Download PDF
ads:
The Rise and Progress of Palaeontology
Thomas Henry Huxley
Project Gutenberg's Etext The Rise and Progress of Palaeontology
#5 in our series by Thomas Henry Huxley
This is Essay #2 from "Science and Hebrew Tradition"
Copyright laws are changing all over the world, be sure to check
the copyright laws for your country before posting these files!!
Please take a look at the important information in this header.
We encourage you to keep this file on your own disk, keeping an
electronic path open for the next readers. Do not remove this.
*It must legally be the first thing seen when opening the book.*
In fact, our legal advisors said we can't even change margins.
**Welcome To The World of Free Plain Vanilla Electronic Texts**
**Etexts Readable By Both Humans and By Computers, Since 1971**
*These Etexts Prepared By Hundreds of Volunteers and Donations*
Information on contacting Project Gutenberg to get Etexts, and
further information is included below. We need your donations.
Title: The Rise and Progress of Palaeontology
Title: This is Essay #2 from "Science and Hebrew Tradition"
Author: Thomas Henry Huxley
May, 2001 [Etext #2628]
Project Gutenberg's Etext The Rise and Progress of Palaeontology
******This file should be named 2saht10.txt or 2saht10.zip******
Corrected EDITIONS of our etexts get a new NUMBER, 2saht11.txt
VERSIONS based on separate sources get new LETTER, 2saht10a.txt
Processed by D.R. Thompson <drtho[email protected].nz>
Project Gutenberg Etexts are usually created from multiple editions,
all of which are in the Public Domain in the United States, unless a
copyright notice is included. Therefore, we usually do NOT keep any
of these books in compliance with any particular paper edition.
We are now trying to release all our books one month in advance
of the official release dates, leaving time for better editing.
Please note: neither this list nor its contents are final till
midnight of the last day of the month of any such announcement.
The official release date of all Project Gutenberg Etexts is at
ads:
Livros Grátis
http://www.livrosgratis.com.br
Milhares de livros grátis para download.
Midnight, Central Time, of the last day of the stated month. A
preliminary version may often be posted for suggestion, comment
and editing by those who wish to do so. To be sure you have an
up to date first edition [xxxxx10x.xxx] please check file sizes
in the first week of the next month. Since our ftp program has
a bug in it that scrambles the date [tried to fix and failed] a
look at the file size will have to do, but we will try to see a
new copy has at least one byte more or less.
Information about Project Gutenberg (one page)
We produce about two million dollars for each hour we work. The
time it takes us, a rather conservative estimate, is fifty hours
to get any etext selected, entered, proofread, edited, copyright
searched and analyzed, the copyright letters written, etc. This
projected audience is one hundred million readers. If our value
per text is nominally estimated at one dollar then we produce $2
million dollars per hour this year as we release thirty-six text
files per month, or 432 more Etexts in 1999 for a total of 2000+
If these reach just 10% of the computerized population, then the
total should reach over 200 billion Etexts given away this year.
The Goal of Project Gutenberg is to Give Away One Trillion Etext
Files by December 31, 2001. [10,000 x 100,000,000 = 1 Trillion]
This is ten thousand titles each to one hundred million readers,
which is only ~5% of the present number of computer users.
At our revised rates of production, we will reach only one-third
of that goal by the end of 2001, or about 3,333 Etexts unless we
manage to get some real funding; currently our funding is mostly
from Michael Hart's salary at Carnegie-Mellon University, and an
assortment of sporadic gifts; this salary is only good for a few
more years, so we are looking for something to replace it, as we
don't want Project Gutenberg to be so dependent on one person.
We need your donations more than ever!
All donations should be made to "Project Gutenberg/CMU": and are
tax deductible to the extent allowable by law. (CMU = Carnegie-
Mellon University).
For these and other matters, please mail to:
Project Gutenberg
P. O. Box 2782
Champaign, IL 61825
When all other email fails. . .try our Executive Director:
Michael S. Hart <hart@pobox.com>
[email protected] forwards to hart@prairienet.org and archive.org
if your mail bounces from archive.org, I will still see it, if
it bounces from prairienet.org, better resend later on. . . .
We would prefer to send you this information by email.
******
ads:
To access Project Gutenberg etexts, use any Web browser
to view http://promo.net/pg. This site lists Etexts by
author and by title, and includes information about how
to get involved with Project Gutenberg. You could also
download our past Newsletters, or subscribe here. This
is one of our major sites, please email [email protected],
for a more complete list of our various sites.
To go directly to the etext collections, use FTP or any
Web browser to visit a Project Gutenberg mirror (mirror
sites are available on 7 continents; mirrors are listed
at http://promo.net/pg).
Mac users, do NOT point and click, typing works better.
Example FTP session:
ftp metalab.unc.edu
login: anonymous
password: your@login
cd pub/docs/books/gutenberg
cd etext90 through etext99 or etext00 through etext01, etc.
dir [to see files]
get or mget [to get files. . .set bin for zip files]
GET GUTINDEX.?? [to get a year's listing of books, e.g., GUTINDEX.99]
GET GUTINDEX.ALL [to get a listing of ALL books]
***
**Information prepared by the Project Gutenberg legal advisor**
(Three Pages)
***START**THE SMALL PRINT!**FOR PUBLIC DOMAIN ETEXTS**START***
Why is this "Small Print!" statement here? You know: lawyers.
They tell us you might sue us if there is something wrong with
your copy of this etext, even if you got it for free from
someone other than us, and even if what's wrong is not our
fault. So, among other things, this "Small Print!" statement
disclaims most of our liability to you. It also tells you how
you can distribute copies of this etext if you want to.
*BEFORE!* YOU USE OR READ THIS ETEXT
By using or reading any part of this PROJECT GUTENBERG-tm
etext, you indicate that you understand, agree to and accept
this "Small Print!" statement. If you do not, you can receive
a refund of the money (if any) you paid for this etext by
sending a request within 30 days of receiving it to the person
you got it from. If you received this etext on a physical
medium (such as a disk), you must return it with your request.
ABOUT PROJECT GUTENBERG-TM ETEXTS
This PROJECT GUTENBERG-tm etext, like most PROJECT GUTENBERG-
tm etexts, is a "public domain" work distributed by Professor
Michael S. Hart through the Project Gutenberg Association at
Carnegie-Mellon University (the "Project"). Among other
things, this means that no one owns a United States copyright
on or for this work, so the Project (and you!) can copy and
distribute it in the United States without permission and
without paying copyright royalties. Special rules, set forth
below, apply if you wish to copy and distribute this etext
under the Project's "PROJECT GUTENBERG" trademark.
To create these etexts, the Project expends considerable
efforts to identify, transcribe and proofread public domain
works. Despite these efforts, the Project's etexts and any
medium they may be on may contain "Defects". Among other
things, Defects may take the form of incomplete, inaccurate or
corrupt data, transcription errors, a copyright or other
intellectual property infringement, a defective or damaged
disk or other etext medium, a computer virus, or computer
codes that damage or cannot be read by your equipment.
LIMITED WARRANTY; DISCLAIMER OF DAMAGES
But for the "Right of Replacement or Refund" described below,
[1] the Project (and any other party you may receive this
etext from as a PROJECT GUTENBERG-tm etext) disclaims all
liability to you for damages, costs and expenses, including
legal fees, and [2] YOU HAVE NO REMEDIES FOR NEGLIGENCE OR
UNDER STRICT LIABILITY, OR FOR BREACH OF WARRANTY OR CONTRACT,
INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO INDIRECT, CONSEQUENTIAL, PUNITIVE
OR INCIDENTAL DAMAGES, EVEN IF YOU GIVE NOTICE OF THE
POSSIBILITY OF SUCH DAMAGES.
If you discover a Defect in this etext within 90 days of
receiving it, you can receive a refund of the money (if any)
you paid for it by sending an explanatory note within that
time to the person you received it from. If you received it
on a physical medium, you must return it with your note, and
such person may choose to alternatively give you a replacement
copy. If you received it electronically, such person may
choose to alternatively give you a second opportunity to
receive it electronically.
THIS ETEXT IS OTHERWISE PROVIDED TO YOU "AS-IS". NO OTHER
WARRANTIES OF ANY KIND, EXPRESS OR IMPLIED, ARE MADE TO YOU AS
TO THE ETEXT OR ANY MEDIUM IT MAY BE ON, INCLUDING BUT NOT
LIMITED TO WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY OR FITNESS FOR A
PARTICULAR PURPOSE.
Some states do not allow disclaimers of implied warranties or
the exclusion or limitation of consequential damages, so the
above disclaimers and exclusions may not apply to you, and you
may have other legal rights.
INDEMNITY
You will indemnify and hold the Project, its directors,
officers, members and agents harmless from all liability, cost
and expense, including legal fees, that arise directly or
indirectly from any of the following that you do or cause:
[1] distribution of this etext, [2] alteration, modification,
or addition to the etext, or [3] any Defect.
DISTRIBUTION UNDER "PROJECT GUTENBERG-tm"
You may distribute copies of this etext electronically, or by
disk, book or any other medium if you either delete this
"Small Print!" and all other references to Project Gutenberg,
or:
[1] Only give exact copies of it. Among other things, this
requires that you do not remove, alter or modify the
etext or this "small print!" statement. You may however,
if you wish, distribute this etext in machine readable
binary, compressed, mark-up, or proprietary form,
including any form resulting from conversion by word pro-
cessing or hypertext software, but only so long as
*EITHER*:
[*] The etext, when displayed, is clearly readable, and
does *not* contain characters other than those
intended by the author of the work, although tilde
(~), asterisk (*) and underline (_) characters may
be used to convey punctuation intended by the
author, and additional characters may be used to
indicate hypertext links; OR
[*] The etext may be readily converted by the reader at
no expense into plain ASCII, EBCDIC or equivalent
form by the program that displays the etext (as is
the case, for instance, with most word processors);
OR
[*] You provide, or agree to also provide on request at
no additional cost, fee or expense, a copy of the
etext in its original plain ASCII form (or in EBCDIC
or other equivalent proprietary form).
[2] Honor the etext refund and replacement provisions of this
"Small Print!" statement.
[3] Pay a trademark license fee to the Project of 20% of the
net profits you derive calculated using the method you
already use to calculate your applicable taxes. If you
don't derive profits, no royalty is due. Royalties are
payable to "Project Gutenberg Association/Carnegie-Mellon
University" within the 60 days following each
date you prepare (or were legally required to prepare)
your annual (or equivalent periodic) tax return.
WHAT IF YOU *WANT* TO SEND MONEY EVEN IF YOU DON'T HAVE TO?
The Project gratefully accepts contributions in money, time,
scanning machines, OCR software, public domain etexts, royalty
free copyright licenses, and every other sort of contribution
you can think of. Money should be paid to "Project Gutenberg
Association / Carnegie-Mellon University".
We are planning on making some changes in our donation structure
in 2000, so you might want to email me, [email protected]m beforehand.
*END THE SMALL PRINT! FOR PUBLIC DOMAIN ETEXTS*Ver.04.29.93*END*
Processed by D.R. Thompson <drtho[email protected].nz>
Project Gutenberg's Etext The Rise and Progress of Palaeontology
by Thomas Henry Huxley
This is Essay #2 from "Science and Hebrew Tradition"
That application of the sciences of biology and geology, which
is commonly known as palaeontology, took its origin in the mind
of the first person who, finding something like a shell, or a
bone, naturally imbedded in gravel or rock, indulged in
speculations upon the nature of this thing which he had dug out
--this "fossil"--and upon the causes which had brought it into
such a position. In this rudimentary form, a high antiquity may
safely be ascribed to palaeontology, inasmuch as we know that,
500 years before the Christian era, the philosophic doctrines of
Xenophanes were influenced by his observations upon the fossil
remains exposed in the quarries of Syracuse. From this time
forth not only the philosophers, but the poets, the historians,
the geographers of antiquity occasionally refer to fossils;
and, after the revival of learning, lively controversies arose
respecting their real nature. But hardly more than two centuries
have elapsed since this fundamental problem was first
exhaustively treated; it was only in the last century that the
archaeological value of fossils--their importance, I mean, as
records of the history of the earth--was fully recognised;
the first adequate investigation of the fossil remains of any
large group of vertebrated animals is to be found in Cuvier's
"Recherches sur les Ossemens Fossiles," completed in 1822;
and, so modern is stratigraphical palaeontology, that its
founder, William Smith, lived to receive the just recognition of
his services by the award of the first Wollaston Medal in 1831.
But, although palaeontology is a comparatively youthful
scientific speciality, the mass of materials with which it has
to deal is already prodigious. In the last fifty years the
number of known fossil remains of invertebrated animals has been
trebled or quadrupled. The work of interpretation of vertebrate
fossils, the foundations of which were so solidly laid by
Cuvier, was carried on, with wonderful vigour and success, by
Agassiz in Switzerland, by Von Meyer in Germany, and last, but
not least, by Owen in this country, while, in later years, a
multitude of workers have laboured in the same field. In many
groups of the animal kingdom the number of fossil forms already
known is as great as that of the existing species. In some cases
it is much greater; and there are entire orders of animals of
the existence of which we should know nothing except for the
evidence afforded by fossil remains. With all this it may be
safely assumed that, at the present moment, we are not
acquainted with a tittle of the fossils which will sooner or
later be discovered. If we may judge by the profusion yielded
within the last few years by the Tertiary formations of North
America, there seems to be no limit to the multitude of
mammalian remains to be expected from that continent;
and analogy leads us to expect similar riches in Eastern Asia,
whenever the Tertiary formations of that region are as carefully
explored. Again, we have, as yet, almost everything to learn
respecting the terrestrial population of the Mesozoic epoch;
and it seems as if the Western territories of the United States
were about to prove as instructive in regard to this point as
they have in respect of tertiary life. My friend Professor Marsh
informs me that, within two years, remains of more than 160
distinct individuals of mammals, belonging to twenty species and
nine genera, have been found in a space not larger than the
floor of a good-sized room; while beds of the same age have
yielded 300 reptiles, varying in size from a length of 60 feet
or 80 feet to the dimensions of a rabbit.
The task which I have set myself to-night is to endeavour to lay
before you, as briefly as possible, a sketch of the successive
steps by which our present knowledge of the facts of
palaeontology and of those conclusions from them which are
indisputable, has been attained; and I beg leave to remind you,
at the outset, that in attempting to sketch the progress of a
branch of knowledge to which innumerable labours have
contributed, my business is rather with generalisations than
with details. It is my object to mark the epochs of
palaeontology, not to recount all the events of its history.
That which I just now called the fundamental problem of
palaeontology, the question which has to be settled before any
other can be profitably discussed, is this, What is the nature
of fossils? Are they, as the healthy common sense of the ancient
Greeks appears to have led them to assume without hesitation,
the remains of animals and plants? Or are they, as was so
generally maintained in the fifteenth, sixteenth, and
seventeenth centuries, mere figured stones, portions of mineral
matter which have assumed the forms of leaves and shells and
bones, just as those portions of mineral matter which we call
crystals take on the form of regular geometrical solids?
Or, again, are they, as others thought, the products of the
germs of animals and of the seeds of plants which have lost
their way, as it were, in the bowels of the earth, and have
achieved only an imperfect and abortive development? It is easy
to sneer at our ancestors for being disposed to reject the first
in favour of one or other of the last two hypotheses; but it is
much more profitable to try to discover why they, who were
really not one whit less sensible persons than our excellent
selves, should have been led to entertain views which strike us
as absurd, The belief in what is erroneously called spontaneous
generation, that is to say, in the development of living matter
out of mineral matter, apart from the agency of pre-existing
living matter, as an ordinary occurrence at the present day--
which is still held by some of us, was universally accepted as
an obvious truth by them. They could point to the arborescent
forms assumed by hoar-frost and by sundry metallic minerals as
evidence of the existence in nature of a "plastic force"
competent to enable inorganic matter to assume the form of
organised bodies. Then, as every one who is familiar with
fossils knows, they present innumerable gradations, from shells
and bones which exactly resemble the recent objects, to masses
of mere stone which, however accurately they repeat the outward
form of the organic body, have nothing else in common with it;
and, thence, to mere traces and faint impressions in the
continuous substance of the rock. What we now know to be the
results of the chemical changes which take place in the course
of fossilisation, by which mineral is substituted for organic
substance, might, in the absence of such knowledge, be fairly
interpreted as the expression of a process of development in the
opposite direction--from the mineral to the organic. Moreover,
in an age when it would have seemed the most absurd of paradoxes
to suggest that the general level of the sea is constant, while
that of the solid land fluctuates up and down through thousands
of feet in a secular ground swell, it may well have appeared far
less hazardous to conceive that fossils are sports of nature
than to accept the necessary alternative, that all the inland
regions and highlands, in the rocks of which marine shells had
been found, had once been covered by the ocean. It is not so
surprising, therefore, as it may at first seem, that although
such men as Leonardo da Vinci and Bernard Palissy took just
views of the nature of fossils, the opinion of the majority of
their contemporaries set strongly the other way; nor even that
error maintained itself long after the scientific grounds of the
true interpretation of fossils had been stated, in a manner that
left nothing to be desired, in the latter half of the
seventeenth century. The person who rendered this good service
to palaeontology was Nicolas Steno, professor of anatomy in
Florence, though a Dane by birth. Collectors of fossils at that
day were familiar with certain bodies termed "glossopetrae," and
speculation was rife as to their nature. In the first half of
the seventeenth century, Fabio Colonna had tried to convince his
colleagues of the famous Accademia dei Lincei that the
glossopetrae were merely fossil sharks' teeth, but his arguments
made no impression. Fifty years later, Steno re-opened the
question, and, by dissecting the head of a shark and pointing
out the very exact correspondence of its teeth with the
glossopetrae, left no rational doubt as to the origin of the
latter. Thus far, the work of Steno went little further than
that of Colonna, but it fortunately occurred to him to think out
the whole subject of the interpretation of fossils, and the
result of his meditations was the publication, in 1669, of a
little treatise with the very quaint title of "De Solido intra
Solidum naturaliter contento." The general course of Steno's
argument may be stated in a few words. Fossils are solid bodies
which, by some natural process, have come to be contained within
other solid bodies, namely, the rocks in which they are
embedded; and the fundamental problem of palaeontology, stated
generally, is this: "Given a body endowed with a certain shape
and produced in accordance with natural laws, to find in that
body itself the evidence of the place and manner of its
production."<1> The only way of solving this problem is by the
application of the axiom that "like effects imply like causes,"
or as Steno puts it, in reference to this particular case, that
"bodies which are altogether similar have been produced in the
same way."<2> Hence, since the glossopetrae are altogether
similar to sharks' teeth, they must have been produced by
sharklike fishes; and since many fossil shells correspond, down
to the minutest details of structure, with the shells of
existing marine or freshwater animals, they must have been
produced by similar animals; and the like reasoning is applied
by Steno to the fossil bones of vertebrated animals, whether
aquatic or terrestrial. To the obvious objection that many
fossils are not altogether similar to their living analogues,
differing in substance while agreeing in form, or being mere
hollows or impressions, the surfaces of which are figured in the
same way as those of animal or vegetable organisms, Steno
replies by pointing out the changes which take place in organic
remains embedded in the earth, and how their solid substance may
be dissolved away entirely, or replaced by mineral matter, until
nothing is left of the original but a cast, an impression, or a
mere trace of its contours. The principles of investigation thus
excellently stated and illustrated by Steno in 1669, are those
which have, consciously or unconsciously, guided the researches
of palaeontologists ever since. Even that feat of palaeontology
which has so powerfully impressed the popular imagination, the
reconstruction of an extinct animal from a tooth or a bone, is
based upon the simplest imaginable application of the logic of
Steno. A moment's consideration will show, in fact, that Steno's
conclusion that the glossopetrae are sharks' teeth implies the
reconstruction of an animal from its tooth. It is equivalent to
the assertion that the animal of which the glossopetrae are
relics had the form and organisation of a shark; that it had a
skull, a vertebral column, and limbs similar to those which are
characteristic of this group of fishes; that its heart, gills,
and intestines presented the peculiarities which those of all
sharks exhibit; nay, even that any hard parts which its
integument contained were of a totally different character from
the scales of ordinary fishes. These conclusions are as certain
as any based upon probable reasonings can be. And they are so,
simply because a very large experience justifies us in believing
that teeth of this particular form and structure are invariably
associated with the peculiar organisation of sharks, and are
never found in connection with other organisms. Why this should
be we are not at present in a position even to imagine; we must
take the fact as an empirical law of animal morphology, the
reason of which may possibly be one day found in the history of
the evolution of the shark tribe, but for which it is hopeless
to seek for an explanation in ordinary physiological reasonings.
Every one practically acquainted with palaeontology is aware
that it is not every tooth, nor every bone, which enables us to
form a judgment of the character of the animal to which it
belonged; and that it is possible to possess many teeth, and
even a large portion of the skeleton of an extinct animal, and
yet be unable to reconstruct its skull or its limbs. It is only
when the tooth or bone presents peculiarities, which we know by
previous experience to be characteristic of a certain group,
that we can safely predict that the fossil belonged to an animal
of the same group. Any one who finds a cow's grinder may be
perfectly sure that it belonged to an animal which had two
complete toes on each foot and ruminated; any one who finds a
horse's grinder may be as sure that it had one complete toe on
each foot and did not ruminate; but if ruminants and horses were
extinct animals of which nothing but the grinders had ever been
discovered, no amount of physiological reasoning could have
enabled us to reconstruct either animal, still less to have
divined the wide differences between the two. Cuvier, in the
"Discours sur les Revolutions de la Surface du Globe," strangely
credits himself, and has ever since been credited by others,
with the invention of a new method of palaeontological research.
But if you will turn to the "Recherches sur les Ossemens
Fossiles" and watch Cuvier, not speculating, but working, you
will find that his method is neither more nor less than that of
Steno. If he was able to make his famous prophecy from the jaw
which lay upon the surface of a block of stone to the pelvis of
the same animal which lay hidden in it, it was not because
either he, or any one else, knew, or knows, why a certain form
of jaw is, as a rule, constantly accompanied by the presence of
marsupial bones, but simply because experience has shown that
these two structures are co-ordinated.
The settlement of the nature of fossils led at once to the next
advance of palaeontology, viz. its application to the
deciphering of the history of the earth. When it was admitted
that fossils are remains of animals and plants, it followed
that, in so far as they resemble terrestrial, or freshwater,
animals and plants, they are evidences of the existence of land,
or fresh water; and, in so far as they resemble marine
organisms, they are evidences of the existence of the sea at the
time at which they were parts of actually living animals and
plants. Moreover, in the absence of evidence to the contrary, it
must be admitted that the terrestrial or the marine organisms
implied the existence of land or sea at the place in which they
were found while they were yet living. In fact, such conclusions
were immediately drawn by everybody, from the time of Xenophanes
downwards, who believed that fossils were really organic
remains. Steno discusses their value as evidence of repeated
alteration of marine and terrestrial conditions upon the soil of
Tuscany in a manner worthy of a modern geologist.
The speculations of De Maillet in the beginning of the
eighteenth century turn upon fossils; and Buffon follows him
very closely in those two remarkable works, the "Theorie de la
Terre" and the "Epoques de la Nature" with which he commenced
and ended his career as a naturalist.
The opening sentences of the "Epoques de la Nature" show us how
fully Buffon recognised the analogy of geological with
archaeological inquiries. "As in civil history we consult deeds,
seek for coins, or decipher antique inscriptions in order to
determine the epochs of human revolutions and fix the date of
moral events; so, in natural history, we must search the
archives of the world, recover old monuments from the bowels of
the earth, collect their fragmentary remains, and gather into
one body of evidence all the signs of physical change which may
enable us to look back upon the different ages of nature. It is
our only means of fixing some points in the immensity of space,
and of setting a certain number of waymarks along the eternal
path of time."
Buffon enumerates five classes of these monuments of the past
history of the earth, and they are all facts of palaeontology.
In the first place, he says, shells and other marine productions
are found all over the surface and in the interior of the dry
land; and all calcareous rocks are made up of their remains.
Secondly, a great many of these shells which are found in Europe
are not now to be met with in the adjacent seas; and, in the
slates and other deep-seated deposits, there are remains of
fishes and of plants of which no species now exist in our
latitudes, and which are either extinct, or exist only in more
northern climates. Thirdly, in Siberia and in other northern
regions of Europe and of Asia, bones and teeth of elephants,
rhinoceroses, and hippopotamuses occur in such numbers that
these animals must once have lived and multiplied in those
regions, although at the present day they are confined to
southern climates. The deposits in which these remains are found
are superficial, while those which contain shells and other
marine remains lie much deeper. Fourthly, tusks and bones of
elephants and hippopotamuses are found not only in the northern
regions of the old world, but also in those of the new world,
although, at present, neither elephants nor hippopotamuses occur
in America. Fifthly, in the middle of the continents, in regions
most remote from the sea, we find an infinite number of shells,
of which the most part belong to animals of those kinds which
still exist in southern seas, but of which many others have no
living analogues; so that these species appear to be lost,
destroyed by some unknown cause. It is needless to inquire how
far these statements are strictly accurate; they are
sufficiently so to justify Buffon's conclusions that the dry
land was once beneath the sea; that the formation of the
fossiliferous rocks must have occupied a vastly greater lapse of
time than that traditionally ascribed to the age of the earth;
that fossil remains indicate different climatal conditions to
have obtained in former times, and especially that the polar
regions were once warmer; that many species of animals and
plants have become extinct; and that geological change has had
something to do with geographical distribution.
But these propositions almost constitute the frame-work of
palaeontology. In order to complete it but one addition was
needed, and that was made, in the last years of the eighteenth
century, by William Smith, whose work comes so near our own
times that many living men may have been personally acquainted
with him. This modest land-surveyor, whose business took him
into many parts of England, profited by the peculiarly
favourable conditions offered by the arrangement of our
secondary strata to make a careful examination and comparison of
their fossil contents at different points of the large area over
which they extend. The result of his accurate and widely-
extended observations was to establish the important truth that
each stratum contains certain fossils which are peculiar to it;
and that the order in which the strata, characterised by these
fossils, are super-imposed one upon the other is always the
same. This most important generalisation was rapidly verified
and extended to all parts of the world accessible to geologists;
and now it rests upon such an immense mass of observations as to
be one of the best established truths of natural science. To the
geologist the discovery was of infinite importance as it enabled
him to identify rocks of the same relative age, however their
continuity might be interrupted or their composition altered.
But to the biologist it had a still deeper meaning, for it
demonstrated that, throughout the prodigious duration of time
registered by the fossiliferous rocks, the living population of
the earth had undergone continual changes, not merely by the
extinction of a certain number of the species which had at first
existed, but by the continual generation of new species, and the
no less constant extinction of old ones.
Thus the broad outlines of palaeontology, in so far as it is the
common property of both the geologist and the biologist, were
marked out at the close of the last century. In tracing its
subsequent progress I must confine myself to the province of
biology, and, indeed, to the influence of palaeontology upon
zoological morphology. And I accept this limitation the more
willingly as the no less important topic of the bearing of
geology and of palaeontology upon distribution has been
luminously treated in the address of the President of the
Geographical Section.<3>
The succession of the species of animals and plants in time
being established, the first question which the zoologist or the
botanist had to ask himself was, What is the relation of these
successive species one to another? And it is a curious
circumstance that the most important event in the history of
palaeontology which immediately succeeded William Smith's
generalisation was a discovery which, could it have been rightly
appreciated at the time, would have gone far towards suggesting
the answer, which was in fact delayed for more than half a
century. I refer to Cuvier's investigation of the mammalian
fossils yielded by the quarries in the older tertiary rocks of
Montmartre, among the chief results of which was the bringing to
light of two genera of extinct hoofed quadrupeds, the
<i>Anoplotherium</i> and the <i>Palaeotherium.</i> The rich
materials at Cuvier's disposition enabled him to obtain a full
knowledge of the osteology and of the dentition of these two
forms, and consequently to compare their structure critically
with that of existing hoofed animals. The effect of this
comparison was to prove that the <i>Anoplotherium,</i> though it
presented many points of resemblance with the pigs on the one
hand and with the ruminants on the other, differed from both to
such an extent that it could find a place in neither group.
In fact, it held, in some respects, an intermediate position,
tending to bridge over the interval between these two groups,
which in the existing fauna are so distinct. In the same way,
the <i>Palaeotherium</i> tended to connect forms so different as
the tapir, the rhinoceros, and the horse. Subsequent
investigations have brought to light a variety of facts of the
same order, the most curious and striking of which are those
which prove the existence, in the mesozoic epoch, of a series of
forms intermediate between birds and reptiles--two classes of
vertebrate animals which at present appear to be more widely
separated than any others. Yet the interval between them is
completely filled, in the mesozoic fauna, by birds which have
reptilian characters, on the one side, and reptiles which have
ornithic characters, on the other. So again, while the group of
fishes, termed ganoids, is, at the present time, so distinct
from that of the dipnoi, or mudfishes, that they have been
reckoned as distinct orders, the Devonian strata present us with
forms of which it is impossible to say with certainty whether
they are dipnoi or whether they are ganoids.
Agassiz's long and elaborate researches upon fossil fishes,
published between 1833 and 1842, led him to suggest the
existence of another kind of relation between ancient and modern
forms of life. He observed that the oldest fishes present
many characters which recall the embryonic conditions of
existing fishes; and that, not only among fishes, but in several
groups of the invertebrata which have a long palaeontological
history, the latest forms are more modified, more specialised,
than the earlier. The fact that the dentition of the older
tertiary ungulate and carnivorous mammals is always complete,
noticed by Professor Owen, illustrated the same generalisation.
Another no less suggestive observation was made by Mr. Darwin,
whose personal investigations during the voyage of the
<i>Beagle</i> led him to remark upon the singular fact, that the
fauna, which immediately precedes that at present existing in
any geographical province of distribution, presents the same
peculiarities as its successor. Thus, in South America and in
Australia, the later tertiary or quaternary fossils show that
the fauna which immediately preceded that of the present day
was, in the one case, as much characterised by edentates and, in
the other, by marsupials as it is now, although the species of
the older are largely different from those of the newer fauna.
However clearly these indications might point in one direction,
the question of the exact relation of the successive forms of
animal and vegetable life could be satisfactorily settled only
in one way; namely, by comparing, stage by stage, the series of
forms presented by one and the same type throughout a long
space of time. Within the last few years this has been done
fully in the case of the horse, less completely in the case of
the other principal types of the ungulata and of the carnivora;
and all these investigations tend to one general result, namely,
that, in any given series, the successive members of that series
present a gradually increasing specialisation of structure.
That is to say, if any such mammal at present existing has
specially modified and reduced limbs or dentition and
complicated brain, its predecessors in time show less and less
modification and reduction in limbs and teeth and a less highly
developed brain. The labours of Gaudry, Marsh, and Cope furnish
abundant illustrations of this law from the marvellous fossil
wealth of Pikermi and the vast uninterrupted series of tertiary
rocks in the territories of North America.
I will now sum up the results of this sketch of the rise and
progress of palaeontology. The whole fabric of palaeontology is
based upon two propositions: the first is, that fossils are the
remains of animals and plants; and the second is, that the
stratified rocks in which they are found are sedimentary
deposits; and each of these propositions is founded upon the
same axiom, that like effects imply like causes. If there is any
cause competent to produce a fossil stem, or shell, or bone,
except a living being, then palaeontology has no foundation;
if the stratification of the rocks is not the effect of such
causes as at present produce stratification, we have no means of
judging of the duration of past time, or of the order in which
the forms of life have succeeded one another. But if these two
propositions are granted, there is no escape, as it appears to
me, from three very important conclusions. The first is that
living matter has existed upon the earth for a vast length of
time, certainly for millions of years. The second is that,
during this lapse of time, the forms of living matter have
undergone repeated changes, the effect of which has been that
the animal and vegetable population, at any period of the
earth's history, contains certain species which did not exist at
some antecedent period, and others which ceased to exist at some
subsequent period. The third is that, in the case of many groups
of mammals and some of reptiles, in which one type can be
followed through a considerable extent of geological time, the
series of different forms by which the type is represented, at
successive intervals of this time, is exactly such as it would
be, if they had been produced by the gradual modification of the
earliest forms of the series. These are facts of the history of
the earth guaranteed by as good evidence as any facts in
civil history.
Hitherto I have kept carefully clear of all the hypotheses to
which men have at various times endeavoured to fit the facts of
palaeontology, or by which they have endeavoured to connect
as many of these facts as they happened to be acquainted with.
I do not think it would be a profitable employment of our time
to discuss conceptions which doubtless have had their
justification and even their use, but which are now obviously
incompatible with the well-ascertained truths of palaeontology.
At present these truths leave room for only two hypotheses.
The first is that, in the course of the history of the earth,
innumerable species of animals and plants have come into
existence, independently of one another, innumerable times.
This, of course, implies either that spontaneous generation on
the most astounding scale, and of animals such as horses and
elephants, has been going on, as a natural process, through all
the time recorded by the fossiliferous rocks; or it necessitates
the belief in innumerable acts of creation repeated innumerable
times. The other hypothesis is, that the successive species of
animals and plants have arisen, the later by the gradual
modification of the earlier. This is the hypothesis of
evolution; and the palaeontological discoveries of the last
decade are so completely in accordance with the requirements of
this hypothesis that, if it had not existed, the palaeontologist
would have had to invent it.
I have always had a certain horror of presuming to set a limit
upon the possibilities of things. Therefore I will not venture
to say that it is impossible that the multitudinous species of
animals and plants may have been produced, one separately
from the other, by spontaneous generation; nor that it is
impossible that they should have been independently originated
by an endless succession of miraculous creative acts. But I must
confess that both these hypotheses strike me as so astoundingly
improbable, so devoid of a shred of either scientific or
traditional support, that even if there were no other evidence
than that of palaeontology in its favour, I should feel
compelled to adopt the hypothesis of evolution. Happily, the
future of palaeontology is independent of all hypothetical
considerations. Fifty years hence, whoever undertakes to record
the progress of palaeontology will note the present time as the
epoch in which the law of succession of the forms of the higher
animals was determined by the observation of palaeontological
facts. He will point out that, just as Steno and as Cuvier were
enabled from their knowledge of the empirical laws of co-
existence of the parts of animals to conclude from a part to the
whole, so the knowledge of the law of succession of forms
empowered their successors to conclude, from one or two terms of
such a succession, to the whole series; and thus to divine the
existence of forms of life, of which, perhaps, no trace remains,
at epochs of inconceivable remoteness in the past.
FOOTNOTES
(1) <i>De Solidoiintra Solidum,</i> p.5--"Dato corpore certa
figura praedito et juxta leges naturae producto, in ipso corpore
argumenta invenire locum et modum productionis detegentia."
(2) "Corpora sibi invicem omnino similia simili etiam modo
producta sunt."
(3) Sir J. D. Hooker.
End of Project Gutenberg's Etext The Rise and Progress of Palaeontology
This is Essay #2 from "Science and Hebrew Tradition"
Livros Grátis
( http://www.livrosgratis.com.br )
Milhares de Livros para Download:
Baixar livros de Administração
Baixar livros de Agronomia
Baixar livros de Arquitetura
Baixar livros de Artes
Baixar livros de Astronomia
Baixar livros de Biologia Geral
Baixar livros de Ciência da Computação
Baixar livros de Ciência da Informação
Baixar livros de Ciência Política
Baixar livros de Ciências da Saúde
Baixar livros de Comunicação
Baixar livros do Conselho Nacional de Educação - CNE
Baixar livros de Defesa civil
Baixar livros de Direito
Baixar livros de Direitos humanos
Baixar livros de Economia
Baixar livros de Economia Doméstica
Baixar livros de Educação
Baixar livros de Educação - Trânsito
Baixar livros de Educação Física
Baixar livros de Engenharia Aeroespacial
Baixar livros de Farmácia
Baixar livros de Filosofia
Baixar livros de Física
Baixar livros de Geociências
Baixar livros de Geografia
Baixar livros de História
Baixar livros de Línguas
Baixar livros de Literatura
Baixar livros de Literatura de Cordel
Baixar livros de Literatura Infantil
Baixar livros de Matemática
Baixar livros de Medicina
Baixar livros de Medicina Veterinária
Baixar livros de Meio Ambiente
Baixar livros de Meteorologia
Baixar Monografias e TCC
Baixar livros Multidisciplinar
Baixar livros de Música
Baixar livros de Psicologia
Baixar livros de Química
Baixar livros de Saúde Coletiva
Baixar livros de Serviço Social
Baixar livros de Sociologia
Baixar livros de Teologia
Baixar livros de Trabalho
Baixar livros de Turismo