APPENDIX 361 



This doubt as to the pedigree of our most ancient 

 back-boned ancestor, will, no doubt, wound the pride 

 of some of the blue-bloods, but they may console 

 themselves with the knowledge that this slight doubt 

 as to the record arose some fifty, or, possibly, a hun- 

 dred million years ago. 



As to the origin of mammals he says: "It is evi- 

 dent that Mammalia were derived from some type 

 probably referable to a Permian reptilian order of the 

 Theromerous series, although to which one is not yet 

 known." * 



Why the above " is evident," is not at all clear to 

 me, except that the necessities of the theory of evolu- 

 tion make this claim necessary. So far as we know, 

 reptiles were the highest animals that preceded mam- 

 mals, and, granting that the theory of evolution is 

 true, it follows that mammals were probably derived 

 from them. But paleontology has little, if anything, 

 to show as to the origin of mammals. How a cold- 

 blooded reptile with nucleated red corpuscles and no 

 milk glands, could have become warm-blooded with 

 non-nucleated red corpuscles and have acquired milk 

 glands, is not even guessed at by the author. 



Cope does not agree with Haeckel in deriving 

 Batrachia from Dipnoi, but he is in doubt as to their 

 origin. 



As to reptiles: " The Eeptilia have been supposed 

 by Hseckel to have taken their origin from the Batra- 

 chia." t With this opinion the author agrees. "And 

 it is from the Triassic Dinosauria that I suppose the 

 birds to have arisen." 



Thus it is seen that paleontology furnishes no con- 

 clusive evidence as to the origin of either fish, am- 

 phibian, reptile, bird or mammal. A great multitude 



* Page 88. t Page 88. 



