Chapter XIX: Introduction (1)

Since the time when Duméril made known the transformation of a number of Axolotls into the so-called Amblystoma form, this Mexican Amphibian has been bred in many European aquaria, chiefly with the view to establish the conditions under which this transformation occurred, so as to be enabled to draw further conclusions as to the true causes of this exceptional and enigmatical metamorphosis.

Although the Amphibians propagated freely, the cases in which transformation occurred remained extremely rare, and it was not once possible to reply to the main question, viz. whether this metamorphosis was determined by external conditions or by purely internal causes; to say nothing of the possibility of there perhaps being discoverable certain definite external influences by means of which the metamorphosis could have been induced with certainty. But while these points are undecided all attempted theoretical interpretations of the phenomenon must be devoid of a solid basis.

It appeared to me from the first that the history of this transformation of the Axolotl was of special theoretical value; indeed I believed that it might possibly furnish a special case for deciding the truth of those ground-principles, according to which the origin of this species is represented by the two conflicting schools as a case of transformation or as one of heterogenesis. I therefore determined to make some experiments with the Axolotl myself, in the hopes of being fortunate enough to be able to throw some light upon the subject.

In the year 1872 Prof. v. Kölliker was so good as to leave with me five specimens of his Axolotls, bred in Würzburg, and these furnished a numerous progeny in the following year. With these I carried out the idea, the theoretical bearing of which will be shown subsequently, whether it would not be possible to force all the larvæ, or at any rate, the greater majority, to undergo transformation by exposing them to conditions of life which made the use of gills difficult, and that of lungs more easy; in other words, by compelling them to live partly on land at a certain stage of life.

During that year indeed I obtained no results, most of the larvæ perishing before the time for such an experiment had arrived, and the few survivors did not undergo transformation, but lived on to the following spring and then also died one after the other. Through long absence from Freiburg, necessitated by other labours, I had evidently left them without sufficient care and attention. I was thus led to the conviction, which was more fully confirmed subsequently, that no results can be obtained without the greatest care and attention in rearing, towards which single object all one’s interest should be concentrated, and it must not be considered irksome to have to devote daily for many months a large amount of time to this experiment. As it was evident that I could not afford this time without calling in other aid, I hailed with pleasure an opportunity of witnessing the experiment performed by other hands.

A lady living here (Freiburg), Fräulein v. Chauvin, undertook to rear a number of my larvæ of the following year which had just hatched, and in accordance with my idea to make the experiment of forcibly compelling them to adopt the Amblystoma form. How completely this was accomplished will be seen from the following notes by the lady herself, and it will no less appear that these results were only obtained by that care in treatment and delicacy of observation which she devoted to the experiments.

EXPERIMENTS.

“I began the experiments on June 12th, 1874, with five larvæ about eight days old, these being the only survivors out of twelve. Owing to the extraordinary delicacy of these creatures, the quality and temperature of the water, and the nature and quantity of their food exerts the greatest influence, especially in early life, and one cannot be too cautious in their treatment.

“The specimens were kept in a glass globe of about thirty centimeters in diameter, the temperature of the water being regulated; as food at first Daphnids, and afterwards larger aquatic animals were introduced in large numbers. By this means all the five larvæ throve excellently. At the end of June the rudiments of the front legs appeared in the most vigorous specimens, and on the 9th of July the hind legs also became visible. At the end of November I noticed that one Axolotl remained constantly at the surface of the water, and this led me to suppose that the right period had now arrived for effecting the transformation into Amblystoma. For brevity I shall designate this as No. I., and the succeeding specimens by corresponding Roman numerals.

“In order to bring about this metamorphosis, on December 1st, 1874, No. I. was placed in a large-sized glass vessel containing earth arranged in such a manner that, when the vessel was filled with water, only one portion of the surface of the earth was entirely covered by the liquid, and the creature in the course of its frequent perigrinations was thus more or less exposed to the air. The water was gradually diminished on the following days, during which period the first changes made their appearance in the Amphibian--_the gills commenced to shrivel up_, and at the same time the creature showed a tendency to seek the shallowest spots. On December 4th, it took entirely to the land, and concealed itself among some damp moss which I had placed on a heap of sand on the highest portion of the earth in the glass vessel. At this period the first ecdysis occurred. Within the four days from the 1st to the 4th of December, a striking change took place in the external appearance of No. I., the gill-tufts shrivelled up almost entirely, the dorsal crest completely disappeared, and the tail, which had hitherto been broad, became rounded and similarly formed to that of a land salamander. The grey-brown colour of the body changed gradually into a blackish hue; isolated spots, at first of a dull white, made their appearance and these in time increased in intensity.

“When the Axolotl left the water on December 4th the gill-clefts were still open, but these closed gradually, and after about eight days were overgrown with skin and no longer to be seen.

“Of the other larvæ three appeared at the end of November (_i.e._ at the same time when No. I. came to the surface of the water) to have kept pace in development with No. I., an indication that for these also the right period had arrived for accelerating the developmental processes. They were therefore submitted to the same treatment as No. I. No. II. became transformed at the same time and exactly in the same manner as the latter; its gill-tufts were complete when it was first placed in the shallow water, but after four days these had almost entirely disappeared; in the course of about ten days after it took to the land, the overgrowth of skin on the gill-clefts and the complete assumption of the salamander form occurred. During this last period the creature took food, but only when urged to do so.

“In Nos. III. and IV. the development proceeded more slowly. Neither of these so frequently sought the shallow spots, nor did they as a rule remain so long exposed to the air, so that the greater part of January had expired before they took entirely to the land. Nevertheless the dessication of the gill-tufts did not take a longer time than in Nos. I. and II. as the first ecdysis occurred as soon as they took to the land.

“No. V. showed still more striking deviations in its transformation than Nos. III. and IV., but as this specimen appeared much weaker than the others from the beginning and was retarded in growth to a most notable extent, this is by no means surprising. It took fourteen instead of four days before the transformation had advanced far enough to enable it to leave the water. It was especially interesting to observe the behaviour of this specimen during this period. Its weak and delicate constitution evidently made it much more susceptible to all external influences than the others. If exposed to the air for too long a time it acquired a light colour, and when annoyed or alarmed it emitted a peculiar odour, similar to that of a salamander. As soon as these phenomena were observed it was at once placed in deeper water, into which it immediately plunged and gradually recovered itself, the gills always becoming again expanded. The same experiment was repeated several times and always led to the same result, from which we may venture to conclude that by accelerating the transformation too energetically, the process may come to a standstill, and even by continued compulsion may end in death.

“It yet remains to be mentioned with respect to Axolotl No. V. that this specimen, unlike all the others, did not emerge from the water at the first ecdysis, but at the time of the fourth.

“All the Axolotls are now (July, 1875) living, and are healthy and vigorous, so that with respect to their state of nourishment there is nothing to prevent their propagating. Of the first four the largest is fifteen centim. long; Axolotl No. V. measures twelve centim.

“The preceding statements appear to demonstrate the correctness of the views advanced in the Introduction:--Axolotl larvæ generally but not always complete their metamorphosis if, in the first place, they emerge sound from the egg and are properly fed; and if, in the next place, they are submitted to the necessary treatment for changing aquatic into aërial respiration. It is obvious that this treatment must only be applied very gradually, and in such a manner as not to overtax the vital energy of the Amphibian.”

* * * * *

To the foregoing remarks of Fräulein v. Chauvin I may add that in all five cases the transformation was complete, and not to be confounded with that change which occurs more or less in all Axolotls in the course of time when confined in small glass vessels. In this last case there frequently appear changes in the direction of the Amblystoma form without the latter being actually reached. In the five adult Axolotls which I possessed for a short time, and of which two were at least four years old, the gills were much shrivelled, but the aquatic tail and dorsal crest were unchanged. The crest may, however, also disappear, and the tail become shortened without these changes being due to a transformation into Amblystoma, as will be shown further on.

With respect to the duration of the transformation, this amounted in Axolotls Nos. I. to IV. altogether to twelve or fourteen days. Of these, four days were taken by the first changes which occurred while the creature was still in the water; the remaining time, to the completion of the metamorphosis, was passed on land. Duméril gives the duration of the metamorphosis as sixteen days.

The following results of the experiments just described appear to me to be especially noteworthy:--The five Axolotl larvæ which can alone be taken into consideration, the others having soon perished, all experienced metamorphosis, and without an exception became Amblystomas. Only one of them, No. I., by persistently swimming at the surface, as was observed at the end of six months, showed a decided tendency to undergo metamorphosis and to adopt aërial respiration. With respect to this specimen it may therefore be confidently assumed that it would have taken to the land, and that metamorphosis would have occurred without artificial aid, just as was the case in the thirty specimens which Duméril altogether observed.

Respecting Nos. II., III., and IV., on the other hand, such a supposition is but little probable. These three larvæ endeavoured to keep in deep water and avoided as long as possible the shallow places which would have enforced them to take entirely to lung breathing. Metamorphosis thus occurred more than a month later in these individuals.

Finally, there can scarcely be any doubt that No. V. would not have become transformed without forcible adaptation to an aërial life.

From these results we may venture to conclude that most Axolotl larvæ change into the Amblystoma form when, at the age of six to nine months, they are placed in such shallow water that they are compelled to respire chiefly by their lungs. The experiments before us are certainly at present but very few in number, but such a conclusion cannot be termed premature if we consider that out of several hundred Axolotls (the exact number is not given) Duméril obtained only about thirty Amblystomas, while v. Kölliker bred only one Amblystoma out of a hundred Axolotls.

It now only remains questionable whether _each larva_ could have been forced to undergo metamorphosis, but this could only be decided by new experiments. It was originally my intention to have delayed the publication of the experiments till Fräulein v. Chauvin had repeated them in larger numbers, but as my Axolotls have not bred this year (1875) I must abandon my scheme, and this can be done the more readily because, for the theoretical consideration of the facts, it is immaterial whether _all_ or only _nearly all_ the Axolotls could have been compelled to undergo transformation. I must not, however, omit to mention that Herr Gehrig, the curator of our Zoological Museum, bred a considerable number of larvæ from the same brood as that with which Fräulein v. Chauvin experimented, and that of these larvæ six lived over the winter _without undergoing metamorphosis_. They were always kept in deep water and thus furnished the converse experiment to those recorded above; they further prove that this whole brood did not have a previous tendency to undergo metamorphosis.

If these new facts are to be made use of to explain the nature of this extraordinary process of transformation in accordance with our present conception, the data already known must in the first place be called to our aid.

It has first to be established that _Siredon Mexicanus_ never, as far as we know, undergoes metamorphosis in its native country. This Amphibian is there only known in the _Siredon_ form, a statement which I have taken from De Saussure,[225] who has himself observed the Axolotl in the Mexican lakes. This naturalist never found a single Amblystoma in the neighbourhood of the lakes, “nevertheless the larva (Axolotl) is so common there that it is brought into the market by thousands.” De Saussure believes that in Mexico the Axolotl does not undergo transformation.[226] The same statement is distinctly made by Cope,[227] whose specimens of _Siredon Mexicanus_ bred in America, even in captivity showed “no tendency to become metamorphosed.” On the other hand Tegetmeier observed[228] that one out of five specimens obtained from the Lake of Mexico underwent metamorphosis, and this accordingly establishes the second fact, viz. that the true Axolotl becomes transformed under certain conditions into an Amblystoma when in captivity.

This last remark would be superfluous if, as was for a long time believed, the Paris Axolotls, of which the metamorphosis was first observed and which at the time made such a sensation, were actually _Siredon Mexicanus_, _i.e._ the _Siredon_ which alone in its native country bears the name of Axolotl. In his first communication Duméril was himself of this opinion; he then termed the animal “_Siredon Mexicanus vel Humboldtii_,”[229] but subsequently, in his amplified work[230] on the transformation of the Axolotl observed in the Jardin des Plantes, he retracted this view, and after a critical comparison of the five described species of _Siredon_, he came to the conclusion that the species in the possession of the Paris Museum was probably _Siredon Lichenoides_ (Baird). All the transformations of Axolotls observed in Europe must consequently be referred to this species, since they were--at least as far as I know--all derived from the Paris colony. My own experimental specimens were also indirectly descended from these.

Now it must be admitted that this does not coincide with the fact that the Amblystoma form which Duméril first obtained from his Axolotls agreed with Cope’s species, _A. Tigrinum_, while on the other hand we learn from Marsh[231] that _Siredon Lichenoides_ (Baird), when it does undergo metamorphosis, becomes transformed into _Amblystoma Mavortium_ (Baird).

Marsh found _Siredon Lichenoides_ in mountain lakes (7000 feet above the sea) in the southwest of the United States (Wyoming Territory), and obtained from them, by breeding in aquaria, _Amblystoma Mavortium_ (Baird). He considers it indeed doubtful whether the Amphibian undergoes this transformation in its native habitat, although he certainly states this opinion without rigorous proof on purely theoretical considerations, because, according to his view, “the low temperature is there less favourable.”[232]

If I throw doubt upon this last statement it is simply because _Amblystoma Mavortium_ is found native in many parts of the United States, viz:--in California, New Mexico, Texas, Kansas, Nebraska, and Minnesota. It is indeed by no means inconceivable that in the mountain lakes where Marsh obtained this species, it may behave differently with respect to metamorphosis than in other habitats, and this appears probable from certain observations upon _Triton_ which will be subsequently referred to.

Meanwhile, in the absence of further observations, we must admit that the Paris Axolotls were not _Siredon Lichenoides_, but some nearly allied and probably new species. But little information is furnished by observing the course of the transformation, although it is at least established that this Axolotl in its native habitat does not undergo metamorphosis or does so as exceptionally as in Europe. Unfortunately in his papers Duméril gives no precise statement respecting the locality of this species imported from “Mexico”--it is probable that he was himself unacquainted with it, so that I can only state on the authority of Cope that Amblystoma has never been brought from south of the provinces of Tamaulipas and Chilhuahua, _i.e._ south of the Tropic of Cancer.[233]

This last statement, however, gives no certainty to the matter. Of much more importance is the above-mentioned fact, that the true Axolotl of the lakes about the city of Mexico does not, as a rule, become transformed into an Amblystoma in that locality, although this species in certain cases undergoes metamorphosis when in confinement. From this circumstance and from the fact that the Paris Axolotl likewise experienced but a very small percentage of metamorphosis in captivity, we may venture to conclude that this species also, in its native habitat, either does not become transformed at all or does so only exceptionally.

But there is yet another body of facts which come prominently into view on considering the history of the transformations. I refer to the existence of numerous species of _Amblystoma_ in a natural state. In the “Revision of the genera of _Salamandridæ_,” published some years ago by Strauch,[234] this author, following Cope,[235] gives twenty species of _Amblystoma_ as inhabiting North America. Although some of these species are based on single examples, and consequently, as Strauch justly remarks, “may well have to be reduced in the course of time,” there must nevertheless always remain a large number of species which live and propagate as true Amblystomas, and of which the habitat extends from the latitude of New York to that of New Mexico. There are therefore true species of _Siredon_ which regularly assume the Amblystoma form under their natural conditions of life, and which propagate in this form, while, on the other hand, there are at least two species which, under their existing natural conditions of life, always propagate as _Siredon_. It is but another mode of expression for the same facts if we say that the Mexican Axolotl and the Paris _Siredon_--whether this is _Lichenoides_ or some other species--stand at a lower grade of phyletic development than those species of _Amblystoma_ which propagate in the salamander form. No one can raise any objection to this statement, while the alternative view maintained by all authors contains a theory either expressed or implied which is, as I believe, incorrect, viz. that the Mexican Axolotl _has remained_ at an inferior stage of phyletic development.

All zoologists[236] who have expressed an opinion upon the transformation of the Axolotl, and who are not, like the first observer of this fact, embarrassed by Cuvier’s views as to the immutability of species, regard the phenomenon as though a species, which owing to some special conditions had hitherto remained at a low stage of development, had now through some other influences been compelled to advance to a higher stage.

I believed for a long time that the phenomenon could not otherwise be comprehended, so little was I then in a position to bring all the facts into harmony with this view. Thus in the year 1872 I expressed myself as follows[237]:--“Why should not a sudden change in all the conditions of life (transference from Mexico to Paris) have a direct action on the organization of the Axolotl, causing it suddenly to reach a higher stage of development, such as many of its allies have already attained, and which obviously lies in the nature of its organization--a stage which it would perhaps itself have reached, although later, in its native country? Or is it inconceivable that the sudden removal from 8000 feet above the sea (Mexican plateau) to the altitude of Paris, may have given the respiratory organs an impetus in the direction of the transformation imminent? In all probability we have here to do with the direct action of changed conditions of life.”

That the substance of this last statement must still hold good is obvious from the experiments previously described, which show that by the application of definite external influences, we have it to a certain extent in our power to produce the transformation. It is precisely in this last point that there lies the new feature furnished by these experiments.

But are we also compelled to interpret the phenomenon in the above manner? _i.e._ as a sudden advance in the phyletic development of the species occurring, so to speak, at one stroke? I believe not.

What first made this view appear to me erroneous, was the appearance of the living Amblystomas bred from my Axolotl larvæ. These creatures by no means differed from the Axolotls merely in single characters, but they were distinct from the latter in their entire aspect; they differed in some measure in all their parts, in some but slightly and in other parts strongly--in brief, they had become quite different animals. In accordance with this, their mode of life had become completely modified; they no longer lived in the water, but remained concealed by day among the damp moss of the vivarium, coming forth only by night in search of food in dry places.

I had been able to perceive the great difference between the two stages of development from the anatomical data with which I had long been familiar, and which Duméril had made known with respect to the structure of his Amblystomas. But the collecting of numerous details gives no very vivid picture of the metamorphosis; it was the appearance of the living animal that first made me conscious how deep-seated was the transformation which we have here before us, and that this change not merely affected those parts which would be directly influenced by the change in the conditions of life, such as the gills, but that most if not all the parts of the animal underwent a transformation, which could in part be well explained as morphological adaptation to new conditions of life, and partly as a consequence of this adaptation (correlative changes), but could not possibly be regarded as the sudden action of these changed conditions.

Such at least is my view of the case, according to which a _per saltum_ development of the species of such a kind as must here have taken place, is quite inconceivable.

I may venture to assume that most observers of the metamorphosis of Axolotl have, like myself, not been hitherto aware of the extent of the transformation, and it may thus be explained why the theoretical bearings of the case have on all sides been incorrectly conceived. We have here obviously a quite extraordinary case of the first order of importance. I believe that it can easily be shown that the explanation of the history of the metamorphosis of the Paris Axolotl which has hitherto been pretty generally accepted, necessarily comprises a very far-reaching principle. If this interpretation is correct, then in my opinion must also hold good the ideas of those who, like Kölliker, Askenasy, Nägeli, and, among the philosophers, Hartmann and Hübner, would refer the transformation of species in the first instance to a power innate in the organism, to an active, _i.e._ a self-urging “law of development”--a phyletic vital force.

Thus, if the Axolotls transformed into Amblystomas are regarded as individuals which, impelled by external influences, have anticipated the phyletic development of the others, then this advance can only be ascribed to a phyletic vital force, since the transformation is sudden, and leaves no time for gradual adaptation in the course of generations. The _indirect_ influence of the external conditions of life, _i.e._ natural selection, is thus excluded from the beginning. But the _direct_ action of the changed conditions of life by no means furnishes an explanation of the complete transformation of the whole structure, such as I have already alluded to, and which I will now enter into more closely.

The differences between the Paris Axolotl and its Amblystoma according to Duméril, Kölliker, and my own observations are as follow:--

1. The gills disappear; the gill-clefts close up, and of the branchial arches only the foremost remain, the posterior ones disappearing. At the same time the os _hyoideum_ becomes changed (Duméril).

2. The dorsal crest completely disappears (Duméril).

3. The aquatic tail becomes transformed into one like that of the salamanders (Duméril), which, however, is not as in the salamander cylindrical, but somewhat compressed laterally (Weismann).

4. The skin becomes yellowish white, irregularly spotted on the sides and back (Duméril), whilst at the same time its former grey-black ground-colour changes into a shining greenish black (Weismann); it loses, moreover, the slimy secretion of the skin, and the cutaneous glands become insignificant (Kölliker).

5. The eyes become prominent and the pupils narrow (Kölliker), and eyelids capable of completely covering the eyes are formed; in Axolotl only a narrow annular fold surrounds the eyes, so that these cannot be closed (Weismann).

6. The toes become narrowed and lose their skin-like appendages (Kölliker), or more precisely, the half webs which connect the proximal extremities of the toes on all the feet (Weismann).

7. The teeth are disposed in this species, as in all other _Amblystomæ_, in transverse series; whilst in Axolotl, as in _Triton_ larvæ, they are arranged at the sides of the jaw in the form of a curved arch-like band beset with several rows of teeth.[238] (Duméril. See his fig., _loc. cit._ p. 279).

8. In Axolotl the lower jaw, in addition to the teeth on the upper edge of the bone, also bears “de très petites dents disposées sur plusieurs rangs;” these last disappear after metamorphosis (Duméril). I will add that the persistent teeth belong to the _os dentale_ of the lower jaw, and those that are shed to the _os operculare_.[239]

9. The surface of the posterior moveable part of the body is slightly concave both before and after transformation; the anterior part is, however, less concave in _Amblystoma_ than in _Siredon_ (Duméril).

I have not yet been able to verify Duméril’s 7th and 9th statements, as I did not want to kill any of my living Amblystomas,[240] simply in order to confirm the observations of a naturalist in whom one may certainly place complete confidence. Neither have I as yet observed the transformation of the branchial arches, but all the other statements of Kölliker and Duméril I can entirely corroborate.

The structural differences between Axolotl and Amblystoma are considerably greater and of more importance than those between allied genera, or indeed than between the families of the Urodela. The genus _Siredon_ undoubtedly belongs to a different sub-order to the genus _Amblystoma_ into which it occasionally becomes transformed. Strauch, the most recent systematic worker at this group, distinguishes the sub-order _Salamandrida_ from that of the _Ichthyodea_ by the possession of eyelids, and by the situation of the palatine teeth in single rows on the posterior edge of the palatal bone: in _Ichthyodea_ the eyelids are wanting and the palatine teeth are either “situated on the anterior edge of the palatal bone,” or “cover the whole surface of the palatal plates in brush-like tufts.”

How is it possible to regard such widely divergent anatomical characters as changes suddenly produced by the action (but once exerted) of deviating conditions of life? Hand in hand with the shedding of the old and the appearance of new palatine teeth, there occurs a change in the anatomical structure of the vertebral column, and also--as we may fairly conclude from Kölliker’s correct observation of the cessation of the slimy secretion--in the histological structure of the skin. Who would undertake to explain all these profound modifications as the direct and sudden action of certain external influences? And if any one were inclined to explain such changes as a consequence of the disappearance of the gills, _i.e._ as correlative changes, what else is such a correlation than the phyletic vital force under another name?

If from one change arising from the direct action of external agencies, the whole body can in two days become transformed in all its parts, in the precise manner which appears best adapted for the new conditions of life under which it is henceforward to exist, then the word “correlation” is only a phrase which explains nothing, but which prevents any attempt at a better explanation, and it would be preferable to profess simply the belief in a phyletic vital force.

Moreover, it is hardly permissible to seek such an explanation, since Urodela are known which have no gills in the adult state, and which nevertheless possess all the other characters of the _Ichthyodea_, viz. want of eyelids, characteristic palatine teeth, and the tongue bone. This is the case with the genera _Amphiuma_ (Linn.), _Menopoma_ (Harl.), and _Cryptobranchus_ (v. d. Hoev.). The two first genera, as is known, still possess gill-clefts, but _Cryptobranchus_ has even lost these clefts, which, as in _Amblystoma_, are overgrown by skin; nevertheless _Cryptobranchus_ is, according to the concurrent testimony of all systematists, a true salamander in habits, tongue bone, palatine teeth,[241] &c. It must further be added that the Axolotl itself can lose the gills without thereby becoming transformed into an Amblystoma. I have previously mentioned that in Axolotls which were kept in shallow water the gills frequently became diminutive, and it also sometimes happens that they completely shrivel up. I possess an Axolotl preserved in alcohol in which the gills have shrivelled up into small irregular bunches, and the dorsal crest is also so completely absent that its place is occupied by a long furrow, and even on the tail the crest has entirely disappeared from the lower edge and about half from the upper edge. Notwithstanding this, the creature is widely removed from Amblystoma in structure; it possesses the arched branchial apparatus, the palatine teeth, the skin, &c., of the Axolotl.

These facts prove, therefore, that the shedding of the gills by no means always entails all the other modifications which we observe in the metamorphosis of Axolotl, so that these modifications are thus not by any means the necessary and immediate consequence of such gill shedding.

Whether these modifications will occur after a long series of generations--whether the successors of _Cryptobranchus_ will also one day acquire the salamandriform structure is another question, and one which I could not exactly answer in the negative. But this question does not here come into consideration, as we are now only concerned with the _immediate result_ of the shedding of the gills.

The problem appears therefore to be as follows:--Either the hitherto received interpretation of the transformational history of the Axolotl as a further development of the species is incorrect, or else the case of Axolotl incontestably proves the existence of a phyletic vital force.

We have now to ask whether the facts of this transformational history are not capable of another explanation.

I believe that this is certainly possible, and that another interpretation can be shown to be correct with some degree of probability.

I am of opinion that those Amblystomas which have been developed in captivity in certain instances from _Siredon Mexicanus_ (_S. Pisciformis_), as well as from the Paris Axolotls, are not progressive, but reversion forms; I believe that the Axolotls which now inhabit the Mexican lakes were Amblystomas at a former geological (or better, zoological) epoch, but that owing to changes in their conditions of life, they have reverted to the earlier perennibranchiate stage.

I was undoubtedly first led to this conception by the results which arose from my studies on the seasonal dimorphism of butterflies.[242] In this case we were also concerned with the two different forms under which one and the same species appears, and of which it was shown to be probable that the one is phyletically older than the other. The younger summer form, according to my view, has arisen, through the gradual amelioration of the climate, from the winter form, which at an earlier zoological epoch was the only one in existence; but the latter, the primary form, has not for this reason ceased to exist, but now alternates in each year as a winter form with the secondary summer form.

Now with seasonally dimorphic butterflies, it was easily possible to induce the summer brood to assume the winter form by exposing their pupæ for a long time to a low temperature; and it was shown to be highly probable that this abrupt and often very extensive change or transformation, only apparently takes place suddenly, and is but the apparent result of the action of cold upon this generation, whilst in fact it depends upon reversion to the primary form of the species, so that the low temperature, which is only once applied, gives but the impetus to reversion, and is not the true cause of the transformation. This cause must rather be sought in the long continued action of the cold to which the ancestors of our existing butterflies were subjected for thousands of generations, and of which the final result is the winter form.

If we assume for an instant that my interpretation of the transformation of Axolotl as just offered is correct, we should have conditions in many respects analagous to those of seasonal dimorphism. It is true that in this case the two forms no longer alternate regularly with each other, but the primary form may occasionally appear instead of the secondary form, owing to the action of external conditions.

Just as in the case of seasonal dimorphism it is possible to compel the summer generation to abandon the summer form, and to assume the winter guise by the action of cold; so in the present case we are able to induce the Axolotl to adopt the Amblystoma form by making aërial respiration compulsory at a certain stage of life; and further, just as in seasonal dimorphism it can be shown that this artificially produced change is only apparently an abrupt transformation, and is actually a reversion to the much older winter form; so here we have not an actual, but only an apparent remodelling of the species--a reversion to the phyletically older form.

This certainly appears a paradox, inasmuch as a form here arises by reversion which must yet undoubtedly rank as the more highly developed. I believe, however, that much which seems paradoxical in this statement will disappear on further examination.

It must in the first place be taken into consideration that the phyletic development of species need not by any means always take place by advancement. We have indeed many cases of retrogressive development, although in a somewhat different sense, as with parasites and those forms which have degenerated from free locomotion to a sedentary mode of life.[243] I do not confuse this kind of retrogressive development, arising from the arrest of certain organs and systems of organs, with true reversion. The latter is a return to a form which has already been once in existence; but in the former case, in spite of all simplification of the organization, some entirely new feature always comes into existence. But I am not able to see any absurdity in the assumption that even true reversion, whether of a whole species or of the individuals of a certain district, may be regarded as possible, and I require no further concession. Why, for example, should it be inconceivable that at a very remote period the Axolotl was adapted to a life on land; that through the direct and indirect action of changed conditions of life it gradually acquired the salamander form, but that subsequently, through new and unfavourable changes in the conditions of life, it again relapsed to the older form, or at least to one nearly related thereto?

At any rate such an assumption contains nothing opposed to known facts, but can be supported in many ways, and finally it commends itself, at least in my opinion, as offering the only admissible explanation of the facts before us.

The existence of a whole series of species of _Amblystoma_, as already mentioned, at once shows that species of _Siredon_ can become elevated into the salamander form, and can propagate regularly in this state, and further, that this phyletic advance has already actually taken place in many species.

That degeneration may also occur from this high stage to a lower stage of development, is shown by many observations on our water-salamanders. It is known that under certain circumstances Tritons, as it is generally expressed, become “sexually mature in the larval condition.”

In the year 1864 De Filippi[244] found fifty Tritons in a pool at Andermatten, in the neighbourhood of Puneigen, and of these only two showed the structure of the adult water-salamander; all the others still possessed gills, but notwithstanding this, they agreed in both sexes, in size and in the development of the sexual organs, with mature animals. De Filippi established that these “sexually mature larvæ” not only resembled larvæ externally through the possession of gills, but that they also possessed all the other anatomical characters of the larvæ, _i.e._ the characteristic bunches of palatine teeth situated on both sides in the position of the subsequent single rows, and a vertebral column represented throughout its whole length by the _chorda dorsalis_.

According to my view this would be a case of the reversion of the Triton to the immediately anterior phyletic stage, _i.e._ to the perennibranchiate stage, and in the present instance the majority of zoologists who take their stand by the theory of descent, would certainly concur in this view. I should at least consider it to be a useless play upon words did we here speak of larval reproduction, and thereby believe that we had explained something. The animal certainly becomes sexually mature in the same condition as that in which it first appears as a larva, but we first get an insight into the nature of this process by considering that this so-called “sexually mature larva” has the precise structure which must have been possessed by the preceding phyletic stage of the species, and that an individual reversion to the older phyletic stage of the species is consequently before us. I maintain that Duméril is in error in regarding this case of the Triton as parallel with the true larval reproduction of Wagner’s _Cecidomyia_ larva. In this last case it is certainly not reversion to an older phyletic stage that confers the power of reproduction upon the larvæ, since the latter do not represent an older phyletic stage of the species, but must have arisen contemporaneously with this last stage. The enormous structural difference between the larvæ and the imagines is not explained by the latter having arisen from the former supplementarily as a finished production, but by both having been contemporaneously adapted to continually diverging conditions of life.[245] Considered phyletically, these larvæ are by no means necessarily transitional to the origination of the flies. They could have been quite different without the form of the imagines having been thereby modified, since the stages of insect metamorphosis vary independently of each other in accordance with the conditions of life to which they are subjected, and exert scarcely any, or only a very small form-determining influence upon each other, as has been amply proved in the preceding essay. In any case the power of these larvæ (the _Cecidomyiæ_) to propagate themselves asexually was first acquired as a secondary character, as appears from the fact that there exist numerous species of the same genus which do not “nurse.” In the form which they now possess they could never have played the part of the final stage of the ontogeny, nor could they formerly have possessed the power of sexual reproduction.[246] In brief, we are here concerned with true larval reproduction, whilst in Triton we have reversion to an older phyletic stage.[247]

I cannot agree with my friend Professor Haeckel when he occasionally designates the reversion of the Tritons as an “adaptation” to a purely aqueous existence.[248] We could here only speak of “adaptation” if we took the word in a quite different sense to that in which it was first introduced into science by Darwin and Wallace. These naturalists thereby designate a gradual bodily transformation appearing in the course of generations in correspondence with the new requirements of altered conditions of life or, in other words, the action of natural selection, and not the result of a suddenly and direct acting transforming cause exerted but once on a generation.

Just because the word “adaptation” can be used in ordinary language in many senses, it is desirable that it should have only _one_ precise signification, and above all that we should not speak of adaptation where scarcely any morphological change occurs, but only a kind of functional change in the sense used by Dohrn.[249] This is the case for example, when Forel[250] shows that fresh water Pulmonifera, the organization of which is attributed to the direct respiration of air, can nevertheless become settled in the greatest depths of mountain lakes through their lungs being again employed as gills. That not the least change in the lungs hereby takes place is shown by the observations of Von Siebold,[251] who saw the shallow water Pulmonifera using their lungs alternately for direct aërial and aquatic respiration, according to the amount of air contained in the water. If with Von Siebold we merely apply the word “adaptation” to such cases, this expression would lose the special sense which it originally conveyed, and the word would have to be abandoned as a _terminus technicus_; still, such cases may perhaps be spoken of as _physiological_ adaptation.

In any case the reproductive “larvæ” of the Tritons as little present a case of true adaptation as the Axolotl, which occasionally becomes transformed into an Amblystoma. In both cases the transformation referred to is by no means indispensable to the life of the individual. Mature Tritons (devoid of gills) can exist, as I have myself seen, for many months, and probably also for a year in deep water, although adapted for purely pulmonary respiration; whilst Axolotls, as I have already mentioned, can live well for a year in shallow water poor in air. If their gills by this means become shrivelled up or completely disappear, even this is not adaptation in the Darwinian sense, but the effect of directly acting external influences, and chiefly of diminished use.

A case entirely analagous to that of Filippi’s was observed by Jullien in 1869. Four female larvæ of _Lissotriton Punctatus_ (Bell)--(synonymous with _Triton Tæniatus_, Schnd.), taken from a pool, proved to be sexually mature. They contained mature eggs in their ovaria ready for laying, and two of them actually deposited eggs. Four male larvæ found in the same pool, appeared to be equally developed with respect to size, but their testicles contained no free spermatozoa, but only sperm-cells.[252]

I have met with a third case of a similar kind mentioned by Leydig in his memoir, rich in interesting details, “on the tailed Amphibians of the Wurtemburg fauna.”[253] Schreibers, the former director of the Vienna Museum, also found “larvæ” of Tritons with well-developed gills, but of the size of the “adult male individuals,” and, as shown by anatomical investigation, with well “developed sexual organs,” the ovaria especially being distended with eggs.

It is thus established that species which long ago reached the salamander stage in phyletic development, may occasionally degenerate to the perennibranchiate stage. This fact obviously makes my conception of the Axolotl as a reversion form appear much less paradoxical--indeed, the cases of reversion in Triton are precisely analagous to the process which I suppose to have taken place in the Axolotl. We have only to substitute Amblystomas for Tritons, to imagine the pool in which De Filippi found his “sexually mature Triton larvæ” enlarged to the size of the Lake of Mexico, and to conceive the unknown, and perhaps here transitory, causes of the reversion to be permanent, and we have all that is necessary, so far as we at present know, for the restoration of the Axolotl; we obtain a perennibranchiate population of the lake.

It has not yet been determined whether the perennibranchiate form of the Triton actually prevailed permanently in De Filippi’s pool, since, so far as I know, this has not since been examined.

Let us, however, assume for an instant that this is really the case, and that there exists at that spot a colony of sexually reproductive perennibranchiate Tritons: should we wonder if a true Triton occasionally appeared among their progeny, or if we were able to induce the majority of the individuals of this brood to become metamorphosed into Tritons by keeping them in shallow water? According to my view this is precisely the case of the Mexican Axolotl.

I need not, however, restrict myself to this in order to support my hypothesis, but must also directly combat the view hitherto received, since the latter is in contradiction with facts.

Did there really exist in the Axolotl a tendency to sudden phyletic advancement, then one fact would remain quite incomprehensible, viz. the sterility of the Amblystomas.

Out of about thirty Amblystomas obtained by Duméril down to the year 1870, there was not one in a state of sexual maturity; neither copulation nor deposition of eggs took place, and the anatomical investigation of single specimens showed that the eggs were immature, and that the spermatozoa, although present, were without the undulating membrane characteristic of the salamanders, but were not devoid of all power of movement, only, as established by Quatrefages, were “incompletely motile.”[254]

So also the five Amblystomas about which I have been writing, show up to the present time no appearance of reproduction.

The objection raised by Sacc,[255] that the sterility of the Amblystomas bred from Axolotls is attributable to “bad nourishment,” is obviously of but little avail. How is it that the Axolotls, which are fed in a precisely similar manner, propagate so readily? Moreover, I am able to expressly assert that my Amblystomas were very well fed. It is true that they have as yet scarcely reached the age of two years, but the Axolotl propagates freely in the second year, and some of Duméril’s Amblystomas were five years old in 1870.

This fact of the sterility is strongly opposed to the idea that these Amblystomas are the regular precursors of the phyletically advancing genus _Siredon_.[256] I will by no means assert that my theory of reversion actually explains the sterility, but it is at least not directly opposed to it. Mere reversion forms may die off without propagating themselves; but a _new form_ called forth by the action of a phyletic vital force should not be sterile, because this is the precise “aim” which the vital force had in view. The conception of a vital force comprises that of teleology.

The sterility of Amblystoma moreover, although not completely explicable from our standpoint, can be shown to be a phenomenon not entirely isolated. In the above mentioned case of _Lissotriton Punctatus_, the female “larvæ” were certainly sexually mature and laid eggs, but the males of the same period contained in their testicles no fully developed spermatozoa.

Other cases of this kind are unknown to me; at the time when I made the experiments with butterflies already recorded (see the first essay), this point of view was remote, and I therefore neglected to examine the artificially bred reversion forms with respect to their organs of reproduction. But general considerations lead to the supposition that atavistic forms may easily remain sterile.

Darwin[257] finds the proximate causes of sterility in the first place in the action of widely diverging conditions of life, and in the next place in the crossing of individuals widely different in constitution. Now it is certainly deviating conditions of life which lead to the metamorphosis of the Axolotl, and from this point of view it cannot be surprising if we find those individuals sterile which show themselves so especially affected by these changed conditions as to revert to the salamander form.

By this it is not in any way meant to be asserted that reversion is invariably accompanied by sterility, and one cannot raise as an objection to my interpretation of the metamorphosis of the Axolotl, that a reproductive colony of Axolotls could never have arisen by reversion. On the contrary, Jullien’s egg-depositing female Triton larvæ show that also with reversion the power of reproduction may be completely preserved.[258] From the above-mentioned general causes of sterility, it may even be inferred that fertility can be lost in different degrees, and it can be further understood to a certain extent why this fertility is more completely lost by reversion to the Amblystoma, than by the reversion of the Triton to the perennibranchiate form.

If in these cases the reversion is brought about by a change in the conditions of life, we may perhaps suppose that the magnitude of this change would determine the degree of fertility, and the preservation of the reversion form. Still more, however, would the fertility be influenced by the extent of the morphological difference resulting from the reversion. We know that the blending of very different constitutions (_e.g._ the crossing of different species) produces sterility. Something similar results from the sudden reversion to a stage of development widely different in its whole structure. Here also we have in a certain sense the union of two very different constitutions in one individual--a kind of crossing.

From this point of view it can in some measure be comprehended why sterility may be a result of reversion; on the other hand, we thereby obtain no explanation why, with the same amount of morphological difference, in one case complete sterility, and in another relative fertility occurs. The morphological difference between Axolotl and Amblystoma is exactly the same as between Triton and its “sexually mature larva;” the difference between the two cases of reversion depends entirely upon the direction of the leap, that taken in the former case being precisely opposite in direction to that taken in the latter.

Herein might be sought the explanation of the different strength with which the reproductive power is affected; not indeed in the direction of the leap itself, but in the differences in the ontogeny which are determined by the differences in the direction of the leap. The reversion of the Triton to an older phyletic stage coincides with the arrest at a younger ontogenetic stage; or, in other words, the older stage of the phylogeny to which reversion takes place is still entirely comprised in the ontogeny of each individual. Each Triton is perennibranchiate throughout a long period of its life; the reverting individual simply reverts to the older phyletic stage by remaining at the larval stage of its individual development.

But it is quite different with the reversion of the Axolotl to the formerly acquired, but long since abandoned Amblystoma form. This is not retained in the ontogeny of Axolotl, but has been completely lost; for a long series of generations--so must we suppose--the ontogeny has always only attained to the perennibranchiate form. Now if at the present time certain individuals were compelled to revert to the Amblystoma form, certainly no greater leap would have been made from a morphological point of view, than in the reversion of Triton to the perennibranchiate form, but at the same time the leap would be in another direction, viz. over a long series of generations back to a form which the species had not produced for a long period, and which had to a certain extent become foreign to it. We should thus have here also the grafting of a widely different constitution upon that of the Axolotl, or, if one prefers it, the commingling of two widely different constitutions.