| → C. livia, whether 1866 1869 1872 |
| whether 1859 1860 |
| (C. livia), whether 1861 |
|
| → directly intermediate between them ever existed, 1872 |
| ever existed directly intermediate between them, 1859 1860 1861 1866 1869 |
|
|
such intermediate links? Geology assuredly does not reveal any such
organic chain; and
perhaps, is the most obvious and
objection which can be urged against
The explanation lies, as I believe, in the extreme imperfection of the geological record. |
|
| In the first
it should always be borne in mind what sort of intermediate forms must, on
theory, have formerly existed. I have found it difficult, when looking at any two species, to avoid picturing to
forms
intermediate between them. But this is a wholly false view; we should always look for forms intermediate between each species and a common but unknown progenitor; and the progenitor will generally have differed in some respects from all its modified descendants. To give a simple illustration: the fantail and pouter pigeons
both descended from the rock-pigeon; if we possessed all the intermediate varieties which have ever existed, we should have an extremely close series between both and the rock-pigeon; but we should have no varieties directly intermediate between the fantail and pouter; none, for instance, combining a tail somewhat expanded with a crop somewhat enlarged, the characteristic features of these two breeds. These two breeds, moreover, have become so much modified,
if we had no historical or indirect evidence regarding their origin, it would not have been possible to have
from a mere comparison of their structure with that of the
→C. livia, whether
they had descended from this species or from some other allied
such as C. oenas. |
|
| So with natural species, if we look to forms very distinct, for instance to the horse and tapir, we have no reason to suppose that links
→directly intermediate between them ever existed,
but between each and an unknown common parent. The common parent will have had in its whole organisation much general resemblance to the tapir and to the horse; but in some points of structure may have differed considerably from both, even perhaps more than they differ from each other.
in all such cases, we should be unable to recognise the parent-form of any two or more species, even if we closely compared the structure of the parent with that of its modified descendants, unless at the same time we had a nearly perfect chain of the intermediate links. |
|
| It is just possible by
theory, that one of two living forms might have descended from the other; for instance, a horse from a tapir; and in this case
intermediate links will have existed between them. But such a case would imply that one form had remained for a very long period unaltered, whilst its descendants
|
