6th. Haematoma and dry gangrene of the ears in animals born of parents in which these ear-alterations had been caused by an injury to the restiform body.
As regards the animals operated upon (i. e. the parents), I find that the haematoma and dry gangrene may supervene either several weeks after the operation, or at any subsequent time up to many months. When it does supervene it usually affects the upper parts of both ears, and may then eat its way down until, in extreme cases, it has entirely consumed two-thirds of the tissue of both ears. As regards the progeny of animals thus affected, in some cases, but by no means in all, a similarly morbid state of the ears may arise apparently at any time in the life-history of the individual. But I have observed that in cases where two or more individuals _of the same litter_ develop this diseased condition, they usually do so at about the same time--even though this be many months after birth, and therefore after the animals are fully grown. But in progeny the morbid process never goes so far as in the parents which have been operated upon, and it almost always affects the _middle_ thirds of the ears. In order to ill.u.s.trate these points, reproductions of two of my photographs are appended. They represent the consequences of the operation on a male and a female guinea-pig. Among the progeny of both these animals there were several in which a portion of each ear was consumed by apparently the same process, where, of course, there had been no operation.
[Ill.u.s.tration: FIG. 1.--Reproduction of photographs from life of a male and female guinea-pig, whose left restiform bodies had been injured by a scalpel six months previously. The loss of tissue in both ears was due to haematoma and dry gangrene, which, however, had ceased when the photograph was taken.]
It should be observed that not only is a different _part_ of the ear affected in the progeny, but also a very much less _quant.i.ty_ thereof.
Naturally, therefore, the hypothesis of heredity seems less probable than that of mere coincidence on the one hand, or of transmitted microbes on the other. But I hope to have fairly excluded both these alternative explanations. For, as regards merely accidental coincidence, I have never seen this very peculiar morbid process in the ears, or in any other parts, of guinea-pigs which have neither themselves had their restiform bodies injured, nor been born of parents thus mutilated. As regards the hypothesis of microbes, I have tried to inoculate the corresponding parts of the ears of normal guinea-pigs, by first scarifying those parts and then rubbing them with the diseased surfaces of the ears of mutilated guinea-pigs; but have not been able in this way to communicate the disease.
It will be seen that the above results in large measure corroborate the statements of Brown-Sequard; and it is only fair to add that he told me they are the results which he had himself obtained most frequently, but that he had also met with many cases where the diseased condition of the ears in parents affected the same parts in their progeny, and also occurred in more equal degrees. Lastly, I should like to remark, with regard to these experiments on restiform bodies, and for the benefit of any one else who may hereafter repeat them, that it will be necessary for him to obtain precise information touching the _modus operandi_. For it is only one very localized spot in each restiform body which has to be injured in order to produce any of the results in question. I myself lost two years of work on account of not knowing this exact spot before going to Paris for the purpose of seeing Brown-Sequard himself perform the operation. I had in the preceding year seen one of his a.s.sistants do so, but this gentleman had a much more careless method, and one which in my hands yielded uniformly negative results. The exact spot in question in the restiform body is as far forwards as it is possible to reach, and as far down in depth as is compatible with not producing rotatory movements.
7th. Absence of two toes out of the three of the hind leg, and sometimes of the three, in animals whose parents had eaten up their hind-leg toes which had become anaesthetic from a section of the sciatic nerve alone, or of that nerve and also of the crural.
Sometimes, instead of complete absence of the toes, only a part of one or two or three was missing in the young, although in the parent not only the toes but the whole foot were absent.
As I found that the results here described were usually given by division of the sciatic nerve alone--or, more correctly, by excision of a considerable portion of the nerve, in order to prevent regeneration--I did not also divide the crural. But, although I have bred numerous litters from parents thus injured, there has been no case of any inherited deficiency of toes. My experiments in this connexion were carried on through a series of six successive generations, so as to produce, if possible, a c.u.mulative effect. Nevertheless, no effect of any kind was produced. On the other hand, Brown-Sequard informed me that he had observed this inherited absence of toes only in about one or two per cent. of cases. Hence it is possible enough, that my experiments have not been sufficiently numerous to furnish a case. It may be added that there is here no measurable possibility of accidental coincidence (seeing that normal guinea-pigs do not seem ever to produce young with any deficiency of toes), while the only possibility of mal-observation consists in some error with regard to the isolation (or the tabulation) of parents and progeny. Such an error, however, may easily arise. For gangrene of the toes does not set in till some considerable time after division of the sciatic nerve. Hence, if the wound be healed before the gangrene begins, and if any mistake has been made with regard to the isolation (or tabulation) of the animal, it becomes possible that the latter should be recorded as an uninjured, instead of an injured, individual. On this account one would like to be a.s.sured that Brown-Sequard took the precaution of examining the state of the sciatic nerve in those comparatively few specimens which he alleges to have displayed such exceedingly definite proof of the inheritance of a mutilation. For it is needless to remark, after what has been said in the preceding chapter on the a.n.a.logous case of epilepsy, that the proof would not be regarded by any physiologist as displaced by the fact that there is no observable deficiency in the sciatic nerve of the toeless young.
8th. Appearance of various morbid states of the skin and hair of the neck and face in animals born of parents having had similar alterations in the same parts, as effects of an injury to the sciatic nerve.
I have not paid any attention to this paragraph, because the facts which it alleges did not seem of a sufficiently definite character to serve as a guide to further experiment.
On the whole, then, as regards Brown-Sequard"s experiments, it will be seen that I have not been able to furnish any approach to a full corroboration. But I must repeat that my own experiments have not as yet been sufficiently numerous to justify me in repudiating those of his statements which I have not been able to verify.
The only other experimental results, where animals are concerned, which seemed to tell on the side of Lamarckianism, are those of Mr.
Cunningham, already alluded to. But, as the research is still in progress, the school of Weismann may fairly say that it would be premature to discuss its theoretical bearings.
Pa.s.sing now from experiments on animals to experiments on plants, I must again ask it to be borne in mind, that here also no researches have been published, which have had for their object the testing of the question on which we are engaged. As in the case of animals, therefore, so in that of plants, we are dependent for any experimental results bearing upon the subject to such as have been gained incidentally during the course of investigations in quite other directions.
Allusion has already been made, in my previous essay, to De Vries"
observations on the chromatoph.o.r.es of algae pa.s.sing from the ovum of the mother to the daughter organism; and we have seen that even Weismann admits, "It appears possible that a transmission of somatogenetic variation has here occurred[71]." It will now be my object to show that such variations appear to be sometimes transmitted in the case of higher plants, and this under circ.u.mstances which carry much less equivocal evidence of the inheritance of acquired characters, than can be rendered by the much more simple organization of an alga.
[71] _Examination of Weismannism_, p. 83.
I have previously mentioned Hoffmann"s experiments on transplantation, the result of which was to show that variations, directly induced by changed conditions of life, were reproduced by seed[72]. Weismann, however, as we have seen, questions the _somatogenetic_ origin of these variations--attributing the facts to a _blastogenetic_ change produced in the plants by a direct action of the changed conditions upon the germ-plasm itself[73]. And he points out that whether he is right or wrong in this interpretation can only be settled by ascertaining whether the observable somatic changes occur in the generation which is first exposed to the changed conditions of life. If they do occur in the first generation, they are somatogenetic changes, which afterwards react on the substance of heredity, so as to transmit the acquired peculiarities to progeny. But if they do not occur till the second (or any later) generation, they are presumably blastogenetic. Unfortunately Hoffmann does not appear to have attended to this point with sufficient care, but there are other experiments of the same kind where the point has been specially observed.
[72] _Examination of Wiesmannism_, p. 93.
[73] _Ibid._ p. 153.
For instance, M. L. A. Carriere[74] gathered seed from the wild radish (_Rapha.n.u.s Raphanistrum_) in France, and sowed one lot in the light dry soil near the Museum of Natural History in Paris, while another lot was sown by him at the same time in heavy soil elsewhere. His object was to ascertain whether he could produce a good cultivated radish by methodical selection; and this he did; in a wonderfully rapid manner, during the course of a very few generations. But the point for us is, that _from the first_ the plants grown in the light soil of Paris presented sundry marked differences from those grown in the heavy soil of the country; and that these points of difference had nothing to do with the variations on which his artificial selection was brought to bear. For while his artificial selection was directed to increasing the _size_ of the "root," the differences in question had reference to its _form_ and _colour_. In Paris an elongated form prevailed, which presented either a white or a rose colour: in the country the form was more rounded, and the colour violet, dark brown, or "almost black." Now, as these differences were strongly apparent in the first generation, and were not afterwards made the subject of selection, both in origin and development they must have been due to "climatic" influences acting on the somatic tissues. And although the author does not appear to have tested their hereditary characters by afterwards sowing the seed from the Paris variety in the country, or _vice versa_, we may fairly conclude that these changes must have been hereditary--1st, from the fact of their intensification in the course of the five sequent generations over which the experiment extended, and, 2nd, from the very a.n.a.logous results which were similarly obtained in the following case with another genus, where both the somatogenetic and the hereditary characters of the change were carefully and specially observed. This case is as follows.
[74] _Origine des Plantes Domestiques, demontree par la culture du Radis Sauvage_ (Paris, 1869).
The late Professor James Buckman, F.R.S., saved some seed from wild parsnips (_P. sativa_) in the summer of 1847, and sowed under changed conditions of life in the spring of 1848. The plants grown from these wild seeds were for the most part like wild plants; but some of them had "already (i.e. in the autumn of 1848) the light green and smooth aspect devoid of hairs which is peculiar to the cultivated plant; and among the latter there were a few with longer leaves and broader divisions of leaf-lobes than the rest--the leaves, too, all growing systematically round one central bud. The roots of the plant when taken up were observed to be for the most part more fleshy than those of wild examples[75]."
[75] _Journl. Agric. Soc._ 1848.
Professor Buckman then proceeds to describe how he selected the best samples for cultivation in succeeding generations, till eventually the variety which he called "The Student" was produced, and which Messrs.
Sutton still regard as the best variety in their catalogue. That is to say, it has come true to seed for the last forty years; and although such great excellence and stability are doubtless in chief part due to the subsequent process of selection by Professor Buckman in the years 1848-1850, this does not affect the point with which we are here concerned--namely, that the somatogenetic changes of the plants in the first generation were transmitted by seed to the second generation, and thus furnished Professor Buckman with the material for his subsequent process of selection. And the changes in question were not merely of a very definite character, but also of what may be termed a very _local_ character--affecting only particular tissues of the soma, and therefore expressive of a high degree of _representation_ on the part of the subsequently developed seed, by which they were faithfully reproduced in the next generation.
Here is another case. M. Lesage examined the tissues of a large number of plants growing both near to, and remote from, the sea. He suspected that the characteristic fleshiness, &c. of seaside plants was due to the influence of sea-salt; and proved that such was the case by causing the characters to occur in inland plants as a result of watering them with salt-water. Then he adds:--
"J"ai reussi surtout pour le _Lepidium sativum_ cultive en 1888; j"ai obtenu pour la meme plante des resultats plus nets encore dans la culture de 1889, entreprise en semant les graines recoltees avec soin des pots de l"annee precedente et traitees exactement de la meme facon[76]."
[76] _Rev. Gen. de Bot._ tom. ii. p. 64.
Here, it will be observed, there was no selection; and therefore the increased hereditary effect in the second generation must apparently be ascribed to a continuance of influence exercised by somatic tissues on germinal elements; for at the time when the changes were produced no seed had been formed. In other words, the acc.u.mulated change, like the initial change, would seem to have been exclusively of somatogenetic origin; and yet it so influenced the qualities of the seed (as this was afterwards formed), that the augmented changes were transmitted to the next generation, part for part, as the lesser changes had occurred in the preceding generation. "This experiment, therefore, like Professor Buckman"s, shows that the alteration of the tissues was carried on in the second generation from the point gained in the first. In both cases no germ-plasm (in the germ-cells) existed at the time during which the alterations arose, as they were confined to the vegetative system; and in the case of the parsnips and carrots, being biennials no germ-cells are produced till the second year has arrived[77]."
[77] I am indebted to the Rev. G. Henslow for the references to these cases. This and the pa.s.sages which follow are quoted from his letters to me.
Once more, Professor Bailey remarks:--
"Squashes often show remarkable differences when grown upon different soils; and these differences can sometimes be perpetuated for a time by seeds. The writer has produced, from the same parent, squashes so dissimilar, through the simple agency of a change of soil in one season, that they might readily be taken for distinct varieties. Peas are known to vary in the same manner. The seeds of a row of peas of the same kind, last year gave the writer marked variations due to differences of soil.... Pea-growers characterize soils as "good" and "viney." Upon the latter sort the plants run to vine at the expense of the fruit, and their offspring for two or three generations have the same tendency[78]."
[78] _Gardener"s Chronicle_, May 31, 1890, p. 677.
I think these several cases are enough to show that, while the Weismannian a.s.sumption as to the seeming transmission of somatogenetic characters being restricted to the lowest kinds of plants is purely gratuitous, there is no small amount of evidence to the contrary--or evidence which seems to prove that a similar transmission occurs likewise in the higher plants. And no doubt many additional cases might be advanced by any one who is well read in the literature of economic botany.
It appears to me that the only answer to such cases would be furnished by supposing that the hereditary changes are due to an alteration of the residual "germ-plasm" in the wild seed, when this is first exposed to the changed conditions of life, due to its growth in a strange kind of soil--e.g. while germinating in an unusual kind of earth for producing the first generation. But this would be going a long way to save an hypothesis. In case, however, it should now be suggested, I may remark that it would be negatived by the following facts.[79]
[79] Since the above was written Professor Weismann has advanced, in _The Germ-plasm_, a suggestion very similar to this. It is sufficient here to remark, that nearly all the facts and considerations which ensue in the present chapter are applicable to his suggestion, the essence of which is antic.i.p.ated in the above paragraph.
In the first place, an endless number of cases might be quoted where somatogenetic changes thus produced by changed conditions of life are not hereditary. Therefore, in all these cases it is certainly not the "germ-plasm" that is affected. In other words, there can be no question that somatogenetic changes of the kinds above mentioned do very readily admit of being produced in the first generation by changes of soil, alt.i.tude, &c. And that somatogenetic changes thus produced should not always--or even generally--prove themselves to be hereditary from the first moment of their occurrence, is no more than any theory of heredity would expect. Indeed, looking to the known potency of reversion, the wonder is that in any case such changes should become hereditary in a single generation. On the other hand, there is no reason to imagine that the hypothetical germ-plasm--howsoever _unstable_ we may suppose it to be--can admit of being directly affected by a change of soil in a single generation. For, on this view, it must presumably be chiefly affected during the short time that the seed is germinating; and during that time the changed conditions can scarcely be conceived as having any points of attack, so to speak, upon the residual germ-plasm.
There are no roots on which the change of _soil_ can make itself perceptible, nor any stem and leaves on which the change of _atmosphere_ can operate. Yet the changed condition"s may produce hereditary modifications in any parts of the plant, which are not only precisely a.n.a.logous to non-hereditary changes similarly produced in the somatic tissues of innumerable other plants, but are always of precisely the same kind in the same lot of plants that are affected. When all the radishes grown from wild seed in Paris, for instance, varied in the direction of rotundity and dark colour, while those grown in the country presented the opposite characters, we can well understand the facts as due to an entire season"s action upon the whole of the growing plant, with the result that all the changes produced in each set of plants were similar--just as in the cases where similarly "climatic" modifications are not hereditary, and therefore unquestionably due to changed conditions acting on roots, stems, leaves, or flowers, as the case may be. On the other hand, it is not thus intelligible that during the short time of germination the changed conditions should effect a re-shuffling (or any other modification) of the "germ-plasm" in the seeds--and this in such a manner that the effect on the residual germ-plasm reserved for future generations is precisely similar to that produced on the somatic tissues of the developing embryo.
In the second place, as we have seen, in some of the foregoing cases the changes were produced months--and even years--before the seeds of the first germination were formed. Therefore the hereditary effect, if subsequent to the period of embryonic germination, must have been produced on germ-plasm as this occurs diffused through the somatic tissues. But, if so, we shall have to suppose that such germ-plasm is afterwards gathered in the seeds when these are subsequently formed.
This supposition, however, would be radically opposed to Weismann"s theory of heredity: nor do I know of any other theory with which it would be reconcilable, save such as entertain the possibility of the Lamarckian factors.
Lastly, in the third place, I deem the following considerations of the highest importance:--
"As other instances in which peculiar structures are now hereditary may be mentioned aquatic plants and those producing subterraneous stems. Whether they be dicotyledons or monocotyledons, there is a fundamental agreement in the anatomy of the roots and stem of aquatic plants, and, in many cases, of the leaves as well. Such has. .h.i.therto been attributed to the aquatic habit. The inference or deduction was, of course, based upon innumerable coincidences; the water being supposed to be the direct cause of the degenerate structures, which are hereditary and characteristic of such plants in the wild state. M. Costantin has, however, verified this deduction, by making terrestrial and aerial stems to grow underground and in water: the structures _at once_ began to a.s.sume the subterranean or aquatic type, as the case might be; and, conversely, aquatic plants made to grow upon land _at once_ began to a.s.sume the terrestrial type of structure, while a.n.a.logous results followed changes from a subterranean to an aerial position, and _vice versa_."
This is also quoted from the Rev. Prof. Henslow"s letters to me, and the important point in it is, that the great changes in question are proved to be of a purely "somatogenetic" kind; for they occurred "at once" _in the ready-grown plant_, when the organs concerned were exposed to the change from aquatic to terrestrial life, or _vice versa_--and also from a subterranean to an aerial position, or _vice versa_. Consequently, even the abstract possibility of the changed conditions of life having operated on the _seed_ is here excluded. Yet the changes are of precisely the same kind as are now _hereditary_ in the wild species. It thus appears undeniable that all these remarkable and uniform changes must originally have been somatogenetic changes; yet they have now become blastogenetic. This much, I say, seems undeniable; and therefore it goes a long way to prove that the non-blastogenetic character of the changes has been due to their originally somatogenetic character. For, if not, how did natural selection ever get an opportunity of making any of them blastogenetic, when every individual plant has always presented them as already given somatogenetically? This last consideration appears in no small measure to justify the opinion of Mr. Henslow, who concludes--"These experiments prove, not only that the influence of the environment is _at once_ felt by the organ; but that it is indubitably the _cause_ of the now specific and hereditary traits peculiar to normally aquatic, subterranean, and aerial stems, or roots[80]."
[80] It also serves to show that Weismann"s newer doctrine of similar "determinants" occurring both in the germ and in the somatic tissues is a doctrine which cannot be applied to rebut this evidence of the transmission of acquired characters in plants. Therefore even its hypothetical validity as applied by him to explain the seasonal variation of b.u.t.terflies is rendered in a high degree dubious.
He continues to furnish other instances in the same line of proof--such as the distinctive "habits" of insectivorous, parasitic, and climbing plants; the difference in structure between the upper and under sides of horizontal leaves, &c. "For here, as in all organs, we discover by experiment how easily the anatomy of plants can be affected by their environment; and that, as long as the latter is constant, so are the characters of the plants constant and hereditary."
[The following letter, contributed by Dr. Hill to _Nature_, vol. I.
p. 617, may here be quoted. C. Ll. M.
"It may be of interest to your readers to know that two guinea-pigs were born at Oxford a day or two before the death Dr. Romanes, both of which exhibited a well-marked droop of the left upper eyelid.
These guinea-pigs were the offspring of a male and a female guinea-pig in both of which I had produced for Dr. Romanes, some months earlier, a droop of the left upper eyelid by division of the left cervical sympathetic nerve. This result is a corroboration of the series of Brown-Sequard"s experiments on the inheritance of acquired characteristics. A very large series of such experiments are of course needed to eliminate all sources of error, but this I unfortunately cannot carry out at present, owing to the need of a special farm in the country, for the proper care and breeding of the animals.--LEONARD HILL.
"Physiological Laboratory, Univ. Coll. London, Oct. 18, 1894."]