Page images
PDF
EPUB

common bony or teleostean fishes as the highest, inasmuch as they are most strictly fish-like, and differ most from the other vertebrate classes. Still more plainly we see the obscurity of the subject by turning to plants, with which the standard of intellect is of course quite excluded ; and here some botanists rank those plants as highest which have every organ, as sepals, petals, stamens, and pistils, full developed in each flower; whereas other botanists, probably with more truth, look at the plants which have their several organs much modified and somewhat reduced in number as being of the highest rank.

If we look at the differentiation and specialisation of the several organs of each being when adult (and this will include the advancement of the brain for intellectual ' purposes) as the best standard of highness of organisation, natural selection clearly leads towards highness; for all physiologists admit that the specialisation of organs, inasmuch as they perform in this state their functions better, is an advantage to each being; and hence the accumulation of variations tending towards specialisation is within the scope of natural selection. On the other hand, we can see, bearing in mind that all organic beings are striving to increase at a high ratio and to seize on every ill-occupied place in the economy of nature, that it is quite possible for natural selection gradually to fit an organic being to a situation in which several organs would be superfluous and useless: in such cases there might be retrogression in the scale of organisation. Whether organisation on the whole has actually advanced from the remotest geological periods to the present day will be more conveniently discussed in our chapter on Geological Succession. .

But it may be objected that if all organic beings thus tend to rise in the scale, how is it that throughout the world a multitude of the lowest forms still exist; and how is it that in each great class some forms are far more highly developed than others ‘2 Why have not the more highly developed forms everywhere supplanted and exterminated the lower? Lamarck, who believed in an innate and inevitable tendency towards perfection in all organic beings, seems to have felt this difficulty so strongly, that he was led to suppose that new and simple forms were continually being produced by spontaneous generation. I need hardly say that Science in her present state does not countenance the belief that living creatures

are now ever produced from inorganic matter. On my theory the present existence of lowly organised productions offers no difficulty; for natural selection includes no necessary and universal law of advancement or development—it only takes advantage of such variations as arise and are beneficial to each creature under its complex relations of life. And it may be asked what advantage, as far as we can see, would it be to an infusorian animalcule ——to an intestinal worm—or even to an earth-worm, to be highly organised? If it were no advantage, these forms would be left by natural selection unimproved or but little improved; and might remain for indefinite ages in their present little advanced condition. " And geology tells us that some of the lowest forms, as the infusoria and rhizopods, have remained for an enormous period in nearly their present state. But to suppose that most of the many now existing low forms have not in the least advanced since the first dawn of life would be rash; for every naturalist who has dissected some of the beings now ranked as very low in the scale, must have been struck with their really wondrous and beautiful organisation.

Nearly the same remarks are applicable if we look to the great existing differences in the grades of organisation which occur within almost every great group ; for instance, to the co-existence of mammals and fish in the vertebrata, -—to the co-existence of man and the ornithorhynchus amongst mammalia—or of the shark and amphioxus, which latter fish in the extreme simplicity of its structure closely approaches the invertebrate classes. But mammals and fish hardly come into competition with each other; the advancement of certain mammals or of the whole class to the highest grade of organisation would not lead to their taking the place of, and thus exterminating, fishes. Physiologists believe that the brain must be bathed by warm blood to be highly active, and this requires aerial respiration; so that warm-blooded mammals when inhabiting the water live under some disadvantages compared with fishes. In this latter class, members of the shark family would not, it is probable, tend to supplant the amphioxus; the struggle for existence in the case of the amphioxus apparently will lie with members of the invertebrate classes. The three lowest orders of mammals, namely, marsupials, edentata, and rodents, co-exist in South America in the same region with numerous

monkeys, and probably interfere little with each other. Although organisation, on the whole, may have advanced and be advancing throughout the world, yet the scale will still present all degrees of perfection; for the high advancement of certain whole classes, or of certain members of each class, does not at all necessarily lead to the extinction of those groups with which they do not enter into

close competition. In some cases, as we shall hereaften~

see, lowly organised forms seem to have been preserved to the present day from inhabiting peculiar or isolated stations, where they have been subjected to less severe competition, and where they have existed in scanty numbers, which, as already explained, retards the chance of favourable variations arising.

Finally, I believe that lowly organised forms now exist in numbers throughout the world, and in nearly every class, from various causes. In some cases favourable variations may neVer have arisen for natural selection to act on and accumulate. In no case, probably, has time sufficed for the utmost possible amount of development. In some few cases there may have been what we must call retrogression of organisation. But the main cause lies in the circumstance that under very simple conditions of life a high organisation would be of no service,——possibly would be of actual disservice, as being of a more delicate nature, and more liable to be put out of order and thus injured.

A difficulty, diametrically opposite to this which we have just been considering, has been advanced, namely, looking to the dawn of life, when all organic beings, as we may imagine, presented the simplest structure, how could the first steps in advancement or in the differentiation and specialisation of parts have arisen ‘I I can make no sufficient answer; and can only say that as we have no facts to guide us, all speculation on the subject would be baseless and useless. It is, however, an error to suppose that there would be no struggle for existence, and, consequently, no natural selection, until many forms had been produced: variations in a single species inhabiting an isolated station might be beneficial, and through their preservation either the whole mass of individuals might become modified, or two distinct forms might arise. But I must recur to what was stated towards the close of the Introduction, where I say that no one ought to feel surprise at much remaining as yet unexplained on the origin of

species, if due allowance be made for our profound ignorance on the mutual relations of the inhabitants of the world during the many past epochs in its history.

I will here notice a few miscellaneous objections which have been advanced‘against my views, as some of the previous discussions may perhaps thus be made clearer. It has been argued that as none of the animals and plants of Egypt, of which we know anything, have changed during the last 3,000 years, so probably none have been modified in other parts of the world. The many animals which have remained unchanged since the commencement of the glacial period would have been an incomparably stronger case, for these have been exposed to great changes of climate and have migrated over great distances ; whereas, in Egypt, during the last 3,000 years, the conditions of life, as far as we know, have remained absolutely uniform. The fact of little or no modification having been effected since the glacial period would be of some avail against those who believe in the existence of an innate and necessary law of development, but is powerless against the doctrine of natural selection, which only implies that variations occasionally occurring in single species are under favourable conditions preserved. As Mr. Fawcett has well asked, what would be thought of a man who argued that because he could show that Mont Blanc and the other Alpine peaks had exactly the same height 3,000'years ago as at present, consequently that these mountains had never been slowly upraised, and that the height of other mountains in other parts of the world had not recently been increased by slow degrees ‘2 r- >

It has been objected, if natural selection be so powerfu , why has not this or that organ been recently modified and improved ‘2 Why has not the proboscis of the hive-bee been lengthened so as to reach the nectar in the flower of the red-clover? Why has not the ostrich acquired the power of flight? But granting that these organs have happened to vary in the right direction, granting that there has been time sufficient for the slow work of natural selection, checked as it will be by intercrossing and the tendency to reversion, who will pretend that he knOWS the natural history of any one organic being sufficiently well to say whether any particular change would be to its advantage ‘I Can we feel sure that a long proboscis would not be a disadvantage to the hive-bee in sucking the innumerable small flowers which it frequents ‘2 Can we

feel sure that a long proboscis would not, by correlation of growth, almost necessarily give increased size to other parts of the mouth, perhaps interfering with the delicate cell-constructing work? In the case of the ostrich a moment’s reflection will show that an enormous supply of food would be necessary in this bird of the desert, to supply force to move its huge body through the air. But such ill-considered objections are hardly worth notice.

The celebrated palzeontologist, Professor Bronn, in his German translation of this work, has advanced various good objections to my views, and other remarks in its favour. Of the objections, some seem to me unimportant, some few are owing to misapprehension, and some are incidentally noticed in various parts of this volume. On the erroneous supposition that all the species of a region are believed by me to be changing at the same time, he justly asks how it is that all the forms of life do not present a fluctuating and inextricably confused body ? but it is sufficient for us if some few forms at any one time are variable, and few will dispute that this is the case. He asks, how can it be on the principle of natural selection that a variety should live in abundance side by side with the parent species; for the variety during its formation is supposed to have supplanted the intermediate forms between itself and the parent species, and yet it has not supplanted the parent species itself, for both are supposed now to live side by side? If the variety and parent species have become fitted to slightly different habits of life, they might live together; though in the case of animals which freely cross and move about, varieties seem to be almost always confined to distinct localities. But is it the case that varieties of plants and of the lower animals are often found in abundance side by side with the parent forms ? Laying aside the polymorphic species in which the innumerable variations that occur seem neither advantageous nor disadvantageous to the species, and have not been fixed; laying aside also temporary variations, such as albinism, &c., my impression is that varieties and the supposed parent species are generally found, inhabiting either distinct stations, high land or low land, dry or moist districts, or distinct regions.

Again, Professor Bronn truly remarks, that distinct species do not differ from each other in single characters alone, but in many; and he asks, how it comes that natural selection should always have simultaneously

« PreviousContinue »