The results of the previously described experiments induced further experiments, the results of which appear fitted to afford some conclusions as regards the composition of the egg and pollen-cells of hybrids. An important matter for consideration is afforded in peas (_pisum_) by the circ.u.mstance that among the progeny of the hybrids constant forms appear, and that this occurs, too, in all combinations of the a.s.sociated characters. So far as experience goes, we find it in every {215} case confirmed that constant progeny can only be formed when the egg-cells and the fertilizing pollen are of like character, so that both are provided with the material for creating quite similar individuals, as is the case with the normal fertilization of pure species.

We must therefore regard it as essential that exactly similar factors are at work also in the production of the constant forms in the hybrid plants. Since the various constant forms are produced in one plant, or even in one flower of a plant, the conclusion appears logical that in the ovaries of the hybrids there are formed as many sorts of egg-cells and in the anthers as many sorts of pollen-cells as there are possible constant combination forms, and that these egg and pollen-cells agree in their internal composition with those of the separate forms.

In point of fact, it is possible to demonstrate theoretically that this hypothesis would fully suffice to account for the development of the hybrids in the separate generations, if we might at the same time a.s.sume that the various kinds of egg and pollen-cells were formed in the hybrids on the average in equal numbers.

Bateson says in a note on this pa.s.sage that this last and the preceding paragraph contain the essence of the Mendelian principles of heredity. Mendel himself, after stating this hypothesis, gives the details of a series of experiments by which he was able to decide that the theoretic considerations suggested were founded in the nature of plants and their germinal cells.

It will, of course, be interesting to realize what the bearing of Mendel's discoveries is on the question of the stability of species as well as on the origin of species. Professor Morgan, in his {216} article on Darwinism in the "Light of Modern Criticism," already quoted, says the important fact (with regard to Mendel's Law) from the point of view of the theory of evolution is that "the new species have sprung fully armed from the old ones, like Minerva from the head of Jove." "From de Vries's results," he adds, "we understand better how it is that we do not see new forms arising, because they appear, as it were, fully equipped over night. Old species are not slowly changed into new ones, but a shaking up of the old organization takes place and the egg brings forth a new species. It is like the turning of the kaleidoscope, a slight shift and the new figure suddenly appears. It needs no great penetration to see that this point of view is entirely different from the conception of the formation of new species by acc.u.mulating individual variations, until they are carried so far that the new form may be called a new species."

With regard to this question of the transformation of one species into another, Mendel himself, in the concluding paragraphs of his article on hybridization, seems to agree with the expressions of Morgan. He quotes Gartner's opinion with apparent approval: "Gartner, by the results of these transformation experiments was led to oppose the opinion of those naturalists who dispute the stability of plant species and believe in a continuous evolution of vegetation. He perceives in the complete transformation of one species into another an indubitable proof that {217} species are fixed within limits beyond which they cannot change." "Although this opinion," adds Mendel, "cannot be unconditionally accepted, we find, on the other hand, in Gartner's experiments a noteworthy confirmation of that supposition regarding the variability of cultivated plants which has already been expressed." This expression of opinion is not very definite, and Bateson, in what Professor Wilson of Columbia calls his "recent admirable little book on Mendel's principles," adds the following note that may prove of service in elucidating Mendel's meaning, as few men have entered so fully into the understanding of Mendel's work as Bateson, who introduced him to the English-speaking scientific public, "The argument of this paragraph appears to be that though the general mutability of natural species might be doubtful, yet among cultivated plants the transference of characters may be accomplished and may occur by _integral steps_ [italics ours], until one species is definitely 'transformed' into the other."

Needless to say, this is quite different from the gradual transformation of species that Darwinism or Lamarckism a.s.sumes to take place. One species becomes another _per saltum_ in virtue of some special energy infused into it, some original tendency of its intrinsic nature, not because of gradual modification by forces outside of the organisms, nor because of the combination of influences they are subjected to from without and within, because of tendency to evolute plus {218} environmental forces. This throws biology back to the permanency of species in themselves, though successive generations may be of different species, and does away with the idea of missing links, since there are no gradual connecting gradations.

A very interesting phase of Mendel's discoveries is concerned with the relative value of the egg-cell and the pollen-cell, as regards their effect upon future generations. It is an old and oft-discussed problem as to which of these germinal particles is the more important in its influence upon the transmission of parental qualities. Mendel's observations would seem to decide definitely that, in plants and, by implication, in animals, since the germinal process is biogenetically similar, the value of both germinal particles is exactly equal.

In a note, Mendel says:--

_In pisum_ (i. e. in peas), it is beyond doubt that, for the formation of the new embryo, a perfect union of the elements of both fertilizing cells must take place. How could we otherwise explain that, among the offspring of the hybrids, both original types reappear in equal numbers, and with all their peculiarities? If the influence of the egg-cell upon the pollen-cell were only external, if it fulfilled the role of a nurse only, then the result of each artificial fertilization could be no other than that the developed hybrid should exactly resemble the pollen parent, or, at any rate, do so very closely. These experiments, so far, have in no wise been confirmed. An evident proof of the complete union of the contents of both cells is afforded by the {219} experience gained on all sides, that it is immaterial as regards the form of the hybrid which of the original species is the seed cell, or which the pollen parent!

This is the first actual demonstration of the equivalent value of both germinal particles as regards their influence on transmission inheritance in future generations.

It is only by simplifying the problem so that all disturbing factors could be eliminated that Mendel succeeded in making this demonstration. Too many qualities have hitherto been considered with consequent confusion as to the results obtained.

It is of the genius of the man that he should have been able to succeed in seeing the problem in simple terms while it is apparently so complex, and thus obtain results that are as far-reaching as the problem they solve is basic in its character.

Bateson, in his work Mendel's _Principles of Heredity_, says:--

It may seem surprising that a work of such importance should so long have failed to find recognition and to become current in the world of science. It is true that the Journal in which it appeared is scarce, but this circ.u.mstance has seldom long delayed general recognition. The cause is unquestionably to be found in that neglect of the experimental study of the problem of species which supervened on the general acceptance of the Darwinian doctrine. The problem of species, as Kolreuter, Gartner, Naudin, Wichura, and the hybridists of the middle of the nineteenth century conceived it, attracted thenceforth no workers.

{220}

The question, it was imagined, had been answered and the debate ended. No one felt much interest in the matter. A host of other lines of work was suddenly opened up, and in 1865 the more original investigators naturally found these new methods of research more attractive than the tedious observations of hybridizers, whose inquiries were supposed, moreover, to have led to no definite results.

In 1868 appeared the first edition of Darwin's _Animals and Plants_, marking the very zenith of these studies with regard to hybrids and the questions in heredity which they ill.u.s.trate, and thenceforth the decline in the experimental investigation of evolution and the problem of species have been studied. With the rediscovery and confirmation of Mendel's work by de Vries, Correns and Tschermak in 1900 a new era begins. Had Mendel's work come into the hands of Darwin it is not too much to say that the history of the development of evolutionary philosophy would have been very different from that which we have witnessed.

That Mendel's work, appearing as it did at a moment when several naturalists of the first rank were still occupied with these problems, should have pa.s.sed wholly unnoted, will always remain inexplicable, the more so as the Brunn society exchanged its publication with most of the great academies of Europe, including both the Royal and the Linnean societies of London.

The whole history of Mendel's work, its long period without effect upon scientific thought, its thoroughly simple yet satisfactory character, its basis in manifold observations of problems simplified to the last degree, and its present complete acceptance ill.u.s.trate very well the chief defect of the last two generations of workers in biology. {221} There has been entirely too much theorizing, too much effort at observations for the purpose of bolstering up preconceived ideas--preaccepted dogmas of science that have proved false in the end--and too little straightforward observation and simple reporting of the facts without trying to have them fit into any theory prematurely, that is until their true place was found. This will be the criterion by which the latter half of nineteenth century biology will be judged; and because of failure here much of our supposed progress will have no effect on the current of biological progress, but will represent only an eddy in which there was no end of bustling movement manifest but no real advance.

As stated very clearly by Professor Morgan at the beginning of this paper, and Professor Bateson near the end, Darwin's doctrine of natural selection as the main factor in evolution and its practically universal premature acceptance by scientific workers in biology are undoubtedly responsible for this. The present generation may well be warned, then, not to surrender their judgment to taking theories, but to wait in patience for the facts in the case, working, not theorizing, while they wait.