recombine with one another, and fuse into a single nucleus, and that
from this copulation-nucleus in the course of development the primitive
germ-cells of the embryo arise. Now all the ids which were originally
present in the nucleus of the immature ovum may be reunited in this
'polar copulation-nucleus' if the two nuclei _K_ 2 and _K_ 3 turned
towards each other in Fig. 79 contain different ids. That this is the
case cannot of course be seen from the ids themselves, but it seems to
me extremely probable, since it is dissimilar poles of the two nuclear
spindles which here unite, namely, the lower pole (daughter-nucleus) of
the upper spindle and the upper pole of the lower spindle. In the first
directive or polar spindle there lay thirty-two chromosomes, which had
increased by duplication from sixteen, and of these sixteen passed over
into the first polar nucleus, while sixteen formed the basis of the
second directive spindle. These two sets of sixteen chromosomes must
have been quite similar, since the two sets arose by division of the
sixteen mother-chromosomes. Let us call the chromosomes _a_, _b_, _c_,
_d-q_, then similar sets of chromosomes must have been contained in the
two nuclear spindle figures depicted in Fig. 79 at the beginning of the
division, and eight of these went to each daughter-nucleus. Now, if
_a-k_ migrated to the upper pole of the spindle and _l-q_ to the lower
pole, then the union of _K_ 2 with _K_ 3 would bring together again
all the ids that had before been present. In consideration of this I
predicted to Dr. Petrunkewitsch that this copulation-product might be
the basis of the formation of the germ-cells in the drone-bee, and his
painstaking and difficult researches have confirmed this prediction,
strange though it may seem, that the male germ-cells have a different
origin from the female germ-cells. But this discovery gives a strong
support to the germ-plasm theory. It may, of course, be objected that
the assumed regular distribution of the ids in the two daughter-nuclei
cannot be proved, but we know already that this dividing apparatus
does _very exact_ work, and we are at liberty to assume it in an even
higher degree. Moreover, what other interpretation of the unexpected
development of the germ-cells discovered by Petrunkewitsch could be
given if this had to be rejected? A clearer proof of the individual
differences of ids and of their essential importance could not be
desired, than lies in the fact that in the 'male' eggs of the queen-bee
a different and novel mode of germ-cell formation is instituted, after
half the ids have been irrecoverably withdrawn from the ovum-nucleus.
We see from this that for individual development a duplication of
individual ids may suffice, but that for the further development of the
species a retention of the diversity of the ids is important.
LECTURE XXX
INBREEDING, PARTHENOGENESIS, ASEXUAL REPRODUCTION, AND THEIR
CONSEQUENCES
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