RAY
RRMA
SS

MAY
Asp
WOO

WAY
ON
ROK»

WIS,

IS
SMO
MOO\QY

SS

Le
YZ

es \ \.

SY
WS \

Ss
IN

Rn
MWY YH
EON

WA
Oy

SY

»Y
\

\ \\ .

NOON?

<t
NS

~~ \N
SY

¢ OLTTTOO

NT,

TOEO O

M0

IOHM/1EIN

First Dominant Variety of Man. Second Dominant Variety of Man.
Mediterranese (12) with four laces, > ‘ Mongols (7) with four Races:
12% Semitic, 12°Basque, . : 1? Indochinese, 7°Koreojapanese,
. , . 7° High Asians, 7! Urlens.

Arctic Circle

est: SS
R

North Pacific Ocean i el ee

Tropic of Cancer

Epcaety
ieee, 8
64 sar

Madagascar Tropic of Capricorn

| onetl Indian Ocean x Ws s
oditerre Dein | Polar | M s ‘ lo _ , Hypothetical Sketch
aL =< Ce
atin Yage = emi he

THE

HISTORY OF CREATION:

OR THE DEVELOPMENT OF THE EARTH AND ITS
INHABITANTS BY THE ACTION OF NATURAL CAUSES.

A POPULAR EXPOSITION OF
THE DOCTRINE OF EVOLUTION IN GENERAL, AND OF THAT OF

DARWIN, GOETHE, AND LAMARCK IN PARTICULAR,

FROM THE GERMAN OF
ERNST HAECKEL,

PROFESSOR IN THE UNIVERSITY OF JENA.

THE TRANSLATION REVISED BY
PROFESSOR E. RAY LANKESTER, MA, FRR,
FELLOW OF EXETER COLLEGE, OXFORD.

IN TWO VOLUMES.
VOL. It.

NEW YORK:
D. APPLETON AND COMPANY,
1, 3, anD 5 BOND STREET.
1880.

A sense subtime
Of something far more deeply interfused,
Whose dwelling is the light of setting suns,
And the round ocean, and the living air,
And the blue sky, and in the mind of man;
A motion and a spirit that impels
All thinking things, all objects of all though’,
And rolls through all things.

In all things, in all natures, in the stars

Of azure heaven, the unenduring clouds,

In flower and tree, in every pebbly stone

That paves the brooks, the stationary rocks,

The moving waters and the invisible air.
WorbDsworrs,

SZA2Y

CONTENTS OF VOL. II.

CHAPTER XV.

PAGE
PERIODS OF CREATION AND RECORDS OF CREATION.

Reform of Systems by the Theory of Descent.—The Natural System as a
Pedigree.—Palzontological Records of the Pedigree.—Petrifactions
as Records of Creation.—Deposits of the Neptunic Strata and the
Enclosure of Organic Remains.—Division of the Organic History of
the Earth into Five Main Periods: Period of the Tangle Forests,
Fern Forests, Pine Forests, Foliaceous Forests, and of Cultivation.—
The Series of Neptunic Strata.—Immeasurable Duration of the
Periods which have elapsed during their Formation.—Deposits of
Strata only during the Sinking, not during the Elevation of the
Ground.—Other Gaps in the Records of Creation.—Metamorphic
Condition of the most Ancient Neptunic Strata.—Smalli Extent of
Paleontological Experience.—Small proportion of Organisms and
of Parts of Organisms Capable of Petrifying.—Rarity of many
Petrified Species—Want of Fossilised Intermediate Forms.—
Records of the Creation in Ontogeny and in Comparative
Anatomy see eee eos eee ese eee eee eee eee 1

be

XY = =
CHAPTER XVI.

PEDIGREE AND HISTORY OF THE KINGDOM OF THE
PROTISTA.

_ Special Mode of Carrying out the Theory of Descent in the Natural
System of Organisms.—Construction of Pedigrees.—Descent of all
Many-celled from Single-celled Organisms.—Descent of Cells
from Monera.—Meaning of Organic Tribes, or Phyla.—Number of
the Tribes in the Animal and Vegetable Kingdoms.—The Monophy-
letic Hypothesis of Descent, or the Hypothesis of one Common
Progenitor, and the Polyphyletic Hypothesis of Descent, or the
Hypothesis of many Progenitors.—The Kingdom of Protista, or
Primeval Beings. — Hight Classes of the Protista Kingdom:
Monera, Amcebex, or Protoplaste ; Whip-swimmers, or Flagellata;
ated-balls, or Cili Catallacta; Labyrinth-streamers, or Labyrinth-

1V CONTENTS.

PAGE
ulez ; Flint-cells, or Diatomez; Mucous-moulds, or Myxomycetes;
Root-footers (Rhizopoda).—Remarks on the General Natural History
of the Protista: Their Vital Phenomena, Chemical Composition,
and Formation (Individuality and Fundamental Form).—Phylogeny
of the Prostista Kingdom oes vee eee ose eve eve

8

CHAPTER XVII.

PEDIGREE AND HISTORY OF THE VEGETABLE KINGDOM,

The Natural System of the Vegetable Kingdom.—Division of the Vege-
table Kingdom into Six Branches and Eighteen Classes.—The
Flowerless Plants (Cryptogamia).—Sub-kingdom of the Thallus
Plants.—The Tangles, or Algze (Primary Alge, Green Alge, Brown
Alge, Red Algz.)—The Thread-plants, or Inophytes (Lichens and
Fungi).—Sub-kingdom of the Prothallus Plants.—The Mosses, or
Muscine (Water-mosses, Liverworts, Leaf-mosses, Bog-mosses).—
The Ferns, or Filicinee (Leaf-ferns, Bamboo-ferns, Water-ferns,
Scale-ferns).—Sub-kingdom of Flowering Plants (Phanerogamia).—
The Gymnosperms, or Plants with Naked Seeds (Palm-ferns
= Cycadex ; Pines = Coniferae.)—The Angiosperms, or Plants with
Enclosed Seeds.—Monocotyle.—Dicotyle.—Cup-blossoms (Ape-
talze).—Star-blossoms (Diapetalz).—Bell-blossoms (Gamopetale) 77

CHAPTER XVIII.
PEDIGREE AND HISTORY OF THE ANIMAL KINGDOM.

I. ANIMAL-PLANTS AND Worms.

The Natural System of the Animal Kingdom.—Linneus and Lamarck’s
Systems.—The Four Types of Bir and Cuvier.—Their Increase to
Seven Types.—Genealogical Importance of the Seven Types as
Independent Tribes of the Animal Kingdom.—Derivation of
Zoophytes and Worms from Primeval Animals.—Monophyletic and
Polyphyletic Hypothesis of the Descent of the Animal Kingdom.
—Common Origin of the Four Higher Animal Tribes out of the Worm
Tribe.—Division of the Seven Animal Tribes into Sixteen Main
Classes, and Thirty-eight Classes—Primzval Animals (Monera,
Amcebe, Synameebe), Gregarines, Infusoria, Planeades, and Gas-
treades (Planula and Gastrula).—Tribe of Zoophytes.—Spongiz
(Mucous Sponges, Fibrous Sponges, Calcareous Sponges).—Sea

Nettles, or eae Meee Hood ret eee -jellies).—Tribe of
Worms ee ee ae wot ees Tris

CONTENTS. V

CHAPTER XIX.

PAGE
PEDIGREE AND HISTORY OF THE ANIMAL KINGDOM.

II. Mouiuusca, Srar-FisHes, AND ARTICULATED ANIMALS.

Tribe of Molluses.—Four Classes of Molluscs: Lamp-shells (Spirobran-
chia); Mussels (Lamellibranchia) ; Snails (Cochlides); Cuttle-fish
(Cephalopoda).—Tribe of Star-fishes, or Echinoderma.—Their Deri-
vation from Ringed Worms (Mailed Worms, or Phracthelminthes).—
The Alternation of Generation in the Echinoderma.—Four Classes
of Star-fish: Sea-stars (Asteridea); Sea-lilies (Crinoidea); Sea-
urchins (Echinidea); Sea-cucumbers (Holothuridea).—Tribe of
Articulated Animals, or Arthropoda.—Four Classes of Articulated
Animals: Branchiata, or Crustacea, breathing through gills;
Jointed Crabs; Mailed Crabs; Articulata Tracheata, breathing
through Air Tubes.—Spiders (Long Spiders, Round Spiders).—
Myriopods.—Insects.—Chewing and Sucking Insects.—Pedigree
and History of the Eight Orders of Insects ... eee eee oe LOt

CHAPTER XX.

PEDIGREE AND HISTORY OF THE ANIMAL KINGDOM.
III. VERTEBRATE ANIMALS.

The Records of the Creation of Vertebrate Animals (Comparative
Anatomy, Embryology, and Palzontology).—The Natural System of
Vertebrate Animals.—The Four Classes of Vertebrate Animals,
according to Linnzeus and Lamarck.—Their Increase to Nine
Classes.—Main Class of the Tube-hearted, or Skull-less Animals (the
Lancelet).—Blood Relationship between the Skull-less Fish and the
Tunicates.—Agreement in the Embryological Development of Am-
phioxus and Ascidie.—Origin of the Vertebrate Tribe out of the
Worm Tribe.—Main Class of Single-nostriled, or Round-mouthed

~ Animals (Hag and Lampreys).—Main Class of Anamnionate Ani-
mals, devoid of Amnion.—Fishes (Primeval Fish, Cartilaginous |
Fish, Osseous Fish)—Mud-fish, or Dipneusta.—Sea Dragons, or
Halisauria—Frogs and Salamanders, or Amphibia (Mailed
Amphibia, Naked Amphibia).—Main Class of Amnionate Animals,
or Amniota.—Reptiles (Primary Reptiles, Lizards, Serpents, Croco-
diles, Tortoises, Flying Reptiles, Dragons, Beaked Reptiles).—Birds
(Feather-tailed, Fan-tailed, Bush-tailed.) ... Ay wae tea E92

Vl CONTENTS.

CHAPTER XXI.
PeVIGREE AND HISTORY OF THE ANIMAL KINGDOM.

IV. Mammats.
PAGE
The System of Mammals according to Linnzus and Blainville-—Three

Sub-classes of Mammals (Ornithodelphia, Didelphia, Monodelphia).
—Ornithodelphia, or Monotrema.—Beaked Animals (Ornithostoma).
—Didelphia, or Marsupials.—Herbivorous and Carnivorous Marsu-
pials.—Monodelphia, or Placentalia (Placental Animals).—Meaning
of the Placenta.—Tuft Placentalia.—Girdle Placentalia.—Dise Pla-
centalia.—Non-deciduates, or Indeciduata.—Hoofed Animals.—
Single and Double-hoofed Animals.—Whales.—Toothless Animals.
—Deciduates, or Animals with Decidua.—Semi-apes.—Gnawing
Animals.—Pseudo-hoofed Animals.—Insectivora.—Beasts of Prey.
—Bats.—Apes eee eee ooo eos eee eae eee eos 2al

CHAPTER XXII.

ORIGIN AND PEDIGREE OF MAN.

The Application of the Theory of Descent to Man.—Its Immense Im-
portance and Logical Necessity—Man’s Position in the Natural
System of Animals, among Disco-placental Animals.—Incorrect
Separation of the Bimana and Quadrumana.—Correct Separation of
Semi-apes from Apes.—Man’s Position in the Order of Apes.—
Narrow-nosed Apes (of the Old World) and Flat-nosed Apes (of
America).—Difference of the two Groups.—Origin of Man from
Narrow-nosed Apes.—Human Apes, or Anthropoides.—African
Human-apes (Gorilla and Chimpanzee).—Asiatic Human-apes
(Orang and Gibbon).—Comparison between the different Human
Apes and the different Races of Men.—Survey of the Series
of the Progenitors of Man.—Invertebrate Progenitors (Prochordata)
and Vertebrate Progenitors ... we eee eve eee eve 263

CHAPTER XXIII.

MIGRATION AND DISTRIBUTION OF MANKIND. HUMAN
SPECIES AND HUMAN RACES.

Age of the Human Race.—Causes of its Origin.—The Origin of Human
Language.—Monophyletic or Single, Polyphyletic or Multiple
Origin of the Human Race.—Derivation of Man from many Pairs.—
Classification of the Human Races.—System of Twelve Species of
Men.—Woolly-Haired Men, or Ulotrichis.—Bushy-Haired (Papuans,

CONTENTS. Vil

P
Hottentots.)—Fleecy-haired (Caffres, Negroes).—Straight-haired
Men, or Lissotrichi.—Stiff-haired (Australians, Malays, Mongols,
Arctic, and American Tribes).—Curly-haired (Dravidas, Nubians,
Midlanders).—Number of Population.—Primeval Home of Man
(South Asia, or Lemuria).—Nature of Primeval Men.—Number of
Primeval Languages (Monoglottists and Polyglottists).—Divergence
and Migration of the Human Race.—Geographical Distribution of
the Human Species ove eee eee eee eee eee eee

CHAPTER XXIV.

OBJECTIONS AGAINST, AND PROOFS OF THE TRUTH
THE THEORY OF DESCENT.

Objections to the Doctrine of Filiation Objections of Faith and
Reason.—Immeasurable Length of the Geological Periods.—Transi-
ion Forms between Kindred Species._Dependence of Stability of
Form on Inheritance, and of the Variability of Form on Adaptation.—
Origin of very Complicated Arrangement of Organisation.— Gradual
Development of Instincts and Mental Activities.—Origin of 4 priori
Knowledge from Knowledge 4 posteriori—The Knowledge requisite
for the Correct Understanding of the Doctrine of Filiation.—Neces-
sary Interaction between Empiricism and Philosophy.—Proofs of the
Theory of Descent.—Inner Causal-Connection between all the Bio-
logical Series of Phenomena.—The Direct Proof of the Theory of
Selection—Relation of the Theory of Descent to Anthropology.—
Proofs of the Animal Origin of Man.—The Pithecoid Theory as an
Inseparable Part of the Theory of Descent.—Induction and Deduc-
tion.—Gradual Development of the Human Mind.—Body and Mind.
—Human Soul and Animal Soul.—A Glance at the Future sat

List OF WORKS REFERRED TO IN THE TEXT ,,, aa wat
APPENDIX (Explanation of the Plates) se eee vee at

InpEx see see toe eee eae ane eee see eee

AGE

296

OF,

834

LIST OF ILLUSTRATIONS.

— OH

PLATES.

XV.—Hypothetical Sketch of the Monophyletic Origin of Man Frontispiece
IV.—Hand of Nine different Mammals... sof ... Lo face page 34
V.—Single-Stemmed, or Monophyletic, Pedigree of the

Vegetable Kingdom EE = 112
VI.—Historical Growth of the Six (rie Stems of Kuilndta = 122
Vil.—Animal Plants, or Zoophytes eis cn vee 2 140

Tits i —First G ti
VIili.—Star Fishes—First Generation a Between pp. 170,171

IX.—Star Fishes—Second Generation
X.—Nauplius-Youth-Form of Six Crab Fish
XI.—Adult-Form of the same Six Crab Fish j es
XII.—Ascidia and Amphioxus
XTL—Ascidia and Amphioxus j
XIV.—Single, or Monophyletic, Pedigree of Back-boned
Animals ooo soo sone iwe, ie, LO face page 222

>: Jee

vee eee eee ” 201, 202

FIGURES.
8.—Protamceba Primitiva ... sini biieen Liem Cree oo «52
9.—Bathybius Heckelii ... Siac: Haale Gos coe) ene
10.—Amceba Spheerococcus oe eee on oo a aay ia ae
11.—Euglena Striata ... ace ove cee nse one ose acs: fae
12.—Magosphera Planula .., au — ose ove eee ee «85

13:—Labyrinthula Macrocystis ...ece --:see (‘sue +<2see wae wavs ae

14.—Navicula Hippocampus vee ove eee cos eee oe «OO
15.—Physarum Albipes a aa ae eee eee vee rin)
16.—Cyrtidosphera Echinoides .,.. eee oop eee eee oo. ae
17.—Caulerpa Denticulata ... = Wee eee eee oes ots
18.—Euastrum Rota .., = és ove oes as ove oe 88
19.—Fucus Vesiculosus (egg of) ... on ove ove ate as on

THE HISTORY OF CREATION,

CHAPTER XV.

PERIODS OF CREATION AND RECORDS OF CREATION.

Reform of Systems by the Theory of Descent.—The Natural System as a
Pedigree.—Palzontological Records of the Pedigree.— Petrifactions as
Records of Creation.—Deposits of the Neptunic Strata and the
Enclosure of Organic Remains.—Division of the Organic History of
the Earth into Five Main Periods: Period of the Tangle Forests, Fern
Forests, Pine Forests, Foliaceous Forests, and of Cultivation.—The
Series of Neptunic Strata.—Immeasurable Duration of the Periods which
have elapsed during their Formation.—Deposits of Strataonly during the
Sinking, not during the Elevation of the Ground.—Other Gaps in the
Records of Creation.—Metamorphic Condition of the most Ancient
Neptunic Strata.—Small Extent of Paleontological Experience.—
Small proportion of Organisms and of Parts of Organisms Capable of
Petrifying.—Rarity of many Petrified Species—Want of Fossilised
Intermediate Forms.—Records of the Creation in Ontogeny and in
Comparative Anatomy,

THE revolutionary influence which the Theory of Descent
must exercise upon all sciences, will in all probability affect
no branch of science, excepting Anthropology, so much as
the descriptive portion of natural history, that which is
known as systematic Zoology and Botany. Most naturalists
who have hitherto occupied themselves with arranging the
different systems of animals and plants, have collected, named,
and arranged the different species of these natural bodies

2 THE HISTORY OF CREATION,

with much the same interest as antiquarians and ethno-
graphers collect the weapons and utensils of different nations.
Many have not even risen above the degree of intelligence
with which people usually collect, label, and arrange crests,
stamps, and similar curiosities. In the same manner as
some collectors find their pleasure in the similarity of forms,
the beauty or rarity of the crests or stamps, and admire
in them the inventive art of man, so many naturalists take
a delight in the manifold forms of animals and plants, and
marvel at the rich imagination of the Creator, at His
unwearied creative activity, and at His curious fancy for
forming, by the side of so many beautiful and useful organ-
isms, also a: number of ugly and useless ones.

This childlike treatment of systematic Zoology and Botany
is completely annihilated by the Theory of Descent. In the
place of the superficial and playful interest with which most
naturalists have hitherto regarded organic structures, we
now have the much higher interest of the intelligent under-
standing which detects in the related forms of organisms
their true blood relationships. The Natural System of
animals and plants, which was formerly valued either only
as a registry of names, to facilitate the survey of the different
forms, or as a table of contents for the short expression of
their degrees of similarity, receives from the Theory of
Descent the incomparably higher value of a true pedigree of
organisms. This pedigree is to disclose to us the genealo-
gical connection of the smaller and larger groups. It has to
show us in what way the different classes, orders, families,
genera, and species of the animal and vegetable kingdoms
correspond with the different branches, twigs, and groups of
twigs of the pedigree. Every wider and higher category

CONSTRUCTION OF THE PEDIGREE. 3

or stage of the system (for example a class, or an order)
comprises a number of larger and stronger branches of the
pedigree ; every narrower and lower category (for example
a genus, or a species) only a smaller and thinner group of
twigs. It is only when we thus view the natural system as
a pedigree that we perceive its true value. (Gen. Morph. ii.
Plate XVII. 397.)

Since we hold fast this genealogical conception of the
Organic System, to which alone undoubtedly the future of
classificatory Zoology and Botany belongs, we should now
turn our attention to one of the most essential, but also one
of the most difficult, tasks of the “non-miraculous history of
creation,” namely, to the actual construction of the Organic
Pedigree. Let us see how far we are already able to point
out all the different organic forms as the divergent descend-
ants of a single or of some few common original forms.
But how can we construct the actual pedigree of the
animal and vegetable group of forms from our knowledge
of them, at present so scanty and fragmentary ? The answer
to this question lies in what we have already remarked of
the parallelism of the three series of development—in the
important causal relation which connects the palzeontolo-
gical development of all organic tribes with the embryological
development of individuals, and with the systematic de-
velopment of groups.

In order to accomplish our task we shall first have to
direct our attention to paleontology, or the science of petri-
factions. For if the Theory of Descent is really true, if the
petrified remains of formerly living animals and plants
really proceed from the extinct primeval ancestors and
progenitors of the present organisms, then, without any-

4 ¥ THE HISTORY OF CREATION,

thing else, the knowledge and comparison of petrifactions
ought to disclose to us the pedigree of organisms. However
simple and clear this may seem in theory, the task becomes
extremely hard and complicated when it is actually taken in
hand. Its practical solution would be very difficult even
if the petrifactions were to any extent completely preserved.
But this is by no means the case. The obvious records of
creation which lie buried in petrifactions are imperfect
beyond all measure. Hence it is necessary critically to
examine these records, and to determine the value which
petrifactions possess for the history of the development of
organic tribes. As I have previously discussed the general
importance of petrifactions as the records of creation, when
we were considering Cuvier’s merits in the science of fossils,
Wwe may now at once examine the conditions and circum-
stances under which the remains of organic bodies became
petrified and preserved in a more or less recognizable form.
As a rule we find petrifactions or fossils enclosed only
in those stones which have been deposited in layers as mud
by water, and which are on that account called neptunic,
stratified, or sedimentary rocks. The deposition of such
strata could of course only commence after the condensation
of watery vapour into liquid water had taken place
in the course of the earth’s history. After that period,
which we considered in our last chapter, not only did life
begin on the earth, but also an uninterrupted and exceed-
ingly important transformation of the rigid inorganic crust
of the earth. The water began that extremely import-
ant mechanical action by which the surface of the earth
is perpetually, though slowly, transformed. I may surely
presume that it is generally known what an extremely

LEVELLING ACTION OF WATER. 5

important influence, in this respect, is even yet exercised
by water at every moment. As it falls down as rain,
trickling through the upper strata of the earth’s crust,
and flowing down from heights into hollows, it chemically
dissolves different mineral parts of the ground, and mechani-
cally washes away the loose particles. In flowing down
from mountains water carries their débris into the plains,
or deposits it as mud in stagnant lakes. Thus it con-
tinually works at lowering mountains and filling up
valleys. In like manner the breakers of the sea work
uninterruptedly at the destruction of the coasts and at
filling up the bottom of the sea with the débris they
wash down. The action of water alone, if it were not
counteracted by other circumstances, would in time level the
whole earth. There can be no doubt that the mountain
masses—which are annually carried down as mud into the
sea, and deposited on its floor—are so great that in the
course of a longer or shorter period, say a few millions
of years, the surface of the earth would be completely
levelled and become enclosed by a continuous sheet of water.
That this does not happen is owing to the perpetual volcanic
action of the fiery-fluid centre of the earth. The surging of
the melted nucleus against the firm crust necessitates con-
tinual alternations of elevation and depression on the
different parts of the earth’s surface. These elevations and
depressions for the most part take place very slowly; but,
as they continue for théusands of years, by the combined
effect of small, interrupted movements, they produce results
no less grand than does the counteracting and levelling
action of water.

Since the elevations and depressions of the different parts

6 THE HISTORY OF CREATION.

of the earth alternate with one another in the course of
millions of years, first this and then that part of the earth’s
surface is above or below the level of the sea. I have
already given examples of this in the preceding chapter
(vol. i. p. 361). Hence, in all probability, there is no part of
the outer crust of the earth which has not been repeatedly
above and also below the level of the sea. This repeated
change explains the variety and the different composition of
the numerous neptunic strata of rocks, which in most places
have been deposited one above another in considerable
thickness. In the different periods of the earth’s history
during which these deposits took place there lived various
and different populations of animals and plants. When their
dead bodies sank to the bottom of the waters, the forms of
the bodies impressed themselves upon the soft mud, and
imperishable parts, such as hard bones, teeth, shells, etc.,
became enclosed in it uninjured. These were preserved in
the mud, which condensed them into neptunic rock, and as
petrifactions they now serve to characterize the respective
strata. By a careful comparison of the different strata lying
one above another, and the petrifactions preserved in them,
it has become possible to decide the relative age of the
strata and groups of strata, and to establish, by direct
observation, the principal eras of phylogeny, that is to say,
the stages in history of the development of animal and
vegetable tribes.

The different strata of neptunic rocks deposited one above
another, which are composed in very various ways of lime-
stone, clay, and sand, geologists have grouped together into
an ideal System or Series, which corresponds with the whole
course of the organic history of the earth, or with that portion

GEOLOGICAL SYSTEMS AND PERIODS. 7

of the earth’s history during which organic life existed. Just
as so-called “ universal history ” falls into larger and smaller
periods, which are characterized by the oonditions of de-
velopment of the most important nations at the respective
epochs, and are separated from one another by great events,
so we also divide the infinitely longer organic history of the
earth into a series of greater and less periods. Each of
these periods is distinguished by a characteristic flora and
fauna, and by the specially strong development of certain
vegetable or animal groups, and each is separated from the
preceding and succeeding period by a striking change in
the character of its animal and vegetable inhabitants.

In relation to the following survey of the historical
course of development which the large animal and vegetable
tribes have passed through, it will be desirable to say a few
words first as to the systematic classification of the neptunic
groups of strata, and the larger and smaller periods corres~
ponding to them. As will be seen directly, we are able to
divide the whole of the sedimentary rocks lying one above
another into five main groups or periods, each period into
several subordinate groups of strata or systems, and each
system of strata again into still smaller groups or forma-
tions; finally, each formation can again be divided into
stages or sub-formations, and each of these again into still
smaller layers or beds. Each of the five great rock-groups
was deposited during a great division of the earth’s history,
during a long era or epoch; each system during a shorter
period ; each formation during a still shorter period. In thus
reducing the periods of the organic history of the earth, and
the neptunic strata containing petrifactions deposited during
those periods, into a connected system, we proceed exactly

38 THE HISTORY OF CREATION.

like the historian who divides the history of nations into
the three main divisions of Antiquity, the Middle Ages, and
Modern Times, and each of these sections again into subordi-
nate periods and epochs. But the historian by this sharp
systematic division, and by fixing the boundary of the
periods by particular dates, only seeks to facilitate his
survey, and in no way means to deny the uninterrupted
connection of events and the development of nations.
Exactly the same qualification applies to our systematic
division, specification, or classification of the organic history
of the earth. Here, too, a continuous thread runs through
the series of events unbroken. We must therefore dis-
tinctly protest against the idea that by sharply bounding
the larger and smaller groups of strata, and the periods
corresponding with them, we in any way wish to adopt
Cuvier’s doctrine of terrestrial revolutions, and of repeated
new creations of organic populations. That this erroneous
doctrine has long since been completely refuted by Lyell, I
have already mentioned. (Compare vol. i. p. 127.)

The five great main divisions of the organic history of
the earth, or the paleontological history of development,
we call the primordial, primary, secondary, tertiary, and
quaternary epochs. Each is distinctly characterized by the
predominating development of certain animal and vegetable
groups in it, and we might accordingly symbolically desig-
nate the five epochs, on the one hand by the names of the
croups of the vegetable kingdom, and on the other hand by
those of the different classes of vertebrate animals. In this
case the first, or primordial epoch, would be the era of the
Tangles (Algze) and skull-less Vertebrates; the second, or
primary epoch, that of the Ferns and Fishes; the third, or

THE GREAT ROCK-SYSTEMS. 9

secondary epoch, that of Pine Forests and Reptiles; the
jourth, or tertiary epoch, that of Foliaceous Forests and of
Mammals; finally, the fifth, or quaternary epoch, the era
of Man and his Civilization. The divisions or perdods
which we distinguish in each of the five long eras
(p. 14) are determined by the different systems of strata
into which each of the five great rock-groups is divided
(p. 15). We shall now take a cursory glance at the series of
these systems, and at the same time at the populations of
the five great epochs.

The first and longest division of the organic history of the
earth.is formed by the primordial epoch, or the era of the
Tangle Forests. It comprises the immense period from the
first spontaneous generation, from the origin of the first ter-
restrial organism, to the end of the Silurian system of
deposits. During this immeasurable space of time, which in
all probability was much longer than all the other four
epochs taken together, the three most extensive of all the
neptunic systems of strata were deposited, namely, the
Laurentian, upon that the Cambrian, and upon that the
Silurian system. The approximate thickness or size of these
three systems together amounts to 70,000 feet. Of these
about 30,000 belong to the Laurentian, 18,000 to the Cam-
brian, and 22,000 to the Silurian system. The average
thickness of all the four other rock groups, the primary,
secondary, tertiary, and quaternary, taken together, may
amount at most to 60,000 feet; and from this fact alone,
apart from many other reasons, it is evident that the
duration of the primordial period was probably much longer
than the duration of all the subsequent periods down to the
present day. Many thousands of millions of years were re-

TO THE HISTORY OF CREATION.

quired to deposit such masses of strata. Unfortunately, by
far the largest portion of the primordial group of strata is
in the metamorphic state (which we shall directly explain),
and consequently the petrifactions contained in them—the
most ancient and most important of all—have, to a great
extent, been destroyed and become unrecognizable. Only in
one portion of the Cambrian and Silurian strata have petri-
factions been preserved in a recognizable condition and in
large quantities. The most ancient of all distinctly pre-
served petrifactions has been found in the lowest Lauren-
tian strata (in the Ottawa formation), which I shall after-
wards have to speak of as the “Canadian Life’s-dawn”
(Eozoon canadense).

Although only by far the smaller portion of the primor-
dial or archilithic petrifactions are preserved to us in a
recognizable condition, still they possess the value of inestim-
able documents of the most ancient and obscure times of the
organic history of the earth. What seems to be shown by
them, in the first place, is that during the whole of this im-
mense period there existed only inhabitants of the waters.
As yet, at any rate, among all archilithic petrifactions, not
a single one has been found which can with certainty be
regarded as an organism which has lived on land. All the
vegetable remains we possess of the primordial period
belong to the lowest of all groups of plants, to the class of
Tangles or Algz, living in water. In the warm primeval
sea, these constituted the forests of the primordial period,
of the richness of which in forms and density we may form
an approximate idea from their present descendants, the
tangle forests of the Atlantic Sargasso sea. The colossal
tangle forests of the archilithic period supplied the place of

THE PRIMARY EPOCH. II

the forest vegetation of the mainland, which was then
utterly wanting. All the animals, also, whose remains have
been found in archilithic strata, like the plants, lived in
water. Only crustacea are met with among the animals
with articulated feet, as yet no spiders and no insects. Of
vertebrate animals, only a very few remains of fishes are
known as having been found in the most recent of all
primordial strata, in the upper Silurian. But the headless
vertebrate animals, which we call skull-less, or Acrania, and
out of which fishes must have been developed, we suppose
to have lived in great numbers during the primordial epoch.
Hence we may call it after the Acrunia as well as after the
Tangles.

The primary epoch, or the era of Fern Forests, the second
main division of the organic history of the earth, which is
also called the palzolithic or paleeozoic period, lasted from
the end of the Silurian formation of strata to the end of the
Permian formation. This epoch was also of very long dura-
tion, and again falls into three shorter periods, during which
three great systems of strata were deposited, namely, first,
the Devonian system, or the old red sandstone; upon that,
the Carboniferous, or coal system; and upon this, the
Permian system. The average thickness of these three
systems taken tovether may amount to about 42,000 feet,
from which we may infer the immense length of time
requisite for their formation.

The Devonian and Permian formations are especially rich
in remains of fishes, of primeval fish as well as enamelled
fish (Ganoids), but the bony fish (Teleostei) are absent from
_ the strata of the primary epoch. In coal are found the
most ancient remains of animals living on land, both of arti-

EZ THE HISTORY OF CREATION.

culated animals (spiders and insects) as well as of vertebrate
animals (amphibious animals, like newts and frogs). In the
Permian system there occur, in addition to the amphibious
animals, the more highly-developed reptiles, and, indeed,
forms nearly related to our lizards (Proterosaurus, ete.). But,
nevertheless, we may call the primary epoch that of Fishes,
because these few amphibious animals and reptiles are
insignificant in comparison with the immense mass of
paleeozoic fishes.. Just as Fishes predominate over the other
vertebrate animals, so Ferns, or Filices, predominate among
the plants of this epoch, and, in fact, real ferns and tree ferns
(leafed ferns, or Phylopteridz), as well as bamboo ferns
(Calamophytze) and scaled ferns (Lepidophyte). These
ferns, which grew on land, formed the chief part of the
dense palzeolithic island forests, the fossil remains of which
are preserved to us in the enormously large strata of coal of
the Carboniferous system, and in the smaller strata of coal of
the Devonian and Permian systems. We are thus justified
in calling the primary epoch either the era of Ferns or that
of Fishes.

The third great division of the palzontological history
of development is formed by the secondary epoch, or the
era of Pine Forests, which is also called the mesolithie or
mesozoic epoch. It extends from the end of the Permian
system to the end of the Chalk formation, and is again
divided into three great periods. The stratified systems de-
posited during this pericd are, first and lowest, the Triassic
system, in the middle the Jura system, and at the top the
Cretaceous system. The average thickness of these three
systems taken together is much less than that of the pri-
mary group, and amounts as a whole only to about 15,000

THE SECONDARY EPOCH. 13

feet. The secondary epoch can accordingly in all prob-
ability not have been half so long as the primary epoch.

Just as Fishes prevailed in the primary epoch, Reptiles
predominated in the secondary epoch over all other verte-
brate animals. It is true that during this period the first
birds and mammals originated; at that time, also, there
existed important amphibious animals, especially the gigan-
tic Labyrinthodonts, in the sea the wonderful sea-dragons,
or Halisaurii, swam about, and the first fish with bones were
associated with the many primeval fishes (Sharks) and
enamelled fish (Ganoids) of the earlier times; but the very
variously developed kinds of reptiles formed the predomi-
nating and characteristic class of vertebrate animals of the
secondary epoch. Besides those reptiles which were very
nearly related to the present living lizards, crocodiles, and
turtles, there were, during the mesolithic period, swarms of
grotesquely shaped dragons. The remarkable flying lizards,
or Pterosaurii, and the colossal land-dragons, or Dinosaurii,
of the secondary epoch, are peculiar, as they occur neither
in the preceding nor in the succeeding epochs. The secondary
epoch may be called the era of Reptiles ; but on the other
hand, it may also be called the era of Pine Forests, or more
accurately, of the Gymmnosperms, that is, the epoch of plants
having naked seeds. For this group of plants, especially as
represented by the two important classes—the pines, or
Coniferw, and the palm-ferns, or Cycadee—during the
secondary epoch constituted a predominant part of the
forests. But towards the end of the epoch (in the Chalk
period) the plants of the pine tribe gave place to the leaf-
bearing forests which then developed for the first time.

The fourth main division of the organic history of the

I4 THE HISTORY OF CREATION,

SURVEY

Of the Paleontological Periods, or of the Greater Divisions of the
Organic History of the Earth.

I. First Epoch: Arcumiruic Era. Primordial Epoch.
(Era of Skull-less Animals and Forests of Tangles.)

1. Older Primordial Period or Laurentian Period.
2. Middle Primordial Period 9» Cambrian Period.
3. Later Primordial Period » Silurian Period.

II. Second Epoch: PaumouitHic Era. Primary Epoch.
(Era of Fish and Fern Forests.)

4, Older Primary Period or Devonian Period.
5. Mid Primary Period » Coal Period.
6. Later Primary Period ”» Permian Period.

Ill. Third Epoch: Mesouiruic Era. Secondary Epoch.
(Era of Reptiles and Pine Forests.)

7. Older Secondary Period or Trias Period.
8. Middle Secondary Period 7 Jura Period.
9. Later Secondary Period » Chalk Period.

IV. Fourth Epoch: Cxnouitnic Era. Tertiary Epoch.
(Era of Mammals and Leaf Forests.)

10. Older Tertiary Period or Eocene Period.
11. Newer Tertiary Period ” Miocene Period.
12. Recent Tertiary Period * Pliocene Period.

V. Fijth Epoch: AnturopotitHic Era. Quaternary Epoch.
(Era of Man and Cultivated Forests.)

13. Older Quaternary Period or Ice or Glacial Period.
14. Newer Quaternary Period ” Post Glacial Period.
15. Recent Quaternary Period - Period of Culture.

(The Period of Culture is the Historical Period, or the Period of Tradition.) |

STRATA CONTAINING PETRIFACTIONS,

SURVEY

Of the Paleontological Formations, or those Strata of the Earth’s
Crust containing Petrifactions.

15

Rock- ee a Systems: Formations. 5 spain. Some Md
V. cali
XIV. Recent 36. Present Upper alluvial
(Alluvium) 35. Recent Lower alluvial
Anthropolithic XIII. Pleistocene § 34, Post glacial | Upper diluvial
(Anthropozoic) - (Diluvium) 33. Glacial Lower diluvial
groups of strata
IV. Tertiary XII. Pliocene ; 32. Arvernian Upper pliocene
=. (Late tertiary) 31. Sub-Appenine | Lower pliocene
XI. Miocene } 30. Falunian Upper miocene
Caenolithic (New tertiary) 29. Limburgian | Lower miocene
(Czenozoic) 28. Gypsum Upper eocene
groups of strata ee ee 27. Nummulitic | Mid eocene
( ertiary) 26. London clay | Lower eocene
25. White chalk | Upper cretaceous
24. Green sand Mid cretaceous
/ IX. Cretaceous 23. Neocomian Lower cretaceous
III. Secondary 22. Wealden The KentishWeald
Got, 21. Portlandian | Upper oolite
iene. Saed 20. Oxfordian Mid oolite
Mesolithic r 19. Bath Lower oolite
(Mesozoic) 18. Lias Lias formation
groups of strata 17. Keuper Upper trias
Vil, Trias 16. Muschelkalk | Mid trias
15. Bunter sand | Lower trias
- 14. Zechstein Upper Permian
II. Primary ee { 13. Lower Permian
Ati 12. Carboniferous
V. Carbonic sandstone Upper carbonic
Paleolithic (coal) 11. Carboniferous
(Palzeozoic) limestone Lower carbonic
groupsof strataf IV. Devonian 10. Pilton Upper Devonian
ahi red sand. 9. Ilfracombe Mid Devonian
stone) 8. Linton Lower Devonian
7. Ludlow Upper Silurian
‘ = eta il. Silurian 6. Llandovery Mid Silurian
5. Llandeilo Lower Silurian
, 4. Potsdam Upper Cambrian
re I. Cambrian ; 3. Longmynd Lower Cambrian
groups of strata ¥’ Taint 2. Labrador Upper Laurentian
1. Ottawa Lower Laurentian

16 THE HISTORY OF CREATION.

-

earth, the tertiary epoch, or era of Leafed Forests, is much
shorter and less peculiar than the three first epochs. This
epoch, which is also called the cznolithic or czenozoic
epoch, extended from the end of the cretaceous system to
the end of the pliocene system. The strata deposited
during it amount only to a thickness of about 3000 feet, and
consequently are much inferior to the three first great
groups. The three systems also into which the tertiary
period is subdivided are very difficult to distinguish from
one another. The oldest of them is called eocene, or old
tertiary; the newer miocene, or mid tertiary ; and the last
is the pliocene, or later tertiary system.

The whole population of the tertiary epoch approaches
much nearer, on the whole as well as in detail, to that of
the present time than is the case in the preceding epochs.
From this time the class of J/ammals greatly predominates
over all other vertebrate animals. In like manner, in the
vegetable kingdom, the group—so rich in forms—of the
Angiosperms, or plants with covered seeds, predominates,
and its leafy forests constitute the characteristic feature
of the tertiary epoch. The group of the Angiosperms con-
sists of the two classes of single-seed-lobed plants, or Mono-
cotyledons, and the double-seed-lobed plants, or Dicotyledons
The Angiosperms of both classes had, it is true, made their
appearance in the Cretaceous period, and mammals had
already occurred in the Jurassic period, and even in the
Triassic period; but both groups, the mammals and the
plants with enclosed seeds, did not attain their peculiar
development and supremacy until the tertiary epoch, so
that it may justly be called after them.

The fifth and last main division of the organic history

THE ERA OF MAN, 17

of the earth is the quaternary epoch, or era of Civilization,
which in comparison with the length of the four other
epochs almost vanishes into nothing, though with a comi-
cal conceit we usually call its record the “history of the
world.” As the period is characterized by the development of
Man and his Culture, which has influenced the organic world
more powerfully and with greater transforming effect than
have all previous conditions, it may also be called the era
of Man, the anthropolithic or anthropozoic period. It might
also be called the era of Cultivated Forests, or Gardens,
because even at the lowest stage of human civilization
man’s influence is already perceptible in the utilization of
forests and their products, and therefore also in the
physiognomy of, the landscape. The commencement of
this era, which extends down to the present time, is
geologically bounded by the end of the pliocene stratifica-
tion.

The neptunice strata which have been deposited during
the comparatively short quaternary epoch are very different
in different parts of the earth, but they are mostly of very
slight thickness. They are reduced to two “systems,” the
older of which is designated the diluvial, or pleistocene,
and the later the alluvial, or recent. The diluvial system
is again divided into two “formations,” the older glacial and
the more recent post glacial formations. For during the
older diluvial period there occurred that extremely remark-
able decrease of the temperature of the earth which led to
an extensive glaciation of the temperate zones. The great
importance which this “ice” or “glacial period” has exer-
cised on the geographical and topographical distribution of
organisms has already been explained in the preceding chap-

19

18 THE HISTORY OF CREATION.

ter (vol. i. p. 365). But the post glacial period, or the more
recent diluvial period, during which the temperature again
increased and the ice retreated towards the poles, was
also highly important in regard to the present state of
chorological relations.

The biological characteristic of the quaternary epoch lies
essentially in the development and dispersion of the human
organism and his culture. Man has acted with a greater
transforming, destructive, and modifying influence upon the
animal and vegetable population of the earth than any other
organism. For this reason, and not because we assign to man
a privileged exceptional position in nature in other matters,
we may with full justice designate the development of man
and his civilization as the beginning of a special and last
main division of the organic history of the earth. It is
probable indeed that the corporeal development of primeval
man out of man-like apes took place as far back as the earlier
pliocene period, perhaps even in the miocene tertiary period.
But the actual development of human speech, which we look
upon as the most powerful agency in the development of the
peculiar characteristics of man and his dominion over other
organisms, probably belongs to that period which on
geological grounds is distinguished from the preceding
pliocene period as the pleistocene or diluvial. In fact the
time which has elapsed from the development of human
speech down to the present day, though it may comprise
many thousands and perhaps hundreds of thousands of years,
almost vanishes into nothing as compared with the im-
measurable length of the periods which have passed from
the beginning of organic life on the earth down to the
origin of the human race.

LAPSE OF TIME, 19

The tabular view given on page 15 shows the succession
of the palzontological rock-groups, systems, and formations,
that is, the larger and smaller neptunic groups of strata,
which contain petrifactions, from the uppermost, or Alluvial,
down to the lowest, or Laurentian, deposits. The table on
page 14 presents the historical division of the correspond-
ing eras of the larger and smaller paleontological periods,
and in a reversed succession, from the most ancient Lauren-
tian up to the most recent Quaternary period.

Many attempts have been made to make an approximate
calculation of the number of thousands of years constituting
these periods. The thickness of the strata has been compared,
which, according to experience, is deposited during a century,
and which amounts only to some few lines or inches, with
the whole thickness of the stratified masses of rock, the
succession of which we have just surveyed. This thickness,
on the whole, may on an average amount to about 130,000
feet; of these 70,000 belong to the primordial, or archilithic ;
42,000 to the primary, or palzolithic; 15,000 to the secondary,
or mesolithic; and finally only 3,000 to the tertiary, or
cenolithic group. The very small and scarcely appreciable
thickness of the quaternary, or anthropolithic deposit
cannot here come into consideration at all. On an average,
it may at most be computed as from 500 to 700 feet.
But it is self evident that all these measurements have only
anaverage and approximate value, and are meant to give
only a rough survey of the relative proportion of the
systems of strata and of the spaces of time corresponding
with them.

Now, if we divide the whole period of the organie history
of the earth—that is, from the beginning of life on the earth

20 THE HISTORY OF CREATION.

down to the present day—ainto a hundred equal parts, and if
then, corresponding to the thickness of the systems of
strata, we calculate the relative duration of the time of the
five main divisions or periods according to percentages, we
obtain the following result :-—

I. Archilithic, or primordial period e ° » 53.6
II. Paleolithic, or primary period . ° ° e 32.1
III. Mesolithic, or secondary period . : « 118
IV. Cenolithic, or tertiary period . . . 2.3
VY. Anthropolithic, or quaternary period : » O5
Total ... 100.0

According to this, the length of the archilithie period,
during which no land-living animals or plants as yet existed,
amounts to more than one half, more than 53 per cent.; on the
other hand the length of the anthropolithic era, during which
man has existed, amounts to scarcely one-half per cent. of
the whole length of the organic history of the earth. It is,
however, quite impossible to calculate the length of these
periods, even approximately, by years.

The thickness of the strata of mud at present deposited
during a century, and which has been used as a basis for
this calculation, is of course quite different in different parts
of the earth under the different conditions in which these
deposits take place. It is very slight at the bottom of the
deep sea, in the beds of broad rivers with a short course, and
in inland seas which receive very scanty supplies of water.
It is comparatively great on the sea-shores exposed to strong
breakers, at the estuaries of large rivers with long courses,
and in inland seas with copious supplies of water. At the
mouth of the Mississippi, which earries with it a consider-

GEOLOGICAL INTER-REGNA, . 2I

able amount of mud, in the course of 100,000 years about
600 feet would be deposited. At the bottom of the open
sea, far away from the coasts, during this long period only
some few feet of mud would be deposited. Even on the
sea-shores where a comparatively large quantity of mud is
deposited the thickness of the strata formed during the
course of a century may after all amount to no more than
a few inches or lines when condensed into solid stone. In
any case, however, all calculations based upon these com-
parisons are very unsafe, and we cannot even approximately
conceive the enormous length of the periods which were
requisite for the formation of the systems of neptunic
strata. Here we can apply only relative, not absolute,
measurements of time.

Moreover, we should entirely err were we to consider the
size of these systems of strata alone as the measure of the
actual space of time which has elapsed during the earth’s
history. For the elevations and depressions of the earth’s
crust have perpetually alternated with one another, and the
mineralogical and paleontological difference—which is per-
ceived between each two succeeding systems of strata, and
between each two of their formations at any particular spot—
corresponds in all probability with a considerable intermedi-
ate space of many thousands of years, during which that
particular part of the earth’s crust was raised above the
water. It was only after the lapse of this intermediate
period, when a new depression again laid the part in ques-
tion under water, that there occurred a new deposit of
earth. As, in the mean time, the inorganic and organic con-
ditions on this part had undergone a considerable transform-
ation, the newly-formed layer of mud was necessarily com-

22 THE HISTORY OF CREATION.

IV. Tertiary Group of
Strata, 3000 feet.

—— ______l

Eocene, Miocene, Pliocene.

IX. Chalk System.
TII. Mesolithic Group of Strata.
Deposits of the
Vill. Jura System.
Secondary Epoch, about
75.000 fk | A ae nn aos
Vil. Trias System.

IL Paleolithic Group of Strata. VI. Permian System.

a oe V. Coal System.
Primary Epoch, about

42,000 feet. IV. Devonian System.

ce I

III. Silurian System, about
22,000 feet.
I. Archilithic Group of Strata.
II. Cambrian System, about
18,000 feet.

Deposits of the
Primordial Epoch, about

70,000 feet.
I. Laurentian System, about

30,000 feet.

RISING AND SINKING OF LAND. 23

posed of different earthy constituents and enclosed different
petrifactions.

The striking differences which so frequently occur be-
tween the petrifactions of two strata, lying one above
another, are to be explained in a simple and easy manner by
the supposition that the same part of the earth’s surface has
been exposed to repeated depressions and elevations. Such
alternating elevations and depressions take place even now
extensively, and are ascribed to the heaving of the fiery
fluid nucleus against the rigid crust. Thus, for example,
the coast of Sweden and a portion of the west coast of
South America are constantly though slowly rising, while
the coast of Holland and a portion of the east coast of
South America are gradually sinking. The rising as well as
the sinking takes place very slowly, and in the course of a
century sometimes only amounts to some few lines, some-
times to a few inches, or at most a few feet. But if this
action continues uninterruptedly throughout hundreds of
t.ousands of years it is capable of forming the highest
mountains.

It is evident that elevations and depressions, such as
now can be measured in these places, have uninterruptedly
alternated one with another in different places during the
whole course of the organic history of the earth. This
may be inferred with certainty from the geographical distri-
bution of organisms. (Compare vol.i. p. 350.) But to form a
judgment of our paleontological records of creation it is ex-
tremely important to show that permanent strata can only
be deposited during a slow sinking of the ground under
water, but not during its continued rising. When the
ground slowly sinks more and more below the level of the

24 THE HISTORY OF CREATION.

sea, the deposited layers of mud get into continually deeper
and quieter water, where they can become condensed into
stone undisturbed. But when, on the other hand, the
ground slowly rises, the newly-deposited layers of mud,
which enclose the remains of plants and animals, again im-
mediately come within the reach of the play of the waves,
and are soon worn away by the force of the breakers,
together with the organic remains which they enclose. For
this simple but very important reason, therefore, abundant
layers, in which organic remains are preserved, can only
be deposited during a continuous sinking of the ground.
When any two different formations or strata, lying one
above the other, correspond with two different periods of de-
pression, we must assume a long period of rising between
them, of which period we know nothing, because no fossil
remains of the then living animals and plants could be pre-
served. It is evident, however, that these periods of
elevation, which have passed without leaving any trace be-
hind them, deserve a no less careful consideration than the
greater or less alternating periods of depression, of whose
organic population we can form an approximate idea from
the strata containing petrifactions. Probably the former
were not of shorter duration than the latter.

From this alone it is apparent how imperfect our records
must necessarily be, and all the more so since it can
be theoretically proved that the variety of animal and
vegetable life must have increased greatly during those very
periods of elevation. For as new tracts of land are raised
above the water, new islands are formed. Every new
island, however, is a new centre of creation, because the
animals and plants accidentally cast ashore there, find in

RECORDS DESTROYED BY FIRE. s

the new territory, in the struggle for life, abundant oppor-
tunity of developing themselves peculiarly, and of forming
new species. This formation of new species has evidently
taken place pre-eminently during these intermediate
periods, of which, unfortunately, no petrifactions could
be preserved, whereas, on the contrary, during the slow
sinking of the ground there was more chance of nume-
rous species dying out, and of a retrogression into
fewer specific forms. The intermediate forms between the
old and the newly-forming species must also have lived
during the periods of elevation, and consequently could
likewise leave no fossil remains.

In addition to the great and deplorable gaps in the pale-
ontological records of creation—which are caused by the
periods of elevation—there are, unfortunately, many other
circumstances which immensely diminish their value. I
must mention here especially the metamorphic state of the
most ancient formations, of those strata which contain the
remains of the most ancient flora and fauna, the original
forms of all subsequent organisms, and which, therefore,
would be of especial interest. It is just these rocks—and,
indeed, the greater part of the primordial, or archilithic
strata, almost the whole of the Laurentian, and a large part
of the Cambrian systems—which no longer contain any
recognizable remains, and for the simple reason that these
strata have been subsequently changed or metamorphosed
by the influence of the fiery fluid interior of the earth.
These deepest neptunic strata of the crust have been com-
pletely changed from their original condition by the heat
of the glowing nucleus of the earth, and have assumed
a crystalline state. In this process, however, the form of

26 THE HISTORY OF CREATION,

the organic remains enclosed in them has been entirely
destroyed. It has been preserved only here and there by a
happy chance, as in the case of the most ancient petrifac-
tions known, the EKozoon canadense, from the lowest
Laurentian strata. However, from the layers of crystalline
charcoal (graphite) and crystalline limestone (marble),
which are found deposited in the metamorphic rocks, we
may with certainty conclude that petrified animal and
vegetable remains existed in them in earlier times.

Our record of creation is also extremely imperfect from the
circumstance that only a small portion of the earth’s sur-
face has been accurately investigated by geologists, namely,
England, Germany, and France. But we know very little
of the other parts of Europe, of Russia, Spain, Italy, and
Turkey. In the whole of Europe, only some few parts of the
earth’s crust have been laid open, by far the largest portion of
it is unknown to us. The same applies to North America and
to the East Indies. There some few tracts have been investi-
gated ; but of the larger portion of Asia, the most extensive
of all continents, we know almost nothing ; of Africa almost
nothing, excepting the Cape of Good Hope and the shores of
the Mediterranean; of Australia almost nothing; and of South
America but very little. It is clear, therefore, that only quite
a small portion, perhaps scarcely the thousandth part of the
whole surface of the earth, has been palzontologically
investigated. We may therefore reasonably hope, when
more extensive geological investigations are made, which
are greatly assisted by the constructions of railroads and
mines, to find a great number of other important petrifac-
tions. A hint that this will be the case is given by the
remarkable petrifactions found in those parts of Africa and

FOSSILS ARE ONLY THE HARD PARTS. 27

Asia which have been minutely investigated,—the Cape
districts and the Himalaya mountains. A series of entirely
new and very peculiar animal forms have become known to
us from the rocks of these localities. But we must bear in
mind that the vast bottom of the existing oceans is at the
present time quite inaccessible to paleeontological investiga-
tions, and that the greater part of the petrifactions which
have lain there from primeval times will either never be
known to us, or at best only after the course of many
thousands of years, when the present bottom of the ocean
shall have become accessible by gradual elevation. If we
call to mind the fact that three-fifths of the whole surface
of the earth consists of water, and only two-fifths of land,
it becomes plain that on this account the palzontological
record must always present an immense gap.

But, in addition to these, there exists another series of
difficulties in the way of paleontology which arises from
the nature of the organisms themselves. In the first place,
as a rule only the hard and solid parts of organisms can fall
to the bottom of the sea or of fresh waters, and be there
enclosed in the mud and petrified. Hence it is only
the bones and teeth of vertebrate animals, the calcareous
shells of molluscs, the chitinous skeletons of articulated
animals, the calcareous skeletons of star-fishes and corals,
and the woody and solid parts of plants, that are capable
of being petrified. But soft and delicate parts, which
constitute by far the greater portion of the bodies of most
organisms, are very rarely deposited in the mud under cir-
cumstances favourable to their becoming petrified, or dis-
tinctly impressing their external form upon the hardening
mud. Now, it must be borne in mind that large classes of

28 THE HISTORY OF CREATION.

organisms, as for example the Medusz, the naked molluscs
without shells, a large portion of the articulated animals,
almost all worms, and even the lowest vertebrate animals,
possess no firm and hard parts capable of being petrified. In
like manner the most important parts of plants, such as the
flowers, are for the most part so soft and tender that they
cannot be preserved in a recognizable form. We therefore
cannot expect to find any petrified remains of these import-
ant organisms. Moreover, all organisms at an early stage of
life are so soft and tender that they are quite incapable of
being petrified. Consequently all the petrifactions found in
the neptunic stratifications of the earth’s crust comprise
altogether but a very few forms, and of these for the most
part only isolated fragments.

We must next bear in mind that the dead bodies of the
inhabitants of the sea are much more likely to be preserved
and petrified in the deposits of mud than those of the in-
habitants of fresh water and of the land. Organisms living
on land can, as a rule, become petrified only when their
corpses fall accidentally into the water and are buried at the
bottom in the hardening layers of mud. But this event
depends upon very many conditions. We cannot therefore
be astonished that by far the majority of petrifactions belong
to organisms which have lived in the sea, and that of the
inhabitants of the land proportionately only very few are
preserved in a fossil state. How many contingencies come
into play here we may infer from the single fact that of
many fossil mammals, in fact of all the mammals of the
secondary, or mesozoic epoch, nothing is known except,
the lower jawbone. This bone is in the first place com:
paratively solid, and in the second place very easily separates

FOOTPRINTS OF UNKNOWN ANIMALS, 29

itself from the dead body, which floats on the water. Whilst
the body is driven away and dissolved by the water, the
lower jawbone falls down to the bottom of the water and is
there enclosed in the mud. This explains the remark-
able fact that in a stratum of limestone of the Jurassic
system near Oxford, in the slates of Stonesfield, as yet only
the lower jawbones of numerous pouched animals (Mar-
supials) have been found. They are the most ancient
mammals known, and of the whole of the rest of their bodies
not a single bone exists. The opponents of the theory of
development, according to their usual logic, would from this
fact be obliged to draw the conclusion that the lower jaw-
bone was the only bone in the body of those animals.

Footprints are very instructive when we attempt to
estimate the many accidents which so arbitrarily influence
our knowledge of fossils; they are found in great numbers
in different extensive layers of sandstone ; for example, in
the red sandstone of Connecticut, in North America. These
footprints ‘were evidently made by vertebrate animals,
probably by reptiles, of whose bodies not the slightest trace
has been preserved.* The impressions which their feet
have left on the mud alone betray the former existence of
these otherwise unknown animals.

The accidents which, besides these, determine the limits
of our palzontological knowledge, may be inferred from
the fact that we know of only one or two specimens of very
many important petrifactions. It is not ten years since we
became acquainted with the imperfect impression of a bird
in the Jurassic or Oolitic system, the knowledge of which

* With the exception of asingle specimen of the bones of a foot, preserved
in the cabinet of Amherst College.—E. R. L.

30 THE HISTORY OF CREATION,

has been of the very greatest importance for the phylogeny
of the whole class of birds. Atl birds previously known
presented a very uniformly organized group, and showed no
striking transitional forms to other vertebrate classes, not
even to the nearly related reptiles. But that fossil bird
from the Jura possessed not an ordinary bird’s tail, but a
lizard’s tail, and thus confirmed what had been conjectured
upon other grounds, namely, the derivation of birds from
lizards. This single fossil has thus essentially extended not
only our knowledge of the age of the class of birds, but also
of their blood relationship to reptiles. In like manner our
knowledge of other animal groups has been often essentially
modified by the accidental discovery of a single fossil. The
palzontological records must necessarily be exceedingly im-
perfect, because we know of so very few examples, or only
mere fragments of very many important fossils.

Another and very sensible gap in these records is caused
by the circumstance that the intermediate forms which con-
nect the different species have, as a rule, not been preserved,
and for the simple reason that (according to the principle of
divergence of character) they were less favoured in the
struggle for life than the most divergent varieties, which
had developed out of one and the same original form. The
intermediate links have, on the whole, always died out
rapidly, and have but rarely been preserved as fossils. On
the other hand, the most divergent forms were able to main-
tain themselves in life for a longer period as independent
species, to propagate more numerously, and consequently to
be more readily petrified. But this does not exclude the
fact that in some cases the connecting intermediate forms
of the species have been preserved so perfectly petrified, that

GRADUATED SERIES OF FOSSIL SPECIES. 31

even now they cause the greatest perplexity and occasion
endless disputes among systematic palzeontologists about the
arbitrary limits of species.

_ An excellent example of this is furnished by the celebrated
and very variable fresh-water snail from the Stuben Valley,
near Steinheim, in Wiirtemburg, which has been described
sometimes as Paludina, sometimes as Valvata,and sometimes
as Planorbis multiformis. The snow-white shells of these
small snails constitute more than half of the mass of the
tertiary limestone hills, and in this one locality show such an
astonishing variety of forms,that the most divergent extremes
might be referred to at least twenty entirely different species.
But all these extreme forms are united by such innumerable
intermediate forms, and they lie so regularly above and
beside one another, that Hilgendorf was able, in the clearest
manner, to unravel the pedigree of the whole group of
forms. In Jike manner, among very many other fossil
species (for example, many ammonites, terebratulz, sea
urchins, lily encrinites, etc.) there are such masses of con-
necting intermediate forms, that they reduce the “ dealers
in fossil species” to despair.

When we weigh all the circumstances here mentioned,
the number of which might easily be increased, it does
not appear astonishing that the natural accounts or
records of creation formed by petrifactions are extremely
defective and incomplete. But nevertheless, the petrifactions
actually discovered are of the greatest value. Their signifi-
cance is of no less importance to the natural history of
creation than the celebrated inscription on the Rosetta
stone, and the decree of Canopus, are to the history of
nations—to archzology and philology. Just as it has

32 THE HISTORY OF CREATION.

become possible by means of these two most ancient in-
scriptions to reconstruct the history of ancient Egypt, and
to decipher all hieroglyphic writings,so in many cases a few
bones of an animal, or imperfect impressions of a lower
animal or vegetable form, are sufficient for us to gain the
most important starting-points in the history of the whole
group, and in the search after their pedigree. A couple of
small back teeth, which have been found in the Keuper
formation of the Trias, have of themselves alone furnished
a sure proof that mammals existed even in the Triassic
period.

Of the incompleteness of the geological accounts of
creation, Darwin, agreeing with Lyell, the greatest of all
recent geologists, says :—

“T look at the 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, more or less different in the successive
chapters, may represent the forms of life which are en-
tombed in our consecutive formations, and which falsely
appear to us to have been abruptly introduced. On this —
view, the difficulties above discussed are greatly diminished,
or even disappear.”— Origin of Species, 6th Edition, p. 289.

If we bear in mind the exceeding incompleteness of
paleontological records, we shall not be surprised that we
are still dependent upon so many uncertain hypotheses when
actually endeavouring to sketch the pedigree of the different
organic groups. However, we fortunately possess, besides

ONTOGENY. 33

fossils, other records of the history of the origin of organ-
isms, which in many cases are of no less value, nay, in
several cases are of much greater value, than fossils. By
far the most important of these other records of creation is,
without doubt, ontogeny, that is, the history of the develop-
ment of the organic individual (embryology and metamor-
phology). It briefly repeats in great and marked features
the series of forms which the ancestors of the respective
individuals have passed through from the beginning of their
tribe. We have designated the paleontological history of
the development of the ancestors of a living form as the
history of a tribe, or phylogeny, and we may therefore thus
enunciate this exceedingly important biogenetic fundamental
principle: “Ontogeny is a short and qu'ck repetition, or
recapitulation, of Phylogeny, determined by the laws of In-
heritance and Adaptation.” As every animal and every
plant from the beginning of its individual existence passes
through a series of different forms, it indicates in rapid
succession and in general outlines the long and slowly
changing series of states of form which its progenitors have
passed through from the most ancient times. (Gen. Morph.
i 6, 110, 300.)

It is true that the sketch which the ontogeny of or-
ganisms gives us of their phylogeny is in most cases more
or less obscured, and all the more so the more Adaptation,
in the course of time, has predominated over Inheritance,
and the more powerfully the law of abbreviated inheritance,
and tue law of correlative adaptation, have exerted their
influence. However, this does not lessen the great value
which the actual and faithfully preserved features of that
sketch possess. Ontogeny is of the most inestimable value

34 THE HISTORY OF CREATION,

for the knowledge of the earliest paleontological conditions
of development, just because no petrified remains of the
most ancient conditions of the development of tribes and
classes have been preserved. These, indeed, could not have
been preserved on account of the soft and tender nature of
their bodies. No petrifactions could inform us of the funda-
mental and important fact which ontogeny reveals to us,
that the most ancient common ancestors of all the different
animal and vegetable species were quite simple cells like
the egg-cell. No petrifaction could prove to us the im-
mensely important fact, established by ontogeny, that the
simple increase, the formation of cell-aggregates and the
differentiation of those cells, produced the infinitely mani-
fold forms of multicellular organisms. Thus ontogeny helps
us over many and large gaps in paleontology.

To the invaluable records of creation furnished by
paleontology and ontogeny are added the no less important
evidences for the blood relationship of organisms furnished
by comparative anatomy. When organisms, externally
very different, nearly agree in their internal structure, one
may with certainty conclude that the agreement has its
foundation in Inheritance, the dissimilarity its foundation
in Adaptation. Compare, for example, the hands and fore
paws of the nine different animals which are represented
on Plate IV.,in which the bony skeleton in the interior of the
hand and of the five fingers is visible. Everywhere we find,
though the external forms are most different, the same bones,
and among them the same number, position, and connection.
It will perhaps appear very natural that the hand of man
(Fig. 1) differs very little from that of the gorilla (Fig. 2) and
of the orang-outang (Fig. 8), his nearest relations. Butit will

Mammals.

Hand of N

+
s
co)
a)
“4
as

vo

A

éesse sc.

o

E Haeckel del.

es Man, 2. Gorilla , 3. Orang, 4. Dog, 5. Seal

9. Duck - bull,

6.Porpoise, 7. Bat, 8. Mole,

F vv
A) en ;

ADA | 1 /

ibe

m4 | AD | ( ‘ Welle i
us | CRen inna?

THE FORE FEET OF MAMMALS, 35

be more surprising if the fore feet of the dog also (Fig. 4),
as well as the breast-fin (the hand) of the seal (Fig. 5), and
of the dolphin (Fig. 6), show essentially the same structure.
And it will appear still more wonderful that even the wing
of the bat (Fig. 7), the shovel-feet of the mole (Fig. 8), and
the fore feet of the duck-bill (Ornithorhynchus) (Fig. 9), the
most imperfect of all mammals, is composed of entirely
the same bones, only their size and form being variously
changed. Their number, the manner of their arrangement
and connection has remained the same. (Compare also the
explanation of Plate IV.,in the Appendix.) It is quite incon-
ceivable that any other cause, except the common inheritance
of the part in question from common ancestors, could have
occasioned this wonderful homology or similarity in the
essential inner structure with such different external forms.
Now, if we go down further in the system below the mam-
mals, and find that even the wings of birds, the fore feet of
reptiles and amphibious animals, are composed of essentially
the same bones as the arms of man and the fore legs of
the other mammals, we can, from this circumstance alone,
with perfect certainty, infer the common origin of all these
vertebrate animals. Here, as in all other cases, the degree
of the internal agreement in the form discloses to us the
degree of blood relationship.

30 THE HISTORY OF CREATION,

CHAPTER XVI.

PEDIGREE AND HISTORY OF THE KINGDOM OF THE
PROTISTA.

Special Mode of Carrying out the Theory of Descent in the Natural System
of Organisms.—Construction of Pedigrees.—Descent of all Many-
Celled from Single-Celled Organisms.—Descent of Cells from Monera.—
Meaning of Organic Tribes, or Phyla.—Number of the Tribes in the
Animal and Vegetable Kingdoms.—The Monophyletic Hypothesis of
Descent, or the Hypothesis of one Common Progenitor, and the
Polyphyletic Hypothesis of Descent, or the Hypothesis of Many
Progenitors.—The Kingdom of Protista, or Primzyal Beings.—Eight
Classes of the Protista Kingdom—Monera, Amcebe, or Protoplastze.—
Whip-swimmers, or Flagellata.—Ciliated-balls, or Catallacta.—Labyrinth.
streamers, or Labyrinthulez.— Flint-cells, or Diatomeze.—Mucons-moulds,
or Myxomycetes.— Root-footers (Rhizopoda).—Remarks on the General
Natural History of the Protista: Their Vital Phenomena, Chemical
Composition, and Formation (Individuality and Fundamental Form).—
Phylogeny of the Protista Kingdom.

By a careful comparison of the individual and the palzeonto-
logical development, as. also by the comparative anatomy
of organisms, by the comparative examination of their
fully developed structural characteristics, we arrive at
the knowledge of the degrees of their different structural
relationships. By this, however, we at the same time
obtain an insight into their true blood relationship, which,
according to the Theory of Descent, is the real reason of the
structural relationship. Hence by collecting, comparing, and

CONSTRUCTION OF THE PEDIGREE, 37

employing the empirical results of embryology, palzon-
tology, and anatomy for supplementing each other, we
arrive at an approximate knowledge of “the Natural
System,” which, according to our views, is the pedigree of
organisms. It is true that our human knowledge, in all
things fragmentary, is especially so in this case, on account
of the extreme incompleteness and defectiveness of the
records of creation. However, we must not allow this to
discourage us, or to deter us from undertaking this highest
problem of biology. Let us rather see how far it may even
now be possible, in spite of the imperfect state of our
embryological, paleontological, and anatomical knowledge,
to establish a probable scheme of the genealogical relation-
ships of organisms.

Darwin in his book gives us no answer to these special
questions of the Theory of Descent; at the conclusion he
only expresses his conjecture “that animals have de-
scended from at most only four or five progenitors, and plants
from an equal or less number.” But as these few aboriginal
forms still show traces of relationship, and as the animal
and vegetable kingdoms are connected by intermediate tran-
sitional forms, he arrives afterwards at the opinion “that
probably all the organic beings which have ever lived on
the earth have descended from some one primordial form,
into which life was first breathed by the Creator.” Like
Darwin, all other adherents of the Theory of Descent have
only treated it in a general way, and not made the attempt
to carry it out specially, and to treat the “ Natural System ”
actually as the pedigree of organisms. If, therefore, we
venture upon this difficult undertaking, we must take up
independent ground.

38 THE HISTORY OF CREATION,

Four years ago I set up a number of hypothetical genea-
logies for the larger grcups of organisms in the systematic
introduction to my General History of Development (Gen.
Morph. vol. i), and thereby,in fact, made the first attempt
actually to construct the pedigrees of organisms in the
manner required by the theory of development. I was
quite conscious of the extreme difficulty of the task, and as
I undertook it in spite of all discouraging obstacles, I claim
no more than the merit of having made the first attempt and
given a stimulus for other and better attempts. Probably
most zoologists and botanists were but little satisfied with
this beginning, and least so in reference to the special domain
in which each one is specially at work. However, it is cer-
tainly in this case much easier to blame than to produce
something better, and what best proves the immense diffi-
culty of this infinitely complicated task is the fact that no
naturalist has as yet supplied the place of my pedigrees by
better ones. But, like all other scientific hypotheses which
serve to explain facts, my genealogical hypotheses may
claim to be taken into consideration until they are re-
placed by better ones.

I hope that this replacement will very soon take place ;
and I wish for nothing more than that my first attempt
may induce very many naturalists to establish more accurate
pedigrees for the individual groups, at least in the special
domain of the animal and vegetable kingdom which
happens to be well known to one or other of them. By
numerous attempts of tuis kind our genealogical know-
ledge, in the course of time, will slowly advance and
approach more and more towards perfection, although it can
with certainty be foreseen that we shall never arrive ata

MONERA, THE BASE OF THE PEDIGREE. 39

complete pedigree. We lack, and shall ever lack, the indis-
pensable paleontological foundations. The most ancient
records will ever remain sealed to us, for reasons which
have been previously mentioned. The most ancient organ-
isms which arose by spontaneous generation—the original
parents of all subsequent organisms—must necessarily be
supposed to have been Monera—simple, soft, albuminous
lumps, without structure, without any definite forms, and
entirely without any hard and formed parts. They and
their next offspring were consequently not in any way
capable of being preserved in a petrified condition. But we
also lack, for reasons discussed in detail in the preceding
chapter, by far the greater portion of the innumerable
paleontological documents, which are really requisite for a
safe reconstruction of the history of animal tribes, or
phylogeny, and for the true knowledge of the pedigree of
organisms. If we, therefore, in spite of this, venture to
undertake their hypothetical construction, we must chiefly
depend for guidance on the two other series of records
which most essentially supplement the paleontological
archives. These are ontogeny and comparative anatomy.
If thoughtfully and carefully we consult these most
valuable records, we at once perceive what is exceedingly
significant, namely, that by far the greater number of
organisms, especially all higher animals and plants, are com-
posed of a great number of cells, and that they originate out
of an egg, and that this egg, in animals as well as in plants,
is a single, perfectly simple cell—a little lump of albuminous
constitution, in which another albuminous corpuscle,
the cell-kernel, is enclosed. This cell containing its kernel
grows and becomes enlarged. By division it forms an

40 THE HISTORY OF CREATION.

accumulation of cells, and out of these, by division of
labour (as has previously been described), there arise
the numberless different forms which are presented to us
in the fully developed animal and vegetable species. This
immensely important process—which we may follow step
by step, with our own eyes, any day in the embryological
development of any animal or vegetable individual, and
which as a rule is by no means considered with the
reverence it deserves—informs us more surely and com-
pletely than all petrifactions could do as to the original
paleontological development of all many-celled organisms,
that is, of all higher animals and plants. For as ontogeny,
or the embryological development of every single individual,
is essentially only a recapitulation of phylogeny, or the
paleontological development of its chain of ancestors, we
may at once, with full assurance, draw the simple and
important conclusion, that all many-celled animals and
plants were originally derived from single-celled organisms.
The primeval ancestors of man, as well as of all other
animals, and of all plants composed of many cells, were simple
cells living isolated. This invaluable secret of the organic
pedigree is revealed to us with infallible certainty by the
egg of animals, and by the true ege-cell of plants. When the
upponents of the Theory of Descent assert it to be miraculous
and inconceivable that an exceedingly complicated many-
celled organism could, in the course of time, have proceeded
from a simple single-celled organism, we at once reply that we
may see this incredib:e miracle at any moment, and follow it
with our own eyes. For the embryology of animals and
plants visibly presents to our eyes in the shortest space of
time the same process as that which has taken place in the

PEDIGREE OF MONERA. 41

origin of the whole tribe during the course of enormous
periods of time.

Upon the ground of embryological records, therefore, we
can with full assurance maintain that all many-celled, as
well as single-celled, organisms are originally descended from
simple cells; connected with this, of course, is the conclusion
that the most ancient root of the animal and vegetable
kingdom was common to both. For the different primzeval
“original cells ” out of which the few different main groups
or tribes have developed, only acquired their differences
after a time, and were descended from a common “ primzeval
cell.” But where did those few “original cells,” or the one
primeval cell, come from? For the answer to this funda-
mental genealogical question we must return to the theory
of plastids and the hypothesis of spontaneous generaticn
which we have already discussed (vol. i. p. 327).

As was then shown, we cannot imagine cells to have arisen
by spontaneous generation, but only Monera, those primeeval
creatures of the simplest kind conceivable, like the still
living Protamcebe, Protomyxe, ete. (vol. 1. p. 186, Fig. 1).
only such corpuscules of mucus without component parts—
whose whole albuminous body is as homogeneous in itself as
an inorganic crystal, but which nevertheless fulfils the two
organic fundamental functions of nutrition and propagation
—could have directly arisen out of inorganic matter by auto-
geny at the beginning (we may suppose) of the Laurentian
period. While some Monera remained at the original simple
stage of formation, others gradually developed into cells by
the inner kernel of the albuminous mass becoming separated
from the external cell-substance. In others, by differentiation

of the outermost layer of the cell-substance, an external
20

42 THE HISTORY OF CREATION,

covering (membrane, or skin) was formed round simple eytods
(without kernel), as well as round naked cells (containing a
kernel). By these two processes of separation in the simpie
primeval mucus of the Moneron body, by the formation of
a kernel in the interior and a covering on the outer surface
of the mass of plasma, there arose out of the original most
simple cytods, or Monera, those four different species of
plastids, or individuals, of the first order, from which, by
differentiation and combination, all other organisms could
afterwards develop themselves. (Compare vol. i. p. 347.)

The question now forces itself upon us, Are all organic
cytods and cells, and consequently also those “ original cells”
which we previously considered to be the primary parents of
the few great main groups of the animal and vegetable king-
doms, descended from a single original form of Moneron, or
were there several different organic primary forms, each
traceable to a peculiar independent species of Moneron
which originated by spontaneous generation? In other
words, Is the whole organic world of a common origin, or
does it owe its origin to several acts of spontaneous genera-
tion? This fundamental question of genealogy seems at
first sight to be of exceeding importance. but on a more-
accurate examination, we shall soon see that this is not
the ease, and that it is in reality a matter of very subor-
linate importance.

Let us now pass on to examine and clearly limit our
conception of an organic tribe. By tribe, or phylum, we
understand all those organisms of whose blood relationship
and descent from a common primary form there can be no
doubt, or whose relationship, at least, is most probable from
anatomical reasons, as well as from reasons founded on his-

THE GREAT STEMS OF THE PEDIGREE, 43

torical development. Our tribes, or phyla, according to this
idea, essentially coincide with those few “great classes,” or
“main classes,” of which Darwin also thinks that each contains
only organisms related by blood, and of which, both in the
animal an] in the vegetable kingdoms, he only assumes either
four or five. In the animal kingdom these tribes would essen-
trally coincide with those four, five, or six main divisions
which zoologists, since Bar and Cuvier, have distinguished as
“main forms, general plans, branches, or sub-kingdoms” of
the animal kingdom. (Compare vol.1. p. 53.) Bar and Cuvier
distinguished only four of them, namely :—1. The vertebrate
animals (Vertebrata); 2. The articulated animals (Articulata);
3. The molluscous animals (Mollusca); and 4. The radiated
animals (Radiata). At present six are generally distinguished,
since the tribe of the articulated animals is divided into two
tribes, those possessing articulated feet (Arthropoda), and the
worms (Vermes) ; and in like manner the tribe of radiated
animals is subdivided into the two tribes of the star animals

(Echinodermata) and the animal-plants (Zoophyta). Within
each of these six tribes, all the included animals, in spite of
great variety in external form and inner structure, never-
theless possess such numerous and important characteristics
in common, that there can be no doubt of their blood
relationship. The same applies also to the six great main
classes which modern botany distinguishes in the vegetable
kingdom, namely :—1l. Flowering plants (Phanerogamia) ;
2. Ferns (Filicine); 3. Mosses (Muscine); 4. Lichens
(Lichenes) ; 5. Fungi (Fungi); and 6. Water-weeds (Alyz).
The last three groups, again, show such close relations to one
another, that by the name of “ Thallus plants” they may be
contrasted with the three first main classes, and consequently

44 THE HISTORY OF CREATION,

the number of phyla, or main groups, of the vegetable
kingdom may be reduced to the number of four. Mosses and
ferns may likewise be comprised as “Prothallus plants’
(Prothallophyta), and thereby the number of plant tribes
reduced to three—Flowering plants, Prothallus plants, and
Thallus plants.

Very important facts in the anatomy and the history
of development, both in the animal and vegetable king-
doms, support the supposition that even these few main
classes or tribes are connected at their roots, that is, that
the lowest and most ancient primary forms of all three are
related by blood to one another. Nay, by a further examin-
ation we are obliged to go still a step further, and to agree
with Darwin’s supposition, that even the two pedigrees of
the animal and vegetable kingdom are connected at their
lowest roots, and that the lowest and most ancient animals
and plants are derived from a single common primary
creature. According to our view, this common primeval
organism can have been nothing but a Moneron which took
its origin by spontaneous generation.

In the mean time we shall at all events be acting cau-
tiously if we avoid this last step, and assume true blood
relationship only within each tribe, or phylum, where it has
been undeniably and surely established by facts in compara-
tive anatomy, ontogeny, and phylogeny. But we may here
point to the fact that two different fundamental forms of
genealogical hypothesis are possible, and that all the differ-
ent investigations of the Theory of Descent in relation to the
origin of organic groups of forms will, in future, tend
more and more in one or the other of these directions. The
unitary,or monophyletic, hypothesis of descent will endeavour

MANY OR ONE ANCESTRAL STOCKS ? 45

to trace the first origin of all individual groups of organisms,
as well as their totality, to a single common species of
Moneron which originated by spontaneous generation (vol. i.
p. 343). The multiple, or polyphyletic, hypothesis of descent,
on the other hand, will assume that several different species
of Monera have arisen by spontaneous generation, and that
these gave rise to several different main classes (tribes, or
phyla) (vol. i. p. 348). The apparently great contrast between
these two hypotheses is in reality of very little importance.
For both the monophyletic and the polyphyletic hypothesis of
descent must necessarily go back to the Monera as the most
ancient root of the one or of the many organic tribes. But
as the whole body of a Moneron consists only of a simple,
formless mass, without component particles, made up of a
single albuminous combination of carbon, it follows that the
differences of the different Monera can only be of a chemical
nature, and can only consist in a different atomic com-
position of that mucous albuminous combination. But
these subtle and complicated differences of mixture of the
infinitely manifold combinations of albumen are not appre-
ciable by the rude and imperfect means of human observation,
and are, consequently, at present of no further interest to
the task we have in hand.

The question of the monophyletic or polyphyletic origin
will constantly recur within cach individual tribe, where
the origin of a smaller or of a larger group is discussed. In
the vegetable kingdom, for example, some botanists will be
inclined to derive all flowering plants from a single form of
fern, while others will prefer the idea that several different
groups of Phanerogama have sprung from several different
groups of ferns. In like manner, in the animal kingdom,

46 THE HISTORY OF CREATION.

some zoologists will be more in favour of the supposition
that: all placental animals are derived from a single pouched
animal; others will be more in favour of the opposite sup-
position, that several different groups of placental animals
have proceeded from several different pouched animals, In
regard to the human race itself, some will prefer to derive
it from a single form of ape, while others will be more
inclined to the tdea that several different races of men have
arisen, independently of one another, out of several different
species of ape. Without here expressing our opimion in
favour of either the one or the other conception, we must,
nevertheless, remark that in general the monophyletic
hypothesis of descent deserves to be preferred to the
polyphyletic hypothesis of descent. In accordance with the
chorological proposition of a single “centre of creation”
or of a single primzeval home for most species (which has
already been discussed), we may be permitted to assume
that the original form of every larger or smaller natural
croup only originated once in the course of time, and only
in one part of the earth. We may safely assume this
simple original root, that is, the monophyletic origin, in the
case of all the more highly developed groups of the animal
and vegetable kingdoms. (Compare vol.i. p. 353). But it is
very possible that the more complete Theory of Descent of
the future will involve the polyphyletic origin of very
many of the low and imperfect groups of the two organic
kingdoms.

For these reasons I consider it best, in the mean time, to
adopt the monophyletic hypothesis of descent both for the
animal and for the vegetable kingdom. Accordingly, the
above-mentioned six tribes, or phyla, of the animal kingdom

THE PROTISTA, 47

must be connected at their lowest root, and likewise the
three or six main classes, or phyla, of the vegetable kingdom
must be traced to a common and most ancient original form.
How the connection of these tribes is to be conceived I shall
explain in the succeeding chapters. But before proceeding to
this, we must occupy ourselves with a very remarkable group
of organisms, which cannot without artificial constraint be
assigned either to the pedigree of the vegetable or to that of
the animal kingdom. These interesting and important
organisms are the primary creatures, or Protista.

All organisms which we comprise under the name of
Protista show in their external form, in their inner struc-
ture, and in all their vital phenomena, such a remarkable
mixture of animal and vegetable properties, that they cannot
with perfect justice be assigned either to the animal or to
the vegetable kingdom; and for more than twenty years an
endless and fruitless dispute has been carried on as to
whether they are to be assigned to this or that kingdom.
Most of the Protista are so small that they can scarcely, if
at all, be perceived with the naked eye. Hence the ma-
jority of them have only become known during the last
fifty years, since by the help of the improved and general
use of the microscope these. minute organisms have been
more frequently observed and more accurately examined.
However, no sooner were they better known than endless
disputes arose about their real nature and their position in
the natural system of organisms. Many of these doubtful
primary creatures botanists defined as animals, and zoolo-
gists as plants; neither of the two would own them. Others,
again, were declared by botanists to be plants, and by
zoologists to be animals ; each claimed them. These contra-

48 THE HISTORY OF CREATION,

dictions are not altogether caused by our imperfect know-
ledge of the Protista, but in reality by their true nature.
Indeed, most Protista present such a confused mixture of
several animal and vegetable characteristics, that each in-
vestigator may arbitrarily assign them either to the animal
or vegetable kingdom. Accordingly as he defines these
two kingdoms, and as he looks upon this or that cha-
racteristic as determining the animal or vegetable nature,
he will assign the individual classes of Protista in one case
to the animal and in another to the vegetable kingdom. But
this systematic difficulty has become an inextricable knot
by the fact that all more recent investigations on the lowest
organisms have completely effaced, or at least destroyed, the
sharp boundary between the animal and vegetable king-
dom which had hitherto existed, and to such a degree that
its restoration is possible only by means of a completely
artificial definition of the two kingdoms. But this defini-
tion could not be made so as to apply to many of the
Protista.

For this and other reasons it is, in the mean time, best
to exclude the doubtful beings from the animal as well
as from the vegetable kingdom, and to comprise them in a
third organic kingdom standing midway between the two
others. This intermediate kingdom I have established as
the Kingdom of the Primary Creatures (Protista), when
discussing general anatomy in the first volume of my
General Morphology, p. 191-238. In my Monograph of
the Monera,® I have recently treated of this kingdom,
having somewhat changed its limits, and given it a more
accurate definition. Of independent classes of the kingdom
Protista, we may at present distinguish the following :—

THE KINGDOM PROTISTA. 49

1, The still living Monera ; 2. The Amceboidea, or Protoplasts ;
3. The Whip-swimmers, or Flagellata; 4. The Flimmer-balls,
or Catallacta; 5. The Tram-weavers, or Labyrinthulee ;
6. The Flint-cells, or Diatomez; 7. The Slime-moulds,
or Myxomycetes ; 8. The Ray-streamers, or Rhizopoda.

The most important groups at present distinguishable in
these eight classes of Protista are named in the systematic
table on p. 51. Probably the number of these Protista
will be considerably increased in future days by the pro-
yressive investigations of the ontogeny of the simplest forms
of life, which have only lately been carried on with any great
zeal. With most of the classes named we have become
intimately acquainted only during the last ten years. The
exceedingly interesting Monera and Labyrinthulez, as also
the Catallacta, were indeed discovered only a few years ago
It is probable also that very numerous groups of Protista
have died out in earlier periods, without having left any
fossil remains, owing to the very soft nature of their bodies.
We might add to the Protista from the still living lowest
groups of organisms—the Fungi; and in so doing should
make a very large addition to its domain. Provisionally we
shall leave them among plants, though many naturalists
have separated them altogether from the vegetable kingdom.

The pedigree of the kingdom Protista is still enveloped
in the greatest obscurity. The peculiar combination or
animal and vegetable properties, the indifferent and un-
certain character of their relations of forms and vital
phenomena, together with a number of several very peculiar
features which separate most of the subordinate classes
sharply from the others, at present baffle every attempt
distinctly to make out their blood relationships with one

50 THE HISTORY OF CREATION.

another, or with the lowest animals on the one hand, and
with the lowest plants on the other hand. It is not improb-
able that the classes specified, and many other unknown
classes of Protista, represent quite independent organic
tribes, or phyla, each of which has independently developed
from one, perhaps from various, Monera which have arisen by
spontaneous generation. If we do not agree to this poly-
phyletic hypothesis of descent, and prefer the monophyletic
hypothesis of the blood relationship of all organisms, we
shall have to look upon the different classes of Protista as
the lower small offshoots of the root, springing from the same
simple Monera root, out of which arose the two mighty and
many-branched pedigrees of the animal kingdom on the one
hand, and of the vegetable kingdom on the other. (Com-
pare pp. 74, 75.) Before I enter into this difficult question
more accurately, it will be appropriate to premise something
further as to the contents of the classes of Protista given on
the next page, and their general natural history.

It will perhaps seem strange that I should here again
begin with the remarkable Monera as the first class of
the Protista kingdom, as I of course look upon them as
the most ancient primary forms of all organisms without
exception. Still, what are we otherwise to do with the stil
living Monera ? We know nothing of their palzontological
origin, we know nothing of any of their relations to lower
animals or plants, and we know nothing of their possible
capability of developing into higher organisms. The simple
and homogeneous little lump of slime or mucus which consti-
tutes their entire body (Fig. 8) is the most ancient and
original form of animal as well as of vegetable plastids.
Hence it would evidently be just as arbitrary and unreason-

PROTISTA.

SYSTEMATIC SURVEY
Of the Larger and Smaller Groups of the Kingdom Protista.

5!

Cla f igen Orders Anam
the Proticta Oe tue Families Othe se Ba
Kingdom. a cai Classes. as an example.
1. Gymnomonera Protogenes
1. MoneRS Monera
2. Lepomonera Protomyxa
1. Gymnamcebza Ameeba
2. PrororLasts Ameceboida 2. Lepamcebze Arcella
3. Gregarinze Monocystis
3. WHIP-SwIM- t 1. Nudiflagellata Euglena
Flagellata
MERS pee 2. Cilioflagellata Peridinium
4. FLIMMER-BALLS Catallacta 1. Catallacta Magosphera
5. TRAM-WEAVERS Labyrinthules 1. Labyrinthules Labyrinthula
1. Striata Navicula
6. FLINT-CELLS Diatomea ars ——-
3. Areolata Coscinodiscus
1. Physarezo AXthalium
2. Stemoniteze Stemonitis
7. SuimE-moutps Myxomycetes 4 Rix
3. Trichiacez Arcyria
4. Lycogalez Reticularia
: 1. Monothalamia Gromia
I. Acyttaria '

8. RAy-sTREAM- 2. Polythalamia Nummulina
ERS, OR RHI- 2 1. Heli je ince
Desi: Il. Heliozoa . Hell0z0a ctinospheerium
(Root-feet.) eco 1. Monocyttaria Cyrtidosphera

Ill. Radiolaria i
2. Polycyttaria Collosphzera

52 THE HISTORY OF CREATION.

able to assign them to the animal as it would be to assign
them to the vegetable kingdom. Im any case we shall for
the present be acting more cautiously and criticaliy if we
comprise the still living Monera—whose number and dis-
tribution is probably very great—as a special and inde-
pendent class, contrasting them with the other classes of the
kingdom Protista, as well as with the animal kingdom.
Morphologically considered, the Monera—on account of the
perfect homogeneity of the albuminous substance of their

Fic. 8.—Protamceba primitiva, @ fresh-water Moneron, much enlarged.
A. The entire Moneron with its form-changing processes. B. It begins to
divide itself into two halves. C. The division of the two halves is com-
pleted, and each now represents an independent individual.
bodies, on account of their utter want of heterogeneous
particles—are more closely connected with anorgana than
with organisms, and evidently form the transition between
the inorganic and organic world of bodies, as is necessitated
by the hypothesis of spontaneous generation. I have
described and given illustrations of the forms and vital
phenomena of the still living Monera (Protamceba, Proto-
genes, Protomyxa, etc.) in my Monograph of the Monera,”
and have briefly mentioned the most important facts in
the eighth chapter (vol. i. pp. 183-187). Therefore, only by
way of a specimen, I here repeat the drawing of the fresh-

BATHYBIUS, 53

water Protamceba (Fig. 8). The history of the life of an
orange-red Protomyxa adrantiaca, which I observed at
Lanzerote, one of the Canary Islands, is given in Plate I.
(see its explanation in the Appendix). Besides this, I here
add a drawing of the form of Bathybius, that remarkable
Moneron discovered by Huxley, which lives in the greatest
depths of the sea in the shape of naked lumps of pro-
toplasm and reticular mucus (vol. 1. p. 344).

Fic. 9.— Bathybius Hec-
kelii, the “creature of primeval
slime,’”’ from the greatest depths
of the sea. The figure, which is
greatly magnified, only shows
that form of the Bathybius which
consists of a naked network of
protoplasm, without the disco-
liths and cyatholiths which are
found in other forms of the same
Moneron, and which perhaps may
be considered as the products of
its secretion,

The Amebe of the present day, and the organisms most
closely connected with them, Arcellide and Gregarine,
which we here unite as a second class of Protista under
the name of Amceboidea (Protoplasta), present no fewer
genealogical difficulties than the Monera. These primary
creatures are at present usually placed in the animal
kingdom without its in reality being unlerstood why.
For simple naked cells—that is, shell-less plastids with a
kernel—occur as well among real plants as real animals.
The generative cells, for example, in many Algz (spores
and eggs) exist for a ionger or shorter time in water in the

54 THE HISTORY OF CREATION,

form of naked cells with a kernel, which canno% be distin-
guished at all from the naked eggs of many animals (for
example, those of the Siphonophorous Medusze). (Compare
the figure of a naked egg of a bladder-wrack in Chapter
xvii. p. 90). In reality every naked simple cell, whether
it proceeds from an animal or vegetable body, cannot
be distinguished from an independent Amoeba. For an
Amceba is nothing but a simple primary cell, a naked
little lump of cell-matter, or plasma, containing a kernel.
The contractility of this plasma, which the free Ameeba
shows in stretching out and drawing in its changing pro-
cesses, is a general vital property of the organic plasma
of all animal as well as of all vegetable plastids) Whena
freely moving Amceba, which perpetually changes its form,
passes into a state of rest, it draws itseli together into the
form of a globule, and surrounds itself with a secreted mem-
brane. It can then be as little distinguished from an anima]
exg as from a simple globular vegetable cell (Hig. 10 4).

Fre. 10.—Amceba spheerococcnus, greatly magnified. A fresh-water Ameeba
without a contractile vacuole. A. The enclosed Amceba in the state
of a globular lump of plasma (c) enclosing a kernel and a kernel-speck (a).
The simple cell is surrounded by a cyst, or cell-membrane (d). B. The
free Amoeba, which has burst and left the cyst, or cell-membrane. C. It
begins to divide by its kernel parting into two kernels, and the cell-
substance between the two contracting. D. The division is completed, and
the cell-substance has entirely separated into two bodies. (Da and Db).

AMCEBOID ORGANISMS. 55

Naked cells, with kernels, like those represented in
Fig. 10 B, which are continuously changing, stretching out
and drawing in formless, finger-like processes, and which
are on this account called amceboid, are found frequently
and widely dispersed in fresh water and in the sea; nay,are
even found creeping on land. They take their food in the
same way as was previously described in the case of the
Protameeba (vol. i. p. 186). Their propagation by division
can sometimes be observed (Fig. 10 C, D.) I have described
the processes in an earlier chapter (vol. i. p. 187). Many of
these formless Amoebze have lately been recognized as the
early stages of development of other Protista (especially
the Myxomycetie), or as the freed cells of lower animals and
plants. The colourless blood-cells of animals, for example,
those of human blood, cannot be distinguished from Amcebe.
They, like the latter, can receive solid corpuscles into their
interior, as I was the first to show by feeding them with
finely divided colouring matters (Gen. Morph. i. 271). How-
ever, other Amcebze (like the one given in Fig. 10) seem to
be independent “good species,” since they propagate them-
selves unchanged throughout many generations. Besides
the real, or naked, Amcebee (Gymnamcebe), we also find
widely difiused in fresh water case-bearing Amcebee (Lep-
amoebee), whose naked plasma body is partially protected
by a more or less solid shell (Arcella), sometimes even by
a case (Difflugia) composed of small stones. Lastly, we
frequently find in the body of many lower animals parasitic
Ameoebe (Gregarinz), which, adapting themselves to a para-
sitic life, have surrounded their plasma-body with a delicate
closed membrane.

The simple naked Amcebee are, next to the Monera, the

56 THE HISTORY OF CREATION.

most important of all organisms to the whole science of
biology, and especially to general genealogy. For it is
evident that the Amocebz originally arose out of simple
Monera (Protamcebze), by the important process of segre-
gation taking place in their homogeneous viscid body—the
differentiation of an inner kernel from the surrounding
plasma. By this means the great progress from a simple
cytod (without kernel) into a real cell (with kernel) was
accomplished (compare Fig. 8 A and Fig. 10 B). As some of
these cells at an early stage encased themselves by secreting
a hardened membrane, tucy formed the first vegetable cells,
while others, remaining naked, developed into the first
ageregates of animal cells. The presence or absence of an
encircling hard membrane forms the most important,
although by no means the entire, difference of form between
animal and vegetable cells. As vegetable cells even at an
early stage enclose themselves within their hard, thick, and
solid cellular shell, like that of the Amcebz in a state of rest
(fig. 10 A), they remain more independent and less accessible
to the influences of the outer world than are the soft animal
cells, which are in most cases naked, or merely covered by a
thin pliable membrane. But in consequence of this the
vegetable cells cannot combine,as do the animal cells, for
the construction of higher and composite fibrous tracts, for
example, the nervous and muscular tissues. It is probable
that, in the case of the most ancient single-celled organisms,
there must have developed at an early stage the very im-
portant difference in the animal and vegetable mode of -
receiving food. The most ancient single-celled animals, being
naked cells, could admit solid particles into the interior of
‘heir soft bodies, as do the Amcepe (ig. 10 B) and the

THE FLAGELLATA. 57

colourless blood-cells; whereas the most ancient single-
celled plants encased by their membranes were no longer
able to do this, and could admit through it only fluid
nutrition (by means of diffusion).

The Whip-swimmers (Flagellata), which we consider as a
third class of the kingdom Protista, are of no less doubtful
nature than the Amcebee. They often show as close and
important relations to the vegetable as to the animal
kingdom. Some Ilagellata at an early stage, when freely
moving about, cannot be distinguished from real plants,
especially from the spores of many Algz; whereas others
are directly allied to real animals, namely, to the fringed

Fic. L1.—A single Whip-swimmer (Euglena striata), greatly
magnified. Above a thread-like lashing whip is visible; in
the centre the round cellular kernel, with its kernel speck.

Infusoria (Ciliata). The Flagellata are simple
y ye cells which live in fresh or salt water, either
iid) singly or united in colonies. The characteristic
Wepwes part of their body is a very movable simple
Vit

or compound whip-lke appendage (whip, or

Nay

flagellum) by means of which they actively
swim about in the water. This class is divided

into two orders. Among the fringed whip-
swimmers (Cilioflagellata) there exists, in addition to the
long whip, a short fringe of vibrating hairs, which is wanting
in the unfringed whip-swimmers (Nudoflagellata). To the
former belong the flint-shelled yellow Peridinia, which are
largely active in causing the phosphorescence of the sea; to
the latter belong the green Euglenze, immense masses of
which frequently make our ponds in spring quite green.

58 THE HISTORY OF CREATION.

A very remarkable new form of Protista, which I have
named Flimmer-ball (Magosphera), I discovered only three
years ago (in September, 1869), on the Norwegian coast
(Fig. 12), and have more accurately described in my

Fic. 12.—The Norwegian Flim-
mer-ball (Magosphera planula)
swimming by means of its vibra-
tile fringes, as seen from the

surface.

Biological Studies” (p.
137, Plate V.). Off the
island of Gis-oe, near Ber-
gen, I found swimming
about, on the surface of
the sea, extremely neat
little balls composed of a number (between thirty and forty)
of fringed pear-shaped cells, the pointed ends of which were
united in the centre like radii. After a time the ball dis-
solved. The individual cells swarmed about independently
in the water like fringed Infusoria, or Ciliata. These after-
wards sank to the bottom, drew their fringes into their
bodies, and gradually changed into the form of creeping
Amoebe (like Fig. 10 B). These last afterwards encased
themselves (as in Fig. 10 A), and then divided by repeated

halvings into a large number of cells (exactly as in the case
of the cleavage of the egg, Fig. 6, vol. i p. 299). The cells
became covered with vibratile hairs, broke through the case
enclosing them, and now again swam about in the shape of
a fringed ball (Fig. 12). This wonderful organism, which

sometimes appears like a simple Amoeba, sometimes as a

THE TRAM-WEAVERS, 59

single fringed cell, sometimes as a many-celled fringed ball,
can evidently be classed with none of the other Protista,
and must be considered as the representative of a new
independent group. As this group stands midway between
several Protista, and links them together, it may bear the
name of Mediator, or Catallacta.

The Protista of the fifth class, the Tram-weavers, or
Labyrinthulee, are of a no less puzzling nature; they were
lately discovered by Cienkowski on piles in sea water (Fig.
13). . They are spindle-shaped cells, mostly of a yellow-

Fie, 13.— Labyrinthula macro-
cystis (much enlarged). Below
is a large group of accumulated
cells, one of which, on the left,
is separating itself; above are
two single cells which are gliding
along the threads of the reti-
form labyrinth which form their
“ tramways.”

ochre colour, which are
sometimes united into a
dense mass, sometimes
move about in a very
peculiar way. They form,

in @ manner not yet explained, a retiform frame of en-
tangled threads (compared to a labyrinth), and on the
dense filamentous “tramways” of this frame they glide
about. From the shape of the cells of the Labyrinthulez we
might consider them as the simplest plants, from their
motion as the simplest animals, but in reality they are
neither animals nor plants.

60 THE HISTORY OF CREATION,

Fic. 14.—Navicula hippocampus (greatly magnified).
In the middle of the cell the cell-kernel (nucleus) is
visible, together with its kernel speck (nucleolus).

The Flint-cells (Diatomeze), a sixth class of
Protista, are perhaps the most closely related
to the Labyrinthuleze. These primary crea-
tures—which at present are generally con-
sidered as plants, although some celebrated
naturalists still look upon them as animals—
inhabit the sea and fresh waters in immense

masses, and offer an endless variety of the
most elegant forms. They are mostly small microscopic
cells, which either live singly (Fig. 14), or united in great
numbers, and occur either attached to objects, or glide and
creep about in a peculiar manner. Their soft cell-substance,
which is of a characteristic brownish yellow colour, is
always enclosed by a solid and hard flinty shell, possessing
the neatest and most varied forms. This flinty covering is
open to the exterior only by one or two slits, through
which the enclosed soft plasma-body communicates with
the outer world. The flinty cases are found petrified in
masses, and many rocks—for example, the Tripoli slate
polish, the Swedish mountain meal, etc.—are in a great
measure composed of them.

A seventh class of Protista is formed by the remarkable
Slime-moulds (Myxomycetes). They were formerly uni-
versally considered as plants, as real Fungi, until ten years
ago the botanist De Bary, by discovering their ontogeny,
proved them to be quite distinct from Fungi, and rather
to be akin to the lower animals. The mature body is a

THE SLIME-MOULDS, 61

Fic. 15.—A stalked fruit-body (spore-bladder, filled
with spores) of one of the Myxomycetes (Physarum
albipes) not much enlarged.

roundish bladder, often several inches in
size, filled with fine spore-dust and soft
flakes (Fig. 15), as in the case of the well-
| known puff-balls (Gastromycetes). How
ever, the characteristic cellular threads, or
hyphe, of a real fungus do not arise from
the germinal corpuscles, or spores, of the Myxomycetes, but
merely naked masses of plasma, or cells, which at first swim
about in the form of Flagellata (Fig. 11), afterwards creep
about like the Amcebe (Fig. 10 B), and finally combine
with others of the same kind to form large masses of “slime,”
or “plasmodia.” Out of these, again, there arises, by-and-by,
the bladder-shaped fruit-body. Many of my readers prob-
ably know one of these plasmodia, the Aithalium septicum,

which in summer forms a beautiful yellow mass of soft
mucus, often several feet in breadth, known by the name of
“tan flowers,” and penetrates tan-heaps and tan-beds. At
an early stage these slimy, freely-creepmg Myxomycetes,
which live for the most part in damp forests, upon decaying
vegetabie substances, bark of trees, etc., are with equal justice
or injustice declared by zoologists to be animals, while in the
mature, bladder-shaped condition of fructification they are
by botanists defined as plants.

The nature of the Iay-streamers (Rhizopoda), the eighth
class of the kingdom Protista, is equally obscure. These
remarkable organisms have peopled the sea from the most
ancient times of the organic history of the earth, in an

62 THE HISTORY OF CREATION,

immense variety of forms, sometimes creeping at the bottom
of the sea, sometimes swimming on the surface. Only very
few live in fresh water (Gromia, Actinosphzerium). Most of
them possess solid calcareous or flinty shells of an extremely
beautiful construction, which can be perfectly preserved in a
fossil state. They have frequently accumulated in such
huge numbers as to form mountain masses, although the
single individuals are very small, and often scarcely visible, or
completely invisible, to the naked eye. A very few attain
the diameter of a few lines, or even as much as a couple
of inches. The name which the class bears is given
because thousands of exceedingly fine threads of protoplasm
radiate from the entire surface of their naked slimy body ;
these rays are quasi-feet, or pseudopodia, which branch off
like roots (whence the term Rhizopoda, signifying root-
footed), unite like nets, and are observed continually to
change form, as in the case of the simpler plasmic feet of
the Amceboidea, or Protoplasts. These ever-changing little
pseudo-feet serve both for locomotion and for taking food.
The class of the Rhizopoda is divided into three different
legions, viz. the chamber-shells, or Acyttaria, the sun-animal-
cules, or Heliozoa, and the basket-shells, or Radiolaria. The
Chamber-shells (Acyttaria) constitute the first and lowest of
these three legions ; for the whole of their soft body consists
merely of simple mucous or slimy cell-matter, or proto-
plasm, which has not differentiated into cells. However,
in spite of this most primitive nature of body, most of the
Acyttaria secrete a solid shell composed of calcareous earth,
which presents a great variety of exquisite forms. In the
more ancient and more simple Acyttaria this shell is a
simple chamber, bell-shaped, tubular, or like the shell of

THE RAY-STREAMERS. 63

a snail, from the mouth of which a bundle of plasmic
threads issues. In contrast to these single-chambered forms
(Monothalamia), the many-chambered forms (Polythal-
amia)—to which the great majority of the Acyttaria
belong—possess a house, which is composed in an artistic
manner of numerous chambers. These chambers sometimes
le in a row one behind the other, sometimes in concentric
circles or spirals, in the form of a ring round a central point,
and then frequently one above another in many tiers, like the
boxes of an amphitheatre. This formation, for example, is
found in the nummulites, whose calcareous shells, of the size
of a lentil, have accumulated to the number of millions, and
form whole mountains on the shores of the Mediterranean.
The stones of which some of the Egyptian pyramids are
built consist of such nummulitic limestone. In most cases
the chambers of the shelis of the Polythalamia are wound
round one another in a spiral line. The chambers are con-
nected with one another by passages and doors, like rooms
of a large palace, and are generally open towards the outside
by numerous little windows, out of which the plasmic body
can stream or strain forth its little pseudo-feet, or rays of
slime, which are always changing form. But in spite of the
exceedingly complicated and elegant structure of this cal-
careous labyrinth, in spite of the endless variety in the
structure and the decoration of its numerous chambers, and
in spite of the regularity and elegance of their execution,
the whole of this artistic palace is found to be the sccreted
product of a perfectly formless, slimy mass, devoid of any
component parts! Verily, if the whole of the recent
anatomy of animal and vegetable textures did not support
our theory of plastids, if all its important results did not

64 THE HISTORY OF CREATION.

unanimously corroborate the fact that the whole miracle of
vital phenomena and vital forms is traceable to the
active agency of the formless albuminous combinations of —
protoplasm, the Polythalamia alone would secure the
triumph of that theory. For we may here at any moment,
by means of the microscope, point out the wonderful fact,
first established by Dujardin and Max Schulze, that the
formless mucus of the soft plasma-body, this true “matter of
life,’ is able to secrete the neatest, most regular, and most
complicated structures. This secretive skill is simply a
result of inherited adaptation, and by it we learn to under-
stand how this same “ primzval slime”—this same proto-
plasm—can produce in the bodies of animals and _ plants
the most different and most complicated cellular forms.

It is, moreover, a matter of special interest that the most
ancient organism, the remains of which are found in a petri-
fied condition, belongs to the Polythalamia. This organism is
the “ Canadian Life’s-dawn ” (Hozoon canadense), which has
already been mentioned, and which was found a few years
ago in the Ottawa formation (in the deepest strata of the
Laurentian system), on the Ottawa river in Canada. If we
expected to find organic remains at all in these most ancient
deposits of the primordial period, we should certainly look
for such of the most simple Protista as are covered with a
solid shell, and in the organization of which the difference
between animal and plant is as yet not indicated.

We know of but few species of the Sun-animaleules
(Heliozoa), the second class of the Rhizopoda. One species is
very frequently found in our fresh waters. It was observed
even in the last century by a clergyman in Dantzig, Eichhorn
by name, and it has been called after him, Actinosphzrium

THE RAY-STREAMERS. 65

Kichhornii. To the naked eye it appears as a gelatinous
grey globule of mucus, about the size of a pin’s head.
Looking at it through the microscope, we see hundreds or
thousands of fine mucous threads radiating from the central
plasma body, and perceive that the inner layer of its cell-
substance is different from the outer layer, which forms a
bladder-like membrane. In consequence of its structure, this,
the little sun-animalcule, although wanting a shell, really
rises above the structureless Acyttaria, and forms the
transition from these to the Radiolaria. The genus Cysto-
phrys is of a nature akin to it.

The Basket-shells (Radiolaria) form the third and _ last
class of the Rhizopoda. Their lower forms are closely allied
to the Heliozoa and Acyttaria, whereas their higher forms
rise far above them. They are essentially distinguished
from both by the fact that the central part of their body is
composed of many cells, and surrounded by a solid mem-
brane. This closed “central capsule,” generally of a glo-
bular shape, is covered by a mucous layer of plasma, out of
which there radiate on all sides thousands of exceedingly fine
threads, the branching and confluent so-called pseudopodia.
Between these are scattered numerous yellow cells of un-
known function, containing grains of starch. Most Radio-
Jaria are characterized by a highly developed skeleton,
which consists of flint, and displays a wonderful richness of
the neatest and most curious forms. Sometimes this flinty
skeleton forms a simple trellice-work ball (Fig. 16 s), some-
times a marvellous system of several concentric trelliced balls,
encased in one another, and connected by radial staves. In
most cases delicate spikes, which are frequently branched
like a tree, radiate from the surface of the bails. In othev

21

66 THE HISTORY OF CREATION.

cases the whole skeleton consists of only one flinty star, and
is then generally composed of twenty staves, distributed
according to definite mathematical laws, and united in a

Fic. 16.—Cyrtidosphera echinoides, 400 times enlarged. c. Globular
central capsule. s. Basket-work of the perforated flinty shell. a. Radial
spikes, which radiate from the latter. p. The pseudo-feet radiating from
the mucous covering surrounding the central capsule. l. Yellow globular

cells, scattered between the latter, containing grains of starch.
common central point. The skeletons of other Radiolaria

again form symmetrical m any-chambered structures, as in
the case of the Polythalamia. Perhaps no other group of

THE RAY-STREAMERS. 67

organisms develop in the formation of their skeletons such
an amount of various fundamental forms, such geometrical
recularity, and such elegant architecture. Most of the forms
as yet discovered, I have given in the atlas accompanying
my Monograph of the Radiolaria.”? Here I shall only
give as an example the picture of one of the simplest
forms, the Cyrtidosphera echinoides of Nice. The skeleton
in this case consists only of a simple trelliced ball (s), with
short radial spikes (a), which loosely surround the central
capsule (c). Out of the mucous covering, enclosing the
latter, radiate a great number of delicate little pseudopodia
(p), which are partly drawn back underneath the shell, and
fused into a lumpy mass of mucus. Between these are
scattered a number of yellow cells (J).

Most Acyttaria live only at the bottom of the sea, on stones
and seaweeds, or creep about in sand and mud by means
of their pseudopodia, but most Radiolaria swim on the
surface of the sea by means of long pseudopodia extending in
all directions. They live together there in immense numbers,
but are mostly so small that they have been almost com-
pletely overlooked, and have only become accurately known
during the last fourteen years. Certain Radiolaria living
in communities (Polycyttaria) form gelatinous lumps of some
lines in diameter. On the other hand, most of those living
isolated (Monocyttaria) are invisible to the naked eye; but
still their petrified sells are found accumulated in such
masses that in many places they form entire mountains; for
example, the Nicobar Islands in the Indian Archipelago, and
the Island of Barbadoes in the Antilles.

As most readers are probably but Iittle acquainted
with the eight classes of the Protista just mentioned, I shall

68 THE HISTORY OF CREATION.

now add some further general observations on their
natural history. The great majority of all Protista
live in the sea,some swimming freely on the surface,
some creeping at the bottom, and others attached to
stones, shells, plants, ete. Many species of Protista also live
in fresh water, but only a very small number on dry land
(for example, Myxomycetes and some Protoplasta). Most
of them can be seen only through the microscope, except
when millions of individuals are found accumulated. Only
a few of them attain a diameter of some lines, or as much
as an inch. What they lack in size of body they make up
for by producing astonishing numbers of individuals, and
they very considerably influence in this way the economy of
nature. The imperishable remains of dead Protista, for
instance, the flinty shells of the Diatomez and Radiolaria
and the calcareous shells of the Acyttaria, often form large
rock masses.

In regard to their vital phenomena, especially those of
nutrition and propagation, some Protista are more allied to
plants, others more to animals. Both in their mode of
taking food and in the chemical changes of their living sub-
stance, they sometimes more resemble the lower animals, at
others the lower plants. Free locomotion is possessed by
many Protista, while others are without it; but this does
not constitute a characteristic distinction, as we know of
undoubted animals which entirely lack free locomotion, and
of genuine plants which possess it. All Protista have
a, soul—that is to say, are “animate’’—as well as all animals
and all plants. The soul’s activity in the Protista manifests
tself in their irritability, that is, in the movements and,
iother changes which take place in consequence of mechan-

PHYSIOLOGY OF PROTISTA, 69

ical, electrical, and chemical irritation of their contractile
protoplasm. Consciousness and the capability of will and
thought are probably wanting in all Protista. However, the
same qualities are in the same degree also wanting in many
of the lower animals, whereas many of the higher animals
in these respects are scarcely inferior to the lower races of
human beings. In the Protista, as in all other organisms, the
activities of the soul are traceable to molecular motions in
the protoplasm.

The most important physiological characteristic of the
kingdom Protista lies in the exclusively non-sexual pro-
pagation of all the organisms belonging to it. The higher
animals and plants multiply almost exclusively in a sexual
manner. The lower animals and plants multiply also, in
many cases, in a non-sexual manner, by division, the form-
ation of buds, the formation of germs, ete. But sexual
propagation almost always exists by the side of it, and often
regularly alternates with it in succeeding generations (Meta-
genesis, vol. i. p. 206). All Protista, on the other hand, pro-
pagate themselves exclusively in a non-sexual manner, and
in fact, the distinction of the two sexes among them has
not been effected—there are neither male nor female Protista.

The Protista in regard to their vital phenomena stand
midway between animals and plants, that is to say, between
their lowest forms; and the same must be said in regard to
the chenuical composition of their bodies. One of the most
important distinctions between the chemical composition of
animal and vegetable bodies consists in the characteristic
formation of the skeleton. The skeleton, or the solid scaffold-
ing of the body in most genuine plants, consists of a sub-
stance called cellulose, devoid of nitrogen, but secreted by the

7O THE HISTORY OF CREATION.

nitrogenous cell-substance, or protoplasm. In most genuine
animals, on the other hand, the skeleton generally consists
either of nitrogenous combinations (chitin, etc.) or of cal-
careous earth. In this respect some Protista are more like
plants, others more like animals. In many of them the
skeleton is principally or entirely formed of calcareous earth,
which is met with both in animal and vegetable bodies.
But the active vital substance in all cases is the mucous
protoplasm.

In regard to the form of the Protista, it is to be remarked
that the individuality cf their body almost always remains
at an extremely low stage of development. Very many Pro-
tista remain for life simple plastids or individuals of the first
order. Others, indeed, form colonies or republics of plastids
by the union of several individuals. But even these higher
individuals of the second order, formed by the combination
of simple plastids, for the most part remain at a very low
stage of development. The members of such communities
among the Protista remain very similar one to another, and
never, or only ina slight degree, commence a division of
labour, and are consequently as little able to render their
community fit for higher functions as are, for example, the
savages of Australia. The community of the plastids re-
mains in most cases very loose, and each single plastid
retains in a great measure its own individual independence.

A second structural characteristic, which next to their low
stage of individuality especially distinguishes the Protista,
is the low stage of development of their stereometrical
fundamental forms. As I have shown in my theory of
fundamental forms (in the fourth book of the General
Morphology), a definite geometrical fundamental form can

PRO-MORPHOLOGY OF PROTISTA, 7!

be pointed out in most organisms, both in the general form
of the body and in the form of the individual parts. This
ideal fundamental form, or type, which is determined by the
number, position, combination, and differentiation of the
component parts, stands in just the same relation to the real
organic form as the ideal geometrical fundamental form of
crystals does to their imperfect real form. In most bodies
and parts of the bodies of animals and plants this fundamental
form is a pyramid. It is a regular pyramid in the so-called
“reoular radiate” forms, and an irregular pyramid in the
more highly differentiated, so-called “bilaterally symmetri-
cal” forms. (Compare the plates in the first volume of my
General Morphology, pp. 556-558.) Among the Protista this
pyramidal type, which prevails in the animal and vegetable
kingdom, is on the whole rare, and instead of it we have
either quite irregular (amorphous) or more simple, regular
geometrical types; especially frequent are the sphere, the
cylinder, the ellipsoid, the spheroid, the double cone, the cone,
the regular polygon (tetrahedron, hexhahedron, octahedron,
dodecahedron, icosahedron), ete. All the fundamental forms
of the pro-morphological system, which are of a low rank in
that system, prevail in the Protista. However, in many
Protista there occur also the higher, regular, and bilateral
types, fundamental forms which predominate in the animal
and vegetable kingdoms. In this respect some of the Protista
are frequently more closely allied to animals (as the
Acyttaria), others more so to plants (as the Radiolaria).
With regard to the palwontological development of the
kingdom Protista, we may form various, but necessarily very
unsafe, genealogical hypotheses. Perhaps the individual
classes of the kingdom are independent tribes, or phyla,

72 THE HISTORY OF CREATION,

which have developed independently of one another and
independently of the animal and the vegetable kingdoms.
Even if we adopt the monophyletic hypothesis of descent, and .
maintain a common origin from a single form of Moneron for
all organisms, without exception, which ever have lived and
still live upon the earth, even in this case the connection
of the neutral Protista on the one hand with the vegetable
kingdom, and on the other hand with the animal
kingdom, must be considered as very vague. We must
regard them (compare p. 74) as lower offshoots which have
developed directly out of the root of the great double-
branched organic pedigree, or perhaps out of the lowest tribe
of Protista, which may be supposed to have shot up midway
between the two diverging high and vigorous trunks of the
animal and vegetable kingdoms. The individual classes of
the Protista, whether they are more closely connected at
their roots in groups, or only form a loose bunch of root off-
sets, must in this case be regarded as having nothing to do
either with the diverging groups of organisms belonging to
the animal kingdom on the right, or to the vegetable kingdom
on the left. They must be supposed to have retained the
original simple character of the common primeval living
thing more than have genuine animals and genuine plants.
But if we adopt the polyphyletic hypothesis of descent,
we have to imagine a number of organic tribes, or phyla,
which all shoot up by spontaneous generation out of the
same ground, by the side of and independent of one
another. (Compare p. 75.) In that case numbers of dif-
ferent Monera must have arisen by spontaneous generation
whose differences would depend only upon slight, to us
imperceptible, differences in their chemical composition, and

COMMON ORIGIN OF PLANTS AND ANIMALS, ca

consequently upon differences in their capability of develop-
ment. A small number of Monera would then have given
origin to the animal kingdom, and, again, a small number
would have produced the vegetable kingdom. Between these
two groups, however, there would have developed, indepen-
dently of them, a large number of independent tribes, which
have remained at a lower stage of organization, and which
have neither developed into genuine plants nor into genuine
animals,

A safe means of deciding between the monophyletic and
olyphyletic hypotheses is as yet quite impossible, consider-
ing the imperfect state of our phylogenetic knowledge. The
different groups of Protista, and those lowest forms of the
animal kingdom and of the vegetable kingdom which are
scarcely distinguishable from the Protista, show such a close
connection with one another and such a confused mixture
of characteristics, that at present any systematic division
and arrangement of the groups of forms seem more or
less artificial and forced. Hence the attempt here offered
must be regarded as entirely provisional. But the more
deeply we penetrate into the genealogical secrets of this
obscure domain of inquiry, the more probable appears the
idea that the vegetable kingdom and the animal kingdom
are each of independent origin, and that midway between
these two great pedigrees a number of other independent
small groups of organisms have arisen by repeated acts of
spontaneous generation, which on account of their indifferent
neutral character, and in consequence of their mixture of
animal and vegetable properties, may lay claim to the
designation of independent Protista.

Thus, if we assume one entirely independent trunk for

74 THE HISTORY OF CREATION.

ik III.
Degetable Kingdom Animal Kingdom
Plante Animalia

EEO

Flowering Plants Vertebrate Animals

Phanerogamia Vertebrata
Articulated Animals
Arthropsda
Star-fishes Molluscous Animals
Ferns Echinoderma Mollusca
Filicine ~~

Mosses
Muscine Lichens SO

Lichenes Worms
Vermes
Animal-trees
Zoophytes
—— Fungi
Alge Fungi
a,
Ss —Acuttral nie
Brimebval Wlants YBrimabal Creatures Primabal Animals
Protophyta Protista Protozoa
—S———.,-_—_—" —
| |
Neutral Monera Animal Monera

Vegetable Monera

|
il

Archigonic fAonera
(Pieces of Protoplasm which have originated by Spontaneous Generation)

POLYPHYLETIC PEDIGREE, 75
II. (i III.
— Degetable {rotista Animal
Kingdom Kingdom Kingdom
Vegetabilia Protista Animalia
—— —————
SS a
Slime-moulds,
or Ray-
Mucous Fungi streamers
Myzxomycetes Rhizopoda
oa — -——"
Flint- Flimmer.
cells balls
Diatome Catallacta
——-—’ ———-—_—"
Whip-
swimmers
Flagellata
Tram. ed
weavers
Labyrin-
thulea
—_—_——"" '
Ameebee, Brimabal
Primeval {lants or Animals
Protophyta Protoplasta Protozoa
—— —_—
Degetable Peutral Animal
fAonera felonera LHonera
Clg oem t
t [aN ed
t
t t t
t E14 Tt a t | t t

Ht

N.B.—The Lines marked with a + indicate extinct tribes of Protista,
which have arisen independently by repeated acts of Spontaneous Generation.

76 THE HISTORY OF CREATION.

the vegetable kingdom, and a second for the animal king-
dom, we may set up a number of independent stems of
Protista, each of which has developed, quite independently
of other stems and trunks, from a special archigonic form of
Monera. In order to make this relation more clear, we may
imagine the whole world of organisms as an immense
meadow which is partially withered, and upon which two
many-branched and mighty trees are standing, likewise
partially withered. The two great trees represent the
animal and vegetable kingdoms, their fresh and still green
branches the living animals and plants; the dead branches
with withered leaves represent the extinct groups. The
withered grass of the meadow corresponds to the numerous
extinct tribes, and the few stalks, still green, to the still
living phyla of the kingdom Protista. But the common
soil of the meadow, from which all have sprung up, is
primeval by protoplasm,

CHAPTER XVIL

PEDIGREE AND HISTORY OF THE VEGETABLE KINGDOM.

The Natural System of the Vegetable Kingdom.—Division of the Vege-
table Kingdom into Six Branches and Eighteen Classes.— The
Flowerless Plants (Cryptogamia)—Sub-kingdom of the Thallus
Plants.—The Tangles, or Alge (Primary Algze, Green Algz, Brown
Algz, Red Algsz.)—The Thread-plants, or Inophytes (Lichens and
Fungi.)—Sub-kingdom of the Prothallus Plants——The Mosses, or
Muscinze (Water-mosses, Liverworts, Leaf-mosses, Bog-mosses).—The
Ferns, or Filicinee (Leaf-ferns, Bamboo-ferns, Water-ferns, Scale-
ferns).—Sub-kingdom of Flowering Plants (Phanerogamia).—The
Gymnosperms, or Plants with Naked Seeds (Palm-ferns = Cycadez ;
Pines = Coniferze.)—The Angiosperms, or Plants with Enclosed Seeds.
—Monocotyle.—Dicotyle.—Cup-blossoms (Apetale).—Star-blossoms
(Diapetalze).—Bell-blossoms (Gamopetalz).

EveErY attempt that we make to gain a knowledge of the
pedigree of any small or large group of organisms related
by blood must, in the first instance, start with the evi-
dence afforded by the existing “natural system” of this
group. For although the natural system of animals and
plants will never become finally settled, but will always
represent a merely approximate knowledge of true blood
relationship, still it will always possess great import-
ance as a hypothetical pedigree. It is true, by a “natural
system” most zoologists and botanists only endeavour to
express in a Concise way the subjective conceptions which

78 THE HISTORY OF CREATION.

each has formed of the objective “ form-relationships” of
organisms, These form-relationships, however, as the reader
has seen, are in reality the necessary result of true blood
relationship. Consequently, every morphologist in promot-
ing our knowledge of the natural system, at the same time
promotes our knowledge of the pedigree, whether he wishes
it or not. The more the natural system deserves its name,
and the more firmly it is established upon the concordance
of results obtained from the study of comparative anatomy,
ontogeny, and paleontology, the more surely may we con-
sider it as the approximate expression of the true pedigree
of the organic world.

In entering upon the task contemplated in this chapter,
the genealogy of the vegetable kingdom, we shall have,
according to this principle, first to glance at the natural
system of the vegetable kingdom as it is at present (with
more or less important modifications) adopted by most
botanists. According to the system generally in vogue, the
whole series of vegetable forms is divided into two main
sroups. These main divisions, or sub-kingdoms, are the same
as were distinguished more than a century ago by Charles
Linnzus, the founder of systematic natural history, and
which he called Cryptogamia, or secretly-blossoming plants,
and Phanerogania, or openly-flowering plants. The latter,
Linnzeus, in his artificial system of plants, divided, according
to the different number, formation, and combination of the
anthers, and also according to the distribution of the sexual
organs, into twenty-three different classes, and then added
the Cryptogamia to these as the twenty-fourth and last
class.

The Cryptogamia, the secretly-blossoming or tlowerless

THE CLASSIFICATION OF PLANTS, 79

plants, which were formerly but little observed, have in con-
sequence of the careful investigations of recent times been
proved to present such a great variety of forms, and such a
marked difference in their coarser and finer structure, that
we must distinguish no less than fourteen different classes
of them; whereas the number of classes of flowering plants,
or Phanerogamia, may be limited to four. However, these
erghteen classes of the vegetable kingdom can again be
naturally grouped in such a manner that we are able to dis-
tinguish in all sia main divisions or branches of the vege-
table kingdom. Two of these six branches belong to the
flowering, and four to the flowerless plants. The table on
page 82 shows how the eighteen classes are distributed
among the six branches, and how these again fall under the
sub-kingdoms of the vegetable kingdom.

The one sub-kingdom of the Cryptogamia may now be
naturally divided into two divisions, or sub-kingdoms, differ-
ing very essentially in their internal structure and in their
externalform, namely, the Thallus plants and the Prothallus
plants. The group of Yhallus plants comprises the two
large branches of Tangles, or Algze, which live in water, and
the Thread-plants, or Inophytes (Lichens and Fungi), which
grow on land, upon stones, bark of trees, upon decaying
bodies, ete. The group of Prothallus plants, on the other
hand, comprises the two branches of Mosses and Ferns,
containing a great variety of forms.

All Thallus plants, or Thallophytes, can be directly recog-
nized from the fact that the two morphological fundamental
organs of all other plants, stem and leaves, cannot be dis-
tinguished in their structure. The complete body of all
Algze and of all Thread-plants is a mass composed of simple

80 THE HISTORY OF CREATION,

cells, which is called a lobe, or thallus. This thallus is as
yet not differentiated into axial-organs (stem and root) and
leaf-organs. On this account, as well as through many
other peculiarities, the Thallophytes contrast strongly with
all remaining plants—those comprised under the two sub-
kingdoms of Prothallus plants and Flowermg plants—and
for this reason the two latter sub-kingdoms are frequently
classed together under the name of Stemmed plants, or
Cormophytes. The following table will explain the relation
of these three sub-kingdoms to one another according to the
two different views :—
A Thales Plana | I. Thallus Plants

I. Flowerless Plants. (Thallophyta) (Thallophyta)

Cryptogania
(Cryptog ) B. Prothallus Plants

(Prothallophyta) II. Stemmed Plants
(Cormophyta)

(Phanerogamia)

II. Flowering Plants C. Flowering Plants
(Phanerogamia)

The stemmed plants, or Cormophytes, in the organization
of which the difference of axial-organs (stem and root) and
leaf-organs is already developed, form at present, and have,
indeed, for a very long period formed, the principal portion
of the vegetable world. However, this was not always the

-case. In fact, stemmed plants, not only of the flowering
group, but even of the prothallus group, did not exist at all
during that immeasurably long space of time which forms
the beginning of the first great division of the organic
history of the earth, under the name of the archilithie, or
primordial period. The reader will recollect that during this
period the Laurentian, Cambrian, and Silurian systems of
strata were deposited,the thickness of which, taken asa whole,

THE ALG, OR TANGLES, SI

amounts to about 70,000 feet. Now, as the thickness of all
the more recent superincumbent strata, from the Devonian
to the deposits of the present time, taken together, amounts
to only about 60,000 feet, we were enabled from this fact
alone to draw the conclusion—which is probable also for
other reasons—that the archilithic, or primordial, period was
of longer duration than the whole succeeding period down
to the present time. During the whole of this immeasur-
able space of time, which probably comprises many millions
of centuries, vegetable life on our earth seems to have been
represented exclusively by the sub-kingdom of Thallus
plants, and, moreover, only by the class of marine Thallus
plants, that is to say, the Algz. At least all the petrified
remains which are positively known to be of the primordial
period belong exclusively to this class. As all the animal
remains of this immense period also belong exclusively to
animals that lived in water, we come to the conclusion that
at that time organisms adapted to a life on land did not
exist at all.

For these reasons the first and most imperfect of the great
provinces or branches of the vegetable kingdom, the division
of the Algz, or Tangles, must be of special interest to us.
But, in addition, there is the interest which this group
offers when viewed by itself. In spite of the exceedingly
simple composition of their constituent cells, which are but
little differentiated, the Algze show an extraordinary variety
of different forms. To them belong the simplest and most
imperfect of all forms, as well as very highly developed and
peculiar forms. The different groups of Alo are dis-
tinguished as much by size of body as by the perfection and
variety of their outer form. At the lowest stage we find

82 THE HISTORY OF CREATION.

SYSTEMATIC VIEW
Of the Siz Branches and Eighteen Classes of the Vegetable

Kingdom.
See tadons —, —— pre es Name
regetable ‘Singdom. Vegetable Kingdom. | Vegetable Kingdom. Classes.
1. Primeval 1. Archephycee-
aleze (Protophyta)
2. Green algze 2. Chlorophycecee
3 (Chloroalgz)
ean 3Blants Tangles 3. Brown algx 3. Pheophycee
Thallophyta (Fucoidez)
4, Red algze 4. Rhodophycee
(Floridez)
5. Lichens 5. Lichenes
riven lint 6. Fungi 6. Fungs
Inophyta
7.Tangle-mosses 7%. Charobrya
(Characeze)
8. Liverworts 8. Thallobrya
Hat (Hepaticz)
9. Frondose- 9. Phyllobrya
Muscine Boe ESSE, (Frondose)
hee 10. Turf-mosses 10. Sphagnobrya
IBlants (Sphagnaceze)
Prothallophyta 11. Shaft-ferns 11. Calamarie
(Calamophy ta)
12. Frondose- 12. Filices
ne ferns (Pteridez)
Felicine 13. Aquatic ferns 13. Rhizocarpee
(Hydropterides)
14. Scale-ferns 14. Selaginee
(Lepidophyta)
Plants with
Pini with 15. Palm-ferns 15. Cycadew
pedantaaantet Gymnosperma 16. Pines 16. Conifere
Phanerogamia ;
“ae ee 17. Plants with 17. Monocotyle
Enclosed Seeds one seed lobe
Angiosperma 18. Plants with 18. Dicotyle

‘ two seed lobes

PEDIGREE OF THE VEGETABLE KINGDOM. 83

Gamopetale
(Flowers with corolla)

Dialypetale
(Star-shaped flowers)
Monochlamydee MoNOCOTYLEDONA
(Flowers with calyx) (One seed-lobed plants)
DICOTYLEDONE

(Two seed-lobed plants)

Nee seen eg ey
CoNIFERE Angiosperme
CyvcaDEZ (Pines) (Plants with enclosed seeds)
‘Palm-ferns) GNETACEE

~ ' ly
Gymnosperme
(Plants with 2s seeds) Phanerogame
(Flowering plants) Ptcridew
Rhizocarpee (Frondose-ferns)

(Water-ferns) Calamarie
(Shaft-ferns)

Se ee ee eee eee
Filicine
Frondose Sphagnacee (Ferns)
(Leaf-mosses) (Turf-mosses)

Selaginee
(Scaled-ferns)

CHARACES
(Tangle-mosses)

Hepatice (Liverworts)

ea
Muscine (Mosses)

Fucoidee
Floridee (Brown Algze) Lichenes
(Red Alga) Chlorophyceee (Lichens)
(Green Algze)
EE 2
Fungi Inophyta
Alge (Tangles) (Thread-plants)
a
Protophyta

(Primzeval Plants)

Vegetable Monera

84 THE HISTORY OF CREATION.

such species as the minute Protococcus, several hundred
thousands of which occupy a space no larger than a pin’s
head. At the highest stage we marvel at the gigantic
Macrocysts, which attain a length of from 300 to 400 feet, the
longest of all forms in the vegetable kingdem. It is possible
that a large portion of the coal has been formed out of Algze.
If not for these reasons, yet the Algz must excite our
special attention from the fact that they form the beginning
of vegetable life, and contain the original forms of all other
groups of plants, supposing that our monophyletic hypo-
thesis of a common origin for all groups of plants is correct.
(Compare p. 83.) |

Most people living inland can form but a very imperfect
idea of this exceedingly interesting branch of the vege-
table kingdom, because they know only its proportionately
small and simple representatives living in fresh water. The
slimy green aquatic filaments and flakes of our pools and
ditches and springs, the light green slimy coverings of all
kinds of wood which have for any length of time been in
contact with water, the yellowish green, frothy, and oozy
growths of our village ponds, the green filaments resembling
tufts of hair which occur everywhere in fresh water, stag-
nant and flowing, are for the most part composed of dif-
ferent species of Algz. Only those who have visited
the sea-shore, and wondered at the immense masses of
cast-up seaweed, and who, from the rocky coast of the
Mediterranean, have seen through the clear blue waters the
beautifully-formed and highly-coloured vegetation of Algze
at the bottom, know how to estimate the importance of the
class of Alew. And yet, even these marine Alge-forests
of European shores, so rich in forms, give only a faint idea

THE CLASSES OF ALG. 85

of the colossal forests of Sargasso in the Atlantic ocean, those
immense banks of Algze, covering a space of about 40,000
square miles—the same which made Columbus, on his voyage
of discovery, believe that a continent was near. Similar but
far more extensive forests of Aloz grew in the primeval
ocean, probably in dense masses, and what countless genera-
tions of these archilithic Aloz have died out one after
another is attested, among other facts, by the vast thickness
of Silurian alum schists in Sweden, the peculiar composition
of which proceeds from those masses of submarine Algz.
According to the recently expressed opinion of Frederick
Mohr, a geologist of Bonn, even the greater part of our coal
seams have arisen out of the accumulated dead bodies of the
Algze forests of the ocean.

Within the branch of the Algze we distinguish four
different classes, each of which is again divided into several
orders and families. These again contain a large number of
different genera and species. We designate these four
classes as Primeval Alove, or Archephycez, Green Algze, or
Chlorophyceze, Brown Algve, or Pheeophycee, and Red Alez,
or Rhodophyceee.

The first class of Algze, the Primeval Algze (Archephyceee),
might also be called primeval plants, because they contain
the simplest and most imperfect of all plants, and, among
them, those most ancient of all vegetable organisms out of
which all other plants have originated. To them therefore
belong those most ancient of all vegetable Monera which
arose by spontaneous generation in the beginning of the
Laurentian period. Further, we have to reckon among them
all those vegetable forms of the simplest organization which
first developed out of the Monera in the Laurentian period,

86 THE HISTORY OF CREATION,

and which possessed the form of a single plastid. At
first the entire body of one of these small primary plants
consisted only of a most simple cytod (a plastid without
kernel), and afterwards attained the higher form of a
simple cell, by the separation of a kernel in the plasma.
(Compare above, vol. 1. p. 345.) Even at the present day there
exist various most simple forms of Aleze which have devi-
ated but little from the original primary plants. Among
them are the Algz of the families Codiolacese, Protococ-
caceze, Desmidiacez, Palmellaceze, Hydrodictyez, and
several others. The remarkable group of Phycochromaceze
(Chroocoecaceze and Oscillarineze) might also be comprised
among them, unless we prefer to consider them as an in-
dependent tribe of the kingdom Protista.

The monoplastic Protophyta—that is, those primary Aleve
formed by a single plastid—are of the greatest interest,
because the vegetable organism in this case completes its
whole course of life as a perfectly simple “ individual of the
first order,” either as a cytod without kernel, or as a cell
containing a kernel.

Among the primary plants consisting of a single cytod are
the exceedingly remarkable Siphonez, which are of con-
siderable size, and strangely “mimic” the forms of higher
plants. Many of the Siphoneze attain a size of several
feet, and resemble an elegant moss (Bryopsis), or in
some eases a perfect flowering plant with stalks, roots,
and leaves (Caulerpa) (Fig. 17). Yet the whole of this
large body, externally so variously differentiated, consists
internally of an entirely simple sack, possessing the negative
characters of a simple cytod.

These curious Siphonez, Vaucherize, and Caulerpze show

UNI-CELLULAR ALG. 5 7

lic. 17.—Caulerpa denticulata, a monoplastic Siphonean of the natural
size. The entire branching primary plant, which appears to consist of a
creeping stalk with fibrous roots and indented leaves, is in reality only a
single plastid, and moreover a cytod (without a kernel), not even attaining
the grade of a cell with nucleus.

us to how great a degree of elaboration a single cytod,
although a most simple individual of the first order, can
develop by continuous adaptation to the relations of the
outer world. Even the single-celled primary plants—which
are distinguished from the monocytods by possessing a
kernel—develop into a great variety of exquisite forms by
adaptation ; this is the case especially with the beautiful

88 THE HISTORY OF CREATION.

Desnudiacece, of which a species of Euastrum is represented
in Fig. 18 as a specimen.

Fig. 18.—Enuastrum rota, a single-celled Desmid, much enlarged. The
whole of the star-shaped body of this primeval plant has the formal value
of a simple cell. In its centre lies the kernel, and within this the kernel
corpuscle, or speck.

It is very probable that similar primeval plants, the
soft body of which, however, was not capable of being
preserved in a fossil state, at one time peopled the Lau-
rentian primeeval sea in great masses and varieties, and in
a great abundance of forms, without, however, going beyond
the stage of individuality of a simple plastid.

The group of Green Tangles (Chlorophycee), or Green
Alge (Chloroalgze), are the second class, and the most closely
allied to the primeval group. Like the majority of the
Archephycez, all the Chlorophycez are coloured green, and

COLOSSAL ALGA, 89

by the same colouring matter—the substance called leaf-
green, or chlorophyll—which colours the leaves of all the
higher plants.

To this class belong, besides a great number of low
marine Algze, most of the Alge of fresh water, the
common water hair-weeds, or Conferve, the green slime-
balls, or Gloeosphzerze, the bright green water-lettuce, or
Ulva, which resembles a very thin and long lettuce leaf,
_and also numerous small microscopic alge, dense masses of
which form a light green shiny covering to all sorts of
objects lying in water—wood, stones, etc.

These forms, however, rise above the simple primary Algz
in the composition and differentiation of their body. As
the green Alge, like the primeval Algze, mostly possess a
very soft body, they are but rarely capable of being petrified.
However, it can scarcely be doubted that this class of Algze
—which was the first to develop out of the preceding
one—most extensively and variously peopled the fresh and
salt waters of the earth in early times.

In the third class, that of the Brown Tangles (Pheo-
phyceze), or Black Algw (Fucoides), the branch of the Algeze
attains its highest stage of development, at least in regard
to size and body. The characteristic colour of the Fucoid
is more or less dark brown, sometimes tending more to
an olive green or yellowish green, sometimes more to a
brownish red or black colour.

Among these are the largest of all Algz, which are at
the same time the longest of all plants, namely, the
colossal giant Algze, amongst which the Macrocystis
pyrifera, on the coast of California, attains a length of

400 feet. Also, among our indigenous Ale, the largest
22

eTe) THE HISTORY OF CREATION,

forms belong to this group. Especially I may mention
here the stately sugar-tangle (Laminaria), whose slimy, olive
green thallus-body, resembling gigantic leaves of from 10
to 15 feet in length, and from a half to one foot in breadth,
are thrown up in great masses on the coasts of the North
and Baltic seas.

To this class belongs also the bladder-wrack (Fucus
vesiculosus) common in our seas, whose fork-shaped,
deeply-cut leaves are kept floating on the water by
numerous air bladders (as is the case, too, with many
other brown Algz). The freely floating Sargasso Alga
(Sargasso bacciferum), which forms the meadows or forests
of the Sargasso Sea, also belongs to this class.

Although each individual of these large alga-trees is
composed of many millions of cells, yet at the beginning
of its existence it consists, like all higher plants, of a single
cell—a simple egg. This egg—for example, in the case of
our common bladder-wrack—is a naked, uncovered cell, and
as such is so like the naked egg-cells of lower marine
animals—for example, those of the Meduse—that they
might easily be mistaken one for another (Fig. 19).

Fic. 19.—The egg of the common bladder-
wrack (Fucus vesiculosus), a simple naked
cell, much enlarged. In the centre of the

naked globule of protoplasm the bright kernel
is visible.

It was probably the Fucoideze, or
Brown Algz, which during the pri-
mordial period, to a great extent
constituted the characteristic alea-forests of that immense
space of time. Their petrified remains, especially those of

THE RED ALG. 9!

the Silurian period, which have been preserved, can, it is
true, give us but a faint idea of them, because the material
of these Algze, like that of most others, is ill-suited for pre-
servation in a fossil state. As has already been remarked,
a large portion of coal is perhaps composed of them.

Less important is the fourth class of Algz, that of the
Rose-coloured Alge (Rhodophycee), or Red Sea-weeds (Flo-
ridez). This class, it is true, presents a great number
of different forms; but most of them are of much smaller
size than the Brown Alez. Although they are inferior to
the latter in perfection and differentiation, they far surpass
them in some other respects. To them belong the most beau-
tiful and elegant of all Algze, which on account of the fine
plumose division of their leaf-like bodies, and also on account
of their pure and delicate red colour, are among the most
charming of plants. The characteristic red colour some-
times appears as a deep purple, sometimes as a glowing
scarlet, sometimes as a delicate rose tint, and may verge
into violet and bluish purple, or on the other hand into
brown and green tints of marvellous splendour. Whoever
has visited one of our sea-coast watering places, must have
admired the lovely forms of the Floridez, which are fre-
quently dried on white paper and offered for sale.

Most of the Red Alge are so delicate, that they are quite
incapable of being petrified ; this is the case with the splendid
Ptilotes, Plocamia, Delesseria, etc. However, there are in-
dividual forms, like the Chondria and Spheerococca, which
possess a harder thallus, often almost as hard as cartilage,
and of these fossil remains have been preserved—principally
in the Silurian, Devonian, and Carboniferous strata, and
later in the oolites. It is probable that this class also had

92 THE HISTORY OF CREATION,

an important share in the composition of the archilithie
Algee flora.

If we now again take into consideration the flora of the
primordial period, which was exclusively formed by the
group of Aloz, we can see that it is not improbable that
its four subordinate classes had a share in the composition
of those submarine forests of the primzeval oceans, similar
to that which the four types of vegetation—trees with
trunks, flowering shrubs, grass, and tender leaf-ferns and
mosses—at present take in the composition of our recent
land forests.

We may suppose that the submarine tree forests of the
primordial period were formed by the huge Brown Alge,
or Fucoideee. The many-coloured flowers at the foot of
these gigantic trees were represented by the gay Red
Algze, or Floridez. The green grass between was formed
by the hair-like bunches of Green Algze, or Chloroalgze.
Finally, the tender foliage of ferns and mosses, which at
present cover the ground of our forests, fill the crevices left by
other plants, and even settle on the trunks of the trees, at
that time probably had representatives in the moss and fern-
like Siphoneze, in the Caulerpa and Bryopsis, from among
the class of the primary Algze, Protophyta, or Archephycez.

With regard to the relationships of the different classes of
Algze to one another and to other plants, it is exceedingly
probable that the Primary Algz, or Archephycez, as already
remarked, form the common root of the pedigree, not merely
for the different classes of Algz, but for the whole vege-
table kingdom. On this account they may with justice be
designated as primzeval plants, or Protophyta.

Out of the naked vegetable Monera, in the beginning of the

THE THREAD PLANTS. 93

Laurentian period, enclosed cytods were probably the first to
arise (vol. i. p. 345), by the naked, structureless, albuminous
substance of the Monera becoming condensed in the form of
a pellicle on the surface, or by secreting a membrane. At a
later period, out of these enclosed cytods genuine vegetable
cells probably arose, as a kernel or nucleus separated itself
in the interior from the surrounding cell-substance or
plasma.

The three classes of Green Aleve, Brown Alge, and Red
Algze, are perhaps three distinct classes, which have arisen in-
dependently of one another out of the common radical group
of Primzeval Algze, and then developed themselves further
(each according to its kind), and have variously branched
off into orders and families. The Brown and Red Alge
possess no close blood relationship to the other classes of the
vegetable kingdom. These latter have most probably arisen
out of the Primeval Algee, either directly or by the inter-
mediate step of the Green Algz.

It is probable that Mosses (out of which, at a later time,
Ferns developed) proceeded from a group of Green Algez,
and that Fungi and Lichens proceeded from a group of
Primezeval Aloz. The Phanerogamia developed at a much
later period out of Ferns.

As a second class of the Vegetable Kingdom we have
above mentioned the Thread-plants (Inophyta). We under-
stood by this term the two closely related classes of Lichens
and Fungi. Itis possible that these Thallus plants have
not arisen out of the Primeval Algz, but out of one or
more Monera, which, independently of the latter, arose by
spontaneous generation. It appears conceivable that many
of the lowest Fungi, as for example, many ferment-causing

94 THE HISTORY OF CREATION.

fungi (forms of Micrococcus, etc), owe their origin to a
number of different archigonic Monera (that is, Monera
originating by spontaneous generation).

In any case the Thread-plants cannot be considered as
the progenitors of any of the higher vegetable classes.
Lichens, as well as fungi, are distinct from the higher
plants in the composition of their soft bodies, consisting
as it does of a dense felt-work of very long, variously
interwoven, and peculiar threads or chains of cells—the
so-called hyphee, on which account we distinguish them
as a province under the name Thread-plants. From
their peculiar nature they could not leave any important
fossil remains, and consequently we can form only a very
vague guess at their palzeontological development.

The first class of Thread-plants, the Fungi, exhibit a
very close relationship to the lowest Alge; the Algo-fungi,
or Phycomycetes (the Saprolegnise and Peronosporee) in
reality only differ from the bladder-wracks and Siphones
(the Vaucheria and Caulerpa) mentioned previously by the
want of leaf-green, or chlorophyll. But, on the other hand,
all genuine Fungi have so many peculiarities, and deviate so
much from other plants, especially in their mode of taking
food, that they might be considered as an entirely distinct
province of the vegetable kingdom.

Other plants live mostly upon inorganic food, upon simple
combinations which they render more complicated. They
produce protoplasm by the combination of water, carbonic
acid, and ammonia. They take in carbonic acid and give
out oxygen. But the Fungi, like animals, live upon
organic food, consisting of complicated combinations of
carbon, which they receive from other organisms and

ORIGIN OF FUNGL 95

assimilate. They inhale oxygen and give out carbonic
acid like animals. They also never form leaf-green, or
chlorophyll, which is so characteristic of most other plants.
In like manner they never produce starch. Hence many
eminent botanists have repeatedly proposed to remove the
Fungi completely out of the vegetable kingdom, and to
regard them as a special and third kingdom, between that
of animals and plants. By this means our kingdom of Pro-
tista would be considerably increased. The Fungi in this
case would, in the first place, be allied to the so-called
“slime moulds,” or Myxomycetes (which, however, neve1
form any hyphz). But as many Fungi propagate in a sexual
manner, and as most botanists, according to the prevalent
opinion, look upon Fungi as genuine plants, we shall here
leave them in the vegetable kingdom, and connect them with
lichens, to which they are at all events most nearly related.

The phyletic origin of Fungi will probably long remain
obscure. The close relationship already hinted at between
the Phycomycetes and Siphonez (especially between the
Saprolegniz and Vaucheriz) suggests to us that they are
derived from the latter. Fungi would then have to be con-
sidered as Algze, which by adaptation to a parasitical life
have become very peculiarly transformed. Many facts,
however, support the supposition that the lowest fungi
have originated independently from archigonic Monera.

The second class of Inophyta, the Lichens (Lichenes), are
very remarkable in relation to phylogeny ; for the surprising
discoveries of late years have taught us that every Lichen
is really composed of two distinct plants—of alow form of
Alga (Nostochaceze, Chroococcaceze), and of a parasitic form
of Fungus (Ascomycetes), which lives as a parasite upon

96 THE HISTORY OF CREATION,

the former, and upon the nutritive substances prepared by it
The green cells, containing chlorophyll (gonidia), which are
found in every lichen, belong to the Alga. But the colourless
threads (hyphz) which, densely interwoven, form the princi-
pal mass of the body of Lichens, belong to the parasitic
Fungus. But in all cases the two forms of plants—Fungus
and Alga—which are always considered as members of two
quite distinct provinces of the vegetable kingdom, are so
firmly united, and so thoroughly interwoven, that nearly
every one looks upon a Lichen as a single organism.

Most Lichens form small, more or less formless or irregu-
larly indented, erust-like coverings to stones, bark of trees,
ete. Their colour varies through all possible tints, from the
purest white to yellow, red, green, brown, and the deepest
black.

Many lichens are important in the economy of nature from
the fact that they can settle in the driest and most barren
localities, especially on naked rocks upon which no other
plant can live. The hard black lava, which covers many
square miles of ground in volcanic regions, and which
for centuries frequently presents the most determined
opposition to the life of every kind of vegetation, is always
first occupied by Lichens. It is the white or grey Lichens
(Stereocaulon) which, in the most desolate and barren fields
of lava, always begin to prepare the naked rocky ground
for cultivation, and conquer it for subsequent higher
vegetation. Their decaying bodies form the first mould in
which mosses, ferns, and flowering plants can afterwards
take firm root. Hardy Lichens are also less affected by
the severity of climate than any other plants. Hence the
naked rocks, even in the highest mountains—for the most

PROTHALLUS PLANTS. 97

part covered by eternal snow, on which no plant could
thrive—are encrusted by the dry bodies of Lichens.

Leaving now the Fungi, Lichens, and Algz, which are
comprised under the name of Thallus plants, we enter upon
the second sub-kingdom of the vegetable kingdom, that of
the Prothallus plants (Prothallophyta), which by some
botanists are called phyllogonic Cryptogamia (in contradis-
tinction to the Thallus plants, or thallogonic Cryptogamia).
This sub-kingdom comprises the two provinces of Mosses
and Ferns.

Here we meet with (except in a few of the lowest
forms) the separation of the vegetable body into two
different fundamental organs, axial-organs (stem and root)
and leaves (or lateral organs). In this the Prothallus plants
resemble the Flowering plants, and hence the two groups
have recently often been classed together as stemmed plants,
or Cormophytes.

But, on the other hand, Mosses and Ferns resemble the
Thallus plants, in the absence of the development of
flowers and seeds, and’ even Linnzus classed them with
these, as Cryptogamia, in contradistinction to the plants
forming seeds; that is, flowering plants (Anthophyta or
Phanerogamia).

Under the name of “ Prothallus plants” we combine the
closely-related Mosses and Ferns, because both exhibit a
peculiar and characteristic “alternation of generation” in the
course of their individual development. For every species
exhibits two different generations, of which the one is
usually called the Prothalliwm, or Fore-growth, the other is
spoken of as the Cormus, or actual Stem of the moss or fern.

The first and original generation, the Fore-growth, or Pro-

98 THE HISTORY OF CREATION.

thallus, also called Protonema, still remains in that lower
stage of elaboration manifested throughout life by all Thallus
plants ; that is to say, stem and leaf-organs have as yet not
differentiated, and the entire cell-mass of the Fore-growth
corresponds to a simple thallus. The second and more
perfect generation of mosses and ferns—the Stem, or Cormus
—develops a much more highly elaborate body, which has
differentiated into stalk and leaf (as in the case of flowering
plants), except in the lowest mosses, where this generation
also remains in the lower stage of the thallus.

With the exception of these latter forms the first generation
of Mosses and Ferns (the thallus-shaped Fore-growth) always
produces a second generation with stem and leaves; the
latter in its turn produces the thallus of the first generation,
and so on. Thus, in this case, as in the ordinary cases of
alternation of generation in animals, the first generation is
like the third, fifth, ete, the second like the fourth, sixth,
ete. (Compare vol. i. p. 206.)

Of the two main classes of Prothallus plants, the Mosses
in general are at a much lower stage of development than
the Ferns, and their lowest forms (especially in an anatomical
respect) form the transition from the Thallus plants through
the Algze to Ferns. The genealogical connection of Mosses
and Ferns which is indicated by this fact can, however, be
inferred only from the case of the most imperfect forms of
the two classes; for the more perfect and higher groups of
mosses and ferns do not stand in any close relation to one
another, and develop in completely opposite directions. In
any case Mosses have arisen directly out of Thallus plants,
and probably out of Green Algze.

Ferns, on the other hand, are probably derived from

THE MOSSES. 99

extinct unknown Mosses, which were very nearly related
to the lowest liverworts of the present day. In the
history of creation, Ferns are of greater importance than
Mosses.

The branch of Mosses (Muscine, also called Musci, or
Bryophyta) contains the lower and more imperfect plants of
_ the group of Prothallophytes, which as yet do not possess
vessels. Their bodies are mostly so tender and perishable
that they are very ill-suited for being preserved in a recog-
nizable state as fossils. Hence the fossil remains of all
classes of Mosses are rare and insignificant. It is probable
that Mosses developed in very early times out of the Thallus
plants, or, to be more precise, out of the Green Algz. It is
probable that in the primordial period there existed aquatic
forms of transition from the latter to Mosses, and in the
primary period to those living on land. The Mosses of the
present day—out of the gradually differentiating develop-
ment of which comparative anatomy may draw some infer-
ences as to their genealogy—are divided into two different
classes, namely: (1) Liverworts; (2) Leafy Mosses.

The first and oldest class of Mosses, which is directly
allied to the Green Aleve, or Confervee, is formed by the Lwer-
worts (Hepatic, or Thallobrya). The mosses belonging to
them are, for the most part, small and insignificant in form,
and are little known. Their lowcst forms still possess,
in both generations, a simple thallus like the Thallus plants ;
as for example, the Riccize and Marchantiaceze. But the
more highly developed liverworts, the Jungermanniaceze
and those akin to them, gradually commence to differentiate
stem and leaf, and their most highly-developed forms are
closely allied to leaf-mosses. By this transitional series

[OO THE HISTORY OF CREATION.

the liverworts show their direct derivation from the
Thallophytes, and more especially from the Green Algee.
The Mosses, which are generally the only ones known
to the uninitiated—and which, in fact, form the principal
portion of the whole branch—belong to the second class,
or Leafy Mosses (Musci frondosi, called Musci in a narrow
sense, also Phyllobrya). Among them are most of those
pretty little plants which, united in dense groups, form
the bright glossy carpet of moss in our woods, or which,
in company with liverworts and lichens, cover the bark
of trees. As reservoirs, carefully storing up moisture, they
are of the greatest importance in the economy of nature.
Wherever man mercilessly cuts down and destroys forests,
there, as a consequence, disappear the leafy mosses which
covered the bark of the trees, or, protected by their
shade, clothed the ground, and filled the spaces between
the larger plants. Together with the leafy mosses dis-
appear the useful reservoirs which stored up ram and
dew for times of drought. Thus arises a disastrous dryness
of the ground, which prevents the growth of any rich
vegetation. In the greater part of Southern Europe—in
Greece, Italy, Sicily, and Spain—mosses have been destroyed
by the inconsiderate extirpation of forests, and the ground
has thereby been robbed of its most useful stores of
moisture; once flourishing and rich tracts of land
have been changed into dry and barren wastes. Un-
fortunately in Germany, also, this rude barbarism is
beginning to prevail more and more. It is probable that
the small frondose mosses have played this exceedingly
important part in nature for a very long time, possibly
from the beginning of the primary period. But as their

COAL PLANTS. IOI

tender bodies are as little suited as those of all other
mosses for being preserved in a fossil state, paleontology
can give us no information about this.

We learn from the science of petrifactions much more
than we do in the case of Mosses of the importance which
the second branch of Prothallus plants—that is, Ferns—
have had in the history of the vegetable world. Ferns, or
more strictly speaking, the “plants of the fern tribe”
(Filicineze, or Pteridez, also called Pteridophyta, or Vascular
Cryptogams), formed during an extremely long period,
namely, during the whole primary or palzeolithic period, the
principal portion of the vegetable world, so that we may
without hesitation call it the era of Fern Forests. From the
beginning of the Devonian period, in which organisms
living on land appeared for the first time, namely, during
the deposits of the Devonian, Carboniferous, and Permian
strata, plants like Ferns predominated so much over all
others, that we are justified in giving this name to that
period. In the stratifications just mentioned, but above all,
in the immense layers of coal of the Carboniferous or coal
period, we find such numerous and occasionally well pre-
served remains of Ferns, that we can form a tolerable vivid
picture of the very peculiar land flora of the paleolithic
period. In the year 1855 the total number of the then
known paleeolithic species of plants amounted to about a
thousand, and among these there were no less than 872 Ferns.
Among the remaining 128 species were 77 Gymnosperms
(pines and palm-ferns), 40 Thallus plants (mostly Algze), and
about 20 not accurately definable Cormophyta (stem-plants).

As already remarked, Ferns probably developed out of the
tower liverworts in the beginning of the primary period.

[O2 THE HISTORY OF CREATION.

In their organization Ferns rise considerably above Mosses,
and in their more highly developed forms even approach the
flowering plants. In Mosses, as in Thallus plants, the entire
body is composed of almost equi-formal cells, little if at all
differentiated ; but in the tissues of Ferns we find those
peculiarly differentiated strings of cel’; which are called the
vessels of plants, and which are universally met with in
flowering plants. Hence Ferns are sometimes united as
“vascular Cryptogams” with Phanerogams, and the group
so formed is contrasted as that of the “vascular plants”
with “cellular plants,’—that is, with “ cellular eryptogams”
(Mosses and Thallus plants). This very important process
in the organization of plants—the formation of vessels
—first occurred, therefore, in the Devonian period, con-
sequently in the beginning of the second and smaller half
of the organic history of the earth.

The branch of Ferns, or Filicinz, is divided into five
distinct classes: (1) Frondose Ferns, or Pteride; (2) Reed
Ferns, or Calamaria; (3) Aquatic Ferns, or Rhizocarpez ;
(4) Snakes Tongues, or Ophioglosse; and (5) Scale Ferns,
-or Lepidophyta. By far the most important of these five
classes, and also the richest in forms, were first the Frondose
Ferns, and then the Scale-ferns, which formed the princi-
pal portion of the palzeolithic forests. The Reed Ferns, on
the other hand, had at that time already somewhat
diminished in number ; and of the Aquatic Ferns, we do not
even know with certainty whether they then existed. It is
difficult for us to form any idea of the very peculiar
character of those gloomy palzolithic fern forests, in which
the whole of the gay abundance of flowers of our present
flora was entirely wanting, and which were not enlivened

BOTANISTS AND DARWINISM. 103

by any birds. Of the flowering plants there then existed
only the two lowest classes, the pines and palm ferns,
with naked seeds, whose simple and insignificant blossoms
scarcely deserve the name of flowers.

The phylogeny of Ferns, and of the Gymnosperms which
have developed out of them, has been made especially clear
by the excellent investigations which Edward Strasburger
published in 1872, on “The Coniferze and Gnetacez,” as
also “On Azolla.” This thoughtful naturalist and Charles
Martins, of Montpellier, are among the few botanists who
have thoroughly understood the fundamental value of the
Theory of Descent, and the mechanical-causal connection
between ontogeny and phylogeny. The majority of
botanists do not even yet know the important difference
between homology and analogy, between the morphological
and physiological comparison of parts—which has long
since been recognized in zoology—but Strasburger has
employed this distinction and the principle of evolution in
his “ Comparative Anatomy of the Gymnosperms,” in order
to sketch the outlines of the blood relationship of this
important group of plants.

The class among Ferns which has developed most directly
out of the Liverworts is the class of real Ferns, in the
narrow sense of the word, the Frondose Ferns (Filices, or
Phyllopterides, also called Pteridze). In the present flora of
the temperate zones this class forms only a subordinate
part, for it is in most cases represented only by low forms
without trunks. But in the torrid zones, especially in the
moist, steaming forests of tropical regions, this class presents
us with the lofty palm-like fern trees. These beautiful tree-
ferns of the present day, which form the chief ornament of

I04 THE HISTORY OF CREATION,

~ our hot-houses, can however give us but a faint idea of
the stately and splendid frondose ferns of the primary
period, whose mighty trunks, densely crowded together,
then formed entire forests. These trunks, accumulated in
super-incumbent masses, are found in the coal seams of the
Carboniferous period, and between them, in an excellent |
state of preservation, are found the impressions of the
elegant fan-shaped leaves, crowning the top of the trunk in
an umbrella-like bush. The varied outlines and the feather-
like forms of these fronds, the elegant shape of the
branching veins or bunches of vessels in their tender foliage,
can still be as distinctly recognized in the impressions of the
palzeolithic fronds as in the fronds of ferns of the present
day. In many cases even the clusters of fruit, which are
distributed on the lower surface of the fronds, are distinctly
preserved. After the carboniferous period, the predominance
of frondose ferns diminished, and towards the end of the
secondary period they played almost as subordinate a part
as they do at the present time.

The Calamarize, Ophioglossee, and Rhizocarpeze seem to
have developed as three diverging branches out of the
Frondose Ferns, or Pteridee. The Calamari, or Calamophyta,
have remained at the lowest level among these three classes.
The Calamariz comprise three different orders, of which
only one now exists, namely, the Horse-tails (Equisetacez).
The two other orders, the Giant Reeds (Calamiteze), and the
Star-leaf Reeds (Asterophylliteze), are long since extinct.
All Calamarize are characterized by a hollow and jointed
stalk, stem, or trunk, upon which the branches and leaves
(in cases where they exist) are set so as to encircle the
| jointed stem in whorls. The hollow joints of the stalk are

LITTLE-KNOWN FERNS. 105

separated from one another by partition walls. In Horse-
tails and Calamitez the surface is traversed by longitudinal
ribs running parallel, as in the case of a fluted column, and
the outer skin contains so much silicious earth in the living
forms, that it is used for cleansing and polishing. In
the Asterophyllitez, the star-shaped whorls of leaves were
more strongly developed than in the two other orders.
There exist, at present, of the Calamariz only the in-
significant Horse-tails (Equisetum), which grow in marshes
and on moors; but during the whole of the primary
and secondary periods they were represented by great trees
of the genus Equisetites. There existed, at the same time,
the closely related order of the Giant Reeds (Calamites),
whose strong trunks grew to a height of about fifty feet.
The order of the Asterophyllites, on the other hand, con-
tained smaller and prettier plants, of a very peculiar form,
and belongs exclusively to the primary period.

Among all Ferns, the history of the third class, that of
the Root, or Aquatic Ferns (Rhizorcarpeze, or Hydropteridee),
is least known to us. In their structure these ferns, which
live in fresh water, are on the one hand allied to the frond
ferns, and on the other to the scaly ferns, but they are more
closely related to the latter. Among them are the but
little known moss ferns (Salvinia), clover ferns (Marsilea),
and pill ferns (Pilularia) of our fresh waters; further, the
large Azolla which floats in tropical ponds. Most of the
aquatic ferns are of a delicate nature, and hence ill-suited
for being petrified. This is probably the reason of their
fossil remains being so scarce, and of the oldest of those
known to us having been found in the Jura system. It is
probable, however, that the class is much older, and that it

106 THE HISTORY OF CREATION.

was already developed during the paleeolithic period out of
other ferns by adaptation to an aquatic life.

The fourth class of ferns is formed by the Tongue Ferns
(Ophioglossze, or Glossopterides). These ferns, to which
belongs the Botrychium, as well as the Ophioglossum
(adder’s-tongue) of our native genera, were formerly con-
sidered as forming but a small subdivision of the frondose
ferns. But they deserve to form a special class, because
they répresent important transitional forms from the
Pterideee and Lepidophytes towards higher plants, and
must be regarded as among the direct progenitors of the
flowering plants.

The fifth and last class is formed by the Scale Ferns
(Lepidophytes, or Selagines). In the same way as the
Ophioglossze arose out of the frondose forms, the scale ferns
arose out of the Ophioglosse, They were more highly
developed than all other ferns, and form the transition to
flowering plants, which must have developed out of them.
Next to the frondose ferns they took the largest part in the
composition of the paleolithic fern forests. This class also
contains, as does the class of reed ferns, three nearly related
but still very different orders, of which only one now exists,
the two others having become extinct towards the end of
the carboniferous period. The scaled ferns still existing
belong to the order of the club-mosses (Lycopodiacez).
They are mostly small, pretty moss-like plants, whose
tender, many-branched stalk creeps in curves on the ground
like a snake, and is densely encompassed and covered by
small scaly leaves. The pretty creeping Lycopodium of
our woods, which mountain tourists twine round their
hats, is known to all, as also the still more delicate

CLUB-MOSSES, 107

Selaginella, which under the name of creeping moss is used
to adorn the soil of our hot-houses in the form of a thick
carpet. The largest clwb-mosses of the present day are found
in the Sunda Islands, where their stalks rise to the height
of twenty-five feet, and attain half a foot in thickness.
But in the primary and secondary periods even larger trees
of this kind were widely distributed, the most ancient of
which probably were the progenitors of the pines
(Liycopodites). The most important dimensions were, how-
ever, attained by the class of scale trees (Lepidodendresee),
and by the seal trees (Sigillarieze). These two orders, with
a few species, appear in the Devonian period, but do not
attain their immense and astonishing development until the
Carboniferous period, and become extinct towards the end
of it, or in the Permian period directly following upon it.
The scale trees, or Lepidodendrez, were probably more
closely related to club-mosses than to Sigillariez, They
grew into splendid, straight, unbranching trunks which
divided at the top into numerous forked branches. They
bore a large crown of scaly leaves, and like the trunk were
marked in elegant spiral lines by the scars left at the base
of the leaf stalks which had fallen off We know of scale-
marked trees from forty to sixty feet in length, and from
twelve to fifteen feet in diameter at the root. Some trunks
are said to be even more than a hundred feet in length. In
the coal are found still larger accumulations of the no less
highly developed but more slender trunks of the remarkable
seal trees, Sigillarieze, which in many places form the princi-
pal part of coalseams. Their roots were formerly described
as quite a distinct vegetable form (under the name of
Stigmaria). The Sigillarieze are in many respects very like

108 THE HISTORY OF CREATION.

the scale-trees, but differ from them and from ferns in
general in many ways. They were possibly closely related
to the extinct Devonian Lycopteridewe, combining character-
istic peculiarities of the club-mosses and the frondose ferns,
which Strasburger considers as the hypothetical primary
form of flowering plants.

In leaving the dense forests of the primary period, which
were principally composed of frond ferns (Lepidodendreze
and Sigillarieze), we pass onwards to the no less character-
istic pine forests of the secondary period. Thus we leave
the domain of the Cryptogamia, the plants forming neither
flowers nor seeds, and enter the second main division of the
vegetable kingdom, namely, the sub-kingdom of the Phanero-
gamia, flowering plants forming seeds. This division, so rich
in forms, containing the principal portion of the present
vegetable world, and especially the majority of plants living
on land, is certainly of a much more recent date than the
division of Cryptogamia. For it can have developed out
of the latter only in the course of the palzeolithic period.
We can with full assurance maintain that, during the whole
archilithic period, hence during the first and longer half of
the organic history of the earth, no flowering plants as yet
existed, and that they first developed during the primary
period out of Cryptogamia of the fern kind. The anatomical
and embryological relation of Phanerogamia to the latter
is so close, that from it we can with certainty infer their
genealogical connection, that is, their true blood relation-
ship. Flowering plants cannot have directly arisen out of
thallus plants, nor out of mosses; but only out of ferns, or
Filicines. Most probably the scaled ferns, or Lepidophyta,
and more especially amongst these the Lycopodiacez, forms

THE FLOWERING PLANTS. 109

closely related to the Selaginella of the present day, have
been the direct progenitors of the Phanerogamia.

On account of its anatomical structure and its embryo-
logical development, the sub-kingdom of the Phanerogamia
has for a long time been divided into two large branches,
into the Gymnosperms, or plants with naked seeds, and the
Angiosperms, or plants with enclosed seeds. The latter are
in every respect more perfect and more highly organized
than the former, and developed out of them only at a late
date during the secondary period. The Gymnosperms, both
anatomically and embryologically, form the transition group
from Ferns to Angiosperms.

The lower, more imperfect, and the older of the two main
classes of flowering plants, that of the Archispermee, or
Gymnosperms (with naked seeds), attained its most varied
development and widest distribution during the mesolithie
or secondary epoch. It was no less characteristic of this
period, than was the fern group of the preceding primary,
and the Angiosperms of the succeeding tertiary, epoch.
Hence we might call the secondary epoch that of Gymno- °
sperms, or after its most important representatives, the era
of Pine Forests. The Gymnosperms are divided into three
classes: the Coniferze, Cycadez, and Gnetacez. We find
fossil remains of the pines, or Conifers, and of the Cycads,
even in coal, and must infer from this that the transition
from scaled ferns to Gymnosperms took place during the
Coal, or possibly even in the Devonian period. However,
the Gymnosperms play but a very subordinate part during
the whole of the primary epoch, and do not predominate
over Ferns until the beginning of the secondary epoch.

Of the two classes of Gymnosperms just mentioned, that

| ie) THE HISTORY OF CREATION.

of the Palm Ferns (Zamiz, or Cycadeze) stands at the lowest
stage, and is directly allied to ferns, as the name implies,
so that some botanists have actually included them
in the fern group. In their external form they resemble
palms, as well as tree ferns (or tree-like frond ferns), and
are adorned by a crown of feathery leaves, which is placed
either on a thick, short trunk, or on a slender, simple
trunk like a pillar. At the present day this class, once so
rich in forms, is but scantily represented by a few forms
living in the torrid zones, namely, by the coniferous
ferns (Zamia), the thick-trunked bread-tree (Encephalartos),
and the slender-trunked Caffir bread-tree (Cycas). They
may frequently be seen in hot-houses, and are generally
mistaken for palms. A much greater variety of forms than
occurs among the still existing palm ferns (Cycadeze) is pre-
sented by the extinct and fossil Cycads, which occurred in
sreat numbers more towards the middle of the secondary
period, during the Jura, and which at that time principally
determined the character of the forests.

The class of Pines, or coniferous trees (Coniferze), has pre-
served down to our day a greater variety of forms than have
the palm ferns. Even at the present time the trees belonging
to it—cypresses, juniper trees, and trees of life (Thuja), the
box and ginko trees (Salisburya), the araucaria and cedars,
but above all the genus Pinus, which is so rich in forms,
with its numerous and important species, spruces, pines, firs,
larches, ete.—still play a very important part in the most
different parts of the earth, and almost of themselves consti-
tute extensive forests. Yet this development of pines seems
but weak in comparison with the predominance which the
class had attained over other plants during the early

ANGIOSPERMS, III

secondary period, that of the Trias. At that time mighty
coniferous trees—with but proportionately few genera and
species, but standing together in immense masses of indivi-
duals—formed the principal part of the mesolithic forests.
This fact justifies us in calling the secondary period the
“era of the pine forests,” although the remains of Cycadez
predominate over those of coniferous trees in the Jura
period.*

From the pine forests of the mesolithic, or secondary
period, we pass on into the leafy forests of the czenolithic, or
tertiary period, and we arrive thus at the consideration of
the sixth and last class of the vegctable kingdom, that of
the Metasperme, Angiosperme, or plants with enclosed
seeds. The first certain and undoubted fossils of plants
with enclosed seeds are found in the strata of the chalk
system, and indeed we here find, side by side, remains of the
&wo classes into which the main class of Angiosperms is
generally divided, namely, the one seed-lobed plants, or
monocotyle, and the two seed-lobed plants, or dicotyla.
However, the whole group probably originated at an earlier
period during the Trias. For we know of a number of
doubtful and not accurately definable fossil remains of
plants from the Oolitic and Trias (sic) periods, which some
botanists consider to be Monocotyle, whilst others consider
them as Gymnosperms. In regard to the two classes of

* The primary stock of the Coniferze divided into two branches at an early
period, into the Araucariz on the one hand, and the Taxaceex, or yew-trees.
on the other. The majority of recent Coniferz are derived from the former.
Out of the latter the third class of the Gymnosperms—the Meningos, or
Gnetaceze—were developed. This small but very interesting class contains
only three different genera—Gnetum, Welwitschia, and Ephedra; it is,

however, of great importance, as it forms the transition group from the
Coniferze to the Angiosperms, and more especially to the Dicotyledons.

I12 THE HISTORY OF CREATION.

plants with enclosed seeds, the Monocotyle and Dicotyle,
it is exceedingly probable that the Dicotyledons developed
out of the Gnetacez, but that the Monocotyledons developed
later out of a branch of the dicotyledons.

The class of one sced-lobed plants (Monocotyle, or
Monocotyledons, also called Endogenze) comprises those
flowering plants whose seeds possess but one germ leaf or
seed lobe (cotyledon). Each whorl of its flower contains
in most cases three leaves, and it is very probable that the
mother plants of all Monocotyledons possessed a regular
triple blossom. The leaves are mostly simple, and traversed
by simple, straight bunches of vessels or “nerves.” To this
class belong the extensive families of the rushes, grasses,
lilies, irids, and orchids, further a number of indigenous
aquatic plants, the water-onions, sea grasses, ete, and
finally the splendid and highly developed families of the
Aroideze and Pandanez, the bananas and palms. On the
whole, the class of Monocotyledons—in spite of the great
variety of forms which it developed, both in the tertiary
and the present period—is much more simply organized
than the class of the Dicotyledons, and its history of
development also offers much less of interest. As their
fossil remains are for the most part difficult to recognize,
it still remains at present an open question in which
of the three great secondary periods—the Trias, Jura,
or chalk period—the Monocotyledons originated. At all
events they existed in the chalk period as surely as did the
Dicotyledons.

The second class of plants with enclosed seeds, the two
seed-lobed (Dicotyle, or Dicotyledons, also called Exogenze)
presents much greater historical and anatomical interest in

of the : Ay
ay k

egetable Thallusplants, Thallophyta. "yaa a, sie Cover-seeded, Angiospermae. .
S Tangles, Algae. a 4 ite: One Germ Two Germ Leaves, Dicotylae.
en Gn | Henge | rd, bite, Mouldeliohens| Hepa | Fon. ose 3
S : Prutop laf har dea ie | Fey tone. | Chasvos Funge. A . = . Monocotylae. l ia i : ;
y ‘ |
AON ATEN

\ VAAN ,

) vid PW S27)
PASM

Uy

ee
y MA
I
Ng
S\N) aN
\ N i
\ ys
Y Mi "i v “ee
h4 v
4 4
(

BN
SUN,

VN

RW)

AA AN i
LO tes

Ses

<=
< <—S

es

\ |
iy j . S
mA ees S asssad nasal |
Relative lengths of the 5 ;
Epochs in per-centages. Single-stemmed or
Quarternary Epoch 0.5 MONOPHYLETIC PEDIGREE

Tertiary Epoch... 2.3 of the

Secondary Epoch 11.5 | WEGETABLE KINGDOM
Primary Epoch.......32.1 :
Primordial Epoch 53.6 based.on Paleontology.

Total 100.0

fo ey)

jai a Sy - ree Hee ai, +

BT eA) ieee

THE FLOWERING PLANTS, EES

the development of its subordinate groups. The flowering
plants of this class generally possess, as their name indicates,
two seed lobes or germ leaves (cotyledons). The number of
leaves composing its blossom is generally not three, as in
most Monocotyledons, but four, five, or a multiple of those
numbers. Their leaves, moreover, are generally more highly
differentiated and more composite than those of the Mono-
cotyledons; they are traversed by crooked, branching
bunches of vessels or “veins.” To this class belong most of
the leafed trees, and as they predominate in the tertiary
period as well as, at present, over the Gymnosperms and
Ferns, we may call the cznolithie period that of leafed
forests.

Although the majority of Dicotyledons belong to the most
highly developed and most perfect plants, still the lowest
division of them is directly allied to the Gymnosperms, and
particularly to the Gnetacez. In the lower Dicotyledons, as
in the case of the Monocotyledons, calyx and corolla are as
yet not differentiated. Hence they are called Apetalous
(Monochlamydez, or Apetalee). This sub-class must there-
fore doubtless be looked upon as the original group of the
Angiosperms, and existed probably even during the Trias
and Jura periods. Among them are most of the leafed trees
bearing catkins—birches and alders, willows and poplars,
beeches and oaks; further, the plants of the nettle kind
—nettles, hemp, and hops, figs, mulberries, and elms; finally,
plants like the spurges, laurels, and amaranth.

It was not until the chalk period that the second and
more perfect class of the Dicotyledons appeared, namely,
the growp with corollas (Dichlamydez, or Corolliflorze).

These arose out of the Apetalze from the simple cover of the
23

II4 THE HISTORY OF CREATION,

blossoms of the latter becoming differentiated into calyx and
corolla. The sub-class of the Corolliflorz is again divided
into two large main divisions or legions, each of which
contains a large number of different orders, families, genera,
and species. The first legion bears the name of star-flowers, or
Diapetalz, the second that of the bell-flowers, or Gamopetalee.

The lower and less perfect of the two legions of the
Corollifloree are the star-flowers (also called Diapetalze or
Dialypetalee). To them belong the extensive families of the
Umbelliferze, or umbrella-worts (wild carrot, ete.), the Cruci-
ferze, or cruciform blossoms (cabbage, etc.); further, the
Ranunculacese (buttercups) and Crassulacez, the Mallows
and Geraniums, and, besides many others, the large group of
Roses (which comprise, besides roses, most of our fruit trees),
and the Pea-blossoms (containing, among others, beans, clover,
genista, acacia, and mimosa). In all these Diapetalz. the
‘blossom-leaves remain separate, and never grow together,
as is the case in the Gamopetalie. These latter developed
first in the tertiary period out of the Diapetalze, whereas the
Diapetalze appeared in the chalk period together with the
Apetalee. :

The highest and most perfect group of the vegetable
kingdom is formed by the second division of the Corollifloree,
namely, the legion of bell-flowers (Gamopetalz, also called
Monopetalee or Sympetale). In this group the blossom-
leaves, which in other plants generally remain separate,
grow regularly together into a more or less bell-like, funnel-
shaped, or tubular flower. To them belong, among others,
the Bell-flowers and Convolvulus, Primroses and Heaths,
Gentian and Honeysuckle, further the family of the Olives
(olive trees, privet, elder, and ash), and finally, besides many

THE DESCENT THEORY CONFIRMED, II5

other families, the extensive division of the Lip-blossoms
(Labiatze) and the Composites. In these last the differen-
tiation and perfection of the Phanerogamic blossoms attain
their highest stage of development, and we must therefore
place them at the head of the vegetable kingdom, as the
most perfect of all plants. In accordance with this, the
legion of the Gamopetalze appear in the organic history of
the earth later than all the main groups of the vegetable
kingdom—in fact, not until the ceenolithic or tertiary epoch.
In the earliest tertiary period the legion is still very rare,
but it gradually increases in the mid-tertiary, and attains its
full development only in the latest tertiary and the qua-
ternary period.

Now if, having reached our own time, we look back upon
the whole history of the development of the vegetable
kingdom, we cannot but perceive in it a grand confirmation
of the Theory of Descent. The two great principles of organic
development which have been pointed out as the necessary
results of natural selection in the Struggle for Life, namely,
the laws of differentiation and perfecting, manifest them-
selves everywhere in the development of the larger and
smaller groups of the natural system of plants. In each
larger or smaller period of the organic history of the earth,
the vegetable kingdom increases both in variety and perfec-
tion, as a glance at Plate IV. will clearly show. During
the whole of the long primordial period there existed only
the lowest and most imperfect group, that of the Algz. To
these are added, in the primary period, the higher and more
perfect Cryptogamia, especially the main-class of Ferns.
During the coal period the Phanerogamia begin to develop
out of the latter ; at first, however, they are represented only

116 THE HISTORY OF CREATION,

by the lower main-class, that of Gymnosperms. It was not
until the secondary period that the higher main-class, that of
Angiosperms, arose out of them. Of these also there existed
at first only the lower groups without distinct corollas, the
Monocotyledons and the Apetale. It was not until the
chalk period that the higher Corollifloree developed out of
the latter. But even this most highly developed group is
represented, in the chalk period, only by the lower stage of
Star-flowers, or Diapetale, and only at quite a late date,
in the tertiary period, did the more highly developed Bell- _
blossoms, Gamopetalz, arise out of them, which at the same
time are the most perfect of all flowering plants. Thus, in
each succeeding later division of the organic history of the
earth the vegetable kingdom gradually rose to a higher
degree of perfection and variety.

CHAPTER XVIII.

PEDIGREE AND HISTORY OF THE ANIMAL KINGDOM,

I. ANIMAL-PLANTS AND Worms.

The Natural System of the Animal Kingdom.—Linnzus and Lamarck’s
Systems.—The Four Types of Bar and Cuvier.—Their Increase to Seven
Types.—Genealogical Importance of the Seven Types as Independent
Tribes of the Animal Kingdom.—Derivation of Zoophytes and Worms
from Primzval Animals.—Monophyletic and Polyphyletic Hypothesis
of the Descent of the Animal Kingdom.—Common Origin of the Four
Higher Animal Tribes out of the Worm Tribe.—Division of the Seven
Animal Tribes into Sixteen Main Classes, and Thirty-eight Classes.—Pri-.
meval Animals (Monera, Amcebe, Synamcebee), Gregarines, Infusoria,
Planzades, and Gastrzeades (Planula and Gastrula).—Tribe of Zoophytes.
—Spongize (Mucous Sponges, Fibrous Sponges, Calcareous Sponges).—
Sea Nettles, or Acalephz Corals, Hood-jellies, Comb-jellies).—Tribe of
Worms.

THE natural system of organisms which we must employ
in the animal as well as in the vegetable kingdom, as a
guide in our genealogical investigations, is in both cases
of but recent origin, and essentially determined by the
progress of comparative anatomy and ontogeny (the history
of individual development) during the present century.
Almost all the attempts at classification made in the last
century followed the path of the artificial system, which
was first established in a consistent manner by Charles

118 THE HISTORY OF CREATION.

Linneus. The artificial system differs essentially from the
natural one, in the fact that it does not make the whole
organization and the internal structure (depending upon the
blood relationship) the basis of classification, but only
employs individual, and for the most part external, charac-
teristics, which readily strike the eye. Thus Linnzus dis-
tinguished his twenty-four classes of the vegetable kingdom
principally by the number, formation, and combination of
the stamens. In like manner he distinguished six classes
in the animal kingdom principally by the nature of the
heart and blood. These six classes were: (1) Mammals;
(2) Birds ; (3) Amphibious Animals ; (4) Fishes ; (5) Insects ;
and (6) Worms.

But these six animal classes of Linnzeus are by no means
of equal value, and it was an important advance when, at
the end of the last century, Lamarck comprised the first
four classes as vertebrate animals (Vertebrata), and put them
in contrast with the remaining animals (the insects and
worms of Linnzeus), of which he made a second main division
—_the invertebrate animals (Invertebrata). In reality Lamarck
thus agreed with Aristotle, the father of Natural History,
who had distinguished these two main groups, and called
the former blood-bearing animals, the latter bloodless
animals.

The next important progress towards a natural system of
the animal kingdom was made some decades later by two
most illustrious zoologists, Carl Ernst Bar and George Cuvier.
As has already been remarked, they established, almost
simultaneously and independently of one another, the pro-
position that it was necessary to distinguish several com-
pletely distinct main groups in the animal kingdom, each of

TYPES IN THE ANIMAL KINGDOM. II9

which possessed an entirely peculiar type or structure (com-
pare above, vol. i. p. 53). In each of these main divisions
there is a tree-shaped and branching gradation from most
simple and imperfect forms to those which are exceedingly
composite and highly developed. The degree of development
within each type is quite independent of the peculiar plan
of structure, which forms the basis of the type and gives it
a special characteristic. The “type” is determined by the
peculiar relations in position of the most important parts of
the body, and the manner in which the organs are connected.
The degree of development, however, is dependent upon the
greater or less division of labour among organs, and on the
differentiation of the plastids and organs. This extremely
important and fruitful idea was established by Bar, who
relied more distinctly and thoroughly upon the history of
individual development than did Cuvier. Cuvier based
his argument upon the results of comparative anatomy.
But neither of them recognized the true cause of the re-
markable relationships pointed out by them, which is first
revealed to us by the Theory of Descent. It shows us that
the common type or plan of structure is determined by in-
heritance, and the degree of development or differentiation
by adaptation. (Gen. Morph. ii. 10).

Both Bar and Cuvier distinguished four different types in
the animal kingdom, and divided it accordingly into four
great main divisions (branches or circles). The first of these
is formed by the vertebrate animals (Vertebrata), and
comprises Linnzeus’ first four classes—mammals, birds,
amphibious animals, and fishes. The second type is formed
by the articulated animals (Articulata), containing Linnzeus’
insects, consequently the six-legged insects, and also the

120 THE HISTORY OF CREATION.

myriopods, spiders, and crustacea, but besides these, a large
number of the worms, especially the rmged worms. The
third main division comprises the molluscous animals
(Mollusca)—slugs, snails, mussels, and some kindred groups.
Finally, the fourth and last circle of the animal kingdom
comprises the various radiated animals (Radiata), which at
first sight differ from the three preceding types by their
radiated, flower-like form of body. For while the bodies of
molluscs, articulated animals, and vertebrated animals consist
of two symmetrical lateral halves—of two counterparts or
antimera, of which the one is the mirror of the other—the
bodies of the so-called radiated animals are composed of
more than two, generally of four, five, or six counterparts
grouped round a common central axis,as in the case of a
flower. However striking this difference may seem at first,
it is, in reality, a very subordinate one, and the radial form
has by no means the same importance in all “radiated
animals.”

The establishment of these natural main groups or types of
the animal kingdom by Bar and Cuvier was the greatest
advance in the classification of animals since the time of
Linneus. The three groups of vertebrated animals, articu-
lated animals, and molluscs are so much in accordance with
nature that they are retained, even at the present day, little
altered in extent. But a more accurate knowledge soon
showed the utterly unnatural character of the group of the
radiated animals. Leuckart, in 1848, first poimted out that
two perfectly distinct types were confounded under the
name, namely, the Star-fishes (Echinoderma)—the sea-stars,
lily encrinites, sea-urchins, and sea-cucumbers ; and, on the
other hand, the Animal-plants, or Zoophytes (Ccelenterata,

THE SEVEN MODERN TYPES. 121

or Zoophyta)—the sponges, corals, hood-jellies, and comb-
jellies. At the same time, Siebold united the Infusoria with
the Rhizopoda, under the name of Protozoa (lowest animals),
into a special main division of the animal kingdom. By
this the number of animal types was increased to six. It
was finally increased to seven by the fact that modern
zoologists separated the main division of the articulated
animals into two groups: (a) those possessing articulated
feet (Arthropoda), corresponding to Linneus’ Insects,
namely, the Flies (with six legs), Myriopods, Spiders, and
Crustacea ; and (b) the footless Worms (Vermes), or those
possessing non-articulated feet. These latter comprise only
the real or genuine Worms (ring-worms, round worms,
planarian worms, etc.), and therefore in no way correspond
with the Worms of Linnzeus, who had included the molluscs,
the radiates, and many other lower animals under this name.
Thus, according to the views of modern zoologists, which
are given in all recent manuals and treatises on zoology,
the animal kingdom is composed of seven completely distinct
main divisions or types, each of which is distinguished by a
characteristic plan of structure peculiar to it, and perfectly
distinct from every one of the others. In the natural system
of the animal kingdom—which I shall now proceed to explain
as its probable pedigree—I shall on the whole agree with
this usual division, but not without some modifications, which
I consider very important in connection with genealogy,
and which are rendered absolutely necessary in consequence
of our view as to the history of the development of animals.
We evidently obtain the greatest amount of information
concerning the pedigree of the animal kingdom (as well as
concerning that of the vegetable kingdom) from comparative

122 THE HISTORY OF CREATION,

anatomy and ontogeny. Besides these, paleontology also
throws much valuable light upon the historical succession of
many of the groups. From numerous facts in comparative
anatomy, we may, in the first place, infer the common origin
of all those animals which belong to one of the seven “ types.”
For in spite of all the variety in the external form developed
within each of these types, the essential relative position
of the parts of the body which determines the type, is
so constant, and agrees so completely in all the members
of every type, that on account of their relations of form
alone we are obliged to unite them, in the natural system,
into a single main group. But we must certainly conclude,
moreover, that this conjunction also has its expression in
the pedigree of the animal kingdom, For the true cause
of the intimate agreement in structure can only be the
actual blood relationship. Hence we may, without further
discussion, lay down the important proposition that all
animals belonging to one and the same circle or type must
be descended from one and the same original primary form.
In other words, the idea of the circle or type, as it is
employed in zoology since Bar and Cuvier’s time to
designate the few principal main groups or “ sub-kingdoms”
of the animal kingdoms, coincides with the idea of “ tribe”
or “ phylum,” as employed by the Theory of Descent.

If, then, we can trace all the varieties of animal forms to
these seven fundamental forms, the following question next
presents itself to us as a second phylogenetic problem—
Where do these seven animal tribes come from? Are they
seven original primary forms of an entirely independent
origin, or are they also distantly related by blood to one
another ¢

Haeckel History of Creaizon. PL.VI.
7\'—Cenolithic (fet eae | </ Back -% : <4
; eee” y) ose fag S17 animals. ft) WN] |
Chalk | (wy Nata) YA Won NN
fee |) NON A ONY x

— Arvona cy Hf We . } i t

+ + /purus, 7 () * - ae

—

Ly

N y) hy Cepas
Wei SPP

RUNG :

SYD

\ i |

5
fa L/

om

Like
S

SLOT kh

S ZB. E ¢ OY
we ae

Palaeolithic Period.
Gp

8
9

vf
SZ
Back.

Archilithic or Primordial Period,

a@

Historical Growth ofthe six great stems of Animals. See tie Explanation. ?

~~~ aere,

3 4528 Dvn fe Fe. Swe

wet lL am sc eget

wy

ont ©

INFERENCES FROM ONTOGENY, I23

At first we might be inclined to answer this question in a
polyphyletic sense, by saying that we must assume, for each
of the seven great animal tribes, at least one independent
primary form completely distinct from the others) On
further considering this difficult problem, we arrive in the
end at the notion of a monophyletic origin of the animal
kingdom, viz., that these seven primary forms are connected
at their lowest roots, and that they are derived from a single,
common primeval form. In the animal as well as in the
vegetable kingdom, when closely and accurately considered,
the monophyletic hypothesis of descent is found to be more
satisfactory than the polyphyletie hypothesis.

It is comparative ontogeny (embryology) which first and
foremost leads to the assumption of the monophyletic origin of
the whole animal kingdom (the Protista excepted of course).
The zoologist who has thoughtfully compared the history of
the individual development of various animals, and has
understood the importance of the biogenetic principle (p. 33),
cannot but be convinced that a common root must be
assumed for the seven different animal tribes, and that all
animals, including man, are derived from a single, common
primary form. The result of the consideration of the facts
of embryology, or ontogeny, is the following genealogical
or phylogenetic hypothesis, which I have put forward and
explained in detail in my “Philosophy of Calcareous
Sponges” (Monograph of the Calcareous Sponges, vol. i.
pp. 464, 465, ete,—“the Theory of the Layers of the
Embryo, and the Pedigree of Animals.”)

The first stage of organic life in the Animal kingdom (as in
the Vegetable and Protista kingdoms) was formed by per-
fectly simple Monera, originating by spontaneous generation.

124 THE HISTORY OF CREATION.

The former existence of this simplest animal form is, even at
present, attested by the fact that the egg-cell of many

animals loses its kernel directly after becoming fructified, -

and thus relapses to the lower stage of development of a
cytod without a kernel, like a Moneron. This remarkable
occurrence I have interpreted, according to the law of latent
inheritance (vol. i. p. 205), as a phylogenetic relapse of the
cellular form into the original form of a cytod. The
Monerula, as we may call this egg-cytod without a kernel,
repeats then, according to the biogenetic principle (vol i. p.
33), the most ancient of all animal forms, the common pri-
mary form of the animal kingdom, namely, the Moneron.
The second ontogenetic process consists in a new kernel
being formed in the Monerula, or egg-cytod, which thus
returns again to the value of a true egg-cell. According to
this, we must look upon the simple animal cell, containing a
kernel, or the single-celled primeval animal—which may
still be seen in a living state in the Amebe of the present
day—as the second step in the series of phylogenetic forms
of the animal kingdom. Like the still living simple
Amcebee, and like the naked ege-cells of many lower
animals (for example, of Sponges and Medusze, ete.), which
cannot be distinguished from them, the remote phyletic
primary Amcebze also were perfectly simple naked-cells,
which moved about in the Laurentian primeval ocean,
creeping by means of the ever-changing processes of their
body-substance, and nourishing and propagating themselves
in the same way as the Amcebee of the present day. (Com-
pare vol. i. p. 188, and vol. ii. p. 54.) The existence of this
Ameceba-like, single-celled primary form of the whole animal
kingdom is unmistakably indicated by the exceedingly im-

Ea ee

THE EARLIEST ANIMALS, 125

portant fact that the egg of all animals, from those of sponges
and worms up to those of the ant and man, is a simple cell.

Thirdly, from the “single-cell” state arose the svmplest
multicellular state, namely, a heap or a small community of
simple, equiformal, and equivalent cells. Even at the present
day, in the ontogenetic development of every animal egg-
cell, there first arises a globular heap of equiformal naked
cells, by the repeated self-division of the primary cell. (Com-
pare vol. i. p. 190 and the Frontispiece, Fig. 3.) We called
this accumulation of cells the mulberry state (Morula),
because it resembles a mulberry or blackberry. This Morula-
body occurs in’ the same simple form in all the different
tribes of animals, and on account of this most important
circumstance we may infer—according to the biogenetic
principle—that the most ancient, many-celled, primary form
of the animal kingdom resembled a Morula like this, and
was in fact a simple heap of Amceba-like primeval cells,
one similar to the other. We shall call this most ancient
community of Amcebe—this most simple accumulation of
animal cells—which is recapitulated in individual develop-
ment by the Morula—-the Synameba.

Out of the Synamcebe, in the early Laurentian period,
there afterwards developed a fourth primary form of the
animal kingdom, which we shall call the ciliated germ
(Planzea). This arose out of the Synamceba by the outer
cells on the surface of the cellular community beginning to
extend vibrating fringes called cilia, and becoming “ ciliated
cells,’ and thus differentiating from the inner and unchanged
cells. The Synamecebee, consisted of completely equi-
formed and naked cells, and crept about slowly, at the
bottom of the Laurentian primeval ocean, by means

126 THE HISTORY OF CREATION.

of movements like those of an Amceba. The Planza,
on the other hand, consisted of two kinds of different
cells—inner ones like the Amcebee, and external “ ciliated
cells.” By the vibrating movements of the cilia the entire
multicellular body acquired a more rapid and stronger
motion, and passed over from the creeping to the swim-
ming mode of locomotion. In exactly the same manner
the Morula, in the ontogenesis of lower animals, still
changes into a ciliated form of larva, which has been
known, since the year 1847, under the name of Planula.
This Planula is sometimes a globular, sometimes an oval
body, which swims about in the water by means of a
vibrating movement; the fringed (ciliated) and smaller cells
of the surface differ from the larger inner cells, which
are unfringed. (Fig. 4 of the Frontispiece.)

Out of this Planula, or fringed larva, there then develops,
in animals of all tribes, an exceedingly important and
interesting animal form, which, in my Monograph of the
Caleareous Sponges, I have named Gastrula (that is, larva
with a stomach or intestine). (Frontispiece, Fig. 5,6). This
Gastrula externally resembles the Planula, but differs es-
sentially from it in the fact that it encloses a cavity which
opens to the outside by a mouth. The cavity is the “pri-
mary intestine,” or “primary stomach,” the progaster, the
first beginning of the alimentary canal; its opening is the
“primary mouth” (prostoma). The wall of the progaster
consists of two layers of cells: an outer layer of smaller
ciliated cells (outer skin, or ectoderm), and of an inner
layer of larger non-ciliated cells (inner skin, or entoderm).
This exceedingly important larval form, the “ Gastrula,”
makes its appearance in the ontogenesis of all tribes of

PARALLELISM OF ONTOGENY AND PHYLOGENY,

Definition of the forms
of the five first stages
of the development of
the animal body,

First Stage of Develop-
ment.

A simple cytod (a
plastid without a ker-
nel.)

Second Stage of Develop-
ment.

A simple cell (a
plastid containing a
kernel.)

Third Stage of Develop-
ment.
A community (an
aggregation of identi-
cal simple cells).

Fourth Stage of Develop-
ment.

A solid or bladder-
shaped, globular, or oval
body, composed of two
kinds of different cells:
externally ciliated, in-
ternally non - ciliated
cells.

Fifth Stage of Develop-
ment,

A globular or oval
body with simple intes.
tinal cavity and mouth.
opening. Body wall com-
posed of two layers; an
externally ciliated ecto-
derm (dermal layer), an
internally non - ciliated
entoderm (gastrallayer),

Ontogenesis.
The five first stages
of the individual de-
velopment.

i
Monerula.
Animal egg without a
kernel (when the ege-
kernel has disappeared,
after being fructified).

a
Ovulum.
Animal egg with ker-
nel (a simple egg-cell).

3.
Morula.
(Mulberry form.)
Globular heap of ho-
mogeneous “ cleavage
spheres.”

4.
Planula.
(Ciliated larva.)
Many - celled larva
without mouth, com-
posed of different cells.

5.
Gastrula.
(Larva with mouth.)
Many-celled with in-
testines and mouth; in-
testinal wall with two
layers.

127

Phylogenesis.
The five first stages
ot the phyletic or his-
torical development.

be
Moneron.
Most ancient animal
Monera, originating by
spontaneous generation.

2.
Ameba.
Animal Amcebs.

3.
Synameba.
An aggregation of
Ameebee.

A,
Planea.
Many-celled prim.
eval animal without
mouth, composed of
two kinds of different
cells.

5.
Gastrea.
Many-celled prim.
zeval animal with intes.
tine and mouth ; intes.
tinal wall with two

layers. (Primary form
of zoophytes and
worms.)

128 THE HISTORY OF CREATION.

animals—in Sponges, Medusz, Corals, Worms, Sea-squirts
Radiated animals, Molluscs, and even in the lowest Ver-
tebrata (Amphioxus: compare p. 200, Plate XII, Fig. B 4;
see also in the same place the Ascidian, Fig. A 4).

From the ontogenetic occurrence of the Gastrula in the
most different animal classes, from Zoophytes up to Ver-
tebrata, we may, according to the bicgenetic principle, safely
draw the conclusion that during the Laurentian period there
existed a common primary form of the six higher anima,
tribes, which in all essential points was formed like the
Gastrula, and which we shall call the Gastrza. This Gestrea
possessed a perfectly simple globular or oval body, which
enclosed a simple cavity of like form, namely, the progaster ;
at one of the poles of the longitudinal axis the primary
intestine opened by a mouth which served for the reception
of nutrition. The body wall (which was also the intestinal
wall) consisted of two layers of cells, the unfringed entoderm,
or intestinal layer, and the fringed ectoderm, or skin-layer ;
by the motion of the cilia or fringes of the latter the
Gastreea swam about freely in the Laurentian ocean. Even
in those higher animals, in the ontogenesis of which the
original Gastrula form has disappeared; according to the laws
of abbreviated inheritance (vol. i. p. 212), the composition
of the Gastreea body has been transmitted to the phase
of development which directly arises out of the Morula.
This phase is an oval or round dise consisting of two cell-
layers or membranes: the outer cell-layer, the animal or
dermal layer (ectoblast), corresponds to the ectoderm of
the Gastrea; out of it develops the external, loose skin
(epidermis), with its glands and appendages, as well as
the central nervous system. The inner cell-layer, the

THE GASTRAADA. I29

vegetative or intestinal layer (hypoblast), is originally the
entoderm of the Gastrea; out of it develops the inner
membrane (epithelium) of the intestinal canal and its glands.
(Compare my Monograph of the Calcareous Sponges, vol. i.
p. 466, etc.)

By ontogeny we have already gained five primordial
stages of development of the animal kingdom: (1) the
Moneron; (2) the Amceba; (3) the Synamceba; (4) the
Planza; and (5) the Gastrea. The former existence of
these five oldest primary forms, which succeeded one another,
and which must have lived in the Laurentian period, follows
as a consequence of the biogenetic principle ; that is to say,
from the parallelism and the mechanico-causal connection of
ontogenesis and phylogenesis. (Compare vol. i. p. 309.) In our
genealogical system of the animal kingdom we may class
all these animal forms, long since extinct, and, which on
account of the soft nature of their bodies could leave no
fossil remains, among the tribe of Primeval animals
(Protozoa), which also comprises the still living Infusoria
and Gregarinee.

The phyletic development of the six higher animal tribes,
which are all derived from the Gastrea, deviated at this
point in two directions. In other words, the Gastrwads
(as we may call the group of forms characterized by the
Gastreea-type of structure), divided into two divergent
lines or branches; the one branch of Gastreads gave up
free locomotion, adhered to the bottom of the sea, and thus,
by adopting an adhesive mode of life, gave rise to the Pro-
tascus, the common primary form of the Animal-plants
(Zoophyta). The other branch of the Gastrzads retained
free locomotion, did not become adherent and later on

130 THE HISTORY OF CREATION,

developed into the Prothelmis, the common primary form
of Worms (Vermes). (Compare p. 133.)

This latter tribe (as limited by modern zoology) is of the
greatest interest in the study of genealogy. For among
Worms, as we shall see later, there are, besides very nume-
rous peculiar families, and besides many independent
classes, also very remarkable forms, which may be con-
sidered as forms of direct transition to the four higher
animal tribes. Both comparative anatomy and the on-
togeny of these worms enable us to recognize in them
the nearest blood relations of those extinct animal forms
which were the original primary forms of the four higher
animal tribes. Hence these latter, the Molluscs, Star-fishes,
Articulated animals, and Vertebrate animals, do not stand
in any close blood relationship to one another, but have
originated independently in four different places out of the
tribe of Worms.

In, this way comparative anatomy and phylogeny lead us
to the monophyletic pedigree of the animal kingdom, the
outlines of which are given on p. 133. According to it the
seven phyla, or tribes, of the animal kingdom are of different
value in regard to genealogy. The original primary group
of the whole animal kingdom is formed by the Primeval
animals (Protozoa), including the Infusoria and Gastreeads.
Out of these latter arose the two tribes of Animal-plants
(Zoophyta) and Worms as diverging branches. Out of four
different groups of the Worm tribe, the four higher tribes
of the animal kingdom were developed — the Star-fishes
(Echinoderma) and Insects (Arthropoda) on the one hand,
and the Molluses (Mollusca) and Vertebrated animals
(Vertebrata) on the other.

THE CLASSES OF ANIMALS. 13!

Having thus sketched out the monophyletic pedigree of
the animal kingdom in its most important features, we must
now turn to a closer examination of the historical course of
development which the seven tribes of the animal kingdom,
and the classes distinguished in them, have passed through
(p. 132). There is a much larger number of classes in
the animal than in the vegetable kingdom, owing to the
simple reason that the animal body, in consequence of its
more varied and perfect vital activity, could differentiate
and develope in very many more different directions than
could the vegetable body. Thus, while we were able te
divide the whole vegetable kingdom into six main classes
and nineteen classes, we have to distinguish, at least, sixteen
main classes and thirty-eight classes in the animal kingdom.
These are distributed among the seven different tribes of the
animal kingdom in the way shown in the Systematic Survey
on pages 152 and 133.

The group of Primeval animals (Protozoa) within the
compass which we here assign to this tribe, comprises the
most ancient and the simplest primary forms of the animal
kingdom; for example, the five oldest phyletic stages of
development previously mentioned, and besides these the
Infusoria and Gregarinz, as well as all those imperfect
animal forms, for which, on account of their simple and in-
different organization, no place can be found in any of the
other six animal tribes. Most zoologists, in addition to these,
include among the Protozoa a larger or smaller portion of
those lowest organisms, which we mentioned in our neutral
kinedom of Protista (in Chapter XVI). But these Protista,
especially the large division of the Rhizopoda, which are so
rich in forms, cannot be considered as real animals for

132

SYSTEMATIC SURVEY
Of the 16 Main Classes and 38 Classes of the Animal Kingdom.

THE HISTORY OF CREATION.

5 Main Classes
Ti = or a hyla | Branches or Clades ‘Gua
Animal Kingdom.| 4; Sh) King ee Animal Kingdom.

A.
Drimabal I. ea >
Animals nee a 3
II, Mulberry animal
z0a ; y mals :
Protozo Blastularia { 5.
B. III. Sponges { 6
Animal Spongice :
IBlants IV. Sea-nettles 8
Zoophyta Acalephe y
V. Bloodlessworms $ 10.
C. Acalomi
1
Otiorms VI. Blood-bearing [ 12
worms 13
Vermes Cealomati 14
15
16
“17
D VII. Headless shell-
iH fish 19.
A olluses Acephala
VIII. Head-bearing ¢ 20,
Mollusca Eucephala r 1 21.
BR. IX. Ringed-arms
% tar-fish os Colobrachia i 23.
- X. Armless 24.
Hehinoderms, teen |
FB. XI. Gill-breathers { 26
Articulated Carides
Animals —) x1, Tube-breathers | 54°
Arthropoda Tracheata 29,
XIII, Skull-less
Acrania { 30.
G. DV. Sng nos- { .
rile if
Dertebrate Monorrhina
Animals hy ailiok 4 M 32
, Amnion-less :
Vertebrata Anamnia | 34.
30
* XVI. Amnion-_ {36
bearing 37
Amniota 38

Archaic animals

. Gregarines
. Infusoria

Planzads
Gastreads

. Sponges

. Corals
. Hood-jellies
. Comb-jellies

Planary worms

. Round worms

. Moss-polyps

. Sac- worms

. Proboscideans
. Star-worms

. Wheel animal-

cules

. Ring-worms

18. Lamp-shells

Mussels

Snails
Cuttles

22. Sea-stars

Lily -stars

Sea-urchins
Sea-cucumbers

Crab-fish

Spiders
Centipedes
Flies

Lancelets

Lampreys

. Fishes
. Mud-fish

Sea-dragons

. Amphibians

. Reptiles
. Birds
. Mammals.

Systematic Name
of the
Classes.

. Archezoa
. Gregarine

Infusoria

Planzadas
Gastreadas

Porifera

. Coralla
. Hydromeduse
. Ctenophora

. Platyhelminthes

. Nemathelminthes
. Bryozoa

. Tunicata

. Rhynchocela

. Gephyrea

. Rotatoria

Annelida

. Spirobranchia

Lamellibranchia

. Cochlides

Cephalopoda

. Asterida
. Crinoida

. Echinida
. Holothuriz

. Crustacea
. Arachnida

. Myriopoda
. Insecta

. Leptocardia

. Cyclostoma

. Pisces

. Dipneusta
. Halisauria
. Amphibia

. Reptilia

Aves

38. Mammalia

MONOPHYLETIC PEDIGREE OF ANIMALS, 133

Vertebrata
(Vertebrated animals)
Craniota
Arthropoda Mollusca
: (Articulated Animals) (Molluscs)
Echinoderma Tracheata Eucephala
(Star-jishes) |
Lipobrachia Crustacea Acrania
Annelida | Tunicata Acephala
Colobrachia eons
Gephyrea Rotatoria bere set
| Vermes
(Worms)
C@.Lomat!
(Worms with a body-cavity)
Platyhelminthes
Zoophyta THis ica
(Animal Plants) Acelomi
Spongize Acalephs (Worms without body-cavity)
Protascus Prothelmis
Pere parks cia! |
Protozoa.
(Primeval animals)
ee ne a ae ae
GastTR#A
Infasoria
PLANEA Gregarinse
SYNAM@BE ee
WM _-_- —-—--——"
AM@BE

MONERA

134 THE HISTORY OF CREATION,

reasons previously given. Hence, if we here leave them out
of the question, we may accept two main classes or provinces
of real Protozoa, namely, Egg animals (Ovularia) and Germ.
animals (Blastularia). To the former belong the three
classes of Archezoa, Gregarine, and Infusoria, to the latter
the two classes of Planzeads and Gastrzeads.

The first province of the Protozoa consists of the Egg
animals (Ovularia); we include among them all single-
celled animals, all animals whose body, in the fully
developed state, possesses the form-value of a simple
plastid (of a cytod or a cell), also those simple animal forms
whose body consists of an aggregation of several cells per-
fectly similar one to another.

The Archaic animals (Archezoa) form the first class
in the series of Egg animals. It contains only the most
simple and most ancient primary forms of the animal
kingdom, whose former existence we have proved by means
of the fundamental law of biogenesis; they are, (1) Animal
Monera ; (2) Animal Amcebze ; (3) Animal Synamcebze. We
may, if we choose, include among them a portion of the
still living Monera and Amcebx, but another portion (ac-
cording to the discussion in Chapter XVI.) must on account
of their neutral nature be considered as Protista, and a third
portion, on account of their vegetable nature, must be con-
sidered as plants.

A second class of the egg animals consists of the Grega-
rines (Gregarinz), which live as parasites in the intestines
and, body-cavities of many animals. Some of these Grega-
rines are perfectly simple cells like the Amcebze ; some form
chains of two or three identical cells, one lying behind the
other. They differ from the naked Amcebz by possessing

CLASSES OF EGG-ANIMALS, 135

_ a thick, simple membrane, which surrounds their cell-body ;
they can be considered as animal Amcebe which have
adopted a parasitical mode of life, and in consequence have
surrounded themselves with a secreted covering. .

As a third class of egg animals, we adopt the real
Infusoria (Infusoria), embracing those forms to which
modern zoology almost universally limits this class of
animals. The principal portion of them consists of the
small ciliated Infusoria (Ciliata), which inhabit all the fresh
and salt waters of the earth in great numbers, and which
swim about by means of a delicate garb of vibratile fringes.
A second and smaller division consists of the adherent
sucking Infusoria (Acinetze), which take their food by means
of fine sucking-tubes. Although during the last thirty
years numerous and very careful investigations have been
made on these small animalcules,——which are mostly in-
visible to the naked eye,—still we are even now not very
sure about their development and form-value. We do not
even yet know whether the Infusoria are single or many-
celled ; but as no investigator has as yet proved their body to
be a combination of cells, we are, in the mean time, justified
in considering them as single-celled, like the Gregarines and

the Amcebe.

The second main class of primeval animals consists of the
Germ anvmals (Blastularia). This name we give to those
extinct Protozoa which correspond to the two ontogenetic
embryonic forms of the six higher animal tribes, namely, the
Planula and the Gastrula. The body of these Blastularia, in a
perfectly developed state, was composed of many cells, and
these cells moreover differentiated—in two ways at least—
into an external (animal or dermal) and an_ internal

136 THE HISTORY OF CREATION,

(vegetative or gastral) mass. Whether there still exist _
representatives of this group is uncertam. Their former
existence is undoubtedly proved by the two exceedingly
important ontogenetic animal forms which we have already
described as Planula and Gastrula, and which still occur as a
transient stage of development in the ontogeny of the most
different tribes of animals. Corresponding to these, we may,
according to the biogenetic principle, assume the former
existence of two distinct classes of Blastularia, namely, the
Planeada and Gastreada. The type of the Planeada is
the Planwa—long since extinct—but whose historical por-
trait is still presented to us at the present day in the widely
distributed ciliated larva (Planula). (Frontispiece, Fig. 4.)
The type of the Gastrwada is the Gastrewa, of whose
original nature the mouth-and-stomach larva (Gastrula),
which recurs in the most different animal tribes, still gives
a faithful representation. (Frontispiece Fig. 5,6.) Out of the
Gastrea, as we have previously mentioned, there were at
one time developed two different primary forms, the Pro-
tascus and Prothelmis; the former must be looked upon as
the primary form of the Zoophytes, the latter as the primary
form of Worms. (Compare the enunciation of this hypothesis
in my Monograph of the Caleareous Sponges, vol.i. p. 464.)
The Animal-plants (Zoophyta, or Coelenterata) which con-
stitute the second tribe of the animal kingdom, rise con-
siderably above the primitive animals in the characters of
their whole organisation, while they remain far below most
of the higher animals. For in the latter (with the excep-
tion only of the lowest forms) the four distinct functions of
nutrition—namely, digestion, circulation of the blood,
respiration, and excretion—are universally accomplished by

THE ANIMAL-PLANTS, 137

four perfectly different systems of organs; by the intestines,
the vascular system, the organs of respiration, and the
urinary apparatus. In Zoophytes, however, these functions
and their organs are not yet separate, and are all performed
by a single system of alimentary canals, by the so-called
gastro-vascular system, or the ccelenteric apparatus of the
intestinal cavity. The mouth, which is also the anus, leads
into a stomach, into which the other cavities of the body also
open. In Zoophytes the body-cavity, or “cceloma,” possessed
by the four higher tribes of animals is still completely
wanting, likewise the vascular system and blood, as also the
organs of respiration, ete.

All Zoophytes live in water; most of them in the sea, only
a very few in fresh water, such as fresh-water sponges
(Spongilla) and some primeval polyps (Hydra, Cordylo-
phora). A specimen of the pretty flower-like forms which
are met with in great variety among Zoophytes is given on
Plate VII. (Compare its explanation in the Appendix.)

The tribe of animal-plants, or Zoophytes, is divided into
two distinct provinces, the Sponges, or Spongie, and the Sea-
nettles, or Acalephe (p. 144). The latter are much richer
in forms and more highly organized than the former. In all
Sponges the entire body, as well as the individual organs,
are differentiated and perfected to a much less extent than
in Sea-netiles. All Sponges lack the characteristic nettle-
organs which all Sea-nettles possess.

The common primary form of all Zoophytes must be
looked for in the Protascus, an animal form long since
extinct, but whose existence is proved according to the
biogenetic principle by the Ascula. This Ascula is an

ontogenetical development form which, in Sponges as well
24

138 THE HISTORY OF CREATION,

as in Sea-nettles, proceeds from the Gastrula. (Compare the
Ascula of the calcareous sponge on the Frontispiece, Fig 7, 8.)
For after the Gastrula of zoophytes has for a time swum
about in the water it sinks to the bottom, and there adheres
by that pole of its axis which is opposite to the opening of
the mouth. The external cells of the ectoderm draw in
their vibrating, ciliary hairs, whereas, on the contrary, the
inner cells of the entoderm begin to form them. Thus the
Ascula, as we call this changed form of larva, is a simple
sack, its cavity (the cavity of the stomach or intestine)
opening by a mouth externally, at the upper pole of the
longitudinal axis (opposite the basal point of fixture). The
entire body is here in a certain sense a mere stomach or
intestinal canal, as in the case of the Gastrula. The wall of
the sack, which is both body wall and intestinal wall, con-
sists of two layers or coats of cells, a fringed entoderm,
or gastral layer (corresponding with the inner or vegeta-
tive germ-layer of the higher animals), and an unfringed
exoderm or dermal layer (corresponding with the external
or animal germ-layer of the higher animals). The original
Protascus, a true likeness of which is still furnished by
the Ascula, probably formed egg-cells and sperm-cells out
of its gastral layer.

The Protascads—as we will eal the most ancient group
of vegetable animals, represented by the Protascus-type—
divided into two lines or branches, the Spongiz and the
Sea-nettles, or Acalephz. I have shown in my Monograph
of the Calcareous Sponges (vol. i. p. 485) how closely these
two main classes of Zoophytes are related, and how they
must both be derived, as two diverging forms, from the
Protascus-form. ‘The primary form of Spongize, which I

THE SPONGES. | 139

have there called Archispongia, arose out of the Protascus
by the formation of pores through its body-wall; the
primary form of Sea-nettles, which I there called Archydra,
developed out of the Protascus by the formation of nettle-
organs, as also by the formation of feelers or tentacles.

The main-class or branch of the Sponges, Spongie, or
Porvfera, lives in the sea, with the single exception of the
green fresh-water Sponge (Spongilla). These animals were
long considered as plants, later as Protista; in most
Manuals they are still classed among the primeeval animals,
or Protozoa. But since I have demonstrated their develop-
ment out of the Gastrula, and the construction of their
bodies of two cellular germ-layers (as in all higher animals),
their close relationship to Sea-nettles, and especially to the
Hydrapolyps, seems finally to be established. The Olynthus
especially, which I consider as the common primary form of
calcareous sponges, has thrown a complete and unmistak-
able light upon this point.

The numerous forms comprised in the class of Spongise
have as yet been but little examined; they may be divided
into three legions and eight orders. The first legion consists
of the soft, gelatinous Mucous Sponges (Myxospongie),
which are characterized by the absence of any hard
skeleton. Among them are, on the one hand, the long-since-
extinct primary forms of the whole class, the type of which
I consider to be the Archispongia; on the other hand there
are the still living, gelatinous sponges, of which the Halisarca
is best known. We can obtaina notion of the Archispongia,
the most ancient primeval sponge, if we imagine the
Olynthus (see Frontispiece), to be deprived of its radiating
calcareous spiculz.

140 THE HISTORY OF CREATION,

The second legion of Spongiz contains the Fibrous
Sponges (Fibrospongiz), the soft body of which is supported
by a firm, fibrous skeleton. This fibrous skeleton often
consists merely of so-called “horny fibres,” formed of a very
elastic, not readily destructible, organic substance. This is
the case for instance in our common bathing Sponge
(Euspongia officinalis), the purified skeleton of which we
use every morning when washing. Blended with the
horny, fibrous skeleton of many of these Sponges, there
are numerous flinty spicula; this is the case for example
with the fresh-water Sponge (Spongilla). In others the
whole skeleton consists of only calcareous or silicious spicula
which are frequently interwoven into an extremely beautiful
lattice-work, as in the celebrated Venus’ Flower Basket
(Euplectella). Three orders of fibrous sponges may be
distinguished according to the different formation of the
spicula, namely, Chalynthina, Geodina, and Hexactinella.
The natural history of the fibrous sponges is of especial
interest to the Theory of Descent, as was first shown by Oscar
Schmidt, the greatest authority on this group of animals.
In no other group, perhaps, can the unlimited pliability of
the specific form, and its relation to Adaptation and Inherit-
ance, be so clearly followed step by step; perhaps in no
other group is the species so difficult to limit and define.

This proposition, which applies to the great legion of the
Fibrous Sponges, applies in a still higher degree to the.
smaller but exceedingly interesting legion of the calcareous
sponges (Calcispongize), on which in 1872, after five years’
careful examination, I published a comprehensive Mono-
graph. The sixty plates of figures accompanying this Mono-
graph explain the extreme pliability of these small sponges

PL Vil.

is

lacekel de

B
rt

E

bal J

Saari ( a ) ¥ .)
pier ) 4) ‘ ti Cais pe a AY Pee
Par [yy ia) iA 4 4
yar Webi Dh Alet hp a RAM mea Paley te re eV OAN
‘ 5 Us ‘ ar
i +

ey ‘
Fi \ :
it Be :
;
ai
i CA saat
i
‘
i cy
WT |
|
se
‘
‘
a)
:
«
j
‘
,
' a ‘ ‘
wal
: 4 -
: ‘
iy a ‘
* | ’
.
‘
‘ . /
’
-
'
os
:
4 4
t | f
ui *
Dp?
7 4 ‘
‘
:
*
‘ ‘
a ‘ t
@ a
yet ‘ ‘
ole '
¥
”* 9 U /
eieur ‘
up i ‘
be veh 4
rttPel u
¢
‘ Var . ,
LP |
tie
a
' L/ *
.
is *
x ey ee
; a. (
:
‘
-
ue
-
‘
. «
Q :
ww i
’ ‘
’ ’ f,
: ‘i 4 he aks
LS 4 / '
a
" 1¥
j f
14 4 .
i
j
ou
a
? oe
.

THE CALCAREOUS SPONGES, Iq!

“ good species” of which, in fact, cannot be spoken of in the
usual systematic sense. We find among them only varying
series of forms, which do not even completely transmit their
specific form to their nearest descendants, but by adaptation
to subordinate, external conditions of existence, perpetually
change. It frequently occurs here, that there arise out of
one and the same stock different form-species, which accord-

ing to the usual system would belong to several quite distinct

genera; this is the case, for instance, with the remarkable
Ascometra (Frontispiece, Fig. 10.) The entire external bodily
form is much more pliable and protean in Calcareous Sponges
than in the silicious sponges, which are characterized by
possessing silicious spicula, forming a beautiful skeleton.
Through the study of the comparative anatomy and ontogeny
of calcareous sponges, we can recognise, with the greatest
certainty, the common primary form of the whole group,
namely, the sack-shaped Olynthus, whose development is
represented in the Frontispiece (compare its explanation in
the Appendix). Out of the Olynthus (Fig. 9 on the Frontis-
piece), the order of the Ascones was the first to develop, out
of which, at a later period, the two other orders of Cal-
careous Sponges, the Leucones and Sycones, arose as diverg-
ing branches. Within these orders, the descent of the
individual] forms can again be followed step by step. Thus
the Calcareous Sponges in every respect confirm the pro-
position which [ have elsewhere maintained: that “the
natural history of sponges forms a connected and striking
argument in favour of Darwin.”

The second main class or branch in the tribe of Zoophytes
is formed by the Sea-nettles (Acalephe, or Cnide). This
interesting group of animals, so rich in forms, is composed

I42 THE HISTORY OF CREATION,

of three different classes, namely, the Hood-jellies (Hydro-
medusz), the Comb-jellies (Ctenophora), and the Corals
(Coralla). The hypothetical, extinct Archydra must be
looked upon as the common primary form of the whole
group; it has left two near relations in the still living
fresh-water polyps (Hydra and Cordylophora). The
Archydra was very closely related to the simplest forms
of Spongiz (Archispongia and Olynthus), and probably
differed from them only by possessing nettle organs, and
by the absence of cutaneous pores. Out of the Archydra
there first developed the different Hydroid polyps, some
of which became the primary forms of Corals, others the
primary forms of Hydromeduse. The Ctenophora de-
veloped later out of a branch of the latter.

The Sea-nettles differ from the Spongiz (with which
they agree in the characteristic formation of the system of
the alimentary canal) principally by the constant posses-
sion of nettle organs. These are small bladders filled with
poison, large numbers—generally millions—of which are
dispersed over the skin of the sea nettles, and which burst
and empty their contents when touched. Small animals
are killed by this; in larger animals this nettle poison
causes a slight inflammation of the skin, just as does the
poison of our common nettles. Any one who has often
bathed in the sea, will probably have at times come in con-
tact with large Hood-jellies (Jelly-fish), and become ac-
quainted with the unpleasant burning feeling which their
nettle organs can produce. The poison in the splendid blue
Jelly-fish, Physalia, or Portuguese Man-of-war, acts so
powerfully that it may lead to the death of a human being.

The class of Corals (Coralla) lives exclusively in the sea,

THE FLOWER-ANIMALS, 143

and is more especially represented in the warm seas by an
abundance of beautiful and highly-coloured forms like
flowers. Hence they are also called Flower-animals
(Anthozoa). Most of them are attached to the bottom
of the sea, and contain an internal calcareous skeleton.
Many of them by continued growth produce such im-
mense stocks that their calcareous skeletons have formed
the foundation of whole islands, as is the case with the
celebrated coral reefs and atolls of the South Seas, the re-
markable forms of which were first explained by Darwin.”
In corals the counterparts, or antimera—that is, the cor-
responding divisions of the body which radiate from and
surround the central main axis of the body—exist some-
times to the number of four, sometimes to the number of
six or eight. According to this we distinguish three legions,
the Fourfold (Tetracoralla), Sixfold (Hexacoralla), and Hight-
fold corals (Octocoralla), The fourfold corals form the
common primary group of the class, out of which the six-
fold and eightfold have developed as two diverging branches.

The second class of Sea-nettles is formed by the Hood- —
jellies (Medusze) or Polyp-jellies (Hydromedusz). While
most corals form stocks like plants, and are attached to
the bottom of the sea, the Hood-jellies generally swim about
freely in the form of gelatinous bells. There are, however,
numbers of them, especially the lower forms, which adhere
to the bottom of the sea, and resemble pretty little trees.
The lowest and simplest members of this class are the
little fresh-water polyps (Hydra and Cordylophora). We
may look upon them as but little changed descendants of
those Primeval polyps (Archydre), from which, during the
primordial period, the whole division of the Sea-nettles

144

Classes of the
Zoophytes.

z.
Sponges
Spongie

or
Porifera

II.

Corals

Coralla
or
Authozoa

ate.
Iellv-polvps
Hydromeduse
or
WH oov-jellies
Medusa

IV.

Comb-jellies
Ctenophora

THE HISTORY OF CREATION,

SYSTEMATIC SURVEY
Of the 4 Classes and 30 Orders of the Animal Plants, or Zoophytes.

Legions of the | Orders of the
Zoophytes. Zoophytes,
I. Myxospongize ; a
Mucous Sponges 2. Halisarcina
II. Fibrospongie { 3° Ghalynthina
Fibrous Sponges 5. Hexactinella
III. Calcispongize % prec, 2
Calcareous Sponges 8. Sycones
IV. Tetracoralla ; 9. Rugosa
Fourfold Corals 10, Paranemeta
V. Hexacoralla ( me sap eae
Siafold Corals | 43" Hratirhoda
VI. Octocoralla a ai ad
Eightfold Corals 16, Pe fis iida
VII. Archydree \ ‘3
Primeval Polyps 17. Hy ee
VIIL. Leptomeduse ei tite
ae 20. Siphonophora
21. Marsiporchida
ce ae 22. Phyllorchida
adele G8) 23. Elasmorchida
X. Calycozoa +s
Stalked Jellies sincoasy ao
XI. Discomedusza ee Semseostomeze
Disc-jellies 26. Rhizostomeze
XII. Eurystoma ;
Wide-nouthed A; 21 Pere
28. Saccata
XIII. Stenostoma 29. Lobata
Narrow-mouthed 30, Toeniata

A Genus Name
as example.

. Archispongina| Archispongia

Halisarca

Spongilla
Ancorina
Euplectella

Olynthus
Dyssycus
Sycurus

Cyathophyllum
Cereanthus

Antipathes
Astrea
Actinia

Lobularia
Isis
Veretillum

Hydra

Sertularia
Tubularia
Physophora

Trachynema
Geryonia
Charybdz

Lucernaria

Aurelia
Crambessa

Beroe

Cydippe
Eucharias
Cestum

Ss

PEDIGREE OF ZOOPHYTES, 145

Ctenophora Hydromedusss
Tceniata Lobata Bhizostomez
UY Semzeostomesa
Saccata DISCcOMEDUSZ
STENOSTOMA
Trachymedusx Siphonophora
Lucernaria
EurystoMa Calycozoa

ee
LEPTOMEDUSE
Coralla
Octocoralla
Hexacoralla

Tetracoralla
Spongia
Fibrospongize Calcispongize
Chalynthina Leucones Sycones

Hexactinella|Geodina Dyssycus Sycurus Hydroida

| | Cordylophora
Hydra
)
Ascones |
Myxospongia Se
Halisarcina HyYDROIDA
Procorallum
CHALYNTHUS OLYNTHUS |
ee FY
Hydroida
Archispongiz
Archydra
(nin pe aie

Protascus

Gastrea

146 THE HISTORY OF CREATION.

originated. Scarcely distinguishable from the Hydra are the
adherent Hydroid polyps (Campanularia, Tubularia), which
produce freely swimming medusze by budding, and out
of the eggs of these there again arise adherent polyps.
These freely swimming Hood-jellies are mostly of the form
of a mushroom, or of an umbrella, from the rim of which
many long and delicate tentacles hang. They are among the
most beautiful and most interesting inhabitants of the sea.
The remarkable history of their lives, and especially the
complicated alternation of generation of polyps and me-
dusze, are among the strongest proofs of the truth of the
theory of descent. For just as Medusz still daily arise out
of the Hydroids, did the freely swimming medusa-form
originally proceed, phylogenetically, out of the adherent
polyp-form. Equally important for the theory of descent is
the remarkable division of labour of the individuals, which
among some of them is developed to an astonishingly high
degree, more especially in the splendid Siphonophora.™
(Plate VII. Fig. 13).

The third class of Sea-nettles—the peculiar division of
Comb-jellies (Ctenophora), probably developed out of a
branch of the Hood-jellies. The Ctenophora, which are also
called Ribbed-jellies, possess a body of the form of a cu-
eumber, which, like the body of most Hood-jellies, is as clear
and transparent as crystal or cut glass. Comb or Ribbed-
jellies are characterized by their peculiar organs of motion,
namely, by eight rows of paddling, ciliated leaflets, which run
in the form of eight ribs from one end of the longitudinal axis
(from the mouth) to the opposite end. Those with narrow
mouths (Stenostoma) probably developed later out of those
with wide mouths (Eurystoma). (Compare Plate VII. Fig. 16.)

THE WORMS. 147

The third tribe of the animal kingdom, the phylum of
Worms or worm-like animals (Vermes, or Helminthes), con-
tains a number of diverging branches. Some of these
numerous branches have developed into well-marked and
perfectly independent classes of Worms, but others changed
long since into the original, radical forms of the four higher
tribes of animals. Each of these four higher tribes (and
likewise the tribe of Zoophytes) we may picture to ourselves
in the form of a lofty tree, whose branches represent the
different classes, orders, families, etc. The phylum of Worms,
on the other hand, we have to conceive as a low bush or
shrub, out of whose root a mass of independent branches
shoot up in different directions. From this densely
branched shrub, most of the branches of which are dead,
there rise four high stems with many branches. These
are the four lofty trees just mentioned as representing the
higher phyla—the Echinoderma, Articulata, Mollusca, and
Vertebrata. These four stems are directly connected with
one another at the root only, to wit, by the common primary
group of the Worm tribe.

The extraordinary difficulties which the systematic ar-
rangement of Worms presents, for this reason merely, are
still more increased by the fact that we do not possess any
fossil remains of them. Most of the Worms had and still
have such soft bodies that they could not leave any
characteristic traces in the neptunic strata of the earth.
Hence in this case again we are entirely confined to the
records of creation furnished by ontogeny and comparative
anatomy. In making then the exceedingly difficult at-
tempt to throw a few hypothetical rays of light upon the
obscurity of the pedigree of Worms, I must therefore

148 THE HISTORY OF CREATION.

expressly remark that this sketch, like all similar attempts
possesses only a provisional value.

The numerous classes distinguished in the tribe of Worms,
and which almost every zoologist groups and defines accord-
ing to his own personal views, are, in the first place, divided
into two essentially different groups or branches, which in
my Monograph of the Calcareous Sponges I have termed
Accelomi and Coelomati. For all the lower Worms which
are comprised in the class of Flat-worms (Platyhelminthes),
(the Gliding-worms, Sucker-worms, Tape-worms), differ very
strikingly from other Worms, in the fact that they possess
neither blood nor body-cavity (no ecelome) ; they are, there-
fore, called Accelomi. The true cavity, or ccelome, is com-
pletely absent in them as in all the Zoophytes ; in this im-
portant respect the two groups are directly allied. But all
other Worms (like the four higher tribes of animals) possess
a genuine body-cavity and a vascular system connected with
it, which is filled with blood ; hence we class them together
as Colomatt.

The main division of Bloodless Worms (Accelomi) con-
tains, according to our phylogenetic views, besides the still
living Flat-worms, the unknown and extinct primary
forms of the whole tribe of Worms, which we shall call the
Primeval Worms (Archelminthes). The type of these
Primeval Worms, the ancient Prothelmis, may be directly
derived from the Gastrea (p. 133). Even at present the
Gastrula-form — the faithful historical portrait of the
Gastrzea—recurs in the ontogenesis of the most different
kinds of worms as a transient larva-form. The ciliated
Gliding-worms (Turbellaria), the primary group of the
present Planary or Flat-worms (Platyhelminthes), are the

THE WORMS. 149

nearest akin to the Primzval Worms, The parasitical
Sucker-worms (Trematoda) arose out of the Gliding-worms,
which live freely in water, by adaptation to a parasitical
mode of life; and out of them later on—by an increasing
parasitism—arose the Tape-worms (Cestoda).

Out of a branch of the Accelomi arose the second main
division of the Worm tribe, the Worms with blood and
body-cavity (Ccelomati): of these there are seven different
classes.

The Pedigree on p. 151 shows how the obscure phylogeny
of the seven classes of Ccelomati may be supposed to stand.
We shall, however, mention these classes here quite briefly,
as their relationships and derivation are, at present, still
very complicated and obscure. More numerous and more
accurate investigations of the ontogeny of the different
Ceelomati will at some future time throw light upon their
phylogenesis.

The Round Worms (Nemathelminthes) which we mention
as the first class of the Ccelomati, and which are character-
ized by their cylindrical form, consist principally of para-
sitical Worms which live in the interior of other animals.
Of human parasites, the celebrated Trichine, the Maw-
worms, Whip-worms, etc., for example, belong to them. The
Star-worms (Gephyrea) which live exclusively in the sea are
allied to round worms, and the comprehensive class of Ring-
worms (Annelida) are allied to the former. To the Ring-
worms, whose long body is composed of a number of seg-
ments, all alike in structure, belong the Leeches (Hirudinea),
Earth-worms (Lumbricina), and all the marine bristle-footed
Worms (Chzetopoda). Nearly akin to them are the Snout-
worms (Rhynchoccela), and the small microscopic Wheel-

150

THE HISTORY OF CREATION.

SYSTEMATIC SURVEY

Of the 8 Classes and 22 Orders of the Worm Tribe.
(Compare Gen. Morph. II. Plate V. pp. 75-77.)

Classes Orders of the a Name of a Gen
Worm Tribe ee Orders af Worms. ao ceample.
1. Flat 1. Primzeval worms 1. Archelminthes Prothelmis
; Worms 2. Gliding-worms 2. Turbellaria Planaria
Swen 3. Sucker-worms 3. Trematoda Distoma
pee ee Tape-worms 4. Cestoda Tenia
2. Round 5. Arrow-worms 5. Cheetognatha Sagitta
Worms } 6. Thread-worms 6. Nematoda Trichina
aresec an 7. Hook-headed 7. Acanthocephala | Echinorhynchus
worms
3. Moss 8. Horse-shoe-lipped 8. Lophopoda Alcyonella
ae con J 9. Circle-lipped 9. Stelmopoda Retepora
eee 0. Sea-squirts 10. Ascidia Phallusia
Tunicata | 11. Sea-barrels 11. Thaliacea Salpa
5. Probos-
cideans | 12. Tongue-worms 12. Enteropneusta Balanoglossus
Rhyncho- { 13. Cord-worms 13. Nemertina Borlasia
cela
6. Star. 14. Star-worms with- | 14. Sipunculida Sipunculus
ee out bristles
Gephyrea | 15. Star-worms with | 15. Echiurida Echiurus
bristles
7. Wheel
Animatele| 16. Wheel-worms 16. Rotatoria Hydatina
Rotifera ;
17. Bear-worms 17. Arctisca Macrobiotus
18. Worms with claws | 18. Onychophora Peripatus
8. Ring 19. Leeches 19. Hirudinea Hirudo
a lst 20. Land-worms 20. Drilomorpha Lumbricus
mnenc® | 21. Mailed worms 21. Phracthelminthes| Crossopodia
22. Bristle-footed 22. Chactopoda Aphrodite

worms

PEDIGREE OF WORMS, I5!I

Chzetopoda
rine a
Phracthelminthes
Echiurida Hirudinea
Sipunculida Onychophora
a Arctisca
Gephyrea
———"
Cheetognatha ————— |
——
Nematoda |
Annelida
Acantho-
cephala |Stelmopoda
Enteropnenusta

——__—[Lophopoda Ascidia
Nemathelminthes| Bryozoa Thalicea Nemertina
Rotifera —_—
Rhynchocela

| | Tunicata
oS ee
Coelomati (worms with body-cavity)
Cestoda
Trematoda

Turbellaria
Platyhelminthes

Acclomi (worms without body-cavity)

Archelminthes
Prothelmis

Gastrea

152 THE HISTORY OF CREATION.

worms (Rotifera). The unknown, extinct, primary forms
of the tribe of Sea-stars (Echinoderma), and of the tribe
of the articulated animals (Arthropoda), were nearest akin
to the Ring-worms. On the other hand, we must probably
look for the primary forms of the great tribe of Molluscs in
extinct Worms, which were very closely related to the
Moss-polyps (Bryozoa) of the present day; and for the
primary forms of the Vertebrata in the unknown Ccelomati,
whose nearest kin of the present day are the Sea-sacs,
especially the Ascidia.

The class of Sea-sacs (Tunicata) is one of the most
remarkable among Worms. They all live in the ocean,
where some of the Ascidiz adhere to the bottom, while
others (the sea-barrels, or Thaliacea) swim about freely. In
all of them the non-jointed body has the form of a simple
barrel-shaped sack, which is surrounded by a thick cartila-
ginous mantle. This mantle consists of the same non-
nitrogenous combination of carbon, which, under the name
of cellulose, plays an important part in the Vegetable King-
dom, and forms the largest portion of vegetable cellular
membranes, and consequently also the greater part of wood.
The barrel-shaped body generally possesses no external ap-
pendages. No one would recognise in them a trace of rela-
tionship to the highly differentiated vertebrate animals.
And yet this can no longer be doubted, since Kowalewsky’s
investigations, which in the year 1867 suddenly threw an
exceedingly surprising and unmistakable light upon them.
From these investigations it has become clear that the indi-
vidual deveiopment of the adherent simple Ascidian Phallusia
agrees in most points with that of the lowest vertebrate
animal, namely, the lLancelet (Amphioxus lanceolatus).

ASCIDIANS AND VERTEBRATES. 153

The early stages of the Ascidia possess the beginnings of the
spinal marrow and the spinal column (chorda dorsalis)
lying beneath it, which are the two most essential and most
characteristic organs of the vertebrate animal. Accordingly,
of all invertebrate animals known to us, the Tunicates are
without doubt the nearest blood relations of the Vertebrates,
and must be considered as the nearest relations of those
Worms out of which the vertebrate tribe has developed.
(Compare Plates XII. and XIII.)

While thus different branches of the Ccelomatous group
of the Worms furnish us with several genealogical links
leading to the four higher tribes of animals, and give us im-
portant phylogenetic indications of their origin, the lower
group of Accelomi, on the other hand, show close relation-
ships to the Zoophytes, and to the Primzeval animals. The
great phylogenetic interest of the Worm tribe rests upon this
peculiar intermediate position.

154 THE HISTORY OF CREATION

CHAPTER XIX.

PEDIGREE AND HISTORY OF THE ANIMAL KINGDOM.
II. Mottusca, Srar-FISHES, AND ARTICULATED ANIMALS.

Tribe of Molluscs.—Four Classes of Molluscs: Lamp-shells (Spirobranchia) ;
Mussels (Lamellibranchia) ; Snails (Cochlides) ; Cuttle-fish (Cepha-
lopoda).—Tribe of Star-fishes, or Echinoderma.—Their Derivation
from Ringed Worms (Mailed Worms, or Phracthelminthes).—The
Alternation of Generation in the Echinoderma.—Four Classes of
Star-fish : Sea-stars (Asteridea) ; Sea-lilies (Crinoidea) ; Sea-urchins
(Echinidea) ; Sea-cucumbers (Holothuridea).—Tribe of Articulated
Animals, or Arthropoda.—Four Classes of Articulated Animals:
Branchiata, or Crustacea, breathing through gills; Jointed Crabs;
Mailed Crabs; Articulata Tracheata, breathing through Air Tubes.
Spiders (Long Spiders, Round Spiders).—Myriopods.—Insects.—Chew-
ing and Sucking Insects.—Pedigree and History of the Hight Orders of
Insects.

THE great natural main groups of the animal king-
dom, which we have distinguished as TRIBES, or PHYLA
(“types ” according to Bir and Cuvier), are not all of equal
systematic importance for our phylogeny or history of the
pedigree of the living world. They can neither be classed
in asingle series of stages, one above another, nor be con-
sidered as entirely independent stems, nor as equal branches
of asingle family-tree. It seems rather (as we saw in the
last chapter) that the tribe of Protozoa, the so-called primeval
animals, is the common radical group of the whole animal
kingdom. Out of the Gastreeada—which we class among

THE MOLLUSCS. 155

the Protozoa—the Zoophytes and the Worms have developed,
as two diverging branches. We must now in turn look
upon the varied and much-branching tribe of Worms as the
common primary group, out of which (from perfectly distinct
branches) arose the remaining tribes, the four higher phyla
of the animal kingdom. (Compare the Pedigree, p. 133.)

Let us now take a genealogical look at these four higher
tribes of animals, and try whether we cannot make out the
most important outlines of their pedigree. Even should
this attempt prove defective and imperfect, we shall at all
events have made a beginning, and paved the road for
subsequent and more satisfactory attempts.

It does not matter in what succession we take up the ex-
amination of the four higher tribes. For these four phyla
have no close relationship whatever among one another, but
have grown out from entirely distinct branches of the group
of Worms (p. 133). We may consider the tribe of Molluscs
as the most imperfect and the lowest in point of morpho-
logical development. We nowhere meet among them with
the characteristic articulation or segmented formation of the
body, which distinguishes even the Ring-worms, and which in
the other three higher tribes—the Echinoderma, Articulata,
and Vertebrata—is most essentially connected with the high
development of their forms, their differentiation, and per-
fection. The body in all Molluscs—in mussels, snails, ete—
is a simple non-jointed sack, in the cavity of which lie
the intestines. The nervous system consists not of a cord
but of several distinct (generally three) pairs of knots
loosely connected with one another. For these and many
other anatomical reasons, I consider the tribe of Molluscs (in
spite of the high physiological development of its most

156 THE HISTORY OF CREATION.

perfect forms) to be morphologically the lowest among the
four higher tribes of animals.

Whilst, for reasons already given, we exclude the Moss-
which have hitherto been generally

polyps, and Tunicates
classed with the tribe of Molluses—we retain as genuine
Molluses the following four classes: Lamp-shells, Mussels,
Snails, and Cuttles. The two lower classes of Molluses, the
Lamp-shells and Mussels, possess neither head nor teeth,
and they can therefore be comprised under one main class,
or branch, as headless animals (Acephala), or toothless animals
(Anodontoda). This branch is also frequently called that
of the clam-shells (Conchifera, or Bivalvia), because all its
members possess a two-valved calcareous shell. In contrast
to these the two higher classes of Molluscs, the snails and
cuttles, may be represented as a second branch with the name
of Head-bearers (Cephalophora), or Tooth-bearers (Odonto-
phora), because both head and teeth are developed in them.
The soft, sack-shaped body in most Molluses is protected
by a calcareous shell or house, which in the Acephala (lamp-
shells and mussels) consists of two valves, but in the
Cephalophora (snails and cuttles) is generally a spiral tube
(the so-called snail’s house). Although these hard skeletons
are found in large quantities in a petrified state in all the
neptunie strata, yet they tell us but little of the historical
development of the tribe, which must have taken place
for the most part in the primordial period. Even in
the Silurian strata we find fossil remains of all the four
classes of Molluscs, one beside the other, and this, con-
jointly with much other evidence, distinctly prove,
that the tribe of Molluscs had then obtained a strong
development, when the higher tribes, especially the

THE PEDIGREE OF MOLLUSCS, 157

Articulates and Vertebrates, had scarcely got beyond the
beginning of their historical development. In subsequent
periods, especially in the primary and secondary periods,
these higher tribes increased in importance more and more
at the expense of Molluscs and Worms, which were no match
for them in the struggle for life, and accordingly decreased
in number. The still living Molluscs and Worms must be
considered as only a proportionately small remnant of the
vast molluscan fauna, which greatly predominated in the
primordial and primary periods over the other tribes. (Com-
pare Plate VI. and explanation in the Appendix.)

No tribe of animals shows more distinctly than do the
Molluscs, how very different the value of fossils is in geology
and in phylogeny. In geology the different species of the
fossil shells of Molluscs are of th2 greatest importance
because they serve as excellent marks whereby to charac-,
terize the different groups of strata, and to fix their relative
ages. As far as relates to the genealogy of Molluscs,
however, they are of very little value, because, on the one
hand, the shells are parts of quite subordinate morphological
importance, and because the actual development of the tribe
belongs to the earlier primordial period, from which no
distinct fossils have been preserved. If therefore we wish
to construct the pedigree of Molluscs, we are mainly de-
pendent upon the records of ontogeny and comparative
anatomy from which we obtain: something like the follow-
ing result. (Gen. Morph. ii. Plate VI. pp. 102-116.)

The lowest stage of the four classes of genuine Molluscs
known to us, is occupied by the Lamp-shells or Spiral-gills
(Spirobranchia), frequently but inappropriately called Arm-
footers (Brachiopoda), which have become attached to the

158 THE HISTORY OF CREATION.

bottom of the sea. There now exist but few forms of this
class; for instance, some species of Lingula, Terebratula, and
others akin to them, which are but feeble remnants of the
great variety of forms which represented the Lamp-shells in
earlier periods of the earth’s history. In the Silurian period
they constituted the principal portion of the whole Molluse
tribe. From the agreement which, in many respects,
their early stage of development presents with the Moss
animals, it has been concluded that they have developed out
of Worms, which were nearly related to this class. Of the
two sub-classes of Lamp-shells, the Hinge-less (Ecardines
must be looked upon as the lower and more imperfect, the
Hinged (Testicardines) as the higher and more fully
developed group.

The anatomical difference between the Lamp-shells and
the three other classes of Molluscs is so considerable that the
latter may be distinguished from the former by the name of
Otocardia. All the Otocardia have a heart with chamber
(ventricle) and ante-chamber (auricle), whereas Lamp-shells" |
do not possess the ante-chamber. Moreover, the central
nervous system is developed only in the former (and not in
the latter) in the shape of a complete pharyngeal ring-
Hence the four classes of Molluscs may be grouped in the
following manner :—

1. Lamp-shells I. Haplocardia
I. Molluscs (Spirobranchia). (with simple heart).
without head. 2. Mussels i
Acephala. (Lamellibranchia). II. Otocardia
3. Snails (with chamber
parents (Cochlides). and ante-chamber
ashe si x 4. Cuttles to the heart).
ritlaee iteer (Cephalopoda).

THE PEDIGREE OF MOLLUSCS. 159

The result of these structural dispositions for the history
of the pedigree of Molluscs, which is confirmed by pale-
ontology, is that Lamp-shells stand much nearer to the
primeeval root of the whole tribe of Molluscs than do the
Otocardia. Probably Mussels and Snails developed as two
diverging branches out of Molluscs, which were nearly akin
to the Lamp-shells.

Mussels, or Plate-gills (Lamellibranchia), possess a bivalved
shell like the Lamp-shells. In the latter, one of the two
valves covers the back, the other the belly of the animal ;
whereas in Mussels the two valves lie symmetrically on the
right and left side of the body. Most Mussels live in the sea,
only a few in fresh water. The class is divided into two
sub-classes, Asiphonia and Siphonida, of which the latter
were developed at a later period out of the former. Among
the Asiphonia are Oysters, mother-of-pearl Shells, and fresh
water Mussels; among the Siphonida, which are character-
ized by a respiratory tube, are the Venus-shells, Razor-shells,
and Burrowing Clams. The higher Molluscs seem to have
developed at a later period out of those without head and
teeth ; they are distinguished from the latter by the distinct
formation of the head, and more especially by a peculiar
kind of tooth apparatus. Their tongue presents a curious
plate, armed with a great number of teeth. In our common
Vineyard Snail (Helix pomatia) the number of teeth amount
to 21,000, and in the large Garden Slug (Limax maximus)
t.) 26,800.

We distinguish two sub-classes among the Snails (Cochlides,
or Gasteropoda), namely, the Stump-headed and the Large-
headed Snails. The Stump-headed Snails (Perocephala) are
very closely allied to Mussels (through the Tooth-shells),

160 THE HISTORY OF CREATION,

SYSTEMATIC SURVEY
Of the 4 Classes, 8 Sub-classes, and 21 Orders of Molluscs.

Classes of Sub-classes of Orders of Systematic Name
Molluscs. Molluscs. Molluscs. of the Orders.

I. Molluscs without head or teeth: ACEPHALA or ANODONTODA.

iz I. Ecardines i 1. Stalked 1. Lingulida
Lamyp-shells Hinge-less 2. Flattened 2. Craniada
Spirobranchia
or
Brachiopoda II. Testicardines { 3. Fleshy armed 3. Sarcobrachia
Hinge-less 4. Calcareous-armed 4, Sclerobrachia
nt III. Asiphonia 5. One-muscled 5. Monomya
Z I Mussels without re- { 6. Uneven-muscled 6. Heteromya
{ussels spiratory tubes 7. Even-muscled 7. Isomya
or
Blate-gills
nn IV. Siphonida 8, Round-mantled 8. Integripalliata
2 Mussels with respi- 9. Bay-mantled 9. Sinupalliata
Phyllobranchia ratory tubes {2 Tube-mussels 10. Inclusa

II. Molluscs with head and teeth: CEPHALOPHORA or ODONTOPHORA.

V. Stump-headed 11. Tube-snails 11. Scaphopoda
Perocephala {1 Butterfly-snails 12. Pteropoda
III.
Snails 13, With hind gills 13. Opisthobranchia
Cochlides 14. With fore gills 14, Prosobranchia
or VI. Large-headed 15. Swimming-snails 15. Heteropoda
Gasteropoda Delocephala 16. Beetle-snails 16, Chitonoida
17. Snails withlungs 17. Pulmonata
VII. Chamber-Poulps (18. Pearl boats 18. Nautilida
IV. with four gills iC Ammon’s horns 19. Ammonitida
Cuttles Tetrabranchia
or
Boulps ; :
VIII. Ink-Poulps with (20. Ten-armed 20. Decabrachiones
Cephalopoda two gills
Dibranchia 21. Eight-armed 21. Octobrachiones

PEDIGREE OF MOLLUSCS, 161

Dibranchia
Heteropoda
Prosobranchia
Pulsnonata Tetrabranchia
Lipobranchia Cephalopoda
(Cuttles or Poulps)
Gymnobranchia
Pleurobranchia —,——’
Opisthobranchia Chitonides
|
ee es ee ees’
Delocephala
a
Pteropoda
Inclusa |
——_"
Sinupalliata

Scaphopoda |

Integripalliata W—_———

Sclerobrachia Siphoniata Perocephala
Cochlides
(Snails)
Sarcobrachia Asiphonia
Testicardines Lamellibranchia
(HAlussels)
Ecardines een:
Spirobranchia Otocardia
(Lamp-eshells) (Molluscs with chamber and ante-

chamber to the heart)

Ne NT

Promollusca (Primeval Molluscs
Molluscs with simple heart

(Worms)

Gastreea

25

162 THE HISTORY OF CREATION.

and also to the Cuttle-fish (through the Butterfly-snails).
The more highly developed Snails, with large heads
(Delocephala), can be divided into Snails with gills
(Branchiata) and Snails with lungs (Pulmonata). Among
the latter are the Land-snails, the only Molluses which have
left the water and become habituated to a life on land.
The great majority of Snails live in the sea, only a few live
in fresh water. Some River-snails in the tropics (the
Ampullaria) are amphibious, living sometimes on land,
sometimes in water, and at one time they breathe through
gills, at another through lungs. They have both kinds of
respiratory organs, like the Mud-fish and Gilled Newis
among the Vertebrata.

The fourth and last class, and at the same time the most
highly developed class of Molluscs, is that of the Cuttles, or
Poulps, also called Cephalopoda (foot attached to the head).
They all live in the sea, and are distinguished from Snails
by eight, ten, or more long arms, which surround the mouth
ina circle. The Cuttles existing in our recent oceans—the
Sepia, Calamary, Argonaut, and Pearly Nautilus—are, like
the few Spiral-gill Lamp-shells of the present time, but a
poor remnant of the host which represents this class in the
oceans of the primordial, primary, and secondary periods.
The numerous fossil “Ammon’s horns” (Ammonites), “ pearl
boats” (Nautilus), and “thunderbolts” (Belemnites) are evi-
dences of the long since extinct splendour of the tribe.
The Poulps, or Cuttles, have probably developed out of a
low branch of the snail class, out of the Butterfly-snails
(Pteropoda) or kindred forms.

The diffesent sub-classes and orders, distinguished in the
four classes of Molluscs, whose systematic succession is

THE STAR-FISHES. 163

given on the Table (p. 160), furnish various proofs of the
validity of the law of progress by their historical develop-
ment and by the systematic development corresponding to it.
As however these subordinate groups of Molluscs are in
themselves of no further special interest, I must refer to the
sketch of their pedigree on p. 161, and to the detailed
pedigree of Molluscs which I have given in my General
Morphology, and I shall now at once turn to the consider-
ation of the tribe of Star-fishes,

The Star-fishes (Echinoderma, or Estrelle) among which
are the four classes of Sea-stars, Sea-lilies, Sea-urchins, and
Sea-cucumbers are one of the most interesting divisions of
the animal kingdom, and yet we know less about them
than about any. They all live in the sea. Every one who
has been at the sea shore must have seen at least two of
their forms, the Sea-stars and the Sea-urchins. The tribe of
Star-fishes must be considered as a completely independent
tribe of the animal kingdom on account of its very peculiar
organization, and must be carefully distinguished from the
Animal-plants—Zoophytes, or Coelenterata, with which it is
still frequently but erroneously classed under the name
Radiata (as for example, by Agassiz, who even to this day
defends this error of Cuvier’s, together with many others).

All Echinoderma are characterized, and at the same time
distinguished from all other animals, by a very remark-
able apparatus for locomotion, which consists of a eompli-
cated system of canals or tubes, filled with sea water from
without. The sea water in these aqueducts is moved partly
by the strokes of the cilia, or vibratile hairs lining their
walls, and partly by the contractions of the muscular walls

of the tubes themselves, which resemble india-rubber bags.

164 THE HISTORY OF CREATION,

The water is pressed from the tubes into a number of
little hollow feet, which thereby become widely distended,
and are then employed for walking and suction. The
Sea-stars are moreover characterized by a peculiar ecal-
eareous formation in the skin, which in most cases forms
a firm, well-closed coat of mail, composed of a number of
plates. In almost all Echinoderma the body consists of
five radii (counterparts, or antimera) standing round the
main axis of the body, where they meet. It is only in some
species of Sea-stars that the number of these radii amount
to more than five—to 6—9, 10—12, or even to 20—40;
and in this case the number of radii is generally not constant,
but varies in different individuals of one species.

The historical development and the pedigree of the
Echinoderma are completely revealed to us by their
numerous and, in most cases, excellently preserved fossil
remains, by their very remarkable individual develop-
mental history, and by their interesting comparative ana-
tomy ; this is the case with no other tribe of animals, even
the Vertebrata themselves are not to be excepted. By a
critical use of those three archives, and by a careful com-
parison of the results derived from their study, we obtain
the following genealogy of the Star-fishes, which I have
already published in my General Morphology (vol. ii
Plate IV. pp. 62-77.)

The most ancient and original group of the Star-fishes,
the primary form of the whole phylum, consists of the class
of the true Sea-stars (Asterida). This is established by
numerous and important arguments in anatomy and the
history of development, but above all by the irregular and
varying number of the radii, or antimera, which in all other

COMPOUND NATURE OF STAR-FISHES. 165

-Echinoderma is limited, without exception, to five. Every
Star-fish consists of a central, small, body-dise, all round
the circumference of which are attached five or several
long articulated arms. Hach arm of the Star-fish essentially
corresponds in its organization with an articulated worm
of the class of Ring-worms, or Annelida (p. 149). I therefore
consider the Star-fish as a genuine stock or cormus of
five or more articulated worms, which have arisen by the
star-wise growth of a number of buds out of a central
mother-worm. The connected members, thus grouped like
the rays of a star, have inherited from the mother-worm
the common opening of the mouth, and the common diges-
tive cavity (stomach) lying in the central body-dise. The
end by which they have grown together, and which fuses
in the common central disc, probably corresponds to the
posterior end of the original independent worms.

In exactly the same way several individuals of certain
kinds of worms are united so as to form a star-like cormus.
This is the case in the Botryllide, compound Ascidians,
belonging to the class of the Tunicata. Here also the pos-
terior ends of the individual worms have grown together,
and have formed a common outlet for discharges, a central
cloaca; whereas at the anterior end each worm still pos-
sesses its own mouth. In Star-fishes the original mouths
have probably become closed in the course of the historical
development of the cormus, or colony, whereas the cloaca
has developed into a common mouth for the whole cormus.

Hence the Star-fishes would be compound stocks of
worms which, by the radial formation of buds, have
developed out of true articulated worms, or Annelids. This
hypothesis is most strongly supported by the comparative

166

SYSTEMATIC

THE HISTORY OF CREATION.

SURVEY

Of the 4 Classes, 9 Sub-classes, and 20 Orders of Star-fishes.
(Compare Gen. Morph. II. Plate IV. pp. 62-67.)

Classes of the Sub-classes of the Orders of the
Star-jishes. Starjishes. Star-jishes.
/ 1. Primary Stars
Sea AKG with ra- 2. Articulated Stars
diated stomach 3. Brisinga Stars
Sea Ke. rae te
Asterida 4. Serpent Stars
Sea Bion San disc-{ 5, Tree Stars
, Shaped stomach 6. Lily Stars
Discogastra
III. 7. Plated Lilies with
Lilies with arms —e ae
eS 8. Articulated Lilies
with arms
9, Regularly budding
ey ae Lilies ah buds lilies
Crncide Blastoidea 10. Lilies budding on
two sides
fe 1. Bladder Lilies
without stalks
Blader rg 2. Bladder _Lilies
y with stalks
3. Palechinida with
more than 10
Older a Teabags rows of ambu.-
(with more than lacral plates
20 rows of plates) |14. Palechinida with
Palechinida 10 rows of am.
ara ae bulacral plates
Echinida VII. . Autechinida with

More recent Sea
Urchins (with 20
rows of plates)
Autechinida

Vill.
Sea Cucumbers
with aquatic feet
a.

Sea hiasate

Holothurice Sea eee
without aquatic
feet

Apodia

.
;
Se
:

band-like am-
bulacra

15
16. Autechinida with
leaf-like ambulacra

17. Eupodia with scu-
fe i i

tiform tentacles

Eupodia with
branching ten-
tacles

lungs

s
20. Apodia without

water-lungs

Systematic Name

of

14.

15.

16.

17.
18,

the Orders.

. Tecastra

Colastra
Brising-
astra
Ophiastra
Phytastra
Crinastra

Phatnocri-
nida

. Colocrinida

. Pentremi-

tida

. Eleuthero-

crina

. Agelacri-.

nida

. Spheroni-

tida

. Melonitida

Eocidaria

Desmo-
sticha

Petalo.
sticha

Aspidochi.
rota

Dendrochi.
rota

19. Apodia with water- 19. Lioderma.

tida

20. Synaptida

PEDIGREE OF STAR-FISHES. 167

Clypeastridze
Spatangidee
Dysasteridze
Aspidochirota Sie
Synaptida Cassidulidee
Petalosticha
Liodermatida |
Apodia = Sa .. ~BMechinosike
Galeritidee
Echinometridze
SSS eee
Dendrochirota
Eupodia Latistelles
Holothurize Salenidse
|
Angustistelles
Desmosticha
Autechinida
Colocrinze
F | Spheeronitidee
Phytastra
Eocidaridee Eleutherocrina
Ophiastra Agelacrinzs
Discogastra Cystidea
Melonitida Phatnocrins
Brisingastra Palechinida Brahiata Pentremitida
Echinida Blastoidea
Colastra ee eee cae ao
Brachiata
Crinoida
Crinastra
Ms eg Po ee
Tocastra
Actinogastra
Asterida
|
Phractelminthes
Coelomati

Gastraa

168 THE HISTORY OF CREATION,

anatomy, and by the ontogeny of some Star-fishes (Co-
lastra), and of segmented worms. The many-jointed Ring-
worms (Annelida) in their inner structure are closely
allied to the individual arms or radii of the Star-fishes,
that is to the original single worms, which each arm
represents. Each of the five worms of the Star-fish is
a chain composed of a great number of equi-formal mem-
bers, or metamera, lying one behind the other, like
every segmented Worm, and every Arthropod. As in
the latter a central nervous cord, the ventral nerve cord
runs along the central line of the ventral wall of each seg-
ment. On each metameron there is a pair of non-jointed
feet, and besides these, in most cases, one or more hard
thorns or bristles similar to those of many Ring-worms.
A detached arm of a Star-fish can lead an independent life,
and can then, by the radially-directed growth of buds at
one end, again become a complete star.

The most important proofs, however, of the truth of
my hypothesis are furnished by the ontogeny or the
individual development of the Echinoderma. The most
remarkable facts of this ontogeny were first discovered
in the year 1848 by the great zoologist, Johannes Miller
of Berlin. Some of its most important stages are repre-
sented on Plates VIII. and IX. (Compare their explanation
in the Appendix.) Fig. A on Plate IX. shows us a com-
mon Sea-star (Uraster), Fig. B, a Sea-lily (Comatula),
Fig. C, a Sea-urchin (Kchinus), and Fig. D, a Sea-cucumber
(Synapta). In spite of the extraordinary difference of
form manifested by these four representatives of the differ-
ent classes of Star-fishes, yet the beginning of their develop-
ment is identical in all cases. Out of the egg an animal-form

PHYLOGENY OF STAR-FISHES. 169

develops which is utterly different from the fully developed
Star-fish, but very like the ciliated larvee of certain seg-
mented Worms (Star-worms and Ring-worms). This peculiar
animal-form is generally called the “larva,” but more cor-
rectly the “nurse” of these Star-fish. It is very small and
transparent, swims about by means of a fringe of cilia,
and is always composed of two equal symmetrical halves
or sides. The fully grown Echinoderm, however—which
is frequently more than a hundred times larger, and quite
opaque—creeps at the bottom of the sea, and is always
composed of at least five co-ordinate pieces, or antimera, in
_ the form of radii. Plate VIII. shows the development of the
“nurses ” of the four Echinoderms represented on Plate IX.

The fully developed Echinoderm arises by a very remark-
able process of budding in the interior of the “nurse,” of
which it retains little more than the stomach. The nurse,
erroneously called the “larva,” of the Echinoderm, must
accordingly be regarded as a solitary worm, which by
internal budding produces a second generation, in the form
of a stock of star-shaped and connected worms. The whole
of this process is a genuine alternation of generations, or
metagenesis, not a “ metamorphosis,” as is generally though
erroneously stated. A similar alternation of generations
also occurs in many other worms, especially in some star
worms (Sipunculide), and cord worms (Nemertinz).
Now if, bearing in mind the fundamental law of biogeny,
we refer the ontogeny of Echinoderma to their phylogeny,
then the whole historical development of the Star-fishes
suddenly becomes clear and intelligible to us, whereas
without this hypothesis it remains an insoluble mystery.
(Compare Gen. Morph. ii. pp. 95-99.)

170 THE HISTORY OF CREATION,

Besides the reasons mentioned, there are many other facts
(principally from the comparative anatomy of Echinoderma)
which most distinctly prove the correctness of my hypothesis.
I established this hypothesis in 1866, without having any
idea that fossil articulated worms still existed, apparently
answering to the hypothetical primary forms. Such have
in the mean time, however, really been discovered. In
a treatise “On the Equivalent of the North American
Taconic Schist in Germany,’* Geinitz and Liebe, in 1867, —
have described a number of articulated Silurian worms,
which completely confirm my suppositions. Numbers of
these very remarkable worms are found in an excel-
lent state of preservation in the slates of Wiirzbach, in the
upper districts of Reusz. They are of the same structure
as the articulated arm of a Star-fish, and evidently possessed
a hard coat of mail, a much denser, more solid cutaneous
skeleton than other worms in general. The number of
body-segments, or metamera, is very considerable, so that
the worms, although no more than a quarter or half an
inch in breadth, attained a length of from two to three feet.
The excellently preserved impressions, especially those of
the Phyllodocites thuringiacus and Crossopodia Henrici, are
so like the arms of many Star-fish (Colastra) that their
true blood relationship seems very probable. This prime-
val group of worms, which are most probably the ancestors
of Star-fish, I call Mailed worms (Phracthelminthes, p. 150.)

The three other classes of Echinoderma evidently arose
at a later period out of the class of Sea-stars which have
most faithfully retained the original form of the stellate

* “Ueber ein Aequivalent der takonischen Schiefer Nordamerikas in
Deutschland.”

°

WORM PERSON

ATION

=
zZ
fx]
o
al

FIRS

TAR FISHES

S

Se ee ee ee

wes
ae

ad

Lf

a
Leal bs er al

STAR FISHES. SECOND GENERATION. WORM STOCK.

a SAN
A Ura ster SN)
-

6B. Comatula. x
€. Echinus A

D Synapta.

2>>
~
WD SeF eso ZZ 272.
ae wea7rrsor SZ
< For >">,
2 =

>
>>>
— =
SSS
>> >>>

y G
MG Mie
Yy SA
yp (a
Ae en
Fine ew SF

DORA re rr
—
— =

ASSN
AS
SESS

rN
}N ASV
THINS

Lj #

Af Lp pyl,

“OY yyy,

ijt ¢ orem, ////

Ny Hay id 3
a |

Us
Pine )\ SSS SS WSS
\\ SASS

THE STAR-FISHES. 171

colony of worms. The Sea-lilies, or Crinoida, differ
least from them, but having given up the free, slow motion
possessed by other Sea-stars, they have become adherent to
rocks, etc., and form for themselves a long stalk. Some
Encrinites, however (for example, the Comatule, Fig. B,
on Plates VIII. and IX.), afterwards detach themselves from
their stalk. The original worm individuals in the Crinoida
are indeed no longer preserved in the same independent
condition as in the case of the common star-fish ; but they
nevertheless always possess articulated arms extending from
a common central disc. Hence we may unite the Sea-lilies
and Sea-stars into a main-class, or branch, characterized as
possessing articulated arms (Colobrachia).

In the other two classes of Echinoderma, the Sea-
urchins and Sea-cucumbers, the articulated arms are no
longer present as independent parts, but, by the increased
centralization of the stock, have completely fused so as to
form a common, inflated, central disc, which now looks like
a simple box or capsule without arms. The original stock
of five individuals has apparently degenerated to the form-
value of a simple individual, a single person. Hence we
may represent these two classes as a branch character-
ized as being without arms (Lipobrachia), equivalent to
those which ‘possess articulated arms. The first of these
two classes, that of Sea-urchins (Kchinida) takes its name
from the numerous and frequently very large thorns which
cover the hard shell, which is itself artistically built up of
calcareous plates. (Fig. C, Plates VIII. and IX.) The funda-
mental form of the shell itself is a pentagonal pyramid-
The Sea-urchins probably developed directly out of the
group eof Sea-stars. The different classes and orders of

172 THE HISTORY OF CREATION.

marine lilies and stars which are given in the following
table, illustrate the laws of progress and differentiation in a
striking manner. In each succeeding period of the earth’s
history we see the individual classes continually increasing
in variety and perfection. (Gen. Morph. ii. Plate IV.)

The history of three of these classes of Star-fish is very
minutely recorded by numerous and excellently preserved
fossils, but on the other hand, we know almost nothing of
the historical development of the fourth class, that of the
Sea-cucumbers (Holothuriz). These curious sausage-shaped
Star-fish manifest externally a deceptive similarity to
worms. (Fig. D, Plates VIII. and IX.) The skeletal struc-
tures in their skin are very imperfect, and hence no distinct
remains of their elongated, cylindrical, worm-like body could
be preserved in a fossil state. However, from the compara-
tive anatomy of the Holothuriz, we can infer that they
have arisen, by the softening of the cutaneous skeleton,
from members of the class of Sea-urchins.

From the Star-fish we turn to the fifth and most highly
developed tribe of the invertebrate animals, namely, the
phylum of Articulata, or those with jointed feet (Arthro-
toda). As has already been remarked, this tribe corresponds
to Linnzus’ class of Insects. It contains four classes:
(1) the genuine six-legged Insects, or Flies; (2) the eight-
legged Spiders; (3) the Centipedes, with numerous pairs
of legs; and (4) the Crabs, or Crustacea, whose legs vary in
number. The last class breathe water through gills, and may —
therefore be contrasted as the main-class of gill-breathing
Arthropoda, or Gilled Insects (Carides), with the three first
classes. The latter breathe air by means of peculiar wind-
pipes, or tracheze, and may therefore appropriately be united

THE ARTHROPODS OR INSECTS. 173

to form the main-class of the trachea-breathing Arthropoda,
or Tracheate Insects (Tracheata).

In all animals with articulated feet, as the name indicates
the legs are distinctly articulated, and by this, as well as by
the strong differentiation of the separate parts of the body,
or metamera, they are sharply distinguished from Ringed
worms, with which Bar and Cuvier classed them. They
are, however, in every respect so like the Ringed worms
that they can scarcely be considered altogether distinct
from them. They, like the Ringed worms, possess a very
characteristic form of the central nervous system, the so-
called ventral marrow, which commences in a gullet-ring
encircling the mouth. From other facts also, it is evident
that the Arthropoda developed at a late period out of
articulated worms. Probably either the Wheel Animalcules
or the Ringed worms are their nearest blood relations in
the Worm tribe. (Gen. Morph. ii. Plate V. pp. 85-102.)

Now, although the derivation of the Arthropoda from
ringed Worms may be considered as certain, still it cannot
with equal assurance be maintained that the whole tribe of
the former has arisen out of one branch of the latter. For
several reasons seem to support the supposition that the
Gilled Arthropods have developed out of a branch of articu-
lated worms, different from that which gave rise to the
Tracheate Arthropods. But on the whole it remains more
probable that both main-classes have arisen out of one and
the same group of Worms. In this case the Tracheate Insects
—Spiders, Flies, and Centipedes—must have branched off at
a later period from the gill-breathing Insects, or Crustacea.

The pedigree of the Arthropoda can on the whole be
clearly made out from the paleontology, comparative ana-

bite oh ee

174 THE HISTORY OF CREATION.

tomy, and ontogeny of its four classes, although here, as
everywhere else, many details remain very obscure. Not
until the history of the individual development of all the
different groups has become more accurately known than it
is at present, can this obscurity be removed. The history
of the class of Gilled Insects, or Crabs (Carides), is at present
that best known to us; they are also called encrusted ani- —
mals (Crustacea), on account of the hard crust or covering of
their body. The ontogeny of these animals is extremely ©
interesting and, like that of Vertebrate animals, distinctly
reveals the essential outlines of ths history of their tribe,
that is, their phylogeny. Fritz Miiller, in his work, “ Fir
Darwin,” which has already been referred to, has
explained this remarkable series of facts in a very able
manner.

The common primary form of all Crabs, which in most
cases is even now the first to develop out of the egg, is
originally one and the same, the so-called Nauplius This
remarkable primeval crab represents a very simple form of
articulated animal, the body of which in general has the
form of a roundish, oval, or pear-shaped dise, and has on its
ventral side only three pairs of legs. The first of these is
uncloven, the two subsequent pairs are forked. In front,
above the mouth, lies a simple, single eye. Although the
different orders of the Crustacean class differ very widely
from one another in the structure of their body and its
appendages, yet the early Nauplius form always remains
essentially the same. In order to be convinced of this, let
the reader look attentively at Plates X. and XI., a more de-
tailed explanation of which is given in the Appendix. On
Plate XI. we see the fully developed representatives of six

Pa

A

Nauplius. Youth-torm of six Grab-fi

S.

Limmeti
B. Cyclops.
C. Lernacocera

A.

3
eee
Sos
Es
3
way

he he be

Adult form of the same six Grab-tish.

PI_X1.

A. Limnetis.
B. Cyclops.
C. Lernacocera .
D. Lepas.

E. Sacculina.
F. Peneus.

THE NAUPLIUS LARVA. 175

different orders of Crabs, a Leaf-footed Crab (Limnetis,
Fig. A c); a Stalked Crab (Lepas, Fig. D c); a Root Crab,
(Sacculina, Fig. # c); a Boatman Crab (Cyclops, Fig. Bc) ; a
Fish Louse (Lernzeocera, Fig. C c); and, lastly, a highly

_ developed Shrimp (Peneus, Fig. F c) These six crabs vary

very much, as we see, in the entire form of body, in the
number and formation of the legs, ete. When, however, we
look at the earliest stages, or “ nauplius,” of these six different
classes, after they have crept out of the ege—those marked
with corresponding letters on Plate X. (Fig. A n—F n)—we
shall be surprised to find how much they agree. The differ-
ent forms of Nauplius of these six orders differ no more
from one another than would six different “good species”
of one genus. Consequently, we may with assurance infer a
common derivation of all those orders from a common
Primeval Crab, which was essentially like the Nauplius of
the present day.

The pedigree on p. 177 will show how we may at
present approximately conceive the derivation of the
twenty orders of Crustacea enumerated on p. 176, from the
common primary form of the Nauplius. Out of the Nauplius
form—which originally existed as an independent genus—
the five legions of lower Crabs developed as diverging
branches in different directions, which in the systematic
survey of the class are united as Segmented Crabs (Entomos-
traca). The higher division of Mailed Crabs (Malacostraca)
have likewise originated out of the common Nauplius form.
The Nebalia is still a direct form of transition from the
Phyllopods to the Schizopods, that is, to the primary form
of the stalk-eyed and sessile-eyed Mailed Crabs. The
Nauplius at this stage gives rise to another larva form,

176 THE HISTORY OF CREATION,

SYSTEMATIC SURVEY
Of the 7 Legions and 20 Orders of Crabs, or Crustacea.

. Name of a
ions of the Orders of the Systema Name
rustacee. Crustacee. of the Orders. all Fag

L EnTomostrRaca, Lower Crustacea, or Segmented Crabs (not passing through the
actual Zoéa form in youth).

1. Primeval Crabs 1. Archicarida Nauplius
7 Mrcuishiopoda ee Crabs 2. eet s: ae
Gill-footed Crabs) = obites 3. Trilobita aradoxides
4. Water Fleas 4. Cladocera Daphnia
5. Bivalve Crabs 5. Ostracoda Cypris
II. Pectostraca { 6. Barnacle Crabs 6. Cirripedia Lepas
Fixed Crabs 7. Root Crabs 7. Rhizocephala Sacculina
ITI. Copepoda 8. Boatmen Crabs 8. Eucopepoda Cyclops
Oar-footed Crabe 9. Fish Lice 9. Siphonostoma Lernzocera
IV. Pantopoda 10. No-body Crabs 10. Pycnogonida Nymphon
No-body Crabs
V. Pecilopoda {11. Spear-tails 11. Xiphosura Limulus
Shield Crabs (12. Giant Crabs 12. Gigantostraca Eurypterus

Il. MALAcostrACA, Higher Crustacea, or Mailed Crabs (passing through the Zoéa form

in youth).
V . Podoph- 13. Zoéa Crabs 13. Zoépoda Zoéa
thalma 14, Split-legged Crabs 14. Schizopoda Mysis
Stalk-eyed Mailed | 15. Mouth-footedCrabs 15. Stomatopoda Squilla
Crabs 16. Ten-footed Crabs 16. Decapoda Peneus
VII. Edrioph- (17. Cuma Crabs 17. Cumacea Cuma
thalma 18. Flea Crabs 18. Amphipoda Gammarus
MailedCrabs with (eo Wizard Crabs 19. Leemodipoda Caprella
sessile eyes 20. Louse Crabs 20. Isopoda Oniscus

PEDIGREE OF THE GILLED. INSECTS, 177

Isopoda
| Lzmodipoda
Anomura,
| Amphipoda
Macrura Nace ae
Decapoda Stomatopoda Cumacea
| | Edriophthalma
ee
Schizopoda
Podophthalma
Zoépoda
Malacostraca
Gigantostraca Rhizocephala
Siphonostoma
Xiphosuras Zoéa Cirripedize
| Pectostraca
__-——’/
Pecilopoda
Nebalize
Eucopepoda
Belinures Copepoda Pycnogonida
a Pantopoda
Trilobita
Phyllopoda Ostracoda
Cladocerze
| ——
—_ ——EEEE——————E———— ee 4
Branchiopoda

ig Nae Dal ES SRY 2 OS SEIS Ee Le ea
Nauplius

Archicarida

(Articulated Worms)

178 THE HISTORY OF CREATION,

the so-called Zoéa, which is of great importance. The order
of Schizopoda, those with cloven feet (Mysis, etc.), probably
originated from this curious Zoéa; they are at present still
directly allied, through the Nebalia to the Phyllopoda, those
with foliaceous feet. But of all living crabs the Phyllopods
are the most closely allied to the original primary form of
the Nauplius. Out of the Schizopoda the stalk-eyed and
sessile-eyed Mailed Crabs, or Malacostraca, developed as
two diverging branches in different directions: the former
through shrimps (Peneus, etc.), the latter through the Cu-
-macea (Cuma, ete.), which are still living and closely allied
to the Schizopoda. Among those with stalked eyes is the
river crab (cray-fish), the lobster, and the others with long
tails, or the Macrura, out of which, in the chalk period, the
short-tailed crabs, or Brachyura, developed by the degenera-
tion of the tail. Those with sessile eyes divide into the
two branches of Flea-crabs (Amphipoda) and Louse-crabs
(Isopoda); among the latter are our common Rock-slaters
and Wood-lice.

The second main-class of Articulated animals, that of the
Tracheata, or air-breathing Tracheate Insects* (Spiders, Cen-
tipedes, and Flies) did not develop until the beginning of
the paleolithic era, after the close of the archilithic period,
because all these animals (in contrast with the aquatic crabs)
are originally inhabitants of land. It is evident that the
Tracheata can have developed only after the lapse of the
Silurian period when terrestrial life first began. But as fossil
remains of spiders and insects have been found, even in the

* The English word “Insects” might with advantage be used in the
Linnzan sense for the whole group of Arthropods. In this case the
Hexapod Insects might be spoken of as the Flies.—K. R. L.

ORIGIN OF TRACHEA, 179

carboniferous beds, we can pretty accurately determine the
time of their origin. The development of the first Tracheate
Insects out of gill-bearing Zoéa-crabs, must have taken place
between the end of the Silurian and the beginning of the
coal period, that is, in the Devonian period.

Gegenbaur, in his excellent “Outlines of Comparative
Anatomy,’ has lately endeavoured to explain the origin
of the Tracheata by an ingenious hypothesis. The system
of trachez, or air pipes, and the modifications of organiz-
ation dependent upon it, distinguish Flies, Centipedes,
and Spiders so much from other animals, that the concep-
tion of its first origin presents no inconsiderable difficulties
to phylogeny. According to Gegenbaur, of all living Trache-
ate Insects, the Primeval Flies, or Archiptera, are most
closel allied to the common primary form of the Tra-
cheata. These insects—among which we may especially
mention the delicate Day flies (Ephemera), and the agile
dragon-flies (Libellula)—in their earliest youth, as larve,
frequently possess external tracheate gills which lie in two
rows on the back of the body, and are shaped like a leaf or
paint-brush. Similar leaf or paint-brush shaped organs are
met with as real water-breathing organs or gills, in many
crabs and ringed worms, and, moreover, in the latter as real
dorsal appendages or limbs. The “tracheate gills,” found in
the larve of many primeval winged insects, must in all
probability be explained as “dorsal limbs,” and as having
developed out of the corresponding appendages of the Anne-
lida, or possibly as having really arisen out of similar parts
in Crustacea long since extinct. The present tracheal
respiration of the Tracheata developed at a later period out
of respiration through “ tracheate gills.” The tracheate gills

180 THE HISTORY OF CREATION.

themselves, however, have in some cases disappeared, and in
others become transformed into the wings of the Flies. They
have disappeared entirely in the classes of Spiders and
Centipedes, and these groups must accordingly be conceived
of as degenerated or peculiarly developed lateral branches of
the Fly class, which at an early period branched off from
the common primary form of Flies ; Spiders probably did so
at an earlier period than Centipedes. Whether that common
primary form of all Tracheata, which in my General Mor-
phology I have named Protracheata, did develop directly out
of genuine Ringed worms, or at first out of Crustacea of the
Zoéa form (Zoépoda, p. 177) will probably be settled at some
future time by a more accurate knowledge and comparison
of the ontogeny of the Tracheata, Crustacea, and Annelida.
However, the root of the Tracheata, as well as that of the
Crustacea, must in any case be looked for in the group of
Ringed worms.

The genuine Spiders (Arachnida) are distinguished from
Flies by the absence of wings, and by four pairs of legs;
but, as is distinctly seen in the Scorpion-spiders and Taran-
tulee, they, ike Flies, possess in reality only three pairs of
genuine legs. The apparent “fourth pair of legs” in spiders
(the foremost) are in reality a pair of feelers. Among the
still existing Spiders, there is a small group which is prob-
ably very closely allied to the common primary form of the
whole class; this is the order of Scorpion-spiders, or Solifugze,
(Solpuga, Galeodes), of which several large species live in
Africa and Asia, and are dreaded on account of their poison-
ous bite. Their body consists—as we suppose to have been
the case in the common ancestor of the Tracheata—of a head

THE SPIDERS. 181

possessing several pairs of feelers like legs, of a thorax, to
the three rings of which are attached three pairs of legs,
and of a hinder, body, or abdomen, consisting of many dis-
tinct rings. In the articulation of their body, the Solifugee
are therefore in reality more closely related to flies than
to other spiders. Out of the Devonian Primeval Spiders,
which were nearly related to the Solifugee of the present
day, the Long Spiders, the Tailor Spiders, and the Round
‘Spiders probably developed as three diverging branches.

The Long Spiders (Arthrogastres), in which the earlier
articulation of body has been better preserved than in Round
Spiders, appear to be the older and more original forms.
The most important members of this sub-class are the scor-
pions, which are connected with the Solifugee through the
Tarantella (or Phrynidz). The small book scorpions,
which inhabit our libraries and herbariums, appear as a de-
generate lateral branch from the true scorpions. Mid-way
between the Scorpions and Round Spiders are the long-
legged Tailor-spiders (Opiliones) which have possibly arisen
out of a special branch of the Solifugee. The Pycnogonida,
or No-body Crabs, and the Arctisca, or Bear Worms—still
cenerally included among Long Spiders—must be completely
excluded from the class of Spiders; the former belong to the
Crustacea, the latter to Ringed worms.

Fossil remains of Long Spiders are found in the Coal.
The second sub-class of the Arachnida, the Round Spiders
‘Spheerogastres), first appear in the fossil state in the Jura,
that is, at a very much later period. They have developed
out of a branch of the Solifuga, by the rings of the body
becoming more and more united with one another. In the
true Spinning Spiders (Aranez), which we admire on

182

THE HISTORY OF CREATION,

SYSTEMATIC SURVEY
Of the 3 Classes and 17 Orders of the Tracheata.

Sugentia

. Butterflies

Classes of the Sub-Classes of the Order of the Two Names of
Tracheata. Tracheata, Tracheata. Generaas examples-
1. Scorpion spiders { Solpuga
Solifuge Galeodes
Es 2. Tarantella Phrynus
Phrynida { Thelyphonus
3. Scorpions Scorpio
I. es - piers Scorpioda { Buthus
Spiders Arthaggustres . Book scorpions Obisinm
Arachnida Pseudoscorpioda { Chelifer
. Tailor spiders | Phalangium
Opilionida Opilio
se . Spinning spiders | Epeira
Aranee Mygale
ieee ans . Mites Sarcoptes
Bpleragasires Acarida | Demodex
II. III. 8. Simple-footed Scolopendra
Centipedes Chapa : Chilopoda { Geophilus
ekpatie ahi Es hae . * Dplaeta ‘E oie
- iplopoda olydesmus
a Pinions 0. Primitive flies Ephemera
Archiptera { Libellula
1. Gauze-wings { Hemerobius
Neuroptera Phryganea
2. Straight-wings Locusta
Chewing Orthoptera | Forficula
In. Masticantia 3. Beetles { Cicindela
F Coleoptera Melolontha
Flies 4. Bee-wings Apis
—— Hymenoptera | Formica
/15. Bugs { Aphis
Hemiptera Cimex
om : eee { sbi
Diptera Musca

Lepidoptera

PEDIGREE

OF TRACHEATA,

Butterflies
Lepidoptera
oe Two-wings
Hymenoptera Dunteea
* Beetles tk
Coleoptera Hinsilons
a
Gauze wings
Straight-wings Neuroptera a
Orthoptera |
eee
Primeval Flies
Archiptera
Scorpions Double-footed
Scorpioda Diplopoda
Tailor Spiders
Opiliones
f Book Scorpions
Mites Pseudoscorpioda
Acarida
Tarantella :
Weaving Spiders Phrynida Simple-footed
Aranee Chilopoda
Centipedes
Myriapoda
_——
Scorpion Spiders
Solifugze
Spiders.
Arachnida
Flies.
Insecta Hexapoda

Primary Air-breathing Arthropods
Protracheata

Articulated Worms
Coelminthes

184 THE HISTORY OF CREATION,

account of their delicate skill in weaving, the union of the
joints of the trunk, or metamera, goes so far, that the trunk
now consists of only two pieces, of a head-breast (cephalo-
thorax) with jaws, feelers, and four pairs of legs, and of a
hinder body without appendages, where the spinning warts _
are placed. In Mites (Acarida), which have probably arisen
by degeneration (especially by parasitism) out of a lateral
branch of Spinning Spiders, even these two trunk pieces
have become united and now form an unsegmented mass.

The class of Scolopendria, Myriapoda, or Centipedes, the
smallest and poorest in forms of the four classes of
Arthropoda, is characterized by a very elongated body,
like that of a segmented Ringed worm, and often possesses
more than a hundred pairs of legs. But these animals
also originally developed out of a six-legged form of Trache-
ata, as is distinctly proved by the individual development
of the millipede in the egg. Their embryos have at first
only three pairs of legs, like genuine insects, and only
at a later period do the posterior pairs of legs bud, one by
one, from the growing rings of the hinder body. Of the
two orders of Centipedes (which in our country live under
barks of trees, in moss, ete.) the round, double-footed ones
(Diplopoda) probably did not develop until a later period
out of the older flat, single-footed ones (Chilopoda), by
successive pairs of rings of the body uniting together.
Fossil remains of the Chilopoda are first met with in the
Jura period.

The third and last class of the Arthropoda breathing
through trachee, is that of the Flies, or Insects, in the narrow
sense of the word (Insecta, or Hexapoda), the largest of all

THE FLIES, OR HEXAPOD INSECTS, 185

classes of animals, and next to that of Mammalia, also the
most important. Although Flies develop a greater variety of
genera and species than all other animals taken together,
yet these are all in reality only superficial variations of a
single type, which is entirely and constantly preserved in
its essential characteristics. In all Flies the three divisions
of the trunk—head, breast (thorax), and hinder body—are
quite distinct. The hinder body, or abdomen, as in the case
of spiders, has no articulated appendages. The ccntral divi-
sion, the breast or thorax, has on its ventral side three pairs
of legs, on its back two pairs of wings. It is true that, in
very many Flies, one or both pairs of wings have become
reduced in size or have even entirely disappeared; but
the comparative anatomy of Flies distinctly shows that
this deficiency has arisen only gradually by the degenera-
tion of the wings, and that all the Flies existing at present
are derived from a common, primary Fly, which possessed
three pairs of legs and two pairs of wings. (Compare p. 256.)
These wings, which so strikingly distinguish Flies from all
other Arthropoda, probably arose, as has been already shown,
out of the tracheate gills which may still be observed in the
larvee of the ephemeral flies (Ephemera) which live in water.

The head of Flies universally possesses, besides the eyes,
a pair of articulated feelers, or antenne, and also three
jaws upon each side of the mouth. These three pairs
of jaws, although they have arisen in all Flies from
the same original basis, by different kinds of adaptation,
have become changed to very varied and remarkable
forms in the various orders, and are therefore employed

for distinguishing and characterizing the main divisions
26

186 THE HISTORY OF CREATION.

of the class. In the first place, we may distinguish two
main divisions, namely, Flies with chewing mandibles
(Mesticantia) and Flies with sucking mouths (Sugentia).
On a closer examination each of these two divisions may
again be divided into two sub-groups. Among chewing
Flies, or Masticantia, we may distinguish the biting and
the licking ones. Biting flies (Mordentia) comprise
the most ancient and primzval winged Flies, the gauzy-
winged (Neuroptera), straight-winged (Orthoptera), and
beetles (Coleoptera). Licking flies (Lambentia) are re-
presented by the one order of skin-winged (Hymenoptera)
Flies. We distinguish two groups of Sucking Flies, or
Sugentia, namely, those which prick and those which sip.
There are two orders of pricking Flies (Pungentia), those
with half wings (Hemiptera) and gnats and blow-flies,
(Diptera); butterflies are the only sipping Flies (Sorbentia),
Lepidoptera.

Biting Flies, and indeed the order of Primeval Flies
(Archiptera, or Pseudoneuroptera) are nearest akin to
the still living Flies, and include the most ancient of
all Flies, the primary forms of the whole class (hence
also those of all Tracheata). Among them are, first of
all, the Ephemeral Flies (Ephemera) whose larvze which
live in water, in all probability still show us in their
trachez-gills the organs out of which the wings of Flies
were originally developed. ‘his order further contains
the well known dragon-flies, or Libellula, the wine-glass
sugar mites (Lepisma), the hopping Flies with bladder-
like feet (Physopoda), and the dreaded Termites, fossil
remains of which are found even in coal. The order

oe

THE ORDERS OF FLIES. 187

of Gauze-winged Flies (Neuroptera), probably developed
directly out of the primeval Flies, which differ from them
only by their perfect series of transformations. Among them
are the gauze-flies (Planipennia), caddis-flies (Phryganida),
and fan-flies (Strepsiptera). Fossil Flies, which form
the transition from the primeval Flies (Libellula) to
the gauze-winged (Sialidz), are found even in coal
(Dictyophylebia).

The order of Straight-winged Flies (Orthoptera) de-
veloped at an early period out of another branch of the
primeval Flies by differentiation of the two pairs of
wings. This division is composed of one group with a
great variety of forms—cockroaches, grasshoppers, crickets,
ete. (Ulonata)—and of a smaller group consisting only of
the well-known earwigs (Labidura), which are character-
ised by nippers at the hinder end of their bodies. Fossil
remains of cockroaches, as well as of crickets and grass-
hoppers, have been found in coal.

Fossil remains of the fourth order of Biting Fhes,
beetles (Coleoptera) likewise occur in coal. This extremely
comprehensive order—the favourite one of amateurs and
collectors—shows more clearly than any other what
infinite variety of forms can be developed externally
by adaptation to different conditions of life, without the
internal structure and the original form of the body being
in any way essentially changed. Beetles have probably
developed out of a branch of the straight-winged Flies,
from which they differ only in their transformations (larva,
pupa, etc.)

The one order of Licking Flies, namely, the interesting

188 THE HISTORY OF CREATION,

group of the Bees, or Skin-winged Flies (Hymenoptera),
is closely allied to the four orders of biting Flies. Among
them are those Fles which have risen to such an
astonishing degree of mental development, of intellectual
perfection, and strength of character, by their extensive
division of labour, formation of communities and states, and
surpass in this not merely most invertebrate animals, but
even most animals in general. This may be said especially
of all ants and bees, also of wasps, leaf-wasps, wood-wasps,
gall-wasps, etc. They are first met with in a fossil state
in the oolites, but they do not appear in greater numbers
until the tertiary period. Probably these insects developed
either out of a branch of the primeval Flies or the gauze-
winged Flies.

Of the two orders of Pricking Flies (Hemiptera and
Diptera), that containing the Half-winged Flies (Hemip-
tera), also called Beaked Flies (Rhynchota), is the older of
the two. It includes three sub-orders, viz., the leaf-lice
(Homoptera), the bugs (Heteroptera), and lice (Pediculina).
Fossil remains of the first two classes are found in the
oolites; but an ancient Fly (Eugereon) is found in the
Permian system, and seems to indicate the derivation of
the Hemiptera from the Neuroptera. Probably the most
ancient of the three sub-orders of the Hemiptera are the
Homoptera, among which, besides the actual leaf-lice, are
the shield-lice, leaf-fleas, and leaf-crickets, or Cicadz. Lice
have probably developed out of two different branches of
Homoptera, by continued degeneration (especially by the
loss of wings); bugs, on the other hand, by the perfecting
and differentiation of the two pairs of wings.

THE ORDERS OF FLIES. 189

The second order of pricking flies, namely, the Two-
winyed Flies (Diptera), are also found in a fossil state
in the oolites, together with Half-winged Flies; but they
probably developed out of the Hemiptera by the degenera-
tion of the hind wings. In Diptera the fore wings alone
have remained perfect. The principal portion of this order
consists of the elongated gnats (Nemocera) and of the compact
blow-flies and house-flies (Brachycera), the former of which
are probably the older of the two. However, remains of
both are found in the oolitic period. The two small groups
of lice-flies (Pupipara) forming chrysales, and the hopping-
fleas (Aphaniptera), probably developed out of the Diptera
by degeneration resulting from parasitism.

The eighth and last order of Flies, and at the same
time the only one with mouth-parts adapted to sipping
liquids, consists of moths and butterflies (Lepidoptera).
This order appears, in several morphological respects, to
be the most perfect class of Flies, and accordingly was
the last to develop. For we only know of fossil remains of
this order from the tertiary period, whereas the three
preceding orders extend back to the oolites, and the four
biting orders even to the coal period. The close relation-
ship between some moths (Tinez) and (Noctue), and some
caddis-flies (Phryganida) renders it probable that butterflies
have developed from this group, that is, out of the order of
Gauze-winged Flies, or Neuroptera.

The whole history of Flies, and, moreover, the history
of the whole tribe of Arthropoda, essentially confirms
the great laws of differentiation and perfecting which,
according to Darwin’s theory of selection, must be

I90 THE HISTORY OF CREATION,

considered as the necessary results of Natural Selection.
The whole tribe, so rich in forms, begins in the Archilithic
period with the class of Crabs breathing by gills, and
with the lowest Primeval Crabs, or Archicaride. The
form of these Primzval Crabs, which were developed out
of segmented worms, is still approximately preserved by
the remarkable Nawplius, in the common larval stage of
somany Crabs. Out of the Nauplius, at a later period,
the curious Zoéa was developed, which is the common
larval form of all the higher or mailed crabs (Malacostraca),
and, at the same time, possibly of that Arthopod which at
first’ breathed through trachez, and became the common
ancestor of all Tracheata. This Devonian ancestor, which
must have originated between the end of the Silurian
and the beginning of the Coal period, was probably most
closely related to the still living Primeval Flies, or
Archiptera. Out of these there developed, as the main
tribe of the Tracheata, the class of Flies, from the lowest
stage of which the spiders and centipedes separated as
two diverging branches. Throughout along period there
existed only the four biting orders of Flies—the Primeval
flies, Gauze-wings, Straight-wings, and the Beetles, the first
of which is probably the common primary form of the
three others. It was only at a much later period that
the Licking, Pricking, and Sipping flies developed out of
the Biting ones, which retained the original form of the
three pairs of jaws most distinctly. The following table
will show once more how these orders succeeded one
another in the history of the earth.

Ais
Flies
with Chewing
SElouths

Masticantia

B.
Flies
with Sucking
SEouths

Sugentia

CLASSIFICATION OF FLIES.

L
Biting Flies

. Mordentia

II.

Licking Flies

Lambentia

HE

Stinging Flies

Pungentia

EV:

Sipping Flies

Sorbentia

‘1. Primeval winged
Archiptera
2. Gauze-winged
Neuroptera
. Straight-winged
Orthoptera
4, Beetles

Coleoptera
| 5.

6. Half-winged
Hemiptera

Skin-winged
Hymenoptera

7. Tway-flies
Diptera

8. Butterflies
Lepidoptera

MI
[aA
M.C.
oe

IQI

A.A.

Note.—The difference in the metamorphosis or transformation and in the
development of the wings of the eight individual orders of Flies is also
specified by the following letters: M.I. = Imperfect Metamorphosis.

M.C. = Perfect Metamorphosis.

(Compare Gen. Morph. ii. p. 99.)

A.A. = Equal wings (fore and hinder wings are the same, or differ but

little).

A.D. = Unequal wings (fore and hinder wings very different in

structure and texture, occasioned by strong differentiation).

192 THE HISTORY OF CREATION,

CHAPTER XX.

PEDIGREE AND HISTORY OF THE ANIMAL KINGDOM.
III, VERTEBRATE ANIMALS.

The Records of the Creation of Vertebrate Animals (Comparative Anatomy,
Embryology, and Palzontology).—The Natural System of Vertebrate
Animals.—The Four Classes of Vertebrate Animals, according to Lin-
nzeus and Lamarck.—Their increase to Nine Classes.—Main Class of the
Tube-hearted, or Skull-less Animals (the Lancelet)—Blood Relationship
between the Skull-less Fish and the Tunicates.—Agreement in the Em-
bryological Development of Amphioxus and Ascidiz.—Origin of the
Vertebrate Tribe out of the Worm Tribe.—Main Class of Single-
nostriled, or Round-mouthed Animals (Hag and Lampreys).—Main
Class of Anamnionate Animals, devoid of Amnion.—Fishes (Primeval
Fish, Cartilaginous Fish, Osseous Fish).—Mnud-fish, or Dipneusta.—Sea
Dragons, or Halisauria.—Frogs and Salmanders, or Amphibia (Mailed
Amphibia, Naked Amphibia).—Main Class of Amnionate Animals, or
Amniota.—Reptiles (Primary Reptiles, Lizards, Serpents, Crocodiles,
Tortoises, Flying Reptiles, Dragons, Beaked Reptiles).—Birds (Feather-
tailed, Fan-tailed, Bush-tailed).

Not one of the natural groups of organisms—which we have
designated as tribes, or phyla, on account of the blood-
relationship of all the species included in them—is of such
great and exceeding importance as the tribe of Vertebrate
Animals. For, according to the unanimous opinion of all
zoologists, man also is a member of the tribe; and his whole
organization and development cannot possibly be distin-
guished from that of other Vertebrate animals. But as trom

PHYLOGENY OF VERTEBRATES, 193

the individual history of human development, we have
already recognized the undeniable fact that, in developing out
of the egg, man at first does not differ from other Vertebrate
animals, and especially from Mammals, we must necessarily
come to the conclusion, in regard to the paleontological
history of his development, that man _ has, historically,
actually developed out of the lower Vertebrata, and that he
is directly derived from lower Mammals. This circumstance,
together with the many high interests which, in other
respects, entitle the Vertebrata to more consideration than
other organisms, justifies us in examining the pedigree of
the Vertebrata and its expression in the natural system,
with special care.

Fortunately, the records of creation, which must in all
cases be our guide in establishing pedigrees, are especially
complete in this important animal tribe, from which our
own race has arisen. Even at the beginning of our century
Cuvier’s comparative anatomy and paleontology, and Bar’s
ontogeny of the Vertebrate animals, had braqught us to a
high level of accurate knowledge on this matter. Since
then it is especially due to Johannes Miiller’s and Rathke’s
investigations in comparative anatomy, and most recently
to those of Gegenbaur and Huxley, that our knowledge
of the natural relationships among the different groups of
Vertebrata has become enlarged. It is especially Gegen-
baur’s classical works, penetrated as they are throughout
with the fundamental principles of the Theory of Descent,
which have demonstrated that the material of comparative
anatomy receives its true importance and value only by the
application of the Theory of Descent, and this in the case
of all animals, but especially in that in the Vertebrate tribe.

194 THE HISTORY OF CREATION.

Here, as everywhere else, analogies must be traced to Adapta-
tion, homologies to Transmission by Inheritance. When we
see that the limbs of the most different Vertebrata, in spite
of their exceedingly different external forms, nevertheless
possess essentially the same internal structure; when we see
that in the arm of a man and ape, in the wing of a man or
a bird, in the breast fins of whales and sea-dragons, in the
fore-legs of hoofed animals and frogs, the same bones
always lie in the same characteristic position, articulation
and connection—we can only explain this wonderful agree-
ment and homology by the supposition of a common trans-
mission by inheritance from a single primary form. On
the other hand, the striking differences of these homologous
bodily parts proceed from adaptation to different conditions
of existence. (Compare Plate IV.)

Ontogeny, or the individual history of development, like
comparative anatomy, is of especial importance to the pedi-
gree of the Vertebrata. The first stages of development
arising out of the egg are essentially identical in all
Vertebrate animals, and retain their agreement the longer,
the nearer the respective Vertebrate animal forms, when
fully developed, stand to one another in the natural system,
that is, in the pedigree. How far this agreement of germ
forms, or embryos, extends,even in the most highly developed
Vertebrate animals, I have already had occasion to explain
(vol. i. pp. 306-309). The complete agreement in form
and structure, for example, in the embryos of a man and
a dog, of a bird and a tortoise, existing in the stages of
development represented on Plates Il. and III, is a fact
of incalculable importance, and furnishes us with the most
important data for the construction of their pedigree,

CLASSES OF VERTEBRATA, 195

Finally, the paleontological records of creation are also
of especial value in the case of these same Vertebrate
animals; for their fossil remains belong for the most part
to the bony skeleton, a system of organs which is of the
utmost importance for understanding their general organiza-
tion. It is true that here, as in all other cases, the fossil
records are exceedingly imperfect and incomplete, but more
important remains of extinct Vertebrate animals have been
preserved in a fossil state, than of most other groups of
animals; and single fragments frequently furnish the most
important hints as to the relationship and the historical
succession of the groups.

The name of Vertebrate Animals (Vertebrata), as I have
already said, originated with the great Lamarck, who
towards the end of the last century comprised under this
name, Linnzeus’ four higher classes of animals, viz. Mammals,
Birds, Amphibious animals, and Fishes. Linnzeus’ two lower
classes, Insects and Worms, Lamarck contrasted to the
Vertebrata as Invertebrata, later also called Hvertebrata.

The division of the Vertebrata into the four classes above
named was retained also by Cuvier and his followers, and
in consequence by many zoologists down to the present
day. But in 1822 Blanville, the distinguished anatomist,
found out by comparative anatomy—which Bar did almost
at the same time from the ontogeny of Vertebrata—that
Linnzeus’ class of Amphibious animals was an unnatural
union of two very different classes. These two classes were
separated as early as 1820, by Merrin, as two main groups
of Amphibious animals, under the names of Pholidota and
Batrachia. The Batrachia, which are at present (in a
restricted sense) called Amphibious animals, comprise Frogs,

196 THE HISTORY OF CREATION.

Salamanders, gilled Salamanders, Ceecilia, and the extinct
Labyrinthodonta. Their entire organization is closely
allied to that of Fishes. The Pholidota, or Reptiles, on the
other hand, are much more closely allied to Birds. They
comprise lizards, serpents, crocodiles, and tortoises, and
the groups of the mesolithic Dragons, Flying reptiles, ete.

In conformity with this natural division of Amphibious
animals into two classes, the whole tribe of Vertebrate
animals was divided into two main groups. The first main
group, containing Amphibious animals and Fishes, breathe
throughout their lives, or in early life, by means of gills,
and are therefore called gilled Vertebrata (Branchiata, or
Anallantoida). The second main group—Reptiles, Birds,
and Mammals—breathe at no period of their lives through
gills, but exclusively through lungs, and hence may appro-
priately be called Gill-less, or Vertebrata with lungs
(Abranchiata, or Allantoida). However correct this dis-
tinction may be, still we cannot remain satisfied with it
if we wish to arrive at a true natural system of the verte-
brate tribe, and at a right understanding of its pedigree. In
this case, as I have shown in my General Morphology, we
are obliged to distinguish three other classes of Vertebrate
animals, by dividing what has hitherto been regarded as
the class of fishes into four distinct classes. (Gen. Morph.
vol. ii. Plate VII. pp. 116-160.)

The first and lowest of these classes comprises the Skull-
less animals (Acrania), or animals with tubular hearts
(Leptocardia), of which only one representative now exists,
namely, the remarkable little Lancelet (Amphioxus lanceola-
tus). Nearly allied to this is the second class, that of the
Single-nostriled animals (Monorrhina), or Rouwnd-mouthed

LARGER GROUPS IN THE VERTEBRATA. 197

animals (Cyclostoma), which includes the Hags (Myxinoida)
and Lampreys (Petromyzonta). The third class contains
only the genuine Fish (Pisces): the Mud-fishes (Dipneusta)
are added to these as a fourth class, and form the transi-
tion from Fish to Amphibious animals. This distinction,
which, as will be seen immediately, is very important for the
genealogy of the Vertebrate animals, increases the original
number of Vertebrate classes from four to eight.

In most recent times a ninth class of Vertebrata has been
added to these eight classes. Gegenbaur’s recently published
investigations in comparative anatomy prove that the
remarkable class of Sea-dragons (Halisauria), which have
hitherto been included among Reptiles, must be considered
quite distinct from these, and as a separate class which
branched off from the Vertebrate stock, even before the
Amphibious animals. To it belong the celebrated large
Ichthyosauri and Plesiosauri of the oolitic and chalk periods,
and the older Simosauri of the Trias period, all of which are
more closely allied to Fish than to Amphibious animals.

These nine classes of Vertebrate animals are, however, by
no means of the same genealogical value. Hence we must
divide them, as I have already shown in the Systematic
Survey on p. 133, into four distinct main-classes or tribes. In
the first place, the three highest classes, Mammals, Birds, and
Reptiles, may be comprised as a natural main-class under
the name of Amnion animals (Amnionata). The Amnion-
less animals (Anamnionata), naturally opposed to them as
a second main-class, include the four classes of Batrachians,
Sea-dragons, Mud-fish, and Fishes. The seven classes just
named, the Anamnionata as well as the Amnionata, agree
among one another in numerous characteristics, which dis-

198 THE HISTORY OF CREATION,

tinguish them from the two lowest classes (the single-
nostriled and tubular-hearted animals). Hence we may unite
them in the natural main group of Double-nostriled animals
(Amphirrhina). Finally, these Amphirrhina on the whole
are much more closely related to those animals with round
mouths or single nostrils than to the skull-less or tube-
hearted animals. We may, therefore, with full justice class
the single and double-nostriled animals into one principal
main group, and contrast them as animals with skulls
(Craniota), or bulbular hearts (Pachycardia), to the one class
of skull-less animals, or animals with tubular hearts. This
classification of the Vertebrate animals proposed by me
renders it possible to obtain a clear survey of the nine
classes in their most important genealogical relations. The
systematic relationship of these groups to one another may
be briefly expressed by the following table.

A.
Skull-less Animals 1. Tubular hearts 1. Leptocardia
(Acrania)
a. Single-nostriled
animals ‘e Round-months 2. Cyclostoma
B. Monorrhina
Animals with 3. Fish 3. Pisces
Skulls b. Donble{ 1: Non- |4. Mud-fish 4. Dipneusta
(Craniota) nostriled | A™nionate +5. Sea-dragons 5. Halisauria
or animals Anamnia 1/6, Batrachians 6. Amphibia
Thick Hearts | Amphir-
(Pachycardia) rhina II. Amnion- (7. Reptiles 7. Reptilia
ate. . Birds 8. Aves
Amniota \9. Mammals 9. Mammalia

The only one representative of the first class, the small
lanceolate fish, or Lancelet (Amphioxus lanceolatus) (Plate
XIII. Fig. B), stands at the lowest stage of organization

THE AMPHIOXUS. 199

of all the Vertebrate animals known tous. This exceedingly
interesting and important animal, which throws a surprising
light upon the older roots of our pedigree, is evidently the
last of the Mohicans—the last surviving representative of a
lower class of Vertebrate animals, very rich in forms, and
very highly developed during the primordial period, but
which unfortunately could leave no fossil remains on account
of the absence of all solid skeleton. The Lancelet still
lives widely distributed in different seas; for instance,
in the Baltic, North Sea, and Mediterranean, where it
generally lies buried in the sand on flat shores. The body,
as the name indicates, has the form of a narrow lanceolate
leaf, pointed at both extremities. When full grown it is
about two inches long, of a white colour and semi-trans-
parent. Externally, the little lanceolate animal is so little
like a vertebrate animal that Pallas, who first discovered it,
regarded it as an imperfect naked snail. It has no legs,
and neither head, skull, nor brain. Externally, the fore end
of the body can be distinguished from the hinder end only
by the open mouth. Butstill the Amphioxus in its internal
structure possesses those most important features, which
distinguish all Vertebrate animals from all Invertebrate
animals, namely, the spinal rod and spinal marrow. The
spinal rod (Chorda dorsalis) is a straight, cylindrical,
cartilaginous staff, pointed at both ends, forming the cen-
tral axis of the internal skeleton, and the basis of the
vertebral column. Directly above the spinal rod, on its
dorsal side, lies the spinal marrow (medulla spinalis), like-
wise originally a straight but internally hollow cord, pointed
at both ends. This forms the principal piece and centre of
the nervous system in all Vertebrate animals. (Compare above

200 THE HISTORY OF CREATION,

vol. i. p. 303.) In all Vertebrate animals without exception,
man included, these important parts of the body during
the embryological development out of the egg, originally
begin in the same simple form, which is retained throughout
life by the Amphioxus. It is only at a later period that the
brain develops by the expansion of the fore end of the spinal
marrow, and out of the spinal rod the skull which encloses
the brain. As these two important organs do not develop
at all in the Amphioxus, we may justly call the class repre-
sented by it, Skull-less animals (Acrania), in opposition to
all the others, namely, to the animals with skulls (Craniota).
The Skull-less animals are generally called tubular-hearted
(Leptocardia), because a centralized heart does not as yet
exist, and the blood is circulated in the body by the con-
tractions of the tubular blood-vessels themselves. The
Skulled animals, which possess a centralized, thick-walled,
bulb-shaped heart, ought then by way of contrast to be
called bulbular-hearted animals (Pachycardia).

Animals with skulls and central hearts evidently developed
gradually in the later primordial period out of those without
skulls and with tubular hearts. Of this the ontogeny of
skulled animals leaves no doubt. But whence are these
same skull-less animals derived ? It is only very lately that
an exceedingly surprising answer has been given to this
important question. From Kowalewsky’s investigations,
published in 1867, on the individual development of the
Amphioxus and the adhering Sea-squirts (Ascidia) belonging
to the class of mantled animals (Tunicata), it has been proved
that the ontogenies of these two entirely different looking
animal-forms agree in the first stage of development in a
most remarkable manner. The freely swimming larve of the

5 deg hd ae oP ela ee Sm
y
ws DAN | “Ate
a ’ ALP i.

Le ‘ , oe
, a, Fs 5 ee
oa , ;
i
' r pee fa
7
Vs
s . ij
/
'
’ ’
»
i, aS,
7
, .
j
i q
" ‘
4
¢
i
r af
r 2
ta
i
af
Sa a
\
n
r '
: ‘
’
he
Wi
'
:
ies
hay
a7 Ob
Le
: 7
bere
‘ fat htt, bg
S| Ae

: s

3 i a
Ascidia (A) and Amphioxus (B,

ASCIDIANS RELATED TO VERTEBRATES, 20!

Ascidians (Plate XII. Fig. A) develop the undeniable begin-
ning of a spinal marrow (Fig. 5 g) and of a spinal rod (Fig. 5 ¢),
and this moreover in entirely the same way as does the
Amphioxus. (Plate XIII. Fig. B.) It is true that in the
Ascidians these most important organs of the Vertebrate
animal-body do not afterwards develop further. The
Ascidians take on a retrograde transformation, become
attached to the bottom of the sea, and develop into shape-
less lumps, which when looked upon externally would
scarcely be supposed to be animals. (Plate XIII. Fig. 4.) But
the spinal marrow, as the beginning of the central nervous
system, and the spinal rod, as the first basis of the vertebral
column, are such important organs, so exclusively character-
istic of Vertebrate animals, that we may from them with
certitude infer the true blood relationship of Vertebrate
with Tunicate animals. Of course we do not mean to say
by this, that Vertebrate animals are derived from Tunicate
animals, but merely that both groups have arisen out of a
common root, and that the Tunicates, of all the Invertebrata,
are the nearest blood relations of the Vertebrates. It is
quite evident that genuine Vertebrate animals developed
progressively during the primordial period (and the skull-
less animals first) out of a group of worms, from which the
degenerate Tunicate animals arose in another and a retro-
grade direction. (Compare the more detailed explanation of
Plates XII. and XIII. in the Appendix.)

Out of the Skull-less animals there developed, in the first
instance, a second low class of Vertebrate animals, which
still stands far below that of fish, and which is now repre-
sented only by the Hags (Myxinoida) and Lampreys
(Petromyzonta). This class also, on account of the absence

202 THE HISTORY OF CREATION.

of all solid parts, could, unfortunately, as little as the
Skull-less animals leave fossil remains. From its whole
organization and ontogeny it is quite evident that it
represents a very important intermediate stage between
the Skull-less animals and Fishes, and that its few still
existing members are only the last surviving remains of
a probably very highly developed animal group which
existed towards the end of the primordial period. On
account of the curious mouth possessed by the Hags
and Lampreys, which they use for sucking, the whole class
is usually called Rownd-mouthed animals (Cyclostoma).
The name of Single-nostriled animals (Monorrhina) is still
more characteristic. For all Cyclostoma possess a simple,
single nasal tube, whereas, in all other Vertebrate animals
(with the exception of the Amphioxus) the nose consists
of two lateral halves, a right and a left nostril We are
therefore enabled to comprise these latter (Anamnionata
and Amnionata) under the heading, double-nostriled animals
(Amphirrhina). All the Amphirrhina possess a fully
developed jaw-skeleton (upper and under jaw), whereas it
is completely wanting in the Monorrhina.

Apart also from the peculiar nasal formation, and the
absence of jaws, the Single-nostriled animals are dis-
tinguished from those with double nostrils by many
peculiarities. Thus they want the important sympathetic
nervous system, and the spleen which the Amphirrhina
possess. Of the swimming bladder, and the two pairs of legs
—which all double-nostriled animals have, at least in their
embryonic conditions—not a trace exists in the Single-
nostriled animals, which is the case also in the Skull-less
animals. Hence, we are surely justified in completely

-

>
1

3

”

WN

THE LAMPREYS AND HAGS. 203

separating the Monorrhina, as we have separated the Skull-
less animals, from the Fishes, with which they have hitherto
been erroneously classed.

We owe our first accurate knowledge of the Monorrhina,
or Cyclostoma, to the great zoologist, Johannes Miiller of
Berlin; his classical work on the “Comparative Anatomy
of the Myxinoida” forms the foundation of our modern
views on the structure of the Vertebrate animals. He
distinguished two distinct groups among the Cyclostoma,
which we shall consider as sub-classes.

The first sub-class consists of the Hags (Hyperotreta, or
Myxinoida). They live in the sea as parasites upon other
fish, into whose skin they penetrate (Myxine, Bdellostoma).
Their organ of hearing has only one annular canal, and
their single nasal tube penetrates the palate. The second
sub-class, that of Lampreys, or Prides (Hyperoartia, or
Petromyzontia) is more highly developed. It includes the
well-known Lamperns, or Nine-eyes, of our rivers (Petro-
myzon fluviatilis), with which most persons are acquainted.
They are represented in the sea by the frequently larger
marine or genuine Lampreys (Petromyzon marinus). The
nasal tube of these single-nostriled animals does not
penetrate the palate, and in the auricular organ there are
two annular canals.

All existing Vertebrate animals, with the exception of
the Monorrhina and Amphioxus just mentioned, belong to
the group which we designate as Double-nostriled animals
(Amphirrhina). All these animals possess (in spite of the
great variety in the rest of their forms) a nose consisting of
two lateral halves, a jaw-skeleton, a sympathetic nervous
system, three annular canals connected with the auricular

204 THE HISTORY OF CREATION,

SYSTEMATIC SURVEY

Of the 4 Main-classes, 9 Classes, and 26 Sub-classes of Vertebrata.
Gen. Morph. vol. ii. Plate VII. pp. 116-160.

I. Skull-eless (Acrania), or Tube-heartey (Leptocardia).
Vertebrata without head, without skull and brain, without centralized heart.

1. Skulleless I. Tube-hearted tI. ee 1. Amphioxus

Acrania Leptocardia

II. Animals with skulls (Craniota) and with thick-walled hearts (Pachycardia).
Vertebrata with head, with skull and brain, with centralized heart.

Sub-classes
of the

Classes

of the
Skulled Animals,

Main-classes

Systematic Name
of the Skulled h

of the

Animals. Skulled Animals. Sub-classes.
2. Single: 2. Hags, or Mucous 2. Hyperotreta
cw ingit- | II. Round mouths Fish (Myxinoida)
Posteiley } Cyclostoma 3. Lampreys, or 8. Hyperoartia
Monorrhina Pride (Petromyzontia )
Ill. Fish 4, Primeval fish 4. Selachii
Pisces | 5. Ganoid fish 5. Ganoides
6. Osseous fish 6. Teleostei
IV. Mud-fish ‘
ae { 7. Mud-fish 7. Protopteri
3. Pon-am- 8. Primeval 8. Simosanria
muonate V. Sea-dragons dragons
Anamnion- Halisauri 9. Snake-dragons 9. Plesiosauria
ata 10. Fish-dragons 10. Ichthyosauria
11. Mailed Batra- 11. Phractamphibia
VI. Batrachians chians
Amphibia 2. Naked Batra- 12. Lissamphibia
chians
3. Primary reptiles 13. Tocosauria
4, Lizards 14. Lacertilia
5. Serpents 15. Ophidia
6. Crocodiles 16. Crocodilia
7. Tortoises 17. Chelonia
8. Flying reptiles 18. Pterosauria
4. Amnion 9. Dragons 19. Dinosauria
Animals 0. Beaked reptiles 20. Anomodontia
Amni a . Long-tailed 21. Saururze
pees i Paedieds Fan-tailed 22. Carinates
3. Bush-tailed 23. Ratitz
4, Cloacal animals 24. Monotrema
oe 5. Pouchedanimals 25. Marsupialia
6. Placental animals 26. Placentalia

PEDIGREE OF VERTEBRATES, 205

9. Mammals

Mammalia
8. Birds
Aves
7. Reptiles
Reptilia
5. Sea-dragons |
Halisauria —.-——-
Osseous fish Amnion Animals
Teleostet 4. Mud-fish Amniota
Dipneusta
Ganoid fish 6. Batrachians
Ganoidet Amphibia

a ie lene Loo
Vertebrate animals breathing through limgs
Amphipneumones

Eg pe es Se
Primeval fish Selachii
3. Fishes Pisces
Double-nostriley Amphirrhina
2. Round-mouthed
Cyclostoma

aetna SRO 45 TA Be
Single-nostriley | Monorrhina
Animals with skulls Craniota
1. Tube-hearted
Leptocardia

m As Cc id ie —”?—_l.I Eee ESO
Sea-barrels Skulleless Animals
Thaliacea Acrania
| Pertebrate Animals
Vertebrata

CC
TicnuateAnimals
Tunicata

- 206 THE HISTORY OF CREATION.

sac, and a spleen. Further, all Double-nostriled animals
possess a bladder-shaped expansion of the gullet, which, in
Fish, has developed into the swimming bladder, but in all
other Double-nostriled animals into lungs. Finally, in all
Double-nostriled animals there exist in the youngest stage
of growth the beginnings of two pairs of extremities, or
limbs, a pair of fore legs, or breast fins, and a pair of hinder
legs, or ventral fins. One of these pairs of legs sometimes
degenerates (as in the case of eels, whales, etc.), or both
pairs of legs (as in Ceecilize and serpents) either degenerate
or entirely disappear; but even in these cases there exists
some trace of their original beginning in an early embryonic
period, or the useless remains of them may be found in the
form of rudimentary organs. (Compare above, vol. i. p. 13.)

From all these important indications we may conclude
with full assurance that all double-nostriled animals are
derived from a single common primary form, which
developed either directly or indirectly during the primordial
period out of the Monorrhina. This primary form must
have possessed the organs above mentioned, and also the
beginning of a swimming bladder and of two pairs of legs
or fins. It is evident, that of all still living double-nostriled
animals, the lowest forms of sharks are most closely allied
to this long since extinct, unknown, and hypothetical
primary form, which we may call the Primary Double-
nostriled animals (Proselachii). We may therefore look
upon the group of primeval fish, or Selachii, to which the
Proselachit. probably belonged, as a primary group, not
only of the Fish class, but of the whole main-class of double-
nostriled animals.

The class of Fish (Pisces) with which we accordingly

PRIMAVAL FISH. 207

begin the series of Double-nostriled animals, is distinguished
from the other six classes of the series by the swimming
bladder never developing into lungs, but acting only as a
hydrostatic apparatus. Agreeing with this, we find that
in fish the nose is formed by two blind holes in front of
the mouth, which never pierce the palate so as to open
into the cavity of the mouth. In the other six classes of
double-nostriled animals, both nostrils are changed into air
passages which pierce the palate, and thus conduct air
to the lungs. Genuine fish (after the exclusion of the
Dipneusta) are accordingly the only double-nostriled
animals which exclusively breathe through gills and never
through lungs. In accordance with this, they all live in
water, and both pairs of their legs have retained the original
form of paddling fins.

Genuine fish are divided into three distinct sub-classes,
namely, Primeval fish, Ganoid fish, and Osseous fish.
The oldest of these, where the original form has been most
faithfully preserved, is that of the Primeval fish (Selachii),
Of these there still exist Sharks (Squali), and Rays
(Rajz), which are classed together as cross-mouthed fishes
(Plagiostomi), and the strange and grotesquely formed Sea-
cats, or Chimcracet (Holocephali). These primary fish of
the present day, which are met with in all seas, are only
poor remains of the prevailing animal groups, rich in forms,
which the Selachii formed in the earlier periods of the
earth’s history, and especially during the palzeolithic period.
Unfortunately all Primzval fish possess a cartilaginous,
never a completely osseous skeleton, which is but little, if
at all, capable of being petrified. ‘The only hard parts of
the body which could be preserved in a fossil state, are the

208 THE HISTORY OF CREATION.

SYSTEMATIC SURVEY
Of the 7 Legions and 15 Orders of the Fishes.

Sub-classes Legions Orders Examples
Fishes. Fishes. Fishes. the Orders.
(etre ee . Sharks Sharks, dog-fish
et i Squalacet
gel Plaginstoas 2. Rays Spiked rays, electric
Sish Rajacer rays, etc.
Selachii Z| II. Sea-Cats 3. Sea-Cats Chimera, Calorrhyn-
Holocephah Chimeracet chias
4, Buckler-heads Cephalaspide, Placo-
Te. my y Gancyd Pamphracte derma, etc.
dani ; 5. Sturgeons Spoon-sturgeons, stur-
hic Sturiones geons, sterlet, etc.
RB. fa Pa A a 6. Efuleri Doula
Ganoid es a 7. Fuleraté er bony pike,
etc.
el Barer gers 8. Semcoptert African finny pike,
etc.
¥. .Bound-scaled 9. Caloscolopes Holoptychius, Coelacan-
Ganoid Fish thides, etc.
Cycliferi 10. Pycnoscolopes Coccolepida, Amiade,
etc.
VI. Osseous Fish
a ay ge 11. Herring species Herrings, salmon, carp,
passage to the Thrissogenes etc.
eenanche 12. Eel species Eels, snake eels, electric
Beh 1 bladder | Enchelygenes eels, etc.
Fish Physostome
Teleostei VII. Osseous Fish /13. Stichobranchit Perch, wrasse, turbot,
without an air etc.
passage to the fa Plectognatht Trunk fish, globe fish,
swimming etc.
bladder 15. Lophobranchit Pipe fish, sea horses,
Physoclisti etc.

PEDIGREE OF THE NON-AMNIONATE CRANTIOTA, 209
Plectognathi Anura
| Lophobranchia Peromela
Sozura
a ai ee Labyrinthodonta
Stichobranchia
Physoclisti
NS _ ra
Enchelygenes Ganocephala § Sozobranchia
Phractamphibia Lissamphibia
es
Thrissogenes Amphibia
Physostomi Semzeopteri
Teleostei Protopteri
Falcrati Plesio-
sauria
Pycnoscolopes Ichthyo-
sauria
Cceloscolopes Efuleri
Cycliferi Rhombiferi
(Cycloganoides) (Rhomboganoides)
Dipneusta .
Placoderma Simosauria
Sturiones Halisauria
Cephalaspidze Rajacei
Amphipneumona
Pamphracti
Tabuliferi
(Placoganoides) Chimeeracei
Ganoides Holocephali
Squalacei
Plagiostomi

5 a eS eee

27

Selachii
Fish
Amphirrhina
Cyclostoma
Monorrhina
Craniota

210 THE HISTORY OF CREATION.

teeth and fin-spikes. These are found in the older
formations in such quantities, varieties, and sizes, that we
may, with certainty, infer a very considerable develop-
ment of Primzeval fish in those remote ages. They are even
found in the Silurian strata, which contain but few
remains of other Vertebrata, such as Enamelled fish (and
these only in the most recent part, that is, in the upper
Silurian). By far the most important and interesting of
the three orders of Primeval fish are Sharks; of all still
living double-nostriled animals, they are probably most
closely allied to the original primary form of the whole
group, namely, to the Proselachii. Out of these Proselachii,
which probably differed but little from genuine Sharks,
Enamelled fish, and the present Primzeval fish, in all prob-
ability, developed in one direction, and the Dipneusta,
Sea-dragons, and Amphibia in another.

The Ganoid, or Enamelled fish (Ganoides), in regard to
their anatomy stand midway between the Primeval and the
Osseous fish. In many characteristics they agree with the
former, and in many others with the latter. Hence, we infer
that genealogically they form the transition from Primeval
to Osseous fish. The Ganoids are for the most part extinct,
and more nearly so than the Primeval fish, whereas they
were developed in great force during the entire palzeolithic
and mesolithic periods. Ganoid fish are divided into
three legions according to the form of their external
covering, namely, Mailed, Angular-scaled, and Round-
scaled. The Mailed Ganoid fish (Tabuliferi) are the oldest,
and are directly allied to the Selachii, out of which they
originated. Fossil remains of them, though rare, are found
even in the upper Silurian (Pteraspis ludensis of the

GANOID AND BONY FISH. 21

Ludlow strata). Gigantic species of them, coated with
strong bony plates, are found in the Devonian system.
But of this legion there now lives only the small order
of Sturgeons (Sturiones), including the Spade-sturgeons
(Spatularide), and those Sturgeons (Accipenseridz) to
which belong, among others, the Huso, which yields isinglass,
or sturgeon’s sound, and the Caviar-sturgeon, whose eggs
we eat in the shape of caviar, etc. Out of the mailed
Ganoid fish, the angular and round-scaled ones probably
developed as two diverging branches. The Angular-scaled
Ganoid fish (Rhombiferi)—which can be distinguished at
first sight from all other fish by their square or rhombic
scales—are at present represented only by a few survivors,
namely, the Finny Pike (Polypterus) in African rivers
(especially the Nile), and by the Bony Pike (Lepidosteus)
in American rivers. Yet during the paleolithic and the
first half of the mesolithic epochs this legion formed the
most numerous group of fishes. The third legion, that of
Round-scaled Ganoid fish (Cycliferi), was no less rich in
forms, and lived principally during the Devonian and Coal
periods. This legion, of which the Bald Pike (Amia),
in North American rivers, is the only survivor, was
especially important, inasmuch as the third sub-class of
fish, namely, Osseous fish, developed out of it.

Osseous fish (Teleostei) include the greater portion of the
fish of the present day. Among these are by far the
greater portion of marine fish, and all of our fresh-water
fish except the Ganoid fish just mentioned. This class
is distinctly proved by numerous fossils to have arisen
about the middle of the Mesolithie epoch out of Ganoid
fish,and moreover out of the Round-scaled, or Cycliferi.

23, ie THE HISTORY OF CREATION,

The Thrissopide of the Oolitic period (Thrissops, Leptolepis,
Tharsis), which are most closely allied to the herrings of the
present day, are probably the oldest of all Osseous fish,
and have directly arisen out of Round-scaled Ganoid fish,
closely allied to the existing Amia. In the older Osseous
fish of the legion called Physostomi, as also in the
Ganoides, the swimming bladder throughout life was
connected with the throat by a permanent air passage
(a kind of windpipe). This is still the case with all the
fish belonging to this legion, namely, with herrings, salmon,
carp, shad, eels, etc. However, during the chalk period this
air passage, in some of the Physostomi, became constricted
and closed, and the swimming bladder was thus completely
separated from the throat. Hence there arose a second
legion of Osseous fish, the Physoclisti, which did not
attain their actual development until the tertiary epoch,
and soon far surpassed the Physostomi in variety. To this
legion belong most of the sea fish of the present day,
especially the large families of the Turbot, Tunny, Wrasse,
Crowfish, ete. further, the Lock-jaws (Plectoonathi), Trunk
fish, and Globe-fish and the Bushy-gills (Lophobranchi), viz.,
Pipe-fish, and Sea-horses. There are, however, only very
few Physoclisti among our river fish, for instance, Perch
and Sticklebacks; the majority of river fish are Physostomi.

Midway between genuine Fish and Amphibia is the
remarkable class of Mud-fish, or Scaly Sirens (Dipneusta,
or Protopteri). There now exist only a few representatives
of this class, namely, the American Mud-fish (Lepidosiren
paradoxa) in the region of the river Amazon, and the
African Mud-fish (Protopterus annectens) in different parts
of Africa, A third large Salamander-fish (Ceratodus Fosteri)

es

THE DIPNEUSTA. 213

has lately been discovered in Australia. During the dry
season, that is in summer, these strange animals bury
themselves in a nest of leaves in the dry mud, and then
breathe air through lungs like the Amphibia. But during
the wet season, in winter, they live in rivers and bogs,
and breathe water through gills like fish. Externally, they
resemble fish of the eel kind, and are like them covered
with scales; in many other characteristics also—in their
internal structure, their skeleton, extremities, ete—they
resemble Fish more than Amphibia. But in certain features
they resemble the Amphibia, especially in the formation
of their lungs, nose, and heart. There is consequently an
endless dispute among zoologists, as to whether the Mud-
fish are genuine Fish or Amphibia. Distinguished zoologists
have expressed themselves in favour of both opinions
But in fact, owing to the complete blending of character-
istics which they present, they belong neither to the one
nor to the other class, and are probably most correctly
dealt with as a special class of Vertebrata, forming the
transition between Fishes and Amphibians. The still living
Dipneusta are probably the last surviving remains of a
group which was formerly rich in forms, but has left no
fossil traces on account of the want of a solid skeleton.
In this-respect, these animals are exactly like the Monor-
rhina and the Leptocardia. However, teeth are found in
the Trias which resemble those of the living Ceratodus.
Possibly the extinct Dipneusta of the palzeolithic period,
which developed in the Devonian epoch out of primeval
fish, must be looked. upon as the primary forms of the
Amphibia, and thus also of all higher Vertebrata. At
all events the unknown forms of transition—from Primeeval
fish to Amphibia—were probably very like the Dipneusta.

214 * THE HISTORY OF CREATION,

A very peculiar class of Vertebrate animals, long since
extinct, and which appears to have lived only during
the secondary epoch, is formed by the remarkable Sea-
dragons (Halisauria, or Enaliosauria, also called Nexipoda,
or Swimming-footed animals). These formidable animals
of prey inhabited the mesolithic oceans in great numbers,
and were of most peculiar forms, sometimes from thirty
to forty feet in length, From many and excellently pre-
served fossil remains and impressions, both of the entire
body of Sea-dragons as well as of single parts, we have
become very accurately acquainted with the structure of
their bodies. They are usually classed among Reptiles,
whilst some anatomists have placed them in a much lower
rank, as directly allied to Fish. Gegenbaur’s recently
published investigations, which place the structure of their
limbs in a true light, have led to the surprising conclusion
that the Sea-dragons form quite an isolated group, differ-
ing widely both from Reptiles and Amphibia as well as
from Fish. The skeleton of their four legs, which are
transformed into short, broad, paddling fins (like those of
fish and whales) furnishes us with a clear proof that the
Halisauria branched off from the main-stock of Vertebrata at
an earlier period than the Amphibia. For Amphibia, as well
as the three higher classes of Vertebrata, are all derived
from a common primary form, which possessed only jive toes
or fingers on each leg. But the Sea-dragons have (either
distinctly developed or in a rudimentary condition as
parts of the skeleton of the foot) more than five fingers,
as have also the Selachians or Primeval fish. On the other
hand, they breathed air through lungs, ike the Dipneusta,
although they always swam about in the sea. They,

- “eS

THE SEA-DRAGONS, 215

therefore, perhaps, in conjunction with the Dipneusta,
branched off from the Selachii, but did not develop into
higher Vertebrata ; they form an extinct lateral line of the
pedigree, which has died out.

The more accurately known Sea-dragons are classed into
three orders, distinct enough one from the other, namely,
Primevel Dragons, Fish Dragons, and Serpent Dragons.
The Primeval Dragons (Simosauria) are the oldest Sea-
dragons, and lived only during the Trias period. The
skeletons of many different genera of them are met with
in the German limestone known as “ Muschel-kalk.” They
seem upon the whole to have been very like the
Plesiosauria, and are, consequently, sometimes united with
them into one order as Sauropterygia. The Serpent
Dragons (Plesiosauria) lived in the oolitic and chalk
periods together with the Ichthyosauriaa They were
characterised by an uncommonly long thin neck, which
was frequently longer than the whole body, and carried
a small head with a short snout. When their arched neck
was raised they must have looked very like a swan; but
in place of wings and legs they had two pairs of short,
flat, oval-paddling fins.

The body of the Fish Dragons (Ichthyosauria) was of
an entirely different form; these animals may be opposed
to the two preceding orders under the name of Fish-
finners (Ichthyopterygia). They possessed a very long
extended body, like a fish, and a heavy head with an
elongated, flat snout, but a very short neck. Externally,
they were probably very like porpoises. Their tail was
very long, whereas it was very short in the members of the
preceding orders. Also both pairs of paddling fins are

216 THE HISTORY OF CREATION,

broader and show very different structure from that seen
in the other two orders. Probably the Fish Dragons and
Serpent Dragons developed as two diverging branches
out of the Primeval Dragons; but it is also possible that
the Plesiosauria alone originated out of the Simosauria,
and that the Ichthyosauria were lower off-shoots from the
common stock. At all events, they must all be directly, or
indirectly derived from the Selachii, or Primeval fish.

The succeeding classes of Vertebrata, the Amphibia and
the Amniota (Reptiles, Birds, and Mammals), owing to the
characteristic structure which they all exhibit of five toes
to each foot, may all be derived from a common primary
form, which originated from the Selachii, and which possessed
five toes on each of its four limbs. When we find a less
number of toes than five, we can show that the missing
ones must have been lost in the course of time by adapta-
tion. The oldest known Vertebrata with five toes are
the Batrachias (Amphibia). We divide this class into
two sub-classes, namely, mailed Batrachians and naked
Batrachians, the first of which is distinguished by the body
being covered with bony plates or scales,

The first and elder sub-class of Amphibia consists of the
Mailed Batrachians (Phractamphibia), the oldest land
living Vertebrata of which fossil remains exist. Well-
preserved fossil remains of them occur in the coal, especially
of those with Enamelled heads (Ganocephala), which are
most closely allied to fish, namely, the Archegosaurus
of Saarbruck, and the Dendrerpeton of North America.
There then follow at a later period the gigantic Labyrinth-
toothed animals (Labyrinthodonta), which are represented
in the Permian system by Zygosaurus, but at a later

THE SALAMANDERS, 217

period, more especially in the Trias, by Mastodonsaurus,
Trematosaurus, Capitosaurus, etc. The shape of these
formidable rapacious animals seems to have been between
that of crocodiles, salamanders, and frogs, but in their
internal structure they were more closely related to the
two latter, while by their solid coat of mail, formed of
strong bony plates, they resembled the first animals.
These gigantic mailed Batrachians seem to have become
extinct towards the end of the Triassic period. No fossil
remains of mailed Batrachia are known during the whole
of the subsequent periods. However, the still living blind
Snakes, or Cecilie (Peromela)—small-scaled Phractamphibia
of the form and the same mode of life as the earth-worm—
prove that this sub-class continued to exist, and never
became completely extinct.

The second sub-class of Amphibia, the naked Batrachia
(Lissamphibia), probably originated even during the
primary and secondary epochs, although fossil remains of
them are first found in the tertiary epoch. They are
distinguished from mailed Batrachia by possessing a naked
smooth, and slimy skin, entirely without scales or coat of
mail. They probably developed either out of a branch of
the Phractamphibia, or out of the same common root with
them. The ontogeny of the three still living orders of naked
Batrachia—the gilled Batrachia, tailed Batrachia, and frog
Batrachia—distinctly repeats the historical course of de-
velopment of the whole sub-class. The oldest forms are the
gilled Batrachia (Sozobranchia), which retain throughout
life the original primary form of naked Batrachia, and
possess a long tail, together with water-breathing gills.
They are most closely allied to the Dipneusta, from which,

218 THE HISTORY OF CREATION.

however, they differ externally by the absence of the coat
of scales. Most gilled Batrachia ive in North America:
among others of the class is the Axolotl, or Siredon, already
mentioned. (Compare above, vol. i. p. 241.) In Europe the
order is only represented by one form, the celebrated “Olm”
(Proteus anguinus), which inhabits the grotto of Adelsberg
and other caves in Carinthia, and which, from living in the
dark, has acquired rudimentary eyes which can no longer see
(vol. i. p. 13). The order of Tailed Batrachia (Sozura) have
developed out of the gilled Batrachia by the loss of external
gills; the order includes our black and yellow spotted land
Salamander (Salamandra maculata), and our nimble aquatic
Salamanders (Tritons). Many of them—for instance, the
celebrated giant Salamanders in Japan (Cryptobranchus
Japonicus)—still retain the gill-slits, although the gills
themselves have disappeared. All of them, however, retain
the tail throughout life. Tritons occasionally — when
forced to remain in water always—retain their gills, and
thus remain at the same stage of development as gilled
Batrachia. (Compare above, vol. 1. p. 241.) The third order,
the tailless or frog-like Batrachia (Anura), during their
metamorphosis, not only lose their gills, with which in
early life (as so-called tadpoles) they breathe in water, but
also the tail with which they swim about. During their
ontogeny, therefore, they pass through the course of
development of the whole sub-class, they being at first
Gilled Batrachia, then Tailed Batrachia, and finally Frog-
lie Batrachia. The inference from this is evidently, that
Frog-like Batrachia developed at a later period out of
Tailed Batrachia, as the latter had developed out of Gilled
Batrachia which originally existed alone.

THE AMNION-SAC. 219

In passing from the Amphibia to the next class of
Vertebrata, namely, Reptiles, we observe a very considerable
advance in the progress of organization. All the double-
nostriled animals (Amphirrhina) up to this time considered,
and more especially the two larger classes of Fish and
Batrachia, agree in a number of important characteristics,
which essentially distinguish them from the three remaining
classes of Vertebrata—Reptiles, Birds, and Mammals.
During the embryological development of these latter, a
peculiarly delicate covering, the first fetal membrane, or
amnion, which commences at the navcl, is formed round
the embryo; this membrane is filled with the amnion-
water, and encloses the embryo or germ in the form of a
bladder. On account of this very important and character-
istic formation, we may comprise the three most highly
developed classes of Vertebrata under the term Ammnion-
animals (Amniota). The four classes of double-nostriled
animals which we have just considered, in which the
amnion is wanting (as is the case in all lower Vertebrate
animals, single-nostriled and skull-less animals), may on
the other hand be opposed to the others as anvnion-less
animals (Anamnia).

The formation of the fcetal membrane, or amnion,
which distinguishes reptiles, birds, and mammals from all
other Vertebrata, is evidently a very important process in
their ontogeny, and in the phylogeny which corresponds
with it. It coincides with a series of other processes, which
essentially determine the higher development of Amnionate
animals. The first of these important processes is the
total loss of gills, for which reason the Amniota, under the
name of Gill-less animals (Ebranchiata), were formerly

220 THE HISTORY OF CREATION,

opposed to all other Vertebrate animals which breathed
through gills (Branchiata). In all the Vertebrata already
discussed, we found that they either always breathed
through gills, or at least did so in early life, as in the
case of Frogs and Salamanders. On the other hand, we
never meet with a Reptile, Bird, or Mammal which at any
period of its existence breathes through gills, and the gill-
arches and openings which do exist in the embryos, are,
during the course of the ontogeny, changed into entirely
different structures, viz. into parts of the jaw-apparatus and
the organ of hearing. (Compare above, vol. i. p. 307.) All
Amnionate animals have a so-called cochlea in the organ of
hearing, and a “round window” corresponding with it. These
parts are wanting in the Amnion-less animals; moreover, their
skull lies in a straight line with the axis of the vertebral
column. In Amnioticanimals the base of the skull appears
bent in on the abdominal side, so that the head sinks upon
the breast. (Plate IIT. Fig. C,D,G,H.) The organs of tears
at the side of the eye also first develop in the Amniota.

The question now is, When did this important advance
take place in the course of the organic history of the earth ?
When did the common ancestor of all Amniota develop out
of a branch of the Non-amniota, to wit, out of the branch of
the Amphibia ?

To this question, the fossil remains of Vertebrata do
not give us a very definite, but still they do give an
approximate, answer. For with the exception of two
lizard-like animals found in the Permian system (the
Proterosaurus and Rhopalodon), all the fossil remains of
Amniota, as yet known, belong to the secondary, tertiary,
and quaternary epochs. With regard to the two Vertebrata

THE TRIASSIC PERIOD. 221

just named, it is still doubtful whether they are genuine
reptiles, or perhaps Amphibia of the salamander kind.
Their skeleton alone is known to us, and even this not
perfectly. Now as we know nothing of the characteristic
features of their soft parts, it is quite possible that the
Proterosaurus and Rhopalodon were non-amnionate animals
more closely allied to Amphibia than to Reptiles; possibly
they belonged to the transition form between the two
classes. But, on the other hand, as undoubted fossil remains
of Amniota have been found as early as the Trias, it is
probable that the main class of Amniota first developed in
the Trias, that is, in the beginning of the Mesolithic epoch.
As we have already seen, this very period is evidently one
of the most important turning points in the organic history
of the earth. The paleeolithic fern forests were then re-
placed by the pine forests of the Trias period; important
transformations then took place in many of the classes of
Invertebrata. Articulated marine lilies (Colocrina) de-
veloped out of the plated ones (Phatnocrina.) The Autechi-
nidz, or sea-urchins with only twenty rows of plates, took
the place of the palzeolithic Palechinidze, the sea-urchins
with more than twenty rows of plates. The Cystidez, Blas-
toidez, Trilobita, and other characteristic groups of Inverte-
brata of the primary period became extinct. It is no
wonder that transforming conditions of adaptation power-
fully influenced the Vertebrate tribes also in the beginning
of the Trias period, and caused the orig:n of Amniotic
animals.

If, however, the two Lizard and Salamander-like
animals of the Permian system, the Proterosaurus and
Rhopalodon, are considered genuine Reptiles, and conse-

222 THE HISTORY OF CREATION.

quently the most ancient Amniota, then the origin of this
main class must necessarily have taken place in the
preceding period, towards the end of the primary, namely,
in the Permian period. However, all other remains of
Reptiles, which were formerly believed to have been found
in the Permian and the Coal system, or even in the Devonian
system, have been proved to be either not remains of
Reptiles at all, or to belong to a more recent date (for the
most part to the Trias). (Compare Plate XIV.)

The common hypothetical primary form of all Amniotic
animals, which we may call Protamnion, and which was
possibly nearly related to the Proterosaurus, very probably
stood upon the whole mid-way between salamanders and
lizards, in regard to its bodily formation. Its descendants
divided at an early period into two different lines, one of
which became the common primary form of Reptiles and
Birds, the other the primary form of Mammals.

Of all the three classes of Amniota, Reptiles (Reptilia, or
Pholidota, also called Sauria in the widest sense), remain at
the lowest stage of development, and differ least from their
ancestors, the Amphibia. Hence they were formerly uni-
versally included among them, although their whole
organization is much more like that of Birds than Amphibia.
There now exist only four orders of Reptiles, namely,—
Lizards, Serpents, Crocodiles, and Tortoises. They, however,
form but a poor remnant of the exceedingly various and
highly developed host of Reptiles which lived during the
Mesolithic, or Secondary epoch, and predominated over all
other Vertebrata. The immense development of Reptiles
during the Secondary epoch is so characteristic that we
could as well name it after those animals as after the

Ee a rn Fs, A rar
, ff ay > eee -

ostrilled or Amphirrhina
ion, without gills.
re
ao | a eee
A A An | Vi
ul i
ik ar
i a
iy | q

H |
I }

<< ==

=>
SS ——
SS SSS
so 8

= SS ——

eae
SSS

—— a

y)

0 !
fh,
( \ i
NNN
mi iN
( \ ( A)
\ Ml
Mi iW i} NV
(i ik |
\ iit MN) i aa MH
\ ) ie Wi
NK ) My fh ANU
" i .: 4

SS

1 Relative lengths of the 5
Singl wad Epochs in per centages.

MONOPHYLETIC PEDIGREE Quarternary Epoch ...0.5

of the Stem of the Tertiary Epoch. Liociuamaten’ Didehee
Seco.

BACK-BONED ANIMALS
based on Paleontology.

Primordial Epoch..53.6

_ Archilithic. or
Primordial Epoch.

en ee

RECENT AND FOSSIL REPTILES, 223

Gymnosperms (p. 111). Twelve of the twenty-seven sub-
orders, given on the accompanying table, and four of the
eight orders, belong exclusively to the secondary period.
These mesolithic groups are marked by an asterisk. All
the orders, with the exception of Serpents, are found fossil
even in the Jura and Trias periods.

In the first order, that of Primary Reptiles, or Primary
Creepers (Tocosauria), we class the extinct Thecodontia of
the Trias, together with those Reptiles which we may look
upon as the common primary form of the whole class.
To the latter, which we may call Primeval Reptiles
(Proreptilia), the Proterosaurus of the Permian system
very probably belongs. The seven remaining orders
must be considered as diverging branches, which have
developed in different directions out of that common
primary form. The Thecodontia of the Trias, the only
positively known fossil forms of Tocosauria, were Lizards
which seem to have been like the still living monitor
lizards (Monitor, Varanus).

Of the four orders of reptiles now existing, and which,
moreover, have alone represented the class since the
beginning of the tertiary epoch, that of Lizards (Lacertilia)
is probably most closely allied to the extinct Primary
Reptiles, and especially through the monitors already
named. The class of Serpents (Ophidia) developed out of a
branch of the order of lizards, and this probably not until
the beginning of the tertiary epoch. At least we at
present only know of fossil remains of serpents from the
tertiary strata. Crocodiles (Crocodilia) existed much earlier ;
the Teleosauria and Steneosauria belonging to the class are
found fossil in large quantities even in the Jura; but the

224

THE HISTORY OF CREATION.

SYSTEMATIC SURVEY
Of the 8 Orders and 27 Sub-orders of Reptiles.

- (Those groups marked with * became extinct even during the Secondary Period.)

ae Sub-orders Systematic Name A Generic Name
of Reptiles. hie d of the -
eptiles. Sub-orders. an example.
I. #rimary 1 Primeval rep- 1. Proreptilia * (Proterosaurus?
Reptiles tiles
Tocosauria 2. 2. Thecodontia * Paleosaurus
3. Cleft-tongued 3. Fissilingues Monitor
Il. DLisards 4, Thick-tongued 4. Crassilingues Iguana
Lacertilia 5. Short-tongued 5. Brevilingues <=
6. Ringed lizards 6. Glyptodermata Amphisbeena
7. Chameleons 7. Vermilingues Chameleo
8. Adders 8. Aglyphodonta Coluber
9. Tree serpents 9. Opisthoglypha Dipsas
Tit. Serpents 10. 10. Proteroglypha Hydrophis
pate 11. Vipers 11. Solenoglypha Vipera
12. Wormserpents 12. Opoterodonta Typhlops
IV. Croco. ( 18. Amphiccela 13. Teleosauria * Teleosaurus
Viles 14, Opisthoccela 14. Steneosauria * Steneosaurus
Crocodilia 15. Prosthocela 15. Alligatores- Alligator
16. Sea tortoises 16. Thalassita Chelone
V. Tortoises | 17. Rivertortoises 17. Potamita Trionyx
Chelonia 18. Marshtortoises 18. Elodita Emys
19. Land tortoises 19. Chersita Testudo
: 20. Long-tailed 20. Rhampho- * Rhampho-
eg aeoes Flying lizards rhynchi rhynchus
epiiltS | 21. Short-tailed 21. Pterodactyli © * Pterodactylus
Pterosauria * Costas
Flying lizards
22. Giant dragons 22. Harpagosauria * Megalosaurus
VII. Dragons : . ; *
. 23. Elephantine $23. Therosauria Iguanodon
Dinosauria * seal
ons
24. Dog-toothed 24. Cynodontia * Dicynodon
VIII. %rakery | 25- Toothless 25. Cryptodontia * Udenodon
Reptiles 26. Kangaroorep- 26. Hypsosauria * Compsognathus
Anomodontia * tiles
27. Bird reptiles 27. Tocornithes * (Tocornis)

>

BIRD-LIKE REPTILES. 225

still living alligators are first met with in a fossil state
in the chalk and tertiary strata. The most isolated of
the four existing orders of reptiles consists of the re-
markable group of Tortoises (Chelonia); fossils of these
strange animals are first met with inthe Jura. In some
characteristics they are allied to Amphibia, in others, to
Crocodiles, and by certain peculiarities even to Birds, so
that their true position in the pedigree of Reptiles is
probably far down at the root. The extraordinary re-
semblance of their embryos to Birds, manifested even at
later stages of the ontogenesis, is exceedingly striking.

The four extinct orders of Reptiles show among one
another, and, with the four existing orders just mentioned,
such various and complicated relationships, that in the
present state of our knowledge we are obliged to give up |
the attempt at establishing their pedigree. The most
deviating and most curious forms are the Flying Reptiles
(Pterosauria) ; flying lizards, in which the extremely elon-
gated fifth finger of the hand served to support an enormous
flying membrane. They probably flew about, in the
secondary period, much in the same way as the bats of the
present day. The smallest flying lizards were about the
size of a sparrow; the largest, however, with a breadth of
wing of more than sixteen feet, exceeded the largest of our
living flying birds in stretch of wing (condor and albatross).
Numerous fossil remains of them, of the long-tailed Rham-
phorhynchia and of the short-tailed Pterodactyle are found
in all the strata of the Jura and Chalk periods, but in these
only.

Not less remarkable and characteristic of the Mesolithic
epoch was the group of Dragons (Dinosauria, or Pachypoda).

226 THE HISTORY OF CREATION.

These colossal reptiles, which attained a length of more than
fifty feet, are the largest inhabitants of the land which have
ever existed on our globe; they lived exclusively in the
secondary epoch. Most of their remains are found in the
lower cretaceous system, more especially in the Wealden
formations of England. The majority of them were fearful
beasts of prey (the Megalosaurus from twenty to thirty,
the Pelorosaurus from forty to fifty feet in length). The
Iguanodon, however, and some others lived on vegetable
food, and probably played a part in the forests of the chalk
period similar to that of the unwieldy but smaller elephants,
hippopotami, and rhinoceroses of the present day.

The Beaked Reptiles (Anomodontia), likewise also long
since extinct, but of which very many remarkable remains
are found in the Trias and Jura, were perhaps closely related
to the Dragons. Their jaws, like those of most Flying
Reptiles and Tortoises, had become changed into a beak,
which either possessed only degenerated rudimentary teeth,
or no teeth at all. In this order, if not in the preceding one,
we must look forthe primary parents of the bird class, which
we may call Bird Reptiles (Tocornithes). Probably very
closely related to them was the curious, kangaroo-like
Compsognathus from the Jura, which in very important
characteristics already shows an approximation to the
structure of birds.

The class of Birds (Aves), as already remarked, is so
closely allied to Reptiles in internal structure and by
embryonal development, that they undoubtedly originated
out of a branch of this class. Even a glance at Plates II.
and III. will show that the embryos of birds at a time
when they already essentially differ from the embryos of

THE REPTILE-LIKE BIRD. 22%

Mammals, are still scarcely distinguishable from those of
Tortoises and other Reptiles. The cleavage of the yoll is
partial in the case of Birds and Reptiles, in Mammals it is
total. The red blood-cells of the former possess a kernel,
those of the latter do not. The hair of Mammals develops
in closed follicles in the skin, but the feathers of birds and
also the scales of reptiles develop in hillocks on the skin.
The lower jaw of the latter is much more complicated than
that of Mammals; the latter do not possess the quadrate
bone of the former. Whereas in Mammals (as in the case of
Amphibia) the connection between the skull and the first
neck vertebra is formed by two knobbed joints, or condyles,
in Birds and Reptiles these have become united into a single
condyle. The two last classes may therefore justly be united
into one group as Monocondylia, and contrasted to Mammals,
or Dicondylia.

The deviation of Birds from Reptiles, in any case, first
took place in the mesolithic epoch, and this moreover
probably during the Trias. The oldest fossil remains of
birds are found in the upper Jura (Archeopteryx). But
there existed, even in the Trias period, different Saurians
(Anomodonta) which in many respects seem to form the
transition from the Tocosauria to the primary ancestors of
Birds, the hypothetical Tocornithes. Probably these Tocor-
nithes were scarcely distinguishable from other beaked
lizards in the system, and were closely related to the
kangaroo-like Compsognathus from the Jura of Solenhofen.
Huxley classes the latter with the Dinosauria, and believes
them to be the nearest relations to the Tocornithes.

The great majority of Birds—in spite of all the variety in
the colouring of their beautiful feathery dress, and in the

228 THE HISTORY OF CREATION.

formation of their beaks and feet—are of an exceeedingly
uniform organization, in much the same way as are the class
of insects. The bird form has adapted itself on all sides to
the external conditions of existence, without having thereby
in any way essentially deviated from the strict hereditary
type of its characteristic structure. There are only two
small groups, the feather-tailed birds (Saururee) and those
of the ostrich kind, which differ considerably from the
usual type of bird, namely, from those with keel-shaped
breasts (Carinatze), and hence the whole class may be divided
into three sub-classes.

The first sub-class, the Reptile-tailed, or Feather-tailed
Birds (Saurure), are as yet known only through a single,
and that an imperfect, fossil impression, which, however, in
being the oldest and also a very peculiar fossil bird, is of
great importance. This fossil is the Primeval Griffin, or
Archzopteryx lithographica, of which as yet only one speci-
men has been found in the lithographic slate at Solenhofen.
in the Upper Jura system of Bavaria. This remarkable
bird seems on the whole to have been of the size and form
of a large raven, especially as regards the legs, which are
in a good state of preservation ; head and breast unfortun
ately are wanting. The formation of the wings deviates
somewhat from that of other birds, but that of the tail
still more so. In all other birds the tail is very short and
composed of but few short vertebre ; the last of these have
grown together into a thin, bony plate standing perpen-
dicularly, upon which the rudder-feathers of the tail are
attached in the form of a fan. The Archzeopteryx, however,
has a long tail like a lizard, composed of numerous (20)
long thin vertebrz, and on every vertebra are attached the

SUB-CLASSES OF BIRDS. 229

strong rudder-feathers in twos, so that the whole tail
appears regularly feathered. This same formation of the
tail part of the vertebral column occurs transiently in the
embryos of other birds, so that the tail of the Archzeopteryx
evidently represents the original form of bird-tail inherited
from reptiles. Large numbers of similar birds with lizard-
tails probably lived during the middle of the secondary
period ; accident has as yet, however, only revealed this one
fossil.

The Fan-tailed, or Keel-breasted birds (Carinate), which
form the second sub-class, comprise all living Birds of the
present day, with the exception of those of the ostrich
kind, or Ratitz. They probably developed out of Feather-
tailed Birds during the first half of the secondary period,
namely, in the Jura or chalk period, by the hinder tail
vertebree growing together, and by the tail becoming
shortened. Only very few remains of them are known
from the secondary period, and these moreover only out of
the last section of it, namely, from the Chalk. These remains
belong to a swimming bird of the albatross species, and a
wading bird like a snipe. All the other fossil remains of
birds as yet known have been found in the tertiary
strata.

The Bushy-tailed, or Ostrich-like Birds (Ratitze), also
called Running Birds (Cursores), the third and last sub-
class, is now represented only by a few living species, by
the African ostrich with two toes, the American and
Australian ostrich with three toes, by the Indian cassowary
and the four-toed kiwi, or Apteryx, in New Zealand.
The extinct giant birds of Madagascar (pyornis) and the
New Zealand Dinornis, which were much larger than the

230 THE HISTORY OF CREATION.

still living ostriches, also belong to this group. The Birds
of the ostrich kind—by giving up the habit of flying, by
the degeneration of the muscles for flying resulting from this,
and of the breast bone which serves as their support, and
by the corresponding stronger development of the hinder
legs for running—have probably arisen out of a branch of
the Keel-breasted birds. But possibly, as Huxley thinks,
they may be the nearest relations of the Dinosauria and of
the Reptiles akin to them, especially of the Compsognathus ;
at all events, the common primary form of all Birds must
be looked for among the extinct Reptiles.

CHAPTER XXL

PEDIGREE AND HISTORY OF THE ANIMAL KINGDOM.
IV. MAMMALS.

The System of Mammals according to Linneus and Blainville—Three
Sub-classes of Mammals (Ornithodelphia, Didelphia, Monodelphia).—
Ornithodelphia, or Monotrema.—Beaked Animals (Ornithostoma).—
Didelphia, or Marsupials.—Herbivorous and Carnivorous Marsupials.—
Monodelphia, or Placentalia (Placental Animals).—Meaning of the
Placenta.—Tuft Placentalia.—Girdle Placentalia.—Dise Placentalia.—
Non-deciduates, or Indeciduata.—Hoofed Animals.—Single and Double-
hoofed Animals.—Whales.—Toothless Animals.— Deciduates, or Animals
with Decidua.—Semi-apes.—Gnawing Animals.—Pseudo-hoofed Ani-
mals.—Insectivora.— Beasts of Prey.—Bats.—Apes.

THERE are only a few points in the classification of
organisms upon which naturalists have always agreed.
One of these few undisputed points is the privileged
position of the class of Mammals at the head of the animal
kingdom. The reason of this privilege consists partly
in the special interest, also in the various uses and the
many pleasures, which Mammals, more than all other
animals, offer to man, and partly in the circumstance
that man himself is a member of this class. For however
differently in other respects man’s position in nature and
in the system of animals may have been regarded, yet no
naturalist has ever doubted that man, at least from a purely

232 THE HISTORY OF CREATION,

morphological point of view, belongs to the class of Mam-
mals. From this there directly follows the exceedingly
important inference that man, by consanguinity also, is a
member of this class of animals, and has historically
developed out of long since extinct forms of Mammals.
This circumstance alone justifies us here in turning our
especial attention to the history and the pedigree of
Mammals. Let us, therefore, for this purpose first examine
the groups of this class of animals.

Older naturalists, especially considering the formation of
the jaw and feet, divided the class of Mammals into a
series of from eight to sixteen orders. The lowest stage of
the series was occupied by the whales, which seemed to differ
most from man, who stands at the highest stage, by their
fish-like form of body. Thus Linnzus distinguished the
following eight orders: (1) Cetz (whales); (2) Belluze
(hippopotami and horses) ; (3) Pecora (ruminating animals) ;
(4) Glires (gnawing animals and rhinoceroses) ; (5) Bestiz
(insectivora, marsupials, and various others); (6) Ferz
(beasts of prey); (7) Bruta (toothless animals and
elephants); (8) Primates (bats, semi-apes, apes, and men).
Cuvier’s classification, which became the standard of most
subsequent zoologists, did not rise much above that of
Linneus. Cuvier distinguished the following eight orders:
(1) Cetacea (whales); (2) Ruminantia (ruminating animals) ;
(3) Pachyderma (hoofed animals, with the exclusion of
ruminating animals); (4) Edentata (animals poor in teeth) ;
(5) Rodentia (gnawing animals) ; (6) Carnassia (marsupials,
beasts of prey, insectivora, and bats); (7) Quadrumana
(semi-apes and apes); (8) Bimana (man).

The most important advance in the classification of

— Lanes eee 4

THE CLOACAL MAMMALS. 233

Mammals was made as early as 1816 by the eminent
anatomist Blainville, who has already been mentioned,
and who first clearly recognised the three natural main
groups or sub-classes of Mammals, and distinguished them
according to the formation of their generative organs as
Ornithodelphia, Didelphia, and Monodelphia. As this
division is now justly considered by all scientific zoologists
to be the best, on account of solid foundation on the history
of development, let us here keep to it also.

The first sub-class consists of the Cloacal Animals, or
Breastless animals, also called Forked animals (Monotrema,
or Ornithodelphia). This class is now represented only by
two species of living mammals, both of which are confined to
Australia and the neighbouring island of Van Diemen’s land,
namely, the well-known Water Duck-bill (Ornithorhynchus
paradoxus) with the beak of a bird, and the less known
Beaked Mole (Echidna hystrix), resembling a hedgehog.
Both of these curious animals, which are classed in the
order of Beaked Animals (Ornithostoma), are evidently the
last surviving remnants of an animal group formerly rich
in forms, which alone represented the Mammalia in the
secondary epoch, and out of which the second sub-class, the
Didelphia, developed later, probably in the Jurassic period.
Unfortunately, we as yet do not know with certainty of
any fossil remains of this most ancient primary group
of Mammals, which we will call Primary Mammals (Pro-
mammalia). Yet they possibly comprise the oldest of all
the fossil Mammalia known, namely, the Microlestes antiquus,
of which animals, however, we as yet only know some few
small rolar teeth. These have been found in the upper-

most strata of the Trias, in the Keuper, first in Ger-
28

234 THE HISTORY OF CREATION.

many (at Degerloch, near Stuttgart, in 1847), later also in
England (at Frome), in 1858. Similar teeth have lately
been found also in the North American Trias,and have been
described as Dromatherium sylvestre. These remarkable
teeth, from the characteristic form of which we can
conclude that they belonged to an insectivorous mammal,
are the only remains of mammals as yet found in the older
secondary strata, namely, in the Trias. It is possible,
however, that besides these many of the other mammalian
teeth found in the Jura and Chalk systems, which are still
generally ascribed to Marsupials, in reality belong to Cloacal
Animals. This cannot be decided with certainty owing to
the absence of the characteristic soft parts. In any ease,
numerous Monotrema, with well-developed teeth and cloaca,
must have preceded the advent of Marsupial animals.

The designation, “ Cloacal animals” (Monotrema), has
been given to the Ornithodelphia on account of the cloaca
which distinguishes them from all other Mammals; but
which on the other hand makes them agree with Birds,
Reptiles, and Amphibia, in fact, with the lower Vertebrata.
The formation of the cloaca consists in the last portion of
the intestinal canal receiving the mouth of the urogenital
apparatus, that is, the united urinary and genital organs,
whereas in all other Mammals (Didelphia as well Mono-
delphia) these organs have an opening distinct from that
of the rectum. However, in these latter also the cloaca
formation exists during the first period of their embryonal
life, and the separation of the two openings takes place only
at a later date (m:man about the twelfth week of develop-
ment). The Cloacal animals have also been called “ Forked
animals,” because the collar-bones, by means of the breast

CHARACTERS OF MONOTREMA, 235

bone, have become united into one piece, similar to the well-
known fork-bone, or merry-thought, in birds. In all other
Mammals the two collar-bones remain separated in front
and do not fuse with the breast bone. Moreover, the
coracoid bones are much more strongly developed in the
Cloacal animals than in the other Mammalia, and are con-
nected with the breast bone.

In many other characteristics also—especially in the
formation of their internal genital organs, their auricular
labyrinth, and their brain—Beaked animals are more closely
allied to the other Vertebrata than to Mammals, so that some
naturalists have been inclined to separate them from the
latter as a special class. However, like all other Mammals,
they bring forth living young ones, which for a time are
nourished with milk from the mother. But whereas in all
other Mammals the milk issues through nipples, or teats,
from the mammary glands, teats are completely wanting
in beaked animals, and the milk comes simply out of a flat,
sieve-like, perforated patch of the skin. Hence they may
also be called Breastless or Teatless animals (Amasta).

The curious formation of the beak in the two still living
Beaked animals, which is connected with the suppression
of the teeth, must evidently not be looked upon as an
essential feature of the whole sub-class of Cloacal animals,
but as an accidental character of adaptation distinguishing
the last remnant of the class as much from the extinct main
group, as the formation of a similar toothless snout dis-
tinguishes many toothless animals (for instance, the ant-
eater) from the other placental animals. The unknown,
extinct Primary Mammals, or Promammalia—which lived
during the Trias period, and of which the two still living

236 THE HISTORY OF CREATION.

orders of Beaked animals represent but a single degenerated
branch developed on one side—probably possessed a very
highly developed jaw like the marsupial animals, which
developed from them.

Marsupial, or Pouched Animals (Didelphia, or Marsu-
pialia), the second of the three sub-classes of Mammals,
form in every respect—both as regards their anatomy and
embryology, as well as their genealogy and history—the
transition between the other sub-classes—the Cloacal and
Placental Animals. Numerous representatives of this group
still exist, especially the well-known kangaroos, poucLed
rats, and pouched dogs; but on the whole this sub-class,
like the preceding one, is evidently approaching its complete
extinction, and the living members of the class are the last
surviving remnants of a large group rich in forms, which
represented the Mammalia during the more recent secondary
and the earlier tertiary periods. The Marsupial Animals
probably developed towards the middle of the Mesolithic
epoch (during the Jura) out of a branch of the Cloacal
Animals, and in the beginning of the Tertiary epoch again,
the group of Placental Animals arose out of the Marsupials,
and the latter then succumbed to the former in the struggle
for life. All the fossil remains of Mammals known to us from
the Secondary epoch, belong either exclusively to Marsupials,
or partly perhaps to Cloacal animals, At that time Marsu-
pials seem to have been distributed over the whole earth ;
even in Europe (France and England), well-preserved fossil
remains of them have been found. On the other hand, the
last off-shoots of the sub-class now living are confined to a
very narrow tract of distribution, namely, to Australia, the
Australasian, and a small part of the Asiatic, Archipelago.

THE POUCHED MAMMALS. 237

There are also a few species still living in America, but at
the present day not a single marsupial animal lives on the ©
continent of Asia, Africa, or Europe.

The name of pouched animals is given to the class on
account of the purse-shaped pouch (marsupium) existing
in most instances on the abdominal side of the female
animals, in which the mother carries about her young
for a considerable time after their birth. This pouch is
supported by two characteristic marsupial bones, also
existing in Cloacal animals, but not in Placental animals.
The young Marsupial animal is born in a much more
imperfect form than the young Placental animal, and only
attains the same degree of development which the latter
possesses directly at its birth, after it has developed in the
pouch for some time. In the case of the giant kangaroo,
which attains the height of a man, the newly born young
one, which has been carried in the maternal womb not
much longer than five weeks, is not more than an inch
in length, and only attains its essential development
subsequently, in the pouch of the mother, where it remains
about nine months attached to the nipple of the mammary
gland,

The different divisions generally distinguished as families
in the sub-class of Marsupial animals, deserve in reality
the rank of independent orders, for they differ from one
another in manifold differentiations of the jaw and limbs, in
much the same manner, although not so sharply, as the
various orders of Placental animals. In part they perfectly
agree with the latter. It is evident that adaptation to
similar conditions of life has effected entirely coincident or
analogous transformations of the original fundamental form

238 THE HISTORY OF CREATION.

in the two sub-classes of Marsupials. According to this,
about eight orders of Marsupial animals may be dis-
tinguished, the one half of the main group or legion of
which are herbivorous, the other half carnivorous. The
oldest fossil remains of the two legions (if the previously
mentioned Microlestes and the Dromatherium are not
included) occur in the Jurassic strata, namely, in the
slates of Stonesfield, near Oxford. The slates belong to the
Bath, or the Lower Oolite formation—strata which lie directly
above the Lias, the oldest Jura formation. (Compare p. 15).
It is true that the remains of Marsupials found in the slates
of Stonesfield, as well as those which were found later in
the Purbeck strata, consist only of lower jaws. (Compare
p- 29.) But fortunately the lower jaw is just one of the most
characteristic parts of the skeleton of Marsupials. For it is
distinguished by a hook-shaped process of the lower corner
of the jaw turning downwards and backwards, which
neither occurs in Placental nor in the (still living) Cloacal
animals, and from the existence of this process on the lower
jaws from Stonesfield, we may infer that they belonged to
Marsupials.

Of Herbivorous marsupials (Botanophaga), only two
fossils are as yet known from the Jura, namely, the Stereo-
enathus ooliticus, from the slates of Stonesfield (Lower Oolite),
and the Plagiaulax Becklesii, from the middle Purbeck strata
(Upper Oolite). But in Australia there are gigantic fossil
remains of extinct herbivorous Marsupials from the diluvial
period (Diprotodon and Nototherium) which were far larger
than the largest of the still hving Marsupials. The Diproto-
don Australis, whose skull alone is three feet long, exceeded
even the river-horse, or Hippopotamus, in size and upon the

———

ORDERS OF POUCHED MAMMALS.

239

SYSTEMATIC SURVEY OF CLOACAL AND
MARSUPIAL MAMMALIA.
I. First Sub-class of Mammalia :

Forked or Cloacal Animals (Monotrema, or Ornithodelphia).
Mammals with Cloaca, without Placenta, with Marsupial Bones.

I

Primary fAammals
Promammalia

II.

Beaked Animals
Ornithostoma

Unknown extinct Mammalia from the
Trias Period

1. Aquatic beaked

animals
2. Terrestrial
beaked animals

1. Ornithorhyn-
chida
2. Echidnida

( (Microlestes 7)
(Dromatherium ?)

1. Ornithorhynchus

paradoxus

{2. Echidna hystrix

II. Second Sub-class of Mammalia:
Pouched or Marsupial Animals (Marsupialia, or Didelphia).
Mammals without Cloaca, without Placenta, with Marsupial Bones.

8. Ape-footed
Marsupial animals
(Pouched animals

8. Pedimana

2).

. Chironectida

Didelphyida

cans Saget
ae pha Sesicke' 3 Name Families of the
Marsupialia. Marsupialia. the Orders. Marsupiatia.
1. Hoofed 1. Barypoda 1, Stereognathida
Marsupial animals 2. Nototherida
ae 3. Diprotodontia
: 2. Kangaroo 2. Macropoda : :
Perbivorous Marsupial animals 4. Plagiaulacida
: (Leaping pouched 5. Halmaturida
falarsupial animals) 6. Dendrolagida
Animals 3. Root-eating 3. Rhizophaga
Marsupial animals
Marsupialia (Gnawing a : 7. Phascoiomyida
animals)
Botanophaga 4, Fruit eating 4. Carpophaga & Phasrolarethia
Marsupial animals : RSE
(Climbing pouched 9. Phalangistida
aniinats) 10. Petaurida
: ti 3 h z
Mapsupial animals (he ansiecatherige
(Primeval pouched 13. M ‘
d . Myrmecobida
“~ animals) Es Peramelida
Carnivorous 6. Marsupialanimals 6. Edentula
; poor in teeth 15. Tarsipedina
felarsupial (Pouched animals : P
Animals with trunks)
7. Rapacious marsu- 7. Creophaga ‘
Marsupialia deen cotta + Pe acter
= (Rapacious pouched 18. Thylacoleonida
Zoophaga animals)

with hands)

240

THE HISTORY OF CREATION.

SYSTEMATIC SURVEY OF PLACENTAL ANIMALS.

Ill. Third Sub-class of Mammalia:

Placentalia, or Monodelphia (Placental Animals).

Mammals without Cloaca, with Placenta, without Marsupial Bones.

Legions of Orders of
the the

Placental Animals.| Placental Animals.

Til. 1. INDECIDUA.

Sub-orders of
the

Placental Animals.

Systematic Name

of
the Sub-orders.

Placental Animals without Decidua.

peas mated { ae
Perissodactyla . Horses
Hoatey ‘animats | ju Double-hovfed { 3. Pigs
Ungulata ‘Artiodactyla 4. Ruminating
III. Herbivorous (
Conese 5. Sea cows
hycoceta
avi hates IV. Carnivorous 6 Whales
Cetacea anne 7. Zeuglodonta
V. Digging et 8. Ant-eaters
a. Effodientia 9. Armadilloes
poor in teeth VI. Sloths { 10. Glant Sloths
Edentata Bradypoda Dwarf Sloths

or wwnDre

a 1)

=)

HS ©

. Tapiromorpha
. Solidungula

. Choeromorpha
. Ruminantia

. Sirenia

. Autoceta
. Zeugloceta

Vermilinguia
Cingulata

. Gravigrada
. Tardigrada

Ill. 2. DEcIDUATA.

Placental Animals with Decidua.

VII. Rapacious 12, — land
ees Animals 13 Ray car soa sea
, * a
Ilacental Ani- Carnaria parE
mals. Hyrax
: VIII. False-hoofed
Zonoplacentalia Animals {i oe
Che.ophora :
17. Elephants
18. Fingered ani-
mals
/ IX. Semi-apes 19. Flying lemur
Prosimie 20. Long-footed
21. Short-footed
22. Squirrel species
X. Gnawing Ani- | 23. tis species
al 24, Porcupine spe-
eee 25. Hare species
XI. Insect-eating (26. With a Cecum
Discoplacentalia Animals {2 27, Without a Ce-
Insectivora cum
XII.Flying Animals { 28. Flying foxes
Chiroptera V 29. aves &
30. Clawed apes
ee | 31, Flat-nosed
32. Narrow-nosed

12.

Carnivora

. Pinnipedia

. Lamnungia
. Toxodontia
- Gonyognatha
. Proboscidea

. Leptodactyla

. Ptenopleura

- Macrotarsi

. Brachytarsi

. Sciuromorpha

Myomorpha

. Hystrichomorpha

. Lagomorpha
. Menotyphla

Lipotyphla

. Pterocynes

. Nycterides

. Arctopitheci
. Platyrrhine
. Catarrhine

bp itn ct i

PEDIGREE OF THE MAMMALITA, 241
félan
Elephants res
Proboscidea | Bats
Rock Conies Nycterides
Lannungia Narrow -nosed Mari at
Catarrhine ae Pakale : te prey
Flying foxes Mater: 0K
—— Flat-nosed Pterocynes
Pseudo-hoofed Platyrrhine Flving Animals
Chelophora Chiroptera
—— ; Land animals of prey
Apes Carnivora
Gnawing Animals - Simie Animals of Jrep
Rodentia Carnaria
| Fingered animals Lemurs
Leptodactyla Brachytarst |
True a
whales Insect eaters
Sarcoceta ales ark AE ee Insectivora
Sea cows Semi-apes
Sirenia Prosimie
CA hales Deciduous Animals ~
Cetacea Deciduata
| Poor in teeth
Edentata
Woofer Animals
Ungulata
—
Enveciduous
Indeciduata

i
Placental Animals
Placentalia
Herbivorous marsupials { Carnivorous marsupials
Marsupialia botanophaga | Marsupiaha zoophaga

fHarsupial

Marsupialia
Beaked animals |
Ornithostoma |

Primary mammals
Promammalia
Cloacal Animals
Monotrema

242 THE HISTORY OF CREATION.

whole resembled it in the unwieldy and clumsy form of
body. This extinct group, which probably corresponded with |
the gigantic placental hoofed animals of the present day—
_the hippopotami and rhinoceroses—may be called Hoofed
Marsupials (Barypoda). Closely allied to them is the order
of kangaroos, or Leaping Marsupials (Macropoda), which
all have seen in zoological gardens. In their shortened
fore legs, their very lengthened hind legs, and very strong
tail, which serves as a jumping pole, they correspond with
the leaping mice in the class of Rodents. Their jaw, how-
ever, resembles that of horses, and their complex stomach
that of Ruminants. <A third order of Herbivorous Marsupials
corresponds in its jaws to Rodents, and in its subterranean
mode of life, especially, to digging mice. Hence they may
be termed Rodent Marsupials, or root-eating pouched animals
(Rhizophaga). They are now represented only by the
Australian wombat (Phascolomys). A fourth and last order
of Herbivorous Marsupials is formed by the climbing or
Fruit-eating Marsupials (Carpophaga), whose mode of life
and structure resembles partly that of squirrels, partly
that of apes (Phalangista, Phascolarctus).

The second legion of Marsupials, the Carnivorous Mar-
supials (Zoophaga), is likewise divided into four main
groups or orders. The most ancient of these is that of the
primeval, or Insectivorous Marsupials (Cantharophaga). It
probably includes the primary forms of the whole legion,
and possibly also those of the whole sub-class. At least, all
the lower jaws from Stonesfield (with the exception of the
Stereognathus) belong to Insectivorous Marsupials, and the
still living Myrmecobius is their nearest relative. But some
of those oolitic Primeval Marsupials possessed a larger

THE POUCHED ANIMALS, 243

number of teeth than all the other known mammals, for
each half of the lower jaw of the Thylacotherium contained
sixteen teeth (three incisors, one canine tooth, six pseudo,
and six genuine molars). If the upper jaw, which is
unknown, had as many teeth, then the Thylacotherium had
no less than sixty-four teeth, just double the number
possessed by man. The Primeval Marsupials correspond,
on the whole, with the Insectivora among Placental animals,
which order includes hedgehogs, moles, and shrew-mice. A
second order, which has probably developed out of a
branch of the last, consists of the Snouted, or Toothless
Marsupials (Edentula), which resemble the Toothless animals,
or Edentata, among the Placental animals by their tube-
shaped snout, their degenerated jaws, and their correspond-
ing mode of life. On the other hand, the mode of life and
formation of the jaws of Rapacious marsupials (Creophaga)
correspond with those of the genuine Beasts of Prey, or
Carnivora, among Placental animals. This order includes the
pouched marten (Dasyurus) and the pouched wolf (Thyla-
cinus) in Australia. Although the latter attains to the size
of a wolf, it is but a dwarf in comparison with the extinct
Australian pouched lions (Thylacoleo) which were at least as
large as a lion, and possessed huge canine teeth more than
two inches in length. Finally, the eighth and last order is
formed by the marsupials with hands, or the Ape-footed
Pouched animals (Pedimana), which live both in Australia and
America. They are frequently kept in zoological gardens,
especially the different species of the genus Didelphys, and
are known by the name of pouched rats, bush rats, or
opossums. The thumb on their hinder feet is opposable to
the four other toes, as ina hand, and by this they are

244 THE HISTORY OF CREATION.

directly allied to the Semi-apes, or Prosimia, among Placental
animals. It is possible that these latter are really next
akin to the marsupials with hands, and that they have
developed out of their long since extinct ancestors.

It is very difficult to discover the genealogy of Marsupials,
and this more especially because we are but very imperfectly
acquainted with the whole sub-class; and the Marsupials of
the present day are evidently only the last remnants of a
group that was at one time rich in forms. It is possible
that Marsupials with hands, those with snouts, as well as
rapacious Marsupials, developed as three diverging branches
out of the common primary group of Primeval Marsupials.
Tn a similar manner, on the other hand, the rodent, leaping,
and hoofed Marsupials have perhaps arisen as three diverging
branches out of the common herbivorous primary group,
that is, out of the Climbing Marsupials. Climbing and
Primeval Marsupials might, however, be two diverging
branches of the common primary forms of all Marsupials,
that is, of the Primary Marsupials (Prodidelphia), which
originated during the older secondary period out of Cloacal
animals.

The third and last sub-class of mammals comprises the
Placental animals, or Placentals (Monodelphia, or Placen-
talia). 1t is by far the most important, comprehensive, and
most perfect of the three sub-classes; for the class includes
all the known mammalia, with the exception of Marsupials
and Beaked animals. Man also belongs to this sub-class,
and has developed out of its lower members.

Placental animals, as their name indicates, are distin-
guished from all other mammals, more especially by the
formation of a so called placenta. This is a wery peculiar

NATURE OF THE PLACENTA. 245

and remarkable organ, which plays an exceedingly im-
portant part in nourishing the young one developing in the
maternal body. The placenta (also called after-birth) isa
soft, spongy, red body, which differs very much in form and
size, but which consists for the most part of an intricate
network of veins and blood vessels. Its importance lies in
the exchange of substance between the nutritive blood of
the maternal womb, or uterus, and the body of the germ,
or embryo. (See vol. i. p. 298). This very important organ
is developed neither in marsupials nor in beaked animals.
But placental animals are also distinguished from these two
sub-classes by many other peculiarities, thus more especially
by the absence of marsupial bones, by the higher develop-
ment of the internal sexual organs, and by the more perfect
development of the brain, especially of the so-called callous
body or beam (corpus callosum), which, as the intermediate
commissure, or transverse bridge, connects the two hemi-
spheres of the large brain with each other. Placental ani-
mals also do not possess the peculiar hooked process of the
lower jaw which characterizes Marsupials. The following
classification (p. 246) of the most important characteristics
of the three sub-classes will best explain how Marsupials, in
these anatomical respects, stand midway between Cloacal
and Placental animals.

Placental animals are more variously differentiated and
perfected, and this, moreover, in a far higher degree, than
Marsupials, and they have, on this account, long since been
arranged into a number of orders, differing principally in
the formation of the jaws and feet. But what is even of
more importance than these, is the different development of
the placenta, and the manner of its connection with the

246 THE HISTORY OF CREATION,

maternal uterus. For in the three lower orders of Placental
animals, in Hoofed animals, Whales, and Toothless animals,
the peculiar spongy membrane, which is called the deciduous
membrane, or decidua, and which connects the maternal and
the foetal portions of the placenta, does not become de-
veloped. This takes place exclusively in the seven higher
orders of Placental animals, and we may, therefore, according

Cloacal “iets aie Animals| Placental Animals

Three poral ‘| MonoTREMA | MARSUPIALIA PLACENTALIA
Mammals. OuarroneE: tieeeael Miueneceaall
PHIA
1. Cloaca formation Constant Embryonal Embryonal
2. Nipples of the pec- Wanting Existing Existing
toral glands, or milk
warts
3. Fore collar bones, United Not united Not united

or clayicles, grown to-
gether in the middle,
with the breast bone,
and forming a forked

bone

4. Marsupial bones | Existing Existing Wanting

5. Corpus callosum of | — Feebly Feebly Strongly developed
the brain developed developed

6. Placenta Wanting Wanting Existing

to Huxley, class them in the main group of Deciduata, or
animals with decidua. They are contrasted with the three
first-mentioned legions of indeciduous animals, or Jnde-
ciduata.

But in the various orders of Placental animals the placenta
differs not only in important internal differences of struc-
ture, which are connected with the absence or the presence

ORIGIN OF PLACENTAL MAMMALS, 247

of a decidua, but also in the external form of the placenta
itself. In the Indeciduata it consists, in most cases, of
numerous, single, scattered bunches or tufts of vessels, and
hence this group may be called tufted placental animals,
(Villiplacentalia). In the Deciduata, however, the single
tufts of vessels are united into a cake, which appears in two
different forms. In the one case it surrounds the embryo in
the form of a closed band or ring, so that only the two poles
of the oval ege bladder are free of tufts; this is the case in
animals of prey (Carnaria) and the pseudo-hoofed animals
(Chelophora), which may consequently be comprised as
girdled-placental animals (Zonoplacentalia). In the other
Deciduata, to which man also belongs, the placenta is a
simple round disc, and we therefore call them disc-placen-
tals (Discoplacentalia). This group includes the five orders
of Semi-apes, Gnawing animals, Insectivora, Bats, and Apes,
from the latter of which, in the zoological system, man
cannot be separated.

It may be considered as quite certain, from reasons based
upon their comparative anatomy and their history of de-
velopment, that Placental animals first developed out of
Marsupials, and that this very important development—the
first origin of the placenta—probably took place in the
beginning of the tertiary epoch, during the eocene period.
But one of the most difficult questions in the genealogy of
animals is the important consideration whether all Placental
animals have arisen out of one or out of several distinct
branches of Marsupials; in other words, whether the origin
of the placenta occurred but once, or several times.

When, in my General Morphology, I for the first time
endeavoured to establish the pedigree of Mammals, I here,

248 THE HISTORY OF CREATION.

as in most cases, preferred the monophyletic, or one-rooted,
to the polyphyletic, or many-rooted, hypothesis of descent.
I assumed that all Placental animals were derived from a
single form of Marsupial animal, which, for the first time,
began to form a placenta. In this case the Villiplacentals,
Zonoplacentals, and Discoplacentals would perhaps have to
be considered as three diverging branches of the common
primary form of Placentals, or it might also be conceived that
the two latter, the Deciduata, had developed only at a later
period out of the Indeciduata, which on their part had
arisen directly out of the Marsupials. However, there are
also important reasons for the alternative; namely, that
several groups of Placentals, differing from the beginning,
arose out of several distinct groups of Marsupials, so that
the placenta itself was formed several times independently.
This opinion is maintained by Huxley, the most eminent
English zoologist, and by many others. In this case the
Indeciduata and the Deciduata would perhaps have to be
considered as two completely distinct groups; then the
order of Hoofed animals, as the primary group of the
Indeciduata, might be supposed to have originated out
of the Marsupial hoofed animals (Barypoda). Among the
Deciduata, on the other hand, the order of Semi-apes, as the
common primary form of the other orders, might possibly
have arisen out of Handed Marsupials (Pedimana). But it
is also conceivable that the Deciduata themselves have arisen
out of several different orders of Marsupials, Animals of Prey
out of Rapacious Marsupials, Gnawing animals out of Gnaw-
ing Marsupials, Semi-apes out of Handed Marsupials, ete.
As we do not at present possess sufficient empiric material
to solve this most difficult question, we must leave it and

THE HOOFED MAMMAIS, 249

turn our attention to the history of the different orders
of Placental animals, whose pedigree can often be very
accurately established in detail.

We must, as already remarked, consider the order of
Hoofed animals (Ungulata) as the primary group of the
Indeciduata, or Tuft-placentals; the two other orders,
Whales and Toothless animals, developed out of them, as
two diverging groups, probably only at a later period, by
adaptation to very different modes of life. But it is also
possible that the animals poor in teeth (Edentata) may be
of quite a different origin.

Hoofed animals are in many respects among the most
important and the most interesting Mammals. They dis-
tinctly show that a true understanding of the natural
relationship of animals can never be revealed to us merely
by the study of living forms, but in all cases only by an
equal consideration of their extinct and fossil blood-relations
and ancestors. If, as is usually done, only the living Hoofed
animals are taken into consideration, it seems quite natural
to divide them into three entirely distinct orders, namely:
(1) Horses, or Single-hoofed animals (Solidungula,or Equina);
(2) Ruminating animals, or Double-hoofed (Bisulca, or Rumi-
nantia); and (3) Thick-skinned, or Many-hoofed (Multungula,
or Pachyderma). But as soon as the extinct Hoofed animals
of the tertiary period are taken into consideration—of which
animals we possess very numerous and important remains
—it is seen that this division, but more especially the
limitation of the Thick-skinned animals, is completely arti-
ficial, and that these three groups are merely top branches
lopped from the pedigree of Hoofed animals, which are most
closely connected by extinct intermediate forms. The one

250 THE HISTORY OF CREATION,

half of the Thick-skinned animals—rhinoceroses, tapirs, and
paleeotheria—manifest the closest relationships to horses,
and have like them odd-toed feet; whereas the other
half of the Thick-skinned animals—pigs, hippopotami, and
anoplotheria—on account of their double-toed feet are much
more closely allied to ruminating animals than to the
former. Hence we must, in the first place, among Hoofed
animals distinguish the two orders of Paired-hoofs and Odd-
hoofs, as two natural groups, which developed as diverging
branches out of the old tertiary primary group of Primary
Hoofed animals, or Prochela.

The order of Odd-hoofed animals (Perissodactyla) com-
prises those Ungulata in which the middle (or third) toe of
the foot is much more strongly developed than the others,
so that it forms the actual centre of the hoof. This order
includes the very ancient, common, primary group of all
Hoofed animals, that is, the Primary-hoofed animals (Pro-
chela), which are found in a fossil state in the oldest Eocene
strata (Lophiodon, Coryphodon, Pliolophus). Directly allied
to this group is that branch which is the actual primary
form of the Odd-hoofed animals, namely, the Palcotheria,
fossils of which occur in the upper Eocene and lower
Miocene. Out of the Paleotheria, at a later period, the
rhinoceroses (Nasicornia) and rhinoceros-horses (Elasmo-
therida) on the one hand, and the tapirs, lama-tapirs, and
primeval horses, on the other, developed as two diverging
branches. The long since extinct primeval horses, or
Anchitheria, formed the transition from the Palzotheria
and tapirs to the Miocene horses, or hipparions, which
are closely allied to the genuine living horses.

The second main group of Hoofed animals, the order of

oe Se ee Se

ORIGIN OF WHALES, 251

Pair-hoofed animals (Artiodactyla), comprises those hoofed
animals in which the middle (third) and fourth toe of the
foot are almost equally developed, so that the space between
the two forms the central line of the entire foot. The order
is divided into two sub-orders—the Pig-shaped and the Cud-
chewing, or Ruminating. The Pig-shaped (Chceromorpha)
comprise in the first place the other branch of Primary-
Hoofed-animals, the Anoplotheria, which we consider as the
common primary form of all Pair-hoofed animals, or Artio-
dactyla (Dichobune, ete.) Out of the Anoplotheria arose, es
two diverging branches, the primzeval swine, or Anthraco-
theria, on the one hand, forming the transition to swine and
river-horses, and the Xiphodonta on the other hand, forming
the transition to Ruminating animals. The oldest Rumin-
ating animals (Ruminantia) are the Primeeval Stags, or Dre-
motheria, out of which, possibly, the stag-shaped (Elaphia),
the hollow-horned (Cavicornia), and camels (Tylopoda), have
developed as three diverging branches. Yet these latter are,
in many respects, more allied to the Odd-hoofs than to the
genuine Pair-hoofs. The accompanying systematic survey
on p. 252, will show how the numerous families of Hoofed
animals are grouped, in correspondence with this genea-
logical hypothesis.

Jt is probable that the remarkable legion of Whales
(Cetacea) originated out of Hoofed animals, which accustomed
themselves exclusively to an aquatic life, and thereby became
transformed into the shape of fish. Although these animals
seem externally very like many genuine Fish, yet they are,
as even Aristotle perceived, genuine Mammals. By their
whole internal structure—in so far as it has not become
changed by adaptation to an aquatic life—they, of all known

252

SYSTEMATIC SURVEY

THE HISTORY OF CREATION.

Of the Sections and Families of Hoofed Animals, or Ungulata.

(N.B. Those families that are extinct are marked with an asterisk.)

Or ogg |

Hovfed
animals.

Sections

of
Hoofed Animals.

Animals

Ungulata
Perisso-
dactyla

,
Pair-toed
Hooter
Animals

Ungulata

Artio-
dactyla

L
@Opy-tord
Pooley

IV. Pig-shaped
Cheromorpha

Rumin-
ating
animals
Rumi-
nantia

I. Primary Hoofed
Animals.*
Prochela

II. Tapir-shaped
Tapiromorpha

III. Single-hoofs
Solidungula

Cavicornia

c. Pad-footed

d.
B. Hollow-

horned |

15. Primeeval
A. Stag-
shaped an Pseudo
Elaphia musk deer
17. N
b.118
19
a
20

Families

of
Hoofed Animals.

1. Lophiodonta
2. Plolophida

3. Primary
Odd-hoofs

4, Lama-tapirs

5. Tapirs

6. Rhinoceroses

7. Rhinoceros-
horses

8. Primeeval
horses

9. Horses

10

. Primary
Pair-hoofs

. Primeval
pigs

2. Pigs

. River horses

. Primeval
ruminants

deer

. Musk deer
. Deer

. Primeval

giraffes

. Giraffes

1. Primeval

gazelles

2. Gazelles

23. Goats
e. 2d :
5. Oxen
- Lamas

Sheep

Tylopoda loz. Camels

Systematic Name
of
the Families.

1. Lophiodontia *
2. Pliolophida *

8. Palzotherida *

4.. Macrauchenida*®

5. Tapirida

6. Nasicornia

7, Elasmothe-
rida *

8. Anchitherida *

9. Equina

10. Anoplothe-
rida *

11. Anthracothe-
rida *

12. Setigera

13. Obesa

14. Xiphodontia *

15. Dremotherida”
16. Tragulida

17. Moschida
18. Cervina

19. Sivatherida *

20. Devexa
21. Antilocaprina*

22 Antilopina

23. Caprina
24. Ovina
25. Bovina

26. Auchenida
27. Camelida

eS NP a Sa aes eee coer a. ee

PEDIGREE OF THE UNGULATES, 253

Oxen Giraffes
Sheep Deer

| :

SS Goats ——_—_,_— Musk deer Horses
| | | Equa

—,-— Antelopes

| | Camels
——.—— and Lamas Intermediate horses -

—-—— Deer-shaped Tvylopoda Hippariones
Hollow-horned Elaphia
Cawicornia
| ; | Primeval horses
~ ee er ne Anchitherida
Primeval deer
Dremotherida
| single Hooters
Solidungula
Ruminating Animals
Ruminantia
Sea-oxen Tapirs
Sirenia Tapirida
| River-horses Lamatapirs
Obesa Macrauchenida
Pigs
eed Setigera eee aps
| Rhinocerus-horses |
| Elasmotherida
in — ae Rhinoceruses
Primeval pigs Nasicornia So
Anthracotherida
Primeval ruminants ——._—
Xiphodontia |
———_ | ~~. Le
Primary WBair-hoofs Brimary Ory-hools
Anoplotherida Paleotherida
| |
Prochela

Primary-hoofed-animals
(Lophiodontia and Pliolophida)

(Hoofed marsupials? Barypoda?)

254 THE HISTORY OF CREATION,

Mammals, are most closely allied to Hoofed animals, and
more especially agree with them in the absence of the
decidua and in the tufted placenta. Even at the present day
the river-horse (Hippopotamus) constitutes a kind of transi-
tion form to the Sea Cows (Sirenia), and from this it seems
most probable that the extinct primary forms of the Cetacea
are most closely allied to the Sea Cows of the present day,
and that they developed out of Pair-hoofed animals, which
were related to the hippopotamus. Out of the order of
Herbivorous whales (Phycoceta)—to which the sea cows be-
long, and which accordingly, very probably, contain the
primary forms of the legion—the other order of Carnivorous
whales (Sarcoceta) appears to have developed at a later
period. But Huxley thinks that these latter were of quite a
different origin, and that they arose out of the Carnaria
through the Seals. Among the Sarcoceta, the extinct gigantic
Zeuglodonta (Zeugloceta)—whose fossil skeletons some time
ago excited great interest, it being thought that they were
“sea serpents’—are probably only a peculiarly developed
lateral branch of genuine whales (Autoceta), which com-
prise, besides the colossal whalebone whales, the cachalot or
spermaceti whales, dolphins, narwhals, porpoises, ete.

The third legion of the Indeciduata, or Sparsi-placentalia,
comprises the strange group of the animals poor in teeth
(Edentata); it is composed of the two orders of burrowers
and sloths. The order of Burrowers (Effodientia) consists
of the two sub-orders of ant eaters (Vermilinguia), to
which the scaled animals also belong, and the girdle
animals (Cingulata), which were formerly represented by
the gigantic Glyptodons. The order of Sloths (Tardigrada)
consists of the two sub-orders of the small, still living

THE SEMI-APES, 255

dwarf sloths (Bradypoda), and of the extinct unwieldy
grant sloths (Gravigrada). The enormous fossil remains
of these colossal herbivora suggest that the whole legion
is becoming extinct, and that the Edentata of the present
day are but a poor remnant of the mighty order of the
diluvial period. The close relations between the still
living South American Edentata and the extinct gigantic
forms which are found beside the latter on the same part of
the globe, made such an impression upon Darwin on his
first visit to South America, that they even then suggested
to him the fundamental idea of the Theory of Descent. (See
above, vol.i. p. 134). But it is precisely the genealogy of this
legion which is most difficult. The Edentata are perhaps
nothing but a peculiarly developed lateral branch of the
Ungulata; but it may also be that their root lies in quite
another direction.

We now leave the first main group of Placental animals,
the Indeciduata, and turn to the second main group,
namely, the Deciduata, or animals with decidua, which are
distinguished from the former by possessing a deciduous
membrane, or decidua, during their embryonal life. We
here meet with a very remarkable small group of animals,
for the most part extinct, and which probably were the
old tertiary (or eocene) ancestors of man. These are the
Semi-apes, or Lemurs (Prosimiz); these curious animals
are probably the but little changed descendants of the
primeval group of Placentalia which we have to consider
as the common primary form of all Deciduata. They have
hitherto been classed together in the same order with Apes
which Blumenbach called Quadrumana (four-handed). How-
ever, I regard them as entirely distinct from these, not

256 THE HISTORY OF CREATION,

merely because they differ from all Apes, much more than
do the most different Apes from one another, but also because
they comprise most interesting transitional forms leading
to the other orders of Deciduata. I conclude from this that
the few still living Semi-apes, which moreover differ very
much among one another, are the last surviving remnants
of a primary group now almost’ extinct, but which was
at one time rich in forms, and out of which all the other
Deciduata (possibly with the single exception of Beasts of
Prey, and Pseudo-hoofed animals) have developed as diverg-
ing branches. The old primary group of Semi-apes has
probably developed out of Handed or Ape-footed Marsupials
(Pedimana), which are surprisingly like them in the trans-
formation of their hinder feet into grasping hands. The
primeval primary forms themselves (which probably origi-
nated in the eocene period) are of course long since extinct,
as are also the greater portion of the transition-forms between
then and all the other orders of Deciduata. However,
individual remnants of the latter are preserved among the
Semi-apes of the present day. Among these, the remarkable
Finger-animal of Madagascar (Chiromys madagascariensis)
constitutes the remnant of the group of the Leptodac-
tyla and the transition to Rodents. The strange flying
lemur in the South Sea and Sunda islands (Galeopithecus),
the only remnant of the group of Pteropleura, forms a
perfect intermediate stage between Semi-apes and Bats.
The long-footed Semi-apes (Tarsius, Otolicnus) constitute
the last remnant of that primary branch (Macrotarsi) out of
which the Insectivora developed. The short-footed forms
(Brachytarsi) are the medium of connection between them
and genuine Apes. The Short-footed Semi-apes comprise

THE RODENTS. 257

the long-tailed Lemur, the short-tailed Lichanotus, and
the Stenops, the latter of which seems to be very closely
allied to the probable ancestors of man among the Semi-
apes. The short-footed as well as the long-footed Prosimize
live widely distributed over the islands of southern Asia
and Africa, more especially in Madagascar; some live also
on the continent of Africa. No Semi-ape, either living or
in a fossil state, has as yet been found in America. They
all lead a solitary, nocturnal kind of life, and climb about
on trees. (Compare vol. i. p. 361.)

Among the six remaining orders of Deciduata, all of which
are probably derived from long since extinct Semi-apes, the
order of Gnawing animals (Rodentia), which is rich in
forms, has remained at the lowest stage. Among these the
squirrel-like animals (Sciuromorpha) stand nearest akin to
the Pedimanous Marsupials. Out of this primary group
the mouse-like animals (Myomorpha) and the porcupine-
like animals (Hystricomorpha) developed probably as two
diverging branches, the former of which are directly connected
with the squirrel-like animals, by the eocene Myoxida, the
latter by the eocene Psammoryctida. The fourth sub-order,
the hare-like animals (Lagomorpha), probably developed
only at a later period out of one of the other three sub-orders.

Very closely allied to the Rodentia is the remarkable
order of Pseudo-hoofed animals (Chelophora). Of these there
now live but two genera, indigenous to Asia and Africa,
namely, Elephants (Elephas), and Rock Conies (Hyrax).
Both have hitherto generally been classed among real
Hoofed animals, or Ungulata, with which they agree in the
formation of the feet. But an identical transformation of

nails or claws into hoofs occurs also in genuine Rodentia
29

258 THE HISTORY OF CREATION,

and in certain hoofed Rodentia (Subungulata) which live
exclusively in South America. Beside smaller forms (for
example, guinea pigs and gold hares) the Subungulata also
include the largest of all Rodentia, namely, the Capybara
Rats, which are about four feet inlength. The Rock Conies,
which are externally very nearly akin to Rodents, especially
to the hoofed Rodents, were formerly classed among
Rodentia by some celebrated zoologists, as an especial sub-
class (Lamnungia). Elephants, on the other hand, when not
classed among Hoofed animals, were generally considered
as the representatives of a special order which were called
Trunked animals (Proboscidea). But the formation of the
placentas of Elephants and of Hyrax agree in a remark-
able manner, and are entirely distinct from those of Hoofed
animals. These latter never possess a decidua, whereas
Elephants and Hyrax are genuine Deciduata. Their placenta
is indeed not of the form of a disc, but of a girdle, as in
the case of Animals of Prey; it is very possible that the
girdle-shaped placenta is but a secondary development of
the discoplacenta. Thus, then, it might be thought that
the Pseudo-hoofed animals have developed out of a branch
of the Rodentia, and in a similar manner perhaps the
Carnivora out of a branch of the Insectivora. At all
events, Elephants and Hyrax in many respects, especially
in the formation of important skeletal parts, of the limbs,
ete, are more closely allied to the Rodentia, and more
especially to hoofed Rodentia, than to genuine Hoofed
animals. Moreover several extinct forms, especially the
remarkable South American Arrow-toothed animals (Toxo-
dontia), stand in many respects mid-way between Elephants
and Rodentia. That the still living Elephants and Hyrax

THE INSECT EATERS. 259

are but the last survivors of a group of Pseudo-hoofed
animals, which was once rich in forms, is proved not only
by the very numerous fossil species of Elephants and Masto-
don (some of which are even larger, others also much
smaller than the Elephants of the present day), but also by
the remarkable miocene Dinotherva (Gonyognatha), between
which and their next kindred, the Elephants, there must be
a long series of unknown connecting intermediate forms.
Taking all things into consideration, the most probable
hypothesis which can be established at present as to the -
origin and the relationship of Elephants, Dinotheria, Toxodon,
and Hyrax is, that they are the last survivors of a group
of Pseudo-hoofed animals rich in forms, which developed
out of the Rodentia, and probably out of relatives of the
Subungulata.

The order of Insect Eaters (Insectivora) is a very ancient
group, and is next akin to the common extinct primary
form of the Deciduata, as well as to the Semi-apes of the
present day. It has probably developed out of Semi-apes
which were closely allied to the Long-footed Lemurs (Macro-
tarsi) of the present day. It is separated into two orders,
Menotyphla and Lipotyphla; the Menotyphla are probably
the older of the two, and are distinguished from the Lipo-
typhla by possessing an intestinal ccecum, or typhlon. The
Menotyphla include the climbing Tupajas of the Sunda Isles,
and the leaping Macroscelides of Africa. The Lipotyphla are
represented in our country by shrew mice, moles, and hedge-
hogs. The Insectivora, in the formation of their jaws and
their mode of life, are nearly akin to Carnivora, but are,
on the other hand, by their discoplacentas and by their
jarge seminal vesicles, allied to Rodents.

260 THE HISTORY OF CREATION,

It is probable that the order of Rapacious animals (Car-
naria) developed out of a long since extinct branch of
Insectivora, at the peginning of the Eocene period. It
is a natural group, very rich in forms, kut still of very
uniform organization. The Rapacious animals are some-
times also called Girdle-placentals (Zonoplacentals), although
the Pseudo-hoofed animals (Chelophora), in the same way,
also deserve this designation. But as the latter, in other
respects, are more closely allied to the Rodentia than to
. Carnaria, we have already discussed them in connection
with the former. Animals of prey are divided into two,
externally very different, but internally very closely related,
sub-orders, namely, Land animals of prey and Marine animals
of prey. The Land animals of prey (Carnivora) comprise
bears, dogs, cats, etc., whose pedigree can be approximately
guessed at by means of many extinct intermediate forms.
The Marine animals of prey, or Seals (Pinnipedia), com-
prise sea bears, sea dogs, sea lions, and walruses. Although
marine animals of prey appear externally very unlike land
animals of prey, yet by their internal structure, their jaw
and their peculiar girdle-shaped placenta, they are very
nearly akin to them, and have evidently originated out
of a branch of them, probably out of a kind of weasel
(Mustelina).’ Even at the present day the fish otters
(Lutra), and still more so the sea otters (Enhydris), present
a direct form of transition to Seals, and clearly show how
the bodies of land Carnivora are transformed into the shape
of a Seal, by adaptation to an aquatic life, and how the
steering fins of marine rapacious animals have arisen out
of the legs of the former. The latter consequently stand
in the same relation to the former as do the Whales to

ORIGIN ‘OF THE WHALES. 261

Hoofed animals among the Indeciduata. In the same way
as the river-horse at present stands midway between the
extreme branches of oxen and sea oxen, the sea otter still
forms a surviving intermediate stage between the widely
separated branches of dogs and sea dogs. In both cases
the complete transformation of the external form, conse-
quent upon adaptation to entirely different conditions of
life, has not been able to efface the solid foundation of the
inherited internal peculiarities.

According to Huxley’s opinion, which has already been
quoted, only the Herbivorous Whales (Sirenia) are derived
from Hoofed animals; on the other hand, the Carnivorous
Cetacea (Sarcoceta) are derived from the marine animals of
prey; the Zeuglodonts would form a transition between the
two latter. But in this case it would be difficult to under-
stand the close anatomical relations which exist between
the Herbivorous and Carnivorous Cetacea. The strange
peculiarities in the internal and external structure which
so strikingly distinguish the two groups from all other
mammals would then have to be regarded only as analogies
(caused by the same kinds of adaptation), not as homologies
(transmitted from a common primary form). The latter,
however, strikes me as being by far the more probable, and
hence I have left all the Cetacea among the Indeciduata as
one group of kindred origin.

The remarkable order of Flying Mammals, or Bats
(Chiroptera), stands near to the Carnaria as well as to the
Insectivora. It has become strikingly transformed by adap-
tation to a flying mode of life, just as marine animals of
prey have become modified by adaptation to a swimming
mode of life. This order probably also originated out of

262 THE HISTORY OF CREATION.

the Semi-apes, with which it is even at present closely
allied, through the flying lemurs (Galeopithecus). Of the
two orders of flying animals, the insect-eating forms, or
flying mice (Nycterides), probably developed out of those
eating fruits, or flying foxes (Pterocynes) ; for the latter are,
in many ways, more closely allied to Semi-apes than are the
former. —

We have now still to discuss the genuine Apes (Simiz)
as the last order of Mammals; but as, according to the
zoological system, the human race belongs to this order, and
as it undoubtedly developed historically out of a branch
of this order, we shall devote a special chapter to a more
careful examination of its pedigree and history.

CHAPTER XXIV.

ORIGIN AND PEDIGREE OF MAN.

The Application of the Theory of Descent to Man.—Its Immense Importance
and Logical Necessity.—Man’s Position in the Natural System of
Animals, among Disco-placental Animals.—Incorrect Separation of
the Bimana and Quadrumana.—Correct Separation of Semi-apes
from Apes.—Man’s Position in the Order of Apes.—Narrow-nosed Apes
(of the Old World) and Flat-nosed Apes (of America).—Difference of
the two Groups.—Origin of Man from Narrow-nosed Apes.—Human
Apes, or Anthropoides.—African Human Apes (Gorilla and Chimpanzee).
—Asiatic Human Apes (Orang and Gibbon).—Comparison between the
different Human Apes and the different Races of Men.—Survey of the
Series of the Progenitors of Man.—Invertebrate Progenitors (Prochor.
data) and Vertebrate Progenitors,

OF all the individual questions answered by the Theory of
Descent, of all the special inferences drawn from it, there is
none of such importance as the application of this doctrine
to Man himself’ As I remarked at the beginning of this
treatise, the inexorable necessity of the strictest logic forces
us to draw the special deductive conclusion from the general
inductive law of the theory, that Man has developed
gradually, and step by step, out of the lower Vertebrata,
and more immediately out of Ape-like Mammals. That
this doctrine is an inseparable part of the Theory of
Descent, and hence also of the universal Theory of Develop-
ment in general, is recognized by all thoughtful adherents

264 THE HISTORY OF CREATION.

of the theory, as well as by all its opponents who reason
logically.

But if the doctrine be true, then the recognition of the
animal origin and pedigree of the human race will neces-
sarily affect more deeply than any other progress of the
human mind the views we form of all human relations,
and the aims of all human science. It must sooner
or later produce a complete revolution in the conception
entertained by man of the entire universe. I am firmly
convinced that in future this immense advance in our know-
ledge will be regarded as the beginning of a new period
of the development of Mankind. It can only be com-
pared to the discovery made by Copernicus, who was the
first who ventured distinctly to express the opinion, that
it was not the sun which moved round the earth, but the
earth round the sun. Just as the geocentric conception
of the universe—namely, the false opinion that the earth
was the centre of the universe, and that all its other por-
tions revolved round the earth—was overthrown by the
system of the universe established by Copernicus and his
followers, so the anthropocentric conception of the universe
—the vain delusion that Man is the centre of terrestrial
nature, and that its whole aim is merely to serve him—
is overthrown by the application (attempted long since by
Lamarck) of the theory of descent to Man. As Copernicus’
system of the universe was mechanically established by
Newton's theory of gravitation, we see Lamarck’s theory
of descent attain its causal establishment by Darwin’s
theory of selection. This comparison, which is very in-
teresting in many respects, I have discussed in detail
elsewhere.

MAN VIEWED OBJECTIVELY. 265

In order to carry out this extremely important appli-
cation of the Theory of Descent to man, with the necessary
impartiality and objectivity, I must above all beg the
reader (at least for a short time) to lay aside all traditional
and customary ideas on the “Creation of Man,” and to
divest himself of the deep-rooted prejudices concerning
it, which are implanted in the mind in earliest youth. If
he fail to do this, he cannot objectively estimate the weight
of the scientific arguments which I shall bring forward
in favour of the animal derivation of Man, that is, of
his origin out of Ape-lke Mammals. We cannot here
do better than imagine ourselves with Huxley to be the
inhabitants of another planet, who, taking the opportunity
of a scientific journey through the universe, have arrived
upon the earth and have there met with a peculiar two-
legoed mammal called Man, diffused over the whole earth
in great numbers. In order to examine him zoologically,
we should pack a number of the individuals of different .
ages and from different lands (as we should do with the
other animals collected on the earth) into large vessels
filled with spirits of wine, and on our return to our own
planet we should commence the comparative anatomy of all
these terrestrial animals quite objectively. As we should
have no personal interest in Man, in a creature so entirely
different from ourselves, we should examine and criticise
him as impartially and objectively as we should the
other terrestrial animals. In doing this we should, of
course, in the first place refrain from all conjectures and
speculations on the nature of his soul, or on the spiritual
side of his nature, as it is usually called. We should
occupy ourselves solely with his bodily structure, and with

266 : THE HISTORY OF CREATION,

that natural conception of it which is offered by the history
of his individual development.

It is evident that in order correctly to determine Man’s
position among the other terrestrial organisms we must,
in the first place, follow the guidance of the natural
system. We must endeavour to determine the position
which belongs to Man in the natural system of animals
as accurately and distinctly as possible. We shall
then, if in fact the theory of descent be correct, be able
from his position in the system to determine the real
primary relationship, and the degree of consanguinity
connecting Man with the animals most like him. The
hypothetical pedigree of the human race will then follow
naturally as the final result of this anatomical and system-
atic inquiry.

Now if, by means of comparative anatomy and ontogeny,
we seek for man’s position in that Natural System of animals
- which formed the subject of the last two chapters, the
incontrovertible fact will at once present itself to us, that
man belongs to the tribe, or phylum, of the Vertebrata.
Every one of the characteristics, which so strikingly distin-
guish all the Vertebrata from all Invertebrata, is possessed
by him. It has also never been doubted that of all-the
Vertebrata the Mammals are most closely allied to Man,
and that he possesses all the characteristic features distin-
suishing them from all other Vertebrata. If then we
further carefully examine the three different main groups
or sub-classes of Mammals—the inter-connections of which
were discussed in our last chapter—there cannot be the slight-
est doubt that Man belongs to the Placentals, and shares
with all other Placentais, the important characteristics

MAN’S PLACE IN CLASSIFICATION, 267

which distinguish them from Marsupials and from Cloacals.
Finally, of the two main groups of placental Mammals,
the Deciduata and the Indeciduata, the group of Deciduata
doubtless includes Man. For the human embryo is de-
veloped with a genuine decidua, and is thus absolutely
distinguished from all the Indeciduata. Among the
Deciduata we distinguish two legions, the Zonoplacentalia,
with girdle-shaped placenta (Beasts of Prey and Pseudo-
hoofed animals), and the Discoplacentalia, with disc-shaped
placenta (all the remaining Deciduata). Man possesses a
dise-shaped placenta, like all Discoplacentalia ; and thus our
next question must be, What is man’s position in this
group 4 |

In the last chapter we distinguished the following five
orders of Discoplacentalia: (1) Semi-apes ; (2) Rodents; (5)
Insectivora; (4) Bats; (5) Apes. The last of these five orders,
that of Apes, is, as every one knows, in every bodily feature
far more closely allied to Man than the four others. Hence
the only remaining question now is, whether, in the system
of animals, Man is to be directly classed in the order of
genuine Apes, or whether he is to be considered as the
representative of a special sixth order of Discoplacentalia,
allied to, but more advanced than, that of the Apes.

Linnzus in his system classed Man in the same order
with genuine Apes, Semi-apes, and Bats, which he called
Primates ; that is, lords, as it were the highest dignitaries
of the animal kingdom. But Blumenbach, of Gottingen,
separated Man as a special order, under the name of Bumana,
or two-handed, and contrasted him with the Apes and
Semi-apes under the name of Quadruwmana, or four-handed.
This classification was also adopted by Cuvier and, conse-

268 THE HISTORY OF CREATION,

quently, by most subsequent zoologists. It was not until
1863 that Huxley, in his excellent work, the “ Evidence as
to Man’s Place in Nature,’*® showed that this classification
was based upon erroneous ideas, and that the so-called
“four-handed” Apes and Semi-apes are “two-handed” as
much as man is himself. The difference between the foot
and hand does not consist in the physiological peculiarity
that the first digit or thumb is opposable to the four other
digits or fingers in the hand, and is not so in the foot, for
there are wild tribes of men who can oppose the first or
large toe to the other four, just as if it were a thumb.
They can therefore use their “grasping foot” as well as a
so-called “hinder hand,” like Apes. The Chinese boatmen
row with this hinder hand, the Bengal workmen weave
with it. The Negro, in whom the big toe is especially
strong and freely moveable, when climbing seizes hold of
the branches of the trees with it, just like the “four-
handed” Apes. Nay, even the newly born children of the
most highly developed races of men, during the first months
of their life, grasp as easily with the “hinder hand” as
with the “fore hand,” and hold a spoon placed in its |
clutch as firmly with their big toe as with the thumb!
On the other hand, among the higher Apes, especially the
gorilla, hand and foot are differentiated asin man. (Com-
pare Plate IV.)

The essential difference between hand and foot is there-
fore not physiological, but morphological, and is determined
by the characteristic structure of the bony skeleton and of
the muscles attached to it. The ankle-bones differ from
the wrist-bones in arrangement, and the foot possesses
three special muscles not existing in the hand (a short

MAN AND APES, 269

flexor muscle, a short extensor muscle, and a long fibular
muscle). In all these respects, Apes and Semi-apes entirely
agree with man, and hence it was quite erroneous to
separate him from them as a special order on account
of the stronger differentiation of his hand and foot. It is
the same also with all the other structural features by
means of which it was attempted to distinguish Man from
Apes; for example, the relative length of the limbs, the
structure of the skull, of the brain, ete. In all these respects,
without exception, the differences between Man and the
higher Apes are less than the corresponding differences
between the higher and the lower Apes. Hence Huxley,
for reasons based on the most careful and most accurate
anatomical comparisons, arrives at the extremely important
conclusion—“ Thus, whatever system of organs be studied,
the comparison of their modifications in the Ape series leads
to one and the same result, that the structural differences
which separate Man from the Gorilla and Chimpanzee are
not so great as those which separate the Gorilla from the
lower Apes.” In accordance with this, Huxley, strictly
following the demands of logic, classes Man, Apes, and Semi-
apes in a single order, Primates, and divides it into the
following seven families, which are of almost equal systematic
value: (1) Anthropini (Man); (2) Catarrhini (genuine Apes
of the Old World); (3) Platyrrhini (genuine American Apes);
(4) Arctopitheci (American clawed Apes); (5) Lemurini
(short-footed and long-footed Semi-apes, p. 255); (6) Chir-
omyini (p. 256); (7) Galeopithecini (Flying Lemurs, p. 256).

If we wish to arrive at a natural system, and conse-
juently at the pedigree of the Primates, we must go a step
further still, and entirely separate the Semi-apes, or Prosimiz,

270 THE HISTORY OF CREATION.

SYSTEMATIC SURVEY
Of the Families and Genera of Apes.

Sections Families Gen’ra Systematic Name
of of of 0
Apes. Apes. Apes. the Genera.

I. APES OF THE NEW WORLD (Hesperopitheci), OR FLAT-NOSED
APES (Platyrrhini).

A. Jlatyrrbim I. Silky apes | 1. Brush ape 1. Midas

with claus Hapalida 2. Lion ape 2. Jacchus
Arctopitheci
/ IL. Flat-nosed, 8. Squirrelape 3. Chrysothrix
without pre- 4, Leaping ape 4. Callithrix
B. Jlaturvhini hensile tail 5. Nocturnal ape 5. Nyctipithecus
with blunt Aphyocerca 6. Tail ape 6. Pithecia
nails III. Flat-nosed, , 7. Rollingape 7. Cebus
Dysmopitheci with prehensile 8..Climbing ape 8. Ateles
tail 9. Woolly ape 9. Lagothrix

Labidocerca 10. Howling ape 10. Mycetes

II. APES OF THE OLD WORLD (Heopitheci), OR NARROW-NOSED
APES (Catarrhini).

IV. Tailed Catar- (11. Pavian 11. Cynocephalus
rhini, with re Macaque 12. Inuus
C. Talley cheek-pouches ‘ Sea cat 13. Cercopithecus

Catarrhini Ascoparea
V. Tailed Catar-

rhini, without
cheek-pouches

Menocerca 4, Holy ape 14. Semnopithecus
15. Short ape 15. Colobus

16. Nose ape 16. Nasalis
arf Gibbon 17. Hylobates

Anasca

18. Orang-Outan 18. Satyrus

19. Chimpanzee 19. Engeco

20. Gorilla 20. Gorilla

21. Ape-like man, 21. Pithecanthropus
or speechless man (Alalus)

22. Talking man 22. Homo

VI. Human apes

D. Tailless Anthropoides
Catarrhini
Lipocerca
Erectt

(Anthropi)

PEDIGREE OF MEN AND APES, 271

Straight-haired men

Lissotricht
Woolly-haired men
Ulotricht
—_

Speechless men (Alali), or
Ape-like men (Pithecanthropi)

Gorilla
Gorilla Orang
Chimpanzee Satyrus
Engeco . Gibbon
Hylobates

——
African Re
Man-like Apes Asiatic
Man-like Apes

|

_————___

SMan-like Apes Nose apes
Anthropoides Nasalis
Silk apes Tall apes
Arctopithect Semnopithecus
Clutch-tails
Labidocerca

Sea cat Pavian
5a, ene Cercopithecus Cynocephalus
Flap-tails
Aphyocerca
Slat-nosed Apes
Platyrrhini Tailed Narrow-nosed apes
Catarrhina menocerca

Natrow-nosed
Catarrhini

|

(OS SE Eaaee 2 SOR ee Verena Reon
Apes

Simiz

Semi-apes
Prosimie

272 THE HISTORY OF CREATION,

(Huxley’s last three families), from Genuine Apes, or Simiz
(the first four families), For, as I have already shown in my
General Morphology, and explained in the last chapter, the
Semi-apes differ in many and important respects from
Genuine Apes, and in their individual forms are more
closely allied to the various other orders of Discoplacentalia.
Hence the Semi-apes must probably be considered as the
remnants of the common primary group, out of which the
other orders of Discoplacentalia, and, it may be, all De-
ciduata, have developed as two diverging branches. (Gen.
Morph. ii. pp. 148 and 153.) But man cannot be sepa-
rated from the order of Genuine Apes, or Simiz, as he is
in every respect more closely allied to the higher Genuine
Apes than the latter are to the lower Genuine Apes.
Genuine Apes (Simiz) are universally divided into two
perfectly natural groups, namely, the Apes of the New
World, or American Apes, and the Apes of the Old World,
which are indigenous to Asia and Africa, and which for-
merly also existed in Europe. These two classes differ prin-
cipally in the formation of the nose, and they have been
named accordingly. American Apes have flat noses, so that
the nostrils are in front, not below; hence they are called
Flat Noses (Platyrrhini). On the other hand, the Apes of
the Old World have a narrow cartilaginous bridge, and the
nostrils turned downwards, as in man; they are, therefore,
called Narrow Noses (Catarrhini). Further, the jaw,
which plays an important part in the classification of
Mammals, is essentially distinct in these two groups. All
Catarrhine, or Apes of the Old World, have exactly the
same jaws as Man, namely, in each jaw four incisors above
and below, then on each side a canine tooth and five cheek

PEDIGREE OF THE APES, 273

teeth, of which two are pre-molars and three molars,
altogether thirty-two teeth. But all Apes of the New
World, all Platyrrhini, have four more cheek teeth, namely,
three pre-molars and three molars on each side, above and
below: they consequently possess thirty-six teeth. Only
one small group forms an exception to this rule, namely,
the Arctopitheci, or Clawed Ayes, in whom the third molar
has degenerated, and they accordingly have on each half of
their jaw three pre-molars and two molars. They also
differ from the other Platyrrhini by having claws on the
fingers of their hands and the toes of their feet, not nails
like Man and the other Apes. This small group of South
American Apes, which includes among others the well-
known pretty little Midas-monkey and the Jacchus, must
probably be considered only as a peculiarly developed
lateral branch of the Platyrrhini.

Now, if we ask what evidence can be drawn, as to the
pedigree of Apes, from the above facts, we must con-
clude that all the Apes of the New World have developed
out of one tribe, for they all possess the characteristic jaw
and the nasal formation of the Platyrrhini In like
manner it follows that all the Apes of the Old World must
be derived from one and the same common primary form,
which possessed the same formation of nose and jaw as
all the still living Catarrhini. Further, it can scarcely
be doubted that the Apes of the New World, taken as an
entire tribe, are either derived from those of the Old World,
or (to express it more vaguely and cautiously) both are
diverging branches of one and the same tribe of Apes. We
also arrive at the exceedingly important conclusion—
which is of the utmost significance in regard to Man’s dis-

274 THE HISTORY OF CREATION.

tribution on the earth’s surface—that Man has developed
out of the Catarrhint. For we cannot discover a zoological
character distinguishing him in a higher degree from the
allied Apes of the Old World than that in which
the most divergent forms of this group are distinguished
from one another. This is the important result of
Huxley’s careful anatomical examination of the question,
and it cannot be too highly estimated. The anatomical
differences between Man and the most human-like Catar-
rhini (Orang, Gorilla, Chimpanzee) are in every respect less
than the anatomical differences between the latter and the
lowest stages of Catarrhini, more especially the Dog-like
Baboon. This exceedingly important conclusion is the
result of an impartial anatomical comparison of the different
forms of Catarrhini.

If, therefore, we recognise the natural system of animals
as the guide to our speculations, and establish upon it our
pedigree, we must necessarily come to the conclusion that the
human race is a small branch of the group of Catarrhin,
and has developed out of long since extinct Apes of this group
in the Old World. Some adherents of the Theory of Descent
have thought that the American races of Men have de-
veloped, independently of those of the Old World, out of
American Apes. I consider this hypothesis to be quite
erroneous, for the complete agreement of all mankind with
the Catarrhini, in regard to the characteristic formation of
the nose and jaws, distinctly proves that they are of the
same origin, and that they developed out of a common
root after the Platyrrhini, or American Apes, had already
branched off from them. The primeval inhabitants of
America, as is proved by numerous ethnographical facts,

THE MAN-LIKE APES. 275

immigrated from Asia, and partly perhaps from Polynesia
(or even from Europe).

There still exist great difficulties in establishing an
accurate pedigree of the Human Race; this only can we
further assert, that the nearest progenitors of man were
tail-less Catarrhini (Lipocerca), resembling the still living
Man-like Apes. These evidently developed at a late
period out of tailed Catarrhini (Menocerca), the original
form of Ape. Of those tail-less Catarrhini, which are now
frequently called Man-like Apes, or Anthropoides, there
still exist four different genera containing about a dozen
different species.

The largest Man-like Ape is the famous Gorilla (called
Gorilla engena, or Pongo gorilla), which is indigencus to
the tropics of western Africa, and was first discovered
by the missionary, Dr. Savage, in 1847, on the banks of
the river Gaboon. Its nearest relative is the Chim-
panzee (Engeco troglodytes, or Pongo troglodytes), also
indigenous to western Africa, but considerably smaller
than the Gorilla, which surpasses man in size and strength.
The third of the three large Man-like Apes is the Orang, or
Orang Outang, indigenous to Borneo and the other Sunda
Islands, of which two kindred species have recently been
distinguished, namely, the large Orang (Satyrus orang, or
Pithecus satyrus) and the small Orang (Satyrus morio, or
Pithecus morio). Lastly, there still exists in southern Asia
the genus Gibbon (Hylobates), of which from four to eight
different species are distinguished. They are considerably
smaller than the three first-named Anthropoides, and in
most characteristics differ more from Man.

The tail-less Man-like Apes—especially since we have

276 THE HISTORY OF CREATION,

become more intimately acquainted with the Gorilla, and
its connection with Man by the application of the Theory
of Descent—have excited such universal interest, and called
forth such a flood of writings, that there is no oceasion for
me here to enter into any detail about them. The reader
will find their relations to Man fully discussed in the ex-
cellent works of Huxley, Carl Vogt,” Biichner,* and
Rolle.® I shall therefore confine myself to stating the
most important general conclusion resulting from their
thorough comparison with Man, namely, that each one of
the four Man-like Apes stands nearer to Man in one or
several respects than the rest, but that no one of them can
in every respect be called absolutely the most like Man.
The Orang stands nearest to Man in regard to the formation
of the brain, the Chimpanzee in important characteristics
in the formation of the skull, the Gorilla in the development
of the feet and hands, and, lastly, the Gibbon in the forma-
tion of the thorax.

Thus, from a careful examination of the comparative
anatomy of the Anthropoides, we obtain a similar result to
that obtained by Weisbach, from a statistical classification
and a thoughtful comparison of the very numerous and
careful measurements which Scherzer and Schwarz made
of the different races of Men during their voyage in the
Austrian frigate Novara round the earth. Weisbach com-
prises the final result of his investigations in the follow-
ing words: “The ape-like characteristics of Man are by
no means concentrated in one or another race, but are
distributed in particular parts of the body, among the
different races, in such a manner that each is endowed
with some heirloom of this relationship—one race more so,

MAN NOT DESCENDED FROM THE GORILLA. 277

another less, and even we Europeans cannot claim to be
entirely free from evidences of this relationship.” *

I must here also point out, what in fact is self-evident,
that not one of all the still living Apes, and consequently
not one of the so-called Man-like Apes, can be the pro-
genitor of the Human Race. This opinion, in fact, has
never been maintained by thoughtful adherents of the
Theory of Descent, but it has been assigned to them by their
thoughtless opponents. The Ape-like progenitors of the
Human Race are long since extinct. We may possibly still
find their fossil bones in the tertiary rocks of southern Asia
or Africa. In any case they will, in the zoological system,
have to be classed in the group of tail-less Narrow-nosed
Apes (Catarrhini Lipocerci, or Anthropoides.,

The genealogical hypotheses, to which we have thus far
been led by the application of the Theory of Descent to
Man, present themselves to every clearly and logically rea-
soning person as the direct results from the facts of com-
parative anatomy, ontogeny, and paleontology. Of course
our phylogeny can indicate only in a very general way the
outlines of the human pedigree. Phylogeny is the more in
danger of becoming erroneous the more rigorously it is
applied in detail to special animal forms known to us.
However, we can, even now, with approximate certainty
distinguish at least the following twenty-two stages of the
ancestors of Man. Fourteen of these stages belong to the
Vertebrata, and eight to the Invertebrate ancestors of Man
(Prochordata.)

* Weisbach: “ Novara-Reise,” Anthropholog. Theil,

278 THE HISTORY OF CREATION.

THE CHAIN OF THE ANIMAL ANCESTORS, OR THE
SERIES OF THE PROGENITORS, OF MAN.
(Comp. Ch, XX., XXI.; Plate XIV. and p. 22).

FIRST HALF OF THE SERIES OF THE ANCESTORS OF MAN.
INVERTEBRATE ANCESTORS OF MAN (Prochordata).

First SracEe: Monera.

The most ancient ancestors of Man, as of all other
organisms, were living creatures of the simplest kind
imaginable, organisms without organs, like the still
living Monera. They consisted of simple, homogeneous,
structureless and formless little lumps of mucous or
albuminous matter (protoplasm), like the still living Pro-
tamceba primitiva. (Compare vol. i. p. 186, Fig. 1.) The form
value of these most ancient ancestors of man was not even
equal to that of a cell, but merely that of a cytod (compare
vol. i. p. 347); for, as in the case of all Monera, the little lamp
of protoplasm did not as yet possess a celi-kernel. The first
of these Monera originated in the beginning of the Lauren-
tian period by spontaneous generation, or archigony, out of
so-called “inorganic combinations,” namely, out of simple
combinations of carbon, oxygen, hydrogen, and nitrogen.
The assumption of this spontaneous generation, that is, of
a mechanical origin of the first organisms from inorganic
matter, has been proved in our thirteenth chapter to be
a necessary hypothesis. (Compare vol. i. p. 338.) A direct

PROGENITORS OF MAN. 279

proof of the earlier existence of this most ancient ancestral
stage, based upon the fundamental law of biogeny, is pos-
sibly still furnished by the circumstance that, according
to the assertions of many investigators, in the beginning
of the development of the egg, the cell-kernel, or nucleus,
disappears, and the egg-cell thus relapses to the lower stage
of the cytod (Monerula, p. 124; relapse of the nucleated
plastid into a non-nucleated condition). The assumption
of this first stage is necessary for most important general
reasons,

SECOND STAGE: Amebe,

The second ancestral stage of Man, as of all the higher
animals and plants, is formed by a simple cell, that is, a little
piece of protoplasm enclosing a kernel. There still exist
large numbers of similar “ single-celled organisms.” Among
them the common, simple Amcebee (vol. i. p. 188, Fig. 2)
cannot have been essentially different from these progenitors.
The form value of every Amceba is essentially the same as
that still possessed by the egg of Man, and by the egg of
all other animals. (Vol. i. p. 189, Fig. 3.) The naked egg-
cells of Sponges, which creep about exactly like Amcebe,
_ cannot be distinguished from them. The egg-cell of Man,
which like that of most other animals is surrounded by a
membrane, resembles an enclosed Amceba. The first single-
celled animals of this kind arose out of Monera by the
differentiation of the inner kernel and the external proto-
plasm; they lived in the earlier Primordial period. An
irrefutable proof that such single-celled primeval animals
really existed as the direct ancestors of Man, is furnished.
according to the fundamental law of biogeny (vol. 1. p. 309)

280 THE HISTORY OF CREATION.

by the fact that the human egg is nothing more than a
simple cell (Compare p. 124.)

TuHirp STacGe: Synamebe.

In order to form an approximate conception of the organ-
isation of those ancestors of Man which first developed out
of the single-celled Primzeval animals, it is necessary to trace
the changes undergone by the human egg in the beginning
of its individual development. It is just here that ontogeny
guides us with the greatest certainty on to the track of
phylogeny. We have already seen that the egg of Man Gn
the same way as that of all other Mammals), after fructifica-
tion has taken place, falls by self-division into a mass of
simple and equi-formal Ameeba-like cells (vol. 1. p. 190,
Fig. 4D.) All these divided globules are at first exactly like
one another, naked cells containing a kernel, but without
covering ; in many animals they show movements like those
of the Amcebe. This ontogenetic stage of development
which we called Morula (p. 125), on account of its mulberry
shape, is a certain proof that in the early primordial period
there existed ancestors of man which possessed the form
value of a mass of homogeneous, loosely connected cells.
They may be called a community of Amabe (Synamcebee).
(Compare p. 127.) They originated out of the single-celled
Primeval animals of the second stage by repeated self-
division and by the permanent union of the products of
this division.

FourtH Stace: Ciliated Larva (Planeada).

In the course of the ontogenesis of most of the lower
animals, and also in that of the lowest Vertebrate animals,

PROGENITORS OF MAN, 281

the Lanceolate Animals, or Amphioxus, there first develops
out of the Morula (Frontispiece, Fig. 3) a ciliated larva
(planula). Those cells, lying on the surface of the homo-
geneous mass of cells, extend hair-like processes, or fringes
of hairs, which by striking against the water keep the
whole body rotating. The round many-celled body thus
becomes differentiated, in that the external cells covered
with cilia differ from the non-ciliated internal cells.
(Frontispiece, Fig. 4). In Man and in all other Vertebrate
animals (with the exception of the Amphioxus), as well
as in all Arthropoda, this stage of the ciliated larva has been
lost, in the course of time, by abbreviated inheritance.
There must, however, have existed ancestors of Man in the
early Primordial period which possessed the form value of
these ciliated larvee (Planzea, p. 125). <A certain proof of
this is furnished by the Amphioxus, which is on the one
hand related by blood to Man, but on the other has retained
down to the present day the stage of the planula.

FirtuH Srace: Primeval Stomach Animals (Gastreada).

In the course of the individual development of Am-
phioxus, as well as in the most different lower animals,
there first arises out of the planula the extremely important
form of larva which we have named stomach larva, or
gastrula (p. 126; Frontispiece, Fig. 5, 6). According to the
fundamental law of biogeny this gastrula proves the former
existence of an independent form of primeval animal of
the same structure, and this we have named primeval
stomach animal, or Gastrza (pp. 127, 128). These
Gastreeada must have existed during the older Primordial

period, and they must have also included the ancestors of
30

282 THE HISTORY OF CREATION.

man. A certain proof of this is furnished by the Amphioxus,
which in spite of its blood relationship to Man still passes
through the stage of the gastrula with a simple intestine
and a double intestinal wall. (Compare Plate X. Fig. B 4.)

Srxtu Stace: Gliding Worms (Turbellaria).

The human ancestors of the sixth stage which originated
out of the Gastrzeada of the fifth stage, were low worms,
which, of all the forms of worms known to us, were most
closely allied to the Gliding Worms, or Turbellaria, or at least
upon the whole possessed their form value. Like the Tur-
bellaria of the present day, the whole surface of their body
was covered with cilia, and they possessed a simple body
of an oval shape, entirely without appendages. These
accelomatous worms did not as yet possess a true body-
cavity (ccelom) nor blood. They originated in the early
primordial period out of the Gastrzeada, by the formation
of a middle germ-layer, or muscular layer, and also by the
further differentiation of the internal parts into various
organs; more especially the first formation of a nervous
system, the simplest organs of sense, the simplest organs
for secretion (kidneys) and generation (sexual organs). The
proof that human ancestors existed of a similar formation,
is to be looked for in the circumstance that comparative
anatomy and ontogeny point to the lower accelomatous
Worms as the common primary form, not merely of all
higher Worms, but also of the four higher tribes of
animals. Now, of all the animals known to us, the
Turbellaria, which possess neither a body-cavity nor blood,
are most closely allied to these primeval accelomatous
Primary Worms.

PROGENITORS OF MAN. 283

SEVENTH STAGE: Soft Worms (Scolecida).

Between the Turbellaria of the preceding stage and
the Sack Worms of the next stage, we must necessarily
assume at least one connecting intermediate stage. For the
Tunicata, which of all known animals stand nearest to the
eighth stage, and the Turbellaria which most resemble the
sixth stage, indeed both belong to the lower division of the
unseomented Worms; but still these two divisions differ
so much from one another in their organization, that we
must necessarily assume the earlier existence of extinct
intermediate forms between the two. These connecting
links, of which no fossil remains exist, owing to the soft
nature of their bodies, we may comprise as Soft Worms, or
Scolecida. They developed out of the Turbellaria of
the sixth stage by forming a true body-cavity (a ccelom)
and blood in their interior. It is difficult to say
which of the still living Ccelomati are nearest akin
to these extinct Scolecida, it may be the Acorn-worms
(Balanoglossus). The proof that even the direct ancestors
of man belonged to these Scolecida, is furnished by the
comparative anatomy and the ontogeny of Worms and of
the Amphioxus. The form value of this stage must more-
over have been represented by several very different inter-
mediate stages, in the wide gap between Turbellaria and
Tunicata,

E1cHTH SracE: Sack Worms (Himatega).

Under the name of Sack worms, or Himatega, we here
allude in the eighth place to those Ccelomati, out of which
the most ancient skull-less Vertebrata were directly devel-
oped. Among the Ccelomati of the present day, the Ascidians

284 THE HISTORY OF CREATION,

are the nearest relatives of these exceedingly remarkable
Worms, which connect the widely differing classes of Inver-
tebrate and Vertebrate animals. That the ancestors of
man really existed during the primordial period in the form
of these Himatega, is distinctly proved by the exceedingly
remarkable and important agreement presented by the
ontogeny of the Amphioxus and the Ascidia. (Compare Plates
XII. and XIITL., also pp. 152, 200, etc.) From this fact the
earlier existence of Sack Worms may be inferred ; they of
all known worms were most closely related to our recent
Tunicates, especially to the freely swimming young forms
or larve of the simple Sea-squirts (Ascidia, Phallusia).
They originated out of the worms of the seventh stage by
the formation of a dorsal nerve-marrow (medulla tube),
and by the formation of the spinal rod (chorda dorsalis)
which lies below it. It is just the position of this central
spinal rod, or axial skeleton, between the dorsal marrow
on the dorsal side, and the intestinal canal on the ventral
side, which is most characteristic of all Vertebrate animals,
including man, but also of the larve of the Ascidia. The
form value of this stage nearly corresponds with that which
the larvee of the simple Sea-squirts possess at the time
when they show the beginning of the dorsal marrow and
spinal rod. (Plate XII. Fig. A 5: compare the explanation
of these figures in the Appendix.)

PROGENITORS OF MAN, 285

SECOND HALF OF THE SERIES OF HUMAN ANCESTORS,
VERTEBRATE ANIMAL ANCESTORS OF MAN
(Vertebrata).

NintH Stace: Skull-less Animals (Acrania).

The series of human ancestors, which in accordance with
their whole organisation we have to consider as Vertebrate
animals, begins with the Skull-less animals, or Acrania, of
whose nature the still living Lancelet (Amphioxus lanceo-
latus, Plate XII. B, XIII. B) gives us a faint idea. Since
this little animal in its earliest embryonal state entirely
agrees with the Ascidia, and in its further development
shows itself to be a true Vertebrate animal, it forms a direct
transition from the Vertebrata to the Invertebrata. Even
if the human ancestors of the ninth stage in many respects
differed from the Amphioxus—the last surviving representa-
tive of the Skull-less animals—yet they must have resembled
it in its most essential characteristics, in the absence of head,
skull, and brain. Skull-less animals of such structure—out
of which animals with skulls developed at a later period—
lived during the primordial period, and originated out of
the Himatega of the eighth stage by the formation of the
metamera, or body segments, as also by the further differen-
tiation of all organs, especially the more perfect develo»ment
of the dorsal nerve-marrow and the spinal rod lying below
it. Probably the separation of the two sexes (gonochorism)
also began at this stage, whereas all the previously men-
tioned invertebrate ancestors (apart from the 3—4 first

286 THE HISTORY OF CREATION.

neutral stages) exhibited the condition of hermaphrodites
(hermaphroditism). (Compare vol. i. p. 196.) The certain
proof of the former existence of these skull-less and brain-
less ancestors of man, is furnished by the comparative
anatomy and the ontogeny of the Amphioxus and of the
Craniota.

TENTH SrTaGE: Single-nostriled Animals (Monorrhina).

Out of the Skull-less ancestors of man there arose in the
first place animals with skulls, or Craniota, of the mo<t imper-
fect nature. The lowest stage of all still living Craniota is
occupied by the class of round-mouthed animals, or Cyclos-
toma, namely, the Hag (Myxinoidea) and Lampreys (Petro-
myzontia). From the internal organization of these single-
nostriled animals, or Monorrhina, we can form an approxi-
mate idea of the nature of the human ancestors of the tenth
stage. In the former, as also in the latter, skull and brain
must have been of the simplest form, and many important
organs, as for example, the swimming bladder, the sympa-
thetic nerve, the spleen, the jaw skeleton, and both pairs of
legs, may probably as yet not have existed. However, the
pouch gills and the round sucking mouth of the Cyclostoma
must probably be looked upon as purely adaptive charac-
teristics, which did not exist in the corresponding stage of
ancestors. The single-nostriled animals originated during
the primordial period out of the skull-less animals by the
anterior end of the dorsal marrow developing into the brain,
and the anterior end of the dorsal chord into the skull.
The certain proof that such single-nostriled and jawless
ancestors of man did exist,is found in the “comparative
anatomy of the Myxinoidea.”

—_—

PROGENITORS OF MAN. 287

ELEVENTH Stace: Primeval Fish (Selachii.)

Of all known Vertebrate animals, the ancestors of the
Primeval Fish probably showed most resemblance to the
still living Sharks (Squalacei). They originated out of
the single-nostriled animals by the division of the single
nostril into two lateral halves, by the formation of a
sympathetic nervous system, a jaw skeleton, a swimming
bladder, and two pairs of legs (breast fins or fore-legs, and
ventral fins or hind-legs), The internal organisation of this
stage may probably, upon the whole, have corresponded to
the lowest species of Sharks known to us; the swimming
bladder was however more strongly developed; in the case
of the latter it exists only asa rudimentary organ. They
lived as early as the Silurian period, as is proved by the
fossil remains of sharks (teeth and fin spines) from the
Silurian strata. A certain proof that the Silurian ances-
tors of man and of all the other double-nostriled animals
were nearest akin to the Selachii, is furnished by the
‘comparative anatomy of the latter; it shows that the
relations of organisation in all Amphirrhina can be derived
from those of the Selachii.

TWELFTH STAGE: Mud Fish (Dipneusta).

Our twelfth ancestral stage is formed by Vertebrate
animals which probably possessed a remote resemblance to
the still living Salamander fish (Ceratodus, Protopterus,
Lepidosiren, p. 212). They originated out of the Primeval
fish (probably at the beginning of the palzolithic, or
primary period) by adaptation to life on land, and by the
transformation of the swimming bladder into an air-
breathing lung, and of the nasal cavity (which now opened

288 THE HISTORY OF CREATION,

into the cavity of the mouth) into air passages. The series
of the ancestors of man which breathed air through lungs
began at this stage. Their organisation may probably in
many respects have agreed with that of the still living
Ceratodus and Protopterus, but at the same time may
have been very different. They probably lived at the
beginning of the Devonian period. Their existence is
proved by comparative anatomy, which shows the Dipneusta
to be an intermediate stage between the Selachii and
Amphibia.

THIRTEENTH STAGE: Gilled Amphibians (Sozobranchia),

Out of those Mud Fish, which we considered the primary
forms of all the Vertebrata which breathe through lungs,
there developed the class of Amphibia as the main line
(pp. 205, 216). Here began the five-toed formation of the
foot (the Pentadactyla), which was thence transmitted to
the higher Vertebrata, and finally also to Man. The gilled
Amphibians must be looked upon as our most ancient
ancestors of the class of Amphibia; besides possessing
lungs they retained throughout life regular gills, like the
still living Proteus and Axolotl (p. 218). They originated
out of the Dipneusta by the transformation of the paddling
fins into five-toed legs, and also by the more perfect dif-
ferentiation of various organs, especially of the vertebral
column. In any case they existed about the middle of the
paleeolithic, or primary period, possibly even before the Coal
period; for fossil Amphibia are found in coal. The proof
that similar gilled Amphibians were our direct ancestors, is
given by the comparative anatomy and the ontogeny of
Amphibia and Mammals,

PROGENITORS OF MAN. 289

FouRrEENTH STAGE: Tailed Amphibians (Sozura).

Our amphibious ancestors which retained their gills
throughout life, were replaced at a later period by other
Amphibia, which, by metamorphosis, lost the gills which
they had possessed in early life, but retained the tail, as in
the case of the salamanders and newts of the present day.
(Compare p. 218.) They originated out of the gilled
Amphibians by accustoming themselves in early life to
breathe only through gills, and later in life only through
lungs. They probably existed even in the second half
of the primary, namely, during the Permian period, but
possibly even during the Coal period. The proof of their
existence lies in the fact that tailed Amphibians form a
necessary intermediate link between the preceding and
succeeding stages.

FrrTEENTH Stace: Primeval Amniota (Protamnia).

The name Protamnion we have given to the primary
form of the three higher classes of Vertebrate animals,
out of which the Proreptilia and the Promammalia developed
as two diverging branches (p. 222). It originated out
of unknown tailed Amphibia by the complete loss of the
gills, by the formation of the amnion, of the cochlea, and
of the round window in the auditory organ, and of the
organs of tears. It probably originated in the beginning
of the mesolithic or secondary period, perhaps even towards
the end of the primary, in the Permian period. The
certavn proof that it once existed lies in the comparative
anatomy and the ontogeny of the Amniota.; for all Reptiles,
Birds, and Mammals, including Man, agree in so many
important characteristics that they must, with full assur-

290 THE HISTORY OF CREATION.

ance, be admitted to be the descendants of a single common
primary form, namely, of the Protamnion.

SIXTEENTH STAGE: Primary Mammals (Promammalia).

We now find ourselves more at home with our ancestors.
From the sixteenth up to the twenty-second stage they
all belong to the large and well known class of Mammals,
the confines of which we ourselves have as yet not
transgressed. The common, long since extinct and unknown
primary forms of all Mammalia, which we have named
Promammalia, were at all events, of all still living animals,
of the class most closely related to the Beaked animals, or
Ornithostoma (Ornithorhynchus, Echidna, p. 233). They
differed from the latter, however, by the teeth present
in their jaws. The formation of the beak in the Beaked
animals of the present day must be looked upon as an
adaptive characteristic which developed at a later period.
The Promammalia arose out of the Protamnia (probably
only at the beginning of the secondary period, namely, in
the Trias) by various advances in their internal organis-
ation, as also by the transformation of the epidermal scales
into hairs, and by the formation of a mammary gland
which furnished milk for the nourishment of the young

ones. The certain proof that the Promammalia—inasmuch ~

as they are the common primary forms of all Mammals—
also belong to our ancestors, lies in the comparative
anatomy and the ontogeny of Mammalia and Man.

SEVENTEENTH STAGE : Pouched Animals (Marsupialia).

The three sub-classes of Mammalia—as we have already
seen—stand in such a relation to one another that the

PROGENITORS OF MAN, 29I

Marsupials, both as regards their anatomy and their
ontogeny and phylogeny, form the direct transition from the
Monotrema to Placental animals (p. 247). Consequently,
human ancestors must also have existed among Marsupials.
They originated out of the Monotrema—which include
the primary Mammalia, or Promammalia—by the division of
the cloaca into the rectum and the urogenital sinus, by the
formation of a nipple on the mammary gland, and by the
partial suppression of the clavicles. The oldest Marsupials
at all events existed as early as the Jura period (perhaps
even in the Trias), during the Chalk period they passed
through a series of stages preparing the way for the origin
of Placentalia. The certain proof of our derivation from
Marsupials—nearly akin to the still living opossum and
kangaroo in their essential inner structure—is furnished
by the comparative anatomy and the ontogeny of
Mammalia.

EIGHTEENTH STAGE : Semi-apes (Prosimiz).

The small group of Semi-apes, as we have already seen,
is one of the most important and most interesting orders of
Mammalia. It contains the direct primary forms of Genuine
Apes, and thus also of Man. Our Semi-ape ancestors probably
possessed only a very faint external resemblance to the still
living, short-footed Semi-apes (Brachytarsi), especially the
Maki, Indri, and Lori (p. 256). They originated (probably
at the beginning of the Cenolithic, or Tertiary period) out
of Marsupials of Rat-like appearance by the formation of a
placenta, the loss of the marsupium and the marsupial
bones, and by the higher development of the commis-
sures of the brain, The certain proof that Genuine Apes,

292 THE HISTORY OF CREATION.

and hence also our own race, are the direct descendants of
Semi-apes, is to be found in the comparative anatomy and
the ontogeny of Placental animals,

NINETEENTH STAGE: Tailed Apes (Menocerea),

Of the two classes of Genuine Apes which developed out
of the Semi-apes, it is only the narrow-nosed, or Catarrhini,
which are closely related by blood to Man. Our older
ancestors from this group probably resembled the still
living Nose-apes and Holy-apes (Semnopithecus), which
possess jaws and narrow noses like Man, but have a long
tail, and their bodies densely covered with hair (p. 271).
The Tailed Apes with narrow noses (Catarrhini Menocerci)
originated out of Semi-apes by the transformation of the
jaw, and by the claws on their toes becoming changed into
nails; this probably took place as early as the older Tertiary
period. The certain proof of our derivation from Tailed
Catarrhini is to be found in the comparative anatomy and
the ontogeny of Apes and of Man.

TWENTIETH STAGE: Man-like Apes (Anthropoides),

Of all still living Apes the large tail-less, narrow-nosed
Apes, namely, the Orang and Gibbon in Asia, the Gorilla
and Chimpanzee in Africa, are most nearly akin to Man.
It is probable that these Man-like Apes, or Anthropoides,
originated during the Mid-tertiary period, namely, in the
Miocene period. They developed out of the Tailed Catar-
rhini of the preceding stage—with which they essentially
agree—by the loss of the tail, the partial loss of the hairy

oy he a ae ea |

PROGENITORS OF MAN. 293

covering. and by the excessive development of that portion
of the brain just above the facial portion of the skull.
There do not exist direct human ancestors among the
Anthropoides of the present day, but they certainly existed
among the unknown extinct Human Apes of the Miocene
period. The certain proof of their former existence is
furnished by the comparative anatomy of Man-like Apes
and of Man.

TwENTY-First STacGE: Ape-like Men (Pithecanthropi).

Although the preceding ancestral stage is already so
nearly akin to genuine Men that we scarcely require to
assume an intermediate connecting stage, still we can look
upon the speechless Primzeval Men (Alali) as this inter-
mediate link. These Ape-like men, or Pithecanthropi, very
probably existed towards the end of the Tertiary period.
They originated out of the Man-like Apes, or Anthropoides,
by becoming completely habituated to an upright walk, and
by the corresponding stronger differentiation of both pairs of
legs. The fore hand of the Anthropoides became the human
hand, their hinder hand became a foot for walking.
Although these Ape-like Men must not merely by the
external formation of their bodies, but also by their internal
mental development, have been much more akin to real
Men than the Man-like Apes could have been, yet they did
not possess the real and chief characteristic of man, namely,
the articulate human language of words, the corresponding
development of a higher consciousness, and the formation
of ideas. The certain proof that such Primeeval Men with-
out the power of speech, or Ape-like Men, must have
preceded men possessing speech, is the result arrived at by

294 THE HISTORY OF CREATION.

an inquiring mind from comparative philology (from the
“comparative anatomy” of language), and especially from
the history of the development of language in every child
(“glottal ontogenesis ”) as well as in every nation (“glottal
phylogenesis ”).

TWENTY-SECOND STAGE: Men (Homines).

Genuine Men, developed out of the Ape-like Men of the
preceding stage by the gradual development of the animal
language of sounds into a connected or articulate language,
of words. The development of this function, of course,
went hand in hand with the development of its organs,
namely, the higher differentiation of the larynx and the
brain. The transition from speechless Ape-like Men to
Genuine or Talking Men probably took place at the begin-
ning of the Quaternary period, namely, in the Diluvial
period, but possibly even at an earlier date, in the more
recent Tertiary. As, according to the unanimous opinion
of most eminent philologists, all human languages are not
derived from a common primeval language, we must assume
a polyphyletic origin of language, and in accordance with
this a polyphyletic transition from speechless Ape-like Men
to Genuine Men.

a

(

295 )

ANCESTRAL SERIES OF THE HUMAN PEDIGREE.

M N = Boundary between the Invertebrate and Vertebrate Ancestors.

Epochs of the Geological Periods Animal ee
Organic of the Ancestral Stages pied cuirpein
History of the Organic History of Ancestral St
Earth. of the Earth. Man. ages.
1. Monera { Protogenes
(Monera) Protameba
2. Single-celled Pri- { Simple Ameebz
mzyal animals (Automebe)
3. Many-celled Pri- Coe of
mezyval animals ( Saami)
4, Ciliated planule ¢ lanatar |
(Planeada) , Planula larve
5. Primeval Intes-
. Laurentian Period tinal animals Gastrula larve
Gastreada)
Anoutixentc (
2. Cambrian Period 6. Gliding Worms { Rhabdocella
PuIMORDIAL 3. Silurian Period (Turbellaria) ae Bike ‘i poe ne
i. Golt-worne squirts and Gliding
(Scolecida) en
8. Sack worms { Sea-squirts
et (Ascidie)
“Skull- ‘Tess ah ***" Lancelets
” dorama (Amphiozi)
10. Single-nostriled Lampreys
(Compare p. 22, and (Monorrhina) { (Petromyzonta)
Plate XIV. and its a Primeval fish Sharks
eee 2) eeplanstion) 68 eee eee (Selachii) { ( Squalacet)

4, Devonian Period
5. Coal Period

PALGOLITHIC

PRIMARY

ErocH 6. Permian Period

III. 7, Trias Period

ig laa

ene any
EProcH

10. Eocene Period

cexouimare 11. Miocene Period
TERTIARY

ica 12, Pliocene Period

|
\
|

12. Salamander fish
(Dipneusta)

13. Gilled Amphibia
Sozobranchia

(rots fish
rotopteri

{ ( Prcey
Axolotl (Siredon)

ailed Amphibia { Water-newts

Sozura)

15. Primeval Am-
niota
(Protamnia)

16. a Mam-
mals
(Promammalia)
17. Pouched animals
(Marsupialia)

18. Semi-apes
(Prosimie)
19. anes Narrow- {
nosed Apes

Tail-less Narrow-

(Tritons)

?BetweentheT ailed-
Amphibia and Pri-
mary mammals
Beaked animals
(Monotrema)

Pouched rats
{ (Didelphys)
{ Lori (Stenops)

Maki (Lemur)
Nose aes

zee, ‘Orang,

Holy apes
20. Men-like Peace Gorilla, chimpan

nosed Apes

21. Speechless Men or
Ape-like Men

Si. fee oe.
8. Jura Period
9, Chalk Period

—_———— eS ou.

Gibbon
Deaf and Dumb,
Cretins = Micro-
cephali

a a ee

13. Diluvial Period

Quarziwanr ie Alluvial Period

{ 22. Talking Men

‘ Australians and
ry Papuans

296 THE HISTORY OF CREATION,

CHAPTER XXIIL

MIGRATION AND DISTRIBUTION OF MANKIND.
HUMAN SPECIES AND HUMAN RACES.

Age of the Human Race.—Causes of its Origin.—The Origin of Human
Language.—Monophyletic or Single, Polyphyletic or Multiple Origin of
the Human Race.—Derivation of Man from many Pairs.—Classification
of the Human Races.—System of Twelve Species of Men.—Woolly-
Haired Men, or Ulotrichis——Bushy-haired (Papuans, Hottentots).—
Fleecy-haired (Caffres, Negroes).—Straight-haired men, or Lissotrichi.
—Stiff-haired (Australians, Malays, Mongols, Arctic, and American
Tribes).—Curly-haired (Dravidas, Nubians, Midlanders).—Number of
Population Primzval Home of Man (South Asia, or Lemuria).—
Nature of Primzeval Men.—Number of Primeval Languages (Monoglot-
tists and Polyglottists).—Divergence and Migration of the Human
Race.— Geographical Distribution of the Human Species.

THE rich treasure of knowledge we possess in the compara-
tive anatomy and the history of the development of Verte-
brate animals, enables us even now to establish the most
important outlines of the human pedigree in the way we
have done in the last chapter. One must, however, not
expect to. be able to survey satisfactorily in every detail
the history or phylogeny of the human species which will
henceforth form the basis of Anthropology, and of all other
sciences. The complete development of this most important
science—of which we can only lay the first foundation—
must remain reserved for the more accurate and extensive

FOSSIL MEN. 297

investigations of a future time. This applies also to those
more special questions of human phylogeny at which it
is desirable before concluding to take a cursory glance,
namely, the question of the time and place of the origin of
the human race, as also of the different species and races
into which it has differentiated. |

In the first place, the period of the earth’s history, within
which the slow and gradual transmutation of the most
man-like apes into the most ape-like men took place, can of
course not be determined by years, nor even by centuries.
This much can, however, with full assurance be maintained,
for reasons given in the last chapter, that Man is derived
from Placental animals. Now, as fossil remains of these
Placentalia are found only in the tertiary rocks, the
human race can at the earliest have developed only within
the Tertiary period out of perfected man-like apes, What
seems most probable is that this most important process in
the history of terrestrial creation occurred towards the end
of the Tertiary period, that is in the Pliocene, perhaps even
in the Miocene period, but possibly also not until the
beginning of the Diluvial period. At all events Man, as
such, lived in central Europe as early as the Diluvial period,
contemporaneously with many large, long since extinct

mammals, especially with the diluvial elephant, or mammoth
' (Elephas primigenius), the woolly-haired rhinoceros (Rhino-
ceros tichorrhinus), the giant deer (Cervus euryceros), the
cave bear (Ursus speleeus), the cave hyzena (Hyzena spelzea).
the cave lion (Felis spelzeus), etc. The results brought to
light by recent geology and archeology as to these fossil
men and their animal contemporaries of the diluvial period,
are of the greatest interest. But as a closer examination of

298 THE HISTORY OF CREATION,

them would occupy too much of my limited space, I must
confine myself here to setting forth their great general
importance, and refer for particulars to the numerous
writings which have recently been published on the
Primeval History of Man, more especially to the excellent
works of Charles Lyell, Carl Vogt,” Friedrich Rolle,*
John Lubbock,” L. Biichner,® ete.

The numerous and interesting discoveries presented to us
by these extensive investigations of late years on the
primeval history of the human race, place the important
fact (long since probable for many other reasons) beyond a
doubt, that the human race, as such, has existed for more
than twenty thousand years. But it is also probable that
more than a hundred thousand years, perhaps many
hundred thousands of years, have elapsed since its first
appearance; and, in contrast to this, it must seem very
absurd that our calendars still represent the “Creation of
the World, according to Calvisius,” to have taken place 5821
years ago.

Now, whether we reckon the period during which the
human race, as such, has existed and diffused itself over
the earth, as twenty thousand, a hundred thousand, or
many hundred thousands of years, the lapse of time is in
any case immensely small in comparison with the in-
conceivable length of time which was requisite for the
gradual development of the long chain of human ancestors.
This is evident even from the small thickness of all
Diluvial deposits in comparison with the Tertiary, and of
these again in comparison with the preceding deposits.
(Compare p. 22.) But the infinitely long series of slowly
and gradually developing animal forms from the simplest

HOW APES BECAME MEN, 299

Moneron to the Amphioxus, from this to the Primeval Fish,
from the Primeval Fish to the first Mammal, and again,
from the latter to Man, also require for their historical
development a succession of periods probably comprising
many thousands of millions of years. (Compare vol. i. p. 129.)

Those processes of development which led to the origin
of the most Ape-like Men out of the most Man-like Apes
must be looked for in the two adaptational changes which,
above all others, are distinctive of Man, namely, wpright
walk and articulate speech. These two physiological func-
tions necessarily originated together with two corresponding
morphological transmutations, with which they stand in the
closest correlation, namely, the differentiation of the two
pairs of limbs and the differentiation of the larynx. The
important perfecting of these organs and their functions
must have necessarily and powerfully reacted upon the
differentiation of the brain and the mental activities de-
pendent upon it, and thus have paved the way for the end-
less career in which Man has since progressively developed,
and in which he has far outstripped his animal ancestors.
(Gen. Morph. i. p. 430.)

The first and earliest of these three great processes
in the development of the human organism probably was
the higher differentiation and the perfecting of the ex-
trenities which was effected by the habit of an upright
walk. By the fore feet more and more exclusively adopt-
ing and retaining the function of grasping and handling,
and the hinder feet more and more exclusively the function
of standing and walking, there was developed that contrast
between the hand and foot which is indeed not exclusively
characteristic of man, but which is much more strongly

300 THE HISTORY OF CREATION.

developed in him than in the apes most like men. This
differentiation of the fore and hinder extremities was,
however, not merely most advantageous for their own
development and perfecting, but it was followed at the
same time by a whole series of very important changes in
other parts of the body. The whole vertebral column, and
more especially the girdle of the pelvis and shoulders,
as also the muscles belonging to them, thereby experienced
those changes which distinguish the human body from
that of the most man-like apes. These transmutations
were probably accomplished long before the origin of
articulate speech; and the human race thus existed for
long, with an upright walk and the characteristic human
form of body connected with it, before the actual develop-
ment of human language, which would have completed the
second and the more important part of human development.
We may therefore distinguish a special (21st) stage in the
series of our human ancestors, namely, Speechless Man
(Alalus), or Ape-man (Pithecanthropus), whose body was
indeed formed exactly like that of Man in all essential
characteristics, but who did not as yet possess articulate
speech.

The origin of articulate language, and the higher differen-
tiation and perfecting of the larynx connected with it,
must be looked upon as only a later, and the most
important stage in the process of the development of Man.
-It was, doubtless, this process which above all others
helped to create the deep chasm between man and animal,
and which also first caused the most important progress
in the mental activity and the perfecting of the brain
connected with it. There indeed exists in very many

ORIGIN OF LANGUAGE. 301

animals a language for communicating sensations, desires,
and thoughts, partly a language of gestures, partly a
language of feeling or touch, partly a language of cries
or sounds, but a real language of words or ideas, a so-called
“articulate” language, which by abstraction changes sounds
into words, and words into sentences, belongs, as far as we
know, exclusively to Man.

The origin of human language must, more than anything
else, have had an ennobling and transforming influence
upon the mental life of Man, and consequently upon his
brain. The higher differentiation and perfecting of the
brain and mental life as its highest function developed in
direct correlation with its expression by means of speech.
Hence, the highest authorities in comparative philology
justly see in the development of human speech the most
important process which distinguishes Man from his animal
ancestors. This has been especially set forth by August
Schleicher, in his treatise “On the Importance of Speech
for the Natural History of Man.” * In this relation we see
one of the closest connections between comparative zoology
and comparative philology; and here the theory of develop-
ment assigns to the latter the task of following the origin
of language step by step. This task, as interesting as it is
important, has of late years been successfully undertaken by
many inquirers, but more especially by Wilhelm Bleek, who
has been occupied for seventeen years in South Africa with
the study of the languages of the lowest races of men, and
hence has been enabled to solve the question. August
Schleicher more especially discusses, in accordance with the
theory of selection, how the various forms of speech, like
all other organic forms and functions, have developed by

302 THE HISTORY OF CREATION,

the process of natural selection, and have divided into
many species and dialects.

I have no space here to follow the process of the forma-
tion of language, and must refer in regard to this to the
above-mentioned important work of Wilhelm Bleek, “On
the Origin of Language.”* But we have still to mention
one of the most important results of comparative philology,
which is of the highest importance to the genealogy of the
human species, that is, that human language was probably
of a multiple, or polyphyletic origin. Human speech, as
such, did not develop probably until the genus of Speech-
less or Primzeval Man, or Ape Man, had separated into several
kinds or species. In each of these human species, and
perhaps even in the different sub-species and varieties of
this species, language developed freely and independently
of the others. At least Schleicher, one of the first
authorities on the subject, maintains that “even the
beginnings of language—in sounds as well as in regard to
ideas and views which were reflected in sounds, and further,
in regard to their capability of development—must have
been different. For it is positively impossible to trace all
languages to one and the same primeval language. An
impartial investigation rather shows that there are as many
primzeval languages as there are races.” ®* In like manner,
Friederich Miiller*! and other eminent linguists assume a |
free and independent origin of the families of languages
and their primeval stocks. It is well known, however,
that the boundaries of these tribes of languages and their
ramifications are by no means always the boundaries
of the different human species, or the so-called “races,”
distinguished by us on account of their bodily character-

MONOGENY versus POLYGENY. 303

istics. This, as well as the complicated relations of the
mixture of races, and the various forms of hybrids, is
the great difficulty lying in the way of tracing the
human pedigree in its individual branches, species, races,
varieties, ete.

In spite of these great and serious difficulties, we cannot
here refrain from taking one more cursory glance at the
ramification of the human pedigree, and at the same time
considering, from the point of view of the theory of descent,
the much discussed question of the monophyletic or poly-
phyletic origin of the human race, and its species or races.
As is well known, two great parties have for a long time
been at war with each other upon this question; the
monophylists (or monogenists) maintain the unity of origin
and the blood relationship of all races of men. The poly-
phylists (or polygenists), on the other hand, are of opinion
that the different races of men are of independent origin.
According to our previous genealogical investigations we
cannot doubt that, at least in a wide sense, the monophy-
letic opinion is the right one. For even supposing that the
transmutation of Man-like Apes into Men had taken place
several times, yet those Apes themselves would again be
allied by the one pedigree common to the whole order of
Apes. The question therefore would always be merely
about a nearer or remoter degree of blood relationship. In
a narrower sense, on the other hand, the polyphylist’s
opinion would probably be right, inasmuch as the different
primeval languages have developed quite independently of
one another. Hence, if the origin of an articulate language
is considered as the real and principal act of humanification,
and the species of the human race are distinguished accord-

— 304 THE HISTORY OF CREATION,

ing to the roots of their language, it might be said that the
different races of men had originated, independently of one
another, by different branches of primzeval, speechless men
directly springing from apes, and forming their own pri-
mzeval language. Still they would of course be connected
further up or lower down at their root, and thus all would
finally be derived from a common primeeval stock.

While we hold the latter of these convictions, and while
we for many reasons believe that the different species of
speechless primzeval men were all derived from a common
ape-like human form, we do not of course mean to say
that all men are descended from one pair. This latter
supposition, which our modern Indo-Germanic culture has
taken from the Semitic myth of the Mosaic history of
creation, is by no means tenable. The whole of the
celebrated dispute, as to whether the human race is descended
from a single pair or not, rests upon a completely false way
of putting the question. It is just as senseless as the
dispute as to whether all sporting dogs or all race-horses
are descended from a single pair. We might with equal
justice ask whether all Germans or all Englishmen are
“descended from a single pair,” etc. A “first human pair,”
or “a first man,” has in fact never existed, any more than
there ever existed a first pair or a first individual of
Englishmen, Germans, race-horses, or sporting dogs. The
origin of a new species, of course, always results from an
existing species, by a long chain of many different indi-
viduals sharing the slow process of transformation.
Supposing that we had all the different pairs of Human
Apes and Ape-like Men before us—which belong to the true
ancestors of the human race—it would even then be quite

SPECIES OF MEN. 305

impossible (without doing so most arbitrarily) to call any
one of these pairs of ape-like men “the first pair.” As
little can we derive each of the twelve races or species
of men, which we shall consider directly, from a “first pair.”

The difficulties met with in classifying the different
races or-species of men are quite the same as those
which we discover in classifying animal and vegetable,
species. In both cases forms apparently quite different
are connected with one another by a chain of inter-
mediate forms of transition. In both cases the dispute as to
what is a kind or a species, what a race or a variety, can
never be determined. Since Blumenbach’s time, as is well
known, it has been thought that mankind may be divided
into five races or varieties, namely: (1) the Ethiopian, or
black race (African negro); (2) the Malayan, or brown race
(Malays, Polynesians, and Australians); (8) the Mongolian,
or yellow race (the principal inhabitants of Asia and the
Esquimaux of North America) ; (4) the Americans, or red race
(the aborigines of America) ; and (5) the Caucasian, or white
race (Europeans, north Africans, and south-western Asiatics).
All of these five races of men, according to the Jewish legend
of creation, are said to have been descended from “a single
pair ””—Adam and Eve,—and in accordance with this are said
to be varieties of one kind or species. If, however, we com-
pare them without prejudice, there can be no doubt that the
differences of these five races are as great and even greater
than the “specific differences” by which zoologists and
botanists distinguish recognised “good” animal and vege-
table species (“ bone species”). The excellent paleontologist
Quenstedt is right in maintaining that, “if Negroes and

Caucasians were snails, zoologists would universally agree
31

306 THE HISTORY OF CREATION.

that they represented two very excellent species, which
could never have originated from one pair by gradual
divergence.”

The characteristics by which the races of men are
gradually distinguished are partly taken from the formation
of the hair, partly from the colour of the skin, and partly
from the formation of the skull. In regard to the last cha-
racter, two extremes are distinguished, namely, long heads
and short heads. In long-headed men (Dolichocephali)
whose strongest development is found in Negroes and
Australians, the skull is extended, narrow, and compressed
on the right and left. In short-headed men (Brachycephali),
on the other hand, the skull is compressed in an exactly
opposite manner, from the front to the back, is short and
broad, which is especially striking in the case of the
Mongolians. Mediwm-headed men (Mesocephali), standing
between the two extremes, predominate especially among
Americans. In every one of these three groups we find
men with slanting teeth (Prognathi), whose jaws, like those
of the animal snout, strongly project, and whose front teeth
therefore slope in front, and men with straight teeth
(Orthognathi), whose jaws project but little, and whose front
teeth stand perpendicularly. During the last ten years a
great deal of time and trouble have been devoted to the
careful examination and measurement of the forms of skulls,
which have, however, not been rewarded by corresponding
results. For within a single species, as for example within
the Mediterranean species, the form of the skull may vary
so much that both extremes are met with in the same
species. Much better starting-points for the classification of
of the human species are furnished by the nature of the

WOOLLY-HALRED MEN. 307

hair and speech, because they are much more strictly
hereditary than the form of the skull.

Comparative philology seems especially to be becoming
an authority in this matter. In the latest great work
on the races of men, which Friederich Miller has pub-
lished in his excellent “ Ethnography,’ he justly places
language in the fore-ground. Next to it the nature of
the hair of the head is of great importance ; for although it
is in itself of course only a subordinate morphological
character, yet it seems to be strictly transmitted within
the race. Of the twelve species of men distinguished on
the following table (p. 308), the four lower species are
characterised by the woolly nature of the hair of their
heads; every hair is flattened like a tape, and thus its
section is oval. These four species of woolly-haired men
(Ulotrichi) we may reduce into two groups—tuft-haired
and fleecy-haired. The hair on the head of tuft-haired
men (Lophocomi), Papuans and Hottentots, grows in
unequally divided small tufts. The woolly hair of fleecy-
havred men (Eriocomi), on the other hand, in Caffres and
Negroes, grows equally all over the skin of the head. All
Ulotrichi, or woolly-haired men, have slanting teeth and long
heads, and the colour of their skin, hair, and eyes is always
very dark. All are inhabitants of the Southern Hemi-
sphere; it is only in Africa that they come north of the
equator. They are on the whole at a much lower stage of
development, and more like apes, than most of the
Lissotrichi, or straight-haired men. The Ulotrichi are
incapable of a true inner culture and of a higher mental
development, even under the favourable conditions of
adaptation now offered to them in the United States of

308

THE HISTORY OF CREATION,

SYSTEMATIC SURVEY

Of the 12 Species of Men and their 36 Races.
(Compare Plate XV.)

Species. | Races. Home. wate
1. Nigritos Malacca, Philippine West
1. Bapuan Islands
Homo Papua < 2. New Guinea men New Guinea West
3. Melanesians Melanesia North-west
2. Bottentot \ 4. Tasmanians Van Diemen’s Land North-east
Homo { 5. Hottentots The Cape North-east
Hottentottus ‘ 6. Bushmen The Cape North-east
7. Zulu Kaffres Eastern South Africa North
3. Kaffre 8. Beschuanas Central South Africa North-east
Homo Cafer { 9. Congo Kaffres Western South Africa East
‘10. Tibu negroes Tibau district South-east
4. Pegrs 11. Soudan negroes Soudan East
Homo Niger )12. Senegambians Senegambia East
\ 13. Nigritians Nigritia East
5. Australian { 14. North Australians North Andteaize North
H. Australis ‘15. South Australians South Australia North
16. Sundanesians Sunda Archipelago West
6. flaay )17. Polynesians Pacific Archipelago West
Homo Malayus } 18: Natives of Mada-
‘a, ; eee Madagascar East
* . Indo-Chinese Tibet, China South
7. a eae 20. Coreo-Japanese Corea, Japan South-west
Mearslus 21. Altaians } Central Asia, North Asia South
g 22. Utralians North-western Asia, South-east
Northern Europe,
Hungary
8. Arctic Hen { 23. Hyperboreans Extreme N.E. of Asia South-west
DosinAxeticnn | 4. Esquimos The extreme north of
= \ America West
ai Gare 25. North Americans North America North-west
- america \ 96. Central Americans Central America North
Homo 27. South Americans South America North
Americanus \28. Patagonians The extreme south of
South America North
10. Brabidas _ . Deccans Hindostan East ?
H. Dravida (30. Singalese Ceylon North ?
11. Aubian (21. Dongolese Nubia East
Homo Nuba ) °2 Fulatians Folu-land (Central
Africa) East
3. Caucasians Caucasus South-east
flidvttecchiibak 4, 38 snaton Extreme north of Spain South?
Homo . Semites Arabia,North Africa,ete. East
Mediterraneus 4 Caged South-western Asia,
tribes Europe, etc. South-east

PEDIGREE OF THE TWELVE SPECIES OF MEN. 309
Indo-Germanians
. Americans Semites
Magyars Caucasians
Esquimaux | Basques!
|
Fins ——
Hyperboreans —_
8. Arctic Men Samoides | |
Tartars
Se eee
—— 12. {elediterranese
Calmucks Singalese
Tungu- Fulatians
sians |
Deccans
—— + ——_"S—-—- ’ 10. DBrabidas Dongolese
Altaians Gralians 11. Nubians
ieee
Japanese ——_————
Gral-Altaians Euplocomi
Chinese
Coreans Siamese Madagascars
Tibet Polynesians
| 4, Negroes
3. Kattres |
Cores- —_.— |
Japanese Tuda- Sundanesians | |
Chinese ee
Eriocomi
EES 6. SHalavs |
7. Hlongols |

Bromalavs

5. Australians

—-—__—
Euthycomi

1. Papuans

o

2. Hottentots

—
Lophocomi

ee
CH oolly-haired

Straight-hatred Vlotrichi
Lissotrichi
te a

Primeval Men

310 THE HISTORY OF CREATION.

North America. No woolly-haired nation has ever had an
important “history.”

In the eight higher races of men, which we comprise as
straight-haired (Lissotrichi), the hair of the head is never
actually woolly, although it is very much frizzled in some
individuals. Every separate hair is cylindrical (not like a
tape), and hence its section is circular (not oval).

The eight races of Lissotrichi may likewise be divided
into two groups—stiff-haired and curly-haired. Stiff-haired
men (Euthycomi), the hair of whose heads is quite smooth
and straight, and not frizzled, include Australians, Malays,
Mongolians, Arctic tribes, and Americans. Curly-haired
men, on the other hand, the hair of whose heads is more or
less curly, and in whom the beard is more developed than
in all other species, include the Dravidas, Nubians, and
Mediterranean races. (Compare Plate XV.)

Now, before we venture upon the attempt hypothetically
to explain the phyletic divergence of mankind, and the
genealogical connection of its different species, we will
premise a short description of the twelve named species
and of their distribution. In order clearly to survey their
geographical distribution, we must go back some three or
four centuries, to the time when the Indian Islands and
America were first discovered, and when the present great
mingling of species, and more especially the influx of the
Indo-Germanic race, had as yet not made great progress.
We begin with the lowest stages, with the woolly-haired
men (Ulotrichi), all of whom are prognathie Dolicho-
cephali,

The Papuan (Homo Papua), of all the still living human
species, is perhaps most closely related to the original primary

PAPUANS AND HOTTENTOTS, 311

form of woolly-haired men. This species now inhabits
only the large island of New Guinea and the Archipelago
of Melanesia lying to the east of it (Solomon’s Islands, New
Caledonia, the New Hebrides, etc.) But scattered remnants
of it are also still found in the interior of the peninsula
of Malacca, and likewise in many other islands of the large
Pacific Archipelago ; mostly in the inaccessible mountainous
parts of the interior, and especially in the Philippine
Islands. The but lately extinct Tasmanians, or the natives
of Van Diemen’s Land, belonged to this group. From these
and other circumstances it is clear that the Papuans in former
times possessed a much larger area of distribution in south-
eastern Asia. They were driven out by the Malays and
forced eastwards. The skin of all Papuans is of a black
colour, sometimes more inclining to brown, sometimes more
to blue. Their woolly hair grows in tufts, is spirally twisted
in screws, and often more than a foot in length, so that it
forms a strong woolly wig, which stands far out from the
head. Their face, below the narrow depressed forehead, has
a large turned-up nose and thick protruding lips. The
peculiar form of their hair and speech so essentially dis-
tinguishes the Papuans from their straight-haired neighbours,
from the Malays as well as from the Australians, that they
must be regarded as an entirely distinct species.

Closely related to the Papuans by the tufted growth of
hair, but geographically widely separated from them, are
the Hottentots (Homo Hottentottus). They inhabit exclu-
sively the southernmost part of Africa, the Cape and the
adjacent parts, and have immigrated there from the north-
east. The Hottentots, like their original kinsmen the Pa-
puans, occupied in former times a much larger area (prob-

312 THE HISTORY OF CREATION.

ably the whole of Eastern Africa), and are now approach-
ing their extinction. Besides the genuine Hottentots—of
whom there now exist only the two tribes of the Coraca (in
the eastern Cape districts) and the Namaca (in the western
portion of the Cape)—this species also includes the Bush-
men (in the mountainous interior of the Cape). The woolly
hair of all Hottentots grows in tufts, like brushes, as in the
case of Papuans. Both species also agree in the posterior
part of the body, in the female sex being specially inclined
to form a great accumulation of fat (Steatopygia). But the
skin of Hottentots is much lighter, of a yellowish brown
colour. Their very flat face is remarkable for its small fore-
head and nose, and large nostrils. The mouth is very broad
with big lips, the chin small and pointed. Their speech is
characterised by several quite peculiar guttural sounds,

The next neighbours and kinsmen of Hottentots are
Kaffres (Homo Cafer). This woolly-haired human species
is, however, distinguished, like the following one (the
genuine Negro), from Hottentots and Papuans by the woolly
hair not being divided into tufts, but covering the head asa
thick fleece. The colour of their skin varies through all shades,
from the yellowish black of the Hottentot to the brown
black or pure black of the genuine Negro. While in former
times the race of Kaffres was assigned to a very small area
of distribution, and was generally looked upon only as a
variety of the genuine Negro, this species is now considered
to include almost the whole of the inhabitants of equatorial
Africa, from the 20th degree south latitude to the 4th
degree north; consequently, all South Africans, with the
exception of the Hottentots. They include especially the
inhabitants of the Zulu, Zambesi, and Mozambique districts

TRUE NEGROES. 313

on the east coast, the large human families of the Beschuans
or Setschuans in the interior, and the Herrero and Congo
tribes of the west coast. They too, like the Hottentots,
have immigrated from the north-east. Kaffres, who were
usually classed with Negroes, differ very essentially from
them by the formation of their skull and by their speech.
Their face is long and narrow, their forehead high, and their
nose prominent and frequently curved, their lips not so pro-
truding, and their chin pointed. The many languages of
the different tribes of Kaffres can all be derived from an
extinct primzval language, namely, from the Bantu lan-
guage.

The genuine Negro (Homo Niger) —when Kaftlres, Hot-
tentots, and Nubians are separated from him—at present
forms a much less comprehensive human species than was
formerly supposed. They now only include the Tibus, in
the eastern parts of the Sahara; the Sudan people, or
Sudians, who inhabit the south of that large desert; also
the inhabitants of the Western Coast of Africa, from the
mouth of the Senegal in the north, to beyond the estuary
of the Niger in the south (Senegambians and Nigritians).
Genuine Negroes are accordingly confined between the
equator and the Tropic of Capricorn, and only a small por-
tion of the Tibu tribe in the east have gone beyond this
boundary. The Negro species has spread within this zone,
coming from the east. The colour of the skin of genuine
negroes is always more or less of a pure black. Their
skin is velvety to the touch, and characterised by a
peculiar offensive exhalation. Although Negroes agree with
Kaffres in the formation of the woolly hair of the head,
yet they differ essentially in the formation of their face.

314 THE HISTORY OF CREATION,

Their forehead is flatter and lower, their nose broad and
thick, not prominent, their lips large and protruding, and —
their chin very short. Genuine Negroes are moreover dis-
tinguished by very thin calves and very long arms. This
species of men must have branched into many separate
tribes at a very early period, for their numerous ‘and
entirely distinct languages can in no way be traced to one
primeval language.

To the four woolly-haired species of men just discussed,
straight-haired men (Homines Lissotrichi) stand in strong
contrast, as another main branch of the genus. Five of the
eight species of the latter, as we have seen, can be com-
prised as stiff-haired (Euthycomi) and three as curly-haired
(Euplocomi). We shall in the first place consider the
former, which includes the primeval inhabitants of the
greater part of Asia and the whole of America.

The lowest stage of all straight-haired men, and on the
whole perhaps of all the still living human species, is oceu-
pied by the Australian, or Austral-negro (Homo Australis).
This species seems to be exclusively confined to the large
island of Australia; it resembles the genuine African Negro
by its black or brownish black hair, and the offensive smell
of the skin, by its very slanting teeth and long-headed form
of skull, the receding forehead, broad nose, protruding lips,
and also by the entire absence of calves. On the other hand
Australians differ from genuine Negroes as well as from
their nearest neighbours the Papuans, by the much weaker
and more delicate structure of their bones, and more
especially by the formation of the hair of their heads, which
is not woolly and frizzled, but either quite lank or only
slightly curled. The very low stage of bodily and mental

THE MALAYS. 315

development of the Australian is perhaps not altogether
original, but has arisen by degeneration, that is, by adapta-
tion to the very unfavourable conditions of existence in
Australia. They probably immigrated to their present
home from the north or north-west, as a very early off-
shoot of the Euthycomi. They are probably more closely
related to the Dravidas, and hence to the Euplocomi, than
the other Euthycomi. The very peculiar language of the
Australians is broken up into numerous small branches,
which are grouped into a northern and a southern class.
The Malay (Homo Malayus), the brown race of ethnogra-
phers, although not a large species, is important in regard
to its genealogy. An extinct south Asiatic human species,
very closely related to the Malays of the present day, must
probably be looked upon as the common primary form of
this and the following higher human species. We will
eall this hypothetical primary species, Primeval Malays, or
Promalays. The Malays of the present day are divided
into two widely dispersed races, the Sundanesians, who
inhabit Malacca, the Sunda Islands (Sumatra, Java, Borneo,
etc.) and the Philippine Islands, and the Polynesians, who
are dispersed over the greater portion of the Pacific Archi-
pelago. The northern boundary of their wide tract of
distribution is formed on the east by the Sandwich Islands
(Hawai), and on the west by the Marian Islands (Ladrones) ;
the southern boundary on the east is formed by the Man-
gareva Archipelago, and on the west by New Zealand. The
inhabitants of Madagascar are an especial branch of Sunda-
nesians who have been driven to the far west. This wide
pelagic distribution of the Malays is explained by their
partiality for nautical life. Their primeval home is the

316 THE HISTORY OF CREATION.

south-eastern portion of the Asiatic continent, from whence
they spread to the east and south, and drove the
Papuans before them. The Malays, in the formation of
body, are nearest akin to the Mongols, but are also
nearly allied to the curly-haired Mediterranese. They are
generally short-headed, more rarely medium-headed, and
very rarely long-headed. Their hair is black and stiff, but
frequently somewhat curled. The colour of their skin is
brown, sometimes yellowish, or of a cinnamon colour, some-
times reddish or copper brown, more rarely dark brown.
In regard to the formation of face, Malays in a great
measure form an intermediate stage between the Mongols
and the Mediterranese ; they can frequently not be distin-
guished from the latter. Their face is generally broad, with
prominent nose and thick lips, the opening for their eyes
not so narrowly cut and slanting as in Mongols. The near
relationship between all Malays and Polynesians is proved
by their language, which indeed broke up at an early
period into many small branches, but still can always be
traced to a common and quite peculiar primeval language.
The Mongol (Homo Mongolus) is, next to the Mediter-
ranese, the richest in individuals. Among them are all the
inhabitants of the Asiatic Continent, excepting the Hyper-
boreans in the north, the few Malays in the south-east
(Malacca), the Dravidas in Western India, and the Mediter-
ranese in the south-west. In Europe this species of men
is represented by the Fins and Lapps in the north, by the
Osmanlis in Turkey, and the Magyars in Hungary. The
colour of the Mongol is always distinguished by a yellow
tone, sometimes a light pea green, or even white, some-
times a darker brownish yellow. Their hair is always

POLAR MEN. 317

stiff and black. The form of their skull is, in the great
majority of cases, decidedly short (especially in Kalmucks,
Baschkirs, etc.) but frequently of medium length (Tartars,
Chinese, etc.) But among them we never meet with genuine
long-headed men. The narrow openings of their eyes,
which are generally slanting, their prominent cheek bones,
broad noses, and thick lips are very striking, as well as the
round form of their faces. The language of the Mongols is
probably traceable to a common primeval language ; but
the monosyllabic languages of the Indo-Chinese races, and
the polysyllabic languages of the other Mongol races, stand
in contrast as two main branches which separated at an
early time. The monosyllabic tribes of the Indo-Chinese
include the Tibetans, Birmans, Siamese, and Chinese. The
other polysyllabic Mongols are divided into three races,
namely: (1) the Coreo-Japanese (Coreans and Japanese); (2)
the Altaians (Tartars, Kirgises, Kalmucks, Buriats, Tungu-
sians); and (3) the Uralians (Samoiedes, Fins), The
Magyars of Hungary are descended from the Fins.

The Polar men (Homo Arcticus) must be looked upon as
a branch of the Mongolian human species. We comprise
under this name the inhabitants of the Arctic Polar lands
of both hemispheres, the Esquimaux (and Greenlanders) in
North America, and the Hyperboreans in north-eastern
Asia (Jukagirs, Tschuksches, Kuriaks, and Kamtschads.)
By adaptation to the Polar climate, this human race has
become so peculiarly transformed that it may be considered
as a distinct species. Their stature is low and of a square
build; the formation of their skull of medium size or even
long; their eyes narrow and slanting like the Mongols;
their cheek-bones prominent, and their mouth wide. Their

318 THE HISTORY OF CREATION,

hair is stiff and black; the colour of their skin is of a
light or dark brown tinge, sometimes more inclined to
white or to yellow, like that of the Mongols, sometimes
more to red, like that of the Americans. The languages of
Polar men are as yet little known, but they differ both
from the Mongolian and from the American. Polar men
must probably be regarded as a remnant and a peculiarly
adapted branch of that tribe of Mongols which emigrated
from north-eastern Asia to North America, and populated
that part of the earth.

At the time of the discovery of America, that part of
the earth was peopled (setting aside the Esquimaux) only
by a single human species, namely, by the Redskins, or
Americans (Homo Americanus). Of all other human spe-
cies they are most closely related to the two preceding.
The form of their skull is generally a medium one, rarely
short or long-headed. Their forehead broad and very low;
their nose large, prominent, and frequently aquiline ; their
cheek-bones prominent; their lips rather thin than thick.
The colour of their skin is characterised by a red funda-
mental tint, which is, however, sometimes pure copper-
red, or light red, sometimes a deeper reddish brown, yellow
brown or olive brown. The numerous languages of the
various American races and tribes are extremely different,
yet they agree in their original foundation. Probably
America was first peopled from north-eastern Asia by
the same tribe of Mongols from whom the Polar men
(Hyperboreans and Isquimaux) have also branched. This
tribe first spread in North America, and from thence
migrated over the isthmus of Central America down to
South America, at the extreme south of which the species

ia oe eh eae ee ne

THE HIGHEST SPECIES OF MEN. 319

degenerated very much by adaptation to the very un-
favourable conditions of existence. But it is also possible
that Mongols and Polynesians immigrated from the west
and mixed with the former tribe. In any case the
aborigines of America came over from the Old World, and
did not, as some suppose, in any way originate out of
American apes. Catarrhini, or Narrow-nosed Apes, never
at any period existed in America.

The three human species still to be considered—the
Dravidas, Nubians, and Mediterranese—agree in several
characteristics which seem to establish a close relationship
between them, and distinguish them from the preceding
species. The chief of these characteristics is the strong
development of the beard, which in all other species is
either entirely wanting or but very scanty. The hair of
their heads is generally not so lank and smooth as in the
five preceding species, but in most cases more or less curly.
Other characteristics also seem to favour our classing them
in one main group of curly-haired men (Euplocomi).

The Dravida man (Homo Dravida) seems to stand very
near the common primary form of the Euplocomi, and
perhaps of Lissotrichi. At present this primeval species
is only represented by the Deccan tribes in the southern
part of Hindostan, and by the neighbouring inhabitants of
the mountains on the north-east of Ceylon. But in earlier
times this race seems to have occupied the whole of
Hindostan, and to have spread even further. It shows, on
the one hand, traits of relationship to the Australians and
Malays; on the other, to the Mongols and Mediterranese.
Their skin is either of a light or dark brown colour; in
some tribes, of a yellowish brown, in others, almost black

320 THE HISTORY OF CREATION,

brown. The hair of their heads, as in Mediterranese, is
more or less curled, neither quite smooth, like that of the
Euthycomi, nor actually woolly, like that of the Ulotrichi.
The strong development of the beard is also like that of the
Mediterranese. The oval form of face seems partly to be akin
to that of the Malays, partly to that of the Mediterranese.
Their forehead is generally high, their nose prominent and
narrow, their lips slightly protruding. Their language is
now very much mixed with Indo-Germanic elements, but
seems to have been originally derived from a very peculiar
primzeval language. |
The Nubian (Homo Nuba) has caused ethnographers no
fewer difficulties than the Dravida species. By this name
we understand not merely the real Nubians (Schangallas, or
Dongolese), but also their near kinsmen, the Fulas, or
Fellatas. The real Nubians inhabit the countries of the
Upper Nile (Dongola, Schangalla, Barabra, Cordofan) ; the
Fulas, or Fellatas, on the other hand, have thence migrated
far westward, and now inhabit a broad tract in the south of
the western Sahara, hemmed in between the Soudanians in
the north and the Nigritos in the south. The Nubian and
Fula races are generally either classed with negroes or with
the Hamitic races (thus with Mediterranese), but are so
essentially different from both that they must be regarded
as a distinct species. In former times they very probably
occupied a large part of north-eastern Africa. The skin of
the Nubian and Fula races is of a yellowish or reddish
brown colour, more rarely dark brown or approaching to
black. Their hair is not woolly but curled, frequently even
quite smooth; its colour is dark brown or black. Their
beard is much more strongly developed than in negroes.

THE MEDITERRANESE. 321

The oval formation of their faces approaches more to the
Mediterranean than to the Negro type. Their forehead is
high and broad, their nose prominent and not flat, their lips
not so protruding as in the negro. The language of the
Nubian races seems to possess no relationship to those of
genuine negroes.

The Caucasian, or Mediterranean man (Homo Mediterra-
neus), has from time immemorial been placed at the head of
all races of men, as the most highly developed and perfect.
It is generally called the Caucasian race, but as among all
the varieties of the species, the Caucasian branch is the least
important, we prefer the much more suitable appellation
proposed by Friedrich Miller, namely, that of Mediterra-
nean, or Midland men. For the most important varieties of
this species, which are moreover the most eminent actors in
what is called “ Universal History,” first rose to a flourishing
condition on the shores of the Mediterranean. The former
area of the distribution of this species is expressed by the
name of “ Indo-Atlantic” species, whereas at present it is
spread over the whole earth, and is overcoming most of the
other species in the struggle for existence. In bodily as
well as in mental qualities, no other human species can
equal the Mediterranean. This species alone (with the
exception of the Mongolian) has had an actual history ;
it alone has attained to that degree of civilization which
seems to raise man above the rest of nature.

The characteristics which distinguish the Mediterranean
from the other species of the race are well known. The
chief of the external features is the light colour of the skin,
which however exhibits all shades, from pure white or
reddish white, through yellow or yellowish brown to dark

322 THE HISTORY OF CREATION,

brown or even black brown. The growth of the hair is
generally strong, the hair of the head more or less curly, the
hair of the beard stronger than in any of the other species.
The form of the skull shows a great development in breadth ;
medium heads predominate upon the whole, but long and
short heads are also widely distributed. It is only in this
one species of men that the body as a whole attains that
symmetry in all parts, and that equal development, which
we call the type of perfect human beauty. The languages
of all the races of this species can by no means be traced
to a single common primeval language; we must at least
assume four radically different primeval languages. In
accordance with this we must also assume within this one
species four different races, which are only connected at
their root. Two of these races, the Basques and Caucasians,
now exist only as small remnants. The Basques, which in
earlier times peopled the whole of Spain and the south of
France, now inhabit but a narrow tract of land on the
northern coast of Spain, on the Bay of Biscay. The remnant
of the Caucasian race (the Daghestans, Tschercassians,
Minerelians, and Georgians) are now confined to the districts
of Mount Caucasus. The language of the Caucasians as
well as that of the Basques is entirely peculiar, and can be
traced neither to the Semitic nor to the Indo-Germanic
primeeval languages.

Even the languages of the two principal races of the
Mediterranean species—the Semitic and Indo-Germanic—
cannot be traced to a common origin, and consequently these
two races must have separated at a very early period.
Semites and Indo-Germani are descended from different
ape-like men. The Semitic race likewise separated at a

THE MEDITERRANEAN MEN, 323

very early period into two diverging branches, namely, into
the Egyptian and Arabic branches. The Lyyptian, or
African branch, the Dyssemites—which sometimes under
the name of Hamites are entirely separated from the Semites
—embraces the large group of Berbers, who occupy the
whole of north Africa, and in earlier times also peopled
the Canary Islands, and, finally, also the group of the
Ethiopians, the SBedsha, Galla, Danakil, Somali, and
other tribes which occupy all the north-eastern shores of
Africa as far as the equator. The Arabic, or Asiatic branch,
that is, the Husemites, also called Semites in a narrow sense,
embrace the inhabitants of the large Arabian peninsula,
the primeval family of genuine Arabians (“primeval type
of the Semites”), and also the most highly developed Semi-
tic groups, the Jews, or Hebrews, and the Aramzeans—the
Syrians and Chaldeans. A colony of the southern Arabs
(the Himjarites), which crossed the Straits of Bab-el-Mandeb,
has peopled Abyssinia.

Lastly, the Indo-Germanic race, which has far surpassed
all the other races of men in mental development, sepa-
rated at a very early period, like the Semitic, into two
diverging branches, the Ario-Romaic and the Slavo-
Germanic branches. Out of the former arose on the one
hand the Arians (Indians and Iranians), on the other the
Greco-Roman (Greeks and Albanians, Italians and Kelts).
Out of the Slavo-Germanice branch were developed on the
one hand the Slavonians (Russian, Bulgarian, Tchec, and
Baltie tribes), on the other the Germani (Scandinavians
and Germans, Netherlanders and Anglo-Saxons). August
Schleicher has explained, in a very clear genealogical form,
how the further ramifications of the Indo-Germanic race may

324 THE HISTORY OF CREATION,

be accurately traced in detail on the basis of comparative
philology. (Compare p. 331.)

The total number of human individuals at present
amounts to between 1,300 and 1,400 millions. In our
Tabular Survey (p. 333) 1,350 millions has been assumed as
the mean number. According to an approximate estimate,
as far-as such a thing is possible, 1,200 millions of these are
straight-haired men, only about 150 millions woolly-haired.
The most highly developed species, Mongols and Mediterra-
nese, far surpass all the other human species in numbers of
individuals, for each of them alone comprises about 550
millions. (Compare Friederich Miiller’s Ethnography, p. 30.)
Of course the relative number of the twelve species fluc-
tuates every year, and that too according to the law
developed by Darwin, that in the struggle for life the more
highly developed, the more favoured and larger groups
of forms, possess the positive inclination and the certain
tendency to spread more and more at the expense of
the lower, more backward, and smaller groups. Thus the
Mediterranean species, and within it the Indo-Germanic,
have by means of the higher development of their brain
surpassed all the other races and species in the struggle
for life, and have already spread the net of their dominion
over the whole globe. It is only the Mongolian species
which can at all successfully, at least in certain respects,
compete with the Mediterranean. Within the tropical
regions, Negroes, Kaffres, and Nubians, as also the Malays
and Dravidas, are in some measure protected against the
encroachments of the Indo-Germanic tribes by their being
better adapted for a hot climate; the case of the arctic
tribes of the polar regions is similar. But the other races,

THE SITE OF PARADISE. 325

which as it is are very much diminished in number, will
sooner or later completely succumb in the struggle for
existence to the superiority of the Mediterranean races.
The American and Australian tribes are even now fast
approaching their complete extinction, and the same may
be said of the Papuans and Hottentots.

In now turning to the equally interesting and difficult
question of the relative connection, migration, and primeval
home of the twelve species of men, I must premise the
remark that, in the present state of our anthropological
knowledge, any answer to this question must be regarded
only as a provisional hypothesis. This is much the same as
with any genealogical hypothesis which we may form of
the origin of kindred animal and vegetable species, on the
basis of the “Natural System.” But the necessary un-
certainty of these special hypotheses of descent, in no way
shakes the absolute certainty of the general theory of
descent. Man, we may feel certain, is descended from
Catarrhini, or narrow-nosed apes, whether we agree with
the polyphylites, and suppose each human species, in its
primzeval home, to have originated out of a special kind of
ape ; or whether, agreeing with the monophylites, we suppose
that all the human species arose only by differentiation from
a single species of primeval man (Homo primigenius).

For many and weighty reasons we hold the monophyletic
hypothesis to be the more correct, and we therefore assume
a single prinueval home for mankind, where he developed
out of a long since extinct anthropoid species of ape. Of
the five now existing continents, neither Australia, nor
America, nor Europe can have been this primeval home,
or the so-called “ Paradise,” the “cradle of the human race.”

3226 THE HISTORY OF CREATION.

Most circumstances indicate southern Asia as the locality in
question. Besides southern Asia, the only other of the now
existing continents which might be viewed in this light is
Africa. But there are a number of circumstances (especially
chorological facts) which suggest that the primeval home
of man was a continent now sunk below the surface of the
Indian Ocean, which extended along the south of Asia, as it
is at present (and probably in direct connection with it),
towards the east, as far as further India and the Sunda
Islands ; towards the west, as far as Madagascar and the
south-eastern shores of Africa. We have already mentioned
that many facts in animal and vegetable geography render
the former existence of such a south Indian continent very
probable. (Compare vol. i. p. 361.) Sclater has given this
continent the name of Lemuria, from the Semi-apes which
were characteristic of it. By assuming this Lemuria to
have been man’s primeval home, we greatly facilitate the
explanation of the geographical distribution of the human
species by migration. (Compare the Table of Migrations
XV., and its explanation at the end.)

We as yet know of no fossil remains of the hypothetical
primeval man (Homo primigenius) who developed out of
anthropoid apes during the tertiary period, either in
Lemuria or in southern Asia, or possibly in Africa. But
considering the extraordinary resemblance between the
lowest woolly-haired men, and the highest man-like apes,
which still exist at the present day, it requires but a slight
stretch of the imagination to conceive an intermediate form
connecting the two, and to see in it an approximate likeness
to the supposed primzval men, or ape-like men. The
form of their skull was probably very long, with slanting

PRIMAVAL LANGUAGES, 327

teeth ; their hair woolly ; the colour of their skin dark, of
a brownish tint. The hair covering the whole body was
probably thicker than in any of the still living human
species ; their arms comparatively longer and stronger ; their
legs, on the other hand, knock-kneed, shorter and thinner,
with entirely undeveloped calves; their walk but half erect.

This ape-like man very probably did not as yet possess
an actual human language, that is, an articulate language
of ideas. Human speech, as has already been remarked,
most likely originated after the divergence of the primeval
species of men into different species. The number of
primeeval languages is, however, considerably larger than
the number of the species of men above discussed. For
philologists have hitherto not been able to trace the four
primzeval lanouages of the Mediterranean species, namely,
the Basque, Caucasian, Semitic, and Indo-Germanic to a
single primeval language. As little can the different Negro
languages be derived from a common primeval language ;
hence both these species, Mediterranean and Negro, are
certainly polyglottonic, that is, their respective languages
originated after the divergence of the speechless primary
species into several races had already taken place. Perhaps
the Mongols, the Arctic and American tribes, are likewise
polyglottonic. The Malayan species is, however, mono-
glottonic; all the Polynesian and Sundanesian dialects
and languages can be derived from a common, long since
extinct primeval language, which is not related to any
other language on earth. All the other human species,
Nubians, Dravidas, Australians, Papuans, Hottentots, and
Kaffres are likewise monoglottonie. (Compare p. 333.)

Out of speechless primeeval man, whom we consider as

328 THE HISTORY OF CREATION.

the common primary species of all the others, there de-
veloped in the first place—probably by natural selection—
various species of men unknown to us, and now long since
extinct, and who still remained at the stage of speechless
ape-men (Alalus, or Pithecanthropus). Two of these species,
a woolly-haired and a straight-haired, which were most
strongly divergent, and consequently overpowered the
others in the struggle for life, became the primary forms
of the other remaining human species.

The main branch of woolly-haired men (Ulotrichi) at
first spread only over the southern hemisphere, and then
emigrated partly eastwards, partly westwards. Remnants
of the eastern branch are the Papuans in New Guinea and
Melanesia, who in earlier times were diffused much further
west (in further India and Sundanesia), and it was not
until a late period that they were driven eastwards by the
Malays. The Hottentots are the but little changed remnants
of the western branch; they immigrated to their present
home from the north-east. It was perhaps during this
migration that the two nearly related species of Caftres and
Negroes branched off from them; but it may be that they
owe their origin to a peculiar branch of ape-like men.

The second main branch of primeeval straight-haired men
(Lissotrichi), which is more capable of development, has
probably left a but little changed remnant of its common
primary form—which migrated to the south-east—in the
ape-like natives of Australia. Probably very closely related
to these latter are the South Asiatic prumeval Malays, o
Promalays, which name we have previously given to the
extinct, hypothetical primary form of the other six human
species. Out of this unknown common primary form there
seem to have arisen three diverging branches,namely, the true

MIGRATIONS OF THE MONGOLIANS, 329

Malays, the Mongols, and the Euplocomi; the first spread to
the east, the second to the north, and the third westwards.

The primeval home, or the “Centre of Creation,” of the
Malays must be looked for in the south-eastern part of the
Asiatic continent, or possibly in the more extensive
continent which existed at the time when further India was
directly connected with the Sunda Archipelago and eastern
Lemuria. From thence the Malays spread towards the
south-east, over the Sunda Archipelago as far as Borneo,
then wandered, driving the Papuans before them, eastwards
towards the Samoa and Tonga Islands, and thence
gradually diffused over the whole of the islands of the
southern Pacific, to the Sandwich Islands in the north, the
Mangareva in the east, and New Zealand in the south. A
single branch of the Malayan tribe was driven far west-
wards and peopled Madagascar.

The second main branch of primeval Malays, that is, the
Mongols, at first also spread in Southern Asia, and, radiating
to the east, north, and north-west, gradually peopled the
greater part of the Asiatic continent. Of the four principal
races of the Mongol species, the Indo-Chinese must perhaps
be looked upon as the primary group, out of which at
a later period the other Coreo-Japanese and Ural-Altaian
races developed as diverging branches. The Mongols mi-
grated in many ways from western Asia into Europe, where
the species is still represented in northern Russia and
Scandinavia by the Fins and Lapps, in Hungary by the
kindred Magyars, and in Turkey by the Osmanlis.

On the other hand, a branch of the Mongols migrated
from north-eastern Asia to America, which was probably in
earlier times connected with the former continent by a
broad isthmus. Bee Arctic tribes, or Polar men, the Hyper-

330 THE HISTORY OF CREATION,
Amharites _ Moors Jews
Tigrites Samaritans (Hebrews)
Harrarites Pheenicians
| Chaldeans
Syrians ws
Abyssinians Canaanites
Ekilians (Palestinese)
——._-——’
Himiarites Arameans
South N |
out orth .
a : Primeval Jews
— Arabians North-Saniitas
Arabians (South Semites)
Guanchites Eusemites (Primeval Semites)
Schuluhs Algerians (Semites in a narrow sense)
| Tunese
—— | Tripolitans
Moroccans =—\——" Tuaric
, Cabyles (Imoscharh)
Berbers (Amazirh)
Gallites
Somalites
ee
———__ Bedschites _§Libians Eusemite
Dancalites Modern Babylonians
Egyptians Primeval
(Copts) Pheenicians Assyrians
Ethiopians
Ancient Egyptians Mesopotamians
(extinct)
a8
Hamites (Dyssemites)
Ce

Semites

PEDIGREE OF THE INDO-GERMANI. ee

Ancient Prussians Anglo-Saxons High Germans
Lithuanians Low Germans
| Letts | Netherlanders
‘auton silent
| Ancient Saxons
2
Baltic Races
Sorbians, or Saxons Friesians
Wends
Poles
Czecs Low Germans
oy ee . e |
Scandinavians
West Sclavonians Goths Germans
Russians
South
Sclavonians SSeS
Primeval Germans Ancient Britons
—— eed Ancient Scots | Gauls
South-eastern Romans _ Irish {
Sclavonians |
oa ame Brittanese
Latins Gaels
—=—_—_—
Sclavonians
i ee
| Italians Kelts
——_— a
Sclavo-Letts |
| Italo-Kelts

— a
Sclavo-Germans Albanese Greeks

Primeval Thracians

Indians
rae |
| Greco-Romans
——__ ——’]
Arians
Ario-Romans

Indo-Germans

332 THE HISTORY OF CREATION,

boreans of north-eastern Asia, and the Esquimaux of the
extreme north of America, must probably be regarded as an
offshoot of this branch, which became peculiarly degene-
rated by unfavourable conditions of existence. The
principal portion of the Mongolian immigrants, however,
migrated to the south, and gradually spread over the whole
of America, first over the north, later over South America.
The third and most important main branch of primeval
Malays, the curly-haired races, or Euplocomi, have probably
left in the Dravidas of Hindostan and Ceylon, that species
of man which differs least from the common primary form
of the Euplocomi. The principal portion of the latter,
namely, the Mediterranean species, migrated from their
primeval home (Hindostan ?) westwards, and peopled the
shores of the Mediterranean, south-western Asia, north
Africa, and Europe. The Nubians, in the north-east of
Africa, must perhaps be regarded as an offshoot of the
primeval Semitic tribes, who migrated far across central
Africa almost to the western shores. The various
branches of the Indo-Germanic race have deviated furthest
from the common primary form of ape-like men. During
classic antiquity and the middle ages, the Romanic branch
(the Grzco-Italo-Keltic group), one of the two main
branches of the Indo-Germanie species, outstripped all other
branches in the career of civilization, but at present the
same position is occupied by the Germanic. Its chief repre-
sentatives are the English and Germans, who are in the
present age laying the foundation for a new period of higher
mental development, in the recognition and completion of the
theory of descent. The recognition of the theory of develop-
ment and the monistic philosophy based upon it, forms the
best criterion for the degree of man’s mental development.

C syee4

SYSTEMATIC SURVEY OF THE TWELVE
HUMAN SPECIES.

N.B.—Column A denotes the Average Number of the Population in millions.
Column B shows the Degree of the Phyletic Development of the Species, thus Pr =
Progressive Diffusion; Co = Comparative Stability; Re = Retrogression and Ex-
tinction. Column C denotes the Character of the Primeval Language ; Mn (Mono-
glottonic) signifies that the Species had one Simple Primzval Language; Pl (Poly-
glottonic) a Compound Primeval Language.

: EH
trie. | Boe | a. | | 0. | Home.
TUFT-HAIRED New Guinea and Melanesia,
Lophocomi se iordpona sa Maal ag { Philippine Islands, Malacca
(about 2 mil- 4 RES { The extreme south of Africa
lions) 2 eee a Neil aa (The Cape)
FLEECY-HAIRED South Africa (between 30°
RARE Rees) Miya) Bn S. Lat. and 5° N. Lat.)
about 150 mil- Central Africa (between the
lions) ‘ae eau (ne (gia lt { Equator and 30° N. Lat.)
[ 5. chee vz | Re| Mn { Australia
Sor 30! Co! Mn { Malacca, Sundanesia, Poly-
STRAIGHT- nesia, and Madagascar
HAIRED The ter part of Asi
550 | Pr | Mn? | greater part of Asia
Euthycomi Pose ae - and northern Europe
(about 600 mil- The extreme north-east of
lions) . Arctic | zs Co | Pl? i Asia and the extreme north
Man of America
The whole of America with
9. AMERI- 12 | Re n? + the exception of the extreme
CAN north
10. Dravi. | 34] Co| Mn { South Asia (Hindostan and
; nas Ceylon)
CURLY-HAIRED | 47 Nopraal 10°) Co ae ie Africa (Nubia and
Euplocomi Fula-land)
{about 600 mil- In all parts of the world,
lions) having migrated from South
12. Mept- | 550 | Pr Asia to North Africa and
a South Europe
In all parts of the world,
13.Hyprips| 11 | Pr Pl { but predominating in Ame-
OF THE rica and Asia
SPECIES

—— ~

TOTAL |/1350

334 THE HISTORY OF CREATION,

CHAPTER XXIV.

OBJECTIONS AGAINST, AND PROOFS OF THE TRUTH OF,
THE THEORY OF DESCENT.

Objections to the Doctrine of Filiation.—Objections of Faith and Reason.—
Immeasurable Length of the Geological Periods.—Transition Forms
between Kindred Species——Dependence of Stability of Form on
Inheritance, and of the Variability of Form on Adaptation.—Origin of
very complicated Arrangement of Organisation —Gradual Development
of Instincts and Mental Activities—Origin of 4 priori Knowledge from
Knowledge & posteriori—The Knowledge requisite for the Correct
Understanding of the Doctrine of Filiation—Necessary Interaction
between Empiricism and Philosophy.—Proofs of the Theory of Descent.
—Inner Causal-Connection between all the Biological Series of Pheno-
mena.—The Direct Proof of the Theory of Selection.—Relation of the
Theory of Descent to Anthropology.—Proofs of the Animal Origin of
Man.—The Pithecoid Theory as an Inseparable Part of the Theory of
Descent.—Induction and Deduction.—Gradual Development of the
Human Mind.—Body and Mind.—Human Soul and Animal Sonl.—A
Glance at the Future.

IF in these chapters I may hope to have made the Theory of
Descent seem more or less probable, and to have even con-
vinced some of my readers of its unassailable truth, yet I
am by no means unconscious that, to most of them, during
the perusal of my explanations, a number of objections
more or less well founded must have occurred. Hence it
seems absolutely necessary at the conclusion of our examin-
ation to refute at least the most important of these, and

SCIENCE AND FAITH. 335

at the same time, on the other hand, once more to set forth
the convincing arguments which bear testimony to the
truth of the theory of development.

The objections which are raised to the doctrine of descent
may be divided into two large groups: objections of faith
and objections of reason. The objections of the first group
originate in the infinitely varied forms of faith held by
human individuals, and need not here be taken into con-
sideration at all. For, as I have already remarked at the
beginning of this book, science, as an objective result of
sensuous experience, and of the striving of human reason
after knowledge, has nothing whatever to do with the sub-
jective ideas of faith, which are preached by a single man
as the direct inspirations or revelations of the Creator, and
then believed in by the dependent multitude. This belief,
very different in different nations, only begins, as is well
known, where science ends. Natural Science believes,
according to the maxim of Frederick the Great, “that
every one may go to heaven in his own fashion,” and only
necessarily enters into conflict with particular forms of
faith where they appear to set a limit to free inquiry
and a goal to human knowledge, beyond which we are
not to venture. Now this is certainly the case here in
the highest degree, for the Theory of Development applies
itself to the solution of the greatest of scientific problems—
that of the creation, the coming into existence of things ;
more especially the origin of organic forms, and of man at
their head. It is here certainly the right as well as the
sacred duty of free inquiry, to fear no human authority,
and courageously to raise the veil from the image of the
Creator, unconcerned as to what natural truth may lie con-

336 THE HISTORY OF CREATION,

cealed beneath. The only Divine revelation which we
recognise as true, is written everywhere in nature, and to
every one with healthy senses and a healthy reason it is
given to participate in the unerring revelation of this holy
temple of nature, by his own inquiry and independent
discovery.

If we, therefore, here disregard all objections to the Doc-
trine of Descent which may be raised by the priests of the
different religious faiths, we must nevertheless endeavour
to refute the most important of those objections which seem
more or less founded on science, and which we grant might,
at first sight, to a certain extent captivate us and deter us
from adopting the Doctrine of Descent. Many persons seem
to think the length of the periods of time required the most
important of these objections. We are not accustomed to
deal with such immense periods as are necessary for the
history of the creation. It has already been mentioned that
the periods, during which species originated by gradual
transmutation, must not be calculated by single centuries,
but by hundreds and by millions of centuries. Even the
thickness of the stratified crust of the earth, the consider-
ation of the immense space of time which was requisite for
its deposition from water, taken together with the periods
of elevation between the periods of depression, indicate a
duration of time of the organic history of the earth which
the human intellect cannot realize. We are here in much
the same position as an astronomer in regard to infinite
space. In the same way as the distances between the
different planetary systems are not calculated by miles but
by Sirius-distances, each of which comprises millions
of miles, so the organic history of the earth must not be

INCONCEIVABLE LAPSE OF TIME. 337

calculated by thousands of years, but by paleontological
or geological periods, each of which comprises many thou-
sands of years, and perhaps millions, or even milliards,
of thousands of years. It is of little importance how high
the immeasurable length of these periods may be approxi-
mately estimated, because we are in fact unable with our
limited power of imagination to form a true conception of
these periods, and because we do not as in astronomy
possess a secure mathematical basis for fixing the approxi-
mate length of duration in numbers. But we most positively
deny that we see any objection to the theory of develop-
ment in the extreme length of these periods which are so
completely beyond the power of our imagination. It is, on
the contrary, as I have already explained in one of the
preceding chapters, most advisable, from a strictly philoso-
phical point of view, to conceive these periods of creation
to be as long as possible, and we are by so much the less
in danger of losing ourselves in improbable hypotheses,
the longer we conceive the periods for organic processes
of development to have been. The longer, for example, we
conceive the Permian period to have been, the easier it
will be for us to understand how the important transmuta-
tions took place within it which so essentially distinguish
the fauna and flora of the Coal pericd from that of the
Trias. The great disinclination which most persons have to
assume such immeasurable periods, arises mainly from the
fact of our having in early youth been brought up in the
notion that the whole earth is only some thousands of
years old. Moreover, human life, which at most attains
the leneth of a century, is an extremely short space of
time, and is not suitable as a standard for the measure-

339 THE HISTORY OF CREATION.

ment of geological periods. Our life is a single drop in
the ocean of eternity. The reader may call to mind the
duration of life of many trees which is more than fifty
times as long; for example, the dragon-trees (Draczena) and
monkey bread-fruit trees (Adansonia), whose individual life
exceeds a period of five thousand years; and, on the other
hand, the shortness of the individual life of many of the
lower animals, for example, the infusoria, where the indi-
vidual, as such, lives but a few days, or even but a few
hours, contrasts no less strongly with human longevity.
This comparison brings the relative nature of all measure-
ment of time very clearly before us. If the theory of de-
velopment be true at all, there must certainly have elapsed
immense periods, utterly inconceivable to us, during which
the gradual historical development of the animal and vege-
table kingdom proceeded by the slow transformation of
species. There is, however, not a single reason for accept-
ing a definite limit for the length of these periods of
development.

A second main objection which many, and more especially
systematic zoologists and botanists, raise against the theory
of descent, is that no transition forms between the
different species can be found, although according to the
theory of descent they ought to be found in great numbers.
This objection is partly well founded and partly not so, for
there does exist an extraordinarily large number of tran-
sition forms between living, as well as between extinct
species, especially where we have an opportunity of seeing
and comparing very numerous individuals of kindred species.
Those careful investigators of individual species who so
frequently raise this objection are the very persons

ABSENCE OF CONNECTING LINKS, 339

whom we constantly find checked in their special series
of investigations by the really insuperable difficulty of
sharply distinguishing individual species. In all sys-
tematic works, which are in any degree thorough, one
meets with endless complaints, that here and there species
cannot be distinguished because of the excessive number
of transition forms. Hence every naturalist defines the
limit and the number of individual species differently.
Some zoologists and botanists,as I mentioned (vol. i. p. 276),
assume in one and the same group of organisms ten
species, others twenty, others a hundred or more, while
other systematic naturalists again look upon these different
forms only as varieties of a single “good” species. In most
groups of forms there is, in fact, a superabundance of tran-
sition forms and intermediate stages between the individual
species.

It is true that in many species the forms of transition
are actually wanting, but this is easily explained by the
principle of divergence or separation, the importance of
which I have already explained. The circumstance that
the struggle for existence is the more active between
two kindred forms the closer they stand to each other,
must necessarily favour the speedy extinction of the con-
necting intermediate forms between the two divergent
species. If one and the same species produce diverging
varieties in different directions, which become new species,
the struggle between these new forms and the common
primary form will be the keener the less they differ from
one another; but the stronger the divergence the less dan-
gerous the struggle. Naturally therefore, it is principally
the connecting intermediate forms which will in most cases

340 THE HISTORY OF CREATION.

quickly die out, while the most divergent forms remain and
reproduce themselves as distinct “new species.” In accord-
ance with this, we in fact no longer find forms of transition
leading to those groups which are becoming extinct, as,
for example, among birds, are the ostriches; and among
mammals, the elephants, giraffes, Semi-apes, Edentata, and
ornithorhyncus. The groups of forms approaching their
extinction no longer produce new varieties, and naturally
the species are what is called “ good,” that is, the species
are distinctly different from one another. But in those
animal groups where development and progress are still
active, where the existing species deviate into many new
species by the formation of new varieties, we find an
abundance of transition forms which cause the greatest
difficulties to systematic naturalists. This is the case, for
example, among birds with the finches; among mammals
with most of the rodents (more especially with those of the
mouse and. rat kind), with a number of the ruminants
and with genuine apes, more especially with the South
American forms (Cebus), and many others. The continual
development of species by the formation of new varieties
here produces a mass of intermediate forms which connect
the so-called “good” species, which efface their boundaries,
and render their sharp specific distinction completely
illusory.

_ The reason that this nevertheless does not cause a com-
plete confusion of forms, nor a universal chaos in the struc-
ture of animals and vegetables, lies simply in the fact
that there is a continual counteraction at work between
progressive adaptation on the one hand, and the retentive
power of inheritance on the other hand. The degree of

PERFECT ADAPTATION OF ORGANS. 341

stability and variability manifested by every organic form
is determined solely by the actual condition of the equi-
librium between these two opposite functions. Inheritance
is the cause of the stability of species, adaptation the cause
of their modification. When therefore some naturalists
say that, according to the theory of descent, there ought
to be a much greater variety of forms, and others again,
that there ought to be a much greater equality of forms,
the former under-estimate the value of inheritance and the
latter the value of adaptation. The ratio of the wnteraction
between inheritance and adaptation determines the ratio of
the stability and variability of organie species at any given
period.

Another objection to the theory of descent, which, in the
opinion of many naturalists and philosophers is of great
weight, is that it ascribes the origin of organs which act
for a definite purpose to causes which are either aimless
or mechanical in their operation. This objection seems to
be especially important in regard to those organs which
appear so excellently adapted for a certain definite purpose
that the most ingenious mechanician could not invent a
more perfect organ for the purpose. Such are, above all,
the higher sense-organs of animals, the eye and ear. If the
eyes and auditory apparatus of the higher animals alone
were known to us, they would indeed cause great and per-
haps insurmountable difficulties. How could we come to
the conclusion that the extraordinarily great and wonderful
degree of perfection and conformity to purpose which we
perceive in the eyes and ears of higher animals, is in every
respect attained solely by natural selection? Fortunately,
however, comparative anatomy and the history of develop-

342 THE HISTORY OF CREATION.

ment help us here over all obstacles; for when in the animal
kingdom we follow the gradual progress towards perfection
of the eyes and ears, step by step, we find such a finely
graduated series of improvement, that we can clearly
follow the development of the most complex organs through
all the stages towards perfection. Thus, for example, the
eye in the lowest animal is a simple spot of pigment which
does not yet reflect any image of external objects, but at
most perceives and distinguishes the different rays of light.
Later, we find in addition to this a sensitive nerve; then
there gradually develops within the spot of pigment the
first beginning of the lens, a refractive body which is now
able to concentrate the rays of light and to reflect a definite
image. But all the composite apparatus for the movement
of the eye and its accommodation to variations of light and
distance are still absent, namely, the various refractive
media, the highly differentiated membrane of the optic
nerve, etc., which are so perfectly constructed in higher
animals. Comparative anatomy shows us an uninterrupted
succession of all possible stages of transition, from the
simplest organ to the most highly perfected apparatus, so
that we can form a pretty correct idea of the slow and
gradual formation of even such an exceedingly complex
organ. The like gradual progress which we observe in the
development of the organ during the course of individual
development, must have taken place in the historical
(phyletic) origin of the organ.

Many persons when contemplating these most perfect
organs—which apparently were purposely invented and
constructed by an ingenious Creator for a definite function,
but which in reality have arisen by the aimless action

TRAINING NEEDFUL FOR NATURALISTS. 343

of natural selection—experience difficulties in arriving at a
rational understanding of them, which are similar to those
experienced by the uncivilized tribes of nature when con-
templating the latest complicated productions of engineer-
ing. Savages who see a ship of the line, or a locomotive
engine for the first time, look upon these objects as the
productions of a supernatural being, and cannot understand
how a man, an organism like themselves, could have pro-
duced such an engine. Even the uneducated classes of our
own race cannot comprehend such an intricate apparatus
in its actual workings, nor can they understand its purely
mechanical nature. Most naturalists, however, as Darwin
very justly remarks, stand in much the same position in
regard to the forms of organisms as do savages to ships of
the line and to locomotive engines. A rational understand-
ing of the purely mechanical origin of organic forms can
only be acquired by a thorough and general training in
Biology, and by a special knowledge of comparative
_anatomy and the history of development.

Among the remaining objections to the Theory of Descent,
I shall here finally refer to and refute but one more, as in
the eyes of many unscientific men it seems to possess great
weight. How are we, from the Theory of Descent, to conceive
of the origin of the mental faculties of animals, and more
especially their specific expressions—the so-called instincts ?
This difficult subject has been so minutely discussed by
Darwin in a special chapter of his chief work (the seventh),
that I must refer the reader to it. We must regard instincts
as essentially the habits of the soul acquired by adaptation,
and transmitted and fixed by inheritance through many
generations. Instincts are, therefore, like all other habits,

344 THE HISTORY OF CREATION.

which, according to the laws of cumulative adaptation
(vol. i. p. 233) and established inheritance (vol. i. p. 216), lead
to the origin of new functions, and thus also to new forms of
the organs. Here, as everywhere, the interaction between
function and organ goes hand in hand. Just as the mental
faculties of man have been acquired by the progressive
adaptation of the brain, and been fixed by continual trans-
mission by inheritance, so the instincts of animals, which
differ from them only in quantity, not in quality, have arisen
by the gradual perfecting of their mental organ, that is,
their central nervous system, by the interaction of Adapta-
tion and Inheritance. Instincts, as is well known, are in-
herited, but experiences and, consequently, new adaptations
of the animal mind, are also transmitted by inheritance ;
and the training of domestic animals to different mental
activities, which wild animals are incapable of accomplish-
ing, rests upon the possibility of mental adaptation. We
already know a series of examples, in which such adapta-
tions, after they had been transmitted through a succession
of generations, finally appeared as innate instincts, and yet
they have only been acquired from the ancestors of the
animals. Inheritance has here caused the result of training
to become instinct. The characteristic instincts of sporting
dogs, shepherd’s dogs, and other domestic animals, and the
natural instincts of wild animals, which they possess at
birth, were in the first place acquired by their ancestors by
adaptation. They may in this respect be compared to
man’s “knowledge 4 priori,” which, like all other know-
ledge, was originally acquired by our remote ancestors, “a
posteriori,” by sensuous experience. As I have already

‘

remarked, it is evident that “knowledge a priori” arose

GENERAL KNOWLEDGE NEEDFUL. 345

only by long-enduring transmission, by inheritance of
acquired adaptations of the brain, out of originally empiric
or experiential “knowledge a posteriori” (vol. i. p. 31).

The objections to the Theory of Descent here discussed
and refuted are, I believe, the most important which have
been raised against it; I consider also that I have sufficiently
proved to the reader their futility. The numerous other
objections which besides these have been raised against the
Theory of Development in general, or against its biological
part, the Theory of Descent in particular, arise either from
such a degree of ignorance of empirically established facts,
or from such a want of their right understanding, and from
such an incapacity to draw the necessary conclusions, that
it is really not worth the trouble to go further into the
refutation. There are only some general points in regard
to which, I should like, in a few words, to draw attention.

In the first place I must observe, that in order thoroughly
to understand the doctrine of descent, and to be convinced
, of its absolute truth, it is indispensable to possess a general
knowledge of the whole of the domain of biological phe-
nomena. The theory of descent is a biological theory, and
hence it may with fairness and justice be demanded that
those persons who wish to pass a valid judgment upon it
should possess the requisite degree of biological knowledge.
Their possessing a special empiric knowledge of this or that
domain of zoology or botany, is not sufficient; they must
possess a general insight into the whole series of phenomena,
at least in the case of one of the three organic kingdoms.
They ought to know what universal laws result from the
comparative morphology and physiology of organisms, but
more especially from comparative anatomy, from the indi-

346 THE HISTORY OF CREATION.

vidual and the paleontological history of development, etc. ;
and they ought to have some idea of the deep mechanical,
causal connection between all these series of phenomena.
It is self-evident that a certain degree of general culture,
and especially a philosophical education, is requisite ; which
is, however, unfortunately by many persons in our day, not
considered at all necessary. Without the necessary connec-
tion of empirical knowledge and the philosophical under-
standing of biological phenomena, it is vmpossible to gain a
thorough conviction of the truth of the Theory of Descent.

Now I ask, in the face of this first preliminary condition
for a true understanding of the Theory of Descent, what we
are to think of the confused mass of persons who have pre-
sumed to pass a written or oral judgment upon it of an
adverse character? Most of them are unscientific persons,
who either know nothing of the most important phenomena
of Biology, or at least possess no idea of their deeper sig-
nificance. What should we say of an unscientific person
who presumed to express an opinion on the cell-theory,
without ever having seen cells; or of one who presumed to
question the vertebral-theory, without ever having studied
comparative anatomy? And yet one may meet with such
ridiculous arrogance any day in the history of the biological
Theory of Descent. One hears thousands of unscientific and
but half-educated persons pass a final judgment upon it,
although they know nothing either of botany or of zoology,
of comparative anatomy or the theory of tissues, of palze-—
ontology or embryology. Hence it happens, as Huxley well
says, that most of the writings published against Darwin
are not worth the paper upon which they are written.

We might add that there are many naturalists, and even

NARROWNESS OF NATURALISTS, 347

celebrated zoologists and botanists, among the opponents of
the Theory of Descent; but these latter are mostly old
stagers, who have grown grey in quite opposite views, and
whom we cannot expect, in the evening of their lives, to
submit to a reform in their conception of the universe,
which has become to them a fixed idea.

It is, moreover, expressly to be remarked, that not only
a general insight into the whole domain of biological
phenomena, but also a philosophical understanding of it,
are the necessary preliminary conditions for becoming
convinced of and adopting the Theory of Descent. Now
we shall find that these indispensable preliminary con-
ditions are, unfortunately, by no means fulfilled by the
majority of naturalists of the present day. The immense
amount of empirical facts with which the gigantic
advances of modern natural science have recently made us
acquainted has led to a prevailing inclination for the
special study of single phenomena and of small and
narrow domains. This causes the knowledge of other
paths, and especially of Nature as a great comprehensive
whole, to be in most cases completely neglected. Every one
with sound eyes and a miscroscope, together with industry
and patience for study, can in our day attain a certain
degree of celebrity by microscopic “ discoveries,” without,
however, deserving the name of a naturalist. This name is
deserved only by him who not merely strives to know the
individual phenomena, but who also seeks to discover their
causal connection. Even in our own day, most paleontolo-
gists examine and describe fossils without knowing the
most important facts of embryology. Embryologists, on the
other hand, follow the history of development of a particular

348 THE HISTORY OF CREATION,

organic individual, without having an idea of the palzon-
tological history of the whole tribe, of which fossils are
the records. And yet these two branches of the organic
history of development—ontogeny, or the history of the
individual, and phylogeny, or the history of the tribe—
stand in the closest causal connection, and the one cannot
be understood without the other. The same may be said of
the systematic and the anatomical part of Biology. There
are even now, in zoology and botany, many systematic
naturalists who work with the erroneous idea that it is
possible to construct a natural system of animals and plants
simply by a careful examination of the external and readily
accessible forms of bodies, without a deeper knowledge of
their internal structure. On the other hand, there are
anatomists and histologists who think it possible to obtain a
true knowledge of animal and vegetable bodies merely by a
most careful examination of the inner structure of the body
of some individual species, without the comparative exami-
nation of the bodily form of all kindred organisms. And
yet here, as everywhere, the internal and external factors,
to wit, Inheritance and Adaptation, stand in the closest
mutual relation, and the individual can never be thoroughly
understood without a comparison of it with the whole of
which it is a part. To those one-sided specialists we should
like in Goethe’s words to say :—

We must, contemplating Nature,
Part as Whole, give equal heed to:
Nought is inward, nought is outward,
For the inner is the outer.*

* Miisset im Naturbetrachten
Immer Eins wie Alles achten.
Nichts ist drinnen, Nichts ist drauszen,
Denn was innen, das ist auszen.

WANT OF PHILOSOPHICAL CULTURE, 349

And again :—
Nature has neither kernel nor shell,
It is she that is All and All at once.*

What is even more detrimental to the general understand-
ing of nature as a whole than this one-sided tendency, is
the want of a philosophical culture, and this applies to most
of the naturalists of the present day. The various errors of
the earlier speculative nature-philosophy made during the
first thirty years of our century, have brought the whole of
philosophy into such bad repute with the exact empirical
naturalists, that they live in the strange delusion that it
is possible to erect the edifice of natural science out of mere
facts, without their philosophic connection ; in short, out of
mere knowledge, without the understanding of it. But as
a purely speculative and absolutely philosophical system,
which does not concern itself with the indispensable founda-
tion of empirical facts, becomes a castle in the air, which
the first real experiment throws to the winds; so, on the
other hand, a purely empirical system, constructed of
nothing but facts, remains a disorderly heap of stones,
which will never deserve the name of an edifice. Bare
facts established by experience are nothing but rude stones,
and without their thoughtful valuation, without their philo-
sophie connection, no science can be established. As I
have already tried to impress upon my reader, the strong
edifice of true monistic science, or what is the same thing,
the Science of Nature, exists only by the closest interaction,
and the reciprocal penetration of philosophy and empirical
knowledge.

* Natur hat weder Kern noch Schale,
Alles ist sie mit einem Male.

350 THE HISTORY OF CREATION,

This lamentable estrangement between science and philo-
sophy, and the rude empiricism which is now-a-days unfortu-
nately praised by most naturalists as “exact science,” have
given rise to those strange freaks of the understanding, to
those gross insults against elementary logic, and to that in-
capacity for forming the simplest conclusions which one
may meet with any day in all branches of science, but
especially in zoology and botany. It is here that the
neglect of a philosophical culture and training of the mind,
directly avenges itself most painfully. It is not to be
wondered at that the deep inner truth of the Theory of
Descent remains a sealed book to those rude empiricists.
As the common proverb justly says: they cannot see the
wood for the trees. It is only by a more general philoso-
phical study, and especially by a more strictly logical train-
ing of the mind, that this sad state of things can be
remedied. (Compare Gen. Morph. i. 63; it. 447.)

If we rightly consider this circumstance, and if we
further reflect upon it in connection with the empirical
foundation of the philosophical theory of development, we
shall at once see how we are placed respecting the oft-
demanded proofs of the theory of descent. The more the
doctrine of filiation has of late years made way for itself,
and the more all thoughtful, younger naturalists, and all
truly biologically-educated philosophers have become con-
vinced of its inner truth and absolute necessity, the louder
have its opponents called for actual proofs. The same
persons who, shortly after the publication of Darwin’s work,
declared it to be “a groundless, fantastic system,’ an
“arbitrary speculation,” an “ingenious dream,” now kindly
condescend to declare that the theory of descent certainly

SUFFICIENCY OF EVIDENCE. 351

is a scientific “hypothesis,” but that it still requires to be
“proved.” When these remarks are made by persons who
do not possess the requisite empirico-philosophical culture,
nor the necessary knowledge in comparative anatomy, em-
bryology, and palzontology, we cannot be much offended,
and we refer them to the study of those sciences. But
when similar remarks are made by acknowledged special-
ists, by teachers of zoology and botany, who certainly ought
to possess a general insight into the whole domain of their
science, or who are actually familiar with the facts of those
scientific domains, then we are really at a loss what to
say. Those who are not satisfied with the treasures of our
present empirical knowledge of nature as a basis on which
to establish the Theory of Descent, will not be convinced
by any other facts which may hereafter be discovered;
for we can conceive no circumstances which would furnish
stronger or a more complete testimony to the truth of the
doctrine of filiation than is even now seen, for example, in
the well-known facts of comparative anatomy and ontogeny.
I must here again direct attention to the fact, that all the
great and general laws, and all the comprehensive series
of phenomena of the most different domains of biology can
only be explained and understood by the Theory of Develop-
ment (and especially by its biological part, the Theory of
Descent), and that without it they remain completely inex-
plicable and incomprehensible. The internal causal con-
nection between them all proves the Theory of Descent to
be the greatest inductive law of Biology.

Before concluding, I will once more name all those series
of inductions, all those general laws of Biology, upon which
this comprehensive law of development is firmly based.

352 THE HISTORY OF CREATION,

(1.) The paleontological history of the development of
organisms, the gradual appearance and the historical succes-
sion of the different species and groups of species, the
empirical laws of the paleontological change of species, as
furnished to us by the science of fossils, and more especially
the progressive differentiation and perfecting of animal
and vegetable groups in the successive periods of the earth’s
history.

(2.) The individual history of development of organisms,
embryology and metamorphology, the gradual changes in
the slow development of the body and its particular organs,
especially the progressive differentiation and perfecting of
the organs and parts of the body in the successive periods
of the individual development.

(3.) The inner causal connection between ontogeny and
phylogeny, the parallelism between the individual history
of the development of organisms, and the paleontological
history of the development of their ancestors, a connection
which is actually established by the laws of Inheritance
and Adaptation, and which may be summed up in the
words: ontogeny, according to the laws of inheritance and
adaptation, repeats in its large features the outlines of
phylogeny.

(4.) The comparative anatomy of organisms, the proof of
the essential agreement of the inner structure of kindred
organisms, in spite even of the greatest difference of external
form in the various species ; their explanation by the causal
dependence of the internal agreement of the structure on
Inheritance, the external dissimilarity of the bodily form
on Adaptation.

(5.) The inner causal connection between comparative

SUMMARY OF PROOFS. 353

anatomy and the history of development, the harmonious
agreement between the laws of the gradual development,
the progressive differentiation and perfecting, as they
may be seen in comparative anatomy on the one hand, in
ontogeny and paleontology on the other.

(6.) Dysteleology, or the theory of purposelessness, the
name I have given to the science of rudimentary organs, of
suppressed and degenerated, aimless and inactive, parts of
the body; one of the most important and most interesting
branches of comparative anatomy, which, when rightly
estimated, is alone sufficient to refute the fundamental error
of the teleological and dualistic conception of Nature, and
to serve as the foundation of the mechanical and monistic
conception of the universe.

(7.) The natural system of organisms, the natural group-
ing of all the different forms of Animals, Plants, and Protista
into numerous smaller or larger groups, arranged beside and
above one another; the kindred connection of species,
genera, families, orders, classes, tribes, etc., more especially,
however, the arboriform branching character of the natural
system, which is the spontaneous result of a natural arrange-
ment and classification of all these graduated groups or
categories. The result attained in attempting to exhibit
the relationships of the mere forms of organisms by a
tabular classification is only explicable when regarded as
the expression of their actual blood relationship ; the tree
shape of the natural system can only be understood as the
actual pedigree of the organisms.

(8.) Lhe chorology of organisms, the science of the local
distribution of organic species, of their geographical and
topographical dispersion over the surface of the earth, over

33

354 THE HISTORY OF CREATION.

the heights of mountains and in the depths of the ocean,
but especially the important phenomenon that every species
of organism proceeds from a so-called “centre of creation”
(more correctly a “primeval home,” or “centre of distribu-
tion”); that is, from a single locality, where it originated
but once, and whence it spread.
(9.) The ecology of organisms, the knowledge of the sum
of the relations of organisms to the surrounding outer
world, to organic and inorganic conditions of existence; the
so-called “ economy of nature,” the correlations between ail
organisms living together in one and the same locality, their
adaptation to their surroundings, their modification in the
struggle for existence, especially the circumstances of para-
sitism, ete. It is just these phenomena in “the economy of
nature” which the unscientific, on a superficial consideration,
are wont to regard as the wise arrangements of a Creator
acting for a definite purpose, but which on a more attentive
examination show themselves to be the necessary results of
mechanical causes.
(10.) The unity of Biology as a whole, the deep inner con-
nection existing between all the phenomena named and all
the other phenomena belonging to zoology, protistics, and
botany, and which are simply and naturally explained by a
single common principle. This principle can be no other
than the common derivation of all the specifically different
organisms from a single, or from several absolutely simple,
primary forms like the Monera, which possess no organs.
The Theory of Descent, by assuming this common deriva-
tion, throws a clear light upon these individual series of
phenomena, as well as upon their totality, without which
their deeper causal connection would remain completely

NEW: SPECIES NECESSARILY ARISE, 355

incomprehensible to us. The opponents of the Theory of
Descent can in no way explain any single one of these
series of phenomena or their deeper connection with one
another. So long as they are unable to do this, the Theory
of Descent remains the one adequate biological theory.

We should, on account of the grand proofs just enu-
merated, have to adopt Lamarck’s Theory of Descent for
the explanation of biological phenomena, even if we did
not possess Darwin’s Theory of Selection. The one is so
completely and directly proved by the other, and estab-
lished by mechanical causes, that there remains nothing
to be desired. The laws of Inheritance and Adaptation
are universally acknowledged physiological facts, the
former traceable to propagation, the latter to the nutri-
tion of organisms. On the other hand, the struggle for
existence is a biological fact, which with mathematical
necessity follows from the general disproportion between
the average number of organic individuals and the numeri-
cal excess of their germs. But as Adaptation and Inherit-
ance in the struggle for life are in continual interaction,
it inevitably follows that natural selection, which every-
where influences and continually changes organic species,
must, by making use of divergence of character, pro-
duce new species. Its influence is further especially
favoured by the active and passive migrations of organisms,
which go on everywhere. If we give these circumstances
due consideration, the continual and gradual modification
or transmutation of organie species will appear as a
biological process, which must, according to causal law, of
necessity follow from the actual nature of organisms and
their mutual correlations.

356 THE HISTORY OF CREATION.

That even the origin of man must be explained by this
general organic process of transmutation, and that it is
simply as well as naturally explained by it, has, I believe,
been sufficiently proved in my last chapter but one. I
cannot, however, avoid here once more directing atten-
tion to the inseparable connection between this so-called
“theory of apes,” or “pithecoid theory,” and the whole
Theory of Descent. If the latter is the greatest onductive
law of biology, then it of necessity follows that the former
is its most important deductive law. They stand and fall
together. As all depends upon a right understanding of
this proposition, which in my opinion is very important,
and which I have therefore several times brought before
the reader, I may be allowed to explain it here by an
example.

In all mammais known to us the centre of the nervous
system is the spinal marrow and the brain, and the centre
of the vascular system is a quadrupal heart, consisting of
two principal chambers and two ante-chambers. From this
we draw the general inductive conclusion that all mammals,
without exception, those extinct, together with all those
living species as yet unknown to us, as well as the species
which we have examined, possess a like organization, a like
heart, brain, and spinal marrow. Now if, as still happens
every year, there be discovered in any part of the earth a
new species of mammal, a new species of marsupial, or a
new species of deer, or a new species of ape, every zoologist
knows with certainty at once, without having examined its
inner structure, that this species must possess a quadruple
heart, a brain and spinal marrow, like all other mammals.
Not a single naturalist would ever think of supposing that

DEDUCTIVE LAW OF MAN’S ORIGIN. 357

the central nervous system of this new species of mammal
could possibly consist of a ventral cord with an cesopha-
geal collar as in the insects, or of scattered pairs of
knots as in the molluscs, or that its heart could be many-
chambered as in flies, or one-chambered as in the tunicates,
This completely certain and safe conclusion, although it is
not based upon any direct experience, is a deductive con-
clusion. In the same way, as I have shown in a previous
chapter, Goethe, from the comparative anatomy of mammals,
established the general inductive conclusion that they all
possess a mid jawbone, and afterwards drew from it the
special deductive conclusion that man, who in all other
respects does not essentially differ from other mammals,
must also possess a like mid jawbone. He maintained this
conclusion without having actually seen the human mid jaw-
bone, and only proved its existence subsequently by actual
observation (vol. 1. p. 84).

The process of ~mduction is a logical system of forming
conclusions from the special to the general, by which we
advance from many individual experiences to a general
law; deduction, on the other hand, draws a conclusion
from the general to the special, from a general law of
nature to an individual case. Thus the Theory of Descent
is, without doubt, a great inductive law, empirically based
upon all the biological experience cited above; the pithe-
coid theory, on the other hand, which asserts that man has
developed out of lower, and in the first place out of ape-
like mammals, is a deductive law inseparably connected
with the general inductive law.

The pedigree of the human race, the approximate outlines
of which I gave in the last chapter but one, of course

358 THE HISTORY OF CREATION.

remains in detail (like all the pedigrees of animals and
plants previously discussed) a more or less approximate
general hypothesis. This however does not affect the
application of the theory of descent to man. Here, as in
all investigations on the derivation of organisms, one must
clearly distinguish between the general theory of descent
and the special hypotheses of descent. The general theory of
descent claims full and lasting value, because it is an
inductive law, based upon all the whole series of biological
phenomena and their inner causal connection. Every
special hypothesis of descent, on the other hand, has its
special value determined by the existing condition of our
biological knowledge, and by the extent of the objective
empirical basis upon which we deductively establish this
particular hypothesis. Hence, all the individual attempts
to obtain a knowledge of the pedigree of any one group of
organisms possesses but a temporary and conditional value,
and any special hypothesis relating to it will become the
more and more perfect the greater the advance we make in
the comparative anatomy, ontogeny, and paleontology of
the group in question. The more, however, we enter into
genealogical details, and the further we trace the separate
off-shoots and branches of the pedigree, the more uncertain
and subjective becomes our special hypothesis of descent on
account of the incompleteness of our empirical basis. This
however does no injury to the general theory of descent,
which remains as the indispensable foundation for really
profound apprehension of biological phenomena. Accord-
ingly, there can be no doubt that we can and must, with
full assurance, regard the derivation of man—in the first
place, from ape-like forms; further back, from lower

. went a ree el

PROOFS DEMANDED BUT NEEDLESS. 359

mammals, and thus continually further back to lower stages
of the vertebrata down to their lowest invertebrate roots,
nay, even down to a simple plastid—as a general theory.
On the other hand, the special tracing of the human
pedigree, the closer definition of the animal forms known
to us, which either actually belong to the ancestors of man,
or at least stand in very close blood relationship to them,
will always remain a more or less approximate hypothesis
of descent, all the more in danger of deviating from the real
pedigree the nearer it endeavours to approach it by search-
‘ing for the individual ancestral forms. This state of things
results from the immense gaps in our paleontological know-
ledge, which can, under no circumstances, ever attain to
even an approximate completeness.

A thoughtful consideration of this important circumstance
at once furnishes the answer to a question which is
commonly raised in discussing this subject, namely, the
question of scientific proofs for the animal origin of the
human race. Not only the opponents of the Theory of
Descent, but even many of its adherents who are wanting
in the requisite philosophical culture, look too much for
“signs” and for special empirical advances in the science of
nature. They await the sudden discovery of a human race
with tails, or of a talking species of ape, or of other living
or fossil transition forms between man and the ape, which
shall fill the already narrow chasm between the two, and
thus empirically “prove” the derivation of man from apes.
Such special manifestations, were they ever so convincing
and conclusive, would not furnish the proof desired. Un-
thinking persons, or those unacquainted with the series of
biological phenomena, would still be able to maintain the

360 THE HISTORY OF CREATION.

objections to those special testimonies which they now
maintain against our theory.

The absolute certainty of the Theory of Descent, even in
its application to man, is built on a more solid foundation ;
and its true inner value can never be tested simply by
reference to individual experience, but only by a philo-
sophical comparison and estimation of the treasures of all
our biological experiences. The inestimable importance of
the Theory of Descent is surely based upon this, that the
theory follows of necessity (as a general inductive law)
from the comparative synthesis of all organic phenomena
of nature, and more especially from the triple parallelism
of comparative anatomy, of ontogeny, and phylogeny; and
the pithecoid theory under all circumstances (apart from
all special proofs) remains as a special deductive conclu-
sion which must of necessity be drawn from the general
inductive law of the Theory of Descent.

In my opinion, all depends upon a right understanding of
this philosophical foundation of the Theory of Descent
and of the pithecoid theory which is inseparable from it.
Many persons will probably admit this, and yet at the same
time maintain that all this applies only to the bodily, not
to the mental development of man. Now, as we have
hitherto been occupied only with the former, it is perhaps
necessary here to cast a glance at the latter, in order to show
that it is also subject to the great general law of develop-
ment. In doing this it is above all necessary to recollect
that body and mind can in fact never be considered as
distinct, but rather that both sides of nature are inseparably
connected, and stand in the closest interaction. As even
Goethe has clearly expressed it—“matter can never exist and

ORIGIN OF THE MIND. 361

act without mind, and mind never without matter.” The
artificial discord between mind and body, between force
and matter, which was maintained by the erroneous dualistic
and teleological philosophy of past times has been disposed
of by the advances of natural science, and especially by
the theory of development, and can no longer exist in face
of the prevailing mechanical and monistic philosophy of our
day. How human nature, and its position in regard to the
rest of the universe, is to be conceived of according to the
modern view, has been minutely discussed by Radenhausen
in his “ Isis,” 9? which is excellent and well worth perusal.
With regard to the origin of the human mind or the
soul of man, we, in the first place, perceive that in every
human individual it develops from the beginning, step
by step and gradually, just like the body. In a newly born
child we see that it possesses neither an independent
consciousness, nor in fact clear ideas. These arise only
gradually when, by means of sensuous experience, the
phenomena of the outer world affect the central nervous
system. But still the little child is wanting in all those
differentiated emotions of the soul which the full-grown
man acquires only by the long experience of years. From-
this graduated development of the human soul in every
single individual we can, in accordance with the inner
causal connection between ontogeny and phylogeny, directly
infer the gradual development of the human soul in all
mankind, and further, in the whole of the vertebrate tribe.
In its inseparable connection with the body, the human
soul or mind has also had to pass through all those gradual
stages of development, all those various degrees of dii-
ferentiation and perfecting, of which the hypothetical series

362 THE HISTORY OF CREATION.

of human ancestors sketched in a late chapter gives an ap-
proximate representation.

It is true that this conception generally greatly offends
most persons on their first becoming acquainted with the
Theory of Development, because more than all others it
most strongly contradicts the traditional and mythological
ideas, and the prejudices which have been held sacred for
thousands of years. But like all other functions of organ-
isms, the human soul must necessarily have historically
developed, and the comparative or empirical study of
animal psychology clearly shows that this development
can only be conceived of as a gradual evolution from the
soul of vertebrate animals, as a gradual differentiation and
perfecting which, in the course of many thousands of
years, has led to the glorious triumph of the human mind
over its lower animal ancestral stages. Here, as everywhere,
the only way to arrive at a knowledge of natural truth is to
compare kindred phenomena, and investigate their develop-
ment. Hence we must above all, as we did in the examina-
tion of the bodily development, compare the highest animal
phenomena on the one hand with the lowest animal phe-
nomena, and on the other with the lowest human phe-
nomena. The final result of this comparison is this—that
between the most highly developed animal souls, and the
lowest developed human souls, there exists only a small
quantitative, but no qualitative difference, and that this
difference is much less than the difference between the
lowest and the highest human souls, or than the difference
between the highest and the lowest animal souls.

In order to be convinced of this important result, it is
above all things necessary to study and compare the mental

THE MIND OF SAVAGES. 363

life of wild savages and of children™ At the lowest
stage of human mental development are the Australians,
some tribes of the Polynesians, and the Bushmen, Hotten-
tots, and some of the Negro tribes. Language, the chief
characteristic of genuine men, has with them remained at the
lowest stage of development, and hence also their formation
of ideas has remained at a low stage. Many of these wild
tribes have not even a name for animal, plant, colour, and
such most simple ideas, whereas they have a word for every
single, striking form of animal and plant, and for every
single sound or colour. Thus even the most simple
abstractions are wanting. In many of these languages
there are numerals on!y for one, two, and three: no Austra-
lian language counts beyond four. Very many wild tribes
can count no further than ten or twenty, whereas some very
clever dogs have been made to count up to forty and even
beyond sixty. And yet the faculty of appreciating number
is the beginning of mathematics! Nothing, however, is per-
haps more remarkable in this respect, than that some of the
wildest tribes in southern Asia and eastern Africa have no
trace whatever of the first foundations of all human civiliz-
ation, of family life,and marriage. They live together in
herds, like apes, generally climbing on trees and eating
fruits ; they do not know of fire, and use stones and clubs as
weapons, just like the higher apes. All attempts to intro-
duce civilization among these, and many of the other tribes
of the lowest human species, have hitherto been of no
avail; it is impossible to implant human culture where
the requisite soil, namely, the perfecting of the brain, is
wanting. Not one of these tribes has ever been ennobled
by civilization; it rather accelerates their extinction.

364 THE HISTORY OF CREATION.

They have barely risen above the lowest stage of transition
from man-like apes to ape-like men, a stage which the pro-
genitors of the higher human species had already passed
through thousands of years ago.#

Now consider, on the other hand, the highest stages of
development of mental life in the higher vertebrate animals,
especially birds and mammals. If, as is usually done, we
divide the different emotions of the soul into three principal
groups—sensation, will, and thought—we shall find in
regard to every one of them, that the most highly developed
birds and mammals are on a level with the lowest human
beings, or even decidedly surpass them. The will is as dis-
tinctly and strongly developed in higher animals as in men
of character. In both cases it is never actually free, but
always determined by a causal chain of ideas. (Compare
vol. i. p. 237.) In like manner, the different degrees of will,
energy, and passion are as variously graduated in higher
animals as in man. The affections of the higher animals
are not less tender and warm than those of man. The
fidelity and devotion of the dog, the maternal love of the
lioness, the conjugal love and connubial fidelity of doves
and love-birds are proverbial, and might serve as
examples to many men. If these virtues are to be called
“instincts,” then they deserve the same name in mankind.
Lastly, with regard to thought, the comparative consider-
ation of which doubtless presents the most difficulties, this
much may with certainty be inferred—especially from an
examination of the comparative psychology of cultivated
domestic animals—that the processes of thinking, here
follow the same laws as in ourselves. Experiences every-
where form the foundation of conceptions, and lead to the

a

THE MIND OF SAVAGES, 365

recognition of the connection between cause and effect. In all
cases, aS In man, it is the path of induction and deduction
which leads to the formation of conclusions. It is evident
that in all these respects the most highly developed animals
stand much nearer to man than to the lower animals,
although they are also connected with the latter by a chain
of gradual and intermediate stages. In Wundt’s excellent
“ Lectures on the Human and Animal Soul,’“ there are a
number of proofs of this,

Now, if instituting comparisons in both directions, we
place the lowest and most ape-like men (the Austral
Negroes, Bushmen, and Andamans, etc.), on the one hand,
together with the most highly developed animals, for in-
stance, with apes, dogs, and elephants, and on the other
hand, with the most highly developed men—Aristotle,
Newton, Spinoza, Kant, Lamarck, or Goethe—we can then
no longer consider the assertion, that the mental life of the
higher mammals has gradually developed up to that of man,
as in any way exaggerated. If one must draw a sharp
boundary between them, it has to be drawn between the
most highly developed and civilized man on the one hand,
and the rudest savages on the other, and the latter have to
be classed with the animals. This is, in fact, the opinion
of many travellers, who have long watched the lowest
human races in their native countries. Thus, for example,
a great English traveller, who lived for a considerable time
on the west coast of Africa, says: “I consider the negro
to be a lower species of man, and cannot make up my
mind to look upon him as ‘a man and a brother, for
the gorilla would then also have to be admitted into the
family.” Even many Christian missionaries, who, after

366 THE HISTORY OF CREATION.

long years of fruitless endeavours to civilize these lowest
races, have abandoned the attempt, express the same
harsh judgment, and maintain that it would be easier to
train the most intelligent domestic animals to a moral and
civilized life, than these unreasoning brute-like men. For
instance, the able Austrian missionary Morlang, who tried
for many years without the slightest success to civilize the
ape-like negro tribes on the Upper Nile, expressly says:
“that any mission to such savages is absolutely useless.
They stand far below unreasoning animals; the latter at
least show signs of affection towards those who are kind
towards them, whereas these brutal natives are utterly
incapable of any feeling of gratitude.”

Now, it clearly follows from these and other testimonies,
that the mental differences between the lowest men and the
animals are less than those between the lowest and the
highest men; and if, together with this, we take into con-
sideration the fact that in every single human child mental
life develops slowly, gradually, and step by step, from the
lowest condition of animal unconsciousness, need we still
feel offended when told that the mind of the whole human
race has in like manner gone through a process of slow,
gradual, and historical development? Can we find it
“degrading” to the human soul that, by a long and slow
process of differentiation and perfecting, it has very
gradually developed out of the soul of vertebrate animals ?
I freely acknowledge that this objection, which is at pre-
sent raised by many against the pithecoid theory, is quite
incomprehensible to me. On this point Bernhard Cotta,
in his excellent “Geologie der Gegenwart,” very justly
remarks: “Our ancestors may be a great honour to us;
but it is much better if we are an honour te them !”

PROSPECT FOR THE FUTURE. 367

Our Theory of Development explains the origin of man
and the course of his historical development in the only
natural manner. We see in his gradually ascensive develop-
ment out of the lower vertebrata, the greatest triumph of
humanity over the whole of the rest of Nature. We are
proud of having so immensely outstripped our lower
animal ancestors, and derive from it the consoling assurance
that in future also, mankind, as a whole, will follow the
glorious career of progressive development, and attain a still
higher degree of mental perfection, When viewed in this
light, the Theory of Descent as applied to man opens up
the most encouraging prospects for the future, and frees us
from all those anxious fears which have been the scarecrows
of our opponents.

We can even now foresee with certainty that the com-
plete victory of our Theory of Development will bear
immensely rich fruits—fruits which have no equal in the
whole history of the civilization of mankind. Its first and
most direct result—the complete reform of Biology—will
necessarily be followed by a still more important and fruit-
ful reform of Anthropology. From this new theory of man
there will be developed a new philosophy, not like most of
the airy systems of metaphysical speculation hitherto
prevalent, but one founded upon the solid ground of Com-
parative Zoology. A beginning of this has already been
made by the great English philosopher Herbert Spencer.
Just as this new monistic philosophy first opens up to us
a true understanding of the real universe, so its appli-
cation to practical human life must open up a new road
towards moral perfection. By its aid we shall at last begin
to raise ourselves out of the state of social barbarism in

368 THE HISTORY OF CREATION.

which, notwithstanding the much vaunted civilization of
our century, we are still plunged. For, unfortunately, it
is only too true, as Alfred Wallace remarks with regard
to this, at the end of his book of travels: “Compared
with our wondrous progress in physical science and its
practical applications, our system of government, of admin-
istering justice, of national education, and our whole social
and moral organisation remains in a state of barbarism.”
This social and moral barbarism we shall never overcome
by the artificial and perverse training, the one-sided and
defective teaching, the inner untruth and the external tinsel,
of our present state of civilization. It is above all things
necessary to make a complete and honest return to Nature
and to natural relations. This return, however, will only
become possible when man sees and understands his true
“place in nature.” He will then, as Fritz Ratzel has
excellently remarked,” “no longer consider himself an
exception to natural laws, but begin to seek for what is
lawful in his own actions and thoughts, and endeavour
to lead a life according to natural laws.’ He will come
to arrange his life with his fellow-creatures—that is, the
family and the state—not according to the laws of distant —
centuries, but according to the rational principles deduced
from knowledge of nature. Politics, morals, and the prin-
ciples of justice, which are still drawn from all possible
sources, will have to be formed in accordance with natural
laws only. An existence worthy of man, which has been talked
of for thousands of years, will at length become a reality.
The highest function of the human mind is perfect know-
ledge, fully developed consciousness, and the moral activity
arising from it. “Know thyself!” was the cry of the philo-

MANKIND IN THE FUTURE, 369

sophers of antiquity to their fellow-men who were striving
to ennoble themselves. “Know thyself!” is the ery of the
Theory of Development, not merely to the individual, but
to all mankind. And whilst increased knowledge of self
becomes, in the case of every individual man, a strong force
urging to an increased attention to conduct, mankind as
a whole will be led to a higher path of moral perfection
by the knowledge of its true origin and its actual position
in Nature. The simple religion of Nature, which grows
from a true knowledge of Her, and of Her inexhaustible
store of revelations, will in future ennoble and perfect the
development of mankind far beyond that degree which can
possibly be attained under the influence of the multifarious
religions of the churches of the various nations,—religions
resting on a blind belief in the vague secrets and mythical
revelations of a sacerdotal caste. Future centuries will
celebrate our age, which was occupied with laying the
foundations of the Doctrine of Descent, as the new era in
which began a period of human development, rich in bless- |
ings——a period which was characterized by the victory of
free inquiry over the despotism of authority, and by the
powerful ennobling influence of the Monistic Philosophy.

ae ae
iss oe oe hs inves eB

OS Waits ae srs

ca

LIST OF THE WORKS REFERRED TO IN THE
TEXT BY FIGURES, THUS—(),
The study of which is recommended to the Reader.

OO

1. Charles Darwin, On the Origin of Species by means of
Natural Selection; or, the Preservation of Favoured Races in
the Struggle for Life. London, 1859. 5th Edition, 1869.

2. Jean Lamarck, Philosophie Zoologique, ou Exposition des
Considérations relatives 4 histoire naturelle des animaux; ala
diversité de leur organisation et des facultés, qu’ils en obtiennent ;
aux causes physiques, qui maintiennent en eux la vie et donnent
lieu aux mouvemens, qu’ils exécutent; enfin, 4 celles qui
produisent, les unes le sentiment, et les autres l’intelligence de

ceux quien sont doués. 2 Tomes. Paris, 1809.

3. Wolfgang Goethe, Zur Morphologie: Bildung und
Umbildung organischer Naturen. Die Metamorphose der
Pflanzen, 1790. Osteologie, 1786. Vortrige iiber die drei
ersten Capitel des Entwurfs einer allgemeinen LHinleitung in
die vergleichende Anatomie, ausgehend yon der Osteologie,
1786. Zur Naturwissenschaft im Allgemeinen, 1780-1832.

(Wolfgang Goethe, Contributions to Morphology: Formation
and Transformation of Organic Natures. The Metamorphosis of
Plants, 1790. Osteology, 1786. Lectures on the first three
chapters of an Attempt at a General Introduction to Compara-
tive Anatomy, beginning with Osteology, 1786. Contributions
to the Science of Nature in general, 1780-1882.)

372 LIST OF WORKS REFERRED TO IN TEXT,

4, Ernst Haeckel, Generelle Morphologie der Organismen :
Allgemeine Grundziige der organischen Formenwissenschaft,
mechanisch begriindet durch die von Charles Darwin reformirte
Descendenz-theorie. I. Band, Allgemeine Anatomie der Organ-
ismen, oder Wissenschaft von den entwickelten organischen
Formen. II. Band, Allgemeine Entwickelungsgeschichte der
Organismen, oder Wissenschaft von den entstehenden organis-
chen Formen. Berlin, 1866.

(Ernst Haeckel, General Morphology of Organisms; General
Outlines of the Science of Organic Forms based on Mechanical
Principles through the Theory of Descent as reformed by
Charles Darwin. Vol. I., General Anatomy of Organisms; or,
the Science of Fully Developed Organic Forms. Vol. II., General
History of the Development of Organisms; or, the Science of
Organic Forms in their Origin. Berlin, 1866.)

5. Louis Agassiz, An Essay on Classification. Contributions
to the Natural History of the United States. Boston. Vol. I,
1857,

6. August Schleicher, Die Darwin’sche Theorie und die
Sprachwissenschaft. Weimar, 1863.

(August Schleicher, Darwin’s Theory and the Science of
Language. Weimar, 1863.)

7. M. J. Schleiden, Grundziige der wissenschaftlichen
Botanik (die Botanik als inductive Wissenschaft). 2 Bande.
Leipzig, 1849.

(M. J. Schleiden, Principles of Scientific Botany (Botany as
an Inductive Science). 2 Vols. Leipzig, 1849. Translated
by Edwin Lankester, M.D., F.R.S. London, 1849.)

8. Franz Unger, Versuch einer Geschichte der Pflanzenwelt.
Wien, 1852.

(Franz Unger, Essay on the History of the Vegetable

Kingdom. Vienna, 1852 )

LIST OF WORKS REFERRED TO IN TEXT, 373

9. Victor Carus, System der thierischen Morphologie.
Leipzig, 1853.
(Victor Carus, System of Animal Morphology. Leipzig, 1853.)

10. Louis Biichner, Kraft und Stoff. Empirisch-naturphilo
sophische Studien in allgemein verstadndlicher Darstellung
Frankfort, 1855, 3 Auflage. 1867, 9 Auflage.

(Louis Biichner, Force and Matter. Studies in the Empirical
Philosophy of Nature, treated popularly. Frankfort, 1855, 8rd
Edition. 1867, 9th Edition.)

11. Charles Lyell, Principles of Geology. London, 1830.
10th Edition, 1868.

12. Albert Lange, Geschichte des Materialismus und Kritik
seiner Bedeutung in der Gegenwart. Iserlohn, 1866.

(Albert Lange, History of Materialism, and a Criticism of its
Importance at the Present Time. Iserlohn, 1866.)

13. Charles Darwin, Voyage of the Beagle. London.

. 14. Charles Darwin, The Variation of Animals ard Plants
under Domestication. 2 Vols. London, 1868.

15. Ernst Haeckel, Studien iiber Moneren und andere
Protisten, nebst einer Rede tiber Entwickelungsgang und
Aufgabe der Zoologie. Mit 6 Kupfertafeln. Leipzig, 1870.

(Ernst Haeckel, Studies on the Monera and other Protista,
together with a Discourse on the Evolution and the Problems
of Zoology. With 6 Copper-plates. Leipzig, 1870.)

16. Fritz Miller, Fir Darwin. Leipzig, 1864, .
(Fritz Miller, For Darwin. Translated by W. S. Dallas.
London, Murray.)

17. Thomas Huzley, On our Knowledge of the Causes of
the Phenomena of Organic Nature. Six Popular Lectures.
London, Hardwicke, 1862.

374 LIST OF WORKS REFERRED TO IN TEXT,

18. H. G. Brénn, Morphologische Studien itiber die
Gestaltungsgesetze der Naturkorper iberhaupt, und der
Organischen insbesondere. Leipzig und Heidelberg, 1858.

(H. G. Brénn, Morphological Studies on the Laws of Form
of Natural Bodies in General, and of Organic Bodies in Par-
ticular. Leipzig and Heidelberg, 1858.)

19. H. G. Brénn, Untersuchungen itiber die Entwickelungs-
gesetze der organischen Welt wihrend der Bildungszeit unserer
Erdoberflache. Stuttgart, 1858.

(H. G. Brénn, Investigations on the Laws of Development of
the Organic World during the Time of the Formation of the
Earth’s Crust. Stuttgart, 1858.)

20. Carl Ernst Bér, Ueber Entwickelungsgeschichte der
Thiere. Beobachtung und Reflexion. 2 Bande. 1828.

(Carl Ernst Bar, On the History of the Development of
Animals. Observation and Reflection. 2 Vols. 1828.)

21. Carl Gegenbaur, Grundziige der vergleichenden Anatomie.
Leipzig, 1859. 2 (Umgearbeitete) Auflage, 1870.

(Carl Gegenbaur, Outlines of Comparative Anatomy.
Leipzig, 1859. 2nd (Revised) Edition, 1870.)

22. Immanuel Kant, Allgemeine Naturgeschichte und
Theorie des Himmels, oder Versuch von der Verfassung und dem
mechanischen Ursprunge des ganzen Weltgebiudes nach New-
ton’schen Grundsiitzen abgehandelt. Ko6nigsberg, 1755.

(Immanuel Kant, General History of Nature and Theory of
the Heavens; or, Essay on the Constitution and the Mechanical
Origin of the whole Universe treated according to Newton’s
Principles. K6nigsberg, 1755.)

23. Ernst Haeckel, Die Radiolarien. Eine Monographie.
Mit einem Atlas von 85 Kupfertafeln. Berlin, 1862.

(Ernst Haeckel, The Radiolaria. A Monograph, with Atlas
containing 35 Copper-plates. Berlin, 1862.)

LIST OF WORKS REFERRED TO IN TEXT, 375

24. August Weismann, Ueber den Hinflusz der Isolirung auf
die Artbildung. Leipzig, 1872.

(August Weismann, On the Influence of Isolation on the
Formation of Species. Leipzig, 1872.)

25. Ernst Haeckel, Ueber die Enstehung und den Stammbaum
des Menschengeschlechts. Zwei Vortrige in der Sammlung
gemeinverstandlicher wissenschaftlicher Vortrige, herausge-
geben von Virchow und Holtzendorff. Berlin, 1868. 2 Auflage,
1870.

(Ernst Haeckel, On the Origin and the Pedigree of the Human
Race. Two Lectures. in the Collection of Popular Scientific
Lectures, edited by Virchow and Holtzendorff. Berlin, 1868.
2nd Edition, 1870.)

26. Thomas Hualey, Evidences as to Man’s Place in Nature.
Three Parts: 1. On the Natural History of the Man-like Apes.
2. On the Relations of Man to the Lower Animals. 3. On some
Fossil Remains of Man. London, Williams & Norgate.

27. Carl Vogt, Vorlesungen iiber den Menschen, seine
Stellung in der Schopfung und in der Geschichte der Erde. 2
Bande. Giessen, 1863.

(Carl Vogt, Lectures on Man, his Place in Creation and in the
History of the Earth. 2 Vols. Giessen, 1863.)

28. Friedrich Rolle, Der Mensch, seine Abstammung und
Gesittung im Lichte der Darwin’schen Lehre von der Art-
Entstehung, und auf Grund der neueren geologischen Entdeck.
ungen dargestellt. Frankfurt-a-M., 1866.

(Friedrich Rolle, Man, his Derivation and Civilization, in the
Light of Darwin’s Theory of the Origin of Species, based on
Recent Geological Discoveries. Frankfort-a-M., 1866.)

29. Eduard Reich, Die allgemeine Naturlehre des Menschen.
Giessen, 1865.

(Eduard Reich, The General Natural History of Man,
Giessen, 1865.)

376 LIST OF WORKS REFERRED TO IN TEXT,
30. Charles Iyell, The Antiquity of Man. London, Murray.

31. Bernhard Cotta, Die Geologie der Gegenwart. Leipzig,
1866.
(Bernhard Cotta, The Geology of the Present Day.)

32. Karl Zittel, Aus der Urzeit. Bilder aus der Schopfungs-
geschichte. Minchen, 1871.

(Karl Zittel, Primeval Times. Pictures from the History of
Creation. Munich, 1871.)

33. OC. Radenhausen, Isis. Der Mensch und die Welt. 4
Bande. Hamburg, 1863. 2 Auflage, 1871.

(C. Radenhausen, Isis. Man and the Universe. 4 Vols.
Hamburg, 1863. 2nd Edition, 1871.)

34. August Schleicher, Ueber der Bedeutung der Sprache fiir
die Naturgeschichte des Menschen. Weimar, 1865.

(August Schleicher, On the Importance of Language to the
Natural History of Man. Weimar, 1865).

35. Wilhelm Bleek, Ueber den Ursprung der Sprache. Her-
ausgegeben mit einem Vorwort von Ernst Haeckel. Weimar,
1868.

(Wilhelm Bleek, On the Origin of Language. Edited and with
a Preface by Ernst Haeckel. Weimar, 1868.)

36. Alfred Russel Wallace, The Malayan Archipelago.

London, Macmillan.

37. Ernst Haeckel, Ueber Arbeitstheilung in Natur- und
Menschenleben. Sammlung’ gemeinverstindlicher wissen-
schaftlicher Vortrage, herausgegeben von Virchow und
Holtzendorff. 4 Serie. 1869. Heft 78.

(Ernst Haeckel, On Differentiation in Nature and in Human
life. A Collection of Popular Scientific Lectures, edited by
Virchow and Holtzendorff. 4th Series. 1869. No. 78.)

LIST OF WORKS REFERRED TO IN TEXT. 377

38. Hermann Helmholtz, Populire wissenschaftliche Vortrige.
Braunschweig, 1871.

(Hermann Helmholtz, Popular Scientific Lectures. Brunswick,
1871.)

39. Alexander Humboldt, Ansichten der Natur. Stuttgart,
1826. —

(Alexander Humboldt, Views of Nature. Styttgart, 1826.)

40. Moritz Wagner, Die Darwin’sche Theorie und das
Migrationsgesetz der Organismen. Leipzig, 1868.

(Moritz Wagner, Darwin’s Theory and the Law of the Migra-
tion of Organisms. Leipzig, 1868.)

41. Rudolf Virchow, Vier Reden iiber Leben und Kranksein.
Berlin, 1862.

(Rudolf Virchow, Four Discourses on Life and Disease.
Berlin, 1862.)

42. Friedrich Miiller, Ethnographie (Reise der dster-
reichischen Fregatte Novara. Anthropologischer Theil. 3
Abtheilung). Wien, 1868.

(Friedrich Miller, Ethnography (Voyage of the Austrian
Frigate Novara. Anthropological Part. 3rd Part). Vienna,
1868.)

43. Inudwig Biichner, Die Stellung des Menschen in der
Natur, in Vergangenheit, Gegenwart und Zukunft. Leipzig,
1870.

(Imdwig Biichner, Man’s Place in Nature in the Past, the
Present, and the Future. Leipzig, 1870.)

44. John Lubbock, Prehistoric Times. London, 1867.

45. Herbert Spencer, A System of Philosophy. (1. First
Principles. 2. Principles of Biology. 3. Principles of
Psychology, etc.) London,1867. 2nd Edition.

34

37 8 LIST OF WORKS REFERRED TO IN TEXT.

46. Wilhelm Wundt, Vorlesungen tber die Menschen- und

Thierseele. Leipzig, 1863.
(Wilhelm Wundt, Lectures on the Human and Animal Soul,

Leipzig, 1863.)

47. Fritz Ratzel, Sem und Werden der organischen Welt,
Eine populire Schopfungsgeschichte. Leipzig, 1869.

(Fritz Ratzel, Nature and Origin of the Organic World.
A Popular History of Creation. Leipzig, 1869.)

48. Charles Darwin, The Descent of Man, and Selection in
Relation to Sex. 2 Vols. London, 1871.

APPENDIX.

EXPLANATION OF THE PLATES.

PLATE FACING TITLE-PAGE.

Developmental History of a Calcareous Sponge (Olynthus).
Compare vol. ii. p. 140. The egg of the Olynthus (Fig. 9),
which represents the common ancestral form of all Calcareous
Sponges, is a simple cell (Fig. 1). From this there arises, by
repeated division (Fig. 2), a globular, mulberry-like heap of
numerous equi-formal cells (Morula, Fig. 3; vol. ii. p. 125.
As the result of the change of these cells into an outer series of
clear ciliated cells (Exoderm) and an inner series of dark, non-
ciliated cells (Entoderm), the ciliated larva, or Planula, makes
its appearance. This is oval in shape, and forms a cavity in
its centre (gastric cavity, or primitive stomach, Fig. 6 g.), with
an opening (mouth-opening, or primitive mouth, Fig. 6 0); the
wall of the gastric cavity consists of two layers of cells, or
germ-layers, the outer ciliated Exoderm (e) and the inner non-
ciliated Entoderm (7). Thus arises the exceedingly important
stomach-larva, or Gastrula, which reappears in the most different
tribes of animals as a common larval form (Fig. 5, seen from the
surface; Fig. 6, in long section. Compare, vol. ii. pp. 126 and
281). After the Gastrula has swum about for some time in the
sea, it fastens itself securely to the sea-bottom, loses its outer
vibratile processes, or cilia, and changes into the Ascula (Fig. 7,
seen from the surface; Fig. 8,in long section; lettersasin Fig. 6).
This Ascula is the recapitulative form, according to the biogenetic

7

fundamental law, the common ancestor of all Zoophytes, namely,
the Protascus (vol. ii. pp. 129,133). By the development of pores

380 APPENDIX.

in the wall of the stomach and of three-rayed calcareous spicules,
the Ascula changes into the Olynthus (Fig. 9.) In Fig. 9a
piece is cut out from the stomach-wall of the Olynthus in order
to show the inside of the stomachal cavity, and the eggs which
are forming on the surface (g). From the Olynthus the most
various forms of Calcareous Sponges can develop. One of the
most remarkable is the Ascometra (Fig. 10), a stock or colony
from which different species, and in fact different generic forms,
grow (on the left Olynthus, in the middle Nardorus, on the right
Soleniscus, etc., etc.). Further details as to these most interest-
ing forms, and their high importance for the Theory of Descent,
may be found in my “Monograph of the Calcareous Sponges”
(1872), especially in the first volume. (Compare vol. ii. pp. 160,
167). .

Pirate I. (Between pages 184 and 185, Vol. I.)

History of the Life of the most Simple Organism, a Moneron
(Protomyxa aurantiaca). Compare vol. i. p. 184, and vol. ii. p. 53.
The plate is a smaller copy of the drawing in my ‘“ Monographie
der Moneren” (Biologische Studien, 1 Heft, 1870; Taf. 1), of
the developmental history of the Protomyxa aurantiaca; I have
there also given a detailed description of this remarkable
Moneron (p. 11-30). I discovered this most simple organism
in January, 1867, during a stay in Lanzarote, one of the Canary
Islands ; and moreover I found it either adhering to, or creeping
about on the white calcareous shells of asmall Cephalopod (vol. ii.
p-. 162), the Spirula Peronii, which float there in masses on the
surface of the ocean, or are thrown up on the shore. The
Protomyxa aurantiaca is distinguished from the other Monera
by the beautiful and bright orange-red colour of its perfectly
simple body, which consists merely of primeval slime, or
protoplasm. The fully developed Moneron is represented in
Figs. 11 and 12, very much enlarged. When it is hungry (Fig.
11), there radiate from the surface of the globular corpuscule

APPENDIX. 381

of plasm, quantities of tree-shaped, branching and mobile
threads (pseudo-feet, or pseudo-podia), which do not become
retiformly connected. When, however, the Moneron eats
(Fig. 12), the mucous threads become variously connected,
form net-works and enclose the extraneous corpuscule which
serves as food, which the threads afterwards draw into the
interior of the Protomyxa. Thus in Fig. 12 (above on the
right), a silicious and ciliated Whip-swimmer (Peridinium, vol. ii.
pp. ol, 57), has just been caught by the extended mucous
filaments, and has been drawn into the interior of the mucous
globule, in which there already are several half digested silicious
iufusoria (Tintinoida), and Diatomes (Isthmia). Now, when
the Protomyxa has eaten and grown sufficiently, it draws in all
its mucous filaments (Fig. 15), and contracts into the form of a
globule (Fig. 16 and Fig. 1). In thisstate of repose the globule
secretes a simple gelatinous covering (Fig. 2), and after a
time subdivides into a large number of small mucous globules
(Fig. 3). These soon commence to move, become pear-shaped
(Fig. 4), break through the common covering (Fig. 5), and then
swim about freely in the ocean by means of a delicate whip-
shaped process, like the Flagellata (vol. ii. p. 57, Fig. 11). When
they meet a Spirula shell, or any other suitable object, they
adhere to it, draw in their whip, and creep slowly about on it by
means of form-changing processes (Figs. 6, 7, 8), like Protamcebee
(vol. i. p. 186, vol. u. p. 52). These small mucous corpuscules
take food (Figs. 9, 10), and attain their full grown form (Figs.
11, 12), either by simple growth or by several of them fusing to
form a larger protoplasmic mass (Plasmodium, Figs. 18, 14).

Puates IT. anp III. (Between pages 294 and 295, Vol. I.)

Germs or Embryos of four different Vertebrate Animals, namely,
Tortoise (A and #), Hen (B and F’), Dog (C and G@), and Man
(D and). Figs. A, D, an early stage of development; Figs.
EH, H,a later stage. All the eight embryos are represented as
seen from the right side, the curved back turned to the left.

382 APPENDIX.

Figs. A and B are seven times enlarged, Figs. C and D five times,
Figs. H and H four times. Plate II. exhibits the very close blood
relationship between birds and reptiles; Plate III. that between
man and the other mammals.

Puate lV. (Between pages 34 and 35, Vol. IL.)

The Hand, or Fore Foot, of nine different Mammals. This plate
is intended to show the importance of Comparative Anatomy to
Phylogeny, in as much as it proves how the internal skeleton of
the limbs is continually preserved by inheritance, although the
external form is extremely changed by adaptation. The bones of
the skeleton of the hand are drawn in white lines on the brown
flesh and skin which surrounds them. All the nine hands are
represented in the same position, namely the wrist (where the arm
would be joined to it) is placed above, whilst the ends of the fingers
or toes are turned downwards. The thumb, or the first (large)
fore-toe is on the left in every figure; the little finger, or fifth toe
is to the right at the edge of the hand. Each hand consists of
three parts, namely (i.) the wrist (carpus), composed of two cross
rows of short bones (at the upper side of the hand); (ii.) the
mid-hand (metacarpus), composed of five long and strong bones
(marked in the centre of the hand by the numbers 1-5); and
(iii.) the five fingers, or fore toes (digiti), every one of which
again consists of several (mostly from two to three), toe-pieces,
or phalanges. The hand of man (Fig. 1), in regard to its entire
formation, stands mid-way between that of the two large human
apes, namely, that of the gorilla (Fig. 2), and that of the
orang (Fig. 3). The fore paw of the dog (Fig. 4), is more
different, and the hand or breast fin of the seal (Fig. 5) still
more so. The adaptation of the hand to the movement of swim-
ming, and its transformation into a fin for steering, is still more
complete in the dolphin (Ziphius, Fig. 6). The extended fingers
and bones of the central hand here have remained short and strong
in the swimming membrane, but they have become extremely long
and thin in the bat (Fig. 7), where the hand has developed into
awing. The extreme opposite of the latter formation is the hand

APPENDIX. 383

of the mole (Fig. 8), which has acquired a powerful spade-like
form for digging, with fingers which have become extremely short
and thick. What is far more like the human hand than these latter
forms, is the fore paw of the lowest and most imperfect of all
mammals, the Australian beaked animal (Ornithorhynchus, Fig.
9), which in its whole structure stands nearer to the common,
extinct, primary form of mammalia, than any known species.
Hence man differs less in the formation of the hand from this
common primary form than from the bat, mole, dolphin, seal,
and many other mammals.

Prats V. (Between pages 84 and 85, Vol. IT.)

Monophyletic, or One-rooted Pedigree of the Vegetable Kingdom,
representing the hypothesis of the common derivation of all
plants, and the historical development of the different groups of
plants during the palzontological periods of the earth’s history.
The horizontal lines denote the different smaller and larger
periods of the organic history of the earth (which are spoken of in
vol. ii. p. 14), and during which the strata containing fossils were
deposited. - The vertical lines separate the different main-classes
and classes of the vegetable kingdom from one another. The
arboriform and branching lines indicate, in an approximate
manner, by their greater or less number and thickness, the
greater or less degree of development, differentiation, and
perfecting which each class probably attained in each geological
period. (Compare vol. ii. pp. 82, 83.)

Pratt VI. (Between pages 130 and 181, Vol. IT.)

Monophyletic, or One-rooted Pedigree of the Animal Kingdom,
representing the historical growth of the six animal tribes during
the paleontological periods of the organic history of the earth.
The horizontal lines g h,ik, lm, and m o divide the five large
periods of the organic history of the earth one from another.
The field g ab h comprises the archilithic, the field ig h k, the
paleolithic, the field 1 7k m the mesolithic, and the field x 1. om

384 APPENDIX.

the cenolithic period. The short, anthropolithic period is indi-
cated by the linen o. (Compare vol. ii. p.14.) The height of the
separate fields corresponds with the relative length of the periods
indicated by them, as they may approximately be estimated from
the relative thickness of the neptunic strata deposited between
them. (Compare vol. ii. p. 22.) The archilithic and primordial
period alone, during which the Laurentian, Cambrian, and Silurian
strata were deposited, was probably considerably longer than the
four subsequent periods taken together. (Compare vol. ii. pp. 10,
20). In all probability the two tribes of worms and Zoophytes
attained their full development during the mid-primordial period
(in the Cambrian system) ; the star-fishes and molluses probably
somewhat later (in the Silurian system); whereas the articulata
and vertebrata are still increasing in variety and perfection.

Prave VII. (Between pages 146 and 147, Vol. II.)

Group of Animal-Trees (Zoophytes, or Cclenterata) in the
Mediterranean. On the upper half of the plate is a swarm of
swimming meduse and ctenophora; on the lower half a few
bunches of corals and hydroid polyps adhering to the bottom
of the sea. (Compare the system of Zoophytes, vol. ii. p. 182,
and on the opposite page their pedigree.) Among the adher-
‘ing Zoophytes at the bottom of the ocean there is, below on
the right hand, a large coral-colony (1), which is closely akin
to the red precious coral (Eucorallium), and like the latter
belongs to the group of corals with eight rays (Octocoralla
Gorgonida) ; the single individuals (or persons) of the branching
stock have the form of a star with eight rays, consisting of eight
tentacles, which surround the mouth. (Octocoralla, vol. 11. p. 143).
Directly below and in front of it (quite below on the right), is a
small bush of hydroid polyps (2), belonging to the group of bell-
polyps, or Campanularie (vol. ii. p. 146). A larger stock of hydroid
polyps (3), belonging to the group of tube-polyps, or Tubullariz,
rises, to the left, on the opposite side, with its long thin branches.
At its base is spread a stock of silicious sponges (Halichondria)

APPENDIX, 385

(4), with short, finger-shaped branches (vol. ii. p. 159). Behind it,
below on the left (5), is a very large marine rose (Actinia), a single
individual from the class of six-rayed corals (Hexacoralla, vol. ii.
p- 143). Its low, cylindrical body has a crown of very numerous
and large leaf-shaped tentacles. Below, in the centre of the
ground (6), isa sea-anemone (Cereanthus) from the group of four-
fold corals (Tetracoralla). Lastly, on a small hill on the bottom
of the sea, there rises, on the right above the corals (1) a
cup-polyp (lucernaria), as the representative of the stalked-
jellies. (Podactinaria, or Calycozoa, vol. 11. p. 144.) Its cup-
shaped, stalked body (7) has eight globular clusters of small,
knotted tentacles on its rim.

Among the swimming Zoophytes which occupy the upper half
of Plate VII., the hydromeduse are especially remarkable, on
account of their alteration of generation. (Compare vol. i. p. 206).
Directly above the Lucernaria (7) floats a small tiara jelly
(Oceania), whose bell-shaped body has a process like a dome,
the form of a papal tiara (8). From the opening of the bell
there hangs a wreath of very fine and long tentacles. This
Oceania is the offspring of a tube-polyp, resembling the adhering
Tubularia below on the left (3). Beside this latter, on the left,
swims a large but very delicate hair-jelly (AZquorea). Its disc-
shaped, slightly arched body is just drawing itself together, and
pressing water out of the cavity of the cup lying below (9).
The numerous, long, and fine hair-like tentacles which hang down
from the rim of the cup are drawn by the ejected water into a
conical bunch, which towards the centre turns upwards like a
collar, and is thrown into folds. Above, in the middle of the
cavity of the cup, hangs the stomach, the mouth of which is
surrounded by four lobes. This Aiquorea is derived from a
small bell-polyp, resembling the Campanularia (2). The small,
slightly arched cap-jelly (Eucope), swimming above in the centre
(10), is likewise derived froma similar bell-polyp. In these three
last cases (8, 9, 10), as in the majority of the hydromeduse, the
alternation of generation consists in the freely swimming medusa
(8, 9, 10), arising by the formation of buds (therefore by non-

386 APPENDIX.

sexual generation, vol. i. p. 192), from adhering hydroid polyps
(2,3). These latter, however, originate out of the fructified eggs
of the medusez (therefore by sexual generation, vol. i. p. 195).
Hence the non-sexual, adhering generation of polyps (I., IIL,
V., etc.) regularly alternates with the sexual, freely swimming
generation of meduse (IL, IV., VI., etc.) This alteration of
generation can only be explained by the Theory of Descent.

The same remark applies to a kindred form of propagation,
which is still more remarkable, and which I discovered in 1864,
near Nice, in the Elephant-jellies (Geryonida), and called allao-
gony, or alleogenesis. In this case two completely distinct forms
of medusa are descended from one another; the larger and more
highly developed generation (11), Geryonia, or Carmarina, is six-
rayed, with six foliated sexual organs, and six very movable
marginal filaments. From the centre of its bell-shaped cup, like
the tongue of a bell, hangs a long proboscis, at the end of which
is the opening of the mouth and stomach. In the cavity of the
stomach is a long, tongue-shaped bunch of buds (which on
Plate VII. (7) is extended from the mouth on the left like a
tongue). On this tongue, when the Geryonia is sexually ripe,
there bud a number of small meduse. They are, however, not
Geryonix, but belong to an entirely distinct but very different
form of medusa, namely, to the genus Cunina, of the family of
the Aginida. This Cunina (12) is very differently constructed ;
it has a flat, semi-globular cup without proboscis, consists in
early life of six divisions, later of sixteen, and has sixteen bag-
shaped sexual organs, and sixteen short, stiff, and strongly curved
tentacles. A further explanation of this wonderful alloeogenesis
may be found in my “Contributions to the Natural History of
the Hydromeduse.” (Leipzig, Englemann, 1865), the first part
of which contains a monograph of the Elephant-jellies, or
Geryonida, illustrated by six copper-plates.

Even more interesting and instructive than these remark-
able relations are the vital phenomena of the Siphonophora,
whose wonderful polymorphism I have frequently spoken of,
and described in a popular manner in my lecture on “ Differentai-

APPENDIX. 397

tion in Nature and Human Life.” 9? (Compare vol. i. p. 270, and
vol. ii. p. 140). An example of this is given in Plate VII. in
the drawing of the beautiful Physophora (13). This swimming
stock or colony of hydromedusz is kept floating on the surface
of the sea by a small swimming bladder filled with air, which in
the drawing is seen rising above the surface of the water. Below
it is acolumn of four pairs of swimming bells, which eject water,
and thereby set the whole colony in motion, At the lower end of
the column of swimming bells is a crown-shaped wreath of curved
spindle-shaped sensitive polyps, which also serve as a cover-
ing, under the protection of which the other individuals of the
stock (the eating, catching, and reproductive persons) are
hidden. The ontogenesis of the Siphonophora (and especially of
this Physophora), I first observed in Lanzerote, one of the
Canary Islands, in 1866, and described in my “ History of the
Development of the Siphonophora,” and added fourteen plates for
its explanation. (Utrecht, 1869). It is rich in interesting facts,
which can only be explained by the Theory of Descent.

Another circumstance, which is also only explicable by the
Theory of Descent, is the remarkable change of generation in the
higher medusz, the disc-jellies (Discomeduse, vol. li. p. 136), a
representative of which is given at the top of Plate VII., in the
centre (rather in the back ground), namely, a Pelagia (14).
From the bottom of the bell-shaped cup, which is strongly arched
and the rim of which is neatly indented, there hang four very
long and strong arms. The non-sexual polyps, from which these
disc-jellies are derived, are exceedingly simple primeval polyps,
differing very little from the common fresh-water polyp (Hydra).
The alternation of generation in these Discomedusz has also been
described in my lecture on Differentiation,” and there illus-
trated by the Aurelia by way of example.

Finally, the last class of Zoophytes, the group of comb-jellies
(Ctenophora, vol. 11. p. 142), has two representatives on Plate VII.
To the left, in the centre, between the A%quorea (9), the Phy-
sophora (13), and the Cunina (12), is a long and thin band
like a belt (15), winding like a snake; this is the large and

388 APPENDIX.

splendid Venus’ girdle of the Mediterranean (Cestum), the colours
of which are as varied as those of the rainbow. The actual body
of the animal, which lies in the centre of the long belt, is very
small, and constructed exactly like that of the melon-jelly
(Cydippe), which floats above to the left (16). On the latter are
visible the eight characteristic fringed bands, or ciliated combs,
of the ctenophora, and also two long tentacles which extend right
across the page, and are fringed with still finer threads.

Prates VIII. anp TX. (Between pages 170 and 171, Vol. IT.)

History of the Development of Star-fishes (Hehinoderma, or
Estrella). The two plates exhibit their alternation of generation
(vol. ii. p. 168), with an example from each of the four classes of
Star-fishes. The sea-stars (Asterida) are represented by Uraster
(A), the sea-lilies (Crinoida) by Comatula (B), the sea-urchins
(Echinida) by Echinus (C), and finally, the sea-cucumbers
(Holothurie) by Synapta (D). (Compare vol. ii. pp. 166 and 176).
The successive stages of development are marked by the numbers
1-6.

Plate VIII. represents the individual development of the first
and non-sexual generation of Star-fishes, that is, of the nurses
(usually, but erroneously, called larve). These nurses possess
the form-value of a simple, unsegmented worm-individual. Fig 1
represents the egg of the four Star-fishes; and it, in all essential
points, agrees with that of man and of other animals. (Compare
vol. i. p. 297, Fig. 5.) As in man, the protoplasm of the egg-
cell (the yolk) is surrounded by a thick, structureless membrane
(zona pellucida), and contains a globular, cell-kernel (nucleus),
as clear as glass, which again encloses a nucleolus. Out of the
fertilised egg of the Star-fish (Fig. 41) there develops in the
first place, by the repeated sub-division of cells, a globular mass
of homogeneous cells (Fig. 6, vol. i. p. 299), and this changes into
a very simple nurse, which has almost the same shape as a
wooden shoe (Fig. A 2—D 2). The edge of the opening of the
shoe is bordered by a fringe of cilia, the ciliary movements of

APPENDIX. 389

which keep the microscopically small and transparent nurse
swimming about freely in the sea. This fringe of cilia is marked
in Fig A 2—A 4, on Plate VII., by the narrow alternately light
and dark seam. The nurse then, in the first place, forms a per-
fectly simple intestinal canal for nutrition, mouth (0), stomach (7m)
and anus (a). Later, the windings of the fringe of cilia become
more complicated, and there arise arm-like processes (Fig. A 3—
D8). In sea-stars (A 4) and sea-urchins (C4) these arm-
like processes, which are fringed with cilia, afterwards become
very long. But in the case of sea-lilies (B 3) and sea-cucumbers
(D 4), instead of this, the fringe of cilia, which at first, through
winding in and out, forms one closed ring, changes subsequently
into a succession of separate ciliated girdles, one lying behind
the other.

In the interior of this curious nurse there then develops, by
a non-sexual process of generation, namely, by the formation of
internal buds or germ-buds (round about the stomach), the
second generation of Star-fishes, which later on become sexually
ripe. This second generation, which is represented on Plate
IX. in a fully developed condition, exists originally as a stock
or cormus of five worms, connected at one end in the form
of a star, as is most clearly seen in the sea-stars, the most
ancient and original form of the star-fishes. The second
generation, which grows at the expense of the first, appropriates
only the stomach and a small portion of the other organs of the
latter, but forms for itself a new mouth and anus. The fringe of
cilia, and the other parts of the body of the nurse, afterwards dis-
appear. The second generation (A 5—D 5), is at first smaller or
not much larger than the nurse, whereas, by growth, it afterwards
becomes more than a hundred times, or even a thousand times, as
large. If the ontogeny of the typical representatives of the
four classes of Star-fishes be compared, it is easily seen that
the original kind of development has been best preserved in
sea-stars (A) and sea-urchins (() by inheritance, whereas’ in
sea-lilies (B) and sea-cucumbers it has been suppressed accord-
ing to the laws of abbreviated inheritance (vol. i. p. 212).

390 APPENDIX.

Plate IX. shows the fully developed and sexually mature
animals of the second generation from the mouth side, which, in
the natural position of Star-fishes (when creeping at the bottom
of the sea), in sea-stars (A 6) and sea-urchins (C 6), is below,
in sea-lilies (B 6) above, and in sea-cucumbers (D 6) in front. °
In the centre we perceive, in all the four Star-fishes, the star-
shaped, five-pointed opening of the mouth. In sea-stars, from
each arm there extend several rows of little sucking feet, from
the centre of the under-side of each arm to the end. In sea-
lilies (B 6), each arm is split and feather-like from its base up-
wards. In sea-urchins (C 6) the five rows of sucking feet are
divided by broader fields of spines. In sea-cucumbers, lastly
(D 6), on the worm-like body it is sometimes only the five rows
of little feet, sometimes only the feathery tentacles surrounding
the mouth, from five to fifteen (in this case ten), that are exter-
nally visible.

(Piates X. anp XI. (Between pages 174 and 175, Vol. IT.)

Historical Development of the Crab-fish (Crustacea).—The two
plates illustrate the development of the different Crustacea from
the nauplius, their common primeval form. On Plate XI. six
Crustacea, from six different orders, are represented in a fully
developed state, whereas on Plate X. the early nauplius stages are
given. From the essential agreement between the latter we may,
on the ground of the fundamental law of biogeny, with full
assurance maintain the derivation of the different Crustacea
from a single, common primary form, a long since extinct
Nauplius, as was first shown by Fritz Muller in his excellent
work “ Fiir Darwin.”

Plate X. represents the early nauplius stages from the ventral
side, so that the three pairs of legs, on the short, three-jointed
trunk are distinctly visible. The first of these pairs of legs is
simple and unsegmented, whereas the second and third pairs
are forked. All three pairs are furnished with stiff bristles,
which, through the paddling motion of the legs, serve as an
apparatus for swimming. In the centre of the body, the per-

APPENDIX, © 391

fectly simple, straight intestinal canal is visible, possessing a
mouth in front, and an anal orifice behind. In front, above the
mouth, lies a simple, single eye. All the six forms of nauplius
entirely agree in all these essential characteristics of organiza-
tion, whereas the six fully developed forms of Crustacea belong-
ing to them, Plate XI., are extremely different in organisation.
The differences of the six nauplius forms are confined to quite
subordinate and unessential relations in regard to size of body,
and the formation of the covering of the skin. If they could
be met with in this form in a sexually mature condition, no
zoologist would hesitate to regard them as six different species
of one genus. (Compare vol. i. p. 175.)

Plate XI. represents those fully developed and sexually mature
forms of Crustacea, as seen from the right side, which have
ontogenetically (hence also phylogenetically) developed out
of the six kinds of nauplius. Fig. A ¢ shows a freely swim-
ming fresh-water crab (Limnetis brachyurus) from the order of
the Leaf-foot Crabs (Phyllopoda), slightly enlarged. Of all the
still living Crustacea, this order, which belongs to the legion of
Gill-foot Crabs (Branchiopoda), stands nearest to the original,
common primary form of nauplius. The Limnetis is enclosed in
a bivalved shell, like a mussel. Our drawing (which is copied
from Grube) represents the body of a female animal lying in the
left shell; the right half of the shell has been removed. In
front, behind the eye, we see the two feelers (antenne), and
‘behind them the twelve leaf-shaped feet of the right side of the
body, behind on the back (under the shell), the eggs. Above, in
front, the animal is fixed to the shell.

Fig. B ¢ represents a common, freely swimming fresh-water
erab (Cyclops quadricornis) from the order of Oar-legged crabs
(Eucopepoda), highly magnified. In front, below the eye, we
see the two feelers of the right side, the foremost of which is
longer than the hinder one. Behind these are the gills, and
then the four paddling legs of the right side. Behind these are
the two large egg-sacks, kei in this case, are attached to li
cud of the hinder part of the body.

392 APPENDIX.

Fig. C cis a parasitic Oar-legged crab (Lernzocera esocina),
from the order of fish lice (Siphonostoma). These peculiar
crabs, which were formerly regarded as worms, have originated,
by adaptation to a parasitical life, out of freely swimming, Oar-
legged crabs (Eucopepoda), and belong to the same legion
(Copepoda, vol. ii. p. 176). By adhering to the gills on the skin of
fish or other crabs, and feeding on the juice of these creatures,
they forfeited their eyes, legs, and other organs, and developed
into formless, inarticulated sacks, which, on a mere external
examination, we should never suppose to be animals. On the
ventral side only there exist, in the shape of short, pointed
bristles, the last remains of legs which have now almost entirely
disappeared. Two of these rudimentary pairs of legs (the third
and fourth) are seen in our drawing on the right. Above, on
the head, we see thick, shapeless appendages, the lower ones of
which are split. In the centre of the body is seen the intestinal
canal, which is surrounded by a dark covering of fat. At
its posterior end is the ovary, and the cement-glands of the
female sexual apparatus. The two large egg-sacks hang ex-
ternally (as in the Cyclops, Fig. B). Our Lerneocera is
represented in half profile, and is copied from Claus. (Compare
Claus, “ Die Copepoden-Fauna von Nizza. lin Beitrag zur
Characteristik der Formen und deren Abanderungen im Sinne
Darwins.” Marburg, 1866).

Fig. D ¢ represents a so-called “duck mussel” (Lepas
anatifera), from the order of the Barnacle crabs (Cirripedia)-
These crabs, upon which Darwin has written a very careful
monograph, are, like mussels, enclosed in a bivalved, calcareous
case, and hence were formerly (even by Cuvier) universally
regarded as a kind of mussel, or mollusc. It was only from a
knowledge of their ontogeny, and their early nauplius form (Dn,
Plate VIITI.), that their crustacean nature was proved. Our
drawing shows a ‘“‘duck mussel”’ of the natural size, from the right
side. The right half of the bivalved shell has been removed, so
that the body is seen lying in the left half of the shell. From
the rudimentary head of the Lepas there issues a long, fleshy

APPENDIX, 393

stalk (curving upwards in our drawing); by means of it the
Barnacle crab grows on rocks, ships, etc. On the ventral side are
’ six pairs of feet. very foot is forked and divided into two
long, curved, or curled “ tendrils” furnished with bristles.
Above and behind the last pair of feet projects the thin cylin-
drical tail.

Fig. H c represents a parasitic sack-crab (Sacculina purpurea)
from the order of Root-crabs (Rhizocephala). These parasites,
by adaptation to a parasitical life, have developed out of Barnacle
crabs (Fig. Dc), much in the same way as the fish-lice (Cc),
out of the freely swimming Oar-legged crabs (B c). However,
the suppression, and the subsequent degeneration, of all of the
organs, has gone much further in the present case than in most
of the fish-lice. Out of the articulated crab, possessing legs,
intestine, and eye, and which in an early stage as nauplius (# n,
Plate VIII.), swam about freely, there has developed a formless,
unsegmented sack, a red sausage, which now only contains
sexual organs (eggs and sperm) and an intestinal rudiment. The
legs and the eye have completely disappeared. At the posterior
end is the opening of the genitals. From the mouth grows a
thick bunch of numerous tree-shaped and branching root-like
fibres. These spread themselves out (like the roots of a plant
in the ground) in the soft hinder part of the body of the hermit-
crab (Pagurus), upon which the root-crab lives as a parasite, and
from which it draws its nourishment. Our drawing (# c), a
copy of Fritz Miiller’s, is slightly enlarged, and shows the whole
of the sausage-shaped sack-crab, with all its root-fibres, when
drawn out of the body upon which it lives.

Fig. Fc is a shrimp (Peneus Miilleri), from the order of ten-foot
crabs (Decapoda), to which our river cray-fish, and its nearest
relative, the lobster, and the short-tailed shore-crabs also belong.
This order contains the largest and, gastronomically, the most im-
portant crabs, and belongs, together with the mouth-legged and
split-legged crabs, to the legion of the stalk-eyed mailed crabs
(Podophthalma). The shrimp, as well as the river crab, has in
front, on each side below the eye, two long feelers (the first

394 APPENDIX.

much shorter than the second), then three jaws, and three jaw-
feet, then five very long legs (the three fore ones of which, in
the Peneus, are furnished with nippers, and the third of which is
the longest). Finally, on the first five joints of the hinder part
of the body there are other five pairs of feet. This shrimp,
which is one of the most highly developed and perfect crabs,
originates (according to Fritz Miiller’s important discovery) out
of a nauplius (#7 Plate VIII.), and consequently proves that
the higher Crustacea have developed out of the same form
as the lower ones, namely, the nauplius. (Compare vol. ii. p. 175).

Puates XII. anp XIII. (Between pages 200 and 201, Vol. II.)

Blood relationship between the Vertebrata and the Invertebrata.
(Compare vol. ii. pp. 152 and 201.) It is definitely established
by Kowalewski’s important discovery, which was confirmed by
Kupffer, that the ontogeny of the lowest vertebrate animal—the
Lancelet, or Amphioxus—agrees in all essential outlines com-
pletely with that of the invertebrate Sea-squirts, or Ascidie,
from the class of Sea-sacks, or Tunicata. On our two plates,
the ascidia is marked by A, the amphioxus by B. Plate XIII.
represents these two very different animal-forms in a fully
developed state, as seen from the left side, the end of the mouth
above, the opposite end below. Hence, in both figures the dorsal
side is to the right, the ventral to the left. Both figures are
slightly magnified, and the internal organisation of the animals
is distinctly visible through the transparent skin. The full-
grown ascidia (Fig. A 6) grows at the bottom of the ocean,
from whence it cannot move, and clings to stones and other
objects by means of peculiar roots (w) like a plant. The full-
grown amphioxus, on the other hand (Fig. B 6), swims about
freely like a small fish. The letters on both figures indicate the
same parts: (a) orifice of the mouth; (bd) orifice of the body, or
porus abdominalis; (c) dorsal rod, or chorda dorsalis; (d) intes-
tine; (e) ovary; (f) oviduct (same as the sperm-duct) ; (g) spinal
marrow; (hk) heart; (¢) blind-sac of the intestine; (&) gill

APPENDIX. 395

basket (respiratory cavity); (/) cavity of the body; (m) muscles;
- (n) testicle (in the ascidia united with the ovary into a herma-
phrodite gland); (0) anus; (p) genital orifice; (q) well-developed
embryos in the body cavity of the ascidia; (r) rays of the
dorsal fin of the amphioxus; (s) tail-fin of the amphioxus; (w)
roots of the ascidia.

Plate XII. shows the Ontogenesis, or the individual development
of the Ascidia (A) and the Amphioxus (B) in five different
stages (1-5). Fig. lis the egg, a simple cell like the egg of
man and all other animals (Fig. A 1 the egg of the ascidia, Fig.
B 1 the egg of the amphioxus). The actual cell-substance, or
the protoplasm of the egg-cell (z), the so-called yolk, is sur-
rounded by a covering (cell-membrane, or yolk-membrane),
and encloses a globular cell-kernel, or nucleus (y), the latter,
again, contains a kernel-body, or nucleolus (#); when the egg
begins to develop, the egg-cell first subdivides into two cells.
By another sub-division there arise four cells (Fig. A2, B 2), and
out of these, by repeated sub-division, eight cells (vol. i. p. 190,
Fig. 4 0, D). By fluid gathering in the interior these form a
globular bladder bounded by a layer of cells. On one spot of its
surface the bladder is turned inwards in the form of a pocket (Fig.
A4,B4). This depression is the beginning of the intestine,
the cavity (d 1) of which opens externally by the provisional
larval-mouth (d 4). The body-wall, which is at the same time
the stomach-wall, now consists of two layers of cells—the
germ-layers. The globular larva (Gastrula), now grows in
length. Fig. A 5 represents the larva of the ascidia, Fig. B 5
that of the amphioxus, as seen from the left side in a somewhat
more advanced state of development. The orifice o2 the intestine
(2 1) has closed. The dorsal side of the intestine (d 2) is con-
cave, the ventral side (d 3) convex. Above the intestinal tube,
on its dorsal side, the neural tube, the beginning of the spinal
marrow, is being formed, its cavity still opens externally in front
(g 2). Between the spinal marrow and the intestine has arisen
the spinal rod, or chorda dorsalis (Notochord) (c), the axis of the
inner skeleton. In the larva of the ascidia this rod (c) proceeds

396 APPENDIX,

along the long rudder-tail, a larval organ, which is cast off
in later transformation. Yet there still exist some very smal]
ascidie (Appendicularia) which do not become transformed
and attached, but which through life swim about freely im the
sea by means of their rudder-tail.

The ontogenetic facts which are systematically represented on
Plate XII. and which were first discovered in 1867, deserve the
greatest attention, and, indeed, cannot be too highly estimated.
They fill up the gap which, according to the opinion of older zoolo-
gists existed between the vertebrate and the so-called “inverte-
brate” animals. This gap was universally regarded as so im-
portant and so undeniable, that even eminent zoologists, who
were not disinclined to adopt the theory of descent, saw in this
gap one of the chief obstacles against it. Now that the ontogeny
of the amphioxus and the ascidia has set this obstacle completely
aside, we are for the first time enabled to trace the pedigrce of
man beyond the amphioxus into the many-branching tribe of
‘“‘invertebrate’” worms, from which all the other higher animal
tribes have originated.

If our speculative philosophers, instead of occupying them-
selves with castles in the air, were to give their thoughts for some
years to the facts represented on Plates XII. and XIII., as well
as to those on Plates II. and III, they would gain a foundation
for true philosophy—for the knowledge of the universe firmly
based on experience—which would be sure to influence all
regions of thought. These facts of ontogenesis are the in-
destructible foundations upon which the monistic philosophy
of future times will erect its imperishable system.

Pirate XIV. (Between pages 206 and 207, Vol. IL.)

Monophyletic, or One-rooted Pedigree of the Vertebrate Animal
tribe, representing the hypothesis of the common derivation of
all vertebrate animals, and the historical development of their
different classes during the paleontological periods of the earth’s
history. (Compare Chapter XX. vol. ii. p. 192.) The horizontal

APPENDIX. 397

lines indicate the periods (mentioned in vol. ii. p. 14) of the organic
history of the earth during which the deposition of the strata con-
taining fossils took place. The vertical lines separate the classes
and sub-classes of vertebrata from one another. The tree-shaped
and branching lines, by their greater or lesser number and thick-
ness, indicate the approximate degree of development, variety, and
perfection, which each class probably attained in each geological
period. In those classes which, on account of the soft nature of
their bodies, could not leave any fossil remains (which is especially
the case with Prochordata, Acrania, Monorrhina, and Dipneusta)
the course of development is hypothetically suggested on the
ground of arguments derived from the three records of creation
—comparative anatomy, ontogeny, and paleontology. The
most important starting-points for the hypothetical completion
of the paleontological gaps are here, as in all cases, furnished
by the fundamental law of biogeny, which asserts the inner causal-
nexus existing between ontogeny and phylogeny. (Compare vol. i.
p- 310, and vol. ii. p. 200; also Plates VITI.—XIII.) In all cases
we have to regard the individual development (determined by the
laws of Inheritance but modified by the laws of Adaptation) as
short and quick repetitions of the paleontological development
of the tribe. This proposition is the “‘ceterum censeo” of our
theory of development.

The statements of the first appearance, or the period of the
origin of the individual classes and sub-classes of vertebrate
animals (apart from the hypothetical filling in mentioned just
now), are taken as strictly as possible from paleontological
facts. It must, however, be observed, that in reality the origin
of most of the groups probably took place one or two periods
earlier than fossils now indicate. In this I agree with Huxley’s
views; but on Plates V. and XIV. I have disregarded this con-
sideration in order not to go too far from paleontological facts.

The numbers signify as follows (compare also Chapter XX. and
vol. ii. pp. 204, 206) :—1. Animal Monera; 2. Animal Amcebe;
3. Community of Amcebe (Synameebe); 4. Ciliated Infusoria
without mouths; 5. Ciliated Infusoria with mouths; 6, Gliding

398 APPENDIX.

worms (Turbellaria); 7. Sea-sacks (Tunicata); 8. Lancelet
(Amphioxus); 9. Hag (Myxinoida); 10. Lamprey (Petro-
myzontia); 11. Unknown forms of transition from single-
nostriled animals to primeval fishes; 12. Silurian primeval
fish (Onchus, etc.); 13. Living primeval fishes (sharks, rays,
Chimere); 14. Most ancient (Silurian) enamelled fishes
(Pteraspis); 15. Turtle fishes (Pamphracti); 16. Sturgeons
(Sturiones); 17. Angular-scaled enamelled fishes (Rhom-
biferi) ; 18. Bony pike (Lepidosteus); 19. Finny pike (Polyp-
terus); 20. Hollow-boned fishes (Coeloscolopes) ; 21. Solid boned
fishes (Pycnoscolopes); 22. Bald pike (Amia); 23. Primeval
boned fishes (Thrissopida); 24. Bony fishes with air passage
to the swimming bladder (Physostomi); 25. Bony fishes with-
out air passage to the swimming bladder (Physoclisti); 26.
Unknown forms of transition between primeval fishes and
amphibious fishes; 27. Ceratodus; 27a. Extinct Ceratodus from
the Trias; 27b. Living Australian Ceratodus; 28. African
amphibious fishes (Protopterus) and American amphibious fishes
(Lepidosiren); 29. Unknown forms of transition between prime-
val fishes and amphibia; 30. Enamelled heads (Ganocephala);
31. Labyrinth toothed (Labyrinthodonta); 32. Blind burrowers
(Cecilie); 83. Gilled amphibia (Sozobranchia); 34. Tailed
amphibia (Sozura); 35. Frog amphibia (Anura); 386. Dich-
thacantha (Proterosaurus); 37. Unknown forms of transition
between Amphibia and Protamnia; 38. Protamnia (common
primary form of all Amnion animals); 39. Primary mam-
mals (Promammalia); 40. Primeval reptiles (Proreptilia); 41.
(Thecodontia) ; 42. Primeval dragons (Simosauria); 43. Ser-
pent dragons (Plesiosauria) ; 44. Fish dragons (Ichthyosauria) ;
45. Teleosauria (Amphiccela) ; 46. Steneosauria (Opisthoccela) ;
47. Alligators and Crocodiles (Prosthocela) ; 48. Carnivorous
Dinosauria (Harpagosauria); 49. Herbivorous Dinosauria (‘Thero-
sauria); 50. Meestricht lizards (Mosasauria); 51. Common primary
form of Serpents (Ophidia); 52. Dog-toothed beaked lizards
(Cynodontia); 53. Toothless beaked lizards (Cryptodontia) ;
54. Long-tailed flying lizards (Rhamphorhynchi) ; 55. Short-tailed

APPENDIX, 399

flying lizards (Pterodactyli); 56. Land tortoises (Chersita) ;
57. Birds—reptiles (Tocornithes), transition form between
reptiles and birds; 58. Primeval griffin (Archeopteryx) ; 59.
Water beaked-animal (Ornithorhynchus); 60. Land beaked-animal
(Echidna); 61. Unknown forms of transition between Cloa-
cals and Marsupials; 62. Unknown forms of transition
between Marsupials and Placentals; 63. Tuft Placentals (Villi-
placentalia) ; 64. Girdle Placentals (Zonoplacentalia) ; 65. Disc
Placentals (Discoplacentalia) ; 66. Man (Homo pithecogenes, by
Linnezus erroneously called, Homo sapiens. )

Pirate XV. (After page 369, Vol. IT.)

Hypothetical Sketch of the Monophyletic Origin and the Diffusion
of the Twelve Species of Men from Lemuria over the earth. The
hypothesis here geographically sketched of course only claims an
entirely provisional value, as inthe present imperfect state of our
anthropological knowledge it is simply intended to show how
the distribution of the human species, from a single primeval
home, may be approximately indicated. The probable primeval
home, or “ Paradise,” is here assumed to be Lemuria, a tropical
continent at present lying below the level of the Indian Ocean,
the former existence of which in the tertiary period seems very
probable from numerous facts in animal and vegetable geography.
(Compare vol. i. p. 361, and vol. ii. p. 315.) But it is also very
possible that the hypothetical “cradle of the human race ” lay
further to the east (in Hindostan or Further India), or further to
the west (in eastern Africa). Future investigations, especially in
comparative anthropology and paleontology, will, it is to be hoped,
enable us to determine the probable position of the primeval
home of man more definitely than it is possible to do at present.

If in opposition to our monophyletic hypothesis, the polyphyletic
hypothesis—which maintains the origin of the different human
species from several different species of anthropoid ape—be pre-
ferred and adopted, then, from among the many possible hypo-
theses which arise, the one deserving most confidence seems to be

400 APPENDIX.

that which assumes a double pithecoid root for the human race

namely, an Asiatic and an African root. For it is a very remark-

able fact, that the African man-like apes (gorilla and chim-
panzee) are characterized by a distinctly long-headed, or,
dolichocephalous, form of skull, like the human species peculiar
to Africa (Hottentots, Caffres, Negroes, Nubians). On the other
hand, the Asiatic man-like apes (especially the small and large
orang), by their distinct, short-headed, or brachycephalous, form
of skull agree with human species especially characteristic of
Asia (Mongols and Malays). Hence, one might be tempted to
derive the latter (the Asiatic man-like apes and primeval men)
from a common form of brachycephalous ape, and the former
(the African man-like apes and primeval men) from a common
dolichocephalous form of ape.

In any case, tropical Africa and southern Asia (and between
them Lemuria, which formerly connected them) are those
portions of the earth which deserve the first consideration in
the discussion as to the primeval home of the human race;
America and Australia are, on the other hand, entirely excluded
from it. Even Europe (which is in fact but a western peninsula
of Asia) is scarcely of any importance in regard to the “ Paradise
question.”

It is self-evident that the migrations of the different human
species from their primeval home, and their geographical distri-
bution, could on our Plate XV. be indicated only in a very
general way, and in the roughest lines. The numerous migrations
of the many branches and tribes in all directions, as well as the
very important re-migrations, had to be entirely disregarded. In
order to make these latter in some degree clear, our knowledge
would, in the first place, need to be much more complete, and
secondly, we should have to make use of an atlas with a number
of plates showing the various migrations. Our Plate XV. claims
no more than to indicate, in a very general way, the approximate
geographical dispersion of the twelve human species as it existed
in the fifteenth century (before the general diffusion of the Indo-
Germanic race), and as it can be sketched out approximately,

APPENDIX. 401

so as to harmonize with our hypothesis of descent. The geo-
graphical barriers to diffusion (mountains, deserts, rivers, straits,
etc.), have not been taken into consideration in this general
sketch of migration, because, in earlier periods of the earth’s
history, they were quite different in size and form from what
they are to-day. The gradual transmutation of catarrhine apes
into pithecoid men probably took place in the tertiary period in
the hypothetical Lemuria, and the boundaries and forms of the
present continents and oceans must then have been completely
different from what they are now. Moreover, the mighty in-
fluence of the ice period is of great importance in the question
of the migration and diffusion of the human species, although
it as yet cannot be more accurately defined in detail. I here,
therefore, as in my other hypotheses of development, expressly
guard myself against any dogmatic interpretation; they are
nothing but first attempts.

30

INDEX.

—-+ -- ——

A

ABYSSINIANS, ii. 323, 330
Acalephe, ii. 141
Accelomi, ii. 148, 151
Acrania, ii. 196, 198, 200, 204
Acyttaria, ii. 51, 62
Adaptation, i. 90, 156, 219
——————- actual, i. 225, 231
correlative, i. 241
cumulative, i. 233
direct, i. 225, 231
divergent, i. 247
————— indirect, i. 224, 227
—_—_—_—— individual, i. 228
———_—— irregular, i. 229
monstrous, i. 229
potential, i. 224, 227
sexual, i. 230
universal, i. 231
—_————- unlimited, i. 249
Agassiz, Louis, i. 61
Agassiz’s conception of the universe,
i. 65
essay on classification, i. 61
——— history of creation, i. 63
history of development,
i, 64
idea of species, i. 65
Albuminous bodies, i. 331
Alge, ii. 81, 82, 83
Alluvial system, ii. 15
Altaians, ii. 309, 317
Alternation of generations, i. 206
Americans, ii. 309, 318.
Amnion animals, ii. 204, 219
Amniota, ii. 204, 219
Ameebe, ii. 53, 279
Ameeboidea, ii. 53
Amphibia, ii. 209, 216
Amphioxusg, ii. 198, 285
Amphirrhina, ii. 203, 205
Anamnionata, ii. 204
Animal Plants, ii. 144
Angiospermae, ii. 83, 111

Annelida, ii. 133, 149, 151
Anorgana, i. 5, 328
Anorganology, i. 6
Anthozoa, ii. 143
Anthropocentric conception of the
universe, i. 38
Anthropoides, ii. 270, 275, 292
Anthropolithie period, ii. 15, 17
Anthropology, i. 7
Anthropomorphism, i. 18, 66
Ape-like men, ii. 293, 300
Apes, ii. 241, 268, 270
Arabians, ii. 323, 330
Arachnida, ii. 180, 182
Archelminthes, ii. 148
Archezoa, ii. 132, 134
Archigony, i. 183, 338
Archilithic period, ii. 8, 14
Arians, ii. 323, 331
Aristotle, i. 55, 76
Arthropoda, ii. 132
Articulata, ii. 119
Ascidia, ii. 152, 200
Ascones, ii. 141
Asterida, ii. 164, 166
Atavism, i. 207
Australians, ii. 308, 314
Autogeny, i. 339

B

Bar, Cart Ernst, i. 109

doctrine of filiation, i. 109

—— theory of development, i. 294

types of animals, i. 53; ii. 119

Basques, ii. 322

Bathybius, i. 184, 344; ii. 53

Batrachians, ii. 204

Bats, ii. 240, 261

Beaked mammals, ii. 233, 239

reptiles, ii. 224, 226

Belief, i. 9; ii. 335

Berbers, ii. 323, 330

Biogenesis, fundamental law of, i.
309; ii. 33

aan ae

Biology, i. 6

Birds, ii. 204, 226
Brachiopoda, 1 157

Brain, bladder of, in man, i. 304
development of, i. 303
Bruno Giordano, i. 22, 70
Bryozoa, ii. 150, 152

Buch, Leopold, i. 107

Biichner, Louis, i. 110

Buds, formation of, i. 192

0

CaFFRES, ii. 312, 333
Calcispongie, ii. 140, 144
Cambrian system, ii. 9, 15
Carbon, i. 330, 335
theory of, i. 335
Carboniferous system, ii. 11, 15
Carus Victor, i. 110
Catallacta, i. 51, 59
Catarrhini, ii. 270, 272
Caucasians, ii. 309, 321
Causa finalis, i. 34, 75
Causal conception of the universe,
i. 18, 74
Cells, i. 187, 346
—— formation of, i. 347
theory of, i. 346
Cell-kernel, i. 188
—————— membrane, i. 188
————— substance, i. 186
Cenolithic period, ii. 14,16
Cephalopoda, ii. 160, 162
Chamisso, Adalbert, i. 206
Change of climate, i. 363
Chelophora, ii., 240, 257
Chinese, ii. 309, 317
Chorology, i. 351
Cloacal animals, ii. 234, 239
Cochlides, ii. 159, 160
Coelenterata, ii. 136, 144
Ceelomati, ii. 148, 151
Conifere, ii. 82, 110
Constructive forces, i. 90, 253, 337
Copernicus, i. 39
Corals, ii. 142, 144
Coreo-Japanese, ii. 309, 317
Cormophytes, ii. 80
Correlation of parts, i. 218
Cosmogeny, i. 321
Cosmological gas aide i. 323
Crabs, ii. 174, 176

INDEX.

403

Craniota, ii. 198, 204

Creation, centres of, i. 352
———- the, i. 8

Creator, the, i. 64, 70

Cretaceous system, ii. 12, 15
Crinoides, ii. 166, 171

Crocodiles, ii. 223, 224

Crustacea, ii. 173, 176
Cryptogamia, ii. 80, 82
Ctenophora, ii. 142, 144

Cultivated plants, i. 137
Curly-haired men, ii. 310, 333
Cuttles, ii. 160, 162

Cuvier, George, i. 50

Cuvier’s dispute with Geoffroy, i. 88
history of creation, i. 59
paleontology, i. 54

idea of species, i. 50
theory of cataclysms, i. 58
theory of revolutions, i. 58
types of animals, i. 53; ii. 118
Cycadee, ii. 82, 110

Cyclostoma, ii. 202, 204

Cytod, i. 346

D

Darwin CHARLES, i. 131
Darwinism, i. 149
Darwin’s life, i. 132
travels, i. 132
theory of corals, i. 133
theory of selection, i. 150
— study of pigeons, i. 141
Darwin, Erasmus, i. 118
Deciduata, ii. 240, 255
Deduction, i. 85; ii. 357
Democritus, i. 22
Devonian system, ii. 11, 14
Diatomee, ii. 51, 60
Dicotyle, ii. 82, 112
Didelphia, ii. 239
Differentiation, i. 270, 283
Diluvial system, ii. 15
Dipneusta, ii. 204, 212
Divergence, i. 270
Division of labour, i. 247
Domestic animals, i. 137
Dragons, ii. 225
Dravidas, ii. 308, 319
Dualistic conception of the universe,
i. 20, 75
Dysteleology, i. 15; ii. 353

404

E

EcurnipA, ii. 166, 171
Enchinoderma, ii. 163, 166
Edentata, ii. 240, 254

Egg Animals, ii. 132, 134
Eggs, i. 190, 198

Egg of man, i. 190, 297; ii. 279
Egg, cleavage of the, i. 190, 299; ii.

280
Egyptians, ii. 323, 330
Elephants, ii. 257
Empiricism, i. 79; ii. 349
Eocene system, ii. 15, 16
Ethiopians, ii. 323, 330

Explanation of phenomena, i. 29

F

Ferns, ii. 82, 101

Fibrous plants, ii. 82

Final cause, i. 22

Fins, ii. 309, 317

Fishes, ii. 206, 208
Flagellata, ii. 51, 57
Flat-nosed apes, ii. 270, 272
Flat worms, ii. 148, 150
Flint cells, ii. 51, 60
Flowering plants, ii. 82, 108
Flower animals, ii. 143
Flowerless plants, ii. 80, 82
Flying animals, ii. 240, 261
Freke, i. 119

Fulatians, ii. 308, 320
Fungi, ii. 82

G

GANOID FISH, ii. 208, 210
Gastrea, ii. 127, 128, 281
Gastrula, ii. 126, 127
Gegenbaur, i. 312; ii. 179, 193
Gemmation, i. 192

Generation, i. 209

Genus, i. 41

Geocentric conception of the uni-

verse, i. 38
Geoffroy 8. Hilaire, i. 86, 116
Germans, li. 523, 531
Germ buds, formation of, i. 193
cells, formation of, i. 194
Gibbon, ii. 270, 275
Gilled insects, ii. 174, 176
Gill-arches in man, i. 307

INDEX.

God, conception of, i. 70
Goethe, Wolfgang, i. 80

Goethe’s conception of nature, i. 22
———— discovery of mid-jaw bone,

i. 84

formative tendency i. 91,

253
idea of God, i. 71

investigations in nature,

i. 81
materialism, i. 23
metamorphosis, i. 90

metamorphosis of plants.

i. 82

philosophy of nature, i. 81
theory of development,

i. 92
— vertebre of skull, i. 83
Genochoristus, i. 196
Gonochorism, i. 196
Gorilla, ii. 270
Grant, i. 119
Greeks, ii. 323, 331
Gregarine, ii. 133, 134
Gymunosperms, ii. 82, 109

H

HALISAURIA, ii. 204, 214
Hare-rabbit, i. 148, 275
Heliozoa, ii. 64

Herbert, i. 119

Heredity, i. 176
Hermaphrodites, i. 196
Herschel’s cosmogeny, i. 321
Holothuria, ii. 166, 172
Hoofed animals, ii. 249, 252
Hooker, i. 119

Hottentots, ii. 311, 333
Human races, ii. 296, 305, 308
soul, ii. 361

Huxley, i. 119, 145; ii. 268
Hybridism, i. 145, 210, 275
Hydromeduse, ii. 143, 145

I

IcE PERIOD, i. 367; ii. 17
Indecidua, ii. 241, 249
Individual development, ii. 293
Indo-Chinese, ii. 309, 317
Indo-Germanie, ii. 323, 331
Induction, i. 85, ii. 357
Infusoria, ii. 152, 135
Inheritance, abridged, i. 212

INDEX.

Inheritance, acquired, i. 213
adapted, i. 213
amphigonous, i. 210
conservative, i. 204
constituted, i. 216
contemporaneous, i. 217
continuous, i. 205
established, i. 216
homochronous, i. 217
interrupted, i. 205
latent, 1. 205
—_—————. mixed, i. 210
progressive, i. 213
—_————. sexual, 1. 209
simplified, i. 212
uninterrupted, i. 205
———_—— laws of, 1. 204
Inophyta, ii. 82, 93 -
Insects, ii. 184
Insectivora, ii. 241, 259
Instinct, ii. 343
Invertebrata, ii. 118, 195
Iranians, ii. 323, 331

J

JAPANESE, ii. 309, 317
Jews, ii. 323, 330
Jura system, ii. 12, 14

K

Kant, IMMANUEL, 1. 101, 321
Kant’s Criticism of the faculty of
judgment, i. 105
mechanisms, i. 37, 102
philosophy of nature, i. 101
theory of descent, i. 103
theory of development, i. 321
theory of the formation of
the universe, i. 101
Knowledge, a posteriori, i. 31; ii. 345
——_————— 4 priori, i. 31; ii. 344

L

LABYRINTHULE®, ii. 51
Lacertilia ii. 223
Lamarck, Jean, i. 111

_—_—_.

Se

—d

Lamarck’s anthropology, i. 115;
li. 264
philosophy of nature,
i. 112

theory of descent, i. 113
Lamarckism, i. 150
Lamellibranchia, ii. 158, 160

405

Lancelet, ii. 198, 204, 285,
Laplace’s cosmogeny, i. 321
Laurentian system, ii. 9, 14
Lemuria, i. 361, ii. 326
Leonardo da Vinci, i. 56
Leptocardia, ii. 196, 204
Leucones, ii. 141
Linneus, Charles, i. 39
Linnezus’ classification of animals,
ii. 118
classification
il. 78
designation of species, i. 41
history of creation, i. 44
system, i. 40

of plants

Lubbock, Sir John, ii. 298

Lyell, Charles, i. 126
Lyell’s history of creation, i. 128

M

MaAGYARs, ii. 309, 316
Malays, ii. 308, 315
Malthus’ theory of population, i. 161
Mammalia, ii. 231, 239
Man-apes, ii. 271, 275, 292
Marsupials, ii. 236, 239, 290
Matagenesis, i. 206
Materialism, i. 35
Matter, i. 22, ii. 360
Mechanical causes, i. 34, 74
Mechanical conception of the uni-
verse, i. 17, 74
Mechanism, i. 37, 102
Mediterranese, ii. 308, 321
Meduse, ii. 143, 144
Mesolithic period, ii. 14, 20
Metamorphosis of the earth’s strata,
ii. 25
Metamorphosis, i 90
Migration, laws of, i. 373
of organisms, i. 354
of the human species,
li. 325
———— theory of, i. 567
Mind, i. 22; ii. 360
development of the, ii. 344,
360
Miocene period, ii. 15, 16
Miracles, i. 22
Molluscs, ii. 155, 160
Monera, i. 184, 343; ii. 52, 278
Mongols, ii. 308, 316
Monisn, i. 34

406

Monistic conception of the universe,
i. 20, 74

Monocottyle, ii. 82, 112

Monoglottonic, ii. 327, 333

Monogony, i. 183

Monophylites, ii. 44

Monophyletic hypothesis of descent,
ii. 44

Monorrhina, ii. 203, 204

Monosporogonia, i. 194

Monotrema, ii. 234, 239

Morphology, i. 21

Morula, ii. 125, 127

Moses’ history of creation, i. 37

Moss animals, ii. 150, 152

Mosses, ii. 82, 97

Miiller, Fritz, i. 49, 73; ii. 174

Miiller, Johannes, i. 312; ii. 203

Muscine, ii. 82, 99

Mussels, ii. 159, 160

Myriapoda, ii. 182, 184

Myxomycetes, ii. 51, 60

N
NATURAL PHILOSOPHY, i. 78
Negroes, ii. 309, 313, 333
Nemathelminthes, ii. 149, 150
Newton, i. 25, 106°
Non-amnionate, ii. 204, 209
Nubians, ii. 308, 320

oO
CEcoLoey, ii. 354
Oken, Lorenz, i. 95
Oken’s history of development, i. 293
philosophy of nature, i. 96
theory of infusoria, i. 97
—————— protoplasm, i. 97
Olynthus, ii. 141
Ontogenesis, i. 293
Ontogeny, i. 10; ii. 33
Orang, ii. 271, 275
Organisms, i. 5, 328
Organs, i. 5
Origin of language, ii. 302, 327
Osseous fishes, ii. 208, 211
Ovularia, ii. 182, 134

i
PACHYCARDIA, ii. 201
Paleolithic period, ii. 11, 14
Paleontology, i. 54
Palissy, i. 56

INDEX.

Palm ferns, ii. 82, 110
Pander, Christian, i. 294
Papuans, ii. 310, 333
Paradise, ii. 325
Parallelism of development, i. 313
Parthenogenesis, i. 197
Pedigree of amphibia, ii. 209
——————- anamnia, ii. 209
apes, li. 270
Permean system, ii. 11, 14
Petrifactions, i. 54
Phanerogama, ii. 80, 82, 108
Philosophy, i. 79; ii. 350
Phylogeny, i. 10; ii. 33”
Phylum, ti. 42
Physiology, i. 21
Pithecoid, theory, ii. 356
Placentalia, ii. 240, 244
Planula, ii. 126, 135, 281
Planea, ii. 125, 127
Planeada, ii. 280
Plasma, i. 185, 330
Plasmogony, i. 339
Plastids, i. 347
Plastids, theory of, i. 347
Platyelminthes, ii. 148, 150
Platyrrhini, ii. 270, 272
Pleistocene system, ii. 15
Pliocene system, ii. 15, 16
Polar man, ii. 308, 317
Polyglottal, ii. 327, 333
Polynesians, ii, 308, 315
Polyphyletic theory of descent, ii. 45
Polyphylites, ii. 45, 303
Polyps, ii. 142
Polyp jellies, ii. 148, 144
Polysporogonia, i. 193
Population, number of, ii. 333
Porifera, ii. 159, 144
Primary mammals, ii. 239, 290
Primary period, ii. 11, 14
Primeval alge, ii. 82, 84
animals, ii. 131, 132
history of man, ii. 298
————— meD, ii. 325
Primordial period, ii. 9, 14
Prochordata, ii. 278
Progenitors of man, ii. 279, 295
Progress, i. 277, 283
Promammalia, ii. 233, 239

Propagation, i. 183

amphigonie, i. 195
monogonie, i. 183
non-sexual, i. 183

INDEX.

Propagation, sexual, i. 195:
= — virginal,- i, 197
Protamnia, ii. 289, 295
Protamcebe, ii. 52
Prothallophytes, ii. 80, 97
Prothallus plants, ii. 80, 97
Protista, ii. 48

Protophyta, ii. 82, 85
Protoplasma, i. 185, 330
Protoplasts, li. 51, 53
Protozoa, ii. 121, 131, 132
Purpose in nature, i. 19
Purposelessness in nature, i. 20

R

RaDIATA, ii. 120

Radiolaria, i. 333, 371 ; ii. 65

Rapacious animals, ii. 240, 260

Recent system, ii. 15

Reptiles, ii. 222, 224

Rhizopoda, ii. 51, 61

Ringed worms, ii. 149, 150

Rodentia, ii. 241, 257

Romans, ii. 323, 331

Rotatoria, ti. 149, 150

Rotifera, ii. 150, 152

Round worms, ii. 149, 150

Rudimentary eyes, i. 13

gristle, i. 12

legs, i. 14

lungs, i. 289

mammary glands,
i. 290

muscles, i. 12

nictitating membrane,
13

organs, i. 12

pistils, 1. 15

stamens, 1. 15

tails, i. 289

teeth, i. 12

wings, i. 287

s

Sack worms, ii. 283, 295

Sauria, ii. 222

Schaaffhausen, i. 110

Schleicher, August, i. 108; ii. 301
Schleiden, J. M., i. 109

Science, i. 9; ii. 335

Scolecida, ii. 283, 295

Sea stars, ii. 164, 166

— cucumbers, ii. 166, 171

407

Sea dragons, ii. 204
— lilies, ii. 166, 177
nettles, ii. 141, 144
urchins, ii. 166, 171
Secondary period, ii. 14, 20
Selection esthetic, i. 268
——— artificial, i. 152, 170, 254
homochromic, i. 263
medical, i. 173
military, i. 171
musical, i. 267
natural, i. 168, 255
psychical, i. 269
sexual, i. 265
—_— Spartan, i. 170
Self-division, i. 191
Semites, ii. 322, 330
Serpents ii. 223
Sexes, separation of, i. 244
Sexual characters, i. 209, 265
Silurian system, ii. 8, 14
Slavonians, li. 323, 331
Snails, ii. 159, 160
Soul, the, i. 71, ii. 343, 362
Species, i. 41, 273, 304, 311
Specific development, i. 311
Spencer, Herbert, i. 119; ii. 367
Sperma, i. 197
Spiders, i. 180, 182
Spirobranchia, ii. 157, 160
Sponges, ii. 139, 144
Spores, formation of, i. 194
Stemmed plants, ii. 280
Straight-haired men, ii. 309, 314
Struggle for life, i. 161, 252
Synameeba, ii. 125, 280
Systematic development, i. 313
System of animals, ii. 132
————— apes, ii. 270
Arabians, ii. 330
arachnida, li. 182
Arians, ii. 331 ~
arthropoda, ii. 132
articulata, ii. 177, 183
catarrhini, ii, 270
——— ceelenterata, ii. 144
crustacea, ii. 176
didelphia, ii, 239
echinoderma, ii. 166
Egyptians, ii. 330
fishes, ii. 208
formations, ii. 15
————. Germans, ii. 331
——— gilled Insects, ii. 177

408

System of Greco-Romans, ii. 331
— Hamites, ii. 330
hoofed animals, ii. 252
human ancestors, il. 295
————— human races, ii. 308
——— human species, ii. 308, 309
2225") Indians, 21. 331
—_——— Indo-Germani, ii. 331
_ = —— insects, 11.°182
=. mammalia, it. 239
——_——. mankind, ii. 295
—_——_—. marsupials, ii. 239
men and apes, ii. 271
molluses, ii. 160
monodelphia, ii. 241
organisms, ii. 74, 75
placentalia, ii. 240
plants, ii. 82
platyrrhini, ii. 270
protista, ii. 51
reptiles, ii. 224
Semites, ii. 330
Slavonians, li. 331
——_—— spiders, ii. 182
= pias fahes, 11. 167
strata of the earth, ii. 15
tracheata, ii. 182
ungulata, ii. 252
vegetable kingdom, ii. 83
vertebrata, ii. 20f
worms, ii. 150
zoophytes, ii. 144

T

TAIL OF MAN, i. 289, 308

Tangles, ii. 61, 82

Tartars, ii. 209, 317

Teleology, i. 100, 291

Teleostei, ii. 208, 211

Teleological conception of the uni-
verse, i. 20, 75

Tertiary period, ii. 14, 16

Thallophytes, ii. 80, 82

Thickness of the earth’s crust, ii. 19

‘Thought, ii. 304

INDEX,

Thread plants, ii. 82, 93
Tocogony, i. 183

Tortoises, ii, 225

Tracheata, ii. 182

Transition forms, ii. 338
Transmutation, theory of, i. 4
Treviranus, i. 92

Trias system, ii. 12, 14
Tuft-haired men, ii. 307, 309
Tunicata, ii. 152, 200
Turbellaria, ii. 283

Turks, ii. 309, 316

U
Unger, Franz, i. 109
Ungulata, ii. 249, 252
Unity in nature, i. 22, 338
Uralians, ii. 309, 317

V
Variability, i. 220
Variation, i. 219
Varieties, i. 276
Vertebrata, ii. 195, 205
Vital force, i. 22, 334 -
Vitalistie conception of the universe,
i. 18

W

Wacner, ANDREAS, i. 138

Wagner, Moritz, i. 369

Wallace, Alfred, i. 135

Wallace’s chorology, i. 361 373
———— theory of selection, i. 136
Well’s theory of selection, i. 150
Whales, ii. 240, 251

Will, freedom of the, i. 113, 237, 364
Wolff’s theory of development, «i. 293
Woolly-haired men, ii. 307, 309
Worms, ii. 147, 150

Z
Zoophytes, ii, 136, 144

;

WORKS OF H. ALLEYNE NICHOLSON, M.D.

I

Text-Book of Zoology, for Schools and Col-
leges. 12mo. Half roan, $1.50.

I.

Manual of Zoology, for the Use of Students,

with a General Introduction to the Principles of Zodlogy. See-
ond edition. Revised and enlarged, with 243 Woodcuts. 12mo,
Cloth, $2.50,

Ill

Text-Book of Geology, for Schools and Col-
leges. 12mo, Half roan, $1.30.

IV

Introduction to the Study of Biology.

Illustrated. 12mo. Cloth, 65 cents,

V.

The Ancient Life-History of the
Earth. A Comprehensive Outline of the Principles and Lead-
ing Facts of Paleontological Science. 12mo. Cloth, $2.00.

The Quarterly Journal of Science.

‘“*A work by a master in the science who understands the significance of
every phenomenon which he records, and knows how to make it reveal its les-
sons. As regards its value there can scarcely exist two opinions. As a text-
book of the historical phase of paleontology it will be indispensable to students,
whether specially pursuing geology or biology; and without it no man who as-
pires even to an outline knowledge of natural science can deem his library com-

plete.”
Atheneum.

‘The Professor of Natural History in the University of St. Andrews has, by
his previous works on zodlogy and paleontology, so fully established his claim
to be an exact thinker and a close reasoner, that scarcely any recommendation
of ours can add to the interest with which all students in na-ural history will
receive the present volume. It is, as its second title expresses it, a compre-
hensive outline of the principles and leading facts of palzontological science.
Numerous woodcut illustrations very delicately executed, a copions glossary,
and an admirable index, add much to the value of this volume.”

D. APPLETON & CO., Publishers, 1,3, & & Bond Street, New York.

WORKS OF HENRY THOMAS BUCKLE,

: #
The Life and Writings of Henry

Thomas Buckle.

By Atrrep Henry Huta. 12mo. Cloth.

‘““The book deals with Mr. Buckle less as a philosopher than as aman... .
Mr. Huth has done his part well and thoroughly.”—Saturday Review.

‘*Mr. Huth has produced a striking and distinct portrait out of his materials,
and he has done his work with a simplicity and modesty which are highly effec-
tive.”’—Pall Mall Gazette.

‘This work, we think, will revolutionize popular opinion about the philoso-
pher.’’—London Daily News.

‘‘Buckle was a man whose story must excite interest and rouse sympathy.”
—Scotsman.

II,

History of Civilization in England.
2 vols., 8vo. Cloth, $4.00; half calf, extra, $8.00.

‘* Whoever misses reading this book will miss reading what is, in various re-
spects, to the best of our judgment and experience, the most remarkable book
of the day—one, indeed, that no thoughtful, inquiring mind would miss reading
for a good deal. Let the reader be as adverse as he may be to the writer’s philos-
ophy, let him be as devoted to the obstructive as Mr. Buckle is to the progress
party, let him be as orthodox in church creed as the other is heterodox, as dog-
matic as the author is skeptical—let him, in short, find his prejudices shocked at
every turn of the argument, and all his prepossessions whistled down the wind
—still, there is so much in this extraordinary volume to stimulate reflection and
excite to inquiry, and provoke to earnest investigation, perhaps (to this or that
reader) on a track hitherto untrodden, and across the virgin soil of untilled fields,
fresh woods and pastures new, that we may fairly defy the most kostile spirit,
the most mistrustful and least sympathetic, to read it through without being
glad of having done so, or, having begun it, or even glanced at almost any one
of its pages, to pass away unread.’’—London Times.

‘*We have read Mr. Buckle’s volumes with the deepest interest. We owe
him a profound debt of gratitude. His influence on the thought of the present
age can not but be enormons, and if he gives us no more than we already have
in the two volumes of the magnus opus, he will still be classed among the fathers
and founders of the Science of History.’’—New York Times.

‘*Singularly acute, possessed of rare analytical power, imaginative but not
fanciful, unwearied in research, and gifted with wonderful talent in arranging
and molding his material, the author is as fascinating as he is learned. His
erudition is immense—so immense as not-to be cumbersome. It is the result
of a long and steady growth—a part of himself.’’— Boston Journal.

Il.
Essays.

With a Biography of the Author. Portrait. 12mo. Cloth, $1.00;
half calf, extra, $2.50.

D. APPLETON & OO., Publishers, 1,3, & § Bond St., New York.

Herbert Spencer’s Late Works

ON THE

SCIENCE OF SOCIETY.

I.
The Study of Sociology. 1 vol,12mo. Cloth. Price, $1.50.
II

The Principles of Sociology. vol. 1. 12mo, Cloth.
Price, $2.00.

Ill.

Ceremonial Institutions. (First part of Vol. IL. of “ Principles
of Sociology.”) 12mo. Cloth. Price, $1.25.

IV.

Descriptive Sociology ; oz, GROUPS OF SOCIOLOGICAL
FACTS. Six Parts, in royal folio. Price, $4.00 each.

‘*Of all our thinkers he is the one who, as it appears to me, has formed for
himself the largest new scheme of a systematic philosophy, and, in relation to
some of the greatest questions of philosophy in their most recent forms, as set or
reset by the last speculations and revelations.of science, has already shot his
thoughts the farthest.”—Prof. Davip Masson, in “* Recent British Philosophy.”

‘‘His bold generalizations are always instructive, and some of them may in
the end be established as the profoundest laws of the knowable universe.”—Dr.
James McCosu, in the ‘* Intuitions of Mind.”

**One who, whether for the extent of his positive knowledge, or for the pro-
fandity of his speculative insight, has already achieved a name second to none in
the whole range of English philosophy.’’— Westminster Review.

‘* The work (‘ Descriptive Sociology *) is a gigantic one; its value, when com-
plete, will be immeasurable; and its actual influence on the study of sociology,
and help to that study, greater perhaps than any book yet published. It isa
cyclopedia of Social Science, but a cyclopedia edited by the greatest of sociolo-
gists.’"—G. W. SMALLEY.

For sale by all booksellers ; or sent by mail, post-paid, on receipt of price.

D. APPLETON & CO., Publishers, New York.

IMPORTANT WORKS.

I

The Life and Words of Christ. By Coyyrncuam Gem,
D.D. New cheap edition. From the same stereotype plates as the
two-volume illustrated edition. 8vo. Cloth. Price, $1.50.

This edition of Geikie’s Life of Christ is the only cheap edition that contains the
copious notes of the author, the marginal references, and an index.
““A work of the highest rank, breathing the spirit of true faith in Christ."—Dr.

Delitzsch, the Commentator.

“A most valuable addition to sacred literature."—A. N. Littlejohn, D.D., Bishop

of Long Island.

It. Z
Mind in the Lower Animals, in Health and Dis=
ease. By W. Lauper Linpsay, M.D., F.R.S.E., etc. In two
volumes, 8vo, cloth. Price, $4.00.

“T haye studied the subject of mind in other animals, as compared with that of
man, for a series of years, simply as a physician-naturailist. . . . Regarding the whole
subject of mind in animals from a medical and natural-history point of view, I have
studied it from first to last without any preconceived ideas, with no theory to defend,
support, or illustrate. . . . All that I attempt is to outline the subject of mind in the
lower animals, to illustrate their possession of the higher mental faculties as they occur
in man.”—Eatract from Introduction.

III.

Memoirs of Madame de Remusat. Complete in one vol.,
with an Index, 12mo, 740 pages, cloth, price, $2.00. In three vols.,
octavo, paper covers, price, $1.50; or, 50 cents each.

‘Madame de Rémusat’s Memoirs’ will remain as the most finished picture of the
Napoleonic Court in its outward glory and its inner pettiness."—London Atheneum.

TV.

Memoirs of Napoleon, his Court and Family. By
the Duchess p’ABRaNTES (Madame Junot). New edition. In two
vols., 12mo. Cloth. Price, $3.00.

The interest in the first Napoleon and his Court, which has recently been so stim-
ulated by the ‘* Memoirs of Madame de Rémusat,” has induced the publishers to re-
issue the famous ‘“*Memoirs of the Duchess d’Abrantes.” These memoirs, which
hitherto have appeared in costly 8vo volumes, are now published at a much lower
price, to correspond with the De Rémusat 12mo volume. The work at the present
juncture will be read with attention, especially as it presents a much more favorable
portrait of the great Corsican than that limned by Madame de Rémusat.

iV;

The Life of David Glasgow Farragut, First Admiral of
the United States Navy, embodying his Journal and Letters. By
his Son, Loyatt Farracut. With Portraits, Maps, and Illustrations.
8vo. Cloth. Price, $4.00.

“The book is a stirring one, of course; the story of Farragut’s life is a tale of ad-
venture of the most ravishing sort, so that, aside from the value of this work as an
authentic biography of the greatest of American naval commanders, the book is one
of surpassing interest, considered merely as a narrative of difficult and dangerous
enterprises and heroic achieyements."—New York Evening Post. ;

D. APPLETON & CO., Publishers, 1,3, & 5 Bond Street, N. ¥.

\

i Aphew dcokehocagren ¥

yy eT ee er ee Se

SN

WS
\

WY

NY

rrr

2

PIL
IP