Essays Upon Heredity and Kindred Biological Problems

Similarly, the germ-cells of female Daphnidae, which at first do not exhibit the smallest differences, must really differ in that their nuclei must contain different kinds of nucleoplasm, which are present in different proportions. Germ-cells which are to produce a finely granular, brick-red, winter yolk (Moina rectirostris) must possess an ovogenetic nucleoplasm of a somewhat different molecular structure from those germ-cells which have only to form a few large blue fat-globules, as in the summer-eggs of the same species. It is further probable that different proportions obtain between germ-plasm and ovogenetic nucleoplasm, in these two kinds of germ-cells; and it would be a very simple explanation of the otherwise obscure part played by the food-cells, if we were to suppose that they do not contain any germ-plasm at all, and on this account do not enter upon embryonic development, but are arrested after growing to a certain size. Such an explanation, however, would not by itself show why they subsequently undergo gradual solution in the surrounding fluids. But since we know that egg-cells also begin to undergo solution as soon as the parent Daphnid is poorly nourished, we can hardly help also referring the solution of the food-cells to insufficient nourishment, occurring as soon as the egg-cell, after the attainment of a certain size, exercises a superior power of assimilation. But hitherto we could not in any way understand why the third out of a group of germ-cells should always gain this superior power and become an egg-cell. If it could be shown that its position is more highly favoured in respect of nutrition, we could understand why it outstrips the other three in development, and thus prevents them from further growth. But nothing of the kind can be shown to occur with any degree of probability, as I have previously mentioned in my works on the subject. At that time, having no better explanation, I adopted the view in question, although only as a provisional interpretation. It was not possible for me to seek in the substance of those four apparently identical cells for the cause of their different development; but now I am justified in offering the supposition that during the division of a primitive germ-cell into two, and afterwards into four germ-cells, an unequal division of the nucleoplasms takes place, in that one of the four cells receives germ-plasm as well as ovogenetic nucleoplasm, while the other three receive the latter alone. Similarly, the fact that the second cell of the group may occasionally become an egg is also intelligible, although this fact remained quite inexplicable by my former interpretation. The fact that true egg-cells, or even the whole ovary with all its germ-cells, may break up and become absorbed when the animal has been starved for a certain period of time, seems to me to be no objection to our present view, any more than the fact that an Infusorian may die from starvation would be an objection to the supposition of the immortality of unicellular organisms. The growth of an organism is not only arrested by its constitution, but also by absolute want of food; but it would be very foolish to explain the differences in size of the various species of animals as results of the different conditions of nutrition to which they were subject. Just as a sparrow, however highly nourished, could never attain the size or form of an eagle, so a germ-cell destined to become a summer-egg could never attain the size, form, or colour of a winter-egg. It is by internal constitutional causes that the course of development is determined in both these cases; and in the latter, the cause can hardly be anything more than the different constitution of the nucleoplasms.

All these considerations depend upon the supposition that the egg-nucleus contains two kinds of idioplasm, viz. germ-plasm and ovogenetic nucleoplasm. I have not hitherto brought forward any direct evidence in favour of this assumption, but I believe that such proofs can be obtained.

It is well known that there are certain eggs in which the polar bodies are not expelled until after the entrance of spermatozoa. Brooks[172 - Brooks, ‘The Law of Heredity.’ Baltimore, 1883, p. 73.] has already made use of this fact as evidence against Minot’s and Balfour’s theory; for he quite rightly concludes that if the polar bodies really possess the significance of male cells, we cannot understand why such eggs are unable to develope without fertilization, when they still possess the male half of the nucleus necessary for development. But such eggs (e.g. that of the oyster) do not develope, but always die if they remain unfertilized.

This argument can only be met by a new hypothesis, the construction of which I must leave to the defenders of the above-mentioned theory. But the observation in question seems to me to furnish at the same time a proof of the co-existence of two different nucleoplasms in the egg-nucleus. If the nucleoplasm of the polar bodies was also germ-plasm, we could not understand why such eggs are unable to develope parthenogenetically, for at least as much germ-plasm is contained in the unfertilized egg as would have been present after fertilization.

The only objection which can be raised against this conclusion depends upon the supposition that the nucleoplasm of the sperm-cell is qualitatively different from that of the egg-cell. I have already dealt with this view, but I should wish to refer to it again rather more in detail. Some years ago I expressed the opinion[173 - ‘Zeitschrift für wissenschaftliche Zoologie,’ Bd. XXXIII. p. 107. 1873.] that the physiological values of the sperm-cell and of the egg-cell must be identical; that they stand in the ratio of 1 : 1. But Valaoritis[174 - Valaoritis, l. c., p. 6.] has brought forward the objection that if we consider the function of a cell as the measure of its physiological value, it is only necessary to point to the respective functions of ovum and spermatozoon in order to show that their physiological values must be different. ‘The egg-cell alone, by passing more or less completely through the phyletic stages of the female parent, developes into a similar organism; and although the presence of the spermatozoon is in most cases required in order to render possible such a result, the cases of parthenogenesis prove nevertheless that the egg can do without this stimulus.’ This objection appeared to be fully justified as long as fertilization was looked upon as the ‘vitalization of the germ,’ and so long as the sperm-cell was considered as merely ‘the spark that kindles the gunpowder,’ and further so long as the germ-substance was believed to be contained in the cell-body. But now we can hardly give to the body of the egg-cell a higher significance than that of the common nutritive soil of the two nuclei which conjugate in fertilization. But these two nuclei ‘are not different in nature,’ as Strasburger says, and as I fully believe. They cannot differ in kind, for they both consist of germ-plasm belonging to the same species of animal or plant; and there cannot be any deeper contrast between them such as would correspond to the differences between mature individuals. They cannot, from their essential nature, exercise any special attraction upon each other, and when we see that sperm-cell and egg-cell do nevertheless attract each other, as has been shown in both plants and animals, such a property must have been secondarily acquired, and has no other significance than to favour the union of sexual cells—an arrangement which may be compared to the vibrating flagellum of the spermatozoon or the micropyle of the egg, but which is not fundamental, and is not based upon the molecular structure of the germ-plasm. In lower plants, Pfeffer has proved that certain chemical stimuli emanate from the egg and attract the spermatozoid; and according to Strasburger, the synergidae in the upper part of the embryo-sac of Phanerogams secrete a substance which is capable of directing the growth of the pollen-tube towards the egg-cell. In animals it is only known as yet that spermatozoa and ova do attract each other, so that the former find the latter and bore their way through its membranes. It has also been shown that the substance of the egg-body moves towards the penetrating spermatozoon (‘cones d’exsudation’ in Asteridae: Fol); and that it sometimes enters upon convulsive movements (Petromyzon). Here therefore a mutual stimulation and attraction must exist; and perhaps we must also assume that there is an attraction between the two conjugating nuclei, for we cannot readily understand how the cytoplasm alone could direct the one to the other, as Strasburger supposes. According to Strasburger’s hypothesis, we must suppose that part of the specific cytoplasm of the sperm-cell continues to surround the nucleus after it has penetrated into the body of the egg. But however this may be, the assumed attraction between the conjugating nuclei certainly cannot depend upon the molecular structure of their germ-plasm, which is the same in both, but it must be due to some accessory circumstance. If it were possible to introduce the female pronucleus of an egg into another egg of the same species, immediately after the transformation of the nucleus of the latter into the female pronucleus, it is very probable that the two nuclei would conjugate just as if a fertilizing sperm-nucleus had penetrated. If this were so, the direct proof that egg-nucleus and sperm-nucleus are identical would be furnished. Unfortunately the practical difficulties are so great that it is hardly possible that the experiment can ever be made; but such want of experimental proof is partially compensated for by the fact, ascertained by Berthold, that in certain Algae (Ectocarpus and Scytosiphon) there is not only a female, but also a male parthenogenesis; for he shows that in these species the male germ-cells may sometimes develope into plants, which however are very weakly[175 - I quote from Falkenberg, in Schenk’s ‘Handbuch der Botanik,’ Bd. II. p. 219. He further states that these are the only instances hitherto known in which undoubted male cells have proved to be capable of further development when they have been unable to exercise their powers of fertilization. It must be added that the two kinds of germ-cells do not differ in appearance, but only in behaviour; the female germ-cells becoming fixed, and withdrawing one of their two flagella, while the male cells continue to swarm. But even this slight degree of differentiation requires the supposition of internal molecular differentiation.]. Furthermore the process of conjugation may be considered as a proof that this view as to the secondary importance of sexual differentiation is the true one. At the present time there can hardly be any hesitation in accepting the view that conjugation is the sexual reproduction of unicellular organisms. In these the two conjugating cells are almost always identical in appearance, and there is no evidence in favour of the assumption that they are not also identical in molecular structure, at least so far as one individual of the same species may be identical with another. But there are also forms in which the conjugating cells are distinctly differentiated into male and female, and these are connected with the former by a gradual transition: thus in Pandorina, a genus of Volvocineae, we are unable to make out any differences between the conjugating cells, while large egg-cells and minute sperm-cells exist in the closely allied Volvox. If we must suppose that the conjugation of two entirely identical Infusoria has the same physiological effect as the union of two sexual cells in higher animals and plants, we cannot escape the conclusion that the process is essentially the same throughout: and that therefore the differences, which are perhaps already indicated in Pandorina and are very distinct in Volvox and in all higher organisms, have nothing to do with the nature of the process, but are of quite secondary importance. If we further take into account the extremely different constitution of the two kinds of sexual cells in size, appearance, membranes, motile power, and finally in number, no doubt remains that these differences are only adaptations which secure the meeting of the two kinds of conjugating cells: that in each species they are adaptations to the peculiar conditions under which fertilization takes place.

NOTE

It is of considerable importance for the proper appreciation of the views advanced in the present essay, to ascertain whether a polar body is or is not expelled from eggs which develope parthenogenetically. I wish therefore to briefly state that I have recently succeeded in proving the formation of a polar body of distinctly cellular structure in the summer-eggs of Daphnidae. I propose to publish a more detailed account in a future paper.

    A. W.

June 22, 1885.

V.

THE SIGNIFICANCE OF SEXUAL REPRODUCTION

IN THE THEORY OF NATURAL SELECTION.

1886

SIGNIFICANCE OF SEXUAL REPRODUCTION, ETC.

PREFACE

The greater part of the present essay was delivered at the first general meeting of the Association of German Naturalists, at Strassburg, on September 18th, 1885, and is printed in the Proceedings of the fifty-eighth meeting of that Society.

The form of a lecture has been retained in the present publication, but its contents have been extended in many ways. Besides many small and a few large additions to the text, I have added six appendices in order to treat of certain subjects more fully than was possible in the lecture itself, in which I was often obliged to be content with mere hints and suggestions. This appears to be all the more necessary because it is impossible to suppose that many views and ideas upon which the lecture was based would be well known to all readers, although they have been described in my former papers. It was above all necessary to deal with the class of acquired characters, which, as it seems to me, is easily confounded, especially by the medical profession, with the much broader class of new characters generally. Only those new characters can be called ‘acquired’ which owe their origin to external influences, and the term ‘acquired’ must be denied to those which depend upon the mysterious relationship between the different hereditary tendencies which meet in the fertilized ovum. These latter are not ‘acquired’ but inherited, although the ancestors did not possess them as such, but only as it were the elements of which they are composed. Such new characters as these do not at present admit of an exact analysis: we have to be satisfied with the undoubted fact of their occurrence. The transmission or non-transmission of acquired characters must be of the highest importance for a theory of heredity, and therefore for the true appreciation of the causes which lead to the transformation of species. Any one who believes, as I do, that acquired characters are not transmitted, will be compelled to assume that the process of natural selection has had a far larger share in the transformation of species than has been as yet accorded to it; for if such characters are not transmitted, the modifying influence of external circumstances in many cases remains restricted to the individual, and cannot have any part in producing transformation. We shall also be compelled to abandon the ideas as to the origin of individual variability which have been hitherto accepted, and shall be obliged to look for a new source of this phenomenon, upon which the processes of selection entirely depend.

In the following pages I have attempted to suggest such a source.

    A. W.

Freiburg I. Br.,

November 22, 1885.

V.

THE SIGNIFICANCE OF SEXUAL REPRODUCTION

IN THE THEORY OF NATURAL SELECTION

During the quarter of a century which has elapsed since Biology began to occupy itself again with general problems, at least one main fact has been made clear by the united labours of numerous men of science, viz. the fact that the Theory of Descent, the idea of development in the organic world, is the only conception as to the origin of the latter, which is scientifically tenable. It is not only that, in the light of this theory, numerous facts receive for the first time a meaning and significance; it is not only that, under its influence, all the ascertained facts can be harmoniously grouped together; but in some departments it has already yielded the highest results which can be expected from any theory, it has rendered possible the prediction of facts, not indeed with the absolute certainty of calculation, but still with a high degree of probability. It has been predicted that man, who, in the adult state, only possesses twelve pairs of ribs, would be found to have thirteen or fourteen in the embryonic state: it has been predicted that, at this early period in his existence, he would possess the insignificant remnant of a very small bone in the wrist, the so-called os centrale, which must have existed in the adult condition of his extremely remote ancestors. Both predictions have been fulfilled, just as the planet Neptune was discovered after its existence had been predicted from the disturbances induced in the orbit of Uranus.

That existing species have not arisen independently, but have been derived from other and mostly extinct species, and that on the whole this development has taken place in the direction of greater complexity, may be maintained with the same degree of certainty as that with which astronomy asserts that the earth moves round the sun; for a conclusion may be arrived at as safely by other methods as by mathematical calculation.

If I make this assertion so unhesitatingly, I do not make it in the belief that I am bringing forward anything new nor because I think that any opposition will be encountered, but simply because I wish to begin by pointing out the firm ground on which we stand, before considering the numerous problems which still remain unsolved. Such problems appear as soon as we pass from the facts of the case to their explanation; as soon as we pass from the statement ‘The organic world has arisen by development,’ to the question ‘But how has this been effected, by the action of what forces, by what means, and under what circumstances?’

In attempting to answer these questions we are very far from dealing with certainties; and opinions are still conflicting. But the answer lies in the domain of future investigation, that unknown country which we have to explore.

It is true that this country is not entirely unknown, and if I am not mistaken, Charles Darwin, who in our time has been the first to revive the long-dormant theory of descent, has already given a sketch, which may well serve as a basis for the complete map of the domain; although perhaps many details will be added, and many others taken away. In the principle of natural selection, Darwin has indicated the route by which we must enter this unknown land.

But this opinion is not universal, and only recently Carl Nägeli[176 - C. Nägeli, ‘Mechanisch-physiologische Theorie der Abstammungslehre.’ München u. Leipzig, 1884.], the famous botanist, has expressed decided doubts as to the general applicability of the principle of natural selection. According to Nägeli, the co-operation of the external conditions of life with the known forces of the organism, viz. heredity and variability, are insufficient to explain the regular course of development pursued by the organic world. He considers that natural selection is at best an auxiliary principle, which accepts or rejects existing characters, but which is unable to create anything new: he believes that the causes of transformation reside within the organism alone. Nägeli further assumes that organisms contain forces which cause periodical transformation of the species, and he imagines that the organic world, as a whole, has arisen in a manner similar to that in which a single individual arises.

Just as a seed produces a certain plant because it possesses a certain constitution, and just as, in this process, certain conditions must be favourable (light, warmth, moisture, &c.) in order that development may take place, although they do not determine the kind or the manner of development; so, in precisely the same way, the tree of the whole organic world has grown up from the first and lowest forms of life on our planet, under a necessity arising from within, and on the whole independently of external influences. According to Nägeli, the cause which compels every form of living substance to change, from time to time, in the course of its secular growth, and which moulds it afresh into new species, must lie within the organic substance itself, and must depend upon its molecular structure.

It is with sincere admiration and real pleasure that we read the exposition in which Nägeli gives, as it were, the result of all his researches which bear upon the great question of the development of the organic world. But although we derive true enjoyment from the contemplation of the elaborate and ingeniously wrought-out theoretical conception,—which like a beautiful building or a work of art is complete in itself,—and although we must be convinced that its rise has depended upon the progress of knowledge, and that by its means we shall eventually reach a fuller knowledge; it is nevertheless true that we cannot accept the author’s fundamental hypothesis. I at least believe that I am not alone in this respect, and that but few zoologists will be found who can adopt the hypothesis which forms the foundation of Nägeli’s theory.

It is not my intention at present to justify my own widely different views, but the subject of this lecture compels me to briefly explain my position in relation to Nägeli, and to give some of the reasons why I cannot accept his theory of an active force of transformation arising and working within the organism; and I must also explain the reasons which induce me to adhere to the theory of natural selection.

The supposition of such a phyletic force of transformation (see Appendix I, p.298 (#x26_pgepubid00048)) possesses, in my opinion, the greatest defect that any theory can have,—it does not explain the phenomena. I do not mean to imply that it is incapable of rendering certain subordinate phenomena intelligible, but that it leaves a larger number of facts entirely unexplained. It does not afford any explanation of the purposefulness seen in organisms: and this is just the main problem which the organic world offers for our solution. That species are, from time to time, transformed into new ones might perhaps be understood by means of an internal transforming force, but that they are so changed as to become better adapted to the new conditions under which they have to live, is left entirely unintelligible by this theory. For we certainly cannot accept as an explanation Nägeli’s statement that organisms possess the power of being transformed in an adaptive manner simply by the action of an external stimulus (see Appendix II, p. 300 (#x26_x_26_i64)).

In addition to this fundamental defect, we must also note that there are absolutely no proofs in support of the foundation of this theory, viz. of the existence of an internal transforming force.

Nägeli has very ingeniously worked out his conception of idioplasm, and this conception is certainly an important acquisition and one that will last, although without the special meaning given to it by its author. But is this special meaning anything more than pure hypothesis? Can we say more than this of the ingenious description of the minute molecular structure of the hypothetical basis of life? Could not idioplasm be built up in a manner entirely different from that which Nägeli supposes? And can conclusions drawn from its supposed structure be brought forward to prove anything? The only proof that idioplasm must necessarily change, in the course of time, as the result of its own structure, is to be found in the fact that Nägeli has so constructed it; and no one will doubt that the structure of idioplasm might have been so conceived as to render any transformation from within itself entirely impossible.

But even if it is theoretically possible to imagine that idioplasm possesses such a structure that it changes in a certain manner, as the result of mere growth, we should not be justified in thus assuming the existence of a new and totally unknown principle until it had been proved that known forces are insufficient for the explanation of the observed phenomena.

Can any one assert that this proof has been forthcoming? It has been again and again pointed out that the phyletic development of the vegetable kingdom proceeds with regularity and according to law, as we see in the preponderance and constancy of so-called purely ‘morphological’ characters in plants. The formation of natural groups in the animal and vegetable kingdoms compels us to admit that organic evolution has frequently proceeded for longer or shorter periods along certain developmental lines. But we are not on this account compelled to adopt the supposition of unknown internal forces which have determined such lines of development.

Many years ago I attempted to prove[177 - ‘Ueber die Berechtigung der Darwin’schen Theorie.’ Leipzig, 1868, p. 27.] that the constitution or physical nature of an organism must exercise a restricting influence upon its capacity for variation. A given species cannot change into any other species, which may be thought of. A beetle could not be transformed into a vertebrate animal: it could not even become a grasshopper or a butterfly; but it could change into a new species of beetle, although only at first into a species of the same genus. Every new species must have been directly continuous with the old one from which it arose, and this fact alone implies that phyletic development must necessarily follow certain lines.

I can fully understand how it is that a botanist has more inclination than a zoologist to take refuge in internal developmental forces. The relation of form to function, the adaptation of the organism to the internal and external conditions of life, is less prominent in plants than in animals; and it is even true that a large amount of observation and ingenuity is often necessary in order to make out any adaptation at all. The temptation to accept the view that everything depends upon internal directing causes is therefore all the greater. Nägeli indeed looks at the subject from the opposite point of view, and considers that the true underlying cause of transformation is in animals obscured by adaptation, but is more apparent in plants[178 - l. c., Preface, p. vi.]. Sufficient justification for this opinion cannot, however, be furnished by the fact that in plants many characters have not been as yet explained by adaptation. We should do well to remember the extent to which the number of so-called ‘morphological’ characters in plants has been lessened during the last twenty years. What a flood of light was thrown upon the forms and colours of flowers, so often curious and apparently arbitrary, when Sprengel’s long-neglected discovery was extended and duly appreciated as the result of Darwin’s investigations, and when the subject was further advanced by Hermann Müller’s admirable researches! Even the venation of leaves, which was formerly considered to be entirely without significance, has been shown to possess a high biological value by the ingenious investigations of J. Sachs (see Appendix III, p. 308 (#x27_x_27_i12)). We have not yet reached the limits of investigation, and no reason can be assigned for the belief that we shall not some day receive an explanation of characters which are now unintelligible[179 - Since the above was written many other morphological peculiarities of plants have been rightly explained as adaptations. Compare, for instance, the investigations of Stahl on the means by which plants protect themselves against the attacks of snails and slugs (Jena, 1888).—A. W., 1888.].

It is obvious that the zoologist cannot lay too much stress upon the intimate connexion between form and function, a connexion which extends to the minutest details: it is almost impossible to insist too much upon the perfect manner in which adaptation to certain conditions of life is carried out in the animal body. In the animal body we find nothing without a meaning, nothing which might be otherwise; each organ, even each cell or part of a cell is, as it were, tuned for the special part it has to perform in relation to the surroundings.

It is true that we are as yet unable to explain the adaptive character of every structure in any single species, but whenever we succeed in making out the significance of a structure, it always proves to be a fresh example of adaptation. Any one who has attempted to study the structure of a species in detail, and to account for the relation of its parts to the functions of the whole, will be altogether inclined to believe with me that everything depends upon adaptation. There is no part of the body of an individual or of any of its ancestors, not even the minutest and most insignificant part, which has arisen in any other way than under the influence of the conditions of life; and the parts of the body conform to these conditions, as the channel of a river is shaped by the stream which flows over it.

These are indeed only convictions, not real proofs; for we are not yet sufficiently intimately acquainted with any species to be able to recognize the nature and meaning of all the details of its structure, in all their relations: and we are still less able to trace the ancestral history in each case, and to make out the origin of those structures of which the presence in the descendants depends primarily upon heredity. But already a fair advance towards the attainment of inductive proof has been made; for the number of adaptations which have been established is now very large and is increasing every day. If, however, we anticipate the results of future researches, and admit that an organism only consists of adaptations, based upon an ancestral constitution, it is obvious that nothing remains to be explained by a phyletic force, even though the latter be presented to us in the refined form of Nägeli’s self-changing idioplasm.

It will perhaps be useful to illustrate my views by a familiar example. I choose the well-known group of the whales. These animals are placental mammals, which, probably in secondary times, arose from terrestrial Mammalia, by adaptation to an aquatic life.

Everything that is characteristic of these animals and distinguishes them from other mammals depends upon this adaptation. Their fore-limbs have been transformed into rigid paddles, only movable at the shoulder-joint; upon the back and the tail there are ridges with a form somewhat similar to the dorsal and caudal fins of fishes. The organ of hearing is without any external ear and without an air-containing external auditory meatus. The aerial vibrations do not pass, as in other mammals, from the external auditory passage to the tympanic cavity and thus to the nerve-terminations of the inner ear; but they reach the tympanic cavity by direct transmission through the bones of the skull, which possess a special structure and contain abundant air-cavities. This arrangement is obviously adapted for hearing in water. The nostrils also exhibit peculiarities, for they do not open near the mouth, but upon the forehead, so that the animal can breathe, even in a rough sea, as soon as it comes to the surface. In order to facilitate rapid movement in water, the whole body has become extended in length, and spindle-shaped, like the body of a fish. The hind limbs are absent in no other mammals, the fish-like Sirenia being alone excepted. In the whales, as in the Sirenia, these appendages have become useless, owing to the powerfully developed tail-fin; they are now rudimentary and consist of some small bones and muscles deeply buried in the body of the animal, which nevertheless, in certain species, still exhibit the original structure of the hind-limb. The hairy covering of other mammals has also disappeared, its place having been taken by a thick layer of fat beneath the skin, which affords a much better protection against cold. This fatty layer was also necessary in order to diminish the specific gravity of the animal, and to thus render it equal to that of sea-water. In the structure of the skull there are also a number of peculiarities, all of which are directly or indirectly connected with the conditions under which these animals live. In the whalebone whales, the enormous size of the face, the immense jaws, and wide mouth are very striking. Can it be suggested that this very characteristic appearance is entirely due to the guidance of some internal transforming force, or to some spontaneous modification of the idioplasm? Any such suggestion cannot be accepted, for it is easy to show that all these structural features depend upon adaptation to a peculiar mode of feeding. Functional teeth are absent, but rudimentary ones exist in the embryo as relics of an ancestral condition in which these organs were fully developed. Large plates of whalebone with finely divided ends are suspended vertically from the roof of the mouth. These whales feed upon small organisms, about an inch in length, which swim or float upon the water in countless numbers; and in order that they may subsist upon such minute animals, it is necessary to obtain them in immense numbers. This is achieved by means of the huge mouth which takes in a vast quantity of water at a single mouthful. The water then filters away through the plates of whalebone, while the organisms which form the whale’s food remain stranded in the mouth. Is it necessary to add that the internal organs—so far as we understand the details of their functions, and so far as their structure differs from that of the corresponding organs in other Mammalia—have also been directly or indirectly modified by adaptation to an aquatic life? Thus all whales possess a very peculiar arrangement of the nasal passages and larynx, enabling them to breathe and swallow at the same time: the lungs are of enormous length, and thus cause the animal to assume a horizontal position in the water without the exercise of muscular effort: in consequence of this latter modification, the diaphragm extends in a nearly horizontal direction: there are moreover certain arrangements in the vascular system which enable the animal to remain under water for a considerable time, and so on.

And now, in reference to this special example, I will repeat the question which I have asked before:—‘If everything that is characteristic of a group of animals depends upon adaptation, what remains to be explained by the operation of an internal developmental force?’ What remains of a whale when we have taken away its adaptive characters? We are compelled to reply that nothing remains except the general plan of mammalian organization, which existed previously in the mammalian ancestors of the Cetacea. But if everything which stamps these animals as whales has arisen by adaptation, it follows that the internal developmental force cannot have had any share in the origin of this group.

And yet this very force is said to be the main factor in the transformation of species, and Nägeli unhesitatingly asserts that both the animal and vegetable kingdoms would have become very much as they now are, if there had been no adaptation to new conditions, and no such thing as competition in the struggle for existence[180 - l. c., pp. 117, 286.].

But even if we admit that such an assumption affords some explanation, instead of being the renunciation of all attempts at explanation; if we admit that an organism, the characteristic peculiarities of which entirely depend upon adaptation, has been formed by an internal developmental force; we should still be unable to explain how it happens that such an organism, suited to certain conditions of life, and unable to exist under other conditions, appeared at that very place on the earth’s surface, and at that very time in the earth’s history, which offered the conditions appropriate for its existence. As I have previously argued, the believers in an internal developmental force are compelled to invent an auxiliary hypothesis, a kind of ‘pre-established harmony’ which explains how it is that changes in the organic world advance step by step, parallel with changes in the crust of the earth and in other conditions of life; just as, according to Leibnitz, body and soul, although independent of each other, proceed along parallel courses, like two chronometers which keep perfect time. And even this supposition would not be sufficient, because the place must be taken into account as well as the time: thus the whales could not have existed if they had first appeared upon dry land. We know of countless instances in which a species is exclusively and precisely adapted to a certain localized area, and could not thrive anywhere else. We have only to remember the cases of mimicry in which one insect gains protection by resembling another, the cases of protective resemblance to the bark or the leaves of a certain species of plant, or the numerous marvellous adaptations of parasitic animals to certain parts of certain species of hosts.

A mimetic species cannot have appeared at any place other than that in which it exists: it cannot have arisen through an internal developmental force. But if single species, or even whole orders like the Cetacea, have arisen independently of any such force, then we may safely assert that the existence of the supposed force is neither required by reason nor necessity.

Hence, abstaining from the invocation of unknown forces, we are justified in carrying on Darwin’s attempt to explain the transformation of organisms by the action of known forces and known phenomena. I say ‘carry on the attempt,’ because I do not believe that our knowledge in this direction has ended with Darwin, and it seems to me that we have already arrived at ideas which are incompatible with certain important points in his general theory, and which therefore necessitate some modification of the latter.