ro6 



REPORT — 1884. 



adtls to the probability that all may iiavo resiilti'd from tlie same cause and mav 

 record contomporaneous pbunumciia. It would be very unwise to iu>i.st too much 

 on the coincidence. 



Wlw 



It would be easy to call attention to further examplfs of discrepaiielfs in 

 palajontolofrical evidence, but I should weary you, and notliiiifr would be attaimil bv 

 poinir throuirh instance nl'tcr instance of deposits in distant parts of the world, tb",' 

 aire of whidi has hecn solely determined by the examination of a few fossil fonns 

 of land and fresh-water animals and plants. I have, therefore, only taken a few with 

 the details of which I have had occasion to become a<'{{uaiiited. in some of tin- 

 most important cases I liave mentioneil, such as thoH> of the Pikermi and SiwaliL- 

 fauna.", the Cut"!' (Umia beds) flora, and that in the lower coal-measinvs ot 

 Australia, the :'onflict is betweeu the evidence of the marine and terrestrial orijaii- 

 isnis. Manifestly one or the other of these leads to erroneous conclusions. 



The general opinion of geolopists is in favour of accepting the evidence of 

 marine organisms. The reason is not far to .seek. 80 far as I am aware no case is 

 known where such an anomaly as that displayed in the Gondwanas of India has 

 l)een detected amongst marii\e formations of which the sequence was unquestioned. 

 In the Gondwanas we ha\ e a Rhpetic flora overlying a Jurassic flora, and a Triassic 

 fauna above both. In Australia we find a Jura.ssic flora a.ssociated witii a ( Carboni- 

 ferous marine fauna, and overlain Ijy a Permian fresh-water fauna. The onlv 

 similar case among.«t marine strata is that of the well-known colonies of the latu 

 M. Barrande in Bohemia, and in this instance the intercalation of strata contain- 

 ing later forms amongst beds with older types is disputed, whilst ti.e difference in 

 age between the faunas represented ia not to be compared to that between Triassic 

 and Jurassic. 



There is, however, another and an even stronger rea.son for accepting' tliM 

 evidence of marine instead of that aflbrded by terrestrial and fresh-water animals 

 and plants. If we compare the distribution of the two at the present day we shall 

 tind a very striking difference, aTid it is pos,sible that this difl'erence may afford a 

 clue to the conditions that prevailed in past times. 



Wanderers into what they fancy unexplored tracts in palteontology are very 

 likely to find Professor Huxley's footprints on the path they are following. I have 

 had occasion to turn to a paper of his on Ili/perodopedon,^ that very curious reptile 

 already mentioned, of which the remains occur both in Great Britain and in India, 

 and I find the following remarks, which appear so exactly to express a portion of 

 the view to which I wish to call your attention, t'lat I trust I may be exciused for 

 quoting them. Professor Huxley writes: — 



'It does not appear to me that there is any necessary relation between the 

 fauna of a given land and that of the .seas of its shores. The land-faunje of Britain 

 and Japan are wonderfully similar ; their marine fauna; are in several ways 

 difl'erent. Identical marine shells are collected on the JMozambique coast and in 

 the easternmost islands of the Pacific ; whilst the faunre of the lands which ii' 

 within the .same range of longitude are extraordinarily difl'erent. What now 

 happens geographically to provinces in space is good evidence as to what, in 

 former times, may have happened to provinces in time: and an essentially 

 idi'iitical land-fauna may have beeu contemporary with several successive marim' 

 faunie. 



'At present our knowledge of the terrestrial fauiuB of past epochs is so sligh; 

 that no practical diificulty arises from using, as we do, sea-reckoning for land-time. 

 But I think it highly ])robable that sooner or later the inhabitants of the landwili 

 be found to have a history of their own." 



When these words were written more than fifteen years ago very few of tli" 

 geological details to which I have calleil yoMr attention were known. I need not 

 point out how wonderful a connnentary such details have aflbrded to Profe.s3or 

 Huxley's views. 



I have no desire to quote authoriiy. I fear that in the facts I have beeu layin: 



» Q J. (7. S. XXV, p. 150. 



