Evening star. [volume] (Washington, D.C.) 1854-1972, 1891-05-16
MISSING LINKS ONCE MORE.
The Bird and Reptile Question-A warni
Against Hasty Conclusions.

Tne Bird and Reptile Question-A Warning
Against Hasty Conclusions.
To the Editor of the Evening Star:
In your issue Of last Saturday we were again
treated to a learned and interesting article upon
archaeological natural history, but portions Of it
were married by the assumption as fact of mat
tiers not yet proved. have to thank you, Mr..
Editor, for already publishing an alusion to
the advice of yirchow and Wallace to the advo-
Gates Of self-evolution, not to get on faster in
their theory than facts will warrant. and few
days ago Romanes, while claiming that tine
motto of science is Should be?) "Prove all
things, iamented that the bane of science has
been the respect given TO the authority of a
great name or two. These cautions move me
to trouble you once more with few remarks
upon the above subject.
Your instructive essayist notes that Prof.
Huxley thinks certain creatures formed a con-
Meeting link between reptiles proper and birds
like thefostrich and cassowary. and he himself
writes 81 the archRopteryx as the link between
the fowl and the reptile. Huxley has been SO
eloquent against the marvellous debility of
things which he contradicts that it il surpris-
ing to ses the deyibility Of the weapons Of
precision" with which lie and others advocate
their favorite theories
THE HORSES HOOP.
In the case of the horses hoof 1--WE will have
word to say about the animal himself pres
ently) they seem to hold it to be demon
strated that two long chains of ancestors were
absolutely necessary before the modern midi
vided hoof could evolve itself from the several
toed ancient foot. But while much was re-
quired to produce single member of one ami
mai, single creature is a sufficient connecting
Ink between two such important classes as the
reptiles and the birds. his is Inconsistent
As to the latter reasoning one swallow doesn't
Wnrllh l,,lS
form the chain really necessary to bridge
SO wide gap. In this case the mis-
sing links should be the reptile birds
connecting the true reptiles with the arch
@opteryx on the one hand and the bird-rep-
tiles connecting that creature with the true
birds on the other. Until these links emerge
from the regions OF authoritative faith. and the
doctrine of the sterility of hybrids is disproved
besides, true science cannot build upon them
And. parenthetcally, we request that We be not
told without proof that all these stop gaps hap
pen to be stored, like Heckel's lemur-like ami
NAL, at the bottom of the Pacific ocean.
Ii Is u pity that your essayist. even if he is
IN joke. should state that plucked chicken is
hardly distinguishable from q reptile; this in
evitably brings to the mind Diogenes and his
illustration OF Plato's man." and might lead
the profane to think that the plucked chicken
is the connecting link between reptiles and
man. Mere outward resemblance NAV not
even imply related origin. but il it be granted
that resemblance ID sufficient, with what little
propriety can the archseoptervx, of the size of a
rock with well-developed wings. an abnormally
developed feathered tail. AID unhcsitatinciy
accepted as true bird, be scientifically con-
sldered q Link connecting the true ep.ilcs with
the relatively gigantic and almost wing,ess aud
tailless ostrich and cassowary? Is this an in
stance OF the glamour Of a name, and against
which Romans protest?
Your essayist evolves the horse from the
orohippus. Is not this a trihe premature. see
ing that the smoke of battle has not vet cleared
away from about the question? The European
pedigre" began with the palaotherium.
creature quite distinct from the orohippus: the
former lineage claims some thirteen species;
the latter has five, if we include the one still
never appeared in this line, the result Of i'm
been extinction, for history tells us that the
American wild horse WAS the descendant of
those il Introduced BY white immigrants. But to
evolve the horse from either of these animals.
because q creature with four toes on its front
feet and three on its hind ones is assumed to
have evolved its toes by degeneration into a
hOof instead of forward like, let us say. a fin
per into q hand. is a modern and very weak
case of ex pede Herculem.
By all means let Us collec. facts-the more
the better; bat let US not drag science into an
attempt to support self-evolution a theory of
which the very foundations were doubtinolv
laid by Darwin himself and as time passes it
seems as if they were laid in sand 1t is only
impatient theorists who assume that his great
name alone Ii sufficient to give assurance of
the absolute truth OF that hypothesis. NJ.