Origin of Species Variorum

Comparison with 1869

that certain Brachiopods have been but slightly modified from an extremely remote geological epoch. 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 likewise 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 .. 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 the changing conditions of life. All such objections hinge on the question whether we have any sufficient knowledge of the antiquity of the world is, and at what periods the various forms of life first appeared; and this may be disputed.

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 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 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 advanced or retrograded in organisation. To attempt to compare in the scale of highness members of distinct types seemed hopeless: who will decide whether a cuttlefish be higher than a bee— that insect which the great Von Baer believed to be "in fact more highly organised than a fish, although upon another type"? In the complex struggle for life it is quite credible that crustaceans, for instance, not very high

that certain Brachiopods have been but slightly modified from an extremely remote geological epoch; and that certain land and fresh-water shells have remained nearly the same, from the time when, as far as is known, they first appeared. It is not an insuperable difficulty that Foraminifera have not, ... as insisted on by Dr. Carpenter, progressed in organisation since even the Laurentian epoch; for some organisms would have to remain fitted for simple conditions of life, and what could be better fitted for this end than these lowly organised Protozoa? ↑ Such objections as the above would be fatal to my view, if it included advance in organisation as a necessary contingent. They would likewise be fatal, if the above Foraminifera, for instance, could be proved to have first come into existence during the Laurentian epoch, or the above Brachiopods during the Cambrian formation; for in this case, there would not have been time sufficient for the development of these organisms up to the standard which they had then reached. When .. 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 slight changes in their conditions. The foregoing objections hinge on the question whether we really know how old the world is, and at what period the various forms of life first appeared; and this may well be 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, ... 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 ought 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 intermediate 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 advanced or retrograded in organisation. To attempt to compare members of distinct types in the scale of highness seems hopeless; who will decide whether a cuttle-fish be higher than a bee— that insect which the great Von Baer believed to be "in fact more highly organised than a fish, although upon another type"? In the complex struggle for life it is quite credible that crustaceans, .. not very high