246 THE EVOLUTION OF THE METAZOA 



Kiihrj, 1939) have emphasized even before the publication of 

 my study, that the Anthozoa with a primary bilaterally symme- 

 tric organization should be regarded as the most primitive 

 Cnidaria, even if these scholars did not use quite the same 

 words. To the best of my knowledge there were only a few 

 neo-zoologists who, prior to the publication of my studies, 

 expressed the idea of a primitive character for bilateral sym- 

 metry in Anthozoa; thus Haacke (1879 and 1893) who 

 suggested, that the primitive gtoup "zoophyta" were bila- 

 terally symmetrical, and that radial symmetry had developed 

 due to the transition to the sessile way of life. F. Pax (1910), 

 an expert in Anthozoa, must also be mentioned; he wrote 

 very cautiously, and limiting himself to Anthozoa, as fol- 

 lows, "Man konnte daher geneigt sein, die Aktinien von 

 fusslosen, kriechenden oder grabenden Formen mit bilat- 

 eraler Symmetric abzuleiten, die spater mit dem Ubergange 

 zur festsitzenden Lebensweise eine radiale Symmetric er- 

 worben haben." Pax believed that the subsequent evolution 

 depended on the type of development of the aboral end of the 

 animal body (whether a foot disc was present or not). In the 

 study on Hex^corallia which was written by Pax and which 

 appeared in the large German work Handbtich derZoologi; (edited 

 by Kiikenthal-Krumbach), Pax did not express this his opinion, 

 clearly because he had to comply with the systematic division 

 that had already been determined by the editors. In 1954 

 Pax agreed entirely with my suggestion. 



Jagersten (1955 and 1959) has accepted my views regard- 

 ing the priority of Anthozoa. It is true that Jagersten did 

 not do this as a cnidariologist, nor for the reasons which have 

 induced me to consider Anthozoa as the first group of 

 Cnidaria, but rather because he has found my interpretation 

 suits his theory of a bilaterogastraea, a theory which I will 

 return to later. Marcus (1958:26) adopts the interpretation we 

 find in Jagersten's work. 



Kastner, even if he is under the influence of the fascinat- 

 ing ideas that had been formiulated by Haeckel, has never- 



