In the previous chapters all the important organs of the arthropod have been found in the vertebrate in their appropriate place, of similar structure, and innervated from corresponding parts of the central nervous system. Such comparison is possible only as long as the ventral and dorsal surfaces of the vertebrate correspond with the respective surfaces of the arthropod, and no reversal is assumed. This method of comparative anatomy is the surest and most certain guide to the relationship between two animals, and when the facts obtained by the anatomical method are so strikingly confirmatory of the palæontological evidence, the combined evidence becomes so strong as to amount almost to a certainty that vertebrates did arise from arthropods in the manner mapped out in previous chapters, and not from a hypothetical group of animals, such as is postulated in the theory of their origin from forms like Balanoglossus.
The latter theory derives the alimentary canal of the vertebrate from that of the invertebrate, and finds in the latter the commencement of the notochord. In the comparison which I have made the alimentary canal of the invertebrate ancestor has become the tube of the central nervous system of the vertebrate, and there is no sign of a notochord whatever. All the organs of the arthropod have already been allocated; where the notochord is situated in the vertebrate there is nothing but a gap in the invertebrate, but the position of that gap can be settled with great accuracy from the previous comparison of organs in the two groups. So, also, the alimentary canal of the vertebrate is from the very nature of the case a new organ, yet, as has been shown in Chapter V., the comparison of the respiratory organs in the two groups gives a strong suggestion of the manner in which such a canal was formed.
The time has now come to endeavour to frame a plausible theory of the method of formation of the notochord and the new alimentary canal, and thus to complete the diagram on p. 413. The comparative method is no longer available, for these structures are both unrepresented as such in the arthropod; any suggested explanation, therefore, must be more tentative, and cannot give the same feeling of certainty as is the case with all the organs already considered. Our only chance of finding out the past history of the notochord lies in the embryological method, in the hope that, according to the 'law of recapitulation,' the ancestral history may be repeated in the ontogeny with sufficient clearness to enable some conclusion to be drawn.
At the outset, one point comes out clearly—the close relationship between the notochord and the vertebrate gut; they are both derived from the same layer, both parts of the same structure. On this point all embryologists are agreed; it is expressed in such statements as, "the notochord, as well as the alimentary canal, is formed from hypoblast"; "the notochord arises as a thickening in the dorsal wall of the alimentary canal." The two structures are so closely connected together that they must be considered together. If we can conjecture the origin of the one, we may be sure that we have the clue to the origin of the other. The two together form the one new organ which distinguishes the vertebrate from the arthropod, the only thing left which requires explanation for the completion of this strange history.
What, then, is the notochord? What are its characteristics? In the highest vertebrates it is conspicuous only in the embryo; with the development of the axial skeleton it is more and more squeezed out of existence, until in the adult it is no longer visible. By the 'law of recapitulation' this developmental history implies that, as we descend the vertebrate phylum, the notochord ought to be more and more conspicuous, more and more permanent during the life of the animal. Such is, indeed, found to be the case, until at last, in the lowest vertebrates, such as the lamprey, and in forms like Amphioxus, the notochord persists throughout the life of the animal as a large important axial supporting rod.