4S PnOCEEDlXGS OI- THE 



llio manipulntioii ol' iodine. Is anything known of the funclion 

 of the corrfs])ondiiig gland in the Scorpion ? It may have the 

 same function for aught I know. No! The oulv part of my 

 theory which causes this assertion is that I have had the audacity 

 to make a new gut and so go contrary to the laws of the germ- 

 layer theory ; 1 am content to leave it at that: time will show, I 

 lirmly believe, that the germ-layer theory is absolutely dead. 



1 come now to the observations of Goodrich ; he as well as 

 MacBride seemed, to my astonishment, to hold the view that 

 Amphinxus was on the direct line of ascent to the Cyclostomes, 

 that between Amjihioxus and the Cyclostomes a brain had been 

 developed with organs of sense, the eyes and nose. Surely this is 

 a unique position ! All other morphologists look upon Amplnoxus 

 as a degenerate animal, and degenerate in this precise direction. 

 AV'hat conception has Goodrich of the evolutionary process, of the 

 struggle for existenc(?, of the survival of the fittest ? Just consider 

 it : here is a wretched animal without brains, without eyes, without 

 a nose, victorious in the struggle for existence over the whole of 

 the Invertebrate world. What is the di'iving force ; how could it 

 have taken ])lace? Only, it seems to me, by some beneficent 

 ])ower taking special charge of him and assisting him iu the growth 

 of brain and ot eyes and nose. 



If there is one thing certain, surely it is Gegenbaur's dictum 

 that the brain part is older than the spinal part, and further, the 

 study of neurology shows clearly that in all animals, w'hether 

 vertebrate or invertebrate, the brain is built up in connection with 

 the optic and olfactory senses. No, the Amphioxxis is not the 

 ancestor of the Cyclostomes but, in my opinion, is closely related 

 to the Cyclostomes as seen by its myomeres and the whole of the 

 spinal region. After the Vertebrates had been well established 

 the Amphioxus, in my opinion, arose by a process of degeneration 

 from some ancestor of the Cyclostomes. Goodrich asserts that 

 such a view is impossible, as no trace is seen in the development 

 of the missing organs. Surely that argument is not good enough, 

 for in the Tunicates, where a relationship with the Vertebrates is 

 inferred from their development, such development is only found 

 in certain members of the group and not in all. 



Smith Woodward gave us an interesting discourse on certain 

 early fishes, but I did not gather whether he thought the evidence 

 I had brought forward pointed to the Osteostraci being Cyclo- 

 stomes, though I think he favours that view. He called Blrlenia, 

 Lasthenla, and Thelochis Ostracoderms, and seemed to imply 

 they were of the nature of Elasmobranchs. I cannot see why he 

 called these scanty remains Ostracoderms, and would like to know 

 whether, in his opinion, they were gnathostomatous, for the 

 evidence is strongly in favour of the true Ostracoderms being 

 clyclostomatous. In any case I see no difhculty in the presence 

 of these forms, for surely it was likely enough that in the Upper 

 Silurian seas some fish-like forms should have already progressed 



