The Origin of Species
by Charles Darwin
Previous Chapter
Next Chapter
Chapter 4 - Natural Selection
How will the struggle for existence, discussed too briefly in the
last chapter, act in regard to variation? Can the principle of selection,
which we have seen is so potent in the hands of man, apply in nature?
I think we shall see that it can act most effectually. Let it be borne
in mind in what an endless number of strange peculiarities our domestic
productions, and, in a lesser degree, those under nature, vary; and
how strong the hereditary tendency is. Under domestication, it may
be truly said that the, whole organisation becomes in some degree
plastic. Let it be borne in mind how infinitely complex and close-fitting
are the mutual relations of all organic beings to each other and to
their physical conditions of life. Can it, then, be thought improbable,
seeing that variations useful to man have undoubtedly occurred, that
other variations useful in some way to each being in the great and
complex battle of life, should sometimes occur in the course of thousands
of generations? If such do occur, can we doubt (remembering that many
more individuals are born than can possibly survive) that individuals
having any advantage, however slight, over others, would have the
best chance of surviving and of procreating their kind? On the other
hand, we may feel sure that any variation in the least degree injurious
would be rigidly destroyed. This preservation of favourable variations
and the rejection of injurious variations, I call Natural Selection.
Variations neither useful nor injurious would not be affected by natural
selection, and would be left a fluctuating element, as perhaps we
see in the species called polymorphic.
We shall best understand the probable course of natural selection
by taking the case of a country undergoing some physical change,
for instance, of climate. The proportional numbers of its inhabitants
would almost immediately undergo a change, and some species might
become extinct. We may conclude, from what we have seen of the intimate
and complex manner in which the inhabitants of each country are
bound together, that any change in the numerical proportions of
some of the inhabitants, independently of the change of climate
itself, would most seriously affect many of the others. If the country
were open on its borders, new forms would certainly immigrate, and
this also would seriously disturb the relations of some of the former
inhabitants. Let it be remembered how powerful the influence of
a single introduced tree or mammal has been shown to be. But in
the case of an island, or of a country partly surrounded by barriers,
into which new and better adapted forms could not freely enter,
we should then have places in the economy of nature which would
assuredly be better filled up, if some of the original inhabitants
were in some manner modified; for, had the area been open to immigration,
these same places would have been seized on by intruders. In such
case, every slight modification, which in the course of ages chanced
to arise, and which in any way favoured the individuals of any of
the species, by better adapting them to their altered conditions,
would tend to be preserved; and natural selection would thus have
free scope for the work of improvement.
We have reason to believe, as stated in the first chapter, that
a change in the conditions of life, by specially acting on the reproductive
system, causes or increases variability; and in the foregoing case
the conditions of life are supposed to have undergone a change,
and this would manifestly be favourable to natural selection, by
giving a better chance of profitable variations occurring; and unless
profitable variations do occur, natural selection can do nothing.
Not that, as I believe, any extreme amount of variability is necessary;
as man can certainly produce great results by adding up in any given
direction mere individual differences, so could Nature, but far
more easily, from having incomparably longer time at her disposal.
Nor do I believe that any great physical change, as of climate,
or any unusual degree of isolation to check immigration, is actually
necessary to produce new and unoccupied places for natural selection
to fill up by modifying and improving some of the varying inhabitants.
For as all the inhabitants of each country are struggling together
with nicely balanced forces, extremely slight modifications in the
structure or habits of one inhabitant would often give it an advantage
over others; and still further modifications of the same kind would
often still further increase the advantage. No country can be named
in which all the native inhabitants are now so perfectly adapted
to each other and to the physical conditions under which they live,
that none of them could anyhow be improved; for in all countries,
the natives have been so far conquered by naturalised productions,
that they have allowed foreigners to take firm possession of the
land. And as foreigners have thus everywhere beaten some of the
natives, we may safely conclude that the natives might have been
modified with advantage, so as to have better resisted such intruders.
As man can produce and certainly has produced a great result by
his methodical and unconscious means of selection, what may not
nature effect? Man can act only on external and visible characters:
nature cares nothing for appearances, except in so far as they may
be useful to any being. She can act on every internal organ, on
every shade of constitutional difference, on the whole machinery
of life. Man selects only for his own good; Nature only for that
of the being which she tends. Every selected character is fully
exercised by her; and the being is placed under well-suited conditions
of life. Man keeps the natives of many climates in the same country;
he seldom exercises each selected character in some peculiar and
fitting manner; he feeds a long and a short beaked pigeon on the
same food; he does not exercise a long-backed or long-legged quadruped
in any peculiar manner; he exposes sheep with long and short wool
to the same climate. He does not allow the most vigorous males to
struggle for the females. He does not rigidly destroy all inferior
animals, but protects during each varying season, as far as lies
in his power, all his productions. He often begins his selection
by some half-monstrous form; or at least by some modification prominent
enough to catch his eye, or to be plainly useful to him. Under nature,
the slightest difference of structure or constitution may well turn
the nicely-balanced scale in the struggle for life, and so be preserved.
How fleeting are the wishes and efforts of man! how short his time!
and consequently how poor will his products be, compared with those
accumulated by nature during whole geological periods. Can we wonder,
then, that nature's productions should be far 'truer' in character
than man's productions; that they should be infinitely better adapted
to the most complex conditions of life, and should plainly bear
the stamp of far higher workmanship?
It may be said that natural selection is daily and hourly scrutinising,
throughout the world, every variation, even the slightest; rejecting
that which is bad, preserving and adding up all that is good; silently
and insensibly working, whenever and wherever opportunity offers,
at the improvement of each organic being in relation to its organic
and inorganic conditions of life. We see nothing of these slow changes
in progress, until the hand of time has marked the long lapses of
ages, and then so imperfect is our view into long past geological
ages, that we only see that the forms of life are now different
from what they formerly were.
Although natural selection can act only through and for the good
of each being, yet characters and structures, which we are apt to
consider as of very trifling importance, may thus be acted on. When
we see leaf-eating insects green, and bark-feeders mottled-grey;
the alpine ptarmigan white in winter, the red-grouse the colour
of heather, and the black-grouse that of peaty earth, we must believe
that these tints are of service to these birds and insects in preserving
them from danger. Grouse, if not destroyed at some period of their
lives, would increase in countless numbers; they are known to suffer
largely from birds of prey; and hawks are guided by eyesight to
their prey, so much so, that on parts of the Continent persons are
warned not to keep white pigeons, as being the most liable to destruction.
Hence I can see no reason to doubt that natural selection might
be most effective in giving the proper colour to each kind of grouse,
and in keeping that colour, when once acquired, true and constant.
Nor ought we to think that the occasional destruction of an animal
of any particular colour would produce little effect: we should
remember how essential it is in a flock of white sheep to destroy
every lamb with the faintest trace of black. In plants the down
on the fruit and the colour of the flesh are considered by botanists
as characters of the most trifling importance: yet we hear from
an excellent horticulturist, Downing, that in the United States
smooth-skinned fruits suffer far more from a beetle, a curculio,
than those with down; that purple plums suffer far more from a certain
disease than yellow plums; whereas another disease attacks yellow-fleshed
peaches far more than those with other coloured flesh. If, with
all the aids of art, these slight differences make a great difference
in cultivating the several varieties, assuredly, in a state of nature,
where the trees would have to struggle with other trees and with
a host of enemies, such differences would effectually settle which
variety, whether a smooth or downy, a yellow or purple fleshed fruit,
should succeed.
In looking at many small points of difference between species,
which, as far as our ignorance permits us to judge, seem to be quite
unimportant, we must not forget that climate, food, &c., probably
produce some slight and direct effect. It is, however, far more
necessary to bear in mind that there are many unknown laws of correlation
of growth, which, when one part of the organisation is modified
through variation, and the modifications are accumulated by natural
selection for the good of the being, will cause other modifications,
often of the most unexpected nature.
As we see that those variations which under domestication appear
at any particular period of life, tend to reappear in the offspring
at the same period; for instance, in the seeds of the many varieties
of our culinary and agricultural plants; in the caterpillar and
cocoon stages of the varieties of the silkworm; in the eggs of poultry,
and in the colour of the down of their chickens; in the horns of
our sheep and cattle when nearly adult; so in a state of nature,
natural selection will be enabled to act on and modify organic beings
at any age, by the accumulation of profitable variations at that
age, and by their inheritance at a corresponding age. If it profit
a plant to have its seeds more and more widely disseminated by the
wind, I can see no greater difficulty in this being effected through
natural selection, than in the cotton-planter increasing and improving
by selection the down in the pods on his cotton-trees. Natural selection
may modify and adapt the larva of an insect to a score of contingencies,
wholly different from those which concern the mature insect. These
modifications will no doubt affect, through the laws of correlation,
the structure of the adult; and probably in the case of those insects
which live only for a few hours, and which never feed, a large part
of their structure is merely the correlated result of successive
changes in the structure of their larvae. So, conversely, modifications
in the adult will probably often affect the structure of the larva;
but in all cases natural selection will ensure that modifications
consequent on other modifications at a different period of life,
shall not be in the least degree injurious: for if they became so,
they would cause the extinction of the species.
Natural selection will modify the structure of the young in relation
to the parent, and of the parent in relation to the young. In social
animals it will adapt the structure of each individual for the benefit
of the community; if each in consequence profits by the selected
change. What natural selection cannot do, is to modify the structure
of one species, without giving it any advantage, for the good of
another species; and though statements to this effect may be found
in works of natural history, I cannot find one case which will bear
investigation. A structure used only once in an animal's whole life,
if of high importance to it, might be modified to any extent by
natural selection; for instance, the great jaws possessed by certain
insects, and used exclusively for opening the cocoon or the hard
tip to the beak of nestling birds, used for breaking the egg. It
has been asserted, that of the best short-beaked tumbler-pigeons
more perish in the egg than are able to get out of it; so that fanciers
assist in the act of hatching. Now, if nature had to make the beak
of a full-grown pigeon very short for the bird's own advantage,
the process of modification would be very slow, and there would
be simultaneously the most rigorous selection of the young birds
within the egg, which had the most powerful and hardest beaks, for
all with weak beaks would inevitably perish: or, more delicate and
more easily broken shells might be selected, the thickness of the
shell being known to vary like every other structure.
Sexual Selection
Inasmuch as peculiarities often appear under domestication in one
sex and become hereditarily attached to that sex, the same fact probably
occurs under nature, and if so, natural selection will be able to
modify one sex in its functional relations to the other sex, or in
relation to wholly different habits of life in the two sexes, as is
sometimes the case with insects. And this leads me to say a few words
on what I call Sexual Selection. This depends, not on a struggle for
existence, but on a struggle between the males for possession of the
females; the result is not death to the unsuccessful competitor, but
few or no offspring. Sexual selection is, therefore, less rigorous
than natural selection. Generally, the most vigorous males, those
which are best fitted for their places in nature, will leave most
progeny. But in many cases, victory will depend not on general vigour,
but on having special weapons, confined to the male sex. A hornless
stag or spurless cock would have a poor chance of leaving offspring.
Sexual selection by always allowing the victor to breed might surely
give indomitable courage, length to the spur, and strength to the
wing to strike in the spurred leg, as well as the brutal cock-fighter,
who knows well that he can improve his breed by careful selection
of the best cocks. How low in the scale of nature this law of battle
descends, I know not; male alligators have been described as fighting,
bellowing, and whirling round, like Indians in a war-dance, for the
possession of the females; male salmons have been seen fighting all
day long; male stag-beetles often bear wounds from the huge mandibles
of other males. The war is, perhaps, severest between the males of
polygamous animals, and these seem oftenest provided with special
weapons. The males of carnivorous animals are already well armed;
though to them and to others, special means of defence may be given
through means of sexual selection, as the mane to the lion, the shoulder-pad
to the boar, and the hooked jaw to the male salmon; for the shield
may be as important for victory, as the sword or spear.
Amongst birds, the contest is often of a more peaceful character.
All those who have attended to the subject, believe that there is
the severest rivalry between the males of many species to attract
by singing the females. The rock-thrush of Guiana, birds of paradise,
and some others, congregate; and successive males display their
gorgeous plumage and perform strange antics before the females,
which standing by as spectators, at last choose the most attractive
partner. Those who have closely attended to birds in confinement
well know that they often take individual preferences and dislikes:
thus Sir R. Heron has described how one pied peacock was eminently
attractive to all his hen birds. It may appear childish to attribute
any effect to such apparently weak means: I cannot here enter on
the details necessary to support this view; but if man can in a
short time give elegant carriage and beauty to his bantams, according
to his standard of beauty, I can see no good reason to doubt that
female birds, by selecting, during thousands of generations, the
most melodious or beautiful males, according to their standard of
beauty, might produce a marked effect. I strongly suspect that some
well-known laws with respect to the plumage of male and female birds,
in comparison with the plumage of the young, can be explained on
the view of plumage having been chiefly modified by sexual selection,
acting when the birds have come to the breeding age or during the
breeding season; the modifications thus produced being inherited
at corresponding ages or seasons, either by the males alone, or
by the males and females; but I have not space here to enter on
this subject.
Thus it is, as I believe, that when the males and females of any
animal have the same general habits of life, but differ in structure,
colour, or ornament, such differences have been mainly caused by
sexual selection; that is, individual males have had, in successive
generations, some slight advantage over other males, in their weapons,
means of defence, or charms; and have transmitted these advantages
to their male offspring. Yet, I would not wish to attribute all
such sexual differences to this agency: for we see peculiarities
arising and becoming attached to the male sex in our domestic animals
(as the wattle in male carriers, horn-like protuberances in the
cocks of certain fowls, &c.), which we cannot believe to be
either useful to the males in battle, or attractive to the females.
We see analogous cases under nature, for instance, the tuft of hair
on the breast of the turkey-cock, which can hardly be either useful
or ornamental to this bird; indeed, had the tuft appeared under
domestication, it would have been called a monstrosity.
Illustrations of the action of Natural Selection
In order to make it clear how, as I believe, natural selection acts,
I must beg permission to give one or two imaginary illustrations.
Let us take the case of a wolf, which preys on various animals, securing
some by craft, some by strength, and some by fleetness; and let us
suppose that the fleetest prey, a deer for instance, had from any
change in the country increased in numbers, or that other prey had
decreased in numbers, during that season of the year when the wolf
is hardest pressed for food. I can under such circumstances see no
reason to doubt that the swiftest and slimmest wolves would have the
best chance of surviving, and so be preserved or selected, provided
always that they retained strength to master their prey at this or
at some other period of the year, when they might be compelled to
prey on other animals. I can see no more reason to doubt this, than
that man can improve the fleetness of his greyhounds by careful and
methodical selection, or by that unconscious selection which results
from each man trying to keep the best dogs without any thought of
modifying the breed.
Even without any change in the proportional numbers of the animals
on which our wolf preyed, a cub might be born with an innate tendency
to pursue certain kinds of prey. Nor can this be thought very improbable;
for we often observe great differences in the natural tendencies
of our domestic animals; one cat, for instance, taking to catch
rats, another mice; one cat, according to Mr. St. John, bringing
home winged game, another hares or rabbits, and another hunting
on marshy ground and almost nightly catching woodcocks or snipes.
The tendency to catch rats rather than mice is known to be inherited.
Now, if any slight innate change of habit or of structure benefited
an individual wolf, it would have the best chance of surviving and
of leaving offspring. Some of its young would probably inherit the
same habits or structure, and by the repetition of this process,
a new variety might be formed which would either supplant or coexist
with the parent-form of wolf. Or, again, the wolves inhabiting a
mountainous district, and those frequenting the lowlands, would
naturally be forced to hunt different prey; and from the continued
preservation of the individuals best fitted for the two sites, two
varieties might slowly be formed. These varieties would cross and
blend where they met; but to this subject of intercrossing we shall
soon have to return. I may add, that, according to Mr. Pierce, there
are two varieties of the wolf inhabiting the Catskill Mountains
in the United States, one with a light greyhound-like form, which
pursues deer, and the other more bulky, with shorter legs, which
more frequently attacks the shepherd's flocks.
Let us now take a more complex case. Certain plants excrete a sweet
juice, apparently for the sake of eliminating something injurious
from their sap: this is effected by glands at the base of the stipules
in some Leguminosae, and at the back of the leaf of the common laurel.
This juice, though small in quantity, is greedily sought by insects.
Let us now suppose a little sweet juice or nectar to be excreted
by the inner bases of the petals of a flower. In this case insects
in seeking the nectar would get dusted with pollen, and would certainly
often transport the pollen from one flower to the stigma of another
flower. The flowers of two distinct individuals of the same species
would thus get crossed; and the act of crossing, we have good reason
to believe (as will hereafter be more fully alluded to), would produce
very vigorous seedlings, which consequently would have the best
chance of flourishing and surviving. Some of these seedlings would
probably inherit the nectar-excreting power. Those in individual
flowers which had the largest glands or nectaries, and which excreted
most nectar, would be oftenest visited by insects, and would be
oftenest crossed; and so in the long-run would gain the upper hand.
Those flowers, also, which had their stamens and pistils placed,
in relation to the size and habits of the particular insects which
visited them, so as to favour in any degree the transportal of their
pollen from flower to flower, would likewise be favoured or selected.
We might have taken the case of insects visiting flowers for the
sake of collecting pollen instead of nectar; and as pollen is formed
for the sole object of fertilisation, its destruction appears a
simple loss to the plant; yet if a little pollen were carried, at
first occasionally and then habitually, by the pollen-devouring
insects from flower to flower, and a cross thus effected, although
nine-tenths of the pollen were destroyed, it might still be a great
gain to the plant; and those individuals which produced more and
more pollen, and had larger and larger anthers, would be selected.
When our plant, by this process of the continued preservation or
natural selection of more and more attractive flowers, had been
rendered highly attractive to insects, they would, unintentionally
on their part, regularly carry pollen from flower to flower; and
that they can most effectually do this, I could easily show by many
striking instances. I will give only one not as a very striking
case, but as likewise illustrating one step in the separation of
the sexes of plants, presently to be alluded to. Some holly-trees
bear only male flowers, which have four stamens producing rather
a small quantity of pollen, and a rudimentary pistil; other holly-trees
bear only female flowers; these have a full-sized pistil, and four
stamens with shrivelled anthers, in which not a grain of pollen
can be detected. Having found a female tree exactly sixty yards
from a male tree, I put the stigmas of twenty flowers, taken from
different branches, under the microscope, and on all, without exception,
there were pollen-grains, and on some a profusion of pollen. As
the wind had set for several days from the female to the male tree,
the pollen could not thus have been carried. The weather had been
cold and boisterous, and therefore not favourable to bees, nevertheless
every female flower which I examined had been effectually fertilised
by the bees, accidentally dusted with pollen, having flown from
tree to tree in search of nectar. But to return to our imaginary
case: as soon as the plant had been rendered so highly attractive
to insects that pollen was regularly carried from flower to flower,
another process might commence. No naturalist doubts the advantage
of what has been called the 'physiological division of labour;'
hence we may believe that it would be advantageous to a plant to
produce stamens alone in one flower or on one whole plant, and pistils
alone in another flower or on another plant. In plants under culture
and placed under new conditions of life, sometimes the male organs
and sometimes the female organs become more or less impotent; now
if we suppose this to occur in ever so slight a degree under nature,
then as pollen is already carried regularly from flower to flower,
and as a more complete separation of the sexes of our plant would
be advantageous on the principle of the division of labour, individuals
with this tendency more and more increased, would be continually
favoured or selected, until at last a complete separation of the
sexes would be effected.
Let us now turn to the nectar-feeding insects in our imaginary
case: we may suppose the plant of which we have been slowly increasing
the nectar by continued selection, to be a common plant; and that
certain insects depended in main part on its nectar for food. I
could give many facts, showing how anxious bees are to save time;
for instance, their habit of cutting holes and sucking the nectar
at the bases of certain flowers, which they can, with a very little
more trouble, enter by the mouth. Bearing such facts in mind, I
can see no reason to doubt that an accidental deviation in the size
and form of the body, or in the curvature and length of the proboscis,
&c., far too slight to be appreciated by us, might profit a
bee or other insect, so that an individual so characterised would
be able to obtain its food more quickly, and so have a better chance
of living and leaving descendants. Its descendants would probably
inherit a tendency to a similar slight deviation of structure. The
tubes of the corollas of the common red and incarnate clovers (Trifolium
pratense and incarnatum) do not on a hasty glance appear to differ
in length; yet the hive-bee can easily suck the nectar out of the
incarnate clover, but not out of the common red clover, which is
visited by humble-bees alone; so that whole fields of the red clover
offer in vain an abundant supply of precious nectar to the hive-bee.
Thus it might be a great advantage to the hive-bee to have a slightly
longer or differently constructed proboscis. On the other hand,
I have found by experiment that the fertility of clover greatly
depends on bees visiting and moving parts of the corolla, so as
to push the pollen on to the stigmatic surface. Hence, again, if
humble-bees were to become rare in any country, it might be a great
advantage to the red clover to have a shorter or more deeply divided
tube to its corolla, so that the hive-bee could visit its flowers.
Thus I can understand how a flower and a bee might slowly become,
either simultaneously or one after the other, modified and adapted
in the most perfect manner to each other, by the continued preservation
of individuals presenting mutual and slightly favourable deviations
of structure.
I am well aware that this doctrine of natural selection, exemplified
in the above imaginary instances, is open to the same objections
which were at first urged against Sir Charles Lyell's noble views
on 'the modern changes of the earth, as illustrative of geology;'
but we now very seldom hear the action, for instance, of the coast-waves,
called a trifling and insignificant cause, when applied to the excavation
of gigantic valleys or to the formation of the longest lines of
inland cliffs. Natural selection can act only by the preservation
and accumulation of infinitesimally small inherited modifications,
each profitable to the preserved being; and as modern geology has
almost banished such views as the excavation of a great valley by
a single diluvial wave, so will natural selection, if it be a true
principle, banish the belief of the continued creation of new organic
beings, or of any great and sudden modification in their structure.
On the Intercrossing of Individuals
I must here introduce a short digression. In the case of animals and
plants with separated sexes, it is of course obvious that two individuals
must always unite for each birth; but in the case of hermaphrodites
this is far from obvious. Nevertheless I am strongly inclined to believe
that with all hermaphrodites two individuals, either occasionally
or habitually, concur for the reproduction of their kind. This view,
I may add, was first suggested by Andrew Knight. We shall presently
see its importance; but I must here treat the subject with extreme
brevity, though I have the materials prepared for an ample discussion.
All vertebrate animals, all insects, and some other large groups of
animals, pair for each birth. Modern research has much diminished
the number of supposed hermaphrodites, and of real hermaphrodites
a large number pair; that is, two individuals regularly unite for
reproduction, which is all that concerns us. But still there are many
hermaphrodite animals which certainly do not habitually pair, and
a vast majority of plants are hermaphrodites. What reason, it may
be asked, is there for supposing in these cases that two individuals
ever concur in reproduction? As it is impossible here to enter on
details, I must trust to some general considerations alone.
In the first place, I have collected so large a body of facts,
showing, in accordance with the almost universal belief of breeders,
that with animals and plants a cross between different varieties,
or between individuals of the same variety but of another strain,
gives vigour and fertility to the offspring; and on the other hand,
that close interbreeding diminishes vigour and fertility;
that these facts alone incline me to believe that it is a general
law of nature (utterly ignorant though we be of the meaning of the
law) that no organic being self-fertilises itself for an eternity
of generations; but that a cross with another individual is occasionally
perhaps at very long intervals -- indispensable.
On the belief that this is a law of nature, we can, I think, understand
several large classes of facts, such as the following, which on
any other view are inexplicable. Every hybridizer knows how unfavourable
exposure to wet is to the fertilisation of a flower, yet what a
multitude of flowers have their anthers and stigmas fully exposed
to the weather! but if an occasional cross be indispensable, the
fullest freedom for the entrance of pollen from another individual
will explain this state of exposure, more especially as the plant's
own anthers and pistil generally stand so close together that self-fertilisation
seems almost inevitable. Many flowers, on the other hand, have their
organs of fructification closely enclosed, as in the great papilionaceous
or pea-family; but in several, perhaps in all, such flowers, there
is a very curious adaptation between the structure of the flower
and the manner in which bees suck the nectar; for, in doing this,
they either push the flower's own pollen on the stigma, or bring
pollen from another flower. So necessary are the visits of bees
to papilionaceous flowers, that I have found, by experiments published
elsewhere, that their fertility is greatly diminished if these visits
be prevented. Now, it is scarcely possible that bees should fly
from flower to flower, and not carry pollen from one to the other,
to the great good, as I believe, of the plant. Bees will act like
a camel-hair pencil, and it is quite sufficient just to touch the
anthers of one flower and then the stigma of another with the same
brush to ensure fertilisation; but it must not be supposed that
bees would thus produce a multitude of hybrids between distinct
species; for if you bring on the same brush a plant's own pollen
and pollen from another species, the former will have such a prepotent
effect, that it will invariably and completely destroy, as has been
shown by Gärtner, any influence from the foreign pollen.
When the stamens of a flower suddenly spring towards the pistil,
or slowly move one after the other towards it, the contrivance seems
adapted solely to ensure self-fertilisation; and no doubt it is
useful for this end: but, the agency of insects is often required
to cause the stamens to spring forward, as Kölreuter has shown
to be the case with the barberry; and curiously in this very genus,
which seems to have a special contrivance for self-fertilisation,
it is well known that if very closely-allied forms or varieties
are planted near each other, it is hardly possible to raise pure
seedlings, so largely do they naturally cross. In many other cases,
far from there being any aids for self-fertilisation, there are
special contrivances, as I could show from the writings of C. C.
Sprengel and from my own observations, which effectually prevent
the stigma receiving pollen from its own flower: for instance, in
Lobelia fulgens, there is a really beautiful and elaborate contrivance
by which every one of the infinitely numerous pollen-granules are
swept out of the conjoined anthers of each flower, before the stigma
of that individual flower is ready to receive them; and as this
flower is never visited, at least in my garden, by insects, it never
sets a seed, though by placing pollen from one flower on the stigma
of another, I raised plenty of seedlings; and whilst another species
of Lobelia growing close by, which is visited by bees, seeds freely.
In very many other cases, though there be no special mechanical
contrivance to prevent the stigma of a flower receiving its own
pollen, yet, as C. C. Sprengel has shown, and as I can confirm,
either the anthers burst before the stigma is ready for fertilisation,
or the stigma is ready before the pollen of that flower is ready,
so that these plants have in fact separated sexes, and must habitually
be crossed. How strange are these facts! How strange that the pollen
and stigmatic surface of the same flower, though placed so close
together, as if for the very purpose of self-fertilisation, should
in so many cases be mutually useless to each other! How simply are
these facts explained on the view of an occasional cross with a
distinct individual being advantageous or indispensable!
If several varieties of the cabbage, radish, onion, and of some
other plants, be allowed to seed near each other, a large majority,
as I have found, of the seedlings thus raised will turn out mongrels:
for instance, I raised 233 seedling cabbages from some plants of
different varieties growing near each other, and of these only 78
were true to their kind, and some even of these were not perfectly
true. Yet the pistil of each cabbage-flower is surrounded not only
by its own six stamens, but by those of the many other flowers on
the same plant. How, then, comes it that such a vast number of the
seedlings are mongrelised? I suspect that it must arise from the
pollen of a distinct variety having a prepotent effect over
a flower's own pollen; and that this is part of the general law
of good being derived from the intercrossing of distinct individuals
of the same species. When distinct species are crossed the
case is directly the reverse, for a plant's own pollen is always
prepotent over foreign pollen; but to this subject we shall return
in a future chapter.
In the case of a gigantic tree covered with innumerable flowers,
it may be objected that pollen could seldom be carried from tree
to tree, and at most only from flower to flower on the same tree,
and that flowers on the same tree can be considered as distinct
individuals only in a limited sense. I believe this objection to
be valid, but that nature has largely provided against it by giving
to trees a strong tendency to bear flowers with separated sexes.
When the sexes are separated, although the male and female flowers
may be produced on the same tree, we can see that pollen must be
regularly carried from flower to flower; and this will give a better
chance of pollen being occasionally carried from tree to tree. That
trees belonging to all Orders have their sexes more often separated
than other plants, I find to be the case in this country; and at
my request Dr Hooker tabulated the trees of New Zealand, and Dr
Asa Gray those of the United States, and the result was as I anticipated.
On the other hand, Dr Hooker has recently informed me that he finds
that the rule does not hold in Australia; and I have made these
few remarks on the sexes of trees simply to call attention to the
subject.
Turning for a very brief space to animals: on the land there are
some hermaphrodites, as land-mollusca and earth-worms; but these
all pair. As yet I have not found a single case of a terrestrial
animal which fertilises itself. We can understand this remarkable
fact, which offers so strong a contrast with terrestrial plants,
on the view of an occasional cross being indispensable, by considering
the medium in which terrestrial animals live, and the nature of
the fertilising element; for we know of no means, analogous to the
action of insects and of the wind in the case of plants, by which
an occasional cross could be effected with terrestrial animals without
the concurrence of two individuals. Of aquatic animals, there are
many self-fertilising hermaphrodites; but here currents in the water
offer an obvious means for an occasional cross. And, as in the case
of flowers, I have as yet failed, after consultation with one of
the highest authorities, namely, Professor Huxley, to discover a
single case of an hermaphrodite animal with the organs of reproduction
so perfectly enclosed within the body, that access from without
and the occasional influence of a distinct individual can be shown
to be physically impossible. Cirripedes long appeared to me to present
a case of very great difficulty under this point of view; but I
have been enabled, by a fortunate chance, elsewhere to prove that
two individuals, though both are self-fertilising hermaphrodites,
do sometimes cross.
It must have struck most naturalists as a strange anomaly that,
in the case of both animals and plants, species of the same family
and even of the same genus, though agreeing closely with each other
in almost their whole organisation, yet are not rarely, some of
them hermaphrodites, and some of them unisexual. But if, in fact,
all hermaphrodites do occasionally intercross with other individuals,
the difference between hermaphrodites and unisexual species, as
far as function is concerned, becomes very small.
From these several considerations and from the many special facts
which I have collected, but which I am not here able to give, I
am strongly inclined to suspect that, both in the vegetable and
animal kingdoms, an occasional intercross with a distinct individual
is a law of nature. I am well aware that there are, on this view,
many cases of difficulty, some of which I am trying to investigate.
Finally then, we may conclude that in many organic beings, a cross
between two individuals is an obvious necessity for each birth;
in many others it occurs perhaps only at long intervals; but in
none, as I suspect, can self-fertilisation go on for perpetuity.
Circumstances favourable to Natural Selection
This is an extremely intricate subject. A large amount of inheritable
and diversified variability is favourable, but I believe mere individual
differences suffice for the work. A large number of individuals, by
giving a better chance for the appearance within any given period
of profitable variations, will compensate for a lesser amount of variability
in each individual, and is, I believe, an extremely important element
of success. Though nature grants vast periods of time for the work
of natural selection, she does not grant an indefinite period; for
as all organic beings are striving, it may be said, to seize on each
place in the economy of nature, if any one species does not become
modified and improved in a corresponding degree with its competitors,
it will soon be exterminated.
In man's methodical selection, a breeder selects for some definite
object, and free intercrossing will wholly stop his work. But when
many men, without intending to alter the breed, have a nearly common
standard of perfection, and all try to get and breed from the best
animals, much improvement and modification surely but slowly follow
from this unconscious process of selection, notwithstanding a large
amount of crossing with inferior animals. Thus it will be in nature;
for within a confined area, with some place in its polity not so
perfectly occupied as might be, natural selection will always tend
to preserve all the individuals varying in the right direction,
though in different degrees, so as better to fill up the unoccupied
place. But if the area be large, its several districts will almost
certainly present different conditions of life; and then if natural
selection be modifying and improving a species in the several districts,
there will be intercrossing with the other individuals of the same
species on the confines of each. And in this case the effects of
intercrossing can hardly be counterbalanced by natural selection
always tending to modify all the individuals in each district in
exactly the same manner to the conditions of each; for in a continuous
area, the conditions will generally graduate away insensibly from
one district to another. The intercrossing will most affect those
animals which unite for each birth, which wander much, and which
do not breed at a very quick rate. Hence in animals of this nature,
for instance in birds, varieties will generally be confined to separated
countries; and this I believe to be the case. In hermaphrodite organisms
which cross only occasionally, and likewise in animals which unite
for each birth, but which wander little and which can increase at
a very rapid rate, a new and improved variety might be quickly formed
on any one spot, and might there maintain itself in a body, so that
whatever intercrossing took place would be chiefly between the individuals
of the same new variety. A local variety when once thus formed might
subsequently slowly spread to other districts. On the above principle,
nurserymen always prefer getting seed from a large body of plants
of the same variety, as the chance of intercrossing with other varieties
is thus lessened.
Even in the case of slow-breeding animals, which unite for each
birth, we must not overrate the effects of intercrosses in retarding
natural selection; for I can bring a considerable catalogue of facts,
showing that within the same area, varieties of the same animal
can long remain distinct, from haunting different stations, from
breeding at slightly different seasons, or from varieties of the
same kind preferring to pair together.
Intercrossing plays a very important part in nature in keeping
the individuals of the same species, or of the same variety, true
and uniform in character. It will obviously thus act far more efficiently
with those animals which unite for each birth; but I have already
attempted to show that we have reason to believe that occasional
intercrosses take place with all animals and with all plants. Even
if these take place only at long intervals, I am convinced that
the young thus produced will gain so much in vigour and fertility
over the offspring from long-continued self-fertilisation, that
they will have a better chance of surviving and propagating their
kind; and thus, in the long run, the influence of intercrosses,
even at rare intervals, will be great. If there exist organic beings
which never intercross, uniformity of character can be retained
amongst them, as long as their conditions of life remain the same,
only through the principle of inheritance, and through natural selection
destroying any which depart from the proper type; but if their conditions
of life change and they undergo modification, uniformity of character
can be given to their modified offspring, solely by natural selection
preserving the same favourable variations.
Isolation, also, is an important element in the process of natural
selection. In a confined or isolated area, if not very large, the
organic and inorganic conditions of life will generally be in a
great degree uniform; so that natural selection will tend to modify
all the individuals of a varying species throughout the area in
the same manner in relation to the same conditions. Intercrosses,
also, with the individuals of the same species, which otherwise
would have inhabited the surrounding and differently circumstanced
districts, will be prevented. But isolation probably acts more efficiently
in checking the immigration of better adapted organisms, after any
physical change, such as of climate or elevation of the land, &c.;
and thus new places in the natural economy of the country are left
open for the old inhabitants to struggle for, and become adapted
to, through modifications in their structure and constitution. Lastly,
isolation, by checking immigration and consequently competition,
will give time for any new variety to be slowly improved; and this
may sometimes be of importance in the production of new species.
If, however, an isolated area be very small, either from being surrounded
by barriers, or from having very peculiar physical conditions, the
total number of the individuals supported on it will necessarily
be very small; and fewness of individuals will greatly retard the
production of new species through natural selection, by decreasing
the chance of the appearance of favourable variations.
If we turn to nature to test the truth of these remarks, and look
at any small isolated area, such as an oceanic island, although
the total number of the species inhabiting it, will be found to
be small, as we shall see in our chapter on geographical distribution;
yet of these species a very large proportion are endemic, that is,
have been produced there, and nowhere else. Hence an oceanic island
at first sight seems to have been highly favourable for the production
of new species. But we may thus greatly deceive ourselves, for to
ascertain whether a small isolated area, or a large open area like
a continent, has been most favourable for the production of new
organic forms, we ought to make the comparison within equal times;
and this we are incapable of doing.
Although I do not doubt that isolation is of considerable importance
in the production of new species, on the whole I am inclined to
believe that largeness of area is of more importance, more especially
in the production of species, which will prove capable of enduring
for a long period, and of spreading widely. Throughout a great and
open area, not only will there be a better chance of favourable
variations arising from the large number of individuals of the same
species there supported, but the conditions of life are infinitely
complex from the large number of already existing species; and if
some of these many species become modified and improved, others
will have to be improved in a corresponding degree or they will
be exterminated. Each new form, also, as soon as it has been much
improved, will be able to spread over the open and continuous area,
and will thus come into competition with many others. Hence more
new places will be formed, and the competition to fill them will
be more severe, on a large than on a small and isolated area. Moreover,
great areas, though now continuous, owing to oscillations of level,
will often have recently existed in a broken condition, so that
the good effects of isolation will generally, to a certain extent,
have concurred. Finally, I conclude that, although small isolated
areas probably have been in some respects highly favourable for
the production of new species, yet that the course of modification
will generally have been more rapid on large areas; and what is
more important, that the new forms produced on large areas, which
already have been victorious over many competitors, will be those
that will spread most widely, will give rise to most new varieties
and species, and will thus play an important part in the changing
history of the organic world.
We can, perhaps, on these views, understand some facts which will
be again alluded to in our chapter on geographical distribution;
for instance, that the productions of the smaller continent of Australia
have formerly yielded, and apparently are now yielding, before those
of the larger Europaeo-Asiatic area. Thus, also, it is that continental
productions have everywhere become so largely naturalised on islands.
On a small island, the race for life will have been less severe,
and there will have been less modification and less extermination.
Hence, perhaps, it comes that the flora of Madeira, according to
Oswald Heer, resembles the extinct tertiary flora of Europe. All
fresh-water basins, taken together, make a small area compared with
that of the sea or of the land; and, consequently, the competition
between fresh-water productions will have been less severe than
elsewhere; new forms will have been more slowly formed, and old
forms more slowly exterminated. And it is in fresh water that we
find seven genera of Ganoid fishes, remnants of a once preponderant
order: and in fresh water we find some of the most anomalous forms
now known in the world, as the Ornithorhynchus and Lepidosiren,
which, like fossils, connect to a certain extent orders now widely
separated in the natural scale. These anomalous forms may almost
be called living fossils; they have endured to the present day,
from having inhabited a confined area, and from having thus been
exposed to less severe competition.
To sum up the circumstances favourable and unfavourable to natural
selection, as far as the extreme intricacy of the subject permits.
I conclude, looking to the future, that for terrestrial productions
a large continental area, which will probably undergo many oscillations
of level, and which consequently will exist for long periods in
a broken condition, will be the most favourable for the production
of many new forms of life, likely to endure long and to spread widely.
For the area will first have existed as a continent, and the inhabitants,
at this period numerous in individuals and kinds, will have been
subjected to very severe competition. When converted by subsidence
into large separate islands, there will still exist many individuals
of the same species on each island: intercrossing on the confines
of the range of each species will thus be checked: after physical
changes of any kind, immigration will be prevented, so that new
places in the polity of each island will have to be filled up by
modifications of the old inhabitants; and time will be allowed for
the varieties in each to become well modified and perfected. When,
by renewed elevation, the islands shall be re-converted into a continental
area, there will again be severe competition: the most favoured
or improved varieties will be enabled to spread: there will be much
extinction of the less improved forms, and the relative proportional
numbers of the various inhabitants of the renewed continent will
again be changed; and again there will be a fair field for natural
selection to improve still further the inhabitants, and thus produce
new species.
That natural selection will always act with extreme slowness, I
fully admit. Its action depends on there being places in the polity
of nature, which can be better occupied by some of the inhabitants
of the country undergoing modification of some kind. The existence
of such places will often depend on physical changes, which are
generally very slow, and on the immigration of better adapted forms
having been checked. But the action of natural selection will probably
still oftener depend on some of the inhabitants becoming slowly
modified; the mutual relations of many of the other inhabitants
being thus disturbed. Nothing can be effected, unless favourable
variations occur, and variation itself is apparently always a very
slow process. The process will often be greatly retarded by free
intercrossing. Many will exclaim that these several causes are amply
sufficient wholly to stop the action of natural selection. I do
not believe so. On the other hand, I do believe that natural selection
will always act very slowly, often only at long intervals of time,
and generally on only a very few of the inhabitants of the same
region at the same time. I further believe, that this very slow,
intermittent action of natural selection accords perfectly well
with what geology tells us of the rate and manner at which the inhabitants
of this world have changed.
Slow though the process of selection may be, if feeble man can
do much by his powers of artificial selection, I can see no limit
to the amount of change, to the beauty and infinite complexity of
the coadaptations between all organic beings, one with another and
with their physical conditions of life, which may be effected in
the long course of time by nature's power of selection.
Extinction
This subject will be more fully discussed in our chapter on Geology;
but it must be here alluded to from being intimately connected with
natural selection. Natural selection acts solely through the preservation
of variations in some way advantageous, which consequently endure.
But as from the high geometrical powers of increase of all organic
beings, each area is already fully stocked with inhabitants, it follows
that as each selected and favoured form increases in number, so will
the less favoured forms decrease and become rare. Rarity, as geology
tells us, is the precursor to extinction. We can, also, see that any
form represented by few individuals will, during fluctuations in the
seasons or in the number of its enemies, run a good chance of utter
extinction. But we may go further than this; for as new forms are
continually and slowly being produced, unless we believe that the
number of specific forms goes on perpetually and almost indefinitely
increasing, numbers inevitably must become extinct. That the number
of specific forms has not indefinitely increased, geology shows us
plainly; and indeed we can see reason why they should not have thus
increased, for the number of places in the polity of nature is not
indefinitely great, not that we have any means of knowing that any
one region has as yet got its maximum of species. probably no region
is as yet fully stocked, for at the Cape of Good Hope, where more
species of plants are crowded together than in any other quarter of
the world, some foreign plants have become naturalised, without causing,
as far as we know, the extinction of any natives.
Furthermore, the species which are most numerous in individuals
will have the best chance of producing within any given period favourable
variations. We have evidence of this, in the facts given in the
second chapter, showing that it is the common species which afford
the greatest number of recorded varieties, or incipient species.
Hence, rare species will be less quickly modified or improved within
any given period, and they will consequently be beaten in the race
for life by the modified descendants of the commoner species.
From these several considerations I think it inevitably follows,
that as new species in the course of time are formed through natural
selection, others will become rarer and rarer, and finally extinct.
The forms which stand in closest competition with those undergoing
modification and improvement, will naturally suffer most. And we
have seen in the chapter on the Struggle for Existence that it is
the most closely-allied forms, varieties of the same species, and
species of the same genus or of related genera, which, from having
nearly the same structure, constitution, and habits, generally come
into the severest competition with each other. Consequently, each
new variety or species, during the progress of its formation, will
generally press hardest on its nearest kindred, and tend to exterminate
them. We see the same process of extermination amongst our domesticated
productions, through the selection of improved forms by man. Many
curious instances could be given showing how quickly new breeds
of cattle, sheep, and other animals, and varieties of flowers, take
the place of older and inferior kinds. In Yorkshire, it is historically
known that the ancient black cattle were displaced by the long-horns,
and that these 'were swept away by the short-horns' (I quote the
words of an agricultural writer) 'as if by some murderous pestilence.'
Divergence of Character
The principle, which I have designated by this term, is of high importance
on my theory, and explains, as I believe, several important facts.
In the first place, varieties, even strongly-marked ones, though having
somewhat of the character of species as is shown by the hopeless doubts
in many cases how to rank them yet certainly differ from each other
far less than do good and distinct species. Nevertheless, according
to my view, varieties are species in the process of formation, or
are, as I have called them, incipient species. How, then, does the
lesser difference between varieties become augmented into the greater
difference between species? That this does habitually happen, we must
infer from most of the innumerable species throughout nature presenting
well-marked differences; whereas varieties, the supposed prototypes
and parents of future well-marked species, present slight and ill-defined
differences. Mere chance, as we may call it, might cause one variety
to differ in some character from its parents, and the offspring of
this variety again to differ from its parent in the very same character
and in a greater degree; but this alone would never account for so
habitual and large an amount of difference as that between varieties
of the same species and species of the same genus.
As has always been my practice, let us seek light on this head
from our domestic productions. We shall here find something analogous.
A fancier is struck by a pigeon having a slightly shorter beak;
another fancier is struck by a pigeon having a rather longer beak;
and on the acknowledged principle that 'fanciers do not and will
not admire a medium standard, but like extremes,' they both go on
(as has actually occurred with tumbler-pigeons) choosing and breeding
from birds with longer and longer beaks, or with shorter and shorter
beaks. Again, we may suppose that at an early period one man preferred
swifter horses; another stronger and more bulky horses. The early
differences would be very slight; in the course of time, from the
continued selection of swifter horses by some breeders, and of stronger
ones by others, the differences would become greater, and would
be noted as forming two sub-breeds; finally, after the lapse of
centuries, the sub-breeds would become converted into two well-established
and distinct breeds. As the differences slowly become greater, the
inferior animals with intermediate characters, being neither very
swift nor very strong, will have been neglected, and will have tended
to disappear. Here, then, we see in man's productions the action
of what may be called the principle of divergence, causing differences,
at first barely appreciable, steadily to increase, and the breeds
to diverge in character both from each other and from their common
parent.
But how, it may be asked, can any analogous principle apply in
nature? I believe it can and does apply most efficiently, from the
simple circumstance that the more diversified the descendants from
any one species become in structure, constitution, and habits, by
so much will they be better enabled to seize on many and widely
diversified places in the polity of nature, and so be enabled to
increase in numbers.
We can clearly see this in the case of animals with simple habits.
Take the case of a carnivorous quadruped, of which the number that
can be supported in any country has long ago arrived at its full
average. If its natural powers of increase be allowed to act, it
can succeed in increasing (the country not undergoing any change
in its conditions) only by its varying descendants seizing on places
at present occupied by other animals: some of them, for instance,
being enabled to feed on new kinds of prey, either dead or alive;
some inhabiting new stations, climbing trees, frequenting water,
and some perhaps becoming less carnivorous. The more diversified
in habits and structure the descendants of our carnivorous animal
became, the more places they would be enabled to occupy. What applies
to one animal will apply throughout all time to all animals that
is, if they vary for otherwise natural selection can do nothing.
So it will be with plants. It has been experimentally proved, that
if a plot of ground be sown with several distinct genera of grasses,
a greater number of plants and a greater weight of dry herbage can
thus be raised. The same has been found to hold good when first
one variety and then several mixed varieties of wheat have been
sown on equal spaces of ground. Hence, if any one species of grass
were to go on varying, and those varieties were continually selected
which differed from each other in at all the same manner as distinct
species and genera of grasses differ from each other, a greater
number of individual plants of this species of grass, including
its modified descendants, would succeed in living on the same piece
of ground. And we well know that each species and each variety of
grass is annually sowing almost countless seeds; and thus, as it
may be said, is striving its utmost to increase its numbers. Consequently,
I cannot doubt that in the course of many thousands of generations,
the most distinct varieties of any one species of grass would always
have the best chance of succeeding and of increasing in numbers,
and thus of supplanting the less distinct varieties; and varieties,
when rendered very distinct from each other, take the rank of species.
The truth of the principle, that the greatest amount of life can
be supported by great diversification of structure, is seen under
many natural circumstances. In an extremely small area, especially
if freely open to immigration, and where the contest between individual
and individual must be severe, we always find great diversity in
its inhabitants. For instance, I found that a piece of turf, three
feet by four in size, which had been exposed for many years to exactly
the same conditions, supported twenty species of plants, and these
belonged to eighteen genera and to eight orders, which shows how
much these plants differed from each other. So it is with the plants
and insects on small and uniform islets; and so in small ponds of
fresh water. Farmers find that they can raise most food by a rotation
of plants belonging to the most different orders: nature follows
what may be called a simultaneous rotation. Most of the animals
and plants which live close round any small piece of ground, could
live on it (supposing it not to be in any way peculiar in its nature),
and may be said to be striving to the utmost to live there; but,
it is seen, that where they come into the closest competition with
each other, the advantages of diversification of structure, with
the accompanying differences of habit and constitution, determine
that the inhabitants, which thus jostle each other most closely,
shall, as a general rule, belong to what we call different genera
and orders.
The same principle is seen in the naturalisation of plants through
man's agency in foreign lands. It might have been expected that
the plants which have succeeded in becoming naturalised in any land
would generally have been closely allied to the indigenes; for these
are commonly looked at as specially created and adapted for their
own country. It might, also, perhaps have been expected that naturalised
plants would have belonged to a few groups more especially adapted
to certain stations in their new homes. But the case is very different;
and Alph. De Candolle has well remarked in his great and admirable
work, that floras gain by naturalisation, proportionally with the
number of the native genera and species, far more in new genera
than in new species. To give a single instance: in the last edition
of Dr Asa Gray's 'Manual of the Flora of the Northern United States,'
260 naturalised plants are enumerated, and these belong to 162 genera.
We thus see that these naturalised plants are of a highly diversified
nature. They differ, moreover, to a large extent from the indigenes,
for out of the 162 genera, no less than 100 genera are not there
indigenous, and thus a large proportional addition is made to the
genera of these States.
By considering the nature of the plants or animals which have struggled
successfully with the indigenes of any country, and have there become
naturalised, we can gain some crude idea in what manner some of
the natives would have had to be modified, in order to have gained
an advantage over the other natives; and we may, I think, at least
safely infer that diversification of structure, amounting to new
generic differences, would have been profitable to them.
The advantage of diversification in the inhabitants of the same
region is, in fact, the same as that of the physiological division
of labour in the organs of the same individual body a subject so
well elucidated by Milne Edwards. No physiologist doubts that a
stomach by being adapted to digest vegetable matter alone, or flesh
alone, draws most nutriment from these substances. So in the general
economy of any land, the more widely and perfectly the animals and
plants are diversified for different habits of life, so will a greater
number of individuals be capable of there supporting themselves.
A set of animals, with their organisation but little diversified,
could hardly compete with a set more perfectly diversified in structure.
It may be doubted, for instance, whether the Australian marsupials,
which are divided into groups differing but little from each other,
and feebly representing, as Mr Waterhouse and others have remarked,
our carnivorous, ruminant, and rodent mammals, could successfully
compete with these well-pronounced orders. In the Australian mammals,
we see the process of diversification in an early and incomplete
stage of development.
After the foregoing discussion, which ought to have been much amplified,
we may, I think, assume that the modified descendants of any one
species will succeed by so much the better as they become more diversified
in structure, and are thus enabled to encroach on places occupied
by other beings. Now let us see how this principle of great benefit
being derived from divergence of character, combined with the principles
of natural selection and of extinction, will tend to act.
The accompanying diagram will aid us in understanding this rather
perplexing subject. Let A to L represent the species of a genus
large in its own country; these species are supposed to resemble
each other in unequal degrees, as is so generally the case in nature,
and as is represented in the diagram by the letters standing at
unequal distances. I have said a large genus, because we have seen
in the second chapter, that on an average more of the species of
large genera vary than of small genera; and the varying species
of the large genera present a greater number of varieties. We have,
also, seen that the species, which are the commonest and the most
widely-diffused, vary more than rare species with restricted ranges.
Let (A) be a common, widely-diffused, and varying species, belonging
to a genus large in its own country. The little fan of diverging
dotted lines of unequal lengths proceeding from (A), may represent
its varying offspring. The variations are supposed to be extremely
slight, but of the most diversified nature; they are not supposed
all to appear simultaneously, but often after long intervals of
time; nor are they all supposed to endure for equal periods. Only
those variations which are in some way profitable will be preserved
or naturally selected. And here the importance of the principle
of benefit being derived from divergence of character comes in;
for this will generally lead to the most different or divergent
variations (represented by the outer dotted lines) being preserved
and accumulated by natural selection. When a dotted line reaches
one of the horizontal lines, and is there marked by a small numbered
letter, a sufficient amount of variation is supposed to have been
accumulated to have formed a fairly well-marked variety, such as
would be thought worthy of record in a systematic work.
The intervals between the horizontal lines in the diagram, may
represent each a thousand generations; but it would have been better
if each had represented ten thousand generations. After a thousand
generations, species (A) is supposed to have produced two fairly
well-marked varieties, namely a1 and m1. These two
varieties will generally continue to be exposed to the same conditions
which made their parents variable, and the tendency to variability
is in itself hereditary, consequently they will tend to vary, and
generally to vary in nearly the same manner as their parents varied.
Moreover, these two varieties, being only slightly modified forms,
will tend to inherit those advantages which made their common parent
(A) more numerous than most of the other inhabitants of the same
country; they will likewise partake of those more general advantages
which made the genus to which the parent-species belonged, a large
genus in its own country. And these circumstances we know to be
favourable to the production of new varieties.
If, then, these two varieties be variable, the most divergent of
their variations will generally be preserved during the next thousand
generations. And after this interval, variety a1 is supposed
in the diagram to have produced variety a2, which will, owing
to the principle of divergence, differ more from (A) than did variety
a1. Variety m1 is supposed to have produced two varieties,
namely m 2 and s2, differing from each other, and
more considerably from their common parent (A). We may continue
the process by similar steps for any length of time; some of the
varieties, after each thousand generations, producing only a single
variety, but in a more and more modified condition, some producing
two or three varieties, and some failing to produce any. Thus the
varieties or modified descendants, proceeding from the common parent
(A), will generally go on increasing in number and diverging in
character. In the diagram the process is represented up to the ten-thousandth
generation, and under a condensed and simplified form up to the
fourteen-thousandth generation.
But I must here remark that I do not suppose that the process ever
goes on so regularly as is represented in the diagram, though in
itself made somewhat irregular. I am far from thinking that the
most divergent varieties will invariably prevail and multiply: a
medium form may often long endure, and may or may not produce more
than one modified descendant; for natural selection will always
act according to the nature of the places which are either unoccupied
or not perfectly occupied by other beings; and this will depend
on infinitely complex relations. But as a general rule, the more
diversified in structure the descendants from any one species can
be rendered, the more places they will be enabled to seize on, and
the more their modified progeny will be increased. In our diagram
the line of succession is broken at regular intervals by small numbered
letters marking the successive forms which have become sufficiently
distinct to be recorded as varieties. But these breaks are imaginary,
and might have been inserted anywhere, after intervals long enough
to have allowed the accumulation of a considerable amount of divergent
variation.
As all the modified descendants from a common and widely-diffused
species, belonging to a large genus, will tend to partake of the
same advantages which made their parent successful in life, they
will generally go on multiplying in number as well as diverging
in character: this is represented in the diagram by the several
divergent branches proceeding from (A). The modified offspring from
the later and more highly improved branches in the lines of descent,
will, it is probable, often take the place of, and so destroy, the
earlier and less improved branches: this is represented in the diagram
by some of the lower branches not reaching to the upper horizontal
lines. In some cases I do not doubt that the process of modification
will be confined to a single line of descent, and the number of
the descendants will not be increased; although the amount of divergent
modification may have been increased in the successive generations.
This case would be represented in the diagram, if all the lines
proceeding from (A) were removed, excepting that from a1
to a10 In the same way, for instance, the English race-horse
and English pointer have apparently both gone on slowly diverging
in character from their original stocks, without either having given
off any fresh branches or races.
After ten thousand generations, species (A) is supposed to have
produced three forms, a10, f10, and m10, which,
from having diverged in character during the successive generations,
will have come to differ largely, but perhaps unequally, from each
other and from their common parent. If we suppose the amount of
change between each horizontal line in our diagram to be excessively
small, these three forms may still be only well-marked varieties;
or they may have arrived at the doubtful category of sub-species;
but we have only to suppose the steps in the process of modification
to be more numerous or greater in amount, to convert these three
forms into well-defined species: thus the diagram illustrates the
steps by which the small differences distinguishing varieties are
increased into the larger differences distinguishing species. By
continuing the same process for a greater number of generations
(as shown in the diagram in a condensed and simplified manner),
we get eight species, marked by the letters between a14 and
m14, all descended from (A). Thus, as I believe, species
are multiplied and genera are formed.
In a large genus it is probable that more than one species would
vary. In the diagram I have assumed that a second species (I) has
produced, by analogous steps, after ten thousand generations, either
two well-marked varieties (w10 and z10) or two species,
according to the amount of change supposed to be represented between
the horizontal lines. After fourteen thousand generations, six new
species, marked by the letters n14 to z14, are supposed
to have been produced. In each genus, the species, which are already
extremely different in character, will generally tend to produce
the greatest number of modified descendants; for these will have
the best chance of filling new and widely different places in the
polity of nature: hence in the diagram I have chosen the extreme
species (A), and the nearly extreme species (I), as those which
have largely varied, and have given rise to new varieties and species.
The other nine species (marked by capital letters) of our original
genus, may for a long period continue transmitting unaltered descendants;
and this is shown in the diagram by the dotted lines not prolonged
far upwards from want of space.
But during the process of modification, represented in the diagram,
another of our principles, namely that of extinction, will have
played an important part. As in each fully stocked country natural
selection necessarily acts by the selected form having some advantage
in the struggle for life over other forms, there will be a constant
tendency in the improved descendants of any one species to supplant
and exterminate in each stage of descent their predecessors and
their original parent. For it should be remembered that the competition
will generally be most severe between those forms which are most
nearly related to each other in habits, constitution, and structure.
Hence all the intermediate forms between the earlier and later states,
that is between the less and more improved state of a species, as
well as the original parent-species itself, will generally tend
to become extinct. So it probably will be with many whole collateral
lines of descent, which will be conquered by later and improved
lines of descent. If, however, the modified offspring of a species
get into some distinct country, or become quickly adapted to some
quite new station, in which child and parent do not come into competition,
both may continue to exist.
If then our diagram be assumed to represent a considerable amount
of modification, species (A) and all the earlier varieties will
have become extinct, having been replaced by eight new species (a14
to m14); and (I) will have been replaced by six (n14
to z14) new species.
But we may go further than this. The original species of our genus
were supposed to resemble each other in unequal degrees, as is so
generally the case in nature; species (A) being more nearly related
to B, C, and D, than to the other species; and species (I) more
to G, H, K, L, than to the others. These two species (A) and (I),
were also supposed to be very common and widely diffused species,
so that they must originally have had some advantage over most of
the other species of the genus. Their modified descendants, fourteen
in number at the fourteen-thousandth generation, will probably have
inherited some of the same advantages: they have also been modified
and improved in a diversified manner at each stage of descent, so
as to have become adapted to many related places in the natural
economy of their country. It seems, therefore, to me extremely probable
that they will have taken the places of, and thus exterminated,
not only their parents (A) and (I), but likewise some of the original
species which were most nearly related to their parents. Hence very
few of the original species will have transmitted offspring to the
fourteen-thousandth generation. We may suppose that only one (F),
of the two species which were least closely related to the other
nine original species, has transmitted descendants to this late
stage of descent.
The new species in our diagram descended from the original eleven
species, will now be fifteen in number. Owing to the divergent tendency
of natural selection, the extreme amount of difference in character
between species a14 and z14 will be much greater than
that between the most different of the original eleven species.
The new species, moreover, will be allied to each other in a widely
different manner. Of the eight descendants from (A) the three marked
a14, q14, p14, will be nearly related from
having recently branched off from a14; b14 and f14,
from having diverged at an earlier period from a5, will be
in some degree distinct from the three first-named species; and
lastly, o14, e14, and m14, will be nearly related
one to the other, but from having diverged at the first commencement
of the process of modification, will be widely different from the
other five species, and may constitute a sub-genus or even a distinct
genus. The six descendants from (I) will form two sub-genera
or even genera. But as the original species (I) differed largely
from (A), standing nearly at the extreme points of the original
genus, the six descendants from (I) will, owing to inheritance,
differ considerably from the eight descendants from (A); the two
groups, moreover, are supposed to have gone on diverging in different
directions. The intermediate species, also (and this is a very important
consideration), which connected the original species (A) and (I),
have all become, excepting (F), extinct, and have left no descendants.
Hence the six new species descended from (I), and the eight descended
from (A), will have to be ranked as very distinct genera, or even
as distinct sub-families.
Thus it is, as I believe, that two or more genera are produced
by descent, with modification, from two or more species of the same
genus. And the two or more parent-species are supposed to have descended
from some one species of an earlier genus. In our diagram, this
is indicated by the broken lines, beneath the capital letters, converging
in sub-branches downwards towards a single point; this point representing
a single species, the supposed single parent of our several new
sub-genera and genera.
It is worth while to reflect for a moment on the character of the
new species F14, which is supposed not to have diverged much in
character, but to have retained the form of (F), either unaltered
or altered only in a slight degree. In this case, its affinities
to the other fourteen new species will be of a curious and circuitous
nature. Having descended from a form which stood between the two
parent-species (A) and (I), now supposed to be extinct and unknown,
it will be in some degree intermediate in character between the
two groups descended from these species. But as these two groups
have gone on diverging in character from the type of their parents,
the new species (F14) will not be directly intermediate between
them, but rather between types of the two groups; and every naturalist
will be able to bring some such case before his mind.
In the diagram, each horizontal line has hitherto been supposed
to represent a thousand generations, but each may represent a million
or hundred million generations, and likewise a section of the successive
strata of the earth's crust including extinct remains. We shall,
when we come to our chapter on Geology, have to refer again to this
subject, and I think we shall then see that the diagram throws light
on the affinities of extinct beings, which, though generally belonging
to the same orders, or families, or genera, with those now living,
yet are often, in some degree, intermediate in character between
existing groups; and we can understand this fact, for the extinct
species lived at very ancient epochs when the branching lines of
descent had diverged less.
I see no reason to limit the process of modification, as now explained,
to the formation of genera alone. If, in our diagram, we suppose
the amount of change represented by each successive group of diverging
dotted lines to be very great, the forms marked a214 to p14,
those marked b14 and f14, and those marked o14
to m14, will form three very distinct genera. We shall also
have two very distinct genera descended from (I) and as these latter
two genera, both from continued divergence of character and from
inheritance from a different parent, will differ widely from the
three genera descended from (A), the two little groups of genera
will form two distinct families, or even orders, according to the
amount of divergent modification supposed to be represented in the
diagram. And the two new families, or orders, will have descended
from two species of the original genus; and these two species are
supposed to have descended from one species of a still more ancient
and unknown genus.
We have seen that in each country it is the species of the larger
genera which oftenest present varieties or incipient species. This,
indeed, might have been expected; for as natural selection acts
through one form having some advantage over other forms in the struggle
for existence, it will chiefly act on those which already have some
advantage; and the largeness of any group shows that its species
have inherited from a common ancestor some advantage in common.
Hence, the struggle for the production of new and modified descendants,
will mainly lie between the larger groups, which are all trying
to increase in number. One large group will slowly conquer another
large group, reduce its numbers, and thus lessen its chance of further
variation and improvement. Within the same large group, the later
and more highly perfected sub-groups, from branching out and seizing
on many new places in the polity of Nature, will constantly tend
to supplant and destroy the earlier and less improved sub-groups.
Small and broken groups and sub-groups will finally tend to disappear.
Looking to the future, we can predict that the groups of organic
beings which are now large and triumphant, and which are least broken
up, that is, which as yet have suffered least extinction, will for
a long period continue to increase. But which groups will ultimately
prevail, no man can predict; for we well know that many groups,
formerly most extensively developed, have now become extinct. Looking
still more remotely to the future, we may predict that, owing to
the continued and steady increase of the larger groups, a multitude
of smaller groups will become utterly extinct, and leave no modified
descendants; and consequently that of the species living at any
one period, extremely few will transmit descendants to a remote
futurity. I shall have to return to this subject in the chapter
on Classification, but I may add that on this view of extremely
few of the more ancient species having transmitted descendants,
and on the view of all the descendants of the same species making
a class, we can understand how it is that there exist but very few
classes in each main division of the animal and vegetable kingdoms.
Although extremely few of the most ancient species may now have
living and modified descendants, yet at the most remote geological
period, the earth may have been as well peopled with many species
of many genera, families, orders, and classes, as at the present
day.
Summary of Chapter
If during the long course of ages and under varying conditions of
life, organic beings vary at all in the several parts of their organisation,
and I think this cannot be disputed; if there be, owing to the high
geometrical powers of increase of each species, at some age, season,
or year, a severe struggle for life, and this certainly cannot be
disputed; then, considering the infinite complexity of the relations
of all organic beings to each other and to their conditions of existence,
causing an infinite diversity in structure, constitution, and habits,
to be advantageous to them, I think it would be a most extraordinary
fact if no variation ever had occurred useful to each being's own
welfare, in the same way as so many variations have occurred useful
to man. But if variations useful to any organic being do occur, assuredly
individuals thus characterised will have the best chance of being
preserved in the struggle for life; and from the strong principle
of inheritance they will tend to produce offspring similarly characterised.
This principle of preservation, I have called, for the sake of brevity,
Natural Selection. Natural selection, on the principle of qualities
being inherited at corresponding ages, can modify the egg, seed, or
young, as easily as the adult. Amongst many animals, sexual selection
will give its aid to ordinary selection, by assuring to the most vigorous
and best adapted males the greatest number of offspring. Sexual selection
will also give characters useful to the males alone, in their struggles
with other males.
Whether natural selection has really thus acted in nature, in modifying
and adapting the various forms of life to their several conditions
and stations, must be judged of by the general tenour and balance
of evidence given in the following chapters. But we already see
how it entails extinction; and how largely extinction has acted
in the world's history, geology plainly declares. Natural selection,
also, leads to divergence of character; for more living beings can
be supported on the same area the more they diverge in structure,
habits, and constitution, of which we see proof by looking at the
inhabitants of any small spot or at naturalised productions. Therefore
during the modification of the descendants of any one species, and
during the incessant struggle of all species to increase in numbers,
the more diversified these descendants become, the better will be
their chance of succeeding in the battle of life. Thus the small
differences distinguishing varieties of the same species, will steadily
tend to increase till they come to equal the greater differences
between species of the same genus, or even of distinct genera.
We have seen that it is the common, the widely-diffused, and widely-ranging
species, belonging to the larger genera, which vary most; and these
will tend to transmit to their modified offspring that superiority
which now makes them dominant in their own countries. Natural selection,
as has just been remarked, leads to divergence of character and
to much extinction of the less improved and intermediate forms of
life. On these principles, I believe, the nature of the affinities
of all organic beings may be explained. It is a truly wonderful
fact the wonder of which we are apt to overlook from familiarity
that all animals and all plants throughout all time and space should
be related to each other in group subordinate to group, in the manner
which we everywhere behold namely, varieties of the same species
most closely related together, species of the same genus less closely
and unequally related together, forming sections and sub-genera,
species of distinct genera much less closely related, and genera
related in different degrees, forming sub-families, families, orders,
sub-classes, and classes. The several subordinate groups in any
class cannot be ranked in a single file, but seem rather to be clustered
round points, and these round other points, and so on in almost
endless cycles. On the view that each species has been independently
created, I can see no explanation of this great fact in the classification
of all organic beings; but, to the best of my judgment, it is explained
through inheritance and the complex action of natural selection,
entailing extinction and divergence of character, as we have seen
illustrated in the diagram.
The affinities of all the beings of the same class have sometimes
been represented by a great tree. I believe this simile largely
speaks the truth. The green and budding twigs may represent existing
species; and those produced during each former year may represent
the long succession of extinct species. At each period of growth
all the growing twigs have tried to branch out on all sides, and
to overtop and kill the surrounding twigs and branches, in the same
manner as species and groups of species have tried to overmaster
other species in the great battle for life. The limbs divided into
great branches, and these into lesser and lesser branches, were
themselves once, when the tree was small, budding twigs; and this
connexion of the former and present buds by ramifying branches may
well represent the classification of all extinct and living species
in groups subordinate to groups. Of the many twigs which flourished
when the tree was a mere bush, only two or three, now grown into
great branches, yet survive and bear all the other branches; so
with the species which lived during long-past geological periods,
very few now have living and modified descendants. From the first
growth of the tree, many a limb and branch has decayed and dropped
off; and these lost branches of various sizes may represent those
whole orders, families, and genera which have now no living representatives,
and which are known to us only from having been found in a fossil
state. As we here and there see a thin straggling branch springing
from a fork low down in a tree, and which by some chance has been
favoured and is still alive on its summit, so we occasionally see
an animal like the Ornithorhynchus or Lepidosiren, which in some
small degree connects by its affinities two large branches of life,
and which has apparently been saved from fatal competition by having
inhabited a protected station. As buds give rise by growth to fresh
buds, and these, if vigorous, branch out and overtop on all sides
many a feebler branch, so by generation I believe it has been with
the great Tree of Life, which fills with its dead and broken branches
the crust of the earth, and covers the surface with its ever branching
and beautiful ramifications.
Previous Chapter
Next Chapter
|