Art Forms in Nature

Arina Books Inc.

2658 Del Mar Heights Road #162

Del Mar, CA 92014, USA

Copyright © 2011 Arina Books Inc.

ISBN: 978-1-937206-01-7

No part of this book may be reproduced or utilized in any form

or by any means, electronic or mechanical, including photocopying

and recording, or by any information retrieval system, without

permission in writing from the publisher.

Printed and bound in China

Introduction 1

Plates 29

contents

Art Forms of Nature – by Ernst Haeckel

Die Politik ist angewandte Biologie.Politics is applied biology.

Ernst Haeckel

While Ernst Haeckel might be lumped in with those who favored evolution, this is not as simple as it sounds. A German biologist, Haeckel is a man who looked closely at the forms in nature and created a system of understanding, even when he wasn’t completely accurate in his translations.

Ernst Haeckel started out his life in Germany, born in Potsdam on February 16, 1834. Coming from a background that encouraged education and self-development, Haeckel finished high school in 1852, graduating from Cathedral High School in Merseburg. This advanced education, for the time, led him to continue his studies in Berlin, where Haeckel decided to study medicine. Not only was Haeckel a student in Berlin, but he also studied science in Wurzburg, where he was able to study under great minds like the anatomist-physiologist Johannes Peter Muller. As a result, Haeckel began to seek out knowledge from botany lectures in the city, learning more about how the world around him interacted with the bodies he saw in his practice.

Ernst Haeckel obtained his medical degree in 1857, and was granted a license to practice medicine in Germany. But the truth was that medicine was not as interesting to Haeckel as he once though it could be. He began to see the suffering of his patients as a burden, which pushed him to seek out a new audience for his vast intellect.

The truth was that Haeckel didn’t like the idea of medicine and would have rather become a marine biologist, if he had his way. Whenever he had a free moment at school, he would wander out into the land to collect specimens in order to study them further. The microorganism world was more thrilling than a human patient, and Haeckel decided to do something different with his life after realizing medicine was not a good fit for his life’s career. He decided, instead, to look at the animal kingdom to see what it might reveal about the world. Haeckel went to the University of Jena for three years to study with Karl Gegenbaur. During that time, Ernst Haeckel earned another doctorate, this time in zoology. With this degree, Haeckel went on to teach comparative anatomy at the university for nearly fifty more years.

During this time, many of the species of the world had yet to be discovered, or even named. Ernst Haeckel decided to take on this task. Between 1859 and 1866, Haeckel decided to look into the invertebrates that were being found, eventually naming many of the species with the names to which they are still referred today. If you’ve heard of radiolarians, Haeckel is the one that named nearly 150 new species when he was on a trip in the Mediterranean. After that time, Haeckel was insatiable and unsatisfied with anything else. He continued to name new species in order to catalog the natural world.

Between 1866 and 1867, Haeckel decided to go to the Canary Islands, where he met Charles Darwin. The two were both curious about how the world worked, and they formed a connection that encouraged their own different thoughts on evolution and what it meant for the human population. While Ernst Haeckel would have a later impact on the Nazi movement, he would not become as famous as Darwin still is to this day.

Plate #85. Cynthia - Ascidiae, Seescheiden.

On a personal note, Haeckel met his wife, Agnes Huschke, and married her in 1867, becoming the father of three children in the subsequent years: Walter, Elizabeth, and Emma. While a part of a new family, Haeckel continued to explore the world around him, traveling to places like Egypt, Turkey, Norway, Greece, and other far off destinations. As a researcher, he was able to look at the new life forms in other areas, catalog them, and begin to make correlations among his findings.

Ernst Haeckel died on August 9, 1919, leaving man with much more to reveal to the world as science continued on without him.

Evolutionary Theory and Ernst Haeckel

Die Phylogenese ist die mechanische Ursache cler Ontogenese.Phylogenesis is the mechanical cause of ontogenesis.Ernst Haeckel

Haeckel started out as a traditional physician, helping to find cures for sick people. But when he began to study zoology, he appears to have opened up to a new way of interpreting the world. His findings and his illustrations helped to illustrate and to catalog the many invertebrates of the world, allowing researchers to see creatures they might never be able to see (or find) in person.

As a result of his findings, Haeckel is considered to be a legend in the area of comparative anatomy and evolutionary theory. While his contributions are vast, what many people fail to realize is that many of his speculations are now considered incorrect. Haeckel, for example, created theories around certain organisms that are thought to have been in existence many years ago, though they have never been found in nature, and scientists can not prove their existence.

Some of the greatest contributions of Ernst Haeckel are the introduction of terms like: ecology, phylogeny, phylum, and others. These terms not only helped to catalog the creatures of the world, but they also helped to create relationships and connections between these creatures. In assembling a structure of creatures, Haeckel was able to create a strong argument for different groups and for separate features within these groups.

What captured Ernst Haeckel’s attention the most was the idea of the nonrandom form in nature. Nature was not just a jumble of possibility, but it was a place where similarities between structures and creatures could be easily seen, if one were able to look at as many creatures as possible.

By illustrating the creatures he did, Haeckel began to show in visual form the ways that creatures were the same, or at least similar. From those images, a person could argue that the creatures were not simply evolving into new forms, but they were still the same form, if only with a few different details.

Plate #85. Cynthia - Ascidiae, Seescheiden.

With that idea in mind, the concept of natural selection did not make sense to Ernst Haeckel. To him, the creatures he found and named were not proving that the strongest were the ones to survive. Rather, there were certain features that were stronger than others, and those features were inherited through acquired characteristics.

“Phylogenesis is the mechanical cause of ontogenesis” or other similar quotes are attributed to Ernst Haeckel for a good reason. Haeckel believed that the idea of evolutionary descent was what led to the development of the form, unlike other scientists who believed the opposite. Haeckel thought that over time, the forms would change because they had to, not because they developed in order to evolve.

His ideas could be seen and seemingly proven by nature’s forms. For example, those creatures that were weak in terms of their evolution were weak because they had not developed a new or a superior form. While there are parts of this idea that are still thought to have validity, many researchers and scientists now believe that Haeckel was being a bit too simple in the way that he approached the world.

After all, the world was more than just a number of creatures that never got the chance to evolve. There must have been more reasons for why some creatures continued to have the same features, while others did not.

Haeckel’s Attempts to Evolve

While Haeckel was trying to learn more about the world around him and trying to speculate on what it all meant, Darwin was also creating a larger theory of evolution, even though he did not have any proof of the claims he made in “On the Origins of Species.” Whether Haeckel was trying to offer help or he was trying to show Darwin as being too simple, Haeckel came up with an idea as to who the first humans may have been, even naming the species and identifying the location of their remains.

What’s even more interesting is that remains were found in this location – East Indies (now Indonesia) – and these remains were the oldest remains ever found on the planet. While their species names has now changed, the remains are still considered to be the beginning of mankind, and certainly an important find for the scientific community.

Plate #85. Cynthia - Ascidiae, Seescheiden.

The Nazis and Haeckel

Within the studies and the findings of Ernst Haeckel was the concept of polygenism. This is a theory in which there are different genes for different races. Surprising to some, this racial theory was not something that was limited to just Ernst Haeckel or his ideas about evolution. In fact, there were some who based the idea of different races solely on the idea that there were different genes for different colors of skin.

Haeckel thought differently. Haeckel proposed the idea of different genes for different races, though this was taken from a comparative view of language, not of genetics. Ernst Haeckel believed that there were multiple languages that came from the previously speechless human form. Haeckel speculated that since being human meant having language, the forms were not human until they took on a language.

Since there were different languages that arose in different races, that meant that language was the part of the evolution process that made people different and separated them.

And this thought was difficult for science to dismiss until the recent finding and the recent deciphering of the human genome. As the genome was studied, it was found to be more likely that humans were descendants from Africa, not from different countries or regions, as the multi-regional thought of Haeckel showed.

But what Haeckel has started was difficult to remove from society, especially a society in which power struggles were becoming more apparent as difficult countries vied for control of the world and its land.

Haeckel’s idea has created the concept of polygenism. Within this concept, people could be divided into different classes and races, by their genetic code. And since Haeckel was a Caucasian man, it’s not surprising that he also deemed his race to be superior over others:

The Caucasian, or Mediterranean man (Homo Mediterraneus), has from time immemorial been placed at the head of all the races of men, as the most highly developed and perfect. It is generally called the Caucasian race, but as, among all the varieties of the species, the Caucasian branch is the least important, we prefer the much more suitable appellation proposed by Friedrich Müller, namely, that of Mediterranese. For the most important varieties of this species, which are moreover the most eminent actors in what is called “Universal History,” first rose to a flourishing condition on the shores of the Mediterranean.…This species alone (with the exception of the Mongolian) has had an actual history; it alone has attained to that degree of civilization which seems to raise men above the rest of nature.

What’s interesting about this racism in Haeckel’s thoughts and ideas is that he was not averse to being around those who were not Caucasian – quite the opposite. He was actually the one who was close to the natives and to their families while he was on his research expeditions.

In Haeckel’s mind, there were ten races in the world, all with different positions and statures. The Caucasian race was the most important and the most civilized. At the same time, while the ‘Negroes’ were less civilized, they were also quite strong, according to Haeckel. However, Haeckel also pointed out that ‘Negroes’ were those who were four handed and who had long toes, just like their monkey ancestors.

In the Nazi culture, the idea of the pure race was supported by Haeckel’s ideas and science. For those in the Nazi world, it was difficult to dispute these findings, and many did not attempt to do so.

Nothing is constant but change! All existence is a perpetual flux of ‘being and becoming!’ That is the broad lesson of the evolution of the world.Ernst Haeckel

Those who have studied Haeckel will find that his theories were revolutionary for his time and they were developed after many years of study, research, and experience. At the same time, because of the limits of science during his education, Haeckel often created comparisons between different embryos and species that were not accurate. Of course, no one realized this at the time he came up with his ideas.

Instead, Haeckel continued on with speculating that the embryos of dogs, hens, and humans were actually similar when they were in the infant stages. Though this has been proven to be incorrect, at the time, it causes a person to wonder just how related all species are, and why we develop in the way we do, while other species do not.

What one can speculate is that Haeckel wanted to find similarities between the different organisms in the world. Instead of trying to seek out different categories and groups, Haeckel wanted to find a clear and logical chain of events that led to different adult species. Others supported Haeckel’s claims about a clear chain of events, and Darwin even seemed to think Haeckel was right.

In the course of individual development, inherited characters appear, in general, earlier than adaptive ones, and the earlier a certain character appears in ontogeny, the further back must lie in time when it was acquired by its ancestors.Ernst Haeckel

Haeckel and Darwin: The Evolution of Evolution

Many people still dispute the truth behind Darwin’s ideas and his assumptions and Haeckel was no different. While he was certainly impressed by the ideas Darwin purported, Haeckel was not necessarily a true believer in the idea of everything coming from one particular species or source.

What did happen in Darwin’s publications to affect Haeckel was a new interpretation of embryology. In Darwin’s mind, embryology and Haeckel’s ideas did have some validity. Yes, it was true that many of the embryos, at their start, did appear to be similar, even impossible to separate or identify. But what Darwin also did point out was that because there were some individuals that come from other sources, this did not mean that one organism was higher or lower than another.

Ernst Haeckel did not seem to feel the same way. Instead, he wanted to find out which organisms were derived from others. In his book Generelle Morphologie, Haeckel created the concepts of phylogeny and ontogeny, which was not well received by readers. In fact, while Darwin was interested in learning more about Ernst Haeckel’s ideas, the fact that the book was written in German limited Darwin’s ability to begin to understand Haeckel’s thoughts.

When Haeckel offered to write a second edition of his missive, his publisher turned him down.

Plate #85. Cynthia - Ascidiae, Seescheiden.

Plates, Art, Science, and Religion

The nucleus has to take care of the inheritance of the heritable characters, while the surrounding cytoplasm is concerned with accommodation or adaptation to the environment.Ernst Haeckel

With all of the science that propelled Haeckel into the spotlight, this is not all that he was. When a person looks at the images Haeckel created during his time, there is a certain sense of forgetfulness. After all, these images were done during a time when people did not have digital cameras and they did not have the ability to see beyond their normal eyesight.

In a sense, these images that Haeckel captured were not just illustrations for instruction; they were the beginning of a great ability to look at something minuscule and turn it into something that was more definitive and more instructive.

And the images also helped to show something new to people who were not scientists – they began to show the beauty in the world of living creatures. Thought it might be easy to dismiss the illustrations as simply being for cataloging purposes, there is more in the way the illustrations are arranged, what details are included, and what details are not included.

At the time, these illustrations were impossible drawings. Today, they are starting points for discussions about religion, art, and even politics.

What many people also don’t realize is that the images that Haeckel decided to keep in the books he created were not the only images he captured. The images that were revealed to readers were the images that were most loved by Haeckel. Others remained in his journals, trapped as sketches that would not be revealed to anyone else but himself.

The forms that Ernst Haeckel includes in his books and his manuscripts also seem to show that a creator of some sort exists. After all, how else could order and beauty be co-created? Within the lines and the curves of the pictures, Haeckel reveals the beauty in things that few people see or even care about. But they do still exist.

In consequence of Darwin’s reformed Theory of Descent, we are now in a position to establish scientifically the groundwork of a non-miraculous history of the development of the human race... If any person feels the necessity of conceiving the coming into existence of this matter as the work of a supernatural creative power, of the creative force of something outside of matter, we have nothing to say against it. But we must remark, that thereby not even the smallest advantage is gained for a scientific knowledge of nature. Such a conception of an immaterial force, which as the first creates matter, is an article of faith which has nothing whatever to do with human science. Where faith commences, science ends.Ernst Haeckel

Plate #85. Cynthia - Ascidiae, Seescheiden.

By taking the beauty of these creatures, bringing them into art and showing them to those who might strive to find out why they exist, Haeckel begs the question: Is beauty created because of nature or in spite of it? The beauty is something that perhaps only the reader is interpreting, but still, there is something that is organized and graceful about the way that Haeckel has decided to compile the images he compiles.

What better way to make sense of a world than to try to organize it? What better way to make sense of things that have never been explained than to draw them and give them to others? Once these images have been created, the readers can begin to place their own interpretations and ideas into them. And while these creatures might function in ways that readers will never fully understand or appreciate, Ernst Haeckel has accomplished at least one thing: he has made an everyday person look into what they may never see.

The art of Ernst Haeckel might have begun as a passion to collect knowledge and to seek to understand it better. But what is clear from the collection of art that remains today is that not only did Darwin find value in images, but we too can see nature as something more than just what surrounds us.

Nature is us.

Art Forms of Nature

The 100 plate collection of illustrations Ernst Haeckel created to form Kunstformen der Natur (Art Forms of Nature) includes many of his famous illustrations, still used in science classes and within discussions of evolution. These illustrations were drawn in color and they sought to collect the different groupings of creatures that did not have names and were not considered to be species at the time they were drawn.

Ernst Haeckel painstakingly drew these images by hand, over the course of many years and attempts. These illustrations were drawn from sketches and from watercolors he created in the midst of his studies.

Originally published in sets of 10 in 1899 and 1904, the complete book was finally created and compiled in 1904.

The images that readers now see in this collection were translated from the sketches by a lithographer, Adolf Giltsch, according to history.

While many readers will not understand the significance of the images on the pages, what scientists see is a collection and a statement about organization. Each of the pages has been arranged to have the most impact on the reader, but the pages also seem to be a game of hide and seek for the devoted biologist.

For example, there is a radiolarian on almost every set of ten plates, even if the reader isn’t immediately alerted to this fact. Ernst Haeckel is credited with naming their species, so it does make sense that he would have a particular affinity toward these images.

No matter what interpretation is gleaned from Art Forms of Nature, one thing is clear: everyone will find something to appreciate in these plates. No matter if the reader is an artist, a scientist, or a nature enthusiast, these images will impact the reader and allow them to feel like they are witnessing something special, and something that no one else has been able to capture before – an impression of nature.

Digital cameras might be able to gather more accurate and more detailed pictures, but they are staid in their manner and they are unimpressive when it comes to emotional impact. Ernst Haeckel didn’t just collect facts about the creatures of the world; he captured his interpretation of the creatures – with his flaws and with their flaws.

Nature is imperfect in the way it is arranged, and that in and of itself is organization of a different kind. Ernst Haeckel tried to name it, and found that he was more likely to reveal it when he started witnessing it.

Plate #1. Various Species of Radiolaria (a type of marine Protozoa)

Again and again, Ernst Haeckel returned to the image of the Radiolaria. His special affinity for this creature is clear in this first plate. The eight creatures that are included on this plate show similarities in structures as well as details, arranged in a way that allows the images to be easily compared and contrasted.

Plate #1. Various Species of Radiolaria (a type of marine Protozoa)

First, the reader sees the two snowflake-like structures at the time, with many different branches that come off the sides. They are completely unique and yet a person would say they are crystalline in structure. They have small hairs that extend from the outside surfaces and they seen to have a middle section that includes a smaller structure. While it’s not clear from these 2D images whether the arms on the sides are going to extend at all angles, it’s clear these structures are complicated.

From what a viewer can see, these Radiolaria seem to be able to move easily in their environments, owing to their appendages, at least the top images. These pieces also seem to have flower-like structures on the outsides, showing that some of these pieces might have been able to move in different directions – not just up or down or left or right.

The internal structure of the top right figure shows the viewer that the hair-like pieces are on the inside as well as the outside of the figure. There is also a small flower shape in the very inner core of this structure, almost like a focal point.

Moving to the right image, the reader can see this is a simpler structure, lacking many of the details the structure to the left includes. At the same time, there are many more appendages on this side, which makes the reader believe this is a more complex structure, maybe higher up in the order, according to Ernst Haeckel.

In the middle row of this first plate are three circular Radiolaria that have differing features. The first on the left is a simple circle, but it includes a riveted outer circle, with a plant-like structure on the inside. This seems far too simple in comparison to the other images on the plate, and it seems to stand out as a result.

The middle circular creature seems to be much more complicated and one imagines that it will poke the person who tries to get too close to it. This structure includes a variety of spines around the outer shell, which make it more intimidating than anything else. Some of these spikes extend more than others, and there are small holes or divots in the sides, which give the appearance of a golf ball.

The round image on the right side offers the reader another view of the Radiolaria, this time with circular outer structures that don’t seem to be attached to the middle structure. There are many blank spaces in this illustration, which might mean the creature is transparent or it might mean that the image does not have a lot of detail. Or it might mean that Ernst Haeckel was unable to wait for the image to reveal the rest of its details.

Moving to the bottom of this plate, the reader can see three similar structures, with pronounced ‘heads’ off of main bodies. The first on the left is a details and intricate piece that includes pointy pieces at all directions at the top. The tope looks like a hummingbird head, with a pointed beak-like piece extending up the page. Moving down the structure are two different pieces, one to the right and one to the left, symmetrical to each other. These pieces have smaller structures coming off of them, with three different pikes extending from a single stem. In the middle of the two longer pieces is a structure of many smaller hairs and a longer tail-like image in the middle. This structure seems to be created for movement primarily.

In the center of the last row is a circular structure again, with some sort of creature-like image that is barely noticeable inside this bulb. Like the previous image, the top of this creature includes a head, but this offers more of a wider head shape with what might be described as horns coming out from both sides. All over the structure are divots that seem to give a rough, yet congruent outside look to the creature.

Finally, the last structure on the page seems to be a lighter image, one that includes the pointed head and bulb top that the first structure included in this row, but no more detail is included in the head. The lower half includes four different pieces, like tails attached to the top piece, with spikes coming out at angles. Whether this piece is a part of the first structure in this row or not is not clear, but it is a possibility.

What can a person take from this first plate? The reader is left to wonder whether these images are all different angles of the same creatures, with one creature being a part of each row. Those readers who are interested in science might already know the answer to this question, but those who are not biology majors will not necessarily understand the significance of these images and how they are related.

That said, Ernst Haeckel wasn’t necessarily correct in all of the images he presents in this book, so there needs to be some room for error as well as some room for interpretation. What is seen just from looking at the images is a real love and respect for these creatures.

The details that are included show that certain details are more important than others, since some of these images don’t seem to be complete or even necessarily right. Some of the images have structures that are not attached, while other pieces seem to have structures that have more than one purpose.

The clumping of certain shapes of images together allow for the reader to make quick judgments about how these species are related. Instead of having to look back and forth between the images, it’s clear there is a sort of progression from one image to the next. A reader can easily see that each image has some characteristics that other images don’t, while some images have characteristics that others do have.

Finally, there are some structures that are a part of these images, but it’s not clear what they are and how they fit in with the structures. Are these actual structures inside of the Radiolaria or are these items just things that Haeckel thought were in the creatures – a person is not sure.

In conclusion, the Radiolaria feature prominently in the book because Ernst Haeckel is quite fascinated with them. After having naming many in this new group of creatures, Haeckel shows that these are creatures that have a lot to offer. They have strictures on their bodies which seem to be for decoration at first glance, then purpose in another, and then other structures simply seem to be a part of a great purpose – one that even Haeckel did not understand.

These images are compelling to the viewer, as they don’t reveal anything more than the details that are included. We have to take the images at face value, but then, is that enough? Even though there is some possibility that these are only partially representative pictures, they are still fascinating to examine and to contemplate.

The viewer is left to think about what else might be out there – and this is the perfect way to begin a book that seeks to give the answers readers are dying to find out.

Plate #6. Various Species of Tubulariidae (animals in the same biological class as hydras)

Many people have no idea what a hydra is or what it means to their lives, if anything at all. When you look at the work of Ernst Haeckel, it becomes clear there are worlds within the worlds we know and understand.

In this plate, the details of the Tubulariidae are fascinating to behold, and their setting is different from other plates in the book. First of all, there is a ground within the plate, which seems to orient the images. Everything seems to spring up from the bottom, causing the viewer to begin to feel the flow of the ocean as the pictures rest on the page.

This is a plate that is filled with images, unlike the space that is allowed in other plates in this book. While this doesn’t seem to create chaos in the picture, it does cause the viewer to have a hard time settling on just one image in the plate.

What might this mean? This might mean the reader is unable to differentiate between the images in this plate, or that Haeckel himself did not feel these creatures were to be separated. For the truth is that many of the creatures within this book are similar in nature, location, and structure, even when they were not located beside each other.

By bringing the images together in this plate, Ernst Haeckel creates congruence and a feeling of belonging for the separate images. While the reader might never understand their relationships, a reader does understand that the images are similar to each other. They not only share the page, but they also share a small part of the world.

When the eye travels over the page in a sweeping glance, it’s clear that there are many different forms of the Tubulariidae. These pictures aren’t as similar as they first seem. From the top left to the bottom right, the reader sees the structures move from being circular to being tubular, which causes the reader to wonder if this is actually the case, or just different parts of the same creature.

Plate #6. Various Species of Tubulariidae (animals in the same biological class as hydras)

And if this is the case, why didn’t Haeckel make this clearer? That’s what the reader is left to wonder without more investigation. In most cases, a reader simply reviews the images as art, not as science, so the need for differentiation isn’t necessary, though it might be helpful to create more comparisons.

Many of the images in this plate seem to evoke the sense of movement and of scattering. The creatures with the tails that seem to push them along at the top are moving out of the plate, from what the reader can tell. They are moving within the remaining spaces instead of moving in a focused way. In addition, the creatures at the bottom seem to be reaching up, though they are also attached to the bottom in some fashion. They don’t seem to be rooted in the bottom, but they do seem to be stationary for the moment.

The image at the top left is circular and seems to have hooked appendages that follow the shape from start to finish. There is also a similar flower structure in the center, as seen in the Radiolaria. The trained scientist may identify this structure as one of the Radiolaria, but the untrained reader is left to speculate about its identity and the importance of this identity.

Moving to the right, the hydra-like forms are pushed in with each other, each with different head-like pieces. One is rounded, one is pointed, and one has a softer point that seems to be less intimidating to its environment. Of course, when one thinks about the idea of the hydra-related creatures being less than threatening, this statement seems ridiculous.

Again to the right, another rounded creature seems to be resting at the corner of the plate, with more of a mandala-like structure than one that is organic. This image has straight lines that don’t seem to run in a nature pattern, which makes it seem as though it was added for style, rather than for documentation. Slightly below this image is a smaller hydra-like creature, which seems to be a flower with arms sticking out of it and a pouch at the bottom that doesn’t appear to have any interesting characteristics, at first glance anyway.

The tails that come off of the main images in the top row of this plate are the things that grab the most attention. These tails are intricate, in movement, and all unique of each other. Some tails are simple and thick, while others are thinner with more detail. They include bulb features as well as the sense of texture. Still others have a thicker appearance, but you can see that they are ridged and would feel different from the others.

Moving into the final and largest row of this plate, the eye seems the taller images as being different from the top image. One can speculate that the upper images might be earlier or later forms of the lower images, but it’s not clear from the drawings whether this is actually true. Looking at the lower images, a reader has a sense of a garden, with different flowers. Some are large, others small, some in bloom, others not in bloom.

The image to the left is one that is longer with a pistil type top that seems to reach over to the other image beside it. This connection seems to be forced by the size of the page as the movement is confined within the smallest space possible. If there had been more room on the page, the reader imagines the image could have reached up taller and moved in a more natural manner.

Plate #85. Cynthia - Ascidiae, Seescheiden.

Below this first image is the structure that has many different smaller pistil-like features, but it also has rounded pieces that seem to be coming off of the main structure. As this image is revealed, the reader sees the structures as being clumped, but then they are also in various forms of growth. The lower structures in this image are connected to each other via a sort of netted root structure. The lower structures on this image are connected and seem to be smaller versions of the structures that come up to the top of this image. The final structure seems to be the one that is tallest and that has the more detail and definition.

In the middle of the lower section is the most detailed image of the plate, a taller ad yet simpler structure. The main stem doesn’t seem to have any distinguishing features, but the upper portion suggests almost a forest of detail. The smaller structures that seem to hand from the top of this creature are coming off of thin pieces that appear like chrysanthemums. The reader gets a sense that this structure can move around freely and that it can extend into other parts of its environment as it so chooses.

To the right is a structure that doesn’t seem to be like the other structures at first, when attention is focused just on the stem piece. The stem itself is long and appears to be veined, causing the reader to wonder how this image relates to the others. Without a clearly defined top structure, this image seems to be more basic in nature, though it does have an outer layer of structures that seem to be reading out and growing for some unknown purpose.

The final image on this plate is deceiving as most of the attention is given to either the top or the base stem. If you were to focus only on the stem, you’d see nothing remarkable and you might be convinced this is the simplest structure on the plate. But if you were to look at the top, you would notice the similarities to the other structures in this row. The top is flower-like, with pistil-like structures and a main flower-y head that extends into the environment. Like other images on this plate, this creature seems to be limited in its reach in the frame, since it is unable to fit anywhere else.

What many readers will find in this plate is the sensation of struggle. While the images are not necessarily in contact with each other, they are keenly aware of the others’ presence, whether this is intentional or not. The images are all shaped in order to fit other images on the plate, but this also seems to be natural, as though the order of nature is this easy. But most readers would agree this is far from the case. Instead, many creatures vie for space and will do anything they can to get the area they want, no matter the cost to others.

Within this plate, the reader is left to wonder if this is a statement about the presence of others in the world. With all of our similarities and all of our differences, Ernst Haeckel might be stating the obvious: can we all make room for each other regardless? And while there might be little space to share, this plate shows that all sorts of creatures can still manage to fit.

Plate #85. Cynthia - Ascidiae, Seescheiden.

Plate #28. Various Species of Rhizostomeae (an order of jellyfishes)

One of the reasons why many readers are drawn to this particular plate in Ernst Haeckel’s book is that it contains creatures that are familiar to readers: jellyfishes. A jellyfish is often seen as a mysterious and a magical creature, something that is able to hurt a person who touches it and to touch a person who sees it.

With so many different jellyfish and experiences of jellyfish in the world, Haeckel’s images on this page help to slow down the experience of these sea creatures, making them more accessible – and safer.

Plate #28. Various Species of Rhizostomeae (an order of jellyfishes)

Many readers will point out, when seeing these images on this plate, that the background is darker than in most other plates. Why is this? Many readers will see that the details the jellyfish contain might have been harder to see on a white or clear background. In a sense, the background is meant to support the images, instead of to detract from them.

This also creates the effect of greater simplicity of images, which is lacking in the first plates of the book. Too often, the reader feels overwhelmed by the images and the number of images, but in this plate, the reader is able to focus on the idea that the images are not too numerous, though they are filled with more details.

And once a person begins to review the details in this plate, they begin to see that what seems simple is actually far more complicated – and beautiful – than they realized and appreciated at first.

At the top left hand corner, you can see a circular image that includes a variety of internal details. Like so many of these plates, the images that begin the plate are circular, and the reader doesn’t know whether these images are meant to stay in this limited shape or if the images are just a cross-section of a larger and three-dimensional creature. Since it seems to be impossible that all of the creatures in this book would just be flat, a reader can speculate that this is just a cross-section.

Looking at the image, there are eight structures that come from the outside of the structure and that move inward to the center. Around these eight pieces are even smaller pieces that seem to fill in the empty space, though they do not seem to offer anything more than decoration. In fact, these smaller structures don’t seem to have any easily identifiable purpose for the structure itself.

In the center of the upper section of the plate is the first jellyfish that is immediately identifiable as a jellyfish, even to the reader who is not educated in the matters of science. With the mushroom shaped head and the appendages at the bottom, the reader can feel this image move up toward to the top of the page, as though it were in an aquarium and it could not move any further.

The base parts of the jellyfish are moving around, trying to reach out to the corners of the page, it seems. While this might not seem like an observation of value, this seems to indicate that this particular jellyfish is one that is flatter in its bottom section, as opposed to the longer and more tentacular image that we often see in pictures and movies.

This is a jellyfish that seems to be limited in its movement, at least in the plate.

To the right of the top row is another circular image of a jellyfish, and it appears to be like a stained glass window. It includes a variety of sections that are lightly colored and darker colored, without any suggestion of where this image is meant to be within a jellyfish or the animal kingdom.

Resting in the center of the plate is a larger jellyfish image, which appears to be the same creature from the top row’s center position. Looking at this jellyfish from the top, the reader is able to see an intricate pattern on its head, allowing the reader to see there is beauty in the pieces that are seen and the pieces that are often considered to be painful or dangerous. The swimming pieces at the base of a jellyfish can sting other creatures and is used as a defense mechanism, but in this image, these pieces seem to be filled only with beauty – not with danger.

To the lower left, another circular image appears, this time with four distinct sections that look like fans. The reader is unsure how this might relate to the other images in the plate, but it seems to be a cross section of a larger jellyfish. And to the lower right, the reader sees another circular shape that has a rougher and almost coral like appearance to the outer surface. The reader imagines this structure to be difficult to touch in the real world, and a piece that might never be experienced in person.

When looking at the jellyfish images, it’s important to remember this – jellyfish aren’t fish at all. These creatures are often seen as being many different things, and this limits their ability to be categorized in the sea world. And since Haeckel was so interested in categorization and naming the creatures he found, it seems this plate surrenders to the idea that there can be such rigid definitions of a creature.

Instead, the reader is able to look at these images and see how they relate, even if they aren’t properly named. Today, jellyfish are called jellies to remove the idea of ‘fish’ from their name. And still, people will continue to call them fish because this makes sense to them.

With one final look at the Rhizostomeae, the reader sees the beauty in the intricacy of nature. Though these beautiful structures don’t appear to have form or purpose, they continue to impress those who see them and they continue to leave an impression on the page. The reader sees that which brings pain from the jellyfish is also able to bring beauty to the experience.

This contradiction is clear and yet the similarities between the images are also strikingly obvious.

Plate #54. Various Species of Octopuses

Like the jellyfish, most readers think they already understand the octopus when they see it labeled or they hear about it from a textbook. But as Ernst Haeckel shows the reader in this plate, the experience of an octopus is far different from its definition.

On this particular page, there are five different images of an octopus, some from different angles, while others seem to be from different creatures altogether. The recognition of these creatures helps to put the reader at ease, for a moment. But when looking closer, the reader remembers just how much they don’t know about the natural world.

Looking at images of creatures is different from the natural experience. This experience is limited and ineffective, especially when trying to learn more about the species. Instead, the reader needs to ask themselves what they can learn from the details and why this might be important to the natural world, since the reader might never need to encounter the octopus in their real lives.

At the top left corner, the reader sees the first octopus and this image extends further than it appears. When looking at the head, the reader can see the suggestion of eyes and of a larger brain cavity, but this is simply the shape of the creature that allows it to move from place to place within the water. The legs that extend from the bottom are clearly defined and they allow the reader to picture the movement in the water from one area to another, propelled by these strong legs.

If the reader looks more closely, they will see that there is a leg of some sort extending from the back of this octopus. This leg seems to move around the plate and over to the far right side and around another octopus. It is difficult for the reader to understand why this is so or even if this interpretation is appropriate. No matter what is actually true, the reader sees that the octopus may not be what it first appears to represent.

Looking at the center image in this plate, the reader begins to see that the octopus is more compressed, at least in the illustration. This image shows a more defined head, though it is longer than the first head that is shown. The reader sees how this might be more of an action shot of the animal, with movement toward the bottom of the page.

In this center image, the reader also sees that the longer leg that seemed to extend from the first image is actually one of two structures from this main central image. These longer legs extend around the images beside it and they show that the octopus is more than just one smaller creature with limited leg length. This is a creature that can reach out as far as they need to interpret their environment and possibly to adjust their environment as needed.

To the right of this central figure is another octopus, this one with a flatter and larger head than the others. This one also seems to have a more defined outer layer of skin that seems to have knobs and ridges. In this image, it’s also clearer that the octopus has tentacles that are more pronounced than they have been in other images in this plate. The top part of this flatter head also has a brick-like pattern, which allows the reader to connect to the patterns they might see in their home. Did these patterns in design come from nature? Perhaps.

On the bottom is the more stereotypical image of an octopus, with its thicker body and thicker legs. After seeing the first images on the plate, it seems this image in the lower left hand corner is almost too bulky and almost too dense to be able to move in its environment. But the larger eyes seem to penetrate the viewer, causing them to wonder if the octopus is something that might need to be feared, more than it needs to be observed.

The thicker legs suggest strength in movement, and while it might not be a thinner creature, this strength can also propel the creature quickly to its food or to a fight with an adversary. The eight legs are clear from this picture and this shows the reader they already know some of the basics of sea creature construction and structure.

Plate #54. Various Species of Octopuses

In the lower right hand corner of the plate, another octopus with traditional shape and features is displayed. This octopus seems to be flipped upside down, however, so this might be the same image as the one to the left, though it might also be a completely new species or creature. The eight legs, with clearly defined tentacles, suggest the power to move through deep water, while the texture on the head seems to suggest more structures that will keep away intruders and that might keep other smaller creatures from resting on the octopus head for a while.

Overall, this plate seems to be the one plate that many readers can identify easily. Octopus may not be something one normally sees in everyday life, but the images are understood and they allow the reader to feel as though they are a part of the natural conversation and not just a common bystander. When the reader is able to feel less threatened by the education of the illustrations, then the reader can learn more about the creatures.

In this picture, the confusion of what part goes to what octopus is easily remedied with careful examination of the images. Once this process is complete, the reader can begin to see the similarities among these creatures – the tentacles, the eyes, the head structures, and the strength of movement. Together, these octopuses might not be seen as creatures to be feared in the sea world, but they already have a reputation among those who observe them.

The reader is left with the feeling of being a part of this plate, even if the reader is unsure of what sorts of octopuses are shown. Being able to access a part of the natural world allows the reader to become a part of the greater conversation, even if they’re not sure what to say next.

Plate #84. Various Species of Diatoms (a type of unicellular plant)

Though there are many images in this particular book of plates that Ernst Haeckel illustrated, there is something about the simplicity of unicellular plants that is striking. In this particular plate, the reader wonders how something with just one cell can have so many more details.

It seems, to the reader, that the world that seems to be simple is really not as simple. At the same time, the reader begins to wonder why they think everything need to be simple, or whether their own definition of simplicity is something that needs to be adjusted and examined at greater length.

In this dark background plate, the reader sees a variety of Diatoms. These unicellular plants are the bases of species and they still exist in nature, and are considered to be some of the oldest plants in the world. During the time of dinosaurs, Diatoms were present and they continue to be present today.

At the top left of the plate, the reader sees an image that is circular – like so many other plates in this series. The structure has eight appendages or details that radiate from the center and there are eight more structures that fit between these longer pieces. Again, the reader wonders if this is a cross section of a larger piece.

In the center is one of the stranger images in the book of plates as it is not a typical shape. This image is one that contains a straight piece at the top and then a series of flowing pieces at its base. These pieces almost look like Venus flytraps and they seem to be opening their ‘mouths’ within the plate. To the right is a circular image that has smaller details and precise patterns. With two circles inside the larger piece and two pieces that extend in from the edges, this piece is a sharp and beautiful image, one that seems more appropriate for a museum than a book of nature.

On the sides of this plate are two images that are straight in shape and orientation, far different from other pieces in this collection. These images almost look like totem poles on the sides, filling in the spaces the smaller diatoms can not fill. The straight piece on the left side has a pattern of 1-3-1-3-1, while the one on the right includes four different sized pieces that seem to repeat, but they are not as patterned as the other image. The structure seems to be one that includes more structures inside of the larger structures, even though these are unicellular pieces.

In the center space of this plate are a variety of images, all with simpler structures. The rounded structures look more like crustaceans with their bony and ridged patterns. One might think they could find these in a piece of rock as a reminder of just how many creatures have existed since the beginning of time.

At the same time, the middle image in the plate is a larger circular structure that does include some patterns. These patterns appear netted and they extend out to the eight different tubular pieces as well as eight other pieces that extend in the opposite direction.

In the middle section are longer structures to the left and the right, shaped like an eye and like a peanut, respectively. These structures have a central line or vein that extends from point to point, while the central piece is small and simple, though it seems to hold the shape of the structures together.

Plate #84. Various Species of Diatoms (a type of unicellular plant)

Below these longer pieces are smaller circular pieces once more, though they seem to offer simple patterns again. There are rounded pieces, which seem to be noteworthy, but then there are pointed pieces in the shape, which is not something that is shared by other pieces in this plate. After so many plates in this collection of rounded and smooth images, this circular shape in the middle left of the plate seems almost out of place.

On the opposite side of this shape is another rounded piece that looks prehistoric in its pattern. With lined pieces and structures, this looks like an eye and also a mouth, a strange collection of ideas. To the naked eye, this might not look like anything more than a small stone, but the smaller structures seem to suggest that the piece is able to do more than a reader might imagine.

In the lower level of the plate, there are three remaining structures. The first is one that has a unique shape in the plate. With three points on a mostly rounded shape, this piece looks like it’s more of a placeholder than a part of the group. However, the pattern is simpler and the structure is simple, so it’s reasonable to believe this is also a diatom of some sort.

In the middle, however, is a more complicated piece with fan-like ends to the structures emanating from the base. However, when looking at the base more closely, it seems that this base is actually not attached to anything else in the plate. So, this piece seems to be its own structure, not contributing to the diatom with the fan pieces. The structure with the fan pieces seems to be more complicated than a unicellular organism should be. After all, it seems to not only have different levels of structure, but the fans are unique and seem to be in different stages of growth. Some have more fanning than others, and they all have a distinct pattern as well.

Finally, the structure on the bottom right is nearly square, which is what many newer biology students might expect from a unicellular object. The smaller the cell, the simpler the structure should be, shouldn’t it? Haeckel doesn’t always show this. Within this plate are rounded, fanned, and straight organisms, even though they are all grouped together as diatoms.

The lower right hand structure includes a distinct pattern that changes from the different edges. This suggests there are different levels on the outer layers of the organism, allowing for different shapes and textures to be viewed from different angles.

What is clear from this particular plate is that cellular simplicity does not denote structural simplicity. And this is debatable. Those structures that only have one cell should not have too many other details, as the structure itself does not support complexity – and if Haeckel’s illustrations are to be believed, this can not hold up.

Plate #85. Cynthia - Ascidiae, Seescheiden.

Simplicity in form can still create complexity in form. With the various different pieces in this particular plate, the reader is left to wonder what other things in nature are more complicated than they appear. And one might also begin to wonder why this is even the case.

If there are structures without significant cellular composition, what is the point of the details they include? Is there some greater order in the world or some greater creator that wants to include beauty in all of creation? That is not necessarily something an evolutionist might consider, but the pictures don’t lie.

Beauty and intricacy of form is apparent in all of these plates. To what end seems to be the consideration of the reader, as Ernst Haeckel doesn’t seem to reveal anything more than what he saw when he made his sketches. And even then, we are left to wonder what his interpretation kept and what his interpretation left out.

The trouble with art is that there are as many interpretations as there are colors in the world. All of these interpretations are correct and all of them are flawed in their own unique ways. That’s half the fun of looking at the world – seeing it for what it is and what you want it to be.

Ernst Haeckel seems to have captured this ongoing argument, this ongoing conversation in which science has much to share and little to reveal.

Ernst Haeckel’s Published Works

If you’re interested in learning more about Ernst Haeckel’s work and about the way he viewed the world, here is a listing of all of the publications attributed to him during his lifetime.

Some of these books are available in the original German, but you can now find English translations to make reading and understanding a little bit easier.

• Radiolaria (1862)• Siphonophora (1869)• Monera (1870)• Calcareous Sponges (1872)• Deep-Sea Medusae (1881)• Siphonophora (1888)• Deep-Sea Keratosa (1889)• Radiolaria (1887) Generelle Morphologie der Organismen : allgemeine Grundzüge der

organischen Formen-Wissenschaft, mechanisch begründet durch die von C. Darwin reformirte Decendenz-Theorie. (1866)

• ‘Monophyletischer Stambaum der Organismen’ from ‘Generelle Morphologie der Organismen’ (1866) with the three branches Plantae, Protista, Animalia.

• Natürliche Schöpfungsgeschichte (1868)• Freie Wissenschaft und freie Lehre (1877) • Die systematische Phylogenie (1894) • Anthropogenie: oder, Entwickelungsgeschichte des Menschen (1874, 5th and enlarged edition

1903)• Die Welträthsel (1895–1899), also spelled Die Welträtsel (“world-riddle”) • Über unsere gegenwärtige Kenntnis vom Ursprung des Menschen (1898) • Der Kampf um den Entwickelungsgedanken (1905) • Die Lebenswunder (1904) Indische Reisebriefe (1882) • Aus Insulinde: Malayische Reisebriefe (1901) • Kunstformen der Natur (1904) • Wanderbilder (1905)

Plates

Plate B1. — Circogonia.

Phaeodaria. Rohrstrahlinge.

Plate B2. — Globigerina.

Thalamphora. Kammerlinge.

Plate B3. — Stentor.

Ciliata. Wimperlinge.

Plate B4. — Triceratium.

Diatomea. Schachtellinge.

Plate B5. — Ascandra.

Calcispongiae. Kalkschwämme.

Plate B6. — Tubuletta.

Tubulariae. Röhrenpolypen.

Plate B7. — Epibulia.

Siphonophorae. Staatsquallen.

Plate B8. — Desmonema.

Discomedusae. Scheibenquallen.

Plate B9. — Maeandrina.

Hexacoralla. Sechsstrahlige Sternkorallen.

Plate B10. — Ophiothrix.

Ophiodea. Schlangensterne.

Plate B11. — Heliodiscus

Discoidea. Scheiben-Strahlinge.

Plate B12. — Miliola.

Thalamophora. Kammerlinge.

Plate B13. — Dinobryon.

Flagellata. Geißlinge.

Plate B14. — Peridinium.

Peridinea. Geißelhütchen.

Plate B15. — Zonaria.

Fucoideae. Brauntange.

Plate B16. — Pegantha.

Narcomedusae. Spangenquallen.

Plate B17. — Porpema.

Siphonophorae. Staatsquallen.

Plate B18. — Linantha.

Discomedusae. Scheibenquallen.

Plate B19. — Pennatula.

Pennatulida. Federkorallen.

Plate B20. — Pentacrinus.

Crinoidea. Palmensterne.