Weismann August
Essays Upon Heredity and Kindred Biological Problems
I. The Germ-plasm
I must first define precisely the exact meaning of the term germ-plasm.
In my previous writings in which the subject has been alluded to, I have simply spoken of germ-plasm without indicating more precisely the part of the cell in which we may expect to find this substance—the bearer of the characteristic nature of the species and of the individual. In the first place such a course was sufficient for my immediate purpose, and in the second place the number of ascertained facts appeared to be insufficient to justify a more exact definition. I imagined that the germ-plasm was that part of a germ-cell of which the chemical and physical properties—including the molecular structure—enable the cell to become, under appropriate conditions, a new individual of the same species. I therefore believed it to be some such substance as Nägeli104, shortly afterwards, called idioplasm, and of which he attempted, in an admirable manner, to give us a clear understanding. Even at that time one might have ventured to suggest that the organized substance of the nucleus is in all probability the bearer of the phenomena of heredity, but it was impossible to speak upon this point with any degree of certainty. O. Hertwig105 and Fol106 had shown that the process of fertilization is attended by a conjugation of nuclei, and Hertwig had even then distinctly said that fertilization generally depends upon the fusion of two nuclei; but the possibility of the co-operation of the substance of the two germ-cells could not be excluded, for in all the observed cases the sperm-cell was very small and had the form of a spermatozoon, so that the amount of its cell-body, if there is any, coalescing with the female cell, could not be distinctly seen, nor was it possible to determine the manner in which this coalescence took place. Furthermore, it was for some time very doubtful whether the spermatozoon really contained true nuclear substance, and even in 1879 Fol was forced to the conclusion that these bodies consist of cell-substance alone. In the following year my account of the sperm-cells of Daphnidae followed, and this should have removed every doubt as to the cellular nature of the sperm-cells and as to their possession of an entirely normal nucleus, if only the authorities upon the subject had paid more attention to these statements107. In the same year (1880) Balfour summed up the facts in the following manner—‘The act of impregnation may be described as the fusion of the ovum and spermatozoon, and the most important feature in this act appears to be the fusion of a male and female nucleus108.’ It is true that Calberla had already observed in Petromyzon, that the tail of the spermatozoon does not penetrate into the egg, but remains in the micropyle; but on the other hand the head and part of the ‘middle-piece’ which effect fertilization, certainly contain a small fraction of the cell-body in addition to the nuclear substance, and although the amount of the former which thus enters the egg must be very small, it might nevertheless be amply sufficient to transmit the tendencies of heredity. Nägeli and Pflüger rightly asserted, at a later date, that the amount of the substance which forms the basis of heredity is necessarily very small, for the fact that hereditary tendencies are as strong on the paternal as on the maternal side, forces us to assume that the amount of this substance is nearly equal in both male and female germ-cells. Although I had not published anything upon the point, I was myself inclined to ascribe considerable importance to the cell-substance in the process of fertilization; and I had been especially led to adopt this view because my investigations upon Daphnidae had shown that an animal produces large sperm-cells with an immense cell-body whenever the economy of its organism permits. All Daphnidae in which internal fertilization takes place (in which the sperm-cells are directly discharged upon the unfertilized egg), produce a small number of such large sperm-cells (Sida, Polyphemus, Bythotrephes); while all species with external fertilization (Daphnidae, Lynceinae) produce very small sperm-cells in enormous numbers, thus making up for the immense chances against any single cell being able to reach an egg. Hence the smaller the chances of any single sperm-cell being successful, the larger is the number of such cells produced, and a direct result of this increase in number is a diminution in size. But why should the sperm-cells remain or become so large in the species in which fertilization is internal? The idea suggests itself that the species in this way gains some advantage, which must be given up in the other cases; although such advantage might consist in assisting the development of the fertilized ovum and not in any increase of the true fertilizing substance. At the present time we are indeed disposed to recognize this advantage in still more unimportant matters, but at that time the ascertained facts did not justify us in the assertion that fertilization is a mere fusion of nuclei, and M. Nussbaum109 quite correctly expressed the state of our knowledge when he said that the act of fertilization consisted in ‘the union of identical parts of two homologous cells.’
Pflüger’s discovery of the ‘isotropism’ of the ovum was the first fact which distinctly pointed to the conclusion that the bodies of the germ-cells have no share in the transmission of hereditary tendencies. He showed that segmentation can be started in different parts of the body of the egg, if the latter be permanently removed from its natural position. This discovery constituted an important proof that the body of the egg consists of a uniform substance, and that certain parts or organs of the embryo cannot be potentially contained in certain parts of the egg, so that they can only arise from these respective parts and from no others. Pflüger was mistaken in the further interpretation, from which he concluded that the fertilized ovum has no essential relation to the organization of the animal subsequently formed by it, and that it is only the recurrence of the same external conditions which causes the germ-cell to develope always in the same manner. The force of gravity was the first factor, which, as Pflüger thought, determined the building up of the embryo: but he overlooked the fact that isotropism can only be referred to the body of the egg, and that besides this cell-body there is also a nucleus present, from which it was at least possible that regulative influences might emanate. Upon this point Born110 first showed that the position of the nucleus is changed in eggs which are thus placed in unnatural conditions, and he proved that the nucleus must contain a principle which in the first place directs the formation of the embryo. Roux111 further showed that, even when the effect of gravity is compensated, the development is continued unchanged, and he therefore concluded that the fertilized egg contains within itself all the forces necessary for normal development. Finally, O. Hertwig112 proved from observations on the eggs of sea-urchins, that at any rate in these animals, gravity has no directive influence upon segmentation, but that the position of the first nuclear spindle decides the direction which will be taken by the first divisional plane of segmentation. These observations were however still insufficient to prove that fertilization is nothing more than the fusion of nuclei113.
A further and more important step was taken when E. van Beneden114 observed the process of fertilization in Ascaris megalocephala. Like the investigations of Nussbaum115 upon the same subject, published at a rather earlier date, van Beneden’s observations did not altogether exclude the possibility of the participation of the body of the sperm-cell in the real process of fertilization; still the fact that the nuclei of the egg-cell and the sperm-cell do not coalesce irregularly, but that their loops are placed regularly opposite one another in pairs and thus form one new nucleus (the first segmentation nucleus), distinctly pointed to the conclusion that the nuclear substance is the sole bearer of hereditary tendencies—that in fact fertilization depends upon the coalescence of nuclei. Van Beneden himself did not indeed arrive at these conclusions: he was prepossessed with the idea that fertilization depends upon the union of two sexually differentiated nuclei, or rather half-nuclei—the male and female pronuclei. He considered that only in this way could a single complete nucleus be formed, a nucleus which must of course be hermaphrodite, and he believed that the essential cause of further development lies in the fact that, at each successive division of nuclei and cells, this hermaphrodite nature of the nucleus is maintained by the longitudinal division of the loops of each mother-nucleus, causing a uniform distribution of the male and female loops in both daughter-nuclei.
But van Beneden undoubtedly deserves great credit for having constructed the foundation upon which a scientific theory of heredity could be built. It was only necessary to replace the terms male and female pronuclei, by the terms nuclear substance of the male and female parents, in order to gain a starting-point from which further advance became possible. This step was taken by Strasburger, who at the same time brought forward an instance in which the nucleus only of the male germ-cell (to the exclusion of its cell-body) reaches the egg-cell. He succeeded in explaining the process of fertilization in Phanerogams, which had been for a long time involved in obscurity, for he proved that the nucleus of the sperm-cell (the pollen-tube) enters the embryo-sac and fuses with the nucleus of the egg-cell: at the same time he came to the conclusion that the body of the sperm-cell does not pass into the embryo-sac, so that in this case fertilization can only depend upon the fusion of nuclei116.
Thus the nuclear substance must be the sole bearer of hereditary tendencies, and the facts ascertained by van Beneden in the case of Ascaris plainly show that the nuclear substance must not only contain the tendencies of growth of the parents, but also those of a very large number of ancestors. Each of the two nuclei which unite in fertilization must contain the germ-nucleoplasm of both parents, and this latter nucleoplasm once contained and still contains the germ-nucleoplasm of the grandparents as well as that of all previous generations. It is obvious that the nucleoplasm of each antecedent generation must be represented in any germ-nucleus in an amount which becomes less as the number of intervening generations becomes greater; and the proportion can be calculated after the manner in which breeders, when crossing races, determine the proportion of pure blood which is contained in any of the descendants. Thus while the germ-plasm of the father or mother constitutes half the nucleus of any fertilized ovum, that of a grandparent only forms a quarter, and that of the tenth generation backwards only 1/1024, and so on. The latter can, nevertheless, exercise influence over the development of the offspring, for the phenomena of atavism show that the germ-plasm of very remote ancestors can occasionally make itself felt, in the sudden reappearance of long-lost characters. Although we are unable to give a detailed account of the way in which atavism happens, and of the circumstances under which it takes place, we are at least able to understand how it becomes possible; for even a very minute trace of a specific germ-plasm possesses the definite tendency to build up a certain organism, and will develope this tendency as soon as its nutrition is, for some reason, favoured above that of the other kinds of germ-plasm present in the nucleus. Under these circumstances it will increase more rapidly than the other kinds, and it is readily conceivable that a preponderance in the quantity of one kind of nucleoplasm may determine its influence upon the cell-body.
Strasburger—supported by van Beneden’s observations, but in opposition to the opinions of the latter—had already explained, in a manner similar to that described above, the process by which the hereditary transmission of certain characters takes place, and to this extent our opinions coincide. The nature of heredity is based upon the transmission of nuclear substance with a specific molecular constitution. This substance is the specific nucleoplasm of the germ-cell, to which I have given the name of germ-plasm.
O. Hertwig117 has also come to the same conclusion: at an earlier date he had looked upon the coalescence of nuclei as the most essential feature in the process of fertilization. He now believes that this former opinion has been confirmed by the recent discoveries which have been shortly described above.
Although I entirely agree with Hertwig, as far as the main question is concerned, I cannot share his opinions when he identifies Nägeli’s idioplasm with the nucleoplasm of the germ-cell. Nägeli’s idioplasm certainly includes the germ-plasm, if I may retain this expression for the sake of brevity. Nägeli in forming his hypothesis did indeed start with the germ-cells, but his idioplasm not only represents the nucleoplasm of the germ-cells, but also that of all the other cells of the organism; all these nucleoplasms taken together constitute Nägeli’s idioplasm. According to Nägeli, the idioplasm forms a network which extends through the whole body, and represents the specific molecular basis which determines its nature. Although this latter suggestion—the general part of his theory—is certainly valid, and although it is of great importance to have originated the idea of idioplasm in this general sense, in contrast to the somato-plasm (‘Nährplasma’), it is nevertheless true that we are not justified in retaining the details of his theory.
In the first place the idioplasm does not form a directly continuous network throughout the entire body; and, secondly, the whole organism is not penetrated by a single substance of homogeneous constitution, but each special kind of cell must contain the specific idioplasm or nucleoplasm which determines its nature. There are therefore in each organism a multitude of different kinds of idioplasm. Thus we should be quite justified in generally speaking of Nägeli’s idioplasm as nucleoplasm, and vice versa.
It is perfectly certain that the idioplasm cannot form a continuous network through the whole organism, if it is seated in the nucleus and not in the cell-body. Even if the bodies of cells are everywhere connected by fine processes (as has been proved in animals by Leydig and Heitzmann, and in plants by various botanists), they do not form a network of idioplasm but of somato-plasm; a substance which, according to Nägeli, stands in marked contrast to idioplasm. Strasburger has indeed already spoken of a ‘cyto-idioplasm,’ and it is certainly obvious that the cell-body often possesses a specific character, but we must in all cases assume that such a character is impressed upon it by the influence of the nucleus, or, in other words, that the direction in which the cell-substance is differentiated in the course of development is determined by the quality of its nuclear substance. So far, therefore, the determining nuclear substance corresponds to the idioplasm alone, while the substance of the cell-body must be identified with the somato-plasm (‘Nährplasma’) of Nägeli. At all events, in practice, it will be well to restrict the term idioplasm to the regulative nuclear substance alone, if we desire to retain the well-chosen terms of Nägeli’s theory.
But the second part of Nägeli’s theory of the idioplasm is also untenable. It is impossible that this substance can have the same constitution everywhere in the organism and during every stage of its ontogeny. If this were so, how could the idioplasm effect the great differences which obtain in the formation of the various parts of the organism? In some passages of his work Nägeli seems to express the same opinion; e. g. on page 31 he says, ‘It would be practicable to regard—although only in a metaphorical sense—the idioplasms of the different cells of an individual as themselves different, inasmuch as they possess specific powers of production: we should thus include among these idioplasms all the conditions of the organism which bring about the display of specific activity on the part of cells.’ It can be clearly seen from the passages immediately preceding and succeeding the above-quoted sentence, that Nägeli, in speaking of these changes in the idioplasm, does not refer to material, but only to dynamical changes. On page 53 he lays special stress upon the statement that ‘the idioplasm during its growth retains its specific constitution everywhere throughout the organism,’ and it is only ‘within these fixed structural limits that it changes its conditions of tension and movement, and thus alters the forms of growth and activity which are possible at each time and place.’ Against such an interpretation weighty objections can be raised. At present I will only mention that the meaning of the phrase ‘conditions of tension and movement’ ought to be made clear, and that we ought to be informed how it is that mere differences in tension can produce as many different effects as could have been produced by differences of constitution. If any one were to assert that in Daphnidae, or in any other forms which produce two kinds of eggs, the power of developing only after a period of rest, possessed by the winter-eggs, is based upon the fact that their idioplasm is identical with that of the summer-eggs, but is in another condition of tension, I should think such a hypothesis would be well worth consideration, for the animals which arise from the winter-eggs are identical with those produced in summer: the idioplasm which caused their formation must therefore be identical in its constitution; and can only differ in the two cases, as water differs from ice. But the case is quite otherwise in the stages of ontogeny. How many different conditions of tension ought to be possessed by one and the same idioplasm in order to correspond to the thousand different structures and differentiations of cells in one of the higher organisms? In fact it would be hardly possible to form even an approximate conception of an explanation based upon mere ‘conditions of tensions and movement.’ But, furthermore, difference in effect should correspond, at any rate to some extent, with difference in cause: thus the idioplasm of a muscle-cell ought to differ more from that of a nerve-cell and of a digestive-cell in the same individual, than the idioplasm of the germ-cell of one individual differs from that of other individuals of the same species; and yet, according to Nägeli, the latter small difference in the effect is supposed to be due to difference of quality in the cause—the idioplasm, while the former fundamental difference in the histological differentiation of cells is supposed to follow from mere difference ‘of tension and movement.’
Nägeli’s hypothesis appears to be self-contradictory; for, although its author recognizes the truth of the fundamental law of development, and explains the stages of ontogeny as an abbreviated recapitulation of phyletic stages, he nevertheless explains the latter by a different principle from that which he employs to explain the former. According to Nägeli, the stages of phylogeny are based upon true qualitative differences in the idioplasm: the germ-plasm of a worm is qualitatively different from that of Amphioxus, a frog, or a mammal. But if such phyletic stages occur crowded together in the ontogeny of a single species, they are said to be based upon different ‘conditions of tension and movement’ of one and the same idioplasm! It seems to me to be necessary to conclude that if the idioplasm, in the course of phyletic development, undergoes any alteration in specific constitution, such alterations must also take place in ontogeny; so far at least as the phyletic stages are repeated. Either the whole phyletic development is based upon different ‘conditions of tension and movement,’ or if this—as I believe—is impossible, the stages of ontogeny must be based upon qualitative alterations in the idioplasm.
Involuntarily the question arises—how is it that such an acute thinker fails to perceive this contradiction? But the answer is not far to seek, and Nägeli himself indicates it when he adds these words to the sentence quoted above: ‘It follows therefore that if a cell is detached as a germ-cell in any stage of ontogenetic development, and from any part of the organism, such a cell will contain all the hereditary tendencies of the parent individual.’ In other words, if we are restricted to different ‘conditions of tension and movement’ as an explanation, it seems to follow as a matter of course that the idioplasm can re-assume its original condition, and therefore that the idioplasm of any cell in the body can again become the idioplasm of the germ-cell; for this to take place it is only necessary that the greater tension should become the less, or vice versa. But if we admit a real change in constitution, then the backward development of the idioplasm of the cells of the body into germ-cells appears to be very far from a matter of course, and he who assumes it must bring forward weighty reasons. Nägeli does not produce such reasons, but considers the metamorphosis of the idioplasm in ontogeny as mere differences in the ‘conditions of tension and movement.’ This phrase covers the weak part of his theory; and I look upon it as a valuable proof that Nägeli has also felt that the phenomena of heredity can only find their explanation in the hypothesis of the continuity of the germ-plasm; for his phrase is only capable of obscuring the question as to how the idioplasm of the cells of the body can be re-transformed into the idioplasm of germ-cells.
I am of the opinion that the idioplasm cannot be re-transformed, and I have defended this opinion for some years past118, although I have hitherto laid especial stress on the positive aspect of the question, viz. on the continuity of the germ-plasm. I have attempted to prove that the germ-cells of an organism derive their essential nature from the fact that the germ-plasm of each generation is carried over into that which succeeds it; and I have tried to show that during the development of an egg into an animal, a part of the germ-substance—although only a minute part—passes over unchanged into the organism which is undergoing development, and that this part represents the basis from which future germ-cells arise. In this way it is to a certain extent possible to conceive how it is that the complex molecular structure of the germ-plasm can be retained unchanged, even in its most minute details, through a long series of generations.
But how would this be possible if the germ-plasm were formed anew in each individual by the transformation of somatic idioplasm? And yet if we reject the ‘continuity of the germ-plasm’ we are compelled to adopt this latter hypothesis concerning its origin. It is the hypothesis adopted by Strasburger, and we have therefore to consider how the subject presents itself from his point of view.
I entirely agree with Strasburger when he says, ‘The specific qualities of organisms are based upon nuclei’; and I further agree with him in many of his ideas as to the relation between the nucleus and cell-body: ‘Molecular stimuli proceed from the nucleus into the surrounding cytoplasm; stimuli which, on the one hand, control the phenomena of assimilation in the cell, and, on the other hand, give to the growth of the cytoplasm, which depends upon nutrition, a certain character peculiar to the species.’ ‘The nutritive cytoplasm assimilates, while the nucleus controls the assimilation, and hence the substances assimilated possess a certain constitution and nourish in a certain manner the cyto-idioplasm and the nuclear idioplasm. In this way the cytoplasm takes part in the phenomena of construction, upon which the specific form of the organism depends. This constructive activity of the cyto-idioplasm depends upon the regulative influence of the nuclei.’ The nuclei therefore ‘determine the specific direction in which an organism developes.’
The opinion—derived from the recent study of the phenomena of fertilization—that the nucleus impresses its specific character upon the cell, has received conclusive and important confirmation in the experiments upon the regeneration of Infusoria, conducted simultaneously by M. Nussbaum119 at Bonn, and by A. Gruber120 at Freiburg. Nussbaum’s statement that an artificially separated portion of a Paramaecium, which does not contain any nuclear substance, immediately dies, must not be accepted as of general application, for Gruber has kept similar fragments of other Infusoria alive for several days. Moreover, Gruber had previously shown that individual Protozoa occur, which live in a normal manner, and are yet without a nucleus, although this structure is present in other individuals of the same species. But the meaning of the nucleus is made clear by the fact, published by Gruber, that such artificially separated fragments of Infusoria are incapable of regeneration, while on the other hand those fragments which contain nuclei always regenerate. It is therefore only under the influence of the nucleus that the cell substance re-developes into the full type of the species. In adopting the view that the nucleus is the factor which determines the specific nature of the cell, we stand on a firm foundation upon which we can build with security.
If therefore the first segmentation nucleus contains, in its molecular structure, the whole of the inherited tendencies of development, it must follow that during segmentation and subsequent cell-division, the nucleoplasm will enter upon definite and varied changes which must cause the differences appearing in the cells which are produced; for identical cell-bodies depend, ceteris paribus, upon identical nucleoplasm, and conversely different cells depend upon differences in the nucleoplasm. The fact that the embryo grows more strongly in one direction than in another, that its cell-layers are of different nature and are ultimately differentiated into various organs and tissues,—forces us to accept the conclusion that the nuclear substance has also been changed in nature, and that such changes take place during ontogenetic development in a regular and definite manner. This view is also held by Strasburger, and it must be the opinion of all who seek to derive the development of inherited tendencies from the molecular structure of the germ-plasm, instead of from preformed gemmules.
We are thus led to the important question as to the forces by which the determining substance or nucleoplasm is changed, and as to the manner in which it changes during the course of ontogeny, and on the answer to this question our further conclusions must depend. The simplest hypothesis would be to suppose that, at each division of the nucleus, its specific substance divides into two halves of unequal quality, so that the cell-bodies would also be transformed; for we have seen that the character of a cell is determined by that of its nucleus. Thus in any Metazoon the first two segmentation spheres would be transformed in such a manner that one only contained the hereditary tendencies of the endoderm and the other those of the ectoderm, and therefore, at a later stage, the cells of the endoderm would arise from the one and those of the ectoderm from the other; and this is actually known to occur. In the course of further division the nucleoplasm of the first ectoderm cell would again divide unequally, e.g. into the nucleoplasm containing the hereditary tendencies of the nervous system, and into that containing the tendencies of the external skin. But even then, the end of the unequal division of nuclei would not have been nearly reached; for, in the formation of the nervous system, the nuclear substance which contains the hereditary tendencies of the sense-organs, would, in the course of further cell-division, be separated from that which contains the tendencies of the central organs, and the same process would continue in the formation of all single organs, and in the final development of the most minute histological elements. This process would take place in a definitely ordered course, exactly as it has taken place throughout a very long series of ancestors; and the determining and directing factor is simply and solely the nuclear substance, the nucleoplasm, which possesses such a molecular structure in the germ-cell that all such succeeding stages of its molecular structure in future nuclei must necessarily arise from it, as soon as the requisite external conditions are present. This is almost the same conception of ontogenetic development as that which has been held by embryologists who have not accepted the doctrine of evolution: for we have only to transfer the primary cause of development, from an unknown source within the organism, into the nuclear substance, in order to make the views identical.
It appears at first sight that the knowledge which has been gained by studying the indirect division of nuclei is opposed to such a view, for we know that each mother-loop of the so-called nuclear plate divides longitudinally into two exactly equal halves, which can be stained and thus rendered visible.
In this way each resulting daughter-nucleus receives an equal supply of halves, and it therefore appears that the two nuclei must be completely identical. This at least is Strasburger’s conclusion, and he regards such identity as a fundamental fact, which cannot be shaken, and with which all attempts at further explanation must be brought into accord.
