Now to what conclusion does the sum of the evidence at present in our possession point? It cannot be denied that, as regards animals, the Protozoa are those of which we have the earliest evidence, in the Eozoon Canadense of the Laurentian rocks, if that primæval fossil be of organic origin. Whether the Coelenterata, Echinodermata, Mollusca, or Crustacea first appeared we have no evidence to show, as it is extremely improbable that the Eozoon was the solitary inhabitant of the seas during the Laurentian period. Known facts are in favour of the Annulosa appearing before either of the other great groups; whereas, according to the successive development theory, they ought to have appeared in the order in which they have been mentioned. But this evidence is purely negative, and therefore of little or no value. As regards the Vertebrata it is certain that we are cognizant of Fishes older than any Amphibia, and these again are older than any known Reptiles. The oldest true Reptile is probably Triassic, and thus older than either Birds or Mammals; but with regard to the order of appearance of these two classes, we meet with the same difficulty as before. Now the Vertebrata as a whole form a group of equal value with the Mollusca, Annulosa, &c., and should consequently be compared as a whole with the latter, not, as is usual, in four or five separate groups. From this point of view we should find that the present state of our knowledge lends very little countenance to the theory of uniform progression of animal life in time; and if we base our comparison on groups of smaller value the general result is much the same; for, as was shown by Professor Huxley, "if the known geological record is to be regarded as even any considerable fragment of the whole, it is inconceivable that any theory of a necessarily progressive development can stand, for the numerous families and orders cited afford no trace of such a process. Nevertheless Sir Charles Lyell remarks, "It would be an easy task to multiply objections to the theory now under consideration; but from this I refrain, as I regard it not only as a useful, but rather, in the present state of science, as an indispensable hypothesis, and one which, though destined hereafter to undergo many and great modifications, will never be overthrown."†

This conviction was probably produced by the necessity which Sir Charles Lyell felt of abandoning his old opposition to the theory of the transmutation of species after carefully weighing Mr. Darwin's theory of Natural Selection. Sir Charles Lyell appears to think that there is a necessary and direct connection between these theories; but, on our part, we cannot see why a naturalist may not be an advocate for "descent with modification," and still refuse to accept the theory of progressive development. It is therefore rather surprising to read in the concluding sentences of Chapter XX. of the † Antiquity of Man,' p. 405.

* Ann. Address Geol. Soc.,' 1862.

6

Antiquity of Man,' an attempt to account for the apparent paradox, "that writers who are most in favour of transmutation are nevertheless among those who are most cautious, and one would say timid, in their mode of espousing the doctrine of progression; while, on the other hand, the most zealous advocates of progression are oftener than not very vehement opponents of transmutation. Sir Charles endeavours to explain it by the belief of the former in the incompleteness of the geological record, and of the latter in its completeness; but it appears to us that there is a great deal more in the caution of the Darwinian than is dreamt of even in Sir Charles Lyell's philosophy.

So long as the doctrine of " transmutation of species" possessed only the old and crude form given to it by Lamarck, and so clearly illustrated by the author of the Vestiges,' Sir Charles Lyell attacked it with considerable vehemence. But a careful consideration of the theory of Natural Selection, and frequent conversations with Mr. Darwin on the subject, have had the effect we should have anticipated on the opinions of so thorough a master of the mode in which the causes of change operate. The principle involved in Mr. Darwin's hypothesis is one congenial to the mind of the author of the 'Principles.' A cause producing a small effect, which becomes greater and greater in the course of ages by successive repetitions, is one of all others most calculated to enlist the sympathies and charm the mind of the man who has for thirty-six years been endeavouring to establish the self-same idea in its application to inorganic nature. So we were not surprised to find Sir Charles Lyell, in the Antiquity of Man,' bringing to bear the vast and varied mass of information at his command in favour of the probability of the new doctrine. We were disappointed at not finding more light thrown on it from a geological point of view; but this defect will no doubt be remedied in the forthcoming edition of the 'Principles,' and is to a great extent compensated by some beautifully conceived arguments drawn from the analogy supplied by other fields of inquiry.

It is not now our intention to discuss the theory of descent with modification, that has very recently been done in this Journal ;* but we shall examine two or three of Sir Charles Lyell's arguments in its favour, not so much on account of their illustrating the theory itself, as because they throw light on the nature of the predominating feature in the mental constitution of Sir Charles Lyell himself,--an object which we have had in view throughout this review of his labours.

Perhaps the most remarkable of these arguments is that drawn from the very clever comparison of a natural history species to a language, and consequently of Mr. Darwin's theory to the Aryan

*No. 10, April, 1866, pp. 151-176.

hypothesis. Considering that the Antiquity of Man' was written for the educated public, not specially for naturalists, it scarcely seems possible to conceive of a comparison better calculated to bring home to the understanding a proper appreciation of the aim and scope of the theory of "descent with modification." Professor Max Müller has observed, "That if we knew nothing of the existence of Latin, if all historical documents previous to the fifteenth century had been lost, if tradition even was silent as to the former existence of a Roman empire, a mere comparison of the Italian, Spanish, Portuguese, French, Wallachian, and Rhotian dialects would enable us to say that at some time there must have been a language from which these six modern dialects derive their origin in common." Further, "Latin itself, as well as Greek, Sanskrit, Zend (or Bactrian), Lithuanian, old Sclavonic, Gothic, and Armenian are also eight varieties of one common and more ancient type, and have all such an amount of mutual resemblance, as to point to a more ancient language, the Aryan, which was to them what Latin was to the six Romance languages."* Now if we substitute for the names of these various languages the designations of allied species of animals or plants, having similar chronological relations, and if for the words "dialect" and "language" we substitute "species" and "variety," and so on, we have in - these sentences a correct exposition of the doctrine of transmutation as applied to certain particular cases. The analogy is complete.

But this is not all: Sir Charles Lyell shows that the objections which would naturally be made by an illiterate person to the Aryan hypothesis are precisely parallel to those often made to Mr. Darwin's theory; e. g. "We all speak as our parents and grandparents spoke before us," &c. Then there is the same difficulty about the definitions of terms as in Natural History; for instance, "If this theory of indefinite modifiability be sound, what meaning can be attached to the term language, and what definition can be given of it so as to distinguish a language from a dialect?" We need not follow the comparison further; sufficient has been quoted to show the parallelism of the two cases, and the skill with which Sir Charles Lyell has brought into relief those points of the Aryan hypothesis which bear the most striking similarity to the theory of Mr. Darwin.

In conclusion, we must refer to Sir Charles Lyell's treatment of the charge of Darwinism being inconsistent with the existence of a Creator and the immortality of the soul. A reviewer asks, if there was a transition from the instinct of the brute to the noble mind of man, "at what point of his progressive improvement did Man acquire the spiritual part of his body, and become endowed with the awful attribute of immortality?" Sir Charles Lyell appeals Antiquity of Man, pp. 454, 455. Antiquity of Man,' p. 502. VOL. IV.

་

C

us;

to "analogous enigmas in the constitution of the world around for instance, the transitions between those "who are doomed to helpless imbecility" and the half-witted, "and from these again to individuals of perfect understanding." Again, "one-fourth of the human race die in early infancy, nearly one-tenth before they are a month old; so that we may safely affirm that millions perish on the earth in every century in the first few hours of their existence. To assign to such individuals their appropriate psychological place in the creation is one of the unprofitable themes on which theologians and metaphysicians have expended much ingenious speculation."

Nothing can be more illogical than to reject a theory which explains much that was never explained before, because it creates a difficulty similar to that experienced in every department of human knowledge where the method of gradation can be applied. If Darwinism were to fall by such a blow, what scientific or theological system could stand? Sir Charles Lyell, therefore, accepts the philosophic dictum that "whatever is, is right," and he agrees with Dr. Asa Gray, as most assuredly do we, that "to do any work by an instrument must require, and therefore presuppose, the exertion rather of more than of less power, than to do it directly."*

In this review of Sir Charles Lyell's services to Geology we have omitted all notice of his numerous minor publications. We have endeavoured to select those of his works which exhibit his difference from the great mass of geologists; and we have neglected entirely those original essays which with him, as with everyone else, are simply the result of hard work and careful observation. Perhaps no geologist who has addressed himself so exclusively to the inorganic portion of the science has so much faith in the present value of paleontology, or so high an anticipation of its future destiny. His love of speculation is apparent in all his works, and was noticed by Dr. Fitton thirty years ago; but to whatever extent and in whatever direction Sir Charles Lyell may speculate in searching for the causes of phenomena, he never allows his speculative faculty to carry him beyond the bounds prescribed by analogy. Thus, all the hypothetical views which he has either propounded or advocated are based upon, or supported by, the analogy of similar phenomena in other departments of human knowledge, if nothing comparable with them is known in geology. Another test of the truth of any view, to which he frequently resorts, is what logicians call" antecedent probability," as is especially seen in his opposition to the theory of "craters of elevation."

Sir Charles Lyell, as we have sketched him, we consider to be the Founder of Modern Geology; not in the sense of usurping the

* Natural Selection not inconsistent with Natural Theology,' p. 55.

laurels of Hutton, though much that Hutton believed was unsound, and what was philosophical was not generally received until Sir Charles Lyell proved its merit. Nor do we compare him with the great field-geologists; his mind is too restless in its hankering after the interpretation of ancient hieroglyphics to be satisfied with hoarding a mass of unread inscriptions. But we look upon him as the Founder of Modern Geology in the sense of his being the man who first clearly defined the principles of geological investigation, and who has lent additional lustre to his system by himself leading the way in the application of his precepts. The Principles of Geology' are now to his followers "familiar in their mouths as household words," and they look forward into the future for the 'Principles of Palæontology,' trusting that it may produce as great a revolution in the development of the offspring, as Sir Charles Lyell caused so long ago in that of the parent.

II. ON THE IGNIGENOUS ROCKS NEAR MONTBRISON. (With reference to the Antiquity of the Volcanos of Central

France.)

By CHARLES DAUBENY, M.D., F.R.S., Professor of Botany at the University of Oxford.

IN the April number of the Quarterly Journal of Science' for 1866 will be found a memoir of mine, "On the Antiquity of the Volcanos of Auvergne," in which, in opposition to the late Sir Francis Palgrave and to certain divines who had followed in his footsteps and adopted his views, it was attempted to show, that even the latest of the eruptions proceeding from these mountains must date from a period antecedent both to history and tradition.

But as it must at the same time be conceded, on the testimony of two bishops whose writings have come down to us, namely Sidonius Apollinaris and Alcimus Avitus, that during the fourth century after Christ, certain physical commotions took place in the neighbourhood of Vienne in France, which were of a nature sufficiently formidable to suggest the offering up of public prayers, and even the institution of the Rogation-days, set apart ever since in the Church for divine worship, those who denied the recent date of the volcanic eruptions in that neighbourhood were called upon to show, that there are no vestiges of the kind round about the city of Vienne, which might by possibility be referred to a period comparatively so modern as the one alluded to.

I therefore pointed out in the above memoir, not only that, so far as is known, volcanos are entirely absent from the immediate