The Evolution of Man, vol 2 by Ernst Haeckel (the top 100 crime novels of all time TXT) 📖

In Prophysema the primitive gut is a simple oval cavity, but in the closely related Gastrophysema it is divided into two chambers by a transverse constriction; the hind and smaller chamber above furnishes the sexual products, the anterior one being for digestion.

The simplest sponges (Olynthus, Figure 2.238) have the same organisation as the Physemaria. The only material difference between them is that in the sponge the thin two-layered body-wall is pierced by numbers of pores. When these are closed they resemble the Physemaria. Possibly the gastraeads that we call Physemaria are only olynthi with the pores closed. The Ammoconida, or the simple tubular sand-sponges of the deep-sea (Ammolynthus, etc.), do not differ from the gastraeads in any important point when the pores are closed. In my Monograph on the Sponges (with sixty plates) I endeavoured to prove analytically that all the species of this class can be traced phylogenetically to a common stem-form (Calcolynthus).

(FIGURES 2.234 AND 2.235. Prophysema primordiale, a living gastraead.

FIGURE 2.234. The whole of the spindle-shaped animal (attached below to the floor of the sea).

FIGURE 2.235. The same in longitudinal section. The primitive gut (d) opens above at the primitive mouth (m). Between the ciliated cells (g) are the amoeboid ova (e). The skin-layer (h) is encrusted with grains of sand below and sponge-spicules above.

FIGURES 2.236 TO 2.237. Ascula of gastrophysema, attached to the floor of the sea. Figure 2.236 external view, 2.237 longitudinal section. g primitive gut, o primitive mouth, i visceral layer, e cutaneous layer. (Diagram.)

FIGURE 2.238. Olynthus, a very rudimentary sponge. A piece cut away in front.)

The lowest form of the Cnidaria is also not far removed from the gastraeads. In the interesting common freshwater polyp (Hydra) the whole body is simply an oval tube with a double wall; only in this case the mouth has a crown of tentacles. Before these develop the hydra resembles an ascula (Figures 2.236 and 2.237). Afterwards there are slight histological differentiations in its ectoderm, though the entoderm remains a single stratum of cells. We find the first differentiation of epithelial and stinging cells, or of muscular and neural cells, in the thick ectoderm of the hydra.

In all these rudimentary living coelenteria the sexual cells of both kinds—ova and sperm cells—are formed by the same individual; it is possible that the oldest gastraeads were hermaphroditic. It is clear from comparative anatomy that hermaphrodism—the combination of both kinds of sexual cells in one individual—is the earliest form of sexual differentiation; the separation of the sexes (gonochorism) was a much later phenomenon. The sexual cells originally proceeded from the edge of the primitive mouth of the gastraead.

CHAPTER 2.20. OUR WORM-LIKE ANCESTORS.

The gastraea theory has now convinced us that all the Metazoa or multicellular animals can be traced to a common stem-form, the Gastraea. In accordance with the biogenetic law, we find solid proof of this in the fact that the two-layered embryos of all the Metazoa can be reduced to a primitive common type, the gastrula. Just as the countless species of the Metazoa do actually develop in the individual from the simple embryonic form of the gastrula, so they have all descended in past time from the common stem-form of the Gastraea. In this fact, and the fact we have already established that the Gastraea has been evolved from the hollow vesicle of the one-layered Blastaea, and this again from the original unicellular stem-form, we have obtained a solid basis for our study of evolution. The clear path from the stem-cell to the gastrula represents the first section of our human stem-history (Chapters 1.8, 1.9, and 2.19).

The second section, that leads from the Gastraea to the Prochordonia, is much more difficult and obscure. By the Prochordonia we mean the ancient and long-extinct animals which the important embryonic form of the chordula proves to have once existed (cf. Figures 1.83 to 1.86). The nearest of living animals to this embryonic structure are the lowest Tunicates, the Copelata (Appendicaria) and the larvae of the Ascidia. As both the Tunicates and the Vertebrates develop from the same chordula, we may infer that there was a corresponding common ancestor of both stems. We may call this the Chordaea, and the corresponding stem-group the Prochordonia or Prochordata.

From this important stem-group of the unarticulated Prochordonia (or “primitive chorda-animals”) the stems of the Tunicates and Vertebrates have been divergently evolved. We shall see presently how this conclusion is justified in the present condition of morphological science.

We have first to answer the difficult and much-discussed question of the development of the Chordaea from the Gastraea; in other words, “How and by what transformations were the characteristic animals, resembling the embryonic chordula, which we regard as the common stem-forms of all the Chordonia, both Tunicates and Vertebrates, evolved from the simplest two-layered Metazoa?”

The descent of the Vertebrates from the Articulates has been maintained by a number of zoologists during the last thirty years with more zeal than discernment; and, as a vast amount has been written on the subject, we must deal with it to some extent. All three classes of Articulates in succession have been awarded the honour of being considered the “real ancestors” of the Vertebrates: first, the Annelids (earth-worms, leeches, and the like), then the Crustacea (crabs, etc.), and, finally, the Tracheata (spiders, insects, etc.). The most popular of these hypotheses was the annelid theory, which derived the Vertebrates from the Worms. It was almost simultaneously (1875) formulated by Carl Semper, of Wurtzburg, and Anton Dohrn, of Naples. The latter advanced this theory originally in favour of the failing degeneration theory, with which I dealt in my work, Aims and Methods of Modern Embryology.

This interesting degeneration theory—much discussed at that time, but almost forgotten now—was formed in 1875 with the aim of harmonising the results of evolution and ever-advancing Darwinism with religious belief. The spirited struggle that Darwin had occasioned by the reformation of the theory of descent in 1859, and that lasted for a decade with varying fortunes in every branch of biology, was drawing to a close in 1870-1872, and soon ended in the complete victory of transformism. To most of the disputants the chief point was not the general question of evolution, but the particular one of “man’s place in nature”—“the question of questions,” as Huxley rightly called it. It was soon evident to every clear-headed thinker that this question could only be answered in the sense of our anthropogeny, by admitting that man had descended from a long series of Vertebrates by gradual modification and improvement.

In this way the real affinity of man and the Vertebrates came to be admitted on all hands. Comparative anatomy and ontogeny spoke too clearly for their testimony to be ignored any longer. But in order still to save man’s unique position, and especially the dogma of personal immortality, a number of natural philosophers and theologians discovered an admirable way of escape in the “theory of degeneration.” Granting the affinity, they turned the whole evolutionary theory upside down, and boldly contended that “man is not the most highly developed animal, but the animals are degenerate men.” It is true that man is closely related to the ape, and belongs to the vertebrate stem; but the chain of his ancestry goes upward instead of downward. In the beginning “God created man in his own image,” as the prototype of the perfect vertebrate; but, in consequence of original sin, the human race sank so low that the apes branched off from it, and afterwards the lower Vertebrates. When this theory of degeneration was consistently developed, its supporters were bound to hold that the entire animal kingdom was descended from the debased children of men.

This theory was most strenuously defended by the Catholic priest and natural philosopher, Michelis, in his Haeckelogony: An Academic Protest against Haeckel’s Anthropogeny (1875). In still more “academic” and somewhat mystic form the theory was advanced by a natural philosopher of the older Jena school—the mathematician and physicist, Carl Snell. But it received its chief support on the zoological side from Anton Dohrn, who maintained the anthropocentric ideas of Snell with particular ability. The Amphioxus, which modern science now almost unanimously regards as the real Primitive Vertebrate, the ancient model of the original vertebrate structure, is, according to Dohrn, a late, degenerate descendant of the stem, the “prodigal son” of the vertebrate family. It has descended from the Cyclostoma by a profound degeneration, and these in turn from the fishes; even the Ascidia and the whole of the Tunicates are merely degenerate fishes! Following out this curious theory, Dohrn came to contest the general belief that the Coelenterata and Worms are “lower animals”; he even declared that the unicellular Protozoa were degenerate Coelenterata. In his opinion “degeneration is the great principle that explains the existence of all the lower forms.”

If this Michelis-Dohrn theory were true, and all animals were really degenerate descendants of an originally perfect humanity, man would assuredly be the true centre and goal of all terrestrial life; his anthropocentric position and his immortality would be saved. Unfortunately, this trustful theory is in such flagrant contradiction to all the known facts of paleontology and embryology that it is no longer worth serious scientific consideration.

But the case is no better for the much-discussed descent of the Vertebrates from the Annelids, which Dohrn afterwards maintained with great zeal. Of late years this hypothesis, which raised so much dust and controversy, has been entirely abandoned by most competent zoologists, even those who once supported it. Its chief supporter, Dohrn, admitted in 1890 that it is “dead and buried,” and made a blushing retraction at the end of his Studies of the Early History of the Vertebrate.

Now that the annelid-hypothesis is “dead and buried,” and other attempts to derive the Vertebrates from Medusae, Echinoderms, or Molluscs, have been equally unsuccessful, there is only one hypothesis left to answer the question of the origin of the Vertebrates—the hypothesis that I advanced thirty-six years ago and called the “chordonia-hypothesis.” In view of its sound establishment and its profound significance, it may very well claim to be a THEORY, and so should be described as the chordonia or chordaea theory.

I first advanced this theory in a series of university lectures in 1867, from which the History of Creation was composed. In the first edition of this work (1868) I endeavoured to prove, on the strength of Kowalevsky’s epoch-making discoveries, that “of all the animals known to us the Tunicates are undoubtedly the nearest blood-relatives of the Vertebrates; they are the most closely related to the Vermalia, from which the Vertebrates have been evolved. Naturally, I do not mean that the Vertebrates have descended from the Tunicates, but that the two groups have sprung from a common root. It is clear that the real Vertebrates (primarily the Acrania) were evolved in very early times from a group of Worms, from which the degenerate Tunicates also descended in another and retrogressive direction.” This common extinct stem-group are the Prochordonia; we still have a silhouette of them in the chordula-embryo of the Vertebrates and Tunicates; and they still exist independently, in very modified form, in the class of the Copelata (Appendicaria, Figure 2.225).

The chordaea-theory received the most valuable and competent support from Carl Gegenbaur. This able comparative morphologist defended it in 1870, in the second edition of his Elements of Comparative Anatomy; at the same time he drew attention to the important relations of the Tunicates to a curious worm, Balanoglossus: he rightly regards this as the representative of a special class of worms, which he called “gut-breathers” (Enteropneusta). Gegenbaur referred on many other occasions to the close blood-relationship of the Tunicates and Vertebrates, and luminously explained the reasons that justify us in framing the hypothesis of the descent of the two stems from a common ancestor, an unsegmented worm-like animal with