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
I concluded that these two new forms had, by joining their forces,
expelled the _H. villosum_ from its primitive abode, but had not
succeeded in displacing one another. As to their origin, they had
evidently developed in two different directions from a common point
of departure, namely _H. villosum_. They had succeeded, not only in
separating themselves from the original form, but also in
preventing any intermediary form from interposing. I thought myself
therefore justified in considering this as a case of varieties
which have come into existence subsequently to the Glacial epoch.
The morphological characteristics of the three forms are
sufficiently distinct for them to be designated as species by a
good many writers. They are better defined than some of MM. Frolich
and Fries' weaker species, and as well defined as some of MM. Koch
and Grisebach's (p. 222).
Now it is clear, without comment, that all this is exactly as it ought
to be, if allied species have been differentiated on common areas by
selective fertility. For if, as Nägeli elsewhere says, "one meets forms
in nature associated with one another, and severally distinguished by
every possible degree of differentiation," not only as Nägeli adds, does
this general fact lead to the inference that species are (usually)
developed when plants grow intimately associated together; but as
certainly it leads to the further inference that such development must
be due to a prior development of cross-infertility between the diverging
varietal forms, cross-infertility which is therefore afterwards so
characteristic of the allied species, when these are found, in their
fully differentiated condition, still occupying the same area in large
and intimately mingled populations.
To my mind there could not be any inference more strongly grounded than
this, because, with the one exception of the physiological form, no
other form of homogamy can be conceived which shall account for the
origin and permanence of these synoical varieties, in all degrees of
differentiation up to well-defined synoical species. Least of all, as we
have seen, can natural selection alone have had anything to do with such
a state of matters; while, as we have likewise seen, in all its details
it is exactly the state of matters which the theory of physiological
selection requires.
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