In the majority of the Coelomata the coelomic rudiment does not arise by the simple differentiation of a pre-existing organ, and there is considerable variation in its method of formation. Speaking generally, it may be said to arise by the differentiation of a blastema (see above), which develops at an early stage as a nuclear proliferation from one or more growth-centres in one or both of the primary layers. It appears in this tissue as a sac or as a series of sacs, which become transformed into the body-cavity (except in the Arthropoda), into the renal organs (with the possible exception, again, of some Arthropoda), and into the reproductive glands. In metamerically segmented animals the appearance of the cavities of these sacs is synchronous with, and indeed determines, the appearance of metameric segmentation. In all segmented animals in which the mesoderm (coelomic rudiment) appears as a continuous sheet or band of tissue on each side of the body, the coelomic cavity makes its first appearance not as a continuous space on each side, which later becomes divided up into the structures called mesoblastic somites, but as a series of paired spaces round which the coelomic tissue arranges itself in an epithelial manner. In the Vertebrata, it is true, the ventral portion of the coelom appears at first as a continuous space, at any rate behind the region of the two anterior pairs of somites, but in the dorsal portion the coelomic cavity is developed in the usual way, the coelomic tissue becoming transformed into the muscle plates and rudimentary renal tubules of the later stages. With regard to this ventral portion of the coelom in Vertebrata, it is to be noticed that the cavity in it never becomes divided up, but always remains continuous, forming the perivisceral portion of the coelom. The probable explanation of this peculiarity in the development of the Vertebrate coelom, as compared with that of Amphioxus and other segmented animals, is that the segmented stage of the ventral portion of the coelom is omitted. This explanation derives some support from the fact that even in animals in which the coelom is at its first appearance wholly segmented, it frequently happens that in the adult the perivisceral portion of it is unsegmented, i.e. it loses during development the segmentation which it at first possesses. This happens in many Annelida and in Amphioxus. The lesson, then, which the early history of the coelom in segmented animals teaches is, that however the coelomic cavity first makes its appearance, whether by evaginations from the primitive enteron, or by the hollowing out of a solid blastema-like tissue which has developed from one or both of the primary layers, it is in its first origin segmented, and forms the basis on which the segments of the adult are moulded. In Arthropoda the origin of the coelom is similar to that of Annelids, but its history is not completely known in any group, with the exception of Peripatus. In this genus it develops no perivisceral portion, as in other groups, but gives rise solely to the nephridia and to the reproductive organs. It is probable, though not certainly proved, that the history of the coelom in other Arthropods is essentially similar to that of Peripatus, allowance being made for the fact that the nephridial portion does not attain full development in those forms which are without nephridia in the adult.
With regard to the development of the vascular system, little can be said here, except that it appears to arise from the spaces of the mesoblastic reticulum. When this reticulum is sparse or so delicate as to give way in manipulation, these spaces appear to be represented by a continuous space which in the earliest stages of development is frequently spoken of as the blastocoel or segmentation cavity. They acquire special epithelial walls, and form the main trunks and network of smaller vessels found in animals with a canalicular vascular system, or the large sinus-like spaces characteristic of animals with a haemocoelic body-cavity.
The existence of a phase at the beginning of life during which a young animal acquires its equipment by a process of growth of the germ is of course intelligible enough; such a phase is seen in the formation of buds, and in the Transient embryonic organs. sexual reproduction of both animals and plants. The remarkable point is that while in most cases this embryonic growth is a direct and simple process—e.g. animal and plant buds, embryonic development of plant seeds—in many cases of sexual reproduction of animals it is not direct, and the embryonic phase shows stages of structure which seem to possess a meaning other than that of being merely phases of growth. The fact that these stages of structure through which the embryo passes sometimes present for a short time features which are permanent in other members of the same group, adds very largely to the interest of the phenomenon and necessitates its careful examination. This may be divided into two heads: (1) in relation to embryos, (2) in relation to larvae. So far as embryos are concerned, we shall limit ourselves mainly to a consideration of the Vertebrata, because in them are found most instances of that remarkable phenomenon, the temporary assumption by certain organs of the embryo of stages of structure which are permanent in other members of the same group. As is well known, the embryos of the higher Vertebrata possess in the structure of the pharynx and of the heart and vascular system certain features—namely, paired pharyngeal apertures, a simple tubular heart, and a single ventral aorta giving off right and left a number of branches which pass between the pharyngeal apertures—which permanently characterize those organs in fishes. The skeleton, largely bony in the adult, passes through a stage in which it is entirely without bone, and consists mainly of cartilage—the form which it permanently possesses in certain fishes. Further, the Vertebrate embryo possesses for a time a notochord, a segmented muscular system, a continuity between the pericardium and the posterior part of the perivisceral cavity—all features which characterize certain groups of Pisces in the adult state. Instances of this kind might be multiplied, for the work of anatomists and embryologists has of late years been largely devoted to adding to them. Examples of embryonic characters which are not found in the adults of other Vertebrates are the following:—At a certain stage of development the central nervous system has the form of a groove in the skin, there is a communication at the hind end of the body between the neural and alimentary canals, the mouth aperture has at first the form of an elongated slit, the growing end of the Wolffian duct is in some groups continuous with the ectoderm, and the retina is at one stage a portion of the wall of the medullary canal. In the embryos of the lower Vertebrates many other instances of the same interesting character might be mentioned; for instance, the presence of a coelomic sac close to the eye, of another in the jaw, and of a third near the ear (Elasmobranchs), the opening of the Müllerian duct into the front end of the Wolffian duct, and the presence of an aperture of communication between the muscle-plate coelom and the nephridial coelom.
The interest attaching to these remarkable facts is much increased by the explanation which has been given of them. That explanation, which is a deduction from the theory of evolution, is to the effect that the peculiar embryonic structures and relations just mentioned are due to the retention by the embryo of features which, once possessed by the adult ancestor, have been lost in the course of evolution. This explanation, which at once suggests itself when we are dealing with structures Recapitulation theory. actually present in adult members of other groups, does not so obviously apply to those features which are found in no adult animal whatsoever. Nevertheless it has been extended to them, because they are of a nature which it is not impossible to suppose might have existed in a working animal. Now this explanation, which, it will be observed, can only be entertained on the assumption that the evolution theory is true, has been still further extended by embryologists in a remarkable and frequently unjustifiable manner, and has been applied to all embryonic processes, finally leading to the so-called recapitulation theory, which asserts that embryonic history is a shortened recapitulation of ancestral history, or, to use the language of modern zoology, that the ontogeny or development of the individual contains an abbreviated record of the phylogeny or development of the race. A theory so important and far-reaching as this requires very careful examination. When we come to look for the facts upon which it is based, we find that they are non-existent, for the ancestors of all living animals are dead, and we have no means of knowing what they were like. It is true there are fossil remains of animals which have lived, but these are so imperfect as to be practically useless for the present requirements. Moreover, if they were perfectly preserved, there would be no evidence to show that they were ancestors of the animals now living. They might have been animals which have become extinct and left no descendants. Thus the explanation ordinarily given of the embryonic structures referred to is purely a deduction from the evolution theory. Indeed, it is even less than this, for all that can be said is something of this kind: if the evolution theory is true, then it in conceivable that the reason why the embryo of a bird passes through a stage in which its pharynx presents some resemblance to that of a fish is that a remote ancestor of the bird possessed a pharynx with lateral apertures such as are at present found in fishes.
But the explanation is sometimes pushed even further, and it is said that these pharyngeal apertures of the ancestral bird had the same respiratory function as the corresponding structures in modern fishes. That this is going too far a little reflection will show. For if it be admitted that all so-called vestigial structures had once the same function as the homologous structures when fully developed in other animals, it becomes necessary to admit that male mammals must once have had fully developed mammary glands and suckled the young, that female mammals formerly were provided with a functional penis, and that in species in which the females have a trace of the secondary sexual characters of the male the latter were once common to both sexes. The second and more extended form of the explanation plainly introduces a considerable amount of contentious matter, and it will be advisable, in the first instance, at any rate, to confine ourselves to a critical examination of the less ambitious conception. This explanation obviously implies the view that in the course of evolution the tendency has been for structures to persist in the embryo after they have been lost in the adult. Is there any justification for this view? It is clearly impossible to get any direct evidence, because, as explained above, we have no knowledge of the ancestors of living animals; but if we assume the evolution theory to be true, there is a certain amount of indirect evidence which is distinctly opposed to the view. As is well known, living birds are without teeth, but it is generally assumed that their edentulous condition has been comparatively recently acquired, and that they are descended from animals which, at a time not very remote from the present, possessed teeth. Considering the resemblance of birds to other terrestrial vertebrates, and the fact that extinct birds, not greatly differing from birds now living, are known to have had teeth, it must be allowed that there is some warrant for the assumption. Yet in no single case has it been certainly shown that any trace of teeth has been developed in the embryo. The same remark applies to a large number of similar cases; for instance, the reduced digits of the bird’s hand and foot and the limbs of snakes. Moreover, organs which are supposed to have become recently reduced and functionless in the adult are also reduced in the embryo; for instance, digits 3 and 4 of the horse’s foot, the hind limbs of whales (G.A. Guldberg and F. Nansen, “On the Development and Structure of Whales,” Bergen Museum, 1894), the spiracle of Elasmobranchii. In fact, considerations of this kind distinctly point to the view that any tendency to the reduction or enlargement of an organ in the adult is shared approximately to the same extent by the embryo. But there are undoubtedly some, though not many, cases in which organs which were presumably present in an ancestral adult have persisted in the embryo of the modern form. As an instance may be mentioned the presence in whale-bone whales of imperfectly formed teeth, which are absorbed comparatively early in foetal life (Julin, Arch. biologie, i., 1880, p. 75).
It therefore becomes necessary to inquire why in some cases an organ is retained by the embryo after its loss by the adult, whereas in other cases it dwindles and presumably disappears simultaneously in the embryo and the adult. The whole question is examined and discussed by the present writer in the Quarterly Journal of Microscopical Science, xxxvi., 1894, p. 35, and the conclusions there reached are as follows:—A disappearing adult organ is not retained in a relatively greater development by an organism in the earlier stages of its individual growth unless it is of functional importance to the young form. In cases in which the whole development is embryonic this rarely happens, because the conditions of embryonic life are so different from free life that functional embryonic organs are usually organs sui generis, e.g. the placenta, amnion, &c., which cannot be traced to a modification of organs previously present in the adult. It does, however, appear to have happened sometimes, and as an instance of it may be mentioned the ductus arteriosus of the Sauropsidan and Mammalian embryo. On the other hand, when there is a considerable period of larval life, it does appear that there is a strong case for thinking that organs which have been lost by the adult may be retained and made use of by the larva. The best-known example that can be given of this is the tadpole of the frog. Here we find organs, viz. gills and gill-slits, which are universally regarded as having been attributes of all terrestrial Vertebrata in an earlier and aquatic condition, and we also notice that their retention is due to their being useful on account of the supposed ancient conditions of life having been retained. Many other instances, more or less plausible, of a like retention of ancestral features by larvae might be mentioned, and it must be conceded that there are strong reasons for supposing that larvae often retain traces, more or less complete, of ancestral stages of structure. But this admission does not carry with it any obligation to accept the widely prevalent view that larval history can in any way be regarded as a recapitulation of ancestral history. Far from it, for larvae in retaining some ancestral features are in no way different from adults; they only differ from adults in the features which they have retained. Both larvae and adults retain ancestral features, and both have been modified by an adaptation to their respective conditions of life which has ever been becoming more perfect.
The conclusion, then, has been reached, that whereas larvae frequently retain traces of ancestral stages of adult structure, embryos will rarely do so; and we are confronted again with the question, How are we to account for the presence in the embryo of numerous functionless organs which cannot be explained otherwise than as having been inherited from a previous condition in which they were functional? The answer is that the only organs of this kind which have been retained are organs which have been retained by the larvae of the ancestors after they have been lost by the adult, and have become in this way impressed upon the development. As an illustration taken from current natural history of the manner in which larval characters are in actual process of becoming embryonic may be mentioned the case of the viviparous salamander (Salamander atra), in which the gills, &c., are all developed but never used, the animal being born without them. In other and closely allied species of salamander there is a considerable period of larval life in which the gills and gill-slits are functional, but in this species the larval stage, for the existence of which there was a distinct reason, viz. the entirely aquatic habits of life in the young state, has become at one stroke embryonic by its simple absorption into the embryonic period. The view, then, that embryonic development is essentially a recapitulation of ancestral history must be given up; it contains only a few references to ancestral history, namely, those which have been preserved probably in a much modified form by previous larvae.
We must now pass to the consideration of another supposed law of embryology—the so-called law of v. Baer. This generalization is usually stated as follows:—Embryos of different species of the same group are more alike than Law of v. Baer. adults, and the resemblances are greater the younger the embryo examined. Great importance has been attached to this generalization by embryologists and naturalists, and it is very widely accepted. Nevertheless, it is open to serious criticism. If it were true, we should expect to find that embryos of closely similar species would be indistinguishable, but this is notoriously not the case. On the contrary, they often differ more than do the adults, in support of which statement the embryos of the different species of Peripatus may be referred to. The generalization undoubtedly had its origin in the fact that there is what may be called a family resemblance between embryos, but this resemblance, which is by no means exact, is purely superficial, and does not extend to anatomical detail. On the contrary, it may be fairly argued that in some cases embryos of widely dissimilar members of the same group present anatomical differences of a higher morphological value than do the adults (see Sedgwick, loc. cit.), and, as stated above the embryos of closely allied animals are distinguishable at all stages of development, though the distinguishing features are not the same as those which distinguish the adults. To say that the development of the organism and of its component parts is a progress from the simple to the complex is to state a truism, but to state that it is also a progress from the general to the special is to go altogether beyond the facts. The bipinnaria larva of an echinoderm, the trochosphere larva of an annelid, the blastodermic vesicle of a mammal are all as highly specialized as their respective adults, but the specialization is for a different purpose, and of a different kind to that which characterizes the adult.
In its scientific and systematic form embryology may be considered as having only taken birth within the last century, although the germ from which it sprung was already formed nearly half a century earlier. The ancients, History of embryology. it is true, as we see by the writings of Aristotle and Galen, pursued the subject with interest, and the indefatigable Greek naturalist and philosopher had even made continued series of observations on the progressive stages of development in the incubated egg, and on the reproduction of various animals; but although, after the revival of learning, various anatomists and physiologists from time to time made contributions to the knowledge of the foetal structure in its larger organs, yet from the minuteness of the observations required for embryological research, it was not till the microscope came into use for the investigation of organic structure that any intimate knowledge was attained of the nature of organogenesis. It is not to be wondered at, therefore, that during a long period, in this as in other branches of physical inquiry, vague speculations took the place of direct observation and more solid information. This is apparent in most of the works treating of generation during the 16th and part of the 17th centuries.[2]
Harvey was the first to give, in the middle of the latter century, a new life and direction to investigation of this subject, by his discovery of the connexion between the cicatricula of the yolk and the rudiments of the chick, and by his faithful description of the successive stages of development as observed in the incubated egg, as well as of the progress of gestation in some Mammalia. He had also the merit of fixing the attention of physiologists upon general laws of development as deduced from actual observation of the phenomena, by the enunciation of two important propositions, viz.—(1) that all animals are produced out of ova, and (2) that the organs of the embryo arise by new formation, or epigenesis, and not by mere enlargement out of a pre-existing invisible condition (Exercitationes de generatione animalium, Amstelodami, 1651). Harvey’s observations, however, were aided only by the use of magnifying glasses (perspecillae), probably of no great power, and he saw nothing of the earliest appearances of the embryo in the first thirty-six hours, and believed the blood and the heart to be the parts first formed.