FREE BOOKS

Author's List




PREV.   NEXT  
|<   322   323   324   325   326   327   328   329   330   331   332   333   334   335   336   337   338   339   340   341   342   343   344   345   346  
347   348   349   350   351   352   353   354   355   356   357   358   359   360   361   362   363   364   365   366   367   368   369   370   371   >>   >|  
ites of certain cirripedes, when adult, and yet no one dreams of separating them. The naturalist includes as one species the several larval stages of the same individual, however much they may differ from each other and from the adult; as he likewise includes the so-called alternate generations of Steenstrup, which can only in a technical sense be considered as the same individual. He includes monsters; he includes varieties, not solely because they closely resemble the parent-form, but because they are descended from it. He who believes that the cowslip is descended from the primrose, or conversely, ranks them together as a single species, and gives a single definition. As soon as three Orchidean forms (Monochanthus, Myanthus, and Catasetum), which had previously been ranked as three distinct genera, were known to be sometimes produced on the same spike, they were immediately included as a single species. {425} As descent has universally been used in classing together the individuals of the same species, though the males and females and larvae are sometimes extremely different; and as it has been used in classing varieties which have undergone a certain, and sometimes a considerable amount of modification, may not this same element of descent have been unconsciously used in grouping species under genera, and genera under higher groups, though in these cases the modification has been greater in degree, and has taken a longer time to complete? I believe it has thus been unconsciously used; and only thus can I understand the several rules and guides which have been followed by our best systematists. We have no written pedigrees; we have to make out community of descent by resemblances of any kind. Therefore we choose those characters which, as far as we can judge, are the least likely to have been modified in relation to the conditions of life to which each species has been recently exposed. Rudimentary structures on this view are as good as, or even sometimes better than, other parts of the organisation. We care not how trifling a character may be--let it be the mere inflection of the angle of the jaw, the manner in which an insect's wing is folded, whether the skin be covered by hair or feathers--if it prevail throughout many and different species, especially those having very different habits of life, it assumes high value; for we can account for its presence in so many forms with such different habits, only by its inh
PREV.   NEXT  
|<   322   323   324   325   326   327   328   329   330   331   332   333   334   335   336   337   338   339   340   341   342   343   344   345   346  
347   348   349   350   351   352   353   354   355   356   357   358   359   360   361   362   363   364   365   366   367   368   369   370   371   >>   >|  



Top keywords:

species

 

includes

 

single

 

genera

 

descent

 

habits

 
descended
 
unconsciously
 

classing

 
modification

individual
 

varieties

 
exposed
 

recently

 

conditions

 

Rudimentary

 
relation
 
modified
 

structures

 

community


resemblances

 
pedigrees
 

systematists

 

written

 
organisation
 

characters

 

Therefore

 
choose
 
character
 

cirripedes


prevail

 

assumes

 

presence

 

account

 

feathers

 

inflection

 

trifling

 

manner

 

covered

 

folded


insect

 

separating

 

Catasetum

 

previously

 

Myanthus

 
Monochanthus
 
Steenstrup
 

Orchidean

 
generations
 

alternate