The History of Creation, Vol. 2 (of 2): Or the Development of the Earth and its Inhabitants by the Action of Natural CausesHaeckel, Ernst
Science
The History of Creation, Vol. 2 (of 2): Or the Development of the Earth and its Inhabitants by the Action of Natural Causes
Haeckel, Ernst
Evolution; Heredity; Human beings -- Origin
Gamopetalæ, arise out of them, which at the same time are the most
perfect of all flowering plants. Thus, in each succeeding later division
of the organic history of the earth the vegetable kingdom gradually rose
to a higher degree of perfection and variety.
CHAPTER XVIII.
PEDIGREE AND HISTORY OF THE ANIMAL KINGDOM.
I. ANIMAL-PLANTS AND WORMS.
The Natural System of the Animal Kingdom.—Linnæus and Lamarck’s
Systems.—The Four Types of Bär and Cuvier.—Their Increase to
Seven Types.—Genealogical Importance of the Seven Types as
Independent Tribes of the Animal Kingdom.—Derivation of
Zoophytes and Worms from Primæval Animals.—Monophyletic and
Polyphyletic Hypothesis of the Descent of the Animal
Kingdom.—Common Origin of the Four Higher Animal Tribes out of
the Worm Tribe.—Division of the Seven Animal Tribes into
Sixteen Main Classes, and Thirty-eight Classes.—Primæval
Animals (Monera, Amœbæ, Synamœbæ), Gregarines, Infusoria,
Planæades, and Gastræades (Planula and Gastrula).—Tribe of
Zoophytes.—Spongiæ (Mucous Sponges, Fibrous Sponges, Calcareous
Sponges).—Sea Nettles, or Acalephæ (Corals, Hood-jellies,
Comb-jellies).—Tribe of Worms.
The natural system of organisms which we must employ in the animal as
well as in the vegetable kingdom, as a guide in our genealogical
investigations, is in both cases of but recent origin, and essentially
determined by the progress of comparative anatomy and ontogeny (the
history of individual development) during the present century. Almost
all the attempts at classification made in the last century followed the
path of the artificial system, which was first established in a
consistent manner by Charles Linnæus. The artificial system differs
essentially from the natural one, in the fact that it does not make the
whole organization and the internal structure (depending upon the blood
relationship) the basis of classification, but only employs individual,
and for the most part external, characteristics, which readily strike
the eye. Thus Linnæus distinguished his twenty-four classes of the
vegetable kingdom principally by the number, formation, and combination
of the stamens. In like manner he distinguished six classes in the
animal kingdom principally by the nature of the heart and blood. These
six classes were: (1) Mammals; (2) Birds; (3) Amphibious Animals; (4)
Fishes; (5) Insects; and (6) Worms.
But these six animal classes of Linnæus are by no means of equal value,
and it was an important advance when, at the end of the last century,
Lamarck comprised the first four classes as vertebrate animals
(Vertebrata), and put them in contrast with the remaining animals (the
insects and worms of Linnæus), of which he made a second main
division—the invertebrate animals (Invertebrata). In reality Lamarck
thus agreed with Aristotle, the father of Natural History, who had
distinguished these two main groups, and called the former
_blood-bearing animals_, the latter _bloodless animals_.
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