WOJl/ir IN PALEONTOLOGY 



IS5 



substantiated by the philosophic Lyell, who as early 

 as 1836, in his Principles of Geology, expresses the 

 same view in the following words : " The labors of 

 Cuvier in comparative osteology, and of Lamarck 

 in recent and fossil shells, had raised these depart- 

 ments of study to a rank of which they had never 

 previously been deemed susceptible." 



Our distinguished American palaeontologist, the late 

 O. C. Marsh, takes the same view, and draws the fol- 

 lowing parallel between the two great French natu- 

 ralists : 



" In looking back from this point of view, the philo- 

 sophical breadth of Lamarck's conclusions, in com- 

 parison with those of Cuvier, is clearly evident. The 

 invertebrates on which Lamarck worked offered less 

 striking evidence of change than the various animals 

 investigated by Cuvier ; yet they led Lamarck directly 

 to evolution, while Cuvier ignored what was before 

 him on this point, and rejected the proof offered by 

 others. Both pursued the same methods, and had 

 an abundance of material on which to work, yet the 

 facts observed induced Cuvier to believe in catastro- 

 phes, and Lamarck in the uniform course of nature. 

 Cuvier declared species to be permanent ; Lamarck, 

 that they were descended from others. Both men 

 stand in the first rank in science ; but Lamarck was 

 the prophetic genius, half a century in advance of 

 his time.* 



ever, does not mention the Hydrogiologie . Probably so rare a book 

 was overlooked by the eminent German palaeontologist. 



* History and Methods of Paleontological Discovery (1879), P- 23. 



