Sept. 25, 1879] 



NATURE 



519 



Infinite Being." But the dawn of a new era was already 

 breaking, and the third_period of,pala:onto]og)- we may consider 

 now at an end. 



Just twenty years ago, science had reached a point when the 

 belief in "special creations" was undermined by well-estab- 

 lished facts, slowly accumulated. The time was ripe. Many 

 naturalists were working at the problem, convinced that evolu- 

 tion was the key to the present and the past. But how had 

 Nature brought this change about? While others pondered 

 Parwin spoke the magic word — "Natural Selection," and a 

 new epoch in science began. 



The fourth period in the history of palaeontology dates from 

 this time, and is the period of to-day. One of the main charac- 

 teristics of this epoch is the belief that all life, living and extinct, 

 has been evolved from simple forms. Another prominent feature 

 is the accepted fact of the great antiquity of the human race. 

 These are quite sufficient to distinguish this period sharply from 

 those that preceded it. 



The publication of Charles Darwin's work on the " Origin of 

 Species," November, 1859, at once aroused attention, and started 

 a revolution which has ah-eady in the short space of two decades 

 changed the whole course of scientific thought. The theory of 

 '' Natural Selection," or, as Spencer has happily termed it, the 

 'Survival of the Fittest," had been worked out independently 

 by \\'allace, who justly shares the honour of the discovery. We 

 have seen that the theory of evolution was proposed and advo- 

 cated by Lamarck, but he was before his time. The anonymous 

 author of the "Vestiges of Creation," which appeared in 1844, 

 advocated a somewhat similar theory, which attracted much 

 attention, but the belief that species were immutable was not 

 sensibly affected until Darwin's work appeared. 



The diflerence between Lamarck and Darwin is essentially 

 this : Lamarck proposed the theory of evolution ; Darwin 

 changed this into a doctrine, which is now guiding the investiga- 

 tion in all departments of biology. Lamarck failed to realise 

 the importance of time, and the inter-action of life on life. 

 Darivin, by combining these influences « ith those also suggested 

 by Lamarck, has shown how the existing forms on the earth may 

 have been derived from those of the past. 



This revolution has influenced pala:ontology as extensively as 

 any other department of science, and hence the new period we 

 arc discussing. In the last epoch species were represented inde- 

 pendently, by parallel lines ; in the present period they are indi- 

 cated by dependent, branching lines. The former was the 

 analytic, the latter is the synthetic, period. Today the animals 

 and plants now living are believed to be genetically connected 

 with those of the distant past, and the palaeontologist no longer 

 deems species of the first importance, but seeks for relationships 

 and genealogies, connecting the distant past with the present. 

 Working in this spirit, and with such a method, the advance 

 during the last decade has been great, and is an earnest of what 

 is yet to come. 



The progress of paleontology in Great Britain during the 

 present period ha^ been great, and the general interest in the 

 science much extended. The views of Darwin soon found 

 acceptance here. Next to his discovery of " Natural Selection," 

 Darwin was fortunate in having so able and bold an expounder 

 US Huxley, who was one of the first to adopt his theory and give 

 it a vigorous support. Huxley's masterly researches have been 

 of gi'eat benefit to all departments of biology, and his contribu- 

 tions to paliEontoIogy are invaluable. Among the latter his 

 original investigations on the relations of birds and reptiles are 

 especially noteworthy. His various memoirs on extinct reptiles, 

 amphibians, and fishes, belong to the permanent literature of 

 the subject. Tlie important researches of Owen on the fossil 

 vertebrates have been continued to the present time. He has 

 added largely to his previous publications on the British fossil 

 reptiles, birds, and mammals, the extinct reptiles of South Africa, 

 Rod the post-tertiary Ijirds of New Zealand. His description 

 of the Archccopteryx, near the beginning of the period was a 

 most welcome contrihution. 



The investigations of Egerton on fossil fishes have likewise 

 been continued with important results. Busk, Dawkins, Flower, 

 lud Sanford have made valuable contributions to the history of 

 fossil mammals. Bell, GUnther, Hulke, Lankeslcr, Powrie, 

 Miall, and .Seely, have made notable additions to our knowledge 

 ' reptiles, amphibians, and fishes. Among invertebrates the 



Uitacea have been especially studied by Jones, Salter, and 



Woodward. Davidson, Etheridge, Lycett, Morris, Phillips, 

 Wood, and Wright have continued their researches on molluscs ; 

 Duncan, Nicholson, and others, have investigated the extinct 

 corals, and Binney and Carruthers the fossil plants. Numerous 

 other important contributions have been made in Great Britain 

 to the science during the present period. 



On the Continent the advance in palaeontology has, during the 

 last two decades, been equally great. In France Gervais con- 

 tinued his memoirs on extinct vertebrates nearly to the present 

 date ; while Gaudry has published several volumes on the sub- 

 ject that are models for all s'.udents of the science. His work 

 on the fossil animals of Greece is a perfect monograph of its 

 kind, and his later publications are all of importance. Lartet's 

 various works are of permanent value, and his application of 

 palaeontology to archaeology brought notable results. The 

 volume of Alphonse Milne-Edwards on fossil Crustacea was a 

 fit supplement to Brongniart and Desmarest's well-known work, 

 while his grand memoir on fossil birds deserves to rank with 

 the classic volumes of Cuvier. Duvernoy, Filhol, Hebert, 

 Sauvage, and others, have also published interesting results on 

 fossil vertebrates. 



Van Beneden's researches on the fossil vertebrates of Belgium 

 have produced results of great value. Pictet, Rutimeyer, and 

 Wedersheim in Switzerland, Bianconi, Forsyth-Major, and Sis- 

 monda in Italy, and Nodot in Spain, have likewise published 

 important memoirs. The extinct vertebrates have been studied 

 in Germany by von Meyer, Cams, Fraas, Giebel, Haeckel, 

 Haase, Hensel, Kayser, Kner, Ludwig, Peters, Portis, Maack, 

 Salenka, Zittel, and many others; in Denmark by Reinhardt ; 

 and in Russia by Brandt and Kowalevsky. 



The fossil invertebrates have been investigated with care by 

 D'Archiac, D'Orbigny, Bayle, Fromentel, Oustalet, and others 

 in France ; Desor, Loriol, and Roux in Switzerland ; Cappellini, 

 Massalongo, Michellotti, Meneghini, and Sismonda in Italy ; 

 Barrande, Benecke, Beyrich, Dames, Dorn, Ehlers, Geinitz, 

 Giebel, Giimbel, Feistmantel, Hagen, von Hauer, von Heyden, 

 von Fritsch, Laube, Oppel, Quenstedt, Roemer, Schliiter, Suess, 

 Speyer, and Zittel in Germany, and Winkler in Holland. The 

 fossil plants have been studied in these countries by Massalongo, 

 Saporta, Zigno, Fiedler, Goldenberg, Gehler, Heer, Goeppert, 

 Ludwig, Schimper, Schenk, and many others. 



Among the recent researches in pala-ontology in other regions 

 may be mentioned those of Blanford, Feistmantel, Lydekker, 

 and Stoliczka ; in India, Haast and Hector in New Zealand, and 

 Krefit and McCoy in Australia ; all of whom have published 

 valuable results. 



Of the progress of palaeontology in America I have thus far 

 said nothing, and I need now say but little, as many of you are 

 doubtless familiar with its main features. During the first and 

 second periods in the history of pala;ontology, as I have defined 

 them, America, for most excellent reasons, took no part. In 

 the present century, during the third period, appear the names 

 of Bigsby, Green, Morton, Mitchell, Rafinesque, Say, and 

 Troost, all of whom deserve mention. More recently, the 

 researches of Conrad, Dana, Deane, De Kay, Emmons, Gibbes, 

 Hitchcock, Holmes, Lea, Owen, Redfield, Rogers, Shumard, 

 Swallow, and many others, have enlarged our knowledge of the 

 fossils of this country. 



The contributions of James Hall to the invertebrate paleon- 

 tology of this country form the basis of our present knowledge 

 of the subject. The extensive labours of Meek in the same 

 department are likewise entitled to great credit, and will form 

 an important chapter in the history of the science. The me- 

 moirs of Billings, Gabb, Scudder, White, and Whitfield are 

 numerous and important, and the publications of Derby, Harlt, 

 James, Miller, Shaler, Rathburn, and Winchell, are also of 

 value. To Dawson, Lesquereux, and Newberry, we mainly 

 owe our present knowledge of the fossil plants of this country. 



The foundation of our vertebrate palieontology was laid by 

 Leidy, whose contributions have enriched nearly every dejiart- 

 ment of theubject. The numerous publications of Cope are 

 well known. Agassiz, Allen, Baird, Dawson, Deane, De Kay, 

 Emmons, Gibbes, Harlan, Hitchcock, Jefferson, Lea, Le Conte, 

 Newberry, Redfield, St. John, Warren, Whitney, Worthen, 

 Wyman, and others, have all added to our knowledge of 

 American fossil vertebrates. The chief results in this depart- 

 ment of our subject, I have already laid before you on a previous 

 occasion, and hence need not dwell upon them here. 



In this rapid sketch of the history of pahcoatology, I have 



