XVII. ON THE GOOD EFFECTS OF CROSSING, AND ON THE EVIL EFFECTS OF CLOSE INTERBREEDING…

XVII. ON THE GOOD EFFECTS OF CROSSING, AND ON THE EVIL EFFECTS OF CLOSE INTERBREEDING

DEFINITION OF CLOSE INTERBREEDING—AUGMENTATION OF MORBID TENDENCIES—GENERAL EVIDENCE OF THE GOOD EFFECTS DERIVED FROM CROSSING, AND ON THE EVIL EFFECTS FROM CLOSE INTERBREEDING—CATTLE, CLOSELY INTERBRED; HALF-WILD CATTLE LONG KEPT IN THE SAME PARKS—SHEEP—FALLOW-DEER—DOGS, RABBITS, PIGS—MAN, ORIGIN OF HIS ABHORRENCE OF INCESTUOUS MARRIAGES—FOWLS—PIGEONS—HIVE-BEES—PLANTS, GENERAL CONSIDERATIONS ON THE BENEFITS DERIVED FROM CROSSING—MELONS, FRUIT-TREES, PEAS, CABBAGES, WHEAT, AND FOREST-TREES—ON THE INCREASED SIZE OF HYBRID PLANTS, NOT EXCLUSIVELY DUE TO THEIR STERILITY—ON CERTAIN PLANTS WHICH EITHER NORMALLY OR ABNORMALLY ARE SELF-IMPOTENT, BUT ARE FERTILE, BOTH ON THE MALE AND FEMALE SIDE, WHEN CROSSED WITH DISTINCT INDIVIDUALS EITHER OF THE SAME OR ANOTHER SPECIES—CONCLUSION.

The gain in constitutional vigour, derived from an occasional cross between individuals of the same variety, but belonging to distinct families, or between distinct varieties, has not been so largely or so frequently discussed, as have the evil effects of too close interbreeding. But the former point is the more important of the two, inasmuch as the evidence is more decisive. The evil results from close interbreeding are difficult to detect, for they accumulate slowly, and differ much in degree with different species; whilst the good effects which almost invariably follow a cross are from the first manifest. It should, however, be clearly understood that the advantage of close interbreeding, as far as the retention of character is concerned, is indisputable, and often outweighs the evil of a slight loss of constitutional vigour. In relation to the subject of domestication, the whole question is of some importance, as too close interbreeding interferes with the improvement of old races. It is important as indirectly bearing on Hybridism; and possibly on the extinction of species, when any form has become so rare that only a few individuals remain within a confined area. It bears in an important manner on the influence of free intercrossing, in obliterating individual differences, and thus giving uniformity of character to the individuals of the same race or species; for if additional vigour and fertility be thus gained, the crossed offspring will multiply and prevail, and the ultimate result will be far greater than otherwise would have occurred. Lastly, the question is of high interest, as bearing on mankind. I shall therefore discuss this subject at full length. As the facts which prove the evil effects of close interbreeding are more copious, though less decisive, than those on the good effects of crossing, I shall, under each group of beings, begin with the former.

There is no difficulty in defining what is meant by a cross; but this is by no means easy in regard to “breeding in and in” or “too close interbreeding,” because, as we shall see, different species of animals are differently affected by the same degree of interbreeding. The pairing of a father and daughter, or mother and son, or brothers and sisters, if carried on during several generations, is the closest possible form of interbreeding. But some good judges, for instance Sir J. Sebright, believe that the pairing of a brother and sister is much closer than that of parents and children; for when the father is matched with his daughter he crosses, as is said, with only half his own blood. The consequences of close interbreeding carried on for too long a time, are, as is generally believed, loss of size, constitutional vigour, and fertility, sometimes accompanied by a tendency to malformation. Manifest evil does not usually follow from pairing the nearest relations for two, three, or even four generations; but several causes interfere with our detecting the evil—such as the deterioration being very gradual, and the difficulty of distinguishing between such direct evil and the inevitable augmentation of any morbid tendencies which may be latent or apparent in the related parents. On the other hand, the benefit from a cross, even when there has not been any very close interbreeding, is almost invariably at once conspicuous. There is good reason to believe, and this was the opinion of that most experienced observer Sir J. Sebright,[1] that the evil effects of close interbreeding may be checked or quite prevented by the related individuals being separated for a few generations and exposed to different conditions of life. This conclusion is now held by many breeders; for instance Mr. Carr[2] remarks, it is a well-known “fact that a change of soil and climate effects perhaps almost as great a change in the constitution as would result from an infusion of fresh blood.” I hope to show in a future work that consanguinity by itself counts for nothing, but acts solely from related organisms generally having a similar constitution, and having been exposed in most cases to similar conditions.

That any evil directly follows from the closest interbreeding has been denied by many persons; but rarely by any practical breeder; and never, as far as I know, by one who has largely bred animals which propagate their kind quickly. Many physiologists attribute the evil exclusively to the combination and consequent increase of morbid tendencies common to both parents; and that this is an active source of mischief there can be no doubt. It is unfortunately too notorious that men and various domestic animals endowed with a wretched constitution, and with a strong hereditary disposition to disease, if not actually ill, are fully capable of procreating their kind. Close interbreeding, on the other hand, often induces sterility; and this indicates something quite distinct from the augmentation of morbid tendencies common to both parents. The evidence immediately to be given convinces me that it is a great law of nature, that all organic beings profit from an occasional cross with individuals not closely related to them in blood; and that, on the other hand, long-continued close interbreeding is injurious.

Various general considerations have had much influence in leading me to this conclusion; but the reader will probably rely more on special facts and opinions. The authority of experienced observers, even when they do not advance the grounds of their belief, is of some little value. Now almost all men who have bred many kinds of animals and have written on the subject, such as Sir J. Sebright, Andrew Knight, etc.,[3] have expressed the strongest conviction on the impossibility of long-continued close interbreeding. Those who have compiled works on agriculture, and have associated much with breeders, such as the sagacious Youatt, Low, etc., have strongly declared their opinion to the same effect. Prosper Lucas, trusting largely to French authorities, has come to a similar conclusion. The distinguished German agriculturist Hermann von Nathusius, who has written the most able treatise on this subject which I have met with, concurs; and as I shall have to quote from this treatise, I may state that Nathusius is not only intimately acquainted with works on agriculture in all languages, and knows the pedigrees of our British breeds better than most Englishmen, but has imported many of our improved animals, and is himself an experienced breeder.

Evidence of the evil effects of close interbreeding can most readily be acquired in the case of animals, such as fowls, pigeons, etc., which propagate quickly, and, from being kept in the same place, are exposed to the same conditions. Now I have inquired of very many breeders of these birds, and I have hitherto not met with a single man who was not thoroughly convinced that an occasional cross with another strain of the same sub-variety was absolutely necessary. Most breeders of highly improved or fancy birds value their own strain, and are most unwilling, at the risk, in their opinion, of deterioration, to make a cross. The purchase of a first-rate bird of another strain is expensive, and exchanges are troublesome; yet all breeders, as far as I can hear, excepting those who keep large stocks at different places for the sake of crossing, are driven after a time to take this step.

Another general consideration which has had great influence on my mind is, that with all hermaphrodite animals and plants, which it might have been thought would have perpetually fertilised themselves and been thus subjected for long ages to the closest interbreeding, there is not a single species, as far as I can discover, in which the structure ensures self-fertilisation. On the contrary, there are in a multitude of cases, as briefly stated in the fifteenth chapter, manifest adaptations which favour or inevitably lead to an occasional cross between one hermaphrodite and another of the same species; and these adaptive structures are utterly purposeless, as far as we can see, for any other end.

With Cattle there can be no doubt that extremely close interbreeding may be long carried on advantageously with respect to external characters, and with no manifest evil as far as constitution is concerned. The case of Bakewell’s Longhorns, which were closely interbred for a long period, has often been quoted; yet Youatt says[4] the breed “had acquired a delicacy of constitution inconsistent with common management,” and “the propagation of the species was not always certain.” But the Shorthorns offer the most striking case of close interbreeding; for instance, the famous bull Favourite (who was himself the offspring of a half-brother and sister from Foljambe) was matched with his own daughter, granddaughter, and great-granddaughter; so that the produce of this last union, or the great-great-granddaughter, had 15-16ths, or 93·75 per cent of the blood of Favourite in her veins. This cow was matched with the bull Wellington, having 62·5 per cent of Favourite blood in his veins, and produced Clarissa; Clarissa was matched with the bull Lancaster, having 68·75 of the same blood, and she yielded valuable offspring.[5] Nevertheless Collings, who reared these animals, and was a strong advocate for close breeding, once crossed his stock with a Galloway, and the cows from this cross realised the highest prices. Bates’s herd was esteemed the most celebrated in the world. For thirteen years he bred most closely in and in; but during the next seventeen years, though he had the most exalted notion of the value of his own stock, he thrice infused fresh blood into his herd: it is said that he did this, not to improve the form of his animals, but on account of their lessened fertility. Mr. Bates’s own view, as given by a celebrated breeder,[6] was, that “to breed in-and-in from a bad stock was ruin and devastation; yet that the practice may be safely followed within certain limits when the parents so related are descended from first-rate animals.” We thus see that there has been much close interbreeding with Shorthorns; but Nathusius, after the most careful study of their pedigrees, says that he can find no instance of a breeder who has strictly followed this practice during his whole life. From this study and his own experience, he concludes that close interbreeding is necessary to ennoble the stock; but that in effecting this the greatest care is necessary, on account of the tendency to infertility and weakness. It may be added, that another high authority[7] asserts that many more calves are born cripples from Shorthorns than from other and less closely interbred races of cattle.

Although by carefully selecting the best animals (as Nature effectually does by the law of battle) close interbreeding may be long carried on with cattle, yet the good effects of a cross between almost any two breeds is at once shown by the greater size and vigour of the offspring; as Mr. Spooner writes to me, “crossing distinct breeds certainly improves cattle for the butcher.” Such crossed animals are of course of no value to the breeder; but they have been raised during many years in several parts of England to be slaughtered;[8] and their merit is now so fully recognised, that at fat-cattle shows a separate class has been formed for their reception. The best fat ox at the great show at Islington in 1862 was a crossed animal.

The half-wild cattle, which have been kept in British parks probably for 400 or 500 years, or even for a longer period, have been advanced by Culley and others as a case of long-continued interbreeding within the limits of the same herd without any consequent injury. With respect to the cattle at Chillingham, the late Lord Tankerville owned that they were bad breeders.[9] The agent, Mr. Hardy, estimates (in a letter to me, dated May, 1861) that in the herd of about fifty the average number annually slaughtered, killed by fighting, and dying, is about ten, or one in five. As the herd is kept up to nearly the same average number, the annual rate of increase must be likewise about one in five. The bulls, I may add, engage in furious battles, of which battles the present Lord Tankerville has given me a graphic description, so that there will always be rigorous selection of the most vigorous males. I procured in 1855 from Mr. D. Gardner, agent to the Duke of Hamilton, the following account of the wild cattle kept in the Duke’s park in Lanarkshire, which is about 200 acres in extent. The number of cattle varies from sixty-five to eighty; and the number annually killed (I presume by all causes) is from eight to ten; so that the annual rate of increase can hardly be more than one in six. Now in South America, where the herds are half-wild, and therefore offer a nearly fair standard of comparison, according to Azara the natural increase of the cattle on an estancia is from one-third to one-fourth of the total number, or one in between three and four and this, no doubt, applies exclusively to adult animals fit for consumption. Hence the half-wild British cattle which have long interbred within the limits of the same herd are relatively far less fertile. Although in an unenclosed country like Paraguay there must be some crossing between the different herds, yet even there the inhabitants believe that the occasional introduction of animals from distant localities is necessary to prevent “degeneration in size and diminution of fertility.”[10] The decrease in size from ancient times in the Chillingham and Hamilton cattle must have been prodigious, for Professor Rütimeyer has shown that they are almost certainly the descendants of the gigantic Bos primigenius. No doubt this decrease in size may be largely attributed to less favourable conditions of life; yet animals roaming over large parks, and fed during severe winters, can hardly be considered as placed under very unfavourable conditions.

With Sheep there has often been long-continued interbreeding within the limits of the same flock; but whether the nearest relations have been matched so frequently as in the case of Shorthorn cattle, I do not know. The Messrs. Brown during fifty years have never infused fresh blood into their excellent flock of Leicesters. Since 1810 Mr. Barford has acted on the same principle with the Foscote flock. He asserts that half a century of experience has convinced him that when two nearly related animals are quite sound in constitution, in-and-in breeding does not induce degeneracy; but he adds that he “does not pride himself on breeding from the nearest affinities.” In France the Naz flock has been bred for sixty years without the introduction of a single strange ram.[11] Nevertheless, most great breeders of sheep have protested against close interbreeding prolonged for too great a length of time.[12] The most celebrated of recent breeders, Jonas Webb, kept five separate families to work on, thus “retaining the requisite distance of relationship between the sexes”;[13] and what is probably of greater importance, the separate flocks will have been exposed to somewhat different conditions.

Although by the aid of careful selection the near interbreeding of sheep may be long continued without any manifest evil, yet it has often been the practice with farmers to cross distinct breeds to obtain animals for the butcher, which plainly shows that good of some kind is derived from this practice. We have excellent evidence on this head from Mr. S. Druce,[14] who gives in detail the comparative numbers of four pure breeds and of a cross-breed which can be supported on the same ground, and he gives their produce in fleece and carcase. A high authority, Mr. Pusey, sums up the result in money value during an equal length of time, namely (neglecting shillings), for Cotswolds 248_l_., for Leicesters 223_l_., for Southdowns 204_l_., for Hampshire Downs 264_l_., and for the crossbred 293_l_. A former celebrated breeder, Lord Somerville, states that his half-breeds from Ryelands and Spanish sheep were larger animals than either the pure Ryelands or pure Spanish sheep. Mr. Spooner concludes his excellent Essay on Crossing by asserting that there is a pecuniary advantage in judicious cross-breeding, especially when the male is larger than the female.[15]

As some of our British parks are ancient, it occurred to me that there must have been long-continued close interbreeding with the fallow-deer (Cervus dama) kept in them; but on inquiry I find that it is a common practice to infuse new blood by procuring bucks from other parks. Mr. Shirley,[16] who has carefully studied the management of deer, admits that in some parks there has been no admixture of foreign blood from a time beyond the memory of man. But he concludes “that in the end the constant breeding in-and-in is sure to tell to the disadvantage of the whole herd, though it may take a very long time to prove it; moreover, when we find, as is very constantly the case, that the introduction of fresh blood has been of the very greatest use to deer, both by improving their size and appearance, and particularly by being of service in removing the taint of ‘rickback,’ if not of other diseases, to which deer are sometimes subject when the blood has not been changed, there can, I think, be no doubt but that a judicious cross with a good stock is of the greatest consequence, and is indeed essential, sooner or later, to the prosperity of every well-ordered park.”

Mr. Meynell’s famous foxhounds have been adduced, as showing that no ill effects follow from close interbreeding; and Sir J. Sebright ascertained from him that he frequently bred from father and daughter, mother and son, and sometimes even from brothers and sisters. With greyhounds also there has been much close interbreeding, but the best breeders agree that it may be carried too far.[17] But Sir J. Sebright declares,[18] that by breeding in-and-in, by which he means matching brothers and sisters, he has actually seen the offspring of strong spaniels degenerate into weak and diminutive lapdogs. The Rev. W. D. Fox has communicated to me the case of a small lot of bloodhounds, long kept in the same family, which had become very bad breeders, and nearly all had a bony enlargement in the tail. A single cross with a distinct strain of bloodhounds restored their fertility, and drove away the tendency to malformation in the tail. I have heard the particulars of another case with bloodhounds, in which the female had to be held to the male. Considering how rapid is the natural increase of the dog, it is difficult to understand the large price of all highly improved breeds, which almost implies long-continued close interbreeding, except on the belief that this process lessens fertility and increases liability to distemper and other diseases. A high authority, Mr. Scrope, attributes the rarity and deterioration in size of the Scotch deerhound (the few individuals formerly existing throughout the country being all related) in large part to close interbreeding.

With all highly-bred animals there is more or less difficulty in getting them to procreate quickly, and all suffer much from delicacy of constitution. A great judge of rabbits[19] says, “the long-eared does are often too highly bred or forced in their youth to be of much value as breeders, often turning out barren or bad mothers.” They often desert their young, so that it is necessary to have nurse-rabbits, but I do not pretend to attribute all these evil results to close interbreeding.[20]

With respect to Pigs there is more unanimity amongst breeders on the evil effects of close interbreeding than, perhaps, with any other large animal. Mr. Druce, a great and successful breeder of the Improved Oxfordshires (a crossed race), writes, “without a change of boars of a different tribe, but of the same breed, constitution cannot be preserved.” Mr. Fisher Hobbs, the raiser of the celebrated Improved Essex breed, divided his stock into three separate families, by which means he maintained the breed for more than twenty years, “by judicious selection from the three distinct families.”[21] Lord Western was the first importer of a Neapolitan boar and sow. “From this pair he bred in-and-in, until the breed was in danger of becoming extinct, a sure result (as Mr. Sidney remarks) of in-and-in breeding.” Lord Western then crossed his Neapolitan pigs with the old Essex, and made the first great step towards the Improved Essex breed. Here is a more interesting case. Mr. J. Wright, well known as a breeder, crossed[22] the same boar with the daughter, granddaughter, and great-granddaughter, and so on for seven generations. The result was, that in many instances the offspring failed to breed; in others they produced few that lived; and of the latter many were idiotic, without sense, even to suck, and when attempting to move could not walk straight. Now it deserves especial notice, that the two last sows produced by this long course of interbreeding were sent to other boars, and they bore several litters of healthy pigs. The best sow in external appearance produced during the whole seven generations was one in the last stage of descent; but the litter consisted of this one sow. She would not breed to her sire, yet bred at the first trial to a stranger in blood. So that, in Mr. Wright’s case, long-continued and extremely close interbreeding did not affect the external form or merit of the young; but with many of them the general constitution and mental powers, and especially the reproductive functions, were seriously affected.

Nathusius gives[23] an analogous and even more striking case: he imported from England a pregnant sow of the large Yorkshire breed, and bred the product closely in-and-in for three generations: the result was unfavourable, as the young were weak in constitution, with impaired fertility. One of the latest sows, which he esteemed a good animal, produced, when paired with her own uncle (who was known to be productive with sows of other breeds), a litter of six, and a second time a litter of only five weak young pigs. He then paired this sow with a boar of a small black breed, which he had likewise imported from England; this boar, when matched with sows of his own breed, produced from seven to nine young. Now, the sow of the large breed, which was so unproductive when paired with her own uncle, yielded to the small black boar, in the first litter twenty-one, and in the second litter eighteen young pigs; so that in one year she produced thirty-nine fine young animals!

As in the case of several other animals already mentioned, even when no injury is perceptible from moderately close interbreeding, yet, to quote the words of Mr. Coate (who five times won the annual gold medal of the Smithfield Club Show for the best pen of pigs), “Crosses answer well for profit to the farmer, as you get more constitution and quicker growth; but for me, who sell a great number of pigs for breeding purposes, I find it will not do, as it requires many years to get anything like purity of blood again.”[24]

Almost all the animals as yet mentioned are gregarious, and the males must frequently pair with their own daughters, for they expel the young males as well as all intruders, until forced by old age and loss of strength to yield to some stronger male. It is therefore not improbable that gregarious animals may have been rendered less susceptible than non-social species to the evil consequences of close interbreeding, so that they may be enabled to live in herds without injury to their offspring. Unfortunately we do not know whether an animal like the cat, which is not gregarious, would suffer from close interbreeding in a greater degree than our other domesticated animals. But the pig is not, as far as I can discover, strictly gregarious, and we have seen that it appears eminently liable to the evil effects of close interbreeding. Mr. Huth, in the case of the pig, attributes (Chapter XXIV) these effects to their having been “cultivated most for their fat,” or to the selected individuals having had a weak constitution; but we must remember that it is great breeders who have brought forward the above cases, and who are far more familiar than ordinary men can be, with the causes which are likely to interfere with the fertility of their animals.

The effects of close interbreeding in the case of man is a difficult subject, on which I will say but little. It has been discussed by various authors under many points of view.[25] Mr. Tylor[26] has shown that with widely different races in the most distant quarters of the world, marriages between relations—even between distant relations—have been strictly prohibited. There are, however, many exceptions to the rule, which are fully given by Mr. Huth.[27] It is a curious problem how these prohibitions arose during early and barbarous times. Mr. Tylor is inclined to attribute them to the evil effects of consanguineous marriages having been observed; and he ingeniously attempts to explain some apparent anomalies in the prohibition not extending equally to the relations on the male and female side. He admits, however, that other causes, such as the extension of friendly alliances, may have come into play. Mr. W. Adam, on the other hand, concludes that related marriages are prohibited and viewed with repugnance, from the confusion which would thus arise in the descent of property, and from other still more recondite reasons. But I cannot accept these views, seeing that incest is held in abhorrence by savages such as those of Australia and South America,[28] who have no property to bequeath, or fine moral feelings to confuse, and who are not likely to reflect on distant evils to their progeny. According to Mr. Huth the feeling is the indirect result of exogamy, inasmuch as when this practice ceased in any tribe and it became endogamous, so that marriages were strictly confined to the same tribe, it is not unlikely that a vestige of the former practice would still be retained, so that closely-related marriages would be prohibited. With respect to exogamy itself Mr. MacLennan believes that it arose from a scarcity of women, owing to female infanticide, aided perhaps by other causes.

It has been clearly shown by Mr. Huth that there is no instinctive feeling in man against incest any more than in gregarious animals. We know also how readily any prejudice or feeling may rise to abhorrence, as shown by Hindus in regard to objects causing defilement. Although there seems to be no strong inherited feeling in mankind against incest, it seems possible that men during primeval times may have been more excited by strange females than by those with whom they habitually lived; in the same manner as according to Mr. Cupples,[29] male deerhounds are inclined towards strange females, while the females prefer dogs with whom they have associated. If any such feeling formerly existed in man, this would have led to a preference for marriages beyond the nearest kin, and might have been strengthened by the offspring of such marriages surviving in greater numbers, as analogy would lead us to believe would have occurred.

Whether consanguineous marriages, such as are permitted in civilised nations, and which would not be considered as close interbreeding in the case of our domesticated animals, cause any injury will never be known with certainty until a census is taken with this object in view. My son, George Darwin, has done what is possible at present by a statistical investigation,[30] and he has come to the conclusion, from his own researches and those of Dr. Mitchell, that the evidence as to any evil thus caused is conflicting, but on the whole points to the evil being very small.

Birds.—In the case of the Fowl a whole array of authorities could be given against too close interbreeding. Sir J. Sebright positively asserts that he made many trials, and that his fowls, when thus treated, became long in the legs, small in the body, and bad breeders.[31] He produced the famous Sebright Bantams by complicated crosses, and by breeding in-and-in; and since his time there has been much close interbreeding with these animals; and they are now notoriously bad breeders. I have seen Silver Bantams, directly descended from his stock, which had become almost as barren as hybrids; for not a single chicken had been that year hatched from two full nests of eggs. Mr. Hewitt says that with these Bantams the sterility of the male stands, with rare exceptions, in the closest relation with their loss of certain secondary male characters: he adds, “I have noticed, as a general rule, that even the slightest deviation from feminine character in the tail of the male Sebright—say the elongation by only half an inch of the two principal tail feathers—brings with it improved probability of increased fertility.”[32]

Mr. Wright states[33] that Mr. Clark, “whose fighting-cocks were so notorious, continued to breed from his own kind till they lost their disposition to fight, but stood to be cut up without making any resistance, and were so reduced in size as to be under those weights required for the best prizes; but on obtaining a cross from Mr. Leighton, they again resumed their former courage and weight.” It should be borne in mind that game-cocks before they fought were always weighed, so that nothing was left to the imagination about any reduction or increase of weight. Mr. Clark does not seem to have bred from brothers and sisters, which is the most injurious kind of union; and he found, after repeated trials, that there was a greater reduction in weight in the young from a father paired with his daughter, than from a mother with her son. I may add that Mr. Eyton of Eyton, the well-known ornithologist, who is a large breeder of Grey Dorkings, informs me that they certainly diminish in size, and become less prolific, unless a cross with another strain is occasionally obtained. So it is with Malays, according to Mr. Hewitt, as far as size is concerned.[34]

An experienced writer[35] remarks that the same amateur, as is well known, seldom long maintains the superiority of his birds; and this, he adds, undoubtedly is due to all his stock “being of the same blood;” hence it is indispensable that he should occasionally procure a bird of another strain. But this is not necessary with those who keep a stock of fowls at different stations. Thus, Mr. Ballance, who has bred Malays for thirty years, and has won more prizes with these birds than any other fancier in England, says that breeding in-and-in does not necessarily cause deterioration; “but all depends upon how this is managed. My plan has been to keep about five or six distinct runs, and to rear about two hundred or three hundred chickens each year, and select the best birds from each run for crossing. I thus secure sufficient crossing to prevent deterioration.”[36]

We thus see that there is almost complete unanimity with poultry-breeders that, when fowls are kept at the same place, evil quickly follows from interbreeding carried on to an extent which would be disregarded in the case of most quadrupeds. Moreover, it is a generally received opinion that cross-bred chickens are the hardiest and most easily reared.[37] Mr. Tegetmeier, who has carefully attended to poultry of all breeds, says[38] that Dorking hens, allowed to run with Houdan or Crevecœur cocks, “produce in the early spring chickens that for size, hardihood, early maturity, and fitness for the market, surpass those of any pure breed that we have ever raised.” Mr. Hewitt gives it as a general rule with fowls, that crossing the breed increases their size. He makes this remark after stating that hybrids from the pheasant and fowl are considerably larger than either progenitor: so again, hybrids from the male golden pheasant and female common pheasant “are of far larger size than either parent-bird.”[39] To this subject of the increased size of hybrids I shall presently return.

With Pigeons, breeders are unanimous, as previously stated, that it is absolutely indispensable, notwithstanding the trouble and expense thus caused, occasionally to cross their much-prized birds with individuals of another strain, but belonging, of course, to the same variety. It deserves notice that, when size is one of the desired characters, as with pouters[40] the evil effects of close interbreeding are much sooner perceived than when small birds, such as short-faced tumblers, are valued. The extreme delicacy of the high fancy breeds, such as these tumblers and improved English carriers, is remarkable; they are liable to many diseases, and often die in the egg or during the first moult; and their eggs have generally to be hatched under foster-mothers. Although these highly-prized birds have invariably been subjected to much close interbreeding, yet their extreme delicacy of constitution cannot perhaps be thus fully explained. Mr. Yarrell informed me that Sir J. Sebright continued closely interbreeding some owl-pigeons, until from their extreme sterility he as nearly as possible lost the whole family. Mr. Brent[41] tried to raise a breed of trumpeters, by crossing a common pigeon, and recrossing the daughter, granddaughter, great-granddaughter, and great-great-granddaughter, with the same male trumpeter, until he obtained a bird with 15/16 of trumpeter’s blood; but then the experiment failed, for “breeding so close stopped reproduction.” The experienced Neumeister[42] also asserts that the offspring from dovecotes and various other breeds are “generally very fertile and hardy birds:” so again MM. Boitard and Corbié,[43] after forty-five years’ experience, recommend persons to cross their breeds for amusement; for, if they fail to make interesting birds, they will succeed under an economical point of view, “as it is found that mongrels are more fertile than pigeons of pure race.”

I will refer only to one other animal, namely, the Hive-bee, because a distinguished entomologist has advanced this as a case of inevitable close interbreeding. As the hive is tenanted by a single female, it might have been thought that her male and female offspring would always have bred together, more especially as bees of different hives are hostile to each other; a strange worker being almost always attacked when trying to enter another hive. But Mr. Tegetmeier has shown[44] that this instinct does not apply to drones, which are permitted to enter any hive; so that there is no à priori improbability of a queen receiving a foreign drone. The fact of the union invariably and necessarily taking place on the wing, during the queen’s nuptial flight, seems to be a special provision against continued interbreeding. However this may be, experience has shown, since the introduction of the yellow-banded Ligurian race into Germany and England, that bees freely cross: Mr. Woodbury, who introduced Ligurian bees into Devonshire, found during a single season that three stocks, at distances of from one to two miles from his hives, were crossed by his drones. In one case the Ligurian drones must have flown over the city of Exeter, and over several intermediate hives. On another occasion several common black queens were crossed by Ligurian drones at a distance of from one to three and a half miles.[45]

Plants.

When a single plant of a new species is introduced into any country, if propagated by seed, many individuals will soon be raised, so that if the proper insects be present there will be crossing. With newly-introduced trees or other plants not propagated by seed we are not here concerned. With old-established plants it is an almost universal practice occasionally to make exchanges of seed, by which means individuals which have been exposed to different conditions of life,—and this, as we have seen with animals, diminishes the evil from close interbreeding,—will occasionally be introduced into each district.

With respect to individuals belonging to the same sub-variety, Gärtner, whose accuracy and experience exceeded that of all other observers, states[46] that he has many times observed good effects from this step, especially with exotic genera, of which the fertility is somewhat impaired, such as Passiflora, Lobelia, Fuchsia. Herbert also says,[47] “I am inclined to think that I have derived advantage from impregnating the flower from which I wished to obtain seed with pollen from another individual of the same variety, or at least from another flower, rather than with its own.” Again, Professor Lecoq ascertained that crossed offspring are more vigorous and robust than their parents.[48]

General statements of this kind, however, can seldom be fully trusted: I therefore began a long series of experiments, continued for about ten years, which will I think conclusively show the good effects of crossing two distinct plants of the same variety, and the evil effects of long-continued self-fertilisation. A clear light will thus be thrown on such questions, as why flowers are almost invariably constructed so as to permit, or favour, or necessitate the union of two individuals. We shall clearly understand why monœcious and dioecious,—why dichogamous, dimorphic and trimorphic plants exist, and many other such cases. I intend soon to publish an account of these experiments, and I can here give only a few cases in illustration. The plan which I followed was to grow plants in the same pot, or in pots of the same size, or close together in the open ground; carefully to exclude insects; and then to fertilise some of the flowers with pollen from the same flower, and others on the same plant with pollen from a distinct but adjoining plant. In many of these experiments, the crossed plants yielded much more seed than the self-fertilised plants; and I have never seen the reversed case. The self-fertilised and crossed seeds thus obtained were allowed to germinate in the same glass vessel on damp sand; and as the seeds germinated, they were planted in pairs on opposite sides of the same pot, with a superficial partition between them, and were placed so as to be equally exposed to the light. In other cases the self-fertilised and crossed seeds were simply sown on opposite sides of the same small pot. I have, in short, followed different plans, but in every case have taken all the precautions which I could think of, so that the two lots should be equally favoured. The growth of the plants raised from the crossed and self-fertilised seed, were carefully observed from their germination to maturity, in species belonging to fifty-two genera; and the difference in their growth, and in withstanding unfavourable conditions, was in most cases manifest and strongly marked. It is of importance that the two lots of seed should be sown or planted on opposite sides of the same pot, so that the seedlings may struggle against each other; for if sown separately in ample and good soil, there is often but little difference in their growth.

I will briefly describe two of the first cases observed by me. Six crossed and six self-fertilised seeds of Ipomoea purpurea, from plants treated in the manner above described, were planted as soon as they had germinated, in pairs on opposite sides of two pots, and rods of equal thickness were given them to twine up. Five of the crossed plants grew from the first more quickly than the opposed self-fertilised plants; the sixth, however, was weakly and was for a time beaten, but at last its sounder constitution prevailed and it shot ahead of its antagonist. As soon as each crossed plant reached the top of its seven-foot rod its fellow was measured, and the result was that, when the crossed plants were seven feet high the self-fertilised had attained the average height of only five feet four and a half inches. The crossed plants flowered a little before, and more profusely than the self-fertilised plants. On opposite sides of another small pot a large number of crossed and self-fertilised seeds were sown, so that they had to struggle for bare existence; a single rod was given to each lot: here again the crossed plants showed from the first their advantage; they never quite reached the summit of the seven-foot rod, but relatively to the self-fertilised plants their average height was as seven feet to five feet two inches. The experiment was repeated during several succeeding generations, treated in exactly the same manner, and with nearly the same result. In the second generation, the crossed plants, which were again crossed, produced 121 seed-capsules, whilst the self-fertilised, again self-fertilised, produced only 84 capsules.

Some flowers of the Mimulus luteus were fertilised with their own pollen, and others were crossed with pollen from distinct plants growing in the same pot. The seeds were thickly sown on opposite sides of a pot. The seedlings were at first equal in height; but when the young crossed plants were half an inch, the self-fertilised plants were only a quarter of an inch high. But this degree of inequality did not last, for, when the crossed plants were four and a half inches high, the self-fertilised were three inches, and they retained the same relative difference till their growth was complete. The crossed plants looked far more vigorous than the uncrossed, and flowered before them; they produced also a far greater number of capsules. As in the former case, the experiment was repeated during several succeeding generations. Had I not watched these plants of Mimulus and Ipomoea during their whole growth, I could not have believed it possible, that a difference apparently so slight as that of the pollen being taken from the same flower, or from a distinct plant growing in the same pot, could have made so wonderful a difference in the growth and vigour of the plants thus produced. This, under a physiological point of view, is a most remarkable phenomenon.

With respect to the benefit derived from crossing distinct varieties, plenty of evidence has been published. Sageret[49] repeatedly speaks in strong terms of the vigour of melons raised by crossing different varieties, and adds that they are more easily fertilised than common melons, and produce numerous good seed. Here follows the evidence of an English gardener:[50] “I have this summer met with better success in my cultivation of melons, in an unprotected state, from the seeds of hybrids (i.e. mongrels) obtained by cross impregnation, than with old varieties. The offspring of three different hybridisations (one more especially, of which the parents were the two most dissimilar varieties I could select) each yielded more ample and finer produce than any one of between twenty and thirty established varieties.”

Andrew Knight[51] believed that his seedlings from crossed varieties of the apple exhibited increased vigour and luxuriance; and M. Chevreul[52] alludes to the extreme vigour of some of the crossed fruit-trees raised by Sageret.

By crossing reciprocally the tallest and shortest peas, Knight[53] says: “I had in this experiment a striking instance of the stimulative effects of crossing the breeds; for the smallest variety, whose height rarely exceeded two feet, was increased to six feet: whilst the height of the large and luxuriant kind was very little diminished.” Mr. Laxton gave me seed-peas produced from crosses between four distinct kinds; and the plants thus raised were extraordinarily vigorous, being in each case from one to two or three feet taller than the parent-forms growing close alongside them.

Wiegmann[54] made many crosses between several varieties of cabbage; and he speaks with astonishment of the vigour and height of the mongrels, which excited the amazement of all the gardeners who beheld them. Mr. Chaundy raised a great number of mongrels by planting together six distinct varieties of cabbage. These mongrels displayed an infinite diversity of character; “But the most remarkable circumstance was, that, while all the other cabbages and borecoles in the nursery were destroyed by a severe winter, these hybrids were little injured, and supplied the kitchen when there was no other cabbage to be had.”

Mr. Maund exhibited before the Royal Agricultural Society[55] specimens of crossed wheat, together with their parent varieties; and the editor states that they were intermediate in character, “united with that greater vigour of growth, which it appears, in the vegetable as in the animal world, is the result of a first cross.” Knight also crossed several varieties of wheat,[56] and he says “that in the years 1795 and 1796, when almost the whole crop of corn in the island was blighted, the varieties thus obtained, and these only, escaped in this neighbourhood, though sown in several different soils and situations.”

Here is a remarkable case: M. Clotzsch[57] crossed Pinus sylvestris and nigricans, Quercus robur and pedunculata, Alnus glutinosa and incana, Ulmus campestris and effusa; and the cross-fertilised seeds, as well as seeds of the pure parent-trees, were all sown at the same time and in the same place. The result was, that after an interval of eight years, the hybrids were one-third taller than the pure trees!

The facts above given refer to undoubted varieties, excepting the trees crossed by Clotzsch, which are ranked by various botanists as strongly-marked races, sub-species, or species. That true hybrids raised from entirely distinct species, though they lose in fertility, often gain in size and constitutional vigour, is certain. It would be superfluous to quote any facts; for all experimenters, Kolreuter, Gärtner, Herbert, Sageret, Lecoq, and Naudin, have been struck with the wonderful vigour, height, size, tenacity of life, precocity, and hardiness of their hybrid productions. Gärtner[58] sums up his conviction on this head in the strongest terms. Kölreuter[59] gives numerous precise measurements of the weight and height of his hybrids in his comparison with measurements of both parent-forms; and speaks with astonishment of their “statura portentosa,” their “ambitus vastissimus ac altitudo valde conspicua.” Some exceptions to the rule in the case of very sterile hybrids have, however, been noticed by Gärtner and Herbert; but the most striking exceptions are given by Max Wichura[60] who found that hybrid willows were generally tender in constitution, dwarf, and short-lived.

Kolreuter explains the vast increase in the size of the roots, stems, etc., of his hybrids, as the result of a sort of compensation due to their sterility, in the same way as many emasculated animals are larger than the perfect males. This view seems at first sight extremely probable, and has been accepted by various authors;[61] but Gärtner[62] has well remarked that there is much difficulty in fully admitting it; for with many hybrids there is no parallelism between the degree of their sterility and their increased size and vigour. The most striking instances of luxuriant growth have been observed with hybrids which were not sterile in any extreme degree. In the genus Mirabilis, certain hybrids are unusually fertile, and their extraordinary luxuriance of growth, together with their enormous roots[63] have been transmitted to their progeny. The result in all cases is probably in part due to the saving of nutriment and vital force through the sexual organs acting imperfectly or not at all, but more especially to the general law of good being derived from a cross. For it deserves especial attention that mongrel animals and plants, which are so far from being sterile that their fertility is often actually augmented, have, as previously shown, their size, hardiness, and constitutional vigour generally increased. It is not a little remarkable that an accession of vigour and size should thus arise under the opposite contingencies of increased and diminished fertility.

It is a perfectly well ascertained fact[64] that hybrids invariably breed with either pure parent, and not rarely with a distinct species, more readily than with one another. Herbert is inclined to explain even this fact by the advantage derived from a cross; but Gärtner more justly accounts for it by the pollen of the hybrid, and probably its ovules, being in some degree vitiated, whereas the pollen and ovules of both pure parents and of any third species are sound. Nevertheless, there are some well-ascertained and remarkable facts, which, as we shall presently see, show that a cross by itself undoubtedly tends to increase or re-establish the fertility of hybrids.

The same law, namely, that the crossed offspring both of varieties and species are larger than the parent-forms, holds good in the most striking manner with hybrid animals as well as with mongrels. Mr. Bartlett, who has had such large experience says, “Among all hybrids of vertebrated animals there is a marked increase of size.” He then enumerates many cases with mammals, including monkeys, and with various families of birds.[65]

On certain Hermaphrodite Plants which, either normally or abnormally, require to be fertilised by pollen from a distinct individual or species.

The facts now to be given differ from the foregoing, as self-sterility is not here the result of long-continued close interbreeding. These facts are, however, connected with our present subject, because a cross with a distinct individual is shown to be either necessary or advantageous. Dimorphic and trimorphic plants, though they are hermaphrodites, must be reciprocally crossed, one set of forms by the other, in order to be fully fertile, and in some cases to be fertile in any degree. But I should not have noticed these plants, had it not been for the following cases given by Dr. Hildebrand:—[66]

Primula sinensis is a reciprocally dimorphic species: Dr. Hildebrand fertilised twenty-eight flowers of both forms, each by pollen of the other form, and obtained the full number of capsules containing on an average 42·7 seed per capsule; here we have complete and normal fertility. He then fertilised forty-two flowers of both forms with pollen of the same form, but taken from a distinct plant, and all produced capsules containing on an average only 19·6 seed. Lastly, and here we come to our more immediate point, he fertilised forty-eight flowers of both forms with pollen of the same form and taken from the same flower, and now he obtained only thirty-two capsules, and these contained on an average 18·6 seed, or one less per capsule than in the former case. So that, with these illegitimate unions, the act of impregnation is less assured, and the fertility slightly less, when the pollen and ovules belong to the same flower, than when belonging to two distinct individuals of the same form. Dr. Hildebrand has recently made analogous experiments on the long-styled form of Oxalis rosea, with the same result.[67]

It has recently been discovered that certain plants, whilst growing in their native country under natural conditions, cannot be fertilised with pollen from the same plant. They are sometimes so utterly self-impotent, that, though they can readily be fertilised by the pollen of a distinct species or even distinct genus, yet, wonderful as is the fact, they never produce a single seed by their own pollen. In some cases, moreover, the plant’s own pollen and stigma mutually act on each other in a deleterious manner. Most of the facts to be given relate to orchids, but I will commence with a plant belonging to a widely different family.

Sixty-three flowers of Corydalis cava, borne on distinct plants, were fertilised by Dr. Hildebrand[68] with pollen from other plants of the same species; and fifty-eight capsules were obtained, including on an average 4.5 seed in each. He then fertilised sixteen flowers produced by the same raceme, one with another, but obtained only three capsules, one of which alone contained any good seeds, namely, two in number. Lastly, he fertilised twenty-seven flowers, each with its own pollen; he left also fifty-seven flowers to be spontaneously fertilised, and this would certainly have ensued if it had been possible, for the anthers not only touch the stigma, but the pollen-tubes were seen by Dr. Hildebrand to penetrate it; nevertheless these eighty-four flowers did not produce a single seed-capsule! This whole case is highly instructive, as it shows how widely different the action of the same pollen is, according as it is placed on the stigma of the same flower, or on that of another flower on the same raceme, or on that of a distinct plant.

With exotic Orchids several analogous cases have been observed, chiefly by Mr. John Scott.[69] Oncidium sphacelatum has effective pollen, for Mr. Scott fertilised two distinct species with it; the ovules are likewise capable of impregnation, for they were readily fertilised by the pollen of O. divaricatum; nevertheless, between one and two hundred flowers fertilised by their own pollen did not produce a single capsule, though the stigmas were penetrated by the pollen-tubes. Mr. Robertson Munro, of the Royal Botanic Gardens of Edinburgh, also informs me (1864) that a hundred and twenty flowers of this same species were fertilised by him with their own pollen, and did not produce a capsule, but eight flowers, fertilised by the pollen of O. divaricatum, produced four fine capsules: again, between two and three hundred flowers of O. divaricatum, fertilised by their own pollen, did not set a capsule, but twelve flowers fertilised by O. flexuosum produced eight fine capsules: so that here we have three utterly self-impotent species, with their male and female organs perfect, as shown by their mutual fertilisation. In these cases fertilisation was effected only by the aid of a distinct species. But, as we shall presently see, distinct plants, raised from seed, of Oncidium flexuosum, and probably of the other species, would have been perfectly capable of fertilising each other, for this is the natural process. Again, Mr. Scott found that the pollen of a plant of O. microchilum was effective, for with it he fertilised two distinct species; he found its ovules good, for they could be fertilised by the pollen of one of these species, and by the pollen of a distinct plant of O. microchilum; but they could not be fertilised by pollen of the same plant, though the pollen-tubes penetrated the stigma. An analogous case has been recorded by M. Rivière[70] with two plants of O. cavendishianum, which were both self-sterile, but reciprocally fertilised each other. All these cases refer to the genus Oncidium, but Mr. Scott found that Maxillaria atro-rubens was “totally insusceptible of fertilisation with its own pollen,” but fertilised, and was fertilised by, a widely distinct species, viz. M. squalens.

As these orchids had been grown under unnatural conditions in hot-houses, I concluded that their self-sterility was due to this cause. But Fritz Müller informs me that at Desterro, in Brazil, he fertilised above one hundred flowers of the above-mentioned Oncidium flexuosum, which is there endemic, with its own pollen, and with that taken from distinct plants: all the former were sterile, whilst those fertilised by pollen from any other plant of the same species were fertile. During the first three days there was no difference in the action of the two kinds of pollen: that placed on stigma of the same plant separated in the usual manner into grains, and emitted tubes which penetrated the column, and the stigmatic chamber shut itself; but only those flowers which had been fertilised by pollen taken from a distinct plant produced seed-capsules. On a subsequent occasion these experiments were repeated on a large scale with the same result. Fritz Müller found that four other endemic species of Oncidium were in like manner utterly sterile with their own pollen, but fertile with that from any other plant: some of them likewise produced seed-capsules when impregnated with pollen of widely distinct genera, such as Cyrtopodium, and Rodriguezia. Oncidium crispum, however, differs from the foregoing species in varying much in its self-sterility; some plants producing fine pods with their own pollen, others failing to do so in two or three instances, Fritz Müller observed that the pods produced by pollen taken from a distinct flower on the same plant, were larger than those produced by the flower’s own pollen. In Epidendrum cinnabarinum, an orchid belonging to another division of the family, fine pods were produced by the plant’s own pollen, but they contained by weight only about half as much seed as the capsules which had been fertilised by pollen from a distinct plant, and in one instance from a distinct species; moreover, a very large proportion, and in some cases nearly all the seeds produced by the plant’s own pollen, were destitute of an embryo. Some self-fertilised capsules of a Maxillaria were in a similar state.

Another observation made by Fritz Müller is highly remarkable, namely, that with various orchids the plant’s own pollen not only fails to impregnate the flower, but acts on the stigma, and is acted on, in an injurious or poisonous manner. This is shown by the surface of the stigma in contact with the pollen, and by the pollen itself becoming in from three to five days dark brown, and then decaying. The discoloration and decay are not caused by parasitic cryptograms, which were observed by Fritz Müller in only a single instance. These changes are well shown by placing on the same stigma, at the same time, the plant’s own pollen and that from a distinct plant of the same species, or of another species, or even of another and widely remote genus. Thus, on the stigma of Oncidium flexuosum, the plant’s own pollen and that from a distinct plant were placed side by side, and in five days’ time the latter was perfectly fresh, whilst the plant’s own pollen was brown. On the other hand, when the pollen of a distinct plant of the Oncidium flexuosum and of the Epidendrum zebra (nov. spec.?) were placed together on the same stigma, they behaved in exactly the same manner, the grains separating, emitting tubes, and penetrating the stigma, so that the two pollen-masses, after an interval of eleven days, could not be distinguished except by the difference of their caudicles, which, of course, undergo no change. Fritz Müller has, moreover, made a large number of crosses between orchids belonging to distinct species and genera, and he finds that in all cases when the flowers are not fertilised their footstalks first begin to wither; and the withering slowly spreads upwards until the germens fall off, after an interval of one or two weeks, and in one instance of between six and seven weeks; but even in this latter case, and in most other cases, the pollen and stigma remained in appearance fresh. Occasionally, however, the pollen becomes brownish, generally on the external surface, and not in contact with the stigma, as is invariably the case when the plant’s own pollen is applied.

Fritz Müller observed the poisonous action of the plant’s own pollen in the above-mentioned Oncidium flexuosum, O. unicorne, pubes (?), and in two other unnamed species. Also in two species of Rodriguezia, in two of Notylia, in one of Burlingtonia, and of a fourth genus in the same group. In all these cases, except the last, it was proved that the flowers were, as might have been expected, fertile with pollen from a distinct plant of the same species. Numerous flowers of one species of Notylia were fertilised with pollen from the same raceme; in two days’ time they all withered, the germens began to shrink, the pollen-masses became dark brown, and not one pollen-grain emitted a tube. So that in this orchid the injurious action of the plant’s own pollen is more rapid than with Oncidium flexuosum. Eight other flowers on the same raceme were fertilised with pollen from a distinct plant of the same species: two of these were dissected, and their stigmas were found to be penetrated by numberless pollen-tubes; and the germens of the other six flowers became well developed. On a subsequent occasion many other flowers were fertilised with their own pollen, and all fell off dead in a few days; whilst some flowers on the same raceme which had been left simply unfertilised adhered and long remained fresh. We have seen that in cross-unions between extremely distinct orchids the pollen long remains undecayed; but Notylia behaved in this respect differently; for when its pollen was placed on the stigma of Oncidium flexuosum, both the stigma and pollen quickly became dark brown, in the same manner as if the plant’s own pollen had been applied.

Fritz Müller suggests that, as in all these cases the plant’s own pollen is not only impotent (thus effectually preventing self-fertilisation), but likewise prevents, as was ascertained in the case of the Notylia and Oncidium flexuosum, the action of subsequently applied pollen from a distinct individual, it would be an advantage to the plant to have its own pollen rendered more and more deleterious; for the germens would thus quickly be killed, and dropping off, there would be no further waste in nourishing a part which ultimately could be of no avail.

The same naturalist found in Brazil three plants of a Bignonia growing near together. He fertilised twenty-nine flowerets on one of them with their own pollen, and they did not set a single capsule. Thirty flowers were then fertilised with pollen from a distinct plant, one of the three, and they yielded only two capsules. Lastly, five flowers were fertilised with pollen from a fourth plant growing at a distance, and all five produced capsules. Fritz Müller thinks that the three plants which grew near one another were probably seedlings from the same parent, and that from being closely related, they acted very feebly on one another. This view is extremely probable, for he has since shown in a remarkable paper,[71] that in the case of some Brazilian species of Abutilon, which are self-sterile, and between which he raised some complex hybrids, that these, if near relatives, were much less fertile inter se, than when not closely related.

We now come to cases closely analogous with those just given, but different in so far that only certain individuals of the species are self-sterile. This self-impotence does not depend on the pollen or ovules being in an unfit state for fertilisation, for both have been found effective in union with other plants of the same or of a distinct species. The fact of plants having acquired so peculiar a constitution, that they can be fertilised more readily by the pollen of a distinct species than by their own, is exactly the reverse of what occurs with all ordinary species. For in the latter the two sexual elements of the same individual plant are of course capable of freely acting on each other; but are so constituted that they are more or less impotent when brought into union with the sexual elements of a distinct species, and produce more or less sterile hybrids.

Gärtner experimented on two plants of Lobelia fulgens, brought from separate places, and found[72] that their pollen was good, for he fertilised with it L. cardinalis and syphilitica; their ovules were likewise good, for they were fertilised by the pollen of these same two species; but these two plants of L. fulgens could not be fertilised by their own pollen, as can generally be effected with perfect ease with this species. Again, the pollen of a plant of Verbascum nigrum grown in a pot was found by Gärtner[73] capable of fertilising V. lychnitis and V. austriacum; the ovules could be fertilised by the pollen of V. thapsus; but the flowers could not be fertilised by their own pollen. Kölreuter, also,[74] gives the case of three garden plants of Verbascum phœniceum, which bore during two years many flowers; these he fertilised successfully with the pollen of no less than four distinct species, but they produced not a seed with their own apparently good pollen; subsequently these same plants, and others raised from seed, assumed a strangely fluctuating condition, being temporarily sterile on the male or female side, or on both sides, and sometimes fertile on both sides; but two of the plants were perfectly fertile throughout the summer.

With Reseda odorata I have found certain individuals quite sterile with their own pollen, and so it is with the indigenous Reseda lutea. The self-sterile plants of both species were perfectly fertile when crossed with pollen from any other individual of the same species. These observations will hereafter be published in another work, in which I shall also show that seeds sent to me by Fritz Müller produced by plants of Eschscholtzia californica which were quite self-sterile in Brazil, yielded in this country plants which were only slightly self-sterile.

It appears[75] that certain flowers on certain plants of Lilium candidum can be fertilised more freely by pollen from a distinct individual than by their own. So, again, with the varieties of the potato. Tinzmann,[76] who made many trials with this plant, says that pollen from another variety sometimes “exerts a powerful influence, and I have found sorts of potatoes which would not bear seed from impregnation with the pollen of their own flowers would bear it when impregnated with other pollen.” It does not, however, appear to have been proved that the pollen which failed to act on the flower’s own stigma was in itself good.

In the genus Passiflora it has long been known that several species do not produce fruit, unless fertilised by pollen taken from distinct species: thus, Mr. Mowbray[77] found that he could not get fruit from P. alata and racemosa except by reciprocally fertilising them with each other’s pollen; and similar facts have been observed in Germany and France.[78] I have received two accounts of P. quadrangularis never producing fruit from its own pollen, but doing so freely when fertilised in one case with the pollen of P. cœrulea, and in another case with that of P. edulis. But in three other cases this species fruited freely when fertilised with its own pollen; and the writer in one case attributed the favourable result to the temperature of the house having been raised from 5° to 10° Fahr. above the former temperature, after the flowers were fertilised.[79] With respect to P. laurifolia, a cultivator of much experience has recently remarked[80] that the flowers “must be fertilised with the pollen of P. cœrulea, or of some other common kind, as their own pollen will not fertilise them.” But the fullest details on this subject have been given by Messrs. Scott and Robertson Munro:[81] plants of Passiflora racemosa, cœrulea, and alata flowered profusely during many years in the Botanic Gardens of Edinburgh, and, though repeatedly fertilised with their own pollen, never produced any seed; yet this occurred at once with all three species when they were crossed together in various ways. In the case of P. cœrulea three plants, two of which grew in the Botanic Gardens, were all rendered fertile, merely by impregnating each with pollen of one of the others. The same result was attained in the same manner with P. alata, but with only one plant out of three. As so many self-sterile species of Passiflora have been mentioned, it should be stated that the flowers of the annual P. gracilis are nearly as fertile with their own pollen as with that from a distinct plant; thus sixteen flowers spontaneously self-fertilised produced fruit, each containing on an average 21·3 seed, whilst fruit from fourteen crossed flowers contained 24·1 seed.

Returning to P. alata, I have received (1866) some interesting details from Mr. Robertson Munro. Three plants, including one in England, have already been mentioned which were inveterately self-sterile, and Mr. Munro informs me of several others which, after repeated trials during many years, have been found in the same predicament. At some other places, however, this species fruits readily when fertilised with its own pollen. At Taymouth Castle there is a plant which was formerly grafted by Mr. Donaldson on a distinct species, name unknown, and ever since the operation it has produced fruit in abundance by its own pollen; so that this small and unnatural change in the state of this plant has restored its self-fertility! Some of the seedlings from the Taymouth Castle plant were found to be not only sterile with their own pollen, but with each other’s pollen, and with the pollen of distinct species. Pollen from the Taymouth plant failed to fertilise certain plants of the same species, but was successful on one plant in the Edinburgh Botanic Gardens. Seedlings were raised from this latter union, and some of their flowers were fertilised by Mr. Munro with their own pollen; but they were found to be as self-impotent as the mother-plant had always proved, except when fertilised by the grafted Taymouth plant, and except, as we shall see, when fertilised by her own seedlings. For Mr. Munro fertilised eighteen flowers on the self-impotent mother-plant with pollen from these her own self-impotent seedlings, and obtained, remarkable as the fact is, eighteen fine capsules full of excellent seed! I have met with no case in regard to plants which shows so well as this of P. alata, on what small and mysterious causes complete fertility or complete sterility depends.

The facts hitherto given relate to the much-lessened or completely destroyed fertility of pure species when impregnated with their own pollen, in comparison with their fertility when impregnated by distinct individuals or distinct species; but closely analogous facts have been observed with hybrids.

Herbert states[82] that having in flower at the same time nine hybrid Hippeastrums, of complicated origin, descended from several species, he found that “almost every flower touched with pollen from another cross produced seed abundantly, and those which were touched with their own pollen either failed entirely, or formed slowly a pod of inferior size, with fewer seeds.” In the ‘Horticultural Journal’ he adds that “the admission of the pollen of another cross-bred Hippeastrum (however complicated the cross) to any one flower of the number, is almost sure to check the fructification of the others.” In a letter written to me in 1839, Dr. Herbert says that he had already tried these experiments during five consecutive years, and he subsequently repeated them, with the same invariable result. He was thus led to make an analogous trial on a pure species, namely, on the Hippeastrum aulicum, which he had lately imported from Brazil: this bulb produced four flowers, three of which were fertilised by their own pollen, and the fourth by the pollen of a triple cross between H. bulbulosum, reginæ, and vittatum; the result was, that “the ovaries of the three first flowers soon ceased to grow, and after a few days perished entirely: whereas the pod impregnated by the hybrid made vigorous and rapid progress to maturity, and bore good seed, which vegetated freely.” This is, indeed, as Herbert remarks, “a strange truth,” but not so strange as it then appeared.

As a confirmation of these statements, I may add that Mr. M. Mayes[83] after much experience in crossing the species of Amaryllis (Hippeastrum), says, “neither the species nor the hybrids will, we are well aware, produce seed so abundantly from their own pollen as from that of others.” So, again, Mr. Bidwell, in New South Wales[84] asserts that Amaryllis belladonna bears many more seeds when fertilised by the pollen of Brunswigia (Amaryllis of some authors) josephinæ or of B. multiflora, than when fertilised by its own pollen. Mr. Beaton dusted four flowers of a Cyrtanthus with their own pollen, and four with the pollen of Vallota (Amaryllis) purpurea; on the seventh day “those which received their own pollen slackened their growth, and ultimately perished; those which were crossed with the Vallota held on.”[85] These latter cases, however, relate to uncrossed species, like those before given with respect to Passiflora, Orchids, etc., and are here referred to only because the plants belong to the same group of Amaryllidaceæ.

In the experiments on the hybrid Hippeastrums, if Herbert had found that the pollen of two or three kinds alone had been more efficient on certain kinds than their own pollen, it might have been argued that these, from their mixed parentage, had a closer mutual affinity than the others; but this explanation is inadmissible, for the trials were made reciprocally backwards and forwards on nine different hybrids; and a cross, whichever way taken, always proved highly beneficial. I can add a striking and analogous case from experiments made by the Rev. A. Rawson, of Bromley Common, with some complex hybrids of Gladiolus. This skilful horticulturist possessed a number of French varieties, differing from each other only in the colour and size of the flowers, all descended from Gandavensis, a well-known old hybrid, said to be descended from G. natalensis by the pollen of G. oppositiflorus.[86] Mr. Rawson, after repeated trials, found that none of the varieties would set seed with their own pollen, although taken from distinct plants of the same variety (which had, of course, been propagated by bulbs), but that they all seeded freely with pollen from any other variety. To give two examples: Ophir did not produce a capsule with its own pollen, but when fertilised with that of Janire, Brenchleyensis, Vulcain and Linné, it produced ten fine capsules; but the pollen of Ophir was good, for when Linné was fertilised by it seven capsules were produced. This latter variety, on the other hand, was utterly barren with its own pollen, which we have seen was perfectly efficient on Ophir. Altogether, Mr. Rawson, in the year 1861 fertilised twenty-six flowers borne by four varieties with pollen taken from other varieties, and every single flower produced a fine seed-capsule; whereas fifty-two flowers on the same plants, fertilised at the same time with their own pollen, did not yield a single seed-capsule. Mr. Rawson fertilised, in some cases, the alternate flowers, and in other cases all those down one side of the spike, with pollen of other varieties, and the remaining flowers with their own pollen. I saw these plants when the capsules were nearly mature, and their curious arrangement at once brought full conviction to the mind that an immense advantage had been derived from crossing these hybrids.

Lastly, I have heard from Dr. E. Bornet, of Antibes, who has made numerous experiments in crossing the species of Cistus, but has not yet published the results, that, when any of these hybrids are fertile, they may be said to be, in regard to function, dioecious; “for the flowers are always sterile when the pistil is fertilised by pollen taken from the same flower or from flowers on the same plant. But they are often fertile if pollen be employed from a distinct individual of the same hybrid nature, or from a hybrid made by a reciprocal cross.”

Conclusion.—That plants should be self-sterile, although both sexual elements are in a fit state for reproduction, appears at first sight opposed to all analogy. With respect to the species, all the individuals of which are in this state, although living under their natural conditions, we may conclude that their self-sterility has been acquired for the sake of effectually preventing self-fertilisation. The case is closely analogous with that of dimorphic and trimorphic or heterostyled plants, which can be fully fertilised only by plants belonging to a different form, and not, as in the foregoing cases, indifferently by any other individual of the species. Some of these hetero-styled plants are completely sterile with pollen taken from the same plant or from the same form. With respect to species living under their natural conditions, of which only certain individuals are self-sterile (as with Reseda lutea), it is probable that these have been rendered self-sterile to ensure occasional cross-fertilisation, whilst other individuals have remained self-fertile to ensure the propagation of the species. The case seems to be parallel with that of plants which produce, as Hermann Müller has discovered, two forms—one bearing more conspicuous flowers with their structure adapted for cross-fertilisation by insects, and the other form with less conspicuous flowers adapted for self-fertilisation. The self-sterility, however, of some of the foregoing plants is incidental on the conditions to which they have been subjected, as with the Eschscholtzia, the Verbascum phœniceum (the sterility of which varied according to the season), and with the Passiflora alata, which recovered its self-fertility when grafted on a different stock.

It is interesting to observe in the above several cases the graduated series from plants which, when fertilised by their own pollen, yield the full number of seeds, but with the seedlings a little dwarfed in stature—to plants which when self-fertilised yield few seeds—to those which yield none, but have their ovaria somewhat developed—and, lastly, to those in which the plant’s own pollen and stigma mutually act on one another like poison. It is also interesting to observe on how slight a difference in the nature of the pollen or of the ovules complete self-sterility or complete self-fertility must depend in some of the above cases. Every individual of the self-sterile species appears to be capable of producing the full complement of seed when fertilised by the pollen of any other individual (though judging from the facts given with respect to Abutilon the nearest kin must be excepted); but not one individual can be fertilised by its own pollen. As every organism differs in some slight degree from every other individual of the same species, so no doubt it is with their pollen and ovules; and in the above cases we must believe that complete self-sterility and complete self-fertility depend on such slight differences in the ovules and pollen, and not their having been differentiated in some special manner in relation to one another; for it is impossible that the sexual elements of many thousand individuals should have been specialised in relation to every other individual. In some, however, of the above cases, as with certain Passifloras, an amount of differentiation between the pollen and ovules sufficient for fertilisation is gained only by employing pollen from a distinct species; but this is probably the result of such plants having been rendered somewhat sterile from the unnatural conditions to which they have been exposed.

Exotic animals confined in menageries are sometimes in nearly the same state as the above-described self-impotent plants; for, as we shall see in the following chapter, certain monkeys, the larger carnivora, several finches, geese, and pheasants, cross together, quite as freely as, or even more freely than the individuals of the same species breed together. Cases will, also, be given of sexual incompatibility between certain, male and female domesticated animals, which, nevertheless, are fertile when matched with any other individual of the same kind.

In the early part of this chapter it was shown that the crossing of individuals belonging to distinct families of the same race, or to different races or species, gives increased size and constitutional vigour to the offspring, and, except in the case of crossed species, increased fertility. The evidence rests on the universal testimony of breeders (for it should be observed that I am not here speaking of the evil results of close interbreeding), and is practically exemplified in the higher value of cross-bred animals for immediate consumption. The good results of crossing have also been demonstrated with some animals and with numerous plants, by actual weight and measurement. Although animals of pure blood will obviously be deteriorated by crossing, as far as their characteristic qualities are concerned, there seems to be no exception to the rule that advantages of the kind just mentioned are thus gained, even when there has not been any previous close interbreeding; and the rule applies to such animals as cattle and sheep, which can long resist breeding in-and-in between the nearest blood-relations.

In the case of crossed species, although size, vigour, precocity, and hardiness are, with rare exceptions, gained, fertility, in a greater or less degree, is lost; but the gain in the above respects can hardly be attributed to the principle of compensation; for there is no close parallelism between the increased size and vigour of hybrid offspring and their sterility. Moreover, it has been clearly proved that mongrels which are perfectly fertile gain these same advantages as well as sterile hybrids.

With the higher animals no special adaptations for ensuring occasional crosses between distinct families seem to exist. The eagerness of the males, leading to severe competition between them, is sufficient; for even with gregarious animals, the old and dominant males will be dispossessed after a time and it would be a mere chance if a closely related member of the same family were to be the victorious successor. The structure of many of the lower animals, when they are hermaphrodites, is such as to prevent the ovules being fertilised by the male element of the same individual; so that the concourse of two individuals is necessary. In other cases the access of the male element of a distinct individual is at least possible. With plants, which are affixed to the ground and cannot wander from place to place like animals, the numerous adaptations for cross-fertilisation are wonderfully perfect, as has been admitted by every one who has studied the subject.

The evil consequences of long-continued close interbreeding are not so easily recognised as the good effects from crossing, for the deterioration is gradual. Nevertheless, it is the general opinion of those who have had most experience, especially with animals which propagate quickly, that evil does inevitably follow sooner or later, but at different rates with different animals. No doubt a false belief may, like a superstition, prevail widely; yet it is difficult to suppose that so many acute observers have all been deceived at the expense of much cost and trouble. A male animal may sometimes be paired with his daughter, granddaughter, and so on, even for seven generations, without any manifest bad result: but the experiment has never been tried of matching brothers and sisters, which is considered the closest form of interbreeding, for an equal number of generations. There is good reason to believe that by keeping the members of the same family in distinct bodies, especially if exposed to somewhat different conditions of life, and by occasionally crossing these families, the evil results of interbreeding may be much diminished or quite eliminated. These results are loss of constitutional vigour, size, and fertility; but there is no necessary deterioration in the general form of the body, or in other good qualities. We have seen that with pigs first-rate animals have been produced after long-continued close interbreeding, though they had become extremely infertile when paired with their near relations. The loss of fertility, when it occurs, seems never to be absolute, but only relative to animals of the same blood; so that this sterility is to a certain extent analogous with that of self-impotent plants which cannot be fertilised by their own pollen, but are perfectly fertile with pollen of any other individual of the same species. The fact of infertility of this peculiar nature being one of the results of long-continued interbreeding, shows that interbreeding does not act merely by combining and augmenting various morbid tendencies common to both parents; for animals with such tendencies, if not at the time actually ill, can generally propagate their kind. Although offspring descended from the nearest blood-relations are not necessarily deteriorated in structure, yet some authors believe that they are eminently liable to malformations; and this is not improbable, as everything which lessens the vital powers acts in this manner. Instances of this kind have been recorded in the case of pigs, bloodhounds, and some other animals.

Finally, when we consider the various facts now given which plainly show that good follows from crossing, and less plainly that evil follows from close interbreeding, and when we bear in mind that with very many organisms elaborate provisions have been made for the occasional union of distinct individuals, the existence of a great law of nature is almost proved; namely, that the crossing of animals and plants which are not closely related to each other is highly beneficial or even necessary, and that interbreeding prolonged during many generations is injurious.

REFERENCES

[1] ‘The Art of Improving the Breed, etc.,’ 1809, p. 16.Return to passage

[2] ‘The History of the Rise and Progress of the Killerby, etc. Herds,’ p. 41.Return to passage

[3] For Andrew Knight, see A. Walker, on ‘Intermarriage,’ 1838, p. 227. Sir J. Sebright’s Treatise has just been quoted.Return to passage

[4] ‘Cattle,’ p. 199.Return to passage

[5] I give this on the authority of Nathusius, ‘Ueber Shorthorn Rindvieh,’ 1857, s. 71, (see also ‘Gardener’s Chronicle,’ 1860, p. 270). But Mr. J. Storer, a large breeder of cattle, informs me that the parentage of Clarissa is not well authenticated. In the first vol. of the ‘Herd Book,’ she was entered as having six descents from Favourite, “which was a palpable mistake,” and in all subsequent editions she was spoken of as having only four descents. Mr. Storer doubts even about the four, as no names of the dams are given. Moreover, Clarissa bore “only two bulls and one heifer, and in the next generation her progeny became extinct.” Analogous cases of close interbreeding are given in a pamphlet published by Mr. C. Macknight and Dr. H. Madden, ‘On the True Principles of Breeding;’ Melbourne, Australia, 1865.Return to passage

[6] Mr. Willoughby Wood, in ‘Gardener’s Chronicle,’ 1855, p. 411; and 1860, p. 270. See the very clear tables and pedigrees given in Nathusius’ ‘Rindvieh,’ s. 72-77.Return to passage

[7] Mr. Wright, ‘Journal of Royal Agricult. Soc.,’ vol. vii., 1846, p. 204. Mr. J. Downing (a successful breeder of Shorthorns in Ireland) informs me that the raisers of the great families of Shorthorns carefully conceal their sterility and want of constitution. He adds that Mr. Bates, after he had bred his herd in-and-in for some years, “lost in one season twenty-eight calves solely from want of constitution.”Return to passage

[8] Youatt on Cattle, p. 202.Return to passage

[9] ‘Report British Assoc., Zoolog. Sect.,’ 1838.Return to passage

[10] Azara, ‘Quadrupèdes du Paraguay,’ tom. ii. pp. 354, 368.Return to passage

[11] For the case of the Messrs. Brown, see ‘Gardener’s Chronicle,’ 1855, p. 26. For the Foscote flock, ‘Gardener’s Chronicle,’ 1860, p. 416. For the Naz flock, ‘Bull. de la Soc. d’Acclimat.,’ 1860, p. 477.Return to passage

[12] Nathusius, ‘Rindvieh,’ s. 65; Youatt on Sheep, p. 495.Return to passage

[13] ‘Gardener’s Chronicle,’ 1861, p. 631.Return to passage

[14] ‘Journal R. Agricult. Soc.,’ vol. xiv., 1853, p. 212.Return to passage

[15] Lord Somerville, ‘Facts on Sheep and Husbandry,’ p. 6. Mr. Spooner in ‘Journal of Royal Agricult. Soc. of England,’ vol. xx. part ii. See also an excellent paper on the same subject in ‘Gardener’s Chronicle,’ 1860, p. 321, by Mr. Charles Howard.Return to passage

[16] ‘Some Account of English Deer Parks,’ by Evelyn P. Shirley, 1867.Return to passage

[17] Stonehenge, ‘The Dog,’ 1867, pp. 175-178.Return to passage

[18] ‘The Art of Improving the Breed,’ etc., p. 13. With respect to Scotch deerhounds, see Scrope’s ‘Art of Deer Stalking,’ pp. 350-353.Return to passage

[19] ‘Cottage Gardener,’ 1861, p. 327.Return to passage

[20] Mr. Huth gives (‘The Marriage of Near Kin,’ 1875, p. 302) from the ‘Bulletin de l’Acad. R. de Méd. de Belgique’ (vol. ix., 1866, pp. 287, 305), several statements made by a M. Legrain with respect to crossing brother and sister rabbits for five or six successive generations with no consequent evil results. I was so much surprised at this account, and at M. Legrain’s invariable success in his experiments, that I wrote to a distinguished naturalist in Belgium to inquire whether M. Legrain was a trustworthy observer. In answer, I have heard that, as doubts were expressed about the authenticity of these experiments, a commission of inquiry was appointed, and that at a succeeding meeting of the Society (‘Bull. de l’Acad. R. de Méd. de Belgique,’ 1867, 3rd series, Tome 1, No. 1 to 5), Dr. Crocq reported “qu’il était matériellement impossible que M. Legrain ait fait les expériences qu’il annonce.” To this public accusation no satisfactory answer was made.Return to passage

[21] Sidney’s edit. of ‘Youatt on the Pig,’ 1860, p. 30; p. 33 quotation from Mr. Druce; p. 29 on Lord Western’s case.Return to passage

[22] ‘Journal of Royal Agricult. Soc. of England,’ 1846, vol. vii. p. 205.Return to passage

[23] ‘Ueber Rindvieh,’ etc., s. 78. Col. Le Couteur, who has done so much for the agriculture of Jersey, writes to me that from possessing a fine breed of pigs he bred them very closely, twice pairing brothers and sisters, but nearly all the young had fits and died suddenly.Return to passage

[24] Sidney on the Pig, p. 36. See also note p. 34. Also Richardson on the Pig, 1847, p. 26.Return to passage

[25] Dr. Dally has published an excellent article (translated in the ‘Anthropolog. Review,’ May, 1864, p. 65), criticising all writers who have maintained that evil follows from consanguineous marriages. No doubt on this side of the question many advocates have injured their cause by inaccuracies: thus it has been stated (Devay, ‘Du Danger des Mariages,’ etc., 1862, p. 141) that the marriages of cousins have been prohibited by the legislature of Ohio; but I have been assured, in answer to inquiries made in the United States, that this statement is a mere fable.Return to passage

[26] See his interesting work on the ‘Early History of Man,’ 1865, chap. x.Return to passage

[27] ‘The Marriage of Near Kin,’ 1875. The evidence given by Mr. Huth would, I think, have been even more valuable than it is on this and some other points, if he had referred solely to the works of men who had long resided in each country referred to, and who showed that they possessed judgment and caution. See also Mr. W. Adam, ‘On Consanguinity in Marriage’ in the ‘Fortnightly Review,’ 1865, p. 710. Also Hofacker, ‘Ueber die Eigenschaften,’ etc., 1828.Return to passage

[28] Sir G. Grey’s ‘Journal of Expeditions into Australia,’ vol. ii. p. 243; and Dobrizhoffer, ‘On the Abipones of South America.’Return to passage

[29] ‘Descent of Man,’ 2nd. edit. p. 524.Return to passage

[30] ‘Journal of Statistical Soc.’ June, 1875, p. 153; and ‘Fortnightly Review,’ June, 1875.Return to passage

[31] ‘The Art of Improving the Breed,’ p. 13.Return to passage

[32] ‘The Poultry Book,’ by W. B. Tegetmeier, 1866, p. 245.Return to passage

[33] ‘Journal Royal Agricult. Soc.,’ 1846, vol. vii. p. 205; see also Ferguson on the Fowl, pp. 83, 317; see also ‘The Poultry Book,’ by Tegetmeier, 1866, p. 135, with respect to the extent to which cock-fighters found that they could venture to breed in-and-in, viz., occasionally a hen with her own son; “but they were cautious not to repeat the in-and-in breeding.”Return to passage

[34] ‘The Poultry Book,’ by W. B. Tegetmeier, 1866, p. 79.Return to passage

[35] ‘The Poultry Chronicle,’ 1854, vol. i. p. 43.Return to passage

[36] ‘The Poultry Book,’ by W. B. Tegetmeier, 1866, p. 79.Return to passage

[37] ‘The Poultry Chronicle,’ vol. i. p. 89.Return to passage

[38] ‘The Poultry Book,’ 1866, p. 210.Return to passage

[39] Ibid. 1866, p. 167; and ‘Poultry Chronicle,’ vol. iii., 1855, p. 15.Return to passage

[40] ‘A Treatise on Fancy Pigeons,’ by J. M. Eaton, p. 56.Return to passage

[41] ‘The Pigeon Book,’ p. 46.Return to passage

[42] ‘Das Ganze der Taubenzucht,’ 1837, s. 18.Return to passage

[43] ‘Les Pigeons,’ 1824, p. 35.Return to passage

[44] ‘Proc. Entomolog. Soc.,’ Aug. 6th, 1860, p. 126.Return to passage

[45] ‘Journal of Horticulture,’ 1861, pp. 39, 77, 158; and 1864, p. 206.Return to passage

[46] ‘Beiträge zur Kenntniss der Befruchtung,’ 1844, s. 366.Return to passage

[47] ‘Amaryllidaceæ,’ p. 371.Return to passage

[48] ‘De la Fécondation,’ 2nd edit., 1862, p. 79.Return to passage

[49] ‘Mémoire sur les Cucurbitacées,’ pp. 36, 28, 30.Return to passage

[50] Loudon’s ‘Gard. Mag.,’ vol. viii., 1832, p. 52.Return to passage

[51] ‘Transact. Hort. Soc.,’ vol. i. p. 25.Return to passage

[52] ‘Annal. des Sc. Nat.,’ 3rd series, Bot., tom. vi. p. 189.Return to passage

[53] ‘Philosophical Transactions,’ 1799, p. 200.Return to passage

[54] ‘Ueber die Bastarderzeugung,’ 1828, s. 32, 33. For Mr. Chaundy’s case, see Loudon’s ‘Gard. Mag.’ vol. vii. 1831, p. 696.Return to passage

[55] ‘Gardener’s Chron.,’ 1846, p. 601.Return to passage

[56] ‘Philosoph. Transact.,’ 1799, p. 201.Return to passage

[57] Quoted in ‘Bull. Bot. Soc. France,’ vol. ii., 1855, p. 327.Return to passage

[58] Gärtner, ‘Bastarderzeugung,’ s. 259, 518, 526 et seq.Return to passage

[59] ‘Fortsetzung,’ 1763, s. 29; ‘Dritte Fortsetzung,’ s. 44, 96; ‘Act. Acad. St. Petersburg,’ 1782, part ii., p. 251; ‘Nova Acta,’ 1793, pp. 391, 394; ‘Nova Acta,’ 1795, pp. 316, 323.Return to passage

[60] ‘Die Bastardbefruchtung,’ etc., 1865, s. 31, 41, 42.Return to passage

[61] Max Wichura fully accepts this view (‘Bastardbefruchtung,’ s. 43), as does the Rev. M. J. Berkeley, in ‘Journal of Hort. Soc.,’ Jan. 1866, p. 70.Return to passage

[62] ‘Bastarderzeugung,’ s. 394, 526, 528.Return to passage

[63] Kölreuter, ‘Nova Acta,’ 1795, p. 316.Return to passage

[64] Gärtner, ‘Bastarderzeugung,’ s. 430.Return to passage

[65] Quoted by Dr. Murie, in ‘Proc. Zoolog. Soc.,’ 1870, p. 40.Return to passage

[66] ‘Botanische Zeitung,’ Jan. 1864, s. 3.Return to passage

[67] ‘Monatsbericht Akad. Wissen.’ Berlin, 1866, s. 372.Return to passage

[68] International Hort. Congress, London, 1866.Return to passage

[69] ‘Proc. Bot. Soc. of Edinburgh,’ May, 1863: these observations are given in abstract, and others are added, in the ‘Journal of Proc. of Linn. Soc.,’ vol. viii. Bot., 1864, p. 162.Return to passage

[70] Prof. Lecoq, ‘De la Fécondation,’ 2nd edit., 1862, p. 76.Return to passage

[71] ‘Jenaische Zeitschrift fur Naturwiss.’ B. vii. p. 22, 1872, and p. 441, 1873. A large part of this paper has been translated in the ‘American Naturalist,’ 1874, p. 223.Return to passage

[72] ‘Bastarderzeugung,’ s. 64, 357.Return to passage

[73] Ibid., s. 357.Return to passage

[74] ‘Zweite Fortsetzung,’ s. 10; ‘Dritte Forts.,’ s. 40. Mr. Scott likewise fertilised fifty-four flowers of Verbascum phœniceum, including two varieties, with their own pollen, and not a single capsule was produced. Many of the pollen-grains emitted their tubes, but only a few of them penetrated the stigmas; some slight effect however was produced, as many of the ovaries became somewhat developed: ‘Journal Asiatic Soc. Bengal,’ 1867, p. 150.Return to passage

[75] Duvernoy, quoted by Gärtner, ‘Bastarderzeugung,’ s. 334.Return to passage

[76] ‘Gardener’s Chronicle,’ 1846, p. 183.Return to passage

[77] ‘Transact. Hort. Soc.,’ vol. vii., 1830, p. 95.Return to passage

[78] Prof. Lecoq ‘De la Fécondation,’ 1845, p. 70; Gärtner, ‘Bastarderzeugung,’ s. 64.Return to passage

[79] ‘Gardener’s Chronicle,’ 1868, p. 1341.Return to passage

[80] ‘Gardener’s Chronicle,’ 1866, p. 1068.Return to passage

[81] ‘Journal of Proc. of Linn. Soc.,’ vol. viii., 1864, p. 1168. Mr. Robertson Munro, in ‘Trans. Bot. Soc.’ of Edinburgh, vol. ix. p. 399.Return to passage

[82] ‘Amaryllidaceæ,’ 1837, p. 371; ‘Journal of Hort. Soc.,’ vol. ii., 1847, p. 19.Return to passage

[83] Loudon’s ‘Gardener’s Magazine,’ vol. xi., 1835, p. 260.Return to passage

[84] ‘Gardener’s Chronicle,’ 1850, p. 470.Return to passage

[85] ‘Journal Hort. Soc.,’ vol. v. p. 135. The seedlings thus raised were given to the Hort. Soc.; but I find, on inquiry, that they unfortunately died the following winter.Return to passage

[86] Mr. D. Beaton, in ‘Journal of Hort.,’ 1861, p. 453. Lecoq however (‘De la Fécond.,’ 1862, p. 369), states that this hybrid is descended from G. psittacinus and cardinalis; but this is opposed to Herbert’s experience, who found that the former species could not be crossed.Return to passage

XVIII. ON THE ADVANTAGES AND DISADVANTAGES OF CHANGED CONDITIONS OF LIFE: STERILITY FROM VARIOUS CAUSES

ON THE GOOD DERIVED FROM SLIGHT CHANGES IN THE CONDITIONS OF LIFE—STERILITY FROM CHANGED CONDITIONS, IN ANIMALS, IN THEIR NATIVE COUNTRY AND IN MENAGERIES—MAMMALS, BIRDS, AND INSECTS—LOSS OF SECONDARY SEXUAL CHARACTERS AND OF INSTINCTS—CAUSES OF STERILITY—STERILITY OF DOMESTICATED ANIMALS FROM CHANGED CONDITIONS—SEXUAL INCOMPATIBILITY OF INDIVIDUAL ANIMALS—STERILITY OF PLANTS FROM CHANGED CONDITIONS OF LIFE—CONTABESCENCE OF THE ANTHERS—MONSTROSITIES AS A CAUSE OF STERILITY—DOUBLE FLOWERS—SEEDLESS FRUIT—STERILITY FROM THE EXCESSIVE DEVELOPMENT OF THE ORGANS OF VEGETATION—FROM LONG-CONTINUED PROPAGATION BY BUDS—INCIPIENT STERILITY THE PRIMARY CAUSE OF DOUBLE FLOWERS AND SEEDLESS FRUIT.

On the Good derived from slight Changes in the Conditions of Life.—In considering whether any facts were known which might throw light on the conclusion arrived at in the last chapter, namely, that benefits ensue from crossing, and that it is a law of nature that all organic beings should occasionally cross, it appeared to me probable that the good derived from slight changes in the conditions of life, from being an analogous phenomenon, might serve this purpose. No two individuals, and still less no two varieties, are absolutely alike in constitution and structure; and when the germ of one is fertilised by the male element of another, we may believe that it is acted on in a somewhat similar manner as an individual when exposed to slightly changed conditions. Now, every one must have observed the remarkable influence on convalescents of a change of residence, and no medical man doubts the truth of this fact. Small farmers who hold but little land are convinced that their cattle derive great benefit from a change of pasture. In the case of plants, the evidence is strong that a great advantage is derived from exchanging seeds, tubers, bulbs, and cuttings from one soil or place to another as different as possible.

The belief that plants are thus benefited, whether or not well founded, has been firmly maintained from the time of Columella, who wrote shortly after the Christian era, to the present day; and it now prevails in England, France, and Germany.[1] A sagacious observer, Bradley, writing in 1724,[2] says, “When we once become Masters of a good Sort of Seed, we should at least put it into Two or Three Hands, where the Soils and Situations are as different as possible; and every Year the Parties should change with one another; by which Means, I find the Goodness of the Seed will be maintained for several Years. For Want of this Use many Farmers have failed in their Crops and been great Losers.” He then gives his own practical experience on this head. A modern writer[3] asserts, “Nothing can be more clearly established in agriculture than that the continual growth of any one variety in the same district makes it liable to deterioration either in quality or quantity.” Another writer states that he sowed close together in the same field two lots of wheat-seed, the product of the same original stock, one of which had been grown on the same land and the other at a distance, and the difference in favour of the crop from the latter seed was remarkable. A gentleman in Surrey who has long made it his business to raise wheat to sell for seed, and who has constantly realised in the market higher prices than others, assures me that he finds it indispensable continually to change his seed; and that for this purpose he keeps two farms differing much in soil and elevation.

With respect to the tubers of the potato, I find that at the present day the practice of exchanging sets is almost everywhere followed. The great growers of potatoes in Lancashire formerly used to get tubers from Scotland, but they found that “a change from the moss-lands, and vice versa, was generally sufficient.” In former times in France the crop of potatoes in the Vosges had become reduced in the course of fifty or sixty years in the proportion from 120-150 to 30-40 bushels; and the famous Oberlin attributed the surprising good which he effected in large part to changing the sets.[4]

A well-known practical gardener, Mr. Robson[5] positively states that he has himself witnessed decided advantage from obtaining bulbs of the onion, tubers of the potato, and various seeds, all of the same kind, from different soils and distant parts of England. He further states that with plants propagated by cuttings, as with the Pelargonium, and especially the Dahlia, manifest advantage is derived from getting plants of the same variety, which have been cultivated in another place; or, “where the extent of the place allows, to take cuttings from one description of soil to plant on another, so as to afford the change that seems so necessary to the well-being of the plants.” He maintains that after a time an exchange of this nature is “forced on the grower, whether he be prepared for it or not.” Similar remarks have been made by another excellent gardener, Mr. Fish, namely, that cuttings of the same variety of Calceolaria, which he obtained from a neighbour, “showed much greater vigour than some of his own that were treated in exactly the same manner,” and he attributed this solely to his own plants having become “to a certain extent worn out or tired of their quarters.” Something of this kind apparently occurs in grafting and budding fruit-trees; for, according to Mr. Abbey, grafts or buds generally take with greater facility on a distinct variety or even species, or on a stock previously grafted, than on stocks raised from seeds of the variety which is to be grafted; and he believes this cannot be altogether explained by the stocks in question being better adapted to the soil and climate of the place. It should, however, be added, that varieties grafted or budded on very distinct kinds, though they may take more readily and grow at first more vigorously than when grafted on closely allied stocks, afterwards often become unhealthy.

I have studied M. Tessier’s careful and elaborate experiments[6] made to disprove the common belief that good is derived from a change of seed; and he certainly shows that the same seed may with care be cultivated on the same farm (it is not stated whether on exactly the same soil) for ten consecutive years without loss. Another excellent observer, Colonel Le Couteur[7] has come to the same conclusion; but then he expressly adds, if the same seed be used, “that which is grown on land manured from the mixen one year becomes seed for land prepared with lime, and that again becomes seed for land dressed with ashes, then for land dressed with mixed manure, and so on.” But this in effect is a systematic exchange of seed, within the limits of the same farm.

On the whole the belief, which has long been held by many cultivators, that good follows from exchanging seed, tubers, etc., seems to be fairly well founded. It seems hardly credible that the advantage thus derived can be due to the seeds, especially if very small ones, obtaining in one soil some chemical element deficient in the other and in sufficient quantity to influence the whole after-growth of the plant. As plants after once germinating are fixed to the same spot, it might have been anticipated that they would show the good effects of a change more plainly than do animals which continually wander about; and this apparently is the case. Life depending on, or consisting in, an incessant play of the most complex forces, it would appear that their action is in some way stimulated by slight changes in the circumstances to which each organism is exposed. All forces throughout nature, as Mr. Herbert Spencer[8] remarks, tend towards an equilibrium, and for the life of each organism it is necessary that this tendency should be checked. These views and the foregoing facts probably throw light, on the one hand, on the good effects of crossing the breed, for the germ will be thus slightly modified or acted on by new forces; and on the other hand, on the evil effects of close interbreeding prolonged during many generations, during which the germ will be acted on by a male having almost identically the same constitution.

Sterility from Changed Conditions of Life.

I will now attempt to show that animals and plants, when removed from their natural conditions, are often rendered in some degree infertile or completely barren; and this occurs even when the conditions have not been greatly changed. This conclusion is not necessarily opposed to that at which we have just arrived, namely, that lesser changes of other kinds are advantageous to organic beings. Our present subject is of some importance, from having an intimate connection with the causes of variability. Indirectly it perhaps bears on the sterility of species when crossed: for as, on the one hand, slight changes in the conditions of life are favourable to plants and animals, and the crossing of varieties adds to the size, vigour, and fertility of their offspring; so, on the other hand, certain other changes in the conditions of life cause sterility; and as this likewise ensues from crossing much-modified forms or species, we have a parallel and double series of facts, which apparently stand in close relation to each other.

It is notorious that many animals, though perfectly tamed, refuse to breed in captivity. Isidore Geoffroy St.-Hilaire[9] consequently has drawn a broad distinction between tamed animals which will not breed under captivity, and truly domesticated animals which breed freely—generally more freely, as shown in the sixteenth chapter, than in a state of nature. It is possible and generally easy to tame most animals; but experience has shown that it is difficult to get them to breed regularly, or even at all. I shall discuss this subject in detail; but will give only those cases which seem most illustrative. My materials are derived from notices scattered through various works, and especially from a Report, kindly drawn up for me by the officers of the Zoological Society of London, which has especial value, as it records all the cases, during nine years from 1838-46, in which the animals were seen to couple but produced no offspring, as well as the cases in which they never, as far as known, coupled. This MS. Report I have corrected by the annual Reports subsequently published up to the year 1865.[10] Many facts are given on the breeding of the animals in that magnificent work, ‘Gleanings from the Menageries of Knowsley Hall’ by Dr. Gray. I made, also, particular inquiries from the experienced keeper of the birds in the old Surrey Zoological Gardens. I should premise that a slight change in the treatment of animals sometimes makes a great difference in their fertility; and it is probable that the results observed in different menageries would differ. Indeed, some animals in our Zoological Gardens have become more productive since the year 1846. It is, also, manifest from F. Cuvier’s account of the Jardin des Plantes[11] that the animals formerly bred much less freely there than with us; for instance, in the Duck tribe, which is highly prolific, only one species had at that period produced young.

The most remarkable cases, however, are afforded by animals kept in their native country, which, though perfectly tamed, quite healthy, and allowed some freedom, are absolutely incapable of breeding. Rengger,[12] who in Paraguay particularly attended to this subject, specifies six quadrupeds in this condition; and he mentions two or three others which most rarely breed. Mr. Bates, in his admirable work on the Amazons, strongly insists on similar cases;[13] and he remarks, that the fact of thoroughly tamed native mammals and birds not breeding when kept by the Indians, cannot be wholly accounted for by their negligence or indifference, for the turkey and fowl are kept and bred by various remote tribes. In almost every part of the world—for instance, in the interior of Africa, and in several of the Polynesian islands—the natives are extremely fond of taming the indigenous quadrupeds and birds; but they rarely or never succeed in getting them to breed.

The most notorious case of an animal not breeding in captivity is that of the elephant. Elephants are kept in large numbers in their native Indian home, live to old age, and are vigorous enough for the severest labour; yet, with a very few exceptions, they have never been known even to couple, though both males and females have their proper periodical seasons. If, however, we proceed a little eastward to Ava, we hear from Mr. Crawfurd[14] that their “breeding in the domestic state, or at least in the half-domestic state in which the female elephants are generally kept, is of everyday occurrence;” and Mr. Crawfurd informs me that he believes that the difference must be attributed solely to the females being allowed to roam the forest with some degree of freedom. The captive rhinoceros, on the other hand, seems from Bishop Heber’s account[15] to breed in India far more readily than the elephant. Four wild species of the horse genus have bred in Europe, though here exposed to a great change in their natural habits of life; but the species have generally been crossed one with another. Most of the members of the pig family breed readily in our menageries; even the Red River hog (Potamochœrus penicillatus), from the sweltering plains of West Africa, has bred twice in the Zoological Gardens. Here also the Peccary (Dicotyles torquatus) has bred several times; but another species, the D. labiatus, though rendered so tame as to be half-domesticated, is said to breed so rarely in its native country of Paraguay, that according to Rengger[16] the fact requires confirmation. Mr. Bates remarks that the tapir, though often kept tame in Amazonia by the Indians, never breeds.

Ruminants generally breed quite freely in England, though brought from widely different climates, as may be seen in the Annual Reports of the Zoological Gardens, and in the Gleanings from Lord Derby’s menagerie.

The Carnivora, with the exception of the Plantigrade division, breed (though with capricious exceptions) about half as freely as ruminants. Many species of Felidae have bred in various menageries, although imported from diverse climates and closely confined. Mr. Bartlett, the present superintendent of the Zoological Gardens[17] remarks that the lion appears to breed more frequently and to bring forth more young at a birth than any other species of the family. He adds that the tiger has rarely bred; “but there are several well-authenticated instances of the female tiger breeding with the lion.” Strange as the fact may appear, many animals under confinement unite with distinct species and produce hybrids quite as freely as, or even more freely than, with their own species. On inquiring from Dr. Falconer and others, it appears that the tiger when confined in India does not breed, though it has been known to couple. The chetah (Felis jubata) has never been known by Mr. Bartlett to breed in England, but it has bred at Frankfort; nor does it breed in India, where it is kept in large numbers for hunting; but no pains would be taken to make them breed, as only those animals which have hunted for themselves in a state of nature are serviceable and worth training.[18] According to Rengger, two species of wild cats in Paraguay, though thoroughly tamed, have never bred. Although so many of the Felidae breed readily in the Zoological Gardens, yet conception by no means always follows union: in the nine-year Report, various species are specified which were observed to couple seventy-three times, and no doubt this must have passed many times unnoticed; yet from the seventy- three unions only fifteen births ensued. The Carnivora in the Zoological Gardens were formerly less freely exposed to the air and cold than at present, and this change of treatment, as I was assured by the former superintendent, Mr. Miller, greatly increased their fertility. Mr. Bartlett, and there cannot be a more capable judge, says, “it is remarkable that lions breed more freely in travelling collections than in the Zoological Gardens; probably the constant excitement and irritation produced by moving from place to place, or change of air, may have considerable influence in the matter.”

Many members of the Dog family breed readily when confined. The Dhole is one of the most untamable animals in India, yet a pair kept there by Dr. Falconer produced young. Foxes, on the other hand, rarely breed, and I have never heard of such an occurrence with the European fox: the silver fox of North America (Canis argentatus), however, has bred several times in the Zoological Gardens. Even the otter has bred there. Every one knows how readily the semi-domesticated ferret breeds, though shut up in miserably small cages; but other species of Viverra and Paradoxurus absolutely refuse to breed in the Zoological Gardens. The Genetta has bred both here and in the Jardin des Plantes, and produced hybrids. The Herpestes fasciatus has likewise bred; but I was formerly assured that the H. griseus, though many were kept in the Gardens, never bred.

The Plantigrade Carnivora breed under confinement much less freely than other Carnivora, although no reason can be assigned for this fact. In the nine-year Report it is stated that the bears had been seen in the Zoological Gardens to couple freely, but previously to 1848 had most rarely conceived. In the Reports published since this date three species have produced young (hybrids in one case), and, wonderful to relate, the white Polar bear has produced young. The badger (Meles taxus) has bred several times in the Gardens; but I have not heard of this occurring elsewhere in England, and the event must be very rare, for an instance in Germany has been thought worth recording.[19] In Paraguay the native Nasua, though kept in pairs during many years and perfectly tamed, has never been known, according to Rengger, to breed or show any sexual passion; nor, as I hear from Mr. Bates, does this animal, or the Cercoleptes, breed in Amazonia. Two other plantigrade genera, Procyon and Gulo, though often kept tame in Paraguay, never breed there. In the Zoological Gardens species of Nasua and Procyon have been seen to couple; but they did not produce young.

As domesticated rabbits, guinea-pigs, and white mice breed so abundantly when closely confined under various climates, it might have been thought that most other members of the Rodent order would have bred in captivity, but this is not the case. It deserves notice, as showing how the capacity to breed sometimes goes by affinity, that the one native rodent of Paraguay, which there breeds freely and has yielded successive generations, is the Cavia aperea; and this animal is so closely allied to the guinea-pig, that it has been erroneously thought to be the parent form.[20] In the Zoological Gardens, some rodents have coupled, but have never produced young; some have neither coupled nor bred; but a few have bred, as the porcupine more than once, the Barbary mouse, lemming, chinchilla, and agouti (Dasyprocta aguti) several times. This latter animal has also produced young in Paraguay, though they were born dead and ill-formed; but in Amazonia, according to Mr. Bates, it never breeds, though often kept tame about the houses. Nor does the paca (Cœlogenys paca) breed there. The common hare when confined has, I believe, never bred in Europe; though, according to a recent statement, it has crossed with the rabbit.[21] I have never heard of the dormouse breeding in confinement. But squirrels offer a more curious case: with one exception, no species has bred in the Zoological Gardens, yet as many as fourteen individuals of S. palmarum were kept together during several years. The S. cinera has been seen to couple, but it did not produce young; nor has this species, when rendered extremely tame in its native country, North America, been ever known to breed.[22] At Lord Derby’s menagerie squirrels of many kinds were kept in numbers, but Mr. Thompson, the superintendent, told me that none had ever bred there, or elsewhere as far as he knew. I have never heard of the English squirrel breeding in confinement. But the species which has bred more than once in the Zoological Gardens is the one which perhaps might have been least expected, namely, the flying squirrel (Sciuropterus volucella): it has, also, bred several times near Birmingham; but the female never produced more than two young at a birth, whereas in its native American home she bears from three to six young.[23]

Monkeys, in the nine-year Report from the Zoological Gardens, are stated to unite most freely, but during this period, though many individuals were kept, there were only seven births. I have heard of only one American monkey, the Ouistiti, breeding in Europe.[24] A Macacus, according to Flourens, bred in Paris; and more than one species of this genus has produced young in London, especially the Macacus rhesus, which everywhere shows a special capacity to breed under confinement. Hybrids have been produced both in Paris and London from this same genus. The Arabian baboon, or Cynocephalus hamadryas,[25] and a Cercopithecus have bred in the Zoological Gardens, and the latter species at the Duke of Northumberland’s. Several members of the family of Lemurs have produced hybrids in the Zoological Gardens. It is much more remarkable that monkeys very rarely breed when confined in their native country; thus the Cay (Cebus azaræ) is frequently and completely tamed in Paraguay, but Rengger[26] says that it breeds so rarely, that he never saw more than two females which had produced young. A similar observation has been made with respect to the monkeys which are frequently tamed by the aborigines in Brazil.[27] In Amazonia, these animals are so often kept in a tame state, that Mr. Bates in walking through the streets of Para counted thirteen species; but, as he asserts, they have never been known to breed in captivity.[28]

Birds.

Birds offer in some respects better evidence than quadrupeds, from their breeding more rapidly and being kept in greater numbers.[29] We have seen that carnivorous animals are more fertile under confinement than most other mammals. The reverse holds good with carnivorous birds. It is said[30] that as many as eighteen species have been used in Europe for hawking, and several others in Persia and India;[31] they have been kept in their native country in the finest condition, and have been flown during six, eight, or nine years;[32] yet there is no record of their having ever produced young. As these birds were formerly caught whilst young, at great expense, being imported from Iceland, Norway, and Sweden, there can be little doubt that, if possible, they would have been propagated. In the Jardin des Plantes, no bird of prey has been known to couple.[33] No hawk, vulture, or owl has ever produced fertile eggs in the Zoological Gardens, or in the old Surrey Gardens, with the exception, in the former place on one occasion, of a condor and a kite (Milvus niger). Yet several species, namely, the Aquila fusca, Haliaetus leucocephalus, Falco tinnunculus, F. subbuteo, and Buteo vulgaris, have been seen to couple in the Zoological Gardens. Mr. Morris[34] mentions as a unique fact that a kestrel (Falco tinnunculus) bred in an aviary. The one kind of owl which has been known to couple in the Zoological Gardens was the Eagle Owl (Bubo maximus); and this species shows a special inclination to breed in captivity; for a pair at Arundel Castle, kept more nearly in a state of nature “than ever fell to the lot of an animal deprived of its liberty,”[35] actually reared their young. Mr. Gurney has given another instance of this same owl breeding in confinement; and he records the case of a second species of owl, the Strix passerina, breeding in captivity.[36]

Of the smaller graminivorous birds, many kinds have been kept tame in their native countries, and have lived long; yet, as the highest authority on cage-birds[37] remarks, their propagation is “uncommonly difficult.” The canary-bird shows that there is no inherent difficulty in these birds breeding freely in confinement; and Audubon says[38] that the Fringilla (Spiza) ciris of North America breeds as perfectly as the canary. The difficulty with the many finches which have been kept in confinement is all the more remarkable as more than a dozen species could be named which have yielded hybrids with the canary; but hardly any of these, with the exception of the siskin (Fringilla spinus), have reproduced their own kind. Even the bullfinch (Loxia pyrrhula) has bred as frequently with the canary, though belonging to a distinct genus, as with its own species.[39] With respect to the skylark (Alauda arvensis), I have heard of birds living for seven years in an aviary, which never produced young; and a great London bird-fancier assured me that he had never known an instance of their breeding; nevertheless one case has been recorded.[40] In the nine-year Report from the Zoological Society, twenty-four insessorial species are enumerated which had not bred, and of these only four were known to have coupled.

Parrots are singularly long-lived birds; and Humboldt mentions the curious fact of a parrot in South America, which spoke the language of an extinct Indian tribe, so that this bird preserved the sole relic of a lost language. Even in this country there is reason to believe[41] that parrots have lived to the age of nearly one hundred years; yet they breed so rarely, though many have been kept in Europe, that the event has been thought worth recording in the gravest publications.[42] Nevertheless, when Mr. Buxton turned out a large number of parrots in Norfolk, three pairs bred and reared ten young birds in the course of two seasons; and this success may be attributed to their free life.[43] According to Bechstein[44] the African Psittacus erithacus breeds oftener than any other species in Germany: the P. macoa occasionally lays fertile eggs, but rarely succeeds in hatching them; this bird, however, has the instinct of incubation sometimes so strongly developed, that it will hatch the eggs of fowls or pigeons. In the Zoological Gardens and in the old Surrey Gardens some few species have coupled, but, with the exception of three species of parakeets, none have bred. It is a much more remarkable fact that in Guiana parrots of two kinds, as I am informed by Sir R. Schomburgk, are often taken from the nests by the Indians and reared in large numbers; they are so tame that they fly freely about the houses, and come when called to be fed, like pigeons; yet he has never heard of a single instance of their breeding.[45] In Jamaica, a resident naturalist, Mr. R. Hill,[46] says, “no birds more readily submit to human dependence than the parrot-tribe, but no instance of a parrot breeding in this tame life has been known yet.” Mr. Hill specifies a number of other native birds kept tame in the West Indies, which never breed in this state.

The great pigeon family offers a striking contrast with the parrots: in the nine-year Report thirteen species are recorded as having bred, and, what is more noticeable, only two were seen to couple without any result. Since the above date every annual Report gives many cases of various pigeons breeding. The two magnificent crowned pigeons (Goura coronata and victoriæ) produced hybrids; nevertheless, of the former species more than a dozen birds were kept, as I am informed by Mr. Crawfurd, in a park at Penang, under a perfectly well-adapted climate, but never once bred. The Columba migratoria in its native country, North America, invariably lays two eggs, but in Lord Derby’s menagerie never more than one. The same fact has been observed with the C. leucocephala.[47]

Gallinaceous birds of many genera likewise show an eminent capacity for breeding under captivity. This is particularly the case with pheasants, yet our English species seldom lays more than ten eggs in confinement; whilst from eighteen to twenty is the usual number in the wild state.[48] With the Gallinaceæ, as with all other orders, there are marked and inexplicable exceptions in regard to the fertility of certain species and genera under confinement. Although many trials have been made with the common partridge, it has rarely bred, even when reared in large aviaries; and the hen will never hatch her own eggs.[49] The American tribe of Guans or Cracidæ are tamed with remarkable ease, but are very shy breeders in this country;[50] but with care various species were formerly made to breed rather freely in Holland.[51] Birds of this tribe are often kept in a perfectly tamed condition in their native country by the Indians, but they never breed.[52] It might have been expected that grouse from their habits of life would not have bred in captivity, more especially as they are said soon to languish and die.[53] But many cases are recorded of their breeding: the capercailzie (Tetrao urogallus) has bred in the Zoological Gardens; it breeds without much difficulty when confined in Norway, and in Russia five successive generations have been reared: Tetrao tetrix has likewise bred in Norway; T. scoticus in Ireland; T. umbellus at Lord Derby’s; and T. cupido in North America.

It is scarcely possible to imagine a greater change in habits than that which the members of the ostrich family must suffer, when cooped up in small enclosures under a temperate climate, after freely roaming over desert and tropical plains or entangled forests; yet almost all the kinds have frequently produced young in the various European menageries, even the mooruk (Casuarius bennetii) from New Ireland. The African ostrich, though perfectly healthy and living long in the South of France, never lays more than from twelve to fifteen eggs, though in its native country it lays from twenty-five to thirty.[54] Here we have another instance of fertility impaired, but not lost, under confinement, as with the flying squirrel, the hen-pheasant, and two species of American pigeons.

Most Waders can be tamed, as the Rev. E. S. Dixon informs me, with remarkable facility; but several of them are short-lived under confinement, so that their sterility in this state is not surprising. The cranes breed more readily than other genera: Grus montigresia has bred several times in Paris and in the Zoological Gardens, as has G. cinerea at the latter place, and G. antigone at Calcutta. Of other members of this great order, Tetrapteryx paradisea has bred at Knowsley, a Porphyrio in Sicily, and the Gallinula chloropus in the Zoological Gardens. On the other hand, several birds belonging to this order will not breed in their native country, Jamaica; and the Psophia, though often kept by the Indians of Guiana about their houses, “is seldom or never known to breed.”[55]

The members of the great Duck family breed as readily in confinement as do the Columbæ and Gallinæ and this, considering their aquatic and wandering habits, and the nature of their food, could not have been anticipated. Even some time ago above two dozen species had bred in the Zoological Gardens; and M. Selys-Longchamps has recorded the production of hybrids from forty-four different members of the family; and to these Professor Newton has added a few more cases.[56] “There is not,” says Mr. Dixon,[57] “in the wide world, a goose which is not in the strict sense of the word domesticable;” that is, capable of breeding under confinement; but this statement is probably too bold. The capacity to breed sometimes varies in individuals of the same species; thus Audubon[58] kept for more than eight years some wild geese (Anser canadensis), but they would not mate; whilst other individuals of the same species produced young during the second year. I know of but one instance in the whole family of a species which absolutely refuses to breed in captivity, namely, the Dendrocygna viduata, although, according to Sir R. Schomburgk,[59] it is easily tamed, and is frequently kept by the Indians of Guiana. Lastly, with respect to Gulls, though many have been kept in the Zoological Gardens and in the old Surrey Gardens, no instance was known before the year 1848 of their coupling or breeding; but since that period the herring gull (Larus argentatus) has bred many times in the Zoological Gardens and at Knowsley.

There is reason to believe that insects are affected by confinement like the higher animals. It is well known that the Sphingidae rarely breed when thus treated. An entomologist[60] in Paris kept twenty-five specimens of Saturnia pyri, but did not succeed in getting a single fertile egg. A number of females of Orthosia munda and of Mamestra suasa reared in confinement were unattractive to the males.[61] Mr. Newport kept nearly a hundred individuals of two species of Vanessa, but not one paired; this, however, might have been due to their habit of coupling on the wing.[62] Mr. Atkinson could never succeed in India in making the Tarroo silk-moth breed in confinement.[63] It appears that a number of moths, especially the Sphingidae, when hatched in the autumn out of their proper season, are completely barren; but this latter case is still involved in some obscurity.[64]

Independently of the fact of many animals under confinement not coupling, or, if they couple, not producing young, there is evidence of another kind that their sexual functions are disturbed. For many cases have been recorded of the loss by male birds when confined of their characteristic plumage. Thus the common linnet (Linota cannabina) when caged does not acquire the fine crimson colour on its breast, and one of the buntings (Emberiza passerina) loses the black on its head. A Pyrrhula and an Oriolus have been observed to assume the quiet plumage of the hen-bird; and the Falco albidus returned to the dress of an earlier age.[65] Mr. Thompson, the superintendent of the Knowsley menagerie, informed me that he had often observed analogous facts. The horns of a male deer (Cervus canadensis) during the voyage from America were badly developed; but subsequently in Paris perfect horns were produced.

When conception takes place under confinement, the young are often born dead, or die soon, or are ill-formed. This frequently occurs in the Zoological Gardens, and, according to Rengger, with native animals confined in Paraguay. The mother’s milk often fails. We may also attribute to the disturbance of the sexual functions the frequent occurrence of that monstrous instinct which leads the mother to devour her own offspring,—a mysterious case of perversion, as it at first appears.

Sufficient evidence has now been advanced to prove that animals when first confined are eminently liable to suffer in their reproductive systems. We feel at first naturally inclined to attribute the result to loss of health, or at least to loss of vigour; but this view can hardly be admitted when we reflect how healthy, long-lived, and vigorous many animals are under captivity, such as parrots, and hawks when used for hawking, cheetahs when used for hunting, and elephants. The reproductive organs themselves are not diseased; and the diseases, from which animals in menageries usually perish, are not those which in any way affect their fertility. No domestic animal is more subject to disease than the sheep, yet it is remarkably prolific. The failure of animals to breed under confinement has been sometimes attributed exclusively to a failure in their sexual instincts: this may occasionally come into play, but there is no obvious reason why this instinct should be especially liable to be affected with perfectly tamed animals, except, indeed, indirectly through the reproductive system itself being disturbed. Moreover, numerous cases have been given of various animals which couple freely under confinement, but never conceive; or, if they conceive and produce young, these are fewer in number than is natural to the species. In the vegetable kingdom instinct of course can play no part; and we shall presently see that plants when removed from their natural conditions are affected in nearly the same manner as animals. Change of climate cannot be the cause of the loss of fertility, for, whilst many animals imported into Europe from extremely different climates breed freely, many others when confined in their native land are completely sterile. Change of food cannot be the chief cause; for ostriches, ducks, and many other animals, which must have undergone a great change in this respect, breed freely. Carnivorous birds when confined are extremely sterile, whilst most carnivorous mammals, except plantigrades, are moderately fertile. Nor can the amount of food be the cause; for a sufficient supply will certainly be given to valuable animals; and there is no reason to suppose that much more food would be given to them than to our choice domestic productions which retain their full fertility. Lastly, we may infer from the case of the elephant, cheetah, various hawks, and of many animals which are allowed to lead an almost free life in their native land, that want of exercise is not the sole cause.

It would appear that any change in the habits of life, whatever these habits may be, if great enough, tends to affect in an inexplicable manner the powers of reproduction. The result depends more on the constitution of the species than on the nature of the change; for certain whole groups are affected more than others; but exceptions always occur, for some species in the most fertile groups refuse to breed, and some in the most sterile groups breed freely. Those animals which usually breed freely under confinement, rarely breed, as I was assured, in the Zoological Gardens, within a year or two after their first importation. When an animal which is generally sterile under confinement happens to breed, the young apparently do not inherit this power: for had this been the case, various quadrupeds and birds, which are valuable for exhibition, would have become common. Dr. Broca even affirms[66] that many animals in the Jardin des Plantes, after having produced young for three or four successive generations, become sterile; but this may be the result of too close interbreeding. It is a remarkable circumstance that many mammals and birds have produced hybrids under confinement quite as readily as, or even more readily than, they have procreated their own kind. Of this fact many instances have been given;[67] and we are thus reminded of those plants which when cultivated refuse to be fertilised by their own pollen, but can easily be fertilised by that of a distinct species. Finally, we must conclude, limited as the conclusion is, that changed conditions of life have an especial power of acting injuriously on the reproductive system. The whole case is quite peculiar, for these organs, though not diseased, are thus rendered incapable of performing their proper functions, or perform them imperfectly.

Sterility of Domesticated Animals from changed conditions.—With respect to domesticated animals, as their domestication mainly depends on the accident of their breeding freely under captivity, we ought not to expect that their reproductive system would be affected by any moderate degree of change. Those orders of quadrupeds and birds, of which the wild species breed most readily in our menageries, have afforded us the greatest number of domesticated productions. Savages in most parts of the world are fond of taming animals;[68] and if any of these regularly produced young, and were at the same time useful, they would be at once domesticated. If, when their masters migrated into other countries, they were in addition found capable of withstanding various climates, they would be still more valuable; and it appears that the animals which breed readily in captivity can generally withstand different climates. Some few domesticated animals, such as the reindeer and camel, offer an exception to this rule. Many of our domesticated animals can bear with undiminished fertility the most unnatural conditions; for instance, rabbits, guinea-pigs, and ferrets breed in miserably confined hutches. Few European dogs of any kind withstand the climate of India without degenerating, but as long as they survive, they retain, as I hear from Dr. Falconer, their fertility; so it is, according to Dr. Daniell, with English dogs taken to Sierra Leone. The fowl, a native of the hot jungles of India, becomes more fertile than its parent-stock in every quarter of the world, until we advance as far north as Greenland and Northern Siberia, where this bird will not breed. Both fowls and pigeons, which I received during the autumn direct from Sierra Leone, were at once ready to couple.[69] I have, also, seen pigeons breeding as freely as the common kinds within a year after their importation from the upper Nile. The guinea- fowl, an aboriginal of the hot and dry deserts of Africa, whilst living under our damp and cool climate, produces a large supply of eggs.

Nevertheless, our domesticated animals under new conditions occasionally show signs of lessened fertility. Roulin asserts that in the hot valleys of the equatorial Cordillera sheep are not fully fecund;[70] and according to Lord Somerville[71] the merino-sheep which he imported from Spain were not at first perfectly fertile, it is said[72] that mares brought up on dry food in the stable, and turned out to grass, do not at first breed. The peahen, as we have seen, is said not to lay so many eggs in England as in India. It was long before the canary-bird was fully fertile, and even now first-rate breeding birds are not common.[73] In the hot and dry province of Delhi, as I hear from Dr. Falconer, the eggs of the turkey, though placed under a hen, are extremely liable to fail. According to Roulin, geese taken to the lofty plateau of Bogota, at first laid seldom, and then only a few eggs; of these scarcely a fourth were hatched, and half the young birds died; in the second generation they were more fertile; and when Roulin wrote they were becoming as fertile as our geese in Europe. With respect to the valley of Quito, Mr. Orton says[74] “the only geese in the valley are a few imported from Europe, and these refuse to propagate.” In the Philippine Archipelago the goose, it is asserted, will not breed or even lay eggs.[75] A more curious case is that of the fowl, which, according to Roulin, when first introduced would not breed at Cusco in Bolivia, but subsequently became quite fertile; and the English Game fowl, lately introduced, had not as yet arrived at its full fertility, for to raise two or three chickens from a nest of eggs was thought fortunate. In Europe close confinement has a marked effect on the fertility of the fowl: it has been found in France that with fowls allowed considerable freedom only twenty per cent of the eggs failed; when allowed less freedom forty per cent failed; and in close confinement sixty out of the hundred were not hatched.[76] So we see that unnatural and changed conditions of life produce some effect on the fertility of our most thoroughly domesticated animals, in the same manner, though in a far less degree, as with captive wild animals.

It is by no means rare to find certain males and females which will not breed together, though both are known to be perfectly fertile with other males and females. We have no reason to suppose that this is caused by these animals having been subjected to any change in their habits of life; therefore such cases are hardly related to our present subject. The cause apparently lies in an innate sexual incompatibility of the pair which are matched. Several instances have been communicated to me by Mr. W. C. Spooner (well known for his essay on Cross-breeding), by Mr. Eyton of Eyton, by Mr. Wicksted and other breeders, and especially by Mr. Waring of Chelsfield, in relation to horses, cattle, pigs, foxhounds, other dogs, and pigeons.[77] In these cases, females, which either previously or subsequently were proved to be fertile, failed to breed with certain males, with whom it was particularly desired to match them. A change in the constitution of the female may sometimes have occurred before she was put to the second male; but in other cases this explanation is hardly tenable, for a female, known not to be barren, has been unsuccessfully paired seven or eight times with the same male likewise known to be perfectly fertile. With cart-mares, which sometimes will not breed with stallions of pure blood, but subsequently have bred with cart-stallions, Mr. Spooner is inclined to attribute the failure to the lesser sexual power of the racehorse. But I have heard from the greatest breeder of racehorses at the present day, through Mr. Waring, that “it frequently occurs with a mare to be put several times during one or two seasons to a particular stallion of acknowledged power, and yet prove barren; the mare afterwards breeding at once with some other horse.” These facts are worth recording, as they show, like so many previous facts, on what slight constitutional differences the fertility of an animal often depends.

Sterility of Plants from changed Conditions of Life, and from other causes.

In the vegetable kingdom cases of sterility frequently occur, analogous with those previously given in the animal kingdom. But the subject is obscured by several circumstances, presently to be discussed, namely, the contabescence of the anthers, as Gärtner has named a certain affection—monstrosities—doubleness of the flower—much-enlarged fruit—and long-continued or excessive propagation by buds.

It is notorious that many plants in our gardens and hot-houses, though preserved in the most perfect health, rarely or never produce seed. I do not allude to plants which run to leaves, from being kept too damp, or too warm, or too much manured; for these do not flower, and the case may be wholly different. Nor do I allude to fruit not ripening from want of heat or rotting from too much moisture. But many exotic plants, with their ovules and pollen appearing perfectly sound, will not set any seed. The sterility in many cases, as I know from my own observation, is simply due to the absence of the proper insects for carrying the pollen to the stigma. But after excluding the several cases just specified, there are many plants in which the reproductive system has been seriously affected by the altered conditions of life to which they have been subjected.

It would be tedious to enter on many details. Linnæus long ago observed[78] that Alpine plants, although naturally loaded with seed, produce either few or none when cultivated in gardens. But exceptions often occur: the Draba sylvestris, one of our most thoroughly Alpine plants, multiplies itself by seed in Mr. H. C. Watson’s garden, near London; and Kerner, who has particularly attended to the cultivation of Alpine plants, found that various kinds, when cultivated, spontaneously sowed themselves.[79] Many plants which naturally grow in peat-earth are entirely sterile in our gardens. I have noticed the same fact with several liliaceous plants, which nevertheless grew vigorously.

Too much manure renders some kinds utterly sterile, as I have myself observed. The tendency to sterility from this cause runs in families; thus, according to Gärtner,[80] it is hardly possible to give too much manure to most Gramineæ, Cruciferæ, and Leguminosæ, whilst succulent and bulbous-rooted plants are easily affected. Extreme poverty of soil is less apt to induce sterility; but dwarfed plants of Trifolium minus and repens, growing on a lawn often mown and never manured, were found by me not to produce any seed. The temperature of the soil, and the season at which plants are watered, often have a marked effect on their fertility, as was observed by Kölreuter in the case of Mirabilis.[81] Mr. Scott, in the Botanic Gardens of Edinburgh, observed that Oncidium divaricatum would not set seed when grown in a basket in which it throve, but was capable of fertilisation in a pot where it was a little damper. Pelargonium fulgidum, for many years after its introduction, seeded freely; it then became sterile; now it is fertile[82] if kept in a dry stove during the winter. Other varieties of pelargonium are sterile and others fertile without our being able to assign any cause. Very slight changes in the position of a plant, whether planted on a bank or at its base, sometimes make all the difference in its producing seed. Temperature apparently has a much more powerful influence on the fertility of plants than on that of animals. Nevertheless it is wonderful what changes some few plants will withstand with undiminished fertility: thus the Zephyranthes candida, a native of the moderately warm banks of the Plata, sows itself in the hot dry country near Lima, and in Yorkshire resists the severest frosts, and I have seen seeds gathered from pods which had been covered with snow during three weeks.[83] Berberis wallichii, from the hot Khasia range in India, is uninjured by our sharpest frosts, and ripens its fruit under our cool summers. Nevertheless, I presume we must attribute to change of climate the sterility of many foreign plants; thus, the Persian and Chinese lilacs (Syringa persica and chinensis), though perfectly hardy here, never produce a seed; the common lilac (S. vulgaris) seeds with us moderately well, but in parts of Germany the capsules never contain seed.[84] Some few of the cases, given in the last chapter, of self-impotent plants, might have been here introduced, as their state seems due to the conditions to which they have been subjected.

The liability of plants to be affected in their fertility by slightly changed conditions is the more remarkable, as the pollen when once in process of formation is not easily injured; a plant may be transplanted, or a branch with flower-buds be cut off and placed in water, and the pollen will be matured. Pollen, also, when once mature, may be kept for weeks or even months.[85] The female organs are more sensitive, for Gärtner[86] found that dicotyledonous plants, when carefully removed so that they did not in the least flag, could seldom be fertilised; this occurred even with potted plants if the roots had grown out of the hole at the bottom. In some few cases, however, as with Digitalis, transplantation did not prevent fertilisation; and according to the testimony of Mawz, Brassica rapa, when pulled up by its roots and placed in water, ripened its seed. Flower-stems of several monocotyledonous plants when cut off and placed in water likewise produce seed. But in these cases I presume that the flowers had been already fertilised, for Herbert[87] found with the Crocus that the plants might be removed or mutilated after the act of fertilisation, and would still perfect their seeds; but that, if transplanted before being fertilised, the application of pollen was powerless.

Plants which have been long cultivated can generally endure with undiminished fertility various and great changes; but not in most cases so great a change of climate as domesticated animals. It is remarkable that many plants under these circumstances are so much affected that the proportion and the nature of their chemical ingredients are modified, yet their fertility is unimpaired. Thus, as Dr. Falconer informs me, there is a great difference in the character of the fibre in hemp, in the quantity of oil in the seed of the Linum, in the proportion of narcotin to morphine in the poppy, in gluten to starch in wheat, when these plants are cultivated on the plains and on the mountains of India; nevertheless, they all remain fully fertile.

Contabescence.—Gärtner has designated by this term a peculiar condition of the anthers in certain plants, in which they are shrivelled, or become brown and tough, and contain no good pollen. When in this state they exactly resemble the anthers of the most sterile hybrids. Gärtner,[88] in his discussion on this subject, has shown that plants of many orders are occasionally thus affected; but the Caryophyllaceæ and Liliaceæ suffer most, and to these orders, I think, the Ericaceæ may be added. Contabescence varies in degree, but on the same plant all the flowers are generally affected to nearly the same extent. The anthers are affected at a very early period in the flower-bud, and remain in the same state (with one recorded exception) during the life of the plant. The affection cannot be cured by any change of treatment, and is propagated by layers, cuttings, etc., and perhaps even by seed. In contabescent plants the female organs are seldom affected, or merely become precocious in their development. The cause of this affection is doubtful, and is different in different cases. Until I read Gärtner’s discussion I attributed it, as apparently did Herbert, to the unnatural treatment of the plants; but its permanence under changed conditions, and the female organs not being affected, seem incompatible with this view. The fact of several endemic plants becoming contabescent in our gardens seems, at first sight, equally incompatible with this view; but Kölreuter believes that this is the result of their transplantation. The contabescent plants of Dianthus and Verbascum, found wild by Wiegmann, grew on a dry and sterile bank. The fact that exotic plants are eminently liable to this affection also seems to show that it is in some manner caused by their unnatural treatment. In some instances, as with Silene, Gärtner’s view seems the most probable, namely, that it is caused by an inherent tendency in the species to become dioecious. I can add another cause, namely, the illegitimate unions of heterostyled plants, for I have observed seedlings of three species of Primula and of Lythrum salicaria, which had been raised from plants illegitimately fertilised by their own-form pollen, with some or all their anthers in a contabescent state. There is perhaps an additional cause, namely, self-fertilisation; for many plants of Dianthus and Lobelia, which had been raised from self-fertilised seeds, had their anthers in this state; but these instances are not conclusive, as both genera are liable from other causes to this affection.

Cases of an opposite nature likewise occur, namely, plants with the female organs struck with sterility, whilst the male organs remain perfect. Dianthus japonicus, a Passiflora, and Nicotiana, have been described by Gärtner[89] as being in this unusual condition.

Monstrosities as a cause of sterility.—Great deviations of structure, even when the reproductive organs themselves are not seriously affected, sometimes cause plants to become sterile. But in other cases plants may become monstrous to an extreme degree and yet retain their full fertility. Gallesio, who certainly had great experience,[90] often attributes sterility to this cause; but it may be suspected that in some of his cases sterility was the cause, and not the result, of the monstrous growths. The curious St. Valery apple, although it bears fruit, rarely produces seed. The wonderfully anomalous flowers of Begonia frigida, formerly described, though they appear fit for fructification, are sterile.[91] Species of Primula in which the calyx is brightly coloured are said[92] to be often sterile, though I have known them to be fertile. On the other hand, Verlot gives several cases of proliferous flowers which can be propagated by seed. This was the case with a poppy, which had become monopetalous by the union of its petals.[93] Another extraordinary poppy, with the stamens replaced by numerous small supplementary capsules, likewise reproduces itself by seed. This has also occurred with a plant of Saxifraga geum, in which a series of adventitious carpels, bearing ovules on their margins, had been developed between the stamens and the normal carpels[94] Lastly, with respect to peloric flowers, which depart wonderfully from the natural structure,—those of Linaria vulgaris seem generally to be more or less sterile, whilst those before described of Antirrhinum majus, when artificially fertilised with their own pollen, are perfectly fertile, though sterile when left to themselves, for bees are unable to crawl into the narrow tubular flower. The peloric flowers of Corydalis solida, according to Godron,[95] are sometimes barren and sometimes fertile; whilst those of Gloxinia are well known to yield plenty of seed. In our greenhouse Pelargoniums, the central flower of the truss is often peloric, and Mr. Masters informs me that he tried in vain during several years to get seed from these flowers. I likewise made many vain attempts, but sometimes succeeded in fertilising them with pollen from a normal flower of another variety; and conversely I several times fertilised ordinary flowers with peloric pollen. Only once I succeeded in raising a plant from a peloric flower fertilised by pollen from a peloric flower borne by another variety; but the plant, it may be added, presented nothing particular in its structure. Hence we may conclude that no general rule can be laid down; but any great deviation from the normal structure, even when the reproductive organs themselves are not seriously affected, certainly often leads to sexual impotence.

Double Flowers.—When the stamens are converted into petals, the plant becomes on the male side sterile; when both stamens and pistils are thus changed, the plant becomes completely barren. Symmetrical flowers having numerous stamens and petals are the most liable to become double, as perhaps follows from all multiple organs being the most subject to variability. But flowers furnished with only a few stamens, and others which are asymmetrical in structure, sometimes become double, as we see with the double gorse or Ulex, and Antirrhinum. The Compositæ bear what are called double flowers by the abnormal development of the corolla of their central florets. Doubleness is sometimes connected with prolification,[96] or the continued growth of the axis of the flower. Doubleness is strongly inherited. No one has produced, as Lindley remarks,[97] double flowers by promoting the perfect health of the plant. On the contrary, unnatural conditions of life favour their production. There is some reason to believe that seeds kept during many years, and seeds believed to be imperfectly fertilised, yield double flowers more freely than fresh and perfectly fertilised seed.[98] Long-continued cultivation in rich soil seems to be the commonest exciting cause. A double narcissus and a double Anthemis nobilis, transplanted into very poor soil, has been observed to become single;[99] and I have seen a completely double white primrose rendered permanently single by being divided and transplanted whilst in full flower. It has been observed by Professor E. Morren that doubleness of the flowers and variegation of the leaves are antagonistic states; but so many exceptions to the rule have lately been recorded,[100] that, though general, it cannot be looked at as invariable. Variegation seems generally to result from a feeble or atrophied condition of the plant, and a large proportion of the seedlings raised from parents, if both are variegated, usually perish at an early age; hence we may perhaps infer that doubleness, which is the antagonistic state, commonly arises from a plethoric condition. On the other hand, extremely poor soil sometimes, though rarely, appears to cause doubleness: I formerly described[101] some completely double, bud-like, flowers produced in large numbers by stunted wild plants of Gentiana amarella growing on a poor chalky bank. I have also noticed a distinct tendency to doubleness in the flowers of a Ranunculus, Horse-chestnut, and Bladder-nut (Ranunculus repens, Aesculus pavia, and Staphylea), growing under very unfavourable conditions. Professor Lehmann[102] found several wild plants growing near a hot spring with double flowers. With respect to the cause of doubleness, which arises, as we see, under widely different circumstances, I shall presently attempt to show that the most probable view is that unnatural conditions first give a tendency to sterility, and that then, on the principle of compensation, as the reproductive organs do not perform their proper functions, they either become developed into petals, or additional petals are formed. This view has lately been supported by Mr. Laxton[103] who advances the case of some common peas, which, after long-continued heavy rain, flowered a second time, and produced double flowers.

Seedless Fruit.—Many of our most valuable fruits, although consisting in a homological sense of widely different organs, are either quite sterile, or produce extremely few seeds. This is notoriously the case with our best pears, grapes, and figs, with the pine-apple, banana, bread-fruit, pomegranate, azarole, date-palms, and some members of the orange-tribe. Poorer varieties of these same fruits either habitually or occasionally yield seed.[104] Most horticulturists look at the great size and anomalous development of the fruit as the cause, and sterility as the result; but the opposite view, as we shall presently see, is more probable.

Sterility from the excessive development of the organs of Growth or Vegetation.—Plants which from any cause grow too luxuriantly, and produce leaves, stems, runners, suckers, tubers, bulbs, etc., in excess, sometimes do not flower, or if they flower do not yield seed. To make European vegetables under the hot climate of India yield seed, it is necessary to check their growth; and, when one-third grown, they are taken up, and their stems and tap-roots are cut or mutilated.[105] So it is with hybrids; for instance, Prof. Lecoq[106] had three plants of Mirabilis, which, though they grew luxuriantly and flowered, were quite sterile; but after beating one with a stick until a few branches alone were left, these at once yielded good seed. The sugar-cane, which grows vigorously and produces a large supply of succulent stems, never, according to various observers, bears seed in the West Indies, Malaga, India, Cochin China, Mauritius, or the Malay Archipelago.[107] Plants which produce a large number of tubers are apt to be sterile, as occurs, to a certain extent, with the common potato; and Mr. Fortune informs me that the sweet potato (Convolvulus batatas) in China never, as far as he has seen, yields seed. Dr. Royle remarks[108] that in India the Agave vivipara, when grown in rich soil, invariably produces bulbs, but no seeds; whilst a poor soil and dry climate lead to an opposite result. In China, according to Mr. Fortune, an extraordinary number of little bulbs are developed in the axils of the leaves of the yam, and this plant does not bear seed. Whether in these cases, as in those of double flowers and seedless fruit, sexual sterility from changed conditions of life is the primary cause which leads to the excessive development of the organs of vegetation, is doubtful; though some evidence might be advanced in favour of this view. It is perhaps a more probable view that plants which propagate themselves largely by one method, namely by buds, have not sufficient vital power or organised matter for the other method of sexual generation.

Several distinguished botanists and good practical judges believe that long- continued propagation by cuttings, runners, tubers, bulbs, etc., independently of any excessive development of these parts, is the cause of many plants failing to produce flowers, or producing only barren flowers,—it is as if they had lost the habit of sexual generation.[109] That many plants when thus propagated are sterile there can be no doubt, but as to whether the long continuance of this form of propagation is the actual cause of their sterility, I will not venture, from the want of sufficient evidence, to express an opinion.

That plants may be propagated for long periods by buds, without the aid of sexual generation, we may safely infer from this being the case with many plants which must have long survived in a state of nature. As I have had occasion before to allude to this subject, I will here give such cases as I have collected. Many alpine plants ascend mountains beyond the height at which they can produce seed.[110] Certain species of Poa and Festuca, when growing on mountain-pastures, propagate themselves, as I hear from Mr. Bentham, almost exclusively by bulblets. Kalm gives a more curious instance[111] of several American trees, which grow so plentifully in marshes or in thick woods, that they are certainly well adapted for these stations, yet scarcely ever produce seeds; but when accidentally growing on the outside of the marsh or wood, are loaded with seed. The common ivy is found in Northern Sweden and Russia, but flowers and fruits only in the southern provinces. The Acorus calamus extends over a large portion of the globe, but so rarely perfects fruit that this has been seen only by a few botanists; according to Caspary, all its pollen-grains are in a worthless condition.[112] The Hypericum calycinum, which propagates itself so freely in our shrubberies by rhizomes, and is naturalised in Ireland, blossoms profusely, but rarely sets any seed, and this only during certain years; nor did it set any when fertilised in my garden by pollen from plants growing at a distance. The Lysimachia nummularia, which is furnished with long runners, so seldom produces seed-capsules, that Prof. Decaisne,[113] who has especially attended to this plant, has never seen it in fruit. The Carex rigida often fails to perfect its seed in Scotland, Lapland, Greenland, Germany, and New Hampshire in the United States.[114] The periwinkle (Vinca minor), which spreads largely by runners, is said scarcely ever to produce fruit in England;[115] but this plant requires insect-aid for its fertilisation, and the proper insects may be absent or rare. The Jussiaea grandiflora has become naturalised in Southern France, and has spread by its rhizomes so extensively as to impede the navigation of the waters, but never produces fertile seed.[116] The horse-radish (Cochleria armoracia) spreads pertinaciously and is naturalised in various parts of Europe; though it bears flowers, these rarely produce capsules: Professor Caspary informs me that he has watched this plant since 1851, but has never seen its fruit; 65 per cent of its pollen-grains are bad. The common Ranunculus ficaria rarely bears seed in England, France, or Switzerland; but in 1863 I observed seeds on several plants growing near my house.[117] Other cases analogous with the foregoing could be given; for instance, some kinds of mosses and lichens have never been seen to fructify in France.

Some of these endemic and naturalised plants are probably rendered sterile from excessive multiplication by buds, and their consequent incapacity to produce and nourish seed. But the sterility of others more probably depends on the peculiar conditions under which they live, as in the case of the ivy in the northern part of Europe, and of the trees in the swamps of the United States; yet these plants must be in some respects eminently well adapted for the stations which they occupy, for they hold their places against a host of competitors.

Finally, the high degree of sterility which often accompanies the doubling of flowers, or an excessive development of fruit, seldom supervenes at once. An incipient tendency is observed, and continued selection completes the result. The view which seems the most probable, and which connects together all the foregoing facts and brings them within our present subject, is, that changed and unnatural conditions of life first give a tendency to sterility; and in consequence of this, the organs of reproduction being no longer able fully to perform their proper functions, a supply of organised matter, not required for the development of the seed, flows either into these organs and renders them foliaceous, or into the fruit, stems, tubers, etc., increasing their size and succulency. But it is probable that there exists, independently of any incipient sterility, an antagonism between the two forms of reproduction, namely, by seed and buds, when either is carried to an extreme degree. That incipient sterility plays an important part in the doubling of flowers, and in the other cases just specified, I infer chiefly from the following facts. When fertility is lost from a wholly different cause, namely, from hybridism, there is a strong tendency, as Gärtner[118] affirms, for flowers to become double, and this tendency is inherited. Moreover, it is notorious that with hybrids the male organs become sterile before the female organs, and with double flowers the stamens first become foliaceous. This latter fact is well shown by the male flowers of dioecious plants, which, according to Gallesio[119] first become double. Again, Gärtner[120] often insists that the flowers of even utterly sterile hybrids, which do not produce any seed, generally yield perfect capsules or fruit,—a fact which has likewise been repeatedly observed by Naudin with the Cucurbitaceæ; so that the production of fruit by plants rendered sterile through any cause is intelligible. Kölreuter has also expressed his unbounded astonishment at the size and development of the tubers in certain hybrids; and all experimentalists[121] have remarked on the strong tendency in hybrids to increase by roots, runners, and suckers. Seeing that hybrid plants, which from their nature are more or less sterile, thus tend to produce double flowers; that they have the parts including the seed, that is the fruit, perfectly developed, even when containing no seed; that they sometimes yield gigantic roots; that they almost invariably tend to increase largely by suckers and other such means;—seeing this, and knowing, from the many facts given in the earlier parts of this chapter, that almost all organic beings when exposed to unnatural conditions tend to become more or less sterile, it seems much the most probable view that with cultivated plants sterility is the exciting cause, and double flowers, rich seedless fruit, and in some cases largely-developed organs of vegetation, etc., are the indirect results—these results having been in most cases largely increased through continued selection by man.

REFERENCES

[1] For England, see below. For Germany, see Metzger, ‘Getreidearten,’ 1841, s. 63. For France, Loiseleur-Deslongchamps (‘Consid. sur les Céréales,’ 1843, p. 200) gives numerous references on this subject. For Southern France, see Godron, ‘Florula Juvenalis,’ 1854, p. 28.Return to passage

[2] ‘A General Treatise of Husbandry,’ vol. 3 p. 58.Return to passage

[3] ‘Gardener’s Chronicle and Agricult. Gazette,’ 1858, p. 247; and for the second statement, Ibid., 1850, p. 702. On this same subject see also Rev. D. Walker’s ‘Prize Essay of Highland Agricult. Soc.’ vol. ii. p. 200. Also Marshall ‘Minutes of Agriculture,’ November, 1775.Return to passage

[4] Oberlin’s ‘Memoirs,’ Eng. translat., p. 73. For Lancashire see Marshall’s ‘Review of Reports,’ 1808, p. 295.Return to passage

[5] ‘Cottage Gardener,’ 1856, p. 186. For Mr. Robson’s subsequent statements, see ‘Journal of Horticulture,’ Feb. 18, 1866, p. 121. For Mr. Abbey’s remarks on grafting, etc., Ibid., July 18, 1865, p. 44.Return to passage

[6] ‘Mém. de l’Acad. des Sciences,’ 1790, p. 209.Return to passage

[7] ‘On the Varieties of Wheat,’ p. 52.Return to passage

[8] Mr. Spencer has fully and ably discussed this whole subject in his ‘Principles of Biology,’ 1864, vol. ii. ch. x. In the first edition of my ‘Origin of Species,’ 1859, p. 267, I spoke of the good effects from slight changes in the conditions of life and from cross-breeding, and of the evil effects from great changes in the conditions and from crossing widely distinct forms, as a series of facts “connected together by some common but unknown bond, which is essentially related to the principle of life.”Return to passage

[9] ‘Essais de Zoologie Générale,’ 1841, p. 256.Return to passage

[10] Since the appearance of the first edition of this work, Mr. Sclater has published (‘Proc. Zoolog. Soc.,’ 1868, p. 623) a list of the species of mammals which have bred in the gardens from 1848 to 1867 inclusive. Of the Artiodactyla 85 species have been kept, and of these 1 species in 1·9 have bred at least once during the 20 years; of 28 Marsupialia, 1 in 2·5 have bred; of 74 Carnivora, 1 in 3·0 have bred; of 52 Rodentia, 1 in 4·7 have bred; and of Quadrumana 75 species have been kept, and 1 in 6·2 have bred.Return to passage

[11] Du Rut, ‘Annales du Muséum,’ 1807, tom. ix. p. 120.Return to passage

[12] ‘Saugethiere von Paraguay,’ 1830, s. 49, 106, 118, 124, 201, 208, 249, 265, 327.Return to passage

[13] ‘The Naturalist on the Amazons,’ 1863, vol. i. pp. 99, 193; vol. ii. p. 113.Return to passage

[14] ‘Embassy to the Court of Ava,’ vol. i. p. 534.Return to passage

[15] ‘Journal,’ vol. i. p. 213.Return to passage

[16] ‘Säugethiere,’ s. 327.Return to passage

[17] On the Breeding of the Larger Felidæ, ‘Proc. Zoolog. Soc.,’ 1861, p. 140.Return to passage

[18] Sleeman’s ‘Rambles in India,’ vol. ii. p. 10.Return to passage

[19] Wiegmann’s ‘Archiv. fur Naturgesch.,’ 1837, s. 162.Return to passage

[20] Rengger ‘Säugethiere,’ etc., s. 276. On the parentage of the guinea-pig, see also Isid. Geoffroy St.-Hilaire, ‘Hist. Nat. Gen.’ I sent to Mr. H. Denny of Leeds the lice which I collected from the wild aperea in La Plata, and he informs me that they belong to a genus distinct from those found on the guinea-pig. This is important evidence that the aperea is not the parent of the guinea-pig; and is worth giving, as some authors erroneously suppose that the guinea-pig since being domesticated has become sterile when crossed with the aperea.Return to passage

[21] Although the existence of the Leporides, as described by Dr. Broca (‘Journal de Phys.,’ tom. ii. p. 370), has been positively denied, yet Dr. Pigeaux (‘Annals and Mag. of Nat. Hist.,’ vol. xx., 1867, p. 75) affirms that the hare and rabbit have produced hybrids.Return to passage

[22] ‘Quadrupeds of North America,’ by Audubon and Bachman, 1846, p. 268.Return to passage

[23] Loudon’s ‘Mag. of Nat. Hist.,’ vol. ix., 1836, p. 571; Audubon and Bachman’s ‘Quadrupeds of North America,’ p. 221.Return to passage

[24] Flourens, ‘De l’Instinct,’ etc., 1845, p. 88.Return to passage

[25] See ‘Annual Reports Zoolog. Soc.,’ 1855, 1858, 1863, 1864; ‘Times’ newspaper, Aug. 10th, 1847; Flourens, ‘De l’Instinct,’ p. 85.Return to passage

[26] ‘Säugethiere,’ etc., s. 34, 49.Return to passage

[27] Art. Brazil, ‘Penny Cyclop.,’ p. 363.Return to passage

[28] ‘The Naturalist on the Amazons,’ vol. i. p. 99.Return to passage

[29] A list of the species of birds which have bred in the Zoological Gardens from 1848 to 1867 inclusive has been published by Mr. Sclater in ‘Proc. Zoolog. Soc.,’ 1869, p. 626, since the first edition of this work appeared. Of Columbæ 51 species have been kept, and of Anseres 80 species, and in both these families 1 species in 2·6 have bred at least once in the 20 years. Of Gallinæ 83 species have been kept and 1 in 27 have bred; of 57 Grallæ 1 in 9 have bred; of 110 Prehensores 1 in 22 have bred; of 178 Passeres 1 in 25·4 have bred; of 94 Accipitres 1 in 47 have bred; of 25 Picariæ and of 35 Herodiones not one species in either group has bred.Return to passage

[30] ‘Encyclop. of Rural Sports,’ p. 691.Return to passage

[31] According to Sir A. Burnes (‘Cabool,’ etc., p. 51), eight species are used for hawking in Sinde.Return to passage

[32] Loudon’s ‘Mag. of Nat. Hist.,’ vol. vi., 1833, p. 110.Return to passage

[33] F. Cuvier, ‘Annal. du Muséum,’ tom. ix. p. 128.Return to passage

[34] ‘The Zoologist,’ vol. vii.-viii., 1849-50, p. 2648.Return to passage

[35] Knox, ‘Ornithological Rambles in Sussex,’ p. 91.Return to passage

[36] ‘The Zoologist,’ vol. vii.-viii., 1849-50, p. 2566; vol. ix.-x., 1851-2, p. 3207.Return to passage

[37] Bechstein, ‘Naturgesch. der Stubenvögel,’ 1840, s. 20.Return to passage

[38] ‘Ornithological Biography,’ vol. v. p. 517.Return to passage

[39] A case is recorded in ‘The Zoologist,’ vol. i.-ii., 1843-45, p. 453. For the siskin breeding, vol. iii.-iv., 1845-46, p. 1075. Bechstein ‘Stubenvögel,’ s. 139, speaks of bullfinches making nests, but rarely producing young.Return to passage

[40] Yarrell’s ‘Hist. British Birds,’ 1839, vol. i. p. 412.Return to passage

[41] Loudon’s ‘Mag. of Nat. History,’ vol. xix., 1836, p. 347.Return to passage

[42] ‘Mémoires du Muséum d’Hist. Nat.,’ tom. x. p. 314: five cases of parrots breeding in France are here recorded. See also ‘Report Brit. Assoc. Zoolog.,’ 1843.Return to passage

[43] ‘Annals and Mag. of Nat. Hist.,’ Nov. 1868, p. 311.Return to passage

[44] ‘Stubenvögel,’ s. 105, 83.Return to passage

[45] Dr. Hancock remarks (‘Charlesworth’s Mag. of Nat. Hist.’ vol. ii., 1838, p. 492), “it is singular that, amongst the numerous useful birds that are indigenous to Guiana, none are found to propagate among the Indians; yet the common fowl is reared in abundance throughout the country.”Return to passage

[46] ‘A Week at Pert Royal,’ 1855, p. 7.Return to passage

[47] Audubon, ‘American Ornithology,’ vol. v. pp. 552, 557.Return to passage

[48] Mowbray on Poultry, 7th edit., p. 133.Return to passage

[49] Temminck, ‘Hist. Nat. Gén. des Pigeons,’ etc., 1813, tom. iii. pp. 288, 382; ‘Annals and Mag. of Nat. Hist.,’ vol. xii., 1843, p. 453. Other species of partridge have occasionally bred; as the red-legged (P. rubra), when kept in a large court in France (see ‘Journal de Physique,’ tom. xxv. p. 294), and in the Zoological Gardens in 1856.Return to passage

[50] Rev. E. S. Dixon, ‘The Dovecote,’ 1851, pp. 243-252.Return to passage

[51] Temminck, ‘Hist. Nat. Gén. des Pigeons,’ etc., tom. ii. pp. 456, 458; tom. iii. pp. 2, 13, 47.Return to passage

[52] Bates, ‘The Naturalist on the Amazons,’ vol. i. p. 193; vol. ii. p. 112.Return to passage

[53] Temminck, ‘Hist. Nat. Gén.,’ etc., tom. ii. p. 125. For Tetrao urogallus, see L. Lloyd, ‘Field Sports of North of Europe,’ vol. i. pp. 287, 314; and ‘Bull. de la Soc. d’Acclimat.,’ tom. vii., 1860, p. 600. For T. scoticus, Thompson, ‘Nat. Hist. of Ireland,’ vol. ii. 1850, p. 49. For T. cupido, ‘Boston Journal of Nat. Hist.,’ vol. iii. p. 199.Return to passage

[54] Marcel de Serres, ‘Annales des Sc. Nat.,’ 2nd series, Zoolog., tom. xiii. p. 175.Return to passage

[55] Dr. Hancock, in ‘Charlesworth’s Mag. of Nat. Hist.,’ vol. ii., 1838, p. 491; R. Hill, ‘A Week at Port Royal,’ p. 8; ‘Guide to the Zoological Gardens,’ by P. L. Sclater, 1859, pp. 11, 12; ‘The Knowsley Menagerie,’ by D. Gray, 1846, pl. xiv.; E. Blyth, ‘Report Asiatic Soc. of Bengal,’ May 1855.Return to passage

[56] Prof. Newton, in ‘Proc. Zoolog. Soc.,’ 1860, p. 336.Return to passage

[57] ‘The Dovecote and Aviary,’ p. 428.Return to passage

[58] ‘Ornithological Biography,’ vol. iii. p. 9.Return to passage

[59] ‘Geograph. Journal,’ vol. xiii., 1844, p. 32.Return to passage

[60] Loudon’s ‘Mag. of Nat. Hist.,’ vol. v., 1832, p. 153.Return to passage

[61] ‘Zoologist,’ vols. v.-vi., 1847-48, p. 1660.Return to passage

[62] ‘Transact. Entomolog. Soc.,’ vol. iv., 1845, p. 60.Return to passage

[63] ‘Transact. Linn. Soc.,’ vol. vii. p. 40.Return to passage

[64] See an interesting paper by Mr. Newman in the ‘Zoologist,’ 1857, p. 5764; and Dr. Wallace, in ‘Proc. Entomolog. Soc.,’ June 4th, 1860, p. 119.Return to passage

[65] Yarrell’s ‘British Birds,’ vol. i. p. 506; Bechstein ‘Stubenvögel,’ s. 185; ‘Philosoph. Transact.,’ 1772, p. 271. Bronn (‘Geschichte der Natur,’ Band ii. s. 96) has collected a number of cases. For the case of the deer, see ‘Penny Cyclop.,’ vol. viii. p. 350.Return to passage

[66] ‘Journal de Physiologie,’ tom. ii. p. 347.Return to passage

[67] For additional evidence on this subject, see F. Cuvier in ‘Annales du Muséum,’ tom. xii. p. 119.Return to passage

[68] Numerous instances could be given. Thus Livingstone (‘Travels,’ p. 217) states that the King of the Barotse, an inland tribe which never had any communication with white men, was extremely fond of taming animals, and every young antelope was brought to him. Mr. Galton informs me that the Damaras are likewise fond of keeping pets. The Indians of South America follow the same habit. Capt. Wilkes states that the Polynesians of the Samoan Islands tamed pigeons; and the New Zealanders, as Mr. Mantell informs me, kept various kinds of birds.Return to passage

[69] For analogous cases with the fowl, see Réaumur, ‘L’Art de faire Eclore,’ etc., 1749, p. 243; and Col. Sykes, in ‘Proc. Zoolog. Soc.,’ 1832, etc. With respect to the fowl not breeding in northern regions, see Latham’s ‘Hist. of Birds,’ vol. viii., 1823, p. 169.Return to passage

[70] “Mém. par divers Savans,” ‘Acad. des Sciences,’ tom. vi., 1835, p. 347.Return to passage

[71] Youatt on Sheep, p. 181.Return to passage

[72] J. Mills, ‘Treatise on Cattle,’ 1776, p. 72.Return to passage

[73] Bechstein, ‘Stubenvögel,’ s. 242.Return to passage

[74] ‘The Andes and the Amazon,’ 1870, p. 107.Return to passage

[75] Crawfurd’s ‘Descriptive Dict. of the Indian Islands,’ 1856, p. 145.Return to passage

[76] ‘Bull. de la Soc. d’Acclimat.,’ tom. ix., 1862, pp. 380, 384.Return to passage

[77] For pigeons, see Dr. Chapuis, ‘Le Pigeon Voyageur Belge,’ 1865, p. 66.Return to passage

[78] ‘Swedish Acts,’ vol. i., 1739, p. 3. Pallas makes the same remark in his ‘Travels’ (Eng. translat.), vol. i. p. 292.Return to passage

[79] A. Kerner, ‘Die Cultur der Alpenpflanzen,’ 1864, s. 139; Watson’s ‘Cybele Britannica,’ vol. i. p. 131; Mr. D. Cameron, also, has written on the culture of Alpine plants in ‘Gard. Chronicle,’ 1848, pp. 253, 268, and mentions a few which seed.Return to passage

[80] ‘Beiträge zur Kenntniss der Befruchtung,’ 1844 s. 333.Return to passage

[81] ‘Nova Acta Petrop.,’ 1793, p. 391.Return to passage

[82] ‘Cottage Gardener,’ 1856, pp. 44, 109.Return to passage

[83] Dr. Herbert, ‘Amaryllidaceæ,’ p. 176.Return to passage

[84] Gärtner, ‘Beiträge zur Kenntniss,’ etc., s. 560, 564.Return to passage

[85] ‘Gardener’s Chronicle,’ 1844, p. 215; 1850, p. 470. Faivre gives a good résumé on this subject in his ‘La Variabilité des Espèces,’ 1868, p. 155.Return to passage

[86] ‘Beiträge zur Kenntniss,’ etc., s. 252, 338.Return to passage

[87] ‘Journal of Hort. Soc.,’ vol. ii., 1847, p. 83.Return to passage

[88] ‘Beiträge zur Kenntniss,’ etc., s. 117 et seq.; Kölreuter, ‘Zweite Fortsetzung,’ s. 10, 121; ‘Dritte Fortsetzung,’ s. 57. Herbert, ‘Amaryllidaceæ,’ p. 355. Wiegmann ‘Ueber die Bastarderzeugung,’ s. 27.Return to passage

[89] ‘Bastarderzengung,’ s. 356.Return to passage

[90] ‘Teoria della Riproduzione,’ 1816, p. 84; ‘Traité du Citrus,’ 1811, p. 67.Return to passage

[91] Mr. C. W. Crocker, in ‘Gardener’s Chronicle,’ 1861, p. 1092.Return to passage

[92] Verlot, ‘Des Variétés,’ 1865, p. 80.Return to passage

[93] Verlot, ibid., p. 88.Return to passage

[94] Prof. Allman, Brit. Assoc., quoted in the ‘Phytologist,’ vol. ii. p. 483. Prof. Harvey, on the authority of Mr. Andrews, who discovered the plant, informed me that this monstrosity could be propagated by seed. With respect to the poppy, see Prof. Goeppert, as quoted in ‘Journal of Horticulture,’ July 1st, 1863, p. 171.Return to passage

[95] ‘Comptes Rendus,’ Dec. 19th, 1864, p. 1039.Return to passage

[96] ‘Gardener’s Chronicle,’ 1866, p. 681.Return to passage

[97] ‘Theory of Horticulture,’ p. 333.Return to passage

[98] Mr. Fairweather, in ‘Transact. Hort. Soc.,’ vol. iii. p. 406: Bosse, quoted by Bronn, ‘Geschichte der Natur,’ B. ii. s. 77. On the effects of the removal of the anthers, see Mr. Leitner, in Silliman’s ‘North American Journ. of Science,’ vol. xxiii. p. 47; and Verlot, ‘Des Variétés,’ 1865, p. 84.Return to passage

[99] Lindley’s ‘Theory of Horticulture,’ p. 3?3.Return to passage

[100] ‘Gardener’s Chronicle,’ 1865, p. 626; 1866, pp. 290, 730; and Verlot, ‘Des Variétés,’ p. 75.Return to passage

[101] ‘Gardener’s Chronicle,’ 1843, p. 628. In this article I suggested the theory above given on the doubleness of flowers. This view is adopted by Carrière, ‘Production et Fix. des Variétés,’ 1865, p. 67.Return to passage

[102] Quoted by Gärtner, ‘Bastarderzeugung,’ s. 567.Return to passage

[103] ‘Gardener’s Chronicle,’ 1866, p. 901.Return to passage

[104] Lindley, ‘Theory of Horticulture,’ pp. 175-179; Godron, ‘De l’Espèce,’ tom. ii. p. 106; Pickering, ‘Races of Man;’ Gallesio, ‘Teoria della Riproduzione,’ l816, pp. 101-110. Meyen, (‘Reise um Erde,’ Th. ii. s. 214) states that at Manilla one variety of the banana is full of seeds: and Chamisso (Hooker’s ‘Bot. Misc.,’ vol. i. p. 310) describes a variety of the bread-fruit in the Mariana Islands with small fruit, containing seeds which are frequently perfect. Burnes, in his ‘Travels in Bokhara,’ remarks on the pomegranate seeding in Mazenderan, as a remarkable peculiarity.Return to passage

[105] Ingledew, in ‘Transact. of Agricult. and Hort. Soc. of India,’ vol. ii.Return to passage

[106] ‘De la Fécondation,’ 1862, p. 308.Return to passage

[107] Hooker’s ‘Bot. Misc.,’ vol. i. p. 99; Gallesio, ‘Teoria della Riproduzione,’ p. 110. Dr. J. de Cordemoy, in ‘Transact. of the R. Soc. of Mauritius’ (new series), vol. vi. 1873, pp. 60-67, gives a large number of cases of plants which never seed, including several species indigenous in Mauritius.Return to passage

[108] ‘Transact. Linn. Soc.,’ vol. xvii. p. 563.Return to passage

[109] Godron, ‘De l’Espèce,’ tom. ii. p. 106; Herbert on Crocus, in ‘Journal of Hort. Soc.,’ vol. i., 1846, p. 254: Dr. Wight, from what he has seen in India, believes in this view; ‘Madras Journal of Lit. and Science,’ vol. iv., 1836, p. 61.Return to passage

[110] Wahlenberg specifies eight species in this state on the Lapland Alps: see Appendix to Linnæus’ ‘Tour in Lapland,’ translated by Sir J. E. Smith, vol. ii. pp. 274-280.Return to passage

[111] ‘Travels in North America,’ Eng. translat., vol. iii. p. 175.Return to passage

[112] With respect to the ivy and Acorus, see Dr. Broomfield in the ‘Phytologist,’ vol. iii. p. 376. Also Lindley and Vaucher on the Acorus, and see Caspary as below.Return to passage

[113] ‘Annal. des Sc. Nat.,’ 3rd series, Zool., tom. iv. p. 280. Prof. Decaisne refers also to analogous cases with mosses and lichens near Paris.Return to passage

[114] Mr. Tuckermann, in Silliman’s ‘American Journal of Science,’ vol. xlv. p. 1.Return to passage

[115] Sir J. E. Smith, ‘English Flora,’ vol. i. p. 339.Return to passage

[116] G. Planchon, ‘Flora de Montpellier,’ 1864, p. 20.Return to passage

[117] On the non-production of seeds in England, see Mr. Crocker, in ‘Gardener’s Weekly Magazine,’ 1852, p. 70; Vaucher, ‘Hist. Phys. Plantes d’Europe,’ tom. i. p. 33; Lecoq, ‘Géograph. Bot. d’Europe,’ tom. iv. p. 466; Dr. D. Clos, in ‘Annal. des Sc. Nat.,’ 3rd series, Bot., tom. xvii. 1852, p. 129: this latter author refers to other analogous cases. See more especially on this plant and on other allied cases Prof. Caspary, “Die Nuphar,” ‘Abhand. Naturw. Gesellsch. zu Halle,’ B. xi. 1870, p. 40, 78.Return to passage

[118] ‘Bastarderzeugung,’ s. 565. Kölreuter (Dritte Fortsetzung, s. 73, 87, 119) also shows that when two species, one single and the other double, are crossed, the hybrids are apt to be extremely double.Return to passage

[119] ‘Teoria della Riproduzione Veg.,’ 1816, p. 73.Return to passage

[120] ‘Bastarderzeugung,’ s. 573.Return to passage

[121] Ibid., s. 527.Return to passage

XIX. SUMMARY OF THE FOUR LAST CHAPTERS, WITH REMARKS ON HYBRIDISM

ON THE GOOD DERIVED ON THE EFFECTS OF CROSSING—THE INFLUENCE OF DOMESTICATION ON FERTILITY—CLOSE INTERBREEDING—GOOD AND EVIL RESULTS FROM CHANGED CONDITIONS OF LIFE—VARIETIES WHEN CROSSED NOT INVARIABLY FERTILE—ON THE DIFFERENCE IN FERTILITY BETWEEN CROSSED SPECIES AND VARIETIES—CONCLUSIONS WITH RESPECT TO HYBRIDISM—LIGHT THROWN ON HYBRIDISM BY THE ILLEGITIMATE PROGENY OF HETEROSTYLED PLANTS—STERILITY OF CROSSED SPECIES DUE TO DIFFERENCES CONFINED TO THE REPRODUCTIVE SYSTEM—NOT ACCUMULATED THROUGH NATURAL SELECTION—REASONS WHY DOMESTIC VARIETIES ARE NOT MUTUALLY STERILE—TOO MUCH STRESS HAS BEEN LAID ON THE DIFFERENCE IN FERTILITY BETWEEN CROSSED SPECIES AND CROSSED VARIETIES—CONCLUSION.

It was shown in the fifteenth chapter that when individuals of the same variety, or even of a distinct variety, are allowed freely to intercross, uniformity of character is ultimately acquired. Some few characters, however, are incapable of fusion, but these are unimportant, as they are often of a semi-monstrous nature, and have suddenly appeared. Hence, to preserve our domesticated breeds true, or to improve them by methodical selection, it is obviously necessary that they should be kept separate. Nevertheless, a whole body of individuals may be slowly modified, through unconscious selection, as we shall see in a future chapter, without separating them into distinct lots. Domestic races have often been intentionally modified by one or two crosses, made with some allied race, and occasionally even by repeated crosses with very distinct races; but in almost all such cases, long-continued and careful selection has been absolutely necessary, owing to the excessive variability of the crossed offspring, due to the principle of reversion. In a few instances, however, mongrels have retained a uniform character from their first production.

When two varieties are allowed to cross freely, and one is much more numerous than the other, the former will ultimately absorb the latter. Should both varieties exist in nearly equal numbers, it is probable that a considerable period would elapse before the acquirement of a uniform character; and the character ultimately acquired would largely depend on prepotency of transmission and on the conditions of life; for the nature of these conditions would generally favour one variety more than another, so that a kind of natural selection would come into play. Unless the crossed offspring were slaughtered by man without the least discrimination, some degree of unmethodical selection would likewise come into action. From these several considerations we may infer, that when two or more closely allied species first came into the possession of the same tribe, their crossing will not have influenced, in so great a degree as has often been supposed, the character of the offspring in future times; although in some cases it probably has had a considerable effect.

Domestication, as a general rule, increases the prolificness of animals and plants. It eliminates the tendency to sterility which is common to species when first taken from a state of nature and crossed. On this latter head we have no direct evidence; but as our races of dogs, cattle, pigs etc., are almost certainly descended from aboriginally distinct stocks, and as these races are now fully fertile together, or at least incomparably more fertile than most species when crossed, we may with entire confidence accept this conclusion.

Abundant evidence has been given that crossing adds to the size, vigour, and fertility of the offspring. This holds good when there has been no previous close interbreeding. It applies to the individuals of the same variety but belonging to different families, to distinct varieties, sub-species, and even to species. In the latter case, though size is gained, fertility is lost; but the increased size, vigour, and hardiness of many hybrids cannot be accounted for solely on the principle of compensation from the inaction of the reproductive system. Certain plants whilst growing under their natural conditions, others when cultivated, and others of hybrid origin, are completely self-impotent, though perfectly healthy; and such plants can be stimulated to fertility only by being crossed with other individuals of the same or of a distinct species.

On the other hand, long-continued close interbreeding between the nearest relations diminishes the constitutional vigour, size, and fertility of the offspring; and occasionally leads to malformations, but not necessarily to general deterioration of form or structure. This failure of fertility shows that the evil results of interbreeding are independent of the augmentation of morbid tendencies common to both parents, though this augmentation no doubt is often highly injurious. Our belief that evil follows from close interbreeding rests to a certain extent on the experience of practical breeders, especially of those who have reared many animals of quickly propagating kinds; but it likewise rests on several carefully recorded experiments. With some animals close interbreeding may be carried on for a long period with impunity by the selection of the most vigorous and healthy individuals; but sooner or later evil follows. The evil, however, comes on so slowly and gradually that it easily escapes observation, but can be recognised by the almost instantaneous manner in which size, constitutional vigour, and fertility are regained when animals that have long been interbred are crossed with a distinct family.

These two great classes of facts, namely, the good derived from crossing, and the evil from close interbreeding, with the consideration of the innumerable adaptations throughout nature for compelling, or favouring, or at least permitting, the occasional union of distinct individuals, taken together, lead to the conclusion that it is a law of nature that organic beings shall not fertilise themselves for perpetuity. This law was first plainly hinted at in 1799, with respect to plants, by Andrew Knight[1] and, not long afterwards, that sagacious observer Kölreuter, after showing how well the Malvaceæ are adapted for crossing, asks, “an id aliquid in recessu habeat, quod hujuscemodi flores nunquam proprio suo pulvere, sed semper eo aliarum su speciei impregnentur, merito quæritur? Certe natura nil facit frustra.” Although we may demur to Kölreuter’s saying that nature does nothing in vain, seeing how many rudimentary and useless organs there are, yet undoubtedly the argument from the innumerable contrivances, which favour crossing, is of the greatest weight. The most important result of this law is that it leads to uniformity of character in the individuals of the same species. In the case of certain hermaphrodites, which probably intercross only at long intervals of time, and with unisexual animals inhabiting somewhat separated localities, which can only occasionally come into contact and pair, the greater vigour and fertility of the crossed offspring will ultimately tend to give uniformity of character. But when we go beyond the limits of the same species, free intercrossing is barred by the law of sterility.

In searching for facts which might throw light on the cause of the good effects from crossing, and of the evil effects from close interbreeding, we have seen that, on the one hand, it is a widely prevalent and ancient belief, that animals and plants profit from slight changes in their condition of life; and it would appear that the germ, in a somewhat analogous manner, is more effectually stimulated by the male element, when taken from a distinct individual, and therefore slightly modified in nature, than when taken from a male having the same identical constitution. On the other hand, numerous facts have been given, showing that when animals are first subjected to captivity, even in their native land, and although allowed much liberty, their reproductive functions are often greatly impaired or quite annulled. Some groups of animals are more affected than others, but with apparently capricious exceptions in every group. Some animals never or rarely couple under confinement; some couple freely, but never or rarely conceive. The secondary male characters, the maternal functions and instincts, are occasionally affected. With plants, when first subjected to cultivation, analogous facts have been observed. We probably owe our double flowers, rich seedless fruits, and in some cases greatly developed tubers, etc., to incipient sterility of the above nature combined with a copious supply of nutriment. Animals which have long been domesticated, and plants which have long been cultivated, can generally withstand, with unimpaired fertility, great changes in their conditions of life; though both are sometimes slightly affected. With animals the somewhat rare capacity of breeding freely under confinement, together with their utility, mainly determine the kinds which have been domesticated.

We can in no case precisely say what is the cause of the diminished fertility of an animal when first captured, or of a plant when first cultivated; we can only infer that it is caused by a change of some kind in the natural conditions of life. The remarkable susceptibility of the reproductive system to such changes,—a susceptibility not common to any other organ,—apparently has an important bearing on Variability, as we shall see in a future chapter.

It is impossible not to be struck with the double parallelism between the two classes of facts just alluded to. On the one hand, slight changes in the conditions of life, and crosses between slightly modified forms or varieties, are beneficial as far as prolificness and constitutional vigour are concerned. On the other hand, changes in the conditions greater in degree, or of a different nature, and crosses between forms which have been slowly and greatly modified by natural means,—in other words, between species,—are highly injurious, as far as the reproductive system is concerned, and in some few instances as far as constitutional vigour is concerned. Can this parallelism be accidental? Does it not rather indicate some real bond of connection? As a fire goes out unless it be stirred up, so the vital forces are always tending, according to Mr. Herbert Spencer, to a state of equilibrium, unless disturbed and renovated through the action of other forces.

In some few cases varieties tend to keep distinct, by breeding at different seasons, by great difference in size, or by sexual preference. But the crossing of varieties, far from diminishing, generally adds to the fertility of the first union and of the mongrel offspring. Whether all the more widely distinct domestic varieties are invariably quite fertile when crossed, we do not positively know; much time and trouble would be requisite for the necessary experiments, and many difficulties occur, such as the descent of the various races from aboriginally distinct species, and the doubts whether certain forms ought to be ranked as species or varieties. Nevertheless, the wide experience of practical breeders proves that the great majority of varieties, even if some should hereafter prove not to be indefinitely fertile inter se, are far more fertile when crossed, than the vast majority of closely allied natural species. A few remarkable cases have, however, been given on the authority of excellent observers, showing that with plants certain forms, which undoubtedly must be ranked as varieties, yield fewer seeds when crossed than is natural to the parent-species. Other varieties have had their reproductive powers so far modified that they are either more or less fertile than their parents, when crossed with a distinct species.

Nevertheless, the fact remains indisputable that domesticated varieties, of animals and of plants, which differ greatly from one another in structure, but which are certainly descended from the same aboriginal species, such as the races of the fowl, pigeon, many vegetables, and a host of other productions, are extremely fertile when crossed; and this seems to make a broad and impassable barrier between domestic varieties and natural species. But, as I will now attempt to show, the distinction is not so great and overwhelmingly important as it at first appears.

On the Difference in Fertility between Varieties and Species when crossed.

This work is not the proper place for fully treating the subject of hybridism, and I have already given in my ‘Origin of Species’ a moderately full abstract. I will here merely enumerate the general conclusions which may be relied on, and which bear on our present point.

Firstly, the laws governing the production of hybrids are identical, or nearly identical, in the animal and vegetable kingdoms.

Secondly, the sterility of distinct species when first united, and that of their hybrid offspring, graduate, by an almost infinite number of steps, from zero, when the ovule is never impregnated and a seed-capsule is never formed, up to complete fertility. We can only escape the conclusion that some species are fully fertile when crossed, by determining to designate as varieties all the forms which are quite fertile. This high degree of fertility is, however, rare. Nevertheless, plants, which have been exposed to unnatural conditions, sometimes become modified in so peculiar a manner, that they are much more fertile when crossed with a distinct species than when fertilised by their own pollen. Success in effecting a first union between two species, and the fertility of their hybrids, depend in an eminent degree on the conditions of life being favourable. The innate sterility of hybrids of the same parentage and raised from the same seed-capsule often differs much in degree.

Thirdly, the degree of sterility of a first cross between two species does not always run strictly parallel with that of their hybrid offspring. Many cases are known of species which can be crossed with ease, but yield hybrids excessively sterile; and conversely some which can be crossed with great difficulty, but produce fairly fertile hybrids. This is an inexplicable fact, on the view that species have been specially endowed with mutual sterility in order to keep them distinct.

Fourthly, the degree of sterility often differs greatly in two species when reciprocally crossed; for the first will readily fertilise the second; but the latter is incapable, after hundreds of trials, of fertilising the former. Hybrids produced from reciprocal crosses between the same two species likewise sometimes differ in their degree of sterility. These cases also are utterly inexplicable on the view of sterility being a special endowment.

Fifthly, the degree of sterility of first crosses and of hybrids runs, to a certain extent, parallel with the general or systematic affinity of the forms which are united. For species belonging to distinct genera can rarely, and those belonging to distinct families can never, be crossed. The parallelism, however, is far from complete; for a multitude of closely allied species will not unite, or unite with extreme difficulty, whilst other species, widely different from one another, can be crossed with perfect facility. Nor does the difficulty depend on ordinary constitutional differences, for annual and perennial plants, deciduous and evergreen trees, plants flowering at different seasons, inhabiting different stations, and naturally living under the most opposite climates, can often be crossed with ease. The difficulty or facility apparently depends exclusively on the sexual constitution of the species which are crossed; or on their sexual elective affinity, i.e. Wahlverwandtschaft of Gärtner. As species rarely or never become modified in one character, without being at the same time modified in many characters, and as systematic affinity includes all visible similarities and dissimilarities, any difference in sexual constitution between two species would naturally stand in more or less close relation with their systematic position.

Sixthly, the sterility of species when first crossed, and that of hybrids, may possibly depend to a certain extent on distinct causes. With pure species the reproductive organs are in a perfect condition, whilst with hybrids they are often plainly deteriorated. A hybrid embryo which partakes of the constitution of its father and mother is exposed to unnatural conditions, as long as it is nourished within the womb, or egg, or seed of the mother-form; and as we know that unnatural conditions often induce sterility, the reproductive organs of the hybrid might at this early age be permanently affected. But this cause has no bearing on the infertility of first unions. The diminished number of the offspring from first unions may often result, as is certainly sometimes the case, from the premature death of most of the hybrid embryos. But we shall immediately see that a law of an unknown nature apparently exists, which leads to the offspring from unions, which are infertile, being themselves more or less infertile; and this at present is all that can be said.

Seventhly, hybrids and mongrels present, with the one great exception of fertility, the most striking accordance in all other respects; namely, in the laws of their resemblance to their two parents, in their tendency to reversion, in their variability, and in being absorbed through repeated crosses by either parent-form.

After arriving at these conclusions, I was led to investigate a subject which throws considerable light on hybridism, namely, the fertility of heterostyled or dimorphic and trimorphic plants, when illegitimately united. I have had occasion several times to allude to these plants, and I may here give a brief abstract of my observations. Several plants belonging to distinct orders present two forms, which exist in about equal numbers, and which differ in no respect except in their reproductive organs; one form having a long pistil with short stamens, the other a short pistil with long stamens; both with differently sized pollen-grains. With trimorphic plants there are three forms likewise differing in the lengths of their pistils and stamens, in the size and colour of the pollen-grains, and in some other respects; and as in each of the three forms there are two sets of stamens, there are altogether six sets of stamens and three kinds of pistils. These organs are so proportioned in length to one another that, in any two of the forms, half the stamens in each stand on a level with the stigma of the third form. Now I have shown, and the result has been confirmed by other observers, that, in order to obtain full fertility with these plants, it is necessary that the stigma of the one form should be fertilised by pollen taken from the stamens of corresponding height in the other form. So that with dimorphic species two unions, which may be called legitimate, are fully fertile, and two, which may be called illegitimate, are more or less infertile. With trimorphic species six unions are legitimate, or fully fertile, and twelve are illegitimate, or more or less infertile.[2]

The infertility which may be observed in various dimorphic and trimorphic plants, when illegitimately fertilised, that is, by pollen taken from stamens not corresponding in height with the pistil, differs much in degree, up to absolute and utter sterility; just in the same manner as occurs in crossing distinct species. As the degree of sterility in the latter case depends in an eminent degree on the conditions of life being more or less favourable, so I have found it with illegitimate unions. It is well known that if pollen of a distinct species be placed on the stigma of a flower, and its own pollen be afterwards, even after a considerable interval of time, placed on the same stigma, its action is so strongly prepotent that it generally annihilates the effect of the foreign pollen; so it is with the pollen of the several forms of the same species, for legitimate pollen is strongly prepotent over illegitimate pollen, when both are placed on the same stigma. I ascertained this by fertilising several flowers, first illegitimately, and twenty-four hours afterwards legitimately, with pollen taken from a peculiarly coloured variety, and all the seedlings were similarly coloured; this shows that the legitimate pollen, though applied twenty-four hours subsequently, had wholly destroyed or prevented the action of the previously applied illegitimate pollen. Again, as, in making reciprocal crosses between the same two species, there is occasionally a great difference in the result, so the same thing occurs with trimorphic plants; for instance, the mid-styled form of Lythrum salicaria could be illegitimately fertilised with the greatest ease by pollen from the longer stamens of the short-styled form, and yielded many seeds; but the short-styled form did not yield a single seed when fertilised by the longer stamens of the mid-styled form.

In all these respects the forms of the same undoubted species, when illegitimately united, behave in exactly the same manner as do two distinct species when crossed. This led me carefully to observe during four years many seedlings, raised from several illegitimate unions. The chief result is that these illegitimate plants, as they may be called, are not fully fertile. It is possible to raise from dimorphic species, both long-styled and short-styled illegitimate plants, and from trimorphic plants all three illegitimate forms. These can then be properly united in a legitimate manner. When this is done, there is no apparent reason why they should not yield as many seeds as did their parents when legitimately fertilised. But such is not the case; they are all infertile, but in various degrees; some being so utterly and incurably sterile that they did not yield during four seasons a single seed or even seed-capsule. These illegitimate plants, which are so sterile, although united with each other in a legitimate manner, may be strictly compared with hybrids when crossed inter se, and it is well known how sterile these latter generally are. When, on the other hand, a hybrid is crossed with either pure parent-species, the sterility is usually much lessened: and so it is when an illegitimate plant is fertilised by a legitimate plant. In the same manner as the sterility of hybrids does not always run parallel with the difficulty of making the first cross between the two parent-species, so the sterility of certain illegitimate plants was unusually great, whilst the sterility of the union from which they were derived was by no means great. With hybrids raised from the same seed-capsule the degree of sterility is innately variable, so it is in a marked manner with illegitimate plants. Lastly, many hybrids are profuse and persistent flowerers, whilst other and more sterile hybrids produce few flowers, and are weak, miserable dwarfs; exactly similar cases occur with the illegitimate offspring of various dimorphic and trimorphic plants.

Although there is the closest identity in character and behaviour between illegitimate plants and hybrids, it is hardly an exaggeration to maintain that the former are hybrids, but produced within the limits of the same species by the improper union of certain forms, whilst ordinary hybrids are produced from an improper union between so-called distinct species. We have already seen that there is the closest similarity in all respects between first illegitimate unions, and first crosses between distinct species. This will perhaps be made more fully apparent by an illustration:—we may suppose that a botanist found two well-marked varieties (and such occur) of the long-styled form of the trimorphic Lithrum salicaria, and that he determined to try by crossing whether they were specifically distinct. He would find that they yielded only about one-fifth of the proper number of seed, and that they behaved in all the other above-specified respects as if they had been two distinct species. But to make the case sure, he would raise plants from his supposed hybridised seed, and he would find that the seedlings were miserably dwarfed and utterly sterile, and that they behaved in all other respects like ordinary hybrids, he might then maintain that he had actually proved, in accordance with the common view, that his two varieties were as good and as distinct species as any in the world; but he would be completely mistaken.

The facts now given on dimorphic and trimorphic plants are important, because they show us, first, that the physiological test of lessened fertility, both in first crosses and in hybrids, is no criterion of specific distinction; secondly, because we may conclude that there is some unknown bond which connects the infertility of illegitimate unions with that of their illegitimate offspring, and we are led to extend the same view to first crosses and hybrids; thirdly, because we find, and this seems to me of especial importance, that two or three forms of the same species may exist and may differ in no respect whatever, either in structure or in constitution, relatively to external conditions, and yet be sterile when united in certain ways. For we must remember that it is the union of the sexual elements of individuals of the same form, for instance, of two long-styled forms, which results in sterility; whilst it is the union of the sexual element proper to two distinct forms which is fertile. Hence the case appears at first sight exactly the reverse of what occurs in the ordinary unions of the individuals of the same species, and with crosses between distinct species. It is, however, doubtful whether this is really so; but I will not enlarge on this obscure subject.

We may, however, infer as probable from the consideration of dimorphic and trimorphic plants, that the sterility of distinct species when crossed, and of their hybrid progeny, depends exclusively on the nature of their sexual elements, and not on any difference in their structure or general constitution. We are also led to this same conclusion by considering reciprocal crosses, in which the male of one species cannot be united, or only with great difficulty, with the female of a second species, whilst the converse cross can be effected with perfect facility. That excellent observer, Gärtner, likewise concluded that species when crossed are sterile owing to differences confined to their reproductive systems.

On the principle which makes it necessary for man, whilst he is selecting and improving his domestic varieties, to keep them separate, it would clearly be advantageous to varieties in a state of nature, that is to incipient species, if they could be kept from blending, either through sexual aversion, or by becoming mutually sterile. Hence it at one time appeared to me probable, as it has to others, that this sterility might have been acquired through natural selection. On this view we must suppose that a shade of lessened fertility first spontaneously appeared, like any other modification, in certain individuals of a species when crossed with other individuals of the same species; and that successive slight degrees of infertility, from being advantageous, were slowly accumulated. This appears all the more probable, if we admit that the structural differences between the forms of dimorphic and trimorphic plants, as the length and curvature of the pistil, etc., have been co-adapted through natural selection; for if this be admitted, we can hardly avoid extending the same conclusion to their mutual infertility. Sterility, moreover, has been acquired through natural selection for other and widely different purposes, as with neuter insects in reference to their social economy. In the case of plants, the flowers on the circumference of the truss in the guelder rose (Viburnum opulus) and those on the summit of the spike in the feather-hyacinth (Muscari comosum) have been rendered conspicuous, and apparently in consequence sterile, in order that insects might easily discover and visit the perfect flowers. But when we endeavour to apply the principle of natural selection to the acquirement by distinct species of mutual sterility, we meet with great difficulties. In the first place, it may be remarked that separate regions are often inhabited by groups of species or by single species, which when brought together and crossed are found to be more or less sterile; now it could clearly have been no advantage to such separated species to have been rendered mutually sterile, and consequently this could not have been effected through natural selection; but it may perhaps be argued, that, if a species were rendered sterile with some one compatriot, sterility with other species would follow as a necessary consequence. In the second place, it is as much opposed to the theory of natural selection, as to the theory of special creation, that in reciprocal crosses the male element of one form should have been rendered utterly impotent on a second form, whilst at the same time the male element of this second form is enabled freely to fertilise the first form; for this peculiar state of the reproductive system could not possibly have been advantageous to either species.

In considering the probability of natural selection having come into action in rendering species mutually sterile, one of the greatest difficulties will be found to lie in the existence of many graduated steps from slightly lessened fertility to absolute sterility. It may be admitted, on the principle above explained, that it would profit an incipient species if it were rendered in some slight degree sterile when crossed with its parent-form or with some other variety; for thus fewer bastardised and deteriorated offspring would be produced to commingle their blood with the new species in process of formation. But he who will take the trouble to reflect on the steps by which this first degree of sterility could be increased through natural selection to that higher degree which is common to so many species, and which is universal with species which have been differentiated to a generic or family rank, will find the subject extraordinarily complex. After mature reflection it seems to me that this could not have been effected through natural selection. Take the case of any two species which, when crossed, produce few and sterile offspring; now, what is there which could favour the survival of those individuals which happened to be endowed in a slightly higher degree with mutual infertility, and which thus approached by one small step towards absolute sterility? Yet an advance of this kind, if the theory of natural selection be brought to bear, must have incessantly occurred with many species, for a multitude are mutually quite barren. With sterile neuter insects we have reason to believe that modifications in their structure and fertility have been slowly accumulated by natural selection, from an advantage having been thus indirectly given to the community to which they belonged over other communities of the same species; but an individual animal not belonging to a social community, if rendered slightly sterile when crossed with some other variety, would not thus itself gain any advantage or indirectly give any advantage to the other individuals of the same variety, thus leading to their preservation.

But it would be superfluous to discuss this question in detail; for with plants we have conclusive evidence that the sterility of crossed species must be due to some principle, quite independent of natural selection. Both Gärtner and Kolreuter have proved that in general including numerous species, a series can be formed from species which when crossed yield fewer and fewer seeds, to species which never produce a single seed, but yet are affected by the pollen of certain other species, for the germen swells. It is here manifestly impossible to select the more sterile individuals, which have already ceased to yield seeds; so that this acme of sterility, when the germen alone is affected, cannot have been gained through selection; and from the laws governing the various grades of sterility being so uniform throughout the animal and vegetable kingdoms, we may infer that the cause, whatever it may be, is the same or nearly the same in all cases.

As species have not been rendered mutually infertile through the accumulative action of natural selection, and as we may safely conclude, from the previous as well as from other and more general considerations, that they have not been endowed through an act of creation with this quality, we must infer that it has arisen incidentally during their slow formation in connection with other and unknown changes in their organisation. By a quality arising incidentally, I refer to such cases as different species of animals and plants being differently affected by poisons to which they are not naturally exposed; and this difference in susceptibility is clearly incidental on other and unknown differences in their organisation. So again the capacity in different kinds of trees to be grafted on each other, or on a third species, differs much, and is of no advantage to these trees, but is incidental on structural or functional differences in their woody tissues. We need not feel surprise at sterility incidentally resulting from crosses between distinct species,—the modified descendants of a common progenitor,—when we bear in mind how easily the reproductive system is affected by various causes—often by extremely slight changes in the conditions of life, by too close interbreeding, and by other agencies. It is well to bear in mind such cases as that of the Passiflora alata, which recovered its self-fertility from being grafted on a distinct species—the cases of plants which normally or abnormally are self-impotent, but can readily be fertilised by the pollen of a distinct species—and lastly the cases of individual domesticated animals which evince towards each other sexual incompatibility.

We now at last come to the immediate point under discussion: how is it that, with some few exceptions in the case of plants, domesticated varieties, such as those of the dog, fowl, pigeon, several fruit-trees, and culinary vegetables, which differ from each other in external characters more than many species, are perfectly fertile when crossed, or even fertile in excess, whilst closely allied species are almost invariably in some degree sterile? We can, to a certain extent, give a satisfactory answer to this question. Passing over the fact that the amount of external difference between two species is no sure guide to their degree of mutual sterility, so that similar differences in the case of varieties would be no sure guide, we know that with species the cause lies exclusively in differences in their sexual constitution. Now the conditions to which domesticated animals and cultivated plants have been subjected have had so little tendency towards modifying the reproductive system in a manner leading to mutual sterility, that we have very good grounds for admitting the directly opposite doctrine of Pallas, namely, that such conditions generally eliminate this tendency; so that the domesticated descendants of species, which in their natural state would have been in some degree sterile when crossed, become perfectly fertile together. With plants, so far is cultivation from giving a tendency towards mutual sterility, that in several well-authenticated cases, already often alluded to, certain species have been affected in a very different manner, for they have become self-impotent, whilst still retaining the capacity of fertilising, and being fertilised by, distinct species. If the Pallasian doctrine of the elimination of sterility through long-continued domestication be admitted, and it can hardly be rejected, it becomes in the highest degree improbable that similar circumstances should commonly both induce and eliminate the same tendency; though in certain cases, with species having a peculiar constitution, sterility might occasionally be thus induced. Thus, as I believe, we can understand why with domesticated animals varieties have not been produced which are mutually sterile; and why with plants only a few such cases have been observed, namely, by Gärtner, with certain varieties of maize and verbascum, by other experimentalists with varieties of the gourd and melon, and by Kölreuter with one kind of tobacco.

With respect to varieties which have originated in a state of nature, it is almost hopeless to expect to prove by direct evidence that they have been rendered mutually sterile; for if even a trace of sterility could be detected, such varieties would at once be raised by almost every naturalist to the rank of distinct species. If, for instance, Gärtner’s statement were fully confirmed, that the blue and red flowered forms of the pimpernel (Anagallis arvensis) are sterile when crossed, I presume that all the botanists who now maintain on various grounds that these two forms are merely fleeting varieties, would at once admit that they were specifically distinct.

The real difficulty in our present subject is not, as it appears to me, why domestic varieties have not become mutually infertile when crossed, but why this has so generally occurred with natural varieties as soon as they have been modified in a sufficient and permanent degree to take rank as species. We are far from precisely knowing the cause; but we can see that the species, owing to their struggle for existence with numerous competitors, must have been exposed to more uniform conditions of life during long periods of time than domestic varieties have been, and this may well make a wide difference in the result. For we know how commonly wild animals and plants, when taken from their natural conditions and subjected to captivity, are rendered sterile; and the reproductive functions of organic beings which have always lived and been slowly modified under natural conditions would probably in like manner be eminently sensitive to the influence of an unnatural cross. Domesticated productions, on the other hand, which, as shown by the mere fact of their domestication, were not originally highly sensitive to changes in their conditions of life, and which can now generally resist with undiminished fertility repeated changes of conditions, might be expected to produce varieties, which would be little liable to have their reproductive powers injuriously affected by the act of crossing with other varieties which had originated in a like manner.

Certain naturalists have recently laid too great stress, as it appears to me, on the difference in fertility between varieties and species when crossed. Some allied species of trees cannot be grafted on one another, whilst all varieties can be so grafted. Some allied animals are affected in a very different manner by the same poison, but with varieties no such case until recently was known; whilst now it has been proved that immunity from certain poisons sometimes stands in correlation with the colour of the individuals of the same species. The period of gestation generally differs much in distinct species, but with varieties until lately no such difference had been observed. Here we have various physiological differences, and no doubt others could be added, between one species and another of the same genus, which do not occur, or occur with extreme rarity, in the case of varieties; and these differences are apparently wholly or in chief part incidental on other constitutional differences, just in the same manner as the sterility of crossed species is incidental on differences confined to the sexual system. Why, then, should these latter differences, however serviceable they may indirectly be in keeping the inhabitants of the same country distinct, be thought of such paramount importance, in comparison with other incidental and functional differences? No sufficient answer to this question can be given. Hence the fact that widely distinct domestic varieties are, with rare exceptions, perfectly fertile when crossed, and produce fertile offspring, whilst closely allied species are, with rare exceptions, more or less sterile, is not nearly so formidable an objection as it appears at first to the theory of the common descent of allied species.

REFERENCES

[1] ‘Transactions Phil. Soc.,’ 1799, p. 202. For Kölreuter see ‘Mém. de l’Acad. de St.-Pétersbourg,’ tom. iii. 1809 (published 1811) p. 197. In reading C. K. Sprengel’s remarkable work, ‘Das entdeckte Geheimniss,’ etc., 1793, it is curious to observe how often this wonderfully acute observer failed to understand the full meaning of the structure of the flowers which he has so well described, from not always having before his mind the key to the problem, namely, the good derived from the crossing of distinct individual plants.Return to passage

[2] My observations ‘On the Character and hybrid-like nature of the offspring from the illegitimate union of Dimorphic and Trimorphic Plants’ were published in the ‘Journal of the Linnean Soc.,’ vol. x. p. 393. The abstract here given is nearly the same with that which appeared in the 6th edition of my ‘Origin of Species.’Return to passage