116 



PROF. J. LOGAN LOBLEY^ F.G.S._, F.E.G.S., ON 



most interesting views into which he has infused a warm glow. 

 Anyone who has heard the description of that supposed scenery of 

 the Cambrian age must have felt that to that solid and thorough 

 knowledge which he possesses as a master in geology the author 

 has added the enthusiasm not only of the investigator, but I may 

 also say of the poet. 



There are one or two slight criticisms which the paper perhaps 

 invites : — 



The author laid great stress upon the persistency of types, upon 

 the appearance of higher forms before lower, also upon the sudden 

 appearance of new forms. These facts are fatal to any theory of 

 evolution whatsoever. With regard to the length of tim.e 

 geologically I do not know that I entirely go with the author. It 

 is of course a matter of argument. 



With regard to heredity, variation, and environment, we have to 

 remember that heredity, as has been pointed out by the first 

 speaker, is not the cause of the change but the cause of character- 

 istics. Environment never changes the character, it only alters the 

 outward appearance. 



With regard to variation, that never extends beyond the limits of 

 the species. I do not see that these three forces, whatever you like 

 to call them, these three processes, would apply to anything further 

 than variation within species. Possibly the author did not intend 

 that they should. 



On p. 109 the author seems to think that it is quite impossible, at 

 least incredible, that God should have created lower forms after 

 creating the higher. I do not see any ground for incredibility. Is 

 it not possible that the creation was allowed by Him to subserve 

 interests of the subsisting forms as well of higher forms. As a 

 matter of fact, it is certain that lower and higher have gone on 

 continually. The only explanation that at all harmonises with the 

 real facts of science is the old theory of " special creation." Nothing 

 else is free from most serious difficulty. Nor do I see why we 

 should have any objection to it. It is plainly said in Genesis that 

 the days were completed periods : the fact that the Hebrew tense 

 would refer to the whole drama of creation, and not to the 

 particular acts. 



Professor Hull. — Mr. Chairman, I entirely associate myself with 

 the words of Professor Orchard and others who have expressed their 



