comprehensiveness of the nebular theory—illustration—huxley and the origin of species—rudimentary organs—the apteryx—its evanescent wings—the skeleton—an historical explanation—application of the same method to the nebular theory—the internal heat of the earth—the lady psyche.
it is not difficult to show that the nebular theory occupies a unique position among other speculations of the human intellect. it is so comprehensive that almost every conceivable topic will bear some relation to it. perhaps i may venture to give a rather curious illustration of this fact, which was told me many years ago by one who attended a course of lectures by an eminent professor in the medical faculty at, let us say, vienna. the subject of the course was the no doubt highly important, but possibly not generally interesting, subject of “inflammation.” i think i am right in saying that the course had to last for six months, because the subject was to be treated with characteristic breadth and profundity. at all events, i distinctly remember that the learned professor commenced his 362long series of professional discourses with an account of the nebular theory, and from that starting point he gradually evolved the sequence of events which ultimately culminated in—inflammation!
it may be remembered that in the year 1880, professor huxley delivered at the royal institution a famous lecture which he termed “the coming of age of the origin of species.” among the many remarkable and forcible illustrations which this lecture contained, i recall one which brought before the audience, in the most convincing manner, the truth of the great darwinian theory of evolution. huxley pointed out how the discoveries in biology, during the twenty-one years which immediately succeeded the publication of the “origin of species,” had been so numerous and so important, and had a bearing so remarkable on the great evolutionary theory, that even if the darwinian theory had not been formed to explain the facts of nature, as they were known at the time when darwin published his immortal book, the same theory would have had to be formed, were it only to explain the additional facts which had come to light since the great theory itself had been first given to the world.
i believe we may use similar language with regard to the nebular theory and its great founders, kant, laplace, and herschel. if the facts which were known to these philosophers led them to adopt in one form or another that view of the origin of the universe which the nebular theory suggests, how stands the theory now in the light of the additional facts that have been since disclosed? if we merely took the discoveries which have been made since the last of the three great 363philosophers passed away, it might well be maintained that a nebular theory would be demanded to account for the facts brought to light, in the interval.
the argument on which the nebular theory of the solar system is founded has other parallels with that wonderful doctrine of natural selection by which darwin revealed the history of life on our globe. it not unfrequently happens that an animal has in its organisation some rudiments of a structure which is obviously of no use to the animal in his present mode of life, and would be unintelligible if we supposed the animal to have been created as he is. a curious instance of a rudimentary structure is furnished in the apteryx, the famous wingless bird which still lives in new zealand.
the arrival of civilisation in new zealand seems likely to be accompanied with fatal results, so far as the unfortunate apteryx is concerned. weasels and other fierce enemies have been introduced, with which this quaint bird of antiquity is unable to cope. the apteryx is defenceless against such foes. nature had not endowed it with weapons wherewith to fight, for it had, apparently, no serious adversaries until these importations appeared in its island home. unlike the ostrich, the apteryx has neither strength to fight his enemies, nor speed to run away from them, though, like the ostrich, it has no wings for flight; indeed, the apteryx has no wings at all. as its name signifies the apteryx is the wingless bird. living specimens are still to be seen in the zoological gardens. the special point to notice is that, though he has no wings whatever, still there are small rudimentary wing-bones which can be easily seen. you need not be afraid to put 364your hand on the apteryx, and feel the puny little remnants of wings (fig. 55).
if, having seen the bird in the zoological gardens, you go to the natural history museum, you will there find a skeleton of the apteryx (fig. 56). look near the ribs in the photograph, and there you will see those poor little wing-bones—wing-bones where there never was a wing. from our present point of view these wings are, however, more interesting and instructive than the most perfect wings of an eagle or a carrier-pigeon. those wings in the apteryx may be incapable of flight, but they are full of instruction to the lover of nature. as it is certain that they are absolutely of no use whatever to the bird, we may well ask, why are they there? they are not there to give assistance to the bird in his struggle for life; they cannot help him to escape from his enemies or to procure his food; they cannot help him to tend and nurture the young one which is hatched from the egg; they can help him in no way. the explanation of those ineffectual wings is historical. those bones are present in the apteryx simply because that bird has come down by a long line of descent from birds which were endowed with genuine wings, with wings which enabled them to fly like rooks or partridges.
fig. 55.—the apteryx: a wingless bird of new zealand.
fig. 56.—skeleton of the apteryx, showing rudimentary wings.
but if this be the explanation, how has it come to pass that the wings have dwindled to useless little bones? we cannot of course feel certain of the reason, but it seems possible to make surmises. in early times winged birds flew over the sea into new zealand, and found it a country of abundance, as many other immigrants have done in later times. it may have been that the food in new zealand was so plentiful that 365the wants of the birds could be readily supplied, without the necessity for ranging over large tracts. it may have been that the newly arrived birds found that they had few or no enemies in new zealand, from which flight would be necessary as a means of escape. it may possibly have been both causes together, and doubtless there must have been other causes as well. the fact is, however, certain, that in the course of long generations 366this bird gradually lost the power of flight. natural selection decrees that an organ which has ceased to serve a useful purpose shall deteriorate in the course of generations. if the wings had become needless in the search for food, unnecessary for escape from enemies, and useless for protection of its young, they would certainly tend towards disappearance. the organism finds it uneconomical to maintain the nutrition of a structure which discharges no useful end. the wings, in 367such circumstances, would be an encumbrance rather than an aid, and so we may readily conjecture that, in accordance with this well-known principle, the wings gradually declined, until they ceased to be useful organs, so that now merely a few rudimentary bones remain to show that the bird’s ancestors had once been as other birds. whatever may have been the cause, it seems certain that in the course of thousands of years, or it may be in scores of thousands of years, these birds lost the power of flight; thus they gradually ceased to have wings, and these little bones are all that now remain to render it almost certain that, if we could learn what this bird’s ancestry has been, we should find that it was descended from a bird which had useful wings and vigorous flight. whenever we find an organ which is obviously rudimentary, or of no use to its possessor in its present form, darwin has taught us to look for an historical explanation. let us see if we cannot apply this principle to the illustration of the nebular theory.
fig. 57.—foraminifer.
fig. 58.—nautilus.
spirals in other departments of nature.
we liken the internal heat of the earth to the rudimentary wing-bones of the apteryx. in each case 368we find a survival devoid of much significance, unless in regard to its historical interpretation. but that historical significance can hardly be over-estimated. unimportant as the wing-bones may be, they admit of explanation only on the supposition that the apteryx was descended from a winged ancestor. unimportant as the internal heat, still lingering in our globe, may seem, it admits of explanation only on the supposition that the earth has had the origin which the nebular theory suggests.
that the earth’s beginning has been substantially in accordance with the great nebular theory is, i believe, now very generally admitted. but the only authority i shall cite in illustration of this final statement is the lady psyche, who commences her exquisite address to her “patient range of pupils” with the words:—
“this world was once a fluid haze of light,
till toward the centre set the starry tides,
and eddied into suns, that wheeling, cast
the planets;”
