187 
argue beyond the extent of our knowledge—in the upper cretaceous beds, 
that they then suddenly presented themselves in a large number of 
forms representing all the main sections of this division of the vegetable 
kingdom, and that their remains can all be referred to existing generic 
types, it seems to me to be utterly impossible that any explanation 
can be given that can bear out the theory of evolution by genetic 
descent. This remark is, I think, equally true with regard to the lower 
divisions. I think Mr. James has put the position he has taken very 
clearly in regard to the vascular cryptogams in the coal measures. That 
those three forms, so widely separated from each other, even in those early 
times, should have continued to exist and to maintain their differences of 
character down to the present time, is, I think, a fact which is strongly 
opposed to the evolution theory. Iam, however, only expressing my general 
belief in the strength of Mr. James’s arguments. I might, perhaps, object to 
the point he makes as to the synthetic types. For my own part, I am not 
acquainted with a single synthetic type in the vegetable kingdom. I do not 
know any plant that has been discovered in the rocks of the earth containing 
a synthetic structure including the characters of several groups of plants, now 
differentiated ; and I am sure that this is not the case with the cycads, which, 
while they have an anomalous appearance in relation to their allies, are a 
distinctly-separate type of gymnosperms, with no affinity to the ferns on 
the one hand, or to the palms on the other. They began life as a group in the 
secondary strata, and fossils which have been referred by early observers to 
this group of plants have been shown to be not stems of cycads but of 
vascular cryptozams. They appeared to form a large portion of the flora of 
the Secondary period, and there were some types which have disappeared 
entirely and are not found at the present day. I would only, before sitting 
down, express my gratification at the clear way in which Mr. James has put 
the question before this Institute, and my conviction that all the data we 
have in connexion with fossil botany appear to me clearly to disprove, and 
certainly in no way whatever to support, the hypothesis of evolution by 
genetic descent. (Applause.) 
Mr. C. Hastines Dent, C.E., F.L.S.—I think that papers like the present 
are especially valuable as bringing forward some of the weak points of the thecry 
of evolution. Although I have not done more than look into fossil botany, 
it is very closely allied with zoological studies, which have always had great 
interest forme. There is one point to which I should like to refer, namely, 
the sudden appearance of groups of families in the geological strata, which 
appear to form a powerful argument against the doctrine of evolution. It 
is, [ think, particularly noteworthy when we find the representatives of the 
sume genera existing in a similar condition at the present day. Professor 
Williamson stated in Nature, in the winter of 1881-82, that he 
thought it doubtful whether it was possible to make clear the process by 
which the evolution of phanerogams from cryptogams has been accomplished. 
- Darwin, perhaps, would give two general types—one for phanerogams and 
