The Principles of Biology, Volume 2 (of 2)Spencer, Herbert
Science
The Principles of Biology, Volume 2 (of 2)
Spencer, Herbert
Biology
On considering the arrangement of the muscular flakes, or _myocommata_,
in any ordinary fish which comes to table--an arrangement already
sketched out in the _Amphioxus_--it is not difficult to see that that
portion of the body out of which the head of the vertebrate animal
becomes developed, is a portion which cannot subject itself to bendings
in the same degree as the rest of the body. The muscles developed
there must be comparatively short, and much interfered with by the
pre-existing orifices. Hence the cephalic part will not partake in any
considerable degree of the lateral undulations; and there will not tend
to arise in it any such distinct segmentation as arises elsewhere. We
have here, then, an explanation of the fact, that from the beginning
the development of the head follows a course unlike that of the spinal
column; and of the fact that the segmentation, so far as it can be
traced in the head, is most readily to be traced in the occipital
region and becomes lost in the region of the face. For if, as we have
seen, the segmentation consequent on mechanical actions and reactions
must progress from without inwards, affecting last of all the axis; and
if, as we have seen, the region of the head is so circumstanced that
the causes of segmentation act but feebly even on its periphery; then
that terminal portion of the primitive notochord which is included in
the head, having to undergo no lateral bendings, may ossify without
division into segments.
Of other incidental evidences supplied by comparative morphology, let
me next refer to the supernumerary bones, which the theory of Goethe
and Oken as elaborated by Prof. Owen, has to get rid of by gratuitous
suppositions. In many fishes, for example, there are what have been
called interneural spines and interhæmal spines. These cannot by any
ingenuity be affiliated upon the archetypal vertebra, and they are
therefore arbitrarily rejected as bones belonging to the exo-skeleton;
though in shape and texture they are similar to the spines between
which they are placed. On the hypothesis of evolution, however, these
additional bones are accounted for as arising under actions like those
that gave origin to the bones adjacent to them. And similarly with such
bones as those called sesamoid; together with others too numerous to
name.
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