Weismann August
Studies in the Theory of Descent, Volume II
Moreover, it is hardly permissible to seek such an explanation, since Urodela are known which have no gills in the adult state, and which nevertheless possess all the other characters of the Ichthyodea, viz. want of eyelids, characteristic palatine teeth, and the tongue bone. This is the case with the genera Amphiuma (Linn.), Menopoma (Harl.), and Cryptobranchus (v. d. Hoev.). The two first genera, as is known, still possess gill-clefts, but Cryptobranchus has even lost these clefts, which, as in Amblystoma, are overgrown by skin; nevertheless Cryptobranchus is, according to the concurrent testimony of all systematists, a true salamander in habits, tongue bone, palatine teeth,71 &c. It must further be added that the Axolotl itself can lose the gills without thereby becoming transformed into an Amblystoma. I have previously mentioned that in Axolotls which were kept in shallow water the gills frequently became diminutive, and it also sometimes happens that they completely shrivel up. I possess an Axolotl preserved in alcohol in which the gills have shrivelled up into small irregular bunches, and the dorsal crest is also so completely absent that its place is occupied by a long furrow, and even on the tail the crest has entirely disappeared from the lower edge and about half from the upper edge. Notwithstanding this, the creature is widely removed from Amblystoma in structure; it possesses the arched branchial apparatus, the palatine teeth, the skin, &c., of the Axolotl.
These facts prove, therefore, that the shedding of the gills by no means always entails all the other modifications which we observe in the metamorphosis of Axolotl, so that these modifications are thus not by any means the necessary and immediate consequence of such gill shedding.
Whether these modifications will occur after a long series of generations – whether the successors of Cryptobranchus will also one day acquire the salamandriform structure is another question, and one which I could not exactly answer in the negative. But this question does not here come into consideration, as we are now only concerned with the immediate result of the shedding of the gills.
The problem appears therefore to be as follows: – Either the hitherto received interpretation of the transformational history of the Axolotl as a further development of the species is incorrect, or else the case of Axolotl incontestably proves the existence of a phyletic vital force.
We have now to ask whether the facts of this transformational history are not capable of another explanation.
I believe that this is certainly possible, and that another interpretation can be shown to be correct with some degree of probability.
I am of opinion that those Amblystomas which have been developed in captivity in certain instances from Siredon Mexicanus (S. Pisciformis), as well as from the Paris Axolotls, are not progressive, but reversion forms; I believe that the Axolotls which now inhabit the Mexican lakes were Amblystomas at a former geological (or better, zoological) epoch, but that owing to changes in their conditions of life, they have reverted to the earlier perennibranchiate stage.
I was undoubtedly first led to this conception by the results which arose from my studies on the seasonal dimorphism of butterflies.72 In this case we were also concerned with the two different forms under which one and the same species appears, and of which it was shown to be probable that the one is phyletically older than the other. The younger summer form, according to my view, has arisen, through the gradual amelioration of the climate, from the winter form, which at an earlier zoological epoch was the only one in existence; but the latter, the primary form, has not for this reason ceased to exist, but now alternates in each year as a winter form with the secondary summer form.
Now with seasonally dimorphic butterflies, it was easily possible to induce the summer brood to assume the winter form by exposing their pupæ for a long time to a low temperature; and it was shown to be highly probable that this abrupt and often very extensive change or transformation, only apparently takes place suddenly, and is but the apparent result of the action of cold upon this generation, whilst in fact it depends upon reversion to the primary form of the species, so that the low temperature, which is only once applied, gives but the impetus to reversion, and is not the true cause of the transformation. This cause must rather be sought in the long continued action of the cold to which the ancestors of our existing butterflies were subjected for thousands of generations, and of which the final result is the winter form.
If we assume for an instant that my interpretation of the transformation of Axolotl as just offered is correct, we should have conditions in many respects analagous to those of seasonal dimorphism. It is true that in this case the two forms no longer alternate regularly with each other, but the primary form may occasionally appear instead of the secondary form, owing to the action of external conditions.
Just as in the case of seasonal dimorphism it is possible to compel the summer generation to abandon the summer form, and to assume the winter guise by the action of cold; so in the present case we are able to induce the Axolotl to adopt the Amblystoma form by making aërial respiration compulsory at a certain stage of life; and further, just as in seasonal dimorphism it can be shown that this artificially produced change is only apparently an abrupt transformation, and is actually a reversion to the much older winter form; so here we have not an actual, but only an apparent remodelling of the species – a reversion to the phyletically older form.
This certainly appears a paradox, inasmuch as a form here arises by reversion which must yet undoubtedly rank as the more highly developed. I believe, however, that much which seems paradoxical in this statement will disappear on further examination.
It must in the first place be taken into consideration that the phyletic development of species need not by any means always take place by advancement. We have indeed many cases of retrogressive development, although in a somewhat different sense, as with parasites and those forms which have degenerated from free locomotion to a sedentary mode of life.73 I do not confuse this kind of retrogressive development, arising from the arrest of certain organs and systems of organs, with true reversion. The latter is a return to a form which has already been once in existence; but in the former case, in spite of all simplification of the organization, some entirely new feature always comes into existence. But I am not able to see any absurdity in the assumption that even true reversion, whether of a whole species or of the individuals of a certain district, may be regarded as possible, and I require no further concession. Why, for example, should it be inconceivable that at a very remote period the Axolotl was adapted to a life on land; that through the direct and indirect action of changed conditions of life it gradually acquired the salamander form, but that subsequently, through new and unfavourable changes in the conditions of life, it again relapsed to the older form, or at least to one nearly related thereto?
At any rate such an assumption contains nothing opposed to known facts, but can be supported in many ways, and finally it commends itself, at least in my opinion, as offering the only admissible explanation of the facts before us.
The existence of a whole series of species of Amblystoma, as already mentioned, at once shows that species of Siredon can become elevated into the salamander form, and can propagate regularly in this state, and further, that this phyletic advance has already actually taken place in many species.
That degeneration may also occur from this high stage to a lower stage of development, is shown by many observations on our water-salamanders. It is known that under certain circumstances Tritons, as it is generally expressed, become “sexually mature in the larval condition.”
In the year 1864 De Filippi74 found fifty Tritons in a pool at Andermatten, in the neighbourhood of Puneigen, and of these only two showed the structure of the adult water-salamander; all the others still possessed gills, but notwithstanding this, they agreed in both sexes, in size and in the development of the sexual organs, with mature animals. De Filippi established that these “sexually mature larvæ” not only resembled larvæ externally through the possession of gills, but that they also possessed all the other anatomical characters of the larvæ, i. e. the characteristic bunches of palatine teeth situated on both sides in the position of the subsequent single rows, and a vertebral column represented throughout its whole length by the chorda dorsalis.
According to my view this would be a case of the reversion of the Triton to the immediately anterior phyletic stage, i. e. to the perennibranchiate stage, and in the present instance the majority of zoologists who take their stand by the theory of descent, would certainly concur in this view. I should at least consider it to be a useless play upon words did we here speak of larval reproduction, and thereby believe that we had explained something. The animal certainly becomes sexually mature in the same condition as that in which it first appears as a larva, but we first get an insight into the nature of this process by considering that this so-called “sexually mature larva” has the precise structure which must have been possessed by the preceding phyletic stage of the species, and that an individual reversion to the older phyletic stage of the species is consequently before us. I maintain that Duméril is in error in regarding this case of the Triton as parallel with the true larval reproduction of Wagner’s Cecidomyia larva. In this last case it is certainly not reversion to an older phyletic stage that confers the power of reproduction upon the larvæ, since the latter do not represent an older phyletic stage of the species, but must have arisen contemporaneously with this last stage. The enormous structural difference between the larvæ and the imagines is not explained by the latter having arisen from the former supplementarily as a finished production, but by both having been contemporaneously adapted to continually diverging conditions of life.75 Considered phyletically, these larvæ are by no means necessarily transitional to the origination of the flies. They could have been quite different without the form of the imagines having been thereby modified, since the stages of insect metamorphosis vary independently of each other in accordance with the conditions of life to which they are subjected, and exert scarcely any, or only a very small form-determining influence upon each other, as has been amply proved in the preceding essay. In any case the power of these larvæ (the Cecidomyiæ) to propagate themselves asexually was first acquired as a secondary character, as appears from the fact that there exist numerous species of the same genus which do not “nurse.” In the form which they now possess they could never have played the part of the final stage of the ontogeny, nor could they formerly have possessed the power of sexual reproduction.76 In brief, we are here concerned with true larval reproduction, whilst in Triton we have reversion to an older phyletic stage.77
I cannot agree with my friend Professor Haeckel when he occasionally designates the reversion of the Tritons as an “adaptation” to a purely aqueous existence.78 We could here only speak of “adaptation” if we took the word in a quite different sense to that in which it was first introduced into science by Darwin and Wallace. These naturalists thereby designate a gradual bodily transformation appearing in the course of generations in correspondence with the new requirements of altered conditions of life or, in other words, the action of natural selection, and not the result of a suddenly and direct acting transforming cause exerted but once on a generation.
Just because the word “adaptation” can be used in ordinary language in many senses, it is desirable that it should have only one precise signification, and above all that we should not speak of adaptation where scarcely any morphological change occurs, but only a kind of functional change in the sense used by Dohrn.79 This is the case for example, when Forel80 shows that fresh water Pulmonifera, the organization of which is attributed to the direct respiration of air, can nevertheless become settled in the greatest depths of mountain lakes through their lungs being again employed as gills. That not the least change in the lungs hereby takes place is shown by the observations of Von Siebold,81 who saw the shallow water Pulmonifera using their lungs alternately for direct aërial and aquatic respiration, according to the amount of air contained in the water. If with Von Siebold we merely apply the word “adaptation” to such cases, this expression would lose the special sense which it originally conveyed, and the word would have to be abandoned as a terminus technicus; still, such cases may perhaps be spoken of as physiological adaptation.
In any case the reproductive “larvæ” of the Tritons as little present a case of true adaptation as the Axolotl, which occasionally becomes transformed into an Amblystoma. In both cases the transformation referred to is by no means indispensable to the life of the individual. Mature Tritons (devoid of gills) can exist, as I have myself seen, for many months, and probably also for a year in deep water, although adapted for purely pulmonary respiration; whilst Axolotls, as I have already mentioned, can live well for a year in shallow water poor in air. If their gills by this means become shrivelled up or completely disappear, even this is not adaptation in the Darwinian sense, but the effect of directly acting external influences, and chiefly of diminished use.
A case entirely analagous to that of Filippi’s was observed by Jullien in 1869. Four female larvæ of Lissotriton Punctatus (Bell) – (synonymous with Triton Tæniatus, Schnd.), taken from a pool, proved to be sexually mature. They contained mature eggs in their ovaria ready for laying, and two of them actually deposited eggs. Four male larvæ found in the same pool, appeared to be equally developed with respect to size, but their testicles contained no free spermatozoa, but only sperm-cells.82
I have met with a third case of a similar kind mentioned by Leydig in his memoir, rich in interesting details, “on the tailed Amphibians of the Wurtemburg fauna.”83 Schreibers, the former director of the Vienna Museum, also found “larvæ” of Tritons with well-developed gills, but of the size of the “adult male individuals,” and, as shown by anatomical investigation, with well “developed sexual organs,” the ovaria especially being distended with eggs.
It is thus established that species which long ago reached the salamander stage in phyletic development, may occasionally degenerate to the perennibranchiate stage. This fact obviously makes my conception of the Axolotl as a reversion form appear much less paradoxical – indeed, the cases of reversion in Triton are precisely analagous to the process which I suppose to have taken place in the Axolotl. We have only to substitute Amblystomas for Tritons, to imagine the pool in which De Filippi found his “sexually mature Triton larvæ” enlarged to the size of the Lake of Mexico, and to conceive the unknown, and perhaps here transitory, causes of the reversion to be permanent, and we have all that is necessary, so far as we at present know, for the restoration of the Axolotl; we obtain a perennibranchiate population of the lake.
It has not yet been determined whether the perennibranchiate form of the Triton actually prevailed permanently in De Filippi’s pool, since, so far as I know, this has not since been examined.
Let us, however, assume for an instant that this is really the case, and that there exists at that spot a colony of sexually reproductive perennibranchiate Tritons: should we wonder if a true Triton occasionally appeared among their progeny, or if we were able to induce the majority of the individuals of this brood to become metamorphosed into Tritons by keeping them in shallow water? According to my view this is precisely the case of the Mexican Axolotl.
I need not, however, restrict myself to this in order to support my hypothesis, but must also directly combat the view hitherto received, since the latter is in contradiction with facts.
Did there really exist in the Axolotl a tendency to sudden phyletic advancement, then one fact would remain quite incomprehensible, viz. the sterility of the Amblystomas.
Out of about thirty Amblystomas obtained by Duméril down to the year 1870, there was not one in a state of sexual maturity; neither copulation nor deposition of eggs took place, and the anatomical investigation of single specimens showed that the eggs were immature, and that the spermatozoa, although present, were without the undulating membrane characteristic of the salamanders, but were not devoid of all power of movement, only, as established by Quatrefages, were “incompletely motile.”84
So also the five Amblystomas about which I have been writing, show up to the present time no appearance of reproduction.
The objection raised by Sacc,85 that the sterility of the Amblystomas bred from Axolotls is attributable to “bad nourishment,” is obviously of but little avail. How is it that the Axolotls, which are fed in a precisely similar manner, propagate so readily? Moreover, I am able to expressly assert that my Amblystomas were very well fed. It is true that they have as yet scarcely reached the age of two years, but the Axolotl propagates freely in the second year, and some of Duméril’s Amblystomas were five years old in 1870.
This fact of the sterility is strongly opposed to the idea that these Amblystomas are the regular precursors of the phyletically advancing genus Siredon.86 I will by no means assert that my theory of reversion actually explains the sterility, but it is at least not directly opposed to it. Mere reversion forms may die off without propagating themselves; but a new form called forth by the action of a phyletic vital force should not be sterile, because this is the precise “aim” which the vital force had in view. The conception of a vital force comprises that of teleology.
The sterility of Amblystoma moreover, although not completely explicable from our standpoint, can be shown to be a phenomenon not entirely isolated. In the above mentioned case of Lissotriton Punctatus, the female “larvæ” were certainly sexually mature and laid eggs, but the males of the same period contained in their testicles no fully developed spermatozoa.
Other cases of this kind are unknown to me; at the time when I made the experiments with butterflies already recorded (see the first essay), this point of view was remote, and I therefore neglected to examine the artificially bred reversion forms with respect to their organs of reproduction. But general considerations lead to the supposition that atavistic forms may easily remain sterile.
Darwin87 finds the proximate causes of sterility in the first place in the action of widely diverging conditions of life, and in the next place in the crossing of individuals widely different in constitution. Now it is certainly deviating conditions of life which lead to the metamorphosis of the Axolotl, and from this point of view it cannot be surprising if we find those individuals sterile which show themselves so especially affected by these changed conditions as to revert to the salamander form.
By this it is not in any way meant to be asserted that reversion is invariably accompanied by sterility, and one cannot raise as an objection to my interpretation of the metamorphosis of the Axolotl, that a reproductive colony of Axolotls could never have arisen by reversion. On the contrary, Jullien’s egg-depositing female Triton larvæ show that also with reversion the power of reproduction may be completely preserved.88 From the above-mentioned general causes of sterility, it may even be inferred that fertility can be lost in different degrees, and it can be further understood to a certain extent why this fertility is more completely lost by reversion to the Amblystoma, than by the reversion of the Triton to the perennibranchiate form.
If in these cases the reversion is brought about by a change in the conditions of life, we may perhaps suppose that the magnitude of this change would determine the degree of fertility, and the preservation of the reversion form. Still more, however, would the fertility be influenced by the extent of the morphological difference resulting from the reversion. We know that the blending of very different constitutions (e. g. the crossing of different species) produces sterility. Something similar results from the sudden reversion to a stage of development widely different in its whole structure. Here also we have in a certain sense the union of two very different constitutions in one individual – a kind of crossing.
From this point of view it can in some measure be comprehended why sterility may be a result of reversion; on the other hand, we thereby obtain no explanation why, with the same amount of morphological difference, in one case complete sterility, and in another relative fertility occurs. The morphological difference between Axolotl and Amblystoma is exactly the same as between Triton and its “sexually mature larva;” the difference between the two cases of reversion depends entirely upon the direction of the leap, that taken in the former case being precisely opposite in direction to that taken in the latter.
Herein might be sought the explanation of the different strength with which the reproductive power is affected; not indeed in the direction of the leap itself, but in the differences in the ontogeny which are determined by the differences in the direction of the leap. The reversion of the Triton to an older phyletic stage coincides with the arrest at a younger ontogenetic stage; or, in other words, the older stage of the phylogeny to which reversion takes place is still entirely comprised in the ontogeny of each individual. Each Triton is perennibranchiate throughout a long period of its life; the reverting individual simply reverts to the older phyletic stage by remaining at the larval stage of its individual development.
But it is quite different with the reversion of the Axolotl to the formerly acquired, but long since abandoned Amblystoma form. This is not retained in the ontogeny of Axolotl, but has been completely lost; for a long series of generations – so must we suppose – the ontogeny has always only attained to the perennibranchiate form. Now if at the present time certain individuals were compelled to revert to the Amblystoma form, certainly no greater leap would have been made from a morphological point of view, than in the reversion of Triton to the perennibranchiate form, but at the same time the leap would be in another direction, viz. over a long series of generations back to a form which the species had not produced for a long period, and which had to a certain extent become foreign to it. We should thus have here also the grafting of a widely different constitution upon that of the Axolotl, or, if one prefers it, the commingling of two widely different constitutions.
Of course I am far from wishing to pretend that this “explanation” is exact; it is nothing more than an attempt to point out the direction in which the causes affecting the reproductive powers in different degrees are to be looked for. A deeper penetration into and special demonstration of the manner in which these causes bring about such results, must be reserved for a future period. For the present it must suffice to have indicated that there is an essential distinction between the two kinds of reversion, and to have made it to some extent comprehensible that this distinction may be the determining impulse with respect to the question of sterility. Perhaps the law here concealed from us may one day be thus formulated: – Atavistic individuals lose the power of reproduction the more completely, the greater the number of generations of their ancestors whose ontogeny no longer comprises the phyletically older stage to which the reversion takes place.
The hypothesis which interprets the transformation of the Axolotl as a case of reversion, thus holds out the possibility of our being able to comprehend the sterility of the Amblystomas arising in this manner, whilst, on the other hand, for the adherents of a phyletic vital force, not only is this observed sterility as Duméril expresses it “un véritable énigme scientifique,” but an absolute paradox. We should expect such a directive and inciting principle to call into existence new forms having vitality and not destined to perish, the more so when it is concerned with a combination of structural characters which, when originating in another manner (viz. from other species of Siredon), have long since shown themselves to have vitality and reproductive power. We are indeed acquainted with species of Amblystoma which propagate as such, and each of which arises from an Axolotl-like larva. Thus we cannot regard the sterile Amblystomas produced by the Paris Axolotls as abortive attempts of a vital force – an interpretation which is certainly in itself already sufficiently rash.
Now if it be asked what change in the conditions of life could have led to the reversion in the Lake of Mexico89 of the Amblystoma to the Siredon form, I must admit that I can only offer a conjectural reply, having but a conditional value so long as it is not supported by a precise knowledge of the conditions there obtaining, and of the habits both of the Axolotl and of the Amblystoma.
It may be supposed generally that reversion is brought about by the same external conditions as those which formerly produced the perennibranchiate stage. This supposition is in the first place supported by the experiments here recorded, since it is evidently the inducement to aërial respiration which causes the young Axolotl to revert to the Amblystoma form, i. e. the inciting cause under whose domineering influence the Amblystoma form must have arisen.
Here again the case is quite similar to that of seasonally dimorphic butterflies. Reversion of the summer brood to the winter form is there most easily caused by the action of cold, i. e. by the same influence as that under whose sway the winter form was developed.
We know indeed that reversion may also arise by the crossing of races and species, and I have attempted to show that reversion in butterflies may also be brought about by other influences than cold; but still the most probable supposition obviously is, that reversion would be caused by the persistent action of the same influences as those which in a certain sense created the perennibranchiate form. That the latter was produced under the influence of an aquatic life there can be no doubt, and thus, in accordance with my supposition, the hypothetical Amblystoma Mexicanum, the supposed ancestral form of the Axolotl of the Mexican Lake, might have been caused to revert to the perennibranchiate form by a reduction in the possibilities of its living upon land, and by its being compelled to frequent the water.
I will not here return to the consideration of every other opinion ab initio. It is very advisable to distinguish between the mere impulses which are able to produce sudden reversion, and between actual transforming causes which result directly or indirectly in the remodelling of a species. Thus, it is conceivable à priori that reversion may occur by the action of an inciting cause having nothing to do with the origin of the phyletically older form. Temperature can certainly have played no part, or only a very small part, in the formation of the perennibranchiate form; nevertheless cold may well have been one of the inciting causes which induced the Amblystoma at one time to revert to the Siredon form, and we cannot at present consider De Saussure to be incorrect when he maintains that the low temperature of the Mexican winter might prevent that transformation (of the Axolotl into the Amblystoma) which would occur “in the warm reptile-house” of the Jardin des Plantes. He supports this view by stating that “Tschudi has found the Amblystoma” (of course another species) “in the hottest parts of the United States.” “On the Mexican plateau, however, it snows every winter, and if the lake does not actually freeze, its temperature must fall very considerably in the shallowest parts.”
But although this view is not opposed by any theoretical considerations, I still hold it to be incorrect. I doubt whether it is temperature that has brought about the reverse transformation of the Amblystoma into the Axolotl, or which, according to De Saussure’s conception, at the present time prevents the transformation of the Axolotl in the Lake of Mexico. I doubt this because Amblystomas are now known from all parts of the United States as far north as New York, a proof that a winter cold considerably greater than that of the Mexican plateau is no hindrance to the metamorphosis of the Axolotl, and that the genus does not show itself to be in this respect more sensitive than our native genera of Salamandridæ.
The following observations of De Saussure, in which he calls attention to the nature of the Mexican Lake, appear to me to be more worthy of consideration: – “The bottom of this lake is shallow, and one passes imperceptibly from the lake into extensive marshy regions before reaching solid ground; perhaps this circumstance makes the Axolotl incapable of reaching dry land, and prevents the transformation.”
