IN EVOLUTION FROM A GEOLOGICAL POINT OF VIEW. 183 
allied organisms, it would (and possibly quite as fallaciously) 
be regarded as a certain proof of common origin. Again, I 
have known Brachiopods externally so similar as actually to 
be placed in one species, until their internal arrangements were 
discovered, and found to be fundamentally different. The fact 
is that the relationships relied on by evolutionists must in 
general be described as distal, not proximal, to the motive 
centre of being. There is, therefore, the more danger that sup- 
posed relationships may sometimes prove to be mere accidents 
unconnected by anything but coincidence of appearance. But 
even where the relationships are true. they cannot be wholly 
accounted for as simple and direct modifications of the 
resembling parts themselves. The reasons for their produc- 
tion must be sought not merely from the particular local 
circumstances of the organs in which they occur, but from 
the innate bemg of the animal itself producing local changes 
in its parts consequent on tendencies that may have been 
produced upon itself by the local causes. 
11. This brings me to my last remark—that the material 
organism is after all not the whole animal. The organs are 
not the senses which they habilitate, and by which they are 
worked. And the organs are for the senses, not the senses 
for the organs. The brain does not evolve talent, but talent 
evolves the brain. The instincts, the mind, the soul are 
attributes of animal life unreached by embryolog OG 
paleontology ; and to its material outcome they may hold 
a superior, not inferior, place. They may be lieges, not 
feudatories, to its form. ‘The life-essence of the vorilla and 
man may, for instance, be dissevered by differences as funda- 
mental and far-reaching as are the marks on the cephalic 
shield of Sronteus and the lines on a baby’s face. 
Discussion. 
The Cuairman.—We have a most valuable paper this evening— 
one which contains a large amount of material for discussion. 
I will only just point out that besides the technical part, 
occupying no less than eight pages, there are important groups 
of subjects, so well arranged, that they offer opportunities to many 
of us to discuss, without that technical knowledge necessary to 
express our views upon them. 
I also observe that the author of the paper refers to evidence. 
In these matters we can never go beyond evidence. We can 
never have acompleted induction—there must be limitations; and 
