285 



was wholly unknown to the learned world ; but, perfectly apart from the 

 interest which he therefore took in his theories, as springing from him, he took 

 the greatest interest in this subject. He had read the abstract of Professor 

 Huxley's paper with the greatest interest, but he had also read it with the 

 greatest surprise. It seemed to him the production of a man of the very 

 highest attainments in the scientific world. The subject was the " Nautilus." 

 The common name that would be applied to its class was " shell-fish " ; the 

 proper name for it was " an organised mollusc." If they could imagine the 

 living body of the mollusc, living in a trumpet divided by curtains thrown 

 across it, and the creature always moving forward, and that, as it moves 

 forward, it has no use for the small end and throws it away, this would be the 

 straight form. Then, if they imagined another form, of which the shell was 

 a curved trumpet, they would get the Nautilus. Professor Huxley then 

 had told them that this curved form was an offshoot of the straight one. 

 But the straight forms have been found living side by side with the curved 

 ones, — as their contemporaries, and not as their ancestors. It was impossible 

 that the one could be the ancestor of the other when they were thus found. 

 If they went down through the London clay, and down to the deepest 

 strata, they found there the Nautilus just as it was ages and ages ago. 

 The two forms had co-existed as far back as they could be traced, and this 

 showed that Professor Huxley's lecture had been a failure. But he (Mr. 

 Charlesworth) hoped that the meeting would not take what he had said as 

 a proof that he held that evolution is altogether a false theory. Though 

 not a convert to the doctrine of evolution, he was not prepared to deny it 

 altogether. 



Mr. W. P. James said that he had unfortunately only heard a portion of 

 the paper, but had been much struck with what he had heard as to the 

 permanence of the forms under discussion. He could say nothing about the 

 Nautilus, but on another branch — a kindred subject. Fossil Botany, — he 

 would like to say a few words. Fossil botany was supposed to be weaker 

 than the other branches of Palasontology, but it threw much light upon the 

 subject of permanence of form. Botany did not produce anything so 

 substantial as the bones and skeletons of animals or the shells of molluscs. 

 If the conchological and other records were imperfect, he was afraid that 

 the botanical ^was still more so. But yet it afforded much valuable 

 evidence. If they went back to the Miocene flora they could not but be 

 struck with the evidence of permanence they would find there. Poplars, 

 palms, and many other trees were found there exactly the same as in the 

 present day, the generic type being but very little changed. Every one could 

 see that permanence and not variety was the most wonderful thing ; and this 

 was emphasised by the fact that the climate had changed very much, since 

 it was then most certainly sub-tropical. But to go further back, the mere 

 fact that the type of the fern has remained so constant through the time 

 that has elapsed since the Palaeozoic coal measures that a mere child can 

 recognise it, is astonishing. Botanists divide the fern group into three classes, 

 popularly termed Ferns, Horse-tails, and Club-mosses. There had been a 



