THE NEW GENEALOGICAL TREE 353 



I could have satisfied myself by selecting one from the un- 

 fortunately numerous animal systems, a system which w^ould 

 seem to me to agree best with the natural facts, and propose 

 those changes which have now become necessary within the 

 framework of the same system. This was done by the palaeozo- 

 ologistA. H. Miiller (1958:3) who has constructed a genealogi- 

 cal tree of the animal world mainly on the basis of the scheme 

 which was originally outlined by L. Cuenot while at the same 

 time Miiller took into consideration my theory about the 

 Coelenterata ("unter Zugrundelegung der Coelenteraten- 

 theorie von J. Hadzi"). Even such a change of the system is 

 sufficiently radical and it can be expected that the zoologists 

 will prefer to oppose it than to accept it favourably. This, 

 however, can only be interpreted as a good sign because a 

 certain amount of conservatism may not be amiss here. 



Yet such a solution would be insufficient above all because 

 of the fact that the Coelenterata have usually been considered 

 as identical with the Diblastica. Thus the problem of the middle 

 body layer (mesoderm or mesohyl) together with that of the 

 coelom s. str. appears in a new light, a problem which itself 

 is of great importance because of its significance for the main 

 division of the animal groups. All these reasons have induced 

 me to place my reform of the animal world on a broader 

 basis so that in this way we can come closer to our ideal ; to 

 develop a natural, i.e. evolutional, animal system. 



The first difficulties we meet with, however, emerge as 

 soon as we try to determine the position of the animal world 

 (regnum animalium, animalia, zoa, Zoaea,) within the framework 

 of the world of living organism (bionta, organisms). It is not 

 my intention to discuss in detail these difficulties. We can 

 distinguish between three main types of organisms if we take 

 into account the w^ay they feed; the same three types also show 

 certain morphological differences. For reasons that are purely 

 theoretical, and in agreement with our interpretation of the 

 first emergence of the organisms ("of life" as we usually say), 

 we must give the first place to the primarily heterotrophic 



