This question of the origin and causation of the forms of sponge-spicules, with which we have now briefly dealt, is all the more important and all the more interesting because it has been discussed time and again, from points of view which are char­ac­ter­is­tic of very different schools of thought in biology. Haeckel found in the form of the sponge-spicule a typical illustration of his theory of “bio-cry­stal­li­sa­tion”; he considered that these “biocrystals” represented “something midway—ein Mittelding—between an inorganic crystal and an organic secretion”; that there was a “compromise between the crystallising efforts of the calcium carbonate and the formative activity of the fused cells of the syncytium”; and that the semi-crystalline secretions of calcium carbonate “were utilised by natural selection as ‘spicules’ for building up a skeleton, and afterwards, by the interaction of adaptation and heredity, became modified in form and differentiated in a vast variety of ways in the struggle for existence[465].” What Haeckel precisely signified by these words is not clear to me.

F. E. Schultze, perceiving that identical forms of spicule were developed whether the material were crystalline or non-crystalline, abandoned all theories based upon cry­stal­li­sa­tion; he simply saw in the form and arrangement of the spicules something which was “best fitted” for its purpose, that is to say for the support and strengthening of the porous walls of the sponge, and found clear evidence of “utility” in the specific structure of these skeletal elements. {455}

Sollas and Dreyer, as we have seen, introduced in various ways the conception of physical causation,—as indeed Haeckel himself had done in regard to one particular, when he supposed the position of the spicules to be due to the constant passage of the water-currents. Though even here, by the way, if I understand Haeckel aright, he was thinking not merely of a direct or immediate physical causation, but of one manifesting itself through the agency of natural selection[466]. Sollas laid stress upon the “path of least resistance” as determining the direction of growth; while Dreyer dealt in greater detail with the various tensions and pressures to which the growing spicule was exposed, amid the alveolar or vesicular structure which was represented alike by the chambers of the sponge, by the reticulum of constituent cells, or by the minute structure of the intracellular protoplasm. But neither of these writers, so far as I can discover, was inclined to doubt for a moment the received canon of biology, which sees in such structures as these the char­ac­teris­tics of true organic species, and the indications of an hereditary affinity by which blood-relationship and the succession of evolutionary descent throughout geologic time can be ultimately deduced.

Lastly, Minchin, in a well-known paper[467], took sides with Schultze, and gave reasons for dissenting from such mechanical theories as those of Sollas and of Dreyer. For example, after pointing out that all protoplasm contains a number of “granules” or microsomes, contained in the alveolar framework and lodged at the nodes of the reticulum, he argued that these also ought to acquire a form such as the spicules possess, if it were the case that these latter owed their form to their very similar or identical position. “If vesicular tension cannot in any other instance cause the granules at the nodes to assume a tetraxon form, why should it do so for the sclerites?” In all probability the answer to this question is not far to seek. If the force which the “mechanical” hypothesis has in view were simply that of mechanical pressure, {456} as between solid bodies, then indeed we should expect that any substances whatsoever, lying between the impinging spheres, would tend (unless they were infinitely hard) to assume the quadriradiate or “tetraxon” form; but this conclusion does not follow at all, in so far as it is to surface-energy that we ascribe the phenomenon. Here the specific nature of the substances involved makes all the difference. We cannot argue from one substance to another; adsorptive attraction shews its effect on one and not on another; and we have not the least reason to be surprised if we find that the little granules of protoplasmic material, which as they lie bathed in the more fluid protoplasm have (presumably, and as their shape indicates) a strong surface-tension of their own, behave towards the adjacent vesicles in a very different fashion to the incipient aggregations of calcareous or siliceous matter in a colloid medium. “The ontogeny of the spicules,” says Professor Minchin, “points clearly to their regular form being a phylogenetic adaptation, which has become fixed and handed on by heredity, appearing in the ontogeny as a prophetic adaptation.” And again, “The forms of the spicules are the result of adaptation to the requirements of the sponge as a whole, produced by the action of natural selection upon variation in every direction.” It would scarcely be possible to illustrate more briefly and more cogently than by these few words (or the similar words of Haeckel quoted on p. [454]), the fundamental difference between the Darwinian conception of the causation and determination of Form, and that which is char­ac­ter­is­tic of the physical sciences.

If I have dealt comparatively briefly with the inorganic skeleton of sponges, in spite of the obvious importance of this part of our subject from the physical or mechanical point of view, it has been owing to several reasons. In the first place, though the general trend of the phenomena is clear, it must be at once admitted that many points are obscure, and could only be discussed at the cost of a long argument. In the second place, the physical theory is (as I have shewn) in manifest conflict with the accounts given by various embryologists of the development of the spicules, and of the current biological theories which their descriptions embody; it is beyond our scope to deal with such descriptions {457} in detail. Lastly, we find ourselves able to illustrate the same physical principles with greater clearness and greater certitude in another group of animals, namely the Radiolaria. In our description of the skeletons occurring within this group we shall by no means abandon the preliminary clas­si­fi­ca­tion of microscopic skeletons which we have laid down; but we shall have occasion to blend with it the consideration of certain other more or less correlated phenomena.

The group of microscopic organisms known as the Radiolaria is extraordinarily rich in diverse forms, or “species.” I do not know how many of such species have been described and defined by naturalists, but some thirty years ago the number was said to be over four thousand, arranged in more than seven hundred genera[468]. Of late years there has been a tendency to reduce the number, it being found that some of the earlier species and even genera are but growth-stages of one and the same form, sometimes mere fragments or “fission-products” common to several species, or sometimes forms so similar and so interconnected by intermediate forms that the naturalist denominates them not “species” but “varieties.” It has to be admitted, in short, that the conception of species among the Radiolaria has not hitherto been, and is not yet, on the same footing as that among most other groups of animals. But apart from the extraordinary multiplicity of forms among the Radiolaria, there are certain other features in this multiplicity which arrest our attention. For instance, the distribution of species in space is curious and vague; many species are found all over the world, or at least every here and there, with no evidence of specific limitations of geographical habitat; others occur in the neighbourhood of the two poles; some are confined to warm and others to cold currents of the ocean. In time also their distribution is not less vague: so much so that it has been asserted of them that “from the Cambrian age downwards, the families and even genera appear identical with those now living.” Lastly, except perhaps in the case of a few large “colonial forms,” we seldom if ever find, as is usual {458} in most animals, a local predominance of one particular species. On the contrary, in a little pinch of deep-sea mud or of some fossil “Radiolarian earth,” we shall probably find scores, and it may be even hundreds, of different forms. Moreover, the radiolarian skeletons are of quite extraordinary delicacy and complexity, in spite of their minuteness and the comparative simplicity of the “unicellular” organisms within which they grow; and these complex conformations have a wonderful and unusual appearance of geometric regularity. All these general con­si­de­ra­tions seem such as to prepare us for the special need of some physical hypothesis of causation. The little skeletal fabrics remind us of such objects as snow-crystals (themselves almost endless in their diversity), rather than of a collection of distinct animals, constructed in apparent accordance with functional needs, and distributed in accordance with their fitness for particular situations. Nevertheless great efforts have been made of recent years to attach “a biological meaning” to these elaborate structures; and “to justify the hope that in time the utilitarian character [of the skeleton] will be more completely recognised[469].”

In the majority of cases, the skeleton of the Radiolaria is composed, like that of so many sponges, of silica; in one large family, the Acantharia (and perhaps in some others), it is composed, in great part at least, of a very unusual constituent, namely strontium sulphate[470]. There is no fundamental or important morphological character in which the shells formed of these two constituents differ from one another; and in no case can the chemical properties of these inorganic materials be said to influence the form of the complex skeleton or shell, save only in this general way that, by their rigidity and toughness, they may give rise to a fabric far more delicate and slender than we find developed among calcareous organisms.

A slight exception to this rule is found in the presence of true crystals, which occur within the central capsules of certain {459} Radiolaria, for instance the genus Collosphaera[471]. Johannes Müller (whose knowledge and insight never fail to astonish us) remarked that these were identical in form with crystals of celestine, a sulphate of strontium and barium; and Bütschli’s discovery of sulphates of strontium and of barium in kindred forms render it all but certain that they are actually true crystals of celestine[472].

In its typical form, the Radiolarian body consists of a spherical mass of protoplasm, around which, and separated from it by some sort of porous “capsule,” lies a frothy mass, composed of protoplasm honeycombed into a multitude of alveoli or vacuoles, filled with a fluid which can scarcely differ much from sea-water[473]. According to their surface-tension conditions, these vacuoles may appear more or less isolated and spherical, or joining together in a “froth” of polygonal cells; and in the latter, which is the commoner condition, the cells tend to be of equal size, and the resulting polygonal meshwork beautifully regular. In many cases, a large number of such simple individual organisms are associated together, forming a floating colony, and it is highly probable that many other forms, with whose scattered skeletons we are alone acquainted, had in life formed part likewise of a colonial organism.