The term “variety” has rather a different connotation in systematic
biology from that which is included by the term “elementary species.”
The meaning of the latter is simple and clear. Two or more elementary
species are assemblages of organisms, in each of which assemblages
the mean positions about which the various characters fluctuate is
different. The term “variety” cannot so easily be defined. The progeny
of two different species (in the sense of the term as it is usually
applied by systematists) may be called a hybrid variety of one or other
of the parent species. In the case of the ordinary species of zoology
such a hybrid would, in general, be infertile, or if it did produce
offspring these would be infertile. In the case of ordinarily bred
offspring from parents of the same species a large deviation from the
parental characters might be a malformation, or the result of some
irregularity of development. An “atavistic” variation we may regard as
the reappearance of some character present in a more or less remote
ancestor. Thus dogfishes and skates are no doubt descended from some
elasmobranch fish which possessed an anterior dorsal fin. This fin
persists in the dog-fishes, but has been lost in the skates and rays.
Yet it may appear in the latter fishes as an atavistic variation.
In a variety (following de Vries’ analysis) a character which
disappears is not really lost: it is only suppressed, and it still
exists in a latent form. Some flowers are coloured, for instance, but
there may be varieties in the species to which they belong in which the
flowers are colourless. It may not be quite correct, in the physical
sense, to say that the colour has been lost, but we may put it in this
way. These flowers are then coloured and colourless varieties of the
same species. Colour or lack of colour is not, however, fixed in the
variety, for the individual plant bearing colourless flowers also bears
in its organisation the potentiality of producing coloured flowers.
The petals of a flower may be smooth or covered with hairs, and in the
same stock both of these varieties may occur. But we must not speak
of the presence or absence of hairs as constituting a difference of
kind: the smooth-petalled flowers might be regarded as containing the
epidermal rudiments of hairs. So also coloured and colourless flowers
may be regarded as containing the same kinds of pigment, but these
pigments are mixed in different proportions. Such a view enables us to
look upon these contrasting characters in the same way as we look upon
fluctuating variations, that is, as quantitative differences in the
value of the same character.
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