|
further show that, in any limited country, the species which are
common, that is abound most in individuals, and the species which are most widely diffused within their own country (and this is a different consideration from wide range, and to a certain extent from commonness),
give rise to varieties sufficiently well-marked to have been recorded in botanical works. Hence it is the most flourishing, or, as they may be called, the dominant
which range
the
→OMIT
most diffused in their own country, and are the most numerous in
oftenest produce well-marked varieties, or, as I consider them, incipient species. And this, perhaps, might have been anticipated; for, as varieties, in order to become in any degree permanent, necessarily have to struggle with the other inhabitants of the country, the species which are already dominant will be the most likely to yield
which, though in some slight degree modified,
still inherit those advantages that enabled their parents to become dominant over their compatriots. In these remarks on predominance, it should be understood that reference is made only to
forms which come into competition with each other, and more especially to the members of the same genus or class having nearly similar habits of life. With respect to
the number of individuals
→of any
species, the comparison of course relates only to the members of the same group.
→A
may be said to be dominant if it be more numerous in individuals and more widely diffused than the other plants of the same country,
→not living under widely different conditions of life.
→Such a plant
is not the less dominant
→in the sense here used,
because some conferva inhabiting the water or some parasitic fungus is infinitely more numerous in
and more widely
→if one kind of
|
