<p>THE PROBABLE EFFECTS OF THE ACTION OF NATURAL SELECTION THROUGH DIVERGENCE
OF CHARACTER AND EXTINCTION, ON THE DESCENDANTS OF A COMMON ANCESTOR.</p>
<p>After the foregoing discussion, which has been much compressed, we may
assume that the modified descendants of any one species will succeed 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 benefit being derived from divergence of character,
combined with the principles of natural selection and of extinction, tends
to act.</p>
<p>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 as we saw in the second chapter, on an
average more species vary in large genera than in 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 most
widely-diffused, vary more than do the rare and restricted species. Let
(A) be a common, widely-diffused, and varying species, belonging to a
genus large in its own country. The branching and 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 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 form it into a fairly well-marked variety, such as would be
thought worthy of record in a systematic work.</p>
<p>The intervals between the horizontal lines in the diagram, may represent
each a thousand or more 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 still be exposed to the same
conditions which made their parents variable, and the tendency to
variability is in itself hereditary; consequently they will likewise tend
to vary, and commonly in nearly the same manner as did their parents.
Moreover, these two varieties, being only slightly modified forms, will
tend to inherit those advantages which made their parent (A) more numerous
than most of the other inhabitants of the same country; they will also
partake of those more general advantages which made the genus to which the
parent-species belonged, a large genus in its own country. And all these
circumstances are favourable to the production of new varieties.</p>
<p>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 m2 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 of 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.</p>
<p>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, nor that it goes on continuously; it is far more
probable that each form remains for long periods unaltered, and then again
undergoes modification. Nor do I suppose that the most divergent varieties
are invariably preserved: 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 increase. 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 allow the accumulation
of a considerable amount of divergent variation.</p>
<p>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 no doubt the process of
modification will be confined to a single line of descent, and the number
of modified descendants will not be increased; although the amount of
divergent modification may have been augmented. 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 the English
racehorse 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.</p>
<p>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; 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 doubtful or at least 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.</p>
<p>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 any genus, the species which are
already very different in character from each other, will generally tend
to produce the greatest number of modified descendants; for these will
have the best chance of seizing on 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 long
but unequal periods continue to transmit unaltered descendants; and this
is shown in the diagram by the dotted lines unequally prolonged upwards.</p>
<p>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 progenitor.
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 states of a the same 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. If, however, the modified
offspring of a species get into some distinct country, or become quickly
adapted to some quite new station, in which offspring and progenitor do
not come into competition, both may continue to exist.</p>
<p>If, then, our diagram be assumed to represent a considerable amount of
modification, species (A) and all the earlier varieties will have become
extinct, being replaced by eight new species (a14 to m14); and species (I)
will be replaced by six (n14 to z14) new species.</p>
<p>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, 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 (E and F)
which were least closely related to the other nine original species, has
transmitted descendants to this late stage of descent.</p>
<p>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
distinct 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 a10; 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 a
distinct genus.</p>
<p>The six descendants from (I) will form two sub-genera or genera. But as
the original species (I) differed largely from (A), standing nearly at the
extreme end of the original genus, the six descendants from (I) will,
owing to inheritance alone, 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, except (F), extinct, and have left no
descendants. Hence the six new species descended from (I), and the eight
descendants from (A), will have to be ranked as very distinct genera, or
even as distinct sub-families.</p>
<p>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 be 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 represents a species, the supposed progenitor
of our several new sub-genera and genera.</p>
<p>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. Being descended from a
form that stood between the 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 two 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 call such cases before his mind.</p>
<p>In the diagram each horizontal line has hitherto been supposed to
represent a thousand generations, but each may represent a million or more
generations; it may also represent 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, 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 various remote epochs when the branching
lines of descent had diverged less.</p>
<p>I see no reason to limit the process of modification, as now explained, to
the formation of genera alone. If, in the diagram, we suppose the amount
of change represented by each successive group of diverging dotted lines
to be great, the forms marked a14 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), differing widely
from the descendants of (A). These two groups of genera will thus form two
distinct families, or orders, according to the amount of divergent
modification supposed to be represented in the diagram. And the two new
families, or orders, are descended from two species of the original genus;
and these are supposed to be descended from some still more ancient and
unknown form.</p>
<p>We have seen that in each country it is the species belonging to 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 number, 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 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 have as yet suffered least extinction, will, for a long period,
continue to increase. But which groups will ultimately prevail, no man can
predict; for we 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 as, according to this view,
extremely few of the more ancient species have transmitted descendants to
the present day, and, as all the descendants of the same species form a
class, we can understand how it is that there exist so few classes in each
main division of the animal and vegetable kingdoms. Although few of the
most ancient species have left modified descendants, yet, at remote
geological periods, the earth may have been almost as well peopled with
species of many genera, families, orders and classes, as at the present
day.</p>
<p>ON THE DEGREE TO WHICH ORGANISATION TENDS TO ADVANCE.</p>
<p>Natural selection acts exclusively by the preservation and accumulation of
variations, which are beneficial under the organic and inorganic
conditions to which each creature is exposed at all periods of life. The
ultimate result is that each creature tends to become more and more
improved in relation to its conditions. This improvement inevitably leads
to the gradual advancement of the organisation of the greater number of
living beings throughout the world. But here we enter on a very intricate
subject, for naturalists have not defined to each other's satisfaction
what is meant by an advance in organisation. Among the vertebrata the
degree of intellect and an approach in structure to man clearly come into
play. It might be thought that the amount of change which the various
parts and organs pass through in their development from embryo to maturity
would suffice as a standard of comparison; but there are cases, as with
certain parasitic crustaceans, in which several parts of the structure
become less perfect, so that the mature animal cannot be called higher
than its larva. Von Baer's standard seems the most widely applicable and
the best, namely, the amount of differentiation of the parts of the same
organic being, in the adult state, as I should be inclined to add, and
their specialisation for different functions; or, as Milne Edwards would
express it, the completeness of the division of physiological labour. But
we shall see how obscure this subject is if we look, for instance, to
fishes, among which some naturalists rank those as highest which, like the
sharks, approach nearest to amphibians; while other naturalists rank the
common bony or teleostean fishes as the highest, inasmuch as they are most
strictly fish-like, and differ most from the other vertebrate classes. We
see still more plainly the obscurity of the subject by turning to plants,
among which the standard of intellect is of course quite excluded; and
here some botanists rank those plants as highest which have every organ,
as sepals, petals, stamens and pistils, fully developed in each flower;
whereas other botanists, probably with more truth, look at the plants
which have their several organs much modified and reduced in number as the
highest.</p>
<p>If we take as the standard of high organisation, the amount of
differentiation and specialisation of the several organs in each being
when adult (and this will include the advancement of the brain for
intellectual purposes), natural selection clearly leads towards this
standard: for all physiologists admit that the specialisation of organs,
inasmuch as in this state they perform their functions better, is an
advantage to each being; and hence the accumulation of variations tending
towards specialisation is within the scope of natural selection. On the
other hand, we can see, bearing in mind that all organic beings are
striving to increase at a high ratio and to seize on every unoccupied or
less well occupied place in the economy of nature, that it is quite
possible for natural selection gradually to fit a being to a situation in
which several organs would be superfluous or useless: in such cases there
would be retrogression in the scale of organisation. Whether organisation
on the whole has actually advanced from the remotest geological periods to
the present day will be more conveniently discussed in our chapter on
Geological Succession.</p>
<p>But it may be objected that if all organic beings thus tend to rise in the
scale, how is it that throughout the world a multitude of the lowest forms
still exist; and how is it that in each great class some forms are far
more highly developed than others? Why have not the more highly developed
forms every where supplanted and exterminated the lower? Lamarck, who
believed in an innate and inevitable tendency towards perfection in all
organic beings, seems to have felt this difficulty so strongly that he was
led to suppose that new and simple forms are continually being produced by
spontaneous generation. Science has not as yet proved the truth of this
belief, whatever the future may reveal. On our theory the continued
existence of lowly organisms offers no difficulty; for natural selection,
or the survival of the fittest, does not necessarily include progressive
development—it only takes advantage of such variations as arise and
are beneficial to each creature under its complex relations of life. And
it may be asked what advantage, as far as we can see, would it be to an
infusorian animalcule—to an intestinal worm—or even to an
earth-worm, to be highly organised. If it were no advantage, these forms
would be left, by natural selection, unimproved or but little improved,
and might remain for indefinite ages in their present lowly condition. And
geology tells us that some of the lowest forms, as the infusoria and
rhizopods, have remained for an enormous period in nearly their present
state. But to suppose that most of the many now existing low forms have
not in the least advanced since the first dawn of life would be extremely
rash; for every naturalist who has dissected some of the beings now ranked
as very low in the scale, must have been struck with their really wondrous
and beautiful organisation.</p>
<p>Nearly the same remarks are applicable, if we look to the different grades
of organisation within the same great group; for instance, in the
vertebrata, to the co-existence of mammals and fish—among mammalia,
to the co-existence of man and the ornithorhynchus—among fishes, to
the co-existence of the shark and the lancelet (Amphioxus), which latter
fish in the extreme simplicity of its structure approaches the
invertebrate classes. But mammals and fish hardly come into competition
with each other; the advancement of the whole class of mammals, or of
certain members in this class, to the highest grade would not lead to
their taking the place of fishes. Physiologists believe that the brain
must be bathed by warm blood to be highly active, and this requires aerial
respiration; so that warm-blooded mammals when inhabiting the water lie
under a disadvantage in having to come continually to the surface to
breathe. With fishes, members of the shark family would not tend to
supplant the lancelet; for the lancelet, as I hear from Fritz Muller, has
as sole companion and competitor on the barren sandy shore of South
Brazil, an anomalous annelid. The three lowest orders of mammals, namely,
marsupials, edentata, and rodents, co-exist in South America in the same
region with numerous monkeys, and probably interfere little with each
other. Although organisation, on the whole, may have advanced and be still
advancing throughout the world, yet the scale will always present many
degrees of perfection; for the high advancement of certain whole classes,
or of certain members of each class, does not at all necessarily lead to
the extinction of those groups with which they do not enter into close
competition. In some cases, as we shall hereafter see, lowly organised
forms appear to have been preserved to the present day, from inhabiting
confined or peculiar stations, where they have been subjected to less
severe competition, and where their scanty numbers have retarded the
chance of favourable variations arising.</p>
<p>Finally, I believe that many lowly organised forms now exist throughout
the world, from various causes. In some cases variations or individual
differences of a favourable nature may never have arisen for natural
selection to act on and accumulate. In no case, probably, has time
sufficed for the utmost possible amount of development. In some few cases
there has been what we must call retrogression or organisation. But the
main cause lies in the fact that under very simple conditions of life a
high organisation would be of no service—possibly would be of actual
disservice, as being of a more delicate nature, and more liable to be put
out of order and injured.</p>
<p>Looking to the first dawn of life, when all organic beings, as we may
believe, presented the simplest structure, how, it has been asked, could
the first step in the advancement or differentiation of parts have arisen?
Mr. Herbert Spencer would probably answer that, as soon as simple
unicellular organisms came by growth or division to be compounded of
several cells, or became attached to any supporting surface, his law "that
homologous units of any order become differentiated in proportion as their
relations to incident forces become different" would come into action. But
as we have no facts to guide us, speculation on the subject is almost
useless. It is, however, an error to suppose that there would be no
struggle for existence, and, consequently, no natural selection, until
many forms had been produced: variations in a single species inhabiting an
isolated station might be beneficial, and thus the whole mass of
individuals might be modified, or two distinct forms might arise. But, as
I remarked towards the close of the introduction, no one ought to feel
surprise at much remaining as yet unexplained on the origin of species, if
we make due allowance for our profound ignorance on the mutual relations
of the inhabitants of the world at the present time, and still more so
during past ages.</p>
<p>CONVERGENCE OF CHARACTER.</p>
<p>Mr. H.C. Watson thinks that I have overrated the importance of divergence
of character (in which, however, he apparently believes), and that
convergence, as it may be called, has likewise played a part. If two
species belonging to two distinct though allied genera, had both produced
a large number of new and divergent forms, it is conceivable that these
might approach each other so closely that they would have all to be
classed under the same genus; and thus the descendants of two distinct
genera would converge into one. But it would in most cases be extremely
rash to attribute to convergence a close and general similarity of
structure in the modified descendants of widely distinct forms. The shape
of a crystal is determined solely by the molecular forces, and it is not
surprising that dissimilar substances should sometimes assume the same
form; but with organic beings we should bear in mind that the form of each
depends on an infinitude of complex relations, namely on the variations
which have arisen, these being due to causes far too intricate to be
followed out—on the nature of the variations which have been
preserved or selected, and this depends on the surrounding physical
conditions, and in a still higher degree on the surrounding organisms with
which each being has come into competition—and lastly, on
inheritance (in itself a fluctuating element) from innumerable
progenitors, all of which have had their forms determined through equally
complex relations. It is incredible that the descendants of two organisms,
which had originally differed in a marked manner, should ever afterwards
converge so closely as to lead to a near approach to identity throughout
their whole organisation. If this had occurred, we should meet with the
same form, independently of genetic connection, recurring in widely
separated geological formations; and the balance of evidence is opposed to
any such an admission.</p>
<p>Mr. Watson has also objected that the continued action of natural
selection, together with divergence of character, would tend to make an
indefinite number of specific forms. As far as mere inorganic conditions
are concerned, it seems probable that a sufficient number of species would
soon become adapted to all considerable diversities of heat, moisture,
etc.; but I fully admit that the mutual relations of organic beings are
more important; and as the number of species in any country goes on
increasing, the organic conditions of life must become more and more
complex. Consequently there seems at first no limit to the amount of
profitable diversification of structure, and therefore no limit to the
number of species which might be produced. We do not know that even the
most prolific area is fully stocked with specific forms: at the Cape of
Good Hope and in Australia, which support such an astonishing number of
species, many European plants have become naturalised. But geology shows
us, that from an early part of the tertiary period the number of species
of shells, and that from the middle part of this same period, the number
of mammals has not greatly or at all increased. What then checks an
indefinite increase in the number of species? The amount of life (I do not
mean the number of specific forms) supported on an area must have a limit,
depending so largely as it does on physical conditions; therefore, if an
area be inhabited by very many species, each or nearly each species will
be represented by few individuals; and such species will be liable to
extermination from accidental fluctuations in the nature of the seasons or
in the number of their enemies. The process of extermination in such cases
would be rapid, whereas the production of new species must always be slow.
Imagine the extreme case of as many species as individuals in England, and
the first severe winter or very dry summer would exterminate thousands on
thousands of species. Rare species, and each species will become rare if
the number of species in any country becomes indefinitely increased, will,
on the principal often explained, present within a given period few
favourable variations; consequently, the process of giving birth to new
specific forms would thus be retarded. When any species becomes very rare,
close interbreeding will help to exterminate it; authors have thought that
this comes into play in accounting for the deterioration of the aurochs in
Lithuania, of red deer in Scotland and of bears in Norway, etc. Lastly,
and this I am inclined to think is the most important element, a dominant
species, which has already beaten many competitors in its own home, will
tend to spread and supplant many others. Alph. de Candolle has shown that
those species which spread widely tend generally to spread VERY widely,
consequently they will tend to supplant and exterminate several species in
several areas, and thus check the inordinate increase of specific forms
throughout the world. Dr. Hooker has recently shown that in the southeast
corner of Australia, where, apparently, there are many invaders from
different quarters of the globe, the endemic Australian species have been
greatly reduced in number. How much weight to attribute to these several
considerations I will not pretend to say; but conjointly they must limit
in each country the tendency to an indefinite augmentation of specific
forms.</p>
<p>SUMMARY OF CHAPTER.</p>
<p>If under changing conditions of life organic beings present individual
differences in almost every part of their structure, and this cannot be
disputed; if there be, owing to their geometrical rate of increase, a
severe struggle for life at some age, season or year, 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
life, causing an infinite diversity in structure, constitution, and
habits, to be advantageous to them, it would be a most extraordinary fact
if no variations had ever occurred useful to each being's own welfare, in
the same manner as so many variations have occurred useful to man. But if
variations useful to any organic being ever 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, these will tend to produce offspring similarly characterised.
This principle of preservation, or the survival of the fittest, I have
called natural selection. It leads to the improvement of each creature in
relation to its organic and inorganic conditions of life; and
consequently, in most cases, to what must be regarded as an advance in
organisation. Nevertheless, low and simple forms will long endure if well
fitted for their simple conditions of life.</p>
<p>Natural selection, on the principle of qualities being inherited at
corresponding ages, can modify the egg, seed, or young as easily as the
adult. Among many animals sexual selection will have given 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 or rivalry with
other males; and these characters will be transmitted to one sex or to
both sexes, according to the form of inheritance which prevails.</p>
<p>Whether natural selection has really thus acted in adapting the various
forms of life to their several conditions and stations, must be judged by
the general tenour and balance of evidence given in the following
chapters. But we have already seen 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
the more organic beings diverge in structure, habits and constitution, by
so much the more can a large number be supported on the area, of which we
see proof by looking to the inhabitants of any small spot, and to the
productions naturalised in foreign lands. 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 the descendants become, the better will be their chance of
success in the battle for life. Thus the small differences distinguishing
varieties of the same species, steadily tend to increase, till they equal
the greater differences between species of the same genus, or even of
distinct genera.</p>
<p>We have seen that it is the common, the widely diffused, and widely
ranging species, belonging to the larger genera within each class, which
vary most; and these 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, the nature of the affinities, and the generally well
defined distinctions between the innumerable organic beings in each class
throughout the world, 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 groups, subordinate to groups, in the manner which we
everywhere behold—namely, varieties of the same species most closely
related, species of the same genus less closely and unequally related,
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 clustered round points, and these round other points, and so on in
almost endless cycles. If species had been independently created, no
explanation would have been possible of this kind of classification; but
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.</p>
<p>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 former years 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 at
all times overmastered 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 young, 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 the other branches; so with the species which lived
during long-past geological periods, very few have left living and
modified descendants. From the first growth of the tree, many a limb and
branch has decayed and dropped off; and these fallen 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 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.</p>
<div style="break-after:column;"></div><br />