Volume Iii Part 9 (1/2)
_APPENDICES_
APPENDIX A.
MR. GULICK'S CRITICISM OF MR. WALLACE'S VIEWS ON PHYSIOLOGICAL SELECTION.
I have received from Mr. Gulick the results of his consideration of Mr.
Wallace's criticism. As these results closely resemble those which I have myself reached, and as they were independently worked out on the other side of the globe, I deem it desirable to publish them here for the sake of comparison.
In his covering letter Mr. Gulick writes:--
Mr. Wallace has most certainly adopted the fundamental principles of our theory, and in an arbitrary way attempted to claim the results produced by these principles as the effects of natural selection. He takes our principles, which in the previous chapter he has combated; but he makes such disjointed use of them that I am not willing to recognize his statement as an intelligible exposition of our theory.... I have endeavoured to indicate at what points Mr. Wallace has deserted his own principles, and at what points he has failed to make the best use of ours. To bring out these points distinctly has been no easy task; but if you regard this paper on _The Preservation and Acc.u.mulation of Cross-infertility_ as giving any help in elucidating the true principles, and in showing Mr. Wallace's position in regard to them, I shall be satisfied. Please make any use of it that may seem desirable, and then forward it to Professor Dana.
The following is a general summary of Mr. Gulick's results:--
Mr. Wallace's criticism of the theory of Physiological Selection is unsatisfactory; (l) because he has accepted the fundamental principle of that theory on pages 173-9, in that he maintains that without the cross-infertility the incipient species there considered would be swamped; (2) because he a.s.sumes that physiological selection pertains simply to the infertility of first crosses, and has nothing to do with the infertility of mongrels and hybrids; (3) because he a.s.sumes that infertility between first crosses is of rare occurrence between species of the same genus, ignoring the fact that in many species of plants the pollen of the species is pre-potent on the stigma of the same species when it has to compete with the pollen of other species of the same genus; (4) because he not only ignores Mr. Romanes' statement that cross-infertility often affects ”a whole race or strain,” but he gratuitously a.s.sumes that the theory of Physiological Selection excludes this ”racial incompatibility” (which Mr. Romanes maintains is the more probable form), and bases his computation on the a.s.sumption that the cross-infertility is not a.s.sociated with any other form of segregation; (5) because he claims to show that ”all infertility not correlated with some _useful_ variation has a constant tendency to effect its own elimination,” while his computation only shows that, if the cross-infertility is not a.s.sociated with some form of _positive_ segregation, it will disappear[60]; and (6) because he does not observe that the positive segregation may be secured by the very form of the physiological incompatibility.... Without here entering into any computation, it is evident that, e.g. the prepotency of pollen of each kind with its own kind, if only very slight, will prevent cross-fertilization as effectually as a moderate degree of instinctive preference in the case of an animal.
[60] ”Positive segregation” is Mr. Gulick's term for forms of h.o.m.ogamy other than that which is due to selective fertility. Of these other, or ”positive” forms, natural selection is one; but as it is far from being the _only_ one, the criticism points out that utility is not the _only_ conserving principle with which selective fertility may be a.s.sociated.
The paper likewise indicates a point which, in studying Mr. Wallace's theory, I have missed. It will be remembered that the only apparent difference between his theory and mine has been shown to consist in this--that while I was satisfied to state, in a general way, that natural selection is probably able to increase a selective fertility which has already been begun by other causes, Mr. Wallace has sought to exhibit more in detail the precise conditions under which it can do so.
Now, Mr. Gulick shows that the particular conditions which Mr. Wallace describes, even if they do serve to promote an increase of cross-infertility, are conditions which preclude the possibility of natural selection coming into play at all. So that if, under these particular conditions, a further increase of cross-infertility does take place, it does not take place in virtue of natural selection. To me it appears that this criticism is sound; and, if so, it disposes of even the one very subordinate addition to our theory which Mr. Wallace ”claims” as the most ”distinctive” part of his.
The following is the criticism in question:--
On pages 173-186 Mr. Wallace maintains that ”Natural selection is, in some probable cases at all events, able to acc.u.mulate variations in infertility between incipient species” (p. 174); but his reasoning does not seem to me conclusive. Even if we grant that the increase of this character [cross-infertility] occurs by the steps which he describes, _it is not a process of acc.u.mulation by natural selection_. In order to be a means of c.u.mulative modification of varieties, races, or species, selection, whether artificial or adaptational [i.e. natural], must preserve certain forms of an intergenerating stock, to the exclusion of other forms of the same stock. Progressive change in the size of the occupants of a poultry-yard may be secured by raising only bantams the first, only common fowls the second, and only Shanghai fowls the third year; but this is not the form of selection that has produced the different races of fowls. So in nature, rats may drive out and supplant mice; but this kind of selection modifies neither rats nor mice. On the other hand, if certain variations of mice prevail over others, through their superior success in escaping their pursuers, then modification begins. Now, turning to page 175, we find that, in the ill.u.s.trative case introduced by Mr. Wallace, the commencement of infertility between the incipient species is in the relations to each other of two portions of a species that are locally segregated from the rest of the species, and partially segregated from each other by different modes of life. These two local varieties, being by the terms of his supposition better adapted to the environment than the freely interbreeding forms in other parts of the general area, increase till they supplant these original forms. Then, in some limited portion of the general area, there arise two still more divergent forms, with greater mutual infertility, and with increased adaptation to the environment, enabling them to prevail throughout the whole area. The process here described, if it takes place, is not modification by natural selection.
On the other hand, it _is_ modification by physiological selection. For, among the several other forms of isolation which are called into requisition, the physiological (i.e. ever acc.u.mulating cross-infertility) is supposed to play an important part. That the modification is not modification by natural selection may perhaps be rendered more apparent by observing, that in as far as _any_ other mode of isolation is involved or supposed, so far is the _possible_ agency of natural selection eliminated _as between the two or more otherwise isolated sections of a species_; and yet it is modes of isolation other than that furnished by natural selection (i.e. peris.h.i.+ng of the less fit), that Mr. Wallace here supposes to have been concerned--including, as I have before shown, the physiological form, to which, indeed, he really a.s.signs most importance of all. Or, as Mr. Gulick states the matter in his independent criticism:--
In the supposed case pictured by Mr. Wallace, the principle by which the two segregating forms are kept from crossing, and so are eventually preserved as permanently distinct forms, is no other than that which Mr. Romanes and myself have discussed under the terms Physiological Selection and Segregate Fecundity. Not only is Mr. Wallace's exposition of the divergence and the continuance of the same in accord with these principles which he has elsewhere rejected, but his whole exposition is at variance with his own principle, which, in the previous chapter, he vigorously maintains in opposition to my statement that many varieties and species of Sandwich Island land molluscs have arisen, while exposed to the same environment, in the isolated groves of the successive valleys of the same mountain range. If he adhered to his own theory, ”the greater infertility between the two forms in one portion of the area” would be attributed to a difference between the _environment_ presented in that portion and that presented in the other portions; and the difficulty would be to consistently show how this greater infertility could continue unabated when the varieties thus characterized spread beyond the environment on which the character depends. But, without power to continue, the process which he describes would not take place. Therefore, in order to solve the problem of the _origin_ and _increase_ of infertility between species, he tacitly gives up his own theory, and adopts not only the theory of Physiological Selection but that of Intensive Segregation[61] through Isolation, though he still insists on calling the process natural selection; for on page 183 he says, ”No form of infertility or sterility between the individuals of a species can be increased by natural selection unless correlated with some useful variation, while all infertility not so correlated has a constant tendency to effect its own elimination.” Even this claim he seems to unwittingly abandon when on page 184 he says: ”The moment it [a species] becomes separated either by geographical or selective isolation, or by diversity of station or of habits, then, while each portion must be kept fertile _inter se_, there is nothing to prevent infertility arising between the two separated portions.”
[61] By Intensive Segregation Mr. Gulick means what I have called Independent Variability.
The criticism proceeds to show yet further inconsistencies and self-contradictions in Mr. Wallace's treatment of this subject; but it now seems needless to continue. Nor, indeed, should I have quoted this much but for the sake of so fully justifying my own criticism by showing the endors.e.m.e.nt which it has received from a completely independent examination.
APPENDIX B.
AN EXAMINATION BY MR. FLETCHER MOULTON OF MR. WALLACE'S CALCULATION TOUCHING THE POSSIBILITY OF PHYSIOLOGICAL SELECTION EVER ACTING ALONE.
We have seen that the only important point of difference between Mr.
Wallace's more recent views and my own on the problem of inter-specific sterility, has reference to the question whether variations in the way of cross-infertility can _ever_ arise and act ”alone, in an otherwise undifferentiated species,” or whether they can _never_ so arise and act.
It is Mr. Wallace's opinion that, even if they ever do arise alone, at all events they can never act in differentiating a specific type, seeing that the chances against their suitable mating must be so great: only if they be from the first a.s.sociated with some other form of h.o.m.ogamy, which will have the effect of determining their suitable mating, does he think that they can act in the way supposed by our theory of ”selective fertility”[62]. On the other hand, as previously and frequently stated, I have so strong a belief in the segregating power of physiological selection, or selective fertility, that I do not think it is necessary for this principle to be _always___ a.s.sociated with some other form of h.o.m.ogamy. From the first, indeed, I have laid great stress (as, also, has Mr. Gulick) on the re-enforcing influence which a.s.sociation with any other form of h.o.m.ogamy must exercise upon the physiological form, and vice versa; but I have also said that, in my opinion, the physiological form may in many cases be able to act entirely alone, or without a.s.sistance derived from any other source. The question here is, as we have already so fully seen, a question of but secondary importance; since, whether or not the physiological form of h.o.m.ogamy ever acts alone, even Mr. Wallace now allows, or rather argues, that it acts in combination--and this so habitually, as well as with so much effect, that it const.i.tutes a usual condition to the origination of species.
Nevertheless, although the only relevancy of his numerical computation of chances--whereby he thinks that he overturns my theory _in toto_--is such relevancy as it bears to this question of secondary importance, I have thought it desirable to refer the question, together with Mr.
Wallace's views upon it, to the consideration of a trained mathematician.
[62] His sentence, ”all fertility not correlated with some _useful_ variation has a constant tendency to effect its own elimination,”
still further restricts the possible action of physiological selection to cases where at least one of the other forms of h.o.m.ogamy with which it is a.s.sociated is natural selection. Or, in other words, it is represented that physiological selection must always be a.s.sociated with natural selection, even if it be likewise a.s.sociated with any other form of exclusive breeding. But as this further limitation appears to me self-evidently unjustifiable (seeing that utility is not the only possible means of securing effective isolation) I here neglect it, and take the wider ground marked out above. It is needless to say that this is giving Mr. Wallace every possible advantage, by not holding him to his still narrower ground.