QKNBBIfl nSBSUS NATU1U. IV 



deiii..!,xtratt\s the scientific worthlessness ,,f the 

 if \\liidi it forms a part. 



Indee.l, \\.- may go further. It is not <u u 

 admissible to say that the water-population, 

 whole, appeared before the air and the land- 

 populations. According to the Authorised Version, 

 Genesis especially mentions, among the animals 

 created on the fifth day, "great whales," in place 

 of which the Revised Version reads "great sea 

 monsters." Far be it from me to give an opinion 

 which rendering is right, or whether either is 

 right. All I desire to remark is, that if whales 

 and porpoises, dugongs and manatees, are to be 

 regarded as members of the water-population 

 (and if they are not, what animals can claim the 

 designation ?), then that much of the water-popu- 

 lation has, as certainly, originated later than the 

 land-population as bats and birds have. For I 

 am not aware that any competent judge would 

 hesitate to admit that the organisation of these 

 animals shows the most obvious signs of their 

 d< -scent from terrestrial quadrupeds. 



A similar criticism applies to Mr. Gladstone's 

 assumption that, as the fourth act of that " orderly 

 succession of times" enunciated in Genesis, "the 

 land-population consummated in man." 



If this means simply that man is the final term 

 in the evolutional series of which he forms a part, 

 I do not suppose that any objection will be raised 

 to that statement on the part of students of 



