"Another Mistake there may be in the Picture of our first Parents, who after the manner of theyre Posteritie are bothe delineated with a Navill: and this is observable not only in ordinarie and stayned peeces, but in the Authenticke Draughts of Vrbin, Angelo, and others. Which, notwythstandynge, cannot be allowed, except wee impute that vnto the first Cause, which we impose not on the second; or what wee deny vnto Nature, wee impute vnto Naturity it selfe; that is, that in the first and moste accomplyshed Peece, the Creator affected Superfluities, or ordayned Parts withoute all Vse or Offyce."--_Pseudodoxia Epidemica_, lib. v.; cap. v. [90] Blackwood, in an excellent article on Johnston's _Physical Geography_ (April, 1849), says:--"Adam _must_ have been created in the full possession of manhood; for if he had been formed an infant, he must have perished through mere helplessness. When God looked on this world, and pronounced all to be 'very good,'--which implies the completion of his purpose, and the perfection of his work--is it possible to conceive that he looked only on the germs of production, on plains covered with eggs, or seas filled with spawn, or forests still buried in the capsules of seeds; on a creation utterly shapeless, lifeless and silent, instead of the myriads of delighted existence, all enjoying the first sense of being?" And an eminent Geologist considers the position indisputable, as regards man:--"To the slightest rational consideration it must be evident, that the first human pair were created in the perfection of their bodily organs and mental powers."--(Dr. J. P. Smith; "Script. and Geol.;" 219.) [91] Gen. i. 12, 21, 26, 27. [92] Penny Cyclop.; _art._ ARACHIS. [93] Linn. Trans. iii. 23. [94] Introd. to Entom.; Lett. xi. Sec. 2. [95] Jones; Nat. Hist. Anim.; ii. 151. [96] Cf. Mr. Lubbock (Proc. Roy. Soc. viii. 354), with Dr. Baird (Brit Entomostr. p. 82). [97] Dr. Carpenter: Comp. Phys.; p. 615. [98] Dr. Alex. Braun, "On the Veget. Individual." (Ann. N. H. Nov. 1855.) [99] It may be objected that _Elephas primigenius_ is absolutely distinct from _E. Indicus_. I answer, Yes, _specifically_ distinct; and so am I distinct from my father,--_individually_ distinct. But as individual distinctness does not preclude the individual from being the exponent of a circular revolution in the life-history of the species, so specific distinctness may not preclude the species from being the exponent of a circular revolution in some higher, unnamed, life-history. [100] "We may assert of the individual, as well as of the species, that it completes the cycle of its existence in a succession of subordinate generations; while, on the other hand, we may affirm of the species, that, like the individual, it exhibits a determinate cycle of development." "The species itself may be regarded as an inferior 'momentum' of a still more comprehensive cycle of development."--_Dr. A. Braun_, "_On the Vegetable Individual._"