Studies in the Theory of Descent, Volume I

The peculiarity of this species consists in the fact that in all three summer generations only a portion of the pupæ emerge after a short period (fourteen days), whilst another and much smaller portion remains in the pupal state during the whole summer and succeeding winter, first emerging in the following spring, and then always in the winter form. Thus, Edwards states that out of fifty chrysalides of the second generation, which had pupated at the end of June, forty-five Marcellus butterflies appeared after fourteen days, whilst five pupæ emerged in April of the following year, and then as Telamonides.

The explanation of these facts is easily afforded by the foregoing theory. According to this, both the winter forms must be regarded as primary, and the Marcellus form as secondary. But this last is not yet so firmly established as Prorsa, in which reversion of the summer generations to the Levana form only occurs through special external influences; whilst in the case of Ajax some individuals are to be found in every generation, the tendency of which to revert is still so strong that even the greatest summer heat is unable to cause them to diverge from their original inherited direction of development, or to accelerate their emergence and compel them to assume the Marcellus form. It is here beyond a doubt that it is not different external influences, but internal causes only, which maintain the old hereditary tendency, for all the larvæ and pupæ of many different broods were simultaneously exposed to the same external influences. But, at the same time, it is evident that these facts are not opposed to the present theory; on the contrary, they confirm it, inasmuch as they are readily explained on the basis of the theory, but can scarcely otherwise be understood.

If it be asked what significance attaches to the duplication of the winter form, it may be answered that the species was already dimorphic at the time when it appeared in only one annual generation. Still, this explanation may be objected to, since a dimorphism of this kind is not at present known, though indeed some species exhibit a sexual dimorphism,[20 - [For other remarkable cases of sexual dimorphism (not antigeny in the sense used by Mr. S. H. Scudder, Proc. Amer. Acad., vol. xii. 1877, pp. 150–158) see Wallace “On the Phenomena of Variation and Geographical Distribution, as illustrated by the Papilionidæ of the Malayan Region,” Trans. Linn. Soc., vol. xxv. 1865, pp. 5–10. R.M.]] in which one sex (as, for instance, the case of the female Papilio Turnus) appears in two forms of colouring, but not a dimorphism, as is here the case, displayed by both sexes.[21 - [Eng. ed. Dimorphism of this kind has since been made known: the North American Limenitis Artemis and L. Proserpina are not two species, as was formerly believed, but only one. Edwards bred both forms from eggs of Proserpina. Both are single-brooded, and both have males and females. The two forms fly together, but L. Artemis is much more widely distributed, and more abundant than L. Proserpina. See “Butterflies of North America,” vol. ii.]] Another suggestion, therefore, may perhaps be offered.

In A. Levana we saw that reversion occurred in very different degrees with different individuals, seldom attaining to the true Levana form, and generally only reaching the intermediate form known as Porima. Now it would, at all events, be astonishing if with P. Ajax the reversion were always complete, as it is precisely in this case that the tendency to individual reversion is so variable. I might, for this reason, suppose that one of the two winter forms, viz. the var. Walshii, is nothing else than an incomplete reversion-form, corresponding to Porima in the case of A. Levana. Then Telamonides only would be the original form of the butterfly, and this would agree with the fact that this variety appears later in the spring than Walshii. Experiments ought to be able to decide this.[22 - [Eng. ed. Edwards has since proved experimentally that by the application of ice a large proportion of the pupæ do indeed give rise to the var. Telamonides. He bred from eggs of Telamonides 122 pupæ, which, under natural conditions, would nearly all have given the var. Marcellus. After two months’ exposure to the low temperature there emerged from August 24th to October 16th, fifty butterflies, viz. twenty-two Telamonides, one intermediate form between Telamonides and Walshii, eight intermediate forms between Telamonides and Marcellus more nearly related to the former, six intermediate forms between Telamonides and Marcellus, but more closely resembling the latter, and thirteen Marcellus. Through various mishaps the action of the ice was not complete and equal. See the “Canadian Entomologist,” 1875, p. 228. In the newly discovered case of Phyciodes Tharos also, Edwards has succeeded in causing the brood from the winter form to revert, by the application of ice to this same form. See Appendix II (#P1_A2). for a résumé of Edwards’ experiments upon both Papilio Ajax and Phyciodes Tharos. R.M.]] The pupæ of the first three generations placed upon ice should give, for the greater part, the form Telamonides, for the lesser portion Walshii, and for only a few, or perhaps no individuals, the form Marcellus. This prediction is based on the view that the tendency to revert is on the whole great; that even with the first summer generation, which was the longest exposed to the summer climate, a portion of the pupæ, without artificial means, always emerged as Telamonides, and another portion as Marcellus. The latter will perhaps now become Walshii by the application of cold.

One would expect that the second and third generations would revert more easily, and in a larger percentage, than the first, because this latter first acquired the new Marcellus form; but the present experiments furnish no safe conclusion on this point. Thus, of the first summer generation only seven out of sixty-seven pupæ hibernated, and these gave Telamonides; while of the second generation forty out of seventy-six, and of the third generation twenty-nine out of forty-two pupæ hibernated. But to establish safer conclusions, a still larger number of experiments is necessary. According to the experience thus far gained, one might perhaps still be inclined to imagine that, with seasonal dimorphism, external influences operating on the individual might directly compel it to assume one or the other form. I long held this view myself, but it is, nevertheless, untenable. That cold does not produce the one kind of marking, and warmth the other, follows from the before-mentioned facts, viz. that in Papilio Ajax every generation produces both forms; and, further, in the case of A. Levana I have frequently reared the fourth (hibernating) generation entirely in a warm room, and yet I have always obtained the winter form. Still, one might be inclined not to make the temperature directly responsible, but rather the retardation or acceleration of development produced through the action of temperature. I confess that I for a long time believed that in this action I had found the true cause of seasonal dimorphism. Both with A. Levana and P. Napi the difference between the duration of the pupal period in the winter and summer forms is very great, lasting as a rule, in the summer generation of A. Levana, from seven to twelve days, and in the winter generation about two hundred days. In this last species the pupal state can certainly be shortened by keeping them at an elevated temperature; but I have, nevertheless, only in one case obtained two or three butterflies at the end of December from caterpillars that had pupated in September, these generally emerging in the course of February and March, and are to be seen on the wing in warm weather during the latter month. The greatest reduction of the pupal period still leaves for this stage more than 100 days.

From this last observation it follows that it is not the duration of development which, in individual cases, determines the form of the butterfly, and which consequently decides whether the winter or summer form shall emerge, but that, on the contrary, the duration of the pupal stage is dependent on the tendency which the forthcoming butterfly had taken in the chrysalis state. This can be well understood when we consider that the winter form must have had a long, and the summer form a short pupal period, during innumerable generations. In the former the habit of slow development must have been just as well established as that of rapid development in the latter; and we cannot be at all surprised if we do not see this habit abandoned by the winter form when the opportunity presents itself. But that it may be occasionally abandoned the more proves that the duration of the pupal development less determines the butterfly form than does the temperature directly, in individual cases.

Thus, for instance, Edwards explicitly states that, whereas the two winter forms of P. Ajax, viz. the vars. Walshii and Telamonides, generally appear only after a pupal period of 150 to 270 days, yet individual cases occur in which the pupal stage is no longer than in the summer form, viz. fourteen days.[23 - Thus from eggs of Walshii, laid on April 10th, Edwards obtained, after a pupal period of fourteen days, from the 1st to the 6th of June, fifty-eight butterflies of the form Marcellus, one of Walshii, and one of Telamonides.] A similar thing occurs with A. Levana, for, as already explained, not only may the development of the winter form be forced to a certain degree by artificial warmth, but the summer generation frequently produces reversion-forms without protraction of development. The intermediate reversion-form Porima was known long before it was thought possible that it could be produced artificially by the action of cold; it appears occasionally, although very rarely, at midsummer in the natural state.

If, then, my explanation of the phenomena is correct, the winter form is primary and the summer the secondary form, and those individuals which, naturally or artificially, assume the winter form must be considered as cases of atavism. The suggestion thus arises whether low temperature alone is competent to bring about this reversion, or whether other external influences are not also effective. Indeed, the latter appears to be the case. Besides purely internal causes, as previously pointed out in P. Ajax, warmth and mechanical motion appear to be able to bring about reversion.

That an unusually high temperature may cause reversion, I conclude from the following observation. In the summer of 1869 I bred the first summer brood of A. Levana; the caterpillars pupated during the second half of June, and from that time to their emergence, on 28th June–3rd July, great heat prevailed. Now, while the intermediate form Porima had hitherto been a great rarity, both in the free state and when bred, having never obtained it myself, for example, out of many hundreds of specimens, there were among the sixty or seventy butterflies that emerged from the above brood, some eight to ten examples of Porima. This is certainly not an exact experiment, but there seems to me a certain amount of probability that the high summer temperature in this case brought about reversion.

Neither for the second cause to which I have ascribed the power of producing reversion can I produce any absolute evidence, since the experimental solution of all these collateral questions would demand an endless amount of time. I am in possession of an observation, however, which makes it appear probable to me that continuous mechanical movement acts on the development of the pupæ in a similar manner to cold, that is, retarding them, and at the same time producing reversion. I had, in Freiburg, a large number of pupæ of the first summer brood of Pieris Napi, bred from eggs. I changed residence while many caterpillars were in course of transformation and travelled with the pupæ in this state seven hours by rail. Although this brood of P. Napi, under ordinary circumstances, always emerges in the summer, generally in July of the same year, as the summer form (var. Napeæ), yet out of these numerous pupæ I did not get a single butterfly during the year 1872. In winter I kept them in a warm room, and the first butterflies emerged in January, 1873, the remainder following in February, March, and April, and two females not until June. All appeared, however, as exquisite winter forms. The whole course of development was precisely as though cold had acted on the pupæ; and in fact, I could find no other cause for this quite exceptional deportment than the seven hours’ shaking to which the pupæ were exposed by the railway journey, immediately after or during their transformation.

It is obviously a fact of fundamental importance to the theory of seasonal dimorphism, that the summer form can be readily changed into the winter form, whilst the latter cannot be changed into the summer form. I have thus far only made experiments on this subject with A. Levana, but the same fact appears to me to obtain for P. Napi. I did not, however, operate upon the ordinary winter form of P. Napi, but chose for this experiment the variety Bryoniæ, well known to all entomologists. This is, to a certain extent, the potential winter form of P. Napi; the male (Fig. 14, Plate I (#Plate_I).) exactly resembles the ordinary winter form in the most minute detail, but the female is distinguished from Napi by a sprinkling of greyish brown scales over the whole of the upper side of the wings (Fig. 15, Plate I (#Plate_I).). This type, Bryoniæ, occurs in Polar regions as the only form of Napi, and is also found in the higher Alps, where it flies in secluded meadows as the only form, but in other localities, less isolated, mixed with the ordinary form of the species. In both regions Bryoniæ produces but one generation in the year, and must thus, according to my theory, be regarded as the parent-form of Pieris Napi.

If this hypothesis is correct – if the variety Bryoniæ is really the original form preserved from the glacial period in certain regions of the earth, whilst Napi in its winter form is the first secondary form gradually produced through a warm climate, then it would be impossible ever to breed the ordinary form Napi from pupæ of Bryoniæ by the action of warmth, since the form of the species now predominant must have come into existence only by a cumulative action exerted on numerous generations, and not per saltum.

The experiment was made in the following manner: In the first part of June I caught a female of Bryoniæ in a secluded Alpine valley, and placed her in a capacious breeding-cage, where she flew about among the flowers, and laid more than a hundred eggs on the ordinary cabbage. Although the caterpillars in the free state feed upon another plant unknown to me, they readily ate the cabbage, grew rapidly, and pupated at the end of July. I then brought the pupæ into a hothouse in which the temperature fluctuated between 12° and 24° R.; but, in spite of this high temperature, and – what is certainly of more special importance – notwithstanding the want of cooling at night, only one butterfly emerged the same summer, and that a male, which, from certain minute characteristic markings, could be safely identified as var. Bryoniæ. The other pupæ hibernated in the heated room, and produced, from the end of January to the beginning of June, 28 butterflies, all of which were exquisite Bryoniæ.

Experiment thus confirmed the view that Bryoniæ is the parent-form of Napi, and the description hitherto given by systematists ought therefore properly to be reversed. Pieris Bryoniæ should be elevated to the rank of a species, and the ordinary winter and summer forms should be designated as vars. Napi and Napeæ. Still I should not like to take it upon myself to increase the endless confusion in the synonomy of butterflies. In a certain sense, it is also quite correct to describe the form Bryoniæ as a climatic variety, for it is, in fact, established, if not produced, by climate, by which agency it is likewise preserved; only it is not a secondary, but the primary, climatic variety of Napi. In this sense most species might probably be described as climatic varieties, inasmuch as under the influence of another climate they would gradually acquire new characters, whilst, under the influence of the climate now prevailing in their habitats, they have, to a certain extent, acquired and preserved their present form.

The var. Bryoniæ is, however, of quite special interest, since it makes clear the relation which exists between climatic variation and seasonal dimorphism, as will be proved in the next section. The correctness of the present theory must first here be submitted to further proof.

It has been shown that the secondary forms of seasonally dimorphic butterflies do not all possess the tendency to revert in the same degree, but that this tendency rather varies with each individual. As the return to the primary form is synonymous with the relinquishing of the secondary, the greater tendency to revert is thus synonymous with the greater tendency to relinquish the secondary form, but this again is equivalent to a lesser stability of the latter; it must consequently be concluded that the individuals of a species are very differently influenced by climatic change, so that with some the new form must become sooner established than with others. From this a variability of the generation concerned must necessarily ensue, i.e., the individuals of the summer generation must differ more in colour and marking than is the case with those of the winter generation. If the theory is correct, the summer generations should be more variable than the winter generations – at least, so long as the greatest possible equalization of individual variations has not occurred through the continued action of warmth, combined with the constant crossing of individuals which have become changed in different degrees. Here also the theory is fully in accord with facts.

In A. Levana the Levana form is decidedly more constant than the Prorsa form. The first is, to a slight extent, sexually dimorphic, the female being light and the male dark-coloured. If we take into consideration this difference between the sexes, which also occurs to a still smaller extent in the Prorsa form, the foregoing statement will be found correct, viz. that the Levana form varies but little, and in all cases considerably less than the Prorsa form, in which the greatest differences occur in the yellow stripes and in the disappearance of the black spots on the white band of the hind wing, these black spots being persistent Levana markings. It is, in fact, difficult to find two perfectly similar individuals of the Prorsa form. It must, moreover, be considered that the Levana marking, being the more complicated, would the more readily show variation. Precisely the same thing occurs in Pieris Napi, in which also the var. Æstiva is considerably more variable than the var. Vernalis. From the behaviour of the var. Bryoniæ, on the other hand, which I regard as the parent-form, one might be tempted to raise an objection to the theory; for this form is well known to be extraordinarily variable in colour and marking, both in the Alps and Jura, where it is met with at the greatest altitudes. According to the theory, Bryoniæ should be less variable than the winter form of the lowlands, because it is the older, and should therefore be the more constant in its characters. It must not be forgotten, however, that the variability of a species may not only originate in the one familiar manner of unequal response of the individual to the action of varying exciting causes, but also by the crossing of two varieties separately established in adjacent districts and subsequently brought into contact. In the Alps and Jura the ordinary form of Napi swarms everywhere from the plains towards the habitats of Bryoniæ, so that a crossing of the two forms may occasionally, or even frequently, take place; and it is not astonishing if in some places (Meiringen, for example) a perfect series of intermediate forms between Napi and Bryoniæ is met with. That crossing is the cause of the great variability of Bryoniæ in the Alpine districts, is proved by the fact that in the Polar regions this form “is by no means so variable as in the Alps, but, judging from about forty to fifty Norwegian specimens, is rather constant.” My friend, Dr. Staudinger, who has twice spent the summer in Lapland, thus writes in reply to my question. A crossing with Napi cannot there take place, as this form is never met with, so that the ancient parent-form Bryoniæ has been able to preserve its original constancy. In this case also the facts thus accord with the requirements of the theory.

II. Seasonal Dimorphism and Climatic Variation

If, as I have attempted to show, seasonal dimorphism originates through the slow operation of a changed summer climate, then is this phenomenon nothing else than the splitting up of a species into two climatic varieties in the same district, and we may expect to find various connexions between ordinary simple climatic variation and seasonal dimorphism. Cases indeed occur in which seasonal dimorphism and climatic variation pass into each other, and are interwoven in such a manner that the insight into the origin and nature of seasonal dimorphism gained experimentally finds confirmation. Before I go more closely into this subject, however, it is necessary to come to an understanding as to the conception “climatic variation,” for this term is often very arbitrarily applied to quite dissimilar phenomena.

According to my view there should be a sharp distinction made between climatic and local varieties. The former should comprehend only such cases as originate through the direct action of climatic influences; while under the general designation of “local forms,” should be comprised all variations which have their origin in other causes – such, for example, as in the indirect action of the external conditions of life, or in circumstances which do not owe their present existence to climate and external conditions, but rather to those geological changes which produce isolation. Thus, for instance, ancient species elsewhere long extinct might be preserved in certain parts of the earth by the protecting influence of isolation, whilst others which immigrated in a state of variability might become transformed into local varieties in such regions through the action of ‘amixia,’[24 - [The word ‘Amixie,’ from the Greek ἀμιξία, was first adopted by the author to express the idea of the prevention of crossing by isolation in his essay “Über den Einfluss der Isolirung auf die Artbildung,” Leipzig, 1872, p. 49. R.M.]] i.e. by not being allowed to cross with their companion forms existing in the other portions of their habitat. In single cases it may be difficult, or for the present impossible, to decide whether we have before us a climatic form, or a local form arising from other causes; but for this very reason we should be cautious in defining climatic variation.

The statement that climatic forms, in the true sense of the word, do exist is well known to me, and has been made unhesitatingly by all zoologists; indeed, a number of authentically observed facts might be produced, which prove that quite constant changes in a species may be brought about by the direct action of changed climatic conditions. With butterflies it is in many cases possible to separate pure climatic varieties from other local forms, inasmuch as we are dealing with only unimportant changes and not with those of biological value, so that natural selection may at the outset be excluded as the cause of the changes in question. Then again the sharply defined geographical distribution climatically governed, often furnishes evidence of transition forms in districts lying between two climatic extremes.

In the following attempt to make clear the relationship between simple climatic variation and seasonal dimorphism, I shall concern myself only with such undoubted climatic varieties. A case of this kind, in which the winter form of a seasonally dimorphic butterfly occurs in other habitats as the only form, i.e., as a climatic variety, has already been adduced in a former paragraph. I allude to the case of Pieris Napi, the winter form of which seasonally dimorphic species occurs in the temperate plains of Europe, whilst in Lapland and the Alps it is commonly found as a monomorphic climatic variety which is a higher development of the winter type, viz., the var. Bryoniæ.

Very analogous is the case of Euchloe Belia, a butterfly likewise belonging to the Pierinæ, which extends from the Mediterranean countries to the middle of France, and everywhere manifests a very sharply pronounced seasonal dimorphism. Its summer form was, until quite recently, described as a distinct species, E. Ausonia. Staudinger was the first to prove by breeding that the supposed two species were genetically related.[25 - [Eng. ed. In 1844, Boisduval maintained this relationship of the two forms. See Speyer’s “Geographische Verbreit. d. Schmetterl.,” i. p. 455.]] This species, in addition to being found in the countries named, occurs also at a little spot in the Alps in the neighbourhood of the Simplon Pass. Owing to the short summer of the Alpine climate the species has in this locality but one annual brood, which bears the characters of the winter form, modified in all cases by the coarser thickly scattered hairs of the body (peculiar to many Alpine butterflies,) and some other slight differences. The var. Simplonia is thus in the Alps a simple climatic variety, whilst in the plains of Spain and the South of France it appears as the winter form of a seasonally dimorphic species.

This Euchloe var. Simplonia obviously corresponds to the var. Bryoniæ of Pieris Napi, and it is highly probable that this form of E. Belia must likewise be regarded as the parent-form of the species surviving from the glacial epoch, although it cannot be asserted, as can be done in the case of Bryoniæ, that the type has undergone no change since that epoch, for Bryoniæ from Lapland is identical with the Alpine form,[26 - According to a written communication from Dr. Staudinger, the female Bryoniæ from Lapland are never so dusky as is commonly the case in the Alps, but they often have, on the other hand, a yellow instead of a white ground-colour. In the Alps, yellow specimens are not uncommon, and in the Jura are even the rule.] whilst E. Simplonia does not appear to occur in Polar countries.

Very interesting also is the case of Polyommatus Phlæas, Linn., one of our commonest Lycænidæ, which has a very wide distribution, extending from Lapland to Spain and Sicily.[27 - [According to W. F. Kirby (Syn. Cat. Diurn. Lepidop.), the species is almost cosmopolitan, occurring, as well as throughout Europe, in Northern India (var. Timeus), Shanghai (var. Chinensis), Abyssinia (var. Pseudophlæas), Massachusetts (var. Americana), and California (var. Hypophlæas). In a long series from Northern India, in my own collection, all the specimens are extremely dark, the males being almost black. R.M.]] If we compare specimens of this beautiful copper-coloured butterfly from Lapland with those from Germany, no constant difference can be detected; the insect has, however, but one annual generation in Lapland, whilst in Germany it is double-brooded; but the winter and summer generations resemble each other completely, and specimens which had been caught in spring on the Ligurian coast were likewise similarly coloured to those from Sardinia. (Fig. 21, Plate II (#Plate_II).). According to these facts we might believe this species to be extraordinarily indifferent to climatic influence; but the South European summer generation differs to a not inconsiderable extent from the winter generation just mentioned, the brilliant coppery lustre being nearly covered with a thick sprinkling of black scales. (Plate II (#Plate_II)., Fig. 22.) The species has thus become seasonally dimorphic under the influence of the warm southern climate, although this is not the case in Germany where it also has two generations in the year.[28 - [Eng. ed. From a written communication from Dr. Speyer, it appears that also in Germany there is a small difference between the two generations. The German summer brood has likewise more black on the upper side, although seldom so much as the South European summer brood.]] No one who is acquainted only with the Sardinian summer form, and not with the winter form of that place, would hesitate to regard the former as a climatic variety of our P. Phlæas; or, conversely, the north German form as a climatic variety of the southern summer form – according as he accepts the one or the other as the primary form of the species.

Still more complex are the conditions in another species of Lycænidæ, Plebeius Agestis (= Alexis Scop.), which presents a double seasonal dimorphism. This butterfly appears in three forms; in Germany A and B alternate with each other as winter and summer forms, whilst in Italy B and C succeed each other as winter and summer forms. The form B thus occurs in both climates, appearing as the summer form in Germany and as the winter form in Italy. The German winter variety A, is entirely absent in Italy (as I know from numerous specimens which I have caught), whilst the Italian summer form, on the other hand, (var. Allous, Gerh.), does not occur in Germany. The distinctions between the three forms are sufficiently striking. The form A (Fig. 18, Plate II (#Plate_II).) is blackish-brown on the upper side, and has in the most strongly marked specimens only a trace of narrow red spots round the borders; whilst the form B (Fig. 19, Plate II (#Plate_II).) is ornamented with vivid red border spots; and C (Fig. 20, Plate II (#Plate_II).) is distinguished from B by the strong yellowish-brown of the under side. If we had before us only the German winter and the Italian summer forms, we should, without doubt, regard them as climatic varieties; but they are connected by the form B, interpolated in the course of the development of both, and the two extremes thus maintain the character of mere seasonal forms.

III. Nature of the Causes producing Climatic Varieties

It has been shown that the phenomenon of seasonal dimorphism has the same proximate cause as climatic variation, viz. change of climate, and that it must be regarded as identical in nature with climatic variation, being distinguished from ordinary, or, as I have designated it, simple (monomorphic) climatic variation by the fact that, besides the new form produced by change of climate, the old form continues to exist in genetic connexion with it, so that old and new forms alternate with each other according to the season.

Two further questions now present themselves for investigation, viz. (1) by what means does change of climate induce a change in the marking and colouring of a butterfly? and (2) to what extent does the climatic action determine the nature of the change?

With regard to the former question, it must, in the first place, be decided whether the true effect of climatic change lies in the action of a high or low temperature on the organism, or whether it may not perhaps be produced by the accelerated development caused by a high temperature, and the retarded development caused by a low temperature. Other factors belonging to the category of external conditions of life which are included in the term “climate” may be disregarded, as they are of no importance in these cases. The question under consideration is difficult to decide, since, on the one hand, warmth and a short pupal period, and, on the other hand, cold and a long pupal period, are generally inseparably connected with each other; and without great caution one may easily be led into fallacies, by attributing to the influence of causes now acting that which is but the consequence of long inheritance.

When, in the case of Araschnia Levana, even in very cold summers, Prorsa, but never the Levana form, emerges, it would still be erroneous to conclude that it is only the shorter period of development of the winter generation, and not the summer warmth, which occasioned the formation of the Prorsa type. This new form of the species did not come suddenly into existence, but (as appears sufficiently from the foregoing experiments) originated in the course of many generations, during which summer warmth and a short development period were generally associated together. From the fact that the winter generation always produces Levana, even when the pupæ have not been exposed to cold but kept in a room, it would be equally erroneous to infer that the cold of winter had no influence in determining the type. In this case also the determining causes must have been in operation during innumerable generations. After the winter form of the species has become established throughout such a long period, it remains constant, even when the external influence which produced it (cold) is occasionally withdrawn.

Experiments cannot further assist us here, since we cannot observe throughout long periods of time; but there are certain observations, which to me appear decisive. When, both in Germany and Italy, we see Polyommatus Phlæas appearing in two generations, of which both the German ones are alike, whilst in Italy the summer brood is black, we cannot ascribe this fact to the influence of a shorter period of development, because this period is the same both in Germany and Italy (two annual generations), so that it can only be attributed to the higher temperature of summer.

Many similar cases might be adduced, but the one given suffices for proof. I am therefore of opinion that it is not the duration of the period of development which is the cause of change in the formation of climatic varieties of butterflies, but only the temperature to which the species is exposed during its pupal existence. In what manner, then, are we to conceive that warmth acts on the marking and colouring of a butterfly? This is a question which could only be completely answered by gaining an insight into the mysterious chemico-physiological processes by which the butterfly is formed in the chrysalis; and indeed only by such a complete insight into the most minute details, which are far beyond our scrutiny, could we arrive at, or even approximate to, an explanation of the development of any living organism. Nevertheless an important step can be taken towards the solution of this problem, by establishing that the change does not depend essentially upon the action of warmth, but upon the organism itself, as appears from the nature of the change in one and the same species.

If we compare the Italian summer form of Polyommatus Phlæas with its winter form, we shall find that the difference between them consists only in the brilliant coppery red colour of the latter being largely suffused in the summer form with black scales. When entomologists speak of a “black dusting” of the upper side of the wings, this statement must not of course be understood literally; the number of scales is the same in both forms, but in the summer variety they are mostly black, a comparatively small number being red. We might thus be inclined to infer that, owing to the high temperature, the chemistry of the material undergoing transformation in Phlæas is changed in such a manner that less red and more black pigment is produced. But the case is not so simple, as will appear evident when we consider the fact that the summer forms have not originated suddenly, but only in the course of numerous generations; and when we further compare the two seasonal forms in other species. Thus in Pieris Napi the winter is distinguished from the summer form, among other characters, by the strong black dusting of the base of the wings. But we cannot conclude from this that in the present case more black pigment is produced in the winter than in the summer form, for in the latter, although the base of the wings is white, their tips and the black spots on the fore-wings are larger and of a deeper black than in the winter form. The quantity of black pigment produced does not distinguish between the two forms, but the mode of its distribution upon the wings.

Even in the case of species the summer form of which really possesses far more black than the winter form, as, for instance, Araschnia Levana, one type cannot be derived from the other simply by the expansion of the black spots present, since on the same place where in Levana a black band crosses the wings, Prorsa, which otherwise possesses much more black, has a white line. (See Figs. 1–9, Plate I (#Plate_I).) The intermediate forms which have been artificially produced by the action of cold on the summer generation present a graduated series, according as reversion is more or less complete; a black spot first appearing in the middle of the white band of Prorsa, and then becoming enlarged until, finally, in the perfect Levana it unites with another black triangle proceeding from the front of the band, and thus becomes fused into a black bar. The white band of Prorsa and the black band of Levana by no means correspond in position; in Prorsa quite a new pattern appears, which does not originate by a simple colour replacement of the Levana marking. In the present case, therefore, there is no doubt that the new form is not produced simply because a certain pigment (black) is formed in larger quantities, but because its mode of distribution is at the same time different, white appearing in some instances where black formerly existed, whilst in other cases the black remains. Whoever compares Prorsa with Levana will not fail to be struck with the remarkable change of marking produced by the direct action of external conditions.

The numerous intermediate forms which can be produced artificially appear to me to furnish a further proof of the gradual character of the transformation. Ancestral intermediate forms can only occur where they have once had a former existence in the phyletic series. Reversion may only take place completely in some particular characters, whilst in others the new form remains constant – this is in fact the ordinary form of reversion, and in this manner a mixture of characters might appear which never existed as a phyletic stage; but particular characters could certainly never appear unless they were normal to the species at some stage of phyletic development. Were this possible it would directly contradict the idea of reversion, according to which new characters never make their appearance, but only such as have already existed. If, therefore, the ancestral forms of A. Levana (which we designate as Porima) present a great number of transitional varieties, this leads to the conclusion that the species must have gone through a long series of stages of phyletic development before the summer generation had completely changed into Prorsa. The view of the slow cumulative action of climatic influences already submitted, is thus confirmed.

If warmth is thus without doubt the agency which has gradually changed the colour and marking of many of our butterflies, it sufficiently appears from what has just been said concerning the nature of the change that the chief part in the transmutation is not to be attributed to the agency in question, but to the organism which is affected by it. Induced by warmth, there begins a change in the ultimate processes of the matter undergoing transformation, which increases from generation to generation, and which not only consists in the appearance of the colouring matter in one place instead of another, but also in the replacement of yellow, in one place by white and in another by black, or in the transformation of black into white on some portions of the wings, whilst in others black remains. When we consider with what extreme fidelity the most insignificant details of marking are, in constant species of butterflies, transmitted from generation to generation, a total change of the kind under consideration cannot but appear surprising, and we should not explain it by the nature of the agency (warmth), but only by the nature of the species affected. The latter cannot react upon the warmth in the same manner that a solution of an iron salt reacts upon potassium ferrocyanide or upon sulphuretted hydrogen; the colouring matter of the butterfly’s wing which was previously black does not become blue or yellow, nor does that which was white become changed into black, but a new marking is developed from the existing one – or, as I may express it in more general terms, the species takes another course of development; the complicated chemico-physical processes in the matter composing the pupa become gradually modified in such a manner that, as the final result, a new marking and colouring of the butterfly is produced.

Further facts can be adduced in support of the view that in these processes it is the constitution of the species, and not the external agency (warmth), which plays the chief part. The latter, as Darwin has strikingly expressed it, rather performs the function of the spark which ignites a combustible substance, whilst the character of the combustion depends upon the nature of the explosive material. Were this not the case, increased warmth would always change a given colour[29 - [Assuming that in all butterflies similar colours are produced by the same chemical compounds. R.M.]] in the same manner in all butterflies, and would therefore always give rise to the production of the same colour. But this does not occur; Polyommatus Phlæas, for example, becoming black in the south, whilst the red-brown Vanessa Urticæ becomes black in high northern latitudes, and many other cases well known to entomologists might be adduced.[30 - [Mr. H. W. Bates mentions instances of local variation in colour affecting many distinct species in the same district in his memoir “On the Lepidoptera of the Amazon Valley;” Trans. Linn. Soc., vol. xxiii. Mr. A. R. Wallace also has brought together a large number of cases of variation in colour according to distribution, in his address to the biological section of the British Association at Glasgow in 1876. See “Brit. Assoc. Report,” 1876, pp. 100–110. For observations on the change of colour in British Lepidoptera according to distribution see papers by Mr. E. Birchall in “Ent. Mo. Mag.,” Nov., 1876, and by Dr. F. Buchanan White, “Ent. Mo. Mag.,” Dec., 1876. The colour variations in all these cases are of course not protective as in the well-known case of Gnophos obscurata, &c. R.M.]] It indeed appears that species of similar physical constitution, i.e., nearly allied species, under similar climatic influences, change in an analogous manner. A beautiful example of this is furnished by our Pierinæ. Most of the species display seasonal dimorphism; as, for instance, Pieris Brassicæ, Rapæ, Napi, Krueperi, and Daplidice, Euchloe Belia and Belemia, and Leucophasia Sinapis, in all of which the difference between the winter and the summer forms is of a precisely similar nature. The former are characterized by a strong black dusting of the base of the wings, and by a blackish or green sprinkling of scales on the underside of the hind wings, while the latter have intensely black tips to the wings, and frequently also spots on the fore-wings.

Nothing can prove more strikingly, however, that in such cases everything depends upon the physical constitution, than the fact that in the same species the males become changed in a different manner to the females. The parent-form of Pieris Napi (var. Bryoniæ) offers an example. In all the Pierinæ secondary sexual differences are found, the males being differently marked to the females; the species are thus sexually dimorphic. Now the male of the Alpine and Polar var. Bryoniæ, which I conceive to be the ancestral form, is scarcely to be distinguished, as has already been mentioned, from the male of our German winter form (P. Napi, var. Vernalis), whilst the female differs considerably.[31 - See Figs. 10 and 14, 11 and 15, Plate I (#Plate_I).] The gradual climatic change which transformed the parent-form Bryoniæ into Napi has therefore exerted a much greater effect on the female than on the male. The external action on the two sexes was exactly the same, but the response of the organism was different, and the cause of the difference can only be sought for in the fine differences of physical constitution which distinguish the male from the female. If we are unable to define these differences precisely, we may nevertheless safely conclude from such observations that they exist.

I have given special prominence to this subject because, in my idea, Darwin ascribes too much power to sexual selection when he attributes the formation of secondary sexual characters to the sole action of this agency. The case of Bryoniæ teaches us that such characters may arise from purely innate causes; and until experiments have decided how far the influence of sexual selection extends, we are justified in believing that the sexual dimorphism of butterflies is due in great part to the differences of physical constitution between the sexes. It is quite different with such sexual characters as the stridulating organs of male Orthoptera which are of undoubted importance to that sex. These can certainly be attributed with great probability to sexual selection.

It may perhaps not be superfluous to adduce one more similar case, in which, however, the male and not the female is the most affected by climate. In our latitudes, as also in the extreme north, Polyommatus Phlæas, already so often mentioned, is perfectly similar in both sexes in colour and marking; and the same holds good for the winter generation of the south. The summer generation of the latter, however, exhibits a slight sexual dimorphism, the red of the fore wings of the female being less completely covered with black than in the male.

IV. Why all Polygoneutic Species are not Seasonally Dimorphic

If we may consider it to be established that seasonal dimorphism is nothing else than the splitting up of a species into two climatic varieties in one and the same locality, the further question at once arises why all polygoneutic species (those which produce more than one annual generation) are not seasonally dimorphic.

To answer this, it will be necessary to go more deeply into the development of seasonal dimorphism. This evidently depends upon a peculiar kind of periodic, alternating heredity, which we might be tempted to identify with Darwin’s “inheritance at corresponding periods of life.” It does not, however, in any way completely agree with this principle, although it presents a great analogy to it and must depend ultimately upon the same cause. The Darwinian “inheritance at corresponding periods of life” – or, as it is termed by Haeckel, “homochronic heredity” – is characterized by the fact that new characters always appear in the individuals at the same stage of life as that in which they appeared in their progenitors. The truth of this principle has been firmly established, instances being known in which both the first appearance of a new (especially pathological) character and its transmission through several generations has been observed. Seasonally dimorphic butterflies also furnish a further valuable proof of this principle, since they show that not only variations which arise suddenly (and which are therefore probably due to purely innate causes) follow this mode of inheritance, but also that characters gradually called forth by the influence of external conditions and accumulating from generation to generation, are only inherited at that period of life in which these conditions were or are effective. In all seasonally dimorphic butterflies which I have been able to examine closely, I found the caterpillars of the summer and winter broods to be perfectly identical. The influences which, by acting on the pupæ, split up the imagines into two climatic forms, were thus without effect on the earlier stages of development. I may specially mention that the caterpillars, as well as the pupæ and eggs of A. Levana, are perfectly alike both in the summer and winter forms; and the same is the case in the corresponding stages of P. Napi and P. Bryoniæ.

I shall not here attempt to enter more deeply into the nature of the phenomena of inheritance. It is sufficient to have confirmed the law that influences which act only on certain stages in the development of the individual, even when the action is cumulative and not sudden, only affect those particular stages without having any effect on the earlier or later stages. This law is obviously of the greatest importance to the comprehension of metamorphosis. Lubbock[32 - “On the Origin and Metamorphoses of Insects,” London, 1874.] has briefly shown in a very clear manner how the existence of metamorphosis in insects can be explained by the indirect action of varying conditions on the different life-stages of a species. Thus the mandibles of a caterpillar are, by adaptation to another mode of nourishment, exchanged at a later period of life for a suctorial organ. Such adaptation of the various development-stages of a species to the different conditions of life would never give rise to metamorphosis, if the law of homochronic, or periodic, heredity did not cause the characters gradually acquired at a given stage to be transferred to the same stage of the following generation.

The origin of seasonal dimorphism depends upon a very similar law, or rather form, of inheritance, which differs from that above considered only in the fact that, instead of the ontogenetic stages, a whole series of generations is influenced. This form of inheritance may be formulated somewhat as follows: – When dissimilar conditions alternatingly influence a series of generations, a cycle is produced in which the changes are transmitted only to those generations which are acted upon by corresponding conditions, and not to the intermediate ones. Characters which have arisen by the action of a summer climate are inherited by the summer generation only, whilst they remain latent in the winter generation. It is the same as with the mandibles of a caterpillar which are latent in the butterfly, and again make their appearance in the corresponding (larval) stage of the succeeding generation. This is not mere hypothesis, but the legitimate inference from the facts. If it be admitted that my conception of seasonal dimorphism as a double climatic variation is correct, the law of “cyclical heredity,”[33 - I at first thought of designating the two forms of cyclical or homochronic heredity as ontogenetic- and phyletic-cyclical heredity. The former would certainly be correct; the latter would be also applicable to alternation of generation (in which actually two or more phyletic stages alternate with each other) but not to all those cases which I attribute to heterogenesis, in which, as with seasonal dimorphism, a series of generations of the same phyletic stage constitute the point of departure.] as I may term it – in contradistinction to “homochronic heredity,” which relates only to the ontogenetic stages – immediately follows. All those cases which come under the designation of ‘alternation of generation,’ can obviously be referred to cyclical heredity, as will be explained further on. In the one case the successive generations deport themselves exactly in the same manner as do the successive stages of development of the individual in the other; and we may conclude therefrom (as has long been admitted on other grounds) that a generation is, in fact, nothing else than a stage of development in the life of a species. This appears to me to furnish a beautiful confirmation of the theory of descent.

Now if, returning to questions previously solved, the alternating action of cold in winter and warmth in summer leads to the production of a winter and summer form, according to the law of cyclical heredity, the question still remains: why do we not find seasonal dimorphism in all polygoneutic butterflies?

We might at first suppose that all species are not equally sensitive to the influence of temperature: indeed, the various amounts of difference between the winter and summer forms in different species would certainly show the existence of different degrees of sensitiveness to the modifying action of temperature. But even this does not furnish an explanation, since there are butterflies which produce two perfectly similar[34 - When Meyer-Dürr, who is otherwise very accurate, states in his “Verzeichniss der Schmetterlinge der Schweiz,” (1852, p. 207), that the winter and summer generations of P. Ægeria differ to a small extent in the contour of the wings and in marking, he has committed an error. The characters which this author attributes to the summer form are much more applicable to the female sex. There exists in this species a trifling sexual dimorphism, but no seasonal dimorphism.] generations wherever they occur, and which, nevertheless, appear in different climates as climatic varieties. This is the case with Pararga Ægeria (Fig. 23, Plate II (#Plate_II).), the southern variety of which, Meione (Fig. 24, Plate II (#Plate_II).), is connected with it by an intermediate form from the Ligurian coast. This species possesses, therefore, a decided power of responding to the influence of temperature, and yet no distinction has taken place between the summer and the winter form. We can thus only attribute this different deportment to a different kind of heredity; and we may therefore plainly state, that changes produced by alternation of climate are not always inherited alternatingly, i.e. by the corresponding generations, but sometimes continuously, appearing in every generation, and never remaining latent. The causes which determine why, in a particular case, the one or the other form of inheritance prevails, can be only innate, i.e. they lie in the organism itself, and there is as little to be said upon their precise nature as upon that of any other process of heredity. In a similar manner Darwin admits a kind of double inheritance with respect to characters produced by sexual selection; in one form these characters remain limited to the sex which first acquired them, in the other form they are inherited by both sexes, without it being apparent why, in any particular case, the one or the other form of heredity should take place.

The foregoing explanation may obtain in the case of sexual selection, in which it is not inconceivable that certain characters may not be so easily produced, or even not produced at all, in one sex, owing to its differing from the other in physical constitution. In the class of cases under consideration, however, it is not possible that the inherited characters can be prevented from being acquired by one generation owing to its physical constitution, since this constitution was similar in all the successive generations before the appearance of dimorphism. The constitution in question first became dissimilar in the two generations to the extent of producing a change of specific character, through the action of temperature on the alternating broods of each year, combined with cyclical heredity. If the law of cyclical heredity be a general one, it must hold good for all cases, and characters acquired by the summer generation could never have been also transmitted to the winter generation from the very first.

I will not deny the possibility that if alternating heredity should become subsequently entirely suppressed throughout numerous generations, a period may arrive when the preponderating influence of a long series of summer generations may ultimately take effect upon the winter generation. In such a case the summer characters would appear, instead of remaining latent as formerly. In this manner it may be imagined that at first but few, and later more numerous individuals, approximate to the summer form, until finally the dimorphism entirely disappears, the new form thus gaining ascendency and the species becoming once more monomorphic. Such a supposition is indeed capable of being supported by some facts, an observation on A. Levana apparently contradicting the theory having been already interpreted in this sense. I refer to the fact that whilst some butterflies of the winter generation emerge in October as Prorsa, others hibernate, and appear the following spring in the Levana form. The winter form of Pieris Napi also no longer preserves, in the female sex, the striking coloration of the ancestral form Bryoniæ, a fact which may indicate the influencing of the winter generation by numerous summer generations. The double form of the spring generation of Papilio Ajax can be similarly explained by the gradual change of alternating into continuous heredity, as has already been mentioned. All these cases, however, are perhaps capable of another interpretation; at any rate, the correctness of this supposition can only be decided by further facts.