The Evolution of Man, V.2 - Ernst Haeckel (little bear else holmelund minarik TXT) 📗

of the five chief sections or ages, as calculated from the average thickness of the strata they contain, as percentages of this, we get something like the following relation:-- Archeolithic or archeozoic (primordial) age : 53 : 6. Paleolithic or paleozoic (primary) age : 32 : 1.

III. Mesolithic or mesozoic (secondary) age : 11 : 5.

Cenolithic or cenozoic (tertiary) age : 2 : 3 Anthropolithic or anthropozoic (quaternary) age : 0 : 5.

Total : 100 : 0.

In any case, the "historical period" is an insignificant quantity compared with the vast length of the preceding ages, in which there was no question of human existence on our planet. Even the important Cenozoic or Tertiary period, in which the first placentals or higher mammals appear, probably amounts to little over two per cent of the whole organic age.

Before we approach our proper task, and, with the aid of our ontogenetic acquirements and the biogenetic law, follow step by step the paleontological development of our animal ancestors, let us glance for a moment at another, and apparently quite remote, branch of science, a general consideration of which will help us in the solving of a difficult problem. I mean the science of comparative philology. Since Darwin gave new life to biology by his theory of selection, and raised the question of evolution on all sides, it has often been pointed out that there is a remarkable analogy between the development of languages and the evolution of species. The comparison is perfectly just and very instructive. We could hardly find a better analogy when we are dealing with some of the difficult and obscure features of the evolution of species. In both cases we find the action of the same natural laws.

All philologists of any competence in their science now agree that all human languages have been gradually evolved from very rudimentary beginnings. The idea that speech is a gift of the gods--an idea held by distinguished authorities only fifty years ago--is now generally abandoned, and only supported by theologians and others who admit no natural development whatever. Speech has been developed simultaneously with its organs, the larynx and tongue, and with the functions of the brain. Hence it will be quite natural to find in the evolution and classification of languages the same features as in the evolution and classification of organic species. The various groups of languages that are distinguished in philology as primitive, fundamental, parent, and daughter languages, dialects, etc., correspond entirely in their development to the different categories which we classify in zoology and botany as stems, classes, orders, families, genera, species, and varieties. The relation of these groups, partly co-ordinate and partly subordinate, in the general scheme is just the same in both cases; and the evolution follows the same lines in both.

When, with the assistance of this tree, we follow the formation of the various languages that have been developed from the common root of the ancient Indo-Germanic tongue, we get a very clear idea of their phylogeny. We shall see at the same time how analogous this is to the development of the various groups of vertebrates that have arisen from the common stem-form of the primitive vertebrate. The ancient Indo-Germanic root-language divided first into two principal stems--the Slavo-Germanic and the Aryo-Romanic. The Slavo-Germanic stem then branches into the ancient Germanic and the ancient Slavo-Lettic tongues; the Aryo-Romanic into the ancient Aryan and the ancient Greco-Roman. If we still follow the genealogical tree of these four Indo-Germanic tongues, we find that the ancient Germanic divides into three branches--the Scandinavian, the Gothic, and the German. From the ancient German came the High German and Low German; to the latter belong the Frisian, Saxon, and modern Low-German dialects. The ancient Slavo-Lettic divided first into a Baltic and a Slav language. The Baltic gave rise to the Lett, Lithuanian, and old-Prussian varieties; the Slav to the Russian and South-Slav in the south-east, and to the Polish and Czech in the west.

We find an equally prolific branching of its two chief stems when we turn to the other division of the Indo-Germanic languages. The Greco-Roman divided into the Thracian (Albano-Greek) and the Italo-Celtic. From the latter came the divergent branches of the Italic (Roman and Latin) in the south, and the Celtic in the north: from the latter have been developed all the British (ancient British, ancient Scotch, and Irish) and Gallic varieties. The ancient Aryan gave rise to the numerous Iranian and Indian languages.

This "comparative anatomy" and evolution of languages admirably illustrates the phylogeny of species. It is clear that in structure and development the primitive languages, mother and daughter languages, and varieties, correspond exactly to the classes, orders, genera, and species of the animal world. In both cases the "natural" system is phylogenetic. As we have been convinced from comparative anatomy and ontogeny, and from paleontology, that all past and living vertebrates descend from a common ancestor, so the comparative study of dead and living Indo-Germanic tongues proves beyond question that they are all modifications of one primitive language. This view of their origin is now accepted by all the chief philologists who have worked in this branch and are unprejudiced.

But the point to which I desire particularly to draw the reader's attention in this comparison of the Indo-Germanic languages with the branches of the vertebrate stem is, that one must never confuse direct descendants with collateral branches, nor extinct forms with living. This confusion is very common, and our opponents often make use of the erroneous ideas it gives rise to for the purpose of attacking evolution generally. When, for instance, we say that man descends from the ape, this from the lemur, and the lemur from the marsupial, many people imagine that we are speaking of the living species of these orders of mammals that they find stuffed in our museums. Our opponents then foist this idea on us, and say, with more astuteness than intelligence, that it is quite impossible; or they ask us, by way of physiological experiment, to turn a kangaroo into a lemur, a lemur into a gorilla, and a gorilla into a man! The demand is childish, and the idea it rests on erroneous. All these living forms have diverged more or less from the ancestral form; none of them could engender the same posterity that the stem-form really produced thousands of years ago.

It is certain that man has descended from some extinct mammal; and we should just as certainly class this in the order of apes if we had it before us. It is equally certain that this primitive ape descended in turn from an unknown lemur, and this from an extinct marsupial. But it is just as clear that all these extinct ancestral forms can only be claimed as belonging to the living order of mammals in virtue of their essential internal structure and their resemblance in the decisive anatomic characteristics of each ORDER. In external appearance, in the characteristics of the GENUS or SPECIES, they would differ more or less, perhaps very considerably, from all living representatives of those orders. It is a universal and natural procedure in phylogenetic development that the stem-forms themselves, with their specific peculiarities, have been extinct for some time. The forms that approach nearest to them among the living species are more or less--perhaps very substantially--different from them. Hence in our phylogenetic inquiry and in the comparative study of the living, divergent descendants, there can only be a question of determining the greater or less remoteness of the latter from the ancestral form. Not a single one of the older stem-forms has continued unchanged down to our time.

We find just the same thing in comparing the various dead and living languages that have developed from a common primitive tongue. If we examine our genealogical tree of the Indo-Germanic languages in this light, we see at once that all the older or parent tongues, of which we regard the living varieties of the stem as divergent daughter or grand-daughter languages, have been extinct for some time. The Aryo-Romanic and the Slavo-Germanic tongues have completely disappeared; so also the Aryan, the Greco-Roman, the Slavo-Lettic, and the ancient Germanic. Even their daughters and grand-daughters have been lost; all the living Indo-Germanic languages are only related in the sense that they are divergent descendants of common stem-forms. Some forms have diverged more, and some less, from the original stem-form.

This easily demonstrable fact illustrates very well the analogous case of the origin of the vertebrate species. Phylogenetic comparative philology here yields a strong support to phylogenetic comparative zoology. But the one can adduce more direct evidence than the other, as the paleontological material of philology--the old monuments of the extinct tongue--have been preserved much better than the paleontological material of zoology, the fossilised bones and imprints of vertebrates.

We may, however, trace man's genealogical tree not only as far as the lower mammals, but much further--to the amphibia, to the shark-like primitive fishes, and, in fine, to the skull-less vertebrates that closely resembled the Amphioxus. But this must not be understood in the sense that the existing Amphioxus, or the sharks or amphibia of to-day, can give us any idea of the external appearance of these remote stem-forms. Still less must it be thought that the Amphioxus or any actual shark, or any living species of amphibia, is a real ancestral form of the higher vertebrates and man. The statement can only rationally mean that the living forms I have referred to are COLLATERAL LINES that are much more closely related to the extinct stem-forms, and have retained the resemblance much better, than any other animals we know. They are still so like them in regard to their distinctive internal structure that we should put them in the same class with the extinct forms if we had these before us. But no direct descendants of these earlier forms have remained unchanged. Hence we must entirely abandon the idea of finding direct ancestors of the human race in their characteristic EXTERNAL FORM among the living species of animals. The essential and distinctive features that still connect living forms more or less closely with the extinct common stem-forms lie in the internal structure, not the external appearance. The latter has been much modified by adaptation. The former has been more or less preserved by heredity.

Comparative anatomy and ontogeny prove beyond question that man is a true vertebrate, and, therefore, man's special genealogical tree must be connected with that of the other Vertebrates, which spring from a common root with him. But we have also many important grounds in comparative anatomy and ontogeny for assuming a common origin for all the Vertebrates. If the general theory of evolution is correct, all the Vertebrates, including man, come from a single common ancestor, a long-extinct "Primitive Vertebrate." Hence the genealogical tree of the Vertebrates is at the same time that of the human race.

Our task, therefore, of constructing man's genealogy becomes the larger aim of discovering the genealogy of the entire vertebrate stem. As we now know from the comparative anatomy and ontogeny of the Amphioxus and the Ascidia, this is in turn connected with the genealogical tree of the Invertebrates (directly with that of the Vermalia), but has no direct connection with the independent stems of the Articulates, Molluscs, and Echinoderms. If we do thus follow our ancestral tree through various stages down to the lowest worms, we come inevitably to the Gastraea, that most instructive form that gives the clearest possible picture of an animal with two germinal layers. The Gastraea itself has originated from the simple multicellular vesicle, the Blastaea, and this in turn must have been evolved from the lowest circle of unicellular animals, to which we give the name of Protozoa. We have already considered the most important primitive type of these, the unicellular Amoeba, which is extremely instructive when compared with the human ovum. With this we reach the lowest of the solid data to which we are to apply our biogenetic