REVIEWS—GEOLOGICAL EVIDENCES OF MAN’S ANTIQUITY. 389 
view. ‘The two first might be met, it is true, by assuming these struc- 
tural and functional relations to belong to the general plan of creation, 
conceived and carried out by the Almighty, for some, to us, unfathom- 
able purpose ; but the third, if closely considered, cannot be made 
amenable to any explanation of this kind. It is useless to urge, 
moreover, that these imperfect organs may have become so by disuse, 
in consequence of a change of life produced by accidental conditions, 
since there are numerous cases to which this cannot be applied. On 
the other hand, the so-called development theory is beset by equal 
difficulties. One of the more striking, is the apparent absence, both in 
existing Nature and amongst the fossil relics of the Past, of any tran- 
sitional forms, linking together the more strongly marked groups or 
special types. At present, for example, the reptile and the mammal 
are quite distinct in all their leading characters, and they appear (z00- 
logically) to have been equally distinct in earlier geological periods.— 
In.other words, the required parent-types of this. theory, are ‘univer- 
sally wanting. In our very lowest fossiliferous rocks, again, we find 
various distinct genera, as strongly separated from each other as these 
now existing, appearing at one and the same time; and when a-great 
change in any type takes place, the’ new forms appear, for the greater 
part, quite suddenly or abruptly, as instanced amongst other exam- 
ples, by the nearly total replacement of the Ganoid fishes by true Tel- 
eosteans in the Cretaceous epoch. The assumed imperfection of the 
geological record is brought forward in reply to this; but granting to 
a certain extent, the incompleteness of this record, it is at least a dam- 
aging fact for the Darwinian theory that the imperfection tells always 
on one side. Another obstacle to the reception of this theory, is found 
in the strong sexual antagonism, if such a term may be used, existing 
between all but the most closely allied forms; and the general steril- 
ity of crossed species beyond the first generation. The possession of 
instinct in certain types; an unimprovable and unchangeable quality, 
as pointed out by Darwin himself, is also opposed to the theory ; and 
we may extend this argument, and urge that the absence of special in- 
stincts in other types, is also an objection. Taking two genera, for 
example, not far removed from each other, as the Bee and the Fly, it 
is difficult to understand on the development hypothesis, how one 
comes to possess the hive-building and other accompanying instincts, 
so strikingly manifested, whilst the other is totally devoid of them.— 
But apart from all other considerations, the immensity of the break 
