But such a conclusion obviously depends upon a confusion of ideas. No one will doubt that the light was the stimulus which led to the reversal of the structures in the shoot, but this is a very different thing from maintaining that it was the cause which conferred upon the Thuja-shoot the power of producing palisade and spongy parenchyma. When a phenomenon only occurs under certain conditions, it does not follow that these conditions are the cause of the phenomenon. A certain temperature is necessary for the development of a bird in the egg, but surely no one will maintain that the temperature is the cause of the capacity for such development. It is obvious that the egg has acquired the power of producing a bird chiefly as the result of a long phyletic course of development which has led to such a chemical and physical structure in the egg and the fertilizing sperm-cell, that after their union and development, a bird, and only a bird of a particular species, must be produced. But of course certain conditions must be fulfilled in order that such development may take place; and a definite temperature is one of these conditions of development. Thus we may briefly say that the physical nature of the egg is the cause of its development into a bird, and we may similarly maintain that the physical nature of a Thuja-shoot, and not the influence of light, is the cause of the development of tissues which are characteristic of the species. In the development of such a shoot the light plays precisely the same part which is played by temperature in the development of a bird: it is one of the conditions of development.
There is nevertheless a difference between these two cases in that the Thuja-shoot possesses the possibility of development in two different ways instead of only one. The upper side of the shoot can assume the structure of the under side and vice versa, and this structural reversal depends upon the way in which the light is thrown upon the shoot. But even if the light causes the structural reversal, does this justify us in assuming that the structure itself is also the direct consequence of the influence of light? I see no reason for rejecting the supposition that the physical nature of part of a plant may be of such a kind that this or that structure may be produced according as this or that condition of development prevails. Thus with stronger light the structure of the upper side of the shoot developes; with weaker light, the structure of the under side. But this physical nature of the Thuja-bud depends, like that of a bird’s egg, upon its phyletic history, as we must assume to be the case with the germs producing all individual developments. It is therefore quite impossible to interpret the reversal of the structure in the Thuja-shoot as the result of modification produced by the direct influence of external conditions. It is an instance of double adaptation—one of those cases in which the specific nature of a germ, an organism, or a part of an organism, possesses such a constitution that it reacts differently under the incidence of different stimuli. An entirely analogous example of reversal occurs in the climbing shoots of the Ivy, and is described in Sachs’ lectures on the physiology of plants. Such shoots produce leaves only on the side directed towards the light, and roots (which are made use of in climbing) only upon the opposite side. If however the position of the plant be altered so that the root-bearing side is turned towards the light, while the leafy side is shaded, a reversal occurs, so that from that time the former only produces leaves, and the latter nothing but roots. In other words, the Ivy-shoot reacts under strong light with the production of leaves and under weak light with the production of roots, just as litmus-paper becomes red with an acid and blue with an alkali. The physical nature of the Ivy-shoot was present before the production of either structure, and was no more due to the action of light itself, than the physical nature of litmus-paper is due to an acid or an alkali. But this is quite consistent with the possession of a physical nature which reacts differently under the two different conditions afforded by light and shade.
No one would think of bringing forward the changes in the colour of the green frog (Hyla) as a proof of the power of direct influences in causing structural modifications in the animal body. The frog is light green when it is resting upon green leaves, but it becomes dark brown or nearly black when transferred to dark surroundings. This is an obvious instance of adaptation, for the changes in the colour of the frog depend upon a complex reflex mechanism. The changes in the shape of the chromatophores of the skin are not produced by the direct influence of the different rays of light upon the body-surface, but in consequence of the action of these rays upon the retina. Blind frogs do not react under the changes of light. Hence it is impossible that any one can maintain that the skin of the frog has gained its green colour as the direct result of the green light reflected from its usual surroundings. It must be admitted that in this and in all similar cases, there is only one possible explanation, viz. an appeal to the operation of natural selection. It may be objected that we are not here dealing, as in the Thuja and Ivy, with changes in the course of ontogenetic development following upon the occurrence of this or that external condition, but only with the different reactions of a mature organism. But nevertheless, cases of the former kind appear to be also present in the animal kingdom.
Thus the very careful and extensive investigations of Poulton[[284]] upon the colours of certain caterpillars have distinctly shown that some species possess the possibility of development in two directions, and that the actual direction taken by the individual is decided by the influence of external conditions. Poulton surrounded certain larvae of Geometrae with an abundance of dark branches, in addition to the leaves upon which they fed. When such conditions prevailed from the beginning of larval life, the caterpillars as they developed, gradually assumed the dark colour of the twigs and branches upon which they rested. When other larvae of the same species (and in many experiments hatched from the same batch of eggs) were similarly exposed to the green leaves of the same food-plant, they did not indeed become bright green like the leaves, but were invariably of a much lighter colour than the other larvae, while many of them gained a brownish-green tint. The larvae of Smerinthus ocellatus[[285]] also possess the power of assuming different shades of green and of thus approaching, to some extent, the green of the plant upon which they happen to live. It is quite impossible to explain the phyletic development of the green colour of these and other caterpillars as due to the direct action upon the skin of the green light reflected from the leaves upon which they sit. The impossibility of such an effect was pointed out long ago by Darwin, and also followed from my own investigations. Here, as in the other cases, the only possible solution is afforded by natural selection. The colour of the caterpillars has become gradually more and more perfectly adapted to the colour of the leaves,—and often to the particular side of the leaves upon which these animals rest,—not by the direct effect of reflected light, but by the selection of those individuals which were best protected. Poulton’s experiments quoted above prove that certain species which occur upon different plants with different colours (or even in some cases upon the differently coloured parts of the same plant), present us with a further complication in the process of adaptation, inasmuch as each individual has acquired the power of assuming a lighter or darker colour[[286]]. The light which falls upon a single individual caterpillar during the course of its growth determines whether the lighter or darker colour shall be developed. Here therefore we have a case exactly parallel to that of the Thuja-shoot in which the palisade or spongy parenchyma is developed according to the position in which the shoot is fixed.
As far as it is possible in the present condition of our knowledge to offer any opinion upon the origin of sex in bisexual animals, it may be suggested that this problem is also capable of an essentially similar solution. Each germ-cell may possess the possibility of developing in either of two directions, the one resulting in a male individual, and the other resulting in a female, while the decision as to which of the two possible alternatives is actually taken may rest with the external conditions. We must, however, include among the external circumstances everything which is not germ-plasm. Moreover, this explanation is by no means certain, and I only mention it as an instance which, if we assume it to be correct, further illustrates my views upon the phenomena presented by the Thuja-shoot.
The two other facts brought forward by Detmer as proofs of the transforming power of external influences can be explained in precisely the same manner. These instances are—the fact that Tropaeolum when grown in moist air produces leaves with anatomical characters different from those produced when the plant is grown in dry air; and the differences in the structure of the leaves of many plants, according as they have been grown in the sun or shade respectively. Such differences do not by any means afford proof of the direct production of structural changes by means of external influences. How would such an explanation be consistent with the fact that the leaves are, in all these cases, changed in a highly purposeful manner? Or is it assumed that these organs were so constituted from the beginning, that they are compelled to respond to external conditions by the production of useful changes? Any one who made such an assertion nowadays, or who even thought of such a thing as a possibility, would prove that he is entirely ignorant of the facts of organic nature, and that he has no claim to be heard upon the question of the transformation of species. The very first necessity in any scientific question is to gain acquaintance with that which has been thought and said upon the subject. And it has been frequently shown that whole groups of useful characters cannot by any possibility have been produced by the direct action of external influences. If a caterpillar, which hides itself by day in the crevices of the bark, possesses the same colour as the latter, while other caterpillars which rest on leaves are of a green colour, these facts cannot be explained as the results of the direct influence of the bark and leaves. And it would be even less possible to explain upon the same principle all the details of marking and colour by which these animals gain still further protection. If the upper side of the upper wings of certain moths is grey like the stone on which they rest by day, while in butterflies the under side of both wings which are exposed during rest, exhibits analogous protective colours, these facts cannot be due to the direct influence of the surroundings which are resembled, but, if they have arisen in any natural manner, they must have been indirectly produced by the surroundings. One may reasonably complain when compelled to repeat again and again these elements of knowledge and of thought upon the causes of transformation!
Any one who remembers these things, and is aware of the countless number of purposeful characters which cannot possibly depend upon such direct influences, will be very cautious in yielding to any single instance which at first sight appears to be the direct consequence of external conditions. If Detmer had been thus cautious he would hardly have written the following sentence as a résumé of the physiological experiments on plants which have been already alluded to: ‘In certain cases it is possible, as we have seen, to artificially modify the anatomical structure of certain parts of plants. In such cases the relation between the structure and the external influences is undoubtedly clear: the latter act as the cause; the anatomical structure of the members of the plant is the consequence of this cause.’ A little more logic would have prevented the author from expressing such an opinion, for, as has been already shown, it is founded on a confusion between the true cause of a phenomenon and one of the conditions which are necessary for its production. We might as well consider the phenomena of geotropism, hydrotropism, and heliotropism—which have been established, and investigated in such a brilliant way by modern vegetable physiologists—as the direct results of the attraction of the earth, of water, and of light; and it is not improbable that some botanists are even inclined to make this assumption. And yet it is perfectly easy to show that this cannot be the case. By geotropism we mean the power possessed by the parts of a plant of growing along lines which make certain angles with the direction of the earth’s attraction. For example, the chief root grows parallel with the earth’s attraction, viz. towards the centre of the earth, and it is described as positively geotropic: conversely the main shoot grows along the same line but in an opposite direction, and it is negatively geotropic. But geotropism is not a primitive attribute of the plant, and it is even now absent from those plants which, like many Algae, have no definite position. Geotropism cannot have arisen before plants first became fixed in the earth. If any one were to assume that the direct influence of gravity, continuous through countless generations, had at length conferred upon the root the power of growing in a geotropic direction, how would it be possible to explain the fact that the shoot which has been under precisely the same influence has acquired the power of growing in an exactly opposite direction? The characteristic differences between root and shoot cannot have appeared until the plant became fixed in the ground, and how can we imagine that the same influence of gravity has since that time directly produced the two antagonistic results of positive and negative geotropism, in two structures, which were originally and essentially similar? It should also be remembered that it is only the main root which exhibits true positive geotropism. The lateral roots form angles with the main root, and do not therefore grow towards the earth’s centre; and the same is true of the lateral shoots which grow obliquely, and not perpendicularly upwards, like the main shoot. Moreover the angles which the lateral roots make with the main root, and the lateral shoots with the main shoot, are quite different in different species. How is it possible that all these different modes of reaction witnessed in the different parts of plants can be the direct results of one and the same external force? It is quite obvious that these are all cases of adaptation. The main root has not acquired the power of growing perpendicularly downwards under the stimulus of gravity, because this force has acted upon it for numberless generations, but because such a direction for such a part was the most useful to the plant. Hence natural selection has conferred upon the root the power of reacting under the stimulus of gravity by growing in a direction parallel to this force. For the main shoot, the opposite reaction was the most useful and has been established by natural selection, while still another reaction has been similarly established for the lateral roots and another for the lateral shoots.
Each part of a plant has received its special mode of reacting under the stimulus of gravity because it was useful for the whole plant, inasmuch as the position of its different parts relatively to one another and to the soil became thus fixed and regulated. These modes of reaction have become different in different species, because the conditions of life peculiar to each require special arrangements.
The same argument also holds with regard to heliotropism. The power of growing towards the light possessed by green shoots cannot be a primitive character of the plant: it must have arisen secondarily. If it were an essential and original character it could not be reversed in certain parts of the plant; but, the roots are negatively heliotropic, for they grow away from the light. There are also shoots, such as the climbing shoots of Ivy, which are similarly negatively heliotropic. Whenever the heliotropic power is thus reversed in shoots, the change is of a useful kind. Thus the shoots of the Ivy gain the power of clinging closely to a perpendicular wall or to some horizontal plane[[287]]. In this case, however, it is only the shoot which is negatively heliotropic, its leaves turn towards the light; and the same is true of the flower-bearing shoots which do not climb. All these are clearly adaptations and not the results of direct influence. The light only provides the stimulus which calls forth the characteristic reaction from each part of the plant, but the cause of each peculiar reaction lies in the specific nature of the part itself which has not been produced by light, but as we believe by processes of natural selection. If this explanation does not account for the facts we may as well abandon all attempts at understanding the useful arrangements in organisms.
Sachs has used the term anisotropism to express the fact that the various organs of a plant assume the most diverse directions of growth under the influence of the same forces. He also states that anisotropism is one of the most general characteristics of vegetable organization, and that it is quite impossible to form any idea as to how plants would appear or how they could live if their different organs were not anisotropic. Since anisotropism is nothing more than the expression of different kinds of susceptibility to the action of gravity, light, &c., it is obvious that the configuration of the plant is to be traced to such specific susceptibilities.