Create successful ePaper yourself
Turn your PDF publications into a flip-book with our unique Google optimized e-Paper software.
PROFESSOR HUXLEY'S VIEWS ON EVOLUTION 213<br />
and fauna. It is easy to conceive of one great creative act confined to one period (that period being practically<br />
illimitable), but consisting of successive stages. The stages, in this case, represent<br />
virtually separate creations. If the element of time be granted, it is equally easy to<br />
regard the separate smaller creations as part of one great creation. Creation is<br />
essentially a progressive work. It is a continuous adaptation of the organic and<br />
inorganic kingdoms to each other in a million different ways throughout an incon-<br />
ceivably great period of time, and these adaptations are unfolded by geology as seen<br />
in the rocks and in the fossil flora and fauna imbedded and preserved in them. The<br />
ancient flora and fauna are strikingly represented in the geologic period. The types<br />
are less numerous than in the modern flora and fauna, but they are equally represen-<br />
tative. Successive adaptations of plants and animals to altered circumstances are<br />
practically successive creations, provided an intelligent Creator with unlimited power<br />
and unhmited time at His disposal are conceded. The real difficulty arises when such<br />
a Creator is denied, and when plants and animals are said to be the product of spon-<br />
taneous generation, and to create and modify themselves indefinitely at the bidding<br />
of environment and under the influence of external stimulation.<br />
The descent of the bird from the reptile, and the horse from a five-toed mammal,<br />
as argued by Professor Huxley, is by no means proved. The argument hinges chiefly<br />
on the modifications in limbs and teeth, particularly the former. Some ancient fossil<br />
birds, he avers, possess teeth and elongated tails, and the wings have free digits with<br />
claws. The legs and feet of birds are supposed to resemble those of the extinct<br />
terrestrial reptile Ornithoscelida, which bear a hkeness to those of the modern crocodile.<br />
The pelvis of the bird and reptile have also, according to Huxley, some features in<br />
common. The resemblances are comparatively few in number, and insignificant when<br />
contrasted with the numerous and important differences. The resemblances, such as<br />
they are, I venture to assert are due not to evolution, but to original endowment<br />
necessitated by the exigencies of their mode of life, occasioned by the nature of the<br />
media on and in which they are to hve and move.<br />
Fig. 37.—Bones of the wing of<br />
The old-world fossil bird, sometimes spoken of as the bird-reptile, is commonly the FterodaatyHScaphog^mtlms eras-<br />
known as the Arch^opteryx. ' I fxmdsh a careful restoration of it by C. Berjeau and Zt tt\:'conS"?hht-d fourth<br />
mvseif . The restoration brings into strong relief the more salient features of this most digits of the hand are aborted and<br />
, , . , , . r ,-r-,. o/-\ terminate in claws, and that the<br />
anomalous and mterestmg form (Fig. 36). Afth digit is thickened and enor-<br />
Only a few specimens of the Archseopteryx have as yet been discovered. T'he mously elongated for the imrpose of<br />
.. , i-i-ii_ei-i.i i-i j: supporting and carrying the flying<br />
two most perfect specimens known were found in the tme hthographic stone ot membrane which constitutes the<br />
Solenhofen in Bavaria. One of these (that first discovered) is preserved in the Natural ^ssential part of the wing as far as<br />
.. ,<br />
, p. night IS concerned (after JNichol-<br />
History Department of the British Museum, London; the other and more perfect son and Lydeker).<br />
specimen of the two (Arch/popteryx siemensi), which is that restored, has been assigned<br />
/ju;rf/y^''/^nji<br />
Tig. 38.—Right wing of the bat ( Vesjicrlilio murinus). Shows how the<br />
bones of the arm, leg, and tail all take part in supporting the flying<br />
membrane. The first digit of the hand is aborted and terminates in a<br />
hook ; the remaining three digits being gi'eatly elongated, and tapering<br />
to a point to give elasticity to the wing. Drawn by C. Berjeau for the<br />
Author, from a specimen in his private collection.<br />
a place in the Museum at Berlin. The Archseopteryx<br />
was the size of a large pigeon, had a short head, and<br />
probably no beak. Its jaws were furnished with small<br />
teeth. Both wings had three fingers, each armed with<br />
a claw. The legs, which resemble those of hving birds,<br />
had four toes, also armed with claws. The claws on<br />
the fingers and toes were probably employed in clinging<br />
to the bark of trees, where the bird found larvae and<br />
other food. The wings, thighs, and body were covered<br />
with feathers, and there can be little doubt the bird<br />
could fly. The tail was pecuhar. It was osseous and<br />
much elongated, and consisted of a diminishing series<br />
of vertebrae, with feathers arranged on either side of<br />
it like a palm leaf.<br />
The proof of the descent of the Archaeopteryx from<br />
the reptile, it will be seen, is by no means strong or<br />
striking, being confined to the presence of small teeth in the jaws, a phenomenally long bony tail, and two wings,<br />
each having three fingers terminating in as many claws.