THE PRESIDENT’S ADDRESS. 201 
breadth;’’ the outer surface of many of the species presenting 
exquisite sculpture, with brilliant shades, stripes or spots, of green, 
red, yellow, and bluish black. It is in every case an inhabitant of 
the sea, different species living at different depths, varying from 
four inches to 2,600 fathoms. At the latter depth, between . 
Kerguelen Island and Melbourne, the dredge of the Challenger 
brought up “a very elegant little Brachiopod.” 
As far back as 1853 Mr. Davidson wrote a monograph on 
‘‘ British Fossil Brachiopoda,” and has since that time been ac- 
cepted as an authority on the subject. In 1861 Mr. Darwin wrote 
to him to suggest that the group of Brachiopoda would supply an 
admirable field for establishing the position that ‘‘the fauna of any 
formation is intermediate in character between that of the formation 
above and below.’”? Mr. Davidson willingly accepted the sugges- 
tion, but writes: ‘‘I am bound to state that I have found the 
subject beset with so many apparently inexplicable difficulties, that 
year after year has passed away without (my) being able to trace 
the descent with modification among the Brachiopods which the 
Darwinian doctrine requires.”’ 
He is quite prepared to accept this doctrine. It is in his opinion 
‘‘a tempting and beautiful theory,’’ bearing a charm which is 
almost irresistible, being a far more exalted conception than that 
of constant independent creations. But it is stopped by questions 
which seem to plunge it in a maze of inexplicable and mysterious 
difficulties; and he concludes with this frank confession, which, 
coming from him as an unwilling, and yet perfectly honest witness, 
must have unusual weight. ‘‘ Although far from denying the 
possibility or probability of the correctness of the Darwinian 
theory, I could not conscientiously affirm that the Brachiopoda, as 
far as I am at present acquainted with them, would be of much 
service in proving it.” 
But the increasing length of this paper, and the fear of weary- 
ing you, warn me to bring these remarks to a close. Sufficient 
has been said to justify a protest against the conclusion reached by 
the President of the British Association, that ‘the faithful student 
of embryology must become an Evolutionist.” We have seen that 
it is possible to be a faithful student of paleontology without 
becoming an Evolutionist; nay, that it is almost impossible to be 
a faithful student of paleontology, and to become an Evolutionist. 
The facts of paleeontology are directly in the teeth of the theory, 
