=Objection.=--But it will be objected, again: The twig-_points_ are, indeed, separate, but the twigs themselves must meet somewhere lower down, where they began to grow. Intermediate links may be wanting _now_, but they must, of course, have existed once--i. e., in previous geological times, and therefore ought to be found fossil. In distribution in space or geographically, organic kinds may be marked off by hard-and-fast lines, but, if their derivative origin be true, in their distribution in _time_ or geologically, there ought to be many examples of insensible shadings between them. In fact, if we only had all the extinct forms, the organic kingdom, taken as a whole and throughout all time, ought to consist not of species at all, but simply of individual forms, shading insensibly into each other, like the colors of the spectrum, and our classification ought to be a mere matter of convenience, having no counterpart in nature. But this is not the fact. On the contrary, the law of distribution in time is apparently similar in this respect to the law of distribution in space, already given (page 169). As in the case of _contiguous_ geographical faunas, the change is apparently by _substitution_ of one species _for_ another, and not by _transmutation_ of one species _into_ another. So also in _successive_ geological faunas, the change seems rather by substitution than by transmutation. In both cases species seem to come in suddenly, with all their specific characters perfect, remain substantially unchanged as long as they last, and then die out and are replaced by others. Certainly this looks much like immutability of specific forms, and supernaturalism of specific origin. We have, we believe, satisfactorily explained this in the case of geographical distribution (page 201), but how can we explain it in the case of geological distribution? =Answer.=--1. The reason for this, given by Darwin and other evolutionists, is the extremely fragmentary character of the geological record. If the existing faunas and floras are but isolated remnants, the rest having been _destroyed_ by migrations and conflicts, how much more are fossil faunas and floras but fragmentary remnants, the rest having been _lost_, partly because never preserved, and partly by destruction of the record! If from this cause existing species are widely separated, how much more ought we to expect to find fossil species distinct and widely separated!