I do not know what meaning can be attributed to sexual reproduction other than the creation of hereditary individual characters to form the material upon which natural selection may work. Sexual reproduction is so universal in all classes of multicellular organisms, and nature deviates so rarely from it, that it must necessarily be of pre-eminent importance. If it be true that new species are produced by processes of selection, it follows that the development of the whole organic world depends on these processes, and the part that amphigony has to play in nature, by rendering selection possible among multicellular organisms, is not only important, but of the very highest imaginable importance.
But when I maintain that the meaning of sexual reproduction is to render possible the transformation of the higher organisms by means of natural selection, such a statement is not equivalent to the assertion that sexual reproduction originally came into existence in order to achieve this end. The effects which are now produced by sexual reproduction did not constitute the causes which led to its first appearance. Sexual reproduction came into existence before it could lead to hereditary individual variability. Its first appearance must therefore have had some other cause; but the nature of this cause can hardly be determined with any degree of certainty or precision from the facts with which we are at present acquainted. The general solution of the problem will, however, be found to lie in the conjugation of unicellular organisms, which forms the precursor of true sexual reproduction. The coalescence of two unicellular individuals which represents the simplest and therefore probably the most primitive form of conjugation, must have some directly beneficial effect upon the species in which it occurs.
Various assumptions may be made as to the nature of these beneficial effects, and it will be useful to consider in detail some of those suggestions which have been brought forward. Eminent biologists, such as Victor Hensen[[185]] and Edouard van Beneden[[186]], believe that conjugation, and indeed sexual reproduction generally, must be considered as ‘a rejuvenescence of life.’ Bütschli also accepts this view, at any rate as regards conjugation. These authorities imagine that the wonderful phenomena of life, of which the underlying cause is still an unsolved problem, cannot be continued indefinitely by the action of forces arising from within itself, that the clock-work would be stopped after a longer or shorter time, that the reproduction of purely asexual organisms would cease, just as the life of the individual finally comes to an end, or as a spinning wheel comes to rest in consequence of friction, and requires a renewed impetus if its motion is to continue. In order that reproduction may continue without interruption, these writers believe that a rejuvenescence of the living substance is necessary, that the clock-work of reproduction must be wound up afresh; and they recognize such a rejuvenescence in sexual reproduction and in conjugation, or in other words in the fusion of two cells, whether in the form of germ-cells or of two unicellular organisms.
Edouard van Beneden expresses this idea in the following words:—‘Il semble que la faculté que possèdent les cellules, de se multiplier par division soit limitée: il arrive un moment où elles ne sont plus capables de se diviser ultérieurement, à moins qu’elles ne subissent le phénomène du rajeunissement par le fait de la fécondation. Chez les animaux et les plantes les seules cellules capables d’être rajeunies sont les œufs; les seules capables de rajeunir sont les spermatocytes. Toutes les autres parties de l’individu sont vouées à la mort. La fécondation est la condition de la continuité de la vie. Par elle le générateur échappe à la mort’ (l. c., p. 405). Victor Hensen thinks it possible that the germ and its products are prevented from dying by means of normal fertilization: he says that the law which states that every egg must be fertilized, was formulated before the discovery of parthenogenesis and cannot now be maintained, but that we are nevertheless compelled to assume that even the most completely parthenogenetic species requires fertilization after many generations (l. c., p. 236).
If the theory of rejuvenescence be thoroughly examined, it will be found to be nothing more than the expression of the fact that sexual reproduction persists without any ascertainable limit. From the fact of its general occurrence, the conclusion is, however, drawn that asexual reproduction could not persist indefinitely as the only mode of reproduction in any species of animal. But proofs in support of this opinion are wanting, and it is very probable that it would never have been advanced if it had been possible to explain the general occurrence of sexual reproduction in any other way,—if we had been able to ascribe any other significance to this pre-eminently important process.
But quite apart from the fact that it is impossible to bring forward any proofs, the theory of rejuvenescence seems to me to be unsatisfactory in other ways. The whole conception of rejuvenescence, although very ingenious, has something uncertain about it, and can hardly be brought into accordance with the usual conception of life as based upon physical and mechanical forces. How can any one imagine that an Infusorian, which by continued division had lost its power of reproduction, could regain this power by forming a new individual, after fusion with another Infusorian, which had similarly become incapable of division? Twice nothing cannot make one. If indeed we could assume that each animal contained half the power necessary for reproduction, then both together would certainly form an efficient whole; but it is hardly possible to apply the term rejuvenescence to a process which is simply an addition, such as would be attained under other circumstances by mere growth; neglecting, for the present, that factor which, in my opinion, is of the utmost importance in conjugation,—the fusion of two hereditary tendencies. If rejuvenescence possesses any significance at all, it must be this,—that by its means a force, which did not previously exist in the conjugating individuals, is called into activity. Such a force would, however, owe its existence to latent energy stored up in each single animal during the period of asexual reproduction, and such latent forces would necessarily be of different natures, and of such a constitution that their union at the moment of conjugation would give rise to the active force of reproduction.
The process might perhaps be compared to the flight of two rockets, which by the combustion of some explosive substance (such as nitro-glycerine) stored up within themselves are impelled in such a direction that they would meet at the end of their course, when all the nitro-glycerine had been completely exhausted. The movement would then come to an end, unless the explosive material could have been meanwhile renewed. Now suppose that such a renewal were achieved by the formation of nitric acid in one of the rockets and glycerine in the other, so that when they came into contact nitro-glycerine would be formed afresh equal in quantity and in distribution on both the rockets to that which was originally present. In this way the movement would be renewed again and again with the same velocity, and might continue for ever.
Rejuvenescence can be rendered intelligible in theory by some such metaphor, but considerable difficulties are encountered in the rigid application of the metaphor to the facts of the case. In the first place, how is it possible that the motive force can be exhausted by continual division, while one of its components is being formed afresh in the same body and during the same time? When thoroughly examined the loss of the power of division is seen to follow from the loss of the powers of assimilation, nutrition, and growth. How is it possible that such a power can be weakened and finally entirely lost while one of its components is accumulated?
I believe that, instead of accepting such daring assumptions, it is better to be satisfied with the simple conception of living matter possessing as attributes the powers of unlimited assimilation and capacity for reproduction. With such a theory the mere form of reproduction, whether sexual or asexual, will have no influence upon the duration of the capacity: for force and matter undergo simultaneous increase, and are inseparably connected in this as in all other instances. This theory does not, however, exclude the possible occurrence of circumstances under which such an association is no longer necessary.
I could only consent to adopt the hypothesis of rejuvenescence, if it were rendered absolutely certain that reproduction by division could never under any circumstances persist indefinitely. But this cannot be proved with any greater certainty than the converse proposition, and hence, as far as direct proof is concerned, the facts are equally uncertain on both sides. The hypothesis of rejuvenescence is, however, opposed by the fact of parthenogenesis; for if fertilization possesses in any way the meaning of rejuvenescence, and depends upon the union of two different forms of force and of matter, which thus produce the power of reproduction, it follows that we cannot understand how it happens that the same power of reproduction may be sometimes produced from one form of matter, alone and unaided. Logically speaking, parthenogenesis should be as impossible as that either nitric acid or glycerine should separately produce the effect of nitro-glycerine. The supposition has indeed been made that in the case of parthenogenesis, one fertilization is sufficient for a whole series of generations, but this supposition is not only incapable of proof, but it is contradicted by the fact that certain eggs which may develope parthenogenetically are also capable of fertilization. If, in this case, the power of reproduction were sufficient for development, how is it that the egg is also capable of fertilization; and if the power were insufficient, how is it that the egg can develope parthenogenetically? And yet one and the same egg (in the bee) can develope into a new individual, with or without fertilization. We cannot escape this dilemma by making the further assumption, which is also incapable of proof, that a smaller amount of reproductive force is required for the development of a male individual than for the development of a female. It is true that the unfertilized eggs of the bee produce male individuals, while the fertilized ones develope into females, but in certain other species the converse association holds good, while in others, again, fertilization bears no relation to the sex of the offspring.