-------------
v . | | | |
e | | | Epizoa.
" |-- | | |
| | |
" |-- | | |
S A | Acephala. Annelids. Insects.
e n | | |
n i | | |
s m | Molluscs. -------------
i a | | |
t l | | Arachnids.
i s | Crustacea.
v . | |
e | |
" |-- Cirripedes.

I
n |--
t A |
e n | Fishes.
l i | Reptiles.
l m | Birds.
i a | Mammals.
g l |
e s |--
n .
t

It is interesting to note that Vertebrates are placed between the two
series, and are now not linked on directly to any Invertebrate group.

Lamarck's theory had little success. There is evidence, however, that
both Meckel and Geoffroy owed a good many of their evolutionary ideas to
Lamarck, and Cuvier paid him at least the compliment of criticising his
theory,[345] not distinguishing it, however, very clearly from the
evolutionary theories of the transcendentalists. But, speaking
generally, Lamarck's theory of evolution exercised very little influence
upon his contemporaries. This was probably due partly to the obscurity
and confusion of his thought, partly to his lack of sympathy with the
biological thought of his day, which was preponderatingly morphological.

It was not that men's minds were not ripe for evolution, for in the
early decades of the 19th century evolution was in the air. There were
few of von Baer's contemporaries who had not read Lamarck;[346] Erasmus
Darwin's _Zoonomia_ ran through three editions, and was translated into
German, French and Italian;[247] German philosophy was full of the idea of
evolution.

There was no unreadiness to accept the derivation of present-day species
from a primordial form--if only some solid evidence