Чарльз Дарвин
The Foundations of the Origin of Species
Extinction of species
The extinction of the larger quadrupeds, of which we imagine we better know the conditions of existence, has been thought little less wonderful than the appearance of new species; and has, I think, chiefly led to the belief of universal catastrophes. When considering the wonderful disappearance within a late period, whilst recent shells were living, of the numerous great and small mammifers of S. America, one is strongly induced to join with the catastrophists. I believe, however, that very erroneous views are held on this subject. As far as is historically known, the disappearance of species from any one country has been slow – the species becoming rarer and rarer, locally extinct, and finally lost333. It may be objected that this has been effected by man’s direct agency, or by his indirect agency in altering the state of the country; in this latter case, however, it would be difficult to draw any just distinction between his agency and natural agencies. But we now know in the later Tertiary deposits, that shells become rarer and rarer in the successive beds, and finally disappear: it has happened, also, that shells common in a fossil state, and thought to have been extinct, have been found to be still living species, but very rare ones334. If the rule is that organisms become extinct by becoming rarer and rarer, we ought not to view their extinction, even in the case of the larger quadrupeds, as anything wonderful and out of the common course of events. For no naturalist thinks it wonderful that one species of a genus should be rare and another abundant, notwithstanding he be quite incapable of explaining the causes of the comparative rareness335. Why is one species of willow-wren or hawk or woodpecker common in England, and another extremely rare: why at the Cape of Good Hope is one species of rhinoceros or antelope far more abundant than other species? Why again is the same species much more abundant in one district of a country than in another district? No doubt there are in each case good causes: but they are unknown and unperceived by us. May we not then safely infer that as certain causes are acting unperceived around us, and are making one species to be common and another exceedingly rare, that they might equally well cause the final extinction of some species without being perceived by us? We should always bear in mind that there is a recurrent struggle for life in every organism, and that in every country a destroying agency is always counteracting the geometrical tendency to increase in every species; and yet without our being able to tell with certainty at what period of life, or at what period of the year, the destruction falls the heaviest. Ought we then to expect to trace the steps by which this destroying power, always at work and scarcely perceived by us, becomes increased, and yet if it continues to increase ever so slowly (without the fertility of the species in question be likewise increased) the average number of the individuals of that species must decrease, and become finally lost. I may give a single instance of a check causing local extermination which might long have escaped discovery336; the horse, though swarming in a wild state in La Plata, and likewise under apparently the most unfavourable conditions in the scorched and alternately flooded plains of Caraccas, will not in a wild state extend beyond a certain degree of latitude into the intermediate country of Paraguay; this is owing to a certain fly depositing its eggs on the navels of the foals: as, however, man with a little care can rear horses in a tame state abundantly in Paraguay, the problem of its extinction is probably complicated by the greater exposure of the wild horse to occasional famine from the droughts, to the attacks of the jaguar and other such evils. In the Falkland Islands the check to the increase of the wild horse is said to be loss of the sucking foals337, from the stallions compelling the mares to travel across bogs and rocks in search of food: if the pasture on these islands decreased a little, the horse, perhaps, would cease to exist in a wild state, not from the absolute want of food, but from the impatience of the stallions urging the mares to travel whilst the foals were too young.
From our more intimate acquaintance with domestic animals, we cannot conceive their extinction without some glaring agency; we forget that they would undoubtedly in a state of nature (where other animals are ready to fill up their place) be acted on in some part of their lives by a destroying agency, keeping their numbers on an average constant. If the common ox was known only as a wild S. African species, we should feel no surprise at hearing that it was a very rare species; and this rarity would be a stage towards its extinction. Even in man, so infinitely better known than any other inhabitant of this world, how impossible it has been found, without statistical calculations, to judge of the proportions of births and deaths, of the duration of life, and of the increase and decrease of population; and still less of the causes of such changes: and yet, as has so often been repeated, decrease in numbers or rarity seems to be the high-road to extinction. To marvel at the extermination of a species appears to me to be the same thing as to know that illness is the road to death, – to look at illness as an ordinary event, nevertheless to conclude, when the sick man dies, that his death has been caused by some unknown and violent agency338.
In a future part of this work we shall show that, as a general rule, groups of allied species339 gradually appear and disappear, one after the other, on the face of the earth, like the individuals of the same species: and we shall then endeavour to show the probable cause of this remarkable fact.
CHAPTER VI
ON THE GEOGRAPHICAL DISTRIBUTION OF ORGANIC BEINGS IN PAST AND PRESENT TIMES
For convenience sake I shall divide this chapter into three sections340. In the first place I shall endeavour to state the laws of the distribution of existing beings, as far as our present object is concerned; in the second, that of extinct; and in the third section I shall consider how far these laws accord with the theory of allied species having a common descent.
Section First
Distribution of the inhabitants in the different continents
In the following discussion I shall chiefly refer to terrestrial mammifers, inasmuch as they are better known; their differences in different countries, strongly marked; and especially as the necessary means of their transport are more evident, and confusion, from the accidental conveyance by man of a species from one district to another district, is less likely to arise. It is known that all mammifers (as well as all other organisms) are united in one great system; but that the different species, genera, or families of the same order inhabit different quarters of the globe. If we divide the land341 into two divisions, according to the amount of difference, and disregarding the numbers of the terrestrial mammifers inhabiting them, we shall have first Australia including New Guinea; and secondly the rest of the world: if we make a three-fold division, we shall have Australia, S. America, and the rest of the world; I must observe that North America is in some respects neutral land, from possessing some S. American forms, but I believe it is more closely allied (as it certainly is in its birds, plants and shells) with Europe. If our division had been four-fold, we should have had Australia, S. America, Madagascar (though inhabited by few mammifers) and the remaining land: if five-fold, Africa, especially the southern eastern parts, would have to be separated from the remainder of the world. These differences in the mammiferous inhabitants of the several main divisions of the globe cannot, it is well known, be explained by corresponding differences in their conditions342; how similar are parts of tropical America and Africa; and accordingly we find some analogous resemblances, – thus both have monkeys, both large feline animals, both large Lepidoptera, and large dung-feeding beetles; both have palms and epiphytes; and yet the essential difference between their productions is as great as between those of the arid plains of the Cape of Good Hope and the grass-covered savannahs of La Plata343. Consider the distribution of the Marsupialia, which are eminently characteristic of Australia, and in a lesser degree of S. America; when we reflect that animals of this division, feeding both on animal and vegetable matter, frequent the dry open or wooded plains and mountains of Australia, the humid impenetrable forests of New Guinea and Brazil; the dry rocky mountains of Chile, and the grassy plains of Banda Oriental, we must look to some other cause, than the nature of the country, for their absence in Africa and other quarters of the world.
Furthermore it may be observed that all the organisms inhabiting any country are not perfectly adapted to it344; I mean by not being perfectly adapted, only that some few other organisms can generally be found better adapted to the country than some of the aborigines. We must admit this when we consider the enormous number of horses and cattle which have run wild during the three last centuries in the uninhabited parts of St Domingo, Cuba, and S. America; for these animals must have supplanted some aboriginal ones. I might also adduce the same fact in Australia, but perhaps it will be objected that 30 or 40 years has not been a sufficient period to test this power of struggling «with» and overcoming the aborigines. We know the European mouse is driving before it that of New Zealand, like the Norway rat has driven before it the old English species in England. Scarcely an island can be named, where casually introduced plants have not supplanted some of the native species: in La Plata the Cardoon covers square leagues of country on which some S. American plants must once have grown: the commonest weed over the whole of India is an introduced Mexican poppy. The geologist who knows that slow changes are in progress, replacing land and water, will easily perceive that even if all the organisms of any country had originally been the best adapted to it, this could hardly continue so during succeeding ages without either extermination, or changes, first in the relative proportional numbers of the inhabitants of the country, and finally in their constitutions and structure.
Inspection of a map of the world at once shows that the five divisions, separated according to the greatest amount of difference in the mammifers inhabiting them, are likewise those most widely separated from each other by barriers345 which mammifers cannot pass: thus Australia is separated from New Guinea and some small adjoining islets only by a narrow and shallow strait; whereas New Guinea and its adjoining islets are cut off from the other East Indian islands by deep water. These latter islands, I may remark, which fall into the great Asiatic group, are separated from each other and the continent only by shallow water; and where this is the case we may suppose, from geological oscillations of level, that generally there has been recent union. South America, including the southern part of Mexico, is cut off from North America by the West Indies, and the great table-land of Mexico, except by a mere fringe of tropical forests along the coast: it is owing, perhaps, to this fringe that N. America possesses some S. American forms. Madagascar is entirely isolated. Africa is also to a great extent isolated, although it approaches, by many promontories and by lines of shallower sea, to Europe and Asia: southern Africa, which is the most distinct in its mammiferous inhabitants, is separated from the northern portion by the Great Sahara Desert and the table-land of Abyssinia. That the distribution of organisms is related to barriers, stopping their progress, we clearly see by comparing the distribution of marine and terrestrial productions. The marine animals being different on the two sides of land tenanted by the same terrestrial animals, thus the shells are wholly different on the opposite sides of the temperate parts of South America346, as they are «?» in the Red Sea and the Mediterranean. We can at once perceive that the destruction of a barrier would permit two geographical groups of organisms to fuse and blend into one. But the original cause of groups being different on opposite sides of a barrier can only be understood on the hypothesis of each organism having been created or produced on one spot or area, and afterwards migrating as widely as its means of transport and subsistence permitted it.
Relation of range in genera and species
It is generally347 found, that where a genus or group ranges over nearly the entire world, many of the species composing the group have wide ranges: on the other hand, where a group is restricted to any one country, the species composing it generally have restricted ranges in that country348. Thus among mammifers the feline and canine genera are widely distributed, and many of the individual species have enormous ranges [the genus Mus I believe, however, is a strong exception to the rule]. Mr Gould informs me that the rule holds with birds, as in the owl genus, which is mundane, and many of the species range widely. The rule holds also with land and fresh-water mollusca, with butterflies and very generally with plants. As instances of the converse rule, I may give that division of the monkeys which is confined to S. America, and amongst plants, the Cacti, confined to the same continent, the species of both of which have generally narrow ranges. On the ordinary theory of the separate creation of each species, the cause of these relations is not obvious; we can see no reason, because many allied species have been created in the several main divisions of the world, that several of these species should have wide ranges; and on the other hand, that species of the same group should have narrow ranges if all have been created in one main division of the world. As the result of such and probably many other unknown relations, it is found that, even in the same great classes of beings, the different divisions of the world are characterised by either merely different species, or genera, or even families: thus in cats, mice, foxes, S. America differs from Asia and Africa only in species; in her pigs, camels and monkeys the difference is generic or greater. Again, whilst southern Africa and Australia differ more widely in their mammalia than do Africa and S. America, they are more closely (though indeed very distantly) allied in their plants.
Distribution of the inhabitants in the same continent
If we now look at the distribution of the organisms in any one of the above main divisions of the world, we shall find it split up into many regions, with all or nearly all their species distinct, but yet partaking of one common character. This similarity of type in the subdivisions of a great region is equally well-known with the dissimilarity of the inhabitants of the several great regions; but it has been less often insisted on, though more worthy of remark. Thus for instance, if in Africa or S. America, we go from south to north349, or from lowland to upland, or from a humid to a dryer part, we find wholly different species of those genera or groups which characterise the continent over which we are passing. In these subdivisions we may clearly observe, as in the main divisions of the world, that sub-barriers divide different groups of species, although the opposite sides of such sub-barriers may possess nearly the same climate, and may be in other respects nearly similar: thus it is on the opposite sides of the Cordillera of Chile, and in a lesser degree on the opposite sides of the Rocky mountains. Deserts, arms of the sea, and even rivers form the barriers; mere preoccupied space seems sufficient in several cases: thus Eastern and Western Australia, in the same latitude, with very similar climate and soils, have scarcely a plant, and few animals or birds, in common, although all belong to the peculiar genera characterising Australia. It is in short impossible to explain the differences in the inhabitants, either of the main divisions of the world, or of these sub-divisions, by the differences in their physical conditions, and by the adaptation of their inhabitants. Some other cause must intervene.
We can see that the destruction of sub-barriers would cause (as before remarked in the case of the main divisions) two sub-divisions to blend into one; and we can only suppose that the original difference in the species, on the opposite sides of sub-barriers, is due to the creation or production of species in distinct areas, from which they have wandered till arrested by such sub-barriers. Although thus far is pretty clear, it may be asked, why, when species in the same main division of the world were produced on opposite sides of a sub-barrier, both when exposed to similar conditions and when exposed to widely different influences (as on alpine and lowland tracts, as on arid and humid soils, as in cold and hot climates), have they invariably been formed on a similar type, and that type confined to this one division of the world? Why when an ostrich350 was produced in the southern parts of America, was it formed on the American type, instead of on the African or on Australian types? Why when hare-like and rabbit-like animals were formed to live on the Savannahs of La Plata, were they produced on the peculiar Rodent type of S. America, instead of on the true351 hare-type of North America, Asia and Africa? Why when borrowing Rodents, and camel-like animals were formed to tenant the Cordillera, were they formed on the same type352 with their representatives on the plains? Why were the mice, and many birds of different species on the opposite sides of the Cordillera, but exposed to a very similar climate and soil, created on the same peculiar S. American type? Why were the plants in Eastern and Western Australia, though wholly different as species, formed on the same peculiar Australian types? The generality of the rule, in so many places and under such different circumstances, makes it highly remarkable and seems to demand some explanation.
Insular Faunas
If we now look to the character of the inhabitants of small islands353, we shall find that those situated close to other land have a similar fauna with that land354, whilst those at a considerable distance from other land often possess an almost entirely peculiar fauna. The Galapagos Archipelago355 is a remarkable instance of this latter fact; here almost every bird, its one mammifer, its reptiles, land and sea shells, and even fish, are almost all peculiar and distinct species, not found in any other quarter of the world: so are the majority of its plants. But although situated at the distance of between 500 and 600 miles from the S. American coast, it is impossible to even glance at a large part of its fauna, especially at the birds, without at once seeing that they belong to the American type356. Hence, in fact, groups of islands thus circumstanced form merely small but well-defined sub-divisions of the larger geographical divisions. But the fact is in such cases far more striking: for taking the Galapagos Archipelago as an instance; in the first place we must feel convinced, seeing that every island is wholly volcanic and bristles with craters, that in a geological sense the whole is of recent origin comparatively with a continent; and as the species are nearly all peculiar, we must conclude that they have in the same sense recently been produced on this very spot; and although in the nature of the soil, and in a lesser degree in the climate, there is a wide difference with the nearer part of the S. American coast, we see that the inhabitants have been formed on the same closely allied type. On the other hand, these islands, as far as their physical conditions are concerned, resemble closely the Cape de Verde volcanic group, and yet how wholly unlike are the productions of these two archipelagoes. The Cape de Verde357 group, to which may be added the Canary Islands, are allied in their inhabitants (of which many are peculiar species) to the coast of Africa and southern Europe, in precisely the same manner as the Galapagos Archipelago is allied to America. We here clearly see that mere geographical proximity affects, more than any relation of adaptation, the character of species. How many islands in the Pacific exist far more like in their physical conditions to Juan Fernandez than this island is to the coast of Chile, distant 300 miles; why then, except from mere proximity, should this island alone be tenanted by two very peculiar species of humming-birds – that form of birds which is so exclusively American? Innumerable other similar cases might be adduced.
The Galapagos Archipelago offers another, even more remarkable, example of the class of facts we are here considering. Most of its genera are, as we have said, American, many of them are mundane, or found everywhere, and some are quite or nearly confined to this archipelago. The islands are of absolutely similar composition, and exposed to the same climate; most of them are in sight of each other; and yet several of the islands are inhabited, each by peculiar species (or in some cases perhaps only varieties) of some of the genera characterising the archipelago. So that the small group of the Galapagos Islands typifies, and follows exactly the same laws in the distribution of its inhabitants, as a great continent. How wonderful it is that two or three closely similar but distinct species of a mocking-thrush358 should have been produced on three neighbouring and absolutely similar islands; and that these three species of mocking-thrush should be closely related to the other species inhabiting wholly different climates and different districts of America, and only in America. No similar case so striking as this of the Galapagos Archipelago has hitherto been observed; and this difference of the productions in the different islands may perhaps be partly explained by the depth of the sea between them (showing that they could not have been united within recent geological periods), and by the currents of the sea sweeping straight between them, – and by storms of wind being rare, through which means seeds and birds could be blown, or drifted, from one island to another. There are however some similar facts: it is said that the different, though neighbouring islands of the East Indian Archipelago are inhabited by some different species of the same genera; and at the Sandwich group some of the islands have each their peculiar species of the same genera of plants.
Islands standing quite isolated within the intra-tropical oceans have generally very peculiar floras, related, though feebly (as in the case of St Helena359 where almost every species is distinct), with the nearest continent: Tristan d'Acunha is feebly related, I believe, in its plants, both to Africa and S. America, not by having species in common, but by the genera to which they belong360. The floras of the numerous scattered islands of the Pacific are related to each other and to all the surrounding continents; but it has been said, that they have more of an Indo-Asiatic than American character361. This is somewhat remarkable, as America is nearer to all the Eastern islands, and lies in the direction of the trade-wind and prevailing currents; on the other hand, all the heaviest gales come from the Asiatic side. But even with the aid of these gales, it is not obvious on the ordinary theory of creation how the possibility of migration (without we suppose, with extreme improbability, that each species with an Indo-Asiatic character has actually travelled from the Asiatic shores, where such species do not now exist) explains this Asiatic character in the plants of the Pacific. This is no more obvious than that (as before remarked) there should exist a relation between the creation of closely allied species in several regions of the world, and the fact of many such species having wide ranges; and on the other hand, of allied species confined to one region of the world having in that region narrow ranges.
