FREE BOOKS

Author's List




PREV.   NEXT  
|<   155   156   157   158   159   160   161   162   163   164   165   166   167   168   169   170   171   172   173   174   175   176   177   178   179  
180   181   182   183   184   185   186   187   188   189   190   191   192   193   194   195   196   197   198   199   200   201   202   203   204   >>   >|  
of the Lower Eocene formation we have the perissodactyle _Ungulata_ represented by _Coryphodon, Hyra-cotherium_, and _Pliolophus_. Suppose for a moment, for the sake of following out the argument, that _Pliolophus_ represents the primary stock of the Perissodactyles, and _Dichobune_ that of the Artiodactyles (though I am far from saying that such is the case), then we find, in the earliest fauna of the Eocene epoch to which our investigations carry us, the two divisions of the _Ungulata_ completely differentiated, and no trace of any common stock of both, or of five-toed predecessors to either. With the case of the Horses before us, justifying a belief in the production of new animal forms by modification of old ones, I see no escape from the necessity of seeking for these ancestors of the _Ungulata_ beyond the limits of the Tertiary formations. I could as soon admit special creation, at once, as suppose that the Perissodactyles and Artiodactyles had no five-toed ancestors. And when we consider how large a portion of the Tertiary period elapsed before _Anchitherium_ was converted into _Equus_, it is difficult to escape the conclusion that a large proportion of time anterior to the Tertiary period must have been expended in converting the common stock of the _Ungulata_ into Perissodactyles and Artiodactyles. The same moral is inculcated by the study of every other order of Tertiary monodelphous _Mammalia_. Each of these orders is represented in the Miocene epoch: the Eocene formation, as I have already said, contains _Cheiroptera, Insectivora, Rodentia, Ungulata, Carnivora,_ and _Cetacea_. But the _Cheiroptera_ are extreme modifications of the _Insectivora_, just as the _Cetacea_ are extreme modifications of the Carnivorous type; and therefore it is to my mind incredible that monodelphous _Insectivora_ and _Carnivora_ should not have been abundantly developed, along with _Ungulata_, in the Mesozoic epoch. But if this be the case, how much further back must we go to find the common stock of the monodelphous _Mammalia_? As to the _Didelphia_, if we may trust the evidence which seems to be afforded by their very scanty remains, a Hypsiprymnoid form existed at the epoch of the Trias, contemporaneously with a Carnivorous form. At the epoch of the Trias, therefore, the _Marsupialia_ must have, already existed long enough to have become differentiated into carnivorous and herbivorous forms. But the _Monotremata_ are lower fo
PREV.   NEXT  
|<   155   156   157   158   159   160   161   162   163   164   165   166   167   168   169   170   171   172   173   174   175   176   177   178   179  
180   181   182   183   184   185   186   187   188   189   190   191   192   193   194   195   196   197   198   199   200   201   202   203   204   >>   >|  



Top keywords:

Ungulata

 

Tertiary

 

Artiodactyles

 

Eocene

 

Perissodactyles

 

monodelphous

 
common
 

Insectivora

 

Cetacea

 

Carnivora


escape
 

differentiated

 

Cheiroptera

 

existed

 

represented

 

Pliolophus

 

modifications

 

ancestors

 
extreme
 

formation


Carnivorous

 
Mammalia
 

period

 

orders

 

inculcated

 
Miocene
 

Rodentia

 
remains
 

Hypsiprymnoid

 

contemporaneously


scanty

 

afforded

 

Marsupialia

 

Monotremata

 

herbivorous

 

carnivorous

 

evidence

 
abundantly
 

developed

 

incredible


Mesozoic
 
Didelphia
 

converting

 
investigations
 
earliest
 
divisions
 

completely

 

predecessors

 

cotherium

 

Suppose