Problems of Life and Mind. Second series by George Henry Lewes (chrysanthemum read aloud txt) 📖

mind when arguing about Species. I will here only touch on the suggestive topic of the analogies observed not simply among animals at the extreme ends of the scale, but also between animals and plants where the idea of a direct kinship is out of the question.

My very imperfect zoölogical knowledge will not allow me to adduce a long array of instances, but such an array will assuredly occur to every well-stored mind. It is enough to point to the many analogies of Function, more especially in the reproductive processes—to the existence of burrowers, waders, flyers, swimmers in various classes—to the existence of predatory mammals, predatory birds, predatory reptiles, predatory insects by the side of herbivorous congeners,—to the nest-building and incubating fishes; and in the matter of Structure the analogies are even more illustrative when we consider the widely diffused spicula, setæ, spines, hooks, tentacles, beaks, feathery forms, nettling-organs, poison-sacs, luminous organs, etc.; because these have the obvious impress of being due to a community of substance under similar conditions rather than to a community of kinship. The beak of the tadpole, the cephalopod, the male salmon, and the bird, are no doubt in many respects unlike; but there is a significant likeness among them, which constitutes a true analogy. I think there is such an analogy between the air-bladder of fishes and the tracheal rudiment which is found in the gnat-larva (Corethra plumicornis).60 Very remarkable also is the resemblance of the avicularium, or “bird’s-head process,” on the polyzoon known popularly as the Corkscrew Coralline (Bugula avicularia), which presents us in miniature with a vulture’s head—two mandibles, one fixed, the other moved by muscles visible within the head. No one can watch this organ snapping incessantly, without being reminded of a vulture, yet no one would suppose for a moment that the resemblance has anything to do with kinship.

117. Such cases are commonly robbed of their due significance by being dismissed as coincidences. But what determines the coincidence? If we assume, as we are justified in assuming, that the possible directions of Organic Combination, and the resultant forms, are limited, there must inevitably occur such coincident lines: the hooks on a Climbing Plant will resemble the hooks on a Crustacean or the claws of a Bird, as the one form in which under similar external forces the more solid but not massive portions of the integument tend to develop. I am too ill acquainted with the anatomy of plants to say how the hooks so common among them arise; but from examination of the Blackberry, and comparison of its thorns with the hooks and spines of the Crustacea, I am led to infer that in each case the mode of development is identical—namely, the secretion of chitine from the cellular matrix of the integument.

Another mode of evading the real significance of such resemblances is to call them analogies, not homologies. There is an advantage in having two such terms, but we ought to be very clear as to their meaning and their point of separation. Analogy is used to designate similarity in Function with dissimilarity in Structure. The wing of an insect, the wing of a bird, and the wing of a bat are called analogous, but not homologous, because their anatomical structure is different: they are not constructed out of similar anatomical parts. The fore-leg of a mammal, the wing of a bird, or the paddle of a whale, are called homologous, because in spite of their diverse uses they are constructed out of corresponding anatomical parts. To the anatomist such distinctions are eminently serviceable. But they have led to some misconceptions, because they are connected with a profound misconception of the relation between Function and Organ. Embryology teaches that the wing of the bird and the paddle of the whale are developed out of corresponding parts, and that these are not like the parts from which the wing of an insect or the flying-fish will be developed; nevertheless, the most cursory inspection reveals that the wing of a bird and the paddle of a whale are very unlike in structure no less than in function, and that their diversities in function correspond with their diversities in structure; whereas the wing of the insect, of the bird, and of the bat, are in certain characters very similar, and correspondingly there are similarities in their function. It is, however, obvious that the resemblance in function is strictly limited to the resemblance in anatomical structure; only in loose ordinary speech can the flight of an insect, a bird, or a bat be said to be “the same”: it is different in each—the weight to be moved, the rapidity of the movement, the precision of the movements, and their endurance, all differ.

NATURAL SELECTION AND ORGANIC AFFINITY.

118. It is impossible to treat of Evolution without taking notice of that luminous hypothesis by which Mr. Darwin has revolutionized Zoölogy. There are two points needful to be clearly apprehended before the question is entered upon. The first point relates to the lax use of the phrase “conditions,” sometimes more instructively replaced by “conditions of existence.” Inasmuch as Life is only possible under definite relations of the organism and its medium, the “conditions of existence” will be those physical, chemical, and physiological changes, which in the organism, and out of it, co-operate to produce the result. There are myriads of changes in the external medium which have no corresponding changes in the organism, not being in any direct relation to it (see § 54). These, not being co-operant conditions, must be left out of the account; they are not conditions of existence for the organism, and therefore the organism does not vary with their variations. On the other hand, what seem very slight changes in the medium are often responded to by important changes in the vital chemistry, and consequently in the structure of the organism. Now the nature of the organism at the time being, that is to say, its structure and the physico-chemical state of its tissues and plasmodes, is the main condition of this response; the same external agent will be powerful, or powerless, over slightly different organisms, or over the same organism at different times. Usually, and for convenience, when biologists speak of conditions, they only refer to external changes. This usage has been the source of no little confusion in discussing the Development Hypothesis. Mr. Darwin, however, while following the established usage, is careful in several places to declare that of the two factors in Variation—the nature of the organism and the nature of the conditions—the former is by far the more important.

118a. A still greater modification of terms must now be made. Instead of confining the “struggle for existence” to the competition of rivals and the antagonism of foes, we must extend it to the competition and antagonism of tissues and organs. The existence of an organism is not only dependent on the external existence of others, and is the outcome of a struggle; but also on the internal conditions which co-operate in the formation of its structure, this structure being the outcome of a struggle. The organism is this particular organism, differing from others, because of the particular conditions which have co-operated. The primary and fundamental struggle must be that of the organic forces at work in creating a structure capable of pushing its way amid external forces. The organism must find a footing in the world, before it can compete with rivals, and defend itself against foes. Owing to the power of reproduction, every organism has a potential indefiniteness of multiplication; that potential indefiniteness is, however, in reality restricted by the supply of food, and by the competition of rivals for that supply. The multiplication of any one species is thus kept down by the presence of rivals and foes: a balance is reached, which permits of the restricted quantities of various species. This balance is the result of a struggle.

Now let me call attention to a similar process in the formation of the organism itself. Every organite, and every tissue, has a potential growth of indefinite extent, but its real growth is rigorously limited by the competition and antagonism of the others, each of which has its potential indefiniteness, and its real limits. Something, in the food assimilated, slightly alters the part which assimilates it. This change may be the origin of other changes in the part itself, or in neighboring parts, stimulating or arresting the vital processes. A modification of structure results. Or there may be no new substance assimilated, but external forces may call a part into increased activity—which means increased waste and repair; and this increase here is the cause of a corresponding decrease somewhere else. Whatever the nature of the change, it finds its place amid a complex of changes, and its results are compounded with theirs. When organites and tissues are said to have a potential indefiniteness of growth, there is assumed a potential indefiniteness in the pabulum supplied: if the pabulum were supplied, and if there were no antagonism thwarting its assimilation, growth would of course continue without pause, or end; but in reality this cannot be so. For, take the blood as the vehicle of the pabulum—not only is its quantity limited, and partly limited by the very action of the tissues it feeds, but even in any given quantity there is a limit to its composition—it will only take up a limited quantity of salts, iron, albumen, etc.; no matter how abundant these may be in the food. So again with the plasmodes of the various tissues—they have each their definite capacities of assimilation. What has already been stated respecting chemical affinity (§ 20) is equally applicable to organic affinity; as the presence of fused iron in the crucible partially obstructs the combination of sulphur and lead, so the presence of connective tissue partially obstructs the combination of muscle protoplasm with its pabulum.

118 b. Owing to the action and reaction of blood and plasmode, of tissues on tissues, and organs on organs, and their mutual limitations, the growth of each organism has a limit, and the growth of each organ has a limit. Beyond this limit, no extra supply of food will increase the size of the organism; no increase of activity will increase the organ. “Man cannot add a cubit to his stature.” The blacksmith’s arm will not grow larger by twenty years of daily exercise, after it has once attained a certain size. Increase of activity caused it to enlarge up to this limit; but no increase of activity will cause it to pass this limit. Why? Because here a balance of the co-operating formative forces has been reached. Larger muscles, or more muscle-fibres, demand arteries of larger calibre, and these a heart of larger size; with the increase of muscle would come increase of connective tissue; and this tissue would not only compete with the muscle for pabulum, but by mechanical pressure would diminish the flow of that pabulum. And why would connective tissue increase? Because, in the first place, there is a formative association between the two, so that owing to a law, not yet understood, the one always accompanies the other; and, in the second place, there is a functional association between the two, a muscle-fibre being inoperative unless it be attached to a tendon, or connective tissue; it will contract out of the body although separated from its tendon or other attachment; but in the body its contraction would be useless without this attachment. We must bear in mind that muscle-fibres are very much shorter than ordinary muscles; according to the measurements of W. Krause they never exceed 4 cm in length, and usually range between 2 and 3 cm; their fine points being fixed to the interstitial connective tissue, as the whole