any biologists, must fall to systematic zoologists and botanists, 

 and these have become somewhat rare and out of fashion in 

 modern times ; so few in numbers, indeed, do they seem as to 

 be scarcely able to cope with the ever-increasing array of living 

 forms ; and it would be a hopeless task if upon them were also 

 cast the overwhelming mass of fossil ones. 



Imagine the embarrassment and dismay of a student of living 

 sponges, whose favourite (possibly his only) method of research 

 has consisted in studying with the microscope innumerable thin 

 slices cut from tissues and embryos, if a cartload of chalk-flinks 

 were thrown down at his door, and he were required to interpret 

 the fragments of sponge-skeletons which they contained in every 

 conceivable variety of disguise through pecidiar processes of 

 mineralization ! 



There are, indeed, a variety of special reasons why ordinary 



systematic zoologists and botanists become, by the very habit.^ 

 acquired in their daily pursuits, singularly ill fitted for dealing 

 with fossil forms. 



In studying recent forms the zoologist or botanist is bound to 

 take into consideration, in fixing the systematic position of an 

 organism, not only its skeleton, but ad its soft parts, and even 

 the structure and mode of development of its embryo ; he may 

 also be called upon to note physiological iDeculiarities, before he 

 is in a position to arrive at a decision as to its place in the 

 zoological or botanical series. But for the student of fossil forms 

 none of these aids are available, he is compelled to do his best 

 without them. Investigators of the recent Mollusca are, of 

 course, " malacologis:s," but he who studies the extinct fornix 

 of the group must perforce labour under the stigma of being " p. 

 mere conchologist." In examining recent vertebrates it is 

 allowable to make every possible u>e of the aid afforded by 

 a study of the ligamental skeleton, in unravelling their affinities ; 

 but he who works on fossil vertebrates is and must remain a 

 pure osteologist. Botanists have been led to the conclusiort 

 that for the classification of plants the reproductive organs 

 always afford the safest guides ; but palaeontologists, alas ! are 

 frequently called upon to do their best in deciphering frag- 

 mentary remains of the vegetative organs. 



It is not, as some biologists would almost seem to imagine, 

 that palc'eontologists are led by any perversity of mind to reject 

 the light which is afforded to them, or that they are not deeply 

 sensible of the great value and importance of many rec.-nt re- 

 searches in respect to living forms ; but simply that they realize 

 — often very sadly realize — the impossibility of availing them- 

 selves of the help afforded by such researches, in connection 

 with the very imperfect material with which they are called upoa 

 to deal. 



If we were to suppose that a surveying ship brought home from 

 a newly-discovered island a heterogeneous mixture of isolate I 

 bones and teeth, of shells, bits of stick and fallen leaves 

 zoologists and botanists might be perfectly justified in refusin ^ 

 to waste their time upon such unsatisfactory materials. But if, 

 subsequently, news arrived that after the departure of the ship 

 the whole island had sunk beneath the ocean, then the circum- 

 stances would have completely changed, and no pains and care 

 would be felt to be too great if expended in dealing with such a 

 unique collection, however imperfect it might be. Or, to take 

 a case which has actually occurred, the curators of the Ashmolean 

 Museum were fully justified in ordering the destruction of the 

 moth-eaten dodo skin, so long as they had no reason for 

 doubting that other and better specimens were procurable ; but 

 now no labour and pains is considered too great in studying the 

 most imperfect fragment of the bird. 



And here I may perhaps be permitted to say a word in defence 

 of what has been treated as an absurd practice on the part of 

 paleontologists — that of giving names to small fragments of 

 organisms. It must be admitted that when subsequent investi- 

 gation proves that distinct generic and specific names have been 

 given to the root, the stem, ihe outer and the inner bark, the pith, 

 the foliage, and the fruit of the same plant, the absurdity does 

 seem striking. But it is impossible to defer giving a name to a 

 fossil until all doubts about its structure and alfmities have been 

 completely settled by the finding of exceptionally perfect speci- 

 mens. Nevertheless, it ought certainly to be insisted on that 

 names should be given to very fragmentary fossils only by a 

 competent naturalist, and that he must accept the responsibility 

 of his act. A single tooth of a mammal may afford gocd 

 grounds for the estab'ishment of a genus and species, while it 

 might be utter folly to treat the tooth of a shark in the same 

 manner. 



The remains of many extinct forms are in such a peculiarly min- 

 eralized condition as to require special skill and training for their 

 proper interpretation. Skeletal elements which were originally 

 siliceous are now represented by pseudomorphs in calcite, and 

 vice versa. Characteristic structures in bones, shells, or wood 

 may be wholly obliterated, and mineral structures of a strangely 

 deceptive kind may be developed in their place. The curious 

 story oi Eozoon canadense and its supposed allies is surely a suffi- 

 cient justification for the existence of palaeontologists — that is, 

 of specialists trained equally in the interpretation of biological 

 and petrological structures. Dr. Sorby has shown that whole 

 families of Mollusca may disappear from a fauna because of the 

 unstable condition of the calcic carbonate which composes their 

 shells, and his conclusions have been confirmed by INIr. Kendall. 

 Prof. Sollas has similarly shown that the absence of the por- 



