It is, indeed, true that asymmetrically marked animals are very rarely
seen in the wild state, while they are the rule rather than the exception
among domesticated species. But this appears to be due, not to the
necessity of recognition markings in nature, but to the fact that those
animals that display a tendency to massed pigment perish in the struggle
for existence, since this massing of pigment appears to be correlated
with weakness of constitution. In other words, this massing of pigment is
an unfavourable variation, which under natural conditions dooms its
possessor. In the easier circumstances of domestication, animals which
are irregularly pigmented are able to survive, so that, among them, the
almost universal tendency to the massing of pigment can be followed
without let or hindrance.
It is unnecessary to say more upon this subject. The few facts we have
set forth suffice to destroy this particular excrescence on the Darwinian
theory.
The Colouring of Flowers and Fruits
Extremely interesting though the subject be, we are unable to consider at
length the generally accepted theory that the colour markings and
perfumes of wild flowers are the result of the unconscious selection
exercised by insects.
While not denying that many flowers profit by their colouring, that these
colours may sometimes serve to attract the insects, by means of which
cross-fertilisation is effected, we are not prepared to go to the length
of admitting that all the colours, etc., displayed by flowers and floral
structures are due to the unconscious selection exercised by insects. It
is one thing to admit that the colour of its flowers is of direct utility
to a plant; it is quite another to assert that the colour in question
owes its origin and development to natural selection. Our attitude
towards the generally accepted explanation of the colours of flowers is
similar to that which we adopt towards the theory of protective mimicry
among animals. In certain cases we are prepared to admit that the
mimicking organism derives benefit from the likeness; but this, we
assert, is no proof that natural selection has originated the likeness.
Cross- versus Self-fertilisation
The theory that flowers have developed their colours in order to attract
insects to them, and thus secure cross-fertilisation, is based on the
assumption that cross-fertilisation is advantageous to plants. It is
questionable whether this assumption is justified. True it is that
numbers of experiments have been performed, which show that, in many
cases, flowers which are artificially self-fertilised yield comparatively
few seeds. But experiments of this kind do not prove very much.
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