The birth of the new species necessarily seemed to involve the death of the old one. This last conclusion, however, is hard to understand. It may be justifiable to assume that all the individuals of one locality are ordinarily intercrossed, and are moreover subjected to the same external conditions. They might be supposed to vary in the same direction if these conditions were changed slowly. But this could of course have no possible influence on the plants of the [561] same species growing in distant localities, and it would be improbable they should be affected in the same way. Hence we should conclude that when a species is converted into a new type in one locality this is only to be considered as one of numerous possible ones, and its alteration would not in the least change the aspect of the remainder of the species. But even with this restriction the general belief is not supported by the evidence of the evening-primroses. There is neither a slow nor a sudden change of all the individuals. On the contrary, the vast majority remain unchanged; thousands are seen exactly repeating the original prototype yearly, both in the native field and in my garden. There is no danger that _lamarckiana_ might die out from the act of mutating, nor that the mutating strain itself would be exposed to ultimate destruction from this cause. In older swarms, such as _Draba_ or _Helianthemum_, no such center, around which the various forms are grouped, is known. Are we to conclude therefore that the main strain has died out? Or is it perhaps concealed among the throng, being distinguished by no peculiar character? If our _gigas_ and _rubrinervis_ were growing in equal numbers with the _lamarckiana_ in the native field, would it be possible to decide [562] which of them was the progenitor of the others? Of course this could be done by long and tedious crossing experiments, showing atavism in the progeny, and thereby indicating the common ancestor. But even this capacity seems to be doubtful and connected only with the state of mutability and to be lost afterwards. Therefore if this period of mutation were ended, probably there would be no way to decide concerning the mutual relationship of the single species. Hence the lack of a recognizable main stem in swarms of elementary species makes it impossible to answer the question concerning their common origin. Another phase of the opposition between the prevailing view and my own results seems far more important. According to the current belief the conversion of a group of plants growing in any locality and flowering simultaneously would be restricted to one type. In my own experiments several new species arose from the parental form at once, giving a wide range of new forms at the same time and under the same conditions. III. New elementary species attain their full constancy at once.