From this alone it is apparent how imperfect our records must necessarily be, and all the more so since it can be theoretically proved that the variety of animal and vegetable life must have increased greatly during those very periods of elevation. For as new tracts of land are raised above the water, new islands are formed. Every new island, however, is a new centre of creation, because the animals and plants accidentally cast ashore there, find in the new territory, in the struggle for life, abundant opportunity of developing themselves peculiarly, and of forming new species. The formation of new species has evidently taken place pre-eminently during these intermediate periods, of which, unfortunately, no petrifactions could be preserved, whereas, on the contrary, during the slow sinking of the ground there was more chance of numerous species dying out, and of a retrogression into fewer specific forms. The intermediate forms between the old and the newly-forming species must also have lived during the periods of elevation, and consequently could likewise leave no fossil remains.

In addition to the great and deplorable gaps in the palæontological records of creation—which are caused by the periods of elevation—there are, unfortunately, many other circumstances which immensely diminish their value. I must mention here especially the metamorphic state of the most ancient formations, of those strata which contain the remains of the most ancient flora and fauna, the original forms of all subsequent organisms, and which, therefore, would be of especial interest. It is just these rocks—and, indeed, the greater part of the primordial, or archilithic strata, almost the whole of the Laurentian, and a large part of the Cambrian systems—which no longer contain any recognizable remains, and for the simple reason that these strata have been subsequently changed or metamorphosed by the influence of the fiery fluid interior of the earth. These deepest neptunic strata of the crust have been completely changed from their original condition by the heat of the glowing nucleus of the earth, and have assumed a crystalline state. In this process, however, the form of the organic remains enclosed in them has been entirely destroyed. It has been preserved only here and there by a happy chance, as in the case of the most ancient petrifactions known, the Eozoon canadense, from the lowest Laurentian strata. However, from the layers of crystalline charcoal (graphite) and crystalline limestone (marble), which are found deposited in the metamorphic rocks, we may with certainty conclude that petrified animal and vegetable remains existed in them in earlier times.

Our record of creation is also extremely imperfect from the circumstance that only a small portion of the earth’s surface has been accurately investigated by geologists, namely, England, Germany, and France. But we know very little of the other parts of Europe, of Russia, Spain, Italy, and Turkey. In the whole of Europe, only some few parts of the earth’s crust have been laid open, by far the largest portion of it is unknown to us. The same applies to North America and to the East Indies. There some few tracts have been investigated; but of the larger portion of Asia, the most extensive of all continents, we know almost nothing; of Africa nothing, excepting the Cape of Good Hope and the shores of the Mediterranean; of Australia almost nothing; and of South America but very little. It is clear, therefore, that only quite a small portion, perhaps scarcely the thousandth part of the whole surface of the earth, has been palæontologically investigated. We may therefore reasonably hope, when more extensive geological investigations are made, which are greatly assisted by the constructions of railroads and mines, to find a great number of other important petrifactions. A hint that this will be the case is given by the remarkable petrifactions found in those parts of Africa and Asia which have been minutely investigated,—the Cape districts and the Himalaya mountains. A series of entirely new and very peculiar animal forms have become known to us from the rocks of these localities. But we must bear in mind that the vast bottom of the existing oceans is at the present time quite inaccessible to palæontological investigations, and that the greater part of the petrifactions which have lain there from primæval times will either never be known to us, or at best only after the course of many thousands of years, when the present bottom of the ocean shall have become accessible by gradual elevation. If we call to mind the fact that three-fifths of the whole surface of the earth consists of water, and only two-fifths of land, it becomes plain that on this account the palæontological record must always present an immense gap.

But, in addition to these, there exists another series of difficulties in the way of palæontology which arises from the nature of the organisms themselves. In the first place, as a rule only the hard and solid parts of organisms can fall to the bottom of the sea or of fresh waters, and be there enclosed in the mud and petrified. Hence it is only the bones and teeth of vertebrate animals, the calcareous shells of molluscs, the chitinous skeletons of articulated animals, the calcareous skeletons of star-fishes and corals, and the woody and solid parts of plants, that are capable of being petrified. But soft and delicate parts, which constitute by far the greater portion of the bodies of most organisms, are very rarely deposited in the mud under circumstances favourable to their becoming petrified, or distinctly impressing their external form upon the hardening mud. Now, it must be borne in mind that large classes of organisms, as for example the Medusæ, the naked molluscs without shells, a large portion of the articulated animals, almost all worms, and even the lowest vertebrate animals, possess no firm and hard parts capable of being petrified. In like manner the most important parts of plants, such as the flowers, are for the most part so soft and tender that they cannot be preserved in a recognizable form. We therefore cannot expect to find any petrified remains of these important organisms. Moreover, all organisms at an early stage of life are so soft and tender that they are quite incapable of being petrified. Consequently all the petrifactions found in the neptunic stratifications of the earth’s crust comprise altogether but a very few forms, and of these for the most part only isolated fragments.

We must next bear in mind that the dead bodies of the inhabitants of the sea are much more likely to be preserved and petrified in the deposits of mud than those of the inhabitants of fresh water and of the land. Organisms living on land can, as a rule, become petrified only when their corpses fall accidentally into the water and are buried at the bottom in the hardening layers of mud. But this event depends upon very many conditions. We cannot therefore be astonished that by far the majority of petrifactions belong to organisms which have lived in the sea, and that of the inhabitants of the land proportionately only very few are preserved in a fossil state. How many contingencies come into play here we may infer from the single fact that of many fossil mammals, in fact of all the mammals of the secondary, or mesozoic epoch, nothing is known except the lower jawbone. This bone is in the first place comparatively solid, and in the second place very easily separates itself from the dead body, which floats on the water. Whilst the body is driven away and dissolved by the water, the lower jawbone falls down to the bottom of the water and is there enclosed in the mud. This explains the remarkable fact that in a stratum of limestone of the Jurassic system near Oxford, in the slates of Stonesfield, as yet only the lower jawbones of numerous pouched animals (Marsupials) have been found. They are the most ancient mammals known, and of the whole of the rest of their bodies not a single bone exists. The opponents of the theory of development, according to their usual logic, would from this fact be obliged to draw the conclusion that the lower jawbone was the only bone in the body of those animals.

Footprints are very instructive when we attempt to estimate the many accidents which so arbitrarily influence our knowledge of fossils; they are found in great numbers in different extensive layers of sandstone; for example, in the red sandstone of Connecticut, in North America. These footprints were evidently made by vertebrate animals, probably by reptiles, of whose bodies not the slightest trace has been preserved.1 The impressions which their feet have left on the mud alone betray the former existence of these otherwise unknown animals.

The accidents which, besides these, determine the limits of our palæontological knowledge, may be inferred from the fact that we know of only one or two specimens of very many important petrifactions. It is not ten years since we became acquainted with the imperfect impression of a bird in the Jurassic or Oolitic system, the knowledge of which has been of the very greatest importance for the phylogeny of the whole class of birds. All birds previously known presented a very uniformly organized group, and showed no striking transitional forms to other vertebrate classes, not even to the nearly related reptiles. But that fossil bird from the Jura possessed not an ordinary bird’s tail, but a lizard’s tail, and thus confirmed what had been conjectured upon other grounds, namely, the derivation of birds from lizards. This single fossil has thus essentially extended not only our knowledge of the age of the class of birds, but also of their blood relationship to reptiles. In like manner our knowledge of other animal groups has been often essentially modified by the accidental discovery of a single fossil. The palæontological records must necessarily be exceedingly imperfect, because we know of so very few examples, or only mere fragments of very many important fossils.

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

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

When we weigh all the circumstances here mentioned, the number of which might easily be increased, it does not appear astonishing that the natural accounts or records of creation formed by petrifactions are extremely defective and incomplete. But nevertheless, the petrifactions actually discovered are of the greatest value. Their significance is of no less importance to the natural history of creation than the celebrated inscription on the Rosetta stone, and the decree of Canopus, are to the history of nations—to archæology and philology. Just as it has become possible by means of these two most ancient inscriptions to reconstruct the history of ancient Egypt, and to decipher all hieroglyphic writings, so in many cases a few bones of an animal, or imperfect impressions of a lower animal or vegetable form, are sufficient for us to gain the most important starting-points in the history of the whole group, and in the search after their pedigree. A couple of small back teeth, which have been found in the Keuper formation of the Trias, have of themselves alone furnished a sure proof that mammals existed even in the Triassic period.

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

“I look at the geological record as a history of the world imperfectly kept, and written in a changing dialect; of this history we possess the last volume alone, relating only to two or three countries. Of this volume, only here and there a short chapter has been preserved; and of each page, only here and there a few lines. Each word of the slowly-changing language, more or less different in the successive chapters, may represent the forms of life which are entombed in our consecutive formations, and which falsely appear to us to have been abruptly introduced. On this view, the difficulties above discussed are greatly diminished, or even disappear.”—Origin of Species, 6th Edition, p. 289.

If we bear in mind the exceeding incompleteness of palæontological records, we shall not be surprised that we are still dependent upon so many uncertain hypotheses when actually endeavouring to sketch the pedigree of the different organic groups. However, we fortunately possess, besides fossils, other records of the history of the origin of organisms, which in many cases are of no less value, nay, in several cases are of much greater value, than fossils. By far the most important of these other records of creation is, without doubt, ontogeny, that is, the history of the development of the organic individual (embryology and metamorphology). It briefly repeats in great and marked features the series of forms which the ancestors of the respective individuals have passed through from the beginning of their tribe. We have designated the palæontological history of the development of the ancestors of a living form as the history of a tribe, or phylogeny, and we may therefore thus enunciate this exceedingly important biogenetic fundamental principle: “Ontogeny is a short and quick repetition, or recapitulation, of Phylogeny, determined by the laws of Inheritance and Adaptation.” As every animal and every plant from the beginning of its individual existence passes through a series of different forms, it indicates in rapid succession and in general outlines the long and slowly changing series of states of form which its progenitors have passed through from the most ancient times. (Gen. Morph. ii. 6, 110, 300.)

It is true that the sketch which the ontogeny of organisms gives us of their phylogeny is in most cases more or less obscured, and all the more so the more Adaptation, in the course of time, has predominated over Inheritance, and the more powerfully the law of abbreviated inheritance, and the law of correlative adaptation, have exerted their influence. However, this does not lessen the great value which the actual and faithfully preserved features of that sketch possess. Ontogeny is of the most inestimable value for the knowledge of the earliest palæontological conditions of development, just because no petrified remains of the most ancient conditions of the development of tribes and classes have been preserved. These, indeed, could not have been preserved on account of the soft and tender nature of their bodies. No petrifactions could inform us of the fundamental and important fact which ontogeny reveals to us, that the most ancient common ancestors of all the different animal and vegetable species were quite simple cells like the egg-cell. No petrifaction could prove to us the immensely important fact, established by ontogeny, that the simple increase, the formation of cell-aggregates and the differentiation of those cells, produced the infinitely manifold forms of multicellular organisms. Thus ontogeny helps us over many and large gaps in palæontology.

To the invaluable records of creation furnished by palæontology and ontogeny are added the no less important evidences for the blood relationship of organisms furnished by comparative anatomy. When organisms, externally very different, nearly agree in their internal structure, one may with certainty conclude that the agreement has its foundation in Inheritance, the dissimilarity its foundation in Adaptation. Compare, for example, the hands and fore paws of the nine different animals which are represented on Plate IV., in which the bony skeleton in the interior of the hand and of the five fingers is visible. Everywhere we find, though the external forms are most different, the same bones, and among them the same number, position, and connection. It will perhaps appear very natural that the hand of man (Fig. 1) differs very little from that of the gorilla (Fig. 2) and of the orang-outang (Fig. 3), his nearest relations. But it will be more surprising if the fore feet of the dog also (Fig. 4), as well as the breast-fin (the hand) of the seal (Fig. 5), and of the dolphin (Fig. 6), show essentially the same structure. And it will appear still more wonderful that even the wing of the bat (Fig. 7), the shovel-feet of the mole (Fig. 8), and the fore feet of the duck-bill (Ornithorhynchus) (Fig. 9), the most imperfect of all mammals, is composed of entirely the same bones, only their size and form being variously changed. Their number, the manner of their arrangement and connection has remained the same. (Compare also the explanation of Plate IV., in the Appendix.) It is quite inconceivable that any other cause, except the common inheritance of the part in question from common ancestors, could have occasioned this wonderful homology or similarity in the essential inner structure with such different external forms. Now, if we go down further in the system below the mammals, and find that even the wings of birds, the fore feet of reptiles and amphibious animals, are composed of essentially the same bones as the arms of man and the fore legs of the other mammals, we can, from this circumstance alone, with perfect certainty, infer the common origin of all these vertebrate animals. Here, as in all other cases, the degree of the internal agreement in the form discloses to us the degree of blood relationship.

CHAPTER XVI.

PEDIGREE AND HISTORY OF THE KINGDOM OF THE PROTISTA.

By a careful comparison of the individual and the palæontological development, as also by the comparative anatomy of organisms, by the comparative examination of their fully developed structural characteristics, we arrive at the knowledge of the degrees of their different structural relationships. By this, however, we at the same time obtain an insight into their true blood relationship, which, according to the Theory of Descent, is the real reason of the structural relationship. Hence by collecting, comparing, and employing the empirical results of embryology, palæontology, and anatomy for supplementing each other, we arrive at an approximate knowledge of “the Natural System,” which, according to our views, is the pedigree of organisms. It is true that our human knowledge, in all things fragmentary, is especially so in this case, on account of the extreme incompleteness and defectiveness of the records of creation. However, we must not allow this to discourage us, or to deter us from undertaking this highest problem of biology. Let us rather see how far it may even now be possible, in spite of the imperfect state of our embryological, palæontological, and anatomical knowledge, to establish a probable scheme of the genealogical relationships of organisms.

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

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

I hope that this replacement will very soon take place; and I wish for nothing more than that my first attempt may induce very many naturalists to establish more accurate pedigrees for the individual groups, at least in the special domain of the animal and vegetable kingdom which happens to be well known to one or other of them. By numerous attempts of this kind our genealogical knowledge, in the course of time, will slowly advance and approach more towards perfection, although it can with certainty be foreseen that we shall never arrive at a complete pedigree. We lack, and shall ever lack, the indispensable palæontological foundations. The most ancient records will ever remain sealed to us, for reasons which have been previously mentioned. The most ancient organisms which arose by spontaneous generation—the original parents of all subsequent organisms—must necessarily be supposed to have been Monera—simple, soft, albuminous lumps, without structure, without any definite forms, and entirely without any hard and formed parts. They and their next offspring were consequently not in any way capable of being preserved in a petrified condition. But we also lack, for reasons discussed in detail in the preceding chapter, by far the greater portion of the innumerable palæontological documents, which are really requisite for a safe reconstruction of the history of animal tribes, or phylogeny, and for the true knowledge of the pedigree of organisms. If we, therefore, in spite of this, venture to undertake their hypothetical construction, we must chiefly depend for guidance on the two other series of records which most essentially supplement the palæontological archives. These are ontogeny and comparative anatomy.

If thoughtfully and carefully we consult these most valuable records, we at once perceive what is exceedingly significant, namely, that by far the greater number of organisms, especially all higher animals and plants, are composed of a great number of cells, and that they originate out of an egg, and that this egg, in animals as well as in plants, is a single, perfectly simple cell—a little lump of albuminous constitution, in which another albuminous corpuscle, the cell-kernel, is enclosed. This cell containing its kernel grows and becomes enlarged. By division it forms an accumulation of cells, and out of these, by division of labour (as has previously been described), there arise the numberless different forms which are presented to us in the fully developed animal and vegetable species. This immensely important process—which we may follow step by step, with our own eyes, any day in the embryological development of any animal or vegetable individual, and which as a rule is by no means considered with the reverence it deserves—informs us more surely and completely than all petrifactions could do as to the original palæontological development of all many-celled organisms, that is, of all higher animals and plants. For as ontogeny, or the embryological development of every single individual, is essentially only a recapitulation of phylogeny, or the palæontological development of its chain of ancestors, we may at once, with full assurance, draw the simple and important conclusion, that all many-celled animals and plants were originally derived from single-celled organisms. The primæval ancestors of man, as well as of all other animals, and of all plants composed of many cells, were simple cells living isolated. This invaluable secret of the organic pedigree is revealed to us with infallible certainty by the egg of animals, and by the true egg-cell of plants. When the opponents of the Theory of Descent assert it to be miraculous and inconceivable that an exceedingly complicated many-celled organism could, in the course of time, have proceeded from a simple single-celled organism, we at once reply that we may see this incredible miracle at any moment, and follow it with our own eyes. For the embryology of animals and plants visibly presents to our eyes in the shortest space of time the same process as that which has taken place in the origin of the whole tribe during the course of enormous periods of time.

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

As was then shown, we cannot imagine cells to have arisen by spontaneous generation, but only Monera, those primæval creatures of the simplest kind conceivable, like the still living Protamœbæ), Protomyxæ, etc. (vol. i. p. 1186, Fig. 1). Only such corpuscules of mucus without component parts—whose whole albuminous body is as homogeneous in itself as an inorganic crystal, but which nevertheless fulfills the two organic fundamental functions of nutrition and propagation—could have directly arisen out of inorganic matter by autogeny at the beginning (we may suppose) of the Laurentian period. While some Monera remained at the original simple stage of formation, others gradually developed into cells by the inner kernel of the albuminous mass becoming separated from the external cell-substance. In others, by differentiation of the outermost layer of the cell-substance, an external covering (membrane, or skin) was formed round simple cytods (without kernel), as well as round naked cells (containing a kernel). By these two processes of separation in the simple primæval mucus of the Moneron body, by the formation of a kernel in the interior and a covering on the outer surface of the mass of plasma, there arose out of the original most simple cytods, or Monera, those four different species of plastids, or individuals, of the first order, from which, by differentiation and combination, all other organisms could afterwards develop themselves. (Compare vol. i. p. 347.)

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

Let us now pass on to examine and clearly limit our conception of an organic tribe. By tribe, or phylum, we understand all those organisms of whose blood relationship and descent from a common primary form there can be no doubt, or whose relationship, at least, is most probable from anatomical reasons, as well as from reasons founded on historical development. Our tribes, or phyla, according to this idea, essentially coincide with those few “great classes,” or “main classes,” of which Darwin also thinks that each contains only organisms related by blood, and of which, both in the animal and in the vegetable kingdoms, he only assumes either four or five. In the animal kingdom these tribes would essentially coincide with those four, five, or six main divisions which zoologists, since Bär and Cuvier, have distinguished as “main forms, general plans, branches, or sub-kingdoms” of the animal kingdom. (Compare vol. i. p. 53.) Bär and Cuvier distinguished only four of them, namely:—1. The vertebrate animals (Vertebrata); 2. The articulated animals (Articulata); 3. The molluscous animals (Mollusca); and 4. The radiated animals (Radiata). At present six are generally distinguished, since the tribe of the articulated animals is divided into two tribes, those possessing articulated feet (Arthropoda), and the worms (Vermes); and in like manner the tribe of radiated animals is subdivided into the two tribes of the star animals (Echinodermata) and the animal-plants (Zoophyta). Within each of these six tribes, all the included animals, in spite of great variety in external form and inner structure, nevertheless possess such numerous and important characteristics in common, that there can be no doubt of their blood relationship. The same applies also to the six great main classes which modern botany distinguishes in the vegetable kingdom, namely:—1. Flowering plants (Phanerogamia); 2. Ferns (Filicinæ); 3. Mosses (Muscinæ); 4. Lichens (Lichenes); 5. Fungi (Fungi); and 6. Water-weeds (Algæ). The last three groups, again, show such close relations to one another, that by the name of “Thallus plants” they may be contrasted with the three first main classes, and consequently the number of phyla, or main groups, of the vegetable kingdom may be reduced to the number of four. Mosses and ferns may likewise be comprised as “Prothallus plants” (Prothallophyta), and thereby the number of plant tribes reduced to three—Flowering plants, Prothallus plants, and Thallus plants.

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

In the mean time we shall at all events be acting cautiously if we avoid this last step, and assume true blood relationship only within each tribe, or phylum, where it has been undeniably and surely established by facts in comparative anatomy, ontogeny, and phylogeny. But we may here point to the fact that two different fundamental forms of genealogical hypothesis are possible, and that all the different investigations of the Theory of Descent in relation to the origin of organic groups of forms will, in future, tend more and more in one or the other of these directions. The unitary, or monophyletic, hypothesis of descent will endeavour to trace the first origin of all individual groups of organisms, as well as their totality, to a single common species of Moneron which originated by spontaneous generation (vol. i. p. 343). The multiple, or polyphyletic, hypothesis of descent, on the other hand, will assume that several different species of Monera have arisen by spontaneous generation, and that these gave rise to several different main classes (tribes, or phyla) (vol. i. p. 348). The apparently great contrast between these two hypotheses is in reality of very little importance. For both the monophyletic and the polyphyletic hypothesis of descent must necessarily go back to the Monera as the most ancient root of the one or of the many organic tribes. But as the whole body of a Moneron consists only of a simple, formless mass, without component particles, made up of a single albuminous combination of carbon, it follows that the differences of the different Monera can only be of a chemical nature, and can only consist in a different atomic composition of that mucous albuminous combination. But these subtle and complicated differences of mixture of the infinitely manifold combinations of albumen are not appreciable by the rude and imperfect means of human observation and are, consequently, at present of no further interest to the task we have in hand.

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

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

All organisms which we comprise under the name of Protista show in their external form, in their inner structure, and in all their vital phenomena, such a remarkable mixture of animal and vegetable properties, that they cannot with perfect justice be assigned either to the animal or to the vegetable kingdom; and for more than twenty years an endless and fruitless dispute has been carried on as to whether they are to be assigned to this or that kingdom. Most of Protista are so small that they can scarcely, if at all, be perceived with the naked eye. Hence the majority of them have only become known during the last fifty years, since by the help of the improved and general use of the microscope these minute organisms have been more frequently observed and more accurately examined. However, no sooner were they better known than endless disputes arose about their real nature and their position in the natural system of organisms. Many of these doubtful primary creatures botanists defined as animals, and zoologists as plants; neither of the two would own them. Others, again, were declared by botanists to be plants, and by zoologists to be animals; each claimed them. These contradictions are not altogether caused by our imperfect knowledge of the Protista, but in reality by their true nature. Indeed, most Protista present such a confused mixture of several animal and vegetable characteristics, that each investigator may arbitrarily assign them either to the animal or vegetable kingdom. Accordingly as he defines these two kingdoms, and as he looks upon this or that characteristic as determining the animal or vegetable nature, he will assign the individual classes of Protista in one case to the animal and in another to the vegetable kingdom. But this systematic difficulty has become an inextricable knot by the fact that all more recent investigations on the lowest organisms have completely effaced, or at least destroyed, the sharp boundary between the animal and vegetable kingdom which had hitherto existed, and to such a degree that its restoration is possible only by means of a completely artificial definition of the two kingdoms. But this definition could not be made so as to apply to many of the Protista.

For this and other reasons it is, in the mean time, best to exclude the doubtful beings from the animal as well as from the vegetable kingdom, and to comprise them in a third organic kingdom standing midway between the two others. This intermediate kingdom I have established as the Kingdom of the Primary Creatures (Protista), when discussing general anatomy in the first volume of my General Morphology, pp. 191-238. In my Monograph of the Monera,(15) I have recently treated of this kingdom, having somewhat changed its limits, and given it a more accurate definition. Of independent classes of the kingdom Protista, we may at present distinguish the following:—

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

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

The pedigree of the kingdom Protista is still enveloped in the greatest obscurity. The peculiar combination of animal and vegetable properties, the indifferent and uncertain character of their relations of forms and vital phenomena, together with a number of several very peculiar features which separate most of the subordinate classes sharply from the others, at present baffle every attempt distinctly to make out their blood relationships with one another, or with the lowest animals on the one hand, and with the lowest plants on the other hand. It is not improbable that the classes specified, and many other unknown classes of Protista, represent quite independent organic tribes, or phyla, each of which has independently developed from one, perhaps from various, Monera which have arisen by spontaneous generation. If we do not agree to this polyphyletic hypothesis of descent, and prefer the monophyletic hypothesis of the blood relationship of all organisms, we shall have to look upon the different classes of Protista as the lower small offshoots of the root, springing from the same simple Monera root, out of which arose the two mighty and many-branched pedigrees of the animal kingdom on the one hand, and of the vegetable kingdom on the other. (Compare pp. 74, 75.) Before I enter into this difficult question more accurately, it will be appropriate to premise something further as to the contents of the classes of Protista given on the next page, and their general natural history.