Essays Upon Heredity and Kindred Biological Problems / Authorised Translation

by August Weismann

A careful consideration of the subject indicates, however, that the occurrence of such an exception is very improbable. Such an ontogeny would, for instance, occur if one of the lowest Monoplastides, such as a Moneron, were to develope into a higher form, such as one of the Flagellata, with mouth, eye-spot, and cortical layer, under such external conditions that it would be advantageous for the existence of its species that it should no longer reproduce itself by simple fission, but that the periodical formation of a cyst (which was perhaps previously part of the life-history) should be associated with the occurrence of numerous divisions within the cyst itself, and with the formation of germs. We must suppose either that these germs were so minute that the young animals could not become Flagellata directly, or that it was advantageous for them to move and feed as Monera at an early period, and to assume the more complex structure of the parent by gradual stages. In other words, the phyletic development would proceed hand in hand with the ontogeny corresponding to it, although not from any internal cause, but as an adaptation to the existing conditions of life. But the supposed transformation of the species also depended upon these same conditions of life, which must therefore have been of such a nature as to bring about simultaneously, by an intercalation of germs and by a genuine development, the evolution of the form in question in the last stage of its ontogeny, and the maintenance of its original condition during the initial stage. Such a combination of circumstances can have scarcely ever happened. Against the occurrence of such a transformation as we have supposed, it might be argued, indeed, that the assumed production of very numerous germs does not occur among free-living Monoplastides. Those which have acquired parasitic habits must be younger phyletic forms, for their first host—whether a lowly or a highly organized Metazoon—must have appeared before they could gain access to it and adapt themselves to the conditions of a parasitic life, and by this time the Flagellate Infusoria were already established. It is by far less probable that the persistence or rather the intercalation of the ancestral form would occur in an ontogenetic cycle, consisting of a series of stages, and not of two only, as in our example. For as soon as reproduction can be effected by the simple fission of the adult, not only is there no reason why the earlier phyletic stages should be again and again repeated, but such recapitulation is simply impossible. We cannot, therefore, conclude that the anomalous early stages of a Monoplastid such as Acineta correspond with an early form of phyletic development.

Supposing, for instance, that the Acinetaria were derived from the Ciliata, then this transformation must have taken place in the course of the continued division of the ciliate ancestor—partially connected with encystment, but for the most part independently of it. Of the myriads of generations which such a process of development may have occupied, perhaps the first set moved with suctorial processes, while the second gradually adopted sedentary habits, and throughout the whole of the long series, each succeeding generation must have been almost exactly like its predecessor, and must always have consisted of individuals which possessed the characters of the species.

This does not exclude the possibility that in spite of an assumed sedentary mode of life, the need for locomotion and for obtaining food in fresh places may have arisen at some period of life. But whenever formation of swarm-spores takes place instead of simple fission, this does not depend upon the persistence of an ancestral form in the ontogenetic cycle, but is due to the intercalation of an entirely new ontogenetic stage, which happens to resemble an ancestral form, in the possession of cilia, etc.

I imagine that I have now sufficiently explained the above proposition, that the repetition of the phylogeny in the ontogeny does not and cannot occur among unicellular organisms.

With the Polyplastides the opposite is the case. There is no species, as far as we know, which does not—either in each individual, or after long cycles which comprise many individuals (alternation of generations)—invariably revert to the Monoplastid state. This applies from the lowest forms, such as Magosphaera and the Orthonectides, up to the very highest. In the latter a great number of intermediate phyletic stages always occur, although some have been omitted as the result of concentration in the ontogeny, while others have sometimes been intercalated.

Sexual reproduction is the obvious cause of this very important arrangement. Even if this is an hypothesis rather than a fact we must nevertheless accept it unconditionally, because it is a method of reproduction found everywhere. It is the rule in every group of the animal kingdom, and is only absent in a few species in which it is replaced by parthenogenesis. In these latter instances sexual reproduction may be local, and entirely absent in certain districts only (Apus), or it may be only apparently wanting; in some cases where it is undoubtedly absent, it is equally certain that it was present at an earlier period (Limnadia Hermanni). We cannot as yet determine whether its loss will not involve the degeneration and ultimate extinction of the species in question.

If the essential nature of sexual reproduction depends upon the conjugation of two equivalent but dissimilar morphological elements, then we can understand that a multicellular being can only attain sexual reproduction when a unicellular stage is present in its development; for the coalescence of entire multicellular organisms in such a manner that fusion would only take place between equivalent cells, would seem to be impracticable. In the necessity for sexual reproduction, there is therefore also implied the necessity for reverting to the original condition of the Polyplastides—that of a single cell—and upon this alone depends the fundamental law of biogenesis. This law is therefore confined to the Polyplastides, and does not apply to the Monoplastides; and Götte’s suggestion that the latter fall back into the primitive condition of the organism during their encystment (rejuvenescence), finds no support in this aspect of the question.

I have on a previous occasion[^[91]] referred the utility of death to the ultimate fact that the unending life of the Metazoan body would be a useless luxury, and to the fact that the individuals would necessarily become injured in the course of time, and would be therefore ‘not only valueless to the species, but ... even harmful, for they take the place of those which are sound’ (l. c., p. 24). I might also have said that such damaged individuals would sooner or later fall victims to some accidental death, so that there would be no possibility of real immortality. I now propose to examine this statement a little more closely, and to return to a question which has already been alluded to before.

It is obvious that the advantages above set forth did not form the motive which impelled natural selection to convert the immortal life of the Monoplastides into the life of limited duration possessed by the Heteroplastides, or more correctly, which led to the restriction of potential immortality to the reproductive cells of the latter. It is at any rate theoretically conceivable that a struggle might arise between the mortal and immortal individuals of a certain Metazoan species, and that natural selection might secure the success of the former, because the longer the immortal individuals lived, the more defective they became, and as a result gave rise to weaker offspring in diminished numbers. Probably no one would be bold enough to suggest such a crude example of natural selection. And yet I venture to think that the principle of natural selection is here also to be taken into account, and even plays, although in a negative rather than a positive way, a very essential part in determining the duration of life in the Metazoa.

When the somatic cells of the first Heteroplastides ceased to be immortal, such a loss would not in any way have precluded them from regaining this condition. Just as, with the differentiation of the first somatic cells of the lowest Heteroplastides, their duration was limited to that of a single cell-generation,—so it must have been possible for them, at a later period and if the necessity arose, to lengthen their duration over two, three, or more generations. And if my theory of the duration of life in the Metazoa is well founded, these cells have as a matter of fact increased their duration, to an extent about equal to that of the organism to which they belong. There is no ground whatever for the assumption that it is impossible to fix the number of cell-generations at infinity,—as actually happens in the case of the reproductive cells,—but on the other hand it has already been shown to be obvious that such an extension is opposed to the principle of utility. It could never be to the advantage of a species to produce crippled individuals, and therefore the infinite duration of individuals has never reappeared among the Metazoa. So far the limited duration of Metazoan life may be attributed to the worthlessness or even the injurious nature of individuals, which although immortal, were nevertheless liable to wear and tear. This fact explains why immortality has never reappeared, it explains the predominance of death, but it was not the single primary cause of this phenomenon. The perishable and vulnerable nature of the soma was the reason why nature made no effort to endow this part of the individual with a life of unlimited length.