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
Take, for instance, the oak tree. It produces thousands of acorns,
almost the whole of which die without producing any progeny. Have
we any reason to believe that if the number of acorns borne by oak
trees were diminished, even so much as to one-tenth, the race of
oaks would perish? It may of course be said that, if all other
things are equal, the probabilities of survival must be increased
by increased fertility of this kind; but I feel convinced that when
numerical fertility has attained to a high point in circumstances
in which actual increase of the race cannot take place to any
substantial extent, the numerical value of this fertility sinks
down into a factor of the second or third order of importance--that
is to say, into the position of a factor whose effects are only to
be considered when we have duly allowed for the full effects of all
the main factors. Until we have done that, we gain little or
nothing in the way of accuracy of conclusion by taking into
consideration the minor factors. It may be very well to neglect the
effect of the attraction of Jupiter in our early researches on the
motion of the Moon; and our doing so will not prevent the results
being approximate and having considerable value, because we are
retaining the two main factors that establish the motion, viz. the
effects of the Earth and the Sun. But if we exclude the effect of
one of these main factors, our results would be worthless; and it
would not be rendered substantially less so by the fact that we had
taken Jupiter into account in arriving at them.
You must not imagine, however, that I think it wholly profitless to
see whether there would be any substantial effect on numerical
fertility were _selective_ fertility to manifest itself. But if we
want to derive any assistance from calculation, it must be by
applying it with a good deal more precision and definiteness than
anything that Wallace shows. And, in the first place, it is useless
to confuse the vegetable and animal kingdoms. In the former you
have union unaffected by choice; in the latter, so far at all
events as the higher animals are concerned, you have "psychological
selection." In order to give you a specimen of what can safely be
done by calculation if you take a problem of sufficient
definiteness, I have chosen the case of a flowering plant in which
a certain proportion of the race have developed the peculiarity of
being sterile with the remainder, while retaining the normal
fertility of the race in unions among themselves. In order to give
the greatest advantage to your critics, I have assumed that such
flowers as possess the peculiarity are not self-fertilizable; for
it is clear that if we suppose that they are self-fertilizable, the
fertility need be very slightly affected.
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