Respecting this position, he says: “Thus far I have endeavored to expand and enforce by fresh arguments, but not to modify in any important respect, the ideas submitted to you on a former occasion. But when I come to the propositions respecting progressive modification, it appears to me, with the help of the new light which has broken from various quarters, that there is much ground for softening the somewhat Brutus-like severity with which I have dealt with a doctrine for the truth of which I should have been glad enough to be able to find a good foundation in 1862. So far indeed as the Invertebrata and the lower Vertebrata are concerned, the facts, and the conclusions which are to be drawn from them, appear to me to remain what they were. For anything that as yet appears to the contrary, the earliest known marsupials may have been as highly organized as their living congeners; the Permian lizards show no signs of inferiority to those of the present day; the labyrinthodonts cannot be placed below the living salamander and triton; the Devonian ganoids are closely related to polypterus and lepidosiren.” To this it may be replied: 1. The scale of progression of the Vertebrata is measured by the conditions of the circulatory system, and in some measure by the nervous, and not by the osseous: tested by this scale, there has been successional complication of structure among Vertebrata in time. 2. The question with the evolutionist is, not what types have persisted to the present day, but the order in which types appeared in time. 3. The Marsupials, Permian saurians, labyrinthodonts and Devonian ganoids are remarkably generalized groups, and predecessors of types widely separated in the present period. 4. Professor Huxley adduces many such examples among the mammalian subdivisions in the remaining portion of his lecture. 5. Two alternatives are yet open in the explanation of the process of evolution: since generalized types, which combine the characters of higher and lower groups of later periods, must thus be superior to the lower, the lower must (first) be descended from such a generalized form by degradation; or (second) not descended from it at all, but from some lower contemporaneous type by advance; the higher only of the two being derived from the first-mentioned. The last I suspect to be a true explanation, as it is in accordance with the homologous groups. This law will shorten the demands of paleontologists for time, since, instead of deriving all reptilia, batrachia, etc., from common origins, it points to the derivation of higher reptilia of a higher order from higher reptilia of a lower order, lower reptilia of the first from lower reptilia of the second; finally,