The Variation of Animals and Plants under Domestication — Volume 2

This remarkable fact of the sexual affinity of similarly-coloured varieties, as observed by Gartner and Mr. Scott, may not be of very rare occurrence; for the subject has not been attended to by others. The following case is worth giving, partly to show how difficult it is to avoid error. Dr. Herbert (16/19. 'Amaryllidaceae' 1837 page 366. Gartner has made a similar observation.) has remarked that variously-coloured double varieties of the Hollyhock (Althea rosea) may be raised with certainty by seed from plants growing close together. I have been informed that nurserymen who raise seed for sale do not separate their plants; accordingly I procured seed of eighteen named varieties; of these, eleven varieties produced sixty-two plants all perfectly true to their kind; and seven produced forty-nine plants, half of which were true and half false. Mr. Masters of Canterbury has given me a more striking case; he saved seed from a great bed of twenty-four named varieties planted in closely adjoining rows, and each variety reproduced itself truly with only sometimes a shade of difference in tint. Now in the hollyhock the pollen, which is abundant, is matured and nearly all shed before the stigma of the same flower is ready to receive it (16/20. Kolreuter first observed this fact, 'Mem. de l'Acad. de St. Petersburg' volume 3 page 127. See also C.K. Sprengel 'Das Entdeckte Geheimniss' s. 345.); and as bees covered with pollen incessantly fly from plant to plant, it would appear that adjoining varieties could not escape being crossed. As, however, this does not occur, it appeared to me probable that the pollen of each variety was prepotent on its own stigma over that of all other varieties, but I have no evidence on this point. Mr. C. Turner of Slough, well known for his success in the cultivation of this plant, informs me that it is the doubleness of the flowers which prevents the bees gaining access to the pollen and stigma; and he finds that it is difficult even to cross them artificially. Whether this explanation will fully account for varieties in close proximity propagating themselves so truly by seed, I do not know.

The following cases are worth giving, as they relate to monoecious forms, which do not require, and consequently cannot have been injured by, castration. Girou de Buzareingues crossed what he designates three varieties of gourd (16/21. Namely Barbarines, Pastissons, Giraumous: 'Annal. des Sc. Nat.' tome 30 1833 pages 398 and 405.), and asserts that their mutual fertilisation is less easy in proportion to the difference which they present. I am aware how imperfectly the forms in this group were until recently known; but Sageret (16/22. 'Memoire sur les Cucurbitaceae' 1826 pages 46, 55.), who ranked them according to their mutual fertility, considers the three forms above alluded to as varieties, as does a far higher authority, namely, M. Naudin. (16/23. 'Annales des Sc. Nat.' 4th series tome 6. M. Naudin considers these forms as undoubtedly varieties of Cucurbita pepo.) Sageret (16/24. 'Mem. Cucurb.' page 8.) has observed that certain melons have a greater tendency, whatever the cause may be, to keep true than others; and M. Naudin, who has had such immense experience in this group, informs me that he believes that certain varieties intercross more readily than others of the same species; but he has not proved the truth of this conclusion; the frequent abortion of the pollen near Paris being one great difficulty. Nevertheless, he has grown close together, during seven years, certain forms of Citrullus, which, as they could be artificially crossed with perfect facility and produced fertile offspring, are ranked as varieties; but these forms when not artificially crossed kept true. Many other varieties, on the other hand, in the same group cross with such facility, as M. Naudin repeatedly insists, that without being grown far apart they cannot be kept in the least true.

Another case, though somewhat different, may be here given, as it is highly remarkable, and is established on excellent evidence. Kolreuter minutely describes five varieties of the common tobacco (16/25. 'Zweite Forts.' s. 53 namely Nicotiana major vulgaris; (2) perennis; (3) transylvanica; (4) a sub- var. of the last; (5) major latifol. fl. alb.) which were reciprocally crossed, and the offspring were intermediate in character and as fertile as their parents: from this fact Kolreuter inferred that they are really varieties; and no one, as far as I can discover, seems to have doubted that such is the case. He also crossed reciprocally these five varieties with N. glutinosa, and they yielded very sterile hybrids; but those raised from the var. perennis, whether used as the father or mother plant, were not so sterile as the hybrids from the four other varieties. (16/26. Kolreuter was so much struck with this fact that he suspected that a little pollen of N. glutinosa in one of his experiments might have accidentally got mingled with that of var. perennis, and thus aided its fertilising power. But we now know conclusively from Gartner ('Bastarderz.' s. 34, 43) that the pollen of two species never acts CONJOINTLY on a third species; still less will the pollen of a distinct species, mingled with a plant's own pollen, if the latter be present in sufficient quantity, have any effect. The sole effect of mingling two kinds of pollen is to produce in the same capsule seeds which yield plants, some taking after the one and some after the other parent.) So that the sexual capacity of this one variety has certainly been in some degree modified, so as to approach in nature that of N. glutinosa. (16/27. Mr. Scott has made some observations on the absolute sterility of a purple and white primrose (Primula vulgaris) when fertilised by pollen from the common primrose ('Journal of Proc. of Linn. Soc.' volume 8 1864 page 98); but these observations require confirmation. I raised a number of purple-flowered long- styled seedlings from seed kindly sent me by Mr. Scott, and, though they were all in some degree sterile, they were much more fertile with pollen taken from the common primrose than with their own pollen. Mr. Scott has likewise described a red equal-styled cowslip (P. veris ibid page 106), which was found by him to be highly sterile when crossed with the common cowslip; but this was not the case with several equal-styled red seedlings raised by me from his plant. This variety of the cowslip presents the remarkable peculiarity of combining male organs in every respect like those of the short-styled form, with female organs resembling in function and partly in structure those of the long-styled form; so that we have the singular anomaly of the two forms combined in the same flower. Hence it is not surprising that these flowers should be spontaneously self-fertile in a high degree.)

These facts with respect to plants show that in some few cases certain varieties have had their sexual powers so far modified, that they cross together less readily and yield less seed than other varieties of the same species. We shall presently see that the sexual functions of most animals and plants are eminently liable to be affected by the conditions of life to which they are exposed; and hereafter we shall briefly discuss the conjoint bearing of this fact, and others, on the difference in fertility between crossed varieties and crossed species.

DOMESTICATION ELIMINATES THE TENDENCY TO STERILITY WHICH IS GENERAL WITH SPECIES WHEN CROSSED.

This hypothesis was first propounded by Pallas (16/28. 'Act. Acad. St. Petersburg' 1780 part 2 pages 84, 100.), and has been adopted by several authors. I can find hardly any direct facts in its support; but unfortunately no one has compared, in the case of either animals or plants, the fertility of anciently domesticated varieties, when crossed with a distinct species, with that of the wild parent-species when similarly crossed. No one has compared, for instance, the fertility of Gallus bankiva and of the domesticated fowl, when crossed with a distinct species of Gallus or Phasianus; and the experiment would in all cases be surrounded by many difficulties. Dureau de la Malle, who has so closely studied classical literature, states (16/29. 'Annales des Sc. Nat.' tome 21 1st series page 61.) that in the time of the Romans the common mule was produced with more difficulty than at the present day; but whether this statement may be trusted I know not. A much more important, though somewhat different, case is given by M. Groenland (16/30. 'Bull. Bot. Soc. de France' December 27, 1861 tome 8 page 612.), namely, that plants, known from their intermediate character and sterility to be hybrids between Aegilops and wheat, have perpetuated themselves under culture since 1857, WITH A RAPID BUT VARYING INCREASE OF FERTILITY IN EACH GENERATION. In the fourth generation the plants, still retaining their intermediate character, had become as fertile as common cultivated wheat.

The indirect evidence in favour of the Pallasian doctrine appears to me to be extremely strong. In the earlier chapters I have shown that our various breeds of the dog are descended from several wild species; and this probably is the case with sheep. There can be no doubt that the Zebu or humped Indian ox belongs to a distinct species from European cattle: the latter, moreover, are descended from two forms, which may be called either species or races. We have good evidence that our domesticated pigs belong to at least two specific types, S. scrofa and indicus. Now a widely extended analogy leads to the belief that if these several allied species, when first reclaimed, had been crossed, they would have exhibited, both in their first unions and in their hybrid offspring, some degree of sterility. Nevertheless, the several domesticated races descended from them are now all, as far as can be ascertained, perfectly fertile together. If this reasoning be trustworthy, and it is apparently sound, we must admit the Pallasian doctrine that long- continued domestication tends to eliminate that sterility which is natural to species when crossed in their aboriginal state.

ON INCREASED FERTILITY FROM DOMESTICATION AND CULTIVATION.

Increased fertility from domestication, without any reference to crossing, may be here briefly considered. This subject bears indirectly on two or three points connected with the modification of organic beings. As Buffon long ago remarked (16/31. Quoted by Isid. Geoffroy St. Hilaire 'Hist. Naturelle Generale' tome 3 page 476. Since this MS. has been sent to press a full discussion on the present subject has appeared in Mr. Herbert Spencer's 'Principles of Biology' volume 2 1867 page 457 et seq.), domestic animals breed oftener in the year and produce more young at a birth than wild animals of the same species; they, also, sometimes breed at an earlier age. The case would hardly have deserved further notice, had not some authors lately attempted to show that fertility increases and decreases in an inverse ratio with the amount of food. This strange doctrine has apparently arisen from individual animals when supplied with an inordinate quantity of food, and from plants of many kinds when grown on excessively rich soil, as on a dunghill, becoming sterile: but to this latter point I shall have occasion presently to return. With hardly an exception, our domesticated animals, which have been long habituated to a regular and copious supply of food, without the labour of searching for it, are more fertile than the corresponding wild animals. It is notorious how frequently cats and dogs breed, and how many young they produce at a birth. The wild rabbit is said generally to breed four times yearly, and to produce each time at most six young; the tame rabbit breeds six or seven times yearly, producing each time from four to eleven young; and Mr. Harrison Weir tells me of a case of eighteen young having been produced at a birth, all of which survived. The ferret, though generally so closely confined, is more prolific than its supposed wild prototype. The wild sow is remarkably prolific; she often breeds twice in the year, and bears from four to eight and sometimes even twelve young; but the domestic sow regularly breeds twice a year, and would breed oftener if permitted; and a sow that produces less than eight at a birth "is worth little, and the sooner she is fattened for the butcher the better." The amount of food affects the fertility of the same individual: thus sheep, which on mountains never produce more than one lamb at a birth, when brought down to lowland pastures frequently bear twins. This difference apparently is not due to the cold of the higher land, for sheep and other domestic animals are said to be extremely prolific in Lapland. Hard living, also, retards the period at which animals conceive; for it has been found disadvantageous in the northern islands of Scotland to allow cows to bear calves before they are four years old. (16/32. For cats and dogs etc. see Bellingeri in 'Annal. des Sc. Nat.' 2nd series, Zoolog. tome 12 page 155. For ferrets Bechstein 'Naturgeschichte Deutschlands' b. 1 1801 s. 786, 795. For rabbits ditto s. 1123, 1131; and Bronn 'Geschichte der Natur.' b. 2 s. 99. For mountain sheep ditto s. 102. For the fertility of the wild sow, see Bechstein 'Naturgesch. Deutschlands' b. 1 1801 s. 534; for the domestic pig Sidney's edition of 'Youatt on the Pig' 1860 page 62. With respect to Lapland see Acerbi 'Travels to the North Cape' English translation volume 2 page 222. About the Highland cows see 'Hogg on Sheep' page 263.)

[Birds offer still better evidence of increased fertility from domestication: the hen of the wild Gallus bankiva lays from six to ten eggs, a number which would be thought nothing of with the domestic hen. The wild duck lays from five to ten eggs; the tame one in the course of the year from eighty to one hundred. The wild grey-lag goose lays from five to eight eggs; the tame from thirteen to eighteen, and she lays a second time; as Mr. Dixon has remarked, "high-feeding, care, and moderate warmth induce a habit of prolificacy which becomes in some measure hereditary." Whether the semi-domesticated dovecote pigeon is more fertile than the wild rock-pigeon, C. livia, I know not; but the more thoroughly domesticated breeds are nearly twice as fertile as dovecotes: the latter, however, when caged and highly fed, become equally fertile with house pigeons. I hear from Judge Caton that the wild turkey in the United States does not breed when a year old, as the domesticated turkeys there invariably do. The peahen alone of domesticated birds is rather more fertile, according to some accounts, when wild in its native Indian home, than in Europe when exposed to our much colder climate. (16/33. For the eggs of Gallus bankiva see Blyth in 'Annals and Mag. of Nat. Hist.' 2nd series volume 1 1848 page 456. For wild and tame ducks Macgillivray 'British Birds' volume 5 page 37; and 'Die Enten' s. 87. For wild geese L. Lloyd 'Scandinavian Adventures' volume 2 1854 page 413; and for tame geese 'Ornamental Poultry' by Rev. E.S. Dixon page 139. On the breeding of Pigeons Pistor 'Das Ganze der Taubenzucht' 1831 s. 48; and Boitard and Corbie 'Les Pigeons' page 158. With respect to peacocks, according to Temminck 'Hist. Nat. Gen. des Pigeons' etc. 1813 tome 2 page 41, the hen lays in India even as many as twenty eggs; but according to Jerdon and another writer quoted in Tegetmeier 'Poultry Book' 1866 pages 280, 282, she there lays only from four to nine or ten eggs: in England she is said, in the 'Poultry Book' to lay five or six, but another writer says from eight to twelve eggs.)

With respect to plants, no one would expect wheat to tiller more, and each ear to produce more grain, in poor than in rich soil; or to get in poor soil a heavy crop of peas or beans. Seeds vary so much in number that it is difficult to estimate them; but on comparing beds of carrots in a nursery garden with wild plants, the former seemed to produce about twice as much seed. Cultivated cabbages yielded thrice as many pods by measure as wild cabbages from the rocks of South Wales. The excess of berries produced by the cultivated asparagus in comparison with the wild plant is enormous. No doubt many highly cultivated plants, such as pears, pineapples, bananas, sugar-cane, etc., are nearly or quite sterile; and I am inclined to attribute this sterility to excess of food and to other unnatural conditions; but to this subject I shall recur.]

In some cases, as with the pig, rabbit, etc., and with those plants which are valued for their seed, the direct selection of the more fertile individuals has probably much increased their fertility; and in all cases this may have occurred indirectly, from the better chance of some of the numerous offspring from the more fertile individuals having been preserved. But with cats, ferrets, and dogs, and with plants like carrots, cabbages, and asparagus, which are not valued for their prolificacy, selection can have played only a subordinate part; and their increased fertility must be attributed to the more favourable conditions of life under which they have long existed.

CHAPTER 2.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 (17/1. 'The Art of Improving the Breed, etc.' 1809 page 16.), 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 (17/2. 'The History of the Rise and Progress of the Killerby, etc. Herds' page 41.) 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. (17/3. For Andrew Knight see A. Walker on 'Intermarriage' 1838 page 227. Sir J. Sebright 'Treatise' has just been quoted.), 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.