FREE BOOKS

Author's List




PREV.   NEXT  
|<   98   99   100   101   102   103   104   105   106   107   108   109   110   111   112   113   114   115   116   117   118   119   120   121   122  
123   124   125   126   127   128   129   130   131   132   133   134   135   136   137   138   139   140   141   142   143   144   145   146   147   >>   >|  
ture of living things merit some attention. Organic forms, according to Owen, result from the antagonistic working of two principles, of which one brings about a vegetative repetition of structure, while the other, a teleological principle, shapes the living thing to its functions. The former principle is illustrated in the archetype of the vertebrate skeleton, in the segmentation of the Articulates, in the almost mathematical symmetry of Echinoderms, and the actually crystalline spicules of sponges. It is the same principle which causes repetition of the forms of crystals in the inorganic world. "The repetition of similar segments in a vertebral column, and of similar elements in a vertebral segment, is analogous to the repetition of similar crystals as the result of polarising force in the growth of an inorganic body" (p. 171). This "general polarising force" it is which mainly produces the similarity of forms, the repetition of parts, and generally the signs of the unity of organisation. The adaptive or "special organising force" or [Greek: idea], on the other hand, produces the diversity of organic beings. In every species these two forces are at work, and the extent to which the general polarising or "vegetative-repetition-force" is subdued by the teleological is an index of the grade of the species. This view is analogous to the Geoffroyan conception that the diversity of form is limited by the unity of plan. Owen thus ranges himself with Geoffroy against Cuvier, who considered that diversity of form is limited only by the principle of the adaptation of parts. [164] Owen introduced most of the names of bones now current. [165] _Lectures on Invertebrate Animals_, pp. 374, 379, 1843. CHAPTER IX KARL ERNST VON BAER Von Baer was recognised as the founder of embryology even by his contemporaries. His predecessors, Aristotle,[166] Fabricius,[167] Harvey,[168] Malpighi,[169] Haller,[170] Wolff,[171] had made a beginning with the study of development; von Baer, by the thoroughness of his observation and the strength of his analysis, made embryology a science. It was to one of the German transcendentalists that von Baer owed the impulse to study development. Ignatius Doellinger, Professor in Wuerzburg, induced three of his pupils, Pander, d'Alton and von Baer, to devote themselves to embryological research. The development of animals was at this time little known, in spite of recent
PREV.   NEXT  
|<   98   99   100   101   102   103   104   105   106   107   108   109   110   111   112   113   114   115   116   117   118   119   120   121   122  
123   124   125   126   127   128   129   130   131   132   133   134   135   136   137   138   139   140   141   142   143   144   145   146   147   >>   >|  



Top keywords:

repetition

 

principle

 

similar

 

polarising

 

diversity

 

development

 

limited

 

species

 

result

 

vertebral


general
 

crystals

 

analogous

 
embryology
 

inorganic

 

produces

 

vegetative

 

living

 
teleological
 

founder


recognised

 

contemporaries

 
Lectures
 

Invertebrate

 

Animals

 
current
 

introduced

 

CHAPTER

 

adaptation

 

predecessors


pupils
 

Pander

 
induced
 
Doellinger
 

Professor

 

Wuerzburg

 

devote

 

recent

 

embryological

 

research


animals
 

Ignatius

 

impulse

 

Malpighi

 
Haller
 

Harvey

 

Fabricius

 

science

 

German

 
transcendentalists