288 



THE GEOLOGIST. 



" dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over every 

 living thing that moveth upon the earth." The only argument, as far as I know, 

 against this view is that there are races of men, as the Zulu Caffres, who seem 

 to have no more sense of right and wrong than the beasts, and no belief in or 

 knowledge of a God. 



As for Mr. Grindley's indignation at the " humility" of those " who would link 

 themselves with brutes," I feel no more disgraced in supposing that our present 

 bodies are the noblest result of creation's work, perfected through countless 

 ages, and through countless forms, than in the fact that our actual bodies, in 

 which we are now living, are formed of the food we eat, which, in its turn, must 

 shortly before have existed only as inorganic elements— as, in fact, " the dust of 

 the ground." 



With regard to the last paragraph, I stated in my paper that there is nothing 

 like a total absence of intermediate forms in the geological record ; and if Mr. 

 Grindley does not mean them by his " species in a transition state," I do not 

 know what he does mean. I do not remember where Sir C. Lyell " proves the 

 theory that all the great classes of organic Ufe were created at once," and I do not 

 think that he is likely ever to have attempted to do so ; but I have never seen 

 the third edition of his " Principles." In the ninth chapter of the ninth edition, 

 he shows that, owing to the great imperfection of the geological record, " we 

 must not too hastily infer that the highest class of vertebrated animals did not 

 exist in remoter ages," and also that we ought to be on our guard against " taking 

 for granted that the date of creation of any family of animals or plants in past 

 time coincides with the age of the oldest stratified rock in which the geologist 

 has detected its remains," and I suppose it is to this that Mr. Grindley refers. In 

 my paper I said that I thought the geological argument was in favour of Mr. 

 Darwin's theory, because all known fossils are intermediate to living forms — that 

 is to say, they fall naturally into the modern classification, and help to fill up the 

 gaps in it, and because, as a general rule, the older a form is, the more it differs 

 from living ones. I cannot, therefore, imagine what made Mr. Grindley think 

 that my conclusions were opposite to those of Sir C. Lyell, or that they were 

 drawn from the same facts ; but as he says that he only received his copy of the 

 " Geologist" on the morning that he wrote his letter, I dare say he read it rather 

 hastily. 



I do not wish to take up more of your space than I can help, or I would make 

 some remarks on the numerous inconsistencies and absurdities in Mr. Grindley's 

 letter ; such as " theories which now-a-days take the place of facts." Compare 

 " to bring forward a number of isolated statements is simply absurd" with " this 

 single statement is weighty enough to decide the whole question." ..." If it cannot 

 trace the sequence of the development of the mammal into man."..." But if they 

 cannot point to the possession of a moral nature beyond the pale of humanity, 

 then I contend that their whole theory fails," &c, &c. But as none of these bear 

 directly on the question at issue, I leave them for the amusement of your 

 readers. 



Yours truly, 



Staff College, June 7. • F. W. Hutton. 



DEER'S HORNS IN BRIXHAM CAVERN. 



Dear Sir, — The important communication which appeared in the last (June) 

 number of the " Geologist," from your correspondent Mr. Drake, contains the 

 following passage, which seems to require a little attention, namely : " The 

 arrow-head found entangled in the horns of the stag by Mr. Pengelly, at Brixham, 

 was vast in importance." I cannot understand how the idea of an " arrow-head" 

 being found so "entangled" has got abroad. A similar passage occurs in Pro- 

 fessor Ansted's " Geological Gossip," and is possibly the original of Mr. Drake's. 



