New-York tribune. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1866-1924, 1873-06-07

classes. he called them, among animals
BIRDS reptiles fishes. insects, ana worms four vi o
groups mammals birds, reptiles ana nsnes nSTT Under
manned within the limits then assigned them, ana uhuet
the name OF Verebrates are recognized as TOUR
classes type. But the lDsects anu "ols, es
fined by LinnBus proved Heterogeneous asseuD,asI
o animals which do NOT belong together by structural
fea lures, and have since been distributed III NJ r
different manner They united by MIN Tatntr upVh
negtons than upon positive characters. All anlna1
which had backbone and no artcuateu nmD' osa
thrown together worms, and animals Wa,n "7ed
articnIatpd limbs were united in group, reeOgzeu
by modern natuTasts under the name o. iso Of
In 1872 Cuyier discussed the subject OF inc 80
worms in abort papcr published In Paris ana ne Iheo
uttered a word which was pregnant WIN ih,'inmi "a
science He first said that animals should Do uleou'
NOT unon Complication OF parts external appearance
but upon plan OF structure. re showed tuae SIo
ANNALS which LnnRus had brought together as WORMS
were not all built upon the same plan ana no dIsrIO
uted them according TO their essential str ,
T,ced Is th a as greater ' part Of them under
the same head with insects and Crustaceai m 1u
he vitiated his principles ny plsolhg soo % ar
true worms among Rldiates account OF certah pr
rangrment OF tentaces around the front end OF inc
and account Of their very simple ia W do9n
the absence OF all locomotive appendaRes In 80 DONG
he allowed simplicity OF structure ana ehterha @
TO outweigh plan; In truth he wac mmseii SUI mo
what under the influence of the very metno1Sa H 10
criticised his principle was so mover ana so oppqsou
previous modes OF classifying aDlals tnaI oSJ no IL
hardly prepared 10 follow it without swerylng. ~
showed however. that there we're l0ur dlstnct p nS
structure in the Animal Kingdom Fertepr4teu an n
with central column and two cavities above ana 3eo%
that column Articuated animals with cyhdilic5ia
body divided by artcuaiions, ana ihSioslnS I'LL
cavity MOlluscOus animals sOi-OOdled WIN sns ia
cavity and the organs disposed on either sue Oh
Radiaed animals with all the parts dverslnnS iO s
center But while he defined the principle OF bis oas
sacaon so strikngly that 1t has been gnlde lor a
future Investigations, he not, as have sald quge
true to 1t himself Because the Molusks are usually
protected by she'll he placed among them tne Ctm t
pods, which have also sneIieOveIlng, ~ 20 ' I the
are Artcuates by the plan OF their structure anu Io
Bryozoa, which are truly Mollusks, no placed among
''' SYSTEM OF CLASSIFICATION
About the same time that CuyIer was studying and
classifying animals according to their structural Plan
| Carl Ernst Won BaeT, q German investigator WIS
and classifying them according to their embry
ology; and 1t is OF those condolences which strike
| us as strange though it Is simple and inevitable as
soon "a the facts are known that his classification based
upon the mode OF development among animals leu eA-
actly TO the results as Cuyiers, based upon pan
of structure They arrived by different roads at tne
| same conclusion do not mean to say that they did
not differ in some minor details, or TO deny that Won
Bacr like Cuyier made some mistakes in the olrcuu-
scrptOn OF his groups, although he corrected ~ ms
mods OF observation some OF CuyieT5 errors placing
the Bryozoa for instance, among the MOusks. But ne
found that those animals which CuVier had caed heI
tebTates had common mode OF development, nd that
the same was true for ArtiCulaes MOusks and Radiates
The slight mistakes made by both these great re-
formers i'm carrying methods and so compre-
| bensiye have unfortunately checked their influence
upOn later progress OF our science AS soon az hc
dpws were percciyed they led to criticism and fault
finding from able investigators, and finally 10 an
entire dsntegratOn OF their classification ana oven 70
The denial OF the prnc pie on which II based. At
| this moment many naturalsts are disposed To as
card plan and embryolOgcal growth az our
e i'm determining the afnitles OF animals. This arises
| Though / believe II to be wholly mistaken-in
! part from our improved knowledge The progress
made nv conparatiye anatomy In the last 81 years
has given amount Of structural details that
broad general outlines are lost in the mass OF specaI
features fundamental relations are hidden by spechc
differences and subordinate groups are raised into prl-
mary types account Of superficial but striking pecu-
lia1ties This disposition group all animals upon
specia resemblance instead OF upon general structural
plan, led "a rapid multiplication OF leading dNlslOhs
instead OF four great types these ca5scatOns ad-
United many more and Gutenberg the great mcrOscOp-
who master IN TINS KIND or special INVESTIGATION
raised the number to ~ The reaction from this ten
| dency has however, begun. Less Dewndered ny tne
amount and novelty OF specific details, naturasts are
beginning 70 reunito these groups broader basis
! and most of our investigations admit not more
than six, seven, eight primary divisions THESE latr
cashcatOns include the sOcalled PrOtOzOa that 49, all
animals whose structure Is extremely simple and in
which reproduction Is essentially the result OF SELF
division or budding. In this group are embraced
| il. those microscopic animals 50 slight and simple
that their structure seems hardly more than bubble OF
organic substance endowed with properties OF Ire Dut
without distinct organs. To EhrenDerg we owe our
most intimate knowledge OF thlS hVhR mlCIoscopio
world which, however he believed to be as perfectly
organized as the highest representatives OF the whole
| animal kingdom With them were placed number OF
beings considered by some modern investigators To De
true nature, whether animal or VegetaDe ue sciennG
world is still divided. have no night To decided
Investigated it with sufficient care; Among these
! doubtful groups Is one or remarkable beauty ana
| OF such striking complication OF structure that
il has attracted tho attention OF naturaliss to the
highest degree though they are not yet agreed upon the
have published the most careful and beautifully Illus
trated Investigations upon these curious creatures In
ground and yet still linger the side OF those who
believe that among the lower plants there are some
cepted as animals though they exhibit apparently
voluntary motion, aud seem TO share faculties or sensa
ton which usually consider as belonging 10 animals
ARGUMENTS FOR CLASSIFYING on STRUCTURAL PLAN
or the breaking up types OF Radates and making
primary division OF the Echnoderms, and uniting tho
Acaephs and POlyps under tho name OF Colentcrata
have already spoken and have shown that upon what
believe to be the natural principle OF classification they
cannot be separated they belong together by plan
OF structure and by mode OF development on the
same ground the worms belong with tue higher Arcu
ates I'm one primary DIVISION though so much simpler IN
their organization This want OF consistency IN our
metbods accepting sometimes plan Of structure and
sometimes complication Of structure as our guide,
eads 10 ali the confusion now existing in classiHca
tions think we should take the type about which
we have doubt the clrcumscnpJOl OF Wlch Is EVIL
DENLY perfectly true nature and admitted by all
onr gue No one thinks breaking up the Vertebrate
type some OF its members are Tar more complex
in structure than others. II We were to separate Verte-
brates on the ground OF complication or structure,
should have groups where we now have only one.
But the backbone and the double cavity are accepted as
| the scaffoding which this whole type Is built,
| and all ANIMALS united by these features are
| Also united by common mode OF development
IN we follow the same principle with all other animals
we shall put the worms with the higher Aftcumtes the
Bryozoa and Ascidians with the Molusks the EchnO
derms with tine Rddiates and the PROTOCOL, group
brought together upon the simplicity OF their Organza-
and upon structural plan or embryonic develop
| nent will be taken up and distributed according 10
these more comprehensive features among Ihe 9ther
ions as given by Cuyer and Won Baer though with some
slight differences ana improvements dIlHllb
better and more comprehensive knowledge.
Only by anatomical research, IN TACT by enbrY0ogca
research have we given, we hope u give, pre-
cision 10 our cassh catOn insist upon this because
there is a tendency among naturallsts now 20 urt o
descent as basis for classification and To take 10 for
granted that the relations now existing among animals
are result OF descent. OF common origin. The
truth is that we know nothing OF descent The time may
come when we shall learn something about IL, and pae
ontOogy the study relating 10 the order OF succession
among the living representatives OF past ages, which
shall speak to you in my next lecture, may throw some
ght upon IT, But all that know ABOUT the true
RELATIONS among animals Is the result OF anatomical
physiological. and embryoogcll studies, and not OF
genealogical research.