25.04.2013 Views

Picture - Cosmic Polymath

Picture - Cosmic Polymath

Picture - Cosmic Polymath

SHOW MORE
SHOW LESS

Create successful ePaper yourself

Turn your PDF publications into a flip-book with our unique Google optimized e-Paper software.

246 DESIGN IN NATURE<br />

§ 49. Effect of <strong>Cosmic</strong> Changes on Plants and Animals.<br />

Considering the intimate relation which obtains between the organic and inorganic kingdoms—between plants<br />

and animals on the one hand, and the elements composing them, and circulating within them, on the other— it<br />

follows that plants and animals are more or less influenced by their surroundings and by cosmic changes, such as<br />

Ught and darkness ; day and night ; the seasons ; heat and cold ; moisture and dryness ; absence or presence<br />

of electricity in the atmosphere, &c.<br />

Plants, on the whole, are more susceptible to cosmic changes than animals, from the fact that their affinities<br />

with the inorganic kingdom are closer, and more pronounced. This follows, because they are, with few exceptions,<br />

fixed to the earth and dependent, in a great measure, for their food on their immediate surroundings.<br />

The extent to which the cosmic changes referred to influence plants and animals is, in every instance, limited.<br />

The changes in question affect plants and animals most in a state of domestication. Wild plants and animals<br />

are comparatively httle influenced by them.<br />

That cosmic changes and environment do not essentially alter the forms and functions of plants and animals<br />

is proved in two ways :<br />

(a.) Plants and animals, varieties of which have been obtained by man's selection and fostering care, revert<br />

to their originals if left to themselves. Thus the several cultivated grains and vegetables, if allowed to run wild,<br />

degenerate and breed back. The same may be said of animals : the endless varieties of pigeons, if uncared for,<br />

all revert to the blue rock pigeon.<br />

(b.) Animals have not perceptibly changed during the historical period. Thus man has had the same external<br />

configuration and traits of character for at least five or six thousand years. Egyptian tombs some five thousand<br />

years old display drawings of the five leading races of man as recognised at the present day. They also give repre-<br />

sentations of a large number of domestic and other animals, which are the same now as they were in the days of the<br />

Pharaohs, and in the remote past.^<br />

If we go back to geological records, we find foraminifera in all respects similar to those existing at present,<br />

which hved at an inconceivably earher period, and long before the appearance on the earth of fishes, reptiles, birds,<br />

and animals.<br />

Sir J. William Dawson, when speaking of the origin of specific types and varieties and the external conditions<br />

favourable to their production, and when discussing the question as to " whether the conditions favourable to the<br />

appearance of new varieties were also those favourable to the creation of new types or the reverse," says : " In the<br />

present state of our knowledge we have no good ground either to limit the number of specific types beyond what<br />

a fair study of our material may warrant, or to infer that such primitive types must necessarily have been of low<br />

grade, or that progress in varietal forms has always been upward. The occurrence of such an advanced and<br />

specialised type as that of Dadoxylon in the Middle Devonian should guard us against these errors. The creative<br />

process may have been applicable to the highest as well as to the lowest forms, and subsequent deviations must have<br />

included degradation as well as elevation. I can conceive nothing more unreasonable than the statement some-<br />

times made that it is illogical or even absurd to suppose that highly organised beings could have been produced except<br />

by derivation from previously existing organisms. This is begging the whole question at issue. . . .<br />

" There is no reason to believe that any specific cJuinge has occurred in any plant within the Pleistocene or modern<br />

period." '^<br />

In an address delivered to the biological section of the British Association, Mr. Carruthers has discussed this<br />

' As archaiological research is prosecuted, and our knowledge advances, it becomes more and more evident that civilisation and art in Egypt<br />

are considerably older than was suspected even a few years ago. It is now believed that man was in a forward state of civilisation as far back as<br />

9000 years arjn. To Professor Flinders Petrie the discoveries establishing this fact are mainly due. Many other distinguished investigators have<br />

contributed their quota, among whom may be mentioned 11. Capart, who has written an interesting work 011 " Primitive Art in Egypt."<br />

M. Capart in his volume shows that Egyptian art is indigenous, and was not greatly affected by outside influences. He says that recently-<br />

reveaiea revealed eaiaor eailier sn'aia sti-ata exmniia exhiliita praciicajiy practically coiunmous continuous series 01 of ornamental utensils and suulptnrert sculptured nioiinnieiits nionunients connecting the A'eolithic Neolithic a; age with<br />

Pliaraoiiic times. He observes that the Hints of Egyiit were of exceptionally fine workmanshiij, that art is of immemorial antiquity 1in<br />

that<br />

ancient laud, and that the earliest liiids were linked by continuity of style with the latest. The objects of which M. Capart's work tre reats are<br />

ascribed to dates lying between 7000 ii.c.<br />

- .,<br />

town of Abydos.<br />

and .'fOOO B.C.. and the first dynasty is<br />

„ supposed to have been found in Petrie's excavations ., 1. of thi the small<br />

The following abstract has reference to a work, "The Egyjitians in Egypt," by Professor Flindei-s Petrie : " Far back in pre-historic times the<br />

savage who wandered over the wild desert mountains of Sinai picked up little scraps of sky-blue stone which pleased liis fancy. These were<br />

doubtless preserved 1)y being stuck into holes in his weajions and objects of wood, as the Bedawin do now ; and these decorated things were<br />

traded over into Egyi)t. The pre-historic man of Egypt demanded more, and a trade in turquoise sprang up, and provided the turquoise beads<br />

which were treasured for necklaces in the Nile Valley abotU elglit tlumsand years ago. The primitive workers doubtless extracted the stones from<br />

the sandstone rock by means of the flint-scrapers, such as arc found by hundreds in the old mine-heaps. When Egypt passed into the settled form<br />

of unifled govenmient, under the dynasties, the early kings would not leave this supply of jewels unclaimed. So in Sinai, as far back as about<br />

JfSOO n.c. there are figures of the Egyptian king smiting the natives, and of the general who headed the expedition. These are the oldest<br />

sculptures known. Several such scenes of triumph were carved by later kings, especially those of the pyramid period, as Seneferu, about AOOO B.C."<br />

^ •• The Geological History of Plants." Science Series, Loiid(m, 1888.

Hooray! Your file is uploaded and ready to be published.

Saved successfully!

Ooh no, something went wrong!