production of divergent forms that lack intermedi-
ates. In Darwin’s view, the causes of speciation are a
combination of two principles: the principle of diver-
gence, and the principle of extinction (Kohn, 2008).
‘How do the lesser differences between varieties evolve into
the greater differences between species? Firstly, mere chance
may allow some divergence, but this seems unlikely to account
for such a habitual and large amount of difference.’ (p. 111,
para 1)
Although Darwin did not know about genetic drift,
he seems to have intuited it, presumably from infor-
mation which suggested that not all differences
between populations made adaptive sense.
A more important cause of speciation is, in Dar-
win’s view, competition leading to divergent natural
selection, for which artificial selection by humans on
domestic animals is a useful and relatively uncontro-
versial analogue.
‘Again, we may suppose that at an early period one man
preferred swifter horses; another stronger and more bulky
horses. The early differences would be very slight; in the
course of time, from the continued selection of swifter horses
by some breeders, and of stronger ones by others, the differ-
ences would become greater, and would be noted as forming
two sub-breeds; finally, after the lapse of centuries, the sub-
breeds would become converted into two well-established and
distinct breeds. As the differences slowly become greater, the
inferior animals with intermediate characters, being neither
very swift nor very strong, will have been neglected, and will
have tended to disappear. Here, then, we see in man’s pro-
ductions the action of what may be called the principle of
divergence, causing differences, at first barely appreciable,
steadily to increase, and the breeds to diverge in character
both from each other and from their common parent.’
‘But how, it may be asked, can any analogous principle apply in
nature? I believe it can and does apply most efficiently, from the
simple circumstance that the more diversified the descendants
from any one species become in structure, constitution, and
habits, by so much will they be better enabled to seize on many
and widely diversified places in the polity of nature, and so be
enabled to increase in numbers.’ . . . ‘We can clearly see this in
the case of animals with simple habits. Take the case of a
carnivorous quadruped, of which the number that can be
supported in any country has long ago arrived at its full
average. If its natural powers of increase be allowed to act, it
can succeed in increasing (the country not undergoing any
change in its conditions) only by its varying descendants seizing
on places at present occupied by other animals.’ (p. 112, para 2)
Of course, this principle of divergence applies as
much to plants as to animals:
‘It has been experimentally proved, that if a plot of ground be
sown with several distinct genera of grasses, a greater number
of plants and a greater weight of dry herbage can thus be
raised. The same has been found to hold good when first one
variety and then several mixed varieties of wheat have been
sown on equal spaces of ground.’
‘The truth of the principle, that the greatest amount of life can
be supported by great diversification of structure, is seen
under many natural circumstances. . . . For instance, I found
that a piece of turf, three feet by four in size, which had been
exposed for many years to exactly the same conditions, sup-
ported twenty species of plants, and these belonged to eigh-
teen genera and to eight orders, which shows how much these
plants differed from each other.’ (p. 114, para 1)
It is possible to interpret Darwin’s principle of
divergence as an argument for sympatric speciation
(Kohn, 2008), as Mayr and others have done. But the
argument for and against geographic isolation has
been dealt with earlier in The Origin. Perhaps
Darwin was not entirely clear, but I think it fairly
self-evident that he was here discussing the ecology of
available niches for populations that have already
become somewhat divergent, rather than arguing
that the whole process of speciation is necessarily
sympatric. Having diverged, these forms would not go
extinct because they could ‘seize on many and widely
diversified places in the polity of nature’. Darwin did
not clearly specify a proximate cause for the initial
divergence, but was arguing that, however divergence
came about, it could be stabilized in separate niches,
and that this would lead to an increase of surviving
divergent forms. The ultimate cause of diversity was
that only diverse forms can coexist. The argument
about multiple species having greater productivity
than a single species is, it seems to me, prescient: in
the 1970s and 1980s, ecologists began to realize that
high productivity was associated with diversity of
compatible species in both natural and agricultural
systems (Vandermeer, 1981). More recent studies
have shown similar productivity gains in higher
diversity ecosystems (Tilman et al., 2002).
‘The accompanying diagram will aid us in under-
standing this rather perplexing subject’. This famous
tree diagram, inserted between pp. 116–117, is the
only figure in ‘The Origin.’ In Darwin’s view, the
figure was not so important as a phylogenetic theory
of evolution, as some have suggested, but as an expla-
nation of how gaps in the distribution of phenotypes
appeared as a result of the principles of divergence
and extinction. The section describing the figure is
3000 words long, explaining in detail how divergence
might come about, and how each particular node and
branch had parallels in the origins and extinctions of
real varieties, species, genera and families.
W
HY DO WE NOT SEE MORE INTERMEDIATES
?
In Chapter VI, ‘Difficulties on Theory’, Darwin
attempts to answer doubts that he expects his readers
will have about the continuous nature of evolution.
8
J. MALLET
© The Author
Journal compilation © 2008 The Linnean Society of London, Biological Journal of the Linnean Society, 2008, 95, 3–16