Our theory requires that the first form which existed of each of the great divisions would present points intermediate between existing ones, but immensely different. Most geologists believe Silurian{ 117} fossils are those which first existed in the whole world, not those which have chanced to be the oldest not destroyed,--or the first which existed in profoundly deep seas in progress of conversion from sea to land: if they are first they <? we> give up. Not so Hutton or Lyell: if first reptile{ 118} of Red Sandstone <?> really was first which existed: if Pachyderm{ 119} of Paris was first which existed: fish of Devonian: dragon fly of Lias: for we cannot suppose them the progenitors: they agree too closely with existing divisions. But geologists consider Europe as <?> a passage from sea to island <?> to continent (except Wealden, see Lyell). These animals therefore, I consider then mere introduction <?> from continents long since submerged.
{ 117} Compare _Origin_, Ed. i. p. 307, vi. p. 448.
{ 118} I have interpreted as _Sandstone_ a scrawl which I first read as _Sea_; I have done so at the suggestion of Professor Judd, who points out that "footprints in the red sandstone were known at that time, and geologists were not then particular to distinguish between Amphibians and Reptiles."
{ 119} This refers to Cuvier's discovery of _Palæotherium_ &c. at Montmartre.
Finally, if views of some geologists be correct, my theory must be given up. [Lyell's views, as far as they go, are in _favour_, but they go so little in favour, and so much more is required, that it may <be> viewed as objection.] If geology present us with mere pages in chapters, towards end of <a> history, formed by tearing out bundles of leaves, and each page illustrating merely a small portion of the organisms of that time, the facts accord perfectly with my theory{ 120}.
{ 120} This simile is more fully given in the _Origin_, Ed. i. p. 310, vi. p. 452. "For my part, following out Lyell's metaphor, I look at the natural geological record, as a history of the world imperfectly kept, and written in a changing dialect; of this history we possess the last volume alone, relating only to two or three countries. Of this volume, only here and there a short chapter has been preserved; and of each page, only here and there a few lines. Each word of the slowly-changing language, in which the history is supposed to be written, being more or less different in the interrupted succession of chapters, may represent the apparently abruptly changed forms of life, entombed in our consecutive, but widely separated formations." Professor Judd has been good enough to point out to me, that Darwin's metaphor is founded on the comparison of geology to history in Ch. i. of the _Principles of Geology_, Ed. i. 1830, vol. i. pp. 1-4. Professor Judd has also called my attention to another passage,--_Principles_, Ed. i. 1833, vol. iii. p. 33, when Lyell imagines an historian examining "two buried cities at the foot of Vesuvius, immediately superimposed upon each other." The historian would discover that the inhabitants of the lower town were Greeks while those of the upper one were Italians. But he would be wrong in supposing that there had been a sudden change from the Greek to the Italian language in Campania. I think it is clear that Darwin's metaphor is partly taken from this passage. See for instance (in the above passage from the _Origin_) such phrases as "history ... written in a changing dialect"--"apparently abruptly changed forms of life." The passage within [] in the above paragraph:--"Lyell's views as far as they go &c.," no doubt refers, as Professor Judd points out, to Lyell not going so far as Darwin on the question of the imperfection of the geological record.