PROFESSOR HUXLEY'S VIEWS ON EVOLUTION 



213 



and fauna. It is easy to conceive of one great creative act confined to one period (that period being practically 

 illimitable), but consisting of successive stages. The stages, in this case, represent 

 virtually separate creations. If the element of time be granted, it is equally easy to 

 regard the separate smaller creations as part of one great creation. Creation is 

 essentially a progressive work. It is a continuous adaptation of the organic and 

 inorganic kingdoms to each other in a million different ways throughout an incon- 

 ceivably great period of time, and these adaptations are unfolded by geology as seen 

 in the rocks and in the fossil flora and fauna imbedded and preserved in them. The 

 ancient flora and fauna are strikingly represented in the geologic period. The types 

 are less numerous than in the modern flora and fauna, but they are equally represen- 

 tative. Successive adaptations of plants and animals to altered circumstances are 

 practically successive creations, provided an intelligent Creator with unlimited power 

 and unhmited time at His disposal are conceded. The real difficulty arises when such 

 a Creator is denied, and when plants and animals are said to be the product of spon- 

 taneous generation, and to create and modify themselves indefinitely at the bidding 

 of environment and under the influence of external stimulation. 



The descent of the bird from the reptile, and the horse from a five-toed mammal, 

 as argued by Professor Huxley, is by no means proved. The argument hinges chiefly 

 on the modifications in limbs and teeth, particularly the former. Some ancient fossil 

 birds, he avers, possess teeth and elongated tails, and the wings have free digits with 

 claws. The legs and feet of birds are supposed to resemble those of the extinct 

 terrestrial reptile Ornithoscelida, which bear a hkeness to those of the modern crocodile. 

 The pelvis of the bird and reptile have also, according to Huxley, some features in 

 common. The resemblances are comparatively few in number, and insignificant when 

 contrasted with the numerous and important differences. The resemblances, such as 

 they are, I venture to assert are due not to evolution, but to original endowment 

 necessitated by the exigencies of their mode of life, occasioned by the nature of the 

 media on and in which they are to hve and move. 



The old-world fossil bird, sometimes spoken of as the bird-reptile, is commonly the FterodaatyHScaphog^mtlms eras- 

 known as the Arch^opteryx. ' I fxmdsh a careful restoration of it by C. Berjeau and Zt tt\:'conS"?hht-d fourth 

 mvseif . The restoration brings into strong relief the more salient features of this most digits of the hand are aborted and 



, , . , , . r ,-r-,. o/-\ terminate in claws, and that the 



anomalous and mterestmg form (Fig. 36). Afth digit is thickened and enor- 



Only a few specimens of the Archseopteryx have as yet been discovered. T'he mously elongated for the imrpose of 



.. , i-i-ii_ei-i.i i-i j: supporting and carrying the flying 



two most perfect specimens known were found in the tme hthographic stone ot membrane which constitutes the 

 Solenhofen in Bavaria. One of these (that first discovered) is preserved in the Natural ^ssential part of the wing as far as 



.. , , p. night IS concerned (after JNichol- 



History Department of the British Museum, London; the other and more perfect son and Lydeker). 



specimen of the two (Arch/popteryx siemensi), which is that restored, has been assigned 



a place in the Museum at Berlin. The Archseopteryx 

 was the size of a large pigeon, had a short head, and 

 probably no beak. Its jaws were furnished with small 

 teeth. Both wings had three fingers, each armed with 

 a claw. The legs, which resemble those of hving birds, 

 had four toes, also armed with claws. The claws on 

 the fingers and toes were probably employed in clinging 

 to the bark of trees, where the bird found larvae and 

 other food. The wings, thighs, and body were covered 

 with feathers, and there can be little doubt the bird 

 could fly. The tail was pecuhar. It was osseous and 

 much elongated, and consisted of a diminishing series 

 of vertebrae, with feathers arranged on either side of 

 it like a palm leaf. 



The proof of the descent of the Archaeopteryx from 

 the reptile, it will be seen, is by no means strong or 



striking, being confined to the presence of small teeth in the jaws, a phenomenally long bony tail, and two wings, 



each having three fingers terminating in as many claws. 



Fig. 37. — Bones of the wing of 



/ju;rf/y^''/^nji 



Tig. 38. — Right wing of the bat ( Vesjicrlilio murinus). Shows how the 

 bones of the arm, leg, and tail all take part in supporting the flying 

 membrane. The first digit of the hand is aborted and terminates in a 

 hook ; the remaining three digits being gi'eatly elongated, and tapering 

 to a point to give elasticity to the wing. Drawn by C. Berjeau for the 

 Author, from a specimen in his private collection. 



