This, of course, assumes that all three classes are equally fertile, and that no form of selection is taking place to the
benefit of one class more than of another. Moreover, it makes no difference whether p represents the homozygous dominants or whether it stands for the recessives. A population containing a very small proportion of dominants and one containing a similar proportion of recessives are equally stable. The term dominant is in some respects apt to be misleading, for a dominant character cannot in virtue of its dominance establish itself at the expense of a recessive one. Brown eyes in man are dominant to blue, but there is no reason to suppose that as years go on the population of these islands will become increasingly brown eyed. Given equality of conditions both are on an equal footing. If, however, either dominant or recessive be favoured by selection the conditions are altered, and it can be shown that even a small advantage possessed by the one will rapidly lead to the elimination of the other. Even with but a 5 per cent selection advantage in its favour it can be shown that a rare sport will oust the normal form in a few hundred generations. In this way we are freed from a difficulty inherent in the older view that varieties arose through a long-continued process involving the accumulation of very slight variations. On that view the establishing of a new type was of necessity a very long and tedious business, involving many thousands of generations. For this reason the biologist has been accustomed to demand a very large supply of time, often a great deal more than the physicist is
disposed to grant, and this has sometimes led him to expostulate with the latter for cutting off the supply. On the newer views, however, this difficulty need not arise, for we realise that the origin and establishing of a new form may be a very much more rapid process than has hitherto been deemed possible.
One last question with regard to evolution. How far does Mendelism help us in connection with the problem of the origin of species? Among the plants and animals with which we have dealt we have been able to show that distinct differences, often considerable, in colour, size, and structure, may be interpreted in terms of Mendelian factors. It is not unlikely that most of the various characters which the systematist uses to mark off one species from another, the so-called specific characters, are of this nature. They serve as convenient labels, but are not essential to the conception of species. A systematist who defined the wild sweet pea could hardly fail to include in his definition such characters as the procumbent habit, the tendrils, the form of the pollen, the shape of the flower, and its purple colour. Yet all these and other characters have been proved to depend upon the presence of definite factors which can be removed by appropriate crossing. By this means we can produce a small plant a few inches in height with an erect habit of growth, without tendrils, with round instead of oblong pollen, and with colourless deformed flowers quite different
in appearance from those of the wild form. Such a plant would breed perfectly true, and a botanist to whom it was presented, if ignorant of its origin, might easily relegate it to a different genus. Nevertheless, though so widely divergent in structure, such a plant must yet be regarded as belonging to the species Lathyrus odoratus. For it still remains fertile with the many different varieties of sweet pea. It is not visible attributes that constitute the essential difference between one species and another. The essential difference, whatever it may be, is that underlying the phenomenon of sterility. The visible attributes are those made use of by the systematist in cataloguing the different forms of animal and plant life, for he has no other choice. But it must not be forgotten that they are often misleading. Until they were bred together Euralia wahlbergi and E. mima were regarded as perfectly valid species, and there is little doubt that numbers of recognised species will eventually fall to the ground in the same way as soon as we are in a position to apply the test of breeding. Mendelism has helped us to realise that specific characters may be but incidental to a species—that the true criterion of what constitutes a species is sterility, and that particular form of sterility which prevents two healthy gametes on uniting from producing a zygote with normal powers of growth and reproduction. For there are forms of sterility which are purely mechanical. The pollen of Mirabilis jalapa cannot fertilise M.
longiflora, because the pollen tubes of the former are not long enough to penetrate down to the ovules of the latter. Hybrids can nevertheless be obtained from the reciprocal cross. Nor should we expect offspring from a St. Bernard and a toy terrier without recourse to artificial fertilisation. Or sterility may be due to pathological causes which prevent the gametes from meeting one another in a healthy state. But in most cases it is probable that the sterility is due to some other cause. It is not inconceivable that definite differences in chemical composition render the protoplasm of one species toxic to the gametes of the other, and if this is so it is not impossible that we may some day be able to express these differences in terms of Mendelian factors. The very nature of the case makes it one of extreme difficulty for experimental investigation. At any rate, we realise more clearly than before that the problem of species is not one that can be resolved by the study of morphology or of systematics. It is a problem in physiology.
CHAPTER XIV
ECONOMICAL