59 
tree may sink into a muddy lake or bog and be preserved, if 
speedily enough excluded from the air ; but how utterly in- 
adequate would such occasional entombments be to afford an 
index of the whole existing fauna and flora, — how absurdly in- 
sufficient for pronouncing as to whether any changes in these or 
other species had been going on during the time of such forma- 
tions. We may safely assert that the geological formations now 
beingproduced could only most exceptionably give anyindication 
of the truth of Mr. Darwin’s hypothesis, supposing that hypo- 
thesis to be true. On what principle and by what right, then, 
are we entitled to expect that past formations shall do so ? 
and why should we regard their not doing so as an objection 
to the truth of the hypothesis ? We know, again, that at the 
present time geological formations are purely local, and pro- 
bably temporary, so that only a few parts of the whole earth’s 
surface would have the remotest chance of having their inha- 
bitants preserved. Is it not probable that the formations we 
now have in the rocks were equally local and equally tem- 
porary ? Once more, we know that notable changes in the 
flora and fauna of places are often produced by the immigration 
of species from elsewhere, who supplant and extinguish the 
old ones. Is it fair, then, to ascribe similar sudden changes 
in the fossil remains of successive layers of deposits invariably 
to new creations ? In a word, taking known facts touching 
present geologic changes as our guide, not one of the fancied 
objections to Darwinism drawn from the geologic records of 
the past can be allowed the slightest weight. It is most 
unreasonable to expect that there should be preserved in the 
rocks the innumerable intermediate forms which the Darwinian 
hypothesis requires, because of the extremely small proportion 
of formerly existing living beings possibly entombed there, 
and the probably local and temporary character of the 
deposits ; while the difficulty which the sudden appearance of 
new species and groups of species is thought to present, falls 
to the ground at once when the known results of immigration 
are further borne in mind. And here we may fairly turn the 
question the other way, and ask what geological evidence 
would satisfy an anti-Darwinian ? Suppose a series of inter- 
mediate varieties were shown linking together two successive 
species, what would he say to it ? Why, that they were not 
distinct species at all, but merely varieties ; or if the grades 
were a little less fine, that every one of the intermediate forms 
was itself a specially created and immutable species. The 
foregone conclusion would colour everything. 
But, secondly, what evidence bearing upon the subject does 
geology really afford ? It shows us an immense number of 
