Darwin, and After Darwin, Volumes 1 and 3 / An Exposition of the Darwinian Theory and a Discussion of Post-Darwinian Questions

by George John Romanes

Of course it is obvious that the theory of descent furnishes the explanation which is required. For it is now evident to evolutionists, that although these older naturalists did not know what they were doing when they were tracing these lines of natural affinity, and thus helping to construct a natural classification—I say it is now evident to evolutionists that these naturalists were simply tracing the lines of genetic relationship. The great principle pervading organic nature, which was seen so mysteriously to bind the whole creation together as in a nexus of organic affinity, is now easily understood as nothing more or less than the principle of Heredity. Let us, therefore, look a little more closely at the character of this network, in order to see how far it lends itself to this new interpretation.

The first thing that we have to observe about the nexus is, that it is a nexus—not a single line, or even a series of parallel lines. In other words, some time before the theory of descent was seriously entertained, naturalists for the most part had fully recognised that it was impossible to arrange either plants or animals, with respect to their mutual affinities, in a ladder-like series (as was supposed to be the type of classification by the earlier systematists), or even in map-like groups (as was supposed to be the type by Linnæus). And similarly, also, with respect to grades of organization. In the case of the larger groups, indeed, it is usually possible to say that the members of this group as a whole are more highly organized than the members of that group as a whole; so that, for instance, we have no hesitation in regarding the Vertebrata as more highly organized than the Invertebrata, Birds than Reptiles, and so on. But when we proceed to smaller subdivisions, such as genera and species, it is usually impossible to say that the one type is more highly organized than another type. A horse, for instance, cannot be said to be more highly organized than a zebra or an ass; although the entire horse-genus is clearly a more highly organized type than any genus of animal which is not a mammal.

In view of these facts, therefore, the system of classification which was eventually arrived at before the days of Darwin, was the system which naturalists likened to a tree; and this is the system which all naturalists now agreed upon as the true one. According to this system, a short trunk may be taken to represent the lowest organisms which cannot properly be termed either plants or animals. This short trunk soon separates into two large trunks, one of which represents the vegetable and the other the animal kingdom. Each of these trunks then gives off large branches signifying classes, and these give off smaller, but more numerous branches, signifying families, which ramify again into orders, genera, and finally into the leaves, which may be taken to represent species. Now, in such a representative tree of life, the height of any branch from the ground may be taken to indicate the grade of organization which the leaves, or species, present; so that, if we picture to ourselves such a tree, we may understand that while there is a general advance of organization from below upwards, there are many deviations in this respect. Sometimes leaves growing on the same branch are growing at a different level—especially, of course, if the branch be a large one, corresponding to a class or sub-kingdom. And sometimes leaves growing on different branches are growing at the same level: that is to say, although they represent species belonging to widely divergent families, orders, or even classes, it cannot be said that the one species is more highly organized than the other.

Now, this tree-like arrangement of species in nature is an arrangement for which Darwin is not responsible. For, as we have seen, the detecting of it has been due to the progressive work of naturalists for centuries past; and even when it was detected, at about the commencement of the present century, naturalists were confessedly unable to explain the reason of it, or what was the underlying principle that they were engaged in tracing when they proceeded ever more and more accurately to define these ramifications of natural affinity. But now, as just remarked, we can clearly perceive that this underlying principle was none other than Heredity as expressed in family likeness,—likeness, therefore, growing progressively more unlike with remoteness of ancestral relationship. For thus only can we obtain any explanation of the sundry puzzles and apparent paradoxes, which a working out of their natural classifications revealed to botanists and zoologists during the first half of the present century. It will now be my endeavour to show how these puzzles and paradoxes are all explained by the theory that natural affinities are merely the expression of genetic affinities.

First of all, and from the most general point of view, it is obvious that the tree-like system of classification, which Darwin found already and empirically worked out by the labours of his predecessors, is as suggestive as anything could well be of the fact of genetic relationship. For this is the form that every tabulation of family pedigree must assume; and therefore the mere fact that a scientific tabulation of natural affinities was eventually found to take the form of a tree, is in itself highly suggestive of the inference that such a tabulation represents a family tree. If all species were separately created, there can be no assignable reason why the ideas of earlier naturalists touching the form which a natural classification would eventually assume should not have represented the truth—why, for example, it should not have assumed the form of a ladder (as was anticipated in the seventeenth century), or of a map (as was anticipated in the eighteenth), or, again, of a number of wholly unrelated lines, circles, &c. (as certain speculative writers of the present century have imagined). But, on the other hand, if all species were separately and independently created, it becomes virtually incredible that we should everywhere observe this progressive arborescence of characters common to larger groups into more and more numerous, and more and more delicate, ramifications of characters distinctive only of smaller and smaller groups. A man would be deemed insane if he were to attribute the origin of every branch and every twig of a real tree to a separate act of special creation; and although we have not been able to witness the growth of what we may term in a new sense the Tree of Life, the structural relations which are now apparent between its innumerable ramifications bear quite as strong a testimony to the fact of their having been due to an organic growth, as is the testimony furnished by the branches of an actual tree.

Or, to take another illustration. Classification of organic forms, as Darwin, Lyell, and Häckel have pointed out, strongly resembles the classification of languages. In the case of languages, as in the case of species, we have genetic affinities strongly marked; so that it is possible to some extent to construct a Language-tree, the branches of which shall indicate, in a diagrammatic form, the progressive divergence of a large group of languages from a common stock. For instance, Latin may be regarded as a fossil language, which has given rise to a group of living languages—Italian, Spanish, French, and, to a large extent, English. Now what would be thought of a philologist who should maintain that English, French, Spanish, and Italian were all specially created languages—or languages separately constructed by the Deity, and by as many separate acts of inspiration communicated to the nations which now speak them—and that their resemblance to the fossil form, Latin, must be attributed to special design? Yet the evidence of the natural transmutation of species is in one respect much stronger than that of the natural transmutation of languages—in respect, namely, of there being a vastly greater number of cases all bearing testimony to the fact of genetic relationship.

But, quitting now this most general point of view—or the suggestive fact that what we have before us is a tree—let us next approach this tree for the purpose of examining its structure more in detail. When we do this, the fact of next greatest generality which we find is as follows.

In cases where a very old form of life has continued to exist unmodified, so that by investigation of its anatomy we are brought back to a more primitive type of structure than that of the newer forms growing higher up upon the same branch, two things are observable. In the first place, the old form is less differentiated than the newer ones; and, in the next place, it is seen much more closely to resemble types of structure belonging to some of the other and larger branches of the tree. The organization of the older form is not only simpler; but it is, as naturalists say, more generalized. It comprises within itself characters belonging to its own branch, and also characters belonging to neighbouring branches, or to the trunk from which allied branches spring. Hence it becomes a general rule of classification, that it is by the lowest, or by the oldest, forms of any two natural groups that the affinities between the two groups admit of being best detected. And it is obvious that this is just what ought to be the case on the theory of descent with divergent modification; while, upon the alternative theory of special creation, no reason can be assigned why the lowest or the oldest types should thus combine the characters which afterwards become severally distinctive of higher or newer types.

Again, I have already alluded to the remarkable fact that there is no correlation between the value of structures to the organisms which present them, and their value to the naturalist for the purpose of tracing natural affinity; and I have remarked that up to the close of the last century it was regarded as an axiom of taxonomic science, that structures which are of most importance to the animals or plants possessing them must likewise prove of most importance in any natural system of classification. On this account, all attempts to discover the natural classification went upon the supposition that such a direct proportion must obtain—with the result that organs of most physiological importance were chosen as the bases of systematic work. And when, in the earlier part of the present century, De Candolle found that instead of a direct there was usually an inverse proportion between the functional and the taxonomic value of a structure, he was unable to suggest any reason for this apparently paradoxical fact. For, upon the theory of special creation, no reason can be assigned why organs of least importance to organisms should prove of most importance as marks of natural affinity. But on the theory of descent with progressive modification the apparent paradox is at once explained. For it is evident that organs of functional importance are, other things equal, the organs which are most likely to undergo different modifications in different lines of family descent, and therefore in time to have their genetic relationships in these different lines obscured. On the other hand, organs or structures which are of no functional importance are never called upon to change in response to any change of habit, or to any change in the conditions of life. They may, therefore, continue to be inherited through many different lines of family descent, and thus afford evidence of genetic relationship where such evidence fails to be given by any of the structures of vital importance, which in the course of many generations have been required to change in many ways according to the varied experiences of different branches of the same family. Here, then, we have an empirically discovered rule in the science of classification, the raison d’être of which we are at once able to appreciate upon the theory of evolution, whereas no possible explanation of why it should ever have become a rule could be furnished upon the theory of special creation.

Here, again, is another empirically determined rule. The larger the number, as distinguished from the importance, of structures which are found common to different groups, the greater becomes their value as guides to the determination of natural affinity. Or, as Darwin puts it, “the value of an aggregate of characters, even when none are important, alone explains the aphorism enunciated by Linnæus, namely, that the characters do not give the genus, but the genus gives the characters; for this seems founded on the appreciation of many trifling points of resemblance, too slight to be defined[1].”