SOME OBJECTIONS TO THE EVOLUTION THEORY. 591 



The next higher representative of the horse is found in the more recent 

 Eocene, and has lost the rudimentary toe of the front foot, and has also 

 secured a change of teeth. This link, which is called Orohippus, is but little 

 larger than Eohippus, and shows a greater though still distant resemblance 

 to the modern horse. 



Near the base of the Miocene a third closel}^ allied genus named the 

 Mesohippus is found, which is about as large as a sheep and one stage nearer 

 the horse, having but three toes and a rudimentary splint on the fore foot, 

 and the teeth are still changing. 



In the upper Miocene a fourth form is found, the Miohippus, which is 

 larger than its predecessor and has its three toes more nearly of a size. 



Coming to the lower Pliocene, we find the next step rejjresented by the 

 Protohippus, which is yet more equine and grew to be as large as an ass. 

 Still retaining the three toes, it differs from the others in having only the 

 middle one long enough to reach the ground, similarly to the Hipparion of 

 Europe. Still ascending in the Pliocene, we find the Pliohippus, which is 

 the last in the series before reaching the true horse, having lost the outside 

 toes and become in other respects equine. In the upper Pliocene we find 

 Equus himself which roamed in the Post Tertiary period over both Americas. 



This seems, in its general aspects, a very complete and satisfactory gen- 

 ealogy, and it has proved so to Professors Marsh and Huxley, the latter of 

 whom was especially gratified and delighted upon first seeing Prof. Marsh's 

 specimens at New Haven. But when it comes to be subjected to the critical 

 test of Evolution and Natural Selection themselves we find many links 

 wanting ; M^hen we scrutinize these alleged continuous changes from the 

 four-toed Eohippus to the one- toed horse of the present day and ask in what 

 respect was the animal benefitted by the changes, and where is that gradual 

 alteration which the necessities of each individual demanded in his own 

 person, the answer still comes, not fully accounted for ! We lack proof that 

 this digital reduction was caused by the peculiar manner in which the 

 mechanical strain oj^erated upon the foot of the horse, as is claimed by Prof. 

 Byder, in a recent article written for the American Naturalist^ because other 

 animals, as the elephant and ox, using their feet in the same manner and 

 probably dating back as far in the history of the earth as the horse, have 

 respectively five and two toes. We also lack proof that the original four- 

 toed Eohippus was descended or evolved from any previous animal. As 

 Prof. Marsh says himself that he can offer no better illustration of the pro- 

 gress in vertebrate palaeontology than this, we may hold it up as the best 

 demonstration of their theory that the evolutionists have yet found, and ask 

 how conclusive it is and how imperfect it is ? 



Per contra, I will quote a few lines from Clarence King, who has ex- 

 plored the Tertiary formations of Western America with the same zeal and 

 earnestness, and the same scientific care and philosophical spirit as Profes- 

 sor Marsh. He says: "Those two authorities (Huxley and Marsh), whose 

 knowledge we may not dispute, assert that the American genealogy of the 



