TRANSACTIONS OF SECTION D. 769 



But a bettef time, I am convinced, is not far oiF, when the unity of all biological 

 science will be recognised not merely theoretically but also practically by workers 

 in every one of its branches. 



Of one thing I must however warn those who have hitherto devoted their 

 time exclusively to the investigation of things recent, namely, that a special 

 training is necessary for the correct interpretation of fossil remains, especially 

 those of the lower Vertebrata and many groups of Invertebrata. So it comes that 

 what looks to the uninitiated eye a mere confused mass of broken bones or plates 

 may to the trained observer aftbrd a flood of valuable light on questions of struc- 

 ture previously undetermined. We must take into account the condition of the 

 fossil as regards mineralisation and crushing ; we must learn to recognise how 

 the various bones may be dislocated, scattered, or shoved over each other, and to 

 distinguish true sutures from mere fractures. We must carefully correlate the 

 positive results obtained from one specimen with those afforded by others, and in 

 this way it happens that to make a successful restoration of the exo- or endo- 

 skeleton of a fossil fish or reptile may require years of patient research. But the 

 thought sometimes does come up in my mind, that some people imagine that 

 fossils, such as fishes, occur in the rocks all restored and ready, so that the author 

 of such a restoration has no more scientific credit in his work than if he were an 

 ordinary draughtsman drawing a perch or a trout for an illustrated book ! But 

 the student of fossil remiiins must learn not only to see what does exist in the 

 specimen he examines, but also to refrain from seeing things which are not there 

 — to know what he does not see as well as what he does see. For many grave 

 errors have arisen from want of this necessary training, as for instance where 

 the under surface of a fish's head has been described as the upper, or where 

 markings of a purely pptrological character have been supposed to indicate actual 

 structures of the greatest morphological importance. Or we may find the most 

 wonderful details described, which may indeed have existed, but for which the 

 actual evidence is onl}'^ the fertile imagination of the writer. 



From this it will be apparent that though Palfeontology is Biology and 

 Biology includes Paloeontology, yet as regards original research a division of 

 labour is in most cases necessary. For though palseontological investigations are 

 absolutely impossible without an adequate knowledge of recent zoology, yet the 

 nature of the remains with which the palfeontologi.st has to deal renders their 

 interpretation a task of so different a character from that allotted to the investiga- 

 tion of the structure and development of recent forms that he will scarcely have 

 time for the successful carrying out of a second line of research. Conversely, the 

 same holds regarding the sphere of work of the recent biologist. 



Now those last remarks of mine may perhaps tend to confirm an idea which I 

 have at least been told is prevalent in the minds of recent biologists, nameh', 

 that the results of Paleontology are so uncertain, so doubtful, and so imperfect, 

 that they are scarcely worthy of serious attention being paid to them. And the 

 best answer I can make to such an opinion, if it really does exist, is to try to 

 place before you some evidence that Palfeontology is not- mere (ossil shell hunting, 

 or the making up of long lists of names to help the geologists to settle their 

 stratigraphical horizons, but may present us with abundance of matter of genuine 

 biological interest. 



Since the days of Darwin, there is one subject which more' than all others 

 engrosses the attention of scientific biologists. I mean the question of Evolution, 

 or the Doctrine of Descent. Time was when controversies raged round the very 

 idea of Evolution, and when men of science were divided among themselves as to 

 whether the doctrine to which Darwin's theory of Natural Selection gave so 

 mighty an impetus was or was not to be accepted. Times have however changed, 

 and I hardly think that we should now find a single true scientific worker who 

 continues to hold on by the old special creation idea. Philosophic zoologists now 

 busy themselves either with amassing morphological evidences of Descent or with 

 the discussion of various theories as to the factors by which organic evolution has 

 been brought about — whether Natural Selection has been the all-sufficient cause or 

 not, whether acquired peculiarities are transmissible, and so on. 



1900. 3 D 



