« PreviousContinue »
though apparently more in the case of plants. Under this point of view, Mr. Buckman’s recent experiments on plants are extremely valuable. When all or' nearly all the individuals exposed to certain, conditions are affected in the same way, the change at first appears to be directly due to such conditions; but in some cases it can be shown that quite opposite conditions produce similar changes of structure. LNevertheless some slight amount of change may, I think, be attributed to the direct action of the conditions of life—as, in some cases, increased size from amount of food, colour from particular kinds of food, and perhaps the thickness of fur from climates;
[Habit also has a decided influence, as in the period ,of flowering with plants when transported from one climate to another] In animals it has a more marked effect; for instance, I find in the domestic duck that the bones of the wing weigh less and the bones of the leg more, in proportion to the whole skeleton, than do the same bones in the wild-duck; and I presume that this change may be safely attributed to the domestic duck flying much less, and walking more, than its wild parent. The great and inherited development of the udders in cows and goats in countries where they are habitually milked, in comparison with the state of these organs in other countries, is another instance of the effect of use. Not a single domestic animal can be named which has not in some country drooping ears ; and the view suggested by some authors, that the drooping is due to the disuse of the muscles of the car, from the animals not being much alarmed by danger, seems probable.
There are many laws regulating variation, some few of which can be dimly seen, and will be hereafter briefly mentioned. I will here only allude to what may be called correlation of growth. (Any change in the embryo or larva will almost certainly entail changes in the mature animal] In monstrosities, the correlations be— tween quite distinct parts are very curious; and many instances are given in Isidore Geoffroy St. Hilaire’s great work on this subject. Breeders believe that long limbs are almost always accompanied by an elongated head. Some instances of correlation are quite whimsical: thus cats with blue eyes are generally deaf. Colour and constitutional peculiarities go together, of which many remarkable cases could be given amongst animals and plants. From the facts collected by Heusinger, it appears that white sheep and pigs are differently affected from coloured individuals by certain vegetable poisons:
Professor Wyman has recently communicated to me a good illustration of this fact; on asking some farmers in Florida how it was that all their pigs were black, they informed him that the pigs ate the paint-root (Lachnanthes), which coloured their bones pink, and which caused the boots of all but the black varieties to drop off ; and one of the “ crackers ” (Le. Florida squatters) added, “we select the black members of a litter for raising, as they alone have a good chance of living.” Hairless dogs have imperfect teeth: long-haired and coarse-haired animals are apt to have, as is asserted, long or many horns; pigeons with feathered feet have skin between their outer toes; pigeons with short beaks have small feet, and those with long beaks large feet. Hence aw and thus augmenting, any peculiarity, e Will almost certainly unintentionally modify other parts of the structure, owing to the mysterious laws of the correlation of growth.)
The result of the various, quite unknown, or dimly seen laws of variation is infinitely complex and diversified. It is well worth while carefully to study the several treatises published on some of our old cultivated plants, as on the hyacinth, potato, even the dahlia, &c. ; and it is really surprising to note the endless points in structure and constitution in which the varieties and sub—varieties differ slightly from each other. The whole organisation seems to have become plastic, and tends to depart in some small degree from that of the parental type.
[Any variation which is not inherited is unimportaii for us. But the number and diversity of inheritable deviations of structure, both those of slight and those of considerable physiological importance, are endless. Dr. Prosper Lucas’s treatise, in two large volumes, is the fullest and the best on this subject. No breeder doubts how strong is the tendency to inheritance: like produces like is his fundamental belief: doubts have been thrown on this principle by theoretical writers alone. When any deviation of structure often appears, and we see it in the father and child, we cannot tell whether it may not be due to the same cause having acted on both; but when amongst individuals, apparently exposed to the same conditions, any very rare deviation, due to some extra—
24 VARIATION UNDER DOMESTICATION
ordinary combination of circumstances, appears in the parent—say, once amongst several million individuals— and it reappears in the child, the mere doctrine of chances almost compels us to attribute its reappearance to inheritance. Everyone must have heard of cases of albinism, prickly skin, hairy bodies, &c., appearing in several members of the same family. 11f strange and rare deviations of structure are truly inherited, less strange and commoner deviations may be freely admitted to be inheritable. Perhaps the correct way of viewing the whole subject, would be, to look at the inheritance of every character whatever as the rule, and non-inheritance as the anomaly.
The laws governing inheritance are quite unknown; no one can say why a peculiarity in different individuals of the same species, or in individuals of different species, is sometimes inherited and sometimes not so; why the child often reverts in certain characters to its grandfather or grandmother or other more remote ancestor; why a peculiarity is often transmitted from one sex to both sexes, or to one sex alone, more commonly but not exclusively to the like sex. [It is a fact of some little importance to us, that peculiarities appearing in the males of our domestic breeds are often transmitted either exclusively, or in a much greater degree, to males alone.q A much more important rule, which I think may be trusted, is that, at fivhatever period of life a peculiarity first appears, it tends to appear in the offspring at a corresponding age, though sometimes earlier; In many cases this could not be otherwise: thus the inherited peculiarities in the horns of cattle could appear only in the offspring when nearly mature; peculiarities in the silkworm are known to appear at the corresponding caterpillar or 'cocoon stage. But hereditary diseases and some other facts make me believe that the rule has a wider extension, and that when there isno apparent reason why a peculiarity should appear at any particular age, yet that it does tend to appear in the offspring at the same period at which it first appeared in the parent. I believe this rule to be of the highest importance in explaining the laws of embryology. These remarks are of course confined to the first appearance of the peculiarity, and not to its primary'cause, which may have acted on the ovules or on the male element; in nearly the same manner as in the offspring from a short-horned cow by a long-horned bull, the greater length of horn, though appearing late in life, is clearly due to the male element.
Having alluded to the subject of reversion, I may here refer to a statement often made by naturalists— namely, that our domestic varieties, when run wild, gradually but certainly revert in character to their aboriginal stocks. Hence [it has been argued that no deductions can be drawn from domestic races to species in a state of nature] I have in vain endeavoured to discover on what decisive facts the above statement has so often and so boldly been made. There would be great difficulty in proving its truth: we may safely conclude that very many of the most strongly-marked domestic varieties could not possibly live in a wild state. In many cases we do not know what the aboriginal stock was, and so could not tell whether or not nearly perfect reversion had ensued. It would be quite necessary, in order to prevent the effects of intercrossing, that only a Fsingle variety should be turned loose in its new home. Nevertheless, as our varieties certainly do occasionally reVert in some of their characters to ancestral forms, it seems to me not improbable, that if we could succeed in naturalising, or were to cultivate, during many generations, the several races, for instance, of the cabbage, in very poor soil (in which case, however, some effect would have to be attributed to the direct action of the poor soil), that they would to a large extent, or even wholly, revert to the wild aboriginal-stocks] Whether or not the experiment would succeed, is not of great importance for our line of argument; for by the experiment itself the conditions of life are changed. If it could be shown that our domestic varieties manifested a strong tendency to reversion,——that is, to lose their acquired characters, whilst kept under the same conditions, and whilst kept in a considerable body, so that free intercrossing might check, by blending togeth , any slight deviations in their structure, in such case grant that we could deduce nothing from domestic varieties in regard to species. But there is not a shadow of evidence in favour of this \'iew: to assert that we could not breed our cart and race-horses, long and short-horned cattle, and poultry 0f various breeds, and esculent vegetables, for an almost infinite number of generations, would be opposed to all experience. may add, that when under nature the
conditions of life do change, variations and reversions of character probably do occur; but' natural selection, as will hereafter be explained, will determine how far the new characters thus arising shall be preserved]
When we look to th'e hereditary varieties or races of our domestic animals and plants, and compare them with closely allied species, we generally perceive in each domestic race, as already remarked, 1e5s uniformity of character than in true species. Domestic races of the same species, also, often have a somewhat monstrous character; by which I mean, that, although differing from each other, and from other species of the same genus, in several rtrifling respects, they often differ in an extreme degree in some one part, both when compared one with another, and more especially when compared with all the species in nature to which they are nearest allied. With these exceptions (and with that of the perfect fertility of varieties when crossed,—a subject hereafter to be discussed),@omestic races of the same species differ from each other in the same manner as, only in most cases in a lesser degree than, do closely~allied species of the same genus in a state of nature; I think that this must be admitted, when we find that there are hardly any domestic races, either amongst animals or plants, which have not been ranked by competent judges as the descendants of aboriginally distinct species, and by other competent judges as mere varieties. If any marked distinction existed between domestic races and species, this source of doubt could not so perpetually recur. It has often been stated that domestic races do not differ from each other in characters of generic value. I think it can be shown that this statement is hardly correct; but naturalists differ widely in determining what characters are of generic value; all such valuations being at present empirical. Moreover, on the view of the origin of genera which I shall presently giVe, we have no right to expect. often to meet with generic differences in our domesticated productions.
When we attempt to estimate the amount of structural difference between the domestic races of the same species, we are soon involved in doubt, from not knowing whether they have descended from one or several parent-specie§_ This point, if it could be cleared up, would be interesting ; if, for instance, it could be shown that the greyhound, bloodhound, terrier, spaniel, and bull-dog, which we all