It is known from the labours of Geoffroy Saint-Hilaire, and recently from those of Dareste and others, that eggs of the fowl, if shaken, placed upright, perforated, covered in part with varnish, etc., produce monstrous chickens. Now these monstrosities may be said to be directly caused by such unnatural conditions, but the modifications thus induced are not of a definite nature. An excellent observer, M. Camille Dareste,[[59]] remarks “that the various species of monstrosities are not determined by specific causes; the external agencies which modify the development of the embryo act solely in causing a perturbation—a perversion in the normal course of development.” He compares the result to what we see in illness: a sudden chill, for instance, affects one individual alone out of many, causing either a cold, or sore-throat, rheumatism, or inflammation of the lungs or pleura. Contagious matter acts in an analogous manner.[[60]] We may take a still more specific instance: seven pigeons were struck by rattle-snakes:[[61]] some suffered from convulsions; some had their blood coagulated, in others it was perfectly fluid; some showed ecchymosed spots on the heart, others on the intestines, etc.; others again showed no visible lesion in any organ. It is well known that excess in drinking causes different diseases in different men; but in the tropics the effects of intemperance differ from those caused in a cold climate;[[62]] and in this case we see the definite influence of opposite conditions. The foregoing facts apparently give us as good an idea as we are likely for a long time to obtain, how in many cases external conditions act directly, though not definitely, in causing modifications of structure.
Summary.—There can be no doubt, from the facts given in this chapter, that extremely slight changes in the conditions of life sometimes, probably often, act in a definite manner on our domesticated productions; and, as the action of changed conditions in causing indefinite variability is accumulative, so it may be with their definite action. Hence considerable and definite modifications of structure probably follow from altered conditions acting during a long series of generations. In some few instances a marked effect has been produced quickly on all, or nearly all, the individuals which have been exposed to a marked change of climate, food, or other circumstance. This has occurred with European men in the United States, with European dogs in India, with horses in the Falkland Islands, apparently with various animals at Angora, with foreign oysters in the Mediterranean, and with maize transported from one climate to another. We have seen that the chemical compounds of some plants and the state of their tissues are readily affected by changed conditions. A relation apparently exists between certain characters and certain conditions, so that if the latter be changed the character is lost—as with the colours of flowers, the state of some culinary plants, the fruit of the melon, the tail of fat-tailed sheep, and the peculiar fleeces of other sheep.
The production of galls, and the change of plumage in parrots when fed on peculiar food or when inoculated by the poison of a toad, prove to us what great and mysterious changes in structure and colour, may be the definite result of chemical changes in the nutrient fluids or tissues.
We now almost certainly know that organic beings in a state of nature may be modified in various definite ways by the conditions to which they have been long exposed, as in the case of the birds and other animals in the northern and southern United States, and of American trees in comparison with their representatives in Europe. But in many cases it is most difficult to distinguish between the definite result of changed conditions, and the accumulation through natural selection of indefinite variations which have proved serviceable. If it profited a plant to inhabit a humid instead of an arid station, a fitting change in its constitution might possibly result from the direct action of the environment, though we have no grounds for believing that variations of the right kind would occur more frequently with plants inhabiting a station a little more humid than usual, than with other plants. Whether the station was unusually dry or humid, variations adapting the plant in a slight degree for directly opposite habits of life would occasionally arise, as we have good reason to believe from what we actually see in other cases.
The organisation or constitution of the being which is acted on, is generally a much more important element than the nature of the changed conditions, in determining the nature of the variation. We have evidence of this in the appearance of nearly similar modifications under different conditions, and of different modifications under apparently nearly the same conditions. We have still better evidence of this in closely parallel varieties being frequently produced from distinct races, or even distinct species; and in the frequent recurrence of the same monstrosity in the same species. We have also seen that the degree to which domesticated birds have varied, does not stand in any close relation with the amount of change to which they have been subjected.
To recur once again to bud-variations. When we reflect on the millions of buds which many trees have produced, before some one bud has varied, we are lost in wonder as to what the precise cause of each variation can be. Let us recall the case given by Andrew Knight of the forty-year-old tree of the yellow magnum bonum plum, an old variety which has been propagated by grafts on various stocks for a very long period throughout Europe and North America, and on which a single bud suddenly produced the red magnum bonum. We should also bear in mind that distinct varieties, and even distinct species,—as in the case of peaches, nectarines, and apricots,—of certain roses and camellias,—although separated by a vast number of generations from any progenitor in common, and although cultivated under diversified conditions, have yielded by bud-variation closely analogous varieties. When we reflect on these facts we become deeply impressed with the conviction that in such cases the nature of the variation depends but little on the conditions to which the plant has been exposed, and not in any especial manner on its individual character, but much more on the inherited nature or constitution of the whole group of allied beings to which the plant in question belongs. We are thus driven to conclude that in most cases the conditions of life play a subordinate part in causing any particular modification; like that which a spark plays, when a mass of combustibles bursts into flame—the nature of the flame depending on the combustible matter, and not on the spark.[[63]]
No doubt each slight variation must have its efficient cause; but it is as hopeless an attempt to discover the cause of each, as to say why a chill or a poison affects one man differently from another. Even with modifications resulting from the definite action of the conditions of life, when all or nearly all the individuals, which have been similarly exposed, are similarly affected, we can rarely see the precise relation between cause and effect. In the next chapter it will be shown that the increased use or disuse of various organs produces an inherited effect. It will further be seen that certain variations are bound together by correlation as well as by other laws. Beyond this we cannot at present explain either the causes or nature of the variability of organic beings.
REFERENCES
[1] ‘Ueber den Einfluss der Isolirung auf die Artbildung,’ 1872.
[2] ‘Gardener’s Chronicle,’ 1853, p. 183.