122 



THE aEOLOGIST. 



13 not a more marvellous phenomenon than ordinary reproduction ; 

 aud M. Pouchet cannot conceive why it is regarded as such an extra- 

 ordinary act. Nature is not abandoned to the disorder of chance ; 

 she is governed by harmonious laws, and each act which is accom- 

 plished in her depths is connected with the past and is lost in the 

 future : each generation which appears is only the corollary of that 

 which has preceded it (p. 461). 



He goes on confidently to affirm that " the theory of the formation 

 of the earth is not at present the subject of any doubt on the part of 

 geologists. It is evident that our planet has been originally an in- 

 candescent mass, surrounded with an immense atmosphere of gas and 

 vapour ; and that, in cooling, it has endured all the physical or che- 

 mical conditions which necessarily resulted from its change of state." 



His argument goes on to say, that certain parts of the globe having 

 been upheaved at different periods, each has separately originated a 

 fauna peculiar to itself, the degree of perfection of which is in the 

 ratio of the antiquity of the continent supporting it. Thus, the infe- 

 riority of the Australian men arises, according to M. Pouchet, from 

 the Australian continent having been upheaved later than the other 

 parts of the world, and the men consequently being more modern, 

 have not yet reached their summit of development, like the old races 

 of Europe and Asia. The same argument applies to the marsupials 

 of Australia, who are, so to speak, the embryo forms of the placental 

 mammalia of the Old and New Worlds, This theory is almost the 

 reverse of that adopted by many geologists, who speak of Australia 

 as being a " belated " portion of the earth's surface, isolated from 

 the rest of the world at an early period, and beariug the emblems of 

 a bygone Fauna of Cestracions and TrigonicB, analogous to those of 

 the old Oolitic period. 



Our readers will have seen that it is rather as a Biologist than as 

 a Geologist that M. Pouchet has a chance of securing disciples in 

 I^nglaud. Turning however to his researches on the means of pro- 

 duction of animals from inorganic matter (Jieterogenesis), his facts 

 and arguments seem insurmountable. AVe confess ourselves unable 

 to detect any flaw in the chain of testimony which he brings for- 

 ward, and regret that the nature of this periodical precludes us 

 from olVcring some of his experiments in detail. All the objec- 

 tions wliieh were made by previous writers have been disposed of 

 by ]\r. Pouchet. The animals produced belong to the lowest forms 

 of Acrita, and the flaws in the experiments of Schultze and Crosse 

 liave been carefully obviated. 



