Although the cases already mentioned in which great constancy of
species is associated with purely parthenogenetic reproduction do
not tell in favour of the accuracy of the view just stated, yet
the fundamental idea, that amphigony is an essential factor in the
maintenance and even in the evolution of species, is undoubtedly sound.
We should certainly find neither genera nor species in Nature if
amphigony did not exist; but we cannot simply suppose that amphigony
and variation are, so to speak, antipodal forces, the former of which
secures the constancy of the species, the latter its transformation.
In my opinion, at all events, there is no such thing as a 'tendency'
of the protoplasm to vary, although there is a constant fluctuation of
the characters--dependent on the imperfect equality of the external
influences, especially of nutrition. This certainly results, as far
as it takes place within the germ-plasm, in a continual upward and
downward variation of the hereditary tendencies, and it would lead to
increasing dissimilarity of the individuals were it not that amphigony
is continually equalizing the differences by a constantly repeated
mingling of individuals. Quetelet and Galton have shown that the
tendency of this mingling is towards the establishment of a mean; the
characters of Man, such as bodily size, fluctuate about a mean, which
at the same time shows the maximum of frequency; and the frequency
curve of the various bodily sizes assumes a perfectly symmetrical
form, so that the average size is the most frequent, and deviations
from it upwards or downwards occur more rarely in proportion to the
amount of deviation, the largest and the smallest sizes occurring least
frequently.
Thus an equalizing of variations by means of amphimixis really exists,
and the question we have to ask is, How does it come about? The case
is assuredly not the same as that in which equal quantities of red
and white wine are mixed to make a so-called 'Schiller.' This is
proved even by the fact that the mixture may turn out quite different
even when the wines--the two parents--are alike: for the children
of a pair are often dissimilar. And while the 'Schiller' cannot be
separated again into red wine and white, this happens often in sexual
reproduction, and sometimes to such an extent that the grandchild
exactly resembles one or other of the grand-parents, as is most clearly
proved in the case of plant-hybrids.
There is thus a deep-seated difference, depending on the fact that
what is mingled in amphigony is not simple but composite, not a
simple uniform developmental tendency associated with a simple and
definite substance, but a combination of several or many developmental
tendencies, associated with several equivalent but different material
units. These units are the ids or ancestral plasms, and we have seen
how they are not only halved by reducing division, but are also
arranged in new combinations in amphimixis.
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