Darwin, and After Darwin, Volumes 1 and 3: An Exposition of the Darwinian Theory and a Discussion of Post-Darwinian QuestionsRomanes, George John
Science
Darwin, and After Darwin, Volumes 1 and 3: An Exposition of the Darwinian Theory and a Discussion of Post-Darwinian Questions
Romanes, George John
Evolution (Biology); Heredity
Coming now to bones, we have a singularly complete record of transition
from one type or pattern of structure to another in the phylogenetic
history of tails. This has been so clearly and so tersely conveyed by
Prof. Le Conte, that I cannot do better than quote his statement.
It has long been noticed that there are among fishes two styles of
tail-fins. These are the even-lobed, or homocercal (Fig. 68), and
the uneven-lobed, or heterocercal (Fig. 69). The one is
characteristic of ordinary fishes (teleosts), the other of sharks
and some other orders. In structure the difference is even more
fundamental than in form. In the former style the backbone stops
abruptly in a series of short, enlarged joints, and thence sends
off rays to form the tail-fin (Fig. 68); in the latter the
backbone runs through the fin to its very point, growing slenderer
by degrees, and giving off rays above and below from each joint,
but the rays on the lower side are much longer (Fig. 69). This type
of fin is, therefore, _vertebrated_, the other _non-vertebrated_.
Figs. 68 and 69 show these two types in form and structure. But
there is still another type found only in the lowest and most
generalized forms of fishes. In these the tail-fin is vertebrated
and yet symmetrical. This type is shown in Fig. 70.
[Illustration: FIG. 68.--Homocercal Tail, showing (A) external form
and (B) internal structure.]
[Illustration: FIG. 69.--Heterocercal Tail, showing (A) external
form and (B) internal structure.]
[Illustration: FIG. 70.--Vertebrated but symmetrical fin
(diphycercal), showing (A) external form and (B) internal
structure.]
Now, in the development of a teleost fish (Fig. 68), as has been
shown by Alexander Agassiz, the tail-fin is first like Fig. 70;
then becomes heterocercal, like Fig. 69; and, finally, becomes
homocercal like Fig. 68. Why so? Not because there is any special
advantage in this succession of forms; for the changes take place
either in the egg or else in very early embryonic states. The
answer is found in the fact that _this is the order of change in
the phylogenetic series_. The earliest fish-tails were either like
Fig. 69 or Fig. 70; never like Fig. 68. The earliest of all were
almost certainly like Fig. 70; then they became like Fig. 69; and,
finally, only much later in geological history (Jurassic or
Cretaceous), they became like Fig. 68. This order of change is
still retained in the embryonic development of the last introduced
and most specialized order of existing fishes. The family history
is repeated in the individual history.
Public-domain text, read in full here on John Shaqi.
Reviews
Reviews
No reviews yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this work.
Elsewhere in the archive
Join the Discussion
Join the discussion
Sign in to leave a comment or review.
Sign InorCreate an account