Heterogenesis may thus be defined either in accordance with my proposal or in the manner hitherto adopted, since it may be regarded as more morphological than the cyclical succession of differently formed sexual generations; or, with Claus, as the succession of different sexual generations, “living under different conditions of existence”—a definition which applies in all cases to seasonal dimorphism. Varying conditions of existence, in their widest sense, are the result of the action of different climates; and a case has been made known recently in which it is extremely probable that the climatic differences of the seasons have produced a cycle of generations by influencing the processes of nutrition. This case is quite analogous to that which we have observed in the seasonal dimorphism of butterflies, but with the distinction that the difference between the winter and summer generations does not, at least entirely, consist in the form of the reproductive adult, but almost entirely in its ontogeny—in the mode of its development. A comparison of this case with the analogous phenomenon in butterflies, may be of interest. In the remarkable fresh-water Daphnid, Leptodora hyalina Lillejeborg, it was proved some years ago by P. E. Müller,[45] who studied the ontogeny, that this last was direct, since the embryo, before leaving the egg, already possesses the form, members, and internal organs of the adult. This was, at least, the case with the summer eggs. It was subsequently shown by Sars[46] that this mode of development only holds good for the summer brood, the winter eggs producing an embryo in the spring which possesses only the three first pairs of limbs, and, instead of compound eyes, only a single frontal eye, thus exhibiting briefly, at first, the structure of a Nauplius, and gradually acquiring that of Leptodora. The mature form derived from the winter eggs is not distinguishable from the later generations, except by the presence of the simple larval eye, which appears as a small black spot. The generations when fully developed are thus distinguished only by this minute marking, but the summer generation undergoes direct development, whilst the winter generation, on the contrary, is only developed by metamorphosis, beginning with the simplest Crustacean type, and thus fairly representing the phyletic development of the species. We therefore see, in this case, the combination of a metamorphic and a direct development taking place to a certain extent under our eyes. It cannot be proved with certainty what the cause of this phenomenon may be, but the conjecture is almost unavoidable that it is closely related to the origin of the seasonal dimorphism of butterflies, since both depend on the alternating climatic influences of summer and winter: it is most probable that these influences have directly[47] brought about a shortening of the period of development in summer. Thus we have here a case of heterogenesis nearly related to the seasonal dimorphism of butterflies in a twofold manner—first, because the cycle of generations is also in this case brought about by the direct action of the external conditions of life; and secondly, the winter form is here also the primary, and the summer form the secondary one.
In accordance with the idea first introduced into science by Rudolph Leuckart, we have hitherto understood heterogenesis to be only the alternation of dissimilar sexual generations. From this point of view the reproduction of Leptodora can be as little ascribed to heterogenesis as can that of Aphis or Daphnia, although the apparent agamic reproduction of the winter and a portion of the summer generation is undoubtedly parthenogenesis and not propagation by nursing.[48] As has already been said, however, I would attribute no fundamental importance to the criterion of agamic reproduction—the more especially because we are ignorant of the physiological significance of the two modes of propagation; and further, because this principle of classification is entirely external, and only valuable in so far as no better one can be substituted for it. A separation of the modes of cyclical propagation according to their genesis appears to me—especially if practicable—not alone to be of greater value, but the only correct one, and for this the knowledge of the origin of seasonal dimorphism seems to me to furnish a possible method.
If, as was indicated above, we designate as metagenesis (in the narrow sense) all those cases in which it must be admitted that a series of differently aged phyletic stages have furnished the points of departure, and as heterogenesis those cases in which similar phyletic stages have been compelled to produce a cycle of generations by the periodic action of external influences, it is clear that the scope of heterogenesis is by this means considerably extended, and at the same time sharply and precisely defined.
Under heterogenesis then is comprised, not only as heretofore the reproduction of Ascaris nigrovenosa, of Leptodora appendiculata, and of the cattle-lice, but also that of the Aphides, Coccidæ, Daphniidæ, Rotatoria, and Phyllopoda, and, in short, all those cases in which we can determine the former identity of the two kinds of generations from their form, anatomical structure, and mode of reproduction. This conclusion is essentially supported by a comparison of the most closely allied species. Thus, for instance, when we see the genus Aphis and its allies related on all sides to insects which propagate sexually in all generations, and when we further observe the great similarity of the whole external and internal structure in the two kinds of generations of Aphis, we are forced to the conjecture that the apparent asexual reproduction of the Aphidæ is in reality parthenogenesis, i.e., that it has been developed from sexual reproduction. Neither can it be any longer disputed that in this case, as well as in that of Leptodora and other Daphniidæ, the same female alternately propagates parthenogenetically, and produces eggs requiring fertilization. This was established by Von Heyden[49] some years ago, in the case of Lachnus Querci, and has been since confirmed by Balbiani.[50]
There can be no doubt that in all these cases the cycle of generations has been developed from phyletically similar generations. But instances are certainly conceivable which present themselves with less clearness and simplicity. In the first place, we do not know whether parthenogenesis may not finally settle down into complete asexual reproduction. Should this be the case, it might be possible that from heterogenesis a mode of propagation would ultimately arise, which was apparently indistinguishable from pure metagenesis. Such a state of affairs might result, if the generations settling into asexual reproduction (as, for instance, the plant-lice), at the same time by adaptation to varying conditions of life, underwent considerable change of structure, and entered upon a metamorphosis to some extent retrogressive. We should then be inclined to regard these generations as an earlier phyletic stage, whilst, in fact, they would be a later one, and the idea of metagenesis would thus have been formed after the manner of heterogenesis.
On the other hand, it is equally conceivable that heterogenesis may have been developed from true metagenesis in the case of larvæ which, having acquired the faculty of asexual propagation, are similar in function to sexually mature insects. This possibility is not at first sight apparent. If the nursing-larvæ of the Cecidomyiæ were as much like the sexual insects as are the young Orthoptera to the sexually mature forms, we should not know whether to regard them as degraded sexual insects, or as true larvæ which had attained the power of asexual propagation. Their propagation would be considered to be parthenogenesis; and as it could not be denied that heterogenesis was here manifest, the mode of development of their particular kind of propagation might be proved, i.e., it might be demonstrated, that the generations now parthenogenetic were formerly mere reproductive larval stages.
I have only offered these last observations in order to show on what uncertain ground we are still standing with regard to this subject whenever we deal with the meaning of any particular case, and how much still remains to be done. It appears certain that the two forms of cyclical propagation, heterogenesis and metagenesis, originate in entirely distinct ways, so that it must be admitted that, under these circumstances, the idea of the existing conditions respecting the true genesis may possibly be erroneous. To indicate the manner in which the cyclical mode of propagation has arisen in any single case, would only be possible by a searching proof and complete knowledge of existing facts in addition to experiments.