1885.] Editors’ Table. 55 
group of animals which were the common ancestors of the Dino- 
cerata and Pantodonta.” This was written and published in 1881. 
In the following year, 1882, I discovered the Pantolambdide in 
the lowest Eocene bed known in America. How well this family 
fulfills the anticipations of Mr. Osborn may be seen by reference 
to the earlier pages of this essay on the Amblypoda (see NATU- 
RALIST, Vol. XVIII, p. 1111). 
The tracing of the phylogeny of the Amblypoda from its 
earliest to its latest representatives, has presented us with an inter- 
esting chapter in brain evolution. It has been asserted’ by 
Lartet, and repeated by Marsh, that there has been a continuous 
progress in the increase in the size and complexity of the brain 
in the Vertebrata, with the passage of geological time. This 
principle, as a whole, is confirmed by the results of my own 
studies. The Amblypoda constitute the sole exception known 
tome. The brain of the Pantolambda bathmodon, though of the 
= same type as other Amblypoda, is relatively much larger than in 
its descendants of the- Dinocerata and Pantodonta. It is a clear 
case of retrogression, and not of progression, in brain develop- 
ment. 
. 
“ry 
EDITORS’ TABLE. 
EDITORS: A. S. PACKARD AND E. D. COPE. 
The Presbyterian denomination, from the nature of its 
theology, is more disposed to critical and exact study than some 
of the other bodies of Christians. The relations of the doctrine 
of the evolution of species, and of the mental phenomena they 
display, to the prevalent theologies, are obvious. Not that it is 
necessary that teachers of righteousness should know all about 
the creation, but theology must have something to say on the 
subject. The discussion of these questions by Presbyterian min- 
isters naturally produces a wider-spread agitation than in the case 
of Congregationalists, on account of the difference between the 
two churches in their system of organization, which does not 
give that independence to the congregation in the former that is 
possible in the latter. Thus while Mr. Beecher’s advocacy of the 
evolution of man and its logical consequences, has not affected 
his standing in his church, when Dr. Woodrow, of the theologi- 
1 Comptes Rendus, June, 1868. i 
