THE MUSEUM HIS HEADQUARTERS 49 



have examined. [Here follows a technical discussion of 

 Ccelenterata.] 



With regard to the Darwinian theory, it seems to me 

 to be only bringing up the same arguments as those 

 used by Lamarck, only backed up by greater research 

 and greater knowledge. The same objections which 

 were fatal to the Lamarckian theory, and which ulti- 

 mately caused it to disappear from science, till it was 

 brought to life again by Darwin, will in due time cause 

 the death of his theories; but good his scrutiny has 

 undoubtedly done, as it is always a salutary thing for 

 science to have a skillful skeptic attack its most reli- 

 giously received dogmas. Far from having been drawn to 

 the Darwinian Theory, all my studies and all my experi- 

 ence thus far has led me in the opposite direction. Em- 

 bryology must be my support. Why should there not 

 be nowadays going on what Darwin urges has taken 

 place formerly ? Does a crab ever lay eggs from which 

 anything but something identical with it (the crab) does 

 come forth ? Does a starfish ever lay eggs from which 

 an Ophiuran is developed ? Darwin must show greater 

 changes to have taken place than those of domestication, 

 if he wishes us to hold to his theory with any sort of 

 adherence. The idea that a plan pervades the animal 

 kingdom must first be disproved and, what is by far 

 more important, he ought to be able to show in the 

 geological record the traces of all these changes. I only 

 ask for the traces of those changes. But far from this 

 he makes a sweeping assertion of the imperfection of 

 the geological record and expects us to take that for the 

 truth. Let him take any of the well-studied beds of 

 England, as the Jurassic Period, or of Switzerland as 

 the Molasse, or of this continent as the Silurian and 



