Darwin, and After Darwin, Volume 2 of 3 / Post-Darwinian Questions: Heredity and Utility

by George John Romanes

So much, then, for the Darwinism of Darwin, as contrasted with the Darwinism of Wallace, or, what is the same thing, of the Neo-Darwinian school of Weismann. Next we may turn, by way of antithesis, to the so-called "Neo-Lamarckian" school of the United States. For, by a curious irony of fate, while the Neo-Darwinian school is in Europe seeking to out-Darwin Darwin by assigning an exclusive prerogative to natural selection in both kingdoms of animate nature, the Neo-Lamarckian school is in America endeavouring to reform Darwinism in precisely the opposite direction—viz. by transferring the sovereignty from natural selection to the principles of Lamarck. Without denying to natural selection a more or less important part in the process of organic evolution, members of this school believe that much greater importance ought to be assigned to the inherited effects of use and disuse than was assigned to these agencies by Darwin. Perhaps this noteworthy state of affairs, within a decade of Darwin's death, may lead us to anticipate that his judgement—standing, as it does, between these two extremes—will eventually prove the most accurate of all, with respect to the relative importance of these factors of evolution. But, be this as it may, I must now offer a few remarks upon the present position of the matter.

In the first place, to any one who (with Darwin and against Weismann) admits not only the abstract possibility, but an actual working, of the Lamarckian factors, it becomes difficult to determine, even approximately, the degrees of value which ought to be ascribed to them and to natural selection respectively. For, since the results are in both cases identical in kind (as, adaptive changes of organic types), where both sets of causes are supposed to be in operation together, we have no means of estimating the relative shares which they have had in bringing about these results. Of course there are large numbers of cases where it cannot possibly be supposed that the Lamarckian factors have taken any part at all in producing the observed effects; and therefore in such cases there is almost full agreement among evolutionists in theoretically ascribing such effects to the exclusive agency of natural selection. Of such, for instance, are the facts of protective colouring, of mimicry, of the growth of parts which, although useful, are never active (e.g. shells of mollusks, hard coverings of seeds), and so on. But in the majority of cases where adaptive structures are concerned, there is no means of discriminating between the influences of the Lamarckian and the Darwinian factors. Consequently, if by the Neo-Lamarckian school we understand all those naturalists who assign any higher importance to the Lamarckian factors than was assigned to them by Darwin, we may observe that members of this school differ very greatly among themselves as to the degree of importance that ought to be assigned. On the one hand we have, in Europe, Giard, Perrier, and Eimer, who stand nearer to Darwin than do a number of the American representatives—of whom the most prominent are Cope, Osborn, Packard, Hyatt, Brooks, Ryder, and Dall. The most extreme of these is Professor Cope, whose collection of essays entitled The Origin of the Fittest, as well as his more recent and elaborate monograph on The Development of the Hard Parts of the Mammalia, represent what appears even to some other members of his school an extravagant estimate of the importance of Lamarckian principles.

But the most novel, and in many respects the most remarkable school of what may be termed Anti-selectionists is one which is now (1894) rapidly increasing both in numbers and in weight, not only in the New World, but also in Germany, and to a lesser extent, in Great Britain.

This school, without being either Lamarckian or Darwinian (for its individual members differ widely from one another in these respects) maintains a principle which it deems of more importance than either use-inheritance or natural selection. This principle it calls Self-adaptation. It is chiefly botanists who constitute this school, and its principal representatives, in regard to authority, are Sachs, Pfeffer and Henslow.

Apart from topics which are to be dealt with in subsequent chapters, the only matters of much importance which have been raised in the Post-Darwinian period are those presented by the theories of Geddes, Cope, Hyatt, and others, and certain more or less novel ideas set forth in Wallace's Darwinism.

Mr. Geddes has propounded a new theory of the origin of species, which in his judgement supersedes to a large extent the theory of natural selection. He has also, in conjunction with Mr. Thomson, propounded a theory of the origin of sex. For my own part, I cannot see that these views embody any principles or suggestions of a sufficiently definite kind to constitute them theories at all. In this respect the views of Mr. Geddes resemble those of Professors Cope, Hyatt, and others, on what they term "the law of acceleration and retardation." In all these cases, so far as I can see, the so-called explanations are not in fact any explanations; but either a mere re-statement of the facts, or else an enunciation of more or less meaningless propositions. Thus, when it is said that the evolution of any given type has been due to the "acceleration of growth-force" with respect to some structures, and the "retardation of growth-force" with respect to others, it appears evident that we have not any real explanation in terms of causality; we have only the form of an explanation in the terms of a proposition. All that has been done is to express the fact of evolution in somewhat obscure phraseology, since the very thing we want to know about this fact is—What are the causes of it as a fact, or the reasons which have led to the increase of some of the parts of any given type, and the concomitant decrease of others? It is merely the facts themselves that are again presented by saying that the development has been in the one case accelerated, while in the other it has been retarded[10].

So much for what may be termed this New World theory of the origin of species: it is a mere re-statement of the facts. Mr. Geddes' theory, on the other hand, although more than a mere re-statement of the facts, appears to me too vague to be of any explanatory service. His view is that organic evolution has everywhere depended upon an antagonism, within the limits of the same organism, between the processes of nutrition and those of reproduction. But although he is thus able hypothetically to explain certain facts—such as the shortening of a flower-spike into a composite flower—the suggestion is obviously inadequate to meet, even hypothetically, most of the facts of organic evolution, and especially the development of adaptive structures. Therefore, it seems to me, we may dismiss it even as regards the comparatively few facts which it might conceivably explain—seeing that these same facts may be equally well explained by the causes which are already known to operate in other cases. For it is the business of natural selection to ensure that there shall nowhere be any needless expenditure of vital energy, and, consequently, that everywhere the balance between nutrition and reproduction shall be most profitably adjusted.

Similarly with respect to the theory of the Origin of Sex, I am unable to perceive even this much of scientific relevancy. As stated by its authors the theory is, that the female is everywhere "anabolic," as compared with the male, which is "katabolic." By anabolic is meant comparative inactivity of protoplasmic change due to a nutritive winding up of molecular constitution, while by katabolic is meant the opposite condition of comparative activity due to a dynamic running down of molecular constitution. How, then, can the origin of sex be explained, or the causes which led to the differentiation of the sexes be shown by saying that the one sex is anabolic and the other katabolic? In so far as these verbal statements serve to express what is said to be a general fact—namely, that the female sexual elements are less mobile than the male—they merely serve to re-state this general fact in terminology which, as the authors themselves observe, is "unquestionably ugly." But in so far as any question of origin or causality is concerned, it appears to me that there is absolutely no meaning in such statements. They belong to the order of merely formal explanations, as when it is said that the toxic qualities of morphia are due to this drug possessing a soporific character.

Much the same, in my opinion, has to be said of the Rev. G. Henslow's theory of the origin of species by what he terms "self-adaptation." Stated briefly his view is that there is no sufficient evidence of natural selection as a vera causa, while there is very abundant evidence of adjustments occurring without it, first in individual organisms, and next, by inheritance of acquired characters, in species. Now, much that he says in criticism of the selection theory is of considerable interest as such; but when we pass from the critical to the constructive portions of his books and papers, we again meet with the want of clearness in thought between a statement of facts in terms of a proposition, and an explanation of them in those of causality. Indeed, I understand from private correspondence, that Mr. Henslow himself admits the validity of this criticism; for in answer to my questions,—"How does Self-adaptation work in each case, and why should protoplasm be able to adapt itself into the millions of diverse mechanisms in nature?"—he writes. "Self-adaptation does not profess to be a vera causa at all; for the true causes of variation can only be found in the answer to your [above] questions, and I must say at once, these questions cannot be answered." That is, they cannot be answered on the hypothesis of self-adaptation, which is therefore a statement of the facts of adaptation as distinguished from an explanation of them. Nevertheless, two things have here to be noted. In the first place, the statement of facts which Mr. Henslow has collected is of considerable theoretical importance as tending to show that there are probably causes of an internal kind (i. e. other than natural selection) which have been largely concerned in the adaptive modification of plants. And, in the second place, it is not quite true that the theory of self-adaptation is, as its author says in the sentences above quoted, a mere statement of the facts of adaptation, without any attempt at explaining their causes. For in his published words he does attempt to do so[11]. And, although I think his attempt is a conspicuous failure, I ought in fairness to give examples of it. His books are almost exclusively concerned in an application of his theory to the mechanisms of flowers for securing their own fertilization. These mechanisms he ascribes, in the case of entomophylous flowers, to the "thrusts," "strains," and other "irritations" supplied to the flowers by their insect visitors, and consequent "reactions" of the vegetable "protoplasm." But no attempt is made to show why these "reactions" should be of an adaptive kind, so as to build up the millions of diverse and often elaborate mechanisms in question—including not only forms and movements, but also colours, odours, and secretions. For my own part I confess that, even granting to an ultra-Lamarckian extent the inheritance of acquired characters, I could conceive of "self-adaptation" alone producing all such innumerable and diversified adjustments only after seeing, with Cardinal Newman, an angel in every flower. Yet Mr. Henslow somewhat vehemently repudiates any association between his theory and that of teleology.

On the whole, then, I regard all the works which are here classed together (those by Cope, Geddes, and Henslow), as resembling one another both in their merits and defects. Their common merits lie in their erudition and much of their criticism, while their common defects consist on the one hand in not sufficiently distinguishing between mere statements and real explanations of facts, and, on the other, in not perceiving that the theories severally suggested as substitutes for that of natural selection, even if they be granted true, could be accepted only as co-operative factors, and by no stretch of logic as substitutes.