Facts and Arguments for Darwin by Fritz Muller
page 14 of 127 (11%)
page 14 of 127 (11%)
![]() | ![]() |
|
increasing number of known Amphipoda and the splitting of them into
numerous genera thereby induced, compels us to descend to very minute distinctive characters, we must nevertheless hesitate before employing the secondary flagellum as a generic character. The case of Melita Fresnelii therefore cannot excite any doubts as to Darwin's theory. CHAPTER 3. MORPHOLOGY OF CRUSTACEA--NAUPLIUS-LARVAE. If the absence of contradictions among the inferences deduced from them for a narrow and consequently easily surveyed department must prepossess us in favour of Darwin's views, it must be welcomed as a positive triumph of his theory if far-reaching conclusions founded upon it should SUBSEQUENTLY be confirmed by facts, the existence of which science, in its previous state, by no means allowed us to suspect. From many results of this kind upon which I could report, I select as examples, two, which were of particular importance to me, and relate to discoveries the great significance of which in the morphology and classification of the Crustacea will not be denied even by the opponents of Darwin. Considerations upon the developmental history of the Crustacea had led me to the conclusion that, if the higher and lower Crustacea were at all derivable from common progenitors, the former also must once have passed through Nauplius-like conditions. Soon afterwards I discovered Naupliiform larvae of Shrimps ('Archiv fur Naturgeschichte' 1860 1 page 8), and I must admit that this discovery gave me the first decided turn in Darwin's favour. (FIGURE 2. Tanais dubius (?) Kr. female, magnified 25 times, showing the orifice of entrance (x) into the cavity overarched by the carapace, in |
|