Studies in the Theory of Descent, Volume I

by August Weismann

I shall not here give a repetition and summary of the results arrived at with respect to seasonal dimorphism, but rather the general conclusions derived from these results; and, at the same time, I may take the opportunity of raising certain questions which have not hitherto found expression, or have been but briefly and casually stated.

It must, in the first place, be admitted that differences of specific value can originate through the direct action of external conditions of life only. Of the truth of this proposition there can be no doubt, after what has been above stated concerning the difference between the two forms of any seasonally dimorphic species. The best proof is furnished by the older systematists, to whom the genetic relationship of the two forms was unknown, and who, with unprejudiced taxonomy, in many cases indicated their distinctness by separate specific names. This was the case with Araschnia Levana and Prorsa, Euchloe Belia and Ausonia, E. Belemia and Glauce, Plebeius Polysperchon and Amyntas. In the presence of these facts it can scarcely be doubted that new species can be formed in the manner indicated; and I believe that this was and is still the case, with butterflies at least, to a considerable extent; the more so with these insects, because the striking colours and markings of the wings and body, being in most cases without biological significance, are useless for the preservation of the individual or the species, and cannot, therefore, be objects of natural selection.

Darwin must have obtained a clear insight into this, when he attempted to attribute the markings of butterflies to sexual and not to natural selection. According to this view, every new colour or marking first appears in one sex accidentally,[51] and is there fixed by being preferred by the other sex to the older coloration. When the new ornamentation becomes constant (in the male for example), Darwin supposes that it becomes transferred to the female by inheritance, either partially or completely, or not at all; so that the species, therefore, remains more or less sexually dimorphic, or (by complete transference) becomes again sexually monomorphic.

The admissibility of such different, and, to a certain extent, arbitrarily limited inheritance, has already been acknowledged. The question here concerned is, whether Darwin is correct when he in this manner attributes the entire coloration of butterflies to sexual selection. The origin of seasonal dimorphism appears to me to be against this view, howsoever seductive and grand the latter may seem. If differences as important as those which exist between the summer and winter forms of many butterflies can be called forth by the direct action of a changed climate, it would be extremely hazardous to attribute great importance to sexual selection in this particular case.

The principle of sexual selection appears to me to be incontestible, and I will not deny that it is also effective in the case of butterflies; but I believe that as a final explanation of colour this agency can be dispensed with, inasmuch as we see that considerable changes of colour can occur without the influence of sexual selection.[52]

The question now arises, how far does the transforming influence of climate extend? When a species has become transformed by climatic change to such an extent that its new form possesses the systematic value of a new species, does it return to its older form by removal to the old climatic conditions? or would it under these circumstances become again transformed in a new manner? This question is not without importance, inasmuch as in the first case climatic influences would be of little value in the formation of species, and there would result at most only a fluctuation between two extremes. In the same manner as in seasonally dimorphic species the summer and winter forms now alternate with each other every year, so would the forms produced by warmth and cold then alternate in the greater periods of the earth’s history. Other groups of animals are certainly changed by the action of different climatic influences; but in butterflies, as I believe I have proved, temperature plays the chief part, and as this only oscillates between rather narrow limits, it admits of no great differences of coloration.

The question thus suggests itself, whether species of butterflies only oscillate between two forms, or whether climatic change, when sufficiently great to produce variation, does not again originate a new form. Inasmuch as the reversion experiments with seasonally dimorphic butterflies appear to correspond with the latter view, I believe that this must be admitted. I am of opinion that an old form never again arises through change of climate, but always a new one; so that a periodically recurring change of climate is alone sufficient, in the course of a long period of time, to admit of new species arising from one another. This, at least, may be the case with butterflies.

My views rest essentially upon theoretical considerations. It has already been insisted upon, as results immediately from the experiments, that temperature does not act on the physical constitution of the individual in the same manner as acid or alkali upon litmus paper, i.e., that one and the same individual does not produce this or that coloration and marking according as it is exposed to warmth or cold; but rather that climate, when it influences in a similar manner many succeeding generations, gradually produces such a change in the physical constitution of the species that this manifests itself by other colours and markings. Now when this newly acquired physical constitution, established, as we may admit, throughout a long series of generations, is again submitted to a constant change of climate, this influence, even if precisely similar to that which obtained during the period of the first form of the species, cannot possibly reproduce this first form. The nature of the external conditions may be the same, but not so the physical constitution of the species. Just in the same manner as a Pieris (as has been already shown), a Lycæna, or a Satyrus, produces quite different varieties under the transforming influence of the same climate, so must the variation originating from the transformed species of our present case after the beginning of the primary climate be different from that primary form of the species, although perhaps in a less degree. In other words, if only two different climates alternated with each other during the earth’s geological periods, every species of butterfly submitted to these changes of climate would give rise to an endless series of different specific forms. The difference of climate would in reality be greater than supposed, and for any given species the climatic variation would not only occur through the periodic shifting of the ecliptic, but also through geological changes and the migrations of the species itself, so that a continuous change of species must have gone on from this sole cause of alternation of climate. When we consider that many species elsewhere extinct have become locally preserved, and when, further, to these we add those local forms which have arisen by the prevention of crossing (amixia), and finally take into consideration the important effects of sexual selection, we can no longer be astonished at the vast numbers of species of butterflies which we now meet with on the earth.

Should any one be inclined to conclude, from my reversion experiments with seasonally dimorphic butterflies, that the secondary species when exposed to the same climate as that which produced it must revert to the primary, he forgets that this reversion to the winter form is nothing but a reversion—i.e., a sudden return to a primary form through peculiar laws of inheritance—and by no means a gradual re-acquisition of this primary form under the gradual influence of the primary climate. Reversion to the winter form occurs also through other influences, as, for instance, by high temperature. Reversions of this kind, depending on laws of heredity, certainly happen with those cases of transmutation which do not alternate with the primary form, as in seasonal dimorphism, but which occur continuously. They would, however probably be more quickly suppressed in such cases than in seasonal dimorphism, where the constant alternation of the primary and secondary forms must always maintain the tendency of the latter to produce the former.

That the above conclusion is correct—that a secondary species, when exposed to the external conditions under the influence of which the primary form originated, does not again revert to the latter—is proved by experience with plants. Botanists[53] assure us “that cultivated races which become wild, and are thus brought back to their former conditions of life, do not become changed into the original wild form, but into some new one.”