EEVIEWS. 
399 
these records there can be no cavilling, as in the histories of human origin 
“ Nature’s records,” he says, “ are laid clearly before us, and the facts state 
themselves ; the question of the credibility of the natural record will 
require but little consideration. 
We are at a loss to know why this statement was advanced by the 
author. It leads the reader to suppose that there can be no quibbling in 
regard to geological or palseontological evidence, but the sequel shows that 
not only is that evidence very scanty, but what there is of it is liable 
to extreme misinterpretation. He even goes so far as to say that if man 
had access “ to every part of the earth (instead of only to ‘ about the 
140,000th part of the accessible earth’), and had made sections of the 
whole, and put them all together, even then his record must of necessity 
be imperfect.” 
The fact is that the records of nature pretty much resemble those of 
man ; and a comparison of. the two records is calculated to impress even 
the most sceptical with the wonderful unity and all-pervading influence 
exercised by that Eternal Mind, which is gradually initiating us into 
the mysteries of nature, and instructing us in regard to the history of 
the universe. 
In the world’s physical history we have certain grand, well-defined eras ; 
and so also in the history of our race. Strata, whose characters are unmis- 
takeable stand side by side with dynasties and empires, regarding which 
we have an extensive fund of general knowledge. How long the strata 
were in arriving at their present state, or for what length of time they 
were uppermost, is at present very doubtful ; what numbers of centuries 
the empires or dynasties were dominant, or the period which elapsed 
between their rise and fall, is in many cases equally debateable. 
So, too, we have well-marked records of the animals which inhabited 
the globe during the depositions of the various strata ; and their remains 
enable us to reconstruct and vivify and compare each group with its pre- 
decessors, or with those that succeeded them. The same obtains in 
human history, where sepulchres, mummies, hieroglyphics, arms, imple- 
ments, and other antiquarian treasures are the indestructible traces which 
enable us once more to recall the different peoples to life, and to study 
their character and instincts. In both classes of facts our knowledge is 
daily increasing, and no one can with justice say that one record is more 
reliable than the other, nor predict with safety that “ all human know- 
ledge must stop somewhere.” 
When the author gives a “practical” definition of “species” (one, 
by the way, which is very convenient for his argument), and falls back com- 
pletely upon structural differences ; and when he states that “ whether a 
physiological test between species exist or not, it is hardly ever applicable 
by the practical naturalist ; ”* he should remember that as his definition was 
derived from animals “ in a state of nature,” it is only right to ascertain 
whether or not Nature herself applies a test of species. Or, to speak 
more plainty, whilst he was careful not to omit the mention of any 
* P. 109. 
2 E 2 
