refutation of them. It is difficult, indeed, to conceive how Lamarck could advance a theory so utterly opposed to observation and probability, and at the same time succeed so effectually in convincing himself of its truth. He must have perceived many of the inadmissible and absurd conclusions to which it led; yet he persists in maintaining it by a kind of sophistry which could impose on none but himself. He admits the value of observation and experience in the discovery of truth; but finding that they bore no testimony to the wonderful transformations he was desirous to prove, he gets rid of their evidence altogether, by alleging that they do not extend over a sufficiently lengthened period to take cognizance of these changes. The argument, therefore, on this point, virtually amounts to this, that observation gives no notice of these operations, but that instead of thence inferring that they do not take place, the proper conclusion is, that they are actually going on, and have been in progress since the creation! How indispensable unlimited time is to give an air of plausibility to Lamarck's theory, is strikingly evinced by the fact, of which he was perfectly aware, that we have the means of comparing animals that lived upwards of two or three thousand years ago, with the same species as they exist at present, and the conformity between them is found to be complete. Numerous quadrupeds, birds, reptiles, and insects, have been found embalmed in the Egyptian cemeteries, with all the parts in such a state of preservation as to be per-
