Studies in the Theory of Descent, Volume I. Weismann August
also theoretically conceivable, viz., that in certain species the summer form was the primary one, and by spreading northwards a climate was reached which still permitted the production of two generations, the pupal stage of one generation being exposed to the cold of winter, and thus giving rise to the production of a secondary winter form. In such a case hibernation in the pupal state would certainly give rise to seasonal dimorphism. Whether these conditions actually occur, appears to me extremely doubtful; but it may at least be confidently asserted that the first case is of far more frequent occurrence. The beautiful researches of Ernst Hoffmann36 furnish strong evidence for believing that the great majority of the European butterflies have immigrated, not from the south, but from Siberia. Of 281 species, 173 have, according to Hoffmann, come from Siberia, 39 from southern Asia, and only 8 from Africa, whilst during the greatest cold of the glacial period, but very few or possibly no species existed north of the Alps. Most of the butterflies now found in Europe have thus, since their immigration, experienced a gradually increasing warmth. Since seasonal dimorphism has been developed in some of these species, the summer form must in all cases have been the secondary one, as the experiments upon the reversion of Pieris Napi and Araschnia Levana have also shown.
All the seasonally dimorphic butterflies known to me are found in Hoffmann’s list of Siberian immigrants, with the exception of two species, viz., Euchloe Belemia, which is cited as an African immigrant, and Pieris Krueperi, which may have come through Asia Minor, since at the present time it has not advanced farther west than Greece. No considerable change of climate can be experienced by migrating from east to west, so that the seasonal dimorphism of Pieris Krueperi can only depend on a cause similar to that which affected the Siberian immigrants, that is, the gradual increase of temperature in the northern hemisphere since the glacial period. In this species also, the winter form must be the primary one. In the case of E. Belemia, on the other hand, the migration northwards from Africa certainly indicates removal to a cooler climate, which may have originated a secondary winter form, even if nothing more certain can be stated. We know nothing of the period of migration into southern Europe; and even migration without climatic change is conceivable, if it kept pace with the gradual increase of warmth in the northern hemisphere since the glacial epoch. Experiments only would in this case be decisive. If the summer generation, var. Glauce, were the primary form, it would not be possible by the action of cold on the pupæ of this brood to produce the winter variety Belemia, whilst, on the other hand, the pupæ of the winter generation by the influence of warmth would be made to revert more or less completely to the form Glauce. It is by no means to be understood that the species would actually comport itself in this manner. On the contrary, I am of opinion that in this case also, the winter form is primary. The northward migration (from Africa to south Spain) would be quite insufficient, and the winter form is now found in Africa as well as in Spain.
V. On Alternation of Generations
Seasonal dimorphism has already been designated by Wallace as alternation of generation,37 a term which cannot be disputed so long as it is confined to a regular alternation of dissimilar generations. But little is gained by this definition, however, unless it can be proved that both phenomena are due to similar causes, and that they are consequently brought about by analogous processes. The causes of alternation of generation have, until the present time, been scarcely investigated, owing to the want of material. Haeckel alone has quite recently subjected these complicated phenomena generally to a searching investigation, and has arrived at the conclusion that the various forms of metagenesis can be arranged in two series. He distinguishes a progressive and a retrogressive series, comprising under the former those species “which, to a certain extent, are still in a transition stage from monogenesis to amphigenesis (asexual to sexual propagation), and the early progenitors of which, therefore, never exclusively propagated themselves sexually” (Trematoda, Hydromedusæ). Under the other, or retrogressive form of metagenesis, Haeckel includes a “return from amphigenesis to monogenesis,” this being the case with all those species which now manifest a regular alternation from amphigenesis to parthenogenesis (Aphides, Rotatoria, Daphniidæ, Phyllopoda, &c.). Essentially I can but agree entirely with Haeckel. Simply regarding the phenomena of alternation of generation as at present known, it appears to me to be readily admissible that these multiform modes of propagation must have originated in at least two different ways, which can be aptly formulated in the manner suggested by Haeckel.
I will, however, venture to adopt a somewhat different mode of conception, and regard the manner of propagation (whether sexual or asexual) not as the determining, but only as the secondary cause. I will further hazard the separation of the phenomena of alternating generations (in their widest sense) into two main groups according to their origin, designating the cases of one group as true metagenesis and those of the other as heterogenesis.38 Metagenesis takes its origin from a phyletic series of dissimilar forms, whilst heterogenesis originates from a phyletic series of similar forms – this series, so far as we can at present judge, always consisting of similar sexual generations. The former would thus nearly coincide with Haeckel’s progressive, and the latter with his retrogressive metagenesis. Metagenesis may further originate in various ways. In the first place, from metamorphosis, as for example, in the propagation of the celebrated Cecidomyia with nursing larvæ. The power which these larvæ possess of propagating themselves asexually has evidently been acquired as a secondary character, as appears from the fact that there are many species of the same genus the larvæ of which do not nurse, these larvæ being themselves undoubted secondary forms produced by the adaptation of this stage of phyletic development to a mode of life widely different from that of the later stages. In the form now possessed by these larvæ they could never have represented the final stage of their ontogeny, neither could they have formerly possessed the power of sexual propagation. The conclusion seems inevitable that metagenesis has here proceeded from metamorphosis; that is to say, one stage of the ontogeny, by acquiring asexual propagation, has changed the originally existing metamorphosis into metagenesis.
Lubbock39 is undoubtedly correct when, for cases like that just mentioned, he attempts to derive alternation of generations from metamorphosis. But if we exclude heterogenesis there still remain a large number of cases of true metagenesis which cannot be explained from this point of view.
It must be admitted, with Haeckel, that the alternation of generations in the Hydromedusæ and Trematoda does not depend, as in the case of Cecidomyia, upon the larvæ having acquired the power of nursing, but that the inferior stages of these species always possessed this power which they now only preserve. The nursing Trematode larvæ now existing may possibly have been formerly able to propagate themselves also sexually, this mode of propagation having at the present time been transferred to a later phyletic stage. In this case, therefore, metagenesis was not properly produced by metamorphosis, but arose therefrom in the course of the phyletic development, the earlier phyletic stages abandoning the power of sexual reproduction, and preserving the asexual mode of propagation. A third way in which metagenesis might originate is through polymorphosis. When the latter is combined with asexual reproduction, as is especially the case with the Hydrozoa, metagenesis may be derived therefrom. The successive stages of transformation of one and the same physiological individual do not in these cases serve as the point of departure for alternation of generation, but the different contemporary forms living gregariously into which the species has become divided through functional differentiation of the various individuals of the same stock. Individuals are here produced which alone acquire the power of sexual reproduction, and metagenesis is thus brought about, these individuals detaching themselves from the stock on which they originated, while the rest of the individuals remain in combination, and retain the asexual mode of propagation. No sharp distinction can be otherwise drawn between this and the cases previously considered.40 The difference consists only in the whole cycle of reproduction being performed by one stock; both classes have the common character that the different phyletic stages never appear in the same individual (metamorphosis), but in the course of further phyletic development metagenesis at the same time arises, i.e. the division of these stages among a succession of
“Isoporien der europäischen Tagfalter.” Stuttgart, 1873.
[Trans. Linn. Soc., vol. xxv. 1865, p. 9. R.M.]
It is certainly preferable to make use of the expression “metagenesis” in this special sense instead of introducing a new one. As a general designation, comprehending metagenesis and heterogenesis, there will then remain the expression “alternation of generation,” if one does not prefer to say “cyclical propagation.” The latter may be well used in contradistinction to “metamorphosis.”
The idea that alternation of generation is derived from polymorphism (not the reverse, as usually happens; i.e. polymorphism from alternation of generation) is not new, as I find whilst correcting the final proof. Semper has already expressed it at the conclusion of his interesting memoir, “Über Generationswechsel bei Steinkorallen,” &c. See “Zeitschrift f. wiss. Zool.” vol. xxii. 1872.