726 REPORT—1899. 
with endless additional details, is told all through the stratified formations down 
to those which are in the course of accumulation at the present day. 
Not less important than the stratigraphical is the paleontological evidence in 
favour of the general quietude of the geological processes in the past. The con- 
clusions drawn from the nature and arrangement of the sediments are corroborated 
and much extended by the structure and manner of entombment of the enclosed 
organic remains. From the time of the very earliest fossiliferous formations there 
is nothing to show that either plants or animals have had to contend with physical 
conditions of environment different, on the whole, from those in which their suc- 
cessors now live. The oldest trees, so far as regards their outer form and internal 
structure, betoken an atmosphere neither more tempestuous nor obviously more 
impure than that of to-day. The earliest corals, sponges, crustaceans, mollusks, and 
arachnids were not more stoutly constructed than those of later times, and are 
found grouped together among the rocks as they lived and died, with no apparent 
indication that any violent commotion of the elements tried their strength when 
living or swept away their remains when dead. 
But, undoubtedly, most impressive of al] the palzontological data is the testi- 
mony borne by the grand succession of organic remains among the stratified rocks 
as to the vast duration of time required for their evolution. Professor Poulton 
has treated this branch of the subject with great fulness and ability. We do not 
know the present average rates of organic variation, but all the available evidence 
goes to indicate their extreme slowness. They may conceivably have been more 
rapid in the past, or they may have been liable to fluctuations according to vicissi- 
tudes of environment.! But those who assert that the rate of biological evolution 
ever differed materially from what it may now be inferred to be, ought surely to bring 
forward something more than mere assertion in their support. In the meantime, 
the most philosophical course is undoubtedly followed by those biologists who in 
this matter rest their belief on their own experience among recent and fossil 
organisms. 
So cogent do these geological and palzeontological arguments appear, to those at 
least who have taken the trouble to master them, that they are worthy of being 
employed, not in defence merely, but in attack. It seems to me that they may be 
used with effect in assailing the stronghold of speculation and assumption in which 
our physical friends have ensconced themselves and from which, with their feet, as 
they believe, planted well within the interior of the globe and their heads in the 
heart of the sun, they view with complete unconcern the efforts made by those who 
endeavour to gather the truth from the surface and crust of the earth. That por- 
tion of the records of terrestrial history which lies open to our investigation has 
been diligently studied in all parts of the world. A vast body of facts has been 
gathered together from this extended and combined research. The chronicle regis- 
tered in the earth’s crust, though not complete, is legible and consistent. From 
the latest to the earliest of its chapters the story is capable of clear and harmonious 
interpretation by a comparison of its pages with the present condition of things. 
We know infinitely more of the history of this earth than we do of the history of 
the sun. Are we then to be told that this knowledge, so patiently accumulated 
from innumerable observations and so laboriously co-ordinated and classified, is to 
be held of none account in comparison with the conclusions of physical science in 
regard to the history of the central luminary of our system? These conclusions 
are founded on assumptions which may or may not correspond with the truth. 
They have already undergone revision, and they may be still further modified as 
our slender knowledge of the sun, and of the details of its history, is increased by 
future investigation. In the meantime, we decline to accept them as a final pro- 
nouncement of science on the subject. We place over against them the evidence 
1 See an interesting and suggestive paper by Professor Le Conte on ‘Critical Periods 
in the History of the Earth,’ Bull. Dept. Geology, University of California, vol. i. 
(1895), p. 313; also one by Professor Chamberlin on ‘The Ulterior Basis of Time- 
divisions and the Classification of Geological History,’ Journal of Geology, vol. vi. 
(1898), p. 449. d 
es On 
