[291] See Isidore Geoffroy Saint-Hilaire, _Histoire Naturelle Générale_, vol. iii, p. 210. [292] [We are almost tempted, in all kindness, to refer our author to the following remarks in the _Reliques of Father Prout_, p. 264. “I have been at some pains to acquire a comprehensive notion of the Count de Buffon’s system, and, aided by an old Jesuit, I have succeeded in condensing the voluminous dissertation into a few lines, for the use of those who are dissatisfied with the Mosaic statement:-- 1. In the beginning was the sun, from which a splinter was shot off by chance, and that fragment was our globe. 2. And the globe had for its nucleus melted glass, with an envelope of hot water. 3. And it began to twirl round, and became somewhat flattened at the poles. 4. Now, when the water grew cool, insects began to appear, and shell-fish. 5. And from the accumulation of shells, particularly oysters (see vol. i, p. 14, 4to, 2nd ed.), the earth was gradually formed, with ridges of mountains, on the principle of the Monte Testacio at the gate of Rome. 6. But the melted glass kept warm for a long time, and the arctic climate was as hot in those days as the tropics now are,--witness a frozen rhinoceros found in Siberia.” Let the leaven work, although a mere joke to M. Pouchet’s reality.--EDITOR.] [293] _Histoire Naturelle_, vol. ix, p. 127, 1761. Étienne Geoffroy (_Comptes Rendus_, vol. iii, p. 29) says the same thing “as regards the actual constitution of the globe; each race is a species _sui generis_,--a form or combination of its own in nature.” [294] The terms of this definition are almost entirely borrowed from Isidore Geoffroy. By ending it with these words, “in the present order of things,” Isidore Geoffroy only defined the existing species, and took away, without any reason, the palæontologic species. [295] Lamarck, _Discours de l’An XI_, p. 45. [296] See Flourens, _Examen du livre de M. Darwin sur l’Origine des Espèces_, 18mo, Paris, 1864. We are at least astonished to find the name of the Geoffroys mentioned but once in such a work (p. 45). M. Flourens charges Darwin with only quoting the partisans of his own opinions (p. 40). [297] [See above, p. 84, _note_.--EDITOR.] [298] _Sur l’Influence du monde ambiant_, 1831 (_Mémoires de l’Académie des Sciences_), vol. xii, p. 81. [299] Vol. ii, second part, 1859. [300] _Philosophie Zoologique_, vol. i, p. 221. [301] _Système des Connaissances Positives_, p. 143, 1820. [302] _Discours de l’An XI_, p. 45. He says, also, in another place (_Philosophie Zoologique_, vol. i, p. 66), “What we call species, has only a relative constancy in that state, and cannot be as ancient as nature itself.” [303] Lamarck, _Organisation des Corps Vivants_, p. 53. [304] For nature “time has no limit, and consequently has it always at its disposal.” Lamarck, _Système des Animaux sans Vertèbres_, p. 13, 1801.