Before any but the vaguest ideas regarding the nature and significance of inter-specific sterility can be formed, a vast amount of detailed work must be done. Sterility as a result of crossing, as well as that which is alleged sometimes to arise in consequence of changed conditions, is at best a negative characteristic, and there are endless opportunities for mistake and misinterpretation in studying features of this kind. No one, I suppose, would now feel any great confidence in most of the data which from time to time are resuscitated for the purpose of such discussions. Even the best collections of evidence, such as those given by Darwin in Forms of Flowers, cannot be regarded as critical when judged by present-day standards. Nothing short of the most familiar acquaintance with the habitual behaviour of individuals, and of strains kept under constant scrutiny for several years would enable the experimenter to form reliable judgments as to the value to be attached to observations of this class.
The admission must, however, be faced that nothing in recent work materially tends to diminish the surprise which has always been felt at the absence of sterility in the crosses between co-derivatives. We should expect such groups of forms to behave like the Erophila types, and frequently to produce sterile products on crossing. Whatever be the explanation, the fact remains that such evidence is wanting almost completely. In spite of all that we know of variability nothing readily comparable with the power to produce a sterile hybrid on crossing with a near ally, has yet been observed spontaneously arising, though that characteristic of specificity is one of the most widely distributed in nature. It may be that the lacuna in our evidence is due merely to want of attention to this special aspect of genetic inquiry, and on the whole that is the most acceptable view which can be proposed. But seeing that naturalists are more and more driven to believe the domesticated animals and plants to be poly-phyletic in origin—the descendants, that is to say, of several wild forms—the difficulty is proportionately greater than it was formerly, when variation spontaneously occurring was regarded as a sufficient account of their diversity.
Concluding Remarks.
The many converging lines of evidence point so clearly to the central fact of the origin of the forms of life by an evolutionary process that we are compelled to accept this deduction, but as to almost all the essential features, whether of cause or mode, by which specific diversity has become what we perceive it to be, we have to confess an ignorance nearly total. The transformation of masses of population by imperceptible steps guided by selection, is, as most of us now see, so inapplicable to the facts, whether of variation or of specificity, that we can only marvel both at the want of penetration displayed by the advocates of such a proposition, and at the forensic skill by which it was made to appear acceptable even for a time.
In place of this doctrine we have little teaching of a positive kind to offer. We have direct perception that new forms of life may arise sporadically, and that they differ from their progenitors quite sufficiently to pass for species. By the success and maintenance of such sporadically arising forms, moreover, there is no reasonable doubt that innumerable strains, whether in isolation or in community with their co-derivatives, have as a fact arisen, which now pass in the lists of systematists as species. For an excellent account of typical illustrations I would refer the reader to the book lately published by R. E. Lloyd[14] on the rat-population of India. The observations there recorded are typical of the state of things disclosed whenever the variations of large numbers of individuals are closely investigated, whether in domestication or in natural conditions.
Guided by such clues we may get a good way into the problem. We see the origin of colourable species in abundance. Then, however, doubt arises whether though these new forms are as good species as many which are accepted as such by even cautious systematists, there may not be a stricter physiological sense in which the term species can be consistently used, which would exclude the whole mass of these petites espèces.
If further we find that we have, with certain somewhat doubtful exceptions, never seen the contemporary origin of a dominant factor, or of inter-racial sterility between indubitable co-derivatives, it needs no elaboration of argument to show that the root of the matter has not been reached.
Examination of the inter-relations of unquestionably distinct species nearly allied, such as the two common species of Lychnis, leads to the same disquieting conclusion, and the best suggestion we can make as to their origin is that conceivably they may have arisen as two re-combinations of factors brought together by the crossing of parent species, one or both of which must be supposed to be lost.
All this is, as need hardly be said, an unsatisfying conclusion. To those permanently engaged in systematics it may well bring despair. The best course for them is once for all to recognise that whether or no specific distinction may prove hereafter to have any actual physiological meaning, it is impossible for the systematist with the means at his disposal to form a judgment of value in any given case. Their business is purely that of the cataloguer, and beyond that they cannot go. They will serve science best by giving names freely and by describing everything to which their successors may possibly want to refer, and generally by subdividing their material into as many species as they can induce any responsible society or journal to publish. Between Jordan with his 200 odd species for Erophila, and Grenier and Godron with one, there is no hesitation possible. Jordan's view, as he again and again declares with vehemence, is at least a view of natural facts, whereas the collective species is a mere abstraction, convenient indeed for librarians and beginners, but an insidious misrepresentation of natural truth, perhaps more than any other the source of the plausible fallacies regarding evolution that have so long obstructed progress.