Starting Out With C++ From Control Structures to

Objects 8th edition by Tony Gaddis ISBN

0133769399 978-0133769395 pdf download

https://ebookball.com/product/starting-out-with-c-from-control-
structures-to-objects-8th-edition-by-tony-gaddis-
isbn-0133769399-978-0133769395-16546/

Explore and download more ebooks or textbooks

at ebookball.com
We have selected some products that you may be interested in
Click the link to download now or visit ebookball.com
for more options!.

Starting Out With C++ From Control Structures to Objects

8th edition by Tony Gaddis ISBN 0133769399 978-0133769395

https://ebookball.com/product/starting-out-with-c-from-control-
structures-to-objects-8th-edition-by-tony-gaddis-
isbn-0133769399-978-0133769395-16476/

Starting Out With C From Control Structures to Objects 9th

edition by Tony Gaddis 9780134443850 0134443853

https://ebookball.com/product/starting-out-with-c-from-control-
structures-to-objects-9th-edition-by-tony-
gaddis-9780134443850-0134443853-18736/

Starting Out With C From Control Structures Through

Objects With Myprogramminglab Access Code 9th Edition by
Tony Gaddis 0134498372 9780134498379
https://ebookball.com/product/starting-out-with-c-from-control-
structures-through-objects-with-myprogramminglab-access-code-9th-
edition-by-tony-gaddis-0134498372-9780134498379-17124/

Starting Out With C Early Objects 10th Edition by Tony

Gaddis, Judy Walters, Godfrey Muganda ISBN 0135241006
9780135241004
https://ebookball.com/product/starting-out-with-c-early-objects-10th-
edition-by-tony-gaddis-judy-walters-godfrey-muganda-
isbn-0135241006-9780135241004-17112/
Starting Out with Python 3rd Edition by Tony Gaddis ISBN
1292065508 9781292065502

https://ebookball.com/product/starting-out-with-python-3rd-edition-by-
tony-gaddis-isbn-1292065508-9781292065502-15558/

Data Structures and Other Objects Using C++ 2nd edition by

Michael Main ISBN 8129705826 978-8129705822

https://ebookball.com/product/data-structures-and-other-objects-
using-c-2nd-edition-by-michael-main-
isbn-8129705826-978-8129705822-16344/

Paediatric Radiology Rapid Reporting for FRCR Part 2B 1st

edition by Michael Paddock,Amaka Offiah 3030019659
9783030019655
https://ebookball.com/product/paediatric-radiology-rapid-reporting-
for-frcr-part-2b-1st-edition-by-michael-paddock-amaka-
offiah-3030019659-9783030019655-6052/

C++ Programming From Problem Analysis to Program Design

8th Edition by Malik ISBN 1337102087 9781337102087

https://ebookball.com/product/c-programming-from-problem-analysis-to-
program-design-8th-edition-by-malik-
isbn-1337102087-9781337102087-17114/

Data Structures And Other Objects Using C 4th Edition by

Michael Main, Walter Savitch 0132129485 9780132129480

https://ebookball.com/product/data-structures-and-other-objects-
using-c-4th-edition-by-michael-main-walter-
savitch-0132129485-9780132129480-17178/
 STARTING OUT WITH

C++
From Control Structures
through Objects
EIGHTH EDITION
This page intentionally left blank
 STARTING OUT WITH

C++
From Control Structures
through Objects
EIGHTH EDITION

Tony Gaddis
Haywood Community College

Boston Columbus Indianapolis New York San Francisco Upper Saddle River
Amsterdam Cape Town Dubai London Madrid Milan Munich Paris Montreal Toronto
Delhi Mexico City São Paulo Sydney Hong Kong Seoul Singapore Taipei Tokyo
Editorial Director: Marcia Horton Cover Designer: Bruce Kenselaar
Acquisitions Editor: Matt Goldstein Manager, Visual Research: Karen Sanatar
Program Manager: Kayla Smith-Tarbox Permissions Supervisor: Michael Joyce
Director of Marketing: Christy Lesko Permission Administrator: Jenell Forschler
Marketing Coordinator: Kathryn Ferranti Cover Image: Sergio37_120/Fotolia
Marketing Assistant: Jon Bryant Media Project Manager: Renata Butera
Senior Managing Editor: Scott Disanno Full-Service Project Manager: Jogender Taneja
Senior Project Manager: Marilyn Lloyd Aptara®, Inc.
Operations Supervisor: Vincent Scelta Full-Service Vendor: Aptara®, Inc.
Operations Specialist: Linda Sager Printer/Binder: Courier Kendallville
Art Director, Cover: Jayne Conte Cover Printer: Lehigh-Phoenix Color/Hagerstown
Text Designer: Joyce Cosentino Wells

Credits and acknowledgments borrowed from other sources and reproduced, with permission, appear on the
Credits page in the endmatter of this textbook.

Copyright © 2015, 2012, 2009 Pearson Education, Inc., publishing as Addison-Wesley All rights reserved.
Manufactured in the United States of America. This publication is protected by Copyright, and permission
should be obtained from the publisher prior to any prohibited reproduction, storage in a retrieval system, or
transmission in any form or by any means, electronic, mechanical, photocopying, recording, or likewise. To
obtain permission(s) to use material from this work, please submit a written request to Pearson Education,
Inc., Permissions Department, One Lake Street, Upper Saddle River, New Jersey 07458 or you may fax your
request to 201 236-3290.

Many of the designations by manufacturers and sellers to distinguish their products are claimed as trademarks.
Where those designations appear in this book, and the publisher was aware of a trademark claim, the
designations have been printed in initial caps or all caps.

Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data

Gaddis, Tony.
Starting out with C++ : from control structures through objects/Tony Gaddis.—Eighth edition.
pages cm
Includes bibliographical references and index.
Online the following appendices are available at www.pearsonhighered.com/gaddis: Appendix D:
Introduction to flowcharting; Appendix E: Using UML in class design; Appendix F: Namespaces; Appendix G:
Writing managed C++ code for the .net framework; Appendix H: Passing command line arguments; Appendix
I: Header file and library function reference; Appendix J: Binary numbers and bitwise operations; Appendix K:
Multi-source file programs; Appendix L: Stream member functions for formatting; Appendix M: Introduction
to Microsoft Visual C++ 2010 express edition; Appendix N: Answers to checkpoints; and Appendix O:
Solutions to odd-numbered review questions.
ISBN-13: 978-0-13-376939-5
ISBN-10: 0-13-376939-9
1. C++ (Computer program language) I. Title. II. Title: From control structures through objects.
QA76.73.C153G33 2014b
005.13’3—dc23
2014000213

10 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1

ISBN 13: 978-0-13-376939-5

ISBN 10: 0-13-376939-9
 Contents at a Glance

Preface xv

CHAPTER 1 Introduction to Computers and Programming 1

CHAPTER 2 Introduction to C++ 27
CHAPTER 3 Expressions and Interactivity 83
CHAPTER 4 Making Decisions 149
CHAPTER 5 Loops and Files 227
CHAPTER 6 Functions 299
CHAPTER 7 Arrays 375
CHAPTER 8 Searching and Sorting Arrays 457
CHAPTER 9 Pointers 495
CHAPTER 10 Characters, C-Strings, and More About the string Class 547
CHAPTER 11 Structured Data 599
CHAPTER 12 Advanced File Operations 657
CHAPTER 13 Introduction to Classes 711
CHAPTER 14 More About Classes 811
CHAPTER 15 Inheritance, Polymorphism, and Virtual Functions 891
CHAPTER 16 Exceptions, Templates, and the Standard Template
Library (STL) 971
CHAPTER 17 Linked Lists 1025
CHAPTER 18 Stacks and Queues 1063
CHAPTER 19 Recursion 1121
CHAPTER 20 Binary Trees 1155

Appendix A: Getting Started with Alice 1185

Appendix B: The ASCII Character Set 1211
Appendix C: Operator Precedence and Associativity 1213
Quick References 1215
v
vi Contents at a Glance

Index 1217
Credit 1237
Online The following appendices are available at www.pearsonhighered.com/gaddis.
Appendix D: Introduction to Flowcharting
Appendix E: Using UML in Class Design
Appendix F: Namespaces
Appendix G: Passing Command Line Arguments
Appendix H: Header File and Library Function Reference
Appendix I: Binary Numbers and Bitwise Operations
Appendix J: Multi-Source File Programs
Appendix K: Stream Member Functions for Formatting
Appendix L: Answers to Checkpoints
Appendix M: Solutions to Odd-Numbered Review Questions
 Contents

Preface xv

CHAPTER 1 Introduction to Computers and Programming 1

1.1 Why Program? 1
1.2 Computer Systems: Hardware and Software 2
1.3 Programs and Programming Languages 8
1.4 What Is a Program Made of? 14
1.5 Input, Processing, and Output 17
1.6 The Programming Process 18
1.7 Procedural and Object-Oriented Programming 22

CHAPTER 2 Introduction to C++ 27

2.1 The Parts of a C++ Program 27
2.2 The cout Object 31
2.3 The #include Directive 36
2.4 Variables and Literals 37
2.5 Identifiers 41
2.6 Integer Data Types 42
2.7 The char Data Type 48
2.8 The C++ string Class 52
2.9 Floating-Point Data Types 54
2.10 The bool Data Type 57
2.11 Determining the Size of a Data Type 58
2.12 Variable Assignments and Initialization 59
2.13 Scope 61
2.14 Arithmetic Operators 61
2.15 Comments 69
2.16 Named Constants 71
2.17 Programming Style 73

vii
viii Contents

CHAPTER 3 Expressions and Interactivity 83

3.1 The cin Object 83
3.2 Mathematical Expressions 89
3.3 When You Mix Apples and Oranges: Type Conversion 98
3.4 Overflow and Underflow 100
3.5 Type Casting 101
3.6 Multiple Assignment and Combined Assignment 104
3.7 Formatting Output 108
3.8 Working with Characters and string Objects 118
3.9 More Mathematical Library Functions 124
3.10 Focus on Debugging: Hand Tracing a Program 130
3.11 Focus on Problem Solving: A Case Study 132

CHAPTER 4 Making Decisions 149

4.1 Relational Operators 149
4.2 The if Statement 154
4.3 Expanding the if Statement 162
4.4 The if/else Statement 166
4.5 Nested if Statements 169
4.6 The if/else if Statement 176
4.7 Flags 181
4.8 Logical Operators 182
4.9 Checking Numeric Ranges with Logical Operators 189
4.10 Menus 190
4.11 Focus on Software Engineering: Validating User Input 193
4.12 Comparing Characters and Strings 195
4.13 The Conditional Operator 199
4.14 The switch Statement 202
4.15 More About Blocks and Variable Scope 211

CHAPTER 5 Loops and Files 227

5.1 The Increment and Decrement Operators 227
5.2 Introduction to Loops: The while Loop 232
5.3 Using the while Loop for Input Validation 239
5.4 Counters 241
5.5 The do-while Loop 242
5.6 The for Loop 247
5.7 Keeping a Running Total 257
5.8 Sentinels 260
5.9 Focus on Software Engineering: Deciding Which Loop to Use 261
5.10 Nested Loops 262
5.11 Using Files for Data Storage 265
5.12 Optional Topics: Breaking and Continuing a Loop 284

CHAPTER 6 Functions 299

6.1 Focus on Software Engineering: Modular Programming 299
6.2 Defining and Calling Functions 300
6.3 Function Prototypes 309
6.4 Sending Data into a Function 311
 Contents ix

6.5 Passing Data by Value 316

6.6 Focus on Software Engineering: Using Functions in a
Menu-Driven Program 318
6.7 The return Statement 322
6.8 Returning a Value from a Function 324
6.9 Returning a Boolean Value 332
6.10 Local and Global Variables 334
6.11 Static Local Variables 342
6.12 Default Arguments 345
6.13 Using Reference Variables as Parameters 348
6.14 Overloading Functions 354
6.15 The exit() Function 358
6.16 Stubs and Drivers 361

CHAPTER 7 Arrays 375

7.1 Arrays Hold Multiple Values 375
7.2 Accessing Array Elements 377
7.3 No Bounds Checking in C++ 384
7.4 Array Initialization 387
7.5 The Range-Based for Loop 392
7.6 Processing Array Contents 396
7.7 Focus on Software Engineering: Using Parallel Arrays 404
7.8 Arrays as Function Arguments 407
7.9 Two-Dimensional Arrays 418
7.10 Arrays with Three or More Dimensions 425
7.11 Focus on Problem Solving and Program Design: A Case Study 427
7.12 If You Plan to Continue in Computer Science: Introduction to the
STL vector 429

CHAPTER 8 Searching and Sorting Arrays 457

8.1 Focus on Software Engineering: Introduction to Search Algorithms 457
8.2 Focus on Problem Solving and Program Design: A Case Study 463
8.3 Focus on Software Engineering: Introduction to Sorting Algorithms 470
8.4 Focus on Problem Solving and Program Design: A Case Study 477
8.5 If You Plan to Continue in Computer Science: Sorting and
Searching vectors 485

CHAPTER 9 Pointers 495

9.1 Getting the Address of a Variable 495
9.2 Pointer Variables 497
9.3 The Relationship Between Arrays and Pointers 504
9.4 Pointer Arithmetic 508
9.5 Initializing Pointers 510
9.6 Comparing Pointers 511
9.7 Pointers as Function Parameters 513
9.8 Focus on Software Engineering: Dynamic Memory Allocation 522
9.9 Focus on Software Engineering: Returning Pointers from Functions 526
9.10 Using Smart Pointers to Avoid Memory Leaks 533
9.11 Focus on Problem Solving and Program Design: A Case Study 536
x Contents

CHAPTER 10 Characters, C-Strings, and More About the string Class 547
10.1 Character Testing 547
10.2 Character Case Conversion 551
10.3 C-Strings 554
10.4 Library Functions for Working with C-Strings 558
10.5 C-String/Numeric Conversion Functions 569
10.6 Focus on Software Engineering: Writing Your Own
C-String-Handling Functions 575
10.7 More About the C++ string Class 581
10.8 Focus on Problem Solving and Program Design: A Case Study 590

CHAPTER 11 Structured Data 599

11.1 Abstract Data Types 599
11.2 Focus on Software Engineering: Combining Data into Structures 601
11.3 Accessing Structure Members 604
11.4 Initializing a Structure 608
11.5 Arrays of Structures 611
11.6 Focus on Software Engineering: Nested Structures 613
11.7 Structures as Function Arguments 617
11.8 Returning a Structure from a Function 620
11.9 Pointers to Structures 623
11.10 Focus on Software Engineering: When to Use ., When to Use ->,
and When to Use * 626
11.11 Unions 628
11.12 Enumerated Data Types 632

CHAPTER 12 Advanced File Operations 657

12.1 File Operations 657
12.2 File Output Formatting 663
12.3 Passing File Stream Objects to Functions 665
12.4 More Detailed Error Testing 667
12.5 Member Functions for Reading and Writing Files 670
12.6 Focus on Software Engineering: Working with Multiple Files 678
12.7 Binary Files 680
12.8 Creating Records with Structures 685
12.9 Random-Access Files 689
12.10 Opening a File for Both Input and Output 697

CHAPTER 13 Introduction to Classes 711

13.1 Procedural and Object-Oriented Programming 711
13.2 Introduction to Classes 718
13.3 Defining an Instance of a Class 723
13.4 Why Have Private Members? 736
13.5 Focus on Software Engineering: Separating Class Specification
from Implementation 737
13.6 Inline Member Functions 743
13.7 Constructors 746
13.8 Passing Arguments to Constructors 750
 Contents xi

13.9 Destructors 758

13.10 Overloading Constructors 762
13.11 Private Member Functions 765
13.12 Arrays of Objects 767
13.13 Focus on Problem Solving and Program Design: An OOP Case Study 771
13.14 Focus on Object-Oriented Programming: Simulating Dice with Objects 778
13.15 Focus on Object-Oriented Programming: Creating an Abstract Array
Data Type 782
13.16 Focus on Object-Oriented Design: The Unified Modeling Language (UML) 785
13.17 Focus on Object-Oriented Design: Finding the Classes and Their
Responsibilities 788

CHAPTER 14 More About Classes 811

14.1 Instance and Static Members 811
14.2 Friends of Classes 819
14.3 Memberwise Assignment 824
14.4 Copy Constructors 825
14.5 Operator Overloading 831
14.6 Object Conversion 858
14.7 Aggregation 860
14.8 Focus on Object-Oriented Design: Class Collaborations 865
14.9 Focus on Object-Oriented Programming: Simulating the Game
of Cho-Han 869

CHAPTER 15 Inheritance, Polymorphism, and Virtual Functions 891

15.1 What Is Inheritance? 891
15.2 Protected Members and Class Access 900
15.3 Constructors and Destructors in Base and Derived Classes 906
15.4 Redefining Base Class Functions 918
15.5 Class Hierarchies 923
15.6 Polymorphism and Virtual Member Functions 929
15.7 Abstract Base Classes and Pure Virtual Functions 945
15.8 Multiple Inheritance 952

CHAPTER 16 Exceptions, Templates, and the Standard Template

Library (STL) 971
16.1 Exceptions 971
16.2 Function Templates 990
16.3 Focus on Software Engineering: Where to Start When Defining Templates 996
16.4 Class Templates 996
16.5 Introduction to the Standard Template Library (STL) 1005

CHAPTER 17 Linked Lists 1025

17.1 Introduction to the Linked List ADT 1025
17.2 Linked List Operations 1027
17.3 A Linked List Template 1043
17.4 Variations of the Linked List 1055
17.5 The STL list Container 1056
xii Contents

CHAPTER 18 Stacks and Queues 1063

18.1 Introduction to the Stack ADT 1063
18.2 Dynamic Stacks 1080
18.3 The STL stack Container 1091
18.4 Introduction to the Queue ADT 1093
18.5 Dynamic Queues 1105
18.6 The STL deque and queue Containers 1112

CHAPTER 19 Recursion 1121

19.1 Introduction to Recursion 1121
19.2 Solving Problems with Recursion 1125
19.3 Focus on Problem Solving and Program Design: The Recursive
gcd Function 1133
19.4 Focus on Problem Solving and Program Design: Solving Recursively
Defined Problems 1134
19.5 Focus on Problem Solving and Program Design: Recursive Linked List
Operations 1135
19.6 Focus on Problem Solving and Program Design: A Recursive Binary
Search Function 1139
19.7 The Towers of Hanoi 1141
19.8 Focus on Problem Solving and Program Design: The QuickSort Algorithm 1144
19.9 Exhaustive Algorithms 1148
19.10 Focus on Software Engineering: Recursion vs. Iteration 1151

CHAPTER 20 Binary Trees 1155

20.1 Definition and Applications of Binary Trees 1155
20.2 Binary Search Tree Operations 1158
20.3 Template Considerations for Binary Search Trees 1175

Appendix A: Getting Started with Alice 1185

Appendix B: The ASCII Character Set 1211
Appendix C: Operator Precedence and Associativity 1213
Quick References 1215
Index 1217
Credit 1237

Online The following appendices are available at www.pearsonhighered.com/gaddis.

Appendix D: Introduction to Flowcharting
Appendix E: Using UML in Class Design
Appendix F: Namespaces
Appendix G: Passing Command Line Arguments
Appendix H: Header File and Library Function Reference
Appendix I: Binary Numbers and Bitwise Operations
Appendix J: Multi-Source File Programs
Appendix K: Stream Member Functions for Formatting
Appendix L: Answers to Checkpoints
Appendix M: Solutions to Odd-Numbered Review Questions
 LOCATION OF VIDEONOTES IN THE TEXT

Chapter 1 Introduction to Flowcharting, p. 20

Designing a Program with Pseudocode, p. 20
Designing the Account Balance Program, p. 25
Predicting the Result of Problem 33, p. 26
Chapter 2 Using cout, p. 31
Variabe Definitions, p. 37
Assignment Statements and Simple Math Expressions, p. 62
Solving the Restaurant Bill Problem, p. 80
Chapter 3 Reading Input with cin, p. 83
Formatting Numbers with setprecision, p. 111
Solving the Stadium Seating Problem, p. 142
Chapter 4 The if Statement, p. 154
The if/else statement, p. 166
The if/else if Statement, p. 176
Solving the Time Calculator Problem, p. 221
Chapter 5 The while Loop, p. 232
The for Loop, p. 247
Reading Data from a File, p. 274
Solving the Calories Burned Problem, p. 293
Chapter 6 Functions and Arguments, p. 311
Value-Returnlng Functions, p. 324
Solving the Markup Problem, p. 366
Chapter 7 Accessing Array Elements With a Loop, p. 380
Passing an Array to a Function, p. 407
Solving the Chips and Salsa Problem, p. 448
Chapter 8 The Binary Search, p. 460
The Selection Sort, p. 474
Solving the Charge Account Validation Modification Problem, p. 492
Chapter 9 Dynamically Allocating an Array, p. 523
Solving the Pointer Rewrite Problem, p. 545
Chapter 10 Writing a C-String-Handling Function, p. 575
More About the string Class, p. 581
Solving the Backward String Problem, p. 594
(continued on the next page)
 LOCATION OF VIDEONOTES IN THE TEXT (continued)

Chapter 11 Creating a Structure, p. 601

Passing a Structure to a Function, p. 617
Solving the Weather Statistics Problem, p. 652
Chapter 12 Passing File Stream Objects to Functions, p. 665
Working with Multiple Files, p. 678
Solving the File Encryption Filter Problem, p. 708
Chapter 13 Writing a Class, p. 718
Defining an Instance of a Class, p. 723
Solving the Employee Class Problem, p. 802
Chapter 14 Operator Overloading, p. 831
Class Aggregation, p. 860
Solving the NumDays Problem, p. 885
Chapter 15 Redefining a Base Class Function in a Derived Class, p. 918
Polymorphism, p. 929
Solving the Employee and Production-Worker Classes Problem, p. 963
Chapter 16 Throwing an Exception, p. 972
Handling an Exception, p. 972
Writing a Function Template, p. 990
Storing Objects in a vector, p. 1010
Solving the Exception Project Problem, p. 1024
Chapter 17 Appending a Node to a Linked List, p. 1028
Inserting a Node in a Linked List, p. 1035
Deleting a Node from a Linked List, p. 1039
Solving the Member Insertion by Position Problem, p. 1061
Chapter 18 Storing Objects in an STL stack, p. 1091
Storing Objects in an STL queue, p. 1114
Solving the File Compare Problem, p. 1119
Chapter 19 Reducing a Problem with Recursion, p. 1126
Solving the Recursive Multiplication Problem, p. 1153
Chapter 20 Inserting a Node in a Binary Tree, p. 1160
Deleting a Node from a Binary Tree, p. 1166
Solving the Node Counter Problem, p. 1182
Random documents with unrelated
content Scribd suggests to you:
calculé en vue d’un résultat déterminé, et l’harmonie des parties ne
résulte pas de l’influence qu’elles peuvent exercer les unes sur les
autres, mais de leur co-ordination sous l’empire d’une puissance
53
commune, d’un plan préconçu, d’une force pré-existante.” This is
eminently metaphysiological. It refuses to acknowledge the
operation of immanent properties, refuses to admit that the harmony
of a complex structure results from the mutual relations of its parts,
and seeks outside the organism for some mysterious force, some
plan, not otherwise specified, which regulates and shapes the parts.
Von Baer, in his great work, has a section entitled, “The nature of
the animal determines its development”; and he thus explains
himself: “Although every stage in development is only made possible
by the pre-existing condition [which is another mode of expressing
Epigenesis], nevertheless the entire development is ruled and guided
by the Nature of the animal which is about to be (von der
gesammten Wesenheit des Thieres welches werden soll), and it is
not the momentary condition which alone and absolutely determines
54
the future, but more general and higher relations.” One must
always be slow in rejecting the thoughts of a master, and feel sure
that one sees the source of the error before regarding it as an error;
but in the present case I think the positive biologist will be at no loss
to assign Von Baer’s error to its metaphysical origin. Without pausing
here to accumulate examples both of anomalies and slighter
deviations which are demonstrably due to the “momentary
conditions” that preceded them, let us simply note the logical
inconsistency of a position which, while assuming that every
separate stage in development is the necessary sequence of its
predecessor, declares the whole of the stages independent of such
relations! Such a position is indeed reconcilable on the assumption
that animal forms are moulded “like clay in the hands of the potter.”
But this is a theological dogma, which leads to very preposterous
and impious conclusions; and whether it leads to these conclusions
or to others, positive Biology declines theological explanations
altogether. Von Baer, although he held the doctrine of Epigenesis,
coupled it, as many others have done, with metaphysical doctrines
to which it is radically opposed. He believed in Types as realities; he
was therefore consistent in saying, “It is not the Matter and its
arrangements which determine the product, but the nature of the
parent form—the Idea, according to the new school.” How are we to
understand this Idea? If it mean an independent Entity, an agency
external to the organism, we refuse to acknowledge its existence. If
it mean only an a posteriori abstraction expressing the totality of the
conditions, then, indeed, we acknowledge that it determines the
animal form; but this is only an abbreviated way of expressing the
law of Evolution, by which each stage determines its successor. The
Type does not dominate the conditions, it emerges from them; the
animal organism is not cast in a mould, but the imaginary mould is
the form which the polarities of the organic substance assume. It
would seem very absurd to suppose that crystals assumed their
definite shapes (when the liquid which held their molecules in
solution is evaporated) under the determining impulse of phantom-
crystals, or Ideas; yet it has not been thought absurd to assume
phantom forms of organisms.
112. The conception of Type as a determining influence arises
from that fallacy of taking a resultant for a principle, which has
played so conspicuous a part in the history of philosophy. Like many
others of its class it exhibits an interesting evolution from the crude
metaphysical to the subtle metaphysical point of view, which at last
insensibly blends into the positive point of view. At first the Type or
Idea was regarded as an objective reality, external to the organism it
was supposed to rule. Then this notion was replaced by an approach
to the more rational interpretation, the idea was made an internal
not an external force, and was incorporated with the material
elements of the organism, which were said to “endeavor” to arrange
themselves according to the Type. Thus Treviranus declares that the
seed “dreams of the future flower”; and “Henle, when he affirms
that hair and nails grow in virtue of the Idea, is forced to add that
55
the parts endeavor to arrange themselves according to this Idea.”
Even Lotze, who has argued so victoriously against the vitalists, and
has made it clear that an organism is a vital mechanism, cannot
relinquish this conception of legislative Ideas, though he significantly
adds, “these have no power in themselves, but only in as far as they
are grounded in mechanical conditions.” Why then superfluously add
them to the conditions? If every part of a watch, in virtue of the
properties inherent in its substance, and of the mutual reactions of
these and other parts, has a mechanical value, and if the sum of all
these parts is the time-indicating mechanism, do we add to our
knowledge of the watch, and our means of repairing or improving it,
by assuming that the parts have over and above their physical
properties the metaphysical “tendency” or “desire” to arrange
themselves into this specific form? When we see that an organism is
constructed of various parts, each of which has its own properties
inalienable from its structure, and its uses dependent on its relation
to other parts, do we gain any larger insight by crediting these parts
with desires or “dreams” of a future result which their union will
effect? That which is true in this conception of legislative Ideas is
that when the parts come together there is mutual reaction, and the
resultant of the whole is something very unlike the mere addition of
the items, just as water is very unlike oxygen or hydrogen; further,
the connexus of the whole impresses a peculiar direction on the
development of the parts, and the law of Epigenesis necessitates a
serial development, which may easily be interpreted as due to a
preordained plan.
113. In a word, this conception of Type only adds a new name to
the old difficulty, adding mist to darkness. The law of Epigenesis,
which is simply the expression of the material process determined by
the polarity of molecules, explains as much of the phenomena as is
explicable. A lost limb is replaced by the very processes, and through
the same progressive stages as those which originally produced it.
We have a demonstration of its not being reformed according to any
Idea or Type which exists apart from the immanent properties of the
organic molecules, in the fact that it is not reformed at once, but by
gradual evolution; the mass of cells at the stump are cells of
embryonic character, cells such as those which originally
“crystallized” into muscles, nerves, vessels, and integument, and
each cell passes through all its ordinary stages of development. It is
to be remembered that so intimately dependent is the result on the
determining conditions, that any external influence which disturbs
the normal course of development will either produce an anomaly, or
frustrate the formation of a new limb altogether. One of my tritons
56
bit off the leg of his female; the leg which replaced it was much
malformed, and curled over the back so as to be useless; was this
according to the Idea? I cut it off, and examined it; all the bones
were present, but the humerus was twisted, and of small size. In a
few weeks a new leg was developed, and this leg was normal. If the
Idea, as a ruling power, determined the growth of this third leg,
what determined the second, which was malformed? Are we to
suppose that in normal growth the Idea prevails, in abnormal the
conditions? That it is the polarity of the molecules which at each
moment determines the group those molecules will assume, is well
57
seen in the experiment of Lavalle mentioned by Bronn. He showed
that if when an octohedral crystal is forming, an angle be cut away,
so as to produce an artificial surface, a similar surface is produced
spontaneously on the corresponding angle, whereas all the other
angles are sharply defined. “Valentin,” says Mr. Darwin, “injured the
caudal extremity of an embryo, and three days afterwards it
produced rudiments of a double pelvis, and of double hind limbs.
Hunter and others have observed lizards with their tails reproduced
and doubled. When Bonnet divided longitudinally the foot of the
58
salamander, several additional digits were occasionally formed.”
Where is the evidence of the Idea in these cases?
114. I repeat, the reproduction of lost limbs is due to a process
which is in all essential respects the same as that which originally
produced them; the genesis of one group of cells is the necessary
condition for the genesis of its successor, nor can this order be
transposed. But—and the point is very important—it is not every part
that can be reproduced, nor is it every animal that has reproductive
powers. The worm, or the mollusk, seems capable of reproducing
every part; the crab will reproduce its claws, but not its head or tail;
the perfect insect of the higher orders will reproduce no part (indeed
the amputation of its antennae only is fatal), the salamander will
reproduce its leg, the frog not. In human beings a muscle is said
never to be reproduced; but this is not the case in the rare examples
of supplementary fingers and toes, which have been known to grow
again after amputation. The explanation of this difference in the
reproductive powers of different animals is usually assigned to the
degree in which their organisms retain the embryonic condition; and
this explanation is made plausible by the fact that the animals which
when adult have no power of replacing lost limbs, have the power
when in the larval state. But although this may in some cases be the
true explanation, there are many in which it fails, as will be
acknowledged after a survey of the extremely various organisms at
widely different parts of the animal series which possess the
reproductive power. Even animals in the same class, and at the same
stage of development, differ in this respect. I do not attach much
importance to the fact that all my experiments on marine annelids
failed to furnish evidence of their power of reproducing lost
segments; because it is difficult to keep them under conditions
similar to those in which they live. But it is significant that, among
the hundreds which have passed under my observation, not one
should have been found with a head-segment in the process of
development, replacing one that had been destroyed; and this is all
the more remarkable from the great tenacity of life which the
mutilated segments manifest. Quatrefages had observed portions of
a worm, after gangrene had destroyed its head and several
59
segments, move about in the water and avoid the light!
115. A final argument to show that the reproduction is not
determined by any ruling Idea, but by the organic conditions and the
necessary stages of evolution, is seen in the reappearance of a
tumor or cancer after it has been removed. We find the new tissue
appear with all the characters of the normal tissue of the gland, then
rapidly assume one by one the characters of the diseased tissue
which had been removed; and there as on is, that the regeneration
of the tissue is accompanied by the same abnormal conditions which
formerly gave rise to the tumor: the directions of “crystallization” are
similar because the conditions are similar. In every case of growth or
regrowth the conditions being the same, the result must be the
same.
116. It seems a truism to insist that similarity in the results must
be due to similarity in the conditions; yet it is one which many
theorists disregard; and especially do we need to bear it in mind
when arguing about Species. I will here only touch on the suggestive
topic of the analogies observed not simply among animals at the
extreme ends of the scale, but also between animals and plants
where the idea of a direct kinship is out of the question.
My very imperfect zoölogical knowledge will not allow me to
adduce a long array of instances, but such an array will assuredly
occur to every well-stored mind. It is enough to point to the many
analogies of Function, more especially in the reproductive processes
—to the existence of burrowers, waders, flyers, swimmers in various
classes—to the existence of predatory mammals, predatory birds,
predatory reptiles, predatory insects by the side of herbivorous
congeners,—to the nest-building and incubating fishes; and in the
matter of Structure the analogies are even more illustrative when we
consider the widely diffused spicula, setæ, spines, hooks, tentacles,
beaks, feathery forms, nettling-organs, poison-sacs, luminous
organs, etc.; because these have the obvious impress of being due
to a community of substance under similar conditions rather than to
a community of kinship. The beak of the tadpole, the cephalopod,
the male salmon, and the bird, are no doubt in many respects
unlike; but there is a significant likeness among them, which
constitutes a true analogy. I think there is such an analogy between
the air-bladder of fishes and the tracheal rudiment which is found in
60
the gnat-larva (Corethra plumicornis). Very remarkable also is the
resemblance of the avicularium, or “bird’s-head process,” on the
polyzoon known popularly as the Corkscrew Coralline (Bugula
avicularia), which presents us in miniature with a vulture’s head—
two mandibles, one fixed, the other moved by muscles visible within
the head. No one can watch this organ snapping incessantly, without
being reminded of a vulture, yet no one would suppose for a
moment that the resemblance has anything to do with kinship.
117. Such cases are commonly robbed of their due significance by
being dismissed as coincidences. But what determines the
coincidence? If we assume, as we are justified in assuming, that the
possible directions of Organic Combination, and the resultant forms,
are limited, there must inevitably occur such coincident lines: the
hooks on a Climbing Plant will resemble the hooks on a Crustacean
or the claws of a Bird, as the one form in which under similar
external forces the more solid but not massive portions of the
integument tend to develop. I am too ill acquainted with the
anatomy of plants to say how the hooks so common among them
arise; but from examination of the Blackberry, and comparison of its
thorns with the hooks and spines of the Crustacea, I am led to infer
that in each case the mode of development is identical—namely, the
secretion of chitine from the cellular matrix of the integument.
Another mode of evading the real significance of such
resemblances is to call them analogies, not homologies. There is an
advantage in having two such terms, but we ought to be very clear
as to their meaning and their point of separation. Analogy is used to
designate similarity in Function with dissimilarity in Structure. The
wing of an insect, the wing of a bird, and the wing of a bat are
called analogous, but not homologous, because their anatomical
structure is different: they are not constructed out of similar
anatomical parts. The fore-leg of a mammal, the wing of a bird, or
the paddle of a whale, are called homologous, because in spite of
their diverse uses they are constructed out of corresponding
anatomical parts. To the anatomist such distinctions are eminently
serviceable. But they have led to some misconceptions, because
they are connected with a profound misconception of the relation
between Function and Organ. Embryology teaches that the wing of
the bird and the paddle of the whale are developed out of
corresponding parts, and that these are not like the parts from which
the wing of an insect or the flying-fish will be developed;
nevertheless, the most cursory inspection reveals that the wing of a
bird and the paddle of a whale are very unlike in structure no less
than in function, and that their diversities in function correspond
with their diversities in structure; whereas the wing of the insect, of
the bird, and of the bat, are in certain characters very similar, and
correspondingly there are similarities in their function. It is, however,
obvious that the resemblance in function is strictly limited to the
resemblance in anatomical structure; only in loose ordinary speech
can the flight of an insect, a bird, or a bat be said to be “the same”:
it is different in each—the weight to be moved, the rapidity of the
movement, the precision of the movements, and their endurance, all
differ.

NATURAL SELECTION AND ORGANIC

AFFINITY.
118. It is impossible to treat of Evolution without taking notice of
that luminous hypothesis by which Mr. Darwin has revolutionized
Zoölogy. There are two points needful to be clearly apprehended
before the question is entered upon. The first point relates to the lax
use of the phrase “conditions,” sometimes more instructively
replaced by “conditions of existence.” Inasmuch as Life is only
possible under definite relations of the organism and its medium, the
“conditions of existence” will be those physical, chemical, and
physiological changes, which in the organism, and out of it, co-
operate to produce the result. There are myriads of changes in the
external medium which have no corresponding changes in the
organism, not being in any direct relation to it (see § 54). These, not
being co-operant conditions, must be left out of the account; they
are not conditions of existence for the organism, and therefore the
organism does not vary with their variations. On the other hand,
what seem very slight changes in the medium are often responded
to by important changes in the vital chemistry, and consequently in
the structure of the organism. Now the nature of the organism at
the time being, that is to say, its structure and the physico-chemical
state of its tissues and plasmodes, is the main condition of this
response; the same external agent will be powerful, or powerless,
over slightly different organisms, or over the same organism at
different times. Usually, and for convenience, when biologists speak
of conditions, they only refer to external changes. This usage has
been the source of no little confusion in discussing the Development
Hypothesis. Mr. Darwin, however, while following the established
usage, is careful in several places to declare that of the two factors
in Variation—the nature of the organism and the nature of the
conditions—the former is by far the more important.
118a. A still greater modification of terms must now be made.
Instead of confining the “struggle for existence” to the competition
of rivals and the antagonism of foes, we must extend it to the
competition and antagonism of tissues and organs. The existence of
an organism is not only dependent on the external existence of
others, and is the outcome of a struggle; but also on the internal
conditions which co-operate in the formation of its structure, this
structure being the outcome of a struggle. The organism is this
particular organism, differing from others, because of the particular
conditions which have co-operated. The primary and fundamental
struggle must be that of the organic forces at work in creating a
structure capable of pushing its way amid external forces. The
organism must find a footing in the world, before it can compete
with rivals, and defend itself against foes. Owing to the power of
reproduction, every organism has a potential indefiniteness of
multiplication; that potential indefiniteness is, however, in reality
restricted by the supply of food, and by the competition of rivals for
that supply. The multiplication of any one species is thus kept down
by the presence of rivals and foes: a balance is reached, which
permits of the restricted quantities of various species. This balance is
the result of a struggle.
Now let me call attention to a similar process in the formation of
the organism itself. Every organite, and every tissue, has a potential
growth of indefinite extent, but its real growth is rigorously limited
by the competition and antagonism of the others, each of which has
its potential indefiniteness, and its real limits. Something, in the food
assimilated, slightly alters the part which assimilates it. This change
may be the origin of other changes in the part itself, or in
neighboring parts, stimulating or arresting the vital processes. A
modification of structure results. Or there may be no new substance
assimilated, but external forces may call a part into increased activity
—which means increased waste and repair; and this increase here is
the cause of a corresponding decrease somewhere else. Whatever
the nature of the change, it finds its place amid a complex of
changes, and its results are compounded with theirs. When
organites and tissues are said to have a potential indefiniteness of
growth, there is assumed a potential indefiniteness in the pabulum
supplied: if the pabulum were supplied, and if there were no
antagonism thwarting its assimilation, growth would of course
continue without pause, or end; but in reality this cannot be so. For,
take the blood as the vehicle of the pabulum—not only is its quantity
limited, and partly limited by the very action of the tissues it feeds,
but even in any given quantity there is a limit to its composition—it
will only take up a limited quantity of salts, iron, albumen, etc.; no
matter how abundant these may be in the food. So again with the
plasmodes of the various tissues—they have each their definite
capacities of assimilation. What has already been stated respecting
chemical affinity (§ 20) is equally applicable to organic affinity; as
the presence of fused iron in the crucible partially obstructs the
combination of sulphur and lead, so the presence of connective
tissue partially obstructs the combination of muscle protoplasm with
its pabulum.
118 b. Owing to the action and reaction of blood and plasmode,
of tissues on tissues, and organs on organs, and their mutual
limitations, the growth of each organism has a limit, and the growth
of each organ has a limit. Beyond this limit, no extra supply of food
will increase the size of the organism; no increase of activity will
increase the organ. “Man cannot add a cubit to his stature.” The
blacksmith’s arm will not grow larger by twenty years of daily
exercise, after it has once attained a certain size. Increase of activity
caused it to enlarge up to this limit; but no increase of activity will
cause it to pass this limit. Why? Because here a balance of the co-
operating formative forces has been reached. Larger muscles, or
more muscle-fibres, demand arteries of larger calibre, and these a
heart of larger size; with the increase of muscle would come
increase of connective tissue; and this tissue would not only
compete with the muscle for pabulum, but by mechanical pressure
would diminish the flow of that pabulum. And why would connective
tissue increase? Because, in the first place, there is a formative
association between the two, so that owing to a law, not yet
understood, the one always accompanies the other; and, in the
second place, there is a functional association between the two, a
muscle-fibre being inoperative unless it be attached to a tendon, or
connective tissue; it will contract out of the body although separated
from its tendon or other attachment; but in the body its contraction
would be useless without this attachment. We must bear in mind
that muscle-fibres are very much shorter than ordinary muscles;
according to the measurements of W. Krause they never exceed 4
cm in length, and usually range between 2 and 3 cm; their fine
points being fixed to the interstitial connective tissue, as the whole
muscle is fixed to its tendon. The function of the muscle is thus
dependent on a due balance of its component tissues; if that
balance is disturbed the function is disturbed. Should, from any
cause, an excess of muscle-fibre arise, the balance would be
disturbed; should an encroachment of connective tissue, or of fat,
take place, there would be also a defect of function.
Here we have the co-operation and limitation of the tissues
illustrated; let us extend our glance, and we shall see how the co-
operation and limitation of the organs come into play, so that the
resulting function depends on the balance of their forces. The
contractile power of each individual muscle is always limited by the
resistance of antagonists, which prevent the muscle being
contracted more than about a third of its possible extent, i. e.
possible when there are no resistances to be overcome. Not only the
increasing tension of antagonist muscles, but the resistance of
tendons, bones, and softer parts must be taken into account. Thus,
the increase of the blacksmith’s muscular power would involve a
considerable increase in all the tissues of the arm; but such an
increase would involve a reconstruction of his whole organism.
Whenever there is an encroachment of one tissue on another,
there is a disturbance of the normal balance, which readily passes
into a pathological state. If the brain is overrun with connective
tissue, or the heart with fatty tissue, we know the consequences. If
connective tissue is deficient, epithelial runs to excess, no longer
limited by its normal antagonist, and pus, or cancer, result.
118c. It is unnecessary here to enlarge on this point. I have
adduced it to show that we must extend our conception of the
struggle for existence beyond that of the competition and
antagonism of organisms—the external struggle; and include under
it the competition and antagonism of tissues and organs—the
internal struggle. Variability is inherent in organic substances, as the
result of their indefiniteness of composition (§ 45b). This variability
is indefinite, and is rendered definite by the competition and
antagonism, so that every particular variation is the resultant of a
composition of forces. The forces in operation are the internal and
external conditions of existence—i. e. the nature of the organism,
and its response to the actions of its medium. A change may take
place in the medium without a corresponding response from the
organism; or the change may find a response and the organism
become modified. Every modification is a selection, determined by
laws of growth; it is the resultant of a struggle between what, for
want of a better term, may be called the organic affinities—which
represent in organized substances what chemical affinities are in the
anorganized. Just as an organism which has been modified and
thereby gained a superiority over others, has by this modification
been selected for survival—the selection being only another aspect
of this modification—so one tissue, or one organ, which has
surpassed another in the struggle of growth, will thereby have
become selected. Natural Selection, or survival of the fittest,
therefore, is simply the metaphorical expression of the fact that any
balance of the forces which is best adapted for survival will survive.
Unless we interpret it as a shorthand expression of all the internal
and external conditions of existence, it is not acceptable as the
origin of species.
118d. Mr. Darwin has so patiently and profoundly meditated on
the whole subject, that we must be very slow in presuming him to
have overlooked any important point. I know that he has not
altogether overlooked this which we are now considering; but he is
so preoccupied with the tracing out of his splendid discovery in all its
bearings, that he has thrown the emphasis mainly on the external
struggle, neglecting the internal struggle; and has thus in many
passages employed language which implies a radical distinction
where—as I conceive—no such distinction can be recognized.
“Natural Selection,” he says, “depends on the survival under various
and complex circumstances of the best-fitted individuals, but has no
relation whatever to the primary cause of any modification of
61
structure.” On this we may remark, first, that selection does not
depend on the survival, but is that survival; secondly, that the best-
fitted individual survives because of that modification of its structure
which has given it the superiority; therefore if the primary cause of
this modification is not due to selection, then selection cannot be the
cause of species. He separates Natural Selection from all the primary
causes of variation, either internal or external—either as results of
the laws of growth, of the correlations of variation, of use and
disuse, etc., and limits it to the slow accumulations of such variations
as are profitable in the struggle with competitors. And for his
purpose this separation is necessary. But biological philosophy must,
I think, regard the distinction as artificial, referring only to one of the
great factors in the production of species. And for this reason:
Selection only comes into existence in the modifications produced
either by external or internal changes; and the selected change
cannot be developed further by mere inheritance, unless the
successive progeny have such a disposition of the organic affinities
as will repeat the primary change. Inherited superiority will not by
mere transmission become greater. The facts which are relied on in
support of the idea of “fixity of species” show at any rate that a
given superiority will remain stationary for thousands of years; and
no one supposes that the progeny of an organism will vary unless
some external or internal cause of variation accompanies the
inheritance. Mr. Darwin agrees with Mr. Spencer in admitting the
difficulty of distinguishing between the effects of some definite
action of external conditions, and the accumulation through natural
selection of inherited variations serviceable to the organism. But
even in cases where the distinction could be clearly established, I
think we should only see an historical distinction, that is to say, one
between effects produced by particular causes now in operation, and
effects produced by very complex and obscure causes in operation
during ancestral development.
118e. The reader will understand that my criticism does not
pretend to invalidate Mr. Darwin’s discovery, but rather to enlarge its
terms, so as to make it include all the biological conditions, and thus
explain many of the variations which Natural Selection—in the
restricted acceptation—leaves out of account. Mr. Darwin draws a
broad line of distinction between Variation and Selection, regarding
only those variations that are favorable as selected. I conceive that
all variations which survive are by that fact of survival, selections,
whether favorable or indifferent. A variety is a species in formation;
now Selection itself is not a cause, or condition, of variation, it is the
expression of variation. Mr. Darwin is at times explicit enough on this
head: “It may metaphorically be said that Natural Selection is daily
and hourly scrutinizing throughout the world the slightest variations;
rejecting those that are bad, preserving and adding up all that are
good; silently and insensibly working, whenever and wherever
opportunity offers, at the improvement of each organic being in
62
relation to its organic and inorganic conditions of life.” But the
metaphorical nature of the term is not always borne in mind, so that
elsewhere Natural Selection is said to “act on and modify organic
beings,” as if it were a positive condition and not the expression of
the modifying processes. Because grouse are largely destroyed by
birds of prey, any change in their color which would render them less
conspicuous would enable more birds to escape; but it is obvious
that this change of color will be due to Organic Affinity; and only
when the change is effected will there have been that selection
which expresses it. Mr. Darwin’s language, however, is misleading.
He says: “Hence Natural Selection might be most effective in giving
the proper color to each kind of grouse, and in keeping that color
when once acquired.” This is to make Selection an agent, a condition
of the development of color; which may be accepted if we extend
the term so as to include the organic changes themselves. Again:
“Some writers have imagined that Natural Selection induces
variability, whereas it only implies the preservation of such variations
as are beneficial to the being under its conditions of life.” It,
however, is made to imply more than this, namely, the accumulation
and further modification of such variations. “The mere existence of
individual variability and of some well-marked varieties, though
necessary as the foundation, helps us but little in understanding how
species arise in nature. How have all those exquisite adaptations of
one part of the organization to another part, and to the conditions of
life, and of one organic being to another being, been perfected?” My
answer to this question would be: By Organic Affinity, and the
resulting struggle of the tissues and organs, the consequences of
which are that very adaptation of the organism to external
conditions, which is expressed as the selection of the structures best
adapted. The selections are the results of the struggle, according to
my proposed extension of the term “struggle.” Mr. Darwin defines
the struggle: “The dependence of one being on another, and
including (what is more important) not only the life of the individual
but success in leaving progeny.” This definition seems defective,
since it omits the primary and more important struggle which takes
place between the organic affinities in operation. To succeed in the
struggle with competitors, the organism must have first acquired—
by selection—a superiority in one or more of its organs.
 118f. A little reflection will disclose the importance of keeping our
eyes fixed on the internal causes of variation, as well as on the
external conditions of the struggle. Mr. Darwin seems to imply that
the external conditions which cause a variation are to be
distinguished from the conditions which accumulate and perfect such
variation, that is to say, he implies a radical difference between the
process of variation and the process of selection. This, I have
already said, does not seem to me acceptable; the selection, I
63
conceive, to be simply the variation which has survived.
If it be true that a Variety is an incipient Species and shows us
Species in formation, it is in the same sense true that a variation is
an incipient organ. A species is the result of a slowly accumulating
divergence of structure; an organ is the result of a slowly
accumulating differentiation. At each stage of differentiation there
has been a selection, but we cannot by any means say that this
selection was determined by the fact of its giving the organism a
superiority over rivals, inasmuch as during all the early stages, while
the organ was still in formation, there could be no advantage
accruing from it. One animal having teeth and claws developed will
have a decided superiority in the struggle over another animal that
has no teeth and claws; but so long as the teeth and claws are in an
undeveloped state of mere preparation they confer no superiority.
118g. Natural Selection is only the expression of the results of
obscure physiological processes; and for a satisfactory theory of
such results we must understand the nature of the processes. In
other words, to understand Natural Selection we must recognize not
only the facts thus expressed, but the factors of these facts,—we
must analyze the “conditions of existence.” As a preliminary analysis
we find external conditions, among which are included not only the
dependence of the organism on the inorganic medium, but also the
dependence of one organism on another,—the competition and
antagonism of the whole organic world; and internal conditions,
among which are included not only the dependence of the organism
on the laws of composition and decomposition whereby each
organite and each tissue is formed, but also the dependence of one
organite and one tissue on all the others—the competition and
antagonism of all the elements.
The changes wrought in an organism by these two kinds of
conditions determine Varieties and Species. Although many of the
changes are due to the process of natural selection brought about in
the struggle with competitors and foes, many other changes have no
such relation to the external struggle, but are simply the results of
the organic affinities. They may or they may not give the organism a
greater stability, or a greater advantage over rivals; it is enough that
they are no disadvantage to the organism, they will then survive by
virtue of the forces which produced them.
119. The position thus reached will be important in our
examination of the Theory of Descent by which Mr. Darwin
tentatively, and his followers boldly, explain the observed
resemblances in structure and function as due to blood-relationship.
The doctrine of Evolution affirms that all complex organisms are
evolved by differentiation from simpler organisms, as we see the
complex organ evolved from simpler forms. But it does not
necessarily affirm that the vast variety of organisms had one
starting-point—one ancestor; on the contrary, I conceive that the
principles of Evolution are adverse to such a view, and insist rather
on the necessity of innumerable starting-points. Let us consider the
question.
That the Theory of Descent explains many of the facts must be
admitted; but there are many which it leaves obscure; and Mr.
Darwin, with that noble calmness which distinguishes him, admits
the numerous difficulties. Whether these will hereafter be cleared
away by an improvement in the Geological Record, now confessedly
imperfect, or by more exhaustive exploration of distant countries,
none can say; but, to my mind, the probability is, that we shall have
to seek our explanation by enlarging the idea of Natural Selection,
subordinating it to the laws of Organic Affinity. It does not seem to
me, at present, warrantable to assume Descent as the sole principle
of morphological uniformities; there are other grounds of
resemblance beyond those of blood-relationship; and these have
been too much overlooked; yet a brief consideration will disclose
that similarity in the physiological laws and the conditions of Organic
Affinity must produce similarity in organisms, independently of
relationship; just as similarity in the laws and conditions of inorganic
affinity will produce identity in chemical species. We do not suppose
the carbonates and phosphates found in various parts of the globe,
or the families of alkaloids and salts, to have any nearer kinship than
that which consists in the similarity of their elements and the
conditions of their combination. Hence, in organisms, as in salts,
morphological identity may be due to a community of conditions,
rather than community of descent. Mr. Darwin justly holds it to be
“incredible that individuals identically the same should have been
produced through Natural Selection from parents specifically
distinct,” but he, since he admits analogous variations, will not deny
that identical forms might issue from parents having widely different
origins, provided that these parent forms and the conditions of their
reproduction were identical, as in the case of vegetable and animal
resemblances. To deny this would be to deny the law of causation.
And that which is true of identical forms under identical conditions is
true of similar forms under similar conditions. When History and
Ethnology reveal a striking uniformity in the progression of social
phases, we do not thence conclude that the nations are directly
related, or that the social forms have a common parentage; we
conclude that the social phases are alike because they have had
common causes. When chemists point out the uniformity of type
which exists in compounds so diverse in many of their properties as
water and sulphuretted or selenetted hydrogen, and when they
declare phosphoretted hydrogen to be the congener of ammonia,
they do not mean that the one is descended from the other, or that
any closer link connects them than that of resemblance in their
elements.
In the case of vegetal and animal organisms, we observe such a
community of elementary substance as of itself to imply a
community in their laws of combination; and under similar conditions
the evolved forms must be similar. With this community of
elementary substance, there are also diversities of substance and of
co-operant conditions; corresponding with these diversities there
must be differences of form. Thus, although observation reveals that
the bond of kinship does really unite many widely divergent forms,
and the principle of Descent with Natural Selection will account for
many of the resemblances and differences, there is at present no
warrant for assuming that all resemblances and differences are due
to this one cause, but, on the contrary, we are justified in assuming
a deeper principle which may be thus formulated: All the complex
organisms are evolved from organisms less complex, as these were
evolved from simpler forms; the link which unites all organisms is
not always the common bond of heritage, but the uniformity of
organized substance acting under similar conditions.
It is therefore consistent with the hypothesis of Evolution to admit
a variety of origins or starting-points, though not consistent to admit
the sudden appearance of complex Types, such as is implied in the
hypothesis of specific creations.
119 a. The analogies of organic forms and functions demand a
more exhaustive scrutiny than has yet been given them. Why is it
that vessels, nerves, and bones ramify like branches, and why do
these branches take on the aspect of many crystalline forms? Why is
it that cavities are constantly prolonged in ducts, e. g. the mouth
succeeded by the œsophagus, the stomach by the intestines, the
bladder by the urethra, the heart by the aorta, the ovary by the
oviduct, and so on? Why are there never more than four limbs
attached to a vertebral column, and these always attached to
particular vertebræ? Why is there a tendency in certain tissues to
form tubes, and in these tubes commonly to assume a muscular
64
coat? To some of these queries an answer might be suggested
which would bring them under known physical laws. I merely notice
them here for the sake of emphasizing the fact that such analogies
lie deeply imbedded in the laws of evolution, and that what has been
metaphorically called organic crystallization will account for many
similarities in form, without forcing us to have recourse to kinship. To
take a very simple case. No one will maintain that the crystalline
forms of snow have any kinship with the plants which they often
resemble. Mr. Spencer has noticed the development of a wing-
bearing branch from a wing of the Ptilota plumosa, when its nutrition
is in excess. “This form, so strikingly like that of the feathery
crystallizations of many inorganic substances, proves to us that in
such crystallizations the simplicity or complexity of structure at any
place depends on the quantity of matter that has to be polarized at
that place in a given time. How the element of time modifies the
result, is shown by the familiar fact that crystals rapidly formed are
small, and that they become larger when they are formed more
65
slowly.”
It may be objected, and justly, that in the resemblance between
crystals and organisms the analogy is purely that of form, and
usually confined to one element, whereas between organisms there
is resemblance of substance no less than of form, and usually the
organisms are alike in several respects. The answer to this objection
is, that wherever there is a similarity in the causal conditions
(substance and history) there must be a corresponding similarity in
the results; if this similarity extends to only a few of the conditions,
the analogy will be slight; if to several, deep. But whether slight or
deep we are not justified, simply on the ground of resemblance, in
assuming, short of evidence, that because they are alike, two
organisms are related by descent from a common ancestor.
120. Let us glance at a few illustrations. It has been urged as a
66
serious objection to Mr. Darwin’s hypothesis, that it fails to explain
the existence of phosphorescent organs in a few insects; and
certainly, when one considers the widely different orders in which
these organs appear, and their absence in nearly related forms, it is
a difficulty. In noctilucæ, earthworms, molluscs, scolopendra, and
fireflies, we may easily suppose the presence of similar organic
conditions producing the luminosity; but it requires a strong faith to
 67
assign Descent as the cause. We may say the same of the electric
organs possessed by seven species of fish, belonging to five widely
separated genera. Although each species appears to have a limited
geographical range, one or the other is found in almost every part of
the globe. These organs occupy different positions, being now on
each side of the head, now along the body, and now along the tail;
and in different species they are innervated from different sources.
Their intimate structure also varies; as appears from the remarkable
68
investigations of Max Schultze. They cannot, therefore, be
homologous. How could they have arisen? Not by the slow
accumulations of Natural Selection, because, until the organs were
fully formed, they could be of no advantage in the struggle; hence
the slow growth of the organ must have proceeded without the aid
of an advantage in the struggle—in each case from some analogous
conditions which produced a differentiation in certain muscles. The
fundamental resemblance to muscles was pointed out by Carus long
69
ago. It has been insisted on by Leydig: and Owen says, “The row
of compressed cells constituting the electric prism of the Torpedo
offers some analogy to the row of microscopic discs of which the
70
elementary muscle fibre appears to consist.” We must not,
however, forget that these resemblances are merely such as suggest
that the electric organ is a differentiation of the substance which
elsewhere becomes muscular, and that Dr. Davy was justified in
71
denying the organ to be muscular. That it is substituted for muscle
cannot be doubted. Now, although we are entirely ignorant of the
conditions which cause this differentiation of substance which
elsewhere becomes muscular, but here becomes electric organs, we
can understand that, when once such a development had taken
place, if it in any way profited the fish in its struggle for existence,
Natural Selection would tend to its further increase and propagation.
So far Mr. Darwin carries us with him; but we decline proceeding
further. The development of these organs in fishes so widely
removed, does not imply an ancestral community. It is interpretable
as mere growth on a basis once laid; and therefore would occur with
or without any advantage in the struggle with rivals. The similarity in
concurrent conditions is quite enough to account for the
resemblance in structure. This, with his accustomed candor, Mr.
Darwin admits. “If the electric organs,” he says, “had been inherited
from one ancient progenitor thus provided, we might have expected
that all electric fishes would be specially related to each other. Nor
does Geology at all lead to the belief that formerly most fishes had
electric organs which most of their modified descendants have lost.”
121. It may seem strange that he should urge a difficulty against
his hypothesis when it could be avoided by the simple admission
that even among nearly allied animals great differences in
development are observable, and the electric organs might be
ranged under such diversities. But Mr. Darwin has so thoroughly
wrought out his scheme, that he foresees most objections, and
rightly suspects that if this principle of divergent development be
admitted, it will cut the ground from under a vast array of facts
which his hypothesis of Descent requires.
The sudden appearance of new organs, not a trace of which is
discernible in the embryo or adult form of organisms lower in the
scale,—for instance, the phosphorescent and electric organs,—is like
the sudden appearance of new instruments in the social organism,
such as the printing-press and the railway, wholly inexplicable on the
72
theory of Descent, but is explicable on the theory of Organic
Affinity. For observe: if we admit that differentiations of structure,
and the sudden appearance of organs, can have arisen
spontaneously—i. e. not hereditarily—as the outcome of certain
changed physical conditions, we can hardly refuse to extend to the
whole organism what we admit of a particular organ. If, again, we
admit that organs very similar in structure and function
spontaneously appear in organisms of widely different kinds—e. g.
the phosphorescent and electric organs—we must also admit that
similar resemblances may present themselves in organisms having a
widely different parentage; and thus the admission of the
spontaneous evolution of closely resembling organs carries with it
the admission of the spontaneous evolution of closely resembling
organisms: that the protoplasm of muscular tissue should, under
certain changed conditions, develop into the tissue of electric
organs, is but one case of the law that organized substance will
develop into organisms closely resembling each other when the
conditions have been similar.
122. It is to be remarked that Mr. Darwin fixes his attention
somewhat too exclusively on the adaptations which arise during the
external struggle for existence, and to that extent neglects the laws
of organic affinity; just as Lamarck too exclusively fixed his attention
on the influence of external conditions and of wants. Not that Mr.
Darwin can be said to overlook the organic laws; he simply
underestimates the part they play. Occasionally he seems arrested
by them, as when instancing the “trailing palm in the Malay
Archipelago, which climbs the loftiest trees by the aid of exquisitely
constructed hooks, clustered around the ends of the branches, and
this contrivance no doubt is of the highest service to the plant; but
as there are nearly similar hooks on many trees which are not
climbers, the hooks on the palm may have arisen from unknown
laws of growth, and have been subsequently taken advantage of by
the plant undergoing further modification and becoming a climber.”
123. I come round to the position from which I started, that the
resemblances traceable among animals are no proof of kinship; even
a resemblance so close as to defy discrimination would not, in itself,
be such a proof. The absolute identity of chalk in Australia and in
Europe is a proof that there was absolute identity in the formative
conditions and the constituent elements, but no proof whatever that
the two substances were originally connected by genesis. In like
manner the similarity of a plant or animal in Africa and Europe may
be due to a common kinship, but it may also be due to a common
history. It is indeed barely conceivable that the history, from first to
last, would ever be so rigorously identical in two parts of the globe
as to produce complex identical forms in both; because any diversity,
either in structure or external conditions, may be the starting-point
of a wide diversity in subsequent development; and the case of
organic combinations is so far unlike the inorganic, that while only
one form is possible to the latter (chalk is either formed or not
formed), many forms are possible to organic elements owing to the
complexity and indefiniteness of organic composition. But although
forms so allied as those of Species are not readily assignable to an
identical history in different quarters of the globe, it is not only
conceivable, but is eminently probable, that Orders and Classes have
no nearer link of relationship than is implied in their community of
organized substance and their common history. The fact that there is
not a single mammal common to Europe and Australia is explicable,
as Mr. Darwin explains it, on the ground that migration has been
impossible to them; but it is also explicable on the laws of Evolution
—to have had mammals of the same species and genera would
imply a minute coincidence in their history, which is against the
probabilities. Again, in the Oceanic Islands there are no Batrachians;
but there are Reptiles, and these conform to the reptilian type. Mr.
Darwin suggests that the absence of Batrachia is due to the
impossibility of migration, their ova being destroyed by salt water.
But may it not be due to the divergence from the reptilian type,
which was effected elsewhere, not having taken place in these
regions? When we find the metal Tin in Prussia and Cornwall, and
nowhere else in Europe, must we not conclude that in these two
countries, and nowhere else, a peculiar conjunction of conditions
caused this peculiar evolution?
124. The question at issue is, Are the resemblances observable
among organic forms due to remote kinship, and their diversities to
the divergences caused by adaptation to new conditions? or are the
resemblances due to similarities, and the diversities to dissimilarities
in the substance and history of organic beings? Are we to assume
one starting-point and one centre of creation, or many similar
starting-points at many centres? So far from believing that all plants
and animals had their origin in one primordial cell, at one particular
spot, from which descendants migrated and became diversified
under the diverse conditions of their migration, it seems to me more
consistent with the principle of Evolution to admit a vast variety of
origins more or less resembling each other; and this initial
resemblance will account for the similarities still traceable under the
various forms; while the early differences, becoming intensified by
development under different conditions, will yield the diversities. The
evolution of organisms, like the evolution of crystals, or the evolution
of islands and continents, is determined, 1st, by laws inherent in the
substances evolved, and, 2d, by relations to the medium in which
the evolution takes place. This being so, we may à priori affirm that
the resultant forms will have a community strictly corresponding with
the resemblance of the substances and their conditions of evolution,
together with a diversity corresponding with their differences in
substance and conditions. It is usually supposed that the admission
of separate “centres of creation” is tantamount to an admission of
“successive creations” as interpreted by the majority of those who
invoke “creative fiats.” But the doctrine of Evolution, which regards
Life as making its appearance consequent upon a concurrence of
definite conditions, and regards the specific forms of Life as the
necessary consequences of special circumstances, must also accept
the probability of similar conditions occurring at different times and
in different places. Upon what grounds, cosmical or biological, are
we to assume that on only one microscopic spot of this developing
planet such a group of conditions was found—on only one spot a
particle of protein substance was formed out of the abundant
elements, and under conditions which caused it to grow and
multiply, till in time its descendants overran the globe? The
hypothesis that all organic forms are the descendants of a single
germ, or of even a few germs, and are therefore united by links of
kinship more or less remote, is not more acceptable than the
hypothesis that all the carbonates and phosphates, all the crystals,
and all the strata found in different parts of the globe, are the
descendants of a single molecule, or a few molecules; or,—since this
may seem too extravagant,—than that the various maladies which
afflict organic beings are, in a literal sense, members of families
having a nearer relationship than that of being the phenomena
manifested by similar organs under similar conditions—a conception
which might have been accepted by those metaphysical pathologists
who regarded Disease as an entity. Few philosophers have any
hesitation in supposing that other planets besides our own are
peopled with organic forms, though, from the great differences in
the conditions, these forms must be extremely unlike those of our
own planet. If separate worlds, why not separate centres? The
conclusion seems inevitable that wherever and whenever the state
of things permitted that peculiar combination of elements known as
organized substance, there and then a centre was established—Life
had a root. From roots closely resembling each other in all essential
characters, but all more or less different, there have been developed
the various stems of the great tree. Myriads of roots have probably
perished without issue; myriads have developed into forms so ill-
adapted to sustain the fluctuations of the medium, so ill-fitted for
the struggle of existence, that they became extinct before even our
organic record begins; myriads have become extinct since then; and
the descendants of those which now survive are like the shattered
regiments and companies after some terrific battle.
125. There seems to me only one alternative logically permissible
to the Evolution Hypothesis, namely, that all organic forms have had
either a single origin, or else numerous origins; in other words, that
a primordial cell was the starting-point from which all organisms
have been successively developed; or that the development issued
from many independent starting-points, more or less varied. This is
apparently not the aspect presented by the hypothesis to many of its
advocates; they seem to consider that if all organic forms are not
the lineal descendants of one progenitor, they must at any rate be
the descendants of not more than four or five. The common belief
inclines to one. Mr. Darwin, whose caution is as remarkable as his
courage, and whose candor is delightful, hesitates as to which
conclusion should be adopted: “I cannot doubt,” he says, “that the
theory of descent, with modifications, embraces all the members of
the same class. I believe that animals have descended from, at
most, only four or five progenitors, and plants from an equal or
lesser number. Analogy would lead me one step further, namely, to
the belief that all animals and plants have descended from some one
prototype. But analogy may be a deceitful guide.”
126. I cannot see the evidence which would warrant the belief
that Life originated solely in one microscopic lump of protoplasm on
one single point of our earth’s surface; on the contrary, it is more
probable that from innumerable and separate points of this teeming
earth, myriads of protoplast sprang into existence, whenever and
wherever the conditions of the formation of organized substance
were present. It is probable that this has been incessantly going on,
and that every day new protoplasts appear, struggle for existence,
and serve as food for more highly organized rivals; but whether an
evolution of the lower forms is, or is not, still going on, there can be
no reluctance on the part of every believer in Evolution to admit that
when organized substance was first evolved, it was evolved at many
points. If this be so, the community observable in organized
substance, wherever found, may as often be due to the fact of a
common elementary composition as to the fact of inheritance. If this
be so, we have a simple explanation both of the fundamental
resemblances which link all organisms together, and of the
characteristic diversities which separate them into kingdoms, classes,
and orders. The resemblances are many, and close, because the
forms evolved had a similar elementary composition, and their
stages of evolution were determined by similar conditions. The
diversities are many, because the forms evolved had from the first
some diversities in elementary composition, and their stages of
evolution were determined under conditions which, though similar in
general, have varied in particulars. Indeed, there is no other ground
for the resemblances and differences among organic beings than the
similarities and dissimilarities in their Substance and History; and,
whether the similarities are due to blood-relationship, or to other
causes, the results are the same. There is something seductive in
the supposition that Life radiated from a single centre in ever-
increasing circles, its forms becoming more and more various as
they came under more various conditions, until at last the whole
earth was crowded with diversified existences. “From one cell to
myriads of complex organisms, through countless æons of
development,” is a formula of speculative grandeur, but I cannot
bring myself to accept it; and I think that a lingering influence of the
tradition of a “creative fiat” may be traced in its conception. May we
not rather assume that the earth at the dawn of Life was a vast
germinal membrane, every slightly diversified point producing its
own vital form; and these myriads upon myriads of forms—all alike
and all unlike—urged by the indwelling tendencies of development,
struggled with each other for existence, many failing, many
victorious, the victors carrying their tents into the camping ground of
the vanquished. The point raised is the immense improbability of
organized substance having been evolved only in one microscopic
spot; if it were evolved at more than one spot, and under slightly
varying conditions, there would necessarily have arisen in these
earliest formations the initial diversities which afterwards determined
the essential independence and difference of organisms.
129. Let us for a moment glance at the resemblances and
diversities observable in all organisms. All have a common basis, all
being constructed out of the same fundamental elements: carbon,
hydrogen, nitrogen, and oxygen; these (the organogens, as they are
named), with varying additions of some other elements, make up
what we know as Organic Substance, vegetal and animal. Another
peculiarity all organisms have in common, namely, that their matter
is neither solid nor liquid, but viscid. Beside this community of
Substance we must now place a community of History. All organisms
grow and multiply by the same process; all pass through
metamorphic stages ending in death; all, except the very simplest,
differentiate parts of their substance for special uses, and these
parts (cilia, membranes, tubes, glands, muscles, nerves) have similar
characters in whatever organism they appear, and their development
is always similar, so that the muscles or nerves of an intestinal
worm, a lobster, or a man, are in structure and history
fundamentally alike. When, therefore, we see that there is no
biological character of fundamental importance which is not
universal throughout the organic world, when we see that in
Structure and History all organisms have a community pervading
every variety, it is difficult not to draw the conclusion that some
hidden link connects all organisms into one; and when, further, it is
seen that the most divergent forms may be so arranged by the help
of intermediate forms only slightly varying one from the other, that
the extreme ends—the monad and the man—may be connected,
and a genealogical tree constructed, which will group all forms as
modified descendants from a single form, the hypothesis that kinship
is the bidden link of which we are in search becomes more and more
cogent.
130. But now let the other aspect be considered. If there is an
unmistakable uniformity, there is also a diversity no less
unmistakable. The chemical composition of organic substances is
various. Unlike inorganic substances, the composition of which is
rigorously definite, organic substances are, within narrow limits,
variable in composition (§ 45).
I pass over the resemblances and differences observed in the
earliest stages of development, marked as they are, and direct
attention to the fact, that down at what must be considered the very
lowest organic region, we meet with differences not less striking
than those met with in the highest, we find structures (if structures
they may be called), which cannot be affiliated, so widely divergent
is their composition. The structureless vibrio, for example, is not only
capable of living in a medium destitute of Oxygen, but is, according
to M. Pasteur, actually killed by oxygen; whereas the equally simple
bacteria can no more dispense with Oxygen than other animals can.
Consider for a moment the differences implied in the fact that one
organism cannot even form an enveloping membrane to contain its
protoplasm, whereas another contrives to secrete an exquisite shell;
yet between the naked Rhizopod and the shelled Rhizopod our
lenses and reagents fail to detect a difference. One Monad can
assimilate food of only one kind, another Monad assimilates various
73
kinds. What a revelation of chemical differences appears in the
observations of M. Pasteur respecting the vibrio and bacteria, in a
Welcome to our website – the ideal destination for book lovers and
knowledge seekers. With a mission to inspire endlessly, we offer a
vast collection of books, ranging from classic literary works to
specialized publications, self-development books, and children's
literature. Each book is a new journey of discovery, expanding
knowledge and enriching the soul of the reade

Our website is not just a platform for buying books, but a bridge
connecting readers to the timeless values of culture and wisdom. With
an elegant, user-friendly interface and an intelligent search system,
we are committed to providing a quick and convenient shopping
experience. Additionally, our special promotions and home delivery
services ensure that you save time and fully enjoy the joy of reading.

Let us accompany you on the journey of exploring knowledge and

personal growth!

ebookball.com