416 



THE GEOLOGIST. 



THE CEADLEY PTERASPIDES. 

 Dear Sib, — In answer to your correspondent of last month, who signs himself 

 " Mallaeus," I merely state again that when I visited the quarry at Cradley, 

 in June last, there was a large heap of stone in blocks of about a foot to a foot and 

 a half square, which had been worked out of the quarry, and that most of thes 3 

 blocks when carefully examined, contained three or four good specimens (some 

 more) of P. rostratus. I had in my possession one piece of sandstone from Cradley 

 half a foot square, in which were imbedded five Pteraspides and one Cephalaspis. 

 Part of this specimen is now in the British Museum. I should not have called my 

 specimens P. rostratus unless I had had good authority for so doing. As your corre- 

 spondent inquires as to what or whose it is, I beg to inform the "poor ignoramus," 

 as he styles himself, that I have shown all my specimens of Pteraspis to Professor 

 Huxley, who has had others from the same locality under examination, and it was 

 upon his authority that I called them P. rostratus and not Lewisii or Lloydii. 

 In conclusion, I would say with your correspondent, "Do not, young geologist, 

 turn aside from Cradley, but repair thither," &c, and mind to provide thyself with 

 the largest bag thou canst lay thine hands on. 



I remain, dear Sir, yours truly, 

 8, Savile-row. E. E. Lankester. 



THE DAEWINIAN THEOEY. 



Sir, — In replying to Lieut. Hutton's article on the Development Theory of Mr. 

 Darwin, I understood him to advocate the Development Theory as usually pro- 

 pounded. I find, however, from his explanation in your number for July, that 

 such is not the case ; that he claims for his theory what the theory claims for the 

 various forms of life, namely, the ability in the " struggle for life" — and a hard 

 struggle this " theory " has had for its life ! — to modify itself according to circum- 

 stances. And hence arises the fact that what seemed " shadows " to him possessed 

 all the characteristics of reality to me. The "Development Theory," as I knew 

 it before Lieut. Hutton published his views concerning it, is thus epitomized by 

 Professor Oken (" Elements of Physio- Philosophy " — quoted by Hugh Miller in 

 " Footprints of the Creator"): — "No organism has been created of larger size 

 than an infusorial point. No organism is, nor ever has been, created which is not 

 microscopic. Whatever is larger has not been created but developed. Man has 

 not been created but developed." Do these sentences contain Lieut. Hutton's idea 

 of the Development Theory ? 



As thus laid down the Development Theory says, "Man was not created 

 but developed." The Bible says, " God created man in his oxon image." Again, 

 the new "variation" of the theory, as "developed" by Lieut. Hutton, sa\s, 

 "Man" was developed from the brute until "the time was come that he was 

 fitted to receive his mental and moral powers " — when can a brute be " fitted" to 

 receive a responsible soul ? —and that then " they were given him by a special in- 

 terposition of the same power that created (developed ?) all things." That is to say, 

 one night the " man" Adam lay down to sleep a brute, with the irrational mind, 

 brutish propensities, and irresponsible nature of a brute, and awoke the next 

 morning a man, with the God- like intellect and untainted holiness of unfallen 

 humanity ! This is " development " with a vengeance ; and the faith that can 

 swallow this camel of transmutation need never strain at the gnat of creation. To 

 me it seems very little different from what the advocates of creation by direct act 

 claim, at least so far as man is concerned, for we can neither say that Adam the 

 man was the same individual with Adam the brute, nor yet that the one was a de- 

 velopment of the other. Therefore it is evident, froin Lieut. Hutton's own admis- 

 sion, that the "Theory of Development" fails, in the case of man, to account for 

 the various forms of organic life. 



But let us pursue this admission to another of its results. While it is undeniable 

 that the superior mental powers of man pre-eminently distinguish him above every 

 other creature, it is equally undeniable that most, if not all, of the other forms of 

 life possess their various degrees of mental power, and that they are not more 

 distinguished by their peculiarities of form and structure than by their varied 



