Problems of Genetics

by William Bateson

In the resemblance of identical twins we have an extreme case of hereditary likeness[4] and a proof, if any were needed, that the cause of individual variation is to be sought in the differentiation of germ-cells. The resemblance of identical twins depends on two circumstances, First, since only two germ-cells take part in their production, difference between the germ cells of the same individual cannot affect them. Secondly the division of the fertilised ovum, the process by which they became two instead of one, must have been a symmetrical division. The structure of twins raises however one extremely significant difficulty, which as yet we cannot in any way explain. The resemblance between twins is a phenomenon of symmetry, like the resemblance between the two sides of a bilaterally symmetrical body. Not only is the general resemblance readily so interpreted, but we know also that in double monsters, namely unseparated twins, various anatomical abnormalities shown by the one half-body are frequently shown by the other half-also.[5] The two belong to one system of symmetry. How then does it happen that the body of one of a pair of twins does not show a transposition of viscera? We know that the relation of right and left implies that the one should be the mirror-image of the other. Such a relation of images may be maintained even in minute details. For example if the same pattern of finger-print is given by the fingers of the two hands, one is the reverse of the other. In double monsters, namely unseparated twins, there is evidence that an inversion of viscera does occur with some frequency. Evidence from such cases is not so clear and simple as might be expected, because as a matter of fact, the heart and stomach, upon which the asymmetry of the viscera chiefly depend, are usually common to the two bodies. Duplicity generally affects either the anterior end alone, or the posterior end alone. The division is generally from the heart forwards, giving two heads and two pairs of anterior limbs on a common trunk, or from the heart backwards, giving two pairs of posterior limbs with the anterior body common. In either case, though the bodies may be grouped in a common system of symmetry, neither can be proved to show definite reversal of the parts. To see that reversal recourse must be had to more extreme duplications, such as the famous Siamese Twins. They, as a matter of fact, were an excellent instance of the proposition that twins are related as mirror-images, for both of them had eleven pairs of ribs instead of the normal twelve, and one of them had a partial reversal of viscera.[6] (Küchenmeister, Verlagerung, etc., p. 204.)

If anyone could show how it is that neither of a pair of twins has transposition of viscera the whole mystery of division would, I expect, be greatly illuminated.[7] At present we have simply to accept the fact that twins, by virtue of their detachment from each other, have the power of resuming the polarity which is proper to any normal individual. It was nevertheless with great interest that I read Wilder's recent observation[8] that occasionally in identical twins the finger-print of one or both the index-fingers may be reversed, showing that there is after all some truth in the notion that reversal should occur in them.

There is another phenomenon by twinning which, if we could understand it, might help. I refer to the free-martin, the subject of one of John Hunter's masterpieces of anatomical description. In horned cattle twin births are rare, and when twins of opposite sexes are born, the male is perfect and normal, but the reproductive organs of the female are deformed and sterile, being known as a free-martin. The same thing occasionally happens in sheep, suggesting that in sheep also twins may be formed by the division of one ovum; for it is impossible to suppose that mere development in juxtaposition can produce a change of this character. I mention the free-martin because it raises a question of absorbing interest. It is conceivable that we should interpret it by reference to the phenomenon of gynandromorphism, seen occasionally in insects, and also in birds as a great rarity. In the gynandromorph one side of the body is male, the other female. A bullfinch for instance has been described with a sharp line of division down the breast between the red feathers of the cock on one side and the brown feathers of the hen on the other. (Poll, H., SB. Ges. Nat. Fr., Berlin, 1909, p. 338.) In such cases neither side is sexually perfect. If the halves of such a gynandromorph came apart, perhaps one would be a free-martin.

The behaviour of homologous twinning in heredity has been little studied. It does not exist as a normal feature in any animal which is amenable to experiment, and we cannot positively assert that a comparable phenomenon exists in plants; for in them—the Orange, for example—polyembryony may evidently be produced by a parthenogenetic development of nucellar tissue. It is possible that in Man twinning is due to a peculiarity of the mother, not of the father. It may and not rarely does descend from mother to daughter, but whether it can be passed on through a male generation to a daughter again, there is not sufficient evidence to show. The facts as far as they go are consistent with the inference which may be drawn from Loeb's experiment, that the twinning of a fertilized ovum may be determined not by the germ-cells which united to form it, but by the environment in which it begins to develop. The opinion that twinning may descend through the male directly has been lately expressed by Dr. J. Oliver in the Eugenics Review (1912), on the evidence of cases in which twins had occurred among the relations of fathers of twins, but I do not know of any comprehensive collection of evidence bearing on the subject.

Besides twinning of the whole body a comparable duplicity of various parts of the same body may occur. Such divisions affect especially those organs which have an axis of bilateral symmetry, such as the thumb, a cotyledon, a median petal, the frond of a fern or the anal fin of a fish. From the little yet known it is clear that the genetic analysis of these conditions must be very difficult, but evidence of any kind regarding them will be valuable. We want especially to know whether these divisions are due to the addition of some factor or power which enables the part to divide, or whether the division results from the absence of something which in the normal body prevents the part from dividing. Breeding experiments, so far as they go, suggest that the less divided state is usually dominant to the more divided.[9] The two-celled Tomato fruit is dominant to the many-celled type. The Manx Cat's tail, with its suppression of caudal segmentation is a partial dominant over the normal tail. The tail of the Fowl in what is called the "Rumpless" condition is at least superficially comparable with that of the Manx Cat, and though the evidence is not wholly consistent, Davenport obtained facts indicating that this suppressed condition of the caudal vertebrae is an imperfect dominant.[10]

Some evidence may also be derived from other examples of differences which at first sight appear to be substantive though they are more probably meristic in ultimate nature. The distinction between the normal and the "Angora" hair of the Rabbit is a case in point. We can scarcely doubt that one of the essential differences between these two types is that in the Angora coat the hair-follicles are more finely divided than they are in the normal coat, and we know that the normal, or less-divided condition, is dominant to the Angora, or more finely divided.

Fig. 3.  I, II, III, various degrees of syndactyly affecting the medius and annularis in the hand; IV, syndactyly affecting the index and medius in the foot. (After Annandale.)

In the case of the solid-hoofed or "mule-footed" swine, the evidence shows, as Spillman has lately pointed out,[11] that the condition behaves as a dominant. The essential feature of this abnormality is that the digits III and IV are partially united. The union is greatest peripherally. Sometimes the third phalanges only are joined to form one bone, but the second and even the first phalanges may also be compounded together. Here the variation is obviously meristic and consists in a failure to divide, the normal separation of the median digits of the foot being suppressed.