The Foundations of the Origin of Species. Darwin Charles
Чтение книги онлайн.

Читать онлайн книгу The Foundations of the Origin of Species - Darwin Charles страница 11

Название: The Foundations of the Origin of Species

Автор: Darwin Charles

Издательство: Public Domain

Жанр: Зарубежная классика

Серия:

isbn:

isbn:

СКАЧАТЬ new species to spread and become modified into several species would favour some of the species being preserved: and if two of the species, considerably different, each gave rise to group of new species, you would have two genera; the same thing will go on. We may look at case in other way, looking to future. According to mere chance every existing species may generate another, but if any species, A, in changing gets an advantage and that advantage (whatever it may be, intellect, &c., &c., or some particular structure or constitution) is inherited140, A will be the progenitor of several genera or even families in the hard struggle of nature. A will go on beating out other forms, it might come that A would people earth, – we may now not have one descendant on our globe of the one or several original creations141. External conditions air, earth, water being same142 on globe, and the communication not being perfect, organisms of widely different descent might become adapted to the same end and then we should have cases of analogy143, [they might even tend to become numerically representative]. From this often happening each of the great divisions of nature would have their representative eminently adapted to earth, to «air»144, to water, and to these in «illegible» and then these great divisions would show numerical relations in their classification.

      § VIII. Unity [or similarity] of type in the great classes

      Nothing more wonderful in Nat. Hist. than looking at the vast number of organisms, recent and fossil, exposed to the most diverse conditions, living in the most distant climes, and at immensely remote periods, fitted to wholely different ends, yet to find large groups united by a similar type of structure. When we for instance see bat, horse, porpoise-fin, hand, all built on same structure145, having bones146 with same name, we see there is some deep bond of union between them147, to illustrate this is the foundation and objects «?» «of» what is called the Natural System; and which is foundation of distinction «?» of true and adaptive characters148. Now this wonderful fact of hand, hoof, wing, paddle and claw being the same, is at once explicable on the principle of some parent-forms, which might either be «illegible» or walking animals, becoming through infinite number of small selections adapted to various conditions. We know that proportion, size, shape of bones and their accompanying soft parts vary, and hence constant selection would alter, to almost any purpose «?» the framework of an organism, but yet would leave a general, even closest similarity in it.

      [We know the number of similar parts, as vertebræ and ribs can vary, hence this also we might expect.] Also «if» the changes carried on to a certain point, doubtless type will be lost, and this is case with Plesiosaurus149. The unity of type in past and present ages of certain great divisions thus undoubtedly receives the simplest explanation.

      There is another class of allied and almost identical facts, admitted by the soberest physiologists, [from the study of a certain set of organs in a group of organisms] and refers «? referring» to a unity of type of different organs in the same individual, denominated the science of “Morphology.” The «? this» discovered by beautiful and regular series, and in the case of plants from monstrous changes, that certain organs in an individual are other organs metamorphosed. Thus every botanist considers petals, nectaries, stamens, pistils, germen as metamorphosed leaf. They thus explain, in the most lucid manner, the position and number of all parts of the flower, and the curious conversion under cultivation of one part into another. The complicated double set of jaws and palpi of crustaceans150, and all insects are considered as metamorphosed «limbs» and to see the series is to admit this phraseology. The skulls of the vertebrates are undoubtedly composed of three metamorphosed vertebræ; thus we can understand the strange form of the separate bones which compose the casket holding man’s brain. These151 facts differ but slightly from those of last section, if with wing, paddle, hand and hoof, some common structure was yet visible, or could be made out by a series of occasional monstrous conversions, and if traces could be discovered of «the» whole having once existed as walking or swimming instruments, these organs would be said to be metamorphosed, as it is they are only said to exhibit a common type.

      This distinction is not drawn by physiologists, and is only implied by some by their general manner of writing. These facts, though affecting every organic being on the face of the globe, which has existed, or does exist, can only be viewed by the Creationist as ultimate and inexplicable facts. But this unity of type through the individuals of a group, and this metamorphosis of the same organ into other organs, adapted to diverse use, necessarily follows on the theory of descent152. For let us take case of Vertebrata, which if153 they descended from one parent and by this theory all the Vertebrata have been altered by slow degrees, such as we see in domestic animals. We know that proportions alter, and even that occasionally numbers of vertebræ alter, that parts become soldered, that parts are lost, as tail and toes, but we know «that?» here we can see that possibly a walking organ might «?» be converted into swimming or into a gliding organ and so on to a flying organ. But such gradual changes would not alter the unity of type in their descendants, as parts lost and soldered and vertebræ. But we can see that if this carried to extreme, unity lost, – Plesiosaurus. Here we have seen the same organ is formed «?» «for» different purposes «ten words illegible»: and if, in several orders of vertebrata, we could trace origin «of» spinous processes and monstrosities &c. we should say, instead of there existing a unity of type, morphology154, as we do when we trace the head as being the vertebræ metamorphosed. Be it observed that Naturalists, as they use terms of affinity without attaching real meaning, here also they are obliged to use metamorphosis, without meaning that any parent of crustacean was really an animal with as many legs as crustacean has jaws. The theory of descent at once explains these wonderful facts.

      Now few of the physiologists who use this language really suppose that the parent of insect with the metamorphosed jaw, was an insect with [more] so many legs, or that the parent of flowering plants, originally had no stamens, or pistils or petals, but some other means of propagation, – and so in other cases. Now according to our theory during the infinite number of changes, we might expect that an organ used for a purpose might be used for a different one by his descendant, as must have been the case by our theory with the bat, porpoise, horse, &c., which are descended from one parent. And if it so chanced that traces of the former use and structure of the part should be retained, which is manifestly possible if not probable, then we should have the organs, on which morphology is founded and which instead of being metaphorical becomes plain and «and instead of being» utterly unintelligible becomes simple matter of fact155.

      «Embryology.» This general unity of type in great groups of organisms (including of course these morphological cases) displays itself in a most striking manner in the stages through which the fœtus passes156. In early stage, the wing of bat, hoof, hand, paddle are not to be distinguished. At a still earlier «stage» there is no difference between fish, bird, &c. &c. and mammal. It is not that they cannot be distinguished, but the arteries157 «illegible». It is not true that one passes through the form of a lower group, though no doubt fish more nearly related to fœtal state158.

      This similarity at the earliest stage is remarkably shown in the course of the arteries which become greatly altered, as fœtus advances in life and assumes the widely different course and number which characterize full-grown fish СКАЧАТЬ



<p>140</p>

«The exact position of the following passage is uncertain:» “just as it is not likely every present breed of fancy birds and cattle will propagate, only some of the best.”

<p>141</p>

This suggests that the author was not far from the principle of divergence on which he afterwards laid so much stress. See Origin, Ed. i. p. 111, vi. p. 134, also Life and Letters, i. p. 84.

<p>142</p>

That is to say the same conditions occurring in different parts of the globe.

<p>143</p>

The position of the following is uncertain, “greyhound and racehorse have an analogy to each other.” The same comparison occurs in the Origin, Ed. i. p. 427, vi. p. 583.

<p>144</p>

Air is evidently intended; in the MS. water is written twice.

<p>145</p>

Written between the lines occurs: – “extend to birds and other classes.”

<p>146</p>

Written between the lines occurs: – “many bones merely represented.”

<p>147</p>

In the Origin, Ed. i. p. 434, vi. p. 595, the term morphology is taken as including unity of type. The paddle of the porpoise and the wing of the bat are there used as instances of morphological resemblance.

<p>148</p>

The sentence is difficult to decipher.

<p>149</p>

In the Origin, Ed. i. p. 436, vi. p. 598, the author speaks of the “general pattern” being obscured in the paddles of “extinct gigantic sea-lizards.”

<p>150</p>

See Origin, Ed. i. p. 437, vi. p. 599.

<p>151</p>

The following passage seems to have been meant to precede the sentence beginning “These facts”: – “It is evident, that when in each individual species, organs are metamorph. a unity of type extends.”

<p>152</p>

This is, I believe, the first place in which the author uses the words “theory of descent.”

<p>153</p>

The sentence should probably run, “Let us take the case of the vertebrata: if we assume them to be descended from one parent, then by this theory they have been altered &c.”

<p>154</p>

That is “we should call it a morphological fact.”

<p>155</p>

In the Origin, Ed. i. p. 438, vi. p. 602, the author, referring to the expressions used by naturalists in regard to morphology and metamorphosis, says “On my view these terms may be used literally.”

<p>156</p>

See Origin, Ed. i. p. 439, vi. p. 605.

<p>157</p>

In the Origin, Ed. i. p. 440, vi. p. 606, the author argues that the “loop-like course of the arteries” in the vertebrate embryo has no direct relation to the conditions of existence.

<p>158</p>

The following passages are written across the page: – “They pass through the same phases, but some, generally called the higher groups, are further metamorphosed.

? Degradation and complication? no tendency to perfection.

? Justly argued against Lamarck?”