AvGUST 13, 1897.] 
duced when Marsh and Cope sent out ex- 
ploring expeditions or themselves collected. 
No parts of skeleton were neglected ; all 
were collected. Gradually the numerous 
bones from different parts of the skeleton 
were identified, and finally many of the 
beasts of old were resurrected into skeletons 
almost as complete as those just divested 
of muscles. 
The discoveries resulting from such thor- 
ough work quite modified or even over- 
turned old conceptions. It became evident 
that there was a great contrast between the 
development of the mammals and that of 
invertebrates, and even, though ina less de- 
gree, of fishes. It appeared that there was 
a much more rapid process of evolution for 
the mammals than for the lower classes. 
Allthe mammals of the oldest of the Tertiary 
periods were strange and very unlike those 
of recent times, and no descendants of even 
the same families lived to be the contempo- 
raries of civilized man. The views of the 
founder of vertebrate paleontology were 
also to a considerable extent subverted. 
Cuvier taught that there was always a co- 
ordination between the various systems of 
the animal frame and that from the remains 
or impress of one part the approximate 
structure of the other parts could be in- 
ferred. He even pushed this doctrine to 
such an extreme that he overlooked some 
obvious counter-facts. One such case is so 
remarkable because it orginated with Cu- 
vier and was endorsed by Huxley* that it 
is worthy of mention here, and Huxley’s in- 
troduction to it and translation of it may 
be given. Huxley himself protests against 
the too literal application of Cuvier’s law 
and recalls Cuvier’s own reserve : 
‘Cuvier, the more servile of whose imitators are 
fond of citing his mistaken doctrines as to the nature 
of the methods of paleontology against the conclu- 
*Huxley, ‘ Introduction to the Classification of Ani- 
mals,’ 1869, in first chapter ‘ On Classification in Gen- 
eral,’ 
SCIENCE. 
235 
sions of logic and of common sense, has put this so 
strongly that I cannot refrain from quoting his 
words. * d 
‘““But I doubt if any one would have diyined, if 
untaught by observation, that all ruminants have the 
foot cleft, and that they alone haveit. I doubt if 
any one would haye divined that there are frontal 
horns only in this class; that those among them 
which have sharp canines for the most part lack 
horns. 
‘“However, since these relations are constant, 
they must have some sufticient cause ; but since we 
are ignorant of it, we must make good the defect of 
the theory by means of observation. It enables us to 
establish empirical laws, which become almost as cer- 
tain as rational laws, when they rest on sufficiently 
repeated observations; so that now, whoso sees 
merely the print of a cleft foot may conclude that the 
animal which left this impression ruminated, and 
this conclusion is as certain as any other in physics or 
morals. This footprint alone, then, yields to him 
who observes it, the form of the teeth, the form of 
the jaws, the form of the vertebrae, the form of all the 
bones of the legs, of the thighs, of the shoulders, and 
of the pelvis of the animal which has passed by. It 
is a surer mark than all those of Zadig.”’ 
The first perusal of these remarks would 
occasion surprise to some and immediately 
induce a second, more careful reading to 
ascertain whether they had not been mis- 
understood. Some men, with much less 
knowledge than either Cuvier or Huxley, 
may at once recall living exceptions to 
the positive statements as to the coordina- 
tion of the ‘ foot cleft’ with the other char- 
acters specified. One of the most common 
of domesticated animals—the hog—would 
come up before the ‘mind’s eye,’ if not the 
actual eye at the moment, to refute any 
such correlation as was claimed. Never- 
theless, notwithstanding the fierce contro- 
versial literature centered on Huxley, no al- 
lusion appears to have been made to the 
lapsus. Yet every one will admit that the 
hog has the ‘foot cleft’ as much as any 
ruminant, but the ‘form of the teeth’ and 
the form of some vertebre are quite differ- 
ent from those of the ruminants, and of 
course the multiple stomach and adaptation 
*Ossemens fossiles, ed, 4°. tome, 1’, p. 184. - 
