Page:Popular Science Monthly Volume 11.djvu/731

This page has been validated.

number and variety of fossil horses than any that the Old World can show. Eohippus and Orohippus from the American Eocene deposits, and Mesohippus from the American Miocene deposits, are most important links in the series (the later members of which are Pliohippus, Hipparion, and Anchitherium, found also in European Tertiary strata), connecting the living one-toed genus Equus with a typically five-toed ancestor common to it and other ungulate mammals. The structure of the feet and teeth of this series of forms, which furnish demonstrative evidence of the evolution of the horse by progressive modification, is placed before the reader in its main features with great clearness, and the description is notably assisted by a full-page woodcut.

The choice of the term "Miltonic" in place of any other for what is sometimes termed the "Mosaic" account or hypothesis of creation, and the statement of the reasons which have led to that choice, are samples of a kind of serious jesting in which Prof. Huxley shows infinite skill and delicacy. There is no doubt, he urges, as to Milton's view of the history of creation, as given in his great poem. On the other hand, were a writer to call this the "Biblical doctrine," he "would be met by the authority of many eminent scholars, to say nothing of men of science, who at various times have absolutely denied that any such doctrine is to be found in Genesis." In fact, we are told by these authorities that the six days of Genesis are six periods that we may make just as long or as short as convenience requires. "A person," says Prof. Huxley, "who is not a Hebrew scholar can only stand aside and admire the marvelous flexibility of a language which admits of such diverse interpretations." The term "Mosaic," in reference to the same doctrine, Prof. Huxley also considers objectionable, because "we are now assured upon the authority of the highest critics, and even of dignitaries of the Church, that there is no evidence that Moses wrote the book of Genesis, or knew anything about it."

"You will understand," he says, "that I give no judgment—it would be an impertinence upon my part to volunteer even a suggestion—upon such a subject. But that being the state of opinion among scholars and the clergy, it is well for the unlearned in Hebrew lore, and for the laity, to avoid entangling themselves in such a vexed question. Happily, Milton leaves us no excuse for doubting what he means, and I shall therefore be safe in speaking of the opinion in question as the Miltonic hypothesis."

The Baltimore address gives us a sketch of the writer's ideal of primary education, of university education, and especially of medical education—how to encourage research, and how best to fill vacancies in a professoriate. He does not hold the view that "you can go into the market and buy research, and that supply will follow demand, as in the ordinary course of commerce." His conviction is that "the best investigators are usually those who have also the responsibilities of instruction." Very valuable for other universities than that of