[1] Metabolism: see p. 27.
[2] J. Reinke. Die Welt als Tat, p. 173. The term ‘development’ (Entwicklung) includes both what we commonly understand by that term (as, the transformation of an embryo into a complete animal) and also what we call Evolution, the development of one species into another.
[3] See p. 24.
[4] Sylva Sylvarum, Century VI.
[5] Zoonomia, Vol. II, p. 247, third edition, 1801. Darwin is here adopting David Hume’s conjecture, which is worked out in some detail in the Zoonomia, the conclusion being that probably “one and the same kind of living filaments is and has been the cause of all organic life” (p. 244). He attributed evolution to internal forces impressed on living matter by the Creator.
[6] He taught that nature had produced a multitude of disconnected parts which afterwards combined and recombined at random until the appropriate parts had come together and remained stable.
[8] “It has lately become the fashion, at least among the younger school of biologists, to attach small value to natural selection, if not, indeed, to regard it as a superseded formula.” (A. Weismann, The Evolution Theory, Engl. trans., II, 391.)
[9] Text Book of Botany, p. 3. English translation by Dr. H. C. Porter, 1898. In the fifth German edition, which served as the basis of a revised English translation (1903), another passage (taking note of De Vries’ Mutations Theory) is substituted for the above quoted, but the essential meaning is the same.
[10] Leitfaden in das Studium der experimentellen Biologie der Wassertiere, p. 67. The subject is ably treated by Keyserling, Das Gefüge der Welt, p. 190.
[11] For instance, the development of an embryo in the womb takes place in strict accordance with physico-chemical laws. But withdraw the element which we call life and how different a set of processes would at once supervene! Yet the physical energies in the embryo would remain in amount exactly what they were before.
[12] See Weismann, The Evolution Theory, II, 358.
[13] For my own part, I may say I have a difficulty in conceiving the Divine under the human and limited category of intelligent personality.
[14] Das Gefüge der Welt, Hermann Graf v. Keyserling, 1906.
[16] See Jagadis Chunder Bose, Response in the Living and the Non-Living, passim. The following passage sums up the results of many delicate experiments in the response to electrical stimulus. “We have seen,” writes the Indian physicist, “that the criterion by which vital response is differentiated is its abolition by the action of certain reagents—the so-called poisons. We find, however, that ‘poisons’ also abolish the response in plants and metals. Just as animal tissues pass from a state of responsiveness while living to a state of irresponsiveness when killed by poisons, so also we find metals transformed from a responsive to an irresponsive condition by the action of similar poisonous reagents” (p. 188).
[17] At a meeting of the British Association in 1905, Professor H. A. Miers, in a lecture on ‘The Growth of a Crystal,’ is reported to have said, The most wonderful feature of crystals was the manner in which they grew, just as though they were living things. Two features deserved special attention. The first was the remarkable power crystals possessed of healing themselves when mutilated. If a growing crystal were removed from a solution, broken at one of its corners, and re-immersed in the solution, it would continue to grow, and as it grew would restore the missing part, and become once more a completely symmetrical figure. This power of continuing to grow was possessed by a crystal even after countless ages, so soon as it was immersed into the appropriate solution. In this sense the crystal was immortal, for it never lost its vitality, or power of growing. The other remarkable feature was the growth of crystals in over-saturated solutions. In solutions only slightly over-saturated, no spontaneous generation of crystals was possible. It was true that a solution only slightly over-saturated would often begin to crystallize, apparently spontaneously, when exposed to the air, but this was because there were minute crystal fragments of the dissolved substance floating about in the air which got into the solution with the dust and so inoculated the solution with crystal germs, just as the human body might be inoculated with disease by a disease germ. If these germs were kept out, the solution would not crystallize until it was very strongly over-saturated, and then, at a certain strength, it would suddenly begin to crystallize spontaneously and with great rapidity.—Times, August 5, 1907.
[18] The Nature and Origin of Life (Eng. trans.), p. 250.
[19] It is not to be assumed, however, that these substances are merely passive objects in the process. The life which is in them has doubtless as much to do with the result as the life which is in the plant. This is a side of the question which calls for further investigation.
[20] It is however suggested by Professor E. Ray Lankester, in his article, ‘Protozoa,’ in the Encyclopædia Britannica, that the most primitive forms of organic life did not possess chlorophyll but fed on albuminoids, etc., which constituted the earliest steps in their own evolution.
[21] In Beddard’s Animal Coloration note is taken of the green fur of the sloth as a most uncommon if not unique phenomenon. It has been ascertained that the sloth has grooved or fluted hairs, which form the habitat of a minute green fungus to which the colour is due.
[22] Or starch, which easily decomposes into sugar, and which is composed of the same elements.
[23] Ray Lankester, op. cit.
[24] Verworn, General Physiology, pp. 102, 478: “Physiological chemistry has shown that between the two kinds of substance very essential chemical differences exist, which prove that living substance experiences in dying pronounced chemical changes. A widespread difference between the two consists in their reaction. The reaction of living substance is almost without exception alkaline or neutral, and with death changes usually to acid.... Physiological chemistry has shown similar changes in death in great number. All these facts prove that in the death of living cell-substance certain chemical compounds undergo transformations; hence substances exist in it which are not to be found in dead cell-substance.”
[25] In 1892. An English translation of Bütschli’s work on Microscopic Foams and Protoplasm, by E. A. Minchin, appeared in 1894. The nucleus is really a form of protoplasm, chiefly differentiated from the ‘cytoplasm,’ or protoplasm of the cell, by containing a large amount of phosphorus.
[26] The Cell in Development and Inheritance, 2nd edition, p. 9.
[27] By J. A. and M. R. Thomson, 1904.
[28] The Evolution Theory, II, p. 391.
[29] Ibid., I, p. 368.
[30] Ibid., I, p. 404.
[31] The Evolution Theory, I, p. 353.
[32] Ibid., II, p. 52.
[33] But note the transition stage exemplified in the natural history of crystals (vide p. 22).
[34] “It has been Weismann’s great service to place the keystone between the work of the evolutionists and that of the cytologists, and thus to bring the cell-theory and the evolution-theory into organic connexion” (E. B. Wilson, The Cell, p. 13).
[35] Prof. Wilson’s work on the cell (see note on p. 33) may be referred to for a comprehensive and detailed statement of all that is known at present on this subject.
[36] According to Wilson (op. cit.) this was guessed by Haeckel in 1866, and confirmed in 1884-5 by the almost simultaneous discoveries of O. Hertwig, Strasburger, Kölliker, and Weismann.
[37] Sixteen have been counted in the human cell. A grasshopper has twelve, a lily twenty-four. The number is almost always an even one, but as with everything in Nature there are exceptions to the rule.
[38] The process briefly described above is that of ‘mitotic’ division (μίτος, a thread, from the appearance of the chromosomes). Amitotic division, in which the cell and nucleus simply divide in two without the formation of chromosomes, also occurs under certain conditions, but is usually an abnormal or degenerative process (cf. Wilson, The Cell, pp. 116-119).
[39] “Every animal appears as a sum of vital entities, each of which bears within itself the complete character of life” (Virchow, Cellular-pathologie, p. 12, 1858).
[40] Weismann, The Evolution Theory, I, 251.
[41] It is cast out into the cytoplasm—the substance surrounding the nucleus—where it degenerates (see Wilson, The Cell, p. 147).
[43] The Evolution Theory, I, 265.
[44] The Cell, p. 178.
[45] Scientific Papers and Addresses, II, pp. 862-3.
[46] English trans., 2nd edition (1903), p. 159.
[47] The Cell, p. 434.
[48] Against this view might be quoted the fact that the unfertilized eggs sometimes laid by the workers (imperfect females) of bee and ant communities always develop into drones.
[49] Pp. 262-3. The bird was examined by Prof. Max Weber, of Amsterdam, and Mr. Beddard refers to the Zoologischer Anzeiger for 1890, p. 508, for Weber’s account of the case.
[50] The now famous Mendelian Law of Inheritance, first discovered in 1865 by Mendel, an Augustinian monk and Abbott of Brünn, and completely ignored till the year 1900, when it was rediscovered by De Vries and others, is also strongly confirmatory of Weismann’s analysis of the principle of heredity. According to this law it is possible, as it were, to isolate any particular characteristic of a species or even (if heritable) of an individual, and by a definite system of crossing to attach this characteristic alone to any other variety capable of crossing with the first. This means that inheritance is governed by separable units of formative energy. These units are Weismann’s determinants. The discovery of the methods of turning this principle to practical account is obviously of great importance for agriculture and stockbreeding. The law has some inexplicable limitations which are now closely engaging the attention of biologists. It is impossible to enter upon the subject more fully here, but a good account of it will be found in Lock’s Recent Progress in the Study of Variation, and in a brochure, An Address on Mendelian Heredity, by W. Bateson, reprinted from Brain, pt. cxiv, 1906.
[51] The actual stimulus which prompts the division is probably to be found in the disturbance of equilibrium which arises when the cell is taking in more nutriment than its digestive system can deal with. This, of course, does not explain why it should divide instead of dying of indigestion.
[52] See Strasburger, loc. cit.
[53] The Evolution Theory, I, 402-3.
[54] The subject of degenerated and lost organs is very fully treated by M. Edmond Perrier in his Traité de Zoologie, pp. 325 sqq. It may be noted that animals which are fixed usually lack eyes, even in light. In the depths of the sea, where total darkness reigns except for the phosphorescence emitted by certain animals, it is found that some creatures have completely lost their organs of sight, while others have them extraordinarily developed. Those which have lost them are the walkers (Crustaceæ); those which show an exceptional development are the swimmers. This goes to show that the needs of the animal, rather than the external conditions, are the determining cause.
Cave fishes are all extremely sensitive to light, which affects them disagreeably, even when the optic nerve is wholly destroyed. See Armand Viré, La Faune Actuelle des Cavernes, Revue des Idées, March 15, 1905, and La Faune Souterraine de France, 1900.
[55] A. R. Wallace, Darwinism, chapters III. and XV.
[56] Origin of Species, chapter II.
[57] Sexual selection—the competition of males and females for their mates—is merely a form of natural selection, and need not be specially dealt with here.
[58] Origin of Species, chapter V.
[59] See Eimer, Organic Evolution (Eng. trans.), pp. 173-184, for a full discussion of the question from the Lamarckian standpoint.
[60] ‘Right-handedness and Left-brainedness’ by D. J. Cunningham: the Huxley Lecture for 1902. Printed in the Journal of the Anthropological Institute, Vol. XXXII, pp. 273-95. I may refer also to a brochure by Dr. Geo. Sigerson, F.R.U.I., Consideration of the Structural and Acquisitional Elements in Dextral Pre-eminence, Dublin, 1884. Dr. Sigerson believes that primitive man was ambidextrous, and that ‘dexterity’ is a case of specialization of function, and has supported this view by a novel and interesting line of pathological observation.
[61] Op. cit., p. 285.
[62] Ibid., pp. 284-5.
[63] Journal of Anatomy and Physiology, Vol. XXXVI, p. 401. ‘On the relative weights of the right and left sides of the body in the foetus.’
[64] Origin of Species, chap. VI.
[65] ‘The Inadequacy of Natural Selection,’ Herbert Spencer. Contemporary Review, February and March, 1893.
‘Prof. Weismann’s Theories,’ Herbert Spencer. Contemporary Review, May, 1893.
‘The All-Sufficiency of Natural Selection,’ Aug. Weismann. Contemporary Review, September, 1893.
‘A Rejoinder to Prof. Weismann,’ Herbert Spencer. Contemporary Review, December, 1893.
The Romanes Lecture for 1894, by Aug. Weismann (Frowde).
[66] ‘Lamarck et le Transformisme actuel’: Muséum d’Histoire Naturelle, Centenaire; Vol. Commemoratif, 1903, p. 508. M. Perrier adds that the metaphysical alternative “est, en effet, à quoi le professeur A. Weismann, de Fribourg, a été conduit.” This, I think, can only be M. Perrier’s way of saying that he finds Weismann unintelligible, for Weismann’s ostensible object is certainly to steer between the Scylla of Lamarckism and the Charybdis of ‘metaphysics.’ With what success he attempts this feat we shall see.
[67] The Evolution Theory, II, p. 78.
[68] II, p. 330 sqq.
[69] The Evolution Theory, II., 346.
[71] The Evolution Theory, II, 264.
[72] I take this from J. T. Cunningham’s Sexual Dimorphism, p. 16.
[73] Useless structures and organs are regarded by Weismann, and I think with justice, as in some degree unfavourable. They make demands on the organism for nourishment, and are thus in the position of non-productive members of a working family.
[75] Wallace, Darwinism, p. 24.
[76] Animal Coloration, p. 252.
[77] Poulton, The Colours of Animals, p. 238.
[78] Ibid., p. 237.
[80] Eng. trans. revised from fifth German edition, 1903, p. 3.
[81] Mechanisch-physiologische Theorie der Abstammungslehre. 1884.
[82] See especially Organic Evolution, pp. 52, 3.
[83] Organic Evolution, pp. 225, 433. Eimer is a believer in the inheritance of acquired characteristics; hence Oken’s conception, taken literally, offers him a ready method of disposing of the ant-problem dealt with on p. 85, sqq.
[84] Organic Evolution, p. 268.
[85] See Eimer, Organic Evolution, p. 135 sqq.
[86] p. 62.
[87] “It is,” writes Wilson, “becoming more and more clearly apparent ... that Schwann went too far in denying the influence of the totality of the organism upon the local activities of the cells. It would of course be absurd to maintain that the whole can consist of more than the sum of its parts. Yet, as far as growth and development are concerned, it has now been clearly demonstrated that only in a limited sense can the cells be regarded as co-operating units. They are rather local centres of a formative power pervading the growing mass as a whole” (The Cell, pp. 58, 9).
What Prof. Wilson, absorbed like most scientists in the consideration of ponderable and visible masses, assumes to be “absurd” is of course the very thing which he is proving to be a fact The whole can be not merely the “sum” but the synthesis of its parts.
[88] Die Welt als That., chap. XXIV.
[89] Loc. cit.
[90] Kräfte zweiter Hand. The primary forces are the chemical and mechanical forces, the secondary are those which control and guide these for certain ends.
[91] Pp. 9, 10. The italics are Prof. Henslow’s.
[92] This statement taken literally is, of course, quite too sweeping. Professor Henslow clearly means here by “variations” those alone which are important enough to have selection-value, favourable or otherwise. Insignificant variations are always occurring.
[93] Henslow, Origin, etc., p. 102.
[94] Ibid., p. 80.
[95] Ibid., p. 40.
[96] A. R. Wallace, Darwinism (1890), p. 427.
[97] Marie v. Chauvin, ‘Ueber die Verwandlungsfähigkeit des mexikanischen Axolotl.’ Zeitschrift für wissenschaftliche Zoologie, XLI, p. 385. See also The Cambridge Natural History, sub voce.
[98] Haeckel, History of Creation (English trans.), I, p. 150.
[100] J. H. Newman.
[101] See Principles of Sociology, Part II.
[102] See Curtius, Griechische Etymologie, s.v., φημή, νέος.
[103] Deus descends from a root meaning ‘to shine,’ hence the Day, the Sun, God; θεός is referred by Curtius to a root θες, to desire, pray—God is “der Angeflehte.”
[104] Are there many Englishmen who would understand the following sentence which I lately came across in a St. Louis paper? “This graft was one of the scrap-head variety, and it was hard therefore to get the boodlers good.”
[105] The ‘wheel’ is really a spiral—the line of all natural growth.
[107] Origin of Species, chapter VI.
[108] Mechanisch-Physiologische Theorie der Abstammungslehre, p. 150.
[109] Weismann, The Evolution Theory, I, p. 162.
[110] Ibid., I, p. 177.
[111] So the cogwheels of a machine designed for some useful purpose will lacerate the hand of a man who gets in their way.
[113] Darwinism and the Problems of Life, 1904. Eng. transl. by J. McCabe, 1905, pp. 354 sqq.
[114] Orthogenesis der Schmetterlinge (1897). The passage will be found in Kellogg’s Darwinism To-day, p. 285. Instances of ‘regression,’ etc., are given by Kellogg, op. cit., p. 227.
[115] When Heracleitus wrote “The One arises from the All and the All from the One” (Frag. LIX. Bywater) he was stating with his usual pregnant brevity a position of deep significance for modern scientific thought.
[116] It must be borne in mind that strict physical continuity does not exist in nature. Sir Oliver Lodge has somewhere remarked that science is entirely at a loss to explain how it comes that when one picks up a stick by one end the rest of the stick comes up with it.
[117] General Physiology, p. 550.
[118] Published by Bell & Son, 1907.
[119] Darwinism To-day, p. 377, quoting H. F. Osborn’s The Unknown Factors of Evolution. Osborn, like the writer (see p. 90), holds Spencer and Weismann to be mutually destructive. “If acquired variations are transmitted there must be therefore some unknown principle in heredity; if they are not transmitted there must be some unknown factor in evolution.”
[120] Mechanisch-Physiologische Theorie der Abstammungslehre. See especially pp. 132, and 340 sqq.
[121] Darwinism To-day, p. 278.