Origin of Species(物种起源)

VIP免费

2024-12-26 1 0 1.93MB 422 页 5.9玖币

侵权投诉

THE ORIGIN

OF SPECIES

CHARLES DARWIN

THE ORIGIN OF SPECIES

BY MEANS OF NATURAL SELECTION

OR THE PRESERVATION OF FAVOURED RACES

IN THE STRUGGLE FOR LIFE

CHARLES DARWIN M.A.

FELLOW OF THE ROYAL, GEOLOGICAL, LINNÆAN ETC., SOCIETIES,

AUTHOR OF ‘JOURNAL OF RESEARCHES DURING H.M.S. BEAGLE’S

VOYAGE ROUND THE WORLD.’

First Edition published by John Murray, London, 1859

This edition (based on the text of the First Edition) 1997

ElecBook

London

Charles Darwin (1809-1882)

Born at Shrewsbury, Darwin came from an affluent family, descended

from successful country doctors on one side and the Wedgwood family

(of pottery fame) on the other. He was intended to follow the family

tradition of medicine, but couldn’t stand the bloody nature of surgery,

and seemed likely to become a wastrel. His father sent him to

Cambridge to study theology with a view to turning him into a country

parson, but Darwin became fascinated by geology and natural history,

impressing his tutors so much that they recommended him for a

vacancy that arose as an unpaid naturalist and companion for the

Captain on the voyage of the Beagle. The round-the-world voyage

lasted from 1831 to 1836, and gave Darwin a rare insight into the

geology of different parts of the globe and the variety of life on Earth.

Back home, he found he had a reputation as a geologist, based on

the reports and materials he had sent back during the voyage, but was

not known as a naturalist at all. Although he almost immediately came

up with the idea of natural selection, he set about establishing a

reputation in biology before thinking about publishing it. Indeed, he only

published at all when Alfred Russel Wallace came up with the same

idea independently.

Darwin was a semi-invalid for most of his life, perhaps a result of a

tropical infection picked up on the voyage, and lived in seclusion in Kent

surrounded by a large family and attended by a loving wife.

Independently wealthy (and made more so by the success of his books)

he never had to work for a living —but, paradoxically, worked far harder

than most people (when he was well enough) at what strictly has to be

called his hobby.

John Gribbin

Contents
Page
An Historical Sketch 5
Introduction 16
Chapter One Variation Under Domestication 21
Chapter Two Variation Under Nature 51
Chapter Three Struggle for Existence 64
Chapter Four Natural Selection 80
Chapter Five Laws of Variation 121
Chapter Six Difficulties on Theory 152
Chapter Seven Instinct 181
Chapter Eight Hybridism 211
Chapter Nine On the Imperfection of the Geological
Record 237
Chapter Ten On the Geological Succession of Organic
Beings 263
Chapter Eleven Geographical Distribution 290
Chapter Twelve Geographical Distribution—continued 319
Chapter Thirteen Mutual Affinities of Organic Beings:
Morphology: Embryology:
Rudimentary Organs 341
Chapter Fourteen Recapitulation and Conclusion 379
Glossary 404

AN HISTORICAL SKETCH

OF THE PROGRESS OF OPINION ON THE ORIGIN OF

SPECIES

PREVIOUSLY TO THE PUBLICATION OF THE FIRST EDITION OF

THIS WORK

I WILL here give a brief sketch of the progress of opinion on the Origin

of Species. Until recently the great majority of naturalists believed that

species were immutable productions, and had been separately

created. This view has been ably maintained by many authors. Some

few naturalists, on the other hand, have believed that species undergo

modification, and that the existing forms of life are the descendants by

true generation of pre-existing forms. Passing over allusions to the

subject in the classical writers,* the first author who in modern times

has treated it in a scientific spirit was Buffon. But as his opinions

fluctuated greatly at different periods, and as he does not enter on the

causes or means of the transformation of species, I need not here enter

on details.

*Aristotle, in his ‘Physicae Auscultationes’ (lib. 2, cap. 8, s. 2), after remarking

that rain does not fall in order to make the corn grow, any more than it falls to

spoil the farmer’s corn when threshed out of doors, applies the same argument

to organization: and adds (as translated by Mr Clair Grece, who first pointed

out the passage to me), ‘So what hinders the different parts [of the body] from

having this merely accidental relation in nature? as the teeth, for example, grow

by necessity, the front ones sharp, adapted for dividing, and the grinders flat,

and serviceable for masticating the food; since they were not made for the sake

of this, but it was the result of accident. And in like manner as to the other parts

in which there appears to exist an adaptation to an end. Wheresoever,

therefore, all things together (that is all the parts of one whole) happened like

as if they were made for the sake of something, these were preserved, having

been appropriately constituted by an internal spontaneity; and whatsoever

things were not thus constituted, perished, and still perish.’ We here see the

Origin of Species 5

principle of natural selection shadowed forth, but how little Aristotle fully

comprehended the principle, is shown by his remarks on the formation of the

teeth.

Lamarck was the first man whose conclusions on the subject excited

much attention. This justly-celebrated naturalist first published his

views in 1801; he much enlarged them in 1809 in his ‘Philosophie

Zoologique,’ and subsequently, in 1815, in the Introduction to his ‘Hist.

Nat. des Animaux sans Vertébres.’ In these works he upholds the

doctrine that species, including man, are descended from other

species. He first did the eminent service of arousing attention to the

probability of all change in the organic, as well as in the inorganic world,

being the result of law, and not of miraculous interposition. Lamarck

seems to have been chiefly led to his conclusion on the gradual change

of species, by the difficulty of distinguishing species and varieties, by

the almost perfect gradation of forms in certain groups, and by the

analogy of domestic productions. With respect to the means of

modification, he attributed something to the direct action of the physical

conditions of life, something to the crossing of already existing forms,

and much to use and disuse, that is, to the effects of habit. To this latter

agency he seemed to attribute all the beautiful adaptations in nature;

– such as the long neck of the giraffe for browsing on the branches of

trees. But he likewise believed in a law of progressive development;

and as all the forms of life thus tend to progress, in order to account for

the existence at the present day of simple productions, he maintains

that such forms are now spontaneously generated.*

* I have taken the date of the first publication of Lamarck from Isid. Geoffroy

Saint-Hilaire’s (‘Hist. Nat. Générale,’ tom. ii. p. 405, 1859) excellent history of

opinion on this subject. In this work a full account is given of Buffon’s

conclusions on the same subject. It is curious how largely my grandfather, Dr

Erasmus Darwin, anticipated the views and erroneous grounds of opinion of

Lamarck in his ‘Zoonomia’ (vol. i. pp. 500-510), published in 1794. According

to Isid. Geoffroy there is no doubt that Goethe was an extreme partisan of similar

views, as shown in the Introduction to a work written in 1794 and 1795, but not

published till long afterwards: he has pointedly remarked (‘Goethe als

Origin of Species AN HISTORICAL SKETCH 6

Naturforscher,’ von Dr Karl Meding, s. 34) that the future question for naturalists

will be how, for instance, cattle got their horns, and not for what they are used.

It is rather a singular instance of the manner in which similar views arise at

about the same time, that Goethe in Germany, Dr Darwin in England, and

Geoffroy Saint-Hilaire (as we shall immediately see) in France, came to the

same conclusion on the origin of species, in the years 1794-5.

Geoffroy Saint-Hilaire, as is stated in his ‘Life,’ written by his son,

suspected, as early as 1795, that what we call species are various

degenerations of the same type. It was not until 1828 that he published

his conviction that the same forms have not been perpetuated since

the origin of all things. Geoffroy seems to have relied chiefly on the

conditions of life, or the

‘monde ambiant’

as the cause of change. He

was cautious in drawing conclusions, and did not believe that existing

species are now undergoing modification; and, as his son adds, ‘C’est

donc un problème à réserver entièrement à l’avenir, supposé même

que l’avenir doive avoir prise sur lui.’

In 1813, Dr W. C. Wells read before the Royal Society ‘An Account

of a White female, part of whose skin resembled that of a Negro’; but

his paper was not published until his famous ‘Two Essays upon Dew

and Single Vision’ appeared in 1818. In this paper he distinctly

recognises the principle of natural selection, and this is the first

recognition which has been indicated; but he applies it only to the races

of man, and to certain characters alone. After remarking that negroes

and mulattoes enjoy an immunity from certain tropical diseases, he

observes, firstly, that all animals tend to vary in some degree, and,

secondly, that agriculturists improve their domesticated animals by

selection; and then, he adds, but what is done in this latter case ‘by art,

seems to be done with equal efficacy, though more slowly, by nature,

in the formation of varieties of mankind, fitted for the country which they

inhabit. Of the accidental varieties of man, which would occur among

the first few and scattered inhabitants of the middle regions of Africa,

some one would be better fitted than the others to bear the diseases

of the country. This race would consequently multiply, while the others

would decrease; not only from their inability to sustain the attacks of

Origin of Species AN HISTORICAL SKETCH 7

disease, but from their incapacity of contending with their more vigorous

neighbours. The colour of this vigorous race I take for granted, from

what has been already said, would be dark. But the same disposition

to form varieties still existing, a darker and a darker race would in the

course of time occur: and as the darkest would be the best fitted for the

climate, this would at length become the most prevalent, if not the only

race, in the particular country in which it had originated.’ He then

extends these same views to the white inhabitants of colder climates.

I am indebted to Mr Rowley, of the United States, for having called my

attention, through Mr Brace, to the above passage in Dr Wells’ work.

The Hon. and Rev. W. Herbert, afterwards Dean of Manchester, in

the fourth volume of the ‘Horticultural Transactions,’ 1822, and in his

work on the ‘Amaryllidaceae’ (1837, pp. 19, 339), declares that

‘horticultural experiments have established, beyond the possibility of

refutation, that botanical species are only a higher and more permanent

class of varieties.’ He extends the same view to animals. The Dean

believes that single species of each genus were created in an originally

highly plastic condition, and that these have produced, chiefly by

intercrossing, but likewise by variation, all our existing species.

In 1826 Professor Grant, in the concluding paragraph in his

well-known paper (‘Edinburgh Philosophical Journal,’ vol. xiv. p. 283)

on the Spongilla, clearly declares his belief that species are descended

from other species, and that they become improved in the course of

modification. This same view was given in his 55th Lecture, published

in the ‘Lancet’ in 1834.

In 1831 Mr Patrick Matthew published his work on ‘Naval Timber and

Arboriculture,’ in which he gives precisely the same view on the origin

of species as that (presently to be alluded to) propounded by Mr

Wallace and myself in the ‘Linnean Journal,’ and as that enlarged in

the present volume. Unfortunately the view was given by Mr Matthew

very briefly in scattered passages in an Appendix to a work on a

different subject, so that it remained unnoticed until Mr Matthew himself

drew attention to it in the ‘Gardener’s Chronicle,’ on April 7th, 1860.

The differences of Mr Matthew’s view from mine are not of much

importance; he seems to consider that the world was nearly

Origin of Species AN HISTORICAL SKETCH 8

depopulated at successive periods, and then re-stocked; and he gives

as an alternative, that new forms may be generated ‘without the

presence of any mould or germ of former aggregates.’ I am not sure

that I understand some passages; but it seems that he attributes much

influence to the direct action of the conditions of life. He clearly saw,

however, the full force of the principle of natural selection.

The celebrated geologist and naturalist, Von Buch, in his excellent

‘Description Physique des Isles Canaries’ (1836, p. 147), clearly

expresses his belief that varieties slowly become changed into

permanent species, which are no longer capable of intercrossing.

Rafinesque, in his ‘New Flora of North America,’ published in 1836,

wrote (p. 6) as follows: – ‘All species might have been varieties once,

and many varieties are gradually becoming species by assuming

constant and peculiar characters’; but farther on (p.18) he adds, ‘except

the original types or ancestors of the genus.’

In 1843-44 Professor Haldeman (‘Boston Journal of Nat. Hist. U.

States, vol. iv. p. 468) has ably given the arguments for and against

the hypothesis of the development and modification of species: he

seems to lean towards the side of change.

The ‘Vestiges of Creation’ appeared in 1844. In the tenth and much

improved edition (1853) the anonymous author says (p. 155): – ‘The

proposition determined on after much consideration is, that the several

series of animated beings, from the simplest and oldest up to the

highest and most recent, are, under the providence of God, the results,

first

, of an impulse which has been imparted to the forms of life,

advancing them, in definite times, by generation, through grades of

organisation terminating in the highest dicotyledons and vertebrata,

these grades being few in number, and generally marked by intervals

of organic character, which we find to be a practical difficulty in

ascertaining affinities;

second,

of another impulse connected with the

vital forces, tending, in the course of generations, to modify organic

structures in accordance with external circumstances, as food, the

nature of the habitat, and the meteoric agencies, these being the

“adaptations” of the natural theologian.’ The author apparently believes

that organisation progresses by sudden leaps, but that the effects

Origin of Species AN HISTORICAL SKETCH 9

produced by the conditions of life are gradual. He argues with much

force on general grounds that species are not immutable productions.

But I cannot see how the two supposed ‘impulses’ account in a scientific

sense for the numerous and beautiful co-adaptations which we see

throughout nature; I cannot see that we thus gain any insight how, for

instance, a woodpecker has become adapted to its peculiar habits of

life. The work, from its powerful and brilliant style, though displaying in

the earlier editions little accurate knowledge and a great want of

scientific caution, immediately had a very wide circulation. In my opinion

it has done excellent service in this country in calling attention to the

subject, in removing prejudice, and in thus preparing the ground for the

reception of analogous views.

In 1846 the veteran geologist M. J. d’Omalius d’Halloy published in

an excellent though short paper (‘Bulletins de l’Acad. Roy Bruxelles,’

tom. xiii. p. 581) his opinion that it is more probable that new species

have been produced by descent with modification than that they have

been separately created: the author first promulgated this opinion in

1831.

Professor Owen, in 1849 (‘Nature of Limbs,’ p. 86), wrote as follows:–

‘The archetypal idea was manifested in the flesh under diverse such

modifications, upon this planet, long prior to the existence of those

animal species that actually exemplify it. To what natural laws or

secondary causes the orderly succession and progression of such

organic phenomena may have been committed, we, as yet, are

ignorant.’ In his Address to the British Association, in 1858, he speaks

(p. li.) of ‘the axiom of the continuous operation of creative power, or

of the ordained becoming of living things.’ Farther on (p. xc.), after

referring to geographical distribution, he adds, ‘These phenomena

shake our confidence in the conclusion that the Apteryx of New Zealand

and the Red Grouse of England were distinct creations in and for those

islands respectively. Always, also, it may be well to bear in mind that

by the word “creation” the zoologist means “a process he knows not

what.”’ He amplifies this idea by adding that when such cases as that

of the Red Grouse are ‘enumerated by the zoologists as evidence of

distinct creation of the bird in and for such islands, he chiefly expresses

Origin of Species AN HISTORICAL SKETCH 10

文档加载中……请稍候！
如果长时间未打开，您也可以点击刷新试试。

下载文档到电脑，查找使用更方便

5.9 玖币 0人已下载

立即下载 VIP免费下载

摘要：

ONTHEORIGINOFSPECIESCHARLESDARWINONTHEORIGINOFSPECIESBYMEANSOFNATURALSELECTIONORTHEPRESERVATIONOFFAVOUREDRACESINTHESTRUGGLEFORLIFECHARLESDARWINM.A.FELLOWOFTHEROYAL,GEOLOGICAL,LINNÆANETC.,SOCIETIES,AUTHOROFJOURNALOFRESEARCHESDURINGH.M.S.BEAGLESVOYAGEROUNDTHEWORLD.FirstEditionpublishedbyJohnMurray,...

收起<<

Origin of Species(物种起源).pdf

共422页,预览85页

还剩页未读，继续阅读

声明：本站为文档C2C交易模式，即用户上传的文档直接被用户下载，本站只是中间服务平台，本站所有文档下载所得的收益归上传人(含作者)所有。玖贝云文库仅提供信息存储空间，仅对用户上传内容的表现方式做保护处理，对上载内容本身不做任何修改或编辑。若文档所含内容侵犯了您的版权或隐私，请立即通知玖贝云文库，我们立即给予删除！

Origin of Species(物种起源)

相关推荐

开通VIP享超值会员特权

作者详情

相关内容

热门标签

举报选择: