STUDIES IN THE THEORY OF DESCENT.
Part I.
ON THE SEASONAL DIMORPHISM OF BUTTERFLIES.
I.
The Origin and Significance of Seasonal Dimorphism.
The phenomena here about to be subjected to a closer investigation have been known for a long period of time. About the year 1830 it was shown that the two forms of a butterfly (Araschnia) which had till that time been regarded as distinct, in spite of their different colouring and marking really belonged to the same species, the two forms of this dimorphic species not appearing simultaneously but at different seasons of the year, the one in early spring, the other in summer. To this phenomenon the term “seasonal dimorphism” was subsequently applied by Mr. A. R. Wallace, an expression of which the heterogeneous composition may arouse the horror of the philologist, but, as it is as concise and intelligible as possible, I propose to retain it in the present work.
The species of Araschnia through which the discovery of seasonal dimorphism was made, formerly bore the two specific names A. Levana and A. Prorsa. The latter is the summer and the former the winter form, the difference between the two being, to the uninitiated, so great that it is difficult to believe in their relationship. A. Levana (Figs. 1 and 2, [Plate I].) is of a golden brown colour with black spots and dashes, while A. Prorsa (Figs. 5 and 6, [Plate I].) is deep black with a broad white interrupted band across both wings. Notwithstanding this difference, it is an undoubted fact that both forms are merely the winter and summer generations of the same species. I have myself frequently bred the variety Prorsa from the eggs of Levana, and vice versâ.
Since the discovery of this last fact a considerable number of similar cases have been established. Thus P. C. Zeller[3] showed, by experiments made under confinement, that two butterflies belonging to the family of the ‘Blues,’ differing greatly in colour and marking, and especially in size, which had formerly been distinguished as Plebeius (Lycæna) Polysperchon and P. Amyntas, were merely winter and summer generations of the same species; and that excellent Lepidopterist, Dr. Staudinger, proved the same[4] with species belonging to the family of the ‘Whites,’ Euchloe Belia Esp. and E. Ausonia Hüb., which are found in the Mediterranean countries.
The instances are not numerous, however, in which the difference between the winter and summer forms of a species is so great as to cause them to be treated of in systematic work as distinct species. I know of only five of these cases. Lesser differences, having the systematic value of varieties, occur much more frequently. Thus, for instance, seasonal dimorphism has been proved to exist among many of our commonest butterflies belonging to the family of the ‘Whites,’ but the difference in their colour and marking can only be detected after some attention; while with other species, as for instance with the commonest of our small ‘Blues,’ Plebeius Alexis (= Icarus, Rott.), the difference is so slight that even the initiated must examine closely in order to recognize it. Indeed whole series of species might easily be grouped so as to show the transition from complete similarity of both generations, through scarcely perceptible differences, to divergence to the extent of varieties, and finally to that of species.
Nor are the instances of lesser differences between the two generations very numerous. Among the European diurnal Lepidoptera I know of about twelve cases, although closer observation in this direction may possibly lead to further discoveries.[5] Seasonal dimorphism occurs also in moths, although I am not in a position to make a more precise statement on this subject,[6] as my own observations refer only to butterflies.
That other orders of insects do not present the same phenomenon depends essentially upon the fact that most of them produce only one generation in the year; but amongst the remaining orders there occur indeed changes of form which, although not capable of being regarded as pure seasonal dimorphism, may well have been produced in part by the same causes, as the subsequent investigation on the relation of seasonal dimorphism to alternation of generation and heterogenesis will more fully prove.
Now what are these causes?
Some years ago, when I imparted to a lepidopterist my intention of investigating the origin of this enigmatical dimorphism, in the hope of profiting for my inquiry from his large experience, I received the half-provoking reply: “But there is nothing to investigate: it is simply the specific character of this insect to appear in two forms; these two forms alternate with each other in regular succession according to a fixed law of Nature, and with this we must be satisfied.” From his point of view the position was right; according to the old doctrine of species no question ought to be asked as to the causes of such phenomena in particular. I would not, however, allow myself to be thus discouraged, but undertook a series of investigations, the results of which I here submit to the reader.
The first conjecture was, that the differences in the imago might perhaps be of a secondary nature, and have their origin in the differences of the caterpillar, especially with those species which grow up during the spring or autumn and feed on different plants, thus assimilating different chemical substances, which might induce different deposits of colour in the wings of the perfect insect. This latter hypothesis was readily confuted by the fact, that the most strongly marked of the dimorphic species, A. Levana, fed exclusively on Urtica major. The caterpillar of this species certainly exhibits a well-defined dimorphism, but it is not seasonal dimorphism: the two forms do not alternate with each other, but appear mixed in every brood.
I have repeatedly reared the rarer golden-brown variety of the caterpillar separately, but precisely the same forms of butterfly were developed as from black caterpillars bred at the same time under similar external conditions. The same experiment was performed, with a similar result, in the last century by Rösel, the celebrated miniature painter and observer of nature, and author of the well-known “Insect Diversions”—a work in use up to the present day.
The question next arises, as to whether the causes originating the phenomena are not the same as those to which we ascribe the change of winter and summer covering in so many mammalia and birds—whether the change of colour and marking does not depend, in this as in the other cases, upon the indirect action of external conditions of life, i.e., on adaptation through natural selection. We are certainly correct in ascribing white coloration to adaptation[7]—as with the ptarmigan, which is white in winter and of a grey-brown in summer, both colours of the species being evidently of important use.
It might be imagined that analogous phenomena occur in butterflies, with the difference that the change of colour, instead of taking place in the same brood, alternates in different broods.[8] The nature of the difference which occurs in seasonal dimorphism, however, decidedly excludes this view; and moreover, the environment of butterflies presents such similar features, whether they emerge in spring or in summer, that all notions that we may be dealing with adaptational colours must be entirely abandoned.
I have elsewhere[9] endeavoured to show that butterflies in general are not coloured protectively during flight, for the double reason that the colour of the background to which they are exposed continually changes, and because, even with the best adaptation to the background, the fluttering motion of the wings would betray them to the eyes of their enemies.[10] I attempted also to prove at the same time that the diurnal Lepidoptera of our temperate zone have few enemies which pursue them when on the wing, but that they are subject to many attacks during their period of repose.
In support of this last statement I may here adduce an instance. In the summer of 1869 I placed about seventy specimens of Araschnia Prorsa in a spacious case, plentifully supplied with flowers. Although the insects found themselves quite at home, and settled about the flowers in very fine weather (one pair copulated, and the female laid eggs), yet I found some dead and mangled every morning. This decimation continued—many disappearing entirely without my being able to find their remains—until after the ninth day, when they had all, with one exception, been slain by their nocturnal foes—probably spiders and Opilionidæ.
Diurnal Lepidoptera in a position of rest are especially exposed to hostile attacks. In this position, as is well known, their wings are closed upright, and it is evident that the adaptational colours on the under side are displayed, as is most clearly shown by many of our native species.[11]
Now, the differences in the most pronounced cases of seasonal dimorphism—for example, in Araschnia Levana—are much less manifest on the under than on the upper side of the wing. The explanation by adaptation is therefore untenable; but I will not here pause to confute this view more completely, as I believe I shall be able to show the true cause of the phenomenon.
If seasonal dimorphism does not arise from the indirect influence of varying seasons of the year, it may result from the direct influence of the varying external conditions of life, which are, without doubt, different in the winter from those of the summer brood.
There are two prominent factors from which such an influence may be expected—temperature and duration of development, i.e., duration of the chrysalis period. The duration of the larval period need not engage our attention, as it is only very little shorter in the winter brood—at least, it was so with the species employed in the experiments.
Starting from these two points of view, I carried on experiments for a number of years, in order to find out whether the dual form of the species in question could be traced back to the direct action of the influences mentioned.
The first experiments were made with Araschnia Levana. From the eggs of the winter generation, which had emerged as butterflies in April, I bred caterpillars, and immediately after pupation placed them in a refrigerator, the temperature of the air of which was 8°-10° R. It appeared, however, that the development could not thus be retarded to any desired period by such a small diminution of temperature, for, when the box was taken out of the refrigerator after thirty-four days, all the butterflies, about forty in number, had emerged, many being dead, and others still living. The experiment was so far successful that, instead of the Prorsa form which might have been expected under ordinary circumstances, most of the butterflies emerged as the so-called Porima (Figs. 3, 4, 7, 8, and 9, [Plate I].); that is to say, in a form intermediate between Prorsa and Levana sometimes found in nature, and possessing more or less the marking of the former, but mixed with much of the yellow of Levana.
It should be here mentioned, that similar experiments were made in 1864 by George Dorfmeister, but unfortunately I did not get this information[12] until my own were nearly completed. In these well-conceived, but rather too complicated experiments, the author arrives at the conclusion “that temperature certainly affects the colouring, and through it the marking, of the future butterfly, and chiefly so during pupation.” By lowering the temperature of the air during a portion of the pupal period, the author was enabled to produce single specimens of Porima, but most of the butterflies retained the Prorsa form. Dorfmeister employed a temperature a little higher than I did in my first experiments, viz. 10°-11° R., and did not leave the pupæ long exposed, but after 5½-8 days removed them to a higher temperature. It was therefore evident that he produced transition forms in a few instances only, and that he never succeeded in bringing about a complete transformation of the summer into the winter form.
In my subsequent experiments I always exposed the pupæ to a temperature of 0°-1° R.; they were placed directly in the refrigerator, and taken out at the end of four weeks. I started with the idea that it was perhaps not so much the reduced temperature as the retardation of development which led to the transformation. But the first experiment had shown that the butterflies emerged between 8° and 10° R., and consequently that the development could not be retarded at this temperature.
A very different result was obtained from the experiment made at a lower temperature.[13] Of twenty butterflies, fifteen had become transformed into Porima, and of these three appeared very similar to the winter form (Levana), differing only in the absence of the narrow blue marginal line, which is seldom absent in the true Levana. Five butterflies were uninfluenced by the cold, and remained unchanged, emerging as the ordinary summer form (Prorsa). It thus appeared from this experiment, that a large proportion of the butterflies inclined to the Levana form by exposure to a temperature of 0°-1° R. for four weeks, while in a few specimens the transformation into this form was nearly perfect.
Should it not be possible to perfect the transformation, so that each individual should take the Levana form? If the assumption of the Prorsa or Levana form depends only on the direct influence of temperature, or on the duration of the period of development, it should be possible to compel the pupæ to take one or the other form at pleasure, by the application of the necessary external conditions. This has never been accomplished with Araschnia Prorsa. As in the experiment already described, and in all subsequent ones, single specimens appeared as the unchanged summer form, others showed an appearance of transition, and but very few had changed so completely as to be possibly taken for the pure Levana. In some species of the sub-family Pierinæ, however, at least in the case of the summer brood, there was, on the contrary, a complete transformation.
Most of the species of our ‘Whites’ (Pierinæ) exhibit the phenomenon of seasonal dimorphism, the winter and summer forms being remarkably distinct. In Pieris Napi (with which species I chiefly experimented) the winter form (Figs. 10 and 11, [Plate I].) has a sprinkling of deep black scales at the base of the wings on the upper side, while the tips are more grey, and have in all cases much less black than in the summer form; on the underside the difference lies mainly in the frequent breadth, and dark greenish-black dusting, of the veins of the hind wings in the winter form, while in the summer form these greenish-black veins are but faintly present.
I placed numerous specimens of the summer brood, immediately after their transformation into chrysalides, in the refrigerator (0°-1° R.), where I left them for three months, transferring them to a hothouse on September 11th, and there (from September 26th to October 3rd) sixty butterflies emerged, the whole of which, without exception—and most of them in an unusually strong degree—bore the characters of the winter form. I, at least, have never observed in the natural state such a strong yellow on the underside of the hind wings, and such a deep blackish-green veining, as prevailed in these specimens (see, for instance, [Figs. 10 and 11]). The temperature of the hothouse (12°-24° R.) did not, however, cause the emergence of the whole of the pupæ; a portion hibernated, and produced in the following spring butterflies of the winter form only. I thus succeeded, with this species of Pieris, in completely changing every individual of the summer generation into the winter form.
It might be expected that the same result could be more readily obtained with A. Levana, and fresh experiments were undertaken, in order that the pupæ might remain in the refrigerator fully two months from the period of their transformation (9–10th July). But the result obtained was the same as before—fifty-seven butterflies emerged in the hothouse[14] from September 19th to October 4th, nearly all of these approaching very near to the winter form, without a single specimen presenting the appearance of a perfect Levana, while three were of the pure summer form (Prorsa).
Thus with Levana it was not possible, by refrigeration and retardation of development, to change the summer completely into the winter form in all specimens. It may, of course, be objected that the period of refrigeration had been too short, and that, instead of leaving the pupæ in the refrigerator for two months, they should have remained there six months, that is, about as long as the winter brood remains under natural conditions in the chrysalis state. The force of this last objection must be recognized, notwithstanding the improbability that the desired effect would be produced by a longer period of cold, since the doubling of this period from four to eight weeks did not produce[15] any decided increase in the strength of the transformation. I should not have omitted to repeat the experiment in this modified form, but unfortunately, in spite of all trouble, I was unable to collect during the summer of 1873 a sufficient number of caterpillars. But the omission thus caused is of quite minor importance from a theoretical point of view.
For let us assume that the omitted experiment had been performed—that pupæ of the summer brood were retarded in their development by cold until the following spring, and that every specimen then emerged in the perfect winter form, Levana. Such a result, taken in connexion with the corresponding experiment upon Pieris Napi, would warrant the conclusion that the direct action of a certain amount of cold (or of retardation of development) is able to compel all pupæ, from whichever generation derived, to assume the winter form of the species. From this the converse would necessarily follow, viz. that a certain amount of warmth would lead to the production of the summer form, Prorsa, it being immaterial from which brood the pupæ thus exposed to warmth might be derived. But the latter conclusion was proved experimentally to be incorrect, and thus the former falls with it, whether the imagined experiment with Prorsa had succeeded or not.
I have repeatedly attempted by the application of warmth to change the winter into the summer form, but always with the same negative result. It is not possible to compel the winter brood to assume the form of the summer generation.
A. Levana may produce not only two but three broods in the year, and may, therefore, be said to be polygoneutic.[16] One winter brood alternates with two summer broods, the first of which appears in July, and the second in August. The latter furnishes a fourth generation of pupæ, which, after hibernation, emerge in April, as the first brood of butterflies in the form Levana.
I frequently placed pupæ of this fourth brood in the hothouse immediately after their transformation, and in some cases even during the caterpillar stage, the temperature never falling, even at night, below 12° R., and often rising during the day to 24° R. The result was always the same: all, or nearly all, the pupæ hibernated, and emerged the following year in the winter form as perfectly pure Levana, without any trace of transition to the Prorsa form. On one occasion only was there a Porima among them, a case for which an explanation will, I believe, be found later on. It often happened, on the other hand, that some few of the butterflies emerged in the autumn, about fourteen days after pupation; and these were always Prorsa (the summer form), excepting once a Porima.
From these experiments it appeared that similar causes (heat) affect different generations of A. Levana in different manners. With both summer broods a high temperature always caused the appearance of Prorsa, this form arising but seldom from the third brood (and then only in a few individuals), while the greater number retained the Levana form unchanged. We may assign as the reason for this behaviour, that the third brood has no further tendency to be accelerated in its development by the action of heat, but that by a longer duration of the pupal stage the Levana form must result. On one occasion the chrysalis stage was considerably shortened in this brood by the continued action of a high temperature, many specimens thus having their period of development reduced from six to three months. The supposed explanation above given is, however, in reality no explanation at all, but simply a restatement of the facts. The question still remains, why the third brood in particular has no tendency to be accelerated in its development by the action of heat, as is the case with both the previous broods?
The first answer that can be given to this question is, that the cause of the different action produced by a similar agency can only lie in the constitution, i.e., in the physical nature of the broods in question, and not in the external influences by which they are acted upon. Now, what is the difference in the physical nature of these respective broods? It is quite evident, as shown by the experiments already described, that cold and warmth cannot be the immediate causes of a pupa emerging in the Prorsa or Levana form, since the last brood always gives rise to the Levana form, whether acted on by cold or warmth. The first and second broods only can be made to partly assume, more or less completely, the Levana form by the application of cold. In these broods then, a low temperature is the mediate cause of the transformation into the Levana form.
The following is my explanation of the facts. The form Levana is the original type of the species, and Prorsa the secondary form arising from the gradual operation of summer climate. When we are able to change many specimens of the summer brood into the winter form by means of cold, this can only depend upon reversion to the original, or ancestral, form, which reversion appears to be most readily produced by cold, that is, by the same external influences as those to which the original form was exposed during a long period of time, and the continuance of which has preserved, in the winter generations, the colour and marking of the original form down to the present time.
I consider the origination of the Prorsa from the Levana form to have been somewhat as follows:—It is certain that during the diluvial period in Europe there was a so-called ‘glacial epoch,’ which may have spread a truly polar climate over our temperate zone; or perhaps a lesser degree of cold may have prevailed with increased atmospheric precipitation. At all events, the summer was then short and comparatively cold, and the existing butterflies could have only produced one generation in the year; in other words, they were monogoneutic. At that time A. Levana existed only in the Levana form.[17] As the climate gradually became warmer, a period must have arrived when the summer lasted long enough for the interpolation of a second brood. The pupæ of Levana, which had hitherto hibernated through the long winter to appear as butterflies in the following summer, were now able to appear on the wing as butterflies during the same summer as that in which they left their eggs as larvæ, and eggs deposited by the last brood produced larvæ which fed up and hibernated as pupæ. A state of things was thus established in which the first brood was developed under very different climatic conditions from the second. So considerable a difference in colour and marking between the two forms as we now witness could not have arisen suddenly, but must have done so gradually. It is evident from the foregoing experiments that the Prorsa form did not originate suddenly. Had this been the case it would simply signify that every individual of this species possessed the faculty of assuming two different forms according as it was acted on by warmth or cold, just in the same manner as litmus-paper becomes red in acids and blue in alkalies. The experiments have shown, however, that this is not the case, but rather that the last generation bears an ineradicable tendency to take the Levana form, and is not susceptible to the influence of warmth, however long continued; while both summer generations, on the contrary, show a decided tendency to assume the Prorsa form, although they certainly can be made to assume the Levana form in different degrees by the prolonged action of cold.
The conclusion seems to me inevitable, that the origination of the Prorsa form was gradual—that those changes which originated in the chemistry of the pupal stage, and led finally to the Prorsa type, occurred very gradually, at first perhaps remaining completely latent throughout a series of generations, then very slight changes of marking appearing, and finally, after a long period of time, the complete Prorsa type was produced. It appears to me that the quoted results of the experiments are not only easily explained on the view of the gradual action of climate, but that this view is the only one admissible. The action of climate is best comparable with the so-called cumulative effect of certain drugs on the human body; the first small dose produces scarcely any perceptible change, but if often repeated the effect becomes cumulative, and poisoning occurs.
This view of the action of climate is not at all new, most zoologists having thus represented it; only the formal proof of this action is new, and the facts investigated appear to me of special importance as furnishing this proof. I shall again return to this view in considering climatic varieties, and it will then appear that also the nature of the transformation itself confirms the slow operation of climate.
During the transition from the glacial period to the present climate A. Levana thus gradually changed from a monogoneutic to a digoneutic species, and at the same time became gradually more distinctly dimorphic, this character originating only through the alteration of the summer brood, the primary colouring and marking of the species being retained unchanged by the winter brood. As the summer became longer a third generation could be interpolated—the species became polygoneutic; and in this manner two summer generations alternated with one winter generation.
We have now to inquire whether facts are in complete accordance with this theory—whether they are never at variance with it—and whether they can all be explained by it. I will at once state in anticipation, that this is the case to the fullest extent.
In the first place, the theory readily explains why the summer but not the winter generations are capable of being transformed; the latter cannot possibly revert to the Prorsa form, because this is much the younger. When, however, it happens that out of a hundred cases there occurs one in which a chrysalis of the winter generation, having been forced by warmth, undergoes transformation before the commencement of winter, and emerges in the summer form,[18] this is not in the least inexplicable. It cannot be atavism which determines the direction of the development; but we see from such a case that the changes in the first two generations have already produced a certain alteration in the third, which manifests itself in single cases under favourable conditions (the influence of warmth) by the assumption of the Prorsa form; or, as it might be otherwise expressed, the alternating heredity (of which we shall speak further), which implies the power of assuming the Prorsa form, remains latent as a rule in the winter generation, but becomes continuous in single individuals.
It is true that we have as yet no kind of insight into the nature of heredity, and this at once shows the defectiveness of the foregoing explanation; but we nevertheless know many of its external phenomena. We know for certain that one of these consists in the fact that peculiarities of the father do not appear in the son, but in the grandson, or still further on, and that they may be thus transmitted in a latent form. Let us imagine a character so transmitted that it appears in the first, third, and fifth generations, remaining latent in the intermediate ones; it would not be improbable, according to previous experiences, that the peculiarity should exceptionally, i.e., from a cause unknown to us, appear in single individuals of the second or fourth generation. But this completely agrees with those cases in which “exceptional” individuals of the winter brood took the Prorsa form, with the difference only that a cause (warmth) was here apparent which occasioned the development of the latent characters, although we are not in a position to say in what manner heat produces this action. These exceptions to the rule are therefore no objection to the theory. On the contrary, they give us a hint that after one Prorsa generation had been produced, the gradual interpolation of a second Prorsa generation may have been facilitated by the existence of the first. I do not doubt that even in the natural state single individuals of Prorsa sometimes emerge in September or October; and if our summer were lengthened by only one or two months this might give rise to a third summer brood (just as a second is now an accomplished fact), under which circumstances they would not only emerge, but would also have time for copulation and for depositing eggs, the larvæ from which would have time to grow up.
A sharp distinction must be made between the first establishment of a new climatic form and the transference of the latter to newly interpolated generations. The former always takes place very slowly; the latter may occur in a shorter time.
With regard to the duration of time which is necessary to produce a new form by the influence of climate, or to transmit to a succeeding generation a new form already established, great differences occur, according to the physical nature of the species and of the individual. The experiments with Prorsa already described show how diverse are individual proclivities in this respect. In Experiment No. 12 it was not possible out of seventy individuals to substitute Prorsa for the Levana form, even in one solitary case, or, in other words, to change alternating into continuous inheritance; whilst in the corresponding experiments of former years (Experiment 10, for example), out of an equal number of pupæ three emerged as Prorsa, and one as Porima. We might be inclined to seek for the cause of this different behaviour in external influences, but we should not thus arrive at an explanation of the facts. We might suppose, for instance, that a great deal depended upon the particular period of the pupal stage at which the action of the elevated temperature began—whether on the first, the thirtieth, or the hundredth day after pupation—and this conjecture is correct in so far that in the two last cases warmth can have no further influence than that of somewhat accelerating the emergence of the butterflies, but cannot change the Levana into the Prorsa form. I have repeatedly exposed a large number of Levana pupæ of the third generation to the temperature of an apartment, or even still higher (26° R.), during winter, but no Prorsa were obtained.[19]
But it would be erroneous to assume a difference in the action of heat according as it began on the first or third day after transformation; whether during or before pupation. This is best proved by Experiment No. 12, in which caterpillars of the fourth generation were placed in the hothouse several days before they underwent pupation; still, not a single butterfly assumed the Prorsa form. I have also frequently made the reverse experiment, and exposed caterpillars of the first summer brood to cold during the act of pupation. A regular consequence was the dying off of the caterpillars, which is little to be wondered at, as the sensitiveness of insects during ecdysis is well known, and transformation into the pupal state is attended by much deeper changes.
Dorfmeister thought that he might conclude from his experiments that temperature exerts the greatest influence in the first place during the act of pupation, and in the next place immediately after that period. His experiments were made, however, with such a small number of specimens that scarcely any safe conclusion can be founded on them; still, this conclusion may be correct, in so far as everything depends on whether, from the beginning, the formative processes in the pupa tended to this or that direction, the final result of which is the Prorsa or Levana form. If once there is a tendency to one or the other direction, then temperature might exert an accelerating or a retarding influence, but the tendency cannot be further changed.
It is also possible—indeed, probable—that a period may be fixed in which warmth or cold might be able to divert the original direction of development most easily; and this is the next problem to be attacked, the answer to which, now that the main points have been determined, should not be very difficult. I have often contemplated taking the experiments in hand myself, but have abandoned them, because my materials did not appear to me sufficiently extensive, and in all such experiments nothing is to be more avoided than a frittering away of experimental materials by a too complicated form of problem.
There may indeed be a period most favourable for the action of temperature during the first days of the pupal stage; it appears from Experiment No. 12 that individuals tend in different degrees to respond to such influences, and that the disposition to abandon the ordinary course of development is different in different individuals. In no other way can it be explained that, in all the experiments made with the first and second generations of Prorsa, only a portion of the pupæ were compelled by cold to take the direction of development of Levana, and that even from the former only a few individuals completely reverted, the majority remaining intermediate.
If it be asked why in the corresponding experiments with Pieris Napi complete reversion always occurred without exception, it may be supposed that in this species the summer form has not been so long in existence, and that it would thus be more easily abandoned; or, that the difference between the two generations has not become so distinct, which further signifies that here again the summer form is of later origin. It might also be finally answered, that the tendency to reversion in different species may vary just as much as in different individuals of the same species. But, in any case, the fact is established that all individuals are impelled by cold to complete reversion, and that in these experiments it does not depend so particularly upon the moment of development when cold is applied, but that differences of individual constitution are much more the cause why cold brings some pupæ to complete, and others to partial, reversion, while yet others are quite uninfluenced. In reference to this, the American Papilio Ajax is particularly interesting.
This butterfly, which is somewhat similar to the European P. Podalirius, appears, wherever it occurs, in three varieties, designated as var. Telamonides, var. Walshii, and var. Marcellus. The distinguished American entomologist, W. H. Edwards, has proved by breeding experiments, that all three forms belong to the same cycle of development, and in such a manner that the first two appear only in spring, and always come only from hibernating pupæ, while the last form, var. Marcellus, appears only in summer, and then in three successive generations. A seasonal dimorphism thus appears which is combined with ordinary dimorphism, winter and summer forms alternating with each other; but the first appears itself in two forms or varieties, vars. Telamonides and Walshii. If for the present we disregard this complication, and consider these two winter forms as one, we should thus have four generations, of which the first possesses the winter form, and the three succeeding ones have, on the other hand, the summer form, var. Marcellus.
The peculiarity of this species consists in the fact that in all three summer generations only a portion of the pupæ emerge after a short period (fourteen days), whilst another and much smaller portion remains in the pupal state during the whole summer and succeeding winter, first emerging in the following spring, and then always in the winter form. Thus, Edwards states that out of fifty chrysalides of the second generation, which had pupated at the end of June, forty-five Marcellus butterflies appeared after fourteen days, whilst five pupæ emerged in April of the following year, and then as Telamonides.
The explanation of these facts is easily afforded by the foregoing theory. According to this, both the winter forms must be regarded as primary, and the Marcellus form as secondary. But this last is not yet so firmly established as Prorsa, in which reversion of the summer generations to the Levana form only occurs through special external influences; whilst in the case of Ajax some individuals are to be found in every generation, the tendency of which to revert is still so strong that even the greatest summer heat is unable to cause them to diverge from their original inherited direction of development, or to accelerate their emergence and compel them to assume the Marcellus form. It is here beyond a doubt that it is not different external influences, but internal causes only, which maintain the old hereditary tendency, for all the larvæ and pupæ of many different broods were simultaneously exposed to the same external influences. But, at the same time, it is evident that these facts are not opposed to the present theory; on the contrary, they confirm it, inasmuch as they are readily explained on the basis of the theory, but can scarcely otherwise be understood.
If it be asked what significance attaches to the duplication of the winter form, it may be answered that the species was already dimorphic at the time when it appeared in only one annual generation. Still, this explanation may be objected to, since a dimorphism of this kind is not at present known, though indeed some species exhibit a sexual dimorphism,[20] in which one sex (as, for instance, the case of the female Papilio Turnus) appears in two forms of colouring, but not a dimorphism, as is here the case, displayed by both sexes.[21] Another suggestion, therefore, may perhaps be offered.
In A. Levana we saw that reversion occurred in very different degrees with different individuals, seldom attaining to the true Levana form, and generally only reaching the intermediate form known as Porima. Now it would, at all events, be astonishing if with P. Ajax the reversion were always complete, as it is precisely in this case that the tendency to individual reversion is so variable. I might, for this reason, suppose that one of the two winter forms, viz. the var. Walshii, is nothing else than an incomplete reversion-form, corresponding to Porima in the case of A. Levana. Then Telamonides only would be the original form of the butterfly, and this would agree with the fact that this variety appears later in the spring than Walshii. Experiments ought to be able to decide this.[22] The pupæ of the first three generations placed upon ice should give, for the greater part, the form Telamonides, for the lesser portion Walshii, and for only a few, or perhaps no individuals, the form Marcellus. This prediction is based on the view that the tendency to revert is on the whole great; that even with the first summer generation, which was the longest exposed to the summer climate, a portion of the pupæ, without artificial means, always emerged as Telamonides, and another portion as Marcellus. The latter will perhaps now become Walshii by the application of cold.
One would expect that the second and third generations would revert more easily, and in a larger percentage, than the first, because this latter first acquired the new Marcellus form; but the present experiments furnish no safe conclusion on this point. Thus, of the first summer generation only seven out of sixty-seven pupæ hibernated, and these gave Telamonides; while of the second generation forty out of seventy-six, and of the third generation twenty-nine out of forty-two pupæ hibernated. But to establish safer conclusions, a still larger number of experiments is necessary. According to the experience thus far gained, one might perhaps still be inclined to imagine that, with seasonal dimorphism, external influences operating on the individual might directly compel it to assume one or the other form. I long held this view myself, but it is, nevertheless, untenable. That cold does not produce the one kind of marking, and warmth the other, follows from the before-mentioned facts, viz. that in Papilio Ajax every generation produces both forms; and, further, in the case of A. Levana I have frequently reared the fourth (hibernating) generation entirely in a warm room, and yet I have always obtained the winter form. Still, one might be inclined not to make the temperature directly responsible, but rather the retardation or acceleration of development produced through the action of temperature. I confess that I for a long time believed that in this action I had found the true cause of seasonal dimorphism. Both with A. Levana and P. Napi the difference between the duration of the pupal period in the winter and summer forms is very great, lasting as a rule, in the summer generation of A. Levana, from seven to twelve days, and in the winter generation about two hundred days. In this last species the pupal state can certainly be shortened by keeping them at an elevated temperature; but I have, nevertheless, only in one case obtained two or three butterflies at the end of December from caterpillars that had pupated in September, these generally emerging in the course of February and March, and are to be seen on the wing in warm weather during the latter month. The greatest reduction of the pupal period still leaves for this stage more than 100 days.
From this last observation it follows that it is not the duration of development which, in individual cases, determines the form of the butterfly, and which consequently decides whether the winter or summer form shall emerge, but that, on the contrary, the duration of the pupal stage is dependent on the tendency which the forthcoming butterfly had taken in the chrysalis state. This can be well understood when we consider that the winter form must have had a long, and the summer form a short pupal period, during innumerable generations. In the former the habit of slow development must have been just as well established as that of rapid development in the latter; and we cannot be at all surprised if we do not see this habit abandoned by the winter form when the opportunity presents itself. But that it may be occasionally abandoned the more proves that the duration of the pupal development less determines the butterfly form than does the temperature directly, in individual cases.
Thus, for instance, Edwards explicitly states that, whereas the two winter forms of P. Ajax, viz. the vars. Walshii and Telamonides, generally appear only after a pupal period of 150 to 270 days, yet individual cases occur in which the pupal stage is no longer than in the summer form, viz. fourteen days.[23] A similar thing occurs with A. Levana, for, as already explained, not only may the development of the winter form be forced to a certain degree by artificial warmth, but the summer generation frequently produces reversion-forms without protraction of development. The intermediate reversion-form Porima was known long before it was thought possible that it could be produced artificially by the action of cold; it appears occasionally, although very rarely, at midsummer in the natural state.
If, then, my explanation of the phenomena is correct, the winter form is primary and the summer the secondary form, and those individuals which, naturally or artificially, assume the winter form must be considered as cases of atavism. The suggestion thus arises whether low temperature alone is competent to bring about this reversion, or whether other external influences are not also effective. Indeed, the latter appears to be the case. Besides purely internal causes, as previously pointed out in P. Ajax, warmth and mechanical motion appear to be able to bring about reversion.
That an unusually high temperature may cause reversion, I conclude from the following observation. In the summer of 1869 I bred the first summer brood of A. Levana; the caterpillars pupated during the second half of June, and from that time to their emergence, on 28th June–3rd July, great heat prevailed. Now, while the intermediate form Porima had hitherto been a great rarity, both in the free state and when bred, having never obtained it myself, for example, out of many hundreds of specimens, there were among the sixty or seventy butterflies that emerged from the above brood, some eight to ten examples of Porima. This is certainly not an exact experiment, but there seems to me a certain amount of probability that the high summer temperature in this case brought about reversion.
Neither for the second cause to which I have ascribed the power of producing reversion can I produce any absolute evidence, since the experimental solution of all these collateral questions would demand an endless amount of time. I am in possession of an observation, however, which makes it appear probable to me that continuous mechanical movement acts on the development of the pupæ in a similar manner to cold, that is, retarding them, and at the same time producing reversion. I had, in Freiburg, a large number of pupæ of the first summer brood of Pieris Napi, bred from eggs. I changed residence while many caterpillars were in course of transformation and travelled with the pupæ in this state seven hours by rail. Although this brood of P. Napi, under ordinary circumstances, always emerges in the summer, generally in July of the same year, as the summer form (var. Napeæ), yet out of these numerous pupæ I did not get a single butterfly during the year 1872. In winter I kept them in a warm room, and the first butterflies emerged in January, 1873, the remainder following in February, March, and April, and two females not until June. All appeared, however, as exquisite winter forms. The whole course of development was precisely as though cold had acted on the pupæ; and in fact, I could find no other cause for this quite exceptional deportment than the seven hours’ shaking to which the pupæ were exposed by the railway journey, immediately after or during their transformation.
It is obviously a fact of fundamental importance to the theory of seasonal dimorphism, that the summer form can be readily changed into the winter form, whilst the latter cannot be changed into the summer form. I have thus far only made experiments on this subject with A. Levana, but the same fact appears to me to obtain for P. Napi. I did not, however, operate upon the ordinary winter form of P. Napi, but chose for this experiment the variety Bryoniæ, well known to all entomologists. This is, to a certain extent, the potential winter form of P. Napi; the male (Fig. 14, [Plate I].) exactly resembles the ordinary winter form in the most minute detail, but the female is distinguished from Napi by a sprinkling of greyish brown scales over the whole of the upper side of the wings (Fig. 15, [Plate I].). This type, Bryoniæ, occurs in Polar regions as the only form of Napi, and is also found in the higher Alps, where it flies in secluded meadows as the only form, but in other localities, less isolated, mixed with the ordinary form of the species. In both regions Bryoniæ produces but one generation in the year, and must thus, according to my theory, be regarded as the parent-form of Pieris Napi.
If this hypothesis is correct—if the variety Bryoniæ is really the original form preserved from the glacial period in certain regions of the earth, whilst Napi in its winter form is the first secondary form gradually produced through a warm climate, then it would be impossible ever to breed the ordinary form Napi from pupæ of Bryoniæ by the action of warmth, since the form of the species now predominant must have come into existence only by a cumulative action exerted on numerous generations, and not per saltum.
The experiment was made in the following manner: In the first part of June I caught a female of Bryoniæ in a secluded Alpine valley, and placed her in a capacious breeding-cage, where she flew about among the flowers, and laid more than a hundred eggs on the ordinary cabbage. Although the caterpillars in the free state feed upon another plant unknown to me, they readily ate the cabbage, grew rapidly, and pupated at the end of July. I then brought the pupæ into a hothouse in which the temperature fluctuated between 12° and 24° R.; but, in spite of this high temperature, and—what is certainly of more special importance—notwithstanding the want of cooling at night, only one butterfly emerged the same summer, and that a male, which, from certain minute characteristic markings, could be safely identified as var. Bryoniæ. The other pupæ hibernated in the heated room, and produced, from the end of January to the beginning of June, 28 butterflies, all of which were exquisite Bryoniæ.
Experiment thus confirmed the view that Bryoniæ is the parent-form of Napi, and the description hitherto given by systematists ought therefore properly to be reversed. Pieris Bryoniæ should be elevated to the rank of a species, and the ordinary winter and summer forms should be designated as vars. Napi and Napeæ. Still I should not like to take it upon myself to increase the endless confusion in the synonomy of butterflies. In a certain sense, it is also quite correct to describe the form Bryoniæ as a climatic variety, for it is, in fact, established, if not produced, by climate, by which agency it is likewise preserved; only it is not a secondary, but the primary, climatic variety of Napi. In this sense most species might probably be described as climatic varieties, inasmuch as under the influence of another climate they would gradually acquire new characters, whilst, under the influence of the climate now prevailing in their habitats, they have, to a certain extent, acquired and preserved their present form.
The var. Bryoniæ is, however, of quite special interest, since it makes clear the relation which exists between climatic variation and seasonal dimorphism, as will be proved in the next section. The correctness of the present theory must first here be submitted to further proof.
It has been shown that the secondary forms of seasonally dimorphic butterflies do not all possess the tendency to revert in the same degree, but that this tendency rather varies with each individual. As the return to the primary form is synonymous with the relinquishing of the secondary, the greater tendency to revert is thus synonymous with the greater tendency to relinquish the secondary form, but this again is equivalent to a lesser stability of the latter; it must consequently be concluded that the individuals of a species are very differently influenced by climatic change, so that with some the new form must become sooner established than with others. From this a variability of the generation concerned must necessarily ensue, i.e., the individuals of the summer generation must differ more in colour and marking than is the case with those of the winter generation. If the theory is correct, the summer generations should be more variable than the winter generations—at least, so long as the greatest possible equalization of individual variations has not occurred through the continued action of warmth, combined with the constant crossing of individuals which have become changed in different degrees. Here also the theory is fully in accord with facts.
In A. Levana the Levana form is decidedly more constant than the Prorsa form. The first is, to a slight extent, sexually dimorphic, the female being light and the male dark-coloured. If we take into consideration this difference between the sexes, which also occurs to a still smaller extent in the Prorsa form, the foregoing statement will be found correct, viz. that the Levana form varies but little, and in all cases considerably less than the Prorsa form, in which the greatest differences occur in the yellow stripes and in the disappearance of the black spots on the white band of the hind wing, these black spots being persistent Levana markings. It is, in fact, difficult to find two perfectly similar individuals of the Prorsa form. It must, moreover, be considered that the Levana marking, being the more complicated, would the more readily show variation. Precisely the same thing occurs in Pieris Napi, in which also the var. Æstiva is considerably more variable than the var. Vernalis. From the behaviour of the var. Bryoniæ, on the other hand, which I regard as the parent-form, one might be tempted to raise an objection to the theory; for this form is well known to be extraordinarily variable in colour and marking, both in the Alps and Jura, where it is met with at the greatest altitudes. According to the theory, Bryoniæ should be less variable than the winter form of the lowlands, because it is the older, and should therefore be the more constant in its characters. It must not be forgotten, however, that the variability of a species may not only originate in the one familiar manner of unequal response of the individual to the action of varying exciting causes, but also by the crossing of two varieties separately established in adjacent districts and subsequently brought into contact. In the Alps and Jura the ordinary form of Napi swarms everywhere from the plains towards the habitats of Bryoniæ, so that a crossing of the two forms may occasionally, or even frequently, take place; and it is not astonishing if in some places (Meiringen, for example) a perfect series of intermediate forms between Napi and Bryoniæ is met with. That crossing is the cause of the great variability of Bryoniæ in the Alpine districts, is proved by the fact that in the Polar regions this form “is by no means so variable as in the Alps, but, judging from about forty to fifty Norwegian specimens, is rather constant.” My friend, Dr. Staudinger, who has twice spent the summer in Lapland, thus writes in reply to my question. A crossing with Napi cannot there take place, as this form is never met with, so that the ancient parent-form Bryoniæ has been able to preserve its original constancy. In this case also the facts thus accord with the requirements of the theory.
II.
Seasonal Dimorphism and Climatic Variation.
If, as I have attempted to show, seasonal dimorphism originates through the slow operation of a changed summer climate, then is this phenomenon nothing else than the splitting up of a species into two climatic varieties in the same district, and we may expect to find various connexions between ordinary simple climatic variation and seasonal dimorphism. Cases indeed occur in which seasonal dimorphism and climatic variation pass into each other, and are interwoven in such a manner that the insight into the origin and nature of seasonal dimorphism gained experimentally finds confirmation. Before I go more closely into this subject, however, it is necessary to come to an understanding as to the conception “climatic variation,” for this term is often very arbitrarily applied to quite dissimilar phenomena.
According to my view there should be a sharp distinction made between climatic and local varieties. The former should comprehend only such cases as originate through the direct action of climatic influences; while under the general designation of “local forms,” should be comprised all variations which have their origin in other causes—such, for example, as in the indirect action of the external conditions of life, or in circumstances which do not owe their present existence to climate and external conditions, but rather to those geological changes which produce isolation. Thus, for instance, ancient species elsewhere long extinct might be preserved in certain parts of the earth by the protecting influence of isolation, whilst others which immigrated in a state of variability might become transformed into local varieties in such regions through the action of ‘amixia,’[24] i.e. by not being allowed to cross with their companion forms existing in the other portions of their habitat. In single cases it may be difficult, or for the present impossible, to decide whether we have before us a climatic form, or a local form arising from other causes; but for this very reason we should be cautious in defining climatic variation.
The statement that climatic forms, in the true sense of the word, do exist is well known to me, and has been made unhesitatingly by all zoologists; indeed, a number of authentically observed facts might be produced, which prove that quite constant changes in a species may be brought about by the direct action of changed climatic conditions. With butterflies it is in many cases possible to separate pure climatic varieties from other local forms, inasmuch as we are dealing with only unimportant changes and not with those of biological value, so that natural selection may at the outset be excluded as the cause of the changes in question. Then again the sharply defined geographical distribution climatically governed, often furnishes evidence of transition forms in districts lying between two climatic extremes.
In the following attempt to make clear the relationship between simple climatic variation and seasonal dimorphism, I shall concern myself only with such undoubted climatic varieties. A case of this kind, in which the winter form of a seasonally dimorphic butterfly occurs in other habitats as the only form, i.e., as a climatic variety, has already been adduced in a former paragraph. I allude to the case of Pieris Napi, the winter form of which seasonally dimorphic species occurs in the temperate plains of Europe, whilst in Lapland and the Alps it is commonly found as a monomorphic climatic variety which is a higher development of the winter type, viz., the var. Bryoniæ.
Very analogous is the case of Euchloe Belia, a butterfly likewise belonging to the Pierinæ, which extends from the Mediterranean countries to the middle of France, and everywhere manifests a very sharply pronounced seasonal dimorphism. Its summer form was, until quite recently, described as a distinct species, E. Ausonia. Staudinger was the first to prove by breeding that the supposed two species were genetically related.[25] This species, in addition to being found in the countries named, occurs also at a little spot in the Alps in the neighbourhood of the Simplon Pass. Owing to the short summer of the Alpine climate the species has in this locality but one annual brood, which bears the characters of the winter form, modified in all cases by the coarser thickly scattered hairs of the body (peculiar to many Alpine butterflies,) and some other slight differences. The var. Simplonia is thus in the Alps a simple climatic variety, whilst in the plains of Spain and the South of France it appears as the winter form of a seasonally dimorphic species.
This Euchloe var. Simplonia obviously corresponds to the var. Bryoniæ of Pieris Napi, and it is highly probable that this form of E. Belia must likewise be regarded as the parent-form of the species surviving from the glacial epoch, although it cannot be asserted, as can be done in the case of Bryoniæ, that the type has undergone no change since that epoch, for Bryoniæ from Lapland is identical with the Alpine form,[26] whilst E. Simplonia does not appear to occur in Polar countries.
Very interesting also is the case of Polyommatus Phlæas, Linn., one of our commonest Lycænidæ, which has a very wide distribution, extending from Lapland to Spain and Sicily.[27] If we compare specimens of this beautiful copper-coloured butterfly from Lapland with those from Germany, no constant difference can be detected; the insect has, however, but one annual generation in Lapland, whilst in Germany it is double-brooded; but the winter and summer generations resemble each other completely, and specimens which had been caught in spring on the Ligurian coast were likewise similarly coloured to those from Sardinia. (Fig. 21, [Plate II].). According to these facts we might believe this species to be extraordinarily indifferent to climatic influence; but the South European summer generation differs to a not inconsiderable extent from the winter generation just mentioned, the brilliant coppery lustre being nearly covered with a thick sprinkling of black scales. ([Plate II]., Fig. 22.) The species has thus become seasonally dimorphic under the influence of the warm southern climate, although this is not the case in Germany where it also has two generations in the year.[28] No one who is acquainted only with the Sardinian summer form, and not with the winter form of that place, would hesitate to regard the former as a climatic variety of our P. Phlæas; or, conversely, the north German form as a climatic variety of the southern summer form—according as he accepts the one or the other as the primary form of the species.
Still more complex are the conditions in another species of Lycænidæ, Plebeius Agestis (= Alexis Scop.), which presents a double seasonal dimorphism. This butterfly appears in three forms; in Germany A and B alternate with each other as winter and summer forms, whilst in Italy B and C succeed each other as winter and summer forms. The form B thus occurs in both climates, appearing as the summer form in Germany and as the winter form in Italy. The German winter variety A, is entirely absent in Italy (as I know from numerous specimens which I have caught), whilst the Italian summer form, on the other hand, (var. Allous, Gerh.), does not occur in Germany. The distinctions between the three forms are sufficiently striking. The form A (Fig. 18, [Plate II].) is blackish-brown on the upper side, and has in the most strongly marked specimens only a trace of narrow red spots round the borders; whilst the form B (Fig. 19, [Plate II].) is ornamented with vivid red border spots; and C (Fig. 20, [Plate II].) is distinguished from B by the strong yellowish-brown of the under side. If we had before us only the German winter and the Italian summer forms, we should, without doubt, regard them as climatic varieties; but they are connected by the form B, interpolated in the course of the development of both, and the two extremes thus maintain the character of mere seasonal forms.
III.
Nature of the Causes producing Climatic Varieties.
It has been shown that the phenomenon of seasonal dimorphism has the same proximate cause as climatic variation, viz. change of climate, and that it must be regarded as identical in nature with climatic variation, being distinguished from ordinary, or, as I have designated it, simple (monomorphic) climatic variation by the fact that, besides the new form produced by change of climate, the old form continues to exist in genetic connexion with it, so that old and new forms alternate with each other according to the season.
Two further questions now present themselves for investigation, viz. (1) by what means does change of climate induce a change in the marking and colouring of a butterfly? and (2) to what extent does the climatic action determine the nature of the change?
With regard to the former question, it must, in the first place, be decided whether the true effect of climatic change lies in the action of a high or low temperature on the organism, or whether it may not perhaps be produced by the accelerated development caused by a high temperature, and the retarded development caused by a low temperature. Other factors belonging to the category of external conditions of life which are included in the term “climate” may be disregarded, as they are of no importance in these cases. The question under consideration is difficult to decide, since, on the one hand, warmth and a short pupal period, and, on the other hand, cold and a long pupal period, are generally inseparably connected with each other; and without great caution one may easily be led into fallacies, by attributing to the influence of causes now acting that which is but the consequence of long inheritance.
When, in the case of Araschnia Levana, even in very cold summers, Prorsa, but never the Levana form, emerges, it would still be erroneous to conclude that it is only the shorter period of development of the winter generation, and not the summer warmth, which occasioned the formation of the Prorsa type. This new form of the species did not come suddenly into existence, but (as appears sufficiently from the foregoing experiments) originated in the course of many generations, during which summer warmth and a short development period were generally associated together. From the fact that the winter generation always produces Levana, even when the pupæ have not been exposed to cold but kept in a room, it would be equally erroneous to infer that the cold of winter had no influence in determining the type. In this case also the determining causes must have been in operation during innumerable generations. After the winter form of the species has become established throughout such a long period, it remains constant, even when the external influence which produced it (cold) is occasionally withdrawn.
Experiments cannot further assist us here, since we cannot observe throughout long periods of time; but there are certain observations, which to me appear decisive. When, both in Germany and Italy, we see Polyommatus Phlæas appearing in two generations, of which both the German ones are alike, whilst in Italy the summer brood is black, we cannot ascribe this fact to the influence of a shorter period of development, because this period is the same both in Germany and Italy (two annual generations), so that it can only be attributed to the higher temperature of summer.
Many similar cases might be adduced, but the one given suffices for proof. I am therefore of opinion that it is not the duration of the period of development which is the cause of change in the formation of climatic varieties of butterflies, but only the temperature to which the species is exposed during its pupal existence. In what manner, then, are we to conceive that warmth acts on the marking and colouring of a butterfly? This is a question which could only be completely answered by gaining an insight into the mysterious chemico-physiological processes by which the butterfly is formed in the chrysalis; and indeed only by such a complete insight into the most minute details, which are far beyond our scrutiny, could we arrive at, or even approximate to, an explanation of the development of any living organism. Nevertheless an important step can be taken towards the solution of this problem, by establishing that the change does not depend essentially upon the action of warmth, but upon the organism itself, as appears from the nature of the change in one and the same species.
If we compare the Italian summer form of Polyommatus Phlæas with its winter form, we shall find that the difference between them consists only in the brilliant coppery red colour of the latter being largely suffused in the summer form with black scales. When entomologists speak of a “black dusting” of the upper side of the wings, this statement must not of course be understood literally; the number of scales is the same in both forms, but in the summer variety they are mostly black, a comparatively small number being red. We might thus be inclined to infer that, owing to the high temperature, the chemistry of the material undergoing transformation in Phlæas is changed in such a manner that less red and more black pigment is produced. But the case is not so simple, as will appear evident when we consider the fact that the summer forms have not originated suddenly, but only in the course of numerous generations; and when we further compare the two seasonal forms in other species. Thus in Pieris Napi the winter is distinguished from the summer form, among other characters, by the strong black dusting of the base of the wings. But we cannot conclude from this that in the present case more black pigment is produced in the winter than in the summer form, for in the latter, although the base of the wings is white, their tips and the black spots on the fore-wings are larger and of a deeper black than in the winter form. The quantity of black pigment produced does not distinguish between the two forms, but the mode of its distribution upon the wings.
Even in the case of species the summer form of which really possesses far more black than the winter form, as, for instance, Araschnia Levana, one type cannot be derived from the other simply by the expansion of the black spots present, since on the same place where in Levana a black band crosses the wings, Prorsa, which otherwise possesses much more black, has a white line. (See Figs. 1–9, [Plate I].) The intermediate forms which have been artificially produced by the action of cold on the summer generation present a graduated series, according as reversion is more or less complete; a black spot first appearing in the middle of the white band of Prorsa, and then becoming enlarged until, finally, in the perfect Levana it unites with another black triangle proceeding from the front of the band, and thus becomes fused into a black bar. The white band of Prorsa and the black band of Levana by no means correspond in position; in Prorsa quite a new pattern appears, which does not originate by a simple colour replacement of the Levana marking. In the present case, therefore, there is no doubt that the new form is not produced simply because a certain pigment (black) is formed in larger quantities, but because its mode of distribution is at the same time different, white appearing in some instances where black formerly existed, whilst in other cases the black remains. Whoever compares Prorsa with Levana will not fail to be struck with the remarkable change of marking produced by the direct action of external conditions.
The numerous intermediate forms which can be produced artificially appear to me to furnish a further proof of the gradual character of the transformation. Ancestral intermediate forms can only occur where they have once had a former existence in the phyletic series. Reversion may only take place completely in some particular characters, whilst in others the new form remains constant—this is in fact the ordinary form of reversion, and in this manner a mixture of characters might appear which never existed as a phyletic stage; but particular characters could certainly never appear unless they were normal to the species at some stage of phyletic development. Were this possible it would directly contradict the idea of reversion, according to which new characters never make their appearance, but only such as have already existed. If, therefore, the ancestral forms of A. Levana (which we designate as Porima) present a great number of transitional varieties, this leads to the conclusion that the species must have gone through a long series of stages of phyletic development before the summer generation had completely changed into Prorsa. The view of the slow cumulative action of climatic influences already submitted, is thus confirmed.
If warmth is thus without doubt the agency which has gradually changed the colour and marking of many of our butterflies, it sufficiently appears from what has just been said concerning the nature of the change that the chief part in the transmutation is not to be attributed to the agency in question, but to the organism which is affected by it. Induced by warmth, there begins a change in the ultimate processes of the matter undergoing transformation, which increases from generation to generation, and which not only consists in the appearance of the colouring matter in one place instead of another, but also in the replacement of yellow, in one place by white and in another by black, or in the transformation of black into white on some portions of the wings, whilst in others black remains. When we consider with what extreme fidelity the most insignificant details of marking are, in constant species of butterflies, transmitted from generation to generation, a total change of the kind under consideration cannot but appear surprising, and we should not explain it by the nature of the agency (warmth), but only by the nature of the species affected. The latter cannot react upon the warmth in the same manner that a solution of an iron salt reacts upon potassium ferrocyanide or upon sulphuretted hydrogen; the colouring matter of the butterfly’s wing which was previously black does not become blue or yellow, nor does that which was white become changed into black, but a new marking is developed from the existing one—or, as I may express it in more general terms, the species takes another course of development; the complicated chemico-physical processes in the matter composing the pupa become gradually modified in such a manner that, as the final result, a new marking and colouring of the butterfly is produced.
Further facts can be adduced in support of the view that in these processes it is the constitution of the species, and not the external agency (warmth), which plays the chief part. The latter, as Darwin has strikingly expressed it, rather performs the function of the spark which ignites a combustible substance, whilst the character of the combustion depends upon the nature of the explosive material. Were this not the case, increased warmth would always change a given colour[29] in the same manner in all butterflies, and would therefore always give rise to the production of the same colour. But this does not occur; Polyommatus Phlæas, for example, becoming black in the south, whilst the red-brown Vanessa Urticæ becomes black in high northern latitudes, and many other cases well known to entomologists might be adduced.[30] It indeed appears that species of similar physical constitution, i.e., nearly allied species, under similar climatic influences, change in an analogous manner. A beautiful example of this is furnished by our Pierinæ. Most of the species display seasonal dimorphism; as, for instance, Pieris Brassicæ, Rapæ, Napi, Krueperi, and Daplidice, Euchloe Belia and Belemia, and Leucophasia Sinapis, in all of which the difference between the winter and the summer forms is of a precisely similar nature. The former are characterized by a strong black dusting of the base of the wings, and by a blackish or green sprinkling of scales on the underside of the hind wings, while the latter have intensely black tips to the wings, and frequently also spots on the fore-wings.
Nothing can prove more strikingly, however, that in such cases everything depends upon the physical constitution, than the fact that in the same species the males become changed in a different manner to the females. The parent-form of Pieris Napi (var. Bryoniæ) offers an example. In all the Pierinæ secondary sexual differences are found, the males being differently marked to the females; the species are thus sexually dimorphic. Now the male of the Alpine and Polar var. Bryoniæ, which I conceive to be the ancestral form, is scarcely to be distinguished, as has already been mentioned, from the male of our German winter form (P. Napi, var. Vernalis), whilst the female differs considerably.[31] The gradual climatic change which transformed the parent-form Bryoniæ into Napi has therefore exerted a much greater effect on the female than on the male. The external action on the two sexes was exactly the same, but the response of the organism was different, and the cause of the difference can only be sought for in the fine differences of physical constitution which distinguish the male from the female. If we are unable to define these differences precisely, we may nevertheless safely conclude from such observations that they exist.
I have given special prominence to this subject because, in my idea, Darwin ascribes too much power to sexual selection when he attributes the formation of secondary sexual characters to the sole action of this agency. The case of Bryoniæ teaches us that such characters may arise from purely innate causes; and until experiments have decided how far the influence of sexual selection extends, we are justified in believing that the sexual dimorphism of butterflies is due in great part to the differences of physical constitution between the sexes. It is quite different with such sexual characters as the stridulating organs of male Orthoptera which are of undoubted importance to that sex. These can certainly be attributed with great probability to sexual selection.
It may perhaps not be superfluous to adduce one more similar case, in which, however, the male and not the female is the most affected by climate. In our latitudes, as also in the extreme north, Polyommatus Phlæas, already so often mentioned, is perfectly similar in both sexes in colour and marking; and the same holds good for the winter generation of the south. The summer generation of the latter, however, exhibits a slight sexual dimorphism, the red of the fore wings of the female being less completely covered with black than in the male.
IV.
Why all Polygoneutic Species are not Seasonally Dimorphic.
If we may consider it to be established that seasonal dimorphism is nothing else than the splitting up of a species into two climatic varieties in one and the same locality, the further question at once arises why all polygoneutic species (those which produce more than one annual generation) are not seasonally dimorphic.
To answer this, it will be necessary to go more deeply into the development of seasonal dimorphism. This evidently depends upon a peculiar kind of periodic, alternating heredity, which we might be tempted to identify with Darwin’s “inheritance at corresponding periods of life.” It does not, however, in any way completely agree with this principle, although it presents a great analogy to it and must depend ultimately upon the same cause. The Darwinian “inheritance at corresponding periods of life”—or, as it is termed by Haeckel, “homochronic heredity”—is characterized by the fact that new characters always appear in the individuals at the same stage of life as that in which they appeared in their progenitors. The truth of this principle has been firmly established, instances being known in which both the first appearance of a new (especially pathological) character and its transmission through several generations has been observed. Seasonally dimorphic butterflies also furnish a further valuable proof of this principle, since they show that not only variations which arise suddenly (and which are therefore probably due to purely innate causes) follow this mode of inheritance, but also that characters gradually called forth by the influence of external conditions and accumulating from generation to generation, are only inherited at that period of life in which these conditions were or are effective. In all seasonally dimorphic butterflies which I have been able to examine closely, I found the caterpillars of the summer and winter broods to be perfectly identical. The influences which, by acting on the pupæ, split up the imagines into two climatic forms, were thus without effect on the earlier stages of development. I may specially mention that the caterpillars, as well as the pupæ and eggs of A. Levana, are perfectly alike both in the summer and winter forms; and the same is the case in the corresponding stages of P. Napi and P. Bryoniæ.
I shall not here attempt to enter more deeply into the nature of the phenomena of inheritance. It is sufficient to have confirmed the law that influences which act only on certain stages in the development of the individual, even when the action is cumulative and not sudden, only affect those particular stages without having any effect on the earlier or later stages. This law is obviously of the greatest importance to the comprehension of metamorphosis. Lubbock[32] has briefly shown in a very clear manner how the existence of metamorphosis in insects can be explained by the indirect action of varying conditions on the different life-stages of a species. Thus the mandibles of a caterpillar are, by adaptation to another mode of nourishment, exchanged at a later period of life for a suctorial organ. Such adaptation of the various development-stages of a species to the different conditions of life would never give rise to metamorphosis, if the law of homochronic, or periodic, heredity did not cause the characters gradually acquired at a given stage to be transferred to the same stage of the following generation.
The origin of seasonal dimorphism depends upon a very similar law, or rather form, of inheritance, which differs from that above considered only in the fact that, instead of the ontogenetic stages, a whole series of generations is influenced. This form of inheritance may be formulated somewhat as follows:—When dissimilar conditions alternatingly influence a series of generations, a cycle is produced in which the changes are transmitted only to those generations which are acted upon by corresponding conditions, and not to the intermediate ones. Characters which have arisen by the action of a summer climate are inherited by the summer generation only, whilst they remain latent in the winter generation. It is the same as with the mandibles of a caterpillar which are latent in the butterfly, and again make their appearance in the corresponding (larval) stage of the succeeding generation. This is not mere hypothesis, but the legitimate inference from the facts. If it be admitted that my conception of seasonal dimorphism as a double climatic variation is correct, the law of “cyclical heredity,”[33] as I may term it—in contradistinction to “homochronic heredity,” which relates only to the ontogenetic stages—immediately follows. All those cases which come under the designation of ‘alternation of generation,’ can obviously be referred to cyclical heredity, as will be explained further on. In the one case the successive generations deport themselves exactly in the same manner as do the successive stages of development of the individual in the other; and we may conclude therefrom (as has long been admitted on other grounds) that a generation is, in fact, nothing else than a stage of development in the life of a species. This appears to me to furnish a beautiful confirmation of the theory of descent.
Now if, returning to questions previously solved, the alternating action of cold in winter and warmth in summer leads to the production of a winter and summer form, according to the law of cyclical heredity, the question still remains: why do we not find seasonal dimorphism in all polygoneutic butterflies?
We might at first suppose that all species are not equally sensitive to the influence of temperature: indeed, the various amounts of difference between the winter and summer forms in different species would certainly show the existence of different degrees of sensitiveness to the modifying action of temperature. But even this does not furnish an explanation, since there are butterflies which produce two perfectly similar[34] generations wherever they occur, and which, nevertheless, appear in different climates as climatic varieties. This is the case with Pararga Ægeria (Fig. 23, [Plate II].), the southern variety of which, Meione (Fig. 24, [Plate II].), is connected with it by an intermediate form from the Ligurian coast. This species possesses, therefore, a decided power of responding to the influence of temperature, and yet no distinction has taken place between the summer and the winter form. We can thus only attribute this different deportment to a different kind of heredity; and we may therefore plainly state, that changes produced by alternation of climate are not always inherited alternatingly, i.e. by the corresponding generations, but sometimes continuously, appearing in every generation, and never remaining latent. The causes which determine why, in a particular case, the one or the other form of inheritance prevails, can be only innate, i.e. they lie in the organism itself, and there is as little to be said upon their precise nature as upon that of any other process of heredity. In a similar manner Darwin admits a kind of double inheritance with respect to characters produced by sexual selection; in one form these characters remain limited to the sex which first acquired them, in the other form they are inherited by both sexes, without it being apparent why, in any particular case, the one or the other form of heredity should take place.
The foregoing explanation may obtain in the case of sexual selection, in which it is not inconceivable that certain characters may not be so easily produced, or even not produced at all, in one sex, owing to its differing from the other in physical constitution. In the class of cases under consideration, however, it is not possible that the inherited characters can be prevented from being acquired by one generation owing to its physical constitution, since this constitution was similar in all the successive generations before the appearance of dimorphism. The constitution in question first became dissimilar in the two generations to the extent of producing a change of specific character, through the action of temperature on the alternating broods of each year, combined with cyclical heredity. If the law of cyclical heredity be a general one, it must hold good for all cases, and characters acquired by the summer generation could never have been also transmitted to the winter generation from the very first.
I will not deny the possibility that if alternating heredity should become subsequently entirely suppressed throughout numerous generations, a period may arrive when the preponderating influence of a long series of summer generations may ultimately take effect upon the winter generation. In such a case the summer characters would appear, instead of remaining latent as formerly. In this manner it may be imagined that at first but few, and later more numerous individuals, approximate to the summer form, until finally the dimorphism entirely disappears, the new form thus gaining ascendency and the species becoming once more monomorphic. Such a supposition is indeed capable of being supported by some facts, an observation on A. Levana apparently contradicting the theory having been already interpreted in this sense. I refer to the fact that whilst some butterflies of the winter generation emerge in October as Prorsa, others hibernate, and appear the following spring in the Levana form. The winter form of Pieris Napi also no longer preserves, in the female sex, the striking coloration of the ancestral form Bryoniæ, a fact which may indicate the influencing of the winter generation by numerous summer generations. The double form of the spring generation of Papilio Ajax can be similarly explained by the gradual change of alternating into continuous heredity, as has already been mentioned. All these cases, however, are perhaps capable of another interpretation; at any rate, the correctness of this supposition can only be decided by further facts.
Meanwhile, even if we suppose the above explanation to be correct, it will not apply to the absence of seasonal dimorphism in cases like that of Pararga Ægeria and Meione, in which only one summer generation appears, so that a preponderating inheritance of summer characters cannot be admitted. Another explanation must thus be sought, and I believe that I have found it in the circumstance that the butterflies named do not hibernate as pupæ but as caterpillars, so that the cold of winter does not directly influence those processes of development by which the perfect insect is formed in the chrysalis. It is precisely on this point that the origin of those differences of colour which we designate as the seasonal dimorphism of butterflies appears to depend. Previous experiments give great probability to this statement. From these we know that the eggs, caterpillars, and pupæ of all the seasonally dimorphic species experimented with are perfectly similar in the summer and winter generations, the imago stage only showing any difference. We know further from these experiments, that temperature-influences which affect the caterpillars never entail a change in the butterflies; and finally, that the artificial production of the reversion of the summer to the winter form can only be brought about by operating on the pupæ.
Since many monogoneutic species now hibernate in the caterpillar stage (e.g. Satyrus Proserpina, and Hermione, Epinephele Eudora, Furtina, Ithonus, Hyperanthus, Ida, &c.), we may admit that during the glacial period such species did not pass the winter as pupæ. As the climate grew warmer, and in consequence thereof a second generation became gradually interpolated in many of these monogoneutic species, there would ensue (though by no means necessarily) a disturbance of the winter generation, of such a kind that the pupæ, instead of the caterpillars as formerly, would then hibernate. It may, indeed, be easily proved à priori that whenever a disturbance of the winter generation takes place it only does so retrogressively, that is to say—species which at one time pass the winter as caterpillars subsequently hibernate in the egg, while those which formerly hibernate as pupæ afterwards do so as caterpillars. The interpolation of a summer generation must necessarily delay till further towards the end of summer, the brood about to hibernate; the remainder of the summer, which serves for the development of the eggs and young caterpillars, may possibly under these conditions be insufficient for pupation, and the species which hibernated in the pupal state when it was monogoneutic, may perhaps pass the winter in the larval condition after the introduction of the second brood. A disturbance of this kind is conceivable; but it is certain that many species suffer no further alteration in their development than that of becoming digoneutic from monogoneutic. This follows from the fact that hibernation takes place in the caterpillar stage in many species of the sub-family Satyridæ which are now digoneutic, as well as in the remaining monogoneutic species of the same sub-family. But we cannot expect seasonal dimorphism to appear in all digoneutic butterflies the winter generation of which hibernates in the caterpillar form, since the pupal stage in these species experiences nearly the same influences of temperature in both generations. We are hence led to the conclusion that seasonal dimorphism must arise in butterflies whenever the pupæ of the alternating annual generations are exposed throughout long periods of time to widely different regularly recurring changes of temperature.
The facts agree with this conclusion, inasmuch as most butterflies which exhibit seasonal dimorphism hibernate in the pupa stage. Thus, this is the case with all the Pierinæ, with Papilio Machaon, P. Podalirius, and P. Ajax, as well as with Araschnia Levana. Nevertheless, it cannot be denied that seasonal dimorphism occurs also in some species which do not hibernate as pupæ but as caterpillars; as, for instance, in the strongly dimorphic Plebeius Amyntas. But such cases can be explained in a different manner.
Again, the formation of a climatic variety—and as such must we regard seasonally dimorphic forms—by no means entirely depends on the magnitude of the difference between the temperature which acts on the pupæ of the primary and that which acts on those of the secondary form; it rather depends on the absolute temperature which the pupæ experience. This follows without doubt from the fact that many species, such as our common Swallow-tail (Papilio Machaon), and also P. Podalirius, in Germany and the rest of temperate Europe, show no perceptible difference of colour between the first generation, the pupæ of which hibernate, and the second generation, the pupal period of which falls in July, whereas the same butterflies in South Spain and Italy are to a small extent seasonally dimorphic. Those butterflies which are developed under the influence of a Sicilian summer heat likewise show climatic variation to a small extent. The following consideration throws further light on these conditions. The mean summer and winter temperatures in Germany differ by about 14.9° R.; this difference being therefore much more pronounced than that between the German and Sicilian summer, which is only about 3.6° R. Nevertheless, the winter and summer generations of P. Podalirius are alike in Germany, whilst the Sicilian summer generation has become a climatic variety. The cause of this change must therefore lie in the small difference between the mean summer temperatures of 15.0° R. (Berlin) and 19.4° R. (Palermo). According to this, a given absolute temperature appears to give a tendency to variation in a certain direction, the necessary temperature being different for different species. The latter statement is supported by the facts that, in the first place, in different species there are very different degrees of difference between the summer and winter forms; and secondly, many digoneutic species are still monomorphic in Germany, first becoming seasonally dimorphic in Southern Europe. This is the case with P. Machaon and P. Podalirius, as already mentioned, and likewise with Polyommatus Phlæas. Zeller in 1846–47, during his journey in Italy, recognized as seasonally dimorphic in a small degree a large number of diurnal Lepidoptera which are not so in our climate.[35]
In a similar manner the appearance of seasonal dimorphism in species which, like Plebeius Amyntas, do not hibernate as pupæ, but as caterpillars, can be simply explained by supposing that the winter generation was the primary form, and that the increase in the summer temperature since the glacial period was sufficient to cause this particular species to become changed by the gradual interpolation of a second generation. The dimorphism of P. Amyntas can, nevertheless, be explained in another manner. Thus, there may have been a disturbance of the period of development in the manner already indicated, the species which formerly hibernated in the pupal stage becoming subsequently disturbed in its course of development by the interpolation of a summer generation, and hibernating in consequence in the caterpillar state. Under these circumstances we must regard the present winter form (var. Polysperchon) as having been established under the influence of a winter climate, this form, since the supposed disturbance in its development, having had no reason to become changed, the spring temperature under which its pupation now takes place not being sufficiently high. The interpolated second generation on the other hand, the pupal period of which falls in the height of summer, may easily have become formed into a summer variety.
This latter explanation agrees precisely with the former, both starting with the assumption that in the present case, as in that of A. Levana and the Pierinæ, the winter form is the primary one, so that the dimorphism proceeds from the said winter form and does not originate the winter but the summer form, as will be explained. Whether the winter form has been produced by the action of the winter or spring temperature is immaterial in judging single cases, inasmuch as we are not in a position to state what temperature is necessary to cause any particular species to become transformed.
The reverse case is also theoretically conceivable, viz., that in certain species the summer form was the primary one, and by spreading northwards a climate was reached which still permitted the production of two generations, the pupal stage of one generation being exposed to the cold of winter, and thus giving rise to the production of a secondary winter form. In such a case hibernation in the pupal state would certainly give rise to seasonal dimorphism. Whether these conditions actually occur, appears to me extremely doubtful; but it may at least be confidently asserted that the first case is of far more frequent occurrence. The beautiful researches of Ernst Hoffmann[36] furnish strong evidence for believing that the great majority of the European butterflies have immigrated, not from the south, but from Siberia. Of 281 species, 173 have, according to Hoffmann, come from Siberia, 39 from southern Asia, and only 8 from Africa, whilst during the greatest cold of the glacial period, but very few or possibly no species existed north of the Alps. Most of the butterflies now found in Europe have thus, since their immigration, experienced a gradually increasing warmth. Since seasonal dimorphism has been developed in some of these species, the summer form must in all cases have been the secondary one, as the experiments upon the reversion of Pieris Napi and Araschnia Levana have also shown.
All the seasonally dimorphic butterflies known to me are found in Hoffmann’s list of Siberian immigrants, with the exception of two species, viz., Euchloe Belemia, which is cited as an African immigrant, and Pieris Krueperi, which may have come through Asia Minor, since at the present time it has not advanced farther west than Greece. No considerable change of climate can be experienced by migrating from east to west, so that the seasonal dimorphism of Pieris Krueperi can only depend on a cause similar to that which affected the Siberian immigrants, that is, the gradual increase of temperature in the northern hemisphere since the glacial period. In this species also, the winter form must be the primary one. In the case of E. Belemia, on the other hand, the migration northwards from Africa certainly indicates removal to a cooler climate, which may have originated a secondary winter form, even if nothing more certain can be stated. We know nothing of the period of migration into southern Europe; and even migration without climatic change is conceivable, if it kept pace with the gradual increase of warmth in the northern hemisphere since the glacial epoch. Experiments only would in this case be decisive. If the summer generation, var. Glauce, were the primary form, it would not be possible by the action of cold on the pupæ of this brood to produce the winter variety Belemia, whilst, on the other hand, the pupæ of the winter generation by the influence of warmth would be made to revert more or less completely to the form Glauce. It is by no means to be understood that the species would actually comport itself in this manner. On the contrary, I am of opinion that in this case also, the winter form is primary. The northward migration (from Africa to south Spain) would be quite insufficient, and the winter form is now found in Africa as well as in Spain.
V.
On Alternation of Generations.
Seasonal dimorphism has already been designated by Wallace as alternation of generation,[37] a term which cannot be disputed so long as it is confined to a regular alternation of dissimilar generations. But little is gained by this definition, however, unless it can be proved that both phenomena are due to similar causes, and that they are consequently brought about by analogous processes. The causes of alternation of generation have, until the present time, been scarcely investigated, owing to the want of material. Haeckel alone has quite recently subjected these complicated phenomena generally to a searching investigation, and has arrived at the conclusion that the various forms of metagenesis can be arranged in two series. He distinguishes a progressive and a retrogressive series, comprising under the former those species “which, to a certain extent, are still in a transition stage from monogenesis to amphigenesis (asexual to sexual propagation), and the early progenitors of which, therefore, never exclusively propagated themselves sexually” (Trematoda, Hydromedusæ). Under the other, or retrogressive form of metagenesis, Haeckel includes a “return from amphigenesis to monogenesis,” this being the case with all those species which now manifest a regular alternation from amphigenesis to parthenogenesis (Aphides, Rotatoria, Daphniidæ, Phyllopoda, &c.). Essentially I can but agree entirely with Haeckel. Simply regarding the phenomena of alternation of generation as at present known, it appears to me to be readily admissible that these multiform modes of propagation must have originated in at least two different ways, which can be aptly formulated in the manner suggested by Haeckel.
I will, however, venture to adopt a somewhat different mode of conception, and regard the manner of propagation (whether sexual or asexual) not as the determining, but only as the secondary cause. I will further hazard the separation of the phenomena of alternating generations (in their widest sense) into two main groups according to their origin, designating the cases of one group as true metagenesis and those of the other as heterogenesis.[38] Metagenesis takes its origin from a phyletic series of dissimilar forms, whilst heterogenesis originates from a phyletic series of similar forms—this series, so far as we can at present judge, always consisting of similar sexual generations. The former would thus nearly coincide with Haeckel’s progressive, and the latter with his retrogressive metagenesis. Metagenesis may further originate in various ways. In the first place, from metamorphosis, as for example, in the propagation of the celebrated Cecidomyia with nursing larvæ. The power which these larvæ possess of propagating themselves asexually has evidently been acquired as a secondary character, as appears from the fact that there are many species of the same genus the larvæ of which do not nurse, these larvæ being themselves undoubted secondary forms produced by the adaptation of this stage of phyletic development to a mode of life widely different from that of the later stages. In the form now possessed by these larvæ they could never have represented the final stage of their ontogeny, neither could they have formerly possessed the power of sexual propagation. The conclusion seems inevitable that metagenesis has here proceeded from metamorphosis; that is to say, one stage of the ontogeny, by acquiring asexual propagation, has changed the originally existing metamorphosis into metagenesis.
Lubbock[39] is undoubtedly correct when, for cases like that just mentioned, he attempts to derive alternation of generations from metamorphosis. But if we exclude heterogenesis there still remain a large number of cases of true metagenesis which cannot be explained from this point of view.
It must be admitted, with Haeckel, that the alternation of generations in the Hydromedusæ and Trematoda does not depend, as in the case of Cecidomyia, upon the larvæ having acquired the power of nursing, but that the inferior stages of these species always possessed this power which they now only preserve. The nursing Trematode larvæ now existing may possibly have been formerly able to propagate themselves also sexually, this mode of propagation having at the present time been transferred to a later phyletic stage. In this case, therefore, metagenesis was not properly produced by metamorphosis, but arose therefrom in the course of the phyletic development, the earlier phyletic stages abandoning the power of sexual reproduction, and preserving the asexual mode of propagation. A third way in which metagenesis might originate is through polymorphosis. When the latter is combined with asexual reproduction, as is especially the case with the Hydrozoa, metagenesis may be derived therefrom. The successive stages of transformation of one and the same physiological individual do not in these cases serve as the point of departure for alternation of generation, but the different contemporary forms living gregariously into which the species has become divided through functional differentiation of the various individuals of the same stock. Individuals are here produced which alone acquire the power of sexual reproduction, and metagenesis is thus brought about, these individuals detaching themselves from the stock on which they originated, while the rest of the individuals remain in combination, and retain the asexual mode of propagation. No sharp distinction can be otherwise drawn between this and the cases previously considered.[40] The difference consists only in the whole cycle of reproduction being performed by one stock; both classes have the common character that the different phyletic stages never appear in the same individual (metamorphosis), but in the course of further phyletic development metagenesis at the same time arises, i.e. the division of these stages among a succession of individuals. We are therefore able to distinguish this primary metagenesis from the secondary metagenesis arising from metamorphosis.
It is not here my intention to enter into the ultimate causes of metagenesis; in this subject we should only be able to advance by making vague hypotheses. The phenomenon of seasonal dimorphism, with which this work has mainly to deal, is evidently far removed from metagenesis, and it was to make this clear that the foregoing observations were brought forward. The characters common in the origin of metagenesis are to be found, according to the views previously set forth, in the facts that here the faculty of asexual and of sexual reproduction is always distributed among several phyletic stages of development which succeed each other in an ascending series (progressive metagenesis of Haeckel), whereas I find differences only in the fact that the power of asexual propagation may (in metagenesis) be either newly acquired (larva of Cecidomyia) or preserved from previous ages (Hydroida). It seems that in this process sexual reproduction is without exception lost by the earlier, and remains confined solely to the most recent stages.
From the investigations on seasonal dimorphism it appears that a cycle of generations can arise in an entirely different way. In this case a series of generations originally alike are made dissimilar by external influences. This appears to me of the greatest importance, since seasonal dimorphism is without doubt closely related to that mode of reproduction which has hitherto been exclusively designated as heterogenesis, and a knowledge of its mode of origination must therefore throw light on the nature and origin of heterogenesis in general.
In seasonal dimorphism, as I have attempted to show, it is the direct action of climate, and indeed chiefly that of temperature, which brings about the change in some of the generations. Since these generations have been exposed to the alternating influence of the summer and winter temperature a periodical dimorphism has been developed—a regular cycle of dissimilar generations. It has already been asserted that the consecutive generations of a species comport themselves with respect to heredity in a manner precisely similar to that of the ontogenetic stages, and at the same time such succeeding generations point out the parallelism between metamorphosis and heterogenesis. If influences capable of directly or indirectly producing changes operate on any particular stage of development, these changes are always transmitted to the same stage. Upon this metamorphosis depends. In a precisely similar manner changes which operated periodically on certain generations (1, 3, 5, for instance) are transmitted to these generations only, and not to the intermediate ones. Upon this depends heterogenesis. We have just been led to the comprehension of heterogenesis by cyclical heredity, by the fact that a cycle is produced whenever a series of generations exists under regularly alternating influences. In this cycle newly acquired changes, however minute in character at first, are only transmitted to a later, and not to the succeeding generation, appearing only in the one corresponding, i.e. in that generation which exists under similar transforming influences. Nothing can more clearly show the extreme importance which the conditions of life must have upon the formation and further development of species than this fact. At the same time nothing shows better that the action of these conditions is not suddenly and violently exerted, but that it rather takes place by small and slow operations. In these cases the long-continued accumulation of imperceptibly small variations proves to be the magic means by which the forms of the organic world are so powerfully moulded. By the application of even the greatest warmth nobody would be able to change the winter form of A. Levana into the summer form; nevertheless, the summer warmth, acting regularly on the second and third generations of the year, has, in the course of a lengthened period, stamped these two generations with a new form without the first generation being thereby changed. In the same region two different climatic varieties have been produced (just as in the majority of cases climatic varieties occur only in separate regions) which alternate with each other, and thus give rise to a cycle of which each generation propagates itself sexually.
But even if seasonal dimorphism is to be ascribed to heterogenesis, it must by no means be asserted that those cases of cyclical propagation hitherto designated as heterogenesis are completely identical with seasonal dimorphism. Their identity extends only to their origin and manner of development, but not to the mode of operation of the causes which bring about their transformation. Both phenomena have a common mode of origination, arising from similar (monomorphic) sexual generations and course of development, a cycle of generations with gradually diverging characters coming into existence by the action of alternating influences. On the other hand, the nature of the changes by which the secondary differs from the primary generation may be referred to another mode of action of the exciting causes. In seasonal dimorphism the differences between the two generations are much less than in other cases of heterogenesis. These differences are both quantitatively less, and are likewise qualitative, affecting only characters of biological insignificance.[41] The variations in question are mostly restricted to the marking and colouring of the wings and body, occasionally affecting also the form of the wing, and in a few cases the size of the body (Plebeius Amyntas), whilst the bodily structure—so far at least as my investigations extend—appears to be the same in both generations.[42]
The state of affairs is quite different in the remaining cases of heterogenesis; here the entire structure of the body appears to be more or less changed, and its size is often very different, nearly all the internal organs differing in the two generations. According to Claus,[43] “we can scarcely find any other explanation of the mode of origination of heterogenesis than the gradual and slow advantageous adaptation of the organization to important varying conditions of life”—a judgment in which this author is certainly correct. In all such cases the change does not affect unimportant characters, as it does in butterflies, but parts of biological or physiological value; and we cannot, therefore, consider such changes to have originated through the direct action of altered conditions of life, but indirectly through natural selection or adaptation.
Thus, the difference between seasonal dimorphism and the other known cases of heterogenesis consists in the secondary form in which the species appears in the former originating through the direct action of external conditions, whilst in the latter this form most probably originates through the indirect action of such influences. The first half of the foregoing proposition is alone capable of provisional proof, but it is in the highest degree probable that the latter half is also correct. Naturally we cannot say to what extent the direct action of external conditions plays also a part in true heterogenesis, as there have been as yet no experiments made on its origin. That direct action, working to a certain extent co-operatively, plays only a secondary part, while the chief cause of the change is to be found in adaptation, no one can doubt who keeps in view, for instance, the mode of propagation discovered by Leuckart in Ascaris nigrovenosa. In this worm, the one generation lives free in the water, and the other generation inhabits the lungs of frogs, the two generations differing from one another in size of body and structure of internal organs to an extent only possible with the true Nematoda.
To prevent possible misunderstanding, let it be finally noted—even if superfluous—that the changes causing the diversity of the two generations in seasonal dimorphism and heterogenesis are not of such a nature that the value of different “specific characters” can be attached to them. Distinctly defined specific characters are well known not to occur generally, and it would therefore be erroneous to attach but little value to the differences in seasonal dimorphism because these chiefly consist in the colouring and marking of the wings. The question here under consideration is not whether two animal forms have the value of species or of mere varieties—a question which can never be decided, since the reply always depends upon individual opinion of the value of the distinctions in question, and the idea of both species and varieties is moreover purely conventional. The question is, rather, whether the distinguishing characters possess an equal constancy—that is, whether they are transmitted with the same force and accuracy to all individuals; and whether they occur, therefore, in such a manner that they can be practically employed as specific characters. With respect to this, it cannot be doubtful for a moment that the colouring and marking of a butterfly possess exactly the same value as the constant characters in any other group of animals, such as the palate-folds in mice, the structure of the teeth in mammals, the number and form of the wing and tail feathers in birds, &c. We have but to remember with what wonderful constancy often the most minute details of marking are transmitted in butterflies. The systematist frequently distinguishes between two nearly allied species, as for instance in the Lycænidæ, chiefly by the position of certain insignificant black spots on the under side of the wing (P. Alexis female, and P. Agestis); and this diagnosis proves sufficient, since P. Alexis, which has the spots in a straight row, has a different caterpillar to P. Agestis, in which the central spot is nearer the base of the hind wing!
For the reasons just given, I maintain that it is neither justifiable nor useful to designate the di- and polymorphism of butterflies as di- and polychroism, and thereby to attribute but little importance to these phenomena.[44] This designation would be only justifiable if the differences of colour were due to other causes than the differences of form, using this last word in a narrow sense. But it has been shown that the same direct action of climate which originates new colours, produces also in some species differences of form (contour of wing, size, &c.); whilst, on the other hand, it has long been known that many protective colours can only be explained by the indirect action of external conditions.
When I raise a distinction in the nature of the changes between seasonal dimorphism and the remaining known cases of heterogenesis, this must be taken as referring only to the biological or physiological result of the change in the transformed organism itself. In seasonal dimorphism only insignificant characters become prominently changed, characters which are without importance for the welfare of the species; while in true heterogenesis we are compelled to admit that useful changes, or adaptations, have occurred.
Heterogenesis may thus be defined either in accordance with my proposal or in the manner hitherto adopted, since it may be regarded as more morphological than the cyclical succession of differently formed sexual generations; or, with Claus, as the succession of different sexual generations, “living under different conditions of existence”—a definition which applies in all cases to seasonal dimorphism. Varying conditions of existence, in their widest sense, are the result of the action of different climates; and a case has been made known recently in which it is extremely probable that the climatic differences of the seasons have produced a cycle of generations by influencing the processes of nutrition. This case is quite analogous to that which we have observed in the seasonal dimorphism of butterflies, but with the distinction that the difference between the winter and summer generations does not, at least entirely, consist in the form of the reproductive adult, but almost entirely in its ontogeny—in the mode of its development. A comparison of this case with the analogous phenomenon in butterflies, may be of interest. In the remarkable fresh-water Daphnid, Leptodora hyalina Lillejeborg, it was proved some years ago by P. E. Müller,[45] who studied the ontogeny, that this last was direct, since the embryo, before leaving the egg, already possesses the form, members, and internal organs of the adult. This was, at least, the case with the summer eggs. It was subsequently shown by Sars[46] that this mode of development only holds good for the summer brood, the winter eggs producing an embryo in the spring which possesses only the three first pairs of limbs, and, instead of compound eyes, only a single frontal eye, thus exhibiting briefly, at first, the structure of a Nauplius, and gradually acquiring that of Leptodora. The mature form derived from the winter eggs is not distinguishable from the later generations, except by the presence of the simple larval eye, which appears as a small black spot. The generations when fully developed are thus distinguished only by this minute marking, but the summer generation undergoes direct development, whilst the winter generation, on the contrary, is only developed by metamorphosis, beginning with the simplest Crustacean type, and thus fairly representing the phyletic development of the species. We therefore see, in this case, the combination of a metamorphic and a direct development taking place to a certain extent under our eyes. It cannot be proved with certainty what the cause of this phenomenon may be, but the conjecture is almost unavoidable that it is closely related to the origin of the seasonal dimorphism of butterflies, since both depend on the alternating climatic influences of summer and winter: it is most probable that these influences have directly[47] brought about a shortening of the period of development in summer. Thus we have here a case of heterogenesis nearly related to the seasonal dimorphism of butterflies in a twofold manner—first, because the cycle of generations is also in this case brought about by the direct action of the external conditions of life; and secondly, the winter form is here also the primary, and the summer form the secondary one.
In accordance with the idea first introduced into science by Rudolph Leuckart, we have hitherto understood heterogenesis to be only the alternation of dissimilar sexual generations. From this point of view the reproduction of Leptodora can be as little ascribed to heterogenesis as can that of Aphis or Daphnia, although the apparent agamic reproduction of the winter and a portion of the summer generation is undoubtedly parthenogenesis and not propagation by nursing.[48] As has already been said, however, I would attribute no fundamental importance to the criterion of agamic reproduction—the more especially because we are ignorant of the physiological significance of the two modes of propagation; and further, because this principle of classification is entirely external, and only valuable in so far as no better one can be substituted for it. A separation of the modes of cyclical propagation according to their genesis appears to me—especially if practicable—not alone to be of greater value, but the only correct one, and for this the knowledge of the origin of seasonal dimorphism seems to me to furnish a possible method.
If, as was indicated above, we designate as metagenesis (in the narrow sense) all those cases in which it must be admitted that a series of differently aged phyletic stages have furnished the points of departure, and as heterogenesis those cases in which similar phyletic stages have been compelled to produce a cycle of generations by the periodic action of external influences, it is clear that the scope of heterogenesis is by this means considerably extended, and at the same time sharply and precisely defined.
Under heterogenesis then is comprised, not only as heretofore the reproduction of Ascaris nigrovenosa, of Leptodora appendiculata, and of the cattle-lice, but also that of the Aphides, Coccidæ, Daphniidæ, Rotatoria, and Phyllopoda, and, in short, all those cases in which we can determine the former identity of the two kinds of generations from their form, anatomical structure, and mode of reproduction. This conclusion is essentially supported by a comparison of the most closely allied species. Thus, for instance, when we see the genus Aphis and its allies related on all sides to insects which propagate sexually in all generations, and when we further observe the great similarity of the whole external and internal structure in the two kinds of generations of Aphis, we are forced to the conjecture that the apparent asexual reproduction of the Aphidæ is in reality parthenogenesis, i.e., that it has been developed from sexual reproduction. Neither can it be any longer disputed that in this case, as well as in that of Leptodora and other Daphniidæ, the same female alternately propagates parthenogenetically, and produces eggs requiring fertilization. This was established by Von Heyden[49] some years ago, in the case of Lachnus Querci, and has been since confirmed by Balbiani.[50]
There can be no doubt that in all these cases the cycle of generations has been developed from phyletically similar generations. But instances are certainly conceivable which present themselves with less clearness and simplicity. In the first place, we do not know whether parthenogenesis may not finally settle down into complete asexual reproduction. Should this be the case, it might be possible that from heterogenesis a mode of propagation would ultimately arise, which was apparently indistinguishable from pure metagenesis. Such a state of affairs might result, if the generations settling into asexual reproduction (as, for instance, the plant-lice), at the same time by adaptation to varying conditions of life, underwent considerable change of structure, and entered upon a metamorphosis to some extent retrogressive. We should then be inclined to regard these generations as an earlier phyletic stage, whilst, in fact, they would be a later one, and the idea of metagenesis would thus have been formed after the manner of heterogenesis.
On the other hand, it is equally conceivable that heterogenesis may have been developed from true metagenesis in the case of larvæ which, having acquired the faculty of asexual propagation, are similar in function to sexually mature insects. This possibility is not at first sight apparent. If the nursing-larvæ of the Cecidomyiæ were as much like the sexual insects as are the young Orthoptera to the sexually mature forms, we should not know whether to regard them as degraded sexual insects, or as true larvæ which had attained the power of asexual propagation. Their propagation would be considered to be parthenogenesis; and as it could not be denied that heterogenesis was here manifest, the mode of development of their particular kind of propagation might be proved, i.e., it might be demonstrated, that the generations now parthenogenetic were formerly mere reproductive larval stages.
I have only offered these last observations in order to show on what uncertain ground we are still standing with regard to this subject whenever we deal with the meaning of any particular case, and how much still remains to be done. It appears certain that the two forms of cyclical propagation, heterogenesis and metagenesis, originate in entirely distinct ways, so that it must be admitted that, under these circumstances, the idea of the existing conditions respecting the true genesis may possibly be erroneous. To indicate the manner in which the cyclical mode of propagation has arisen in any single case, would only be possible by a searching proof and complete knowledge of existing facts in addition to experiments.
VI.
General Conclusions.
I shall not here give a repetition and summary of the results arrived at with respect to seasonal dimorphism, but rather the general conclusions derived from these results; and, at the same time, I may take the opportunity of raising certain questions which have not hitherto found expression, or have been but briefly and casually stated.
It must, in the first place, be admitted that differences of specific value can originate through the direct action of external conditions of life only. Of the truth of this proposition there can be no doubt, after what has been above stated concerning the difference between the two forms of any seasonally dimorphic species. The best proof is furnished by the older systematists, to whom the genetic relationship of the two forms was unknown, and who, with unprejudiced taxonomy, in many cases indicated their distinctness by separate specific names. This was the case with Araschnia Levana and Prorsa, Euchloe Belia and Ausonia, E. Belemia and Glauce, Plebeius Polysperchon and Amyntas. In the presence of these facts it can scarcely be doubted that new species can be formed in the manner indicated; and I believe that this was and is still the case, with butterflies at least, to a considerable extent; the more so with these insects, because the striking colours and markings of the wings and body, being in most cases without biological significance, are useless for the preservation of the individual or the species, and cannot, therefore, be objects of natural selection.
Darwin must have obtained a clear insight into this, when he attempted to attribute the markings of butterflies to sexual and not to natural selection. According to this view, every new colour or marking first appears in one sex accidentally,[51] and is there fixed by being preferred by the other sex to the older coloration. When the new ornamentation becomes constant (in the male for example), Darwin supposes that it becomes transferred to the female by inheritance, either partially or completely, or not at all; so that the species, therefore, remains more or less sexually dimorphic, or (by complete transference) becomes again sexually monomorphic.
The admissibility of such different, and, to a certain extent, arbitrarily limited inheritance, has already been acknowledged. The question here concerned is, whether Darwin is correct when he in this manner attributes the entire coloration of butterflies to sexual selection. The origin of seasonal dimorphism appears to me to be against this view, howsoever seductive and grand the latter may seem. If differences as important as those which exist between the summer and winter forms of many butterflies can be called forth by the direct action of a changed climate, it would be extremely hazardous to attribute great importance to sexual selection in this particular case.
The principle of sexual selection appears to me to be incontestible, and I will not deny that it is also effective in the case of butterflies; but I believe that as a final explanation of colour this agency can be dispensed with, inasmuch as we see that considerable changes of colour can occur without the influence of sexual selection.[52]
The question now arises, how far does the transforming influence of climate extend? When a species has become transformed by climatic change to such an extent that its new form possesses the systematic value of a new species, does it return to its older form by removal to the old climatic conditions? or would it under these circumstances become again transformed in a new manner? This question is not without importance, inasmuch as in the first case climatic influences would be of little value in the formation of species, and there would result at most only a fluctuation between two extremes. In the same manner as in seasonally dimorphic species the summer and winter forms now alternate with each other every year, so would the forms produced by warmth and cold then alternate in the greater periods of the earth’s history. Other groups of animals are certainly changed by the action of different climatic influences; but in butterflies, as I believe I have proved, temperature plays the chief part, and as this only oscillates between rather narrow limits, it admits of no great differences of coloration.
The question thus suggests itself, whether species of butterflies only oscillate between two forms, or whether climatic change, when sufficiently great to produce variation, does not again originate a new form. Inasmuch as the reversion experiments with seasonally dimorphic butterflies appear to correspond with the latter view, I believe that this must be admitted. I am of opinion that an old form never again arises through change of climate, but always a new one; so that a periodically recurring change of climate is alone sufficient, in the course of a long period of time, to admit of new species arising from one another. This, at least, may be the case with butterflies.
My views rest essentially upon theoretical considerations. It has already been insisted upon, as results immediately from the experiments, that temperature does not act on the physical constitution of the individual in the same manner as acid or alkali upon litmus paper, i.e., that one and the same individual does not produce this or that coloration and marking according as it is exposed to warmth or cold; but rather that climate, when it influences in a similar manner many succeeding generations, gradually produces such a change in the physical constitution of the species that this manifests itself by other colours and markings. Now when this newly acquired physical constitution, established, as we may admit, throughout a long series of generations, is again submitted to a constant change of climate, this influence, even if precisely similar to that which obtained during the period of the first form of the species, cannot possibly reproduce this first form. The nature of the external conditions may be the same, but not so the physical constitution of the species. Just in the same manner as a Pieris (as has been already shown), a Lycæna, or a Satyrus, produces quite different varieties under the transforming influence of the same climate, so must the variation originating from the transformed species of our present case after the beginning of the primary climate be different from that primary form of the species, although perhaps in a less degree. In other words, if only two different climates alternated with each other during the earth’s geological periods, every species of butterfly submitted to these changes of climate would give rise to an endless series of different specific forms. The difference of climate would in reality be greater than supposed, and for any given species the climatic variation would not only occur through the periodic shifting of the ecliptic, but also through geological changes and the migrations of the species itself, so that a continuous change of species must have gone on from this sole cause of alternation of climate. When we consider that many species elsewhere extinct have become locally preserved, and when, further, to these we add those local forms which have arisen by the prevention of crossing (amixia), and finally take into consideration the important effects of sexual selection, we can no longer be astonished at the vast numbers of species of butterflies which we now meet with on the earth.
Should any one be inclined to conclude, from my reversion experiments with seasonally dimorphic butterflies, that the secondary species when exposed to the same climate as that which produced it must revert to the primary, he forgets that this reversion to the winter form is nothing but a reversion—i.e., a sudden return to a primary form through peculiar laws of inheritance—and by no means a gradual re-acquisition of this primary form under the gradual influence of the primary climate. Reversion to the winter form occurs also through other influences, as, for instance, by high temperature. Reversions of this kind, depending on laws of heredity, certainly happen with those cases of transmutation which do not alternate with the primary form, as in seasonal dimorphism, but which occur continuously. They would, however probably be more quickly suppressed in such cases than in seasonal dimorphism, where the constant alternation of the primary and secondary forms must always maintain the tendency of the latter to produce the former.
That the above conclusion is correct—that a secondary species, when exposed to the external conditions under the influence of which the primary form originated, does not again revert to the latter—is proved by experience with plants. Botanists[53] assure us “that cultivated races which become wild, and are thus brought back to their former conditions of life, do not become changed into the original wild form, but into some new one.”
A second point which appears to me to be elucidated by seasonal dimorphism, is the origin of variability. It has already been prominently shown that secondary forms are for the most part considerably more variable than primary forms. From this it follows that similar external influences either induce different changes in the different individuals of a species, or else change all individuals in the same manner, variability arising only from the unequal time in which the individuals are exposed to the external influence. The latter is undoubtedly the case, as appears from the differences which are shown by the various individuals of a secondary form. These are always only differences of degree and not of kind, as is perhaps most distinctly shown by the very variable A. Prorsa (summer form), in which all the occurring variations differ only by the Levana marking being more or less absent, and, at the same time, by approximating more or less to the pure Prorsa marking; but changes in a totally different direction never occur. It is likewise further evident, as has been mentioned above, that allied species and genera, and even entire families (Pieridæ), are changed by similar external inducing causes in the same manner—or, better, in the same direction.
In accordance with these facts the law may be stated, that, in butterflies at least, all the individuals of a species respond to the same external influences by similar changes, and that, consequently, the changes brought about by climatic influences take a fixed direction, determined by the physical constitution of the species. When, however, new climatic forms of butterflies, in which natural selection is completely excluded, and the nature of the species itself definitely determines the direction of the changes, nevertheless show variability from the very beginning, we may venture to conclude that every transformation of a species generally begins with a fluctuation of its characters. But when we find the primary forms of butterflies always far more constant, this shows that the continued crossing of the individuals of a species to a certain extent balances the fluctuations of form. Both facts taken together confirm the law formerly enunciated by me,[54] that in every species a period of variability alternates with one of (relative) constancy—the latter indicating the culmination, and the former the beginning or end, of its development. I here call to mind this law, because the facts which I advanced at that time, viz., Hilgendorf’s history of the phyletic development of the Steinheim fossil shells, having since become somewhat doubtful, one might easily be inclined to go too far in mistrusting them and refuse to give them any weight at all.[55]
In the essay just indicated I traced the origin of a certain class of local forms to local isolation. I attempted to show that when a species finds itself in an isolated district in a condition (period) of variability, it must there necessarily acquire somewhat deviating characters by being prevented from crossing with the individuals of other regions, or, what comes to the same thing, a local form must originate. This production of local forms results because the different variations which, for the time being, constitute the variability of the species, would always be in a different numerical proportion in the isolated district as compared with other regions; and further, because constancy is produced by the crossing of these (isolated) varieties among themselves; so that the resultant of the various components is (local) variation. If the components are dissimilar the resultant would also be different, and thus, from a theoretical point of view, there seems to me no obstacle in the way of the production of such local forms by the process of ‘amixia.’ I believe that I have further shown that numerous local forms can be conceived to have arisen through this process of preventive crossing, whilst they cannot be explained by the action of climatic influences.
That I do not deny the existence of true climatic forms in admitting this principle of ‘amixia,’ as has been frequently imagined, appears sufficiently from the treatise in question. The question arises, however, whether climatic influences may not also originate forms by ‘amixia’ by making a species variable. It would be difficult at present to decide finally upon this subject. If, however, in all cases a variation in a certain fixed direction occurred through climatic influences, a form could not arise by ‘amixia’ from such a variability, since the components could then produce resultants different only in degree and not in kind. But we are not yet able to extend our researches to such fine distinctions.
As a final, and not unimportant result of these investigations, I may once more insist that dissimilar influences, when they alternatingly affect a long series of originally similar generations in regularly recurring change, only modify the generations concerned, and not intermediate ones. Or, more briefly, cyclically acting causes of change produce cyclically recurring changes: under their influence series of monomorphic generations become formed into a cycle of di- or polymorphic generations.
There is no occasion to return here to the immediate evidence and proof of the foregoing law. In the latter, however, is comprised the question—is not the cycle of generations produced by cyclical heredity ultimately equivalent to Darwin and Haeckel’s homochronic heredity which forms the ontogenetic stages into a cycle? It is possible that from this point, in the future, the nature of the processes of heredity, which are still so obscure, may be penetrated into, and both phenomena traced to the same cause, as can now be only surmised but not clearly perceived.
Finally, the most general, and in so far chief result of these investigations, appears to me to lie in the conclusion, which may be thus formulated:—A species is only caused to change through the influence of changing external conditions of life, this change being in a fixed direction which entirely depends on the physical nature of the varying organism, and is different in different species, or even in the two sexes of the same species.
I am so little disposed to speak in favour of an unknown transforming power that I may here again insist that the transformation of a species only partly depends upon external influences, and partly on the specific constitution of the particular form. I designate this constitution ‘specific,’ inasmuch as it responds to the same inciting cause in a manner different to the constitution of another species. We can generally form a clear conception why this should be the case; for not only is there in another species a different kind of latent vital activity, but each species has also a different developmental history. It must be admitted that, from the earliest period of the formation of an organism, and throughout all its intermediate stages, properties which have become established, such as growth, nutrition, or tendency to development, have been transferred to the species now existing, each of which bears these tendencies in itself to a certain extent. It is these innate tendencies which determine the external and internal appearance of the species at every period of its life, and which, by their reaction to external factors, represent the life of the individual as well as that of the species. Since the sum of these inherited tendencies must vary more or less in every species, not only is the different external appearance of species as well as their physiological and biological diversity thus explained, but it necessarily follows therefrom, that different species must respond differently to those external causes which tend to produce a change in their form.
Now, this last conclusion is equivalent to the statement that every species, through its physical constitution, (in the sense defined) is impressed with certain fixed powers of variation, which are evidently extraordinarily numerous in the case of each species, but are not unlimited; they permit of a wide range for the action of natural selection, but they also limit its functions, since they certainly restrain the course of development, however wide the latter may be. I have elsewhere previously insisted[56] that too little is ascribed to the part played by the physical constitution of species in the history of their transformation, when the course of this transformation is attributed entirely to external conditions. Darwin certainly admits the importance of this factor, but only so far as it concerns the individual variation, the nature of which appears to him to depend on the physical constitution of the species. I believe, however, that in this directive influence lies the precise reason why, under the most favourable external circumstances, a bird can never become transformed into a mammal—or, to express myself generally, why, from a given starting-point, the development of a particular species cannot now attain, even under the most favourable external conditions, any desired goal; and why, from this starting-point, given courses of development, even when of considerable latitude, must be restricted, just as a ball rolling down a hill is diverted by a fixed obstacle in a direction determined by the position of the latter, and depending on the direction of motion and the velocity at the moment of being diverted.
In this sense I agree with Askenasy’s “fixed” direction of variation; but not if another new physical force directing variation itself is thereby intended.[57] The explanation of the phenomena does not appear to me to require such an admission, and, if unnecessary, it is certainly not legitimate. According to my view, transmutation by purely internal causes is not to be entertained. If we could absolutely suspend the changes of the external conditions of life, existing species would remain stationary. The action of external inciting causes, in the widest sense of the word, is alone able to produce modifications; and even the never-failing “individual variations,” together with the inherited dissimilarity of constitution, appear to me to depend upon unlike external influences, the inherited constitution itself being dissimilar because the individuals have been at all times exposed to somewhat varying external influences.
A change arising from purely internal causes seems to me above all quite untenable, because I cannot imagine how the same material substratum of physical constitution of a species can be transferred to the succeeding generation as two opposing tendencies. Yet this must be the case if the direction of development transferred by heredity is to be regarded as the ultimate ground both of the similarity and dissimilarity to the ancestors. All changes, from the least to the greatest, appear to me to depend ultimately only on external influences; they are the response of the organism to external inciting causes. It is evident that this response must be different when a physical constitution of a different nature is affected by the same inciting cause, and upon this, according to my view, depends the great importance of these constitutional differences.
If, under “heredity,” we comprise the totality of inheritance—that is to say, the physical constitution of a species at any time, and therefore the restricted and, in the foregoing sense, pre-determined power of variation, whilst under “adaptation” we comprehend the direct and indirect response of this physical constitution to the changes in the conditions of life, I can agree with Haeckel’s mode of expression, and with him trace the transformation of species to the two factors of heredity and adaptation.
APPENDIX I.
EXPERIMENTS.
Experiments with Araschnia Levana.
1. Bred from eggs laid by a female of the winter form on 12th-15th May, 1868, in a breeding-cage. The caterpillars emerged on 20th-22nd May, and pupated on 7th-9th June. The pupæ, kept at the ordinary temperature, produced:—
| On the | 19th | of June | 4 | butterflies. |
| ” | 20th | ” | 5 | ” |
| ” | 21st | ” | 10 | ” |
| ” | 22nd | ” | 9 | ” |
| ” | 23rd | ” | 7 | ” |
| ” | 25th | ” | 13 | ” |
| Total | 48 | ” | ||
All these butterflies were of the Prorsa type, 3 females having a considerable amount of yellow, but none with so much as figs. 3, 4, 7, 8, or 9. [Pl. I].
2. August 12th, 1868, found larvæ of the third generation, which pupated at the beginning of September, and were kept in a room not warmed. In September three butterflies emerged in the Prorsa form, the remainder hibernating and producing, after being placed in a heated room at the end of February, from the 1st to the 17th of March, 1869, more butterflies, all of the Levana form.
3. Larvæ found on the 17th June, 1869, were sorted according to colour; the yellow ones, with light brown spines, produced, at the ordinary temperature, on 8th-12th July, 13 butterflies, 12 of which showed the ordinary Prorsa type, and one, a male, possessing more yellow than fig. 3, [Pl. I]., must be considered as a Porima type.
4. From caterpillars of the second generation, found at the same time as those of Exp. [3], 30 pupæ were placed in the refrigerator (temperature 8°-10° R.) on June 25th. When the box was opened on August 3rd, almost all had emerged, many being dead, and all, without exception, were of the intermediate form (Porima), although nearer the Prorsa than the Levana type.
5. A large number of caterpillars of the second generation, found at the same time, pupated, and were kept at a high summer temperature. After a pupal period of about 19 days, some 70 butterflies emerged from 28th June to 5th July, all of the Prorsa form, with the exception of 5, which were strongly marked with yellow (Porima).
6. The 70 butterflies of the foregoing experiment were placed in an enclosure 6 feet high, and 8 feet long, in which, during warm weather, they freely swarmed on flowers. Copulation was only once observed, and but one female laid eggs on nettle on July 4th. At the high summer temperature prevailing at the time, these eggs produced butterflies after 30–31 days (third generation). All were Prorsa, with more or less yellow; among 18 none were completely Porima.
7. Young larvæ of the fourth generation, found on the 8th of August, were reared in a hothouse (17°-20° R.). They pupated on 21st-23rd August. Of these:—
A. 56 pupæ were placed on ice (0°-1° R.) for five weeks, and then allowed to hibernate in a room not warmed. In April, 1870, they all gave the Levana form, with the exception of a single Porima.
B. About an equal number of pupæ were placed in the hothouse, but without any result; for, notwithstanding a temperature of 12°-24° R., not a single butterfly emerged in the course of October and November. The pupæ were then allowed to hibernate in an unheated room, and in April and May gave nothing but Levana.
8. Caterpillars of the second generation, found at the beginning of June, 1870, pupated on 13th-15th June, and gave, at the ordinary temperature, on June 29th-30th, 7 butterflies of the Prorsa form.
9. Pupæ of the same (second) generation were placed immediately after pupation on June 18th, 1870, in a refrigerator (0°-1° R.), and after remaining there four weeks (till July 18th) gave, at the ordinary summer temperature:—
| On the | 22nd | of July, | 2 | Prorsa. |
| ” | 23rd | ” | 3 | ” |
| ” | 24th | ” | 6 | Porima, 4 of which were very similar to Levana. |
| ” | 25th | ” | 1 | Levana, without the blue marginal line. |
| ” | 26th | ” | 2 | Levana, also without the blue marginal line. |
| ” | 2nd | August, | 6 | Porima. |
| Total | 20 | |||
Of these 20 butterflies only 5 were of the pure Prorsa form.
10. Full grown larvæ of the fourth generation, found on August 20th, 1870, pupated on August 26th to September 5th. The pupæ were divided into three portions:—
A. Placed in the hothouse (12°-25° R.), immediately after pupation and left there till October 20th. Of about 40 pupæ only 4 emerged, 3 of which were Prorsa and 1 Porima. The remaining pupæ hibernated and all changed into Levana the following spring.
B. Kept in a room heated to 6°-15° R. from November. Not a single specimen emerged the same year. This lot of pupæ were added to C from November.
C. Placed on ice for a month immediately after pupation; then, from September 28th to October 19th in the hothouse, where no more butterflies emerged. The pupæ hibernated, together with those from lot B, in a room heated by water to 6°-15° R., and gave:—
| On the | 6th | of February, | 1 | female Levana. |
| ” | 22nd | ” | 1 | male Levana. |
| ” | 23rd | ” | 1 | male Levana. |
| ” | 24th | ” | 1 | female Levana. |
| ” | 25th | ” | 1 | male and 1 female Levana. |
| ” | 28th | ” | 1 | male and 1 female Levana. |
| ” | 1st | of March, | 1 | male Levana. |
| ” | 13th | ” | 1 | female Levana. |
| ” | 15th | ” | 1 | female Levana. |
| ” | 19th | ” | 1 | male Levana. |
| ” | 2nd | of April, | 2 | male and 1 female Levana. |
| ” | 7th | ” | 1 | female Levana. |
| ” | 21st | ” | 1 | female Levana. |
| ” | 2nd | of May, | 1 | female Levana. |
| Total | 18 | Levana, 10 of which were females. | ||
The exact record of the time of emergence is interesting, because it is thereby rendered apparent that different individuals respond more in different degrees to a higher than to the ordinary temperature. Whilst with many an acceleration of development of 1–2 months occurred, others emerged in April and May, i.e. at the time of their appearance in the natural state.
11. Reared the second generation from eggs of the first generation. Emerged from the eggs on June 6th, 1872, pupated on July 9th. The pupæ were placed on ice (0°-1° R.) from July 11th till September 11th, and then transferred to a hothouse, where all emerged:—
| On the | 19th | of September, | 3 | male Prorsa, 1 male Porima. |
| ” | 21st | ” | 13 | Porima (12 males, 1 female), 2 female Levana. |
| ” | 22nd | ” | 14 | Porima (12 males, 2 females) and 1 female Levana. |
| ” | 23rd | ” | 10 | female Levana, 3 male Porima. |
| ” | 24th | ” | 5 | female Levana. |
| ” | 25th | ” | 1 | female Levana. |
| ” | 27th | ” | 3 | female Levana. |
| ” | 4th | of October, | 1 | male Porima. |
| Total | 57 | butterflies (32 males and 25 females), | ||
| only 3 of which were Prorsa, 32 Porima, and 22 Levana. | ||||
It must be pointed out, however, that among those specimens marked as “Levana” there were none which entirely corresponded with the natural Levana, or which indeed approximated so nearly to this form as did some of the specimens in Exp. [9]. All were larger than the natural Levana, and possessed, notwithstanding the large amount of yellow, more black than any true Levana. In all artificially bred Levana the black band of the basal half of the hind wings is always interrupted with yellow, which is seldom the case with true Levana. The whole appearance of the artificial Levana is also coarser, and the contour of the wings somewhat different, the fore-wings being broader and less pointed. (See figs. 7 to 9, [Pl. I].).
12. Larvæ of the fourth generation, found on September 22nd, 1872, were divided into two portions:—
A. Placed for pupation in an orchid-house at 12°-25° R., and allowed to remain there till December. In spite of the high temperature not a single butterfly emerged during this time, whilst pupæ of Vanessa C-album and Pyrameis Atalanta, found at the same time, and placed in the same hothouse, emerged in the middle of October. From the middle of December the pupæ were kept in an unheated room, and they emerged very late in the spring of 1873, all as Levana:—
| On the | 6th | of June, | 7 | Levana. |
| ” | 8th | ” | 2 | ” |
| ” | 11th | ” | 2 | ” |
| ” | 12th | ” | 1 | ” |
| ” | 15th | ” | 6 | ” |
| ” | 16th | ” | 1 | ” |
| ” | 19th | ” | 2 | ” |
| Total | 21 | ” | ||
B. Kept in an unheated room during the winter. The butterflies emerged from the 28th of May, all as Levana.
Experiments with Pierinæ.
13. Females of Pieris Rapæ, captured in April, laid eggs on Sisymbrium Alliaria. From these caterpillars were obtained, which pupated on 1st-3rd June. The pupæ were placed on ice from June 3rd till September 11th (0°-1° R.), and from September 11th till October 3rd in the hothouse (12°-24° R.), where there emerged:—
| On the | 23rd | of October, | 1 female. |
| ” | 24th | ” | 1 female. |
| ” | 25th | ” | 2 males, 1 female. |
| ” | 26th | ” | 1 female. |
| ” | 28th | ” | 1 male, 1 female. |
| Total | 3 males, 5 females. | ||
All these were sharply impressed with the characters of the winter form, the females all strongly yellow on the upper side, the males pure white; on the under side a strong black dusting on the hind wings, particularly on the discoidal cell. One pupa did not emerge in the hothouse, but hibernated, and gave in a heated room on January 20th, 1873, a female, also of the winter form.
14. Females of Pieris Napi, captured on 27th-28th April, 1872, laid eggs on Sisymbrium Alliaria. The larvæ bred from these pupated on May 28th to June 7th. The pupæ, shortly after transformation, were placed on ice, where they remained till Sept. 11th (three months). Transferred to the hothouse on October 3rd, they produced, up to October 20th, 60 butterflies, all with the sharply-defined characters of the winter form. The remaining pupæ hibernated in a room, and produced:—
| On the | 28th | of April, | 3 males, 6 females. |
| ” | 4th | of May, | 1 female. |
| ” | 12th | ” | 4 males. |
| ” | 15th | ” | 1 male, 1 female. |
| ” | 16th | ” | 1 male. |
| ” | 18th | ” | 1 male, 1 female. |
| ” | 19th | ” | 1 female. |
| ” | 20th | ” | 2 males, 1 female. |
| ” | 23rd | ” | 2 males. |
| ” | 26th | ” | 1 male. |
| ” | 29th | ” | 1 female. |
| ” | 3rd | of June, | 3 females. |
| ” | 6th | ” | 1 female. |
| ” | 9th | ” | 1 female. |
| ” | 21st | ” | 1 female. |
| ” | 2nd | of July, | 1 female. |
| Total | 15 males, 19 females. | ||
15. Several butterflies from Exp. [14], which emerged in May, 1873, were placed in a capacious breeding-house, where they copulated and laid eggs on rape. The caterpillars fed on the living plants in the breeding-house, and after pupation were divided into two portions:—
A. Several pupæ, kept at the ordinary summer temperature, gave butterflies on July 2nd, having the characters of the summer form.
B. The remainder of the pupæ were placed on ice immediately after transformation, and remained over three months in the refrigerator (from July 1st till October 10th). Unfortunately most of them perished through the penetration of moisture into the box. Only 8 survived, 3 of which emerged on the 20th of October as the winter form; the others hibernated in an unheated room, and emerged at the beginning of June, 1874. All 5 were females, and all exhibited the characters of the winter form. Notwithstanding a pupal period of eleven months, they did not possess these characters to a greater extent than usual, and did not, therefore, approximate to the parent-form Bryoniæ.
16. On June 12th, 1871, specimens of Pieris Napi, var. Bryoniæ, were captured on a mountain in the neighbourhood of Oberstorf (Allgäuer Alpen), and placed in a breeding-house, where they flew freely about the flowers; but although copulation did not take place, several females laid eggs on the ordinary garden cabbage. From these caterpillars were hatched, which at all stages of growth were exactly like those of the ordinary form of Napi. They throve well until shortly before pupation, when a fungoid epidemic decimated them, so that from 300 caterpillars only about 40 living pupæ were obtained. These also completely resembled the ordinary form of Napi, and showed the same polymorphism, some being beautifully green, others (the majority) straw yellow, and others yellowish grey. Only one butterfly emerged the same summer, a male, which, by the black dusting of the veins on the margin of the wings (upper side), could be with certainty recognized as var. Bryoniæ. The remaining pupæ hibernated in a heated room, and gave, from the end of January to the beginning of June, 10 males and 5 females, all with the characters of the var. Bryoniæ. They emerged:—
| On the | 22nd | of January, | 1 male. |
| ” | 26th | ” | 1 male. |
| ” | 3rd | of February, | 1 male. |
| ” | 4th | ” | 1 male. |
| ” | 5th | ” | 1 male. |
| ” | 7th | ” | 1 female. |
| ” | 9th | ” | 1 male. |
| ” | 24th | ” | 1 male. |
| ” | 4th | of March, | 1 female. |
| ” | 11th | ” | 1 male, 1 female. |
| ” | 6th | of April, | 1 female. |
| ” | 17th | ” | 1 male. |
| ” | 11th | of May, | 1 female. |
| ” | 3rd | of June, | 1 male. |
We here perceive that the tendency to accelerate development through the action of warmth is, in this case, also very different in different individuals. Of the 16 butterflies only 1 kept to the normal period of development from July 27th to June 3rd, fully ten months; all the others had this period abbreviated, 1 male to eleven days, 8 specimens to six months, 4 to seven months, 2 to eight months, and 1 to nine months.