The Project Gutenberg eBook ofEncyclopaedia Britannica, 11th Edition, "Echinoderma" to "Edward, prince of Wales"

The Project Gutenberg eBook ofEncyclopaedia Britannica, 11th Edition, "Echinoderma" to "Edward, prince of Wales"This ebook is for the use of anyone anywhere in the United States and most other parts of the world at no cost and with almost no restrictions whatsoever. You may copy it, give it away or re-use it under the terms of the Project Gutenberg License included with this ebook or online atwww.gutenberg.org. If you are not located in the United States, you will have to check the laws of the country where you are located before using this eBook.Title: Encyclopaedia Britannica, 11th Edition, "Echinoderma" to "Edward, prince of Wales"Author: VariousRelease date: January 17, 2011 [eBook #34992]Most recently updated: January 7, 2021Language: EnglishCredits: Produced by Marius Masi, Don Kretz and the OnlineDistributed Proofreading Team at https://www.pgdp.net*** START OF THE PROJECT GUTENBERG EBOOK ENCYCLOPAEDIA BRITANNICA, 11TH EDITION, "ECHINODERMA" TO "EDWARD, PRINCE OF WALES" ***

This ebook is for the use of anyone anywhere in the United States and most other parts of the world at no cost and with almost no restrictions whatsoever. You may copy it, give it away or re-use it under the terms of the Project Gutenberg License included with this ebook or online atwww.gutenberg.org. If you are not located in the United States, you will have to check the laws of the country where you are located before using this eBook.

Title: Encyclopaedia Britannica, 11th Edition, "Echinoderma" to "Edward, prince of Wales"Author: VariousRelease date: January 17, 2011 [eBook #34992]Most recently updated: January 7, 2021Language: EnglishCredits: Produced by Marius Masi, Don Kretz and the OnlineDistributed Proofreading Team at https://www.pgdp.net

Title: Encyclopaedia Britannica, 11th Edition, "Echinoderma" to "Edward, prince of Wales"

Author: Various

Release date: January 17, 2011 [eBook #34992]Most recently updated: January 7, 2021

Language: English

Credits: Produced by Marius Masi, Don Kretz and the OnlineDistributed Proofreading Team at https://www.pgdp.net

*** START OF THE PROJECT GUTENBERG EBOOK ENCYCLOPAEDIA BRITANNICA, 11TH EDITION, "ECHINODERMA" TO "EDWARD, PRINCE OF WALES" ***

Articles in This Slice

ECHINODERMA.1Theἐχινόδερμα, or “urchin-skinned” animals, have long been a favourite subject of study with the collectors of sea-animals or of fossils, since the lime deposited in their skins forms hard tests or shells readily preserved in the cabinet. These were described during the 18th and first half of the 19th centuries by many eminent naturalists, such as J.T. Klein, J.H. Linck, C. Linnaeus, N.G. Leske, J.S. Miller, L. v. Buch, E. Desor and L. Agassiz; but it was the researches of Johannes Müller (1840-1850) that formed the groundwork of scientific conceptions of the group, proving it one of the great phyla of the animal kingdom. The anatomists and embryologists of the next quarter of a century confirmed rather than expanded the views of Müller. Thus, about 1875, the distinction of Echinoderms from such radiate animals as jelly-fish and corals (seeCoelentera), by their possession of a body-cavity (“coelom”) distinct from the gut, was fully realized; while their severance from the worms (especially Gephyrea), with which some Echinoderrns were long confused, had been necessitated by the recognition in all of a radial symmetry, impressed on the original bilateral symmetry of the larva through the growth of a special division of the coelom, known as the “hydrocoel,” and giving rise to a set of water-bearing canals—the water-vascular or ambulacral system. There was also sufficient comprehension of the differences between the main classes of Echinoderms—the sea-urchins or Echinoidea, the starfish or Asteroidea, the brittle-stars and their allies known as Ophiuroidea, the worm-like Holothurians, the feather-stars and sea-lilies called Crinoidea, with their extinct relatives the sac-like Cystidea, the bud-formed Blastoidea, and the flattened Edrioasteroidea—while within the larger of these classes, such as Echinoidea and Crinoidea, fair working classifications had been established. But the study that should elucidate the fundamental similarities or homologies between the several classes, and should suggest the relations of the Echinoderma to other phyla, had scarcely begun. Indeed, the time was not ripe for such discussions, still less for the tracing of lines of descent and their embodiment in a genealogical classification. Since then exploring expeditions have made known a host of new genera, often exhibiting unfamiliar types of structure.

Among these the abyssal starfish and holothurians described by W.P. Sladen and H. Théel respectively, in the Report of the “Challenger” Expedition, are most notable. The sea-urchins, ophiuroids and crinoids also have yielded many important novelties to A. Agassiz (“Challenger,” “Blake,” and “Albatross” Expeditions), T. Lyman (“Challenger”), Sladen (“Astrophiura,”Ann. Mag. Nat. Hist., 1879), F.J. Bell (numerous papers inAnn. Mag. Nat. Hist.and inProc. Zool. Soc.), E. Perrier (“Travailleur” and “Talisman,” Cape Horn and Monaco Expeditions), P.H. Carpenter “Challenger” Reports), and others. The anatomical researches of these authors, as well as those of S. Lovén (“On Pourtalesia” and “Echinologica,” published by the Swedish Academy of Science), H. Ludwig (Morphologische Studien, Leipzig, 1877-1882), O. Hamann (Histologie der Echinodermen, Jena, 1883-1889), L. Cuénot (“Études morphologiques,”Arch. Biol., 1891, and papers therein referred to), P.M. Duncan (“Revision of the Echinoidea,”Journ. Linn. Soc., 1890), H. Prouho (“Sur Dorocidaris,”Arch. Zool. Exper., 1888), and many more, need only be mentioned to recall the great advance that has been made. In physiology may be instanced W.B. Carpenter’s proof of the nervous nature of the chambered organ and axial cords of crinoids (Proc. Roy. Soc., 1884), the researches of H. Durham (Quart. Journ. Micr. Sci., 1891) and others into the wandering cells of the body-cavity, and the study of the deposition of the skeletal substance (“stereom”) by Théel (inFestskrift för Lilljeborg, 1896). Knowledge of the development has been enormously extended by numerous embryologists,e.g.Ludwig (op. cit.), E.W. MacBride (“Asterina gibbosa,”Quart. Journ. Micr. Sci., 1896), H. Bury (Quart. Journ. Micr. Sci., 1889, 1895), Seeliger (on “Antedon,”Zool. Jahrb., 1893), S. Goto (“Asterias pallida,”Journ. Coll. Sci. Japan, 1896), C. Grave (“Ophiura,”Mem. Johns Hopkins Univ.,1899), Théel (“Echinocyamus,”Nov. Act. Soc. Sci. Upsala, 1892), R. Semon (“Synapta,”Jena. Zeitschr., 1888), and Lovén (opp. citt.); and though the theories based thereon may have been fantastic and contradictory, we are now near the time when the results can be co-ordinated and some agreement reached. But the scattered details of comparative anatomy are capable of manifold arrangement, while the palimpsest of individual development is not merely fragmentary, but often has the fragments misplaced. The morphologist may propose classifications, and the embryologist may erect genealogical trees, but all schemes which do not agree with the direct evidence of fossils must be abandoned; and it is this evidence, above all, that gained enormously in volume and in value during the last quarter of the 19th century. The Silurian crinoids and cystids of Sweden have been illustrated in N.P. Angelin’sIconographia crinoideorum(1878); the Palaeozoic crinoids and cystids of Bohemia are dealt with in J. Barrande’sSystème silurien(1887 and 1899); P.H. Carpenter published important papers on fossil crinoids in theJournalof the Geological Society, on Cystidea in that of the Linnean Society, 1891, and, together with R. Etheridge, jun., compiled the largeCatalogue of Blastoidea in the British Museum, 1886; O. Jaekel, in addition to valuable studies on crinoids and cystids appearing in theZeitschriftof the German Geological Society, has published the first volume ofDie Stammesgeschichte der Pelmatozoen(Berlin, 1899), a richly suggestive work; the Mesozoic Echinoderms of France, Switzerland and Portugal have been made known by P. de Loriol, G.H. Cotteau, J. Lambert, V. Gauthier and others (seePaléontologie française,Mém. Soc. paléontol. de la Suisse,Trabalhos Comm. Geol. Portugal, &c.); a beautiful and interesting Devonian fauna from Bundenbach has been described by O. Follmann, Jaekel, and especially B. Stürtz (seeVerhandl. nat. Vereins preuss. Rheinlande, Paläont. Abhandl., andPalaeontographica); while the multitude of North American palaeozoic crinoids has been attacked by C. Wachsmuth and F. Springer in theProceedings(1879, 1881, 1885, 1886), of the Philadelphia Academy and theMemoirs(1897) of the Harvard Museum.

The vast mass of material made known by these and many other distinguished writers has to be included in our classification, and that classification itself must be controlled by the story it reveals. Thus it is that a change, characteristic of modern systematic zoology, is affecting the subdivisions of the classes. It is not long since the main lines of division corresponded roughly to gaps in geological history: the orders were Palaeocrinoidea and Neocrinoidea, Palechinoidea and Euechinoidea, Palaeasteroidea and Euasteroidea, and so forth. Or divisions were based upon certain modifications of structure which, as we now see, affected assemblages of diverse affinity: thus both Blastoidea and Euechinoidea were divided into Regularia and Irregularia; the Holothuroidea into Pneumophora and Apneumona; and Crinoids were discussed under the heads “stalked” and “unstalked.” The barriers between these groups may be regarded as horizontal planes cutting across the branches of the ascending tree of life at levels determined chiefly by our ignorance; as knowledge increases, and as the conception of a genealogical classification gains acceptance, they are being replaced by vertical partitions which separate branch from branch. The changes may be appreciated by comparing the systematic synopses at the end of this article with the classification adopted in 1877 in the 9th edition of theEncy. Brit.(vol. vii.), or in any zoological text-book contemporary therewith. In the present stage of our knowledge these minor divisions are the really important ones. For, whereas to one brilliant suggestion of far-reaching homology another can always be opposed, by the detailed comparison of individual growth-stages in carefully selected series of fossils, and by the minute application to these of the principle that individual history repeats race history, it actually is possible to unfold lines of descent that do not admit of doubt. The gradual linking up of these will manifest the true genealogy of each class, and reconstruct its ancestral forms by proof instead of conjecture. The problem of the interrelations of the classes will thus be reduced to its simplest terms, and even questions as to the nature of the primitive Echinoderm and its affinity to the ancestors of other phyla may become more than exercises for the ingenuity of youth. Work has been and is being done by the laborious methods here alluded to, and though the diversity of opinion as to the broader groupings of classification is still restricted only by the number of writers, we can point to an ever-increasing body of assured knowledge on which all are agreed. Unfortunately such allusion to these disconnected certainties as alone might be introduced here would be too brief for comprehension, and we are forced to select a few of the broader hypotheses for a treatment that may seem dogmatic and prejudiced.

Calycinal Theory.—The theory which had most influence on the conceptions of Echinoderms in the two concluding decades of the 19th century was that of Lovén, elaborated by P.H. Carpenter, Sladen and others. This, which may be called thecalycinaltheory, will be appreciated by comparing the structure of a simple crinoid with that of some other types. A crinoid reduced to its simplest elements consists of three principal portions—(i.) a theca or test enclosing the viscera; (ii.) five arms stretching upwards or outwards from the theca, sometimes single, sometimes branching; (iii.) a stem stretching downwards from the theca and attaching it to the sea-floor (see fig. 1). That part of the theca below the origins of the free arms is called the “dorsal cup”; the ventral part above the origins of the arms, serving as cover to the cup, is known as the “tegmen.” All these parts are supported by plates or ossicles of crystalline carbonate of lime. The cup, in its simplest form, consists of two circlets of five plates. Each plate of the upper circlet supports an arm, and is called a “radial”; the plates of the lower circlet, the “basals,” rest on the stem and alternate with those of the upper circlet,i.e.are interradial in position. Some crinoids have yet another circlet below these, the constituent plates of which are called “infrabasals,” and are situated radially. The tegmen in most primitive forms, as well as in the embryonic stages of the livingAntedon(fig. 2), consists of five large triangular plates, alternating with the radials, and called “orals,” because they roof over the mouth. In addition to these three or four circlets of plates, two other elements were once supposed essential to the ideal crinoid: the dorso-central and the oro-central. The former term was applied to a flattened plate observed in the embryonic stage of a single genus (Antedon) at that end of the stem attached to the sea-floor, and comparable to the foot of a wine-glass (fig. 2). In some crinoids which have no trace of a stem (e.g.Marsupites) a pentagonal plate is found at the bottom of the cup, where the stem would naturally have arisen (“centrale” in fig. 1); and since it was believed that the stem always grew by addition of ossicles immediately below the infrabasals, it was inferred that this pentagonal plate was the centro-dorsal in its primitive position, as though the wine-glass had been evolved from a tumbler by pulling the bottom out to form the foot. The oro-central was, it must be admitted, a theoretical conception due to a desire for symmetry, and was not confirmed by anythingbetter than some erroneous observations on certain fossils, which were supposed to show a plate at the oral pole between the five orals; but this plate, so far as it exists at all, is now known to be nothing but an oral shifted in position. The theory was that all the plates just described, and more particularly those of the cup, which were termed “the calycinal system,” could be traced, not merely in all crinoids, but in all Echinoderms, whether fixed forms such as cystids and blastoids, or free forms such as ophiuroids and echinoids, even—with the eye of faith—in holothurians. It was admitted that these elements might atrophy, or be displaced, or be otherwise obscured; but their complete and symmetrical disposition was regarded as typical and original. Thus the genera exhibiting it were regarded as primitive, and those orders and classes in which it was least obscured were supposed to approach most nearly the ancestral Echinoderm. Every one knows that an “apical system,” composed of two circlets known as “genitals” or basals and “oculars” or radials, occurs round the aboral pole of echinoids (fig. 3, A), and that a few genera (e.g.Salenia, fig. 3, B) possess a sub-central plate (the “suranal”), which might be identified with the centro-dorsal. It is also the case that many asterids (fig. 3, D) and ophiurids (fig. 3, C) have a similar arrangement of plates on the dorsal (i.e.aboral) surface of the disk. Accepting the homology of these apical systems with the calycinal system, the theory would regard the aboral pole of a sea-urchin or starfish as corresponding in everything, except its relations to the sea-floor, with the aboral pole of a fixed echinoderm.Fig. 3.-Supposed calycinal systems of free-moving Echinoderms. A, regular sea-urchin (Cidaris); B, sea-urchin with a suranal plate (Salenia); C, developing ophiurid (Amphiura); D, young starfish (Zoroaster).The theory has been vigorously opposed, notably by Semon (op. cit.), who saw in the holothurians a nearer approach to the ancestral form than was furnished by any calyculate echinoderm, and by the Sarasins, who derived the echinoids from the holothurians through forms with flexible tests (Echinothuridae, which, however, are now known to be specialized in this respect). The support that appeared to be given to the theory by the presence of supposed calycinal plates in the embryo of echinoids and asteroids has been, in the opinion of many, undermined by E.W. MacBride (op. cit.), who has insisted that in the fixed stage of the developing starfish,Asterina, the relations of these plates to the stem are quite different from those which they bear in the developing and adult crinoid. But, however correct the observations and the homologies of MacBride may be, they do not, as Bury (op. cit.) has well pointed out, afford sufficient grounds for his inference that the abactinal (i.e.aboral) poles of starfish and crinoids are not comparable with one another, and that all conclusions based on the supposed homology of the dorso-central of echinoids and asteroids with that of crinoids are incorrect. Bury himself, however, has inflicted a severe blow on the theory by his proof that the so-called oculars of Echinoidea, which were supposed to represent the radials, are homologous with the “terminals” (i.e.the plates at the tips of the rays) in Asteroidea and Ophiuroidea, and therefore not homologous with the radially disposed plates often seen around the aboral pole of those animals. For, if these radial constituents of the supposed apical system in an ophiurid have really some other origin, why can we not say the same of the supposed basals? Indeed, Bury is constrained to admit that the view of Semon and others may be correct, and that these so-called calycinal systems may not be heirlooms from a calyculate ancestor, but may have been independently developed in the various classes owing to the action of similar causes. That this view must be correct is urged by students of fossils. Palaeontology lends no support to the idea that the dorso-central is a primitive element; it exists in none of the early echinoids, and the suranal ofSaleniidaearises from the minor plates around the anus. There is no reason to suppose that the central apical plate of certain free-swimming crinoids has any more to do with the distal foot-plate of the larvalAntedonstem than has the so-called centro-dorsal ofAntedonitself, which is nothing but the compressed proximal end of the stem. As for the supposed basals of Echinoidea, Asteroidea and Ophiuroidea, they are scarcely to be distinguished among the ten or more small plates that surround the anus ofBothriocidaris, which is the oldest and probably the most ancestral of fossil sea-urchins (fig. 5). A calycinal system may be quite apparent in the later Ophiuroidea and in a few Asteroidea, but there is no trace of it in the older Palaeozoic types, unless we are to transfer the appellation to the terminals. Those plates are perhaps constant throughout sea-urchins and starfish (though it would puzzle any one to detect them in certain Silurian echinoids), and they may be traced in some of the fixed echinoderms; but there is no proof that they represent the radials of a simple crinoid, and there are certainly many cystids in which no such plates existed. Lovén and M. Neumayr adduced the Triassic sea-urchinTiarechinus, in which the apical system forms half of the test, as an argument for the origin of Echinoidea from an ancestor in which the apical system was of great importance; but a genus appearing so late in time, in an isolated sea, under conditions that dwarfed the other echinoid dwellers therein, cannot seriously be thought to elucidate the origin of pre-Silurian Echinoidea, and the recent discovery of an intermediate form suggests that we have here nothing but degenerate descendants of a well-known Palaeozoic family (Lepidocentridae). But to pursue the tale of isolated instances would be wearisome. The calycinal theory is not merely an assertion of certain homologies, a few of which might be disputed without affecting the rest: it governs our whole conception of the echinoderms, because it implies their descent from a calyculate ancestor—not a “crinoid-phantom,” that bogey of the Sarasins, but a form with definite plates subject to a quinqueradiate arrangement, with which its internal organs must likewise have been correlated. To this ingenious and plausible theory the revelations of the rocks are more and more believed to be opposed.Fig. 4.—ThePentactulastage in the development ofSynapta.T, The five interradial tentacles.M, The water-pore, leading by the stone-canalstcto the water-ring, from which hangs a Polian vesiclepb.oc, Supposed otocysts.m, Longitudinal muscles.sk, Calcareous spicules.st, Stomach.(After Semon.)Pentactaea Theory.—In opposition to the calycinal theory has been thePentactaeatheory of R. Semon. There have always been many zoologists prepared to ascribe an ancestral character to the holothurians. The absence of an apical system of plates; the fact that radial symmetry has not affected the generative organs, as it has in all other recent classes; the well-developed muscles of the body-wall, supposed to be directly inherited from some worm-like ancestor; the presence on the inner walls of the body in the familySynaptidaeof ciliated funnels, which have been rashly compared to the excretory organs (nephridia) of many worms; the outgrowth from the rectum in other genera of caeca (Cuvierian organs and respiratory trees), which recall the anal glands of the Gephyrean worms; the absence of podia (tube-feet) in many genera, and even of the radial water-vessels inSynaptidae; the absence of that peculiar structure known in other echinoderms by the names “axial organ,” “ovoid gland,” &c.; the simpler form of the larva—all these features have, for good reason or bad, been regarded as primitive. Some of the more striking of these features are confined toSynaptidae; in that family too the absence of the radial water-vessels from the adult is correlated with continuity of the circular muscle-layer, while the gut runs almost straight from the anterior mouth to the posterior anus. Early in the life-history ofSynaptaoccurs a stage with five tentacles around the mouth, and into these pass canals from the water-ring, the radial canals to the body-wall making a subsequent, and only temporary, appearance (fig. 4). Semon called this stage thePentactula, and supposed that, in its early history, the class had passed through a similar stage, which he called thePentactaea, and regarded as the ancestor of all Echinoderms. It has since been proved that the five tentacles with their canals are interradial, so that one can scarcely look on thePentactulaas a primitive stage, while the apparent simplicity of theSynaptidae, at least as compared with other holothurians, is now believed to be the result of regressivechanges. ThePentactaea, at all events as it sprang from the brain of Semon, must pass to the limbo of mythological ancestors.Pelmatozoic Theory.—The rejection of the calycinal andPentactaeatheories need not scatter our conceptions of Echinoderm structure back into the chaos from which they seemed to have emerged. The idea of a calyculate ancestor, though by no means connoting fixation, turned men’s minds in the direction of the fixed forms, simply because in them the calyx was best developed. ThePentactaeaagain suggested a search for some primitive type in which quinqueradiate symmetry was exhibited in circumoral appendages, but had not affected the nervous, water-vascular, muscular or skeletal systems to any great extent, and the generative organs not at all. Study of the earliest larval stages has always led to the conclusion that the Echinoderms must have descended from some freely-moving form with a bilateral symmetry, and, connecting this with the ideas just mentioned, we reach the conception that this supposed bilateral ancestor (orDipleurula) may have become fixed, and may have gradually acquired a radial symmetry in consequence of its sedentary mode of life. The different extent of quinqueradiate symmetry in the different classes would thus depend on the period at which they diverged from the sedentary stock. The tracing of this history, and the explanation of the general characters of Echinoderms and of the differentiating features of the classes in accordance therewith, constitutes thePelmatozoictheory.The word “Pelmatozoa” literally means “stalked animals,” but the name is now used to denote all Cystidea, Blastoidea, Crinoidea and Edrioasteroidea, as opposed to the other classes, which may be called Eleutherozoa. Many Pelmatozoa have, it is true, no stalk, while some are freely-moving, but all agree in the possession of certain characters obviously connected with a fixed mode of life. Thus, the mouth is central and turned away from the sea-floor; the animal does not seize its food by tentacles, limbs or jaws, neither does it move in search of it, but a series of ciliated grooves which radiate from the mouth sweep along currents of water, in the eddies of which minute food-particles are caught up and carried down into the gullet; the undigested food is driven out through an anus which is on the upper or oral side of the theca, but as far distant as practicable from the mouth and ciliated grooves. Such characters are found in any primitive, sedentary group. More peculiarly Echinoderm features, in which the Pelmatozoan nature is manifest, are the enclosing of the viscera in a calcified and plated theca, for protection against those enemies from which a fixed animal cannot flee; the development, at the aboral pole of this theca, of a motor nerve-centre giving off branches to the stroma connecting the various plates of the theca and of its brachial, anal, and columnar extensions, and thus co-ordinating the movements of the whole skeleton; the absence of suckers from the podia, which, when present, are respiratory, not locomotor, in function. There are other features of most, if not all, Pelmatozoa that appear to be due to a fixed existence; but those are also found in the Eleutherozoa. The Pelmatozoic theory thus regards the Pelmatozoa as the more ancestral forms, and the Pelmatozoan stage as one that must have been passed through by all Echinoderms during their evolution from theDipleurula. It might be possible to prove the origin of all classes from Pelmatozoa, without thereby explaining the origin of such fundamental features as radial symmetry, the developmental metamorphosis, and the torsion that affects both gut and body-cavities during that process; but the acceptance of aDipleurulaas the common ancestor necessitates an explanation of these features. Such explanation is an integral part of the Pelmatozoic theory, but is provided by no other.The evidence for the Pelmatozoic theory is supplied by palaeontology, embryology, the comparative anatomy of the classes, and a consideration of other phyla. Palaeontology, so far as it goes, is a sure guide, but some of the oldest fossiliferous rocks yield remains of distinctly differentiated crinoids, asteroids and echinoids, so that the problem is not solved merely by collecting fossils. Two lines of argument appear fruitful. First, a comparison of the relative numbers of the representatives of the various classes at different epochs; according to this they may be placed in the following order, with the oldest first: Cystidea, Crinoidea, Blastoidea, Asteroidea, Ophiuroidea, Echinoidea. As for Holothuroidea, the fossil evidence allows us to say no more than that the class existed in early Carboniferous times, if not before. The second method is to work out by slow and sure steps the lines of descent of the different families, orders, and classes, and so either to arrive at the ancestral form of each class, or to plot out the curve of evolution, which may then legitimately be projected into “the dark backward and abysm of time.” In this way the many highly modified orders of Cystidea may be traced back to a simple, many-plated ancestor with little or no radiate symmetry (see below). All the complicated structures of Blastoidea are evolved from a fairly simple type, which in its turn is linked on to one of the cystid orders. That the crinoids are all deducible from some such simple form as that above described under the head “calycinal theory,” is now generally admitted. Although, in the extreme correlation of the radial food-grooves, nerves, water-vessels, and so forth, with a radiate symmetry of the theca, such a type differs from the Cystidea, while in the possession of jointed processes from the radial plates, bearing the grooves and the various body-systems outwards from the theca, it differs from all other Echinoderms, nevertheless ancient forms are known which, if they are not themselves the actual links, suggest how the crinoid type may have been evolved from some of the more regular cystids. The fourth class of Pelmatozoa—the Edrioasteroidea—differs from the others in the structure of its ambulacra. As in all Pelmatozoa these seem to have borne ciliated food-grooves protected by movable covering-plates (fig. 11). Beneath each food-groove was a radial water-vessel and probably a nerve and blood-vessel, all which structures passed either between certain regularly arranged thecal plates, or along a furrow floored by those plates, which were then in two alternating series. The important and distinctive feature is the presence of pores between the flooring-plates, on either side of the groove; and these, we cannot doubt, served for the passage of podia. Thus in a highly developed edrioasteroid, such asEdrioasteritself (fig. 11), there was a true ambulacrum, apparently constructed like that of a starfish, but differing in the possession of a ciliated food-groove protected by covering-plates. The simpler forms of Edrioasteroidea, with their more sac-like body and undifferentiated plates, may well have been derived from early Cystidea of yet simpler structure, and there seems no reason to follow Jaekel in regarding the class as itself the more primitive. Turning to fossil Asteroidea, we find the earlier ophiurids scarcely distinguishable from the asterids, while in the alternation of the ambulacrals, which undoubtedly correspond to the flooring-plates ofEdrioaster, both groups approach the Pelmatozoan type. These facts have been expressed by Sturtz in his names Encrinasteriae and Ophio-encrinasteriae. There is no difficulty in deducing the highly differentiated asterids and ophiurids of a later day from these simpler types. The evolution of the modern Echinoidea from their Palaeozoic ancestors is also well understood, but in this case the ancestral form to which the palaeontologist is led does not at first sight present many resemblances to the Pelmatozoa. It is, however, characterized by simplicity of structure, and a short description of it will serve to clear the problem from unnecessary difficulties.Bothriocidaris(fig. 5), a small echinoid from the Ordovician rocks of Esthonia, is in essential structure just the form demanded by comparative palaeontology to make a starting-point. It is spheroidal, with the mouth and anus at opposite poles; there are five ambulacra, and the ambulacral plates are large, simple and alternating, each being pierced by two podial pores which lie in a small oval depression; the ambulacrals next the mouth form a closed ring of ten plates; the interambulacrals lie in single columns between the ambulacra, and are separated from the mouth-area by the proximal ambulacrals just mentioned, and sometimes by the second set of ambulacrals also; the ambulacra end in the five oculars or terminals, which meet in a ring around the anal area and have no podial pores, but one of them serves as a madreporite; within this ring is a star-shaped area filled with minute irregular plates, none of which can safely be selected as the homologues of the so-called basals or genitals of later forms; within the ring of ambulacrals around the mouth are five somewhat pointed plates, which Jaekel regards as teeth, but which can scarcely be homologous with the interradially placed teeth of later echinoids, since they are radial in position; small spines are present, especially around the podial pores. The position of the pores near the centre of the ambulacrals inBothriocidarisneed not be regarded as primitive, since other early Palaeozoic genera, not to mention the young of living forms, show that the podia originally passed out between the plates, and were only gradually surrounded by their substance; thus the original structure of the echinoid ambulacra differed from that of the early asteroid in the position of the radial vessels and nerves, which here lie beneath the plates instead of outside them. To this point we shall recur; palaeontology, though it suggests a clue, does not furnish an actual link either between Echinoidea and Asteroidea, or between those classes and Pelmatozoa.Fig. 5.—Bothriocidaris globulus.A, from the side; B, the plates around the aboral pole. (After Jaekel.) The short spines which were attached to the tubercles are not drawn.The argument from embryology leads further back. First, as already mentioned, it outlines the general features of theDipleurula; secondly, it indicates the way in which this free-moving form became fixed, and how its internal organs were modified in consequence; but when we seek, thirdly, for light on the relations of the classes, we find the features of the adult coming in so rapidly that such intermediate stages as may have existed are either squeezed out or profoundly modified. The difficulty of rearing the larvae in anaquarium towards the close of the metamorphosis may account for the slight information available concerning the stages that immediately follow the embryonic. Another difficulty is due to the fact that the types studied, and especially the crinoidAntedon, are highly specialized, so that some of the embryonic features are not really primitive as regards the class, but only as regards each particular genus. Thus inferences from embryonic development need to be checked by palaeontology, and supplemented by comparison of the anatomy of other living genera.Minute anatomical research has also aided to establish the Pelmatozoic theory by the gradual recognition in other classes of features formerly supposed to be confined to Pelmatozoa. Thus the elements of the Pelmatozoan ventral groove are now detected in so different a structure as the echinoid ambulacrum, while an aboral nervous system, the diminished representative of that in crinoids, has been traced in all Eleutherozoa except Holothurians. The broader theories of modern zoology might seem to have little bearing on the Echinoderma, for it is not long since the study of these animals was compared to a landlocked sea undisturbed by such storms as rage around the origin of the Vertebrata. This, however, is no more the case. The conception of theDipleuruladerives its chief weight from the fact that it is comparable to the early larval forms of other primitive coelomate animals, such asBalanoglossus,Phoronis, Chaetognatha, Brachiopoda and Bryozoa. So too the explanation of radial symmetry and torsion of organs as due to a Pelmatozoic mode of life finds confirmation in many other phyla. Instead of discussing all these questions separately, with the details necessary for an adequate presentation of the argument, we shall now sketch the history of the Echinoderms in accordance with the Pelmatozoic theory. Such a sketch must pass lightly over debatable ground, and must consist largely of suggestions still in need of confirmation; but if it serves as a frame into which more precise and more detailed statements may be fitted as they come to the ken of the reader, its object will be attained.

The theory has been vigorously opposed, notably by Semon (op. cit.), who saw in the holothurians a nearer approach to the ancestral form than was furnished by any calyculate echinoderm, and by the Sarasins, who derived the echinoids from the holothurians through forms with flexible tests (Echinothuridae, which, however, are now known to be specialized in this respect). The support that appeared to be given to the theory by the presence of supposed calycinal plates in the embryo of echinoids and asteroids has been, in the opinion of many, undermined by E.W. MacBride (op. cit.), who has insisted that in the fixed stage of the developing starfish,Asterina, the relations of these plates to the stem are quite different from those which they bear in the developing and adult crinoid. But, however correct the observations and the homologies of MacBride may be, they do not, as Bury (op. cit.) has well pointed out, afford sufficient grounds for his inference that the abactinal (i.e.aboral) poles of starfish and crinoids are not comparable with one another, and that all conclusions based on the supposed homology of the dorso-central of echinoids and asteroids with that of crinoids are incorrect. Bury himself, however, has inflicted a severe blow on the theory by his proof that the so-called oculars of Echinoidea, which were supposed to represent the radials, are homologous with the “terminals” (i.e.the plates at the tips of the rays) in Asteroidea and Ophiuroidea, and therefore not homologous with the radially disposed plates often seen around the aboral pole of those animals. For, if these radial constituents of the supposed apical system in an ophiurid have really some other origin, why can we not say the same of the supposed basals? Indeed, Bury is constrained to admit that the view of Semon and others may be correct, and that these so-called calycinal systems may not be heirlooms from a calyculate ancestor, but may have been independently developed in the various classes owing to the action of similar causes. That this view must be correct is urged by students of fossils. Palaeontology lends no support to the idea that the dorso-central is a primitive element; it exists in none of the early echinoids, and the suranal ofSaleniidaearises from the minor plates around the anus. There is no reason to suppose that the central apical plate of certain free-swimming crinoids has any more to do with the distal foot-plate of the larvalAntedonstem than has the so-called centro-dorsal ofAntedonitself, which is nothing but the compressed proximal end of the stem. As for the supposed basals of Echinoidea, Asteroidea and Ophiuroidea, they are scarcely to be distinguished among the ten or more small plates that surround the anus ofBothriocidaris, which is the oldest and probably the most ancestral of fossil sea-urchins (fig. 5). A calycinal system may be quite apparent in the later Ophiuroidea and in a few Asteroidea, but there is no trace of it in the older Palaeozoic types, unless we are to transfer the appellation to the terminals. Those plates are perhaps constant throughout sea-urchins and starfish (though it would puzzle any one to detect them in certain Silurian echinoids), and they may be traced in some of the fixed echinoderms; but there is no proof that they represent the radials of a simple crinoid, and there are certainly many cystids in which no such plates existed. Lovén and M. Neumayr adduced the Triassic sea-urchinTiarechinus, in which the apical system forms half of the test, as an argument for the origin of Echinoidea from an ancestor in which the apical system was of great importance; but a genus appearing so late in time, in an isolated sea, under conditions that dwarfed the other echinoid dwellers therein, cannot seriously be thought to elucidate the origin of pre-Silurian Echinoidea, and the recent discovery of an intermediate form suggests that we have here nothing but degenerate descendants of a well-known Palaeozoic family (Lepidocentridae). But to pursue the tale of isolated instances would be wearisome. The calycinal theory is not merely an assertion of certain homologies, a few of which might be disputed without affecting the rest: it governs our whole conception of the echinoderms, because it implies their descent from a calyculate ancestor—not a “crinoid-phantom,” that bogey of the Sarasins, but a form with definite plates subject to a quinqueradiate arrangement, with which its internal organs must likewise have been correlated. To this ingenious and plausible theory the revelations of the rocks are more and more believed to be opposed.

T, The five interradial tentacles.

M, The water-pore, leading by the stone-canalstcto the water-ring, from which hangs a Polian vesiclepb.

oc, Supposed otocysts.

m, Longitudinal muscles.

sk, Calcareous spicules.

st, Stomach.

(After Semon.)

Pentactaea Theory.—In opposition to the calycinal theory has been thePentactaeatheory of R. Semon. There have always been many zoologists prepared to ascribe an ancestral character to the holothurians. The absence of an apical system of plates; the fact that radial symmetry has not affected the generative organs, as it has in all other recent classes; the well-developed muscles of the body-wall, supposed to be directly inherited from some worm-like ancestor; the presence on the inner walls of the body in the familySynaptidaeof ciliated funnels, which have been rashly compared to the excretory organs (nephridia) of many worms; the outgrowth from the rectum in other genera of caeca (Cuvierian organs and respiratory trees), which recall the anal glands of the Gephyrean worms; the absence of podia (tube-feet) in many genera, and even of the radial water-vessels inSynaptidae; the absence of that peculiar structure known in other echinoderms by the names “axial organ,” “ovoid gland,” &c.; the simpler form of the larva—all these features have, for good reason or bad, been regarded as primitive. Some of the more striking of these features are confined toSynaptidae; in that family too the absence of the radial water-vessels from the adult is correlated with continuity of the circular muscle-layer, while the gut runs almost straight from the anterior mouth to the posterior anus. Early in the life-history ofSynaptaoccurs a stage with five tentacles around the mouth, and into these pass canals from the water-ring, the radial canals to the body-wall making a subsequent, and only temporary, appearance (fig. 4). Semon called this stage thePentactula, and supposed that, in its early history, the class had passed through a similar stage, which he called thePentactaea, and regarded as the ancestor of all Echinoderms. It has since been proved that the five tentacles with their canals are interradial, so that one can scarcely look on thePentactulaas a primitive stage, while the apparent simplicity of theSynaptidae, at least as compared with other holothurians, is now believed to be the result of regressivechanges. ThePentactaea, at all events as it sprang from the brain of Semon, must pass to the limbo of mythological ancestors.

Pelmatozoic Theory.—The rejection of the calycinal andPentactaeatheories need not scatter our conceptions of Echinoderm structure back into the chaos from which they seemed to have emerged. The idea of a calyculate ancestor, though by no means connoting fixation, turned men’s minds in the direction of the fixed forms, simply because in them the calyx was best developed. ThePentactaeaagain suggested a search for some primitive type in which quinqueradiate symmetry was exhibited in circumoral appendages, but had not affected the nervous, water-vascular, muscular or skeletal systems to any great extent, and the generative organs not at all. Study of the earliest larval stages has always led to the conclusion that the Echinoderms must have descended from some freely-moving form with a bilateral symmetry, and, connecting this with the ideas just mentioned, we reach the conception that this supposed bilateral ancestor (orDipleurula) may have become fixed, and may have gradually acquired a radial symmetry in consequence of its sedentary mode of life. The different extent of quinqueradiate symmetry in the different classes would thus depend on the period at which they diverged from the sedentary stock. The tracing of this history, and the explanation of the general characters of Echinoderms and of the differentiating features of the classes in accordance therewith, constitutes thePelmatozoictheory.

The word “Pelmatozoa” literally means “stalked animals,” but the name is now used to denote all Cystidea, Blastoidea, Crinoidea and Edrioasteroidea, as opposed to the other classes, which may be called Eleutherozoa. Many Pelmatozoa have, it is true, no stalk, while some are freely-moving, but all agree in the possession of certain characters obviously connected with a fixed mode of life. Thus, the mouth is central and turned away from the sea-floor; the animal does not seize its food by tentacles, limbs or jaws, neither does it move in search of it, but a series of ciliated grooves which radiate from the mouth sweep along currents of water, in the eddies of which minute food-particles are caught up and carried down into the gullet; the undigested food is driven out through an anus which is on the upper or oral side of the theca, but as far distant as practicable from the mouth and ciliated grooves. Such characters are found in any primitive, sedentary group. More peculiarly Echinoderm features, in which the Pelmatozoan nature is manifest, are the enclosing of the viscera in a calcified and plated theca, for protection against those enemies from which a fixed animal cannot flee; the development, at the aboral pole of this theca, of a motor nerve-centre giving off branches to the stroma connecting the various plates of the theca and of its brachial, anal, and columnar extensions, and thus co-ordinating the movements of the whole skeleton; the absence of suckers from the podia, which, when present, are respiratory, not locomotor, in function. There are other features of most, if not all, Pelmatozoa that appear to be due to a fixed existence; but those are also found in the Eleutherozoa. The Pelmatozoic theory thus regards the Pelmatozoa as the more ancestral forms, and the Pelmatozoan stage as one that must have been passed through by all Echinoderms during their evolution from theDipleurula. It might be possible to prove the origin of all classes from Pelmatozoa, without thereby explaining the origin of such fundamental features as radial symmetry, the developmental metamorphosis, and the torsion that affects both gut and body-cavities during that process; but the acceptance of aDipleurulaas the common ancestor necessitates an explanation of these features. Such explanation is an integral part of the Pelmatozoic theory, but is provided by no other.

The evidence for the Pelmatozoic theory is supplied by palaeontology, embryology, the comparative anatomy of the classes, and a consideration of other phyla. Palaeontology, so far as it goes, is a sure guide, but some of the oldest fossiliferous rocks yield remains of distinctly differentiated crinoids, asteroids and echinoids, so that the problem is not solved merely by collecting fossils. Two lines of argument appear fruitful. First, a comparison of the relative numbers of the representatives of the various classes at different epochs; according to this they may be placed in the following order, with the oldest first: Cystidea, Crinoidea, Blastoidea, Asteroidea, Ophiuroidea, Echinoidea. As for Holothuroidea, the fossil evidence allows us to say no more than that the class existed in early Carboniferous times, if not before. The second method is to work out by slow and sure steps the lines of descent of the different families, orders, and classes, and so either to arrive at the ancestral form of each class, or to plot out the curve of evolution, which may then legitimately be projected into “the dark backward and abysm of time.” In this way the many highly modified orders of Cystidea may be traced back to a simple, many-plated ancestor with little or no radiate symmetry (see below). All the complicated structures of Blastoidea are evolved from a fairly simple type, which in its turn is linked on to one of the cystid orders. That the crinoids are all deducible from some such simple form as that above described under the head “calycinal theory,” is now generally admitted. Although, in the extreme correlation of the radial food-grooves, nerves, water-vessels, and so forth, with a radiate symmetry of the theca, such a type differs from the Cystidea, while in the possession of jointed processes from the radial plates, bearing the grooves and the various body-systems outwards from the theca, it differs from all other Echinoderms, nevertheless ancient forms are known which, if they are not themselves the actual links, suggest how the crinoid type may have been evolved from some of the more regular cystids. The fourth class of Pelmatozoa—the Edrioasteroidea—differs from the others in the structure of its ambulacra. As in all Pelmatozoa these seem to have borne ciliated food-grooves protected by movable covering-plates (fig. 11). Beneath each food-groove was a radial water-vessel and probably a nerve and blood-vessel, all which structures passed either between certain regularly arranged thecal plates, or along a furrow floored by those plates, which were then in two alternating series. The important and distinctive feature is the presence of pores between the flooring-plates, on either side of the groove; and these, we cannot doubt, served for the passage of podia. Thus in a highly developed edrioasteroid, such asEdrioasteritself (fig. 11), there was a true ambulacrum, apparently constructed like that of a starfish, but differing in the possession of a ciliated food-groove protected by covering-plates. The simpler forms of Edrioasteroidea, with their more sac-like body and undifferentiated plates, may well have been derived from early Cystidea of yet simpler structure, and there seems no reason to follow Jaekel in regarding the class as itself the more primitive. Turning to fossil Asteroidea, we find the earlier ophiurids scarcely distinguishable from the asterids, while in the alternation of the ambulacrals, which undoubtedly correspond to the flooring-plates ofEdrioaster, both groups approach the Pelmatozoan type. These facts have been expressed by Sturtz in his names Encrinasteriae and Ophio-encrinasteriae. There is no difficulty in deducing the highly differentiated asterids and ophiurids of a later day from these simpler types. The evolution of the modern Echinoidea from their Palaeozoic ancestors is also well understood, but in this case the ancestral form to which the palaeontologist is led does not at first sight present many resemblances to the Pelmatozoa. It is, however, characterized by simplicity of structure, and a short description of it will serve to clear the problem from unnecessary difficulties.Bothriocidaris(fig. 5), a small echinoid from the Ordovician rocks of Esthonia, is in essential structure just the form demanded by comparative palaeontology to make a starting-point. It is spheroidal, with the mouth and anus at opposite poles; there are five ambulacra, and the ambulacral plates are large, simple and alternating, each being pierced by two podial pores which lie in a small oval depression; the ambulacrals next the mouth form a closed ring of ten plates; the interambulacrals lie in single columns between the ambulacra, and are separated from the mouth-area by the proximal ambulacrals just mentioned, and sometimes by the second set of ambulacrals also; the ambulacra end in the five oculars or terminals, which meet in a ring around the anal area and have no podial pores, but one of them serves as a madreporite; within this ring is a star-shaped area filled with minute irregular plates, none of which can safely be selected as the homologues of the so-called basals or genitals of later forms; within the ring of ambulacrals around the mouth are five somewhat pointed plates, which Jaekel regards as teeth, but which can scarcely be homologous with the interradially placed teeth of later echinoids, since they are radial in position; small spines are present, especially around the podial pores. The position of the pores near the centre of the ambulacrals inBothriocidarisneed not be regarded as primitive, since other early Palaeozoic genera, not to mention the young of living forms, show that the podia originally passed out between the plates, and were only gradually surrounded by their substance; thus the original structure of the echinoid ambulacra differed from that of the early asteroid in the position of the radial vessels and nerves, which here lie beneath the plates instead of outside them. To this point we shall recur; palaeontology, though it suggests a clue, does not furnish an actual link either between Echinoidea and Asteroidea, or between those classes and Pelmatozoa.

The argument from embryology leads further back. First, as already mentioned, it outlines the general features of theDipleurula; secondly, it indicates the way in which this free-moving form became fixed, and how its internal organs were modified in consequence; but when we seek, thirdly, for light on the relations of the classes, we find the features of the adult coming in so rapidly that such intermediate stages as may have existed are either squeezed out or profoundly modified. The difficulty of rearing the larvae in anaquarium towards the close of the metamorphosis may account for the slight information available concerning the stages that immediately follow the embryonic. Another difficulty is due to the fact that the types studied, and especially the crinoidAntedon, are highly specialized, so that some of the embryonic features are not really primitive as regards the class, but only as regards each particular genus. Thus inferences from embryonic development need to be checked by palaeontology, and supplemented by comparison of the anatomy of other living genera.

Minute anatomical research has also aided to establish the Pelmatozoic theory by the gradual recognition in other classes of features formerly supposed to be confined to Pelmatozoa. Thus the elements of the Pelmatozoan ventral groove are now detected in so different a structure as the echinoid ambulacrum, while an aboral nervous system, the diminished representative of that in crinoids, has been traced in all Eleutherozoa except Holothurians. The broader theories of modern zoology might seem to have little bearing on the Echinoderma, for it is not long since the study of these animals was compared to a landlocked sea undisturbed by such storms as rage around the origin of the Vertebrata. This, however, is no more the case. The conception of theDipleuruladerives its chief weight from the fact that it is comparable to the early larval forms of other primitive coelomate animals, such asBalanoglossus,Phoronis, Chaetognatha, Brachiopoda and Bryozoa. So too the explanation of radial symmetry and torsion of organs as due to a Pelmatozoic mode of life finds confirmation in many other phyla. Instead of discussing all these questions separately, with the details necessary for an adequate presentation of the argument, we shall now sketch the history of the Echinoderms in accordance with the Pelmatozoic theory. Such a sketch must pass lightly over debatable ground, and must consist largely of suggestions still in need of confirmation; but if it serves as a frame into which more precise and more detailed statements may be fitted as they come to the ken of the reader, its object will be attained.

Evolution of the Echinoderms.—It is reasonable to suppose that the Coelomata—animals in which the body-cavity is divided into a gut passing from mouth to anus and a hollow (coelom) surrounding it—were derived from the simpler Coelentera, in which the primitive body-cavity (archenteron) is not so divided, and has only one aperture serving as both mouth and anus. We may, with Sedgwick, suppose the coelom to have originated by the enlargement and separation of pouches that pressed outwards from the archenteron into the thickened body-wall (such structures as the genital pouches of some Coelentera, not yet shut off from the rest of the cavity), and they would probably have been four in number and radially disposed about the central cavity. The evolution of this cavity into a gut is foreshadowed in some Coelentera by the elliptical shape of the aperture, and by the development at its ends of a ciliated channel along which food is swept; we have only to suppose the approximation of the sides of the ellipse and their eventual fusion, to complete the transformation of the radially symmetrical Coelenterate into a bilaterally symmetrical Coelomate with mouth and anus at opposite ends of the long axis. We further suppose that of the four coelomic pouches one was in front of the mouth, one behind the anus, and one on each side. Such an animal, if it ever existed, probably lived near the surface of the sea, and even here it may have changed its medusoid mode of locomotion for one in the direction of its mouth. Thus the bilateral symmetry would have been accentuated, and the organism shaped more definitely into three segments, namely (1) a preoral segment or lobe, containing the anterior coelomic cavity; (2) a middle segment, containing the gut, and the two middle coelomic cavities; (3) a posterior segment, containing the posterior coelomic cavity, which, however, owing to the backward prolongation of the anus, became divided into two—a right and left posterior coelom. Each of these cavities presumably excreted waste products to the exterior by a pore. There was probably a nervous area, with a tuft of cilia, at the anterior end; while, at all events in forms that remained pelagic, the ciliated nervous tracts of the rest of the body may be supposed to have become arranged in bands around the body-segments. Such a form as this is roughly represented to-day by theActinotrochalarva ofPhoronis, the importance of which has been brought out by Masterman. But only slight modifications are required to produce theTornarialarva of the Enteropneusta and other larvae, including the special type that is inferred from theDipleurulalarval stages of recent forms to have characterized the ancestor of the Echinoderms. We cannot enter here into all the details of comparison between these larval forms; amid much that is hypothetical a few homologies are widely accepted, and the preceding account will show the kind of relation that the Echinoderms bear to other animals, including what are now usually regarded as the ancestors of the Chordata (to which back-boned animals belong), as well as the nature of the evidence that their study has been, or may be, made to yield. How the hypotheticalDipleurulabecame an Echinoderm, and how the primitive Echinoderms diverged in structure so as to form the various classes, are questions to which an answer is attempted in the following paragraphs:—

Back to Index Next