the Week of Proper 7 / Ordinary 12
free while helping to build churches and support pastors in Uganda.
Click here to learn more!
Bible Encyclopedias
Arthropoda
1911 Encyclopedia Britannica
a name, denoting the possession by certain animals of jointed limbs, now applied to one of the three sub-phyla into which one of the great phyla (or primary branches) of coelomocoelous animals - the Appendiculata - is divided; the other two being respectively the Chaetopoda and the Rotifera. The word "Arthropoda " was first used in classification by Siebold and Stannius (Lehrbuch der vergleich. Anatomic, Berlin, 1845) as that of a primary division of animals, the others recognized in that treatise being Protozoa, Zoophyta, Vermes, Mollusca and Vertebrata. The names Condylopoda and Gnathopoda have been subsequently proposed for the same group. The word refers to the jointing of the chitinized exo-skeleton of the limbs or lateral appendages of the animals included, which are, roughly speaking, the Crustacea, Arachnida, Hexapoda (so-called " true insects "), Centipedes and Millipedes. This primary group was set up to indicate the residuum of Cuvier's Articulata when his class Annelides (the modern Chaetopoda) was removed from that embranchement. At the same time C. T. E. von Siebold and H. Stannius renovated the group Vermes of Linnaeus, and placed in it the Chaetopods and the parasitic worms of Cuvier, besides the Rotifers and Turbellarian worms.1 The result of the knowledge gained in the last quarter of the 19th century has been to discredit altogether the group Vermes (see Worm), thus set up and so largely accepted by German writers even at the present day. We have, in fact, returned very nearly to Cuvier's conception of a great division or branch, which he called Articulata, including the Arthropoda and the Chaetopoda (Annelides of Lamarck, a name adopted by Cuvier), and differing from it only by the inclusion of the Rotif era. The name Articulata, introduced by Cuvier, has not been retained by subsequent writers. The same, or nearly the same, assemblage of animals has been called Entomozoaria by de Blainville (1822), Arthrozoa by Burmeister (1843), Entomozoa or Annellata by H. Milne-Edwards (1855), and Annulosa by Alexander M ` Leay (1819), who was followed by Huxley (1856). The character pointed to by all these terms is that of a ring-like segmentation of the body. This, however, is not the character to which we now ascribe the chief weight as evidence of the genetic affinity and monophyletic (uni-ancestral) origin of the Chaetopods, Rotifers and Arthropods. It is the existence in each ring of the body of a pair of hollow lateral appendages or parapodia, moved by intrinsic muscles and penetrated by bloodspaces, which is the leading fact indicating the affinities of these great sub-phyla, and uniting them as blood-relations. The 1 The group Arthropoda itself,th usconstituted,wasprecisely identical in its area with the Insecta of Linnaeus, the Entoma of Aristotle. But the word " Insect " had become limited since the days of Linnaeus to the Hexapod Pterygote forms, to the exclusion of his Aptera. Lamarck's penetrating genius is chiefly responsible for the shrinkage of the word Insecta, since it was he who, forty years after Linnaeus's death, set up and named the two great classes Crustacea and Arachnida (included by Linnaeus under Insecta as the order " Aptera "), assigning to them equal rank with the remaining Insecta of Linnaeus, for which he proposed the very appropriate class-name " Hexapoda." Lamarck, however, appears not to have insisted on this name Hexapoda, and so the class of Pterygote Hexapods came to retain the group-name Insecta, which is, historically or etymologically, no more appropriate to them than it is to the classes Crustacea and Arachnida. The tendency to retain the original name of an old and comprehensive group for one of the fragments into which such group becomes divided by the advance of knowledge - instead of keeping the name for its logical use as a comprehensive term, including the new divisions, each duly provided with a new name - is most curiously illustrated in the history of the word physiology. Cicero says, " Physiologia naturae ratio," and such was the meaning of the name Physiologus, given to a cyclopaedia of what was known and imagined about earth, sea, sky, birds, beasts and fishes, which for a thousand years was the authoritative source of information on these matters, and was translated into every European tongue. With the revival of learning, however, first one and then another special study became recognized - anatomy, botany, zoology, mineralogy, until at last the great comprehensive term physiology was bereft of all its once-included subject-matter, excepting the study of vital processes pursued by the more learned members of the medical profession. Professional tradition and an astute perception on their part of the omniscience suggested by the terms, have left the medical men in Englishspeaking lands in undisturbed but illogical possession of the words physiology, physic and physician.
Periodical and commercial. parapodia (fig. 8) of the marine branchiate worms are the same things genetically as the " legs " of Crustacea and Insects (figs. I o and 11). Hence the term Appendiculata was introduced by Lankester (preface to the English edition of Gegenbaur's Comparative Anatomy, 1878) to indicate the group. The relationships of the Arthropoda thus stated are shown in the subjoined table: - (Sub-phylum r. Rotifera. Phylum - Appendiculata ." 2. Chaetopoda.
3. Arthropoda.
The Rotifera are characterized by the retention of what appears in Molluscs and Chaetopods as an embryonic organ, the velum or ciliated prae-oral girdle, as a locomotor and foodseizing apparatus, and by the reduction of the muscular parapodia to a rudimentary or non-existent condition in all present surviving forms except Pedalion. In many important respects they are degenerate - reduced both in size and elaboration of structure.
The Chaetopoda are characterized by the possession of horny epidermic chaetae embedded in the integument and moved by muscles. Probably the chaetae preceded the development of parapodia, and by their concentration and that of the muscular bundles connected with them at the sides of each segment, led directly to the evolution of the parapodia. The parapodia of Chaetopoda are never coated with dense chitin, and are, therefore, never converted into jaws; the primitive " head-lobe " or prostomium persists, and frequently carries eyes and sensory tentacles. Further, in all members of the sub-phylum Chaetopoda the relative position of the prostomium, mouth and peristomium or first ring of the body, retains its primitive character. We do not find in Chaetopoda that parapodia, belonging to primitively post-oral rings or body-segments (called " somites," as proposed by H. Milne-Edwards), pass in front of the mouth by adaptational shifting of the oral aperture. (See, however, 8.) The Arthropoda might be better called the " Gnathopoda," since their distinctive character is, that one or more pairs of appendages behind the mouth are densely chitinized and turned (fellow to fellow on opposite sides) towards one another so as to act as jaws. This is facilitated by an important general change in the position of the parapodia; their basal attachments are all more ventral in position than in the Chaetopoda, and tend to approach from the two sides towards the mid-ventral line. Very usually (but not in the Onychophora = Peripatus) all the parapodia are plated with chitin secreted by the epidermis, and divided into a series of joints - giving the " arthropodous " or hinged character.
There are other remarkable and distinctive features of structure which hold the Arthropoda together, and render it impossible to conceive of them as having a polyphyletic origin, that is to say, as having originated separately by two or three distinct lines of descent from lower animals; and, on the contrary, establish the view that they have been developed from a single line of primitive Gnathopods which arose by modification of parapodiate annulate worms not very unlike some of the existing Chaetopods. These additional features are the following - (1) All existing Arthropoda have an ostiate heart and have undergone " phleboedesis," that is to say, the peripheral portions of the blood-vascular system are not fine tubes as they are in the Chaetopoda and as they were in the hypothetical ancestors of Arthropoda, but are swollen so as to obliterate to a large extent the coelom, whilst the separate veins entering the dorsal vessel or heart have coalesced, leaving valvate ostia (see fig. r) by which the blood passes from a pericardial blood-sinus formed by the fused veins into the dorsal vessel or heart (see Lankester's Zoology, part ii., introductory chapter, lgoo), The only exception to this is in the case of minute degenerate forms where the heart has disappeared altogether. The rigidity of the integument caused by the deposition of dense chitin upon it is intimately connected with the physiological activity and form of all the internal organs, and is undoubtedly correlated with the total disappearance of the circular muscular layer of the body-wall present in Chaetopods. (2) In all existing Arthropoda the region in front of the mouth is no longer formed by the primitive prostomium or head-lobe, but one or more segments, originally post-oral, with their appendages have passed in front of the mouth (prosthomeres). At the same time the prostomium and its appendages cease to be recognizable as distinct elements of the head. The brain no longer consists solely of the nerve-ganglion-mass proper to the prostomial lobe, as in Chaetopoda, but is a composite (syncerebrum) produced by the fusion of this and the nerve-ganglion-masses proper to the prosthomeres or segments which pass forwards, whilst their parapodia (= appendages) become converted into eye-stalks, and antennae, or more rarely grasping organs. (3) As in Chaetopoda, coelomic funnels (coelomoducts) may occur right and left After Lankester, Q. J. Mic. Sci. vol. xxxiv., 1893.
FIG. I. - Diagram to show the gradual formation of the Arthropod pericardial blood-sinus and "ostiate " heart by the swelling up (phleboedesis) of the veins entering the dorsal vessel or heart of a Chaetopod-like ancestor. The figure on the left represents the condition in a Chaetopod, that on the right the condition in an Arthropod. the other two are hypothetical intermediate forms.
as pairs in each ring-like segment or somite of the body, and some of these are in all cases retained as gonoducts and often as renal excretory organs (green glands, coxal glands of Arachnida, not crural glands, which are epidermal in origin); but true nephridia, genetically identical with the nephridia of earthworms, do not occur (on the subject of coelom, coelomoducts and nephridia, see the introductory chapter of part ii. of Lankester's Treatise on Zoology). Tabular Statement of the Grades, Classes and Sub-classes of the Arthropoda. - It will be convenient now to give in the clearest form a statement of the larger subdivisions of the Arthropoda which it seems necessary to recognize at the present day. The justification of the arrangement adopted will form the substance of the rest of the present article. The orders included in the various classes are not discussed here, but are treated of under the following titles: - Peripatus (Onychophora), Centipede and Millipede (Myriapoda), Hexapoda (Insecta), Arachnida and Crustacea.
SUB-Phylum Arthropoda (of the Phylum Appendiculata). Grade A. Hyparthropoda (hypothetical forms connecting ancestors of Chaetopoda with those of Arthropoda).
Grade B. Protarthropoda.
Class Onychophora.
Ex. Peripatus.
Grade C. Euarthropoda.
Class I. Diplopoda.
Ex
Julus. Class 2. Arachnida.
Grade a. Anomomeristica.
Ex
Phacops. Grade b. Nomomeristica.
(a) Pantopoda. Ex. - Pycnogonum.
(b) Euarachnida.
Ex
Limulus, Scorpio, Mygale, Acarus. Class 3. Crustacea.
Grade a. Entomostraca.
Ex
A pus, Branchipus, Cyclops, Balanus. Grade b. Malacostraca.
Ex
Nebalia, Astacus, Oniscus, Gammarus. Class 4. Chilopoda. Ex. - Scolopendra.
Class 5. Hexapoda (syn. Insecta Pterygota).
Ex
Locusta, Phryganea, Papilio, Apis, Musca, Cimex, Lucanus, Machilis. Incertae sedis - Tardigrada, Pentastomidae (degenerate forms).
The Segmentation of the Body of Arthropoda
The body of the Arthropoda is more or less clearly divided into a series of rings, segments, or somites which can be shown to be repetitions one of another, possessing identical parts and organs which may be larger or smaller, modified in shape or altogether suppressed in one somite as compared with another. A similar constitution of the body is more clearly seen in the Chaetopod worms. In the Vertebrata also a repetition of units of structure (myotomes, vertebrae, &c.) - which is essentially of the same nature as the repetition in Arthropods and Chaetopods, but in many respects subject to peculiar developments - is observed. The name "metamerism " has been given to this structural phenomenon because the " meres," or repeated units, follow one another in line. Each such " mere " is often called a metamere." A satisfactory consideration of the structure of the Arthropods demands a knowledge of what may be called the laws of metamerism, and reference should be made to the article under that head.
The Theory of the Arthropod Head
The Arthropod head is a tagma or group of somites which differ in number and in their relative position in regard to the mouth, in different ..... .... classes. In a simple Chaetopod (fig. 2) the head consists of the first somite only; that somite is perforated by the mouth, and is provided with a prostomium or prae-oral lobe. The prostomium is essentially a part or outgrowth of the first somite, and cannot be regarded as itself a somite. It gives rise to a nerve-ganglion mass, the prostomial ganglion. In the marine Chaetopods (the Polychaeta) (fig. 3), we find the same essential structure, but the prostomium may give rise to two or more tactile tentacles, From Goodrich, Q. T. Micr. and to the vesicular eyes. The somites have Sci. vol. xi. p. 247. well-marked parapodia, and the second and 2. - Diagram third, as well as the first, may give rise to FIG.
of the head and adtentacles which are directed forward, and jacen t region of an Olithus contribute to form " the head." But gochaet Chaetopod. the mouth remains as an inpushing of the goc Pr, The prostomium. wall of the first somite.
m, The mouth. The Arthropoda are all distinguished from, The prostomial the Chaetopoda by the fact that the head A ganglion-mass or consists of one or more somites which lie in archi cerebrum. front of the mouth (now called prosthomeres), I, II, III, coelom of as well as of one or more somites behind it the first, second (opisthomeres). The first of the post-oral th and third somites. somites invariably has its parapodia modi fied so as to form a pair of hemignaths (mandibles). About 1870 the question arose for discussion whether the somites in front of the mouth are to be considered as derived from the prostomium of a Chaetopod-like ancestor. Milne-Edwards and Huxley had satisfied themselves with discussing and establishing, according to the data at their command, the number of somites in the Arthropod head, but had not considered the question of the nature of the prae-oral somites. Lankester (2) was the first to suggest that (as is actually the fact in the Nauplius larva of the Crustacea) the prae-oral somites or prosthomeres and their appendages were ancestrally postoral, but have become prae-oral " by adaptational shifting of the oral aperture." This has proved to be a sound hypothesis and is now accepted as the basis upon which the Arthropod head must be interpreted (see Korschelt and Heider (3)). Further, the morphologists of the 'fifties appear, with few exceptions, to have accepted a preliminary scheme with regard to the Arthropod head and Arthropod segmentation generally, which was misleading and caused them to adopt forced conclusions and interpretations. It was conceived by Huxley, among others, that the same number of cephalic somites would be found to be characteristic of all the diverse classes of Arthropoda, and that the somites, not only of the head but of the various regions of the body, could be closely compared in their numerical sequence in classes so distinct as the Hexapods, Crustaceans and Arachnids.
The view which it now appears necessary to take is, on the contrary, this - viz. that all the Arthropoda are to be traced to a common ancestor resembling a Chaetopod worm, but differing from it in having lost its chaetae and in having a prosthomere in front of the mouth (instead of prostomium only) and a pair of hemignaths (mandibles) on the parapodia of the buccal somite. From this ancestor Arthropods with heads of varying degrees of complexity have been developed characteristic of the different classes, whilst the parapodia and somites of the body have become variously modified and grouped in these different classes. The resemblances which the members of one class often present to the members of another class in regard to the form of the limb-branches (rami) of the parapodia, and the formation of tagmata (regions) are not hastily to be ascribed to common inheritance, but we must consider whether they are not due to homoplasy - that is, to the moulding of natural selection acting in the different classes upon fairly similar elements under like exigencies.
The structure of the head in Arthropods presents three profoundly separated grades of structure dependent upon the number of prosthomeres which have been assimilated by the prae-oral region. The classes presenting these distinct plans of head-structure cannot be closely associated in any scheme of classification professing to be natural. Peripatus, the type-genus of the class Onychophora, stands at the base of the series with only a single prosthomere (fig. 4). In Peripatus the prostomium of the Chaetopod-like ancestor is atrophied, but it is possible that two processes on the front of the head (FP) represent in the embryo the dwindled prostomial tentacles. The single prosthomere carries the retractile tentacles as its "parapodia." The second somite is the buccal somite (II, fig. 4); its parapodia have horny jaws on their ends, like the claws FIG 4. - Diagram of the head on the following legs (fig. 9), and and adjacent region of Peri- act as hemignaths (mandibles). The patus. Monoprosthomerous.
study of sections of the embryo m, Mouth.
establishes these facts beyond doubt. I, Coelom of the first somite It also shows us that the neurowhich carries the anten meres, no less than the embryonic nae and is in front of the coelomic cavities, point to the existmouth.
ence of one, and only one, prosthoII, Coelom of the second mere in Peripatus, of which the somite which carries the " protocerebrum," P, is the neuromandibles (hence deu mere, whilst the deuterocerebrum, terognathous).
D, is the neuromere of the second III and IV, Coelom of the-third or buccal somite. A brief indication and fourth somites. of these facts is given by saying FP, Rudimentary frontal pro that the Onychophora are " deutercesses perhaps repre ognathous " - that is to say, that senting the prostomial the buccal somite carrying the mantentacles of Polychaeta. dibular hemignaths is the second of Ant, Antenna or tactile ten the whole series. tacle.
What has become of the nerveMd, Mandible.
ganglion of the prostomial lobe of Op, Oral papilla.
the Chaetopod in Peripatus is not P, Protocerebrum or fore clearly ascertained, nor is its fate most cerebral mass be indicated by the study of the emlonging to the first bryonic head of other Arthropods so somite.
far. Probably it is fused with the D, Deuterocerebrum, consist protocerebrum, and may also be ing of ganglion cells be concerned in the history of the very longing to the second or peculiar paired eyes of Peripatus, mandibular somite.
which are like those of Chaetopods in (After Goodrich.) structure - viz.vesicles with an intravesicular lens, whereas the eyes of all other Arthropods have essentially another structure, being " cups " of the epidermis, in which a knob-like or rod-like thickening of the cuticle is fitted as refractive medium.
In Diplopoda (Julus, &c.) the results of embryological study point to a composition of the front part of the head exactly similar to that which we find in Onychophora. They are deuterognathous.
The Arachnida present the first stage of progress. Here embryology shows that there are two prosthomeres (fig. 5), and that the gnathobases of the chelae which act as the first pair of hemignaths are carried by the third somite. The Arachnida are therefore tritognathous. The two prosthomeres are indicated by their coelomic cavities in the embryo (I and II, fig. 5), and by two neuromeres, the protocerebrum and the deuterocerebrum. The appendages of the first prosthomere are not present as tentacles, as in Peripatus and Diplopods, but are possibly represented by the eyes or possibly altogether aborted. The appendages of the second prosthomere are the well-known chelicerae of the Arach nids, rarely, if ever, antenniform, but modified as " retroverts" or clasp-knife fangs in spiders.