Page:Nature - Volume 1.pdf/37

Nov. 4, 1869] is meant, not merely to promote a friendly intercourse among scientific men, but to be a kind of propagandist for the advancement of science through the general community. So we make a compromise between sober, serious, hard work for science on the one hand, and unrestrained festivities on the other. The German meetings keep less prominently before them the scientific culture of the world outside, and aim rather at the strengthening of the hands of the individual worker.

From the papers read at the different sections; from the discussion which they elicited; and still more perhaps from the public addresses on subjects of general interest given to the whole assembled meeting; one could gather some suggestive traits of the present current of thought in at least one great section of the cultivated society of Germany. What specially struck me was the universal sway which the writings of Darwin now exercise over the German mind. You see it on every side, in private conversation, in printed papers, in all the many sections into which such a meeting as that at Innsbruck divides. Darwin's name is often mentioned, and always with the profoundest veneration. But even where no allusion is specially made to him, nay, even more markedly, where such allusion is absent, we see how thoroughly his doctrines have permeated the scientific mind even in those departments of knowledge, which might seem at first sight to be furthest from natural history. "You are still discussing in England," said a German friend to me, "whether or not the theory of Darwin can be true. We have got a long way beyond that here. His theory is now our common starting point." And so, as far as my experience went, I found it.

But it is not merely in scientific circles that the influence of Darwin is felt and acknowledged. I do not think it is generally known in England, that three years ago, when, after the disastrous war with Prussia, the Austrian Parliament had assembled to deliberate on the reconsolidationof the empire, a distinguished member of the Upper Chamber, Professor Rokitansky, began a great speech, with this sentence:—"The question we have first to consider is, Is Charles Darwin right or no?" Such a query would no doubt raise a smile in our eminently unspeculative houses of legislature. But surely never was higher compliment paid to a naturalist. A great empire lay in its direst hour of distress, and the form and method of its reconstruction was proposed to be decided by the truth or error of the theory of Darwin. "The two men," said one able physician of Vienna to me (himself, by the way, a North-German), "who have most materially influenced German thought in this country are two Englishmen George Combe and Charles Darwin."

There was another aspect of the tone of thought at Innsbruck, which could not but powerfully impress a Briton. Although we were assembled in the most ultra-Catholic province of Catholic Austria, there was the most unbridled freedom of expression on every subject.

In an address on recent scientific progress, Helmholtz thus expressed himself—"After centuries of stagnation physiology and medicine have entered upon a blooming development, and we may be proud that Germany has been especially the theatre of this progress—a distinction for which she is indebted to the fact that among us, more than elsewhere, there has prevailed a fearlessness as to the consequences of the wholly known Truth. There are also distinguished investigators in England and in France, who share in the full energy of the development of the sciences, but they must bow before the prejudices of society, and of the Church, and if they speak out openly, can do so only to the injury of their social influence. Germany has advanced more boldly. She has held the belief, which has never yet been belied, that the full Truth carried with it the cure for any injury or loss which may here and there result from partial knowledge. For this superiority she stands indebted to the stern and disinterested enthusiasm which, regardless alike of external advantages and of the opinions of society, has guided and animated her scientific men."

This liberty of expression, however, seemed sometimes apt to wear not a little the aspect of a mere wanton defiance of the popular creed. Yet it was always received with applause.

In an address on the recent progress of anthropology, Karl Vogt gave utterance to what in our country would be deemed profanity, such as no man, not even the most free-thinking, would venture publicly to express. Yet it was received, first with a burst of astonishment at its novelty and audacity, and then with cries of approval and much cheering. I listened for some voice of dissent, but could hear none. When the address, which was certainly very eloquent, came to an end, there arose such a prolonged thunder of applause as one never hears save after some favourite singer has just sung some well-known air. It was a true and hearty encore. Again and again the bravos were renewed, and not until some little time had elapsed could the next business of the meeting be taken up. Not far from where I was standing, sat a Franciscan monk, his tonsured head and pendent cowl being conspicuous among the black garments of the savans. He had come, I daresay, out of curiosity to hear what the naturalists had to say on a question that interested him. The language he heard could not but shock him, and the vociferation with which it was received must have furnished material for talk and reflection in the monastery.

T will probably interest geologists and palæontologists to know that a recent examination of the numerous remains of Thecodontosauria in the Bristol Museum, enables me to demonstrate that these Triassic reptiles belong to the order Dinosauria, and are closely allied to Megalosaurus. The vertebræ, humerus, and ilium, found in the Warwickshire Trias, which have been ascribed to Labyrinthodon, also belong to Dinosauria. The two skeletons obtained in the German Trias near Stuttgart, and described by Prof Plieninger, some years ago, are also unquestionable Dinosauria; and, as Von Meyer is of opinion, probably belong to the genus Teratosaurus, from the same beds. Von Meyer's Platæosaurus, from the German Trias, is, plainly, as he has indicated it to be, a Dinosaurian.

As Prof Cope has suggested, it is very probable that Bathygnathus, from the Triassic beds of Prince Edward's Island, is a Dinosaurian; and I have no hesitation in expressing the belief, that the Deuterosaurus, from the Ural, which occurs in beds which are called Permian, but which appear to be Triassic, is also a Dinosaurian. It is also very probable that Rhopalodon, which occurs in these rocks, belongs to the same order. If so, the close resemblance of the South African Galesaurus to Rhopalodon, would lead me to expect the former to prove a Dinosaur.

I have found an indubitable fragment of a Dinosaurian among some fossils, not long ago sent to me, from the reptiliferous beds of Central India, by Dr. Oldham, the Director of the Indian Geological Survey. Further, the determination of the Thecodonts as Dinosauria, leaves hardly any doubt that the little Ankistrodon from these Indian rocks, long since described by me, belongs to the same group.

But another discovery in the same batch of fossils from India, leaves no question on my mind that the Fauna of the beds which yield Labyrinthodonts and Dicynodonts in that country, represents the terrestrial Fauna of the Trias of Europe. I find, in fact, numerous fragments of a crocodilian reptile, so closely allied to the Belodon of the German Trias, that the determination of the points of difference requires close attention, associated with a Hyperodapedon, larger than those discovered in the Elgin Sandstones, but otherwise very similar to it.