The World's Greatest Books [Volumes 1-15, 17-20]

III.—Our Ancestral Tree

The series of forms which we thus trace in man's embryonic development corresponds to the ancestral series which we would assign to man on the evidence of palæontology and comparative anatomy. At one time, the tracing of this ancestral series encountered a very serious check. When we examined the groups of living animals, we found none that illustrated or explained the passage from the non-backboned—invertebrate—to the backboned—vertebrate—animals. This gap was filled some years ago by the discovery of the lancelet—Amphioxus—and the young of the sea-squirt—Ascidia. The lancelet has a slender rod of cartilage along its back, and corresponds very closely with the ideal I have sketched of our primitive backboned ancestor. It may be an offshoot from the same group. The sea-squirt further illustrates the origin of the backbone, since it has a similar rod of cartilage in its youth, and loses it, by degeneration, in its maturity.

In this way the chief difficulty was overcome, and it was possible to sketch the probable series of our ancestors. It must be well understood that not only is the whole series conjectural, but no living animal must be regarded as an ancestral form. The parental types have long been extinct, and we may, at the most, use very conservative living types to illustrate their nature, just as, in the matter of languages, German is not the parent, but the cousin of Anglo-Saxon, or Greek of Latin. The original parental languages are lost. But a language like Sanscrit survives to give us a good idea of the type.

The law of evolution is based on such a mass of evidence that we may justly draw deductions from it, where the direct evidence is incomplete. This is especially necessary in the early part of our ancestral tree, because the fossil record quite fails us. For millions of years the early soft-bodied animals left no trace in the primitive mud, which time has hardened into rocks, and we are restricted to the evidence of embryology and of comparative zoology. This suffices to give us a general idea of the line of development.

In nature to-day, one of the lowest animal forms is a tiny speck of living plasm called the amœba. We have still more elementary forms, such as the minute particles which make up the bluish film on damp rocks, but they are of a vegetal character, or below it. They give us some idea of the very earliest forms of life; minute living particles, with no organs, down to the ten-thousandth part of an inch in diameter. The amoeba represents the lowest animal, and, as we saw, the ovum in many cases resembles an amoeba. We therefore take some such one-celled creature as our first animal ancestor. Taking food in at all parts of its surface, having no permanent organs of locomotion, and reproducing by merely splitting into two, it exhibits the lowest level of animal life.

The next step in development would be the clustering together of these primitive microbes as they divided. This is actually the stage that comes next in the development of the germ, and it is the next stage upward in the existing animal world. We assume that these clusters of microbes—or cells, as we will now call them—bent inward, as we saw the embryo do, and became two-layered, cup-shaped organisms, with a hollow interior (primitive stomach) and an aperture (primitive mouth). The inner cells now do the work of digestion alone; the outer cells effect locomotion, by means of lashes like oars, and are sensitive. This is, in the main, the structure of the next great group of animals, the hydra, coral, meduca, and anemone. They have remained at this level, though they have developed, special organs for stinging their prey and bringing the food into their mouths.

Both zoology and the appearance of the embryo point to a worm-like animal as the next stage. Constant swimming in the water would give the animal a definite head, with special groups of nerve-cells, a definite tail, and a two-sided or evenly-balanced body.

We mean that those animals would be fittest to live, and multiply most, which developed this organisation. Sense-organs would now appear in the head, in the form of simple depressions, lined with sensitive cells, as they do in the embryo; and a clump of nerve-cells within would represent the primitive brain. In the vast and varied worm-group we find illustrations of nearly every step in this process of evolution.

The highest type of worm-like creature, the acorn-headed worm—Balanoglossus—takes us an important step further. It has gill-openings for breathing, and a cord of cartilage down its back. We saw that the human embryo has a gill-apparatus, and that, comparing the lancelet and the sea-squirt, the backbone must have begun as a string of cartilage-cells. We are now on firmer ground, for there is no doubt that all the higher land-animals come from a fish ancestor. The shark, one of the most primitive of fishes in organisation, probably best suggests this ancestor to us. In fact, in the embryonic development of the human face there is a clear suggestion of the shark.