PROFESSOR PICTET's OPINION'S 



281 



causes of destruction, and still live. Beside those which 

 I have mentioned, and others which I have noticed in the 

 body of my work, it is possible, for example, that the 

 U)'sus Prisons may he the original of recent bears, &c. 

 It may be said," he adds, <£ that this idea is opposed to the 

 theory of the peculiarity of species in each formation, and 

 to that of successive creations . . . but I cannot, on that 

 account, ref use to adopt an explanation of facts which 

 seems to me evident. The state of theoretical pal as on- 

 tology is still too uncertain to allow of our attaching 

 ourselves too strongly to this or that hypothesis. It is 

 the study of facts which is essential, and we must en- 

 gage in that study unbiassed by preconceived ideas 

 or particular systems."* I would commend this opin- 

 ion of one of the first men of science in Europe 

 to those British savans who regard a greater plica- 

 tion of the enamel in a horse's tooth, or a ridge on a 

 turbinated shell, or a spot on a butterfly's wing, as the 

 proof of a special interference of that Deity who wheeled 

 the orbs into space by a tranquil expression of his will. 

 But M. Pictet must himself revise his opinions. He must 

 quickly perceive that the rule which he lays down for 

 there being no new creation since the diluvial epoch i3 

 equally conclusive against new creations at any anterior 

 time. There is a persistency of certain shells since the 

 beginning of the tertiaries ; if, then, the moles and bad- 

 gers be in any degree a proof that the present bear is a 

 modification of the Ursus Prisms, so also are these shells 

 a proof that all the present mammals are modifications of 

 those of the eocene. Several shells, again, of the sec- 

 ondary formation straggling into tertiaries, are not less 

 conclusive, in rigid reasoning, that all the tertiary species 

 were descended from the secondary, although the wide, 

 unrepresented interval at that point allowed of a greater 

 transition of forms. In short, the whole of the divisions 

 constructed by geologists upon the supposition of exten- 

 sive introductions of totally new vehicles of life must 

 give way before the application of this rule, and it must 

 be seen, that what they call new species are but variations 

 upon the old. What, then, will remain to be done be- 

 fore the theory of progressive development be adopted ? 

 Only, as the candid reader will readily surmise, that the 



* Traite Elementaire de Paleontologie ; i., 359, 1844. Apud 

 Jameson's Journal, Oct., 1845. 



22 



