<p><SPAN name="link2HCH0011" id="link2HCH0011"></SPAN></p>
<h2> CHAPTER XI. ON THE GEOLOGICAL SUCCESSION OF ORGANIC BEINGS. </h2>
<p>On the slow and successive appearance of new species—On their different<br/>
rates of change—Species once lost do not reappear—Groups of species<br/>
follow the same general rules in their appearance and disappearance as<br/>
do single species—On extinction—On simultaneous changes in the forms<br/>
of life throughout the world—On the affinities of extinct species to<br/>
each other and to living species—On the state of development of<br/>
ancient forms—On the succession of the same types within the same<br/>
areas—Summary of preceding and present chapters.<br/></p>
<p>Let us now see whether the several facts and laws relating to the
geological succession of organic beings accord best with the common view
of the immutability of species, or with that of their slow and gradual
modification, through variation and natural selection.</p>
<p>New species have appeared very slowly, one after another, both on the land
and in the waters. Lyell has shown that it is hardly possible to resist
the evidence on this head in the case of the several tertiary stages; and
every year tends to fill up the blanks between the stages, and to make the
proportion between the lost and existing forms more gradual. In some of
the most recent beds, though undoubtedly of high antiquity if measured by
years, only one or two species are extinct, and only one or two are new,
having appeared there for the first time, either locally, or, as far as we
know, on the face of the earth. The secondary formations are more broken;
but, as Bronn has remarked, neither the appearance nor disappearance of
the many species embedded in each formation has been simultaneous.</p>
<p>Species belonging to different genera and classes have not changed at the
same rate, or in the same degree. In the older tertiary beds a few living
shells may still be found in the midst of a multitude of extinct forms.
Falconer has given a striking instance of a similar fact, for an existing
crocodile is associated with many lost mammals and reptiles in the
sub-Himalayan deposits. The Silurian Lingula differs but little from the
living species of this genus; whereas most of the other Silurian Molluscs
and all the Crustaceans have changed greatly. The productions of the land
seem to have changed at a quicker rate than those of the sea, of which a
striking instance has been observed in Switzerland. There is some reason
to believe that organisms high in the scale, change more quickly than
those that are low: though there are exceptions to this rule. The amount
of organic change, as Pictet has remarked, is not the same in each
successive so-called formation. Yet if we compare any but the most closely
related formations, all the species will be found to have undergone some
change. When a species has once disappeared from the face of the earth, we
have no reason to believe that the same identical form ever reappears. The
strongest apparent exception to this latter rule is that of the so-called
"colonies" of M. Barrande, which intrude for a period in the midst of an
older formation, and then allow the pre-existing fauna to reappear; but
Lyell's explanation, namely, that it is a case of temporary migration from
a distinct geographical province, seems satisfactory.</p>
<p>These several facts accord well with our theory, which includes no fixed
law of development, causing all the inhabitants of an area to change
abruptly, or simultaneously, or to an equal degree. The process of
modification must be slow, and will generally affect only a few species at
the same time; for the variability of each species is independent of that
of all others. Whether such variations or individual differences as may
arise will be accumulated through natural selection in a greater or less
degree, thus causing a greater or less amount of permanent modification,
will depend on many complex contingencies—on the variations being of
a beneficial nature, on the freedom of intercrossing, on the slowly
changing physical conditions of the country, on the immigration of new
colonists, and on the nature of the other inhabitants with which the
varying species come into competition. Hence it is by no means surprising
that one species should retain the same identical form much longer than
others; or, if changing, should change in a less degree. We find similar
relations between the existing inhabitants of distinct countries; for
instance, the land-shells and coleopterous insects of Madeira have come to
differ considerably from their nearest allies on the continent of Europe,
whereas the marine shells and birds have remained unaltered. We can
perhaps understand the apparently quicker rate of change in terrestrial
and in more highly organised productions compared with marine and lower
productions, by the more complex relations of the higher beings to their
organic and inorganic conditions of life, as explained in a former
chapter. When many of the inhabitants of any area have become modified and
improved, we can understand, on the principle of competition, and from the
all-important relations of organism to organism in the struggle for life,
that any form which did not become in some degree modified and improved,
would be liable to extermination. Hence, we see why all the species in the
same region do at last, if we look to long enough intervals of time,
become modified; for otherwise they would become extinct.</p>
<p>In members of the same class the average amount of change, during long and
equal periods of time, may, perhaps, be nearly the same; but as the
accumulation of enduring formations, rich in fossils, depends on great
masses of sediment being deposited on subsiding areas, our formations have
been almost necessarily accumulated at wide and irregularly intermittent
intervals of time; consequently the amount of organic change exhibited by
the fossils embedded in consecutive formations is not equal. Each
formation, on this view, does not mark a new and complete act of creation,
but only an occasional scene, taken almost at hazard, in an ever slowly
changing drama.</p>
<p>We can clearly understand why a species when once lost should never
reappear, even if the very same conditions of life, organic and inorganic,
should recur. For though the offspring of one species might be adapted
(and no doubt this has occurred in innumerable instances) to fill the
place of another species in the economy of nature, and thus supplant it;
yet the two forms—the old and the new—would not be identically
the same; for both would almost certainly inherit different characters
from their distinct progenitors; and organisms already differing would
vary in a different manner. For instance, it is possible, if all our
fantail-pigeons were destroyed, that fanciers might make a new breed
hardly distinguishable from the present breed; but if the parent
rock-pigeon were likewise destroyed, and under nature we have every reason
to believe that parent forms are generally supplanted and exterminated by
their improved offspring, it is incredible that a fantail, identical with
the existing breed, could be raised from any other species of pigeon, or
even from any other well established race of the domestic pigeon, for the
successive variations would almost certainly be in some degree different,
and the newly-formed variety would probably inherit from its progenitor
some characteristic differences.</p>
<p>Groups of species, that is, genera and families, follow the same general
rules in their appearance and disappearance as do single species, changing
more or less quickly, and in a greater or lesser degree. A group, when it
has once disappeared, never reappears; that is, its existence, as long as
it lasts, is continuous. I am aware that there are some apparent
exceptions to this rule, but the exceptions are surprisingly few, so few
that E. Forbes, Pictet, and Woodward (though all strongly opposed to such
views as I maintain) admit its truth; and the rule strictly accords with
the theory. For all the species of the same group, however long it may
have lasted, are the modified descendants one from the other, and all from
a common progenitor. In the genus Lingula, for instance, the species which
have successively appeared at all ages must have been connected by an
unbroken series of generations, from the lowest Silurian stratum to the
present day.</p>
<p>We have seen in the last chapter that whole groups of species sometimes
falsely appear to have been abruptly developed; and I have attempted to
give an explanation of this fact, which if true would be fatal to my
views. But such cases are certainly exceptional; the general rule being a
gradual increase in number, until the group reaches its maximum, and then,
sooner or later, a gradual decrease. If the number of the species included
within a genus, or the number of the genera within a family, be
represented by a vertical line of varying thickness, ascending through the
successive geological formations, in which the species are found, the line
will sometimes falsely appear to begin at its lower end, not in a sharp
point, but abruptly; it then gradually thickens upwards, often keeping of
equal thickness for a space, and ultimately thins out in the upper beds,
marking the decrease and final extinction of the species. This gradual
increase in number of the species of a group is strictly conformable with
the theory; for the species of the same genus, and the genera of the same
family, can increase only slowly and progressively; the process of
modification and the production of a number of allied forms necessarily
being a slow and gradual process, one species first giving rise to two or
three varieties, these being slowly converted into species, which in their
turn produce by equally slow steps other varieties and species, and so on,
like the branching of a great tree from a single stem, till the group
becomes large.</p>
<p>ON EXTINCTION.</p>
<p>We have as yet only spoken incidentally of the disappearance of species
and of groups of species. On the theory of natural selection, the
extinction of old forms and the production of new and improved forms are
intimately connected together. The old notion of all the inhabitants of
the earth having been swept away by catastrophes at successive periods is
very generally given up, even by those geologists, as Elie de Beaumont,
Murchison, Barrande, etc., whose general views would naturally lead them
to this conclusion. On the contrary, we have every reason to believe, from
the study of the tertiary formations, that species and groups of species
gradually disappear, one after another, first from one spot, then from
another, and finally from the world. In some few cases, however, as by the
breaking of an isthmus and the consequent irruption of a multitude of new
inhabitants into an adjoining sea, or by the final subsidence of an
island, the process of extinction may have been rapid. Both single species
and whole groups of species last for very unequal periods; some groups, as
we have seen, have endured from the earliest known dawn of life to the
present day; some have disappeared before the close of the palaeozoic
period. No fixed law seems to determine the length of time during which
any single species or any single genus endures. There is reason to believe
that the extinction of a whole group of species is generally a slower
process than their production: if their appearance and disappearance be
represented, as before, by a vertical line of varying thickness the line
is found to taper more gradually at its upper end, which marks the
progress of extermination, than at its lower end, which marks the first
appearance and the early increase in number of the species. In some cases,
however, the extermination of whole groups, as of ammonites, towards the
close of the secondary period, has been wonderfully sudden.</p>
<p>The extinction of species has been involved in the most gratuitous
mystery. Some authors have even supposed that, as the individual has a
definite length of life, so have species a definite duration. No one can
have marvelled more than I have done at the extinction of species. When I
found in La Plata the tooth of a horse embedded with the remains of
Mastodon, Megatherium, Toxodon and other extinct monsters, which all
co-existed with still living shells at a very late geological period, I
was filled with astonishment; for, seeing that the horse, since its
introduction by the Spaniards into South America, has run wild over the
whole country and has increased in numbers at an unparalleled rate, I
asked myself what could so recently have exterminated the former horse
under conditions of life apparently so favourable. But my astonishment was
groundless. Professor Owen soon perceived that the tooth, though so like
that of the existing horse, belonged to an extinct species. Had this horse
been still living, but in some degree rare, no naturalist would have felt
the least surprise at its rarity; for rarity is the attribute of a vast
number of species of all classes, in all countries. If we ask ourselves
why this or that species is rare, we answer that something is unfavourable
in its conditions of life; but what that something is, we can hardly ever
tell. On the supposition of the fossil horse still existing as a rare
species, we might have felt certain, from the analogy of all other
mammals, even of the slow-breeding elephant, and from the history of the
naturalisation of the domestic horse in South America, that under more
favourable conditions it would in a very few years have stocked the whole
continent. But we could not have told what the unfavourable conditions
were which checked its increase, whether some one or several
contingencies, and at what period of the horse's life, and in what degree
they severally acted. If the conditions had gone on, however slowly,
becoming less and less favourable, we assuredly should not have perceived
the fact, yet the fossil horse would certainly have become rarer and
rarer, and finally extinct—its place being seized on by some more
successful competitor.</p>
<p>It is most difficult always to remember that the increase of every living
creature is constantly being checked by unperceived hostile agencies; and
that these same unperceived agencies are amply sufficient to cause rarity,
and finally extinction. So little is this subject understood, that I have
heard surprise repeatedly expressed at such great monsters as the Mastodon
and the more ancient Dinosaurians having become extinct; as if mere bodily
strength gave victory in the battle of life. Mere size, on the contrary,
would in some cases determine, as has been remarked by Owen, quicker
extermination, from the greater amount of requisite food. Before man
inhabited India or Africa, some cause must have checked the continued
increase of the existing elephant. A highly capable judge, Dr. Falconer,
believes that it is chiefly insects which, from incessantly harassing and
weakening the elephant in India, check its increase; and this was Bruce's
conclusion with respect to the African elephant in Abyssinia. It is
certain that insects and blood-sucking bats determine the existence of the
larger naturalised quadrupeds in several parts of South America.</p>
<p>We see in many cases in the more recent tertiary formations that rarity
precedes extinction; and we know that this has been the progress of events
with those animals which have been exterminated, either locally or wholly,
through man's agency. I may repeat what I published in 1845, namely, that
to admit that species generally become rare before they become extinct—to
feel no surprise at the rarity of a species, and yet to marvel greatly
when the species ceases to exist, is much the same as to admit that
sickness in the individual is the forerunner of death—to feel no
surprise at sickness, but, when the sick man dies, to wonder and to
suspect that he died by some deed of violence.</p>
<p>The theory of natural selection is grounded on the belief that each new
variety and ultimately each new species, is produced and maintained by
having some advantage over those with which it comes into competition; and
the consequent extinction of less-favoured forms almost inevitably
follows. It is the same with our domestic productions: when a new and
slightly improved variety has been raised, it at first supplants the less
improved varieties in the same neighbourhood; when much improved it is
transported far and near, like our short-horn cattle, and takes the place
of other breeds in other countries. Thus the appearance of new forms and
the disappearance of old forms, both those naturally and artificially
produced, are bound together. In flourishing groups, the number of new
specific forms which have been produced within a given time has at some
periods probably been greater than the number of the old specific forms
which have been exterminated; but we know that species have not gone on
indefinitely increasing, at least during the later geological epochs, so
that, looking to later times, we may believe that the production of new
forms has caused the extinction of about the same number of old forms.</p>
<p>The competition will generally be most severe, as formerly explained and
illustrated by examples, between the forms which are most like each other
in all respects. Hence the improved and modified descendants of a species
will generally cause the extermination of the parent-species; and if many
new forms have been developed from any one species, the nearest allies of
that species, i.e. the species of the same genus, will be the most liable
to extermination. Thus, as I believe, a number of new species descended
from one species, that is a new genus, comes to supplant an old genus,
belonging to the same family. But it must often have happened that a new
species belonging to some one group has seized on the place occupied by a
species belonging to a distinct group, and thus have caused its
extermination. If many allied forms be developed from the successful
intruder, many will have to yield their places; and it will generally be
the allied forms, which will suffer from some inherited inferiority in
common. But whether it be species belonging to the same or to a distinct
class, which have yielded their places to other modified and improved
species, a few of the sufferers may often be preserved for a long time,
from being fitted to some peculiar line of life, or from inhabiting some
distant and isolated station, where they will have escaped severe
competition. For instance, some species of Trigonia, a great genus of
shells in the secondary formations, survive in the Australian seas; and a
few members of the great and almost extinct group of Ganoid fishes still
inhabit our fresh waters. Therefore, the utter extinction of a group is
generally, as we have seen, a slower process than its production.</p>
<p>With respect to the apparently sudden extermination of whole families or
orders, as of Trilobites at the close of the palaeozoic period, and of
Ammonites at the close of the secondary period, we must remember what has
been already said on the probable wide intervals of time between our
consecutive formations; and in these intervals there may have been much
slow extermination. Moreover, when, by sudden immigration or by unusually
rapid development, many species of a new group have taken possession of an
area, many of the older species will have been exterminated in a
correspondingly rapid manner; and the forms which thus yield their places
will commonly be allied, for they will partake of the same inferiority in
common.</p>
<p>Thus, as it seems to me, the manner in which single species and whole
groups of species become extinct accords well with the theory of natural
selection. We need not marvel at extinction; if we must marvel, let it be
at our presumption in imagining for a moment that we understand the many
complex contingencies on which the existence of each species depends. If
we forget for an instant that each species tends to increase inordinately,
and that some check is always in action, yet seldom perceived by us, the
whole economy of nature will be utterly obscured. Whenever we can
precisely say why this species is more abundant in individuals than that;
why this species and not another can be naturalised in a given country;
then, and not until then, we may justly feel surprise why we cannot
account for the extinction of any particular species or group of species.</p>
<p>ON THE FORMS OF LIFE CHANGING ALMOST SIMULTANEOUSLY THROUGHOUT THE WORLD.</p>
<p>Scarcely any palaeontological discovery is more striking than the fact
that the forms of life change almost simultaneously throughout the world.
Thus our European Chalk formation can be recognised in many distant
regions, under the most different climates, where not a fragment of the
mineral chalk itself can be found; namely, in North America, in equatorial
South America, in Tierra del Fuego, at the Cape of Good Hope, and in the
peninsula of India. For at these distant points, the organic remains in
certain beds present an unmistakable resemblance to those of the Chalk. It
is not that the same species are met with; for in some cases not one
species is identically the same, but they belong to the same families,
genera, and sections of genera, and sometimes are similarly characterised
in such trifling points as mere superficial sculpture. Moreover, other
forms, which are not found in the Chalk of Europe, but which occur in the
formations either above or below, occur in the same order at these distant
points of the world. In the several successive palaeozoic formations of
Russia, Western Europe and North America, a similar parallelism in the
forms of life has been observed by several authors; so it is, according to
Lyell, with the European and North American tertiary deposits. Even if the
few fossil species which are common to the Old and New Worlds were kept
wholly out of view, the general parallelism in the successive forms of
life, in the palaeozoic and tertiary stages, would still be manifest, and
the several formations could be easily correlated.</p>
<p>These observations, however, relate to the marine inhabitants of the
world: we have not sufficient data to judge whether the productions of the
land and of fresh water at distant points change in the same parallel
manner. We may doubt whether they have thus changed: if the Megatherium,
Mylodon, Macrauchenia, and Toxodon had been brought to Europe from La
Plata, without any information in regard to their geological position, no
one would have suspected that they had co-existed with sea-shells all
still living; but as these anomalous monsters co-existed with the Mastodon
and Horse, it might at least have been inferred that they had lived during
one of the later tertiary stages.</p>
<p>When the marine forms of life are spoken of as having changed
simultaneously throughout the world, it must not be supposed that this
expression relates to the same year, or even to the same century, or even
that it has a very strict geological sense; for if all the marine animals
now living in Europe, and all those that lived in Europe during the
pleistocene period (a very remote period as measured by years, including
the whole glacial epoch) were compared with those now existing in South
America or in Australia, the most skilful naturalist would hardly be able
to say whether the present or the pleistocene inhabitants of Europe
resembled most closely those of the southern hemisphere. So, again,
several highly competent observers maintain that the existing productions
of the United States are more closely related to those which lived in
Europe during certain late tertiary stages, than to the present
inhabitants of Europe; and if this be so, it is evident that fossiliferous
beds now deposited on the shores of North America would hereafter be
liable to be classed with somewhat older European beds. Nevertheless,
looking to a remotely future epoch, there can be little doubt that all the
more modern MARINE formations, namely, the upper pliocene, the pleistocene
and strictly modern beds of Europe, North and South America, and
Australia, from containing fossil remains in some degree allied, and from
not including those forms which are found only in the older underlying
deposits, would be correctly ranked as simultaneous in a geological sense.</p>
<p>The fact of the forms of life changing simultaneously in the above large
sense, at distant parts of the world, has greatly struck those admirable
observers, MM. de Verneuil and d'Archiac. After referring to the
parallelism of the palaeozoic forms of life in various parts of Europe,
they add, "If struck by this strange sequence, we turn our attention to
North America, and there discover a series of analogous phenomena, it will
appear certain that all these modifications of species, their extinction,
and the introduction of new ones, cannot be owing to mere changes in
marine currents or other causes more or less local and temporary, but
depend on general laws which govern the whole animal kingdom." M. Barrande
has made forcible remarks to precisely the same effect. It is, indeed,
quite futile to look to changes of currents, climate, or other physical
conditions, as the cause of these great mutations in the forms of life
throughout the world, under the most different climates. We must, as
Barrande has remarked, look to some special law. We shall see this more
clearly when we treat of the present distribution of organic beings, and
find how slight is the relation between the physical conditions of various
countries and the nature of their inhabitants.</p>
<p>This great fact of the parallel succession of the forms of life throughout
the world, is explicable on the theory of natural selection. New species
are formed by having some advantage over older forms; and the forms, which
are already dominant, or have some advantage over the other forms in their
own country, give birth to the greatest number of new varieties or
incipient species. We have distinct evidence on this head, in the plants
which are dominant, that is, which are commonest and most widely diffused,
producing the greatest number of new varieties. It is also natural that
the dominant, varying and far-spreading species, which have already
invaded, to a certain extent, the territories of other species, should be
those which would have the best chance of spreading still further, and of
giving rise in new countries to other new varieties and species. The
process of diffusion would often be very slow, depending on climatal and
geographical changes, on strange accidents, and on the gradual
acclimatization of new species to the various climates through which they
might have to pass, but in the course of time the dominant forms would
generally succeed in spreading and would ultimately prevail. The diffusion
would, it is probable, be slower with the terrestrial inhabitants of
distinct continents than with the marine inhabitants of the continuous
sea. We might therefore expect to find, as we do find, a less strict
degree of parallelism in the succession of the productions of the land
than with those of the sea.</p>
<p>Thus, as it seems to me, the parallel, and, taken in a large sense,
simultaneous, succession of the same forms of life throughout the world,
accords well with the principle of new species having been formed by
dominant species spreading widely and varying; the new species thus
produced being themselves dominant, owing to their having had some
advantage over their already dominant parents, as well as over other
species; and again spreading, varying, and producing new forms. The old
forms which are beaten and which yield their places to the new and
victorious forms, will generally be allied in groups, from inheriting some
inferiority in common; and, therefore, as new and improved groups spread
throughout the world, old groups disappear from the world; and the
succession of forms everywhere tends to correspond both in their first
appearance and final disappearance.</p>
<p>There is one other remark connected with this subject worth making. I have
given my reasons for believing that most of our great formations, rich in
fossils, were deposited during periods of subsidence; and that blank
intervals of vast duration, as far as fossils are concerned, occurred
during the periods when the bed of the sea was either stationary or
rising, and likewise when sediment was not thrown down quickly enough to
embed and preserve organic remains. During these long and blank intervals
I suppose that the inhabitants of each region underwent a considerable
amount of modification and extinction, and that there was much migration
from other parts of the world. As we have reason to believe that large
areas are affected by the same movement, it is probable that strictly
contemporaneous formations have often been accumulated over very wide
spaces in the same quarter of the world; but we are very far from having
any right to conclude that this has invariably been the case, and that
large areas have invariably been affected by the same movements. When two
formations have been deposited in two regions during nearly, but not
exactly, the same period, we should find in both, from the causes
explained in the foregoing paragraphs, the same general succession in the
forms of life; but the species would not exactly correspond; for there
will have been a little more time in the one region than in the other for
modification, extinction, and immigration.</p>
<p>I suspect that cases of this nature occur in Europe. Mr. Prestwich, in his
admirable Memoirs on the eocene deposits of England and France, is able to
draw a close general parallelism between the successive stages in the two
countries; but when he compares certain stages in England with those in
France, although he finds in both a curious accordance in the numbers of
the species belonging to the same genera, yet the species themselves
differ in a manner very difficult to account for considering the proximity
of the two areas, unless, indeed, it be assumed that an isthmus separated
two seas inhabited by distinct, but contemporaneous faunas. Lyell has made
similar observations on some of the later tertiary formations. Barrande,
also, shows that there is a striking general parallelism in the successive
Silurian deposits of Bohemia and Scandinavia; nevertheless he finds a
surprising amount of difference in the species. If the several formations
in these regions have not been deposited during the same exact periods—a
formation in one region often corresponding with a blank interval in the
other—and if in both regions the species have gone on slowly
changing during the accumulation of the several formations and during the
long intervals of time between them; in this case the several formations
in the two regions could be arranged in the same order, in accordance with
the general succession of the forms of life, and the order would falsely
appear to be strictly parallel; nevertheless the species would not all be
the same in the apparently corresponding stages in the two regions.</p>
<div style="break-after:column;"></div><br />