MASTER NEGA W^. NO 92-80747-2 MICROFILMED 1992 COLUMBIA UNIVERSITY LIBRARIES/NEW YORK V as part of the . „ . .„ Foundations of Western Civilization Preservation Project Funded by the xttt-tcc NATIONAL ENDOWMENT FOR THE HUMANITIES Rerroductions may not be made without permission from Columbia University Libiaiy COPYRIGHT STATEMENT The copyright law of the United States - Title 17, United States Code ~ concerns the making of photocopies or other reproductions of copyrighted material... Columbia Unr eioiiy Library reserves the right to refuse to accept a copy order if, in its Judgement, fulfillment of the order would involve violation of the copyright law. AUTHOR POULTON, EDWARD BAGNALL TITLE. ESSAYS ON EVOLUTION PLACE: OXFORD DA TE: 1908 Master Negative # COLUMBIA UNIVERSITY LIBRARIES PRESERVATION DEPARTMENT RTRT TOr,R A P H IC MICROFORM TARGET Original Material as Filmed - Existing Bibliographic Record A V •^mt^m ■•(«" try ■•^ ■^ Sir Poulton, Edwr.rd Bagnall, 1856- 1943. Essays on evolution 1889-1907, by Edward Bagnall Poulton ... Oxford, Clarondon pross, 1908. •xlviii, 479, (li p. illus., pi. 23^™. ' , , . Contents.— Introduction: Mutation, Mendclism, and natural selection.-— A naturalist's contribution to the discussion upon the aec of the cartli. (Liverpool, 1896)— 'What is a species?' (London, 190ir— Theories of evolution. (Boston, 1894) — Theories of heredity. (Oxford, 1889) — The hearing of the study of insects upon the question 'Arc acquired char- acters hereditary?' (London, 1905)— A remarkable anticipation of mod- ern views on evolution. (1897)— Thomas Henry Huxley and the theory of natural selection. (Birmingham, 1905)— Natural selection the cause of mimetic rcseml)l:iucc and common warning colours. (London, 1898) — Mimicrv and natural selection. (Berlin, 1901)— The place of mimicry in a scheme of defensive coloration. (Leeds, 1890)— Appendix : A classifica- tion and index of t'le exam- pies of mimicr>' quoted in the text. — Analytical index. ^^^ A>ioTHE^S in'm^ed: :al ueiURT O Continued on noxtgiisgs^ Library of Coi grcss QH366.P8 Restrictions on Use: ■7" -fS, ' .^ Sir Poultonp Edward Bagnstllf 1856-1943. Es'savs on evolution 1889-1907 • (Card 2) D575* P86 DS79" Copy in Butler Library of PhilospiAy. -Copy in Zoology Hoading Roen, •■■ .JaA J TECHNICAL MICROFORM DATA REDUCTION RATIO:___/7JC FILM SIZE:,,^^ IMAGE PLACEMENT: lA IIA IB IID DATE FILMED: 3.(i^L5J2, INITIALS___S^itZ RLMEDBY: RESEARCH PUBLICATIONS. INC WOODBRIDGE, CT c Association for information and Image Management 1100 Wayne Avenue. Suite 1100 Silver Spring, Maryland 20910 301/587-8202 Centimeter 1 2 3 iiiiiiiiiiiliinliiiiliiiiliii TTT Inches 4 5 t iiiliiiiliinliiiiliiiil 1 7 8 iiiiiiilniiliiiiliiiili TTT I fmm 1.0 I.I 1.25 9 10 n 12 13 llllllllllllllllllllllllluilllllllllll TTT Ui 28 la. 25 2.2 2.0 1.8 1.4 1.6 TTT 14 15 mm iiiiliiii T MRNUFfiCTURED TO fillM STRNDRRDS BY fiPPLIED IMfiGE. INC. -b ^ %" \j <^ i ,,t^- •A- '■.^' e^* A =?^ ' m»: i: M A,-li 11 t-i I t- I "^"^ .** ^ «^ %iM^%. «m ?, 5*. J *^\ «?^ - .% ^*' ^ t.i*r 1- -.: ^'I.. .^-^ '^-Ji: ~n -r V 7> crs w ,iliuticr lliltran> of CONTfl^E itOFFIClI w:-ETBENifIVENDI^» ■^"M r-^ ^IK*-' i ^ W^ I': t ^^*m04 S msiM^^mm Oxford ESSAYS ON EVOLUTION 1889-1907 BY EDWARD BAGNALL POULTON, D.Sc, M.A. Hon. LL.D. Princeton, F.R.S., V-P.L.S., F.Z.S., F.G.S., F.E.S. HOPE PROFESSOR OF ZOOLOGY IN THE UNIVERSITY OF OXFORD FELLOW OF JESUS COLLEGE, OXFORD MEMBRE HONORAIRE DE LA SOCIETE ENTOMOLOGIQUE DE BELGIQUE CORRESPONDING MEMBER OF THE ACADEMY OF SCIENCE, NEW YORK AND THE SOCIETY OF NATURAL HISTORY, BOSTON OXFORD AT THE CLARENDON PRESS 1908 ?W>\.U.K\s I k.^. « I ^. •_■' > . \ HENRY FROWDE, M.A. PUBLISHER TO THE UNIVERSITY OF OXFORD LONDON, EDINBURGH NEW YORK AND TORONTO 3\ 5-"/ 6' TO RAPHAEL MELDOLA, F.R.S. WHOSE EARLIER WRITINGS, UNDER THE INSPIR1N(>- INFLUENCE OF CHARLES DARWIN AND ALFRED RUSSEL WALLACE, WERE THE FOUNDATION OF A FRIENDSHIP AND A LIFE-WORK PREFACE t- 4 The essays on evolution included in this book have not been placed in the order of their original publication, but are grouped according to the relationship of the subjects with which they deal. The first is concerned with the time in which evolution took place, and is a reply to the late Lord Salisbury's contention that the age of the habitable globe is not sufficient for the process as con- ceived by Darwin and Wallace. The second attempts to define the material which has been subject to organic evolution — species. The third contrasts the Darwin- Wallace with the Lamarck-Spencer theory of evolution. Heredity, the arbiter between the two rival theories, forms the subject of the fourth and fifth essays. The sixth deals with a neglected episode in the history of modern views on heredity and evolution, and shows how they were born out of due time but afterwards died in the mind of James Cowles Prichard, the great anthropo- logist The seventh, discussing Huxley's attitude towards Natural Selection, maintains that above all it is the experience of the student of living nature which inspires confidence in the theory. The eighth and ninth essays form the natural continuation of the argument of the seventh, and show that the immense number of facts grouped under Mimicry are consistent with an interpreta- tion based on Natural Selection, and inconsistent with other attempted explanations. The argument of the VI PREFACE seventh, eighth, and ninth essays being concerned with the value of the visible surface of animals in the struggle for life, it was considered appropriate to include under the tenth head, and to illustrate by many examples, a comprehensive classification of the various uses which external colouring and appearance may subserve. It will, I think, be realized that, although the separate essays were delivered as addresses or published on various occasions and at very different dates, they are the expres- sion of a continuous line of thought, and therefore fall together as naturally as if they had been written at one time, for the purposes of the present volume. A certain amount of overlap is necessary in essays dealing with closely related subjects. Any inconvenience from this cause and the scattered use of examples, in- evitable in an essay, will be removed by consulting the Appendix and the analytical index, to the preparation of which much time and labour have been devoted. Wherever the progress of knowledge has led to modifi- cation of statement or conclusion the necessary alterations have been made. These are in the form of footnotes whenever the importance and interest of the advance is such as to call for prominence. In other cases I have not hesitated to alter the text. Whether right or wrong, the arguments and conclusions in this volume of essays represent my views at the present moment. It will be observed that the style of the third essay differs from that of all the others. This is because it is the revised shorthand record of an address, spoken not read. The seventh (hitherto unpublished) and ninth addresses were also spoken, but the corresponding essays were written subsequently from the notes. They there- PREFACE vu fore contain much that was omitted from want of time and the interruption caused by the exhibition of numerous illustrations. The last and longest essay has been written for the present volume. Its title, The Place of Mimicry in a Scheme of Defensive Coloration, formed the subject of a lecture delivered seventeen years ago. I have now attempted to discuss the same question, replacing the standpoint of 1890 by that of 1907, and directing special attention to the advance which has been made in the interval between these two dates. Mendelism and Mutation, which occupy so large a share of public attention at the present moment, are not directly discussed in any of the essays. The relation of these interesting modern researches and speculations to older theories of evolution is briefly considered in an intro- ductory chapter, in which it is maintained that the conclusions supported in the present volume are incon- sistent with a theory of evolution by Mutation, inconsistent with the views often expressed by Mendelians, but not inconsistent with the discoveries of Mendel himself. A full reference to the original source of publication will be found in the introductory note to those essays which have already appeared. I desire to thank the administra- tive bodies of scientific societies and the proprietors of journals for permission to reprint from the publications under their control. Much invaluable assistance has been rendered by kind friends in the preparation of this volume or of the original addresses. A large part of the first essay on the age of the earth could never have been written without the help of Professor Perry, F.R.S., who has now kindly contri- buted a note (p. 15) on the bearing of the discovery of via PREFACE Radium upon the argument founded on the life of the sun. The hiatus in my argument caused by the want of any reference to the evolution of land-plants has now been to some extent filled by a brief summary of the main conclusions, prepared forme by my kind friend Dr. D. H. Scott, F.R.S. ; also by a quotation from an address by Professor A. C. Seward, F.R.S. I well remember how much I owed to the kind help of my friend Sir Ray Lankester, F.R.S., in the difficult task of summing up in a few words the chief conclusions as to the origin and history of each of the main branches of the animal kingdom. And essential parts of the second and fifth essays are due to his published writings, or have sprung from the memory of discussions with him. In rewriting large parts of the fourth essay I owe a great debt to Dr. J. W. Jenkinson for valuable sugges- tions and criticism. Without the help of one who is devoting his life to the subject, I should have shrunk from the attempt to display in a few pages the main con- clusions of the modern embryologist as to the potentiali- ties latent in the germ, and their gradual emergence into actuality during the developmental history of the individual. It is unnecessary to speak here individually of all the numerous friends who have rendered the kindest assist- ance in the preparation of this volume, and especially of essays VII-X, dealing with Protective Resemblance and Mimicry. All such help is fully acknowledged in the pages of the work. I wish, however, especially to thank my friends Dr. F. A. Dixeyand Mr. Guy A. K. Marshall. Not only do their researches contribute a most important element to this volume, but I also owe them a deep debt W IX PREFACE of gratitude for continual advice and criticism, and for most efficient assistance in correcting proofs and verifying references. I have attempted to express my indebtedness to Pro- fessor Meldola, F.R.S., by dedicating this volume to him. His writings were the original stimulus to which I owe the work of my life, and during nearly a quarter of a century devoted to that work I have relied probably even more than I am myself aware upon his sympathy and help. The great names of Darwin and Wallace are associated with Meldolas in the dedication, thus express- mg. although very insufficiently, my sense of an im- measurable debt of gratitude. The life and immortal work of Darwin are a heritage of inspiration to every naturalist. To Alfred Russel Wallace I owe not only the stimulus of epoch-making thoughts, but the incalculable mfluence of long years of friendship and encouragement. EDWARD B. POULTON. Oxford, March 31, 1908. CONTENTS \ PAGE Introduction: Mutation, Mendelism, and Natural Selection . I. A Naturalist's contribution to the Dis- cussion UPON TME Age of the Earth (Liverpool, 1896) . . , . , ^ II. 'What is a Species?' (London, 1904) . . 45 in. Theories of Evolution (Boston, 1894) . . 95 IV. Theories of Heredity (Oxford, 1889) • .120 V. The Bearing of the Study of Insects upon THE Question 'Are Acquired Charac- ters Hereditary?' (London, 1905) . . 139 VI. A Remarkable anticipation of Modern Views on Evolution (1897) . . . .173 Vn. Thomas Henry Huxley and the Theory of Natural Selection (Birmingham, 1905) . 193 VIII. Natural Selection the Cause of Mimetic Resemblance and Common Warning Colours (London, 1898) 220 IX. Mimicry and Natural Selection (Berlin, 1901) 271 X. The Place of Mimicry in a Scheme of Defensive Coloration (Leeds, 1890) . . 293 Appendix: A Classification and Index of the Examples of Mimicry quoted in the Text . 383 Analytical Index • 395 ERRATA p. 3, 1- 15- For 'Jenkins's' read 'Jenkins'. p. 1 99, 1. 13. For * road ' read * roads '. p. 240, 1. 2. For * Dismorphina ' read ' Dismorphia \ p. 272, 1. 4 from bottom. Place ' Heliconine' between * Danaine' and * Nymphaline '. p. 274. Further consideration has led to the conclusion that Anosia plexippus originally invaded North America from the tropics of the Old World and not from tropical America. The argument on p. 274 is not affected, p. 277, lines 8, 9 from bottom. For ' and Hdkoninae ' read * (Danaoid Heliconidae) \ p. 288, lines 18, 19. For ' ihyodamus' read ' thyodamas\ INTRODUCTION MUTATION, MENDELISM, AND f^ATURAL SELECTION The essays in this volume do not deal with the questions of Mutation and Mendelism which are so much discussed at the present time. It did not come in my way to examine them carefully until quite recently. When, however, I did look into the English publications on these subjects and the earlier work of Bateson on Variation, I was almost startled at the narrowness and prejudice which were continually apparent. Bateson's writings appear to me to have introduced a new and most regrettable element into scientific controversy. I cannot therefore let this book go to press without the following pages. The writings to which I have alluded are injurious to Biological Science, and a hindrance in the attempt to solve the problem of Evolution, for the following reasons : — 1. The amount of dogmatism concerning work with which the writer is evidently imperfectly ac- quainted. 2. The assumptions made by Mutationists on the slenderest evidence. 3. The appropriation under the name of Mendel of results which tlie present generation owes to Weismann. 4- The exaggerated estimate of the importance for XIV MUTATION, MENDELISM, ETC. Evolution of, first, Bateson's work on Variation, secondly Mendel's interesting discovery. 5. The contemptuous depreciation of other lines of investigation directly inspired by the work and teaching: of Darwin and Wallace. 6. The natural consequence of this last: — a wide- spread belief among the ill-informed that the teachings of the founders of modern biology are abandoned. I should wish to add that, although solely responsible for the contents of this Introductory chapter, I did not venture to publish it without consulting a number of the leading zoologists and botanists in this country. Without a single exception my friends agreed with the general line of argument, and felt with me that the protest was called for. I. Evolution, Continuous or Discontinuous, Although the word ' Mutation ' is so much in evidence in the opening years of this century — as if it implied some new and illuminating idea — the conception of the origin of species by sudden steps is in reality very old. The terms Continuous and Discontinuous are of course merely relative, as Bateson has clearly expressed it : — * In proportion as the transition from term to term is minimal and imperceptible we may speak of the Series as being Continuous, while in proportion as there appear in it lacunae, filled by no transitional form, we may describe it as Discontinuousl ^ Judged by this statement, parts of the series of species in the Organic World are discontinuous, parts continuous. It is the discontinuity ^ Materials for the Study of Variation, London, 1894, p. 15, Here- after quoted as On Variation, A TOO-ASSERTIVE CONTINUITY xv which strikes Bateson ^ and those who follow him ; 2 but it is the continuity which rather aggressively impresses the great majority of those whose lives are devoted to the study of species. The work of the systematist would be immensely facilitated by that very discontinuity which is always eluding him, but obtrudes itself upon Bateson. The letters of Darwin quoted on pp. 59, 60 and 67 of the present work are almost pathetic in their statement of difficulties due to continuity in Cirrhipedes. How are we to account for the discontinuous parts of the series ? Is discontinuity a result of gradual growth, or did it spring into existence ready made? Ever since the appearance of the Origin of Species, the great majority of naturalists have believed the former ; the latter is maintained by a small group of active workers who, sometimes called ' Mutationists ', sometimes ' Men- delians \ would in this country be more correctly termed ' Batesonians '. It would be absurd to attempt to account for the sharp discontinuity in the series of mature individuals by supposing that each member of it suddenly came into existence full grown. Similarly, in attempting to account for the discontinuity of species it is surely unreasonable to neglect all study of the birth and growth of species which are going on all over the world. Blinded by the assurance of the dogmatic state- ment that the problem can only be attacked in one ' * We see all organized nature arranged in a discontinuous series of groups differing from each other by differences which are Specific' 1. c, p. 16. Variation may teach us ' the origin of that Discontinuity of which Species is the objective expression '. 1. c, p. 1 7. ' * The species riddle presents itself definitely as the problem of the existence of a series of discontinuous groups of creatures, sharply marked off the one from the other . . .' R. H. Lock, in Variation, Heredity and i-volution, London, 1906, p. 11. xvi MUTATION, MENDELISM, ETC. \vay,^ Batesonians are heedless of all investigation into the geographical distribution of species and the changes on the borders of their range. The Zoological Museum at Tring is pre-eminent for exact and thorough re- searches of this kind, and the conclusions to which they lead are well expressed by Rothschild and Jordan:— ' Geographical varieties . . . represent various steps in the evolution of daughter-species.' And again, with special reference to the believer in discontinuity :— ' Who- ever studies the distinctions of geographical varieties closely and extensively, will smile at the conception of the origin of species per salhnn! '^ Nor is there any reason to wonder at the confidence felt by these naturalists. It is explained on pp. 50-4 of this work how it is that the evolution which has occurred in time is preserved in the distribution of certain species in space. Bateson's observations lead him to certain con- jectures as to what has happened in the past. The student of geographical distribution is recording history ; and it is in the geographical distribution of varieties rather than in * Variation ' that we do indeed see, and that without the chance of failure, ' Evolution rolling out before our eyes.' '^ ^ » I am convinced that the investigation of heredity by experimental methods offers the sole chance of progress with the fundamental problems of evolution.' Bateson, in Report British Association, 1904, p. 579- ^^ must be the same restriction to a point of view which, with all its vast importance, is limited, that led Bateson to maintain, on p. 575 of the same Report, ' that the survey of terrestrial types by existing methods is happily approaching completion.' These words will sound somewhat ironical to any naturalist who has had to do with museums, and knows something of the difficulty in getting material worked out. There are unfortunately very few animal groups concerning which Bateson's statement is correct. ' Nov. Zool.y 1903, vol. X, p. 492. ' Bateson, On Variation, p. 17. DISCONTINUITY AND COLOUR xvu 2. TAe Subjective EkmefU in Judging of Discontinuity, The amount of discontinuity in a series of living forms cannot be inferred with safety from superficial appear- ances. Notwithstanding the statement of R. H. Lock,i especial caution is necessary when the differences are those of colour. Discontinuous colour impressions are of course due to different rates of vibration in the different parts of a continuous series. The discontinuity is in our- selves, and not in the object. It is in every way probable that the chemical changes by which a pigment is trans- formed are excessively minute, although the impression produced on our senses is so great. A change in the colours of a butterfly's wing would doubtless appear as an important discontinuity, while a slight modification of venation in the same wing might well appear as an example of continuous evolution. And yet it is well known that a very small change in venation more truly represents specific difference than does the largest change in colour. 3. De Vriess Evidence in Favour of Mutation. Although the term Mutation might just as well have been applied to evolution of any kind, even the slowest and most imperceptible, it is employed to designate a theory of modification by large and sudden steps. 2 Unin- structed statements— commonly encountered just now in the press— inform the world that Natural Selection is entirely dispensed with by modern writers on Mutation Definite alterations in the colour of offspring as compared with their parents seem almost necessarily to be of this nature ' : viz, discontinuous I.e., p. 124. Species arise by mutation, by a sudden step in which either a single character or a whole set of characters together become changed.' Variation, Heredity and Evolution, R. H. Lock, London, 1906, p, 144. ■v' KJtXTON .c> xviii MUTATION, MENDELISM, ETC. and Mendelism. This is of course an error : Mutation without Selection may be left to those who desire to revive Special Creation under another name. But the error is a not unnatural outcome of the depreciatory and con- temptuous tone adopted by the leader of Mendelism in this country. Passing onwards from one to another, contempt is easily translated into an open expression of disbelief, and for a little day we hear on all sides that the central thoughts of Darwin and Wallace were in vain. But even while these random assertions are being made, De Vries in Holland and Bateson in England are main- taining that Natural Selection is necessary to the theories of evolution they support— necessary indeed, but, as Bateson teaches, so commonplace as to be unworthy of investigation.^ Mutation was of course well known to Darwin. It came before him in a rather extreme but unmistakable form in that clever but discredited work, the Vestiges, and what he thought of it is clearly expressed in the Introduction to the Origin '.—' Th^ author of the " Vestiges of Creation " would, I presume, say that, after ^ ' To prove the reality of Selection as a factor in evolution is, as I have said, a work of supererogation.' Report British Association, 1904, p. 578. « That the dread test of Natural Selection must be passed by every aspirant to existence, however brief, is a truism which needs no special proof. Those who find satisfaction in demonstrations of the obvious may amply indulge themselves by starting various sorts of some annual, say French poppy, in a garden, letting them run to seed, and noticing in a few years how many of the finer sorts are represented.' 1. c, p. 577- It is by no means obvious why, in any particular case, the finer sorts are supplanted. If our object is to ascertain how living things have become what they are (the problem as put by Bateson), a solution can never be attained unless the details of the selective process are studied at least as fully and thoroughly as the material which is subjected to selection. THE VESTIGES' REVIVED XIX a certain unknown number of generations, some bird had given birth to a woodpecker, and some plant to the misseltoe, and that these had been produced perfect as we now see them ; but this assumption seems to me to be no explanation, for it leaves the case of the co- adaptations of organic beings to each other and to their physical conditions of life, untouched and unexplained.' ^ The modern mutationist also admits ^ that adaptation is not explained by his hypothesis, but his way of dealing with this deficiency is at one time to pour contempt upon adaptation as a subject for investigation ; ^ at another to assume that it is so difficult that the attempt is hardly worth a trial* The only important evidence adduced in favour of Mutation in Nature is to be found in the behaviour of certain Oenotheras (Evening Primroses), first studied by De Vries and subsequently by many other naturalists.^ Oenothera lamarckiana, supposed to be an American plant introduced into Europe but unknown in the wild state in America, is the form which De Vries found to be throwing off species, as he believes them to be, in all directions. The Dutch botanist also tested about a hundred native species of varied genera, every one of which gave, as ^ Origin of Species, 1859, pp. 3, 4. ^ ' Nor have we any definite light on the problem of adaptation. . . .* Bateson, 1. c, p. 587. ^ See p. xviii n. i. ' On Variation, W. Bateson, London, 1894, pp. 10-13. ^ The latest memoirs are (i) Mutations, Variations, and Relationships of the Oenotheras by D. T. Macdougal, A. M. Vail and G. H. ShuU, Carnegie Institution of Washington, 1907. A full list of publications is appended: pp. 91-2 ; (2) On the Variations of the Evening Primrose by G. A. Boulenger, F.R.S., fournal of Botany, October, 1907. A good general account will be found in R. H. Lock's Variation, Heredity and Evolution^ London, 1906, chapter v. b2 XX MUTATION, MENDEUSM, ETC. regards ' real mutability \ a negative result.^ The lethargy of the Dutch plants, contrasted with the volcanic energy of the American, appears to have wounded De Vries s national pride so sharply that he felt bound to meet the situation with a hypothesis which gave promise of equal powers to his compatriots. He found comfort in the startling speculation * that species are subject to com- paratively short periods of mutability which recur at relatively long intervals, and that all the species he examined except the CEywthera were in this intermediate stable period of their existence '.^ It would be interesting and probably amusing to hear the words with which a speculative edifice equally vast, on a foundation equally insecure, if such were possible, would be assailed by the leader of Mutation in England, had it been erected in relation to continuous evolution. The comparison between the other plants and the Oenothera did not apparently lead De Vries to conjecture that there might be something wrong with the latter, even though the original wild plant was unknown. * It is unfortunate,' as R. H. Lock remarks, 'from the point of view of de Vries interpretation of this case that the behaviour of O. Lamarckiana should suggest in some respects, as Bateson has pointed out, the phenomena of hybridization.' ^ The supposed fact ' that the species appears to exhibit the same phenomenon in other locali- ties ' * is, however, brought forward by Lock in support of De Vries's hypothesis. Well, the form (9. lamarckiana 1 Hugo De Vries, Species and Varieties, London, 1905, p. 520. « R. H. Lock, 1. c, p. 140. Lock adds somewhat laconically, ' Direct proof of this suggestion is naturally out of the question.' By a printer's error the word ' stable ' in the above-quoted passage appears as ' staple ' in the original. * 1. c, p. 278. ' Ibid. DE VRIESS EVIDENCE xxi has been studied at La Garde St. Cast, on the coast of Brittany, in 1899, 1904, and 1907 by G. A. Boulenger, F.R.S., and also by Mr. Charles Bailey at St. Anne's-on- the-Sea, North Lancashire, and neither of these naturalists finds the same phenomenon exhibited, although the latter observer appears to have discovered about two of De Vries s 'species '. Boulenger's conclusions are quoted in full in the following paragraph : — * To sum up, I would suggest the possibility of the Mutatio7is-theorie being based on false premisses. De Vries has assumed, without any justification, that CEnothera Lamarckiana is a natural species. The fact that it was originally described from a garden flower, grown in the Paris Jardin des Plantes, and that, in spite of diligent search, it has not been discovered wild any- where in America, favours the probability that it was produced by crossing various forms of the polymorphic CE» biennis, which had previously been introduced in Europe. If it be so, and the onus probandi of the contrary rests with the mutationists, we have no evidence of mutations in the phenomenon observed by De Vries, but simply one of those cases of Mendelian disjunction of hybrids to which he was the first to call the attention of the naturalists of the present generation. The characters of several parent forms, which may, for all we know, have originated through fluctuating variation, have remained latent in some individuals of CE, Lamarckiana and reappear in different combinations, thus producing the appearance of distinct ** species," each definable by several characters, springing up under our eyes.* ^ In the recent work of Macdougal, Vail and Shull we are told that ' fixed hybrids constituting species were secured in combinations of O, lamarckiana and O, cm- * Journal of Botany , October, 1907. xxii MUTATION, MENDELISM, ETC. data '} Such forms (it is, I submit, extremely unsafe to speak of them as species) may, in the future, either spontaneously or under some external stimulus break up into their components, repeating the history which Boulenger believes to have occurred in O. lamarckiana itself. As this chapter was passing through the press an interesting letter on Specific Stability and Mutation, by Sir W. T. Thiselton-Dyer, appeared in Nature.'' The author, after describing a number of Mutations which have occurred in cultivated plants, comes to the following conclusion:— * In all these cases I think we may safely infer from the persistent specific stability at the com- mencement of cultivation that the changes which sub- sequently occur would not have occurred in nature. . . . The evidence, on the other hand, that such changes follow cultural conditions as a result is simply over- whelming. . . .* 4. Mutation and the Facts of Mimicry ^ &c. The very same ideas of Discontinuity and Mutation, the same revolt of the clay against the power of the potter, arose again and again in the interval between the appear- ance of the Origin and this modern revival. The formula * before a thing can be selected it must be * had been repeated by Cope, Semper, Eimer, and many another naturalist, long before it assumed the more picturesque form given to it by Bateson : — ' The creature is beheld to be very good after, not before its creation/ ^ ^ Carnegie Institution of Washington, 1907, I.e., p. 89. ^ Nov. 28, 1907, pp. 77-9. ' Report British Association, 1904, p. 578: also on p. 577 --^ * Selection is a true phenomenon ; but its function is to setect, not to create.' NATURAL SELECTION CREATIVE xxiii Mutation is the importunate hypothesis, at length admitted on account of its importunity. Darwin's view, that Selection is the paramount power in the production of species, is made very clear by his metaphor of an architect constructing a beautiful building out of the fragments of broken stone at the foot of a precipice.^ For the purposes of the controversy of the hour, a more appropriate metaphor is that of the artist. Pictorial effects could no doubt be obtained from time to time by the simple method of throwing colours at a screen : occasionally, perhaps, such * Mutations ' would be superior to anything which an artist could achieve by adding here a little and there a little to the developing picture. It would hardly be reasonable to infer from a few such successes that the proper function of the artist is merely to wait for the appropriate Mutation, and to cease producing effects by the accumulation of minute increments — in fact * to select not to create \ The essential difficulty about the chance method is that it could never yield representations of particular objects. Now there is an important section of the organic world where the metaphor passes into reality. I refer to the countless thousands of cases in which there has been evolved on the surface of an animal a picture of some portion of its environment — the unending instances of Protective Resemblance and the still more striking examples of Mimicry. It is as unlikely that a key could be made to fit a com- plicated lock by a number of chance blows upon a blank piece of metal, as that the elaborate pattern on the wings of a butterfly should have been reproduced on those of its mimic by Mutation. It is necessary to state very prominently that the * Variation under Domestication, London, 1875, vol. ii, pp. 426-7. xxiv MUTATION, MENDELISM, ETC. question of a Mullerian as against a Batesian interpretation of the facts of Mimicry (so fully discussed in the present volume) is of no importance to the present argument. The metaphor in the preceding paragraph sufficiently indicates why it is that the facts of Mimicr)^ are them- selves inconsistent with an evolution based on discon- tinuous variation. I should be the last to maintain that the followers of any other subject are bound to go into the details of Cryptic Resemblance and Mimicry, and I should have been well pleased if Mendelian workers had confined themselves to the interesting and indeed exciting lines of inquiry started by Mendel. But they have by no means been content with this. R. H. Lock, m his recent work. Variation, Heredity and Evolution^ refers to Mimicry, &c., apparently without making himself in any way acquainted with the work that has been done in these subjects. His suggestion of alternative interpretations had been made long ago, and met long ago, as may be seen in the eighth essay in the present volume, originally published in 1898. It is well known that in the Hope Department of the Oxford University Museum a special study of Mimicry has been made and special illustrative sets of specimens brought together. I should have been only too pleased to show the material to this author, or to any other naturalist. It is not fair controversy, after utterly neglecting what has been done, to profess to sum up the evidence for Mimicry in these words : ' Several supposed examples of this phenomenon have been described in the case of different genera of tropical butterflies.' ^ 1 London, 1906. ». . r 2 R. H. Lock, 1. c, p. 51. The following statement on the subject of Protective Resemblance is also very misleading :— ' Examples of this MUTATION AND MIMICRY XXV If, instead of attempting to criticize without knowledge, R. H. Lock were to make a careful study of the subject, he would find much that bears upon his own opinions and beliefs. The influence of the organism itself upon the direction taken by Natural Selection can be clearly proved in numbers of cases. For in Mimicry the changes have often been so rapid, that we may see the finished product and the stages of its preparation living side by side, and we can safely conclude that the type of the original non-mimetic pattern determined the evolution of one mimetic likeness rather than any other. In order to facilitate this study, I had intended to add an eleventh essay, which might serve as a guide to the most striking examples of Mimicry to be found in any large collection of butterflies. But I found that anything like an adequate introduction to the subject in butterflies alone would require a book to itself. In the meantime, until that volume appears, as it will, I hope, at no distant date, the instances mentioned in the last three essays will, if examined in any collection, give some conception of the subject. A study of the examples described in the various memoirs referred to will convey full information of the state of existing knowledge, but such a task would be an arduous one. If believers in Mutation will do me the honour not to accept my statements of mimetic resemblance, but will merely use them as a guide to the species themselves, I have no doubt that they will recognize some of the difficulties in the way of an interpretation based on a hypothesis of discontinuous evolution. Reversing the order of discovery, the study should begin with the kind in which the shape of an animal leads to its concealment are com- paratively infrequent, although a considerable number might be collected ' (1. c, pp. 50-1). xxvi MUTATION, MENDELISM, ETC. Ethiopian Region, and, proceeding through the Oriental and Australian, reach its final culmination m the astonish- ingly complex associations and the wonderful resem- blf nces, perfect in the minutest details, of the Neotropical ^Sdence in the theory of Gravitation is, I believe, founded on indirect evidence. A -ontinu.ny^^^^^ knowledge of the systems and movements of the Cosmos remlins ever consistent with the theory. The knowledge itself will always be of the deepest interest, even if Gravitation should ultimately be refuted or extended out of recognition. So, to compare small things with great, is it with the theory of Natural Selection and the evidence of Mimicry. The great mimetic combinations of the various degrees-grouped like planets and satellites round centres of primary and secondary importance-sweep along the path of Evolution, just as the gravitational systems drift through space, without disturbing their internal relation- ships A rapidly-increasing knowledge of the niimetic systems still remains consistent with Natural Selection, and, whatever be the fate of this great theory, the facts must always be interesting in a high degree. And as to the ultimate fate of the theory we may use with far greater confidence than in 1859 the words with which Darwin sent the Origin of Species to Asa Gray :- 1 cannot possibly believe that a false theory would explain so many classes of facts as I think it certainly does explain. On these grounds I drop my anchor, and believe that the difficulties will slowly disappear. ^ 5. Mendelism and Natural Selection. The relationship of Natural Selection to this recently- known discovery will, I think, appear most clearly by the ^ Life and Letters of Charles Darwin, London, 1887, vol. ii, p. 217. DARWIN ON THE PRIMROSE xxvii discussion of a single case. Its consideration will also serve to show the wide divergence between the true bearing of the discovery itself and the claims of Men- delians. * The thrum-eyed condition of the primrose has been shown by Bateson and Gregory to be a Mendelian domi- nant to the pin-eyed condition, so that we have here the solution, so far as solution is possible, of a biological problem to which Darwin devoted the greater part of a volume.' ^ Let us inquire what Darwin did achieve in the pages referred to ; for Lock only leads his readers to infer that the great naturalist failed to find a solution. 1. In the first place, Darwin examined not only the primrose, but all the heterostyled plants of which he could obtain specimens, paying special attention to such points as the diameter of the pollen-grains, the structure of the stigma, &c. For he would by no means accept differences in length of stamen and pistil alone as suffi- cient evidence of the heterostyled condition. 2. After proving that the plants were truly hetero- styled, he showed in all available species, by numbers of laborious experiments, that one form of a heterostyled plant is only fully fertilized by pollen from an individual of the other form (or one of the other forms in the case of trimorphic heterostyled plants). 3. He proved that when the stigma receives pollen from a form the same as its own, together with pollen from the other form, the latter is prepotent, 4. As regards some of the species, he proved, by covering with a net, that the visits of insects are necessary * R. H. Lock, Variation, Heredity and Evolution^ London, 1906, p. 201. Darwin's volume referred to is Different Forms of Flowers (London, 1877). XXVllI MUTATION, MENDELISM, ETC. for fertilization. As regards some he showed the pro- portion in which the different forms exist in the wild state in various localities. 5. He proved in many species that when a plant was artificially fertilized by pollen from the same form, that form immensely preponderated in the offspring. 6. Such a union as that last described, which he called * illegitimate ', never yielded the full number of offspring. From these facts he reached the following conclusion given in his own words : * The results of crossing such flowers in an illegitimate manner, I believe to be very important, as bearing on the sterility of hybrids ; although these results have been noticed by only a few persons.' ^ 7. Incidentally he produced much evidence that the primrose, cowslip, and Bardfield oxlip are true species, and that the common oxlip is a hybrid between the cow- slip and the primrose, the latter investigation involving many crossing experiments. 8. Finally, he concluded with an extraordinarily inter- esting and illuminating discussion on the distribution of heterostyled species throughout the families of plants, on the advantages of the heterostyled condition as compared with other methods of securing cross-fertilization, and on the steps by which plants may have become hetero- styled. This last part of Darwin's great memoir is a conspi- cuous example of the reasoning so severely condemned by W. Bateson in his work on Variation.'-^ 1 have now summed up, far too briefly, the main results to the exposi- * Life and Letters of Charles Darwin, London, 1887, vol. i, p. 97. Certain aspects of this question are discussed on pp. 90-4 of the present volume. 2 Materials for the Study of Variation, London, 1894, pp. 10-13. See also parts of the Preface to that book. BATESON ON THE PRIMROSE xxix tion of which * Darwin devoted the greater part of a volume' — in fact the whole volume up to p. 277, the last page being 345. Of the great central discovery he says in his AtUobiography : ' I do not think anything in my scientific life has given me so much satisfaction as making out the meaning of the structure of these plants';^ and again, a few pages later: * No little dis- covery of mine ever gave me so much pleasure as the making out the meaning of heterostyled flowers.' - And now what have Bateson and Gregory done that makes their work the only possible solution of the problem upon which Darwin made all these fruitful investigations ? Mendel published his discovery in 1866, but it was * entirely lost sight of until the same facts were inde- pendently rediscovered in 1899 by de Vries working in Holland, by Correns in Germany, and by Tschermak in Austria '.^ Bateson and Gregory in England then applied the rediscovery to the characters upon which depend the heterostyled condition of the primrose. In Lock's triumphant statement quoted on p. xxvii we are told that in the result the thrum-eyed condition (stamens high up, pistil short) was a Mendelian dominant to the pin- eyed condition (stamens low down, pistil long).* Accept- ing this account, what does it amount to ? Beginning with two parents, one thrum-eyed and one pin-eyed, the next or second generation would have the appearance of thrum-eyed. Breeding these together, a quarter of the ' Life and Letters, vol. i, p. 91. ^ Ibid., vol. i, p. 97. ^ R. H. Lock, I.e., pp. 178-9. * This, however, is not Bateson's own account of his result; for he says :— * It is doubtful if '* thrum " ever breeds true, as both the other types can do . . . .' The third type here referred to is the mid-styled or intermediate condition. See Report British Association^ 1904* ?• 586 n. XXX MUTATION. MENDELISM, ETC MENDEL'S DISCOVERY XXXI It I! ' third generation would be pure thrum-eyed, and bred together for any number of generations would yield no other form; another quarter would similarly be pure pin- eyed, while the remaining half would have the appear- ance of thrum-eyed, but when tested by breeding would behave in the same manner as the second generation. Pursuing this process to infinity, if it were possible to do so,^ we should be confronted by two sets of individuals equal in number, one thrum-eyed, the other pin-eyed. The word 'dominant', then, only means that the individuals which in each generation contain both conditions, the indi- viduals whose offspring will in the course of future genera- tions divide themselves equally between the two camps — that these have the superficial appearance of one condition alone, and that the thrum-eyed. The pin- eyed condition, equally present, as is proved by breeding, but not superficially evident, is called ' recessive '. * Dominant,' then, implies no permanent superiority, but describes a superficial appearance which analysis proves to be misleading. It has been necessary to say all this, although often said before, because it is important to explain as clearly as possible what is the nature of the * solution ' at which, accepting Lock's account, Bateson and Gregory have arrived. And it is desirable that this knowledge should be available for those who have not studied the elements of Mendelism as well as for those who have. What does the * solution ' amount to ? Merely this, — the knowledge that the two conditions * thrum-eye ' and * pin-eye ', so far as they follow Mendelian laws, do ' In this particular example there is Httle doubt that the experiment would soon come to an end. Darwin's results, as stated in 6 on p. xxviii, indicate that it would be impossible to produce many generations by * illegitimate ' unions. not combine in successive generations, but may be shown by an appropriately arranged experiment gradually to become divided between two groups of individuals. Existing information as to the occurrence of these two forms in Nature is given an arithmetical precision we did not possess before ; furthermore we are led back to a fascinating picture of the distribution of the antecedents of * thrum-eye * and ' pin-eye ' among the germ-cells, and of their unions in fertilization. In order to do justice to Mendel and because of the value and interest of the inference, it is necessary to explain in few words and as simply as possible what is the nature of this picture of events we can never hope to see with the microscope. The fertilized germ or zygote from which all the higher animals develop is a single cell of which the essential or nuclear elements are contributed equally by the two parents. It has been proved by observation that these essential parts of germ-cells (or gametes) are reduced by half as a preparation for the reception of a fresh half in fertilization or zygosis. Thus it is that the starting-point of the individual is a single cell and not a double cell. What Van Beneden and others have seen with the microscope in the gamete and the fertilized germ, Mendel's discovery enables the mind to see in the material germinal basis of certain single hereditary characters. Here, too, the material precursor of a character at the starting-point of the individual is made up of two parts, the allelomorphs, one from each parental gamete. In the case of yellow and green cotyledoned peas originally investigated by Mendel, we may call the allelomorphs of the yellow character and the green character respectively Y and G. In the first cross between a pure yellow and a pure green pea it is obvious that all the gametes of the one parent would carry Y and 9 XXXll MUTATION, MENDELISM, ETC. MENDEL'S DISCOVERY xxxiii all those of the other G. In fertilization therefore G must unite with Y and the fertilized ovum must contain YG. The germ, containing the two different allelo- morphs of such a pair of Mendelian characters, is called a heterozygote. All the peas produced by these hetero- zygotes were superficially indistinguishable from the pure yellow parent. Yellowness of the cotyledon is therefore dominant over greenness. In the development of the germ-cells (gametes) from which the next generation will arise it is obvious that the precursors of the Mendelian characters in question can only be represented by half of what they will become after fertilization. This might be effected by each gamete coming to possess in the course of its development both Y and G of half the normal size ; or it might be brought about by each gamete possessing either Y or G, but never both. Mendel proved that the facts (in characters that follow his principle) are invariably consistent with the latter alternative. For, assuming that the allelomorphs Y and G are thus scattered singly among the gametes produced by each individual, it follows that half the gametes will contain each a single Y, and half each a single G. Hence in the event of self-ferti- lization, a gamete containing Y will on the average meet and unite with one containing Y as often as one with G ; and G similarly will unite with G as often as with Y. A quarter of the individuals of the following generation will therefore be developed from a fertilized germ con- taining YY, hence called a homozygote ; another quarter from the other homozygote GG, while half will arise from the heterozygote YG. But yellowness being dominant, the latter individuals will superficially resemble those developed from YY, and the generation will produce approximately three yellow peas to one green. And this is precisely what Mendel obtained by experiment. He then proved by breeding further generations (i) that these green peas contain the character in a pure state and yield no other colour ; (2) that one third of the yellow peas are similarly pure ; (3) that the remainder or half the generation are heterozygotes, which when interbred behave in precisely the same manner as the second generation exclusively composed of heterozygotes. Con- tinuing the process to infinity the yellows and greens would sort themselves out into two equal bodies of pure yellow and pure green respectively. I should be the last to undervalue these results, but their true worth is not enhanced by such astonishing exaggeration as that which appears in the passage I have quoted from R. H. Lock on p. xxvii. The human mind is so constituted that a touch of megalomania is to be expected, is even to be regarded with sympathy, in the first flush of a new victory over the unknown ; and I have always felt that the revelation of ' the underworld of gametes'^ by Mendel's discovery is a fascinating and arresting addition to knowledge. But to suppose that the problem of Evolution is thereby solved, or likely to be solved, is unreasonable. Lock's statement not only reveals a grotesque exaggeration of the importance of the results achieved, but also conveys the impression that the Mendelian is to some extent paralysed by the contemplation of his own work. He seems to say, — * We have solved the mystery so far as it can be solved, and all that is now expected of us is to apply and apply again the Mendelian principle to one strain after another.' Such an outlook does not offer much hope of progress in solving the problem of Evolution. ' How have living things become what they are, and what are the laws which govern their forms?' These * Bateson, Report British Association, 1904, p. 583. ?OULTON xxxiv MUTATION, MENDELISM, ETC. are the words in which Bateson at the outset of his work ^ truly states the problem to be solved. Hardly any assistance in this solution is afforded by the Mendelian discovery. In the case of heterostyled plants, Darwin had already proved that both forms exist in Nature, and that in fact the offspring do arrange themselves in two groups of approximately equal numbers. The gametic explanation of this, although intensely interesting, carries us no step further on the road of Evolution. Furthermore, Darwin showed what is the meaning of the heterostyled condition in the life of the plant, and thus explained how it was that the character has been selected, and incorporated into the structure of the species. To look on this record and on that, and maintain that Darwin failed to solve the problem which the Mendelian has now solved, is, to put it as mildly as possible, unreasonable and absurd. It is probable that the part played by Mendel's prin- ciple in evolution is limited to the prevention, in certain cases, of the supposed * swamping effect of intercrossing*. Interbreeding between a species and its variety could not obliterate or weaken the latter when the relationship of the two forms is Mendelian. As explained on pp. xxix, XXX, a Mendelian variety would never really fuse with the parent form, but would sooner or later emerge pure in some future generation. On the other hand, the characters of the variety, unless favoured by selection, are prevented by the same principle from penetrating the mass of the species. The average numbers of adults in successive generations remaining constant, the number of adult descendants of a new variety (with fertility equal to that of the parent species) would, unless subject to discriminative selection, remain constant also. * On Variation, p. i. THE VALUE OF MENDELISM xxxv A o-ood example of the contact- between a species and subspecies is described on pp. 68, 69. Such cases require investigation on Mendelian lines. If it be found that the intermediates between the two butterflies [Amatcris), which are believed to interbreed on the eastern shore of the Victoria Nyanza, split up according to the Mendelian principle, it will be obvious that this principle is helpful in keeping the species and subspecies apart. It is much to be hoped that work of this kind will be undertaken in a large number of cases, selecting forms from points along the line where different geographical varieties of a species come into contact. In the meantime the existence of abundant hybrids^ which do not immediately resolve themselves into their components throws doubt upon the extent of the appli- cation of Mendel's principle. It is probable, however, as R. H. Lock clearly explains, that the discovery will have a most important bearing upon the art of the breeder of both plants and animals. In this domain it is difficult to see how the results can fail to be as far-reach- ing as they will be beneficent. It must be remembered, however, that results can only be obtained when the characters obey the law of Mendel ^. Beyond this the only chance of disappointment appears to lie in the possibility of the Mendelian characters proving, in the long run, to be less fixed than they are in the early series of generations. * Such as that arising from Oenothera lamarckiana and 0, cruciata; probably also O. lamarckiana itself (see p. xxi). Mendel concluded from his experiments that the hybrids of Hieracium reproduce themselves like true species, and Wichura obtained the same result in Salix. ^ Correns concludes that while crosses between varieties of plants do, hybrids between species do not, follow the Mendelian principle. See Variation in Animals and Plants, H, M. Vernon, London, 1903, pp. 159, 160. This work supplies an excellent introduction to the whole subject. C 2 t / / V' ^^ 'h XXXVl MUTATION, MENDELISM, ETC. 6. No Essential Divergence between Mendelism and Natural Selection, The divergence between the Darwinian and the Mendelian has been exaggerated. Differences have been assumed that do not exist. Thus Bateson, after explain- ing that the blue Andalusian fowl is the heterozygote pro- duct of mating a black parent with a parent of a peculiar white, and that it splits up into the parental strains on the Mendelian principle (see pp. xxix, xxx), continues I'^-^^r/z^w will never make the blues breed true ; nor can this ever come to pass unless a blue be found whose germ-cells are bearers of the blue character— which may or may not be possible. If the selectionist reflect on this experience he will be led straight to the centre of our problem. There will fall, as it were, scales from his eyes, and in a flash he will see the true meaning of fixation of type, variability, and mutation, vaporous mysteries no more.' ^ This is really no novelty, no falling of scales from the eyes, for we have been aware, ever since Weismann's researches and illuminating thoughts on the germ-cells, that no characters except those predetermined in the germ are available for evolution. The same calm appropriation by Bateson of Weismann's conclusions is seen in the following passage :—* We can answer one of the oldest questions in philosophy. In terms of the ancient riddle, we may reply that the Owl's egg existed before the Owl. . . / ^ But the same answer was given, as the outcome of Weismann's investigations, long before the re-discovery of Mendel's work. The following statement was first made by Weismann in 1883 : • Natural Selection, while it apparently decides between * Report British Association, 1904, p. 579. ^ Ibid., 1904, pp. 587-8. Quoted by R. H. Lock, 1. c, p. 277. A DEBT TO WEISMANN xxxvii individuals of various degrees of strength, is in truth operating upon the stronger and weaker germs.' ^ I fully admit the importance of Mendel's discovery in increasing our knowledge of the constitution and relation- ships of germ-cells, but this by no means justifies the appropriation under his name of results which the present generation owes to Weismann.* » Essays upon Heredity, Oxford, 2nd ed., 1891, vol. i, p. 85. The same thought is expressed in Weismann's term * blastogenic '. It also appears in the following sentence (1. c, p. 84) :— *The perfection of form of an organ does not however depend upon the amount of exercise under- gone by it during the life of the organism, but primarily and principally upon the fact that the germ from which the individual arose was predis- posed to produce a perfect organ.' The very same idea was published by J. C. Prichard in 1826, as may be seen on p. 183 of the present work, where these words occur;—' . . . whatever varieties are produced in the race, have their beginning in the original structure of some particular ovum or germ, . . .' • j- ^ An example of the respect with which Bateson treats this great dis- coverer is to be found on p. 573 of his work, On Variation, Without in any way meeting the difficulty which Weismann attempted to face, without any discussion of Weismann's hypothesis, Bateson simply waves the solution aside, concluding in these words:— 'We may doubt indeed whether the ideas associated with that flower of speech, " Panmixia,'' are not as false to the laws of life as the word to the laws of language.' It would be interesting to know something of the height of linguistic attain- ment from which Bateson pours his scorn on a far greater and much older man than himself. The unscholarly use of the ' behold ' of Genesis in the passage I have quoted on p. xxii throws some light on Bateson's capacity as a critic ; but however necessary it may be for him to borrow the information, he can always supply the scorn. The absorption of the results of other workers in part explains, and is in part the outcome of, the extraordinarily exaggerated importance which is attached to the extremely interesting and valuable work of Mendel. The following statement was made by Bateson in 1 904 :— 'It will aid appreciation of the change coming over evolutionary science if it be realised that the new knowledge of heredity and variation rather replaces than extends current ideas on those subjects ' {Report British Association, 1904, p. 574). R. H. Lock (I.e., p. 265) also uses these words:— ' There can be no sort of doubt that Mendel's brief paper is the most V xxxviii MUTATION, MENDELISM, ETC. There is no dispute between Darwinians and Muta- tionists as to the germinal origin of variation and hereditary individual difference of every kind and degree. Darwinians hold that evolution has proceeded by small steps : Mutationists hold that it has advanced by large ones. That I believe to be the sole essential difference, and the reconciliation will come when, joining hands with the student of geographical distribution, and un- deterred by cheap sneers about ' ingenious persons * and 'demonstrating the obvious', Darwinians shall have proved that the relations of an organism to its environment are so accurately and elaborately adjusted that any advance by large variation is only possible as a very rare coincidence. In that day the Mutationist will discover that ' something mistakably like continuous evolution ' has occurred.^ There are indications that Mutation would still be claimed as the method of evolution, even if advance by large variations were to be abandoned. Any such con- tention has been effectively dealt with by F. A. Dixey : — ' If it be replied that a well-adapted type must have arisen, not by one or more large mutations, but by a series important contribution of its size which has ever been made to biological science.' A subject is injured rather than advanced by such language. Excessive inflation naturally tends to undue depression. Mendel's principle has not yet been applied to a large number of species, and important exceptions have been already revealed. (Bateson, Report British Association, 1904, p. 58i.)-Complications have appeared which are as yet imperfectly understood and have immensely increased the complexity of an explanation which appeared at first to be of singularly beautiful simplicity. The hypothetical germinal mechanism which a few years ago seemed to accommodate the facts so comfortably is already beginning to creak and groan. I am not aware that such an assertion as Lock*s has ever been made for the Darwin-Wallace essay of 1858, with nearly half a century of prolific work as the firstfruits of its harvest. ^ ' When the unit of segregation is small, something mistakably like continuous evolution must surely exist.' Bateson, in Report British Association, 1904, p. 577 n. MUTATION AND SMALL VARIATION xxxlx of mutations both numerous and minute, we should wish to know how such mutations are to be distinguished from continuous variations. To say, with de Vnes, -that selection of individual differences is powerless to ra^e permanently the mean of a species, seems perilously like beeeing the question. As soon as the mean had been permanently raised, the result would be claimed as a mutation.' ' The position is as follows. Darwin assumed that selection of minute differences would permanently raise the mean of the species. De Vries and others believe they have proved that selection of certain minute differences cannot thus raise the mean. Should this conclusion be hereafter established it is obvious that the variational material for evolution would be reinforced by no new category. The only effect would be to reduce the old category. The power which Darwm and others believed to reside in minute variations generally would be shown to exist in a part and not the whole of these Our knowledge would be widened by the revelation of weakness in the part taken away, not by the strength of the part left behind ; and there would be no justification for speaking of the variations included in the latter as Mutations. . j r • I should have thought that Bateson, instead of urging upon us the facts we had learnt so long ago, would have had his own eyes opened by the blue Andalusian, and that he would have been driven to realize the uselessness tor evolution of many a result which the breeder can attain. He might even have been led to include in the category of things valueless for the study of evolution not only composite forms which cannot be depended upon to I , reproduce themselves by heredity, but also the great mass li of teratological phenomena— supernumerary toes and ' Nature, vol. Ixxv, 1907, April 18, p. 579- xl MUTATION, MENDELISM, ETC. fingers, double hands and feet, abnormal horns, displaced appendages, etc.— which form so large a part of a work^ whose object is to assist in solving the problem of Species. I am very far from undervaluing the study of such material, but its high importance and interest consist in the light thrown upon the development of the individual, and not upon the question as put by Bateson himself : ' How have living things become what they are, and what are the laws which govern their forms ? * Not only does the leader of Mendelism in this country appropriate the discoveries and illuminating thoughts of Weismann, but he also erroneously claims the protecting aegis of Darwin. Thus in 1904 he said : ' Darwin gave us sound teaching when he compared man's selective operations with those of Nature.' « But this statement gives an entirely wrong impression of Darwin's views. Darwin even tells us that he was 'deceived by single variations offering such simple illustrations, as when man selects '. And from the first he had always thought the minute differences between individuals of more importance for Natural Selection and Evolution than the large, simple variations on which man relies. After reading Fleeming Jenkin's article in the Norf/i British Review for June 1867, he concluded that the individual differences are paramount.' I am here referring to Darwin's views, not * On Variation. « Report British Association, 1904, p. 577- The error of his leader has been repeated by R. H. Lock only so recently as Nov. 14, 1907. In a letter to Nature of that date he writes : — * If Dr. Archdall Reid discards Darwin's opinion, based as it was upon an unequalled experience, that domestic and natural varieties have arisen by essentially the same process, he may find himself landed among a crowd of unsuspected difficulties.' ' Darwin wrote in a letter to Wallace, dated January 22, 1869:— 'I always thought individual differences more important than single variations, but now I have come to the conclusion that they are of para- THE WORDS OF DARWIN xli to the Fleeming Jenkin argument of the * swamping effect of intercrossing'. There is no doubt that this argument is affected by the Mendelian discovery (see p. xxxiv). Nor is there any dispute about the vast importance of the study of Artificial Selection. The point at issue is whether Darwin considered the selection of man and that of Nature to be essentially the same process. 7. Antagonism Promoted between Studies, all of which are Needed for A Hacking the Problem of Evolution, Long before the rediscovery of the Mendelian principle, Bateson, in his work. On Variation, did his best to dis- parage other lines of inquiry, again and again asserting that his own study was the only one in which lay any hope of solving the problem of evolution. * Codlin's the friend, not Short,' was the dogma rather than the advice which he issued to the world. Little effect was mount importance, and in this I believe I agree with you. Fleeming Jenkin's arguments have convinced me.' The sentence is ambiguous and was misunderstood by Wallace. Darwin wrote again on February 2 : — * I must have expressed myself atrociously ; I meant to say exactly the reverse of what you have understood. F. Jenkin argued in the *' North British Review '* against single variations ever being perpetuated, and has convinced me, though not in quite so broad a manner as here put. I always thought individual differences more important ; but I was blind and thought that single variations might be preserved much oftener than I now see is possible or probable. I mentioned this in my former note merely b'icause I believed that you had come to a similar conclusion, and I like much to be in accord with you. I believe I was mainly deceived by single variations offering such simple illustrations, as when man selects.' He also wrote on May 2, 1869, to Victor Carus: — *I have been led . , . to infer that single variations are even of less importance, in comparison with individual differences, than I formerly thought.' Francis Darwin remarks concerning Fleeming Jenkin's article, * It is not a little remarkable that the criticisms, which my father, as I believe, felt to be the most valuable ever made on his views should have come, not from a professed naturalist but from a Professor of Engineering.' The above quotations are to be found in Life and Letters, Lond., 1887, vol. iii, pp. 107 and 109. See also pp. 2-4 of the present work. V xlii MUTATION, MENDELISM, ETC. produced until Mendel's extremely interesting discovery became known, and was in its turn proclaimed by Bate- son as the only hope of evolutionary salvation. Mendel himself was evidently a modest as well as a great man, and by no means inclined to enthrone his important principle as the Juggernaut of Biological Science. It is due to the followers of Mendel that the new deity threatens to exercise a malignant influence on the study of Nature. No man is likely to continue the labours of investigation with enthusiasm and persistence when he is convinced, or even half convinced, by the overween- ing assurance of another that his subject is barren and useless. If such converts were likely to be added to the number of Mendelian investigators there would be some compensating gain; but men cannot always turn to entirely new lines of work, nor is the result usually satisfactory when they attempt to do so after long years at very different inquiries, pursued with very different methods. The spirit of investigation is as the wind that bloweth where it listeth. It may be possible to arrest the current of inquiry, without the power of diverting it into a fresh direction. I should be sorry if the above remarks were considered to imply any want of sympathy with the efforts of the energetic and enthusiastic workers on Mendelian problems at Cambridge. The subject and the work itself are de- serving of the warmest appreciation. I am only taking exception to the quite unnecessary depreciation of other subjects and other workers. By a curious irony, the very department of biology that more than any other has produced classical work at Cam- bridge, the splendid subject of Embryology, is one of those specially selected for depreciation. And here, too, most harm is likely to be done ; for a great tradition is one of the noblest and most fruitful incentives to research. UNNECESSARY ANTAGONISMS xliii In order, if possible, to diminish any such injurious effect, however transient, I propose to direct attention to the reason given by Bateson for dissatisfaction with Embryology as an aid in studying the problem of Species — the reason which he places in the forefront, very clearly stating it in the preface to his work, On Variatiofi. He tells us that after working at the anatomy and develop- ment of Ba/anoglossus, he attempted to show the bearing of the facts upon questions of relationship and descent — involving in this case the ancestry of the Vertebrates. He was dissatisfied with the uncertainty which must, in the present state of our knowledge, attend an attempt to solve about the most obscure and difficult problem in the whole realm of zoology. A few of the main facts con- cerning the past history of the Vertebrates are given on pp. 26, 30 and 31 of the present volume. It will there be seen that the stupendous problem to which the Embryo- logy of a living organism could not give a decisive answer, was nothing less than the reconstruction of a particular episode in the course of evolutionary history at the period when the oldest fossiliferous rocks were laid down, or probably very much earlier. For this reason the study of Embryology was to be discouraged, and Variation proclaimed as our only hope, although not one particle of evidence was brought forward to show that Varia- tion could tell us even as much as Embryology about the ancestry of the Vertebrates in Cambrian or pre- Cambrian times. Bateson does not hesitate to compare his opponents to Procrustes.^ But there is a method beside which the Procrustean is commonplace. Instead of making the observations fit the hypothesis, a more original method is to discourage the study by which awkward facts are ^ Report British Associaiion, 1904, p. 578. xliv MUTATION, MENDELISM, ETC. likely to be yielded. That, in few words, is the treatment accorded by Bateson to adaptation. 8. The Study of Adaptation Stimulates and does not Bar t/te Way of Inquiry. ' Professor J. B. Farmer, F.R.S., has recently main- tained that the explanation which Natural Selection offers of the origin and growth of certain adaptive features in plants, not only fails to explain the pheno- mena, but actually stands in the way of an inquiry into the sequence of events by which they are developed in the individual/ Such a conclusion seems to me at variance with the constitution of the human mind, and the psychology of curiosity. Any point of view which makes a set of scientific facts more interesting to man increases the probability of their forming the material of investigation. A few days ago I was passing some cases * Presidential Address to Botanical Section of British Association, 1907. I refer to the following passages : — * ... I would venture to express the opinion that much real harm is done by the toleration of an uncritical habit of mind, all too common, as to the significance of structures which are regarded as adaptive responses to stimuli of various sorts. It is no/ enough to explain the appearance of a structure on the ground of its utility ; properly speaking, such attempts, so far from providing any explanation, actually tend to bar the way of enquiry just where scientific investigation ought to commence.' ' That many of the responses to such stimuli are of a kind to render the organism " adapted " to its environment no one, of course, will dispute ; but to put forward the adaptedness as an explanation of the process is both unscientific and superficial. The size and the spherical shape of duckshot are admirably adapted to the purposes for which duck- shot is used; but this affords no insight into the necessary sequence of cause and effect, which makes the melted lead assume the characters in question as it falls down the shot-tower.' * But many people still find consolation and satisfaction in an anthropo- morphic and somewhat slipshod application of a kind of doctrine of free-will to matters that really call for rigorous examination into the causes which, under given conditions, must inevitably and of necessity bring about their definite result.' Report, pp. 675-6. THE STIMULUS OF INTEREST xlv of Oriental butterflies and moths which had been exposed to light for a long period of years. I noticed that the pig- ments of the moths had as a whole faded far more than those of the butterflies.^ It at once occurred to me that stable pigments are far more necessary for the butterfly exposed to the light of a tropical sun, than for the moth flying in the evening or at night. Hence a much higher level of stability would be selected in the pigments of butterflies than in those of moths. Professor Farmer would of course maintain that this is one of the * teleo- logical explanations that really explain nothing, but rather bar the way of scientific inquiry ' (see p. 74 n. 2 of the present work). I, on the contrary, believe that it ex- plains a great deal. It explains the reason why pigments with particular qualities were selected, and have now come to be characters of certain species. It does not pretend to explain how it was that pigments with these qualities were there to be selected ; but, so far from bar- ring the way, this suggestion actually points the road to scientific inquiry. As a matter of fact, a further investi- gation into the chemical nature of these pigments, and the steps by which they arise in the individual, is now more probable than it was before the suggestion was made. It is precisely the same with regard to the example brought forward by Professor Farmer in his Address (p. 676) : — ' One of the commonest responses to the sti- mulus of wounding, in the higher plants, is the formation of a layer of cork over the injured and exposed tissue. No one can deny that this is a reaction of great utility, checking as it does the undue evaporation of water, and the entrance of other parasitic organisms. And yet I suppose that no one would go so far as to seriously Confirmatory evidence was afforded by the condition of the day- flying moths and the shade-loving and crepuscular butterflies. xlvi MUTATION, MENDELISM, ETC. maintain that the obviousness of these advantages satisfactorily explains why the cork layer is produced.' On the contrary, these advantages, if scientifically proved to be conferred, probably do explain why it is that the power of forming cork was selected, and has come to be a character of the higher plants. They do not explain how the layer is formed ; but, so far from barring the way, it is quite clear that the proof of important advantages conferred adds immensely to the interest of the cork, and greatly increases the probability of the student undertaking an investigation into the sequence of events by which it is produced in the individual plant.' The attempts to answer the questions 'Why' and ' How ' — ' To what end ? ' and * In what way ? ' — by no means interfere with each other. These two sides of investigation, on the contrary, provide mutual assistance and encouragement. There are always these two questions to be answered with reference to any natural phenomenon, and both must be answered if the facts are to be fully understood. Any one who is foolish enough to maintain that the answer to one of these questions * My friend Professor S. H. Vines, F.R.S., has kindly drawn my attention to the following interesting and relevant passages from Whewell's History of the Inductive Sciences (vol. iii, 3rd edition, p. 390) : — * Cuvier's merit consisted, not in seeing that an animal cannot exist without combining all the conditions of its existence ; but in perceiving that this truth may be taken as a guide in our researches concerning animals : — that the mode of their existence may be collected from one part of their structure, and then applied to interpret or detect another part.' This bears out the argument that knowledge of the use or purpose of a structure or a pro- perty acts as a stimulus to investigation. Furthermore, in his Philosophy of the Inductive Sciences, Whewell says (vol. ii, p. 78), * The idea of a Final Cause is an essential condition in order to the pursuing our researches respecting organized bodies/ Again (p. 90), * The doctrine of a purpose in organization has been some- limes called the doctrine of the Conditions of Existence* TWO ANSWERS ESSENTIAL xlvii provides also the answer to the other, deserves criticism ; but it is irrelevant to criticize the aim of an inquiry because of the mistaken views of the inquirer. Every scientific man will agree that careless and slipshod work must be discouraged ; and it will probably be admitted that the study of adaptation, unless under- taken in a spirit of rigid self-criticism, is especially likely to produce an unsatisfactory result. But who is so much ^ interested as the serious student of adaptation in keeping I the subject at a high scientific level ? The most notable protest^ against facile speculation based on Natural Selection that has ever appeared in this country was written by so thorough a Darwinian as Sir William Thiselton-Dyer, and it is hardly necessary to state that it was the work and not the subject that he criticized. The younger men who have devoted themselves to the problems of adaptation under my guidance would be the last to say that they have found the road of investigation a broad and easy one. And, when the necessary pre- cautions are taken, there is no more fruitful study in Biological Science than the one which we owe to the central discovery of Darwin and Wallace. 9. The Motive Force of Investigation. These attempts to disparage one subject and exalt another naturally raise the question, ' Why do we investi- gate at all ?' It was by curiosity, as I have heard Sir Michael Foster say, that our first parents lost the Garden of Eden ; but, in transmitting this same curiosity to their descendants, they gave us a golden bridge by which we may re-enter Paradise. The ultimate justification of all scientific research is, ' I do it because it interests me : I want to find out.* Any further motive — the well-being The article Deductive Biology in Nature, vol. xxvii, 1883, pp. 554-5. xlvili MUTATION, MENDELISM, ETC. of humanity, the pursuit of gain, the gratification of ambition — only tends to bias and mar the inquiry. We want to know why. That is all. Whither the know- ledge we accumulate is tending no one can tell. One of the greatest men of all time said that we are like children ^ , picking up shells on the shore of the ocean. A realiza- tion of the truth of the saying might save us from carrying the likeness still further, by quarrelling over our little collections. For myself and my own work I should greatly prefer to have said nothing, or only to have used words suggested by the old-world reply to the fears of the timid and the inexperienced :— 'The sun-darkening cloud of arrows is much less deadly than it looks : no great harm will be done : in the meantime we can fight all the better in the shade.' But this comfortable course is shut out, and that for two reasons— because of an immeasur- able debt due to the past, because of heavy responsibilities incurred for the future. Naturalists who are striving to carry on, however imperfectly, a great tradition, can neglect the attempt to depreciate their own work, but they cannot be indifferent to an attack which falls on those who created the tradition on the founders of modern Biological Science. As for the future, the thoughts of Darwin and Wallace are potent as ever to inspire and direct the labours of the young biologist. I do not speak without knowledge ; for many a student of nature has come to me for guidance, and I have not directed them in vain to this source. Not without the strongest protest shall the work which has meant, and still means, so much to them be assailed by the unscientific and, I must add, the unworthy weapon of contempt. 1 I I A NATURALIST'S CONTRIBUTION TO THE DISCUSSION UPON THE AGE OF THE EARTH The Presidential Address read to the Zoological Section of the British Association, September 17, 1896. Reprinted from the Report of the Meeting of the Association held at Liverpool, 1896, p. 808. Revised: additional footnotes and terminal note, A VERY brief study of the proceedings of this Section in bygone years will show that Presidents have exercised a wide choice in the selection of subjects. At the last Meeting of the Association in this City in 1870 the Biological Section had as its President the late Professor George Rolleston, a man whose remarkable personality made a deep impression upon all who came under his influence, as I have the strongest reason for remember- ing, inasmuch as he was my first teacher in zoology, and I attended his lectures when but little over seventeen. His address was most characteristic, glancing over a great variety of subjects, literary as well as scientific, and abounding in quotations from several languages, living and dead. A very different style of address was that delivered by the distinguished zoologist who presided over the Meeting. Professor Huxley took as his subject The History of the Rise aiid Progress of a Single Bio- logical Doctrifie, Of these two types I selected the latter as my example, and especially desired to attempt the discussion, however inadequate, of some difficulty which confronts the zoolo- gist at the very outset, when he begins to reason from the facts around him, a difficulty which is equally obvious and of equal moment to the highly trained investigator and the man who is keenly interested in the results obtained by others, but cannot himself lay claim to the position and TOCtTON B 2 THE AGE OF THE EARTH authority of a skilled observer-to the naturalist and to one who follows some other branch of knowledge, but is interested in the progress of a sister science Two such difficulties were alluded to by Lord Salisbury in his interesting Presidential Address to the British Association at Oxford in 1894, ^^hen he spoke of two of the strongest objections to the Darwinian explanation of evolution-viz. 'the theory of Natural Selection-as appearing ' still to retain all their force \ The first of these objections was the insufficiency of the time during which the earth has been in a habitable state as cal- culated by Lord Kelvin and Professor Tait, one hundred million years being conceded by the former, but on y ten million by the latter. Lord Salisbury quite rightly stated that, for the evolution of the organic world as we know it, by the slow process of Natural Se ection, at least many hundred million years are required ; whereas, it the mathematicians are right, the biologists cannot have what they demand The jelly-fish would have been dissipated in steam long before he had had a chance of displaying the advantageous variation which was to make him the ancestor of the human race.' The second objection was that ' we cannot demonstrate the process of Natural Selection in detail ; we cannot even, with more or less ease, imagine^ it \ ' In N at^ral Selection who is to supply the breeder s place ? 1 here would be nothing but mere chance to secure that the advantageously varied bridegroom at one end of the wood should meet the bride, who by a happy contmgency had been advantageously varied in the same direction at the same time at the other end of the wood It would be a mere chance if they ever knew of each other s exis- tence—a still more unlikely chance that they should resist on both sides all temptations to a less advantageous alliance. But unless they did so the new breed would never even begin, let alone the question of its perpetua- tion after it had begun/ r t_ 1 . Professor Huxley, in seconding the vote of thanks to the President, said he could imagine that certain parts of the address might raise a very good discussion LORD SALISBURY'S 1894 ADDRESS 3 in one of the Sections, and I have little doubt that he referred to these criticisms and to this Section. When I had to face the duty of preparing this address, I could find no subjects better than those provided by Lord Salis- bury. At first the second objection seemed to offer the more attractive subject. It was clear that the theory of Natural Selection as held by Darwin was misconceived by the speaker, and that the criticism was ill-aimed. Darwin and Wallace, from the very first, considered that the minute differences which separate individuals were of far more importance than the large single variations which occasionally arise — Lord Salisbury's advanta- geously varied bride and bridegroom at opposite ends of the wood. In fact, after Fleeming Jenkins's criticisms in the North British Review for June, 1867, Darwin abandoned these large single variations altogether. Thus he wrote in a letter to Wallace (February 2, 1869) : ' I always thought individual differences more important ; but I was blind, and thought single variations might be preserved much oftener than I now see is possible or probable. I mentioned this in my former note merely because I believed that you had come to a similar conclusion, and I like much to be in accord with you.' ^ Hence we may infer that the other great discoverer of Natural Selection had come to the same conclusion at an even earlier date. But this fact removes the whole point from the criticism I have just quoted. According to the Darwin-Wallace theory of Natural Selection, individuals sufficiently advantageously varied to become the material for a fresh advance when an advance became necessary, and at other times competent to maintain the ground previously gained — such individuals existed not only at the opposite ends of the wood, but were common enough in every colony within its confines. The mere fact that an individual had been able to reach the condition of a possible bride or bridegroom would count for much. Few will dispute that such individuals 'have already successfully ' Life and Letters, vol. iii. B 2 4 THE AGE OF THE EARTH run the gauntlet of by far the greatest clangers which beset thf higher animals [and. it may ^e added the bwer animi also]-the dangers of guh^Nau a Selection has already pronounced a f^f^^v? reached upon the vast majority of animals which have reached "^ Buf t€ criticism retains much force when applied to Tnf ^^n^if^s-r. 'I ;t:orf rvus And receSSi^s view has been revived by Batesons wol on vStion and by DeVries researches on ^^^^^^^^^^^^ lamarciiaHU. 1 had at first mtended to attemp a discus sion of this theory, together with Lord Salsburys and other objections which may be urged Jg^'"^^ ^^ > ^^^ , ^^^ mnrf. fullv the two wcrc considered, the more pressing Wame he claims of the criticism alluded to at first-the arSment tha? the history of our planet does not allow ScTentMme for a process which all its advocates adm to be extremely slow in its operaf on I select th^ subject because of its transcendent importance >" ^^1^^°''^° organic evolution, and because I hope to show that the nafuSist has s;>mething of weight to contnbute to the controversy which has been waged intermittently ever sTnce Lor'd Kelvin's paper On GfogualTmj aooeared in i868. It has been urged by the great wo£ and teacher who occupied the Presidential Chair Jf this Association when it last met in Liverpool that Wo loSsts have no right to take part in this discussion. In wf Anniversary Address to the Geological Society in i?69 Huxley said ■' Biology takes her time from geology. ' Poulton, Colours of Animals, p. 308. , .. . See his letter to Darwin, November 23. i859 ■ ^f .f;^^;^^^ sTuIarCooh'n^ of the Ear th, Royal Society of Edinburgh, 1862. THE EVIDENCE OF THE NATURALIST 5 . . . If the geological clock is wrong, all the naturalist will have to do is to modify his notions of the rapidity of change accordingly/ This contention is obviously true as regards the time which has elapsed since the earliest fossiliferous rocks were laid down. For the duration of the three great periods we must look to the geologist ; but the question as to whether the whole of organic evolution is comprised within these limits, or, if not, what proportion of it is so contained, is a question for the naturalist. The naturalist alone can tell the geologist whether his estimate is sufficient, or whether it must be multiplied by a small or by some unknown but certainly high figure, in order to account for the evolu- tion of the earliest forms of life known in the rocks. This, I submit, is a most important contribution to the discussion. Before proceeding further it is right to point out that obviously these arguments will have no weight with those who do not believe that evolution is a reality. But although the causes of evolution are greatly debated, it may be assumed that there is no perceptible difference of opinion as to evolution itself, and this common ground will bear the weight of all the zoological arguments I shall advance to-day. It will be of interest to consider first how the matter presented itself to naturalists before the beginning of this controversy on the age of the habitable earth. I will content myself with quotations from three great writers on biological problems — men of extremely different types of mind, who yet agreed in their conclusions on this subject. In the original edition of the Origin of Species (1859), Darwin, arguing from the presence of trilobites, Nautilus, Lingula, &c., in the earliest fossiliferous rocks, came to the following conclusion (pp. 306, 307) : ' Consequently, if my theory be true, it is indisputable that before the lowest Silurian stratum was deposited long periods elapsed, as long as, or probably far longer than, the whole interval from the Silurian age to the present day ; 6 THE AGE OF THE EARTH and that during these vast yet quite unknown periods of time the world swarmed with living creatures.' The depth of his conviction in the validity of this con- clusion is seen in the fact that the passage remains sub- stantially the same in later editions, in which, however, Cambrian is substituted for Silurian, while the words 'yet quite unknown' are omitted, as a concession, no doubt, to Lord Kelvin's calculations, which he then pro- ceeds to discuss, admitting as possible a more rapid change in organic life, induced by more violent physical changes.^ We know, however, that such concessions troubled Darwin much, and that he was really giving up what his judgement still approved. Thus he wrote to Wallace on April 14, 1869 : ' Thomsons views of the recent age of the world have been for some time one of my sorest troubles ' And again, on July 12, 1871, alluding to Mivart's criticisms, he says : * I can say nothing more about missing links than what I have said. I should rely much on pre-Silurian times ; but then comes Sir W. Thomson, like an odious spectre/ Huxley's demands for time in order to account for pre-Cambrian evolution, as he conceived it, were far more extensive. Although in 1869 he bade the naturalist stand aside and take no part in the controversy, he had nevertheless spoken as a naturalist in 1862, when, at the close of another Anniversary Address to the same Society, he argued from the prevalence of persistent types * that any admissible hypothesis of progressive modification must be compatible with persistence without progression through indefinite periods ' ; and then main- tained that 'should such an hypothesis eventually be proved to be true ... the conclusion will inevitably present itself that the Palaeozoic, Mesozoic, and Cainozoic faunae and florae, taken together, bear somewhat the same proportion to the whole series of living beings which have occupied this globe as the existing fauna and flora do to them \ Herbert Spencer, in his article on ///ojica/ Geo/ojy * Sixth ed. 1872, p. 286. PRE-CAMBRIAN EVOLUTION 7 in the Universal Review for July, 1859,^ uses these words : * Only the last chapter of the earth s history has come down to us. The many previous chapters, stretch- ing back to a time immeasurably remote, have been burnt, and with them all the records of life we may presume they contained.' Indeed, so brief and unim- portant does Herbert Spencer consider this last chapter to have been that he is puzzled to account for * such evidences of progression as exist'; and finally concludes that they are of no significance in relation to the doctrine of evolution, but probably represent the succession of forms by which a newly upheaved land would be peopled. He argues that the earliest immigrants would be the lower forms of animal and vegetable life, and that these would be followed by an irregular succession of higher and higher forms, which * would thus simulate the succes- sion presented by our own sedimentary series \ We see, then, what these three great writers on evolu- tion thought on the subject : they were all convinced that the time during which the geologists concluded that the fossiliferous rocks had been formed was utterly insufficient to account for organic evolution. Our object to-day is first to consider the objections raised by physicists against the time demanded by the geologist, and still more against its multiplication by the student of organic evolution ; secondly, to inquire whether the present state of palaeontological and zoological know- ledge increases or diminishes the weight of the threefold opinion quoted above — an opinion formed on far more slender evidence than that which is now available. And if we find the conclusion sustained, it must be con- sidered to have a very important bearing upon the controversy. The arguments of the physicists are three : — First, the argument from the calculated secular change in the length of the day the most important element of which is due to tidal retardation. It has been known for a very long time that the tides are slowly increasing the ' Reprinted in his Essays, 1868, vol. L pp. 324-76. 8 THE AGE OF THE EARTH length of our day. Huxley explains the reason with his usual lucidity: *That this must be so is obvious if one considers, roughly, that the tides result from the pull which the sun and the moon exert upon the sea, causing it to act as a sort of break upon the solid earth. A liquid earth takes a shape which follows trom its rate of revolution, and from which, therefore, its rate of revolution can be calculated. • i ,. The liquid earth consolidated in the form it last assumed, and this shape has persisted until now and informs us of the rate of revolution at the time of con- solidation. Comparing this with the present rate, and knowing the amount of lengthening in a given time due to tidal friction, we can calculate the date of consolidation as certainly less than i,ooo million years ago. The argument is fallacious, as many mathematicians have shown. The present shape tells us nothing of the length of the day at the date of consolidation ; ior the earth even when solid, will alter its form when exposed for a long time to the action of great forces. ^ As Professor Perry said in a letter to Professor Tait : 1 know that solid rock is not like cobbler's wax, but i,ooo million years is a very long time, and the forces are great' Furthermore, we know that the earth is always altering its shape, and that whole coast-lines are slowly rising or falling, and that this has been true, at any rate, during the formation of the stratified rocks. This first argument is dead and gone.^ We are, indeed, tempted to wonder that the physicist, who was looking about for reasoning by which to revise what he con- ceived to be the hasty conclusions of the geologist as to the age of the earth, should have exposed himself to such an obvious retort in basing his own conclusions as to its age on the assumption that the earth, which we know to be always changing in shape, has been • Anniversary Address to Geol. Soc. 1869. 2 Nature, January 3, 1895. , ^^. , a *\.^.^ 3 It must not be forgotten, however, that this argument and those which follow it have done good work in modifying the unreasonable demands of geologists a quarter of a century ago. ROTATION AND SHAPE OF THE EARTH 9 unable to alter its equatorial radius by a few miles under the action of tremendous forces constantly tending to alter it, and having 1,000 million years in which to do the work. With this flaw in the case it is hardly necessary to insist on our great uncertainty as to the rate at which the tides are lengthening the day. The spectacle presented by the geologist and biologist, deeply shocked at Lord Kelvin's extreme uniformitarian- ism in the domain of astronomy and cosmic physics, is altogether too comforting to be passed by without remark ; but in thus indulging in a friendly /// qiioqtie, I am quite sure that I am speaking for every member of this Section in saying that we are in no way behind the members of Section A in our pride and admiration at the noble work which he has done for science, and we are glad to take this opportunity of congratulating him on the half-century of work and teaching — both equally fruitful — which has reached its completion in the present year [1896]. The second argument is based upon the cooling of the earth, and this is the one brought forward and explained by Lord Salisbury in his Presidential Address. It has been the argument on which perhaps the chief reliance has been placed, and of which the data — so it was believed — were the least open to doubt. On the Sunday during the meeting of the British Association at Leeds (1890), I went for a walk with Professor Perry, and asked him to explain the physical reasons for limiting the age of the earth to a period which the students of other sciences considered to be very inadequate. He gave me an account of the data on which Lord Kelvin relied in constructing this second argument, and expressed the strong opinion that they were perfectly sound, while, as for the mathematics, it might be taken for granted, he said, that they were entirely correct. He did not attach much weight to the other arguments, which he regarded as merely offering support to the second. This little piece of personal history is of interest, lo THE AGE OF THE EARTH inasmuch as Professor Perry has now provided us with a satisfactory answer to the line of reasoning which so fully satisfied him in 1890. And he was led to a critical examination of the subject by the attitude taken up by Lord Salisbury in 1894. Professor Perry was not present at the meeting, but when he read the Presiden s address, and saw how other conclusions were ruled out of court, how the only theory of evolution which com- mands anything approaching universal assent was set on one side because of certain assumptions as to the way in which the earth was believed to have cooled, he was seized with a desire to sift these assumptions and to inquire whether they would bear the weight of such far-reaching conclusions. Before stating the results of his examination, it is necessary to give a brief account of the argument on which so much has been built. Lord Kelvin assumed that the earth is a homogeneous mass of rock similar to that with which we are familiar on the surface. Assuming, further that the temperature increases, on the average, 1° F for every fi[ty ^e « depth near the surface everywhere, he concluded that the earth would have occupied not less than twenty. nor more than four hundred, million years in reaching its present condition from the time when it first began to consolidate and possessed a uniform temperature ot o -p ^'Tf^in'the statement of the argument, we substitute for ihe assumption of a homogeneous earth an eartli which conducts heat better mternally than it does towards the surface, Professor Perry, whose calculations have been verified by Mr. O. Heaviside, finds that the time of cooling has to be lengthened to an extent which depends upon the value assigned to the internal con- ducting power. If, for instance, we assume that the deeper part of the earth conducts ten times as well as the outer part, Lord Kelvins age would require to be multiplied 'by fifty-six. Even if the conductiyUy be the same throughout, the increase of density in the deeper part, by augmenting the capacity for heat ot S volume, implies a longer age than that conceded THE COOLING OF THE EARTH ii by Lord Kelvin. If the interior of the earth be fluid or contain fluid in a honeycomb structure, the rate at which heat can travel would be immensely increased by convection currents, and the age would have to be correspondingly lengthened. If, furthermore, such con- ditions, although not obtaining now, did obtain in past times, they will have operated in the same direction. Professor Tait, in his letter to Professor Perry (published in Nature of January 3, 1895), takes the entirely indefensible position that the latter is bound to prove the higher internal conductivity. The obliga- tion is all on the other side, and rests with those who have pressed their conclusions hard and carried them far. These conclusions have been, as Darwin found them, one of our 'sorest troubles'; but when it is admitted that there is just as much to be said for another set of assumptions leading to entirely different conclusions, our troubles are at an end, and we cease to be terrified by an array of symbols, however unintelli- gible to us. It would seem that Professor Tait, without, as far as I can learn, publishing any independent calcula- tion of the age of the earth, has lent the weight of his authority to a period of ten million years, or half of Lord Kelvin's minimum. But in making this suggestion he apparently feels neither interest nor responsibility in establishing the data of the calculations which he borrowed to infer therefrom a very different result from that obtained by their author. Professor Perry's object was not to substitute a more correct age for that obtained by Lord Kelvin, but rather to show that the data from which the true age could be calculated are not really available. We obtain different results by making different assumptions, and there is no sufficient evidence for accepting one assumption rather than another. Nevertheless, there is some evidence which indicates that the interior of the earth in all probability conducts better than the surface. Its far higher density is consistent with the belief that it is rich in metals, free or combined. Professor Schuster concludes that the internal electric conductivity 12 THE AGE OF THE EARTH must be considerably greater than the externa . Geo- logists have argued from the amount of foldmg to which the crust has been subjected that cooling must have taken place to a greater depth than 1 20 miles, as assumed in Lord Kelvin's argument. Professor Perry s assump- tion would involve cooling to a much greater depth Professor Perry's conclusion that the age ot the habitable earth is lengthened by increased conductivity is the very reverse of that to which we should be led by a superficial examination of the case. Professor Tai , indeed, in the letter to which I have already alluded, has said: ^Why, then, drag in mathematics at all since it is absolutely obvious that the better conductor the interior in comparison with the skin, the longer aeo must it have been when the whole was at 7000 t.: the state of the skin being as at present ? Professor Perry in reply, pointed out that one mathematician who had refuted the tidal retardation argument^ had assumed that the conditions described by Professor Tait would have involved a shorter period of time. And it is probable that Lord Kelvin thought the same ; for he had assumed conditions which would give the result —so he believed at the time-most acceptable to the geologist and biologist. Professor Perry s conclusion is very far from obvious, and without the mathematical reasoning would not be arrived at by the vast majority of thinking men. . . The ' natural man ' without mathematics would say, so far from this being ^absolutely obvious', it is quite clear that increased conductivity, favouring escape ot heat, would lead to more rapid cooling, and would make Lord Kelvin's age even shorter. The argument can, however, be put clearly without mathematics, and, with Professor Perry s help, 1 am able to state it in a few words. Lord Kelvin s assump- tion of an earth resembling the surface rock in its relations to heat leads to the present condition of things namely, a surface gradient of f F. for every fifty feet in ioo,cx)0,ooo years, more or less. Deeper than » Rev. M. H. Close in J^. Dublin Soc, February, 1878. THE LIFE OF THE SUN 13 150 miles he imagines that there has been almost no cooling. If, however, we take one of the cases put by Professor Perry, and assume that below a depth of four miles there is ten times the conductivity, we find that after a period of 10,000,000,000 years the gradient at the surface is still 1° F. for every fifty feet; but that we have to descend to a depth of 1,500 miles before we find the initial temperature of 7,000° F. undiminished by cooling. In fact the earth, as a whole, has cooled far more quickly than under Lord Kelvin's conditions, the greater conductivity enabling a far larger amount of the internal heat to escape ; but in escaping it has kept up the temperature gradient at the surface. Lord Kelvin, replying to Professor Perry's criticisms, quite admits that the age at which he had arrived by the use of this argument may be insufficient. Thus, he says, in his letter : ^ * I thought my range from 20 millions to 400 millions was probably wide enough, but it is quite possible that I should have put the superior limit a good deal higher, perhaps 4,000 instead of 400.' The third argument was suggested by Helmholtz, and depends on the life of the sun. If the energy of the sun is due only to the mutual gravitation of its parts, and if the sun is now of uniform density, * the amount of heat generated by his contraction to his present volume would have been sufficient to last eighteen million years at his present rate of radiation.' "^ Lord Kelvin rejects the assumption of uniform density, and is, in consequence of this change, able to offer a much higher upward limit of 500 million years. This argument also implies the strictest uniformitarian- ism as regards the sun. We know that other suns may suddenly gain a great accession of energy, so that their radiation is immensely increased. We only detect such changes when they are large and sudden, but they prepare us to believe that smaller accessions may be much more frequent, and perhaps a normal occurrence in the evolution * Nature, January 3, 1895. ' Newcomb's Popular Astronomy ^ p. 523. 14 THE AGE OF THE EARTH of a sun. Such accessions may have followed from the convergence of a stream of meteors. Again, it is possible that the radiation of the sun may have been diminished and his energy conserved by a solar atmosphere. Newcomb has objected to these two possible modes by which the life of the sun may have been greatly lengthened, that a lessening of the sun's heat by under a quarter would cause all the water on the earth to freeze while an increase of much over half would probably boil it all into steam. But such changes in the amount of radiation received would follow from a greater distance from the sun of 15I per cent., and a greater proximity to him of 1 8-4 per cent., respectively. Venus is inside the latter limit, and Mars outside the former, and yet it would be a very large assumption to conclude that all the water in the former is steam, and all in the latter ice. Indeed, the existence of water and the melting of snow on Mars are considered to be thoroughly well authenticated. It is further possible that in a time of lessened solar radiation the earth may have possessed an atmosphere which would retain a larger proportion of the sun's heat ; and the internal heat of the earth itself, great lakes of lava under a canopy of cloud for example, may have played an important part in supplying warmth. Again we have a greater age if there was more energy available than in Helmholtz's hypothesis. Lord Kelvin maintains that this is improbable because of the slow rotation of the sun, but Perry has given reasons for an opposite conclusion. The collapse of the first argument based on tidal retardation, and of the second based on the cooling of the earth, warn us to beware of a conclusion founded on the assumption that the sun's energy depends, and has ever depended, on a single source of which we know the beginning and the end. It may be safely maintained that such a conclusion has not that degree of certainty which justifies the followers of one science in assuming that the conclusions of other sciences must be wrong, and in disregarding the evidence brought forward by workers in other lines of research. THE LIFE OF THE SUN 15 We must freely admit that this third argument has not yet fully shared the fate of the two other lines of reasoning. Indeed, Professor Srr George Darwin, although not feeling the force of these latter, agrees with Lord Kelvin in regarding 500 million years as the maximum life of the sun.^ We may observe, too, that 500 million years is by no means to be despised : a great deal may happen in such a period of time. Although I should be sorry to say that it is sufficient, it is a very different offer from Professor Tait's ten million. ^ In drawing up this account of the physical arguments, I owe almost everything to Professor Perry for his articles in Naltire (January 3 and April 18, 1895), and his kindness in explaining any difficulties that arose. I have thought it right to enter into these arguments in some detail, and to consume a considerable proportion of our time in their discussion. This was imperatively necessary, because they claimed to stand as barriers across our path, and, so long as they were admitted to be impassable, any further progress was out of the question. What I hope has been an unbiased examination has shown that, as barriers, they are more imposing than * British Association Reports, 1886, pp. 514-18. * Professor Perry has kindly sent me a few lines on the bearing of the discovery of Radium upon the problem. * At the time when your address was delivered,' he writes, *I thought that the sun's heat argument was the one that was most difficult to meet. But now, the discovery of Radium has disposed of it as well as the conclusions founded on conductivity. The duration of Radium itself is known to be only a few thousand years, but quantity of Radium indicates quantity of that substance, probably Uranium, whose exceedingly slow change is constantly producing Radium. * I. The heat conductivity argument. This is completely disposed of even if Mr. Strutt has overestimated the amount of Radium in rock. Suppose only ^^^th of what he has assumed from his measurements and we have the possibility of multiplying Lord Kelvin's age by 1,000 or more. * 2. The suns heat argument. Assume that there is Radium in the sun and this gives us almost any multiple we please to imagine of the total energy assumed by Helmholtz. We are now in a position to say that the physicist can make no calculation either as to the probable or possible age of life on the earth.' Nov. 8, 1906. «■ ,6 THE AGE OF THE EARTH effective ; and we are free to proceed, and to look for the conclusions warranted by our own evidence. In this matter we are at one with the geologists ; for, as has been already pointed out, we rely on them for an estimate o the time occupied by the deposition of the stratified rocks, while they rely on us for a conclusion as to how tar this period is sufficient for the whole of orgamc evolution. First then we must briefly consider the geological argument, and I cannot do better than take the case as put by Sir Archibald Geikie in his Presidential Address to this Association at Edinburgh in 1892. Arguing from the amount of material removed from the land by denuding agencies, and carried down to the sea by rivers, he showed that the time required to reduce the height of the land by one foot varies, according to the activity of the agencies at work, from 7 30 years to 6 800 years. But this also supplies a measure of the rate of deposition of rock ; for the same material is laid down elsewhere, and would of course add the same height ol one foot to some other area equal in size to that irom which it was removed. , , . , The next datum to be obtained is the total thickness of the stratified rocks from the Cambrian system to the present day. ' On a reasonable computation these stratihed masses, where most fully developed, attain a united thickness of not less than 100,000 feet. If they were all laid down at the most rapid recorded rate of denudation they would require a period of seventy-three millions of years for their completion. If they were laid down at the slowest rate, they would demand a period of not less than 680 millions.' . j u The argument that geological agencies acted much more vigorously in past times he entirely refuted by pointing to the character of the deposits of which the stratified series is composed. 'We can see no proof whatever nor even any evidence which suggests that on the whole the rate of waste and sedimentation was more rapid during Mesozoic and Palaeozoic time than it is to-day. Had there been any marked difference in this AGE OF THE STRATIFIED ROCKS 17 rate from ancient to modern times, it would be incredible that no clear proof of it should have been recorded in the crust of the earth.' It may therefore be inferred that the rate of deposition was no nearer the more rapid than the slower of the rates recorded above, and, if so, the stratified rocks would have been laid down in about 400 million years. There are other arguments favouring the uniformity of conditions throughout the time during which the stratified rocks were laid down, in addition to those which are purely geological and depend upon the cha- racter of the rocks themselves. Although more biological than geological, these arguments are best considered here. The geological agency to which attention is chiefly directed by those who desire to hurry up the phenomena of rock formation is that of the tides. But it seems certain that the tides were not sufficiently higher in Silurian times to prevent the deposition of certain beds of great thickness under conditions as tranquil as any of which we have evidence in the case of a formation extending over a large area. From the character of the organic remains it is known that these beds were laid do\yn in the sea, and there are the strongest grounds for believing that they were accumulated along shores and in fairly shallow water. The remains of extremely delicate organisms are found in immense numbers, and oyer a very large area. The recent discovery, in the Si unan system of America, of trilobites, with their long delicate antennae perfectly preserved, proves that in one locality (Rome, New York State) the tranquillity of deposition was quite as profound as in any locality yet discovered on this side of the Atlantic. ^"^^^ are, then, among the older Palaeozoic rocks a set of deposits than which we can imagine none better calculated to test the force of the tides ; and we find that they supply evidence for exceptional tranquillity of conditions over a long period of time. There is other evidence of the permanence, through- out the time during which the stratified rocks were POULIOM i8 THE AGE OF THE EARTH deposited, of conditions not very dissimilar fro"! th^e which obtain to-day. Thus the attachments of marme organisms, which are permanently rooted to the bottorn or on the shores, did not differ m strength ^om those which we now find-an indication that the strains due to the movements of the sea did not greatly differ in the %e have evidence of a somewhat similar kind to prove uniformity in the movements of the air. Th« expanse of the wings of flying organisms certainly does not differ in a direction which indicates any feater violence in the Atmospheric conditions. Before the birds had become dominant among the larger flying of^^^^^^ms *^fX and was taken by the flying reptiles the P^^jf fj^^^^ before the appearance of these we know that, in 1 alaeozo^ times the insects were of immense size, a dragon-fly from hT Carboniferous rocks of France being upwards of two feet in the expanse of its wings. As on^ group after another of widely dissimilar organisms g^'^ed control of the air, each was in turn enabled to '"crease to the s ze which was best suited to such an environment, but we find that the limits which obtain to-day were "Ot widely different in the past. And this is evidence for the uniformity in the strains due to wind and storm no less than to those due to gravity. Furthermore, the coiv dition of the earth's surface at present shows us how extremely sensitive the flying organism is to an increase in the former of these strains, when it occurs in proximi y to the sea. Thus it is well known that an unusually large proportion of the Madeiran beetles are wingless whHe those which require the power of flight possess t in a stronger degree than on ^0";.!"^"^^^ ^•■^^.'- . ^/ ?'" evolution in two directions is readily explained by he destruction by drowning of the winged individuals of the species which can manage to live without the power of flieht, and of the less strongly winged individuals ot those which need it. In the far more stormy, treeless Kerguelen Land, the whole of the known msec fauna, except two Diptera and probably a moth, is wingless. The size and strength of the trunks of fossil trees afford, 4 UNIFORMITY OF CONDITIONS 19 as Professor George Darwin has pointed out, evidence of uniformity in the strains due to the condition of the atmosphere. We can trace the prints of raindrops at various geo- logical horizons, and in some cases found in this country it is even said that the eastern side of the depressions is the more deeply pitted, proving that the rain drove from the west, as the great majority of our storms do to-day. When, therefore, we are accused of uniformitarianism, as if it were an entirely unproved assumption, we can at any rate point to a large body of positive evidence which supports our contention, and the absence of any evidence against it. Furthermore, the data on which we rely are likely to increase largely, as the result of future work. After this interpolation, chiefly of biological argument in support of the geologist, I cannot do better than bring the geological evidence to a close in the words which conclude Sir Archibald Geikie s address : ' After careful reflection on the subject, I affirm that the geological record furnishes a mass of evidence which no arguments drawn from other departments of Nature can explain away, and which, it seems to me, cannot be satisfactorily interpreted save with an allowance of time much beyond the narrow limits which recent physical speculation would concede.' In his letter to Professor Perry,i Lord Kelvin says:— ' So far as underground heat alone is concerned, you are quite right that my estimate was 100 million, and please remark 2 that that is all Geikie wants ; but I should be exceedingly frightened to meet him now with only 20 million in my mouth.' We have seen, however, that Geikie considered the rate of sedimentation to be, on the whole, uniform with that which now obtains, and this would demand a period of nearly 400 million years. He points out furthermore that the time must be greatly increased on account of the breaks and interruptions which occur in the series, so that we shall probably get as near an estimate as is possible from the data which are available by taking 450 ' ^^^'"'^' J^n- 3, 1895. ' P. L. and A., vol. ii. p. 87. C 2 20 THE AGE OF THE EARTH n^niion years as the time during ^vhich the stratified rocks were formed. present formed by geologists, and >*'*•'''."' r" ^.^m Sifficnlties can be overconje, ,s certam to kad to res of the greatest Uteres, and ™P°~"«i,See„ known Shiringes the continent, ^^^^Z't^i^rtl deposit formed entirely of meteoric ana the ^vaste of floating P""^'<=«' J^"*^, ^^^^ j^ ^nly the animals living m the ocean^ ^^^T soW agencies, most resistant can escape the PO^verfuJ^J^^^^^^^^ ^^.^ Many observations prove that the ?^^umu .^ deposit is extremely f.^" ^^^fS ^nd the most especially convincing : ^f^^^'f ',, °' ' " bones-of whales mmmmm the countless generations "'^u •„ .Xr that these in- oJer that vast area which foi^^%^.^;,k3T^^^ die have no reason to ^^^^^^'^^^J^tLtL shallow more f^^^^^'^^^y.'".'';^ ^ observations point in the ^'Z.ife Stlon fo ' rounded and dying whales often rrih^r^^^^^^^ "^rr thouth wen knJwn n he Ratified rocks which itfefd^°:fircl^"^^^^^^^^^^^ coasts, are only found in c^;i^^^ ^^^V^ca^ oS? abundance than ni tne uLcam i Utter ac- THE FLOOR OF THE OCEAN ^i important and conspicuous constituent of the one, while they are merely found here and there when looked for embedded in the other. The rate of accumulation of all other constituents is so slow as to leave a layer of teeth and ear-bones uncovered, or covered by so thin a deposit that the dredge can collect them freely. Sir John Murray calculates that only a few inches of this deposit have accumulated since the Tertiary Period. These most interesting facts prove furthermore that the great ocean basins and continental areas have occupied the same relative positions since the formation of the first stratified rocks ; for no oceanic deposits are found any- where in the latter. We know the sources of the oceanic deposit, and it might be possible to form an estimate, within wide limits, of its rate of accumulation. If it were possible to ascertain its thickness by means of a boring, some conclusions as to the time which has elapsed during the lifetime of certain species— perhaps even the lifetime of the oceans themselves— might be arrived at. Lower down the remains of earlier species would probably be found. The depth of this deposit and its character at deeper levels are questions of overwhelming interest ; and perhaps even more so is the question as to what lies beneath. Long before the Challenger had proved the persistence of oceanic and continental areas, Darwin, with extraordinary foresight, and opposed by all other naturalists and geologists, including his revered teacher, Lyell, had come to the same conclusion. His reasoning on the subject is so convincing that it is remarkable that he made so few converts, and this is all the more sur- prising since the arguments were published in the Origin of Species, which in other respects produced so profound an effect. In speculating as to the rocks in which the remains of the ancestors of the earliest known fossils may still exist, he suggested that, although the existing relation- ship between the positions of our present oceans and continental areas is of immense antiquity, there is no reason for the belief that it has i^ersisted for an indefinite period, but that at some time long antecedent to the earliest known fossiliferous rocks 'continents may have 22 THE AGE OF THE EARTH ^nV N^thl lelstTnSesting result would be the St of this hypothesis, which would probably be forth- coming as thf result of boring into the floor of a deep ocean • for although, as Darwin pointed out, it is likely enough that such rocks would be highly metamorphosed, vSk mi-ht still be possible to ascertain whether they Tad at ^ftime forme'd part of a continenta deposit and nerhaps to discover much more than this, buch an nnder?akine might be carried out in conjunction with o£ hweftiStions of the highest interest such as the attemp" to obtain a record of the swing of a pendulum at the bottom of the ocean. We now come to the strictly biological part of our subiect-to the inquiry as to how much of the whole schSe o organic evolution has been worked ou in the time during which the fossiliferous rocks were formed aTd how fa"r, therefore, the time required by the geologist ^' Itt fiTst necessary to consider Lord Kelvin's sugges- tion that life may have reached the earth on a meteorite— a sugges^n wWch might be made the basis of an attemp to e?cue us from the dilemma in which ^e were placed bv the insufficiency of time for evolution. It might be a eued that the evolution which took place elsewhe e miy have been merely completed, in a comparatively brief space of time, on our earth. , i ^ We know nothing of the origin of life here or elsewhere, and our only attitude towards this or any other hypo- thesis on the subject is that of the anxious inquirer for son e particle of evidence. But a few brief considerations vv°ll show that no escape from the demands for time can be gained in this way. , . , , . - a c^r- Our argument does not deal with the time required for the origin of hfe, or for the development of the lowest bdngs with which we are acquainted from the first formed beinls of which we know nothing. Both these processes m^Jfave required an immensity of time ; but as we know THE METEORIC HYPOTHESIS 23 nothing whatever about them, and have as yet no pro- spect of acquiring any information, we are compelled to confine ourselves to as much of the process of evolution as we can infer from the structure of living and fossil forms — that is, as regards animals, to the development of the simplest into the most complex Protozoa, the evolution of the Metazoa from the Protozoa, and the branching of the former into its numerous Phyla, with all their Classes, Orders, Families, Genera, and Species. But we shall find that this is quite enough to necessitate a very large increase in the time estimated by the geologist. The Protozoa, simple and complex, still exist upon the earth in countless species, together with the Metazoan Phyla. Descendants of forms which in their day consti- tuted the beginning of that scheme of evolution which I have defined above, descendants, furthermore, of a large proportion of those forms which, age after age, constituted the shifting phases of its onward progress, still exist, and in a sufficiently unmodified condition to enable us to recon- struct, at any rate in mere outline, the history of the past. Innumerable details and many phases of supreme impor- tance are still hidden from us, some of them perhaps never to be recovered. But this frank admission, and the eager and premature attempts to expound too much, to go further than the evidence permits, must not be allowed to throw an undeserved suspicion upon conclusions which are sound and well supported, upon the firm conviction of every zoologist that the general trend of evolution has been, as I have stated it, that each of the Metazoan Phyla originated, directly or indirectly, in the Protozoa. The argument founded on the meteorite hypothesis would, however, require that the process of evolution went backward on a scale as vast as that on which it went forward, that certain descendants of some central type, coming to the earth on a meteorite, gradually lost their Metazoan complexity and developed backward into the Protozoa, throwing off the lower Metazoan Phyla on the way, while certain other descendants evolved all the higher Metazoan groups. Such a process would shorten 24 THE AGE OF THE EARTH the period of evolution by half, but it need hardly be said that all available evidence is entirely against it. The only other assumption by means of which the meteorite hypothesis might be used V^^orten the time is even more wild and improbable. Thu 't might be supposed that the evolution which we believe to have Lken place on this earth, really took place elsewhere-at any rafe as regards all its main lines-and that samples of all the various phases, including the eari.est and simplest, reached us by a regular meteoric service which could only have attained to its culminating delivery at some time after the completion of the scheme of organ^ evolution. Hence the evidences which we study would point to an evolution which occurred in some unknown world with an age which even Professor Tait has no desire to limit. . , , • .^ If these wild assumptions be rejected there remains the supposition that, if life was brought by a meteorite, it was life no higher than that of the simplest Protozoon- a supposition which leaves our argument intact. 1 he alternative supposition, that one or more of the Metazoan Phyla were introduced in this way while the others were evolved from the terrestrial Protozoa, is hardly worth consideration. In the first place, some evidence of a part in a common scheme of evolution is to be found in every Phylum. In the second place, the gain would be small ; the arbitrary assumption would only affect the evidence of the time required for evolution derived from the particular Phylum or Phyla of supposed meteoric origin. The meteoric hypothesis, then, can only affect our argument by making the most improbable assumptions, for which, moreover, not a particle of evidence can be brought forward.' We are therefore free to follow the biological evidence feariessly. It is necessary, in the first place, to expand ' The arguments here set forth are only intended to oppose certain rash deduions which might be drawn f-- LXo'^SritsTs hvDothesis They are in no way opposed to the hypothesis "sell, still Ko they impl/that any such conclusions were ever reached by Lord Kelvin. ANIMAL CLASSIFICATION 25 somewhat the brief outline of the past history of the animal kingdom, which has already been given. Since the appearance of the Origin of Species, the zoologist, in making his classifications, has attempted as far as possible to set forth a genealogical arrangement. Our purpose will be served by an account of the main outlines of a recent classification, which has been framed with a due consideration for all sides of zoological research, new and old, and has met with general approval. Professor Lankester divides the animal kingdom into two grades, the higher of which, the Enterozoa (Metazoa), were derived from the lower, the Plastidozoa (Protozoa). Each of these grades is again divided into two sub-grades, and each of these is again divided into Phyla, corresponding more or less to the older Sub-Kingdoms. Beginning from below, the most primitive animals in existence are found in the seven Phyla of the lower Protozoan sub- grade, the Gymnomyxa. Of these unfortunately only two, the Reticularia (Foraminifera) and Radiolaria, possess a structure which renders possible their preserva- tion in the rocks. The lowest and simplest of these Gymnomyxa represent the starting-point of that scheme of organic evolution which we are considering to-day. The higher order of Protozoan life, the sub-grade Corti- cata, contains three Phyla, no one of which is available in the fossil state. They are, however, of great interest and importance to us as showing that the Protozoan type assumes a far higher organization on its way to evolve the more advanced grade of animal life. The first-formed of these latter are contained in the two Phyla of the sub- grade Coelentera, the Porifera or Sponges, and the Nematophora or Corals, Sea- Anemones, Hydrozoa and allied groups. Both of these Phyla are plentifully repre- sented in the fossil state. It is considered certain that the latter of these, the Nematophora, gave rise to the higher sub-grade, the Coelomata, or animals with a coelom or body-cavity surrounding the digestive tract. ^ This latter includes all the remaining species of animals in nine Phyla, five of which are found fossil — the Echinoderma, Gephyrea, Mollusca, Appendiculata, and Vertebrata. 26 THE AGE OF THE EARTH Before proceeding further, I wish to lay emphasis on the immense evolutionary history which must have been passed through before the ancestor of one of the higher of these nine Phyla came into being. Let us consider one or two examples, since the establishment of this position is of the utmost importance for our argument First, consider the past history of the Vertebrata,— ot the common ancestor of our Balanoglossus Tunicates, Amphioxus, Lampreys, Fishes, Dipnoi, Amphibia, Rep- tiles Birds, and Mammals. Although zoologists differ very widely in their opinions as to the affinities of this ancestral form, they all agree in maintaining that it did not arise direct from the Nematophora in the lower sub- grade of Metazoa, but that it was the product of a long history within the Coelomate sub-grade. The question as to which of the other Coelomate Phyla it was associated with will form the subject of one of our discussions at this meeting, and I will, therefore, say no more upon this period of its evolution, except to point out that the very question itself, ' the ancestry of Vertebrates,' only means a relatively small part of the evolutionary history oi the Vertebrate ancestor within the Coelomate group. For when we have decided the question of the other Coelo- mate Phylum or Phyla to which the Vertebrate ancestor belonged, there remains of course the history of that Phylum or those Phyla earlier than the point at which the Vertebrates diverged, right back to the origin of the Coelomata; while, beyond and below, the wide gulf between this and the Coelentera had to be crossed, and then probably after a long history as a Coelenterate, the widest and most significant of all the morphological intervals— that between the lowest Metazoon and the highest Protozoon— was traversed. But this was by no means all. There remains the history within the higher Protozoan sub-grade, in the interval from this to the lower, and within the lower sub-grade itself, until we finally retrace our steps to the lowest and simplest forms. It is impossible to suppose that all this history of change can have been otherwise than immensely prolonged ; for it will be shown below that all the available evidence EVOLUTION OF ANCESTRAL FORMS 27 warrants the belief that the changes during these earlier phases were at least as slow as those which occurred later. If we take the history of another of the higher Phyla, the Appendiculata, we find that the evidence points in the same direction. The common ancestor of our Roti- fera, earthworms, leeches, Peripatus, centipedes, insects, Crustacea, spiders and scorpions, and forms allied to all these, is generally admitted to have been Chaetopod- like, and probably arose in relation to the beginnings of certain other Coelomate Phyla, such as the Gephyrea and perhaps Mollusca. At the origin of the Coelomate sub-grade the common ancestor of all Coelomate Phyla is reached, and its evolution has been already traced in the case of the Vertebrata. What is likely to be the relation between the time required for the evolution of the ancestor of a Coelomate Phylum and that required for the evolution, which sub- sequently occurred, within the Phylum itself? The only indication of an answer to this question is to be found in a study of the rate of evolution in the lower parts of the animal kingdom as compared with that in the higher. Contrary, perhaps, to anticipation, we find that all the evidences of rapid evolution are confined to the most advanced of the smaller groups within the highest Phyla, and especially to the higher Classes of the Vertebrata. Such evidence as we have strongly indicates the most remarkable persistence of the lower animal types. Thus in the Class Imperforata of the Reticularia (Foramini- fera) one of our existing genera (Saccamina) occurs in the Carboniferous strata, another (Trochammina) in the Permian, while a single new genus (Receptaculites) occurs in the Silurian and Devonian. The evidence from the Class Perforata is much stronger, the existing genera Nodosaria, Dentalina, Textularia, Grammostomum, Val- vulina, and Nummulina all occurring in the Carboni- ferous, together with the new genera Archaediscus (?) and Fusilina. I omit reference to the much-disputed Eozoon from the Laurentian rocks, far below the horizon which for ,8 THE AGE OF THE EARTH r .u:„ ,^r1rp<;s 1 am considering as the the purpose of this address i an ^^^^^^^ lowest Ossiferous stratum We ^^^ J^ ^^^^ .^ to the new ^Jg^;^ ^^l^f i^'^.efer^^^^^^^^^^ Sir William the communication ot its veier Dawson, whom we are ^"f^uVdeSe skeletons less Passing by the R^^'^^^J^;;;?, pelagic and therefore suited for fossiluation, ^^^^f '^ gf]XS"g '^^ f""^"' less likely to reach the st ata lau^ down .^ ^^^^^ of the continental areas the next ^hym ^^^ '" ^ '"-^^ TdSi^ed in o two Classes the Calcispongiae sponges, and diy^ded into tw ^ jji^^tion of sponges and Silicospongiae. A thougn ine ' , recognizable is in many cases very '^^^^^^f f^^f 'Ser of strata, traces can be made out in ^ J^gentatives of all the From these -^^Ws (exceptTe Halisa groups of both C asses lexcep .^^ Devonian. have no hard parts) occurred in i .^ ^^ and Carbo"^-7,Sn" ewiT^^^^^^^^^ change, example of long Persistence . . ^ew groups And the same is true of thej^ematop ^^^^ indeed come in, sometimes extremel>nch^n^^^ ^^^ as the P^^-7;';J^jr:i;h representatives of existing they existed f^by^'^J.t themselves primitive or an- group . and ^^J a^r^^j^^ensely numerous fossil corals cestral. A stuay oi n^^ . j ,vViilp researches into reveals no advance in organization wMe ^^ ,^f ^^^^^i,i„, the structure of existing ^^<=y°"^";,;'i" p^eozoic forms ^l^Vt^e "SXSr^^ r the'ctdusion that tf finTthrpTace cLe beside ^hejiv.n^^^^^^^^^^^^^ An available evidence P°'".^^^ J-° ,7„ X Coelenterate of progressive evolutionary changes mtne t>u 1 .^ithn.iah the Protozoa, if we may juage uy changes were slower »"'' ™"~pS viz. the Echino- Je'rr a'„TG=p"4rS: as Totp^O^ wiu, .he MoUusca, Appendiculata, and Vertebrata. SLOW EVOLUTION IN LOWER PHYLA 29 Within these latter Phyla we have evidence for the evolution of higher groups presenting a more or less marked advance in organization. And not only is the rate of development more rapid in the highest Phyla of the animal kingdom, but it appears to be most rapid when dealing with the highest animal tissue, the central nervous system. The chief, and doubtless the most sig- nificant, difference between the early Tertiary mammals and those which succeeded them, between the Secondary and Tertiary reptiles, between man and the mammals most nearly allied to him, is a difference in the size of the brain. In all these cases an enormous increase in this the dominant tissue of the body, has taken place in a time which, geologically speaking, is very brief. When glancing later on over the evolution which has taken place within the Phyla, further details upon this subject will be given, although in this as in other cases the time at our disposal demands that the exposition ot evidence must largely yield to an exposition of the con- clusions which follow from its study. And undoubtedly a study of all the available evidence points to the con- clusion that in the lower grade, sub-grades, and Phyla ot the animal kingdom evolution has been extremely slow as compared with that in the higher. We do not know the reason. It may be that this remarkable persistence through the stratified series of deposits is due to an in- nate fixity of constitution which has rigidly limited the power of variation ; or, more probably perhaps, that the lower members of the animal kingdom were, as they are now, more closely confined to particular environments, with particular sets of conditions, with which they had to cope, and, this being successfully accomplished. Natural Selection has done little more than keep up a standard ot organization which was sufficient for their needs ; while the higher and more aggressive forms ranging over many environments, and always prone to encounter new sets ot conditions, were compelled to undergo responsive changes or to succumb. But whatever be the cause, the fact remains, and is of importance for our argument. When the ancestor of one of the higher Phyla was associated It 30 THE AGE OF THE EARTH with the lower Phyla of the Coelomate sub-grade vvhen further back it passed through a Coelenterate. a higher Protozoan, and finally a lower Protozoan ph^se, we are led to believe that its evolution was probably very slow as compared with the rate which it subsequently attained^ But this conclusion is of the utmost importance ; for the history contained in the stratified rocks nowhere revea s to us the origin of a Phylum. And this is not mere negative evidence, but positive evidence of the most unmistakable character. All the five Coebmate Phyla which occur fossil appear low down in the Palaeozoic rocks, in the Silurian or Cambrian strata, and they are represented by forms which are very far from being orimitive, or, if primitive, are persistent types such as Skon! which a?e now living. Thus Vertebrata are represented by fishes, both sharks and ganoids ; the Appendiculata by cockroaches, scorpions Limulids, 1 n- lobites, and many Crustacea; the Mollusca by Nautilus and numerous allied genera, by Dentalium, Chiton, Pteropods, and many Gastropods and Lamellibranchs ; the Gephyrea bv very numerous Brachiopods, and many Polyzoa; the Echinoderma by Crinoids. Cystoids, Blasto.ds, Asteroids, Ophiuroids, and Echinoids. It is just conceivable, al- though, as I believe, most improbable, that the Vertebrate Phvlum originated at the time when the earliest known fossiliferous rocks were laid down. It must be remem- bered, however, that an enormous morphological interval separates the fishes which appear in the Silurian strata from the lower branches, grades, and classes of the Phylum in which Balanoglossus, the Ascidians, Amphioxus, and the Lampreys are placed. The earliest Vertebrates to appear are, in fact, very advanced members of the Phylum, and from the point of view of anatomy, much nearer to man than to Amphioxus. If, however, we grant the im- probable contention that so highly organized an animal as a shark could be evolved from the ancestral vertebrate in the period which intervened between the earliest Cam- brian strata and the Upper Silurian, it is quite impossible to urge the same with regard to the other Phyla It has been shown above that when these appear m the Cam- EARLIEST FORMS OF HIGHER PHYLA 31 brian and Silurian, they are flourishing in full force, while their numerous specialized forms are a positive proof of a long antecedent history within the limits of the Phylum. If, however, we assume for the moment that the Phyia began in the Cambrian, the geologist's estimate must still be increased considerably, and perhaps doubled, in order to account for the evolution of the higher Phyla from forms as low as many which are now known upon the earth ; unless, indeed, it is supposed, against the weight of all such evidence as is available, that the evolutionary history in these early times was comparatively rapid. To recapitulate, if we represent the history of animal evolution by the form of a tree, we find that the follow- ing growth took place in some age antecedent to the earliest fossil records, before the establishment of the higher Phyla of the Animal Kingdom. The main trunk representing the lower Protozoa divided, originating the higher Protozoa; the latter portion again divided, probably in a threefold manner, originating the two lowest Metazoan Phyla, constituting the Coelentera. The branch representing the higher of these Phyla, the Nematophora, divided, originating the lower Coelo- mate Phyla, which again branched and originated the higher Phyla. And, as has been shown above, the refatively ancestral line, at every stage of this complex history, after originating some higher line, itself con- tinued down to the present day, throughout the whole series of fossiliferous rocks, with but little change in its general characters, and practically nothing in the way of progressive evolution. Evidences of marked advance are to be found alone in the most advanced groups of the latest highest products— the Phyla formed by the last of these divisions. It may be asked how is it possible for the zoologist to feel so confident as to the past history of the various animal groups. I have already explained that he does not feel this confidence as regards the details of the history, but as to its general lines. The evidence which 52 THE AGE OF THE EARTH leads to this conviction is based upon the fact that animal structure and mode of development can be, and have been, handed down from generation to generation from a period far more remote than that which is represented by the earliest fossils ; that fundamental facts in structure and development may remain changeless amid endless changes of a more general character; that especially favourable conditions have preserved ancestral forms comparatively unchanged. Working upon this material, comparative anatomy and embryology can reconstruct for us the general aspects of a history which took place long before the Cambrian rocks were deposited. This line of reasoning may appear very speculative and un- sound, and it may easily become so when pressed too far. But applied with due caution and reserve, it may be trusted to supply us with an immense amount of valuable information which cannot be obtained in any other way. Furthermore, it is capable of standing the very true and searching test supplied by the verification of predictions made on its authority. Many facts taken together lead the zoologist to believe that A was descended from C through B ; but if this be true, B should possess certain characters which are not known to belong to it. Under the inspiration of hypothesis a more searching investigation is made, and the charac- ters are found. Again, that relatively small amount of the whole scheme of animal evolution which is con- tained in the fossiliferous rocks has furnished abundant confirmation of the validity of the zoologist's method. The comparative anatomy of the higher Vertebrate Classes leads the zoologist to believe that the toothless beak and the fused caudal vertebrae of a bird were not ancestral characters, but were at some time derived from a condition more conformable to the general plan of vertebrate construction, and especially to that of reptiles. Numerous secondary fossils prove to us that the birds of that time possessed teeth and separate caudal vertebrae, culminating in the long lizard-like tail of Archaeopteryx. Prediction and confirmation of this kind, both zoo- logical and palaeontological, have been going on ever EVOLUTION WITHIN HIGHER PHYLA 33 since the historic point of view^ was adopted by the naturalist as the outcome of Darwin's teaching, and the zoologist may safely claim that his method, confirmed by palaeontology so far as evidence is available, may be extended beyond the period in which such evidence is to be found. And now our last endeavour must be to obtain some conception of the amount of evolution which has taken place within the higher Phyla of the Animal Kingdom during the period in which the fossiliferous rocks were deposited. The evidence must necessarily be considered very briefly, and we shall be compelled to omit the Vertebrata altogether. The Phylum Appendiculata is divided by Lankester into three branches, the first containing the Rotifera, the second the Chaetopoda, the third the Arthropoda. Of these the second is the oldest, and gave rise to the other two, or at any rate to the Arthropoda, with which we are alone concerned, inasmuch as the fossil records of the others are insufficient. The Arthropoda contain seven Classes, divided into two grades, according to the presence or absence of antennae^— the Ceratophora, con- taining the Peripatoidea, the Myriapoda, and the Hexa- poda (or insects) ; the Acerata, containing the Crustacea, Arachnida, and two other classes (the Pantopoda and Tardigrada) which we need not consider. The first Class of the antenna-bearing group contains the single genus Peripatus— one of the most interesting and ancestral of animals, as proved by its structure and development, and by its immense geographical range. Ever since the researches of Moseley and Balfour, extended more re- cently by those of Sedgwick, it has been recognized as one of the most beautiful of the connecting links to be found amongst animals, uniting the antenna-bearing Arthropods, of which it is the oldest member, with the Chaetopods. Peripatus is a magnificent example of the far-reaching conclusions of zoology, and of its superiority ' The so-called antennae of Crustacea are developed very differently from true antennae. POl'LTON D 34 THE AGE OF THE EARTH to palaeontology as a guide i"/"^^f "^^ ^'e'Jolay known as a fossil, l^enpatus nab estimate. iss wjs: ^^^i^txJ^h:!^ tfe S hlean 'rocks so as to obliterate the ^aces o ife which they contained were powerless to efface this uie wnicii tiicy , . ^„ . .!,_ nassine- eenerations may on that which sy^^^eeded It and has co ^^.^^ to the present day. It is, ot courbc, * p 7 and obvious conclusion but not the less one to be J A r.*. tV^oi- tVip force of heredity shoula tnus lar ::ts^t:e\.t:lX!:Zerrestr-^^ cLnge throughout the vast period over which the geologist is our gu^^e Tf however the older Palaeozoic rocks tell us nothing of tLS of the antenna-bearing Arthropods what do they telf us o?the history of the Myriapod and Hexapod *^\Te' Myriapods are well represented in Palaeozoic tKe oVrJ «Sl^ ~= of ,h| aass fo. between the Carboniferous rocks and the Ohgocene theVe are no remains of undoubted Mynapods. 'we now come to the consideration of insects of which an adequate discussion would occupy a g^at deal t^ much of your time. An immense ^T^er of speaes are found in the Palaeozoic rocks, and these are con THE INSECTS OF THE COAL 35 sidered by Scudder, the great authority on fossil insects, to form an Order, the Palaeodictyoptera, distinct from any of the existing Orders. The latter, he believes, were evolved from the former in Mesozoic times. These views do not appear to derive support from the wonder- ful discoveries of M. Brongniart^ in the Upper Carboni- ferous of Commentry in the Department of Allier in Central France. Concerning this marvellous assemblage of species, arranged by their discoverer into 46 genera and 10 1 species, Scudder truly says :— * Our knowledge of Palaeozoic insects will have been increased three or four fold at a single stroke. ... No former contribution in this field can in any way compare with it, nor even all former contributions taken together 'r When we remember that the group of fossil insects, of which so much can be affirmed by so great an authority as Scudder, lived at one time and in a single locality, we cannot escape the conclusion that the insect fauna of the habitable earth during the whole Palaeozoic period was of immense importance and variety. Our knowledge of this single group of species is largely due to the accident that coal-mining in Commentry is carried on in the open air. Now, these abundant remains of insects, so far from upholding the view that the existing orders had not been developed in Palaeozoic times, are all arranged by Brongniart in four out of the nine Orders into which insects are usually divided, viz. the Orthoptera, Neuro- ptera, Thysanoptera, and Homoptera. The importance of the discovery is well seen in the Neuroptera, the whole known Palaeozoic fauna of this Order being divided into 45 genera and 99 species, of which 33 and 72 respectively have been found at Commentry. Although the Carboniferous insects of Commentry are placed in new families, some of them come wonder- fully near those into which existing insects are classified, and obviously form the precursors of these. This is true » Charles Brongniart. — Recherches pour servir h Thistoire des tnsecies fossiles des temps prmatres, priMe'es d'une Etude sur la nervation des ailes des insectes. 1894. ' S. H. Scudder, Am.Journ. Set., vol. xlvii, February, 1894. Art. vm. D 2 I' 36 THE AGE OF THE EARTH ^era"^ and the Fu Joridae among the Homoptera ?he 'dlffefence: wh J separate these e-Ung am.hes from their Carboniferous ancestors are^m^^^^^^^^^ and instructive. 1 hus the Carboni erous Dossessed ovipositors, and probab y laid their eggs o possebbcu y either viviparous or lay their r^'.W reduced to te^mina, useless for tligtit, inose Seozortlmes polessed four well-develo^d wings- ^tl r^rmQ rpnresentine bcusts and grasshoppers ^raiae Jc id r po^sTdV^ grasshoppers (Locustidae), from which th^ Acndijdae fre now distinguished by their .^.^^'•^^"^^nhown is divergence and .^pecahzation which s th - sho-" rttVcalni^eruTroci: IndTe '^Ln. day the t kVoSs'^hXined a rathe and have succeeded in laying their eggs in a manner mther more speciahzed than that of insects m genera' Jhe stick insects and leaf insects have lost or reduced their wUs the grasshoppers have shortened their Intennr" These, however, are the insects which most closely resemble the existing species ; let us turn to the forr^s which exhibit the greatest differences. Many sDe^Js have retained in the adult state characters which K now confined to the larval stage of existence, such as the orrsence of tracheal gills on the sides of the abdomen t some the two membranes of the wing were not firmlv fixed together, so that the blood could circulate Sy between ^them.' On the other hand, they are no very firmly fixed together in existing insects Another ;,r.rir,ri-ant Doint was the condition of the three thoracic TgCts S were quite distinct .and separate instead of being fused as they are now in the imago stage^ ?his external difference probably also extended to the THE INSECTS OF THE COAL 37 nervous system, so that the thoracic ganglia were senlrare instead of concentrated. The most interesting dSctLn however, was the possession by many species of a pa°r of prothoracic appendages much resembling n iniafu e wings, and which especially suggest the appear- "ancTlssumed'by the anterior pair (tegmina in exist.ng Phasmidae There is some evidence in favour of the view ThatThey were articulated, and they exhibit what appears to be a trace of venation. Brongn.art concludes that n still earlier strata, insects with six wings w.1 be discovered, or rather insects with six of the tracheal g Is sufficiently developed to serve - parachutes^ O These the two posterior pair developed nto the wings as '; know them, while the anterior pair degenerated lime of the Carboniferous insects presenting us with a s^age in which degeneration had taken place but was "onTv^rrimportant character was, as I have ali^ady Doh^ted out the enormous size reached by insects in Edttan" period. This was true of the who e known fauna as compared with existing species, but it was iTpeciaU; the Le with the Protodonata some of these giant dragon-flies measuring over two feet in the expanse °^ t^ ^Ss the habits c. life -^^ ^^^h^^^ aquatic larval stage, and did not require it when mature He concludes that the Protodonata fed on other animals like our dragon-flies ; that the Palaeacndiudae we^e herbivorous like our locusts and grasshoppers the Protolocustidae herbivorous and ammal feeders Ike our green grasshoppers, the Palaeoblattidae on^nivorous hke our^cockroaches. The Homoptera, too, had elon- gated sucking mouth-parts like the existing species. It fs known that in Carboniferous times there was a k^« with rivers entering it. at Commentry. From U e.r great resemblance to living forms of ^"9^'^^^^ab.ts it is probable that the majority of these insects lived near the water and their larvae in it. 38 THE AGE OF THE EARTH pi When we look at this most important piece of research as a whole, we cannot fail to be struck with the small advance in insect structure which has taken place since Carboniferous times. All the great questions of meta- morphosis, and of the structures peculiar to insects, appear to have been very much in the position in which they are to-day. It is indeed probable enough that the Orders which zoologists have always recognized as com- paratively modern and specialized, such as the Lepido- ptera, Coleoptera, and Hymenoptera, had not come into existence. But as regards the emergence of the Class from a single primitive group, as regards its approxima- tion towards the Myriapods, which lived at the same time, and of both towards their ancestor Peripatus, we learn absolutely nothing. All we can say is that there is evidence for the evolution of the most modern and specialized members of the Class, and some slight pro- gressive evolution in the rest. Such evolution is of importance as giving us some vague conception of the rate at which the process travels in this division of the Arthropoda. If we look upon development as a series of paths which, by successively uniting, at length meet in a common point, then some conception of the position of that distant centre may be gained by measuring the angle of divergence and finding the number of unions which occur in a given length. In this case, the amount of approximation and union shown in the interval between the Carboniferous Period and the present day is relatively so small that it would require to be multiplied many times before we could expect the lines to meet in the common point, the ancestor of insects, to say nothing of the far more distant past, in which the Tracheate Arthropods met in an ancestor presenting many resem- blances to Peripatus. But it must not be forgotten that all this vast undefined period is required for the history of one of the two grades of one of the three branches of the whole Phylum. Turning now to the brief consideration of the second grade of Arthropods, distinguished from the first grade by the absence of antennae, the Trilobites are probably THE EARLIEST CRUSTACEA 39 4 the nearest approach to an ancestral form met with in the fossil state. Now that the possession of true antennae is certain, it is reasonable to suppose that the Trilobites represent an early Class of the Aceratous branch which had not yet become Aceratous. They are thus of the deepest interest in helping us to under- stand the origin of the antennaless branch, not by the ancestral absence, but by the loss of true antennae which formerly existed in the group. But the Trilobites did not themselves originate the other Classes, at any rate during Palaeozoic times. They represent a large and dominant Class, presenting more of the characters of the common ancestor than the other Classes ; but the latter had diverged and had become distinct long before the earliest fossiliferous rocks; for we find well-marked representatives of the Crustacea in Cambrian, and of the Arachnida in Silurian strata. The Trilobites, more- over, appear in the Cambrian with many distinct and very different forms, contained in upwards of forty genera, so that we are clearly very far from the origin of the group. Of the lower group of Crustacea, the Entomostraca, the Cirripedes are represented by two genera in the Silurian, the Ostracodes by four genera in the Cambrian and over twenty in the Silurian ; of these latter, two genera (Cythere and Bairdia) continue right through the fossiliferous series and exist at the present day. Remains of Phyllopods are more scanty, but can be traced in the Devonian and Carboniferous rocks. The early appearance of the Cirripedes is of especial interest, inasmuch as the fixed condition of these forms in the mature state is certainly not primitive, and yet, never- theless, appears in the earliest representatives. The higher group, the Malacostraca, are represented by many genera of Phyllocarida in the Silurian and Devonian, and two in the Cambrian. These also afford a good example of the imperfection of the record, inas- much as no traces of the group are to be found between the Carboniferous and our existing fauna in which it is represented by the genus Nebalia. The Phyllocarida 40 THE AGE OF THE EARTH are recognized as the ancestors of the higher Malaco- straca, and yet these latter already existed— in small numbers, it is true— side by side with the Phyllocarida in the Devonian. The evolution of the one mto the other must have been much earlier. Here, as in the Arthropoda, we have evidence of progressive evolution among the highest groups of the Class, as we see m the comparatively late development of the Brachyura as compared with the Macrura. We find no trace of the origin of the Class, or of the larger groups into which it is divided, or, indeed, of the older among the small groupings into families and genera.^ Of the Arachnida, although some of the most won- derful examples of persistent types are to be found in this class, but little can be said. Merely to state the bare fact that three kinds of scorpion are found in the Silurian, two Pedipalpi, eight scorpions, and two spiders in the Carboniferous, is sufficient to show that the period computed by geologists must be immensely extended to account for the development of this Class alone, inasmuch as it existed in a highly specialized condition almost at the beginning of the fossiliferous series; while, as regards so extraordinarily complex an animal as a scorpion, nothing apparent in the way of progressive development has happened since. Professor Lankester has, however, pointed out to me that the Silurian scorpion Palaeophonus possessed heavier limbs than those of existing species, and this is a point in favour of an aquatic life like that of its near relation, Limulus. If so, it is probable that it possessed external gills, not yet introverted to form the lung-book. The Merostomata are of course a Palaeozoic group, and reach their highest known development at their first appearance in the Silurian ; since then they have done nothing but dis- appear gradually, leaving the single genus Limulus, unmodified since its first appearance in the Trias, to represent them. It is impossible to find clearer evidence ^ For an account of the evolution of the Crustacea see the Presidential Addresses to the Geological Society in 1895 and 1896 by Dr. Henry Woodward. THE EARLIEST ARACHNIDA 41 of the decline rather than the rise of a group. No progressive development, but a gradual or rapid ex- tinction, and consequent reduction in the number of genera and species, is a summary of the record of the fossiliferous rocks as regards this group and many others, such as the Trilobites, the Brachiopods, and the Nautili- dae. All these groups begin with many forms in the oldest fossiliferous rocks, and three of them have left genera practically unchanged from their first appearance to the present day. What must have been the time required to carry through the vast amount of structural change implied in the origin of these persistent types and the groups to which they belong — a period so ex- tended that the interval between the oldest Palaeozoic rocks and the present day supplies no measurable unit ? But I am digressing from the Appendiculate Phylum. We have seen that the fossil record is unusually com- plete as regards two Classes in each grade of the Arthropod branch, but that these Classes were well developed and flourishing in Palaeozoic times. The only evidence of progressive evolution is in the develop- ment of the highest orders and families of the Classes. Of the oricrin of the Classes nothincr is told, and we can hardly escape the conclusion that for the development of the Arthropod branches from a common Chaetopod- like ancestor, and for the further development of the Classes of each branch, a period many limes the length of the fossiliferous series is required, judging from the insignificant amount of development which has taken place during the formation of this series. It is impossible to consider the other Coelomate Phyla as I have done the Appendiculata. I can only briefly state the conclusions to which we are led. As regards the Molluscan Phylum, the evidence is perhaps even stronger than in the Appendiculata. Re- presentatives of the whole of the Classes are, it is believed, found in the Cambrian or Lower Silurian. The Pteropods are generally admitted to be a recent modification of the Gastropods, and yet, if the fossils t 1 !1-^ 42 THE AGE OF THE EARTH described in the genera Conularia. Hyolithes, Pterotheca. &c are true Pteropods, as they are supposed to be, they occur in the Cambrian and Silurian strata, wh. e the'group of Gastropods from which they ^1-°^ -^^-fjj arost, the Bullidae, are not known before he Tnas^ Furthermore, the forms which are clearly the oldest of the Pteropods-Limacina and Spir.ahs-are not known before'the beginning of the TerUary Per.od^ Either there is a mistake m the identification of the Pdaeozoic fossils at Pteropods, or the record is even moreTncomplete than usual, and the most specialized of all Molluscan groups had been formed befo e the date of the earliest fossiliferous rocks. Even if this should hereafter be disproved, there can be"o doubt -ibout the early appearance of the Molluscan Classes, fnd thlt it is L Zny of an -complete record wh|ch places the Cephalopods and Gastropods in the Cambr an S ?he far more ancestral Chiton no lower than the Silurian. Throughout the fossiliferous series the older familes of Gastropods and Lamellibranchs are followed by numerous other families, which were doubtless derived from them ; new and higher groups of Cephalopods were developed, and, with the older groups, either persisted until the present time or became extinct. But in all this splitting up of the Classes into groups of "ot Jidely different morphological value there is very lit le pro- gressive modification, and, taking such changes in such a period as our unit for the determination of the time which was necessary for the origin of the Classes frorn a form like Chiton, we are led to the same conclus on as that which followed from the consideration of the Appendiculata, viz. that the fossiliferous series woijld have to be multiplied several times in order to pro- ""' Of' the Phylum Gephyrea, I will only mention the Brachiopods, which are found in immense profusion in the early Palaeozoic rocks and have occupied the sub- sequent time in becoming less dominant and important. So far from helping us to clear up the mystery which surrounds the origin of the Class, the earliest forms are MOLLUSCA AND ECHINODERMA 43 quite as specialized as those living now, and, some of them (Lingula, Discina), even generically identical. The demand for time to originate the group is quite as grasp- ing as that of the others we have been considering. All the Classes of Echinoderma, except the Holo- thurians, which do not possess a structure favourable for fossilization, are found early in the Palaeozoic rocks, and many of them in the Cambrian. Although these early forms are very different from those which succeeded them in the later geological periods, they do not possess a structure which can be recognized as in any way primitive or ancestral. The Echinoderma are the most distinct and separate of all the Coelomate Phyla, and they were apparently equally distinct and separate at the beginning of the fossiliferous series. In concluding this imperfect attempt to deal with a very vast subject in a very short time, I will remind you that w^e were led to conclude that the evolution of the ancestor of each of the higher animal Phyla probably occupied a very long period, perhaps as long as that required for the evolution which subsequently occurred within the Phylum. But the consideration of the higher Phyla which occur fossil, except the Vertebrata, leads to the irresistible conclusion that the whole period in which the fossiliferous rocks were laid down must be multiplied several times for this later history alone. The period thus obtained requires to be again increased, and perhaps doubled, for the earlier history. In the preparation of the latter part of this address I have largely consulted Zittel's great work. I wish also to express my thanks to my friend Professor Lankester, whom I have consulted on many of the details, as well as the general plan which has been adopted. If the facts and arguments set forth in the address to which you have done me the honour of listening be sound, the naturalist need not fear for the result of this attack upon the great theory which has been a light to his path for nearly half a century. Natural Selection will never be stifled in the Procrustean bed of insufficient geological time. 44 THE AGE OF THE EARTH Note —At the time when this address was delivered I felt keenly the gap left in the argument by the absence of any statement concerning the evolution ofland-plants. Since 1896 an immense amount of labour has been ex- pended upon fossil floras, and startling conclusions as to the affinities of certain groups have been placed on a soUd foundation. Now, after the lapse of ten years, it is far more possible than it was in 1896 to compare safely he Evidence yielded by fossil plants with that of fos.l animals. Allowing for the important difference m the length of the records-animals appearing in full force in ihe^Cambrian, plants only in the Devonian-the two lines of evidence support precisely the same conclusion. Professor A. C. Seward, F.R.S in his Presidential Address to Section K (Botany) of the meeting of the British Association at Southport, m 1903. took as his subject Floras of the Past: their Composition and Distribution. He speaks of the Devonian and Lower Carboniferous plants as ' practical y t^ie oldest records of plant-life', and states that they ' ead us away from the present a bng converging lines of evolution to a remote ^tage in 'he history of lifl': the distribution of their fossil remains over the globe ' shows how widely some of the plants had migrated from an unknown centre far back n a still more remote age. We are, as yet, ""able to follow these Devonian plants to an earlier stage in heir evolution. We are left in amazement at their speciahzed structure and extended geographical distribution, without the means of perusing the opening chapters of their ^'^Durine the present year my friend Dr. D. H. Scott, F.R.S., has published a valuable and comprehensive memoir on The Present Position of Palaeozoic Botany setting forth the results of modern researches upon the structure and evolution of fossil plants. . r 1 Dr Scott has most kindly provided me with the tol- lowing concise summary of the history of plant evolution as set forth in the fossil record at present known to us:— > Report, 1903, p. 831. " Progressus Rd Bolankae, Jena, 1906, pp. 1 39-2' 7- THE EARLIEST LAND-PLANTS 45 I ' Of the main divisions of the Vegetable Kingdom the Angiosperms alone appear to originate within the periods of which we have any adequate fossil record. They do not appear, as at present known, until late in the Mesozoic. Some affinity between them and the much more ancient Cycadophyta is indicated by the latest work.^ *The other seed-plants go back certainly to the Devonian— we do not know how much further. During Palaeozoic times there was a great group of seed-plants — the Pteridospermeae — of a relatively primitive type, showing affinity with Ferns. Most of the so-called Palaeozoic ** Ferns " were really seed-bearing plants of this kind. * But, side by side with them, and going back equally far according to present records, there were the Cor- daiteae, a well characterized family of Gymnosperms com- parable in many respects to the Coniferae. * Hence the evolution of seed-plants had already reached a very advanced stage at the period to which our earliest satisfactory records of land-plants belong. * It is thus only a very small fraction of the whole course of plant-evolution which is revealed in the fossil record.' 11 'WHAT IS A SPECIES?' The Presidential Address read at the Annual Meeting °f th^f;"'"™"; lo4al Society of London, January ao, ,904. Repnnted from the additional footnotes. The late Professor Max Muller. in an eloquent speech delivered at Reading in 1891. spoke of the necessity of examining, and. as time passes by, re-exatrtinrng he meaning of words. He referred as an tllustra ton to the man at the railway station who taps the wheels with his hammer, testing whether each still rings true or has undergone some change that may mean disaster. In almost the same way, the speaker maintained, a word may slowly and unobtrusively change its meaning, be- coiTiing. unless critically tested to ascertain whether it still rings true, a danger instead of an aid to clear think- ing a pitfall on the field of controversy. He then went on to say, that Darwin had written a great work upon the Origin of Species, and had never once explained what he meant by the word Species. So decided an utterance— the statement was made emphatically— ought to have involved a careful and critical search through the naees of the work that was attacked. However this may be it is quite certain that the search was unsuccess- ful • and yet a few minutes' investigation brought me to a passage in which the meaning attached by the author to the term Species is set down in the clear, calm, and simple language which did so much to convince an unwilling world. , . , .t. Darwin is speaking of the revolution which the accept- ance of his views will bring about. ' Systematists will be able to pursue their labours as at present; but they will not be incessantly haunted by the shadowy doubt whether this or that form be in essence a species. 1 his I feel sure, and I speak after experience, will be no slight I DARWIN'S ACCOUNT OF SPECIES: 1859 47 relief. The endless disputes whether or not some fifty species of British brambles are true species will cease. Systematists luill have only to decide (7iot that this will be easy) whether afiy form be sufficiently consta7it and dis- tinct from other forms ^ to be capable of definition ; and if definable, whether tlie differences be sufficiently important to deserve a specific name. This latter point will become a far more essential consideration than it is at present; for differences, however slight, between any two forms, if not blended by intermediate gradations, are looked at by most naturalists as sufficient to raise both forms to the rank of species. Hereafter we shall be compelled to acknowledge that the only distinction between species and well-marked varieties is, that the latter are known, or believed, to be co7inected at the present day by intermediate gradations, whereas species were formerly thus cormected. Hence, without quite rejecting the consideration of the present existence of intermediate gradations between any two forms, we shall be led to weigh more carefully and to value higher the actual amount of difference between them. It is quite possible that forms now generally acknowledged to be merely varieties may here- after be thought worthy of specific names, as with the primrose and cowslip ; and in this case scientific and common language will come into accordance. In short, we shall have to treat species in the same manner as those naturalists treat genera, who admit that genera are merely artificial combinations made for convenience. This may not be a cheering prospect; but we shall at least be freed from the vain search for the undiscovered and undiscoverable essence of the term species.' I have quoted from pages 484, 485 of the original edition (1859), and have italicized the sentences in which Darwin defines a species and distinguishes it from a variety. Max Mailer's special criticism falls to the ground, but his general exhortation remains, and I think we shall do well to be guided by it, and attempt to apply it to this difficult and elusive word species. The passage I have quoted was Darwin's prediction of the meaning which would be attached to the word ' species ' 48 'WHAT IS A SPECIES?' ! by the naturalist of the future. Nearly half a century has passed since those words were written For more than a generation the central ideas of the Ongtn have been an essential part of the intellectual equipment, not only of every naturalist, but of every moderately intelligent man. What then is the meaning of the word * species to-day, and how does it differ from that of the years before July i, 1858, when the Darwin-Wallace conception of Natural Selection was f^rst launched upon the world ? The present occasion is specially favourable for this inquiry, because we have just been given two additional volumes of the letters of Charles Darwin. After the three volumes published in 1887, naturalists were cer- tainly unprepared for the welcome revelation of such a mine of wealth. The work is all the more valuable because it contains many letters from Alfred Russel Wallace and Sir Joseph Hooker, thus giving both sides of a part of their correspondence with Darwin. Then in 1900 the Life and Letters of Thomas Henry Huxley appeared, so that we are now admitted ' behind the veil , and can read, as never before, the central thoughts of the great makers of biological history. On the publication of the last-named work, I took occasion to combat the view that the thousand closely-printed pages might have been reduced by omitting and condensing many of the letters. The serious student of those stirring years requires the opportunity of thinking over and comparing all the avail- able thoughts and opinions of the chief actors in the memorable scene; and the very repetition of certain ideas which proves their persistence and dominance in the writer s mind, is a matter of deep importance and interest. However it may be to the general reader, the student would deprecate the omission or condensation of any of the writings of Darwin or Huxley. The special interest and value in the letters of these men depend on the fact Jthat their inmost convictions on subjects of the deepest scientific importance are to be read, often in the compass of a brief sentence. There we find, as we cannot find in any other way, the real core of the matter with all accessory and surrounding considerations stripped DARWIN'S LETTERS TO HIS FRIENDS 49 away from it.^ A careful study of the two recent volumes of Darwin's letters, and a re-study of the three earlier volumes, with a view to this Address, have shown how the writer s thoughts were again and again occupied upon subjects bound up with the problem I have ventured to bring before you this evening. The interest reaches its height when we find that strongly marked differences of opinion on fundamental questions are threshed out in the correspondence, when we see, as I shall have occasion to point out in greater detail in the later pages of this Address, Darwin differing sharply from Huxley on the one hand, and with Wallace on the other, as to the significance and history of sterility between species. In such episodes we are permitted to become the witnesses of a supremely interesting struggle, where the central figure of modern biological inquiry is contend- ing with his chief comrades in the great fight, — with the co-discoverer of Natural Selection, with the warrior hero who stood in the forefront of the battle. The correspondence of Charles Darwin has a further deep interest for us. We see the means by which a gentle, sympathetic, intensely human nature overpassed the stern limits imposed by health, and was able to impart and to receive fresh ideas, and a stimulus ever renewed — the impulse to varied and unceasing research. I have lately been studying with keen interest the life of another great Englishman, William John Burchell,^ than whom no better equipped or more learned traveller ever explored large areas in two continents. When I state that search- ing inquiry has only brought to light a dozen of his letters,^ and that he was known to few of the great naturalists of his day, we see the reason for the sad, unproductive, brooding close of a career which opened * Quarterly Review, January 1901, p. 258. * Ann. and Mag, Nat. Hist.^ January 1904, p. 45. ' Since these words were written I have through the courtesy of Mr. Francis A. Burchell of the Rhodes University College, Grahamstown, been permitted to see a large number of letters written by the great explorer to members of his family. A number of Burchell's letters to Swainson, of which I was unaware when this Address was written, are preserved in the library of the Linnean Society. POCLTOW 50 *WHAT IS A SPECIES?' with almost unexampled brilliancy and promise. The time which we give to Societies such as this— time we are sometimes apt to grudge— is well spent. Here, and in kindred communities, a ' man sharpeneth the counten- ance of his friend; and there is born of the influence of mind upon mind, thought,— not a mere resultant ot diverse forces, but a new creation. The scientific man who shuts himself away from his fellow men, in the belief that he is thereby obtaining conditions the most favourable for research, is grievous y mistaken. Man, scientific man perhaps more inevitably than others, is a social animal, and the contrast between the lives of Darwin and Burchell shows us that friendly sympathy with our brother naturalists is an essential element in successful and continued investigation. Insects, and especially Lepidoptera, pre-eminently fitted to supply examples for a Discussion on Species. I do not suppose that it is necessary to justify a dis- cussion of the term * species' as the subject of the Anniversary Address to the Entomological Society of London. The students of insect form and function hold an exalted place among naturalists. The material of their researches enables them, almost compels them, to take the keenest and most active interest in broad ques- tions affecting the history and course of life on our planet. Naturalists engaged upon other groups may reasonably inquire why insects, above all other animals, should be so especially valuable for the elucidation of the larger problems which deal, not only with the species of a single group, but with every one of the innumerable and infinitely varied forms, vegetable no less than animal, in which life manifests itself. The answer is to be found in the large number of offspring produced by each pair of insects, and the rapidity with which the generations succeed each other, many cycles being completed in a single year in warm countries ; in the severity of the struggle for life which prevents this remarkable rate of multiplication from becoming the cause of any progressive increase INSECTS AS EXAMPLES OF EVOLUTION 51 in the number of individuals ; and finally, in the character of the struggle itself, which is precisely of that highly specialized kind between the keen senses and activities of enemies, and the means of concealment or other modes of defence of their insect prey, which leads, by action and answering reaction, to a progressive raising of the standard in both pursuer and pursued. This is why it is that insects mean so much to the naturalist or to the philo- sopher who desires to look beneath the surface for the forces which have moulded existing forms of life out of earlier and very different forms. The wings of butterflies, it has been said, * serve as a tablet on which Nature writes the story of the modifications of species.' ^ But the careful study of insects tells us even more than this ; for it gives us the clearest insight we as yet possess into the forces by which these changes have been brought about. Light is thrown upon the causes to which organic evolution is due no less than upon the course which organic evolu- tion has pursued.2 And I think we shall find that a consideration of the numerous distinct categories of forms presented by the insect world is especially advantageous in an attack upon the difficult question—' What is a species ? ', while properly directed observation of insects, and experiments upon insects afford the most hopeful prospect of a final answer. And here I am compelled to say a word in defence of the Lepidoptera from this point of view. Undoubtedly it is most unfortunate that the obvious attractions of the group have led entomologists to neglect other Orders; for this can be the only explanation why naturalists have so often preferred to do over again what others have done already, apparently oblivious of fields comparatively empty and unexplored. It must further be admitted, that the greater visibility of structure, and the more * H. W. Bates, quoted by A. R. Wallace in Natural Selediott, London, 1875, p. 132. The original passage may be found in The Naturalist on the^Amazons (London, pp. 347, 348 of the 1879 edition). This justification for the study of insects was urged by the present wnter in the Hope Reports, vol. iii, 1903, preface, pp. 4, 5. £ 2 52 'WHAT IS A SPECIES?" urgent necessity for the study of structure in other groups, render them better instruments of zoological education. But although the Lepidoptera are inferior in this respect, although they lack the unique interest of the Hymenoptera and the social Neuroptera, and cannot claim any of the respect due to venerable age like the Aptera, Orthoptera and Neuroptera-in spite of their many dements they stand at the head, not only of all insects but of the whole organic world, as the registers of subtle and elusive change— ever going on, yet never seen,— by means ol which forms are slowly becoming different from what they have been in the past. It is the existence of a com- plex pattern composed of several colours which renders butterflies and to a less extent moths such a remarkably delicate record of change. As we trace the representative individuals of a community of butterflies over any wide range, the trained eye, and often the inexperienced eye, can detect diff^erences which are not seen to anything like the same extent in the individuals of other Orders with corresponding ranges. If the wings of Hymenoptera Diptera, or Orthoptera possessed the same elaborate patterns as the Lepidoptera, we cannot doubt that hey too would exhibit the same differences in various parts ot their areas. The continual change which we find as we study the distribution of Lepidopterous fornis m space, is undoubtedly a measure of the speed with which evolu- tion has occurred in time. Rapidity of change is essential if it is to keep its adjustment with nicety to the fleeting details of distribution.' Hence we may confidently • It is to be observed that 1 speak of the details z% fleeting. The eeneraUxti of distribution is doubtless extremely ancient in most cases. C aUhough a species of Hdiconius, &c., may have or.gmated w.th,n the Sou h American tropics, and never have wandered beyond them, the complex shape of its actual area of distribution at any one t.me cannot be rewrded as fixed or ancient. Yet in many a spec.es the variation of the constant individuals is adjusted with precision to the geographical details "'SrSllfd'Trlmen, on reading the abo^. footnote, writes to me lanuary 2 4, 1904 :-' Your note reminds me of the recent appearance on the N^tal coa-^t of several conspicuous East-African butterflies, v,d.: Puns %tTcTnts rLrand Godllia wakefieldii, all of which are shown to C not oTextended their range to a point where they were previously 0 BUTTERFLIES AS REGISTERS OF CHANGE 5 believe, that if we could wake up in say a thousand years, we should be able to detect changes in the pat- terns of some butterflies. Although I am afraid the advance of science is not likely to be sufficiently rapid m our time for me to hold out any prospect of such an experience for any of you, there is every reason why we should afford this opportunity to posterity. A critical examination of the fragments of many species of butter- flies captured over ninety years ago by Burchell m South Africa, and gnawed to pieces during his Brazilian travels from 1825 to 1830, renders it probable, nay, almost cer- tain, that with moderate care, insect pigments will endure for an indefinite period in our museums. One important justification for the great and permanent outlay required to bring together and maintain large collections of insects is, that we are allowing our successors the chance of detecting and measuring the rate of specific change.^ And, as I have already said, for this purpose the Lepi- doptera stand pre-eminent. For the purpose of the inquiry this evening, our quite unknown, but to have also established themselves in the fresh area. This is a good case, as Durban has had, for the last twenty- five years at least, a number of keen collectors of Lepidoptera, whom such con- spicuous forms could not possibly have escaped had they inhabited the neighbourhood. Besides these species, the last butteifly that my friend and collaborator, the late Colonel Bowker, sent to me (1898) was the large and extremely conspicuous black-and-white Acraea satis, which he took at Malvern, near Durban. This is the only example known to me to have occurred in Natal ; but Bowker, who noted the resemblance on the wing to Papilio morania, wrote that he had seen one other for certam, and thought that he might very possibly have passed over more examples for the common Papilio named. This last case is of special mterest (should it prove one of extended range like the three mentioned), because the Acraeae are so exceptionally slow-flying and gregarious, that they must spread very slowly indeed into fresh areas.' • 1 • ^ Karl Jordan argues with great force in favour of specialization m this direction by our museums. (See Noviiates Zoologicae, vol. iii, December 1896, pp. 431-3.) The Burchell collection from Brazil was made between 1825 and 1830, and is therefore only seventy-six to eighty-one years old, but the species are numerous, and often represented by long series. Miss Cora B. Sanders' account of the Iihomiine, Danaine and Satyrine butterflies contains evidence that certain species have undergone change of form or of distribution. See Annals and Magazine of Natural History, 1904, pp. 305-23, 356-71- 54 *WHAT IS A SPECIES?' instances will be drawn from the Lepidoptera rather than other Orders of insects, because of the numberless examples of subtle distinction between forms which but yesterday, so to speak, became separate ; because of our knowledge, insufficient but considerable, of their geo- graphical range ; because of our experience, excessively imperfect and scanty, but still much larger than in other Orders, of interbreeding and of descent from parent to offspring. The Linnaean Conception of Species as Separately Created, and Fixed for all time at their Creation, First among the attempts to define species must be placed that which we rightly associate with the name of Linnaeus :—* Species tot sunt, quot diversas formas ab initio produxit Infinitum Ens, quae formae, secundum generationis inditas leges produxere plures, at sibi semper similes/ It is necessary at the outset to point out that the Linnaean definition contains two widely different ideas. First, species are diver sae formae, distinguished from one another by characters which can be studied and de- fined. Secondly, these specific differences were originally created as we see them, and are for ever permanent and fixed. 1 propose to discuss the second idea before the first. It has been admirably pointed out by the late Rev. Aubrey L. Moore,^ that the dogma of the fixity of species is entitled to none of the respect which is due to age. * It is hardly credible to us,' he wrote, ' that Lord Bacon, ''the father of modern science" as he is called, though he was only a schoolman touched with empiricism, believed not only that one species might pass into another, but that it was a matter of chance what the transmutation would be. Sometimes the mediaeval notion of vivification from putrefaction is appealed to, as where he explains the reason why oak boughs put into the earth send forth wild vines, ** which, if it be true (no ' Science and the Faith, London, 1889, pp. 174 et seq. OLDER BELIEFS IN TRANSMUTATION 55 doubt)," he says \ " it is not the oak that turneth into a vine, but the oak bough, putrefying, qualifieth the earth to put forth a vine of itself." Sometimes he suggests a reason which implies a kind of law, as when he thinks that the stump of a beech tree when cut down will " put forth birch ", because it is a '' tree of a smaller kind which needeth less nourishment ".^ Elsewhere he suggests the experiment of polling a willow to see what it will turn into, he himself having seen one which had a bracken fern growing out of it ! ^ And he takes it as probable, though it is inter magnalia naturae, that '' what- ever creature having life is generated without seed, that creature will change out of one species into another". Bacon looks upon the seed as a restraining power, limiting a variation which, in spontaneous generations, is practically infinite, '' for it is the seed, and the nature of it, which locketh and boundeth in the creature that it doth not expatiate." ' And the author also shows that much earlier than the date at which Bacon wrote, theologians were by no means unanimous in accepting • special creation ' ; that St. Augustine even distinctly rejected it, and propounded an idea which was evidently considered tenable by the greatest of the schoolmen, St. Thomas Aquinas. St. Thomas's words, quoted by Mr. Aubrey Moore, are as follows :—* As to the pro- duction of plants, Augustine holds a different view. For some expositors say that, on this third day (of creation), plants were actually produced each in his kind — a view which is favoured by a superficial reading of the letter of Scripture. But Augustine says that the earth is then said to have brought forth grass and trees causaliter—\, e. it then received the power to produce them.' * How then did the fixity of species become an article of belief in later years ? Aubrey Moore traces it to the in- fluence of Milton's account of creation in the seventh book » Nat, Hist., Cent, vi, 522, fol. ed. « loc. cit. p. 523. ' loc. cit. p. 112. * St. Thomas Aquinas, Summa Theot., Prima Pars, Quaest. Ixix. Art. 2. \ 56 *WHAT IS A SPECIES?' of Paradise Lost (I. 414 et seq.), and Professor Huxley had still earlier suggested the same cause in his American Addresses, I cannot help thinking that the belief had even more to do with the spirit of the age which spoke, and spoke for all time, with Milton for its interpreter— the spirit of the Puritan movement, with its insistence on literal interpretation and verbal inspiration. John Ray was Milton's younger contemporary, and many writers, including Aubrey Moore, have thought that with him began the idea of the fixity of species. Sir William Thiselton-Dyer has, however,^ recently pointed out, that a conception similar to Ray's may be traced to Kaspar Bauhin (i 550-1624), and to Jung (1587-1657).^ From Ray we pass to Linnaeus with his celebrated definition. Of the Ray-Linnaeus-Cuvier conception of species which found its most precise and authoritative expression in the Latin sentence quoted on p. 54, Dr. F. A. Dixey has well said that it ' left order where it had found confusion, but in substituting exactness of definition for the vague conceptions of a former age, it did much to obscure the rudimentary notions of organic evolution which had influenced naturalists and philosophers from Aristotle downwards '.^ At the same time it is by no means improbable, as Dixey has suggested, that the Linnaean conception * of the reality and fixity of species perhaps marks a necessary stage in the progress of scientific inquiry'.^ The Linnaean idea of special creation has no place in the realm of science; it is a theological dogma. The formation of species, said Darwin in a letter to Lyell, * has hitherto been viewed as beyond law ; in fact, this branch of science is still with most people under its theological phase of development.' * And this explains > The Edinburgh Rm'nv, October, 1902, p. 370. * Nature, June 19, 1902, p. 169. For the history of these early ideas upon evolution see From the Greeks to Darwin, by H. F. Osborn, New York, 1894. A TT o » Church Quarterly Review, October, 1902, Art. 11, p. 28. ^ Letter 132 to C. Lyell, August 21, 1861. More Letters of Charles Darwin, London, 1903, i, p. 194- THEOLOGICAL ASPECTS OF SPECIES 57 the intense opposition at first encountered by the principles of the Origin. The naturalist whose genius sympathized most fully with the Linnaean conception would feel that he was admitted, like a seer of old, into the thoughts of the Maker of the Universe. His convictions as to species were to him more than the conclusions of the naturalist; they were a revelation, stirring him to ' break forth and prophesy '. Do we not sometimes recognize a lingering trace of this phase of thought in the serious shake of the head and tone of profound inner conviction with which we are some- times told that the speaker is decidedly of the opinion that so-and-so is a perfectly good species ? We recognize the same sharp antagonism between two irreconcilable sets of ideas when the late W. C. Hewitson expressed such horror at Roland Trimen's remarkable discovery of the polymorphic mimetic females of the Papilio dardaniis (vterope) group. The wonderfully acute detection of minute but significant resemblance hidden under the widest possible superficial difference, which enabled the great South African naturalist to un- ravel the tangled relationships, was to Hewitson but one of * the childish guesses of the . . . Darwinian School '. To meet the carefully-thought-out argument, the only objections that could be urged were, that the conclusion stretched too severely the imagination of the writer, and that it shocked his notion of propriety ! ^ * See an account of the controversy in Trans. Ent. Soc. Lond., 1874, p. 137. The passages I have alluded to are as follows \—'P, merope, oi Madagascar, has a female the exact image of itself; and it would require a stretch of the imagination, of which I am incapable, to believe that the P. merope of the mainland, having no specific difference, indulges in a whole harem of females, differing as widely from it as any other species in the genus. ... In the two species of Papilio which have lately been united, Torquatus and Caudius, and Argentus and Torquatinus, though much unlike each other, there is quite sufficient resemblance not to shock one's notions of propriety.' A little later Mr. Hewitson himself received evidence of the truth of the conclusion he so disliked ; for he told how his collector Rogers had sent ' Papilio merope and P. hippocoon, taken by him in copulation, another illustration of the saying that "truth is stranger than fiction ". I find it very difficult (even with this evidence) to believe 58 *WHAT IS A SPECIES?' In leaving the dogma of ' special creation \ and the assumption of ' fixity of species ' with which it is bound up. it is only right to point out how completely the logical foundations of both were undermined by the great thinker who has just passed away. Years before the appearance of the Darwin-Wallace essay, and of the Origin, Herbert Spencer wrote on The Development Hypothesis} Although of course wanting the great mo- tive power to evolution supplied by Natural Selection, this essay is a powerful and convincing argument for evolution as against special creation. It is astonishing that it did not produce more effect. I may appropriately conclude this section of the Address by quoting the results of Herbert Spencer's critical examination, from every point of view, of the Linnaean conception of the origin of species. * Thus, however regarded, the hypo- thesis of special creations turns out to be worthless- worthless by its derivation ; worthless in its intrinsic incoherence ; worthless as absolutely without evidence ; worthless as not supplying an intellectual need ; worthless as not satisfying a moral want.' ^ 1 now pass to the first idea contained in the Linnaean conception :— that species are different from one another. Stripped of the assumption that the differences were determined by separate creation and of the assumption that they are fixed for all time, this idea is no less than the recognition of specific characters definable by the method of Diagnosis. And it is only fair to remember that if the theology of Linnaeus demanded the acceptance of these assumptions, his life was really devoted to the ceaseless study of animal and vegetable forms as a foundation for the definition and grouping of species. A discussion of the method of Diagnosis, its implications that a butterfly, which, when a resident in Madagascar, has a female the image of itself, should, in West Africa, have one without any re- semblance to it at air {Entomologisfs Monthly Magazine, October, 1874, ^ In the Leader, between January, 1852, and IMay, 1854, reprinted in Essays Scientific, Political, and Speculative, London, 1868, vol. i, p. 377. 2 The Principles 0/ Biology, London, 1864, vol. i, p. 345. 1 DIFFERENT IDEAS ABOUT SPECIES 59 and limitations, will be attempted in the later pages of this Address. Various conceptioyis of Species, In a letter to Hooker, Dec. 24, 1856, Darwin gave a short account of the various definitions he had met with. * I have just been comparing definitions of species, and stating briefly how systematic naturalists work out their subjects. ... It is really laughable to see what different ideas are prominent in various naturalists minds, when they speak of '* species "; in some, re- semblance is everything, and descent of little weight — in some, resemblance seems to go for nothing, and Creation the reigning idea — in some, descent is the key, — in some, sterility an unfailing test, with others it is not worth a farthing. It all comes, I believe, from trying to define the indefinable.*^ As regards the work done by the systematist, we find that Darwin did not agree with those of his friends who thought that a belief in evolution would entirely alter its character. Thus he wrote to Hooker, Sept. 25, 1853 :— * In my own work I have not felt conscious that dis- believing in the mere permaneiice of species has made much difference one way or the other ; in some few cases (if publishing avowedly on the doctrine of non-per- manence), I should not have affixed names, and in some few cases should have affixed names to remarkable varieties. Certainly I have felt it humiliating, discussing and doubting, and examining over and over again, when in my own mind the only doubt has been whether the form varied to-day or yesterday (not to put too fine a point on it, as Snagsby would say). After describing a set of forms as distinct species, tearing up my MS., and making them one species, tearing that up and making them separate, and then making them one again (which has happened to me), I have gnashed my teeth, cursed species, and asked what sin I had committed to be so punished. But I must confess that perhaps nearly the * Life and LMters of Charles Darwin, London, 1887, vol. ii, p. 88. 6o 'WHAT IS A SPECIES?' same thing would have happened to me on any scheme ^ The 'essentially subjective character of the results reached by the systematist stands out with remarkable force in this as in other passages of Darwin's letters. A few years later, on July 30, 1856, he wrote to the same friend: — 'I differ from him [Lyell] greatly m thinkincr that those who believe that species are not fixed will multiply specific names : I know in my own case my most frequent source of doubt was whether others would not think this or that was a God-created Barnacle, and surely deserved a name. Otherwise I should only have thought whether the amount of differ- ence and permanence was sufficient to justify a name. Disregarding for the moment the term species, it is convenient to consider the various groupings of individual animals and plants. 1. Forms having certain structural characters in common distinguishing them from the forms of other crroups. Groups thus defined by the Linnaean method of Diagnosis may be conveniently called Syndiagnostic {(Tvv, together ; ^iaV^o-^?, distinction). o. Forms which freely interbreed together. These may be conveniently called Syngamic {v, together; ya>oy, marriage). Free interbreeding under natural conditions may be termed Syngamy ; its cessation or absence, A syngamy (equivalent to the A mixta of Weis- mann).^ ' Life and Letters, vol. ii, p. 40- 2 Ibid. vol. ii, p. 81. , , , , . r l u » The history of the term Syngamy, although brief, has been re- markable By a curious coincidence this very word was mdependently proposed by my friend, Professor Marcus Hartog, of Queen's College, Cork in order to express that fusion of the essential reproductive elements, or gametes, which has been generally known by the inconvenient and in many ways misleading term fertilization. Prof. Hartog suggested the word (Sept. 14, 1903) i" introducing a discussion on fertilization in Section D (Zoology) at the meeting of the British Association at Southport. The Report of the meeting (p. 693) only prints the names of the speakers. I was not at the Southport meeting, and never heard the word until it was suggested as suitable for my purpose by Mr. Arthur Sidgwick. «i A I VARIOUS GROUPINGS OF INDIVIDUALS 6i 3 Forms which have been shown by human observa- tion to be descended from common ancestors or from a common parthenogenetic or self-fertilizing ancestor. Such groups may be called Sympigomc ( My friend, M^. Arthur Sidgwick, has kindly helped me by sugg^tmg the appropriate Greek words. The use of .V.V»vos I owe to my friends Dr. A^ur Evans, F.R.S., and Dr. R. W. Macan. The adjectival ter- 62 WHAT IS A SPECIES?' 4. Finally there is geographical distribution, of the utmost importance in the modification and origin of species and sub-species. Forms found together in cer- tain geographical areas may be called Sympatric ((rvvy together; -ndrpa, native country). The occurrence of forms together may be termed Sympairy, and the dis- continuous distribution of forms Asympatry, My friend, Professor E. Ray Lankester, to whom I owe so much, in this as in many other subjects, is inclined to think that we should discard the word species not merely momentarily but altogether. Modern zoology having abandoned Linnaeus s conception of ' species ' should, he considers, abandon the use of the word. In his opinion the ' origin ' of species was really the abolition of species, and zoologists should now be content to describe, name, draw, and catalogue forms. Further- more, the various groups of forms briefly defined above should be separately and distinctly treated by the zoolo- gist, without confusion or inference from one to the other. The systematist should say, * I describe and name certain forms a, b, &c. ' ; and then he or another may write a separate chapter, as it were : — * I now show that the forms ab, ac, ad (form names) are syngamic': at another time he may give reason for regarding any of them as related by Epigony. I fear that this suggestion is a * counsel of perfection ', impossible of attainment, although there would be many and great advantages in thus making a fresh start and in the abandonment of 'species', or rather the re- striction of the word to the only meaning it originally possessed before it was borrowed from logic to become a technical term in zoology.^ If the main contention of this Address be accepted, that a species is a syngamic and synepigonic group of individuals, — an objective reality however difficult to establish in practice, — we have an additional powerful reason for the permanent use of the word. mination is made -;V throughout for the sake of convenience, although Sympatriote or Sympairid would have been more correct. * See F. A. Dixey in Nature, June 19, 1902, p. 169. i M THE IMPORTANCE OF PERSISTENCE 63 Professor Lankester in former years ^ published the suggestion that the term species should be limited to a group which includes all the forms derived from common ancestors within human experience, or inferred to be so derived within the possible period of human observation. Thus if the common ancestry of two forms has to be traced back to a period beyond the late prehistoric times (or beyond any other arbitrary line which is agreed upon), then they are not members of the same species. Professor Lankester is the first to admit that the practical application of this as of every other conception of species would very often mean a great deal more than we can prove, in fact, hypothesis. It is evident that Darwin regarded constancy of "form as an important criterion of a species. We re- cognize this in the definition I have quoted from the Origifi (see p. 47), and it is stated with even greater force in the following passage, where persistence is placed beside other distinguishing marks of a species and given the pre-eminence. In a letter to Hooker (October 22, 1864) Darwin says: — * I will fight you to the death that as primrose and cowslip are different in appearance (not to mention odour, habitat and range), and as I can now show that, when they cross, the intermediate offspring are sterile like ordinary hybrids, they must be called as good species as a man and a gorilla. . . . The power of re- maining for a good long period constant I look at as the essence of a species, combined with an appreciable amount of difference.'^ Introduction to the Discussion * What is a Species ? * The preceding pages have been occupied with pre- liminary considerations necessary for a discussion of the problem stated in the title of this Address. It is now proposed to preface that discussion with a few words * Neither Professor Lankester nor I have been able at present to lay our hands upon the communication. ' More Letters^ vol. i, p. 252, Letter 179. 64 WHAT IS A SPECIES?' of introduction, setting forth the main conclusions which will be defended. , . ^ 11 .u Diagnosis, it will be maintained, is founded upon the conception that there is unbroken transition in the characters of the component individuals of a species. Underlying this idea are the more fundamental con- ceptions of species as groups of individuals related by Syngamy and Epigony. .,1 1 u .u «- In immense numbers of cases it will be shown that the component individuals of a species do not form an unbroken series, but one that is sharply broken at one or more points. At each of these breaks the older syste- matist made a new species, which the modern systematist has rejected, because in his day the more fundamental criteria have been actually established or by strong indirect evidence have been inferred. When the test of Diagnosis necessarily fails— as it will be shown to do in many large groups of examples— the appeal is made to Syngamy and Epigony. ^ Syngamy and Epigony are but two sides of the same phenomenon— Reproduction. Although occasional union between individuals of distinct species may occur in nature, sometimes leading to the production of hybrid offspring, this is not the * free interbreeding under natural con- ditions ' which I have called Syngamy. Syngamy, thus de- fined implies the production of normal offspring capable o continuing the species— implies Epigony. As a practical criterion, the evidences of Syngamy are generally much easier to collect than those of Epigony. Both Syngamy and Epigony can be established by indirect evidence based on a sufficient number of accurate observations upon the habits and modes of occurrence of individuals. The criterion of Syngamy of course fails in the case of parthenogenetic and self-fertilizing species. In such cases, like that of the Bee Orchis referred to below on p 92 we are compelled to fall back on Epigony. 1 his latter criterion may lead, although only in rare and exceptional instances, to an erroneous inference, when hybrid are mistaken for normal offspring. ^ There is a great advantage in the admission that INTRODUCTION TO DISCUSSION 65 Diagnosis is only a provisional criterion, inasmuch as the systematist would then continually seek and continually suggest the search for the more fundamental tests. It will be argued that the true interspecific barrier is not sterility but Asyngamy — the cessation of inter- breeding— but that the first will inevitably follow, sooner or later, as the incidental consequence of the second. Various causes of the origin of species by Asyngamy will be discussed. One of these, preferential interbreed- ing, may hereafter appear of the utmost significance in species maintenance and species formation in the higher animal sub-kingdoms. This, of course, would imply that the instincts leading to preference are of dominant importance. We can imagine hardly any operation of Natural Selection more obvious or more effective than that by which these instincts are led to promote a maximum fertility. Any variation of instinct causing an individual to attempt to pair outside the syngamic community to which it belongs could only result in a diminished representation in future genera- tions. The consideration of a special form of Asyngamy at the close of the Address leads to an unexpected result : suspicion as to the validity of the generally accepted interpretation of the manifold adaptations for cross- fertilization. The conclusions set forth above, if hereafter established, lead to a belief in the reality of species. Unlike and apart from genera, families and other groups employed in our * little systems ' of classification which * have their day and cease to be ', not only do individuals stand out as objective realities, but equally real, though far less evident, are the societies into which individuals are bound together in space and time by Syngamy and E pigony. The Definition of Species by Diagnosis, It is now necessary to examine in some detail the most usual conception of a species, a conception based upon distinguishing structural characters, or Diagnosis. rOULTON 66 'WHAT IS A SPECIES?' This idea of a species is clearly expressed by Sir William Thiselton-Dyer, when he speaks of the older writers who employed ' the word species as a designation for 'he totality of individuals differing from all others by marks or characters which experience showed to be Reasonably constant and trustworthy, as is the practice of modern naturalists'.^ . ^ , , . : This conception of a species is founded upon transi- tion WheneVer a set of individuals can be arranged according to the characters fixed upon by the systematist, fn a sS without marked breaks, that set is regarded as a soecies The two ends of the series may differ im- Lnsely may diverge far more widely than the series Sf does from other series; but the gradual transition p o laims it a single species. If transitions were aAl equally perfect, of course there would be no difficulty But transitions are infinite in their variety ; while the subjective element is obviously dominant in the selection of iaps just wide enough to constitute interspecific breaks, •us? nVrow enough to fuse the species -P-te^^^^^^^^ other writer,— dominant also in the choice of the specitic characters themselves.^ Looking back upon the interva between Linnaeus and Darwin, it seems remarkable that the mutability of species was not forced upon systematists as the result of their own labours. It is astonishing that many a naturalist was not driven by his descriptive work To the conclusion which Darwin stated to Asa Gray on lulv 20 i8^6: '—as an honest man, I must tell you that I have come to the heterodox conclusion that there are no such things as independently created species- that species are only strongly defined varieties. For as I have said above, every descnber of species made continuity and transition in characters the test of a variety, discontinuity the test of a separate species. '« How1Uo?tlnt this choice may be is well shown by Karl Jordan in NovifZzLl^n-^^. vol. iii, Dec. 1896, pp. 428-30. Characters are Sr olS^^^ vanafion as well as correlated vana^ion Hence here wm of^f be the widest discrepancy between the transitions con- structed by naturalists making use of different characters. 3 Lt/e and Letters, vol. ii, p. 79- TRANSITION UNDERLIES DIAGNOSIS 67 And in difficult cases no two of them agreed in their conclusions. Many passages in Darwin's correspondence convincingly prove how essential an element is this con- tinuity, and how inevitable is the dominance of the subjective element. Thus he writes about his descriptive work on Cirrhipedes to Hooker, October 12, 1849: — * I have of late been at work at mere species describing, which is much more difficult than I expected, and has much the same sort of interest as a puzzle has ; but I confess I often feel wearied with the work, and cannot help sometimes asking myself what is the good of spend- ing a week or fortnight in ascertaining that certain just perceptible differences blend together and constitute varieties and not species. As long as I am on anatomy I never feel myself in that disgusting, horrid, cui bono, inquiring, humour.' * On another occasion, when Darwin was anxious to ascertain the * close species ' in the North American Flora, and wrote for information to Asa Gray, he frankly adopted the subjective criterion in order to explain exactly what he meant. He wrote, June 8 [1855]: — 'The definition I should give of a ''close species'' was one that yoti thought specifically distinct, but which you could conceive some other good botanist might think only a race or variety ; or, again, a species that you had trouble, though having opportunities of knowing it well, in discriminating from some other species.* ^ Asa Gray's reply is also very interesting from the same point of view. He wrote, June 30, 1855 : — ' Those thus connected' [he had bracketed the 'close species' in a list of the Flora], * some of them, I should in revision unite under one, many more Dr. Hooker would unite, and for the rest it would not be extraordinary if, in any case, the discovery of intermediate forms compelled their union.' ^ Darwin vvas evidently in high spirits when he wrote the following passage which bears on the same subject. The Orighi had been published on November 24, 1859, * Life and Letters, vol. i, p. 379. ' More Letters, vol. i, p. 421, Letter 324. F 2 Ibid., vol. ii, p. 64. 68 ' *WHAT IS A SPECIES?' and the whole edition of 1,250 copies sold on the day of issue. On November 29 he wrote to ^ll^^'^l' ' You speak of species not having any material base to rest on but is this any greater hardship than deciding what deserves to be called a variety, and be designa^d hv a Greek letter ? When I was at systematic work I'know I 1^^^^^^^ to have no other difficulty (great enough) han decidini whether the form was distinct enough 0 deserve a name, and not to be haunted with undefined and unanswerable questions whether it was a true species mat'a jump it is\om a well-arked variety pr^^^^^^^^^^^^^ by natural cause, to a species produced by the separate act of the hand of God ! But I am running on foolish y. By the way, 1 met the other day Phillips the palaeonto- logist, and he asked me, ^' How do you define a species ? 1 answered, '' 1 cannot." Whereupon he said, At las^ 1 have found out the only true definition,-any form which has ever had a specific name ! ' T/ie idea of Syngamy underlies the gradual transitions as well as the more uniform resemblances charac^ teristic of Diagnostic Species, The idea of a species as an interbreeding community as syngamic, is, I believe, the more or less acknowledged foundation of the importance given to .t^^"^^/^^^' J^^ ! will become clearer from the consideration of a concrete example. The common black-and-white Danaine butter- flv Amauris niavius of West Africa, is represented on the East and South-East Coasts by a very similar butter- fly, distinguished by the greater size of the argest white patch, and of the white spot in the cell of the fore-wing. Both forms are very constant in the areas over which they were known, and on these constant easily recognizable characters the eastern butterfly was described as a dis- tinct species under the name of A.dominicanus Auri- villius, however, in his valuable Catalogue refuses to recognize this latter as a distinct species, and considers it as the dominicanus variety of ntavtus. Through the 1 More Letters, vol. i, p. 127, Letter 79. SYNGAMY UNDERLIES TRANSITION 69 kindness of Mr. C. A. Wiggins and Mr. A. H. Harrison, the Hope Department has recently been presented with an exceedingly fine series of butterflies from both east and west of the northern shores of the Victoria Nyanza. These have been carefully studied by Mr. S. A. Neave, M.A., B.Sc, of Magdalen College, Oxford, who finds that the typical niavius occurs in great abundance to the west of the lake, while on the east he meets, in both collections, with varieties beautifully intermediate between it and dominicanus- These varieties, occurring precisely in the zone where the eastern form meets the western, complete for the systematist the transition which renders domini- canus a variety of niavius and not a distinct species. But it is clear that they do more than this ; they make it almost certain that the two forms freely interbreed, and constitute but a single syngamic community. This is one of the remarkably clear examples. In many cases we know the transition, but the extremes are not sorted out in different parts of the total area of distribution. Nevertheless, if complete enough, the transi- tion of forms on the same area always raises the strong presumption that we are dealing with a syngamic com- munity. Probably the most remarkable series of transitional varieties ever depicted is that shown in the eleven quarto plates of the last part of Monsieur Charles Oberthur's great Etudes d' Entomologie, entitled 'Varia- tion des Heliconia thelxiope et vesta ' (Rennes, February, 1902). The failure of Diagnosis as the sole test of Species- The method of Diagnosis, at its clearest and simplest, is always consistent with, and often strongly suggests, an underlying Syngamy. There are, however, numberless examples belonging to various categories in which a rigid adherence to Diagnosis cannot avail. In these cases the systematist frankly appeals to Syngamy or Epigony as decisive ; and if he has not direct proof of the existence of either of these, indirect evidence is, at any rate provision- i: 1 70 'WHAT IS A SPECIES?' ally, regarded as sufficient. Some of the chief of these categories are briefly set forth under the five heads a-e, a. Dimorphism, Polymorphism .—In an ever increasing number of examples an assemblage of individuals is re- garded as a single species, although split up into two or more widely different and sharply separated groups, between which transitional varieties are excessively rare or even unknown. For instance, the extremely abundant, widely distributed butterfly Limnas chrysippus includes among other forms one in which the black-and-white tip is wanting from the fore-wing, the dorippus {^kltigit) form. This variety is sharply cut ofi" from the type form. Although faint traces of a former white bar can be made out in dorippus, I have never seen, among thousands of individuals, the material out of which a good transitional series between it and chrysippus could be constructed. In this case the evidence of Syngamy is strong and com- plete ; for Col. Yerbury has recorded the fact that the two forms certainly occur in copula ^ But even if this record were wanting there would still be strong presump- tive evidence that the forms are associated by Syngamy and Epigony. Thus, so far as our knowledge extends, dorippus occurs as the only form in certain parts of NE. Africa alone. From this, its metropolis, dorippus spreads on all sides, its individuals existing intermingled with those oi chrysippus, becoming less and less numerous until they finally die out. Thus if we trace the two forms eastward we find them both abundant at Aden ; further east, at Karachi, dorippus is well known, but very scarce as compared with chrysippus ; in Southern India it is a great rarity, if indeed it is known at all on the mainland ; in Ceylon a single specimen was cap- tured by Col. Yerbury in 1891, and since then others have been taken.^ Further east I have never heard * Speaking of his experience at Aden, Col. Yerbury says: 'I have taken them [the forms o{chrysippus'\ " in coitu " in every possible combma- tion' Uourn. Bomb. Nat. Hist. Soc, vii (1892), p. 209). 2 See Major N. Manders, F.Z.S., in Journ. Bomb. Nat. Hut. Soc, xiv ^^The^first specimen of this insect [dorippus =klug it] in Ceylon was captured by Lieut.- Colonel Yerbury at Trincomalie, April 15, 1891 . . . POLYMORPHISM AND DIAGNOSIS 7^ of a specimen. Similarly when it is traced southward in Africa, dorippus is dominant in the coast strip of British East Africa, where it constitutes about three- quarters of the total number of individuals. Further to the south it becomes rarer and rarer, until in Natal and the Cape, if it occurs at all, it is even rarer than m Ceylon.^ Such a distribution is consistent with the mterpretation that dorippus and chrysippus are two forms m one syn- gamic community. It is difficult on any other hypothesis to account for the facts which we observe on the out- skirts of the range of dorippus— the occasional appearance of single individuals in the swarms of the type form. And if the two are syngamic on the outskirts, the gradual transition in proportions towards the metropolis of dorippus suggests that they are syngamic throughout. Common as the species is— probably the commonest butterfly in the world— the evidence from Epigony has never been obtained, although from the point of view of heredity the investigation promises to be of the deepest interest. The remarkable forms of the females of the Paptlzo dardanus {merope) group already alluded to afford another Of five or six more recent examples Major IManders writes, * These speci- mens were captured by Mr. Pole at Puttalam on the east coast and Hambantotte on the south coast in the dryest and perhaps most and portion of the island. It is evidently widely distributed in the desert portion of the island and is possibly not uncommon.' ' The distribution of this insect in India cannot yet be fully known ; it is rare in Canara, but is not yet reported from the plains of the Deccan, or Southern India so far as 1 am aware though it probably exists.' The occurrence of dorippus at Bombay, Khandalla, Poona, and Karachi had been previously published by Col. C. Swinhoe (P. Z. S. 1884, p. 504; 1885, p. 1 26) ; and at Campbellpore (Col. Yerbury) by Dr. A. G. Butler (P. Z. S. 1886, p. 356). ^ Mr. Roland Trimen tells me that he knows of only three South African dorippus :— two from Durban and one from Pretoria. The latter and one of the former were taken by Mr. W. L. Distant {Ann. Mag. Nat. Hist. (7), vol. i, 1898, pp. 48, 49)- Mr. Geo. F. Leigh, of Durban, Natal, writes March 3, 1904:— 'I have myself captured two or three specimens during the past three years, and one was taken only last September by Mr. Burn who was out collecting with me.' Two speci- mens captured in 1905 at Salisbury, Rhodesia, have been presented to the Oxford University Collection by Mr. Guy A. K. Marshall. They are, so far as I am aware, the only examples of dorippus hitherto recorded from Rhodesia. UK 72 'WHAT IS A SPECIES?' excellent example, although in this case good transitional series can be constructed. The evidence of Syngamy vvas first obtained by Hewitson (see p. 57, footnote i), but is now well known. The evidence of Epigony has fortu- nately been obtained in 1902 and again within the last few vveeks by one of our Fellows at Durban, Mr. G. t. Lei^h. E^gs laid in 1902 by a female of the commonest South African form, cenea, yielded a synepigonic group including a large majority of forms like the parent, but also examples of the very different /nppocoon form. In the more recent example seven eggs from the rarest ot the South African forms, trophonius, produced, in addition to males, two females of the cenea variety, and not one resembling the parent.^ , ^ 1 j .. . , These differences, although only of colour and pattern, ereatly exceed those between ordinary close species. When we deal with other kinds of dimorphism or poly- morphism involving important structural di^fferences, such as those of the social Hymenoptera and Neuroptera, the discriminating characters between nearly related genera are commonly equalled or exceeded. ^ ,. , • b Seasonal Dimorphism :— In certain exceedingly in- teresting examples of dimorphism the relation between the forms is epigonic and not syngamic ; for rare and occasional interbreeding is not Syngamy. I refer to the most strongly-marked cases of seasonal dimorphism in butterflies, especially the wonderful examples proved to be epigonic by Guy A. K. Marshall.'^ In some of the forms the two seasonal phases were not even regarded as closely related species. In these extraordinary cases, 1 Trans. EnL Soc. Land., 1904, PP- 677-88, Plate XXXI. Still later, in 1004, Mr. G. F. Leigh bred from the eggs laid by a irop/iomus female, six males, four females of the ..... form, and one fernale of the /r./ W. form (Trans. EnL Soc. Lend., 1906, pp. 281-3, Plate X\ II). Fma y, xvithin the last few weeks I have received from the same keen naturalist a splendid synepigonic group of twenty-eight specimens bred f^om ^ >^,£.- coon parent-the first time that offspring have been reared from this form of female. Of the twenty-eight, fourteen are males, eight are cenea fenriales, three are hippocoon females, and three are /rophonius females [December 2, 1906]. « Trans. EnL Soc. Lond., 1902, pp. 414-00. SEASONAL FORMS AND DIAGNOSIS n where the widest difference in colour and pattern exists, in combination with others which are far more deep- seated, I urged upon Mr. Marshall that the few recorded examples of capture or observation ui coitu were insuf- ficient evidence of specific identity, and that nothing short of Epigony would suffice. In seasonal dimorphism, in the dimorphism of social insects, and doubtless in a large proportion of other examples, it is probable, indeed often certain, that the different forms are produced in response to some stimulus which acts at a specially susceptible period of the life- history ; but from the point of view of the systematist the mature individuals can only be known as forms which, structurally widely different, must nevertheless be placed within the limits of a single species. The investigation of the probable physiological causes of difference is, however, of the utmost importance from other points of view. Altogether apart from its bearing upon dimorphism, the effect of individual susceptibility to stimulus requires treatment in a separate category. c. Individual Modification^ ;— One of the most striking developments of recent years has been the growth in the number of these very cases in which an individual animal or plant has been rendered by Natural Selection sus- ceptible to some stimulus associated with each one of its possible normal environments. Every individual of such species comes into the world with two or more very distinct and very different possibilities before it, each of which will be realized only in the appropriate environ- ment— realized as the response to some stimulus provided by the environment itself. We can see clearly that this idea was in Darwin s mind, although there were then but few observations which pointed in its direction. Thus in Schmankewitsch's experiments Crustacea of the species Artemia salina were described as gradually changing in the course of generations, as the result of a progressive * 'A structural change wrought during the individual's lifetime (or acquired), in contradistinction from variation, which is of germinal origin (or congenital).' Did. of PhiL and Psych., ed. by J. Mark Baldwin, New York and London, vol. ii, 1902, p. 94. 74 *WHAT IS A SPECIES?' freshening of the water in which they were kept until they took on the characters of the genus Branchtpus On this subject Darwin wrote to Karl Semper, February 6, 1 88 1 -—'When I read imperfectly some years ago the original paper I could not avoid thinking that some special exdanadon would hereafter be found for so curious a case. 1 speculated whether a species, very liable to repeated and great changes of conditions, n;jight "Ot acquire a fluctuating condition ready to be adapted to either conditions/ ^ ,. . , i • i ^r I venture to express the prediction that this class ot cases, already very numerous, will hereafter be im- mensely enlarged, and will become especially important in the vegetable kingdom.^ Although Hooker at one time took the opposite side, and thought that plants were never ' changed materially by external conditions . . . except in such a coarse way as stunting or enlarging, ^ More Letters, vol. i, p. 39^ Letter 303. . ,. v t \Kr^^\^r^A 2 See Stimulm andMechanum as Factors in Organization^ ]. «rctland Farmer F.R.S. (the New Phytologist, vol. ii, Nos. 9 and 10, November and December, 1903). Professor Farmer speaks of the probable prevalence ,^ rplant.world of 'a constant specific mechanism that is ab e to be actuated in different uays by different kinds of stimuli'. AUhough f^^^^ the purpose of his paper Professor Farmer is concerned with the train of physico-chemical sequences which is set going, utility or no utility, when- ever the mechanism of an individual is stimulated, he fully admits that he mechanism itself has come to be a character of the species by the operation of Natural Selection. ' Naturally/ he says. ' only those species whose inner character expressed itself in making these '' suitable adjustments to the environment were able to survive.' . Toward the close of his paper Prof. Farmer seems to bring the con- siderations that have regard to the species into somewhat ^unnecessary conflict with those that have regard to the individual Thus he says that * current literature still teems with teleological explanations that really explain nothing, but rather bar the way of scientific inquiry . A properly loaded, well-constructed modern gun goes off, jor disad- vantage no less than for advantage, when its trigger is pulled; but the very existence of the gun depends upon a long succession of past stages, each of which was more advantageous than its predecessor The recogni- tion of this history does not bar the way of inquiry, but rather stimulates and suggests a searching and intelligent study of the latest mechanism with all its intricacy. . ,, u ^ q/:. ;« Mn^^ » See the letter from Hooker to Darwm, March 17, 1862, in More Letters y vol. i, p. 197. footnote 2. MODIFICATION AND DIAGNOSIS 75 Darwin considered that * physical conditions have a more direct effect on plants than on animals'.^ Undoubtedly the view at the time was that of Buffon, the idea of an operation of the environing forces almost as direct as those which produce the weathering of rocks or the whitening of an exposed flint. But it is probable that the more intimately we know the conditions of plant- life, the more fully it will be recognized that all such changes are adaptive. I will mention merely by way of illustration that my attention has been called in recent years to the dwarfing effect of the prevalent south- western winds on the vegetation of the exposed chalk downs of the Isle of Wight. It has occurred to me as a mere suggestion, but one worth investigating, that the effect of wind upon a tall flower-head might be such as to render less easy and less frequent the visits of insects. If this were so, it would perhaps explain why certain species of entomophilous plants liable to grow in such situations have gained a special susceptibility to the stimulus provided by constant winds during some particular period of growth. The absence of this stimulus would also correspond to a condition in which the plants would gain in the conspicuousness brought about by increased height. The further growth of a class already proved to be large would play havoc with a definition of species rigidly based upon discriminating structural characters alone. d. Geographical Races or Stib- Species : — If we depend upon unaided Diagnosis there is no means of discriminat- ing between species and those sub-species of which the whole mass of individuals are distinguished by recogniz- able characters. Here again the mere beginning of the difficulty is in sight ; for as museums recognize more and more the necessity for long series of specimens with exact geographical data, so will the comparatively simple con- ception of the single species be replaced again and again by the far more complex but much truer idea of sub- specific groups still fused by Syngamy into a single * See the letter from Darwin to Lyell [June 14, i860], Life and Letters, vol. ii, p. 319. 76 WHAT IS A SPECIES?* species, but, as it were, trembling on the edge of dis- ruption, ever ready, by the development of pronounced preferential mating or by the accumulated incidental effects of isolation prolonged beyond a certain point, to break up into distinct and separate species. e. Results of Artificial Selection : — These obvious difficulties encountered by a mechanical adherence to definition by Diagnosis naturally lead to the consideration of the further difficulties presented by domestic races of animals and plants. The wide structural differences between the forms accumulated by human selection greatly impressed Darwin. Thus he wrote to Hooker, September 8, [1856]:—' By the way, I have been aston- ished at the differences in the skeletons of domestic rabbits. I showed some of the points to Waterhouse, and asked him whether he could pretend that they were not as great as between species, and he answered, '* They are a great deal more." How very odd that no zoologist should ever have thought it worth while to look to the real structure of varieties. . . .' ^ But if the differences between many of our domestic breeds, and between them and the nearest wild species, are, as is well known, generic rather than specific, why do we not consider such races to be of different species and genera ? Be- cause of the criterion suggested by Lankester ; because we have reason to believe in their descent from common parents within the historic period ; because, in spite of their wide differences, they are still syngamic. Advantages of the admission that conclusions based on Diagnosis are provisional. What is the practical bearing of these criticisms upon the definition of species by Diagnosis and Diagnosis alone ? The systematist, confronted by his series of specimens in a museum cannot do otherwise than arrange them in groups which he will describe and name as species. But much would be gained if he admitted at the outset that his conclusions are provisional, if he said with Dr. Karl * More Letters, vol. ii, p. 210, Letter 543. DIAGNOSIS REQUIRES CONFIRMATION 77 Jordan, * The actual proof of specific distinctness the systematist as such cannot bring ; ... we work, or we ought to work, with the mental reservation that the specific distinctness of our species novae deduced from morphological differences will be corroborated by bio- logy.' ^ The advantage of this attitude is obvious. Work would go on as at present. Powers of acute observation and good judgement would still furnish descriptions of species to be hereafter confirmed or confirmed at the time by observation and experiment upon the living material. But the systematist would not only receive our gratitude for the performance of these important and necessary duties : he would also be seeking in every direction for the evidence of Syngamy and of Epigony. The museum would become a centre for the inspiration of researches of the highest interest to the investigator himself, of the greatest importance to the whole body of naturalists. Interspecific Sterility as a test of Species, We now turn to the consideration of interspecific sterility, which many have supposed to be an infallible criterion. Huxley himself felt this so strongly that he was, in consequence, never able to give his full assent to Natural Selection. The grounds of his objection were the subject of prolonged correspondence with Darwin. In order to prove that Natural Selection has produced natural species separated rigidly, as he believed, by the barrier of sterility, Huxley maintained that we ought to be able to produce the same sterility between our artificially selected breeds ; and until this had been done he could not thoroughly accept the theory of Natural Selection. This objection he expressed, or implied, in many speeches and writings up to within a few months of his death. One of the simplest statements is contained in a letter to the late Charles Kingsley. Huxley wrote, April 30, 1863 : — ^ Novitates Zoologicae, vol. iii, December, 1896, pp. 450, 451. I here desire to express my indebtedness to the author of this learned and valuable paper. 78 WHAT IS A SPECIES?* ' Their produce [viz. that of Horse and Ass] is usually a sterile hybrid. • *So if Carrier and Tumbler, e.g-., were physiological species equivalent to Horse and Ass, their progeny ought to be sterile or semi-sterile. So far as experience has gone, on the contrary, it is perfectly fertile— as fertile as the progeny of Carrier and Carrier or Tumbler and Tumbler. . > t i * From the first time that I wrote about Darwin s book in the Times and in the Westminster until now, it has been obvious to me that this is the weak point of Darwin's doctrine. He has shown that selective breeding is a vera causa for morphological species ; he has not yet shown it a vera causa for physiological species. ' But I entertain little doubt that a carefully devised system of experimentation would produce physiological species by selection— only the feat has not been per- formed yet.' ^ • , . IT 1 ' It was against this same view, as expressed in Huxley s Lectures to Workiiig Men in 1863, that Darwin argued with convincing force in many letters. The main facts with which he confronted Huxley again and again were the artificially selected races of certain plants which are sterile inter se. The position is clearly expressed in the following amusing, vehement passages from two letters :— 'Dec. 18, [1862.] ' Do you mean to say that Gartner lied, after experi- ments by the hundred (and he a hostile witness), when he showed that this was the case with Verbascum and with maize (and here you have selected races) : does Kolreuter lie when he speaks about the varieties of tobacco ? My God, is not the case difficult enough, without its being, as I must think, falsely made more difficult ? I believe it is my own fault — my d d candour: I ought to have made ten times more fuss about these most careful experiments.* ^ ^ Life and Letters of Thomas Henry Huxley, vol. i, p. 239. '^ More Letters, vol. i, p. 230, Letter 156. INTERSPECIFIC STERILITY 79 '[>/;.] 10, [1863.] * In plants the test of first cross seems as fair as test of sterility of hybrids. And this latter test applies, I will maintain to the death, to the crossing of varieties of Verbasctim, and varieties, selected varieties, of Zea, You will say Go to the Devil and hold your tongue. No, I will not hold my tongue ; for I must add that after going, for my present book [ Variation under Domestica- tion\ all through domestic animals, I have come to the conclusion that there are almost certainly several cases of two or three or more species blended together and now perfectly fertile together. Hence I conclude that there must be something in domestication, — perhaps the less stable conditions, the very cause which induces so much variability, — which eliminates the natural sterility of species when crossed. If so, we can see how unlikely that sterility should arise between domestic races. Now I will hold my tongue.'^ Darwin made attempts to * produce physiological species by selection ', and thus meet his friend's criticism. He thought out and suggested a plan of experiment to W. B. Tegetmeier,- and gave a brief account of the scheme to Huxley, December 28, [1862] : — ' I have . . . given him [Tegetmeier] the result of my crosses of the birds which he proposes to try, and have told him how alone I think the experiment could be tried with the faintest hope of success — namely, to get, if possible, a case of two birds which when paired were unproductive, yet neither impotent. For instance, I had this morning a letter with a case of a Hereford heifer, which seemed to be, after repeated trials, sterile with one particular and far from impotent bull, but not with another bull. But it is too long a story — it is to attempt to make two strains, both fertile, and yet sterile when one of one strain is crossed with one of the other strain. But the difficulty . . . would be beyond calculation.' ^ The experiment was evidently unsuccessful, — perhaps * More Letters, vol. i, pp. 231, 232, Letter 157. ' Ibid. vol. i, pp. 223, 224, Letter 153, [1862, December] 27. ' Ibid. vol. i, pp. 225, 226, Letter 154. 8o 'WHAT IS A SPECIES?' was never seriously undertaken-and a few years later DarwTn added the following postscript to a letter to Huxley, January 7, [1867]. . ^„t„ollv «;tprile bv . PS.— Nature never made species mutually sterile oy (tplertion nor will men. . , . f tTs\.s probably only an off-hand expression o opinion not ^tended to be taken seriously. An alto Ser hopeless attitude would not be reasonable until Se sLSted scheme had been applied many times, and Tn^Sveral parts of the animal and vegetable king- "^""Sut the positive results demanded by Huxley, even if obSLd, w'ould by no means justify his far-read-^^^^^^^^ elusions. If the barrier of sterility were thus art ficially produced, we should be very far from the proof that its Sence in nature is due to the same kind of cause, ^^selection. If Darwin was right in his controversy w^^h Wallace, if ' Nature never made species mutual y Tterile by selection', the suggested experiment would merely do by Artificial Selection what is not done by Natural Selection. I7iter$pecific Sterility an incidental consequence of A syngamy. It is by no means difficult to understand the mutual sterility which is usual between natural species as an inci- dental result of their separation by Asyngamy for a long Sd of time. In the process of fertilization a portion of a sinele cell nucleus from one individual fuses with a portion from another individual, the two comb^^^;^g to form the complete nucleus of the first cell of the offspring, from which all the countless cells of the future individual will arise by division. Each part-nucleus con- tains the whole of the hereditary qualities received from and through its respective parent, and must therefore be o? inconcfivable complexity. We can on y speak m generalities about processes of which so ^^tk is known but we cannot be wrong in assuming that sterility is sometimes due to the fact that the complex architecture ^ Mon Letters, vol. i, p. 277, Letter J97. ASYNGAMY LEADS TO STERILITY 81 of one part- nucleus fails in some way to suit the equally complex structure of the other. The individuals of an interbreeding community form a biological whole, in which selection inevitably keeps up a high standard of mutual compatibility between the sexual nuclei. Individuals whose sexual nuclei possess a structure which leads to sterile combinations with those of other individuals are excluded from contributing to the generations of the future. As soon, however, as a group of individuals ceases, from any reason, to breed with the rest of the species, there is no reason why the compatibility of the sexual nuclei of the two sets should be retained. Within each set, selection would work as before and keep up a high standard of compatibility ; between the sets, com- patibility would only persist as a heritage of past selection, gradually diminishing as slight changes of structure in either or both of the sets rendered them less and less fitted to produce fertile combinations.^ It is probable that of all the nice adjustments required in the living organism, the mutual adjustment of these incon- ceivably complex part-nuclei is the most delicate and precise. Now, delicately adjusted organs, such as those of sight, rapidly become incapable of performing their functions when in any species they have been withdrawn from the operation of Natural Selection ; similarly it is suggested, that the adjustment of sexual nuclei to each other would sooner or later give way when no longer sustained by selection. If, then, mutual fertility be the result of unceasing selection, and mutual sterility the ^ I must guard against the inference that the only explanation of sterility is here set forth. It is indeed maintained that incompatibility of the sexual part-nuclei is the inevitable outcome of enduring Asyngamy, and is the probable cause of the sterility of hybrids. Thus it may be suggested that sleriliiy is a result of the combination of two incompatible germ-plasms in the sexual cells of the hybrid. When the incompatibility is not strongly marked we can understand how such sexual cells may be capable of fertile fusion with the cells of either parent, but not with those of another hybrid. But short of these ultimate effects it must not be forgotten that there are many obscure factors of Asyngamy — causes of various kinds which interfere with the fusion under normal conditions or entirely prevent the meeting of the sexual cells. rOULTON f 82 'WHAT IS A SPECIES?" inevitable, even if long-postponed consequence of its cessation, it is obvious that Huxleys difficulty is solved Sle his suggested experimental creation of sterility by Xtion would not reproduce any natural operatKjn^ t vvou?d afford a picture of a natural result but would be produced in an unnatural way. This criticism of Huxley s intention was advanced by the present writer three years ago » the final conclusion being stated in the para ^'t Cr'w'^r.nT. as y« reproduce by arcificial selection all the characteristics of natural species-forma- tion, but can only imitate natural race-formation, we can nevertheless, appreciate the reasons for this want of success, and are no more compelled to relinquish our full confidence in natural selection than we are compelled to adopt a guarded attitude towards evolution because our historical records are not long enough to register the change of one species into another.' ^ It was, therefore, with intense interest and pleasure that I read the following sentences in a letter written by Darwin to Huxley, December ,^8, [i862]-sentences ^vhich show that criticism practically identical had been made by the illustrious naturalist nearly forty years earlier. . . . r^ . * We differ so much that it is no use arguing. 1 o get the degree of sterility you expect in recently formed varieties seems to me simply hopeless. It seems to me almost like those naturalists who declare they will never believe that one species turns into another till they see every stage in process.* ^ •• . u After reading, in the first volume of Afore Letters the often-repeated refutation of Huxley's objection so clearly and strongly expressed in letters received by the objector himself, it is surprising that no effect was produced, and that reference should have been nearly ahyays made to this supposed flaw in the theory of Natural Selection, whenever the great comparative anatomist had occasion 1 Tht Quarterly Rcviav, No. 385, January, 1901, pp. 368-71- » loc. cit. p. 371- * Mort Letters, vol. i, p. 225, Letter 154. FERTILITY BETWEEN DOMESTIC RACES 83 to speak or write on the broader aspects of biological inquiry.^ Darwin also considered that there was something in the very conditions of domestication which tended to promote fertility between races and even between distinct species. Thus he followed Pallas in believing that the domestic dog has been derived from more than one wild species, although he did not trace existing differences to this cause but to Artificial Selection.- However, as re- gards the origin of the dog, ' the evidence is, and must be, very doubtful,' as he wrote to Lyell, August 11, [i860]. The fact which Darwin 'considered the most remarkable as yet recorded with respect to the fertility of hybrids ' was the fertility of the offspring of the Common and Chinese Goose, originally described by Eyton, and confirmed by Goodacre and by Darwin himself. ' The two species of goose now shown to be fertile inter se are so distinct that they have been placed by some authorities in distinct genera or sub-genera.' ^ Another interesting and exceedingly difficult experi- ment in hybridization has been carried through by the Rev. P. St. M. Podmore, F.Z.S., who in September, 1899, after numerous failures, succeeded in rearing a healthy male hybrid between the Ring Dove {Columba palunibics) and the domestic pigeon. On May 27, 1903, ^ For several instances see Poulton's Charles Darwin and the Theory of Natural Selection, Lond. 1896, pp. 124-41. ^ * Though I believe that our domestic dogs have descended from several wild forms, and though 1 must think that the sterility, which they would probably have evinced, if crossed before being domesticated, has been eliminated, yet I go but a very little way with Pallas & Co. in their belief in the importance of the crossing and blending of the aboriginal stocks. . . . Although the hound, greyhound, and bull-dog may possibly have descended from three distinct stocks, I am convinced that their present great amount of difference is mainly due to the same causes Artificial Selection] which have made the breeds of pigeons so different Tom each other, though these breeds of pigeons have all descended from one wild stock ; so that the Pallasian doctrine I look at as but of quite secondary importance.' More Letters^ vol. i, pp. 127, 128, Letter 80, to Lyell, October 31, [1859]. • Life and Letter s^ vol. iii, p. 240. G 2 i i 8. 'WHAT IS A SPECIES?' this male was mated with a Blue Homer hen. which '''t::io:^n:S:^^e mcn^y of producing s«ch A comtarison »" . . j, .fcrids beween the Ring a cross >" m Zcologisl, November .903, p. 40K ^^ ^X^^^Z^:^^ as more 4ical study of e.tenswe VARIOUS CAUSES OF ASYNGAMY 85 of Pyrameis cardui (the ' Painted Lady ' butterfly), which ranges over nearly the whole world. The singular rarity of local geographical races ^ in this abundant species is almost certainly due to the astonishing powers of dis- persal which enable intermittent Syngamy to prevail over the nearly whole vast area of its distribution. A syngamy as a consequence of Mechanical Incompati- bility, An interesting and curious cause of persistent Asyngamy is the ' Mechanical Selection ' so thoroughly explained and abundantly illustrated by Karl Jordan.'^ The com- plex genital armature of Lepidoptera is during Syngamy kept "^constant by unceasing selection. Comparatively brief isolation of a group of individuals may lead to a departure from the specific type of apparatus prevalent in other areas, and may thus mechanically prevent Syn- gamy if from any cause members of the group became again sympatric with those of the parent species. Asyngamy as a consequence of Preferential Mating, A very different but exceedingly interesting origin of Asyngamy is suggested by observations which support the conclusion that varietal forms may show a tendency towards preferential interbreeding. H. W. Bates believed that he had strong evidence for the existence of this tendency in the races of certain tropical American butterflies. He stated this in his epoch-making paper on the butterflies of the Arnazon valley,^ and it is interesting to observe in the published material in recent years has revealed peculiarities in the Madeiran birds which were unknown when Darwin wrote. But the general argument siill holds good, even though our knowledge has been increased and modified. Madeiran birds have changed but slightly as compared with those of the Galapagos Islands, where interbreeding with the related mainland species has been almost or entirely prevented by local con- ditions contrasting sharply with those by which Madeira is surrounded. * There is only the small, slightly modified form, kershawi, from the Australian Region. '• Noviiaies Zoological, vol. iii, Dec. 1896. pp. 518-22. ' Trans, Linn. Soc, vol. xxiii (1862), p. 495. 86 *WHAT IS A SPECIES?' letters how Darwin instantly fixed upon the point and tried to elicit the data upon which the conclusion was formed. Thus he wrote to Bates, November 20, [1862]: — ' No doubt with most people this [viz. the interpretation of Mimicry] will be the cream of the paper ; but I am not sure that all your facts and reasonings on variation, and on the segregation of complete and semi-complete species, is not really more, or at least as valuable, a part. I never conceived the process nearly so clearly before ; one feels present at the creation of new forms. I wish, however, you had enlarged a little more on the pairing of similar varieties ; a rather more numerous body of facts seems here wanted.' ^ Then a few days later we find Darwin still thinking of the subject, and writing to Hooker [1862, November]24 : — ' I have now finished his [Bates'] paper . . . ; it seems to me admirable. To my mind the act of segregation of varieties into species was never so plainly brought for- ward, and there are heaps of capital miscellaneous obser- vations.' 2 He also again wrote to Bates, probably on the following day, November 25, [1862 ?], asking for the solid facts which are so greatly wanted : — * Could you find me some place, even a footnote (though these are in nine cases out of ten objectionable), where you could state, as fully as your materials permit, all the facts about similar varieties pairing, — at a guess how many you caught, and how many now in your collection ? I look at this fact as very important ; if not in your book, put it somewhere else, or let me have cases.' '' Remembering that Mr. Roland Trimen, F.R.S., had expressed the same opinion as the result of his wide and long experience of South African butterflies, I asked him if he would kindly furnish me with a statement. His reply, dated December 28, 1903, is as follows: — ' I have noticed the tendency of the sexes of a variety to pair together rather than with other varieties in the numerous ^ Lt/e and Letters, vol. ii, p. 392. '^ More Letters, vol. i, p. 214, LeUer 147. ' Ibid. vol. i, p. 215, Letter 148. PREFERENTIAL MATING OF VARIETIES 87 cases of captured pairs sent to me by correspondents in South Africa, and sometimes in cases of the same kind which occurred to myself when collecting. The species which particularly attracted my notice in this way durmg my visit to Natal was Hypanis acheloia (= Gotzius, Herbst, part), which is curiously variable on the underside, from pale creamy to deep chocolate. I did not know of its seasonal variation at the time, but I was in Natal just at the change of season from wet to dry, when the inter- mediate gradations were about, and I was struck with the close resemblance of the sexes in pairs that I caught. I am sorry to have nothing more definite to give on this head ; it is a point much requiring exact and prolonged observation.' , , u u Mr. Trimen furthermore entertains no doubt that much, if not all, of the material upon which he based the con- clusion that the individuals of the same race tend to inter- breed, exists, distinctively labelled, in the South African Museum, at Cape Town. It is greatly to be hoped that collectors will in future carefully label all specimens cap- tured in coitu, and that the fact will be recorded on the labels in museums and in private collections. It is tantalizing to reflect upon the number of interesting and important questions which could be now decided if this practice had prevailed during the past fifty years. The question of the possible origin of species from races by preferential Syngamy is of such high importance that we may confidently hope that the attention here directed to the question, and especially the quotation of Darwin s letters to Bates, may lead to that ' exact and prolonged observation ', accompanied by careful records, without which a safe decision cannot be reached. In the mean- time the decided impressions of tw^o such naturalists as H. W. Bates in South America and Roland Trimen in South Africa render it in every way probable that the conclusion will be established on a firm foundation.^ It > Dr. T. A. Chapman sends me the following interesting and suggestive ' I met lately with a curious instance that deserves following up, of some bearing on the question of selective mating of varieties. 88 'WHAT IS A SPECIES?* has been already pointed out on p. 65 that, should preferential Syngamy be established on a large scale, the instincts concerned would assume fundamental significance in the origin of species. Asy7iganiy as a consequence of the breaking of a Syngamic Chain. It is also possible that Asyngamy may be brought about by the breaking of what we may call ' a Syngamic Chain . In the case of large and widely-distributed interbreed- ing communities it is an open question whether Syngamy would freely take place between the most distant of the outlying sections if directly brought into contact, and whether, even if Syngamy prevailed, there would be any diminution in fertility. Limnas chrysippus, perhaps the commonest buttertty in the world, forms a probably continuous syngamic chain stretching from the Cape of Good Hope at least as far as Southern China. It is even reported from Japan. The far Eastern forms are readily distinguishable by the greater size of a single white spot, giving quite a different appearance to the fore-wing. If pupae or eggs were transferred from Hong-Kong or Macao to South Africa, would the perfect butterflies freely interbreed with the indigenous forms of chrysippus ? We do not know ; but it is' an experiment well worth trying, and one which * I saw some broods of P. phlaeas lately that differed from each other, . but each brood was remarkably uniform. There were three broods, all bred in the same conditions, in a greenhouse (by Mr. Carpenter of Leatherhead). It seems difficult to explain this, unless both parents of each brood were very nearly identical. . , , „ , , .- 1 ♦ Mr. Frohawk, who has bred the species largely, tells me he has noticed similar facts. , ., , ..r *When I bred A crony eta tridens and psi largely, some fifteen or more years ago, I noticed that each brood had its own facies, and suggested that tridens was now trying to break up into separate species just as some ancestor split into psi, tridens, and cuspis. 'Another fact I observed in Acronycta rather bears on the other side of the question. Of A. strigosa I reared a large brood, which paired readily and frequently together, but no eggs were laid. I then got some captui>-d males, which paired with equal readiness with the bred females, and as a result obtained plenty of fertile eggs.' ff^ ? 4 .V THE BREAKING OF A SYNGAMIC CHAIN 89 would yield results valuable in many ways. If inter- breeding did not take place, or if the unions were sterile, then we should have the interesting case of a single species which would instantly become two if through any circumstance a central link dropped out of the chain. Even if chrysippus yielded negative evidence in this respect, it is highly probable that other widely-distributed species' would, under these circumstances, fall into two or more groups, each held together by interbreeding, and divided from others by Asyngamy. Sterility, if present in any degree, would have been brought about quite independently of selection; for in such cases each link of the chain would be freely syngamic with the links on either side, and Asyngamy or sterility would only be revealed by artificially bringing together the widely-separated ends of the chain. I cannot but think, therefore, that such experiments made upon many carefully-selected species would probably bring important additional evidence to bear upon the controversy as to whether sterility between species is, as Wallace believes, a selected quality, or, as Darwin held an incidental one. The deep interest of this question is realized when we thus remember that the two discoverers of Natural Selection held widely different opinions about it. We cannot read the letters on both sides, printed in the first volume of More Letters, without realizing how deeply this divergence— one of the principal differences between them— was felt by the two great naturalists. , • , i 1 j This is one of the many reasons for which 1 plead with Mr. Roland Trimen ' for the establishment of tropical biological stations where work of the kind could be carried on. Such establishments should be associated with and be under the control of museums at home, where the experiments could be directed and the results studied and made available for all time for the researches ' In his two Presidential Addresses lo the Entomological Society ol London. Proc. Enl. Soc. LonJ., 1897, pp. xcvi, xcvii ; 1898, pp. Ixxvii, Lxxviii. See also his remarks from the Chair in the discussion on May 5, 1897, loc.cit. pp. xxxi, xxxii. I I i 90 'WHAT IS A SPECIES?' of the naturalist. Just as Harvard has her main Obser- vatory at the University, but also maintains an outlying institution in the Peruvian Andes, where certain kmds ot research, unsuited to New England, can be carried on under the most favourable conditions, so our chiet museums should be provided with the means of es- tablishing temporary stations in the most favourable parts of the tropics. When I say temporary I do not refer to the means, but to the position of the station which should be freely movable in response to the call of important problems as they present themselves for solution in other localities. Another urgent reason for the establishment ot bio- logical stations is forced upon us by the inadequacy of Diagnosis for the separation of very variable species, such as many of the African Acraeinae, 1 cordially a^ree with the view often expressed to me by my friend Mr. F. A. Heron, of the British Museum of Natural History, that we shall never reach a secure foundation until epigonic series have been obtained on a large scale. To achieve this end a temporary station would be required. In this way our museums could receive, and should keep for permanent study, the whole of the offspring reared from the eggs of a single parent. It several species were thus represented by one or more large epigonic series, we should know what to expect and what to allow for ; and Diagnosis in general would gain the most helpful guidance. Asyngamy as a co/iseg^tience of certain Adaptations for Cross-Fertilization, Asyngamy, as regards particular lines of union, has also been incidentally brought about by certain adapta- tions for cross-fertilization in plants, and such Asyngamy has in some cases persisted long enough to have led to sterility in greater or less degree. Of all Darwin's work, that upon the fertilization of heterostyled plants threw most light, he considered, upon sterility between species. As Francis Darwin has stated, ' He found that a wonder- . •# ^ ti I CROSS-FERTILIZATION AND ASYNGAMY 91 fully close parallelism exists between hybridisation and certain forms of fertilisation among heterostyled plants. So that it is hardly an exaggeration to say that the "illegitimately" reared seedlings are hybrids, although both their parents belong to identically the same species. In a letter to Professor Huxley, given in the second volume [of Life and Letters'] (p. 384), my father writes as if his researches on heterostyled plants tended to make him believe that sterility is a selected or acquired quality. But in his later publications, e. g. in the sixth edition of the '' Origin ", he adheres to the belief that sterility is an incidental rather than a selected quality. The result of his work on heterostyled plants is of importance as showing that sterility is no test of specific distinctness, and that it depends on differentiation of the sexual elements which is independent of any racial difference.' ' The different forms of a heterostyled plant are adapted for cross-fertilization by insects, and each individua of each form is by the same means excluded more or less completely from fertilization by another of the same form. In the former case the sexual cells and the accessory apparatus have been kept by selection during long genera- tions of Syngamy in a high state of mutual compatibility ; in the latter Asyngamy, partial or complete, has produced a large measure of the sterility which is its inevitable even if long-delayed result. Are the inpirious effects of Self- Fertilization the conse- quence and not the cause of the Adaptations for Cross-Fertilization f The argument based upon heterostyled plants has, I admit, carried me much further than I originally in- tended, and it will be a pleasure to me if the following criticism can be overthrown. If the special adaptation of heterostyled plants tor particular lines of Syngamy has incidentally resulted in lessened fertility, when the unions discouraged by these adaptations are artificially secured, and in this case ^ Life and Letters, vol. iii, p. 296. 92 'WHAT IS A SPECIES?' without appeal to the physiologically injurious effects o self-ferfilization. why should we not f;>-'l^!| V^^^Pf'^ these effects whenever manifest n the self-bred ' offspring of any plant especially adapted for cross-fertihzation ? Darwin tells us in the Autobiography that as soon as his 'attention was thoroughly aroused to the remarkable fact that seedlings of self-fertilised parentage are mfenor even in the first generation, in height and vigour to seedlings of cross-fertilised parentage '.^ he entered u^n a series of experiments which lasted eleven /ear -ap- pearing in 1876 as Effects of Cross and Self-Fertdtsa tion in the Vegetable Kingdom. Of this work he vvrote in 188 1, ' the results there arrived at explain, as 1 believe the endless and wonderful contrivances for the transportal of pollen from one plant to another of the same species^ It is here suggested that these injurious results have been not the cause but the consequence of specialization for cross-fertilization. In such plants fertilization is mainly brought about along the line for which specml adaptation is made : self-fertilization '^ "elatively in e- quent, often very rare, sometimes perhaps absenalto- iether. May not the less successful resuhs have fo lowed from a condition in which self-fertilization is but little tried by the fires of selection?^ It would be of much interest to compare a long series of experiments on the cross-fertilization of plants which are habitually self-fertilized and on the self-fertilization of P'ants in which the adaptations for cross-fertilization are made use of in widely different degrees. This criticism, should it be sustained, would of course throw much light upon the case of the Bee Orchis and the numbers of tropical Orchidaccae, &c., «;hich are noNv known to be regularly self-fertilizing without apparent physiological injury. 1 1 would also bear powerfully upon an intrutive set of facts which must often have weighed upon the minds of naturalists as they reflected upon the ' See The Knighl-Darwin Law, by Francis Darwin in Naluri, Oclo- '^' ^i^;S''Z;/S:: vol. i. p. 96. ; Ibid. vol. i p. 97. * See also A. R. Wallace in Darwimsm, London, 1889, pp. 321-0- EFFECTS OF SELF-FERTILIZATION 93 commonly received hypothesis that assumes the dangers of continued breeding between near of kin. A. R. Wal- lace speaks of these facts in Darwinism,^ and I have drawn attention to them in discussing the meaning of insect migration, although, as will be seen in the follow- ing passage, without any serious doubt as to the physio- logical significance of cross-fertilization.^ ^ We may well inquire why it should be necessary tor such emigration, with a possible successful issue in coloni- zation, to require the services of countless individuals when the importation of half a dozen rabbits or a few specimens of Pieris rapae will, for the naturalist, change the face of a continent. The results of these unin- tentional or intentional but ill-considered, experiments do indeed shake the belief in the paramount necessity for crosses and the dangers of in-and-in breeding ; but the end is not yet, and the teeming colonies which have arisen from such small beginnings may in time vanish from the operation of deep-seated causes. The varied adaptations for cross-fertilization and the prevention of in-and-in breeding are so evident in nature, that we are compelled to believe that they meet and counteract serious dangers which sooner or later would menace the very existence of the species.'^ But now the considera- tions set forth in this and the preceding Section throw doubt upon the existence of such serious dangers and the reality of any such compulsion. It is impossible to do more than mention certain advan- tages which may have favoured cross-fertilization, if here- after the generally accepted physiological necessity turn out to be a delusion. Brief reference may, however, be made to the special advantages of community which are possible through Syngamy alone. By interbreeding the favourable variations arising in one direction are combined with others arising in different directions ; by the kaleidoscopic changes produced by interbreeding more varied results are presented for selection, and the beneficial qualities arising in one part of the mass may quickly become ^ p. 326. 2 Trans, Ent. Soc. Lond., 1902, pp. 460-65. ^ loc. cit. p. 464* 54 'WHAT IS A SPECIES?' fh*. heritaee of the whole; by interbreeding excessive spontaneoS variation is checked, and the whole com- mCity of the species advances sure y and -th stability bto adjustment with the progressive changes of the environment. We all remember Darwin's beautifully elaborated meTaohor ^ by which the past history of evolution is Town forth in the form and branching of a great tree. Danv"n represented species by the 'green and budding twt?s' and we may suppose that the leaves stand for ndfviduals and that Syngan^V - represented by he contect of leaf with leaf when the branches sway in the S And lust as contact may run through large and rali. irfegulir and compact masses of leav-'-ISoJ binds together groups of varying size and distribution. So too a mass ^of foliage breached by. a sudden storrn pictures for us the splitting of a syngamic chain nto two soecies by the disappearance of an intermediate link. Tt has been a pleasure to me that the central idea which I have endeavoured to bring before you should be 'presented, I trust ^vithout violence to^he jn^ge y, by means of ' the great Tree of Life - " ^ fi"s with Us dead and broken branches the crust of the earth, ana covers the surface with its ever branching and beautiful ramifications'.^ ' Origin 0/ Species, 1859, p. 129. loc.cit. p. i3<^» \ ? Ill THEORIES OF EVOLUTION An Address delivered to the Boston Society of Natural History, as an Introduction to the Discussion, held on February 7, 1894. Reprinted from the Proceedings of the Society, vol. xxvi, p. 327. /Revised : additional footnotes. In dealing with theories of evolution, I think that we shall all be agreed that we may leave out of consideration the question of the origin of life, and deal only with what has happened to life after its appearance, however that may have taken place. On this subject we shall probably most of us still agree with the opinion of Darwin \ that we are not in a position to even speculate or think upon that question,— that any speculation about it is almost a waste of time. And this, I think, remains true in spite of the magnificent results of the organic chemists in producing chemical bodies by synthesis, which before had been regarded as capable of being made only in the laboratory of the living body. Many of these can now certainly be produced, but that is very different indeed from creating protoplasm endowed with life; and so far are we from achieving this by any chemical means that I think we may venture to dismiss all consideration of the ultimate origin of life. But granting the origin of living matter, these theories of evolution which we are considering and hope to discuss to-night can deal with it, and with their help we believe that we can account for what has subsequently happened ; namely, the evolution of all forms of life, animal and vegetable, upon the surface of the earth. The first of these theories which I propose to discuss is the well-known Darwin-Wallace theory of Natural Selection, with its three factors. First, hidividual Variation— \h^ fact that individuals differ, and that the differences are essential or inherent * In Life and Letters, „6 THEORIES OF EVOLUTION i„ d,e orgamsm, so tha. even jf. f t^-l^rl .Ysf *«, S«herTSr'l'*e*fi^t%«dua..ifference, :^to?l .OS, essential |» j^^-f f^ .hat these i„h^rt1iifc*nc^'^aV-^nbSt.er^^^^^^^^ the herediury t«"='"'«'°"°'S that are inherent ""''1^ *\ErXrbefore ras'one of the most ^^"oTs and cerlin'^of conclusions, equally proved by the observation and experience o( "''l""' °''^^i, ,„ .^'i"^- ,t\ fSete trmo";r nSwidu^^Sn into fh^SLter'y^cS, even the rnos. slowly increasing. than can possibly survive »f. XtlMcessity lead to These three factors must by. log'^l ""'JJJ. ,( a survival of the fittest among mdmdual variations. of rival theories wb'* have been g ^^ ^ toirs;orlTone of^h^'e thTee factors. They stand "theX-. H-'y "r^'-'rUrCrmtn; foVj,errr:f"«S^^En.tl^T.plUl.londoes I FACTORS OF NATURAL SELECTION 97 not signify. So long as individual variation is present, so long as it is hereditary, it does not signify how it is produced. There are, indeed, many theories professing to account for it ; but biologists are not generally agreed as to the manner in which it is produced. But so long as it is there, it is available, and Natural Selection can make use of it. , ^t i- j It is interesting to note that, when Newton discovered the principle of Universal Gravitation, some people main- tained that he had discovered nothing because he had not explained what gravity itself was. Now, after over two hundred years, we can safely assert that Universal Gravitation stands out as one of the most triumphant discoveries of the human intellect; and yet we, even now, are just as much in the dark as to what gravitation itself is as when Newton wrote. Exactly so it is v/ith regard to individual variation. So long as it is a fact essential to organic nature, that one individual must be different from another, and so long as these differences are hereditary, so long may Natural Selection have abun- dant material for its work, even though it does not itself explain how that individual difference is produced. I am very far from undervaluing the interest of such an explana- tion ; on the contrary, I maintain that it forms one of the most interesting of biological problems now before the scientific world, or likely to be before it for many a day. In fact, every successful attempt at scientific explana- tion only interprets down to a certain level of causation ; and this is just as true of Universal Gravitation and Natural Selection as it is of smaller efforts. Down to a certain level of causation. Natural Selection explains at any rate some part of organic evolution. A more funda- mental level would be to explain the factors upon which Natural Selection itself depends ; but because we have not yet reached that lower level, we have no reason for doubt- ing, as some would believe, the complete efficiency, at its own level, of the explanation we do happily possess. The theory which stands in contrast with Natural Selection, and has been supported in the United States more fully than in any other civilized country, with the rOULTON H 1 « 98 THEORIES OF EVOLUTION r T7 «^^ ;c tVip theorv we usually attribute exception of France .s A=JJ?"7 ^ ,^J^ however, to Lamarck. .Eras""i\ uarwin 5 ^^^ has the pnonty, - *« »=J,'^' S.iely supported. K'Hert^'sX^-W-^/,«-f'^^^^^^^ ^^c^piwfS *iKji.icS S ught, an/npon this «f '^5 SS IrVa-n ^e St:nts^:»?£^r^ St;;to"?L^relp?f c,^ce::5nponit h. r.^^^^ draf ;Sentd »^r;o:,V?oir-eT Wore U npenc^Srianguage, and. in the *sest relation has based his philosophy, is a theory of evo to pendent, not like Natural Selection X?, ' n th^^^^^^^^^^ hnt noon two It depends first of all upon the eneci wrLTto^^^^^^^ individ'ual by that -hich happen^^^^^ its lifetime. Instead of depending on f ose m^^^^^^^^ essential differences ^P<>^,^h^^\^^^^^"jl^^^^^^ this theory depends on those changes which are causea durinTthe life of the individual,-the action of some external force upon it, the effect of its own will, the change produced by the use and disuse of its own parts^ The Lamarckian Theory depends in fact on all tho^ changes in an individual which we now call its Acquired CharS^^^^^ that is, characters which the individual has Sl^e to possess but which were not potentially present at the very beginning of its development. FACTORS OF LAMARCK'S THEORY 99 The first factor, therefore, is made up by changes that are wrought in this way. The second factor is Heredity, by which it is supposed that these changes are trans- mitted ; and it is certainly true that if such transmission is possible, some amount of evolution must result. You will all be prepared to admit that if these two factors represent facts, their co-operation must produce some amount of evolution. It is important to remember, however, that both factors are not undisputed, as are the three factors of Dar- winian Evolution. Although we all admit the existence of acquired characters as the effect of external causes upon the individual during its life, yet biologists are by no means agreed that these effects are hereditary, and, if not, the acquired character ends with the individual in which it arose, and, not being handed on, can never become a character of the species. It is impossible for those who hold the Lamarckian or Spencerian view to escape from this. If it is true that such characters are transmitted, then the foundation of the theory is secure ; but the transmission of acquired characters is by no means proved. Herbert Spencer has preferred to occupy himself in building a magnificent edifice upon this founda- tion, rather than employ his acute intellect in testing its firmness and security in every possible way. So far as observation goes, all those characters which are believed by many to owe their origin to the Lamarckian principle are present, actually or poten- tially, in the individual before the beginning of its active life, before the operation of those causes which were believed originally to account for the characters. Accord- ing to the Lamarckian Theory such characters have already become hereditary ; and therefore it is of essential importance to the Lamarckian to prove that acquired modifications can be and are transmitted. Only in this way can he give good grounds for the opinion that such characters, when they occur ready-made in the individual, are to be explained by the action of external causes during the lives of ancestors. These are the two main theories of evolution. There H 2 loo THEORIES OF EVOLUTION are several others, upon which I will dwell only for a moment because these two alone command any very laree amount of attention at the present tmie. ^ In the first place, Lamarck's theory of the mnate tendency towards progressive perfection in animals is not held in exactly that form, but some zoologists in the United States and other countries believe that they see evidence in the rise and fall of certain groups of fossil animals for the existence of a tendency towards extinc- tion or a tendency towards sudden growth, which lies within the animal itself and is not determined by any external cause. That is a very close approach to Lamarck's original principle of an innate tendency in one direction or another. I will not discuss it at any length, because I think that this evening if we can get a clear idea and attempt some discussion of the merits of the two main theories of evolution, that will be as much as we can expect. I will only say with regard to the subject that arguments based upon fossil remains are apt to be somewhat dangerous, because we have, at least so far as the conditions of life are concerned so small an amount of evidence. In certain parts of Africa, for instance, the presence of the tse-tse tty absolutely limits the existence of some of the larger quadrupeds. Wherever that fly is, the anima cannot exist It is very possible that in future times skeletons will be found in specially large numbers on the borders of districts where the fly abounded, and any attempt to argue, from the appearance of the skeletons them- selves, as to the causes of this great extinction will obviously be entirely false and misleading. We have in the skeleton of an animal so small an indication of the events of its life and the conditions of its death, that it is, except in very rare cases, most unsafe to argue as to the causes of its extinction. , . , , , Another theory of evolution is one which has been brought forward by Professor Geddes of Edinburgh. He believes that there is an innate tendency towards growth and towards that dissipation of matter which constitutes its reverse,— the anabolic and katabolic tendencies, as he OTHER THEORIES OF EVOLUTION loi calls them. But that view, although he argues it with much eloquence, has not been widely accepted, and I think it will be generally admitted that it does not yet rest on sufficient proof. In addition to these, there are some who maintain the position that there is an unknown cause of evolution. They believe that these theories, although one or more of them may be of value, are yet insufficient to account for organic evolution. Those who take this line are of course logically bound to bring forward the classes of facts with which no existing theory is, as they maintain, competent to deal. All we shall have time for to-night is briefly to compare Natural Selection, the Darwinian interpretation of evolu- tion, with the Lamarckian Theory. It is interesting to note that, although they are so essentially distinct one from another, in earlier times these two theories appear to have been entirely confused. Lamarckian Evolution, Spencerian Evolution, appeals to the mind of man far more strongly than Darwinian Evolution. Any one of us, were he to have created the organic world, would certainly have created it according to Lamarck. We should have made evolution by use and disuse of parts, and not by Natural Selection. However, we are not concerned with the sort of world that we should have created. The question before us as scientific men is not what might have happened, but what has happened. Nature, as I have heard Prof. Michael Foster say, has a very queer way of going by roundabout paths and refusing to take the roads we should lay out for her ourselves, — roads which we look upon as the most direct and obvious. The fact that the general aspect of the Lamarckian Theory commends itself to the human mind affords no reason for looking upon it as the correct one, as opposed to the Darwinian Theory. ^ ^ The Duke of Argyll, who is still strongly antagonistic to Natural Selection, a few years ago wrote an article in Tlie Niftetecftth Century called The Power of Loose Analogy. By this tide he intended to imply that those who believe in Natural Selection have been led away \ I02 THEORIES OF EVOLUTION by the specious character of the words themselves. I suppose that the Duke feels himself bound to account in some way or other for the fact that people believe in Natural Selection, while he does not, and accordingly he suggests that the seductive power of the title employed by Darwin has misled the scientific mind into a belief in the process itself,— only rare and subtle intellects like his own being proof against such an allurement. Natural: a word expressive of familiar objects and processes always around us. Selection : a process with which we are all familiar. In this way it seems reasonable to the Duke of Argyll to suppose that men have been misled by the seductive nature of the terms employed by Darwin. The terms apply to processes familiar to every one, and therefore every one accepted them at once, without inquiring what they really meant. This is, of course, an explanation eminently satisfactory to the single writer who was not to be overcome by ' the power of loose analogy'. But when we proceed to test this ingenious suggestion, and look into the history of the times to which it applies, when we read Darwin's letters, we find that he continually complains that people do not under- stand what he means by Natural Selection, and he almost regrets having used the words. He says more than once that he wishes he had employed Herbert Spencer's term the Survival of the Fittest, because his own title, Natural Selection, is comprehended with such difficulty. When we look to another class of evidence we find equally sure ground for the conviction that Natural Selection was driven into men's minds with the very greatest difficulty, and by no means with the ease which the Duke of Argyll assumes. It is very interesting to consult the various skits written between twenty and thirty-five years ago,^ in which the writers supposed that they were making fun of Darwin's theory. If you will read them, you will be struck by one very remarkable fact : their authors are all making fun of Lamarck when they believe they are making fun of Darwin. » The discussion at which these words were used took place Feb. 7, 1894. EARLY PARODIES OF DARWINISM 103 I remember once seeing a picture in Punc/i, repre- senting the evolution of the power of flight by the human species. It represented a man standmg upon the roof of a house and waving his hands, which, m consequence of the use to which they were put during his individual life, grew somewhat in size. Passing down to the next generation, his son was found waving rather larger hands, and the waving made them still larger In the course of generations the descendants acquired large wings and flew down from the roof of the house. That was supposed to be a parody on evolution according to Darwin. I have called it a skit, but you will see at once that you cannot get a better illustration of Lamarckism. It is Lamarckism. It is not making fun of it ; it is a description of the process ' ^Then Lord Neaves wrote a song [May, 186 1] in which he attempted to make great fun of Darwin's theory. It was a very long song, many verses of which were skits upon Lamarck, while supposed to be skits upon Darwin. A deer with a neck that was longer by half Than the rest of its family's (try not to laugh), By stretching and stretching, became a Giraffe, Which nobody can deny. This is pure Lamarckism. The evolution was supposed to be caused by stretching without any selection at all. The best example of all, however, is given by Mr. Court- hope, in his Paradise of Birds [1870]. I commend his account of the evolution of birds and mammals to those who believe the Lamarckian Theory. He tells us there about the Ornithorhynchus, which he praises as a very prudent beast : — For he saw in the distance the strife for existence, That must his grandchildren betide, And resolved, as he could, for their ultimate good, A remedy sure to provide. . With that, to prepare each descendant and heir For a different diet and clime. He laid, as a test, four eggs in his nest- But he only laid two at a time. it 104 THEORIES OF EVOLUTION On the first he sat still, and kept using his bill, That the head in his chicks might prevail '• Ere he hatched the next young, head downwards he slung From the branches, to lengthen his tail. ^ , . Conceive how he watched till his chickens were hatched, With what joy he observed that each brood Were unlike at the start, had their dwellings apart, And distinct adaptations for food. « • * * * From the bill, in brief words, were developed the Birds, Unless our tame pigeons and ducks he; From the tail and hind legs, in the second-laid eggs. The Apes and— Professor Huxley. If we now turn to the skits on evolution written at the present day we find they are very different. Miss May Kendall, in writing her Bal/ad of the Ichthyosaurus, only a few years ago [1887], says :— E'er Man was developed, our brother. We swam and we ducked and we dived. And we dined, as a rule, on each other— What matter, the toughest survived. This is true Natural Selection. The authoress under- stood what she was talking about. But, strangely enough, what might well be looked upon as the most incisive parody of Natural Selection was published more than ten years too early ! The first part of J ames Russell Lowell s Big low Papers appeared between 1846 and 1848. One of the earlier poems contains the following lines :— Some flossifers think thet a fakkilty's granted The minnit it's proved to be thoroughly wanted, Thet a change o' demand makes a change o' condition, An' thet everythin 's nothin' except by position;^ Ez, fer instance, thet rubber-trees fust begun bearin' Wen p'litikle conshunces come into wearin, — Thet the fears of a monkey, whose holt chanced to fail, Drawed the vertibry out to a prehensile tail. If these amusing verses had been written later they would certainly have been accepted as a satire upon the origin as opposed to the survival of the fittest. As it is, we must believe that they were indirectly inspired by the Lamarckian idea of change wrought by the desires of animals. The publication in 1844 of the Vestiges of the i I I > ELIMINATION VERSUS SELECTION 105 Natural History of Creation was probably the immediate occasion of the parody. Another interesting question has been raised by Professor Lloyd Morgan as to whether the phrase ' Natural Elimination ' would not be a more correct one than 'Natural Selection'. The process is, of course selection by and through elimination. The survival of the fittest means the elimination of the unfittest. The relation between selection and elimination has been put in a very striking way by Mr. Samuel Butler, who says that according to Natural Selection we are what we are, not by the successes of our fathers and mothers, but by the failures of our uncles and aunts. The question is, shall we dignify with the title of this important cause of evolution those who have failed in the struggle, and do not happen to be the ancestors of any living species, or those who have succeeded in the struggle and are now abundantly represented by descen- dants .^ I think that 'Natural Selection' forms on the whole the best term for the process. 1 1 has the advantage, also, of being the historic term proposed by Darwin. Another important point in favour of * Natural Selec- tion' as a term is that it suggests a parallelism or comparison with the process of Artificial Selection. Yet another point is the fact that you may find in the words themselves all the three factors obviously suggested ; for selection would be impossible without individual differ- ence, and it would be useless unless these differences were hereditary; and, furthermore, selection implies something which selects ; that is to say, the conditions of nature. The rate of increase makes a struggle for existence inevitable : natural conditions at the time deter- mine the relationship between the qualities of survivors and the qualities of those that fail. The three factors of Natural Selection are implied by the very words themselves. Now I want very briefly to bring forward the chief objections that have been urged against Natural Selection. In the first place, if Natural Selection be true, all the varied characters of animals and plants must prove to be io6 THEORIES OF EVOLUTION useful to the possessor in the struggle, or to have been useful at some time in its history. We are only required, however, to prove utility as regards undoubted characters of the species,— and these are hereditary,— and we must put on one side certain characters which are confined to the individua in which they appear. For instance, if it were proved that the Mollusca of any one river differed from those of the same species in another river, but that the differences were confined to the individuals in which they occurred, so that if these Mollusca were placed when young in the second river, they would come to resemble those which were proper to it, then we should not be concerned with characters of the species at all. The language spoken by a nation similarly is not a character of the human species for we know that a child of another nation would acquire it perfectly, together with the particular niodes of thought and expression, tortuous or direct, which are associated with it. These results of environment are not characters of the human species. The individuals ot the human species come into the world with a certain elasticity, a certain power of being developed in various directions. But although the elasticity itself is a character of the species, and is inherent, the particular quality in which it may result when developed by environment is certainly not a specific character. • i • The more we study the characters of anirnals in general, even though we at first can see no utility, the more we come to admit this principle, and to believe that either now or in some past time, the characters have been useful. I can certainly say of many characters which I have studied in some of my investigations, that at first they seemed to be meaningless, but afterwards appeared to be of much importance in the struggle for existence. I think we may safely assume with regard to many characters of which we can now see no explanation that ultimately the explanation will be forthcoming. Being unable to prove utility does not invalidate Natural Selection. If inutility could be proved for any lars/e class of characters, the theory would certainly be v^ i m OBJECTIONS TO DARWIN'S THEORY 107 destroyed as a wide-reaching and significant process. I do not think, however, that any such evidence has been forthcoming. I shall be interested in the discussion which follows this paper to hear whether those who believe in the Lamarckian Theory have such evidence to produce, whether they can prove that any one great class of characters has been useless in the past and remains useless in the present. Another kind of objection has been urged long ago, and is still urged to-day. Why do we not find in the palaeontological series the records of individual failures ? Now, as regards the individuals of a species we cannot expect to find any such evidence. What is failure? Failure means, according to Natural Selection, the failure to produce offspring. The individual which comes into the world and dies without offspring has failed. The individual which is represented in the generations of the future has succeeded. Natural Selection has set its stamp upon that individual. But it is impossible to decide from the fossil record whether any particular individual of sufficient maturity had failed or succeeded. We have not got the facts before us by which we can form any conclusions. Furthermore, we know the struggle for existence is excessively complicated. The skeleton a/one, though of the highest value in association with the rest of the organism, has been the sole turning-point in the struggle in a comparatively small number of cases. When it has been the turning-point in association with other parts, these latter are absent. We have only a very small part of the problem before us, and never can expect any more. But while we cannot expect to find evidence of the survival of the fittest among the individuals of a species, we may expect to find it in the supplanting of classes by classes, of groups of species by groups of species. Some of the facts which have been brought forward as evidence in this direction do, to my mind, very strongly support the theory of Natural Selection by palaeontological evidence. Consider especially the case of the large mammals preceding those which gave rise to the quad- ,o8 THEORIES OF EVOLUTION rupeds now upon the earth. So far as we can judge of these huge forms by their skeletons, they appear to have possessed a bodily structure as well fitted to survive as that of many now living in the world ; but they differed from these latter in that they had extremely small brams. We can easily understand that inferiority of intellect would cause them to be worsted by animals which were in other respects no better endowed. Exactly parallel is the relation of man and the apes. In bodily structure the difference is insignificant. In the brain, however, we meet an important and essential distinction. It would appear here that Natural Selection has taken one particular part of the organism of paramount importance in the struggle, and has developed that rather than made a change along the whole line. _ We see the same relationship in the gigantic reptiles of the Secondary Period as compared with the mammals of the Tertiary. The latter with their larger brains and higher intelligence were able to supplant the former, just as they have in turn been supplanted by the still larger brained animals whose descendants now people the earth. All this seems to me to afford very strong support to the theory of Natural Selection. _ Passing now to another class of objections : Natural Selection, it is said, can never account for the beginnings of things. Until an organ is raised to a useful level, selection can have nothing to do with it. At first sight that is a serious objection, but it suggests its own answer, viz. that an organ so rarely develops ab initio. Organs are not formed anew in an animal, but they are formed by the modification of pre-existing organs ; so that, instead of having one beginning for each organ, we have to push the beginning further and further back, and find that a single origin accounts for several successive organs, or at any rate several functions instead of one. The typical vertebrate has four limbs. These in fishes are used for swimming, while in terrestrial forms the same limbs are modified and used for walking. New organs are not introduced, but the old are modified for a new purpose. When the terrestrial form again becomes THE ORIGIN OF ORGANS 109 aquatic, the limb that was used for terrestrial progression is modified back into a functional fin; and again when flight becomes necessary, the same organ is used for the new function. So that whatever the changes in the mode of progression, we need no new organ at all ; for the old organ is used for the new purpose. It is very much easier to understand how a useful level can be attained in that way than by organs starting ab initio. But ot course we must come down to a true beginning if we push our inquiries far enough. In attempting this, we are carried to those remote times in which the ancestors of vertebrates arose. Upon these forms we can do no more than speculate, but it is at any rate impossible to prove that bud-like projections from the body, probably later reduced to four, may not have been useful, from their very beginning, to a slender ^yorm-llke animal for pushing its way through mud or thick w^ds, or for the purposi of respiration. Professor E. B. Tylor has told me that he believes that the same thing holds with regard to human weapons. He said that, in examining ancient weapons, he was often struck with the fact that a weapon or implement had ultimately turned out to be so very much more useful for a new purpose rather than that for which it was originally formed. Here, then, one origin apparently accounts for several forms of implement. Another objection raised against Natural Selection is that a selective cause is never a true cause Protessor Cope means to imply that when he speaks of the Origin of the fittest '. But Darwin's argument on this point is perfectly sufficient. He says that when a man drops iron into sulphuric acid, he does not originate the chemical force that operates, but he may be fairly said to make sulphate of iron. So Natural Selection does not itself originate the factors upon which it depends but it is so essential to the result that it may be fairly looked upon as the true cause (at that level of causation). In Galton s work we have a most complete inquiry into human variation and its inheritance, and he shows us that such variation by itself, unguided by selection, can never advance to anything. Even if you start with ancestors I no THEORIES OF EVOLUTION who are remarkable for any intellectual or structural feature, their descendants, although some of them may partake of their parents' peculiarities, sometimes even to an increased extent, will ultimately return to the pattern of the race. There is always a 'recession towards mediocrity'. Hence, unguided variation can never explain the ' origin of the fittest '. [Since these last words were written De Vries and others have brought forward many facts which, as they believe, support the hypothesis that sudden large variations lead to a fresh position of organic stability and the origin of a new species by ' Mutation '. Natural Selection is, however, still invoked in order to arbitrate between different mutations, as well as between these and the parent species. A final decision as to whether the course of evolutionary history has been interrupted or continuous will probably be reached by the study of Palaeontology.] I have briefly touched on some of the chief difficulties which are advanced against Natural Selection. I now propose to devote the remaining part of my time to the difficulties which seem to me to apply to the Lamarckian Theory. Lamarckian Evolution, as I have mentioned before, depends upon acquired characters. A good deal of mis- conception has arisen from this use of the word ' acquired'. An acquired character has sometimes been interpreted to mean any character that an animal has come to possess ; hence, inherent and acquired characters have been con- fused. The word ' acquired ', as used by biologists, must be understood to have a limited and special application, meaning only those characters which have been produced in the organism by the incidence of external forces, or by the action of its own forces, use and disuse of parts, and so on, during its life. Weismann has suggested the term * Blastogenic ' for characters potentially present in the germ at the very beginning of life, and 'Somatogenic' for those which appear afterwards and are not potentially present in the germ. Here blastogenic is the equivalent of inherent, and somatogenic of acquired. Some years ago I suggested that the terms * Centri- OBJECTIONS TO LAMARCK'S THEORY iii petal ' and ' Centrifugal ' might be employed to express this acquired difference.^ Acquired characters are centri- petal, because they are impressed upon the body or one of its parts from without ; inherent characters are centri- fugal, because, arising from within due to the essential nature of the organism itself, in the course of development they come to appear, as it were, on the surface as visible features. When we now consider the transmission of acquired characters, upon which the Lamarckian Theory certainly depends, we are led first of all to inquire whether it is possible to frame a theory of heredity within which such transmission can be included. If, for instance, there is a change in the brain of an animal, owing to the exercise of some part of it, how can such a change in the brain- cell be transferred to the germ-cells of the animal, so as to be transmitted to its offspring ? It may be objected, if you can prove that such transmission does take place, it is no matter how it takes place. Quite true, if the evidence is sufficient and indisputable. But we must remember that the amount of evidence required, in order that there may be sufficient, depends upon the probability or impro- bability of the thing to be proved. This view is extremely well put by Professor Huxley in his memoir of Hume, where he says that if any one came to him and stated that he had seen a piebald horse in Piccadilly he would be prepared to believe it ; that he might require con- firmatory evidence if the statement were that a zebra had been seen ; but that if even the friend in whom he trusted told him he had seen a centaur trotting down that eminent thoroughfare, he should emphatically disbelieve it, and that nothing short of a monograph on the anatomy of the centaur by a comparative anatomist of the stamp of Johannes Muller would convince him that the observation was correct. We are compelled to admit that the amount of evidence we require does to a great extent depend upon the inherent probability or improbability of the conclusion to be sustained. If it appears to us to be almost impossible to conceive of a mechanism whereby * See page 1 23. 112 THEORIES OF EVOLUTION an acquired character can be transmitted from the outlying parts of the organism to its germ-cells then we have every reason for scrutinizing most carefully any evidence that is alleged to prove such transmission. Let me first of all give you a concrete example which is frequently brought forward by those in this country who believe in the Lamarckian Theory, and have chiefly studied the skeletons of Mammalia. They say the joint of an animal possesses just the sort of shape that would be produced by the motion of the joint itself, and they urge that the joint as we see it has arisen from the hereditary effects of that motion. They look upon this as a very satisfactory explanation, because they consider it to be so obvious and fundamental. You do not require anything further, selection is unnecessary, and even the individual variation— so mysterious a factor of the Darwinian Theory— is here entirely explained. But is the interpretation valid? In the first place it is clear that such an hypothesis can never afford a wide or general explanation. There are a great many parts of the animal body which are not modified by their use. You cannot thus explain the growth of hair, or the colour upon the surface of the organism. For these and other useful but passive structures the Lamarckian interpre- tation will not hold at all. Hence we may divide the organism into two sections, to one of which the Lamarckian Theory might be held to apply, and to the other the Darwinian alone. • i u .. But upholders of the Darwinian Theory consider that it applies to the other section as well. They point out, that while the form of the joint is the sort of form that would be produced by the motion, it is also necessarily one which admits of convenient motion, that motion has been essential to the life of the organism, that alert and rapid movements have been a necessity in the struggle for existence, and that any form which would prevent or clo^ the movements would be at once destroyed by the operation of Natural Selection. Natural Selection they hold to be competent to explain those parts which the > The United States. H PASSIVE AND ACTIVE STRUCTURES 113 Lamarckians also claim to explain, while it offers the only explanation of the other parts. If we suppose that Lamarckian Evolution in part explains the actively used organs, and Darwinian Evolu- tion in part, we should expect that modification would take place more quickly in that section of the organism where the two principles were at work than in the other section where only one principle— the Darwinian— can play a part. But there is no evidence of such especially rapid evolution. It seems to me that we are in a position to use the old principle of cutting off superfluous causes. No unnecessary cause should ever be introduced into an explanation, and if Lamarckism, untenable in the one section, is superfluous in the other, it should be removed, unless there is very clear evidence proving that it has been at work. Furthermore, in certain cases, such as the protective attitudes and appearances assumed by many animals, we meet with clear evidence that the two kinds of parts— those that are affected by their use and those that are not affected— have undergone development together, suggesting strongly that their evolution has been under the direction of one set of forces, and not of two sets which have little in common. Having now brought forward certain general objections to the Lamarckian position, let me take exception to one or two special cases. Certain animals, such as lobsters and crabs, have the power of very readily parting with some of the most important of their members. The large claws are easily thrown off, and this may be of great advantage in the struggle for life, because when an individual is attacked, and has seized the enemy with its claw, it has a chance of escaping. In the case of the lobster, the dismembered claw may not let go of the enemy although the enemy may wish to let go of the claw. The claw may take charge of the enemy while the lobster escapes. Now that is a very interesting adaptation. We find the claw so constituted that it can be thrown off, but even when thrown off it continues to be of much use to the POCLTON 114 THEORIES OF EVOLUTION oreanism. Its nervous and muscular mechanism is so arranged that mutilation actually stimulates it to contract, and it continues to hold the enemy. In the case of certain crabs, the dismembered claws keep snapping and jumping about. The same is true of the tails of many lizardsfwhich, when thrown off, will jump about in the most active way, distracting the attention of the enemy, while the lizard makes its escape. Here, too, mutilation stimulates the nervous and muscular mechanism in claw and tail. In these cases of actively used parts of the organism the Lamarckian interpretation is absolutely at tault You cannot apply it. It is impossible to explain upon the theory of the transmitted effects of use and disuse. No activity manifested by the tail after it has ceased to be part of the lizard can ever be transmitted. Not only that but it is difficult to see how the development under^ gone by the tail from the effects of use and disuse, &c., up to the time of its severance, can be hereditary. And so with the claw. The large claws are the most im- portant appendages of the lobster, and yet it is certain ihat many a lobster loses one of these organs and grows a new one, several times in the course of its life. We have here a very specialized organ with definite functions which continue in even an increased degree after severance from the animal : all this is readily explained by the Darwinian Theory, but cannot be explained by the Lamarckian. i • -ru The same inadequacy of the Lamarckian 1 heory is forced upon us when we examine a little more deeply into the nature of the process which is supposed to occur. The Lamarckians attempt to explain joints and some other structures by the effects of stress and pressure, but when we look into the matter we find that the explanation is not so complete as it is supposed to be. For instance, it has been believed in the United States by many distinguished biologists that the complex shape of mammalian teeth is due to pressure produced by mastication. As the pressure has been applied to the tooth, so has the tooth grown. But vyould pressure produce such an effect upon a tooth ? That is cerUinly FORMS OF JOINTS AND TEETH 115 not our experience. Pressure and friction have an unfortunate way of wearing a hole in the tooth, rather than causing it to grow an elevation. As a matter of fact we know that the shape of teeth is predetermined, long before they are cut, in the soft dental matrix beneath the gum. It is not a question of the transmission of acquired characters, but the supposed transmission of a character which the parent cannot by any means acquire. Teeth, so far as they react to pressure or friction, can only react by wearing away. With regard to the joint, we are told by some La- marckian writers that pressure and friction produce the reverse effect and wear away cavities rather than stimulate growth. I was reading the other day a most interesting paper by Dr. Wortman of New York, in which the author attempted to explain the occurrence of a furrow in a joint owing to the pressure of a corresponding ridge. The pressure of the ridge, he said, produces a furrow in the opposite side of the joint. It seems to me that in this we are going a little beyond what physiology and histology teach us and making a blind appeal to mechanical forces unsupported by any adequate investigation of the tissues concerned. Is it likely that a bone would react to intermittent pressure by producing a furrow? It is far more probable that the reverse effect would tend to be caused. 1 will only ask one more question with regard to this subject of use and disuse, and that is, why, if you are going to explain any of these parts by pressure and friction, should the process be stopped when a useful level is reached ? If the pressure does cause such effects and they are hereditary, how are they prevented from increasing beyond all bounds in the course of generations ? Why should pressure on teeth cease to produce further growth, when the tubercle has reached its proper height ? The fact that all these shapes of bones and teeth just reach and stay at an adaptive level is the strongest evidence that they are not produced by the operation of mechanical forces, but by Natural Selection. We now pass to the consideration of indirect evidence: I 2 ii6 THEORIES OF EVOLUTION that it would be impossible to explain evolution without the Lamarckian Theory. , . , , t t Time will permit me to deal with only one class ot characters, a class associated with the nervous system and manifested as instinct. These instmctive actions are generally thought to be the strongest evidence in favour of Lamarckian Evolution. It has been argued that we cannot explain the instinctive action of animals— the wonderful instincts which are due, as we know, to modifications of the nervous system,— except by supposing that animals have intelligendy modified their actions in consequence of experience and observation, and that the result has then been transmitted and has become the non-intelligent instinct of their offspring. If >ye had no other explanation of instinctive action, such an interpreta- tion would constitute a strong support to the Lamarckian Theory. .... , I do not, however, believe that this is the only, or, indeed, the correct explanation of instinct. In consider- ing this question, we must distinguish between the instinct manifested by many of the higher invertebrate animals and much that we are apt to call the instinct of the vertebrates. A great many actions which are put down to instinct in the higher vertebrates, such as birds and mammals, are not instinctive at all, but the result of intelligence. We see an example of this in the altered behaviour of the seal which, as Nansen tells us, took up a position on the outer ice-floes to escape the dangers of the polar bear, and afterwards incurred this very danger on the inner floes to avoid the greater peril from the hunter. This is a clear case of intelligent association, and no instinctive avoidance of danger. So also with a bird which flies away if you have a gun in your hand, but allows you to come near when you have a walking- stick. This is the result of intelligence and not merely instinct; and we must carefully distinguish between a lesson learned by the individual, however well learned and easily repeated it may be, and a true instinctive action which is never learned at all but springs fully formed into existence. Such true instincts certainly occur in the THE ORIGIN OF INSTINCT 117 higher vertebrates, such as the act of sucking performed so perfectly without any education or practice by the newly-born mammal. But in the lower animals true instincts are relatively far more numerous and play a most prominent part in the life of the individual. In these cases of true instinct I would suggest that we are dealing with actions which have never been intelligent at any time in the past history of the species, but have arisen through the operation of Natural Selection upon the nervous system. Certain activities which are most strongly held to be the outcome of the transmission of experience and the acquired results of practice obviously cannot be explained in this way. For instance, how upon any such hypothesis can you explain the wonderful structure of the cocoon spun by the larva of an insect ? The view would be, I suppose, that the ancestral larva spun a cocoon which was not much ot a success and was in consequence attacked by enemies ; that the larva observed these attacks, and accordingly improved its cocoon. But that is not the way in which the struggle for existence is waged with insects. If the larva failed, it failed, and that would be the end of the matter. It has no chance of improvement; it has no opportunity of learning by experience Its only chance of survival is to avoid experience of foes altogether ; experience is the most dangerous thing in the world to an edible insect. This becomes still more obvious when we remember that failure or success is almost always determined long after the cocoon is made, l he cater- pillar perhaps spins the cocoon in autumn, but the real stress of competition will come in winter, when insect- eating animals are pressed hard with hunger and search high and low for food. But the caterpillar by this time is a chrysalis and of course has no opportunity of im- proving the cocoon. The selective test is applied long after the operation has been performed, and when there is no possibility of gaining by experience. We are thrown back, then, solely upon Natural Selection which acts on the nervous system of the caterpillar, and thus compels it to make the cocoon in a certain way. In other words, xi8 THEORIES OF EVOLUTION those caterpillars which are impelled by their nervous system to make ill-formed, conspicuous cocoons have no chance of living, and, in the perfect stage, of producmg offspring. Hence, the selection caused by the keen sight of foes first raises and then maintains at a high level the standard of cocoon-making. This contention as to the uselessness and danger ot experience applies to the whole of those smaller defenceless animals which, when once they have been detected, have no chance of fighting with their enemies and but little ot ^^ Another special kind of instinct has been greatly relied on by Romanes as evidence for the Lamarckian Theory of transmitted experience. Certain Hymenoptera allied to wasps, the Fossores or sand-wasps, possess an instinct which leads them to sting larvae and store them up in their nests as food for their young. It is generally be- lieved that the larva is stung in the central part of the nervous system so that it can no longer struggle. 1 say ' generally believed ' because it has been pointed out to me by so distinguished an observer as Dr. G. W. Peck- ham of Milwaukee, that certain facts are opposed to the orenerally received account.* It is to be hoped that the observations, which are chiefly due to Fabre, will be repeated and tested as minutely as possible. The prey is stored up in the mud-tube or burrow of the Hymeno- pteron, and keeps perfectly fresh because it is alive, although completely paralysed. Larvae stored up in this way appear to live much longer than those which, in the full possession of their faculties, are deprived of food. Now this is a very wonderful instinct, which, it has been argued, cannot be explained except on Lamarckian lines. I maintain, on the contrary, that it is a case which cannot by any possibility be explained by the Lamarckian Theory. ' My friends Mr. and Mrs. Peckham have now published their valuable researches upon the habits of the Fossorial Hymenoptera in two works, which are a mine of information on this fascinating subject. George W. Peckham and Elizabeth G. Peckham, On Iht Imlmcts and Habits of Iht Solitary Wasps; Wisconsin Geological and Natural History Survey: Madison, Wis., U.S.A., 1898. Wasps Social and Solitary. Boston and New York, 1905. PROPHETIC INSTINCT OF FOSSOR 119 The wasp-like insect has no opportunity of learning by experience, because it can never know whether the larva stored up is a failure or a success. If the larva had not been stung, or, accepting the received accounts, had been stung in the wrong place, it would struggle and perhaps kill the young grub ; or, dying of starvation, it might dry up and be useless as food. But the Hymenopteron never coes back to inquire. It makes all the difference to the voung grubs whether the food provided for them is m an appropriate condition or not, but it makes no difference whatever to the parent insect. The latter seals up the chamber in which its eggs have been laid and never opens it again ; it has no chance of noting the failure or success of the food it has provided. It is clearly a case, like that of the cocoon, which cannot be explained on the Lamarckian Theory and must be explained on the Dar- winian. And this latter interpretation is easy: those insects which possessed the nervous mechanism impelling them to provide food in an appropriate condition gave to their offspring the opportunity of surviving and inheriting the same instinct ; while others, impelled to perform less efficient actions, were thereby cut off from any representa- tion in the next generation. If the origin of wonderful and complex examples ot instinct such as these cannot be explained by the La- marckian Theory but readily by the Darwinian, why should not Natural Selection also offer an adequate explanation of all other cases ? I have already taken up a great deal too much of your time. I hope to have the opportunity to-night of hearing stronger arguments in favour of the Lamarckian Theory than it has been my opportunity to meet hitherto. Nole.-\n revising the shorthand transcript for publication, I have not made any changes which alter the character of the address. It remains the record of a spoken address, the sequence and contmmty of which were maintained by the use of brief notes. I have no verified the quoted opinions and words of others, and there are probably verbal errors. I believe, however, that in every case the true meanmg of the author has been preserved. Oxford, May 21, 1894. IV THEORIES OF HEREDITY The Presidential Address read at the Annual Meeting of the Midland Union of Natural History Societies, held at Oxford, September 23, 1889. Reprinted from the Midland Naturalist, November, 1889. Revised and greatly modified: in large part rewritten. In order to understand the problem of heredity, it is necessary to have some general idea of the manner in which the higher organisms are built up. The lowest organisms, both animal and vegetable (Protozoa and Protophyta), consist of single cells, while all higher animals and plants (Metazoa and Metaphyta) are com- posed of cell aggregates. A single Protozoon does not represent a single Metazoon, but one of the mnumerable units of which all except the minutest Metazoa are com- posed. . The higher animals are, however, somethmg more than aggregates of cells ; they are cell-republics, in which, at any rate in health, the structure and function of the units are subordinated to the good of the whole. Certam diseases are due to the literal instibordination of some of these units, which grow and multiply in defiance of that relationship in proportion, in position, and in the consumption of nutriment, which is necessary for the well-being of the whole. The surest hope of successful treatment lies in an early extirpation of the centre of insurrection. Later on, the centre will not only grow, but will dispatch agents along the channels of communi- cation, setting up other centres of mischief in distant parts of the body. Such a republic is not only liable to destruction from within by the revolt of its own members, but also by the successful attack of enemies from without. Numerous other forms of life are ever seeking to obtain a I \ * Diagram /. Pangenesis. Stage 2. 1/^ Stage if ;h^v. Stage I. Diagram ///. Development of Identical Twins. Stage 5. stage 4. E feF T G Stage 3. Stage I. Diagram //. Continuity of Germ-Plasm. J o J ace /. 130 BODY-CELLS AND GERM-CELLS 121 lodgement within it,- and, if successful, discomfort, disease, or death, is almost invariably caused « The larger enemies, or parasites, have been known for ages; while the smaller, but far more dangerous foes, the germs ot disease, have only been appreciated in comparatively recent times. Now, however, they attract a very large amount of attention, and the germ theory of disease has led to the most fruitful advance ever made in the history of medicine and surgery. ,, , <• „^ ^r The cells, or units, which compose the body of one ot the hicxher animals differ greatly in structure according to the part they play in the economy of the organism. Thus, in man, the upper skin, or epidermis, is composed of layers of cells, becoming horny scales on the surtace. The epidermic cells are continuous with those linmg the digestive tract and passing up the ducts into the various glandular organs. The connective tissues which bind the various structures together and make up many parts, such as tendons and the lower skin or dermis, are also composed of cells and fibrous elements derived from cells: The supporting tissues, bone and cartilage, are composed of cells and structures derived from cells ; and the same is true of the great contractile tissues, striped and unstriped muscular fibre, and of the elements of the nervous system— nerve-cells and nerve-fibres. Out ot many of these elements the complex organs are built up. with the addition of peculiar or specific cells ot their own. , ,, t. J All the varied units which compose the Metazoan body may be classified under two chief heads. There are the cells which are concerned with maintaining the lite ot the individual— the body-cells or somatic cells ; and there are those concerned with maintaining the life of the species the reproductive cells or germ-cells. , In the higher animals, the latter are aggregated in ' An example of benefit rather than injury may be found in the lactic acid bacillus which, according to Metschnikoff, Pl*y^/7tl"^'''l,P^" .f digestion. Metschnikoff believes that the custom of dnnkmg sour m Ik common to many races, is founded on an empirical knowledge of the beneficial effects wrought by this bacillus. 1 122 THEORIES OF HEREDITY a comparatively limited area, the reproductive organs (ovaries or testes). These primary sexual organs can be removed in the operation of castration without essentially affectine any somatic cells except the components of characters indicative of sex. When the influence of the germ-cells is withdrawn such secondary sexual characters, as they are called, tend to be transformed into those indicative of the opposite sex. Although the succession of individuals is of course prevented by the removal ot the primary organs, the life of the individual may continue to its normal length. , , n The problem of heredity may be stated as follows :— How is it that a single germ-cell can produce, by repeated division, an organism in which the peculiarities of the somatic units of the parent are reproduced? A single cell separates from a small area in the body of the parent, but it controls the development of the off"spring, so that the characters of every part of the parent are repeated with more or less accuracy. . It seems that there are only two possible ways in which this marvellous fact can be explained. First, the whole of the somatic cells may be so intimately connected with the germ-cells that each of the latter bears within itself the influence of the whole of the former— an influence, too of such a nature as to lead to the reappearance of the corresponding somatic cell in the course of develop- ment ; clearly, therefore, an influence of a material nature. Secondly, we may look upon the germ-cells as directly developed from the germ-cell from which the parent arose. Parent and offspring would then resemble each other, because they are developed from the same thing, although at different times. There is an essential difference between these two theories of heredity. In the first, the germ-cells may bear the impress of every event which happens to the somatic cells during the life of the parent, and such characters may therefore be looked for in the off^spring ; in the second, off"spring and parent can only resemble each other in characters which were predetermined in the germ-cell from which the parent arose. These latter 1 ACQUIRED CHARACTERS DEFINED 123 characters— peculiarities of any somatic cell which follow from the structure of the original germ-cell— have there- fore been called blastogmic by Weismann. They have also been called spontaneous, because they spring up in the individual without reference to the causes which operate during its lifetime; also inherent or centri- fugal, because they belong to the essential nature of the individual, and because they may be looked upon as developing from within rather than as impressed from without. Conversely, the characters which appear in the somatic cells as the result of external influences, or as the outcome of their own special or unusual activities^ —in fact, any characters appearing in the body which were not predetermined in the original germ-cell, have been called somatogenic, because their origin cannot be traced to the structure of the original germ-cell, but is entirely due to events brought about in somatic cells; they are also called acquired, because the individual comes to possess them, although they do not belong to its essential nature ; and centripetal, because they are im- pressed upon the individual from without, and are not the outcome of internal causes. It is my object to give a more detailed account ot these two theories of heredity, and then to allude very briefly to some of the evidence which has been believed to establish the hereditary transmission of acquired or somatogenic characters. , • i.- The first theory, maintaining that a close relationship of a material kind exists throughout life between somatic and germ-cells, was suggested by Darwin, under the name of Pangenesis. u- u ^u This theory is illustrated by Diagram /, in which the large circles, indicated by the capital letters P to W, represent the body-cells of a Metazoon, which for the sake of simplicity, is supposed to be composed of only sixteen somatic and four germ-cells, the latter being placed in the centre. The somatic cells are arranged in pairs, PP. QQ, &c., in order to indicate the fact that similar cells are generally found on opposite sides of the body in the higher Metazoa (bilateral symmetry). 124 THEORIES OF HEREDITY The fact that each germ-cell, placed under appropriate conditions, will develop somatic cells like those of the parent, is explained by the supposition that all the latter cells give off gemmules, which are stored up in the germ- cells. The gemmules are represented in Diagram / by the small circles marked with the small letters / to w. The gemmules are seen to be traversing the space which separates them from the germ-cells, and also stored up in the latter. This double representation is explained on p. 125. • 11 1 u The space between the circle of somatic cells and the central germ-cells in Diagram / has been introduced for the sake of clearness. In higher animals the distance which the gemmules would be compelled to travel in order that the change in a brain-cell may be registered in a germ-cell, would be relatively greater than that represented in the diagram. With this hypothesis every somatic cell is a germ-cell, while the germ-cells proper are merely the meeting-place for the germs of somatic cells. Because every part of the body is thus supposed to reproduce itself, Darwin called his hypothesis Pangenesis. Each germ-cell is sup- posed to be, as it were, an extract of the whole body ; a microcosm, in which every cell that takes part in the composition of the organism is represented. The first difficulty which this hypothesis encounters is the almost infinite complexity of a germ-cell which contains a material particle, a representative or gemmule, from every somatic cell of one of the higher animals. The countless number of cells in the human body may be imagined from the fact that it would require over ten million red blood corpuscles, lying flat, one deep, to cover an area one inch square. And yet every single blood corpuscle, although not exacdy a cell itself, is the product of a single cell. But this is not all ; for we must also suppose that each cell of every stage of development, and of the cell- generations which succeed each other during maturity is also represented in each germ-cell, and is the material cause of the reappearance of such stages and such genera- THE HYPOTHESIS OF PANGENESIS 125 tions when the germ-cell itself undergoes development and becomes a mature individual. Thus the gemmules stored up in the germ-cells of Diagram / represent a previous generation of body- cells, while those crossing the space separating body- from' germ-cells represent the existing generation. Nor is this all ; for we are also compelled to believe that gemmules from the cells of large numbers of genera- tions of ancestors are present in many germ-ce Is, accounting for the facts of atavism or * throwing back . When an animal ' throws back ' to some remote ancestor, the gemmules must have been handed down in a dormant condition through all intermediate generations. Furthermore, there are grave practical difficulties in the way of the acceptance of Darwin's hypothesis. It it were true, we should expect that mutilations, especially such as are inflicted early in life, would be transmitted to offspring; for all the cell-generations later than the date of the injury would be absent, and therefore unrepre- sented by gemmules. But there is no evidence in favour of the transmission of mutilations, however early they may be inflicted. All the evidence, when carefully examined, points in the opposite direction. Again in the process of transfusion, when the blood of one individual is replaced by that of another, it seems reasonable to suppose that, if the gemmules exist, many of them would be carried over, and would collect in the germ-cells of the individual which received the blood, and that thus some characters of one individual would afterwards appear in the offspring of another. Careful experiments, conducted by Galton and later by Romanes, prove that such transference of hereditary characters does not accompany the transfusion of blood. Not only may blood be transfused, but various tissues may be grafted and will thrive on another individual of the same species \ In these cases, too, we should expect that such transferred tissues would produce effects upon » Grafted tissues will also thrive on an individual of a very different species ; but such an experiment, however interesting from other points of view, would obviously be unsuitable as a test of Pangenesis. 126 THEORIES OF HEREDITY the offspring, for, according to the hypothesis, they would continue to give off gemmules. No such here- ditary influence has ever been traced or even rendered ^"^ When we inquire why Darwin was led to frame such a hypothesis, which, in spite of its great merit in con- necting together a number of apparently isolated tacts, has so much to be said against it, we find the answer m a reply to one of Huxley's letters, m ;j^hich Pangenesis had evidently been adversely criticized. 1 hus Darwin says : ' I do not doubt your judgment is perfectly just, and I will try to persuade myself not to publish, i He whole affair is much too speculative ; yet I think some such view will have to be adopted, when I call to mind such facts as the inherited effects of use and disuse &c. This opinion of Darwin's is as true to-day as when it was written at some uncertain date about the year 1865. If the effects of use and disuse are transmitted, the explanation must be sought in a hypothesis constructed on the lines of Pangenesis. But if we are mistaken in believing that such transmission occurs, a very diHerent hypothesis will account for the facts. ^ . rr . The manner in which the transmission of such eHects can be explained by the hypothesis of Pangenesis is shown in Diagram /. Two of the somatic cells g on the right side and V on the left, are dark coloured. This is to represent some change wrought in their structure by the influence of an external force, or by some unusual exercise or practice of a part. Thus the darkened Q might represent the change which occurs in a bone-cell when a bony growth has been caused by intermittent pressure long-continued ; V on the left side might represent the change which occurs in a nerve-cell when some new habit is acquired by long practice, buch altered cells would produce correspondingly altered gem- mules, indicated by the same dark appearance : these ex hypothesi would be stored up in the germ-cells, and would reproduce similarly altered cells in the offspring. I have given a very brief account of the main features * Life and LeiUrs, first edition, 1887, vol. iii, p. 44* CONTINUITY OF THE GERM-PLASM 127 of Pangenesis. It is a hypothesis which would explain the hereditary transmission of acquired characters. At the same time it is beset by difficulties which appear well-nigh insuperable. We will now proceed to examine another theory of heredity, that of Professor Weismann, The hypothesis is called * The Continuity of the Germ-plasm', the name germ-plasm being applied to the essential part of the germ-cell which determines its development into an individual. The word 'continuity' is employed to express the theory that heredity depends upon the fact that a minute quantity of this germ-plasm is reserved unchanged during the development of the individual, and subsequently grows and gives rise to the germ-cells. Hence the germ-plasm is continuous from one generation to another in unending succession, and from it the germ- cells of each generation are produced. The germ-plasm in a germ-cell possesses such a con- stitution that, placed under appropriate conditions, an individual of a certain species will be produced ; but the germ-cells of this individual will also contain the same germ-plasm, and will therefore develop into offspring which resemble the parent. Parent and offspring resemble each other because both arise from the same substance, although it develops later in the case of the offspring. Hence everything which is predetermined in the germ- cell, every blastogenic character, may be transmitted, while somatogenic characters cannot be transmitted. The hypothesis will be rendered more intelligible if we refer to Diagram //, in which the development of a Metazoon, like that shown in Diagram /, is represented, according to the theory of the continuity of the germ- plasm. Development is complete in five stages, the number of the somatic cells being doubled in every stage, after their first appearance in the second. The first Stage (Fig. i) is the fertilized ovum, A, the single cell out of which all others are produced. It contains germ- plasm from two individuals, the combination being the process of fertilization. In the preparation for fertili- zation and the twofold nature of the fertilized ovum 128 THEORIES OF HEREDITY Weismann sees the causes of individual difference and the divergence of offspring from parent. Weismann beUeves that the germ-plasm is in reality only found in the nucleus, but the distinction between this and the cell has been omitted from the diagram for the sake of sim- plicity. The germ-plasm is supposed to be represented by the dots in the circle A. . The second Stage (2) is produced by division of the ovum into two cells (B and C), in one of which (C) a small part of the original germ-plasm, represented by the small circle a, is carried on, unchanged. Roux has demonstrated that, if one of the products of the first division of the egg of a frog (B or C in Diagram //) be destroyed with a hot needle, develop- ment is not necessarily arrested, but, when it proceeds, leads to the formation of an embryo from which either the ricrht or the left side is absent. When the first division takes place in another direction, either the hind or front half was absent from the embryo which was afterwards produced. After the next division, when four cells were present, destruction of one pro- duced an embryo from which one-fourth was absent. The preceding paragraph was written in 1889 before Roux's experiments had been repeated and tested by other workers; but their arresting interest was such that they soon became the foundation of a prolific school of experimental embryology. The ultimate result of numerous researches is to leave no doubt that Koux was mistaken in some of his conclusions An excel- lent discussion of the whole question will be found in Professor T. H. Morgan's work.^ The general con- clusion that there is a necessary correspondence in position between the early embryonic precursors and the organs or parts to which they give rise has been abandoned. On the other hand, the still broader and more fundamental conclusion that definite organ-forming 1 My attention was first directed to these interesting experiments by Professor Windle's paper in the Journal of Anatomy and Physiology, vol. xxiii, p. 393- ... ,, , » Regeneration, chapter xi, New York, 1901. ROUX'S EXPERIMENTS ON THE EGG 129 material is present at the beginning of development has been proved at any rate for embryonic organs of many species. Thus pre-formation (in the above sense) in the earliest stages, at least of embryonic organs, is confirmed, although it is not necessarily accompanied by pre- localization. Turning to the details of Roux s researches upon the frog, briefly mentioned on p. 128, the results he claimed to produce by destroying one or both of the anterior or posterior pair of the first four cells (blastomeres) formed by the second cleavage are not now accepted. As regards the injury to one of the first two cells (blasto- meres) and the development of a half-embryo from the other, Roux stated that after a time the material of the injured cell is 'reorganized', and the missing half of the embryo restored by * post-generation '. The reorganization is, according to Roux, of complex origin, in part due to formation of cells from the injured part itself, but chiefly to the influence of the uninjured part. When converted into cells by reorganization, post- generation begins. 'A few hours or a night is sometimes sufficient to change a hemi-embryo into a whole embryo.' ' The pieces of the old nucleus . . . may take a part in the formation of the new cells ; wandering cells migrate from the yolk mass of the old half into the new, and the cells of the formed germ-layers may be pushed over to the other side.' This brief recapitulation of Roux's account is quoted from T. H. Morgan, who has himself shown that a half-embryo is formed by the uninjured cell when it and the injured cell retain their original position, but that the missing part is regenerated from the uninjured half or from the still living material of the injured cell. Morgan also proved that if the two first cells do not retain their original position— e.g. if the egg be turned upside down — the uninjured cell forms not a half but a whole embryo, as in Hertwig's experiments. Furthermore, Schulze and Wetzel have proved that the uninjured egg, if kept upside down in the two-celled stage, develops into a double monster, one from each cell (blastomere). We are thus driven to the conclusion POULTON K I^O THEORIES OF HEREDITY that the pre-localization in normal development of each half of the frog in one of the two first cells does not warrant the conclusion that such pre-localization is a fundamental or essential phenomenon. For, as shown above, mere change of position will compel each of these two cells to manifest a far wider potentiality— the potentiality of the whole body instead of one of its halves. The most crucial test which could be applied to Roux's conclusion would be not to injure but to remove altogether one of the first two cells of the egg. This is unfortunately impossible in the case of the frog ; for the single remaining cell collapses. The experiment has, however, been successfully performed upon the egg of the newt {Trifo?iy by Herlitzka, who ' found that each blastomere gives rise to a perfect, whole embryo of half- size '. ' Thus we see ', Morgan concludes, ' that whatever the factors may be that determine the development of a single embryo from the egg, still each half, and perhaps each fourth also, has the power of producing a whole embryo.' ^ When we consider the development of widely different animals we are led to widely different con- clusions. Thus, according to Driesch, ^ of the egg of an Echinoderm (Sea-urchin) can undergo at least the preparatory stages of complete development. It has been shown that the planes of division by which the egg is cut up into cells may bear no relation- ship whatever to the position of the future embryo. Dr. Jenkinson has even proved that the position of the embryo frog, although predetermined in the egg itself, is nevertheless without relationship to the direction of the furrow which divides the egg into the two first cells.^ Returning to Diagram //, the second division pro- duces the four cells of Stage 3, indicated by the letters ^ Dr. J. W. Jenkinson points out that by a clerical error Professor T. H. Morgan (I.e. p. 226) has spoken of the salamander (Salamandra) instead of the newt {Tritoii), Herlitzka's two papers {Arch./, Entwick.- Mech. d. Organism.Sx. 1896. p. 352 ; iv. 1897, p. 624 : Leipzig) describe experiments upon Triton {Molge) cristatus, ■^ 1 C D. 226. 3 Bi'omeirika, vol. v, pts. i and ii, Oct. 1906, O71 the Relation between the Symmefry 0/ the Egg and the Symmetry 0/ the Embryo in the Frog. DEVELOPMENT OF THE GERM-CELLS 131 D to G, In one of these, F, the unaltered germ- plasm is supposed to be carried on. The third division leads to Stage 4, with eight cells marked H to O, L being the carrier of the germ-plasm. Finally, the fourth and last division leads to the ultimate Stage 5, with sixteen body-cells indicated by P to W, the two cells of each pair being marked by the same letter. We must also suppose that the minute mass of germ-plasm, a, grows and separates as a germ-cell or germ-cells from either L or one or more of the somatic cells into which the latter divides. The four germ-cells of the adult Metazoon are then produced by division. These germ-cells are, therefore, similar to that which started development ; they are, in fact, a piece of it, which has grown without undergoing any essential alteration. The four germ- cells will, therefore, tend to produce offspring resembling their parents. It must be borne in mind, however, that in actual development the precursors of future germ-cells become recognizable as a definite group at a far earlier stage than that shown in the diagram. In certain species, e.g. Cyclops and A scan's, the germ-antecedent has been traced at almost the very beginning of development. In Ascaris megalocephala, Boveri has shown that one of the two cells formed by the first division of the egg con- tains the germ-antecedents together with many other potentialities. These latter are gradually told off in the succeeding divisions, until, at the sixth, a single cell out of the sixty-four into which the egg is then divided is the precursor of the future germ-cells and germ-duct, but bears no other potentiality.^ If, however, some of the somatic cells become modified from that nature which was predetermined in the germ- plasm of the ovum, there is no way in which the heredi- tary transmission of such modifications can be explained by the hypothesis of the continuity of the germ-plasm ; for it does not include any means by which the effects could be conveyed to the germ-cells, or, if conveyed, could produce in them changes such as would predetermine ' Kupffer's Festschrift, Jena. 1899, p. 383, Die Entwickelung von Ascaris megatocephata. K 2 132 THEORIES OF HEREDITY similar effects in the corresponding somatic cells of the offspring. The acquired changes in Q on the right side and V on the left, indicated by their dark colour, would be confined to the organism in which they arose, and would not affect its offspring, at any rate in a corre- SDondins: manner. , If the transmission of acquired characters were proved to be an undoubted fact, Weismann s hypothesis of heredity would inevitably collapse. It cannot, however, be maintained that such proof is forthcoming. The question largely turns upon an exact knowledge of the proportion borne by blastogenic or inherent to somatogenic or acquired characters. We know how dominant a share of our physical and mental quahties is hereditary— so dominant indeed that it would follow, if Weismanns hypothesis be correct, that blastogenic characters are far more important than somatogenic. . There is some evidence that this is the case, and I will here bring for\vard one line of proof, which also supports the conclusion that the whole organism is pre- determined in the ovum. ,.,.,„ .u ^ fi,^ If this last conclusion be valid, it follows that the differences which characterize individuals are predeter- mined in the ova from which they arise, and that ova are not in their essential nature alike any more than individuals. We do, however, occasionally meet with individuals so much alike that we (incorrectly) speak ot them as ' identical '. The resemblance between certain twins is far closer than that between other members ot the same family. If, therefore, we can prove that such ' identical ' individuals are derived from ' identical ova the above-mentioned arguments and conclusions will receive strong support. ' Identical ' twins are invariably of the same sex. When twins are of different sex, the degree of resem- blance is no greater than that between brothers and sisters generally. This is also true of many twins of the same sex, and Galton has brought forward evidence to show that they may even differ more widely than is usual with brothers or sisters. I DEVELOPMENT OF IDENTICAL' TWINS 133 It has been long known that twins of the same sex are often enclosed in the same embryonic membranes, while twins of opposite sex are always enclosed in separate membranes. The latter would be the product of distinct ova, which had been separately fertilized, as in the ordinary multiple births of animals (cats, dogs, rabbits, &c.). The former would be the product of a single ovum, which has divided into two ova, in all probability after fertilization. But it is clear that the ova arising from the two halves of a single ovum, at a time when the individual characteristics were already determined, would be very nearly identical : their resem- blance would be of a very different order from that of separate ova. We also find that some twins of the same sex present resemblances of a very different order from that of brothers or sisters who are developed from separate ova. It must be admitted, therefore, that there is a very high degree of probability that the ' identical ' ova are those which develop into the ' identical ' individuals. The interesting conclusion that sex is predetermined in the fertilized ovum also follows from the same facts. The probable beginning of the development of ' iden- tical ' twins is shown in Diagram ///. A* is a fertilized ovum with the individual characteristics predetermined. At its first division A* does not, like A in Diagram //, form the cells of Stage 2, indicated by the letters B and C ; but it divides without differentiation into two equivalent cells, like each other and like the ovum. Hence the first division of A* does not produce Stage 2, but Stage I^ consisting of two similar ova. Each of these then divides, as shown in Diagram ///, forming a true Stage 2, comparable to that of Diagram //. After this the other stages succeed as in the latter, and finally two individuals will be formed, which must resemble each other if it be true that individual charac- teristics are predetermined in the fertilized ovum. And, as a matter of fact, such resemblances are seen in indi- viduals whose development may be considered, with a very high degree of probability, to have followed the lines indicated in Diagram ///. 134 THEORIES OF HEREDITY The germ-plasm A* is carried on in C and ex hypothest would, in the mature offspring, develop into germ-cells with a tendency to divide like those of the parent and to produce 'identical' twins. It is, however, necessary to bear in mind the effects of union in fertilization with a germ bearing different tendencies, as well as the changes introduced by the preparation for fertilization. The amount of resemblance between ' identical twins has been shown by Galton,^ who traced the after-life of about eighty as far and as completely as possible, obtain- ing instructive details in thirty-five cases. Of the latter there were no less than seven examples ' in which both twins suffered from some special ailment or had some exceptional peculiarity ' ; in nine cases it appeared ' that both twins are apt to sicken at the same time ' ; in eleven cases there was evidence for a remarkable association of ideas ; in sixteen cases the tastes and dispositions were described as closely similar. These points of identity are given in addition to the more superficial indications presented by the failure of strangers or even parents to distinguish between the twins. When the lives of twins were followed in after years * in some cases the resemblance of body and mind con- tinued up to old age, notwithstanding very different conditions of life'. In other cases ' the parents ascribed such dissimilarity as there was wholly, or almost wholly, to some form of illness '. , The conclusions of the author are as follows:—* Twins who closely resembled each other in childhood and early youth, and were reared under not very dissimilar con- dition's, either grow unlike through the development of natural characteristics which had lain dormant at first, or else they continue their lives, keeping time like two watches, hardly to be thrown out of accord except by some physical jar. Nature is far stronger than nurture within the limited range that I have been careful to assign to the latter.' And again, 'where the maladies of twins are continually alike, the clocks of their two lives move regularly on, and at the same rate, governed ^ Journal of the Anthropological Instiluk, 1875, pp. 324 and 391. I THE AFTER-LIVES OF TWINS 135 by their internal mechanism. Necessitarians may derive new arguments from the life histories of twins.' Mr. Galton furthermore met with twenty cases of twins (also of the same sex) in whom the differences were greater than those which usually distinguish children of the same family. In such twins the conditions of training, &c., had been as similar as possible, so that the evidence of the power of nature over nurture is strongly confirmed. Mr. Galton writes, ' I have not a single case in which my correspondents speak of originally dissimilar characters having become assimilated through identity of nurture. The impression that all this evidence leaves on the mind is one of wonder whether nurture can do any- thing at all beyond giving instruction and professional training.' The argument thus leads to the conclusion that nearly everything which is characteristic of an individual is blastogenic, and therefore can be transmitted by the continuity of the germ-plasm. We can thus appreciate Weismann's contention that Natural Selection, while seeming to decide between successful and unsuccessful individuals, is in reality deciding between successful and unsuccessful germs. Monstrosities (except such as are produced by external agencies) can be satisfactorily explained, in the same manner as ' identical ' twins, by the occurrence, at some stage of development, of an equivalent division instead of a differentiating division of a cell or a substance which is the precursor of the doubled part. During the vast succession of differentiating divisions which take place in the development of one of the higher animals, the cells which represent parts of less and less importance are gradually told off. Thus the divisions which lead to the doubling of a small part of the body would occur far later in development than those which would lead to the doubling of a large and important part. But early or late the occurrence of an equivalent instead of a differentiating division at the critical stage was predetermined in the structure of the fertilized egg. We know that supernumerary digits are in a high 13^ THEORIES OF HEREDITY degree hereditary, as they would be if the germ-plasm were continuous/ . . Repair, and the renewal of lost parts m certam animals, IS also explained by the persistence of substances or cells of the same kind as those which were the precursors of the injured tissue or lost part ;— substances or cells which would be ready to initiate development under the stimulus provided by an injury. The simplicity and beauty of Professor Weismann s hypothesis of heredity commends it to our favourable attention, and demands a searching inquiry into the evidence for the supposed transmission of acquired or somatogenic characters. Into this inquiry it is impossible to enter on the present occasion. I will only mention the various lines of evidence which require investigation. The evidence may be either Direct or Indirect. Direct proof would be afforded if an undoubtedly somatogenic character could be shown to have reappeared in the offspring sufficiently often to prevent its explanation as a coin- cidence. Thus, if mutilations, or the results of training, exercise, or education (as apart from predisposition), or acquired diseases (some diseases are certainly blastogenic) reappeared in the offspring as the result of the operation of heredity, the required proof would be afforded and the hypothesis of the continuity of the germ-plasm would collapse. Many diseases are due to living organisms (* germs'), and when these reappear in the offspring the result is clearly due to inoculation of the embryo or even the germ-cell (as in the silkworm disease), and is not therefore due to the operation of heredity. The present [in 1889] adverse position of the medical faculty is in part due to want of discrimination between blastogenic and somatogenic characters ; in part to the fact that the evidence on which they rely was collected when the transmission of somatogenic characters was 1 See Professor Windle's interesting papers on Teratology, published during the last few years [previous to the date at which this address was read] in the Journal 0/ Analomy and Physiology, and the Proceedings of the Birmingham Philosophical Socitiy, K ACQUIRED CHANGES AND HEREDITY 137 assumed by every one ; and in part to real difficulties which, however, require the most careful re-examination before they can be accepted as proofs of the transmission of acquired characters and as the death-blow to Weis- mann's hypothesis. If the direct evidence for the transmission of acquired characters fails to stand the ordeal of a thorough investi- gation, the indirect evidence still remains. If it could be shown that certain phases of evolution would have been impossible without such transmission, we should be compelled to maintain that the latter had taken place. The chief lines of indirect evidence are :-^The fact of individual variation, the effects of use and disuse of parts, the facts presented by the phenomena of instinct. Individual variation was believed to be due to the hereditary effect of the direct action of environment. It is known that in some cases (e. g. certain plants) variation has been caused by the direct action of environment on the germ-cells while still contained in the body of the parent. Such a change is, of course, blastogenic, and would be transmitted. There is less evidence for the operation of such causes in the case of animals. The consideration of twins and monstrosities pointed to the conclusion that individual variation is predetermined in the fertilized ovum. If it be asked why the germ-cells of an individual should differ among themselves, Weis- mann has pointed out that there is reason to believe that the changes which ova and spermatozoa undergo, as a preparation for their fusion in fertilization, must lead to individual differences. He, therefore, considers that variation is produced by sexual reproduction, and is, in fact, its raisoji d'itre. The meaning of this form of reproduction is to supply variations upon which Natural Selection can operate. The apparently hereditary effects of increased use are more probably due to the operation of Natural Selection upon a part which is, ex hypothesi, of especial importance, combined with the admitted strengthening and growth which follow increased use during the life of the indi- vidual. The apparently hereditary effects of disuse are \ ,38 THEORIES OF HEREDITY more probably due to the cessation of Natural Selection, which can no longer maintain the efficiency of a useless part. All functional parts of an organism are kept up to a high standard by the operation of Natural Selection ; withdraw selection and sooner or later degeneration will begin. It is very interesting to find that both Galton and Weismann independently arrived at the conclusion that the cessation of Natural Selection offered a SeUer explanation of the gradual dwindling of useless parts, than that afforded by the supposed transmission of the admitted dwindling which follows from disuse during an individual life. ^ Finally the phenomena of instinct seem capable ot explanation by the operation of Natural Selection upon biastogenic variations of the nervous system, rather than by the supposed transmission of acquired habit. In many cases we are compelled to adopt the former theory, and it is open to us in all. , . . •. 1 . The time at our disposal has made it impossible to attempt any real discussion of the transmission of acquired characters. I have only indicated the lines along which it is likely that discussion will be directed. KoTE.— Mr. Francis Galton kindly writes to me (Feb. 12, 1907) on the subject of the first paragraph on p. . 34 —There is plenty of evdence that l^vin-bearing runs in families, but I know of no inquiry as to whether the tendency to produce identical twins does so. It would be a hard task to collect and to sift adequate evidence on this point. '^ V THE BEARING OF THE STUDY OF INSECTS UPON THE QUESTION *ARE ACQUIRED CHARACTERS HEREDITARY?' The Presidential Address read at the Annual Meeting of the Entomo- logical Society of London, January i8, 1905. Reprinted from the Proceedings of the Society, 1904, p. civ. Revised: addition to footnote 2 on pp. 167-8. To those who incHne to criticize the subject of this Address as a raking of the embers of a dead and almost forgotten fire, I would reply that the controversy which sprang into sudden flame — in this country in the year j887_is still a great memory. I trust that it will ever remain as a great memory. Of August Weismann it has been well said that ' he awoke us from our dogmatic sleep'. He made us realize that cherished convictions upon fundamental questions were based on nothing more solid than assumptions, and thus administered the most stimulating shock that has been received by the biological world since the appearance of the Origin of Species, It was impossible that a controversy of this magnitude could be conducted w^ithout frequent appeals to the Insecta. Their structures, functions, and instincts offered evidence so striking in character, and upon a scale so vast, that discussion was inevitably attracted again and again towards this centre. Indeed, the controversy would have been but one-sided, the conclusion unconvincing, had it been otherwise. At the same time discussion is and must be free and, being free, is almost necessarily scattered. To attempt therefore to disentangle from the mass and to present as a whole the evidence offered by the study I40 INSECTS AND HEREDITY of insects is of value in two ways. First we are made to realize the importance of our study : by the contemplation of its relation to one majestic example we are prepared for the belief that our subject is essential for the solution ot all the widest and deepest problems concerned with organic nature as a whole. Secondly, the attempt for the first time to marshal the whole of the evidence supplied by the study of insects will make it possible to strengthen and amphfy certain parts, and thus render the whole fabric better balanced and more stable. . j„u.„^np« I should wish at the outset to express my indebtedness to the columns of Nature by means of which nearly the whole of the controversy has been followed. We are happy in the possession of a single journal in which dis- cussions on general scientific questions are, by common consent, carried on. 'Acquired Characters' defined. Before beginning a discussion it is important to remove any possibility of doubt or uncertainty as to the precise meaning of the terms which are employed. The word ' acquired ' as used in this controversy has been the source of as much confusion as the word ' mimicry . Just as almost every one who hears of 'mimicry for the hrs time assumes that the word means a power of intentional imitation, so the inexperienced think that an acquired character is any new structure which a species has gained in the course of its history. 'Why shoi^d we not consider every character acquired as an " acquired character ? they not unnaturally ask. And the answer is the same in both cases Because these ordinary and untechnical words were given a special and technical meaning by the writers of memoirs which have become classical. In spite ot all inconvenience both words are, in their scientific use, historic, and we must reckon with the fact that they have a special meaning which differs from their ordinary "^Erlsmus Darwin was, I believe, the first to use ^ acquired ' in this restricted sense. ' Fifthly, he says ' all animals undergo transformations which are m part THE LAWS OF LAMARCK 141 produced by their own exertions, in response to pleasures and pains, and many of these acquired forms or propensities are transmitted to their posterity.' ^ Although Lamarck made a preliminary statement of his views on evolution in 1802, the celebrated Philosophie Zoologique ^^s not published until 1809, fifteen years after the appearance of Darwin's Zoonomia, and it is uncertain whether the author of the later work had ever seen the earlier treatise. Professor Osborn concludes upon the whole that he had not (1. c, pp. 152-5). However this may be, the technical use of the words ' acquired characters ' is chiefly due to his memoir. The essential passages are the two following Laws of Lamarck : — ' Premiere Loi.—Ddir\^ tout animal qui n'a point depasse le terme de ses d^veloppemens, Vemploi plus frequent et soutenu d un organe quelconque, fortifie peu a peu cet organe, le developpe, I'agrandit, et lui donne une puissance proportionnee a la duree de cet emploi ; tandis que le d^faut constant d'usage de tel organe, I'affoiblit insensiblement, le deteriore, diminue progressivement ses facult^s, et finit par le faire disparoitre.' * Deuxieme Lot.—TowX. ce que la nature a fait acqudrtr ou perdre aux individus par I'influence des circonstances ou leur race se trouve depuis long-temps expos^e, et, par consequent, par I'influence de I'emploi predominant de tel organe, ou par celle d'un d^faut constant d'usage de telle partie ; elle le conserve par la g^n^ration aux nouveaux individus qui en proviennent, pourvu que les cha7tgemens acquis soient communs aux deux sexes, ou a ceux qui ont produit ces nouveaux individus.' ^ Opposite to the characters which Lamarck spoke of as ' acquired ' are the characters which may be called con- siitutiofial, congenitaly genetic, inborn, innate or inherent. ' Zoonomia, 1794. Quoted by Professor H. F. Osborn, From the Greeks to Darwin. New York, 1894, p. i45- . « Philosophie Zoologique, tome i. p. 235, Nouv. Ed., 1830 : quoted by Professor E. R. Lankester in Nature, vol. xli. 1890, p. 41 5- There had been a tendency in the discussion on this subject to protest against the restricted application of the word ' acquired ', and it was assumed that the use was quite recent, and in fact due to Professor Weismann himself. Professor Lankester shows the error of this assumption. ,42 INSECTS AND HEREDITY Other names have been specially proposed in order to render apparent the distinction between these tvvo classes of characters. Weismann employed terms which set forth their different origin. The inherent characters he called blaslo^enic, expressing an origin that ay far back m the eerm-cell from which the individual arose. Acg^nred characters he called somaioge^tic, to express a later ongm due to circumstances which had affected the body-cells. The word centrifugal suggests characters developmg from within rather than as impressed from without : centripetal conversely suggests characters impressed upon the in- dividual from without, characters which are not the out- come of internal causes.^ Acquired structural changes have also been spoken of as modifications, the term variation being restricted to characters of germinal origin. All the terms suggested for these two classes of cha- racters convey something of a definition. Thus the brief convenient definition of acquired characters as 'those modifications of bodily structure or habit xv^liich are im- pressed on the organism in the course of individual lite ' is obviously suggested more or less completely by one set of terms, and ' those characters or properties with which the organism is originally endowed ' ' by the other set Another attempted definition of an acquired cha- racter is as follows :— ' Whenever an organism reacts under an external force, that part of the reaction which is directly due to the force is an acquired character. "" And although it may be impossible entirely to unravel the one part from the other, certain elements may easily be dis- criminated. For instance, the starting of the reaction as contrasted with the sequence of events which make up the reaction itself is obviously an acquired element and those who maintain the hereditary transmission of 1 Theories of Heredity, in the Midland Naturalist, Nov. 1889. Re- printed in the present volume, see p. 120. ^ , . . , . 2 Prof. J. Mark Baldwin, A Nezv Factor in Evolution, m the American Naturalist for June and July, 1896. ^ . , ^. . , nr; ../. ^w » Prof. C. Lloyd Morgan in Baldwin's Dictionary of Philosophy and Psychology, New York, 1901, vol. i, p. 10. " E. S. Goodrich, 1. c, p. 10. ^ Nature, vol. U, 1894, p. 55- ACQUIRED CHARACTERS DEFINED 143 acquired characters are required to prove that a reaction, which can only be started by an external force in the parent, starts without this stimulus in the offspring. We owe another definition to Mr. Francis Galton : * Characters are said to be acquired, when they are regularly found in those individuals only, who have been subjected to certain special and abnormal conditions.'^ Professor Lloyd Morgan's definition conveys nearly the same idea :— * When the complex of stimuli, which con- stitute the normal environment, are sufficiently altered (to upset that balance established between environment and innate qualities resulting in the production of a normal individual) to produce an appreciable change, such a modification or ' difference ' may be called an acquired character.' - Such results of abnormal conditions undoubtedly supply extremely striking examples of acquired characters, but it is, I submit, a mistake to make too much of abnormality, or to import it into a definition. Some of the most marked and certainly the most easily studied and tested of acquired characters are the differences between the effects of alternative environments, all of which are normal, upon the individuals of a single species. The green colour of a larva of Amphidasys betnlaria, if fed upon broom, is an acquired character, as is the dark colour it would assume upon oak, &c. I think therefore that a more satisfactory definition of, at any rate, a large class of acquired characters may be framed as follows : — * Whenever change in the environment regularly produces appreciable change in an organism, such difference may be called an acquired character.' Sir Edward Fry has objected to Mr. Galton's definition — and his objection would equally apply to that which I have suggested above — that 'the possibility of inheri- tance is excluded by the definition, and the inquiry whether acquired characters are inherited is impossible '? ^ Nature, vol. li, 1894, p. 56. • Baldwin's Dictionary of Philosophy and Psychology, vol. i, p. 10. 3 Nature, vol. li, 1894, p. 198. See also Professor Lankester's reply to the criticism, on p. 245. ,44 INSECTS AND HEREDITY This appears to me to be only a verbal difficulty. Before attempting to prove whether a certain class of characters can be inherited, it is essential to be able to decide whether a given character which it is proposed to test belongs to the class. If a satisfactory criterion can be reached we can proceed with the test even though the name ' acquired ' be by our definition denied to the cha- racter after transmission by inheritance. The interest of the result would remain all the same. If the character were there-appreciable, measurable —the effects would be incalculable in their importance, and would not be diminished one iota by the consideration that the name would no longer apply. Sir Edward Frys criticism does indeed suggest a change-^nd I think a desirable change- in the statement of the problem. For the question Are acquired characters hereditary?" it would be more accurate to substitute ' Can the acquired characters of the parent be handed down as inherent characters in the offspring.' It is in no way necessary that the acquired elements ot a character should be disentangled from the inherent elements, if only we can prove that the character as a whole is dependent upon a controllable external cause, and is therefore itself controllable. In fact we speak of a character as ' acquired ' just as we speak of an article as ' manufactured ', although the result itself is a complex of the properties of natural substances and of changes introduced by art.* Lamarck's Second Law a contradiction of his First Law. Before leaving these general introductory considerations and proceeding to weigh the evidence offered by the insect world, it is of importance to demonstrate that there is an inconsistency in the teaching of Lamarck and his followers which, startling as it is, was never noticed until pointed out by Professor E. R. Lankester in 1894. 'Normal conditions of environment have for many ' For an interesting discussion on the relation betweeii 'acquired ' and ' genetic ' characters see Adam Sedg^^'ick's Presidential Address to Section D of the British Association at Dover (Report 1899, pp. 759-60)- ' Nature, vol. li, 1894, p. 102. « i LAMARCK'S LAWS INCONSISTENT 145 thousands of generations moulded the individuals of a given species of organism, and determined as each individual developed and grew '' responsive " quantities in its parts (characters) ; yet, as Lamarck tells us, and as we know, there is in every individual born a potentiality which has not been extinguished. Change the normal conditions of the species in the case of a young individual taken to-day from the site where for thousands of genera- tions its ancestors have responded in a perfectly defined way to the normal and defined conditions of environment; reduce the daily or the seasonal amount of solar radiation to which the individual is exposed ; or remove the aqueous vapour from the atmosphere ; or alter the chemical com- position of the pabulum accessible; or force the individual to previously unaccustomed muscular effort or to new pressures and strains ; and (as Lamarck bids us observe), in spite of all the long-continued response to the earlier normal specific conditions, the innate congenital poten- tiality shows itself. The individual under the new quantities of environing agencies shows 7iew responsive quantities in those parts of its structure concerned, new or acquired characters. 'So far, so good. What Lamarck next asks us to accept, as his *' second law ", seems not only to lack the support of experimental proof, but to be inconsistent with what has just preceded it. The new character, which is ex hypothesi, as was the old character (length, breadth, weight of a part) which it has replaced— a response to environment, a particular moulding or manipulation by incident forces of the potential congenital quality of the race— is, according to Lamarck, all of a sudden raised to extraordinary powers. The new or freshly acquired character is declared by Lamarck and his adherents to be capable of transmission by generation ; that is to say, it alters the potential character of the species. It is no longer a merely responsive or reactive character, deter- mined quantitatively by quantitative conditions of the environment, but becomes fixed and incorporated in the potential of the race, so as to persist when other quanti- tative external conditions are substituted for those which l>Ol