235 
power thus called forth will have similar results some day or other. 
As to the question of fact with regard to evolution and Darwinism, 
I am truly in a fog ; it is a question of high interest, but it is also one 
in reference to which the data are so imperfect, that it is extremely difficult to 
make up one’s mind. Let me put one case. There is a shell we often see in 
London which is known as the almond whelk, it lives in vast numbers in our 
own seas : there is also another kind of whelk which is found in vast numbers 
on the rocks of our shores, and is called the dog whelk. Scientifically, one 
is known as the Fusus cmtiquus, and the other as Purpura lapillus ; and 
if you take the whole range of the conchological world, you perhaps could 
not pick out two shell-fish which could be more readily distinguished from 
each other ; a child could see the difference. Go back to geological times, 
and go to the ancient formation called the Suffolk crag. In the seas which 
deposited that, there lived these almond whelks and these dog whelks ; but 
if you take 50,000 of the fossil specimens, I would defy any one to separate 
them into their respective species ; they merge the one into the other by the 
most minute gradations. “There,” an evolutionist will tell you, “ is a most 
magnificent instance of the way in which two types of form have diverged so 
widely that you cannot bring them together now, although in old times they 
did trench one upon the other, and were in fact one.” Now, to take a fact 
on the other side, look at the Ammonites. The seas of the ancient world 
swarmed with countless millions of cuttlefish which had shells united to 
them organically ; these fish were not like the cuttlefish of the paper 
nautilus, but were united to their shells by a muscular attachment. These 
Ammonites form one of the great wonders of palaeontology, for they existed 
in countless myriads, not merely as individuals, but as different genera and 
species, all over the world. All over the world the life of these Ammonites 
ceased at the same time. I thank Dr. Nicholson for his most interesting 
paper, and as a visitor I would request him, in his reply, to say how the 
extinction of these extraordinary shell-fish would apply in reference to the 
doctrine of evolution. If evolution was going on there, what was evolved 
out of them, and where shall we find any trace of the species to which these 
extinguished species gave rise ? 
Rev. J. Sinclair. — If I rightly understand the views of Dr. Nicholson, 
I think they give a scientific basis for the definition of the word species, — 
that species would include every possible variation within a specific limit. 
Dr. Nicholson. — With regard to the observations of Mr. Henslow, I 
would simply say, that I believe we have just grounds for thinking that we 
can know the first appearance of certain species. It is quite true that if you 
take every individual instance — if you take each separate fossil — and ask me 
as a palaeontologist, “ Are you quite certain that this made its first appearance 
where you first found it ? ” I should be bound to reply, “ No : nobody can 
be certain ” ; but when you take a whole series, we must know the first 
appearance of a great many forms. Obviously, migration will not account 
