HEREDITY AND THE ORIGIN OF VARIATIONS.
The law of heredity, I have said above, may be regarded as that of
persistence exemplified in a series of organic generations. Variation
results--it is clear that it must result--from some kind of
differentiating influence. Such statements as these, however, though
they are true enough, do not help us much in understanding either
heredity or variation.
Let us first notice that normal cases of reproduction exemplify both
phenomena--heredity with variation; hereditary similarity to the parents
in all essential respects, individual variations in minor points. This
is seen in man. Brothers and sisters may present family resemblances
among each other and to their parents, but each has individual traits of
feature and of character. Only in particular cases of so-called
"identical twins" are the variations so slight as not to be readily
perceptible by even a casual observer.
Now, when we seek an explanation of these well-known facts, we may be
tempted to find it in the supposition that the character of the parents
does not remain constant, that the character influences the offspring,
and that therefore the children born at successive periods will differ
from each other, while twins born in the same hour will naturally
resemble each other. As Darwin himself says,[BD] "The greater
dissimilarity of the successive children of the same family in
comparison with twins, which often resemble each other in external
appearance, mental disposition, and constitution, in so extraordinary a
manner, apparently proves that the state of the parents at the exact
period of conception, or the nature of the subsequent embryonic
development, has a direct and powerful influence on the character of the
offspring." But a little consideration will show that, though this
might, in the absence of a better explanation, account for variation in
character, it could not account for variation in form and feature,
unless we regard these as in some way determined by the character.
Moreover, as we shall see presently, it is open to question whether
acquired modifications of structure or character in the parent can in
any way influence the offspring. Again, in the litter of puppies born of
the same bitch by the same dog there are individual variations, often as
well marked as those in successive births.
The facts, then, to be accounted for are--first, the close hereditary
resemblance in all essential points of offspring to parent; and,
secondly, the individual differences in minor points among the offspring
produced simultaneously or successively by the same parents. These are
the facts as they occur in the higher animals. It will be well to lead
up to our consideration of them by a preliminary survey of the facts as
they are exemplified by some of the lower organisms.
In the simpler protozoa, where fission occurs, and where the organism is
composed of a single cell, where also there is a single nucleus which
apparently undergoes division into two equal and similar parts, it is
easy to understand that the two organisms thus resulting from the
halving of a single organism partake completely of its nature. If the
fission of an am[oe]ba is such as to divide it into two similar parts,
there is no reason why these two similar parts should not be in all
respects alike, and should not, by the assimilation of new material,
acquire the size and all the characteristics of the parent form. In the
higher and more differentiated protozoa, the case is not quite so
simple; for the two halves are not each like the whole parent, but have
to be remodelled into a similar organism. But if we suppose, as we seem
to have every right to suppose, that it is the nucleus that controls the
formative processes in the cell, there is not much difficulty in
understanding how, when the nucleus divides into two similar portions,
each directs, so to speak, the similar refashioning of its own separated
protoplasmic territory.
From the protozoa we may pass to such a comparatively simple metazoon as
the hydra. Here the organism is composed, not of a single cell, but of a
number of cells. These cells are, moreover, not all alike, but have
undergone differentiation with physiological division of labour. There
is an inner layer of large nutritive cells, and an outer layer of
protective cells, some of which are conical with fine processes
proceeding from the point of the cone; others are smaller, and fill in
the interstices between the apices of the cones, while others have
developed into thread-cells, each with a fine stinging filament. Between
the two layers there is a thin supporting lamella. The essential point
we have here to notice is that there are two distinct layers with cells
of different form and function.
Now, it has again and again been experimentally proved that if a hydra
be divided into a number of fragments, each will grow up into a complete
and perfect hydra. All that is essential is that, in the separated
fragment, there shall be samples of the cells of both layers. Under
these conditions, the separated cells of the outer layer regenerate a
complete external wall, and the separated cells of the inner layer
similarly regenerate a complete internal lining. From these facts, it
would appear that such a small adequately sampled fragment has the
power, when isolated, of assimilating nutriment and growing by the
multiplication of the constituent cells, and that the growth takes such
lines that the original form of the hydra is reproduced.
Here we may note, by way of analogy, what takes place in the case of
inorganic crystals. If a fragment of an alum crystal be suspended in a
strong solution of alum, the crystal will be recompleted by the growth
of new parts along the broken edges. We say that this is effected under
the influence of molecular polarity. Similarly, we may say that the
fragment of the hydra rebuilds the complete form under the influence of
an hereditary morphological tendency residing in the nuclei of the
several cells. The case, though still comparatively simple, is more
complex than that of the higher protozoa. There the divided nucleus in
two separated cells directs each of these in hereditary lines of
morphological growth. Here not only do the cells and their nuclei
divide, but they are animated by a common morphological principle, and
in their multiplication _combine_ to form an organism possessing the
ancestral symmetry. If, however, we call this an hereditary
morphological tendency or a principle of symmetry; or, with the older
physiologists, a _nisus formativus_; or, with Darwin, "the co-ordinating
power of the organization" (all of these expressions being somewhat
unsatisfactory);--we must remember that these terms merely imply a play
of molecular forces analogous to that which causes the broken crystal of
alum to become recompleted in suitable solution. The inherent molecular
processes in the nuclei[BE] in the one case enable the cells to
regenerate the hydra; the inherent molecular stresses in the crystalline
fragment in the other case lead to the reproduction of the complete
crystal. In either case there is no true explanation, but merely a
restatement of the facts under a convenient name or phrase.
The power of regeneration of lost parts, which is thus seen in the
hydra, is also seen, in a less degree so far as amount is concerned, but
in a higher degree so far as complexity goes, in animals far above the
hydra in the scale of life. The lobster that has lost a claw, the snail
whose tentacle has been removed, the newt which has been docked of a
portion of its tail or a limb, are able more or less completely to
regenerate these lost parts. And the regeneration may involve complex
structures. With the tentacle of the snail the eye may be removed, and
this, not once only, but a dozen times. After such mutilation, no part
of the eye remains, though the stump of its nerve is, of course, left;
still the perfect organ is reconstructed again and again, as often as
the tentacle is removed. The cells at the cut end of the nerve-stump
divide and multiply, as do also those of the surrounding tissues, and
the growing nerve terminates in an optic cup, as it did previously under
the influences of normal development before the mutilation. Here we have
phenomena analogous to, and in some respects more complex than, those
which are seen in the regenerative process in hydra. It is well known,
however, that, in the case of higher animals, in birds and mammals, this
power of regenerating lost parts does not exist. When a bone is broken,
osseous union of the broken pieces may indeed take place; and in
flesh-wounds, the gash is filled in and heals over, not without
permanent signs of its existence, as may often be seen in the faces of
German students. But beyond this there is normally no regeneration. The
soldier who has lost an arm in battle cannot return home and in quiet
seclusion reproduce a new limb. That which seems to be among lower
animals a well-established law of organic growth does not here obtain.
This is probably due to the fact that the higher histological
differentiation of the tissues in the more highly developed forms of
life is a bar to regeneration. In their devotion to special and minute
details of physiological work, the cells have, so to speak, forgotten
their more generalized reproductive faculties. In any case, however the
fact is to be explained, the higher organisms have in many cases almost
completely lost the power of regenerating lost parts. But this loss of
the regenerative power in the more highly differentiated animals does
not alter or invalidate the law of organic growth we are considering.
The law may be thus stated: _Whenever, after mutilation, free growth of
the mutilated surface occurs, that growth is directed in such lines as
to reproduce the lost part and restore the symmetrical integrity of the
organism._ This is a matter of heredity. And we may regard the
hereditary reconstructive power as residing either (1) in those cells at
or adjoining the mutilated surface which are concerned in the regrowth
of the lost part; or (2) in the general mass of cells of the mutilated
organism.
There are difficulties in either view. Professor Sollas, supporting the
former, says,[BF] "This power [in the snail] of growing afresh so
complex and specialized an organ as an eye is certainly, at first sight,
not a little astonishing, but it appears to be capable of a very simple
explanation. The cells terminating the cut stump of the tentacle are the
ancestors of those which are removed; a fresh series of descendants are
derived from them, similarly related to the ancestral cells as their
predecessors which they replace; the first generation of descendants
become in turn ancestors to a second generation, similarly related to
them as were the second tier of extirpated cells; and this process of
descent being repeated, the completed organ will at length be rebuilt."
This explanation is, however, misleading in its simplicity. The cells
terminating the cut stump are not the direct ancestors of those which
are removed, except in the same sense as gorillas are ancestors of men.
They are rather collateral descendants of common ancestors. I think that
Professor Sollas would probably agree that, though the lens and "retina"
are of epiblastic (outer layer) origin, their relationship with the
epiblastic cells at the cut stump is a somewhat distant one. In the
reproduction of the lens the cell-heredity is not direct, but markedly
indirect. And it is somewhat difficult to understand by what means the
ordinary epiblastic cells of the cut stump, which have had no part in
the special and peculiar work of lens-production, should be enabled to
produce cell-offspring, some of which, and those in a special relation
to other deeper-lying cells, possess this peculiar power.
On the other hand, if we turn to the view that the reproduction is
effected, not by the cells of the cut surface alone, but by the general
mass of cells in the mutilated organism, we have to face the difficulty
of understanding how the influence of cells other than those partaking
in the regrowth can be brought to bear on these so as to direct their
lines of development. If we say that the organism is pervaded by a
principle of symmetry such that both growth and regrowth, whenever they
take place, are constrained to follow the lines of ancestral symmetry,
we are really doing little more than restating the facts without
affording any real organic explanation. That which we want to know is in
what organic way this symmetrical growth is effected--how the hereditary
tendency is transmitted through the nuclear network which is concerned
in cell-division. I do not think that we are at present in a position to
give a satisfactory answer to this question.
Let us now return to the hydra, the artificial fission of which has
suggested these considerations. Multiplication in this way is probably
abnormal. Under suitable conditions, however, if well fed, the hydra
normally multiplies by budding. At some spot, generally not far from the
"foot," or base of attachment, a little swelling occurs, and the growth
of the cells in this region takes such lines that a new hydra is formed.
This is at first in direct connection with the parent stem, the two
having a common internal cavity; but eventually it separates and lives a
free existence as a distinct organism (see Fig. 9, p. 45).
Now, here we may notice, as an implication from these facts, that the
size of the organism is limited. When the normal limits of size are
reached, any further assimilation of nutriment ministers, not to the
further growth of the organism, but to the formation of a new outgrowth,
or bud. What determines that the outgrowth, or bud, should originate in
this or that group of cells, we do not know. But, like the isolated
fragment in the hydra subdivided by fission, the little group in which
budding commences contains a fair sample of the various kinds of cells
which constitute the hydra. And here, too, we see that their growth and
development follow definite lines of hereditary symmetry.
But there is a third method of multiplication in hydra: this is the
sexual mode of reproduction, and occurs generally in the autumn. On the
body-wall of certain individuals, near the tentacles, conical swellings
appear. Within these swellings are great numbers of minute sperms, with
small oval heads and active, thread-like tails. They appear to originate
from the interstitial cells of the outer layer (see p. 124). Nearer the
foot, or base of attachment, and generally, but not quite always, in
separate individuals, there are other larger swellings, different in
appearance, of which there is generally only one in the same individual
at the same time. Each contains a single ovum, or egg-cell, surrounded
by a capsule. It, too, and the cells which surround it would appear to
be developed from the interstitial cells. It grows rapidly at the
expense of the surrounding tissue, but when mature, it bursts through
the enveloping capsule, and is freely exposed. A sperm-cell, which
seems, in some cases at least, to be produced by the same individual,
now unites with it; the egg-cell then begins to undergo division,
becomes detached, falls to the bottom, and develops into a young hydra.
Here, then, we have that sexual mode of reproduction which occurs in all
the higher animals. It is, however, in some respects peculiar in hydra.
In the first place, the ovum is nearly always in other animals (but
occasionally not in hydra) fertilized by the sperm from a separate and
distinct individual. In the second place, the germinal cells are
generally produced, not from the outer layer, but from the middle layer,
which appears between the two primitive layers. In some allies of hydra,
however, they take their origin in the inner layer; and it has been
suggested that, even in hydra, the true germinal cells may migrate from
the inner to the outer layer. But of this there does not seem to be at
present sufficient evidence. In any case, however, the essential fact to
bear in mind is that a new individual is produced by the union of a
single cell produced by one organism and of another cell produced in
most cases (but not always in the hydra) from a different individual. In
the higher forms of animal life, the organisms are either female
(egg-producing) or male (sperm-producing). But there are many
hermaphrodite forms which produce both eggs and sperms, as in the common
snail and earthworm. Even in these cases, however, there are generally
special arrangements by which it is ensured that the sperm from one
individual should fertilize the ovum produced by another individual.
* * * * *
What, we must next inquire, is the relation in the higher forms of
life--for we may now leave the special consideration of hydra--of the
ovum or sperm to the organism which produces it? This is but one mode of
putting a very old question--Does the hen produce the egg, or does the
egg produce the hen? Of course, in a sense, both are true; for the hen
produces an egg which, if duly fertilized, will develop into a new hen.
But the question has of late been asked in a new sense; and many eminent
naturalists reply, without hesitation--The egg produces the hen, but
under no circumstances does the hen produce the egg. What, then, it may
be asked, does produce the egg? To this it is replied--The egg was
produced by a previous egg. At first sight, this may seem a mere
quibble; for it may be said that, of course, if an egg produces a hen
which contains other eggs, these eggs may be said to be produced by the
first. But it is really more than a quibble, and we must do our best
clearly to grasp what is meant.
We have seen that, in development, the fertilized egg-cell undergoes
division into two cells, each of which again divides into two, and so
on, again and again, until from one there arises a multitude of cells.
Nor is this all. The multitude are organized into a whole. The
constituent cells have different forms and structures, and perform
diverse functions. Some are skeletal, such as bone and connective
tissue; some are protective, such as those which give rise to feathers
or scales; some form nerves or nerve-centres; some, muscles; some give
rise to glandular tissue; and lastly, some form the essential elements
in reproduction. If, now, we express the development of tissues and the
sequence of organisms in the following scheme, the continuity of the
reproductive cells will be apparent:--
Reproductive | Skeletal and protective cells
cell o< Nerve and muscle cells
| Glandular and nutritive cells | Skeletal, etc.
| Reproductive cells -------- o< Nerve, etc.
| Glandular, etc. | s.
| Reproductive -- o< n.
| gl.
| r.-etc
It is clear that there is a continuity of reproductive cells, which does
not obtain with regard to nerve, gland, or skeleton. If, then, we class
together as body-cells those tissue-elements which constitute what we
ordinarily call the body, i.e. the head, trunk, limbs--all, in fact,
except the reproductive cells, our scheme becomes--
Reproductive | Body
cell o< | Body
| Reproductive cells o< | b.
| Reproductive cells o<
| r.
From this, again, it is clear that the body does not produce the egg, or
reproductive cell, but that the reproductive cell does produce the body.
Of course, it should be noted that we are here using the term "body" as
distinguished from, and not as including, the reproductive cells. But
this is convenient, in that it emphasizes the fact that the muscular,
nervous, skeletal, and glandular cells take (on this view) no part
whatever in producing those reproductive cells which are concerned in
the continuance of the species.
Such, in brief, is the view that the egg produces the hen. We will
return to it presently when we have glanced at the alternative view that
the hen produces the egg.
On this view, the reproductive elements are not merely cells, the result
of normal cell-division, which have been set aside for the continuance
of the species. They are, so to speak, the concentrated extract of the
body, and contain minute or infinitesimal elements derived from all the
different tissues of the organism which produces them. Darwin[BG]
suggested that all the cells of the various tissues produce minute
particles called gemmules, which circulate freely throughout the body,
but eventually find a home in the reproductive cells. Just as the
organism produces an ovum from which an organism like itself develops,
so do the cells of the organism produce gemmules, which find their way
to the ovum and become the germs of similar cells in the developing
embryo. "The child, strictly speaking," says Darwin, "does not grow into
a man, but includes germs which slowly and successively become developed
and form the man." "Each animal may be compared with a bed of soil full
of seeds, some of which soon germinate, some lie dormant for a period,
whilst others perish." Or, to vary the analogy, "an organic being is a
microcosm--a little universe formed of a host of self-propagating
organisms." This is Darwin's provisional hypothesis of pangenesis, which
has recently been accepted in a modified form by Professor W. K. Brooks
in America, to some extent by De Vries on the Continent, by Professor
Herdman of Liverpool, and by other biologists. The ovum on this view is
to be regarded as a composite germ containing the germs of the cellular
constituents of the future organism. The scheme representing this view
will stand thus--
Reproductive | Skeletal and protective cells | | sk. & pr. | | s.
cell o< Nerve and muscle cells >o< ne. & mu. >o< n.
| Glandular and nutritive cells | | gl. & nu. | | gl.
It is clear that, on this hypothesis, we may frame an apparently simple
and, on first sight, satisfactory theory of heredity. Since all the
body-cells produce gemmules, which collect in or give rise to the
reproductive cells, and since each gemmule is the germ of a similar
cell, what can be more natural than that the ovum, thus composed of
representative cell-germs, should develop into an organism resembling
the parent organism? Modifications of structure acquired during the life
of the organism would thus be transmitted from parent to offspring; for
the modified cells of the parent would give rise to modified gemmules,
which would thus hand on the modification. The inheritance of ancestral
traits from grandparent or great-grandparent might be accounted for by
supposing that some of the gemmules remained latent to develop in the
second or third generation. The regeneration of lost parts receives also
a ready explanation. If a part be removed by amputation, regrowth is
possible because there are disseminated throughout the body gemmules
derived from each part and from every organ. A stock of nascent cells or
of partially developed gemmules may even be retained for this special
purpose, either locally or throughout the body, ready to combine with
the gemmules derived from the cells which come next in due succession.
Similarly, in budding, the buds may contain nascent cells or gemmules in
a somewhat advanced stage of development, thus obviating the necessity
of going through all the early stages in the genesis of tissues. The
gemmules derived from each part being, moreover, thoroughly dispersed
through the system, a little fragment of such an organism as hydra may
contain sufficient to rebuild the complete organism; or, if it contains
an insufficient number, we may assume that the gemmules, in their
undeveloped state, are capable of multiplying indefinitely by
self-division. Finally, variations might arise from the superabundance
of certain gemmules and the deficiency of others, and from the varying
potency of the gemmules contained in the sperm and ovum. Where the
maternal and paternal gemmules are of equal potency, the cell resulting
from their union will be a true mean between them; where one or other is
prepotent, the resulting cell will tend in a corresponding direction.
And since the parental cells are subject to modification, transmitted
through the gemmules to the reproductive elements, it is clear that
there is abundant room and opportunity for varietal combinations.
It is claimed, as one of the chief advantages of some form of pangenetic
hypothesis, that it, and it alone, enables us to explain the inheritance
of characters or modifications of structure acquired by use (or lost by
disuse) during the life of the organism, or imprinted on the tissues by
environmental stresses. The evidence for the transmission of such
acquired characters we shall have to consider hereafter. We may here
notice, however, that at first sight the hypothesis seems to prove too
little or too much. For while modifications of tissues, the effects of
use and disuse, are said to be inherited, the total removal of tissues
by amputation, even if repeated generation after generation, as in the
docking of the tails of dogs and horses, formerly so common, does not
have the effect of producing offspring similarly modified. Professor
Weismann has recently amputated the tails of white mice so soon as they
were born, for a number of generations, but there is no curtailment of
this organ in the mice born of parents who had not only themselves
suffered in this way, but whose parents, grandparents, and
great-grandparents were all rendered tailless. The pangenetic answer to
this objection is that gemmules multiply and are transmitted during long
series of generations. We have only to suppose that the gemmules of
distantly ancestral tails have been passing through the mutilated mice
in a dormant condition, awaiting an opportunity to develop, and the
constant reappearance of tails is seen to be no real anomaly. In this
case the gemmules of the parental and grandparental tail are simply
absent. But if the muscles of the parental tail were modified through
unwonted use, the modified cells would give rise to modified gemmules,
which would unite in generation with ancestral gemmules, and to a
greater or less degree modify them. The difference is between the mere
absence of gemmules and the presence of modified gemmules. And the fact
that it takes some generations for the effects of use or disuse to
become marked is (pangenetically) due to the fact that it takes some
time for the modified gemmules to accumulate and be transmitted in
sufficient numbers to affect seriously the numerous ancestral gemmules.
The direction in which Professor W. K. Brooks has recently sought to
modify Darwin's pangenetic hypothesis may here be briefly indicated. He
holds that it is under unwonted and abnormal conditions that the cells
are stimulated to produce gemmules, and that the sperm is the special
centre of their accumulation. Hence it is the paternal influence which
makes for variation, the maternal tendency being conservative. The
reproductive cell is not merely or chiefly a microcosm of gemmules. It
is a cell produced by ordinary cell-division from other reproductive
cells. The ovum remains comparatively unaffected by changes in the body;
but it receives from the sperm, with which it unites, gemmules from such
tissues in the male as were undergoing special modification. The hen
does not produce the egg; but the cock does produce the sperm; and the
union of the two hits the happy mean between the conservatism of the one
view and the progressive possibilities of the other.
Mr. Francis Galton, in 1876,[BH] suggested a modification of Darwin's
hypothesis, which included, as does that of Professor Brooks, the idea
of germinal continuity which had been suggested by Professor (now Sir
Richard) Owen, in 1849. He calls the collection of gemmules in the
fertilized ovum the "stirp." Of the gemmules which constitute the stirp
only a certain number, and they the most dominant, develop into the
body-cells of the embryo. The rest are retained unaltered to form the
germinal cells and keep up a continuous tradition. Mr. Galton's place in
the history of theories of heredity can scarcely be placed too high.
Only one further modification of pangenesis can here be mentioned,
namely, that proposed in 1883 by Professor Herdman, of Liverpool. He
suggested "that the body of the individual is formed, not by the
development of gemmules alone and independently into cells, but by the
gemmules in the cells causing, by their affinities and repulsions, these
cells so to divide as to give rise to new cells, tissues, and organs."
Such are Darwin's provisional hypothesis of pangenesis, and some more
recent modifications thereof. Bold and ingenious as was Darwin's
speculation, supported as it at first sight seems to be by organic
analogies, it finds to-day but few adherents. With all our increased
modern microscopical appliances, no one has ever seen the production of
gemmules. Although it appears sufficiently logical to say that, just as
a large organism produces a small ovum, so does each small cell produce
an exceedingly minute gemmule; when closely investigated, the analogy is
not altogether satisfactory. It is denied, as we have seen, by many
biologists that the organism does produce the ovum. Multiplication is
normally by definite, visible cell-division. Nuclear fission can be
followed in all its phases. But where is the nuclear fission in the
formation of gemmules? It is true that the conjugation of monads is
followed by the pouring forth of a fluid which must be crowded with
germs from which new monads arise, and that these germs are so minute as
to be invisible, even under high powers of the microscope. It might be
suggested, then, that in every tissue some typical cell or cells might
thus break up into a multitude of invisible gemmules. But there is at
present no evidence that they do so. And even if this were the case, it
would not bear out Darwin's view, that every cell is constantly throwing
off numerous gemmules. It is known, however, or at least generally
believed, that there is a constant replacement of tissues during the
life of the organism. It is said, for example, that in the course of
seven years the whole cellular substance of the human body is entirely
renewed. The fact is, I think, open to question. Granting it, however,
it might be suggested that the effete cells, ere they vanish, give rise
to minute gemmules, which find their way to the ova. But it must be
remembered that the new tissue-cells in the supposed successional
renewal of the organs are the descendants of the old tissue-cells; that
these are, therefore, already reproducing their kind directly; and that
the formation of gemmules would thus be a special superadded provision
for a future generation. Still, there is no reason why cells should not
have this double mode of reproduction, if any definite evidence of its
existence could be brought forward. Without such definite evidence, we
may well hesitate before we accept it even provisionally.
The existence of gemmules, then, is unproven, and their supposed mode of
origin not in altogether satisfactory accordance with organic analogies.
Furthermore, the whole machinery of the scheme of heredity is
complicated and hyper-hypothetical. It is difficult to read Darwin's
account of reversion, the inheritance of functionally acquired
characters, and the non-inheritance of mutilation, or to follow his
skilful manipulation of the invisible army of gemmules, without being
tempted to exclaim--What cannot be explained, if this be explanation?
and to ask whether an honest confession of ignorance, of which we are
all so terribly afraid, be not, after all, a more satisfactory position.
That the hen produces the egg, that "gemmules are collected from all
parts of the system to constitute the sexual elements, and that their
development in the next generation forms a new being," is further
rendered improbable by direct observation upon the mode of origin of the
germinal cells, ova, or sperms.
It will be remembered that the view that the egg produces the hen, while
the hen does not produce the egg, suggested the question--What, then,
does produce the egg? to which the answer was--The egg is the product of
a previous egg. On this view, then, the germinal cells, ova, or sperms
are the direct and unmodified descendants of an ovum and sperm which
have entered into fertile union. Now, in certain cases, notably in the
fly _Chironomus_, studied by Professor Balbiani, but also in a less
degree in some other invertebrate forms, it is possible to trace the
continuity of the germinal cells with the fertilized ovum from which
they are derived. In _Chironomus_, for example, "at a very early stage
in the embryo, the future reproductive cells are distinguishable and
separable from the body-forming cells. The latter develop in manifold
variety, into skin and nerve, muscle and blood, gut and gland; they
differentiate, and lose almost all protoplasmic likeness to the mother
ovum. But the reproductive cells are set apart; they take no share in
the differentiation, but remain virtually unchanged, and continue
unaltered the protoplasmic tradition of the original ovum."[BI] In such
a case, then, observation flatly negatives the view that the germinal
cells are "constituted" by gemmules collected from the body-cells,
though, of course (on a modified pangenetic hypothesis), they might be
the recipients of such gemmules.
It is only in a minority of cases, however, that the direct continuity
of germinal cells _as such_ is actually demonstrable. In the higher
vertebrates, for instance, the future reproductive cells can first be
recognized only after differentiation of some of the body-cells and the
tissues they constitute is relatively advanced. While in cases of
alternation of generations, "an entire asexual generation, or more than
one, may intervene between one ovum and another." In all such cases the
continuity of the chain of recognizably germinal cells cannot be
actually demonstrated.
The impracticability of actually demonstrating a continuity of germinal
cells in the majority of cases has induced Professor Weismann to abandon
the view that there is a continuity of germinal cells, and to substitute
for it the view that there is a continuity of germ-plasm (_keimplasma_).
"A continuity of germ-_cells_," he says,[BJ] "does not now take place,
except in very rare instances; but this fact does not prevent us from
adopting a theory of the continuity of the germ-_plasm_, in favour of
which much weighty evidence can be brought forward." It might, however,
be suggested that, although a continuity of germ-cells cannot be
_demonstrated_, such continuity may, nevertheless, obtain, the future
germinal cells remaining undifferentiated, while the cells around them
are undergoing differentiation. The comparatively slight differentiation
of the body-cells in hydroids renders such a view by no means
improbable. But Professor Weismann does not regard such an idea as
admissible, at all events, in certain cases. "It is quite impossible,"
he says,[BK] "to maintain that the germ-cells of hydroids, or of the
higher plants, exist from the time of embryonic development, as
undifferentiated cells, which cannot be distinguished from others, and
which are only differentiated at a later period." The number of
daughter-cells in a colony of hydroid zoophytes is so great that "all
the cells of the embryo must for a long time act as body-cells, and
nothing else." Moreover, actual observation (e.g. in _Coryne_) convinces
Dr. Weismann that ordinary body-cells are converted into reproductive
cells. After describing the parts of the body-wall in which a sexual bud
arises as in no way different from surrounding areas, he says, "Rapid
growth, then, takes place at a single spot, and some of the young cells
thus produced _are transformed into germ-cells_ which did not previously
exist as separate cells."[BL]
This transformation of body-cells or their daughter-cells into
germ-cells seems therefore, if it be admitted, to negative the
continuity of germ-cells as such. But this fact, says Weismann, does not
prevent us from adopting a theory of the continuity of germ-plasm. "As a
result of my investigations on hydroids," he says,[BM] "I concluded that
the germ-plasm is present in a very finely divided and therefore
invisible state in certain body-cells, from the very beginning of
embryonic development, and that it is then transmitted, through
innumerable cell-generations, to those remote individuals of the colony
in which the sexual products are formed."
This germ-plasm resides in the nucleus of the cell; and it would seem
that by a little skilful manipulation it can be made to account for
anything that has ever been observed or is ever likely to be observed.
It is one of those convenient invisibles that will do anything you
desire. The regrowth of a limb shows that the cells contained some of
the original germ-plasm. A little sampled fragment of hydra has it in
abundance. It lurks in the body-wall of the budding polyp. It is ever
ready at call. It conveniently accounts for atavism, or reversion;
for[BN] "the germ-plasm of very remote ancestors can occasionally make
itself felt. Even a very minute trace of a specific germ-plasm possesses
the definite tendency to build up a certain organism, and will develop
this tendency as soon as the nutrition is, for some reason, favoured
above that of the other kinds of germ-plasm present in the nucleus."
In place, then, of the direct continuity of germ-cells as distinct from
body-cells, we have here the direct continuity of germ-plasm as opposed
to body-plasm. The germ-plasm can give rise to body-plasm to any extent;
the body-plasm can never give rise to germ-plasm. If it seems to do so,
this is only because the nuclei of the body-cells contain some
germ-plasm in an invisible form. The body-plasm dies; but the life of
the germ-plasm is, under appropriate conditions, indefinitely
continuous.
So far as heredity is concerned, it matters not whether there be a
continuity of germ-cells or of germ-plasma. In either case, the
essential feature is that body-cells as such cannot give rise to the
germ--that the hen cannot produce the egg. On either view, characters
acquired by the body cannot be transmitted to the offspring through the
ova or sperms. The annexed diagram illustrates how, on the view that the
hen produces the egg, dints hammered into the body by the environment
will be handed on; while, on the view that the hen does not produce the
egg, the dints of the environment are not transmitted to the offspring.
On the hypothesis of continuity, heredity is due to the fact that two
similar things under similar conditions will give similar products. The
ovum from which the mother is developed, and the ovum from which the
daughter is developed, are simply two fragments separated at different
times from the same continuous germ-plasm.[BO] Both develop under
similar circumstances, and their products cannot, therefore, fail to be
similar. How variation is possible under these conditions we shall have
to consider presently.
[Illustration: Fig. 21.--Egg and hen.
I. "The egg produces the hen." II. "The hen produces the egg." In I. the
dints produced by the environment are not inherited; in II. they are.
The letters indicate successive individuals. The small round circles
indicate the eggs.]
Now, although I value highly Professor Weismann's luminous researches,
and read with interest his ingenious speculations, I cannot but regard
his doctrine of the continuity of germ-plasm as a distinctly retrograde
step. His germ-plasm is an unknowable, invisible, hypothetical entity.
Material though it be, it is of no more practical value than a
mysterious and mythical germinal principle. By a little skilful
manipulation, it may be made to account for anything and everything. The
fundamental assumption that whereas germ-plasm can give rise to
body-plasm to any extent, body-plasm can under no circumstances give
rise to germ-plasm, introduces an unnecessary mystery. Biological
science should set its face against such mysteries. The fiction of two
protoplasms, distinct and yet commingled, is, in my opinion, little
calculated to advance our knowledge and comprehension of organic
processes. For myself, I prefer to take my stand on protoplasmic unity
and cellular continuity.
The hypothesis of cellular continuity is one that the researches of
embryologists tend more and more to justify. The fertilized ovum divides
and subdivides, and, by a continuance of such processes of subdivision,
gives rise to all the cells of which the adult organism is composed. It
is true that in some cases, as in that of peripatus, as interpreted by
Mr. Adam Sedgwick, the cells of the embryo run together or remain
continuous as a diffused protoplasmic mass with several or many nuclei.
But this seemingly occurs only in early stages as a step towards the
separation of distinct cells. And even if the process should be proved
of far wider occurrence, it would not disprove the essential doctrine of
cellular continuity. The nucleus is the essence of the cell. And the
doctrine of cellular continuity emphasizes the fact that the nuclei of
all the cells of the body are derived by a process of divisional growth
from the first segmentation-nucleus which results from the union of the
nuclei of the ovum and the sperm. In this sense, then, however late the
germinal cells appear as such, they are in direct continuity with the
germinal cell from which they, in common with all the cells of the
organism, derive their origin. In this sense there is a true continuity
of germ-cells.
Now, it has again and again been pointed out that the simple cell of
which an am[oe]ba is composed is able to perform, in simple fashion, the
various protoplasmic functions. It absorbs and assimilates food; it is
contractile and responds to stimulation; it respires and exhibits
metabolic processes; it undergoes fission and is reproductive. The
metazoa are cell-aggregates; and in them the cells exemplify a
physiological division of labour. They differentiate, and give rise to
muscle and nerve, gut and gland, blood and connective or skeletal
tissue, ova and sperms. Are these germinal cells mysteriously different
from all the other cells which have undergone differentiation? No. _They
are the cells which have been differentiated and set apart for the
special work of reproduction, as others have been differentiated and set
apart for other protoplasmic functions._
Cell-reproduction is, however, in the metazoa of two kinds. There is the
direct reproduction of differentiated cells, by which muscle-cells,
nerve-cells, or others reproduce their kind in the growth of tissues or
organs; and there is the developmental reproduction, by which the
germinal cells under appropriate conditions reproduce an organism
similar to the parent. The former is in the direct line of descent from
the simple reproduction of am[oe]ba. The latter is something peculiarly
metazoan, and is, if one may be allowed the expression, specialized in
its generality.
That the metazoa are derived from the protozoa is generally believed.
How they were developed is to a large extent a matter of speculation.
But, however originating, their evolution involved the production, from
cells of one kind, of cells of two or more kinds, co-operating in the
same organism. Whenever and however this occurred, the new phase of
developmental reproduction must have had its origin. And if in
cell-division there is any continuity of protoplasmic power, the faculty
of producing diverse co-operating cells would be transmitted. On any
view of the origin of the metazoa, this diverse or developmental
reproduction is a new protoplasmic faculty; on any view, it must have
been transmitted, for otherwise the metazoa would have ceased to exist.
This new faculty of developmental reproduction, then, with the inception
of the metazoa, takes its place among other protoplasmic faculties, and,
with the progress of differentiation and the division of labour, will
become the special business of certain cells. On this view, the
specialization of the reproductive faculty and of germinal cells takes
its place in line with other cell-differentiations with division of
labour; and the difficulties of comprehending and following the process
of differentiation in this matter are similar to those which attend
physiological division of labour in general.
It is probable that, in the lower metazoa, in which differentiation has
not become excessively stereotyped, the power of developmental
reproduction is retained by a great number of cells, even while it is
being specialized in certain cells. Hence the ability to produce lost
parts and the reproduction of hydra by fission. But, on the other hand,
the special differentiation of a tissue on particular lines has always a
tendency to disqualify the cells from performing other protoplasmic
faculties, and that of developmental reproduction among the number. I do
not know of any definite, well-observed cases on record in the animal
kingdom of ova or sperms being derived from cells which are highly
differentiated in any other respect. In the vertebrata, the mesoblastic,
or mid-layer, cells, from which the germinal epithelium arises, have
certainly not been previously differentiated in any other line. And in
the case of the hydroid zoophytes, quoted by Professor Weismann, the
cells which give rise to the germinal products have never been so highly
differentiated as to lose the protoplasmic faculty of developmental
reproduction.
Some such view of developmental reproduction, based upon cellular
continuity and the division of labour, seems to me more in accord with
the general teachings of modern biology than a hypothetical and
arbitrary distinction between a supposed germ-plasm and a supposed
body-plasm.
To which category, then, does this hypothesis belong? Does it support
the view that the hen produces the egg or that the egg produces the hen?
Undoubtedly the latter. It is based on cellular continuity, and is
summarized by the scheme on p. 131. It adequately accounts for
hereditary continuity, for there is a continuity of the germinal cells,
the bearers of heredity. But how, it may be asked, on this view, or on
any continuity hypothesis, are the origin of variations and their
transmission to be accounted for? To this question we have next to turn.
But before doing so, it will be well to recapitulate and summarize the
positions we have so far considered.
We saw at the outset that the facts we have to account for are those of
heredity with variation. To lead up to the facts of sexual heredity, we
considered fission, the regeneration of lost parts, and budding in the
lower animals. We saw that, if a hydra be divided, each portion
reproduces appropriately the absent parts. But we found it difficult to
say whether this power resides, in such cases, in the cells along the
plane of section or in the general mass of cells which constitute the
regenerating portion.
Having led up to the sexual mode of reproduction, we inquired whether
the egg produces the hen or the hen produces the egg. We saw that there
is a marked difference between a _direct continuity_ of reproductive
cells, giving rise to body-cells as by-products, and an _indirect
continuity_ of reproductive cells, these cells giving rise to the hen,
and then the hen to fresh reproductive cells, which, on this view, are
to be regarded as concentrated essence of hen.
Darwin's hypothesis of pangenesis as exemplifying the latter view was
considered at some length, and the modifications suggested by Professor
Brooks, Mr. Galton, and Professor Herdman were indicated. The
hypothesis, so far as it is regarded as a theory of the main facts of
heredity, was rejected.
It was then pointed out that only in a few cases has a direct continuity
of germinal cells _as such_ been actually demonstrated. Whence Professor
Weismann has been led to elaborate his doctrine of the continuity of
germ-plasm. This germ-plasm can give rise to, but cannot originate from,
body-plasm. It may lurk in body-cells, which may, by its subsequent
development, be transformed into germ-cells. But any external influences
which may affect these body-cells produce no change on the germ-plasm
which they may contain. We regarded this hypothesis as a retrograde
step, much as we admire the genius of its propounder, and considered
that the fiction of two protoplasms, distinct and yet commingled, is
little calculated to advance our comprehension of organic processes.
In the known and observed phenomena of cellular continuity and
cell-differentiation, we found a sufficiently satisfactory hypothesis of
heredity. The reproductive cells are the outcome of normal
cell-division, and have been differentiated and set apart for the
special work of developmental reproduction, as others have been
differentiated and set apart for other protoplasmic functions. Such a
view adequately accounts for hereditary continuity, for there is a
continuity of the germinal cells, the bearers of heredity. But how, we
repeat, on this view or any other hypothesis of direct continuity, are
the origin of variations and their transmission to be accounted for?
* * * * *
Every individual organism reacts more or less markedly under the stress
of environing conditions. The reaction may take the form of passive
resistance, or it may be exemplified in the performance of specially
directed motor-activities. The power to react in these ways is inborn;
but the degree to which the power is exercised depends upon the
conditions of existence, and during the life of the individual the power
may be increased or diminished according to whether the conditions of
life have led to its exercise or not. The effects of training and
exercise on the performance of muscular feats and in the employment of
mental faculties are too well known to need special exemplification. By
manual labour the skin of the hand is thickened; and by long-continued
handling of a rifle a bony growth caused by the weapon in drilling, the
so-called _exercierknochen_ of the Germans, is developed. Now, it is
clear that if these acquired structures or faculties are transmitted
from parent to offspring, we have here a most important source and
origin of variations--a source from which spring variations just in the
particular direction in which they are wanted. The question is--Are they
transmitted? and if so, how?
Let us begin with the protozoa. Dr. Dallinger made some interesting
experiments on monads. They extended over seven years, and were directed
towards ascertaining whether these minute organisms could be gradually
acclimatized to a temperature higher than that which is normal to them.
Commencing at 60° Fahr., the first four months were occupied in raising
the temperature 10° without altering the life-history. When the
temperature of 73° was reached, an adverse influence appeared to be
exerted on the vitality and productiveness of the organism. The
temperature being left constant for two months, they regained their full
vigour, and by gradual stages of increase 78° was reached in five months
more. Again, a long pause was necessary, and during the period of
adaptation a marked development of vacuoles, or internal watery spaces,
was noticed, on the disappearance of which it was possible to raise the
temperature higher. Thus by a series of advances, with periods of rest
between, a temperature of 158° Fahr. was reached. It was estimated that
the research extended over half a million generations. Here, then, these
monads became gradually acclimatized to a temperature more than double
that to which their ancestors had been accustomed to--a temperature
which brought rapid death to their unmodified relatives.
Now, in such observations it is impossible to exclude elimination. It is
probable that there were numbers of monads which were unable to
accommodate themselves to the changed conditions, and were therefore
eliminated. But in any case, the fact remains that the survivors had, in
half a million generations, acquired a power of existing at a
temperature to which no individual in its single life could become
acclimatized. Here, then, we have the hereditary transmission of a
faculty. But the organisms experimented on were protozoa. In them there
is no distinction between germ-cell and body-cell. Multiplication is by
fission. And if the cell which undergoes fission has been modified, the
two separate cell-organisms which result from that fission will retain
the special modification. In such cases the transmission of acquired
characters is readily comprehensible. We have an hereditary summation of
effects.
With the metazoa the case is different. In the higher forms the germinal
cells are internal and sheltered from environing influences by the
protecting body-wall. It is the body-cells that react to environmental
stresses; it is muscle and nerve in which faculty is strengthened by use
and exercise, or allowed to dwindle through neglect. The germ-cells are
shielded from external influences. They lead a sheltered and protected
life within the body-cavity. It is no part of their business to take
part in either passive resistance or responsive activity. During the
individual life, then, the body may be modified, may acquire new tissue,
may by exercise develop enhanced faculties. But can the body so modified
affect the germ-cells which it carries within it?
Biologists are divided on this question. Some say that the body cannot
affect the germ; others believe that it can and does do so.
It might seem an easy matter to settle one way or another. But, in
truth, it is by no means so easy. Suppose that a man by strenuous
exercise brings certain muscles to a high degree of strength or
co-ordination. His son takes early to athletics, and perhaps excels his
parent. Is this a case of transmitted fibre and faculty? It may be. But
how came it that the father took to athletics, and was enabled to
develop so lithe and powerful a frame? It must have been "in him," as we
say. In other words, it must have been a product of the germ-cells from
which he was developed. And since his son was developed, in part at
least, from a germ-cell continuous with these, what more natural than
that he too should have an inherent athletic habit? Every faculty that
is developed in any individual is potential in the germ-stuff from which
he springs; the tendency to develop any particular faculty is there too;
and both faculty and tendency to exercise it are handed on by the
continuity of germ-protoplasm or germ-cells. Logically, there is no
escape from the argument if put as follows: The body and all its
faculties (I use the term "faculties" in the broadest possible sense)
are the product of the germ; the acquisition of new characters or the
strengthening of old faculties by the body is therefore a germinal
product; there is continuity of the germs of parent and child; hence the
acquisition by the child of characters acquired by the parent is the
result of germinal or cellular continuity. It is not the acquired
character which influences the germ, but the germ which develops what
appears to be an acquired character. Finally, if an acquired character,
so called, is better developed in the child than in the parent, what is
this but an example of variation? And if, in a series of generations,
the acquired character continuously increases in strength, this must be
due to the continued selection of favourable variations. It is clear
that the organism that best uses its organs has, other things equal, the
best chance of survival. It will therefore hand on to its offspring
germinal matter with an inherent tendency to make vigorous use of its
faculties.
Those who argue thus deny that the body-cells can in any way affect the
germ-cells. To account for any continuous increase in faculty, they
invoke variation and the selection of favourable varieties. What, then,
we may now ask, is, on their view, the mode of origin of variations?
In sexual reproduction, with the union of ovum and sperm, we seem to
have a fertile source of variation. The parents are not precisely alike,
and their individual differences are, _ex hypothesi_, germinal products.
In the union of ovum and sperm, therefore, we see the union of somewhat
dissimilar germs. And in sexual reproduction we have a constantly
varying series of experiments in germinal combinations, some of which,
we may fairly suppose, will be successful in giving rise to new or
favourable variations. This view, however, would seem to involve an
hypothesis which may be true, but which, in any case, should be
indicated. For it is clear that if new or favourable variations arise in
this way, the germinal union cannot be a mere mixture, but an organic
combination.
An analogy will serve to indicate the distinction implied in these
phrases. It is well known that if oxygen and hydrogen be mixed together,
at a temperature over 100°C., there will result a gaseous substance with
characters intermediate between those of the two several gases which are
thus commingled. But if they are made to combine, there will result a
gas, water-vapour, with quite new properties and characters. In like
manner, if, in sexual union, there is a mere mixture, a mere commingling
of hereditary characters, it is quite impossible that new characters
should result, or any intensification of existing characters be produced
beyond the mean of those of ovum and sperm. If, for example, it be true,
as breeders believe, that when an organ is strongly developed in both
parents it is likely to be even more strongly developed in the
offspring, and that weakly parts tend to become still weaker, this
cannot be the result of germinal mixture. Let us suppose, for the sake
of illustration, that a pair of organisms have each an available store
of forty units of growth-force, and that these are distributed among
five sets of organs, _a_ to _e_, as in the first two columns. Then the
offspring will show the organs as arranged in the third column.[BP]
Parents. Offspring.
----/\----
| |
_a_ 10 10 10
_b_ 8 10 9
_c_ 9 5 7
_d_ 7 9 8
_e_ 6 6 6
-- -- --
40 40 40
There is no increase in the set of organs _a_, which are strongly
developed in both parents; and no decrease in the set of organs e, which
are weakly developed in both parents. By sexual admixture alone there
can be no increase or decrease beyond the mean of the two parental
forms. If, then, the union of sperm and ovum be the source of new or
more favourable variations other than or stronger than those of either
parent, this must be due to the fact that the hereditary tendencies not
merely commingle, but under favourable conditions combine, in some way
different indeed from, but perhaps analogous to, that exemplified in
chemical combination.
Such organic combination, as opposed to mere commixture, is altogether
hypothetical, but it may be worth while to glance at some of its
implications. If it be analogous to chemical combination, the products
would be of a definite nature; in other words, the variations would be
in definite directions. Selection and elimination would not have to deal
with variations in any and all directions, but would have presented to
them variations specially directed along certain lines determined by the
laws of organic combination. As Professor Huxley has said, "It is quite
conceivable that every species tends to produce varieties of a limited
number and kind, and that the effect of natural selection is to favour
the development of some of these, while it opposes the development of
others along their predetermined line of modification." Mr. Gulick[BQ]
and others have been led to believe in a tendency to divergent evolution
residing in organic life-forms. Such a tendency might be due to special
modes of organic combination giving rise to particular lines of
divergence. Again, we have seen that some naturalists believe that
specific characters are not always of utilitarian significance. But, as
was before pointed out, on the hypothesis of all-round variation, there
is nothing to give these non-useful specific characters fixity and
stability, nothing to prevent their being swamped by intercrossing. If,
however, on the hypothesis of combination, we have definite organic
compounds, instead of, or as well as, mere hereditary mixtures; if, in
other words, variations take definite lines determined by the laws of
organic combination (as the nature and properties of chemical compounds
are determined by the laws of chemical combination), then this
difficulty disappears. There is no reason why a neutral divergence--one
neither useful nor deleterious--should be selected or eliminated. And if
its direction is predetermined, there is no reason why it should not
persist, though, of course, it will not be kept at a high standard by
elimination. It has again and again been pointed out as a difficulty in
the path of natural selection that, in their first inception, certain
characters or structures cannot yet be of sufficient utility to give the
possessor much advantage in the struggle for existence. If, however,
these be definite products of organic combination, this difficulty also
disappears. So long as they are not harmful, they will not be
eliminated, and by fortunate combinations will progress slowly until
natural selection gets a hold on them and pushes them forward,
developing to the full the inherent tendency. Finally, we must notice
that, on this hypothesis, our conception of panmixia, or intercrossing,
would have to be modified. As generally held, this doctrine is based
upon hereditary mixture, not organic combination. It is a doctrine of
means and averages. There is a good deal of evidence that intercrossing
does not, at least in all cases, produce mean or average results. And
according to the hypothesis of organic combination, it need not always
do so. According to this hypothesis, then, divergent modifications might
arise and be perpetuated without the necessity of isolation. Sterility
might result from the fact that divergence had been carried so far that
organic combination was no longer possible; reversion, due to
intercrossing, from the fact that combinations long rendered impossible
by the isolation of the necessary factors in distinct varieties, are
again rendered possible when these varieties interbreed.
On this hypothesis of organic combination, to which we shall recur in
the chapter on "Organic Evolution," the varied forms of animal life are
the outcome of definite organic products with definite organic
structure, analogous to the definite chemical compounds with definite
crystalline and molecular structure; and the analogy between the
regeneration of hydra and the reconstruction of a crystal is carried on
a step further. I do not say that I am myself at present prepared to
adopt the hypothesis, at least in this crude form; but it is, perhaps,
worth a passing consideration. Its connection with Mr. Herbert Spencer's
doctrine of physiological units is obvious. The analogy there is with
crystallization; here it is with chemical combination.
We must now return to the point which gave rise to this digression, and
repeat that mere hereditary commixture in the union of ovum and sperm
cannot give rise to new characters or raise existing structures (1)
where there is free intercrossing beyond the mean of the species, and
(2) where there is rigorous elimination beyond the existing maximum of
the species. Variations beyond this existing maximum must be due to some
other cause.
Professor Weismann has suggested, as a cause of variation, the extrusion
of the polar cells from the ovum. It has before been mentioned that,
generally previous to fertilization, the ripe ovum buds off two minute
polar bodies. The nucleus of the ovum divides, and one half is extruded
in the first polar cell; the nucleus then (except in parthenogenetic[BR]
forms, where there is no union of ovum and sperm) again divides, and a
second polar cell is extruded. In accordance with his special view of
the absolute distinction between the body-plasm and the germ-plasm, the
first polar cell is formed to carry off the body-plasm of the
ovum-nucleus. For the ovum, besides being a germ-bearer, is a
specialized cell, and its special form is determined by the body-plasm
it contains. This is got rid of in the first polar cell, and nothing but
germ-plasm remains. Now, if nothing further took place, all the ova of
this same individual containing similar germ-plasm would be identical,
and similarly with all the sperms from the same parent. The union of
these similar ova from one parent with similar sperms from another
should therefore give rise to similar offspring. But the offspring are
not all similar; they vary. Professor Weismann here makes use of the
second polar cell.[BS] "A reduction of the germ-plasm," he says, "is
brought about by its formation, a reduction not only in quantity, but
above all, in the complexity of its constitution. By means of the second
nuclear division, the excessive accumulation of different kinds of
hereditary tendencies or germ-plasms is prevented. With the nucleus of
the second polar body, as many different kinds of plasm are removed from
the egg as will be afterwards introduced by the sperm-nucleus." "If,
therefore, every egg expels half the number of its ancestral germ-plasms
during maturation, the germ-cells of the same mother cannot contain the
same hereditary tendencies, unless we make the supposition that
corresponding ancestral germ-plasms chance to be retained by all eggs--a
supposition that cannot be sustained."
The two polar cells are therefore, on this view, of totally different
character; and the nuclear division in each case of a special kind and
_sui generis_. I do not think that the evidence afforded by observation
lends much support to this view. But with that we are not here specially
concerned. We have to consider how this reduction of the number of
ancestral germ-plasms can further the kind of variation required. Now,
it is difficult to see, and Professor Weismann does not explain, how the
getting rid of certain ancestral tendencies can give rise to new
characters or the enhancement of old characters. One can understand how
this "reducing division," as Dr. Weismann calls it, can reduce the level
of now one and now another character. But how it can raise the level
beyond that attained by either parent is not obvious. It is perhaps
possible, though Professor Weismann does not, I think, suggest it, that,
by a kind of compensation,[BT] the reduction of certain characters may
lead to the enhancement of others. Let us revert to the illustration on
p. 150, where each individual has an available store of forty units of
growth-force; and let us express by the minus sign the units lost in the
parents by the extrusion of the polar cell and an analogous process
which may occur in the genesis of the sperm. Then the units of
growth-force which may thus be lost by a "reducing division" in _b_,
_c_, and _e_ may be, in the offspring, applied to the further growth of
_a_; thus--
Parents. Offspring.
-------/\------
| |
_a_ 10 10 14
_b_ 8-1 10-3 7
_c_ 9-1 5-1 6
_d_ 7 9 8
_e_ 6-2 6 5
Here the reduction of the characters _b_, _c_, and _e_ has led to the
enhancement of _a_, which thus stands at a higher level than in either
parent.
On such an hypothesis we may, perhaps, explain the fact to which
breeders of stock testify--that the organ strongly developed in both
parents (_a_) is yet more strongly developed in some of their offspring,
and that weakly parts (_e_) tend to become still weaker. I know not
whether this way of putting the matter would commend itself to Professor
Weismann or his followers; but some such additional hypothesis of
transference of growth-force from one set of organs to another set of
organs seems necessary to complete his hypothesis.
Professor Weismann's view, then, assumes (1) that the cell-division
which gives rise to the ova in the ovary is so absolutely equal and
similar that all ova have precisely the same characters; (2) that the
first polar cell leaves the germinal matter unaffected, merely getting
rid of formative body-plasm; (3) that the nuclear division giving rise
to the second polar cell is unequal and dissimilar, effecting the
differential reduction of ancestral germ-plasms. Concerning all of which
one can only say that it may be so, but that there is not much evidence
that it is so. And, without strong confirmatory evidence, it is
questionable whether we are justified in assuming these three quite
different modes of nuclear division.
There remains one more question for consideration, on the hypothesis
that the germ-cells cannot in any special way be affected by the
body-cells. In considering the union of ovum and sperm as a source of
variation, we have taken for granted the existence of variations. We
have been dealing with the mixture or combination of already existing
variations. How were variations started in the first instance?
We have already seen that in the protozoa parent and offspring are
still, in a certain sense, one and the same thing; the child is a part,
and usually half, of the parent. If, therefore, the individuals of a
unicellular species are acted upon by any of the various external
influences, it is inevitable that hereditary individual differences will
arise in them; and, as a matter of fact, it is indisputable that changes
are thus produced in these organisms, and that the resulting characters
are transmitted. Hereditary variability cannot, however, arise in the
metazoa, in which the germ-plasm and the body-plasm are differentiated
and kept distinct. It can only arise in the lowest unicellular
organisms. But when once individual difference had been attained by
these, it necessarily passed over into the higher organisms when they
first appeared. Sexual reproduction coming into existence at the same
time, the hereditary differences were increased and multiplied, and
arranged in ever-changing combinations. Such is Professor Weismann's
solution of the difficulty, told, for the most part, in his own words.
I do not know that Professor Weismann has anywhere distinctly stated
what he conceives to be the relation of body-plasm and germ-plasm in the
protozoa. Are the two as yet undifferentiated? This can hardly be so,
seeing the fundamental distinction he draws between them. Is it the
germ-plasm or the body-plasm that is influenced by external stresses? If
the former, does it transfer its influence to the body-plasm during the
life of the individual? If the latter, then the body-plasm must either
directly influence the germ-plasm in unicellular organisms (it would
seem that, according to Professor Weismann, it cannot do so in the
metazoa), or the changed body-plasm, which shares in the fission of the
protozoon, must participate in that so-called immortality which is often
said to be the special prerogative of germinal matter.
These, however, are matters for Professor Weismann and his followers to
settle. I regard the sharp distinction between body-plasm and germ-plasm
as an interesting biological myth. For me, it is sufficient that the
protoplasm of the protozoon is modified, and the modification handed on
in fission. And it is clear that Professor Weismann is correct in saying
that the commixture or combination of characters takes its origin among
the protozoa. If the unicellular individuals are differently modified,
however slightly, then, whenever conjugation occurs between two such
individuals, there will be a commingling or combination of the different
characters. The transmissible influence of the environment, however,
ceases when the metazoon status is reached, and special cells are set
apart for reproductive purposes--ceases, that is to say, in so far as
the influence on the body is concerned. There may, of course, be still
some direct[BU] influence on the germinal cells themselves. Except for
this further influence, the metazoon starts with the stock of variations
acquired by that particular group of protozoa--whatever it may be--from
which it originated. All future variations in even the highest metazoa
arise from these.
Now, it is obvious that no mere commingling and rearrangement of
protozoan characters could conceivably give rise to the indefinitely
more complex metazoan characters. But if there be a combination and
recombination of these elements in ever-varying groups, the
possibilities are no longer limited. Let us suppose that three simple
protozoan characters were acquired. The mere commixture of these three
could not give much scope for further variation. It would be like mixing
carbon, oxygen, and hydrogen in varying proportions. But let them in
some way combine, and you have, perhaps, such varied possibilities as
are open to chemical combinations of oxygen, hydrogen, and carbon, whose
name is legion, but whose character is determined by the laws of
chemical combination.
Summing up now the origin of variations, apart from those which are
merely individual, on the hypothesis that particular modifications of
the body-cells cannot be transmitted to the germ-cells, we have--
1. In protozoa, the direct influence of the environment and the induced
development of faculty.
2. In metazoa--
(_a_) Some direct and merely general influence of the environment on the
germ, including under the term "environment" the nutrition, etc.,
furnished by the body.
(_b_) The combination and recombination of elementary protoplasmic
faculties (specific molecular groupings) acquired by the protozoa.
(_c_) Influences on the germ, the nature of which is at present unknown.
* * * * *
We may now pass on to consider the position of those who give an
affirmative answer to the question--Can the body affect the germ? Two
things are here required. First, definite evidence of the fact that the
body does so affect the germ; i.e. that acquired characters are
inherited. Secondly, some answer to the question--How are the body-cells
able to transmit their modifications to the germ-cells? We will take the
latter first, assuming the former point to be admitted.
Let us clearly understand the question. An individual, in the course of
its life, has some part of the epidermis, or skin, thickened by
mechanical stresses, or some group of muscles strengthened by use, or
the activity of certain brain-cells quickened by exercise: how are the
special modifications of these cells, here, there, or elsewhere in the
body, communicated to the germ, so that its products are similarly
modified in the offspring? The following are some of the hypotheses
which have been suggested:--
(_a_) Darwin's pangenesis.
(_b_) Haeckel's perigenesis; Spencer's physiological units.
(_c_) The conversion of germ-plasm into body-plasm, and its return to
the condition of germ-plasm (Nägeli).
(_d_) The unity of the organism.
(_a_) Concerning pangenesis, nothing need be added to what has already
been said. Although, as we have seen, it has been adopted with
modifications by Professor Brooks; although Mr. Francis Galton, a
thinker of rare ability and a pioneer in these matters, while contending
for continuity, admitted a little dose of pangenesis; although De Vries
has recently renewed the attempt to combine continuity and a modified
pangenesis;--this hypothesis does not now meet with any wide acceptance.
(_b_) With the pamphlet in which Professor Haeckel brought forward his
hypothesis termed the perigenesis of the plastidule, I cannot claim
first-hand acquaintance. According to Professor Ray Lankester, who gave
some account of it in _Nature_,[BV] protoplasm is regarded by Haeckel as
consisting of certain organic molecules called plastidules. These
plastidules are possessed of special undulatory movements, or
vibrations. They are liable to have their undulations affected by every
external force, and, once modified, the movement does not return to its
pristine condition. By assimilation, they continually increase to a
certain size and then divide, and thus perpetuate in the undulatory
movement of successive generations the impressions or resultants due to
the action of external agencies on the individual plastidules. On this
view, then, the form and structure of the organism are due to the
special mode of vibration of the constituent plastidules. This vibration
is affected by external forces. The modified vibration is transmitted to
the plastidules by the germ, which, therefore, produce a similarly
modified organism. As Mr. J. A. Thomson says, "In metaphorical language,
the molecules remember or persist in the rhythmic dance which they have
learned."
Darwin's hypothesis was frankly and simply organic--the gemmules are
little germs. This of Professor Haeckel tries to go deeper, and to
explain organic phenomena in terms of molecular motion. Mr. Herbert
Spencer long ago suggested that, just as molecules are built up, through
polarity, into crystals, so physiological units are built up, under the
laws of organic growth, into definite and special organic forms. Both
views involve special units. With Mr. Herbert Spencer, their "polarity"
is the main feature; with Professor Haeckel, their "undulatory
movements." According to Mr. Spencer, "if the structure of an organism
is modified by modified function, it will impress some corresponding
modification on the structures and polarities of its units."[BW]
According to Professor Haeckel, the vibrations of the plastidules are
permanently affected by external forces. In either case, an explanation
is sought in terms of molecular science, or rather, perhaps, on
molecular analogies. So far good. Such "explanation," if hypothetical,
may be suggestive. It may well be that the possibilities of fruitful
advance will be found on these lines.
But though, as general theories, these suggestions may be valuable, they
do not help us much in the comprehension of our special point. To talk
vaguely about "undulatory movements" or "polarities" does not enable us
to comprehend with any definiteness how this particular modification of
these particular nerve-cells is so conveyed to the germ that it shall
produce an organism with analogous nerve-cells modified in this
particular way.
(_c_) The hypothesis that the germ-plasm may be converted into
body-plasm, which, on its return again to the condition of germ-plasm,
may retain some of the modifications it received as body-plasm, seems to
be negatived, so far as most animals are concerned, by the facts of
embryology and development. The distinction of germ-plasm and body-plasm
I hold to be mythical. And there is no evidence that cells specially
differentiated along certain lines can become undifferentiated again,
and then contribute to the formation of ova or sperms. From the
view-point of cell-differentiation, which seems to me the most tenable
position, there does not seem any evidence for, or any probability of,
the occurrence of any roundabout mode of development of the germinal
cells which could enable them to pick up acquired characters _en route_.
(_d_) We come now to the contention that the organism, being one and
continuous, if any member suffers, the germ suffers with it. The organs
of the body are not isolated or insulated; the blood is a common medium;
the nerves ramify everywhere; the various parts are mutually dependent:
may we not, therefore, legitimately suppose that long-continued
modification of structure or faculty would soak through the organism so
completely as eventually to modify the germ? The possibility may fairly
be admitted. But how is the influence of the body brought to bear on the
germ? The common medium of the blood, protoplasmic continuity, the
influence of the products of chemical or organic change,--these are well
enough as vague suggestions. But how do they produce their effects? Once
more, how is this increased power in that biceps muscle of the oarsman
able to impress itself upon the sperms or the ova? No definite answer
can be given.
We are obliged to confess, then, that no definite and satisfactory
answer can be given to the question--How can the body affect the germ so
that this or that particular modification of body-cells may be
transmitted to the offspring? We may make plausible guesses, or we may
say--I know not how the transmission is effected; but there is the
indubitable fact.
This leads us to the evidence of the fact.
It must be remembered that no one questions the modifiability of the
individual. That the epidermis of the oarsman's hand is thickened and
hardened; that muscles increase by exercise; that the capacity for
thinking may be developed by steady application;--these facts nobody
doubts. That well-fed fish grow to a larger size than their ill-fed
brethren; that if the larger shin-bone (the tibia) of a dog be removed,
the smaller shin-bone (the fibula) soon acquires a size equal to or
greater than that of the normal tibia; that if the humerus, or arm-bone,
be shifted through accident, a new or false joint will be formed, while
the old cavity in which the head of the bone normally works, fills up
and disappears; that canaries fed on cayenne pepper have the colour of
the plumage deepened, and bullfinches fed on hemp-seed become black;
that the common green Amazonian parrot, if fed with the fat of siluroid
fishes, becomes beautifully variegated with red and yellow; that climate
affects the hairiness of mammals;--these and many other reactions of the
individual organism in response to environing conditions, will be
admitted by every one.[BX] That constitutional characters of germinal
origin are inherited is also universally admitted. The difficulty is to
produce convincing evidence that what is acquired is really inherited,
and what is inherited has been really acquired.
Attempts have been made to furnish such evidence by showing that certain
mutilations have been inherited. I question whether many of these cases
will withstand rigid criticism. Nor do I think that mutilations are
likely to afford the right sort of evidence one way or the other. We
must look to less abnormal influences. What we require is evidence in
favour of or against the supposition that _modifications_ of the
body-cells are transmitted to the germ-cells. Now, these modifications
must clearly be of such a nature as to be receivable by the cells
without in any way destroying their integrity. The destruction or
removal of cells is something very different from this. If it were
proved that mutilations are inherited, this would not necessarily show
that normal cell-modifications are transmissible. And if the evidence in
favour of inherited mutilations breaks down, as I believe it does, this
does not show that more normal modifications such as those with which we
are familiar, as occurring in the course of individual life, are not
capable of transmission. I repeat, we must not look to mutilations for
evidence for or against the supposition that acquired characters are
inherited. We must look to less abnormal influences.
These readily divide themselves into two classes. The first includes the
direct effects on the organism of the environment--effects, for example,
wrought by changes of climate, alteration of the medium in which the
organism lives, and so forth. The second comprises the effects of use
and disuse--the changes in the organism wrought by the exercise of
function.
Taking the former first, we have the remarkable case of _Saturnia_,
which was communicated to Darwin by Moritz Wagner. Mr. Mivart thus
summarizes it: "A number of pupæ were brought, in 1870, to Switzerland
from Texas of a species of _Saturnia_, widely different from European
species. In May, 1871, the moths developed out of the cocoons (which had
spent the winter in Switzerland), and resembled entirely the Texan
species. Their young were fed on leaves of _Juglans regia_ (the Texan
form feeding on _Juglans nigra_), and they changed into moths so
different, not only in colour, but also in form, from their parents,
that they were reckoned by entomologists as a distinct species."[BY]
Professor Mivart also reminds us that English oysters transported to the
Mediterranean are recorded by M. Costa to have become rapidly like the
true Mediterranean oyster, altering their manner of growth, and forming
prominent diverging rays; that setters bred at Delhi from carefully
paired parents had young with nostrils more contracted, noses more
pointed, size inferior, and limbs more slender than well-bred setters
ought to have; and that cats at Mombas, on the coast of Africa, have
short, stiff hair instead of fur, while a cat from Algoa Bay, when left
only eight weeks at Mombas, underwent a complete metamorphosis--having
parted with its sandy-coloured fur. Very remarkable is the case of the
brine-shrimp _Artemia_, as observed and described by Schmankewitsch. One
species of this crustacean, _Artemia salina_, lives in brackish water,
while _A. milhausenii_ inhabits water which is much saltier. They have
always been regarded as distinct species, differing in the form of the
tail-lobes and the character of the spines they bear. And yet, by
gradually altering the saltness of the water, either of them was
transformed into the other in the course of a few generations. So long
as the altered conditions remained the same, the change of form was
maintained.
Many naturalists believe that climate has a direct and determining
effect on colour, and contend or imply that it is hereditary. Mr. J. A.
Allen correlates a decrease in the intensity of colour with a decrease
in the humidity of the climate. Mr. Charles Dixon, in his "Evolution
without Natural Selection," says, "The marsh-tit (_Parus palustris_) and
its various forms supply us with similar facts [illustrative of the
effects of climate on the colours of birds]. In warm, pluvial regions we
find the brown intensified; in dry, sandy districts it is lighter;
whilst in Arctic regions it is of variable degrees of paleness, until,
in the rigorous climate of Kamschatka, it is almost white." Mr. Dixon
does not think that these changes are the result of natural selection.
"Depend upon it," he says, with some assurance,[BZ] in considering a
different case, "it is the white of the ptarmigan (modified by climatic
influence) that has sent the bird to the snowy wastes and bare
mountain-tops, and rigorously keeps it there; not the bird that has
assumed, by a long process of natural selection, a white dress to
conceal itself in such localities." Professor Eimer[CA] contends that in
the Nile valley the perfectly gradual transition in the colour of the
inhabitants from brownish-yellow to black in passing from the Delta to
the Soudan is particularly conclusive for the direct influence of
climate, for the reason that various races of originally various colours
dwell there.
Mr. A. R. Wallace says[CB] of the island of Celebes "that it gives to a
large number of species and varieties (of Papilionidæ) which inhabit it,
(1) an increase of size, and (2) a peculiar modification in the form of
the wings, which stamp upon the most dissimilar insects a mark
distinctive of their common birthplace." But this similarity may
largely, or at least in part, be due to mimicry. Most interesting and
valuable are the results of Mr. E. B. Poulton's experiments on
caterpillars and chrysalids.[CC] They show that there is a definite
colour-relation between the caterpillar (e.g. the eyed hawk-moth,
_Smerinthus ocellatus_) and its food-plant, adjustable within the limits
of a single life; that the predominant colour of the food-plant is
itself the stimulus which calls up a corresponding larval colour; that
there is also a direct colour-relation between the chrysalids of the
small tortoiseshell butterfly (_Vanessa urticæ_) and the surrounding
objects, the pupæ being dark grey, light grey, or golden, according to
the nature and colour of the surroundings; and that the larvæ of the
emperor moth (_Saturnia carpini_) spin dark cocoons in dark
surroundings, but white ones in lighter surroundings. These are but
samples of the interesting results Mr. Poulton has obtained.
What shall we say of such cases? Some of them seem to indicate the very
remarkable and interesting fact that changes of salinity of the medium,
or changes of food, or the more general influence of a special climate,
may modify organisms in _particular_ and little-related ways. The larvæ
of a Texan _Saturnia_ fed on a new food-plant develop into imagos so
modified as to appear new species. Changes of salinity of the water
modify one species of _Artemia_ into another. If these be adaptations,
the nature of the adaptation is not obvious. If the new character
produced in this way be of utilitarian value, where the utility comes in
is not clear. The facts need further confirmation and extension, which
may lead to very valuable results. Mr. Poulton's observations,
on the other hand, give us evidence of direct adaptation to
colour-surroundings. But the effects are, in the main, restricted to the
individual. What is hereditary is the power to assume one of two or
three tints, that one being determined by the surrounding colour. His
experiments neither justify a denial nor involve an assertion of the
transmissibility of environmental influence. Secondly, some of the cases
above cited seem to show clearly that, under changed conditions of life,
the changes which have been wrought in one generation may _reappear_ in
the next. But are they inherited? Is there sufficient evidence to show
conclusively that the body-cells have been modified, and have handed on
the modification to the germ? Can we exclude the direct action of the
more or less saline water, or the products of the unwonted food on the
germinal cells? Can we be sure that there is really a summation of
results--that each generation is not affected _de novo_ in a similar
manner? No one questions that the individual is modifiable, and that
such modification is most readily effected in the early and plastic
stages of life. If each plastic embryo is moulded in turn by similar
influence, how can we conclusively prove hereditary summation? Take a
case that has been quoted in support of hereditary modification.
Greyhounds transported from England to the uplands of Mexico are unable
to course, owing to the rarity of the atmosphere. Their pups are,
however, able to run down the fleetest hares without difficulty. Now,
this may be due to the fact that the dogs acquire a certain amount of
accommodation to a rare atmosphere, and hand on their acquired power to
their offspring, which carry it on towards perfection. But it may also
be due to the fact that the pups, subject from the moment of birth to
the conditions of a rarified atmosphere, are developed in accordance
with these conditions.
Or take another case that has been brought forward. English dogs are
known in hot climates, like that of India, to degenerate in a few
generations. Let us suppose that these degenerate dogs are removed back
to England, and that their pups, born in English air and in our
temperate climate, are still degenerate: would not this, it may be
asked, show that the influence of climate on the body is inherited? I do
not think that such a case would be convincing. For the climate might
well influence the germ through the body. The body being unhealthy and
degenerate, the germ-cells must, one may suppose, suffer too. The
degenerate pup born in England might well owe its degeneracy to effects
wrought upon the germinal cells. In other words, such a case would
indicate some _general_ influence of the environment (including the
environing body) on the germ. It does not convince us that _particular_
modifications of body-cells as such are transmitted under normal and
healthy conditions.
On the whole, it seems to me that the evidence we at present possess on
this head is not convincing or conclusive in favour of the effects on
the body alone being transmitted to offspring. If cases can be brought
forward in which there can be no direct influence on the germ, in which
elimination is practically excluded, and in which there is a _gradual
and increasing_ accommodation of successive generations of organisms to
changed conditions _which remain constant_, then such transmission will
be rendered probable. I do not know that there are observations of this
kind of sufficient accuracy to warrant our accepting this conclusion as
_definitely proved_.
Attention may here be drawn to a peculiar and remarkable mode of
influence. If a pure-bred mare have foals by an ill-bred sire, they will
be ill-bred. This we can readily understand. But if she subsequently
have a foal by a perfectly well-bred sire, that foal, too, may in some
cases be tainted by the blemish of the previous sire. So, too, with
dogs. If a pure-bred bitch once produce a mongrel litter, no matter how
carefully she be subsequently matched, she will have a tendency to give
birth to pups with a mongrel taint. This subsequent influence of a
previous sire is a puzzling fact. It may be that some of the male
germ-nuclei are absorbed, and influence the germ-cells of the ovary. But
this seems an improbable solution of the problem. It is more likely,
perhaps, that in the close relation of mother and f[oe]tus during
gestation, each influences the other (how it is difficult to say). On
this view the bitch retains the influence of the mongrel puppies--is
herself, in fact, partially mongrelized--and therefore mongrelizes
subsequent litters. It would not be safe, however, to base any
far-reaching conclusions on so peculiar a case, the explanation of which
is so difficult. At all events, it is impossible to exclude the
possibility of direct action on the germ, though the _particular_ nature
of the results of such influence are noteworthy.
We may pass now to the evidence that has been adduced in favour of a
cumulative effect in the exercise of function, or of the inheritance of
the results of use or disuse. Here, again, it must be remembered that no
one questions the effects of use and disuse in the individual. What we
seek is convincing evidence that such effects are inherited.
Physiologically, the effects of use or disuse are, in the main, effects
on the relative nutrition, and hence on the differential growth of
organs. When an organ is well exercised, there is increased nutrition
and increased growth of tissue, muscular, nervous, glandular, or other.
When an organ is, so to speak, neglected, there is diminished
blood-supply, diminished growth, and diminished functional power. The
development of a complex activity would necessitate a complex adjustment
of size and efficiency of parts, involving a nice balance of
differential growth dependent on delicately regulated nutrition. What is
the evidence that adjusted nutrition can be inherited?
With regard to man, there is some evidence which bears upon this
subject. Mr. Arbuthnot Lane, in his valuable papers in the _Journal of
Anatomy and Physiology_, has shown that certain occupations, such as
shoemaking, coal-heaving, etc., produce recognizable effects upon the
skeleton, the muscular system, and other parts of the organization. And
he believes[CD] that such effects are inherited, being very much more
marked in the third generation than they were in the first. Sir William
Turner informed Professor Herdman that, in his opinion, the peculiar
habits of a tribe, such as tree-climbing among the Australians, or those
natives of the interior of New Guinea whose houses are built in the
upper branches of lofty trees, not only affect each generation
individually, but have an intensified action through the influence of
heredity.[CE]
Mr. Francis Galton's results mainly deal with human faculty; and though
faculty has undoubtedly an organic basis, I do not propose to consider
the evidence afforded by instinct, intelligence, or intellectual
faculties in this chapter. Mention should, however, be made of the
interesting results of his study of twins. Twins are either of the same
sex, in which case they are remarkably alike, or of different sexes, in
which case they are apt to differ even more widely than is usual with
brothers and sisters. The former are believed to be developed from one
ovum which has divided into two halves, each of which has given rise to
a distinct individual; the latter from two different ova. Mr. Galton
collected a large mass of statistics concerning twins of both classes.
The result of this analysis seems to be that, in the case of "identical
twins," the resemblances are not superficial, but extremely intimate;
that they are not apt to be modified to any large extent by the
circumstances of life; that where marked diversity sets in it is due to
some form of illness; and, on the whole, that innate tendencies
outmaster acquired modifications. "Nature is far stronger than nurture
within the limited range that I have been careful to assign to the
latter." On the other hand, speaking of dissimilar twins, Mr. Galton
says, "I have not a single case in which my correspondents speak of
originally dissimilar characters having become assimilated through
identity of nurture." "The impression that all this evidence leaves on
the mind is one of some wonder whether nurture can do anything at all,
beyond giving instruction and professional training." "There is no
escape from the conclusion that nature prevails enormously over nurture
where the differences of nurture do not exceed what is commonly to be
found among persons of the same rank of society and in the same
country."[CF]
Combining the results of Messrs. Lane and Galton, we may say that it
requires persistent and long-continued influence to modify the
individual, and change, even by a little, the structure inherited or
given by nature; but that if this structure is thus modified, there may
be a tendency for such modification to increase by hereditary summation
of effects. We require, however, further and fuller observations to
render the evidence of such hereditary summation to any extent
convincing.
Turning now from the evidence afforded by man[CG] to that afforded by
animals, we may consider first that presented by domesticated breeds.
They might be expected to afford exceptionally good examples. Their
modifiability and the readiness with which they interbreed are two of
the determining causes of their selection for domestication. They have,
moreover, been placed under new conditions of life, and they undoubtedly
exhibit changes of structure, many of which Darwin[CH] regarded as
attributable to the effects of use and disuse. In domestic ducks, the
relative weight and strength of the wing-bones have been diminished,
while conversely the weight and strength of the leg-bones have been
increased. The bones of the shoulder-girdle have been decreased in
weight and "the prominence of the crest of the sternum, relatively to
its length, is also much reduced in all the domestic breeds. These
changes," says Darwin, "have evidently been caused by the lessened use
of the wings." The shoulder-girdle and breast-bone of domestic fowls
have been similarly reduced. After a careful consideration of numerous
facts concerning the brains of rabbits, Darwin concluded that this "most
important and complicated organ in the whole organization is subject to
the law of decrease in size from disuse." And Sir J. Crichton Browne has
recently shown that, in the wild duck, the brain is nearly twice as
heavy in proportion to the body as it is in the comparatively imbecile
domestic duck. In pigs, the nature of the food supplied during many
generations has apparently affected the length of the intestines; for,
according to Cuvier, their length to that of the body in the wild boar
is as 9 to 1, in the common domestic boar as 13.5 to 1, and in the Siam
breed as 16 to 1. With regard to horses, Darwin tells us that
"veterinarians are unanimous that horses are affected with spavins,
splints, ring-bones, etc., from being shod and from travelling on hard
roads, and they are almost unanimous that a tendency to these
malformations is transmitted."
These are samples of the effects of domestication. It has been
suggested, however, that, quite apart from any diminution from disuse,
the reduction of size in parts or organs may be the result of the
absence or cessation of selection. If an organ be subject to selection,
the mean size in adult creatures will be that of the selected
individuals; but if selection ceases, it will be the mean of those born.
Let us suppose that nine individuals are born, and that the size of some
organ varies in these from 1, the most efficient, to 9, the least
efficient. The birth-mean will therefore be, as shown on the left-hand
side of the following table, at the level of number 5, four being more
efficient, and four less efficient. But if, of these nine, six be
eliminated, then the mean of the survivals will be as shown on the
right-hand side of the table:--
1
2--Survival-mean.
3
4 }
Birth-mean--5 }
6 } Eliminated individuals.
7 }
8 }
9 }
The result, then, of the cessation of selection will be to reduce the
survival-mean to the birth-mean, and that without any necessary effect
of disuse. But unless this be accompanied by a tendency to diminution
due to economy of growth or some other cause, this cannot produce any
well-marked or considerable amount of reduction. I very much question,
for example, whether the cessation of selection, even with the
co-operation of the principle of economy of growth, will adequately
account for the reduction to nearly one-half its original proportion of
the brain of the duck. The subject will be more fully discussed,
however, in the next chapter.
There is probably but little tendency for disused parts to be reduced in
size through artificial selection. An imbecile duck does not probably
taste nicer than one with bigger brains. On the other hand, the increase
of size in organs may presumably, in certain cases, be increased by
selection. Pigs, for example, have been selected according to their
fattening capacity. Those with longer intestines, and therefore
increased absorbent surface, may well have an advantage in this respect.
Hence, in selecting pigs for fattening, breeders may have been
unconsciously selecting those with the longest intestines. Of course, on
this view, the longer intestine must be there to be selected, and the
increased length must be due to variation. But this may be all-round
variation (cause unknown), not variation in one direction, the result of
increased function.
Another point that has to be taken into consideration is the amount of
_individual_ increment or decrement, owing to individual use or disuse,
apart from any possible summation of results.
Seeing, then, that it is difficult to estimate the amount of purely
individual increment or decrement, and that it is difficult, if not
impossible, to exclude the disturbing effects of cessation of selection
with economy of growth on the one hand, reducing the size of organs, and
artificial selection on the other hand, increasing the size or
efficiency of parts, it is clear that such cases cannot afford
convincing evidence that the observed variations are the directly
inherited results of use and disuse. Indeed, I am not aware of any
experiments or direct observations on animals which are individually
conclusive in favour of the hereditary summation of functionally
produced modifications.
It may, however, be said--Although no absolutely convincing experiments
or observations are forthcoming (for, from the nature of the case, it is
almost impossible logically to prove that this interpretation of the
facts is alone possible), still there are cases which are much more
readily explained on the hypothesis that the effects of use and disuse
are inherited, than on any other hypothesis. But, so far as Professor
Weismann and his followers are concerned, such an argument is wholly
beside the question. They are ready to admit that inherited
modifications of the body, if they could be proved, would render the
explanation of many results of evolution much easier. It would, no
doubt, they say, be easier to account for the shifting of the eye of a
flat-fish from one side of the head to the other on the supposition that
individual efforts were inherited, until, by an hereditary summation of
effort, the eye at last came round. The question is--Are we justified in
accepting the easier explanation if it be based on a mere assumption, at
present unproved, the _modus operandi_ of which is inexplicable?
Let us consider very briefly these two points--first, the "mere
assumption;" secondly, "the inexplicable _modus operandi_." Is there any
reason why we should not assume the inheritance of effects of use or
disuse as a working hypothesis, if it is not in opposition to any known
biological law, and if it does enable us to explain certain observed
phenomena? I see no such reason. We do not know enough about the causes
of variation to be rigidly bound by the law of parcimony. I am not aware
of any biological law that would render the acceptance of this view as a
provisional hypothesis unjustifiable.
But how, it is asked, can we accept it if its _modus operandi_ is
inexplicable? I question the validity of this argument. I fear our
knowledge of organic nature is not at present so full and exact as to
justify us in excluding an hypothesis because we are not able to give an
adequate answer to the question--How are these effects produced? Of
course, if it can be shown that no _modus operandi_ is possible, there
is an end of the matter. But who shall dare thus to limit the
possibilities of organic nature? And, if possible, then that natural
selection in which the neo-Darwinians place their sole trust would
certainly develop so advantageous a mode of influence. It is clear that
a species sensitive to every shock of the environment on the organism
would be unstable, and hence at a disadvantage. But, on the other hand,
the ability to answer by adaptation to long-continued and persistent
environmental influence or to oft-repeated and consistent performance of
function would be so distinct an advantage to the species which
possessed it, that, if it lay within the possibilities of organic
nature, natural selection, always, as we are told, on the look out for
every possible advantage, would assuredly seize upon it and develop it.
Those who believe in the absolute sway of natural selection have not at
present given any adequate answer to the question--How are particular
variations (e.g. the twisted skull of flat-fish) produced? They say that
constitutional variations, which are alone inheritable, are due to
variations in the germs. When asked how these variations are produced,
they are forced to reply--We cannot say. But when it is suggested that
they may be in some unknown way transmitted to the germ from the body,
they are up in arms, and exclaim--You have no right to believe that, or
ask us to believe it, unless you can tell us plainly how the effect is
produced. Unable themselves to give the _modus operandi_ of the origin
of particular variations, they demand the exact _modus operandi_ from
those who suggest that variations may arise through this mode of
influence of the body on the germ.
We shall have to consider this question from a more general standpoint
in the next chapter on "Organic Evolution." We may now very briefly
summarize some of the results we have reached in this chapter.
The ova and sperms are specially differentiated cells which have, in the
division of labour, retained and emphasized the function of
developmental reproduction.
There is a continuity of such cells. The cells which become ova or
sperms have never become differentiated into anything else.
Hereditary similarity is due to the fact that parents and offspring are
derived eventually from the same germinal cells.
Variation in the existing world is partly due to sexual union. But if
there be mere admixture, new characters cannot arise in this way, nor
can old characters be strengthened beyond the existing maximum.
Some mode of organic combination (analogous to chemical combination)
might afford an explanation of the occurrence of new variations and the
increase of existing characters.
In the protozoa there may be a summation of the effects of the
environment in succeeding generations.
There is no convincing evidence that in the metazoa special
modifications of the body so influence the germ as to become hereditary.
But there is no reason why such influence should not be assumed as a
provisional hypothesis.
NOTES
[BD] "Animals and Plants under Domestication," vol ii. p. 239.
[BE] Or in certain "physiological units" (Herbert Spencer), or
"plastidules" (Haeckel), which may be regarded as organic
molecules exhibiting their special properties under vital
conditions.
[BF] _Nature_, vol. xxxix. p. 486.
[BG] Darwin, "Animals and Plants under Domestication," 2nd edit., vol.
ii. chap. xxvii., from which the following description and
quotations are taken.
[BH] For an excellent account of the genesis and growth of the modern
views of heredity, see Mr. J. Arthur Thomson's paper on "The
History and Theory of Heredity:" Proceedings of the Royal Society
of Edinburgh, 1889.
[BI] Geddes and Thomson, "The Evolution of Sex," p. 92.
[BJ] Weismann, "Essays on Heredity," English translation, p. 173.
[BK] Weismann, "Essays on Heredity," p. 205.
[BL] A few pages earlier (p. 200) in the same essay, Professor Weismann
says, "A sudden transformation of the nucleo-plasm of a somatic
cell into that of a germ-cell would be almost as incredible as the
transformation of a mammal into an am[oe]ba." This at first sight
does not seem quite consistent with the subsequent sentence which
I have quoted in the text; for here, at any rate, the daughters of
"mammals" are said to be converted into "am[oe]bæ." But this is no
doubt because the am[oe]bæ (germ-plasms) are _contained in_ the
mammals (body-cells). (See the quotations that follow in the
text.)
[BM] Weismann, "Essays on Heredity," p. 207.
[BN] Weismann, "Essays on Heredity," p. 179.
[BO] It will, of course, be understood that a minute fragment of
germ-plasm is capable of almost unlimited growth by assimilation
of nutritive material, its properties remaining unchanged during
such growth.
[BP] Latency is here neglected. Mr. Francis Galton has shown,
statistically, that the offspring, among human folk, inherit 1/4
from each parent, 1/16 from each grandparent, and the remaining
1/4 from more remote ancestors. In domesticated animals, reversion
to characters of distant ancestors sometimes occurs. This,
however, does not invalidate the argument in the text, which is
that sexual admixture tends towards the mean of the race
(ancestors included), and cannot be credited with new and
unusually favourable variations. The prepotency of one parent is
also here neglected.
[BQ] See his valuable paper on "Divergent Evolution," Lin. Soc. Zool.,
No. cxx.
[BR] One parthenogenetic form--the drone--has been shown by Blochmann
to extrude a second polar cell. This observation is in serious
opposition to Dr. Weismann's theory.
[BS] Weismann, "Essays on Heredity," pp. 355, 378.
[BT] The law of compensation of growth or balancement was suggested at
nearly the same time by Goethe and Geoffrey Saint-Hilaire. The
application in the text has not, so far as I know, been before
suggested.
[BU] Darwin spoke of changed conditions acting "directly on the
organization or indirectly through the reproductive system." Now,
since Professor Weismann has taught us to reconsider these
questions, we speak of such conditions as acting directly on the
germ or indirectly through the body. The germ is no longer
subordinate to the body, but the body to the germ.
[BV] July 15, 1876. Since reprinted in "The Advancement of Science," p.
273.
[BW] Herbert Spencer, "Principles of Biology," vol. i. p. 256.
[BX] Mr. J. A. Thomson has published a most valuable "Synthetic Summary
of the Influence of the Environment upon the Organism"
(Proceedings Royal Physiological Society, Edinburgh: vol. ix. pt.
3, 1888). The case of the Amazonian parrots was communicated to
Darwin by Mr. Wallace ("Animals and Plants under Domestication,"
vol. ii. p. 269).
[BY] St. George Mivart, "On Truth," p. 378.
[BZ] _Op. cit._, p. 47. I venture to say, "with some assurance,"
because Charles Darwin, who had also considered this matter,
writes, "Who will pretend to decide how far the thick fur of
Arctic animals, or their white colour, is due to the direct action
of a severe climate, and how far to the preservation of the
best-protected individuals during a long succession of
generations?" ("Animals and Plants under Domestication," p. 415).
[CA] "Organic Evolution," English translation, p. 88.
[CB] "Contributions to Natural Selection," p. 197.
[CC] Since this was written, Mr. Poulton has described his results in
an interesting volume on "The Colours of Animals" (_q.v._).
[CD] See _Journal of Anatomy and Physiology_, vol. xxii. p. 215.
[CE] See Professor Herdman's Inaugural Address, Liverpool Biological
Society, 1888.
[CF] Francis Galton, "Inquiries into Human Faculty," p. 216.
[CG] That the epidermis is thicker on the palms of the hands and the
soles of the feet in the infant long before birth, may be
attributable to the inherited effects of use or pressure. It can
hardly be held that the thickening of the skin in these parts is
of elimination value.
[CH] The instances cited are from "Animals and Plants under
Domestication."