two stages of development ultimately diverged so widely in structure
that the transition from one to the other could no longer be made at
a single moulting, and a period of rest had to be interpolated, in
order that the transformation of the body could take place. In this
way arose the stage of the resting and fasting pupa, a 'cœnogenetic'
modification of the last larval stage, _not a recapitulation of an
ancestral form_, but a stage which has been interpolated, or better,
has 'interpolated itself' into the ontogeny on account of the widely
different adaptations of the early and the final stages.
This is a perfectly clear idea, and Haeckel's distinction between
palingenesis and cœnogenesis is undoubtedly justified.
But it is quite a different matter to be able to decide whether
a particular stage or organ has arisen palingenetically or
cœnogenetically with the same certainty as in the case of the
insect-pupa, or even with any degree of probability, and we must admit
that in very many cases, perhaps even in most cases, it is impossible.
This is so chiefly because pure palingenesis is hardly likely to occur
now; the ancestral stages were bound to be modified in any case if
they were to be compressed into the ever-shortening ontogeny of later
descendants, and particularly so if they were to be shunted back into
embryogenesis. In the latter case they would not only be materially
shortened, and, as I have already shown, modified by the mutual
adaptations of the different developing parts, but time-displacements
of embryonic parts and organs would be necessary, as has been very
clearly proved by the excellent recent investigations, which we owe
in particular to Oppel, Mehnert, and Keibel. A shunting forward or
backward of the individual organs takes place--conditioned apparently
by the decreasing or increasing importance of the organ in the finished
state; for in the course of the phylogeny everything may vary, and
not only may a new, somewhat modified, and often more complex stage
be added on at the end of the ontogeny, but each one of the preceding
stages may vary independently, whenever this is required by a change
in its relations to the other stages or organs. Adaptation is effected
at every stage and for every part by the process of selection, for all
parts of the same rank are ceaselessly struggling with one another,
from the lowest vital units, the biophors, up to the highest, the
persons. If we reflect that, in the course of the phylogeny of every
series of species, a number of organs always become superfluous and
begin to disappear in consequence, we can understand what great changes
must take place gradually as such a series of phyletic stages is
compressed into the ontogeny, for all organs which are no longer used
are gradually shifted further and further back in the ontogeny till
ultimately they disappear from it altogether. But, while the primary
constituents of these 'vestiges' play their part in ontogeny for a
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