Our Common Insects: A Popular Account of the Insects of Our Fields, Forests, Gardens and HousesPackard, A. S. (Alpheus Spring)
Science
Our Common Insects: A Popular Account of the Insects of Our Fields, Forests, Gardens and Houses
Packard, A. S. (Alpheus Spring)
Insects
These remarkable hyper-metamorphoses remind us of the metamorphosis of
the embryo of Echinoderms into the Pluteus-and Bipinnaria-forms of the
starfish, sea urchins and Holothurians;[24] of the Actinotrocha-form
larva of the Sipunculoid worms; of the Tornaria into Balanoglossus, the
worm; of the Cercaria-form larva of Distoma; of the Pilidium-form larva
of Nemertes; and the larval forms of the leeches;[25] as well as the
mite Pentastomum, and certain other aberrant mites, such as Myobia.
While Fritz Mueller and Dohrn have considered the insects as having
descended from the Crustacea (some primitive zoea-form), and Dohrn has
adduced the supposed zoea-form larva of these egg-parasites as a proof,
we cannot but think, in a subject so purely speculative as the ancestry
of animals, that the facts brought out by Ganin tend to confirm our
theory, that the ancestry of all the insects (including the Arachnids
and Myriopods) should be traced directly to the worms. The development
of the degraded, aberrant Arachnidan Pentastomum accords, in some
important respects, with that of the intestinal worms. The Leptus-form
larva of Julus, with its strange embryological development, in some
respects so like that of some worms, points in that direction, as
certainly as does the embryological development of the egg-parasite
Ophioneurus. The Nauplius form of the embryo or larva of nearly all
Crustacea, also points back to the worms as their ancestors, the
divergence having perhaps originated, as we have suggested, in the
Rotatoria.
While the Crustacea may have resulted from a series of prototypes
leading up from the Rotifers (Fig. 198), it is barely possible that one
of these creatures may have given rise to a form resulting in two series
of beings, one leading to the Leptus form, the other to the Nauplius.
For the true Annelides (Chaetopods) are too circumscribed and homogeneous
a group to allow us to look to them for the ancestral forms of insects.
But that the insects may have descended from some low worms is not
improbable when we reflect that the Syllis and allied genera of
Annelides bear appendages consisting of numerous joints; indeed, the
strange Dujardinia rotifers, figured by Quatrefages, in its general form
is remarkably like the larva of Chloeon. It has a quite distinct head,
bearing five long, slender, jointed antennae, and but eight or nine rings
to the body, which ends in two long, many jointed appendages exactly
like the tentacles. Quatrefages adds, that its movements are usually
slow, but "when it wishes to move more rapidly, it moves its body
alternately up and down with much vivacity, and shoots forwards by
bounds, so to speak, a little after the manner of the larvae of the
mosquito" (Histoire Naturelle des Anneles, Tome 2, p. 69). The gills of
aquatic insects only differ from those of worms in possessing tracheae,
though the gills of the Crustacea may be directly compared with those of
insects.
[Illustration: 198. A Rotifer.]
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