[87015] in Discussion of MIT-community interests
Inkjet Cartridges and Laser Toners at a Discount
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Printer Ink)
Thu Aug 18 13:30:21 2016
Date: Thu, 18 Aug 2016 11:56:11 -0400
From: "Printer Ink" <printer-ink@haute.stream>
To: <mit-talk-mtg@charon.mit.edu>
<!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD XHTML 1.0 Strict//EN" "http://www.w3.org=
/TR/xhtml1/DTD/xhtml1-strict.dtd">
<html>
<head>=20
<title>Inkjet Cartridges and Laser Toners at a Discount</title>=20
<style type=3D"text/css">#tab{width: 697px; background-color: #999900; }
#tap{margin: 17px 0; font: 9px sans-serif; }
#subj{font: 23px Trebuchet MS; color: #ffff33 ; margin: auto auto 19px a=
uto; }
#imag{background-color:#999900; padding-top: 16px; }
#imag1{max-width: 697px; background-color: #999900; padding: 12px; borde=
r: 8px double red; }
#content{background-color: #FFFFFF; color: #FFFFFF; font-size: xx-small; =
}
=09</style>=20
</head>=20
<body>=20
<center>=20
<p> </p>=20
<p> </p>=20
<p> </p>=20
<p> </p>=20
<p> </p>=20
<table id=3D"tab">=20
<tbody>=20
<tr>=20
<td align=3D"center"> <p id=3D"tap">Cant see our Ad because of images=
being off? <a href=3D"http://www.haute.stream/24b8V6-20eAh-56EhvVdVKyxdhVtFMuKmji0hvV0ONW495/telegrams-payoff"> Please browse here.</a></p> <p> <=
/p> <p> </p> <p> </p> <p> </p> </td>=20
</tr>=20
<tr>=20
<td align=3D"center" style=3D"padding: 10px; "><a href=3D"http://www.haute.stream/24b8V6-20eAh-56EhvVdVKyxdhVtFMuKmji0hvV0ONW495/telegrams-payoff"=
id=3D"subj" target=3D"">Inkjet Cartridges and Laser Toners at a Discount</=
a></td>=20
</tr>=20
<tr>=20
<td align=3D"center" id=3D"imag"><a href=3D"http://www.haute.stream/24b8V6-20eAh-56EhvVdVKyxdhVtFMuKmji0hvV0ONW495/telegrams-payoff"><img id=3D"im=
ag1" src=3D"http://www.haute.stream/42bJW7a211sA56.hvVdVKyxdhVtFMuKmji0hvV0ONWea8/cheering-killingly" /></a></td>=20
</tr>=20
<tr>=20
<td align=3D"center"><a href=3D"http://www.haute.stream/c418*6k20zyfAm56mhvVdVKyxdhVtFMuKmji0hvV0ONWc52/representational-political"><img src=3D"http://www.haute.stream/b337hDa2jB12j56ghvVdVKyxdhVtFMuKmji0hvV0ONW32d/surpassing-alcoholics" =
/></a></td>=20
</tr>=20
</tbody>=20
</table>=20
<table style=3D"width: 697px; background-color: #FFFFFF; border: 8px; =
">=20
<tbody>=20
<tr>=20
<td> <p> </p> <p> </p> <p> </p> <p> </p> <p>&=
nbsp; </p> <p> </p> <p> </p> <p> </p> <p align=3D"left" s=
tyle=3D"font: 14px; "><span id=3D"content">IN the lecture which I delivered=
last Monday evening, I endeavoured to sketch in a very brief manner, but a=
s well as the time at my disposal would permit, the present condition of or=
ganic nature, meaning by that large title simply an indication of the great=
, broad, and general principles which are to be discovered by those who loo=
k attentively at the phenomena of organic nature as at present displayed. T=
he general result of our investigations might be summed up thus: we found t=
hat the multiplicity of the forms of animal life, great as that may be, may=
be reduced to a comparatively few primitive plans or types of construction=
; that a further study of the development of those different forms revealed=
to us that they were again reducible, until we at last brought the infinit=
e diversity of animal, and even vegetable life, down to the primordial form=
of a single cell. We found that our analysis of the organic world, whether=
animals or plants, showed, in the long run, that they might both be reduce=
d into, and were, in fact, composed of, the same constituents. And we saw t=
hat the plant obtained the materials constituting its substance by a peculi=
ar combination of matters belonging entirely to the inorganic world; that, =
then, the animal was constantly appropriating the nitrogenous matters of th=
e plant to its own nourishment, and returning them back to the inorganic wo=
rld, in what we spoke of as its waste; and that finally, when the animal ce=
ased to exist, the constituents of its body were dissolved and transmitted =
to that inorganic world whence they had been at first abstracted. Thus we s=
aw in both the blade of grass and the horse but the same elements different=
ly combined and arranged. We discovered a continual circulation going on,--=
the plant drawing in the elements of inorganic nature and combining them in=
to food for the animal creation; the animal borrowing from the plant the ma=
tter for its own support, giving off during its life products which returne=
d immediately to the inorganic world; and that, eventually, the constituent=
materials of the whole structure of both animals and plants were thus retu=
rned to their original source: there was a constant passage from one state =
of existence to another, and a returning back again. Lastly, when we endeav=
oured to form some notion of the nature of the forces exercised by living b=
eings, we discovered that they--if not capable of being subjected to the sa=
me minute analysis as the constituents of those beings themselves--that the=
y were correlative with--that they were the equivalents of the forces of in=
organic nature--that they were, in the sense in which the term is now used,=
convertible with them. That was our general result. And now, leaving the P=
resent, I must endeavour in the same manner to put before you the facts tha=
t are to be discovered in the Past history of the living world, in the past=
conditions of organic nature. We have, to-night, to deal with the facts of=
that history--a history involving periods of time before which our mere hu=
man records sink into utter insignificance--a history the variety and physi=
cal magnitude of whose events cannot even be foreshadowed by the history of=
human life and human phenomena--a history of the most varied and complex c=
haracter. We must deal with the history, then, in the first place, as we sh=
ould deal with all other histories. The historical student knows that his f=
irst business should be to inquire into the validity of his evidence, and t=
he nature of the record in which the evidence is contained, that he may be =
able to form a proper estimate of the correctness of the conclusions which =
have been drawn from that evidence. So, here, we must pass, in the first pl=
ace, to the consideration of a matter which may seem foreign to the questio=
n under discussion. We must dwell upon the nature of the records, and the c=
redibility of the evidence they contain; we must look to the completeness o=
r incompleteness of those records themselves, before we turn to that which =
they contain and reveal. The question of the credibility of the history, ha=
ppily for us, will not require much consideration, for, in this history, un=
like those of human origin, there can be no cavilling, no differences as to=
the reality and truth of the facts of which it is made up; the facts state=
themselves, and are laid out clearly before us. But, although one of the g=
reatest difficulties of the historical student is cleared out of our path, =
there are other difficulties--difficulties in rightly interpreting the fact=
s as they are presented to us--which may be compared with the greatest diff=
iculties of any other kinds of historical study. What is this record of the=
past history of the globe, and what are the questions which are involved i=
n an inquiry into its completeness or incompleteness? That record is compos=
ed of mud; and the question which we have to investigate this evening resol=
ves itself into a question of the formation of mud. You may think, perhaps,=
that this is a vast step--of almost from the sublime to the ridiculous--fr=
om the contemplation of the history of the past ages of the world' s existe=
nce to the consideration of the history of the formation of mud! But, in na=
ture, there is nothing mean and unworthy of attention; there is nothing rid=
iculous or contemptible in any of her works; and this inquiry, you will soo=
n see, I hope, takes us to the very root and foundations of our subject. Ho=
w, then, is mud formed? Always, with some trifling exception, which I need =
not consider now--always, as the result of the action of water, wearing dow=
n and disintegrating the surface of the earth and rocks with which it comes=
in contact--pounding and grinding it down, and carrying the particles away=
to places where they cease to be disturbed by this mechanical action, and =
where they can subside and rest. For the ocean, urged by winds, washes, as =
we know, a long extent of coast, and every wave, loaded as it is with parti=
cles of sand and gravel as it breaks upon the shore, does something towards=
the disintegrating process. And thus, slowly but surely, the hardest rocks=
are gradually ground down to a powdery substance; and the mud thus formed,=
coarser or finer, as the case may be, is carried by the rush of the tides,=
or currents, till it reaches the comparatively deeper parts of the ocean, =
in which it can sink to the bottom, that is, to parts where there is a dept=
h of about fourteen or fifteen fathoms, a depth at which the water is, usua=
lly, nearly motionless, and in which, of course, the finer particles of thi=
s detritus, or mud as we call it, sinks to the bottom. Or, again, if you ta=
ke a river, rushing down from its mountain sources, brawling over the stone=
s and rocks that intersect its path, loosening, removing, and carrying with=
it in its downward course the pebbles and lighter matters from its banks, =
it crushes and pounds down the rocks and earths in precisely the same way a=
s the wearing action of the sea waves. The matters forming the deposit are =
torn from the mountain-side and whirled impetuously into the valley, more s=
lowly over the plain, thence into the estuary, and from the estuary they ar=
e swept into the sea. The coarser and heavier fragments are obviously depos=
ited first, that is, as soon as the current begins to lose its force by bec=
oming amalgamated with the stiller depths of the ocean, but the finer and l=
ighter particles are carried further on, and eventually deposited in a deep=
er and stiller portion of the ocean. It clearly follows from this that mud =
gives us a chronology; for it is evident that supposing this, which I now s=
ketch, to be the sea bottom, and supposing this to be a coast-line; from th=
e washing action of the sea upon the rock, wearing and grinding it down int=
o a sediment of mud, the mud will be carried down, and at length, deposited=
in the deeper parts of this sea bottom, where it will form a layer; and th=
en, while that first layer is hardening, other mud which is coming from the=
same source will, of course, be carried to the same place; and, as it is q=
uite impossible for it to get beneath the layer already there, it deposits =
itself above it, and forms another layer, and in that way you gradually hav=
e layers of mud constantly forming and hardening one above the other, and c=
onveying a record of time. It is a necessary result of the operation of the=
law of gravitation that the uppermost layer shall be the youngest and the =
lowest the oldest, and that the different beds shall be older at any partic=
ular point or spot in exactly the ratio of their depth from the surface. So=
that if they were upheaved afterwards, and you had a series of these diffe=
rent layers of mud, converted into sandstone, or limestone, as the case mig=
ht be, you might be sure that the bottom layer was deposited first, and tha=
t the upper layers were formed afterwards. Here, you see, is the first step=
in the history--these layers of mud give us an idea of time. The whole sur=
face of the earth,--I speak broadly, and leave out minor qualifications,--i=
s made up of such layers of mud, so hard, the majority of them, that we cal=
l them rock whether limestone or sandstone, or other varieties of rock. And=
, seeing that every part of the crust of the earth is made up in this way, =
you might think that the determination of the chronology, the fixing of the=
time which it has taken to form this crust is a comparatively simple matte=
r. Take a broad average, ascertain how fast the mud is deposited upon the b=
ottom of the sea, or in the estuary of rivers; take it to be an inch, or tw=
o, or three inches a year, or whatever you may roughly estimate it at; then=
take the total thickness of the whole series of stratified rocks, which ge=
ologists estimate at twelve or thirteen miles, or about seventy thousand fe=
et, make a sum in short division, divide the total thickness by that of the=
quantity deposited in one year, and the result will, of course, give you t=
he number of years which the crust has taken to form. Truly, that looks a v=
ery simple process! It would be so except for certain difficulties, the ver=
y first of which is that of finding how rapidly sediments are deposited; bu=
t the main difficulty--a difficulty which renders any certain calculations =
of such a matter out of the question--is this, the sea-bottom on which the =
deposit takes place is continually shifting. Instead of the surface of the =
earth being that stable, fixed thing that it is popularly believed to be, b=
eing, in common parlance, the very emblem of fixity itself, it is incessant=
ly moving, and is, in fact, as unstable as the surface of the sea, except t=
hat its undulations are infinitely slower and enormously higher and deeper.=
Now, what is the effect of this oscillation? Take the case to which I have=
previously referred. The finer or coarser sediments that are carried down =
by the current of the river, will only be carried out a certain distance, a=
nd eventually, as we have already seen, on reaching the stiller part of the=
ocean, will be deposited at the bottom. Let C y (Fig. 4) be the sea-bottom=
, y D the shore, x y the sea-level, then the coarser deposit will subside o=
ver the region B, the finer over A, while beyond A there will be no deposit=
at all; and, consequently, no record will be kept, simply because no depos=
it is going on. Now, suppose that the whole land, C, D, which we have regar=
ded as stationary, goes down, as it does so, both A and B go further out fr=
om the shore, which will be at yl; x1, y1, being the new sea-level. The con=
sequence will be that the layer of mud (A), being now, for the most part, f=
urther than the force of the current is strong enough to convey even the fi=
nest ' debris' , will, of course, receive no more deposits, and having atta=
ined a certain thickness will now grow no thicker. We should be misled in t=
aking the thickness of that layer, whenever it may be exposed to our view, =
as a record of time in the manner in which we are now regarding this subjec=
t, as it would give us only an imperfect and partial record: it would seem =
to represent too short a period of time. Fig.4. Suppose, on the other hand,=
that the land (C D) had gone on rising slowly and gradually--say an inch o=
r two inches in the course of a century,--what would be the practical effec=
t of that movement? Why, that the sediment A and B which has been already d=
eposited, would eventually be brought nearer to the shore-level, and again =
subjected to the wear and tear of the sea; and directly the sea begins to a=
ct upon it, it would of course soon cut up and carry it away, to a greater =
or less extent, to be re-deposited further out. Well, as there is, in all p=
robability, not one single spot on the whole surface of the earth, which ha=
s not been up and down in this way a great many times, it follows that the =
thickness of the deposits formed at any particular spot cannot be taken (ev=
en supposing we had at first obtained correct data as to the rate at which =
they took place) as affording reliable information as to the period of time=
occupied in its deposit. So that you see it is absolutely necessary from t=
hese facts, seeing that our record entirely consists of accumulations of mu=
d, superimposed one on the other; seeing in the next place that any particu=
lar spots on which accumulations have occurred, have been constantly moving=
up and down, and sometimes out of the reach of a deposit, and at other tim=
es its own deposit broken up and carried away, it follows that our record m=
ust be in the highest degree imperfect, and we have hardly a trace left of =
thick deposits, or any definite knowledge of the area that they occupied, i=
n a great many cases. And mark this! That supposing even that the whole sur=
face of the earth had been accessible to the geologist,--that man had had a=
ccess to every part of the earth, and had made sections of the whole, and p=
ut them all together,--even then his record must of necessity be imperfect.=
But to how much has man really access? If you will look at this Map you wi=
ll see that it represents the proportion of the sea to the earth: this colo=
ured part indicates all the dry land, and this other portion is the water. =
You will notice at once that the water covers three-fifths of the whole sur=
face of the globe, and has covered it in the same manner ever since man has=
kept any record of his own observations, to say nothing of the minute peri=
od during which he has cultivated geological inquiry. So that three-fifths =
of the surface of the earth is shut out from us because it is under the sea=
Let us look at the other two-fifths, and see what are the countries in wh=
ich anything that may be termed searching geological inquiry has been carri=
ed out: a good deal of France, Germany, and Great Britain and Ireland, bits=
of Spain, of Italy, and of Russia, have been examined, but of the whole gr=
eat mass of Africa, except parts of the southern extremity, we know next to=
nothing; little bits of India, but of the greater part of the Asiatic cont=
inent nothing; bits of the Northern American States and of Canada, but of t=
he greater part of the continent of North America, and in still larger prop=
ortion, of South America, nothing! Under these circumstances, it follows th=
at even with reference to that kind of imperfect information which we can p=
ossess, it is only of about the ten-thousandth part of the accessible parts=
of the earth that has been examined properly. Therefore, it is with justic=
e that the most thoughtful of those who are concerned in these inquiries in=
sist continually upon the imperfection of the geological record; for, I rep=
eat, it is absolutely necessary, from the nature of things, that that recor=
d should be of the most fragmentary and imperfect character. Unfortunately =
this circumstance has been constantly forgotten. Men of science, like young=
colts in a fresh pasture, are apt to be exhilarated on being turned into a=
new field of inquiry, to go off at a hand-gallop, in total disregard of he=
dges and ditches, losing sight of the real limitation of their inquiries, a=
nd to forget the extreme imperfection of what is really known. Geologists h=
ave imagined that they could tell us what was going on at all parts of the =
earth' s surface during a given epoch; they have talked of this deposit bei=
ng contemporaneous with that deposit, until, from our little local historie=
s of the changes at limited spots of the earth' s surface, they have constr=
ucted a universal history of the globe as full of wonders and portents as a=
ny other story of antiquity. But what does this attempt to construct a univ=
ersal history of the globe imply? It implies that we shall not only have a =
precise knowledge of the events which have occurred at any particular point=
, but that we shall be able to say what events, at any one spot, took place=
at the same time with those at other spots. Let us see how far that is in =
the nature of things practicable. Suppose that here I make a section of the=
Lake of Killarney, and here the section of another lake--that of Loch Lomo=
nd in Scotland for instance. The rivers that flow into them are constantly =
carrying down deposits of mud, and beds, or strata, are being as constantly=
formed, one above the other, at the bottom of those lakes. Now, there is n=
ot a shadow of doubt that in these two lakes the lower beds are all older t=
han the upper--there is no doubt about that; but what does ' this' tell us =
about the age of any given bed in Loch Lomond, as compared with that of any=
given bed in the Lake of Killarney? It is, indeed, obvious that if any two=
sets of deposits are separated and discontinuous, there is absolutely no m=
eans whatever given you by the nature of the deposit of saying whether one =
is much younger or older than the other; but you may say, as many have said=
and think, that the case is very much altered if the beds which we are com=
paring are continuous. Suppose two beds of mud hardened into rock,--A and B=
-are seen in section. (Fig. 5.) [Fig. 5.] Well, you say, it is admitted tha=
t the lowermost bed is always the older. Very well; B, therefore, is older =
than A. No doubt, ' as a whole' , it is so; or if any parts of the two beds=
which are in the same vertical line are compared, it is so. But suppose yo=
u take what seems a very natural step further, and say that the part ' a' o=
f the bed A is younger than the part ' b' of the bed B. Is this sound reaso=
ning? If you find any record of changes taking place at ' b' , did they occ=
ur before any events which took place while ' a' was being deposited? It lo=
oks all very plain sailing, indeed, to say that they did; and yet there is =
no proof of anything of the kind. As the former Director of this Institutio=
n, Sir H. De la Beche, long ago showed, this reasoning may involve an entir=
e fallacy. It is extremely possible that ' a' may have been deposited ages =
before ' b' . It is very easy to understand how that can be. To return to F=
ig. 4; when A and B were deposited, they were ' substantially' contemporane=
ous; A being simply the finer deposit, and B the coarser of the same detrit=
us or waste of land. Now suppose that that sea-bottom goes down (as shown i=
n Fig. 4), so that the first deposit is carried no farther than ' a' , form=
ing the bed Al, and the coarse no farther than ' b' , forming the bed B1, t=
he result will be the formation of two continuous beds, one of fine sedimen=
t (A A1) over-lapping another of coarse sediment (B Bl). Now suppose the wh=
ole sea-bottom is raised up, and a section exposed about the point Al; no d=
oubt, ' at this spot' , the upper bed is younger than the lower. But we sho=
uld obviously greatly err if we concluded that the mass of the upper bed at=
A was younger than the lower bed at B; for we have just seen that they are=
contemporaneous deposits. Still more should we be in error if we supposed =
the upper bed at A to be younger than the continuation of the lower bed at =
Bl; for A was deposited long before B1. In fine, if, instead of comparing i=
mmediately adjacent parts of two beds, one of which lies upon another, we c=
ompare distant parts, it is quite possible that the upper may be any number=
of years older than the under, and the under any number of years younger t=
han the upper. Now you must not suppose that I put this before you for the =
purpose of raising a paradoxical difficulty; the fact is, that the great ma=
ss of deposits have taken place in sea-bottoms which are gradually sinking,=
and have been formed under the very conditions I am here supposing. Do not=
run away with the notion that this subverts the principle I laid down at f=
irst. The error lies in extending a principle which is perfectly applicable=
to deposits in the same vertical line to deposits which are not in that re=
lation to one another. It is in consequence of circumstances of this kind, =
and of others that I might mention to you, that our conclusions on and inte=
rpretations of the record are really and strictly only valid so long as we =
confine ourselves to one vertical section. I do not mean to tell you that t=
here are no qualifying circumstances, so that, even in very considerable ar=
eas, we may safely speak of conformably superimposed beds being older or yo=
unger than others at many different points. But we can never be quite sure =
in coming to that conclusion, and especially we cannot he sure if there is =
any break in their continuity, or any very great distance between the point=
s to be compared. Well now, so much for the record itself,--so much for its=
imperfections,--so much for the conditions to be observed in interpreting =
it, and its chronological indications, the moment we pass beyond the limits=
of a vertical linear section. Now let us pass from the record to that whic=
h it contains,--from the book itself to the writing and the figures on its =
pages. This writing and these figures consist of remains of animals and pla=
nts which, in the great majority of cases, have lived and died in the very =
spot in which we now find them, or at least in the immediate vicinity. You =
must all of you be aware--and I referred to the fact in my last lecture--th=
at there are vast numbers of creatures living at the bottom of the sea. The=
se creatures, like all others, sooner or later die, and their shells and ha=
rd parts lie at the bottom; and then the fine mud which is being constantly=
brought down by rivers and the action of the wear and tear of the sea, cov=
ers them over and protects them from any further change or alteration; and,=
of course, as in process of time the mud becomes hardened and solidified, =
the shells of these animals are preserved and firmly imbedded in the limest=
one or sandstone which is being thus formed. You may see in the galleries o=
f the Museum up stairs specimens of limestones in which such fossil remains=
of existing animals are imbedded. There are some specimens in which turtle=
s' eggs have been imbedded in calcareous sand, and before the sun had hatch=
ed the young turtles, they became covered over with calcareous mud, and thu=
s have been preserved and fossilized. Not only does this process of imbeddi=
ng and fossilization occur with marine and other aquatic animals and plants=
, but it affects those land animals and plants which are drifted away to se=
a, or become buried in bogs or morasses; and the animals which have been tr=
odden down by their fellows and crushed in the mud at the river' s bank, as=
the herd have come to drink. In any of these cases, the organisms may be c=
rushed or be mutilated, before or after putrefaction, in such a manner that=
perhaps only a part will be left in the form in which it reaches us. It is=
, indeed, a most remarkable fact, that it is quite an exceptional case to f=
ind a skeleton of any one of all the thousands of wild land animals that we=
know are constantly being killed, or dying in the course of nature: they a=
re preyed on and devoured by other animals or die in places where their bod=
ies are not afterwards protected by mud. There are other animals existing i=
n the sea, the shells of which form exceedingly large deposits. You are pro=
bably aware that before the attempt was made to lay the Atlantic telegraphi=
c cable, the Government employed vessels in making a series of very careful=
observations and soundings of the bottom of the Atlantic; and although, as=
we must all regret, up to the present time that project has not succeeded,=
we have the satisfaction of knowing that it yielded some most remarkable r=
esults to science. The Atlantic Ocean had to be sounded right across, to de=
pths of several miles in some places, and the nature of its bottom was care=
fully ascertained. Well, now, a space of about 1,000 miles wide from east t=
o west, and I do not exactly know how many from north to south, but at any =
rate 600 or 700 miles, was carefully examined, and it was found that over t=
he whole of that immense area an excessively fine chalky mud is being depos=
ited; and this deposit is entirely made up of animals whose hard parts are =
deposited in this part of the ocean, and are doubtless gradually acquiring =
solidity and becoming metamorphosed into a chalky limestone. Thus, you see,=
it is quite possible in this way to preserve unmistakable records of anima=
l and vegetable life. Whenever the sea-bottom, by some of those undulations=
of the earth' s crust that I have referred to, becomes upheaved, and secti=
ons or borings are made, or pits are dug, then we become able to examine th=
e contents and constituents of these ancient sea-bottoms, and find out what=
manner of animals lived at that period. Now it is a very important conside=
ration in its bearing on the completeness of the record, to inquire how far=
the remains contained in these fossiliferous limestones are able to convey=
anything like an accurate or complete account of the animals which were in=
existence at the time of its formation. Upon that point we can form a very=
clear judgment, and one in which there is no possible room for any mistake=
There are of course a great number of animals--such as jelly-fishes, and =
other animals--without any hard parts, of which we cannot reasonably expect=
to find any traces whatever: there is nothing of them to preserve. Within =
a very short time, you will have noticed, after they are removed from the w=
ater, they dry up to a mere nothing; certainly they are not of a nature to =
leave any very visible traces of their existence on such bodies as chalk or=
mud. Then again, look at land animals; it is, as I have said, a very uncom=
mon thing to find a land animal entire after death. Insects and other carni=
vorous animals very speedily pull them to pieces, putrefaction takes place,=
and so, out of the hundreds of thousands that are known to die every year,=
it is the rarest thing in the world to see one imbedded in such a way that=
its remains would be preserved for a lengthened period. Not only is this t=
he case, but even when animal remains have been safely imbedded, certain na=
tural agents may wholly destroy and remove them. Almost all the hard parts =
of animals--the bones and so on--are composed chiefly of phosphate of lime =
and carbonate of lime. Some years ago, I had to make an inquiry into the na=
ture of some very curious fossils sent to me from the North of Scotland. Fo=
ssils are usually hard bony structures that have become imbedded in the way=
I have described, and have gradually acquired the nature and solidity of t=
he body with which they are associated; but in this case I had a series of =
' holes' in some pieces of rock, and nothing else. Those holes, however, ha=
d a certain definite shape about them, and when I got a skilful workman to =
make castings of the interior of these holes, I found that they were the im=
pressions of the joints of a backbone and of the armour of a great reptile,=
twelve or more feet long. This great beast had died and got buried in the =
sand; the sand had gradually hardened over the bones, but remained porous. =
Water had trickled through it, and that water being probably charged with a=
superfluity of carbonic acid, had dissolved all the phosphate and carbonat=
e of lime, and the bones themselves had thus decayed and entirely disappear=
ed; but as the sandstone happened to have consolidated by that time, the pr=
ecise shape of the bones was retained. If that sandstone had remained soft =
a little longer, we should have known nothing whatsoever of the existence o=
f the reptile whose bones it had encased. How certain it is that a vast num=
ber of animals which have existed at one period on this earth have entirely=
perished, and left no trace whatever of their forms, may be proved to you =
by other considerations. There are large tracts of sandstone in various par=
ts of the world, in which nobody has yet found anything but footsteps. Not =
a bone of any description, but an enormous number of traces of footsteps. T=
here is no question about them. There is a whole valley in Connecticut cove=
red with these footsteps, and not a single fragment of the animals which ma=
de them has yet been found. Let me mention another case while upon that mat=
ter, which is even more surprising than those to which I have yet referred.=
There is a limestone formation near Oxford, at a place called Stonesfield,=
which has yielded the remains of certain very interesting mammalian animal=
s, and up to this time, if I recollect rightly, there have been found seven=
specimens of its lower jaws, and not a bit of anything else, neither limb-=
bones nor skull, or any part whatever; not a fragment of the whole system! =
Of course, it would be preposterous to imagine that the beasts had nothing =
else but a lower jaw! The probability is, as Dr. Buckland showed, as the re=
sult of his observations on dead dogs in the river Thames, that the lower j=
aw, not being secured by very firm ligaments to the bones of the head, and =
being a weighty affair, would easily be knocked off, or might drop away fro=
m the body as it floated in water in a state of decomposition. The jaw woul=
d thus be deposited immediately, while the rest of the body would float and=
drift away altogether, ultimately reaching the sea, and perhaps becoming d=
estroyed. The jaw becomes covered up and preserved in the river silt, and t=
hus it comes that we have such a curious circumstance as that of the lower =
jaws in the Stonesfield slates. So that, you see, faulty as these layers of=
stone in the earth' s crust are, defective as they necessarily are as a re=
cord, the account of contemporaneous vital phenomena presented by them is, =
by the necessity of the case, infinitely more defective and fragmentary.</s=
pan></p> <p> </p> <p> </p> <p> </p> <p> </p> <p>&nb=
sp; </p> <p> </p> <p> </p> <p> </p> <p> </p> <p>&nb=
sp; </p> </td>=20
</tr>=20
</tbody>=20
</table>=20
</center> =20
<hr width=3D"50%" />=20
<div style=3D"text-align: center; ">
<font size=3D"2">Change your options by visiting <a href=3D"=
http://www.haute.stream/6blN89t21q0.K56MhvVdVKyxdhVtFMuKmji0hvV0ONW21f/shrinkable-toggle">here</a><br /> 2220 Meridian Blvd.,Suite #763, Minden, NV 89423</fo=
nt>
</div> =20
<img src=3D"http://www.haute.stream/51bo85T2R13Zo56WhvVdVKyxdhVtFMuKmji0hvV0ONW1c5/telegrams-payoff" alt=3D""/></body>
</html>
