Chapter IX: Appendix: Evolutionary Tables

1.--GEOLOGICAL AGES AND PERIODS

-----------------+------------------+------------------+------------------
Ages in the | | |Approximate length
Organic History | Periods of | Vertebrate |of Paleontological
of the Earth. | Geology | Fossils. | Periods.
-----------------+------------------+------------------+------------------
| {1. Laurentian | |
I. Archeozoic age| { | | 52 million years
(primordial) | { | No fossil |Sedimentary strata
| {2. Huronian | remains of | 63,000 ft. thick
| | vertebrates |
Age of | 3. Cambrian | |
invertebrates | | |
-----------------+------------------+------------------+------------------
| | |
| 4. Silurian | Fishes |
| | |
II. Paleozoic age| 5. Devonian | Dipneusts | 34 million years
(primary) | | |Sedimentary strata
Age of fishes | 6. Carboniferous| Amphibia | 41,200 ft. thick
| | |
| 7. Permian | Reptiles |
-----------------+------------------+------------------+------------------
| | |
| 8. Triassic | Monotremes |
III. Mesozoic age| | | 11 million years
(secondary) | 9. Jurassic | Marsupials |Sedimentary strata
Age of reptiles| | | 12,200 ft. thick
| 10. Cretaceous | {_Mallotheria_ |
| | {Pro-placentals |
-----------------+------------------+------------------+------------------
| | |
| 11. Eocene | {_Prosimiæ_ |
| | { Lemurs |
| | |
| 12. Oligocene | {_Cynopitheca_ |
IV. Cenozoic age | | { Baboons |
(tertiary) | | | 3 million years
Age of mammals | 13. Miocene | {_Anthropoides_ | 3,600 ft. thick
| | { Man-like apes |
| | |
| 14. Pliocene | {_Pithecanthropi_|
| | { Ape-men |
-----------------+------------------+------------------+------------------
| | |
V. Anthropozoic | 15. Glacial | Pre-historic man |
age (quaternary)| | | 300,000 years
Age of man | 16. Post-glacial | Savage and |Sedimentary strata
| | civilised man | little thickness
-----------------+------------------+------------------+------------------

2A.--MAN'S GENEALOGICAL TREE--_First Half_

EARLIER ANCESTRAL SERIES, WITHOUT FOSSIL REMAINS, BEFORE THE SILURIAN PERIOD

-------------+---------------------+-------------------+-----+-----+-----
Chief Stages.| Ancestral | Living Relatives |Pale-|Onto-|Mor-
| Stem-Groups. | of our Ancestors. |onto-|geny.|phol-
| | |logy.| |ogy.
-------------+---------------------+-------------------+-----+-----+-----
Stages 1-5: | { 1. MONERA | 1. CHROMACEA | O | I? | I
PROTIST- | { (Plasmodoma) | (_Chroococcus_) | | |
ANCESTORS | { without nuclei | _Phycochromacea_ | | |
Unicellular | { 2. ALGARIA | 2. PAULOTOMEA | O | I? | I
organisms | { Unicellular algæ | _Palmellacea_ | | |
| { with nuclei | _Eremosphaera_ | | |
| | | | |
| { 3. LOBOSA | 3. AMŒBINA | O | II | II
| { Unicellular | _Amœba_ | | |
| { (Amœboid) | _Lecocyta_ | | |
1-2: | { Rhizopods | | | |
Plasmodomous | { 4. INFUSORIA | 4. FLAGELLATA | O | ? | II
Protophyta | { (Unicellular) | _Euflagellata_ | | |
3-5: | { | _Zoomonades_ | | |
Plasmophagous| { 5. BLASTÆADES | 5. CATALLACTA | O | III | III
Protozoa | { Multicellular | _Magosphaera_ | | |
| { cell-colonies | _Volvocina_ | | |
| { | _Blastula?_ | | |
-------------+---------------------+-------------------+-----+-----+-----
| { 6. GASTRÆADES | 6. GASTRULA | O | III | III
Stages 6-11: | { with two | _Hydra, Olynthus_,| | |
INVERTEBRATE | { germinal layers | _Orthonectida_ | | |
METAZOA- | { 7. PLATODES I. | 7. CRYPTOCŒLA | O | ? | I
ANCESTORS | { _Platodaria_ | (_Convoluta_) | | |
6-8: | { (without nephridia)| (_Proporus_) | | |
Cœlenteria, | { 8. PLATODES II. | 8. RHABDOCŒLA | O | ? | I
without anus | { _Platodinia_ | (_Vortex_) | | |
anus or | { (with nephridia) | (_Monotus_) | | |
body-cavity | | | | |
| | | | |
| { 9. PROVERMALIA | 9. GASTROTRICHA | O | ? | I
| { _Rotatoria_ | _Trochozoa_ | | |
| { Primitive worms | _Trochophora_ | | |
9-11: | {10. FRONTONIA | 10. ENTEROPNEUSTA | O | ? | I
Vermalia, | {(_Rhynchelminthes_)| _Balanoglossus_ | | |
with anus and| { Snouted worms | _Cephalodiscus_ | | |
body-cavity | {11. PROCHORDONIA | 11. COPELATA | O | II | II
| Worms with chorda | _Appendicaria_ | | |
------------+---------------------+-------------------+-----+-----+-----
| {12. ACRANIA I. | 12. LARVÆ OF | O | III | II
| { (Prospondylia) | AMPHIOXUS | | |
Stages 12-15:| {13. ACRANIA II. | 13. LEPTOCARDIA | O | I | III
MONORRHINA- | { Later skull-less | Amphioxus | | |
ANCESTORS | { animals | (Lancelet) | | |
Earliest | {14. CYCLOSTOMA I. | 14. LARVÆ OF | O | III | II
vertebrates, | { (Archicrania) | PETROMYZON | | |
without jaws| {15. CYCLOSTOMA II. | 15. MARSIPOBRAN- | O | I | III
or pairs of | { Later round- | CHIA | | |
limbs, with | { mouthed animals | Myxinoides | | |
single | { | Petromyzontes | | |
nostril | | | | |
-------------+---------------------+-------------------+-----+-----+-----

2B.--MAN'S GENEALOGICAL TREE--_Second Half_

LATER ANCESTRAL SERIES, WITH FOSSIL REMAINS, BEGINNING IN THE SILURIAN

-------------+---------------------+-------------------+-----+-----+-----
Geological | Stem-Groups of | Living Relatives |Pale-|Onto-|Mor-
Periods. | Ancestors. | of our Ancestors. |onto-|geny.|phol-
| | |logy.| |logy.
-------------+---------------------+-------------------+-----+-----+-----
|{16. SELACHII |16. NOTIDANIDES | I | II | III
Silurian |{ Primitive fishes| Chlamydoselachus| | |
|{ _Proselachii_ | _Heptanchus_ | | |
|{17. GANOIDES |17. ACCIPENSERIDES | II | I | II
Silurian |{ Plated fishes | Sturgeon, | | |
|{ _Proganoides_ | Polypterus | | |
|{18. DIPNEUSTA |18. NEODIPNEUSTA | I | II | II
Devonian |{ _Paladipneusta_ | Ceratodus, | | |
|{ | Protopterus | | |
|{19. AMPHIBIA |19. PHANEROBRANCHIA| III | III | III
Carboniferous|{ _Stegocephala_ | and Salamandrina | | |
|{ | (Proteus, Triton)| | |
|{20. REPTILIA |20. RHYNCOCEPHALIA | III | II | II
Permian |{ _Proreptilia_ | Primitive lizards| | |
|{ | Hatteria | | |
-------------+---------------------+-------------------+-----+-----+-----
|{21. MONOTREMA |21. ORNITHODELPHIA | I | III | III
Triassic |{ _Promammalia_ | Echnida | | |
|{ | Ornithorhyncus | | |
|{22. MARSUPIALIA |22. DIDELPHIA | I | II | II
Jurassic |{ _Prodidelphia_ | Didelphys, | | |
|{ | Perameles | | |
|{23. MALLOTHERIA |23. INSECTIVORA | III | I | I
Cretaceous |{ _Prochoriata_ | Erinaceida | | |
|{ | (Ictopsida+) | | |
-------------+---------------------+-------------------+-----+-----+-----
|{24. LEMURAVIDA |24. PACHYLEMURES | III | I? | II
Older Eocene |{ Earlier lemurs | (_Hypopsodus_+) | | |
|{ Dent. 3, 1, 4, 3 | (_Adapis_+) | | |
|{25. LEMUROGONA |25. AUTOLEMURES | II | I? | II
Later Eocene |{ Later lemurs | (_Eulemur_) | | |
|{ Dent. 2, 1, 4, 3 | (_Stenops_) | | |
|{26. DYSMOPITHECA |26. PLATYRRHINÆ | I | I | II
Oligocene |{ Western apes | (_Anthropops_+) | | |
|{ Dent. 2, 1, 3, 3 | (_Homunculus_+) | | |
|{27. CYNOPITHECA |27. PAPIOMORPHA | I | I | III
Older Miocene|{ Baboons (tailed) | (_Cynocephalus_)| | |
|{28. ANTHROPOIDES |28. HYLOBATIDA | I | II | III
Later Miocene|{ Anthropoid apes | Hylobates | | |
|{ (tailless) | Satyrus | | |
|{29. PITHECANTHROPI |29. ANTHROPITHECA | II | III | III
Pliocene |{ Ape-like men | Chimpanzee | | |
|{ (alali=speechless) | Gorilla | | |
|{30. HOMINES |30. WEDDAHS | I | III | III
Pleistocene |{ (loquaces=with | Australian | | |
|{ speech) | natives | | |
-------------+---------------------+-------------------+-----+-----+-----

3.--CLASSIFICATION OF THE PRIMATES

[[TRANSCRIBER NOTE: This 4-column Table has been split into two parts.
The first part has columns 1, 2 and 3. The second part has columns
2, 3 and 4 (2 and 3 are repeated from the first part).]]

_N.B_.-- * indicates extinct forms, + living groups, ++ the hypothetical stem-form. _Cf._ _History of Creation_, chap. xxvii.; _Evolution of Man_, chap. xxiii.

[[First Part]]
----------------------+------------------------+--------------------------
Orders. | Sub-Orders. | Families.
----------------------+------------------------+--------------------------
| |
I | |
PROSIMIAE | { 1. LEMURAVIDA | {1. PACHYLEMURES*
Lemurs | { (_Palalemures_) | {(_Hypopsodina_)
(Hemipitheci) | { Early lemurs | {
The orbits imper- | { (generalists) | {Dent. 44=3.1.4.3/3.1.4.3
fectly separated | { Originally with | {Primitive dentition
from the temporal | { claws on all or | {
depression by a | { most fingers: later | {2. NECROLEMURES
bony arch. Womb | { transition to nails. | {(_Anaptomorpha_)
double or two-horned. | { Tarsus primitive. | {
Placenta diffuse, in- | { | {Dent. 40=2.1.4.3/2.1.4.3
deciduate (as a rule).| { | {Reduced dentition
Cerebrum relatively | { |
small, smooth, or | { | {3. AUTOLEMURES+
little furrowed. | { | {(_Lemurida_)
| { 2. LEMUROGONA | {
| { (_Neolemures_) | {Dent. 36=2.1.3.3/2.1.3.3
| { Modern lemures | {Specialised dentition
| { (specialists) | {
| { All fingers usually | {4. CHIROLEMURES+
| { have nails (except | {(_Chiromyida_)
| { the second toe). | {
| { Tarsus modified. | {Dent. 18=1.0.1.3/1.0.0.3
| | {Rodent dentition
| |
----------------------+------------------------+--------------------------
| |
II | | {5. ARCTOPITHECA+
SIMIAE | { 3. PLATYRRHINAE | {
Apes | { Flat-nosed apes | {Dent. 32=2.1.3.2/2.1.3.2
(_Pitheci_ or | { _Hesperopitheca_ | {Nail on hallux only
_simiales_) | { Western apes | {
Orbits completely | { (American) | {6. DYSMOPITHECA+
separated from the | { Nostrils lateral, | {
temporal depression | { with wide partition | {Dent. 36=2.1.3.3/2.1.3.3
by a bony septum. | { 3 premolars | {Nails on all fingers
Womb simple, pear- | { |
shaped. Placenta | { | {7. CYNOPITHECA+
discoid, deciduate. | { | {
Cerebrum relatively | { | {Dent 32=2.1.2.3/2.1.2.3
large and much | { | {Generally with tail
furrowed. | { 4. CATARRHINAE | {and cheek-pouches
| { Narrow-nosed | {Sacrum with 3 or
| { apes | {4 vertebræ
| { _Eopitheca_ | {
| { Eastern apes | {8. ANTHROPOMORPHA+
| { (Arctogoea) | {
| { Europe, Asia, and | {Dent. 32=2.1.2.3/2.1.2.3
| { Africa. | {No tail or cheek-pouches
| { Nostrils forward, | {Sacrum with 5
| { with narrow septum | {vertebræ
| { 2 premolars |
| { Nails on all |
| { fingers |
| |
----------------------+------------------------+--------------------------

[[Second Part]]
-----------------------+---------------------------+-----------------
Sub-Orders. | Families. | Genera.
-----------------------+---------------------------+-----------------
| |
| | {_Archiprimas_++
{ 1. LEMURAVIDA | {1. PACHYLEMURES* | {_Lemuravus_*
{ (_Palalemures_) | {(_Hypopsodina_) | { Early Eocene
{ Early lemurs | { | {_Pelycodus_*
{ (generalists) | {Dent. 44=3.1.4.3/3.1.4.3 | { Early Eocene
{ Originally with | {Primitive dentition | {_Hypopsodus_*
{ claws on all or | { | { Late Eocene
{ most fingers: later | {2. NECROLEMURES |
{ transition to nails. | {(_Anaptomorpha_) | {_Adapis_*
{ Tarsus primitive. | { | {_Plesiadapis_*
{ | {Dent. 40=2.1.4.3/2.1.4.3 | {Necrolemur*
{ | {Reduced dentition |
{ | | {_Eulemur_
{ | {3. AUTOLEMURES+ | {_Hapalemur_
{ | {(_Lemurida_) | {_Lepilemur_
{ 2. LEMUROGONA | { | {_Nycticebus_
{ (_Neolemures_) | {Dent. 36=2.1.3.3/2.1.3.3 | {_Stenops_
{ Modern lemures | {Specialised dentition | {_Galago_
{ (specialists) | { |
{ All fingers usually | {4. CHIROLEMURES+ | {_Chiromys_
{ have nails (except | {(_Chiromyida_) | { (Claws on all
{ the second toe). | { | { fingers except
{ Tarsus modified. | {Dent. 18=1.0.1.3/1.0.0.3 | { first)
| {Rodent dentition |
| |
-----------------------+---------------------------+-----------------
| |
| {5. ARCTOPITHECA+ | {_Hapale_
{ 3. PLATYRRHINAE | { | {_Midas_
{ Flat-nosed apes | {Dent. 32=2.1.3.2/2.1.3.2 |
{ _Hesperopitheca_ | {Nail on hallux only |
{ Western apes | { | {_Callithrix_
{ (American) | {6. DYSMOPITHECA+ | {_Nyctipithecus_
{ Nostrils lateral, | { | {_Cebus_
{ with wide partition | {Dent. 36=2.1.3.3/2.1.3.3 | {_Mycetes_
{ 3 premolars | {Nails on all fingers | {_Ateles_
{ | |
{ | {7. CYNOPITHECA+ | {_Cynocephalus_
{ | { | {_Cercopithecus_
{ | {Dent 32=2.1.2.3/2.1.2.3 | {_Inuus_
{ | {Generally with tail | {_Semnopithecus_
{ 4. CATARRHINAE | {and cheek-pouches | {_Colobus_
{ Narrow-nosed | {Sacrum with 3 or 4 | {_Nasalis_
{ apes | {vertebræ |
{ _Eopitheca_ | { | {_Hylobates_
{ Eastern apes | {8. ANTHROPOMORPHA+ | {_Satyrus_
{ (Arctogoea) | { | {_Pliopithecus_*
{ Europe, Asia, and | {Dent. 32=2.1.2.3/2.1.2.3 | {_Gorilla_
{ Africa. | {No tail or cheek-pouches | {_Anthropithecus_
{ Nostrils forward, | {Sacrum with 5 | {_Dryopithecus_*
{ with narrow septum | {vertebræ | {_Pithe-
{ 2 premolars | | { canthropus_*
{ Nails on all | | {_Homo_
{ fingers | |
| |
-----------------------+---------------------------+-----------------

4.--GENEALOGICAL TREE OF THE PRIMATES

EXPLANATION OF GENEALOGICAL TABLE 1

CHRONOMETRIC REDUCTION OF BIOGENETIC PERIODS

The enormous length of the biogenetic periods (_i.e._, the periods during which organic life has been evolving on our planet) is still very differently estimated by geologists and paleontologists, astronomers and physicists, because the empirical data of the calculation are very incomplete and admit great differences of estimate. However, most modern experts aver that their length runs to 100 and 200 million years (some say double this, and even more). If we take the lesser figure of 100 millions, we find this distributed over the five chief periods of organic geology very much as is shown on Table 1. In order to get a clearer idea of the vast duration of these evolutionary periods, and to appreciate the relative shortness of the "historical period," Dr. H. Schmidt (Jena) has reduced the 100,000,000 years to a day. In this scheme the twenty-four hours of "creation-day" are distributed as follows over the five evolutionary periods:

I. Archeozoic period (52 million years) = 12h. 30m.
II. Paleozoic period (34 million years) = 8h. 7m.
III. Mesozoic period (11 million years) = 2h. 38m.
IV. Cenozoic period (3 million years) = 43m.
V. Anthropozoic period (0·1-0·2 million years) = 2m.

If we put the length of the "historic period" at 6,000 years, it only makes _five seconds_ of "creation-day"; the Christian era would amount to _two_ seconds.

POSTSCRIPT

EVOLUTION AND JESUITISM

The relation of the theory of evolution to the teaching of the Jesuits is in many respects so important and so liable to misunderstanding that I have felt it very desirable to make it clear in the present work. I have, I think, clearly showed that the two doctrines are diametrically and irreconcilably opposed, and that the attempt of the modern Jesuits to reconcile the two antagonists is mere sophistry. I wrote with special reference to the works of the learned Jesuit, Father Erich Wasmann, not only because that writer deals with the subject more ably and comprehensively than most of his colleagues, but because he is more competent to make a scientific defence of his views on account of his long studies of the ants and his general knowledge of biology. He has made a vigorous reply to my strictures in an "open letter" to me, which appeared on 2nd May, 1905, in the Berlin (or Roman) _Germania_, and in the _Kölnische Volkszeitung_.

The sophistical objections that Wasmann raises to my lectures, and his misleading statement of the most important problems, oblige me to make a brief reply in this "Postscript." It will be impossible, of course, to meet all his points here, and convince him of their futility. Not even the clearest and most rigorous logic makes a man a match for a Jesuit; he adroitly employs the facts themselves for the purpose of concealing the truth by his perverse misstatements. It is vain to hope to convince my opponent by rational argument, when he believes that religious faith is "higher than all reason." A good idea can be formed of his position from the conclusion of the eleventh chapter of his work, _Modern Biology and the Theory of Evolution_ (p. 307). "There can never be a real contradiction between natural knowledge and supernatural revelation, because both have their origin in the same Divine spirit." This is a fine comment on the incessant struggle that "natural science" is compelled to maintain against "supernatural revelation," and that fills the whole philosophical and theological literature of the last half century.

Wasmann's orthodox position is shown most clearly by the following statement: "The theory of evolution, to which I subscribe as a scientist and a philosopher, rests on the foundations of the Christian doctrine which I hold to be the only true one: 'In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth.'" Unfortunately, he does not tell us how he conceives this "creation out of nothing," and what he means by "God" and "heavens." I would recommend him to consult Troelslund's excellent work, _The Idea of Heaven and of the World_.

Almost at the same time that I was delivering my lectures at Berlin, Wasmann was giving a series of thoroughly Jesuitical lectures on the subject at Lucerne. The Catholic Lucerne journal, _Vaterland_, describes these lectures as "a work of emancipation" and "a critical moment in the intellectual struggle." It quotes the following sentence: "At the highest stage of the theistic philosophy of evolution is God, the omnipotent creator of heaven and earth; next to him, created by him, is the immortal soul of man. We reach this conclusion, not only by faith, but by inductive and strictly scientific methods. The system that is reared on the theistic doctrine of evolution is the sole rational and truly scientific system; the atheistic position is irrational and unscientific."

In order to see the untruth of this and the succeeding statements of the modern Jesuits, we have to remember that the Churches--both Protestant and Catholic--have vigorously combated the theory of evolution with all their power for thirty years, ever since the first appearance of Darwinism. The shrewd clergy saw more clearly than many of our naïve philosophers that Darwin's theory of descent is the inevitable key-stone of the whole theory of evolution, and that "the descent of man from other mammals" is a rigorous deduction from it. As Karl Escherich well says: "Hitherto we read in the faces of our clerical opponents only hatred, bitterness, contempt, mockery, or pity in regard to the new invader of their dogmatic structure, the idea of evolution. Now (since Wasmann's apostasy) the assurances of the Catholic journals, that the Church has admitted the theory of evolution for decades, make us smile. Evolution has now pressed on to its final victory, and these people would have us believe that they were never unfriendly to it, never shrieked and stormed against it. How, they say, could anyone have been so foolish, when the theory of evolution puts the wisdom and power of the creator in a nobler light than ever." We find a similar diplomatic retreat in the popular work of the Jesuit, Father Martin Gander, _The Theory of Descent_ (1904): "Thus the modern forms of matter were not immediately created by God; they are effects of the formative forces, which were put by the creator in the primitive matter, and gradually came into view in the course of the earth's history, when the external conditions were given in the proper combination." That is a remarkable change of front on the part of the clergy.

We see the astonishing system of the Jesuits, and of the papacy of which they are the bodyguard, not only in this impossible jumble of evolution and theology, but also in other passages of Wasmann, Gander, Gutberlet, and their colleagues. The serious dangers that threaten our schools, and the whole of our higher culture, from this Jesuitical sham-science, have been well pointed out lately by Count von Hoensbroech in the preface to his famous work, _The Papacy in its Social and Intellectual Activity_ (1901). "The papacy," he says, "in its claim to a Divine authority, transmitted to it by Christ, endowed with infallibility in all questions of faith and morals, is the greatest, the most fatal, the most successful error in the whole of history. This great error is girt about by the thousands of lies of its supporters; this error and these lies work for a system of power and domination, for ultramontanism. The truth can but struggle against it.... Nowhere do we find so much and such systematic lying as in Catholic science, and in the history of the Church and the papacy; nowhere are the lies and misrepresentations more pernicious than here; they have become part and parcel of the Catholic religion. The facts of history tell plainly enough that the papacy is anything but a Divine institution; that it has brought more curses and ruin, more bloody turmoil and profanation, into humanity's holiest of holies, religion, than any other power in the world."

This severe judgment on the papacy and Jesuitism is the more valuable as Count von Hoensbroech was himself in the service of the Jesuit Congregation for forty years, and learned thoroughly all its tricks and intrigues. In making them public, and basing his charges on numerous official documents, he has done great service to the cause of truth and civilisation. I was merely repeating his well-founded verdict when, at the close of my first lecture, I described the papacy as the greatest swindle the world has ever submitted to.

A curious irony of Fate gave me an opportunity, the same evening, to experience in my own person the correctness of this verdict. A Berlin reporter telegraphed to London that I had fully accepted the new theory of Father Wasmann, and recognised the error of Darwinism; that the theory of evolution is not applicable to man on account of his mental superiority. This welcome intelligence passed from London to America and many other countries. The result was a flood of letters from zealous adherents of the theory of evolution, interrogating me as to my unintelligible change of front. I thought at first that the telegram was due to the misunderstanding or the error of a reporter, but I was afterwards informed from Berlin that the false message was probably due to a deliberate corruption by some religious person who thought to render a service to his faith by this untruth. He had substituted "supported" for "refuted," and "error" for "truth."

The struggle for the triumph of truth, in which I have had the most curious experiences during the last forty years, has brought me a number of new impressions through my Berlin lectures. The flood of calumnies of all kinds that the religious press (especially the Lutheran _Reichsbote_ and the Catholic _Germania_) poured over me exceeded any that had gone before. Dr. Schmidt gave a selection from them in the _Freie Wort_ (No. 4, p. 144). I have already pointed out, in the Appendix to the popular edition of the _Riddle of the Universe_ [German edition], what unworthy means are employed by my clerical and metaphysical opponents for the purpose of bringing my popular scientific works into disrepute. I can only repeat here that the calumniation of my person does not move me, and does not injure the cause of truth which I serve. It is just this unusually loud alarm of my clerical enemies that tells me my sacrifices have not been in vain, and that I have put the modest key-stone to the work of my life--"The advancement of knowledge by the spread of the idea of evolution."

THE END

_Printed by Cowan & Co., Limited, Perth._

FOOTNOTES:

[1] The word "evolution" is still used in so many different ways in various sciences that it is important to fix it in the general significance which we here give it. By "evolution," in the widest sense, I understand the unceasing "mutations of substance," adopting Spinoza's fundamental conception of substance; it unites inseparably in itself "matter and force (or energy)," or "nature and mind" (= the world and God). Hence the science of evolution in its broader range is "the history of substance," which postulates the general validity of "the law of substance." In the latter are combined "the law of the constancy of matter" (Lavoisier, 1789) and "the law of the conservation of energy" (Robert Mayer, 1842), however varied may be the changes of _form_ of these elements in the world-process. _Cf._ Chapter XII. of _The Riddle_.

[2] Certain orthodox periodicals have lately endeavoured to deny this famous atheistical confession of the great Laplace, which was merely a candid deduction of his splendid cosmic system. They say that this Monistic natural philosopher acknowledged the Catholic faith on his death-bed; and in proof of this they offer us the later testimony of an Ultramontane priest. We need not point out how uncertain is the love of truth of these heated partisans. When testimony of this kind tends to "the good of religion" (_i.e._, their own good), it is held to be a pious work (_pia fraus_). On the other hand, it is interesting to recall the reply of a Prussian Minister of Religion, Von Zedlitz, 120 years ago, to the Breslau Consistory, when it urged that "those who believe most are the best subjects." He wrote in reply: "His majesty [Frederick the Great] is not disposed to rest the security of his State on the stupidity of his subjects."

[3] See, for instance, _Moses and Geology, or Harmony of the Bible with Science_, by Samuel Kinns (1882). In this work the pious Biblical astronomer executes the most incredible and Jesuitical manœuvres in order to bring about an impossible reconciliation between science and the Biblical narrative.

[4] The eel-like sophistry of the Jesuits, which has been brought to such a wonderful pitch in their political system, cannot, as a rule, be met by argument. An interesting illustration of this was given by Father Wasmann himself in his controversy with the physician, Dr. Julian Marcuse. The "scientific" Wasmann had gone so far in his zeal for religion as to support a downright swindle of a "miraculous cure" in honour of the "Mother of God of Oostacker" (the Belgian Lourdes). Dr. Marcuse succeeded in exposing the whole astounding story of this "pious fraud" (_Deutsche Stimmen_, Berlin, 1903, iv. Jahrg., No. 20). Instead of giving a scientific refutation, the Jesuit replied with sophistic perversion and personal invective (Scientific [?] Supplement to _Germania_, Berlin, 1902, No. 43, and 1903, No. 13). In his final reply, Dr. Marcuse said: "I have accomplished my object--to let thoughtful people see once more the kind of ideas that are found in the world of dead and literal faith, which tries to put the crudest superstition and reverence for the myth of miraculous cures in the place of science, truth and knowledge" (_Deutsche Stimmen_, 1903, v. Jahrgang, No. 3).

[5] While these pages are in the press the journals announce a fresh humiliation of the German empire that will cause great grief. On the 9th of May the nation celebrated the centenary of the death of Friedrich Schiller. With rare unanimity all the political parties of Germany, and all the German associations abroad, came together to do honour to the great poet of German idealism. Professor Theobald Ziegler delivered a very fine address at Strassburg University. The Emperor, who happened to be in the town, was invited, but did not attend; instead of doing so, he held a military parade in the vicinity. A few days afterwards he sat at table with the German Catholic cardinals and bishops, amongst them being the fanatical Bishop Benzler, who declared that a Christian cemetery was desecrated by the interment of a Protestant. At these festive dinners German Catholics always give the first toast to the Pope, the second to the Emperor; they rejoice at present that the Emperor and Pope are _allies_. But the whole history of the papacy (a pitiful caricature of the ancient Catholic faith) shows clearly that they are natural and irreconcilable enemies. Either emperor must rule _or_ pope.

[6] The manuscript letter in which the gentle Darwin expresses so severe a judgment on Virchow is printed in my Cambridge lecture, _The Last Link_. My answer to Virchow's speech is contained in the second volume of my _Popular Lectures_, and has lately appeared in the _Freie Wort_ (April, 1905).

[7] In his presidential speech at the last meeting of the British Association, Professor Darwin said: "It does not seem unreasonable to suppose that 500 to 1,000 million years may have elapsed since the birth of the moon." [Trans.]

[8] See account of similar experiments in the _Lancet_, 18th January, 1902. [Trans.]

[9] Wasmann meets these convincing experiments with mere Jesuitical sophistry. Of the same character is his attack on my _Evolution of Man_, and on the instructive work of Robert Wiedersheim, _Man's Structure as a Witness to his Past_.

[10] I may remind those who think that the hall of the Musical Academy is "desecrated" by my lectures, that it was in the very same place that Alexander von Humboldt delivered, seventy-seven years ago (1828), the remarkable lectures that afterwards made up his _Cosmos_. The great traveller, whose clear mind had recognised the unity of Nature, and had, with Goethe, discovered therein the real knowledge of God, endeavoured to convey his thoughts in popular form to the educated Berlin public, and to establish the universality of natural law. It was my aim to establish, as regards the organic world, precisely what Humboldt had proved to exist in inorganic nature. I wanted to show how the great advance of modern biology (since Darwin's time) enables us to solve the most difficult of all problems, the historical development of plants and animals in humanity. Humboldt in his day earned the most lively approval and gratitude of all free-thinking and truth-seeking men, and the displeasure and suspicion of the orthodox and conservative courtiers at Berlin.

* * * * * *

Transcriber's note:

In Tables 2A and 2B, 'Ontogeny' column, the character ! was used in
the original text. This was probably a printer's error, and has been
replaced with I. So ! !! and !!! are displayed as I II and III.

Notation for dentition in Table 2B (p. 117), where lower dentition is
assumed the same as upper, is unchanged; for example "3, 1, 4, 3".
In Table 3 (p.118) it is given as a fraction, and represented in the
etext as "upper/lower"; for example "44 = 3.1.4.3/3.1.4.3".

Table 3 has been split into two parts in the etext.

Obvious typographical errors and punctuation errors have been
corrected after careful comparison with other occurrences within
the text and consultation of external sources.

Except for those changes noted below, all misspellings in the text,
and inconsistent or archaic usage, have been retained. For example,
manlike, man-like; paleozoic, palæozoic; to-day; unspiritual; instil.

Pg 44, 'Christain sects' replaced by 'Christian sects'.

Pg 53, '_Philosophie Zoologique_ (1899)' replaced by
'_Philosophie Zoologique_ (1809)'.

Pg 53, 'and the champanzee)' replaced by 'and the chimpanzee)'.

Pg 72, 'familar tendency' replaced by 'familiar tendency'.

Pg 88, 'acurately described' replaced by 'accurately described'.

Pg 115, '5. Jurassic' replaced by '9. Jurassic'.

Pg 123, 'irrational and inscientific' replaced by 'irrational and
unscientific'.