ELEMENTS OF COMPAEATIYE ANATOMY. ELEMENTS OF COMPARATIVE ANATOMY. BY CARL GEGENBAUR, Professoii op Anatomt and Dibector op the Ahatomical Institute at Heidelbero. TRANSLATED BY E. JEFFREY BELL, B.A., Magdalen College, Oxpord. THE TRANSLATION REVISED AND A PREFACE BRITTEN BY E. RAY LANKESTER, ALA., F.R.S., Fellow op Exeter College, Oxford, and Professor op Zoology and Comparative Anatomy IN University College, London. LONDON : MACMILLAN AND CO, 1878. CHARLES DICKERS AND EVANS, CRYSTAL PALACE PRESS. PREFACE TO THE SECOND EDITION. OuE knowledge lias been so inucli increased in extent and exactness in almost every department of Comparative Anatomy since the time when I converted my Grundzuge into the first edition of this smaller manual — the Grnndriss — that the publication of a second edition hardly seemed an easy task. Nevertheless^ I gladly undertook it, for I had observed so much new evidence of the importance of the doctrine of development in anatomical enquiry. The road along which science may travel forward success- fully seems indeed to be growing easier, yet the distance which we have made is but short in comparison with that which lies in front of us, and far beyond our view. Every question solved leads again to fresh problems, and renders unstable even what seemed to have taken a definite form. There are, therefore, great difiiculties in giving such a comprehensive presentation of the subject as a text-book ought to supply. I have tried as much as possible to evade these difiiculties where I have been unable to overcome them. Much remains unaltered, because recent in- vestigations appear to demand fundamental changes, the concrete expression of which cannot be immediately taken in hand. I have somewhat modified the arrangement of the matter. I can hardly be blamed for separating the Brachiopoda from the Mollusca, and treating them as forming an independent phylum. Nor indeed is the change a real one, for even in my Grundzuge I drew especial attention to the great difference that obtained between them and the other Mollusca.^ ^ The Tunicata have VI PKEFACE. been treated in tlie same way, but this does not require any apology at tbe present date. By treating tbe subject more concisely I bave been able to increase tbe real matter to a certain extent, without enlarging tbe size of tbe book. I bave, of course, only dealt with wbat bas seemed to me to be of capital importance ; many, and even important, details bave been omitted, owing to tbe limits imposed by tbe aim of tbe book. I bave endeavoured to correct some previous mistakes and to suj)ply omissions. If any sucb bave been retained, or bave newly crept in, I shall be fairly judged, I know, by anatomists, who will remember tbe vast extent of our science and tbe object of this work. I hope that I bave satisfied them, and if I bave my toil is well repaid. Heidelberg, November, 1877. C. Gegenbaur. PREFACE TO THE ENGLISH TRANSLATION. It is a great pleasure to me to be able to place in the hands of my pupils in Oxford and London an English translation of Professor Gegenbaur’s Grundriss der Yergleichenden Anatomic.” I have to thank the energy and industry of Mr. Jeffrey Bell, of Magdalen College, Oxford (now one of the staff of the British Museum), for the translation which he undertook and carried through at my request, Avhen I found that my time Avas too fully occu- pied Avith other Avork to alloAv of my completing it myself Avithin a suffi- ciently short period from the date of publication of the German Avork. My share of the present Avork has therefore consisted in a careful revision of the MS. and proof-sheets, Avhich has been by no means a mere formality, but enables me to give the assurance that the original Avork is faithfully rendered in the translation. The chapter on the Tunicata I took occasion to translate myself. That Professor Gegenbaur’s Avork Avill be of great service to those English students Avho do not already read German cannot be doubted. We have some excellent treatises in the English language on animal morpho- logy, notably the Manuals of the Anatomy of Vertebrate and Invertebrate Animals, by Professor Huxley. But we do not possess any modern Avork on Comparative Anatomy, properly so-called ; that is to say, a Avork in AAdiich the comparative method is put prominently forAvard as the guiding principle in the treatment of the results of anatomical investigation. The present Avork therefore appears to me to form a most important supplement to our existing treatises on the structure and classification of animals. It has, over and above this, a distinctive and Aveighty recommendation in that throughout and A\dthout reserve the Doctrine of Evolution appears as the living, moving investment of the dry bones of anatomical fact. Hot only is the student thus taught to retain and accumulate his facts in relation to definite problems AAdiich are actually exercising the ingenuity of investigators, Yin PEEFACE. but lie is encouraged, and to a certain extent trained, in the healthy use of his speculative faculties ; in fact the one great method by which new knoAv- ledge is attained, Avhether of little things or of big things — the method of observation (or experiment), directed by speculation — becomes the con- scious and distinctive characteristic of his mental activity. Thus avc may claim for the study of Comparative Anatomy, as set forth in the present Avork, the poAA^er of developing Avhat is called “common sense” into the more precisely fixed “ scientific habit ” of mind. I liaA^e made no notes nor additions of any kind to the original text, Avith the exception of a feAV references to English Avorks likely to be nseful to the English student. These additions are indicated by brackets. AYhilst the Avork is thus presented to the reader precisely as its author designed that it should be, there can be no objection to the introduction in this place of a feAv remarks suggested by the fact that this English translation is intended for the use of English students, and that it is therefore desirable, in order to prevent confusion and perplexity, to point out certain statements of fact, or of interpretation of fact, in Avhich Professor Gegenbaur differs Avidely from authorities usually foUoAved in this country. I shall, moreover, refer to some recent additions to knoAAdedge published since this Avork left Professor Gegenbaur’s hands. It Avill be understood that the foUoAving paragraphs are intended as a supplement necessitated by the special objects of this translation, and are by no means to bo regarded as conceived in the spirit of criticism or discussion, Avhich Avould assuredly ill befit a Avriter Avho is making knoAvn to a noAv audience the teachings of a master to aaEoiii he is deeply indebted. Xudei of Cells. — In the first place, it seems necessary to notice that, Avhilst the last German edition of this work Avas in the press, very important additions to our knoAvledge of the nucleus of organic cells or plastids Avere being made. Though these hwestigations are not yet complete they tend to modify AAEat is said concerning the nucleus on j^ages 15 and 16. The student is referred to an article by Mr. Priestley in the Quart. Journ. Microsc. Science, vol. xvi. (1876), for an account of the obserA^ations of Auerbach, Strasburger, Hertavig, and Yah Beneden, and to part iii. of the same Journal, a^oI xviii. (1878), for original observations on the same subject by Dr. Klein. Eeproduction of Infusoria. — A most important modification in the current AueAVS as to the reproduction of the Infusoria has resulted from the same line of study as that just mentioned, Avhen carried into the domain of unicellular organisms. 0. Butschli and Engelaiann have shoAvn that AA^e are not at present in a position to assert that the process of con- jugation in the Infusoria is folloAved by a production of spores (see § 70). It results from their investigations that conjugation in the Infusoria is attended by a definite breaking-up of the nucleus and so-called nucleolus (paranucleus) of the conjugating individuals ; but that the conjugating PREFACE. ix individuals separate, and after expelling portions of the hroken-up nuclear structures (probably as effete products), proceed to re-form the nucleus, or nucleus and nucleolus characteristic of the species. The so-called Acineti- forin embryos appear to be parasites, the rod-like bodies occasionally observed in the nucleus are also parasites, Avhilst the striated structure and spindle- shape exhibited by the nucleolus or paranucleus in such forms as Para- nioecium and Stylonicbia at the period of conjugation, are simply due to changes in this body which are exactly paralleled in the nuclei of egg-cells and other tissue-elements of multicellular organisms, when those cells are about to divide by transverse fission. The process of conjugation in the Infusoria may be, and probably is, attended by an exchange of nuclear material between the conjugating mdividuals, and is so far comparable to sexual congress, but it results in a simple rejuvenescence ” of the conjugating individuals and not in a production of spores. Reproduction by fission and l)y the modification of fission, known as gemmation, has been accurately observed in Infusoria, but of the formation of “ spores ” in this group we are at present ignorant, in spite of all that has been written on the subject. Origin of Male and Female Reproductive Elements from different Germ-layers. — In § 95 Professor Gegenbaur has described the observations of Ed. Van Beneden on the development of the sexual products in Hydractinia, and has adopted his generalisation, so far at least as it applies to the Hydromedusoe. From more recent observa- tions (CiAMiciAN, Zeitschr. fiir wiss. Zoologie, vol. xxx. p. 501, 1878) it appears that in other genera of hydroid polyps the same arrangement does not obtain. In Eudendrium ramosum the ova appear to develop from the ectoderm, and the sperm from the endoderm ; in Tubularia meseni- bryanthemum both ova and sperm are ectodermal in origin according to CiAMiciAN ; Van Beneden found the ova to be endodermal and the sperm ectodermal in Hydractinia, whilst Kleinenberg ascribes both to the ecto- derm in Hydra. Nervous System and Sensory Organs of Medusae. — During the past year a considerable addition has been made to knowledge on these points, by the researches of the two Hertwigs (“ Das Nervensystem und die Sinnesorgane der Medusen.” Leipzig, 1877). It is no longer possible to deny the existence of differentiated nervous tissue in the Medusae — the central organ having the form of a ring situated along the line of insertion of the velum in the Craspedota, and of a series of isolated ganglia, usually eight in number, placed on the edge of the disc in the Acraspeda. (See for an abstract of recent researches on this subject. Quart. Journal of Microsc. Science, vol. xviii. p. 340.) Cirri and Elytra of Aphroditaceae. — The statement in § 105, that the elytra of the chaetopodous Worms, allied to Aphrodite, are formed by the metamorphosis of the dorsal cirri of the parapodia, appears to be contradicted X PREFACE. by tlie fact, that in Sigalion the elytra and dorsal cirri exist side by side on the same segment. Homologies of the Rami of the Appendages in Astacns. — The view taken by Professor Gegenbaur, as to the homologies of the parts of the appendages immediately following the month in Astacns, differs somewhat from that which is current in this country. In Fig. 122, p. 239, the mandible, two maxilhe, and three maxillipedes of the right side of Astacns flnviatilis are figured. This woodcut was kindly re-drawn for the English edition by the author, at my re(][nest, and gives a more complete outline of the parts in question, than does the older cut of the German edition. Throughout the series of appendages, three divisions are distinguished by the letters a, c, d. Taking the lowest figure first (the third maxillipede) we find the endopodite marked a, the exopodite marked c, and the letter d placed with the single epipodite (podobranchia, Huxley) to its inner side, whilst the double arthrobranchia (Huxley) not forming part of the appendage proper, but a distinct respiratory development, is seen on its outer side. In the next figure (the second maxiUipede), a indicates endopodite, c exopodite, and d, is placed close to the double arthrobranchia on its outer side, whilst the modified epipodite is seen to the inner side again, of this. In the figure of the first maxillipede, a is placed near the foliaceous endopodite, which has a detached outstanding segment, c near the filamentous exopodite, and d near the broad epipodite. The same explanation of the lettering holds good for the next appendage, the second maxilla. In the next appendage — the first maxilla — the absence of the letters c and d, indicates that the author regards the whole appendage as reduced to the representative of the foliaceous endopodite a of the two inferior appendages — a view with which few will disagree. In the case of the mandible, hoAvever, Professor Gegenbaur marks the “ j^alp ” with the letter c — considering, therefore, the basal piece of this appendage to represent the endopodite, and the palp to represent the exopodite. The more usual opinion on this matter is that the mandible, together with its palp, corresponds to the simple foliaceous fimt maxilla. The jointed palp, mounted on its solid basal biting-piece, cor- responds to the jointed endopodite a of the last maxillipede. The question of the presence or the absence of a representative of the exopodite in the Decapod’s mandible, is a matter of considerable importance in reference to possible comparisons between the gnathites of Crustacea and Tracheata. The actual development of the parts in question from the nauplius-form of appendage, must be the ultimate test of the homologies of their rami in the Crustacea. Blood-corpuscles of the Mollusca. — The statement on p. 375, that the form-elements of the blood are always colourless ” in the Mollusca, is one which I may be allowed to correct, since I have published an account of the blood-corpuscles of Solen legumen (Proc. Royal Society, Ho. 140, 1873), which, besides colourless amoeboid forms, comprise a vast number of PREFACE. XI oval ones, deeply stained by lireinoglobin. The nninber of these corpuscles is so considerable as to give the blood of Solen leguinen a bright blood- red colour. I may add here that I have observed similar thougli larger corpuscles impregnated with hfemogiobin in the blood of species of Area. Homologies of the Arms of the Cephalopoda. — The view that tlie sucker-bearing arms of the cuttlefish are to be regarded as appendages of the head homologous with the tentacles on tlie head of Gasteropods (p. 326), is one which, it will be well for the student to remember, is not that usually taught. He should make himself acquainted with the older and the newer view, and the grounds on which they are based. Without entering into a discussion of the arguments which may be adduced in favour of this or of rival interpretations of the parts, it must suffice here briefly to mention that the arms of the Cephalopod (the development of which had been made known by Kolliker), were shown by Professor Huxley, five-and-twenty years ago, to correspond to the fore-part of the foot of the Gasteropoda, and the ganglion, from which they receive their nerve supply, was then considered as corresponding to the pedal (Morphology of the Cephalous Mollusca, Phil. Trans. 1853). This view was maintained in the earlier editions of Gegenbaur’s work. It has been abandoned in the present edition, in deference to the statements of Mr. Jhering (“ Yergleichende Anatomie des Hervensystems und Phylogenie der Molluscen, Leipzig,” 1877). The whole of tliat author’s work, both statement of fact and speculative superstructure, appears to me to call for very cautious treatment, involving the rejection of some of his principal conclusions. Origin of the Limbs of Vertebrates. — Professor Gegenbaur is inclined to regard the skeleton of the limbs and limb-girdles of Vertebrata as derived from gill-arches and their branchial rays (§ 357). The student is reminded that another possible derivation of these organs is from primitively continuous lateral fins — supported by cartilaginous rays, and comparable to the primitively continuous dorsal median fin. The specialisation and con- centration of the lateral fin on each side in two regions, thoracic and pelvic, would be competent to give rise to the two pairs of fins, such as we find in the Elasmobranchs. Mr. Balfour (“ Development of Elasmobranch Fishes,” 1878) is led to adopt this view by the observation, that in the embryo dog- fish the lateral fins have precisely the same mode of origin as has the dorsal median fin, arising as special developments of a continuous ridge on each side, precisely like the ridges of epiblast, which form the rudiments of the unpaired fins.” This view of the nature of the vertebrate limbs has been independently worked out with great care from the point of view of comparative anatomy, by Mr. J. K. Thacher (Median and Paired Eins, Transactions Connecticut Academy, vol. iii. 1877). In the important memoir just cited, Mr. Thacher shows very plausibly how the Elasmobranch fin, and not only the fin, but the su2:>porting limb-girdle also, may have XU PKEFACE. been derived from the gradual shifting, atrophy, hypertroph}', and con- crescence of primitively similar cartilaginous rods, which formed a series on each side of the body, identical in character with the primitive median dorsal series. According to this view, the archipterygium ” of Professor Gegenbaur is not antecedent to, but is derived from the type of fin found in Elasmobranchs. (See also on this subject, Huxley, On Ceratodiis, Proc. Zool. Soc. vol. 1876, p. 24.) Pelation of the Malleus and Incus to the Mandibiilar and Hyoid Arches. — Investigations directed to the development of the skull led Professor Huxley some years since to adopt the conclusion of Peichert and of Goodsir, that the small bones of the Mammals’ tympanic cavity were derived from the upper ends of the anterior visceral arches. At first it appeared probable that the malleus and incus were both derived from the upper end of the cartilaginous mandibular arch, the lower part forming Meckel’s cartilage. This led to the suggestion that the malleus corresponds to the articulare of the lower jaw of other Vertebrata, whilst the incus was considered to be the representative of the quadratum, since it articulates with the malleus just as the quadratum does with the articulare (Croonian Lecture ‘‘ On the Theory of the Vertebrate Skull,” Proc. Eoyal Society, vol. ix. p. 398). Eurther investigation led Professor Huxley to a modification of his views. The embryological evidence is not quite complete, but the relations of the parts in question in the developing Erog, in certain Lizards, and in Mam- malia, have led him to the conclusion (“Manual of Vertebrate Anatomy,” p. 85, 1871) that whilst the malleus is formed from the uppermost extremity of the mandibular arch, and therefore represents, not articulare, but quad- ratum, the incus is developed from the uppermost extremity of the second or hyoid arch, and corresponds to the hjmmandibidar of fishes. The stapes is also developed from the upper portion of the hyoid arch, just below the incus. The incus may therefore be spoken of as the siipra-stapedial portion of the hyoid arch, and in certain Vertebrata it exists as a mere cartilaginous supra-stapedial rudiment. These views in their later form have not been adopted by Professor Gegenbaur. He observes (§ 402) that the homologies of the ossicula audit us of the various classes of Vertebrata have not yet been satisfactorily determined. In § 352 he maintains the earlier determination of the homo- logy of the mammalian malleus with the articulare of other Vertebrates. Concerning the homologies of the incus and the stapes, he considers it advisable, in the present state of knowledge, to make no statement. The student is advised of these differences of interpretation of structural fact, in order that he may the more carefully make himself acquainted from original sources with the details of development, relation to nerves, and other features of the parts under discussion. Nomenclature of the Lobes of the Brain in Fishes. — In the earlier editions of the present work, Professor Gegenbaur, led by the result PEEFAOE. xiii of investigations carried out by bis pupil Miklucho-Maclay (“ Vergleicli. Aeurologie der Wirbeltbiere,” 1870), modified the current nomenclature of the lobes of the Fish’s brain, so that the large bispherical part, which was usually considered as the mesencephalon in the Teleostei and Selachii, was assigned to the thalamencephalon — or second of the five cerebral segments — whilst the unpaired large projecting lobe, usually considered as the metencephalon (cerebellum, fourth segment), was identified with the mesencephalon of higher Vertebrates, and the cerebellum was considered as being represented by a small transverse plate, often overlapped by the folded mesencephalon, and usually of no larger size than the piece similarly identified in the frog. In the present edition Professor Gegenbaur has modified this system of nomen- clature, and has returned to the older and usually accepted method of naming the parts of the Fish’s brain. Thus in Fig. 281, d marks the two spherical masses which were in former editions assigned to thalamencephalon, and are now, as is usual with other anatomists, designated mesencephalon, the expansion between them and g being the reduced area of the thalamen- cephalon. The letter h is now referred to as metencephalon (cerebellum) : this was previously referred to as mesencephalon ; the myelencephalon prosencephalon, and rhinencephala retain their names, which had not been affected by Maclay’s system. Wliilst Professor Gegenbaur has returned to the usual system of naming these parts, he still considers that the facts on which Maclay’s nomenclature was based possibly point to homologies other than those indicated by the names ; so that the Fish’s cerebellum does not necessarily agree with that of higher Vertebrata. He remarks ; The mesencephalon is usually considered as being confluent with the thalamencephalon in Selachians ; and a part which really represents it, so far at least as relations of position are con- cerned, is customarily called by the name ‘ cerebellum.’ ” In translating the German terms, Vorderhirn, Zwischenhirn, Mittelhirn, Ilinterhirn, and Hachirn, I have adopted Professor Huxley’s equivalents, namely Prosencephalon, Thalamencephalon, Mesencephalon, Metencephalon, and Myelencephalon. In the edition of Quain and Sharpe y’s Anatomy, published in 1867, a similar but not identical series of terms was suggested. For the ‘‘primitivenHirnschlitz,” — the early strongly-marked sinking in of the cerebral roof which separates the prosencephalon from the thalamencej)halon — we have no special term in use ; primitive cerebral cleft ” is the transla- tion which has been adopted. It is worth while pointing out to the student, in connection with this subject, and in fact in relation to the whole of the chapter on the Vertebrata, that Professor Gegenbaur assumes some small amount of familiarity on the part of the reader with descriptive human anatomy ; reference to a manual treating of this subject, on the part of the student who has not previously mastered it, is indispensable. FTomenclature of the Parts of the Digestive Tract. — The transla- tion in the present work of the simple word Darm,” and its compounds XIV PREFACE. Vorderdariii, ^Jitteldariii, Hinterdarm, Ko})fdarm, lias caused me some perplexity. It has been variously rendered in the translation by “gut/*’ ‘‘enteron/’ “enteric tube,” “alimentary canal,” “digestive tract.” The fact is that, whilst we have no definite nomenclature at present in use in English which recognises the true morphology of the canal which com- mences with the mouth and ends with the anus, the nomenclature in use in Germany is of very doubtful advantage, since it has not a sound morpho- logical basis, but is altogether superficial. “ Darin,” for which our readiest ecpiivalent is “ gut,” is used indifferently for the whole or for any part of the physiological entity which reaches from oral to anal aperture. Put the English Avord “ gut ” is associated rather Avith the hinder than Avith the fore- most portion of this tract. It Avill probably be foimd most convenient to speak of the physiological Avhole as the “alimentary canal,” or “digestive tube and these terms I have endeavoured consistently to make use of in tliis sense, though sometimes the term “enteric tube” has been similarly applied. The division of this tube or canal into pharynx, oesophagus, stomach, and intestine ; or, again, into fore-gut, mid-gut, and hind-gut (Vorderdarm, ^Mitteldarm, Hinterdarm, p. 48), is one based upon superficial adaptations of form, and does not admit of a comparison of the parts so designated in the various phyla of the Animal Kingdom. The pharynx and the oeso- phagus of the Vertebrata are develoxied from the endoderm of the embiyo ; the parts Avhich receive the same names in the Mollusca and the Arthropoda are developed from the ectoderm. The hind-gut of the Vertebrate is endo- dermal in origin, ectodermal in the Arthropod, and partly endodernial partly ectodermal in the Mollusca. In fact there is no attempt to recog- nise the facts of embryology in the terminology applied to the alimentary canal. Under these circumstances I have proposed (Quarterly Journ. ^licrosc. Science, April, 1876, and “ Xotes on Embryology and Classification,” London, 1877, p. 11), to distinguish the primitive digestive space Avhich develops from the endoderm (in fact the gastrula-stomach) as the “ enteron.” The anterior passage leading into this from the mouth, and formed by an ingroAvth of ectoderm, I have termed the “ stomodreum,” and the corresponding passage leading from the anus I similarly propose to call the “proctodeum.” These three primary factors of the alimentary tract are most equally developed in the Arthropoda and some ^Mollusca. In Vertebrata the stomodeum is exceedingly small, if indeed its true homo- logue exists at all (excepting in the Tunicata). The jn'octodreum is also in them evanescent. The middle portion of the alimentary tract formed from the primitive enteron (archenteron), AAdiich does not entirely coincide Avith that part to Avhich the term “ IMitteldarm ” is applied, does not in all the various animal phyla take up the AAdiole of the primitive enteron. This, in fact, only occurs in some of the Cadenterata, Avhich may therefore l)e said to possess in the adult condition an archenteron. In other groups the PREFACE. XV primitive enteric sae gives off the foundations for a variety of other structures, so tliat what is left of it as the central element of the alimentary canal is a changed and hroken-up enteron, which maybe called “metenteron” as opposed to the unchanged archenteron.” It is to these three morphological factors then, the metenteron, the stomodseum, and the proctodreum, that Ave are called upon to assign the various adaptational swellings, constrictions, and outgrowths of tire alimen- tary tract of higher animals. These distinctions are not recognised in Professor Gegenbaur’s Avork. It Avill be sufficient here to point out that the exact limit of stomodmum and of proctoda3um in any particular case, can only be ascertained by direct observation of the process of development. The metenteron is that part of the alimentary canal Avith Avhich the most important digestive glands are connected, such as the liver, and from its walls they are formed as outgroAvths. The stomodaeum gives rise to salivary glands, and usually to masticatory sacs (gizzards), but these latter may form also in the metenteron. The proctodaeum forms the cloacal chamber, Avhere such exists, and alAvays receives the openings of glands (such as the Malpighian filaments of insects) Avliich are excretory rather than accessory to digestion. These explanations Avill be sufficient to make clear to the reader the sense in Avhich the Avords “ enteron ” and ‘‘ enteric ” have occasionally been employed in the translation. Classification. — At the present day, naturalists have learnt to recog- nise in their efforts after Avhat Avas vaguely called the natural ” system of classification, an unconscious attempt to construct the pedigree of the animal Avorld. The attempt has noAV become a conscious one. Xecessarily classifications Avhich aim at exhibiting the pedigree, vary from year to year Avith the increase in our knoAvledge. They also vary according to the importance attached by their authors to one or another class of facts as demonstrating blood-relationships. Probably no two zoologists of the present day Avould agree, Avithin Avide limits, as to the classification Avhich comes nearest to expressing the pedigree. Accordingly it is by no means desirable that students should be taught to accept any one scheme of clas- sification as finite. They should be taught to look upon these schemes as the condensed expression of an author’s vieAvs — as the epitome of his teaching, facilitating the recollection and the comparison of conflicting solutions of the vast series of unsolved problems of morphology. I propose here, for the convenience of the student, to place side by side the general outlines of the schemes of classification adopted by Professor Huxley in 1869 (No. I.), that adopted by Professor Gegenbaur in the present Amlume (No. II.), and that AAdiich I have made use of in my lectures during the j^ast year (No. III.). I have taken the older classification adopted by Professor Huxley rather than that more recently put forAA^ard by him, because it is one Avith Avhich XVI PEEFACE. my experience as teacher and examiner lias shown me that Engdish students are thoroughly familiarised. I. SUB-KINGDOMS. II. PHYLA. III. PHYLA. Protozoa. Protozoa.* (Rhizopoda, Gregarinida, Radiolaria, Spongida.) Infusoria. ClELENTERATA. COELENTER-ATA. (Hydrozoa, Aclinozoa.) VERMES.f Annuloida. (Scolecida, Echinoderma.) Annulosa. Echinoderma. (Crustacea, Arachnida, Myriapoda, Insecta, Chte- tognatha, Annelida.) Brachiopoda.^ Molluscoida. (Polyzoa, Brachiopoda, Tunicata.) Arthropoda. Mollusca. (Lamellibranchiata, Bran- Mollusca. chiogastropoda, Pulmo- gastropoda, Pteropoda, Cephalopoda.) Tunicat.a.§ Vertebrata. (Pisces, Amphibia, Reptilia, Aves, Mammalia.) Vertebrata. Protozoa.* * * § PORIFERA. Ivematoritoka. Platyhelmia.II Gepiiyrea.II Echinoderma. ExtEROPNEUSTA. II NeMATOIDEA. II Ch.etognatha.|| ApPEXDICL'LATA.*!|’ MoLLL’SCA.** VERTEBRATA.ff Seeing that one of my chief objects in superintending the translation of the treatise to Avliich these few pages are introductory, has been to be able * The Protozoa in Nos. II. and III. include the same organisms as in No. I., excepting that the Infusoria are included in that phylum in Nos. II. and III., and that the Sponges are excluded, being in No. II. placed under the Coelenterata, and in No. III. forming the phylum Porifera under the “ grade ” Coclentera, as shown in the genealogical tree on the adjacent page. f The Vermes of No. II. include all the Annulo'ida of No. I. excepting the Echinoderma, which are raised to the rank of an independent jDhylum. They also include the Annelida (Chajtopoda, Hirudinea, and Gephyrea) from amongst the Annulosa of No. I. and the Polyzoa from amongst the Molluscoida of the same series. The Brachiopoda, raised to the position of a distinct phylum in No. II., are placed among the Molluscoida in No. I. and amongst the Mollusca in No. III. § The Tunicata, considered as an independent phylum in No. II., are found amongst the Molluscoida in No. I. and form a section of the Vertebrata in No. III. II The Platyhelmia, Gephyrea, Enteropneusta, Nematoidea, and Chmtognatha form in No. III. a number of independent phyla. Together with the Polyzoa (included in No. III. under the Mollusca), the Ilotifera, and the Chgetopeda, included under the Appendiculata, they constitute the series of phyla which are in No. 11. massed together as “Vermes.” •fT The Appendiculata include animals with lateral locomotive appendages, and usually a segmented body. The group is, excepting that it has the addition of the Ilotifera, nearly co-extensive with the Annulosa of No. I. ** The phylum Mollusca in No. III. includes the Polyzoa and Brachiopoda, excluded from it in both No. I. and No. II. ft The Vertebrate phylum in No. III. includes the Tunicata, which it will be seen by reference to page 70 are already placed on the Vertebrate stem by Professor Gegenbaur. PEEFACE. xvli to place the work in the hands of the students of iny own classes, I need not apologise for adding here further details of the classification which I find it most convenient to adopt in teaching. I have arranged the chief phyla first of all in the form of a genealogical tree, and secondly in a series exhibiting their subdivisions into classes, etc. This classification is of course to a largo extent only a modification and adaptation of systems already put forAvard by other naturalists. o ra Ph o I CS s C3 (U u rS=i Ph o O P o p p^ o