The Wonders of Life: A Popular Study of Biological PhilosophyHaeckel, Ernst
Philosophy
The Wonders of Life: A Popular Study of Biological Philosophy
Haeckel, Ernst
Biology; Evolution (Biology); Life -- Origin
The two classes of bacteria and chromacea seem, in the present
condition of our knowledge, on account of their simple organization,
to be the simplest of all living things, real monera, or organisms
without organs. Hence we have to put them at the lowest stage of
the protist kingdom, and must regard the difference between them
and the most highly differentiated unicellular beings (such as the
radiolaria, ciliated infusoria, diatomes, or siphonea) as no smaller
than the difference (in the realm of the histona) between a lower
polyp (_hydra_) and a vertebrate, or between a simple alga (_ulva_)
and a palm. But if the kingdom of the protists is badly divided, on
the older rule, into a plant kingdom and an animal kingdom, the only
discriminating mark we have left is the difference in metabolism; in
that case we have to include the plasmophagous bacteria in the animal
kingdom (as Ehrenberg did in 1838) and the plasmodomous chromacea
in the plant kingdom. The remarkable class of the flagellata, which
includes ciliated unicellulars of both groups, contains several
forms which are only distinguished from the typical bacterium by the
possession of a nucleus. If it is true that in some of the protists
which were counted as bacteria a real nucleus has been detected, these
must be separated from the others (unnucleated) and included in the
nucleated flagellata.
The monera which I described in 1866, and on which I based the theory
of the monera in my monograph, belong to a different division of the
protists from the classes of bacteria and chromacea. These are the
forms which I described as _protamœba_, _protogenes_, _protomyxa_,
etc. Their naked mobile plasma-bodies thrust out pseudopodia, or
variable "false feet," from their surface, like the (nucleated) real
rhizopods (=sarcodinæ); but they differ essentially from the latter in
the absence of a nucleus. Afterwards (in my _Systematic Phytogeny_)
I proposed to separate these unnucleated rhizopods from the others,
giving the name of _lobomonera_ (_protamœba_) to the amœba-like
monera with flap-shaped feet, and the name of _rhizomonera_
(_protomyxa_, _pontomyxa_, _biomyxa_, _arachnula_, etc.) to the
gromia-like, root-feet forming monera. However, of late years, real
nuclei have been detected in each of these large monera, and so they
have been proved to be true cells. This discovery was made possible by
the improved modern methods of coloring the nucleus which I had not the
use of thirty years ago in my first observations. On the strength of
these recent discoveries many scientists claim that all the monera I
described are true cells, and must have nuclei. This baseless assertion
is much employed by the opponents of the theory of evolution in order
to deny the existence of the monera altogether.
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