Comparison with 1869 |
|
sterility could be increased through natural selection to that high degree which is common with so many species, and which is universal with species which have been differentiated to a generic or family rank, will find the subject extraordinarily complex. After mature reflection it seems to me that this could not have been effected through natural
selection; selection; 1866 1869 | selection. 1872 |
for
it
could could 1866 1869 | could 1872 |
....... 1869 | not 1866 | OMIT 1872 |
have
been
of
no
direct direct 1866 1869 | direct 1872 |
advantage advantage 1866 1869 | advantage 1872 |
to
an
individual individual 1866 1869 | individual 1872 |
animal animal 1866 1869 | animal 1872 |
to
breed breed 1866 1869 | breed 1872 |
badly badly 1869 | poorly 1866 | badly 1872 |
with
another another 1866 1869 | another 1872 |
individual individual 1866 1869 | individual 1872 |
of
a
different different 1866 1869 | different 1872 |
variety, variety, 1866 1869 | variety, 1872 |
and
thus
to
leave leave 1866 1869 | leave 1872 |
few
offspring; offspring; 1866 1869 | offspring; 1872 |
consequently consequently 1866 1869 | consequently 1872 |
such
individuals individuals 1866 1869 | individuals 1872 |
could could 1866 1869 | could 1872 |
not
have
been
preserved preserved 1866 1869 | preserved 1872 |
or
selected. selected. 1866 1869 | selected. 1872 |
Or
take
the case of
two
species
which
in their present state in their present state 1869 |
OMIT 1872 |
when crossed, produce few and sterile offspring; now, what is there which could favour the survival of those individuals which happened to be endowed in a slightly higher degree with mutual infertility, and which thus approached by one small step towards absolute sterility? Yet an advance of this kind, if the theory of natural selection be brought to bear, must have incessantly occurred with many species, for a multitude are mutually quite barren. With sterile neuter insects we have reason to believe that modifications in their structure have
been slowly accumulated by natural selection, from an advantage having been thus indirectly given to the community to which they belonged over other communities of the same species; but an individual animal,
if
rendered slightly sterile when crossed with some other variety, would not thus indirectly give
any advantage to its nearest relatives or to any
other individuals of the same variety, thus leading to their preservation. From these considerations I infer, as far as animals are concerned, that the various degrees of lessened fertility which occur with species when crossed cannot have been slowly accumulated by means of natural selection. ↑3 blocks not present in 1859 1860 1861 1866 1869; present in 1872 | But it would be superfluous to discuss this question in detail; for with plants we have conclusive evidence that the sterility of crossed species must be due to some principle, quite independent of natural selection.
Both Gärtner and Kölreuter have proved that in genera including numerous species, a series can be formed from species which when crossed yield fewer and fewer seeds, to species which never produce a single seed, but yet are affected by the pollen of certain other species, for the germen swells.
It is here manifestly impossible to select the more sterile individuals, which have already ceased to yield seeds; so that this acme of sterility, when the germen alone is affected, cannot have been gained through selection; and from the laws governing the various grades of sterility being so uniform throughout the animal and vegetable kingdoms, we may infer that the cause, whatever it may be, is the same or nearly the same in all cases.
|
|
|
With plants, it is possible that the case may be different. With very
many kinds, insects constantly bring
pollen from neighbouring plants of
the same or of other varieties to the
stigma
of each flower; and with some this
is effected by the wind. Now,
if the pollen of any one
variety
should become by spontaneous variation in ever so slight a degree prepotent over the pollen of other varieties, so that, when deposited by any means on the stigmas of the flowers of
its own variety, it
obliterated
the effects of previously placed
pollen of other varieties, this would certainly be an advantage to the variety; for it would thus escape being bastardised and deteriorated in
character. And the more prepotent the pollen
could be rendered through natural selection
the greater the advantage would be. We know from the researches of Gärtner that
prepotency of this kind always accompanies the sterility which follows from crossing distinct
species;
but we do not know whether prepotency
is a consequence of sterility, or
sterility a consequence of prepotency. If the latter view be correct, we may infer that,
as the prepotency became stronger through natural selection, from being advantageous to a species in process of formation, so the sterility consequent on prepotency would at the same time be augmented; and the final result would be various degrees of sterility, such as actually
occur
with our
existing species
when crossed.
This same
view might be extended to animals
if the female before each birth received several males, so that the sexual element of the prepotent male of her own variety obliterated all
effects from
the access of previous males of
other varieties;
but we have no reason to believe, at least with terrestrial animals, that this is the case; as most males and females pair for each birth, and some few for life. |
|
On the whole we may conclude that with animals the sterility of crossed species has not been slowly augmented
through natural selection; and as this sterility follows the same general laws in the vegetable as in the animal kingdom, it is improbable, though apparently possible, that crossed
plants should
have been rendered sterile by a different process
from animals.
From this consideration, and remembering that species which have never co-existed in the same country, and which therefore could not have profited by
having been rendered mutually infertile, yet are sterile
when crossed; and bearing in mind that in reciprocal crosses between the same two species there is sometimes the widest difference in the resulting degrees of
sterility, we must give up the belief that natural selection has come into play;
and we are
driven to our former proposition, that
the sterility of first crosses, and indirectly of hybrids, is simply incidental on unknown differences in the reproductive systems of the parent-species. |
|
We may now try and look a little closer at the probable nature of these differences, which induce sterility in first crosses,
as well as
in hybrids. Pure species and hybrids differ, as already remarked, in the state of their reproductive organs; but from what will presently follow on reciprocally dimorphic and trimorphic plants, it would appear as if some unknown bond or law existed, which causes the young from a union not fully fertile to be themselves more or less infertile. ↑1 blocks not present in 1859 1860 1861 1866 1869; present in 1872 | We will now look a little closer at the probable nature of the differences between species which induce sterility in first crosses and in hybrids.
|
|
In the case of first
crosses crosses 1866 1869 | crosses, 1872 |
between pure species, between pure species, 1866 1869 |
OMIT 1872 |
the greater or less difficulty in effecting an union and in obtaining offspring apparently depends on several distinct causes. There must sometimes be a
|