Origin of Species Variorum

Comparison with 1869

Text in this page (from paragraph 3700, sentence 400, word 1 to paragraph 3700, sentence 400, word 57) is not present in 1869

So that by this fundamental test of victory in the battle for life, as well as by the standard of the specialisation of organs, modern forms ought on the theory of natural selection to stand higher than ancient forms. Is this the case? A large majority of palæontologists would .. answer in the affirmative; and I suppose that the answer must be admitted as true, though difficult of full proof. ↑

It is no valid objection to this conclusion or to the general belief that species in the course of time change, that certain Brachiopods have been but slightly modified from an extremely remote geological period, although no explanation can be given of this fact. It is not an insuperable difficulty that Foraminifera have not progressed in organisation, as insisted on by Dr. Carpenter, since that most ancient of all epochs the Laurentian formation of Canada; for some organisms would have to remain fitted for simple conditions of life, and what better for this end than these lowly organised Protozoa? It is no great difficulty that fresh-water shells, as Professor Phillips has remarked, have remained almost unaltered from the time when they first appeared to the present day; but in this case we can see that these shells will have been subjected to less severe competition than the molluses which inhabit the far more extensive area of the sea with its innumerable inhabitants. Such objections as the above would be fatal to any view which included advance in organisation as a necessary contingent. They would be fatal to my view if Foraminifera, for instance, could be proved to have first come into existence during the Laurentian epoch, or Brachiopods during the lower Silurian formations; for if this were proved, there would not have been time sufficient for the development of these organisms up to the standard which they had then reached. When once advanced up to any given point, there is no necessity on the theory of natural selection for their further continued progress; though they will, during each successive age, have to be slightly modified, so as to hold their places in relation to their changing conditions of life. All such objections hinge on the question whether we have any sufficient knowledge of the antiquity of the world and of the periods when the various forms of life first appeared; and this may be boldly disputed.

The problem whether organisation on the whole has advanced is in many ways excessively intricate. The geological record, at all times imperfect, does not extend far enough back, as I believe, to show with unmistakeable clearness that within the known history of the world organisation has largely advanced. Even at the present day, looking to members of the same class, naturalists are not unanimous which forms are to be ranked as highest: thus, some look at the selaceans or sharks, from their approach in some important points of structure to reptiles, as the highest fish; others look at the teleosteans as the highest. The ganoids stand in- termediate between the selaceans and teleosteans; the latter at the present day are largely preponderant in

If under a nearly similar climate the eocene inhabitants of one quarter of the world were put into competition with the existing inhabitants of the same or some other quarter, the eocene fauna or flora would certainly be beaten and exterminated, as would a secondary fauna by an eocene, and a palæozoic fauna by a secondary fauna. So that by this fundamental test of victory in the battle for life, as well as by the standard of the specialisation of organs, modern forms ought on the theory of natural selection to stand higher than ancient forms. Is this the case? A large majority of palæontologists would certainly answer in the affirmative; but in my judgment I can, after having read the discussions on this subject by Lyell, and Hooker's views in regard to plants, concur only to a limited extent. Nevertheless it may be anticipated that the evidence will be rendered more decisive by future geological research. ↑ ↑ ↑

The problem is in many ways excessively intricate. The geological record, at all times imperfect, does not extend far enough back, as I believe, to show with unmistakeable clearness that within the known history of the world organisation has largely advanced. Even at the present day, looking to members of the same class, naturalists are not unanimous which forms are highest: thus, some look at the selaceans or sharks from their approach in some important points of structure to reptiles as the highest fish; others look at the teleosteans as the highest. The ganoids stand intermediate between the selaceans and teleosteans; the latter at the present day are largely preponderant in