Vestiges of the Natural History of Creation With a Sequel

XQH363C41854 118

218 ~X 'PLAN A 'l' W.N S . d ·nO' the statement ~pC>n fossiliferous forn:tahon; groun 1 0 bl' bed about eleven Sir Henry de la Beche~s Mat~ualitPfn ~sfoot-note, my re­years ago, and contrasting with h·' h vertebrata as yet mark, "Neither fishes I_l0 r al~l 1 !? ~fhe fact is, that this r0amed through the manne WI c ~· minent philosophical last critic-understood tohb~ a yeiy ~he publication of De writer, \;as not ar~~e : ~~rS}~~silifei'OUS rocks had been la Beebe s Manua ' ~ ~ . . f in the lowest of ._ div~ded ~nt~ several d~st~~tc~fo\~:r~o~;e no vertebrata. which, It Is. fu~ly a:~ ec~lled the Literary and Philo­Mer~ than th_ts shll: a. 0 .Y 1 had brought before thern soph1cal Society of Livel Pt~o \''lhich one of their mem­( January, 1845) a.~~t ?~le e~: to my book from several bers had d_rawn ~~O'isrt: ~~erhe day. We there find ~r. of the ch~ef geo hearsa that I represented fish begin­L. yell.stahng upon . YMurchison speaking of me as nin~ I~ the .coal, an: ~~ ~nd olypiaria alone; statements, beginning With zoop Y . Ptl most erroneous impres- I d l rdlv say cenvey1no- 1e . nee la .J ' b 1 This however, is not the Im- sion~ regar~1~g t~~ 0t~~ gentle'men here named will be mlledt~t~ foo~~a~d inl~he very first rank as geolog.ists. Thheyd a owe 11 · dustry and un1mpeac e are able !?en, of ~larve o~~ l~everth'eless, in the corre-zeal for SCience. . f~ese m oi~tinO' o-ive entirely opposite spondence to wh1ch . ~m P for~~ti'on. Mr. Murchison views of the first fossiliferous d · 1 has been found says, " No tra~e o~ a verkeb;:ateM;nL~:n say~," The fact in the lower S1lunan roc s. · · · e meet with that, with the _earves;. typ~ ~f ~~1:~}~~%o~~~g explained verteb~ated an1ma s, d 1 .~e_ smy book, is confirmed and ~x­away since I affirm~d 1 In, The very latest affirmation tended hy fres~ ev~ ~1~e. Mr Murchison-an affirma­w ·e have on this pol~ . IO·mS.lurlan rocks in Russia, where tion made after examimng 1 t d . vast extent-cont ai· ns these words: they are presen e In h 1 t of the vertebrata in the '' The absence of even t e owes l . h ·s total so far inferior Silurian rocks-ahn absence·~~ ~tg:olo(J'ist~ in all as can b e I· n De r red fron.. l t eth r e~eaar true ProtozOqi c c h arac-parts of the world-~ IVPS le~ . themselves. The only ter "* These extracts spea { OI. • •. ino- circum-thi~ 1g calling for furtherdremal~{ ~~~gh~~~~p~~·~ught before stance of this correspon ence av . . " 1 . Report of Bnbsh ~~ -1 Abstract of a paper l)y Mr. Murc uson, aociation of 1844, page 54· LOWER SILURIAN FOSSILS 219 a learned society as wholly and nothing else but a con· demnation of the Vestiges !* A leading objection, with regard to the first fossiliferous formation (Lower Silurian) is, that it does not solely pr&­sent animals of the lowest sub-kingdom, as corals and encrinites, but also examples of the two next higher sub­kingdoms, the articulata and mollusca, some of the latter being of the highest order, the cephalopods. The latter particular is \Vhat is chiefly insisted upon. At the time when I wrote, it was understood that the hig-hest orders of mollusca were not found in the first fos­siliferous rocks. Professor Phillips, in 1839 (Treatise on Geology,) said, expressly, with regard to what was then called the Clay-slate and Grawacke system, "No gastero­pods or cephalopods are as yet mentioned in these rocks In Britain; and we do not feel sufficiently acquainted with the geological age of the limestones of the Hartz to introduce any of the fossils of that argillaceous range of mountains." So much as a justification of the view given of the Clay-slate fossils in my first edition. Since then, this formation, as it exists in England, has been found to contain gasteropods and cephalopods, though not of such high forms as afterwards appeared. I might here repeat what was remarked in the later editions of the Vest·iges, ._Even though the cephalopoda could be shown as per­vading all the lowest fossiliferous strata, 'vhat more would the fact denote than that, in the first seas capable of con­taining any kind of animal life, the cr.eative energy ad­vanced it, in the space of one formation (no one can tell how long a time this might be,) to the highest forms pos­sible in that element, excepting such as were of verte­brate stru~ture." I might add, that this was no great advance in comparison with the whole line of the animal kingdom, if we may take as a criterion on this point the analogous progress of an embryo of the highest animals, as the portion of that progress representing the organiza­tion of the invertebrated animals is only the first month. I might here also revert to the book for some views with respect to the space required for such a development. According to the plan of animated nature, to which I have made approa~hes in the later editions, we have not • ¥- ~e Examination of the theory contained in Vestiges of the A. Natural History of Creation. By the Rev. A. Hume. Liverpool, Whitby, 1846.