At the same time, I must admit that our knowledge of the evolution of functions is very far from being as complete as our acquaintance with the evolution of structures. One might say, in fact, that the whole science of evolution has almost confined itself to the study of structures; the evolution of FUNCTIONS hardly exists even in name. That is the fault of the physiologists, who have as yet concerned themselves very little about evolution. It is only in recent times that physiologists like W. Engelmann, W. Preyer, M. Verworn, and a few others, have attacked the evolution of functions.
It will be the task of some future physiologist to engage in the study of the evolution of functions with the same zeal and success as has been done for the evolution of structures in morphogeny (the science of the genesis of forms). Let me illustrate the close connection of the two by a couple of examples. The heart in the human embryo has at first a very simple construction, such as we find in permanent form among the ascidiae and other low organisms; with this is associated a very simple system of circulation of the blood. Now, when we find that with the full-grown heart there comes a totally different and much more intricate circulation, our inquiry into the development of the heart becomes at once, not only an anatomical, but also a physiological, study. Thus it is clear that the ontogeny of the heart can only be understood in the light of its phylogeny (or development in the past), both as regards function and structure. The same holds true of all the other organs and their functions. For instance, the science of the evolution of the alimentary canal, the lungs, or the sexual organs, gives us at the same time, through the exact comparative investigation of structure-development, most important information with regard to the evolution of the functions of these organs.
This significant connection is very clearly seen in the evolution of the nervous system. This system is in the economy of the human body the medium of sensation, will, and even thought, the highest of the psychic functions; in a word, of all the various functions which constitute the proper object of psychology. Modern anatomy and physiology have proved that these psychic functions are immediately dependent on the fine structure and the composition of the central nervous system, or the internal texture of the brain and spinal cord. In these we find the elaborate cell-machinery, of which the psychic or soul-life is the physiological function. It is so intricate that most men still look upon the mind as something supernatural that cannot be explained on mechanical principles.
But embryological research into the gradual appearance and the formation of this important system of organs yields the most astounding and significant results. The first sketch of a central nervous system in the human embryo presents the same very simple type as in the other vertebrates. A spinal tube is formed in the external skin of the back, and from this first comes a simple spinal cord without brain, such as we find to be the permanent psychic organ in the lowest type of vertebrate, the amphioxus. Not until a later stage is a brain formed at the anterior end of this cord, and then it is a brain of the most rudimentary kind, such as we find permanently among the lower fishes. This simple brain develops step by step, successively assuming forms which correspond to those of the amphibia, the reptiles, the duck-bills, and the lemurs. Only in the last stage does it reach the highly organised form which distinguishes the apes from the other vertebrates, and which attains its full development in man.
Comparative physiology discovers a precisely similar growth. The function of the brain, the psychic activity, rises step by step with the advancing development of its structure.
Thus we are enabled, by this story of the evolution of the nervous system, to understand at length THE NATURAL DEVELOPMENT OF THE HUMAN MIND and its gradual unfolding. It is only with the aid of embryology that we can grasp how these highest and most striking faculties of the animal organism have been historically evolved. In other words, a knowledge of the evolution of the spinal cord and brain in the human embryo leads us directly to a comprehension of the historic development (or phylogeny) of the human mind, that highest of all faculties, which we regard as something so marvellous and supernatural in the adult man. This is certainly one of the greatest and most pregnant results of evolutionary science. Happily our embryological knowledge of man's central nervous system is now so adequate, and agrees so thoroughly with the complementary results of comparative anatomy and physiology, that we are thus enabled to obtain a clear insight into one of the highest problems of philosophy, the phylogeny of the soul, or the ancestral history of the mind of man. Our chief support in this comes from the embryological study of it, or the ontogeny of the soul. This important section of psychology owes its origin especially to W. Preyer, in his interesting works, such as The Mind of the Child. The Biography of a Baby (1900), of Milicent Washburn Shinn, also deserves mention. [See also Preyer's Mental Development in the Child (translation), and Sully's Studies of Childhood and Children's Ways.]
In this way we follow the only path along which we may hope to reach the solution of this difficult problem.
Thirty-six years have now elapsed since, in my General Morphology, I established phylogeny as an independent science and showed its intimate causal connection with ontogeny; thirty years have passed since I gave in my gastraea-theory the proof of the justice of this, and completed it with the theory of germinal layers. When we look back on this period we may ask, What has been accomplished during it by the fundamental law of biogeny? If we are impartial, we must reply that it has proved its fertility in hundreds of sound results, and that by its aid we have acquired a vast fund of knowledge which we should never have obtained without it.
There has been no dearth of attacks—often violent attacks—on my conception of an intimate causal connection between ontogenesis and phylogenesis; but no other satisfactory explanation of these important phenomena has yet been offered to us. I say this especially with regard to Wilhelm His's theory of a "mechanical evolution," which questions the truth of phylogeny generally, and would explain the complicated embryonic processes without going beyond by simple physical changes—such as the bending and folding of leaves by electricity, the origin of cavities through unequal strain of the tissues, the formation of processes by uneven growth, and so on. But the fact is that these embryological phenomena themselves demand explanation in turn, and this can only be found, as a rule, in the corresponding changes in the long ancestral series, or in the physiological functions of heredity and adaptation.
CHAPTER 1.2. THE OLDER EMBRYOLOGY.
It is in many ways useful, on entering upon the study of any science, to cast a glance at its historical development. The saying that "everything is best understood in its growth" has a distinct application to science. While we follow its gradual development we get a clearer insight into its aims and objects. Moreover, we shall see that the present condition of the science of human evolution, with all its characteristics, can only be rightly understood when we examine its historical growth. This task will, however, not detain us long. The study of man's evolution is one of the latest branches of natural science, whether you consider the embryological or the phylogenetic section of it.
Apart from the few germs of our science which we find in classical antiquity, and which we shall notice presently, we may say that it takes its definite rise, as a science, in the year 1759, when one of the greatest German scientists, Caspar Friedrich Wolff, published his Theoria generationis. That was the foundation-stone of the science of animal embryology. It was not until fifty years later, in 1809, that Jean Lamarck published his Philosophie Zoologique—the first effort to provide a base for the theory of evolution; and it was another half-century before Darwin's work appeared (in 1859), which we may regard as the first scientific attainment of this aim. But before we go further into this solid establishment of evolution, we must cast a brief glance at that famous philosopher and scientist of antiquity, who stood alone in this, as in many other branches of science, for more than 2000 years: the "father of Natural History," Aristotle.
The extant scientific works of Aristotle deal with many different sides of biological research; the most comprehensive of them is his famous History of Animals. But not less interesting is the smaller work, On the Generation of Animals (Peri zoon geneseos). This work treats especially of embryonic development, and it is of great interest as being the earliest of its kind and the only one that has come down to us in any completeness from classical antiquity.
Aristotle studied embryological questions in various classes of animals, and among the lower groups he learned many most remarkable facts which we only rediscovered between 1830 and 1860. It is certain, for instance, that he was acquainted with the very peculiar mode of propagation of the cuttlefishes, or cephalopods, in which a yelk-sac hangs out of the mouth of the foetus. He knew, also, that embryos come from the eggs of the bee even when they have not been fertilised. This "parthenogenesis" (or virgin-birth) of the bees has only been established in our time by the distinguished zoologist of Munich, Siebold. He discovered that male bees come from the unfertilised, and female bees only from the fertilised, eggs. Aristotle further states that some kinds of fishes (of the genus serranus) are hermaphrodites, each individual having both male and female organs and being able to fertilise itself; this, also, has been recently confirmed. He knew that the embryo of many fishes of the shark family is attached to the mother's body by a sort of placenta, or nutritive organ very rich in blood; apart from these, such an arrangement is only found among the higher mammals and man. This placenta of the shark was looked upon as legendary for a long time, until Johannes Muller proved it to be a fact in 1839. Thus a number of remarkable discoveries were found in Aristotle's embryological work, proving a very good acquaintance of the great scientist—possibly helped by his predecessors—with the facts of ontogeny, and a great advance upon succeeding generations in this respect.
In the case of most of these discoveries he did not merely describe the fact, but added a number of observations on its significance. Some of these theoretical remarks are of particular interest, because they show a correct appreciation of the nature of the embryonic processes. He conceives the development of the individual as a new formation, in the course of which the various parts of the body take shape successively. When the human or animal frame is developed in the mother's body, or separately in an egg, the heart—which he regards as the starting-point and centre of the organism—must appear first. Once the heart is formed the other organs arise, the internal ones before the external, the upper (those above the diaphragm) before the lower (or those beneath the diaphragm). The brain is formed at an early stage, and the eyes grow out of it. These observations are quite correct. And, if we try to form some idea from these data of Aristotle's general conception of the embryonic process, we find a dim prevision of the theory which Wolff showed 2000 years afterwards to be the correct view. It is significant, for instance, that Aristotle denied the eternity of the individual in any respect. He said that the species or genus, the group of similar individuals, might be eternal, but the individual itself is temporary. It comes into being in the act of procreation, and passes away at death.
During the 2000 years after Aristotle no progress whatever was made in general zoology, or in embryology in particular. People were content to read, copy, translate, and comment on Aristotle. Scarcely a single independent effort at research was made in the whole of the period. During the Middle Ages the spread of strong religious beliefs put formidable obstacles in the way of independent scientific investigation. There was no question of resuming the advance of biology. Even when human anatomy began to stir itself once more in the sixteenth century, and independent research was resumed into the structure of the developed body, anatomists did not dare to extend their inquiries to the unformed body, the embryo, and its development. There were many reasons for the prevailing horror of such studies. It is natural enough, when we remember that a Bull of Boniface VIII excommunicated every man who ventured to dissect a human corpse. If the dissection of a developed body were a crime to be thus punished, how much more dreadful must it have seemed to deal with the embryonic body still enclosed in the womb, which the Creator himself had decently veiled from the curiosity of the scientist! The Christian Church, then putting many thousands to death for unbelief, had a shrewd presentiment of the menace that science contained against its authority. It was powerful enough to see that its rival did not grow too quickly.
It was not until the Reformation broke the power of the Church, and a refreshing breath of the spirit dissolved the icy chains that bound science, that anatomy and embryology, and all the other branches of research, could begin to advance once more. However, embryology lagged far behind anatomy. The first works on embryology appear at the beginning of the sixteenth century. The Italian anatomist, Fabricius ab Aquapendente, a professor at Padua, opened the advance. In his two books (De formato foetu, 1600, and De formatione foetus, 1604) he published the older illustrations and descriptions of the embryos of man and other mammals, and of the hen. Similar imperfect illustrations were given by Spigelius (De formato foetu, 1631), and by Needham (1667) and his more famous compatriot, Harvey (1652), who discovered the circulation of the blood in the animal body and formulated the important principle, Omne vivum ex vivo (all life comes from pre-existing life). The Dutch scientist, Swammerdam, published in his Bible of Nature the earliest observations on the embryology of the frog and the division of its egg-yelk. But the most important embryological studies in the sixteenth century were those of the famous Italian, Marcello Malpighi, of Bologna, who led the way both in zoology and botany. His treatises, De formatione pulli and De ovo incubato (1687), contain the first consistent description of the development of the chick in the fertilised egg.
Here I ought to say a word about the important part played by the chick in the growth of our science. The development of the chick, like that of the young of all other birds, agrees in all its main features with that of the other chief vertebrates, and even of man. The three highest classes of vertebrates—mammals, birds, and reptiles (lizards, serpents, tortoises, etc.)—have from the beginning of their embryonic development so striking a resemblance in all the chief points of structure, and especially in their first forms, that for a long time it is impossible to distinguish between them. We have known now for some time that we need only examine the embryo of a bird, which is the easiest to get at, in order to learn the typical mode of development of a mammal (and therefore of man). As soon as scientists began to study the human embryo, or the mammal-embryo generally, in its earlier stages about the middle and end of the seventeenth century, this important fact was very quickly discovered. It is both theoretically and practically of great value. As regards the THEORY of evolution, we can draw the most weighty inferences from this similarity between the embryos of widely different classes of animals. But for the practical purposes of embryological research the discovery is invaluable, because we can fill up the gaps in our imperfect knowledge of the embryology of the mammals from the more thoroughly studied embryology of the bird. Hens' eggs are easily to be had in any quantity, and the development of the chick may be followed step by step in artificial incubation. The development of the mammal is much more difficult to follow, because here the embryo is not detached and enclosed in a large egg, but the tiny ovum remains in the womb until the growth is completed. Hence, it is very difficult to keep up sustained observation of the various stages in any great extent, quite apart from such extrinsic considerations as the cost, the technical difficulties, and many other obstacles which we encounter when we would make an extensive study of the fertilised mammal. The chicken has, therefore, always been the chief object of study in this connection. The excellent incubators we now have enable us to observe it in any quantity and at any stage of development, and so follow the whole course of its formation step by step.
By the end of the seventeenth century Malpighi had advanced as far as it was possible to do with the imperfect microscope of his time in the embryological study of the chick. Further progress was arrested until the instrument and the technical methods should be improved. The vertebrate embryos are so small and delicate in their earlier stages that you cannot go very far into the study of them without a good microscope and other technical aid. But this substantial improvement of the microscope and the other apparatus did not take place until the beginning of the nineteenth century.
Embryology made scarcely any advance in the first half of the eighteenth century, when the systematic natural history of plants and animals received so great an impulse through the publication of Linne's famous Systema Naturae. Not until 1759 did the genius arise who was to give it an entirely new character, Caspar Friedrich Wolff. Until then embryology had been occupied almost exclusively in unfortunate and misleading efforts to build up theories on the imperfect empirical material then available.
The theory which then prevailed, and remained in favour throughout nearly the whole of the eighteenth century, was commonly called at that time "the evolution theory"; it is better to describe it as "the preformation theory."* (* This theory is usually known as the "evolution theory" in Germany, in contradistinction to the "epigenesis theory." But as it is the latter that is called the "evolution theory" in England, France, and Italy, and "evolution" and "epigenesis" are taken to be synonymous, it seems better to call the first the "pre-formation theory.") Its chief point is this: There is no new formation of structures in the embryonic development of any organism, animal or plant, or even of man; there is only a growth, or unfolding, of parts which have been constructed or pre-formed from all eternity, though on a very small scale and closely packed together. Hence, every living germ contains all the organs and parts of the body, in the form and arrangement they will present later, already within it, and thus the whole embryological process is merely an evolution in the literal sense of the word, or an unfolding, of parts that were pre-formed and folded up in it. So, for instance, we find in the hen's egg not merely a simple cell, that divides and subdivides and forms germinal layers, and at last, after all kinds of variation and cleavage and reconstruction, brings forth the body of the chick; but there is in every egg from the first a complete chicken, with all its parts made and neatly packed. These parts are so small or so transparent that the microscope cannot detect them. In the hatching, these parts merely grow larger, and spread out in the normal way.
When this theory is consistently developed it becomes a "scatulation theory."* (* "Packing theory" would be the literal translation. Scatula is the Latin for a case or box.—Translator.) According to its teaching, there was made in the beginning one couple or one individual of each species of animal or plant; but this one individual contained the germs of all the other individuals of the same species who should ever come to life. As the age of the earth was generally believed at that time to be fixed by the Bible at 5000 or 6000 years, it seemed possible to calculate how many individuals of each species had lived in the period, and so had been packed inside the first being that was created. The theory was consistently extended to man, and it was affirmed that our common parent Eve had had stored in her ovary the germs of all the children of men.
The theory at first took the form of a belief that it was the FEMALES who were thus encased in the first being. One couple of each species was created, but the female contained in her ovary all the future individuals of the species, of either sex. However, this had to be altered when the Dutch microscopist, Leeuwenhoek, discovered the male spermatozoa in 1690, and showed that an immense number of these extremely fine and mobile thread-like beings exist in the male sperm (this will be explained in Chapter 2.7). This astonishing discovery was further advanced when it was proved that these living bodies, swimming about in the seminal fluid, were real animalcules, and, in fact, were the pre-formed germs of the future generation. When the male and female procreative elements came together at conception, these thread-like spermatozoa ("seed-animals") were supposed to penetrate into the fertile body of the ovum and begin to develop there, as the plant seed does in the fruitful earth. Hence, every spermatozoon was regarded as a homunculus, a tiny complete man; all the parts were believed to be pre-formed in it, and merely grew larger when it reached its proper medium in the female ovum. This theory, also, was consistently developed in the sense that in each of these thread-like bodies the whole of its posterity was supposed to be present in the minutest form. Adam's sexual glands were thought to have contained the germs of the whole of humanity.
This "theory of male scatulation" found itself at once in keen opposition to the prevailing "female" theory. The two rival theories at once opened a very lively campaign, and the physiologists of the eighteenth century were divided into two great camps—the Animalculists and the Ovulists—which fought vigorously. The animalculists held that the spermatozoa were the true germs, and appealed to the lively movements and the structure of these bodies. The opposing party of the Ovulists, who clung to the older "evolution theory," affirmed that the ovum is the real germ, and that the spermatozoa merely stimulate it at conception to begin its growth; all the future generations are stored in the ovum. This view was held by the great majority of the biologists of the eighteenth century, in spite of the fact that Wolff proved it in 1759 to be without foundation. It owed its prestige chiefly to the circumstance that the most weighty authorities in the biology and philosophy of the day decided in favour of it, especially Haller, Bonnet, and Leibnitz.
Albrecht Haller, professor at Gottingen, who is often called the father of physiology, was a man of wide and varied learning, but he does not occupy a very high position in regard to insight into natural phenomena. He made a vigorous defence of the "evolutionary theory" in his famous work, Elementa physiologiae, affirming: "There is no such thing as formation (nulla est epigenesis). No part of the animal frame is made before another; all were made together." He thus denied that there was any evolution in the proper sense of the word, and even went so far as to say that the beard existed in the new-born child and the antlers in the hornless fawn; all the parts were there in advance, and were merely hidden from the eye of man for the time being. Haller even calculated the number of human beings that God must have created on the sixth day and stored away in Eve's ovary. He put the number at 200,000 millions, assuming the age of the world to be 6000 years, the average age of a human being to be thirty years, and the population of the world at that time to be 1000 millions. And the famous Haller maintained all this nonsense, in spite of its ridiculous consequences, even after Wolff had discovered the real course of embryonic development and established it by direct observation!
Among the philosophers of the time the distinguished Leibnitz was the chief defender of the "preformation theory," and by his authority and literary prestige won many adherents to it. Supported by his system of monads, according to which body and soul are united in inseparable association and by their union form the individual, or the "monad," Leibnitz consistently extended the "scatulation theory" to the soul, and held that this was no more evolved than the body. He says, for instance, in his Theodicee: "I mean that these souls, which one day are to be the souls of men, are present in the seed, like those of other species; in such wise that they existed in our ancestors as far back as Adam, or from the beginning of the world, in the forms of organised bodies."
The theory seemed to receive considerable support from the observations of one of its most zealous supporters, Bonnet. In 1745 he discovered, in the plant-louse, a case of parthenogenesis, or virgin-birth, an interesting form of reproduction that has lately been found by Siebold and others among various classes of the articulata, especially crustacea and insects. Among these and other animals of certain lower species the female may reproduce for several generations without having been fertilised by the male. These ova that do not need fertilisation are called "false ova," pseudova or spores. Bonnet saw that a female plant-louse, which he had kept in cloistral isolation, and rigidly removed from contact with males, had on the eleventh day (after forming a new skin for the fourth time) a living daughter, and during the next twenty days ninety-four other daughters; and that all of them went on to reproduce in the same way without any contact with males. It seemed as if this furnished an irrefutable proof of the truth of the scatulation theory, as it was held by the Ovulists; it is not surprising to find that the theory then secured general acceptance.
This was the condition of things when suddenly, in 1759, Caspar Friedrich Wolff appeared, and dealt a fatal blow at the whole preformation theory with his new theory of epigenesis. Wolff, the son of a Berlin tailor, was born in 1733, and went through his scientific and medical studies, first at Berlin under the famous anatomist Meckel, and afterwards at Halle. Here he secured his doctorate in his twenty-sixth year, and in his academic dissertation (November 28th, 1759), the Theoria generationis, expounded the new theory of a real development on a basis of epigenesis. This treatise is, in spite of its smallness and its obscure phraseology, one of the most valuable in the whole range of biological literature. It is equally distinguished for the mass of new and careful observations it contains, and the far-reaching and pregnant ideas which the author everywhere extracts from his observations and builds into a luminous and accurate theory of generation. Nevertheless, it met with no success at the time. Although scientific studies were then assiduously cultivated owing to the impulse given by Linne—although botanists and zoologists were no longer counted by dozens, but by hundreds, hardly any notice was taken of Wolff's theory. Even when he established the truth of epigenesis by the most rigorous observations, and demolished the airy structure of the preformation theory, the "exact" scientist Haller proved one of the most strenuous supporters of the old theory, and rejected Wolff's correct view with a dictatorial "There is no such thing as evolution." He even went on to say that religion was menaced by the new theory! It is not surprising that the whole of the physiologists of the second half of the eighteenth century submitted to the ruling of this physiological pontiff, and attacked the theory of epigenesis as a dangerous innovation. It was not until more than fifty years afterwards that Wolff's work was appreciated. Only when Meckel translated into German in 1812 another valuable work of Wolff's on The Formation of the Alimentary Canal (written in 1768), and called attention to its great importance, did people begin to think of him once more; yet this obscure writer had evinced a profounder insight into the nature of the living organism than any other scientist of the eighteenth century.
Wolff's idea led to an appreciable advance over the whole field of biology. There is such a vast number of new and important observations and pregnant thoughts in his writings that we have only gradually learned to appreciate them rightly in the course of the nineteenth century. He opened up the true path for research in many directions. In the first place, his theory of epigenesis gave us our first real insight into the nature of embryonic development. He showed convincingly that the development of every organism consists of a series of NEW FORMATIONS, and that there is no trace whatever of the complete form either in the ovum or the spermatozoon. On the contrary, these are quite simple bodies, with a very different purport. The embryo which is developed from them is also quite different, in its internal arrangement and outer configuration, from the complete organism. There is no trace whatever of preformation or in-folding of organs. To-day we can scarcely call epigenesis a THEORY, because we are convinced it is a fact, and can demonstrate it at any moment with the aid of the microscope.
Wolff furnished the conclusive empirical proof of his theory in his classic dissertation on The Formation of the Alimentary Canal (1768). In its complete state the alimentary canal of the hen is a long and complex tube, with which the lungs, liver, salivary glands, and many other small glands, are connected. Wolff showed that in the early stages of the embryonic chick there is no trace whatever of this complicated tube with all its dependencies, but instead of it only a flat, leaf-shaped body; that, in fact, the whole embryo has at first the appearance of a flat, oval-shaped leaf. When we remember how difficult the exact observation of so fine and delicate a structure as the early leaf-shaped body of the chick must have been with the poor microscopes then in use, we must admire the rare faculty for observation which enabled Wolff to make the most important discoveries in this most difficult part of embryology. By this laborious research he reached the correct opinion that the embryonic body of all the higher animals, such as the birds, is for some time merely a flat, thin, leaf-shaped disk—consisting at first of one layer, but afterwards of several. The lowest of these layers is the alimentary canal, and Wolff followed its development from its commencement to its completion. He showed how this leaf-shaped structure first turns into a groove, then the margins of this groove fold together and form a closed canal, and at length the two external openings of the tube (the mouth and anus) appear.
Moreover, the important fact that the other systems of organs are developed in the same way, from tubes formed out of simple layers, did not escape Wolff. The nerveless system, muscular system, and vascular (blood-vessel) system, with all the organs appertaining thereto, are, like the alimentary system, developed out of simple leaf-shaped structures. Hence, Wolff came to the view by 1768 which Pander developed in the Theory of Germinal Layers fifty years afterwards. His principles are not literally correct; but he comes as near to the truth in them as was possible at that time, and could be expected of him.
Our admiration of this gifted genius increases when we find that he was also the precursor of Goethe in regard to the metamorphosis of plants and of the famous cellular theory. Wolff had, as Huxley showed, a clear presentiment of this cardinal theory, since he recognised small microscopic globules as the elementary parts out of which the germinal layers arose.
Finally, I must invite special attention to the MECHANICAL character of the profound philosophic reflections which Wolff always added to his remarkable observations. He was a great monistic philosopher, in the best meaning of the word. It is unfortunate that his philosophic discoveries were ignored as completely as his observations for more than half a century. We must be all the more careful to emphasise the fact of their clear monistic tendency.
CHAPTER 1.3. MODERN EMBRYOLOGY.
We may distinguish three chief periods in the growth of our science of human embryology. The first has been considered in the preceding chapter; it embraces the whole of the preparatory period of research, and extends from Aristotle to Caspar Friedrich Wolff, or to the year 1759, in which the epoch-making Theoria generationis was published. The second period, with which we have now to deal, lasts about a century—that is to say, until the appearance of Darwin's Origin of Species, which brought about a change in the very foundations of biology, and, in particular, of embryology. The third period begins with Darwin. When we say that the second period lasted a full century, we must remember that Wolff's work had remained almost unnoticed during half the time—namely, until the year 1812. During the whole of these fifty-three years not a single book that appeared followed up the path that Wolff had opened, or extended his theory of embryonic development. We merely find his views—perfectly correct views, based on extensive observations of fact—mentioned here and there as erroneous; their opponents, who adhered to the dominant theory of preformation, did not even deign to reply to them. This unjust treatment was chiefly due to the extraordinary authority of Albrecht von Haller; it is one of the most astonishing instances of a great authority, as such, preventing for a long time the recognition of established facts.
The general ignorance of Wolff's work was so great that at the beginning of the nineteenth century two scientists of Jena, Oken (1806) and Kieser (1810), began independent research into the development of the alimentary canal of the chick, and hit upon the right clue to the embryonic puzzle, without knowing a word about Wolff's important treatise on the same subject. They were treading in his very footsteps without suspecting it. This can be easily proved from the fact that they did not travel as far as Wolff. It was not until Meckel translated into German Wolff's book on the alimentary system, and pointed out its great importance, that the eyes of anatomists and physiologists were suddenly opened. At once a number of biologists instituted fresh embryological inquiries, and began to confirm Wolff's theory of epigenesis.
This resuscitation of embryology and development of the epigenesis-theory was chiefly connected with the university of Wurtzburg. One of the professors there at that time was Dollinger, an eminent biologist, and father of the famous Catholic historian who later distinguished himself by his opposition to the new dogma of papal infallibility. Dollinger was both a profound thinker and an accurate observer. He took the keenest interest in embryology, and worked at it a good deal. However, he is not himself responsible for any important result in this field. In 1816 a young medical doctor, whom we may at once designate as Wolff's chief successor, Karl Ernst von Baer, came to Wurtzburg. Baer's conversations with Dollinger on embryology led to a fresh series of most extensive investigations. Dollinger had expressed a wish that some young scientist should begin again under his guidance an independent inquiry into the development of the chick during the hatching of the egg. As neither he nor Baer had money enough to pay for an incubator and the proper control of the experiments, and for a competent artist to illustrate the various stages observed, the lead of the enterprise was given to Christian Pander, a wealthy friend of Baer's who had been induced by Baer to come to Wurtzburg. An able engraver, Dalton, was engaged to do the copper-plates. In a short time the embryology of the chick, in which Baer was taking the greatest indirect interest, was so far advanced that Pander was able to sketch the main features of it on the ground of Wolff's theory in the dissertation he published in 1817. He clearly enunciated the theory of germinal layers which Wolff had anticipated, and established the truth of Wolff's idea of a development of the complicated systems of organs out of simple leaf-shaped primitive structures. According to Pander, the leaf-shaped object in the hen's egg divides, before the incubation has proceeded twelve hours, into two different layers, an external serous layer and an internal mucous layer; between the two there develops later a third layer, the vascular (blood-vessel) layer.* (* The technical terms which are bound to creep into this chapter will be fully understood later on.—Translator.)
Karl Ernst von Baer, who had set afoot Pander's investigation, and had shown the liveliest interest in it after Pander's departure from Wurtzburg, began his own much more comprehensive research in 1819. He published the mature result nine years afterwards in his famous work, Animal Embryology: Observation and Reflection (not translated). This classic work still remains a model of careful observation united to profound philosophic speculation. The first part appeared in 1828, the second in 1837. The book proved to be the foundation on which the whole science of embryology has built down to our own day. It so far surpassed its predecessors, and Pander in particular, that it has become, after Wolff's work, the chief base of modern embryology.
Baer was one of the greatest scientists of the nineteenth century, and exercised considerable influence on other branches of biology as well. He built up the theory of germinal layers, as a whole and in detail, so clearly and solidly that it has been the starting-point of embryological research ever since. He taught that in all the vertebrates first two and then four of these germinal layers are formed; and that the earliest rudimentary organs of the body arise by the conversion of these layers into tubes. He described the first appearance of the vertebrate embryo, as it may be seen in the globular yelk of the fertilised egg, as an oval disk which first divides into two layers. From the upper or animal layer are developed all the organs which accomplish the phenomena of animal life—the functions of sensation and motion, and the covering of the body. From the lower or vegetative layer come the organs which effect the vegetative life of the organism—nutrition, digestion, blood-formation, respiration, secretion, reproduction, etc.
Each of these original layers divides, according to Baer, into two thinner and superimposed layers or plates. He calls the two plates of the animal layer, the skin-stratum and muscle-stratum. From the upper of these plates, the skin-stratum, the external skin, or outer covering of the body, the central nervous system, and the sense-organs, are formed. From the lower, or muscle-stratum, the muscles, or fleshy parts and the bony skeleton—in a word, the motor organs—are evolved. In the same way, Baer said, the lower or vegetative layer splits into two plates, which he calls the vascular-stratum and the mucous-stratum. From the outer of the two (the vascular) the heart, blood-vessels, spleen, and the other vascular glands, the kidneys, and sexual glands, are formed. From the fourth or mucous layer, in fine, we get the internal and digestive lining of the alimentary canal and all its dependencies, the liver, lungs, salivary glands, etc. Baer had, in the main, correctly judged the significance of these four secondary embryonic layers, and he followed the conversion of them into the tube-shaped primitive organs with great perspicacity. He first solved the difficult problem of the transformation of this four-fold, flat, leaf-shaped, embryonic disk into the complete vertebrate body, through the conversion of the layers or plates into tubes. The flat leaves bend themselves in obedience to certain laws of growth; the borders of the curling plates approach nearer and nearer; until at last they come into actual contact. Thus out of the flat gut-plate is formed a hollow gut-tube, out of the flat spinal plate a hollow nerve-tube, from the skin-plate a skin-tube, and so on.
Among the many great services which Baer rendered to embryology, especially vertebrate embryology, we must not forget his discovery of the human ovum. Earlier scientists had, as a rule, of course, assumed that man developed out of an egg, like the other animals. In fact, the preformation theory held that the germs of the whole of humanity were stored already in Eve's ova. But the real ovum escaped detection until the year 1827. This ovum is extremely small, being a tiny round vesicle about the 1/120 of an inch in diameter; it can be seen under very favourable circumstances with the naked eye as a tiny particle, but is otherwise quite invisible. This particle is formed in the ovary inside a much larger globule, which takes the name of the Graafian follicle, from its discoverer, Graaf, and had previously been regarded as the true ovum. However, in 1827 Baer proved that it was not the real ovum, which is much smaller, and is contained within the follicle. (Compare the end of Chapter 2.29.)
Baer was also the first to observe what is known as the segmentation sphere of the vertebrate; that is to say, the round vesicle which first develops out of the impregnated ovum, and the thin wall of which is made up of a single layer of regular, polygonal (many-cornered) cells (see the illustration in Chapter 1.12). Another discovery of his that was of great importance in constructing the vertebrate stem and the characteristic organisation of this extensive group (to which man belongs) was the detection of the axial rod, or the chorda dorsalis. There is a long, round, cylindrical rod of cartilage which runs down the longer axis of the vertebrate embryo; it appears at an early stage, and is the first sketch of the spinal column, the solid skeletal axis of the vertebrate. In the lowest of the vertebrates, the amphioxus, the internal skeleton consists only of this cord throughout life. But even in the case of man and all the higher vertebrates it is round this cord that the spinal column and the brain are afterwards formed.
However, important as these and many other discoveries of Baer's were in vertebrate embryology, his researches were even more influential, from the circumstance that he was the first to employ the comparative method in studying the development of the animal frame. Baer occupied himself chiefly with the embryology of vertebrates (especially the birds and fishes). But he by no means confined his attention to these, gradually taking the various groups of the invertebrates into his sphere of study. As the general result of his comparative embryological research, Baer distinguished four different modes of development and four corresponding groups in the animal world. These chief groups or types are: 1, the vertebrata; 2, the articulata; 3, the mollusca; and 4, all the lower groups which were then wrongly comprehended under the general name of the radiata. Georges Cuvier had been the first to formulate this distinction, in 1812. He showed that these groups present specific differences in their whole internal structure, and the connection and disposal of their systems of organs; and that, on the other hand, all the animals of the same type—say, the vertebrates—essentially agreed in their inner structure, in spite of the greatest superficial differences. But Baer proved that these four groups are also quite differently developed from the ovum; and that the series of embryonic forms is the same throughout for animals of the same type, but different in the case of other animals. Up to that time the chief aim in the classification of the animal kingdom was to arrange all the animals from lowest to highest, from the infusorium to man, in one long and continuous series. The erroneous idea prevailed nearly everywhere that there was one uninterrupted chain of evolution from the lowest animal to the highest. Cuvier and Baer proved that this view was false, and that we must distinguish four totally different types of animals, on the ground of anatomic structure and embryonic development.
Baer's epoch-making works aroused an extraordinary and widespread interest in embryological research. Immediately afterwards we find a great number of observers at work in the newly opened field, enlarging it in a very short time with great energy by their various discoveries in detail. Next to Baer's comes the admirable work of Heinrich Rathke, of Konigsberg (died 1860); he made an extensive study of the embryology, not only of the invertebrates (crustaceans, insects, molluscs), but also, and particularly, of the vertebrates (fishes, tortoises, serpents, crocodiles, etc.). We owe the first comprehensive studies of mammal embryology to the careful research of Wilhelm Bischoff, of Munich; his embryology of the rabbit (1840), the dog (1842), the guinea-pig (1852), and the doe (1854), still form classical studies. About the same time a great impetus was given to the embryology of the invertebrates. The way was opened through this obscure province by the studies of the famous Berlin zoologist, Johannes Muller, on the echinoderms. He was followed by Albert Kolliker, of Wurtzburg, writing on the cuttlefish (or the cephalopods), Siebold and Huxley on worms and zoophytes, Fritz Muller (Desterro) on the crustacea, Weismann on insects, and so on. The number of workers in this field has greatly increased of late, and a quantity of new and astonishing discoveries have been made. One notices, in several of these recent works on embryology, that their authors are too little acquainted with comparative anatomy and classification. Palaeontology is, unfortunately, altogether neglected by many of these new workers, although this interesting science furnishes most important facts for phylogeny, and thus often proves of very great service in ontogeny.
A very important advance was made in our science in 1839, when the cellular theory was established, and a new field of inquiry bearing on embryology was suddenly opened. When the famous botanist, M. Schleiden, of Jena, showed in 1838, with the aid of the microscope, that every plant was made up of innumerable elementary parts, which we call cells, a pupil of Johannes Muller at Berlin, Theodor Schwann, applied the discovery at once to the animal organism. He showed that in the animal body as well, when we examine its tissues in the microscope, we find these cells everywhere to be the elementary units. All the different tissues of the organism, especially the very dissimilar tissues of the nerves, muscles, bones, external skin, mucous lining, etc., are originally formed out of cells; and this is also true of all the tissues of the plant. These cells are separate living beings; they are the citizens of the State which the entire multicellular organism seems to be. This important discovery was bound to be of service to embryology, as it raised a number of new questions. What is the relation of the cells to the germinal layers? Are the germinal layers composed of cells, and what is their relation to the cells of the tissues that form later? How does the ovum stand in the cellular theory? Is the ovum itself a cell, or is it composed of cells? These important questions were now imposed on the embryologist by the cellular theory.
The most notable effort to answer these questions—which were attacked on all sides by different students—is contained in the famous work, Inquiries into the Development of the Vertebrates (not translated) of Robert Remak, of Berlin (1851). This gifted scientist succeeded in mastering, by a complete reform of the science, the great difficulties which the cellular theory had at first put in the way of embryology. A Berlin anatomist, Carl Boguslaus Reichert, had already attempted to explain the origin of the tissues. But this attempt was bound to miscarry, since its not very clear-headed author lacked a sound acquaintance with embryology and the cell theory, and even with the structure and development of the tissue in particular. Remak at length brought order into the dreadful confusion that Reichert had caused; he gave a perfectly simple explanation of the origin of the tissues. In his opinion the animal ovum is always a simple cell: the germinal layers which develop out of it are always composed of cells; and these cells that constitute the germinal layers arise simply from the continuous and repeated cleaving (segmentation) of the original solitary cell. It first divides into two and then into four cells; out of these four cells are born eight, then sixteen, thirty-two, and so on. Thus, in the embryonic development of every animal and plant there is formed first of all out of the simple egg cell, by a repeated subdivision, a cluster of cells, as Kolliker had already stated in connection with the cephalopods in 1844. The cells of this group spread themselves out flat and form leaves or plates; each of these leaves is formed exclusively out of cells. The cells of different layers assume different shapes, increase, and differentiate; and in the end there is a further cleavage (differentiation) and division of work of the cells within the layers, and from these all the different tissues of the body proceed.
These are the simple foundations of histogeny, or the science that treats of the development of the tissues (hista), as it was established by Remak and Kolliker. Remak, in determining more closely the part which the different germinal layers play in the formation of the various tissues and organs, and in applying the theory of evolution to the cells and the tissues they compose, raised the theory of germinal layers, at least as far as it regards the vertebrates, to a high degree of perfection.
Remak showed that three layers are formed out of the two germinal layers which compose the first simple leaf-shaped structure of the vertebrate body (or the "germinal disk"), as the lower layer splits into two plates. These three layers have a very definite relation to the various tissues. First of all, the cells which form the outer skin of the body (the epidermis), with its various dependencies (hairs, nails, etc.)—that is to say, the entire outer envelope of the body—are developed out of the outer or upper layer; but there are also developed in a curious way out of the same layer the cells which form the central nervous system, the brain and the spinal cord. In the second place, the inner or lower germinal layer gives rise only to the cells which form the epithelium (the whole inner lining) of the alimentary canal and all that depends on it (the lungs, liver, pancreas, etc.), or the tissues that receive and prepare the nourishment of the body. Finally, the middle layer gives rise to all the other tissues of the body, the muscles, blood, bones, cartilage, etc. Remak further proved that this middle layer, which he calls "the motor-germinative layer," proceeds to subdivide into two secondary layers. Thus we find once more the four layers which Baer had indicated. Remak calls the outer secondary leaf of the middle layer (Baer's "muscular layer") the "skin layer" (it would be better to say, skin-fibre layer); it forms the outer wall of the body (the true skin, the muscles, etc.). To the inner secondary leaf (Baer's "vascular layer") he gave the name of the "alimentary-fibre layer"; this forms the outer envelope of the alimentary canal, with the mesentery, the heart, the blood-vessels, etc.
On this firm foundation provided by Remak for histogeny, or the science of the formation of the tissues, our knowledge has been gradually built up and enlarged in detail. There have been several attempts to restrict and even destroy Remak's principles. The two anatomists, Reichert (of Berlin) and Wilhelm His (of Leipzic), especially, have endeavoured in their works to introduce a new conception of the embryonic development of the vertebrate, according to which the two primary germinal layers would not be the sole sources of formation. But these efforts were so seriously marred by ignorance of comparative anatomy, an imperfect acquaintance with ontogenesis, and a complete neglect of phylogenesis, that they could not have more than a passing success. We can only explain how these curious attacks of Reichert and His came to be regarded for a time as advances by the general lack of discrimination and of grasp of the true object of embryology.
Wilhelm His published, in 1868, his extensive Researches into the Earliest Form of the Vertebrate Body,* (* None of His's works have been translated into English.) one of the curiosities of embryological literature. The author imagines that he can build a "mechanical theory of embryonic development" by merely giving an exact description of the embryology of the chick, without any regard to comparative anatomy and phylogeny, and thus falls into an error that is almost without parallel in the history of biological literature. As the final result of his laborious investigations, His tells us "that a comparatively simple law of growth is the one essential thing in the first development. Every formation, whether it consist in cleavage of layers, or folding, or complete division, is a consequence of this fundamental law." Unfortunately, he does not explain what this "law of growth" is; just as other opponents of the theory of selection, who would put in its place a great "law of evolution," omit to tell us anything about the nature of this. Nevertheless, it is quite clear from His's works that he imagines constructive Nature to be a sort of skilful tailor. The ingenious operator succeeds in bringing into existence, by "evolution," all the various forms of living things by cutting up in different ways the germinal layers, bending and folding, tugging and splitting, and so on.
His's embryological theories excited a good deal of interest at the time of publication, and have evoked a fair amount of literature in the last few decades. He professed to explain the most complicated parts of organic construction (such as the development of the brain) in the simplest way on mechanical principles, and to derive them immediately from simple physical processes (such as unequal distribution of strain in an elastic plate). It is quite true that a mechanical or monistic explanation (or a reduction of natural processes) is the ideal of modern science, and this ideal would be realised if we could succeed in expressing these formative processes in mathematical formulae. His has, therefore, inserted plenty of numbers and measurements in his embryological works, and given them an air of "exact" scholarship by putting in a quantity of mathematical tables. Unfortunately, they are of no value, and do not help us in the least in forming an "exact" acquaintance with the embryonic phenomena. Indeed, they wander from the true path altogether by neglecting the phylogenetic method; this, he thinks, is "a mere by-path," and is "not necessary at all for the explanation of the facts of embryology," which are the direct consequence of physiological principles. What His takes to be a simple physical process—for instance, the folding of the germinal layers (in the formation of the medullary tube, alimentary tube, etc.)—is, as a matter of fact, the direct result of the growth of the various cells which form those organic structures; but these growth-motions have themselves been transmitted by heredity from parents and ancestors, and are only the hereditary repetition of countless phylogenetic changes which have taken place for thousands of years in the race-history of the said ancestors. Each of these historical changes was, of course, originally due to adaptation; it was, in other words, physiological, and reducible to mechanical causes. But we have, naturally, no means of observing them now. It is only by the hypotheses of the science of evolution that we can form an approximate idea of the organic links in this historic chain.
All the best recent research in animal embryology has led to the confirmation and development of Baer and Remak's theory of the germinal layers. One of the most important advances in this direction of late was the discovery that the two primary layers out of which is built the body of all vertebrates (including man) are also present in all the invertebrates, with the sole exception of the lowest group, the unicellular protozoa. Huxley had detected them in the medusa in 1849. He showed that the two layers of cells from which the body of this zoophyte is developed correspond, both morphologically and physiologically, to the two original germinal layers of the vertebrate. The outer layer, from which come the external skin and the muscles, was then called by Allman (1853) the "ectoderm" (outer layer, or skin); the inner layer, which forms the alimentary and reproductory organs, was called the "entoderm" (= inner layer). In 1867 and the following years the discovery of the germinal layers was extended to other groups of the invertebrates. In particular, the indefatigable Russian zoologist, Kowalevsky, found them in all the most diverse sections of the invertebrates—the worms, tunicates, echinoderms, molluscs, articulates, etc.
In my monograph on the sponges (1872) I proved that these two primary germinal layers are also found in that group, and that they may be traced from it right up to man, through all the various classes, in identical form. This "homology of the two primary germinal layers" extends through the whole of the metazoa, or tissue-forming animals; that is to say, through the whole animal kingdom, with the one exception of its lowest section, the unicellular beings, or protozoa. These lowly organised animals do not form germinal layers, and therefore do not succeed in forming true tissue. Their whole body consists of a single cell (as is the case with the amoebae and infusoria), or of a loose aggregation of only slightly differentiated cells, though it may not even reach the full structure of a single cell (as with the monera). But in all other animals the ovum first grows into two primary layers, the outer or animal layer (the ectoderm, epiblast, or ectoblast), and the inner or vegetal layer (the entoderm, hypoblast, or endoblast); and from these the tissues and organs are formed. The first and oldest organ of all these metazoa is the primitive gut (or progaster) and its opening, the primitive mouth (prostoma). The typical embryonic form of the metazoa, as it is presented for a time by this simple structure of the two-layered body, is called the gastrula; it is to be conceived as the hereditary reproduction of some primitive common ancestor of the metazoa, which we call the gastraea. This applies to the sponges and other zoophyta, and to the worms, the mollusca, echinoderma, articulata, and vertebrata. All these animals may be comprised under the general heading of "gut animals," or metazoa, in contradistinction to the gutless protozoa.
I have pointed out in my Study of the Gastraea Theory [not translated] (1873) the important consequences of this conception in the morphology and classification of the animal world. I also divided the realm of metazoa into two great groups, the lower and higher metazoa. In the first are comprised the coelenterata (also called zoophytes, or plant-animals). In the lower forms of this group the body consists throughout life merely of the primary germinal layers, with the cells sometimes more and sometimes less differentiated. But with the higher forms of the coelentarata (the corals, higher medusae, ctenophorae, and platodes) a middle layer, or mesoderm, often of considerable size, is developed between the other two layers; but blood and an internal cavity are still lacking.
To the second great group of the metazoa I gave the name of the coelomaria, or bilaterata (or the bilateral higher forms). They all have a cavity within the body (coeloma), and most of them have blood and blood-vessels. In this are comprised the six higher stems of the animal kingdom, the annulata and their descendants, the mollusca, echinoderma, articulata, tunicata, and vertebrata. In all these bilateral organisms the two-sided body is formed out of four secondary germinal layers, of which the inner two construct the wall of the alimentary canal, and the outer two the wall of the body. Between the two pairs of layers lies the cavity (coeloma).
Although I laid special stress on the great morphological importance of this cavity in my Study of the Gastraea Theory, and endeavoured to prove the significance of the four secondary germinal layers in the organisation of the coelomaria, I was unable to deal satisfactorily with the difficult question of the mode of their origin. This was done eight years afterwards by the brothers Oscar and Richard Hertwig in their careful and extensive comparative studies. In their masterly Coelum Theory: An Attempt to Explain the Middle Germinal Layer [not translated] (1881) they showed that in most of the metazoa, especially in all the vertebrates, the body-cavity arises in the same way, by the outgrowth of two sacs from the inner layer. These two coelom-pouches proceed from the rudimentary mouth of the gastrula, between the two primary layers. The inner plate of the two-layered coelom-pouch (the visceral layer) joins itself to the entoderm; the outer plate (parietal layer) unites with the ectoderm. Thus are formed the double-layered gut-wall within and the double-layered body-wall without; and between the two is formed the cavity of the coelom, by the blending of the right and left coelom-sacs. We shall see this more fully in Chapter 1.10.
The many new points of view and fresh ideas suggested by my gastraea theory and Hertwig's coelom theory led to the publication of a number of writings on the theory of germinal layers. Most of them set out to oppose it at first, but in the end the majority supported it. Of late years both theories are accepted in their essential features by nearly every competent man of science, and light and order have been introduced into this once dark and contradictory field of research. A further cause of congratulation for this solution of the great embryological controversy is that it brought with it a recognition of the need for phylogenetic study and explanation.
Interest and practice in embryological research have been remarkably stimulated during the past thirty years by this appreciation of phylogenetic methods. Hundreds of assiduous and able observers are now engaged in the development of comparative embryology and its establishment on a basis of evolution, whereas they numbered only a few dozen not many decades ago. It would take too long to enumerate even the most important of the countless valuable works which have enriched embryological literature since that time. References to them will be found in the latest manuals of embryology of Kolliker, Balfour, Hertwig, Kollman, Korschelt, and Heider.
Kolliker's Entwickelungsgeschichte des Menschen und der hoherer Thiere, the first edition of which appeared forty-two years ago, had the rare merit at that time of gathering into presentable form the scattered attainments of the science, and expounding them in some sort of unity on the basis of the cellular theory and the theory of germinal layers. Unfortunately, the distinguished Wurtzburg anatomist, to whom comparative anatomy, histology, and ontogeny owe so much, is opposed to the theory of descent generally and to Darwinism in particular. All the other manuals I have mentioned take a decided stand on evolution. Francis Balfour has carefully collected and presented with discrimination, in his Manual of Comparative Embryology (1880), the very scattered and extensive literature of the subject; he has also widened the basis of the gastraea theory by a comparative description of the rise of the organs from the germinal layers in all the chief groups of the animal kingdom, and has given a most thorough empirical support to the principles I have formulated. A comparison of his work with the excellent Text-book of the Embryology of the Vertebrates (1890) [translation 1895] of Korschelt and Heider shows what astonishing progress has been made in the science in the course of ten years. I would especially recommend the manuals of Julius Kollmann and Oscar Hertwig to those readers who are stimulated to further study by these chapters on human embryology. Kollmann's work is commendable for its clear treatment of the subject and very fine original illustrations; its author adheres firmly to the biogenetic law, and uses it throughout with considerable profit. That is not the case in Oscar Hertwig's recent Text-book of the Embryology of Man and the Mammals [translations 1892 and 1899] (seventh edition 1902). This able anatomist has of late often been quoted as an opponent of the biogenetic law, although he himself had demonstrated its great value thirty years ago. His recent vacillation is partly due to the timidity which our "exact" scientists have with regard to hypotheses; though it is impossible to make any headway in the explanation of facts without them. However, the purely descriptive part of embryology in Hertwig's Text-book is very thorough and reliable.
A new branch of embryological research has been studied very assiduously in the last decade of the nineteenth century—namely, "experimental embryology." The great importance which has been attached to the application of physical experiments to the living organism for the last hundred years, and the valuable results that it has given to physiology in the study of the vital phenomena, have led to its extension to embryology. I was the first to make experiments of this kind during a stay of four months on the Canary Island, Lanzerote, in 1866. I there made a thorough investigation of the almost unknown embryology of the siphonophorae. I cut a number of the embryos of these animals (which develop freely in the water, and pass through a very curious transformation), at an early stage, into several pieces, and found that a fresh organism (more or less complete, according to the size of the piece) was developed from each particle. More recently some of my pupils have made similar experiments with the embryos of vertebrates (especially the frog) and some of the invertebrates. Wilhelm Roux, in particular, has made extensive experiments, and based on them a special "mechanical embryology," which has given rise to a good deal of discussion and controversy. Roux has published a special journal for these subjects since 1895, the Archiv fur Entwickelungsmechanik. The contributions to it are very varied in value. Many of them are valuable papers on the physiology and pathology of the embryo. Pathological experiments—the placing of the embryo in abnormal conditions—have yielded many interesting results; just as the physiology of the normal body has for a long time derived assistance from the pathology of the diseased organism. Other of these mechanical-embryological articles return to the erroneous methods of His, and are only misleading. This must be said of the many contributions of mechanical embryology which take up a position of hostility to the theory of descent and its chief embryological foundation—the biogenetic law. This law, however, when rightly understood, is not opposed to, but is the best and most solid support of, a sound mechanical embryology. Impartial reflection and a due attention to paleontology and comparative anatomy should convince these one-sided mechanicists that the facts they have discovered—and, indeed, the whole embryological process—cannot be fully understood without the theory of descent and the biogenetic law.
CHAPTER 1.4. THE OLDER PHYLOGENY.
The embryology of man and the animals, the history of which we have reviewed in the last two chapters, was mainly a descriptive science forty years ago. The earlier investigations in this province were chiefly directed to the discovery, by careful observation, of the wonderful facts of the embryonic development of the animal body from the ovum. Forty years ago no one dared attack the question of the CAUSES of these phenomena. For fully a century, from the year 1759, when Wolff's solid Theoria generationis appeared, until 1859, when Darwin published his famous Origin of Species, the real causes of the embryonic processes were quite unknown. No one thought of seeking the agencies that effected this marvellous succession of structures. The task was thought to be so difficult as almost to pass beyond the limits of human thought. It was reserved for Charles Darwin to initiate us into the knowledge of these causes. This compels us to recognise in this great genius, who wrought a complete revolution in the whole field of biology, a founder at the same time of a new period in embryology. It is true that Darwin occupied himself very little with direct embryological research, and even in his chief work he only touches incidentally on the embryonic phenomena; but by his reform of the theory of descent and the founding of the theory of selection he has given us the means of attaining to a real knowledge of the causes of embryonic formation. That is, in my opinion, the chief feature in Darwin's incalculable influence on the whole science of evolution.
When we turn our attention to this latest period of embryological research, we pass into the second division of organic evolution—stem-evolution, or phylogeny. I have already indicated in Chapter 1.1 the important and intimate causal connection between these two sections of the science of evolution—between the evolution of the individual and that of his ancestors. We have formulated this connection in the biogenetic law; the shorter evolution, that of the individual, or ontogenesis, is a rapid and summary repetition, a condensed recapitulation, of the larger evolution, or that of the species. In this principle we express all the essential points relating to the causes of evolution; and we shall seek throughout this work to confirm this principle and lend it the support of facts. When we look to its CAUSAL significance, perhaps it would be better to formulate the biogenetic law thus: "The evolution of the species and the stem (phylon) shows us, in the physiological functions of heredity and adaptation, the conditioning causes on which the evolution of the individual depends"; or, more briefly: "Phylogenesis is the mechanical cause of ontogenesis."
But before we examine the great achievement by which Darwin revealed the causes of evolution to us, we must glance at the efforts of earlier scientists to attain this object. Our historical inquiry into these will be even shorter than that into the work done in the field of ontogeny. We have very few names to consider here. At the head of them we find the great French naturalist, Jean Lamarck, who first established evolution as a scientific theory in 1809. Even before his time, however, the chief philosopher, Kant, and the chief poet, Goethe, of Germany had occupied themselves with the subject. But their efforts passed almost without recognition in the eighteenth century. A "philosophy of nature" did not arise until the beginning of the nineteenth century. In the whole of the time before this no one had ventured to raise seriously the question of the origin of species, which is the culminating point of phylogeny. On all sides it was regarded as an insoluble enigma.
The whole science of the evolution of man and the other animals is intimately connected with the question of the nature of species, or with the problem of the origin of the various animals which we group together under the name of species. Thus the definition of the species becomes important. It is well known that this definition was given by Linne, who, in his famous Systema Naturae (1735), was the first to classify and name the various groups of animals and plants, and drew up an orderly scheme of the species then known. Since that time "species" has been the most important and indispensable idea in descriptive natural history, in zoological and botanical classification; although there have been endless controversies as to its real meaning.
What, then, is this "organic species"? Linne himself appealed directly to the Mosaic narrative; he believed that, as it is stated in Genesis, one pair of each species of animals and plants was created in the beginning, and that all the individuals of each species are the descendants of these created couples. As for the hermaphrodites (organisms that have male and female organs in one being), he thought it sufficed to assume the creation of one sole individual, since this would be fully competent to propagate its species. Further developing these mystic ideas, Linne went on to borrow from Genesis the account of the deluge and of Noah's ark as a ground for a science of the geographical and topographical distribution of organisms. He accepted the story that all the plants, animals, and men on the earth were swept away in a universal deluge, except the couples preserved with Noah in the ark, and ultimately landed on Mount Ararat. This mountain seemed to Linne particularly suitable for the landing, as it reaches a height of more than 16,000 feet, and thus provides in its higher zones the several climates demanded by the various species of animals and plants: the animals that were accustomed to a cold climate could remain at the summit; those used to a warm climate could descend to the foot; and those requiring a temperate climate could remain half-way down. From this point the re-population of the earth with animals and plants could proceed.
It was impossible to have any scientific notion of the method of evolution in Linne's time, as one of the chief sources of information, paleontology, was still wholly unknown. This science of the fossil remains of extinct animals and plants is very closely bound up with the whole question of evolution. It is impossible to explain the origin of living organisms without appealing to it. But this science did not rise until a much later date. The real founder of scientific paleontology was Georges Cuvier, the most distinguished zoologist who, after Linne, worked at the classification of the animal world, and effected a complete revolution in systematic zoology at the beginning of the nineteenth century. In regard to the nature of the species he associated himself with Linne and the Mosaic story of creation, though this was more difficult for him with his acquaintance with fossil remains. He clearly showed that a number of quite different animal populations have lived on the earth; and he claimed that we must distinguish a number of stages in the history of our planet, each of which was characterised by a special population of animals and plants. These successive populations were, he said, quite independent of each other, and therefore the supernatural creative act, which was demanded as the origin of the animals and plants by the dominant creed, must have been repeated several times. In this way a whole series of different creative periods must have succeeded each other; and in connection with these he had to assume that stupendous revolutions or cataclysms—something like the legendary deluge—must have taken place repeatedly. Cuvier was all the more interested in these catastrophes or cataclysms as geology was just beginning to assert itself, and great progress was being made in our knowledge of the structure and formation of the earth's crust. The various strata of the crust were being carefully examined, especially by the famous geologist Werner and his school, and the fossils found in them were being classified; and these researches also seemed to point to a variety of creative periods. In each period the earth's crust, composed of the various strata, seemed to be differently constituted, just like the population of animals and plants that then lived on it. Cuvier combined this notion with the results of his own paleontological and zoological research; and in his effort to get a consistent view of the whole process of the earth's history he came to form the theory which is known as "the catastrophic theory," or the theory of terrestrial revolutions. According to this theory, there have been a series of mighty cataclysms on the earth, and these have suddenly destroyed the whole animal and plant population then living on it; after each cataclysm there was a fresh creation of living things throughout the earth. As this creation could not be explained by natural laws, it was necessary to appeal to an intervention on the part of the Creator. This catastrophic theory, which Cuvier described in a special work, was soon generally accepted, and retained its position in biology for half a century.