Comments on M^r. Darwin’s Grand Theory= (touching Misuse)

M^r. Darwin p. 338—says—“Agassiz insists that ancient animals resemble to a certain extent the embryos of recent animals of the same classes;—or that the geological succession of extinct forms, is in some degree parallel to the embryological development of recent forms. I must follow Pictet & Huxley in thinking that the truth of this doctrine is very far from proved— Yet I fully expect to see it hereafter confirmed, at least in regard to subordinate groups which have branched off from each other in comparatively recent times   For the doctrine of Agassiz accords well with the theory of Natural Selection”.—²

Now I cannot help thinking, from the little knowledge I have, that there is a glimpse of truth in the theory of Agassiz—& well indeed does it accord with the views of M^r. Darwin, who supposes improvement, by Nat. Selection in the multitudinous assemblage of Organic Beings.— The tendency is to progress by development,—Natural selection always benefitting the living creature.— The forms, which stop short in the progress of divergence & adaptation to the struggle of Life, become rarer & rarer & at last extinct.—

Among the surviving wrecks of ancient Life he reckons the Blind=Fish, Amblyopsis—& the Proteus anguinus (which is confessedly a sort of semideveloped Tadpole,)—as is the Axolotl,³—& some others— Still they do well for their destined abode, & mode of life—whatever hereafter may become of them.— Were the caves of Carniola⁴ destroyed by any agency—& the deep waters in its natural dungeons dried up, or poured out over the land & so into the rivers, with all the Proteus train, what would be the result— would the survivors of the catastrophe put on new forms—or would all perish— if the latter & circumstances favoured not fossil preservation, they would pass away, & leave no trace hereafter of their once having existed— Has this not often been the case?—

—At p: 188—M^r Darwin speaks of that marvellous organ the Eye— & he supposes it to be under the jurisdiction of natural selection.— “We must suppose that there is a power always intently watching each slight accidental alteration, which under varied circumstances may in any ways or in any degree, tend to produce a distincter image— We must suppose each new state of the instrument to be multiplied by the million & each to be preserved till a better be produced, & then the old ones to be destroyed—” p: 189.—⁵

Look now at the beautiful eyes of the frog— look at those of the Tadpole— Look at the beaming eyes of the gazelle— reflect upon them in the embryo.—

But is there not an arrest in development balanced by & subervient to mingled contingences— The eye of the mole is not that of the eagle,—but what upon the Principle of Natural Selection is to prevent it so becoming;— Has the eye of the degenerated for want of use—⁶

It seems strange to us that carrying out his theory of Progress, according to the laws of Natural Selection M^r Darwin should entertain the views he appears to do, in his Chapter on Use & disuse.—⁷ Might he not have have used the Term, “Non development from an embryotic or semiembryotic state”, the contingencies of existence not needing the operation of the selective power inherent in the nature of organic beings?—

After reading so much on the benefits conferred by Natural Selection on organic beings, & their consequent advancement in those qualities which tend to render them more & more capable of maintaining the Struggle of Life, it occasions some surprise to learn, that under certain circumstances deterioration & unfitness are the result of certain casual circumstances.— For example,—that the non use of wings, once fully developed, entails a progressive reduction in the wings of succeeding generations until at length they become mere rudimentary appendages—⁸ Per contra—Is it not that the rudimentary winged birds are in state of progression,—& nearer the unknown primeval source, than the fully winged birds— And if natural selection has attended more to the legs than the wings, is it not because the latter were rather neglected & left under arrest, the whole force for the benefit of the race being directed to the other limbs—?—

Birds tenanting oceanic islands are usually great flyers.— But the Dodo & Solitaire feeding upon the shore had no need of developed wings, & the force of Nature was elsewhere directed.— The non=use of a bird’s wing is the result not the cause of a rudimentary condition & on M^r. Darwin’s principles a gradual organic development ought to take place till the bird is capable of flight.— Is it not the strife for wings that we see in the Apteryx the Cassowary, the Rhea, the Emeu &c

How many wingless birds have passed away— New Zealand & Madagascar present us with their fossil or semifossil remains, & but for these who would have dreamed of their having existed?— Does not this shew that wingless birds were the earliest or among the earliest of the descendants of the unknown primeval root?— M^r. Darwin says, “As Professor Owen has remarked, there is no greater anomaly in nature than a bird which cannot fly.”⁹ It is bold to differ from so great a philosopher—but we venture with submission to think the contrary— It is because we usually see birds with wings & are accustomed to consider birds as feathered flying creatures, that we come to settle it as fact that birds are essentially winged—(albeit in some the wings are fitted only for aquatic progression).—

But were we accustomed to see Birds without wings, or only with rudimentary wings (& great is the number of such) should not think a bird of flight an “anomalous” creature— Among mammalia do not the Bats & Galeopitheci startle us?— However they acquired flying membranes (or as in the case of certain squirrels & Phalangers) ample parachutes, certain it, that as these organs are beneficial, so they do not deteriorate,—perhaps improve.¹⁰ And when we contemplate a Bird without wings, instead of attributing their loss to Disuse may we not rather on M^r Darwins theory believe that something has produced an arrest, & that the time has not yet arrived for their full development— With respect to the malformed creatures of domestication,—as upright or Penguin Ducks,—otter sheep,—two legged Pigs, & the like¹¹—we cannot bring them into the argument— they are artificial not natural beings—although they may propagate their breeds.—as do Lop-eared Rabbits—Fowls destitute of a tail, or with reversed feathers, or with silky plumage & a black periosteum.—¹²

Turning for a moment to Insects—some of which as Scarabæus, Ateuchus &^c, want the anterior tarsi,—while others, with undivided Elytra have the membranous wings in a more rudimentary condition, is it necessary for us to have recourse to non use as a cause?=¹³ Is non=use so influential?— it may affect the Individual—but can it affect a whole race— And after all, what induced non=use in the beginning?— Deficiency of development,—to be modified & bettered by the agency of Natural selection—at all events as soon a maze of contingencies call for the operation of this principle   Of course we follow M^r. Darwin’s Theory.—

With respect to the eyes of moles & such like underground creatures—fitted for their habits,—natural selection is not likely until, circumstances gradually operate to do more than make them efficient delvers.— In the case of the Cave rat we verily believe that if a nest of blind young were reared in a room their eyes would be day seeing or twilight=seeing—& in a few generations as good as the eyes of rabbits or hares.—¹⁴

From what has been said—& it is impossibble here to enter at large into the subject, it will be seen that we hesitate to accecpt the theory as to the permanent influence of non use, in the establishment of Imperfection.— It may cause imperfection, nay it does so, for our rabbits cramped up in small hutches, wherein they have been born & bred are very small & feeble in the hinder limbs— But turn them out into the coppice or upon the heath, there let them breed & then see if their young are not as able with their hinder extremities as any of the old true wild stock around them.—¹⁵ We must be pardoned then, if we cannot subscribe to the opinion that disuse unites the elytra of beetles into one shard,—curtails their wings & necessarilily renders them creepers under stones—¹⁶ Are we not changing cause & effect?— We must not forget that the females of many moths are wingless—as is the female of the glow=worm—that the Gnats which dance in the air are males,—plumed, but not armed with a keen suctorial instrument, as are the females— That the male crickets & grasshoppers alone are stridulous,—the females wanting the necessary apparatus— Has disuse removed the wings from the moths in question—the piercer from the male Culex,—the stridulous apparatus from the female Cricket— If this theory of disuse or Non=use be sound, surely it ought to apply in such cases—no less than in others.— Can Deterioration be consistent with the Great Principle of Natural Selection.—

Let us pass over these points, & again revert to Wingless or rather Brevipennate Birds— Had we only seen such—& we suspect (on M^r. Darwin’s system) that such were the primeval creatures out of which Birds were fashioned by almost insensible stages,—should we not regard— should we not have regarded (supposing our existence in those remote periods of times,) a winged bird hovering in the air as a terrible monster.—

Does it follow that all birds have advanced pari passu?— May not many an arrests or stoppages have occurred from a combination of contingences, leaving vast numbers of birds, not advanced up to the mark in alar development, whose brevipennate descendants, surviving the lapse of Time remain to tell a story of strange mutations & undreamed of phases on the surface of our planet, from the Silurian epoch, even to the present— But alas we we know not the language—no nor can we decipher the mystic hieroglyphics,—the lithoglyphs of a world gone by.—

But it is time to conclude a paper perchance unworthy of consideration= Fearing indeed that this may be the case we will not draw it out to a tedious length—at the same time, we have ventured upon a sort of imperfect & very crude diagram, explanatory of our views, Birds alone being its subject— What bears upon one great division of Organic Being, bears, so we venture to opine, upon every other.—

W. C. L. Martin.—