I. Polygenesis II. Polyphylesis III. Monogenesis (Monophylesis)

In I, a species A, becomes scattered over a large area in a series of places, m ... mn, with the same physical factors, in any or all of which may arise the new species a. In II, a species with xerophytic tendency, A, and one with mesophytic tendency, B, in the course of migration find themselves respectively in a more mesophytic habitat, m, and a more xerophytic one, x, in which either may give rise to the new form, c, which is more or less intermediate between A and B. In III, the method of origin is of the simplest type, in which a species is modified directly into another one, or is split up into several.

280. Proofs of polygenesis. In affirming the probability of a polygenetic origin of species, there is no intention of asserting that all species originate in this way. It seems evident that a very large number of species of restricted range are certainly monogenetic, at least as far as origin in space is concerned. It is possible that any species may arise at two or more distinct times. Polygenesis can occur readily only in species of more or less extensive area, in which recur instances of the same or similar habitat. The relative frequence and importance of the two methods can hardly be conjectured as yet, but origin by monogenesis would seem to be the rule.

The arguments adduced by Engler in support of polygenesis are in themselves conclusive, but the investigations of the past decade have brought to light additional proofs, especially from the experimental side. In determining the physical factors of prairie and mountain formations, and especially by methods of experimental ecology, the author has found that habitats are much less complex than they are ordinarily thought to be, since water-content and humidity, and to a less degree light, constitute the only factors which produce direct modification. In addition, it has been ascertained that the minimum difference of water-content, humidity, or light, necessary to produce a distinguishable morphological adjustment is much greater than the unit differences recorded by the instruments. In short, the differences of habitats, as ascertained by thermograph, psychrometer and photometer, are much greater than their efficient differences, and, with respect to their ability to produce modification, habitats fall into relatively few categories. A striking illustration of this is seen in the superficially very different habitats, desert, strand, alkali plain, alpine moor, and arctic tundra, all of which are capable of producing the same type of xerophyte. It follows from this that many more or less plastic species of extensive geographical area will find themselves in similar or identical situations, measured in terms of efficient differences, and will be modified in the same way in two or more of these. In mountain regions, where interruption of the surface and consequent alternation are great, the mutual invasion of contiguous formations is of frequent occurrence, often resulting in habitat forms. The spots in which these nascent species, such as Galium boreale hylocolum, Aster levis lochmocolus, etc., are found, are often so related to the area of the parent species as to demonstrate conclusively that these forms are the result of polygenesis and not of migration. Naturally, what is true of a small area will hold equally well of a large region, and the recurrence of the same habitat form may be accepted as conclusive proof of polygenesis. The most convincing evidences of multiple origin, however, are to be found in what De Vries has called “mutations.” It makes little difference whether we accept mutations in the exact sense of this author, or regard them as forms characterized by latent variability. The evidence is conclusive that the same form may arise in nature or in cultivation, in Holland or in America, not merely once, but several or many times. In the presence of such confirmation, it is unnecessary to accumulate proofs. Polygenesis throws a new light upon many difficult problems of invasion and distribution, and, as a working principle, admits of repeated tests in the field. It obviates, moreover, the almost insuperable difficulties in the way of explaining the distribution of many polygenetic species on the basis of migration alone.

281. Origin by polyphylesis. In 1898, the author first advanced a tentative hypothesis to the effect that a species homogeneous morphologically may arise from two distinct though related species. During subsequent years of formational study, the conviction has grown in regard to the probability of such a method of origin. Since the appearance of Engler’s work, a polyphyletic origin for certain genera has been very generally accepted by botanists, but all have ignored the fact that the polyphylesis of genera carries with it the admission of such origin for species, since the former are merely groups of the latter. I can not, however, agree with Engler, that polyphyletic genera, and hence species also, are necessarily unnatural. If the convergence of the lines of polyphylesis has been great, resulting in essential morphological harmony, the genus is a natural one, even though the ancestral phyla may be recognizable. If, on the other hand, the convergence is more or less imperfect, resulting in subgroups of species more nearly related within the groups than between them, the genus can hardly be termed natural. This condition may, however, prevail in a monophyletic genus with manifest divergence and still not be an indication that it is artificial.

Darwin[[38]], in speaking of convergence, has said: “If two species, belonging to two distinct though allied genera, had both produced a large number of new and divergent forms, it is conceivable that these might approach each other so closely that they would have all to be classified under the same genus; and thus the descendants of two distinct genera would converge into one.” The application of this statement to species would at once show the possibility of polyphylesis in the latter, and a further examination of the matter will demonstrate its probability. It is perfectly evident that a species may be split into two or more forms by varying the conditions, let us say of water-content, and that the descendants of these forms may again be changed into the parent type by reversing the process. This has, in fact, been done experimentally. Since it is admittedly impossible to draw any absolute line between forms, varieties, and species, it is at once clear that two distinct though related species, especially if they are plastic, may be caused to converge in such a way that the variants may constitute a new and homogeneous species. This may be illustrated by a concrete case at present under investigation. Kuhnistera purpurea differs from K. candida in being smaller, in having fewer, smaller, and more narrow leaflets, and a globoid spike of purple flowers in place of an elongated one of white flowers; in a word, it is more xerophytic. This conclusion is completely corroborated by its occurrence. On dozens of slopes examined, Kuhnistera purpurea has never been found mingling with K. candida on lower slopes, except where an accident of the surface has resulted in a local decrease of water-content. The experiment as conducted is a simple one, consisting merely in sowing seed of each in the zone of the other, and in growing K. purpurea under controlled mesophytic conditions, and K. candida under similarly measured xerophytic conditions in the planthouse.

While the polyphyletic origin of species is in a fair way to be decided by experiment, it receives support from several well-known phenomena. The striking similarity in the plant body of families taxonomically so distinct as the Cactaceae, Stapeliaceae, and Euphorbiaceae, or Cyperaceae and Juncaceae, indicates that a vegetation form may be polyphyletic. On the other hand, the local appearance of zygomorphy, of symphysis, and of aphanisis in the floral types of phylogeneticallv distinct families is a proof of the operation of convergence in reproductive characters. To be sure, the convergence is never so great as to produce more than superficial similarity, but this is because the groups are markedly different in so many fundamental characters. The same tendency in closely related species would easily result in identity. As in the case of polygenesis, the relatively small number of typically distinct habitats makes it clear that two different species of wide distribution, bearing to each other the relations of xerophyte to mesophyte, of hydrophyte to mesophyte, or of poophyte to hylophyte, might often find themselves in reciprocal situations, with the result that they would give rise to the same new form. The final proof of the polyphylesis of species is afforded by the experiments of De Vries in mutation. De Vries found that Oenothera nanella arose from O. Lamarckiana, O. laevifolia, and O. scintillans; Oenothera scintillans arose from O. lata and O. Lamarckiana; Oenothera rubrinervis from O. Lamarckiana, O. laevifolia, O. lata, O. oblonga, O. nanella, and O. scintillans, etc. Whatever may be the rank assigned to these mutations, whether form, variety, or species, there can be no question of their polyphyletic origin, nor, in consequence of the connection of mutations with variations through such inconstant forms as O. scintillans, O. elliptica, and O. sublinearis, of the possibility of polyphylesis in any two distinct though related species or genera.

KINDS OF INVASION

282. Continuous and intermittent invasion. With respect to the frequency of migration, we may distinguish invasion as continuous, or intermittent. Continuous invasion, which is indeed usually mutual, occurs between contiguous formations of more or less similar character, in which there is an annual movement from one into the other, and at the same time a forward movement through each, resulting from the invaders established the preceding year. By far the greater amount of invasion is of this sort, as may readily be seen from the fact that migration varies inversely as the distance, and ecesis may decrease even more rapidly than the distance increases. The significant feature of continuous invasion is that an outpost may be reinforced every year, thus making probable the establishment of new outposts from this as a center, and the ultimate extension of the species over a wide area. The comparatively short distance and the regular alternation of migration and ecesis render invasion of this sort very effective. An excellent illustration of this is seen in transition areas and regions, which are due directly to continuous and usually to mutual invasion. Intermittent invasion results commonly from distant carriage, though it may occur very rarely between dissimilar adjacent formations, when a temporary swing in the physical factors makes ecesis possible for a time. It is characterized by the fact that the succession of factors which have brought about the invasion is more or less accidental and may never recur. Intermittent invasion is relatively rare, and from the small number of disseminules affected, it is of little importance in modifying vegetation quantitatively. On the other hand, since a species may often be carried far from its geographical area, it is frequently of great significance in distribution.