d, however, that existing uranium cannot give rise to lead of
normal atomic weight. We can only conclude that the heavier atoms
of uranium have decayed more rapidly than the lighter ones. In
this connection it is of interest to note the complexity of
uranium as recently established by Geiger, although in this case
it is assumed that the shorter-lived isotope bears the relation
of offspring to the longer-lived and largely preponderating
constituent. However, there does not seem to be any direct proof
of this as yet.

From these considerations it would seem that unless the atomic
weight of lead in uraninites, etc., is 206, the former complexity
and more accelerated decay of uranium are indicated in the data
respecting the atomic weights of radium and lead[1]. As an
alternative view, we may assume, as in our first hypothesis, that
some elementally different but genetically connected substance,
decaying along branching lines of descent at a rate sufficient to
practically remove the whole of it during geological time,
formerly existed. Whichever hypothesis we adopt

[1] Later investigation has shown that the atomic weight of lead
in uranium-bearing ores is about 206.6 (see Richards and Lembert,
_Journ. of Am. Claem. Soc._, July, 1914). This result gives support
to the view expressed above.

27

we are confronted by probabilities which invalidate
time-measurements based on the lead and helium ratio in minerals.
We have, in short, grave reason to question the measure of
uniformitarianism postulated in finding the age by any of the
known radioactive methods.

That we have much to learn respecting our assumptions, whether we
pursue the geological or the radioactive methods of approaching
the age of our era, is, indeed, probable. Whatever the issue it
is certain that the reconciling facts will leave us with much
more light than we at present possess either as respects the
Earth's history or the history of the radioactive elements. With
this necessary admission we leave our study of the Birth-Time of
the World.

It has led us a long way from Lucretius. We do not ask if other
Iliads have perished; or if poets before Homer have vainly sung,
becoming a prey to all-consuming time. We move in a greater
history, the landmarks of which are not the birth and death of
kings and poets, but of species, genera, orders. And we set out
these organic events not according to the passing generations of
man, but over scores or hundreds o