按键盘上方向键 ← 或 → 可快速上下翻页，按键盘上的 Enter 键可回到本书目录页，按键盘上方向键 ↑ 可回到本页顶部！
————未阅读完？加入书签已便下次继续阅读！
IV。 VARIATION。
By HUGO DE VRIES； Professor of Botany in the University of Amsterdam。
I。 DIFFERENT KINDS OF VARIABILITY。
Before Darwin； little was known concerning the phenomena of variability。 The fact； that hardly two leaves on a tree were exactly the same； could not escape observation： small deviations of the same kind were met with everywhere； among individuals as well as among the organs of the same plant。 Larger aberrations； spoken of as monstrosities； were for a long time regarded as lying outside the range of ordinary phenomena。 A special branch of inquiry； that of Teratology； was devoted to them； but it constituted a science by itself； sometimes connected with morphology； but having scarcely any bearing on the processes of evolution and heredity。
Darwin was the first to take a broad survey of the whole range of variations in the animal and vegetable kingdoms。 His theory of Natural Selection is based on the fact of variability。 In order that this foundation should be as strong as possible he collected all the facts； scattered in the literature of his time； and tried to arrange them in a scientific way。 He succeeded in showing that variations may be grouped along a line of almost continuous gradations； beginning with simple differences in size and ending with monstrosities。 He was struck by the fact that； as a rule； the smaller the deviations； the more frequently they appear； very abrupt breaks in characters being of rare occurrence。
Among these numerous degrees of variability Darwin was always on the look out for those which might； with the greatest probability； be considered as affording material for natural selection to act upon in the development of new species。 Neither of the extremes complied with his conceptions。 He often pointed out； that there are a good many small fluctuations； which in this respect must be absolutely useless。 On the other hand； he strongly combated the belief； that great changes would be necessary to explain the origin of species。 Some authors had propounded the idea that highly adapted organs； e。g。 the wings of a bird； could not have been developed in any other way than by a comparatively sudden modification of a well defined and important kind。 Such a conception would allow of great breaks or discontinuity in the evolution of highly differentiated animals and plants； shortening the time for the evolution of the whole organic kingdom and getting over numerous difficulties inherent in the theory of slow and gradual progress。 It would； moreover； account for the genetic relation of the larger groups of both animals and plants。 It would； in a word； undoubtedly afford an easy means of simplifying the problem of descent with modification。
Darwin； however； considered such hypotheses as hardly belonging to the domain of science； they belong； he said； to the realm of miracles。 That species have a capacity for change is admitted by all evolutionists； but there is no need to invoke modifications other than those represented by ordinary variability。 It is well known that in artificial selection this tendency to vary has given rise to numerous distinct races； and there is no reason for denying that it can do the same in nature； by the aid of natural selection。 On both lines an advance may be expected with equal probability。
His main argument； however； is that the most striking and most highly adapted modifications may be acquired by successive variations。 Each of these may be slight； and they may affect different organs； gradually adapting them to the same purpose。 The direction of the adaptations will be determined by the needs in the struggle for life； and natural selection will simply exclude all such changes as occur on opposite or deviating lines。 In this way； it is not variability itself which is called upon to explain beautiful adaptations； but it is quite sufficient to suppose that natural selection has operated during long periods in the same way。 Eventually； all the acquired characters； being transmitted together； would appear to us； as if they had all been simultaneously developed。
Correlations must play a large part in such special evolutions： when one part is modified； so will be other parts。 The distribution of nourishment will come in as one of the causes； the reactions of different organs to the same external influences as another。 But no doubt the more effective cause is that of the internal correlations； which； however； are still but dimly understood。 Darwin repeatedly laid great stress on this view； although a definite proof of its correctness could not be given in his time。 Such proof requires the direct observation of a mutation； and it should be stated here that even the first observations made in this direction have clearly confirmed Darwin's ideas。 The new evening primroses which have sprung in my garden from the old form of Oenothera Lamarckiana； and which have evidently been derived from it； in each case； by a single mutation； do not differ from their parent species in one character only； but in almost all their organs and qualities。 Oenothera gigas； for example； has stouter stems and denser foliage； the leaves are larger and broader； its thick flower…buds produce gigantic flowers； but only small fruits with large seeds。 Correlative changes of this kind are seen in all my new forms； and they lend support to the view that in the gradual development of highly adapted structures； analogous correlations may have played a large part。 They easily explain large deviations from an original type； without requiring the assumption of too many steps。
Monstrosities； as their name implies； are widely different in character from natural species； they cannot； therefore； be adduced as evidence in the investigation of the origin of species。 There is no doubt that they may have much in common as regards their manner of origin； and that the origin of species； once understood； may lead to a better understanding of the monstrosities。 But the reverse is not true； at least not as regards the main lines of development。 Here； it is clear； monstrosities cannot have played a part of any significance。
Reversions； or atavistic changes； would seem to give a better support to the theory of descent through modifications。 These have been of paramount importance on many lines of evolution of the animal as well as of the vegetable kingdom。 It is often assumed that monocotyledons are descended from some lower group of dicotyledons； probably allied to that which includes the buttercup family。 On this view the monocotyledons must be assumed to have lost the cambium and all its influence on secondary growth； the differentiation of the flower into calyx and corolla； the second cotyledon or seed…leaf and several other characters。 Losses of characters such as these may have been the result of abrupt changes； but this does not prove that the characters themselves have been produced with equal suddenness。 On the contrary； Darwin shows very convincingly that a modification may well be developed by a series of steps； and afterwards suddenly disappear。 Many monstrosities； such as those represented by twisted stems； furnish direct proofs in support of this view； since they are produced by the loss of one character and this loss implies secondary changes in a large number of other organs and qualities。
Darwin criticises in detail the hypothesis of great and abrupt changes and comes to the conclusion that it does not give even a shadow of an explanation of the origin of species。 It is as improbable as it is unnecessary。
Sports and spontaneous variations must now be considered。 It is well known that they have produced a large number of fine horticultural varieties。 The cut…leaved maple and many other trees and shrubs with split leaves are known to have been produced at a single step； this is true in the case of the single…leaf strawberry plant and of the laciniate variety of the greater celandine： many white flowers； white or yellow berries and numerous other forms had a similar origin。 But changes such as these do not come under the head of adaptations； as they consist for the most part in the loss of some quality or organ belonging to the species from which they were derived。 Darwin thinks it impossible to attribute to this cause the innumerable structures； which are so well adapted to the habits of life of each species。 At the present time we should say that such adaptations require progressive modifications； which are additions to the stock of qualities already possessed by the ancestors； and cannot； therefore； be explained on the ground of a supposed analogy with sports； which are for the most part of a retrogressive nature。
Excluding all these more or less sudden changes； there remains a long series of gradations of variability； but all of these are not assumed by Darwin to be equally fit for the production of new species。 In the first place； he disregards all mere temporary variations； such as size； albinism； etc。； further； he points out that very many species have almost certainly been produced by steps； not greater； and probably not very much smaller； than those separating closely related varieties。 For varieties are only small species。 Ne