1880. | The Critics of Evolution. 405 
horse now living.”! “ The evidence is conclusive,” says Huxley, 
“as far as the fact of evolution is concerned, and if it can be 
proved, as the facts certainly do prove, that a complicated animal 
like the horse may have arisen by a gradual modification of a 
lower and less specialized form, there is surely no reason to think 
that any other animals have risen in a different way. The case is 
not isolated. Every new investigation into the Tertiary mamma- 
lian fauna brings fresh evidence tending to show how the rhinoce- 
ros, the pigs, the ruminants, have come about. Similar light is 
being thrown on the origin of Carnivora, and also in a less 
degree, on that of all the other groups of animals. * The 
accurate information obtained in this department [that is regard- 
ing the origin of species], has put the fact of evolution beyond 
a doubt. Formerly the great reproach to the theory was, that no 
Support was lent to it by the geological history of living things ; 
now whatever happens, the fact remains that the Ayfotheszs is 
Sounded on the firm basis of paleontological evidence.’ —Huxley. 
Prof. Cope has shown us the origin of the camel by evolutionary 
processes with as much clearness and force as that of the horse 
has been demonstrated: Now the above has quite a different 
ting from Huxley’s early admission ! 
But says the uninformed and persistent doubter, “ We know 
nothing of the method by which these four-toed horses became 
three-toed, or the three-toed passed into the two-toed, and finally 
into the one-toed, as we find them in our day. You have brought 
no evidence to show that they have had any genealogical relation. 
There is no evidence in modern time to show that any such 
changes have taken place.” Not so fast, my friend, we may reply. 
There is abundant evidence to show that changes are taking place 
of a very striking character, some of which are wonderfully per- 
tinent to the case of the origin of the horse of our day. In the 
December number of the American NATURALIST, p. 801, may be 
found the following, which should silence all discussion on this 
Subject as final and conclusive. 
Prof. Cope, when at the meeting of the California Academy of 
Sciences, Nov. 3, 1879, “Called attention to a pair of feet of a 
deer belonging to the academy, which were sent from Mendocino 
county, Cal. Each of these possessed but ove central toe and 
"Is the Development Hypothesis Sufficient? By Dr. James McCosh. In the 
Popular Science Monthly, Vol. x, pp. 86, 100. 
