The works of Francis Maitland Balfour, Volume 1 (of 4) : $b Separate memoirsBalfour, Francis M. (Francis Maitland)
Science
The works of Francis Maitland Balfour, Volume 1 (of 4) : $b Separate memoirs
Balfour, Francis M. (Francis Maitland)
Embryology; Zoology
In the development of a yolk-sac as a distinct appendage, and its
absorption within the body, at a later period, the bird fundamentally
resembles the Dog-fish.
Although there are some difficulties in deriving the type of development
exhibited by the Bird directly from that of the Selachian, it is not very
difficult to do so directly from Amphioxus. Were the alimentary involution
to remain symmetrical as in Amphioxus, and the yolk-containing part of the
egg to assume the proportions it does in the Bird, we should obtain a mode
of development which would not be very dissimilar to that of the Bird. The
epiblast would necessarily overgrow the yolk uniformly on all sides and not
in the unsymmetrical fashion of the Selachian egg. A confirmation of this
view might perhaps be sought for in the complete difference between the
types of circulation of the yolk-sac in Birds and Selachians; but this is
not so important as might at first sight appear, since it is not from the
Selachian egg but from some Batrachian that it would be necessary to derive
the Reptiles' and Birds' eggs.
If this view of the Bird's egg be correct, we are compelled to suppose that
the line of ancestors of Birds and Reptiles did not include amongst them
the Selachians and the Batrachians, or at any rate Selachians and
Batrachians which develop on the type we now find.
The careful investigation of the development of some Reptiles might very
probably throw light upon this important point. In the meantime it is
better to assume that the type of development of Birds is to be derived
from that of the Frog and Selachians.
_Summary._--If the views expressed in this paper are correct, all the modes
of development found in the higher vertebrates are to be looked upon as
modifications of that of Amphioxus. It is, however, rather an interesting
question whether it is possible to suppose that the original type was _not_
that of Amphioxus, but of some other animal, say, for instance, that of the
Frog, and that this varied in two directions,--on the one hand towards
Amphioxus, in the reverse direction to the course of variation presupposed
in the text; and on the other hand in the direction towards the Selachians
as before.
The answer to this question must in my opinion be in the negative. It is
quite easy to conceive the food material of the Frog's egg completely
vanishing, but although this would entail simplifications of development
and possibly even make segmentation uniform, there would, as far as I can
see, be no cause why the essential features of difference between the
Frog's mode of development and that of Amphioxus should change. The
asymmetrical and slit-like form of involution on the one side and the
growth of the epiblast over the mesoblast on the other side, both
characteristics of the present Frog's egg, would still be features in the
development of the simplified egg.
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