FREE BOOKS

Author's List




PREV.   NEXT  
|<   217   218   219   220   221   222   223   224   225   226   227   228   229   230   231   232   233   234   235   236   237   238   239   240   241  
242   243   244   245   246   247   248   249   250   251   252   253   254   255   >>  
eptiles, should have been crowded into the time during which the Permian conditions quietly passed away, and the Triassic conditions began? Does not any such supposition become in the highest degree improbable, when, in the terrestrial or fresh-water Labyrinthodonts, which lived on the land of the Carboniferous epoch, as well as on that of the Trias, we have evidence that one form, of terrestrial life persisted, throughout all these ages, with no important modification? For my part, having regard to the small amount of modification (except in the way of extinction) which the Crocodilian, Lacertilian, and Chelonian _Reptilia_ have undergone, from the older Mesozoic times to the present day, I cannot but put the existence of the common stock from which they sprang far back in the Palaeozoic epoch; and I should apply a similar argumentation to all other groups of animals. IV. Professor Haeckel proposes a number of modifications in Taxonomy, all of which are well worthy of consideration. Thus he establishes a third primary division of the living world, distinct from both animals and plants, under the name of the _Protista_, to include the _Myxomycetes_, the _Diatomaceae_, and the _Labyrinthulae_, which are commonly regarded as plants, with the _Noctilucae_, the _Flagellata_, the _Rhizopoda_, the _Protoplasta_, and the _Monera_, which are most generally included within the animal world. A like attempt has been made, by other writers, to escape the inconvenience of calling these dubious organisms by the name of plant or animal; but I confess, it appears to me, that the inconvenience which is eluded in one direction, by this step, is met in two others. Professor Haeckel himself doubts whether the _Fungi_ ought not to be removed into his _Protista_. If they are not, indeed, the _Myxomycetes_ render the drawing of every line of demarcation between _Protista_ and Plants impossible. But if they are, who is to define the _Fungi_ from the _Algae_? Yet the sea-weeds are surely, in every respect, plants. On the other hand, Professor Haeckel puts the sponges among the _Coelenterata_ (or polypes and corals), with the double inconvenience, as it appears to me, of separating the sponges from their immediate kindred, the _Protoplasta_, and destroying the definition of the _Coelenterata_. So again, the _Infusoria_ possess all the characters of animality, but it can hardly be said that they are as clearly allied to the worms as they are to
PREV.   NEXT  
|<   217   218   219   220   221   222   223   224   225   226   227   228   229   230   231   232   233   234   235   236   237   238   239   240   241  
242   243   244   245   246   247   248   249   250   251   252   253   254   255   >>  



Top keywords:

Haeckel

 

inconvenience

 

Professor

 

Protista

 

plants

 

modification

 
appears
 
animals
 

conditions

 

animal


Myxomycetes

 

Protoplasta

 

terrestrial

 

sponges

 

Coelenterata

 

Monera

 

eluded

 

direction

 

Rhizopoda

 
Flagellata

calling

 

dubious

 

attempt

 

organisms

 

writers

 

confess

 

generally

 

included

 
escape
 

kindred


destroying

 

definition

 

separating

 

double

 

polypes

 
corals
 

allied

 

Infusoria

 

possess

 

characters


animality

 
drawing
 

render

 

demarcation

 

Noctilucae

 

removed

 
Plants
 

impossible

 

surely

 
respect