On the phenomena of variation and geographical distribution as illustrated by the Papilionidæ of the Malayan regionWallace, Alfred Russel
Science
On the phenomena of variation and geographical distribution as illustrated by the Papilionidæ of the Malayan region
Wallace, Alfred Russel
Papilionidae -- Malaysia -- Geographical distribution; Papilionidae -- Malaysia -- Variation
Cynthia Arsinoë, var. „ „ Cynthia Arsinoë (Java, Sum.,
Born.).
All these belong to the family of the Nymphalidæ. Many other genera of
this family, as _Diadema_, _Adolias_, _Charaxes_, and _Cyrestis_, as
well as the entire families of the Danaidæ, Satyridæ, Lycænidæ, and
Hesperidæ, present no examples of this peculiar form of the upper wing
in the Celebesian species.
The facts now brought forward seem to me of the highest interest. We see
that almost all the species in two important families of the Lepidoptera
(Papilionidæ and Pieridæ) acquire, in a single island, a characteristic
modification of form distinguishing them from the allied species and
varieties of all the surrounding islands. In other equally extensive
families no such change occurs, except in one or two isolated species.
However we may account for these phenomena, or whether we may be quite
unable to account for them, they furnish, in my opinion, a strong
corroborative testimony in favour of the doctrine of the origin of
species by successive small variations; for we have here slight
varieties, local races, and undoubted species, all modified in exactly
the same manner, indicating plainly a common cause producing identical
results. On the generally received theory of the original distinctness
and permanence of species, we are met by this difficulty: one portion of
these curiously modified forms are admitted to have been produced by
variation and some natural action of local conditions; whilst the other
portion, differing from the former only in degree, and connected with
them by insensible gradations, are said to have possessed this
peculiarity of form at their first creation, or to have derived it from
unknown causes of a totally distinct nature. Is not the _à priori_
evidence in favour of the assumption of an identity of the causes that
have produced such similar results? and have we not a right to call upon
our opponents for some proofs of their own doctrine, and for an
explanation of its difficulties, instead of their assuming that they are
right, and laying upon us the burthen of disproof?
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