The Ancient Life History of the Earth Part 3

_palaios_, ancient; _zoe_, life). Not only do they const.i.tute the oldest stratified acc.u.mulations, but from the extreme divergence between their animals and plants and those now in existence, they may appropriately be considered as belonging to an "Old-Life" period of the world's history. The Tria.s.sic, Jura.s.sic, and Cretaceous systems are grouped together as the _Secondary_ or _Mesozoic_ formations (Gr. _mesos_, intermediate; _zoe_, life); the organic remains of this "Middle-Life" period being, on the whole, intermediate in their characters between those of the palaeozoic epoch and those of more modern strata. Lastly, the Eocene, Miocene, and Pliocene formations are grouped together as the _Tertiary_ or _Kainozoic_ rocks (Gr. _kainos_, new; _zoe_, life); because they const.i.tute a "New-Life" period, in which the organic remains approximate in character to those now existing upon the globe. The so-called _Post-Tertiary_ deposits are placed with the Kainozoic, or may be considered as forming a separate _Quaternary_ system.

CHAPTER IV.

THE BREAKS IN THE GEOLOGICAL AND PALaeONTOLOGICAL RECORD.

The term "contemporaneous" is usually applied by geologists to groups of strata in different regions which contain the same fossils, or an a.s.semblage of fossils in which many identical forms are present. That is to say, beds which contain identical, or nearly identical, fossils, however widely separated they may be from one another in point of actual distance, are ordinarily believed to have been deposited during the same period of the earth's history. This belief, indeed, const.i.tutes the keystone of the entire system of determining the age of strata by their fossil contents; and if we take the word "contemporaneous" in a general and strictly geological sense, this belief can be accepted as proved beyond denial. We must, however, guard ourselves against too literal an interpretation of the word "contemporaneous,"

and we must bear in mind the enormously-prolonged periods of time with which the geologist has to deal. When we say that two groups of strata in different regions are "contemporaneous," we simply mean that they were formed during the same geological period, and perhaps at different stages of that period, and we do not mean to imply that they were formed at precisely the same instant of time.

A moment's consideration will show us that it is only in the former sense that we can properly speak of strata being "contemporaneous;"

and that, in point of fact, beds containing the same fossils, if occurring in widely distant areas, can hardly be "contemporaneous"

in any literal sense; but that the very ident.i.ty of their fossils is proof that they were deposited one after the other. If we find strata containing identical fossils within the limits of a single geographical region--say in Europe--then there is a reasonable probability that these beds are strictly contemporaneous, in the sense that they were deposited at the same time. There is a reasonable probability of this, because there is no improbability involved in the idea of an ocean occupying the whole area of Europe, and peopled throughout by many of the same species of marine animals. At the present day, for example, many identical species of animals are found living on the western coasts of Britain and the eastern coasts of North America, and beds now in course of deposition off the sh.o.r.es of Ireland and the seaboard of the state of New York would necessarily contain many of the same fossils. Such beds would be both literally and geologically contemporaneous; but the case is different if the distance between the areas where the strata occur be greatly increased. We find, for example, beds containing identical fossils (the Quebec or Skiddaw beds) in Sweden, in the north of England, in Canada, and in Australia. Now, if all these beds were contemporaneous, in the literal sense of the term, we should have to suppose that the ocean at one time extended uninterruptedly between all these points, and was peopled throughout the vast area thus indicated by many of the same animals. Nothing, however, that we see at the present day would justify us in imagining an ocean of such enormous extent, and at the same time so uniform in its depth, temperature, and other conditions of marine life, as to allow the same animals to flourish in it from end to end; and the example chosen is only one of a long and ever-recurring series. It is therefore much more reasonable to explain this, and all similar cases, as owing to the _migration_ of the fauna, in whole or in part, from one marine area to another. Thus, we may suppose an ocean to cover what is now the European area, and to be peopled by certain species of animals. Beds of sediment--clay, sands, and limestones--will be deposited over the sea-bottom, and will entomb the remains of the animals as fossils. After this has lasted for a certain length of time, the European area may undergo elevation, or may become otherwise unsuitable for the perpetuation of its fauna; the result of which would be that some or all of the marine animals of the area would migrate to some more suitable region. Sediments would then be acc.u.mulated in the new area to which they had betaken themselves, and they would then appear, for the second time, as fossils in a set of beds widely separated from Europe. The second set of beds would, however, obviously not be strictly or literally contemporaneous with the first, but would be separated from them by the period of time required for the migration of the animals from the one area into the other.

It is only in a wide and comprehensive sense that such strata can be said to be contemporaneous.

It is impossible to enter further into this subject here; but it may be taken as certain that beds in widely remote geographical areas can only come to contain the same fossils by reason of a migration having taken place of the animals of the one area to the other. That such migrations can and do take place is quite certain, and this is a much more reasonable explanation of the observed facts than the hypothesis that in former periods the conditions of life were much more uniform than they are at present, and that, consequently, the same organisms were able to range over the entire globe at the same time. It need only be added, that taking the evidence of the present as explaining the phenomena of the past--the only safe method of reasoning in geological matters--we have abundant proof that deposits which _are_ actually contemporaneous, in the strict sense of the term, _do not contain the same fossils, if far removed from one another in point of distance_. Thus, deposits of various kinds are now in process of formation in our existing seas, as, for example, in the Arctic Ocean, the Atlantic, and the Pacific, and many of these deposits are known to us by actual examination and observation with the sounding-lead and dredge. But it is hardly necessary to add that the animal remains contained in these deposits--the fossils of some future period--instead of being identical, are widely different from one another in their characters.

We have seen, then, that the entire stratified series is capable of subdivision into a number of definite rock-groups or "formations,"

each possessing a peculiar and characteristic a.s.semblage of fossils, representing the "life" of the "period" in which the formation was deposited. We have still to inquire shortly how it came to pa.s.s that two successive formations _should_ thus be broadly distinguished by their life-forms, and why they should not rather possess at any rate a majority of identical fossils. It was originally supposed that this could be explained by the hypothesis that the close of each formation was accompanied by a general destruction of all the living beings of the period, and that the commencement of each new formation was signalised by the creation of a number of brand-new organisms, destined to figure as the characteristic fossils of the same. This theory, however, ignores the fact that each formation--as to which we have any sufficient evidence--contains a few, at least, of the life-forms which existed in the preceding period; and it invokes forces and processes of which we know nothing, and for the supposed action of which we cannot account. The problem is an undeniably difficult one, and it will not be possible here to give more than a mere outline of the modern views upon the subject. Without entering into the at present inscrutable question as to the manner in which new life-forms are introduced upon the earth, it may be stated that almost all modern geologists hold that the living beings of any given formation are in the main modified forms of others which have preceded them. It is not believed that any general or universal destruction of life took place at the termination of each geological period, or that a general introduction of new forms took place at the commencement of a new period.

It is, on the contrary, believed that the animals and plants of any given period are for the most part (or exclusively) the lineal but modified descendants of the animals and plants of the immediately preceding period, and that some of them, at any rate, are continued into the next succeeding period, either unchanged, or so far altered as to appear as new species. To discuss these views in detail would lead us altogether too far, but there is one very obvious consideration which may advantageously receive some attention. It is obvious, namely, that the great discordance which is found to subsist between the animal life of any given formation and that of the next succeeding formation, and which no one denies, would be a fatal blow to the views just alluded to, unless admitting of some satisfactory explanation.

Nor is this discordance one purely of life-forms, for there is often a physical break in the successions of strata as well.

Let us therefore briefly consider how far these interruptions and breaks in the geological and palaeontological record can be accounted for, and still allow us to believe in some theory of continuity as opposed to the doctrine of intermittent and occasional action.

In the first place, it is perfectly clear that if we admit the conception above mentioned of a continuity of life from the Laurentian period to the present day, we could never _prove_ our view to be correct, unless we could produce in evidence fossil examples of _all_ the kinds of animals and plants that have lived and died during that period. In order to do this, we should require, to begin with, to have access to an absolutely unbroken and perfect succession of all the deposits which have ever been laid down since the beginning. If, however, we ask the physical geologist if he is in possession of any such uninterrupted series, he will at once answer in the negative. So far from the geological series being a perfect one, it is interrupted by numerous gaps of unknown length, many of which we can never expect to fill up. Nor are the proofs of this far to seek. Apart from the facts that we have hitherto examined only a limited portion of the dry land, that nearly two-thirds of the entire area of the globe is inaccessible to geological investigation in consequence of its being covered by the sea, that many deposits can be shown to have been more or less completely destroyed subsequent to their deposition, and that there may be many areas in which living beings exist where no rock is in process of formation, we have the broad fact that rock-deposition only goes on to any extent in water, and that the earth must have always consisted partly of dry land and partly of water--at any rate, so far as any period of which we have geological knowledge is concerned. There _must_, therefore, always have existed, at some part or another of the earth's surface, areas where no deposition of rock was going on, and the proof of this is to be found in the well-known phenomenon of "_unconformability_." Whenever, namely, deposition of sediment is continuously going on within the limits of a single ocean, the beds which are laid down succeed one another in uninterrupted and regular sequence. Such beds are said to be "conformable," and there are many rock-groups known where one may pa.s.s through fifteen or twenty thousand feet of strata without a break--indicating that the beds had been deposited in an area which remained continuously covered by the sea. On the other hand, we commonly find that there is no such regular succession when we pa.s.s from one great formation to another, but that, on the contrary, the younger formation rests "unconformably," as it is called, either upon the formation immediately preceding it in point of time, or upon some still older one. The essential physical feature of this unconformability is that the beds of the younger formation rest upon a worn and eroded surface formed by the beds of the older series (fig. 18); and a moment's consideration will show us what this indicates. It indicates, beyond the possibility of misconception, that there was an interval between the deposition of the older series and that of the newer series of strata; and that during this interval the older beds were raised above the sea-level, so as to form dry land, and were subsequently depressed again beneath the waters, to receive upon their worn and wasted upper surface the sediments of the later group. During the interval thus indicated, the deposition of rock must of necessity have been proceeding more or less actively in other areas. Every unconformity, therefore, indicates that at the spot where it occurs, a more or less extensive series of beds must be actually missing; and though we may sometimes be able to point to these missing strata in other areas, there yet remains a number of unconformities for which we cannot at present supply the deficiency even in a partial manner.

[Ill.u.s.tration: Fig. 18.--Section showing strata of Tertiary age (a) resting upon a worn and eroded surface of White Chalk (b), the stratification of which is marked by lines of flint.]

It follows from the above that the series of stratified deposits is to a greater or less extent irremediably imperfect; and in this imperfection we have one great cause why we can never obtain a perfect series of all the animals and plants that have lived upon the globe. Wherever one of these great physical gaps occurs, we find, as we might expect, a corresponding break in the series of life-forms. In other words, whenever we find two formations to be unconformable, we shall always find at the same time that there is a great difference in their fossils, and that many of the fossils of the older formation do not survive into the newer, whilst many of those in the newer are not known to occur in the older. The cause of this is, obviously, that the lapse of time, indicated by the unconformability, has been sufficiently great to allow of the dying out or modification of many of the older forms of life, and the introduction of new ones by immigration.

Apart, however, altogether, from these great physical breaks and their corresponding breaks in life, there are other reasons why we can never become more than partially acquainted with the former denizens of the globe. Foremost amongst these is the fact that an enormous number of animals possess no hard parts of the nature of a skeleton, and are therefore incapable, under any ordinary circ.u.mstances, of leaving behind them any traces of their existence. It is true that there are cases in which animals in themselves completely soft-bodied are nevertheless able to leave marks by which their former presence can be detected: Thus every geologist is familiar with the winding and twisting "trails" formed on the surface of the strata by sea-worms; and the impressions left by the stranded carcases of Jelly-fishes on the fine-grained lithographic slates of Solenhofen supply us with an example of how a creature which is little more than "organised sea-water" may still make an abiding mark upon the sands of time. As a general rule, however, animals which have no skeletons are incapable of being preserved as fossils, and hence there must always have been a vast number of different kinds of marine animals of which we have absolutely no record whatever. Again, almost all the fossiliferous rocks have been laid down in water; and it is a necessary result of this that the great majority of fossils are the remains of aquatic animals. The remains of air-breathing animals, whether of the inhabitants of the land or of the air itself, are comparatively rare as fossils, and the record of the past existence of these is much more imperfect than is the case with animals living in water. Moreover, the fossiliferous deposits are not only almost exclusively aqueous formations, but the great majority are marine, and only a comparatively small number have been formed by lakes and rivers. It follows from the foregoing that the palaeontological record is fullest and most complete so far as sea-animals are concerned, though even here we find enormous gaps, owing to the absence of hard structures in many great groups; of animals inhabiting fresh waters our knowledge is rendered still further incomplete by the small proportion that fluviatile and lacustrine deposits bear to marine; whilst we have only a fragmentary acquaintance with the air-breathing animals which inhabited the earth during past ages.

Lastly, the imperfection of the palaeontological record, due to the causes above enumerated, is greatly aggravated, especially as regards the earlier portion of the earth's history, by the fact that many rocks which contained fossils when deposited have since been rendered barren of organic remains. The princ.i.p.al cause of this common phenomenon is what is known as "metamorphism"--that is, the subjection of the rock to a sufficient amount of heat to cause a rearrangement of its particles. When at all of a p.r.o.nounced character, the result of metamorphic action is invariably the obliteration of any fossils which might have been originally present in the rock. Metamorphism may affect rocks of any age, though naturally more prevalent in the older rocks, and to this cause must be set down an irreparable loss of much fossil evidence.

The most striking example which is to be found of this is the great Laurentian series, which comprises some 30,000 feet of highly-metamorphosed sediments, but which, with one not wholly undisputed exception, has as yet yielded no remains of living beings, though there is strong evidence of the former existence in it of fossils.

Upon the whole, then, we cannot doubt that the earth's crust, so far as yet deciphered by us, presents us with but a very imperfect record of the past. Whether the known and admitted imperfections of the geological and palaeontological records are sufficiently serious to account satisfactorily for the deficiency of direct evidence recognisable in some modern hypotheses, may be a matter of individual opinion. There can, however, be little doubt that they are sufficiently extensive to throw the balance of evidence decisively in favour of some theory of _continuity_, as opposed to any theory of intermittent and occasional action. The apparent breaks which divide the great series of the stratified rocks into a number of isolated formations, are not marks of mighty and general convulsions of nature, but are simply indications of the imperfection of our knowledge. Never, in all probability, shall we be able to point to a complete series of deposits, or a complete succession of life linking one great geological period to another. Nevertheless, we may well feel sure that such deposits and such an unbroken succession must have existed at one time.

We are compelled to believe that nowhere in the long series of the fossiliferous rocks has there been a total break, but that there must have been a complete continuity of life, and a more or less complete continuity of sedimentation, from the Laurentian period to the present day. One generation hands on the lamp of life to the next, and each system of rocks is the direct offspring of those which preceded it in time. Though there has not been continuity in any given area, still the geological chain could never have been snapped at one point, and taken up again at a totally different one. Thus we arrive at the conviction that _continuity_ is the fundamental law of geology, as it is of the other sciences, and that the lines of demarcation between the great formations are but gaps in our own knowledge.

CHAPTER V.

CONCLUSIONS TO BE DRAWN FROM FOSSILS.

We have already seen that geologists have been led by the study of fossils to the all-important generalisation that the vast series of the Fossiliferous or Sedimentary Rocks may be divided into a number of definite groups or "formations," each of which is characterised by its organic remains. It may simply be repeated here that these formations are not properly and strictly characterised by the occurrence in them of any one particular fossil. It may be that a formation contains some particular fossil or fossils not occurring out of that formation, and that in this way an observer may identify a given group with tolerable certainty. It very often happens, indeed, that some particular stratum, or sub-group of a series, contains peculiar fossils, by which its existence may be determined in various localities. As before remarked, however, the great formations are characterised properly by the a.s.sociation of certain fossils, by the predominance of certain families or orders, or by an _a.s.semblage_ of fossil remains representing the "life" of the period in which the formation was deposited.

Fossils, then, enable us to determine the _age_ of the deposits in which they occur. Fossils further enable us to come to very important conclusions as to the mode in which the fossiliferous bed was deposited, and thus as to the condition of the particular district or region occupied by the fossiliferous bed at the time of the formation of the latter. If, in the first place, the bed contain the remains of animals such as now inhabit rivers, we know that it is "fluviatile" in its origin, and that it must at one time have either formed an actual riverbed, or been deposited by the overflowing of an ancient stream. Secondly, if the bed contain the remains of sh.e.l.lfish, minute crustaceans, or fish, such as now inhabit lakes, we know that it is "lacustrine," and was deposited beneath the waters of a former lake. Thirdly, if the bed contain the remains of animals such as now people the ocean, we know that it is "marine" in its origin, and that it is a fragment of an old sea-bottom.

We can, however, often determine the conditions under which a bed was deposited with greater accuracy than this. If, for example, the fossils are of kinds resembling the marine animals now inhabiting shallow waters, if they are accompanied by the detached relics of terrestrial organisms, or if they are partially rolled and broken, we may conclude that the fossiliferous deposit was laid down in a shallow sea, in the immediate vicinity of a coast-line, or as an actual sh.o.r.e-deposit. If, again, the remains are those of animals such as now live in the deeper parts of the ocean, and there is a very sparing intermixture of extraneous fossils (such as the bones of birds or quadrupeds, or the remains of plants), we may presume that the deposit is one of deep water.

In other cases, we may find, scattered through the rock, and still in their natural position, the valves of sh.e.l.ls such as we know at the present day as living buried in the sand or mud of the sea-sh.o.r.e or of estuaries. In other cases, the bed may obviously have been an ancient coral-reef, or an acc.u.mulation of social sh.e.l.ls, like Oysters. Lastly, if we find the deposit to contain the remains of marine sh.e.l.ls, but that these are dwarfed of their fair proportions and distorted in figure, we may conclude that it was laid down in a brackish sea, such as the Baltic, in which the proper saltness was wanting, owing to its receiving an excessive supply of fresh water.

In the preceding, we have been dealing simply with the remains of aquatic animals, and we have seen that certain conclusions can be accurately reached by an examination of these. As regards the determination of the conditions of deposition from the remains of aerial and terrestrial animals, or from plants, there is not such an absolute certainty. The remains of land-animals would, of course, occur in "sub-aerial" deposits--that is, in beds, like blown sand, acc.u.mulated upon the land. Most of the remains of land-animals, however, are found in deposits which have been laid down in water, and they owe their present position to the fact that their former owners were drowned in rivers or lakes, or carried out to sea by streams. Birds, Flying Reptiles, and Flying Mammals might also similarly find their way into aqueous deposits; but it is to be remembered that many birds and mammals habitually spend a great part of their time in the water, and that these might therefore be naturally expected to present themselves as fossils in Sedimentary Rocks. Plants, again, even when undoubtedly such as must have grown on land, do not prove that the bed in which they occur was formed on land. Many of the remains of plants known to us are extraneous to the bed in which they are now found, having reached their present site by falling into lakes or rivers, or being carried out to sea by floods or gales of wind. There are, however, many cases in which plants have undoubtedly grown on the very spot where we now find them.

Thus it is now generally admitted that the great coal-fields of the Carboniferous age are the result of the growth _in situ_ of the plants which compose coal, and that these grew on vast marshy or partially submerged tracts of level alluvial land. We have, however, distinct evidence of old land-surfaces, both in the Coal-measures and in other cases (as, for instance, in the well-known "dirt-bed" of the Purbeck series). When, for example, we find the erect stumps of trees standing at right angles to the surrounding strata, we know that the surface through which these send their roots was at one time the surface of the dry land, or, in other words, was an ancient soil (fig. 19).

[Ill.u.s.tration: Fig. 19.--Erect Tree containing Reptilian remains.

Coal-measures, Nova Scotia. (After Dawson.)

In many cases fossils enable us to come to important conclusions as to the climate of the period in which they lived but only a few instances of this can be here adduced. As fossils in the majority of instances are the remains of marine animals, it is mostly the temperature of the sea which can alone be determined in this way; and it is important to remember that, owing to the existence of heated currents, the marine climate of a given area does not necessarily imply a correspondingly warm climate in the neighbouring land. Land-climates can only be determined by the remains of land-animals or land-plants, and these are comparatively rare as fossils. It is also important to remember that all conclusions on this head are really based upon the present distribution of animal and vegetable life on the globe, and are therefore liable to be vitiated by the following considerations:--

a. Most fossils are extinct, and it is not certain that the habits and requirements of any extinct animal were exactly similar to those of its nearest living relative.

b. When we get very far back in time, we meet with groups of organisms so unlike anything we know at the present day as to render all conjectures as to climate founded upon their supposed habits more or less uncertain and unsafe.

c. In the case of marine animals, we are as yet very far from knowing the exact limits of distribution of many species within our present seas; so that conclusions drawn from living forms as to extinct species are apt to prove incorrect. For instance, it has recently been shown that many sh.e.l.ls formerly believed to be confined to the Arctic Seas have, by reason of the extension of Polar currents, a wide range to the south; and this has thrown doubt upon the conclusions drawn from fossil sh.e.l.ls as to the Arctic conditions under which certain beds were supposed to have been deposited.

d. The distribution of animals at the present day is certainly dependent upon other conditions beside climate alone; and the causes which now limit the range of given animals are certainly such as belong to the existing order of things. But the establishment of the present order of things does not date back in many cases to the introduction of the present species of animals. Even in the case, therefore, of existing species of animals, it can often be shown that the past distribution of the species was different formerly to what it is now, not necessarily because the climate has changed, but because of the alteration of other conditions essential to the life of the species or conducing to its extension.

Still, we are in many cases able to draw completely reliable conclusions as to the climate of a given geological period, by an examination of the fossils belonging to that period. Among the more striking examples of how the past climate of a region may be deduced from the study of the organic remains contained in its rocks, the following may be mentioned: It has been shown that in Eocene times, or at the commencement of the Tertiary period, the climate of what is now Western Europe was of a tropical or sub-tropical character. Thus the Eocene beds are found to contain the remains of sh.e.l.ls such as now inhabit tropical seas, as, for example, Cowries and Volutes; and with these are the fruits of palms, and the remains of other tropical plants. It has been shown, again, that in Miocene times, or about the middle of the Tertiary period, Central Europe was peopled with a luxuriant flora resembling that of the warmer parts of the United States, and leading to the conclusion that the mean annual temperature must have been at least 30 hotter than it is at present. It has been shown that, at the same time, Greenland, now buried beneath a vast ice-shroud, was warm enough to support a large number of trees, shrubs, and other plants, such as inhabit temperate regions of the globe. Lastly, it has been shown upon physical as well as palaeontological evidence, that the greater part of the North Temperate Zone, at a comparatively recent geological period, has been visited with all the rigours of an Arctic climate, resembling that of Greenland at the present day. This is indicated by the occurrence of Arctic sh.e.l.ls in the superficial deposits of this period, whilst the Musk-ox and the Reindeer roamed far south of their present limits.

Lastly, it was from the study of fossils that geologists learnt originally to comprehend a fact which may be regarded as of cardinal importance in all modern geological theories and speculations--namely, that the crust of the earth is liable to local elevations and subsidences. For long after the remains of sh.e.l.ls and other marine animals were for the first time observed in the solid rocks forming the dry land, and at great heights above the sea-level, attempts were made to explain this almost unintelligible phenomenon upon the hypothesis that the fossils in question were not really the objects they represented, but were in truth mere _lusus naturoe_, due to some "plastic virtue latent in the earth." The common-sense of scientific men, however, soon rejected this idea, and it was agreed by universal consent that these bodies really were remains of animals which formerly lived in the sea. When once this was admitted, the further steps were comparatively easy, and at the present day no geological doctrine stands on a firmer basis than that which teaches us that our present continents and islands, fixed and immovable as they appear, have been repeatedly sunk beneath the ocean.

CHAPTER VI.

THE BIOLOGICAL RELATIONS OF FOSSILS.

Not only have fossils, as we have seen, a most important bearing upon the sciences of Geology and Physical Geography, but they have relations of the most complicated and weighty character with the numerous problems connected with the study of living beings, or in other words, with the science of Biology. To such an extent is this the case, that no adequate comprehension of Zoology and Botany, in their modern form, is so much as possible without some acquaintance with the types of animals and plants which have pa.s.sed away. There are also numerous speculative questions in the domain of vital science, which, if soluble at all, can only hope to find their key in researches carried out on extinct organisms. To discuss fully the biological relations of fossils would, therefore, afford matter for a separate treatise; and all that can be done here is to indicate very cursorily the princ.i.p.al points to which the attention of the palaeontological student ought to be directed.

In the first place, the great majority of fossil animals and plants are "extinct"--that is to say, they belong to species which are no longer in existence at the present day. So far, however, from there being any truth in the old view that there were periodic destructions of all the living beings in existence upon the earth, followed by a corresponding number of new creations of animals and plants, the actual facts of the case show that the extinction of old forms and the introduction of new forms have been processes constantly going on throughout the whole of geological time. Every species seems to come into being at a certain definite point of time, and to finally disappear at another definite point; though there are few instances indeed, if there are any, in which our present knowledge would permit us safely to fix with precision the times of entrance and exit.

There are, moreover, marked differences in the actual time during which different species remained in existence, and therefore corresponding differences in their "vertical range," or, in other words, in the actual amount and thickness of strata through which they present themselves as fossils. Some species are found to range through two or even three formations, and a few have an even more extended life. More commonly the species which begin in the commencement of a great formation die out at or before its close, whilst those which are introduced for the first time near the middle or end of the formation may either become extinct, or may pa.s.s on into the next succeeding formation. As a general rule, it is the animals which have the lowest and simplest organisation that have the longest range in time, and the additional possession of microscopic or minute dimensions seems also to favour longevity.

Thus some of the _Foraminifera_ appear to have survived, with little or no perceptible alteration, from the Silurian period to the present day; whereas large and highly-organised animals, though long-lived as _individuals_, rarely seem to live long _specifically_, and have, therefore, usually a restricted vertical range. Exceptions to this, however, are occasionally to be found in some "persistent types," which extend through a succession of geological periods with very little modification. Thus the existing Lampsh.e.l.ls of the genus _Lingula_ are little changed from the _Linguloe_ which swarmed in the Lower Silurian seas; and the existing Pearly Nautilus is the last descendant of a clan nearly as ancient. On the other hand, some forms are singularly restricted in their limits, and seem to have enjoyed a comparatively brief lease of life. An example of this is to be found in many of the _Ammonites_--close allies of the Nautilus--which are often confined strictly to certain zones of strata, in some cases of very insignificant thickness.

Of the _causes_ of extinction amongst fossil animals and plants, we know little or nothing. All we can say is, that the attributes which const.i.tute a _species_ do not seem to be intrinsically endowed with permanence, any more than the attributes which const.i.tute an _individual_, though the former may endure whilst many successive generations of the latter have disappeared. Each species appears to have its own life-period, its commencement, its culmination, and its gradual decay; and the life-periods of different species may be of very different duration.

From what has been said above, it may be gathered that our existing species of animals and plants are, for the most part, quite of modern origin, using the term "modern" in its geological acceptation.

Measured by human standards, the majority of existing animals (which are capable of being preserved as fossils) are known to have a high antiquity; and some of them can boast of a pedigree which even the geologist may regard with respect. Not a few of our sh.e.l.lfish are known to have commenced their existence at some point of the Tertiary period; one Lampsh.e.l.l (_Terebratulina caput-serpentis_) is believed to have survived since the Chalk; and some of the _Foraminifera_ date, at any rate, from the Carboniferous period. We learn from this the additional fact that our existing animals and plants do not const.i.tute an a.s.semblage of organic forms which were introduced into the world collectively and simultaneously, but that they commenced their existence at very different periods, some being extremely old, whilst others may be regarded as comparatively recent animals. And this introduction of the existing fauna and flora was a slow and _gradual_ process, as shown admirably by the study of the fossil sh.e.l.ls of the Tertiary period. Thus, in the earlier Tertiary period, we find about 95 per cent of the known fossil sh.e.l.ls to be species that are no longer in existence, the remaining 5 per cent being forms which are known to live in our present seas. In the middle of the Tertiary period we find many more recent and still existing species of sh.e.l.ls, and the extinct types are much fewer in number; and this gradual introduction of forms now living goes on steadily, till, at the close of the Tertiary period, the proportions with which we started may be reversed, as many as 90 or 95 per cent of the fossil sh.e.l.ls being forms still alive, while not more than 5 per cent may have disappeared.

All known animals at the present day may be divided into some five or six primary divisions, which are known technically as "_sub-kingdoms_." Each of these sub-kingdoms [9] may be regarded as representing a certain type or plan of structure, and all the animals comprised in each are merely modified forms of this common type. Not only are all known living animals thus reducible to some five or six fundamental plans of structure, but amongst the vast series of fossil forms no one has yet been found--however unlike any existing animal--to possess peculiarities which would ent.i.tle it to be placed in a new sub-kingdom. All fossil animals, therefore, are capable of being referred to one or other of the primary divisions of the animal kingdom. Many fossil groups have no closely-related group now in existence; but in no case do we meet with any grand structural type which has not survived to the present day.

[Footnote 9: In the Appendix a brief definition is given of the sub-kingdoms, and the chief divisions of each are enumerated.]

The old types of life differ in many respects from those now upon the earth; and the further back we pa.s.s in time, the more marked does this divergence become. Thus, if we were to compare the animals which lived in the Silurian seas with those inhabiting our present oceans, we should in most instances find differences so great as almost to place us in another world. This divergence is the most marked in the Palaeozoic forms of life, less so in those of the Mesozoic period, and less still in the Tertiary period. Each successive formation has therefore presented us with animals becoming gradually more and more like those now in existence; and though there is an immense and striking difference between the Silurian animals and those of to-day, this difference is greatly reduced if we compare the Silurian fauna with the Devonian; _that_ again with the Carboniferous; and so on till we reach the present.

It follows from the above that the animals of any given formation are more like those of the next formation below, and of the next formation above, than they are to any others; and this fact of itself is an almost inexplicable one, unless we believe that the animals of any given formation are, in part at any rate, the lineal descendants of the animals of the preceding formation, and the progenitors, also in part at least, of the animals of the succeeding formation. In fact, the palaeontologist is so commonly confronted with the phenomenon of closely-allied forms of animal life succeeding one another in point of time, that he is compelled to believe that such forms have been developed from some common ancestral type by some process of "_evolution_." On the other hand, there are many phenomena, such as the apparently sudden introduction of new forms throughout all past time, and the common occurrence of wholly isolated types, which cannot be explained in this way. Whilst it seems certain, therefore, that many of the phenomena of the succession of animal life in past periods can only be explained by some law of evolution, it seems at the same time certain that there has always been some other deeper and higher law at work, on the nature of which it would be futile to speculate at present.

Not only do we find that the animals of each successive formation become gradually more and more like those now existing upon the globe, as we pa.s.s from the older rocks into the newer, but we also find that there has been a gradual progression and development in the _types_ of animal life which characterise the geological ages. If we take the earliest-known and oldest examples of any given group of animals, it can sometimes be shown that these primitive forms, though in themselves highly organised, possessed certain characters such as are now only seen in the _young_ of their existing representatives. In technical language, the early forms of life in some instances possess "_embryonic_" characters, though this does not prevent them often attaining a size much more gigantic than their nearest living relatives. Moreover, the ancient forms of life are often what is called "comprehensive types"--that is to say, they possess characters in combination such as we nowadays only find separately developed in different, groups of animals. Now, this permanent retention of embryonic characters and this "comprehensiveness" of structural type are signs of what a zoologist considers to be a comparatively low grade of organisation; and the prevalence of these features in the earlier forms of animals is a very striking phenomenon, though they are none the less perfectly organised so far as their own type is concerned. As we pa.s.s upwards in the geological scale, we find that these features gradually disappear, higher and ever higher forms are introduced, and "specialisation" of type takes the place of the former comprehensiveness. We shall have occasion to notice many of the facts on which these views are based at a later period, and in connection with actual examples. In the meanwhile, it is sufficient to state, as a widely-accepted generalisation of palaeontology, that there has been in the past a general progression of organic types, and that the appearance of the lower forms of life has in the main preceded that of the higher forms in point of time.