| → the parent species itself, 1861 |
| even the parent-species, 1866 |
|
| → are supposed now to live side by side? 1861 |
| now live together? 1866 |
|
| → natural selection will 1861 |
| can natural selection 1866 |
|
|
the
and yet it has not supplanted
→the parent species itself,
for both
→are supposed now to live side by side? If the variety and
have become fitted
slightly different habits of life, they might live together;
in the case of animals which freely cross and move about, varieties seem to be almost always confined to distinct localities. But is it the case that varieties of plants and of the lower animals are often found in abundance side by side with the
Laying aside
polymorphic
in which
innumerable variations
seem neither advantageous nor disadvantageous to the species, and have not been fixed; laying aside also temporary variations, such as albinism, &c., my impression is that varieties and the supposed
are generally
inhabiting
distinct stations, high land or low land, dry or moist districts, or distinct regions. |
|
| Again, Professor Bronn truly remarks, that distinct species do not differ from each other in single characters alone, but in many; and he asks, how it comes that natural selection should always have simultaneously affected many parts of the organisation? Probably the whole amount of difference has not been simultaneously effected; and the unknown laws of correlation will certainly account for, but not strictly explain, much simultaneous modification. Anyhow, we see in our domestic varieties the very same fact: though our
races may differ much in some one organ from the other races of the same species, yet the
parts of the organisation will always be found in some degree different. Professor Bronn likewise asks with striking effect how, for instance in the mouse or hare genus,
→natural selection will
account for the several species (descended, I may remark, from a parent of unknown character) having longer or shorter tails, longer or shorter ears, and fur of
|
