CHAPTER I

"THROUGH THE EYE"

SERIES

EVOLUTION

"THROUGH THE EYE" SERIES

_THE FIRST TWO VOLUMES_

EVOLUTION. By J. A. S. WATSON, B.Sc.

THE CIVILIZATION OF THE ANCIENT EGYPTIANS.

By A. BOTHWELL GOSSE.

_Other Volumes in Preparation_

[Illustration: FIG. 1.--Tree illustrating the probable course of animal

evolution.]

EVOLUTION

BY J. A. S. WATSON, B.Sc.

[Illustration: THROUGH THE · EYE]

_Published by_ T. C. & E. C. JACK, LTD. 35 & 36 PATERNOSTER ROW,

LONDON, E.C. AND AT EDINBURGH

_Printed in Great Britain_

CONTENTS

CHAPTER I

PAGE

THE EVIDENCE FOR EVOLUTION 1

CHAPTER II

UNICELLULAR AND MULTICELLULAR ANIMALS 23

CHAPTER III

THE WORMS AND SOME OF THEIR POSTERITY 58

CHAPTER IV

THE EARLY VERTEBRATES AND THE FISHES 79

CHAPTER V

THE CONQUEST OF THE LAND 104

CHAPTER VI

THE MAMMALS AND MAN 123

For many of the illustrations the Publishers are indebted to the

Deutsche Verlags-Anstalt (from Günther's _Vom Urtier zum Menschen_)

and Herr Wilhelm Engelmann (from Haeckel's _Anthropogenie_).

Acknowledgment is also made to Messrs. Watts & Co., London, the

Publishers of the English Edition of Haeckel's _Anthropogenie_,

entitled _The Evolution of Man_.

EVOLUTION

CHAPTER I

THE EVIDENCE FOR EVOLUTION

The idea of Evolution is an old one. It is older than the Darwinian

hypothesis; it is older than Lamarck, who published his particular

theory in 1809, the year that Darwin was born; it is older than Buffon

or Kant. In a fairly definite form it is as old as Aristotle. The

Evolution idea has thus itself evolved, and is the product of many

centuries of thought. Yet it was only the last generation that began to

give the idea serious consideration, and it is perhaps only the present

that has granted it any general measure of acceptance; and it was

Darwin who wrought this change, who raised the conception of Evolution

from the status of a vague speculative idea to that of a well-grounded

theory, which appeals to the majority of educated minds as satisfactory

and reasonable.

We do not here propose to sketch the development of the idea, either

before or after Darwin; but only, in the first place, to state the

grounds on which the belief in Evolution is based, and, in the second,

to trace roughly the lines along which animal Evolution has proceeded.

In the first few pages of this book, then, we shall endeavour to bring

forward some of the evidence on which the modern Evolution theory rests.

+--------------+------------------+---------------+------------------+

| | First Appearance |Dominant Types.| |

| | of Types. | | |

+--------------+------------------+---------------+------------------+

| Modern | ... | MAN | } Post-tertiary, |

| Diluvium | Man | ... | } 1/2 per cent. |

+--------------+------------------+---------------+------------------+

| Pliocene | ... | } | } Tertiary or |

| Miocene | Monkeys | } MAMMALS | } Cænozoic, |

| Oligocene | ... | } | } 2-1/2 per cent.|

| Eocene | Lemurs | } | } |

+--------------+------------------+---------------+------------------+

| Cretaceous | _Higher mammals_ | } | } Secondary or |

| Jurassic | { _Birds_ | } REPTILES | } Mesozoic, |

| | { Marsupials | } | } 11 per cent. |

| Triassic | _Monotremes_ | } | } |

+--------------+------------------+---------------+------------------+

| Permian | _Reptiles_ | AMPHIBIANS | } Primary or |

| Carboniferous| _Amphibians_ | } FISHES | } Palæozoic, |

| Devonian | _Lung fishes_ | } | } 32 per cent. |

| Silurian | _Lower fishes_ | ... | } |

+--------------+------------------+---------------+------------------+

| Cambrian | ... | ... | } Archäen, 54 |

| Laurentian | ... | ... | } per cent. |

+--------------+------------------+---------------+------------------+

FIG. 2.--Table showing the chronological succession of the stratified

rocks, the subdivision of geological time, the approximate position of

the earliest fossils of each of the main types of vertebrates, and the

period of domination of each group.

As our first witness, we may call the rocks which constitute the outer

portion of the earth, and ask them to tell us what they remember of the

history of life upon the planet. We cannot hope for the whole truth

from them, for their memory is imperfect; and yet they can tell us a

great number of important facts.

[Illustration: THE EVOLUTION OF THE HORSE

FIG. 3. From _The Guide to the American Museum of Natural History_.]

From the time when the world was sufficiently cooled for water to

condense on its surface, a continual process of unbuilding and

rebuilding of rocks has gone on. Wind and water, heat and cold have

laid their hands to the work, making sand and dust and gravel out of

solid stone, and these products of their labours have been carried

off to other places, laid down, and cemented together into new rocks.

We do not know the exact age of any particular rock that has been

made in this way, nor how long the process has been going on. At a

rough guess it may be three or four hundreds of millions of years.

The chronological succession of the different rock formations is,

however, known, and their relative ages may be judged with considerable

accuracy. Here and there, as time went on, the body of a plant or an

animal was deposited in the sand or mud or chalk, and has remained in

the resulting rocks, in the form of a fossil, through all the ages.

If, then, we study the occurrence of fossils in this succession of

deposits, we ought to get some indications as to the inhabitants of

the globe at various stages of its history. And if we do so, we meet

unmistakable evidence that the lower and simpler types, both of animals

and of plants, were in existence before the higher. Fig. 2 shows the

facts with regard to the vertebrates, the great upper class of the

animal kingdom. The first appearance of vertebrate fossils is in the

Upper Silurian rocks, that is to say, somewhere after the middle of

geological time. The fossils represent the lowest group of fishes. In

the next great formation, the Devonian, fossils of two higher groups

of fishes are to be found. The first land vertebrates, the amphibians,

are doubtfully represented in the upper or newer layers of the same

formation, and definitely so in the next, the Carboniferous. Towards

the end of the Carboniferous or early in the Permian epoch, the

first reptiles appear, and in the following period, or after about

three-fourths of geological time had passed, the earliest fossils of

mammals occur. The significance of this sequence will become plainer

when the differences and likenesses of these various groups are

explained. Each of these great groups in turn formed the dominant

animal population of the globe, and each in turn was superseded,

although not entirely, by the next. The mammal group itself appears

to be on the wane, overcome in the struggle for dominance by its own

latest and most remarkable member, man himself.

[Illustration: FIG. 4. From _The Feathered World_.]

THE VARIATION OF PIGEONS UNDER DOMESTICATION.

Centre--Rock Doves.

1. Carrier.

2. Pouter.

3. Almond Tumbler.

4. Trumpeter.

5. Barb.

6. Fantail.

7. Jacobin.

8. Capuchin.

9. Dragoon.

10. Modena.

11. Scandaroon.

12. Turbit.

13. English Owl.

14. Nun.

15. Mottle Tumbler.

16. Saddle Tumbler.

17. English Beard.

18. Baldhead.

19. Runt.

20. Magpie.

21. Show Homer.

22. Archangel.

23. Oriental Roller.

24. Norwich Cropper.

25. Cumulet.

26. Tippler.

27. African Owl.

28. Working Homer.

29. Mane.

30. Domino.

31. Oriental Turbit.

32. Blondinette.

33. Satinette.

34. Shortfaced Antwerp.

35. Priest.

36. Fairy.

37. Frillback.

38. Swallow.

39. Suabian.

40. Fire Spot.

The broad facts in the history of living things upon the earth are,

then, in accordance with the theory of Evolution. The chain of types

is indeed a broken one, the gaps being many, and some of them wide.

But this is readily to be understood from the comparative scarcity of

fossils, and the imperfection of the geological record.

In certain particular instances, however, very complete series of

fossil forms have been discovered, connecting, by small gradations,

modern animals with greatly different extinct types. One of the most

complete of such series has been discovered for the horse. The changes

that have occurred in the evolution of this animal have been mainly in

three directions--increase in size, reduction in the number of toes

from the original five to the final one, and deepening of the crowns

of the teeth, so as to render them capable of longer wear. From the

Eohippus of early tertiary times, an animal of about the size of a fox

terrier, with five toes behind, and four with the vestige of the fifth

in front, there is a complete connecting series reaching up to the

modern horse, with its single remaining toe and the vestiges of two

others. A few of the main links in this chain are illustrated in Fig.

3. It is impossible to regard such a series without having the idea of

Evolution strongly suggested to the mind.

In the second place, there is evidence for Evolution in the fact that

marked changes can and do occur in the characters of living races of

organisms. There is ample evidence, for example, that all our modern

breeds of pigeons are descended from the wild rock-dove. How markedly

some of these differ from their wild ancestor, and among themselves,

may be seen from Fig. 4. The size of some is twice as great as that

of others. The bill in some is greatly increased in length, is almost

ludicrously reduced in others. Colour, feathering, build, even

the instincts and the voice, vary enormously as between different

varieties. In short, there is hardly any obvious character that has

not, in one or other of the breeds, undergone great modification. As

Darwin remarked, any naturalist coming upon such a group of forms in

nature would have no hesitation in placing them in different species or

genera, or even perhaps in different families. Even granting that the

conditions of domestication are peculiar, we must admit that if such

large changes can occur in a few centuries, it is possible that man

has evolved from the lowest of living organisms during a period some

hundreds of thousands of times as long.

[Illustration: O. LATA O. LAMARCKIANA O. NANELLA.

FIG. 5.

Mutation in _Oenothera lamarckiana_. The parent species (in the middle)

with two of the 'sports' from it.

From De Vries, _The Evolution Theory_. By permission of The Open Court

Publishing Co.]

But marked changes of type occur not only under conditions of

domestication; nor is it necessary to infer the occurrence of any such

changes without actual direct evidence. The formation of new types

occurs in nature, and has taken place under the very eyes of scientific

observers. Perhaps the most striking case that can be quoted is that

of Lamarck's Evening Primrose, which, under the observation of Prof.

De Vries in Amsterdam, produced some half-dozen of 'sports' which seem

well entitled to rank as new species. Fig. 5 shows the parent plant

and two of the new types that were produced by it. One is a dwarf in

habit, the other is characterised by the greatly increased breadth of

its foliage. Others showed different peculiarities. One might quote

many other instances of violent changes of type--of the appearance of

six-fingered children, whose peculiarity was afterwards inherited;

of web-footed pigeons, and of new varieties of fruits, flowers, and

vegetables. The causes of such 'sports' or mutations are unknown,

but their moderately frequent occurrence is abundantly demonstrated.

Such facts show, at all events, that the old conception of species as

permanently fixed, unchanging types, can no longer reasonably be held.

[Illustration: FIG. 6.--Horse's Foot, with well-developed Side Digit.

From Bateson's _Materials for the Study of Variation_ (Macmillan)].

[Illustration: FIG. 7.--Persistent Coccyx in Man.]

[Illustration: FIG. 8.--Persistent Gill Slits in Man.]

Not all of the abnormalities which thus suddenly appear, we know not

how or wherefore, are new. Many recall characters in lower or older

groups, and may reasonably be interpreted as 'reversions.' Thus the

horse's leg shown in Fig. 6 bears a well-developed side toe, in place

of the small vestige that is normally present. Horses with this

peculiarity have occurred with some frequency, probably before, and

certainly since, the most famous of their kind, which Julius Cæsar

rode. It seems reasonable to regard this peculiarity as a return to

the old ancestral condition illustrated before, in which the side toes

were well developed. The same applies to the instance of a persistent

tail and persistent gill slits in man (Figs. 7 and 8), and to many

other instances that might be quoted. One must indeed deal carefully

with such cases, for it is always difficult to say what changes are new

departures, and what are returns to ancestral types. There is danger of

arguing in a circle--of supposing the ancestry from the abnormality,

and of terming the latter a reversion because it suggests the supposed

ancestry. Nevertheless, when variations occur, suggesting characters

which are believed, on other grounds, to be ancestral, they must tend

to strengthen the other evidence as to the evolution of the type in

question.

[Illustration: FIG. 9.

(a) The blind-gut of a kangaroo (_bl_), and (b) the corresponding

reduced structure, the vermiform appendix in man (_bl_).]

[Illustration:

FIG. 10.--Skeleton of Cassowary, showing reduced wing-bones (a piece

of black paper is placed under them).

From Dendy's _Outlines of Evolutionary Biology_ (Constable).]

Another and a very strong evidence of Evolution is to be found in what

are termed vestigeal structures, two of which are illustrated in Figs.

9 and 10. They are, for the most part, obviously useless, and their

occurrence has never been satisfactorily explained except by supposing

them to be remnants of organs that were functional in the past history

of their possessors' race. The appendix of man, for instance, is not

only useless, but is frequently a source of danger. But its presence

is readily explained by supposing that it represents the blind-gut,

which is large and functional in many of the lower animals. Again, how

should we account for the presence of small functionless wing-bones in

the cassowary, unless by supposing that its ancestors were accustomed

to fly like ordinary birds? How should we explain the bones which

represent the hind limbs of the whale, unless by regarding the whale

as descended from an animal which had functional hind limbs, or the

representatives of eyes in animals that live in the dark, unless

by supposing that these are descended from ancestors which saw? It

has been well said that the bodies of many animals are veritable

antiquarian museums, filled with relics of their own ancestors.

The next argument for Evolution to which we would refer is based on the

similar structure and origin of organs or members that have entirely

different uses. In Fig. 11 are figured the bones of the fore limbs of

four different mammals, a whale, a bat, a dog, and man. The first is

used for swimming, the second for flight, the third for locomotion on

land, and the fourth as a grasping and holding organ. If these organs

had been specially designed, each for its specific purpose, we should

expect to find fundamental differences in structure. Actually the

general arrangement of bones is the same in each case. A fact like this

points strongly to a common origin of the four types mentioned, and to

a general primitive arrangement of the bones of the limb. This primary

type, it seems natural to suppose, has been modified for various

special purposes in many different directions, the general features

remaining recognisable. Many other cases of homology, or similarity of

structure and origin, in organs whose function is dissimilar, might

be quoted. Thus the poison gland of the poison snakes is not an organ

which has been specially developed, but is a modified portion of one

of the salivary glands. The hoof of the horse and the finger nail

of man can evidently be satisfactorily explained as modifications

of a general type of terminal claw, and the scales of the scaly

ant-eater and the quills of the porcupine are only modified hairs. The

significance of facts like these, when carefully considered, is very

great.

[Illustration: FIG. 11.--The bones of the fore limbs of (_a_) whale,

(_b_) bat, (_c_) dog, and (_d_) man, showing essential similarity in

arrangement.]

[Illustration: FIG. 12.--Distribution of Marsupials or pouch-bearing

animals.

Australia, New Guinea, etc. 36 Genera. 144 Species.

America 3 Genera. 28 Species.]

The study of the geographical distribution of animals has brought forth

a great mass of facts which, considered by themselves, seem chaotic

and meaningless, but which, in the light of Evolution, are full of

significance. Observe, for example, the distribution of the Marsupials

or pouch-bearing animals, shown on the accompanying map (Fig. 12).

Australia is full of them, while they are relatively meagrely

represented in a few other parts of the world. At the same time the

greater and higher group of mammals was represented in Australia,

at the time of its discovery, only by the bushman and his dog and a

few species of mice. It is not as if the Australian environment were

specially well adapted for marsupials, or specially ill-adapted for

higher mammals; for the sheep has proved itself splendidly adapted for

the conditions, and the rabbit most inconveniently so. Why, then, this

curious state of affairs? It is an undoubted fact that the marsupials

are both lower in their position in the animal kingdom, and older,

than the main group to which all our European mammals belong. Now it

is believed that Australia was once connected by land with the Asiatic

Continent, and that it was finally separated from it before the higher

mammals were in existence. The great step of further progress occurred

elsewhere than in Australia, and the mammals of the latter continent

were left in their obsolete condition, preserved through lack of

competition of that higher type which elsewhere became dominant.

[Illustration: FIG. 13.--Distribution of Lemurs.

Madagascar 12 Genera. 36 Species.

Africa, India, Malay 5 Genera. 12 Species.]

Madagascar offers a similar case. It abounds with forest vegetation and

seems to offer a highly suitable environment for the monkey tribe. Yet

there are no apes on the island. Their place is occupied by the Lemur

tribe, which, there is every reason to believe, is the older group

of the two, and that from which the apes have sprung. It is supposed,

then, that Madagascar was separated from Africa before the ape had

evolved. The lemurs thenceforward were free from the competition of

their more highly developed relatives, and have branched out into a

great variety of types, while still remaining on a relatively low plane

of intelligence and specialisation. The distribution of the Lemurs is

shown in Fig. 13.

In Dr. Alfred Russel Wallace's book on _Island Life_ there are set

forth a great number of interesting facts on the subject of the animal

population of islands, and many striking interpretations of these

facts in the light of the Evolution theory. Coral islands, and those

caused by volcanic eruptions, are peopled with inhabitants which have

accidentally come thither by flight, or have been brought, for example,

on floating timber by ocean currents. On the other hand, islands which

represent separated fragments of continents have usually a fauna of the

same general type as that of the continent of which they have formed

a part. But the actual species are frequently different, and if the

separation is of more ancient date, the differences are still more

marked. The fact of this divergence of an isolated animal population

from that from which it has originated is sufficiently striking, and

would remain an inexplicable problem, were we without an Evolution

theory. According to the Evolution hypothesis, however, the restricted

and somewhat special environment favours a modification of the

original types with which the island was provided, and a satisfactory

explanation is offered.

Finally, we may mention the evidence that has been gathered from the

study of embryology and development. It has been stated, in a metaphor

which is perhaps more clever than it is exact, that every animal

climbs up its own ancestral tree; and while it would be absurd to

say, for instance, that a mammalian embryo resembles successively a

fish, an amphibian, and a reptile, still many of the broad facts in

the evolution of a race seem to be repeated, in a more or less blurred

and indistinct fashion, in the development of the individual. Thus,

for example, gill-slits and a tail are possessed in common by the

embryos of all higher animals, only afterwards to disappear in those

types in which the adult animal is without these structures. The heart

of the mammal or bird is at first simple, then two chambered like that

of a fish, then three chambered like an amphibian's, and finally four

chambered. Some of the main phases in the development of the rabbit and

of man are shown in Figs. 14 and 15 respectively.

[Illustration: FIG. 14.--Stages in development of embryo of rabbit.

_a_, 10 days; _b_, 11 days; _c_, 15 days; _d_, 17 days old.]

[Illustration: FIG. 15.--Stages in development of human embryo.

_a_, 18-21 days; _b_, 27-30 days; _c_, 35 days; _d_, 52-54 days old.]

The young flat-fish is like an ordinary member of the fish tribe, with

an eye on either side of its head, and its body built on the ordinary

symmetrical lines. It is only later, when it begins habitually to be

upon one side on the sea bottom, that the eye from the under side

wanders round to the opposite aspect beside its fellow, and the upper

side becomes pigmented, while the lower remains white.

In similar fashion a primitive form of kidney is, as it were, sketched

in, in the development of the higher animals, only to be erased at

a later stage and replaced by a better form. The human child has a

complete body covering of hair, which disappears soon after birth. In

these and many more instances, one cannot avoid the impression that

the organism has not been specially designed for what it finally comes

to be. It cannot forget, and must needs repeat, or so it seems, some

considerable part of the history of its race.

Manifestly, then, all this evidence, gleaned from many different

sources, points to a common origin of living things, and to the gradual

evolution of the higher from the lower types. It may also be said that

there is no scientific evidence against such a view.

Evolution(#52571) · 第 1 / 6 章