yo JOURNAL AND PROCEEDINGS. 



foundland, viz., seals living in fresh water lakes away inland and 

 breeding there. No doubt their predecessors occupied bays or 

 reaches that had been cut off from the sea, and they gradually 

 became accustomed to the brackish, and finally to fresh water. Now, 

 such a circumstance may have also occurred in former times, and would 

 afford an explanation how things in general got occasionally mixed 

 up, and throws some light on the vexed question, viz.. How can we 

 account for crustaceous remains, Pterygofus, for example, occurring in 

 fresh water deposits? The common cray fish is considered to be 

 merely a degenerate descendant of the lobster, which accidentally had 

 been cut off from the open sea, and contrived to increase and multiply 

 despite its uncongenial surroundings, 



There has been degeneracy as well as progress in life. Every 

 geologist knows that. We frequently hear it stated, " God saw that 

 it was good," or, as commentation explains, every living thing was 

 perfect of its kind, as it came direct from the Creator's hand. 

 Palaeontologists know such to be a popular error. You may notice 

 a marked capacity for improvement in the living descendants of the 

 Eucrinites, or sea lilies even. The earliest Triiohites are also greatly 

 inferior to their successors, and thus through the ages. We cannot 

 ignore the unquestionable progress of the various families. Does 

 Nature ever produce a perfect creation ? was a question put by a city 

 clergyman recently, and answered in the negative. All experience 

 appears to be of the opinion expressed, and in accordance with 

 Nature's law of development. Compare, for instance, the two figures 

 (Crinoids) of the late E. BiUings, Palceontologist, Canadian Geologi- 

 cal Survey. 



About two years ago a farmer from Hagersville brought a box of 

 corals to the city for sale. Mr. Charlton requested me to take charge 

 of it until called for, as he was leaving Hamilton for the season. On 

 examining the contents I noticed the posterior half of a large shell, 

 which I felt assured must be unknown. The part preserved dis- 

 played coarse ribbing, and was 9 inches across. As the beak and 

 hinge were absent I felt it could not be restored. I requested the 

 owner to be on the lookout for one in better preservatioin. Professor 

 Whiteaves obtained a like specimen from St. Mary's. On examining 

 the figure I found it agreed with the Corniferous one incomplete from 

 Hagersville. It was named by the Palaeontologist, Pa7ietika Grandis. 



