Facts and Arguments for Darwin Part 4

FIGURE 51. Foot of the second pair ("second pair of gnathopoda") of the female of Orchestia Tucurauna, magnified 15 diam.)

For example, the younger s.e.xually mature males of Orchestia Tucurauna, n. sp., have slender inferior antennae, with the joints of the flagellum not fused together, the clasping margin ("palm," Sp. Bate) of the hand in the second pair of feet is uniformly convex, the last pair of feet is slender and similar to the preceding. Subsequently the antennae become thickened, two, three, or four of the first joints of the flagellum are fused together, the palm of the hand acquires a deep emargination near its inferior angle, and the intermediate joints of the last pair of feet become swelled into a considerable incra.s.sation. No museum-zoologist would hesitate about fabricating two distinct species, if the oldest and youngest s.e.xually mature males were sent to him without the uniting intermediate forms. In the younger males of Orchestia Tucuratinga, although the microscopic examination of their testes showed that they were already s.e.xually mature, the emargination of the clasping margin of the hand (represented in Figure 50) and the corresponding process of the finger, are still entirely wanting. The same may be observed in Cerapus and Caprella, and probably in all cases where hereditary s.e.xual differences occur.

(FIGURE 52. Male of a Bodotria, magnified 10 diam. Note the long inferior antennae, which are closely applied to the body, and of which the apex is visible beneath the caudal appendages.)

Next to the extensive sections of the Stalk-eyed and Sessile-eyed Crustacea, but more nearly allied to the former than to the latter, comes the remarkable family of the Diastylidae or c.u.macea. The young, which Kroyer took out of the brood-pouch of the female, and which attained one-fourth of the length of their mother, resembled the adult animals almost in all parts. Whether, as in Mysis and Ligia, a transformation occurs within the brood-pouch, which is constructed in the same way as in Mysis, is not known.* (* A trustworthy English Naturalist, Goodsir, described the brood-pouch and eggs of c.u.ma as early as 1843. Kroyer, whose painstaking care and conscientiousness is recognised with wonder by every one who has met him on a common field of work, confirmed Goodsir's statements in 1846, and, as above mentioned, took out of the brood-pouch embryos advanced in development and resembling their parents. By this the question whether the Diastylidae are full-grown animals or larvae, is completely and for ever set at rest, and only the famous names of Aga.s.siz, Dana and Milne-Edwards, who would recently reduce them again to larvae (see Van Beneden, 'Rech. sur la Fauna littor. de Belgique' Crustacees pages 73 and 74), induce me, on the basis of numerous investigations of my own, to declare in Van Beneden's words; "Parmi toutes les formes embryonnaires de podophthalmes ou d'edriophthalmes que nous avons observees sur nos cotes, nous n'en avons pas vu une seule qui eut meme la moindre resemblance avec un c.u.ma quelconque." The ONLY THING that suits the larvae of Hippolyte, Palaemon and Alpheus, in the family character of the c.u.macea as given by Kroyer which occupies three pages (Kroyer, 'Naturh. Tidsskrift, Ny Raekke,' Bd.

2 pages 203 to 206) is: "Duo antennarum paria." And this, as is well known, applies to nearly all Crustacea. How well warranted are we therefore in identifying the latter with the former. However, it is sufficient for any one to glance at the larva of Palaemon (Figure 27) and the c.u.macean (Figure 52) in order to be convinced of their extraordinary similarity!) The caudal portion of the embryo in the Diastylidae, as I have recently observed, is curved upwards as in the Isopoda, and the last pair of feet of the thorax is wanting.

Equally scanty is our knowledge of the developmental history of the Ostracoda. We know scarcely anything except that their anterior limbs are developed before the posterior one (Zenker). The development of Cypris has recently been observed by Claus:--"The youngest stages are sh.e.l.l-bearing Nauplius-forms."

CHAPTER 9. DEVELOPMENTAL HISTORY OF ENTOMOSTRACA, CIRRIPEDES, AND RHIZOCEPHALA.

The section of the Branchiopoda includes two groups differing even in their development,--the Phyllopoda and the Cladocera. The latter minute animals, provided with six pairs of foliaceous feet, which chiefly belong to the fresh waters, and are diffused under similar forms over the whole world, quit the egg with their full number of limbs. The Phyllopoda, on the contrary, in which the number of feet varies between 10 and 60 pairs, and some of which certainly live in the saturated lie of salterns and natron-lakes, but of which only one rather divergent genus (Nebalia) is found in the sea,* have to undergo a metamorphosis.

(* If the Phyllopoda may be regarded as the nearest allies of the Trilobites, they would furnish, with Lepidosteus and Polypterus, Lepidosiren and Protopterus, a further example of the preservation in fresh waters of forms long since extinguished in the sea. The occurrence of the Artemiae in supersaline water would at the same time show that they do not escape destruction by means of the fresh water, but in consequence of the less amount of compet.i.tion in it.) Mecznikow has recently observed the development of Nebalia, and concludes from his observations "that Nebalia, during its embryonal life, pa.s.ses through the Nauplius- and Zoea-stages, which in the Decapoda occur partly (in Peneus) in the free state." "Therefore," says he, "I regard Nebalia as a Phyllopodiform Decapod." The youngest larvae [of the Phyllopoda] are Nauplii, which we have already met with exceptionally in some Prawns, and which we shall now find reproduced almost without exception. The body-segments and feet, which are sometimes so numerous, are formed gradually from before backwards, without the indication of any sharply-discriminated regions of the body either by the time of their appearance or by their form. All the feet are essentially constructed in the same manner and resemble the maxillae of the higher Crustacea.* (*

"The maxilla of the Decapod-larva (Krebslarve) is a sort of Phyllopodal foot" (Claus).) We might regard the Phyllopoda as Zoeae which have not arrived at the formation of a peculiarly endowed abdomen or thorax, and instead of these have repeatedly reproduced the appendages which first follow the Nauplius-limbs.

Of the Copepoda--some of which, living in a free state, people the fresh waters, and in far more multifarious forms the sea, whilst others, as parasites, infest animals of the most various cla.s.ses and often become wonderfully deformed--the developmental history, like their entire natural history, was, until lately, in a very unsatisfactory state. It is true, that we long ago knew that the Cyclopes of our fresh waters were excluded in the Nauplius-form, and that we were acquainted with some others of their young states; we had learnt, through Nordmann, that the same earliest form belonged to several parasitic Crustacea, which had previously pa.s.sed, almost universally, as worms; but the connecting intermediate forms which would have permitted us to refer the regions of the body and the limbs of the larvae to those of the adult animal, were wanting. The comprehensive and careful investigations of Claus have filled up this deficiency in our knowledge, and rendered the section of the Copepoda one of the best known in the whole cla.s.s. The following statements are derived from the works of this able naturalist. From the abundance of valuable materials which they contain I select only those which are indispensable for the comprehension of the development of the Crustacea in general, because, in what relates to the Copepoda in particular, the facts have already been placed in the proper light by the representation of their most recent investigator, and must appear to any one whose eyes are open, as important evidence in favour of the Darwinian theory.* (* I am still unacquainted with Claus' latest and larger work, but no doubt the same may be said of it.)

(FIGURES 53 AND 54. Nauplii of Copepoda, the former magnified 90, the latter 180 diam.)

All the larvae of the free Copepoda investigated by Claus, have, at the earliest period, three pairs of limbs (the future antennae and mandibles), the anterior with a single, and the two following ones with a double series of joints, or branchiae. The unpaired eye, labrum, and mouth, already occupy their permanent positions. The posterior portion, which is usually short and dest.i.tute of limbs, bears two terminal setae, between which the a.n.u.s is situated. The form in this Nauplius-brood is extremely various,--it is sometimes compressed laterally, sometimes flat,--sometimes elongated, sometimes oval, sometimes round or even broader than long, and so forth. The changes which the first larval stages undergo during the progress of growth, consist essentially in an extension of the body and the sprouting forth of new limbs. "The following stage already displays a fourth pair of extremities, the future maxillae." Then follow at once three new pairs of limbs (the maxillipedes and the two anterior pairs of natatory feet). The larva still continues like a Nauplius, as the three anterior pairs of limbs represent rowing feet; at the next moult it is converted into the youngest Cyclops-like state, when it resembles the adult animal in the structure of the antennae and buccal organs, although the number of limbs and body segments is still much less, for only the rudiments of the third and fourth pairs of natatory feet have made their appearance in the form of cushions fringed with setae, and the body consists of the oval cephalothorax, the second, third, and fourth thoracic segments, and an elongated terminal joint. In the Cyclopidae the posterior antennae have lost their secondary branch, and the mandibles have completely thrown off the previously existing natatory feet, whilst in the other families these appendages persist, more or less altered. "Beyond this stage of free development, many forms of the parasitic Copepoda, such as Lernanthropus and Chondracanthus, do not pa.s.s, as they do not acquire the third and fourth pairs of limbs, nor does a separation of the fifth thoracic segment from the abdomen take place; others (Achtheres) even fall to a lower grade by the subsequent loss of the two pairs of natatory feet. But all free Copepoda, and most of the parasitic Crustacea, pa.s.s through a longer or shorter series of stages of development, in which the limbs acquire a higher degree of division into joints in continuous sequence, the posterior pairs of feet are developed, and the last thoracic segment and the different abdominal segments are successively separated from the common terminal portion."

(FIGURE 55. Nauplius of Tetrac.l.i.ta porosa after the first moult, magnified 90 diam. The brain is seen surrounding the eye, and from it the olfactory filaments issue; behind it are some delicate muscles pa.s.sing to the buccal hood.)

There is only one thing more to be indicated in the developmental history of the parasitic Crustacea, namely that some of them, such as Achtheres percarum, certainly quit the egg like the rest in a Nauplius-like form, inasmuch as the plump, oval, astomatous body bears two pairs of simple rowing feet, and behind these, as traces of the third pair, two inflations furnished each with a long seta, but that beneath this Nauplius-skin a very different larva lies ready prepared, which in a few hours bursts its clumsy envelope and then makes its appearance in a form "which agrees in the segmentation of the body and in the development of the extremities with the first Cyclops-stage"

(Claus). The entire series of Nauplius-stages which are pa.s.sed through by the free Copepoda, are in this case completely over-leapt.

A final and very peculiar section of the Crustacea is formed by the two orders of the Cirripedia and Rhizocephala.* (* The most various opinions prevail as to the position of the Cirripedia. Some ascribe to them a very subordinate position among the Copepoda; as Milne-Edwards (1852).

In direct opposition to this notion of his father's, Alph. Milne-Edwards places them (as Basinotes) opposite to all the other Crustacea (Eleutheronotes). Darwin regards them as forming a peculiar sub-cla.s.s equivalent to the Podophthalma, Edriophthalma, etc. This appears to me to be most convenient. I would not combine the Rhizocephala with the Cirripedia, as Liljeborg has done, but place them in opposition as equivalent, like the Amphipoda and Isopoda. The near relationship of the Cirripedia to the Ostracoda is also spoken of, but the similarity of the so-called "Cypris-like larvae," or Cirriped-pupae as Darwin calls them, to Cypris is so purely external, even as regards the sh.e.l.l, that the relationship appears to me to be scarcely greater than that of Peltogaster socialis (Figure 59) with the family of the sausages.)

In these also the brood bursts out in the Nauplius-form, and speedily strips off its earliest larva-skin which is distinguished by no peculiarities worth noticing. Here also we find again the same pyriform shape of the unsegmented body, the same number and structure of the feet, the same position of the median eye (which, however, is wanting in Sacculina purpurea, and according to Darwin in some species of Lepas), and the same position of the "buccal hood," as in the Nauplii of the Prawns and Copepoda. From the latter the Nauplii of the Cirripedia and Rhizocephala are distinguished by the possession of a dorsal shield or carapace, which sometimes (Sacculina purpurea) projects far beyond the body all round; and they are distinguished not only from other Nauplii, but as far as I know from all other Crustacea, by the circ.u.mstance that structures which are elsewhere combined with the two anterior limbs (antennae), here occur separated from them.

The anterior antennae of the Copepoda, Cladocera, Phyllopoda (Leydig, Claus), Ostracoda (at least the Cypridinae), Diastylidae, Edriophthalma, and Podophthalma, with few exceptions relating to terrestrial animals or parasites, bear peculiar filaments which I have already repeatedly mentioned as "olfactory filaments." A pair of similar filaments spring, in the larvae of the Cirripedia and Rhizocephala, directly from the brain.

(FIGURE 56. Nauplius of Sacculina purpurea, shortly before the second moult, magnified 180 diam. We may recognise in the first pair of feet the future adherent feet, and in the abdomen six pairs of natatory feet with long setae.)

At the base of the inferior antennae in the Decapoda the so-called "green-gland" has its opening; in the Macrura at the end of a conical process. A similar conical process with an efferent duct traversing it is very striking in most of the Amphipoda. In the Ostracoda, Zenker describes a gland situated in the base of the inferior antennae, and opening at the extremity of an extraordinarily long "spine." In the Nauplii of Cyclops and Cyclopsine, Claus finds pale "sh.e.l.l-glands,"

which commence in the intermediate pair of limbs (the posterior antennae). On the other hand in the Nauplii of the Cirripedia and Rhizocephala the "sh.e.l.l-glands" open at the ends of conical processes, sometimes of most remarkable length, which spring from the angles of the broad frontal margin, and have been interpreted sometimes as antennae (Burmeister, Darwin) and sometimes as mere "horns of the carapace"

(Krohn). The connexion of the "sh.e.l.l-glands" with the frontal horns has been recognised unmistakably in the larvae of Lepas, and indeed the resemblance of the frontal horns with the conical processes on the inferior antennae of the Amphipoda, is complete throughout.* (* In connexion with this it may be mentioned that, in the females of Brachyscelus, in which the posterior antennae are deficient, the conical processes with the ca.n.a.l permeating them are nevertheless retained.)

(FIGURE 57. Pupa of a Balanide (Chthamalus ?), magnified 50 diam. The adherent feet are retracted within the rather opaque anterior part of the sh.e.l.l.

FIGURE 58. Pupa of Sacculina purpurea, magnified 180 diam. The filaments on the adherent feet may be the commencements of the future roots.)

Notwithstanding their agreement in this important peculiarity, the Nauplii of these two orders present material differences in many other particulars. The abdomen of the young Cirripede is produced beneath the a.n.u.s into a long tail-like appendage which is furcate at the extremity, and over the a.n.u.s there is a second long, spine-like process; the abdomen in the Rhizocephala terminates in two short points,--in a "moveable caudal fork, as in the Rotatoria," (O. Schmidt). The young Cirripedes have a mouth, stomach, intestine, and a.n.u.s, and their two posterior pairs of limbs are beset with multifarious teeth, setae, and hooks, which certainly a.s.sist in the inception of nourishment. All this is wanting in the young Rhizocephala. The Nauplii of the Cirripedia have to undergo several moults whilst in that form; the Nauplii of the Rhizocephala, being astomatous, cannot of course live long as Nauplii, and in the course of only a few days they become transformed into equally astomatous "pupae," as Darwin calls them.

The carapace folds itself together, so that the little animal acquires the aspect of a bivalve sh.e.l.l, the foremost limbs become transformed into very peculiar adherent feet ("prehensile antennae," Darwin), and the two following pairs are cast off; like the frontal horns. On the abdomen six pairs of powerful biramose natatory feet with long setae have been formed beneath the Nauplius-skin, and behind these are two short, setigerous caudal appendages (Figure 58).

The pupae of the Cirripedia (Figure 57), which are likewise astomatous, agree completely in all these parts with those of the Rhizocephala, even to the minutest details of the segmentation and bristling of the natatory feet;* they are especially distinguished from them by the possession of a pair of composite eyes. (* Compare the figure given by Darwin (Balanidae Plate 30 Figure 5) of the first natatory foot of the pupa of Lepas australis, with that of Lernaeodiscus Porcellanae published in the 'Archiv fur Naturgeschichte' (1863 Taf 3 Figure 5). The sole distinction, that in the latter there are only 3 setae at the end of the outer branch, whilst in the Cirripedia there are 4 on the first and 5 on the following natatory feet, may be due to an error on my part.) Sometimes also traces of the frontal horns seem to persist.* (*

Darwin describes as "acoustic orifices" small apertures in the sh.e.l.l of the pupae of the Cirripedia, which, frequently surrounded by a border, are situated, in Lepas pectinata, upon short, horn-like processes. I feel scarcely any hesitation in regarding the apertures as those of the "sh.e.l.l-glands," and the horn-like processes as remains of the frontal horns.)

As the Cirripedia and Rhizocephala now in general resemble each other far more than in their Nauplius-state, this is also the case with the individual members of each of the two orders.

The pupae in both orders attach themselves by means of the adherent feet; those of the Cirripedes to rocks, sh.e.l.ls, turtles, drift-wood, ships, etc.,--those of the Rhizocephala to the abdomen of Crabs, Porcellanae, and Hermit Crabs. The carapace of the Cirripedes becomes converted, as is well-known, into a peculiar test, on account of which they were formerly placed among the Mollusca, and the natatory feet grow into long cirri, which whirl nourishment towards the mouth, which is now open. The Rhizocephala remain astomatous; they lose all their limbs completely, and appear as sausage-like, sack-shaped or discoidal excrescences of their host, filled with ova (Figures 59 and 60); from the point of attachment closed tubes, ramified like roots, sink into the interior of the host, twisting round its intestine, or becoming diffused among the sac-like tubes of its liver. The only manifestations of life which persist in these non plus ultras in the series of retrogressively metamorphosed Crustacea, are powerful contractions of the roots, and an alternate expansion and contraction of the body, in consequence of which water flows into the brood-cavity and is again expelled, through a wide orifice.* (* The roots of Sacculina purpurea (Figure 60) which is parasitic upon a small Hermit Crab, are made use of by two parasitic Isopods, namely a Bopyrus and the before mentioned Cryptoniscus planarioides (Figure 42). These take up their abode beneath the Sacculina and cause it to die away by intercepting the nourishment conveyed by the roots; the roots, however, continue to grow, even without the Sacculina, and frequently attain an extraordinary extension, especially when a Bopyrus obtains its nourishment from them.)

(FIGURE 59. Young of Peltogaster socialis on the abdomen of a small Hermit Crab; in one of them the fasciculately ramified roots in the liver of the Crab are shown. Animal and roots deep yellow.

FIGURE 60. Young Sacculina purpurea with its roots; the animal purple-red, the roots dark gra.s.s-green. Magnified 5 diam.)

Out of several Cirripedes, which are anomalous both in structure and development, Cryptophialus minutus must be mentioned here; Darwin found it in great quant.i.ties together in the sh.e.l.l of Concholepas peruviana on the Chonos Islands. The egg, which is at first elliptical, soon, according to Darwin, becomes broader at the anterior extremity, and acquires three club-shaped horns, one at each anterior angle and one behind; no internal parts can as yet be detected. Subsequently the posterior horn disappears, and the adherent feet may be recognised within the anterior ones. From this "egg-like larva"--(Darwin says of it, "I hardly know what to call it")--the pupa is directly produced. Its carapace is but slightly compressed laterally and hairy, as in Sacculina purpurea; the adherent feet are of considerable size, and the natatory feet are wanting, as, in the adult animal, are the corresponding cirri.

As I learn from Mr. Spence Bate, the Nauplius-stage appears to be overleaped and the larvae to leave the egg in the pupa-form, in the case of a Rhizocephalon (Peltogaster ?) found by Dr. Powell in the Mauritius.

(FIGURES 61 TO 63. Eggs of Tetrac.l.i.ta porosa in segmentation, magnified 90 diam. The larger of the two first-formed spheres of segmentation is always turned towards the pointed end of the egg.

FIGURE 64. Egg of Lernaeodiscus Porcellanae, in segmentation, magnified 90 diam.)

I will conclude this general view with a few words upon the earliest processes in the development of the Crustacea. Until recently it was regarded as a general rule that, by the partial segmentation of the vitellus a germinal disc was formed, and in this, corresponding to the ventral surface of the embryo, a primitive band. We now know that in the Copepoda (Claus), in the Rhizocephala (Figure 64), and, as I can add, in the Cirripedia (Figures 61 to 63) the segmentation is complete, and the embryos are sketched out in their complete form without any preceding primitive band. Probably the latter will always be the case where the young are hatched as true Nauplii (and not merely with a Nauplius-skin, as in Achtheres). The two modes of development may occur in very closely allied animals, as is proved by Achtheres among the Copepoda.* (* I have not mentioned the Pycnogonidae, because I do not regard them as Crustacea; nor the Xiphosura and Trilobites, because, having never investigated them myself, I knew too little about them, and especially because I am unacquainted with the details of the explanations given by Barrande of the development of the latter. According to Mr. Spence Bate "the young of Trilobites are of the Nauplius-form.")

CHAPTER 10. ON THE PRINCIPLES OF CLa.s.sIFICATION.

Perhaps some one else, more fortunate than myself, may be able, even without Darwin, to find the guiding clue through the confusion of developmental forms, now so totally different in the nearest allies, now so surprisingly similar in members of the most distant groups, which we have just cursorily reviewed. Perhaps a sharper eye may be able, with Aga.s.siz, to make out "the plan established from the beginning by the Creator,"* (* "A plan fully matured in the beginning and undeviatingly pursued;" or "In the beginning His plan was formed and from it He has never swerved in any particular" (Aga.s.siz and Gould, 'Principles of Zoology').) who may have written here, as a Portuguese proverb says "straight in crooked lines."* (* "Deos escrive direito em linhas tortas." To read this remarkable writing we need the spectacles of Faith, which seldom suit eyes accustomed to the Microscope.) I cannot but think that we can scarcely speak of a general plan, or typical mode of development of the Crustacea, differentiated according to the separate Sections, Orders, and Families, when, for example, among the Macrura, the River Crayfish leaves the egg in its permanent form; the Lobster with Schizopodal feet; Palaemon, like the Crabs, as a Zoea; and Peneus, like the Cirripedes, as a Nauplius,--and when, still, within this same sub-order Macrura, Palinurus, Mysis and Euphausia again present different young forms,--when new limbs sometimes sprout forth as free rudiments on the ventral surface, and are sometimes formed beneath the skin which pa.s.ses smoothly over them, and both modes of development are found in different limbs of the same animal and in the same pair of limbs in different animals,--when in the Podophthalma the limbs of the thorax and abdomen make their appearance sometimes simultaneously, or sometimes the former and sometimes the latter first, and when further in each of the two groups the pairs sometimes all appear together, and sometimes one after the other,--when, among the Hyperina, a simple foot becomes a chela in Phronima and a chela a simple foot in Brachyscelus, etc.

And yet, according to the teaching of the school, it is precisely in youth, precisely in the course of development, that the "Type" is mostly openly displayed. But let us hear what the Old School has to tell us as to the significance of developmental history, and its relation to comparative anatomy and systematic zoology.

Let two of its most approved masters speak.

"Whilst comparative anatomy," said Johannes Muller, in 1844, in his lectures upon this science (and the opinions of my memorable teacher were for many years my own), "whilst comparative anatomy shows us the infinitely multifarious formation of the same organ in the Animal Kingdom, it furnishes us at the same time with the means, by the comparison of these various forms, of recognising the truly essential, the type of these organs, and separating therefrom everything unessential. In this, developmental history serves it as a check or test. Thus, as the idea of development is not that of mere increase of size, but that of progress from what is not yet distinguished, but which potentially contains the distinction in itself, to the actually distinct,--it is clear, that the less an organ is developed, so much the more does it approach the type, and that, during its development, it more and more acquires peculiarities. The types discovered by comparative anatomy and developmental history must therefore agree."

Then, after Johannes Muller has combated the idea of a graduated scale of animals, and of the pa.s.sage through several animal grades during development, he continues:--"What is true in this idea is, that every embryo at first bears only the type of its section, from which the type of the Cla.s.s, Order, etc., is only afterwards developed."

In 1856, in an elementary work,* (* 'Principles of Zoology' Part 1 Comparative Physiology. By Louis Aga.s.siz and A.A. Gould Revised Edition Boston 1856.) in which it is usual to admit only what are regarded as the a.s.sured acquisitions of science, Aga.s.siz expresses himself as follows:--

"The ovarian eggs of all animals are perfectly identical, small cells with a vitellus, germinal vesicle and germinal spot" (paragraph 278).

"The organs of the body are formed in the sequence of their organic importance; the most essential always appear first. Thus the organs of vegetative life, the intestine, etc., appear later than those of animal life, the nervous system, skeleton, etc., and these in turn are preceded by the more general phenomena belonging to the animal as such"

(paragraph 318). "Thus, in Fishes, the first changes consist in the segmentation of the vitellus and the formation of a germ, processes which are common to all cla.s.ses of animals. Then the dorsal furrow, characteristic of the Vertebrate, appears--the brain, the organs of the senses; at a later period are formed the intestine, the limbs, and the permanent form of the respiratory organs, from which the cla.s.s is recognised with certainty. It is only after exclusion that the peculiarities of the structure of the teeth and fins indicate the genus and species" (paragraph 319). "Hence the embryos of different animals resemble each other the more, the younger they are" (paragraph 320).

"Consequently the high importance of developmental history is indubitable. For, if the formation of the organs takes place in the order corresponding to their importance, this sequence must of itself be a criterion of their comparative value in cla.s.sification. The peculiarities which appear earlier should be considered of higher value than those which appear subsequently" (paragraph 321). "A system, in order to be true and natural, must agree with the sequence of the organs in the development of the embryo" (paragraph 322).

I do not know whether any one at the present day will be inclined to subscribe to this proposition in its whole extent.* (* Aga.s.siz' own views have lately become essentially different, so far as can be made out from Rud. Wagner's notice of his 'Essay on Cla.s.sification.' Aga.s.siz himself does not attempt any criticism of the above cited older views, which, however, are still widely diffused. With his recent conception I am unfortunately acquainted only from R. Wagner's somewhat confused report, and have therefore thought it better not to attempt any critical remarks upon it.) It is certain, however, that views essentially similar are still to be met with everywhere in discussions on cla.s.sification, and that even within the last few years, the very sparingly successful attempts to employ developmental history as the foundation of cla.s.sification have been repeated.

But how do these propositions agree with our observations on the developmental history of the Crustacea? That these observations relate for the most part to their "free metamorphosis" after their quitting the egg, cannot prejudice their application to the propositions enunciated especially with regard to "embryonal development" in the egg; for Aga.s.siz himself points out (paragraph 391) that both kinds of change are of the same nature and of equal importance and that no "radical distinction" is produced by the circ.u.mstance that the former take place before and the latter after birth.

"The ovarian eggs of all animals are identical, small cells with vitellus, germinal vesicle and germinal spot." Yes, somewhat as all Insects are identical, small animals with head, thorax, and abdomen; that is to say if, only noticing what is common to them, we leave out of consideration the difference of their development, the presence or absence and the multifarious structure of the vitelline membrane, the varying composition of the vitellus, the different number and formation of the germinal spots, etc. Numerous examples, which might easily be augmented, of such profound differences, are furnished by Leydig's 'Lehrbuch der Histologie.' In the Crustacea the ovarian eggs actually sometimes furnish excellent characters for the discrimination of species of the same genus; thus, for example, in one Porcellana of this country they are blackish-green, in a second deep blood-red, and in a third dark yellow; and within the limits of the same order they present considerable differences in size, which, as Van Beneden and Claus have already pointed out, stands in intimate connexion with the subsequent mode of development.

"The organs of the body are formed in the sequence of their organic importance; the most essential always appear first." This proposition might be characterised a priori as undemonstrable, since it is impossible either in general, or for any particular animal, to establish a sequence of importance amongst equally indispensable parts. Which is the more important, the lung or the heart--the liver or the kidney?--the artery or the vein? Instead of giving the preference, with Aga.s.siz, to the organs of animal life, we might with equal justice give it to those of vegetative life, as the latter are conceivable without the former, but not the former without the latter. We might urge that, according to this proposition, provisional organs as the first produced must exceed the later-formed permanent organs in importance.

But let us stick to the Crustacea. In Polyphemus Leydig finds the first traces of the intestinal tube even during segmentation. In Mysis a provisional tail is first formed, and in Ligia a maggot-like larva-skin.

The simple median eye appears earlier, and would therefore be more important than the compound paired eyes; the scale of the antennae in the Prawns would be more important than the flagellum; the maxillipedes of the Decapoda would be more important than the chelae and ambulatory feet, and the anterior six pairs of feet in the Isopoda, than the precisely similarly formed seventh pair; in the Amphipoda the most important of all organs would be the "micropylar apparatus," which disappears without leaving a trace soon after hatching; in Cyclops the setae of the tail would be more important than all the natatory feet; in the Cirripedia the posterior antennae, as to which we do not know what becomes of them, would be more important than the cirri, and so forth.