The Evolution of Man

by Ernst Haeckel

In this way the real affinity of man and the Vertebrates came to be admitted on all hands. Comparative anatomy and ontogeny spoke too clearly for their testimony to be ignored any longer. But in order still to save man’s unique position, and especially the dogma of personal immortality, a number of natural philosophers and theologians discovered an admirable way of escape in the “theory of degeneration.” Granting the affinity, they turned the whole evolutionary theory upside down, and boldly contended that “man is not the most highly developed animal, but the animals are degenerate men.” It is true that man is closely related to the ape, and belongs to the vertebrate stem; but the chain of his ancestry goes upward instead of downward. In the beginning “God created man in his own image,” as the prototype of the perfect vertebrate; but, in consequence of original sin, the human race sank so low that the apes branched off from it, and afterwards the lower Vertebrates. When this theory of degeneration was consistently developed, its supporters were bound to hold that the entire animal kingdom was descended from the debased children of men.

This theory was most strenuously defended by the Catholic priest and natural philosopher, Michelis, in his Hæckelogony: An Academic Protest against Hæckel’s Anthropogeny (1875). In still more “academic” and somewhat mystic form the theory was advanced by a natural philosopher of the older Jena school—the mathematician and physicist, Carl Snell. But it received its chief support on the zoological side from Anton Dohrn, who maintained the anthropocentric ideas of Snell with particular ability. The Amphioxus, which modern science now almost unanimously regards as the real Primitive Vertebrate, the ancient model of the original vertebrate structure, is, according to Dohrn, a late, degenerate descendant of the stem, the “prodigal son” of the vertebrate family. It has descended from the Cyclostoma by a profound degeneration, and these in turn from the fishes; even the Ascidia and the whole of the Tunicates are merely degenerate fishes! Following out this curious theory, Dohrn came to contest the general belief that the Cœlenterata and Worms are “lower animals”; he even declared that the unicellular Protozoa were degenerate Cœlenterata. In his opinion “degeneration is the great principle that explains the existence of all the lower forms.”

If this Michelis-Dohrn theory were true, and all animals were really degenerate descendants of an originally perfect humanity, man would assuredly be the true centre and goal of all terrestrial life; his anthropocentric position and his immortality would be saved. Unfortunately, this trustful theory is in such flagrant contradiction to all the known facts of paleontology and embryology that it is no longer worth serious scientific consideration.

But the case is no better for the much-discussed descent of the Vertebrates from the Annelids, which Dohrn afterwards maintained with great zeal. Of late years this hypothesis, which raised so much dust and controversy, has been entirely abandoned by most competent zoologists, even those who once supported it. Its chief supporter, Dohrn, admitted in 1890 that it is “dead and buried,” and made a blushing retraction at the end of his Studies of the Early History of the Vertebrate.

Now that the annelid-hypothesis is “dead and buried,” and other attempts to derive the Vertebrates from Medusæ, Echinoderms, or Molluscs, have been equally unsuccessful, there is only one hypothesis left to answer the question of the origin of the Vertebrates—the hypothesis that I advanced thirty-six years ago and called the “chordonia-hypothesis.” In view of its sound establishment and its profound significance, it may very well claim to be a theory, and so should be described as the chordonia or chordæa theory.

I first advanced this theory in a series of university lectures in 1867, from which the History of Creation was composed. In the first edition of this work (1868) I endeavoured to prove, on the strength of Kowalevsky’s epoch-making discoveries, that “of all the animals known to us the Tunicates are undoubtedly the nearest blood-relatives of the Vertebrates; they are the most closely related to the Vermalia, from which the Vertebrates have been evolved. Naturally, I do not mean that the Vertebrates have descended from the Tunicates, but that the two groups have sprung from a common root. It is clear that the real Vertebrates (primarily the Acrania) were evolved in very early times from a group of Worms, from which the degenerate Tunicates also descended in another and retrogressive direction.” This common extinct stem-group are the Prochordonia; we still have a silhouette of them in the chordula-embryo of the Vertebrates and Tunicates; and they still exist independently, in very modified form, in the class of the Copelata ( Appendicaria, Fig. 225).

The chordæa-theory received the most valuable and competent support from Carl Gegenbaur. This able comparative morphologist defended it in 1870, in the second edition of his Elements of Comparative Anatomy ; at the same time he drew attention to the important relations of the Tunicates to a curious worm, Balanoglossus : he rightly regards this as the representative of a special class of worms, which he called “gut-breathers” ( Enteropneusta). Gegenbaur referred on many other occasions to the close blood-relationship of the Tunicates and Vertebrates, and luminously explained the reasons that justify us in framing the hypothesis of the descent of the two stems from a common ancestor, an unsegmented worm-like animal with an axial chorda between the dorsal nerve-tube and the ventral gut-tube.

The theory afterwards received a good deal of support from the research made by a number of distinguished zoologists and anatomists, especially C. Kupffer, B. Hatschek, F. Balfour, E. Van Beneden, and Julin. Since Hatschek’s Studies of the Development of the Amphioxus gave us full information as to the embryology of this lowest vertebrate, it has become so important for our purpose that we must consider it a document of the first rank for answering the question we are dealing with.

The ontogenetic facts that we gather from this sole survivor of the Acrania are the more valuable for phylogenetic purposes, as paleontology, unfortunately, throws no light whatever on the origin of the Vertebrates. Their invertebrate ancestors were soft organisms without skeleton, and thus incapable of fossilisation, as is still the case with the lowest vertebrates—the Acrania and Cyclostoma. The same applies to the greater part of the Vermalia or worm-like animals, the various classes and orders of which differ so much in structure. The isolated groups of this rich stem are living branches of a huge tree, the greater part of which has long been dead, and we have no fossil evidence as to its earlier form. Nevertheless, some of the surviving groups are very instructive, and give us clear indications of the way in which the Chordonia were developed from the Vermalia, and these from the Cœlenteria.

While we seek the most important of these palingenetic forms among the groups of Cœlenteria and Vermalia, it is understood that not a single one of them must be regarded as an unchanged, or even little changed, copy of the extinct stem-form. One group has retained one feature, another a different feature, of the original organisation, and other organs have been further developed and characteristically modified. Hence here, more than in any other part of our genealogical tree, we have to keep before our mind the full picture of development, and separate the unessential secondary phenomena from the essential and primary. It will be useful first to point out the chief advances in organisation by which the simple Gastræa gradually became the more developed Chordæa.