Darwin, and After Darwin, Volume 3 of 3: Post-Darwinian Questions: Isolation and Physiological SelectionRomanes, George John
Science
Darwin, and After Darwin, Volume 3 of 3: Post-Darwinian Questions: Isolation and Physiological Selection
Romanes, George John
Evolution (Biology); Heredity
[6] The passage proceeds to show that in view of this consideration
we have a strong additional reason for rejecting the _a priori_
dogma that all specific characters must necessarily be useful
characters. For it is evident that any divergence of specific
character which is brought about in this way need not present any
utilitarian significance--although, of course, natural selection
will ensure that it shall never be deleterious.
The name which I gave to this cause of specific change was Independent
Variability, or variability in the absence of overwhelming
intercrossing. But it now appears to me that this cause is really
identical with that which was previously enunciated by Delbœuf.
Again, in his important essay on _The Influence of Isolation_, Weismann
concludes, on the basis of a large accumulation of facts, that the
constancy of any given specific type "does not arise suddenly, but
gradually, and is established by the promiscuous intercrossing of all
individuals." From which, he says, it follows, that this constancy must
cease so soon as the condition which maintains it ceases--i. e. so soon
as intercrossing (Panmixia) between all individuals ceases, or so soon
as a portion of a species is isolated from its parent stock. To this
principle he assigns the name of Amixia. But Weismann's Amixia differs
from my Independent Variability in several important particulars; and on
this account I have designedly abstained from adopting his term. Here
it is enough to remark that it answers to the generic term Isolation,
without reference to the _kind_ of isolation as discriminate or
indiscriminate, homogamous or apogamous. On the other hand, my
Independent Variability is merely a re-statement of the so-called "Law
of Delbœuf," which, in his own words, is as follows:--
One point, however, is definitely attained. It is that the
proposition, which further back we designated paradoxical, is
rigorously true, A constant cause of variation, however
insignificant it may be, changes the uniformity [of type] little by
little, and diversifies it _ad infinitum_. From the homogeneous,
left to itself, only the homogeneous can proceed; but if there be a
slight disturbance ["léger ferment"] in the homogeneous, the
homogeneity will be invaded at a single point, differentiation will
penetrate the whole, and, after a time--it may be an infinite
time--the differentiation will have disintegrated it altogether.
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.
Join the Discussion
Join the discussion
Sign in to leave a comment or review.
Sign InorCreate an account