Hormones and Heredity / A Discussion of the Evolution of Adaptations and the Evolution of Species

by J. T. Cunningham

CHAPTER VI

Origin Of Non-Sexual Characters: The Phenomena Of Mutation

According to the theory here advocated, modifications produced by external stimuli in the soma will also be inherited in some slight degree in each generation when they have no relation to sex or reproduction. In this case the habits and the stimuli which they involve will be common to both sexes, and the hormones given off by the hypertrophied tissues will act upon the corresponding determinants in the gametocytes. The modifications thus produced will therefore be related to habits, and the theory will include all adaptations of structure to function, but other characters may also be included which are the result of stimuli and yet have no function or utility.

The majority of evolutionists in recent years have taught that influences exerted through the soma have no effect on the determinants in the chromosomes of the gametes, that all hereditary variations are gametogenic and none somatogenic. Mendelians believe that evolution has been due to the appearance of characters or factors of the same kind as those which distinguish varieties in cultivated organisms, and which are the subject of their experiments, but they have found a difficulty, as already mentioned in Chapter II, in forming any idea of the origin of a new dominant character. A recessive character is the absence of some positive character, and if in the cell-divisions of gametogenesis the factor for the positive character passes wholly into one cell, the other will be without it, will not 'carry' that factor. If such a gamete is fertilised by a normal gamete the organism developed from the zygote will be heterozygous, and segregation will take place in its gametes between the chromosome carrying the factor and the other without it, so that there will now be many gametes destitute of the factor in question. When two such gametes unite in fertilisation the resulting organism will be a homozygous recessive, and the corresponding character will be absent. In this way we can conceive the origin of albino individuals from a coloured race, supposing the colour was due to a single factor.

In Bateson's opinion the origin of a new dominant is a much more difficult problem. In 1913 he discussed the question in his Silliman Lectures. [Footnote: Problems of Genetics, Oxford Univ. Press, 1913.] He considers the difficulty is equally hopeless whether we imagine the dominants to be due to some change internal to the organism or to the assumption of something from without. Accounts of the origin of new dominants under observation in plants usually prove to be open to the suspicion that the plant was introduced by some accident, or that it arose from a previous cross, or that it was due to the meeting of complementary factors. In medical literature, however, there are numerous records of the spontaneous origin of various abnormalities which behave as dominants, such as brachydactyly, and Bateson considers the authenticity of some of these to be beyond doubt. He concludes that it is impossible in the present state of knowledge to offer any explanation of the origin of dominant characters. In a note, however, he suggests the possibility that there are no such things as new dominants. Factors have been discovered which simply inhibit or prevent the development of other characters. For example, the white of the plumage in the White Leghorn fowl is due to an inhibiting factor which prevents the development of the colour factor which is also present. Withdraw the dominant inhibiting factor, and the colour shows itself. This is shown by crossing the dominant white with a recessive white, when some birds of the F(2) generation are coloured.[Footnote: Bateson, Principles of Heredity, p. 104.] Similarly, brachydactyly in man may be due to the loss of an inhibiting factor which prevents it appearing in normal persons. It is evident, however, that it is difficult to apply this suggestion to all cases. For example, the White Leghorn fowl must have descended from a coloured form, probably from the wild species Gallus bankiva. If Bateson's suggestion were valid we should have to suppose that the loss of the factor for colour caused the dominant white to appear, and then when this is withdrawn colour appears again, so that the colour factors and the inhibiting factors must lie over one another in a kind of stratified alternation. And then how should we account for the recessive white?

In his Presidential Address to the meeting of the British Association in Australia, 1914, Bateson explains his suggestion somewhat more fully with a command of language which is scarcely less remarkable than the subject matter. The more true-breeding forms are studied the more difficult it is to understand how they can vary, how a variation can arise. When two forms of Antirrhinum are crossed there is in the second generation such a profusion of different combinations of the factors in the two grandparents, that Lotsy has suggested that all variations may be due to crossing. Bateson does not agree with this. He believes that genetic factors are not permanent and indestructible, but may undergo quantitative disintegration or fractionation, producing subtraction or reduction stages, as in the Picotee Sweet Pea, or the Dutch Rabbit. Also variation may take place by loss of factors as in the origin of the white Sweet Pea from the coloured. But regarding a factor as something which, although it may be divided, neither grows nor dwindles, neither develops nor decays, the Mendelian cannot conceive its beginning any more than we can conceive the creation of something out of nothing. Bateson asks us to consider therefore whether all the divers types of life may not have been produced by the gradual unpacking of an original complexity in the primordial, probably unicellular forms, from which existing species and varieties have descended. Such a suggestion in the present writer's opinion is in one sense a truism and in another an absurdity. That the potentiality of all the characters of all the forms that have existed, pterodactyls, dinosaurs, butterflies, birds, etc. etc., including the characters of all the varieties of the human race and of human individuals, must have been present in the primordial ancestral protoplasm, is a truism, for if the possibility of such evolution did not exist, evolution would not have taken place. But that every distinct hereditary character of man was actually present as a Mendelian factor in the ancestral Amoeba, and that man is merely a group of the whole complex of characters allowed to produce real effects by the removal of a host of inhibiting factors, is incredible. The truth is that biological processes are not within our powers of conception as those of physics and chemistry are, and Bateson's hypothesis is nothing but the old theory of preformation in ontogeny. Just as the old embryologists conceived the adult individual to be contained with all its organs to the most minute details within the protoplasm of the fertilised ovum or one of the gametes, so the modern Mendelian, because he is unable to conceive or to obtain the evidence of the gradual development of a hereditary factor, conceives all the hereditary factors of the whole animal kingdom packed in infinite complexity within the protoplasm of the primordial living cells. That man is complex and Amoeba simple is merely a delusion; the truth according to Mendelism is that man is merely a fragment of the complexity of the original Amoeba.

Mendelism studies especially the heredity of characters, and only incidentally deals with recorded instances of the appearance of new forms, such as the origin of a salmon-coloured variety of Primula from a crimson variety. The occurrence of new characters, or mutations as they are called, has been specially studied by other investigators, and I propose briefly to consider the two most important examples of such research, namely, that by Professor T. H. Morgan, which deals with the American fruit-fly Drosophla, and the other which concerns the mutations of the genus of plants OEnothera, exemplified by our well-known Evening Primrose.

Professor T. H. Morgan informs us [Footnote: A Critique of the Theory of Evolution (Oxford Univ. Press, 1916), p. 60] that within five or six years in laboratory cultures of the fruit-fly, Drosophila ampelophila, arose over a hundred and twenty-five new types whose origin was completely known. The first of these which he mentions is that of eye colour, differing in the two sexes, in the female dark eosin, in the male yellowish eosin. Another mutation was a change of the third segment of the thorax into a segment similar to the second. Normally the third segment bears minute appendages which are the vestiges of the second pair of wings; in the mutant the wings of the third segment are true wings though imperfectly developed. A factor has also occurred which causes duplication of the legs. Another mutation is loss of the eyes, but in different individuals pieces of the eye may be present, and the variation is so wide that it ranges from eyes which until carefully examined appear normal, to the total absence of eyes. Wingless flies also arose by a single mutation. These were found on mating with normal specimens to be all recessive characters, thus agreeing with Bateson's views. The next one described is dominant. A single male appeared with a narrow vertical red bar instead of the broad red normal eye. When this male was bred with normal females all the eyes of the offspring were narrower than the normal eye, though not so narrow as in the abnormal male parent. It may be pointed out that this is scarcely a sufficient proof of dominance. If the mutation were due to the loss of one factor affecting the eye, the heterozygote carrying the normal factor from the mother only might very well develop a somewhat imperfect eye.

Morgan arranges the numerous mutations observed in Drosophila in four groups, corresponding in his opinion to the four pairs of chromosomes occurring in the cells of the insect. After the meiotic or reduction divisions each gamete of course contains in its nucleus four single chromosomes. One of the four pairs consists of the sex-chromosomes. All the factors of one group are contained in one chromosome, and it is found in experiments that the members of each group tend to be inherited together—that is to say, if two or more enter a cross together, in other words, if a specimen possessing two or more mutations is crossed with another in which they are absent, they tend to segregate as though they were a single factor. This fact agrees with the hypothesis that the factors in such a case are contained in a single chromosome which segregates from the fellow of its pair in the reduction divisions. Exceptions may occur, however, and these are explained by what is called 'crossing over.' When one chromosome of a pair, instead of being parallel to the other in the gametocyte, crosses it at a point of contact, then when the chromosomes separate, part of one chromosome remains connected with the part of the other on the same side and the two parts separate as a new chromosome, so that two factors originally in the same chromosome may thus come to lie in different chromosomes. In consequence of this, two or more factors which are usually 'coupled' or inherited together may come to appear in different individuals.

Morgan emphasises the statement that a factor does not affect only one particular organ or part of the body. It may have a chief effect in one kind of organ, e.g. the wings or eyes, but usually affects several parts of the body. Thus the factor that causes rudimentary wings also produces sterility in females, general loss of vigour, and short hind legs.

The facts to which I shall refer concerning Oenothera are for the most part quoted on the authority of Dr. Ruggles Gates, and taken from his book The Mutation Factor in Evolution (London, 1915). The occurrence of mutations in Oenothera was first noticed by De Vries, the Dutch botanist, in the neighbourhood of Amsterdam in 1886. He found a large number of specimens of Oenothera Lamarckiana growing in an abandoned potato-field at Hilversum, and these plants showed an unusual amount of variation. He transplanted nine young plants to the Botanic Garden of Amsterdam, and cultivated them and their descendants for seven generations in one experiment. Similar experiments have been made by himself and others. The large majority of the plants produced from the Oe. Lamarckiana by self-fertilisation were of the same form with the same characters, but a certain percentage presented 'mutations'—that is, characters different from the parent form, and in some cases identical with those of plants occurring occasionally among those growing wild in the field where the observations began. Nine of these mutants have been recognised and defined, and distinguished by different names. The characters are precisely described and in many cases figured by Gates in the volume cited above. The first mutant to be recognised—in 1887—was one called lata. It must be explained that the young plant of Oenothera has practically no stem, but a number of leaves radiating in all directions from the growing point which is near the surface of the soil. The plant is normally biennial, and in the first season the internodes are not developed. This first stage is called the 'rosette.' From the reduced stem are afterwards developed one or more long stems with elongated internodes, bearing leaves and flowers. In the mutation lata the rosette leaves are shorter and more crinkled than those of Lamarckiana, and the tips of the leaves are very broad and rounded. The stems of the mature plant are short and usually more or less decumbent with irregular branches. The flower-buds are peculiarly stout and barrel-shaped, with a protrusion on one side. The seed-capsules are short and thick, containing relatively few seeds, and the pollen is wholly or almost wholly sterile.

It is to be noted here, a fact emphasised by DeVries in his earliest publications on the subject, that in nearly all, if not all cases, a mutation does not consist in a peculiarity of a single organ, but in an alteration of the whole plant in every part. In this respect mutations as observed in Oenothera seem to be in striking contrast to the majority of Mendelian characters. Mutation in fact seems to be a case of what the earlier Darwinians called correlation, while Mendelian characters may apparently be separated and rejoined in any combination. For example, in breeds of fowls any colour or any type of plumage may be obtained with single comb or with rose comb. In my own experiments on fowls the loose kind of plumage first known in the Silky fowl, which is white, could be combined with the coloured plumage of the type known as black-red. At the same time it must be borne in mind that since the factor, whether a portion of a chromosome or not, is transmitted in heredity as a part of a single cell, the gamete, and since every cell of the developed individual is derived by division from the single zygote cell formed by the union of the two gametes, the factor or determinant must be contained in every cell of the soma, except in cases where differential division, or what is called somatic segregation, takes place. Thus the factor which causes the comb to be a rose comb in a fowl must be present in the cells that produce the plumage or the toes or any other part of the body. Morgan, as mentioned above, finds in Drosophila that factors do affect several parts of the body. It is, however, curious to consider that the factor which produces intense pigmentation of the skin and all the connective tissue in the Silky fowl has no effect on the colour of the plumage in that breed, which is a recessive white. The plumage is an epidermic structure, and therefore distinct from the connective tissue, but it is difficult to understand why a pigment factor though present in every cell has no effect on epidermic cells.

The Mendelians, when the mutations of Oenothera were first described, endeavoured to show that they were merely examples of the segregation of factors from a heterozygous combination. They suggested in fact that Oenothera Lamarckiana was the result of a cross, or repeated crosses, between plants differing in many factors, that the numerous mutations were similar to the variety of different types which are produced by breeding together the grey mice arising from a cross between an albino and a Japanese waltzing mouse in Darbishire's experiment. Since that time, however, the natural distribution and the cultural history of Oenothera has been very thoroughly worked out. Oenothera Lamarckiana is the common Evening Primrose of English gardens. The species of the sub-genus Onagra to which Lamarckiana belongs were originally confined to America (Canada, United States, and Mexico), but Lamarckiana itself has never been found there in a wild state. Attempts, however, to produce it by crossing of other forms have not succeeded, and a specimen has been discovered at the Muséum d'Histoire Naturelle at Paris, collected by Michaux in North America about 1796, which agrees exactly with the Oenothera Lamarckiana naturalised or cultivated in Europe. The plant was first described by Lamarck from plants grown in the gardens of the Muséum d'Histoire Naturelle, under the name OE. grandiflora, which had been introduced by Solander from Alabama, but Seringe subsequently decided that Lamarck's species was distinct from grandiflora, and named it Lamarckiana. Gates states that Michaux was in the habit of collecting seeds with his specimens, and that it is therefore highly probable that Lamarck's specimens were grown directly from seeds collected in America by Michaux. Gates considers that the suggestion of the hybrid origin of Lamarckiana in culture is thus finally disposed of. By the year 1805, Lamarckiana was apparently naturalised and flourishing on the coast of Lancashire, and in 1860 it was brought into commerce, probably from these Lancashire plants, by Messrs, Carter. The cultures of De Vries are descended from these commercial seeds, but the Swedish race of Lamarckiana, as well as those of English gardens, differ in several features and must have come from another source or been modified by crossing with grandiflora. This last remark is quoted from Gates, but it seems improbable that the Dutch plants should be derived from those of Lancashire, and those of English gardens from a different source. The fact seems to be, according to other parts of Gates's volume, that there are various races of Lamarckiana in English gardens and in the Isle of Wight, as well as in Sweden, etc., and that these races differ from one another less than the mutants of De Vries and his followers.

An important point about these mutations is that their production is a constant feature of Lamarckiana. Whenever large numbers of the seeds of this plant are grown, a certain proportion of the plants developed present these same mutations; not always all of them—some may be absent in one culture, present in another, but four of them are fairly common and of constant occurrence. The total proportion of mutant plants compared with the normal was 1.55 per cent. in one family, 5.8 per cent. in another. It would appear therefore, supposing that mutations arose subsequently in the same determinate way from previous mutations, that evolution, though in a number of divergent directions from one ancestral form, would proceed along definite lines, and that there would be nothing accidental about it. We should thus arrive at a demonstration of what Eimer called orthogenesis, or evolution in definite directions.

The mutation lata cannot be said to breed true, as the pollen is almost entirely sterile. It has therefore been propagated by crossing with Lamarckiana pollen, with the result that both forms are obtained with lata varying in proportion from 4 per cent. to 45 per cent.

Rubrinervis is a mutation from Lamarckiana, chiefly distinguished by red midribs in the leaves and red stripes on the sepals. When propagated from self-fertilised seed it produced about 95 per cent. of offspring with the same characters, and the remaining 5 per cent. mutants, one of which was laevifolia which had been found by De Vries among plants growing wild at Hilversum. Gates obtained a single plant among offspring of rubrinervis in which the sepals were red throughout, and to this he gave the name rubricalyx. When selfed this plant gave rise to both rubricalyx and rubrinervis, and in the second generation when the rubricalyx was selfed again the numbers of the two were approximately 3 to 1. Rubricalyx is therefore a dominant heterozygote, and this fact was further confirmed in the third generation when a selfed plant gave 200 offspring all rubricalyx, the mother plant having evidently been homozygous for the red character. In this case, therefore, we have what Bateson was seeking, the origin of a new dominant character under observation, the original mutation having arisen in a single gamete of the zygote which gave rise to the plant. It is claimed by mutationists that mutations are not new combinations or separations of Mendelian unit characters already present, but are themselves new characters, though not always necessarily, as in the case of rubricalyx, new unit characters in the Mendelian sense.

Perhaps the most interesting of the researches on the phenomena of mutation are those concerning the relation of the characters to the chromosomes of the cell, in which Gates has been a pioneer and one of the most industrious and successful investigators. The behaviour of the chromosomes in meiosis or reduction division both in the pollen mother-cells and in the megaspore mother-cells which give rise to the so-called embryo-sac are fully described by Gates. Here it is only necessary to refer to the abnormalities in the reduction division which are related to mutation, and the results of these abnormalities in the number of chromosomes. The original number of chromosomes in OEnothera is 14. In the mutation lata this has become 15, and also in another mutation called semilata. The chromosomes before the reduction division are arranged in pairs, each pair consisting, it is believed, of one paternal and one maternal chromosome. One of each pair goes into one daughter-cell and the other into the other, but not all maternal into one and all paternal into the other. Thus each daughter-cell after the first or heterotypic division in normal cases contains 7 chromosomes. A second homotypic division takes place in which each chromosome splits into two as in somatic divisions, and thus we have 4 gametes with 7 chromosomes each. Now when lata is produced it is believed that in the heterotypic division one pair passes into one daughter-cell instead of one chromosome of the pair into each daughter-cell, the other pairs segregating in the usual way. We thus have one daughter-cell with 8 chromosomes and the other with 6. This 6+8 distribution has actually been observed in the pollen mother-cell in rubrinervis. When a gamete with 8 chromosomes unites in fertilisation with a normal gamete with 7 the zygote has 15. The lata mutants having an odd chromosome are almost completely male-sterile, and their seed production is also much reduced: but this partial sterility cannot be attributed entirely to the odd chromosome because semilata, which has also 15 chromosomes, does not show the same degree of sterility.

Other cases occur in which the number of chromosomes in the somatic cells is double the ordinary number—namely, 28—and others in which the number is 21. The normal number in the gamete, 7, is considered the simple or haploid number, and therefore the number 28 is called tetraploid. This doubling of the somatic number of chromosomes is now known in a number of plants and animals. It occurs in the OEnothera mutant gigas. The origin of it has not been clearly made out, but it must result either from the splitting of each chromosome or from the omission of the chromosome reduction. In many cases the more numerous chromosomes are individually as large as those in normal plants, and consequently the nucleus is larger, the cell is larger, and the whole plant is larger in every part. But giantism may occur without tetraploidy, and vice versa. In the OEnothera gigas the rosette leaves are broadly lanceolate with obtuse or rounded tips, more crinkled than in Lamarckiana, petioles shorter. The stem-leaves are also larger, broader, thicker, more obtuse, and more crinkled than in Lamarckiana. The stem is much stouter, almost double as thick, but not taller because the upper internodes are shorter and less numerous. It is difficult to avoid the conclusion that the stouter character of the organs in this plant is causally connected with the increased number of chromosomes. Where the number of cells formed is approximately similar, as in two allied forms of plant in this case, the greater size of the cells would naturally give a stouter habit, but it is clear that large cells do not necessarily mean greater size. The cells of Salamander and Proteus are the largest found among Vertebrates, but those Amphibia are not the largest Vertebrates. It is curious to note how different are these discoveries concerning differences in the number of chromosomes from the conception of Morgan that a mutation depends on a factor situated in a part of one chromosome.

More copious details concerning mutations will be found in the publications cited. The question to be considered here is how far the claim is justified that the facts of this kind hitherto discovered afford an explanation of the process of evolution. It seems probable that mutations are of different kinds, as exemplified in Oenothera by gigas and rubricalyx respectively, the former producing only sterile hybrids, the latter behaving exactly like a Mendelian unit. There can be little doubt that, as Bateson states, numerous forms recognised as species or varieties in nature differ in the same way as the races or breeds of cultivated organisms which differ by factors independently inherited. There are facts, however, which prove that all species are not sterile inter se, and that their characters when they are hybridised do not always segregate in Mendelian fashion. John C. Phillips, [Footnote: Journ. Exper. Zool., vol. xviii., 1915.] for example, crossed three wild species of duck, Anas boscas (the Mallard) with Dafila acuta (the Pintail) and with Anas tristis. In the former cross he states that except for one or two characters there seemed to be no more tendency to variation in the F2 generation than in the F1. An F1 Pintail-Mallard [female] was mated with a wild Pintail [male]. According to Mendelian expectation the offspring of this mating should have been half Pintail and half Pintail-Mallard hybrids, but Phillips states that on casual inspection the plumage of all the males appeared pure Pintail although the shape was distinctly Mallard-like. The statement is, however, open to criticism. The question is, what were the unit characters in the parent species? If the unit characters were very small and numerous, an individual in which all the characters of the Pintail existed together among the offspring of the hybrid mated with pure Pintail would be rare in proportion to the individuals presenting other combinations. Of the F2's obtained from crossing Anas tristis [male] with Anas boscas [female] Phillips obtained 23 females and 16 males. The females were all alike and similar to F1 females. Of the males one was a variate specially marked, about half-way between the F1 type and the Mallard parent. This, according to Phillips, was a segregate. The rest showed a range of variation but no distinct segregation.

It is somewhat surprising that Mendelian experts, who seem to believe that species are distinguished by Mendelian characters, have not made systematic experiments on the crossing of species in order to prove or disprove their belief.

For my own part I cannot help thinking that the origin of varieties in species in a domesticated or cultivated state is in a sense pathological. Such variation doubtless occurs in nature, but not with such luxuriance. The breeds of domestic fowls differ so greatly that Bateson and others refuse to believe that they have all arisen from the single species Gallus bankiva. It seems to me from the evidence that there cannot be any doubt that they have so arisen. One fact that impresses my mind is that if we consider colour variations in domesticated animals, we find that a similar set of colours has arisen in the most diverse kinds of animals with sometimes certain markings or colours peculiar to one group, e.g. dappling in horses, wing bars in pigeons. Thus in various kinds of Mammals and Birds we have white and black, red or yellow, chocolate with various degrees of dilution, and piebald combinations. Why should forms originally so different, as the cat with its striped markings and the rabbit with no markings at all, give rise to the same colour varieties? It seems probable that the reason is that the original form had the small number of pigments which occur mixed together in very small particles, and that in the descendants the single pigments have separated out, with increase or decrease in different cases. It is true that historical evidence tends to show that the greatest variations, such as albinism in one direction or excess of pigment in the other in the Sweet Pea, were the first to arise (see Bateson, Presidential Address to British Association, Australia, 1914, Part I.), and the splitting appears often to be intentionally produced by crossing these extreme variations with the original form, but the possibility remains that the conditions of domestication, abundant food, security and reduced activity, lead to irregularity in the process of heredity. In any case the mere separation among different individuals of factors originally inherited together in one complex does not account for the origin of the complex or of the factors. This is somewhat the same idea as that of Bateson when he states that it is easy to understand the origin of a recessive character but difficult to conceive the origin of a dominant.

The point, however, which I desire most to emphasise is that the investigations we have been discussing are concerned with variations which have no relation whatever to adaptation, and afford no explanation of the evolution of adaptations. These variations perform no function in the life of the individual, have no relation to external conditions, either in the sense of being caused by special conditions or fitting the individual to live in special conditions. A still more important fact is that they do not explain the origin of metamorphosis. They do not arise by a metamorphosis: in the case of the rose comb of fowls the chick is not hatched with a single comb which gradually changes into a rose comb, but the rose comb develops directly from the beginning. Mutationists and Mendelians do not seem in the least to appreciate the importance of metamorphosis or of development generally in considering the relation of the mutations or factors which they study to evolution in general, because they have not grasped the fact that there are two kinds of characters to be explained, adaptational and non-adaptational. T. H. Morgan, for example, [Footnote: A Critique of the Theory of Evolution, p. 67 (Princeton, U.S.A., and London, 1916).] describes a mutation in Drosophila consisting in the loss of the eyes, and triumphantly remarks: 'Formerly we were taught that eyeless animals arose in caves. This case shows that they may also arise suddenly in glass milk-bottles by a change in a single factor.' As it stands the statement is perfectly true, but it is obvious that the writer does not believe that the darkness of caves ever had anything to do with the loss of eyes. It is almost as though a man should discover that blindness in a certain case was due to a congenital, i.e. gametic, defect, and should then scoff at the idea that any person could become blind by disease. Some of those who specialise in the investigation of genetics seem to give inadequate consideration to other branches of biology. It is a well-established fact that in the mole, in Proteus, and in Ambtyopsis (the blind fish of the Kentucky caves), the eyes develop in the embryo up to a certain stage in a perfectly normal way and degenerate afterwards, and that they are much better developed in the very young animal than in the adult. Does this metamorphosis take place in the blind Drosophila of the milk-bottle? The larva of the fly is, I believe, eyeless like the larvae of other Diptera, but Morgan says nothing of the eye being developed in the imago or pupa and then degenerating. There is therefore no relation or connexion between the mutation he describes and the evolution of blindness in cave animals. It is a truth, too often insufficiently appreciated by biologists, that sound reasoning is quite as important in science as fact or experiment. Loeb [Footnote: The Organism as a Whole, p. 319 (New York and London, 1916).] also endeavours to prove that the blindness of cave animals is no evidence of the influence of darkness in causing degeneration of the eyes. He refers to experiments by Uhlenhuth, who transplanted eyes of young Salamanders into different parts of their bodies where they were no longer connected with the optic nerves. These eyes underwent a degeneration which was followed by a complete regeneration. He showed that this regeneration took place in complete darkness, and that the transplanted eyes remained normal when the Salamanders were kept in the dark for fifteen months. Hence the development of the eyes does not depend on the influence of light or on the functional action of the organs. But it must be obvious to any biologist who has thoroughly considered the problem, that this experiment has little to do with the question of the cause of blindness in cave animals. No one ever supposed that cave fishes became blind in fifteen months, or in fifteen years. The experiment cited merely proves that in the individual the embryonic or young eye will continue developing by heredity even after it is transplanted and in the absence of light. But the eye of the Mammal normally develops in the uterus in the absence of light.

In his remarks concerning Typhlogobius, a blind fish on the coast of southern California, Loeb seems to be mistaken with regard to the facts. He states that this fish lives 'in the open, in shallow water under rocks, in holes occupied by shrimps.' According to Professor Eigenmann the same species of shrimp is found all over the Bay of San Diego, and is accompanied by other genera of goby, such as Clevelandia and Gillichthys, which have eyes; but these fishes live outside the holes, and only retreat into them when frightened, while the blind species is found only at Point Loma, and never leaves the burrows of the shrimp. It would appear, therefore, that Typhlogobius lives in almost if not quite complete darkness, instead of being, as Loeb states, 'blind in spite of exposure to light,' while the closely allied forms which are exposed to light are not blind.

Loeb states, on the authority of Eigenmann, that all those forms which live in caves were adapted to life in the dark before they entered the cave, because they are all negatively heliotropic and positively stereotropic, and with these tropisms would be forced to enter a cave whenever they were put at the entrance. Even those among the Amblyopsidae which live in the open have the tropisms of the cave dweller. But these latter are not blind, and the argument only tends to show that the blind fish Amblyopsis entered the caves before it was blind. Nocturnal animals generally must be said to be negatively heliotropic, but these usually have larger and more sensitive eyes than the diurnal.

It is said, however, that Chologaster agassizii, which is not blind, lives in the underground streams of Kentucky and Tennessee, but I think it is open to doubt whether it is a species entirely confined to darkness.

Another point which Loeb omits to mention is the absence of pigment in cave animals, especially Vertebrates such as Amblyopsis and Proteus. If absence of light is not the cause of blindness in these cases, how is it that the blindness is always associated with absence of pigment, since we know that the latter in Fishes and Amphibia is due to the absence of light? It has been shown that Proteus when kept in the light develops some amount of pigment, although it does not become pigmented to the same degree as ordinary Amphibia. We have here, I think, an example of the essential difference between mutations and somatic modifications. Absence of the gametic factor or factors for pigmentation results in albinism, and no amount of exposure to light produces pigmentation in albinos, e.g. albino Axolotls which are well known in captivity. Absence of light, on the other hand, prevents the development of pigment. The question therefore is whether the somatic modification is inherited. The fact that Proteus does not rapidly become as deeply coloured when exposed to light as ordinary Amphibia shows that the gametic factors for pigmentation have been modified as well as the somatic tissues.

Loeb attributes the blindness of cave fishes to a disturbance in the circulation and mutation of the eyes originally occurring as a mutation. But how could an explanation of this kind be applied to the case of Anableps tetrophthalmus, in which each eye is divided by a partition of the cornea and lens into an upper half adapted for vision in air and a lower half for vision in water? This fish lives in the smooth water of estuaries in Central America, and swims habitually with the horizontal partition of the lens level with the surface of the water. It is impossible to understand in this case, firstly, how a mutation could cause the eyes to be divided and doubly adapted to two different optic conditions, and, secondly, how at the same time a convenient 'tropism' should occur which caused the animal to swim with its eyes half in and half out of water. Are we to suppose that the upper half of the body or eye had a positive heliotropism and the lower half a negative heliotropism? The fact is that the fish swims at the surface in order to watch for and feed on floating particles. The tropism concerned is the food tropism, but what is gained by calling the search for food common to all active animals a tropism, and how is the search for food before the food is perceptible to the senses, before it can act as a stimulus on a food-sensitive substance in the body, to be compared to a tropism at all?

Loeb undertakes to prove that the organism as a whole acts automatically according to physicochemical laws. But he misses the question of evolution altogether. For example, he quotes Gudernatsch as having proved that legs can be induced to grow in tadpoles at any time, even in very young specimens, by feeding them with thyroid gland. Loeb writes: 'The earlier writers explained the growth of the legs in the tadpole as a case of an adaptation to life on land. We know through Gudernatsch that the growth of the legs can be produced at any time by feeding the animal with the thyroid gland.' Obviously he thinks that these two propositions are contradictory to each other, whereas there is no contradiction, between them at all. Loeb actually supposes that the thyroid is the cause of the development of the legs. Logically, if this were the case it would follow that if we fed an eel or a snake with thyroid it would develop legs like those of a frog, and if a man were injected with extract of the testes of a stag he would develop antlers on his forehead. It will be obvious to most biologists that the thyroid, whether that of the tadpole itself or that which is supplied as food, only causes the development of legs because the hereditary power to develop legs is already present. The question is how this hereditary power was evolved. Legs are an adaptation to life on land. What we have to consider and to investigate is whether the legs arose as a gametic mutation or as a direct result of locomotion on land.

The general result of clinical and experimental evidence is to show that the hormone of the thyroid is necessary to normal development. The arrest of development in cretinous children is due to some deficiency of thyroid secretion, and is counteracted by the administration of thyroid extract. Excess of the secretion produces a state of restlessness and excitement associated with an abnormally rapid rate of metabolism and protrusion of the eye-balls (Graves' disease). The physiological text-books, however, say nothing of precocity of development in children as a result of hyperthyroidism. This, however, is undoubtedly what occurs in the case of tadpoles. The legs would naturally develop at some time or other, after a prolonged period of larval life. Feeding with thyroid causes them to develop at once. I have repeated Gudernatsch's experiment with the following results:—

This year I had a considerable number of tadpoles of the common English frog, which were hatched between March 26 and March 29. On April 12, when they had all passed the stage of external gills and developed internal gills and opercula, I divided them into two lots, one in a shallow pie-dish, the other in a glass cylinder. To one lot I gave a portion of rabbit's thyroid, to the other a piece of rabbit's liver. They fed eagerly on both. Afterwards I obtained at intervals of a week or so the thyroid of a sheep. I have seen no precise details of Gudernatsch's method of feeding tadpoles, but my own method was simply to put a piece of thyroid into the water containing the tadpoles and leave it there for several days, then to take it out and put in another piece, changing the water when it seemed to be getting foul.

April 22. Noticed that the non-thyroid tadpoles were larger than those fed on thyroid. Changed the former into the pie-dish and the latter into the glass jar, to make sure that the difference in size was not due to larger space.

May 3. Only eighteen of the non-thyroid tadpoles surviving, owing to the water having become foul, but these are three times as large as those fed on thyroid. In the latter no trace of hind-legs was visible, but the abdominal region was much emaciated and contracted, while the head region was broader.

May 4. Noticed minute white buds of hind-legs in the thyroid-fed tadpoles.

May 6. A number of the thyroid-fed were dying, and the skin and opercular membranes were swollen out away from the tissues beneath.

Largest normal tadpole, 2.7 cm. long.
body, 1.0 "
tail, 1.7 "
Largest thyroid-fed tadpole, 1.1 cm. long.
body, 0.5 "
tail, 0.6 "

May 10. A great number of the thyroid-fed dead and the rest dying, lying at the bottom motionless. They now had the tail much shorter, and the fore-legs showing as well as the hind, but the latter not very long, and without joints or toes.

Period from first feeding with thyroid, thirty days. I now decided to feed the controls with thyroid, expecting that as they were large and vigorous they would have strength enough to complete the metamorphosis and become frogs.

May 15. Fed the controls with thyroid for first time.

The smallest of them was in total length 1.7 cm.
body, 0.7 "
tail, 1.0 "
The largest measured was in total length 2.2 "
body, 0.8 "
tail, 1.4 "

May 25. All but two of the tadpoles dead. The tails were only half the original length, all had well-developed hind-legs, some with toes, but the fore-legs were beneath the opercula, not projecting from the surface.

Smallest total length, 1.2 cm.
body, 0.5 "
tail, 0.7 "
Largest total length, 1.8 "
body, 0.7 "
tail, 1.1 "

These last measurements were made after the tadpoles had been preserved in spirit, and were therefore doubtless somewhat less than in the fresh condition. Making allowance for this it is evident that the tails had undergone reduction as part of the metamorphosis, but the body was also shorter. There is some reason therefore for concluding that actual reduction in size of body occurs as the result of metamorphosis induced by thyroid feeding. As in the other case the skin and opercular membranes were distended by liquid beneath them.

The total period of the change in this second experiment was ten days.

I conclude that the amount of thyroid eaten was so excessive as to cause pathological conditions as well as precocious metamorphosis, so that the animals died without completing the process.

On June 10 I still had four tadpoles which had never had thyroid, but only pieces of meat, earthworm, or fish. These were very much larger than any of the others, were active and vigorous, and the largest one showed small rudiments of hind-legs, the others none at all.