The population will, through mutation and selection together, tend to follow the changing circumstances, always working toward the optimum adaptation. If the external conditions vary slowly enough, the population might always be close to the optimal adaptation. Gene frequencies are always in slow motion. This gradual movement, driven by mutation and natural selection in a changing physical and biological environment, is just the evolutionary process outlined by Darwin; and Wright’s continuously changing gene frequencies are a metaphor of natural selection.
——
Up to now each isolated subpopulation we’ve been considering has been large, comprising maybe thousands of individuals or more. But now, Wright’s critical step: Let’s think about small groups, with no more than a few dozen individuals. They tend to become closely inbred. After a few generations, who’s available to mate with except relatives? So let’s look at inbreeding for a moment before considering the evolutionary prospects of small populations.
Some human cultures have sex in private and eat in public, some do it the other way around; some live with their aged relatives, some abandon them, and some eat them; some institute rigid rules that even toddlers must obey, and some let children do almost anything they want; some bury their dead, some burn their dead, and some set them out for the birds to eat; some use cowrie shells for money, some use metal, some paper, and some do without money altogether; some have no gods, some have one god, some have many gods. But all of them abominate incest.
Incest avoidance is one of the few invariables common to the spectacular diversity of human cultures. Sometimes, though, exceptions were made for (who else?) the ruling class. Since kings were gods, or near enough, only their sisters were considered of sufficiently exalted status to be their mates. Mayan and Egyptian royal families were inbred for generations, brothers marrying sisters—the process mitigated, it is thought, by unsanctioned and unrecorded couplings with nonrelatives. The surviving offspring were not conspicuously more incompetent than the usual, run-of-the-mill kings and queens, and Cleopatra, Queen of Egypt—officially the product of many consecutive generations of incestuous matings—was gifted by many standards. The historian Plutarch described her as not incomparably beautiful; still,
the contact of her presence, if you lived with her, was irresistible; the attraction of her person, joining with the charm of her conversation, and the character that attended all she said and did, was something bewitching. It was a pleasure merely to hear the sound of her voice, with which, like an instrument of many strings, she could pass from one language to another; so that there were few of the barbarian nations that she answered by an interpreter.
She was fluent not only in Egyptian, Greek, Latin, and Macedonian, but also in Hebrew, Arabic, and the languages of the Ethiopians, the Syrians, the Medes, the Parthians, “and many others.”5 She’s described as “the only human being except Hannibal who [ever] struck fear into Rome.”6 She also gave birth to several apparently healthy children—although they were not fathered by her brother. One of them was Ptolemy XV Caesar, son of Julius Caesar and titled King of Egypt (until murdered at age seventeen by the future Emperor Augustus). Cleopatra certainly does not seem to have exhibited marked physical or intellectual deficits, despite the alleged close relation of her parents.
Nevertheless, inbreeding produces a statistical genetic deficit that takes its toll chiefly in the deaths of infants and juveniles (and we don’t have a good record of Mayan and Egyptian royal children who died at birth or were put to death in infancy). There is considerable evidence for this in many—but by no means all—groups of animals and plants. Even in sexual microorganisms, incest causes striking increases in the deaths of the young.7 In incestuous unions in zoos, mortality in the offspring increased steeply for forty different species of mammals—although some were much more vulnerable to close inbreeding than others.8 In successive brother-sister matings in fruit flies, only a few percent of the offspring survived by the seventh generation.9 In baboons, matings between first cousins result in infants that die, within the first month of life, about 30% more often than in baboon matings where the parents are not close relatives.10 Most normally outbred plants—corn, for example—deteriorate on consistent inbreeding. They become smaller, scrawnier, more withered. That’s why we have hybrid corn. Many plants with both male and female parts are configured, as Darwin first noted, so they cannot easily have sex with themselves (“self-incompatibility” this ultimate incest taboo is called). Many animals, including the primates, have taboos that inhibit mating with close relatives.11
Purebred dogs are prone to deformities and crippling defects. The biologists John Paul Scott and John L. Fuller performed breeding experiments—that is, artificial selection—on five breeds of dogs:
In our experiments we began with what were considered good breeding stocks, with a fair number of champions in their ancestry. When we bred these animals to their close relatives for even one or two generations, we uncovered serious defects in every breed.
… [C]ocker spaniels [are] selected for a broad forehead with prominent eyes and a pronounced “stop,” or angle between the nose and forehead. When we examined the brains of some of these animals during autopsy, we found that they showed a mild degree of hydrocephaly; that is, in selecting for skull shape, the breeders had accidentally selected for a brain defect in some individuals. Besides all this, in most of our strains only about 50 per cent of the females were capable of rearing normal, healthy litters, even under nearly ideal conditions of care.
Among other dog breeds, such defects are quite common.12
Similar genetic deficits are found in the limited data available on human incest in modern times. The increased infant death rate resulting from first cousin marriages13 is only about 60%. But in a Michigan study14 in the middle 1960s, eighteen children from brother-sister and father-daughter matings were compared with a control group of children from non-incestuous matings. Most of the children of incest (eleven out of eighteen) died within their first six months, or showed serious defects—including severe mental retardation. No history of such defects was found in the parents or their families. The remaining children seemed normal in intelligence and in all other respects, and were recommended for adoption. None of the children in the control group died or was institutionalized. Compared to brother-sister and father-daughter matings in other animals, though, these mortality and morbidity rates seem high; perhaps incestuous unions that produce abnormal children were more likely to come to the attention of the scientists making the study.
The dangers of repeated inbreeding seem so clear that we can safely conclude that unsanctioned sexual unions, impregnations of Queens of Egypt by someone other than the Pharaoh, occurred among Cleopatra’s immediate ancestors. Even a few sibling matings in consecutive generations would probably have led to death, or at least to a Cleopatra very different from the vital individual history reveals to us. But one generation of outcrossing goes far to cancel the previous inbreeding.
Inbreeding is a particular danger in very small groups, because in them it can hardly be avoided. If a new nonlethal mutation occurs in one individual, it either gets lost—because, for example, its bearer has no offspring—or it’s not many generations before it’s in nearly everybody, even if it’s slightly maladaptive. So now most males in the population have, say, a little too much testosterone; the conflicts and the distractions of conflict are taking their toll, and the youngsters are not being cared for as they should. The population has wandered from optimum adaptation; if inbreeding is intense, it may be that eventually none of the members of the group leaves offspring.
If inbreeding weren’t so risky, you might think that small populations are the way to get to gene frequency constellations that are not now especially adaptive, but that will be so at some time in the future. If the population is small, then new mutations or new combinations of letters and sequences in the genetic code can propagate through the entire population in only a few generations. New r
andom experiments in biology are being conducted that could not occur in large populations. As a result, almost always, the group goes hurtling away from optimum adaptation. But comparatively rare genes and gene combinations can be tried out so quickly in a small population that it can swiftly cover a lot of ground in the possible range of gene frequencies.
What’s happening here is described as “accidents of sampling,” which have much more profound consequences in small populations than in large ones: Imagine you’re flipping a coin. Your chance of getting one head in one trial or flip is clearly 50%, one chance in two. The coin has only a head and a tail, and it has to turn up one side or the other. With two flips, the full menu of equally possible outcomes is: two tails, a head and a tail, a tail and a head, or two heads. So your chance of getting two consecutive heads is one in four, or, equivalently, one-quarter, or ½ × ½. With three flips, the chance that they’re all heads is one chance in eight (½ × ½ × ½), or one in 23. You can flip ten heads in a row once in about a thousand trials (210 = 1024). (If we’d witnessed only that trial, we might think you’re phenomenally lucky.) But a hundred heads in a row will take about a billion billion trillion trials (2100 roughly equals 1030)—which is the same as forever.
In small populations major accidents of sampling are inevitable; in large populations they are nonexistent. Were a national opinion poll to query three people only, there would be little reason to believe the results—that is, to think these three opinions adequately sampled the opinions of most citizens. One of the individuals polled might, by accident, be a Libertarian or a Vegetarian, a Trotskyite or a Luddite, a Coptic or a Skeptic—all with interesting perspectives, but none an accurate reflection of the general population. Now imagine that the opinions of these three were somehow proportionately amplified to become the opinions of the population of the United States as a whole; a major transformation in national attitudes and politics would have been worked. The same can be true genetically when a few individuals from a large population establish a new and isolated community.
Accidents of sampling happen when the population sampled is very small. In many elections, when the pollsters sample five hundred or a thousand randomly chosen people, the results repeatedly prove to be representative of the nation as a whole.* With five hundred or a thousand truthful random samplings, the findings are accurate to within a few percent. (The variation expected is the square root of the sample size.) If you ask a large number of randomly selected people, you will reliably sample the average*; if you ask only a few, you may sample atypical or fringe opinions. Pollsters would gladly sample smaller populations; it would save them money. But they dare not—the errors would be too large, the sampled opinions too unrepresentative.
As in opinion polls, so it is in the genetics of populations: With a small enough group, substantial deviations † from the average can be sampled and become established. With mutually isolated small groups, many different sets of gene frequencies get tried out—most maladaptive, but a few, fortuitously, poised for the future. This is called genetic drift.
Or suppose that your name is Theodosius Dobzhansky and that you live in New York City. Even if you have ten sons, your name will continue to be “rare and outlandish” so long as you continue to reside in the big city. But move the family to a small town, have many descendants, and Dobzhansky will eventually become a common and unremarkable name. Similarly, any extraordinary hereditary predisposition in the Dobzhansky genes will affect only a tiny fraction of the population while you’re in New York, but might in a few generations become a major genetic feature of the citizenry of the town.15
Is there any way to preserve the accidents of sampling inherent in small groups, while avoiding the slow deterioration intrinsic to incest? Imagine that each group is significantly inbred, but that outbreeding is sometimes indulged in. Individuals from largely isolated subpopulations occasionally find each other and mate, enough to mitigate the more severe genetic consequences of incest. Different constellations of genes will be established in each subpopulation by genetic drift. Each small group will have a different set of hereditary propensities. They will not all, therefore, be optimally adapted to current circumstances. Now that the environment has changed, none of them may be. Being far from optimally adapted, their lives will be hard. Not one of these groups will be as well off as it was earlier. Many groups will die out. Now, though, when the environmental crisis comes, a few of these smaller populations will find themselves, by accident, advantageously situated, “preadapted.”
The trick is to combine the accidents of sampling of small groups (so at least one group will be by chance fortunately poised for the next environmental crisis) with the stability of large groups (so once the new, desirable adaptation is hit upon, it is spread to a substantial population). Because the lucky group—with newly optimal gene frequencies—is also in genetic contact with other groups, its new constellation of adaptive genes is passed on. Other groups acquire the new capabilities, the new mix of traits, the new adaptations; and simultaneously the most dangerous consequences of inbreeding are avoided.
Here then is a trial-and-error mechanism through which a large population can explore the mix of possible gene frequencies. When the adaptations that formerly led to our success now become only marginally useful, we have a way out. Dividing a species into many quite small, fairly inbred populations, but allowing occasional interbreeding among these populations, is the solution Sewall Wright proposed. It avoids both traps, overspecialization and overgeneralization.16 And to the extent that major evolutionary steps occur relatively quickly in small, semi-isolated populations, the relative paucity of intermediate forms in the fossil record—one of the problems that plagued Darwin—would be explained.17
——
No organisms have ever sat down and decided, as a matter of conscious species-wide evolutionary policy, to divide themselves up into small populations, amplify accidents of genetic sampling, and at the same time avoid the more flagrant forms of incest. But, as always happens in the evolutionary process, any species that, by accident, makes appropriate arrangements preferentially reproduces. If enough evolutionary experiments are tried over the immense vistas of time available in the history of life, then very improbable adaptations—in group size, say, or in the balance between inbreeding and outbreeding—can be institutionalized. Here we are talking about the evolution of a mechanism to guarantee continuing evolution, a second-order or meta-evolutionary development.18
What would it feel like from the inside if you were a member of a species that had, through natural selection, made arrangements for genetic drift? You would enjoy living in small groups. You would hate crowds. For accidents of sampling to work on an appropriate time scale, a group might have to comprise no more than one hundred or two hundred individuals, and—according to Wright—would probably be best with only a few dozen members. Groups of six to eight or fewer tend to be unstable; they’re too vulnerable to being wiped out by predators or flood or disease, a different example of accidents of sampling. You would conceive a passionate loyalty to the group, something like intense family feeling, superpatriotism, chauvinism, ethnocentrism. (Especially because most members of your group are close relatives, you might when necessary be moved to something like altruistic or even heroic actions on their behalf.) You would also need to avoid any merger of your group with another, because much bigger groups would inhibit accidents of sampling. So it would be helpful if you conceived a passionate hostility to other groups, a vivid sense of their deficiencies, something like xenophobia or jingoism.
Those other groups are, of course, composed of individuals of the same species as you. They look almost exactly like you. To fan the flames of xenophobia, you must examine them with minute attention and exaggerate whatever differences can be discerned, always to their disadvantage. They have slightly different heredities and slightly different diets, so they don’t smell quite the same as you and yours. If your olfactory powers are sufficiently finely tuned
, maybe their scents will render them grotesque, hateful, odious.
It would be even better if you could establish some distinctions. If differences in dress and language are unavailable—having not yet been invented, for example—differences in behavior, posture, or vocalizations would be helpful. Anything that can distinguish your group from the others could work to keep hatreds high and resist merger. Other groups, conveniently, are similarly disposed. These nonhereditary differences between one group and another—even arbitrary differences, only distantly connected with any adaptive advantage, but serving to preserve group independence and coherence—are called, collectively, culture. At a rudimentary level many animals have it.19 Cultural diversity helps preserve genetic drift.
At the same time, avoiding too much inbreeding and guaranteeing at least occasional outbreeding are essential. So you would feel a revulsion about incest, or at least about the most consanguineous matings. Wherever possible, this revulsion would be reinforced by your copying the attitudes of your fellows, by culture. There would be an incest taboo (relaxed perhaps if the population is reduced to only a few survivors). Outbreeding might be officially proscribed—perhaps, among humans, by young men attacking males from other groups who, even accidentally, wander into the neighborhood, or by fathers mourning, as if dead, daughters who run off with foreigners. But despite the pervasive ethnocentrism and xenophobia, now and then you would find members of other, hostile groups unaccountably attractive. Surreptitious matings would occur. (This is, more or less, the theme of Romeo and Juliet, Rudolph Valentino’s The Sheik, and a vast industry of books on romance, targeted at women.)