Sir H. de la Beche proposes, for tertiary, the term “_supercretaceous_;” it is, however, of little consequence which term is adopted, the meaning in each case being the same, that all the rocks or strata lying above the chalk are to be considered as belonging to the tertiary system or series. Confessedly, it is a dark period in the history of those successive creations which have been engaging our attention, for we can trace no near connexion between the secondary or older, and tertiary or newer formations. That is to say—and the bare statement appears so sufficient and final a refutation of what has been termed the “development hypothesis,” now recognised as contradictory to fact and to Scripture—that there are not known to exist in any of these newer strata the same beings, or the descendants of the same beings, that were found upon the earth at the termination of the chalk deposit. Nor is this all; not only are none of the old fossils found in any one of the three divisions of this system, but we are introduced at once to so many new ones, that their species and genera are almost endless; and he is not only a geologist of mark, but a most singularly accomplished geologist, who thoroughly understands their minute subdivisions, and can appropriately classify the fossils of this most fossiliferous era. To make the matter as simple as possible, let us add that “the broad distinction between tertiary and secondary rocks is a _palæontological_ one. None of the secondary rocks contain any fossil animals or plants of the _same species_ as any of those living at the present day. Every one of the tertiary groups _do_ contain some fossil animals or plants of the _same species_ as those now living.”[113]