Create successful ePaper yourself
Turn your PDF publications into a flip-book with our unique Google optimized e-Paper software.
246 DESIGN IN NATURE<br />
§ 49. Effect of <strong>Cosmic</strong> Changes on Plants and Animals.<br />
Considering the intimate relation which obtains between the organic and inorganic kingdoms—between plants<br />
and animals on the one hand, and the elements composing them, and circulating within them, on the other— it<br />
follows that plants and animals are more or less influenced by their surroundings and by cosmic changes, such as<br />
Ught and darkness ; day and night ; the seasons ; heat and cold ; moisture and dryness ; absence or presence<br />
of electricity in the atmosphere, &c.<br />
Plants, on the whole, are more susceptible to cosmic changes than animals, from the fact that their affinities<br />
with the inorganic kingdom are closer, and more pronounced. This follows, because they are, with few exceptions,<br />
fixed to the earth and dependent, in a great measure, for their food on their immediate surroundings.<br />
The extent to which the cosmic changes referred to influence plants and animals is, in every instance, limited.<br />
The changes in question affect plants and animals most in a state of domestication. Wild plants and animals<br />
are comparatively httle influenced by them.<br />
That cosmic changes and environment do not essentially alter the forms and functions of plants and animals<br />
is proved in two ways :<br />
(a.) Plants and animals, varieties of which have been obtained by man's selection and fostering care, revert<br />
to their originals if left to themselves. Thus the several cultivated grains and vegetables, if allowed to run wild,<br />
degenerate and breed back. The same may be said of animals : the endless varieties of pigeons, if uncared for,<br />
all revert to the blue rock pigeon.<br />
(b.) Animals have not perceptibly changed during the historical period. Thus man has had the same external<br />
configuration and traits of character for at least five or six thousand years. Egyptian tombs some five thousand<br />
years old display drawings of the five leading races of man as recognised at the present day. They also give repre-<br />
sentations of a large number of domestic and other animals, which are the same now as they were in the days of the<br />
Pharaohs, and in the remote past.^<br />
If we go back to geological records, we find foraminifera in all respects similar to those existing at present,<br />
which hved at an inconceivably earher period, and long before the appearance on the earth of fishes, reptiles, birds,<br />
and animals.<br />
Sir J. William Dawson, when speaking of the origin of specific types and varieties and the external conditions<br />
favourable to their production, and when discussing the question as to " whether the conditions favourable to the<br />
appearance of new varieties were also those favourable to the creation of new types or the reverse," says : " In the<br />
present state of our knowledge we have no good ground either to limit the number of specific types beyond what<br />
a fair study of our material may warrant, or to infer that such primitive types must necessarily have been of low<br />
grade, or that progress in varietal forms has always been upward. The occurrence of such an advanced and<br />
specialised type as that of Dadoxylon in the Middle Devonian should guard us against these errors. The creative<br />
process may have been applicable to the highest as well as to the lowest forms, and subsequent deviations must have<br />
included degradation as well as elevation. I can conceive nothing more unreasonable than the statement some-<br />
times made that it is illogical or even absurd to suppose that highly organised beings could have been produced except<br />
by derivation from previously existing organisms. This is begging the whole question at issue. . . .<br />
" There is no reason to believe that any specific cJuinge has occurred in any plant within the Pleistocene or modern<br />
period." '^<br />
In an address delivered to the biological section of the British Association, Mr. Carruthers has discussed this<br />
' As archaiological research is prosecuted, and our knowledge advances, it becomes more and more evident that civilisation and art in Egypt<br />
are considerably older than was suspected even a few years ago. It is now believed that man was in a forward state of civilisation as far back as<br />
9000 years arjn. To Professor Flinders Petrie the discoveries establishing this fact are mainly due. Many other distinguished investigators have<br />
contributed their quota, among whom may be mentioned 11. Capart, who has written an interesting work 011 " Primitive Art in Egypt."<br />
M. Capart in his volume shows that Egyptian art is indigenous, and was not greatly affected by outside influences. He says that recently-<br />
reveaiea revealed eaiaor eailier sn'aia sti-ata exmniia exhiliita praciicajiy practically coiunmous continuous series 01 of ornamental utensils and suulptnrert sculptured nioiinnieiits nionunients connecting the A'eolithic Neolithic a; age with<br />
Pliaraoiiic times. He observes that the Hints of Egyiit were of exceptionally fine workmanshiij, that art is of immemorial antiquity 1in<br />
that<br />
ancient laud, and that the earliest liiids were linked by continuity of style with the latest. The objects of which M. Capart's work tre reats are<br />
ascribed to dates lying between 7000 ii.c.<br />
- .,<br />
town of Abydos.<br />
and .'fOOO B.C.. and the first dynasty is<br />
„ supposed to have been found in Petrie's excavations ., 1. of thi the small<br />
The following abstract has reference to a work, "The Egyjitians in Egypt," by Professor Flindei-s Petrie : " Far back in pre-historic times the<br />
savage who wandered over the wild desert mountains of Sinai picked up little scraps of sky-blue stone which pleased liis fancy. These were<br />
doubtless preserved 1)y being stuck into holes in his weajions and objects of wood, as the Bedawin do now ; and these decorated things were<br />
traded over into Egyi)t. The pre-historic man of Egypt demanded more, and a trade in turquoise sprang up, and provided the turquoise beads<br />
which were treasured for necklaces in the Nile Valley abotU elglit tlumsand years ago. The primitive workers doubtless extracted the stones from<br />
the sandstone rock by means of the flint-scrapers, such as arc found by hundreds in the old mine-heaps. When Egypt passed into the settled form<br />
of unifled govenmient, under the dynasties, the early kings would not leave this supply of jewels unclaimed. So in Sinai, as far back as about<br />
JfSOO n.c. there are figures of the Egyptian king smiting the natives, and of the general who headed the expedition. These are the oldest<br />
sculptures known. Several such scenes of triumph were carved by later kings, especially those of the pyramid period, as Seneferu, about AOOO B.C."<br />
^ •• The Geological History of Plants." Science Series, Loiid(m, 1888.