Chapter XVII: On the Good Effects of Crossing, and on the Evil Effects (2)

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.

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

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

[4] ‘Cattle,’ p. 199.

[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.

[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.

[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.”

[8] Youatt on Cattle, p. 202.

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

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

[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.

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

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

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

[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.

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

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

[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.

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

[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.

[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.

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

[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.

[24] Sidney on the Pig, p. 36. _See also_ note p. 34. Also Richardson on the Pig, 1847, p. 26.

[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.

[26] _See_ his interesting work on the ‘Early History of Man,’ 1865, chap. x.

[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.

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

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

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

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

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

[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.”

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[41] ‘The Pigeon Book,’ p. 46.

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

[43] ‘Les Pigeons,’ 1824, p. 35.

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

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

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

[47] ‘Amaryllidaceæ,’ p. 371.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[58] Gärtner, ‘Bastarderzeugung,’ s. 259, 518, 526 _et seq._

[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.

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

[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.

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

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

[64] Gärtner, ‘Bastarderzeugung,’ s. 430.

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

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

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

[68] International Hort. Congress, London, 1866.

[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.

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

[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.

[72] ‘Bastarderzeugung,’ s. 64, 357.

[73] Ibid., s. 357.

[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.

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

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

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

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

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

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

[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.

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

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

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

[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.

[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.