261 
NOTE ( See pp. 121 and 231, et seq.). 
The Animals taken into Noah’s Ark. 
In discussing the foregoing paper, and also that of Mr. Davison, u On the 
Noachian Deluge ” (page 121 et seq., ante), there is an argument which might 
have been used, with reference to the animals taken into the Ark by Noah, 
which seems so obviously sound, now that it has occurred to me, that I can- 
not but feel astonished that, so far as I know, it has never been previously 
advanced. I venture to place it on record here, as it appears to clear away 
much difficulty that has naturally been felt, both as regards the sufficiency of 
the accommodation afforded by the Ark for so many animals, and also as 
regards the capture and housing of the wild animals, and the quantities of 
food that would be required for all. 
It is simply this, that most probably, because most naturally, Noah would 
take with him, as far as possible, the young of all animals, and especially the 
cubs of wild beasts, instead of collecting the grown-up creatures. This sup- 
position certainly clears away very many difficulties of the kind I have re- 
ferred to ; and, upon reflection, it seems that it almost needs must have been 
so ; for it is well-nigh impossible to understand how either the grown-up 
wild animals, or many of the birds, could have been taken by Noah into 
the Ark in any other way. 
In advancing this argument, however, I do not wish to recede from that 
urged by me, in discussing Mr. Davison’s paper (p. 152, ante), as to the pro- 
bable much smaller number of species (if species and not genera were taken) 
then than now ; which argument, it will be observed (p. 259), is also used by 
Mr. Mitchell in discussing Mr. Moule’s paper. But in using this argument, 
I beg leave emphatically once more to disclaim any adherence to Darwinism 
(see p. 161, ante). I do believe in variations in plants and animals (the exist- 
ence of such variations it did not require Mr. Darwin to prove), — and I am 
not sure that there may not be a variation of their so-called species (but that 
Mr. Darwin himself does not claim yet to have proved) ; but, even if there 
were, it does not in the least follow, that there could be a further and un- 
limited variation, or any new development or transmutation of genera . — 
J. R, Ed. 
