ARE THESE CHANGES IN FORM PERMANENT? 513 



individual more resistant, support and protect its organs, and render it possible 

 for the separate parts to perform their work in spite of the necessarily alter.-. 1 

 conditions. They seem to have the task of keeping the plant alive under v.-i y 

 different vital conditions, of promoting growth and the formation of offshoots 

 and fruit with the smallest possible expenditure, and they may therefore b.- 

 regarded as adaptations to the particular conditions of soil and climate. 



The capacity for adaptation is of course founded in the specific constitution oi" 

 the protoplasm, and is very different in different species. One species may adapt 

 itself by appropriate alterations to the influence of bright light, submersion un.l.T 

 water, a dry atmosphere, &c., while another cannot do so. If the protoplasm of the 

 Flax (Linum usitatissimum) could manufacture as much anthocyanin in its freen 

 tissue as the Summer Savory (Satureja hortensis) it would blossom and ripen its 

 fruits in alpine regions as this plant does, and would not succumb to the effect of 

 the strong light. If the protoplasm of the Common Bent-grass (Agrostis vulgaris) 

 were able to continue its constructive activity under water it would not perish as 

 soon as it is submerged, but would maintain itself like the stoloniferous species 

 (Agrostis stolonifera) by green stalks and leaves adapted to an aquatic habitat. 

 In short, the adaptability of each species is restricted within definite limits whicli 

 depend upon the specific constitution of the protoplasm and cannot be overetepped. 



It is a matter of great import in the history of species whether modifications 

 in form effected by change of soil and climate are transmitted to the descendants, 

 and whether they can be inherited. This of course can only be ascertained by 

 experiments, and by experiments in which all possible sources of error have been 

 eliminated. This last remark is made advisedly, for the sources of error in such 

 experiments are very numerous. I will briefly indicate two which interfered with 

 some experiments I carried out in the years 1863 and 1864. It is not enough to 

 be careful that the seeds sown in the prepared experimental beds are all from the 

 same plant; care must also be taken to see that they are not the result of a hybrid 

 cross-fertilization. Some seeds taken in 1863 from a plant of Dianthus aipinus 

 growing in the Botanic Garden at Innsbruck, and sown in different soil in two 

 experimental beds, produced plants in soil free from lime, which, in their external 

 appearance, agreed with Dianthus deltoides. It seemed as if Diaiithits aipinus, a 

 lover of limestone rock, had become transformed into Dianthus deltoides when 

 grown without lime. The seeds of the plant so like Dianthus deltoides were again 

 sown in soil without lime, but the resulting plants no longer resembled this species: 

 they showed themselves to be constant in their characteristics. The whole 

 experiment with Dianthus aljnnus was then repeated, but this time the plants 

 on the clay soil without lime did not change, and I was obliged to concluile that 

 the plant I had regarded as a stage in the transformation of Dianthus alpimis 

 into Dianthus deltoides was a hybrid of these two species. In order to be certjiin 

 about this a crossing between the two species was effected artificially. From the 

 resulting seed plants were actually grown which were exactly like those I had 

 regarded as transformations, and there was no longer any doubt that some of the 



