[24] Lessona states that this is so in the paper just referred to. See also ‘The American Naturalist,’ Sept. 1871, p. 579.
[25] ‘Comptes Rendus,’ Oct. 1st, 1866, and June, 1867.
[26] Bonnet, ‘Oeuvres Hist. Nat.,’ vol. v., p. 294, as quoted by Prof. Rolleston in his remarkable address to the 36th annual meeting of the British Medical Association.
[27] ‘Proc. Boston Soc. of Nat. Hist.,’ vol. xii., 1868-69, p. 1.
[28] ‘Transact. Linn. Soc.,’ vol. xxiv., 1863, p. 62.
[29] ‘Parthenogenesis,’ 1849, pp. 25, 26. Prof. Huxley has some excellent remarks (‘Medical Times,’ 1856, p. 637) on this subject in reference to the development of star-fishes, and shows how curiously metamorphosis graduates into gemmation or zoid-formation, which is in fact the same as metagenesis.
[30] Prof. J. Reay Greene, in Günther’s ‘Record of Zoolog. Lit.,’ 1865, p. 625.
[31] Fritz Müller, ‘Für Darwin,’ 1864, s. 65, 71. The highest authority on crustaceans, Prof. Milne-Edwards, insists (‘Annal. des Sci. Nat.,’ 2nd series, Zoolog., tom. iii., p. 322) on the difference in the metamorphosis of closely-allied genera.
[32] Prof. Allman, in ‘Annals and Mag. of Nat. Hist.,’ 3rd series, vol. xiii., 1864, p. 348; Dr. S. Wright, ibid., vol. viii., 1861, p. 127. See also p. 358 for analogous statements by Sars.
[33] ‘Tissus Vivants,’ 1866, p. 22.