Origin of Species Variorum

Comparison with 1859

shaped pieces of bone? As Owen has remarked, the benefit derived from the yielding of the separate pieces in the act of parturition of mammals, will by no means explain the same construction in the skulls of birds. Why should similar bones have been created in the formation of the wing and leg of a bat, used as they are for such totally different purposes? Why should one crustacean, which has an extremely complex mouth formed of many parts, consequently always have fewer legs; or conversely, those with many legs have simpler mouths? Why should the sepals, petals, stamens, and pistils in any individual flower, though fitted for such widely different purposes, be all constructed on the same pattern?

On the theory of natural selection, we can satisfactorily answer these questions. In the vertebrata, we see a series of internal vertebræ bearing certain processes and appendages; in the articulata, we see the body divided into a series of segments, bearing external appendages; and in flowering plants, we see a series of successive spiral whorls of leaves. ↑ An indefinite repetition of the same part or organ is the common characteristic (as Owen has observed) of all low or little-modified forms; therefore we may readily believe that the unknown progenitor of the vertebrata possessed many vertebræ; the unknown progenitor of the articulata, many segments; and the unknown progenitor of flowering plants, many spiral whorls of leaves. We have formerly seen that parts many times repeated are eminently liable to vary in number and structure; consequently it is quite probable that natural selection, during a long-continued course of modification, should have seized on a certain number of the primordially similar elements, many times repeated, and have adapted them to the most diverse purposes. And as the whole amount of modification will have been effected by slight successive steps, we need not wonder at discovering in such parts or organs, a certain degree of fundamental resemblance, retained by the strong principle of inheritance. ↑

In the great class of molluscs, though we can homologise the

shaped pieces of bone? As Owen has remarked, the benefit derived from the yielding of the separate pieces in the act of parturition of mammals, will by no means explain the same construction in the skulls of birds and reptiles. Why should similar bones have been created to form the wing and the leg of a bat, used as they are for such totally different purposes? Why should one crustacean, which has an extremely complex mouth formed of many parts, consequently always have fewer legs; or conversely, those with many legs have simpler mouths? Why should the sepals, petals, stamens, and pistils, in each flower, though fitted for such widely different purposes, be all constructed on the same pattern?

On the theory of natural selection, we can ... answer these questions. In the vertebrata, we see a series of internal vertebræ bearing certain processes; in the articulata, the body divided into a series of segments, bearing external appendages; and in flowering plants, spiral whorls of leaves. ↑ An indefinite repetition of the same part or organ is the common characteristic, as Owen has observed, of all low or little modified forms; therefore ... the unknown progenitor of the vertebrata no doubt possessed many vertebræ; the unknown progenitor of the articulata, many segments; and the unknown progenitor of flowering plants, many leaves arranged in one or more spires. We have formerly seen that parts many times repeated are eminently liable to vary in number and structure. Consequently such parts being already present, and being highly variable, would afford the materials for adaptation to the most different purposes; and they would generally retain through the force of inheritance plain traces of their original or fundamental resemblance. ↑

In the great class of molluscs, though it can easily be shown that the