SP rece, Sy AEE Rg a AT i ead a inert a cs EE i ie eS Ce NN Sie ar ee a ann eee a aag Be 
1878.] | Recent Literature, 549 
implying an obscurity in the mind of its author as to the meaning 
of the words “ one place,” etc. 
Fourthly ; but supposing Moses to have referred to the Creta- 
ceous period in his account of the third day, our essayist labors 
under the difficulty of having admitted that the creation not only 
of plants but of all the greater and many of the minor divisions 
of the animal kingdom took place before that of the sun and 
moon on the fourth day. And if we allow the utmost freedom 
to the commentator and risiagen the text to mean before the 
-appearance of the sun and moon to the inhabitants of the earth, 
we have an equally ni posaible proposition 
he author leaves for another article his explanation of the 
relation of the “days” to the geologic record. ere he will 
have a more difficult task before him than that which he has 
already attempted. The order of succession indicated by Moses 
is, in general, correct, but the division into epochs is not only not 
in accordance with the facts now in our possession, but is not 
consistent with itself. Thus the introduction of “fowl” on the 
first day of the animal creation is far from justifiable, as is also 
- the creation of “ whales” at the same time. These forms were 
comparatively late creations, and if the language “ every living . 
creature that moveth, that the waters brought forth,” means the 
first animals, as its place i in the same text indicates, then we have 
another serious anachronism. If, on the other hand, this sentence is 
to be disregarded, then there is no narration of the origin of ani- 
mals. Then again, the time of origin of “ everything that creepeth 
upon the earth after his kind,” whether reference is made to insect 
or reptiles, comes on the sixth day, and after the creation of birds 
and whales, instead of anterior to them, as the science of palzon- 
tology clearly shows to have been the case. In fact there is no 
general difference between the proceedings of the fifth and sixth 
days beyond that indicated by the habitat of animals, z. e., whether 
they be aquatic or terrestrial ; and this distinction is only valid as 
relates to one class, the fishes, but has no significance otherwise, 
and least of all any agreement with the geologic recor 
HAECKELĽ’s Protista-KINGDOM.'—This is a strong Healficciation’ 
in popular language, of Haeckel’s belief in a kingdom of organisms, 
comprising certain protophytes and the Protozoa, which forms neu- 
tral ground between the animal and vegetable kingdoms. It seems 
to us to be an unnatural and unnecessary combination, though from 
some points of view useful at this time. The illustrations are ex- 
cellent. The right of Bathybius to be regarded as an organism is 
= Stoutly maintained. The pamphlet deserves translation into En- 
glish, for whatever Haeckel writes is worth reading, whether all 
his conclusions are accepted or not. He is a force in the scien- — 
__ tific world; certainly not a protist. 
at Das Protistenreich, nn Taare nN über das Formenge ebiet der niedirstih - 
Lebewesen. Mit e chaftlichen Anhang; System der Protisten. Von E. 
= Mit takiri chei be holzschnitten. Leipzig, 1878. 8vo, pp. 104. 
