The Principles of Palaeontology. 141 



once on the progress of Palaeontology. Lamarck had, moreover, 

 only a very imperfect knowledge " of fossils; still he was suffi- 

 c.ently acquainted with them to be enabled to draw from the 

 order oi their appearance in the strata an argument in support 

 of his theory of progressive development, which was at that time 

 a novelty, and which overturned the most deeply rooted philo- 

 sophic ideas. But this does not lessen the importance of the 

 ideas of Lamarck, which were of the very highest order. He 

 was the first who was bold enough to advance the theory that 

 species are not immutable entities, but that they are derived 

 one from another as individuals are, and that fossil creatures 

 are the ancestors of those now existing. The teachings of Geof- 

 FROY Saint-Hilaire on the point of which we are treating, tends 

 by different arguments to the same conclusion. 



In 1844 there appeared in England an anonymous work enti- 

 tled Vestiges of Creation^ which made a great sensation. The 

 author of this, since known (Chambers), brought together all 

 the arguments in favor of the doctrine of the mutation of 

 species, and laid especial stress on the palaeontologic changes 

 which had taken place at various epochs ; the author pursuing 

 the subject still farther made a comparison between the stages of 

 development of the higher animals and those reached by the 

 inferior classes which appeared before the former and character- 

 ized extinct faunas. Some relative extravagancies, as, for 

 example, the ideas of Lamarck concerning spontaneous genera- 

 tion, were the subject of severe criticism which brought unde- 

 served reproach on the entire book. 



It is doing no injustice to the genius of Darwin to recall how 

 much his predecessors had done to open the path for him and to 

 make ready for his labors. Writings capable of serving as 

 supports for the new ideas were much rarer at the beginning 

 of the century than they were toward the middle of it (1850); 

 so that Lamarck and Geoff roy Saint-Hilaire were entitled 

 to greater admiration for having originated so bold a theory, 

 in the face of the violent opposition to which they were 

 exposed. Darwin merits some censure for having failed to do 

 justice to Lamarck, whom he confounds in his preface with more 

 obscure predecessors. Many of the adherents of the transformist 

 school of the present day render to the illustrious scientist the 



