"4. A tendency of organisms to give rise to useful varieties, and a natural selection, do not exist.
"The varieties which are found arise in consequence of manifold external influences, and it is not obvious why they all, or partially, should be particularly useful. Each animal suffices for its own ends, is perfect of its kind, and needs no further development. Should, however, a variety be useful and even maintain itself, there is no obvious reason why it should change any further. The whole conception of the imperfection of organisms and the necessity of their becoming perfected is plainly the weakest side of Darwin"s Theory, and a _pis aller_ (Nothbehelf) because Darwin could think of no other principle by which to explain the metamorphoses which, as I also believe, have occurred."
Here again we must venture to dissent completely from Professor Kolliker"s conception of Mr. Darwin"s hypothesis. It appears to us to be one of the many peculiar merits of that hypothesis that it involves no belief in a necessary and continual progress of organisms.
Again, Mr. Darwin, if we read him aright, a.s.sumes no special tendency of organisms to give rise to useful varieties, and knows nothing of needs of development, or necessity of perfection. What he says is, in substance: All organisms vary. It is in the highest degree improbable that any given variety should have exactly the same relations to surrounding conditions as the parent stock. In that case it is either better fitted (when the variation may be called useful), or worse fitted, to cope with them. If better, it will tend to supplant the parent stock; if worse, it will tend to be extinguished by the parent stock.
If (as is hardly conceivable) the new variety is so perfectly adapted to the conditions that no improvement upon it is possible,--it will persist, because, though it does not cease to vary, the varieties will be inferior to itself.
If, as is more probable, the new variety is by no means perfectly adapted to its conditions, but only fairly well adapted to them, it will persist, so long as none of the varieties which it throws off are better adapted than itself.
On the other hand, as soon as it varies in a useful way, _i.e._ when the variation is such as to adapt it more perfectly to its conditions, the fresh variety will tend to supplant the former.
So far from a gradual progress towards perfection forming any necessary part of the Darwinian creed, it appears to us that it is perfectly consistent with indefinite persistence in one state, or with a gradual retrogression. Suppose, for example, a return of the glacial epoch and a spread of polar climatal conditions over the whole globe. The operation of natural selection under these circ.u.mstances would tend, on the whole, to the weeding out of the higher organisms and the cherishing of the lower forms of life. Cryptogamic vegetation would have the advantage over Phanerogamic; _Hydrozoa_ over Corals; _Crustacea_ over _Insecta_, and _Amphipoda_ and _Isopoda_ over the higher _Crustacea_; Cetaceans and Seals over the _Primates_; the civilization of the Esquimaux over that of the European.
"5. Pelzeln has also objected that if the later organisms have proceeded from the earlier, the whole developmental series, from the simplest to the highest, could not now exist; in such a case the simpler organisms must have disappeared."
To this Professor Kolliker replies, with perfect justice, that the conclusion drawn by Pelzeln does not really follow from Darwin"s premises, and that, if we take the facts of Palaeontology as they stand, they rather support than oppose Darwin"s theory.
"6. Great weight must be attached to the objection brought forward by Huxley, otherwise a warm supporter of Darwin"s hypothesis, that we know of no varieties which are sterile with one another, as is the rule among sharply distinguished animal forms.
"If Darwin is right, it must be demonstrated that forms may be produced by selection, which, like the present sharply distinguished animal forms, are infertile when coupled with one another, and this has not been done."
The weight of this objection is obvious; but our ignorance of the conditions of fertility and sterility, the want of carefully conducted experiments extending over long series of years, and the strange anomalies presented by the results of the cross-fertilization of many plants, should all, as Mr. Darwin has urged, be taken into account in considering it.
The seventh objection is that we have already discussed (_supra_, p.
329).
The eighth and last stands as follows:--
"8. The developmental theory of Darwin is not needed to enable us to understand the regular harmonious progress of the complete series of organic forms from the simpler to the more perfect.
"The existence of general laws of Nature explains this harmony, even if we a.s.sume that all beings have arisen separately and independent of one another. Darwin forgets that inorganic nature, in which there can be no thought of a genetic connexion of forms, exhibits the same regular plan, the same harmony, as the organic world; and that, to cite only one example, there is as much a natural system of minerals as of plants and animals."
We do not feel quite sure that we seize Professor Kolliker"s meaning here, but he appears to suggest that the observation of the general order and harmony which pervade inorganic nature, would lead us to antic.i.p.ate a similar order and harmony in the organic world. And this is no doubt true, but it by no means follows that the particular order and harmony observed among them should be that which we see. Surely the stripes of dun horses, and the teeth of the foetal _Balaena_, are not explained by the "existence of general laws of Nature." Mr. Darwin endeavours to explain the exact order of organic nature which exists; not the mere fact that there is some order.
And with regard to the existence of a natural system of minerals; the obvious reply is that there may be a natural cla.s.sification of any objects--of stones on a sea-beach, or of works of art; a natural cla.s.sification being simply an a.s.semblage of objects in groups, so as to express their most important and fundamental resemblances and differences. No doubt Mr. Darwin believes that those resemblances and differences upon which our natural systems or cla.s.sifications of animals and plants are based, are resemblances and differences which have been produced genetically, but we can discover no reason for supposing that he denies the existence of natural cla.s.sifications of other kinds.
And, after all, is it quite so certain that a genetic relation may not underlie the cla.s.sification of minerals? The inorganic world has not always been what we see it. It has certainly had its metamorphoses, and, very probably, a long "Entwickelungsgeschichte" out of a nebular blastema. Who knows how far that amount of likeness among sets of minerals, in virtue of which they are now grouped into families and orders, may not be the expression of the common conditions to which that particular patch of nebulous fog, which may have been const.i.tuted by their atoms, and of which they may be, in the strictest sense, the descendants, was subjected?
It will be obvious from what has preceded, that we do not agree with Professor Kolliker in thinking the objections which he brings forward so weighty as to be fatal to Darwin"s view. But even if the case were otherwise, we should be unable to accept the "Theory of Heterogeneous Generation" which is offered as a subst.i.tute. That theory is thus stated:--
"The fundamental conception of this hypothesis is, that, under the influence of a general law of development, the germs of organisms produce others different from themselves. This might happen (1) by the fecundated ova pa.s.sing, in the course of their development, under particular circ.u.mstances, into higher forms; (2) by the primitive and later organisms producing other organisms without fecundation, out of germs or eggs (Parthenogenesis)."
In favour of this hypothesis, Professor Kolliker adduces the well-known facts of Agamogenesis, or "alternate generation;" the extreme dissimilarity of the males and females of many animals; and of the males, females, and neuters of those insects which live in colonies: and he defines its relations to the Darwinian theory as follows:--
"It is obvious that my hypothesis is apparently very similar to Darwin"s, inasmuch as I also consider that the various forms of animals have proceeded directly from one another. My hypothesis of the creation of organisms by heterogeneous generation, however, is distinguished very essentially from Darwin"s by the entire absence of the principle of useful variations and their natural selection; and my fundamental conception is this, that a great plan of development lies at the foundation of the origin of the whole organic world, impelling the simpler forms to more and more complex developments. How this law operates, what influences determine the development of the eggs and germs, and impel them to a.s.sume constantly new forms, I naturally cannot pretend to say; but I can at least adduce the great a.n.a.logy of the alternation of generations. If a _Bipinnaria_, a _Brachialaria_, a _Pluteus_, is competent to produce the Echinoderm, which is so widely different from it; if a hydroid polype can produce the higher Medusa; if the vermiform Trematode "nurse" can develop within itself the very unlike _Cercaria_, it will not appear impossible that the egg, or ciliated embryo, of a sponge, for once, under special conditions, might become a hydroid polype, or the embryo of a Medusa, an Echinoderm."
It is obvious, from these extracts, that Professor Kolliker"s hypothesis is based upon the supposed existence of a close a.n.a.logy between the phaenomena of Agamogenesis and the production of new species from pre-existing ones. But is the a.n.a.logy a real one? We think that it is not, and, by the hypothesis, cannot be.
For what are the phaenomena of Agamogenesis, stated generally? An impregnated egg develops into an as.e.xual form, A; this gives rise, as.e.xually, to a second form or forms, B, more or less different from A.
B may multiply as.e.xually again; in the simpler cases, however, it does not, but, acquiring s.e.xual characters, produces impregnated eggs from whence A once more arises.
No case of Agamogenesis is known in which, _when A differs widely from B_, it is itself capable of s.e.xual propagation. No case whatever is known in which the progeny of B, by s.e.xual generation, is other than a reproduction of A.
But if this be a true statement of the nature of the process of Agamogenesis, how can it enable us to comprehend the production of new species from already existing ones? Let us suppose Hyaenas to have preceded Dogs, and to have produced the latter in this way. Then the Hyaena will represent A, and the Dog, B. The first difficulty that presents itself is that the Hyaena must be as.e.xual, or the process will be wholly without a.n.a.logy in the world of Agamogenesis. But pa.s.sing over this difficulty, and supposing a male and female Dog to be produced at the same time from the Hyaena stock, the progeny of the pair, if the a.n.a.logy of the simpler kinds of Agamogenesis[67] is to be followed, should be a litter, not of puppies, but of young Hyaenas. For the Agamogenetic series is always, as we have seen, A: B: A: B, &c.; whereas, for the production of a new species, the series must be A: B: B: B, &c. The production of new species, or genera, is the extreme permanent divergence from the primitive stock. All known Agamogenetic processes, on the other hand, end in a complete return to the primitive stock. How then is the production of new species to be rendered intelligible by the a.n.a.logy of Agamogenesis?
The other alternative put by Professor Kolliker--the pa.s.sage of fecundated ova in the course of their development into higher forms--would, if it occurred, be merely an extreme case of variation in the Darwinian sense, greater in degree than, but perfectly similar in kind to, that which occurred when the well-known Ancon Ram was developed from an ordinary Ewe"s ovum. Indeed we have always thought that Mr.
Darwin has unnecessarily hampered himself by adhering so strictly to his favourite "Natura non facit saltum." We greatly suspect that she does make considerable jumps in the way of variation now and then, and that these saltations give rise to some of the gaps which appear to exist in the series of known forms.
Strongly and freely as we have ventured to disagree with Professor Kolliker, we have always done so with regret, and we trust without violating that respect which is due, not only to his scientific eminence and to the careful study which he has devoted to the subject, but to the perfect fairness of his argumentation, and the generous appreciation of the worth of Mr. Darwin"s labours which he always displays. It would be satisfactory to be able to say as much for M. Flourens.
But the Perpetual Secretary of the French Academy of Sciences deals with Mr. Darwin as the first Napoleon would have treated an "ideologue;" and while displaying a painful weakness of logic and shallowness of information, a.s.sumes a tone of authority, which always touches upon the ludicrous, and sometimes pa.s.ses the limits of good breeding.
For example (p. 56):--
"M. Darwin continue: "Aucune distinction absolue n"a ete et ne peut etre etablie entre les especes et les varietes." Je vous ai deja dit que vous vous trompiez; une distinction absolue separe les varietes d"avec les especes."
"_Je vous ai deja dit_; moi, M. le Secretaire perpetuel de l"Academie des Sciences: et vous
"Qui n"etes rien, Pas meme Academicien;"
what do you mean by a.s.serting the contrary?" Being devoid of the blessings of an Academy in England, we are unaccustomed to see our ablest men treated in this fashion even by a "Perpetual Secretary."
Or again, considering that if there is any one quality of Mr. Darwin"s work to which friends and foes have alike borne witness, it is his candour and fairness in admitting and discussing objections, what is to be thought of M. Flourens" a.s.sertion, that
"M. Darwin ne cite que les auteurs qui partagent ses opinions." (P.
40.)
Once more (p. 65):
"Enfin l"ouvrage de M. Darwin a paru. On ne peut qu"etre frappe du talent de l"auteur. Mais que d"idees obscures, que d"idees fausses!
Quel jargon metaphysique jete mal a propos dans l"histoire naturelle, qui tombe dans le galimatias des qu"elle sort des idees claires, des idees justes! Quel langage pretentieux et vide!
Quelles personifications pueriles et surannees! O lucidite! O solidite de l"esprit Francais, que devenez-vous?"
"Obscure ideas," "metaphysical jargon," "pretentious and empty language," "puerile and superannuated personifications." Mr. Darwin has many and hot opponents on this side of the Channel and in Germany, but we do not recollect to have found precisely these sins in the long catalogue of those hitherto laid to his charge. It is worth while, therefore, to examine into these discoveries effected solely by the aid of the "lucidity and solidity" of the mind of M. Flourens.
According to M. Flourens, Mr. Darwin"s great error is that he has personified Nature (p. 10), and further that he has
"imagined a natural selection: he imagines afterwards that this power of selecting (_pouvoir d"elire_) which he gives to Nature is similar to the power of man. These two suppositions admitted, nothing stops him: he plays with Nature as he likes, and makes her do all he pleases." (P. 6.)
And this is the way M. Flourens extinguishes natural selection:
"Voyons donc encore une fois, ce qu"il peut y avoir de fonde dans ce qu"on nomme _election naturelle_.
"_L"election naturelle_ n"est sous un autre nom que la nature. Pour un etre organise, la nature n"est que l"organisation, ni plus ni moins.