But it may be asked, Why have all these unnecessary divisions been
maintained up till the present day? Why have they not long ago been
given up, since they can and do only lead to the production of three
abortive ova, which are foredoomed to perish? Are they mere vestiges,
processes which are in themselves meaningless, but have, so to speak,
been maintained by the principle of inertia? This principle is
certainly operative in some sense and to some extent even in living
nature; a process which has been regularly repeated through a long
series of generations does not at once cease to be performed when it is
no longer of use to the organism concerned. The eyes of animals which
have migrated to lightless depths do not disappear all at once and
leave no trace; they degenerate very gradually and only in the course
of many generations; and it would thus be quite possible to defend the
position that these polar or 'maturation divisions' of the ovum are
purely _phyletic reminiscences_ without actual significance.
But I cannot agree with this opinion. If it were actually so we should
expect that the formation of the polar bodies would not still take
place in all cases in almost the same manner, for all rudimentary parts
and processes vary greatly; we should expect that in many animal groups
the polar divisions would not occur, or perhaps that only half the
number would occur. But this is not so; in all multicellular organisms,
from the lowest to the highest, two reducing divisions take place,
and always in almost the same manner, with the exception of a single
category of ova, of which I shall presently have to speak. We shall see
later that even in unicellular organisms analogous processes may be
observed.
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