Form and Function: A Contribution to the History of Animal Morphology

by E. S. Russell

The comparison of the Arthropod with the Vertebrate is extended also to the internal organs. The internal organs of the Arthropod are shown to stand in the same order to one another as in the Vertebrate, only the organs are inverted. Thus the nervous system is dorsal in the Vertebrate, ventral in the Arthropod. Turn the Arthropod on its back and the relative positions of the systems of organs are the same as in the Vertebrate. The relation of the organs to the external tube is of course different in Arthropods and Vertebrates, but this is no contradiction of the principle of connections. "Such a tube, although it is the organs essential to life that it contains, can yet behave in different ways with regard to the mass of these organs: the principle of connections demands only that all the organs maintain with one another fixed and definite relations; but the principle would be in no way invalidated if the whole mass had rotated inside the tube" (p. 112).

Fig. 3.
Abdominal Segment of the Lobster.
(After Geoffroy.)

Geoffroy pushed the analogy between Arthropods and Vertebrates very far, for he asserted that every piece in the skeleton of an insect was homologous with some bone in Vertebrates, that it stood always in its proper place, and remained faithful to at least one of its connections.[93] It does not appear that he attempted to prove in detail this very big assumption, but the beginnings of a detailed comparison are found in the paper of 1820, Sur l'organisation des insectes. Six segments are distinguished in an insect—the head, the three divisions of the thorax, the abdomen, and the terminal segment of the abdomen (p. 455).

The skeleton of the insect's head is said to correspond to the bones of the face, to the bones of the cerebrum and to the hyoid of higher Vertebrates, the skeleton of the prothorax to the bones of the cerebellum, of the palate, and the pieces of the larynx, the skeleton of the mesothorax to the parietals, interparietals, and opercular bones, and that of the metathorax to the skeleton of the thorax of Vertebrates. The pieces of the abdomen and of the terminal segment correspond to the bones of the abdomen and coccyx (p. 458). It does not need the subsequent likening of the hind wings of insects to the air bladder of fish, and of the stigmata to the pores of the lateral line, to convince one finally of the fancifulness of the whole comparison.

In 1830 two young naturalists, Meyranx and Laurencet, presented to the Académie des Sciences a memoir in which they likened a Cephalopod to a Vertebrate bent back at the level of the umbilicus, saying that the Vertebrate in this position had all its organs in the same order as in the Cephalopod. Geoffroy took up this idea with enthusiasm, seeing in it a further application of his master-idea of the unity of plan and composition. By means of this comparison Mollusca definitely took their place in the Échelle des êtres, after the Articulata, just as Geoffroy had maintained in 1820, saying that crabs formed a link between the other Crustacea and the molluscs.[94] The comparison brought him nearer to the end he had in view, the reference of all animal structure to one single type.

But in championing the memoir of Meyranx and Laurencet, Geoffroy found himself in direct antagonism with Cuvier, who held that his four "Embranchements" had each a separate and distinct plan of structure. In a paper read to the Academy in February 1830,[95] Cuvier easily demolished the crude comparison of the Cephalopod to the Vertebrate. He gave diagrams of the internal organs of a Cephalopod and of a Vertebrate bent back in the manner indicated by Meyranx and Laurencet, and he showed in detail that the arrangement of the main organs was quite different, that the likeness would have been much greater if the Cephalopod had been likened to a Vertebrate doubled up the other way,[96] but that even then the arrangement of the organs would not be the same. The organs, too, of the Cephalopod are differently constructed. He sums up his criticism by saying:—"I give true and summary expression to all these facts when I say that Cephalopods have several organs in common with Vertebrates, which fulfil in either case similar functions, but that these organs are differently arranged with respect to one another, and often constructed in a different way; that they are in Cephalopods accompanied by several other organs which Vertebrates do not possess, whilst the latter on their side have many organs which Cephalopods lack" (p. 257). Geoffroy could not accept this commonsense view of the matter, but made a fight for his transcendental theories. This was the beginning of the famous controversy between Geoffroy and Cuvier which so excited the interest of Goethe. It was a struggle between "comparative anatomy" and "morphology," between the commonsense teleological view of structure and the abstract, transcendental. Geoffroy brought forward all his theories on the homology of the skeleton of fish with the skeleton of higher Vertebrates, and tried to prove by them his great principle of the unity of plan and composition; Cuvier took Geoffroy's homologies one by one, and showed how very slight was their foundation. Cuvier was on sure ground in insisting upon the observable diversities of structural type, and his vast knowledge enabled him to score a decisive victory.[97]

The controversy was not, as we are sometimes told, a controversy between a believer in evolution and an upholder of the fixity of species, although it raised a question upon which evolution theory was to throw some light.

In these Darwinian days Geoffroy has reaped a little posthumous glory as an early believer in evolution. That he did believe in evolution to a limited extent is certain; that his theory of evolution was, as it were, a by-product of his life-work, is also certain. Geoffroy was primarily a morphologist and a seeker after the unity hidden under the diversity of organic form. His theory of evolution had as good as no influence upon his morphology, for he did not to any extent interpret unity of plan as being due to community of descent. His morphological, non-evolutionary standpoint comes out quite clearly in several places in the Philosophie anatomique. He does not derive the structure of the higher Vertebrates from the simpler structure of the lower, but when he finds in fish a part at the maximum of its development, he speaks of the same part, rudimentary in the higher forms, as being, as it were, held in reserve for use in the fish. Thus, speaking of the episternal in fish which forms the central piece of its sternum, he says, "it is a bone that is rudimentary in birds (one might almost add a bone that is held in reserve in birds for this fate) which is destined to form in the centre the principal keel of this new machine" (p. 84). Again, with reference to the homology of the ossicles of the ear with the opercular bones in fish, "employing other resources equally hidden and rudimentary, Nature makes profitable use of the four tiny ossicles lodged in the auditory passage, and, raising them in fish to the greatest possible dimensions, forms from them these broad opercula...." (p. 85). Or you may take it the other way about, and start from the organisation of fishes; opercular bones are of no use to air-breathing animals, so they dwindle away, and are pressed into the service of the ear, although they are of little use in hearing (p. 46).

There is here no thought of evolution; in later years, however, his researches upon fossil crocodilians led him to consider the possibility that the living species were descended from the antediluvian. For the factors of the transformation he refers to Lamarck's hypotheses.[98] In a memoir of 1828,[99] dealing with the possible genetic relation of living to fossil species, he still regards the question as more or less open. Although fossil species are mostly different from living species are we therefore to conclude, he asks, that they are not the ancestors of the present day forms? "The contrary idea arises more naturally in the mind; for otherwise the six-days' creation would have had to be repeated and new beings produced by a fresh creation. Now this proposition, contrary as it is to the most ancient historical traditions, is inadmissible" (p. 210). It is sufficiently clear from this quotation that Geoffroy was thinking only of a transformation of the antediluvian species created by God, and by no means of an evolution of all species from one primitive type. In matters of religion Geoffroy was orthodox. He goes on to point out how great a resemblance there is in essential structure between fossil and living species. All find their place in one scheme of classification; does it not seem that all are modifications "of one single being, of that abstract being or common type, which it is always possible to denote by the same name?" (p. 211). This type is abstract, not actual, and it is certainly not conceived as an original ancestor of all animals.