706 report — 1884. 



adds to the probability tbat all may have resulted from the same cause and may 

 record contemporaneous phenomena. It would be very unwise to insist too much 

 on the coincidence. 



It would be easy to call attention to further examples of discrepancies in 

 palasontological evidence, but I should weary you, and nothing would be attained by 

 going through instance after instance of deposits in distant parts of the world, the 

 age of which has been solely determined by the examination of a few fossil forms 

 of land and fresh-water animals and plants. I have, therefore, only taken a few with 

 the details of which I have had occasion to become acquainted. In some of the 

 most important cases I have mentioned, such as those of the Pikermi and Siwalik 

 faunas, the Cutch (Umia beds) flora, and that in the lower coal-measures of 

 Australia, the conflict is between the evidence of the marine and terrestrial organ- 

 isms. Manifestly one or the other of these leads to erroneous conclusions. 



The general opinion of geologists is in favour of accepting the evidence of 

 marine organisms. The reason is not far to seek. So far as I am aware no case is 

 known where such an anomaly as that displayed in the Gondwanas of India has 

 been detected amongst marine formations of which the sequence was unquestioned. 

 In the Gondwanas we have a Bhsetic flora overlying a Jurassic flora, and a Triassic 

 fauna above both. In Australia we find a Jurassic flora associated with a Carboni- 

 ferous marine fauna, and overlain by a Permian fresh-water fauna. The only 

 similar case amongst marine strata is that of the well-known colonies of the late 

 M. Barrande in Bohemia, and in this instance the intercalation of strata contain- 

 ing later forms amongst beds with older types is disputed, whilst the difference in 

 age between the faunas represented is not to be compared to that between Triassic 

 and Jurassic. 



There is, however, another and an even stronger reason for accepting the 

 evidence of marine instead of that afforded by terrestrial and fresh-water animals 

 and plants. If we compare the distribution of the two at the present day we shall 

 find a very striking difference, and it is possible that this difference may afford a 

 clue to the conditions that prevailed in past times. 



Wanderers into what they fancy unexplored tracts in palaeontology are very 

 likely to find Professor Huxley's footprints on the path they are following. I have 

 had occasion to turn to a paper of his on Jfi/perodopedon, 1 that very curious reptile 

 already mentioned, of which the remains occur both in Great Britain and in India, 

 and I find the following remarks, which appear so exactly to express a portion of 

 the view to which I wish to call your attention, that I trust I may be excused for 

 quoting them. Professor Huxley writes: — 



' It does not appear to me that there is any necessary relation between the 

 fauna of a given land and that of the seas of its shores. The land-faunre of Britain 

 and Japan are wonderfully similar ; their marine faunae are in several ways 

 different. Identical marine shells are collected on the Mozambique coast and in 

 the easternmost islands of the Pacific ; whilst the faunas of the lands which lie 

 within the same range of longitude are extraordinarily different. "What now 

 happens geographically to provinces in space is good evidence as to what, in 

 former times, may have happened to provinces in time; and an essentially 

 identical land-fauna may have been contemporary with several successive marine 

 fauna?. 



'At present our knowledge of the terrestrial failure of past, epochs is so slight 

 that no practical difficulty arises from using, as we do, sea-reckoning for land-time. 

 But I think it highly probable that sooner or later the inhabitants of the land will 

 be found to have a history of their own.' 



When these words were written more than fifteen years ago very few of tl. I 

 geological details to which I have called your attention were known. I need not 

 point out how wonderful a commentary such details have afforded to Professor 

 Huxley's views. 



I have no desire to quote authority. I fear that in the facts I have been laying 



1 Q. J. G. S. xxv. p. 150. 



