Weismann August
Studies in the Theory of Descent, Volume II
This is the same marking as is shown by the fourth stage of the German form, only in this case individuals quite destitute of black do not occur. In many specimens indeed black forms the ground-colour, the green only appearing in certain spots (Figs. 71 to 75); in others the green predominates, and these two extremes are connected by innumerable intermediate forms, so that this stage must be regarded as the most variable of all.
The sixth stage of the Genoese and the fifth of the German form have already been compared together. The results may be thus tabulated: —
A. German form. B. Genoese form.
Stage I. 9 days. Black; constant. 9 days. Black; constant.
Stage II. 8 days. Black, with orange-yellow lateral stripe; variable. Black, with yellow; very variable. 11 days. Black; constant.
Stage III. 5 days (in some cases as much as 16 days). 12 days. Black, with orange-yellow lateral stripes; constant.
Stage IV. 16 days (in some cases only 5 days). Bright green and black mixed; very variable. 6 days. Black, with bright yellowish lateral stripe; constant.
Stage V. 6 days (frequently longer). Dark green, with or without black bands; variable. 6 days. Bright green, small traces of black; variable.
Stage VI. Pupation. 18 days. Bright green, without any black; constant.
Stage VII. Pupation.
From this comparison we perceive that the process of transformation has at least become preliminarily concluded in the Genoese form. Why the backward transference of the newly-acquired character to the young stages has not yet occurred, or, at least, why it is not in progress, does not appear; neither can it be stated whether this will take place later, although we may venture to suppose that such will be the case. At first sight but a relatively short time appears necessary for the single stage V., which is still in a state of fluctuation (variable), to become constant by continued crossing, like all the other stages.
That the transformation is still in full progress in the German form, is shown by the fact that in this case all the stages are variable with the exception of the first – the second stage being only variable to a small extent, the third to a much greater extent, and the fourth to the highest degree conceivable, whilst the fifth and last stage is again less variable – so that the greatest struggle between the old and new characters takes place in the fourth stage.
Among the innumerable variations presented by this last stage a complete series of transitional forms can be arranged so as to show the gradual conquest of the black by the green, and thus indicating, step by step, the course which the latter colour has taken.
In the blackest specimens there is nothing green but the lateral (infra-spiracular) line which was yellow in the preceding stage, and a crescent-shaped streak at the base of the middle warts together with a still smaller crescent at the base of the upper warts (Figs. 71 and 81). These spots become extended in lighter specimens and approximate so as to leave only narrow black bridges, a third spot being added at the posterior edge of the warts (Figs. 72 and 82). The three spots then extend on all sides, still leaving for a long period narrow black lines at the boundaries where their growth has caused them to abut. In this manner there frequently arises on the green ground a true hieroglyphic-like marking (Figs. 85 and 86). Finally the black disappears from the anterior edge and diminishes on the middle line of the back where it still partly remains as a T-shaped figure (Figs. 73 and 74), although generally replaced elsewhere by the green with the exception of small residues.
One point remained for a long time inexplicable to me, viz., the change of the light green into dark grey-green which appeared in the last stage in connection with a total change of the black marking.
Supposing that new characters are actually acquired only in the last stage, and that from this they are transferred to the younger stages, we should expect to find completely developed in the last stage the same colouring and markings as are possessed more or less incompletely in the fourth stage. Now since the developmental tendency to the removal of black and to the predominance of green – if we may thus venture to express it – is obvious in the fourth stage, we may expect to find in the fifth stage a bright green ground-colour, either without any mixture of black or with such black spots and streaks as were retained in the fourth stage as residues of the original ground-colour. But instead of this the fifth stage shows a dark green colour, and a more or less developed black marking which cannot in any way be derived from that of the fourth stage.
The Genoese local form observed last year first gave me an explanation to the extent that in this form the last stage is actually only the potential penultimate stage, or, more correctly expressed, that the same characters which at present distinguish the last stage of this form, are already more or less completely transferred to the penultimate stage.
The apparently paradoxical behaviour of the German form can be explained by supposing that before the pure bright green had become completely transferred to the penultimate stage a further change appeared in the last stage, the green ground-colour becoming darker, and black transverse bands being formed. The marking of the last stage would then be regarded as the reverse of that of the preceding stage; the absence of black would be the older, simple black spots at the base of the warts the next in succession, and a connected black transverse band the most advanced state of the development.
Whether this explanation is correct, and if so, what causes have produced the second change, may perhaps be learnt at some future time by a comparison with the ontogeny of other Saturniidæ; in the meantime this explanation receives support from another side by the behaviour of the Genoese local form. If the last stage of the German form has actually commenced to be again re-modelled, then this variety is further advanced in phyletic development than the Genoese form; and this corresponds entirely with the theory that in the former the light colour (the orange considered as preliminary to the transformation into green) has already been carried down into the second stage, whilst in the Genoese variety even in the fourth stage only the first rudiments of the colour-transformation show themselves.
The Genoese form is to a certain extent intermediate between the German form of Saturnia Carpini and the nearly related S. Spini, a species inhabiting East Germany. In this latter the larvæ, even in the adult state, are completely black with yellow warts. This form of caterpillar must therefore be regarded as phyletically the oldest, and this very well agrees with the character of the moth, which differs essentially from S. Carpini only in not being sexually dimorphic. In Carpini the male possesses a far more brilliant colouring than the female, the latter agreeing so completely with the female of Spini that it can hardly be distinguished therefrom, especially in the case of the somewhat larger South European specimens of the last species. Now as the more simple colouring of the female must in any case be regarded as the original form, we must consider Spini, both sexes of which possess this colouring, to be phyletically the older form, and Carpini, the male of which has become differently coloured, must be considered as the younger type. This completely accords with the characters of the larvæ.
I must here mention that I have also asked myself the question whether the variations of the different larval stages are connected together as cause and effect – whether the lightest specimens of the fifth stage may perhaps not also have been the lightest individuals of the third and fourth stages.
Such relationship is only apparent between the third and fourth stages; the darkest larvæ of the third stage become the darker varieties of the fourth stage, although it is true that the lighter forms of the third sometimes also become dark varieties in the fourth stage. Between the fourth and fifth stages there is scarcely any connection of this kind to be recognized. Thus, the darkest varieties of the fourth stage sometimes become the lightest forms of the fifth stage, whilst in other cases from the lightest individuals of the fourth stage there arise all the possible modifications of the fifth stage. Further details may be omitted: the negative result cannot cause any surprise, as it is a necessary consequence of the continued crossing that must take place.
We thus see that the three chief stages of development (larva, pupa, and imago) actually change in colour independently of each other, the single stages of the larval development being however in greater dependence upon one another, and being connected indeed in such a manner that a new character cannot be added to the last stage without being transferred in the course of time to the preceding stage, and at a later period from this again even to the youngest stage, supposing it not to be previously delayed in the course of its transference by unknown opposing forces. On this last point, however, the facts at present available do not admit of any certain decision.
But why do the individual larval stages behave in this respect so very differently to the chief stages of the whole development? why are the former so exactly correlated whilst the latter are not? If new characters have a general tendency to become transferred to the younger ontogenetic stages, why are not new imaginal characters first transferred to the pupa, and finally to the larva?
The answer to these questions is not far to find. The wider two stages of a species differ in structure, the less does correlation become possible; the nearer the two stages are morphologically related, the more powerful does the action of correlation become. It is readily conceivable that the more widely two succeeding stages deviate in structure and mode of life, the less possible does it become for characters to be transferred from one to the other. How is it possible, for example, that a new character in the proboscis or on the wings of a butterfly can be transferred to the caterpillar? If such correlation existed it could only manifest itself by some other part of the caterpillar changing in correspondence with the change of the proboscis or wings of the butterfly. That this is not the case has, in my opinion, been conclusively shown by all the foregoing considerations respecting the independent variability of the chief stages of the metamorphosis.
There are, moreover, an endless number of facts which prove the independence of the individual stages of development – I refer to the multitudinous phenomena presented by metamorphosis itself. The existence of that form of development which we designate as metamorphosis is alone sufficient to prove incontestably that the single stages are able to change independently of one another to a most remarkable extent.
If we now ask the question: how has the so-called “complete” metamorphosis of insects arisen? the answer can only be: through the gradual adaptation of the different stages of development to conditions of life which have continually deviated more and more widely from each other.5
But if individual stages of the post-embryonic development can finally attain to such complete diversity of structure as that of the larva and imago through gradual adaptations to continually diverging conditions of life, this shows that the characters acquired by the single stages are always only transferred to the same stages of the following generation, whilst the other stages remain uninfluenced thereby. This depends upon that form of heredity designated by Darwin “inheritance at corresponding periods of life,” and by Haeckel “homochronic heredity.”
II. Does the Form-relationship of the Larva coincide with that of the Imago?
Having thus established the independence in the variability of the individual stages of metamorphosis, I will now turn to the consideration of the question as to how far a parallelism is displayed in the phyletic development of these stages. Is there a complete congruence of form-relationship between larvæ on the one hand and imagines on the other? does the classification founded on the morphology of the imagines agree with that based on the morphology of the larvæ or not?
If, according to Claus,6 we divide the order Lepidoptera into six great groups of families, it is at once seen that these groups, which were originally founded exclusively on imaginal characters, cannot by any means be so clearly and sharply defined by the larval characters.
This is certainly the case with the Geometræ, of which the larvæ possess only ten legs, and on this account progress with that peculiar “looping” movement which strikes even the uninitiated. This group, which is very small, is however the only one which can be founded on the morphology of the larvæ; it comprises only two nearly related families (Phytometridæ and Dendrometridæ), and it is not yet decided whether these should not be united into one group comprising the family characters of the whole of the “loopers.”
Neither the group of Micro-lepidoptera, nor those of the Noctuina, Bombycina, Sphingina, and Rhopalocera, can be based systematically on larval characters. Several of these groups are indeed but indistinctly defined, and even the imagines present no common characteristics by which the groups can be sharply distinguished.
This is well shown by the Rhopalocera or butterflies. These insects, in their large and generally brilliantly coloured wings, which are usually held erect when at rest, and in their clubbed antennæ, possess characters which are nowhere else found associated together, and which thus serve to constitute them a sharply defined group.7 The caterpillars, however, show a quite different state of affairs. Although the larval structure is so characteristic in the individual families of butterflies, these “larval-families” cannot be united into a larger group by any common characters, and the “Rhopalocera” would never have been established if only the larvæ had been known. It is true that they all have sixteen legs, that they never possess a Sphinx-like horn, and that they are seldom hairy, as is the case with many Bombycidæ,8 but these common negative characters occur also in quite distinct groups.
In the butterflies, therefore, a perfect congruence of form-relationship does not exist, inasmuch as the imagines constitute one large group of higher order whilst the larvæ can only be formed into families. If it be admitted that the common characters of butterflies depend on their derivation from a common ancestor, the imagines must have retained certain common characters which enable them to be recognized as allies, whilst the larvæ have preserved no such characters from the period at which the families diverged.
Without going at present into the causes of these phenomena I will pass on to the consideration of further facts, and will now proceed to investigate both the form-relationships within the families. Here there can be no doubt that in an overwhelmingly large majority of cases the phyletic development has proceeded with very close parallelism in both stages; larval and imaginal families agree almost completely.
Thus, under the group Rhopalocera there is a series of families which equally well permit of their being founded on the structure of the larva or on that of the imago, and in which the larvæ and imagines therefore deviate from one another to the same extent. This is the case, for instance, with the families of the Pieridæ, Papilionidæ, Danaidæ, and Lycænidæ.
But there are also families of which the limits would be very different if the larvæ were made the basis of the classification instead of the butterflies as heretofore. To this category belongs the sub-family Nymphalinæ. Here also a very characteristic form of caterpillar indeed prevails, but it does not occur in all the genera, being replaced in some by a quite different form of larva.
In the latest catalogue of Diurnal Lepidoptera, that of Kirby (1871), 112 genera are comprised under this family. Of these most of the larvæ possess one or several rows of spines on most or on all the segments, a character which, as thus disposed, is not met with in any other family.
This character is noticeable in genera 1 to 90, if, from those genera of which the larvæ are known, we may draw a conclusion with reference to their allies. I am acquainted with larvæ of genus 2, Agraulis, Boisd. (Dione, Hübn.); of genus 3, Cethosia, Fabr.; 10, Atella, Doubl.; 12, Argynnis, Fabr.; 13, Melitæa,9 Fabr.; 19, Araschnia, Hübn.; 22, Vanessa, Fabr.; 23, Pyrameis, Hübn.; 24, Junonia, Hübn.; 31, Ergolis, Boisd.; 65, Hypolimnas, Hübn. (Diadema, Boisd.); 77, Limenitis, Fabr.; 81, Neptis, Fabr.; 82, Athyma, Westw.; and finally with those of genus 90, Euthalia, Hübn. – which, according to Horsfield’s figures, possess only two rows of spines, these being remarkably long and curved, and fringing both sides. It may be safely assumed that the intermediate genera would agree in possessing this important character of the Nymphalideous larvæ, viz., spines.
After the genus 90 there are 22 more genera, and these are spineless, at least in the case of the two chief genera, 93, Apatura, and 104, Nymphalis. Of the remainder I know neither figures nor descriptions.10 In the two genera named the larvæ are provided with two or more spine-like tentacles on the head, and the last segment ends in a fork-like process directed backwards. The body is otherwise smooth, and differs also in form from that of the larvæ of the other Nymphalinæ, being thickest in the middle, and tapering anteriorly and posteriorly; neither is the form cylindrical, but somewhat flattened and slug-shaped. If therefore we were to arrange these butterflies by the larvæ instead of by the imagines, these two genera and their allies would form a distinct family, and could not remain associated with the 90 other Nymphalideous genera.
We have here a case of incongruence; the imagines of the genera 1–90 and 91–112 are more closely allied than their larvæ.
From still another side there arises a similar disagreement. The larvæ of the genera Apatura and Nymphalis agree very closely in their bodily form and in their forked caudal appendage with the caterpillars of another sub-family of butterflies, the Satyrinæ, whilst their imagines differ chiefly from those of the latter sub-family in the absence of an enlargement of certain veins of the fore-wings, an essential character of the Satyrinæ.
This double disagreement has also been noticed by those systematists who have taken the form of the caterpillar into consideration. Thus, Morris11 attempted to incorporate the genera Apatura and Nymphalis into the family Libytheidæ, placing the latter as transitional from the Nymphalidæ to the Satyridæ. But although the imagines of the genera Apatura, Nymphalis, and Libythea may be most closely related – as I believe they actually are – the larvæ are widely different, being at least as different as are those of Apatura and Nymphalis from the remaining Nymphalinæ.
Now if we could safely raise Apatura and Nymphalis into a distinct family – an arrangement which in the estimation of Staudinger12 is correct – and if this were interpolated between the Satyridæ and Nymphalidæ, such an arrangement could only be based on the larval structure, and that of the imagines would thus remain unconsidered, since no other common characters can be found for these two genera than those which they possess in common with the other Nymphalideous genera.
The emperor-butterflies (Apatura), by the ocelli of their fore-wings certainly put us somewhat in mind of the Satyrinæ, in which such spots are always present; but this character does not occur in the genus Nymphalis, and is likewise absent in most of the other genera of this group. The genus Apatura shows in addition a most striking similarity in the markings of the wings to the purely Nymphalideous genus Limenitis, and it is therefore placed, by those systematists who leave this genus in the same family, in the closest proximity to Limenitis. This resemblance cannot depend upon mimicry, since not only one or another but all the species of the two genera possess a similar marking; and further, because similarity of marking alone does not constitute mimicry, but a resemblance in colour must also be added. The genus Limenitis actually contains a case of imitation, but in quite another direction; this will be treated of subsequently.
It cannot therefore be well denied that in this case the larvæ show different relationships to the imagines.
If the “natural” system is the expression of the genetic relationship of living forms, the question arises in this and in similar cases as to whether the more credence is to be attached to the larvæ or to the imagines – or, in more scientific phraseology, which of the two inherited classes of characters have been the most distinctly and completely preserved, and which of these, through its form-relationship, admits of the most distinct recognition of the blood-relationship, or, inversely, which has diverged the most widely from the ancestral form? The decision in single instances cannot but be difficult, and appears indeed at first sight impossible; nevertheless this will be arrived at in most cases as soon as the ontogeny of the larvæ, and therewith a portion of the phylogeny of this stage, can be accurately ascertained.
As in the Rhopalocera most of the families show a complete congruence in the form-relationship of the caterpillars and perfect insects, so a similar congruence is also found in the majority of the families belonging to other groups. Thus, the two allied families of the group Sphingina can also be very well characterized by their larvæ;13 both the Sphingidæ and the Sesiidæ possess throughout a characteristic form of larva.
Of the group Bombycina the family of the Saturniidæ possess thick cylindrical caterpillars, of which the segments are beset with a certain number of knob-like warts. It is true that two genera of this family (Endromis and Aglia) are without these characteristic warts, but the imagines of these genera also show extensive and common differences from those of the other genera. A distinct family has in fact already been based on these genera (Endromidæ, Boisd.). Thus the congruence is not thereby disturbed.
So also the families Liparidæ, Euprepiidæ, and Lithosiidæ appear sharply defined in both forms; and similar families occur likewise under the Noctuina, although in this group the erection of families presents great difficulties owing to the near relationship of the genera, and is always to some extent arbitrary. It is important, however, that it is precisely the transitional families which present intermediate forms both as larvæ and as imagines.
Such an instance is offered by the Acronyctidæ, a family belonging to the group Noctuina. The imagines here show in certain points an approximation to the group Bombycina; and their larvæ, which are thickly covered with hairs, likewise possess the characteristics of many of the caterpillars of this group.14
A second illustration is furnished by the family Ophiusidæ, which is still placed by all systematists under the Noctuina, its affinity to the Geometrina, however, being represented by its being located at the end of the Noctuina. The broad wings and narrow bodies of these moths remind us in fact of the appearance of the “geometers;” and the larvæ, like the imagines, show a striking resemblance to those of the Geometrina in the absence of the anterior abdominal legs. For this reason Hübner in his work on caterpillars has termed the species of this family “Semi-Geometræ.”
All these cases show a complete congruence in the two kinds of form-relationship; but exceptions are not wanting. Thus, the family Bombycidæ would certainly never have been formed if the larval structure only had been taken into consideration, since, whilst the genera Gastropacha, Clisiocampa, Lasiocampa, Odonestis, and their allies, are thickly covered with short silky hairs disposed in a very characteristic manner, the caterpillars of the genus Bombyx, to which the common silkworm, B. Mori, belongs, are quite naked and similar to many Sphinx-caterpillars (Chærocampa). Are the imagines of the genera united under this family, at any rate morphologically, as unequally related as their larvæ? Whether it is correct to combine them into one family is a question that does not belong here; we are now only concerned with the fact that the two stages are related in form in very different degrees.
An especially striking case of incongruence is offered by the family Notodontidæ, under which Boisduval, depending only on imaginal characters, united genera of which the larvæ differed to a very great extent. In O. Wilde’s work on caterpillars this family is on this account quite correctly characterized as follows: – “Larvæ of various forms, naked or with thin hairs, sixteen or fourteen legs.”15 In fact in the whole order Lepidoptera there can scarcely be found associated together such diverse larvæ as are here placed in one imago-family; on one side the short cylindrical caterpillars of the genus Cnethocampa, Steph. (C. Processionea, Pithyocampa, &c.), which are covered with fine, brittle, hooked hairs, and are very similar to the larvæ of Gastropacha with which they were formerly united; and on the other side there are the naked, humped, and flat-headed larvæ of the genus Harpyia, Ochs., with their two long forked appendages replacing the hindmost pair of legs, and the grotesquely formed caterpillars of the genera Stauropus, Germ., Hybocampa, Linn., and Notodonta, Ochs.
The morphological congruence between larvæ and imagines declares itself most sharply in genera, where it is the rule almost without exception. In this case we can indeed be sure that a genus or sub-genus founded on the imagines only will, in accordance with correct principles, present a corresponding difference in the larvæ. Had the latter been known first we should have been led to construct the same genera as those which are now established on the structure of the imagines, and these, through other circumstances, would have stood in the same degree of morphological relationship as the genera founded on the imagines. There is therefore a congruence in a double sense; in the first place the differences between the larvæ and imagines of any two genera are equally great, and, in the next place, the common characters possessed by these two stages combined cause them to form precisely the same groups defined with equal sharpness; the genera coincide completely.
So also the butterflies of the sub-family Nymphalinæ can well be separated into genera by the characters of the larvæ, and these, as far as I am able to judge, would agree with the genera founded on the imagines.
The genus Melitæa, for example, can be characterized by the possession of 7–9 fleshy tubercles bearing hairy spines; the genus Argynnis may be distinguished by always having six hairy unbranched spines on each segment, and the genus Cethosia by two similar spines on each segment; the genus Vanessa shows sometimes as many as seven branched spines; and the genus Limenitis never more than two branched blunt spines on each segment, and so forth. If we go further into details it will be seen that the most closely related imagines, as might indeed have been expected, likewise possess the most nearly allied larvæ, whilst very small differences between the imagines are also generally represented by corresponding differences in the larvæ. Thus, for instance, the genus Vanessa of Fabricius has been divided into several genera by later authors. Of these sub-genera, Grapta, Doubl. (containing the European C. – album, the American Fabricii, Interrogationis, Faunus, Comma, &c.), is distinguished by the fact that the larvæ not only possess branched spines on all the segments with the exception of the prothorax, but these spines are also present on the head; in the genus Vanessa (sensû strictiori), Doubl., the head and prothorax are spineless (e. g. V. Urticæ); in the tropical genus Junonia, Hübn., which was also formerly (Godart, 181916) united with Vanessa, the larvæ bear branched spines on all the segments, the head and prothorax included.
It is possible to go still further and to separate two species of Vanessa as two new genera, although they have hitherto been preserved from this fate even by the systematists most given to “splitting.” This decision is certainly justifiable, simply because these species at present stand quite alone, and the practical necessity of forming a distinct genus does not make itself felt, and this practical necessity moreover frequently comes into conflict with scientific claims: science erects a new genus based on the amount of morphological difference, it being quite immaterial whether one or many species make up this genus; such an excessive subdivision is, however, a hindrance to practical requirements, as the cumbrous array of names thereby becomes still further augmented.
The two species which I might separate from Vanessa on the ground of their greater divergence, are the very common and widely distributed V. Io and Antiopa, the Peacock Butterfly and the Camberwell Beauty. In the very remarkable pattern of their wings, both show most marked characteristics; Io possesses a large ocellus on each wing, and Antiopa has a broad light yellow border which is not found in any other species of Vanessa. There can be no doubt but that each of these would have been long ago raised into a genus if similarly marked species of Vanessa occurred in other parts of the world, as is the case with the other species of the genus. Thus, it is well known that there is a whole series of species resembling our V. Cardui, and another series resembling our V. C. – album, the two series possessing the same respective types of marking; indeed on these grounds the sub-genera Pyrameis and Grapta have been erected.17
