Darwin, and After Darwin, Volume 2 of 3: Post-Darwinian Questions: Heredity and UtilityRomanes, George John
Science
Darwin, and After Darwin, Volume 2 of 3: Post-Darwinian Questions: Heredity and Utility
Romanes, George John
Evolution (Biology); Heredity
"Thus, as I am inclined to believe, morphological differences,
which we consider as important--such as the arrangement of the
leaves, the divisions of the flower or of the ovarium, the position
of the ovules, &c.--_first_ appeared in _many_ cases as
_fluctuating variations_, which sooner or later became constant
through the nature of the organism and of the surrounding
conditions, as well as through the intercrossing of distinct
individuals, _but not through natural selection_; for as these
morphological characters do not affect the welfare of the
_species_, any slight deviations in them could not have been
governed or accumulated through this latter agency. It is a strange
result which we thus arrive at, namely, that characters of slight
vital importance to the _species_, are the most important to the
systematist; but, as we shall hereafter see when we treat of the
genetic principle of classification, this is by no means so
paradoxical as it may at first appear[162]."
[162] _Descent of Man_, p. 176.
Clearly the view here expressed is that characters which are now
distinctive of higher taxonomic divisions "first appeared" in the parent
species of such divisions; for not only would it be unreasonable to
attribute the rise and preservation of useless characters to
"fluctuating variations" affecting a number of species or genera
similarly and simultaneously; but it would be impossible that, if such
were the case, they could be rendered "constant through the nature of
the organism and of the surrounding conditions, as well as through the
intercrossing of distinct individuals[163]."
[163] The passage to which these remarks apply is likewise quoted,
in the same connexion as above, in my paper on _Physiological
Selection_. In criticising that paper in _Nature_ (vol. xxxix.
p. 127), Mr. Thiselton Dyer says of my interpretation of this
passage, "the obvious drift of this does not relate to
specific differences, but to those which are characteristic of
family." But in making this remark Mr. Dyer could not have
read the passage with sufficient care to note the points which
I have now explained.
Public-domain text, read in full here on John Shaqi.
Reviews
Reviews
No reviews yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this work.
Elsewhere in the archive
Join the Discussion
Join the discussion
Sign in to leave a comment or review.
Sign InorCreate an account