Skip to main content

Thank you for visiting nature.com. You are using a browser version with limited support for CSS. To obtain the best experience, we recommend you use a more up to date browser (or turn off compatibility mode in Internet Explorer). In the meantime, to ensure continued support, we are displaying the site without styles and JavaScript.

  • Letter
  • Published:

M. Barrande and Darwinism

Abstract

IN the article in NATURE (vol. ix. p. 228) on M. Barrande's “Trilobites,” published in 1871, several statements are made which require not only considerable modification as to the facts then known, but which are entirely misleading when made to appear to represent the state of our knowledge of these acts at the present time. M. Barrande is well known to be a determined opponent to the theory of evolution, and doubtless this strong bias has prevented him from seeing and accepting many facts which would otherwise, to so keen and careful an observer, have seemed inconsistent with such strong views. The list of fossils given by him from the Cambrian formation, and which is reproduced in NATURE, is most incomplete and inaccurate when made to refer to the Cambrian fauna of this country, as will be evident at once by referring to p. 249 of the same work, where a list of fossils discovered by me in the “Harlech or Superior Longmynd” group of Wales is given, and which includes several trilobites; and yet in the above-mentioned article it is stated “that no trace of a trilobite has been found in the Cambrian formation.” Surely no English geologist will be bold enough to deny to the name Cambrian its right to these Harlech and Longmynd rocks, whatever else it may not be entitled to. Nor, indeed, did Sir R. Murchison and the Geological Survey ever attempt such a breach, and I cannot believe that M. Barrande has realised what such an assumption means, or what it would lead to; nor can I believe that it is possible for him to have followers in this country in such a “violation of historic truth,” and, as observed by Prof. Sterry Hunt (in the Canadian Naturalist, vol. vi. p. 448), for no other reason than “that the primordial fauna has now been shown by Hicks to extend towards their base.” Surely this country, which has not only given to scientific nomenclature the name Cambrian, but which has given to all other countries the groundwork upon which to build up theirs, should have a right to explain the succession in its own way, and especially when it is proved that its succession of these rocks is clearer and more natural than has been hitherto found to be the case in any other country. Indeed it is quite clear that M. Barrande has not yet succeeded, in Bohemia, in reaching this early fauna, and it is evident also that his first zone of life is only equal in order of appearance to the latter part of our second zone, and hence the mistake to attempt to correlate our fauna with his zone.

This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution

Access options

Buy this article

Prices may be subject to local taxes which are calculated during checkout

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

HICKS, H. M. Barrande and Darwinism. Nature 9, 261–262 (1874). https://doi.org/10.1038/009261b0

Download citation

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1038/009261b0

Comments

By submitting a comment you agree to abide by our Terms and Community Guidelines. If you find something abusive or that does not comply with our terms or guidelines please flag it as inappropriate.

Search

Quick links

Nature Briefing

Sign up for the Nature Briefing newsletter — what matters in science, free to your inbox daily.

Get the most important science stories of the day, free in your inbox. Sign up for Nature Briefing