M Database Inspector (cheetah)
Not logged in. Login

OriginOfSpecies - 475 Rows
Column Type #Values Column Stats
id int(11) 475 Column Stats
subject varchar(80) 14 Column Stats
title varchar(250) 139 Column Stats
ordinal int(11) 30 Column Stats
description text 474 Column Stats

475 rows, page 80 of 119 (4/p)
1 20 30 40 50 60 70 74 75 76 77 78 79 80 81 82 83 84 85 86 90 100 110 119

Export to Excel select * from OriginOfSpecies order by description desc limit 316, 4 (Page 80: Row)
description Desending Order (top row is last)
03 - Struggle for Existence 03-02 - The Term, Struggle for Existence, used in a large sense 20 I should premise that I use this term in a large and metaphorical sense including dependence of one being on another, and including (which is more important) not only the life of the individual, but success in leaving progeny.

Two canine animals, in a time of dearth may be truly said to struggle with each other which shall get food and live.


But a plant on the edge of a desert is said to struggle for life against the drought, though more properly it should be said to produces a thousand seeds, of which only one of an average comes to maturity, may be more truly said to struggle with the plants of the same and other kinds which already clothe the ground.

The mistletoe is dependent on the apple and a few other trees, but can only in a far-fetched sense be said to struggle with these trees, for, if too many of these parasites grow on the same tree, it languishes and dies.



But several seedling mistletoes, growing close together on the same branch, may more truly be said to struggle with each other. As the mistletoe is disseminated by birds, its existence depends on them; and it may methodically be said to struggle with other fruit-bearing plants, in tempting the birds to devour and thus disseminate its seeds. In these several senses, which pass into each other, I use for convenience' sake the general term of Struggle for Existence.


04 - Natural Selection 04-11 - Divergence of Character 250 I see no reason to limit the process of modification, as now explained, to the formation of genera alone.Full Size

If, in the diagram, we suppose the amount of change, represented by each successive group of diverging lines to be great, the forms marked a14 to p14, those marked b14 and f14, and those marked o14 to m14, will form three very distinct genera. We shall also have two very distinct genera descended from (I), differing widely from the descendants of (A). These two groups of genera will thus form two distinct families, or orders, according to the amount of divergent modification supposed to be represented in the diagram.

And the two new families, or orders, are descended from two species of the original genus, and these are supposed to be descended from some still more ancient and unknown form.
05 - Laws of Variation 05-07 - Multiple, Rudimentary, and Lowly-organised Structures are Variable 20 I presume that lowness here means that the several parts of the organisation have been but little specialised for particular functions; and as long as the same part has to perform diversified work, we can perhaps see why it should remain variable, that is, why natural selection should not have preserved or rejected each little deviation of form as carefully as when the part has to serve for some one special purpose.

In the same way, a knife which has to cut all sorts of things may be of almost any shape; whilst a tool for some particular-purpose must be of some particular shape.


Natural selection, it should never be forgotten, can act solely through and for the advantage of each being. Rudimentary parts, as it is generally admitted, are apt to be highly variable.

We shall have to recur to this subject; and I will here only add that their variability seems to result from their uselessness, and consequently from natural selection having had no power to check deviations in their structure.
04 - Natural Selection 04-08 - On the Intercrossing of Individuals 10 I must here introduce a short digression. In the case of animals and plants with separated sexes, it is of course obvious that two individuals must always (with the exception of the curious and not well-understood cases of parthenogenesis) unite for each birth; but in the case of hermaphrodites this is far from obvious.


Nevertheless there is reason to believe that with all hermaphrodites two individuals, either occasionally or habitually, concur for the reproduction of their kind.

This view was long ago doubtfully suggested by Sprengel, Knight and Kolreuter. We shall presently see its importance; but I must here treat the subject with extreme brevity, though I have the materials prepared for an ample discussion.

All vertebrate animals, all insects, and some other large groups of animals, pair for each birth. Modern research has much diminished the number of supposed hermaphrodites, and of real hermaphrodites a large number pair; that is, two individuals regularly unite for reproduction, which is all that concerns us.

But still there are many hermaphrodite animals which certainly do not habitually pair, and a vast majority of plants are hermaphrodites.

What reason, it may be asked, is there for supposing in these cases that two individuals ever concur in reproduction?

As it is impossible here to enter on details, I must trust to some general considerations alone.