ON THE ORIGIN OF SPECIES. 483 



That the smaller species are created as such is the view now held by 

 a comparatively small group of scientists. It is a contention, the truth 

 of which has never been generally recognized, and at the present time 

 has of course lost all right of existence. Before and after Linnaeus, 

 before and after Darwin, the formation of the smaller species, the one 

 from the other, has, except by the few above mentioned, been generally 

 recognized, a recognition based upon experience as well as on tradi- 

 tion. 



The smaller species are called subspecies or, as in horticulture, 

 varieties, and are therefore considered as subdivisions of the species 

 of Linnaeus. 



Their descent from other species was conceded even before the days 

 of Darwin, but nothing was known regarding the manner of their 

 origin. It was generally deemed sufficient to attribute it to environ- 

 mental influence. In agriculture and in horticulture it occurred from 

 time to time that new forms originated from older ones; it always 

 happened unexpectedly and without gradual transitions, always by 

 skips and jumps. The new forms were called sports; whether in 

 nature the same thing occurred was unknown. 



Both in agriculture and horticulture these sudden changes were 

 very rare and always shrouded in mystery. They occurred without any 

 apparent preparation, the new form appeared unexpectedly, and once 

 its presence had become apparent it was impossible to trace its origin. 

 One could but state the fact, which, for cultivation- and trade-purposes, 

 was deemed quite sufficient; but its nature remained wrapped in dark- 

 ness. Truly no tempting basis on which to found a grand theory. 



It was for this reason that Darwin preferred to turn to more gen- 

 erally known, or, at least, more tangible, facts. He laid much stress 

 on over-production, on the struggle for life which must be the conse- 

 quence, and on the greater chances of success possessed by the strongest 

 individuals or by those best adapted to their surroundings. 



He pointed to the dissimilarity, the so-called variability of indi- 

 viduals, and showed it might be met with everywhere and at all times, 

 in all organs and in all characters. This dissimilarity is decisive in 

 the struggle for life; not in every individual case of course, for here 

 chance plays too prominent a part, but in the majority of cases and 

 in the long run. That which is not fitted for the surroundings must 

 succumb; each species adapts itself more or less to its environment; 

 each species is different in nature from what it would be in the absence 

 of all disturbing influences and were its reproduction unhampered. 



How far can variability extend its influence? Has variability its 

 limits? May variability proceed for centuries in the same direction 

 or must it necessarily return to the starting point? Can variability 

 bring about the formation of new characters or new organs or is it 



