| → be fatal to my view if 1866 |
| likewise be fatal to my view if 1869 |
| likewise be fatal, if the above 1872 |
|
| → Brachiopods 1866 1869 |
| the above Brachiopods 1872 |
|
| → their changing conditions of life. 1866 |
| the changing conditions of life. 1869 |
| slight changes in their conditions. 1872 |
|
| → have any sufficient knowledge of the antiquity of 1866 |
| really know how old 1869 1872 |
|
| → and of the periods when 1866 |
| is, and at what periods 1869 |
| is, and at what period 1872 |
|
| → whether organisation on the whole has advanced is 1866 1869 1872 |
| is 1861 |
|
| → as I believe, 1861 1866 1869 |
| OMIT 1872 |
|
| → are 1861 1866 1869 |
| ought to be ranked as 1872 |
|
| → to be ranked as highest: 1866 1869 |
| highest: 1861 1872 |
|
|
objections as the above would be fatal to
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
for
this
there would not have been time sufficient for the development of these organisms up to the standard which they
then reached. When
advanced up to any given point, there is no
on the theory of natural
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.
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
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
from their approach in some important points of structure to
as the highest fish; others look at the teleosteans as the highest. The ganoids stand
between the selaceans and teleosteans; the latter at the present day are largely preponderant in number; but formerly selaceans and ganoids alone existed; and in this case, according to the standard of highness chosen, so will it be said that fishes have
|
