FOOTNOTES:
[78] "Nullo modo fieri potest, ut axiomata per argumentationem constituta ad inventionem novorum operum valeant; quia subtilitas naturæ subtilitatem argumentandi multis partibus superat. Sed axiomata a particularibus rite et ordine abstracta, nova particularia rursus facile indicant et designant; itaque scientias reddunt activas."—Novum Organum, Aphoris. xxiv.
[79] In selecting this simple method to illustrate the principle of a binomial system of nomenclature, it is scarcely necessary to remind the reader that I do not intend to imply that every man is specifically distinct from his neighbour!
[80] Considérations sur un Nouveau Système de Nomenclature, par C. J. B. Amyot (Rev. Zool., p. 133, a.d. 1838).
[81] I may add, that this suggestion, as to the evenly balanced state of generic types, is in accordance with the views of Mr. Waterhouse,—whose extensive knowledge in the higher departments of zoological science gives a value to his opinion, especially on questions such as these, which I am glad to have an opportunity of acknowledging.
[82] Annals of Nat. Hist. (2nd series), xiv., p. 199.
[83] A familiar example of this disappearance of a creature before the aggressive powers of another, which is either hostile to or stronger than itself, is presented by the Black Rat (Mus rattus) of our own country,—which is said to have been extremely abundant formerly, but which is now replaced by the common brown (or "Hanoverian") one of Northern Europe. The British species, however, although it has become extremely scarce, is not yet quite exterminated: it has been recorded (vide 'Zoologist,' 611) in Essex, and in Devonshire ('Zoologist,' 2344); and it still swarms on a small rock off Lundy Island, in the Bristol Channel. It is reported, moreover, to have been lately re-introduced at Liverpool.
CHAPTER VII.
CONCLUSION
Depositâ sarcinâ, levior volabo ad cœlum.—S. Jerome.
Having now completed the short task which I had undertaken to perform, I will, in conclusion, offer a few brief comments on the results at which we have arrived, and endeavour to realize to what extent the consideration of them is likely to be found useful, during our inquiries into the general subject of entomological geography.
Commencing with the thesis, that specific variation, whether as a matter of experience or as probable from analogy, does ipso facto exist; I have endeavoured to maintain that position, by evidence of divers kinds; and I have sought to strengthen the inferences deduced, by an appeal to some of those external agents and circumstances which may be reasonably presumed (if not indeed actually demonstrated) to have had a considerable share in bringing it about. I have also suggested what the principal organs and characters are, in the Insecta, which would appear to be more peculiarly sensitive to the action of local influences; and I have then diverged to the question of topographical distribution, in connection with the geological changes on the earth's surface; and, lastly, to some practical hints arising out of a proper interpretation of the generic theory. How far I have succeeded in elucidating the several points which I proposed to examine, is a problem which must be solved by others; meanwhile, if I have failed at times to interpret what seems scarcely to admit of positive proof, I shall at least have had the advantage of propounding the enigmas for discussion, and of so paving the way for future research. We must remember, however, that, where certainty is not to be had, probability must be accepted in its stead; or, as an old writer has well expressed it: "That we ought to follow probability when certainty leaves us, is plain,—because it then becomes the only light and guide that we have. For, unless it is better to wander and fluctuate in absolute uncertainty than to follow such a guide; unless it be reasonable to put out our candle because we have not the light of the sun, it must be reasonable to direct our steps by probability, when we have nothing clearer to walk by".[84]
What my chief aim in the present treatise has been, will be easily perceived,—namely, to substantiate, as such, those elements of disturbance (on the outward contour of the Annulose tribes) with which the physical world does everywhere abound: and, thereupon, to provoke the inquiry, whether entomologists, as a mass, have usually taken them into sufficient account, when describing as "species," from distant quarters of the globe, insects which recede in only minute particulars from their ordinary states. My own impression is, that they have not done so; and, moreover, that, if they had, our catalogues would have worn a very different appearance to what they now do: for, when once the subject is fairly looked into and analysed, it is impossible not to be convinced, that the primâ-facie aspect of these creatures is eminently beneath the control of the several conditions to which they have been long exposed. But let me not be misunderstood in the conclusion which I have been thus compelled to endorse, or be supposed to ignore the fact that truly representative species may frequently occur in countries far removed from each other; which cannot therefore be regarded as modifications of a common type. I believe, however, that this doctrine of representation, whatever truth it may contain, has been too much relied upon; and that we have been over-ready to take advantage of it (unproved as it is) for the multiplication of our, so called, "specific novelties." I suspect, indeed, that actual representative species (if they may be thus expressed) are more often to be recognized on the isolated portions of a formerly continuous tract, than in regions which have been widely separated since the last creative epoch; and that, in the instances where beings of a nearly identical aspect are detected in opposite divisions of the earth, it is more often the case that members of them have been transported at a remote period (either by natural or artificial means) from their primæval haunts, and have become gradually altered by the circumstances amongst which they have been placed, than that the respective phases were produced in situ on patterns almost coincident.
I have before announced my conviction, that generic areas have a real existence in Nature's scheme; and that, consequently, where species which are so intimately allied that they can with difficulty be distinguished, prevail, there is presumptive reason to suspect (until at least the contrary is rendered probable) that the areas which they now colonize were once connected by an intervening land,—or, in other words, that the migrations of the latter were brought about, through ordinary diffusive powers, from specific centres within a moderate distance of each other. I say "presumptive reason," because there are undoubted exceptions to this law (as to every other), and it can therefore be only judged of on a broad scale. Still, I contend that in a wide sense it holds good; and that, consequently, if closely related "species" are traceable in countries which geology demonstrates to have been far asunder during the entire interval since the first appearance of the present animals and plants upon our earth, there is at any rate an à priori probability that they are no species at all,—but permanent geographical states, which have been slowly matured since their casual introduction beyond their legitimate bounds.
If we except those forms which are in reality but modifications, from climatal and other causes (and which have, therefore, been wrongly quoted as distinct); I believe that a vast proportion of the species which have been usually considered to be "representative" ones, were members, in the first instance, of the self-same assemblages,—which had wandered to a distance from their primæval haunts, and were afterwards, through the submergence of the intervening land, cut off from their allies. I have adduced, in a preceding chapter, some remarkable examples in illustration of this hypothesis,—an hypothesis which I believe to be the true clue to a very large item of the "specific representation" theory. A considerable number of the Madeiran Helices may be cited (which I have already done[85]) as, in the strictest sense, representative of each other,—and as therefore specifically distinct: and I may add, that it is to island groups that we must mainly look for this system in its full development.
But, apart from the fact that I would not wish to resign in toto the doctrine of "specific representation," even as frequently understood (that is to say, as recognizable in countries which have been altogether disconnected since the last creative epoch), and therefore, á fortiori, in what I conceive to be its truer meaning; there is yet another point on which I would desire to be interpreted aright, whilst endeavouring to substantiate the action of local influences on the members of the insect world. It has been my aim, in the preceding pages, to call attention to the importance of external circumstances and conditions in regulating, within definite limits, the outward aspect of the Articulate tribes.
I do not, however, assert that every species is liable to be interfered with ab extra; that is a question which the greater or less susceptibility of the several races, as originally constituted, can alone decide; still less would I willingly lend a helping hand to that most mischievous of dogmas, that they are all-important in their operation,—or, in other words, that they possess within themselves the inherent power (though it may not invariably be exercised) of shaping out (provided a sufficient time be granted them, and in conjunction with the advancing requirements of the creatures themselves) those permanent organic states to which the name of species (in a true sense) is now applied. Such a doctrine is in reality nothing more than the transmutation theory, in all its unvarnished fulness; and I do not see how it can be for a moment maintained, so long as facts (and not reasoning only) are to be the basis of our speculations. I repeat, that it is merely within fixed specific bounds that I would advocate a freedom of development, in obedience to influences from without: only I would widen those limits to a much greater extent than has been ordinarily done,—so as to let in the controlling principle of physical agents, as a significant adjunct for our contemplation.
It does indeed appear strange that naturalists, who have combined great synthetic qualities with a profound knowledge of minutiæ and detail, should ever have upheld so monstrous a doctrine as that of the transmission of one species into another,—a doctrine, however, which arises almost spontaneously,—if we are to assume that there exists in every race the tendency to an unlimited progressive improvement. There are certainly no observations on record which would, in the smallest degree, countenance such an hypothesis. Many animals and plants, it is true, are capable of considerable modifications and changes, for the better,—very much more than is the case with others. But what does this prove, except that their capacity for advancement has a slightly wider compass than that of their allies? It touches not the fact, that the boundaries of their respective ranges are absolutely and critically defined. It is moreover a singular phænomenon, and one in which the strongest proofs of design (or a primary adjustment of limits with a view to the future) may be discerned, that the members of the organic creation which display the greatest adaptive powers, are those which were apparently destined to become peculiarly attendant upon man. "The best-authenticated examples," says Sir Charles Lyell, "of the extent to which species can be made to vary may be looked for in the history of domesticated animals and cultivated plants. It usually happens that those species which have the greatest pliability of organization, those which are most capable of accommodating themselves to a great variety of new circumstances, are most serviceable to man. These only can be carried by him into different climates, and can have their properties or instincts variously diversified by differences of nourishment and habits. If the resources of a species be so limited, and its habits and faculties be of such a confined and local character, that it can only flourish in a few particular spots, it can rarely be of great utility. We may consider, therefore, that in the domestication of animals and the cultivation of plants, mankind have first selected those species which have the most flexible frames and constitutions, and have then been engaged for ages in conducting a series of experiments, with much patience and at great cost, to ascertain what may be the greatest possible deviation from a common type which can be elicited in these extreme cases[86]."
The fact, however, that all areas of aberration (however large they may be) are positively circumscribed, need scarcely be appealed to, in exposing the absurdity of the transmutation hypothesis. The whole theory is full of inconsistencies from beginning to end; and from whatever point we view it, it is equally unsound. How, for instance, can any amount of local influences, or the progressive requirements of the creatures themselves, give rise to the appearance of several well-marked representatives of a genus on the self-same spot,—where the physical conditions for each of them are absolutely the same? Look, for example, at the Tarphii (to which I have already alluded[87]) of Madeira: I have detected about eighteen abundantly defined species; and, as stated in a previous chapter, I have but little doubt, from their sedentary habits, and the evident manner in which they are adjusted to the peculiarities of the region in which they obtain, that they are strictly an esoteric assemblage, inhabiting the actual sites (or nearly so) of their original début upon this earth. Here, then, we have a sufficient length of time for developments to have taken place; they are all exposed to the self-same agencies from without (for they live principally in communion); yet, though I have examined carefully more than a thousand specimens (a large proportion of them beneath the microscope), I have never discovered a single intermediate link which could be regarded as in a transition state between any of the remainder. But how is this?—Is it possible to account for differences so decided, yet each of such amazing constancy, amongst the several creatures of a central type which have been exposed to identical conditions through, at any rate, generations innumerable? They clearly cannot be explained on the doctrine of transmutation: yet they are no exceptions to the ordinary rule,—occupying an analogous position to the members of every other endemic group.
But I will not occupy more space on the transmutation theory: suffice it to have shown that, in thus conceding a legitimate power of self-adaptation, in accordance with external circumstances, to the members of the insect world; and in suggesting the inquiry, whether the action of physical influences has been adequately allowed for by entomologists generally (or, in other words, whether the small shades of difference which have often, because permanent, been at once regarded as specific, may not be sometimes rendered intelligible by a knowledge of the localities in which the creatures have been matured), I do not necessarily open the door to the disciples of Lamarck, or infringe upon the strict orthodoxy of our zoological creed. On the contrary, indeed, I believe that the actual reverse is nearer the truth; and, moreover, that those very hyper-accurate definers who recognize a "species" wheresoever the minutest decrepancy is shadowed forth, will be found eventually (however unaware of it themselves) to have been the most determined abettors of that dogma,—seeing that their species, if such they be, do most assuredly pass into each other.
We must not, however, omit to notice, briefly, how this perversion of Nature's economy took its rise. It was from the desire, which is almost inherent within us, to account for everything by physical laws; and to dispense with that constant intervention of the direct creative act which the successive races of animals and plants, such as are proved by geology to have made their appearance at distinct epochs upon this earth, would seem to require. Or, which amounts to the same thing, it resulted through an endeavour to explain by material processes what is placed beyond their reach. But, if this be the case, it may be reasonably asked,—Are material laws then not to be inquired into, and should the various influences which operate in the organic world around us be debarred from analysis? Unquestionably not. Truth is truth, under whatever aspect it may come; and cannot possibly contradict another truth. To exercise our intellectual faculties, by tracing out, through slow, inductive methods, the modus operandi of even a single natural law, is an honourable task; nor should the apparent smallness of the media which we are at times compelled to employ, render it less so (else would this present treatise, like many others of a kindred stamp, have been best unwritten): but it is from the conceit that our own imperfect interpretations have left nothing more to be found out, that the great danger is to be anticipated. An effect may be literally dependent upon a certain proximate cause; and if we be so fortunate as to ascertain that cause, we have done something; but it does not necessarily follow that we have done much. On the contrary, it often happens that, in so doing, we have achieved wonderfully little,—seeing that the problem may be self-evident. Behind that "cause," we should recollect, others lie concealed, of a far deeper nature, each depending upon the next in succession to it; until, in the order of causation, we are at length led back, step by step, to the Final One,—with which alone the mind can be thoroughly content. "We make discovery after discovery," says Dr. Whewell, "in the various regions of science; each, it may be, satisfactory, and in itself complete, but none final. Something always remains undone. The last question answered, the answer suggests still another question. The strain of music from the lyre of Science flows on, rich and sweet, full and harmonious; but never reaches a close: no cadence is heard with which the intellectual ear can feel satisfied[88]."
As regards that most obscure of questions, what the limits of species really are, observation alone can decide the point. It frequently happens indeed that even observation itself is insufficient to render the lines of demarcation intelligible,—therefore, how much more mere dialectics! To attempt to argue such a subject on abstract principles, would be simply absurd; for, as Lord Bacon has remarked, "the subtilty of Nature far exceeds the subtilty of reasoning:" but if, by a careful collation of facts, and the sifting of minute particulars gathered from without, the problem be fairly and deliberately surveyed, the various disturbing elements which the creatures have been severally exposed to having been duly taken into account, the boundaries will not often be difficult to define. Albeit, we must except those races of animals and plants which, through a long course of centuries, have become modified by man,—the starting-points of which will perhaps continue to the last shrouded in mystery and doubt. It would be scarcely consistent indeed to weigh tribes which have been thus unnaturally tampered with by the same standard of evidence as we require for those which have remained for ever untouched and free,—especially so, since (as we have already observed) it does absolutely appear, that those species, the external aspects of which have been thus artificially controlled, are by constitution more tractile (and possess, therefore, more decided powers for aberration) than the rest. Whether traces of design may be recognized in this circumstance, or whether those forms were originally selected by man on account of their pliability, it is not for me to conjecture; nevertheless, the first of these inferences is the one which I should, myself, be à priori inclined to subscribe to.
In examining, however, this enigma, of the limits within which variation is (as such) to be recognized; it should never be forgotten, that it is possible for those boundaries to be absolutely and critically marked out even where we are not able to discern them: so that the difficulty which a few domesticated creatures of a singularly flexible organization present, should not unnecessarily predispose us to dispute the question in its larger and more general bearings. Nor should we be unmindful that (as Sir Charles Lyell has aptly suggested) "some mere varieties present greater differences, inter se, than do many individuals of distinct species;" for it is a truth of considerable importance, and one which may help us out of many an apparent dilemma.
But, whatever be the several ranges within which the members of the organic creation are free to vary; we are positively certain that, unless the definition of a species, as involving relationship, be more than a delusion or romance, their circumferences are of necessity real, and must be indicated somewhere,—as strictly, moreover, and rigidly, as it is possible for anything in Nature to be chalked out. The whole problem, in that case, does in effect resolve itself to this,—Where, and how, are the lines of demarcation to be drawn? No amount of inconstancy, provided its limits be fixed, is irreconcilable with the doctrine of specific similitudes. Like the ever-shifting curves which the white foam of the untiring tide describes upon the shore, races may ebb and flow; but they have their boundaries, in either direction, beyond which they can never pass. And thus in every species we may detect, to a greater or less extent, the emblem of instability and permanence combined: although perceived, when inquired into, to be fickle and fluctuating in their component parts, in their general outline they remain steadfast and unaltered, as of old,—
"Still changing, yet unchanged; still doom'd to feel
Endless mutation, in perpetual rest."
FOOTNOTES:
[84] Religion of Nature Delineated, p. 103.
[85] Vide supra, p. 128.
[86] Principles of Geology, 9th edition, pp. 583, 584.
[87] Vide supra, p. 121.
[88] Indications of the Creator (London, 1845), p. 163.