number Five, the Gastraa (Urdarmthiere) a class of animals purely imaginary. They are placed here because required as ancestors for the Gastrula, itself an imaginary order, derived from embryological exigencies. No. 8 is another imaginary type, called by Haeckel Chordonia, because they "developed themselves from the Annelida, by the formation of a spinal marrow and a chorda dorsalis"! It is well known that between the Invertebrata and the Vertebrata there is no transition form. It is also known (by Mr. Darwin) that, by means of the Ascidians, we are supposed to "have at last gained a clue to the source whence the Vertebrata have been derived." 2 But as to that "group of marine animals resembling the larvæ of existing Ascidians," which were our "most ancient progenitors in the kingdom of the Vertebrata":"-who they were, or what, or whence, is known to no one but Professor Haeckel! True, even he does not profess to have any producible evidence that such animals ever existed; they are destitute of any single living representative; there is no fossil evidence of their former existence; their sole raison d'être 1 "Natürliche Schöpfungsgeschichte," p. 583. 3 Ibid. is, that they are required by the hypothesis. In Haeckel's Stammbaum here they are accordingly-as veritable as Falstaff's men in buckram -with no extinct or living representatives, but being, for all that, "undoubtedly" the progenitors of all the Vertebrata, through the Ascidians. Not that they were always so, however. Far from it. But-anticipating the advice of Mrs. Louisa Chick-they knew how much depended on them, and they " made an effort."1 It succeeded beyond all expectation. They "developed THEMSELVES"! How? By the simplest possible process, in the easiest possible manner. Nothing more than-" the formation of a spinal marrow and a chorda dorsalis"! (14), The Sozura, is an order of Amphibia interpolated "because required as a necessary transition stage between the true Amphibia," (13,) and (15) The Protamniota, or general stem of the mammalia, reptiles, and birds. "What the Protamniota were like," says Prof. Huxley, "I do not suppose any one is in a position to say."2 And yet we are told that 1 "It's necessary for you to make an effort, and perhaps a very great and painful effort which you are not disposed to make; but this is a world of effort you know, Fanny, and we must never yield, when so much depends upon us. Come! Try!"-Dombey & Son, ch. i. 2 "Critiques and Addresses," p. 318. "the Protamniota split up into two stems, one that of the Mammalia, the other common to Reptilia and Aves." And they are "proved to have existed (—although no one knows what they were like-) because they were the necessary precursors of (16), The Pro-mammalia, the earliest progenitors of all the Mammalia. And these were followed by (17,) Marsupialia, or Kangaroos. "But," says Prof. Huxley, "the existing Opossums and Kangaroos are certainly extremely modified and remote from their ancestors the 'Prodidelphia,' of which we have not, at present, the slightest knowledge. The mode of origin of the Monodelphia from these is a very difficult problem, for the most part left open by Professor Haeckel." 2 Observe: Of these Prodidelphia "we have not, at present, the slightest knowledge." And yet this knowledge we "certainly" have: First, that they are the "ancestors" of "the existing Opossums and Kangaroos"; and Second, that these Opossums and Kangaroos "are certainly extremely modified and remote from their ancestors the Prodidelphia." No wonder that "the mode of origin of the Monodelphia from these is a very difficult 1 "Critiques and Addresses," p. 317. 2 Ibid., p. 318. problem." No wonder either that though "the phylum of the Vertebrata is the most interesting of all, and is admirably discussed by Prof. Haeckel," 1 still it certainly does include "a few points which seem," even to Prof. Huxley, "to be open to discussion." 2 And now we have reached the beginning of the end. For (18) are the Prosimia, or halfapes, as the indris and loris. And from these, through (19,) the Menocerca, or tailed apes, we reach, at last, (20,) the Anthropoides, or man-like apes, represented by the modern orang, gibbon, gorilla, and chimpanzee. Not amongst these however are we to look for "the direct ancestors of man, but amongst the unknown extinct apes of the Miocene." The Pithecanthropi (21), or dumb ape-men, come next; an unknown race the nearest modern representatives of which are cretins and idiots. 3 They must have existed, in order to furnish means of transition to the final stage (thus far!) i.e., (22) the Homines, or true men, who "developed themselves" from their imaginary fathers of the preceding class," by a gradual conversion of brute howlings into articulate speech." 1 "Critiques and Addresses,” p. 317. 2 Ibid. "Natürliche Schöpfungsgeschichte," p. 592. Thus then, at last, we reach the goal:"There was an Ape." There "must have been," or there could not have been a man.2 The exigency is urgent, and the affirmation easy. It is only when we proceed to particulars that difficulties present themselves. Where was this Ape? And when? And what? No man can tell. Haeckel emphatically protests against the notion that the modern anthropoid apes can be regarded as our direct progenitors. "Our apelike ancestors," he says, "are long since extinct. Perchance their fossil remains may some time be found in the tertiary deposits of Southern Asia or Africa. They must nevertheless be ranked amongst the tailless catarhine anthropoid apes.' "3 Mr. Darwin includes Europe in the field which has been so vainly searched for this missing link. "It is probable," he tells us, "that Africa was formerly inhabited by extinct apes, closely allied to the gorilla and chimpanzee; and as these two species are now man's nearest allies, it is somewhat more probable that our early progenitors lived on the African continent than 1 Vide Appendix, Note D. 2 lbid., Note E. "Natürliche Schöpfungsgeschichte," p. 577. |