Though these words might not contain a theory of descent capable at once of scientific application, yet they show that the latest researches and candid appreciation of facts were compelling the most eminent representatives of the botany of the day to give up the constancy of forms. At the same time in the genetic morphology which had developed itself mainly under Nägeli's guidance since 1844, and still more in embryology, which in Hofmeister's hands was leading to results of the greatest systematic importance, there lay a fruitful element destined to correct and enrich Darwin's doctrine of descent in one essential point. That doctrine in its original form sought to show that selection, the result of the struggle for existence, combined with perpetual variation was the sole cause of progressive improvement in organic forms[1]; but Nägeli, relying on the results of German morphology, was able as early as 1865 to point out that this explanation was not satisfactory, because it leaves unnoticed certain morphological relations, especially between the large divisions of the vegetable kingdom, which scarcely seem explainable by mere selection in breeding. While Nägeli allowed that Darwin's principle of selection was well adapted to explain fully the adaptation of organisms to their environment and the suitableness and physiological peculiarities of their structure, he pointed out that in the nature of plants themselves there are intimations of laws of variation, which lead to a perfecting of organic forms and to their progressive differentiation, independently of the struggle for existence and of natural selection; the importance of this result of morphological research has since been recognised by Darwin. Thus Nägeli supplied what was wanting in the theory of descent and gave it the form, in which it is adequate to explain the problem already recognised by the systematists of the old persuasion,
- ↑ See Darwin's repudiation of this statement on p. 421 of Ed. 6 of the 'Origin of Species.'
