Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-lnqnp Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-26T05:24:15.759Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

III.—Palæontology and Bernard's Biological Theories

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  01 May 2009

W. D. Lang
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

Palæontology is the biology of fossils. The palæontologist, therefore, is bound to consider modern biological views in order that he may test them in the light of his science. It is intended here to apply to one class of fossils the fundamental principles upheld in a remarkable work by the late H. M. Bernard, entitled Some Neglected Factors in Evolution, really two books under one cover, the first dealing with the ultimate structure of protoplasm and the second with a method of organic evolution. The principles underlying the first suggest the methods of the second; so that in approaching the second a thorough knowledge of the first is needful. Before applying it let us examine the theory itself.

Type
Original Articles
Information
Geological Magazine , Volume 9 , Issue 12 , December 1912 , pp. 550 - 558
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1912

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

page 550 note 1 Some Neglected Factors in Evolution, an Essay in Constructive Biology, by Bernard, Henry M., M.A. Cantab., F.Z.S., ed. by Bernard, Matilda. 8vo; pp. xxii + 490, text-illustrations. G. P. Putnam's Sons, New York and London, 1911.Google Scholar

page 551 note 1 Bernard's explanation of the nuclear wall as a felted tangle of linin threads is not very convincing, for the tangling would, presumably, be greatest at the nucleus and gradually less towards the periphery of the cell.

page 551 note 2 The reader must refer to the work itself to gain a proper idea of the number of otherwise inexplicable phenomena in morphology that can be readily construed in terms of the protomitomic theory.

page 554 note 1 In embracing Mollusca among simple cell aggregates and apart from annelids, surely Bernard fails to account for such forms as show traces of segmentation and other suggestions of alliance with annelid worms, such as the troehosphere larva; see Pelseneer, , “La Classification générale des Mollusques”: Bulletin Scientifique de la France et de la Belgique, vol. xxiv (1892), pp. 368–71, 1893Google Scholar, and “Recherches morphologiques et phylogénétiques sur les Mollusques archaïques”: Mémoires Couronnés l'Acad. roy. belgique, vol. Ivii, pp. 83–8, 1899.Google Scholar

page 554 note 2 The position assigned by Bernard to Sagitta is interesting. It is an aggregate of gastræal units arranged on a different plan from the typical annelid grouping and near that of the hypothetical vertebrate ancestor, but, being of insufficient efficiency, it has failed in its turn to become a new unit.

page 555 note 1 Koch, Von, “Ueber die Entwicklung des Kalkskeletes von Asteroides calycularis, und dessen morphologischer Bedeutung”: Mittheilungen aus der zoologischen Station zu Neapel, vol. iii, pp. 284–92, 1882Google Scholar; and Bourne, , “Studies on the Structure and Formation of the Calcareous Skeleton of the Anthozoa”: Quart. Joum. Micro. Sci., N.S., vol. xli, pp. 499–547, 1899.Google Scholar

page 555 note 2 Heider, Von, “Die Gattung Cladocera, Ehrenberg”: Sitzungsberichter der Kaiserlichen Akademie der Wissenschaften, Wien, vol. lxxxiv, pt. i, pp. 634–68, 1882Google Scholar; and Ogilvie, , “Microscopic and Systematic Study of Madreporarian Types of Corals”: Phil. Trans. Roy. Soc. Lond., ser. B, vol. clxxxvii, pp. 83–345, 1897.Google Scholar

page 555 note 3 Op. cit., under (2).

page 555 note 4 “Chalicoblast,” von Heider, op. cit., under (2), p. 651, not “calicoblast”, after Bourne and Ogilvie (χλξ, ‘a stone’).

page 555 note 5 Bourne, “Anthozoa,” p. 80, in Lankester, A Treatise cm Zoology, 1900, pt. ii.Google Scholar

page 556 note 1 Hyatt, , “Bioplastology and the related branches of Biologic Research”: Proc. Boston Soc. Nat. Hist., vol. xxvi, p. 77, 1893.Google Scholar

page 556 note 2 Wilson, , “On the Development of Manicina areolata”: Journ. Morph., vol. ii, pp. 191–248, 1889.Google Scholar

page 557 note 1 Carruthers, , “The Primary Septal Plan of the Rugosa”: Ann. Mag. Nat. Hist., ser. VII, vol. xviii, pp. 356–63, 1906.Google Scholar

page 557 note 2 For example of these points see Duerden, “The Morphology of the Madreporaria.—VI. The Fossula in Rugose Corals” Biol. Bull., vol. ix, pp. 34–7, figs. 7–110, 1905.Google Scholar

page 557 note 3 e.g. in Astroides. Lacaze-Duthiers states: “C'est lorsque le nombre 12 des divisions du polype est atteint … que se produisent les dépôts calcaires à peu près en même temps et de même dans toute la zone” (“Développement des Coraillaires, Deuxième Mémoire”: Archives de Zoologie expérimentale et générale, vol. ii, p. 328, 1873).Google Scholar