But what an amazing condition of affairs is this. Here are great mountainous masses of rock, very similar in mechanical and mineral make-up to thousands of examples elsewhere. The line of bedding between them "acts exactly like the line of contact of two nearly horizontal formations," and in a natural section cut out by a river the two "appear to succeed one another conformably." And yet we are asked to believe that all this is merely an optical illusion. The rocks could not possibly have been deposited in this way, for the lower ones contain "Benton fossils" (Cretaceous), and the upper ones are Cambrian, and almost the whole geological series and untold millions of years occurred after the upper one, and before the lower one was formed. Solely on the strength of the infallibility of a theory invented a hundred years ago in a little corner of Western Europe, which "promulgated, as respecting the world, a scheme collected from that province," and assumed that over all the world the rocks must always follow the order there observed, we are here asked to deny the positive evidence of our senses because these rocks do not follow this accepted order. I must confess that I cannot see the force of such a method of reasoning. It is carrying the argument several degrees beyond the reasoning of the three little green peas in the little green pod, as narrated in the exquisite fable of Eugene Field. These wise little fellows noticed that their little world was all green, and they themselves green likewise, and they shrewdly concluded from this that the whole universe must also be green. But we are not told of their travelling abroad and persisting in a systematic attempt to explain all subsequently observed facts in terms of their theory.
This government Report last quoted from says that in the eastern part of Tennessee the Appalachian Chain "presents an almost identical structure," and refers to a similar state of things in the Highlands of Scotland. Dana, in the last edition of his "Manual" (p. 369), refers to this report, and reproduces some of its plates showing some of the structures referred to; and on another page, in speaking of this similar example in Scotland, says that "a mass of the oldest crystalline rocks, many miles in length from north to south, was thrust at least ten miles westward over younger rocks, part of the latter fossiliferous"; and further declares that "the thrust planes look like planes of bedding, and were long so considered."[28]
Geikie quite naturally devotes several pages in his "Text-Book" to a description of these conditions in the Highlands; but from one of his first reports on these observations, published in Nature[29] we get some much more suggestive details. The thrust-planes, he says, are difficult to be "distinguished from ordinary stratification planes, like which they have been plicated, faulted, and denuded. Here and there, as a result of denudation, a portion of one of them appears capping a hill-top. One almost refuses to believe that the little outlier on the summit does not lie normally on the rocks below it, but on a nearly horizontal fault by which it has been moved into its place."
Speaking of some similar conditions in Ross Shire, which he himself had previously described as naturally conformable, he declares:—
"Had these sections been planned for the purpose of deception they could not have been more skillfully devised ... and no one coming first to this ground would suspect that what appears to be a normal stratigraphical sequence is not really so."
"When a geologist finds" things in this condition, he says, "he may be excused if he begins to wonder whether he himself is not really standing on his head."
But I would only weary the reader by attempting to pursue this subject further. Those who wish to do so will find many additional examples in the larger works of Dana, LeConte, Prestwich, and Geikie, to say nothing of the more detailed statements buried in numerous Government Reports and special monographs in German and French.
From the very same set of beds different observers try to explain these puzzles in very different ways. Some, like Helm, will describe gigantic overthrust folds, and will draw immense arcs of circles several miles high in the air, as the place where the rocks must once have been. Others, like Rothpletz, from an examination of the very same rocks, will cut the mountain up into sections with imaginary fault-planes, and will tell how, in the district about Glarus for example, an enormous mass of mountains "travelled from east to west a distance of about twenty-five miles from the Rhine valley to the Linth," or how the "Rhatikon Mountain mass travelled from Montafon valley to the Rhine valley, about nineteen miles from east to west."[30]
With regard to some at least of these conditions in the Alps, Geikie virtually admits that these incredible and self-contradictory earth-movements are necessitated by and described from fossil evidence only, for he says:—
"... the strata could scarcely be supposed to have been really inverted, save for the evidence (sic) as to their true order of succession supplied by their included fossils." "... portions of Carboniferous strata appear as if regularly interbedded among Jurassic rocks, and indeed could not be separated save after a study of their enclosed organic remains."[31]
In fact, we are perfectly safe in concluding in all similar cases that we may encounter in the literature of the science that it is the reversed order of the fossils which constitutes the whole evidence; for, as I have said, we can imagine no possible physical evidence competent to form a foundation for such ideas, nor do I know of anything save the exigencies of this venerable theory of life succession, for which otherwise competent observers will thus freely sacrifice their common sense. When the dividing line between two sets of strata "acts exactly like the line of contact between two nearly horizontal formations," so much so that in a natural section cut out by a river the two "appear to succeed one another conformably," a calm judicial mind, divested of all theoretical prejudice, instead of talking about these conditions having been planned by nature "for the purpose of deception," will find no difficulty at all in believing that these rocks were really laid down in the reverse order in which we now find them, with the "younger" below and the "older" above, and only one under the hypnotic spell of a preconceived theory would at the suggestion of such a fact begin "to wonder whether he himself is not really standing on his head."
CHAPTER VI
FACT NUMBER FOUR
There is only one class of agents now working upon the rocks of the globe which have been in business continuously ever since the dry land appeared, and which have left us a legible record of approximately the amount of business they have been doing all these centuries. And my Fact Number Four, which will complete this line of argument in illustrating the antagonism between the facts of the rocks and the theory of life succession, is that the rivers of the world, which of course are the agents to which I have referred, in traveling across the country, act precisely as if they knew nothing of the varying ages of the rocks, but on the contrary treat them all alike as if they were of the same age, and as if they began sawing at them all at the same time. Of course it is, evidently, in only a few cases where the records are so free from ambiguity as to be quite incapable of being misunderstood, that is, the cases of rivers with steep rocky gorges, or those that cut through mountain ranges; but there are several such rivers in the world, and they all seem to tell the same story.
The famous Colorado River is a good example. It flows from "younger" strata into "older" in its deep cutting across the Arizona plateau.[32] Stated in terms of the current theory, this means that when the region of country about the lower part of this river's course first became dry land, the upper part was still sea, and that thus there was no such river in existence here until the very "youngest" of these rocks was formed. For otherwise the river must have started running from the sea toward the dry land, i.e., running up hill. Stated in terms neutral as to theory, it means that the whole of this region of country, drained by this large river, with its rocks of many varying "ages," was all elevated practically as it is now before this river began its work of erosion. It treats all these rocks as if they were of the same age, and as if it began sawing at them all at the same time.
Also its companion, the Green River, cuts through the Uinta Range in the same manner. Similar conditions are said to occur on the Danube, and in the river-courses of the Himalayas, and elsewhere.
In the case of the Colorado, Zittel says that:
"Powell's explanation of the apparent enigma is that after the river had eroded its channel rocks were uplifted in one portion of its course, but so slow was the rate of uplift that the river was enabled to deepen its channel, either proportionately or more rapidly, so that it was never diverted from its former course."
It was by similarly cunning inventions that the early writers on astronomy, alchemy, and medicine evaded the force of accumulated facts which told against their absurd theories.
We have now completed our survey of the strictly stratigraphical phases of this question, and have found four very remarkable principles about the rocks, which I wish to summarize here before proceeding further.
(1) The "broad fact," as stated by Zittel and Dana, that any kind of rocks whatever, i.e. containing any kinds of fossils, even the "youngest," may rest on the Archaean, and may thus in position, as also in texture and appearance, resemble the very oldest deposits on the globe.
(2) That any kind of beds may rest in such perfect conformability on any other so-called "older" beds over vast stretches of country that, "were it not for fossil evidence, one would naturally suppose that a single formation was being dealt with," while "the vast interval of time intervening is unrepresented either by deposition or erosion." The youngest seem to have followed the oldest in quick succession.
(3) That in very many cases and over many square miles of country these conditions are exactly reversed, and such very "ancient" rocks as Cambrian limestones are on top of the comparatively "young" Cretaceous, while the lime between them "acts exactly like the line of contact of two nearly horizontal formations," and in a natural section made by a river the two "appear to succeed one another conformably." To any one ignorant of the theory of life succession they have every appearance of having been deposited as we find them.
(4) That the rivers of the world, in cutting across the country, completely ignore the varying ages of the rocks in the different parts of their courses, and act precisely as if they began sawing at them all at the same time.
Now I know not what additional fact can be demanded or imagined to complete the demonstration that there is no particular order in which the fossils can be said to occur as regards succession in time. It is true, some fossiliferous deposits, metamorphosed almost beyond recognition, and buried deep beneath thousands of feet of subsequent deposits, have enough appearance of remote antiquity about them in all conscience. But to increase this antiquity by saying that other equally prodigious masses of rocks elsewhere were deposited long after these, or by pointing to still other deposits in another region which are said to be older than any of the others, is an illogical and wholly unscientific procedure. I fear I could scarcely confine myself within the bounds of parliamentary language were I to attempt to express an opinion regarding any effort that may now be made to justify the life succession theory in view of the above acknowledged facts.
And surely it is scarcely necessary in this enlightened age to point out how completely this vitiates any biological argument (such as that of Darwinism) which has incorporated into its system the results of such illogical reasoning, or which in any way is dependent upon the conclusions of such a theory of geology. In view of the laws of evidence, which every intelligent person is supposed to understand now-a-days, surely some strange things passed for scientific proof during the nineteenth century. For, as we have seen, the earlier geologists did little better than assume the succession of life bodily; than Agassiz and his contemporaries arranged the details and the exact order of these successive life forms by comparison with the embryonic life of the modern individual; and now the evolutionists of our day, led by such men as Spencer and Haeckel with their "phylogenetic principle," prove their theory of evolution by showing that the embryonic life of the modern individual is only "a brief recapitulation, as it were, from memory," of the (assumed) geological succession in time. Surely this will some day make a more amazing record for posterity than those of phlogiston or the epicycles of Ptolemy.
If I am now asked: What do the rocks have to tell us, in view of the fact that they refuse to testify to a life succession? I can only say that we are not as yet in a position to decide this question. There are several other matters connected with the character and mode of occurrence of the fossils, which are almost equally important with anything already considered, in forming a true scientific induction regarding this matter. These facts must be considered in subsequent chapters. Already, however, we can say this much, that we have in the rocks almost as complete a world, in some respects vastly more complete, than the living world of to-day. With the life succession theory repudiated, we have still to deal with the fossils themselves which have been thus systematically classified; but this geological series becomes only the taxonomic or classification series of an older state of our present world, buried somehow and at some time or times in the remote past—the how and the when of which we have not as yet the means to determine.
But I think we are now prepared to enter the mazes of the biological argument, and to study the subject of extinct species, which by many is supposed to furnish a line of independent evidence in favor of the life succession theory.
CHAPTER VII
EXTINCT SPECIES
Let us now test the value of this assumed life succession by another very simple question. In "Eocene times," so we are told, England was a land of palms, with a semi-tropical flora and fauna. In fact at this time, cycads, gourds, proteads (like the Australian shrubs and trees), the fig, cinnamon, screw-pine, and various species of acacias and palms, abounded in England and Western Europe; while turtles, monkeys, crocodiles, and other sub-tropical and warm-temperate forms were equally abundant. Then again, in the Pleistocene deposits of the same countries, we find various species of elephant and rhinoceros, with a hippopotamus, lion, and hyena, identical with species now living in the tropics, "although," as Dana says, "these modern kinds are dwarfs in comparison."
Now, how are we to prove that these various forms of animal life did not exist together in these countries at the same time as the trees and plants before mentioned?
Lions and monkeys, hippopotami and crocodiles, with elephants, hyenas, and rhinoceroses, now live beneath the palms, mimosas, acacias, and other tropical plants represented in the Eocene and Miocene beds. What is there to hinder us from believing that they all lived there together in that olden time? Surely it would be the very irony of scientific fate if forms now so closely connected in life should in death be so divided. Or, to present it in another form, why should we be asked to believe that these acacias, cinnamons, palms, etc., lived and died ages or millions of years before the lions, elephants, rhinoceroses and hippopotami, came into existence to enjoy their shade; and then, after these unnumbered ages had dragged their slow length along and vanished into the dim past, and all these semi-tropical plants had shifted to the tropics or been turned into lignite, these lions, elephants, and hippopotami came into existence in these same localities, when no such plants existed anywhere in Europe?
Surely we ought to expect some pretty substantial evidence for such a violation of "the observed uniformity of nature." We generally boast that we have outgrown the crude ideas of the earlier years of the science when they spoke of "ages" of limestone making or of sandstone making; but it seems that some of us have not yet attained to that broad view of the essential unity of nature in which the flora and fauna of our world are seen to be just as indissolubly connected with each other. But nature could as easily be persuaded to produce for a whole age nothing in the way of rock but limestone or conglomerate, as to adjust her powers to such an unbalanced state of affairs as is spoken of above, with the animals in one age and the complementary plants in another.
But in considering this question as to why the Eocene plants and the Pleistocene animals may not be supposed to have lived contemporaneously together, we are brought face to face with the second supposed argument in favor of there having been a succession of life on the globe. The answer given is that all the animals of these "early" Tertiary beds are extinct species, also very many of the plants; while the hyena, lion, hippopotamus, etc., of the Pleistocene are identical with the living species, and even the mammoth is so closely like its nearest surviving relative, the Asiatic elephant (E. indicus), that these also might be classed as identical.[33]
This point being considered by many as so important, and having such a vital connection with the whole life succession theory, we must go into the matter somewhat in detail, even at the risk of appearing rather technical to some.
If the Palaeozoic and Mesozoic strata are often of enormous extent, spreading in vast sheets over wide regions, so that their stratigraphical order in any particular district is quite readily made out, it is in most cases altogether different with the Tertiary and Pleistocene deposits. For these resemble one another so much in everything except their fossils, and occur so generally in detached and fragmentary beds, holding no stratigraphical relation to one another, that Lyell devised the plan of distinguishing them from one another and arranging them in the accustomed order of successive ages, by their relative percentages of living and extinct mollusca. With only unimportant changes, Lyell's divisions are still followed in classifying off the Tertiary and post-Tertiary beds. Those with all the species extinct, or less than 5 per cent. living, are classed as Eocene; those containing few extinct forms, or nearly all living species, are classed as Pleistocene or post-Tertiary. The Miocene and Pliocene represent the intermediate grades, and all are supposed to be a true chronological order. It goes without saying that in actual practice it is often so extremely difficult to adjust these differences that beds are assigned to an "early" or a "late" division on general principles by what the literary critics would call "tact" or "intuition," rather than by the strict percentage system, though for these large and important divisions of Tertiary and post-Tertiary rocks, these are absolutely the only professed grounds on which the subdivisions are distinguished and arranged in the customary order of time.
In the words of Dr. David Page:
"As there is often no perceptible mineral distinction between many clays, sands and gravels, it is only by their imbedded fossils that geologists can determine their Tertiary or post-Tertiary character."[34]
Now to say that a set of beds, ninety-five per cent. of whose fossils belong to extinct species, and only five per cent. are now living, must be vastly older than another set where these percentages are reversed, i.e. where the species are nearly all living, seems at first thought an eminently reasonable idea, and we immediately begin to imagine the long ages it must have taken for these exceedingly numerous and apparently vigorous species to wear out and become extinct in the alleged ordinary way by the merciless struggle for existence with forms more fitted to survive.
But it is hardly necessary to point out that all this is based on the assumption of Uniformity in its most extreme type, a doctrine which not only denies that these living forms are merely the lucky survivors of tremendous changes in which their contemporaries perished, but which in essence is taking for granted beforehand the very point which ought to be the chief aim of all geological inquiry, viz., How did the geological changes take place? It would not be considered a very scientific procedure for a coroner, called upon to hold a post mortem, to content himself with interesting statistics about the percentage of people who die of old age, fever, and other causes, while there was clear and decisive evidence that the poor fellow had been shot. In this case, as in geology, it is not merely the result that is wrong, but the whole method of investigation. For, as in the latter case we don't want to know how people generally die, but how this particular person actually did die, so, in our study of geology, we do not wish to know merely the rate at which changes of surface and extinctions of species are now going on, and then project this measure backward into the past as an infallible guide, but we wish to know for sure just what changes of this nature have taken place. A true induction is, I think, capable of deciding very positively whether or not the tools of nature have always worked at the same rate and with the same force as at present; and this method of arranging the fossils in supposed chronological order on the percentage basis mentioned above, is only an extreme form of methods claiming to be inductive which in this age of the world ought to be considered a shame and a disgrace, because, as Howorth says, they are based, "not upon induction, but upon hypotheses," and have "all the infirmity of the science of the Middle Ages."
Then again, it occurs to us, that this method, of attaching a time-value to percentages of extinct or living species, would make the sub-fossil remains of the bison on the Western prairies almost infinitely older than those of the lion, hippopotamus, etc., in the Pleistocene beds of Europe; for (except for some few specimens artificially preserved, and which may be ignored in this connection) the bison is to-day absolutely extinct, while the Pleistocene mammals are found by the thousand in the proper localities and show no signs of surrender in the struggle for existence. Similar comparisons might be made between the great wingless birds of Madagascar, Mauritius and New Zealand, and the many cases of "persistent" forms which have survived unchanged from Carboniferous, Silurian, or Cambrian times, a period of time which, in the language of the current geology, means quite a large fraction of eternity. But all of these considerations show that the mere fact of certain species being extinct and others being now alive, is no trustworthy guide in determining the relative age of their remains, until we first find out how they happened to become extinct.
The inquiry as to the how and the when (relatively) is an absolutely essential preliminary in any such investigation; and is inseparably united in nature with the general question of how the great geological changes have taken place in the past. Of course, if everything like a world-catastrophe is a priori denied; if, in other words, it is settled from the first that all these fossils living and extinct did not live contemporaneously with each other, the living ones being simply the lucky survivors of stupendous changes in which the others perished, then all pretense of a scientific investigation of the subject is at an end. If a coroner has it settled beforehand that an accident or a murder could not possibly have occurred, then his profession of a candid post mortem examination is only a farce; for he does not hold it to find out anything, since he knows everything essential about it beforehand. Uniformitarians would certainly make poor coroners, or for that matter poor investigators of law or history, or anything else.
Will some one please give us a reasonable explanation of why the lion, hippopotamus, rhinoceros, and elephant shifted from England to the tropics? Or will they explain how, at this same general time, some elephants and rhinoceroses got caught in the merciless frosts of Northern Siberia so suddenly that their flesh has remained untainted all these centuries, and is now, wherever exposed, greedily devoured by the dogs and wolves?
An abundant warm-climate vegetation once mantled all the polar regions, and its fossils have been found just about as far north as explorers have ever gone; while Dana says that, "The encasing in ice of huge elephants, and the perfect preservation of the flesh, shows that the cold finally became suddenly extreme, as of a single winter's night, and knew no relenting afterwards."[35]
Now, if no one can deny this sudden change of climate over half the world or so at least, is it not extremely unscientific to deny that this same cause, whatever it may have been, was quite competent to bring about a good many other changes, and the extinction of numerous other species which we are so often reminded must imply the lapse of untold ages of time? The economizing of energy, or the famous law of parsimony as stated by Leibnitz, is quite appropriate in this case, and may be referred to again in the sequel. The principle upon which I must here insist is that the mere fact of certain species being extinct, and others being now alive, gives no clue whatever to the relative age of these remains, until we first ascertain why, how and when this extinction was brought about. And yet, though every one admits the fact of tremendous changes of climate, etc., having intervened between that ancient world and our own (the true extent and character of which, as I have said, ought to be the chief point of all geological investigation), no allowance seems ever to be made for this as a powerful cause of extermination of all forms of life. But in the utter absence of any such explanation as to how and when, and in the very teeth of these facts assuming a dead-level uniformitarianism, the presence of ten, fifty or a hundred per cent. of extinct forms in a set of beds is manifestly of no scientific value in determining age. It would be many degrees more reasonable and accurate to arrange all the Greek and Latin books of the world in chronological order according to the percentage of their words which have survived into the English language. Indeed, it would be much like a coroner, at the inquest following a railway disaster, attempting to arrange the exact order in which the various victims had perished by the proportionate number of surviving relatives which each had left behind him.
And the completely worthless character of such "evidence" of age becomes, if possible, more apparent when we consider that very many of these so-called "extinct" forms are not really distinct species from their living representatives of to-day. "It is notorious," says Darwin, "on what excessively slight differences many palaeontologists have founded their species." And even to-day, in spite of all that we have learned about variation, little or no allowance seems ever to be made for the effects of a certainly greatly changed environment. If the fossil forms among the mollusks and other shell fish for instance, are not precisely like the modern ones in every respect, they are always classed as separate species, the older forms thus being "extinct," in utter disregard of the striking anatomical differences between the huge Pleistocene mammals and their dwarfish descendants of to-day, which for a hundred years or so were declared positively to be distinct from one another, but are now acknowledged to be identical.
Of course no one denies that there are numerous extinct forms among the invertebrates, just as we know there are among the huge vertebrates of the Mesozoic and Tertiaries, none of which we moderns have ever seen alive. Other forms do not appear familiar to our modern eyes, because larger or of somewhat different form; but to say that they are really distinct species from their modern representatives, or to say that no human being ever saw them alive, are statements utterly incapable of proof. Up to about the year 1869 it was stoutly maintained that man had never seen any of these fossil forms in life. But no one now maintains this view, for human remains have now been found along with undisturbed fossils of the Pleistocene, or even middle Tertiaries, while the paintings on the cave walls of Southern France seem conclusive that they were copied from life when the mammoth and reindeer lived side by side with man in that latitude. Hence the only question now is, and it is the supreme question of all modern geology, WITH HOW MUCH OF THAT ANCIENT FOSSIL WORLD WERE THESE EQUALLY FOSSIL MEN ACQUAINTED? If Man lived in "Pliocene" or perhaps "Miocene times," when a luxuriant vegetation was spread out over all the Arctic regions, what possible evidence is there to show that his companions, the rhinoceros, hippopotamus, mammoth, etc., were not also living then and browsing off just such plants, when the Arctic frosts caught them in the grip of death and put their "mummies" in cold storage for our astonishment and scientific information? Things which are equal to the same thing are equal to each other; why should not the plants and animals, contemporary with the same creature (man), be just as truly contemporary with one another? If man was contemporary with the Miocene plants, and the Pleistocene mammals were contemporary with man, what is there to forbid the idea that the Pleistocene mammals and the middle Tertiary flora were contemporary with each other?
For nearly half a century geologists have never had the courage to face this problem fairly and squarely, with all preconceived prejudices about uniformity cast aside. Is it possible that all the plants and animals of the Tertiaries and the Pleistocene may have really lived together in the same world after all? But the trouble would then be that, with this much conceded, the whole "phylogenic series" would tumble with it, and become only the taxonomic or classification series of that ancient world with which these fossil men were acquainted. To appropriate the words of one who has done much to clear the ground for a common-sense study of geology, I know of nothing against such an idea save "the almost pathetic devotion of a large school of thinkers to the religion founded by Hutton, whose high priest was Lyell, and which in essence is based on a priori arguments like those which dominated Mediaeval scholasticism and made it so barren."[36]
Baron Cuvier's work in the line of comparative osteology has never been surpassed, perhaps never equalled since, and he is said to have been "the greatest naturalist and comparative anatomist of that, or perhaps of any time." (LeConte, "Evol. and Rel. Thought," pp. 33, 34); and yet he maintained till the last that all those which we now call the Pleistocene mammals were distinct species from the modern ones; and it is only of recent years and with extreme reluctance that many of them have been admitted to be identical with the ones now living. All of which tends to show how unreliable are those assertions commonly found in the text-books about all the species of the so-called "older" rocks being extinct. It is only with hesitation that such specific distinctions are surrendered even to-day, though during the last few decades a steady progress has been made in bringing the palaeontology of the higher vertebrates into line with our increased knowledge of zoology, thus breaking down many of the specific distinctions which have long been maintained between the fossil and the living forms. Even the mammoth has been found to have so many characters identical with the modern elephant of India, and such a complete gradation exists between the two types, that Flower and Lydekker acknowledge the transition from one to the other is "almost imperceptible," and express a doubt whether they "can be specifically distinguished" from one another.[37]
But the extreme reluctance with which anything like a confession of this fact leaks out in our modern literature can be readily understood when we try the hopeless task of splicing the environment of the modern form with that of the ancient on any basis of uniformity.
Zittel gives us a peep behind the scenes which helps us to appreciate the value of a percentage of extinct species as a test of the age of a rock deposit.
He pictures the uncritical work of the earlier writers on fossil botany, until August Schink (1868-91) made a great reform in this science; and Zittel declares that "now the author of a paper on any department" of fossil botany "is expected to have a sound knowledge" of the systematic botany of recent forms. But he adds: "It cannot be said that palaeozoology (the science of fossil animals) has yet arrived at this desirable standpoint."
But he justifies this charge of want of confidence by saying:
"Comparatively few individuals have such a thorough grasp of zoological and geological knowledge as to enable them to treat palaeontological researches worthily, and there has accumulated a dead weight of stratigraphical-palaeontological literature wherein the fossil remains of animals are named and pigeon-holed solely as an additional ticket of the age of a rock-deposit, with a willful disregard of the much more difficult problem of their relationships in the long chain of existence.
"The terminology which has been introduced in the innumerable monographs of special fossil faunas in the majority of cases makes only the slenderest pretext of any connection with recent systematic zoology; if there is a difficulty, then stratigraphical arguments are made the basis of a solution. Zoological students are, as a rule, too actively engaged and keenly interested in building up new observations to attempt to spell through the arbitrary palaeontological conclusions arrived at by many stratigraphers, or to revise their labors from a zoological point of view."[38]
Doubtless this scathing impeachment of the common mania for creating new names for the fossils has especial reference to the case of the lower forms of life. For if, in spite of the brilliant and withal careful work of Cuvier, Owen, Wallace, Huxley, Ray Lankester, and Leith Adams, with numerous others that might be mentioned, there are still grounds for such grave doubts of the values of specific distinctions in the case of the mammals, whose general anatomy and life-history are so well known and their almost countless variations so well studied out, what must be the confusion and inaccuracy in the case of the lower vertebrates, and especially of the invertebrates, whose general life-history in so many instances is so dimly understood, and the limits of their variations absolutely unknown? Remembering all this, what is our amazement when we read in this same volume by Professor Zittel[39] that the tendency among many modern writers in dealing with these lower forms of life, is toward the erection of the closest possible distinctions between genera and species, until recent palaeontological literature is fairly inundated with new names; and all this with the purpose, unblushingly avowed, of "enhancing the value" of such distinctions as a means of determining the relative ages of strata, and to "bring the ontogenetic and phylogenetic development" of the various forms "into more apparent correspondence." I do not exaggerate in the least, as the reader may see by referring to Zittel's book; though not wishing to make my readers "spell through" another quite technical paragraph I have refrained from direct quotation.
But surely we have here a most amazing style of reasoning. It is another clear case of first assuming one's premises, and then proving them by means of one's conclusion. The method here employed seems about like this: First assume the succession of life from the low to the high as a whole; then in any particular group, as of Brachiopods or Mollusks, decide the momentous question as to which came first and which later in "geological time" by comparing them as to size, shape, etc., with the live modern individual in its development from the egg to maturity; and lastly, take the results of this alleged chronological arrangement to prove just how the modern forms have evolved. Surely it is a most fearful example of otherwise intelligent men being hypnotized by their theory into blind obedience to its suggestions and necessities.
Not long ago I had occasion to write to a well-known geologist about a Lower Cambrian mollusk which appears strikingly like a modern species. I give below an extract from his reply which bears directly upon this point. I withhold the name, for the information was given in a half-confidential manner, but I may say that the author's work on the Palaeozoic fossils is recognized on both sides of the Atlantic.
"Some geologists make it a point to give a new name to all forms found in the Palaeozoic rocks, i.e. a name different from those of modern species. I was taken to task by a noted palaeontologist for finding a pupa (a kind of land snail) in Devonian beds; but I could not find any point in which it differed from the modern genus [? species]. Yet if I could have had more perfect specimens I might have found differences."
Such disclosures speak volumes for those able to understand; and lead one to receive with a smile the familiar assertion that all the species of the Palaeozoic and other "older" rocks are extinct. And we can now form a truer estimate of the high scientific accuracy of Lyell's ingenious division of the Tertiary beds, according to the percentage of living or extinct Mollusks which they contain.
But from the inherent weakness of the argument about extinct species as thus revealed, it follows that chronological distinctions based on any proportionate number of extinct species have absolutely no scientific value; and hence that the life succession theory finds no support from these chronological distinctions, just as we have already seen that it is without a vestige of support from the stratigraphical argument.
The life succession theory has not a single fact to confirm it in the realm of nature. It is not the result of scientific research, but purely the product of the imagination.
CHAPTER VIII
SKIPPING
We have now to deal with another absurdity involved in the life succession theory, the discussion of which grows naturally out of the subject of extinct species.
As preliminary to the subject here to be presented, we must bear in mind that the present arrangement of the fossils in alleged chronological order, as well as the naming of thousands of typical specimens, was all well advanced while as yet little or nothing was known of the contents of the depths of the ocean, or even of the land forms of Africa, Australia, and other foreign countries. In most of the important groups of both plants and animals, the detailed knowledge of the fossil forms preceded the knowledge of the corresponding living forms, just as Zittel says that the theories of the igneous origin of the crystalline rocks "had been laid without the assistance of chemistry" and the knowledge of the microscopic structure of these rocks.[40] On pp. 128-137 of his "History," this author shows how, up to 1820, little or nothing of a scientific character was known of any of the classes of living animals save mammals. During the last half century, however, the progress of science has been steadily showing case after case where families and genera, long boldly said to have been "extinct" since "Palaeozoic time," are found in thriving abundance and in little altered condition in unsuspected places all over the world. And the point for consideration here is the manifest absurdity of these inhabitants of the modern seas and the modern land skipping all the uncounted millions of years from "Palaeozoic times" down to the "recent," for, though found in profuse abundance in these "Older" rocks, not a trace of many of them is to be found in all the "subsequent" deposits.
The proposition here to be considered and proved I shall venture to formulate as follows:
There is a fossil world, and there is a modern living world; the two resembling one another in various details as well as in a general way; but to get the ancestral representatives of many modern types, e.g., countless invertebrates, with other lower forms of animals and plants, we must go clear back to the Mesozoic or the Palaeozoic rocks, for they are not found in any of the "more recent" deposits.
I have already remarked that the blending of the doctrine of life succession with that of uniformity, must inevitably have given birth to the evolution theory, for it is evident that the succession from the low to the high could only have taken place by each type blending with those before and those after it in the alleged order of time. That such is not the testimony of the rocks, even when arranged with this idea in view, is too notorious to need any words of mine, for it has been considered by many[41] the "greatest of all objections" to the theory of evolution.
This abruptness in the disappearance of "old" and the first appearance of "new" forms, has brought into being that "geological scape-goat," as James Geikie has called the doctrine of the imperfection of the record. But Dawson has well disposed of this argument in the following words:
"When we find abundance of examples of the young and old of many fossil species, and can trace them through their ordinary embryonic development, why should we not find examples of the links which bound the species together?"[42]
But it is equally evident that each successive series ought to contain, in addition to its own characteristic or "new" species, all the older forms which survived into any later deposits, or are now to be found living in our modern world. Such no doubt was the idea of those of the early geological explorers who discarded Werner's onion-coat theory, and they tried to arrange their series accordingly. This reasonable demand is still recognized as good; and the principle is alluded to by Dana when he attempts to show how strata might be discovered and "proved" to be older than the present Lower Cambrian rocks.[43]
It is, I say, still recognized in theory that the "younger" deposits ought to contain samples of the "older" types which were still surviving, in addition to their own characteristic species; but with the progress of geological discovery it has long since been found that such an arrangement was utterly impossible. Indeed, it would almost seem as if modern writers had forgotten the principle altogether.
For, as already said, according to the present chronological arrangement, many kinds of invertebrates, both terrestrial and marine, occurring in comparative abundance in our modern world, are found as fossils only in the very "oldest" rocks and are wholly absent from all the rest!!! Others which date from "Mesozoic times" are wholly absent from the Tertiaries, though abundant in our modern world. This I regard as another crucial test of the rationality of this idea of a life succession.
Of course there are certain limitations which must be borne in mind. If we find a series of beds made up largely of deep sea deposits, we cannot reasonably expect to find in them examples of all the land forms of the preceding "ages" which then survived, nor even of the shallow water types. Nor, conversely, can we demand that, in beds crowded with the remains of the great mammals and plants, and thus probably of fresh or shallow water formation, we ought to find examples of all the marine types still surviving. We now know that each level of ocean depth has its characteristic types of life, just as do the different heights on a mountain side. This doctrine of "rock facies" was, I believe, enunciated first in 1838. Edward Forbes also did much for this same idea, showing how at the present time certain faunas are confined to definite geographical limits, and particular ocean depths. Jules Marcou about 1848 applied this principle to the fossils and showed how such distinctions must have prevailed during geological time.
Here it seems that we are at last getting a refreshing breath of true science; but if carried out in its entirety how shall we assure ourselves that in the long ago very diverse types of fossils, e.g., gratolites and nummulites, or even trilobites and mammals, could not have been contemporary with each other? This principle of "rock facies," if incorporated into the science in its early days, would have saved the world from a large share of the nonsense in our modern geological and zoological text-books.
But in answer to any pleadings about the imperfection of the record, or any protests about the injustice of judging all the life-forms of an "age" by a few examples of local character, i.e., of fresh, shallow, or deep water as the case may be, the very obvious retort is, Why then are such local and fragmentary records given a time value? Why, for example, should the Carboniferous and associated formations be counted as representing all the deposits made in a certain age of the world, when we know from the Cambrian and Silurian and also from the alleged "subsequent" Jurassic that there must have been vast open sea deposits formed contemporaneously?
As Dana expresses it:
"The Lias and Oolyte of Britain and Europe afforded the first full display of the marine fauna of the world since the era of the Subcarboniferous. Very partial exhibits were made by the few marine beds of the Coal measures: still less by the beds of the Permian, and far less by the Triassic. The seas had not been depopulated. The occurrence of over 4,000 invertebrate species in Britain in the single Jurassic period is evidence, not of deficient life for the eras preceding, but of extremely deficient records."[44]
Surely these words exhibit the "phylogenic series" in all its native, unscientific deformity. It is because the Coal-measures, the Permian, and the Triassic, are necessarily "extremely deficient records" of the total life-forms then in the world, that I am writing this chapter, and this book. But it seems like perverseness to plead about the imperfection of the record, and yet refuse the evidently complementary deposits when they are presented. If, as this illustrious author says, "The seas had not been depopulated," what would he have us think they were doing? Were they forming no deposits all these intervening ages that the Carboniferous, Permian, and Triassic were being piled up? Were the fishes and invertebrates all immortalized for these ages, or were they, when old and full of days translated to some supermundane sphere, thus escaping deposit in the rocks? Did the elements continue in the status quo all these uncounted millions of years? and if so, how did they receive notice that the Triassic period was at last ended, and that it was time for them to begin work again? I do not like to appear trivial; but these questions serve to expose the folly of taking diverse, local, and partial deposits, and attaching a chronological value to each of them separately, and then pleading in a piteous, helpless way about the imperfection of the record.
And yet I cannot promise to present a tithe of the possible evidence, because of two serious handicaps. First, the ordinary literature of the science is silent and meagre enough in all conscience, even though the bare fact may be recorded that a "genus" of the Cambrian or Silurian is "closely allied" to some genus now living. It may be even admitted that "according to some it is not genetically distinct from the modern genus" so-and-so; but the authors never descend below the "genus," and in most cases forget to tell us whether or not it occurs in other "later" formations, though of course the presumption is that it does not, but has skipped all the intervening ages, or it would hardly be named as a characteristic type of the formation in which it occurs.
But this disadvantage, serious though it be, is scarcely worth speaking of when we remember the significant words of a well-known authority already quoted:
"Some geologists make it a point to give a new name to all forms found in the Palaeozoic rocks, i.e. a name different from those of modern species."
Or Zittel's confession that:
"The terminology which has been introduced in the innumerable monographs of special fossil faunas in the majority of cases makes only the slenderest pretext of any connection with recent systematic zoology; if there is a difficulty, then stratigraphical arguments are made the basis of a solution. Zoological students are as a rule too actively engaged and keenly interested in building up new observations to attempt to spell through the arbitrary palaeontological conclusions arrived at by many stratigraphers, or to revise their labors from a zoological point of view."
Hence I have no reluctance in saying that, in the present confused state of the science, it is utterly impossible to find out the truth as to how many hundreds of these "genera" of the Paleozoic rocks may have survived to the present, though having skipped perhaps all the formations of the intervening millions of years. I doubt not that the number is enormously large, though as I have not attempted "to spell through the arbitrary palaeontological conclusions" scattered through the literature, I can only depend on a few though striking examples that lie on the open pages of the ordinary text-books.
The larger mammals can of course furnish us no examples, for the "age" in which they abounded is quite conveniently modern, and is separated from the present by no great lapse of time. Of the smaller marsupials, quite a number of jaw-bones have been found in the Jurassic and Triassic, one from the latter being strikingly like the living Myrmecobius of Australia. They are scarcely more numerous in the Cretaceous of America, while in the foreign rocks of this system Dana says that "Only one species had been reported up to 1894." Those strange, sad-eyed creatures called Lemurs deserve a passing notice, for though now confined as to their typical forms to the island of Madagascar, their fossils seem as exclusively confined to the temperate regions of the New and the Old World. Flower and Lydekker enumerate about fifteen fossil species, and add that:
"... it is very noteworthy that all these types seem to have disappeared from both regions with the close of the upper portion of the Eocene period."[45]
But this jump from the "Eocene period" to the present is as nothing compared with the secular acrobatics of some of the fishes and especially of the invertebrates. The living Cestraciont sharks, of which there are four species found in the seas between Japan and Australia, seem to disappear with the Cretaceous, skipping the whole Tertiary Epoch, as do also a tribe of modern barnacles which, as Darwin says, "coat the rocks all over the world in infinite numbers." The Dipnoans or Lung-fishes (having lungs as well as gills, such as the Ceratodus and Lepidosiren), which are represented by several living species in Australia and South Africa, are the remains of a tribe found in whole shoals in the Carboniferous, Triassic and Jurassic rocks, but not, so far as I know, in any of the intervening rocks. The living Ceratodus was only discovered in 1870, and was regarded as a marvel of "persistence." On a pinch, as when his native streams dry up, this curious fellow can get along all right without water, breathing air by his lungs like a land animal. If in the meantime he was off on a trip to the moon, he must have "persisted" a few million years without either.
But his cousin, the Polypterus of the Upper Nile, has a still more amazing record, for he has actually skipped all the formations from the Devonian down to the modern; while the Limuloids or sea scorpions have jumped from the Carboniferous down.
The Mollusks and Brachiopods would afford us examples too numerous to mention. How is it possible that these numerous families disappear suddenly and completely with the Mesozoic or even the "early" Palaeozoic, and are not found in any "later" deposits, though alive now in our modern world? Parts of Europe and America have, we are told, been down under the sea and up again a dozen times since then; why then should we not expect to find abundant remains of these "persistent" types in the Mesozoic and Tertiaries? Surely these feats of time-acrobatics show the folly of arranging contemporaneous, taxonomic groups in single file and giving to each a time value.
The Chalk points a similar lesson. It was not till the time of the "Challenger" Expedition that the modern deposits of Globigerina ooze, made up of species identical with those of the Chalk, were known to be now forming over vast areas of the ocean floor. In the words of Huxley, these modern species "bridge over the interval between the present and the Mesozoic periods."[46]
As for the silicious sponges found in the Chalk, which were such puzzles for the scientists during the first half of the nineteenth century, because their living forms were unknown, the deep-sea investigations have solved the problem, for in 1877 Sollas demonstrated "the identity of their structure with that of living Hexactinellids, Lithistids, and Monactinellids."[47]
And yet with all the alleged vicissitudes of the continents during the millions of years since the Cretaceous age, there is so far as I am aware not a trace of either the chalk or the sponges in any of the "subsequent" rocks. Pieces of Cretaceous rock are of course found thus sporadically as boulders, but there is no natural deposit of this kind. But in the light of these modern discoveries why is not the Chalk of "the white dear cliffs of Dover," full of modern living species as we now know it to be, just as "recent" a deposit as the "late" Tertiaries or the Pleistocene?
Another good illustration of the absurdity of the present arrangement of the rocks is found in the Echinoderms—crinoids, star-fishes, sea-urchins, etc. Of the latter Prof. A. Agassiz found in the deep waters of the West Indies, four genera of Echinids or sea-urchins of the "later Tertiary," but 24 genera of the "early" Tertiary, 10 of the Cretaceous, and 5 of the Jurassic.[48]
But far from being uncommon we know that similar discoveries have been in almost constant progress during the last half century. And were it not that "zoological students are," as Zittel says, "too actively engaged and keenly interested in building up new observations to attempt to spell through the arbitrary palaeontological conclusions" found in the "dead weight of stratigraphical-palaeontological literature," there is no telling what hosts of similar facts might not be pointed to regarding the forms found in all the "older" rocks.
Of the star-fishes and serpent-stars (Asteridea and Ophiuridea), Zittel says: "It would seem that the Palaeozoic 'sea-stars' differed very little from those in the seas of the present age." (p. 395.) The crinoids, we are told, "are among the earliest in geological history," making up vast limestones of the Palaeozoic rocks; and forms scarcely separable from the modern are found in the Jurassic, but so far as the text-books tell us are absolutely unknown in any later deposits. But there are several modern genera, such as Pentacrinus, Rhizocrinus, Bathycrinus, etc., found in the deep waters of nearly all the oceans. The genus Rhizocrinus was discovered off the coast of Norway about the sixties of the last century. But what were these creatures doing since "Jurassic times," while the "pulsating crust" was putting parts of the continents under the sea for ages at a stretch? Why did they form no deposits during the Cretaceous, Eocene, Miocene or Pliocene ages? Surely the absurdity of the present arrangement is evident to a child. During all these intervening ages the climate of the globe continued of the same remarkable mildness, fossils of all these formations being found about as far north as explorers have ever gone. Why did the crinoids and polyp-corals suspend business from "Jurassic times" to the "recent," merely to accommodate a modern theory? Dana says that "The coral reefs of the Oolyte in England consist of corals of the same group with the reef-making species of the existing tropics,"[49] and he argues from this fact that the mean temperature of the waters must have been about 69 deg. F. But a luxuriant vegetation still continued in the Arctic regions during the Cretaceous and the Tertiaries. How absurd to say that these corals built no reefs about the European coasts during all these ages. Or, to put the matter in another way, considering how many of their characteristic types are alive in our modern seas, why should we say that the crinoidal or coral limestones of the Mesozoic or Palaeozoic rocks are not as recent as the nummulitic limestones of the Eocene or any late Tertiary deposits?
It is no answer at all to tell us that, though the general types are the same, the species of the Palaeozoic and the Mesozoic are entirely extinct. I have not had the courage "to attempt to spell through" all the "dead weight" of the modern literature, but I think that the world would like more satisfactory proof of this oft-repeated assertion than the customs and traditions of a hundred years, and the exigencies of a fanciful theory. This worn-out argument of Cuvier's about extinct species has kept up a running fight with common sense for many decades, and though driven backward from one point to another over the long thin line of this taxonomic series of the fossil world, it still contests every inch of ground.
But let us try the tree-ferns and cycads of the coal beds of the "older" rocks. In northern regions they are not found "later" than the Triassic and Jurassic, and doubtless the same holds good of the rocks in the Tropics, where the modern species now live in fair abundance. But how did they come to shift to the Tropics so many millions of years before the palms, etc., of the Tertiaries thought it time to do the same? The climate had not changed a bit: how did they come to scent the coming "Glacial Age" so much earlier than their more highly organized fellows?
The "Challenger" expedition found some Cyathophylloid corals now building reefs at the bottom of our modern ocean. The geologists had already assigned the last of them to the Carboniferous and Permian rocks with the idea that they were extinct. But where have these fellows kept themselves during all the intervening ages while the continents were deep under the ocean time and time again? or why are not the rocks containing their fossils as "recent" as any deposits on the globe?
And so I might go on. There is hardly a tribe found in the "older" rocks which does not have its living representatives of to-day, and with, I believe, a fair proportion of the species identical; though in hundreds, perhaps thousands, of cases these species, genera, or even whole tribes, have somehow skipped all the intervening formations.
But let us drop this method of studying our subject, and look at it from a slightly different standpoint.
Thus Dana[50] says that:
"The absence of Lamellibranchs in the Middle Cambrian, although present in both Lower and Upper, means the absence of fossils from the rocks, not of species from the faunas."
He puts this in italics by way of emphasis, for it is certainly a reasonable idea, and as A. R. Wallace says, "no one now doubts that where any type appears in two remote periods it must have been in existence during the whole intervening period, although we may have no record of it."[51] But what would be the result if we only extend this idea to its logical conclusion? It seems to be an effort to avoid one of the absurdities of the onion-coat theory, without, however, discarding that theory altogether.
In speaking of some corals and crinoids of the Devonian which "were absent" from some of the divisions of this formation because the conditions of the seas about New York "were unfavorable," Dana says that "they were back when the seas were again of sufficient purity."[52]
In his review of these formations he enlarges on this subject:
"At the close of the early Devonian the evidences of clear seas—the corals and crinoids, with most of the attendant life—disappear, migrating no one knows whither.... With the variations in the fineness, or other characteristics of the beds as H. S. Williams has illustrated, the species vary.... The faunas of each stratum are not strictly faunas of epochs or periods of time, but local topographical faunas. After the Corniferous period, corals, crinoids, and trilobites still flourished somewhere, as before, but they are absent from the Central Interior until the Carboniferous age[53] opens."
Here we are certainly getting a refreshing breath of common-sense geology; but what would become of current theories if we enlarge a little on this idea?
What if the gigantic dinosaurs of the Cretaceous or the equally marvellous mammals of the "early" Tertiaries of the Western States, described by Marsh and Cope, and the Pleistocene mammals of other parts of America and of Europe and Northern Siberia, "are not strictly faunas of epochs or periods of time, but local topographical faunas?" What if the world-wide limestones of the Cambrian and Silurian, and the no less enormous or widespread nummulitic limestones of the Eocene, extending from the Alps to Eastern Asia, and constituting mountains ten, fifteen, or twenty thousand feet high—what if these are possibly contemporaneous with one another? Supposing the coal-measures of Nova Scotia and Pennsylvania, and the Cretaceous and Tertiary lignites of Vancouver Island, Alberta, and the Western States are not strictly floras of epochs or periods of time, but local topographical floras?[54]
But it must be confessed that the logical extension of this broad view of the fossils, and the projection of our modern zoological provinces and zones back into the fossil world would mean the death-blow to the life succession theory, and might have a very disturbing effect upon certain theories about human origins and other genetic relationships which have grown quite popular since the middle of the last century.