206 S. R. PATTISON, F.G.S. 
have to go upon in declining to regard two forms as belonging to the same 
species, is the absence of reasonable evidence of transition. But our 
knowledge about this is very imperfect ; and thus our ignorance tends always 
to the multiplication of species. We have abundant ground for refusing 
assent to the notion of transmutation when we take remote forms, and I do 
not think it is. desirable to insist on the distinct origination of each of what 
naturalists regard as distinct species, 
The second is from Mr. Hastings C. Dent, C.E., F.L.S. 
* Dublin. 
“‘T have seldom perused a paper read before the Victoria Institute which 
has given me greater pleasure. It is very convincing as to successive 
creations of groups and Persistence of Type. 
“Owing to my not having studied corals specially, and so being unable to 
grasp, in the generic and specific names, the predominance of certain 
families of corals in the earliest and latest times, 1 should be very glad if 
Mr. Pattison wouid tell me whether there is, as it appears from the paper, a 
similarity in this group of Actinozoa to that of the Crustaceans, which I 
described in the latter part of a paper on ‘Evolution and Degeneration, 
the Crustacea and Man,’ a copy of ‘which I sent to the library of the 
Victoria Institute some five years ago. In the Crustaceans the original 
important families of Trilobites and Eurypterids, which became extinct, are 
now represented in importance (commercially at least), by the Malacostraca, 
which are of a comparatively recent origin ; and I gather from the paper 
that a similar predominance exists at the present time of a comparatively 
lower type, or later group, of corals from the original form. If this be so, 
the fact is of great importance to those who are contending against evolution. 
‘““The Persistence of Type is, I think, the point to be adhered to especially, 
and it may be well summarised in those sentences on page 201. 
“** We have before noticed that coral-life burst upon the stage all at once ; 
it continued in existence from that epoch until to-day. EOE 3 : 
“* We see at once that there has been frequent change, and it may be said 
progress in form, but not evolution.’ 
' “Species per se, are rather misleading ; as now-a-days, especially, certain 
existing forms are designated by one naturalist as a species, by another as 
the variety of a species; some scientists apparently considering that the 
appearance of approximately the same form at widely separated portions of 
the globe, must necessitate its being a separate species. But in dealing 
with genera we have less difficulty, less fear of our position being assailed. 
“Monsieur De Quatrefages remarks*—‘ Races and isolated varieties of 
a very variable species are taken for species so long as such specimens only 
are known ; they are brought back to their specific type when one has been 
able to collect the intermediate forms which unite them. But to state the 
frequency of a fact which was thought rare or exceptional, is not to explain 
it’ (p. 188). 
“T have been much exercised, ¢.g., in the specific determination of existing 
Lepidoptera, not only by the diverging opinions of English and German 
entomologists ; but even by those of English specialists. 
‘“ When entering upon the origin of species, and derivation of genera, we 
must bear in mind that the theories of Buffon, Lamarck, St. Hilaire, Darwin, 
&c., on derivation, presented themselves to those scientists as probable, from 
the most careful consideration of the facts of varieties and new species 
* Charles Darwin. . . . “Etude sur lo Transformisme.” Paris, 1871, p. 181, 
