geology, I cannot. For the facts which demolish his whole
argument are of the commonest notoriety. But before proceeding
to consider the evidence for this assertion we must be clear
about the meaning of the phraseology employed.

I apprehend that when Mr. Gladstone uses the term "water-
population" he means those animals which in Genesis i. 21
(Revised Version) are spoken of as "the great sea monsters and
every living creature that moveth, which the waters brought
forth abundantly, after their kind." And I presume that it will
be agreed that whales and porpoises, sea fishes, and the
innumerable hosts of marine invertebrated animals, are meant
thereby. So "air-population" must be the equivalent of "fowl" in
verse 20, and "every winged fowl after its kind," verse 21.
I suppose I may take it for granted that by "fowl" we have here
to understand birds--at any rate primarily. Secondarily, it may
be that the bats and the extinct pterodactyles, which were
flying reptiles, come under the same head. But whether all
insects are "creeping things" of the land-population, or whether
flying insects are to be included under the denomination of
"winged fowl," is a point for the decision of Hebrew exegetes.
Lastly, I suppose I may assume that "land-population" signifies
"the cattle" and "the beasts of the earth," and "every creeping
thing that creepeth upon the earth," in verses 25 and 26;
presumably it comprehends all kinds of terrestrial animals,
vertebrate and invertebrate, except such as may be comprised
under the head of the "air-population."

Now what I want to make clear is this: that if the terms "water-
population," "air-population," and "land-population" are