Assuredly the whole intricate complex of adaptations which is now
exhibited on the conjugation of the two sex-cells in animals and
plants, the differentiation of two kinds of 'sexually' antagonistic
cells, with all their special adaptations, the reduction of the
chromosomes, the institution of the karyo-kinetic apparatus, together
with the centrospheres and so on, cannot possibly have arisen all at
once by fortuitous variation, but can only have arisen gradually,
step by step, and as the result of 'innumerable external and internal
influences.' But why should not these arrangements, nowadays so
complex, have had a simple beginning? Why might not this beginning have
been the simple union of the protoplasmic bodies of two non-nucleated
Monera; followed, after the origin of nuclear substances, by the union
of these, and, finally, after the differentiation of a nucleus with
a definite number of chromosomes, with a dividing apparatus, with a
membrane, and so on, by complete amphimixis as we now know it? And how
many transition stages may not be added to fill up the gaps between
these three main stages?
But how much we can actually prove in regard to these conceivable
preliminary stages of amphimixis is another matter. If we take a survey
of the observations that have been made up till now, we are confronted
at first by the undoubtedly striking fact that very little is known
about it as yet, for in fact the whole process is gone through even
in quite lowly forms of life in a manner very similar to that in the
higher forms. Amphimixis has been shown to be widespread even among
unicellular organisms, yet not in an _essentially_ simpler mode than
among multicellulars. We have seen that even in ciliated Infusorians
reducing division obtains, and that of the four nuclei which arise
from twofold division of the original nucleus three break up again,
and only the fourth, by a further division, separates into a male and
a female pronucleus, 'which then complete the amphimixis with the
corresponding pro-nuclei of another animal' (compare Fig. 85, 4-7, vol.
i. p. 321). This, and the existence of a dividing apparatus and of
chromosomes, make the process appear very little less complicated than
the fertilization of higher animals. The case is similar even in much
lower unicellular organisms, such as _Noctiluca_ (Fig. 83, vol. i. p.
317). In this form and in Rhizopods it is true that reducing divisions
have not yet been made out, but their occurrence in the lower Algæ
(_Basidiobolus_), and above all in those simple unicellular organisms
which give rise to malaria, and their allies, which live as 'Coccidia'
in the blood-cells and intestinal cells of animals, leads us to expect
that they may prove to be of general occurrence among unicellulars.
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