Page:1902 Encyclopædia Britannica - Volume 25 - A-AUS.pdf/581

 ARACHNIDA

531

of any special excretory tubules, and that the production of such, caeca from its surface in separate lines of descent does not involve any elaborate or unlikely process of growth. In other words, the Malpighian tubes of the terrestrial Arachnida are homoplastic with those of Hexapoda and Myriapoda, and not homogenetic with them. We are compelled to take' a similar view of the agreement between the tracheal air-tubes of Arachnida and other tracheate Arthropods. They are homoplasts (see 18) one of another, and do not owe their existence in the various classes compared to a common inheritance of an ancestral tracheal system. Conclusions arising from the Close Affinity of Limulus and Scorpio.—When we consider the relationships of the various classes of Arthropoda, having accepted and established the fact of the close genetic affinity of Limulus and Scorpio, we are led to important conclusions. In such a consideration we have to make use not only of the fact just mentioned, but of three important generalizations which serve as it were as implements for the proper estimation of the relationships of any series of organic forms. First of all there is the generalization that the relationships of the various forms of animals (or of plants) to one another is that of the ultimate twigs of a much-branching genealogical tree. Secondly, identity of structure in two organisms does not necessarily indicate that the identical structure has been inherited from an ancestor common to the two organisms compared (homogeny), but may be due to independent development of a like structure in two different lines of descent (homoplasy). Thirdly, those members of a group which, whilst exhibiting undoubted structural characters indicative of their proper assignment to that group, yet are simpler than and inferior in elaboration of their organization to other members of the group, are not necessarily representatives of the earlier and primitive phases in the development of the group—but are very often examples of retrogressive change or degeneration. The second and third implements, of analysis above cited are of the nature of cautions or checks. Agreements are not necessarily due to common inheritance; simplicity is not necessarily primitive and ancestral. On the other hand, we must not rashly set down agreements as due to “homoplasy” or “convergence of development ” if we find two or three or more concurrent agreements. The probability is against agreement being due to homoplasy when the agreement involves a number of really separate (not correlated) coincidences. Whilst the chances are in favour of some one homoplastic coincidence or structural agreement occurring between some member or other of a large group a and some member or other of a large group &, the matter is very different when by such an initial coincidence the two members have been particularized. The chances against these two selected members exhibiting another really independent homoplastic agreement are enormous: let us say 10,000 to 1. The chances against yet another coincidence are a hundred million to one, and against yet one more “ coincidence ” they are the square of a hundred million to one. Homoplasy can only be assumed where the coincidence is of a simple nature, and is such as may be reasonably supposed to have arisen by the action of like selective conditions upon like material in two separate lines of descent.1 So, too, degeneration is not to be lightly assumed as the explanation of a simplicity of structure. There is a very

definite criterion of the simplicity due to degeneration, which can in most cases be applied. Degenerative simplicity is never uniformly distributed over all the structures of the organism. It affects many or nearly all the structures of the body, but leaves some, it may be only one, at a high level of elaboration and complexity. Ancestral simplicity is more uniform, and does not coexist with specialization and elaboration of a single organ. Further : degeneration cannot be inferred safely by the examination of an isolated case; usually we obtain a series of forms indicating the steps of a change in structure—and what we have to decide is whether the movement has been from the simple to the more complex, or from the more complex to the simple. The feathers of a peacock afford a convenient example of primitive and degenerative simplicity. The highest point of elaboration in colour, pattern, and form, is shown by the great eyepainted tail feathers. From these we can pass by gradual transitions in two directions, viz., either to the simple lateral tail feathers with a few rami only, developed only on one side of the shaft and of uniform metallic coloration —or to the simple contour feathers of small size, with the usual symmetrical series of numerous rami right and left of the shaft and no remarkable colouring. The one-sided specialization and the peculiar metallic colouring of the lateral tail feathers mark them as the extreme terms of a degenerative series, whilst the symmetry, likeness of constituent parts inter se, and absence of specialized pigment, as well as the fact that they differ little from any average feather of birds in general, mark the contour feather as primitively simple, and as the starting-point from which the highly elaborated eye-painted tail feather has gradually evolved. Applying these principles to the consideration of the Arachnida, we arrive at the conclusion that the smaller and simpler Arachnids are not the more primitive, but that the Acari or Mites are in fact a degenerate group. This was maintained by Lankester in 1878 (19), again in 1881 (20); it was subsequently announced as a novelty by Claus in 1885 (21). Though the aquatic members of a class of animals are in some instances derived from terrestrial forms, the usual transition is from an aquatic ancestry to more recent land-living forms. There is no doubt, from a consideration of the facts of structure, that the aquatic water-breathing Arachnids, represented in the past by the Eurypterines and to-day by the sole survivor Limulus, have preceded the terrestrial air-breathing forms of that group. Hence we see at once that the betterknown Arachnida form a series, leading from Limulus-like aquatic creatures through Scorpions, Spiders, and Harvestmen, to the degenerate Acari or Mites. The spiders are specialized and reduced in apparent complexity, as compared with the Scorpions, but they cannot be regarded as degenerate since the concentration of structure which occurs in them results in greater efficiency and power than are exhibited by the Scorpion. The determination of the relative degree of perfection of organization attained by two animals compared is difficult when we introduce, as seems inevitable, the question of efficiency and power, and do not confine the question to the perfection of morphological development. We have no measure of the degree of power manifested by various animals—though it would be possible to arrive at some conclusions as to how that “ power ” should be estimated. It is not possible here to discuss that matter further. We must

1 A great deal of superfluous hypothesis has lately been put forward in the name of “ the principle of convergence of characters ” by a certain school of palaeontologists. The horse is supposed by these writers to have originated by separate lines of descent in the Old World and the New, from live-toed ancestors ! And the important consequences

following from the demonstration of the identity in structure of Limulus and Scorpio are evaded by arbitrary and even phantastic invocations of a mysterious transcendental force which brings about “convergence” irrespective of heredity and selection. Morphology becomes a farce when such assumptions are made.