THE NEW GENEALOGICAL TREE 459 



(2) The Eumetazoa do not begin, as has been generally- 

 believed so far, with the two -layered Coelenterata, but rather 

 with the three-layered Turbellaria and are connected down- 

 wards with the primitive polynuclear Ciliata (the plasmodium 

 theory or the polykaryonic theory). 



(3) The evolution of the Eumetazoa took place without 

 a bifurcation, thus in a direct line and by way of four main 

 phases or stages which should be classified as phyla: the 

 Ameria, Polymeria, Ohgomeria, and the Chordoma (actually: 

 secondary Polymeria). This whole evolution shows clearly 

 a progressive trend which, however, had gone through a 

 stage of retrogression during the phase of the Oligomeria. 

 The scheme of our genealogical tree shows therefore one top 

 only, and not two; in spite of this it must not be considered 

 as a revival of the old type of ''Fkhelle animaky 



(4) The Mollusca have been treated in our study without 

 any hesitation as a class of the Ameria. 



(5) The Cnidaria and the Ctenophora are derived from the 

 Turbellaria; they are therefore treated as classes of the Ameria. 



(6) The Sipunculoida have been separated from the Anne- 

 lida, and thus from the Polymeria; they are now classified 

 among the Oligomeria. 



(7) It has been suggested that the Chaetognatha had evolv- 

 ed by way of neoteny from the Brachiopoda. 



Our first suggestion of the genealogical tree of the animal 

 world (Hadzi, 1944:179) is thus slightly modified now 

 (Fig. 60 and the list of the phyla and classes of Eumetazoa; 

 monograms in parenthesis). A mistake was made by the person 

 who made the drawing of my suggested scheme of the gene- 

 alogical tree as it was reproduced in my article published in 

 the Systematic Zoology (the starting point of the Oligomeria 

 line occurs at the top of the Polymeria line together with 

 the Insecta, and not, as it should, in the Annelida Hne). This 

 mistake was later corrected (Had^i, 1959b). It can be clearly 

 seen that this is a mistake of the draftsman only if we compare 

 this scheme with the sense of the text. 



