We know that now individuals are developed from single cells which have either been formed by the union of two cells or which develop without such union, and that these reproductive cells are separated from pre-existing organisms: the gametes or gonocytes are separated from the parents and develop into the offspring. The zygote has the power of developing particular structures and characters in the complicated organisation of the adult, and we recognise that the characters are determined by the properties and constitution of the zygote; that is to say, of one or both of the gametes which unite to form the zygote. The distinction between peculiarities or 'characters,' determined in the ovum before development, and modifications due to influences acting on the individual during its development or life, is often obvious enough. A child's health, size, mode of speech, and behaviour may be greatly influenced by feeding, training, and education, but the colour of his or her eyes and hair were determined before birth. A human individual has, we know, a number of congenital or innate characters, by which we mean characters which arise from the constitution of the individual at the time of birth, and not from influences acting on him or her after birth. We have to remember, however, that modifications may be caused during development in the uterus, as, for example, birth-marks on the skin, and these would not be due to peculiarities in the constitution of the ovum. Karl Pearson and other devotees of the cult of Eugenics have been lately impressing on the public by pamphlets, lectures, and addresses the great importance of nature as compared with nurture, maintaining that the latter is powerless to counteract either the good or bad qualities of the former, and that the effects of nurture are not transmitted to the next generation.
We recognise that the characters of varieties of flowers, fruits, and domesticated animals are not to be produced by any particular mode of treatment. We see the various kinds of orchids or carnations in the same greenhouse, of sweet peas and roses in the same garden. We go to a show and see the extraordinary variety of breeds of pigeons, rabbits, or fowls, and we know that these cannot be produced by treating the progeny of individuals of one kind in special ways, but are the progeny of parents of the same various races. If we want fowls of a particular breed we obtain eggs of that breed and hatch them with the certainty born of experience that we shall obtain chickens of that breed which will develop the colour, comb, size, and qualities proper to it. Similarly, in nature we recognise that the 'characters' of species or varieties are not due to circumstances acting on the individual during its development, but to the properties of the ova or seeds from which the individuals were developed.
Formerly we regarded these congenital or innate characters as derived from the parents or inherited, and heredity was the transmission of constitutional characters from parent to offspring. Now that we fix our attention on the fertilised ovum or the gametes by which it is formed we see that the characters are determined by some properties in the constitution of the gametes. What, then, is heredity? Clearly, it is merely the development in the offspring of the same characters which were present in the ova from which the parents developed. When the characters persist unchanged from generation to generation, we call the process by which they are continued heredity. When new characters appear, i.e. new characters determined in the ovum not due to changes in the environment, we call them variations. When a fertilised ovum develops into a new individual, it divides repeatedly to form a very large number of cells united into a single mass. Gradually the parts of this mass are differentiated to form the tissues and organs of the body or soma, but some of the cells remain in their original condition and become the reproductive cells which will give rise to the next generation. The reproductive cells also undergo division and increase in number, and when they separate from the new individual and unite in fertilisation they still possess all the determinants of the fertilised ovum from which they are descended. Heredity thus continues from gamete to gamete, not from zygote to soma, and then from soma to gamete.
Modern researches have shown that the nucleus, when the cell divides, assumes the form of a spindle of fibres, associated with which are distinct bodies called chromosomes, that the number of these chromosomes where it can be counted is constant for all individuals of the same species, and that before the gametes are ready for fertilisation two cell-divisions take place, which result in the reduction of the number of chromosomes to half the original number. When two gametes unite, the specific number is restored. Since the male gamete is very small and seems to contribute to the zygote almost nothing except the chromosomes, which carry with them all the characters of the male parent, it seems a necessary conclusion that the chromosomes alone determine the character of the adult. There are, however, facts which point to an opposite conclusion.
Hegner, [Footnote: R. W. Hegner, 'Experiments with Chrysomelid Beetles,' III., Biological Bulletin, vol. xx. 1910-11.] for example, found that in the egg of the beetle Leptinotarsa, which is an elongated oval in shape, there is at the posterior end in the superficial cytoplasm a disc-shaped mass of darkly staining granules, while the fertilised nucleus is in the middle of the egg. When the protoplasm containing these granules was killed with a hot needle, development in some cases took place and an embryo was formed, but the embryo contained no germ cells. Here no injury had been done to the zygote nucleus, but these particular granules and the portion of protoplasm containing them were necessary for the formation of germ cells. In other experiments a large amount of protoplasm at the posterior end of the ovum was killed before the nucleus had begun to segment, and the result was the development of an embryo consisting of the head and part of the thorax, while the rest was wanting. The nucleus segmented and migrated into that part of the superficial cytoplasm which remained alive, and this proceeded to develop that particular part of the embryo to which it would have given rise if the rest of the egg had not been killed. There was no regeneration of the part killed, no formation of a complete embryo. It may be pointed out that segmentation in the insect egg is peculiar. The nuclei multiplied by segmentation migrate into the superficial cytoplasm surrounding the yolk, and then this cytoplasm segments, and each part of the cytoplasm develops into a particular region of the embryo. This, of course, does not prove that the nuclei or their chromosomes do not determine the characters of the parts of the embryo developed, but they show that the parts of the non-nucleated cytoplasm correspond to particular parts of the embryo. The most important object of investigation at the present time is to find the origin of these properties of the chromosomes. We may say, using the word 'determinant' as a convenient term for that which determines the adult characters, that in order to explain the origin of species or the origin of adaptations we must discover the origin of determinants. Mendelism does not throw any direct light on this question, but it certainly has shown how characters may be inherited as separate and independent units. When one difference between two breeds is considered, e.g. rose comb and single in fowls, and individuals are crossed, we have the determinant for rose and the determinant for single in the same zygote. The result is that rose develops and single is not apparent. In the next generation rose and single appear, as at the beginning, in separate individuals. When two or three or more differences are studied we find that they are usually inherited separately without connexion with each other, although in some cases they are connected or coupled. The facts of Mendelism are of great interest and importance, but we have to consider the general theory based on them. This theory is that characters are generally separate units which can exist side by side, but do not mingle, and cannot be divided into parts. When an apparently single character shows itself double or treble, it is concluded that it has not been really divided, but consists of two or three units (Castle). Further, although Mendelism in itself shows no evidence of the origin of the characters, it assumes that they arose as complete units, and one suggestion is that a dominant factor might at some of the divisions in gametegenesis pass entirely into one daughter cell, and therefore be absent from the other, and thus individuals might be developed in which a dominant character was absent. Bateson in his well-known books, _Mendel's Principles of Heredity, 1909, and Problems of Genetics, 1913, discusses this question of the origin of the factors which are inherited independently. The difficulty that troubles him is the origin of a dominant character. Naturally, if he persists in regarding the determinant factor as a unit which does not grow nor itself evolve in any way, it is difficult to conceive where it came from. The dominant, according to Bateson, must be due to the presence of something which is absent in the recessive. He gives as an instance the black pigment in the Silky fowl, which is present in the skin and connective tissues. In his own experiments he found this was recessive to the white-skin character of the Brown Leghorn, and he assumes that the genetic properties of Gallus bankiva with regard to skin pigment are similar to those of the Brown Leghorn. Therefore in order that this character could have arisen in the Silky, the pigment-producing factor P must be added and the inhibiting factor D must drop out or be lost. He says we have no conception of the process by which these events took place. [Footnote: Problems of Genetics, p. 85.] Now my experiment in crossing Silky with bankiva shows that no inhibiting factor is present in the latter, so that only one change, not two, was necessary to produce the Silky. Mendelians find it so difficult to conceive of the origin of a new dominant that they even suggest that no such thing ever occurs: what appears as a new character was present from the beginning, but its development was prevented by an inhibiting factor: when this goes into one cell of a division and leaves the other free, the suppressed character appears. This is the principle proposed to get over the difficulty of the origin of a new dominant. All characters are due to factors, and all factors were present in the original ancestor—say Amoeba. Evolution has been merely 'the rejection of various factors from an original complex, and a reshuffling of those that were left.' Professor Lotsy goes so far as to say that difference in species arose solely from crossing, that all domestic animals are of mixed stocks, and that it is easier to believe that a given race was derived from some ancestor of which all trace has been lost than that all races of fowls, for example, arose by variation from a single species, but the evidence that our varieties of pigeons have been derived from C. livia, and of fowls from G. bankiva, is too strong to be disregarded because it does not agree with theoretical conceptions.
My own experiments in crossing Silky fowls with Gallus bankiva (P.Z.S., 1919) show that the recessive is not always pure, that segregation is not in all cases complete. The colour of the bankiva is what is called black-red, these being probably the actual pigments present, mixed in some parts of the plumage, in separate areas in other parts: the Silky is white. There are seven pairs of characters altogether in which the Silky differs from the bankiva. Both the pigmented skin of the Silky and the colour in the plumage of the bankiva are dominant, so that all the offspring in F1 or the first generation are coloured fowls with pigmented skins. But in later generations I found that with regard to skin pigment there were no pure recessives. Since the heterozygote in F1 was deeply pigmented, it is certain that a bird with only a small amount of pigment in its skin was a recessive resulting from incomplete segregation of the pigmented character. The pigment occurred chiefly in the skin of the abdomen and round the eyes, and also in the peritoneum and in the connective tissue of the abdominal wall. It varied in different individuals, but in some, at any rate, was greater in later generations than in the earlier. The condition bred true, as pure recessives do; and when such an impure recessive was mated with a heterozygote with black skin, the offspring were half pigmented and half recessive, with some pigment on the abdomen of the latter.
Still more striking was the incomplete segregation in the plumage colour. The white of the Silky was recessive, all the birds of the F1 generation being fully coloured. In the F2 generation there were two recessive white cocks which when mature showed slight yellow colour across the loins. These two were mated with coloured hens, and in later generations all the recessives instead of being pure white, like the Silky, had reddish-brown pigment distributed as in pile fowls.
[Illustration: PLATE I. Recessive Pile Fowls]
In the hens (Plate I., fig. 1) it was chiefly confined to the breast and abdomen, and was well developed, not a mere tinge or trace, but a deep coloration, extending on to the dorsal coverts at the lower edge of the folded wings. The back and tail were white. In the cocks the colour was much paler, and extended over the dorsal surface of the wings, where it was darker than on the back and loins (Plate I., fig. 2). These pile-coloured fowls when mated together bred true, with individual differences in the offspring.
The pile fowl as recognised and described by fanciers is dominant in colour, not recessive as in the case above described. In fact, a recessive pile does not appear ever to have been mentioned before the publication of the results of my experiment. From the statements of John Douglas in Wright's Book of Poultry (London, 1885), it appears that fanciers knew long ago that the pile could be produced from a female of the black-red Game mated with a white Game-cock. It would seem, therefore, that the pile is the heterozygote of black-red and 'dominant' white. Bateson, however (Principles of Heredity, 1909, p. 120), writes that the whole problem of the pile is very obscure, and treats it as a case of peculiarity in the genetics of yellow pigments. On p. 102 of the same volume he describes the results of crossing White Leghorn with Indian Game or Brown Leghorn, the F1 being substantially white birds with specks of black and brown, though cocks have sometimes enough red in the wings to bring them into the category known an pile. To test the matter I have crossed White Leghorns with a pure-bred black-red Game-cock, and in the offspring out of eight six were fairly good piles, but with not quite so much red on the back as in typical birds: one was a pile with yellow on the back instead of red, and one was white with irregular specks. Of the hens, four were of pile coloration with breast and abdomen of uniform reddish-brown colour, back, neck, and saddle hackles laced with pale brown, tail white. The other four were white with black and brown specks. Whether these pile heterozygotes will breed true I do not yet know.