The Story of the Living Machine Part 6

==Historical.==--The first source of evidence is naturally a historical one. This long history of the construction of the living machine has left its record in the rocks which form the earth's surface. During this long period the rocks of the earth's crust have been deposited, and in these rocks have been left samples of many of the steps in this history of machine building. The history can be traced by the study of these samples just as the history of any machine might be traced from a study of the models in a patent office. One might very easily trace, with most strict accuracy and minute detail, the history of the printing machine from the models which are preserved in the patent offices and elsewhere.

So is it with the history of the living machine. To be sure, the history is rather incomplete and at times difficult to read. Many a period in the development has left no samples for our inspection and must be interpreted in our history between what went before and what comes after. Many of the machines, especially the early ones, were made of such fragile material that they could not be preserved in the rocks. In many a case, too, the rocks in which the specimens were deposited have been subjected to such a variety of heatings and pressures, that they have been twisted out of shape and even crushed out of recognizable form. But in spite of this the record is showing itself more complete each year. Our paleontologists are opening layer after layer of these rocks, and thus examining each year new pages in nature's history. The more recent epochs in the history have been already read with almost historic accuracy. From them we have learned in great detail how the finis.h.i.+ng touches were given to these machines, and are able to trace with accuracy how the somewhat more generalized forms of earlier days were changed to produce our modern animals.

This fossil record has given us our best knowledge of the course by which the present living world has been brought into its existing condition. But its accuracy is largely confined to the recent periods.

Of the very early history fossils tell us little or nothing. All the early rocks, which we may believe were formed during the period when the first steps in this machine building were taken, have been so changed by heat and pressure that whatever specimens they may have originally contained have been crushed out of shape. Furthermore, the earliest organisms had no hard skeletons, and it was not until living beings had developed far enough to have hard parts that it was possible for them to leave traces of themselves in the rocks. Hence, so far as concerns this earliest history, we can get no record of it in the rocks.

==Embryological.==--But here comes in another source of evidence which helps to fill up the gap. In its development every animal to-day begins as an egg. This is a simple cell, and the animal goes through a series of changes which eventually lead to the adult. Now these changes appear for the most part to be parallel to the changes through which the earlier forms of life pa.s.sed in their development from the simple to the more complicated forms. Where it is possible to follow the history of the groups of animals from their fossil remains and compare it with the history of the individual animal as it progresses from the egg to the adult, there is found a very decided parallelism. This parallelism between embryology and past history has been of great service in helping us toward the history of the past. At one time it was believed that it was the key which would unlock all doors, and for a decade biologists eagerly pursued embryology with the expectation that it would solve all problems in connection with the history of animals. The result has been somewhat disappointing. Embryology has, it is true, been of the utmost service in showing relations.h.i.+ps of forms to each other, and in thus revealing past history. But while this record is a valuable one, it is a record which has unfortunately been subject to such modifying conditions that in many cases its original meaning has been entirely obliterated and it has become worthless as a historical record. These imperfections in regard to the record were early seen after the attention of biologists was seriously turned to the study of embryology, but it was expected that it would be possible to correct them and discover the true meaning underlying the more apparent one. Indeed, in many cases this has been found possible. But many of the modifications are so profound as to render it impossible to untangle them and discover the true meaning. As a result the biologist to-day is showing less confidence in embryology, and is turning his attention in different directions as more promising of results in the line desired.

But although the teachings of embryology have failed to realize the great hopes that were placed upon them, their a.s.sistance in the formulation of this history of the machine has been of extreme value.

Many a bit of obscurity has been cleared up when the embryology of puzzling animals has been studied. Many a relations.h.i.+p has been made clear, and this is simply another way of saying that a portion of this history of life has been read. This aid of embryology has been particularly valuable in just that part of the history where the evidence from the study of fossils is wanting. The study of fossils, as we have seen, gives little or no data concerning the early history of living machines; and it is just here that embryology has proved to be of the most value. It is a source of evidence that has told us of most of the steps in the progress from the single-celled animal to the multicellular organisms, and gives us the clearest idea of the fundamental principles which have been concerned in the evolution of life and the construction of the complicated machine out of the simple bit of protoplasm. In spite of its limits, therefore, embryology has contributed a large quota of the evidence which we have of the evolution of life.

==Anatomical.==--A third source of this history is obtained from the facts of comparative anatomy. The essential feature of this subject is the fact that animals and plants show relations.h.i.+ps. This fact is one of the most patent and yet one of the most suggestive facts of biology. It has been recognized from the very beginning of the study of animals and plants. One cannot be even the most superficial observer without seeing that certain forms show great likeness to each other while others are much more unlike. The grouping of animals and plants into orders, genera, and species is dependent upon this relations.h.i.+p. If two forms are alike in everything except some slight detail, they are commonly placed in the same genus but in different species, while if they show a greater unlikeness they may be placed in separate genera. By thus grouping together forms according to their resemblance the animal and vegetable kingdoms are cla.s.sified into groups subordinate to groups. The principle of relations.h.i.+p, i.e., fundamental similarity of structure, runs through the whole animal and vegetable kingdom. Even the animals most unlike each other show certain points of similarity which indicates a relations.h.i.+p, although of course a distant one.

The fact of such a relations.h.i.+p is too patent to demand more words, but its significance needs to be pointed out. When we speak of relations.h.i.+p among men we always mean historical connection. Two brothers are closely related because they have sprung from common parents, while two cousins are less closely related because their common point of origin was farther back in time. More widely we speak of the relations.h.i.+p of the Indo-European races, meaning thereby that back in the history of man these races had a common point of origin. We never speak of any real relation of objects unless thereby we mean to imply historical connection. We are therefore justified in interpreting the manifest relations.h.i.+ps of organisms as pointing to history. Particularly are we justified in this conclusion when we find that the relations.h.i.+ps which we draw between the types of life now in existence run parallel to the history of these types as revealed to us by fossils and at the same time disclosed by the study of embryology.

This subject of comparative anatomy includes a consideration of what is called h.o.m.ology, and perhaps a concrete example may be instructive both in ill.u.s.tration and as suggesting the course which nature adopts in constructing her machines. We speak of a monkey's arm and a bird's wing as h.o.m.ologous, although they are wonderfully different in appearance and adapted to different duties. They are called h.o.m.ologous because they have similar parts in similar relations. This can be seen in Figs. 47 and 48, where it will be seen that each has the same bones, although in the bird's wing some of the bones have been fused together and others lost. Their similarity points to a relations.h.i.+p, but their dissimilarity tells us that the relations.h.i.+p is a distant one, and that their common point of origin must have been quite far back in history. Now if we follow back the history of these two kinds of appendages, as shown to us by fossils, we find them approaching a common point. The arm can readily be traced to a walking appendage, while the bird's wing, by means of some interesting connecting links, can in a similar way be traced to an appendage with its five fingers all free and used for walking. Fig. 49 shows one of these connecting links representing the earliest type of bird, where the fingers and bones of the arm were still distinct, and yet the whole formed a true wing. Thus we see that the common point of origin which is suggested by the likenesses between an arm and a wing is no mere imaginary one, for the fossil record has shown us the path leading to that point of origin. The whole tells us further that nature's method of producing a grasping or flying organ was here, not to build a new organ, but to take one that had hitherto been used for other purposes, and by slow changes modify its form and function until it was adapted to new duties.

[Ill.u.s.tration: FIG. 47.--The arm of a monkey, a prehensile appendage.]

[Ill.u.s.tration: FIG. 48.--The arm of a bird, a flying appendage. In life covered with feathers.]

[Ill.u.s.tration: FIG. 49.--The arm of an ancient half-bird half-reptile animal. In life covered with feathers and serving as a wing.]

==Significance of these Sources of History.==--The real force of these sources of evidence comes to us only when we compare them with each other. They agree in a most remarkable fas.h.i.+on. The history as disclosed by fossils and that told by embryology agree with each other, and these are in close harmony with the history as it can be read from comparative anatomy. If archaeologists were to find, in different countries and entirely unconnected with each other two or more different records of a lost nation, the belief in the actual existence of that nation would be irresistible. When researches at Nineveh, for example, unearth tablets which give the history of ancient nations, and when it proves that among the nations thus mentioned are some with the same names and having the same facts of history as those mentioned in the Bible, it is absolutely impossible to avoid the conclusion that such a nation with such a history did actually exist. Two independent sources of record could not be false in regard to such a matter as this.

Now, our sources of evidence for this history of the living machine prove to be of exactly this kind. We have three independent sources of evidence which are so entirely different from each other that there is almost no likeness between them. One is written in the rocks, one in bone and muscle, while the third is recorded in the evanescent and changing pages of embryology and metamorphosis. Yet each tells the same story. Each tells of a history of this machine from simple forms to more complex. Each tells of its greater and greater differentiation of labour and structure as the periods of time pa.s.sed. Each tells of a growing complexity and an increasing perfection of the organisms as successive periods pa.s.s. Each tells us of common points of origin and divergence from these points. Each tells us how the more complicated forms have arisen as the results of changes in and modifications of the simpler forms. Each shows us how the individual parts of the organisms have been enlarged or diminished or changed in shape to adapt them to new duties.

Each, in short, tells the same story of the gradual construction of the living machine by slow steps and through long ages of time. When these three sources of history so accurately agree with each other, it is as impossible to disbelieve in the existence of such history as it is to disbelieve in the existence of the ancient Hitt.i.te nation, after its history has been told to us by two different sources of record.

Now all this is very germane to our subject. We are trying to learn how this living machine, with its wonderful capabilities, was built. The history which we have outlined is undoubtedly the history of the building of this machine, and the knowledge that these complicated machines have been produced as the result of slow growth is of the utmost importance to us. This knowledge gives us at the very start some idea of the nature of the forces which have been at work. It tells us that in searching for these forces we must look for those which have been acting constantly. We must look for forces which produce their effects not by sudden additions to the complication of the machine. They must be constant forces whose effect at any one time is comparatively slight, but whose total effect is to increase the complexity of the machine. They must be forces which produce new types through the modification of the old ones. We must look for forces which do not adapt the machine for its future, but only for its present need. Each step in the history has been a complete animal with its own fully developed powers. We are not to expect to find forces which planned the perfect machine from the start, nor forces which were engaged in constructing parts for future use. Each step in the building of the machine was taken for the good of the machine at the particular moment, and the forces which we are to look for must therefore be only such as can adapt the organisms for its present needs. In other words, nothing has been produced in this machine for the purpose of being developed later into something of value, but all parts that have been produced are of value at the time of their appearance. We must, in short, look for forces constantly in action and always tending in the same direction of greater complexity of structure.

Is it possible to discover these forces and comprehend their action?

Before the modern development of evolution this question would unhesitatingly have been answered in the negative. To-day, under the influence of the descent theory, stimulated, in the first place, by Darwin, the question will be answered by many with equal promptness in the affirmative. At all events, we have learned in the last forty years to recognize some of the factors which have been at work in the construction of this machine. We must turn, therefore, to the consideration of these factors.

==Forces at Work in the Building of the Living Machine.==--There are three primary factors which lie at the bottom of the whole process. They are--

1. _Reproduction_, which preserves type from generation to generation.

2. _Variation_, which modifies type from generation to generation.

3. _Heredity_, which transmits characters from generation to generation.

Each must be considered by itself.

==Reproduction.==--Reproduction is the primary factor in this process of machine building, heredity and variation being simply phases of reproduction. The living machine has developed by natural processes, all other machines by artificial methods. Reproduction is the one essential point of difference between the living machine and the others which has made their construction by natural processes a possibility. What, then, is reproduction? Reproduction is in all cases at the bottom simple division. Whether we consider the plant that multiplies by buds or the unicellular animal that simply divides into two equal parts, or the larger animal that multiplies by eggs, we find that in all cases the fundamental feature of the process is division. In all cases the organism divides into two or more parts, each of which becomes in time like the original. Moreover, when we trace this division further we find that in all cases it is to be referred back to the division of the cell, such as we have described in a previous chapter. The egg is a single cell which has come from the parent by the division of one of the cells in the body of the parent. A bud is simply a ma.s.s of cells which have all arisen from the parent cells by division. The foundation of reproduction is thus in all cases cell division. Now, this process of division is dependent upon the properties of the cell. Firstly, it is a result of the a.s.similative powers of the cell, for only through a.s.similation can the cell increase in size, and only as it increases in size can it gain sustenance for cell division. Secondly, it is dependent, as we have seen, upon the mechanism of the cell body, and especially the nucleus and centrosome. These structures regulate the cell division, and hence the reproduction of all animals and plants. We can not, therefore, find any explanation of reproduction until we have explained the mechanism of the cell. The fundamental feature, of nature's machine building is thus based upon the machinery of the nucleus and centrosome of the organic cell.

Aside from the simple fact that it preserves the race, the most important feature connected with this reproduction is its wonderful fruitfulness. Since it results from division, it always tends to increase the offspring in geometrical ratio. In the simplest case, that of the unicellular animals, the cell divides, giving rise to two animals, each of which divides again, producing four, and these again, giving eight, etc. The rapidity of this multiplication is sometimes inconceivable. It depends, of course, upon the interval of time between the successive divisions, but among the lower organisms this interval is sometimes not more than half an hour, the result of which is that a single individual could give rise in the course of twenty-four hours to sixteen million offspring. This is doubtless an extreme case, but among all the lower animals the rate is very great. Among larger animals the process is more complicated; but here, too, there is the same tendency to geometrical progression, although the intervals between the successive reproductions may be quite long and irregular. But it is always so great that if allowed to progress unhindered at its normal rate the offspring would, in a few years, become so numerous as to crowd other life out of existence. Even the slow-breeding elephant would, if allowed to breed unhindered for seven hundred and fifty years, produce nineteen million offspring--a rate of increase plainly incompatible with the continued existence of other animals.

Here, then, we have the foundation of nature's method of building animals and plants of the higher cla.s.ses. In the machinery of the cell she has a power of reproduction which produces an increase in geometrical ratio far beyond the possibility for the surface of the earth to maintain.

==Heredity.==--The offspring which arise by these processes of division are like each other, and like the parent from which they sprung. This is the essence of what is called heredity. Its significance in the process of machine building is evident at once. It is the conserving force which preserves the forms already produced and makes it possible for each generation to build upon the structures of the earlier ones.

Without it each generation would have to begin anew at the beginning, and nothing could be accomplished. But since this principle brings each individual to the same place where its parents stand, and thus always builds the offspring into a machine like the parent, it makes it possible for the successive generations to advance. Heredity is thus like the power of memory, or better still, like the invention of printing in the development of civilization. It is a record of past achievements. By means of printing each age is enabled to benefit by the discoveries of the previous age, and without it the development of civilization would be impossible. In the same way heredity enables each generation to benefit by the achievements of its ancestors in the process of machine building, and thus to devote its own energies to advancement.

The fact of heredity is patent enough. It has been always clearly recognized that the child has the characters of its parents, and this belief is so well attested as to need no proof. It is still a question as to just what characters may be inherited, and what influences may affect the inheritance. There are plenty of puzzling problems connected with heredity, but the fact of heredity is one of the foundation stones of biological science. Upon it must be built all theories which look toward the explanation of the origin of the living machine.

This factor of heredity again we must trace back to the machinery of the cell. We have seen in the previous pages evidence for the wonderful nature of the chromosomes of the cells. We can not pretend to understand them, but they must be extraordinarily complex. We have seen proof that these chromosomes are probably the physical basis of heredity, since they are the only parts of each parent which are handed down to subsequent generations. With these various facts of cell division and cell fertilization in mind, we can reach a very simple explanation of fundamental features of heredity. The following is an outline of the most widely accepted view of the hereditary process.

Recognizing that the chromosomes are the physical basis of hereditary transmission, we can picture to ourselves the transmission of hereditary characters something as follows: As we have seen, the fertilized egg contains an equal number of chromosomes from each parent (Fig. 42). Now when this fertilized cell divides, each of the rods splits lengthwise, half of each entering each of the two cells arising from the cell division. From this method of division of the chromosomes it follows that the daughter cells would be equivalent to each other and equivalent also to the undivided egg. If the original chromosomes contained potentially all the hereditary traits handed down from parent to child, the chromosomes of each daughter cell will contain similar hereditary traits. If, therefore, the original fertilized egg possessed the power of developing into an adult like the parent, each of the daughter cells should likewise possess the power of developing into a similar adult.

And thus each cell which arises as the result of such division should possess similar characters so long as this method of division continues.

But after a little in the development of the egg a differentiation among the daughter cells arises. They begin to acquire different shapes and different functions. This we can only believe to be the result of a differentiation in their chromatin material. In the cell division the chromosomes no longer split into equivalent halves, but some characters are portioned off to some cells and others to other cells. Those cells which are to carry on digestive functions when they are formed receive chromatin material which especially controls them in the performance of this digestive function, while those which are to produce sensory organs receive a different portion of the chromatin material. Thus the adult individual is built up as the cells receive different portions of this hereditary substance contained in the original chromosomes. The original chromosomes contained _all_ hereditary characters, but as development proceeds these are gradually portioned out among the daughter cells until the adult is formed.

From this method of division it will be seen that each cell of the adult does not contain all the characters concealed in the original chromosomes of the egg, although each contains a part which may have been derived from each parent. It is thought, however, that a part of the original chromatin material does not thus become differentiated, but remains entirely unchanged as the individual is developing. This chromatin material may increase in amount by a.s.similation, but it remains unchanged during the entire growth of the individual. It thus follows that the adult will contain, along with its differentiated material, a certain amount of the original physical basis of heredity which still retains its original powers. This undifferentiated chromatin material originally possessed powers of producing a new individual, and of course it still possesses these powers, since it has remained dormant without alteration. Further, it will follow that if this dormant undifferentiated chromatin should start into activity and produce a new individual, the new individual thus produced would be identical in all characters with the one which actually did develop from the egg, since both individuals would have come from a bit of the same chromatin. The child would be like the parent. This would be true no matter how much this undifferentiated material should increase in amount by a.s.similation, _so long as it remained unaltered in character_, and it hence follows that every individual carries around a certain amount of undifferentiated chromatin material in all respects identical with that from which he developed.

Now whether this undifferentiated _germ plasm_, as we will now call it, is distributed all over the body, or is collected at certain points, is immaterial to our purpose. It is certain that portions of it find their way into the reproductive organs of the animal or plant. Thus we see that part of the chromatin material in the egg of the first generation develops into the second generation, while another part of it remains dormant in that second generation, eventually becoming the chromatin of its eggs and spermatozoa. Thus each egg of the second generation receives chromosomes which have come directly from the first generation, and thus it will follow that each of these eggs will have identical properties with the egg of the first generation. Hence if one of these new eggs develops into an adult it will produce an adult exactly like the second generation, since it contains chromosomes which are absolutely identical with those from which the second generation sprung.

There is thus no difficulty in understanding why the second generation will be like the first, and since the process is simply repeated again in the next reproduction, the third generation will be like the second, and so on, generation after generation. A study of the accompanying diagram will make this clear.

In other words, we have here a simple understanding of at least some of the features of heredity. This explanation is that some of the chromatin material or germ plasm is handed down from one generation to another, and is stored temporarily in the nucleii of the reproductive cells.

During the life of the individual this germ plasm is capable of increasing in amount without changing its nature, and it thus continues to grow and is handed down from generation to generation, always endowed with the power of developing into a new individual under proper conditions, and of course when it does thus give rise to new individuals they will all be alike. We can thus easily understand why a child is like its parent. It is not because the child can inherit directly from its parent, but rather because both child and parent have come from the unfolding of two bits of the same germ plasm. This fact of the transmission of the hereditary substance from generation to generation is known as the theory of the _continuity of germ plasm_.

Such appears to be, at least in part, the machinery of heredity. This understanding makes the germ substance perpetual and continuous, and explains why successive generations are alike. It does not explain, indeed, why an individual inherits from its parents, but why it is like its parents. While biologists are still in dispute over many problems connected with heredity, all are agreed to-day that this principle of the continuity of the heredity substance must be the basis of all attempts to understand the machinery of heredity. But plainly this whole process is a function of the cell machinery. While, therefore, the idea of the continuity of germ substance greatly simplifies our problem, we must acknowledge that once more we are thrown back upon the mysteries of the cell. Until we can more fully explain the cell machine we must recognize our inability to solve the fundamental question of why an individual is like its parents.

[Ill.u.s.tration: FIG. 50.--Diagram ill.u.s.trating the principle of heredity.

_A_ represents an egg of a starfish. From one half, the unshaded portion, develops the starfish of the next generation, _B_. The other is distributed without change in the ovaries, _ov_, of the individual, _B_.

From these ovaries arises the next egg, _A'_, with its germ plasm. This germ plasm is evidently identical with that in _A_, since it is merely a bit of the same handed down through the individual, _B_. In the development of the next generation the process is repeated, and hence _B'_ will be like _B_, and the third generation of eggs identical with the first and second. The undifferentiated part of the germ plasm is thus simply handed on from one generation to the next.]

But plainly reproduction and heredity, as we have thus far considered them, will be unable to account for the slow modification of the machine; for in accordance with the facts thus far outlined, each generation would be _precisely like the last_, and there would be no chance for development and change from generation to generation. If the individual is simply the unfolding of the powers possessed by a bit of germ plasm, and if this germ plasm is simply handed on from generation to generation, the successive generations must of necessity be identical. But the living machine has been built by changes in the successive generation, and hence plainly some other factor is needed.

This factor is _variation_.

==Variation.==--Variation is the principle that produces _modification of type_. Heredity, as just explained, would make all generations alike.

But nothing is more certain than that they are not alike. The fact of variation is patent on every side, for no two individuals are alike.

Successive generations differ from each other in one respect or another. Birds vary in the length of their bills or toes; b.u.t.terflies, in their colours; dogs, in their size and shape and markings; and so on through an endless category. Plants and animals alike throughout nature show variations in the greatest profusion. It is these variations which must furnish us with the foundation of the changes which have gradually built up the living machine.

Of the fact of these variations there is no question, and the matter need not detain us. Every one has had too many experiences to ask for proof. Of the nature of the variations, however, there are some points to be considered which are very germane to our subject. In the first place, we must notice that these variations are of two kinds. There is one cla.s.s which is born with the individual, so that they are present from the time of birth. In saying that these variations are born with the individual we do not necessarily mean that they are externally apparent at birth. A child may inherit from its parents characters which do not appear till adult life. For example, a child may inherit the colour of its father's hair, but this colour is not apparent at birth.

It appears only in later life, but it is none the less an inborn character. In the same way, we may have many inborn variations among individuals which do not make themselves seen until adult life, but which are none the less innate. The offspring of the same parents may show decided differences, although they are put under similar conditions, and such differences are of course inherent in the nature of the individual. Such variations are called _congenital variations_.

There is, however, a second cla.s.s of variations which are not born in the individual, but which arise as the result of some conditions affecting its after-life. The most extreme instances of this kind are mutilations. Some men have only one leg because the other has been lost by accident. Here is a variation acquired as the result of circ.u.mstances. A blacksmith differs from other members of his race in having exceptionally large arm muscles; but here, again, the large muscles have been produced by use. A European who has lived under a tropical sun has a darkened skin, but this skin has evidently been darkened by the action of the sun, and is quite a different thing from the dark skin of the dark races of men. In such instances we have variations produced in individuals as the result of outside influences acting upon them. They are not inborn, but are secondarily acquired by each individual. We call them _acquired variations_.

It is not always possible to distinguish between these two types of variation. Frequently a character will be found in regard to which it is impossible to determine whether it is congenital or acquired. If a child is born under the tropical sun, how can we tell whether its dark skin was the result of direct action of the sun on its own skin, or was an inheritance from its dark-skinned parents? We might suppose that this could be answered by taking a similar child, bringing it up away from the tropical sun, and seeing whether his skin remained dark. This would not suffice, however; for if such a child did then develop a white skin, we could not tell but that this lighter-coloured skin had been produced by the direct bleaching effect of the northern climate upon a skin which otherwise would have been dark. In other words, a conclusive answer can not here be given. It is not our purpose, however, to attempt to distinguish between these two kinds of variations, but simply to recognize that they occur.

Our next problem must be to search for an explanation of these variations. With the acquired variations we have no particular trouble, for they are easily explained as due to the direct action of the environment upon animals. One of the fundamental characters of the living protoplasm (using the word now in its widest sense) is its extreme instability. So unstable is it that any disturbing influence will affect it. If two similar unicellular organisms are placed under different conditions they become unlike, since their unstable protoplasm is directly affected by the surrounding conditions. With higher animals the process is naturally a little more complicated; but here, too, they are easily understood as part of the function of the machine. One of the adjustments of the machine is such that when any organ is used more than usual the whole machine reacts in such a way as to send more blood to this special organ. The result is a change in the nutrition of the organ and a corresponding variation in the individual. Thus acquired variations are simply functions of the action of the machine.

Congenital variations, however, can not receive such an explanation.

Being born with the individual, they can not be produced by conditions affecting him, but rather to something affecting the germ plasm from which he sprung. The nature of the germ plasm controls the nature of the individual, and congenital variations must consequently be due to its variations. But it is not so easy to see how this germ plasm can undergo variation. The conditions which surround the individual would affect its body, but it is not easy to believe that they would affect the germinal substance. Indeed, it is not easy to see how any external conditions can have influence upon this germinal material if it is not an active part of the body, but is simply stored within it for future use in reproduction. How could any changes in the environment of the individual have any effect upon this dormant material stored within it?

But if we are correct in regarding this germ material in the reproductive bodies as the basis of heredity and the guiding force in development, then it follows that the only way in which congenital variations can occur is by some variations in the germ plasm. If a child developed from germ plasm _identical_ with that from which its parents developed, it would inherit identical characters; and if there are any congenital variations from its parents, they must be due to some variations in the germ plasm. In other words, in order to explain congenital variations we must account for variations in the germ plasm.

Now, there are two methods by which we may suppose that these variations in the germ may arise. The first is by the direct influence upon the germ plasm of certain unknown external conditions. The life substance of organisms is always very unstable, and, as we have seen, acquired variations are caused by external influences directly affecting it. Now, the hereditary material is also life substance, and it is plainly a possibility for us to imagine that this germ material is also subject to influences from the conditions surrounding it. That such variations do occur appears to be hardly doubtful, although we do not know what sort of influences can produce them. If the germ plasm is wholly stored within the reproductive gland, it is certainly in a position to be only slightly affected by surrounding conditions which affect the animal. We can readily understand that the use of an organ like the arm will affect it in such a way as to produce changes in its protoplasm, but we can hardly imagine that such use of the _arm_ would produce any change in the hereditary substance which is stored in the reproductive organs.

External conditions may thus readily affect the body, but not so readily the germ material. Even if such material is distributed more or less over the body instead of being confined to the reproductive glands, as some believe, the difficulty is hardly lessened. This difficulty of understanding how the germ plasm can be affected by external conditions has led one school of biologists to deny that it is subject to any variation by external conditions, and hence that all modification of the germ plasm must come from some other source. Probably no one, however, holds this position to-day, and it is the general belief that the germ plasm may be to some slight extent modified by external conditions. Of course, if such variations do occur in the germ plasm they will become congenital variations of the next generation, since the next generation is the unfolding of the germ plasm.

The second method by which the variations of germ plasm may arise is apparently of more importance. It is based upon the fact that, with all higher animals and plants at least, each individual has two parents instead of one. In our study of cells we have seen that the machinery of the cell is such that it requires in the ordinary process of reproduction the union of germinal material from two different individuals to produce a cell which can develop into a new individual.