. The Annals and magazine of natural history; zoology, botany, and geology. 62 Prof. C. Glaus on the The interpretation of the antennae also I am said to havetaken from Prof. l?lay Lankesters writings! In his Cell-layer publication of the year 187i our author has set up thebeautiful hypothesis * of the change of position of the buccalaperture in the Arthropoda in order to explain a second sup-position of his, according to which the prostomiura of theArthro])oda is formed exclusively by the eye-segment. RayLankester consequently assumes that the anteinial segmentswere originally placed metastor
. The Annals and magazine of natural history; zoology, botany, and geology. 62 Prof. C. Glaus on the The interpretation of the antennae also I am said to havetaken from Prof. l?lay Lankesters writings! In his Cell-layer publication of the year 187i our author has set up thebeautiful hypothesis * of the change of position of the buccalaperture in the Arthropoda in order to explain a second sup-position of his, according to which the prostomiura of theArthro])oda is formed exclusively by the eye-segment. RayLankester consequently assumes that the anteinial segmentswere originally placed metastoraially, and only became pro-stomial by a subsequent shifting of position of the oral aper-ture. In what way, and induced by what causes, the forma-tion of the new mouth took place we unfortunately do notlearn ; but we are told that this assumption is /w//y warrantedby Kowalewskys investigations upon Amjy/iioxus, because,according to his observations, the mouth of Amphioxus is thefirst gill-slit or pharyngeal j^erforation on the left side, andhas no relation to the primar
Size: 1891px × 1322px
Photo credit: © Reading Room 2020 / Alamy / Afripics
License: Licensed
Model Released: No
Keywords: ., bookce, booksubjectbotany, booksubjectgeology, booksubjectzoology
