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 Tunicates, even if we are not to include them amongst vertebrates[23],
the derivation of mesoblast from hypoblast is without doubt.
Footnote 23: Anton Dohrn, _Der Ursprung des Wirbelthieres_.
Leipzig, 1875.
Without going further into details it is quite clear that the derivation of
the mesoblast from the hypoblast is very general amongst invertebrates.
It will hardly be disputed that primitively the muscular system of the
body-wall could not have been derived from the layer of cells which lines
the alimentary canal. We see indeed in Hydra and the Hydrozoa that in its
primitive differentiation, as could have been anticipated beforehand, the
muscular system of the body is derived from the epiblast cells. What, then,
is the explanation of the widespread derivation of the mesoblast, including
the muscular system of the body, from the hypoblast?
The explanation of it may, I think, possibly be found, and at all events
the suggestion seems to me sufficiently plausible to be worth making, in
the fact that in many cases, and probably this applies to the ancestors of
the vertebrates, the body-cavity was primitively a part of the alimentary.
Mr Lankester, who has already entered into this line of speculation, even
suggests (_Q. J. of Micr. Science_, April, 1875) that this applies to all
higher animals. It might then be supposed that the muscular system of part
of the alimentary canal took the place of the primitive muscular system of
the body; so that the whole muscular system of higher animals would be
primitively part of the muscular system of the digestive tract.
I put this forward merely as a suggestion, in the truth of which I feel no
confidence, but which may perhaps induce embryologists to turn their
attention to the point. If we accept it for the moment, the supplanting of
the body muscular system by that of the digestive tract may hypothetically
be supposed to have occurred in the following way.
When the diverticulum or rather paired diverticula were given off from the
alimentary canal they would naturally become attached to the body-wall, and
any contractions of their intrinsic muscles would tend to cause movements
in the body-wall. So far there is no difficulty, but there is a
physiological difficulty in explaining how it can have happened that this
secondary muscular system can have supplanted the original muscular system
of the body.
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