say that I look on the evolution theory as one of those grand prohleins 
which are of the very greatest use in leading to further acquisitions of human 
knowledge. Every now and then some great question is brought forward, 
respecting which the highest authorities — men whom we regard as our 
teachers — are equally divided in opinion. It is so with the alleged evidence 
of life in the A^'ast series of Canadian rocks called Laurentian — forming 
strata older than anything in this country. Those Laurentian rocks spread 
over a vast extent and through an immense depth — rocks enclosing a peculiar 
structure, which Dr. Carpenter and many others of the highest practical 
knowledge say most positively is a life structure, a structure to which has 
been given the name Eozoon ; but there are other high authorities who 
say that Eozoon is a mineral structure, and not of organic formation. Here, 
then, on both sides we have men of eminence working, on the one hand to 
show that the Laurentian rocks give us life structure, and on the other to 
show that they do not ; each engaged in a kind of rivalry which, even if 
it does not succeed in deciding the problem, is sure to bring forth facts of 
the highest interest in other directions. Therefore, I hope it will not for a 
moment be thought that these discussions are at all useless because the men 
to whom we should look to guide us are divided in opinion. On 
the contrary, there is every reason why w'e should discuss these questions, 
and my own feeling on the matter now before us is, that while the theory of 
evolution gets us out of one series of difficulties, it lands us, on the other 
hand, in a fresh series. I am patiently waiting, and hoping for the time to 
arrive wffien that doctrine will either be entirely repudiated or completely 
accepted. I wish now to call Mr. Callard’s attention to one or two slips in 
his paper. The first on wdiich a correction is needed is one of special interest 
to myself. ]Mr. Callard tells us that the mammals found in the Stonesfield 
oolitic slates are no bigger than rats. It so happens that I was the 
discoverer of the most important of all the knowui mammals in the strata, 
and I gave it the name “ or “ solid-jaw,” Now this animal 
■was a great deal larger than a rat ; I think it must have been as big as a 
cat, but at any rate it was as large as a hedgehog. It will not do in matters 
of such importance as these Stonesfield mammals, which geologists all the 
world over read of with great interest, to make even a small slip. Then, 
again, with regard to wdiat the author says about the cretaceous rocks ; I 
think Mr. Callard must make a correction, because, although no remains 
of land mammalian life have been discovered in the cretaceous series, there 
is strong evidence in the publications of the Geological Society, of which 
jMr. Callard is a Fellow, of a marine mammalian animal having been found 
in the cretaceous rocks. I forget the name given to it, but three or four 
of the neck vertebrae are figured in the Journal of the Society. I can 
only now conclude by saying that the author has handled the subject in a 
most pleasant and able manner, though I cannot say that he has made me 
an anti-evolutionist. 
Mr. D. Howard, (who had taken the Chair in the place of Mr. 
J. E. Howard, F.K.S.). — Before calling upon Mr. Callard to reply, I wish to say 
