July 8, 1921] 



SCIENCE 



29 



(Dakota, etc.) ; they imd a sharp floral break 

 between Judith and Lance at a point where 

 no break occurs in the vertebrate fauna; and 

 so far as I understand no serious break be- 

 tween Paleocene and Eocene. I can hardly 

 venture an opinion as to where the majority 

 of invertebrate palaeontologists would draw 

 the line, if based wholly on invertebrate data ; 

 in practise most of them draw it at the sum- 

 mit of the chalk succession of western Europe. 



The great stratigraphic break asserted by 

 some stratigraphers to exist everywhere at the 

 base of the Tertiary is denied by others of no 

 less ability and experience, and its universality 

 and importance seem to have been much exag- 

 gerated. 



Is it not possible, where the evidence is thus 

 conflicting, to adopt a compromise by mutual 

 concession? It appears to me that the com- 

 promise indicated by Schuchert has the best 

 elements for universal acceptance. It is in 

 accord with the historic and universal Euro- 

 pean usage, including the Thanetian in the 

 Tertiary, but none of the chalk succession. 

 It conforms to the insistence of the palseo- 

 botanists that the Lance and Port Union 

 should be kept together. It gives a satisfactory 

 practical base for the stratigrapher in the 

 widespread and characteristic Wasatch for- 

 mations. It places all the dinosaur forma- 

 tions and the bulk of the " Paleocene " faunas 

 in the Cretaceous where the former certainly 

 and the latter in my opinion properly belong; 

 but the uppermost Paleocene faunas are placed 

 in the Tertiary. The replacement of the Cre- 

 taceous by the Tertiary vertebrate fauna 

 would thus be a little later, of the Upper Cre- 

 taceous by the Tertiary flora a little earlier 

 than the line agreed upon. 



W. D. Matthew 



NEWCOMB ON EXTRA-MUNDANE LIFE 



To THE Editor of Science: As one long 

 interested in the subject matter covered by the 

 inquiry of Professor Clark, published in Sci- 

 ence of May 13, I have read with some care 

 Newcomb's essay to which Professor Camp- 

 bell refers, in the same issue of Science. 

 While this essay may be presumed to repre- 



sent an opinion at some time entertained by 

 its distinguished author, an opinion that mer- 

 its respect, it seems wholly unresponsive to the 

 request for evidence upon which such an 

 opinion may be based. The author expressly 

 admits that " scientifically we have no light 

 upon the question and therefore no positive 

 grounds for reaching a conclusion." In an- 

 other place, Popular Astronomy, ed. 1890, p. 

 528, he amplifies as follows : 



The spirit of modern science is wholly adverse 

 to speculation on questions for the solution of 

 which no scientific evidence is attainable, and th« 

 common answer of astronomers to all questions 

 respecting life in other worlds would be that they 

 knew no more on the subject than any one else 

 and having no data to reason from, had not even 

 an opinion to express. 



It is probable that few astronomers will dis- 

 sent from either of these statements. Most of 

 them, Newcomb included, will concur in the 

 statement that of the hundred or more mil- 

 lions of celestial bodies knovTn to exist it may 

 be shown with a high degree of probability 

 that, barring our two neighbors, Mars and 

 Venus, no one of them is suited to be the abode 

 of animate beings. As to the numerous worlds 

 alleged to be the abode of life, Newcomb in 

 his essay raises the question : " But where 

 are we to look for these worlds ? " and replies 

 to it : " This no man can tell." Nevertheless, 

 as quoted by Professor Campbell, he goes on 

 to say: 



It is perfectly reasonable to suppose that beings 

 not only animated but endowed with reason in- 

 habit countless worlds in space. 



A major premise upon which this conclusion 

 might rest would seem to be: We may rea- 

 sonably suppose anything that does not admit 

 of disproof. In the bald form here stated 

 this premise would doubtless be rejected by 

 those who believe in the plurality of abodes 

 for animate intelligence, but without some ap- 

 propriate equivalent for it there seems to be 

 a hiatus between the conclusion above set 

 forth and the facts that constitute its minor 

 premise. Possibly Newcomb's own words 

 anent this subject matter, loc. cit., p. 531, may 

 be a less objectionable formula : 



