ANNIVERSARY ADDRESS OF THE PRESIDENT. clvii 



magnitude at different times, was destroyed at any one epoch and 

 replaced by a new group, whilst another portion continued to live 

 on in combination with the newly- created forms. The French Aca- 

 demicians express themselves adherents of this view of the case, as 

 well as of the further opinion, that the number of species destroyed 

 always exceeds the number of those preserved. As a preliminary, 

 the authors of the report reason against the theory of development, 

 admitting, however, that they do not mean to oppose those variations 

 in a species which might be fairly attributed to variations in the phy- 

 sical conditions (such even as man has effected on domestic animals), 

 but those greater changes which were once supposed capable of pro- 

 ducing, from one set of genera, others widely distinct in character and 

 magnitude. But this reference to the opinions of Lamarck seems 

 scarcely necessary at the present day, whilst it cannot be admitted 

 by the philosopher, that there is any greater simplicity, as a mode of 

 action, in destroying one set of organized beings and creating another 

 in many respects closely allied to their predecessors, than in endow- 

 ing all created organisms with a susceptibility of change under the 

 varying influences of the several physical conditions to which they 

 may be exposed. At any rate, let us not argue such a question by 

 appealing to extravagant examples, but let us keep within the bounds 

 of reasonable cause and effect — such, indeed, as our authors have 

 admitted in respect to the variations of existing species. One great 

 truth is admitted by the French academicians, namely, that the 

 history of the ancient world is still incomplete ; and well may this 

 be asserted, when it is remembered that three-fourths of the surface 

 of the globe are covered by water, and that, whilst large portions of 

 the sea-bottom and of the marginal sea-zone of ancient epochs have 

 been rendered manifest by fossil remains, the portions of dry land 

 made known to us are comparatively small. Why, then, should we 

 assume that every newly-discovered genus or species is a new crea- 

 tion, and not a colony (according to Barrande's view) from some 

 other region, still submerged and therefore unknown to us ? It is 

 manifest that such a question cannot be answered until the whole 

 field of ancient fossil history has been worked out. And, further, 

 who can tell how creation was effected ? but if by an act imposing 

 laws upon matter, and calling into existence organisms subject to 

 the controlling and modifying action of physical circumstances, why 

 should not an alteration in these circumstances produce the same 

 change in a created being, as they would work on the creations newly 

 called into existence ? Such a result would be more in harmony 

 with the notion of creative intelligence, than that new species or 

 new genera should be created by the same intelligence so nearly 

 alike those destroyed as to require the utmost skill of the naturalist 

 to distinguish one from the other. I cannot, at least, but think 

 that we are very far still from the solution of the mysteries of 

 creation, and that we are too prone to separate portions of the same 

 true organic whole from each other, losing sight of the unity and 

 harmony of creation whilst seeking to use the relics of past ages 

 in geological classification. 



