<p><SPAN name="link2HCH0006" id="link2HCH0006"></SPAN></p>
<h2> CHAPTER VI. DIFFICULTIES OF THE THEORY. </h2>
<p>Difficulties of the theory of descent with modification—Absence<br/>
or rarity of transitional varieties—Transitions in habits of<br/>
life—Diversified habits in the same species—Species with habits<br/>
widely different from those of their allies—Organs of extreme<br/>
perfection—Modes of transition—Cases of difficulty—Natura non facit<br/>
saltum—Organs of small importance—Organs not in all cases absolutely<br/>
perfect—The law of Unity of Type and of the Conditions of Existence<br/>
embraced by the theory of Natural Selection.<br/></p>
<p>Long before the reader has arrived at this part of my work, a crowd of
difficulties will have occurred to him. Some of them are so serious that
to this day I can hardly reflect on them without being in some degree
staggered; but, to the best of my judgment, the greater number are only
apparent, and those that are real are not, I think, fatal to the theory.</p>
<p>These difficulties and objections may be classed under the following
heads: First, why, if species have descended from other species by fine
gradations, do we not everywhere see innumerable transitional forms? Why
is not all nature in confusion, instead of the species being, as we see
them, well defined?</p>
<p>Secondly, is it possible that an animal having, for instance, the
structure and habits of a bat, could have been formed by the modification
of some other animal with widely different habits and structure? Can we
believe that natural selection could produce, on the one hand, an organ of
trifling importance, such as the tail of a giraffe, which serves as a
fly-flapper, and, on the other hand, an organ so wonderful as the eye?</p>
<p>Thirdly, can instincts be acquired and modified through natural selection?
What shall we say to the instinct which leads the bee to make cells, and
which has practically anticipated the discoveries of profound
mathematicians?</p>
<p>Fourthly, how can we account for species, when crossed, being sterile and
producing sterile offspring, whereas, when varieties are crossed, their
fertility is unimpaired?</p>
<p>The two first heads will be here discussed; some miscellaneous objections
in the following chapter; Instinct and Hybridism in the two succeeding
chapters.</p>
<p>ON THE ABSENCE OR RARITY OF TRANSITIONAL VARIETIES.</p>
<p>As natural selection acts solely by the preservation of profitable
modifications, each new form will tend in a fully-stocked country to take
the place of, and finally to exterminate, its own less improved
parent-form and other less-favoured forms with which it comes into
competition. Thus extinction and natural selection go hand in hand. Hence,
if we look at each species as descended from some unknown form, both the
parent and all the transitional varieties will generally have been
exterminated by the very process of the formation and perfection of the
new form.</p>
<p>But, as by this theory innumerable transitional forms must have existed,
why do we not find them embedded in countless numbers in the crust of the
earth? It will be more convenient to discuss this question in the chapter
on the imperfection of the geological record; and I will here only state
that I believe the answer mainly lies in the record being incomparably
less perfect than is generally supposed. The crust of the earth is a vast
museum; but the natural collections have been imperfectly made, and only
at long intervals of time.</p>
<p>But it may be urged that when several closely allied species inhabit the
same territory, we surely ought to find at the present time many
transitional forms. Let us take a simple case: in travelling from north to
south over a continent, we generally meet at successive intervals with
closely allied or representative species, evidently filling nearly the
same place in the natural economy of the land. These representative
species often meet and interlock; and as the one becomes rarer and rarer,
the other becomes more and more frequent, till the one replaces the other.
But if we compare these species where they intermingle, they are generally
as absolutely distinct from each other in every detail of structure as are
specimens taken from the metropolis inhabited by each. By my theory these
allied species are descended from a common parent; and during the process
of modification, each has become adapted to the conditions of life of its
own region, and has supplanted and exterminated its original parent-form
and all the transitional varieties between its past and present states.
Hence we ought not to expect at the present time to meet with numerous
transitional varieties in each region, though they must have existed
there, and may be embedded there in a fossil condition. But in the
intermediate region, having intermediate conditions of life, why do we not
now find closely-linking intermediate varieties? This difficulty for a
long time quite confounded me. But I think it can be in large part
explained.</p>
<p>In the first place we should be extremely cautious in inferring, because
an area is now continuous, that it has been continuous during a long
period. Geology would lead us to believe that most continents have been
broken up into islands even during the later tertiary periods; and in such
islands distinct species might have been separately formed without the
possibility of intermediate varieties existing in the intermediate zones.
By changes in the form of the land and of climate, marine areas now
continuous must often have existed within recent times in a far less
continuous and uniform condition than at present. But I will pass over
this way of escaping from the difficulty; for I believe that many
perfectly defined species have been formed on strictly continuous areas;
though I do not doubt that the formerly broken condition of areas now
continuous, has played an important part in the formation of new species,
more especially with freely-crossing and wandering animals.</p>
<p>In looking at species as they are now distributed over a wide area, we
generally find them tolerably numerous over a large territory, then
becoming somewhat abruptly rarer and rarer on the confines, and finally
disappearing. Hence the neutral territory between two representative
species is generally narrow in comparison with the territory proper to
each. We see the same fact in ascending mountains, and sometimes it is
quite remarkable how abruptly, as Alph. De Candolle has observed, a common
alpine species disappears. The same fact has been noticed by E. Forbes in
sounding the depths of the sea with the dredge. To those who look at
climate and the physical conditions of life as the all-important elements
of distribution, these facts ought to cause surprise, as climate and
height or depth graduate away insensibly. But when we bear in mind that
almost every species, even in its metropolis, would increase immensely in
numbers, were it not for other competing species; that nearly all either
prey on or serve as prey for others; in short, that each organic being is
either directly or indirectly related in the most important manner to
other organic beings—we see that the range of the inhabitants of any
country by no means exclusively depends on insensibly changing physical
conditions, but in large part on the presence of other species, on which
it lives, or by which it is destroyed, or with which it comes into
competition; and as these species are already defined objects, not
blending one into another by insensible gradations, the range of any one
species, depending as it does on the range of others, will tend to be
sharply defined. Moreover, each species on the confines of its range,
where it exists in lessened numbers, will, during fluctuations in the
number of its enemies or of its prey, or in the nature of the seasons, be
extremely liable to utter extermination; and thus its geographical range
will come to be still more sharply defined.</p>
<p>As allied or representative species, when inhabiting a continuous area,
are generally distributed in such a manner that each has a wide range,
with a comparatively narrow neutral territory between them, in which they
become rather suddenly rarer and rarer; then, as varieties do not
essentially differ from species, the same rule will probably apply to
both; and if we take a varying species inhabiting a very large area, we
shall have to adapt two varieties to two large areas, and a third variety
to a narrow intermediate zone. The intermediate variety, consequently,
will exist in lesser numbers from inhabiting a narrow and lesser area; and
practically, as far as I can make out, this rule holds good with varieties
in a state of nature. I have met with striking instances of the rule in
the case of varieties intermediate between well-marked varieties in the
genus Balanus. And it would appear from information given me by Mr.
Watson, Dr. Asa Gray, and Mr. Wollaston, that generally, when varieties
intermediate between two other forms occur, they are much rarer
numerically than the forms which they connect. Now, if we may trust these
facts and inferences, and conclude that varieties linking two other
varieties together generally have existed in lesser numbers than the forms
which they connect, then we can understand why intermediate varieties
should not endure for very long periods: why, as a general rule, they
should be exterminated and disappear, sooner than the forms which they
originally linked together.</p>
<p>For any form existing in lesser numbers would, as already remarked, run a
greater chance of being exterminated than one existing in large numbers;
and in this particular case the intermediate form would be eminently
liable to the inroads of closely allied forms existing on both sides of
it. But it is a far more important consideration, that during the process
of further modification, by which two varieties are supposed to be
converted and perfected into two distinct species, the two which exist in
larger numbers, from inhabiting larger areas, will have a great advantage
over the intermediate variety, which exists in smaller numbers in a narrow
and intermediate zone. For forms existing in larger numbers will have a
better chance, within any given period, of presenting further favourable
variations for natural selection to seize on, than will the rarer forms
which exist in lesser numbers. Hence, the more common forms, in the race
for life, will tend to beat and supplant the less common forms, for these
will be more slowly modified and improved. It is the same principle which,
as I believe, accounts for the common species in each country, as shown in
the second chapter, presenting on an average a greater number of
well-marked varieties than do the rarer species. I may illustrate what I
mean by supposing three varieties of sheep to be kept, one adapted to an
extensive mountainous region; a second to a comparatively narrow, hilly
tract; and a third to the wide plains at the base; and that the
inhabitants are all trying with equal steadiness and skill to improve
their stocks by selection; the chances in this case will be strongly in
favour of the great holders on the mountains or on the plains improving
their breeds more quickly than the small holders on the intermediate
narrow, hilly tract; and consequently the improved mountain or plain breed
will soon take the place of the less improved hill breed; and thus the two
breeds, which originally existed in greater numbers, will come into close
contact with each other, without the interposition of the supplanted,
intermediate hill variety.</p>
<p>To sum up, I believe that species come to be tolerably well-defined
objects, and do not at any one period present an inextricable chaos of
varying and intermediate links: first, because new varieties are very
slowly formed, for variation is a slow process, and natural selection can
do nothing until favourable individual differences or variations occur,
and until a place in the natural polity of the country can be better
filled by some modification of some one or more of its inhabitants. And
such new places will depend on slow changes of climate, or on the
occasional immigration of new inhabitants, and, probably, in a still more
important degree, on some of the old inhabitants becoming slowly modified,
with the new forms thus produced and the old ones acting and reacting on
each other. So that, in any one region and at any one time, we ought to
see only a few species presenting slight modifications of structure in
some degree permanent; and this assuredly we do see.</p>
<p>Secondly, areas now continuous must often have existed within the recent
period as isolated portions, in which many forms, more especially among
the classes which unite for each birth and wander much, may have
separately been rendered sufficiently distinct to rank as representative
species. In this case, intermediate varieties between the several
representative species and their common parent, must formerly have existed
within each isolated portion of the land, but these links during the
process of natural selection will have been supplanted and exterminated,
so that they will no longer be found in a living state.</p>
<p>Thirdly, when two or more varieties have been formed in different portions
of a strictly continuous area, intermediate varieties will, it is
probable, at first have been formed in the intermediate zones, but they
will generally have had a short duration. For these intermediate varieties
will, from reasons already assigned (namely from what we know of the
actual distribution of closely allied or representative species, and
likewise of acknowledged varieties), exist in the intermediate zones in
lesser numbers than the varieties which they tend to connect. From this
cause alone the intermediate varieties will be liable to accidental
extermination; and during the process of further modification through
natural selection, they will almost certainly be beaten and supplanted by
the forms which they connect; for these, from existing in greater numbers
will, in the aggregate, present more varieties, and thus be further
improved through natural selection and gain further advantages.</p>
<p>Lastly, looking not to any one time, but at all time, if my theory be
true, numberless intermediate varieties, linking closely together all the
species of the same group, must assuredly have existed; but the very
process of natural selection constantly tends, as has been so often
remarked, to exterminate the parent forms and the intermediate links.
Consequently evidence of their former existence could be found only among
fossil remains, which are preserved, as we shall attempt to show in a
future chapter, in an extremely imperfect and intermittent record.</p>
<p>ON THE ORIGIN AND TRANSITION OF ORGANIC BEINGS WITH PECULIAR HABITS AND
STRUCTURE.</p>
<p>It has been asked by the opponents of such views as I hold, how, for
instance, could a land carnivorous animal have been converted into one
with aquatic habits; for how could the animal in its transitional state
have subsisted? It would be easy to show that there now exist carnivorous
animals presenting close intermediate grades from strictly terrestrial to
aquatic habits; and as each exists by a struggle for life, it is clear
that each must be well adapted to its place in nature. Look at the Mustela
vison of North America, which has webbed feet, and which resembles an
otter in its fur, short legs, and form of tail; during summer this animal
dives for and preys on fish, but during the long winter it leaves the
frozen waters, and preys, like other polecats on mice and land animals. If
a different case had been taken, and it had been asked how an
insectivorous quadruped could possibly have been converted into a flying
bat, the question would have been far more difficult to answer. Yet I
think such difficulties have little weight.</p>
<p>Here, as on other occasions, I lie under a heavy disadvantage, for, out of
the many striking cases which I have collected, I can give only one or two
instances of transitional habits and structures in allied species; and of
diversified habits, either constant or occasional, in the same species.
And it seems to me that nothing less than a long list of such cases is
sufficient to lessen the difficulty in any particular case like that of
the bat.</p>
<p>Look at the family of squirrels; here we have the finest gradation from
animals with their tails only slightly flattened, and from others, as Sir
J. Richardson has remarked, with the posterior part of their bodies rather
wide and with the skin on their flanks rather full, to the so-called
flying squirrels; and flying squirrels have their limbs and even the base
of the tail united by a broad expanse of skin, which serves as a parachute
and allows them to glide through the air to an astonishing distance from
tree to tree. We cannot doubt that each structure is of use to each kind
of squirrel in its own country, by enabling it to escape birds or beasts
of prey, or to collect food more quickly, or, as there is reason to
believe, to lessen the danger from occasional falls. But it does not
follow from this fact that the structure of each squirrel is the best that
it is possible to conceive under all possible conditions. Let the climate
and vegetation change, let other competing rodents or new beasts of prey
immigrate, or old ones become modified, and all analogy would lead us to
believe that some, at least, of the squirrels would decrease in numbers or
become exterminated, unless they also become modified and improved in
structure in a corresponding manner. Therefore, I can see no difficulty,
more especially under changing conditions of life, in the continued
preservation of individuals with fuller and fuller flank-membranes, each
modification being useful, each being propagated, until, by the
accumulated effects of this process of natural selection, a perfect
so-called flying squirrel was produced.</p>
<p>Now look at the Galeopithecus or so-called flying lemur, which was
formerly ranked among bats, but is now believed to belong to the
Insectivora. An extremely wide flank-membrane stretches from the corners
of the jaw to the tail, and includes the limbs with the elongated fingers.
This flank-membrane is furnished with an extensor muscle. Although no
graduated links of structure, fitted for gliding through the air, now
connect the Galeopithecus with the other Insectivora, yet there is no
difficulty in supposing that such links formerly existed, and that each
was developed in the same manner as with the less perfectly gliding
squirrels; each grade of structure having been useful to its possessor.
Nor can I see any insuperable difficulty in further believing it possible
that the membrane-connected fingers and fore-arm of the Galeopithecus
might have been greatly lengthened by natural selection; and this, as far
as the organs of flight are concerned, would have converted the animal
into a bat. In certain bats in which the wing-membrane extends from the
top of the shoulder to the tail and includes the hind-legs, we perhaps see
traces of an apparatus originally fitted for gliding through the air
rather than for flight.</p>
<p>If about a dozen genera of birds were to become extinct, who would have
ventured to surmise that birds might have existed which used their wings
solely as flappers, like the logger headed duck (Micropterus of Eyton); as
fins in the water and as front legs on the land, like the penguin; as
sails, like the ostrich; and functionally for no purpose, like the
apteryx? Yet the structure of each of these birds is good for it, under
the conditions of life to which it is exposed, for each has to live by a
struggle: but it is not necessarily the best possible under all possible
conditions. It must not be inferred from these remarks that any of the
grades of wing-structure here alluded to, which perhaps may all be the
result of disuse, indicate the steps by which birds actually acquired
their perfect power of flight; but they serve to show what diversified
means of transition are at least possible.</p>
<p>Seeing that a few members of such water-breathing classes as the Crustacea
and Mollusca are adapted to live on the land; and seeing that we have
flying birds and mammals, flying insects of the most diversified types,
and formerly had flying reptiles, it is conceivable that flying-fish,
which now glide far through the air, slightly rising and turning by the
aid of their fluttering fins, might have been modified into perfectly
winged animals. If this had been effected, who would have ever imagined
that in an early transitional state they had been inhabitants of the open
ocean, and had used their incipient organs of flight exclusively, so far
as we know, to escape being devoured by other fish?</p>
<p>When we see any structure highly perfected for any particular habit, as
the wings of a bird for flight, we should bear in mind that animals
displaying early transitional grades of the structure will seldom have
survived to the present day, for they will have been supplanted by their
successors, which were gradually rendered more perfect through natural
selection. Furthermore, we may conclude that transitional states between
structures fitted for very different habits of life will rarely have been
developed at an early period in great numbers and under many subordinate
forms. Thus, to return to our imaginary illustration of the flying-fish,
it does not seem probable that fishes capable of true flight would have
been developed under many subordinate forms, for taking prey of many kinds
in many ways, on the land and in the water, until their organs of flight
had come to a high stage of perfection, so as to have given them a decided
advantage over other animals in the battle for life. Hence the chance of
discovering species with transitional grades of structure in a fossil
condition will always be less, from their having existed in lesser
numbers, than in the case of species with fully developed structures.</p>
<p>I will now give two or three instances, both of diversified and of changed
habits, in the individuals of the same species. In either case it would be
easy for natural selection to adapt the structure of the animal to its
changed habits, or exclusively to one of its several habits. It is,
however, difficult to decide and immaterial for us, whether habits
generally change first and structure afterwards; or whether slight
modifications of structure lead to changed habits; both probably often
occurring almost simultaneously. Of cases of changed habits it will
suffice merely to allude to that of the many British insects which now
feed on exotic plants, or exclusively on artificial substances. Of
diversified habits innumerable instances could be given: I have often
watched a tyrant flycatcher (Saurophagus sulphuratus) in South America,
hovering over one spot and then proceeding to another, like a kestrel, and
at other times standing stationary on the margin of water, and then
dashing into it like a kingfisher at a fish. In our own country the larger
titmouse (Parus major) may be seen climbing branches, almost like a
creeper; it sometimes, like a shrike, kills small birds by blows on the
head; and I have many times seen and heard it hammering the seeds of the
yew on a branch, and thus breaking them like a nuthatch. In North America
the black bear was seen by Hearne swimming for hours with widely open
mouth, thus catching, almost like a whale, insects in the water.</p>
<p>As we sometimes see individuals following habits different from those
proper to their species and to the other species of the same genus, we
might expect that such individuals would occasionally give rise to new
species, having anomalous habits, and with their structure either slightly
or considerably modified from that of their type. And such instances occur
in nature. Can a more striking instance of adaptation be given than that
of a woodpecker for climbing trees and seizing insects in the chinks of
the bark? Yet in North America there are woodpeckers which feed largely on
fruit, and others with elongated wings which chase insects on the wing. On
the plains of La Plata, where hardly a tree grows, there is a woodpecker
(Colaptes campestris) which has two toes before and two behind, a
long-pointed tongue, pointed tail-feathers, sufficiently stiff to support
the bird in a vertical position on a post, but not so stiff as in the
typical wood-peckers, and a straight, strong beak. The beak, however, is
not so straight or so strong as in the typical woodpeckers but it is
strong enough to bore into wood. Hence this Colaptes, in all the essential
parts of its structure, is a woodpecker. Even in such trifling characters
as the colouring, the harsh tone of the voice, and undulatory flight, its
close blood-relationship to our common woodpecker is plainly declared;
yet, as I can assert, not only from my own observations, but from those of
the accurate Azara, in certain large districts it does not climb trees,
and it makes its nest in holes in banks! In certain other districts,
however, this same woodpecker, as Mr. Hudson states, frequents trees, and
bores holes in the trunk for its nest. I may mention as another
illustration of the varied habits of this genus, that a Mexican Colaptes
has been described by De Saussure as boring holes into hard wood in order
to lay up a store of acorns.</p>
<p>Petrels are the most aerial and oceanic of birds, but, in the quiet sounds
of Tierra del Fuego, the Puffinuria berardi, in its general habits, in its
astonishing power of diving, in its manner of swimming and of flying when
made to take flight, would be mistaken by any one for an auk or a grebe;
nevertheless, it is essentially a petrel, but with many parts of its
organisation profoundly modified in relation to its new habits of life;
whereas the woodpecker of La Plata has had its structure only slightly
modified. In the case of the water-ouzel, the acutest observer, by
examining its dead body, would never have suspected its sub-aquatic
habits; yet this bird, which is allied to the thrush family, subsists by
diving,—using its wings under water and grasping stones with its
feet. All the members of the great order of Hymenopterous insects are
terrestrial, excepting the genus Proctotrupes, which Sir John Lubbock has
discovered to be aquatic in its habits; it often enters the water and
dives about by the use not of its legs but of its wings, and remains as
long as four hours beneath the surface; yet it exhibits no modification in
structure in accordance with its abnormal habits.</p>
<p>He who believes that each being has been created as we now see it, must
occasionally have felt surprise when he has met with an animal having
habits and structure not in agreement. What can be plainer than that the
webbed feet of ducks and geese are formed for swimming? Yet there are
upland geese with webbed feet which rarely go near the water; and no one
except Audubon, has seen the frigate-bird, which has all its four toes
webbed, alight on the surface of the ocean. On the other hand, grebes and
coots are eminently aquatic, although their toes are only bordered by
membrane. What seems plainer than that the long toes, not furnished with
membrane, of the Grallatores, are formed for walking over swamps and
floating plants. The water-hen and landrail are members of this order, yet
the first is nearly as aquatic as the coot, and the second is nearly as
terrestrial as the quail or partridge. In such cases, and many others
could be given, habits have changed without a corresponding change of
structure. The webbed feet of the upland goose may be said to have become
almost rudimentary in function, though not in structure. In the
frigate-bird, the deeply scooped membrane between the toes shows that
structure has begun to change.</p>
<p>He who believes in separate and innumerable acts of creation may say, that
in these cases it has pleased the Creator to cause a being of one type to
take the place of one belonging to another type; but this seems to me only
restating the fact in dignified language. He who believes in the struggle
for existence and in the principle of natural selection, will acknowledge
that every organic being is constantly endeavouring to increase in
numbers; and that if any one being varies ever so little, either in habits
or structure, and thus gains an advantage over some other inhabitant of
the same country, it will seize on the place of that inhabitant, however
different that may be from its own place. Hence it will cause him no
surprise that there should be geese and frigate-birds with webbed feet,
living on the dry land and rarely alighting on the water, that there
should be long-toed corncrakes, living in meadows instead of in swamps;
that there should be woodpeckers where hardly a tree grows; that there
should be diving thrushes and diving Hymenoptera, and petrels with the
habits of auks.</p>
<p>ORGANS OF EXTREME PERFECTION AND COMPLICATION.</p>
<p>To suppose that the eye with all its inimitable contrivances for adjusting
the focus to different distances, for admitting different amounts of
light, and for the correction of spherical and chromatic aberration, could
have been formed by natural selection, seems, I freely confess, absurd in
the highest degree. When it was first said that the sun stood still and
the world turned round, the common sense of mankind declared the doctrine
false; but the old saying of Vox populi, vox Dei, as every philosopher
knows, cannot be trusted in science. Reason tells me, that if numerous
gradations from a simple and imperfect eye to one complex and perfect can
be shown to exist, each grade being useful to its possessor, as is
certainly the case; if further, the eye ever varies and the variations be
inherited, as is likewise certainly the case; and if such variations
should be useful to any animal under changing conditions of life, then the
difficulty of believing that a perfect and complex eye could be formed by
natural selection, though insuperable by our imagination, should not be
considered as subversive of the theory. How a nerve comes to be sensitive
to light, hardly concerns us more than how life itself originated; but I
may remark that, as some of the lowest organisms in which nerves cannot be
detected, are capable of perceiving light, it does not seem impossible
that certain sensitive elements in their sarcode should become aggregated
and developed into nerves, endowed with this special sensibility.</p>
<p>In searching for the gradations through which an organ in any species has
been perfected, we ought to look exclusively to its lineal progenitors;
but this is scarcely ever possible, and we are forced to look to other
species and genera of the same group, that is to the collateral
descendants from the same parent-form, in order to see what gradations are
possible, and for the chance of some gradations having been transmitted in
an unaltered or little altered condition. But the state of the same organ
in distinct classes may incidentally throw light on the steps by which it
has been perfected.</p>
<p>The simplest organ which can be called an eye consists of an optic nerve,
surrounded by pigment-cells and covered by translucent skin, but without
any lens or other refractive body. We may, however, according to M.
Jourdain, descend even a step lower and find aggregates of pigment-cells,
apparently serving as organs of vision, without any nerves, and resting
merely on sarcodic tissue. Eyes of the above simple nature are not capable
of distinct vision, and serve only to distinguish light from darkness. In
certain star-fishes, small depressions in the layer of pigment which
surrounds the nerve are filled, as described by the author just quoted,
with transparent gelatinous matter, projecting with a convex surface, like
the cornea in the higher animals. He suggests that this serves not to form
an image, but only to concentrate the luminous rays and render their
perception more easy. In this concentration of the rays we gain the first
and by far the most important step towards the formation of a true,
picture-forming eye; for we have only to place the naked extremity of the
optic nerve, which in some of the lower animals lies deeply buried in the
body, and in some near the surface, at the right distance from the
concentrating apparatus, and an image will be formed on it.</p>
<p>In the great class of the Articulata, we may start from an optic nerve
simply coated with pigment, the latter sometimes forming a sort of pupil,
but destitute of lens or other optical contrivance. With insects it is now
known that the numerous facets on the cornea of their great compound eyes
form true lenses, and that the cones include curiously modified nervous
filaments. But these organs in the Articulata are so much diversified that
Muller formerly made three main classes with seven subdivisions, besides a
fourth main class of aggregated simple eyes.</p>
<p>When we reflect on these facts, here given much too briefly, with respect
to the wide, diversified, and graduated range of structure in the eyes of
the lower animals; and when we bear in mind how small the number of all
living forms must be in comparison with those which have become extinct,
the difficulty ceases to be very great in believing that natural selection
may have converted the simple apparatus of an optic nerve, coated with
pigment and invested by transparent membrane, into an optical instrument
as perfect as is possessed by any member of the Articulata class.</p>
<p>He who will go thus far, ought not to hesitate to go one step further, if
he finds on finishing this volume that large bodies of facts, otherwise
inexplicable, can be explained by the theory of modification through
natural selection; he ought to admit that a structure even as perfect as
an eagle's eye might thus be formed, although in this case he does not
know the transitional states. It has been objected that in order to modify
the eye and still preserve it as a perfect instrument, many changes would
have to be effected simultaneously, which, it is assumed, could not be
done through natural selection; but as I have attempted to show in my work
on the variation of domestic animals, it is not necessary to suppose that
the modifications were all simultaneous, if they were extremely slight and
gradual. Different kinds of modification would, also, serve for the same
general purpose: as Mr. Wallace has remarked, "If a lens has too short or
too long a focus, it may be amended either by an alteration of curvature,
or an alteration of density; if the curvature be irregular, and the rays
do not converge to a point, then any increased regularity of curvature
will be an improvement. So the contraction of the iris and the muscular
movements of the eye are neither of them essential to vision, but only
improvements which might have been added and perfected at any stage of the
construction of the instrument." Within the highest division of the animal
kingdom, namely, the Vertebrata, we can start from an eye so simple, that
it consists, as in the lancelet, of a little sack of transparent skin,
furnished with a nerve and lined with pigment, but destitute of any other
apparatus. In fishes and reptiles, as Owen has remarked, "The range of
gradation of dioptric structures is very great." It is a significant fact
that even in man, according to the high authority of Virchow, the
beautiful crystalline lens is formed in the embryo by an accumulation of
epidermic cells, lying in a sack-like fold of the skin; and the vitreous
body is formed from embryonic subcutaneous tissue. To arrive, however, at
a just conclusion regarding the formation of the eye, with all its
marvellous yet not absolutely perfect characters, it is indispensable that
the reason should conquer the imagination; but I have felt the difficulty
far to keenly to be surprised at others hesitating to extend the principle
of natural selection to so startling a length.</p>
<p>It is scarcely possible to avoid comparing the eye with a telescope. We
know that this instrument has been perfected by the long-continued efforts
of the highest human intellects; and we naturally infer that the eye has
been formed by a somewhat analogous process. But may not this inference be
presumptuous? Have we any right to assume that the Creator works by
intellectual powers like those of man? If we must compare the eye to an
optical instrument, we ought in imagination to take a thick layer of
transparent tissue, with spaces filled with fluid, and with a nerve
sensitive to light beneath, and then suppose every part of this layer to
be continually changing slowly in density, so as to separate into layers
of different densities and thicknesses, placed at different distances from
each other, and with the surfaces of each layer slowly changing in form.
Further we must suppose that there is a power, represented by natural
selection or the survival of the fittest, always intently watching each
slight alteration in the transparent layers; and carefully preserving each
which, under varied circumstances, in any way or degree, tends to produce
a distincter image. We must suppose each new state of the instrument to be
multiplied by the million; each to be preserved until a better is
produced, and then the old ones to be all destroyed. In living bodies,
variation will cause the slight alteration, generation will multiply them
almost infinitely, and natural selection will pick out with unerring skill
each improvement. Let this process go on for millions of years; and during
each year on millions of individuals of many kinds; and may we not believe
that a living optical instrument might thus be formed as superior to one
of glass, as the works of the Creator are to those of man?</p>
<p>MODES Of TRANSITION.</p>
<p>If it could be demonstrated that any complex organ existed, which could
not possibly have been formed by numerous, successive, slight
modifications, my theory would absolutely break down. But I can find out
no such case. No doubt many organs exist of which we do not know the
transitional grades, more especially if we look to much-isolated species,
around which, according to the theory, there has been much extinction. Or
again, if we take an organ common to all the members of a class, for in
this latter case the organ must have been originally formed at a remote
period, since which all the many members of the class have been developed;
and in order to discover the early transitional grades through which the
organ has passed, we should have to look to very ancient ancestral forms,
long since become extinct.</p>
<p>We should be extremely cautious in concluding that an organ could not have
been formed by transitional gradations of some kind. Numerous cases could
be given among the lower animals of the same organ performing at the same
time wholly distinct functions; thus in the larva of the dragon-fly and in
the fish Cobites the alimentary canal respires, digests, and excretes. In
the Hydra, the animal may be turned inside out, and the exterior surface
will then digest and the stomach respire. In such cases natural selection
might specialise, if any advantage were thus gained, the whole or part of
an organ, which had previously performed two functions, for one function
alone, and thus by insensible steps greatly change its nature. Many plants
are known which regularly produce at the same time differently constructed
flowers; and if such plants were to produce one kind alone, a great change
would be effected with comparative suddenness in the character of the
species. It is, however, probable that the two sorts of flowers borne by
the same plant were originally differentiated by finely graduated steps,
which may still be followed in some few cases.</p>
<p>Again, two distinct organs, or the same organ under two very different
forms, may simultaneously perform in the same individual the same
function, and this is an extremely important means of transition: to give
one instance—there are fish with gills or branchiae that breathe the
air dissolved in the water, at the same time that they breathe free air in
their swim-bladders, this latter organ being divided by highly vascular
partitions and having a ductus pneumaticus for the supply of air. To give
another instance from the vegetable kingdom: plants climb by three
distinct means, by spirally twining, by clasping a support with their
sensitive tendrils, and by the emission of aerial rootlets; these three
means are usually found in distinct groups, but some few species exhibit
two of the means, or even all three, combined in the same individual. In
all such cases one of the two organs might readily be modified and
perfected so as to perform all the work, being aided during the progress
of modification by the other organ; and then this other organ might be
modified for some other and quite distinct purpose, or be wholly
obliterated.</p>
<p>The illustration of the swim-bladder in fishes is a good one, because it
shows us clearly the highly important fact that an organ originally
constructed for one purpose, namely flotation, may be converted into one
for a widely different purpose, namely respiration. The swim-bladder has,
also, been worked in as an accessory to the auditory organs of certain
fishes. All physiologists admit that the swim-bladder is homologous, or
"ideally similar" in position and structure with the lungs of the higher
vertebrate animals: hence there is no reason to doubt that the
swim-bladder has actually been converted into lungs, or an organ used
exclusively for respiration.</p>
<p>According to this view it may be inferred that all vertebrate animals with
true lungs are descended by ordinary generation from an ancient and
unknown prototype which was furnished with a floating apparatus or
swim-bladder. We can thus, as I infer from Professor Owen's interesting
description of these parts, understand the strange fact that every
particle of food and drink which we swallow has to pass over the orifice
of the trachea, with some risk of falling into the lungs, notwithstanding
the beautiful contrivance by which the glottis is closed. In the higher
Vertebrata the branchiae have wholly disappeared—but in the embryo
the slits on the sides of the neck and the loop-like course of the
arteries still mark their former position. But it is conceivable that the
now utterly lost branchiae might have been gradually worked in by natural
selection for some distinct purpose: for instance, Landois has shown that
the wings of insects are developed from the trachea; it is therefore
highly probable that in this great class organs which once served for
respiration have been actually converted into organs for flight.</p>
<p>In considering transitions of organs, it is so important to bear in mind
the probability of conversion from one function to another, that I will
give another instance. Pedunculated cirripedes have two minute folds of
skin, called by me the ovigerous frena, which serve, through the means of
a sticky secretion, to retain the eggs until they are hatched within the
sack. These cirripedes have no branchiae, the whole surface of the body
and of the sack, together with the small frena, serving for respiration.
The Balanidae or sessile cirripedes, on the other hand, have no ovigerous
frena, the eggs lying loose at the bottom of the sack, within the
well-enclosed shell; but they have, in the same relative position with the
frena, large, much-folded membranes, which freely communicate with the
circulatory lacunae of the sack and body, and which have been considered
by all naturalists to act as branchiae. Now I think no one will dispute
that the ovigerous frena in the one family are strictly homologous with
the branchiae of the other family; indeed, they graduate into each other.
Therefore it need not be doubted that the two little folds of skin, which
originally served as ovigerous frena, but which, likewise, very slightly
aided in the act of respiration, have been gradually converted by natural
selection into branchiae, simply through an increase in their size and the
obliteration of their adhesive glands. If all pedunculated cirripedes had
become extinct, and they have suffered far more extinction than have
sessile cirripedes, who would ever have imagined that the branchiae in
this latter family had originally existed as organs for preventing the ova
from being washed out of the sack?</p>
<p>There is another possible mode of transition, namely, through the
acceleration or retardation of the period of reproduction. This has lately
been insisted on by Professor Cope and others in the United States. It is
now known that some animals are capable of reproduction at a very early
age, before they have acquired their perfect characters; and if this power
became thoroughly well developed in a species, it seems probable that the
adult stage of development would sooner or later be lost; and in this
case, especially if the larva differed much from the mature form, the
character of the species would be greatly changed and degraded. Again, not
a few animals, after arriving at maturity, go on changing in character
during nearly their whole lives. With mammals, for instance, the form of
the skull is often much altered with age, of which Dr. Murie has given
some striking instances with seals.</p>
<div style="break-after:column;"></div><br />