506 THE ANATOMY OF INV^ERTEBRATED ANIMALS. 



which characterizes the Echuiodermata is the fact that the 

 alimentary c:\nal of the Echinopaedium gives rise to an en- 

 terosoele, which again is subdivided into two systems of cav- 

 ities, on3 ambulacral and the other peritoneal, and that the 

 mesoblast becomes modiiied in accordance with the arrange- 

 ment of these systems. The enterocoele may be formed by- 

 one diverticuhim or by three. Jn the former case, the first 

 formed becomes subdivided into three, of which one is ante- 

 rior, and two lateral, as in the latter case. The lateral di- 

 verticula give rise to the peritoneal cavity and its lining ; 

 the medium diverticulum is converted into the circular ambu- 

 lacral vessel and its dependencies ; and it is in consequence 

 of the radiating disposition of the latter, and of the nerves 

 and muscles which are related to it, that the Echinoderm pos- 

 sesses so much radial symmetry as it displays. It is clear, 

 therefore, that the radial symmetry of the Echinoderm results 

 from the secondary modification of an animal, which is primi- 

 tively bilaterally symmetrical ; and that the apparently radi- 

 ate Echhms^ or Star-fish, is a specially modified " Worm " 

 (using that term in its widest sense), in the same sense as the 

 apparently radiate Coronula is a modified Arthropod. 



Haeckel goes farther than this, and supposes that each ray 

 of a Sbar-fish or Ophiurid, for example, represents a Worm, 

 and that the Echinoderm consists of coalesced vermiform 

 buds, developed in the interior of the Echinopaedium. I 

 must confess my inability to see that this hypothesis is sup- 

 ported by valid reasons. On the contrary, the more closely 

 one compares the structure of the ray of an Echinoderm with 

 the body of any known Annelid, the more difficult does it ap- 

 pear to me to be to find any real likeness between the two. 



In order to find any analogy for the production of the 

 Echinoderm within the Echinopasdium, on the contrary, it ap- 

 pears to me that we must look to the lower, and not to the 

 liigher, morphological types. Among the Hydrozoa,, nothing 

 is commoner than the distribution of the functions of life be- 

 tween two distinct zooids, one of which alone develops repro- 

 ductive organs. In the former — the liydranth — radial sym- 



scopical Society in the same year, T expressed the view tbat tlie Roti/ira " are 

 the permanent forms of Echinoderm larvjii, and hold tlie same rehition to the 

 Echinoderms that the Hydriform Polypi hold to the Medusa^," and that they 

 "connect the Echinoderms with the'Nematid\» and the Nematoid Worms." 

 When they were published, those who did not ignore these views, ridiculed 

 tliem. Nevertheless, though somewhat crudely expressed, I think it will be 

 admitted tliat they have been substantially justified by the progress of knowl- 

 edge during the last Quarter of a century. "^ 



