PALEONTOLOGY 123 



the Paleozoic, and, as Huxley suggests, at a remote 

 period in the same. 



Again, the existence of Jurassic birds and their 

 probable existence in the Triassic, as shown by fossil 

 foot-prints, would necessitate their origin in the 

 Paleozoic, and this would push the origin of reptiles 

 much farther back in the Paleozoic than known fos- 

 sils indicate. 



Prof essor Huxley says : "It is almost appalling to 

 reflect how far back in Paleozoic times we must go 

 before we can hope to arrive at that common stock 

 from which the Crocodilia, Lacertilia, Ornithoscelida 

 and Plesiosauria, which had attained so great a devel- 

 opment in the Triassic epoch, must have been de- 

 rived." 



Thus it is assumed by evolutionists at all points 

 that the fossil forms which have been found are 

 always far more highly developed than the first forms 

 of the order or class to which they belong, and that 

 in each case there is a long lost record favorable to 

 their theory. 



According to their theory all of the five classes of 

 vertebrates must have abounded in at least the latter 

 part of the Paleozoic — Mammals of various kinds; 

 Birds, of the reptilian type; numerous kinds of Rep- 

 tiles, some of which were transitional between birds 

 and reptiles; besides, many Amphibians and Fishes. 



Instead, however, of finding all of these classes in 

 the Paleozoic, only Fishes and Amphibians were 

 abundant, while true Reptiles were few, and no fossil 

 Birds or Mammals have been discovered. Making all 

 due allowance for perishability of remains, it would 

 seem evident that if Fishes and Labyrinthodonts 

 could be preserved in abundance, we ought to find 

 some remains of Mammals and Birds, together with 

 numerous fossils of true Reptiles. This is not a case 



