208 S. BR. PATTISON, F.G.S. 
any subsequent epoch ;” but to my mind that statement seems to be almost 
contradicted by what Dr. Wright says afterwards :—‘‘The cretaceous 
corals belong chiefly to families now existing, but there are still remaining here 
‘a few instances of the old forms of tabulate corals, hardly distinguishable 
from Silurian species.” Of course, to the scientific mind there may be some 
mode by which these two statements can be reconciled ; but to me they cer- 
tainly appear to have a contradictory tendency. It seems almost an invidious 
task to notice weak points in this beautiful paper, but there is another state- 
ment which I think open to observation. On the top of page 202 there is the 
expression, in brackets, “ But, with the exception of one doubtful form,”— 
now an evolutionist might say, ‘There is an important exception in the 
case of this ‘one doubtful form.” It may be that that exception is a very 
powerful one. Ishould here like to ask one question with regard to these 
separate creations. Does he think that in the case of these separate crea- 
tions there have been creations of vast numbers, or does he suppose that 
only a small number of these coral insects were created at first, and that 
their increase was due to the ordinary process of generation ? 
Mr. W. Grirritu.—I think our friend who has just spoken rather misap- 
prehended the argument of the lecturer, which, as far as I understood it, 
was that there was no instance of development in these different corals. 
The fact that we have the same coral in the Devonian and in the Car- 
boniferous strata does not by any means prove that the one was developed 
from the other On page 202of the paper it is stated that ‘the ancient Cyatho- 
phyllidee were most important in size in Paleozoic times; but, with the 
exception of one doubtful form, they have all become extinct.” That state- 
ment may imply that one of those forms may or may not be in existence ; it 
does not say that the doubtful form may have been developed from a 
previously existing form. The subject is necessarily dificult, owing to the 
somewhat ambiguous sense in which the term evolution may be employed. 
The greatest writers on each side often use the word in an ambiguous way, 
We must admit that there is evolution, at least to some extent. When 
we have an artificial arrangement of species we naturally make mistakes 
and put forms into one species which ought to be put into another. It 
is not necessarily proved that one form was necessarily evolved from 
the other, but rather that we make mistakes in our classification. We 
ought to be more exact in our specification and marking out of species 
and genera; otherwise we shall make mistakes. On the other hand, if 
we admit all that is stated on behalf of evolution, we do not necessarily 
deny the Creator. Certain successive forces may have been attached to 
natural bodies and these may have produced a kind of evolution, and 
yet, unless those forces sprang into existence of themselves, they do not 
therefore deny creation. Those forces must have been caused in some way 
by external action, and, although they produce certain effects, they are alto- 
gether independent of those effects. I think the weakest part of the evolu- 
tion theory is that it only takes a survey of part of the great field of creation ; 
and in saying “creation” I do not wish to prejudice or anticipate the 
