Chapter XX: The Classical Tradition in Modern Morphology (1)

To write a history of contemporary movements from a purely objective standpoint is well recognised to be an impossible task. It is difficult for those in the stream to see where the current is carrying them: the tendencies of the present will only become clear some twenty years in the future.

I propose, therefore, in this concluding chapter to deal only with certain characteristics of modern work on the problems of form which seem to me to be derived directly from the older classical tradition of Cuvier and von Baer.

The present time is essentially one of transition. Complete uncertainty reigns as to the main principles of biology. Many of us think that the materialistic and simplicist method has proved a complete failure, and that the time has come to strike out on entirely different lines. Just in what direction the new biology will grow out is hard to see at present, so many divergent beginnings have been made--the materialistic vitalism of Driesch, the profound intuitionalism of Bergson, the psychological biology of Delpino, France, Pauly, A. Wagner and W. Mackenzie. But if any of these are destined to give the future direction to biology, they will in a measure only be bringing biology back to its pre-materialistic tradition, the tradition of Aristotle, Cuvier, von Baer and J. Mueller. It may well be that the intransigent materialism of the 19th century is merely an episode, an aberration rather, in the history of biology--an aberration brought about by the over-rapid development of a materialistic and luxurious civilisation, in which man's material means have outrun his mental and moral growth.

Two movements seem significant in the morphology of the last decade or so of the 19th century--first, the experimental study of form, and second, the criticism of the concepts or prejudices of evolutionary morphology.

The period was characterised also by the great interest taken in cytology, following upon the pioneer work of Hertwig, van Beneden and others on the behaviour of the nuclei in fertilisation and maturation.[519] This line of work gained added importance in connection with contemporary research and speculation on the nature of hereditary transmission, and it has in quite recent years received an additional stimulus from the re-discovery of Mendelian inheritance. Its importance, however, seems to lie rather in its possible relation to the problems of heredity than in any meaning it may have for the problems of form. More significant is the revolt against the cell-theory started by Sedgwick[520] and Whitman,[521] on the ground that the organism is something more than an aggregation of discrete, self-centred cells.

The experimental work on the causes of the production and restoration of form infused new life into morphology. It opened men's eyes to the fact that the developing organism is very much a living, active, responsive thing, quite capable of relinquishing at need the beaten track of normal development which its ancestors have followed for countless generations, in order to meet emergencies with an immediate and purposive reaction. It was cases of this kind, cases of active regulation in development and regeneration, that led men like G. Wolff and H. Driesch to cast off the bonds of dogmatic Darwinism and declare boldly for vitalism and teleology.

There was the famous case of the regeneration of the lens in Amphibia from the edge of the iris--an entirely novel mode of origin, not occurring in ontogeny. The fact seems to have been discovered first by Colucci in 1891, and independently by G. Wolff in 1895.[522] The experiment was later repeated and confirmed by Fischel and other workers. Wolff drew from this and other facts the conclusion that the organism possesses a faculty of "primary purposiveness" which cannot have arisen through natural selection.[523] And, as is well known, Driesch derived one of his most powerful arguments in favour of vitalism from the extraordinary regenerative processes shown by _Tubularia_ and _Clavellina_ in the course of which the organism actually demolishes and rebuilds a part or the whole of its structure. But under the influence of physiologists like Loeb many workers held fast to materialistic methods and conceptions.

The great variety of regulative response of which the organism showed itself capable made it very difficult for the morphologist to uphold the generalisations which he had drawn from the facts of normal undisturbed development. The germ-layer theory was found inadequate to the new facts, and many reverted to the older criterion of homology based on destiny rather than origin. The trend of opinion was to reject the ontogenetic criterion of homology, and to refuse any morphological or phylogenetic value to the germ-layers.[524]

The biogenetic law came more and more into disfavour, as the developing organism more and more showed itself to be capable of throwing off the dead-weight of the past, and working out its own salvation upon original and individual lines.[525] A. Giard in particular called attention to a remarkable group of facts which went to show that embryos or larvae of the same or closely allied species might develop in most dissimilar ways according to the conditions in which they found themselves.[526] His classical case of "poecilogeny" was that of the shrimp _Palaemonetes varians_, the fresh-water form of which develops in an entirely different way from the salt-water form.

Experimental workers indeed were inclined to rule the law out of account, to disregard completely the historical element in development, and this was perhaps the chief weakness of the neo-vitalist systems which took their origin in this experimental work.

From the side also of descriptive morphology the biogenetic law underwent a critical revision. It was studied as a fact of embryology and without phylogenetic bias by men like Oppel, Keibel, Mehnert, O. Hertwig and Vialleton,[527] and they arrived at a critical estimate of it very similar to that of von Baer.

Theoretical objections to the biogenetic law had been raised from time to time by many embryologists, but the positive testing of it by the comparison of embryos in respect of the degree of development of their different organs starts with Oppel's work of 1891.[528] He studied a large number of embryos of different species at different stages of their development, and determined the relative time of appearance of the principal organs and their relative size. His results are summarised in tabular form and have reference to all the more important organs. He was led to ascribe a certain validity to the biogenetic law, but he drew particular attention to the very considerable anomalies in the time of appearance which are shown by many organs, anomalies which had been classed by Haeckel under the name of heterochronies.

Oppel's main conclusions were as follows:--"There are found in the developmental stages of different Vertebrates 'similar ontogenetic series,' that is to say, Vertebrates show at definite stages similarities with one another in the degree of development of the different organs. Early stages resemble one another, so also do later stages; equivalent stages of closely allied species resemble one another, and older stages of lower animals resemble younger stages of higher animals; young stages are more alike than old stages.... The differences which these similar series show (for which reason they cannot be regarded as identical) may be designated as temporal disturbances in the degree of development of the separate organs or organ-systems. Some organs show very considerable temporal dislocations, others a moderate amount, others again an inconsiderable amount. Among the developmental stages of various higher animals can be found some which correspond to the ancestral forms and also to the lower types which resemble these ancestral forms. On the basis of the tabulated data here given there can be distinguished with certainty in the ontogeny of Amniotes a pro-fish stage, a fish-stage, a land-animal stage, a pro-amniote stage, and following on these a fully developed reptile, bird or mammal stage."[529]

Oppel's methods were employed by Keibel[530] in his investigations on the development of the pig, which formed the model for the well-known series of _Normentafeln_ of the ontogeny of Vertebrates which were issued in later years under Keibel's editorship. Keibel was more critical of the biogenetic law than Oppel, and he held that the ancestral stages distinguished by Oppel could not be satisfactorily established. He suggested an interesting explanation of heterochrony in development, according to which the premature or retarded appearance of organs in ontogeny stands in close relation with the time of their entering upon functional activity. Thus in many mammals the mesodermal part of the allantois often appears long before the endodermal part, though this is phylogenetically older. This Keibel ascribes to the fact that the endodermal part is almost functionless. "One can directly affirm," he writes, "that the time of appearance of an organ depends in an eminent degree upon the time when it has to enter upon functional activity. This moment is naturally dependent upon the external conditions. Among the highest Vertebrates, the mammals, the traces of phylogeny shown in ontogeny are to a great extent obliterated through the adaptation of ontogeny to the external conditions, and through the modifications which the germs of more highly organised animals necessarily exhibit from the very beginning as compared with germs which do not reach such a high level of development" (p. 754, 1897).

Study of individual variation in the time of appearance of the organs in embryos of the same species was prosecuted with interesting results by Bonnet,[531] Mehnert,[532] and Fischel.[533] Fischel found that variability was greatest among the younger embryos, and became progressively less in later stages. Like von Baer (_supra_, p. 114) he inferred that regulatory processes were at work during development which brought divergent organs back to the normal and enabled them to play their part as correlated members of a functional whole.

Important theoretical views were developed by Mehnert[534] in a series of publications appearing from 1891 to 1898. Like Keibel, Mehnert emphasised the importance of function in determining the late or early appearance of organs, but he conceived the influence of function to be exerted not only in ontogeny, but also throughout the whole course of phylogeny, by reason of the transmission to descendants of the effects of functioning in the individual life.

In his paper of 1897 Mehnert details the results of an extensive examination of the development of the extremities throughout the Amniote series. He finds that in all cases a pentadactylate rudiment is formed, even in those forms in which only a few of the elements of the hand or foot come to full development. But whereas in forms with a normally developed hand, _e.g._ the tortoise and man, all the digits develop and differentiate at about the same rate, in forms which have in the adult reduced digits, _e.g._ the ostrich and the pig, these vestigial digits undergo a very slow and incomplete differentiation, while the others develop rapidly and completely. He draws a general distinction between organs that are phylogenetically progressive and such as are phylogenetically regressive, and seeks to prove that progressive organs show an ontogenetic acceleration and regressive organs a retardation.[535] The acceleration or retardation affects not only the mass-growth of the organs, but also their histological differentiation.

Now between progression and functioning and between regression and functional atrophy there is obviously a close connection. Loss of function is well known to be one of the chief causes of the degeneration of organs in the individual life, and on the other hand, as Roux has pointed out, all post-embryonic development is ruled and guided by functioning. It is thus in the long run functioning that brings about phylogenetic progression, absence of functional activity that causes phylogenetic regression. This comes about through the transmission of acquired functional characters, a transmission which Mehnert conceives to be extraordinarily accurate and complete.

In general Mehnert adopts the functional standpoint of Cuvier, von Baer, and Roux. His considered judgment as to the phylogenetic value of the biogenetic law closely resembles that formed by von Baer, for he admits recapitulation only as regards the single organs, not as regards the organism as a whole. He has, however, much more sympathy with the law than either Keibel or Oppel, though he agrees that it cannot be used for the construction of ancestral trees. But he ascribes to it as a fact of development considerable importance. The following passage gives a good summary of his view as to the scope and validity of the law. "The biogenetic law has not been shaken by the attacks of its opponents. The assertion is still true that individual organogenesis is exclusively dependent on phylogeny. But we must not expect to find that all the stages in the development of the separate organs, which coexisted in any member of the phylogenetic series, appear _at the same time_ in the individual ontogeny of the descendants, because each organ possesses its own specific rate of development. In this way it comes about naturally that organs which become differentiated rapidly, as, for example, the medullary tube, as a rule dominate earlier periods of ontogeny than do the organs of locomotion. For the same reason the cerebral hemispheres of man are almost as large in youth as in maturity. The picture which an embryo gives is not a repetition in detail of one and the same phylogenetic stage; it consists rather of an assemblage of organs, some of which are at a phyletically early stage of development, while others are at a phyletically older stage."[536]

A different line of attack was that adopted by O. Hertwig in a series of papers, which contain also what is perhaps the best critical estimate of the present position and value of descriptive morphology.[537]

It had not escaped the notice of many previous observers that quite early embryos not infrequently show specific characters even before the characters proper to their class, order and genus are developed--in direct contradiction of the law of von Baer. Thus L. Agassiz[538] had remarked in 1859 that specific characteristics were often developed precociously. "The Snapping Turtle, for instance, exhibits its small crosslike sternum, its long tail, its ferocious habits, even before it leaves the egg, before it breathes through lungs, before its derm is ossified to form a bony shield, etc.; nay, it snaps with its gaping jaws at anything brought near, when it is still surrounded by its amnion and allantois, and its yolk still exceeds in bulk its whole body" (p. 269).

Wilhelm His,[539] in the course of an acute and damaging criticism of the biogenetic law as enunciated by Haeckel, showed clearly that by careful examination the very earliest embryos of a whole series of Vertebrates could be distinguished with certainty from one another. "An identity in external form of different animal embryos, despite the common affirmation to the contrary, does not exist. Even at early stages in their development embryos possess the characters of their class and order, nay, we can hardly doubt, of their species and sex, and even their individual characteristics" (201).

This specificity of embryos was affirmed with even greater confidence by Sedgwick in a paper critical of von Baer's law.[540] He wrote:--"If v. Baer's law has any meaning at all, surely it must imply that animals so closely allied as the fowl and duck would be indistinguishable in the early stages of development; and that in two species so closely similar that I was long in doubt whether they were distinct species, viz., _Peripatus capensis_ and _Balfouri_, it would be useless to look for embryonic differences; yet I can distinguish a fowl and a duck embryo on the second day by the inspection of a single transverse section through the trunk, and it was the embryonic differences between the Peripatuses which led me to establish without hesitation the two separate species.... I need only say ... that a species is distinct and distinguishable from its allies from the very earliest stages all through the development, although these embryonic differences do not necessarily implicate the same organs as do the adult differences" (p. 39).

Hertwig interprets this fact of the specific distinctness of closely allied embryos in the light of the preformistic conception of heredity. According to this view the whole adult organisation is represented in the structure of the germ-plasm contained in the fertilised ovum, from which it follows that the ova of two different species, and also their embryos at every stage of development, must be as distinct from one another as are the adults themselves, even though the differences may not be so obvious. If this be the case there can be no real recapitulation in ontogeny of the phylogeny of the race, for the egg-cell represents not the first term in phylogeny, but the last. The egg-cell _is_ the organism in an undeveloped state; it has a vastly more complicated structure than was possessed by the primordial cell from which its race has sprung, and it can in no way be considered the equivalent of this ancestral cell.

Hertwig puts this vividly when he says that "the hen's egg is no more the equivalent of the first link in the phylogenetic chain than is the hen itself" (p. 160, 1906, b).

If ontogeny is not a recapitulation of phylogeny, how is it that the early embryonic stages are so alike, even in animals of widely different organisation? Hertwig's answer to this is very interesting. He takes the view that many of the processes characterising early embryonic development are the means necessarily adopted for attaining certain ends. Such are the processes of segmentation, the formation of a blastula, of cell-layers, of medullary folds where the nervous system is a closed tube, the formation of the notochord as a necessary condition of the development of the vertebral column, and so on. "Looked at from this standpoint it cannot surprise us that in all animal phyla the earliest embryonic processes take place in similar fashion, so that we observe the occurrence both in Vertebrates and Invertebrates of a segmentation-process, a morula-stage, a blastula and a gastrula. If now these developmental processes do not depend on chance, but, on the contrary, are rooted in the nature of the animal cell itself, we have no reason for inferring from the recurrence of a similar segmentation-process, morula, blastula, and gastrula in all classes of the animal kingdom the common descent of all animals from one blastula-like or gastrula-like ancestral form. We recognise rather in the successive early stages of animal development only the manifestation of special laws, by which the shaping of animal forms (as distinct from plant forms) is brought about" (p. 178, 1906, b).

"The principal reason why certain stages recur in ontogeny with such constancy and always in essentially the same manner is that they provide under all circumstances the necessary pre-conditions through which alone the later and higher stages of ontogeny can be realised. The unicellular organism can by its very nature transform itself into a multicellular organism only by the method of cell-division. Hence, in all Metazoa, ontogeny must start with a segmentation-process, and a similar statement could be made with regard to all the later stages" (p. 57, 1906, a).

Similarities in early development are therefore no evidence of common descent, and in the same way the resemblances of adult animals, subsumed under the concepts of homology and the unity of plan, are not necessarily due to community of descent, but may also be brought about by the similarity or identity of the laws which govern the evolution of these animals. In the absence, therefore, of positive evidence as to the actual lines of descent (to be obtained only from palaeontology), homological resemblance cannot be taken as proof of blood relationship, for homology is a wider concept than homogeny. The only valid definition of homology is that adopted in pre-evolutionary days, when those organs were considered homologous "which agree up to a certain point in structure and composition, in position, arrangement, and relation to the neighbouring organs, and accordingly possess identical functions and uses in the organism" (p. 151, 1906, b).

The concept of homology has thus a value quite independent of any evolutionary interpretation which may be superadded to it. "Homology is a mental concept obtained by comparison, which under all circumstances retains its validity, whether the homology finds its explanation in common descent or in the common laws that rule organic development" (p. 151, 1906, b). As A. Braun long ago pointed out, "It is not descent which decides in matters of morphology, but, on the contrary, morphology which has to decide as to the possibility of descent."[541]

Hertwig, in a word, reverts to the pre-evolutionary conception of homology. "We see in homology," he writes, "only the expression of regularities (_Gesetzmaessigkeiten_) in the organisation of the animals showing it, and we regard the question, how far this homology can be explained by common descent and how far by other principles, as for the present an open one, requiring for its solution investigations specially directed towards its elucidation" (p. 179, 1906, b).

Holding, as he does, that no definite conclusions can be drawn from the facts of comparative anatomy and embryology as to the probable lines of descent of the animal kingdom, Hertwig accords very little value to phylogenetic speculation. It is, he admits, quite probable that the archetype of a class represents in a general sort of way the ancestral form, but this does not, in his opinion, justify us in assuming that such generalised types ever existed and gave origin to the present-day forms. "It is not legitimate to picture to ourselves the ancestral forms of the more highly organised animals in the guise of the lower animals of the present day--and that is just what we do when we speak of Proselachia, Proamphibia and Proreptilia" (p. 155, 1906, b).

He rejects on the same general grounds the evolutionary dogma of monophyletic or almost monophyletic descent, and admits with Koelliker, von Baer, Wigand, Naegeli and others that evolution may quite well have started many times and from many different primordial cells.

There is indeed a great similarity between the views developed by O. Hertwig and those held by the older critics of Darwinism--von Baer, Koelliker, Wigand, E. von Hartmann and others. It is true the philosophical standpoint is on the whole different, for while many of that older generation were vitalists Hertwig belongs to the mechanistic school.

But both Hertwig and the older school agree in pointing out the _petitio principii_ involved in the assumption that the archetype represents the ancestral form; both reject the simplicist conception of a monophyletic evolution (which may be likened to the "one animal" idea of the transcendentalists); both admit the possibility that evolution has taken place along many separate and parallel lines, and explain the correspondences shown by these separate lines by the similarity of the intrinsic laws of evolution; finally, both emphasise the fact that we know nothing of the actual course of evolution save the few indications that are furnished by palaeontology, and both insist upon the unique importance of the palaeontological evidence.[542]

It was a curious but very typical characteristic of evolutionary morphology that its devotees paid very little attention to the positive evidence accumulated by the palaeontologists,[543] but shut themselves up in their tower of ivory and went on with their work of constructing ideal genealogies. It was perhaps fortunate for their peace of mind that they knew little of the advances made by palaeontology, for the evidence acquired through the study of fossil remains was distinctly unfavourable to the pretty schemes they evolved.

As Neumayr, Zittel, Deperet, Steinmann and others have pointed out, the palaeontological record gives remarkably little support to the ideal genealogies worked out by morphologists. There is, for instance, a striking absence of transition forms between the great classificatory groups. A few types are known which go a little way towards bridging over the gaps--the famous _Archaeopteryx_, for example--but these do not always represent the actual phylogenetic links. There is an almost complete absence of the archetypal ancestral forms which are postulated by evolutionary morphology. Amphibia do not demonstrably evolve from an archetypal Proamphibian, nor do mammals derive from a single generalised Promammalian type. Few of the hypothetical ancestral types imagined by Haeckel have ever been found as fossils. The great classificatory groups are almost as distinct in early fossiliferous strata as they are at the present day. As Deperet says in his admirable book,[544] in the course of a presentation of the matured views of the great Karl von Zittel, "We cannot forget that there exist a vast number of organisms which are not connected by any intermediate links, and that the relations between the great divisions of the animal and vegetable kingdoms are much less close than the theory [of evolution] demands. Even the Archaeopteryx, the discovery of which made so much stir and appeared to establish a genetic relation between classes so distinct as Birds and Reptiles, fills up the gap only imperfectly, and does not indicate the point of bifurcation of these two classes. Intermediate links are lacking between Amphibia and Reptiles. Mammals, too, occupy an isolated position, and no zoologist can deny that they are clearly demarcated from other Vertebrates; indeed, no fossil mammal is certainly known which comes nearer to the lower Vertebrates than does Ornithorhynchus at the present day" (p. 115).

To take a parallel from the Invertebrata, B. B. Woodward,[545] after discussing the phylogeny of the Mollusca as worked out by the morphologists and comparing it with the probable actual course of the evolution of the group, as evidenced by fossil shells, sums up as follows:--"The lacunae in our knowledge of the interrelationships of the members of the various families and orders of Mollusca are slight however, compared with the blank caused by the total absence from palaeontological history of any hint of passage forms between the classes themselves, or between the Mollusca and their nearest allies. Nor is this hiatus confined to the Molluscan phylum; it is the same for all branches of the animal kingdom. There is circumstantial evidence that transitional forms must have existed, but of actual proof none whatever. All the classes of Mollusca appear fully fledged, as it were. No form has as yet been discovered of which it could be said that it in any way approached the hypothecated prorhipidoglossate mollusc, still less one linking all the classes" (p. 79).

Pointing in the same direction as the absence of transitional forms is the undeniable fact that all the great groups of animals appear with all their typical characters at a very early geological epoch. Thus, in the Silurian age a very rich fauna has already developed, and representatives are found of all the main Invertebrate groups--sponges, corals, hydroid colonies, five types of Echinoderms, Bryozoa, Brachiopods, Worms, many types of Mollusca and Arthropoda. Of Vertebrates, at least two types of fish are present--Ganoids and Elasmobranchs. In the very earliest fossiliferous rocks of all, the Precambrian formation, there are remains of Molluscs, Trilobites and Gigantostraca, similar to those which flourished in Cambrian and Silurian times.

The contributions of palaeontology to the solution of the problems of descent posed by morphology are, however, not all of this negative character. The law of recapitulation is in some well-controlled cases triumphantly vindicated by palaeontology. Thus Hyatt and others found that in Ammonites the first formed coils of the shell often reproduce the characters belonging to types known to be ancestral, and what is more they have demonstrated the actual occurrence of the phenomenon known as acceleration or tachygenesis, often postulated by speculative morphologists.[546] This is the tendency universally shown by embryos to reproduce the characters of their ancestors at earlier and earlier stages in their development.

The most valuable contribution made by palaeontologists to morphology and to the theory of evolution arose out of the careful and methodical study of the actual succession of fossil forms as exemplified in limited but richly represented groups. Classical examples were the researches of Hilgendorf[547] on the evolution of _Planorbis multiformis_ in the lacustrine deposits of Steinheim, those of Waagen[548] on the phylogeny of _Ammonites subradiatus_, and the work of Neumayr and Paul[549] on _Paludina_ (_Vivipara_).

These investigations demonstrated that it was possible to follow out step by step in superjacent strata the actual evolution of fossil species and to establish the actual "phyletic series."

To take an example from among the Vertebrates, Deperet has shown (_loc. cit._, pp. 184-9), that the European Proboscidea, belonging to the three different types of the Elephants, Mastodons and Dinotheria, have evolved since the Oligocene epoch along five distinct but continuous lines. The Dinotherian stock is represented at the beginning of the Miocene by the relatively small form _D. cuvieri_; this changes progressively throughout Miocene times into _D. laevius_, _D. giganteum_, and _D. gigantissimum_. Among the Mastodons two quite distinct phyletic series can be distinguished, the first commencing with _Palaeomastodon beadnelli_ of the Oligocene, and evolving between the Miocene and Pliocene into _Mastodon arvernensis_, after traversing the forms _M. angustidens_ and _M. longirostris_, the second starting with the _M. turicensis_ of the Lower Miocene and evolving through _M. borsoni_ into the _M. americanus_ of the Quaternary. The phyletic series of the true elephants in Europe are relatively short, and go back only to the Quaternary, _Elephas antiquus_ giving origin to the Indian elephant, _E. priscus_ to the African.

The careful study of phyletic series brought to light the significant fact that these lines of filiation tend to run for long stretches of time parallel to, and distinct from one another, without connecting forms. This is clearly exemplified in the case of the Proboscidea, and many other examples could be quoted. Almost all rich genera are polyphyletic in the sense that their component species evolve along separate and parallel lines of descent.[550] "Such great genera as the genus _Hoplites_ among the Ammonites, the genus _Cerithium_ among the Gastropoda, the genus _Pecten_ or the genus _Trigonia_ among the Lamellibranchs, each comprise perhaps more than twenty independent phyletic series" (Deperet, p. 200).

Variation along the phyletic lines is gradual[551] and determinate, and appears to obey definite laws. The earliest members of a phyletic series are usually small in size and undifferentiated in structure, while the later members show a progressive increase in size and complexity. Rapid extinction often supervenes soon after the line has reached the maximum of its differentiation.

The general picture which palaeontology gives us of the evolution of the animal kingdom is accordingly that of an immense number of phyletic lines which evolve parallel to one another, and without coalescing, throughout longer or shorter periods of geological times. "Each of these lines culminates sooner or later in mutations of great size and highly specialised characters, which become extinct and leave no descendants. When one line disappears by extinction it hands the torch, so to speak, to another line which has hitherto evolved more slowly, and this line in its turn traverses the phases of maturity and old age which lead it inevitably to its doom. The species and genera of the present day belong to lines that have not reached the senile phase; but it may be surmised that some of them, _e.g._ elephants, whales, and ostriches, are approaching this final phase of their existence" (Deperet, p. 249).

It is one of the paradoxes of biological history that the palaeontologists have always laid more stress upon the functional side of living things than the morphologists, and have, as a consequence, shown much more sympathy for the Lamarckian theory of evolution. The American palaeontologists in particular--Cope, Hyatt, Ryder, Dall, Packard, Osborn--have worked out a complete neo-Lamarckian theory based upon the fossil record.

The functional point of view was well to the fore in the works of those great palaeontologists, L. Ruetimeyer (1825-1895) and V. O. Kowalevsky (1842-83), who seem to have carried on the splendid tradition of Cuvier. Speaking of Kowalevsky's classical memoir, _Versuch einer natuerlichen Classification der fossilen Hufthiere_, Osborn[552] writes:--"This work is a model union of the detailed study of form and function with theory and the working hypothesis. It regards the fossil not as a petrified skeleton, but as having belonged to a moving and feeding animal; every joint and facet has a meaning, each cusp a certain significance. Rising to the philosophy of the matter, it brings the mechanical perfection and adaptiveness of different types into relation with environment, with changes of herbage, with the introduction of grass. In this survey of competition it speculates upon the causes of the rise, spread, and extinction of each animal group. In other words, the fossil quadrupeds are treated _biologically_--so far as is possible in the obscurity of the past" (p. 8). The same high praise might with justice be accorded to the work of Cope on the functional evolution of the various types of limb-skeleton in Vertebrates, and on the evolution of the teeth as well as to the work of other American palaeontologists, including Osborn himself.

Osborn's law of "adaptive radiation," which links on to Darwin's law of divergence,[553] constitutes a brilliant vindication of the functional point of view. "According to this law each isolated region, if large and sufficiently varied in its topography, soil, climate, and vegetation, will give rise to a diversified mammalian fauna. From primitive central types branches will spring off in all directions, with teeth and prehensile organs modified to take advantage of every possible opportunity of securing food, and in adaptation of the body, limbs and feet to habitats of every kind, as shown in the diagram [on p. 363]. The larger the region and the more diverse the conditions, the greater the variety of mammals which will result.

"The most primitive mammals were probably small insectivorous or omnivorous forms, therefore with simple, short-crowned teeth, of slow-moving, ambulatory, terrestrial, or arboreal habit, and with short feet provided with claws. In seeking food and avoiding enemies in different habitats the limbs and feet radiate in four diverse directions; they either become _fossorial_ or adapted to digging habits, _natatorial_ or adapted to _amphibious_ and finally to _aquatic_ habits, _cursorial_ or adapted to swift-moving, terrestrial progression, _arboreal_ or adapted to tree life. Tree life leads, as its final stage, into

LIMBS AND FEET.
Volant.
/
Fossorial. Arboreal.
\ /
Short-limbed, plantigrade, } Ambulatory
pentadactyl, unguiculate } or
Stem. } Terrestrial.
/ \
Natatorial. Cursorial
Amphibious. Digitigrade.
/ \
Aquatic Unguligrade.

TEETH.
Omnivorous.
{ Grass.
{ Fish. | { Herb.
Carnivorous { Flesh. | Herbivorous { Shrub.
\ { Carrion. | / { Fruit.
\ | / { Root.
\ | /
\ | / Myrmecophagous.
\ | / / Dentition reduced.
\ | / /
\ | / /
\ | / /
\ |/ /
Stem: Insectivorous.

the parachute types of the flying squirrels and phalangers, or into the true flying types of the bats.... Similarly in the case of the teeth, insectivorous and omnivorous types appear to be more central and ancient than either the exclusively carnivorous or herbivorous types. Thus the extremes of carnivorous adaptation, as in the case of the cats, of omnivorous adaptation, as in the case of the bears, of herbivorous adaptation, as in the case of the horses, or myrmecophagous adaptation, as in the case of the anteaters, are all secondary" (_loc. cit._, pp. 23-4).

We have now reached the end of our historical survey of the problems of form. What the future course of morphology will be no one can say. But one may hazard the opinion that the present century will see a return to a simpler and more humble attitude towards the great and unsolved problems of animal form. Dogmatic materialism and dogmatic theories of evolution have in the past tended to blind us to the complexity and mysteriousness of vital phenomena. We need to look at living things with new eyes and a truer sympathy. We shall then see them as active, living, passionate beings like ourselves, and we shall seek in our morphology to interpret as far as may be their form in terms of their activity.

This is what Aristotle tried to do, and a succession of master-minds after him. We shall do well to get all the help from them we can.

[519] See E. B. Wilson's masterly book, _The Cell in
Development and Inheritance_, New York and London, 1900.

[520] _Q.J.M.S._, xxvi. 1886.

[521] _Wood's Holl Biological Lectures_ for 1893.

[522] _Arch. f. Ent.-Mech._, i., pp. 380-90, 1895.

[523] _Beitraege zur Kritik der Darwinschen Lehre_,
Leipzig, 1898.

[524] See E. B. Wilson, "The Embryological Criterion of
Homology," _Wood's Holl Biological Lectures_, Boston,
pp. 101-24, 1895; Braem, _Biol. Centrblt._, xv., 1895;
T. H. Morgan, _Arch. f. Ent.-Mech._, xviii.; J. W.
Jenkinson, _Mem. Manchester Lit. Phil. Soc._, 1906, and
_Vertebrate Embryology_, Oxford, 1913; A. Sedgwick,
article "Embryology" in _Ency. Brit._, p. 318, vol. xi.,
11th Ed. (1910).

[525] For a detailed treatment of this important point see
the remarkable volume of E. Schulz (Petrograd),
_Prinzipien der rationellen vergleichenden Embryologie_,
Leipzig, 1910.

[526] "La Poecilogonie," _Bull. Sci. France et Belgique_,
xxxix., pp. 153-87, 1905.

[527] _Un probleme de l'evolution. La loi biogenetique
fondamentale_, Paris and Montpellier, 1908.

[528] _Vergleichung des Entwickelungsgrades der Organe zu
verschiedenen Entwickelungszeiten bei Wirbeltieren_,
Jena, 1891.

[529] Quoted by Keibel, _Ergebn. Anat. Entwick._, vii., p.
741.

[530] "Studien zur Entwickelungsgeschichte des Schweines,"
Schwalbe's _Morphol. Arbeiten_, iii., 1893, and v.,
1895.

_Normentafeln zur Entwickelungsgeschichte des
Schweines_, Jena, 1897.

"Das biogenetische Grundgesetz und die Cenogenese,"
_Ergebn. Anat. Entw._, vii., pp. 722-92, 1897.

"U. d. Entwickelungsgrad der Organe," _Handb. vergl.
exper. Entwick. der Wirbelthiere_, iii., 3, pp. 131-48,
1906.

[531] "Beitraege zur Embryologie der Wiederkaeuer," _Arch.
Anat. Entw._, 1889.

[532] "Die individ. Variation d. Wirbeltierembryo,"
_Morph. Arbeit._, v., 1895.

[533] "U. Variabilitaet u. Wachstum d. embryonalen
Koerpers," _Morph. Jahrb._, xxiv., 1896.

[534] "Gastrulation u. Keimblaetterbildung der _Emys
lutaria taurica_," _Morph. Arbeit._, i., 1891.
"Kainogenese," _Morph. Arbeit._, vii., pp. 1-156, 1897,
and also separately. _Biomechanik, erschlossen aus dem
Prinzipe der Organogenese_, Jena, 1898.

[535] This law was foreshadowed by Reichert in 1837, when he
wrote:--"We notice in our investigation of embryos of different
animal forms that it is those organs, those systems, which in the
fully developed individual are peculiarly perfect, that in their
earliest rudiments and also throughout the whole course of their
development appear with the most striking distinctness" (Mueller's
_Archiv_, p. 135, 1837). See also his _Entwick. Kopf. nackt.
Amphib._, p. 198, 1838. So, too, Rathke notes how the elongated
shape of the snake appears even in very early embryonic stages
(_Entwick. Natter._, p. 111, 1839).

[536] Quoted by Keibel (p. 790, 1897) from the
_Biomechanik_.

[537] _Die Zelle und die Gewebe_, Jena, 1898, and the
subsequent editions of this text-book, published under
the title of _Allgemeine Biologie. Die Entwickelung der
Biologie im neunzehnten Jahrhundert_, Jena, 1900, 2nd
ed., 1908. "Ueber die Stellung der vergl.
Entwickelungslehre zur vergl. Anatomie, zur Systematik
und Descendenztheorie," _Handb. vergl. exper.
Entwickelungslehre der Wirbeltiere_, iii., 3, pp.
149-80, Jena, 1906. (1906, b). Also in Pt. I. of Vol. I.
(1906, a).

[538] _An Essay on Classification_, London, 1859.

[539] _Unsere Koerperform_, Leipzig, 1874.

[540] _Q.J.M.S._, xxxvi., pp. 35-52, 1894.

[541] Quoted by Hertwig. See also K. Goebel, "Die
Grundprobleme der heutigen Pflanzenmorphologie," _Biol.
Centrbl._, xxv., pp. 65-83, 1905.

[542] This is also emphasised by Fleischmann in his critical study of
evolutionary morphology entitled _Die Descendenztheorie_, Leipzig,
1901.

[543] The same remark applies to the bulk of speculation as to the
factors of evolution, with the exception of the contributions made
to evolution theory by the palaeontologists by profession, such as
Cope.

[544] _Les Transformations du Monde animal_, Paris, 1907.

[545] "Malacology _versus_ Palaeoconchology," _Proc.
Malacological Soc._, viii., pp. 66-83, 1908.

[546] Particularly by E. Perrier, "La Tachygenese," _Ann.
Sci. nat._ (_Zool._) (8), xvi., 1903.

[547] _Monatsber. k. Akad. Wiss._, Berlin, pp. 474-504,
1866.

[548] _Geognost. u. Palaeont. Beitraege_, ii., Heft 2, pp.
181-256, 1869.

[549] _Abhand. k.k. Geol. Reichsanstalt_, vii., Wien,
1875.

[550] The case for polyphyletism is very strongly put by
G. Steinmann in his book, _Die geologischen Grundlagen
der Abstammungslehre_, Leipzig, 1908.

[551] The steps in this chronological variation were
termed by Waagen "mutations."

[552] _The Age of Mammals in Europe, Asia, and North
America_, New York, 1910.

[553] _Origin of Species_, 6th ed., Chap. IV.

INDEX

ACTINOZOAN THEORY of Vertebrate Descent, 299-300

Adaptation as Conservative Principle--
Cuvier, 39, 76

Adaptation, Ecological--
Von Baer, 123
H. Milne-Edwards, 199
Lamarck, 221, 222, 223, 224, 227
Treviranus, 225 f.n.
C. Darwin, 231-2, 235, 239
Haeckel, 248, 263
Gegenbaur, 263
V. O. Kowalevsky, 362
Osborn, 362-4

Adaptation, Ecological, and Classification--
Bronn, 203

Adaptation of Parts. _See_ "Correlation, Functional," and "Conditions of
Existence"

Adaptive Radiation (Osborn), 362-4

Agassiz, A., 288 f.n., 295
On Coelom, 296

Agassiz, L.--
Criticism of Vertebral Theory of Skull, 157
Membrane and Cartilage Bones, 164
Transcendentalism, 203
Classification, 203 f.n.
Three-fold Parallelism, 230, 255
Influence on Darwin, 238
Specific Distinctness of Embryos, 353

Albertus Magnus, 17

Alcmaeon, 1

Aldrovandus, 18

Allman, 209

Analogy. _See also_ Homology.
Aristotle, 8-10
Owen, 108
Haeckel, 251
Gegenbaur, 266
Lankester, 267

Anaxagoras, 14

Anaximander, 14

Anaximenes, 1

Animal and Vegetative Lives--
Aristotle, 16, 32
Buffon, 26-7
Bergson, 26 f.n.
Cuvier, 26, 32
Bichat, 27-9
Oken, 94
K. G. Carus, 94
Von Baer, 116, 123, 131
Remak (Sensory and trophic layers), 210
Gegenbaur, 263

Annelid Theory of Vertebrate Descent, 274-85, 301

Archetype, Anatomical, 246, 302-3
E. Geoffroy, 54, 67
Owen, 104-7, 110
J. V. Carus, Huxley, 204
C. Darwin, 238 f.n.

Archetype, Anatomical, as Ancestral--
C. Darwin, 235, 247
Haeckel, 251
Gegenbaur, 265
Sedgwick, 300
Criticism of this idea--
O. Hertwig, 355-7

Archetype, Embryological, 168, 246, 302-3
Von Baer, 126, 132
Reichert, 139, 147, 149
Rathke, 151, 153
Huxley, 159-61

Archetype, Embryological, as Ancestral--
C. Darwin, 233, 236-7
Haeckel, 254, 289-91
Gegenbaur, 266
O. and R. Hertwig, 298
Sedgwick, 300
A. Kowalevsky, 300

Arendt, 162

Aristotle, 2-16, 17, 345, 364
_Historia Animalium_, 2
_De Partibus Animalium_, 2, 9
Knowledge of Animals, 3, 4
Comparative Embryology, 4
Classification of Animals, 4-6
Unity of Plan, 6-7, 10
Homology and Analogy, 7-10
Teleology and Correlation, 10-12
Law of Compensation, 11
Division of Labour, 12
Degrees of Composition--homogeneous and heterogeneous parts, 12-14, 169
Law of Development (Von Baer), 14
Scale of Beings, 14-16
Functional attitude, 15-16, 197
Animal and Vegetative Lives, 16, 32

Ascidian Theory of Vertebrate Descent, 269-73, 304

Atomists, 16

Atomists, "Biological," 192-4

Audouin, V.--
Unity of plan in Arthropods, 85-6
Law of Compensation, 86
Marine Zoology, 195

Autenrieth, 90, 96

Avicenna, 17

BABAK, E., 333

Baer, K. E. von, 113-32, 133, 251, 304, 345, 356
Founder of Embryology, 113
_Entwickelungsgeschichte der Thiere_, 114
Regulation of Development, 114, 350
Development as Differentiation, 115, 128
Germ-Layer Theory, 115-6, 118-119, 208-9, 296
Morphological Differentiation, 116-7
Histological Differentiation, 117-8
Tissues and Germ-Layers, 118
Double symmetrical Development, 118, 279
Criticism of Meckel-Serres Law, 120-3, 304
Theory of Types, 123-4, 289, 291
Law of Development, 124-6
Embryological Criterion, 126-8, 132, 138
Embryological Archetype, 126, 132
Types of Development, 127-8
Von Baer and Cuvier, 128-30
Functional attitude, 129
Relation to Transcendentalists, 129, 131
Criticism of Scale of Beings, 130
Vertebral Theory of Skull, 131, 142
Serial Homology, 131-2
Gill-slits, Gill-arches and Aortic arches, 135-6, 146
Membrane and Cartilage Bones, 162-3
Degrees of Composition, 172
Ova of Mammals, 175-6
Segmentation of Ovum, 186
Criticism of Evolution Theory, 229, 242
Influence on Darwin, 236, 238
Criticism of Darwinism, 242
Teleology and Correlation, 242
On Ascidians, 271

Baer's Law. _See_ "Development, Von Baer's Law"

Bagge, 187

_Balanoglossus_ Theory of Vertebrate Descent, 285-7

Balbiani, 330

Balfour, F. M., 247, 299
Annelid Theory, 282-4
Gastrulation and Gastraea Theory, 295
Mesoderm, 296 f.n.
Coelom, 297

Barfurth, D., 330

Barry, M., 186, 188

Bateson, W.--
Metamerism, Vegetative Repetition, 286
_Balanoglossus_ Theory, 286-7
On Phylogenetic Speculation, 302

Beard, J., 285

Belon, 18

Beneden van, and Julin, 271, 285, 346

Bensley, A. B., 311 f.n.

Bergmann, 187

Bergson, H., 26 f.n., 341, 345

Bernard, Claude, 195, 314

Bert, P., 315

Bichat, X., 27-30, 118, 132, 169, 178, 263
Animal and Vegetative Lives, 27-9
"General Anatomy," 29-30
_Vie propre_ of Tissues, 30

Biogenetic Law. _See_"Development, Haeckel's Law"

Bischoff, 138
Segmentation, 186, 188

Blainville, de, 96, 128, 141, 199 f.n.

Bojanus, 96, 97

Bonnet, C.--
Scale of Beings, 22-3, 220, 227
Evolution, 215
Regeneration, 315

Bonnet, R., 350

Bonnier, G., on Albertus Magnus, 17

Born, G., 330

Boveri, T., 270 f.n., 333

Braem, 347 f.n.

Braun, A., 355

Breschet, 138, 173

Bronn, H. G., 200-3, 248
_Naturphilosophie_, 201
Functional attitude, 201-3
Geometry of Organism, 201, 249
Theory of Types, 202
Principle of Connections, 202
Intrinsic Laws of Evolution, 202
Division of Labour, 202
Ecological Adaptation and Classification, 203

Brown, R., 171

Bruch, C., 203 f.n.

Buechner, 194, 248

Buffon, 24-7, 336
Scale of Beings, 24, 215
Unity of Plan, 24
Evolution, 24-5, 214
Classification, 25-6
Animal and Vegetative Lives, 26-7
Homology and Analogy, 27

Burckhardt, R., 3 f.n., 268 f.n.

Burdin, 96

Burmeister, 249 f.n.

Butler, S., 226 f.n., 313, 335-42
Relation to Lamarck, 335-7
Psychological Vitalism, 336-41
Heredity and Memory, 337-41
The Two Stages of Development, 337-9
Consciousness and Habit, 337-9
Recapitulation Theory, 339-40
Teleology, 341

CABANIS, 215

Camper, P., 45, 46

Carter, 293 f.n.

Carus, J. V.--
Criticism of Embryological Criterion, 167
Morphology and Physiology, 194
Vertebral Theory of Skull, 203
On Archetype, 204
Evolution, 230

Carus, K.G.--
Law of Parallelism, 94, 249
Vertebral Theory, 96
Geometry of Skeleton, 98-100
Splanchnoskeleton, 98, 140

Causal Morphology, 312-3, 315-34

Cell-Theory--
Schwann, 169, 173-86, 188
C. F. Wolff, 170
Schleiden, 170-2
Criticism of Schwann-Schleiden Theory, 185-8
Virchow, Leydig, 188

Cell-Theory and Germ-Layer Theory--
Remak, 209-12

Cell-Theory as Disintegrative--
Schwann, 180-5, 248
Vogt, 190-1
Virchow, 191
Haeckel, 248
Criticism of this idea--
Reichert, 192-3, 194
J. V. Carus, 194
Sedgwick, Whitman, 346

Cell-Theory, Influence on Morphology, 190

Cenogenesis, 258-9, 323

Chabry, 331

Child, C. M., 333

Chun, C, 317, 332

Classification of Animals--
Aristotle, 4-6
Rondeletius, Aldrovandus, Gesner, 18
Linnaeus, 22
Buffon, 25-6
Cuvier, 39-41
E. Geoffroy, 60
L. Agassiz, 203 f.n.
Lamarck, 216-7, 227, 228

Classification and Ecological Adaptation (Bronn), 203

Classification as Genealogical--
Buffon, 24-5
Lamarck, 218, 228
C. Darwin, 233, 234, 247
Haeckel, 250-1, 254
Criticism of this idea, 303, 304,
O. Hertwig, 356

Classification, Phylogenetic--
Haeckel's, 289-94

Claus, 259

Co-adaptation, 326 f.n.

Coelom--
Remak, 211
A. Kowalevsky, 270, 295, 297
Haeckel, 291, 295, 296
Lankester, 291, 297

Coelom, Theory of, 295-301

Cohen, 189

Coiter, 18

Colucci, 346

Compensation, Law of--
Aristotle, 11
Goethe, 49
E. Geoffroy, 72-3
Audouin, 86.
German Transcendentalists, 100

Condillac, 215

Conditions of Existence, Principle of--
Cuvier, 34, 75-6, 239
Gegenbaur, 263-4
Roux, 324, 326
Spencer, Weismann, 326 f.n.
Disregard for--
Lamarck, 226
C. Darwin, 232, 238-41
Haeckel, 248, 264

Conklin, 333

Connections, Principle of--
Goethe, 47
E. Geoffroy, 53-4, 62-3, 71, 74, 261
Audouin, 85

Connections, Principle of--_contd._
German Transcendentalists, 100
J. F. Meckel, 101
Owen, 107-8
Bronn, 202
C. Darwin, 234-5
Gegenbaur, 261
Semper, 279
In Embryology, 168
Main Principle of Morphology, 246, 302

Convergence--
Milne-Edwards, 199
I. Geoffroy St Hilaire, 199 f.n., 206
C. Darwin, 236
Friedmann, Willey, Vialleton, 306 f.n.

Convergence, Rejected by Evolutionary Morphologists, 305, 312
Hubrecht, 305-6

Cope, E. D., 342, 357 f.n., 361, 362

Correlation, Functional--
Aristotle, 10-12
Cuvier, 35-8, 239, 241
E. Geoffroy, 77
Von Hartmann, 240-1
Radl, 240 f.n., 241
Von Baer, 242
Gegenbaur, 264
Disregarded by--
C. Darwin, 235, 238-41
Haeckel, 248, 264

Coste, 134, 138, 176, 187

Crampton, 332

Cunningham, J. T., 284

Cuvier, 26, 31-44, 89, 196, 197, 199 f.n., 278, 345, 361
Functional attitude, 31-6, 65, 75-8, 200, 305
Animal and Vegetative Lives, 32
Degrees of Composition, 32-3
Teleology, 33-5
Functional Adaptedness, 33-5, 324
Principle of Conditions of Existence, 34, 75-6, 239
Correlation, 35-8, 239, 241
Metabolism, 38
Adaptation as Conservative Principle, 39, 76
Classification, 39-41
Principle of Subordination of Characters, 40
Criticism of Scale of Beings, 39-40, 130
Type Theory, 41, 124, 289, 291
Criticism of Evolution-Theory, 41-4, 129, 304
Variation, Limits of, 42
Palaeontological Succession, 43
Polemic with Geoffroy, 64-5, 74-8
Criticism of Vertebral Theory of Skull, 97-8
Influence on J. F. Meckel, 101
Criticism of Meckel-Serres Law, 129-30, 304
As Embryologist, 130
Criticism of Lamarck, 228

Cytology, 346

Cytoplasm of Egg, Organ-forming Stuffs, 332-3

DALL, 361

D'Alton, 113

Dareste, C., 315

Darwin, Charles, 78, 230-41, 271, 304, 307, 336, 362
Systematist and Field Naturalist, 230, 231
Palaeontological Succession, 231
Ecological Adaptation, 231-2, 235, 239
Species Problem, 231
Functional Adaptation, Disregard for, 232, 238-41
Classification as genealogical, 233, 234, 247
Unity of Plan due to Community of Descent, 233, 234-5, 239, 247
Embryological Archetype as ancestral, 233, 236-7
Rejects Meckel-Serres Law, 233, 236
Interpretation of Vestigial Organs, 233, 237
Organism as Historical Being, 233, 308
Rejects Scale of Beings, 234
Homology, 234-5, 247
Principle of Connections, 234-5
Anatomical Archetype as ancestral, 235, 247
Von Baer's Law interpreted phylogenetically, 236-7
Modifications inherited at corresponding age, 237
Monophyletism and Polyphyletism, 238
Causes of Success, 238, 241

Darwin, Erasmus, 214, 226 f.n., 229, 336

Darwin, Sir Francis, 344

Daubenton, 26

Degrees of Composition--
Aristotle, 12-14, 169
Glisson, 19
Malpighi, 20
Bichat, 29-30
Cuvier, 32-3,
Dujardin, 169, 188
Von Baer, 172
Effect of Invention of Microscope, 20
Relation to Cell-Theory, 169

Delage, 333

Delage and Herouard, 273 f.n.

Delpino, 345

Demaillet, 44

Democritus, 16

Deperet, C, 357
On Cuvier, 43
Absence of intermediary forms in Palaeontology, 358
Phyletic series and Polyphyletism, 360-1

Development, Von Baer's Law--
Aristotle, 14
Von Baer, 124-6
Prevost and Dumas, 125 f.n.
Reichert, 149-50, 351 f.n.
Milne-Edwards, 205-8
Lereboullet, 206-8
Criticised by--
Agassiz, 352-3
His, 353
Sedgwick, 353
O. Hertwig, 354
Phylogenetic Interpretation of--
Darwin, 236-7
Gegenbaur, 266
Relation to Haeckel's Law, 254, 256, 257

Development, Biogenetic Law (Haeckel)--
Haeckel, 251, 253-9, 291-4
F. Mueller, 252-3, 254, 257
Gegenbaur, 262
Roux, 319
Butler, 339-40
Orr, 342
Criticism of--
Vialleton, 348
Oppel, 348-9
Keibel, 349-50
Mehnert, 350-2
O. Hertwig, 352, 354-5
His, 353
Relation to Laws of Meckel-Serres and Von Baer, 254, 256, 257, 303, 309
Relation to Heredity and Development, 312-3
Influence of Causal Morphology, 347-8
Palaeontological Evidence for, 359

Development, Meckel-Serres Law--
Harvey, 18
Hunter, 22
E. Geoffroy, 69-70, 72
Serres, 80-3, 94, 203-4, 205-6
Kielmeyer, Autenrieth, Oken, 90

Development, Meckel-Serres Law-_contd._
Tiedemann, 91
J. F. Meckel, 91-3
K. G. Carus, 94
Criticism of--
Von Baer, 120-3, 304
Cuvier, 129-30, 304
Milne-Edwards, 205
Lereboullet, 206-8
C. Darwin, 233, 236
Analogy with Biogenetic Law, 254-7, 262, 303, 304, 309

Development, Meckel-Serres Law, Theory of Three-fold Parallelism--
L. Agassiz, 230, 255
Tiedemann, Vogt, 255 f.n.
Haeckel, 254-5

Development, The two periods of--
Roux, 320-4, 325, 327, 335
Butler, 337-9

Diogenes of Apollonia, 1

Disintegration. _See_ "Cell-Theory," and "Materialistic Attitude"

Division of Labour, Principle of--
Aristotle, 12
Milne-Edwards, 197-8
Bronn, 202
Gegenbaur, 264

Dohrn, A., 269, 274-8
Annelid Theory of Vertebrate Descent, 274-7, 303
Principle of Function-Change, 276-8, 307
Functional Attitude, 277-8, 307
Formal Attitude, 306

Doellinger, I., 113, 157

Dollo, 311

Donne, 173

D'Orbigny, 43

Driesch, H., 242, 331, 332, 333, 334, 345, 346-7

Duges, A., 86-8, 100, 134, 142, 146
Unity of Plan, 87
Polyzoic conception of Organism, 87-8
Membrane and Cartilage Bones, 163

Dujardin, 169, 188

Dumas. _See_ Prevost and Dumas

Dumeril, 96

Dumortier, 173

Dutrochet, 99 f.n., 130, 134

Duverney, 19

EAR-OSSICLES, Homology of--
E. Geoffroy, 56
Spix, 100
Rathke, 141, 150
Reichert, 144-7

_Echelle des etres. See_ "Scale of Beings."

Ehlers, 284

Eisig, H., 284, 285

Embryology, Comparative, Early Workers--
Aristotle, 4, 113
Fabricius, Harvey, 18, 113
Malpighi, 20, 113
Oken and Kieser, 90, 113
Haller, C. F. Wolff, J. F. Meckel, Tiedemann, 113

Embryology, Experimental, 317, 318, 330-3

Embryological Archetype. _See_ "Archetype, Embryological"

Embryological Criterion of Homology, 133-168, 347
Goethe, 49
E. Geoffroy, 72, 110
Cuvier, 75, 110, 130
Owen, 110-1
Von Baer, 126-8, 132, 138
Rathke, 138, 140-1
J. Mueller, 138
Reichert, 138-9, 144-7, 163
Vogt, 156-7
Huxley, 158-9, 166
Koelliker, 165-6
Criticised by--
Owen, J. V. Carus, 167

Empedocles, 1, 15

Engramm (Semon), 343

_Entwicklungsgesetz._ _See_ "Evolution, Intrinsic Laws of"

_Entwicklungsmechanik_, 315

Erasistratus, 17

Evolution Theory--
Lucretius, 16
Buffon, 24-5, 214
Cuvier's criticism, 41-4, 129, 304
E. Geoffroy, 66-9, 73, 228
J. F. Meckel, 92-3, 215, 228
Leibniz, 213
Kant, 213-4
Erasmus Darwin, 214, 229
C. Bonnet, Oken, Robinet, Treviranus, 215
Tiedemann, 215, 255 f.n.
Lamarck, 215-29
Von Baer, 229, 242
I. Geoffroy St Hilaire, J. V. Carus, 230
Charles Darwin, 230-41
Von Hartmann, 240-1, 244, 356
Koelliker, 243
Owen, 244
Milne-Edwards, 244-5
Haeckel, 250-9
Gegenbaur, 265
The Organism as an Historical Being, 308-13
C. Darwin, 233, 308
Haeckel, 252, 257
Sedgwick, 308
Roux, 313, 322-4
Butler, 313, 336-41

Evolution-Theory, Influence on Morphology, 302-13

Evolution, Intrinsic Laws of, 241
J. F. Meckel, 93
Bronn, 202
Von Baer, 229, 242, 356
Koelliker, Naegeei, 243, 356
Owen, 244
Von Hartmann, 244, 356
Milne-Edwards, 244-5
O. Hertwig, 354-5, 356-7
Wigand, 356
Deperet, 361

FABRICIUS, 18, 113

Fallopius, 18

Fischel, 346, 350

Fischer, 328

Fleischmann, 357 f.n.

Flourens, 46, 315

Fontana, 172

Forbes, E., 196

Formal Attitude, 246, 305
Goethe, 49
E. Geoffroy, 62-3, 71, 75-8, 305
Haeckel, 249, 257, 260
Gegenbaur, 261, 263
Semper, 279
Adopted by Evolutionary Morphologists, 302-8, 311-2, 314
Hubrecht, 305-6
Dohrn, 306

France, R., 345

Friedmann, 306 f.n.

Fuld, 333

Functional Adaptation, 316-7, 318, 320-9, 333, 344, 351

Functional Attitude--
Aristotle, 15-6, 197
Bichat, 27-9
Cuvier, 31-6, 65, 75-8, 200, 305
Goethe, 49-50
J. F. Meckel, 101
Owen, 109, 110, 111
Von Baer, 129
Milne-Edwards, 195, 197-200
J. Mueller, Reichert, 200
Bronn, 201-3
Lamarck, 222-6, 307, 335
Gegenbaur, 260, 263-4
Dohrn, 277-8, 307
Roux, 320-9, 335
Houssay, 333
Butler, 336-41
G. Wolff, 346
Driesch, 346-7
Giard, 347
E. Schulz, 347 f.n.
Keibel, 349-50
Mehnert, 350-1
American Palaeontologists, 361, 362
Ruetimeyer, 361
V. O. Kowalevsky, 361-2
Osborn, 362-4

Function-Change, Principle of--
Dohrn, 276-8, 306, 307
Eisig, 284

Fuerbringer, M., 282 f.n., 284, 323 f.n.

GALEN, 17

Gastraea Theory, 269, 288-95, 298, 299-3O1, 303

Gastrula, Discovery of, 288

Gaupp, E., 310 f.n.