The conclusions of Steinmann, that are most important for us, may be summarized as follows:
1. The family and transition forms demanded from palaeontology by Darwinism for its family-trees, constructed not empirically but _a priori_, are nowhere to be found among the abundant materials which palaeontological investigation has already produced.
2. The results of the investigation do not correspond with the family groups drawn up according to the so-called "biogenetic principle,"
which principle has in fact led men of science into false paths.
3. At best, the biogenetic principle has a limited validity, (we add that later it will undoubtedly follow Darwinism and its family trees into the lumber-room).
4. The results of palaeontology, in so far, for instance, as they testify to the sudden disappearance of the saurians and the advent of mammals, everywhere contradict the Darwinian principle of the survival of the fittest in the struggle for existence.
5. "The time has long pa.s.sed when the Darwinian explanations were regarded with naive confidence as the alpha and omega of the doctrine of Descent."
6. Only the principle of Descent is universally recognized; the "how"
of it, its causes, are to-day entirely a matter of dispute.
CHAPTER V.
The strongest evidence of the decay of Darwinism is to be found in the fact that, since Darwin first enunciated his theory, many and diverse attempts have been made to explain the origin of species on other principles. Names of men, like M. Wagner, Naegeli, Wigand, Koelliker, and Kerner mark these attempts; but of these investigators Naegeli alone proposed a well-developed hypothesis. Finally, however, Eimer, professor of zoology in Tuebingen came forward with a detailed theory of Descent. As early as 1888 he published a comprehensive work dealing with it, under the t.i.tle: "The Origin of Species by Means of the Transmission of Acquired Characters According to the Laws of Organic Growth." As the t.i.tle itself indicates, a very marked divergence was even at that time manifesting itself between Eimer and his former teacher and friend, the great defender of Darwinism in Germany, Aug.
Weismann, professor of zoology in Freiburg in Breisgau. For, while the latter vigorously attacks the transmission of acquired characters, Eimer"s whole theory is founded on this very transmission. Observations regarding the coloring of animals, in fact, form the basis of Eimer"s theory.
Eimer attributes the origin of species to "organic growth" by which he means not merely increase in size, but also change of form, etc. This growth does not proceed blindly or aimlessly, but proceeds on rigidly determined lines, which depend upon the structure and const.i.tution of the particular organism. External influences, however, also affect it.
Eimer specially emphasizes four points in this connection: 1. This rigidly determined development of a character exhibits well defined, regular stages, and the evolution of each individual repeats the whole series of transformations (the Mueller-Haeckel "biogenetic-law.") 2.
New characters are first acquired by strong adult males (the law of male dominance). 3. New characters appear on definite parts of the body, spreading especially from the rear to the front, (the law of undulation). 4. Varieties are stages in the process of development, through which all the individuals of the respective species must pa.s.s.
These points indicate how important for Eimer is the transmission of those characters which the parents themselves have acquired in the course of their own development. He conceives that this transmission takes place when the causative influences exert themselves permanently on many succeeding generations. Eimer thinks that in this way the const.i.tution of the respective species is gradually transformed.
Besides the effect of external influences (which may vary according to the climate, etc.: Geoffroy St. Hilaire), Eimer mentions as important and active factors in this development, (1). The use and disuse of organs (Lamarck); (2). The struggle for existence (Darwin); (3). The correlation of organs, that is, the inner relation of organs in consequence of which a change in one organ may occasion a sudden change in another organ; (4). Cross fertilization and hybridism.
It is clear that with reference to the factors of evolution Eimer is, and perhaps not unreasonably, an eclectic, whose aim is to do justice to the predecessors of Darwin as well as to Darwin himself. His antagonism to Darwin and Weismann in this work is still quite moderate, although even here it appears with sufficient clearness that selection and the struggle for existence, the two principles peculiarly characteristic of Darwinism, do not give rise to new species, but can at best only separate and differentiate species already existing.
The second part of Eimer"s work dealing with the origin of species, which appeared after an interval of ten years, bears the t.i.tle: "Orthogenesis of b.u.t.terflies." The Origin of Species, II. Part (2 tables and 235 ill.u.s.trations in the text). Leipzig, 1897. In this book substantially the same thoughts occupy the mind of the author as in the former volume, but in many respects they are more mature, and conspicuously more definite and precise. The most salient features are the following:
1. Eimer establishes his theory by means of very minute observations on a definite species of animals, viz., b.u.t.terflies.
2. He attributes evolution almost exclusively to development along definitely determined lines.
3. He proves the utter untenableness of Darwinian principles and repudiates them unqualifiedly.
4. In a very distinct and severe manner he gives expression to his opposition to his former friend Weismann.
5. He attacks with telling effect the fantastic Darwinian "Mimicry."
In his "General Introduction" Eimer first treats of Orthogenesis in opposition to the Darwinian theory of selection. The very first sentence gives evidence of this antagonism: "According to my investigation, organic growth (Organophysis), which is rendered dependent on the plasm by permanent external influences, climate and nourishment, and the expression of which is found in development along definitely determined lines, (Orthogenesis), is the princ.i.p.al cause of transformation, its occasional interruption and its temporary cessation and is likewise the princ.i.p.al cause of the division of the series of organisms into species."
Lamarck"s theory of the use and disuse of organs and Darwin"s hypothesis of natural selection are consequently pushed into the background. Here also Eimer at once places himself at variance with Naegeli who had enunciated a similar theory. Naegeli took as a starting point an inherent tendency in every being to perfect itself, thus presupposing an "inner principle of development," and making light of external influences as transforming causes. Eimer flatly contradicts this view. We shall revert to this point in our criticism of his theory. In opposition to the theory of selection, Eimer lays special stress on the fact that its underlying a.s.sumption, viz., fortuitous, indefinite variation in many different directions, is entirely devoid of foundation in fact, and that selection, in order to be effective, postulates the previous existence of the required useful characters, whereas the very point at issue is to explain how these characters have originated. Since, therefore, according to Eimer"s investigations, there are everywhere to be found only a few, definitely determined lines of variation, selection is incapable of exercising any choice.
The development, furthermore, proceeds without regard for utility, since, for instance, the features that characterize a species of plants are out of all reference to utility. "Even if nothing exists that is essentially detrimental, nevertheless very much does exist that bears no reference whatever to immediate good, and was therefore never affected by selection."
Further on, Eimer expresses still more clearly the opposition of his theory to that of Darwin, and in so doing he attacks vigorously the omnipotence of selection, so unreasonably proclaimed by the followers of Darwin. Eimer"s theory, consequently, a.s.serts that: "The essential cause of trans.m.u.tation is organic growth, a definite variation, which, during long periods of time proceeds unswervingly and without reference to utility, in but few directions and is conditioned by the action of external influences, of climate and nourishment." In consequence of an interruption of orthogenesis a stoppage ensues in certain stages of the development, and this stoppage is the great cause of the arrangement of forms in different species. Of vital importance also "is development through different stages (Hetero-epistase), which results in the arrested development of certain characters in an organism, while others progress and still others become retrogressive. As a rule use and disuse are of great efficacy in this regard, and conjointly with these compensation and correlation." Occasionally also irregular development sets in, which proceeds by leaps.
Of course, Eimer could not but in his turn burn incense before Darwin by declaring that he would not dare to cross swords with such a man, while in reality he repudiates all of Darwin"s fundamental tenets.
It may be well to state here in addition a few important supplementary considerations: "Development can everywhere proceed in only a limited number of directions because the const.i.tution, the material composition of the body, conditions these directions and prevents variation in all directions." This is an important statement because Eimer clearly expresses therein the difference between his own theory and that of Naegeli. He makes the direction of development dependent on the material composition of the body, whereas Naegeli considers it dependent upon an internal tendency of every being to perfect itself, hence upon a power inherent in the body. Eimer"s view therefore tends towards a mechanical explanation, while Naegeli postulates a vital energy. The "internal causes" according to Eimer find their explanation in the material composition of the body. Since the growth of the individual organism depends on this composition and on the external influences, Eimer compares family-development with it and designates the latter as "organic growth." In opposition to Naegeli he maintains that this "organic growth" does not always aim at perfection but often tends to simplification and retrogression.
The following, then, according to Eimer, are the directive principles of variation: (1). The general law of coloration (stripes running lengthwise change into spots, stripes running crosswise change to a uniform color). (2). The law of definitely directed local change (new colors spread from the rear to the front and from above downward or vice versa, old colors disappear in the same directions.) (3). The law of male predominance (males are as a rule one step in advance of the females in development). Female predominance is an exception. (4). The law of age-predominance (new characters appear at a well-advanced age, and at the time of greatest strength). (5). The law of wave-like development (during the course of the formation of the individual organism a series of changes proceed in a definite direction over the body of the animals). (6). The law of independent uniformity of development (the same course of development is pursued in non-related forms and results in similar forms). (7). The law of development through different stages (different characteristics of the same being may develop to a different degree and in different directions). (8).
The law of unilateral development (the progeny does not present a complete combination of the characters of the parents but manifests a preponderance of the characteristics of either parent). (9). The law of the reversal of development (the direction of development may reverse and tend towards the starting point). (10). The law of the cessation of development (a protracted cessation of development frequently ensues in one or the other stage).
The origin (perhaps rather the distinction) of species is accounted for princ.i.p.ally by the last named law, by means of which Eimer also explains the so-called atavism or reversion. To this law are joined other factors, e.g., development proceeding in leaps, as demonstrated by Koelliker and Heer; local separation (through migration; prevention of fertilization, e.g., the impossibility of cross-fertilization between certain individual organisms) which Romanes had already opposed to natural selection, and crossing.
The second main division of the book is taken up with a very searching and detailed criticism of Weismann. This criticism seems to me entirely warranted; because not only the latter"s unintelligible position with regard to natural selection (the repudiation of which he seems to regard as synonymous "with cessation of all investigation into the causal nexus of phenomena in the domain of life") but likewise his fanciful theory of heredity, utterly devoid as it is of any support from actual observation, bespeak an utter lack of qualities essential to a naturalist; and the manner in which he ignores his former pupil and his labors, because they proved embarra.s.sing to him, is entirely unworthy of a man of science.
Eimer devotes special attention to "mimicry"; and indeed he was forced to be very solicitous to dispel this fanciful conception of Darwinism which radically contradicted his own views. Moreover, the untenableness of the mimicry hypothesis must have revealed itself very clearly to him in the course of his investigations regarding the coloring of b.u.t.terflies. Mimicry, as our readers are well aware, consists in this, that living beings imitate other organisms or even inanimate objects; Darwinism maintains that this is done for the sake of protection against enemies. This phenomenon is said to have been produced by selection. Those animals that possessed, for instance, some similarity to a leaf, in consequence escaped their enemies more easily than others and survived, while those that had no leaf-like appearance succ.u.mbed; when this process had been repeated a few times, many animals (b.u.t.terflies) gradually developed that marvelous leaf-like appearance, which frequently deceives the most practiced eye.
It appears so simple and natural that one need not wonder that this peculiar phenomenon gained many an adherent for Darwinism. But, of course, it is directly opposed to the views of Eimer; and it is for this reason that he endeavors so a.s.siduously to disprove the error of Darwinism in this regard. As the underlying color design of the b.u.t.terfly Eimer designates eleven longitudinal designs; and the examination of the leaf-like forms leads him to the conclusion, that their appearance always depends on "the unaltered condition or the greater prominence of certain parts of this fundamental design." There is to be observed a shifting of the third band, so that in conjunction with the fourth, which is curved, it forms the mid-rib of the leaf.
Eimer finds the cause of this phenomenon in the alteration of the form.
The leaf-like form results from an ac.u.mination and elongation of the wings, which in turn results from a marked elongation of the rim of the fore-wing. And this again is produced by the proportionately greater growth of one part of the wing-section than of the others.
With reference to the reason of this growth it is of importance to note that experiments, consisting in the application of artificial heat to the chrysales of the swallow-tail and sailor-b.u.t.terfly, demonstrated that by this means "the fore-wing is drawn out more toward the outer wing-vein, and the rim of the fore-wing becomes more elongated and curved." It is observed, however, that the natural heat-forms of the same genera and species, namely, the summer-forms and those which live in the warm southern climate, exhibit, for instance, in the case of b.u.t.terflies akin to the sailor, the same features, the elongation and more marked curvature of the fore-rim of the fore-wings and the consequent more extended form, that are produced by the action of artificial heat. Manifestly this is a matter of vital importance for the solution of the question: heat, whether artificial or natural, produces a difference in growth, which results in a change of form and coloring. There is consequently no room for natural selection or the struggle for existence.
The leaf-like form is generally a.s.sociated with the dark, faded colors of dry leaves, and when this similarity disappears even bright colors appear on the fore-wings. In many cases the resemblance to leaves is very imperfect; different forms of the same species live side by side and among them are to be found those, the resemblance of which to leaves is extremely slight. All these facts, and especially the frequently recurring retrogression of the leaf-like appearance, justify serious doubt regarding the Darwinian a.s.sumption, that adaptation was a necessity for the forest-b.u.t.terflies on account of the protection which it provided.
An eye witness furthermore declares that the b.u.t.terflies that resemble leaves most closely do not always alight on withered leaves, on which they would be almost invisible, but frequently rest on a green background, against which they show off very clearly, and therefore could not long escape the keen eye of birds. Besides, these b.u.t.terflies are but seldom pursued by the birds, of which there is question here, and hence are in no need of protection.
The longer Eimer devoted his attention to the origin of this resemblance the more "the poetic picture of the imitated leaf" vanished out of sight, and he became convinced that it involved the necessary expression of the lines of development, which the respective beings were bound to follow, and that there was no question of imitation.
Apart from the resemblance to leaves, by reason of regular changes of color, design, and wing-structure, numerous non-related b.u.t.terflies often develop such wonderful similarities--which are not, as. .h.i.therto supposed, imitations or disguises produced by selection, but are either the outcome of an entirely independent uniformity of development or, at least, of its consequence--that it must be admitted that external similarity may arise by different means and in various ways. These relations of similarity are of such frequent recurrence because of the limited number of directions of development in which changes or color and design in b.u.t.terflies may tend. Eimer finds the reason of this small number of directions, in which development may proceed, in the fact "that the elementary external influences of climate and nourishment on the const.i.tution of the organism are everywhere the cause of the transformations."
Another important point is the difference of s.e.x. If the b.u.t.terflies are of different s.e.x, the males as a rule exhibit a more developed stage of design and color than the females. These frequently present on the upper side the stage of coloration, which the males present on the lower side, while the upper side of the males is one stage in advance.
It is of special significance that the characters of the more advanced s.e.x frequently correspond to those of a related, superior species, and occasionally to those of widely separated species. Eimer endeavors to explain male predominance "by a more delicate and more developed, i.e., more complex, chemico-physical organization of the male organism." Even this development tends toward simplification, the origin of dull-black colors.
This most interesting question brings Eimer into conflict with another Darwinian principle, the so-called principle of "s.e.xual election,"
according to which the more striking characteristics of the male s.e.x become strengthened for the reason that females invariably give the preference to the males endowed with them, over those that are less "attractive." These exceedingly romantic ideas have been often and deservedly repudiated, e.g., even by Wallace only a short time after their first appearance. Eimer really does them too much honor when he again undertakes, even with a certain amount of respect, a thorough refutation of them, "as in every regard unfounded." It is of primary importance to note here, that in the case of dimorphism of the s.e.xes abrupt modifications occur in connection with unilateral heredity. "It is impossible for s.e.xual selection to produce a change of design and color, which results in the sudden kaleidoscopic formation of wholly different designs, as we find actually taking place through the action of artificial heat and cold and other factors in nature."
This brings us to a brief consideration of the answer, which Eimer proposes to give to the question of the real causes of the formation of species among b.u.t.terflies. A precise and clear statement of this important part of Eimer"s theory of Descent, is contained in the following extracts: "The transformation of organisms is primarily conditioned by the action of immediate external influences on the organisms. The same causes, which produce individual growth, especially climate and nourishment, also produce the organic growth of organisms, that is, trans.m.u.tation, which is but a continuation in the progeny of individual growth, through the transmission of the characteristics acquired during the lifetime of the individual."
Hence, trans.m.u.tation is simply a physiological process, a phyletic growth.
"The changes, which the individual organism experiences during its life in its material, physiological and morphological organization, are in part transmitted to its progeny. The changes thus acquired become more marked from generation to generation, until finally they result in a perceptible new structure."
"In this process, new or changing external influences undoubtedly exercise great activity, but the same influences, constantly repeated, must in the course of time also produce a change in the organisms through the physiological activity, which is conditioned by them, so that after a long time elapses, a species will have changed even in an unvarying environment and will react on new influences in a manner quite different from their progenitors; their "const.i.tution" has undergone a change."
"This organic growth of living beings takes place regardless of the active use of the organs and in many cases remains independent of this (Lamarckian) factor of transformation. But use may exercise considerable influence on the formation resulting from the primitive organic growth, by modifying the growth, by restricting it to those parts most frequently called into use, or even by depriving other parts of the necessary matter (compensation)."
"The Lamarckian principle, therefore, offers but a possible and to transformation, the princ.i.p.al cause is to be found in organic growth."
"* * * The organic growth of b.u.t.terflies is primarily conditioned by climatic influences. * * * The proof is to be found in the facts revealed by the geographical distribution of b.u.t.terflies, by the variations corresponding to the seasons, and by experiments regarding the influence of artificial heat and cold on development."