NA TURE 



481 



THURSDAY, OCTOBER 21, igog. 



THI. SPECIES QUESTION RE-OPENED. 

 The Making of Species. By Douglas Dewar and 

 Frank Finn. Pp. xix+400; 15 illustrations. (Lon- 

 don : John Lane, igog.) Price 7^. 6d. 

 IF this work fails to bring about that revolution in 

 biological science which its announcement led us 

 to expect, it is not for lack of confidence on the part 

 of the authors or their publisher. We were informed 

 (by advertisement) that with the exception of a certain 

 well-known treatise by de Vries this book was " the 

 most important / contribution to biological science 

 which has appeared since Darwin's ' Origin of 

 Species.'" We were further told that "the authors 

 have no difficulty in demolishing some of the theories 

 which are most cherished by biologists of to-day — 

 notably those of mimicry and recognition markings 

 in birds," and that " the facts which they have 

 brought together undermine the whole of the massive 

 superstructure which Neo-Darwinians have erected on 

 the foundation of the theory of natural selection." A 

 lew extracts from the preface will suffice to reveal 

 the tone which pervades this latest attack upon the 

 theory of natural selection : — 



" We fear that this book will come as a rude shock 

 to many scientific men. . . . We are endeavouring to 

 save biology in England from committing suicide, to 

 save it from the hands of those into which it has 

 fallen. . . . The Wallaceians (sic) continue on their 

 course and give to the world a spurious Darwinism 

 . . . we were both of opinion that biology is in an 

 unhealthy condition, especially in England, and that 

 the science sorely needs some fresh impetus." 



After such a flourish of trumpets we naturally turn 

 eagerly to the text for the " fresh impetus," but fail 

 to find inspiration. There are many gibes aimed at 

 and epithets attached to " Wallaceians " and " Neo- 

 Darwinians," and there are some very remarkable per- 

 versions of the history of organic evolution. The 

 authors set out, in fact, with an attempt to explain 

 the reasons why the " Origin of Species " was 

 accorded a " rapturous welcome ... by the more pro- 

 gressive biologists," and how 



" the man in the street was able to comprehend 

 the theory of natural selection. This was greatly in 

 its favour. Men are usually well disposed towards 

 doctrines which they can readily understand." 



Those who are familiar with the history of the 

 publication of Darwin's great work and the difficulty 

 which he experienced in making even the expert 

 naturalists of his time fully grasp the principles of the 

 selection theory will wonder from what source the 

 authors have derived their information. .\s another 

 example of historical perversion, attention may be 

 directed to the statement (p. igS) 



'' that all the opposition to the theory of protec- 

 tive colouration comes from those who observe nature 

 first hand, while the warmest supporters of the theory 

 are cabinet naturalists and museum zoologists." 



From this the reader will infer that the founders 

 of that theory. Bates and Wallace, Trimen, Belt, Fritz 

 .NO. 2086, VOL. Si] 



Miiller and Weismann, were not, in the judgment of 

 the authors, observers of nature at first hand. 



Within the limits of an ordinary review in these 

 columns it is impossible to discuss in any detail the 

 large body of evidence which the authors bring 

 together in order to " demolish " those whom they 

 dub "Neo-Darwinians," "Wallaceians," or even, 

 when their scorn reaches its highest pitch, " Neo- 

 Wallaceians." The general drift of the work is purely 

 destructive, and its main object is apparently to dis- 

 prove the all-sufficiency of natural selection. There is 

 nothing very novel in this position, and by attributing 

 to the followers of Darwin and Wallace a highly 

 exaggerated and super-exalted doctrine, which no 

 Darwinian has ever upheld, such refutation is natur- 

 ally a very simple matter. The authors appear to 

 imagine, for example, that somebody holds the belief 

 that the theory of natural selection has been seriously 

 held " to explain all the varied phenomena of nature " 

 (p 28). Of course, the very obvious and flagrant 

 cases of adaptational colouring coming under the 

 designations " protective resemblance " and " mimi- 

 cry," which have generally been looked upon as 

 reasonably explicable on Darwinian principles, come 

 in for a large share of attention, and here is the ver- 

 dict with respect to these theories : — 



"We have examined these mighty images of gold, 

 silver, and brass and iron, and found that there is 

 much clay in the feet. We shall devote this chapter 

 to lifting the hem of the garment of sanctity that 

 envelops each of these images, and so expose to view 

 the clay that lies concealed " (p. 172). 



It must be left to the reader, whose flesh has been 

 made to creep by this preliminary threat, to find out 

 how far the authors have succeeded in damaging the 

 evidence which has been accumulated by the joint 

 labours of some of the most acute observers of nature 

 (" at first hand "!) since Darwin gave us the key to 

 the explanation of the phenomena in question, half a 

 century ago. Prof. Poulton, as one of the most 

 prominent of recent workers in this field, comes in 

 for much castigation. The methods of demolition 

 adopted by the authors have been made quite familiar 

 by anti-Darwinians ever since the publication of 

 Mivart's "Genesis of Species." Cases of convergent 

 characters which are non-mimetic are marshalled 

 against the selection theory of mimicry, the facts of 

 mimicry are altogether denied or said to be much 

 exaggerated, and cases of obvious adaptation, such as 

 Kallima, are said (virtually) to be too good to be 

 true, or, in other words, that the imitation is 

 elaborated to an unnecessary extent. 



It will naturally be asked whether this great array 

 of objections and difficulties is a purely destructive 

 attack, or whether it is a prelude to some great con- 

 structive generalisation. The reader who looks for 

 now light will, we fear, be disappointed, judging from 

 the following specimen of an " explanation " of the 

 mimicry of butterflies by diurnal moths : — - 



" When two species adopt the same method of 

 obtaining food, it not infrequently happens that a 

 professional likeness springs up between them " 

 (p. 250). 



