



Produced by Steven Gibbs, Keith Edkins and the Online
Distributed Proofreading Team at http://www.pgdp.net





Transcriber's note: A few typographical errors have been corrected: they
are listed at the end of the text.

       *       *       *       *       *


THE VARIATION

OF

ANIMALS AND PLANTS

UNDER DOMESTICATION.

BY CHARLES DARWIN, M.A., F.R.S., &c.

IN TWO VOLUMES.--VOL. I.

WITH ILLUSTRATIONS.

LONDON:

JOHN MURRAY, ALBEMARLE STREET.

1868.

_The right of Translation is reserved._

       *       *       *       *       *


BY THE SAME AUTHOR.

       *       *       *       *       *

ON THE ORIGIN OF SPECIES BY MEANS OF NATURAL SELECTION; or The PRESERVATION
of FAVOURED RACES in the STRUGGLE for LIFE. Fourth Edition (_Eighth
Thousand_), with Additions and Corrections. 1866. ... MURRAY.

A NATURALIST'S VOYAGE ROUND THE WORLD; or, A JOURNAL OF RESEARCHES into the
NATURAL HISTORY and GEOLOGY of the COUNTRIES visited during the Voyage of
H.M.S. Beagle, under the Command of Capt. FITZ-ROY, R.N. _Tenth Thousand_.
... MURRAY.

ON THE STRUCTURE AND DISTRIBUTION OF CORAL REEFS. ... SMITH, ELDER, & Co.

GEOLOGICAL OBSERVATIONS ON VOLCANIC ISLANDS. ... SMITH, ELDER, & Co.

GEOLOGICAL OBSERVATIONS ON SOUTH AMERICA. ... SMITH, ELDER, & Co.

A MONOGRAPH OF THE CIRRIPEDIA. With numerous Illustrations. 2 vols. 8vo.
... HARDWICKE.

ON THE VARIOUS CONTRIVANCES BY WHICH BRITISH AND FOREIGN ORCHIDS ARE
FERTILISED BY INSECTS; and on the GOOD EFFECTS of CROSSING. With numerous
Woodcuts. ... MURRAY.

ON THE MOVEMENTS and HABITS of CLIMBING PLANTS. With Woodcuts. ... WILLIAMS
& NORGATE.

       *       *       *       *       *

LONDON: PRINTED BY WILLIAM CLOWES AND SONS, STAMFORD STREET, AND CHARING
CROSS.

       *       *       *       *       *


{iii}

CONTENTS OF VOLUME I.

INTRODUCTION ... Page 1

CHAPTER I.

DOMESTIC DOGS AND CATS.

ANCIENT VARIETIES OF THE DOG--RESEMBLANCE OF DOMESTIC DOGS IN VARIOUS
COUNTRIES TO NATIVE CANINE SPECIES--ANIMALS NOT ACQUAINTED WITH MAN AT
FIRST FEARLESS--DOGS RESEMBLING WOLVES AND JACKALS--HABIT OF BARKING
ACQUIRED AND LOST--FERAL DOGS--TAN- EYE-SPOTS--PERIOD OF
GESTATION--OFFENSIVE ODOUR--FERTILITY OF THE RACES WHEN
CROSSED--DIFFERENCES IN THE SEVERAL RACES IN PART DUE TO DESCENT FROM
DISTINCT SPECIES--DIFFERENCES IN THE SKULL AND TEETH--DIFFERENCES IN THE
BODY, IN CONSTITUTION--FEW IMPORTANT DIFFERENCES HAVE BEEN FIXED BY
SELECTION--DIRECT ACTION OF CLIMATE--WATER-DOGS WITH PALMATED FEET--HISTORY
OF THE CHANGES WHICH CERTAIN ENGLISH RACES OF THE DOG HAVE GRADUALLY
UNDERGONE THROUGH SELECTION--EXTINCTION OF THE LESS IMPROVED SUB-BREEDS.

CATS, CROSSED WITH SEVERAL SPECIES--DIFFERENT BREEDS FOUND ONLY IN
SEPARATED COUNTRIES--DIRECT EFFECTS OF THE CONDITIONS OF LIFE--FERAL
CATS--INDIVIDUAL VARIABILITY ... Page 15

CHAPTER II.

HORSES AND ASSES.

HORSE.--DIFFERENCES IN THE BREEDS--INDIVIDUAL VARIABILITY OF--DIRECT
EFFECTS OF THE CONDITIONS OF LIFE--CAN WITHSTAND MUCH COLD--BREEDS MUCH
MODIFIED BY SELECTION--COLOURS OF THE HORSE--DAPPLING--DARK STRIPES ON THE
SPINE, LEGS, SHOULDERS, AND FOREHEAD--DUN- HORSES MOST FREQUENTLY
STRIPED--STRIPES PROBABLY DUE TO REVERSION TO THE PRIMITIVE STATE OF THE
HORSE.

ASSES.--BREEDS OF--COLOUR OF--LEG- AND SHOULDER-STRIPES--SHOULDER-STRIPES
SOMETIMES ABSENT, SOMETIMES FORKED ... Page 49

CHAPTER III.

PIGS--CATTLE--SHEEP--GOATS.

PIGS BELONG TO TWO DISTINCT TYPES, SUS SCROFA AND
INDICA--TORF-SCHWEIN--JAPAN PIG--FERTILITY OF CROSSED PIGS--CHANGES IN THE
SKULL OF THE HIGHLY CULTIVATED RACES--CONVERGENCE OF
CHARACTER--GESTATION--SOLID-HOOFED SWINE--CURIOUS APPENDAGES TO THE
JAWS--DECREASE IN SIZE OF THE TUSKS--YOUNG PIGS LONGITUDINALLY
STRIPED--FERAL PIGS--CROSSED BREEDS.

CATTLE.--ZEBU A DISTINCT SPECIES--EUROPEAN CATTLE PROBABLY DESCENDED FROM
THREE WILD FORMS--ALL THE RACES NOW FERTILE TOGETHER--BRITISH PARK
CATTLE--ON THE COLOUR OF THE ABORIGINAL SPECIES--CONSTITUTIONAL
DIFFERENCES--SOUTH AFRICAN RACES--SOUTH AMERICAN RACES--NIATA
CATTLE--ORIGIN OF THE VARIOUS RACES OF CATTLE. {iv}

SHEEP.--REMARKABLE RACES OF--VARIATIONS ATTACHED TO THE MALE
SEX--ADAPTATIONS TO VARIOUS CONDITIONS--GESTATION OF--CHANGES IN THE
WOOL--SEMI-MONSTROUS BREEDS.

GOATS.--REMARKABLE VARIATIONS OF ... Page 65

CHAPTER IV.

DOMESTIC RABBITS.

DOMESTIC RABBITS DESCENDED FROM THE COMMON WILD RABBIT--ANCIENT
DOMESTICATION--ANCIENT SELECTION--LARGE LOP-EARED RABBITS--VARIOUS
BREEDS--FLUCTUATING CHARACTERS--ORIGIN OF THE HIMALAYAN BREED--CURIOUS CASE
OF INHERITANCE--FERAL RABBITS IN JAMAICA AND THE FALKLAND ISLANDS--PORTO
SANTO FERAL RABBITS--OSTEOLOGICAL CHARACTERS--SKULL--SKULL OF HALF-LOP
RABBITS--VARIATIONS IN THE SKULL ANALOGOUS TO DIFFERENCES IN DIFFERENT
SPECIES OF HARES--VERTEBRAE--STERNUM--SCAPULA--EFFECTS OF USE AND DISUSE ON
THE PROPORTIONS OF THE LIMBS AND BODY--CAPACITY OF THE SKULL AND REDUCED
SIZE OF THE BRAIN--SUMMARY ON THE MODIFICATIONS OF DOMESTICATED RABBITS ...
Page 103

CHAPTER V.

DOMESTIC PIGEONS.

ENUMERATION AND DESCRIPTION OF THE SEVERAL BREEDS--INDIVIDUAL
VARIABILITY--VARIATIONS OF A REMARKABLE NATURE--OSTEOLOGICAL CHARACTERS:
SKULL, LOWER JAW, NUMBER OF VERTEBRAE--CORRELATION OF GROWTH: TONGUE WITH
BEAK; EYELIDS AND NOSTRILS WITH WATTLED SKIN--NUMBER OF WING-FEATHERS, AND
LENGTH OF WING--COLOUR AND DOWN--WEBBED AND FEATHERED FEET--ON THE EFFECTS
OF DISUSE--LENGTH OF FEET IN CORRELATION WITH LENGTH OF BEAK--LENGTH OF
STERNUM, SCAPULA, AND FURCULA--LENGTH OF WINGS--SUMMARY ON THE POINTS OF
DIFFERENCE IN THE SEVERAL BREEDS ... Page 131

CHAPTER VI.

PIGEONS--_continued_.

ON THE ABORIGINAL PARENT-STOCK OF THE SEVERAL DOMESTIC RACES--HABITS OF
LIFE--WILD RACES OF THE ROCK-PIGEON--DOVECOT-PIGEONS--PROOFS OF THE DESCENT
OF THE SEVERAL RACES FROM COLUMBA LIVIA--FERTILITY OF THE RACES WHEN
CROSSED--REVERSION TO THE PLUMAGE OF THE WILD ROCK-PIGEON--CIRCUMSTANCES
FAVOURABLE TO THE FORMATION OF THE RACES--ANTIQUITY AND HISTORY OF THE
PRINCIPAL RACES--MANNER OF THEIR FORMATION--SELECTION--UNCONSCIOUS
SELECTION--CARE TAKEN BY FANCIERS IN SELECTING THEIR BIRDS--SLIGHTLY
DIFFERENT STRAINS GRADUALLY CHANGE INTO WELL-MARKED BREEDS--EXTINCTION OF
INTERMEDIATE FORMS--CERTAIN BREEDS REMAIN PERMANENT, WHILST OTHERS
CHANGE--SUMMARY ... Page 180

{v}

CHAPTER VII.

FOWLS.

BRIEF DESCRIPTIONS OF THE CHIEF BREEDS--ARGUMENTS IN FAVOUR OF THEIR
DESCENT FROM SEVERAL SPECIES--ARGUMENTS IN FAVOUR OF ALL THE BREEDS HAVING
DESCENDED FROM GALLUS BANKIVA---REVERSION TO THE PARENT-STOCK IN
COLOUR--ANALOGOUS VARIATIONS--ANCIENT HISTORY OF THE FOWL--EXTERNAL
DIFFERENCES BETWEEN THE SEVERAL BREEDS--EGGS--CHICKENS--SECONDARY SEXUAL
CHARACTERS--WING- AND TAIL-FEATHERS, VOICE, DISPOSITION, ETC.--OSTEOLOGICAL
DIFFERENCES IN THE SKULL, VERTEBRAE, ETC.--EFFECTS OF USE AND DISUSE ON
CERTAIN PARTS--CORRELATION OF GROWTH ... Page 225

CHAPTER VIII.

DUCKS--GOOSE--PEACOCK--TURKEY--GUINEA-FOWL--CANARY-BIRD--GOLD-FISH--
HIVE-BEES--SILK-MOTHS.

DUCKS, SEVERAL BREEDS OF--PROGRESS OF DOMESTICATION--ORIGIN OF, FROM THE
COMMON WILD-DUCK--DIFFERENCES IN THE DIFFERENT BREEDS--OSTEOLOGICAL
DIFFERENCES--EFFECTS OF USE AND DISUSE ON THE LIMB-BONES.

GOOSE, ANCIENTLY DOMESTICATED--LITTLE VARIATION OF--SEBASTOPOL BREED.

PEACOCK, ORIGIN OF BLACK-SHOULDERED BREED.

TURKEY, BREEDS OF--CROSSED WITH THE UNITED STATES SPECIES--EFFECTS OF
CLIMATE ON.

GUINEA-FOWL, CANARY-BIRD, GOLD-FISH, HIVE-BEES.

SILK-MOTHS, SPECIES AND BREEDS OF--ANCIENTLY DOMESTICATED--CARE IN THEIR
SELECTION--DIFFERENCES IN THE DIFFERENT RACES--IN THE EGG, CATERPILLAR, AND
COCOON STATES--INHERITANCE OF CHARACTERS--IMPERFECT WINGS--LOST
INSTINCTS--CORRELATED CHARACTERS ... Page 276

CHAPTER IX.

CULTIVATED PLANTS: CEREAL AND CULINARY PLANTS.

PRELIMINARY REMARKS ON THE NUMBER AND PARENTAGE OF CULTIVATED PLANTS--FIRST
STEPS IN CULTIVATION--GEOGRAPHICAL DISTRIBUTION OF CULTIVATED PLANTS.

CEREALIA.--DOUBTS ON THE NUMBER OF SPECIES.--WHEAT: VARIETIES
OF--INDIVIDUAL VARIABILITY--CHANGED HABITS--SELECTION--ANCIENT HISTORY OF
THE VARIETIES.--MAIZE: GREAT VARIATION OF--DIRECT ACTION OF CLIMATE ON.

CULINARY PLANTS.--CABBAGES: VARIETIES OF, IN FOLIAGE AND STEMS, BUT NOT IN
OTHER PARTS--PARENTAGE OF--OTHER SPECIES OF BRASSICA.--PEAS: AMOUNT OF
DIFFERENCE IN THE SEVERAL KINDS, CHIEFLY IN THE PODS AND SEED--SOME
VARIETIES CONSTANT, SOME HIGHLY VARIABLE--DO NOT
INTERCROSS.--BEANS.--POTATOES: NUMEROUS VARIETIES OF--DIFFERING LITTLE,
EXCEPT IN THE TUBERS--CHARACTERS INHERITED ... Page 305

{vi}

CHAPTER X.

PLANTS _continued_--FRUITS--ORNAMENTAL TREES--FLOWERS.

FRUITS.--GRAPES--VARY IN ODD AND TRIFLING PARTICULARS.--MULBERRY.--THE
ORANGE GROUP--SINGULAR RESULTS FROM CROSSING.--PEACH AND
NECTARINE--BUD-VARIATION--ANALOGOUS VARIATION--RELATION TO THE
ALMOND.--APRICOT.--PLUMS--VARIATION IN THEIR STONES.--CHERRIES--SINGULAR
VARIETIES OF.--APPLE.--PEAR.--STRAWBERRY--INTERBLENDING OF THE ORIGINAL
FORMS.--GOOSEBERRY--STEADY INCREASE IN SIZE OF THE FRUIT--VARIETIES
OF.--WALNUT.--NUT.--CUCURBITACEOUS PLANTS--WONDERFUL VARIATION OF.

ORNAMENTAL TREES--THEIR VARIATION IN DEGREE AND
KIND--ASH-TREE--SCOTCH-FIR--HAWTHORN.

FLOWERS--MULTIPLE ORIGIN OF MANY KINDS--VARIATION IN CONSTITUTIONAL
PECULIARITIES--KIND OF VARIATION.--ROSES--SEVERAL SPECIES
CULTIVATED.--<DW29>.--DAHLIA.--HYACINTH, HISTORY AND VARIATION OF ... Page
332

CHAPTER XI.

ON BUD-VARIATION, AND ON CERTAIN ANOMALOUS MODES OF REPRODUCTION AND
VARIATION.

BUD-VARIATIONS IN THE PEACH, PLUM, CHERRY, VINE, GOOSEBERRY, CURRANT, AND
BANANA, AS SHOWN BY THE MODIFIED FRUIT--IN FLOWERS: CAMELLIAS, AZALEAS,
CHRYSANTHEMUMS, ROSES, ETC.--ON THE RUNNING OF THE COLOUR IN
CARNATIONS--BUD-VARIATIONS IN LEAVES--VARIATIONS BY SUCKERS, TUBERS, AND
BULBS--ON THE BREAKING OF TULIPS--BUD-VARIATIONS GRADUATE INTO CHANGES
CONSEQUENT ON CHANGED CONDITIONS OF LIFE--CYTISUS ADAMI, ITS ORIGIN AND
TRANSFORMATION--ON THE UNION OF TWO DIFFERENT EMBRYOS IN ONE SEED--THE
TRIFACIAL ORANGE--ON REVERSION BY BUDS IN HYBRIDS AND MONGRELS--ON THE
PRODUCTION OF MODIFIED BUDS BY THE GRAFTING OF ONE VARIETY OR SPECIES ON
ANOTHER--ON THE DIRECT OR IMMEDIATE ACTION OF FOREIGN POLLEN ON THE
MOTHER-PLANT--ON THE EFFECTS IN FEMALE ANIMALS OF A FIRST IMPREGNATION ON
THE SUBSEQUENT OFFSPRING--CONCLUSION AND SUMMARY ... Page 373

       *       *       *       *       *


{vii}

LIST OF ILLUSTRATIONS.

  1. DUN DEVONSHIRE PONY, WITH SHOULDER, SPINAL, AND LEG STRIPES ... PAGE
      56
  2. HEAD OF JAPAN OR MASKED PIG ... 69
  3. HEAD OF WILD BOAR, AND OF "GOLDEN DAYS," A PIG OF THE YORKSHIRE LARGE
      BREED ... 72
  4. OLD IRISH PIG, WITH JAW-APPENDAGES ... 75
  5. HALF-LOP RABBIT ... 108
  6. SKULL OF WILD RABBIT ... 117
  7. SKULL OF LARGE LOP-EARED RABBIT ... 117
  8. PART OF ZYGOMATIC ARCH, SHOWING THE PROJECTING END OF THE MALAR-BONE,
      AND THE AUDITORY MEATUS, OF RABBITS ... 118
  9. POSTERIOR END OF SKULL, SHOWING THE INTER-PARIETAL BONE, OF RABBITS
      ... 118
  10. OCCIPITAL FORAMEN OF RABBITS ... 118
  11. SKULL OF HALF-LOP RABBIT ... 119
  12. ATLAS VERTEBRAE OF RABBITS ... 121
  13. THIRD CERVICAL VERTEBRAE OF RABBITS ... 121
  14. DORSAL VERTEBRAE, FROM SIXTH TO TENTH INCLUSIVE, OF RABBITS ... 122
  15. TERMINAL BONE OF STERNUM OF RABBITS ... 123
  16. ACROMION OF SCAPULA OF RABBITS ... 123
  17. THE ROCK-PIGEON, OR COLUMBIA LIVIA ... 135
  18. ENGLISH POUTER ... 137
  19. ENGLISH CARRIER ... 140
  20. ENGLISH BARB ... 145
  21. ENGLISH FANTAIL ... 147
  22. AFRICAN OWL ... 149
  23. SHORT-FACED ENGLISH TUMBLER ... 152
  24. SKULLS OF PIGEONS, VIEWED LATERALLY ... 163
  25. LOWER JAWS OF PIGEONS, SEEN FROM ABOVE ... 164
  26. SKULL OF RUNT, SEEN FROM ABOVE ... 165
  27. LATERAL VIEW OF JAWS OF PIGEONS ... 165
  28. SCAPULAE OF PIGEONS ... 167
  29. FURCULAE OF PIGEONS ... 167
  30. SPANISH FOWL ... 226
  31. HAMBURGH FOWL ... 228
  32. POLISH FOWL ... 229
  33. OCCIPITAL FORAMEN OF THE SKULLS OF FOWLS ... 261
  {viii}
  34. SKULLS OF FOWLS, VIEWED FROM ABOVE, A LITTLE OBLIQUELY ... 262
  35. LONGITUDINAL SECTIONS OF SKULLS OF FOWLS, VIEWED LATERALLY ... 263
  36. SKULL OF HORNED FOWL, VIEWED FROM ABOVE, A LITTLE OBLIQUELY ... 265
  37. SIXTH CERVICAL VERTEBRAE OF FOWLS, VIEWED LATERALLY ... 267
  38. EXTREMITY OF THE FURCULA OF FOWLS, VIEWED LATERALLY ... 268
  39. SKULLS OF DUCKS, VIEWED LATERALLY, REDUCED TO TWO-THIRDS OF THE
      NATURAL SIZE ... 282
  40. CERVICAL VERTEBRAE OF DUCKS, OF NATURAL SIZE ... 283
  41. PODS OF THE COMMON PEA ... 328
  42. PEACH AND ALMOND STONES, OF NATURAL SIZE, VIEWED EDGEWAYS ... 337
  43. PLUM STONES, OF NATURAL SIZE, VIEWED LATERALLY ... 345

       *       *       *       *       *


{1}

THE

VARIATION OF ANIMALS AND PLANTS

UNDER DOMESTICATION.

       *       *       *       *       *

INTRODUCTION.

The object of this work is not to describe all the many races of animals
which have been domesticated by man, and of the plants which have been
cultivated by him; even if I possessed the requisite knowledge, so gigantic
an undertaking would be here superfluous. It is my intention to give under
the head of each species only such facts as I have been able to collect or
observe, showing the amount and nature of the changes which animals and
plants have undergone whilst under man's dominion, or which bear on the
general principles of variation. In one case alone, namely in that of the
domestic pigeon, I will describe fully all the chief races, their history,
the amount and nature of their differences, and the probable steps by which
they have been formed. I have selected this case, because, as we shall
hereafter see, the materials are better than in any other; and one case
fully described will in fact illustrate all others. But I shall also
describe domesticated rabbits, fowls, and ducks, with considerable
fullness.

The subjects discussed in this volume are so connected that it is not a
little difficult to decide how they can be best arranged. I have determined
in the first part to give, under the heads of the various animals and
plants, a large body of facts, some of which may at first appear but little
related to our subject, and to devote the latter part to general
discussions. Whenever I have found it necessary to give numerous details,
in support of any proposition or conclusion, small type has been used. The
reader {2} will, I think, find this plan a convenience, for, if he does not
doubt the conclusion or care about the details, he can easily pass them
over; yet I may be permitted to say that some of the discussions thus
printed deserve attention, at least from the professed naturalist.

It may be useful to those who have read nothing about Natural Selection, if
I here give a brief sketch of the whole subject and of its bearing on the
origin of species.[1] This is the more desirable, as it is impossible in
the present work to avoid many allusions to questions which will be fully
discussed in future volumes.

From a remote period, in all parts of the world, man has subjected many
animals and plants to domestication or culture. Man has no power of
altering the absolute conditions of life; he cannot change the climate of
any country; he adds no new element to the soil; but he can remove an
animal or plant from one climate or soil to another, and give it food on
which it did not subsist in its natural state. It is an error to speak of
man "tampering with nature" and causing variability. If organic beings had
not possessed an inherent tendency to vary, man could have done nothing.[2]
He unintentionally exposes his animals and plants to various conditions of
life, and variability supervenes, which he cannot even prevent or check.
Consider the simple case of a plant which has been cultivated during a long
time in its native country, and which consequently has not been subjected
to any change of climate. It has been protected to a certain extent from
the competing roots of plants of other kinds; it has generally been grown
in manured soil, but probably not richer than that of many an alluvial
flat; and lastly, it has been exposed to changes in its conditions, being
grown sometimes in one district and sometimes in another, in different
soils. Under such circumstances, {3} scarcely a plant can be named, though
cultivated in the rudest manner, which has not given birth to several
varieties. It can hardly be maintained that during the many changes which
this earth has undergone, and during the natural migrations of plants from
one land or island to another, tenanted by different species, that such
plants will not often have been subjected to changes in their conditions
analogous to those which almost inevitably cause cultivated plants to vary.
No doubt man selects varying individuals, sows their seeds, and again
selects their varying offspring. But the initial variation on which man
works, and without which he can do nothing, is caused by slight changes in
the conditions of life, which must often have occurred under nature. Man,
therefore, may be said to have been trying an experiment on a gigantic
scale; and it is an experiment which nature during the long lapse of time
has incessantly tried. Hence it follows that the principles of
domestication are important for us. The main result is that organic beings
thus treated have varied largely, and the variations have been inherited.
This has apparently been one chief cause of the belief long held by some
few naturalists that species in a state of nature undergo change.

I shall in this volume treat, as fully as my materials permit, the whole
subject of variation under domestication. We may thus hope to obtain some
light, little though it be, on the causes of variability,--on the laws
which govern it, such as the direct action of climate and food, the effects
of use and disuse, and of correlation of growth,--and on the amount of
change to which domesticated organisms are liable. We shall learn something
on the laws of inheritance, on the effects of crossing different breeds,
and on that sterility which often supervenes when organic beings are
removed from their natural conditions of life, and likewise when they are
too closely interbred. During this investigation we shall see that the
principle of Selection is all important. Although man does not cause
variability and cannot even prevent it, he can select, preserve, and
accumulate the variations given to him by the hand of nature in any way
which he chooses; and thus he can certainly produce a great result.
Selection may be followed either methodically and intentionally, or
unconsciously and unintentionally. Man {4} may select and preserve each
successive variation, with the distinct intention of improving and altering
a breed, in accordance with a preconceived idea; and by thus adding up
variations, often so slight as to be imperceptible by an uneducated eye, he
has effected wonderful changes and improvements. It can, also, be clearly
shown that man, without any intention or thought of improving the breed, by
preserving in each successive generation the individuals which he prizes
most, and by destroying the worthless individuals, slowly, though surely,
induces great changes. As the will of man thus comes into play, we can
understand how it is that domesticated breeds show adaptation to his wants
and pleasures. We can further understand how it is that domestic races of
animals and cultivated races of plants often exhibit an abnormal character,
as compared with natural species; for they have been modified not for their
own benefit, but for that of man.

In a second work I shall discuss the variability of organic beings in a
state of nature; namely, the individual differences presented by animals
and plants, and those slightly greater and generally inherited differences
which are ranked by naturalists as varieties or geographical races. We
shall see how difficult, or rather how impossible it often is, to
distinguish between races and sub-species, as the less well-marked forms
have sometimes been denominated; and again between sub-species and true
species. I shall further attempt to show that it is the common and widely
ranging, or, as they may be called, the dominant species, which most
frequently vary; and that it is the large and flourishing genera which
include the greatest number of varying species. Varieties, as we shall see,
may justly be called incipient species.

But it may be urged, granting that organic beings in a state of nature
present some varieties,--that their organization is in some slight degree
plastic; granting that many animals and plants have varied greatly under
domestication, and that man by his power of selection has gone on
accumulating such variations until he has made strongly marked and firmly
inherited races; granting all this, how, it may be asked, have species
arisen in a state of nature? The differences between natural varieties are
slight; whereas the differences are {5} considerable between the species of
the same genus, and great between the species of distinct genera. How do
these lesser differences become augmented into the greater difference? How
do varieties, or as I have called them incipient species, become converted
into true and well-defined species? How has each new species been adapted
to the surrounding physical conditions, and to the other forms of life on
which it in any way depends? We see on every side of us innumerable
adaptations and contrivances, which have justly excited in the mind of
every observer the highest admiration. There is, for instance, a fly
(Cecidomyia)[3] which deposits its eggs within the stamens of a
Scrophularia, and secretes a poison which produces a gall, on which the
larva feeds; but there is another insect (Misocampus) which deposits its
eggs within the body of the larva within the gall, and is thus nourished by
its living prey; so that here a hymenopterous insect depends on a dipterous
insect, and this depends on its power of producing a monstrous growth in a
particular organ of a particular plant. So it is, in a more or less plainly
marked manner, in thousands and tens of thousands of cases, with the lowest
as well as with the highest productions of nature.

This problem of the conversion of varieties into species,--that is, the
augmentation of the slight differences characteristic of varieties into the
greater differences characteristic of species and genera, including the
admirable adaptations of each being to its complex organic and inorganic
conditions of life,--will form the main subject of my second work. We shall
therein see that all organic beings, without exception, tend to increase at
so high a ratio, that no district, no station, not even the whole surface
of the land or the whole ocean, would hold the progeny of a single pair
after a certain number of generations. The inevitable result is an
ever-recurrent Struggle for Existence. It has truly been said that all
nature is at war; the strongest ultimately prevail, the weakest fail; and
we well know that myriads of forms have disappeared from the face of the
earth. If then organic beings in a state of nature vary even in a slight
degree, owing to changes in the surrounding {6} conditions, of which we
have abundant geological evidence, or from any other cause; if, in the long
course of ages, inheritable variations ever arise in any way advantageous
to any being under its excessively complex and changing relations of life;
and it would be a strange fact if beneficial variations did never arise,
seeing how many have arisen which man has taken advantage of for his own
profit or pleasure; if then these contingencies ever occur, and I do not
see how the probability of their occurrence can be doubted, then the severe
and often-recurrent struggle for existence will determine that those
variations, however slight, which are favourable shall be preserved or
selected, and those which are unfavourable shall be destroyed.

This preservation, during the battle for life, of varieties which possess
any advantage in structure, constitution, or instinct, I have called
Natural Selection; and Mr. Herbert Spencer has well expressed the same idea
by the Survival of the Fittest. The term "natural selection" is in some
respects a bad one, as it seems to imply conscious choice; but this will be
disregarded after a little familiarity. No one objects to chemists speaking
of "elective affinity;" and certainly an acid has no more choice in
combining with a base, than the conditions of life have in determining
whether or not a new form be selected or preserved. The term is so far a
good one as it brings into connection the production of domestic races by
man's power of selection, and the natural preservation of varieties and
species in a state of nature. For brevity sake I sometimes speak of natural
selection as an intelligent power;--in the same way as astronomers speak of
the attraction of gravity as ruling the movements of the planets, or as
agriculturists speak of man making domestic races by his power of
selection. In the one case, as in the other, selection does nothing without
variability, and this depends in some manner on the action of the
surrounding circumstances on the organism. I have, also, often personified
the word Nature; for I have found it difficult to avoid this ambiguity; but
I mean by nature only the aggregate action and product of many natural
laws,--and by laws only the ascertained sequence of events. {7}

In the chapter devoted to natural selection I shall show from experiment
and from a multitude of facts, that the greatest amount of life can be
supported on each spot by great diversification or divergence in the
structure and constitution of its inhabitants. We shall, also, see that the
continued production of new forms through natural selection, which implies
that each new variety has some advantage over others, almost inevitably
leads to the extermination of the older and less improved forms. These
latter are almost necessarily intermediate in structure as well as in
descent between the last-produced forms and their original parent-species.
Now, if we suppose a species to produce two or more varieties, and these in
the course of time to produce other varieties, the principle of good being
derived from diversification of structure will generally lead to the
preservation of the most divergent varieties; thus the lesser differences
characteristic of varieties come to be augmented into the greater
differences characteristic of species, and, by the extermination of the
older intermediate forms, new species come to be distinctly defined
objects. Thus, also, we shall see how it is that organic beings can be
classed by what is called a natural method in distinct groups--species
under genera, and genera under families.

As all the inhabitants of each country may be said, owing to their high
rate of reproduction, to be striving to increase in numbers; as each form
is related to many other forms in the struggle for life,--for destroy any
one and its place will be seized by others; as every part of the
organization occasionally varies in some slight degree, and as natural
selection acts exclusively by the preservation of variations which are
advantageous under the excessively complex conditions to which each being
is exposed, no limit exists to the number, singularity, and perfection of
the contrivances and co-adaptations which may thus be produced. An animal
or a plant may thus slowly become related in its structure and habits in
the most intricate manner to many other animals and plants, and to the
physical conditions of its home. Variations in the organization will in
some cases be aided by habit, or by the use and disuse of parts, and they
will be governed by the direct action {8} of the surrounding physical
conditions and by correlation of growth.

On the principles here briefly sketched out, there is no innate or
necessary tendency in each being to its own advancement in the scale of
organization. We are almost compelled to look at the specialization or
differentiation of parts or organs for different functions as the best or
even sole standard of advancement; for by such division of labour each
function of body and mind is better performed. And, as natural selection
acts exclusively through the preservation of profitable modifications of
structure, and as the conditions of life in each area generally become more
and more complex, from the increasing number of different forms which
inhabit it and from most of these forms acquiring a more and more perfect
structure, we may confidently believe, that, on the whole, organization
advances. Nevertheless a very simple form fitted for very simple conditions
of life might remain for indefinite ages unaltered or unimproved; for what
would it profit an infusorial animalcule, for instance, or an intestinal
worm, to become highly organized? Members of a high group might even
become, and this apparently has occurred, fitted for simpler conditions of
life; and in this case natural selection would tend to simplify or degrade
the organization, for complicated mechanism for simple actions would be
useless or even disadvantageous.

In a second work, after treating of the Variation of organisms in a state
of nature, of the Struggle for Existence and the principle of Natural
Selection, I shall discuss the difficulties which are opposed to the
theory. These difficulties may be classed under the following heads:--the
apparent impossibility in some cases of a very simple organ graduating by
small steps into a highly perfect organ; the marvellous facts of Instinct;
the whole question of Hybridity; and, lastly, the absence, at the present
time and in our geological formations, of innumerable links connecting all
allied species. Although some of these difficulties are of great weight, we
shall see that many of them are explicable on the theory of natural
selection, and are otherwise inexplicable.

In scientific investigations it is permitted to invent any hypothesis, and
if it explains various large and independent classes of facts it rises to
the rank of a well-grounded theory. The {9} undulations of the ether and
even its existence are hypothetical, yet every one now admits the
undulatory theory of light. The principle of natural selection may be
looked at as a mere hypothesis, but rendered in some degree probable by
what we positively know of the variability of organic beings in a state of
nature,--by what we positively know of the struggle for existence, and the
consequent almost inevitable preservation of favourable variations,--and
from the analogical formation of domestic races. Now this hypothesis may be
tested,--and this seems to me the only fair and legitimate manner of
considering the whole question,--by trying whether it explains several
large and independent classes of facts; such as the geological succession
of organic beings, their distribution in past and present times, and their
mutual affinities and homologies. If the principle of natural selection
does explain these and other large bodies of facts, it ought to be
received. On the ordinary view of each species having been independently
created, we gain no scientific explanation of any one of these facts. We
can only say that it has so pleased the Creator to command that the past
and present inhabitants of the world should appear in a certain order and
in certain areas; that He has impressed on them the most extraordinary
resemblances, and has classed them in groups subordinate to groups. But by
such statements we gain no new knowledge; we do not connect together facts
and laws; we explain nothing.

In a third work I shall try the principle of natural selection by seeing
how far it will give a fair explanation of the several classes of facts
just alluded to. It was the consideration of these facts which first led me
to take up the present subject. When I visited, during the voyage of H.M.S.
_Beagle_, the Galapagos Archipelago, situated in the Pacific Ocean about
500 miles from the shore of South America, I found myself surrounded by
peculiar species of birds, reptiles, and plants, existing nowhere else in
the world. Yet they nearly all bore an American stamp. In the song of the
mocking-thrush, in the harsh cry of the carrion-hawk, in the great
candlestick-like opuntias, I clearly perceived the neighbourhood of
America, though the islands were separated by so many miles of ocean from
the mainland, and differed much from it in their geological {10}
constitution and climate. Still more surprising was the fact that most of
the inhabitants of each separate island in this small archipelago were
specifically different, though most closely related to each other. The
archipelago, with its innumerable craters and bare streams of lava,
appeared to be of recent origin; and thus I fancied myself brought near to
the very act of creation. I often asked myself how these many peculiar
animals and plants had been produced: the simplest answer seemed to be that
the inhabitants of the several islands had descended from each other,
undergoing modification in the course of their descent; and that all the
inhabitants of the archipelago had descended from those of the nearest
land, namely America, whence colonists would naturally have been derived.
But it long remained to me an inexplicable problem how the necessary degree
of modification could have been effected, and it would have thus remained
for ever, had I not studied domestic productions, and thus acquired a just
idea of the power of Selection. As soon as I had fully realized this idea,
I saw, on reading Malthus on Population, that Natural Selection was the
inevitable result of the rapid increase of all organic beings; for I was
prepared to appreciate the struggle for existence by having long studied
the habits of animals.

Before visiting the Galapagos I had collected many animals whilst
travelling from north to south on both sides of America, and everywhere,
under conditions of life as different as it is possible to conceive,
American forms were met with--species replacing species of the same
peculiar genera. Thus it was when the Cordilleras were ascended, or the
thick tropical forests penetrated, or the fresh waters of America searched.
Subsequently I visited other countries, which in all the conditions of life
were incomparably more like to parts of South America, than the different
parts of that continent were to each other; yet in these countries, as in
Australia or Southern Africa, the traveller cannot fail to be struck with
the entire difference of their productions. Again the reflection was forced
on me that community of descent from the early inhabitants or colonists of
South America would alone explain the wide prevalence of American types of
structure throughout that immense area.

To exhume with one's own hands the bones of extinct and {11} gigantic
quadrupeds brings the whole question of the succession of species vividly
before one's mind; and I had found in South America great pieces of
tesselated armour exactly like, but on a magnificent scale, that covering
the pigmy armadillo; I had found great teeth like those of the living
sloth, and bones like those of the cavy. An analogous succession of allied
forms had been previously observed in Australia. Here then we see the
prevalence, as if by descent, in time as in space, of the same types in the
same areas; and in neither case does the similarity of the conditions by
any means seem sufficient to account for the similarity of the forms of
life. It is notorious that the fossil remains of closely consecutive
formations are closely allied in structure, and we can at once understand
the fact if they are likewise closely allied by descent. The succession of
the many distinct species of the same genus throughout the long series of
geological formations seems to have been unbroken or continuous. New
species come in gradually one by one. Ancient and extinct forms of life
often show combined or intermediate characters, like the words of a dead
language with respect to its several offshoots or living tongues. All these
and other such facts seemed to me to point to descent with modification as
the method of production of new groups of species.

The innumerable past and present inhabitants of the world are connected
together by the most singular and complex affinities, and can be classed in
groups under groups, in the same manner as varieties can be classed under
species and sub-varieties under varieties, but with much higher grades of
difference. It will be seen in my third work that these complex affinities
and the rules for classification receive a rational explanation on the
principle of descent, together with modifications acquired through natural
selection, entailing divergence of character and the extinction of
intermediate forms. How inexplicable is the similar pattern of the hand of
a man, the foot of a dog, the wing of a bat, the flipper of a seal, on the
doctrine of independent acts of creation! how simply explained on the
principle of the natural selection of successive slight variations in the
diverging descendants from {12} a single progenitor! So it is, if we look
to the structure of an individual animal or plant, when we see the fore and
hind limbs, the skull and vertebrae, the jaws and legs of a crab, the
petals, stamens, and pistils of a flower, built on the same type or
pattern. During the many changes to which in the course of time all organic
beings have been subjected, certain organs or parts have occasionally
become at first of little use and ultimately superfluous; and the retention
of such parts in a rudimentary and utterly useless condition can, on the
descent-theory, be simply understood. On the principle of modifications
being inherited at the same age in the child, at which each successive
variation first appeared in the parent, we shall see why rudimentary parts
and organs are generally well developed in the individual at a very early
age. On the same principle of inheritance at corresponding ages, and on the
principle of variations not generally supervening at a very early period of
embryonic growth (and both these principles can be shown to be probable
from direct evidence), that most wonderful fact in the whole round of
natural history, namely, the similarity of members of the same great class
in their embryonic condition,--the embryo, for instance, of a mammal, bird,
reptile, and fish being barely distinguishable,--becomes simply
intelligible.

It is the consideration and explanation of such facts as these which has
convinced me that the theory of descent with modification by means of
natural selection is in the main true. These facts have as yet received no
explanation on the theory of independent Creations; they cannot be grouped
together under one point of view, but each has to be considered as an
ultimate fact. As the first origin of life on this earth, as well as the
continued life of each individual, is at present quite beyond the scope of
science, I do not wish to lay much stress on the greater simplicity of the
view of a few forms, or of only one form, having been originally created,
instead of innumerable miraculous creations having been necessary at
innumerable periods; though this more simple view accords well with
Maupertuis's philosophical axiom "of least action."

In considering how far the theory of natural selection may be {13}
extended,--that is, in determining from how many progenitors the
inhabitants of the world have descended,--we may conclude that at least all
the members of the same class have descended from a single ancestor. A
number of organic beings are included in the same class, because they
present, independently of their habits of life, the same fundamental type
of structure, and because they graduate into each other. Moreover, members
of the same class can in most cases be shown to be closely alike at an
early embryonic age. These facts can be explained on the belief of their
descent from a common form; therefore it may be safely admitted that all
the members of the same class have descended from one progenitor. But as
the members of quite distinct classes have something in common in structure
and much in common in constitution, analogy and the simplicity of the view
would lead us one step further, and to infer as probable that all living
creatures have descended from a single prototype.

I hope that the reader will pause before coming to any final and hostile
conclusion on the theory of natural selection. It is the facts and views to
be hereafter given which have convinced me of the truth of the theory. The
reader may consult my 'Origin of Species,' for a general sketch of the
whole subject; but in that work he has to take many statements on trust. In
considering the theory of natural selection, he will assuredly meet with
weighty difficulties, but these difficulties relate chiefly to
subjects--such as the degree of perfection of the geological record, the
means of distribution, the possibility of transitions in organs, &c.--on
which we are confessedly ignorant; nor do we know how ignorant we are. If
we are much more ignorant than is generally supposed, most of these
difficulties wholly disappear. Let the reader reflect on the difficulty of
looking at whole classes of facts from a new point of view. Let him observe
how slowly, but surely, the noble views of Lyell on the gradual changes now
in progress on the earth's surface have been accepted as sufficient to
account for all that we see in its past history. The present action of
natural selection may seem more or less probable; but I believe in the
truth of the theory, {14} because it collects under one point of view, and
gives a rational explanation of, many apparently independent classes of
facts.[4]

       *       *       *       *       *


{15}

CHAPTER I.

DOMESTIC DOGS AND CATS.

    ANCIENT VARIETIES OF THE DOG--RESEMBLANCE OF DOMESTIC DOGS IN VARIOUS
    COUNTRIES TO NATIVE CANINE SPECIES--ANIMALS NOT ACQUAINTED WITH MAN AT
    FIRST FEARLESS--DOGS RESEMBLING WOLVES AND JACKALS--HABIT OF BARKING
    ACQUIRED AND LOST--FERAL DOGS--TAN- EYE-SPOTS PERIOD OF
    GESTATION--OFFENSIVE ODOUR--FERTILITY OF THE RACES WHEN
    CROSSED--DIFFERENCES IN THE SEVERAL RACES IN PART DUE TO DESCENT FROM
    DISTINCT SPECIES--DIFFERENCES IN THE SKULL AND TEETH--DIFFERENCES IN
    THE BODY, IN CONSTITUTION--FEW IMPORTANT DIFFERENCES HAVE BEEN FIXED BY
    SELECTION--DIRECT ACTION OF CLIMATE--WATER-DOGS WITH PALMATED
    FEET--HISTORY OF THE CHANGES WHICH CERTAIN ENGLISH RACES OF THE DOG
    HAVE GRADUALLY UNDERGONE THROUGH SELECTION--EXTINCTION OF THE LESS
    IMPROVED SUB-BREEDS.

    CATS, CROSSED WITH SEVERAL SPECIES--DIFFERENT BREEDS FOUND ONLY IN
    SEPARATED COUNTRIES--DIRECT EFFECTS OF THE CONDITIONS OF LIFE--FERAL
    CATS--INDIVIDUAL VARIABILITY.

The first and chief point of interest in this chapter is, whether the
numerous domesticated varieties of the dog have descended from a single
wild species, or from several. Some authors believe that all have descended
from the wolf, or from the jackal, or from an unknown and extinct species.
Others again believe, and this of late has been the favourite tenet, that
they have descended from several species, extinct and recent, more or less
commingled together. We shall probably never be able to ascertain their
origin with certainty. Palaeontology[5] does not throw much light on the
question, owing, on the one hand, to the close similarity of the skulls of
extinct as well as living wolves and jackals, and owing on the other hand
to the great dissimilarity of the skulls of the several breeds of the
domestic dogs. It seems, however, that remains have been found in the {16}
later tertiary deposits more like those of a large dog than of a wolf,
which favours the belief of De Blainville that our dogs are the descendants
of a single extinct species. On the other hand, some authors go so far as
to assert that every chief domestic breed must have had its wild prototype.
This latter view is extremely improbable; it allows nothing for variation;
it passes over the almost monstrous character of some of the breeds; and it
almost necessarily assumes, that a large number of species have become
extinct since man domesticated the dog; whereas we plainly see that the
members of the dog-family are extirpated by human agency with much
difficulty; even so recently as 1710 the wolf existed in so small an island
as Ireland.

The reasons which have led various authors to infer that our dogs have
descended from more than one wild species are as follows.[6] Firstly, the
great difference between the several breeds; but this will appear of
comparatively little weight, after we shall have seen how great are the
differences between the several races of various domesticated animals which
certainly have descended from a single parent-form. Secondly, the more
important fact that, at the most anciently known historical periods,
several breeds of the dog existed, very unlike each other, and closely
resembling or identical with breeds still alive.

We will briefly run back through the historical records. The materials are
remarkably deficient between the fourteenth century and the Roman classical
period.[7] At this earlier period {17} various breeds, namely hounds,
house-dogs, lapdogs, &c., existed; but as Dr. Walther has remarked it is
impossible to recognise the greater number with any certainty. Youatt,
however, gives a drawing of a beautiful sculpture of two greyhound puppies
from the Villa of Antoninus. On an Assyrian monument, about 640 B.C., an
enormous mastiff[8] is figured; and according to Sir H. Rawlinson (as I was
informed at the British Museum), similar dogs are still imported into this
same country. I have looked through the magnificent works of Lepsius and
Rosellini, and on the monuments from the fourth to the twelfth dynasties
(_i.e._ from about 3400 B.C. to 2100 B.C.) several varieties of the dog are
represented; most of them are allied to greyhounds; at the later of these
periods a dog resembling a hound is figured, with drooping ears, but with a
longer back and more pointed head than in our hounds. There is, also, a
turnspit, with short and crooked legs, closely resembling the existing
variety; but this kind of monstrosity is so common with various animals, as
with the ancon sheep, and even, according to Rengger, with jaguars in
Paraguay, that it would be rash to look at the monumental animal as the
parent of all our turnspits: Colonel Sykes[9] also has described an Indian
Pariah dog as presenting the same monstrous character. The most ancient dog
represented on the Egyptian monuments is one of the most singular; it
resembles a greyhound, but has long pointed ears and a short curled tail: a
closely allied variety still exists in Northern Africa; for Mr. E. Vernon
Harcourt[10] states that the Arab boar-hound is "an eccentric hieroglyphic
animal, such as Cheops once hunted with, somewhat resembling the rough
Scotch deer-hound; their tails are curled tight round on their backs, {18}
and their ears stick out at right angles." With this most ancient variety a
pariah-like dog coexisted.

We thus see that, at a period between four and five thousand years ago,
various breeds, viz. pariah dogs, greyhounds, common hounds, mastiffs,
house-dogs, lapdogs, and turnspits, existed, more or less closely
resembling our present breeds. But there is not sufficient evidence that
any of these ancient dogs belonged to the same identical sub-varieties with
our present dogs.[11] As long as man was believed to have existed on this
earth only about 6000 years, this fact of the great diversity of the breeds
at so early a period was an argument of much weight that they had proceeded
from several wild sources, for there would not have been sufficient time
for their divergence and modification. But now that we know, from the
discovery of flint tools embedded with the remains of extinct animals in
districts which have since undergone great geographical changes, that man
has existed for an incomparably longer period, and bearing in mind that the
most barbarous nations possess domestic dogs, the argument from
insufficient time falls away greatly in value.

Long before the period of any historical record the dog was domesticated in
Europe. In the Danish Middens of the Neolithic or Newer Stone period, bones
of a canine animal are imbedded, and Steenstrup ingeniously argues that
these belonged to a domestic dog; for a very large proportion of the bones
of birds preserved in the refuse, consists of long bones, which it was
found on trial dogs cannot devour.[12] This ancient dog was succeeded in
Denmark during the Bronze period by a larger kind, presenting certain
differences, and this again during the Iron period, by a still larger kind.
In Switzerland, we hear {19} from Prof. Ruetimeyer,[13] that during the
Neolithic period a domesticated dog of middle size existed, which in its
skull was about equally remote from the wolf and jackal, and partook of the
characters of our hounds and setters or spaniels (Jagdhund und
Wachtelhund). Ruetimeyer insists strongly on the constancy of form during a
very long period of time of this the most ancient known dog. During the
Bronze period a larger dog appeared, and this closely resembled in its jaw
a dog of the same age in Denmark. Remains of two notably distinct varieties
of the dog were found by Schmerling in a cave;[14] but their age cannot be
positively determined.

The existence of a single race, remarkably constant in form during the
whole Neolithic period, is an interesting fact in contrast with what we see
of the changes which the races underwent during the period of the
successive Egyptian monuments, and in contrast with our existing dogs. The
character of this animal during the Neolithic period, as given by
Ruetimeyer, supports De Blainville's view that our varieties have descended
from an unknown and extinct form. But we should not forget that we know
nothing with respect to the antiquity of man in the warmer parts of the
world. The succession of the different kinds of dogs in Switzerland and
Denmark is thought to be due to the immigration of conquering tribes
bringing with them their dogs; and this view accords with the belief that
different wild canine animals were domesticated in different regions.
Independently of the immigration of new races of man, we know from the
wide-spread presence of bronze, composed of an alloy of tin, how much
commerce there must have been throughout Europe at an extremely remote
period, and dogs would then probably have been bartered. At the present
time, amongst the savages of the interior of Guiana, the Taruma Indians are
considered the best trainers of dogs, and possess a large breed, which they
barter at a high price with other tribes.[15]

The main argument in favour of the several breeds of the {20} dog being the
descendants of distinct wild stocks, is their resemblance in various
countries to distinct species still existing there. It must, however, be
admitted that the comparison between the wild and domesticated animal has
been made but in few cases with sufficient exactness. Before entering on
details, it will be well to show that there is no a priori difficulty in
the belief that several canine species have been domesticated; for there is
much difficulty in this respect with some other domestic quadrupeds and
birds. Members of the dog family inhabit nearly the whole world; and
several species agree pretty closely in habits and structure with our
several domesticated dogs. Mr. Galton has shown[16] how fond savages are of
keeping and taming animals of all kinds. Social animals are the most easily
subjugated by man, and several species of Canidae hunt in packs. It deserves
notice, as bearing on other animals as well as on the dog, that at an
extremely ancient period, when man first entered any country, the animals
living there would have felt no instinctive or inherited fear of him, and
would consequently have been tamed far more easily than at present. For
instance, when the Falkland Islands were first visited by man, the large
wolf-like dog (_Canis antarcticus_) fearlessly came to meet Byron's
sailors, who, mistaking this ignorant curiosity for ferocity, ran into the
water to avoid them: even recently a man, by holding a piece of meat in one
hand and a knife in the other, could sometimes stick them at night. On an
island in the Sea of Aral, when first discovered by Butakoff, the saigak
antelopes, which are "generally very timid and watchful, did not fly from
us, but on the contrary looked at us with a sort of curiosity." So, again,
on the shores of the Mauritius, the manatee was not at first in the least
afraid of man, and thus it has been in several quarters of the world with
seals and the morse. I have elsewhere shown[17] how slowly the native birds
of several islands have acquired and inherited a salutary dread of man: at
the Galapagos Archipelago I pushed with the muzzle of my gun hawks from a
branch, and {21} held out a pitcher of water for other birds to alight on
and drink. Quadrupeds and birds which have seldom been disturbed by man,
dread him no more than do our English birds the cows or horses grazing in
the fields.

It is a more important consideration that several canine species evince (as
will be shown in a future chapter) no strong repugnance or inability to
breed under confinement; and the incapacity to breed under confinement is
one of the commonest bars to domestication. Lastly, savages set the highest
value, as we shall see in the chapter on Selection, on dogs: even
half-tamed animals are highly useful to them: the Indians of North America
cross their half-wild dogs with wolves, and thus render them even wilder
than before, but bolder: the savages of Guiana catch and partially tame and
use the whelps of two wild species of _Canis_, as do the savages of
Australia those of the wild Dingo. Mr. Philip King informs me that he once
trained a wild Dingo puppy to drive cattle, and found it very useful. From
these several considerations we see that there is no difficulty in
believing that man might have domesticated various canine species in
different countries. It would indeed have been a strange fact if one
species alone had been domesticated throughout the world.

We will now enter into details. The accurate and sagacious Richardson says,
"The resemblance between the Northern American wolves (_Canis lupus, var.
occidentalis_) and the domestic dogs of the Indians is so great that the
size and strength of the wolf seems to be the only difference. I have more
than once mistaken a band of wolves for the dogs of a party of Indians; and
the howl of the animals of both species is prolonged so exactly in the same
key that even the practised ear of the Indian fails at times to
discriminate them." He adds that the more northern Esquimaux dogs are not
only extremely like the grey wolves of the Arctic circle in form and
colour, but also nearly equal them in size. Dr. Kane has often seen in his
teams of sledge-dogs the oblique eye (a character on which some naturalists
lay great stress), the drooping tail, and scared look of the wolf. In
disposition the Esquimaux dogs differ little from wolves, and, according to
Dr. Hayes, they are capable of no attachment to man, and are so savage,
that {22} when hungry they will attack even their masters. According to
Kane they readily become feral. Their affinity is so close with wolves that
they frequently cross with them, and the Indians take the whelps of wolves
"to improve the breed of their dogs." The half-bred wolves sometimes
(Lamare-Picquot) cannot be tamed, "though this case is rare;" but they do
not become thoroughly well broken in till the second or third generation.
These facts show that there can be but little, if any, sterility between
the Esquimaux dog and the wolf, for otherwise they would not be used to
improve the breed. As Dr. Hayes says of these dogs, "reclaimed wolves they
doubtless are."[18]

North America is inhabited by a second kind of wolf, the prairie-wolf
(_Canis latrans_), which is now looked at by all naturalists as
specifically distinct from the common wolf; and is, according to Mr. J. K.
Lord, in some respects intermediate in habits between a wolf and a fox. Sir
J. Richardson, after describing the Hare Indian dog, which differs in many
respects from the Esquimaux dog, says, "It bears the same relation to the
prairie wolf that the Esquimaux dog does to the great grey wolf." He could,
in fact, detect no marked difference between them; and Messrs. Nott and
Gliddon give additional details showing their close resemblance. The dogs
derived from the above two aboriginal sources cross together and with the
wild wolves, at least with the _C. occidentalis_, and with European dogs.
In Florida, according to Bartram, the black wolf-dog of the Indians differs
in nothing from the wolves of that country except in barking.[19]

{23}

Turning to the southern parts of the New World, Columbus found two kinds of
dogs in the West Indies; and Fernandez[20] describes three in Mexico: some
of these native dogs were dumb--that is, did not bark. In Guiana it has
been known since the time of Buffon that the natives cross their dogs with
an aboriginal species, apparently the _Canis cancrivorus_. Sir R.
Schomburgk, who has so carefully explored these regions, writes to me, "I
have been repeatedly told by the Arawaak Indians, who reside near the
coast, that they cross their dogs with a wild species to improve the breed,
and individual dogs have been shown to me which certainly resembled the _C.
cancrivorus_ much more than the common breed. It is but seldom that the
Indians keep the _C. cancrivorus_ for domestic purposes, nor is the Ai,
another species of wild dog, and which I consider to be identical with the
_Dusicyon silvestris_ of H. Smith, now much used by the Arecunas for the
purpose of hunting. The dogs of the Taruma Indians are quite distinct, and
resemble Buffon's St. Domingo greyhound." It thus appears that the natives
of Guiana have partially domesticated two aboriginal species, and still
cross their dogs with them; these two species belong to a quite different
type from the North American and European wolves. A careful observer,
Rengger,[21] gives reasons for believing that a hairless dog was
domesticated when America was first visited by Europeans: some of these
dogs in Paraguay are still dumb, and Tschudi[22] states that they suffer
from cold in the Cordillera. This naked dog is, however, quite distinct
from that found preserved in the ancient Peruvian burial-places, and
described by Tschudi, under the name of _Canis Ingae_, as withstanding cold
well and as barking. It is not known whether these two distinct kinds of
dog are the descendants of native species, and it might be argued that when
man first migrated into America he brought with him from the Asiatic
continent dogs {24} which had not learned to bark; but this view does not
seem probable, as the natives along the line of their march from the north
reclaimed, as we have seen, at least two N. American species of Canidae.

Turning to the Old World, some European dogs closely resemble the wolf;
thus the shepherd dog of the plains of Hungary is white or reddish-brown,
has a sharp nose, short, erect ears, shaggy coat, and bushy tail, and so
much resembles a wolf that Mr. Paget, who gives this description, says he
has known a Hungarian mistake a wolf for one of his own dogs. Jeitteles,
also, remarks on the close similarity of the Hungarian dog and wolf.
Shepherd dogs in Italy must anciently have closely resembled wolves, for
Columella (vii. 12) advises that white dogs be kept, adding, "pastor album
probat, ne pro lupo canem feriat." Several accounts have been given of dogs
and wolves crossing naturally; and Pliny asserts that the Gauls tied their
female dogs in the woods that they might cross with wolves.[23] The
European wolf differs slightly from that of North America, and has been
ranked by many naturalists as a distinct species. The common wolf of India
is also by some esteemed as a third species, and here again we find a
marked resemblance between the pariah dogs of certain districts of India
and the Indian wolf.[24]

With respect to Jackals, Isidore Geoffroy Saint Hilaire[25] says that not
one constant difference can be pointed out between their structure and that
of the smaller races of dogs. They agree closely in habits: jackals, when
tamed and called by their {25} master, wag their tails, crouch, and throw
themselves on their backs; they smell at the tails of dogs, and void their
urine sideways.[26] A number of excellent naturalists, from the time of
Gueldenstaedt to that of Ehrenberg, Hemprich, and Cretzschmar, have expressed
themselves in the strongest terms with respect to the resemblance of the
half-domestic dogs of Asia and Egypt to jackals. M. Nordmann, for instance,
says, "Les chiens d'Awhasie ressemblent etonnamment a des chacals."
Ehrenberg[27] asserts that the domestic dogs of Lower Egypt, and certain
mummied dogs, have for their wild type a species of wolf (_C. lupaster_) of
the country; whereas the domestic dogs of Nubia and certain other mummied
dogs have the closest relation to a wild species of the same country, viz.
_C. sabbar_, which is only a form of the common jackal. Pallas asserts that
jackals and dogs sometimes naturally cross in the East; and a case is on
record in Algeria.[28] The greater number of naturalists divide the jackals
of Asia and Africa into several species, but some few rank them all as one.

I may add that the domestic dogs on the coast of Guinea are fox-like
animals, and are dumb.[29] On the east coast of Africa, between lat. 4 deg. and
6 deg. south, and about ten days' journey in the interior, a semi-domestic dog,
as the Rev. S. Erhardt informs me, is kept, which the natives assert is
derived from a similar wild animal. Lichtenstein[30] says that the dogs of
the Bosjemans present a striking resemblance even in colour (excepting the
black stripe down the back) with the _C. mesomelas_ of South Africa. Mr. E.
Layard informs me that he has seen a Caffre dog which closely resembled an
Esquimaux dog. In Australia the Dingo is both domesticated and wild; though
this animal may have been introduced aboriginally by man, yet it must be
considered as almost an endemic form, for its remains have been found in a
similar state of preservation and associated with {26} extinct mammals, so
that its introduction must have been ancient.[31]

From this resemblance in several countries of the half-domesticated dogs to
the wild species still living there,--from the facility with which they can
often be crossed together,--from even half-tamed animals being so much
valued by savages,--and from the other circumstances previously remarked on
which favour their domestication, it is highly probable that the domestic
dogs of the world have descended from two good species of wolf (viz. _C.
lupus_ and _C. latrans_), and from two or three other doubtful species of
wolves (namely, the European, Indian, and North African forms); from at
least one or two South American canine species; from several races or
species of the jackal; and perhaps from one or more extinct species. Those
authors who attribute great influence to the action of climate by itself
may thus account for the resemblance of the domesticated dogs and native
animals in the same countries; but I know of no facts supporting the belief
in so powerful an action of climate.

It cannot be objected to the view of several canine species having been
anciently domesticated, that these animals are tamed with difficulty: facts
have been already given on this head, but I may add that the young of the
_Canis primaevus_ of India were tamed by Mr. Hodgson,[32] and became as
sensible to caresses, and manifested as much intelligence, as any sporting
dog of the same age. There is not much difference, as we have already shown
and shall immediately further see, in habits between the domestic dogs of
the North American Indians and the wolves of that country, or between the
Eastern pariah dogs and jackals, or between the dogs which have run wild in
various countries and the several natural species of the family. The habit
of barking, however, which is almost universal with domesticated {27} dogs,
and which does not characterise a single natural species of the family,
seems an exception; but this habit is soon lost and soon reacquired. The
case of the wild dogs on the island of Juan Fernandez having become dumb
has often been quoted, and there is reason to believe[33] that the dumbness
ensued in the course of thirty-three years; on the other hand, dogs taken
from this island by Ulloa slowly reacquired the habit of barking. The
Mackenzie-river dogs, of the _Canis latrans_ type, when brought to England,
never learned to bark properly; but one born in the Zoological Gardens[34]
"made his voice sound as loudly as any other dog of the same age and size."
According to Professor Nillson,[35] a wolf-whelp reared by a bitch barks.
I. Geoffroy Saint Hilaire exhibited a jackal which barked with the same
tone as any common dog.[36] An interesting account has been given by Mr. G.
Clarke[37] of some dogs run wild on Juan de Nova, in the Indian Ocean;
"they had entirely lost the faculty of barking; they had no inclination for
the company of other dogs, nor did they acquire their voice," during a
captivity of several months. On the island they "congregate in vast packs,
and catch sea-birds with as much address as foxes could display." The feral
dogs of La Plata have not become dumb; they are of large size, hunt single
or in packs, and burrow holes for their young.[38] In these habits the
feral dogs of La Plata resemble wolves and jackals; both of which hunt
either singly or in packs, and burrow holes.[39] These feral dogs have not
become uniform in colour on Juan Fernandez, Juan de Nova, or La Plata.[40]
In Cuba the feral dogs are described by Poeppig as nearly all
mouse-, with short ears and light-blue eyes. {28} In St. Domingo,
Col. Ham. Smith says[41] that the feral dogs are very large, like
greyhounds, of a uniform pale blue-ash, with small ears, and large
light-brown eyes. Even the wild Dingo, though so anciently naturalised in
Australia, "varies considerably in colour," as I am informed by Mr. P. P.
King: a half-bred Dingo reared in England[42] showed signs of wishing to
burrow.

    From the several foregoing facts we see that reversion in the feral
    state gives no indication of the colour or size of the aboriginal
    parent-species. One fact, however, with respect to the colouring of
    domestic dogs, I at one time hoped might have thrown some light on
    their origin; and it is worth giving, as showing how colouring follows
    laws, even in so anciently and thoroughly domesticated an animal as the
    dog. Black dogs with tan- feet, whatever breed they may belong
    to, almost invariably have a tan- spot on the upper and inner
    corners of each eye, and their lips are generally thus . I have
    seen only two exceptions to this rule, namely, in a spaniel and
    terrier. Dogs of a light-brown colour often have a lighter,
    yellowish-brown spot over the eyes; sometimes the spot is white, and in
    a mongrel terrier the spot was black. Mr. Waring kindly examined for me
    a stud of fifteen greyhounds in Suffolk: eleven of them were black, or
    black and white, or brindled, and these had no eye-spots; but three
    were red and one slaty-blue, and these four had dark- spots
    over their eyes. Although the spots thus sometimes differ in colour,
    they strongly tend to be tan-; this is proved by my having seen
    four spaniels, a setter, two Yorkshire shepherd dogs, a large mongrel,
    and some fox-hounds,  black and white, with not a trace of
    tan-colour, excepting the spots over the eyes, and sometimes a little
    on the feet. These latter cases, and many others, show plainly that the
    colour of the feet and the eye-spots are in some way correlated. I have
    noticed, in various breeds, every gradation, from the whole face being
    tan-, to a complete ring round the eyes, to a minute spot over
    the inner and upper corners. The spots occur in various sub-breeds of
    terriers and spaniels; in setters; in hounds of various kinds,
    including the turnspit-like German badger-hound; in shepherd dogs; in a
    mongrel, of which neither parent had the spots; in one pure bulldog,
    though the spots were in this case almost white; and in
    greyhounds,--but true black-and-tan greyhounds are excessively rare;
    nevertheless I have been assured by Mr. Warwick, that one ran at the
    Caledonian Champion meeting of April, 1860, and was "marked precisely
    like a black-and-tan terrier." Mr. Swinhoe at my request looked at the
    dogs in China, at Amoy, and he soon noticed a brown dog with yellow
    spots over the eyes. Colonel H. Smith[43] figures the magnificent black
    mastiff of Thibet with a {29} tan- stripe over the eyes, feet,
    and chaps; and what is more singular, he figures the Alco, or native
    domestic dog of Mexico, as black and white, with narrow tan-
    rings round the eyes; at the Exhibition of dogs in London, May, 1863, a
    so-called forest-dog from North-West Mexico was shown, which had pale
    tan- spots over the eyes. The occurrence of these tan-
    spots in dogs of such extremely different breeds, living in various
    parts of the world, makes the fact highly remarkable.

    We shall hereafter see, especially in the chapter on Pigeons, that
     marks are strongly inherited, and that they often aid us in
    discovering the primitive forms of our domestic races. Hence, if any
    wild canine species had distinctly exhibited the tan- spots
    over the eyes, it might have been argued that this was the parent-form
    of nearly all our domestic races. But after looking at many 
    plates, and through the whole collection of skins in the British
    Museum, I can find no species thus marked. It is no doubt possible that
    some extinct species was thus . On the other hand, in looking
    at the various species, there seems to be a tolerably plain correlation
    between tan- legs and face; and less frequently between black
    legs and a black face; and this general rule of colouring explains to a
    certain extent the above-given cases of correlation between the
    eye-spots and the colour of the feet. Moreover, some jackals and foxes
    have a trace of a white ring round their eyes, as in _C. mesomelas_,
    _C. aureus_, and (judging from Colonel Ham. Smith's drawing) in _C.
    alopex_ and _C. thaleb_. Other species have a trace of a black line
    over the corners of the eyes, as in _C. variegatus_,
    _cinereo-variegatus_, and _fulvus_, and the wild Dingo. Hence I am
    inclined to conclude that a tendency for tan- spots to appear
    over the eyes in the various breeds of dogs, is analogous to the case
    observed by Desmarest, namely, that when any white appears on a dog the
    tip of the tail is always white, "de maniere a rappeler la tacho
    terminale de meme couleur, qui caracterise la plupart des Canidees
    sauvages."[44]

It has been objected that our domestic dogs cannot be descended from wolves
or jackals, because their periods of gestation are different. The supposed
difference rests on statements made by Buffon, Gilibert, Bechstein, and
others; but these are now known to be erroneous; and the period is found to
agree in the wolf, jackal, and dog, as closely as could be expected, for it
is often in some degree variable.[45] Tessier, who {30} has closely
attended to this subject, allows a difference of four days in the gestation
of the dog. The Rev. W. D. Fox has given me three carefully recorded cases
of retrievers, in which the bitch was put only once to the dog; and not
counting this day, but counting that of parturition, the periods were
fifty-nine, sixty-two, and sixty-seven days. The average period is
sixty-three days; but Bellingeri states that this holds good only with
large dogs; and that for small races it is from sixty to sixty-three days;
Mr. Eyton of Eyton, who has had much experience with dogs, also informs me
that the time is apt to be longer with large than with small dogs.

F. Cuvier has objected that the jackal would not have been domesticated on
account of its offensive smell; but savages are not sensitive in this
respect. The degree of odour, also, differs in the different kinds of
jackal;[46] and Colonel H. Smith makes a sectional division of the group
with one character dependent on not being offensive. On the other hand,
dogs--for instance, rough and smooth terriers--differ much in this respect;
and M. Godron states that the hairless so-called Turkish dog is more
odoriferous than other dogs. Isidore Geoffroy[47] gave to a dog the same
odour as that from a jackal by feeding it on raw flesh.

The belief that our dogs are descended from wolves, jackals, South American
Canidae, and other species, suggests a far more important difficulty. These
animals in their undomesticated state, judging from a widely-spread
analogy, would have been in some degree sterile if intercrossed; and such
sterility will be admitted as almost certain by all those who believe that
the lessened fertility of crossed forms is an infallible criterion of
specific distinctness. Anyhow these animals keep distinct in the countries
which they inhabit in common. On the other hand, all domestic dogs, which
are here supposed to be descended {31} from several distinct species, are,
as far as is known, mutually fertile together. But, as Broca has well
remarked,[48] the fertility of successive generations of mongrel dogs has
never been scrutinised with that care which is thought indispensable when
species are crossed. The few facts leading to the conclusion that the
sexual feelings and reproductive powers differ in the several races of the
dog when crossed are (passing over mere size as rendering propagation
difficult) as follows: the Mexican Alco[49] apparently dislikes dogs of
other kinds, but this perhaps is not strictly a sexual feeling; the
hairless endemic dog of Paraguay, according to Rengger, mixes less with the
European races than these do with each other; the Spitz-dog in Germany is
said to receive the fox more readily than do other breeds; and Dr. Hodgkin
states that a female Dingo in England attracted the male wild foxes. If
these latter statements can be trusted, they prove some degree of sexual
difference in the breeds of the dog. But the fact remains that our domestic
dogs, differing so widely as they do in external structure, are far more
fertile together than we have reason to believe their supposed wild parents
would have been. Pallas assumes[50] that a long course of domestication
eliminates that sterility which the parent-species would have exhibited if
only lately captured; no distinct facts are recorded in support of this
hypothesis; but the evidence seems to me so strong (independently of the
evidence derived from other domesticated animals) in favour of our domestic
dogs having descended from several wild stocks, that I am led to admit the
truth of this hypothesis.

There is another and closely allied difficulty consequent on the doctrine
of the descent of our domestic dogs from several wild species, namely, that
they do not seem to be perfectly fertile with their supposed parents. But
the experiment has not been quite fairly tried; the Hungarian dog, for
instance, {32} which in external appearance so closely resembles the
European wolf, ought to be crossed with this wolf; and the pariah-dogs of
India with Indian wolves and jackals; and so in other cases. That the
sterility is very slight between certain dogs and wolves and other Canidae
is shown by savages taking the trouble to cross them. Buffon got four
successive generations from the wolf and dog, and the mongrels were
perfectly fertile together.[51] But more lately M. Flourens states
positively as the result of his numerous experiments that hybrids from the
wolf and dog, crossed _inter se_, become sterile at the third generation,
and those from the jackal and dog at the fourth generation.[52] But these
animals were closely confined; and many wild animals, as we shall see in a
future chapter, are rendered by confinement in some degree or even utterly
sterile. The Dingo, which breeds freely in Australia with our imported
dogs, would not breed though repeatedly crossed in the Jardin des
Plantes.[53] Some hounds from Central Africa, brought home by Major Denham,
never bred in the Tower of London;[54] and a similar tendency to sterility
might be transmitted to the hybrid offspring of a wild animal. Moreover, it
appears that in M. Flourens' experiments the hybrids were closely bred in
and in for three or four generations; but this circumstance, although it
would almost certainly increase the tendency to sterility, would hardly
account for the final result, even though aided by close confinement,
unless there had been some original tendency to lessened fertility. Several
years ago I saw confined in the Zoological Gardens of London a female
hybrid from an English dog and jackal, which even in this the first
generation was so sterile that, as I was assured by {33} her keeper, she
did not fully exhibit her proper periods; but this case, from the numerous
instances of fertile hybrids from these two animals, was certainly
exceptional. In almost all experiments on the crossing of animals there are
so many causes of doubt, that it is extremely difficult to come to any
positive conclusion. It would, however, appear, that those who believe that
our dogs are descended from several species will have not only to admit
that their offspring after a long course of domestication generally lose
all tendency to sterility when crossed together; but that between certain
breeds of dogs and some of their supposed aboriginal parents a certain
degree of sterility has been retained or possibly even acquired.

Notwithstanding the difficulties in regard to fertility given in the last
two paragraphs, when we reflect on the inherent improbability of man having
domesticated throughout the world one single species alone of so widely
distributed, so easily tamed, and so useful a group as the Canidae; when we
reflect on the extreme antiquity of the different breeds; and especially
when we reflect on the close similarity, both in external structure and
habits, between the domestic dogs of various countries and the wild species
still inhabiting these same countries, the balance of evidence is strongly
in favour of the multiple origin of our dogs.

       *       *       *       *       *

_Differences between the several Breeds of the Dog._--If the several breeds
have descended from several wild stocks, their difference can obviously in
part be explained by that of their parent-species. For instance, the form
of the greyhound may be partly accounted for by descent from some such
animal as the slim Abyssinian _Canis simensis_,[55] with its elongated
muzzle; that of the larger dogs from the larger wolves, and the smaller and
slighter dogs from jackals: and thus perhaps we may account for certain
constitutional and climatal differences. But it would be a great error to
suppose that there has not been in addition[56] a large amount of
variation. The intercrossing of the several aboriginal wild stocks, and of
the subsequently formed {34} races, has probably increased the total number
of breeds, and, as we shall presently see, has greatly modified some of
them. But we cannot explain by crossing the origin of such extreme forms as
thoroughbred greyhounds, bloodhounds, bulldogs, Blenheim spaniels,
terriers, pugs, &c., unless we believe that forms equally or more strongly
characterised in these different respects once existed in nature. But
hardly any one has been bold enough to suppose that such unnatural forms
ever did or could exist in a wild state. When compared with all known
members of the family of Canidae they betray a distinct and abnormal origin.
No instance is on record of such dogs as bloodhounds, spaniels, true
greyhounds having been kept by savages: they are the product of
long-continued civilization.

    The number of breeds and sub-breeds of the dog is great: Youatt, for
    instance, describes twelve kinds of greyhounds. I will not attempt to
    enumerate or describe the varieties, for we cannot discriminate how
    much of their difference is due to variation, and how much to descent
    from different aboriginal stocks. But it may be worth while briefly to
    mention some points. Commencing with the skull, Cuvier has admitted[57]
    that in form the differences are "plus fortes que celles d'aucunes
    especes sauvages d'un meme genre naturel." The proportions of the
    different bones; the curvature of the lower jaw, the position of the
    condyles with respect to the plane of the teeth (on which F. Cuvier
    founded his classification), and in mastiffs the shape of its posterior
    branch; the shape of the zygomatic arch, and of the temporal fossae; the
    position of the occiput--all vary considerably.[58] The dog has
    properly six pairs of molar teeth in the upper jaw, and seven in the
    lower; but several naturalists have seen not rarely an additional pair
    in the upper jaw;[59] and Professor Gervais says that there are dogs
    "qui ont sept paires de dents superieures et huit inferieures.". De
    Blainville[60] has given full particulars on the frequency of these
    deviations in the number of the teeth, and has shown that it is not
    always the same tooth which is supernumerary. In short-muzzled races,
    according to H. Mueller,[61] the molar teeth stand obliquely, whilst in
    long-muzzled races they are placed longitudinally, with open spaces
    between them. The naked, so-called Egyptian or Turkish dog is extremely
    deficient in its {35} teeth,[62]--sometimes having none except one
    molar on each side; but this, though characteristic of the breed, must
    be considered as a monstrosity. M. Girard,[63] who seems to have
    attended closely to the subject, says that the period of the appearance
    of the permanent teeth differs in different dogs, being earlier in
    large dogs; thus the mastiff assumes its adult teeth in four or five
    months, whilst in the spaniel the period is sometimes more than seven
    or eight months.

    With respect to minor differences little need be said. Isidore Geoffroy
    has shown[64] that in size some dogs are six times as long (the tail
    being excluded) as others; and that the height relatively to the length
    of the body varies from between one to two, and one to nearly four. In
    the Scotch deer-hound there is a striking and remarkable difference in
    the size of the male and female.[65] Every one knows how the ears vary
    in size in different breeds, and with their great development their
    muscles become atrophied. Certain breeds of dogs are described as
    having a deep furrow between the nostrils and lips. The caudal
    vertebrae, according to F. Cuvier, on whose authority the two last
    statements rest, vary in number; and the tail in shepherd dogs is
    almost absent. The mammae vary from seven to ten in number; Daubenton,
    having examined twenty-one dogs, found eight with five mammae on each
    side; eight with four on each side; and the others with an unequal
    number on the two sides.[66] Dogs have properly five toes in front and
    four behind, but a fifth toe is often added; and F. Cuvier states that,
    when a fifth toe is present, a fourth cuneiform bone is developed; and,
    in this case, sometimes the great cuneiform bone is raised, and gives
    on its inner side a large articular surface to the astragalus; so that
    even the relative connection of the bones, the most constant of all
    characters, varies. These modifications, however, in the feet of dogs
    are not important, because they ought to be ranked, as De Blainville
    has shown,[67] as monstrosities. Nevertheless they are interesting from
    being correlated with the size of the body, for they occur much more
    frequently with mastiffs and other large breeds than with small dogs.
    Closely allied varieties, however, sometimes differ in this respect;
    thus Mr. Hodgson states that the black-and-tan Lassa variety of the
    Thibet mastiff has the fifth digit, whilst the Mustang sub-variety is
    not thus characterised. The extent to which the skin is developed
    between the toes varies much; but we shall return to this point. The
    degree to which the various breeds differ in the perfection of their
    senses, dispositions, and inherited habits is notorious to every one.
    The breeds present some constitutional differences: the pulse, says
    Youatt,[68] "varies materially according to the breed, as well {36} as
    to the size of the animal." Different breeds of dogs are subject in
    different degrees to various diseases. They certainly become adapted to
    different climates under which they have long existed. It is notorious
    that most of our best European breeds deteriorate in India.[69] The
    Rev. R. Everest[70] believes that no one has succeeded in keeping the
    Newfoundland dog long alive in India; so it is, according to
    Lichtenstein,[71] even at the Cape of Good Hope. The Thibet mastiff
    degenerates on the plains of India, and can live only on the
    mountains.[72] Lloyd[73] asserts that our bloodhounds and bulldogs have
    been tried, and cannot withstand the cold of the northern European
    forests.

Seeing in how many characters the races of the dog differ from each other,
and remembering Cuvier's admission that their skulls differ more than do
those of the species of any natural genus, and bearing in mind how closely
the bones of wolves, jackals, foxes, and other Canidae agree, it is
remarkable that we meet with the statement, repeated over and over again,
that the races of the dog differ in no important characters. A highly
competent judge, Prof. Gervais,[74] admits, "si l'on prenait sans controle
les alterations dont chacun de ces organes est susceptible, on pourrait
croire qu'il y a entre les chiens domestiques des differences plus grandes
que celles qui separent ailleurs les especes, quelquefois meme les genres."
Some of the differences above enumerated are in one respect of
comparatively little value, for they are not characteristic of distinct
breeds: no one pretends that such is the case with the additional molar
teeth or with the number of mammae; the additional digit is generally
present with mastiffs, and some of the more important differences in the
skull and lower jaw are more or less characteristic of various breeds. But
we must not forget that the predominant power of selection has not been
applied in any of these cases; we have variability in important parts, but
the differences have not been fixed by selection. Man {37} cares for the
form and fleetness of his greyhounds, for the size of his mastiffs, for the
strength of the jaw in his bulldogs, &c.; but he cares nothing about the
number of their molar teeth or mammae or digits; nor do we know that
differences in these organs are correlated with, or owe their development
to, differences in other parts of the body about which man does care. Those
who have attended to the subject of selection will admit that, nature
having given variability, man, if he so chose, could fix five toes to the
hinder feet of certain breeds of dogs, as certainly as to the feet of his
Dorking-fowls: he could probably fix, but with much more difficulty, an
additional pair of molar teeth in either jaw, in the same way as he has
given additional horns to certain breeds of sheep; if he wished to produce
a toothless breed of dogs, having the so-called Turkish dog with its
imperfect teeth to work on, he could probably do so, for he has succeeded
in making hornless breeds of cattle and sheep.

With respect to the precise causes and steps by which the several races of
dogs have come to differ so greatly from each other, we are, as in most
other cases, profoundly ignorant. We may attribute part of the difference
in external form and constitution to inheritance from distinct wild stocks,
that is to changes effected under nature before domestication. We must
attribute something to the crossing of the several domestic and natural
races. I shall, however, soon recur to the crossing of races. We have
already seen how often savages cross their dogs with wild native species;
and Pennant gives a curious account[75] of the manner in which Fochabers,
in Scotland, was stocked "with a multitude of curs of a most wolfish
aspect" from a single hybrid-wolf brought into that district.

It would appear that climate to a certain extent directly modifies the
forms of dogs. We have lately seen that several of our English breeds
cannot live in India, and it is positively asserted that when bred there
for a few generations they degenerate not only in their mental faculties,
but in form. Captain Williamson,[76] who carefully attended to this
subject, states that "hounds are the most rapid in their decline;"
"greyhounds and {38} pointers, also, rapidly decline." But spaniels, after
eight or nine generations, and without a cross from Europe, are as good as
their ancestors. Dr. Falconer informs me that bulldogs, which have been
known, when first brought into the country, to pin down even an elephant by
its trunk, not only fall off after two of three generations in pluck and
ferocity, but lose the under-hung character of their lower jaws; their
muzzles become finer and their bodies lighter. English dogs imported into
India are so valuable that probably due care has been taken to prevent
their crossing with native dogs; so that the deterioration cannot be thus
accounted for. The Rev. R. Everest informs me that he obtained a pair of
setters, born in India, which perfectly resembled their Scotch parents: he
raised several litters from them in Delhi, taking the most stringent
precautions to prevent a cross, but he never succeeded, though this was
only the second generation in India, in obtaining a single young dog like
its parents in size or make; their nostrils were more contracted, their
noses more pointed, their size inferior, and their limbs more slender. This
remarkable tendency to rapid deterioration in European dogs subjected to
the climate of India, may perhaps partly be accounted for by the tendency
to reversion to a primordial condition which many animals exhibit, as we
shall see in a future chapter, when exposed to new conditions of life.

Some of the peculiarities characteristic of the several breeds of the dog
have probably arisen suddenly, and, though strictly inherited, may be
called monstrosities; for instance, the shape of the legs and body in the
turnspit of Europe and India; the shape of the head and the under-hanging
jaw in the bull and pug-dog, so alike in this one respect and so unlike in
all others. A peculiarity suddenly arising, and therefore in one sense
deserving to be called a monstrosity, may, however, be increased and fixed
by man's selection. We can hardly doubt that long-continued training, as
with the greyhound in coursing hares, as with water-dogs in swimming--and
the want of exercise, in the case of lapdogs--must have produced some
direct effect on their structure and instincts. But we shall immediately
see that the most potent cause of change has probably been the selection,
both methodical and unconscious, of slight individual differences,--the
{39} latter kind of selection resulting from the occasional preservation,
during hundreds of generations, of those individual dogs which were the
most useful to man for certain purposes and under certain conditions of
life. In a future chapter on Selection I shall show that even barbarians
attend closely to the qualities of their dogs. This unconscious selection
by man would lie aided by a kind of natural selection; for the dogs of
savages have partly to gain their own subsistence; for instance, in
Australia, as we hear from Mr. Nind,[77] the dogs are sometimes compelled
by want to leave their masters and provide for themselves; but in a few
days they generally return. And we may infer that dogs of different shapes,
sizes, and habits, would have best chance of surviving under different
circumstances,--on open, sterile plains, where they have to run down their
own prey,--on rocky coasts, where they have to feed on crabs and fish left
in the tidal pools, as in the case of New Guinea and Tierra del Fuego. In
this latter country, as I am informed by Mr. Bridges, the Catechist to the
Mission, the dogs turn over the stones on the shore to catch the
crustaceans which lie beneath, and they "are clever enough to knock off the
shell-fish at a first blow;" for if this be not done, shell-fish are well
known to have an almost invincible power of adhesion.

It has already been remarked that dogs differ in the degree to which their
feet are webbed. In dogs of the Newfoundland breed, which are eminently
aquatic in their habits, the skin, according to Isidore Geoffroy,[78]
extends to the third phalanges, whilst in ordinary dogs it extends only to
the second. In two Newfoundland dogs which I examined, when the toes were
stretched apart and viewed on the under side, the skin extended in a nearly
straight line between the outer margins of the balls of the toes; whereas,
in two terriers of distinct sub-breeds, the skin viewed in the same manner
was deeply scooped out. In Canada there is a dog which is peculiar to the
country and common there, and this has "half-webbed feet and is fond of the
water."[79] English otter-hounds are said to have webbed feet: a friend
examined for me the feet of two, in comparison {40} with the feet of some
harriers and bloodhounds; he found the skin variable in extent in all, but
more developed in the otter than in the other hounds.[80] As aquatic
animals which belong to quite different orders have webbed feet, there can
be no doubt that this structure would be serviceable to dogs that frequent
the water. We may confidently infer that no man ever selected his
water-dogs by the extent to which the skin was developed between their
toes; but what he does, is to preserve and breed from those individuals
which hunt best in the water, or best retrieve wounded game, and thus he
unconsciously selects dogs with feet slightly better webbed. Man thus
closely imitates Natural Selection. We have an excellent illustration of
this same process in North America, where, according to Sir J.
Richardson,[81] all the wolves, foxes, and aboriginal domestic dogs have
their feet broader than in the corresponding species of the Old World, and
"well calculated for running on the snow." Now, in these Arctic regions,
the life or death of every animal will often depend on its success in
hunting over the snow when softened; and this will in part depend on the
feet being broad; yet they must not be so broad as to interfere with the
activity of the animal when the ground is sticky, or with its power of
burrowing holes, or with other habits of life.

As changes in domestic breeds which take place so slowly as not to be
noticed at any one period, whether due to the selection of individual
variations or of differences resulting from crosses, are most important in
understanding the origin of our domestic productions, and likewise in
throwing indirect light on the changes effected under nature, I will give
in detail such cases as I have been able to collect. Lawrence,[82] who paid
particular attention to the history of the foxhound, writing in 1829, says
that between eighty and ninety years before "an entirely new foxhound was
raised through the breeder's art," the ears of the old southern hound being
reduced, the bone and bulk lightened, the waist increased in length, and
the stature {41} somewhat added to. It is believed that this was effected
by a cross with the greyhound. With respect to this latter dog, Youatt,[83]
who is generally cautious in his statements, says that the greyhound within
the last fifty years, that is before the commencement of the present
century, "assumed a somewhat different character from that which he once
possessed. He is now distinguished by a beautiful symmetry of form, of
which he could not once boast, and he has even superior speed to that which
he formerly exhibited. He is no longer used to struggle with deer, but
contends with his fellows over a shorter and speedier course." An able
writer[84] believes that our English greyhounds are the descendants,
_progressively improved_, of the large rough greyhounds which existed in
Scotland so early as the third century. A cross at some former period with
the Italian greyhound has been suspected; but this seems hardly probable,
considering the feebleness of this latter breed. Lord Orford, as is well
known, crossed his famous greyhounds, which failed in courage, with a
bulldog--this breed being-chosen from being deficient in the power of
scent; "after the sixth or seventh generation," says Youatt, "there was not
a vestige left of the form of the bulldog, but his courage and indomitable
perseverance remained."

Youatt infers, from a comparison of an old picture of King Charles's
spaniels with the living dog, that "the breed of the present day is
materially altered for the worse:" the muzzle has become shorter, the
forehead more prominent, and the eyes larger: the changes in this case have
probably been due to simple selection. The setter, as this author remarks
in another place, "is evidently the large spaniel improved to his present
peculiar size and beauty, and taught another way of marking his game. If
the form of the dog were not sufficiently satisfactory on this point, we
might have recourse to history:" he then refers to a document dated 1685
bearing on this subject, and adds that the pure Irish setter shows no signs
of a cross with the pointer, which some authors suspect has been the case
with the English setter. Another writer[85] remarks {42} that, if the
mastiff and English bulldog had formerly been as distinct as they are at
the present time (_i.e._ 1828), so accurate an observer as the poet Gay
(who was the author of 'Rural Sports' in 1711) would have spoken in his
Fable of the _Bull and the Bulldog_, and not of the _Bull and the Mastiff_.
There can be no doubt that the fancy bulldogs of the present day, now that
they are not used for bull-baiting, have become greatly reduced in size,
without any express intention on the part of the breeder. Our pointers are
certainly descended from a Spanish breed, as even their names, Don, Ponto,
Carlos, &c., would show: it is said that they were not known in England
before the Revolution in 1688;[86] but the breed since its introduction has
been much modified, for Mr. Borrow, who is a sportsman and knows Spain
intimately well, informs me that he has not seen in that country any breed
"corresponding in figure with the English pointer; but there are genuine
pointers near Xeres which have been imported by English gentlemen." A
nearly parallel case is offered by the Newfoundland dog, which was
certainly brought into England from that country, but which has since been
so much modified that, as several writers have observed, it does not now
closely resemble any existing native dog in Newfoundland.[87]

These several cases of slow and gradual changes in our English dogs possess
some interest; for though the changes have generally, but not invariably,
been caused by one or two crosses with a distinct breed, yet we may feel
sure, from the well-known extreme variability of crossed breeds, that
rigorous and long-continued selection must have been practised, in order to
improve them in a definite manner. As soon as any strain or family became
slightly improved or better adapted to altered circumstances, it would tend
to supplant the older and less improved strains. For instance, as soon as
the old foxhound was improved by a cross with the greyhound, or by simple
selection, and assumed its present character--and the change was probably
required by {43} the increased fleetness of our hunters--it rapidly spread
throughout the country, and is now everywhere nearly uniform. But the
process of improvement is still going on, for every one tries to improve
his strain by occasionally procuring dogs from the best kennels. Through
this process of gradual substitution the old English hound has been lost;
and so it has been with the old Irish greyhound and apparently with the old
English bulldog. But the extinction of former breeds is apparently aided by
another cause; for whenever a breed is kept in scanty numbers, as at
present with the bloodhound, it is reared with difficulty, and this
apparently is due to the evil effects of long-continued close
interbreeding. As several breeds of the dog have been slightly but sensibly
modified within so short a period as the last one or two centuries, by the
selection of the best individual dogs, modified in many cases by crosses
with other breeds; and as we shall hereafter see that the breeding of dogs
was attended to in ancient times, as it still is by savages, we may
conclude that we have in selection, even if only occasionally practised, a
potent means of modification.

DOMESTIC CATS.

Cats have been domesticated in the East from an ancient period; Mr. Blyth
informs me that they are mentioned in a Sanskrit writing 2000 years old,
and in Egypt their antiquity is known to be even greater, as shown by
monumental drawings and their mummied bodies. These mummies, according to
De Blainville[88] who has particularly studied the subject, belong to no
less than three species, namely, _F. caligulata_, _bubastes_, and _chaus_.
The two former species are said to be still found, both wild and
domesticated, in parts of Egypt. _F. caligulata_ presents a difference in
the first inferior milk molar tooth, as compared with the domestic cats of
Europe, which makes De Blainville conclude that it is not one of the
parent-forms of our cats. Several naturalists, as Pallas, Temminck, Blyth,
believe that domestic cats are the descendants of several species {44}
commingled: it is certain that cats cross readily with various wild
species, and it would appear that the character of the domestic breeds has,
at least in some cases, been thus affected. Sir W. Jardine has no doubt
that, "in the north of Scotland, there has been occasional crossing with
our native species (_F. sylvestris_), and that the result of these crosses
has been kept in our houses. I have seen," he adds, "many cats very closely
resembling the wild cat, and one or two that could scarcely be
distinguished from it." Mr. Blyth[89] remarks on this passage, "but such
cats are never seen in the southern parts of England; still, as compared
with any Indian tame cat, the affinity of the ordinary British cat to _F.
sylvestris_ is manifest; and due I suspect to frequent intermixture at a
time when the tame cat was first introduced into Britain and continued
rare, while the wild species was far more abundant than at present." In
Hungary, Jeitteles[90] was assured on trustworthy authority that a wild
male cat crossed with a female domestic cat, and that the hybrids long
lived in a domesticated state. In Algiers the domestic cat has crossed with
the wild cat (_F. Lybica_) of that country.[91] In South Africa, as Mr. E.
Layard informs me, the domestic cat intermingles freely with the wild _F.
caffra_; he has seen a pair of hybrids which were quite tame and
particularly attached to the lady who brought them up; and Mr. Fry has
found that these hybrids are fertile. In India the domestic cat, according
to Mr. Blyth, has crossed with four Indian species. With respect to one of
these species, _F. chaus_, an excellent observer, Sir W. Elliot, informs me
that he once killed, near Madras, a wild brood, which were evidently
hybrids from the domestic cat; these young animals had a thick lynx-like
tail and the broad brown bar on the inside of the forearm characteristic of
_F. chaus_. Sir W. Elliot adds that he has often observed this same mark on
the forearms of domestic cats in India. Mr. Blyth states that domestic cats
 nearly like _F. chaus_, but not resembling that species in shape,
abound in {45} Bengal; he adds, "such a colouration is utterly unknown in
European cats, and the proper tabby markings (pale streaks on a black
ground, peculiarly and symmetrically disposed), so common in English cats,
are never seen in those of India." Dr. D. Short has assured Mr. Blyth[92]
that at Hansi hybrids between the common cat and _F. ornata_ (or
_torquata_) occur, "and that many of the domestic cats of that part of
India were undistinguishable from the wild _F. ornata_." Azara states, but
only on the authority of the inhabitants, that in Paraguay the cat has
crossed with two native species. From these several cases we see that in
Europe, Asia, Africa, and America, the common cat, which lives a freer life
than most other domesticated animals, has crossed with various wild
species; and that in some instances the crossing has been sufficiently
frequent to affect the character of the breed.

Whether domestic cats have descended from several distinct species, or have
only been modified by occasional crosses, their fertility, as far as is
known, is unimpaired. The large Angora or Persian cat is the most distinct
in structure and habits of all the domestic breeds; and is believed by
Pallas, but on no distinct evidence, to be descended from the _F. manul_ of
middle Asia; but I am assured by Mr. Blyth that this cat breeds freely with
Indian cats, which, as we have already seen, have apparently been much
crossed with _F. chaus_. In England half-bred Angora cats are perfectly
fertile with the common cat; I do not know whether the half-breeds are
fertile one with another; but as they are common in some parts of Europe,
any marked degree of sterility could hardly fail to have been noticed.

Within the same country we do not meet with distinct races of the cat, as
we do of dogs and of most other domestic animals; though the cats of the
same country present a considerable amount of fluctuating variability. The
explanation obviously is that, from their nocturnal and rambling habits,
indiscriminate crossing cannot without much trouble be prevented. Selection
cannot be brought into play to produce distinct breeds, or to keep those
distinct which have been imported from foreign lands. On the other hand, in
islands and {46} in countries completely separated from each other, we meet
with breeds more or less distinct; and these cases are worth giving as
showing that the scarcity of distinct races in the same country is not
caused by a deficiency of variability in the animal. The tail-less cats of
the Isle of Man are said to differ from common cats not only in the want of
a tail, but in the greater length of their hind legs, in the size of their
heads, and in habits. The Creole cat of Antigua, as I am informed by Mr.
Nicholson, is smaller, and has a more elongated head, than the British cat.
In Ceylon, as Mr. Thwaites writes to me, every one at first notices the
different appearance of the native cat from the English animal; it is of
small size, with closely lying hairs; its head is small, with a receding
forehead; but the ears are large and sharp; altogether it has what is there
called a "low-caste" appearance. Rengger[93] says that the domestic cat,
which has been bred for 300 years in Paraguay, presents a striking
difference from the European cat; it is smaller by a fourth, has a more
lanky body, its hair is short, shining, scanty, and lies close, especially
on the tail: he adds that the change has been less at Ascension, the
capital of Paraguay, owing to the continual crossing with newly imported
cats; and this fact well illustrates the importance of separation. The
conditions of life in Paraguay appear not to be highly favourable to the
cat, for, though they have run half-wild, they do not become thoroughly
feral, like so many other European animals. In another part of South
America, according to Roulin,[94] the introduced cat has lost the habit of
uttering its hideous nocturnal howl. The Rev. W. D. Fox purchased a cat in
Portsmouth, which he was told came from the coast of Guinea; its skin was
black and wrinkled, fur bluish-grey and short, its ears rather bare, legs
long, and whole aspect peculiar. This "<DW64>" cat was fertile with common
cats. On the opposite coast of Africa, at Mombas, Captain Owen, R.N.,[95]
states that all the cats are covered with short stiff hair instead of fur:
he gives a curious account of a cat from Algoa Bay, which had been kept for
some time on board and could be identified with certainty; this {47} animal
was left for only eight weeks at Mombas, but during that short period it
"underwent a complete metamorphosis, having parted with its sandy-
fur." A cat from the Cape of Good Hope has been described by Desmarest as
remarkable from a red stripe extending along the whole length of its back.
Throughout an immense area, namely, the Malayan archipelago, Siam, Pegu,
and Burmah, all the cats have truncated tails about half the proper
length,[96] often with a sort of knot at the end. In the Caroline
archipelago the cats have very long legs, and are of a reddish-yellow
colour.[97] In China a breed has drooping ears. At Tobolsk, according to
Gmelin, there is a red- breed. In Asia, also, we find the
well-known Angora or Persian breed.

The domestic cat has run wild in several countries, and everywhere assumes,
as far as can be judged by the short recorded descriptions, a uniform
character. Near Maldonado, in La Plata, I shot one which seemed perfectly
wild; it was carefully examined by Mr. Waterhouse,[98] who found nothing
remarkable in it, excepting its great size. In New Zealand, according to
Dieffenbach, the feral cats assume a streaky grey colour like that of wild
cats; and this is the case with the half-wild cats of the Scotch Highlands.

We have seen that distant countries possess distinct domestic races of the
cat. The differences may be in part due to descent from several aboriginal
species, or at least to crosses with them. In some cases, as in Paraguay,
Mombas, and Antigua, the differences seem due to the direct action of
different conditions of life. In other cases some slight effect may
possibly be attributed to natural selection, as cats in many cases have
largely to support themselves and to escape diverse dangers. But man, owing
to the difficulty of pairing cats, has done nothing by methodical
selection; and probably very little by unintentional selection; though in
each litter he generally saves the prettiest, {48} and values most a good
breed of mouse or rat-catchers. Those cats which have a strong tendency to
prowl after game, generally get destroyed by traps. As cats are so much
petted, a breed bearing the same relation to other cats, that lapdogs bear
to larger dogs, would have been much valued; and if selection could have
been applied, we should certainly have had many breeds in each
long-civilized country, for there is plenty of variability to work upon.

We see in this country considerable diversity in size, some in the
proportions of the body, and extreme variability in colouring. I have only
lately attended to this subject, but have already heard of some singular
cases of variation; one of a cat born in the West Indies toothless, and
remaining so all its life. Mr. Tegetmeier has shown me the skull of a
female cat with its canines so much developed that they protruded uncovered
beyond the lips; the tooth with the fang being .95, and the part projecting
from the gum .6 of an inch in length. I have heard of a family of six-toed
cats. The tail varies greatly in length; I have seen a cat which always
carried its tail flat on its back when pleased. The ears vary in shape, and
certain strains, in England, inherit a pencil-like tuft of hairs, above a
quarter of an inch in length, on the tips of their ears; and this same
peculiarity, according to Mr. Blyth, characterises some cats in India. The
great variability in the length of the tail and the lynx-like tufts of
hairs on the ears are apparently analogous to differences in certain wild
species of the genus. A much more important difference, according to
Daubenton,[99] is that the intestines of domestic cats are wider, and a
third longer, than in wild cats of the same size; and this apparently has
been caused by their less strictly carnivorous diet.

       *       *       *       *       *


{49}

CHAPTER II.

HORSES AND ASSES.

    HORSE.--DIFFERENCES IN THE BREEDS--INDIVIDUAL VARIABILITY OF--DIRECT
    EFFECTS OF THE CONDITIONS OF LIFE--CAN WITHSTAND MUCH COLD--BREEDS MUCH
    MODIFIED BY SELECTION--COLOURS OF THE HORSE--DAPPLING--DARK STRIPES ON
    THE SPINE, LEGS, SHOULDERS, AND FOREHEAD--DUN- HORSES MOST
    FREQUENTLY STRIPED--STRIPES PROBABLY DUE TO REVERSION TO THE PRIMITIVE
    STATE OF THE HORSE.

    ASSES.--BREEDS OF--COLOUR OF--LEG- AND SHOULDER-
    STRIPES--SHOULDER-STRIPES SOMETIMES ABSENT, SOMETIMES FORKED.

The history of the Horse is lost in antiquity. Remains of this animal in a
domesticated condition have been found in the Swiss lake-dwellings,
belonging to the latter part of the Stone period.[100] At the present time
the number of breeds is great, as may be seen by consulting any treatise on
the Horse.[101] Looking only to the native ponies of Great Britain, those
of the Shetland Isles, Wales, the New Forest, and Devonshire are
distinguishable; and so it is with each separate island in the great Malay
archipelago.[102] Some of the breeds present great differences in size,
shape of ears, length of mane, proportions of the body, form of the withers
and hind quarters, and especially in the head. Compare the race-horse,
dray-horse, and a Shetland pony in size, configuration, and disposition;
and see how much greater the difference is than between the six or seven
other living species of the genus Equus.

{50}

Of individual variations not known to characterise particular breeds, and
not great or injurious enough to be called monstrosities, I have not
collected many cases. Mr. G. Brown, of the Cirencester Agricultural
College, who has particularly attended to the dentition of our domestic
animals, writes to me that he has "several times noticed eight permanent
incisors instead of six in the jaw." Male horses alone properly have
canines, but they are occasionally found in the mare, though of small
size.[103] The number of ribs is properly eighteen, but Youatt[104] asserts
that not unfrequently there are nineteen on each side, the additional one
being always the posterior rib. I have seen several notices of variations
in the bones of the leg; thus Mr. Price[105] speaks of an additional bone
in the hock, and of certain abnormal appearances between the tibia and
astragalus, as quite common in Irish horses, and not due to disease. Horses
have often been observed, according to M. Gaudry,[106] to possess a
trapezium and a rudiment of a fifth metacarpal bone, so that "one sees
appearing by monstrosity, in the foot of the horse, structures which
normally exist in the foot of the Hipparion,"--an allied and extinct
animal. In various countries horn-like projections have been observed on
the frontal bones of the horse: in one case described by Mr. Percival they
arose about two inches above the orbital processes, and were "very like
those in a calf from five to six months old," being from half to
three-quarters of an inch in length.[107] Azara has described two cases in
South America in which the projections were between three and four inches
in length: other instances have occurred in Spain.

That there has been much inherited variation in the horse cannot be
doubted, when we reflect on the number of the breeds existing throughout
the world or even within the same country, and when we know that they have
largely increased in number {51} since the earliest known records.[108]
Even in so fleeting a character as colour, Hofacker[109] found that, out of
two hundred and sixteen cases in which horses of the same colour were
paired, only eleven pairs produced foals of a quite different colour. As
Professor Low[110] has remarked, the English race-horse offers the best
possible evidence of inheritance. The pedigree of a race-horse is of more
value in judging of its probable success than its appearance: "King Herod"
gained in prizes 201,505l. sterling, and begot 497 winners; "Eclipse" begot
334 winners.

Whether the whole amount of difference between the various breeds be due to
variation is doubtful. From the fertility of the most distinct breeds[111]
when crossed, naturalists have generally looked at all the breeds as having
descended from a single species. Few will agree with Colonel H. Smith, who
believes that they have descended from no less than five primitive and
differently  stocks.[112] But as several species and varieties of
the horse existed[113] during the later tertiary periods, and as Ruetimeyer
found differences in the size and form of the skull in the earliest known
domesticated horses,[114] we ought not to feel sure that all our breeds
have descended from a single species. As we see that the savages of North
and South America easily reclaim the feral horses, there is no
improbability in savages in various quarters of the world having
domesticated more than one native species or natural race. No aboriginal or
truly wild horse is positively known now to exist; for it is thought by
some authors that the wild horses of the East are escaped domestic
animals.[115] If our domestic breeds have descended from several {52}
species or natural races, these apparently have all become extinct in the
wild state. With our present knowledge, the common view that all have
descended from a single species is, perhaps, the most probable.

With respect to the causes of the modifications which horses have
undergone, the conditions of life seem to produce a considerable direct
effect. Mr. D. Forbes, who has had excellent opportunities of comparing the
horses of Spain with those of South America, informs me that the horses of
Chile, which have lived under nearly the same conditions as their
progenitors in Andalusia, remain unaltered, whilst the Pampas horses and
the Puno ponies are considerably modified. There can be no doubt that
horses become greatly reduced in size and altered in appearance by living
on mountains and islands; and this apparently is due to want of nutritious
or varied food. Every one knows how small and rugged the ponies are on the
Northern islands and on the mountains of Europe. Corsica and Sardinia have
their native ponies; and there were,[116] or still are, on some islands on
the coast of Virginia, ponies like those of the Shetland Islands, which are
believed to have originated through exposure to unfavourable conditions.
The Puno ponies, which inhabit the lofty regions of the Cordillera, are, as
I hear from Mr. D. Forbes, strange little creatures, very unlike their
Spanish progenitors. Further south, in the Falkland Islands, the offspring
of the horses imported in 1764 have already so much deteriorated in
size[117] and strength that they are unfitted for catching wild cattle with
the lasso; so that fresh horses have to be brought for this purpose from La
Plata at a great expense. The reduced size of the horses bred on both
southern and northern islands, and on several mountain-chains, can hardly
have been caused by the cold, as a similar reduction has occurred on the
Virginian and Mediterranean islands. The horse can withstand intense cold,
for wild troops live on the plains of Siberia under lat. 56 deg.,[118] and
aboriginally the horse must {53} have inhabited countries annually covered
with snow, for he long retains the instinct of scraping it away to get at
the herbage beneath. The wild tarpans in the East have this instinct; and,
as I am informed by Admiral Sulivan, this is likewise the case with the
horses which have run wild on the Falkland Islands; now this is the more
remarkable as the progenitors of these horses could not have followed this
instinct during many generations in La Plata: the wild cattle of the
Falklands never scrape away the snow, and perish when the ground is long
covered. In the northern parts of America the horses, descended from those
introduced by the Spanish conquerors of Mexico, have the same habit, as
have the native bisons, but not so the cattle introduced from Europe.[119]

The horse can flourish under intense heat as well as under intense cold,
for he is known to come to the highest perfection, though not attaining a
large size, in Arabia and northern Africa. Much humidity is apparently more
injurious to the horse than heat or cold. In the Falkland Islands, horses
suffer much from the dampness; and this same circumstance may perhaps
partly account for the singular fact that to the eastward of the Bay of
Bengal,[120] over an enormous and humid area, in Ava, Pegu, Siam, the
Malayan archipelago, the Loo Choo Islands, and a large part of China, no
full-sized horse is found. When we advance as far eastward as Japan, the
horse reacquires his full size.[121]

With most of our domesticated animals, some breeds are kept on account of
their curiosity or beauty; but the horse is valued almost solely for its
utility. Hence semi-monstrous breeds are not preserved; and probably all
the existing breeds have been slowly formed either by the direct action of
the conditions of life, or through the selection of individual differences.
No doubt semi-monstrous breeds might have been formed: thus Mr. Waterton
records[122] the case of a mare which produced {54} successively three
foals without tails; so that a tailless race might have been formed like
the tailless races of dogs and cats. A Russian breed of horses is said to
have frizzled hair, and Azara[123] relates that in Paraguay horses are
occasionally born, but are generally destroyed, with hair like that on the
head of a <DW64>; and this peculiarity is transmitted even to half-breeds:
it is a curious case of correlation that such horses have short manes and
tails, and their hoofs are of a peculiar shape like those of a mule.

It is scarcely possible to doubt that the long-continued selection of
qualities serviceable to man has been the chief agent in the formation of
the several breeds of the horse. Look at a dray-horse, and see how well
adapted he is to draw heavy weights, and how unlike in appearance to any
allied wild animal. The English race-horse is known to have proceeded from
the commingled blood of Arabs, Turks, and Barbs; but selection and training
have together made him a very different animal from his parent-stocks. As a
writer in India, who evidently knows the pure Arab well, asks, who now,
"looking at our present breed of race-horses, could have conceived that
they were the result of the union of the Arab horse and African mare?" The
improvement is so marked that in running for the Goodwood Cup "the first
descendants of Arabian, Turkish, and Persian horses, are allowed a discount
of 18 lbs. weight; and when both parents are of these countries a discount
of 36 lbs."[124] It is notorious that the Arabs have long been as careful
about the pedigree of their horses as we are, and this implies great and
continued care in breeding. Seeing what has been done in England by careful
breeding, can we doubt that the Arabs must likewise have produced during
the course of centuries a marked effect on the qualities of their horses?
But we may go much farther back in time, for in the most ancient known
book, the Bible, we hear of studs carefully kept for breeding, {55} and of
horses imported at high prices from various countries.[125] We may
therefore conclude that, whether or not the various existing breeds of the
horse have proceeded from one or more aboriginal stocks, yet that a great
amount of change has resulted from the direct action of the conditions of
life, and probably a still greater amount from the long-continued selection
by man of slight individual differences.

With several domesticated quadrupeds and birds, certain  marks are
either strongly inherited or tend to reappear after having long been lost.
As this subject will hereafter be seen to be of importance, I will give a
full account of the colouring of horses. All English breeds, however unlike
in size and appearance, and several of those in India and the Malay
archipelago, present a similar range and diversity of colour. The English
race-horse, however, is said[126] never to be dun-; but as dun and
cream- horses are considered by the Arabs as worthless, "and fit
only for Jews to ride,"[127] these tints may have been removed by
long-continued selection. Horses of every colour, and of such widely
different kinds as dray-horses, cobs, and ponies, are all occasionally
dappled,[128] in the same manner as is so conspicuous with grey horses.
This fact does not throw any clear light on the colouring of the aboriginal
horse, but is a case of analogous variation, for even asses are sometimes
dappled, and I have seen, in the British Museum, a hybrid from the ass and
zebra dappled on its hinder quarters. By the expression analogous variation
(and it is one that I shall often have occasion to use) I mean a variation
occurring in a species or variety which resembles a normal character in
another and distinct species or variety. Analogous variations may arise, as
will be explained in a future chapter, {56} from two or more forms with a
similar constitution having been exposed to similar conditions,--or from
one of two forms having reacquired through reversion a character inherited
by the other form from their common progenitor,--or from both forms having
reverted to the same ancestral character. We shall immediately see that
horses occasionally exhibit a tendency to become striped over a large part
of their bodies; and as we know that stripes readily pass into spots and
cloudy marks in the varieties of the domestic cat and in several feline
species--even the cubs of the uniformly- lion being spotted with
dark marks on a lighter ground--we may suspect that the dappling of the
horse, which has been noticed by some authors with surprise, is a
modification or vestige of a tendency to become striped.

[Illustration: Fig. 1.--Dun Devonshire Pony, with shoulder, spinal, and leg
stripes.]

    This tendency in the horse to become striped is in several respects an
    interesting feet. Horses of all colours, of the most diverse breeds, in
    various parts of the world, often have a dark stripe extending along
    the spine, from the mane to the tail; but this is so common that I need
    enter into no particulars.[129] Occasionally horses are transversely
    barred on the legs, chiefly on the under side; and more rarely they
    have a distinct stripe on the shoulder, like that on the shoulder of
    the ass, or a broad dark patch representing a stripe. Before entering
    on any details I must premise that {57} the term dun- is vague,
    and includes three groups of colour, viz. that between cream-colour and
    reddish-brown, which graduates into light-bay or light-chesnut--this, I
    believe, is often called fallow-dun; secondly, leaden or slate-colour
    or mouse-dun, which graduates into an ash-colour; and, lastly,
    dark-dun, between brown and black. In England I have examined a rather
    large, lightly-built, fallow-dun Devonshire pony (fig. 1), with a
    conspicuous stripe along the back, with light transverse stripes on the
    under sides of its front legs, and with four parallel stripes on each
    shoulder. Of these four stripes the posterior one was very minute and
    faint; the anterior one, on the other hand, was long and broad, but
    interrupted in the middle, and truncated at its lower extremity, with
    the anterior angle produced into a long tapering point. I mention this
    latter fact because the shoulder-stripe of the ass occasionally
    presents exactly the same appearance. I have had an outline and
    description sent to me of a small, purely-bred, light fallow-dun Welch
    pony, with a spinal stripe, a single transverse stripe on each leg, and
    three shoulder-stripes; the posterior stripe corresponding with that on
    the shoulder of the ass was the longest, whilst the two anterior
    parallel stripes, arising from the mane, decreased in length, in a
    reversed manner as compared with the shoulder-stripes on the
    above-described Devonshire pony. I have seen a bright fallow-dun,
    strong cob, with its front legs transversely barred on the under sides
    in the most conspicuous manner; also a dark-leaden mouse- pony
    with similar leg stripes, but much less conspicuous; also a bright
    fallow-dun colt, fully three-parts thoroughbred, with very plain
    transverse stripes on the legs; also a chesnut-dun cart-horse with a
    conspicuous spinal stripe, with distinct traces of shoulder-stripes,
    but none on the legs; I could add other cases. My son made a sketch for
    me of a large, heavy, Belgian cart-horse, of a fallow-dun, with a
    conspicuous spinal stripe, traces of leg-stripes, and with two parallel
    (three inches apart) stripes about seven or eight inches in length on
    both shoulders. I have seen another rather light cart-horse, of a dirty
    dark cream-colour, with striped legs, and on one shoulder a large
    ill-defined dark cloudy patch, and on the opposite shoulder two
    parallel faint stripes. All the cases yet mentioned are duns of various
    tints; but Mr. W. W. Edwards has seen a nearly thoroughbred chesnut
    horse which had the spinal stripe, and distinct bars on the legs; and I
    have seen two bay carriage-horses with black spinal stripes; one of
    these horses had on each shoulder a light shoulder-stripe, and the
    other had a broad black ill-defined stripe, running obliquely half-way
    down each shoulder; neither had leg-stripes.

    The most interesting case which I have met with occurred in a colt of
    my own breeding. A bay mare (descended from a dark-brown Flemish mare
    by a light grey Turcoman horse) was put to Hercules, a thoroughbred
    dark bay, whose sire (Kingston) and dam were both bays. The colt
    ultimately turned out brown; but when only a fortnight old it was a
    dirty bay, shaded with mouse-grey, and in parts with a yellowish tint:
    it had only a trace of the spinal stripe, with a few obscure transverse
    bars on the legs; but almost the whole body was marked with very narrow
    dark stripes, in most parts so obscure as to be visible only in certain
    lights, like the {58} stripes which may be seen on black kittens. These
    stripes were distinct on the hind-quarters, where they diverged from
    the spine, and pointed a little forwards; many of them as they diverged
    from the spine became a little branched, exactly in the same manner as
    in some zebrine species. The stripes were plainest on the forehead
    between the ears, where they formed a set of pointed arches, one under
    the other, decreasing in size downwards towards the muzzle; exactly
    similar marks may be seen on the forehead of the quagga and Burchell's
    zebra. When this foal was two or three months old all the stripes
    entirely disappeared. I have seen similar marks on the forehead of a
    fully grown, fallow-dun, cob-like horse, having a conspicuous spinal
    stripe, and with its front legs well barred.

    In Norway the colour of the native horse or pony is dun, varying from
    almost cream-colour to dark mouse-dun; and an animal is not considered
    purely bred unless it has the spinal and leg stripes.[130] In one part
    of the country my son estimated that about a third of the ponies had
    striped legs; he counted seven stripes on the fore-legs and two on the
    hind-legs of one pony; only a few of them exhibited traces of
    shoulder-stripes; but I have heard of a cob imported from Norway which
    had the shoulder as well as the other stripes well developed. Colonel
    Ham. Smith[131] alludes to dun-horses with the spinal stripe in the
    Sierras of Spain; and the horses originally derived from Spain, in some
    parts of South America, are now duns. Sir W. Elliot informs me that he
    inspected a herd of 300 South American horses imported into Madras, and
    many of these had transverse stripes on the legs and short
    shoulder-stripes; the most strongly marked individual, of which a
     drawing was sent me, was a mouse-dun, with the
    shoulder-stripes slightly forked.

    In the North-Western parts of India striped horses of more than one
    breed are apparently commoner than in any other part of the world; and
    I have received information respecting them from several officers,
    especially from Colonel Poole, Colonel Curtis, Major Campbell,
    Brigadier St. John, and others. The Kattywar horses are often fifteen
    or sixteen hands in height, and are well but lightly built. They are of
    all colours, but the several kinds of duns prevail; and these are so
    generally striped, that a horse without stripes is not considered pure.
    Colonel Poole believes that all the duns have the spinal stripe, the
    leg-stripes are generally present, and he thinks that about half the
    horses have the shoulder-stripe; this stripe is sometimes double or
    treble on both shoulders. Colonel Poole has often seen stripes on the
    cheeks and sides of the nose. He has seen stripes on the grey and bay
    Kattywars when first foaled, but they soon faded away. I have received
    other accounts of cream-, bay, brown, and grey Kattywar horses
    being striped. Eastward of India, the Shan (north of Burmah) ponies, as
    I am informed by Mr. Blyth, have spinal, leg, and shoulder stripes. Sir
    W. Elliot informs me that he saw two bay Pegu ponies with {59}
    leg-stripes. Burmese and Javanese ponies are frequently dun-,
    and have the three kinds of stripes, "in the same degree as in
    England."[132] Mr. Swinhoe informs me that he examined two light-dun
    ponies of two Chinese breeds, viz. those of Shangai and Amoy; both had
    the spinal stripe, and the latter an indistinct shoulder-stripe.

    We thus see that in all parts of the world breeds of the horse as
    different as possible, when of a dun-colour (including under this term
    a wide range of tint from cream to dusky black), and rarely when of
    bay, grey, and chesnut shades, have the several above-specified
    stripes. Horses which are of a yellow colour with white mane and tail,
    and which are sometimes called duns, I have never seen with
    stripes.[133]

    From reasons which will be apparent in the chapter on Reversion, I have
    endeavoured, but with poor success, to discover whether duns, which are
    so much oftener striped than other  horses, are ever produced
    from the crossing of two horses, neither of which are duns. Most
    persons to whom I have applied believe that one parent must be a dun;
    and it is generally asserted, that, when this is the case, the
    dun-colour and the stripes are strongly inherited.[134] One case has
    fallen under my own observation of a foal from a black mare by a bay
    horse, which when fully grown was a dark fallow-dun and had a narrow
    but plain spinal stripe. Hofacker[135] gives two instances of
    mouse-duns (Mausrapp) being produced from two parents of different
    colours and neither duns.

    I have also endeavoured with little success to find out whether the
    stripes are generally plainer or less plain in the foal than in the
    adult horse. Colonel Poole informs me that, as he believes, "the
    stripes are plainest when the colt is first foaled; they then become
    less and less distinct till after the first coat is shed, when they
    come out as strongly as before; but certainly often fade away as the
    age of the horse increases." Two other accounts confirm this fading of
    the stripes in old horses in India. One writer, on the other hand,
    states that colts are often born without stripes, but that they appear
    as the colt grows older. Three authorities affirm that in Norway the
    stripes are less plain in the foal than in the adult. Perhaps there is
    no fixed rule. In the case described by me of the young foal which was
    narrowly striped over nearly all its body, there was no doubt about the
    the early and complete disappearance of the stripes. Mr. W. W. Edwards
    examined for me twenty-two foals of race-horses, and twelve had the
    spinal stripe more or less plain; this fact, and some other accounts
    which I have received, lead me to believe that the spinal stripe often
    disappears in the English race-horse when old. On the whole I infer
    that the stripes are generally plainest in the foal, and tend to
    disappear in old age.

The stripes are variable in colour, but are always darker than the rest of
the body. They do not by any means always {60} coexist on the different
parts of the body: the legs may be striped without any shoulder-stripe, or
the converse case, which is rarer, may occur; but I have never heard of
either shoulder or leg-stripes without the spinal stripe. The latter is by
far the commonest of all the stripes, as might have been expected, as it
characterises the other seven or eight species of the genus. It is
remarkable that so trifling a character as the shoulder-stripe being double
or triple should occur in such different breeds as Welch and Devonshire
ponies, the Shan pony, heavy cart-horses, light South American horses, and
the lanky Kattywar breed. Colonel Hamilton Smith believes that one of his
five supposed primitive stocks was dun- and striped; and that the
stripes in all the other breeds result from ancient crosses with this one
primitive dun; but it is extremely improbable that different breeds living
in such distant quarters of the world should all have been crossed with any
one aboriginally distinct stock. Nor have we any reason to believe that the
effects of a cross at a very remote period could be propagated for so many
generations as is implied on this view.

With respect to the primitive colour of the horse having been dun, Colonel
Hamilton Smith[136] has collected a large body of evidence showing that
this tint was common in the East as far back as the time of Alexander, and
that the wild horses of Western Asia and Eastern Europe now are, or
recently were, of various shades of dun. It seems that not very long ago a
wild breed of dun- horses with a spinal stripe was preserved in the
royal parks in Prussia. I hear from Hungary that the inhabitants of that
country look at the duns with a spinal stripe as the aboriginal stock, and
so it is in Norway. Dun- ponies are not rare in the mountainous
parts of Devonshire, Wales, and Scotland, where the aboriginal breed would
have had the best chance of being preserved. In South America in the time
of Azara, when the horse had been feral for about 250 years, 90 out of 100
horses were "bai-chatains," and the remaining ten were "zains," and not
more than one in 2000 {61} black. Zain is generally translated as dark
without any white; but as Azara speaks of mules being "zain-clair," I
suspect that zain must have meant dun-. In some parts of the world
feral horses show a strong tendency to become roans.[137]

In the following chapters on the Pigeon we shall see that in pure breeds of
various colours, when a blue bird is occasionally produced, certain black
marks invariably appear on the wings and tail; so again, when variously
 breeds are crossed, blue birds with the same black marks are
frequently produced. We shall further see that these facts are explained
by, and afford strong evidence in favour of, the view that all the breeds
are descended from the rock-pigeon, or _Columba livia_, which is thus
 and marked. But the appearance of the stripes on the various
breeds of the horse, when of a dun-colour, does not afford nearly such good
evidence of their descent from a single primitive stock as in the case of
the pigeon; because no certainly wild horse is known as a standard of
comparison; because the stripes when they do appear are variable in
character; because there is far from sufficient evidence of the appearance
of the stripes from the crossing of distinct breeds; and lastly, because
all the species of the genus Equus have the spinal stripe, and several have
shoulder and leg stripes. Nevertheless the similarity in the most distinct
breeds in their general range of colour, in their dappling, and in the
occasional appearance, especially in duns, of leg-stripes and of double or
triple shoulder-stripes, taken together, indicate the probability of the
descent of all the existing races from a single, dun-, more or less
striped, primitive stock, to which our horses still occasionally revert.

{62}

THE ASS.

Four species of Asses, besides three of zebras, have been described by
naturalists; but there can now be little doubt that our domesticated animal
is descended from one alone, namely, the _Asinus taeniopus_ of
Abyssinia.[138] The ass is sometimes advanced as an instance of an animal
domesticated, as we know by the Old Testament, from an ancient period,
which has varied only in a very slight degree. But this is by no means
strictly true; for in Syria alone there are four breeds;[139] first, a
light and graceful animal, with an agreeable gait, used by ladies;
secondly, an Arab breed reserved exclusively for the saddle; thirdly, a
stouter animal used for ploughing and various purposes; and lastly, the
large Damascus breed, with a peculiarly long body and ears. In this
country, and generally in Central Europe, though the ass is by no means
uniform in appearance, it has not given rise to distinct breeds like those
of the horse. This may probably be accounted for by the animal being kept
chiefly by poor persons, who do not rear large numbers, nor carefully match
and select the young. For, as we shall see in a future chapter, the ass can
with ease be greatly improved in size and strength by careful selection,
combined no doubt with good food; and we may infer that all its other
characters would be equally amenable to selection. The small size of the
ass in England and Northern Europe is apparently due far more to want of
care in breeding than to cold; for in Western India, where the ass is used
as a beast of burden by some of the lower castes, it is not much larger
than a Newfoundland dog, "being generally not more than from twenty to
thirty inches high."[140]

The ass varies greatly in colour; and its legs, especially the fore-legs,
both in England and other countries--for instance, in China--are
occasionally barred transversely more plainly than those of dun-
horses. With the horse the occasional appearance of leg-stripes was
accounted for, through the principle of reversion, by the supposition that
the primitive horse was {63} thus striped; with the ass we may confidently
advance this explanation, for the parent-form, the _A. taeniopus_, is known
to be barred, though only in a slight degree, across the legs. The stripes
are believed to occur most frequently and to be plainest on the legs of the
domestic ass during early youth,[141] as is apparently likewise the case
with the horse. The shoulder-stripe, which is so eminently characteristic
of the species, is nevertheless variable in breadth, length, and manner of
termination. I have measured a shoulder-stripe four times as broad as
another; and some more than twice as long as others. In one light-grey ass
the shoulder-stripe was only six inches in length, and as thin as a piece
of string; and in another animal of the same colour there was only a dusky
shade representing a stripe. I have heard of three white asses, not
albinoes, with no trace of shoulder or spinal stripes;[142] and I have seen
nine other asses with no shoulder-stripe, and some of them had no spinal
stripe. Three of the nine were light-greys, one a dark-grey, another grey
passing into reddish-roan, and the others were brown, two being tinted on
parts of their bodies with a reddish or bay shade. Hence we may conclude
that, if grey and reddish-brown asses had been steadily selected and bred
from, the shoulder-stripe would have been almost as generally and as
completely lost as in the case of the horse.

The shoulder-stripe on the ass is sometimes double, and Mr. Blyth has seen
even three or four parallel stripes.[143] I have observed in ten cases
shoulder-stripes abruptly truncated at the lower end, with the anterior
angle produced into a tapering point, precisely as has been figured in the
dun Devonshire pony. I have seen three cases of the terminal portion
abruptly and angularly bent; and two cases of a distinct though slight
forking. In Syria, Dr. Hooker and his party observed for me no less than
five instances of the shoulder-stripe being plainly forked over the fore
leg. In the common mule it is likewise sometimes forked. When I first
noticed the forking and angular bending of the shoulder-stripe, I had seen
enough of the stripes {64} in the various equine species to feel convinced
that even a character so unimportant as this had a distinct meaning, and
was thus led to attend to the subject. I now find that in the _Asinus
Burchellii_ and _quagga_, the stripe which corresponds with the
shoulder-stripe of the ass, as well as some of the stripes on the neck,
bifurcate, and that some of those near the shoulder have their extremities
angularly bent backwards. The forking and angular bending of the stripes on
the shoulders apparently stand in relation with the changed direction of
the nearly upright stripes on the sides of the body and neck to the
transverse bars on the legs. Finally we see that the presence of shoulder,
leg, and spinal stripes in the horse,--their occasional absence in the
ass,--the occurrence of double and triple shoulder-stripes in both animals,
and the similar manner in which these stripes terminate at their lower
extremities,--are all cases of analogous variation in the horse and ass.
These cases are probably not due to similar conditions acting on similar
constitutions, but to a partial reversion in colour to the common
progenitor of these two species, as well as of the other species of the
genus. We shall hereafter have to return to this subject, and discuss it
more fully.

       *       *       *       *       *


{65}

CHAPTER III.

PIGS--CATTLE--SHEEP--GOATS.

    PIGS BELONG TO TWO DISTINCT TYPES, SUS SCROFA AND
    INDICA--TORF-SCHWEIN--JAPAN PIG--FERTILITY OF CROSSED PIGS--CHANGES IN
    THE SKULL OF THE HIGHLY CULTIVATED RACES--CONVERGENCE OF
    CHARACTER--GESTATION--SOLID-HOOFED SWINE--CURIOUS APPENDAGES TO THE
    JAWS--DECREASE IN SIZE OF THE TUSKS--YOUNG PIGS LONGITUDINALLY
    STRIPED--FERAL PIGS--CROSSED BREEDS.

    CATTLE.--ZEBU A DISTINCT SPECIES--EUROPEAN CATTLE PROBABLY DESCENDED
    FROM THREE WILD FORMS--ALL THE RACES NOW FERTILE TOGETHER--BRITISH PARK
    CATTLE--ON THE COLOUR OF THE ABORIGINAL SPECIES--CONSTITUTIONAL
    DIFFERENCES--SOUTH AFRICAN RACES--SOUTH AMERICAN RACES--NIATA
    CATTLE--ORIGIN OF THE VARIOUS RACES OF CATTLE.

    SHEEP.--REMARKABLE RACES OF--VARIATIONS ATTACHED TO THE MALE
    SEX--ADAPTATIONS TO VARIOUS CONDITIONS--GESTATION OF--CHANGES IN THE
    WOOL--SEMI-MONSTROUS BREEDS.

    GOATS.--REMARKABLE VARIATIONS OF.

The breeds of the pig have recently been more closely studied, though much
still remains to be done, than those of almost any other domesticated
animal. This has been effected by Hermann von Nathusius in two admirable
works, especially in the later one on the Skulls of the several races, and
by Ruetimeyer in his celebrated Fauna of the ancient Swiss
lake-dwellings.[144] Nathusius has shown that all the known breeds may be
divided in two great groups: one resembling in all important respects and
no doubt descended from the common wild boar; so that this may be called
the _Sus scrofa_ group. The other group differs in several important and
constant osteological characters; its wild parent-form is unknown; the name
given to it by Nathusius, according to the law of priority, is _Sus Indica_
of Pallas. This name must now be followed, though an unfortunate one, as
the wild aboriginal does not inhabit India, and the best-known domesticated
breeds have been imported from Siam and China.

{66}

Firstly, the _Sus scrofa_ breeds, or those resembling the common wild boar.
These still exist, according to Nathusius (Schweineschaedel, s. 75), in
various parts of central and northern Europe; formerly every kingdom,[145]
and almost every province in Britain, possessed its own native breed; but
these are now everywhere rapidly disappearing, being replaced by improved
breeds crossed with the _S. Indica_ form. The skull in the breeds of the
_S. scrofa_ type resembles, in all important respects, that of the European
wild boar; but it has become (Schweineschaedel, s. 63-68) higher and broader
relatively to its length; and the hinder part is more upright. The
differences, however, are all variable in degree. The breeds which thus
resemble _S. scrofa_ in their essential skull-characters differ
conspicuously from each other in other respects, as in the length of the
ears and legs, curvature of the ribs, colour, hairiness, size and
proportions of the body.

The wild _Sus scrofa_ has a wide range, namely, Europe, North Africa, as
identified by osteological characters by Ruetimeyer, and Hindostan, as
similarly identified by Nathusius. But the wild boars inhabiting these
several countries differ so much from each other in external characters,
that they have been ranked by some naturalists as specifically distinct.
Even within Hindostan these animals, according to Mr. Blyth, form very
distinct races in the different districts; in the N. Western provinces, as
I am informed by the Rev. R. Everest, the boar never exceeds 36 inches in
height, whilst in Bengal one has been measured 44 inches in height. In
Europe, Northern Africa, and Hindostan, domestic pigs have been known to
cross with the wild native species;[146] and in Hindostan an accurate
observer,[147] Sir Walter Elliot, after describing the differences between
wild Indian and wild German boars, remarks that "the same differences are
perceptible in the domesticated {67} individuals of the two countries." We
may therefore conclude that the breeds of the _Sus scrofa_ type have either
descended from, or been modified by crossing with, forms which may be
ranked as geographical races, but which are, according to some naturalists,
distinct species.

Pigs of the _Sus Indica_ type are best known to Englishmen under the form
of the Chinese breed. The skull of _S. Indica_, as described by Nathusius,
differs from that of _S. scrofa_ in several minor respects, as in its
greater breadth and in some details in the teeth; but chiefly in the
shortness of the lachrymal bones, in the greater width of the fore part of
the palate-bones, and in the divergence of the premolar teeth. It deserves
especial notice that these latter characters are not gained, even in the
least degree, by the domesticated forms of _S. scrofa_. After reading the
remarks and descriptions given by Nathusius, it seems to me to be merely
playing with words to doubt whether _S. Indica_ ought to be ranked as a
species; for the above-specified differences are more strongly marked than
any that can be pointed out between, for instance, the fox and the wolf, or
the ass and the horse. As already stated, _S. Indica_ is not known in a
wild state; but its domesticated forms, according to Nathusius, come near
to _S. vittatus_ of Java and some allied species. A pig found wild in the
Aru islands (Schweineschaedel, s. 169) is apparently identical with _S.
Indica_; but it is doubtful whether this is a truly native animal. The
domesticated breeds of China, Cochin-China, and Siam belong to this type.
The Roman or Neapolitan breed, the Andalusian, the Hungarian, and the
"Krause" swine of Nathusius, inhabiting south-eastern Europe and Turkey,
and having fine curly hair, and the small Swiss "Buendtnerschwein" of
Ruetimeyer, all agree in their more important skull characters with _S.
Indica_, and, as is supposed, have all been largely crossed with this form.
Pigs of this type have existed during a long period on the shores of the
Mediterranean, for a figure (Schweineschaedel, s. 142) closely resembling
the existing Neapolitan pig has been found in the buried city of
Herculaneum.

Ruetimeyer has made the remarkable discovery that there lived
contemporaneously in Switzerland, during the later Stone or Neolithic
period, two domesticated forms, the _S. scrofa_, and {68} the _S. scrofa
palustris_ or Torfschwein. Ruetimeyer perceived that the latter approached
the Eastern breeds, and, according to Nathusius, it certainly belongs to
the _S. Indica_ group; but Ruetimeyer has subsequently shown that it differs
in some well-marked characters. This author was formerly convinced that his
Torfschwein existed as a wild animal during the first part of the Stone
period, and was domesticated during a later part of the same period.[148]
Nathusius, whilst he fully admits the curious fact first observed by
Ruetimeyer, that the bones of domesticated and wild animals can be
distinguished by their different aspect, yet, from special difficulties in
the case of the bones of the pig (Schweineschaedel, s. 147), is not
convinced of the truth of this conclusion; and Ruetimeyer himself seems now
to feel some doubt. As the Torfschwein was domesticated at so early a
period, and as its remains have been found in several parts of Europe,
belonging to various historic and prehistoric ages,[149] and as closely
allied forms still exist in Hungary and on the shores of the Mediterranean,
one is led to suspect that the wild _S. Indica_ formerly ranged from Europe
to China, in the same manner as _S. scrofa_ now ranges from Europe to
Hindostan. Or, as Ruetimeyer apparently suspects, a third allied species may
formerly have lived in Europe and Eastern Asia.

Several breeds, differing in the proportions of the body, in the length of
the ears, in the nature of the hair, in colour, &c., come under the _S.
Indica_ type. Nor is this surprising, considering how ancient the
domestication of this form has been both in Europe and in China. In this
latter country the date is believed by an eminent Chinese scholar[150] to
go back at least 4900 years from the present time. This same scholar
alludes to the existence of many local varieties of the pig in China; and
at the present time the Chinese take extraordinary pains in feeding and
tending their pigs, not even allowing them to walk from place to
place.[151] Hence the Chinese breed, as Nathusius has remarked,[152]
displays in an eminent degree the characters of a highly-cultivated race,
and hence, no doubt, its {69} high value in the improvement of our European
breeds. Nathusius makes a remarkable statement (Schweineschaedel, s. 138),
that the infusion of the 1/32nd, or even of the 1/64th, part of the blood
of _S. Indica_ into a breed of _S. scrofa_, is sufficient plainly to modify
the skull of the latter species. This singular fact may perhaps be
accounted for by several of the chief distinctive characters of _S.
Indica_, such as the shortness of the lachrymal bones, &c., being common to
several of the species of the genus; for in crosses the characters which
are common to many species apparently tend to be prepotent over those
appertaining to only a few species.

The Japan pig (_S. pliciceps_ of Gray), which has been recently exhibited
in the Zoological Gardens, has an extraordinary appearance from its short
head, broad forehead and nose, great fleshy ears, and deeply furrowed skin.
The following woodcut is copied from that given by Mr. Bartlett.[153] Not
only {70} is the face furrowed, but thick folds of skin, which are harder
than the other parts, almost like the plates on the Indian rhinoceros, hang
about the shoulders and rump. It is  black, with white feet, and
breeds true. That it has long been domesticated there can be little doubt;
and this might have been inferred even from the fact that its young are not
longitudinally striped; for this is a character common to all the species
included within the genus _Sus_ and the allied genera whilst in their
natural state.[154] Dr. Gray[155] has described the skull of this animal,
which he ranks not only as a distinct species, but places it in a distinct
section of the genus. Nathusius, however, after his careful study of the
whole group, states positively (Schweineschaedel, s. 153-158) that the skull
in all essential characters closely resembles that of the short-eared
Chinese breed of the _S. Indica_ type. Hence Nathusius considers the Japan
pig as only a domesticated variety of _S. Indica_: if this really be the
case, it is a wonderful instance of the amount of modification which can be
effected under domestication.

[Illustration: Fig. 2.--Head of Japan or Masked Pig. (Copied from Mr.
Bartlett's paper in Proc. Zoolog. Soc. 1861, p. 263.)]

Formerly there existed in the central islands of the Pacific Ocean a
singular breed of pigs. These are described by the Rev. D. Tyerman and G.
Bennett[156] as of small size, hump-backed, with a disproportionately long
head, with short ears turned backwards, with a bushy tail not more than two
inches in length, placed as if it grew from the back. Within half a century
after the introduction into these islands of European and Chinese pigs, the
native breed, according to the above authors, became almost completely lost
by being repeatedly crossed with them. Secluded islands, as might have been
expected, seem favourable for the production or retention of peculiar
breeds; thus, in the Orkney Islands, the hogs have been described as very
small, with erect and sharp ears, and "with an appearance altogether
different from the hogs brought from the south."[157]

Seeing how different the Chinese pigs, belonging to the _Sus Indica_ type,
are in their osteological characters and in external {71} appearance from
the pigs of the _S. scrofa_ type, so that they must be considered
specifically distinct, it is a fact well deserving attention, that Chinese
and common pigs have been repeatedly crossed in various manners, with
unimpaired fertility. One great breeder who had used pure Chinese pigs
assured me that the fertility of the half-breeds _inter se_ and of their
recrossed progeny was actually increased; and this is the general belief of
agriculturists. Again, the Japan pig or _S. pliciceps_ of Gray is so
distinct in appearance from all common pigs, that it stretches one's belief
to the utmost to admit that it is simply a domestic variety; yet this breed
has been found perfectly fertile with the Berkshire breed; and Mr. Eyton
informs me that he paired a half-bred brother and sister and found them
quite fertile together.

The modifications of the skull in the most highly cultivated races are
wonderful. To appreciate the amount of change, Nathusius' work, with its
excellent figures, should be studied. The whole of the exterior of the
skull in all its parts has been altered; the hinder surface, instead of
sloping backwards, is directed forwards, entailing many changes in other
parts; the front of the head is deeply concave; the orbits have a different
shape; the auditory meatus has a different direction and shape; the
incisors of the upper and lower jaws do not touch each other, and they
stand in both jaws above the plane of the molars; the canines of the upper
jaw stand in front of those of the lower jaw, and this is a remarkable
anomaly: the articular surfaces of the occipital condyles are so greatly
changed in shape, that, as Nathusius remarks (s. 133), no naturalist,
seeing this important part of the skull by itself, would suppose that it
belonged to the genus Sus. These and various other modifications, as
Nathusius observes, can hardly be considered as monstrosities, for they are
not injurious, and are strictly inherited. The whole head is much
shortened; thus, whilst in common breeds its length to that of the body is
as 1 to 6, in the "cultur-races" the proportion is as 1 to 9, and even
recently as 1 to 11.[158] The following woodcut[159] {72} of the head of a
wild boar and of a sow from a photograph of the Yorkshire Large Breed, may
aid in showing how greatly the head in a highly cultivated race has been
modified and shortened.

[Illustration: Fig. 3.--Head of Wild Boar, and of "Golden Days," a pig of
the Yorkshire Large Breed; the latter from a photograph. (Copied from
Sidney's edit. of 'The Pig,' by Youatt.)]

Nathusius has well discussed the causes of the remarkable changes in the
skull and shape of the body which the highly cultivated races have
undergone. These modifications occur chiefly in the pure and crossed races
of the _S. Indica_ type; but their commencement may be clearly detected in
the slightly improved breeds of the _S. scrofa_ type.[160] Nathusius states
positively (s. 99, 103), as the result of common experience and of his
experiments, that rich and abundant food, given during youth, tends by some
direct action to make the head broader and shorter; and that poor food
works a contrary result. He lays much stress on the fact that all wild and
semi-domesticated pigs, in ploughing up the ground with their muzzles,
have; whilst young, to exert the powerful muscles fixed to the hinder part
of the head. In highly cultivated races this habit is no longer followed,
and consequently the back of the skull becomes modified in shape, entailing
other changes in other parts. There can hardly be a doubt that so great a
change in habits would {73} affect the skull; but it seems rather doubtful
how far this will account for the greatly reduced length of the skull and
for its concave front. It is well known (Nathusius himself advancing many
cases, s. 104) that there is a strong tendency in many domestic animals--in
bull- and pug-dogs, in the niata cattle, in sheep, in Polish fowls,
short-faced tumbler pigeons, and in one variety of the carp--for the bones
of the face to become greatly shortened. In the case of the dog, as H.
Mueller has shown, this seems caused by an abnormal state of the primordial
cartilage. We may, however, readily admit that abundant and rich food
supplied during many generations would give an inherited tendency to
increased size of body, and that, from disuse, the limbs would become finer
and shorter.[161] We shall in a future chapter also see that the skull and
limbs are apparently in some manner correlated, so that any change in the
one tends to affect the other.

Nathusius has remarked, and the observation is an interesting one, that the
peculiar form of the skull and body in the most highly cultivated races is
not characteristic of any one race, but is common to all when improved up
to the same standard. Thus the large-bodied, long-eared, English breeds
with a convex back, and the small-bodied, short-eared, Chinese breeds with
a concave back, when bred to the same state of perfection, nearly resemble
each other in the form of the head and body. This result, it appears, is
partly due to similar causes of change acting on the several races, and
partly to man breeding the pig for one sole purpose, namely, for the
greatest amount of flesh and fat; so that selection has always tended
towards one and the same end. With most domestic animals the result of
selection has been divergence of character, here it has been
convergence.[162]

The nature of the food supplied during many generations has apparently
affected the length of the intestines; for, according to Cuvier,[163] their
length to that of the body in the wild boar is as 9 to 1,--in the common
domestic boar as 13.5 to 1,--and in the Siam breed as 16 to 1. In this
latter breed the greater {74} length may be due either to descent from a
distinct species or to more ancient domestication. The number of mammae
vary, as does the period of gestation. The latest authority says[164] that
"the period averages from 17 to 20 weeks," but I think there must be some
error in this statement: in M. Tessier's observations on 25 sows it varied
from 109 to 123 days. The Rev. W. D. Fox has given me ten carefully
recorded cases with well-bred pigs, in which the period varied from 101 to
116 days. According to Nathusius the period is shortest in the races which
come early to maturity; but in these latter the course of development does
not appear to be actually shortened, for the young animal is born, judging
from the state of the skull, less fully developed, or in a more embryonic
condition,[165] than in the case of common swine, which arrive at maturity
at a later age. In the highly cultivated and early matured races, the
teeth, also, are developed earlier.

The difference in the number of the vertebrae and ribs in different kinds of
pigs, as observed by Mr. Eyton,[166] and as given in the following table,
has often been quoted. The African sow probably belongs to the _S. scrofa_
type; and Mr. Eyton informs me that, since the publication of his paper,
cross-bred animals from the African and English races were found by Lord
Hill to be perfectly fertile.

  ----------------+--------+---------+---------+-------------+-----------
                  | English|         |         |             | French
                  |  Long- |         |         |             | Domestic
                  | legged | African | Chinese | Wild Boar,  | Boar, from
                  |  Male. | Female. | Male.   | from Cuvier.| Cuvier.
  ----------------+--------+---------+---------+-------------+-----------
  Dorsal          |        |         |         |             |
  vertebrae        |  15    |    13   |   15    |     14      |    14
                  |        |         |         |             |
  Lumbar          |   6    |     6   |    4    |      5      |     5
                  +--------+---------+---------+-------------+-----------
  Dorsal and      |        |         |         |             |
  lumbar together |  21    |    19   |   19    |     19      |    19
                  |        |         |         |             |
  Sacral          |   5    |     5   |    4    |      4      |     4
                  +--------+---------+---------+-------------+-----------
  Total number    |        |         |         |             |
  of vertebrae     |  26    |    24   |   23    |     23      |    23
  ----------------+--------+---------+---------+-------------+-----------

{75}

Some semi-monstrous breeds deserve notice. From the time of Aristotle to
the present time solid-hoofed swine have occasionally been observed in
various parts of the world. Although this peculiarity is strongly
inherited, it is hardly probable that all the animals with solid hoofs have
descended from the same parents; it is more probable that the same
peculiarity has reappeared at various times and places. Dr. Struthers has
lately described and figured[167] the structure of the feet; in both front
and hind feet the distal phalanges of the two greater toes are represented
by a single, great, hoof-bearing phalanx; and in the front feet, the middle
phalanges are represented by a bone which is single towards the lower end,
but bears two separate articulations towards the upper end. From other
accounts it appears that an intermediate toe is likewise sometimes
superadded.

[Illustration: Fig. 4.--Old Irish Pig, with jaw-appendages. (Copied from H.
D. Richardson on Pigs.)]

Another curious anomaly is offered by the appendages, described by M.
Eudes-Deslongchamps as often characterizing the Normandy pigs. These
appendages are always attached to the same spot, to the corners of the jaw;
they are cylindrical, about three inches in length, covered with bristles,
and with a pencil of bristles rising out of a sinus on one side: they have
a cartilaginous centre, with two small longitudinal muscles; they occur
either symmetrically on both sides of the face or on one {76} side alone.
Richardson figures them on the gaunt old "Irish Greyhound pig;" and
Nathusius states that they occasionally appear in all the long-eared races,
but are not strictly inherited, for they occur or fail in animals of the
same litter.[168] As no wild pigs are known to have analogous appendages,
we have at present no reason to suppose that their appearance is due to
reversion; and if this be so, we are forced to admit that somewhat complex,
though apparently useless, structures may be suddenly developed without the
aid of selection. This case perhaps throws some little light on the manner
of appearance of the hideous fleshy protuberances, though of an essentially
different nature from the above-described appendages, on the cheeks of the
wart-hog or Phacochoerus Africanus.

It is a remarkable fact that the boars of all domesticated breeds have much
shorter tusks than wild boars. Many facts show that with all animals the
state of the hair is much affected by exposure to, or protection from,
climate; and as we see that the state of the hair and teeth are correlated
in Turkish dogs (other analogous facts will be hereafter given), may we not
venture to surmise that the reduction of the tusks in the domestic boar is
related to his coat of bristles being diminished from living under shelter?
On the other hand, as we shall immediately see, the tusks and bristles
reappear with feral boars, which are no longer protected from the weather.
It is not surprising that the tusks should be more affected than the other
teeth; as parts developed to serve as secondary sexual characters are
always liable to much variation.

It is a well-known fact that the young of wild European and Indian
pigs,[169] for the first six months, are longitudinally banded with
light- stripes. This character generally disappears under
domestication. The Turkish domestic pigs, however, have striped young, as
have those of Westphalia, "whatever may be their hue;"[170] whether these
latter pigs belong to the {77} same curly-haired race with the Turkish
swine, I do not know. The pigs which have run wild in Jamaica and the
semi-feral pigs of New Granada, both those which are black and those which
are black with a white band across the stomach, often extending over the
back, have resumed this aboriginal character and produce
longitudinally-striped young. This is likewise the case, at least
occasionally, with the neglected pigs in the Zambesi settlement on the
coast of Africa.[171]

The common belief that all domesticated animals, when they run wild, revert
completely to the character of their parent-stock, is chiefly founded, as
far as I can discover, on feral pigs. But even in this case the belief is
not grounded on sufficient evidence; for the two main types of _S. scrofa_
and _Indica_ have never been distinguished in a feral state. The young, as
we have just seen, reacquire their longitudinal stripes, and the boars
invariably reassume their tusks. They revert also in the general shape of
their bodies, and in the length of their legs and muzzles, to the state of
the wild animal, as might have been expected from the amount of exercise
which they are compelled to take in search of food. In Jamaica the feral
pigs do not acquire the full size of the European wild boar, "never
attaining a greater height than 20 inches at the shoulder." In various
countries they reassume their original bristly covering, but in different
{78} degrees, dependent on the climate; thus, according to Roulin, the
semi-feral pigs in the hot valleys of New Granada are very scantily
clothed; whereas, on the Paramos, at the height of 7000 to 8000 feet, they
acquire a thick covering of wool lying under the bristles, like that on the
truly wild pigs of France. These pigs on the Paramos are small and stunted.
The wild boar of India is said to have the bristles at the end of its tail
arranged like the plumes of an arrow, whilst the European boar has a simple
tuft; and it is a curious fact that many, but not all, of the feral pigs in
Jamaica, derived from a Spanish stock, have a plumed tail.[172] With
respect to colour, feral pigs generally revert to that of the wild boar;
but in certain parts of S. America, as we have seen, some of the semi-feral
pigs have a curious white band across their stomachs; and in certain other
hot places the pigs are red, and this colour has likewise occasionally been
observed in the feral pigs of Jamaica. From these several facts we see that
with pigs when feral there is a strong tendency to revert to the wild type;
but that this tendency is largely governed by the nature of the climate,
amount of exercise, and other causes of change to which they have been
subjected.

The last point worth notice is that we have unusually good evidence of
breeds of pigs now keeping perfectly true, which have been formed by the
crossing of several distinct breeds. The Improved Essex pigs, for instance,
breed very true; but there is no doubt that they largely owe their present
excellent qualities to crosses originally made by Lord Western with the
Neapolitan race, and to subsequent crosses with the Berkshire breed (this
also having been improved by Neapolitan crosses), and likewise, probably,
with the Sussex breed.[173] In breeds thus formed by complex crosses, the
most careful and unremitting selection during many generations has been
found to be indispensable. Chiefly in consequence of so much crossing, some
well-known breeds have undergone rapid changes; thus, according to
Nathusius,[174] the Berkshire breed of 1780 is quite {79} different from
that of 1810; and, since this latter period, at least two distinct forms
have borne the same name.

CATTLE.

Domestic cattle are almost certainly the descendants of more than one wild
form, in the same manner as has been shown to be the case with our dogs and
pigs. Naturalists have generally made two main divisions of cattle: the
humped kinds inhabiting tropical countries, called in India Zebus, to which
the specific name of _Bos Indicus_ has been given; and the common
non-humped cattle, generally included under the name of _Bos taurus._ The
humped cattle were domesticated, as may be seen on the Egyptian monuments,
at least as early as the twelfth dynasty, that is 2100 B.C. They differ
from common cattle in various osteological characters, even in a greater
degree, according to Ruetimeyer,[175] than do the fossil species of Europe,
namely _Bos primigenius, longifrons_, and _frontosus_, from each other.
They differ, also, as Mr. Blyth,[176] who has particularly attended to this
subject, remarks, in general configuration, in the shape of their ears, in
the point where the dewlap commences, in the typical curvature of their
horns, in their manner of carrying their heads when at rest, in their
ordinary variations of colour, especially in the frequent presence of
"nilgau-like markings on their feet," and "in the one being born with teeth
protruding through the jaws, and the other not so." They have different
habits, and their voice is entirely different. The humped cattle in India
"seldom seek shade, and never go into the water and there stand knee-deep,
like the cattle of Europe." They have run wild in parts of Oude and
Rohilcund, and can maintain themselves in a region infested by tigers. They
have given rise to many races differing greatly in size, in the presence
{80} of one or two humps, in length of horns, and other respects. Mr. Blyth
sums up emphatically that the humped and humpless cattle must be considered
as distinct species. When we consider the number of points in external
structure and habits, independently of their important osteological
differences, in which they differ from each other; and that many of these
points are not likely to have been affected by domestication, there can
hardly be a doubt, notwithstanding the adverse opinion of some naturalists,
that the humped and non-humped cattle must be ranked as specifically
distinct.

The European breeds of humpless cattle are numerous. Professor Low
enumerates 19 British breeds, only a few of which are identical with those
on the Continent. Even the small Channel islands of Guernsey, Jersey, and
Alderney, possess their own sub-breeds;[177] and these again differ from
the cattle of the other British islands, such as Anglesea, and the western
isles of Scotland. Desmarest, who paid attention to the subject, describes
15 French races, excluding sub-varieties and those imported from other
countries. In other parts of Europe there are several distinct races, such
as the pale- Hungarian cattle, with their light and free step, and
their enormous horns sometimes measuring above five feet from tip to
tip:[178] the Podolian cattle are remarkable from the height of their
fore-quarters. In the most recent work on Cattle,[179] engravings are given
of fifty-five European breeds; it is, however, probable that several of
these differ very little from each other, or are merely synonyms. It must
not be supposed that numerous breeds of cattle exist only in long-civilized
countries, for we shall presently see that several kinds are kept by the
savages of Southern Africa.

    With respect to the parentage of the several European breeds, we
    already know much from Nilsson's Memoir,[180] and more especially from
    Ruetimeyer's 'Pfahlbauten' and succeeding works. Two or three species or
    forms of {81} Bos, closely allied to still living domestic races, have
    been found fossil in the more recent tertiary deposits of Europe.
    Following Ruetimeyer, we have:--

    _Bos primigenius._--This magnificent, well-known species was
    domesticated in Switzerland during the Neolithic period; even at this
    early period it varied a little, having apparently been crossed with
    other races. Some of the larger races on the Continent, as the
    Friesland, &c., and the Pembroke race in England, closely resemble in
    essential structure _B. primigenius_, and no doubt are its descendants.
    This is likewise the opinion of Nilsson. _Bos primigenius_ existed as a
    wild animal in Caesar's time, and is now semi-wild, though much
    degenerated in size, in the park of Chillingham; for I am informed by
    Professor Ruetimeyer, to whom Lord Tankerville sent a skull, that the
    Chillingham cattle are less altered from the true primigenius type than
    any other known breed.[181]

    _Bos trochoceros._--This form is not included in the three species
    above mentioned, for it is now considered by Ruetimeyer to be the female
    of an early domesticated form of _B. primigenius_, and as the
    progenitor of his _frontosus_ race. I may add that specific names have
    been given to four other fossil oxen, now believed to be identical with
    _B. primigenius_.[182]

    _Bos longifrons_ (or _brachyceros_) of Owen.--This very distinct
    species was of small size, and had a short body with fine legs. It has
    been found in England associated with the remains of the elephant and
    rhinoceros.[183] It was the commonest form in a domesticated condition
    in Switzerland during the earliest part of the Neolithic period. It was
    domesticated in England during the Roman period, and supplied food to
    the Roman legionaries.[184] Some remains have been found in Ireland in
    certain crannoges, of which the dates are believed to be from 843-933
    A.D.[185] Professor Owen[186] thinks it probable that the Welsh and
    Highland cattle are descended from this form; as likewise is the case,
    according to Ruetimeyer, with some of the existing Swiss breeds. These
    latter are of different shades of colour from light-grey to
    blackish-brown, with a lighter stripe along the spine, but they have no
    pure white marks. The cattle of North Wales and the Highlands, on the
    other hand, are generally black or dark-.

    _Bos frontosus_ of Nilsson.--This species is allied to _B. longifrons_,
    but in the opinion of some good judges is distinct from it. Both
    co-existed in Scania during the same late geological period,[187] and
    both have been found in the Irish crannoges.[188] Nilsson believes that
    his _B. frontosus_ may be the {82} parent of the mountain cattle of
    Norway, which have a high protuberance on the skull between the base of
    the horns. As Professor Owen believes that the Scotch Highland cattle
    are descended from his _B. longifrons_, it is worth notice that a
    capable judge[189] has remarked that he saw no cattle in Norway like
    the Highland breed, but that they more nearly resembled the Devonshire
    breed.

Hence we see that three forms or species of Bos, originally inhabitants of
Europe, have been domesticated; but there is no improbability in this fact,
for the genus Bos readily yields to domestication. Besides these three
species and the zebu, the yak, the gayal, and the arni[190] (not to mention
the buffalo or genus Bubalus) have been domesticated; making altogether
seven species of Bos. The zebu and the three European species are now
extinct in a wild state, for the cattle of the _B. primigenius_ type in the
British parks can hardly be considered as truly wild. Although certain
races of cattle, domesticated at a very ancient period in Europe, are the
descendants of the three above-named fossil species, yet it does not follow
that they were here first domesticated. Those who place much reliance on
philology argue that our cattle were imported from the East.[191] But as
races of men invading any country would probably give their own names to
the breeds of cattle which they might there find domesticated, the argument
seems inconclusive. There is indirect evidence that our cattle are the
descendants of species which originally inhabited a temperate or cold
climate, but not a land long covered with snow; for our cattle, as we have
seen in the chapter on Horses, apparently have not the instinct of scraping
away the snow to get at the herbage beneath. No one could behold the
magnificent wild bulls on the bleak Falkland Islands in the southern
hemisphere, and doubt about the climate being admirably suited to them.
Azara has remarked that in the temperate regions of La Plata the cows
conceive when two years old, whilst in the much hotter country of Paraguay
they do not conceive till three years old; "from which fact," as he adds,
"one may conclude that cattle do not succeed so well in warm
countries."[192]

The above-named three fossil forms of Bos have been ranked {83} by nearly
all palaeontologists as distinct species; and it would not be reasonable to
change their denomination simply because they are now found to be the
parents of several domesticated races. But what is of most importance for
us, as showing that they deserve to be ranked as species, is that they
co-existed in different parts of Europe during the same period, and yet
kept distinct. Their domesticated descendants, on the other hand, if not
separated, cross with the utmost freedom and become commingled. The several
European breeds have so often been crossed, both intentionally and
unintentionally, that, if any sterility ensued from such unions, it would
certainly have been detected. As zebus inhabit a distant and much hotter
region, and as they differ in so many characters from our European cattle,
I have taken pains to ascertain whether the two forms are fertile when
crossed. The late Lord Powis imported some zebus and crossed them with
common cattle in Shropshire; and I was assured by his steward that the
cross-bred animals were perfectly fertile with both parent-stocks. Mr.
Blyth informs me that in India hybrids, with various proportions of either
blood, are quite fertile; and this can hardly fail to be known, for in some
districts[193] the two species are allowed to breed freely together. Most
of the cattle which were first introduced into Tasmania were humped, so
that at one time thousands of crossed animals existed there; and Mr. B.
O'Neile Wilson, M.A., writes to me from Tasmania that he has never heard of
any sterility having been observed. He himself formerly possessed a herd of
such crossed cattle, and all were perfectly fertile; so much so, that he
cannot remember even a single cow failing to calve. These several facts
afford an important confirmation of the Pallasian doctrine that the
descendants of species which when first domesticated would if crossed
probably have been in some degree sterile, become perfectly fertile after a
long course of domestication. In a future chapter we shall see that this
doctrine throws much light on the difficult subject of Hybridism.

I have alluded to the cattle in Chillingham Park, which, according to
Ruetimeyer, have been very little changed from the _Bos primigenius_ type.
This park is so ancient that it is {84} referred to in a record of the year
1220. The cattle in their instincts and habits are truly wild. They are
white, with the inside of the ears reddish-brown, eyes rimmed with black,
muzzles brown, hoofs black, and horns white tipped with black. Within a
period of thirty-three years about a dozen calves were born with "brown and
blue spots upon the cheeks or necks; but these, together with any defective
animals, were always destroyed." According to Bewick, about the year 1770
some calves appeared with black ears; but these were also destroyed by the
keeper, and black ears have not since reappeared. The wild white cattle in
the Duke of Hamilton's park, where I have heard of the birth of a black
calf, are said by Lord Tankerville to be inferior to those at Chillingham.
The cattle kept until the year 1780 by the Duke of Queensberry, but now
extinct, had their ears, muzzle, and orbits of the eyes black. Those which
have existed from time immemorial at Chartley; closely resemble the cattle
at Chillingham, but are larger, "with some small difference in the colour
of the ears." "They frequently tend to become entirely black; and a
singular superstition prevails in the vicinity that, when a black calf is
born, some calamity impends over the noble house of Ferrers. All the black
calves are destroyed." The cattle at Burton Constable in Yorkshire, now
extinct, had ears, muzzle, and the tip of the tail black. Those at
Gisburne, also in Yorkshire, are said by Bewick to have been sometimes
without dark muzzles, with the inside alone of the ears brown; and they are
elsewhere said to have been low in stature and hornless.[194]

The several above-specified differences in the park-cattle, slight though
they be, are worth recording, as they show that animals living nearly in a
state of nature, and exposed to nearly uniform conditions, if not allowed
to roam freely and to cross with other herds, do not keep as uniform as
truly {85} wild animals. For the preservation of a uniform character, even
within the same park, a certain degree of selection--that is, the
destruction of the dark- calves--is apparently necessary.

The cattle in all the parks are white; but, from the occasional appearance
of dark- calves, it is extremely doubtful whether the aboriginal
_Bos primigenius_ was white. The following facts, however, show that there
is a strong, though not invariable, tendency in wild or escaped cattle,
under widely different conditions of life, to become white with 
ears. If the old writers Boethius and Leslie[195] can be trusted, the wild
cattle of Scotland were white and furnished with a great mane; but the
colour of their ears is not mentioned. The primaeval forest formerly
extended across the whole country from Chillingham to Hamilton, and Sir
Walter Scott used to maintain that the cattle still preserved in these two
parks, at the two extremities of the forest, were remnants of its original
inhabitants; and this view certainly seems probable. In Wales,[196] during
the tenth century, some of the cattle are described as being white with red
ears. Four hundred cattle thus  were sent to King John; and an
early record speaks of a hundred cattle with red ears having been demanded
as a compensation for some offence, but, if the cattle were of a dark or
black colour, one hundred and fifty were to be presented. The black cattle
of North Wales apparently belong, as we have seen, to the small
_longifrons_ type: and as the alternative was offered of either 150 dark
cattle, or 100 white cattle with red ears, we may presume that the latter
were the larger beasts, and probably belonged to the _primigenius_ type.
Youatt has remarked that at the present day, whenever cattle of the
short-horn breed are white, the extremities of their ears are more or less
tinged with red.

The cattle which have run wild on the Pampas, in Texas, and in two parts of
Africa, have become of a nearly uniform dark {86} brownish-red.[197] On the
Ladrone Islands, in the Pacific Ocean, immense herds of cattle, which were
wild in the year 1741, are described as "milk-white, except their ears,
which are generally black."[198] The Falkland Islands, situated far south,
with all the conditions of life as different as it is possible to conceive
from those of the Ladrones, offer a more interesting case. Cattle have run
wild there during eighty or ninety years; and in the southern districts the
animals are mostly white, with their feet, or whole heads, or only their
ears black; but my informant, Admiral Sulivan,[199] who long resided on
these islands, does not believe that they are ever purely white. So that in
these two archipelagos we see that the cattle tend to become white with
 ears. In other parts of the Falkland Islands, other colours
prevail: near Port Pleasant brown is the common tint; round Mount Usborne,
about half the animals in some of the herds were lead or mouse-,
which elsewhere is an unusual tint. These latter cattle, though generally
inhabiting high land, breed about a month earlier than the other cattle;
and this circumstance would aid in keeping them distinct and in
perpetuating this peculiar colour. It is worth recalling to mind that blue
or lead- marks have occasionally appeared on the white cattle of
Chillingham. So plainly different were the colours of the wild herds in
different parts of the Falkland Islands, that in hunting them, as Admiral
Sulivan informs me, white spots in one district, and dark spots in another
district, were always looked out for on the distant hills. In the
intermediate districts intermediate colours prevailed. Whatever the cause
may be, this tendency in the wild cattle of the Falkland Islands, which are
all descended from a few brought from La Plata, to break up into herds of
three different colours, is an interesting fact.

Returning to the several British breeds, the conspicuous difference in
general appearance between Short-horns, Long-horns (now rarely seen),
Herefords, Highland cattle, Alderneys, &c., must be familiar to every one.
A large part of the {87} difference, no doubt, may be due to descent from
primordially distinct species; but we may feel sure that there has been in
addition a considerable amount of variation. Even during the Neolithic
period, the domestic cattle were not actually identical with the aboriginal
species. Within recent times most of the breeds have been modified by
careful and methodical selection. How strongly the characters thus acquired
are inherited, may be inferred from the prices realised by the improved
breeds; even at the first sale of Colling's Short-horns, eleven bulls
reached an average of 214l., and lately Short-horn bulls have been sold for
a thousand guineas, and have been exported to all quarters of the world.

Some constitutional differences may be here noticed. The Short-horns arrive
at maturity far earlier than the wilder breeds, such as those of Wales or
the Highlands. This fact has been shown in an interesting manner by Mr.
Simonds,[200] who has given a table of the average period of their
dentition, which proves that there is a difference of no less than six
months in the appearance of the permanent incisors. The period of
gestation, from observations made by Tessier on 1131 cows, varies to the
extent of eighty-one days; and what is more interesting, M. Lefour affirms
"that the period of gestation is longer in the large German cattle than in
the smaller breeds."[201] With respect to the period of conception, it
seems certain that Alderney and Zetland cows often become pregnant earlier
than other breeds.[202] Lastly, as four fully-developed mammae is a generic
character in the genus Bos,[203] it is worth notice that with our domestic
cows the two rudimentary mammae often become fairly well developed and yield
milk.

As numerous breeds are generally found only in long-civilized countries, it
may be well to show that in some countries inhabited by barbarous races,
who are frequently at war with each other and therefore have little free
{88} communication, several distinct breeds of cattle now exist or formerly
existed. At the Cape of Good Hope Leguat observed, in the year 1720, three
kinds.[204] At the present day various travellers have noticed the
differences in the breeds in Southern Africa. Sir Andrew Smith several
years ago remarked to me that the cattle possessed by the different tribes
of Caffres, though living near each other under the same latitude and in
the same kind of country, yet differed, and he expressed much surprise at
the fact. Mr. Andersson has described[205] the Damara, Bechuana, and
Namaqua cattle; and he informs me in a letter that the cattle north of Lake
Ngami are likewise different, as Mr. Galton has heard is the case with the
cattle of Benguela. The Namaqua cattle in size and shape nearly resemble
European cattle, and have short stout horns and large hoofs. The Damara
cattle are very peculiar, being big-boned, with slender legs and small hard
feet; their tails are adorned with a tuft of long bushy hair nearly
touching the ground, and their horns are extraordinarily large. The
Bechuana cattle have even larger horns, and there is now a skull in London
with the two horns 8 ft. 81/4 in. long, as measured in a straight line from
tip to tip, and no less than 13ft. 5in. as measured along their curvature!
Mr. Andersson in his letter to me says that, though he will not venture to
describe the differences between the breeds belonging to the many different
sub-tribes, yet such certainly exist, as shown by the wonderful facility
with which the natives discriminate them.

That many breeds of cattle have originated through variation, independently
of descent from distinct species, we may infer from what we see in South
America, where the genus Bos was not endemic, and where the cattle which
now exist in such vast numbers are the descendants of a few imported from
Spain and Portugal. In Columbia, Roulin[206] describes two peculiar breeds,
namely, _pelones_, with extremely thin and fine hair, and _calongos_,
absolutely naked. According to Castelnau there are two races in Brazil, one
like European cattle, the other different, with {89} remarkable horns. In
Paraguay, Azara describes a breed which certainly originated in S. America,
called _chivos_, "because they have straight vertical horns, conical, and
very large at the base." He likewise describes a dwarf race in Corrientes,
with short legs and a body larger than usual. Cattle without horns, and
others with reversed hair, have also originated in Paraguay.

Another monstrous breed, called niatas or natas, of which I saw two small
herds on the northern bank of the Plata, is so remarkable as to deserve a
fuller description. This breed bears the same relation to other breeds, as
bull or pug dogs do to other dogs, or as improved pigs, according to H. von
Nathusius, do to common pigs.[207] Ruetimeyer believes that these cattle
belong to the primigenius type.[208] The forehead is very short and broad,
with the nasal end of the skull, together with the whole plane of the upper
molar-teeth, curved upwards. The lower jaw projects beyond the upper, and
has a corresponding upward curvature. It is an interesting fact that an
almost similar conformation characterizes, as I have been informed by Dr.
Falconer, the extinct and gigantic Sivatherium of India, and is not known
in any other ruminant. The upper lip is much drawn back, the nostrils are
seated high up and are widely open, the eyes project outwards, and the
horns are large. In walking the head is carried low, and the neck is short.
The hind legs appear to be longer, compared with the front legs, than is
usual. The exposed incisor teeth, the short head and upturned nostrils,
give these cattle the most ludicrous, self-confident air of defiance. The
skull which I presented to the College of Surgeons has been thus described
by Professor Owen:[209] "It is remarkable from the stunted development of
the nasals, premaxillaries, and fore-part of the lower jaw, which is
unusually {90} curved upwards to come into contact with the premaxillaries.
The nasal bones are about one-third the ordinary length, but retain almost
their normal breadth. The triangular vacuity is left between them, the
frontal and lachrymal, which latter bone articulates with the premaxillary,
and thus excludes the maxillary from any junction with the nasal." So that
even the connexion of some of the bones is changed. Other differences might
be added: thus the plane of the condyles is somewhat modified, and the
terminal edge of the premaxillaries forms an arch. In fact, on comparison
with the skull of a common ox, scarcely a single bone presents the same
exact shape, and the whole skull has a wonderfully different appearance.

The first brief published notice of this race was by Azara, between the
years 1783-96; but Don F. Muniz, of Luxan, who has kindly collected
information for me, states that about 1760 these cattle were kept as
curiosities near Buenos Ayres. Their origin is not positively known, but
they must have originated subsequently to the year 1552, when cattle were
first introduced. Signor Muniz informs me that the breed is believed to
have originated with the Indians southward of the Plata. Even to this day
those reared near the Plata show their less civilized nature in being
fiercer than common cattle, and in the cow, if visited too often, easily
deserting her first calf. The breed is very true, and a niata bull and cow
invariably produce niata calves. The breed has already lasted at least a
century. A niata bull crossed with a common cow, and the reverse cross,
yield offspring having an intermediate character, but with the niata
character strongly displayed. According to Signor Muniz, there is the
clearest evidence, contrary to the common belief of agriculturists in
analogous cases, that the niata cow when crossed with a common bull
transmits her peculiarities more strongly than does the niata bull when
crossed with a common cow. When the pasture is tolerably long, these cattle
feed as well as common cattle with their tongue and palate; but during the
great droughts, when so many animals perish on the Pampas, the niata breed
lies under a great disadvantage, and would, if not attended to, become
extinct; for the common cattle, like horses, are able just to keep alive by
browsing on the twigs of trees and on reeds with their lips: this the
niatas cannot so {91} well do, as their lips do not join, and hence they
are found to perish before the common cattle. This strikes me as a good
illustration of how little we are able to judge from the ordinary habits of
an animal, on what circumstances, occurring only at long intervals of time,
its rarity or extinction may depend. It shows us, also, how natural
selection would have determined the rejection of the niata modification had
it arisen in a state of nature.

Having described the semi-monstrous niata breed, I may allude to a white
bull, said to have been brought from Africa, which was exhibited in London
in 1829, and which has been well figured by Mr. Harvey.[210] It had a hump,
and was furnished with a mane. The dewlap was peculiar, being divided
between its fore-legs into parallel divisions. Its lateral hoofs were
annually shed, and grew to the length of five or six inches. The eye was
very peculiar, being remarkably prominent, and "resembled a cup and ball,
thus enabling the animal to see on all sides with equal ease; the pupil was
small and oval, or rather a parallelogram with the ends cut off, and lying
transversely across the ball," A new and strange breed might probably have
been formed by careful breeding and selection from this animal.

I have often speculated on the probable causes through which each separate
district in Great Britain came to possess in former times its own peculiar
breed of cattle; and the question is, perhaps, even more perplexing in the
case of Southern Africa. We now know that the differences may be in part
attributed to descent from distinct species; but this will not suffice.
Have the slight differences in climate and in the nature of the pasture, in
the different districts of Britain, directly induced corresponding
differences in the cattle? We have seen that the semi-wild cattle in the
several British parks are not identical in colouring or size, and that some
degree of selection has been requisite to keep them true. It is almost
certain that abundant food given during many generations directly affects
the size of a breed.[211] That climate directly affects the thickness of
the {92} skin and the hair is likewise certain: thus Roulin asserts[212]
that the hides of the feral cattle on the hot Llanos "are always much less
heavy than those of the cattle raised on the high platform of Bogota; and
that these hides yield in weight and in thickness of hair to those of the
cattle which have run wild on the lofty Paramos." The same difference has
been observed in the hides of the cattle reared on the bleak Falkland
Islands and on the temperate Pampas. Low has remarked[213] that the cattle
which inhabit the more humid parts of Britain have longer hair and thicker
skins than other British cattle; and the hair and horns are so closely
related to each other, that, as we shall see in a future chapter, they are
apt to vary together; thus climate might indirectly affect, through the
skin, the form and size of the horns. When we compare highly improved
stall-fed cattle with the wilder breeds, or compare mountain and lowland
breeds, we cannot doubt that an active life, leading to the free use of the
limbs and lungs, affects the shape and proportions of the whole body. It is
probable that some breeds, such as the semi-monstrous niata cattle, and
some peculiarities, such as being hornless, &c., have appeared suddenly
from what we may call a spontaneous variation; but even in this case a rude
kind of selection is necessary, and the animals thus characterized must be
at least partially separated from others. This degree of care, however, has
sometimes been taken even in little-civilized districts, where we should
least have expected it, as in the case of the niata, chivo, and hornless
cattle in S. America.

That methodical selection has done wonders within a recent period in
modifying our cattle, no one doubts. During the process of methodical
selection it has occasionally happened that deviations of structure, more
strongly pronounced than mere individual differences, yet by no means
deserving to be called monstrosities, have been taken advantage of: thus
the famous Long-horn Bull, Shakespeare, though of the pure Canley stock,
"scarcely inherited a single point of the long-horned breed, his horns
excepted;[214] yet in the hands of Mr. Fowler, {93} this bull greatly
improved his race. We have also reason to believe that selection, carried
on so far unconsciously that there was at no one time any distinct
intention to improve or change the breed, has in the course of time
modified most of our cattle; for by this process, aided by more abundant
food, all the lowland British breeds have increased greatly in size and in
early maturity since the reign of Henry VII.[215] It should never be
forgotten that many animals have to be annually slaughtered; so that each
owner must determine which shall be killed and which preserved for
breeding. In every district, as Youatt has remarked, there is a prejudice
in favour of the native breed; so that animals possessing qualities,
whatever they may be, which are most valued in each district, will be
oftenest preserved; and this unmethodical selection assuredly will in the
long run affect the character of the whole breed. But it may be asked, can
this rude kind of selection have been practised by barbarians such as those
of southern Africa? In a future chapter on Selection we shall see that this
has certainly occurred to some extent. Therefore, looking to the origin of
the many breeds of cattle which formerly inhabited the several districts of
Britain, I conclude that, although slight differences in the nature of the
climate, food, &c., as well as changed habits of life, aided by correlation
of growth, and the occasional appearance from unknown causes of
considerable deviations of structure, have all probably played their parts;
yet that the occasional preservation in each district of those individual
animals which were most valued by each owner has perhaps been even more
effective in the production of the several British breeds. As soon as two
or more breeds had once been formed in any district, or when new breeds
descended from distinct species were introduced, their crossing, especially
if aided by some selection, will have multiplied the number and modified
the characters of the older breeds.

SHEEP.

I shall treat this subject briefly. Most authors look at our domestic sheep
as descended from several distinct species; but how many still exist is
doubtful. Mr. Blyth believes that there {94} are in the whole world
fourteen species, one of which, the Corsican moufflon, he concludes (as I
am informed by him) to be the parent of the smaller, short-tailed breeds,
with crescent-shaped horns, such as the old Highland sheep. The larger,
long-tailed breeds, having horns with a double flexure, such as the
Dorsets, merinos, &c., he believes to be descended from an unknown and
extinct species. M. Gervais makes six species of Ovis;[216] but concludes
that our domestic sheep form a distinct genus, now completely extinct. A
German naturalist[217] believes that our sheep descend from ten
aboriginally distinct species, of which only one is still living in a wild
state! Another ingenious observer,[218] though not a naturalist, with a
bold defiance of everything known on geographical distribution, infers that
the sheep of Great Britain alone are the descendants of eleven endemic
British forms! Under such a hopeless state of doubt it would be useless for
my purpose to give a detailed account of the several breeds; but a few
remarks may be added.

Sheep have been domesticated from a very ancient period. Ruetimeyer[219]
found in the Swiss lake-dwellings the remains of a small breed, with thin
and tall legs, and with horns like those of a goat: this race differs
somewhat from any one now known. Almost every country has its own peculiar
breed; and many countries have many breeds differing greatly from each
other. One of the most strongly marked races is an Eastern one with a long
tail, including, according to Pallas, twenty vertebrae, and so loaded with
fat, that, from being esteemed a delicacy, it is sometimes placed on a
truck which is dragged about by the living animal. These sheep, though
ranked by Fitzinger as a distinct aboriginal form, seem to bear in their
drooping ears the stamp of long domestication. This is likewise the case
with those sheep which have two great masses of fat on the rump, with the
tail in a rudimentary condition. The Angola variety of {95} the long-tailed
race has curious masses of fat on the back of the head and beneath the
jaws.[220] Mr. Hodgson in an admirable paper[221] on the sheep of the
Himalaya infers from the distribution of the several races, "that this
caudal augmentation in most of its phases is an instance of degeneracy in
these pre-eminently Alpine animals." The horns present an endless diversity
in character; being, especially in the female sex, not rarely absent, or,
on the other hand, amounting to four or even eight in number. The horns,
when numerous, arise from a crest on the frontal bone, which is elevated in
a peculiar manner. It is remarkable that multiplicity of horns "is
generally accompanied by great length and coarseness of the fleece."[222]
This correlation, however, is not invariable; for I am informed by Mr. D.
Forbes, that the Spanish sheep in Chile resemble, in fleece and in all
other characters, their parent merino-race, except that instead of a pair
they generally bear four horns. The existence of a pair of mammae is a
generic character in the genus Ovis as well as in several allied forms;
nevertheless, as Mr. Hodgson has remarked, "this character is not
absolutely constant even among the true and proper sheep: for I have more
than once met with Cagias (a sub-Himalayan domestic race) possessed of four
teats."[223] This case is the more remarkable as, when any part or organ is
present in reduced number in comparison with the same part in allied
groups, it usually is subject to little variation. The presence of
interdigital pits has likewise been considered as a generic distinction in
sheep; but Isidore Geoffroy[224] has shown that these pits or pouches are
absent in some breeds.

In sheep there is a strong tendency for characters, which have apparently
been acquired under domestication, to become attached either exclusively to
the male sex, or to be more highly developed in this than in the other sex.
Thus in many breeds the horns are deficient in the ewe, though this
likewise occurs occasionally with the female of the wild musmon. In the
rams of the Wallachian breed "the horns spring almost perpendicularly {96}
from the frontal bone, and then take a beautiful spiral form; in the ewes
they protrude nearly at right angles from the head, and then become twisted
in a singular manner."[225] Mr. Hodgson states that the extraordinarily
arched nose or chaffron, which is so highly developed in several foreign
breeds, is characteristic of the ram alone, and apparently is the result of
domestication.[226] I hear from Mr. Blyth that the accumulation of fat in
the fat-tailed sheep of the plains of India is greater in the male than in
the female; and Fitzinger[227] remarks that the mane in the African maned
race is far more developed in the ram than in the ewe.

Different races of sheep, like cattle, present constitutional differences.
Thus the improved breeds arrive at maturity at an early age, as has been
well shown by Mr. Simonds through their early average period of dentition.
The several races have become adapted to different kinds of pasture and
climate: for instance, no one can rear Leicester sheep on mountainous
regions, where Cheviots flourish. As Youatt has remarked, "in all the
different districts of Great Britain we find various breeds of sheep
beautifully adapted to the locality which they occupy. No one knows their
origin; they are indigenous to the soil, climate, pasturage, and the
locality on which they graze; they seem to have been formed for it and by
it."[228] Marshall relates[229] that a flock of heavy Lincolnshire and
light Norfolk sheep which had been bred together in a large sheep-walk,
part of which was low, rich, and moist, and another part high and dry, with
benty grass, when turned out, regularly separated from each other; the
heavy sheep drawing off to the rich soil, and the lighter sheep to their
own soil; so that "whilst there was plenty of grass the two breeds kept
themselves as distinct as rooks and pigeons." Numerous sheep from various
parts of the world have been brought during a long course of years to the
Zoological Gardens of London; but as Youatt, who attended the animals as a
{97} veterinary surgeon, remarks, "few or none die of the rot, but they are
phthisical; not one of them from a torrid climate lasts out the second
year, and when they die their lungs are tuberculated."[230] Even in certain
parts of England it has been found impossible to keep certain breeds of
sheep; thus on a farm on the banks of the Ouse, the Leicester sheep were so
rapidly destroyed by pleuritis[231] that the owner could not keep them; the
coarser-skinned sheep never being affected.

The period of gestation was formerly thought to be so unalterable a
character, that a supposed difference between the wolf and the dog in this
respect was esteemed a sure sign of specific distinction; but we have seen
that the period is shorter in the improved breeds of the pig, and in the
larger breeds of the ox, than in other breeds of these two animals. And now
we know, on the excellent authority of Hermann von Nathusius,[232] that
Merino and Southdown sheep, when both have long been kept under exactly the
same conditions, differ in their average period of gestation, as is seen in
the following Table:--

  Merinos                            150.3 days.
  Southdowns                         144.2  "
  Half-bred Merinos and Southdowns   146.3  "
  3/4 blood of Southdown             145.5  "
  7/8         "      "               144.2  "

In this graduated difference, in these cross-bred animals having different
proportions of Southdown blood, we see how strictly the two periods of
gestation have been transmitted. Nathusius remarks that, as Southdowns grow
with remarkable rapidity after birth, it is not surprising that their
foetal development should have been shortened. It is of course possible
that the difference in these two breeds may be due to their descent from
distinct parent-species; but as the early maturity of the Southdowns has
long been carefully attended to by breeders, the difference is more
probably the result of such attention. Lastly, the fecundity of the several
breeds differs much; some generally producing twins or even triplets at a
birth, of which fact the curious Shangai sheep (with their truncated and
rudimentary {98} ears, and great Roman noses), lately exhibited in the
Zoological Gardens, offer a remarkable instance.

Sheep are perhaps more readily affected by the direct action of the
conditions of life to which they have been exposed than almost any other
domestic animal. According to Pallas, and more recently according to Erman,
the fat-tailed Kirghisian sheep, when bred for a few generations in Russia,
degenerate, and the mass of fat dwindles away, "the scanty and bitter
herbage of the steppes seems so essential to their development." Pallas
makes an analogous statement with respect to one of the Crimean breeds.
Burnes states that the Karakool breed, which produces a fine, curled,
black, and valuable fleece, when removed from its own canton near Bokhara
to Persia or to other quarters, loses its peculiar fleece.[233] In all such
cases, however, it may be that a change of any kind in the conditions of
life causes variability and consequent loss of character, and not that
certain conditions are necessary for the development of certain characters.

Great heat, however, seems to act directly on the fleece: several accounts
have been published of the change which sheep imported from Europe undergo
in the West Indies. Dr. Nicholson of Antigua informs me that, after the
third generation, the wool disappears from the whole body, except over the
loins; and the animal then appears like a goat with a dirty door-mat on its
back. A similar change is said to take place on the west coast of
Africa.[234] On the other hand, many wool-bearing sheep live on the hot
plains of India. Roulin asserts that in the lower and heated valleys of the
Cordillera, if the lambs are sheared as soon as the wool has grown to a
certain thickness, all goes on afterwards as usual; but if not sheared, the
wool detaches itself in flakes, and short shining hair like that {99} on a
goat is produced ever afterwards. This curious result seems merely to be an
exaggerated tendency natural to the Merino breed, for as a great authority,
namely, Lord Somerville, remarks, "the wool of our Merino sheep after
shear-time is hard and coarse to such a degree as to render it almost
impossible to suppose that the same animal could bear wool so opposite in
quality, compared to that which has been clipped from it: as the cold
weather advances, the fleeces recover their soft quality." As in sheep of
all breeds the fleece naturally consists of longer and coarser hair
covering shorter and softer wool, the change which it often undergoes in
hot climates is probably merely a case of unequal development; for even
with those sheep which like goats are covered with hair, a small quantity
of underlying wool may always be found.[235] In the wild mountain-sheep
(_Ovis montana_) of North America there is an annual analogous change of
coat; "the wool begins to drop out in early spring, leaving in its place a
coat of hair resembling that of the elk, a change of pelage quite different
in character from the ordinary thickening of the coat or hair, common to
all furred animals in winter,--for instance, in the horse, the cow, &c.,
which shed their winter coat in the spring."[236]

A slight difference in climate or pasture sometimes slightly affects the
fleece, as has been observed even in different districts in England, and as
is well shown by the great softness of the wool brought from Southern
Australia. But it should be observed, as Youatt repeatedly insists, that
the tendency to change may generally be counteracted by careful selection.
M. Lasterye, after discussing this subject, sums up as follows: "The
preservation of the Merino race in its utmost purity at the Cape of Good
Hope, in the marshes of Holland, and under the rigorous climate of Sweden,
furnishes an additional support of this my unalterable principle, that
fine-woolled sheep may be kept wherever industrious men and intelligent
breeders exist."

That methodical selection has effected great changes in several {100}
breeds of sheep no one, who knows anything on the subject, entertains a
doubt. The case of the Southdowns, as improved by Ellman, offers perhaps
the most striking instance. Unconscious or occasional selection has
likewise slowly produced a great effect, as we shall see in the chapters on
Selection. That crossing has largely modified some breeds, no one who will
study what has been written on this subject--for instance, Mr. Spooner's
paper--will dispute; but to produce uniformity, in a crossed breed, careful
selection and "rigorous weeding," as this author expresses it, are
indispensable.[237]

In some few instances new breeds have suddenly originated; thus, in 1791, a
ram-lamb was born in Massachusetts, having short crooked legs and a long
back, like a turnspit-dog. From this one lamb the _otter_ or _ancon_
semi-monstrous breed was raised; as these sheep could not leap over the
fences, it was thought that they would be valuable; but they have been
supplanted by merinos, and thus exterminated. These sheep are remarkable
from transmitting their character so truly that Colonel Humphreys[238]
never heard of "but one questionable case" of an ancon ram and ewe not
producing ancon offspring. When they are crossed with other breeds the
offspring, with rare exceptions, instead of being intermediate in
character, perfectly resemble either parent; and this has occurred even in
the case of twins. Lastly, "the ancons have been observed to keep together,
separating themselves from the rest of the flock when put into enclosures
with other sheep."

A more interesting case has been recorded in the Report of the Juries for
the Great Exhibition (1851), namely, the production of a merino ram-lamb on
the Mauchamp farm, in 1828, which was remarkable for its long, smooth,
straight, and silky wool. By the year 1833 M. Graux had raised rams enough
to serve his whole flock, and after a few more years he was able to sell
stock of his new breed. So peculiar and valuable is the wool, that it sells
at 25 per cent. above the best merino wool: even the fleeces of half-bred
animals are valuable, and are known in France as the "Mauchamp-merino." It
is interesting, as {101} showing how generally any marked deviation of
structure is accompanied by other deviations, that the first ram and his
immediate offspring were of small size, with large heads, long necks,
narrow chests, and long flanks; but these blemishes were removed by
judicious crosses and selection. The long smooth wool was also correlated
with smooth horns; and as horns and hair are homologous structures, we can
understand the meaning of this correlation. If the Mauchamp and ancon
breeds had originated a century or two ago, we should have had no record of
their birth; and many a naturalist would no doubt have insisted, especially
in the case of the Mauchamp race, that they had each descended from, or
been crossed with, some unknown aboriginal form.

GOATS.

From the recent researches of M. Brandt, most naturalists now believe that
all our goats are descended from the _Capra aegagrus_ of the mountains of
Asia, possibly mingled with the allied Indian species _C. Falconeri_ of
India.[239] In Switzerland, during the early Stone period, the domestic
goat was commoner than the sheep; and this very ancient race differed in no
respect from that now common in Switzerland.[240] At the present time, the
many races found in several parts of the world differ greatly from each
other; nevertheless, as far as they have been tried,[241] they are all
quite fertile when crossed. So numerous are the breeds, that Mr. G.
Clark[242] has described eight distinct kinds imported into the one island
of Mauritius. The ears of one kind were enormously developed, being, as
measured by Mr. Clark, no less than 19 inches in length and 43/4 inches in
breadth. As with cattle, the mammae of those breeds which are regularly
milked become greatly developed; and, as Mr. Clark remarks, "it is not rare
to see their teats touching the ground." The following cases are worth
notice as presenting unusual {102} points of variation. According to
Godron,[243] the mammae differ greatly in shape in different breeds, being
elongated in the common goat, hemispherical in the Angora race, and bilobed
and divergent in the goats of Syria and Nubia. According to this same
author, the males of certain breeds have lost their usual offensive odour.
In one of the Indian breeds the males and females have horns of
widely-different shapes;[244] and in some breeds the females are destitute
of horns.[245] The presence of interdigital pits or glands on all four feet
has been thought to characterise the genus Ovis, and their absence to be
characteristic of the genus Capra; but Mr. Hodgson has found that they
exist in the front feet of the majority of Himalayan goats.[246] Mr.
Hodgson measured the intestines in two goats of the Dugu race, and he found
that the proportional length of the great and small intestines differed
considerably. In one of these goats the caecum was thirteen inches, and in
the other no less than thirty-six inches in length!

       *       *       *       *       *


{103}

CHAPTER IV.

DOMESTIC RABBITS.

    DOMESTIC RABBITS DESCENDED FROM THE COMMON WILD RABBIT--ANCIENT
    DOMESTICATION--ANCIENT SELECTION--LARGE LOP-EARED RABBITS--VARIOUS
    BREEDS--FLUCTUATING CHARACTERS--ORIGIN OF THE HIMALAYAN BREED--CURIOUS
    CASE OF INHERITANCE--FERAL RABBITS IN JAMAICA AND THE FALKLAND
    ISLANDS--PORTO SANTO FERAL RABBITS--OSTEOLOGICAL
    CHARACTERS--SKULL--SKULL OF HALF-LOP RABBITS--VARIATIONS IN THE SKULL
    ANALOGOUS TO DIFFERENCES IN DIFFERENT SPECIES OF
    HARES--VERTEBRAE--STERNUM--SCAPULA--EFFECTS OF USE AND DISUSE ON THE
    PROPORTIONS OF THE LIMBS AND BODY--CAPACITY OF THE SKULL AND REDUCED
    SIZE OF THE BRAIN--SUMMARY ON THE MODIFICATIONS OF DOMESTICATED
    RABBITS.

All naturalists, with, as far as I know, a single exception, believe that
the several domestic breeds of the rabbit are descended from the common
wild species; I shall therefore describe them more carefully than in the
previous cases. Professor Gervais[247] states "that the true wild rabbit is
smaller than the domestic; its proportions are not absolutely the same; its
tail is smaller; its ears are shorter and more thickly clothed with hair;
and these characters, without speaking of colour, are so many indications
opposed to the opinion which unites these animals under the same specific
denomination." Few naturalists will agree with this author that such slight
differences are sufficient to separate as distinct species the wild and
domestic rabbit. How extraordinary it would be, if close confinement,
perfect tameness, unnatural food, and careful breeding, all prolonged
during many generations, had not produced at least some effect! The tame
rabbit has been domesticated from an ancient period. Confucius ranges
rabbits among animals worthy to be sacrificed to the gods, and, as he
prescribes their multiplication, they were probably at this early period
domesticated in China. They are mentioned by several of the classical
writers. {104} In 1631 Gervaise Markham writes, "You shall not, as in other
cattell, looke to their shape, but to their richnesse, onely elect your
buckes, the largest and goodliest conies you can get; and for the richnesse
of the skin, that is accounted the richest which hath the equallest mixture
of blacke and white haire together, yet the blacke rather shadowing the
white; the furre should be thicke, deepe, smooth, and shining; ... they are
of body much fatter and larger, and, when another skin is worth two or
three pence, they are worth two shillings." From this full description we
see that silver-grey rabbits existed in England at this period; and, what
is far more important, we see that the breeding or selection of rabbits was
then carefully attended to. Aldrovandi, in 1637, describes, on the
authority of several old writers (as Scaliger, in 1557), rabbits of various
colours, some "like a hare," and he adds that P. Valerianus (who died a
very old man in 1558) saw at Verona rabbits four times bigger than
ours.[248]

From the fact of the rabbit having been domesticated at an ancient period,
we must look to the northern hemisphere of the Old World, and to the warmer
temperate regions alone, for the aboriginal parent-form; for the rabbit
cannot live without protection in countries as cold as Sweden, and, though
it has run wild in the tropical island of Jamaica, it has never greatly
multiplied there. It now exists, and has long existed, in the warmer
temperate parts of Europe, for fossil remains have been found in several
countries.[249] The domestic rabbit readily becomes feral in these same
countries, and when variously  kinds are turned out they generally
revert to the ordinary grey colour.[250] The wild rabbits, if taken young,
can be domesticated, though the process is generally very troublesome.[251]
The various {105} domestic races are often crossed, and are believed to be
perfectly fertile together, and a perfect gradation can be shown to exist
from the largest domestic kinds, having enormously developed ears, to the
common wild kind. The parent-form must have been a burrowing animal, a
habit not common, as far as I can discover, to any other species in the
large genus Lepus. Only one wild species is known with certainty to exist
in Europe; but the rabbit (if it be a true rabbit) from Mount Sinai, and
likewise that from Algeria, present slight differences; and these forms
have been considered by some authors as specifically distinct.[252] But
such slight differences would aid us little in explaining the more
considerable differences characteristic of the several domestic races. If
the latter are the descendants of two or more closely allied species, all,
excepting the common rabbit, have been exterminated in a wild state; and
this is very improbable, seeing with what pertinacity this animal holds its
ground. From these several reasons we may infer with safety that all the
domestic breeds are the descendants of the common wild species. But from
what we hear of the late marvellous success in rearing hybrids between the
hare and rabbit,[253] it is possible, though not probable, from the great
difficulty in making the first cross, that some of the larger races, which
are  like the hare, may have been modified by crosses with this
animal. Nevertheless, the chief differences in the skeletons of the several
domestic breeds cannot, as we shall presently see, have been derived from a
cross with the hare.

There are many breeds which transmit their characters more or less truly.
Every one has seen the enormous lop-eared rabbits exhibited at our shows;
various allied sub-breeds are reared on the Continent, such as the
so-called Andalusian, which is said to have a large head with a round
forehead, and to attain a greater size than any other kind; another large
Paris breed is named the Rouennais, and has a square head; the so-called
Patagonian rabbit has remarkably short ears and a large round head.
Although I have not seen all these breeds, I feel some doubt about there
being any marked difference in the {106} shape of their skulls.[254]
English lop-eared rabbits often weigh 8 lbs. or 10 lbs., and one has been
exhibited weighing 18 lbs.; whereas a full-sized wild rabbit weighs only
about 31/4 lbs. The head or skull in all the large lop-eared rabbits examined
by me is much longer relatively to its breadth than in the wild rabbit.
Many of them have loose transverse folds of skin or dewlaps beneath the
throat, which can be pulled out so as to reach nearly to the ends of the
jaws. Their ears are prodigiously developed, and hang down on each side of
their faces. A rabbit has been exhibited with its two ears, measured from
the tip of one to the tip of the other, 22 inches in length, and each ear
was 5-3/8 inches in breadth. In a common wild rabbit I found that the
length of the two ears, from tip to tip, was 7-5/8 inches, and the breadth
only 1-7/8 inch. The great weight of the body in the larger rabbits, and
the immense development of their ears, are the qualities which win prizes,
and have been carefully selected.

The hare-, or, as it is sometimes called, the Belgian rabbit,
differs in nothing except colour from the other large breeds; but Mr. J.
Young, of Southampton, a great breeder of this kind, informs me that the
females, in all the specimens examined by him, had only six mammae; and this
certainly was the case with two females which came into my possession. Mr.
B. P. Brent, however, assures me that the number is variable with other
domestic rabbits. The common wild rabbit always has ten mammae. The Angora
rabbit is remarkable from the length and fineness of its fur, which even on
the soles of the feet is of considerable length. This breed is the only one
which differs in its mental qualities, for it is said to be much more
sociable than other rabbits, and the male shows no wish to destroy its
young.[255] Two live rabbits were brought to me from Moscow, of about the
size of the wild species, but with long soft fur, different from that of
the Angora. These Moscow rabbits had pink eyes and were snow-white,
excepting the ears, two spots near the nose, the upper and under surface of
the tail, and the hinder tarsi, which were blackish-brown. In short, they
were {107}  nearly like the so-called Himalayan rabbits, presently
to be described, and differed from them only in the character of their fur.
There are two other breeds which come true to colour, but differ in no
other respect, namely silver-greys and chinchillas. Lastly, the Nicard or
Dutch rabbit may be mentioned, which varies in colour, and is remarkable
from its small size, some specimens weighing only 11/4 lb.; rabbits of this
breed make excellent nurses for other and more delicate kinds.[256]

Certain characters are remarkably fluctuating, or are very feebly
transmitted by domestic rabbits: thus, one breeder tells me that with the
smaller kinds he has hardly ever raised a whole litter of the same colour:
with the large lop-eared breeds "it is impossible," says a great
judge,[257] "to breed true to colour, but by judicious crossing a great
deal may be done towards it. The fancier should know how his does are bred,
that is, the colour of their parents." Nevertheless, certain colours, as we
shall presently see, are transmitted truly. The dewlap is not strictly
inherited. Lop-eared rabbits, with their ears hanging flat down on each
side of the face, do not transmit this character at all truly. Mr. Delamer
remarks that, "with fancy rabbits, when both the parents are perfectly
formed, have model ears, and are handsomely marked, their progeny do not
invariably turn out the same." When one parent, or even both, are oar-laps,
that is, have their ears sticking out at right angles, or when one parent
or both are half-lops, that is, have only one ear dependent, there is
nearly as good a chance of the progeny having both ears full-lop, as if
both parents had been thus characterized. But I am informed, if both
parents have upright ears, there is hardly a chance of a full-lop. In some
half-lops the ear that hangs down is broader and longer than the upright
ear;[258] so that we have the unusual case of a want of symmetry on the two
sides. This difference in the position and size of the two ears probably
indicates that the lopping of the ear results {108} from its great length
and weight, favoured no doubt by the weakness of the muscles consequent on
disuse. Anderson[259] mentions a breed having only a single ear; and
Professor Gervais another breed which is destitute of ears.

[Illustration: Fig. 5.--Half-lop Rabbit. (Copied from E. S. Delamer's
work.)]

The origin of the Himalayan breed (sometimes called Chinese, or Polish, or
Russian) is so curious, both in itself, and as throwing some light on the
complex laws of inheritance, that it is worth giving in detail. These
pretty rabbits are white, except their ears, nose, all four feet, and the
upper side of tail, which are all brownish-black; but as they have red
eyes, they may be considered as albinoes. I have received several accounts
of their breeding perfectly true. From their symmetrical marks, they were
at first ranked as specifically distinct, and were provisionally named _L.
nigripes_[260] Some good observers thought that they could detect a
difference in their habits, and stoutly maintained that they formed a new
species. Their origin is now well known. A writer, in 1857,[261] stated
that he had produced Himalayan rabbits in the following manner. But it is
first necessary briefly to describe two other breeds: silver-greys or
silver-sprigs generally have black heads and legs, and their fine grey fur
is interspersed with numerous black and white long hairs. {109} They breed
perfectly true, and have long been kept in warrens. When they escape and
cross with common rabbits, the product, as I hear from Mr. Wyrley Birch, of
Wretham Hall, is not a mixture of the two colours, but about half take
after the one parent, and the other half after the other parent. Secondly,
chinchillas or tame silver-greys (I will use the former name) have short,
paler, mouse or slate- fur, interspersed with long, blackish,
slate-, and white hairs.[262] These rabbits breed perfectly true.
Now, the writer above referred to had a breed of chinchillas which had been
crossed with the common black rabbit, and their offspring were either
blacks or chinchillas. These latter were again crossed with other
chinchillas (which had also been crossed with silver-greys), and from this
complicated cross Himalayan rabbits were raised. From these and other
similar statements, Mr. Bartlett[263] was led to make a careful trial in
the Zoological Gardens, and he found that by simply crossing silver-greys
with chinchillas he could always produce some few Himalayans; and the
latter, notwithstanding their sudden origin, if kept separate, bred
perfectly true.

The Himalayans, when first born, are quite white, and are then true
albinoes; but in the course of a few months they gradually assume their
dark ears, nose, feet, and tail. Occasionally, however, as I am informed by
Mr. W. A. Wooler and the Rev. W. D. Fox, the young are born of a very pale
grey colour, and specimens of such fur were sent me by the former
gentleman. The grey tint, however, disappears as the animal comes to
maturity. So that with these Himalayans there is a tendency, strictly
confined to early youth, to revert to the colour of the adult silver-grey
parent-stock. Silver-greys and chinchillas, on the other hand, present a
remarkable contrast in their colour whilst quite young, for they are born
perfectly black, but soon assume their characteristic grey or silver tints.
The same thing occurs with grey horses, which, as long as they are foals,
are generally of a nearly black colour, but soon become grey, and get
whiter and whiter as they grow older. Hence the usual rule is that
Himalayans are born white and afterwards become in certain parts of their
bodies dark-; whilst {110} silver-greys are born black and
afterwards become sprinkled with white. Exceptions, however, and of a
directly opposite nature, occasionally occur in both cases. For young
silver-greys are sometimes born in warrens, as I hear from Mr. W. Birch, of
a cream-colour, but these young animals ultimately become black, The
Himalayans, on the other hand, sometimes produce, as is stated by an
experienced amateur,[264] a single black young one in a litter; but such,
before two months elapse, become perfectly white.

To sum up the whole curious case: wild silver-greys may be considered as
black rabbits which become grey at an early period of life. When they are
crossed with common rabbits, the offspring are said not to have blended
colours, but to take after either parent; and in this respect they resemble
black and albino varieties of most quadrupeds, which often transmit their
colours in this same manner. When they are crossed with chinchillas, that
is, with a paler sub-variety, the young are at first pure albinoes, but
soon become dark- in certain parts of their bodies, and are then
called Himalayans. The young Himalayans, however, are sometimes at first
either pale grey or completely black, in either case changing after a time
to white. In a future chapter I shall advance a large body of facts showing
that, when two varieties are crossed both of which differ in colour from
their parent-stock, there is a strong tendency in the young to revert to
the aboriginal colour; and what is very remarkable, this reversion
occasionally supervenes, not before birth, but during the growth of the
animal. Hence, if it could be shown that silver-greys and chinchillas were
the offspring of a cross between a black and albino variety with the
colours intimately blended--a supposition in itself not improbable, and
supported by the circumstance of silver-greys in warrens sometimes
producing creamy-white young, which ultimately become black--then all the
above-given paradoxical facts on the changes of colour in silver-greys and
in their descendants the Himalayans would come under the law of reversion,
supervening at different periods of growth and in different degrees, either
to the original black or to the original albino parent-variety.

{111}

It is, also, remarkable that Himalayans, though produced so suddenly, breed
true. But as, whilst young, they are albinoes, the case falls under a very
general rule; for albinism is well known to be strongly inherited, as with
white mice and many other quadrupeds, and even with white flowers. But why,
it may be asked, do the ears, tail, nose, and feet, and no other part of
the body, revert to a black colour? This apparently depends on a law, which
generally holds good, namely, that characters common to many species of a
genus--and this, in fact, implies long inheritance in common from the
ancient progenitor of the genus--are found to resist variation, or to
reappear if lost, more persistently than the characters which are confined
to the separate species. Now, in the genus Lepus, a large majority of the
species have their ears and the upper surface of the tail tinted black; but
the persistence of these marks is best seen in those species which in
winter become white: thus, in Scotland the _L. variabilis_[265] in its
winter dress has a shade of colour on its nose, and the tips of its ears
are black: in the _L. tibetanus_ the ears are black, the upper surface of
the tail greyish-black, and the soles of the feet brown: in _L. glacialis_
the winter fur is pure white, except the soles of the feet and the points
of the ears. Even in the variously- fancy rabbits we may often
observe a tendency in these same parts to be more darkly tinted than the
rest of the body. Thus, as it seems to me, the appearance of the several
 marks on the Himalayan rabbit, as it grows old, is rendered
intelligible. I may add a nearly analogous case: fancy rabbits very often
have a white star on their foreheads; and the common English hare, whilst
young, generally has, as I have myself observed, a similar white star on
its forehead.

When variously  rabbits are set free in Europe, and are thus placed
under their natural conditions, they generally revert to the aboriginal
grey colour; this may be in part due to the tendency in all crossed
animals, as lately observed, to revert to their primordial state. But this
tendency does not always prevail; thus silver-grey rabbits are kept in
warrens, and remain true though living almost in a state of nature; but a
{112} warren must not be stocked with both silver-greys and common rabbits;
otherwise "in a few years there will be none but common greys
surviving."[266] When rabbits run wild in foreign countries, under
different conditions of life, they by no means always revert to their
aboriginal colour. In Jamaica the feral rabbits are described as
"slate-, deeply tinted with sprinklings of white on the neck, on
the shoulders, and on the back; softening off to blue-white under the
breast and belly."[267] But in this tropical island the conditions were not
favourable to their increase, and they never spread widely; and, as I hear
from Mr. R. Hill, owing to a great fire which occurred in the woods, they
have now become extinct. Rabbits during many years have run wild in the
Falkland Islands; they are abundant in certain parts, but do not spread
extensively. Most of them are of the common grey colour; a few, as I am
informed by Admiral Sulivan, are hare-, and many are black, often
with nearly symmetrical white marks on their faces. Hence, M. Lesson
described the black variety as a distinct species, under the name of _Lepus
magellanicus_, but this, as I have elsewhere shown, is an error.[268]
Within recent times the sealers have stocked some of the small outlying
islets in the Falkland group with rabbits; and on Pebble Islet, as I hear
from Admiral Sulivan, a large proportion are hare-, whereas on
Rabbit Islet a large proportion are of a bluish colour which is not
elsewhere seen. How the rabbits were  which were turned out on
these islets is not known.

The rabbits which have become feral on the island of Porto Santo, near
Madeira, deserve a fuller account. In 1418 or 1419, J. Gonzales Zarco[269]
happened to have a female rabbit on board which had produced young during
the voyage, and he turned them all out on the island. These animals soon
increased so {113} rapidly, that they became a nuisance, and actually
caused the abandonment of the settlement. Thirty-seven years subsequently,
Cada Mosto describes them as innumerable; nor is this surprising, as the
island was not inhabited by any beast of prey or by any terrestrial mammal.
We do not know the character of the mother-rabbit; but we have every reason
to believe that it was the common domesticated kind. The Spanish peninsula,
whence Zarco sailed, is known to have abounded with the common wild species
at the most remote historical period. As these rabbits were taken on board
for food, it is improbable that they should have been of any peculiar
breed. That the breed was well domesticated is shown by the doe having
littered during the voyage. Mr. Wollaston, at my request, brought home two
of these feral rabbits in spirits of wine; and, subsequently, Mr. W.
Haywood sent to me three more specimens in brine, and two alive. These
seven specimens, though caught at different periods, closely resembled each
other. They were full grown, as shown by the state of their bones. Although
the conditions of life in Porto Santo are evidently highly favourable to
rabbits, as proved by their extraordinarily rapid increase, yet they differ
conspicuously in their small size from the wild English rabbit. Four
English rabbits, measured from the incisors to the anus, varied between 17
and 173/4 inches in length; whilst two of the Porto Santo rabbits were only
141/2 and 15 inches in length. But the decrease in size is best shown by
weight; four wild English rabbits averaged 3 lb. 5 oz., whilst one of the
Porto Santo rabbits, which had lived for four years in the Zoological
Gardens, but had become thin, weighed only 1 lb. 9 oz. A fairer test is
afforded by the comparison of the well-cleaned limb-bones of a P. Santo
rabbit killed on the island with the same bones of a wild English rabbit of
average size, and they differed in the proportion of rather less than five
to nine. So that the Porto Santo rabbits have decreased nearly three inches
in length, and almost half in weight of body.[270] The head has not
decreased in length {114} proportionally with the body; and the capacity of
the brain-case is, as we shall hereafter see, singularly variable. I
prepared four skulls, and these resembled each other more closely than do
generally the skulls of wild English rabbits; but the only difference in
structure which they presented was that the supra-orbital processes of the
frontal bones were narrower.

In colour the Porto Santo rabbit differs considerably from the common
rabbit; the upper surface is redder, and is rarely interspersed with any
black or black-tipped hairs. The throat and certain parts of the under
surface, instead of being pure white, are generally pale grey or leaden
colour. But the most remarkable difference is in the ears and tail; I have
examined many fresh English rabbits, and the large collection of skins in
the British Museum from various countries, and all have the upper surface
of the tail and the tips of the ears clothed with blackish-grey fur; and
this is given in most works as one of the specific characters of the
rabbit. Now in the seven Porto Santo rabbits the upper surface of the tail
was reddish-brown, and the tips of the ears had no trace of the black
edging. But here we meet with a singular circumstance: in June, 1861, I
examined two of these rabbits recently sent to the Zoological Gardens, and
their tails and ears were  as just described; but when one of their
dead bodies was sent to me in February, 1865, the ears were plainly edged,
and the upper surface of the tail was covered, with blackish-grey fur, and
the whole body was much less red; so that under the English climate this
individual rabbit had recovered the proper colour of its fur in rather less
than four years!

The two little Porto Santo rabbits, whilst alive in the Zoological Gardens,
had a remarkably different appearance from the common kind. They were
extraordinarily wild and active, so that many persons exclaimed on seeing
them that they were more like large rats than rabbits. They were nocturnal
to an unusual degree in their habits, and their wildness was never in the
least subdued; so that the superintendent, Mr. Bartlett, assured me that he
had never had a wilder animal under his charge. This is a singular fact,
considering that they are descended from a domesticated breed; I was so
much surprised at it, that I requested Mr. Haywood to make inquiries on the
spot, {115} whether they were much hunted by the inhabitants, or persecuted
by hawks, or cats, or other animals; but this is not the case, and no cause
can be assigned for their wildness. They live on the central, higher rocky
land and near the sea-cliffs, and, being exceedingly shy and timid, seldom
appear in the lower and cultivated districts. They are said to produce from
four to six young at a birth, and their breeding season is in July and
August. Lastly, and this is a highly remarkable fact, Mr. Bartlett could
never succeed in getting these two rabbits, which were both males, to
associate or breed with the females of several breeds which were repeatedly
placed with them.

If the history of these Porto Santo rabbits had not been known, most
naturalists, on observing their much reduced size, their reddish colour
above and grey beneath, with neither tail nor ears tipped with black, would
have ranked them as a distinct species. They would have been strongly
confirmed in this view by seeing them alive in the Zoological Gardens, and
hearing that they refused to couple with other rabbits. Yet this rabbit,
which there can be little doubt would thus have been ranked as a distinct
species, has certainly originated since the year 1420. Finally, from the
three cases of the rabbits which have run wild in Porto Santo, Jamaica, and
the Falkland Islands, we see that these animals do not, under new
conditions of life, revert to or retain their aboriginal character, as is
so generally asserted to be the case by most authors.

_Osteological Characters._

When we remember, on the one hand, how frequently it is stated that
important parts of the structure never vary; and, on the other hand, on
what small differences in the skeleton, fossil species have often been
founded, the variability of the skull and of some other bones in the
domesticated rabbit well deserves attention. It must not be supposed that
the more important differences immediately to be described strictly
characterise any one breed; all that can be said is, that they are
generally present in certain breeds. We should bear in mind that selection
has not been applied to fix any character in the skeleton, and that the
animals have not had to support themselves under {116} uniform habits of
life. We cannot account for most of the differences in the skeleton; but we
shall see that the increased size of the body, due to careful nurture and
continued selection, has affected the head in a particular manner. Even the
elongation and lopping of the ears have influenced in a small degree the
form of the whole skull. The want of exercise has apparently modified the
proportional length of the limbs in comparison with the body.

    [Illustration: Fig. 6.--Skull of Wild Rabbit, of natural size.]

    [Illustration: Fig. 7.--Skull of large Lop-eared Rabbit, of natural
    size.]

    As a standard of comparison, I prepared skeletons of two wild rabbits
    from Kent, one from the Shetland Islands, and one from Antrim in
    Ireland. As all the bones in these four specimens from such distant
    localities closely resembled each other, presenting scarcely any
    appreciable difference, it may be concluded that the bones of the wild
    rabbit are generally uniform in character.

    _Skull._--I have carefully examined skulls of ten large lop-eared fancy
    rabbits, and of five common domestic rabbits, which latter differ from
    the lop-eared only in not having such large bodies or ears, yet both
    larger than in the wild rabbit. First for the ten lop-eared rabbits: in
    all these the skull is remarkably elongated in comparison with its
    breadth. In a wild rabbit the length was 3.15 inches, in a large fancy
    rabbit 4.30; whilst the breadth of the cranium enclosing the brain was
    in both almost exactly the same. Even by taking as the standard of
    comparison the widest part of the zygomatic arch, the skulls of the
    lop-eared are proportionally to their breadth three-quarters of an inch
    too long. The depth of the head has increased almost in the same
    proportion with the length; it is the breadth alone which has not
    increased. The parietal and occipital bones enclosing the brain are
    less arched, both in a longitudinal and transverse line, than in the
    wild rabbit, so that the shape of the cranium is somewhat different.
    The surface is rougher, less cleanly sculptured, and the lines of
    sutures are more prominent.

    Although the skulls of the large lop-eared rabbits in comparison with
    those of the wild rabbit are much elongated relatively to their
    breadth, yet, relatively to the size of body, they are far from
    elongated. The lop-eared rabbits which I examined were, though not fat,
    more than twice as heavy as the wild specimens; but the skull was very
    far from being twice as long. Even if we take the fairer standard of
    the length of body, from the nose to the anus, the skull is not on an
    average as long as it ought to be by a third of an inch. In the small
    feral P. Santo rabbit, on the other hand, the head relatively to the
    length of body is about a quarter of an inch too long.

    [Illustration: Fig. 8.--Part of Zygomatic Arch, showing the projecting
    end of the malar bone and the auditory meatus: of natural size. Upper
    figure, Wild Rabbit. Lower figure, Lop-eared, hare- Rabbit.]

    This elongation of the skull relatively to its breadth, I find a
    universal character, not only with the large lop-eared rabbits, but in
    all the artificial breeds; as is well seen in the skull of the Angora.
    I was at first much surprised at the fact, and could not imagine why
    domestication should produce this uniform result; but the explanation
    seems to lie in the circumstance that during a number of generations
    the artificial races have been closely confined, and have had little
    occasion to exert either their senses, or intellect, or voluntary
    muscles; consequently the brain, as {117} we shall presently more fully
    see, has not increased relatively with the size of body. As the brain
    has not increased, the bony case enclosing it has not increased, and
    this has evidently affected through correlation the breadth of the
    entire skull from end to end.

    In all the skulls of the large lop-eared rabbits, the supra-orbital
    plates or processes of the frontal bones ere much broader than in the
    wild rabbit, and they generally project more upwards. In the zygomatic
    arch the posterior or projecting point of the malar-bone is broader and
    blunter; and in the specimen, fig. 8, it is so in a remarkable degree.
    This point approaches nearer to the auditory meatus than in the wild
    rabbit, as may be best seen in fig. 8; but this circumstance mainly
    depends on the changed direction of the meatus. The inter-parietal bone
    (see fig. 9) differs much in shape in the several skulls; generally it
    is more oval, or has a greater width in the line of the longitudinal
    axis of the skull, than in the wild rabbit. The {118} posterior margin
    of "the square raised platform" [271] of the occiput, instead of being
    truncated, or projecting slightly as in the wild rabbit, is in most
    lop-eared rabbits pointed, as in fig. 9, C. The paramastoids relatively
    to the size of the skull are generally much thicker than in the wild
    rabbit.

    The occipital foramen (fig. 10) presents some remarkable differences:
    in the wild rabbit, the lower edge between the condyles is considerably
    and almost angularly hollowed out, and the upper edge is deeply and
    squarely notched; hence the longitudinal axis exceeds the transverse
    axis. In the skulls of the lop-eared rabbits the transverse axis
    exceeds the longitudinal; for in none of these skulls was the lower
    edge between the condyles so deeply hollowed out; in five of them there
    was no upper square notch, in three there was a trace of the notch, and
    in two alone it was well developed. These differences in the shape of
    the foramen are remarkable, considering that it gives passage to so
    important a structure as the spinal marrow, though apparently the
    outline of the latter is not affected by the shape of the passage.

    [Illustration: Fig. 9.--Posterior end of Skull, of natural size,
    showing the inter-parietal bone. A. Wild Rabbit. B. Feral Rabbit from
    island of P. Santo, near Madeira. C. Large Lop-eared Rabbit.]

    [Illustration: Fig. 10.--Occipital Foramen, of natural size, in--A.
    Wild Rabbit; B. Large Lop-eared Rabbit.]

    In all the skulls of the large lop-eared rabbits, the bony auditory
    meatus is conspicuously larger than in the wild rabbit. In a skull 4.3
    inches in length, and which barely exceeded in breadth the skull of a
    wild rabbit (which was 3.15 inches in length), the longer diameter of
    the meatus was exactly twice as great. The orifice is more compressed,
    and its margin on the side nearest the skull stands up higher than the
    outer side. The whole meatus is directed more forwards. As in breeding
    lop-eared rabbits the length of the ears, and their consequent lopping
    and lying flat on the face, are the chief points of excellence, there
    can hardly be a doubt that the great change in the size, form, and
    direction of the bony meatus, relatively to this same part in the wild
    rabbit, is due to the continued selection of individuals having {119}
    larger and larger ears. The influence of the external ear on the bony
    meatus is well shown in the skulls (I have examined three) of half-lops
    (see fig. 5), in which one ear stands upright, and the other and longer
    ear hangs down; for in these skulls there was a plain difference in the
    form and direction of the bony meatus on the two sides. But it is a
    much more interesting fact, that the changed direction and increased
    size of the bony meatus have slightly affected on the same side the
    structure of the whole skull. I here give a drawing of the skull of a
    half-lop; and it may be observed that the suture between the parietal
    and frontal bones does not run strictly at right angles to the
    longitudinal axis of the skull; the left frontal bone projects beyond
    the right one; both the posterior and anterior margins of the left
    zygomatic arch on the side of the lopping ear stand a little in advance
    of the corresponding bones on the opposite side. Even the lower jaw is
    affected, and the condyles are not quite symmetrical, that on the left
    standing a little in advance of that on the right. This seems to me a
    remarkable case of correlation of growth. Who would have surmised that
    by keeping an animal during many generations under confinement, and so
    leading to the disuse of the muscles of the ears, and by continually
    selecting individuals with the longest and largest ears, he would thus
    indirectly have affected almost every suture in the skull and the form
    of the lower jaw!

    [Illustration: Fig. 11.--Skull, of natural size, of Half-lop Rabbit,
    showing the different direction of the auditory meatus on the two
    sides, and the consequent general distortion of the skull. The left ear
    of the animal (or right side of figure) lopped forwards.]

    In the large lop-eared rabbits the only difference in the lower jaw, in
    comparison with that of the wild rabbit, is that the posterior margin
    of the ascending ramus is broader and more inflected. The teeth in
    neither jaw present any difference, except that the small incisors,
    beneath the large ones, are proportionally a little longer. The molar
    teeth have increased in size proportionally with the increased width of
    the skull, measured across the zygomatic arch, and not proportionally
    with its increased length. The inner line of the sockets of the molar
    teeth in the upper jaw of the wild rabbit forms a perfectly straight
    line; but in {120} some of the largest skulls of the lop-eared this
    line was plainly bowed inwards. In one specimen there was an additional
    molar tooth on each side of the upper jaw, between the molars and
    premolars; but these two teeth did not correspond in size; and as no
    rodent has seven molars, this is merely a monstrosity, though a curious
    one.

    The five other skulls of common domestic rabbits, some of which
    approach in size the above-described largest skulls, whilst the others
    exceed but little those of the wild rabbit, are only worth notice as
    presenting a perfect gradation in all the above-specified differences
    between the skulls of the largest lop-eared and wild rabbits. In all,
    however, the supra-orbital plates are rather larger, and in all the
    auditory meatus is larger, in conformity with the increased size of the
    external ears, than in the wild rabbit. The lower notch in the
    occipital foramen in some was not so deep as in the wild, but in all
    five skulls the upper notch was well developed.

    The skull of the _Angora_ rabbit, like the latter five skulls, is
    intermediate in general proportions, and in most other characters,
    between those of the largest lop-eared and wild rabbits. It presents
    only one singular character: though considerably longer than the skull
    of the wild, the breadth measured within the posterior supra-orbital
    fissures is nearly a third less than in the wild. The skulls of the
    _silver-grey_, and _chinchilla_ and _Himalayan_ rabbits are more
    elongated than in the wild, with broader supra-orbital plates, but
    differ little in any other respect, excepting that the upper and lower
    notches of the occipital foramen are not so deep or so well developed.
    The skull of the _Moscow_ rabbit scarcely differs in any respect from
    that of the wild rabbit. In the Porto Santo feral rabbits the
    supra-orbital plates are generally narrower and more pointed than in
    our wild rabbits.

    As some of the largest lop-eared rabbits of which I prepared skeletons
    were  almost like hares, and as these latter animals and
    rabbits have, as it is affirmed, been recently crossed in France, it
    might be thought that some of the above-described characters had been
    derived from a cross at a remote period with the hare. Consequently I
    examined skulls of the hare, but no light could thus be thrown on the
    peculiarities of the skulls of the larger rabbits. It is, however, an
    interesting fact, as illustrating the law that varieties of one species
    often assume the characters of other species of the same genus, that I
    found, on comparing the skulls of ten species of hares in the British
    Museum, that they differed from each other chiefly in the very same
    points in which domestic rabbits vary,--namely, in general proportions,
    in the form and size of the supra-orbital plates, in the form of the
    free end of the malar bone, and in the line of suture separating the
    occipital and frontal bones. Moreover two eminently variable characters
    in the domestic rabbit, namely, the outline of the occipital foramen
    and the shape of the "raised platform" of the occiput, were likewise
    variable in two instances in the same species of hare.

    _Vertebrae._--The number is uniform in all the skeletons which I have
    examined, with two exceptions, namely, in one of the small feral Porto
    Santo rabbits and in one of the largest lop-eared kinds; both of these
    had as usual seven cervical, twelve dorsal with ribs, but, instead of
    seven lumbar, both had eight lumbar vertebrae. This is remarkable, as
    Gervais gives {121} seven as the number for the whole genus Lepus. The
    caudal vertebrae apparently differ by two or three, but I did not attend
    to them, and they are difficult to count with certainty.

    In the first cervical vertebra, or atlas, the anterior margin of the
    neural arch varies a little in wild specimens, being either nearly
    smooth, or furnished with a small supra-median atlantoid process; I
    have figured a specimen with the largest process (_a_) which I have
    seen; but it will be observed how inferior this is in size and
    different in shape to that in a large lop-eared rabbit. In the latter,
    the infra-median process (_b_) is also proportionally much thicker and
    longer. The alae are a little squarer in outline.

    [Illustration: Fig. 12.--Atlas Vertebrae, of natural size; inferior
    surface viewed obliquely. Upper figure, Wild Rabbit. Lower figure,
    Hare-, large, Lop-eared Rabbit. _a_, supra-median, atlantoid
    process; _b_, infra-median process.]

    _Third cervical vertebra._--In the wild rabbit (fig. 13, A _a_) this
    vertebra, viewed on the inferior surface, has a transverse process,
    which is directed obliquely backwards, and consists of a single pointed
    bar; in the fourth vertebra this process is slightly forked in the
    middle. In the large lop-eared rabbits this process (B _a_) is forked
    in the third vertebra, as in the fourth of the wild rabbit. But the
    third cervical vertebrae of the wild and lop-eared (A _b_, B _b_)
    rabbits differ more conspicuously when their anterior articular
    surfaces are compared; for the extremities of the antero-dorsal
    processes in the wild rabbit are simply rounded, whilst in the
    lop-eared they are trifid, with a deep central pit. The canal for the
    spinal marrow in the lop-eared (B _b_) is more elongated in a
    transverse direction than in the wild rabbit; and the passages for the
    arteries are of a slightly different shape. These several differences
    in this vertebra seem to me well deserving attention.

    [Illustration: Fig. 13.--Third Cervical Vertebra, of natural size,
    of--A. Wild Rabbit; B. Hare-, large, Lop-eared Rabbit. _a, a_,
    inferior surface; _b, b_, anterior articular surfaces.]

    _First dorsal vertebra._--Its neural spine varies in length in the wild
    rabbit; being sometimes very short, but generally more than half as
    long as that of the second dorsal; but I have seen it in two large
    lop-eared rabbits three-fourths of the length of that of the second
    dorsal vertebra.

    _Ninth and tenth dorsal vertebrae._--In the wild rabbit the neural spine
    of the ninth vertebra is just perceptibly thicker than that of the
    eighth; and {122} the neural spine of the tenth is plainly thicker and
    shorter than those of all the anterior vertebrae. In the large lop-cared
    rabbits the neural spines of the tenth, ninth, eighth, and even in a
    slight degree that of the seventh vertebra, are very much thicker, and
    of somewhat different shape, in comparison with those of the wild
    rabbit. So that this part of the vertebral column differs considerably
    in appearance from the same part in the wild rabbit, and closely
    resembles in an interesting manner these same vertebrae in some species
    of hares. In the Angora, Chinchilla, and Himalayan rabbits, the neural
    spines of the eighth and ninth vertebrae are in a slight degree thicker
    than in the wild. On the other hand, in one of the feral Porto Santo
    rabbits, which in most of its characters deviates in an exactly
    opposite manner to what the large lop-cared rabbits do from the common
    wild rabbit, the neural spines of the ninth and tenth vertebrae were not
    at all larger than those of the several anterior vertebrae. In this same
    Porto Santo specimen there was no trace in the ninth vertebra of the
    anterior lateral processes (see woodcut 14), which are plainly
    developed in all British wild rabbits, and still more plainly developed
    in the large lop-eared rabbits. In a half-wild rabbit from Sandon
    Park,[272] a haemal spine was moderately well developed on the under
    side of the twelfth dorsal vertebra, and I have seen this in no other
    specimen.

    [Illustration: Fig. 14.--Dorsal Vertebrae, from sixth to tenth
    inclusive, of natural size, viewed laterally. A. Wild Rabbit. B. Large,
    Hare-, so called Spanish Rabbit.]

    [Illustration: Fig. 15.--Terminal bone of Sternum, of natural size. A.
    Wild Rabbit. B. Hare-, Lop-eared Rabbit. C. Hare-,
    Spanish Rabbit. (N.B. The left-hand angle of the upper articular
    extremity of B was broken, and has been accidentally thus
    represented.)]

    _Lumbar vertebrae._--I have stated that in two cases there were eight
    instead of seven lumbar vertebrae. The third lumbar vertebra in one
    skeleton of a wild British rabbit, and in one of the Porto Santo feral
    rabbits, had a haemal spine; whilst in four skeletons of large lop-eared
    rabbits, and in the Himalayan rabbit, this same vertebra had a
    well-developed haemal spine.

    _Pelvis._--In four wild specimens this bone was almost absolutely
    identical in shape; but in several domesticated breeds shades of
    differences {123} could be distinguished. In the large lop-eared
    rabbits the whole upper part of the ilium is straighter, or less
    splayed outwards, than in the wild rabbit; and the tuberosity on the
    inner lip of the anterior and upper part of the ilium is proportionally
    more prominent.

    _Sternum._--The posterior end of the posterior sternal bone in the wild
    rabbit (fig. 15, A) is thin and slightly enlarged; in some of the large
    lop-eared rabbits (B) it is much more enlarged towards the extremity;
    whilst in other specimens (C) it keeps nearly of the same breadth from
    end to end, but is much thicker at the extremity.

    [Illustration: Fig. 16.--Acromion of Scapula, of natural size. A. Wild
    Rabbit. B, C, D; Large, Lop-eared Rabbits.]

    _Scapula._--The acromion sends out a rectangular bar, ending in an
    oblique knob, which latter in the wild rabbit (fig. 16, A) varies a
    little in shape and size, as does the apex of the acromion in
    sharpness, and the part just below the rectangular bar in breadth. But
    the variations in these respects in the wild rabbit are very slight;
    whilst in the large lop-eared rabbits they are considerable. Thus in
    some specimens (B) the oblique terminal knob is developed into a short
    bar, forming an obtuse angle with the rectangular bar. In another
    specimen (C) these two unequal bars form nearly a straight line. The
    apex of the acromion varies much in breadth and sharpness, as may be
    seen by comparing figs. B, C, and D.

    _Limbs._--In these I could detect no variation; but the bones of the
    feet were too troublesome to compare with much care.

I have now described all the differences in the skeletons which I have
observed. It is impossible not to be struck with the high degree of
variability or plasticity of many of the bones. We see how erroneous the
often-repeated statement is, that only the crests of the bones which give
attachment to muscles vary in shape, and that only parts of slight
importance {124} become modified under domestication. No one will say, for
instance, that the occipital foramen, or the atlas, or the third cervical
vertebra is a part of slight importance. If the several vertebrae of the
wild and lop-eared rabbits, of which figures have been given, had been
found fossil, palaeontologists would have declared without hesitation that
they had belonged to distinct species.

    _The effects of the use and disuse of parts._--In the large lop-eared
    rabbits the relative proportional lengths of the bones of the same leg,
    and of the front and hind legs compared with each other, have remained
    nearly the same as in the wild rabbit; but in weight, the bones of the
    hind legs apparently have not increased in due proportion with the
    front legs. The weight of the whole body in the large rabbits examined
    by me was from twice to twice and a half as great as that of the wild
    rabbit; and the weight of the bones of the front and hind limbs taken
    together (excluding the feet, on account of the difficulty of perfectly
    cleaning so many small bones) has increased in the large lop-eared
    rabbits in nearly the same proportion; consequently in due proportion
    to the weight of body which they have to support. If we take the length
    of the body as the standard of comparison, the limbs of the large
    rabbits have not increased in length in due proportion by one inch, or
    by one inch and a half. Again, if we take as the standard of comparison
    the length of the skull, which, as we have before seen, has not
    increased in length in due proportion to the length of body, the limbs
    will be found to be, proportionally with those of the wild rabbit, from
    half to three-quarters of an inch too short. Hence, whatever standard
    of comparison be taken, the limb-bones of the large lop-eared rabbits
    have not increased in length, though they have in weight, in full
    proportion to the other parts of the frame; and this, I presume, may be
    accounted for by the inactive life which during many generations they
    have spent. Nor has the scapula increased in length in due proportion
    to the increased length of the body.

    The capacity of the osseous case of the brain is a more interesting
    point, to which I was led to attend by finding, as previously stated,
    that with all domesticated rabbits the length of the skull relatively
    to its breadth has greatly increased in comparison with that of the
    wild rabbit. If we had possessed a large number of domesticated rabbits
    of nearly the same size with the wild rabbit, it would have been a
    simple task to have measured and compared the capacities of their
    skulls. But this is not the case; almost all the domestic breeds have
    larger bodies than wild rabbits, and the lop-eared kinds are more than
    double their weight. As a small animal has to exert its senses,
    intellect, and instincts equally with a large animal, we ought not by
    any means to expect an animal twice or thrice as large as another to
    have a brain of double or treble the size.[273] Now, after weighing
    {125} the bodies of four wild rabbits, and of four large but not
    fattened lop-eared rabbits, I find that on an average the wild are to
    the lop-eared in weight as 1 to 2.47; in average length of body as 1 to
    1.41; whilst in capacity of skull (measured as hereafter to be
    described) they are only as 1 to 1.15. Hence we see that the capacity
    of the skull, and consequently the size of the brain, has increased but
    little, relatively to the increased size of the body; and this fact
    explains the narrowness of the skull relatively to its length in all
    domestic rabbits.

    In the upper half of the following table I have given the measurements
    of the skulls of ten wild rabbits; and in the lower half of eleven
    thoroughly domesticated kinds. As these rabbits differ so greatly in
    size, it is necessary to have some standard by which to compare the
    capacities of their skulls. I have selected the length of skull as the
    best standard, for in the larger rabbits it has not, as already stated,
    increased in length so much as the body; but as the skull, like every
    other part, varies in length, neither it nor any other part affords a
    perfect standard.

    In the first column of figures the extreme length of the skull is given
    in inches and decimals. I am aware that these measurements pretend to
    greater accuracy than is possible; but I have found it the least
    trouble to record the exact length which the compass gave. The second
    and third columns give the length and weight of body, whenever these
    measurements have been made. The fourth column gives the capacity of
    the skull by the weight of small shot with which the skulls had been
    filled; but it is not pretended that these weights are accurate within
    a few grains. In the fifth column the capacity is given which the skull
    ought to have had by calculation, according to the length of skull, in
    comparison with that of the wild rabbit No. 1; in the sixth column the
    difference between the actual and calculated capacities, and in the
    seventh the percentage of increase or decrease, are given. For
    instance, as the wild rabbit No. 5 has a shorter and lighter body than
    the wild rabbit No. 1, we might have expected that its skull would have
    had less capacity; the actual capacity, as expressed by the weight of
    shot, is 875 grains, which is 97 grains less than that of the first
    rabbit. But comparing these two rabbits by the length of their skulls,
    we see that in No. 1 the skull is 3.15 inches in length, and in No. 5
    2.96 inches in length; according to this ratio, the brain of No. 5
    ought to have had a capacity of 913 grains of shot, which is above the
    actual capacity, but only by 38 grains. Or, to put the case in another
    way (as in column VII), the brain of this small rabbit, No. 5, for
    every 100 grains of weight is only 4 per cent. too light,--that is, it
    ought, according to the standard rabbit No. 1, to have been 4 per cent.
    heavier. I have taken the rabbit No. 1 as the standard of comparison
    because, of the skulls having a full average length, this has the least
    capacity; so that it is the least favourable to the result which I wish
    to show, namely, that the brain in all long-domesticated rabbits has
    decreased in size, either actually, or relatively to the length of the
    head and body, in comparison with the brain of the wild rabbit. Had I
    taken the Irish rabbit, No. 3, as the standard, the following results
    would have been somewhat more striking.

    Turning to the Table: the first four wild rabbits have skulls of the
    same length, and these differ but little in capacity. The Sandon rabbit
    {126} (No. 4) is interesting, as, though now wild, it is known to be
    descended from a domesticated breed, as is still shown by its peculiar
    colouring and longer body; nevertheless the skull has recovered its
    normal length and full capacity. The next three rabbits are wild, but
    of small size, and they all have skulls with slightly lessened
    capacities. The three Porto Santo feral rabbits (Nos. 8 to 10) offer a
    perplexing case; their bodies are greatly reduced in size, as in a
    lesser degree are their skulls in length and in actual capacity, in
    comparison with the skulls of wild English rabbits. But when we compare
    the capacities of the skull in the three Porto Santo rabbits, we
    observe a surprising difference, which does not stand in any relation
    to the slight difference in the length of their skulls, nor, as I
    believe, to any difference in the size of their bodies; but I neglected
    to weigh separately their bodies. I can hardly suppose that the
    medullary matter of the brain in these three rabbits, living under
    similar conditions, can differ as much as is indicated by the
    proportional difference of capacity in their skulls; nor do I know
    whether it is possible that one brain may contain considerably more
    fluid than another. Hence I can throw no light on this case.

    Looking to the lower half of the Table, which gives the measurements of
    domesticated rabbits, we see that in all the capacity of the skull is
    less, but in very various degrees, than might have been anticipated
    according to the length of their skulls, relatively to that of the wild
    rabbit No. 1. In line 22 the average measurements of seven large
    lop-eared rabbits are given. Now the question arises, has the average
    capacity of the skull in these seven large rabbits increased as much as
    might have been expected from their greatly increased size of body. We
    may endeavour to answer this question in two ways: in the upper half of
    the Table we have measurements of the skulls of six small wild rabbits
    (Nos. 5 to 10), and we find that on an average the skulls are in length
    .18 of an inch shorter, and in capacity 91 grains less, than the
    average length and capacity of the three first wild rabbits on the
    list. The seven large lop-cared rabbits, on an average, have skulls
    4.11 inches in length, and 1136 grains in capacity; so that these
    skulls have increased in length more than five times as much as the
    skulls of the six small wild rabbits have decreased in length; hence we
    might have expected that the skulls of the large lop-eared rabbits
    would have increased in capacity five times as much as the skulls of
    the six small rabbits have decreased in capacity; and this would have
    given an average increased capacity of 455 grains, whilst the real
    average increase is only 155 grains. Again, the large lop-eared rabbits
    have bodies of nearly the same weight and size as the common hare, but
    their heads are longer; consequently, if the lop-eared rabbits had been
    wild, it might have been expected that their skulls would have had
    nearly the same capacity as that of the skull of the hare. But this is
    far from being the case; for the average capacity of the two
    hare-skulls (Nos. 23, 24) is so much larger than the average capacity
    of the seven lop-cared skulls, that the latter would have to be
    increased 21 per cent. to come up to the standard of the hare.[274]

{127}

  ------------------------------------------------+---------+-------------
                                                  | I.      |   II.
                                                  |         |
                                                  |         | Length
          Name of Breed.                          | Length  | of Body from
    WILD AND SEMI-WILD RABBITS.                   | of      | Incisors to
                                                  | Skull.  | Anus.
  ------------------------------------------------+---------+-------------
                                                  | inches. | inches.
   1. Wild rabbit, Kent                           |  3.15   |  17.4
   2.     "        Shetland Islands               |  3.15   |   ..
   3.     "        Ireland                        |  3.15   |   ..
   4. Domestic rabbit, run wild, Sandon           |  3.15   |  18.5
   5. Wild, common variety, small specimen, Kent  |  2.96   |  17.0
   6. Wild, fawn- variety, Scotland       |  3.1    |   ..
   7. Silver-grey, small specimen, Thetford warren|  2.95   |  15.5
   8. Feral rabbit, Porto Santo                   |  2.83   |   ..
   9.       "            "                        |  2.85   |   ..
  10.       "            "                        |  2.95   |   ..
         Average of the three Porto Santo Rabbits |  2.88   |   ..
                                                  |         |
                     Domestic Rabbits             |         |
                                                  |         |
  11. Himalayan                                   |  3.5    |   20.5
  12. Moscow                                      |  3.25   |   17.0
  13. Angora                                      |  3.5    |   19.5
  14. Chinchilla                                  |  3.65   |   22.0
  15. Large lop-eared                             |  4.1    |   24.5
  16.   "         "                               |  4.1    |   25.0
  17.   "         "                               |  4.07   |    ..
  18.   "         "                               |  4.1    |   25.0
  19.   "         "                               |  4.3    |    ..
  20.   "         "                               |  4.25   |    ..
  21. Large hare-                         |  3.86   |   24.0
  22. Average of above seven large lop-eared      |         |
          rabbits                                 |  4.11   |   24.62
  ------------------------------------------------+---------+-------------
  23. Hare (_L. timidus_) English specimen        |  3.61   |
  24.  "         "      German specimen           |  3.82   |
  ------------------------------------------------+---------+-------------

  ----------+-------------+------------+-----------------+-----------
            |   III.      |  IV.       |   V.            |  VI.
            |             |            |                 |
            |             |            | Capacity        |
            |             |            | calculated      | Difference
            |             | Capacity of| according to    | between
            |  Weight     | Skull      | Length of       | actual and
            |  of         | measured by| Skull relatively| calculated
            |  whole Body.| Small Shot.| to that         | capacities
            |             |            | of No. 1.       | of Skulls.
  ----------+-------------+------------+-----------------+-----------
            |  lbs. ozs.  |   grains.  |   grains.       | grains.
   1.       |    3   5    |    972     |     ..          |   ..
   2.       |     ..      |    979     |     ..          |   ..
   3.       |     ..      |    992     |     ..          |   ..
   4.       |     ..      |    977     |                 |
   5.       |    2  14    |    875     |    913          |   38
   6.       |     ..      |    918     |    950          |   32
   7.       |    2  11    |    938     |    910          |   28
   8.       |     ..      |    893     |    873          |   20
   9.       |     ..      |    756     |    879          |  123
  10.       |     ..      |    835     |    910          |   75
            |             |            |                 |
  (Average) |     ..      |    828     |    888          |   60
            |             |            |                 |
  11.       |     ..      |    963     |   1080          |  117
  12.       |    3   8    |    803     |   1002          |  199
  13.       |    3   1    |    697     |   1080          |  383
  14.       |     ..      |    995     |   1126          |  131
  15.       |    7   0    |   1065     |   1265          |  200
  16.       |    7  13    |   1153     |   1265          |  112
  17.       |     ..      |   1037     |   1255          |  218
  18.       |    7   4    |   1208     |   1265          |   57
  19.       |     ..      |   1232     |   1326          |   94
  20.       |     ..      |   1124     |   1311          |  187
  21.       |    6  14    |   1131     |   1191          |   60
  22.       |    7   4    |   1136     |   1268          |  132
  ----------+-------------+------------+-----------------+-----------
  23.       |    7   0    |   1315     |                 |
  24.       |    7   0    |   1455     |                 |
  ----------+-------------+------------+-----------------+-----------

  ----+-----------------------------------
      |  VII.
      |
      | Showing how much per cent.
      | the Brain, by calculation,
      | according to the length of the
      | Skull, is too light or too heavy,
      | relatively to the Brain of the
      | Wild Rabbit No. 1.
  ----+-----------------------------------
   1. |
   2. |
   3. | (  [2 per cent. too heavy in
      | (  comparison with No. 1.]
   4. |
   5. |  4 per cent. too light.
   6. |  3    "         "
   7. |  3    "      too heavy.
   8. |  2    "         "
   9. | 16    "       too light.
  10. |  9    "         "
      |
  Av. |  7    "         "
      |
  11. | 12    "         "
  12. | 24    "         "
  13. | 54    "         "
  14. | 13    "         "
  15. | 18    "         "
  16. |  9    "         "
  17. | 21    "         "
  18. |  4    "         "
  19. |  7    "         "
  20. | 16    "         "
  21. |  5    "         "
  22. | 11    "         "
  ----+-----------------------------------
  23. |
  24. |
  ----+-----------------------------------


{128}

    I have previously remarked that, if we had possessed many domestic
    rabbits of the same average size with the wild rabbit, it would have
    been easy to compare the capacity of their skulls. Now the Himalayan,
    Moscow, and Angora rabbits (Nos. 11, 12, 13 of Table) are only a little
    larger in body, and have skulls only a little longer, than the wild
    animal, and we see that the actual capacity of their skulls is less
    than in the wild animal, and considerably less by calculation (column
    7), according to the difference in the length of their skulls. The
    narrowness of the brain-case in these three rabbits could be plainly
    seen and proved by external measurement. The Chinchilla rabbit (No. 14)
    is a considerably larger animal than the wild rabbit, yet the capacity
    of its skull only slightly exceeds that of the wild rabbit. The Angora
    rabbit, No. 13, offers the most remarkable case; this animal in its
    pure white colour and length of silky fur bears the stamp of long
    domesticity. It has a considerably longer head and body than the wild
    rabbit, but the actual capacity of its skull is less than that of even
    the little wild Porto Santo rabbits. By the standard of the length of
    skull the capacity (see column 7) is only half of what it ought to have
    been! I kept this individual animal alive, and it was not unhealthy nor
    idiotic. This case of the Angora rabbit so much surprised me, that I
    repeated all the measurements and found them correct. I have also
    compared the capacity of the skull of the Angora with that of the wild
    rabbit by other standards, namely, by the length and weight of the
    body, and by the weight of the limb-bones; but by all these standards
    the brain appears to be much too small, though in a less degree when
    the standard of the limb-bones was used; and this latter circumstance
    may probably be accounted for by the Limbs of this anciently
    domesticated breed having become much reduced in weight, from its
    long-continued inactive life. Hence I infer that in the Angora breed,
    which is said to differ from other breeds in being quieter and more
    social, the capacity of the skull has really undergone a remarkable
    amount of reduction.

From the several facts above given,--namely, firstly, that the actual
capacity of the skull in the Himalayan, Moscow, and Angora breeds, is less
than in the wild rabbit, though they are in all their dimensions rather
larger animals; secondly, that the capacity of the skull of the large
lop-eared rabbits has not been increased in nearly the same ratio as the
capacity of the skull of the smaller wild rabbits has been decreased; and
thirdly, that the capacity of the skull in these same large lop-eared
rabbits is very inferior to that of the hare, an animal of nearly the same
{129} size,--I conclude, notwithstanding the remarkable differences in
capacity in the skulls of the small P. Santo rabbits, and likewise in the
large lop-eared kinds, that in all long-domesticated rabbits the brain has
either by no means increased in due proportion with the increased length of
the head and increased size of the body, or that it has actually decreased
in size, relatively to what would have occurred had these animals lived in
a state of nature. When we remember that rabbits, from having been
domesticated and closely confined during many generations, cannot have
exerted their intellect, instincts, senses, and voluntary movements, either
in escaping from various dangers or in searching for food, we may conclude
that their brains will have been feebly exercised, and consequently have
suffered in development. We thus see that the most important and
complicated organ in the whole organization is subject to the law of
decrease in size from disuse.

Finally, let us sum up the more important modifications which domestic
rabbits have undergone, together with their causes as far as we can
obscurely see them. By the supply of abundant and nutritious food, together
with little exercise, and by the continued selection of the heaviest
individuals, the weight of the larger breeds has been more than doubled.
The bones of the limbs have increased in weight (but the hind legs less
than the front legs), in due proportion with the increased weight of body;
but in length they have not increased in due proportion, and this may have
been caused by the want of proper exercise. With the increased size of the
body the third cervical vertebra has assumed characters proper to the
fourth cervical; and the eighth and ninth dorsal vertebrae have similarly
assumed characters proper to the tenth and posterior vertebrae. The skull in
the larger breeds has increased in length, but not in due proportion with
the increased length of body; the brain has not duly increased in
dimensions, or has even actually decreased, and consequently the bony case
for the brain has remained narrow, and by correlation has affected the
bones of the face and the entire length of the skull. The skull has thus
acquired its characteristic narrowness. From unknown causes the
supra-orbital processes of the frontal bones and the free end of the malar
bones have increased in breadth; and in the larger breeds {130} the
occipital foramen is generally much less deeply notched than in wild
rabbits. Certain parts of the scapula and the terminal sternal bones have
become highly variable in shape. The ears have been increased enormously in
length and breadth through continued selection; their weight, conjoined
probably with the disuse of their muscles, has caused them to lop
downwards; and this has affected the position and form of the bony auditory
meatus; and this again, by correlation, the position in a slight degree of
almost every bone in the upper part of the skull, and even the position of
the condyles of the lower jaw.

       *       *       *       *       *


{131}

CHAPTER V.

DOMESTIC PIGEONS.

    ENUMERATION AND DESCRIPTION OF THE SEVERAL BREEDS--INDIVIDUAL
    VARIABILITY--VARIATIONS OF A REMARKABLE NATURE--OSTEOLOGICAL
    CHARACTERS: SKULL, LOWER JAW, NUMBER OF VERTEBRAE--CORRELATION OF
    GROWTH: TONGUE WITH BEAK; EYELIDS AND NOSTRILS WITH WATTLED
    SKIN--NUMBER OF WING-FEATHERS, AND LENGTH OF WING--COLOUR AND
    DOWN--WEBBED AND FEATHERED FEET--ON THE EFFECTS OF DISUSE--LENGTH OF
    FEET IN CORRELATION WITH LENGTH OF BEAK--LENGTH OP STERNUM, SCAPULA,
    AND FURCULA--LENGTH OF WINGS--SUMMARY ON THE POINTS OF DIFFERENCE IN
    THE SEVERAL BREEDS

I have been led to study domestic pigeons with particular care, because the
evidence that all the domestic races have descended from one known source
is far clearer than with any other anciently domesticated animal. Secondly,
because many treatises in several languages, some of them old, have been
written on the pigeon, so that we are enabled to trace the history of
several breeds. And lastly, because, from causes which we can partly
understand, the amount of variation has been extraordinarily great. The
details will often be tediously minute; but no one who really wants to
understand the progress of change in domestic animals will regret this; and
no one who has kept pigeons and has marked the great difference between the
breeds and the trueness with which most of them propagate their kind, will
think this care superfluous. Notwithstanding the clear evidence that all
the breeds are the descendants of a single species, I could not persuade
myself until some years had passed that the whole amount of difference
between them had arisen since man first domesticated the wild rock-pigeon.

I have kept alive all the most distinct breeds, which I could procure in
England or from the Continent; and have prepared skeletons of all. I have
received skins from Persia, and a large number from India and other
quarters of the {132} world.[275] Since my admission into two of the London
pigeon-clubs, I have received the kindest assistance from many of the most
eminent amateurs.[276]

The races of the Pigeon which can be distinguished, and which breed true,
are very numerous. MM. Boitard and Corbie[277] describe in detail 122
kinds; and I could add several European kinds not known to them. In India,
judging from the skins sent me, there are many breeds unknown here; and Sir
W. Elliot informs me that a collection imported by an Indian merchant into
Madras from Cairo and Constantinople included several kinds unknown in
India. I have no doubt that there exist considerably above 150 kinds which
breed true and have been separately named. But of these the far greater
number differ from each other only in unimportant characters. Such
differences will be here entirely passed over, and I shall confine myself
to the more important points of structure. That many important differences
exist we shall presently see. I have looked through the magnificent
collection of the Columbidae in the British Museum, and, with the exception
of a few forms (such as the Didunculus, Calaenas, Goura, &c), I do not
hesitate to {133} affirm that some domestic races of the rock-pigeon differ
fully as much from each other in external characters as do the most
distinct natural genera. We may look in vain through the 288 known
species[278] for a beak so small and conical as that of the short-faced
tumbler; for one so broad and short as that of the barb; for one so long,
straight, and narrow, with its enormous wattles, as that of the English
carrier; for an expanded upraised tail like that of the fantail; or for an
oesophagus like that of the pouter. I do not for a moment pretend that the
domestic races differ from each other in their whole organisation as much
as the more distinct natural genera. I refer only to external characters,
on which, however, it must be confessed that most genera of birds have been
founded. When, in a future chapter, we discuss the principle of selection
as followed by man, we shall clearly see why the differences between the
domestic races are almost always confined to external, or at least to
externally visible, characters.

Owing to the amount and gradations of difference between the several
breeds, I have found it indispensable in the following classification to
rank them under Groups, Races, and Sub-races; to which varieties and
sub-varieties, all strictly inheriting their proper characters, must often
be added. Even with the individuals of the same sub-variety, when long kept
by different fanciers, different strains can sometimes be recognised. There
can be no doubt that, if well-characterized forms of the several Races had
been found wild, all would have been ranked as distinct species, and
several of them would certainly have been placed by ornithologists in
distinct genera. A good classification of the various domestic breeds is
extremely difficult, owing to the manner in which many of the forms
graduate into each other; but it is curious how exactly the same
difficulties are encountered, and the same rules have to be followed, as in
the classification of any natural but difficult group of organic beings. An
"artificial classification" might be followed which would present fewer
difficulties than a "natural classification;" but then it would interrupt
many plain affinities. Extreme forms can readily be defined; but
intermediate and troublesome forms {134} often destroy our definitions.
Forms which may be called "aberrant" must sometimes be included within
groups to which they do not accurately belong. Characters of all kinds must
be used; but as with birds in a state of nature, those afforded by the beak
are the best and most readily appreciated. It is not possible to weigh the
importance of all the characters which have to be used so as to make the
groups and sub-groups of equal value. Lastly, a group may contain only one
race, and another and less distinctly defined group may contain several
races and sub-races, and in this case it is difficult, as in the
classification of natural species, to avoid placing too high a value on
characters which are common to a large number of forms.

In my measurements I have never trusted to the eye; and when speaking of a
part being large or small, I always refer to the wild rock-pigeon (_Columba
livia_) as the standard of comparison. The measurements are given in
decimals of an inch.[279]

I will now give a brief description of all the principal breeds. The
following diagram may aid the reader in learning their names and seeing
their affinities. The rock-pigeon, or _Columba livia_ (including under this
name two or three closely-allied sub-species or geographical races,
hereafter to be described), may be confidently viewed, as we shall see in
the next chapter, as the common parent-form. The names in italics on the
right-hand side of the table show us the most distinct breeds, or those
which have undergone the greatest amount of modification. The lengths of
the dotted lines rudely represent the degree of distinctness of each breed
from the parent-stock, and the names {135} placed under each other in the
columns show the more or less closely connecting links. The distances of
the dotted lines from each other approximately represent the amount of
difference between the several breeds.

[Illustration: Fig. 17.--The Rock-pigeon, or Columba livia.[280] The
parent-form of all domesticated Pigeons.]

{136}

COLUMBA LIVIA or ROCK-PIGEON

  GROUP I.               GROUP II.

     1.     SUB-    2.       3.      4.
     .   GROUPS.    .
     .           Kali-Par
     .              .
     .              .
     .              ...Murassa
     .              .
     .              .
     .           Bussorah
     .              .
     .              ....................
     .              .     .      .     .
     .              . Bagadotten .     .
     .              .     .      .     .
     .              . Scanderoon .     .
     .              .     .      .     .
     .              .     .    Tronfo  .
     .              .     .            .
  German P.         .     .            .
     . Lille P.     .     .            .
     .     .     Dragon  Pigeon        .
     .     .        .    Cygne         .
  Dutch P. .        .     .            .
     .     .        .     .            .
     .......        .     .            .
     .              .     .            .
  English       English  Runt.        Barb.
  Pouter.       Carrier.

               GROUP III.                        GROUP IV.

    5.     6.      7.      8.      9.  SUB-      10.     11.
    .      .       .       .       .   GROUPS.   .  .  .  .  .  .  .
    .      .       .       .       .             .  .  .  .  .  .  .
    .      .    Persian    .       .             .  .  .  .  .  .  .
    .      .    Tumbler    .       .             .  .  .  .  .  .  .
    .      .       .       .       .             .  .  .  .  .  .  .
    .      .     Lotan     .       .             .  .  .  .  .  .  .
    .      .    Tumbler    .       .             .  .  .  .  .  .  .
    .      .       .       .       .             .  .  .  .  .  .  .
    .      .    Common     .       .             .  .  .  .  .  .  .
    .      .    Tumbler    .       .             .  .  .  .  .  .  .
    .      .       .       .       .             .  .  .  .  .  .  .
   Java    .       .       .       .             .  .  .  .  .  .  .
  Fantail  .       .       .       .             .  .  .  .  .  .  .
    .      .       .       .       .             .  .  .  .  .  .  .
    .    Turbit    .       .       .             .  .  .  .  .  .  .
    .      .       .       .       .             .  .  .  .  .  .  .
    .      .       .       .       .             .  .  .  .  .  .  .
    .      .       .       .       .    Trumpeter.  .  .  .  .  .  .
    .      .       .       .       .         Laugher.  .  .  .  .  .
    .      .       .       .       . English Frill-back.  .  .  .  .
    .      .       .       .       .                   Nun.  .  .  .
    .      .       .       .       .                     Spot.  .  .
    .      .       .       .       .                     Swallow.  .
    .      .       .       .       .                Dove-cot pigeon.
  Fantail. African Short-  Indian  Jacobin.
           Owl.    faced   Frill-
                   Tumbler. back.

{137}

GROUP I.

This group includes a single race, that of the Pouters. If the most
strongly marked sub-race be taken, namely, the Improved English Pouter,
this is perhaps the most distinct of all domesticated pigeons.

[Illustration: Fig. 18.--English Pouter.]

RACE I.--POUTER PIGEONS. (Kropf-tauben, German. Grosses-gorges, or boulans,
French.)

_Oesophagus of great size, barely separated from the crop, often inflated.
Body and legs elongated. Beak of moderate dimensions._ {138}

    _Sub-race I._--The improved English Pouter, when its crop is fully
    inflated, presents a truly astonishing appearance. The habit of
    slightly inflating the crop is common to all domestic pigeons, but is
    carried to an extreme in the Pouter. The crop does not differ, except
    in size, from that of other pigeons; but is less plainly separated by
    an oblique construction from the oesophagus. The diameter of the upper
    part of the oesophagus is immense, even close up to the head. The beak
    in one bird which I possessed was almost completely buried when the
    oesophagus was fully expanded. The males, especially when excited, pout
    more than the females, and they glory in exercising this power. If a
    bird will not, to use the technical expression, "play," the fancier, as
    I have witnessed, by taking the beak into his mouth, blows him up like
    a balloon; and the bird, then puffed up with wind and pride, struts
    about, retaining his magnificent size as long as he can. Pouters often
    take flight with their crops inflated; and after one of my birds had
    swallowed a good meal of peas and water, as he flew up in order to
    disgorge them and thus feed his nearly fledged young, I have heard the
    peas rattling in his inflated crop as if in a bladder. When flying,
    they often strike the backs of their wings together, and thus make a
    clapping noise.

    Pouters stand remarkably upright, and their bodies are thin and
    elongated. In connexion with this form of body, the ribs are generally
    broader and the vertebrae more numerous than in other breeds. From their
    manner of standing their legs appear longer than they really are,
    though, in proportion with those of _C. livia_, the legs and feet are
    actually longer. The wings appear much elongated, but by measurement,
    in relation to the length of body, this is not the case. The beak
    likewise appears longer, but it is in fact a little shorter (about .03
    of an inch), proportionally with the size of the body, and relatively
    to the beak of the rock-pigeon. The Pouter, though not bulky, is a
    large bird; I measured one which was 341/2 inches from tip to tip of
    wing, and 19 inches from tip of beak to end of tail. In a wild
    rock-pigeon from the Shetland Islands the same measurements gave only
    281/4 and 143/4. There are many sub-varieties of the Pouter of different
    colours, but these I pass over.

    _Sub-race II. Dutch Pouter._--This seems to be the parent-form of our
    improved English Pouters. I kept a pair, but I suspect that they were
    not pure birds. They are smaller than English pouters, and less well
    developed in all their characters. Neumeister[281] says that the wings
    are crossed over the tail, and do not reach to its extremity.

    _Sub-race III. The Lille Pouter_--I know this breed only from
    description.[282] It approaches in general form the Dutch Pouter, but
    the inflated oesophagus assumes a spherical form, as if the pigeon had
    swallowed a large orange, which had stuck close under the beak. This
    inflated ball is represented as rising to a level with the crown of the
    head. The middle toe alone is feathered. A variety of this sub-race,
    called the claquant, is described by MM. Boitard and Corbie; it pouts
    but little, and is characterised {139} by the habit of violently
    hitting its wings together over its back,--a habit which the English
    Pouter has in a slight degree.

    _Sub-race IV. Common German Pouter._--I know this bird only from the
    figures and description given by the accurate Neumeister, one of the
    few writers on pigeons who, as I have found, may be always trusted.
    This sub-race seems considerably different. The upper part of the
    oesophagus is much less distended. The bird stands less upright. The
    feet are not feathered, and the legs and beak are shorter. In these
    respects there is an approach in form to the common rock-pigeon. The
    tail-feathers are very long, yet the tips of the closed wings extend
    beyond the end of the tail; and the length of the wings, from tip to
    tip, and of the body, is greater than in the English Pouter.

GROUP II.

This group includes three Races, namely, Carriers, Runts, and Barbs, which
are manifestly allied to each other. Indeed, certain carriers and runts
pass into each other by such insensible gradations that an arbitrary line
has to be drawn between them. Carriers also graduate through foreign breeds
into the rock-pigeon. Yet, if well-characterised Carriers and Barbs (see
figs. 19 and 20) had existed as wild species, no ornithologist would have
placed them in the same genus with each other or with the rock-pigeon. This
group may, as a general rule, be recognised by the beak being long, with
the skin over the nostrils swollen and often carunculated or wattled, and
with that round the eyes bare and likewise carunculated. The mouth is very
wide, and the feet are large. Nevertheless the Barb, which must be classed
in this same group, has a very short beak, and some runts have very little
bare skin round their eyes.

RACE II.--CARRIERS. (Tuerkische Taube: Pigeons Turcs: Dragons.)

_Beak elongated, narrow, pointed; eyes surrounded by much naked, generally
carunculated skin; neck and body elongated._

[Illustration: Fig. 19.--English Carrier.]

    _Sub-race I. The English Carrier._--This is a fine bird, of large size,
    close feathered, generally dark-, with an elongated neck. The
    beak is attenuated and of wonderful length: in one specimen it was 1.4
    inch in length from the feathered base to the tip; therefore nearly
    twice as long as that of the rock-pigeon, which measured only .77.
    Whenever I compare proportionally any part in the carrier and
    rock-pigeon, I take the length of the body from the base of the beak to
    the end of the tail as the standard of comparison; and according to
    this standard, the beak in one {140} Carrier was nearly half an inch
    longer than in the rock-pigeon. The upper mandible is often slightly
    arched. The tongue is very long. The development of the carunculated
    skin or wattle round the eyes, over the nostrils, and on the lower
    mandible, is prodigious. The eyelids, measured longitudinally, were in
    some specimens exactly twice as long as in the rock-pigeon. The
    external orifice or furrow of the nostrils was also twice as long. The
    open mouth in its widest part was in one case .75 of an inch in width,
    whereas in the rock-pigeon it is only about .4 of an inch. This great
    width of mouth is shown in the skeleton by the reflexed edges of the
    ramus of the lower jaw. The head is flat on the summit and narrow
    between the orbits. The feet are large and coarse; the length, as {141}
    measured from end of hind toe to end of middle toe (without the claws),
    was in two specimens 2.6 inches; and this, proportionally with the
    rock-pigeon, is an excess of nearly a quarter of an inch. One very fine
    Carrier measured 311/2 inches from tip to tip of wing. Birds of this
    sub-race are too valuable to be flown as carriers.

    _Sub-race II. Dragons; Persian Carriers._--The English Dragon differs
    from the improved English Carrier in being smaller in all its
    dimensions, and in having less wattle round the eyes and over the
    nostrils, and none on the lower mandible. Sir W. Elliot sent me from
    Madras a Bagdad Carrier (sometimes called khandesi), the name of which
    shows its Persian origin; it would be considered here a very poor
    Dragon; the body was of the size of the rock-pigeon, with the beak a
    little longer, namely, 1 inch from the tip to the feathered base. The
    skin round the eyes was only slightly wattled, whilst that over the
    nostrils was fairly wattled. The Hon. C. Murray, also, sent me two
    Carriers direct from Persia; these had nearly the same character as the
    Madras bird, being about as large as the rock-pigeon, but the beak in
    one specimen was as much as 1.15 in length; the skin over the nostrils
    was only moderately, and that round the eyes scarcely at all wattled.

    _Sub-race III. Bagadotten-Tauben of Neumeister_ (Pavdotten or
    Hocker-Tauben).--I owe to the kindness of Mr. Baily, jun., a dead
    specimen of this singular breed imported from Germany. It is certainly
    allied to the Runts; nevertheless, from its close affinity with
    Carriers, it will be convenient here to describe it. The beak is long,
    and is hooked or bowed downwards in a highly remarkable manner, as will
    be seen in the woodcut to be hereafter given when I treat of the
    skeleton. The eyes are surrounded by a wide space of bright red skin,
    which, as well as that over the nostrils, is moderately wattled. The
    breast-bone is remarkably protuberant, being abruptly bowed outwards.
    The feet and tarsi are of great length, larger than in first-rate
    English Carriers. The whole bird is of large size, but in proportion to
    the size of the body the feathers of the wing and tail are short; a
    wild rock-pigeon, of considerably less size, had tail-feathers 4.6
    inches in length, whereas in the large Bagadotten these feathers were
    scarcely over 4.1 inches in length. Riedel[283] remarks that it is a
    very silent bird.

    _Sub-race IV. Bussorah Carrier._--Two specimens were sent me by Sir W.
    Elliot from Madras, one in spirits and the other skinned. The name
    shows its Persian origin. It is much valued in India, and is considered
    as a distinct breed from the Bagdad Carrier, which forms my second
    sub-race. At first I suspected that these two sub-races might have been
    recently formed by crosses with other breeds, though the estimation in
    which they are held renders this improbable; but in a Persian
    treatise,[284] believed to have been written about 100 years ago, the
    Bagdad and Bussorah breeds are described as distinct. The Bussorah
    Carrier is of about the same size with the wild rock-pigeon. The shape
    of the beak, with some little carunculated skin over the nostrils,--the
    much elongated eyelids,--the {142} broad mouth measured
    internally,--the narrow head,--the feet proportionally a little longer
    than in the rock-pigeon,--and the general appearance, all show that
    this bird is an undoubted Carrier; yet in one specimen the beak was of
    exactly the same length as in the rock-pigeon. In the other specimen
    the beak (as well as the opening of the nostrils) was only a very
    little longer, viz. by .08 of an inch. Although there was a
    considerable space of bare and slightly carunculated skin round the
    eyes, that over the nostrils was only in a slight degree rugose. Sir W.
    Elliot informs me that in the living bird the eye seems remarkably
    large and prominent, and the same fact is noticed in the Persian
    treatise; but the bony orbit is barely larger than that in the
    rock-pigeon.

    Amongst the several breeds sent to me from Madras by Sir W. Elliot
    there is a pair of the _Kala Par_, black birds with the beak slightly
    elongated, with the skin over the nostrils rather full, and with a
    little naked skin round the eyes. This breed seems more closely allied
    to the Carrier than to any other breed, being nearly intermediate
    between the Bussorah Carrier and the rock-pigeon.

    The names applied in different parts of Europe and in India to the
    several kinds of Carriers all point to Persia or the surrounding
    countries as the source of this Race. And it deserves especial notice
    that, even if we neglect the Kala Par as of doubtful origin, we get a
    series broken by very small steps, from the rock-pigeon, through the
    Bussorah, which sometimes has a beak not at all longer than that of the
    rock-pigeon and with the naked skin round the eyes and over the
    nostrils very slightly swollen and carunculated, through the Bagdad
    sub-race and Dragons, to our improved English Carriers, which present
    so marvellous a difference from the rock-pigeon or _Columba livia_.

RACE III.--RUNTS. (Scanderoons: Die Florentiner-Taube and Hinkel-Taube of
Neumeister: Pigeon Bagadais, Pigeon Romain.)

_Beak long, massive; body of great size._

    Inextricable confusion reigns in the classification, affinities, and
    naming of Runts. Several characters which are generally pretty constant
    in other pigeons, such as the length of the wings, tail, legs, and
    neck, and the amount of naked skin round the eyes, are excessively
    variable in Runts. When the naked skin over the nostrils and round the
    eyes is considerably developed and wattled, and when the size of body
    is not very great, Runts graduate in so insensible a manner into
    Carriers, that the distinction is quite arbitrary. This fact is
    likewise shown by the names given to them in different parts of Europe.
    Nevertheless, taking the most distinct forms, at least five sub-races
    (some of them including well-marked varieties) can be distinguished,
    which differ in such important points of structure, that they would be
    considered as good species in a state of nature.

    _Sub-race I. Scanderoon of English writers_ (Die Florentiner and
    Hinkel-Taube of Neumeister).--Birds of this sub-race, of which I kept
    one alive {143} and have since seen two others, differ from the
    Bagadotten of Neumeister only in not haying the beak nearly so much
    curved downwards, and in the naked skin round the eyes and over the
    nostrils being hardly at all wattled. Nevertheless I have felt myself
    compelled to place the Bagadotten in Race II., or that of the Carriers,
    and the present bird in Race III., or that of the Runts. The Scanderoon
    has a very short, narrow, and elevated tail; wings extremely short, so
    that the first primary feathers were not longer than those of a small
    tumbler pigeon! Neck long, much bowed; breast-bone prominent. Beak
    long, being 1.15 inch from tip to feathered base; vertically thick;
    slightly curved downwards. The skin over the nostrils swollen, not
    wattled; naked skin round the eyes, broad, slightly carunculated. Legs
    long; feet very large. Skin of neck bright red, often showing a naked
    medial line, with a naked red patch at the distant end of the radius of
    the wing. My bird, as measured from the base of the beak to the root of
    the tail, was fully 2 inches longer than the rock-pigeon; yet the tail
    itself was only 4 inches in length, whereas in the rock-pigeon, which
    is a much smaller bird, the tail is 4-5/8 inches in length.

    The Hinkel or Florentiner-Taube of Neumeister (Table XIII., fig. 1)
    agrees with the above description in all the specified characters (for
    the beak is not mentioned), except that Neumeister expressly says that
    the neck is short, whereas in my Scanderoon it was remarkably long and
    bowed; so that the Hinkel forms a well-marked variety.

    _Sub-race II. Pigeon Cygne and Pigeon Bagadais of Boitard and Corbie_
    (Scanderoon of French writers).--I kept two of these birds alive,
    imported from France. They differed from the first sub-race or true
    Scanderoon in the much greater length of the wing and tail, in the beak
    not being so long, and in the skin about the head being more
    carunculated. The skin of the neck is red; but the naked patches on the
    wings are absent. One of my birds measured 381/2 inches from tip to tip
    of wing. By taking the length of the body as the standard of
    comparison, the two wings were no loss than 5 inches longer than those
    of the rock-pigeon! The tail was 61/4 inches in length, and therefore 21/4
    inches longer than that of the Scanderoon,--a bird of nearly the same
    size. The beak is longer, thicker, and broader than in the rock-pigeon,
    proportionally with the size of body. The eyelids, nostrils, and
    internal gape of mouth are all proportionally very large, as in
    Carriers. The foot, from the end of the middle to end of hind toe, was
    actually 2.85 inches in length, which is an excess of .32 of an inch
    over the foot of the rock-pigeon, relatively to the size of the two
    birds.

    _Sub-race III. Spanish and Roman Runts_.--I am not sure that I am right
    in placing these Runts in a distinct sub-race; yet, if we take
    well-characterized birds, there can be no doubt of the propriety of the
    separation. They are heavy, massive birds, with shorter necks, legs,
    and beaks than in the foregoing races. The skin over the nostrils is
    swollen, but not carunculated; the naked skin round the eyes is not
    very wide, and only slightly carunculated; and I have seen a fine
    so-called Spanish Runt with hardly any naked skin round the eyes. Of
    the two varieties to be seen in England, one, which is the rarer, has
    very long wings and tail, {144} and agrees pretty closely with the last
    sub-race; the other, with shorter wings and tail, is apparently the
    _Pigeon Romain ordinaire_ of Boitard and Corbie. These Runts are apt to
    tremble like Fantails. They are bad flyers. A few years ago Mr.
    Gulliver[285] exhibited a Runt which weighed 1 lb. 14 oz.; and, as I am
    informed by Mr. Tegetmeier, two Runts from the south of France were
    lately exhibited at the Crystal Palace, each of which weighed 2 lbs. 21/2
    oz. A very fine rock-pigeon from the Shetland Islands weighed only 141/2
    oz.

    _Sub-race IV. Tronfo of Aldrovandi_ (Leghorn Runt?).--In Aldrovandi's
    work published in 1600 there is a coarse woodcut of a great Italian
    pigeon, with an elevated tail, short legs, massive body, and with the
    beak short and thick. I had imagined that this latter character, so
    abnormal in the group, was merely a false representation from bad
    drawing; but Moore, in his work published in 1735, says that he
    possessed a Leghorn Runt of which "the beak was very short for so large
    a bird." In other respects Moore's bird resembled the first sub-race or
    Scanderoon, for it had a long bowed neck, long legs, short beak, and
    elevated tail, and not much wattle about the head. So that Aldrovandi's
    and Moore's birds must have formed distinct varieties, both of which
    seem to be now extinct in Europe. Sir W. Elliot, however, informs me
    that he has seen in Madras a short-beaked Runt imported from Cairo.

    _Sub-race V. Murassa (adorned Pigeon) of Madras._--Skins of these
    handsome chequered birds were sent me from Madras by Sir W. Elliot.
    They are rather larger than the largest rock-pigeon, with longer and
    more massive beaks. The skin over the nostrils is rather full and very
    slightly carunculated, and they have some naked skin round the eyes:
    feet large. This breed is intermediate between the rock-pigeon and a
    very poor variety of Runt or Carrier.

    From these several descriptions we see that with Runts, as with
    Carriers, we have a fine gradation from the rock-pigeon (with the
    Tronfo diverging as a distinct branch) to our largest and most massive
    Runts. But the chain of affinities, and many points of resemblance,
    between Runts and Carriers, make me believe that these two races have
    not descended by independent lines from the rock-pigeon, but from some
    common parent, as represented in the Table, which had already acquired
    a moderately long beak, with slightly swollen skin over the nostrils,
    and with some slightly carunculated naked skin round the eyes.

RACE IV.--BARBS. (Indische-Taube: Pigeons Polonais.)

_Beak short, broad, deep; naked skin round the eyes, broad and
carunculated; skin over nostrils slightly swollen._

[Illustration: Fig. 20.--English Barb.]

    Misled by the extraordinary shortness and form of the beak, I did not
    at first perceive the near affinity of this Race to that of Carriers
    until the fact was pointed out to me by Mr. Brent. Subsequently, after
    examining {145} the Bussorah Carrier, I saw that no very great amount
    of modification would be requisite to convert it into a Barb. This view
    of the affinity of Barbs to Carriers is supported by the analogical
    difference between the short and long-beaked Runts; and still more
    strongly by the fact, that young Barbs and Dragons, within 24 hours
    after being hatched, resemble each other much more closely than do
    young pigeons of other and equally distinct breeds. At this early age,
    the length of beak, the swollen skin over the rather open nostrils, the
    gape of the mouth, and the size of the feet, are the same in both;
    although these parts afterwards become widely different. We thus see
    that embryology (as the comparison of very young animals {146} may
    perhaps be called) comes into play in the classification of domestic
    varieties, as with species in a state of nature.

    Fanciers, with some truth, compare the head and beak of the Barb to
    that of a bullfinch. The Barb, if found in a state of nature, would
    certainly have been placed in a new genus formed for its reception. The
    body is a little larger than that of the rock-pigeon, but the beak is
    more than .2 of an inch shorter; although shorter, it is both
    vertically and horizontally thicker. From the outward flexure of the
    rami of the lower jaw, the mouth internally is very broad, in the
    proportion of .6 to .4 to that of the rock-pigeon. The whole head is
    broad. The skin over the nostrils is swollen, but not carunculated,
    except slightly in first-rate birds when old; whilst the naked skin
    round the eye is broad and much carunculated. It is sometimes so much
    developed, that a bird belonging to Mr. Harrison Weir could hardly see
    to pick up food from the ground. The eyelids in one specimen were
    nearly twice as long as those of the rock-pigeon. The feet are coarse
    and strong, but proportionally rather shorter than in the rock-pigeon.
    The plumage is generally dark and uniform. Barbs, in short, may be
    called short-beaked Carriers, bearing the same relation to Carriers
    that the Tronfo of Aldrovandi does to the common Runt.

GROUP III.

This group is artificial, and includes a heterogeneous collection of
distinct forms. It may be defined by the beak, in well-characterised
specimens of the several races, being shorter than in the rock-pigeon, and
by the skin round the eyes not being much developed.

RACE V.--FANTAILS.

_Sub-race I. European Fantails_ (Pfauen-Taube; Trembleurs). _Tail expanded,
directed upwards, formed of many feathers; oil-gland aborted; body and beak
rather short_.

[Illustration: Fig. 21.--English Fantail.]

    The normal number of tail-feathers in the genus Columba is 12; but
    Fantails have from only 12 (as has been asserted) up to, according to
    MM. Boitard and Corbie, 42. I have counted in one of my own birds 33,
    and at Calcutta Mr. Blyth[286] has counted in an _imperfect_ tail 34
    feathers. In Madras, as I am informed by Sir W. Elliot, 32 is the
    standard number; but in England number is much less valued than the
    position and expansion of the tail. The feathers are arranged in an
    irregular double row; their permanent expansion, like a fan, and their
    upward direction, are more remarkable characters than their increased
    number. The tail is capable of the same movements as in other pigeons,
    and can be depressed so as to sweep the ground. It arises from a more
    expanded basis than in {147} other pigeons; and in three skeletons
    there were one or two extra coccygeal vertebrae. I have examined many
    specimens of various colours from different countries, and there was no
    trace of the oil-gland; this is a curious case of abortion.[287] The
    neck is thin and bowed {148} backwards. The breast is broad and
    protuberant. The feet are small. The carriage of the bird is very
    different from that of other pigeons; in good birds the head touches
    the tail-feathers, which consequently often become crumpled. They
    habitually tremble much; and their necks have an extraordinary,
    apparently convulsive, backward and forward movement. Good birds walk
    in a singular manner, as if their small feet were stiff. Owing to their
    large tails, they fly badly on a windy day. The dark- varieties
    are generally larger than white Fantails.

    Although between the best and common Fantails, now existing in England,
    there is a vast difference in the position and size of the tail, in the
    carriage of the head and neck, in the convulsive movements of the neck,
    in the manner of walking, and in the breadth of the breast, the
    differences so graduate away, that it is impossible to make more than
    one sub-race. Moore, however, an excellent old authority,[288] says,
    that in 1735 there were two sorts of broad-tailed shakers (_i.e._
    fantails), "one having a neck much longer and more slender than the
    other;" and I am informed by Mr. B. P. Brent that there is an existing
    German Fantail with a thicker and shorter beak.

    _Sub-race II. Java Fantail._--Mr. Swinhoe sent me from Amoy, in China,
    the skin of a Fantail belonging to a breed known to have been imported
    from Java. It was  in a peculiar manner, unlike any European
    Fantail, and, for a Fantail, had a remarkably short beak. Although a
    good bird of the kind, it had only 14 tail-feathers; but Mr. Swinhoe
    has counted in other birds of this breed from 18 to 24 tail-feathers.
    From a rough sketch sent to me, it is evident that the tail is not so
    much expanded or so much upraised as in even second-rate European
    Fantails. The bird shakes its neck like our Fantails. It had a
    well-developed oil-gland. Fantails were known in India, as we shall
    hereafter see, before the year 1600; and we may suspect that in the
    Java Fantail we see the breed in its earlier and less improved
    condition.

RACE VI.--TURBIT AND OWL. (Moeven-Taube: Pigeons a cravate.)

_Feathers divergent along the front of the neck and breast; beak very
short, vertically rather thick; oesophagus somewhat enlarged._

[Illustration: Fig. 22.--African Owl.]

    Turbits and Owls differ from each other slightly in the shape of the
    head, in the former having a crest, and in the curvature of the beak,
    but they may be here conveniently grouped together. These pretty birds,
    some of which are very small, can be recognised at once by the feathers
    irregularly diverging, like a frill, along the front of the neck, in
    the same manner, but in a less degree, as along the back of the neck in
    the Jacobin. This bird has the remarkable habit of continually, and
    momentarily inflating the upper part of the oesophagus, which causes a
    movement in the frill. {149} When the oesophagus of a dead bird was
    inflated, it was seen to be larger than in other breeds, and not so
    distinctly separated from the crop. The Pouter inflates both its true
    crop and oesophagus; the Turbit inflates in a much less degree the
    oesophagus alone. The beak of the Turbit is very short, being .28 of an
    inch shorter than that of the rock-pigeon, proportionally with the size
    of their bodies; and in some owls brought by Mr. E. Vernon Harcourt
    from Tunis, it was even shorter. The beak is vertically thicker, and
    perhaps a little broader, in proportion to that of the rock-pigeon.

{150}

RACE VII.--TUMBLERS. (Tuemmler, or Burzel-Tauben: Culbutants.)

_During flight, tumble backwards; body generally small; beak generally
short, sometimes excessively short and conical._

    This Race may be divided into four sub-races, namely, Persian, Lotan,
    Common, and Short-faced Tumblers. These sub-races include many
    varieties which breed true. I have examined eight skeletons of various
    kinds of Tumblers: excepting in one imperfect and doubtful specimen,
    the ribs are only seven in number, whereas the rock-pigeon has eight
    ribs.

    _Sub-race I. Persian Tumblers._--I have received a pair direct from
    Persia, from the Hon. C. Murray. They were rather smaller birds than
    the wild rock-pigeon, being about the size of the common
    dovecot-pigeon, white and mottled, slightly feathered on the feet, with
    the beak just perceptibly shorter than in the rock-pigeon. H.M. Consul,
    Mr. Keith Abbott, informs me that the difference in the length of beak
    is so slight, that only practised Persian fanciers can distinguish
    these Tumblers from the common pigeon of the country. He informs me
    that they fly in flocks high up in the air and tumble well. Some of
    them occasionally appear to become giddy and tumble to the ground, in
    which respect they resemble some of our Tumblers.

    _Sub-race II. Lotan, or Lowtun: Indian Ground Tumblers._--These birds
    present one of the most remarkable inherited habits or instincts which
    have ever been recorded. The specimens sent to me from Madras by Sir W.
    Elliot are white, slightly feathered on the feet, with the feathers on
    the head reversed; and they are rather smaller than the rock or dovecot
    pigeon. The beak is proportionally only slightly shorter and rather
    thinner than in the rock-pigeon. These birds when gently shaken and
    placed on the ground immediately begin tumbling head over heels, and
    they continue thus to tumble until taken up and soothed,--the ceremony
    being generally to blow in their faces, as in recovering a person from
    a state of hypnotism or mesmerism. It is asserted that they will
    continue to roll over till they die, if not taken up. There is abundant
    evidence with respect to these remarkable peculiarities; but what makes
    the case the more worthy of attention is, that the habit has been
    strictly inherited since before the year 1600, for the breed is
    distinctly described in the 'Ayeen Akbery.'[289] Mr. Evans kept a pair
    in London, imported by Captain Vigne; and he assures me that he has
    seen them tumble in the air, as well as in the manner above described
    on the ground. Sir W. Elliot, however, writes to me from Madras, that
    he is informed that they tumble exclusively on the ground, or at a very
    small height above it. He also {151} mentions another sub-variety,
    called the Kalmi Lotan, which begins to roll over if only touched on
    the neck with a rod or wand.

    _Sub-race III. Common English Tumblers._--These birds have exactly the
    same habits as the Persian Tumbler, but tumble better. The English bird
    is rather smaller than the Persian, and the beak is plainly shorter.
    Compared with the rock-pigeon, and proportionally with the size of
    body, the beak is from .16 to nearly .2 of an inch shorter, but it is
    not thinner. There are several varieties of the common Tumbler, namely,
    Baldheads, Beards, and Dutch Rollers. I have kept the latter alive;
    they have differently shaped heads, longer necks, and are
    feather-footed. They tumble to an extraordinary degree; as Mr. Brent
    remarks,[290] "Every few seconds over they go; one, two, or three
    summersaults at a time. Here and there a bird gives a very quick and
    rapid spin, revolving like a wheel, though they sometimes lose their
    balance, and make a rather ungraceful fall, in which they occasionally
    hurt themselves by striking some object." From Madras I have received
    several specimens of the common Tumbler of India, differing slightly
    from each other in the length of their beaks. Mr. Brent sent me a dead
    specimen of a "House-tumbler,"[291] which is a Scotch variety, not
    differing in general appearance and form of beak from the common
    Tumbler. Mr. Brent states that these birds generally begin to tumble
    "almost as soon as they can well fly; at three months old they tumble
    well, but still fly strong; at five or six months they tumble
    excessively; and in the second year they mostly give up flying, on
    account of their tumbling so much and so close to the ground. Some fly
    round with the flock, throwing a clean summersault every few yards,
    till they are obliged to settle from giddiness and exhaustion. These
    are called Air Tumblers, and they commonly throw from twenty to thirty
    summersaults in a minute, each clear and clean. I have one red cock
    that I have on two or three occasions timed by my watch, and counted
    forty summersaults in the minute. Others tumble differently. At first
    they throw a single summersault, then it is double, till it becomes a
    continuous roll, which puts an end to flying, for if they fly a few
    yards over they go, and roll till they reach the ground. Thus I had one
    kill herself, and another broke his leg. Many of them turn over only a
    few inches from the ground, and will tumble two or three times in
    flying across their loft. These are called House-tumblers, from
    tumbling in the house. The act of tumbling seems to be one over which
    they have no control, an involuntary movement which they seem to try to
    prevent. I have seen a bird sometimes in his struggles fly a yard or
    two straight upwards, the impulse forcing him backwards while he
    struggles to go forwards. If suddenly startled, or in a strange place,
    they seem less able to fly than if quiet in their accustomed loft."
    These House-tumblers differ from the Lotan or Ground {152} Tumbler of
    India, in not requiring to be shaken in order to begin tumbling. The
    breed has probably been formed merely by selecting the best common
    Tumblers, though it is possible that they may have been crossed at some
    former period with Lotans.

[Illustration: Fig. 23.--Short-faced English Tumbler.]

    _Sub-race IV. Short-faced Tumblers._--These are marvellous birds, and
    are the glory and pride of many fanciers. In their extremely short,
    sharp, and conical beaks, with the skin over the nostrils but little
    developed, they almost depart from the type of the Columbidae. Their
    heads are nearly globular {153} and upright in front, so that some
    fanciers say[292] "the head should resemble a cherry with a barley-corn
    stuck in it." These are the smallest kind of pigeons. Mr. Esquilant
    possessed a blue Baldhead, two years old, which when alive weighed,
    before feeding-time, only 6 oz. 5 drs.; two others, each weighed 7 oz.
    We have seen that a wild rock-pigeon weighed 14 oz. 2 drs., and a Runt
    34 oz. 4 drs. Short-faced Tumblers have a remarkably erect carriage,
    with prominent breasts, drooping wings, and very small feet. The length
    of the beak from the tip to the feathered base was in one good bird
    only .4 of an inch; in a wild rock-pigeon it was exactly double this
    length. As these Tumblers have shorter bodies than the wild
    rock-pigeon, they ought of course to have shorter beaks; but
    proportionally with the size of body, the beak is .28 of an inch too
    short. So, again, the feet of this bird were actually .45 shorter, and
    proportionally .21 of an inch shorter, than the feet of the
    rock-pigeon. The middle toe has only twelve or thirteen, instead of
    fourteen or fifteen scutellae. The primary wing-feathers are not rarely
    only nine instead of ten in number. The improved short-faced Tumblers
    have almost lost the power of tumbling; but there are several authentic
    accounts of their occasionally tumbling. There are several
    sub-varieties, such as Baldheads, Beards, Mottles, and Almonds; the
    latter are remarkable from not acquiring their perfectly-
    plumage until they have moulted three or four times. There is good
    reason to believe that most of these sub-varieties, some of which breed
    truly, have arisen since the publication of Moore's treatise in
    1735.[293]

    Finally, in regard to the whole group of Tumblers, it is impossible to
    conceive a more perfect gradation than I have now lying before me, from
    the rock-pigeon, through Persian, Lotan, and Common Tumblers, up to the
    marvellous short-faced birds; which latter, no ornithologist, judging
    from mere external structure, would place in the same genus with the
    rock-pigeon. The differences between the successive steps in this
    series are not greater than those which may be observed between common
    dovecot-pigeons (_C. livia_) brought from different countries.

RACE VIII--INDIAN FRILL-BACK.

_Beak very short; feathers reversed._

    A specimen of this bird, in spirits, was sent to me from Madras by Sir
    W. Elliot. It is wholly different from the Frill-back often exhibited
    in England. It is a smallish bird, about the size of the common
    Tumbler, but has a beak in all its proportions like our short-faced
    Tumblers. The beak, measured from the tip to the feathered base, was
    only .46 of an inch in length. The feathers over the whole body are
    reversed or curl backwards. Had this bird occurred in Europe, I should
    have thought it only a monstrous variety of our improved Tumbler; but
    as short-faced Tumblers are not known in India, I think it must rank as
    a distinct breed. Probably {154} this is the breed seen by Hasselquist
    in 1757 at Cairo, and said to have been imported from India.

RACE IX.--JACOBIN. (Zopf or Peruecken-Taube: Nonnains.)

_Feathers of the neck forming a hood; wings and tail long; beak moderately
short._

    This pigeon can at once be recognised by its hood, almost enclosing the
    head and meeting in front of the neck. The hood seems to be merely an
    exaggeration of the crest of reversed feathers on the back of the head,
    which is common to many sub-varieties, and which in the Latz-taube[294]
    is in a nearly intermediate state between a hood and a crest. The
    feathers of the hood are elongated. Both the wings and tail are
    likewise much elongated; thus the folded wing of the Jacobin, though a
    somewhat smaller bird, is fully 11/4 inch longer than in the rock-pigeon.
    Taking the length of the body without the tail as the standard of
    comparison, the folded wing, proportionally with the wings of the
    rock-pigeon, is 21/4 inches too long, and the two wings, from tip to tip,
    51/4 inches too long. In disposition this bird is singularly quiet,
    seldom flying or moving about, as Bechstein and Riedel have likewise
    remarked in Germany.[295] The latter author also notices the length of
    the wings and tail. The beak is nearly .2 of an inch shorter in
    proportion to the size of the body than in the rock-pigeon; but the
    internal gape of the mouth is considerably wider.

GROUP IV.

The birds of this group may be characterised by their resemblance in all
important points of structure, especially in the beak, to the rock-pigeon.
The Trumpeter forms the only well-marked race. Of the numerous other
sub-races and varieties I shall specify only a few of the most distinct,
which I have myself seen and kept alive.

RACE X.--TRUMPETER. (Trommel-Taube; Pigeon tambour; glougou.)

_A tuft of feathers at the base of the beak curling forward; feet much
feathered; voice very peculiar; size exceeding that of the rock-pigeon._

    This is a well-marked breed, with a peculiar voice, wholly unlike that
    of any other pigeon. The coo is rapidly repeated, and is continued for
    {155} several minutes; hence their name of Trumpeters. They are also
    characterised by a tuft of elongated feathers, which curls forward over
    the base of the beak, and which is possessed by no other breed. Their
    feet are so heavily feathered, that they almost appear like little
    wings. They are larger birds than the rock-pigeon, but their beak is of
    very nearly the same proportional size. Their feet are rather small.
    This breed was perfectly characterised in Moore's time, in 1735. Mr.
    Brent says that two varieties exist, which differ in size.

RACE XI.--_Scarcely differing in structure from the wild Columba livia._

    _Sub-race 1. Laughers. Size less than the Rock-pigeon; voice very
    peculiar._--As this bird agrees in nearly all its proportions with the
    rock-pigeon, though of smaller size, I should not have thought it
    worthy of mention, had it not been for its peculiar voice--a character
    supposed seldom to vary with birds. Although the voice of the Laugher
    is very different from that of the Trumpeter, yet one of my Trumpeters
    used to utter a single note like that of the Laugher. I have kept two
    varieties of Laughers, which differed only in one variety being
    turn-crowned; the smooth-headed kind, for which I am indebted to the
    kindness of Mr. Brent, besides its peculiar note, used to coo in a
    singular and pleasing manner, which, independently, struck both Mr.
    Brent and myself as resembling that of the turtle-dove. Both varieties
    come from Arabia. This breed was known by Moore in 1735. A pigeon which
    seems to say Yak-roo is mentioned in 1600 in the 'Ayeen Akbery,' and is
    probably the same breed. Sir W. Elliot has also sent me from Madras a
    pigeon called Yahui, said to have come from Mecca, which does not
    differ in appearance from the Laugher; it has "a deep melancholy voice,
    like Yahu, often repeated." Yahu, yahu, means Oh God, Oh God; and
    Sayzid Mohammed Musari, in the treatise written about 100 years ago,
    says that these birds "are not flown, because they repeat the name of
    the Most High God." Mr. Keith Abbott, however, informs me that the
    common pigeon is called Yahoo in Persia.

    _Sub-race II. Common Frill-back_ (Die Strupp-Taube). _Beak rather
    longer than in the Rock-pigeon; feathers reversed._--This is a
    considerably larger bird than the rock-pigeons and with the beak,
    proportionally with the size of body, a little (viz. by .04 of an inch)
    longer. The feathers, especially on the wing-coverts, have their points
    curled upwards or backwards.

    _Sub-race III. Nuns_ (Pigeons-coquilles).--These elegant birds are
    smaller than the rock-pigeon. The beak is actually .17, and
    proportionally with the size of the body .1 of an inch shorter than in
    the rock-pigeons, although of the same thickness. In young birds the
    scutellae on the tarsi and toes are generally of a leaden-black colour;
    and this is a remarkable character (though observed in a lesser degree
    in some other breeds), as the colour of the legs in the adult state is
    subject to very little variation in any breed. I have on two or three
    occasions counted thirteen or fourteen feathers in the tail; this
    likewise occurs in the barely distinct breed called Helmets. {156} Nuns
    are symmetrically , with the head, primary wing-feathers, tail,
    and tail-coverts of the same colour, namely, black or red, and with the
    rest of the body white. This breed has retained the same character
    since Aldrovandi wrote in 1600. I have received from Madras almost
    similarly  birds.

    _Sub-race IV. Spots_ (Die Blass-Taube: Pigeons heurtes).--These birds
    are a very little larger than the rock-pigeon, with the beak a trace
    smaller in all its dimensions, and with the feet decidedly smaller.
    They are symmetrically , with a spot on the forehead, with the
    tail and tail-coverts of the same colour, the rest of the body being
    white. This breed existed in 1676;[296] and in 1735 Moore remarks that
    they breed truly, as is the case at the present day.

    _Sub-race V. Swallows._--These birds, as measured from tip to tip of
    wing, or from the end of the beak to the end of the tail, exceed in
    size the rock-pigeon; but their bodies are much less bulky; their feet
    and legs are likewise smaller. The beak is of about the same length,
    but rather slighter. Altogether their general appearance is
    considerably different from that of the rock-pigeon. Their heads and
    wings are of the same colour, the rest of the body being white. Their
    flight is said to be peculiar. This seems to be a modern breed, which,
    however, originated before the year 1795 in Germany, for it is
    described by Bechstein.

       *       *       *       *       *

    Besides the several breeds now described, three or four other very
    distinct kinds existed lately, or perhaps still exist, in Germany and
    France. Firstly, the Karmeliten, or Carme Pigeon, which I have not
    seen; it is described as of small size, with very short legs, and with
    an extremely short beak. Secondly, the Finnikin, which is now extinct
    in England. It had, according to Moore's[297] treatise, published in
    1735, a tuft of feathers on the hinder part of the head, which ran down
    its back not unlike a horse's mane. "When it is salacious it rises over
    the hen and turns round three or four times, flapping its wings, then
    reverses and turns as many times the other way." The Turner, on the
    other hand, when it "plays to the female, turns only one way." Whether
    these extraordinary statements may be trusted I know not; but the
    inheritance of any habit may be believed, after what we have seen with
    respect to the Ground-tumbler of India. MM. Boitard and Corbie describe
    a pigeon[298] which has the singular habit of sailing for a
    considerable time through the air, without flapping its wings, like a
    bird of prey. The confusion is inextricable, from the time of
    Aldrovandi in 1600 to the present day, in the accounts published of the
    Draijers, Smiters, Finnikins, Turners, Claquers, &c., which are all
    remarkable from their manner of flight. Mr. Brent informs me that he
    has seen one of these breeds in Germany with its wing-feathers injured
    from having been so often struck together; but he did not see it
    flying. An old stuffed specimen of a Finnikin in the British Museum
    presents no well-marked character. Thirdly, a singular pigeon {157}
    with a forked tail is mentioned in some treatises; and as
    Bechstein[299] briefly describes and figures this bird, with a tail
    "having completely the structure of that of the house-swallow," it must
    once have, existed, for Bechstein was far too good a naturalist to have
    confounded any distinct species with the domestic pigeon. Lastly, an
    extraordinary pigeon imported from Belgium has lately been exhibited at
    the Philoperisteron Society in London,[300] which "conjoins the colour
    of an archangel with the head of an owl or barb, its most striking
    peculiarity being the extraordinary length of the tail and
    wing-feathers, the latter crossing beyond the tail, and giving to the
    bird the appearance of a gigantic swift (Cypselus), or long-winged
    hawk." Mr. Tegetmeier informs me that this bird weighed only 10 ounces,
    but in length was 151/2 inches from tip of beak to end of tail, and 321/2
    inches from tip to tip of wing; now the wild rock-pigeon weighs 141/2
    ounces, and measures from tip of beak to end of tail 15 inches, and
    from tip to tip of wing only 263/4 inches.

I have now described all the domestic pigeons known to me, and have added a
few others on reliable authority. I have classed them under four Groups, in
order to mark their affinities and degrees of difference; but the third
group is artificial. The kinds examined by me form eleven races, which
include several sub-races; and even these latter present differences that
would certainly have been thought of specific value if observed in a state
of nature. The sub-races likewise include many strictly inherited
varieties; so that altogether there must exist, as previously stated, above
150 kinds which can be distinguished, though generally by characters of
extremely slight importance. Many of the genera of the Columbidae, which are
admitted by ornithologists, do not differ in any great degree from each
other; taking this into consideration, there can be no doubt that several
of the most strongly characterised domestic forms, if found wild, would
have been placed in at least five new genera. Thus, a new genus would have
been formed for the reception of the improved English Pouter: a second
genus for Carriers and Runts; and this would have been a wide or
comprehensive genus, for it would have admitted common Spanish Runts
without any wattle, short-beaked Runts like the Tronfo, and the improved
English Carrier: a third genus would have been termed for the Barb: a
fourth for the Fantail: and lastly, a fifth for the short-beaked,
not-wattled pigeons, such as Turbits {158} and short-faced Tumblers. The
remaining domestic forms might have been included in the same genus with
the wild rock-pigeon.

_Individual Variability; Variations of a remarkable nature._

The differences which we have as yet considered are characteristic of
distinct breeds; but there are other differences, either confined to
individual birds, or often observed in certain breeds but not
characteristic of them. These individual differences are of importance, as
they might in most cases be secured and accumulated by man's power of
selection; and thus an existing breed might be greatly modified or a new
one formed. Fanciers notice and select only those slight differences which
are externally visible; but the whole organisation is so tied together by
correlation of growth, that a change in one part is frequently accompanied
by other changes. For our purpose, modifications of all kinds are equally
important, and, if affecting a part which does not commonly vary, are of
more importance than a modification in some conspicuous part. At the
present day any visible deviation of character in a well-established breed
is rejected as a blemish; but it by no means follows that at an early
period, before well-marked breeds had been formed, such deviations would
have been rejected; on the contrary, they would have been eagerly preserved
as presenting a novelty, and would then have been slowly augmented, as we
shall hereafter more clearly see, by the process of unconscious selection.

    I have made numerous measurements of the various parts of the body in
    the several breeds, and have hardly ever found them quite the same in
    birds of the same breed,--the differences being greater than we
    commonly meet with in wild species. To begin with the primary feathers
    of the wing and tail; but I may first mention, as some readers may not
    be aware of the fact, that the number of the primary wing and tail
    feathers in wild birds is generally constant, and characterises, not
    only whole genera, but even whole families. When the tail-feathers are
    unusually numerous, as for instance in the swan, they are apt to be
    variable in number; but this does not apply to the several species and
    genera of the Columbidae, which never (as far as I can hear) have less
    than twelve or more than sixteen tail-feathers; and these numbers
    characterise, with rare exception, whole sub-families.[301] The wild
    rock-pigeon has twelve tail-feathers. With {159} Fantails, as we have
    seen, the number varies from fourteen to forty-two. In two young birds
    in the same nest I counted twenty-two and twenty-seven feathers.
    Pouters are very liable to have additional tail-feathers, and I have
    seen on several occasions fourteen or fifteen in my own birds, Mr. Bult
    had a specimen, examined by Mr. Yarrell, with seventeen tail-feathers.
    I had a Nun with thirteen, and another with fourteen tail-feathers; and
    in a Helmet, a breed barely distinguishable from the Nun, I have
    counted fifteen, and have heard of other such instances. On the other
    hand, Mr. Brent possessed a Dragon, which during its whole life never
    had more than ten tail-feathers; and one of my Dragons, descended from
    Mr. Brent's, had only eleven. I have seen a Baldhead-Tumbler with only
    ten; and Mr. Brent had an Air-Tumbler with the same number, but another
    with fourteen tail-feathers. Two of these latter Tumblers, bred by Mr.
    Brent, were remarkable,--one from having the two central tail-feathers
    a little divergent, and the other from having the two outer feathers
    longer by three-eighths of an inch than the others; so that in both
    cases the tail exhibited a tendency, but in different ways, to become
    forked. And this shows us how a swallow-tailed breed, like that
    described by Bechstein, might have been formed by careful selection.

    With respect to the primary wing-feathers, the number in the Columbidae,
    as far as I can find out, is always nine or ten. In the rock-pigeon it
    is ten; but I have seen no less than eight short-faced Tumblers with
    only nine primaries, and the occurrence of this number has been noticed
    by fanciers, owing to ten flight-feathers of a white colour being one
    of the points in Short-faced Baldhead-Tumblers. Mr. Brent, however, had
    an Air-Tumbler (not short-faced) which had in both wings eleven
    primaries. Mr. Corker, the eminent breeder of prize Carriers, assures
    me that some of his birds had eleven primaries in both wings. I have
    seen eleven in one wing in two Pouters. I have been assured by three
    fanciers that they have seen twelve in Scanderoons; but as Neumeister
    asserts that in the allied Florence Runt the middle flight-feather is
    often double, the number twelve may have been caused by two of the ten
    primaries having each two shafts to a single feather. The secondary
    wing-feathers are difficult to count, but the number seems to vary from
    twelve to fifteen. The length of the wing and tail relatively to the
    body, and of the wings to the tail, certainly varies; I have especially
    noticed this in Jacobins. In Mr. Bult's magnificent collection of
    Pouters, the wings and tail varied greatly in length; and were
    sometimes so much elongated that the birds could hardly play upright.
    In the relative length of the few first primaries I have observed only
    a slight degree of variability. Mr. Brent informs me that he has
    observed the shape of the first feather to vary very slightly. But the
    variation in these latter points is extremely slight compared with what
    may often be observed in the natural species of the Columbidae.

    In the beak I have observed very considerable differences in birds of
    the {160} same breed, as in carefully bred Jacobins and Trumpeters. In
    Carriers there is often a conspicuous difference in the degree of
    attenuation and curvature of the beak. So it is indeed in many breeds:
    thus I had two strains of black Barbs, which evidently differed in the
    curvature of the upper mandible. In width of mouth I have found a great
    difference in two Swallows. In Fantails of first-rate merit I have seen
    some birds with much longer and thinner necks than in others. Other
    analogous facts could be given. We have seen that the oil-gland is
    aborted in all Fantails (with the exception of the sub-race from Java),
    and, I may add, so hereditary is this tendency to abortion, that some,
    although not all, of the mongrels from the Fantail and Pouter had no
    oil-gland; in one Swallow out of many which I have examined, and in two
    Nuns, there was no oil-gland.

    The number of the scutellae on the toes often varies in the same breed,
    and sometimes even differs on the two feet of the same individual; the
    Shetland rock-pigeon has fifteen on the middle, and six on the hinder
    toe; whereas I have seen a Runt with sixteen on the middle and eight on
    the hind toe; and a short-faced Tumbler with only twelve and five on
    these same toes. The rock-pigeon has no sensible amount of skin between
    its toes; but I possessed a Spot and a Nun with the skin extending for
    a space of a quarter of an inch from the fork, between the two _inner_
    toes. On the other hand, as will hereafter be more fully shown, pigeons
    with feathered feet very generally have the bases of their _outer_ toes
    connected by skin. I had a red Tumbler, which had a coo unlike that of
    its fellows, approaching in tone to that of the Laugher: this bird had
    the habit, to a degree which I never saw equalled in any other pigeon,
    of often walking with its wings raised and arched in an elegant manner.
    I need say nothing on the great variability, in almost every breed, in
    size of body, in colour, in the feathering of the feet, and in the
    feathers on the back of the head being reversed. But I may mention a
    remarkable Tumbler[302] exhibited at the Crystal Palace, which had an
    irregular crest of feathers on its head, somewhat like the tuft on the
    head of the Polish fowl. Mr. Bult reared by accident a hen Jacobin with
    the feathers on the thigh so long as to reach the ground, and a cock
    having, but in a lesser degree, the same peculiarity: from these two
    birds he bred others similarly characterised, which were exhibited at
    the Philoperisteron Club. I bred a mongrel pigeon which had fibrous
    feathers, and the wing and tail-feathers so short and imperfect that
    the bird could not fly even a foot in height.

There are many singular and inherited peculiarities in the plumage of
pigeons: thus Almond-Tumblers do not acquire their perfect mottled feathers
until they have moulted three or four times: the Kite-Tumbler is at first
brindled black and red with a barred appearance, but when "it throws its
nest feathers it becomes almost black, generally with a bluish tail, and a
reddish colour on the inner webs of the primary wing feathers."[303] {161}
Neumeister describes a breed of a black colour with white bars on the wing
and a white crescent-shaped mark on the breast; these marks are generally
rusty-red before the first moult, but after the third or fourth moult they
undergo a change; the wing-feathers and the crown of the head likewise then
become white or grey.[304]

It is an important fact, and I believe there is hardly an exception to the
rule, that the especial characters for which each breed is valued are
eminently variable: thus, in the Fantail, the number and direction of the
tail-feathers, the carriage of the body, and the degree of trembling are
all highly variable points; in Pouters, the degree to which they pout, and
the shape of their inflated crops; in the Carrier, the length, narrowness,
and curvature of the beak, and the amount of wattle; in Short-faced
Tumblers, the shortness of the beak, the prominence of the forehead, and
general carriage,[305] and in the Almond Tumbler the colour of the plumage;
in common Tumblers, the manner of tumbling; in the Barb, the breadth and
shortness of the beak and the amount of eye-wattle; in Runts, the size of
body; in Turbits, the frill; and lastly in Trumpeters, the cooing, as well
as the size of the tuft of feathers over the nostrils. These, which are the
distinctive and selected characters of the several breeds, are all
eminently variable.

There is another interesting fact with respect to the character of the
different breeds, namely, that they are often most strongly displayed in
the male bird. In Carriers, when the males and females are exhibited in
separate pens, the wattle is plainly seen to be much more developed in the
males, though I have seen a hen Carrier belonging to Mr. Haynes heavily
wattled. Mr. Tegetmeier informs me that, in twenty Barbs in Mr. P. H.
Jones's possession, the males had generally the largest eye-wattles; Mr.
Esquilant also believes in this rule, but Mr. H. Weir, a first-rate judge,
entertains some doubt on the subject. Hale Pouters distend their crops to a
much greater size than do the females; I have, however, seen a hen in the
possession of Mr. Evans which pouted excellently; but this is an unusual
circumstance. Mr. Harrison Weir, a successful breeder of prize {162}
Fantails, informs me that his cock birds often have a greater number of
tail-feathers than the hens. Mr. Eaton asserts[306] that, if a cock and hen
Tumbler were of equal merit, the hen would be worth double the money; and
as pigeons always pair, so that an equal number of both sexes is necessary
for reproduction, this seems to show that high merit is rarer in the female
than in the male. In the development of the frill in Turbits, of the hood
in Jacobins, of the tuft in Trumpeters, of tumbling in Tumblers, there is
no difference between the males and females. I may here add a rather
different case, namely, the existence in France[307] of a wine-
variety of the Pouter, in which the male is generally chequered with black,
whilst the female is never so chequered. Dr. Chapuis also remarks[308] that
in certain light- pigeons the males have their feathers striated
with black, and these striae increase in size at each moult, so that the
male ultimately becomes spotted with black. With Carriers, the wattle, both
on the beak and round the eyes, and with Barbs that round the eyes, goes on
increasing with age. This augmentation of character with advancing age, and
more especially the difference between the males and females in the
above-mentioned several respects, are highly remarkable facts, for there is
no sensible difference at any age between the two sexes in the aboriginal
rock-pigeon; and rarely any such difference throughout the whole family of
the Columbidae.[309]

[Illustration: Fig. 24.--Skulls of Pigeons, viewed laterally, of natural
size. A. Wild Rock-pigeon, _Columba livia_. B. Short-faced Tumbler. C.
English Carrier. D. Bagadotten Carrier.]

_Osteological Characters._

In the skeletons of the various breeds there is much variability; and
though certain differences occur frequently, and others rarely, in certain
breeds, yet none can be said to be absolutely characteristic of any breed.
Considering that strongly-marked domestic races have been formed chiefly by
man's power {163} of selection, we ought not to expect to find great and
constant differences in the skeleton; for fanciers can neither see, nor do
they care for, modifications of structure in the internal framework. Nor
ought we to expect changes in the skeletons from hanged habits of life; as
every facility is given to the most distinct breeds to follow the same
habits, and the much modified races are never allowed to wander abroad and
procure their own food in various ways. Moreover, I find, on comparing the
skeletons of _Columba livia_, _oenas_, _palumbus_, and _turtur_, which are
ranked by all systematists in two or three distinct though allied genera,
that the differences are extremely slight, certainly less than between the
skeletons of some of the most distinct domestic breeds. How far the
skeleton of the wild rock-pigeon is constant I have no means of judging, as
I have examined only two.

    _Skull._--The individual bones, especially those at the base, do not
    differ in shape. But the whole skull, in its proportions, outline, and
    relative direction of the bones, differs greatly in some of the breeds,
    as may be seen by comparing the figures of (A) the wild rock-pigeon,
    (B) the {164} shortfaced tumbler, (C) the English carrier, and (D) the
    Bagadotten carrier (of Neumeister), all drawn of the natural size and
    viewed laterally. In the carrier, besides the elongation of the bones
    of the face, the space between the orbits is proportionally a little
    narrower than in the rock-pigeon. In the Bagadotten the upper mandible
    is remarkably arched, and the premaxillary bones are proportionally
    broader. In the short-faced tumbler the skull is more globular; all the
    bones of the face are much shortened, and the front of the skull and
    descending nasal bones are almost perpendicular; the maxillo-jugal arch
    and premaxillary bones form an almost straight line; the space between
    the prominent edges of the eye-orbits is depressed. In the barb the
    premaxillary bones are much shortened, and their anterior portion is
    thicker than in the rock-pigeon, as is the lower part of the nasal
    bone. In two nuns the ascending branches of the premaxillaries, near
    their tips, were somewhat attenuated, and in these birds, as well as in
    some others, for instance in the spot, the occipital crest over the
    foramen was considerably more prominent than in the rock-pigeon.

[Illustration: Fig. 25.--Lower jaws, seen from above, of natural size. A.
Rock-pigeon. B. Runt. C. Barb.]

[Illustration: Fig. 26.--Skull of Runt, seen from above, of natural size,
showing the reflexed margin of the distal portion of the lower jaw.]

    In the lower jaw, the articular surface is proportionally smaller in
    many breeds than in the rock-pigeon; and the vertical diameter more
    especially of the outer part of the articular surface is considerably
    shorter. May not this be accounted for by the lessened use of the jaws,
    owing to nutritious food having been given during a long period to all
    highly improved pigeons? In runts, carriers, and barbs (and in a lesser
    degree in several breeds), the whole side of the jaw near the articular
    end is bent inwards in a highly remarkable manner; and the superior
    margin of the ramus, beyond the middle, is reflexed in an equally
    remarkable manner, as may be seen in the accompanying figures, in
    comparison with the jaw of the rock-pigeon. This reflexion of the upper
    margin of the lower jaw is plainly connected with the singularly wide
    gape of the mouth, as has been described in runts, carriers, and barbs.
    The reflexion is well shown in fig. 26 of the head of a runt seen from
    above; here a wide open space may be observed on each side, between the
    edges of the lower jaw and of the premaxillary {165} bones. In the
    rock-pigeon, and in several domestic breeds, the edges of the lower jaw
    on each side come close up to the premaxillary bones, so that no open
    space is left. The degree of downward curvature of the distal half of
    the lower jaw also differs to an extraordinary degree in some breeds,
    as may be seen in the drawings (fig. A) of the rock-pigeon, (B) of the
    short-faced tumbler, and (C) of the Bagadotten carrier of Neumeister.
    In some runts the symphysis of the lower jaw is remarkably solid. No
    one would readily have believed that jaws differing so greatly in the
    several above-specified points could have belonged to the same species.

[Illustration: Fig. 27.--Lateral view of jaws, of natural size. A.
Rock-pigeon. B. Short-faced Tumbler. C. Bagadotten Carrier.]

    _Vertebrae._-- All the breeds have twelve cervical vertebrae.[310] But in
    a Bussorah carrier from India, the twelfth vertebra carried a small
    rib, a quarter of an inch in length, with a perfect double
    articulation.

    The _dorsal vertebrae_ are always eight. In the rock-pigeon all eight
    bear ribs; the eighth rib being very thin, and the seventh having no
    process. In pouters all the ribs are extremely broad, and, in three out
    of four skeletons examined by me, the eighth rib was twice or even
    thrice as broad as in the rock-pigeon; and the seventh pair had
    distinct processes. In many breeds there are only seven ribs, as in
    seven out of eight skeletons of various tumblers, and in several
    skeletons of fantails, turbits, and nuns. In all these breeds the
    seventh pair was very small, and was destitute of processes, in which
    respect it differed from the same rib in the rock-pigeon. In one
    tumbler, and in the Bussorah carrier, even the sixth pair had no
    process. The hypapophysis of the second dorsal vertebra varies much in
    development; being sometimes (as in several, but {166} not all
    tumblers) nearly as prominent as that of the third dorsal vertebra; and
    the two hypapophyses together tend to form an ossified arch. The
    development of the arch, formed by the hypapophyses of the third and
    fourth dorsal vertebrae, also varies considerably, as does the size of
    the hypapophysis of the fifth vertebra.

    The rock-pigeon has twelve _sacral vertebrae_; but these vary in number,
    relative size, and distinctness in the different breeds. In pouters,
    with their elongated bodies, there are thirteen or even fourteen, and,
    as we shall immediately see, an additional number of caudal vertebrae.
    In runts and carriers there is generally the proper number, namely
    twelve; but in one runt, and in the Bussorah carrier, there were only
    eleven. In tumblers there are either eleven, twelve, or thirteen sacral
    vertebrae.

    The _caudal vertebrae_ are seven in number in the rock-pigeon. In
    fantails, which have their tails so largely developed, there are either
    eight or nine, and apparently in one case ten, and they are a little
    longer than in the rock-pigeon, and their shape varies considerably.
    Pouters, also, have eight or nine caudal vertebrae. I have seen eight in
    a nun and jacobin. Tumblers, though such small birds, always have the
    normal number seven; as have carriers, with one exception, in which
    there were only six.

    The following table will serve as a summary, and will show the most
    remarkable deviations in the number of the vertebrae and ribs which I
    have observed:--


  +----------+-------------+--------------+-----------------+-------------+
  |          |  Rock       |Pouter,       |   Tumbler,      |    Bussorah |
  |          |  Pigeon.    |from Mr. Bult.|   Dutch Roller. |    Carrier. |
  +----------+-------------+--------------+-----------------+-------------+
  |Cervical  |             |              |                 |             |
  |Vertebrae  |    12       |     12       |       12        |       12    |
  |          |             |              |                 |  The 12th   |
  |          |             |              |                 |   bore a    |
  |          |             |              |                 |  small rib. |
  |Dorsal    |             |              |                 |             |
  |Vertebrae  |     8       |      8       |        8        |        8    |
  |          |             |              |                 |             |
  |Dorsal    |             |              |                 |             |
  |Ribs      |     8       |      8       |        7        |        7    |
  |          |The 6th pair |The 6th & 7th | The 6th & 7th   |The 6th & 7th|
  |          |    with     |  pair with   |  pair without   |pair without |
  |          | processes,  |  processes.  |  processes.     | processes.  |
  |          |the 7th pair |              |                 |             |
  |          | without a   |              |                 |             |
  |          |  process.   |              |                 |             |
  |          |             |              |                 |             |
  |Sacral    |             |              |                 |             |
  |Vertebrae  |    12       |      14      |        11       |       11    |
  |Caudal    |             |              |                 |             |
  |Vertebrae  |     7       |    8 or 9    |         7       |        7    |
  |          +-------------+--------------+-----------------+-------------+
  |Total     |             |              |                 |             |
  |Vertebrae  |    39       |   42 or 43   |        38       |       38    |
  +----------+-------------+--------------+-----------------+-------------+

    The _pelvis_ differs very little in any breed. The anterior margin of
    the ilium, however, is sometimes a little more equally rounded on both
    sides than in the rock-pigeon, The ischium is also frequently rather
    more elongated. The obturator-notch is sometimes, as in many tumblers,
    less developed than in the rock-pigeon. The ridges on the ilium are
    very prominent in most runts.

    In the bones of the extremities I could detect no difference, except in
    their proportional lengths; for instance, the metatarsus in a pouter
    was 1.65 inch, and in a short-faced tumbler only .95 in length; and
    this is a greater difference than would naturally follow from their
    differently-sized bodies; but long legs in the pouter, and small feet
    in the tumbler, are selected points. In some pouters the _scapula_ is
    rather straighter, and in some {167} tumblers it is straighter, with
    the apex less elongated, than in the rock-pigeon: in the woodcut, fig.
    28, the scapulae of the rock-pigeon (A), and of a short-faced tumbler
    (B), are given. The processes at the summit of the _coracoid_, which
    receive the extremities of the furcula, form a more perfect cavity in
    some tumblers than in the rock-pigeon: in pouters these processes are
    larger and differently shaped, and the exterior angle of the extremity
    of the coracoid, which is articulated to the sternum, is squarer.

    [Illustration: Fig. 29.--Furculae, of natural size. A. Short-faced
    Tumbler B and C. Fantails. D. Pouter.]

    The two arms of the _furcula_ in pouters diverge less, proportionally
    to their length, than in the rock-pigeon; and the symphysis is more
    solid and pointed. In fantails the degree of divergence of the two arms
    varies in a remarkable mariner. In fig. 29, B and C represent the
    furculae of two fantails; and it will be seen that the divergence in B
    is rather less even than in the furcula of the short-faced, small-sized
    tumbler (A); whereas the divergence in C equals that in a rock-pigeon,
    or in the pouter (D), though the latter is a much larger bird. The
    extremities of the furcula, where articulated to the coracoids, vary
    considerably in outline.

    In the _sternum_ the differences in form are slight, except in the size
    and outline of the perforations, which, both in the larger and lesser
    sized breeds, are sometimes small. These perforations, also, are
    sometimes either nearly circular, or elongated, as is often the case
    with carriers. The posterior perforations occasionally are not
    complete, being left open posteriorly. The marginal apophyses forming
    the anterior perforations vary greatly in development. The degree of
    convexity of the posterior part of the sternum differs much, being
    sometimes almost perfectly flat. The manubrium is rather more prominent
    in some individuals than in others, and the pore immediately under it
    varies greatly in size.

_Correlation of Growth._--By this term I mean that the whole organisation
is so connected, that when one part varies, other {168} parts vary; but
which of two correlated variations ought to be looked at as the cause and
which as the effect, or whether both result from some common cause, we can
seldom or never tell. The point of interest for us is that, when fanciers,
by the continued selection of slight variations, have largely modified one
part, they often unintentionally produce other modifications. For instance,
the beak is readily acted on by selection, and, with its increased or
diminished length, the tongue increases or diminishes, but not in due
proportion; for, in a barb and short-faced tumbler, both of which have very
short beaks, the tongue, taking the rock-pigeon as the standard of
comparison, was proportionally not shortened enough, whilst in two carriers
and in a runt the tongue, proportionally with the beak, was not lengthened
enough. Thus, in a first-rate English carrier, in which the beak from the
tip to the feathered base was exactly thrice as long as in a first-rate
short-faced tumbler, the tongue was only a little more than twice as long.
But the tongue varies in length independently of the beak: thus, in a
carrier with a beak 1.2 inch in length, the tongue was .67 in length;
whilst in a runt which equalled the carrier in length of body and in
stretch of wings from tip to tip, the beak was .92 whilst the tongue was
.73 of an inch in length, so that the tongue was actually longer than in
the carrier with its long beak. The tongue of the runt was also very broad
at the root. Of two runts, one had its beak longer by .23 of an inch,
whilst its tongue was shorter by .14 than in the other.

With the increased or diminished length of the beak the length of the slit
forming the external orifice of the nostrils varies, but not in due
proportion, for, taking the rock-pigeon as the standard, the orifice in a
short-faced tumbler was not shortened in due proportion with its very short
beak. On the other hand (and this could not have been anticipated), the
orifice in three English carriers, in the Bagadotten carrier, and in a runt
(_pigeon cygne_), was longer by above the tenth of an inch than would
follow from the length of the beak proportionally with that of the
rock-pigeon. In one carrier the orifice of the nostrils was thrice as long
as in the rock-pigeon, though in body and length of beak this bird was not
nearly double the size of the {169} rock-pigeon. This greatly increased
length of the orifice of the nostrils seems to stand partly in correlation
with the enlargement of the wattled skin on the upper mandible and over the
nostrils; and this is a character which is selected by fanciers. So again,
the broad, naked, and wattled skin round the eyes of carriers and barbs is
a selected character; and in obvious correlation with this, the eyelids,
measured longitudinally, are proportionally more than double the length of
those of the rock-pigeon.

The great difference (see woodcut No. 27) in the curvature of the lower jaw
in the rock-pigeon, the tumbler, and Bagadotten carrier, stands in obvious
relation to the curvature of the upper jaw, and more especially to the
angle formed by the maxillo-jugal arch with the premaxillary bones. But in
carriers, runts, and barbs the singular reflexion of the upper margin of
the middle part of the lower jaw (see woodcut No. 25) is not strictly
correlated with the width or divergence (as may be clearly seen in woodcut
No. 26) of the premaxillary bones, but with the breadth of the horny and
soft parts of the upper mandible, which are always overlapped by the edges
of the lower mandible.

In pouters, the elongation of the body is a selected character, and the
ribs, as we have seen, have generally become very broad, with the seventh
pair furnished with processes; the sacral and caudal vertebrae have been
augmented in number; the sternum has likewise increased in length (but not
in the depth of the crest) by .4 of an inch more than would follow from the
greater bulk of the body in comparison with that of the rock-pigeon. In
fantails, the length and number of the caudal vertebrae have increased.
Hence, during the gradual progress of variation and selection, the internal
bony frame-work and the external shape of the body have been, to a certain
extent, modified in a correlated manner.

Although the wings and tail often vary in length independently of each
other, it is scarcely possible to doubt that they generally tend to become
elongated or shortened in correlation. This is well seen in jacobins, and
still more plainly in runts, some varieties of which have their wings and
tail of great length, whilst others have both very short. With jacobins,
the remarkable length of the tail and {170} wing-feathers is not a
character which is intentionally selected by fanciers; but fanciers have
been trying for centuries, at least since the year 1600, to increase the
length of the reversed feathers on the neck, so that the hood may more
completely enclose the head; and it may be suspected that the increased
length of the wing and tail-feathers stands in correlation with the
increased length of the neck-feathers. Short-faced tumblers have short
wings in nearly due proportion with the reduced size of their bodies; but
it is remarkable, seeing that the number of the primary wing-feathers is a
constant character in most birds, that these tumblers generally have only
nine instead of ten primaries. I have myself observed this in eight birds;
and the Original Columbarian Society[311] reduced the standard for
bald-head tumblers from ten to nine white flight-feathers, thinking it
unfair that a bird which had only nine feathers should be disqualified for
a prize because it had not ten _white_ flight-feathers. On the other hand,
in carriers and runts, which have large bodies and long wings, eleven
primary feathers have occasionally been observed.

Mr. Tegetmeier has informed me of a curious and inexplicable case of
correlation, namely, that young pigeons of all breeds, which when mature
become white, yellow, silver (_i.e._ extremely pale blue), or dun-,
are born almost naked; whereas other  pigeons are born well clothed
with down. Mr. Esquilant, however, has observed that young dun carriers are
not so bare as young dun barbs and tumblers. Mr. Tegetmeier has seen two
young birds in the same nest, produced from differently  parents,
which differed greatly in the degree to which they were at first clothed
with down.

I have observed another case of correlation which at first sight appears
quite inexplicable, but on which, as we shall see in a future chapter, some
light can be thrown by the law of homologous parts varying in the same
manner. The case is, that, when the feet are much feathered, the roots of
the feathers are connected by a web of skin, and apparently in correlation
with this the two outer toes become connected for a considerable space by
skin. I have observed this in very many {171} specimens of pouters,
trumpeters, swallows, roller-tumblers (likewise observed in this breed by
Mr. Brent), and in a lesser degree in other feather-footed pigeons.

The feet of the smaller and larger breeds are of course much smaller or
larger than those of the rock-pigeon; but the scutellae or scales covering
the toes and tarsi have not only decreased or increased in size, but
likewise in number. To give a single instance, I have counted eight
scutellae on the hind toe of a runt, and only five on that of a short-faced
tumbler. With birds in a state of nature the number of the scutellae on the
feet is usually a constant character. The length of the feet and the length
of the beak apparently stand in correlation; but as disuse apparently has
affected the size of the feet, this case may come under the following
discussion.

       *       *       *       *       *

_On the Effects of Disuse_.--In the following discussion on the relative
proportions of the feet, sternum, furcula, scapulae, and wings, I may
premise, in order to give some confidence to the reader, that my
measurements were all made in the same manner, and that all the
measurements of the external parts were made without the least intention of
applying them to the following purpose.

    I measured most of the birds which came into my possession, from the
    feathered _base_ of the beak (the length of beak itself being so
    variable) to the end of the tail, and to the oil-gland, but
    unfortunately (except in a few cases) not to the root of the tail; I
    measured each bird from the extreme tip to tip of wing; and the length
    of the terminal folded part of the wing, from the extremity of the
    primaries to the joint of the radius. I measured the feet without the
    claws, from the end of the middle toe to the end of the hind toe; and
    the tarsus together with the middle toe. I have taken in every case the
    mean measurement of two wild rock-pigeons from the Shetland Islands, as
    the standard of comparison. The following table shows the actual length
    of the feet in each bird; and the difference between the length which
    the feet ought to have had according to the size of body of each, in
    comparison with the size of body and length of feet of the rock-pigeon,
    calculated (with a few specified exceptions) by the standard of the
    length of the body from the base of the beak to the oil-gland. I have
    preferred this standard, owing to the variability of the length of
    tail. But I have made similar calculations, taking as the standard the
    length from tip to tip of wing, and likewise in most cases from the
    base of the beak to the end of the tail; and the result has always been
    closely similar. To give an example: the first bird in the table, being
    a short-faced tumbler, {172} is much smaller than the rock-pigeon, and
    would naturally have shorter feet; but it is found on calculation to
    have feet too short by .11 of an inch, in comparison with the feet of
    the rock-pigeon, relatively to the size of the body in these two birds,
    as measured from the base of beak to the oil-gland. So again, when this
    same tumbler and the rock-pigeon were compared by the length of their
    wings, or by the extreme length of their bodies, the feet of the
    tumbler were likewise found to be too short in very nearly the same
    proportion. I am well aware that the measurements pretend to greater
    accuracy than is possible, but it was less trouble to write down the
    actual measurements given by the compasses in each case than an
    approximation.

TABLE I.

_Pigeons with their beaks generally shorter than that of the Rock-pigeon,
proportionally with the size of their bodies._

  +-----------------------------------------+--------+-------------------+
  |                                         |        |   Difference      |
  |                                         |        |   between         |
  |                                         |        |   actual and      |
  |                                         |        |   calculated      |
  |                                         |        |   length of       |
  |          Name of Breed.                 | Actual |   feet, in        |
  |                                         | length |   proportion to   |
  |                                         | of     |   length of       |
  |                                         | Feet   |   feet and size   |
  |                                         |        |   of body in the  |
  |                                         |        |   Rock-pigeon     |
  |                                         |        +-------------------+
  | Wild rock-pigeon (mean measurement)     | 2.02   |Too short|Too long |
  |                                         |        |  by     |   by    |
  +-----------------------------------------+--------+---------+---------+
  | Short-faced Tumbler, bald-head          | 1.57   |  0.11   |  ..     |
  |       "        "     almond             | 1.60   |  0.16   |  ..     |
  | Tumbler, red magpie                     | 1.75   |  0.19   |  ..     |
  |    "     red common (by standard        |        |         |         |
  |                      to end of tail)    | 1.85   |  0.07   |  ..     |
  |    "     common bald-head               | 1.85   |  0.18   |  ..     |
  |    "     roller                         | 1.80   |  0.06   |  ..     |
  | Turbit                                  | 1.75   |  0.17   |  ..     |
  |    "                                    | 1.80   |  0.01   |  ..     |
  |    "                                    | 1.84   |  0.15   |  ..     |
  | Jacobin                                 | 1.90   |  0.02   |  ..     |
  | Trumpeter, white                        | 2.02   |  0.06   |  ..     |
  |    "       mottled                      | 1.95   |  0.18   |  ..     |
  | Fantail (by standard to end of tail)    | 1.85   |  0.15   |  ..     |
  |    "           "          "             | 1.95   |  0.15   |  ..     |
  |    "     crested var.     "             | 1.95   |  0.0    | 0.0     |
  | Indian Frill-back                       | 1.80   |  0.19   |  ..     |
  | English Frill-back                      | 2.10   |  0.03   |  ..     |
  | Nun                                     | 1.82   |  0.02   |  ..     |
  | Laugher                                 | 1.65   |  0.16   |  ..     |
  | Barb                                    | 2.00   |  0.03   |  ..     |
  |   "                                     | 2.00   |   ..    | 0.03    |
  | Spot                                    | 1.90   |  0.02   |  ..     |
  |   "                                     | 1.90   |  0.07   |  ..     |
  | Swallow, red                            | 1.85   |  0.18   |  ..     |
  |    "     blue                           | 2.00   |   ..    | 0.03    |
  | Pouter                                  | 2.42   |   ..    | 0.11    |
  |    "   German                           | 2.30   |   ..    | 0.09    |
  | Bussorah Carrier                        | 2.17   |   ..    | 0.09    |
  |                                         +--------+---------+---------+
  | Number of specimens                     |  28    |  22     |   5     |
  +-----------------------------------------+--------+---------+---------+

{173}

TABLE II.

_Pigeons with their beaks longer than that of the Rock-pigeon,
proportionally with the size of their bodies._

  +--------------------------------------+----------+---------------------+
  |                                      |          |    Difference       |
  |                                      |          |    between          |
  |                                      |          |    actual and       |
  |                                      |          |    calculated       |
  |                                      |          |    length of        |
  |          Name of Breed.              |   Actual |    feet, in         |
  |                                      |   length |    proportion to    |
  |                                      |   of     |    length of        |
  |                                      |   Feet   |    feet and size    |
  |                                      |          |    of body in the   |
  |                                      |          |    Rock-pigeon      |
  |                                      |          +----------+----------+
  | Wild rock-pigeon (mean measurement)  |    2.02  | Too short| Too long |
  |                                      |          |   by     |   by     |
  +--------------------------------------+----------+----------+----------+
  | Carrier                              |    2.60  |   ..     |    0.31  |
  |    "                                 |    2.60  |   ..     |    0.25  |
  |    "                                 |    2.40  |   ..     |    0.21  |
  |    "    Dragon                       |    2.25  |   ..     |    0.06  |
  | Bagadotten Carrier                   |    2.80  |   ..     |    0.56  |
  | Scanderoon, white                    |    2.80  |   ..     |    0.37  |
  |      "      Pigeon cygne             |    2.85  |   ..     |    0.29  |
  | Runt                                 |    2.75  |   ..     |    0.27  |
  |                                      +----------+----------+----------+
  |          Number of specimens         |      8   |   ..     |      8   |
  +--------------------------------------+----------+----------+----------+

    In these two tables we see in the first column the actual length of the
    feet in thirty-six birds belonging to various breeds, and in the two
    other columns we see by how much the feet are too short or too long,
    according to the size of bird, in comparison with the rock-pigeon. In
    the first table twenty-two specimens have their feet too short, on an
    average by a little above the tenth of an inch (viz. .107); and five
    specimens have their feet on an average a very little too long, namely,
    by .07 of an inch. But some of these latter and exceptional cases can
    be explained; for instance, with pouters the legs and feet are selected
    for length, and thus any natural tendency to a diminution in the length
    of the feet will have been counteracted. In the swallow and barb, when
    the calculation was made on any standard of comparison excepting the
    one above used (viz. length of body from base of beak to oil-gland),
    the feet were found to be too small.

    In the second table we have eight birds, with their beaks much longer
    than in the rock-pigeon, both actually and proportionally with the size
    of body, and their feet are in an equally marked manner longer, namely,
    in proportion, on an average by .29 of an inch. I should here state
    that in Table I. there are a few partial exceptions to the beak being
    proportionally shorter than in the rock-pigeon: thus the beak of the
    English frill-back is just perceptibly longer, and that of the Bussorah
    carrier of the same length or slightly longer, than in the rock-pigeon.
    The beaks of spots, swallows, and laughers are only a very little
    shorter, or of the same proportional length, but slenderer.
    Nevertheless, these two tables, taken conjointly, indicate pretty
    plainly some kind of correlation between the length of the beak and the
    size of the feet. Breeders of cattle and horses believe that there is
    an analogous connection between the length of the limbs and head; they
    assert that a race-horse with the head of a dray-horse, or a {174}
    greyhound with the head of a bulldog, would be a monstrous production.
    As fancy pigeons are generally kept in small aviaries, and are
    abundantly supplied with food, they must walk about much less than the
    wild rock-pigeon; and it may be admitted as highly probable that the
    reduction in the size of the feet in the twenty-two birds in the first
    table has been caused by disuse,[312] and that this reduction has acted
    by correlation on the beaks of the great majority of the birds in Table
    I. When, on the other hand, the beak has been much elongated by the
    continued selection of successive slight increments of length, the feet
    by correlation have likewise become much elongated in comparison with
    those of the wild rock-pigeon, notwithstanding their lessened use.

    As I had taken measures from the end of the middle toe to the heel of
    the tarsus in the rock-pigeon and in the above thirty-six birds, I have
    made calculations analogous with those above given, and the result is
    the same,--namely, that in the short-beaked breeds, with equally few
    exceptions as in the former case, the middle toe conjointly with the
    tarsus has decreased in length; whereas in the long-beaked breeds it
    has increased in length, though not quite so uniformly as in the former
    case, for the leg in some varieties of the runt varies much in length.

    As fancy pigeons are generally confined in aviaries of moderate size,
    and as even when not confined they do not search for their own food,
    they must during many generations have used their wings incomparably
    less than the wild rock-pigeon. Hence it seemed to me probable that all
    the parts of the skeleton subservient to flight would be found to be
    reduced in size. With respect to the sternum, I have carefully measured
    its extreme length in twelve birds of different breeds, and in two wild
    rock-pigeons from the Shetland Islands. For the proportional comparison
    I have tried with all twelve birds three standards of measurement,
    namely, the length from the base of the beak to the oil-gland, to the
    end of the tail, and from the extreme tip to tip of wings. The result
    has been in each case nearly the same, the sternum being invariably
    found to be shorter than in the wild rock-pigeon. I will give only a
    single table, as calculated by the standard from the base of the beak
    to the oil-gland; for the result in this case is nearly the mean
    between the results obtained by the two other standards.

_Length of Sternum._

  +--------------------+-------+-------+-------------------+-------+------+
  |                    |Actual | Too   |                   |Actual | Too  |
  | Name of Breed.     |Length.| Short | Name of Breed.    |Length.| Short|
  |                    |Inches.| by    |                   |Inches.| by   |
  +--------------------+-------+-------+-------------------+-------+------+
  | Wild Rock-pigeon   |  2.55 |  ..   | Barb              |  2.35 | 0.34 |
  | Pied Scanderoon    |  2.80 | 0.60  | Nun               |  2.27 | 0.15 |
  | Bagadotten Carrier |  2.80 | 0.17  | German Pouter     |  2.36 | 0.54 |
  | Dragon             |  2.45 | 0.41  | Jacobin           |  2.33 | 0.22 |
  | Carrier            |  2.75 | 0.35  | English Frill-back|  2.40 | 0.43 |
  | Short-faced Tumbler|  2.05 | 0.28  | Swallow           |  2.45 | 0.17 |
  +--------------------+-------+-------+-------------------+-------+------+

{175}

    This table shows that in these twelve breeds the sternum is on an
    average one-third of an inch (exactly .332) shorter than in the
    rock-pigeon, proportionally with the size of their bodies; so that the
    sternum has been reduced by between one-seventh and one-eighth of its
    entire length; and this is a considerable reduction.

    I have also measured in twenty-one birds, including the above dozen,
    the prominence of the crest of the sternum relatively to its length,
    independently of the size of the body. In two of the twenty-one birds
    the crest was prominent in the same relative degree as in the
    rock-pigeon; in seven it was more prominent; but in five out of these
    seven, namely, in a fantail, two scanderoons, and two English carriers,
    this greater prominence may to a certain extent be explained, as a
    prominent breast is admired and selected by fanciers; in the remaining
    twelve birds the prominence was less. Hence it follows that the crest
    exhibits a slight, though uncertain, tendency to become reduced in
    prominence in a greater degree than does the length of the sternum
    relatively to the size of body, in comparison with the rock-pigeon.

    I have measured the length of the scapula in nine different large and
    small-sized breeds, and in all the scapula is proportionally shorter
    (taking the same standard as before) than in the wild rock-pigeon. The
    reduction in length on an average is very nearly one-fifth of an inch,
    or about one-ninth of the length of the scapula in the rock-pigeon.

    The arms of the furcula in all the specimens which I compared, diverged
    less, proportionally with the size of body, than in the rock-pigeon;
    and the whole furcula was proportionally shorter. Thus in a runt, which
    measured from tip to tip of wings 381/2 inches, the furcula was only a
    very little longer (with the arms hardly more divergent) than in a
    rock-pigeon which measured from tip to tip 261/2 inches. In a barb, which
    in all its measurements was a little larger than the same rock-pigeon,
    the furcula was a quarter of an inch shorter. In a pouter, the furcula
    had not been lengthened proportionally with the increased length of the
    body. In a short-faced tumbler, which measured from tip to tip of wings
    24 inches, therefore only 21/2 inches less than the rock-pigeon, the
    furcula was barely two-thirds of the length of that of the rock-pigeon.

We thus clearly see that the sternum, scapulae, and furcula are all reduced
in proportional length; but when we turn to the wings we find what at first
appears a wholly different and unexpected result. I may here remark that I
have not picked out specimens, but have used every measurement made by me.
Taking the length from the base of beak to the end of the tail as the
standard of comparison, I find that, out of thirty-five birds of various
breeds, twenty-five have wings of greater, and ten have them of less
proportional length, than in the rock-pigeon. But from the frequently
correlated length of the tail and wing-feathers, it is better to take as
the standard {176} of comparison the length from the base of the beak to
the oil-gland; and by this standard, out of twenty-six of the same birds
which had been thus measured, twenty-one had wings too long, and only five
had them too short. In the twenty-one birds the wings exceeded in length
those of the rock-pigeon, on an average, by 1-1/3 inch; whilst in the five
birds they were less in length by only .8 of an inch. As I was much
surprised that the wings of closely confined birds should thus so
frequently have been increased in length, it occurred to me that it might
be solely due to the greater length of the wing-feathers; for this
certainly is the case with the jacobin, which has wings of unusual length.
As in almost every case I had measured the folded wings, I subtracted the
length of this terminal part from that of the expanded wings, and thus I
obtained, with a moderate degree of accuracy, the length of the wings from
the ends of the two radii, answering from wrist to wrist in our arms. The
wings, thus measured in the same twenty-five birds, now gave a widely
different result; for they were proportionally with those of the
rock-pigeon too short in seventeen birds, and in only eight too long. Of
these eight birds, five were long-beaked,[313] and this fact perhaps
indicates that there is some correlation between the length of the beak and
the length of the bones of the wings, in the same manner as with the feet
and tarsi. The shortening of the humerus and radius in the seventeen birds
may probably be attributed to disuse, as in the case of the scapulae and
furcula to which the wing-bones are attached;--the lengthening of the
wing-feathers, and consequently the expansion of the wings from tip to tip,
being, on the other hand, as completely independent of use and disuse as is
the growth of the hair or wool on our long-haired dogs or long-woolled
sheep.

To sum up: we may confidently admit that the length of the sternum, and
frequently the prominence of its crest, the length of the scapulae and
furcula, have all been reduced in size in comparison with the same parts in
the rock-pigeon. And I {177} presume that this may be safely attributed to
disuse or lessened exercise. The wings, as measured from the ends of the
radii, have likewise been generally reduced in length; but, owing to the
increased growth of the wing-feathers, the wings, from tip to tip, are
commonly longer than in the rock-pigeon. The feet, as well as the tarsi
conjointly with the middle toe, have likewise in most cases become reduced;
and this it is probable has been caused by their lessened use; but the
existence of some sort of correlation between the feet and beak is shown
more plainly than the effects of disuse. We have also some faint indication
of a similar correlation between the main bones of the wing and the beak.

_Summary on the Points of Difference between the several Domestic Races,
and between the individual Birds._--The beak, together with the bones of
the face, differ remarkably in length, breadth, shape, and curvature. The
skull differs in shape, and greatly in the angle formed by the union of the
premaxillary, nasal, and maxillo-jugal bones. The curvature of the lower
jaw and the reflexion of its upper margin, as well as the gape of the
mouth, differ in a highly remarkable manner. The tongue varies much in
length, both independently and in correlation with the length of the beak.
The development of the naked, wattled skin over the nostrils and round the
eyes varies in an extreme degree. The eyelids and the external orifices of
the nostrils vary in length, and are to a certain extent correlated with
the degree of development of the wattle. The size and form of the
oesophagus and crop, and their capacity for inflation, differ immensely.
The length of the neck varies. With the varying shape of the body, the
breadth and number of the ribs, the presence of processes, the number of
the sacral vertebrae, and the length of the sternum, all vary. The number
and size of the coccygeal vertebrae vary, apparently in correlation with the
increased size of the tail. The size and shape of the perforations in the
sternum, and the size and divergence of the arms of the furcula, differ.
The oil-gland varies in development, and is sometimes quite aborted. The
direction and length of certain feathers have been much modified, as in the
hood of the Jacobin and the frill of the Turbit. The wing and tail feathers
generally vary in {178} length together, but sometimes independently of
each other and of the size of the body. The number and position of the
tail-feathers vary to an unparalleled degree. The primary and secondary
wing-feathers occasionally vary in number, apparently in correlation with
the length of the wing. The length of the leg and the size of the feet,
and, in connection with the latter, the number of the scutellae, all vary. A
web of skin sometimes connects the bases of the two inner toes, and almost
invariably the two outer toes when the feet are feathered.

The size of the body differs greatly: a runt has been known to weigh more
than five times as much as a short-faced tumbler. The eggs differ in size
and shape. According to Parmentier,[314] some races use much straw in
building their nests, and others use little; but I cannot hear of any
recent corroboration of this statement. The length of time required for
hatching the eggs is uniform in all the breeds. The period at which the
characteristic plumage of some breeds is acquired, and at which certain
changes of colour supervene, differs. The degree to which the young birds
are clothed with down when first hatched is different, and is correlated in
a singular manner with the future colour of the plumage. The manner of
flight, and certain inherited movements, such as clapping the wings,
tumbling either in the air or on the ground, and the manner of courting the
female, present the most singular differences. In disposition the several
races differ. Some races are very silent; others coo in a highly peculiar
manner.

Although many different races have kept true in character during several
centuries, as we shall hereafter more fully see, yet there is far more
individual variability in the truest breeds than in birds in a state of
nature. There is hardly any exception to the rule that those characters
vary most which are now most valued and attended to by fanciers, and which
consequently are now being improved by continued selection. This is
indirectly admitted by fanciers when they complain that it is much more
difficult to breed high fancy pigeons up to the proper standard of
excellence than the so-called toy pigeons, which differ from {179} each
other merely in colour; for particular colours when once acquired are not
liable to continued improvement or augmentation. Some characters become
attached, from quite unknown causes, more strongly to the male than to the
female sex; so that we have, in certain races, a tendency towards the
appearance of secondary sexual characters,[315] of which the aboriginal
rock-pigeon displays not a trace.

       *       *       *       *       *


{180}

CHAPTER VI.

PIGEONS--_continued_.

    ON THE ABORIGINAL PARENT-STOCK OF THE SEVERAL DOMESTIC RACES--HABITS OF
    LIFE--WILD RACES OF THE ROCK-PIGEON--DOVECOT-PIGEONS--PROOFS OF THE
    DESCENT OF THE SEVERAL RACES FROM COLUMBA LIVIA--FERTILITY OF THE RACES
    WHEN CROSSED--REVERSION TO THE PLUMAGE OF THE WILD
    ROCK-PIGEON--CIRCUMSTANCES FAVOURABLE TO THE FORMATION OF THE
    RACES--ANTIQUITY AND HISTORY OF THE PRINCIPAL RACES--MANNER OF THEIR
    FORMATION--SELECTION--UNCONSCIOUS SELECTION--CARE TAKEN BY FANCIERS IN
    SELECTING THEIR BIRDS--SLIGHTLY DIFFERENT STRAINS GRADUALLY CHANGE INTO
    WELL-MARKED BREEDS--EXTINCTION OF INTERMEDIATE FORMS--CERTAIN BREEDS
    REMAIN PERMANENT, WHILST OTHERS CHANGE--SUMMARY.

The differences described in the last chapter between the eleven chief
domestic races and between individual birds of the same race, would be of
little significance, if they had not all descended from a single wild
stock. The question of their origin is therefore of fundamental importance,
and must be discussed at considerable length. No one will think this
superfluous who considers the great amount of difference between the races,
who knows how ancient many of them are, and how truly they breed at the
present day. Fanciers almost unanimously believe that the different races
are descended from several wild stocks, whereas most naturalists believe
that all are descended from the _Columba livia_ or rock-pigeon.

Temminck[316] has well observed, and Mr. Gould has made the same remark to
me, that the aboriginal parent must have been a species which roosted and
built its nest on rocks; and I may add that it must have been a social
bird. For all the domestic races are highly social, and none are known to
build or habitually to roost on trees. The awkward manner in which some
pigeons, kept by me in a summer-house near an old walnut-tree, occasionally
alighted on the barer branches, was {181} evident.[317] Nevertheless, Mr.
R. Scot Skirving informs me that he often saw crowds of pigeons in Upper
Egypt settling on the low trees, but not on the palms, in preference to the
mud hovels of the natives. In India Mr. Blyth[318] has been assured that
the wild _C. livia_, var. _intermedia_, sometimes roosts in trees. I may
here give a curious instance of compulsion leading to changed habits: the
banks of the Nile above lat. 28 deg. 30' are perpendicular for a long distance,
so that when the river is full the pigeons cannot alight on the shore to
drink, and Mr. Skirving repeatedly saw whole flocks settle on the water,
and drink whilst they floated down the stream. These flocks seen from a
distance resembled flocks of gulls on the surface of the sea.

If any domestic race had descended from a species which was not social, or
which built its nest or roosted in trees,[319] the sharp eyes of fanciers
would assuredly have detected some vestige of so different an aboriginal
habit. For we have reason to believe that aboriginal habits are long
retained under domestication. Thus with the common ass we see signs of its
original desert life in its strong dislike to cross the smallest stream of
water, and in its pleasure in rolling in the dust. The same strong dislike
to cross a stream is common to the camel, which has been domesticated from
a very ancient period. Young pigs, though so tame, sometimes squat when
frightened, and thus try to conceal themselves even on an open and bare
place. Young turkeys, and occasionally even young fowls, when the hen gives
the danger-cry, run away and try to hide themselves, like young partridges
or pheasants, in order that their mother may take flight, of which she has
lost the power. The musk-duck (_Dendrocygna viduata_) in its native {182}
country often perches and roosts on trees,[320] and our domesticated
musk-ducks, though such sluggish birds, "are fond of perching on the tops
of barns, walls, &c., and, if allowed to spend the night in the hen-house,
the female will generally go to roost by the side of the hens, but the
drake is too heavy to mount thither with ease."[321] We know that the dog,
however well and regularly fed, often buries, like the fox, any superfluous
food; and we see him turning round and round on a carpet, as if to trample
down grass to form a bed; we see him on bare pavements scratching backwards
as if to throw earth over his excrement, although, as I believe, this is
never effected even where there is earth. In the delight with which lambs
and kids crowd together and frisk on the smallest hillock, we see a vestige
of their former alpine habits.

We have therefore good reason to believe that all the domestic races of the
pigeon are descended either from some one or from several species which
both roosted and built their nests on rocks, and were social in
disposition. As only five or six wild species with these habits and making
any near approach in structure to the domesticated pigeon are known to
exist, I will enumerate them.

    Firstly, the _Columba leuconota_ resembles certain domestic varieties
    in its plumage, with the one marked and never-failing difference of a
    white band which crosses the tail at some distance from the extremity.
    This species, moreover, inhabits the Himalaya, close to the limit of
    perpetual snow; and therefore, as Mr. Blyth has remarked, is not likely
    to have been the parent of our domestic breeds, which thrive in the
    hottest countries. Secondly, the _C. rupestris_, of Central Asia, which
    is intermediate[322] between the _C. leuconota_ and _livia_; but has
    nearly the same  tail with the former species. Thirdly, the
    _Columba littoralis_ builds and roosts, according to Temminck, on rocks
    in the Malayan archipelago; it is white, excepting parts of the wing
    and the tip of the tail, which are black; its legs are livid-,
    and this is a character not observed in any adult domestic pigeon; but
    I need not have mentioned this species or the closely-allied _C.
    luctuosa_, as they in fact belong to the genus Carpophaga. Fourthly,
    _Columba Guinea_, which ranges from Guinea[323] to the Cape of Good
    Hope, {183} and roosts either on trees or rocks, according to the
    nature of the country. This species belongs to the genus Strictoenas of
    Reichenbach, but is closely allied to true Columba; it is to some
    extent  like certain domestic races, and has been said to be
    domesticated in Abyssinia; but Mr. Mansfield Parkyns, who collected the
    birds of that country and knows the species, informs me that this is a
    mistake. Moreover the _C. Guinea_ is characterized by the feathers of
    the neck having peculiar notched tips,--a character not observed in any
    domestic race. Fifthly, the _Columba oenas_ of Europe, which roosts on
    trees, and builds its nest in holes, either in trees or the ground;
    this species, as far as external characters go, might be the parent of
    several domestic races; but, though it crosses readily with the true
    rock-pigeon, the offspring, as we shall presently see, are sterile
    hybrids, and of such sterility there is not a trace when the domestic
    races are intercrossed. It should also be observed that if we were to
    admit, against all probability, that any of the foregoing five or six
    species were the parents of some of our domestic pigeons, not the least
    light would be thrown on the chief differences between the eleven most
    strongly-marked races.

    We now come to the best known rock-pigeon, the _Columba livia_, which
    is often designated in Europe pre-eminently as the Rock-pigeon, and
    which naturalists believe to be the parent of all the domesticated
    breeds. This bird agrees in every essential character with the breeds
    which have been only slightly modified. It differs from all other
    species in being of a slaty-blue colour, with two black bars on the
    wings, and with the croup (or loins) white. Occasionally birds are seen
    in Faroe and the Hebrides with the black bars replaced by two or three
    black spots; this form has been named by Brehm[324] _C. amaliae_, but
    this species has not been admitted as distinct by other ornithologists.
    Graba[325] even found a difference between the wing-bars of the same
    bird in Faroe. Another and rather more distinct form is either truly
    wild or has become feral on the cliffs of England, and was doubtfully
    named by Mr. Blyth[326] as _C. affinis_, but is now no longer
    considered by him as a distinct species. _C. affinis_ is rather smaller
    than the rock-pigeon of the Scottish islands, and has a very different
    appearance owing to the wing-coverts being chequered with black, with
    similar marks often extending over the back. The chequering consists of
    a large black spot on the two sides, but chiefly on the outer side, of
    each feather. The wing-bars in the true rock-pigeon and in the
    chequered variety are, in fact, due to similar though larger spots
    symmetrically crossing the secondary wing-feather and the larger
    coverts. Hence the chequering arises merely from an extension of these
    marks to other parts of the plumage. Chequered birds are not confined
    to the coasts of England; for {184} they were found by Graba at Faroe;
    and W. Thompson[327] says that at Islay fully half the wild
    rock-pigeons were chequered. Colonel King, of Hythe, stocked his
    dovecot with young wild birds which he himself procured from nests at
    the Orkney Islands; and several specimens, kindly sent to me by him,
    were all plainly chequered. As we thus see that chequered birds occur
    mingled with the true rock-pigeon at three distinct sites, namely,
    Faroe, the Orkney Islands, and Islay, no importance can be attached to
    this natural variation in the plumage.

    Prince C. L. Bonaparte,[328] a great divider of species, enumerates,
    with a mark of interrogation, as distinct from _C. livia_, the _C.
    turricola_ of Italy, the _C. rupestris_ of Daouria, and the _C.
    Schimperi_ of Abyssinia; but these birds differ from _C. livia_ in
    characters of the most trifling value. In the British Museum there is a
    chequered pigeon, probably the _C. Schimperi_ of Bonaparte, from
    Abyssinia. To these may be added the _C. gymnocyclus_ of G. R. Gray
    from W. Africa, which is slightly more distinct, and has rather more
    naked skin round the eyes than the rock-pigeon; but from information
    given me by Dr. Daniell, it is doubtful whether this is a wild bird,
    for dovecot-pigeons (which I have examined) are kept on the coast of
    Guinea.

    The wild rock-pigeon of India _(C. intermedia_ of Strickland) has been
    more generally accepted as a distinct species. It chiefly differs in
    the croup being blue instead of snow-white; but as Mr. Blyth informs
    me, the tint varies, being sometimes albescent. When this form is
    domesticated chequered birds appear, just as occurs in Europe with the
    truly wild _C. livia_. Moreover we shall immediately have proof that
    the blue and white croup is a highly variable character; and
    Bechstein[329] asserts that with dovecot-pigeons in Germany this is the
    most variable of all the characters of the plumage. Hence it may be
    concluded that _C. intermedia_ cannot be ranked as specifically
    distinct from _C. livia_.

    In Madeira there is a rock-pigeon which a few ornithologists have
    suspected to be distinct from _C. livia_. I have examined numerous
    specimens collected by Mr. E. V. Harcourt and Mr. Mason. They are
    rather smaller than the rock-pigeon from the Shetland Islands, and
    their beaks are plainly thinner; but the thickness of the beak varied
    in the several specimens. In plumage there is remarkable diversity;
    some specimens are identical in every feather (I speak after actual
    comparison) with the rock-pigeon of the Shetland Islands; others are
    chequered, like _C. affinis_ from the cliffs of England, but generally
    to a greater degree, being almost black over the whole back; others are
    identical with the so-called _C. intermedia_ of India in the degree of
    blueness of the croup; whilst others have this part very pale or very
    dark blue, and are likewise chequered. So much variability raises a
    strong suspicion that these birds are domestic pigeons which have
    become feral.

    {185}

    From these facts it can hardly be doubted that _C. livia_, _affinis_,
    _intermedia_, and the forms marked with an interrogation by Bonaparte,
    ought all to be included under a single species. But it is quite
    immaterial whether or not they are thus ranked, and whether some one of
    these forms or all are the progenitors of the various domestic kinds,
    as far as any light is thus thrown on the differences between the more
    strongly-marked races. That common dovecot-pigeons, which are kept in
    various parts of the world, are descended from one or from several of
    the above-mentioned wild varieties of _C. livia_, no one who compares
    them will doubt. But before making a few remarks on dovecot-pigeons, it
    should be stated that the wild rock-pigeon has been found easy to tame
    in several countries. We have seen that Colonel King at Hythe stocked
    his dovecot more than twenty years ago with young wild birds taken at
    the Orkney Islands, and since this time they have greatly multiplied.
    The accurate Macgillivray[330] asserts that he completely tamed a wild
    rock-pigeon in the Hebrides; and several accounts are on record of
    these pigeons having bred in dovecots in the Shetland Islands. In
    India, as Captain Hutton informs me, the wild rock-pigeon is easily
    tamed, and breeds readily with the domestic kind; and Mr. Blyth[331]
    asserts that wild birds come frequently to the dovecots and mingle
    freely with their inhabitants. In the ancient 'Ayeen Akbery' it is
    written that, if a few wild pigeons be taken, "they are speedily joined
    by a thousand others of their kind."

    Dovecot-pigeons are those which are kept in dovecots in a
    semi-domesticated state; for no special care is taken of them, and they
    procure their own food, except during the severest weather. In England,
    and, judging from MM. Boitard and Corbie's work, in France, the common
    dovecot-pigeon exactly resembles the chequered variety of _C. livia_;
    but I have seen dovecots brought from Yorkshire, without any trace of
    chequering, like the wild rock-pigeon of the Shetland Islands. The
    chequered dovecots from the Orkney Islands, after having been
    domesticated by Colonel King for more than twenty years, differed
    slightly from each other in the darkness of their plumage, and in the
    thickness of their beaks; the thinnest beak being rather thicker than
    the thickest one in the Madeira birds. In Germany, according to
    Bechstein, the common dovecot-pigeon is not chequered. In India they
    often become chequered, and sometimes pied with white; the croup also,
    as I am informed by Mr. Blyth, becomes nearly white. I have received
    from Sir J. Brooke some dovecot-pigeons, {186} which originally came
    from the S. Natunas Islands in the Malay archipelago, and which had
    been crossed with the Singapore dovecots; they were small, and the
    darkest variety was extremely like the dark chequered variety with a
    blue croup from Madeira; but the beak was not so thin, though decidedly
    thinner than in the rock-pigeon from the Shetland Islands. A
    dovecot-pigeon sent to me by Mr. Swinhoe from Foochow, in China, was
    likewise rather small, but differed in no other respect. I have also
    received, through the kindness of Dr. Daniell, four living
    dovecot-pigeons from Sierra Leone;[332] these were fully as large as
    the Shetland rock-pigeon, with even bulkier bodies. In plumage some of
    them were identical with the Shetland rock-pigeon, but with the
    metallic tints apparently rather more brilliant; others had a blue
    croup and resembled the chequered variety of _C. intermedia_ of India;
    and some were so much chequered as to be nearly black. In these four
    birds the beak differed slightly in length, but in all it was decidedly
    shorter, more massive, and stronger than in the wild rock-pigeon from
    the Shetland Islands, or in the English dovecot. When the beaks of
    these African pigeons were compared with the thinnest beaks of the wild
    Madeira specimens, the contrast was great; the former being fully
    one-third thicker in a vertical direction than the latter; so that any
    one at first would have felt inclined to rank these birds as
    specifically distinct; yet-so perfectly graduated a series could be
    formed between the above-mentioned varieties, that it was obviously
    impossible to separate them.

To sum up: the wild _Columba livia_, including under this name _C. affinis,
intermedia_, and the other still more closely-affined geographical races,
has a vast range from the southern coast of Norway and the Faroe Islands to
the shores of the Mediterranean, to Madeira and the Canary Islands, to
Abyssinia, India, and Japan. It varies greatly in plumage, being in many
places chequered with black, and having either a white or blue croup or
loins: it varies also slightly in the size of the beak and body.
Dovecot-pigeons, which no one disputes are descended from one or more of
the above wild forms, present a similar but greater range of variation in
plumage, in the size of body, and in the length and thickness of the beak.
There seems to be some relation between the croup being blue or white, and
the temperature of the country inhabited by both wild and dovecot pigeons;
for nearly all the dovecot-pigeons in the northern parts of Europe have a
white croup, like that of the wild European {187} rock-pigeon; and nearly
all the dovecot-pigeons of India have a blue croup like that of the wild
_C. intermedia_ of India. As in various countries the wild rock-pigeon has
been found easy to tame, it seems extremely probable that the
dovecot-pigeons throughout the world are the descendants of at least two
and perhaps more wild stocks, but these, as we have just seen, cannot be
ranked as specifically distinct.

With respect to the variation of _C. livia_, we may without fear of
contradiction go one step further. Those pigeon-fanciers who believe that
all the chief races, such as Carriers, Pouters, Fantails, &c., are
descended from distinct aboriginal stocks, yet admit that the so-called
toy-pigeons, which differ from the rock-pigeon in little except in colour,
are descended from this bird. By toy-pigeons are meant such birds as Spots,
Nuns, Helmets, Swallows, Priests, Monks, Porcelains, Swabians, Archangels,
Breasts, Shields, and others in Europe, and many others in India. It would
indeed be as puerile to suppose that all these birds are descended from so
many distinct wild stocks as to suppose this to be the case with the many
varieties of the gooseberry, heartsease, or dahlia. Yet these pigeons all
breed true, and many of them present sub-varieties which likewise truly
transmit their character. They differ greatly from each other and from the
rock-pigeon in plumage, slightly in size and proportions of body, in size
of feet, and in the length and thickness of their beaks. They differ from
each other in these respects more than do dovecot-pigeons. Although we may
safely admit that the latter, which vary slightly, and that the
toy-pigeons, which vary in a greater degree in accordance with their more
highly-domesticated condition, are descended from _C. livia_, including
under this name the above-enumerated wild geographical races; yet the
question becomes far more difficult when we consider the eleven principal
races, most of which have been so profoundly modified. It can, however, be
shown, by indirect evidence of a perfectly conclusive nature, that these
principal races are not descended from so many wild stocks; and if this be
once admitted, few will dispute that they are the descendants of _C.
livia_, which agrees with them so closely in habits and in most characters,
which varies in a state of nature, and which has certainly {188} undergone
a considerable amount of variation, as in the toy-pigeons. We shall
moreover presently see how eminently favourable circumstances have been for
a great amount of modification in the more carefully tended breeds.

The reasons for concluding that the several principal races have not
descended from so many aboriginal and unknown stocks may be grouped under
the following six heads:--_Firstly_, if the eleven chief races have not
arisen from the variation of some one species, together with its
geographical races, they must be descended from several extremely distinct
aboriginal species; for no amount of crossing between only six or seven
wild forms could produce races so distinct as pouters, carriers, runts,
fantails, turbits, short-faced tumblers, jacobins, and trumpeters. How
could crossing produce, for instance, a pouter or a fantail, unless the two
supposed aboriginal parents possessed the remarkable characters of these
breeds? I am aware that some naturalists, following Pallas, believe that
crossing gives a strong tendency to variation, independently of the
characters inherited from either parent. They believe that it would be
easier to raise a pouter or fantail pigeon from crossing two distinct
species, neither of which possessed the characters of these races, than
from any single species. I can find few facts in support of this doctrine,
and believe in it only to a limited degree; but in a future chapter I shall
have to recur to this subject. For our present purpose the point is not
material. The question which concerns us is, whether or not many new and
important characters have arisen since man first domesticated the pigeon.
On the ordinary view, variability is due to changed conditions of life; on
the Pallasian doctrine, variability, or the appearance of new characters,
is due to some mysterious effect from the crossing of two species, neither
of which possess the characters in question. In some few instances it is
credible, though for several reasons not probable, that well-marked races
have been formed by crossing; for instance, a barb might perhaps have been
formed by a cross between a long-beaked carrier, having large eye-wattles,
and some short-beaked pigeon. That many races have been in some degree
modified by crossing, and that certain varieties which are distinguished
only by peculiar tints have arisen from crosses between
differently- {189} varieties, may be admitted as almost certain. On
the doctrine, therefore, that the chief races owe their differences to
their descent from distinct species, we must admit that at least eight or
nine, or more probably a dozen species, all having the same habit of
breeding and roosting on rocks and living in society, either now exist
somewhere, or formerly existed but have become extinct as wild birds.
Considering how carefully wild pigeons have been collected throughout the
world, and what conspicuous birds they are, especially when frequenting
rocks, it is extremely improbable that eight or nine species, which were
long ago domesticated and therefore must have inhabited some anciently
known country, should still exist in the wild state and be unknown to
ornithologists.

The hypothesis that such species formerly existed, but have become extinct,
is in some slight degree more probable. But the extinction of so many
species within the historical period is a bold hypothesis, seeing how
little influence man has had in exterminating the common rock-pigeon, which
agrees in all its habits of life with the domestic races. The _C. livia_
now exists and flourishes on the small northern islands of Faroe, on many
islands off the coast of Scotland, on Sardinia and the shores of the
Mediterranean, and in the centre of India. Fanciers have sometimes imagined
that the several supposed parent-species were originally confined to small
islands, and thus might readily have been exterminated; but the facts just
given do not favour the probability of their extinction, even on small
islands. Nor is it probable, from what is known of the distribution of
birds, that the islands near Europe should have been inhabited by peculiar
species of pigeons; and if we assume that distant oceanic islands were the
homes of the supposed parent-species, we must remember that ancient voyages
were tediously slow, and that ships were then ill-provided with fresh food,
so that it would not have been easy to bring home living birds. I have said
ancient voyages, for nearly all the races of the pigeon were known before
the year 1600, so that the supposed wild species must have been captured
and domesticated before that date.

_Secondly._--The doctrine that the chief domestic races have descended from
several aboriginal species, implies that several {190} species were
formerly so thoroughly domesticated as to breed readily when confined.
Although it is easy to tame most wild birds, experience shows us that it is
difficult to get them to breed freely under confinement; although it must
be owned that this is less difficult with pigeons than with most other
birds. During the last two or three hundred years, many birds have been
kept in aviaries, but hardly one has been added to our list of thoroughly
reclaimed species; yet on the above doctrine we must admit that in ancient
times nearly a dozen kinds of pigeons, now unknown in the wild state, were
thoroughly domesticated.

_Thirdly._--Most of our domesticated animals have run wild in various parts
of the world; but birds, owing apparently to their partial loss of the
power of flight, less often than quadrupeds. Nevertheless I have met with
accounts showing that the common fowl has become feral in South America and
perhaps in West Africa, and on several islands: the turkey was at one time
almost feral on the banks of the Parana; and the Guinea-fowl has become
perfectly wild at Ascension and in Jamaica. In this latter island the
peacock, also, "has become a maroon bird." The common duck wanders from its
home and becomes almost wild in Norfolk. Hybrids between the common and
musk-duck which have become wild have been shot in North America, Belgium,
and near the Caspian Sea. The goose is said to have run wild in La Plata.
The common dovecot-pigeon has become wild at Juan Fernandez, Norfolk
Island, Ascension, probably at Madeira, on the shores of Scotland, and, as
is asserted, on the banks of the Hudson in North America.[333] But how
different is the case, when we turn {191} to the eleven chief domestic
races of the pigeon, which are supposed by some authors to be descended
from so many distinct species! no one has ever pretended that any one of
these races has been found wild in any quarter of the world; yet they have
been transported to all countries, and some of them must have been carried
back to their native homes. On the view that all the races are the product
of variation, we can understand why they have not become feral, for the
great amount of modification which they have undergone shows how long and
how thoroughly they have been domesticated; and this would unfit them for a
wild life.

_Fourthly._--If it be assumed that the characteristic differences between
the various domestic races are due to descent from several aboriginal
species, we must conclude that man chose for domestication in ancient
times, either intentionally or by chance, a most abnormal set of pigeons;
for that species resembling such birds as pouters, fantails, carriers,
barbs, short-faced tumblers, turbits, &c., would be in the highest degree
abnormal, as compared with all the existing members of the great
pigeon-family, cannot be doubted. Thus we should have to believe that man
not only formerly succeeded in thoroughly domesticating several highly
abnormal species, but that these same species have since all become
extinct, or are at least now unknown. This double accident is so extremely
improbable that the assumed existence of so many abnormal species would
require to be supported by the strongest evidence. On the other hand, if
all the races are descended from _C. livia_, we can understand, as will
hereafter be more fully explained, how any slight deviation in structure
which first appeared would continually be augmented by the preservation of
the most strongly marked individuals; and as the power of selection would
be applied according to man's fancy, and not for the bird's own good, the
accumulated amount of deviation would certainly be of an abnormal nature in
comparison with the structure of pigeons living in a state of nature.

I have already alluded to the remarkable fact, that the {192}
characteristic differences between the chief domestic races are eminently
variable: we see this plainly in the great difference in the number of the
tail-feathers in the fantail, in the development of the crop in pouters, in
the length of the beak in tumblers, in the state of the wattle in carriers,
&c. If these characters are the result of successive variations added
together by selection, we can understand why they should be so variable:
for these are the very parts which have varied since the domestication of
the pigeon, and therefore would be likely still to vary; these variations
moreover have been recently, and are still being accumulated by man's
selection; therefore they have not as yet become firmly fixed.

_Fifthly._--All the domestic races pair readily together, and, what is
equally important, their mongrel offspring are perfectly fertile. To
ascertain this fact I made many experiments, which are given in the note
below; and recently Mr. Tegetmeier has made similar experiments with the
same result.[334] The accurate Neumeister[335] asserts that when dovecots
{193} are crossed with pigeons of any other breed, the mongrels are
extremely fertile and hardy. MM. Boitard and Corbie[336] affirm, after
their great experience, that with crossed pigeons the more distinct the
breeds, the more productive are their mongrel offspring. I admit that the
doctrine first broached by Pallas is highly probable, if not actually
proved, namely, that closely allied species, which in a state of nature or
when first captured would have been in some degree sterile when crossed,
lose this sterility after a long course of domestication; yet when we
consider the great difference between such races as pouters, carriers,
runts, fantails, turbits, tumblers, &c., the fact of their perfect, or even
increased, fertility when intercrossed in the most complicated manner
becomes a strong argument in favour of their having all descended from a
single species. This argument is rendered much stronger when we hear (I
append in a note[337] {194} all the cases which I have collected) that
hardly a single well-ascertained instance is known of hybrids between two
true species of pigeons being fertile, _inter se_, or even when crossed
with one of their pure parents.

_Sixthly._--Excluding certain important characteristic differences, the
chief races agree most closely both with each other and with _C. livia_ in
all other respects. As previously observed, all are eminently sociable; all
dislike to perch or roost, and refuse to build in trees; all lay two eggs,
and this is not a universal rule with the Columbidae; all, as far as I can
hear, require the same time for hatching their eggs; all can endure the
same great range of climate; all prefer the same food, and are passionately
fond of salt; all exhibit (with the asserted exception of the finnikin and
turner, which do not differ much in any other character) the same peculiar
gestures when courting the females; and all (with the exception of
trumpeters and laughers, which likewise do not differ much in any other
character) coo in the same peculiar manner, unlike the voice of any other
wild pigeon. All the  breeds display the same peculiar metallic
tints on the breast, a character far from general with pigeons. Each race
presents nearly the same range of variation in colour; and in most of the
races we have the same singular correlation between the development of down
in the young and the future colour of plumage. All have the proportional
length of their toes, and of their primary wing-feathers, nearly the
same,--characters which are apt to differ in the several members of the
Columbidae. In those races which present some remarkable deviation of
structure, such as in the tail of fantails, crop of pouters, beak of
carriers and tumblers, &c., the other parts remain nearly unaltered. Now
every naturalist will admit that it would be scarcely possible to pick out
a dozen natural species in any Family, which should agree closely in habits
and in general structure, and yet should differ greatly in a few {195}
characters alone. This fact is explicable through the doctrine of natural
selection; for each successive modification of structure in each natural
species is preserved, solely because it is of service; and such
modifications when largely accumulated imply a great change in the habits
of life, and this will almost certainly lead to other changes of structure
throughout the whole organisation. On the other hand, if the several races
of the pigeon have been produced by man through selection and variation, we
can readily understand how it is that they should still all resemble each
other in habits and in those many characters which man has not cared to
modify, whilst they differ to so prodigious a degree in those parts which
have struck his eye or pleased his fancy.

Besides the points above enumerated, in which all the domestic races
resemble _C. livia_ and each other, there is one which deserves special
notice. The wild rock-pigeon is of a slaty-blue colour; the wings are
crossed by two black bars; the croup varies in colour, being generally
white in the pigeon of Europe, and blue in that of India; the tail has a
black bar close to the end, and the outer webs of the outer tail-feathers
are edged with white, except near the tips. These combined characters are
not found in any wild pigeon besides _C. livia_. I have looked carefully
through the great collection of pigeons in the British Museum, and I find
that a dark bar at the end of the tail is common; that the white edging to
the outer tail-feathers is not rare; but that the white croup is extremely
rare, and the two black bars on the wings occur in no other pigeon,
excepting the alpine _C. leuconota_ and _C. rupestris_ of Asia. Now if we
turn to the domestic races, it is highly remarkable, as an eminent fancier,
Mr. Wicking, observed to me, that, whenever a blue bird appears in any
race, the wings almost invariably show the double black bars.[338] The
primary wing-feathers may be white or black, and the whole body may be
{196} of any colour, but if the wing-coverts alone are blue, the two black
bars surely appear. I have myself seen, or acquired trustworthy evidence,
as given below,[339] of blue birds with black bars on the wing, with the
croup either white or very pale or dark blue, with the tail having a
terminal black bar, and with the outer feathers externally edged with white
or very pale , in the following races, which, as I carefully
observed in each case, appeared to be perfectly pure: namely, in Pouters,
Fantails, Tumblers, Jacobins, Turbits, Barbs, Carriers, Runts of three
distinct varieties, Trumpeters, Swallows, and in many other toy-pigeons,
which, as being closely allied to _C. livia_, are not worth enumerating.
Thus we see that, in purely-bred races of every kind known in Europe, blue
birds occasionally appear having all the marks which characterise _C.
livia_, and which concur in no other wild species. Mr. Blyth, also, has
made the same observation with respect to the various domestic races known
in India.

Certain variations in the plumage are equally common in the wild _C.
livia_, in dovecot-pigeons, and in all the most highly modified races.
Thus, in all, the croup varies from white to {197} blue, being most
frequently white in Europe, and very generally blue in India.[340] We have
seen that the wild _C. livia_ in Europe, and dovecots in all parts of the
world, often have the upper wing-coverts chequered with black; and all the
most distinct races, when blue, are occasionally chequered in precisely the
same manner. Thus I have seen Pouters, Fantails, Carriers, Turbits,
Tumblers (Indian and English), Swallows, Bald-pates, and other toy-pigeons
blue and chequered; and Mr. Esquilant has seen a chequered Runt. I bred
from two pure blue Tumblers a chequered bird.

       *       *       *       *       *

The facts hitherto given refer to the occasional appearance in pure races
of blue birds with black wing-bars, and likewise of blue and chequered
birds; but it will now be seen that when two birds belonging to distinct
races are crossed, neither of which have, nor probably have had during many
generations, a trace of blue in their plumage, or a trace of wing-bars and
the other characteristic marks, they very frequently produce mongrel
offspring of a blue colour, sometimes chequered, with black wing-bars, &c.;
or if not of a blue colour, yet with the several characteristic marks more
or less plainly developed. I was led to investigate this subject from MM.
Boitard and Corbie[341] having asserted that from crosses between certain
breeds it is rare to get anything but bisets or dovecot-pigeons, which, as
we know, are blue birds with the usual characteristic marks. We shall
hereafter see that this subject possesses, independently of our present
object, considerable interest, so that I will give the results of my own
trials in full. I selected for experiment races which, when pure, very
seldom produce birds of a blue colour, or have bars on their wings and
tail.

The nun is white, with the head, tail, and primary wing-feathers black; it
is a breed which was established as long ago {198} as the year 1600. I
crossed a male nun with a female red common tumbler, which latter variety
generally breeds true. Thus neither parent had a trace of blue in the
plumage, or of bars on the wing and tail. I should premise that common
tumblers are rarely blue in England. From the above cross I reared several
young: one was red over the whole back, but with the tail as blue as that
of the rock-pigeon; the terminal bar, however, was absent, but the outer
feathers were edged with white: a second and third nearly resembled the
first, but the tail in both presented a trace of the bar at the end: a
fourth was brownish, and the wings showed a trace of the double bar: a
fifth was pale blue over the whole breast, back, croup, and tail, but the
neck and primary wing-feathers were reddish; the wings presented two
distinct bars of a red colour; the tail was not barred, but the outer
feathers were edged with white. I crossed this last curiously  bird
with a black mongrel of complicated descent, namely, from a black barb, a
spot, and almond tumbler, so that the two young birds produced from this
cross included the blood of five varieties, none of which had a trace of
blue or of wing and tail bars: one of the two young birds was
brownish-black, with black wing-bars; the other was reddish-dun, with
reddish wing-bars, paler than the rest of the body, with the croup pale
blue, the tail bluish, with a trace of the terminal bar.

Mr. Eaton[342] matched two short-faced tumblers, namely, a splash cock and
kite hen (neither of which are blue or barred), and from the first nest he
got a perfect blue bird, and from the second a silver or pale blue bird,
both of which, in accordance with all analogy, no doubt presented the usual
characteristic marks.

I crossed two male black barbs with two female red spots. These latter have
the whole body and wings white, with a spot on the forehead, the tail and
tail-coverts red; the race existed at least as long ago as 1676, and now
breeds perfectly true, as was known to be the case in the year 1735.[343]
Barbs are uniformly- birds, with rarely even a trace of bars on the
wing or tail; they are known to breed very true. The mongrels thus raised
were black or nearly black, or dark or pale brown, {199} sometimes slightly
piebald with white: of these birds no less than six presented double
wing-bars; in two the bars were conspicuous and quite black; in seven some
white feathers appeared on the croup; and in two or three there was a trace
of the terminal bar to the tail, but in none were the outer tail-feathers
edged with white.

I crossed black barbs (of two excellent strains) with purely-bred,
snow-white fantails. The mongrels were generally quite black, with a few of
the primary wing and tail-feathers white: others were dark reddish-brown,
and others snow-white: none had a trace of wing-bars or of the white croup.
I then paired together two of these mongrels, namely, a brown and black
bird, and their offspring displayed wing-bars, faint, but of a darker brown
than the rest of body. In a second brood from the same parents a brown bird
was produced, with several white feathers confined to the croup.

I crossed a male dun dragon belonging to a family which had been
dun- without wing-bars during several generations, with a uniform
red barb (bred from two black barbs); and the offspring presented decided
but faint traces of wing-bars. I crossed a uniform red male runt with a
white trumpeter; and the offspring had a slaty-blue tail, with a bar at the
end, and with the outer feathers edged with white. I also crossed a female
black and white chequered trumpeter (of a different strain from the last)
with a male almond-tumbler, neither of which exhibited a trace of blue, or
of the white croup, or of the bar at end of tail: nor is it probable that
the progenitors of these two birds had for many generations exhibited any
of these characters, for I have never even heard of a blue trumpeter in
this country, and my almond-tumbler was purely bred; yet the tail of this
mongrel was bluish, with a broad black bar at the end, and the croup was
perfectly white. It may be observed in several of these cases, that the
tail first shows a tendency to become by reversion blue; and this fact of
the persistency of colour in the tail and tail-coverts[344] will surprise
no one who has attended to the crossing of pigeons.

{200}

The last case which I will give is the most curious. I paired a mongrel
female barb-fantail with a mongrel male barb-spot; neither of which
mongrels had the least blue about them. Let it be remembered that blue
barbs are excessively rare; that spots, as has been already stated, were
perfectly characterized in the year 1676, and breed perfectly true; this
likewise is the case with white fantails, so much so that I have never
heard of white fantails throwing any other colour. Nevertheless the
offspring from the above two mongrels was of exactly the same blue tint as
that of the wild rock-pigeon from the Shetland Islands over the whole back
and wings; the double black wing-bars were equally conspicuous; the tail
was exactly alike in all its characters, and the croup was pure white; the
head, however, was tinted with a shade of red, evidently derived from the
spot, and was of a paler blue than in the rock-pigeon, as was the stomach.
So that two black barbs, a red spot, and a white fantail, as the four
purely-bred grandparents, produced a bird of the same general blue colour,
together with every characteristic mark, as in the wild _Columba livia_.

With respect to crossed breeds frequently producing blue birds chequered
with black, and resembling in all respects both the dovecot-pigeon and the
chequered wild variety of the rock-pigeon, the statement before referred to
by MM. Boitard and Corbie would almost suffice; but I will give three
instances of the appearance of such birds from crosses in which one alone
of the parents or great-grandparents was blue, but not chequered. I crossed
a male blue turbit with a snow-white trumpeter, and the following year with
a dark, leaden-brown, short-faced tumbler; the offspring from the first
cross were as perfectly chequered as any dovecot-pigeon; and from the
second, so much so as to be nearly as black as the most darkly chequered
rock-pigeon from Madeira. Another bird, whose great-grandparents were a
white trumpeter, a white fantail, a white red-spot, a red runt, and a blue
pouter, was slaty-blue and chequered exactly like a dovecot-pigeon. I may
here {201} add a remark made to me by Mr. Wicking, who has had more
experience than any other person in England in breeding pigeons of various
colours: namely, that when a blue, or a blue and chequered bird, having
black wing-bars, once appears in any race and is allowed to breed, these
characters are so strongly transmitted that it is extremely difficult to
eradicate them.

What, then, are we to conclude from this tendency in all the chief domestic
races, both when purely bred and more especially when intercrossed, to
produce offspring of a blue colour, with the same characteristic marks,
varying in the same manner, as in _Columba livia_? If we admit that these
races have all descended from _C. livia_, no breeder will doubt that the
occasional appearance of blue birds thus characterised is accounted for on
the well-known principle of "throwing back" or reversion. Why crossing
should give so strong a tendency to reversion, we do not with certainty
know; but abundant evidence of this fact will be given in the following
chapters. It is probable that I might have bred even for a century pure
black barbs, spots, nuns, white fantails, trumpeters, &c., without
obtaining a single blue or barred bird; yet by crossing these breeds I
reared in the first and second generation, during the course of only three
or four years, a considerable number of young birds, more or less plainly
 blue, and with most of the characteristic marks. When black and
white, or black and red birds, are crossed, it would appear that a slight
tendency exists in both parents to produce blue offspring, and that this,
when combined, overpowers the separate tendency in either parent to produce
black, or white, or red offspring.

If we reject the belief that all the races of the pigeon are the modified
descendants of _C. livia_, and suppose that they are descended from several
aboriginal stocks, then we must choose between the three following
assumptions: firstly, that at least eight or nine species formerly existed
which were aboriginally  in various ways, but have since varied in
so exactly the same manner as to assume the colouring of _C. livia_; but
this assumption throws not the least light on the appearance of such
colours and marks when the races are crossed. Or secondly, we may assume
that the aboriginal species {202} were all  blue, and had the
wing-bars and other characteristic marks of _C. livia_,--a supposition
which is highly improbable, as besides this one species no existing member
of the Columbidae presents these combined characters; and it would not be
possible to find any other instance of several species identical in
plumage, yet as different in important points of structure as are pouters,
fantails, carriers, tumblers, &c. Or lastly, we may assume that all the
races, whether descended from _C. livia_ or from several aboriginal
species, although they have been bred with so much care and are so highly
valued by fanciers, have all been crossed within a dozen or score of
generations with _C. livia_, and have thus acquired their tendency to
produce blue birds with the several characteristic marks. I have said that
it must be assumed that each race has been crossed with _C. livia_ within a
dozen, or, at the utmost, within a score of generations; for there is no
reason to believe that crossed offspring ever revert to one of their
ancestors when removed by a greater number of generations. In a breed which
has been crossed only once, the tendency to reversion will naturally become
less and less in the succeeding generations, as in each there will be less
and less of the blood of the foreign breed; but when there has been no
cross with a distinct breed, and there is a tendency in both parents to
revert to some long-lost character, this tendency, for all that we can see
to the contrary, may be transmitted undiminished for an indefinite number
of generations. These two distinct cases of reversion are often confounded
together by those who have written on inheritance.

Considering, on the one hand, the improbability of the three assumptions
which have just been discussed, and, on the other hand, how simply the
facts are explained on the principle of reversion, we may conclude that the
occasional appearance in all the races, both when purely bred and more
especially when crossed, of blue birds, sometimes chequered, with double
wing-bars, with white or blue croups, with a bar at the end of the tail,
and with the outer tail-feathers edged with white, affords an argument of
the greatest weight in favour of the view that all are descended from
_Columba livia_, including under this name the three or four wild varieties
or sub-species before enumerated. {203}

To sum up the six foregoing arguments, which are opposed to the belief that
the chief domestic races are the descendants of at least eight or nine or
perhaps a dozen species; for the crossing of any less number would not
yield the characteristic differences between the several races. _Firstly_,
the improbability that so many species should still exist somewhere, but be
unknown to ornithologists, or that they should have become within the
historical period extinct, although man has had so little influence in
exterminating the wild _C. livia_. _Secondly_, the improbability of man in
former times having thoroughly domesticated and rendered fertile under
confinement so many species. _Thirdly_, these supposed species having
nowhere become feral. _Fourthly_, the extraordinary fact that man should,
intentionally or by chance, have chosen for domestication several species,
extremely abnormal in character; and furthermore, the points of structure
which render these supposed species so abnormal being now highly variable.
_Fifthly_, the fact of all the races, though differing in many important
points of structure, producing perfectly fertile mongrels; whilst all the
hybrids which have been produced between even closely allied species in the
pigeon-family are sterile. _Sixthly_, the remarkable statements just given
on the tendency in all the races, both when purely bred and when crossed,
to revert in numerous minute details of colouring to the character of the
wild rock-pigeon, and to vary in a similar manner. To these arguments may
be added the extreme improbability that a number of species formerly
existed, which differed greatly from each other in some few points, but
which resembled each other as closely as do the domestic races in other
points of structure, in voice, and in all their habits of life. When these
several facts and arguments are fairly taken into consideration, it would
require an overwhelming amount of evidence to make us admit that the chief
domestic races are descended from several aboriginal stocks; and of such
evidence there is absolutely none.

The belief that the chief domestic races are descended from several wild
stocks no doubt has arisen from the apparent improbability of such great
modifications of structure having been effected since man first
domesticated the rock-pigeon. Nor am I surprised at any degree of
hesitation in admitting their common {204} origin: formerly, when I went
into my aviaries and watched such birds as pouters, carriers, barbs,
fantails, and short-faced tumblers, &c., I could not persuade myself that
they had all descended from the same wild stock, and that man had
consequently in one sense created these remarkable modifications. Therefore
I have argued the question of their origin at great, and, as some will
think, superfluous length.

Finally, in favour of the belief that all the races are descended from a
single stock, we have in _Columba livia_ a still existing and widely
distributed species, which can be and has been domesticated in various
countries. This species agrees in most points of structure and in all its
habits of life, as well as occasionally in every detail of plumage, with
the several domestic races. It breeds freely with them, and produces
fertile offspring. It varies in a state of nature,[345] and still more so
when semi-domesticated, as shown by comparing the Sierra Leone pigeons with
those of India, or with those which apparently have run wild in Madeira. It
has undergone a still greater amount of variation in the case of the
numerous toy-pigeons, which no one supposes to be descended from distinct
species; yet some of these toy-pigeons have transmitted their character
truly for centuries. Why, then, should we hesitate to believe in that
greater amount of variation which is necessary for the production of the
eleven chief races? It should be borne in mind that in two of the most
strongly-marked races, namely, carriers and short-faced tumblers, the
extreme forms can be connected with the parent-species by graduated
differences not greater than those which may be observed between the
dovecot-pigeons inhabiting different countries, or between the various
kinds of toy-pigeons,--gradations which must certainly be attributed to
variation.

That circumstances have been eminently favourable for the modification of
the pigeon through variation and selection will now be shown. The earliest
record, as has been pointed out to me by Professor Lepsius, of pigeons in a
domesticated condition, occurs in the fifth Egyptian dynasty, about {205}
3000 B.C.;[346] but Mr. Birch, of the British Museum, informs me that the
pigeon appears in a bill of fare in the previous dynasty. Domestic pigeons
are mentioned in Genesis, Leviticus, and Isaiah.[347] In the time of the
Romans, as we hear from Pliny,[348] immense prices were given for pigeons;
"nay, they are come to this pass, that they can reckon up their pedigree
and race." In India, about the year 1600, pigeons were much valued by Akber
Khan: 20,000 birds were carried about with the court, and the merchants
brought valuable collections. "The monarchs of Iran and Turan sent him some
very rare breeds. His Majesty," says the courtly historian, "by crossing
the breeds, which method was never practised before, has improved them
astonishingly."[349] Akber Khan possessed seventeen distinct kinds, eight
of which were valuable for beauty alone. At about this same period of 1600
the Dutch, according to Aldrovandi, were as eager about pigeons as the
Romans had formerly been. The breeds which were kept during the fifteenth
century in Europe and in India apparently differed from each other.
Tavernier, in his Travels in 1677, speaks, as does Chardin in 1735, of the
vast number of pigeon-houses in Persia; and the former remarks that, as
Christians were not permitted to keep pigeons, some of the vulgar actually
turned Mahometans for this sole purpose. The Emperor of Morocco had his
favourite keeper of pigeons, as is mentioned in Moore's treatise, published
1737. In England, from the time of Willughby in 1678 to the present day, as
well as in Germany and in France, numerous treatises have been published on
the pigeon. In India, about a hundred years ago, a Persian treatise was
written; and the writer thought it no light affair, for he begins with a
solemn invocation, "in the name of God, the gracious and merciful." Many
large towns, in Europe and the United States, now have their societies of
devoted pigeon-fanciers: at present there are three such societies in
London. In India, as I hear from {206} Mr. Blyth, the inhabitants of Delhi
and of some other great cities are eager fanciers. Mr. Layard informs me
that most of the known breeds are kept in Ceylon. In China, according to
Mr. Swinhoe of Amoy, and Dr. Lockhart of Shangai, carriers, fantails,
tumblers, and other varieties are reared with care, especially by the
bonzes or priests. The Chinese fasten a kind of whistle to the
tail-feathers of their pigeons, and as the flock wheels through the air
they produce a sweet sound. In Egypt the late Abbas Pacha was a great
fancier of fantails. Many pigeons are kept at Cairo and Constantinople, and
these have lately been imported by native merchants, as I hear from Sir W.
Elliot, into Southern India, and sold at high prices.

The foregoing statements show in how many countries, and during how long a
period, many men have been passionately devoted to the breeding of pigeons.
Hear how an enthusiastic fancier at the present day writes: "If it were
possible for noblemen and gentlemen to know the amazing amount of solace
and pleasure derived from Almond Tumblers, when they begin to understand
their properties, I should think that scarce any nobleman or gentleman
would be without their aviaries of Almond Tumblers."[350] The pleasure thus
taken is of paramount importance, as it leads amateurs carefully to note
and preserve each slight deviation of structure which strikes their fancy.
Pigeons are often closely confined during their whole lives; they do not
partake of their naturally varied diet; they have often been transported
from one climate to another; and all these changes in their conditions of
life would be likely to cause variability. Pigeons have been domesticated
for nearly 5000 years, and have been kept in many places, so that the
numbers reared under domestication must have been enormous; and this is
another circumstance of high importance, for it obviously favours the
chance of rare modifications of structure occasionally appearing. Slight
variations of all kinds would almost certainly be observed, and, if valued,
would, owing to the following circumstances, be preserved and propagated
with unusual facility. Pigeons, differently from any other domesticated
animal, can easily be mated for life, and, though kept with other pigeons,
they rarely prove unfaithful to each other. Even when the {207} male does
break his marriage-vow, he does not permanently desert his mate. I have
bred in the same aviaries many pigeons of different kinds, and never reared
a single bird of an impure strain. Hence a fancier can with the greatest
ease select and match his birds. He will also soon see the good results of
his care; for pigeons breed with extraordinary rapidity. He may freely
reject inferior birds, as they serve at an early age as excellent food. To
sum up, pigeons are easily kept, paired, and selected; vast numbers have
been reared; great zeal in breeding them has been shown by many men in
various countries; and this would lead to their close discrimination, and
to a strong desire to exhibit some novelty, or to surpass other fanciers in
the excellence of already established breeds.

_History of the principal Races of the Pigeon_.[351]

    Before discussing the means and steps by which the chief races have
    been formed, it will be advisable to give some historical details, for
    more is known of the history of the pigeon, little though this be, than
    of any other domesticated animal. Some of the cases are interesting as
    proving how long domestic varieties may be propagated with exactly the
    same or nearly the same characters; and other cases are still more
    interesting as showing how slowly but steadily races have been greatly
    modified during successive generations. In the last chapter I stated
    that Trumpeters and Laughers, both so remarkable for their voices, seem
    to have been perfectly characterized in 1735; and Laughers were
    apparently known in India before the year 1600. Spots in 1676, and Nuns
    in the time of Aldrovandi, before 1600, were  exactly as they
    now are. Common Tumblers and Ground Tumblers exhibited in India, before
    the year 1600, the same extraordinary peculiarities of flight as at the
    present day, for they are well described in the 'Ayeen Akbery.' These
    breeds may all have existed for a much longer period; we know only that
    they were perfectly characterized at the dates above given. The
    _average_ length of life of the domestic pigeon is probably about five
    or six years; if so, some of these races have retained their character
    perfectly for at least forty or fifty generations.

    _Pouters._--These birds, as far as a very short description serves for
    comparison, appear to have been well characterized in Aldrovandi's
    time,[352] before the year 1600. Length of body and length of leg are
    at the present time the two chief points of excellence. In 1735 Moore
    said (see Mr. J. M. Eaton's edition)--and Moore was a first-rate
    fancier--that he once saw a bird with {208} a body 20 inches in length,
    "though 17 or 18 inches is reckoned a very good length;" and he has
    seen the legs very nearly 7 inches in length, yet a leg 61/2 or 63/4 long
    "must be allowed to be a very good one." Mr. Bult, the most successful
    breeder of Pouters in the world, informs me that at present (1858) the
    standard length of the body is not less than 18 inches; but he has
    measured one bird 19 inches in length, and has heard of 20 and 22
    inches, but doubts the truth of these latter statements. The standard
    length of the leg is now 7 inches, but Mr. Bult has recently measured
    two of his own birds with legs 71/2 long. So that in the 123 years which
    have elapsed since 1735 there has been hardly any increase in the
    standard length of the body; 17 or 18 inches was formerly reckoned a
    very good length, and now 18 inches is the minimum standard; but the
    length of leg seems to have increased, as Moore never saw one quite 7
    inches long; now the standard is 7, and two of Mr. Bult's birds
    measured 71/2 inches in length. The extremely slight improvement in
    Pouters, except in the length of the leg, during the last 123 years,
    may be partly accounted for by the neglect which they suffered, as I am
    informed by Mr. Bult, until within the last 20 or 30 years. About
    1765[353] there was a change of fashion, stouter and more feathered
    legs being preferred to thin and nearly naked legs.

    _Fantails._--The first notice of the existence of this breed is in
    India, before the year 1600, as given in the 'Ayeen Akbery;'[354] at
    this date, judging from Aldrovandi, the breed was unknown in Europe. In
    1677 Willughby speaks of a Fantail with 26 tail-feathers; in 1735 Moore
    saw one with 36 feathers; and in 1824 MM. Boitard and Corbie assert
    that in France birds can easily be found with 42 tail-feathers. In
    England, the number of the tail-feathers is not at present so much
    regarded as their upward direction and expansion. The general carriage
    of the bird is likewise now much regarded. The old descriptions do not
    suffice to show whether in these latter respects there has been much
    improvement; but if fantails had formerly existed with their heads and
    tails touching each other, as at the present time, the fact would
    almost certainly have been noticed. The Fantails which are now found in
    India probably show the state of the race, as far as carriage is
    concerned, at the date of their introduction into Europe; and some,
    said to have been brought from Calcutta, which I kept alive, were in a
    marked manner inferior to our exhibition birds. The Java Fantail shows
    the same difference in carriage; and although Mr. Swinhoe has counted
    18 and 24 tail-feathers in his birds, a first-rate specimen sent to me
    had only 14 tail-feathers.

    _Jacobins._--This breed existed before 1600, but the hood, judging from
    the figure given by Aldrovandi, did not enclose the head nearly so
    perfectly as at present: nor was the head then white; nor were the
    wings and tail so long, but this last character might have been
    overlooked by the rude artist. In Moore's time, in 1735, the Jacobin
    was considered the {209} smallest kind of pigeon, and the bill is said
    to be very short. Hence either the Jacobin, or the other kinds with
    which it was then compared, must have been since considerably modified;
    for Moore's description (and it must be remembered that he was a
    first-rate judge) is clearly not applicable, as far as size of body and
    length of beak are concerned, to our present Jacobins. In 1795, judging
    from Bechstein, the breed had assumed its present character.

    _Turbits._--It has generally been supposed by the older writers on
    pigeons, that the Turbit is the Cortbeck of Aldrovandi; but if this be
    the case, it is an extraordinary fact that the characteristic frill
    should not have been noticed. The beak, moreover, of the Cortbeck is
    described as closely resembling that of the Jacobin, which shows a
    change in the one or the other race. The Turbit, with its
    characteristic frill and bearing its present name, is described by
    Willughby in 1677; and the bill is said to be like that of the
    bullfinch,--a good comparison, but now more strictly applicable to the
    beak of the Barb. The sub-breed called the Owl was well known in
    Moore's time, in 1735.

    _Tumblers._--Common Tumblers, as well as Ground Tumblers, perfect as
    far as tumbling is concerned, existed in India before the year 1600;
    and at this period diversified modes of flight, such as flying at
    night, the ascent to a great height, and manner of descent, seem to
    have been much attended to, as at the present time, in India.
    Belon[355] in 1555 saw in Paphlagonia what he describes as "a very new
    thing, viz. pigeons which flew so high in the air that they were lost
    to view, but returned to their pigeon-house without separating." This
    manner of flight is characteristic of our present Tumblers, but it is
    clear that Belon would have mentioned the act of tumbling if the
    pigeons described by him had tumbled. Tumblers were not known in Europe
    in 1600, as they are not mentioned by Aldrovandi, who discusses the
    flight of pigeons. They are briefly alluded to by Willughby, in 1687,
    as small pigeons "which show like footballs in the air." The
    short-faced race did not exist at this period, as Willughby could not
    have overlooked birds so remarkable for their small size and short
    beaks. We can even trace some of the steps by which this race has been
    produced. Moore in 1735 enumerates correctly the chief points of
    excellence, but does not give any description of the several
    sub-breeds; and from this fact Mr. Eaton infers[356] that the
    short-faced Tumbler had not then come to full perfection. Moore even
    speaks of the Jacobin as being the smallest pigeon. Thirty years
    afterwards, in 1765, in the Treatise dedicated to Mayor, short-faced
    Almond Tumblers are fully described, but the author, an excellent
    fancier, expressly states in his Preface (p. xiv.) that, "from great
    care and expense in breeding them, they have arrived to so great
    perfection and are so different from what they were 20 or 30 years
    past, that an old fancier would have condemned them for no other reason
    than because they are not like what used to be thought good when he was
    in the fancy before." {210} Hence it would appear that there was a
    rather sudden change in the character of the short-faced Tumbler at
    about this period; and there is reason to suspect that a dwarfed and
    half-monstrous bird, the parent-form of the several short-faced
    sub-breeds, then appeared. I suspect this because short-faced Tumblers
    are born with their beaks (ascertained by careful measurement) as
    short, proportionally with the size of their bodies, as in the adult
    bird; and in this respect they differ greatly from all other breeds,
    which slowly acquire during growth their various characteristic
    qualities.

    Since the year 1765 there has been some change in one of the chief
    characters of the short-faced Tumbler, namely, in the length of the
    beak. Fanciers measure the "head and beak" from the tip of the beak to
    the front corner of the eyeball. About the year 1765 a "head and beak"
    was considered good,[357] which, measured in the usual manner, was 7/8
    of an inch in length; now it ought not to exceed 5/8 of an inch; "it is
    however possible," as Mr. Eaton candidly confesses, "for a bird to be
    considered as pleasant or neat even at 6/8 of an inch, but exceeding
    that length it must be looked upon as unworthy of attention." Mr. Eaton
    states that he has never seen in the course of his life more than two
    or three birds with the "head and beak" not exceeding half an inch in
    length; "still I believe in the course of a few years that the head and
    beak will be shortened, and that half-inch birds will not be considered
    so great a curiosity as at the present time." That Mr. Eaton's opinion
    deserves attention cannot be doubted, considering his success in
    winning prizes at our exhibitions. Finally in regard to the Tumbler it
    may be concluded from the facts above given that it was originally
    introduced into Europe, probably first into England, from the East; and
    that it then resembled our common English Tumbler, or more probably the
    Persian or Indian Tumbler, with a beak only just perceptibly shorter
    than that of the common dovecot-pigeon. With respect to the short-faced
    Tumbler, which is not known to exist in the East, there can hardly be a
    doubt that the whole wonderful change in the size of the head, beak,
    body, and feet, and in general carriage, has been produced during the
    last two centuries by continued selection, aided probably by the birth
    of a semi-monstrous bird somewhere about the year 1750.

    _Runts._--Of their history little can be said. In the time of Pliny the
    pigeons of Campania were the largest known; and from this fact alone
    some authors assert that they were Runts. In Aldrovandi's time, in
    1600, two sub-breeds existed; but one of them, the short-beaked, is now
    extinct in Europe.

    _Barbs._--Notwithstanding statements to the contrary, it seems to me
    impossible to recognise the barb in Aldrovandi's descriptions and
    figures; four breeds, however, existed in the year 1600 which were
    evidently allied both to Barbs and Carriers. To show how difficult it
    is to recognise some of the breeds described by Aldrovandi, I will give
    the different opinions in regard to the above four kinds, named by him
    _C. Indica_, _Cretensis_, _Gutturosa_, and _Persica_. Willughby thought
    that the _Columba Indica_ was a {211} Turbit, but the eminent fancier
    Mr. Brent believes that it was an inferior Barb: _C. Cretensis_, with a
    short beak and a swelling on the upper mandible, cannot be recognised:
    _C._ (falsely called) _gutturosa_, which from its _rostrum_, _breve_,
    _crassum_, et _tuberosum_ seems to me to come nearest to the Barb, Mr.
    Brent believes to be a Carrier; and lastly, the _C. Persica et
    Turcica,_ Mr. Brent thinks, and I quite concur with him, was a
    short-beaked Carrier with very little wattle. In 1687 the Barb was
    known in England, and Willughby describes the beak as like that of the
    Turbit; but it is not credible that his Barb should have had a beak
    like that of our present birds, for so accurate an observer could not
    have overlooked its great breadth.

    _English Carrier._--We may look in vain in Aldrovandi's work for any
    bird resembling our prize Carriers; the _C. Persica et Turcica_ of this
    author comes the nearest, but is said to have had a short thick beak;
    therefore it must have approached in character a Barb, and have
    differed greatly from our Carriers. In Willughby's time, in 1677, we
    can clearly recognise the Carrier, but he adds, "the bill is not short,
    but of a moderate length," a description which no one would apply to
    our present Carriers, so conspicuous for the extraordinary length of
    their beaks. The old names given in Europe to the Carrier, and the
    several names now in use in India, indicate that Carriers originally
    came from Persia; and Willughby's description would perfectly apply to
    the Bussorah Carrier as it now exists in Madras. In later times we can
    partially trace the progress of change in our English Carriers: Moore
    in 1735 says "an inch and a half is reckoned a long beak, though there
    are very good Carriers that are found not to exceed an inch and a
    quarter." These birds must have resembled, or perhaps been a little
    superior to, the Carriers, previously described, which are now found in
    Persia. In England at the present day "there are," as Mr. Eaton[358]
    states, "beaks that would measure (from edge of eye to tip of beak) one
    inch and three-quarters, and some few even two inches in length."

From these historical details we see that nearly all the chief domestic
races existed before the year 1600. Some remarkable only for colour appear
to have been identical with our present breeds, some were nearly the same,
some considerably different, and some have since become extinct. Several
breeds, such as Finnikins and Turners, the swallow-tailed pigeon of
Bechstein and the Carmelite, seem both to have originated and to have
disappeared within this same period. Any one now visiting a well-stocked
English aviary would certainly pick out as the most distinct kinds, the
massive Runt, the Carrier with its wonderfully elongated beak and great
wattles, the Barb with its short broad beak and eye-wattles, the
short-faced Tumbler {212} with its small conical beak, the Pouter with its
great crop, long legs and body, the Fantail with its upraised,
widely-expanded, well-feathered tail, the Turbit with its frill and short
blunt beak, and the Jacobin with its hood. Now, if this same person could
have viewed the pigeons kept before 1600 by Akber Khan in India and by
Aldrovandi in Europe, he would have seen the Jacobin with a less perfect
hood; the Turbit apparently without its frill; the Pouter with shorter
legs, and in every way less remarkable--that is, if Aldrovandi's Pouter
resembled the old German kind; the Fantail would have been far less
singular in appearance, and would have had much fewer feathers in its tail;
he would have seen excellent flying Tumblers, but he would in vain have
looked for the marvellous short-faced breeds; he would have seen birds
allied to barbs, but it is extremely doubtful whether he would have met
with our actual Barbs; and lastly, he would have found Carriers with beaks
and wattle incomparably less developed than in our English Carriers. He
might have classed most of the breeds in the same groups as at present; but
the differences between the groups were then far less strongly pronounced
than at present. In short, the several breeds had at this early period not
diverged in so great a degree from their aboriginal common parent, the wild
rock-pigeon.

_Manner of Formation of the chief Races._

We will now consider more closely the probable steps by which the chief
races have been formed. As long as pigeons are kept semi-domesticated in
dovecots in their native country, without any care in selecting and
matching them, they are liable to little more variation than the wild _C.
livia_, namely, in the wings becoming chequered with black, in the croup
being blue or white, and in the size of the body. When, however,
dovecot-pigeons are transported into diversified countries, such as Sierra
Leone, the Malay archipelago, and Madeira (where the wild _C. livia_ is not
known to exist), they are exposed to new conditions of life; and apparently
in consequence they vary in a somewhat greater degree. When closely
confined, either for the pleasure of watching them, or to prevent their
straying, they must be exposed, even under their native climate, to {213}
considerably different conditions; for they cannot obtain their natural
diversity of food; and, what is probably more important, they are
abundantly fed, whilst debarred from taking much exercise. Under these
circumstances we might expect to find, from the analogy of all other
domesticated animals, a greater amount of individual variability than with
the wild pigeon; and this is the case. The want of exercise apparently
tends to reduce the size of the feet and organs of flight; and then, from
the law of correlation of growth, the beak apparently becomes affected.
From what we now see occasionally taking place in our aviaries, we may
conclude that sudden variations or sports, such as the appearance of a
crest of feathers on the head, of feathered feet, of a new shade of colour,
of an additional feather in the tail or wing, would occur at rare intervals
during the many centuries which have elapsed since the pigeon was first
domesticated. At the present day such "sports" are generally rejected as
blemishes; and there is so much mystery in the breeding of pigeons that, if
a valuable sport did occur, its history would often be concealed. Before
the last hundred and fifty years, there is hardly a chance of the history
of any such sport having been recorded. But it by no means follows from
this that such sports in former times, when the pigeon had undergone much
less variation, would have been rejected. We are profoundly ignorant of the
cause of each sudden and apparently spontaneous variation, as well as of
the infinitely numerous shades of difference between the birds of the same
family. But in a future chapter we shall see that all such variations
appear to be the indirect result of changes of some kind in the conditions
of life.

Hence, after a long course of domestication, we might expect to see in the
pigeon much individual variability, and occasional sudden variations, as
well as slight modifications from the lessened use of certain parts,
together with the effects of correlation of growth. But without selection
all this would produce only a trifling or no result; for without such aid
differences of all kinds would, from the two following causes, soon
disappear. In a healthy and vigorous lot of pigeons many more young birds
are killed for food or die than are reared to maturity; so that an
individual having any peculiar character, if not selected, would run a good
chance of being destroyed; and if not destroyed, the {214} peculiarity in
question would almost certainly be obliterated by free intercrossing. It
might, however, occasionally happen that the same variation repeatedly
occurred, owing to the action of peculiar and uniform conditions of life,
and in this case it would prevail independently of selection. But when
selection is brought into play all is changed; for this is the
foundation-stone in the formation of new races; and with the pigeon,
circumstances, as we have already seen, are eminently favourable for
selection. When a bird presenting some conspicuous variation has been
preserved, and its offspring have been selected, carefully matched, and
again propagated, and so onwards during successive generations, the
principle is so obvious that nothing more need be said about it. This may
be called _methodical selection_, for the breeder has a distinct object in
view, namely, to preserve some character which has actually appeared; or to
create some improvement already pictured in his mind.

Another form of selection has hardly been noticed by those authors who have
discussed this subject, but is even more important. This form may be called
_unconscious selection_, for the breeder selects his birds unconsciously,
unintentionally, and without method, yet he surely though slowly produces a
great result. I refer to the effects which follow from each fancier at
first procuring and afterwards rearing as good birds as he can, according
to his skill, and according to the standard of excellence at each
successive period. He does not wish permanently to modify the breed; he
does not look to the distant future, or speculate on the final result of
the slow accumulation during many generations of successive slight changes:
he is content if he possesses a good stock, and more than content if he can
beat his rivals. The fancier in the time of Aldrovandi, when in the year
1600 he admired his own jacobins, pouters, or carriers, never reflected
what their descendants in the year 1860 would become; he would have been
astonished could he have seen our jacobins, our improved English carriers,
and our pouters; he would probably have denied that they were the
descendants of his own once admired stock, and he would perhaps not have
valued them, for no other reason, as was written in 1765, "than because
they were not like what used to be thought good when he was in the fancy."
No one will attribute the lengthened beak of the {215} carrier, the
shortened beak of the short-faced tumbler, the lengthened leg of the
pouter, the more perfectly-enclosed hood of the jacobin, &c.,--changes
effected since the time of Aldrovandi, or even since a much later
period,--to the direct and immediate action of the conditions of life. For
these several races have been modified in various and even in directly
opposite ways, though kept under the same climate and treated in all
respects in as nearly uniform a manner as possible. Each slight change in
the length or shortness of the beak, in the length of leg, &c., has no
doubt been indirectly and remotely caused by some change in the conditions
to which the bird has been subjected, but we must attribute the final
result, as is manifest in those cases of which we have any historical
record, to the continued selection and accumulation of many slight
successive variations.

The action of unconscious selection, as far as pigeons are concerned,
depends on a universal principle in human nature, namely, on our rivalry,
and desire to outdo our neighbours. We see this in every fleeting fashion,
even in our dress, and it leads the fancier to endeavour to exaggerate
every peculiarity in his breeds. A great authority on pigeons[359] says,
"Fanciers do not and will not admire a medium standard, that is, half and
half, which is neither here nor there, but admire extremes." After
remarking that the fancier of short-faced beard tumblers wishes for a very
short beak, and that the fancier of long-faced beard tumblers wishes for a
very long beak, he says, with respect to one of intermediate length, "Don't
deceive yourself. Do you suppose for a moment the short or the long-faced
fancier would accept such a bird as a gift? Certainly not; the short-faced
fancier could see no beauty in it; the long-faced fancier would swear there
was no use in it, &c." In these comical passages, written seriously, we see
the principle which has ever guided fanciers, and has led to such great
modifications in all the domestic races which are valued solely for their
beauty or curiosity.

Fashions in pigeon-breeding endure for long periods; we cannot change the
structure of a bird as quickly as we can the fashion of our dress. In the
time of Aldrovandi, no doubt the more the pouter inflated his crop, the
more he was valued. Nevertheless, fashions do to a certain extent change;
first one {216} point of structure and then another is attended to; or
different breeds are admired at different times and in different countries.
As the author just quoted remarks, "the fancy ebbs and flows; a thorough
fancier now-a-days never stoops to breed toy-birds;" yet these very "toys"
are now most carefully bred in Germany. Breeds which at the present time
are highly valued in India are considered worthless in England. No doubt,
when breeds are neglected, they degenerate; still we may believe that, as
long as they are kept under the same conditions of life, characters once
gained will be partially retained for a long time, and may form, the
starting-point for a future course of selection.

Let it not be objected to this view of the action of unconscious selection
that fanciers would not observe or care for extremely slight differences.
Those alone who have associated with fanciers can be thoroughly aware of
their accurate powers of discrimination acquired by long practice, and of
the care and labour which they bestow on their birds. I have known a
fancier deliberately study his birds day after day to settle which to match
together and which to reject. Observe how difficult the subject appears to
one of the most eminent and experienced fanciers. Mr. Eaton, the winner of
many prizes, says, "I would here particularly guard you against keeping too
great a variety of pigeons, otherwise you will know a little about all the
kinds, but nothing about one as it ought to be known." "It is possible
there may be a few fanciers that have a good general knowledge of the
several fancy pigeons, but there are many who labour under the delusion of
supposing they know what they do not." Speaking exclusively of one
sub-variety of one race, namely, the short-faced almond tumbler, and after
saying that some fanciers sacrifice every property to obtain a good head
and beak, and that other fanciers sacrifice everything for plumage, he
remarks: "Some young fanciers who are over covetous go in for all the five
properties at once, and they have their reward by getting nothing." In
India, as I hear from Mr. Blyth, pigeons are likewise selected and matched
with the greatest care. But we must not judge of the slight differences
which would have been valued in ancient days, by those which are now valued
after the formation of many races, each with its own standard of
perfection, kept uniform by our numerous {217} Exhibitions. The ambition of
the most energetic fancier may be fully satisfied by the difficulty of
excelling other fanciers in the breeds already established, without trying
to form a new one.

       *       *       *       *       *

A difficulty with respect to the power of selection will perhaps already
have occurred to the reader, namely, what could have led fanciers first to
attempt to make such singular breeds as pouters, fantails, carriers, &c.?
But it is this very difficulty which the principle of unconscious selection
removes. Undoubtedly no fancier ever did intentionally make such an
attempt. All that we need suppose is that a variation occurred sufficiently
marked to catch the discriminating eye of some ancient fancier, and then
unconscious selection carried on for many generations, that is, the wish of
succeeding fanciers to excel their rivals, would do the rest. In the case
of the fantail we may suppose that the first progenitor of the breed had a
tail only slightly erected, as may now be seen in certain runts,[360] with
some increase in the number of the tail-feathers, as now occasionally
occurs with nuns. In the case of the pouter we may suppose that some bird
inflated its crop a little more than other pigeons, as is now the case in a
slight degree with the oesophagus of the turbit. We do not in the least
know the origin of the common tumbler, but we may suppose that a bird was
born with some affection of the brain, leading it to make somersaults in
the air; and the difficulty in this case is lessened, as we know that,
before the year 1600, in India, pigeons remarkable for their diversified
manner of flight were much valued, and by the order of the Emperor Akber
Khan were sedulously trained and carefully matched.

In the foregoing cases we have supposed that a sudden variation,
conspicuous enough to catch a fancier's eye, first appeared; but even this
degree of abruptness in the process of variation is not necessary for the
formation of a new breed. When the same kind of pigeon has been kept pure,
and has been bred during a long period by two or more fanciers, slight
differences in the strain can often be recognised. Thus I have seen
first-rate jacobins in one man's possession which certainly {218} differed
slightly in several characters from those kept by another. I possessed some
excellent barbs descended from a pair which had won a prize, and another
lot descended from a stock formerly kept by that famous fancier Sir John
Sebright, and these plainly differed in the form of the beak; but the
differences were so slight, that they could hardly be described by words.
Again, the common English and Dutch tumbler differ in a somewhat greater
degree, both in length of beak and shape of head. What first caused these
slight differences cannot be explained any more than why one man has a long
nose and another a short one. In the strains long kept distinct by
different fanciers, such differences are so common that they cannot be
accounted for by the accident of the birds first chosen for breeding having
been originally as different as they now are. The explanation no doubt lies
in selection of a slightly different nature having been applied in each
case; for no two fanciers have exactly the same taste, and consequently no
two, in choosing and carefully matching their birds, prefer or select
exactly the same. As each man naturally admires his own birds, he goes on
continually exaggerating by selection whatever slight peculiarities they
may possess. This will more especially happen with fanciers living in
different countries, who do not compare their stocks and aim at a common
standard of perfection. Thus, when a mere strain has once been formed,
unconscious selection steadily tends to augment the amount of difference,
and thus converts the strain into a sub-breed, and this ultimately into a
well-marked breed or race.

The principle of correlation of growth should never be lost sight of. Most
pigeons have small feet, apparently caused by their lessened use, and from
correlation, as it would appear, their beaks have likewise become reduced
in length. The beak is a conspicuous organ, and, as soon as it had thus
become perceptibly shortened, fanciers would almost certainly strive to
reduce it still more by the continued selection of birds with the shortest
beaks; whilst at the same time other fanciers, as we know has actually been
the case, would, in other sub-breeds, strive to increase its length. With
the increased length of the beak, the tongue would become greatly
lengthened, as would the eyelids with the increased development {219} of
the eye-wattles; with the reduced or increased size of the feet the number
of the scutellae would vary; with the length of the wing the number of the
primary wing-feathers would differ; and with the increased length of the
body in the pouter the number of the sacral vertebrae would be augmented.
These important and correlated differences of structure do not invariably
characterise any breed; but if they had been attended to and selected with
as much care as the more conspicuous external differences, there can hardly
be a doubt that they would have been rendered constant. Fanciers could
assuredly have made a race of tumblers with nine instead of ten primary
wing-feathers, seeing how often the number nine appears without any wish on
their part, and indeed in the case of the white-winged varieties in
opposition to their wish. In a similar manner, if the vertebrae had been
visible and had been attended to by fanciers, assuredly an additional
number might easily have been fixed in the pouter. If these latter
characters had once been rendered constant we should never have suspected
that they had at first been highly variable, or that they had arisen from
correlation, in the one case with the shortness of the wings, and in the
other case with the length of the body.

In order to understand how the chief domestic races have become distinctly
separated from each other, it is important to bear in mind, that fanciers
constantly try to breed from the best birds, and consequently that those
which are inferior in the requisite qualities are in each generation
neglected; so that after a time the less improved parent-stocks and many
subsequently formed intermediate grades become extinct. This has occurred
in the case of the pouter, turbit, and trumpeter, for these highly improved
breeds are now left without any links closely connecting them either with
each other or with the aboriginal rock-pigeon. In other countries, indeed,
where the same care has not been applied, or where the same fashion has not
prevailed, the earlier forms may long remain unaltered or altered only in a
slight degree, and we are thus sometimes enabled to recover the connecting
links. This is the case in Persia and India with the tumbler and carrier,
which there differ but slightly from the rock-pigeon in the {220}
proportions of their beaks. So again in Java, the fantail sometimes has
only fourteen caudal feathers, and the tail is much less elevated and
expanded than in our improved birds; so that the Java bird forms a link
between a first-rate fantail and the rock-pigeon.

Occasionally a breed may be retained for some particular quality in a
nearly unaltered condition in the same country, together with highly
modified offshoots or sub-breeds, which are valued for some distinct
property. We see this exemplified in England, where the common tumbler,
which is valued only for its flight, does not differ much from its
parent-form, the Eastern tumbler; whereas the short-faced tumbler has been
prodigiously modified, from being valued, not for its flight, but for other
qualities. But the common-flying tumbler of Europe has already begun to
branch out into slightly different sub-breeds, such as the common English
tumbler, the Dutch roller, the Glasgow house-tumbler, and the long-faced
beard tumbler, &c.; and in the course of centuries, unless fashions greatly
change, these sub-breeds will diverge through the slow and insensible
process of unconscious selection, and become modified, in a greater and
greater degree. After a time the perfectly graduated links, which now
connect all these sub-breeds together, will be lost, for there would be no
object and much difficulty in retaining such a host of intermediate
sub-varieties.

The principle of divergence, together with the extinction of the many
previously existing intermediate forms, is so important for understanding
the origin of domestic races, as well as of species in a state of nature,
that I will enlarge a little more on this subject. Our third main group
includes carriers, barbs, and runts, which are plainly related to each
other, yet wonderfully distinct in several important characters. According
to the view given in the last chapter, these three races have probably
descended from an unknown race having an intermediate character, and this
from the rock-pigeon. Their characteristic differences are believed to be
due to different breeders having at an early period admired different
points of structure; and then, on the acknowledged principle of admiring
extremes, having gone on breeding, without any thought of the future, as
good birds as they could,--carrier-fanciers preferring {221} long beaks
with much wattle,--barb-fanciers preferring short thick beaks with much
eye-wattle,--and runt-fanciers not caring about the beak or wattle, but
only for the size and weight of the body. This process will have led to the
neglect and final extinction of the earlier, inferior, and intermediate
birds; and thus it has come to pass, that in Europe these three races are
now so extraordinarily distinct from each other. But in the East, whence
they were originally brought, the fashion has been different, and we there
see breeds which connect the highly modified English carrier with the
rock-pigeon, and others which to a certain extent connect carriers and
runts. Looking back to the time of Aldrovandi, we find that there existed
in Europe, before the year 1600, four breeds which were closely allied to
carriers and barbs, but which competent authorities cannot now identify
with our present barbs and carriers; nor can Aldrovandi's runts be
identified with our present runts. These four breeds certainly did not
differ from each other nearly so much as do our existing English carriers,
barbs, and runts. All this is exactly what might have been anticipated. If
we could collect all the pigeons which have ever lived, from before the
time of the Romans to the present day, we should be able to group them in
several lines, diverging from the parent rock-pigeon. Each line would
consist of almost insensible steps, occasionally broken by some slightly
greater variation or sport, and each would culminate in one of our present
highly modified forms. Of the many former connecting links, some would be
found to have become absolutely extinct without having left any issue,
whilst others though extinct would be seen to be the progenitors of the
existing races.

I have heard it remarked as a strange circumstance that we occasionally
hear of the local or complete extinction of domestic races, whilst we hear
nothing of their origin. How, it has been asked, can these losses be
compensated, and more than compensated, for we know that with almost all
domesticated animals the races have largely increased in number since the
time of the Romans? But on the view here given, we can understand this
apparent contradiction. The extinction of a race within historical times is
an event likely to be noticed; but its gradual and scarcely sensible
modification through unconscious selection, {222} and its subsequent
divergence, either in the same or more commonly in distant countries, into
two or more strains, and their gradual conversion into sub-breeds, and
these into well-marked breeds, are events which would rarely be noticed.
The death of a tree, that has attained gigantic dimensions, is recorded;
the slow growth of smaller trees and their increase in number excite no
attention.

In accordance with the belief of the great power of selection, and of the
little direct power of changed conditions of life, except in causing
general variability or plasticity of organisation, it is not surprising
that dovecot-pigeons have remained unaltered from time immemorial; and that
some toy-pigeons, which differ in little else besides colour from the
dovecot-pigeon, have retained the same character for several centuries. For
when one of these toy-pigeons had once become beautifully and symmetrically
,--when, for instance, a Spot had been produced with the crown of
its head, its tail, and tail-coverts of a uniform colour, the rest of the
body being snow-white,--no alteration or improvement would be desired. On
the other hand, it is not surprising that during this same interval of time
our highly-bred pigeons have undergone an astonishing amount of change; for
in regard to them there is no defined limit to the wish of the fancier, and
there is no known limit to the variability of their characters. What is
there to stop the fancier desiring to give to his carrier a longer and
longer beak, or to his tumbler a shorter and shorter beak? nor has the
extreme limit of variability in the beak, if there be any such limit, as
yet been reached. Notwithstanding the great improvement effected within
recent times in the short-faced almond tumbler, Mr. Eaton remarks, "the
field is still as open for fresh competitors as it was one hundred years
ago;" but this is perhaps an exaggerated assertion, for the young of all
highly improved fancy birds are extremely liable to disease and death.

I have heard it objected that the formation of the several domestic races
of the pigeon throws no light on the origin of the wild species of the
Columbidae, because their differences are not of the same nature. The
domestic races for instance do not differ, or differ hardly at all, in the
relative lengths and shapes of the primary wing-feathers, in the relative
length of the hind {223} toe, or in habits of life, as in roosting and
building in trees. But the above objection shows how completely the
principle of selection has been misunderstood. It is not likely that
characters selected by the caprice of man should resemble differences
preserved under natural conditions, either from being of direct service to
each species, or from standing in correlation with other modified and
serviceable structures. Until man selects birds differing in the relative
length of the wing-feathers or toes, &c., no sensible change in these parts
should be expected. Nor could man do anything unless these parts happened
to vary under domestication: I do not positively assert that this is the
case, although I have seen traces of such variability in the wing-feathers,
and certainly in the tail-feathers. It would be a strange fact if the
relative length of the hind toe should never vary, seeing how variable the
foot is both in size and in the number of the scutellae. With respect to the
domestic races not roosting or building in trees, it is obvious that
fanciers would never attend to or select such changes in habits; but we
have seen that the pigeons in Egypt, which do not for some reason like
settling on the low mud hovels of the natives, are led, apparently by
compulsion, to perch in crowds on the trees. We may even affirm that, if
our domestic races had become greatly modified in any of the above
specified respects, and it could be shown that fanciers had never attended
to such points, or that they did not stand in correlation with other
selected characters, the fact, on the principles advocated in this chapter,
would have offered a serious difficulty.

Let us briefly sum up the last two chapters on the pigeon. We may conclude
with confidence that all the domestic races, notwithstanding their great
amount of difference, are descended from the _Columba livia_, including
under this name certain wild races. But the differences between these
latter forms throw no light whatever on the characters which distinguish
the domestic races. In each breed or sub-breed the individual birds are
more variable than birds in a state of nature; and occasionally they vary
in a sudden and strongly-marked manner. This plasticity of organisation
apparently results from changed conditions of life. Disuse has reduced
certain parts of the body. Correlation of growth so ties the organisation
together, that when one part varies other parts {224} vary at the same
time. When several breeds have once been formed, their intercrossing aids
the progress of modification, and has even produced new sub-breeds. But as,
in the construction of a building, mere stones or bricks are of little
avail without the builder's art, so, in the production of new races,
selection has been the presiding power. Fanciers can act by selection on
excessively slight individual differences, as well as on those greater
differences which are called sports. Selection is followed methodically
when the fancier tries to improve and modify a breed according to a
prefixed standard of excellence; or he acts unmethodically and
unconsciously, by merely trying to rear as good birds as he can, without
any wish or intention to alter the breed. The progress of selection almost
inevitably leads to the neglect and ultimate extinction of the earlier and
less improved forms, as well as of many intermediate links in each long
line of descent. Thus it has come to pass that most of our present races
are so marvellously distinct from each other, and from the aboriginal
rock-pigeon.

       *       *       *       *       *


{225}

CHAPTER VII.

FOWLS.

    BRIEF DESCRIPTIONS OF THE CHIEF BREEDS--ARGUMENTS IN FAVOUR OF THEIR
    DESCENT FROM SEVERAL SPECIES--ARGUMENTS IN FAVOUR OF ALL THE BREEDS
    HAVING DESCENDED FROM GALLUS BANKIVA--REVERSION TO THE PARENT-STOCK IN
    COLOUR--ANALOGOUS VARIATIONS--ANCIENT HISTORY OF THE FOWL--EXTERNAL
    DIFFERENCES BETWEEN THE SEVERAL BREEDS--EGGS--CHICKENS--SECONDARY
    SEXUAL CHARACTERS--WING- AND TAIL-FEATHERS, VOICE, DISPOSITION,
    ETC.--OSTEOLOGICAL DIFFERENCES IN THE SKULL, VERTEBRAE, ETC.--EFFECTS OF
    USE AND DISUSE ON CERTAIN PARTS--CORRELATION OF GROWTH.

As some naturalists may not be familiar with the chief breeds of the fowl,
it will be advisable to give a condensed description of them.[361] From
what I have read and seen of specimens brought from several quarters of the
world, I believe that most of the chief kinds have been imported into
England, but many sub-breeds are probably still here unknown. The following
discussion on the origin of the various breeds and on their characteristic
differences does not pretend to completeness, but may be of some interest
to the naturalist. The classification of the breeds cannot, as far as I can
see, be made natural. They differ from each other in different degrees, and
do not afford characters in subordination to each other, by which they can
be ranked in group under group. They seem all to have diverged by
independent and different roads from a single type. Each chief breed
includes differently  sub-varieties, most of which can be truly
propagated, but it would be superfluous to describe them. I have classed
the various crested fowls {226} as sub-breeds under the Polish fowl; but I
have great doubts whether this is a natural arrangement, showing true
affinity or blood relationship. It is scarcely possible to avoid laying
stress on the commonness of a breed; and if certain foreign sub-breeds had
been largely kept in this country they would perhaps have been raised to
the rank of main-breeds. Several breeds are abnormal in character; that is,
they differ in certain points from all wild Gallinaceous birds. At first I
made a division of the breeds into normal and abnormal, but the result was
wholly unsatisfactory.

[Illustration: Fig. 30.--Spanish Fowl.]

    1. GAME BREED.--This may be considered as the typical breed, as it
    deviates only slightly from the wild _Gallus bankiva_, or, as perhaps
    more correctly named, _ferrugineus_. Beak strong; comb single and
    upright. Spurs long and sharp. Feathers closely adpressed to the body.
    Tail with the normal number of 14 feathers. Eggs often pale-buff.
    Disposition {227} indomitably courageous, exhibited even in the hens
    and chickens. An unusual number of differently  varieties
    exist, such as black and brown-breasted reds, duckwings, blacks,
    whites, piles, &c., with their legs of various colours.

    2. MALAY BREED.--Body of great size, with head, neck, and legs
    elongated; carriage erect; tail small, sloping downwards, generally
    formed of 16 feathers; comb and wattle small; ear-lobe and face red;
    skin yellowish; feathers closely adpressed to the body; neck-hackles
    short, narrow, and hard. Eggs often pale buff. Chickens feather late.
    Disposition savage. Of Eastern origin.

    3. COCHIN, OR SHANGAI BREED.--Size great; wing-feathers short, arched,
    much hidden in the soft downy plumage; barely capable of flight; tail
    short, generally formed of 16 feathers, developed at a late period in
    the young males; legs thick, feathered; spurs short, thick; nail of
    middle toe flat and broad; an additional toe not rarely developed; skin
    yellowish. Comb and wattle well developed. Skull with deep medial
    furrow; occipital foramen, sub-triangular, vertically elongated. Voice
    peculiar. Eggs rough, buff-. Disposition extremely quiet. Of
    Chinese origin.

    4. DORKING BREED.--Size great; body square, compact; feet with an
    additional toe; comb well developed, but varies much in form; wattles
    well developed; colour of plumage various. Skull remarkably broad
    between the orbits. Of English origin.

    The white Dorking may be considered as a distinct sub-breed, being a
    less massive bird.

    5. SPANISH BREED.--Tall, with stately carriage; tarsi long; comb
    single, deeply serrated, of immense size; wattles largely developed;
    the large ear-lobes and sides of face white. Plumage black glossed with
    green. Do not incubate. Tender in constitution, the comb being often
    injured by frost. Eggs white, smooth, of large size. Chickens feather
    late, but the young cocks show their masculine characters, and crow at
    an early age. Of Mediterranean origin.

    The _Andalusians_ may be ranked as a sub-breed: they are of a slaty
    blue colour, and their chickens are well feathered. A smaller,
    short-legged Dutch sub-breed has been described by some authors as
    distinct.

    6. HAMBURGH BREED (fig. 31).--Size moderate; comb flat, produced
    backwards, covered with numerous small points; wattle of moderate
    dimensions; ear-lobe white; legs blueish, thin. Do not incubate. Skull,
    with the tips of the ascending branches of the premaxillary and with
    the nasal bones standing a little separate from each other; anterior
    margin of the frontal bones less depressed than usual.

    There are two sub-breeds; the _spangled_ Hamburgh, of English origin,
    with the tips of the feathers marked with a dark spot; and the
    _pencilled_ Hamburgh, of Dutch origin, with dark transverse lines
    across each feather, and with the body rather smaller. Both these
    sub-breeds include gold and silver varieties, as well as some other
    sub-varieties. Black Hamburghs have been produced by a cross with the
    Spanish breed.

    7. CRESTED OR POLISH BREED (fig. 32).--Head with a large, rounded crest
    of feathers, supported on a hemispherical protuberance of the frontal
    bones, {228} which includes the anterior part of the brain. The
    ascending branches of the premaxillary bones and the inner nasal
    processes are much shortened. The orifice of the nostrils raised and
    crescentic. Beak short. Comb absent, or small and of crescentic shape;
    wattles either present or replaced by a beard-like tuft of feathers.
    Legs leaden-blue. Sexual differences appear late in life. Do not
    incubate. There are several beautiful varieties which differ in colour
    and slightly in other respects.

    [Illustration: Fig. 31.--Hamburgh Fowl.]

    The following sub-breeds agree in having a crest, more or less
    developed, with the comb, when present, of crescentic shape. The skull
    presents nearly the same remarkable peculiarities of structure as in
    the true Polish fowl.

    Sub-breed (_a_) _Sultans_.--A Turkish breed, resembling white Polish
    fowls, with a large crest and beard, with short and well-feathered
    legs. The tail is furnished with additional sickle feathers. Do not
    incubate.[362]

    Sub-breed (_b_) _Ptarmigans_.--An inferior breed closely allied to the
    last, white, rather small, legs much feathered, with the crest pointed;
    comb small, cupped; wattles small.

    {229}

    Sub-breed (_c_) _Ghoondooks_.--Another Turkish breed having an
    extraordinary appearance; black and tailless; crest and beard large;
    legs feathered. The inner processes of the two nasal bones come into
    contact with each other, owing to the complete absorption of the
    ascending branches of the premaxillaries. I have seen an allied, white,
    tailless breed from Turkey.

    [Illustration: Fig. 32.--Polish Fowl.]

    Sub-breed (_d_) _Creve-coeur_.--A French breed of large size, barely
    capable of flight, with short black legs, head crested, comb produced
    into two points or horns, sometimes a little branched like the horns of
    a stag; both beard and wattles present. Eggs large. Disposition
    quiet.[363]

    Sub-breed (_e_) _Horned fowl_.--With a small crest; comb produced into
    two great points, supported on two bony protuberances.

    Sub-breed (_f_) _Houdan_.--A French breed; of moderate size,
    short-legged with five toes, wings well developed; plumage invariably
    mottled with {230} black, white, and straw-yellow; head furnished with
    a crest, and a triple comb placed transversely; both wattles and beard
    present.[364]

    Sub-breed (_g_) _Guelderlands_.--No comb, head said to be surmounted by
    a longitudinal crest of soft velvety feathers; nostrils said to be
    crescentic; wattles well developed; legs feathered; colour black. From
    North America. The Breda fowl seems to be closely allied to the
    Guelderland.

    8. BANTAM BREED.--Originally from Japan,[365] characterized by small
    size alone; carriage bold and erect. There are several sub-breeds, such
    as the Cochin, Game, and Sebright Bantams, some of which have been
    recently formed by various crosses. The Black Bantam has a differently
    shaped skull, with the occipital foramen like that of the Cochin fowl.

    9. RUMP-LESS FOWLS.--These are so variable in character[366] that they
    hardly deserve to be called a breed. Any one who will examine the
    caudal vertebrae will see how monstrous the breed is.

    10. CREEPERS OR JUMPERS.--These are characterized by an almost
    monstrous shortness of legs, so that they move by jumping rather than
    by walking; they are said not to scratch up the ground. I have examined
    a Burmese variety, which had a skull of rather unusual shape.

    11. FRIZZLED OR CAFFRE FOWLS.--Not uncommon in India, with the feathers
    curling backwards, and with the primary feathers of the wing and tail
    imperfect; periosteum of bones black.

    12. SILK FOWLS.--Feathers silky, with the primary wing and
    tail-feathers imperfect; skin and periosteum of bones black; comb and
    wattles dark leaden-blue; ear-lappets tinged with blue; legs thin,
    often furnished with an additional toe. Size rather small.

    13. SOOTY FOWLS.--An Indian breed, of a white colour stained with soot,
    with black skin and periosteum. The hens alone are thus characterized.

From this synopsis we see that the several breeds differ considerably, and
they would have been nearly as interesting for us as pigeons, if there had
been equally good evidence that all had descended from one parent-species.
Most fanciers believe that they are descended from several primitive
stocks. The Rev. E. S. Dixon[367] argues strongly on this side of the
question; and one fancier even denounces the opposite conclusion by asking,
"Do we not perceive pervading this spirit, the spirit of the _Deist_?" Most
naturalists, with the exception of a few, such as Temminck, believe that
all the breeds have proceeded from a single species; but authority on such
a point {231} goes for little. Fanciers look to all parts of the world as
the possible sources of their unknown stocks; thus ignoring the laws of
geographical distribution. They know well that the several kinds breed
truly even in colour. They assert, but, as we shall see, on very weak
grounds, that most of the breeds are extremely ancient. They are strongly
impressed with the great difference between the chief kinds, and they ask
with force, can differences in climate, food, or treatment have produced
birds so different as the black stately Spanish, the diminutive elegant
Bantam, the heavy Cochin with its many peculiarities, and the Polish fowl
with its great top-knot and protuberant skull? But fanciers, whilst
admitting and even overrating the effects of crossing the various breeds,
do not sufficiently regard the probability of the occasional birth, during
the course of centuries, of birds with abnormal and hereditary
peculiarities; they overlook the effects of correlation of growth--of the
long-continued use and disuse of parts, and of some direct result from
changed food and climate, though on this latter head I have found no
sufficient evidence; and lastly, they all, as far as I know, entirely
overlook the all-important subject of unconscious or unmethodical
selection, though they are well aware that their birds differ individually,
and that by selecting the best birds for a few generations they can improve
their stocks.

An amateur writes[368] as follows. "The fact that poultry have until lately
received but little attention at the hands of the fancier, and been
entirely confined to the domains of the producer for the market, would
alone suggest the improbability of that constant and unremitting attention
having been observed in breeding, which is requisite to the consummating,
in the offspring of any two birds, transmittable forms not exhibited by the
parents." This at first sight appears true. But in a future chapter on
Selection, abundant facts will be given showing not only that careful
breeding, but that actual selection was practised during ancient periods,
and by barely civilised races of man. In the case of the fowl I can adduce
no direct facts showing that selection was anciently practised; but the
Romans at the commencement of the Christian era kept six or seven breeds,
and Columella "particularly recommends as the best, those sorts {232} that
have five toes and white ears."[369] In the fifteenth century several
breeds were known and described in Europe; and in China, at nearly the same
period, seven kinds were named. A more striking case is that at present, in
one of the Philippine Islands, the semi-barbarous inhabitants have distinct
native names for no less than nine sub-breeds of the Game Fowl.[370]
Azara,[371] who wrote towards the close of the last century, states that in
the interior parts of South America, where I should not have expected that
the least care would have been taken of poultry, a black-skinned and
black-boned breed is kept, from being considered fertile and its flesh good
for sick persons. Now every one who has kept poultry knows how impossible
it is to keep several breeds distinct unless the utmost care be taken in
separating the sexes. Will it then be pretended that those persons who in
ancient times and in semi-civilized countries took pains to keep the breeds
distinct, and who therefore valued them, would not occasionally have
destroyed inferior birds and occasionally have preserved their best birds?
This is all that is required. It is not pretended that any one in ancient
times intended to form a new breed, or to modify an old breed according to
some ideal standard of excellence. He who cared for poultry would merely
wish to obtain, and afterwards to rear, the best birds which he could; but
this occasional preservation of the best birds would in the course of time
modify the breed, as surely, though by no means as rapidly, as does
methodical selection at the present day. If one person out of a hundred or
out of a thousand attended to the breeding of his birds, this would be
sufficient; for the birds thus tended would soon become superior to others,
and would form a new strain; and this strain would, as explained in the
last chapter, slowly have its characteristic differences augmented, and at
last be converted into a new sub-breed or breed. But breeds would often be
for a time neglected and would deteriorate; they would, however, partially
retain their character, and afterwards might again come into fashion and be
raised to a standard of perfection {233} higher than their former standard;
as has actually occurred quite recently with Polish fowls. If, however, a
breed were utterly neglected, it would become extinct, as has recently
happened with one of the Polish sub-breeds. Whenever in the course of past
centuries a bird appeared with some slight abnormal structure, such as with
a lark-like crest on its head, it would probably often have been preserved
from that love of novelty which leads some persons in England to keep
rump-less fowls, and others in India to keep frizzled fowls. And after a
time any such abnormal appearance would be carefully preserved, from being
esteemed a sign of the purity and excellence of the breed; for on this
principle the Romans eighteen centuries ago valued the fifth toe and the
white ear-lobe in their fowls.

Thus from the occasional appearance of abnormal characters, though at first
only slight in degree; from the effects of the use and the disuse of parts;
possibly from the direct effects of changed climate and food; from
correlation of growth; from occasional reversions to old and long-lost
characters; from the crossing of breeds, when more than one had once been
formed; but, above all, from unconscious selection carried on during many
generations, there is no insuperable difficulty, to the best of my
judgment, in believing that all the breeds have descended from some one
parent-source. Can any single species be named from which we may reasonably
suppose that all have descended? The _Gallus bankiva_ apparently fulfils
every requirement. I have already given as fair an account as I could of
the arguments in favour of the multiple origin of the several breeds; and
now I will give those in favour of their common descent from _G. bankiva_.

    But it will be convenient first briefly to describe all the known
    species of Gallus. The _G. Sonneratii_ does not range into the northern
    parts of India; according to Colonel Sykes,[372] it presents at
    different heights on the Ghauts, two strongly marked varieties, perhaps
    deserving to be called species. It was at one time thought to be the
    primitive stock of all our domestic breeds, and this shows that it
    closely approaches the common fowl in general structure; but its
    hackles partially consist of highly peculiar, horny laminae,
    transversely banded with three colours; and I have met with no
    authentic account of any such character having been observed {234} in
    any domestic breed.[373] This species also differs greatly from the
    common fowl, in the comb being finely serrated, and in the loins being
    destitute of true hackles. Its voice is utterly different. It crosses
    readily in India with domestic hens; and Mr. Blyth [374] raised nearly
    100 hybrid chickens; but they were tender and mostly died whilst young.
    Those which were reared were absolutely sterile when crossed _inter
    se_, or with either parent. At the Zoological Gardens, however, some
    hybrids of the same parentage were not quite so sterile: Mr. Dixon, as
    he informed me, made, with Mr. Yarrell's aid, particular inquiries on
    this subject, and was assured that out of 50 eggs only five or six
    chickens were reared. Some, however, of these half-bred birds were
    crossed with one of their parents, namely, a Bantam, and produced a few
    extremely feeble chickens. Mr. Dixon also procured some of these same
    birds and crossed them in several ways, but all were more or less
    infertile. Nearly similar experiments have recently been tried on a
    great scale in the Zoological Gardens with almost the same result.[375]
    Out of 500 eggs, raised from various first crosses and hybrids, between
    _G. Sonneratii, bankiva_, and _varius_, only 12 chickens were reared,
    and of these only three were the product of hybrids _inter se_. From
    these facts, and from the above-mentioned strongly-marked differences
    in structure between the domestic fowl and _G. Sonneratii_, we may
    reject this latter species as the parent of any domestic breed.

    Ceylon possesses a fowl peculiar to the island, viz. _G. Stanleyii_;
    this species approaches so closely (except in the colouring of the
    comb) to the domestic fowl, that Messrs. E. Layard and Kellaert[376]
    would have considered it, as they inform me, as one of the
    parent-stocks, had it not been for its singularly different voice. This
    bird, like the last, crosses readily with tame hens, and even visits
    solitary farms and ravishes them. Two hybrids, a male and female, thus
    produced, were found by Mr. Mitford to be quite sterile: both inherited
    the peculiar voice of _G. Stanleyii_. This species, then, may in all
    probability be rejected as one of the primitive stocks of the domestic
    fowl.

    Java and the islands eastward as far as Flores are inhabited by _G.
    varius_ (or _furcatus_), which differs in so many characters--green
    plumage, unserrated comb, and single median wattle--that no one
    supposes it to have been the parent of any one of our breeds; yet, as I
    am informed by Mr. Crawfurd,[377] hybrids are commonly raised between
    the male _G. varius_ and the common hen, and are kept for their great
    beauty, but are invariably sterile; this, however, was not the case
    with some bred in the Zoological Gardens. These hybrids were at one
    time thought to {235} be specifically distinct, and were named _G.
    aeneus_. Mr. Blyth and others believe that the _G. Temminckii_[378] (of
    which the history is not known) is a similar hybrid. Sir J. Brooke sent
    me some skins of domestic fowls from Borneo, and across the tail of one
    of these, as Mr. Tegetmeier observed, there were transverse blue bands
    like those which he had seen on the tail-feathers of hybrids from _G.
    varius_, reared in the Zoological Gardens. This fact apparently
    indicates that some of the fowls of Borneo have been slightly affected
    by crosses with _G. varius_, but the case may possibly be one of
    analogous variation. I may just allude to the _G. giganteus_, so often
    referred to in works on poultry as a wild species; but Marsden,[379]
    the first describer, speaks of it as a tame breed; and the specimen in
    the British Museum evidently has the aspect of a domestic variety.

    The last species to be mentioned, namely, _Gallus bankiva_, has a much
    wider geographical range than the three previous species; it inhabits
    Northern India as far west as Sinde, and ascends the Himalaya to a
    height of 4000 ft.; it inhabits Burmah, the Malay peninsula, the
    Indo-Chinese countries, the Philippine Islands, and the Malayan
    archipelago as far eastward as Timor. This species varies considerably
    in the wild state. Mr. Blyth informs me that the specimens, both male
    and female, brought from near the Himalaya, are rather paler 
    than those from other parts of India; whilst those from the Malay
    peninsula and Java are brighter  than the Indian birds. I have
    seen specimens from these countries, and the difference of tint in the
    hackles was conspicuous. The Malayan hens were a shade redder on the
    breast and neck than the Indian hens. The Malayan males generally had a
    red ear-lappet, instead of a white one as in India; but Mr. Blyth has
    seen one Indian specimen without the white ear-lappet. The legs are
    leaden blue in the Indian, whereas they show some tendency to be
    yellowish in the Malayan and Javan specimens. In the former Mr. Blyth
    finds the tarsus remarkably variable in length. According to
    Temminck[380] the Timor specimens differ as a local race from that of
    Java. These several wild varieties have not as yet been ranked as
    distinct species; if they should, as is not unlikely, be hereafter thus
    ranked, the circumstance would be quite immaterial as far as the
    parentage and differences of our domestic breeds are concerned. The
    wild _G. bankiva_ agrees most closely with the black-breasted red
    Game-breed, in colouring and in all other respects, except in being
    smaller, and in the tail being carried more horizontally. But the
    manner in which the tail is carried is highly variable in many of our
    breeds, for, as Mr. Brent informs me, the tail <DW72>s much in the
    Malays, is erect in the Games and some other breeds, and is more than
    erect in Dorkings, Bantams, &c. There is one other difference, namely,
    that in _G. bankiva_, according to Mr. Blyth, the neck-hackles when
    first moulted are replaced during two or three months, not by other
    {236} hackles, as with our domestic poultry, but by short blackish
    feathers.[381] Mr. Brent, however, has remarked that these black
    feathers remain in the wild bird after the development of the lower
    hackles, and appear in the domestic bird at the same time with them; so
    that the only difference is that the lower hackles are replaced more
    slowly in the wild than in the tame bird; but as confinement is known
    sometimes to affect the masculine plumage, this slight difference
    cannot be considered of any importance. It is a significant fact that
    the voice of both the male and female _G. bankiva_ closely resembles,
    as Mr. Blyth and others have noted, the voice of both sexes of the
    common domestic fowl; but the last note of the crow of the wild bird is
    rather less prolonged. Captain Hutton, well known for his researches
    into the natural history of India, informs me that he has seen several
    crossed fowls from the wild species and the Chinese bantam; these
    crossed fowls _bred freely_ with bantams, but unfortunately were not
    crossed _inter se_. Captain Hutton reared chickens from the eggs of the
    _Gallus bankiva_; and these, though at first very wild, afterwards
    became so tame that they would crowd round his feet. He did not succeed
    in rearing them to maturity; but, as he remarks, "no wild gallinaceous
    bird thrives well at first on hard grain." Mr. Blyth also found much
    difficulty in keeping _G. bankiva_ in confinement. In the Philippine
    Islands, however, the natives must succeed better, as they keep wild
    cocks to fight with their domestic game-birds.[382] Sir Walter Elliot
    informs me that the hen of a native domestic breed of Pegu is
    undistinguishable from the hen of the wild _G. bankiva_; and the
    natives constantly catch wild cocks by taking tame cocks to fight with
    them in the woods.[383] Mr. Crawfurd remarks that from etymology it
    might be argued that the fowl was first domesticated by the Malays and
    Javanese.[384] It is also a curious fact, of which I have been assured
    by Mr. Blyth, that wild specimens of the _Gallus bankiva_, brought from
    the countries east of the Bay of Bengal, are far more easily tamed than
    those of India; nor is this an unparalleled fact, for, as Humboldt long
    ago remarked, the same species sometimes evinces a more tameable
    disposition in one country than in another. If we suppose that the _G.
    bankiva_ was first tamed in Malaya and afterwards imported into India,
    we can understand an observation made to me by Mr. Blyth, that the
    domestic fowls of India do not resemble the wild _G. bankiva_ more
    closely than do those of Europe.

From the extremely close resemblance in colour, general structure, and
especially in voice, between _Gallus bankiva_ and the Game fowl; from their
fertility, as far as this has been ascertained, when crossed; from the
possibility of the wild species being tamed, and from its varying in the
wild state, we may confidently look at it as the parent of the most typical
of all the {237} domestic breeds, namely, the Game-fowl. It is a
significant fact, that almost all the naturalists in India, namely, Sir W.
Elliot, Mr. S. N. Ward, Mr. Layard, Mr. J. C. Jerdon, and Mr. Blyth,[385]
who are familiar with _G. bankiva_, believe that it is the parent of most
or all our domestic breeds. But even if it be admitted that _G. bankiva_ is
the parent of the Game breed, yet it may be urged that other wild species
have been the parents of the other domestic breeds; and that these species
still exist, though unknown, in some country, or have become extinct. The
extinction, however, of several species of fowls, is an improbable
hypothesis, seeing that the four known species have not become extinct in
the most anciently and thickly peopled regions of the East. There is, in
fact, only one kind of domesticated bird, namely, the Chinese goose or
_Anser cygnoides_, of which the wild parent-form is said to be still
unknown, or extinct. For the discovery of new, or the rediscovery of old
species of Gallus, we must not look, as fanciers often look, to the whole
world. The larger gallinaceous birds, as Mr. Blyth has remarked,[386]
generally have a restricted range: we see this well illustrated in India,
where the genus Gallus inhabits the base of the Himalaya, and is succeeded
higher up by Gallophasis, and still higher up by Phasianus. Australia, with
its islands, is out of the question as the home for unknown species of the
genus. It is, also, as improbable that Gallus should inhabit South
America[387] as that a humming-bird should be found in the Old World. From
the character of the other gallinaceous {238} birds of Africa, it is not
probable that Gallus is an African genus. We need not look to the western
parts of Asia, for Messrs. Blyth and Crawfurd, who have attended to this
subject, doubt whether Gallus ever existed in a wild state even as far west
as Persia. Although the earliest Greek writers speak of the fowl as a
Persian bird, this probably merely indicates its line of importation. For
the discovery of unknown species we must look to India, to the Indo-Chinese
countries, and to the northern parts of the Malay Archipelago. The southern
portion of China is the most likely country; but as Mr. Blyth informs me,
skins have been exported from China during a long period, and living birds
are largely kept there in aviaries, so that any native species of Gallus
would probably have become known. Mr. Birch, of the British Museum, has
translated for me passages from a Chinese Encyclopaedia published in 1609,
but compiled from more ancient documents, in which it is said that fowls
are creatures of the West, and were introduced into the East (_i.e._ China)
in a dynasty 1400 B.C. Whatever may be thought of so ancient a date, we see
that the Indo-Chinese and Indian regions were formerly considered by the
Chinese as the source of the domestic fowl. From these several
considerations we must look to the present metropolis of the genus, namely,
to the south-eastern parts of Asia, for the discovery of species which were
formerly domesticated, but are now unknown in the wild state; and the most
experienced ornithologists do not consider it probable that such species
will be discovered.

In considering whether the domestic breeds are descended from one species,
namely, _G. bankiva_, or from several, we must {239} not quite overlook,
though we must not exaggerate, the importance of the test of fertility.
Most of our domestic breeds have been so often crossed, and their mongrels
so largely kept, that it is almost certain, if any degree of infertility
had existed between them, it would have been detected. On the other hand,
the four known species of Gallus when crossed with each other, or when
crossed, with the exception of _G. bankiva_, with the domestic fowl,
produce infertile hybrids.

Finally, we have not such good evidence with fowls as with pigeons, of all
the breeds having descended from a single primitive stock. In both cases
the argument of fertility must go for something; in both we have the
improbability of man having succeeded in ancient times in thoroughly
domesticating several supposed species,--most of these supposed species
being extremely abnormal as compared with their natural allies,--all being
now either unknown or extinct, though the parent-form of scarcely any other
domesticated bird has been lost. But in searching for the supposed
parent-stocks of the various breeds of the pigeon, we were enabled to
confine our search to species having peculiar habits of life; whilst with
fowls there is nothing in their habits in any marked manner distinct from
those of other gallinaceous birds. In the case of pigeons, I have shown
that purely-bred birds of every race and the crossed offspring of distinct
races frequently resemble, or revert to, the wild rock-pigeon in general
colour and in each characteristic mark. With fowls we have facts of a
similar nature, but less strongly pronounced, which we will now discuss.

       *       *       *       *       *

_Reversion and Analogous Variation._--Purely-bred Game, Malay, Cochin,
Dorking, Bantam, and, as I hear from Mr. Tegetmeier, Silk fowls, may
frequently or occasionally be met with, which are almost identical in
plumage with the wild _G. bankiva_. This is a fact well deserving
attention, when we reflect that these breeds rank amongst the most
distinct. Fowls thus  are called by amateurs black-breasted reds.
Hamburghs properly have a very different plumage; nevertheless, as Mr.
Tegetmeier informs me, "the great difficulty in breeding cocks of the
golden-spangled variety is their tendency to have black breasts and red
backs." The males of white Bantams and {240} white Cochins, as they come to
maturity, often assume a yellowish or saffron tinge; and the longer neck
hackles of black bantam cocks,[388] when two or three years old, not
uncommonly become ruddy; these latter bantams occasionally "even moult
brassy winged, or actually red shouldered." So that in these several cases
we see a plain tendency to reversion to the hues of _G. bankiva_, even
daring the lifetime of the individual bird. With Spanish, Polish, pencilled
Hamburgh, silver-spangled Hamburgh fowls, and with some other less common
breeds, I have never heard of a black-breasted red bird having appeared.

From my experience with pigeons, I made the following crosses. I first
killed all my own poultry, no others living near my house, and then
procured, by Mr. Tegetmeier's assistance, a first-rate black Spanish cock,
and hens of the following pure breeds,--white Game, white Cochin,
silver-spangled Polish, silver-spangled Hamburgh, silver-pencilled
Hamburgh, and white Silk. In none of these breeds is there a trace of red,
nor when kept pure have I ever heard of the appearance of a red feather;
though such an occurrence would perhaps not be very improbable with white
Games and white Cochins. Of the many chickens reared from the above six
crosses the majority were black, both in the down and in the first plumage;
some were white, and a very few were mottled black and white. In one lot of
eleven mixed eggs from the white Game and white Cochin by the black Spanish
cock, seven of the chickens were white, and only four black: I mention this
fact to show that whiteness of plumage is strongly inherited, and that the
belief in the prepotent power in the male to transmit his colour is not
always correct. The chickens were hatched in the spring, and in the latter
part of August several of the young cocks began to exhibit a change, which
with some of them increased during the following years. Thus a young male
bird from the silver-spangled Polish hen was in its first plumage
coal-black, and combined in its comb, crest, wattle, and beard, the
characters of both parents; but when two years old the secondary
wing-feathers became largely and symmetrically marked with white, and,
wherever in _G. bankiva_ the hackles are red, they were in this bird
greenish-black along the shaft, narrowly bordered {241} with
brownish-black, and this again broadly bordered with very pale
yellowish-brown; so that in general appearance the plumage had become
pale- instead of black. In this case, with advancing age there was
a great change, but no reversion to the red colour of _G. bankiva_.

A cock with a regular rose comb derived either from the spangled or
pencilled silver Hamburgh was likewise at first quite black; but in less
than a year the neck-hackles, as in the last case, became whitish, whilst
those on the loins assumed a decided reddish-yellow tint; and here we see
the first symptom of reversion; this likewise occurred with some other
young cocks, which need not here be described. It has also been
recorded[389] by a breeder, that he crossed two silver-pencilled Hamburgh
hens with a Spanish cock, and reared a number of chickens, all of which
were black, the cocks having _golden_ and the hens brownish hackles; so
that in this instance likewise there was a clear tendency to reversion.

Two young cocks from my white Game hen were at first snow white; of these,
one subsequently assumed pale orange- hackles, chiefly on the
loins, and the other an abundance of fine orange-red hackles on the neck,
loins, and upper wing-coverts. Here again, we have a more decided, though
partial, reversion to the colours of _G. bankiva_. This second cock was in
fact  like an inferior "pile Game cock;"--now this sub-breed can be
produced, as I am informed by Mr. Tegetmeier, by crossing a black-breasted
red Game cock with a white Game hen, and the "pile" sub-breed thus produced
can afterwards be truly propagated. So that we have the curious fact of the
glossy-black Spanish cock and the black-breasted red Game cock when crossed
with white Game-hens producing offspring of nearly the same colours.

I reared several birds from the white Silk-hen by the Spanish cock: all
were coal-black, and all plainly showed their parentage in having blackish
combs and bones; none inherited the so-called silky feathers, and the
non-inheritance of this character has been observed by others. The hens
never varied in their plumage. As the young cocks grew old, one of them
assumed yellowish-white hackles, and thus resembled in a considerable {242}
degree the cross from the Hamburgh hen; the other became a gorgeous bird,
so much so that an acquaintance had it preserved and stuffed simply from
its beauty. When stalking about it closely resembled the wild _Gallus
bankiva_, but with the red feathers rather darker. On close comparison one
considerable difference presented itself, namely, that the primary and
secondary wing-feathers were edged with greenish-black, instead of being
edged, as in _G. bankiva_, with fulvous and red tints. The space, also,
across the back, which bears dark-green feathers, was broader, and the comb
was blackish. In all other respects, even in trifling details of plumage,
there was the closest accordance. Altogether it was a marvellous sight to
compare this bird first with _G. bankiva_, and then with its father, the
glossy green-black Spanish cock, and with its diminutive mother, the white
Silk hen. This case of reversion is the more extraordinary as the Spanish
breed has long been known to breed true, and no instance is on record of
its throwing a single red feather. The Silk hen likewise breeds true, and
is believed to be ancient, for Aldrovandi, before 1600, alludes probably to
this breed, and describes it as covered with wool. It is so peculiar in
many characters that some writers have considered it as specifically
distinct; yet, as we now see, when crossed with the Spanish fowl, it yields
offspring closely resembling the wild _G. bankiva_.

Mr. Tegetmeier has been so kind as to repeat, at my request, the cross
between a Spanish cock and Silk hen, and he obtained similar results; for
he thus raised, besides a black hen, seven cocks, all of which were
dark-bodied with more or less orange-red hackles. In the ensuing year he
paired the black hen with one of her brothers, and raised three young
cocks, all  like their father, and a black hen mottled with white.

The hens from the six above-described crosses showed hardly any tendency to
revert to the mottled-brown plumage of the female _G. bankiva_: one hen,
however, from the white Cochin, which was at first coal-black, became
slightly brown or sooty. Several hens, which were for a long time
snow-white, acquired as they grew old a few black feathers. A hen from the
white Game, which was for a long time entirely black glossed with green,
when two years old had some of the primary wing-feather greyish-white, and
a multitude of feathers over her body {243} narrowly and symmetrically
tipped or laced with white. I had expected that some of the chickens whilst
covered with down would have assumed the longitudinal stripes so general
with gallinaceous birds; but this did not occur in a single instance. Two
or three alone were reddish-brown about their heads. I was unfortunate in
losing nearly all the white chickens from the first crosses; so that black
prevailed with the grandchildren; but they were much diversified in colour,
some being sooty, others mottled, and one blackish chicken had its feathers
oddly tipped and barred with brown.

I will here add a few miscellaneous facts connected with reversion, and
with the law of analogous variation. This law implies, as stated in a
previous chapter, that the varieties of one species frequently mock
distinct but allied species; and this fact is explained, according to the
views which I maintain, on the principle of allied species having descended
from one primitive form. The white Silk fowl with black skin and bones
degenerates, as has been observed by Mr. Hewitt and Mr. R. Orton, in our
climate; that is, it reverts to the ordinary colour of the common fowl in
its skin and bones, due care having been taken to prevent any cross. In
Germany[390] a distinct breed with black bones, and with black, not silky
plumage, has likewise been observed to degenerate.

Mr. Tegetmeier informs me that, when distinct breeds are crossed, fowls are
frequently produced with their feathers marked or pencilled by narrow
transverse lines of a darker colour. This may be in part explained by
direct reversion to the parent-form, the Bankiva hen; for this bird has all
its upper plumage finely mottled with dark and rufous brown, with the
mottling partially and obscurely arranged in transverse lines. But the
tendency to pencilling is probably much strengthened by the law of
analogous variation, for the hens of some other species of Gallus are more
plainly pencilled, and the hens of many gallinaceous birds belonging to
other genera, as the partridge, have pencilled feathers. Mr. Tegetmeier has
{244} also remarked to me, that, although with domestic pigeons we have so
great a diversity of colouring, we never see either pencilled or spangled
feathers; and this fact is intelligible on the law of analogous variation,
as neither the wild rock-pigeon nor any closely-allied species has such
feathers. The frequent appearance of pencilling in crossed birds probably
accounts for the existence of "cuckoo" sub-breeds in the Game, Polish,
Dorking, Cochin, Andalusian, and Bantam breeds. The plumage of these birds
is slaty-blue or grey, with each feather transversely barred with darker
lines, so as to resemble in some degree the plumage of the cuckoo. It is a
singular fact, considering that the male of no species of Gallus is in the
least barred, that the cuckoo-like plumage has often been transferred to
the male, more especially in the cuckoo Dorking; and the fact is all the
more singular, as in gold and silver pencilled Hamburghs, in which
pencilling is characteristic of the breed, the male is hardly at all
pencilled, this kind of plumage being confined to the female.

Another case of analogous variation is the occurrence of spangled
sub-breeds of Hamburgh, Polish, Malay, and Bantam fowls. Spangled feathers
have a dark mark, properly crescent-shaped, on their tips; whilst pencilled
feathers have several transverse bars. The spangling cannot be due to
reversion to _G. bankiva_; nor does it often follow, as I hear from Mr.
Tegetmeier, from crossing distinct breeds; but it is a case of analogous
variation, for many gallinaceous birds have spangled feathers,--for
instance, the common pheasant. Hence spangled breeds are often called
"pheasant"-fowls. Another case of analogous variation in several domestic
breeds is inexplicable; it is, that the chickens, whilst covered with down,
of the black Spanish, black Game, black Polish, and black Bantam, all have
white throats and breasts, and often have some white on their wings.[391]
The editor of the 'Poultry Chronicle'[392] remarks that all the breeds
which properly have red ear-lappets occasionally produce birds with white
ear-lappets. This remark more especially applies to the Game breed, which
of all comes nearest to the {245} _G. bankiva_; and we have seen that with
this species living in a state of nature, the ear-lappets vary in colour,
being red in the Malayan countries, and generally, but not invariably,
white in India.

       *       *       *       *       *

In concluding this part of my subject I may repeat that there exists one
widely-ranging, varying, and common species of Gallus, namely _G. bankiva_,
which can be tamed, produces fertile offspring when crossed with common
fowls, and closely resembles in its whole structure, plumage, and voice the
Game breed; hence it may be safely ranked as the parent of this, the most
typical domesticated breed. We have seen that there is much difficulty in
believing that other, now unknown, species have been the parents of the
other domestic breeds. We know that all the breeds are most closely allied,
as shown by their similarity in most points of structure and in habits, and
by the analogous manner in which they vary. We have also seen that several
of the most distinct breeds occasionally or habitually closely resemble in
plumage _G. bankiva_, and that the crossed offspring of other breeds, which
are not thus , show a stronger or weaker tendency to revert to this
same plumage. Some of the breeds, which appear the most distinct and the
least likely to have proceeded from _G. bankiva_, such as Polish fowls,
with their protuberant and little ossified skulls, and Cochins, with their
imperfect tail and small wings, bear in these characters the plain marks of
their artificial origin. We know well that of late years methodical
selection has greatly improved and fixed many characters; and we have every
reason to believe that unconscious selection, carried on for many
generations, will have steadily augmented each new peculiarity and thus
have given rise to new breeds. As soon as two or three breeds had once been
formed, crossing would come into play in changing their character and in
increasing their number. Brahma Pootras, according to an account lately
published in America, offer a good instance of a breed, lately formed by a
cross, which can be truly propagated. The well-known Sebright Bantams offer
another and similar instance. Hence it may be concluded that not only the
Game-breed but that all our breeds are probably the descendants of the
{246} Malayan or Indian variety of _G. bankiva_. If so, this species has
varied greatly since it was first domesticated; but there has been ample
time, as we shall now show.

_History of the Fowl._--Ruetimeyer found no remains of the fowl in the
ancient Swiss lake-dwellings. It is not mentioned in the Old Testament; nor
is it figured on the ancient Egyptian monuments.[393] It is not referred to
by Homer or Hesiod (about 900 B.C.); but is mentioned by Theognis and
Aristophanes between 400 and 500 B.C. It is figured on some of the
Babylonian cylinders, of which Mr. Layard sent me an impression, between
the sixth and seventh centuries B.C.; and on the Harpy Tomb in Lycia, about
600 B.C.: so that we may feel pretty confident that the fowl reached Europe
somewhere near the sixth century B.C. It had travelled still farther
westward by the time of the Christian era, for it was found in Britain by
Julius Caesar. In India it must have been domesticated when the Institutes
of Manu were written, that is, according to Sir W. Jones, 1200 B.C., but,
according to the later authority of Mr. H. Wilson, only 800 B.C., for the
domestic fowl is forbidden, whilst the wild is permitted to be eaten. If,
as before remarked, we may trust the old Chinese Encyclopaedia, the fowl
must have been domesticated several centuries earlier, as it is said to
have been introduced from the West into China 1400 B.C.

Sufficient materials do not exist for tracing the history of the separate
breeds. About the commencement of the Christian era, {247} Columella
mentions a five-toed fighting breed, and some provincial breeds; but we
know nothing more about them. He also alludes to dwarf fowls; but these
cannot have been the same with our Bantams, which, as Mr. Crawfurd has
shown, were imported from Japan into Bantam in Java. A dwarf fowl, probably
the true Bantam, is referred to in an old Japanese Encyclopaedia, as I am
informed by Mr. Birch. In the Chinese Encyclopaedia published in 1596, but
compiled from various sources, some of high antiquity, seven breeds are
mentioned, including what we should now call jumpers or creepers, and
likewise fowls with black feathers, bones, and flesh. In 1600 Aldrovandi
describes seven or eight breeds of fowls, and this is the most ancient
record from which the age of our European breeds can be inferred. The
_Gallus Turcicus_ certainly seems to be a pencilled Hamburgh; but Mr.
Brent, a most capable judge, thinks that Aldrovandi "evidently figured what
he happened to see, and not the best of the breed." Mr. Brent, indeed,
considers all Aldrovandi's fowls as of impure breed; but it is a far more
probable view that all our breeds since his time have been much improved
and modified; for, as he went to the expense of so many figures, he
probably would have secured characteristic specimens. The Silk fowl,
however, probably then existed in its present state, as did almost
certainly the fowl with frizzled or reversed feathers. Mr. Dixon[394]
considers Aldrovandi's Paduan fowl as "a variety of the Polish," whereas
Mr. Brent believes it to have been more nearly allied to the Malay. The
anatomical peculiarities of the skull of the Polish breed were noticed by
P. Borelli in 1656. I may add that in 1737 one Polish sub-breed, viz. the
golden spangled, was known; but judging from Albin's description, the comb
was then larger, the crest of feathers much smaller, the breast more
coarsely spotted, and the stomach and thighs much blacker: a
golden-spangled Polish fowl in this condition would now be of no value.

_Differences in External and Internal Structure between the {248} Breeds:
Individual Variability._--Fowls have been exposed to diversified conditions
of life, and as we have just seen there has been ample time for much
variability and for the slow action of unconscious selection. As there are
good grounds for believing that all the breeds are descended from _Gallus
bankiva,_ it will be worth while to describe in some detail the chief
points of difference. Beginning with the eggs and chickens, I will pass on
to the secondary sexual characters, and then to the differences in external
structure and in the skeleton. I enter on the following details chiefly to
show how variable almost every character has become under domestication.

    _Eggs._--Mr. Dixon remarks[395] that "to every hen belongs an
    individual peculiarity in the form, colour, and size of her egg, which
    never changes during her life-time, so long as she remains in health,
    and which is as well known to those who are in the habit of taking her
    produce, as the handwriting of their nearest acquaintance." I believe
    that this is generally true, and that, if no great number of hens be
    kept, the eggs of each can almost always be recognised. The eggs of
    differently sized breeds naturally differ much in size; but,
    apparently, not always in strict relation to the size of the hen: thus
    the Malay is a larger bird than the Spanish, but _generally_ she
    produces not such large eggs; white Bantams are said to lay smaller
    eggs than other Bantams;[396] white Cochins, on the other hand, as I
    hear from Mr. Tegetmeier, certainly lay larger eggs than buff Cochins.
    The eggs, however, of the different breeds vary considerably in
    character; for instance, Mr. Ballance states[397] that his Malay
    "pullets of last year laid eggs equal in size to those of any duck, and
    other Malay hens, two or three years old, laid eggs very little larger
    than a good-sized Bantam's egg. Some were as white as a Spanish hen's
    egg, and others varied from a light cream-colour to a deep rich buff,
    or even to a brown." The shape also varies, the two ends being much
    more equally rounded in Cochins than in Games or Polish. Spanish fowls
    lay smoother eggs than Cochins, of which the eggs are generally
    granulated. The shell in this latter breed, and more especially in
    Malays, is apt to be thicker than in Games or Spanish; but the
    Minorcas, a sub-breed of Spanish, are said to lay harder eggs than true
    Spanish.[398] The colour differs considerably,--the Cochins laying
    buff- eggs; the Malays {249} a paler variable buff; and Games a
    still paler buff. It would appear that darker- eggs
    characterise the breeds which have lately come from the East, or are
    still closely allied to those now living there. The colour of the yolk,
    according to Ferguson, as well as of the shell, differs slightly in the
    sub-breeds of the Game, and stands in some degree of correlation with
    the colour of the plumage. I am also informed by Mr. Brent that dark
    partridge- Cochin hens lay darker  eggs than the other
    Cochin sub-breeds. The flavour and richness of the egg certainly differ
    in different breeds. The productiveness of the several breeds is very
    different. Spanish, Polish, and Hamburgh hens have lost the incubating
    instinct.

    _Chickens._--As the young of almost all gallinaceous birds, even of the
    black curassow and black grouse, whilst covered with down, are
    longitudinally striped on the back,--of which character, when adult,
    neither sex retains a trace,--it might have been expected that the
    chickens of all our domestic fowls would have been similarly
    striped.[399] This could, however, hardly have been expected, when the
    adult plumage in both sexes has undergone so great a change as to be
    wholly white or black. In white fowls of various breeds the chickens
    are uniformly yellowish white, passing in the black-boned Silk fowl
    into bright canary-yellow. This is also generally the case with the
    chickens of white Cochins, but I hear from Mr. Zurhost that they are
    sometimes of a buff or oak colour, and that all those of this latter
    colour, which were watched, turned out males. The chickens of buff
    Cochins are of a golden-yellow, easily distinguishable from the paler
    tint of the white Cochins, and are often longitudinally streaked with
    dark shades: the chickens of silver-cinnamon Cochins are almost always
    of a buff colour. The chickens of the white Game and white Dorking
    breeds, when held in particular lights, sometimes exhibit (on the
    authority of Mr. Brent) faint traces of longitudinal stripes. Fowls
    which are entirely black, namely Spanish, black Game, black Polish, and
    black Bantams, display a new character, for their chickens have their
    breasts and throats more or less white, with sometimes a little white
    elsewhere. Spanish chickens also, occasionally (Brent), have, where the
    down was white, their first true feathers tipped for a time with white.
    The primordially striped character is retained by the chickens of most
    of the Game sub-breeds (Brent, Dixon); by Dorkings; by the partridge
    and grouse- sub-breeds of Cochins (Brent), but not, as we have
    seen, by all the other sub-breeds; by the pheasant-Malay (Dixon), but
    apparently not (at which I am much surprised) by other Malays. The
    following breeds and sub-breeds are barely, or not at all,
    longitudinally striped; viz. gold and silver pencilled Hamburghs, which
    can hardly be distinguished from each other (Brent) in the down, both
    having a few {250} dark spots on the head and rump, with occasionally a
    longitudinal stripe (Dixon) on the back of the neck. I have seen only
    one chicken of the silver-spangled Hamburgh, and this was obscurely
    striped along the back. Gold-spangled Polish chickens (Tegetmeier) are
    of a warm russet brown; and silver-spangled Polish chickens are grey,
    sometimes (Dixon) with dashes of ochre on the head, wings, and breast.
    Cuckoo and blue-dun fowls (Dixon) are grey in the down. The chickens of
    Sebright Bantams (Dixon) are uniformly dark brown, whilst those of the
    brown-breasted red Game Bantam are black, with some white on the throat
    and breast. From these facts we see that the chickens of the different
    breeds, and even of the same main breed, differ much in their downy
    plumage; and, although longitudinal stripes characterise the young of
    all wild gallinaceous birds, they disappear in several domestic breeds.
    Perhaps it may be accepted as a general rule that the more the adult
    plumage differs from that of the adult _G. bankiva,_ the more
    completely the chickens have lost their proper stripes.

With respect to the period of life at which the characters proper to each
breed first appear, it is obvious that such structures as additional toes
must be formed long before birth. In Polish fowls, the extraordinary
protuberance of the anterior part of the skull is well developed before the
chickens come out of the egg;[400] but the crest, which is supported on the
protuberance, is at first feebly developed, nor does it attain its full
size until the second year. The Spanish cock is pre-eminent for his
magnificent comb, and this is developed at an unusually early age; so that
the young males can be distinguished from the females when only a few weeks
old, and therefore earlier than in other breeds; they likewise crow very
early, namely, when about six weeks old. In the Dutch sub-breed of the
Spanish fowl the white ear-lappets are developed earlier than in the common
Spanish breed.[401] Cochins are characterised by a small tail, and in the
young cocks the tail is developed at an unusually late period.[402] Game
fowls are notorious for their pugnacity; and the young cocks crow, clap
their little wings, and obstinately fight with each other, even whilst
under their mother's care.[403] "I have often had," says one {251}
author,[404] "whole broods, scarcely feathered, stone-blind from fighting;
the rival couples moping in corners, and renewing their battles on
obtaining the first ray of light." With the males of all gallinaceous birds
the use of their weapons and pugnacity is to fight for the possession of
the females; so that the tendency in our Game chickens to fight at an
extremely early age is not only useless, but is injurious, as they suffer
so much from their wounds. The training for battle during an early period
may be natural to the wild _Gallus bankiva_; but as man during many
generations has gone on selecting the most obstinately pugnacious cocks, it
is more probable that their pugnacity has been unnaturally increased, and
unnaturally transferred to the young male chickens. In the same manner, it
is probable that the extraordinary development of the comb in the Spanish
cock has been unintentionally transferred to the young cocks; for fanciers
would not care whether their young birds had large combs, but would select
for breeding the adults which had the finest combs, whether or not
developed at an early period. The last point which need here be noticed is
that, though the chickens of Spanish and Malay fowls are well covered with
down, the true feathers are acquired at an unusually late age; so that for
a time the young birds are partially naked, and are liable to suffer from
cold.

_Secondary Sexual Characters._--The two sexes in the parent-form, the
_Gallus bankiva_, differ much in colour. In our domestic breeds the
difference is never greater, but is often less, and varies much in degree
even in the sub-breeds of the same main breed. Thus in certain Game fowls
the difference is as great as in the parent-form, whilst in the black and
white sub-breeds there is no difference in plumage. Mr. Brent informs me
that he has seen two strains of black-breasted red Games, in which the
cocks could not be distinguished, whilst the hens in one were
partridge-brown and in the other fawn-brown. A similar case has been
observed in the strains of the brown-breasted red Game. The hen of the
"duck-winged Game" is "extremely beautiful," and differs much from the hens
of all the other Game sub-breeds; but generally, as with the blue and grey
Game and {252} with some sub-varieties of the pile-game, a moderately close
relation may be observed between the males and females in the variation of
their plumage.[405] A similar relation is also evident when we compare the
several varieties of Cochins. In the two sexes of gold and silver-spangled
and of buff Polish fowls, there is much general similarity in the colouring
and marks of the whole plumage, excepting of course in the hackles, crest,
and beard. In spangled Hamburghs, there is likewise a considerable degree
of similarity between the two sexes. In pencilled Hamburghs, on the other
hand, there is much dissimilarity; the pencilling which is characteristic
of the hens being almost absent in the males of both the golden and silver
varieties. But, as we have already seen, it cannot be given as a general
rule that male fowls never have pencilled feathers, for Cuckoo Dorkings are
"remarkable from having nearly similar markings in both sexes."

It is a singular fact that the males in certain sub-breeds have lost some
of their secondary masculine characters, and, from their close resemblance
in plumage to the females, are often called hennies. There is much
diversity of opinion whether these males are in any degree sterile; that
they sometimes are partially sterile seems clear,[406] but this may have
been caused by too close interbreeding. That they are not quite sterile,
and that the whole case is widely different from that of old females
assuming masculine characters, is evident from several of these hen-like
sub-breeds having been long propagated. The males and females of gold and
silver-laced Sebright Bantams can be barely distinguished from each other,
except by their combs, wattles, and spurs, for they are  alike, and
the males have not hackles, nor the flowing sickle-like tail-feathers. A
hen-tailed sub-breed of Hamburghs was recently much esteemed. There is also
a breed of Game-fowls, in which the males and females resemble each other
so closely that the cocks have often mistaken their hen-feathered opponents
in the cock-pit for real hens, and by the mistake have lost their
lives.[407] The cocks, {253} though dressed in the feathers of the hen,
"are high-spirited birds, and their courage has been often proved:" an
engraving even has been published of one celebrated hen-tailed victor. Mr.
Tegetmeier[408] has recorded the remarkable case of a brown-breasted red
Game-cock which, after assuming its perfect masculine plumage, became
hen-feathered in the autumn of the following year; but he did not lose
voice, spurs, strength, nor productiveness. This bird has now retained the
same character during five seasons, and has begot both hen-feathered and
male-feathered offspring. Mr. Grantley F. Berkeley relates the still more
singular case of a celebrated strain of "polecat Game-fowls," which
produced in nearly every brood a single hen-cock. "The great peculiarity in
one of these birds was that he, as the seasons succeeded each other, was
not always a hen-cock, and not always of the colour called the polecat,
which is black. From the polecat and hen-cock feather in one season he
moulted to a full male-plumaged black-breasted red, and in the following
year he returned to the former feather."[409]

I have remarked in my 'Origin of Species' that secondary sexual characters
are apt to differ much in the species of the same genus, and to be
unusually variable in the individuals of the same species. So it is with
the breeds of the fowl, as we have already seen, as far as the colour of
plumage is concerned, and so it is with the other secondary sexual
characters. Firstly, the comb differs much in the various breeds,[410] and
its form is eminently characteristic of each kind, with the exception of
the Dorkings, in which the form has not been as yet determined on by
fanciers, and fixed by selection. A single, deeply-serrated comb is the
typical and most common form. It differs much in size, being immensely
developed in Spanish fowls; and in a local breed called Red-caps, it is
sometimes "upwards of three inches in breadth at the front, and more than
four inches in length, measured to the end of the peak behind."[411] In
some breeds the comb is double, and when the two ends are cemented {254}
together it forms a "cup-comb;" in the "rose-comb" it is depressed, covered
with small projections, and produced backwards; in the horned and
creve-coeur fowl it is produced into two horns; it is triple in the
pea-combed Brahmas, short and truncated in the Malays, and absent in the
Guelderlands. In the tasselled Game a few long feathers arise from the back
of the comb; in many breeds a crest of feathers replaces the comb. The
crest, when little developed, arises from a fleshy mass, but, when much
developed, from a hemispherical protuberance of the skull. In the best
Polish fowls it is so largely developed, that I have seen birds which could
hardly pick up their food; and a German writer asserts[412] that they are
in consequence liable to be struck by hawks. Monstrous structures of this
kind would thus be suppressed in a state of nature. The wattles, also, vary
much in size, being small in Malays and some other breeds; they are
replaced in certain Polish sub-breeds by a great tuft of feathers called a
beard.

The hackles do not differ much in the various breeds, but are short and
stiff in Malays, and absent in Hennies. As in some orders of birds the
males display extraordinarily-shaped feathers, such as naked shafts with
discs at the end, &c., the following case may be worth giving. In the wild
_Gallus bankiva_ and in our domestic fowls, the barbs which arise from each
side of the extremities of the hackles are naked or not clothed with
barbules, so that they resemble bristles; but Mr. Brent sent me some
scapular hackles from a young Birchen Duckwing Game cock, in which the
naked barbs became densely reclothed with barbules towards their tips; so
that these tips, which were dark  with a metallic lustre, were
separated from the lower parts by a symmetrically-shaped transparent zone
formed of the naked portions of the barbs. Hence the  tips appeared
like little separate metallic discs.

The sickle-feathers in the tail, of which there are three pair, and which
are eminently characteristic of the male sex, differ much in the various
breeds. They are scimitar-shaped in some Hamburghs, instead of being long
and flowing as in the typical breeds. They are extremely short in Cochins,
and are not at {255} all developed in Hennies. They are carried, together
with the whole tail, erect in Dorkings and Games; but droop much in Malays
and in some Cochins. Sultans are characterized by an additional number of
lateral sickle-feathers. The spurs vary much, being placed higher or lower
on the shank; being extremely long and sharp in Games, and blunt and short
in Cochins. These latter birds seem aware that their spurs are not
efficient weapons; for though they occasionally use them, they more
frequently fight, as I am informed by Mr. Tegetmeier, by seizing and
shaking each other with their beaks. In some Indian Game-cocks, received by
Mr. Brent from Germany, there are, as he informs me, three, four, or even
five spurs on each leg. Some Dorkings also have two spurs on each leg;[413]
and in birds of this breed the spur is often placed almost on the outside
of the leg. Double spurs are mentioned in the ancient Chinese Encyclopaedia.
Their occurrence may be considered as a case of analogous variation, for
some wild gallinaceous birds, for instance, the Polyplectron, have double
spurs.

Judging from the differences which generally distinguish the sexes in the
Gallinaceae, certain characters in our domestic fowls appear to have been
transferred from the one sex to the other. In all the species (except in
Turnix), when there is any conspicuous difference in plumage between the
male and female, the male is always the most beautiful; but in
golden-spangled Hamburghs the hen is equally beautiful with the cock, and
incomparably more beautiful than the hen in any natural species of Gallus;
so that here a masculine character has been transferred to the female. On
the other hand, in cuckoo Dorkings and in other cuckoo breeds the
pencilling, which in Gallus is a female attribute, has been transferred to
the male: nor, on the principle of analogous variation, is this
transference surprising, as the males in many gallinaceous genera are
barred or pencilled. With most of these birds head ornaments of all kinds
are more fully developed in the male than in the female; but in Polish
fowls the crest or top-knot, which in the male replaces the comb, is
equally developed in both sexes. In certain {256} sub-breeds, which, from
the hen having a small crest, are called lark-crested, "a single upright
comb sometimes almost entirely takes the place of the crest in the
male."[414] From this latter case, and from some facts presently to be
given with respect to the protuberance of the skull in Polish fowls, the
crest in this breed ought perhaps to be viewed as a feminine character
which has been transferred to the male. In the Spanish breed the male, as
we know, has an immense comb, and this has been partially transferred to
the female, for her comb is unusually large, though not upright. In
Game-fowls the bold and savage disposition of the male has likewise been
largely transferred to the female;[415] and she sometimes even possesses
the eminently masculine character of spurs. Many cases are on record of
hens being furnished with spurs; and in Germany, according to
Bechstein,[416] the spurs in the Silk-hen are sometimes very long. He
mentions also another breed similarly characterized, in which the hens are
excellent layers, but are apt to disturb and break their eggs owing to
their spurs.

Mr. Layard[417] has given an account of a breed of fowls in Ceylon with
black skin, bones, and wattle, but with ordinary feathers, and which cannot
"be more aptly described than by comparing them to a white fowl drawn down
a sooty chimney; it is, however," adds Mr. Layard, "a remarkable fact that
a male bird of the pure sooty variety is almost as rare as a tortoise-shell
tom-cat." Mr. Blyth finds that the same rule holds good with this breed
near Calcutta. The males and females, on the other hand, of the black-boned
European breed, with silky feathers, do not differ from each other; so that
in the one breed black skin and bones, and the same kind of plumage, are
common to both sexes, whilst in the other breed these characters are
confined to the female sex.

At the present day all the breeds of Polish fowls have the great bony
protuberance on their skulls, which includes part of the brain and supports
the crest, equally developed in both sexes. {257} But formerly in Germany
the skull of the hen alone was protuberant: Blumenbach,[418] who
particularly attended to abnormal peculiarities in domestic animals,
states, in 1813, that this was the case; and Bechstein had previously, in
1793, observed the same fact. This latter author has carefully described
the effects of a crest on the skull not only in fowls, but in ducks, geese,
and canaries. He states that with fowls, when the crest is not much
developed, it is supported on a fatty mass; but when much developed, it is
always supported on a bony protuberance of variable size. He well describes
the peculiarities of this protuberance, and he attended to the effects of
the modified shape of the brain on the intellect of these birds, and
disputes Pallas' statement that they are stupid. He then expressly states
that he never observed this protuberance in male fowls. Hence there can be
no doubt that this remarkable character in the skulls of Polish fowls was
formerly in Germany confined to the female sex, but has now been
transferred to the males, and has thus become common to both sexes.

_External Differences, not connected with the sexes, between the breeds and
between individual birds._

    The size of the body differs greatly. Mr. Tegetmeier has known a Brahma
    to weigh 17 pounds; a fine Malay cock 10 pounds; whilst a first-rate
    Sebright Bantam weighs hardly more than 1 pound. During the last 20
    years the size of some of our breeds has been largely increased by
    methodical selection, whilst that of other breeds has been much
    diminished. We have already seen how greatly colour varies even within
    the same breed; we know that the wild _G. bankiva_ varies slightly in
    colour; we know that colour is variable in all our domestic animals;
    nevertheless some eminent fanciers have so little faith in variability,
    that they have actually argued that the chief Game sub-breeds, which
    differ from each other in nothing but colour, are descended from
    distinct wild species! Crossing often causes strange modifications of
    colour. Mr. Tegetmeier informs me that when buff and white Cochins are
    crossed, some of the {258} chickens are almost invariably black.
    According to Mr. Brent, black and white Cochins occasionally produce
    chickens of a slaty-blue tint; and this same tint appears, as Mr.
    Tegetmeier tells me, from crossing white Cochins with black Spanish
    fowls, or white Dorkings with black Minorcas.[419] A good observer[420]
    states that a first-rate silver-spangled Hamburgh hen gradually lost
    the most characteristic qualities of the breed, for the black lacing to
    her feathers disappeared, and her legs changed from leaden-blue to
    white; but what makes the case remarkable is, that this tendency ran in
    the blood, for her sister changed in a similar but less strongly marked
    manner; and chickens produced from this latter hen were at first almost
    pure white, "but on moulting acquired black collars and some spangled
    feathers with almost obliterated markings;" so that a new variety arose
    in this singular manner. The skin in the different breeds differs much
    in colour, being white in common kinds, yellow in Malays and Cochins,
    and black in Silk fowls; thus mocking, as M. Godron[421] remarks, the
    three principal types of skin in mankind. The same author adds, that,
    as different kinds of fowls living in distant and isolated parts of the
    world have black skin and bones, this colour must have appeared at
    various times and places.

    The shape and carriage of the body and the shape of the head differ
    much. The beak varies slightly in length and curvature, but
    incomparably less than with pigeons. In most crested fowls the nostrils
    offer a remarkable peculiarity in being raised with a crescentic
    outline. The primary wing-feathers are short in Cochins; in a male,
    which must have been more than twice as heavy as _G. bankiva_, these
    feathers were in both birds of the same length. I have counted, with
    Mr. Tegetmeier's aid, the primary wing-feathers in thirteen cocks and
    hens of various breeds; in four of them, namely in two Hamburghs, a
    Cochin, and Game Bantam, there were 10, instead of the normal number 9;
    but in counting these feathers I have followed the practice of
    fanciers, and have _not_ included the first minute primary feather,
    barely three-quarters of an inch in length. These feathers differ
    considerably in relative length, the fourth, or the fifth, or the
    sixth, being the longest; with the third either equal to, or
    considerably shorter than the fifth. In wild gallinaceous species the
    relative length and number of the main wing and tail-feathers are
    extremely constant.

    The tail differs much in erectness and size, being small in Malays and
    very small in Cochins. In thirteen fowls of various breeds which I have
    examined, five had the normal number of 14 feathers, including in this
    number the two middle sickle-feathers; six others (viz. a Caffre cock,
    Gold-spangled Polish cock, Cochin hen, Sultan hen, Game hen, and Malay
    hen) had 16; {259} and two (an old Cochin cock and Malay hen) had 17
    feathers. The rumpless fowl has no tail, and in a bird which I kept
    alive the oil-gland had aborted; but this bird, though the os coccygis
    was extremely imperfect, had a vestige of a tail with two rather long
    feathers in the position of the outer caudals. This bird came from a
    family where, as I was told, the breed had kept true for twenty years;
    but rumpless fowls often produce chickens with tails.[422] An eminent
    physiologist[423] has recently spoken of this breed as a distinct
    species; had he examined the deformed state of the os coccyx he would
    never have come to this conclusion; he was probably misled by the
    statement, which may be found in some works, that tailless fowls are
    wild in Ceylon; but this statement, as I have been assured by Mr.
    Layard and Dr. Kellaert, who have so closely studied the birds of
    Ceylon, is utterly false.

    The tarsi vary considerably in length, being relatively to the femur
    considerably longer in the Spanish and Frizzled, and shorter in the
    Silk and Bantam breeds, than in the wild _G. bankiva_; but in the
    latter, as we have seen, the tarsi vary in length. The tarsi are often
    feathered. The feet in many breeds are furnished with additional toes.
    Golden-spangled Polish fowls are said[424] to have the skin between
    their toes much developed; Mr. Tegetmeier observed this in one bird,
    but it was not so in one which I examined. In Cochins the middle toe is
    said[425] to be nearly double the length of the lateral toes, and
    therefore much longer than in _G. bankiva_ or in other fowls; but this
    was not the case in two which I examined. The nail of the middle toe in
    this same breed is surprisingly broad and flat, but in a variable
    degree in two birds which I examined; of this structure in the nail
    there is only a trace in _G. bankiva_.

    The voice differs slightly, as I am informed by Mr. Dixon, in almost
    every breed. The Malays[426] have a loud, deep, somewhat prolonged
    crow, but with considerable individual differences. Colonel Sykes
    remarks that the domestic Kulm cock in India has not the shrill clear
    pipe of the English bird, and "his scale of notes appears more
    limited." Dr. Hooker was struck with the "prolonged howling screech" of
    the cocks in Sikhim.[427] The crow of the Cochin is notoriously and
    ludicrously different from that of the common cock. The disposition of
    the different breeds is widely different, varying from the savage and
    defiant temper of the Game-cock to the extremely peaceable temper of
    the Cochin. The latter, it has been asserted, "graze to a much greater
    extent than any other varieties." The Spanish fowls suffer more from
    frost than other breeds.

Before we pass on to the skeleton, the degree of distinctness of the
several breeds from _G. bankiva_ ought to be noticed. Some {260} writers
speak of the Spanish as one of the most distinct breeds, and so it is in
general aspect; but its characteristic differences are not important. The
Malay appears to me more distinct, from its tall stature, small drooping
tail with more than fourteen tail-feathers, and from its small comb and
wattles; nevertheless one Malay sub-breed is  almost exactly like
_G. bankiva._ Some authors consider the Polish fowl as very distinct; but
this is a semi-monstrous breed, as shown by the protuberant and irregularly
perforated skull. The Cochin, with its deeply furrowed frontal bones,
peculiarly shaped occipital foramen, short wing-feathers, short tail
containing more than fourteen feathers, broad nail to the middle toe,
fluffy plumage, rough and dark- eggs, and especially from its
peculiar voice, is probably the most distinct of all the breeds. If any one
of our breeds has descended from some unknown species, distinct from _G.
bankiva,_ it is probably the Cochin; but the balance of evidence does not
favour this view. All the characteristic differences of the Cochin breed
are more or less variable, and may be detected in a greater or lesser
degree in other breeds. One sub-breed is  closely like _G.
bankiva._ The feathered legs, often furnished with an additional toe, the
wings incapable of flight, the extremely quiet disposition, indicate a long
course of domestication; and these fowls come from China, where we know
that plants and animals have been tended from a remote period with
extraordinary care, and where consequently we might expect to find
profoundly modified domestic races.

_Osteological Differences._--I have examined twenty-seven skeletons and
fifty-three skulls of various breeds, including three of _G. bankiva_:
nearly half of these skulls I owe to the kindness of Mr. Tegetmeier, and
three of the skeletons to Mr. Eyton.

    The _Skull_ differs greatly in size in different breeds, being nearly
    twice as long in the largest Cochins, but not nearly twice as broad, as
    in Bantams. The bones at the base, from the occipital foramen to the
    anterior end (including the quadrates and pterygoids), are absolutely
    identical in _shape_ in all the skulls. So is the lower jaw. In the
    forehead slight differences are often perceptible between the males and
    females, evidently caused by the presence of the comb. In every case I
    take the skull of _G. bankiva_ as the standard of comparison. In four
    Games, in one Malay hen, in an {261} African cock, in a Frizzled cock
    from Madras, in two black-boned Silk hens, no differences occur worth
    notice. In three _Spanish_ cocks, the form of the forehead between the
    orbits differs considerably; in one it is considerably depressed,
    whilst in the two others it is rather prominent, with a deep medial
    furrow; the skull of the hen is smooth. In three skulls of _Sebright
    Bantams_ the crown is more globular, and <DW72>s more abruptly to the
    occiput, than in _G. bankiva_. In a Bantam or Jumper from Burmah these
    same characters are more strongly pronounced, and the supra-occiput is
    more pointed. In a black Bantam the skull is not so globular, and the
    occipital foramen is very large, and has nearly the same sub-triangular
    outline presently to be described in Cochins; and in this skull the two
    ascending branches of the premaxillary are overlapped in a singular
    manner by the processes of the nasal bone, but, as I have seen only one
    specimen, some of these differences may be individual. Of Cochins and
    Brahmas (the latter a crossed race approaching closely to Cochins) I
    have examined seven skulls; at the point where the ascending branches
    of the premaxillary rest on the frontal bone the surface is much
    depressed, and from this depression a deep medial furrow extends
    backwards to a variable distance; the edges of this fissure are rather
    prominent, as is the top of the skull behind and over the orbits. These
    characters are less developed in the hens. The pterygoids, and the
    processes of the lower jaw, relatively to the size of the head, are
    broader than in _G. bankiva_; and this is likewise the case with
    Dorkings when of large size. The terminal fork of the hyoid bone in
    Cochins is twice as wide as in _G. bankiva_, whereas the length of the
    other hyoid bones is only as three to two. But the most remarkable
    character is the shape of the occipital foramen: in _G. bankiva_ (A)
    the breadth in a horizontal line exceeds the height in a vertical line,
    and the outline is nearly circular; whereas in Cochins (B) the outline
    is sub-triangular, and the vertical line exceeds the horizontal line in
    length. This same form likewise occurs in the black Bantam above
    referred to, and an approach to it may be seen in some Dorkings, and in
    a slight degree in certain other breeds.

    [Illustration: Fig. 33.--Occipital Foramen, of natural size. A. Wild
    _Gallus bankiva_. B. Cochin Cock.]

    Of _Dorkings_ I have examined three skulls, one belonging to the white
    sub-breed; the one character deserving notice is the breadth of the
    frontal bones, which are moderately furrowed in the middle; thus in a
    skull which was less than once and a half the length of that of _G.
    bankiva_, the breadth between the orbits was exactly double. Of
    _Hamburghs_ I have examined four skulls (male and female) of the
    pencilled sub-breed, and one (male) of the spangled sub-breed; the
    nasal bones stand remarkably wide apart, but in a variable degree;
    consequently narrow membrane-covered spaces fare left between the tips
    of the two ascending branches of the premaxillary {262} bones, which
    are rather short, and between these branches and the nasal bones. The
    surface of the frontal bone, on which the branches of the premaxillary
    rest, is very little depressed. These peculiarities no doubt stand in
    close relation with the broad flattened rose-comb characteristic of the
    Hamburgh breed.

    [Illustration: Fig. 34.--Skulls of natural size, viewed from above, a
    little obliquely. A. Wild _Gallus bankiva_. B. White-crested Polish
    Cock.]

    I have examined fourteen skulls of _Polish and other crested breeds_.
    Their differences are extraordinary. First for nine skulls of different
    sub-breeds of English Polish fowls. The hemispherical protuberance of
    the frontal bones[428] may be seen in the accompanying drawings, in
    which (B) the skull of a white-crested Polish fowl is shown obliquely
    from above, with the skull (A) of _G. bankiva_ in the same position. In
    fig. 35 longitudinal sections are given of the skulls of a Polish fowl,
    and, for comparison, of a Cochin of the same size. The protuberance in
    all Polish fowls occupies the same position, but differs much in size.
    In one of my nine specimens it was extremely slight. The degree to
    which the protuberance is ossified varies greatly, larger or smaller
    portions of bone being replaced by membrane. In one specimen there was
    only a single open pore; generally, there are many variously-shaped
    open spaces, the bone forming an irregular reticulation. A medial,
    longitudinal, arched ribbon of bone is generally retained, but in one
    specimen there was no bone whatever over the whole protuberance, and
    the skull when cleaned and viewed from above presented the appearance
    of an open basin. The change in the whole internal form of the skull is
    surprisingly great. The brain is modified in a corresponding manner, as
    is shown in the two longitudinal sections, {263} which deserve
    attentive consideration. The upper and anterior cavity of the three
    into which the skull may be divided, is the one which is so greatly
    modified; it is evidently much larger than in the Cochin skull of the
    same size, and extends much further beyond the interorbital septum, but
    laterally is less deep. Whether this cavity is entirely filled by the
    brain, may be doubted. In the skull of the Cochin and of all ordinary
    fowls a strong internal ridge of bone separates the anterior from the
    central cavity; but this ridge is entirely absent in the Polish skull
    here figured. The shape of the central cavity is circular in the
    Polish, and lengthened in the Cochin skull. The shape of the posterior
    cavity, together with the position, size, and number of the pores for
    the nerves, differ much in these two skulls. A pit deeply penetrating
    the occipital bone of the Cochin is entirely absent in this Polish
    skull, whilst in another specimen it was well developed. In this second
    specimen the whole internal surface of the posterior cavity likewise
    differs to a certain extent in shape. I made sections of two other
    skulls,--namely, of a Polish fowl with the protuberance singularly
    little developed, and of a Sultan in which it was a little more
    developed; and when these two skulls were placed between the two above
    figured (fig. 35), a perfect gradation in the configuration of each
    part of the internal surface could be traced. In the Polish skull, with
    a small protuberance, the ridge between the anterior and middle
    cavities was present, but low; and in the Sultan this ridge was
    replaced by a narrow furrow standing on a broad raised eminence.

    [Illustration: Fig. 35.--Longitudinal sections of Skull, of natural
    size, viewed laterally. A. Polish Cock. B. Cochin Cock, selected for
    comparison with the above from being of nearly the same size.]

    {264}

    It may naturally be asked whether these remarkable modifications in the
    form of the brain affect the intellect of Polish fowls; some writers
    have stated that they are extremely stupid, but Bechstein and Mr.
    Tegetmeier have shown that this is by no means generally the case.
    Nevertheless Bechstein[429] states that he had a Polish hen which "was
    crazy, and anxiously wandered about all day long." A hen in my
    possession was solitary in her habits, and was often so absorbed in
    reverie that she could be touched; she was also deficient in the most
    singular manner in the faculty of finding her way, so that, if she
    strayed a hundred yards from her feeding-place, she was completely
    lost, and would then obstinately try to proceed in a wrong direction. I
    have received other and similar accounts of Polish fowls appearing
    stupid or half-idiotic.[430]

    To return to the skull. The posterior part, viewed externally, differs
    little from that of _G. bankiva_. In most fowls the posterior-lateral
    process of the frontal bone and the process of the squamosal bone run
    together and are ossified near their extremities: this union of the two
    bones, however, is not constant in any breed; and in eleven out of
    fourteen skulls of crested breeds, these processes were quite distinct.
    These processes, when not united, instead of being inclined anteriorly
    as in all common breeds, descend at right angles to the lower jaw; and
    in this case the longer axis of the bony cavity of the ear is likewise
    more perpendicular than in other breeds. When the squamosal process is
    free, instead of expanding at the tip, it is reduced to an extremely
    fine and pointed style, of variable length. The pterygoid and quadrate
    bones present no difference. The palatine bones are a little more
    curved upwards at their posterior ends. The frontal bones, anteriorly
    to the protuberance, are, as in Dorkings, very broad, but in a variable
    degree. The nasal bones either stand far apart, as in Hamburghs, or
    almost touch each other, and in one instance were ossified together.
    Each nasal bone properly sends out in front two long processes of equal
    lengths, forming a fork; but in all the Polish skulls, except one, the
    inner process was considerably, but in a variable degree, shortened and
    somewhat upturned. In all the skulls, except one, the two ascending
    branches of the premaxillary, instead of running up between the
    processes of the nasal bones and resting on the ethmoid bone, are much
    shortened and terminate in a blunt, somewhat upturned point. In those
    skulls in which the nasal bones approach quite close to each other or
    are ossified together, it would be impossible for the ascending
    branches of the premaxillary to reach the ethmoid and frontal bones;
    hence we see that even the relative connection of the bones has been
    changed. Apparently in consequence of the branches of the premaxillary
    and of the inner processes of the nasal bones being somewhat upturned,
    the external orifices of the nostrils are upraised and assume a
    crescentic outline.

    I must still say a few words on some of the foreign Crested breeds. The
    skull of a crested, rumpless, white Turkish fowl is very slightly
    protuberant, and but little perforated; the ascending branches of the
    premaxillary {265} are well developed. In another Turkish breed, called
    Ghoondooks, the skull is considerably protuberant and perforated; the
    ascending branches of the premaxillary are so much aborted that they
    project only 1/15th of an inch; and the inner processes of the nasal
    bone are so completely aborted, that the surface where they should have
    projected is quite smooth. Here then we see these two bones modified to
    an extreme degree. Of Sultans (another Turkish breed) I examined two
    skulls; in that of the female the protuberance was much larger than in
    the male. In both skulls the ascending branches of the premaxillary
    were very short, and in both the basal portion of the inner processes
    of the nasal bones were ossified together. These Sultan skulls differed
    from those of English Polish fowls in the frontal bones, anteriorly to
    the protuberance, not being broad.

    The last skull which I need describe is a unique one, lent to me by Mr.
    Tegetmeier: it resembles a Polish skull in most of its characters, but
    has not the great frontal protuberance; it has, however, two rounded
    knobs of a different nature, which stand more in front, above the
    lachrymal bones. These curious knobs, into which the brain does not
    enter, are separated from each other by a deep medial furrow; and this
    is perforated by a few minute pores. The nasal bones stand rather wide
    apart, with their inner processes, and the ascending branches of the
    premaxillary, upturned and shortened. The two knobs no doubt supported
    the two great horn-like projections of the comb.

    [Illustration: Fig. 36.--Skull of Horned Fowl, of natural size, viewed
    from above, a little obliquely. (In the possession of Mr. Tegetmeier.)]

    From the foregoing facts we see in how astonishing a manner some of the
    bones of the skull vary in Crested fowls. The protuberance may
    certainly be called in one sense a monstrosity, as being wholly unlike
    anything observed in nature: but as in ordinary cases it is not
    injurious to the bird, and as it is strictly inherited, it can hardly
    in another sense be called a monstrosity. A series may be formed
    commencing with the black-boned Silk fowl, which has a very small crest
    with the skull beneath penetrated only by a few minute orifices, but
    with no other change in its structure; and from this first stage we may
    proceed to fowls with a moderately large crest, which rests, according
    to Bechstein, on a fleshy mass, but without any {266} protuberance in
    the skull. I may add that I have seen a similar fleshy or fibrous mass
    beneath the tuft of feathers on the head of the Tufted duck; and in
    this case there was no actual protuberance in the skull, but it had
    become a little more globular. Lastly, when we come to fowls with a
    largely developed crest, the skull becomes largely protuberant and is
    perforated by a multitude of irregular open spaces. The close relation
    between the crest and the size of the bony protuberance is shown in
    another way; for Mr. Tegetmeier informs me that if chickens lately
    hatched be selected with a large bony protuberance, when adult they
    will have a large crest. There can be no doubt that in former times the
    breeder of Polish fowls attended solely to the crest, and not to the
    skull; nevertheless, by increasing the crest, in which he has
    wonderfully succeeded, he has unintentionally made the skull
    protuberant to an astonishing degree; and through correlation of
    growth, he has at the same time affected the form and relative
    connexion of the premaxillary and nasal bones, the shape of the orifice
    of the nose, the breadth of the frontal bones, the shape of the
    post-lateral processes of the frontal and squamosal bones, the
    direction of the axis of the bony cavity of the ear, and lastly the
    internal configuration of the whole skull together with the shape of
    the brain.

    _Vertebrae._--In _G. bankiva_ there are fourteen cervical, seven dorsal
    with ribs, apparently fifteen lumbar and sacral, and six caudal
    vertebrae;[431] but the lumbar and sacral are so much anchylosed that I
    am not sure of their number, and this makes the comparison of the total
    number of vertebrae in the several breeds difficult. I have spoken of
    six caudal vertebrae, because the basal one is almost completely
    anchylosed with the pelvis; but if we consider the number as seven, the
    caudal vertebrae agree in all the skeletons. The cervical vertebrae are,
    as just stated, in appearance fourteen; but out of twenty-three
    skeletons in a fit state for examination, in five of them, namely, in
    two Games, in two pencilled Hamburghs, and in a Polish, the fourteenth
    vertebra bore ribs, which, though small, were perfectly developed with
    a double articulation. The presence of these little ribs cannot be
    considered as a fact of much importance, for all the cervical vertebrae
    bear representatives of ribs; but their development in the fourteenth
    vertebra reduces the size of the passages in the transverse processes,
    and makes this vertebra exactly like the first dorsal vertebra. The
    addition of these little ribs does not affect the fourteenth cervical
    alone, for properly the ribs of the first true dorsal vertebra are
    destitute of processes; but in some of the skeletons in which the
    fourteenth cervical bore little ribs, the first pair of true ribs had
    well-developed processes. When we know that the sparrow has only nine,
    and the swan twenty-three cervical vertebrae,[432] we need feel no
    surprise at the number of the cervical vertebrae in the fowl being, as
    it appears, variable.

    There are seven dorsal vertebrae bearing ribs; the first dorsal is never
    {267} anchylosed with the succeeding four, which are generally
    anchylosed together. In one Sultan fowl, however, the two first dorsal
    vertebrae were free. In two skeletons, the fifth dorsal was free;
    generally the sixth is free (as in _G. bankiva_), but sometimes only at
    its posterior end, where in contact with the seventh. The seventh
    dorsal vertebra, in every case excepting in one Spanish cock, was
    anchylosed with the lumbar vertebrae. So that the degree to which these
    middle dorsal vertebrae are anchylosed together is variable.

    Seven is the normal number of true ribs, but in two skeletons of the
    Sultan fowl (in which the fourteenth cervical vertebra was not
    furnished with little ribs) there were eight pairs; the eighth pair
    seemed to be developed on a vertebra corresponding with the first
    lumbar in _G. bankiva_; the sternal portion of both the seventh and
    eighth ribs did not reach the sternum. In four skeletons in which ribs
    were developed on the fourteenth cervical vertebra, there were, when
    these cervical ribs are included, eight pairs; but in one Game-cock, in
    which the fourteenth cervical was furnished with ribs, there were only
    six pairs of true dorsal ribs; the sixth pair in this case did not have
    processes, and thus resembled the seventh pair in other skeletons; in
    this game-cock, as far as could be judged from the appearance of the
    lumbar vertebrae, a whole dorsal vertebra with its ribs was missing. We
    thus see that the ribs (whether or not the little pair attached to the
    fourteenth cervical vertebra be counted) vary from six to eight pair.
    The sixth pair is frequently not furnished with processes. The sternal
    portion of the seventh pair is extremely broad in Cochins, and is
    completely ossified. As previously stated, it is scarcely possible to
    count the lumbo-sacral vertebrae; but they certainly do not correspond
    in shape or number in the several skeletons. The caudal vertebrae are
    closely similar in all the skeletons, the only difference being,
    whether or not the basal one is anchylosed to the pelvis; they hardly
    vary even in length, not being shorter in Cochins, with their short
    tail-feathers, than in other breeds; in a Spanish cock, however, the
    caudal vertebrae were a little elongated. In three rumpless fowls the
    caudal vertebrae were few in number, and anchylosed together into a
    misformed mass.

    [Illustration: Fig. 37.--Sixth Cervical Vertebra, of natural size,
    viewed laterally. A. Wild _Gallus bankiva_. B. Cochin Cock.]

    In the individual vertebrae the differences in structure are very
    slight. In the atlas the cavity for the occipital condyle is either
    ossified into a ring, or is, as in Bankiva, open on its upper margin.
    The upper arc of the spinal canal is a little more arched in Cochins,
    in conformity with the shape of occipital foramen, than in _G.
    bankiva_. In several skeletons a difference, but not of much
    importance, may be observed, which commences a the fourth cervical
    vertebra, and is greatest at about the sixth, seventh, or eighth
    vertebra; this consists in the haemal descending processes being united
    to the body of the vertebra by a sort of buttress. This structure may
    be observed in Cochins, Polish, some Hamburgh, and probably other
    breeds; but is absent, or barely developed, in Game, Dorking, Spanish,
    Bantam, and {268} several other breeds examined by me. On the dorsal
    surface of the sixth cervical vertebra in Cochins three prominent
    points are more strongly developed than in the corresponding vertebra
    of the Game-fowl or _G. bankiva_.

    _Pelvis._--This differs in some few points in the several skeletons.
    The anterior margin of the ilium seems at first to vary much in
    outline, but this is chiefly due to the degree to which the margin in
    the middle part is ossified to the crest of the spine; the outline,
    however, does differ in being more truncated in Bantams, and more
    rounded in certain breeds, as in Cochins. The outline of the ischiadic
    foramen differs considerably, being nearly circular in Bantams, instead
    of egg-shaped as in the Bankiva, and more regularly oval in some
    skeletons, as in the Spanish. The obturator notch is also much less
    elongated in some skeletons than in others. The end of the pubic bone
    presents the greatest difference; being hardly enlarged in the Bankiva;
    considerably and gradually enlarged in Cochins, and in a lesser degree
    in some other breeds; and abruptly enlarged in Bantams. In one Bantam
    this bone extended very little beyond the extremity of the ischium. The
    whole pelvis in this latter bird differed widely in its proportions,
    being far broader proportionally to its length than in Bankiva.

    [Illustration: Fig. 38.--Extremity of the Furcula, of natural size,
    viewed laterally. A. Wild _Gallus bankiva_. B. Spangled Polish Fowl. C.
    Spanish Fowl. D. Dorking Fowl.]

    _Sternum._--This bone is generally so much deformed that it is scarcely
    possible to compare its form strictly in the several breeds. The shape
    of the triangular extremity of the lateral processes differs
    considerably, being either almost equilateral or much elongated. The
    front margin of the crest is more or less perpendicular and varies
    greatly, as does the curvature of the posterior end, and the flatness
    of the lower surface. The outline of the manubrial process also varies,
    being wedge-shaped in the Bankiva, and rounded in the Spanish breed.
    The _furcula_ differs in being more or less arched, and greatly, as may
    be seen in the accompanying outlines, in the shape of the terminal
    plate; but the shape of this part differed a little in two skeletons of
    the wild Bankiva. The _coracoids_ present no difference worth notice.
    The _scapula_ varies in shape, being of nearly uniform breadth in
    Bankiva, much broader in the middle in the Polish fowl, and abruptly
    narrowed towards the apex in the two Sultan fowls.

    I carefully compared each separate bone of the leg and wing, relatively
    to the same bones in the wild Bankiva, in the following breeds, which I
    thought were the most likely to differ; namely, in Cochin, Dorking,
    {269} Spanish, Polish, Burmese Bantam, Frizzled Indian, and black-boned
    Silk fowls; and it was truly surprising to see how absolutely every
    process, articulation, and pore agreed, though the bones differed
    greatly in size. The agreement is far more absolute than in other parts
    of the skeleton. In stating this, I do not refer to the relative
    thickness and length of the several bones; for the tarsi varied
    considerably in both these respects. But the other limb-bones varied
    little even in relative length.

Finally, I have not examined a sufficient number of skeletons to say
whether any of the foregoing differences, except in the skull, are
characteristic of the several breeds. Apparently some differences are more
common in certain breeds than in others,--as an additional rib to the
fourteenth cervical vertebra in Hamburghs and Games, and the breadth of the
end of the pubic bone in Cochins. Both skeletons of the Sultan fowl had
eight dorsal vertebrae, and the end of the scapula in both was somewhat
attenuated. In the skull, the deep medial furrow in the frontal bones and
the vertically elongated occipital foramen seem to be characteristic of
Cochins; as is the great breadth of the frontal bones in Dorkings; the
separation and open spaces between the tips of the ascending branches of
the premaxillaries and nasal bones, as well as the front part of the skull
being but little depressed, characterise Hamburghs; the globular shape of
the posterior part of the skull seems to be characteristic of laced
Bantams; and lastly, the protuberance of the skull with the ascending
branches of the premaxillaries partially aborted, together with the other
differences before specified, are eminently characteristic of Polish and
other Crested fowls.

But the most striking result of our examination of the skeleton is the
great variability of all the bones except those of the extremities. To a
certain extent we can understand why the skeleton fluctuates so much in
structure; fowls have been exposed to unnatural conditions of life, and
their whole organisation has thus been rendered variable; but the breeder
is quite indifferent to, and never intentionally selects, any modifications
in the skeleton. External characters, if not attended to by man,--such as
the number of the tail and wing feathers and their relative lengths, which
in wild birds are generally constant points,--fluctuate in our domestic
fowls in the same manner as the several parts of the skeleton. An
additional toe is a "point" in Dorkings, and has become a fixed character,
but is variable in {270} Cochins and Silk-fowls. The colour of the plumage
and the form of the comb are in most breeds, or even sub-breeds, eminently
fixed characters; but in Dorkings these points have not been attended to,
and are variable. When any modification in the skeleton is related to some
external character which man values, it has been, unintentionally on his
part, acted on by selection, and has become more or less fixed. We see this
in the wonderful protuberance of the skull, which supports the crest of
feathers in Polish fowls, and which by correlation has affected other parts
of the skull. We see the same result in the two protuberances which support
the horns in the horned fowl, and in the flattened shape of the front of
the skull in Hamburghs consequent on their flattened and broad
"rose-combs." We know not in the least whether additional ribs, or the
changed outline of the occipital foramen, or the changed form of the
scapula, or of the extremity of the furcula, are in any way correlated with
other structures, or have arisen from the changed conditions and habits of
life to which our fowls have been subjected; but there is no reason to
doubt that these various modifications in the skeleton could be rendered,
either by direct selection, or by the selection of correlated structures,
as constant and as characteristic of each breed, as are the size and shape
of the body, the colour of the plumage, and the form of the comb.

_Effects of the Disuse of Parts._

    Judging from the habits of our European gallinaceous birds, _Gallus
    bankiva_ in its native haunts would use its legs and wings more than do
    our domestic fowls, which rarely fly except to their roosts. The Silk
    and the Frizzled fowls, from having imperfect wing-feathers, cannot fly
    at all; and there is reason to believe that both these breeds are
    ancient, so that their progenitors during many generations cannot have
    flown. The Cochins, also, from their short wings and heavy bodies, can
    hardly fly up to a low perch. Therefore in these breeds, especially in
    the two first, a considerable diminution in the wing-bones might have
    been expected, but this is not the case. In every specimen, after
    disarticulating and cleaning the bones, I carefully compared the
    relative length of the two main bones of the wing to each other, and of
    the two main bones of the leg to each other, with those of _G.
    bankiva_; and it was surprising to see (except in the case of the
    tarsi) how exactly the same relative length had been retained. This
    fact is curious, from showing how truly the proportions of an organ may
    be inherited, although not fully exercised during many generations. I
    then compared in several breeds the {271} length of the femur and tibia
    with the humerus and ulna, and likewise these same bones with those of
    _G. bankiva_; the result was that the wing-bones in all the breeds
    (except the Burmese Jumper, which has unnaturally short legs) are
    slightly shortened relatively to the leg-bones; but the decrease is so
    slight that it may be due to the standard specimen of _G. bankiva_
    having accidentally had wings of slightly greater length than usual; so
    that the measurements are not worth giving. But it deserves notice that
    the Silk and Frizzled fowls, which are quite incapable of flight, had
    their wings _less_ reduced relatively to their legs than in almost any
    other breed! We have seen with domesticated pigeons that the bones of
    the wings are somewhat reduced in length, whilst the primary feathers
    are rather increased in length, and it is just possible, though not
    probable, that in the Silk and Frizzled fowls any tendency to decrease
    in the length of the wing-bones from disuse may have been checked
    through the law of compensation, by the decreased growth of the
    wing-feathers, and consequent increased supply of nutriment. The
    wing-bones, however, in both these breeds, are found to be slightly
    reduced in length when judged by the standard of the length of the
    sternum or head, relatively to these same parts in _G. bankiva_.

    The actual weight of the main bones of the leg and wing in twelve
    breeds is given in the two first columns in the following table. The
    calculated weight of the wing-bones relatively to the leg-bones, in
    comparison with the leg and wing-bones of _G. bankiva_, are given in
    the third column,--the weight of the wing-bones in _G. bankiva_ being
    called a hundred.[433]

TABLE I.

  +----------------------------------+---------+---------+----------------+
  |                                  |         |         | Weight of      |
  |                                  | Actual  | Actual  | Wingbones      |
  |                                  | Weight  | Weight  | relatively to  |
  |         Names of Breeds.         | of      | of      | the Leg-bones, |
  |                                  | Femur   | Humerus | in comparison  |
  |                                  | and     | and     | with these     |
  |                                  | Tibia.  | Ulna.   | same bones in  |
  |                                  | Grains. | Grains. | G. bankiva.    |
  +--+-------------------------------+---------+---------+----------------+
  |  |Gallus bankiva       wild male |   86    |  54     |   100          |
  | 1|Cochin               male      |  311    | 162     |    83          |
  | 2|Dorking              male      |  557    | 248     |    70          |
  | 3|Spanish (Minorca)    male      |  386    | 183     |    75          |
  | 4|Gold Spangled Polish male      |  306    | 145     |    75          |
  | 5|Game, black-breasted male      |  293    | 143     |    77          |
  | 6|Malay                female    |  231    | 116     |    80          |
  | 7|Sultan               male      |  189    |  94     |    79          |
  | 8|Indian Frizzled      male      |  206    |  88     |    67          |
  | 9|Burmese Jumper       female    |   53    |  36     |   108          |
  |10|Hamburgh (pencilled) male      |  157    | 104     |   106          |
  |11|Hamburgh (pencilled) female    |  114    |  77     |   108          |
  |12|Silk (black-boned)   female    |   88    |  57     |   103          |
  +--+-------------------------------+---------+---------+----------------+

{272}

    In the eight first birds, belonging to distinct breeds, in this table,
    we see a decided reduction in the weight of the bones of the wing. In
    the Indian Frizzled fowl, which cannot fly, the reduction is carried to
    the greatest extent, namely, to thirty-three per cent. of their proper
    proportional weight. In the next four birds, including the Silk-hen,
    which is incapable of flight, we see that the wings, relatively to the
    legs, are slightly increased in weight; but it should be observed that,
    if in these birds the legs had become from any cause reduced in weight,
    this would give the false appearance of the wings having increased in
    relative weight. Now a reduction of this nature has certainly occurred
    with the Burmese Jumper, in which the legs are abnormally short, and in
    the two Hamburghs and Silk fowl, the legs, though not short, are formed
    of remarkably thin and light bones. I make these statements, not
    judging by mere eyesight, but after having calculated the weights of
    the leg-bones relatively to those of _G. bankiva_, according to the
    only two standards of comparison which I could use, namely, the
    relative lengths of the head and sternum; for I do not know the weight
    of the body in _G. bankiva_, which would have been a better standard.
    According to these standards, the leg-bones in these four fowls are in
    a marked manner far lighter than in any other breed. It may therefore
    be concluded that in all cases in which the legs have not been through
    some unknown cause much reduced in weight, the wing-bones have become
    reduced in weight relatively to the leg-bones, in comparison with those
    of _G. bankiva_. And this reduction of weight may, I apprehend, safely
    be attributed to disuse.

    To make the foregoing table quite satisfactory, it ought to have been
    shown that in the eight first birds the leg-bones have not actually
    increased in weight out of due proportion with the rest of the body;
    this I cannot show, from not knowing, as already remarked, the weight
    of the wild Bankiva.[434] I am indeed inclined to suspect that the
    leg-bones in the Dorking, No. 2 in the table, are proportionally too
    heavy; but this bird was a very large one, weighing 7 lb. 2 oz., though
    very thin. Its leg-bones were more than ten times as heavy as those of
    the Burmese Jumper! I tried to ascertain the length both of the
    leg-bones and wing-bones relatively to other parts of the body and
    skeleton; but the whole organisation in these birds, which have been so
    long domesticated, has become so variable, that no certain conclusions
    could be reached. For instance, the legs of the above Dorking cock were
    nearly three-quarters of an inch too short relatively to the length of
    the sternum, and more than {273} three-quarters of an inch too long
    relatively to the length of the skull, in comparison with these same
    parts in _G. bankiva_.

    In the following Table II. in the two first columns we see in inches
    and decimals the length of the sternum, and the extreme depth of its
    crest to which the pectoral muscles are attached. In the third column
    we have the calculated depth of the crest, relatively to the length of
    the sternum, in comparison with these same parts in _G. bankiva_.[435]

TABLE II.

  +-----------------------------+-----------+------------+----------------+
  |                             |           |            | Depth of Crest,|
  |                             |           |            | relatively to  |
  |                             |  Length   | Depth of   | the length of  |
  |    Names of Breeds.         |   of      |   Crest    | the Sternum in |
  |                             |  Sternum. | of Sternum.| comparison with|
  |                             |           |            | G. bankiva.    |
  +--+--------------------------+-----------+------------+----------------+
  |  |                          |  Inches.  |  Inches.   |                |
  |  |Gallus bankiva      male  |   4.20    |   1.40     |    100         |
  | 1|Cochin              male  |   5.83    |   1.55     |     78         |
  | 2|Dorking             male  |   6.95    |   1.97     |     84         |
  | 3|Spanish             male  |   6.10    |   1.83     |     90         |
  | 4|Polish              male  |   5.07    |   1.50     |     87         |
  | 5|Game                male  |   5.55    |   1.55     |     81         |
  | 6|Malay             female  |   5.10    |   1.50     |     87         |
  | 7|Sultan              male  |   4.47    |   1.36     |     90         |
  | 8|Frizzled hen        male  |   4.25    |   1.20     |     84         |
  | 9|Burmese Jumper    female  |   3.06    |   0.85     |     81         |
  |10|Hamburgh            male  |   5.08    |   1.40     |     81         |
  |11|Hamburgh          female  |   4.55    |   1.26     |     81         |
  |12|Silk fowl         female  |   4.49    |   1.01     |     66         |
  +--+--------------------------+-----------+------------+----------------+

    By looking to the third column we see that in every case the depth of
    the crest relatively to the length of the sternum, in comparison with
    _G. bankiva_, is diminished, generally between 10 and 20 per cent. But
    the degree of reduction varies much, partly in consequence of the
    frequently deformed state of the sternum. In the Silk-fowl, which
    cannot fly, the crest is 34 per cent. less deep than what it ought to
    have been. This reduction of the crest in all the breeds probably
    accounts for the great variability, before referred to, in the
    curvature of the furcula, and in the shape of its sternal extremity.
    Medical men believe that the abnormal form of the spine so commonly
    observed in women of the higher ranks results from the attached muscles
    not being fully exercised. So it is with our domestic fowls, for they
    use their pectoral muscles but little, and, out of twenty-five sternums
    examined by me, three alone were perfectly symmetrical, ten were
    moderately crooked, and twelve were deformed to an extreme degree.

Finally, we may conclude with respect to the various breeds of the fowl,
that the main bones of the wing have probably been shortened in a very
slight degree; that they have {274} certainly become lighter relatively to
the leg-bones in all the breeds in which these latter bones are not
unnaturally short or delicate; and that the crest of the sternum, to which
the pectoral muscles are attached, has invariably become less prominent,
the whole sternum being also extremely liable to deformity. These results
we may attribute to the lessened use of the wings.

_Correlation of Growth_.--I will here sum up the few facts which I have
collected on this obscure, but important, subject. In Cochins and
Game-fowls there is some relation between the colour of the plumage and the
darkness of the egg-shell and even of the yolk. In Sultans the additional
sickle-feathers in the tail are apparently related to the general
redundancy of the plumage, as shown by the feathered legs, large crest, and
beard. In two tailless fowls which I examined the oil-gland was aborted. A
large crest of feathers, as Mr. Tegetmeier has remarked, seems always
accompanied by a great diminution or almost entire absence of the comb. A
large beard is similarly accompanied by diminished or absent wattles. These
latter cases apparently come under the law of compensation or balancement
of growth. A large beard beneath the lower jaw and a large top-knot on the
skull often go together. The comb when of any peculiar shape, as with
Horned, Spanish, and Hamburgh fowls, affects in a corresponding manner the
underlying skull; and we have seen how wonderfully this is the case with
Crested fowls when the crest is largely developed. With the protuberance of
the frontal bones the shape of the internal surface of the skull and of the
brain is greatly modified. The presence of a crest influences in some
unknown way the development of the ascending branches of the premaxillary
bone, and of the inner processes of the nasal bones; and likewise the shape
of the external orifice of the nostrils. There is a plain and curious
correlation between a crest of feathers and the imperfectly ossified
condition of the skull. Not only does this hold good with nearly all
crested fowls, but likewise with tufted ducks, and as Dr. Guenther informs
me with tufted geese in Germany.

Lastly, the feathers composing the crest in male Polish fowls resemble
hackles, and differ greatly in shape from those in the crest of the female.
The neck, wing-coverts, and loins {275} in the male bird are properly
covered with hackles, and it would appear that feathers of this shape have
spread by correlation to the head of the male. This little fact is
interesting; because, though both sexes of some wild gallinaceous birds
have their heads similarly ornamented, yet there is often a difference in
the size and shape of feathers forming their crests. Furthermore there is
in some cases, as in the male Gold and in the male Amherst pheasants (_P.
pictus_ and _Amherstiae_), a close relation in colour, as well as in
structure, between the plumes on the head and on the loins. Hence it would
appear that the same law has regulated the state of the feathers on the
head and body, both with species living under their natural conditions, and
with birds which have varied under domestication.

       *       *       *       *       *


{276}

CHAPTER VIII.

DUCKS--GOOSE--PEACOCK--TURKEY--GUINEA-FOWL--CANARY-BIRD--GOLD-FISH--
HIVE-BEES--SILK-MOTHS.

    DUCKS, SEVERAL BREEDS OF--PROGRESS OF DOMESTICATION--ORIGIN OF, FROM
    THE COMMON WILD-DUCK--DIFFERENCES IN THE DIFFERENT BREEDS--OSTEOLOGICAL
    DIFFERENCES--EFFECTS OF USE AND DISUSE ON THE LIMB-BONES.

    GOOSE, ANCIENTLY DOMESTICATED--LITTLE VARIATION OF--SEBASTOPOL BREED.

    PEACOCK, ORIGIN OF BLACK-SHOULDERED BREED.

    TURKEY, BREEDS OF--CROSSED WITH THE UNITED STATES SPECIES--EFFECTS OF
    CLIMATE ON.

    GUINEA-FOWL, CANARY-BIRD, GOLD-FISH, HIVE-BEES.

    SILK-MOTHS, SPECIES AND BREEDS OF--ANCIENTLY DOMESTICATED--CARE IN
    THEIR SELECTION--DIFFERENCES IN THE DIFFERENT RACES--IN THE EGG,
    CATERPILLAR, AND COCOON STATES--INHERITANCE OF CHARACTERS--IMPERFECT
    WINGS--LOST INSTINCTS--CORRELATED CHARACTERS.

I will, as in previous cases, first briefly describe the chief domestic
breeds of the duck:--

    BREED 1. _Common Domestic Duck_.--Varies much in colour and in
    proportions, and differs in instincts and disposition from the
    wild-duck. There are several sub-breeds:--(1) The Aylesbury, of great
    size, white, with pale-yellow beak and legs; abdominal sack largely
    developed. (2) The Rouen, of great size,  like the wild-duck,
    with green or mottled beak; abdominal sack largely developed. (3)
    Tufted Duck, with a large top-knot of fine downy feathers, supported on
    a fleshy mass, with the skull perforated beneath. The top-knot in a
    duck which I imported from Holland was two and a half inches in
    diameter. (4) Labrador (or Canadian, or Buenos Ayres, or East Indian);
    plumage entirely black; beak broader, relatively to its length, than in
    the wild-duck; eggs slightly tinted with black. This sub-breed perhaps
    ought to be ranked as a breed; it includes two sub-varieties, one as
    large as the common domestic duck, which I have kept alive, and the
    other smaller and often capable of flight.[436] I presume it is this
    latter sub-variety which has been described in France[437] as flying
    well, being rather wild, and when cooked having the flavour of the
    wild-duck; nevertheless this sub-variety is polygamous, like other
    domesticated ducks and unlike the wild duck. These black Labrador ducks
    breed true; {277} but a case is given by Dr. Turral of the French
    sub-variety producing young with some white feathers on the head and
    neck, and with an ochre- patch on the breast.

    BREED 2. _Hook-billed Duck_.--This bird presents an extraordinary
    appearance from the downward curvature of the beak. The head is often
    tufted. The common colour is white, but some are  like
    wild-ducks. It is an ancient breed, having been noticed in 1676.[438]
    It shows its prolonged domestication by almost incessantly laying eggs,
    like the fowls which are called everlasting layers.[439]

    BREED 3. _Call-Duck_.--Remarkable from its small size, and from the
    extraordinary loquacity of the female. Beak short. These birds are
    either white, or  like the wild-duck.

    BREED 4. _Penguin Duck_.--This is the most remarkable of all the
    breeds, and seems to have originated in the Malayan archipelago. It
    walks with its body extremely erect, and with its thin neck stretched
    straight upwards. Beak rather short. Tail upturned, including only 18
    feathers. Femur and meta-tarsi elongated.

Almost all naturalists admit that the several breeds are descended from the
common wild duck (_Anas boschas_); most fanciers, on the other hand, take
as usual a very different view.[440] Unless we deny that domestication,
prolonged during centuries, can affect even such unimportant characters as
colour, size, and in a slight degree proportional dimensions and mental
disposition, there is no reason whatever to doubt that the domestic duck is
descended from the common wild species, for the one differs from the other
in no important character. We have some historical evidence with respect to
the period and progress of the domestication of the duck. It was
unknown[441] to the ancient Egyptians, to the Jews of the Old Testament,
and to the Greeks of the Homeric period. About eighteen centuries ago
Columella[442] and Varro speak of the necessity of keeping ducks in netted
enclosures like other wild fowl, so that at this period there was danger of
their flying away. {278} Moreover, the plan recommended by Columella to
those who might wish to increase their stock of ducks, namely, to collect
the eggs of the wild bird and to place them under a hen, shows, as Mr.
Dixon remarks, "that the duck had not at this time become a naturalised and
prolific inmate of the Roman poultry-yard." The origin of the domestic duck
from the wild species is recognised in nearly every language of Europe, as
Aldrovandi long ago remarked, by the same name being applied to both. The
wild duck has a wide range from the Himalayas to North America. It crosses
readily with the domestic bird, and the crossed offspring are perfectly
fertile.

Both in North America and Europe the wild duck has been found easy to tame
and breed. In Sweden this experiment was carefully tried by Tiburtius; he
succeeded in rearing wild ducks for three generations, but, though they
were treated like common ducks, they did not vary even in a single feather.
The young birds suffered from being allowed to swim about in cold
water,[443] as is known to be the case, though the fact is a strange one,
with the young of the common domestic duck. An accurate and well-known
observer in England[444] has described in detail his often repeated and
successful experiments in domesticating the wild duck. Young birds are
easily reared from eggs hatched under a bantam; but to succeed it is
indispensable not to place the eggs of both the wild and tame duck under
the same hen, for in this case "the young wild ducks die off, leaving their
more hardy brethren in undisturbed possession of their foster-mother's
care. The difference of habit at the onset in the newly-hatched ducklings
almost entails such a result to a certainty." The wild ducklings were from
the first quite tame towards those who took care of them as long as they
wore the same clothes, and likewise to the dogs and cats of the house. They
would even snap with their beaks at the dogs, and drive them away from any
spot which they coveted. But they were much alarmed at strange men and
dogs. Differently from what {279} occurred in Sweden, Mr. Hewitt found that
his young birds always changed and deteriorated in character in the course
of two or three generations; notwithstanding that great care was taken to
prevent any crossing with tame ducks. After the third generation his birds
lost the elegant carriage of the wild species, and began to acquire the
gait of the common duck. They increased in size in each generation, and
their legs became less fine. The white collar round the neck of the mallard
became broader and less regular, and some of the longer primary
wing-feathers became more or less white. When this occurred, Mr. Hewitt
always destroyed his old stock and procured fresh eggs from wild nests; so
that he never bred the same family for more than five or six generations.
His birds continued to pair together, and never became polygamous like the
common domestic duck. I have given these details, because no other case, as
far as I know, has been so carefully recorded by a competent observer of
the progress of change in wild birds reared for several generations in a
domestic condition.

From these considerations there can hardly be a doubt that the wild duck is
the parent of the common domestic kind; nor need we look to distinct
species for the parentage of the more distinct breeds, namely, Penguin,
Call, Hook-billed, Tufted, and Labrador ducks. I will not repeat the
arguments used in the previous chapters on the improbability of man having
in ancient times domesticated several species since become unknown or
extinct, though ducks are not readily exterminated in the wild state;--on
some of the supposed parent-species having had abnormal characters in
comparison with all the other species of the genus, as with hook-billed and
penguin ducks;--on all the breeds, as far as is known, being fertile
together;[445]--on all the breeds having the same general disposition,
instinct, &c. But one fact bearing on this question may be noticed: in the
great duck family, one species alone, namely, the male of {280} _A.
boschas_, has its four middle tail-feathers curled upwardly; now in every
one of the above-named domestic breeds these curled feathers exist, and on
the supposition that they are descended from distinct species, we must
assume that man formerly hit upon species all of which had this now unique
character. Moreover, sub-varieties of each breed are  almost
exactly like the wild duck, as I have seen with the largest and smallest
breeds, namely Rouens and Call-ducks, and, as Mr. Brent states,[446] is the
case with Hook-billed ducks. This gentleman, as he informs me, crossed a
white Aylesbury drake and a black Labrador duck, and some of the ducklings
as they grew up assumed the plumage of the wild duck.

With respect to Penguins, I have not seen many specimens, and none were
 precisely like the wild duck; but Sir James Brooke sent me three
skins from Lombok and Bali, in the Malayan archipelago; the two females
were paler and more rufous than the wild duck, and the drake differed in
having the whole under and upper surface (excepting the neck, tail-coverts,
tail, and wings) silver-grey, finely pencilled with dark lines, closely
like certain parts of the plumage of the wild mallard. But I found this
drake to be identical in every feather with a variety of the common breed
procured from a farm-yard in Kent, and I have occasionally elsewhere seen
similar specimens. The occurrence of a duck bred under so peculiar a
climate as that of the Malayan archipelago, where the wild species does not
exist, with exactly the same plumage as may occasionally be seen in our
farm-yards, is a fact worth notice. Nevertheless the climate of the Malayan
archipelago apparently does tend to cause the duck to vary much, for
Zollinger,[447] speaking of the Penguin breed, says that in Lombok "there
is an unusual and very wonderful variety of ducks." One Penguin drake which
I kept alive differed from those of which the skins were sent me from
Lombok, in having its breast and back partially  with
chestnut-brown, thus more closely resembling the Mallard.

From these several facts, more especially from the drakes of all the breeds
having curled tail-feathers, and from certain sub-varieties in each breed
occasionally resembling in general {281} plumage the wild duck, we may
conclude with confidence that all the breeds are descended from _A.
boschas_.

    I will now notice some of the peculiarities characteristic of the
    several breeds. The eggs vary in colour; some common ducks laying
    pale-greenish and others quite white eggs. The eggs which are first
    laid during each season by the black Labrador duck, are tinted black,
    as if rubbed with ink. So that with ducks, as with poultry, some degree
    of correlation exists between the colour of the plumage and the
    egg-shell. A good observer assured me that one year his Labrador ducks
    laid almost perfectly white eggs, but that the yolks were this same
    season dirty olive-green, instead of as usual of a golden yellow, so
    that the black tint appeared to have passed inwards. Another curious
    case shows what singular variations sometimes occur and are inherited;
    Mr. Hansell[448] relates that he had a common duck which always laid
    eggs with the yolk of a dark-brown colour like melted glue; and the
    young ducks, hatched from these eggs, laid the same kind of eggs, so
    that the breed had to be destroyed.

    The hook-billed duck has a most remarkable appearance (see fig. of
    skull, woodcut No. 39); and its peculiar beak has been inherited at
    least since the year 1676. This structure is evidently analogous with
    that described in the Bagadotten carrier pigeon. Mr. Brent[449] says
    that, when hook-billed ducks are crossed with common ducks, "many young
    ones are produced with the upper mandible shorter than the lower, which
    not unfrequently causes the death of the bird." A tuft of feathers on
    the head is by no means a rare occurrence; namely, in the true tufted
    breed, the hook-billed, the common farmyard duck, and in a duck having
    no other peculiarity which was sent to me from the Malayan archipelago.
    The tuft is only so far interesting as it affects the skull, which is
    thus rendered slightly more globular, and is perforated by numerous
    apertures. Call-ducks are remarkable from their extraordinary
    loquacity: the drake only hisses like common drakes; nevertheless, when
    paired with the common duck, he transmits to his female offspring a
    strong quacking tendency. This loquacity seems at first a surprising
    character to have been acquired under domestication. But the voice
    varies in the different breeds; Mr. Brent[450] says that hook-billed
    ducks are very loquacious, and that Rouens utter a "dull, loud, and
    monotonous cry, easily distinguishable by an experienced ear." As the
    loquacity of the Call-duck is highly serviceable, these birds being
    used in decoys, this quality may have been increased by selection. For
    instance, Colonel Hawker says, if young wild-ducks cannot be got for a
    decoy, "by way of make-shift, _select_ tame birds which are the most
    clamorous, even if their colour should not be like that of wild
    ones."[451] It has been {282} falsely asserted that Call-ducks hatch
    their eggs in less time than common ducks.[452]

    The Penguin duck is the most remarkable of all the breeds; the thin
    neck and body are carried erect; the wings are small; the tail is
    upturned; and the thigh-bones and metatarsi are considerably lengthened
    in proportion with the same bones in the wild duck. In five specimens
    examined by me there were only eighteen tail-feathers instead of twenty
    as in the wild duck; but I have also found only eighteen and nineteen
    tail-feathers in two Labrador ducks. On the middle toe, in three
    specimens, there were twenty-seven or twenty-eight scutellae, whereas in
    two wild ducks there were thirty-one and thirty-two. The Penguin when
    crossed transmits with much power its peculiar form of body and gait to
    its offspring; this was manifest with some hybrids raised in the
    Zoological Gardens between one of these birds and the Egyptian
    goose[453] (_Anser AEgyptiacus_), and likewise with some mongrels which
    I raised between the Penguin and Labrador duck. I am not much surprised
    that some writers have maintained that this breed must be descended
    from an unknown and distinct species; but from the reasons already
    assigned, it seems to me far more probable that it is the descendant,
    much modified by domestication under an unnatural climate, of _Anas
    boschas_.

    [Illustration: Fig. 39.--Skulls, viewed laterally, reduced to
    two-thirds of the natural size. A. Wild Duck. B. Hook-billed Duck.]

    _Osteological Characters._--The skulls of the several breeds differ
    from each other and from the skull of the wild duck in very little
    except in the proportional length and curvature of the premaxillaries.
    These latter bones in the Call-duck are short, and a line drawn from
    their extremities to the summit of the skull is nearly straight,
    instead of being concave as in the {283} common duck; so that the skull
    resembles that of a small goose. In the hook-billed duck (fig. 39)
    these same bones as well as the lower jaw curve downwards in a most
    remarkable manner, as represented. In the Labrador duck the
    premaxillaries are rather broader than in the wild duck; and in two
    skulls of this breed the vertical ridges on each side of the
    supra-occipital bone are very prominent. In the Penguin the
    premaxillaries are relatively shorter than in the wild duck; and the
    inferior points of the paramastoids more prominent. In a Dutch tufted
    duck, the skull under the enormous tuft was slightly more globular and
    was perforated by two large apertures; in this skull the lachrymal
    bones were produced much further backwards, so as to have a different
    shape and to nearly touch the post. lat. processes of the frontal
    bones, thus almost completing the bony orbit of the eye. As the
    quadrate and pterygoid bones are of such complex shape and stand in
    relation with so many other bones, I carefully compared them in all the
    principal breeds; but excepting in size they presented no difference.

    [Illustration: Fig. 40.--Cervical Vertebrae, of natural size. A. Eighth
    cervical vertebra of Wild Duck, viewed on haemal surface. B. Eighth
    cervical vertebra of Call Duck, viewed as above. C. Twelfth cervical
    vertebra of Wild Duck, viewed laterally. D. Twelfth cervical vertebra
    of Aylesbury Duck, viewed laterally.]

    _Vertebrae and Ribs._--In one skeleton of the Labrador duck there were
    the usual fifteen cervical vertebrae and the usual nine dorsal vertebrae
    bearing ribs; in the other skeleton there were fifteen cervical and ten
    dorsal vertebrae with ribs; nor, as far as could be judged, was this
    owing merely to a rib having been developed on the first lumbar
    vertebra; for in both skeletons the lumbar vertebrae agreed perfectly in
    number, shape, and size with those of the wild duck. In two skeletons
    of the Call-duck there were fifteen cervical and nine dorsal vertebrae;
    in a third skeleton small ribs were attached to the so-called fifteenth
    cervical vertebra, making ten pairs of ribs; but these ten ribs do not
    correspond, or arise from the same vertebrae, with the ten in the
    above-mentioned Labrador duck. In the Call-duck, which had small ribs
    attached to the fifteenth cervical vertebra, the haemal spines of the
    thirteenth and fourteenth (cervical) and of the seventeenth (dorsal)
    vertebrae corresponded with the spines on the fourteenth, fifteenth, and
    eighteenth vertebrae of the wild duck: so that each of these vertebrae
    had acquired a structure proper to one posterior to it in position. In
    the twelfth cervical vertebra of this same Call-duck (fig. 40, B), the
    two branches of the haemal spine stand much closer together than in the
    wild duck (A), and the descending haemal processes are much shortened.
    In the Penguin duck the neck from its thinness and erectness falsely
    appears (as ascertained by measurement) to be much elongated, but the
    cervical and dorsal vertebrae present no difference; the posterior
    dorsal vertebrae, however, are more completely anchylosed to {284} the
    pelvis than in the wild duck. The Aylesbury duck has fifteen cervical
    and ten dorsal vertebrae furnished with ribs, but the same number of
    lumbar, sacral, and caudal vertebrae, as far as could be traced, as in
    the wild duck. The cervical vertebrae in this same duck (fig. 40, D)
    were much broader and thicker relatively to their length than in the
    wild (C); so much so, that I have thought it worth while to give a
    sketch of the eighth cervical vertebra in these two birds. From the
    foregoing statements we see that the fifteenth cervical vertebra
    occasionally becomes modified into a dorsal vertebra, and when this
    occurs all the adjoining vertebrae are modified. We also see that an
    additional dorsal vertebra bearing a rib is occasionally developed, the
    number of the cervical and lumbar vertebrae apparently remaining the
    same as usual.

    I examined the bony enlargement of the trachea in the males of the
    Penguin, Call, Hook-billed, Labrador, and Aylesbury breeds; and in all
    it was identical in shape.

    The _Pelvis_ is remarkably uniform; but in the skeleton of the
    Hook-billed duck the anterior part is much bowed inwards; in the
    Aylesbury and some other breeds the ischiadic foramen is less
    elongated. In the sternum, furcula, coracoids, and scapula, the
    differences are so slight and so variable as not to be worth notice,
    except that in two skeletons of the Penguin duck the terminal portion
    of the scapula was much attenuated.

    In the bones of the leg and wing no modification in shape could be
    observed. But in Penguin and Hook-billed ducks, the terminal phalanges
    of the wing are a little shortened. In the former, the femur and
    metatarsus (but not the tibia) are considerably lengthened, relatively
    to the same bones in the wild duck, and to the wing-bones in both
    birds. This elongation of the leg-bones could be seen whilst the bird
    was alive, and is no doubt connected with its peculiar upright manner
    of walking. In a large Aylesbury duck, on the other hand, the tibia was
    the only bone of the leg which relatively to the other bones was
    slightly lengthened.

    _On the effects of the increased and decreased Use of the Limbs._--In
    all the breeds the bones of the wing (measured separately after having
    been cleaned) relatively to those of the leg have become slightly
    shortened, in comparison with the same bones in the wild duck, as may
    be seen in the following table:--

  +--------------------+-----------------+-------------------+-----------+
  |                    | Length of Femur,| Length of Humerus,|           |
  |   Name of Breed.   | Tibia, and      | Radius, and       |           |
  |                    | Metatarsus      | Metacarpus        | Or as     |
  |                    | together.       | together.         |           |
  +--------------------+-----------------+-------------------+-----------+
  |                    |   Inches.       |    Inches.        |           |
  |Wild mallard        |    7.14         |     9.28          | 100 : 129 |
  |Aylesbury           |    8.64         |    10.43          | 100 : 120 |
  |Tufted (Dutch)      |    8.25         |     9.83          | 100 : 119 |
  |Penguin             |    7.12         |     8.78          | 100 : 123 |
  |Call                |    6.20         |     7.77          | 100 : 125 |
  +--------------------+-----------------+-------------------+-----------+
  |                    | Length of same  | Length of all the |           |
  |                    |     Bones.      |  Bones of Wing.   |           |
  |                    +-----------------+-------------------+           |
  |                    |   Inches.       |  Inches.          |           |
  |Wild duck           |                 |                   |           |
  |(another specimen)  |    6.85         |    10.07          | 100 : 147 |
  |Common domestic duck|    8.15         |    11.26          | 100 : 138 |
  +--------------------+-----------------+-------------------+-----------+

{285}

    In the foregoing table we see that, in comparison with the wild duck,
    the reduction in the length of the bones of the wing, relatively to
    those of the legs, though slight, is universal. The reduction is least
    in the Call-duck, which has the power and the habit of frequently
    flying.

    In weight there is a greater relative difference between the bones of
    the leg and wing, as may be seen in the following table:--

  +--------------------+-----------------+-------------------+-----------+
  |                    | Weight of Femur,| Weight of         |           |
  |   Name of Breed.   | Tibia, and      | Humerus, Radius,  |           |
  |                    | Metatarsus      | and Metacarpus    | Or as     |
  +--------------------+-----------------+-------------------+-----------+
  |                    |   Grains.       |    Grains.        |           |
  |Wild mallard        |      54         |       97          | 100 : 179 |
  |Aylesbury           |     164         |      204          | 100 : 124 |
  |Hooked-bill         |     107         |      160          | 100 : 149 |
  |Tufted (Dutch)      |     111         |      148          | 100 : 133 |
  |Penguin             |      75         |       90.5        | 100 : 120 |
  |Labrador            |     141         |      165          | 100 : 117 |
  |Call                |      57         |       93          | 100 : 163 |
  +--------------------+-----------------+-------------------+-----------+
  |                    |Weight of all the| Weight of all the |           |
  |                    |   Bones of the  |   Bones of the    |           |
  |                    |   Leg and Foot. |      Wing.        |           |
  |                    +-----------------+-------------------+           |
  |                    |   Grains.       |  Grains.          |           |
  |Wild duck           |                 |                   |           |
  |(another specimen)  |      66         |      115          | 100 : 173 |
  |Common domestic duck|     127         |      158          | 100 : 124 |
  +--------------------+-----------------+-------------------+-----------+

    In these domesticated birds, the considerably lessened weight of the
    bones of the wing (_i.e._ on an average, twenty-five per cent. of their
    proper proportional weight), as well as their slightly lessened length,
    relatively to the leg-bones, might follow, not from any actual decrease
    in the wing-bones, but from the increased weight and length of the
    bones of the legs. The first of the two tables on the next page shows
    that the leg-bones relatively to the weight of the entire skeleton have
    really increased in weight; but the second table shows that according
    to the same standard the wing-bones have also really decreased in
    weight; so that the relative disproportion shown in the foregoing
    tables between the wing and leg bones, in comparison with those of the
    wild duck, is partly due to the increase in weight and length of the
    leg-bones, and partly to the decrease in weight and length of the
    wing-bones.

    With respect to the two following tables, I may first state that I
    tested them by taking another skeleton of a wild duck and of a common
    domestic duck, and by comparing the weight of _all_ the bones of the
    leg with _all_ those of the wings, and the result was the same. In the
    first of these tables we see that the leg-bones in each case have
    increased in actual weight. It might have been expected that, with the
    increased or decreased weight of the entire skeleton, the leg-bones
    would have become proportionally heavier or lighter; but their greater
    weight in all the breeds relatively to the other bones can be accounted
    for only by these domestic birds having used their legs in walking and
    standing much more than the wild, for they never fly, and the more
    artificial breeds rarely swim. In the second {286} table we see, with
    the exception of one case, a plain reduction in the weight of the bones
    of the wing, and this no doubt has resulted from their lessened use.
    The one exceptional case, namely, in one of the Call-ducks, is in truth
    no exception, for this bird was constantly in the habit of flying
    about: and I have seen it day after day rise from my grounds, and fly
    for a long time in circles of more than a mile in diameter. In this
    Call-duck there is not only no decrease, but an actual increase in the
    weight of the wing-bones relatively to those of the wild duck; and this
    probably is consequent on the remarkable lightness and thinness of all
    the bones of the skeleton.

  +--------------------+-------------------+-----------------+-----------+
  |                    | Weight of entire  | Weight of       |           |
  |   Name of Breed.   | Skeleton.         | Femur, Tibia,   |           |
  |                    | (N.B. One         | and Metatarsus. | Or as     |
  |                    | Metatarsus and    |                 |           |
  |                    | Foot was          |                 |           |
  |                    | removed from each |                 |           |
  |                    | skeleton, as it   |                 |           |
  |                    | had been          |                 |           |
  |                    | accidentally lost |                 |           |
  |                    | in two cases.)    |                 |           |
  |--------------------+-------------------+-----------------+-----------+
  |                    |   Grains.         |    Grains.      |           |
  |Wild mallard        |     839           |       54        | 1000 : 64 |
  |Aylesbury           |    1925           |      164        | 1000 : 85 |
  |Tufted (Dutch)      |    1404           |      111        | 1000 : 79 |
  |Penguin             |     871           |       75        | 1000 : 86 |
  |Call (from Mr. Fox) |     717           |       57        | 1000 : 79 |
  +--------------------+-------------------+-----------------+-----------+
  |                    |Weight of Skeleton |   Weight of     |           |
  |                    |     as above.     |    Humerus,     |           |
  |                    |                   |   Radius and    |           |
  |                    |                   |    Ulna, and    |           |
  |                    |                   |   Metacarpus.   |           |
  |                    +-------------------+-----------------+           |
  |                    |   Grains.         |    Grains.      |           |
  |Wild mallard        |     839           |       97        |1000 : 115 |
  |Aylesbury           |    1925           |      204        |1000 : 105 |
  |Tufted (Dutch)      |    1404           |      148        |1000 : 105 |
  |Penguin             |     871           |       90        |1000 : 103 |
  |Call (from          |                   |                 |           |
  |  Mr. Baker)        |     914           |      100        |1000 : 109 |
  |Call (from Mr. Fox) |     717           |       92        |1000 : 129 |
  +--------------------+-------------------+-----------------+-----------+

    Lastly, I weighed the furcula, coracoids, and scapula of a wild duck
    and of a common domestic duck, and I found that their weight,
    relatively to that of the whole skeleton, was as one hundred in the
    former to eighty-nine in the latter; this shows that these bones in the
    domestic duck have been reduced eleven per cent. of their due
    proportional weight. The prominence of the crest of the sternum,
    relatively to its length, is also much reduced in all the domestic
    breeds. These changes have evidently been caused by the lessened use of
    the wings.

It is well known that several birds, belonging to different Orders, and
inhabiting oceanic islands, have their wings greatly reduced in size and
are incapable of flight. I suggested in my 'Origin of Species' that, as
these birds are not persecuted by any enemies, the reduction of their wings
has probably been caused by gradual disuse. Hence, during the earlier
stages of the {287} process of reduction, such birds might be expected to
resemble in the state of their organs of flight our domesticated ducks.
This is the case with the water-hen (_Gallinula nesiotis_) of Tristan
d'Acunha, which "can flutter a little, but obviously uses its legs, and not
its wings, as a mode of escape." Now Mr. Sclater[454] finds in this bird
that the wings, sternum, and coracoids, are all reduced in length, and the
crest of the sternum in depth, in comparison with the same bones in the
European water-hen (_G. chloropus_). On the other hand, the thigh-bones and
pelvis are increased in length, the former by four lines, relatively to the
same bones in the common water-hen. Hence in the skeleton of this natural
species nearly the same changes have occurred, only carried a little
further, as with our domestic ducks, and in this latter case I presume no
one will dispute that they have resulted from the lessened use of the wings
and the increased use of the legs.

THE GOOSE.

This bird deserves some notice, as hardly any other anciently domesticated
bird or quadruped has varied so little. That geese were anciently
domesticated we know from certain verses in Homer; and from these birds
having been kept (388 B.C.) in the Capitol at Rome as sacred to Juno, which
sacredness implies great antiquity[455]. That the goose has varied in some
degree, we may infer from naturalists not being unanimous with respect to
its wild parent-form; though the difficulty is chiefly due to the existence
of three or four closely allied wild European species[456]. A large
majority of capable judges are convinced that our geese are descended from
the wild Grey-lag goose (_A. ferus_); the young of which can easily be
tamed,[457] and are domesticated by the Laplanders. This species, when
crossed with the domestic goose, produced in the Zoological Gardens, as I
was assured in {288} 1849, perfectly fertile offspring.[458] Yarrell[459]
has observed that the lower part of the trachea of the domestic goose is
sometimes flattened, and that a ring of white feathers sometimes surrounds
the base of the beak. These characters seem at first good indications of a
cross at some former period with the white-fronted goose (_A. albifrons_);
but the white ring is variable in this latter species, and we must not
overlook the law of analogous variation; that is, of one species assuming
some of the characters of allied species.

As the goose has proved so inflexible in its organization under
long-continued domestication, the amount of variation which can be detected
is worth giving. It has increased in size and in productiveness;[460] and
varies from white to a dusky colour. Several observers[461] have stated
that the gander is more frequently white than the goose, and that when old
it almost invariably becomes white; but this is not the case with the
parent-form, the _A. ferus_. Here, again, the law of analogous variation
may have come into play, as the snow-white male of the Rock-Goose
(_Bernicla antarctica_) standing on the sea-shore by his dusky partner is a
sight well known to all those who have traversed the sounds of Tierra del
Fuego and the Falkland Islands. Some geese have topknots; and the skull
beneath, as before stated, is perforated. A sub-breed has lately been
formed with the feathers reversed at the back of the head and neck.[462]
The beak varies a little in size, and is of a yellower tint than in the
wild species; but its colour and that of the legs are both slightly
variable.[463] This latter fact deserves attention, because the colour of
the legs and beak is highly serviceable in discriminating the several
closely allied wild forms.[464] At our {289} Shows two breeds are
exhibited; viz. the Embden and Toulouse; but they differ in nothing except
colour.[465] Recently a smaller and singular variety has been imported from
Sebastopol,[466] with the scapular feathers (as I hear from Mr. Tegetmeier,
who sent me specimens) greatly elongated, curled, and even spirally
twisted. The margins of these feathers are rendered plumose by the
divergence of the barbs and barbules, so that they resemble in some degree
those on the back of the black Australian swan. These feathers are likewise
remarkable from the central shaft, which is excessively thin and
transparent, being split into fine filaments, which, after running for a
space free, sometimes coalesce again. It is a curious fact that these
filaments are regularly clothed on each side with fine down or barbules,
precisely like those on the proper barbs of the feather. This structure of
the feathers is transmitted to half-bred birds. In _Gallus sonneratii_ the
barbs and barbules blend together, and form thin horny plates of the same
nature with the shaft: in this variety of the goose, the shaft divides into
filaments which acquire barbules, and thus resemble true barbs.

Although the domestic goose certainly differs somewhat from any known wild
species, yet the amount of variation which it has undergone, as compared
with most domesticated animals, is singularly small. This fact can be
partially accounted for by selection not having come largely into play.
Birds of all kinds which present many distinct races are valued as pets or
ornaments; no one makes a pet of the goose; the name, indeed, in more
languages than one, is a term of reproach. The goose is valued for its size
and flavour, for the whiteness of its feathers which adds to their value,
and for its prolificness and tameness. In all these points the goose
differs from the wild parent-form; and these are the points which have been
selected. Even in ancient times the Roman gourmands valued the liver of the
_white_ goose; and Pierre Belon[467] in 1555 speaks of two varieties, one
of which was larger, more fecund, and of a better colour than the other;
and he expressly states that good managers {290} attended to the colour of
their goslings, so that they might know which to preserve and select for
breeding.

THE PEACOCK.

This is another bird which has hardly varied under domestication, except in
sometimes being white or piebald. Mr. Waterhouse carefully compared, as he
informs me, skins of the wild Indian and domestic bird, and they were
identical in every respect, except that the plumage of the latter was
perhaps rather thicker. Whether our birds are descended from those
introduced into Europe in the time of Alexander, or have been subsequently
imported, is doubtful. They do not breed very freely with us, and are
seldom kept in large numbers,--circumstances which would greatly interfere
with the gradual selection and formation of new breeds.

There is one strange fact with respect to the peacock, namely, the
occasional appearance in England of the "japanned" or "black-shouldered"
kind. This form has lately been named on the high authority of Mr. Sclater
as a distinct species, viz. _Pavo nigripennis_, which he believes will
hereafter be found wild in some country, but not in India, where it is
certainly unknown. These japanned birds differ conspicuously from the
common peacock in the colour of their secondary wing-feathers, scapulars,
wing-coverts, and thighs; the females are much paler, and the young, as I
hear from Mr. Bartlett, likewise differ. They can be propagated perfectly
true. Although they do not resemble the hybrids which have been raised
between _P. cristatus_ and _muticus_, nevertheless they are in some
respects intermediate in character between these two species; and this fact
favours, as Mr. Sclater believes, the view that they form a distinct and
natural species.[468]

On the other hand, Sir R. Heron states[469] that this breed suddenly
appeared within his memory in Lord Brownlow's large stock of pied, white,
and common peacocks. The same thing occurred in Sir J. Trevelyan's flock
composed entirely of the {291} common kind, and in Mr. Thornton's stock of
common and pied peacocks. It is remarkable that in these two latter
instances the black-shouldered kind increased, "to the extinction of the
previously existing breed." I have also received through Mr. Sclater a
statement from Mr. Hudson Gurney that he reared many years ago a pair of
black-shouldered peacocks from the common kind; and another ornithologist,
Prof. A. Newton, states that, five or six years ago, a female bird, in all
respects similar to the female of the black-shouldered kind, was produced
from a stock of common peacocks in his possession, which during more than
twenty years had not been crossed with birds of any other strain. Here we
have five distinct cases of japanned birds suddenly appearing in flocks of
the common kind kept in England. Better evidence of the first appearance of
a new variety could hardly be desired. If we reject this evidence, and
believe that the japanned peacock is a distinct species, we must suppose in
all these cases that the common breed had at some former period been
crossed with the supposed _P. nigripennis_, but had lost every trace of the
cross, yet that the birds occasionally produced offspring which suddenly
and completely reacquired through reversion the characters of _P.
nigripennis_. I have heard of no other such case in the animal or vegetable
kingdom. To perceive the full improbability of such an occurrence, we may
suppose that a breed of dogs had been crossed at some former period with a
wolf, but had lost every trace of the wolf-like character, yet that the
breed gave birth in five instances in the same country, within no great
length of time, to a wolf perfect in every character; and we must further
suppose that in two of the cases the newly produced wolves afterwards
spontaneously increased to such an extent as to lead to the extinction of
the parent-breed of dogs. So remarkable a form as the _P. nigripennis_,
when first imported, would have realized a large price; it is therefore
improbable that it should have been silently introduced and its history
subsequently lost. On the whole the evidence seems to me, as it did to Sir
R. Heron, to preponderate strongly in favour of the black-shouldered breed
being a variation, induced either by the climate of England, or by some
unknown cause, such as reversion to a primordial and extinct condition of
the species. On the view that the black-shouldered {292} peacock is a
variety, the case is the most remarkable ever recorded of the abrupt
appearance of a new form, which so closely resembles a true species that it
has deceived one of the most experienced of living ornithologists.

THE TURKEY.

IT seems fairly well established by Mr. Gould,[470] that the turkey, in
accordance with the history of its first introduction, is descended from a
wild Mexican species (_Meleagris Mexicana_) which had been already
domesticated by the natives before the discovery of America, and which
differs specifically, as it is generally thought, from the common wild
species of the United States. Some naturalists, however, think that these
two forms should be ranked only as well-marked geographical races. However
this may be, the case deserves notice because in the United States wild
male turkeys sometimes court the domestic hens, which are descended from
the Mexican form, "and are generally received by them with great
pleasure."[471] Several accounts have likewise been published of young
birds, reared in the United States from the eggs of the wild species,
crossing and commingling with the common breed. In England, also, this same
species has been kept in several parks; from two of which the Rev. W. D.
Fox procured birds, and they crossed freely with the common domestic kind,
and during many years afterwards, as he informs me, the turkeys in his
neighbourhood clearly showed traces of their crossed parentage. We here
have an instance of a domestic race being modified by a cross with a
distinct species or wild race. F. Michaux[472] suspected in 1802 that the
common domestic turkey was not descended from the United States species
alone, but likewise from a southern form, and he went so far as to believe
that English and French {293} turkeys differed from having different
proportions of the blood of the two parent-forms.

English turkeys are smaller than either wild form. They have not varied in
any great degree; but there are some breeds which can be distinguished--as
Norfolks, Suffolks, Whites, and Copper- (or Cambridge), all of
which, if precluded from crossing with other breeds, propagate their kind
truly. Of these kinds, the most distinct is the small, hardy, dull-black
Norfolk turkey, of which the chickens are black, with occasionally white
patches about the head. The other breeds scarcely differ except in colour,
and their chickens are generally mottled all over with brownish-grey.[473]
The tuft of hair on the breast, which is proper to the male alone,
occasionally appears on the breast of the domesticated female.[474] The
inferior tail-coverts vary in number, and according to a German
superstition the hen lays as many eggs as the cock has feathers of this
kind.[475] In Holland there was formerly, according to Temminck, a
beautiful buff-yellow breed, furnished with an ample white topknot. Mr.
Wilmot has described[476] a white turkey-cock with a crest formed of
"feathers about four inches long, with bare quills, and a tuft of soft
white down growing at the end." Many of the young birds whilst young
inherited this kind of crest, but afterwards it either fell off or was
pecked out by the other birds. This is an interesting case, as with care a
new breed might probably have been formed; and a topknot of this nature
would have been to a certain extent analogous to that borne by the males in
several allied genera, such as Euplocomus, Lophophorus, and Pavo.

Wild turkeys, believed in every instance to have been imported from the
United States, have been kept in the parks of Lords Powis, Leicester, Hill,
and Derby. The Rev. W. D. Fox procured birds from the two first-named
parks, and he informs me that they certainly differed a little from each
other in the shape of their bodies and in the barred plumage on their
wings. These birds likewise differed from Lord Hill's stock. Some of the
latter kept at Oulton by Sir P. Egerton, though precluded from {294}
crossing with common turkeys, occasionally produced much paler-
birds, and one that was almost white, but not an albino. These half-wild
turkeys in thus slightly differing from each other present an analogous
case with the wild cattle kept in the several British parks. We must
suppose that the differences have resulted from the prevention of free
intercrossing between birds ranging over a wide area, and from the changed
conditions to which they have been exposed in England. In India the climate
has apparently wrought a still greater change in the turkey, for it is
described by Mr. Blyth[477] as being much degenerated in size, "utterly
incapable of rising on the wing," of a black colour, and "with the long
pendulous appendages over the beak enormously developed."

THE GUINEA FOWL.

The domesticated guinea-fowl is now believed by naturalists to be descended
from the _Numida ptilorhynca_, which inhabits very hot, and, in parts,
extremely arid districts in Eastern Africa; consequently it has been
exposed in this country to extremely different conditions of life.
Nevertheless it has hardly varied at all, except in the plumage being
either paler or darker-. It is a singular fact that this bird
varies more in colour in the West Indies and on the Spanish Main, under a
hot though humid climate, than in Europe.[478] The guinea-fowl has become
thoroughly feral in Jamaica and in St. Domingo,[479] and has diminished in
size; the legs are black, whereas the legs of the aboriginal African bird
are said to be grey. This small change is worth notice on account of the
often-repeated statement that all feral animals invariably revert in every
character to their original type.

{295}

THE CANARY BIRD.

As this bird has been recently domesticated, namely, within the last 350
years, its variability deserves notice. It has been crossed with nine or
ten other species of Fringillidae, and some of the hybrids are almost
completely fertile; but we have no evidence that any distinct breed has
originated from such crosses. Notwithstanding the modern domestication of
the canary, many varieties have been produced; even before the year 1718 a
list of twenty-seven varieties was published in France,[480] and in 1779 a
long schedule of the desired qualities was printed by the London Canary
Society, so that methodical selection has been practised during a
considerable period. The greater number of the varieties differ only in
colour and in the markings of their plumage. Some breeds, however, differ
in shape, such as the hooped or bowed canaries, and the Belgian canaries
with their much elongated bodies. Mr. Brent[481] measured one of the latter
and found it eight inches in length, whilst the wild canary is only five
and a quarter inches long. There are topknotted canaries, and it is a
singular fact, that, if two topknotted birds are matched, the young,
instead of having very fine topknots, are generally bald, or even have a
wound on their heads.[482] It would appear as if the topknot were due to
some morbid condition which is increased to an injurious degree when two
birds in this state are paired. There is a feather-footed breed, and
another with a kind of frill running down the breast. One other character
deserves notice from being confined to one period of life and from being
strictly inherited at the same period: namely, the wing and tail feathers
in prize canaries being black, "but this colour is retained only until the
first moult; once moulted, the peculiarity ceases."[483] Canaries differ
much in disposition and character, and in some small degree in song. They
produce eggs three or four times during the year.

{296}

GOLD-FISH.

Besides mammals and birds, few animals belonging to the other great classes
have been domesticated; but to show that it is an almost universal law that
animals, when removed from their natural conditions of life, vary, and that
races can be formed when selection is applied, it is necessary to say a few
words on gold-fish, bees, and silk-moths.

Gold-fish (_Cyprinus auratus_) were introduced into Europe only two or
three centuries ago; but it is believed that they have been kept in
confinement from an ancient period in China. Mr. Blyth[484] suspects from
the analogous variation of other fishes that golden- fish do not
occur in a state of nature. These fishes frequently live under the most
unnatural conditions, and their variability in colour, size, and in some
important points of structure is very great. M. Sauvigny has described and
given  drawings of no less than eighty-nine varieties.[485] Many of
the varieties, however, such as triple tail-fins, &c., ought to be called
monstrosities; but it is difficult to draw any distinct line between a
variation and a monstrosity. As gold-fish are kept for ornament or
curiosity, and as "the Chinese are just the people to have secluded a
chance variety of any kind, and to have matched and paired from it,"[486]
we may feel nearly confident that selection has been largely practised in
the formation of new breeds. It is however a singular fact that some of the
monstrosities or variations are not inherited; for Sir R. Heron[487] kept
many of these fishes, and placed all the deformed fishes, namely those
destitute of dorsal fins, and those furnished with a double anal fin, or
triple tail, in a pond by themselves; but they did "not produce a greater
proportion of deformed offspring than the perfect fishes."

Passing over an almost infinite diversity of colour, we meet with the most
extraordinary modifications of structure. Thus, out of about two dozen
specimens bought in London, Mr. Yarrell observed some with the dorsal fin
extending along more than {297} half the length of the back; others with
this fin reduced to only five or six rays; and one with no dorsal fin. The
anal fins are sometimes double, and the tail is often triple. This latter
deviation of structure seems generally to occur "at the expense of the
whole or part of some other fin;"[488] but Bory de Saint Vincent[489] saw
at Madrid gold-fish furnished with a dorsal fin and a triple tail. One
variety is characterized by a hump on its back near the head; and the Rev.
L. Jenyns[490] has described a most singular variety, imported from China,
almost globular in form like a Diodon, with "the fleshy part of the tail as
if entirely cut away; the caudal fin being set on a little behind the
dorsal and immediately above the anal." In this fish the anal and caudal
fins were double; the anal fin being attached to the body in a vertical
line: the eyes also were enormously large and protuberant.

HIVE-BEES.

Bees have been domesticated from an ancient period; if indeed their state
can be considered one of domestication, for they search for their own food,
with the exception of a little generally given to them during the winter.
Their habitation is a hive instead of a hole in a tree. Bees, however, have
been transported into almost every quarter of the world, so that climate
ought to have produced whatever direct effect it is capable of producing.
It is frequently asserted that the bees in different parts of Great Britain
differ in size, colour, and temper; and Godron[491] says that they are
generally larger in the south than in other parts of France; it has also
been asserted that the little brown bees of High Burgundy, when transported
to La Bresse, become large and yellow in the second generation. But these
statements require confirmation. As far as size is concerned, it is known
that bees produced in very old combs are smaller, owing to the cells having
become smaller from the {298} successive old cocoons. The best
authorities[492] concur that, with the exception of the Ligurian race or
species, presently to be mentioned, distinct breeds do not exist in Britain
or on the Continent. There is, however, even in the same stock, some
variability in colour. Thus Mr. Woodbury states[493] that he has several
times seen queen bees of the common kind annulated with yellow like
Ligurian queens, and the latter dark- like common bees. He has also
observed variations in the colour of the drones, without any corresponding
difference in the queens or workers of the same hive. The great apiarian
Dzierzon, in answer to my queries on this subject, says[494] that in
Germany bees of some stocks are decidedly dark, whilst others are
remarkable for their yellow colour. Bees also seem to differ in habits in
different districts, for Dzierzon adds, "If many stocks with their
offspring are more inclined to swarm, whilst others are richer in honey, so
that some bee-keepers even distinguish between swarming and honey-gathering
bees, this is a habit which has become second nature, caused by the
customary mode of keeping the bees and the pasturage of the district. For
example; what a difference in this respect one may perceive to exist
between the bees of the Lueneburg heath and those of this country!"...
"Removing an old queen and substituting a young one of the current year is
here an infallible mode of keeping the strongest stock from swarming and
preventing drone-breeding; whilst the same means if adopted in Hanover
would certainly be of no avail." I procured a hive full of dead bees from
Jamaica, where they have long been naturalised, and, on carefully comparing
them under the microscope with my own bees, I could detect not a trace of
difference.

This remarkable uniformity in the hive-bee, wherever kept, may probably be
accounted for by the great difficulty, or rather impossibility, of bringing
selection into play by pairing particular queens and drones, for these
insects unite only during {299} flight. Nor is there any record, with a
single partial exception, of any person having separated and bred from a
hive in which the workers presented some appreciable difference. In order
to form a new breed, seclusion from other bees would, as we now know, be
indispensable; for since the introduction of the Ligurian bee into Germany
and England, it has been found that the drones wander at least two miles
from their own hives, and often cross with the queens of the common
bee.[495] The Ligurian bee, although perfectly fertile when crossed with
the common kind, is ranked by most naturalists as a distinct species,
whilst by others it is ranked as a natural variety: but this form need not
here be noticed, as there is no reason to believe that it is the product of
domestication. The Egyptian and some other bees are likewise ranked by Dr.
Gerstaecker,[496] but not by other highly competent judges, as geographical
races; and he grounds his conclusion in chief part on the fact that in
certain districts, as in the Crimea and Rhodes, the hive-bee varies so much
in colour, that the several geographical races can be closely connected by
intermediate forms.

I have alluded to a single instance of the separation and preservation of a
particular stock of bees. Mr. Lowe[497] procured some bees from a cottager
a few miles from Edinburgh, and perceived that they differed from the
common bee in the hairs on the head and thorax being lighter  and
more profuse in quantity. From the date of the introduction of the Ligurian
bee into Great Britain we may feel sure that these bees had not been
crossed with this form. Mr. Lowe propagated this variety, but unfortunately
did not separate the stock from his other bees, and after three generations
the new character was almost completely lost. Nevertheless, as he adds, "a
great number of the bees still retain traces, though faint, of the original
colony." This case shows us what could probably be effected by careful and
long-continued selection applied exclusively to the workers, for, as we
have seen, queens and drones cannot be selected and paired.

{300}

SILK-MOTHS.

These insects are in several respects interesting to us, more especially
because they have varied largely at early periods of life, and the
variations have been inherited at corresponding periods. As the value of
the silk-moth depends entirely on the cocoon, every change in its structure
and qualities has been carefully attended to, and races differing much in
the cocoon, but hardly at all in the adult state, have been produced. With
the races of most other domestic animals, the young resemble each other
closely, whilst the adults differ much.

It would be useless, even if it were possible, to describe all the many
kinds of silk-worms. Several distinct species exist in India and China
which produce useful silk, and some of these are capable of freely crossing
with the common silk-moth, as has been recently ascertained in France.
Captain Hutton[498] states that throughout the world at least six species
have been domesticated; and he believes that the silk-moths reared in
Europe belong to two or three species. This, however, is not the opinion of
several capable judges who have particularly attended to the cultivation of
this insect in France; and hardly accords with some facts presently to be
given.

The common silk-moth (_Bombyx mori_) was brought to Constantinople in the
sixth century, whence it was carried into Italy, and in 1494 into
France.[499] Everything has been favourable for the variation of this
insect. It is believed to have been domesticated in China as long ago as
2700 B.C. It has been kept under unnatural and diversified conditions of
life, and has been transported into many countries. There is reason to
believe that the nature of the food given to the caterpillar influences to
a certain extent the character of the breed.[500] Disuse has apparently
aided in checking the development of the wings. But the most important
element in the production of the many now existing, much modified races, no
doubt has {301} been the close attention which has long been applied in
many countries to every promising variation. The care taken in Europe in
the selection of the best cocoons and moths for breeding is notorious,[501]
and the production of eggs is followed as a distinct trade in parts of
France. I have made inquiries through Dr. Falconer, and am assured that in
India the natives are equally careful in the process of selection. In China
the production of eggs is confined to certain favourable districts, and the
raisers are precluded by law from producing silk, so that their whole
attention may be necessarily given up to this one object.[502]

    The following details on the differences between the several breeds are
    taken, when not stated to the contrary, from M. Robinet's excellent
    work,[503] which bears every sign of care and large experience. The
    _eggs_ in the different races vary in colour, in shape (being round,
    elliptic, or oval), and in size. The eggs laid in June in the south of
    France, and in July in the central provinces, do not hatch until the
    following spring; and it is in vain, says M. Robinet, to expose them to
    a temperature gradually raised, in order that the caterpillar may be
    quickly developed. Yet occasionally, without any known cause, batches
    of eggs are produced, which immediately begin to undergo the proper
    changes, and are hatched in from twenty to thirty days. From these and
    some other analogous facts it may be concluded that the Trevoltini
    silkworms of Italy, of which the caterpillars are hatched in from
    fifteen to twenty days, do not necessarily form, as has been
    maintained, a distinct species. Although the breeds which live in
    temperate countries produce eggs which cannot be immediately hatched by
    artificial heat, yet when they are removed to and reared in a hot
    country they gradually acquire the character of quick development, as
    in the Trevoltini races.[504]

    _Caterpillars._--These vary greatly in size and colour. The skin is
    generally white, sometimes mottled with black or grey, and occasionally
    quite black. The colour, however, as M. Robinet asserts, is not
    constant, even in perfectly pure breeds; except in the _race tigree_,
    so called from being marked with transverse black stripes. As the
    general colour of the caterpillar is not correlated with that of the
    silk,[505] this character is disregarded {302} by cultivators, and has
    not been fixed by selection. Captain Hutton, in the paper before
    referred to, has argued with much force that the dark tiger-like marks,
    which so frequently appear during the later moults in the caterpillars
    of various breeds, are due to reversion; for the caterpillars of
    several allied wild species of Bombyx are marked and  in this
    manner. He separated some caterpillars with the tiger-like marks, and
    in the succeeding spring (pp. 149, 298) nearly all the caterpillars
    reared from them were dark-brindled, and the tints became still darker
    in the third generation. The moths reared from these caterpillars[506]
    also became darker, and resembled in colouring the wild _B. Huttoni_.
    On this view of the tiger-like marks being due to reversion, the
    persistency with which they are transmitted is intelligible.

    Several years ago Mrs. Whitby took great pains in breeding silkworms on
    a large scale, and she informed me that some of her caterpillars had
    dark eyebrows. This is probably the first step in reversion towards the
    tiger-like marks, and I was curious to know whether so trifling a
    character would be inherited; at my request she separated in 1848
    twenty of these caterpillars, and having kept the moths separate, bred
    from them. Of the many caterpillars thus reared, "every one without
    exception had eyebrows, some darker and more decidedly marked than the
    others, but _all_ had eyebrows more or less plainly visible." Black
    caterpillars occasionally appear amongst those of the common kind, but
    in so variable a manner, that according to M. Robinet the same race
    will one year exclusively produce white caterpillars, and the next year
    many black ones; nevertheless, I have been informed by M. A. Bossi of
    Geneva, that, if these black caterpillars are separately bred from,
    they reproduce the same colour; but the cocoons and moths reared from
    them do not present any difference.

    The caterpillar in Europe ordinarily moults four times before passing
    into the cocoon stage; but there are races "a trois mues," and the
    Trevoltini race likewise moults only thrice. It might have been thought
    that so important a physiological difference would not have arisen
    under domestication; but M. Robinet[507] states that, on the one hand,
    ordinary caterpillars occasionally spin their cocoons after only three
    moults, and, on the other hand, "presque toutes les races a trois mues,
    que nous avons experimentees, ont fait quatre mues a la seconde ou a la
    troisieme annee, ce qui semble prouver qu'il a suffi de les placer dans
    des conditions favorables pour leur rendre une faculte qu'elles avaient
    perdue sous des influences moins favorables."

    _Cocoons._--The caterpillar in changing into the cocoon loses about 50
    per cent. of its weight; but the amount of loss differs in different
    breeds, and this is of importance to the cultivator. The cocoon in the
    different races presents characteristic differences; being large or
    small;--nearly spherical with no constriction, as in the _Race de
    Loriol_, or cylindrical with either a deep or slight constriction in
    the middle;--with the two ends, or with one end alone, more or less
    pointed. The silk varies in fineness and quality, and in being nearly
    white, of two tints, or yellow. Generally the colour of {303} the silk
    is not strictly inherited: but in the chapter on Selection I shall give
    a curious account how, in the course of sixty-five generations, the
    number of yellow cocoons in one breed has been reduced in France from
    one hundred to thirty-five in the thousand. According to Robinet, the
    white race, called Sina, by careful selection during the last
    seventy-five years, "est arrivee a un tel etat de purete, qu'on ne voit
    pas un seul cocon jaune dans des millions de cocons blancs."[508]
    Cocoons are sometimes formed, as is well known, entirely destitute of
    silk, which yet produce moths; unfortunately Mrs. Whitby was prevented
    by an accident from ascertaining whether this character would prove
    hereditary.

    _Adult stage._--I can find no account of any constant difference in the
    moths of the most distinct races. Mrs. Whitby assured me that there was
    none in the several kinds bred by her; and I have received a similar
    statement from the eminent naturalist M. de Quatrefages. Captain Hutton
    also says[509] that the moths of all kinds vary much in colour, but in
    nearly the same inconstant manner. Considering how much the cocoons in
    the several races differ, this fact is of interest, and may probably be
    accounted for on the same principle as the fluctuating variability of
    colour in the caterpillar, namely, that there has been no motive for
    selecting and perpetuating any particular variation.

    The males of the wild Bombycidae "fly swiftly in the day-time and
    evening, but the females are usually very sluggish and inactive."[510]
    In several moths of this family the females have abortive wings, but no
    instance is known of the males being incapable of flight, for in this
    case the species could hardly have been perpetuated. In the silk-moth
    both sexes have imperfect, crumpled wings, and are incapable of flight;
    but still there is a trace of the characteristic difference in the two
    sexes; for though, on comparing a number of males and-females, I could
    detect no difference in the development of their wings, yet I was
    assured by Mrs. Whitby that the males of the moths bred by her used
    their wings more than the females, and could flutter downwards, though
    never upwards. She also states that, when the females first emerge from
    the cocoon, their wings are less expanded than those of the male. The
    degree of imperfection, however, in the wings varies much in different
    races and under different circumstances; M. Quatrefages[511] says that
    he has seen a number of moths with their wings reduced to a third,
    fourth, or tenth part of their normal dimensions, and even to mere
    short straight stumps: "il me semble qu'il y a la un veritable arret de
    developpement partiel." On the other hand, he describes the female
    moths of the Andre Jean breed as having "leurs ailes larges et etalees.
    Un seul presente quelques courbures irregulieres et des plis anomaux."
    As moths and butterflies of all kinds reared from wild caterpillars
    under confinement often have crippled wings, the same cause, whatever
    it may be, has probably acted on {304} silk-moths, but the disuse of
    their wings during so many generations has, it may be suspected,
    likewise come into play.

    The moths of many breeds fail to glue their eggs to the surface on
    which they are laid,[512] but this proceeds, according to Capt.
    Hutton,[513] merely from the glands of the ovipositor being weakened.

    As with other long-domesticated animals, the instincts of the silk-moth
    have suffered. The caterpillars, when placed on a mulberry-tree, often
    commit the strange mistake of devouring the base of the leaf on which
    they are feeding, and consequently fall down; but they are capable,
    according to M. Robinet,[514] of again crawling up the trunk. Even this
    capacity sometimes fails, for M. Martins[515] placed some caterpillars
    on a tree, and those which fell were not able to remount and perished
    of hunger; they were even incapable of passing from leaf to leaf.

    Some of the modifications which the silk-moth has undergone stand in
    correlation with each other. Thus the eggs of the moths which produce
    white cocoons and of those which produce yellow cocoons differ slightly
    in tint. The abdominal feet also of the caterpillars which yield white
    cocoons are always white, whilst those which give yellow cocoons are
    invariably yellow.[516] We have seen that the caterpillars with dark
    tiger-like stripes produce moths which are more darkly shaded than
    other moths. It seems well established[517] that in France the
    caterpillars of the races which produce white silk, and certain black
    caterpillars, have resisted, better than other races, the disease which
    has recently devastated the silk-districts. Lastly, the races differ
    constitutionally, for some do not succeed so well under a temperate
    climate as others; and a damp soil does not equally injure all the
    races.[518]

From these various facts we learn that silk-moths, like the higher animals,
vary greatly under long-continued domestication. We learn also the more
important fact that variations may occur at various periods of life, and be
inherited at corresponding periods. And finally we see that insects are
amenable to the great principle of Selection.

       *       *       *       *       *


{305}

CHAPTER IX.

CULTIVATED PLANTS: CEREAL AND CULINARY PLANTS.

    PRELIMINARY REMARKS ON THE NUMBER AND PARENTAGE OF CULTIVATED
    PLANTS--FIRST STEPS IN CULTIVATION--GEOGRAPHICAL DISTRIBUTION OF
    CULTIVATED PLANTS.

    CEREALIA.--DOUBTS ON THE NUMBER OF SPECIES.--WHEAT: VARIETIES
    OF--INDIVIDUAL VARIABILITY--CHANGED HABITS--SELECTION--ANCIENT HISTORY
    OF THE VARIETIES.--MAIZE: GREAT VARIATION OF--DIRECT ACTION OF CLIMATE
    ON.

    CULINARY PLANTS.--CABBAGES: VARIETIES OF, IN FOLIAGE AND STEMS, BUT NOT
    IN OTHER PARTS--PARENTAGE OF--OTHER SPECIES OF BRASSICA.--PEAS: AMOUNT
    OF DIFFERENCE IN THE SEVERAL KINDS, CHIEFLY IN THE PODS AND SEED--SOME
    VARIETIES CONSTANT, SOME HIGHLY VARIABLE--DO NOT
    INTERCROSS.--BEANS.--POTATOES: NUMEROUS VARIETIES OF--DIFFERING LITTLE,
    EXCEPT IN THE TUBERS--CHARACTERS INHERITED.

I shall not enter into so much detail on the variability of cultivated
plants, as in the case of domesticated animals. The subject is involved in
much difficulty. Botanists have generally neglected cultivated varieties,
as beneath their notice. In several cases the wild prototype is unknown or
doubtfully known; and in other cases it is hardly possible to distinguish
between escaped seedlings and truly wild plants, so that there is no safe
standard of comparison by which to judge of any supposed amount of change.
Not a few botanists believe that several of our anciently cultivated plants
have become so profoundly modified that it is not possible now to recognise
their aboriginal parent-forms. Equally perplexing are the doubts whether
some of them are descended from one species, or from several inextricably
commingled by crossing and variation. Variations often pass into, and
cannot be distinguished from, monstrosities; and monstrosities are of
little significance for our purpose. Many varieties are propagated solely
by grafts, buds, layers, bulbs, &c., and frequently it is not known how far
their peculiarities can be transmitted by seminal generation. Nevertheless
some facts of value can be gleaned; and other facts will hereafter be {306}
incidentally given. One chief object in the two following chapters is to
show how generally almost every character in our cultivated plants has
become variable.

Before entering on details a few general remarks on the origin of
cultivated plants may be introduced. M. Alph. de Candolle[519] in an
admirable discussion on this subject, in which he displays a wonderful
amount of knowledge, gives a list of 157 of the most useful cultivated
plants. Of these he believes that 85 are almost certainly known in their
wild state; but on this head other competent judges[520] entertain great
doubts. Of 40 of them, the origin is admitted by M. De Candolle to be
doubtful, either from a certain amount of dissimilarity which they present
when compared with their nearest allies in a wild state, or from the
probability of the latter not being truly wild plants, but seedlings
escaped from culture. Of the entire 157, 32 alone are ranked by M. De
Candolle as quite unknown in their aboriginal condition. But it should be
observed that he does not include in his list several plants which present
ill-defined characters, namely, the various forms of pumpkins, millet,
sorghum, kidney-bean, dolichos, capsicum, and indigo. Nor does he include
flowers; and several of the more anciently cultivated flowers, such as
certain roses, the common Imperial lily, the tuberose, and even the lilac,
are said[521] not to be known in the wild state.

From the relative numbers above given, and from other arguments of much
weight, M. De Candolle concludes that plants have rarely been so much
modified by culture that they cannot be identified with their wild
prototypes. But on this view, considering that savages probably would not
have chosen rare plants for cultivation, that useful plants are generally
conspicuous, and that they could not have been the inhabitants of deserts
or of remote and recently discovered islands, it appears strange to me that
so many of our cultivated plants should be still unknown or only doubtfully
known in the wild state. If, on the other hand, many of these plants have
been profoundly modified by culture, the difficulty disappears. Their {307}
extermination during the progress of civilisation would likewise remove the
difficulty; but M. De Candolle has shown that this probably has seldom
occurred. As soon as a plant became cultivated in any country, the
half-civilised inhabitants would no longer have need to search the whole
surface of the land for it, and thus lead to its extirpation; and even if
this did occur during a famine, dormant seeds would be left in the ground.
In tropical countries the wild luxuriance of nature, as was long ago
remarked by Humboldt, overpowers the feeble efforts of man. In anciently
civilised temperate countries, where the whole face of the land has been
greatly changed, it can hardly be doubted that some plants have been
exterminated; nevertheless De Candolle has shown that all the plants
historically known to have been first cultivated in Europe still exist here
in the wild state.

MM. Loiseleur-Deslongchamps [522] and De Candolle have remarked that our
cultivated plants, more especially the cereals, must originally have
existed in nearly their present state; for otherwise they would not have
been noticed and valued as objects of food. But these authors apparently
have not considered the many accounts given by travellers of the wretched
food collected by savages. I have read an account of the savages of
Australia cooking, during a dearth, many vegetables in various ways, in the
hopes of rendering them innocuous and more nutritious. Dr. Hooker found the
half-starved inhabitants of a village in Sikhim suffering greatly from
having eaten arum-roots,[523] which they had pounded and left for several
days to ferment, so as partially to destroy their poisonous nature; and he
adds that they cooked and ate many other deleterious plants. Sir Andrew
Smith informs me that in South Africa a large number of fruits and
succulent leaves, and especially roots, are used in times of scarcity. The
natives, indeed, know the properties of a long catalogue of plants, some
having {308} been found during famines to be eatable, others injurious to
health, or even destructive to life. He met a party of Baquanas who, having
been expelled by the conquering Zulus, had lived for years on any roots or
leaves which afforded some little nutriment, and distended their stomachs,
so as to relieve the pangs of hunger. They looked like walking skeletons,
and suffered fearfully from constipation. Sir Andrew Smith also informs me
that on such occasions the natives observe as a guide for themselves, what
the wild animals, especially baboons and monkeys, eat.

From innumerable experiments made through dire necessity by the savages of
every land, with the results handed down by tradition, the nutritious,
stimulating, and medicinal properties of the most unpromising plants were
probably first discovered. It appears, for instance, at first an
inexplicable fact that untutored man, in three distant quarters of the
world, should have discovered amongst a host of native plants that the
leaves of the tea-plant and mattee, and the berries of the coffee, all
included a stimulating and nutritious essence, now known to be chemically
the same. We can also see that savages suffering from severe constipation
would naturally observe whether any of the roots which they devoured acted
as aperients. We probably owe our knowledge of the uses of almost all
plants to man having originally existed in a barbarous state, and having
been often compelled by severe want to try as food almost everything which
he could chew and swallow.

From what we know of the habits of savages in many quarters of the world,
there is no reason to suppose that our cereal plants originally existed in
their present state so valuable to man. Let us look to one continent alone,
namely, Africa: Barth[524] states that the slaves over a large part of the
central region regularly collect the seeds of a wild grass, the _Pennisetum
distichum_; in another district he saw women collecting the seeds of a Poa
by swinging a sort of basket through the rich meadow-land. Near Tete
Livingstone observed the natives collecting the seeds {309} of a wild
grass; and farther south, as Andersson informs me, the natives largely use
the seeds of a grass of about the size of canary-seed, which they boil in
water. They eat also the roots of certain reeds, and every one has read of
the Bushmen prowling about and digging up with a fire-hardened stake
various roots. Similar facts with respect to the collection of seeds of
wild grasses in other parts of the world could be given.[525]

Accustomed as we are to our excellent vegetables and luscious fruits, we
can hardly persuade ourselves that the stringy roots of the wild carrot and
parsnip, or the little shoots of the wild asparagus, or crabs, sloes, &c.,
should ever have been valued; yet, from what we know of the habits of
Australian and South African savages, we need feel no doubt on this head.
The inhabitants of Switzerland during the Stone-period largely collected
wild crabs, sloes, bullaces, hips of roses, elderberries, beech-mast, and
other wild berries and fruit.[526] Jemmy Button, a Fuegian on board the
_Beagle_, remarked to me that the poor and acid black-currants of Tierra
del Fuego were too sweet for his taste.

The savage inhabitants of each land, having found out by many and hard
trials what plants were useful, or could be rendered useful by various
cooking processes, would after a time take the first step in cultivation by
planting them near their usual abodes. Livingstone[527] states that the
savage Batokas sometimes left wild fruit-trees standing in their gardens,
and occasionally even planted them, "a practice seen nowhere else amongst
the natives." But Du Chaillu saw a palm and some other wild fruit-trees
which had been planted; and these trees were considered private property.
The next step in cultivation, and this would require but little
forethought, would be to sow {310} the seeds of useful plants; and as the
soil near the hovels of the natives[528] would often be in some degree
manured, improved varieties would sooner or later arise. Or a wild and
unusually good variety of a native plant might attract the attention of
some wise old savage; and he would transplant it, or sow its seed. That
superior varieties of wild fruit-trees occasionally are found is certain,
as in the case of the American species of hawthorns, plums, cherries,
grapes, and hickories, specified by Professor Asa Gray.[529] Downing also
refers to certain wild varieties of the hickory, as being "of much larger
size and finer flavour than the common species." I have referred to
American fruit-trees, because we are not in this case troubled with doubts
whether or not the varieties are seedlings which have escaped from
cultivation. Transplanting any superior variety, or sowing its seeds,
hardly implies more forethought than might be expected at an early and rude
period of civilisation. Even the Australian barbarians "have a law that no
plant bearing seeds is to be dug up after it has flowered;" and Sir G.
Grey[530] never saw this law, evidently framed for the preservation of the
plant, violated. We see the same spirit in the superstitious belief of the
Fuegians, that killing water-fowl whilst very young will be followed by
"much rain, snow, blow much."[531] I may add, as showing forethought in the
lowest barbarians, that the Fuegians when they find a stranded whale bury
large portions in the sand, and during the often-recurrent famines travel
from great distances for the remnants of the half-putrid mass.

It has often been remarked[532] that we do not owe a single useful plant to
Australia or the Cape of Good Hope,--countries abounding to an unparalleled
degree with endemic species,--or to New Zealand, or to America south of the
Plata; and, according to some authors, not to America northward of Mexico.
I do not believe that any edible or valuable plant, except the {311}
canary-grass, has been derived from an oceanic or uninhabited island. If
nearly all our useful plants, natives of Europe, Asia, and South America,
had originally existed in their present condition, the complete absence of
similarly useful plants in the great countries just named would indeed be a
surprising fact. But if these plants have been so greatly modified and
improved by culture as no longer closely to resemble any natural species,
we can understand why the above-named countries have given us no useful
plants, for they were either inhabited by men who did not cultivate the
ground at all, as in Australia and the Cape of Good Hope, or who cultivated
it very imperfectly, as in some parts of America. These countries do yield
plants which are useful to savage man; and Dr. Hooker[533] enumerates no
less than 107 such species in Australia alone; but these plants have not
been improved, and consequently cannot compete with those which have been
cultivated and improved during thousands of years in the civilised world.

The case of New Zealand, to which fine island we as yet owe no widely
cultivated plant, may seem opposed to this view; for, when first
discovered, the natives cultivated several plants; but all inquirers
believe, in accordance with the traditions of the natives, that the early
Polynesian colonists brought with them seeds and roots, as well as the dog,
which had all been wisely preserved during their long voyage. The
Polynesians are so frequently lost on the ocean, that this degree of
prudence would occur to any wandering party: hence the early colonists of
New Zealand, like the later European colonists, would not have had any
strong inducement to cultivate the aboriginal plants. According to De
Candolle we owe thirty-three useful plants to Mexico, Peru, and Chile; nor
is this surprising when we remember the civilized state of the inhabitants,
as shown by the fact of their having practised artificial irrigation and
made tunnels through hard rocks without the use of iron or gunpowder, and
who, as we shall see in a future chapter, fully recognised, as far as
animals were concerned, and therefore probably in the case of plants, the
important principle of selection. We owe some plants to Brazil; and the
early voyagers, namely Vespucius and Cabral, describe the country as
thickly peopled {312} and cultivated. In North America[534] the natives
cultivated maize, pumpkins, gourds, beans, and peas, "all different from
ours," and tobacco; and we are hardly justified in assuming that none of
our present plants are descended from these North American forms. Had North
America been civilized for as long a period, and as thickly peopled, as
Asia or Europe, it is probable that the native vines, walnuts, mulberries,
crabs, and plums, would have given rise, after a long course of
cultivation, to a multitude of varieties, some extremely different from
their parent-stocks; and escaped seedlings would have caused in the New, as
in the Old World, much perplexity with respect to their specific
distinctness and parentage.[535]

    _Cerealia._--I will now enter on details. The cereals cultivated in
    Europe consist of four genera--wheat, rye, barley, and oats. Of wheat
    the best modern authorities[536] make four or five, or even seven
    distinct species; of rye, one; of barley, three; and of oats, two,
    three, or four species. So that altogether our cereals are ranked by
    different authors under from ten to fifteen distinct species. These
    have given rise to a multitude of varieties. It is a remarkable fact
    that botanists are not universally agreed on the aboriginal parent-form
    of any one cereal plant. For instance, a high authority writes in
    1855,[537] "We ourselves have no hesitation in stating our conviction,
    as the result of all the most reliable evidence, that none of these
    Cerealia exist, or have existed, truly wild in their present state, but
    that all are cultivated varieties of species now growing in great
    abundance in S. Europe or W. Asia." On the other hand, Alph. De
    Candolle[538] has adduced abundant evidence that common wheat
    (_Triticum vulgare_) has been found wild in various parts of Asia,
    where it is not likely to have escaped from cultivation; and there is
    {313} force in M. Godron's remark, that, supposing these plants to be
    escaped seedlings,[539] if they have propagated themselves in a wild
    state for several generations, their continued resemblance to
    cultivated wheat renders it probable that the latter has retained its
    aboriginal character. M. De Candolle insists strongly on the frequent
    occurrence in the Austrian dominions of rye and of one kind of oats in
    an apparently wild condition. With the exception of these two cases,
    which however are rather doubtful, and with the exception of two forms
    of wheat and one of barley, which he believes to have been found truly
    wild, M. De Candolle does not seem fully satisfied with the other
    reported discoveries of the parent-forms of our other cereals. With
    respect to oats, according to Mr. Buckman,[540] the wild English _Avena
    fatua_ can be converted by a few years of careful cultivation and
    selection into forms almost identical with two very distinct cultivated
    races. The whole subject of the origin and specific distinctness of the
    various cereal plants is a most difficult one; but we shall perhaps be
    able to judge a little better after considering the amount of variation
    which wheat has undergone.

    Metzger describes seven species of wheat, Godron refers to five, and De
    Candolle to only four. It is not improbable that, besides the kinds
    known in Europe, other strongly characterised forms exist in the more
    distant parts of the world; for Loiseleur-Deslongchamps[541] speaks of
    three new species or varieties, sent to Europe in 1822 from Chinese
    Mongolia, which he considers as being there indigenous. Moorcroft[542]
    also speaks of Hasora wheat in Ladakh as very peculiar. If those
    botanists are right who believe that at least seven species of wheat
    originally existed, then the amount of variation in any important
    character which wheat has undergone under cultivation has been slight;
    but if only four or a lesser number of species originally existed, then
    it is evident that varieties so strongly marked have arisen, that they
    have been considered by capable judges as specifically distinct. But
    the impossibility of deciding which forms ought to be ranked as species
    and which as varieties, makes it useless to specify in detail the
    differences between the various kinds of wheat. Speaking generally, the
    organs of vegetation differ little;[543] but some kinds grow close and
    upright, whilst others spread and trail along the ground. The straw
    differs in being more or less hollow, and in quality. The ears[544]
    {314} differ in colour and in shape, being quadrangular, compressed, or
    nearly cylindrical; and the florets differ in their approximation to
    each other, in their pubescence, and in being more or less elongated.
    The presence or absence of barbs is a conspicuous difference, and in
    certain Gramineae serves even as a generic character;[545] although, as
    remarked by Godron,[546] the presence of barbs is variable in certain
    wild grasses, and especially in those, such as _Bromus secalinus_ and
    _Lolium temulentum_, which habitually grow mingled with our cereal
    crops, and which have thus unintentionally been exposed to culture. The
    grains differ in size, weight, and colour; in being more or less downy
    at one end, in being smooth or wrinkled, in being either nearly
    globular, oval, or elongated; and finally in internal texture, being
    tender or hard, or even almost horny, and in the proportion of gluten
    which they contain.

    Nearly all the races or species of wheat vary, as Godron[547] has
    remarked, in an exactly parallel manner,--in the seed being downy or
    glabrous, and in colour,--and in the florets being barbed or not
    barbed, &c. Those who believe that all the kinds are descended from a
    single wild species may account for this parallel variation by the
    inheritance of a similar constitution, and a consequent tendency to
    vary in the same manner; and those who believe in the general theory of
    descent with modification may extend this view to the several species
    of wheat, if such ever existed in a state of nature.

    Although few of the varieties of wheat present any conspicuous
    difference, their number is great. Dalbret cultivated during thirty
    years from 150 to 160 kinds, and excepting in the quality of the grain
    they all kept true: Colonel Le Couteur possessed upwards of 150, and
    Philippar 322 varieties.[548] As wheat is an annual, we thus see how
    strictly many trifling differences in character are inherited through
    many generations. Colonel Le Couteur insists strongly on this same
    fact: in his persevering and successful attempts to raise new varieties
    by selection, he began by choosing the best ears, but soon found that
    the grains in the same ear differed so that he was compelled to select
    them separately; and each grain generally transmitted its own
    character. The great amount of variability in the plants of the same
    variety is another interesting point, which would never have been
    detected except by an eye long practised to the work; thus Colonel Le
    Couteur relates[549] that in a field of his own wheat, which he
    considered at least as pure as that of any of his neighbours, Professor
    La Gasca found twenty-three sorts; and Professor Henslow has observed
    similar facts. Besides such individual variations, forms sufficiently
    well marked to be valued and to become widely cultivated {315}
    sometimes suddenly appear: thus Mr. Sheriff has had the good fortune to
    raise in his lifetime seven new varieties, which are now extensively
    grown in many parts of Britain.[550]

    As in the case of many other plants, some varieties, both old and new,
    are far more constant in character than others. Colonel Le Couteur was
    forced to reject some of his new sub-varieties, which he suspected had
    been produced from a cross, as incorrigibly sportive. With respect to
    the tendency to vary, Metzger[551] gives from his own experience some
    interesting facts: he describes three Spanish sub-varieties, more
    especially one known to be constant in Spain, which in Germany assumed
    their proper character only during hot summers; another variety kept
    true only in good land, but after having been cultivated for
    twenty-five years became more constant. He mentions two other
    sub-varieties which were at first inconstant, but subsequently became,
    apparently without any selection, accustomed to their new homes, and
    retained their proper character. These facts show what small changes in
    the conditions of life cause variability, and they further show that a
    variety may become habituated to new conditions. One is at first
    inclined to conclude with Loiseleur-Deslongchamps, that wheat
    cultivated in the same country is exposed to remarkably uniform
    conditions; but manures differ, seed is taken from one soil to another,
    and what is far more important the plants are exposed as little as
    possible to struggle with other plants, and are thus enabled to exist
    under diversified conditions. In a state of nature each plant is
    confined to that particular station and kind of nutriment which it can
    seize from the other plants by which it is surrounded.

    Wheat quickly assumes new habits of life. The summer and winter kinds
    were classed by Linnaeus as distinct species; but M. Monnier[552] has
    proved that the difference between them is only temporary. He sowed
    winter-wheat in spring, and out of one hundred plants four alone
    produced ripe seeds; these were sown and resown, and in three years
    plants were reared which ripened all their seed. Conversely, nearly all
    the plants raised from summer-wheat, which was sown in autumn, perished
    from frost; but a few were saved and produced seed, and in three years
    this summer-variety was converted into a winter-variety. Hence it is
    not surprising that wheat soon becomes to a certain extent
    acclimatised, and that seed brought from distant countries and sown in
    Europe vegetates at first, or even for a considerable period,[553]
    differently from our European varieties. In Canada the first settlers,
    according to Kalm,[554] found their winters too severe for winter-wheat
    brought from France, and their summers often too short for
    summer-wheat; and until they procured summer-wheat from the northern
    parts of Europe, which succeeded well, they thought that their {316}
    country was useless for corn crops. It is notorious that the proportion
    of gluten differs much under different climates. The weight of the
    grain is also quickly affected by climate: Loiseleur-Deslongchamps[555]
    sowed near Paris 54 varieties, obtained from the South of France and
    from the Black Sea, and 52 of these yielded seed from 10 to 40 per
    cent. heavier than the parent-seed. He then sent these heavier grains
    back to the South of France, but there they immediately yielded lighter
    seed.

    All those who have closely attended to the subject insist on the close
    adaptation of numerous varieties of wheat to various soils and climates
    even within the same country; thus Colonel Le Couteur[556] says, "It is
    the suitableness of each sort to each soil that will enable the farmer
    to pay his rent by sowing one variety, where he would be unable to do
    so by attempting to grow another of a seemingly better sort." This may
    be in part due to each kind becoming habituated to its conditions of
    life, as Metzger has shown certainly occurs, but it is probably in main
    part due to innate differences between the several varieties.

    Much has been written on the deterioration of wheat; that the quality
    of the flour, size of grain, time of flowering, and hardiness may be
    modified by climate and soil, seems nearly certain; but that the whole
    body of any one sub-variety ever becomes changed into another and
    distinct sub-variety, there is no reason to believe. What apparently
    does take place, according to Le Couteur,[557] is, that some one
    sub-variety out of the many which may always be detected in the same
    field is more prolific than the others, and gradually supplants the
    variety which was first sown.

    With respect to the natural crossing of distinct varieties the evidence
    is conflicting, but preponderates against its frequent occurrence. Many
    authors maintain that impregnation takes place in the closed flower,
    but I am sure from my own observations that this is not the case, at
    least with those varieties to which I have attended. But as I shall
    have to discuss this subject in another work, it may be here passed
    over.

In conclusion, all authors admit that numerous varieties of wheat have
arisen; but their differences are unimportant, unless, indeed, some of the
so-called species are ranked as varieties. Those who believe that from four
to seven wild species of Triticum originally existed in nearly the same
condition as at present, rest their belief chiefly on the great antiquity
of the several forms.[558] It is an important fact, which we have recently
learnt from the admirable researches {317} of Heer,[559] that the
inhabitants of Switzerland, even so early as the Neolithic period,
cultivated no less than ten cereal plants, namely, five kinds of wheat, of
which at least four are commonly looked at as distinct species, three kinds
of barley, a panicum, and a setaria. If it could be shown that at the
earliest dawn of agriculture five kinds of wheat and three of barley had
been cultivated, we should of course be compelled to look at these forms as
distinct species. But, as Heer has remarked, agriculture even at the period
of the lake-habitations had already made considerable progress; for,
besides the ten cereals, peas, poppies, flax, and apparently apples, were
cultivated. It may also be inferred, from one variety of wheat being the
so-called Egyptian, and from what is known of the native country of the
panicum and setaria, as well as from the nature of the weeds which then
grew mingled with the crops, that the lake-inhabitants either still kept up
commercial intercourse with some southern people or had originally
proceeded as colonists from the South.

Loiseleur-Deslongchamps[560] has argued that, if our cereal plants had been
greatly modified by cultivation, the weeds which habitually grow mingled
with them would have been equally modified. But this argument shows how
completely the principle of selection has been overlooked. That such weeds
have not varied, or at least do not vary now in any extreme degree, is the
opinion of Mr. H. C. Watson and Professor Asa Gray, as they inform me; but
who will pretend to say that they do not vary as much as the individual
plants of the same sub-variety of wheat? We have already seen that pure
varieties of wheat, cultivated in the same field, offer many slight
variations, which can be selected and separately propagated; and that
occasionally more strongly pronounced variations appear, which, as Mr.
Sheriff has proved, are well worthy of extensive cultivation. Not until
equal attention be paid to the variability and selection of weeds, can the
argument from their constancy under unintentional culture be of any value.
In accordance with the principles of selection we can understand how it is
that in the several cultivated varieties of wheat the organs of vegetation
differ so little; for if a plant {318} with peculiar leaves appeared, it
would be neglected unless the grains of corn were at the same time superior
in quality or size. The selection of seed-corn was strongly
recommended[561] in ancient times by Columella and Celsus; and as Virgil
says,--

 "I've seen the largest seeds, tho' view'd with care,
  Degenerate, unless th' industrious hand
  Did yearly cull the largest."

But whether in ancient times selection was methodically pursued we may well
doubt, when we hear how laborious the work was found by Le Couteur.
Although the principle of selection is so important, yet the little which
man has effected, by incessant efforts[562] during thousands of years, in
rendering the plants more productive or the grains more nutritious than
they were in the time of the old Egyptians, would seem to speak strongly
against its efficacy. But we must not forget that at each successive period
the state of agriculture and the quantity of manure supplied to the land
will have determined the maximum degree of productiveness; for it would be
impossible to cultivate a highly productive variety, unless the land
contained a sufficient supply of the necessary chemical elements.

We now know that man was sufficiently civilized to cultivate the ground at
an immensely remote period; so that wheat might have been improved long ago
up to that standard of excellence which was possible under the then
existing state of agriculture. One small class of facts supports this view
of the slow and gradual improvement of our cereals. In the most ancient
lake-habitations of Switzerland, when men employed only flint-tools, the
most extensively cultivated wheat was a peculiar kind, with remarkably
small ears and grains.[563] "Whilst the grains of the modern forms are in
section from seven to eight millimetres in length, the larger grains from
the lake-habitations are six, seldom seven, and the smaller ones only four.
The ear is thus much narrower, and the spikelets stand out more
horizontally, than in our present forms." So again with barley, the most
ancient and most extensively cultivated kind had small ears, and the grains
{319} were "smaller, shorter, and nearer to each other, than in that now
grown; without the husk they were 21/2 lines long, and scarcely 11/2 broad,
whilst those now grown have a length of three lines, and almost the same in
breadth."[564] These small-grained varieties of wheat and barley are
believed by Heer to be the parent-forms of certain existing allied
varieties, which have supplanted their early progenitors.

Heer gives an interesting account of the first appearance and final
disappearance of the several plants which were cultivated in greater or
less abundance in Switzerland during former successive periods, and which
generally differed more or less from our existing varieties. The peculiar
small-eared and small-grained wheat, already alluded to, was the commonest
kind during the Stone period; it lasted down to the Helvetico-Roman age,
and then became extinct. A second kind was rare at first, but afterwards
became more frequent. A third, the Egyptian wheat (_T. turgidum_), does not
agree exactly with any existing variety, and was rare during the Stone
period. A fourth kind (_T. dicoccum_) differs from all known varieties of
this form. A fifth kind (_T. monococcum_) is known to have existed during
the Stone period only by the presence of a single ear. A sixth kind, the
common _T. spelta_, was not introduced into Switzerland until the Bronze
age. Of barley, besides the short-eared and small-grained kind, two others
were cultivated, one of which was very scarce, and resembled our present
common _H. distichum_. During the Bronze age rye and oats were introduced;
the oat-grains being somewhat smaller than those produced by our existing
varieties. The poppy was largely cultivated during the Stone period,
probably for its oil; but the variety which then existed is not now known.
A peculiar pea with small seeds lasted from the Stone to the Bronze age,
and then became extinct; whilst a peculiar bean, likewise having small
seeds, came in at the Bronze period and lasted to the time of the Romans.
These details sound like the description given by a palaeontologist of the
mutations in form, of the first appearance, the increasing rarity, and
final extinction of fossil species, embedded in the successive stages of a
geological formation.

{320}

Finally, every one must judge for himself whether it is more probable that
the several forms of wheat, barley, rye, and oats are descended from
between ten and fifteen species, most of which are now either unknown or
extinct, or whether they are descended from between four and eight species,
which may have either closely resembled our present cultivated forms, or
have been so widely different as to escape identification. In this latter
case, we must conclude that man cultivated the cereals at an enormously
remote period, and that he formerly practised some degree of selection,
which in itself is not improbable. We may, perhaps, further believe that,
when wheat was first cultivated, the ears and grains increased quickly in
size, in the same manner as the roots of the wild carrot and parsnip are
known to increase quickly in bulk under cultivation.

    _Maize: Zea Mays._--Botanists are nearly unanimous that all the
    cultivated kinds belong to the same species. It is undoubtedly[565] of
    American origin, and was grown by the aborigines throughout the
    continent from New England to Chili. Its cultivation must have been
    extremely ancient, for Tschudi[566] describes two kinds, now extinct or
    not known in Peru, which were taken from tombs apparently prior to the
    dynasty of the Incas. But there is even stronger evidence of antiquity,
    for I found on the coast of Peru[567] heads of maize, together with
    eighteen species of recent sea-shell, embedded in a beach which had
    been upraised at least 85 feet above the level of the sea. In
    accordance with this ancient cultivation, numerous American varieties
    have arisen. The aboriginal form has not as yet been discovered in the
    wild state. A peculiar kind,[568] in which the grains, instead of being
    naked, are concealed by husks as much as eleven lines in length, has
    been stated on insufficient evidence to grow wild in Brazil. It is
    almost certain that the aboriginal form would have had its grains thus
    protected;[569] but the seeds of the Brazilian variety produce, as I
    hear from Professor Asa Gray, and as is stated in two published
    accounts, either common or husked maize; and it is not {321} credible
    that a wild species, when first cultivated, should vary so quickly and
    in so great a degree.

    Maize has varied in an extraordinary and conspicuous manner.
    Metzger,[570] who paid particular attention to the cultivation of this
    plant, makes twelve races (unter-art) with numerous sub-varieties; of
    the latter some are tolerably constant, others quite inconstant. The
    different races vary in height from 15-18 feet to only 16-18 inches, as
    in a dwarf variety described by Bonafous. The whole ear is variable in
    shape, being long and narrow, or short and thick, or branched. The ear
    in one variety is more than four times as long as in a dwarf kind. The
    seeds are arranged in the ear in from six to even twenty rows, or are
    placed irregularly. The seeds are --white, pale-yellow, orange,
    red, violet, or elegantly streaked with black;[571] and in the same ear
    there are sometimes seeds of two colours. In a small collection I found
    that a single grain of one variety nearly equalled in weight seven
    grains of another variety. The shape of the seed varies greatly, being
    very flat, or nearly globular, or oval; broader than long, or longer
    than broad; without any point, or produced into a sharp tooth, and this
    tooth is sometimes recurved. One variety (the rugosa of Bonafous) has
    its seeds curiously wrinkled, giving to the whole ear a singular
    appearance. Another variety (the cymosa of Bon.) carries its ears so
    crowded together that it is called _mais a bouquet_. The seeds of some
    varieties contain much glucose instead of starch. Male flowers
    sometimes appear amongst the female flowers, and Mr. J. Scott has
    lately observed the rarer case of female flowers on a true male
    panicle, and likewise hermaphrodite flowers.[572] Azara describes[573]
    a variety in Paraguay the grains of which are very tender, and he
    states that several varieties are fitted for being cooked in various
    ways. The varieties also differ greatly in precocity, and have
    different powers of resisting dryness and the action of violent
    wind.[574] Some of the foregoing differences would certainly be
    considered of specific value with plants in a state of nature.

    Le Comte Re states that the grains of all the varieties which he
    cultivated ultimately assumed a yellow colour. But Bonafous[575] found
    that most of those which he sowed for ten consecutive years kept true
    to their proper tints; and he adds that in the valleys of the Pyrenees
    and on the plains of Piedmont a white maize has been cultivated for
    more than a century, and has undergone no change.

    The tall kinds grown in southern latitudes, and therefore exposed to
    great heat, require from six to seven months to ripen their seed;
    whereas the dwarf kinds, grown in northern and colder climates, require
    only from {322} three to four months.[576] Peter Kalm,[577] who
    particularly attended to this plant, says, that in the United States,
    in proceeding from south to north, the plants steadily diminish in
    bulk. Seeds brought from lat. 37 deg. in Virginia, and sown in lat. 43 deg.-44 deg.
    in New England, produce plants which will not ripen their seed, or
    ripen them with the utmost difficulty. So it is with seed carried from
    New England to lat. 45 deg.-47 deg. in Canada. By taking great care at first,
    the southern kinds after some years' culture ripen their seed perfectly
    in their northern homes, so that this is an analogous case with that of
    the conversion of summer into winter wheat, and conversely. When tall
    and dwarf maize are planted together, the dwarf kinds are in full
    flower before the others have produced a single flower; and in
    Pennsylvania they ripen their seed six weeks earlier than the tall
    maize. Metzger also mentions a European maize which ripens its seed
    four weeks earlier than another European kind. With these facts, so
    plainly showing inherited acclimatisation, we may readily believe Kalm,
    who states that in North America maize and some other plants have
    gradually been cultivated further and further northward. All writers
    agree that to keep the varieties of maize pure they must be planted
    separately so that they shall not cross.

    The effects of the climate of Europe on the American varieties is
    highly remarkable. Metzger obtained seed from various parts of America,
    and cultivated several kinds in Germany. I will give an abstract of the
    changes observed[578] in one case, namely, with a tall kind
    (Breit-korniger mays, Zea altissima) brought from the warmer parts of
    America. During the first year the plants were twelve feet high, and
    few seeds were perfected; the lower seeds in the ear kept true to their
    proper form, but the upper seeds became slightly changed. In the second
    generation the plants were from nine to ten feet in height, and ripened
    their seed better; the depression on the outer side of the seed had
    almost disappeared, and the original beautiful white colour had become
    duskier. Some of the seeds had even become yellow, and in their now
    rounded form they approached common European maize. In the third
    generation nearly all resemblance to the original and very distinct
    American parent-form was lost. In the sixth generation this maize
    perfectly resembled a European variety, described as the second
    sub-variety of the fifth race. When Metzger published his book, this
    variety was still cultivated near Heidelberg, and could be
    distinguished from the common kind only by a somewhat more vigorous
    growth. Analogous results were obtained by the cultivation of another
    American race, the "white-tooth corn," in which the tooth nearly
    disappeared even in the second generation. A third race, the
    "chicken-corn," did not undergo so great a change, but the seeds became
    less polished and pellucid.

These facts afford the most remarkable instance known to me of the direct
and prompt action of climate on a plant. It might {323} have been expected
that the tallness of the stem, the period of vegetation, and the ripening
of the seed, would have been thus affected; but it is a much more
surprising fact that the seeds should have undergone so rapid and great a
change. As, however, flowers, with their product the seed, are formed by
the metamorphosis of the stem and leaves, any modification in these latter
organs would be apt to extend, through correlation, to the organs of
fructification.

    _Cabbage_ (_Brassica oleracea_).--Every one knows how greatly the
    various kinds of cabbage differ in appearance. In the island of Jersey,
    from the effects of particular culture and of climate, a stalk has
    grown to the height of sixteen feet, and "had its spring shoots at the
    top occupied by a magpie's nest:" the woody stems are not unfrequently
    from ten to twelve feet in height, and are there used as rafters[579]
    and as walking-sticks. We are thus reminded that in certain countries
    plants belonging to the generally herbaceous order of the Cruciferae are
    developed into trees. Every one can appreciate the difference between
    green or red cabbages with great single heads; Brussel-sprouts with
    numerous little heads; broccolis and cauliflowers with the greater
    number of their flowers in an aborted condition, incapable of producing
    seed, and borne in a dense corymb instead of an open panicle; savoys
    with their blistered and wrinkled leaves; and borecoles and kales,
    which come nearest to the wild parent-form. There are also various
    frizzled and laciniated kinds, some of such beautiful colours that
    Vilmorin in his Catalogue of 1851 enumerates ten varieties, valued
    solely for ornament, which are propagated by seed. Some kinds are less
    commonly known, such as the Portuguese Couve Tronchuda, with the ribs
    of its leaves greatly thickened; and the Kohlrabi or choux-raves, with
    their stems enlarged into great turnip-like masses above the ground;
    and the recently formed new race[580] of choux-raves, already including
    nine sub-varieties, in which the enlarged part lies beneath the ground
    like a turnip.

    Although we see such great differences in the shape, size, colour,
    arrangement, and manner of growth of the leaves and stem, and of the
    flower-stems in the broccoli and cauliflower, it is remarkable that the
    flowers themselves, the seed-pods, and seeds, present extremely slight
    differences or none at all.[581] I compared the flowers of all the
    principal kinds; those of the Couve Tronchuda are white and rather
    smaller than in common cabbages; those of the Portsmouth broccoli have
    narrower sepals, and smaller, less elongated petals; and in no other
    cabbage could any difference be detected. With respect to the
    seed-pods, in the purple Kohlrabi alone, {324} do they differ, being a
    little longer and narrower than usual. I made a collection of the seeds
    of twenty-eight different kinds, and most of them were
    undistinguishable; when there was any difference it was excessively
    slight; thus, the seeds of various broccolis and cauliflowers, when
    seen in mass, are a little redder; those of the early green Ulm savoy
    are rather smaller; and those of the Breda kail slightly larger than
    usual, but not larger than the seeds of the wild cabbage from the coast
    of Wales. What a contrast in the amount of difference is presented if,
    on the one hand, we compare the leaves and stems of the various kinds
    of cabbage with their flowers, pods, and seeds, and on the other hand
    the corresponding parts in the varieties of maize and wheat! The
    explanation is obvious; the seeds alone are valued in our cereals, and
    their variations have been selected; whereas the seeds, seed-pods, and
    flowers have been utterly neglected in the cabbage, whilst many useful
    variations in their leaves and stems have been noticed and preserved
    from an extremely remote period, for cabbages were cultivated by the
    old Celts.[582]

    It would be useless to give a classified description[583] of the
    numerous races, sub-races, and varieties of the cabbage; but it may be
    mentioned that Dr. Lindley has lately proposed[584] a system founded on
    the state of development of the terminal and lateral leaf-buds, and of
    the flower-buds. Thus, I. All the leaf-buds active and open, as in the
    wild-cabbage, kail, &c. II. All the leaf-buds active, but forming
    heads, as in Brussel-sprouts, &c. III. Terminal leaf-bud alone active,
    forming a head as in common cabbages, savoys, &c. IV. Terminal leaf-bud
    alone active and open, with most of the flowers abortive and succulent,
    as in the cauliflower and broccoli. V. All the leaf-buds active and
    open, with most of the flowers abortive and succulent, as in the
    sprouting-broccoli. This latter variety is a new one, and bears the
    same relation to common broccoli, as Brussel-sprouts do to common
    cabbages; it suddenly appeared in a bed of common broccoli, and was
    found faithfully to transmit its newly-acquired and remarkable
    characters.

    The principal kinds of cabbage existed at least as early as the
    sixteenth century,[585] so that numerous modifications of structure
    have been inherited for a long period. This fact is the more remarkable
    as great care must be taken to prevent the crossing of the different
    kinds. To give one proof of this: I raised 233 seedlings from cabbages
    of different kinds, which had purposely been planted near each other,
    and of the seedlings no less than 155 were plainly deteriorated and
    mongrelized; nor were the remaining 78 all perfectly true. It may be
    doubted whether many permanent varieties have been formed by
    intentional or accidental crosses; for such crossed plants are found to
    be very inconstant. One kind, however, called "Cottager's Kale," has
    lately been produced by crossing common kale and Brussel-sprouts,
    recrossed with purple broccoli,[586] and is said to be true, but plants
    {325} raised by me were not nearly so constant in character as any
    common cabbage.

    Although most of the kinds keep true if carefully preserved from
    crossing, yet the seed-beds must be yearly examined, and a few
    seedlings are generally found false; but even in this case the force of
    inheritance is shown, for, as Metzger has remarked[587] when speaking
    of Brussel-sprouts, the variations generally keep to their "unter art,"
    or main race. But in order that any kind may be truly propagated there
    must be no great change in the conditions of life; thus cabbages will
    not form heads in hot countries, and the same thing has been observed
    with an English variety grown during an extremely warm and damp autumn
    near Paris.[588] Extremely poor soil also affects the characters of
    certain varieties.

    Most authors believe that all the races are descended from the wild
    cabbage found on the western shores of Europe; but Alph. De
    Candolle[589] forcibly argues on historical and other grounds that it
    is more probable that two or three closely allied forms, generally
    ranked as distinct species, still living in the Mediterranean region,
    are the parents, now all commingled together, of the various cultivated
    kinds. In the same manner as we have often seen with domesticated
    animals, the supposed multiple origin of the cabbage throws no light on
    the characteristic differences between the cultivated forms. If our
    cabbages are the descendants of three or four distinct species, every
    trace of any sterility which may originally have existed between them
    is now lost, for none of the varieties can be kept distinct without
    scrupulous care to prevent intercrossing.

    The other cultivated forms of the genus Brassica are descended,
    according to the view adopted by Godron and Metzger,[590] from two
    species, _B. napus_ and _rapa_; but according to other botanists from
    three species; whilst others again strongly suspect that all these
    forms, both wild and cultivated, ought to be ranked as a single
    species. _Brassica napus_ has given rise to two large groups, namely,
    Swedish turnips (by some believed to be of hybrid origin)[591] and
    Colzas, the seeds of which yield oil. _Brassica rapa_ (of Koch) has
    also given rise to two races, namely, common turnips and the oil-giving
    rape. The evidence is unusually clear that these latter plants, though
    so different in external appearance, belong to the same species; for
    the turnip has been observed by Koch and Godron to lose its thick roots
    in uncultivated soil, and when rape and turnips are sown together they
    cross to such a degree that scarcely a single plant comes true.[592]
    Metzger by culture converted the biennial or winter rape into the
    annual or summer rape,--varieties which have been thought by some
    authors to be specifically distinct.[593]

    In the production of large, fleshy, turnip-like stems, we have a case
    {326} of analogous variation in three forms which are generally
    considered as distinct species. But scarcely any modification seems so
    easily acquired as a succulent enlargement of the stem or root--that is
    a store of nutriment laid up for the plant's own future use. We see
    this in our radishes, beet, and in the less generally known
    "turnip-rooted" celery, and in the finocchio or Italian variety of the
    common fennel. Mr. Buckman has lately proved by his interesting
    experiments how quickly the roots of the wild parsnip can be enlarged,
    as Vilmorin formerly proved in the case of the carrot.[594] This latter
    plant, in its cultivated state, differs in scarcely any character from
    the wild English species, except in general luxuriance and in the size
    and quality of its roots; but in the root ten varieties, differing in
    colour, shape, and quality, are cultivated[595] in England, and come
    true by seed. Hence, with the carrot, as in so many other cases, for
    instance with the numerous varieties and sub-varieties of the radish,
    that part of the plant which is valued by man, falsely appears alone to
    have varied. The truth is that variations in this part alone have been
    selected; and the seedlings inheriting a tendency to vary in the same
    way, analogous modifications have been again and again selected, until
    at last a great amount of change has been effected.

    _Pea_ (_Pisum sativum_).--Most botanists look at the garden-pea as
    specifically distinct from the field-pea (_P. arvense_). The latter
    exists in a wild state in Southern Europe; but the aboriginal parent of
    the garden-pea has been found by one collector alone, as he states, in
    the Crimea.[596] Andrew Knight crossed, as I am informed by the Rev. A.
    Fitch, the field-pea with a well-known garden variety, the Prussian
    pea, and the cross seems to have been perfectly fertile. Dr. Alefeld
    has recently studied[597] the genus with care, and, after having
    cultivated about fifty varieties, concludes that they all certainly
    belong to the same species. It is an interesting fact already alluded
    to, that, according to O. Heer,[598] the peas found in the
    lake-habitations of Switzerland of the Stone and Bronze ages, belong to
    an extinct variety, with exceedingly small seeds, allied to _P.
    arvense_, or field-pea. The varieties of the common garden-pea are
    numerous, and differ considerably from each other. For comparison I
    planted at the same time forty-one English and French varieties, and in
    this one case I will describe minutely their differences. The varieties
    {327} differ greatly in height,--namely from between 6 and 12 inches to
    8 feet,[599]--in manner of growth, and in period of maturity. Some
    varieties differ in general aspect even while only two or three inches
    in height. The stems of the _Prussian_ pea are much branched. The tall
    kinds have larger leaves than the dwarf kinds, but not in strict
    proportion to their height:--_Hairs' Dwarf Monmouth_ has very large
    leaves, and the _Pois nain hatif_, and the moderately tall _Blue
    Prussian_, have leaves about two-thirds of the size of the tallest
    kind. In the _Danecroft_ the leaflets are rather small and a little
    pointed; in the _Queen of Dwarfs_ rather rounded; and in the _Queen of
    England_ broad and large. In these three peas the slight differences in
    the shape of the leaves are accompanied by slight differences in
    colour. In the _Pois geant sans parchemin_, which bears purple flowers,
    the leaflets in the young plant are edged with red; and in all the peas
    with purple flowers the stipules are marked with red.

    In the different varieties, one or two, or several flowers in a small
    cluster, are borne on the same peduncle; and this is a difference which
    with some of the Leguminosae is considered of specific value. In all the
    varieties the flowers closely resemble each other except in colour and
    size. They are generally white, sometimes purple, but the colour is
    inconstant even in the same variety. In _Warner's Emperor_, which is a
    tall kind, the flowers are nearly double the size of those of the _Pois
    nain hatif_, but _Hairs' Dwarf Monmouth_, which has large leaves,
    likewise has large flowers. The calyx in the _Victoria Marrow_ is
    large, and in _Bishop's Long Pod_ the sepals are rather narrow. In no
    other kind is there any difference in the flower.

    The pods and seeds, which with natural species afford such constant
    characters, differ greatly in the cultivated varieties of the pea; and
    these are the valuable, and consequently the selected parts. _Sugar
    peas_, or _Pois sans parchemin_, are remarkable from their thin pods,
    which, whilst young, are cooked and eaten whole; and in this group,
    which, according to Mr. Gordon includes eleven sub-varieties, it is the
    pod which differs most: thus _Lewis's <DW64>-podded pea_ has a straight,
    broad, smooth, and dark-purple pod, with the husk not so thin as in the
    other kinds; the pod of another variety is extremely bowed; that of the
    _Pois geant_ is much pointed at the extremity; and in the variety "_a
    grands cosses_" the peas are seen through the husk in so conspicuous a
    manner that the pod, especially when dry, can hardly at first be
    recognised as that of a pea.

    In the ordinary varieties the pods also differ much in size;--in
    colour, that of _Woodford's Green Marrow_ being bright-green when dry,
    instead of pale brown, and that of the purple-podded pea being
    expressed by its name;--in smoothness, that of _Danecroft_ being
    remarkably glossy, whereas that of the _Ne plus ultra_ is rugged;--in
    being either nearly cylindrical, or broad and flat;--in being pointed
    at the end as in _Thurston's Reliance_, or much truncated as in the
    _American Dwarf_. In the _Auvergne pea_ the whole end of {328} the pod
    is bowed upwards. In the _Queen of the Dwarfs_ and in _Scimitar peas_
    the pod is almost elliptic in shape. I here give drawings of the four
    most distinct pods produced by the plants cultivated by me.

    [Illustration: Fig. 41.--Pods and Peas. I. Queen of Dwarfs. II.
    American Dwarf. III. Thurston's Reliance. IV. Pois Geant sans
    parchemin. _a._ Dan O'Rourke Pea. _b._ Queen of Dwarfs Pea. _c._
    Knight's Tall White Marrow. d. Lewis's <DW64> Pea.]

    In the pea itself we have every tint between almost pure white, brown,
    yellow, and intense green; in the varieties of the _sugar peas_ we have
    these same tints, together with red passing through fine purple into a
    dark chocolate tint. These colours are either uniform or distributed in
    dots, striae, or moss-like marks; they depend in some cases on the
    colour of the cotyledons seen through the skin, and in other cases on
    the outer coats of the pea itself. In the different varieties the pods
    contain, according to Mr. Gordon, from eleven or twelve to only four or
    five peas. The largest peas are nearly twice as much in diameter as the
    smallest; and the latter are not always borne by the most dwarfed
    kinds. Peas differ much in {329} shape, being smooth and spherical,
    smooth and oblong, nearly oval in the _Queen of Dwarfs_, and nearly
    cubical and crumpled in many of the larger kinds.

    With respect to the value of the differences between the chief
    varieties, it cannot be doubted that, if one of the tall _Sugar-peas_,
    with purple flowers, thin-skinned pods of an extraordinary shape,
    including large, dark-purple peas, grew wild by the side of the lowly
    _Queen of the Dwarfs_, with white flowers, greyish-green, rounded
    leaves, scimitar-like pods, containing oblong, smooth, pale-
    peas, which became mature at a different season; or by the side of one
    of the gigantic sorts, like the _Champion of England_, with leaves of
    great size, pointed pods, and large, green, crumpled, almost cubical
    peas,--all three kinds would be ranked as indisputably distinct
    species.

    Andrew Knight[600] has observed that the varieties of peas keep very
    true, because they are not crossed by insects. As far as the fact of
    keeping true is concerned, I hear from Mr. Masters of Canterbury, well
    known as the originator of several new kinds, that certain varieties
    have remained constant for a considerable time,--for instance,
    _Knight's Blue Dwarf_, which came out about the year 1820.[601] But the
    greater number of varieties have a singularly short existence: thus
    Loudon remarks[602] that "sorts which were highly approved in 1821, are
    now, in 1833, nowhere to be found;" and on comparing the lists of 1833
    with those of 1855, I find that nearly all the varieties have changed.
    Mr. Masters informs me that the nature of the soil causes some
    varieties to lose their character. As with other plants, certain
    varieties can be propagated truly, whilst others show a determined
    tendency to vary; thus two peas differing in shape, one round and the
    other wrinkled, were found by Mr. Masters within the same pod, but the
    plants raised from the wrinkled kind always evinced a strong tendency
    to produce round peas. Mr. Masters also raised from a plant of another
    variety four distinct sub-varieties, which bore blue and round, white
    and round, blue and wrinkled, and white and wrinkled peas; and although
    he sowed these four varieties separately during several successive
    years, each kind always reproduced all four kinds mixed together!

    With respect to the varieties not naturally intercrossing, I have
    ascertained that the pea, which in this respect differs from some other
    Leguminosae, is perfectly fertile without the aid of insects. Yet I have
    seen humble-bees whilst sucking the nectar depress the keel-petals, and
    become so thickly dusted with pollen, that some could hardly fail to be
    left on the stigma of the next flower which was visited. I have made
    inquiries from several great raisers of seed-peas, and I find that but
    few sow them separately; the majority take no precaution; and it is
    certain, as I have myself found, that true seed may be saved during at
    least several generations from distinct varieties growing close
    together.[603] Under these circumstances, Mr. Fitch raised, as he
    informs me, one variety for twenty {330} years, which always came true.
    From the analogy of kidney-beans I should have expected[604] that
    occasionally, perhaps at long intervals of time, when some slight
    degree of sterility had supervened from long-continued
    self-fertilisation, varieties thus growing near each other would have
    crossed; and I shall give in the eleventh chapter two cases of distinct
    varieties which spontaneously intercrossed, as shown (in a manner
    hereafter to be explained) by the pollen of the one variety having
    acted directly on the seeds of the other. Whether the incessant supply
    of new varieties is partly due to such occasional and accidental
    crosses, and their fleeting existence to changes of fashion; or again,
    whether the varieties which arise after a long course of continued
    self-fertilisation are weakly and soon perish, I cannot even
    conjecture. It may, however, be noticed that several of Andrew Knight's
    varieties, which have endured longer than most kinds, were raised
    towards the close of the last century by artificial crosses; some of
    them, I believe, were still, in 1860, vigorous; but now, in 1865, a
    writer, speaking[605] of Knight's four kinds of marrows, says, they
    have acquired a famous history, but their glory has departed.

    With respect to Beans (_Faba vulgaris_), I will say but little. Dr.
    Alefeld has given[606] short diagnostic characters of forty varieties.
    Every one who has seen a collection must have been struck with the
    great difference in shape, thickness, proportional length and breadth,
    colour, and size which beans present. What a contrast between a Windsor
    and Horse-bean! As in the case of the pea, our existing varieties were
    preceded during the Bronze age in Switzerland by a peculiar and now
    extinct variety producing very small beans.[607]

    _Potato (Solanum tuberosum)._--There is little doubt about the
    parentage of this plant; for the cultivated varieties differ extremely
    little in general appearance from the wild species, which can be
    recognised in its native land at the first glance.[608] The varieties
    cultivated in Britain are numerous; thus Lawson[609] gives a
    description of 175 kinds. I planted eighteen kinds in adjoining rows;
    their stems and leaves differed but little, and in several cases there
    was as great an amount of difference between the individuals of the
    same variety as between the different varieties. The flowers vary in
    size, and in colour between white and purple, but in no other respect,
    except that in one kind the sepals were somewhat elongated. One strange
    variety has been described which always produces two sorts of flowers,
    the first double and sterile, the second single and fertile.[610] The
    fruit or berries also differ, but only in a slight degree.[611]

    {331}

    The tubers, on the other hand, present a wonderful amount of diversity.
    This fact accords with the principle that the valuable and selected
    parts of all cultivated productions present the greatest amount of
    modification. They differ much in size and shape, being globular, oval,
    flattened, kidney-like, or cylindrical. One variety from Peru is
    described[612] as being quite straight, and at least six inches in
    length, though no thicker than a man's finger. The eyes or buds differ
    in form, position, and colour. The manner in which the tubers are
    arranged on the so-called roots is different; thus in the
    _gurken-kartoffeln_ they form a pyramid with the apex downwards, and in
    another variety they bury themselves deep in the ground. The roots
    themselves run either near the surface or deep in the ground. The
    tubers also differ in smoothness and colour, being externally white,
    red, purple, or almost black, and internally white, yellow, or almost
    black. They differ in flavour and quality, being either waxy or mealy;
    in their period of maturity, and in their capacity for long
    preservation.

    As with many other plants which have been long propagated by bulbs,
    tubers, cuttings, &c., by which means the same individual is exposed
    during a length of time to diversified conditions, seedling potatoes
    generally display innumerable slight differences. Several varieties,
    even when propagated by tubers, are far from constant, as will be seen
    in the chapter on Bud-variation. Dr. Anderson[613] procured seed from
    an Irish purple potato, which grew far from any other kind, so that it
    could not at least in this generation have been crossed, yet the many
    seedlings varied in almost every possible respect, so that "scarcely
    two plants were exactly alike." Some of the plants which closely
    resembled each other above ground, produced extremely dissimilar
    tubers; and some tubers which externally could hardly be distinguished,
    differed widely in quality when cooked. Even in this case of extreme
    variability, the parent-stock had some influence on the progeny, for
    the greater number of the seedlings resembled in some degree the parent
    Irish potato. Kidney potatoes must be ranked amongst the most highly
    cultivated and artificial races; yet their peculiarities can often be
    strictly propagated by seed. A great authority, Mr. Rivers,[614] states
    that "seedlings from the ash-leaved kidney always bear a strong
    resemblance to their parent. Seedlings from the fluke-kidney are still
    more remarkable for their adherence to their parent-stock, for, on
    closely observing a great number during two seasons, I have not been
    able to observe the least difference either in earliness,
    productiveness, or in the size or shape of their tubers."

       *       *       *       *       *


{332}

CHAPTER X.

PLANTS _continued_--FRUITS--ORNAMENTAL TREES--FLOWERS.

    FRUITS.--GRAPES--VARY IN ODD AND TRIFLING PARTICULARS.--MULBERRY.--THE
    ORANGE GROUP--SINGULAR RESULTS FROM CROSSING.--PEACH AND
    NECTARINE--BUD-VARIATION--ANALOGOUS VARIATION--RELATION TO THE
    ALMOND.--APRICOT.--PLUMS--VARIATION IN THEIR
    STONES.--CHERRIES--SINGULAR VARIETIES
    OF.--APPLE.--PEAR.--STRAWBERRY--INTERBLENDING OF THE ORIGINAL
    FORMS.--GOOSEBERRY--STEADY INCREASE IN SIZE OF THE FRUIT--VARIETIES
    OF.--WALNUT.--NUT.--CUCURBITACEOUS PLANTS--WONDERFUL VARIATION OF.

    ORNAMENTAL TREES--THEIR VARIATION IN DEGREE AND
    KIND--ASH-TREE--SCOTCH-FIR--HAWTHORN.

    FLOWERS--MULTIPLE ORIGIN OF MANY KINDS--VARIATION IN CONSTITUTIONAL
    PECULIARITIES--KIND OF VARIATION.--ROSES--SEVERAL SPECIES
    CULTIVATED.--<DW29>.--DAHLIA.--HYACINTH, HISTORY AND VARIATION OF.

    _The Vine_ (_Vitis vinifera_).--The best authorities consider all our
    grapes as the descendants of one species which now grows wild in
    western Asia, which grew during the Bronze-age wild in Italy,[615] and
    which has recently been found fossil in a tufaceous deposit in the
    south of France.[616] Some authors, however, entertain much doubt about
    the single parentage of our cultivated varieties, owing to the number
    of semi-wild forms found in Southern Europe, especially as described by
    Clemente,[617] in a forest in Spain; but as the grape sows itself
    freely in Southern Europe, and as several of the chief kinds transmit
    their characters by seed,[618] whilst others are extremely variable,
    the existence of many different escaped forms could hardly fail to
    occur in countries where this plant has been cultivated from the
    remotest antiquity. That the vine varies much when propagated by seed,
    we may infer from the largely increased number of varieties since the
    earlier historical records. New hot-house varieties are produced almost
    every year; for instance,[619] a golden- variety has been
    recently raised in England from a black grape without the aid of a
    cross. {333} Van Mons[620] reared a multitude of varieties from the
    seed of one vine, which was completely separated from all others, so
    that there could not, at least in this generation, have been any
    crossing, and the seedlings presented "les analogues de toutes les
    sortes," and differed in almost every possible character both in the
    fruit and foliage.

    The cultivated varieties are extremely numerous; Count Odart says that
    he will not deny that there may exist throughout the world 700 or 800,
    perhaps even 1000 varieties, but not a third of these have any value.
    In the Catalogue of fruit cultivated in the Horticultural Gardens of
    London, published in 1842, 99 varieties are enumerated. Wherever the
    grape is grown many varieties occur: Pallas describes 24 in the Crimea,
    and Burnes mentions 10 in Cabool. The classification of the varieties
    has much perplexed writers, and Count Odart is reduced to a
    geographical system; but I will not enter on this subject, nor on the
    many and great differences between the varieties. I will merely specify
    a few curious and trifling peculiarities, all taken from Odart's highly
    esteemed work,[621] for the sake of showing the diversified variability
    of this plant. Simon has classed grapes into two main divisions, those
    with downy leaves and those with smooth leaves, but he admits that in
    one variety, namely the Rebazo, the leaves are either smooth or downy;
    and Odart (p. 70) states that some varieties have the nerves alone, and
    other varieties their young leaves, downy, whilst the old ones are
    smooth. The Pedro-Ximenes grape (Odart, p. 397) presents a peculiarity
    by which it can be at once recognised amongst a host of other
    varieties, namely, that when the fruit is nearly ripe the nerves of the
    leaves or even the whole surface becomes yellow. The Barbera d'Asti is
    well marked by several characters (p. 426), amongst others, "by some of
    the leaves, and it is always the lowest on the branches, suddenly
    becoming of a dark red colour." Several authors in classifying grapes
    have founded their main divisions on the berries being either round or
    oblong; and Odart admits the value of this character; yet there is one
    variety, the Maccabeo (p. 71), which often produces small round, and
    large oblong, berries in the same bunch. Certain grapes called Nebbiolo
    (p. 429) present a constant character, sufficient for their
    recognition, namely, "the slight adherence of that part of the pulp
    which surrounds the seeds to the rest of the berry, when cut through
    transversely." A Rhenish variety is mentioned (p. 228) which likes a
    dry soil; the fruit ripens well, but at the moment of maturity, if much
    rain falls, the berries are apt to rot; on the other hand, the fruit of
    a Swiss variety (p. 243) is valued for well sustaining prolonged
    humidity. This latter variety sprouts late in the spring, yet matures
    its fruit early; other varieties (p. 362) have the fault of being too
    much excited by the April sun, and in consequence suffer from frost. A
    Styrian variety (p. 254) has brittle foot-stalks, so that the clusters
    of fruit are often blown off; this variety is said to be particularly
    attractive to wasps and bees. Other varieties have tough stalks, which
    resist the wind. Many other variable characters could be given, but the
    foregoing facts are sufficient to show in how many small structural and
    {334} constitutional details the vine varies. During the vine disease
    in France certain whole groups of varieties[622] have suffered far more
    from mildew than others. Thus "the group of the Chasselas, so rich in
    varieties, did not afford a single fortunate exception;" certain other
    groups suffered much less; the true old Burgundy, for instance, was
    comparatively free from disease, and the Carminat likewise resisted the
    attack. The American vines, which belong to a distinct species,
    entirely escaped the disease in France; and we thus see that those
    European varieties which best resist the disease must have acquired in
    a slight degree the same constitutional peculiarities as the American
    species.

    _White Mulberry_ (_Morus alba_).--I mention this plant because it has
    varied in certain characters, namely, in the texture and quality of the
    leaves, fitting them to serve as food for the domesticated silkworm, in
    a manner not observed with other plants; but this has arisen simply
    from such variations in the mulberry having been attended to, selected,
    and rendered more or less constant. M. de Quatrefages[623] briefly
    describes six kinds cultivated in one valley in France: of these the
    _amourouso_ produces excellent leaves, but is rapidly being abandoned
    because it produces much fruit mingled with the leaves: the _antofino_
    yields deeply cut leaves of the finest quality, but not in great
    quantity: the _claro_ is much sought for because the leaves can be
    easily collected: lastly, the _roso_ bears strong hardy leaves,
    produced in large quantity, but with the one inconvenience, that they
    are best adapted for the worms after their fourth moult. MM.
    Jacquemet-Bonnefont, of Lyon, however, remark in their catalogue (1862)
    that two sub-varieties have been confounded under the name of the
    _roso,_ one having leaves too thick for the caterpillars, the other
    being valuable because the leaves can easily be gathered from the
    branches without the bark being torn.

    In India the mulberry has also given rise to many varieties. The Indian
    form is thought by many botanists to be a distinct species; but as
    Royle remarks,[624] "so many varieties have been produced by
    cultivation that it is difficult to ascertain whether they all belong
    to one species;" they are, as he adds, nearly as numerous as those of
    the silkworm.

    _The Orange Group._--We here meet with great confusion in the specific
    distinction and parentage of the several kinds. Gallesio,[625] who
    almost devoted his life-time to the subject, considers that there are
    four species, namely, sweet and bitter oranges, lemons, and citrons,
    each of which has given rise to whole groups of varieties, monsters,
    and supposed hybrids. One high authority[626] believes that these four
    reputed species are all {335} varieties of the wild _Citrus medica_,
    but that the shaddock (_Citrus decumana_), which is not known in a wild
    state, is a distinct species; though its distinctness is doubted by
    another writer "of great authority on such matters," namely, Dr.
    Buchanan Hamilton. Alph. De Candolle,[627] on the other hand--and there
    cannot be a more capable judge--advances what he considers sufficient
    evidence of the orange (he doubts whether the bitter and sweet kinds
    are specifically distinct), the lemon, and citron, having been found
    wild, and consequently that they are distinct. He mentions two other
    forms cultivated in Japan and Java, which he ranks as undoubted
    species; he speaks rather more doubtfully about the shaddock, which
    varies much, and has not been found wild; and finally he considers some
    forms, such as Adam's apple and the bergamotte, as probably hybrids.

    I have briefly abstracted these opinions for the sake of showing those
    who have never attended to such subjects, how perplexed with doubt they
    are. It would, therefore, be useless for my purpose to give a sketch of
    the conspicuous differences between the several forms. Besides the
    ever-recurrent difficulty of determining whether forms found wild are
    truly aboriginal or are escaped seedlings, many of the forms, which
    must be ranked as varieties, transmit their characters almost perfectly
    by seed. Sweet and bitter oranges differ in no important respect except
    in the flavour of their fruit, but Gallesio[628] is most emphatic that
    both kinds can be propagated by seed with absolute certainty.
    Consequently, in accordance with his simple rule, he classes them as
    distinct species; as he does sweet and bitter almonds, the peach and
    nectarine, &c. He admits, however, that the soft-shelled pine-tree
    produces not only soft-shelled but some hard-shelled seedlings, so that
    a little greater force in the power of inheritance would, according to
    this rule, raise the soft-shelled pine-tree into the dignity of an
    aboriginally created species. The positive assertion made by
    Macfayden[629] that the pips of sweet oranges produce in Jamaica,
    according to the nature of the soil in which they are sown, either
    sweet or bitter oranges, is probably an error; for M. Alph. De Candolle
    informs me that since the publication of his great work he has received
    accounts from Guiana, the Antilles, and Mauritius, that in these
    countries sweet oranges faithfully transmit their character. Gallesio
    found that the willow-leafed and the Little China oranges reproduced
    their proper leaves and fruit; but the seedlings were not quite equal
    in merit to their parents. The red-fleshed orange, on the other hand,
    fails to reproduce itself. Gallesio also observed that the seeds of
    several other singular varieties all reproduced trees having a peculiar
    physiognomy, but partly resembling their parent-forms. I can adduce
    another case: the myrtle-leaved orange is ranked by all authors as a
    variety, but is very distinct in general aspect: in my father's
    greenhouse, during many years, it rarely yielded any seed, but at last
    produced one; and a tree thus raised was identical with the
    parent-form.

    Another and more serious difficulty in determining the rank of the
    several forms is that, according to Gallesio,[630] they largely
    intercross without {336} artificial aid; thus he positively states that
    seeds taken from lemon-trees (_C. lemonum_) growing mingled with the
    citron (_C. medica_), which is generally considered as a distinct
    species, produced a graduated series of varieties between these two
    forms. Again, an Adam's apple was produced from the seed of a sweet
    orange, which grew close to lemons and citrons. But such facts hardly
    aid us in determining whether to rank these forms as species or
    varieties; for it is now known that undoubted species of Verbascum,
    Cistus, Primula, Salix, &c., frequently cross in a state of nature. If
    indeed it were proved that plants of the orange tribe raised from these
    crosses were even partially sterile, it would be a strong argument in
    favour of their rank as species. Gallesio asserts that this is the
    case; but he does not distinguish between sterility from hybridism and
    from the effects of culture; and he almost destroys the force of this
    statement by another,[631] namely, that when he impregnated the flowers
    of the common orange with the pollen taken from undoubted _varieties_
    of the orange, monstrous fruits were produced, which included "little
    pulp, and had no seeds, or imperfect seeds."

    In this tribe of plants we meet with instances of two highly remarkable
    facts in vegetable physiology: Gallesio[632] impregnated an orange with
    pollen from a lemon, and the fruit borne on the mother tree had a
    raised stripe of peel like that of a lemon both in colour and taste,
    but the pulp was like that of an orange and included only imperfect
    seeds. The possibility of pollen from one variety or species directly
    affecting the fruit produced by another variety or species, is a
    subject which I shall fully discuss in the following chapter.

    The second remarkable fact is that two supposed hybrids[633] (for their
    hybrid nature was not ascertained) between an orange and either a lemon
    or citron produced, on the same tree, leaves, flowers, and fruit of
    both pure parent-forms, as well as of a mixed or crossed nature. A bud
    taken from any one of the branches and grafted on another tree produces
    either one of the pure kinds or a capricious tree reproducing the three
    kinds. Whether the sweet lemon, which includes within the same fruit
    segments of differently flavoured pulp,[634] is an analogous case, I
    know not. But to this subject I shall have to recur.

    I will conclude by giving from A. Risso[635] a short account of a very
    singular variety of the common orange. It is the "_citrus aurantium
    fructu variabili_," which on the young shoots produces rounded-oval
    leaves spotted with yellow, borne on petioles with heart-shaped wings;
    when these leaves fall off, they are succeeded by longer and narrower
    leaves, with undulated margins, of a pale-green colour embroidered with
    yellow, borne on foot-stalks without wings. The fruit whilst young is
    pear-shaped, yellow, longitudinally striated, and sweet; but as it
    ripens, it becomes spherical, of a reddish-yellow, and bitter.

    _Peach and Nectarine (Amygdalus Persica)._ The best authorities are
    {337} nearly unanimous that the peach has never been found wild. It was
    introduced from Persia into Europe a little before the Christian era,
    and at this period few varieties existed. Alph. De Candolle,[636] from
    the fact of the peach not having spread from Persia at an earlier
    period, and from its not having pure Sanscrit or Hebrew names, believes
    that it is not an aboriginal of Western Asia, but came from the _terra
    incognita_ of China. The supposition, however, that the peach is a
    modified almond which acquired its present character at a comparatively
    late period, would, I presume, account for these facts; on the same
    principle that the nectarine, the offspring of the peach, has few
    native names, and became known in Europe at a still later period.

    [Illustration: Fig. 42.--Peach and Almond Stones, of natural size,
    viewed edgeways. 1. Common English Peach. 2. Double, crimson-flowered,
    Chinese Peach. 3. Chinese Honey Peach. 4. English Almond. 5. Barcelona
    Almond. 6. Malaga Almond. 7. Soft-shelled French Almond. 8. Smyrna
    Almond.]

    {338}

    Andrew Knight,[637] from finding that a seedling-tree, raised from a
    sweet almond fertilised by the pollen of a peach, yielded fruit quite
    like that of a peach, suspected that the peach-tree is a modified
    almond; and in this he has been followed by various authors.[638] A
    first-rate peach, almost globular in shape, formed of soft and sweet
    pulp, surrounding a hard, much furrowed, and slightly-flattened stone,
    certainly differs greatly from an almond, with its soft, slightly
    furrowed, much flattened, and elongated stone, protected by a tough,
    greenish layer of bitter flesh. Mr. Bentham[639] has particularly
    called attention to the stone of the almond being so much more
    flattened than that of the peach. But in the several varieties of the
    almond, the stone differs greatly in the degree to which it is
    compressed, in size, shape, strength, and in the depth of the furrows,
    as may be seen in the accompanying drawings (Nos. 4 to 8) of such kinds
    as I have been able to collect. With peach-stones, also (Nos. 1 to 3)
    the degree of compression and elongation is seen to vary; so that the
    stone of the Chinese Honey-peach (fig. 3) is much more elongated and
    compressed than that of the (No. 8) Smyrna almond. Mr. Rivers of
    Sawbridgeworth, to whom I am indebted for some of the specimens above
    figured, and who has had such great horticultural experience, has
    called my attention to several varieties which connect the almond and
    the peach. In France there is a variety called the Peach-almond, which
    Mr. Rivers formerly cultivated, and which is correctly described in a
    French catalogue as being oval and swollen, with the aspect of a peach,
    including a hard stone surrounded by a fleshy covering, which is
    sometimes eatable.[640] A remarkable statement by M. Luizet has
    recently appeared in the 'Revue Horticole,'[641] namely, that a
    Peach-almond, grafted on a peach, bore during 1863 and 1864 almonds
    alone, but in 1865 bore six peaches and no almonds. M. Carriere, in
    commenting on this fact, cites the case of a double-flowered almond
    which, after producing during several years almonds, suddenly bore for
    two years in succession spherical fleshy peach-like fruits, but in 1865
    reverted to its former state and produced large almonds.

    Again, as I hear from Mr. Rivers, the double-flowering Chinese peaches
    resemble almonds in their manner of growth and in their flowers; the
    fruit is much elongated and flattened, with the flesh both bitter and
    sweet, but {339} not uneatable, and it is said to be of better quality
    in China. From this stage one small step leads us to such inferior
    peaches as are occasionally raised from seed. For instance, Mr. Rivers
    sowed a number of peach-stones imported from the United States, where
    they are collected for raising stocks, and some of the trees raised by
    him produced peaches which were very like almonds in appearance, being
    small and hard, with the pulp not softening till very late in the
    autumn. Van Mons[642] also states that he once raised from a
    peach-stone a peach having the aspect of a wild tree, with fruit like
    that of the almond. From inferior peaches, such as these just
    described, we may pass by small transitions, through clingstones of
    poor quality, to our best and most melting kinds. From this gradation,
    from the cases of sudden variation above recorded, and from the fact
    that the peach has not been found wild, it seems to me by far the most
    probable view, that the peach is the descendant of the almond, improved
    and modified in a marvellous manner.

    One fact, however, is opposed to this conclusion. A hybrid, raised by
    Knight from the sweet almond by the pollen of the peach, produced
    flowers with little or no pollen, yet bore fruit, having been
    apparently fertilised by a neighbouring nectarine. Another hybrid from
    a sweet almond by the pollen of a nectarine produced during the first
    three years imperfect blossoms, but afterwards perfect flowers with an
    abundance of pollen. If this slight degree of sterility cannot be
    accounted for by the youth of the trees (and this often causes lessened
    fertility), or by the monstrous state of the flowers, or by the
    conditions to which the trees were exposed, these two cases would
    afford a strong argument against the peach being the descendant of the
    almond.

    Whether or not the peach has proceeded from the almond, it has
    certainly given rise to nectarines, or smooth peaches, as they are
    called by the French. Most of the varieties both of the peach and
    nectarine reproduce themselves truly by seed. Gallesio[643] says he has
    verified this with respect to eight races of the peach. Mr. Rivers[644]
    has given some striking instances from his own experience, and it is
    notorious that good peaches are constantly raised in North America from
    seed. Many of the American sub-varieties come true or nearly true to
    their kind, such as the white-blossom, several of the yellow-fruited
    freestone peaches, the blood clingstone, the heath, and the
    lemon-clingstone. On the other hand, a clingstone peach has been known
    to give rise to a freestone.[645] In England it has been noticed that
    seedlings inherit from their parents flowers of the same size and
    colour. Some characters, however, contrary to what might have been
    expected, often are not inherited; such as the presence and form of the
    glands on the leaves.[646] With respect to nectarines, both cling and
    {340} freestones are known in North America to reproduce themselves by
    seed.[647] In England the new white nectarine was a seedling of the old
    white, and Mr. Rivers[648] has recorded several similar cases. From
    this strong tendency to inheritance, which both peach and nectarine
    trees exhibit,--from certain slight constitutional differences[649] in
    their nature,--and from the great difference in their fruit both in
    appearance and flavour, it is not surprising, notwithstanding that the
    trees differ in no other respects and cannot even be distinguished, as
    I am informed by Mr. Rivers, whilst young, that they have been ranked
    by some authors as specifically distinct. Gallesio does not doubt that
    they are distinct; even Alph. De Candolle does not appear perfectly
    assured of their specific identity; and an eminent botanist has quite
    recently[650] maintained that the nectarine "probably constitutes a
    distinct species."

    Hence it may be worth while to give all the evidence on the origin of
    the nectarine. The facts in themselves are curious, and will hereafter
    have to be referred to when the important subject of bud-variation is
    discussed. It is asserted[651] that the Boston nectarine was produced
    from a peach-stone, and this nectarine reproduced itself by seed.[652]
    Mr. Rivers states[653] that from stones of three distinct varieties of
    the peach he raised three varieties of nectarine; and in one of these
    cases no nectarine grew near the parent peach-tree. In another instance
    Mr. Rivers raised a nectarine from a peach, and in the succeeding
    generation another nectarine from this nectarine.[654] Other such
    instances have been communicated to me, but they need not be given. Of
    the converse case, namely, of nectarine-stones yielding peach-trees
    (both free and cling-stones), we have six undoubted instances recorded
    by Mr. Rivers; and in two of these instances the parent nectarines had
    been seedlings from other nectarines.[655]

    With respect to the more curious case of full-grown peach-trees
    suddenly producing nectarines by bud-variation (or sports as they are
    called by gardeners), the evidence is superabundant; there is also good
    evidence of the same tree producing both peaches and nectarines, or
    half and half fruit;--by this term I mean a fruit with the one-half a
    perfect peach, and the other half a perfect nectarine.

    Peter Collinson in 1741 recorded the first case of a peach-tree
    producing a nectarine,[656] and in 1766 he added two other instances.
    In the same work, the editor, Sir J. E. Smith, describes the more
    remarkable case of a tree in Norfolk, which usually bore both perfect
    nectarines and perfect peaches; but during two seasons some of the
    fruit were half-and-half in nature.

    {341} Mr. Salisbury in 1808[657] records six other cases of peach-trees
    producing nectarines. Three of the varieties are named; viz., the
    Alberge, Belle Chevreuse, and Royal George. This latter tree seldom
    failed to produce both kinds of fruit. He gives another case of a
    half-and-half fruit.

    At Radford in Devonshire[658] a clingstone peach, purchased as the
    Chancellor, was planted in 1815, and in 1824, after having previously
    produced peaches alone, bore on one branch twelve nectarines; in 1825
    the same branch yielded twenty-six nectarines, and in 1826 thirty-six
    nectarines together with eighteen peaches. One of the peaches was
    almost as smooth on one side as a nectarine. The nectarines were as
    dark as, but smaller than, the Elruge.

    At Beccles a Royal George peach[659] produced a fruit, "three parts of
    it being peach and one part nectarine, quite distinct in appearance as
    well as in flavour." The lines of division were longitudinal, as
    represented in the engraving. A nectarine-tree grew five yards from
    this tree.

    Professor Chapman states[660] that he has often seen in Virginia very
    old peach-trees bearing nectarines.

    A writer in the 'Gardener's Chronicle' says that a peach-tree planted
    fifteen years previously[661] produced this year a nectarine between
    two peaches; a nectarine-tree grew close by.

    In 1844[662] a Vanguard peach-tree produced, in the midst of its
    ordinary fruit, a single red Roman nectarine.

    Mr. Calver is stated[663] to have raised in the United States a
    seedling peach which produced a mixed crop of both peaches and
    nectarines.

    Near Dorking[664] a branch of the Teton de Venus peach, which
    reproduces itself truly by seed,[665] bore its own fruit "so remarkable
    for its prominent point, and a nectarine rather smaller but well formed
    and quite round."

    The previous cases all refer to peaches suddenly producing nectarines,
    but at Carclew[666] the unique case occurred, of a nectarine-tree,
    raised twenty years before from seed and never grafted, producing a
    fruit half peach and half nectarine; subsequently it bore a perfect
    peach.

    To sum up the foregoing facts: we have excellent evidence of
    peach-stones producing nectarine-trees, and of nectarine-stones
    producing peach-trees,--of the same tree bearing peaches and
    nectarines,--of peach-trees suddenly producing by bud-variation
    nectarines (such nectarines reproducing nectarines by seed), as well as
    fruit in part nectarine and in part peach,--and lastly of one
    nectarine-tree first bearing half-and-half fruit, and subsequently true
    peaches. As the peach came into existence before the nectarine, it
    might have been expected from the law of reversion that {342}
    nectarines would give birth by bud-variation or by seed to peaches,
    oftener than peaches to nectarines; but this is by no means the case.

    Two explanations have been suggested to account for these conversions.
    First, that the parent-trees have been in every case hybrids[667]
    between the peach and nectarine, and have reverted by bud-variation or
    by seed to one of their pure parent-forms. This view in itself is not
    very improbable; for the Mountaineer peach, which was raised by Knight
    from the red nutmeg peach by pollen of the violette hative
    nectarine,[668] produces peaches, but these are said _sometimes_ to
    partake of the smoothness and flavour of the nectarine. But let it be
    observed that in the previous list no less than six well-known
    varieties and several other unnamed varieties of the peach have once
    suddenly produced perfect nectarines by bud-variation; and it would be
    an extremely rash supposition that all these varieties of the peach,
    which have been cultivated for years in many districts, and which show
    not a vestige of a mixed parentage, are, nevertheless, hybrids. A
    second explanation is, that the fruit of the peach has been directly
    affected by the pollen of the nectarine: although this certainly is
    possible, it cannot here apply; for we have not a shadow of evidence
    that a branch which has borne fruit directly affected by foreign pollen
    is so profoundly modified as afterwards to produce buds which continue
    to yield fruit of the new and modified form. Now it is known that when
    a bud on a peach-tree has once borne a nectarine the same branch has in
    several instances gone on during successive years producing nectarines.
    The Carclew nectarine, on the other hand, first produced half-and-half
    fruit, and subsequently pure peaches. Hence we may confidently accept
    the common view that the nectarine is a variety of the peach, which may
    be produced either by bud-variation or from seed. In the following
    chapter many analogous cases of bud-variation will be given.

    The varieties of the peach and nectarine run in parallel lines. In both
    classes the kinds differ from each other in the flesh of the fruit
    being white, red, or yellow; in being clingstones or freestones; in the
    flowers being large or small, with certain other characteristic
    differences; and in the leaves being serrated without glands, or
    crenated and furnished with globose or reniform glands.[669] We can
    hardly account for this parallelism by supposing that each variety of
    the nectarine is descended from a corresponding variety of the peach;
    for though our nectarines are certainly the descendants of several
    kinds of peaches, yet a large number are the descendants of other
    nectarines, and they vary so much when thus reproduced that we can
    scarcely admit the above explanation.

    The varieties of the peach have largely increased in number since the
    Christian era, when from two to five varieties alone were known;[670]
    and the nectarine was unknown. At the present time, besides many
    varieties said to exist in China, Downing describes in the United
    States seventy-nine {343} native and imported varieties of the peach;
    and a few years ago Lindley[671] enumerated one hundred and sixty-four
    varieties of the peach and nectarine grown in England. I have already
    indicated the chief points of difference between the several varieties.
    Nectarines, even when produced from distinct kinds of peaches, always
    possess their own peculiar flavour, and are smooth and small.
    Clingstone and freestone peaches, which differ in the ripe flesh either
    firmly adhering to the stone, or easily separating from it, also differ
    in the character of the stone itself; that of the freestones or melters
    being more deeply fissured, with the sides of the fissures smoother
    than in clingstones. In the various kinds, the flowers differ not only
    in size, but in the larger flowers the petals are differently shaped,
    more imbricated, generally red in the centre and pale towards the
    margin; whereas in the smaller flowers the margins of the petal are
    usually more darkly <DW52>. One variety has nearly white flowers. The
    leaves are more or less serrated, and are either destitute of glands,
    or have globose or reniform glands;[672] and some few peaches, such as
    the Brugnon, bear on the same tree both globular and kidney-shaped
    glands.[673] According to Robertson[674] the trees with glandular
    leaves are liable to blister, but not in any great degree to mildew;
    whilst the non-glandular trees are more subject to curl, to mildew, and
    to the attacks of aphides. The varieties differ in the period of their
    maturity, in the fruit keeping well, and in hardiness,--the latter
    circumstance being especially attended to in the United States. Certain
    varieties, such as the Bellegarde, stand forcing in hot-houses better
    than other varieties. The flat-peach of China is the most remarkable of
    all the varieties; it is so much depressed towards the summit, that the
    stone is here covered only by roughened skin and not by a fleshy
    layer.[675] Another Chinese variety, called the Honey-peach, is
    remarkable from the fruit terminating in a long sharp point; its leaves
    are glandless and widely dentate.[676] The Emperor of Russia peach is a
    third singular variety, having deeply and doubly serrated leaves; the
    fruit is deeply cleft with one-half projecting considerably beyond the
    other; it originated in America, and its seedlings inherit similar
    leaves.[677]

    The peach has also produced in China a small class of trees valued for
    ornament, namely the double-flowered; of these five varieties are now
    known in England, varying from pure white, through rose, to intense
    crimson.[678] One of these varieties, called the camellia-flowered,
    bears flowers above 21/4 inches in diameter, whilst those of the
    fruit-bearing kinds do not at most exceed 11/4 inch in diameter. The
    flowers of the {344} double-flowered peaches have the singular
    property[679] of frequently producing double or treble fruit. Finally,
    there is good reason to believe that the peach is an almond profoundly
    modified; but whatever its origin may have been, there can be no doubt
    that it has yielded during the last eighteen centuries many varieties,
    some of them strongly characterised, belonging both to the nectarine
    and peach form.

    _Apricot_ (_Prunus armeniaca_).--It is commonly admitted that this tree
    is descended from a single species, now found wild in the Caucasian
    region.[680] On this view the varieties deserve notice, because they
    illustrate differences supposed by some botanists to be of specific
    value in the almond and plum. The best monograph on the apricot is by
    Mr. Thompson,[681] who describes seventeen varieties. We have seen that
    peaches and nectarines vary in a strictly parallel manner; and in the
    apricot, which forms a closely allied genus, we again meet with
    variations analogous to those of the peach, as well as to those of the
    plum. The varieties differ considerably in the shape of their leaves,
    which are either serrated or crenated, sometimes with ear-like
    appendages at their bases, and sometimes with glands on the petioles.
    The flowers are generally alike, but are small in the Masculine. The
    fruit varies much in size, shape, and in having the suture little
    pronounced or absent; in the skin being smooth, or downy as in the
    orange-apricot; and in the flesh clinging to the stone, as in the
    last-mentioned kind, or in readily separating from it, as in the
    Turkey-apricot. In all these differences we see the closest analogy
    with the varieties of the peach and nectarine. In the stone we have
    more important differences, and these in the case of the plum have been
    esteemed of specific value: in some apricots the stone is almost
    spherical, in others much flattened, being either sharp in front or
    blunt at both ends, sometimes channelled along the back, or with a
    sharp ridge along both margins. In the Moorpark, and generally in the
    Hemskirke, the stone presents a singular character in being perforated,
    with a bundle of fibres passing through the perforation from end to
    end. The most constant and important character, according to Thompson,
    is whether the kernel is bitter or sweet; yet in this respect we have a
    graduated difference, for the kernel is very bitter in Shipley's
    apricot; in the Hemskirke less bitter than in some other kinds;
    slightly bitter in the Royal; and "sweet like a hazel-nut" in the
    Breda, Angoumois, and others. In the case of the almond, bitterness has
    been thought by some high authorities to indicate specific difference.

    In N. America the Roman apricot endures "cold and unfavourable
    situations, where no other sort, except the Masculine, will succeed;
    and its blossoms bear quite a severe frost without injury."[682]
    According to Mr. Rivers[683] seedling apricots deviate but little from
    the character of {345} their race: in France the Alberge is constantly
    reproduced from seed with but little variation. In Ladakh, according to
    Moorcroft,[684] ten varieties of the apricot, very different from each
    other, are cultivated, and all are raised from seed, excepting one,
    which is budded.

    [Illustration: Fig. 43.--Plum Stones, of natural size, viewed
    laterally. 1. Bullace Plum. 2. Shropshire Damson. 3. Blue Gage. 4.
    Orleans. 5. Elvas. 6. Denyer's Victoria. 7. Diamond.]

    _Plums_ (_Prunus insititia_).--Formerly the sloe, _P. spinosa_, was
    thought to be the parent of all our plums; but now this honour is very
    commonly accorded to _P. insititia_ or the bullace, which is found wild
    in the Caucasus and N.-Western India, and is naturalised in
    England.[685] It is not at all improbable, in accordance with some
    observations made by Mr. Rivers[686] that both these forms, which some
    botanists rank as a single species, may be the parents of our
    domesticated plums. Another supposed parent-form, the _P. domestica_,
    is said to be found wild in the region of the Caucasus. Godron
    remarks[687] that the cultivated varieties may be divided into two main
    groups, which he supposes to be descended from two aboriginal stocks;
    namely, those with oblong fruit and stones pointed at both ends, having
    narrow separate petals and upright branches; and those with rounded
    fruit, with stones blunt at both ends, with rounded petals and
    spreading branches. From what we know of the variability of the flowers
    in the peach and of the diversified manner of growth in our various
    fruit-trees, it is difficult to lay much weight on these latter {346}
    characters. With respect to the shape of the fruit, we have conclusive
    evidence that it is extremely variable: Downing[688] gives outlines of
    the plums of two seedlings, namely, the red and imperial gages, raised
    from the greengage; and the fruit of both is more elongated than that
    of the greengage. The latter has a very blunt broad stone, whereas the
    stone of the imperial gage is "oval and pointed at both ends." These
    trees also differ in their manner of growth: "the greengage is a very
    short-jointed, slow-growing tree, of spreading and rather dwarfish
    habit;" whilst its offspring, the imperial gage, "grows freely and
    rises rapidly, and has long dark shoots." The famous Washington plum
    bears a globular fruit, but its offspring, the emerald drop, is nearly
    as much elongated as the most elongated plum figured by Downing,
    namely, Manning's prune. I have made a small collection of the stones
    of twenty-five kinds, and they graduate in shape from the bluntest into
    the sharpest kinds. As characters derived from seeds are generally of
    high systematic importance, I have thought it worth while to give
    drawings of the most distinct kinds in my small collection; and they
    may be seen to differ in a surprising manner in size, outline,
    thickness, prominence of the ridges, and state of surface. It deserves
    notice that the shape of the stone is not always strictly correlated
    with that of the fruit: thus the Washington plum is spherical and
    depressed at the pole, with a somewhat elongated stone, whilst the
    fruit of the Goliath is more elongated, but the stone less so, than in
    the Washington. Again, Denyer's Victoria and Goliath bear fruit closely
    resembling each other, but their stones are widely different. On the
    other hand, the Harvest and Black Margate plums are very dissimilar,
    yet include closely similar stones.

    The varieties of the plum are numerous, and differ greatly in size,
    shape, quality, and colour,--being bright yellow, green, almost white,
    blue, purple, or red. There are some curious varieties, such as the
    double or Siamese, and the Stoneless plum: in the latter the kernel
    lies in a roomy cavity surrounded only by the pulp. The climate of
    North America appears to be singularly favourable for the production of
    new and good varieties; Downing describes no less than forty, seven of
    which of first-rate quality have been recently introduced into
    England.[689] Varieties occasionally arise having an innate adaptation
    for certain soils, almost as strongly pronounced as with natural
    species growing on the most distinct geological formations; thus in
    America the imperial gage, differently from almost all other kinds, "is
    peculiarly fitted for _dry light_ soils where many sorts drop their
    fruit," whereas on rich heavy soils the fruit is often insipid.[690] My
    father could never succeed in making the Wine-Sour yield even a
    moderate crop in a sandy orchard near Shrewsbury, whilst in some parts
    of the same county and in its native Yorkshire it bears abundantly: one
    of my {347} relations also repeatedly tried in vain to grow this
    variety in a sandy district in Staffordshire.

    Mr. Rivers has given[691] a number of interesting facts, showing how
    truly many varieties can be propagated by seed. He sowed the stones of
    twenty bushels of the greengage for the sake of raising stocks, and
    closely observed the seedlings; "all had the smooth shoots, the
    prominent buds, and the glossy leaves of the greengage, but the greater
    number had smaller leaves and thorns." There are two kinds of damson,
    one the Shropshire with downy shoots, and the other the Kentish with
    smooth shoots, and these differ but slightly in any other respect: Mr.
    Rivers sowed some bushels of the Kentish damson, and all the
    seedlings-had smooth shoots, but in some the fruit was oval, in others
    round or roundish, and in a few the fruit was small, and, except in
    being sweet, closely resembled that of the wild sloe. Mr. Rivers gives
    several other striking instances of inheritance: thus, he raised eighty
    thousand seedlings from the common German Quetsche plum, and "not one
    could be found varying in the least, in foliage or habit." Similar
    facts were observed with the Petite Mirabelle plum, yet this latter
    kind (as well as the Quetsche) is known to have yielded some
    well-established varieties; but, as Mr. Rivers remarks, they all belong
    to the same group with the Mirabelle.

    _Cherries (Prunus cerasus, avium_, &c.).--Botanists believe that our
    cultivated cherries are descended from one, two, four, or even more
    wild stocks.[692] That there must be at least two parent-species we may
    infer from the sterility of twenty hybrids raised by Mr. Knight from
    the morello fertilized by pollen of the Elton cherry; for these hybrids
    produced in all only five cherries, and one alone of these contained a
    seed.[693] Mr. Thompson[694] has classified the varieties in an
    apparently natural method in two main groups by characters taken from
    the flowers, fruit, and leaves; but some varieties which stand widely
    separate in this classification are quite fertile when crossed; thus
    Knight's Early Black cherry is the product of a cross between two such
    kinds.

    Mr. Knight states that seedling cherries are more variable than those
    of any other fruit-tree.[695] In the Catalogue of the Horticultural
    Society for 1842, eighty varieties are enumerated. Some varieties
    present singular characters: thus the flower of the Cluster cherry
    includes as many as twelve pistils, of which the majority abort; and
    they are said generally to produce from two to five or six cherries
    aggregated together and borne on a single peduncle. In the Ratafia
    cherry several flower-peduncles arise from a common peduncle, upwards
    of an inch in length. The fruit of Gascoigne's Heart has its apex
    produced into a globule or drop: that of the white {348} Hungarian Gean
    has almost transparent flesh. The Flemish cherry is "a very odd-looking
    fruit," much flattened at the summit and base, with the latter deeply
    furrowed, and borne on a stout very short footstalk. In the Kentish
    cherry the stone adheres so firmly to the footstalk, that it can be
    drawn out of the flesh; and this renders the fruit well fitted for
    drying. The Tobacco-leaved cherry, according to Sageret and Thompson,
    produces gigantic leaves, more than a foot and sometimes even eighteen
    inches in length, and half a foot in breadth. The Weeping cherry, on
    the other hand, is valuable only as an ornament, and, according to
    Downing, is "a charming little tree with slender weeping branches,
    clothed with small almost myrtle-like foliage." There is also a
    peach-leaved variety.

    Sageret describes a remarkable variety, _le griottier de la Toussaint_,
    which bears at the same time, even as late as September, flowers and
    fruit of all degrees of maturity. The fruit, which is of inferior
    quality, is borne on long, very thin footstalks. But the extraordinary
    statement is made that all the leaf-bearing shoots spring from old
    flower-buds. Lastly, there is an important physiological distinction
    between those kinds of cherries which bear fruit on young or on old
    wood; but Sageret positively asserts that a Bigarreau in his garden
    bore fruit on wood of both ages.[696]

    _Apple (Pyrus malus)._--The one source of doubt felt by botanists with
    respect to the parentage of the apple is whether, besides _P. malus_,
    two or three other closely allied wild forms, namely, _P. acerba_ and
    _praecox_ or _paradisiaca_, do not deserve to be ranked as distinct
    species. The _P. praecox_ is supposed by some authors[697] to be the
    parent of the dwarf paradise stock, which, owing to the fibrous roots
    not penetrating deeply into the ground, is so largely used for
    grafting; but the paradise stock, it is asserted,[698] cannot be
    propagated true by seed. The common wild crab varies considerably in
    England; but many of the varieties are believed to be escaped
    seedlings.[699] Every one knows the great difference in the manner of
    growth, in the foliage, flowers, and especially in the fruit, between
    the almost innumerable varieties of the apple. The pips or seeds (as I
    know by comparison) likewise differ considerably in shape, size, and
    colour. The fruit is adapted for eating or for cooking in different
    ways, and keeps for only a few weeks or for nearly two years. Some few
    kinds have the fruit covered with a powdery secretion, called bloom,
    like that on plums; {349} and "it is extremely remarkable that this
    occurs almost exclusively among varieties cultivated in Russia."[700]
    Another Russian apple, the white Astracan, possesses the singular
    property of becoming transparent, when ripe, like some sorts of crabs.
    The _api etoile_ has five prominent ridges, hence its name; the _api
    noir_ is nearly black: the _twin cluster pippin_ often bears fruit
    joined in pairs.[701] The trees of the several sorts differ greatly in
    their periods of leafing and flowering; in my orchard the _Court Pendu
    Plat_ produces its leaves so late, that during several springs I have
    thought it dead. The Tiffin apple scarcely bears a leaf when in full
    bloom; the Cornish crab, on the other hand, bears so many leaves at
    this period that the flowers can hardly be seen.[702] In some kinds the
    fruit ripens in midsummer; in others, late in the autumn. These several
    differences in leafing, flowering, and fruiting, are not at all
    necessarily correlated; for, as Andrew Knight has remarked,[703] no one
    can judge from the early flowering of a new seedling, or from the early
    shedding or change of colour of the leaves, whether it will mature its
    fruit early in the season.

    The varieties differ greatly in constitution. It is notorious that our
    summers are not hot enough for the Newtown Pippin,[704] which is the
    glory of the orchards near New York; and so it is with several
    varieties which we have imported from the Continent. On the other hand,
    our Court of Wick succeeds well under the severe climate of Canada. The
    _Calville rouge de Micoud_ occasionally bears two crops during the same
    year. The Burr Knot is covered with small excrescences, which emit
    roots so readily that a branch with blossom-buds may be stuck in the
    ground, and will root and bear a few fruit even during the first
    year.[705] Mr. Rivers has recently described[706] some seedlings
    valuable from their roots running near the surface. One of these
    seedlings was remarkable from its extremely dwarfed size, "forming
    itself into a bush only a few inches in height." Many varieties are
    particularly liable to canker in certain soils. But perhaps the
    strangest constitutional peculiarity is that the Winter Majetin is not
    attacked by the mealy bug or coccus; Lindley[707] states that in an
    orchard in Norfolk infested with these insects the Majetin was quite
    free, though the stock on which it was grafted was affected: Knight
    makes a similar statement with respect to a cider apple, and adds that
    he only once saw these insects just above the stock, but that three
    days afterwards they entirely disappeared; this apple, however, was
    raised from a cross between {350} the Golden Harvey and the Siberian
    Crab; and the latter, I believe, is considered by some authors as
    specifically distinct.

    The famous St. Valery apple must not be passed over; the flower has a
    double calyx with ten divisions, and fourteen styles surmounted by
    conspicuous oblique stigmas, but is destitute of stamens or corolla.
    The fruit is constricted round the middle, and is formed of five
    seed-cells, surmounted by nine other cells.[708] Not being provided
    with stamens, the tree requires artificial fertilisation; and the girls
    of St. Valery annually go to "_faire ses pommes_," each marking her own
    fruit with a ribbon; and as different pollen is used, the fruit
    differs, and we here have an instance of the direct action of foreign
    pollen on the mother-plant. These monstrous apples include, as we have
    seen, fourteen seed-cells; the pigeon-apple,[709] on the other hand,
    has only four, instead of, as with all common apples, five cells; and
    this certainly is a remarkable difference.

    In the catalogue of apples published in 1842 by the Horticultural
    Society, 897 varieties are enumerated; but the differences between most
    of them are of comparatively little interest, as they are not strictly
    inherited. No one can raise, for instance, from the seed of the Ribston
    Pippin, a tree of the same kind; and it is said that the "Sister
    Ribston Pippin" was a white, semi-transparent, sour-fleshed apple, or
    rather large crab.[710] Yet it is a mistake to suppose that with most
    varieties the characters are not to a certain extent inherited. In two
    lots of seedlings raised from two well-marked kinds, many worthless,
    crab-like seedlings will appear, but it is now known that the two lots
    not only usually differ from each other, but resemble to a certain
    extent their parents. We see this indeed in the several sub-groups of
    Russetts, Sweetings, Codlins, Pearmains, Reinettes, &c.,[711] which are
    all believed, and many are known, to be descended from other varieties
    bearing the same names.

    _Pears (Pyrus communis)._--I need say little on this fruit, which
    varies much in the wild state, and to an extraordinary degree when
    cultivated, in its fruit, flowers, and foliage. One of the most
    celebrated botanists in Europe, M. Decaisne, has carefully studied the
    many varieties;[712] although he formerly believed that they were
    derived from more than one species, he is now convinced that all belong
    to one. He has arrived at this conclusion from finding in the several
    varieties a perfect gradation between the most extreme characters; so
    perfect is this gradation that he maintains it to be impossible to
    classify the varieties by any natural method. M. Decaisne raised many
    seedlings from four distinct kinds, and has carefully recorded the
    variations in each. Notwithstanding this extreme degree of {351}
    variability, it is now positively known that many kinds reproduce by
    seed the leading characters of their race.[713]

    _Strawberries (Fragaria)._--This fruit is remarkable, on account of the
    number of species which have been cultivated, and from their rapid
    improvement within the last fifty or sixty years. Let any one compare
    the fruit of one of the largest varieties exhibited at our Shows with
    that of the wild wood strawberry, or, which will be a fairer
    comparison, with the somewhat larger fruit of the wild American
    Virginian Strawberry, and he will see what prodigies horticulture has
    effected.[714] The number of varieties has likewise increased in a
    surprisingly rapid manner. Only three kinds were known in France, in
    1746, where this fruit was early cultivated. In 1766 five species had
    been introduced, the same which are now cultivated, but only five
    varieties of _Fragaria vesca_, with some sub-varieties, had been
    produced. At the present day the varieties of the several species are
    almost innumerable. The species consist of, firstly, the wood or Alpine
    cultivated strawberries, descended from _F. vesca_, a native of Europe
    and of North America. There are eight wild European varieties, as
    ranked by Duchesne, of _F. vesca_, but several of these are considered
    species by some botanists. Secondly, the green strawberries, descended
    from the European _F. collina_, and little cultivated in England.
    Thirdly, the Hautbois, from the European _F. elatior_. Fourthly, the
    Scarlets, descended from _F. Virginiana_, a native of the whole breadth
    of North America. Fifthly, the Chili, descended from _F. Chiloensis_,
    an inhabitant of the west coast of the temperate parts both of North
    and South America. Lastly, the Pines or Carolinas (including the old
    Blacks), which have been ranked by most authors under the name of _F.
    grandiflora_ as a distinct species, said to inhabit Surinam; but this
    is a manifest error. This form is considered by the highest authority,
    M. Gay, to be merely a strongly marked race of _F. Chiloensis_.[715]
    These five or six forms have been ranked by most botanists as
    specifically distinct; but this may be doubted, for Andrew Knight,[716]
    who raised no less than 400 crossed strawberries, asserts that the _F.
    Virginiana_, _Chiloensis_, and _grandiflora_ "may be made to breed
    together indiscriminately," and he found, in accordance with the
    principle of analogous variation, "that similar varieties could be
    obtained from the seeds of any one of them."

    Since Knight's time there is abundant and additional evidence[717] of
    the extent to which the American forms spontaneously cross. We owe
    {352} indeed to such crosses most of our choicest existing varieties.
    Knight did not succeed in crossing the European wood-strawberry with
    the American Scarlet or with the Hautbois. Mr. Williams, of Pitmaston,
    however, succeeded; but the hybrid offspring from the Hautbois, though
    fruiting well, never produced seed, with the exception of a single one,
    which reproduced the parent hybrid form.[718] Major E. Trevor Clarke
    informs me that he crossed two members of the Pine class (Myatt's B.
    Queen and Keen's Seedling), with the wood and hautbois, and that in
    each case he raised only a single seedling; one of these fruited, but
    was almost barren. Mr. W. Smith, of York, has raised similar hybrids
    with equally poor success.[719] We thus see[720] that the European and
    American species can with some difficulty be crossed; but it is
    improbable that hybrids sufficiently fertile to be worth cultivation
    will ever be thus produced. This fact is surprising, as these forms
    structurally are not widely distinct, and are sometimes connected in
    the districts where they grow wild, as I hear from Professor Asa Gray,
    by puzzling intermediate forms.

    The energetic culture of the strawberry is of recent date, and the
    cultivated varieties can in most cases still be classed under some one
    of the above five native stocks. As the American strawberries cross so
    freely and spontaneously, we can hardly doubt that they will ultimately
    become inextricably confused. We find, indeed, that horticulturists at
    present disagree under which class to rank some few of the varieties;
    and a writer in the 'Bon Jardinier' of 1840 remarks that formerly it
    was possible to class all of them under some one species, but that now
    this is quite impossible with the American forms, the new English
    varieties having completely filled up the gaps between them.[721] The
    blending together of two or more aboriginal forms, which there is every
    reason to believe has occurred with some of our anciently cultivated
    productions, we now see actually occurring with our strawberries.

    The cultivated species offer some variations worth notice. The Black
    Prince, a seedling from Keen's Imperial (this latter being a seedling
    of a very white strawberry, the white Carolina), is remarkable from
    "its peculiar dark and polished surface, and from presenting an
    appearance entirely unlike that of any other kind."[722] Although the
    fruit in the different varieties differs so greatly in form, size,
    colour, and quality, the so-called seed (which corresponds with the
    whole fruit in the plum), with the exception of being more or less
    deeply embedded in the pulp, is, according to De Jonghe,[723]
    absolutely the same in all; and this no doubt may be accounted for by
    the seed being of no value, and consequently not having been subjected
    to selection. The strawberry is properly three-leaved, but in 1761
    Duchesne raised a single-leaved variety of the European {353}
    wood-strawberry, which Linnaeus doubtfully raised to the rank of a
    species. Seedlings of this variety, like those of most varieties not
    fixed by long-continued selection, often revert to the ordinary form,
    or present intermediate states.[724] A variety raised by Mr.
    Myatt,[725] apparently belonging to one of the American forms, presents
    a variation of an opposite nature, for it has five leaves; Godron and
    Lambertye also mention a five-leaved variety of _F. collina_.

    The Red Bush Alpine strawberry (one of the _F. vesca_ section) does not
    produce stolons or runners, and this remarkable deviation of structure
    is reproduced truly by seed. Another sub-variety, the White Bush
    Alpine, is similarly characterised, but when propagated by seed it
    often degenerates and produces plants with runners.[726] A strawberry
    of the American Pine section is also said to make but few runners.[727]

    Much has been written on the sexes of strawberries; the true Hautbois
    properly bears the male and female organs on separate plants,[728] and
    was consequently named by Duchesne _dioica_; but it frequently produces
    hermaphrodites; and Lindley,[729] by propagating such plants by
    runners, at the same time destroying the males, soon raised a
    self-prolific stock. The other species often show a tendency towards an
    imperfect separation of the sexes, as I have noticed with plants forced
    in a hot-house. Several English varieties, which in this country are
    free from any such tendency, when cultivated in rich soils under the
    climate of North America[730] commonly produce plants with separate
    sexes. Thus a whole acre of Keen's Seedlings in the United States has
    been observed to be almost sterile from the absence of male flowers;
    but the more general rule is, that the male plants overrun the females.
    Some members of the Cincinnati Horticultural Society, especially
    appointed to investigate this subject, report that "few varieties have
    the flowers perfect in both sexual organs," &c. The most successful
    cultivators in Ohio, plant for every seven rows of "pistillata," or
    female plants, one row of hermaphrodites, which afford pollen for both
    kinds; but the hermaphrodites, owing to their expenditure in the
    production of pollen, bear less fruit than the female plants.

    The varieties differ in constitution. Some of our best English kinds,
    such as Keen's Seedlings, are too tender for certain parts of North
    America, where other English and many American varieties succeed
    perfectly. That splendid fruit, the British Queen, can be cultivated
    but in few places either in England or France; but this apparently
    depends more on the nature of the soil than on the climate: a famous
    gardener says that "no mortal could grow the British Queen at Shrubland
    Park unless the whole nature of the soil was altered."[731] La
    Constantina is one of the {354} hardiest kinds, and can withstand
    Russian winters, but is easily burnt by the sun, so that it will not
    succeed in certain soils either in England or the United States.[732]
    The Filbert Pine Strawberry "requires more water than any other
    variety; and if the plants once suffer from drought, they will do
    little or no good afterwards."[733] Cuthill's Black Prince Strawberry
    evinces a singular tendency to mildew: no less than six cases have been
    recorded of this variety suffering severely, whilst other varieties
    growing close by, and treated in exactly the same manner, were not at
    all infested by this fungus.[734] The time of maturity differs much in
    the different varieties; some belonging to the wood or alpine section
    produce a succession of crops throughout the summer.

    _Gooseberry_ (_Ribes grossularia_).--No one, I believe, has hitherto
    doubted that all the cultivated kinds are sprung from the wild plant
    bearing this name, which is common in Central and Northern Europe;
    therefore it will be desirable briefly to specify all the points,
    though not very important, which have varied. If it be admitted that
    these differences are due to culture, authors perhaps will not be so
    ready to assume the existence of a large number of unknown wild
    parent-stocks for our other cultivated plants. The gooseberry is not
    alluded to by writers of the classical period. Turner mentions it in
    1573, and Parkinson, in 1629, specifies eight varieties; the Catalogue
    of the Horticultural Society for 1842 gives 149 varieties, and the
    lists of the Lancashire nurserymen are said to include above 300
    names.[735] In the 'Gooseberry Grower's Register for 1862' I find that
    243 distinct varieties have at various periods won prizes; so that a
    vast number must have been exhibited. No doubt the difference between
    many of the varieties is very small; but Mr. Thompson in classifying
    the fruit for the Horticultural Society found less confusion in the
    nomenclature of the gooseberry than of any other fruit, and he
    attributes this "to the great interest which the prize-growers have
    taken in detecting sorts with wrong names," and this shows that all the
    kinds, numerous as they are, can be recognised with certainty.

    The bushes differ in their manner of growth, being erect, or spreading,
    or pendulous. The periods of leafing and flowering differ both
    absolutely and relatively to each other; thus the Whitesmith produces
    early flowers, which from not being protected by the foliage, as it is
    believed, continually fail to produce fruit.[736] The leaves vary in
    size, tint, and in depth of lobes; they are smooth, downy, or hairy on
    the upper surface. The branches are more or less downy or spinose; "the
    Hedgehog has probably derived its name from the singular bristly
    condition of its shoots and fruit." The branches of the wild
    gooseberry, I may remark, are smooth, with the exception of thorns at
    the bases of the buds. The thorns themselves are either very small, few
    and single, or very large and triple; they are {355} sometimes reflexed
    and much dilated at their bases. In the different varieties the fruit
    varies in abundance, in the period of maturity, in hanging until
    shrivelled, and greatly in size, "some sorts having their fruit large
    during a very early period of growth, whilst others are small until
    nearly ripe." The fruit varies also much in colour, being red, yellow,
    green, and white--the pulp of one dark-red gooseberry being tinged with
    yellow; in flavour; in being smooth or downy,--few, however, of the Red
    gooseberries, whilst many of the so-called Whites, are downy; or in
    being so spinose that one kind is called Henderson's Porcupine. Two
    kinds acquire when mature a powdery bloom on their fruit. The fruit
    varies in the thickness and veining of the skin, and, lastly, in shape,
    being spherical, oblong, oval, or obovate.[737]

    I cultivated fifty-four varieties, and, considering how greatly the
    fruit differs, it was curious how closely similar the flowers were in
    all these kinds. In only a few I detected a trace of difference in the
    size or colour of the corolla. The calyx differed in a rather greater
    degree, for in some kinds it was much redder than in others; and in one
    smooth white gooseberry it was unusually red. The calyx also differed
    in the basal part being smooth or woolly, or covered with glandular
    hairs. It deserves notice, as being contrary to what might have been
    expected from the law of correlation, that a smooth red gooseberry had
    a remarkably hairy calyx. The flowers of the Sportsman are furnished
    with very large  bracteae; and this is the most singular
    deviation of structure which I have observed. These same flowers also
    varied much in the number of the petals, and occasionally in the number
    of the stamens and pistils; so that they were semi-monstrous in
    structure, yet they produced plenty of fruit. Mr. Thompson remarks that
    in the Pastime gooseberry "extra bracts are often attached to the sides
    of the fruit."[738]

    The most interesting point in the history of the gooseberry is the
    steady increase in the size of the fruit. Manchester is the metropolis
    of the fanciers, and prizes from five shillings to five or ten pounds
    are yearly given for the heaviest fruit. The 'Gooseberry Grower's
    Register' is published annually; the earliest known copy is dated 1786,
    but it is certain that meetings for the adjudication of prizes were
    held some years previously.[739] The 'Register' for 1845 gives an
    account of 171 Gooseberry Shows, held in different places during that
    year; and this fact shows on how large a scale the culture has been
    carried on. The fruit of the wild gooseberry is said[740] to weigh
    about a quarter of an ounce or 5 dwts., that is, 120 grains; about the
    year 1786 gooseberries were exhibited weighing 10 dwts., so that the
    weight was then doubled; in 1817 26 dwts. 17 grs. was attained; there
    was no advance till 1825, when 31 dwts. 16 grs. was reached; in {356}
    1830 "Teazer" weighed 32 dwts. 13 grs.; in 1841 "Wonderful" weighed 32
    dwts. 16 grs.; in 1844 "London" weighed 35 dwts. 12 grs., and in the
    following year 36 dwts. 16 grs.; and in 1852 in Staffordshire the fruit
    of this same variety reached the astonishing weight of 37 dwts. 7
    grs.,[741] or 895 grs.; that is, between seven and eight times the
    weight of the wild fruit. I find that a small apple, 61/2 inches in
    circumference, has exactly this same weight. The "London" gooseberry
    (which in 1862 had altogether gained 343 prizes) has, up to the present
    year of 1864, never reached a greater weight than that attained in
    1852. Perhaps the fruit of the gooseberry has now reached the greatest
    possible weight, unless in the course of time some quite new and
    distinct variety shall arise.

    This gradual, and on the whole steady increase of weight from the
    latter part of the last century to the year 1852, is probably in large
    part due to improved methods of cultivation, for extreme care is now
    taken; the branches and roots are trained, composts are made, the soil
    is mulched, and only a few berries are left on each bush;[742] but the
    increase no doubt is in main part due to the continued selection of
    seedlings which have been found to be more and more capable of yielding
    such extraordinary fruit. Assuredly the "Highwayman" in 1817 could not
    have produced fruit like that of the "Roaring Lion" in 1825; nor could
    the "Roaring Lion," though it was grown by many persons in many places,
    gain the supreme triumph achieved in 1852 by the "London" Gooseberry.

    _Walnut_ (_Juglans regia_).--This tree and the common nut belong to a
    widely different order from the foregoing fruits, and are therefore
    here noticed. The walnut grows wild in the Caucasus and Himalaya, where
    Dr. Hooker[743] found the fruit of full size, but "as hard as a
    hickory-nut." In England the walnut presents considerable differences,
    in the shape and size of the fruit, in the thickness of the husk, and
    in the thinness of the shell; this latter quality has given rise to a
    variety called the thin-shelled, which is valuable, but suffers from
    the attacks of tom-tits.[744] The degree to which the kernel fills the
    shell varies much. In France there is a variety called the Grape or
    cluster-walnut, in which the nuts grow in "bunches of ten, fifteen, or
    even twenty together." There is another variety which bears on the same
    tree differently shaped leaves, like the heterophyllous hornbeam; this
    tree is also remarkable from having pendulous branches, and bearing
    elongated, large, thin-shelled nuts.[745] M. Cardan has minutely
    described[746] some singular physiological peculiarities in the
    June-leafing variety, which produces its leaves and flowers four or
    five weeks later, and retains its leaves and fruit in the autumn much
    longer, than the common varieties; {357} but in August is in exactly
    the same state with them. These constitutional peculiarities are
    strictly inherited. Lastly, walnut-trees, which are properly monoicous,
    sometimes entirely fail to produce male flowers.[747]

    _Nuts_ (_Corylus avellana_).--Most botanists rank all the varieties
    under the same species, the common wild nut.[748] The husk, or
    involucre, differs greatly, being extremely short in Barr's Spanish,
    and extremely long in filberts, in which it is contracted so as to
    prevent the nut falling out. This kind of husk also protects the nut
    from birds, for titmice (_Parus_) have been observed[749] to pass over
    filberts, and attack cobs and common nuts growing in the same orchard.
    In the purple-filbert the husk is purple, and in the frizzled-filbert
    it is curiously laciniated; in the red-filbert the pellicle of the
    kernel is red. The shell is thick in some varieties, but is thin in
    Cosford's-nut, and in one variety is of a bluish colour. The nut itself
    differs much in size and shape, being ovate and compressed in filberts,
    nearly round and of great size in cobs and Spanish nuts, oblong and
    longitudinally striated in Cosford's, and obtusely four-sided in the
    Downton Square nut.

    _Cucurbitaceous plants._--These plants have been for a long period the
    opprobrium of botanists; numerous varieties have been ranked as
    species, and, what happens more rarely, forms which now must be
    considered as species have been classed as varieties. Owing to the
    admirable experimental researches of a distinguished botanist, M.
    Naudin,[750] a flood of light has recently been thrown on this group of
    plants. M. Naudin, during many years, observed and experimented on
    above 1200 living specimens, collected from all quarters of the world.
    Six species are now recognised in the genus Cucurbita; but three alone
    have been cultivated and concern us, namely, _C. maxima_ and _pepo_,
    which include all pumpkins, gourds, squashes, and vegetable marrow, and
    _C. moschata_, the water-melon. These three species are not known in a
    wild state; but Asa Gray[751] gives good reason for believing that some
    pumpkins are natives of N. America.

    These three species are closely allied, and have the same general
    habit, but their innumerable varieties can always be distinguished,
    according to Naudin, by certain almost fixed characters; and what is
    still more important, when crossed they yield no seed, or only sterile
    seed; whilst the varieties spontaneously intercross with the utmost
    freedom. Naudin insists strongly (p. 15), that, though these three
    species have varied greatly in many characters, yet it has been in so
    closely an analogous manner that the varieties can be arranged in
    almost parallel series, as we have seen with the forms of wheat, with
    the two main races of the peach, and in other cases. Though some of the
    varieties are inconstant in character, yet others, when grown
    separately under uniform conditions of life, are, as Naudin repeatedly
    (pp. 6, 16, 35) urges, "douees d'une stabilite {358} presque comparable
    a celle des especes les mieux caracterisees." One variety, l'Orangin
    (pp. 43, 63), has such prepotency in transmitting its character that
    when crossed with other varieties a vast majority of the seedlings come
    true. Naudin, referring (p. 47) to _C. pepo_, says that its races "ne
    different des especes veritables qu'en ce qu'elles peuvent s'allier les
    unes aux autres par voie d'hybridite, sans que leur descendance perde
    la faculte de se perpetuer." If we were to trust to external
    differences alone, and give up the test of sterility, a multitude of
    species would have to be formed out of the varieties of these three
    species of Cucurbita. Many naturalists at the present day lay far too
    little stress, in my opinion, on the test of sterility; yet it is not
    improbable that distinct species of plants after a long course of
    cultivation and variation may have their mutual sterility eliminated,
    as we have every reason to believe has occurred with domesticated
    animals. Nor, in the case of plants under cultivation, should we be
    justified in assuming that varieties never acquire a slight degree of
    mutual sterility, as we shall more fully see in a future chapter when
    certain facts are given on the high authority of Gaertner and
    Koelreuter.[752]

    The forms of _C. pepo_ are classed by Naudin under seven sections, each
    including subordinate varieties. He considers this plant as probably
    the most variable in the world. The fruit of one variety (pp. 33, 46)
    exceeds in volume that of another by more than two thousand fold! When
    the fruit is of very large size, the number produced is few (p. 45);
    when of small size, many are produced. No less astonishing (p. 33) is
    the variation in the shape of the fruit; the typical form apparently is
    egg-like, but this becomes either drawn out into a cylinder, or
    shortened into a flat disc. We have also an almost infinite diversity
    in the colour and state of surface of the fruit, in the hardness both
    of the shell and of the flesh, and in the taste of the flesh, which is
    either extremely sweet, farinaceous, or slightly bitter. The seeds also
    differ in a slight degree in shape, and wonderfully in size (p. 34),
    namely, from six or seven to more than twenty-five millimetres in
    length.

    In the varieties which grow upright or do not run and climb, the
    tendrils, though useless (p. 31), are either present or are represented
    by various semi-monstrous organs, or are quite absent. The tendrils are
    even absent in some running varieties in which the stems are much
    elongated. It is a singular fact that (p. 31), in all the varieties
    with dwarfed stems, the leaves closely resemble each other in shape.

    Those naturalists who believe in the immutability of species often
    maintain that, even in the most variable forms, the characters which
    they consider of specific value are unchangeable. To give an example
    from a conscientious writer,[753] who, relying on the labours of M.
    Naudin and {359} referring to the species of Cucurbita, says, "au
    milieu de toutes les variations du fruit, les tiges, les feuilles, les
    calices, les corolles, les etamines restent invariables dans chacune
    d'elles." Yet M. Naudin in describing _Cucurbita pepo_ (p. 30) says,
    "Ici, d'ailleurs, ce ne sont pas seulement les fruits qui varient,
    c'est aussi le feuillage et tout le port de la plante. Neanmoins, je
    crois qu'on la distinguera toujours facilement des deux autres especes,
    si l'on veut ne pas perdre de vue les caracteres differentiels que je
    m'efforce de faire ressortir. Ces caracteres sont quelquefois peu
    marques: il arrive meme que plusieurs d'entre eux s'effacent presque
    entierement, mais il en reste toujours quelques-uns qui remettent
    l'observateur sur la voie." Now let it be noted what a difference, with
    regard to the immutability of the so-called specific characters, this
    paragraph produces on the mind, from that above quoted from M. Godron.

    I will add another remark: naturalists continually assert that no
    important organ varies; but in saying this they unconsciously argue in
    a vicious circle; for if an organ, let it be what it may, is highly
    variable, it is regarded as unimportant, and under a systematic point
    of view this is quite correct. But as long as constancy is thus taken
    as the criterion of importance, it will indeed be long before an
    important organ can be shown to be inconstant. The enlarged form of the
    stigmas, and their sessile position on the summit of the ovary, must be
    considered as important characters, and were used by Gasparini to
    separate certain pumpkins as a _distinct genus_; but Naudin says (p.
    20) these parts have no constancy, and in the flowers of the Turban
    varieties of _C. maxima_ they sometimes resume their ordinary
    structure. Again, in _C. maxima_, the carpels (p. 19) which form the
    Turban project even as much as two-thirds of their length out of the
    receptacle, and this latter part is thus reduced to a sort of platform;
    but this remarkable structure occurs only in certain varieties, and
    graduates into the common form in which the carpels are almost entirely
    enveloped within the receptacle. In _C. moschata_ the ovarium (p. 50)
    varies greatly in shape, being oval, nearly spherical, or cylindrical,
    more or less swollen in the upper part, or constricted round the
    middle, and either straight or curved. When the ovarium is short and
    oval the interior structure does not differ from that of _C. maxima_
    and _pepo_, but when it is elongated the carpels occupy only the
    terminal and swollen portion. I may add that in one variety of the
    cucumber (_Cucumis sativus_) the fruit regularly contains five carpels
    instead of three.[754] I presume that it will not be disputed that we
    here have instances of great variability in organs of the highest
    physiological importance, and with most plants of the highest
    classificatory importance.

    Sageret[755] and Naudin found that the cucumber (_C. sativus_) could
    not be crossed with any other species of the genus; therefore no doubt
    it is specifically distinct from the melon. This will appear to most
    persons a superfluous statement; yet we hear from Naudin[756] that
    there is a race {360} of melons, in which the fruit is so like that of
    the cucumber, "both externally and internally, that it is hardly
    possible to distinguish the one from the other except by the leaves."
    The varieties of the melon seem to be endless, for Naudin after six
    years' study has not come to the end of them: he divides them into ten
    sections, including numerous sub-varieties which all intercross with
    perfect ease.[757] Of the forms considered by Naudin to be varieties,
    botanists have made thirty distinct species! "and they had not the
    slightest acquaintance with the multitude of new forms which have
    appeared since their time." Nor is the creation of so many species at
    all surprising when we consider how strictly their characters are
    transmitted by seed, and how wonderfully they differ in appearance:
    "Mira est quidem foliorum et habitus diversitas, sed multo magis
    fructuum," says Naudin. The fruit is the valuable part, and this, in
    accordance with the common rule, is the most modified part. Some melons
    are only as large as small plums, others weigh as much as sixty-six
    pounds. One variety has a scarlet fruit! Another is not more than an
    inch in diameter, but sometimes more than a yard in length, "twisting
    about in all directions like a serpent." It is a singular fact that in
    this latter variety many parts of the plant, namely, the stems, the
    footstalks of the female flowers, the middle lobe of the leaves, and
    especially the ovarium, as well as the mature fruit, all show a strong
    tendency to become elongated. Several varieties of the melon are
    interesting from assuming the characteristic features of distinct
    species and even of distinct though allied genera: thus the
    serpent-melon has some resemblance to the fruit of _Trichosanthes
    anguina_; we have seen that other varieties closely resemble cucumbers;
    some Egyptian varieties have their seeds attached to a portion of the
    pulp, and this is characteristic of certain wild forms. Lastly, a
    variety of melon from Algiers is remarkable from announcing its
    maturity by "a spontaneous and almost sudden dislocation," when deep
    cracks suddenly appear, and the fruit falls to pieces; and this occurs
    with the wild _C. momordica_. Finally, M. Naudin well remarks that this
    "extraordinary production of races and varieties by a single species,
    and their permanence when not interfered with by crossing, are
    phenomena well calculated to cause reflection."

    USEFUL AND ORNAMENTAL TREES.

    Trees deserve a passing notice on account of the numerous varieties
    which they present, differing in their precocity, in their manner of
    growth, foliage, and bark. Thus of the common ash (_Fraxinus
    excelsior_) the catalogue of Messrs. Lawson of Edinburgh includes
    twenty-one varieties, some of which differ much in their bark; there is
    a yellow, a streaked reddish-white, a purple, a wart-barked and a
    fungous-barked variety.[758] Of hollies no less than eighty-four
    varieties are grown alongside each other in Mr. {361} Paul's
    nursery.[759] In the case of trees, all the recorded varieties, as far
    as I can find out, have been suddenly produced by one single act of
    variation. The length of time required to raise many generations, and
    the little value set on the fanciful varieties, explains how it is that
    successive modifications have not been accumulated by selection; hence,
    also it follows that we do not here meet with sub-varieties subordinate
    to varieties, and these again subordinate to higher groups. On the
    Continent, however, where the forests are more carefully attended to
    than in England, Alph. De Candolle[760] says that there is not a
    forester who does not search for seeds from that variety which he
    esteems the most valuable.

    Our useful trees have seldom been exposed to any great change of
    conditions; they have not been richly manured, and the English kinds
    grow under their proper climate. Yet in examining extensive beds of
    seedlings in nursery-gardens considerable differences may be generally
    observed in them; and whilst touring in England I have been surprised
    at the amount of difference in the appearance of the same species in
    our hedgerows and woods. But as plants vary so much in a truly wild
    state, it would be difficult for even a skilful botanist to pronounce
    whether, as I believe to be the case, hedgerow trees vary more than
    those growing in a primeval forest. Trees when planted by man in woods
    or hedges do not grow where they would naturally be able to hold their
    place against a host of competitors, and are therefore exposed to
    conditions not strictly natural: even this slight change would probably
    suffice to cause seedlings raised from such trees to be variable.
    Whether or not our half-wild English trees, as a general rule, are more
    variable than trees growing in their native forests, there can hardly
    be a doubt that they have yielded a greater number of strongly-marked
    and singular variations of structure.

    In manner of growth, we have weeping or pendulous varieties of the
    willow, ash, elm, oak, and yew, and other trees; and this weeping habit
    is sometimes inherited, though in a singularly capricious manner. In
    the Lombardy poplar, and in certain fastigate or pyramidal varieties of
    thorns, junipers, oaks, &c., we have an opposite kind of growth. The
    Hessian oak,[761] which is famous from its fastigate habit and size,
    bears hardly any resemblance in general appearance to a common oak;
    "its acorns are not sure to produce plants of the same habit; some,
    however, turn out the same as the parent-tree." Another fastigate oak
    is said to have been found wild in the Pyrenees, and this is a
    surprising circumstance; it generally comes so true by seed, that De
    Candolle considered it as specifically distinct.[762] The fastigate
    Juniper (_J. suecica_) likewise transmits its character by seed.[763]
    Dr. Falconer informs me that in the Botanic Gardens at Calcutta the
    great heat causes apple-trees to become fastigate; and we {362} thus
    see the same result following from the effects of climate and from an
    innate spontaneous tendency.[764]

    In foliage we have variegated leaves which are often inherited; dark
    purple or red leaves, as in the hazel, barberry, and beech, the colour
    in these two latter trees being sometimes strongly and sometimes weakly
    inherited;[765] deeply-cut leaves; and leaves covered with prickles, as
    in the variety of the holly well called _ferox_, which is said to
    reproduce itself by seed.[766] In fact, nearly all the peculiar
    varieties evince a tendency, more or less strongly marked, to reproduce
    themselves by seed.[767] This is to a certain extent the case,
    according to Bose,[768] with three varieties of the elm, namely, the
    broad-leafed, lime-leafed, and twisted elm, in which latter the fibres
    of the wood are twisted. Even with the heterophyllous hornbeam
    (_Carpinus betulus_), which bears on each twig leaves of two shapes,
    "several plants raised from seed all retained the same
    peculiarity."[769] I will add only one other remarkable case of
    variation in foliage, namely, the occurrence of two sub-varieties of
    the ash with simple instead of pinnated leaves, and which generally
    transmit their character by seed.[770] The occurrence, in trees
    belonging to widely different orders, of weeping and fastigate
    varieties, and of trees bearing deeply cut, variegated, and purple
    leaves, shows that these deviations of structure must result from some
    very general physiological laws.

    Differences in general appearance and foliage, not more strongly marked
    than those above indicated, have led good observers to rank as distinct
    species certain forms which are now known to be mere varieties. Thus a
    plane-tree long cultivated in England was considered by almost every
    one as a North American species; but is now ascertained by old records,
    as I am informed by Dr. Hooker, to be a variety. So again the _Thuja
    pendula_ or _filiformis_ was ranked by such good observers as Lambert,
    Wallich, and others as a true species; but it is now known that the
    original plants, five in number, suddenly appeared in a bed of
    seedlings, raised at Mr. Loddige's nursery, from _T. orientalis_; and
    Dr. Hooker has adduced excellent evidence that at Turin seeds of _T.
    pendula_ have reproduced the parent-form, _T. orientalis_.[771]

    Every one must have noticed how certain individual trees regularly put
    forth and shed their leaves earlier or later than others of the same
    species. There is a famous horse-chesnut in the Tuileries which is
    named from {363} leafing so much earlier than the others. There is also
    an oak near Edinburgh which retains its leaves to a very late period.
    These differences have been attributed by some authors to the nature of
    the soil in which the trees grow; but Archbishop Whately grafted an
    early thorn on a late one, and _vice versa_, and both grafts kept to
    their proper periods, which differed by about a fortnight, as if they
    still grew on their own stocks.[772] There is a Cornish variety of the
    elm which is almost an evergreen, and is so tender that the shoots are
    often killed by the frost; and the varieties of the Turkish oak (_Q.
    cerris_) may be arranged as deciduous, sub-evergreen, and
    evergreen.[773]

    _Scotch Fir_ (_Pinus sylvestris_).--I allude to this tree as it bears
    on the question of the greater variability of our hedgerow trees
    compared with those under strictly natural conditions. A well-informed
    writer[774] states that the Scotch fir presents few varieties in its
    native Scotch forests; but that it "varies much in figure and foliage,
    and in the size, shape, and colour of its cones, when several
    generations have been produced away from its native locality." There is
    little doubt that the highland and lowland varieties differ in the
    value of their timber, and that they can be propagated truly by seed;
    thus justifying Loudon's remark, that "a variety is often of as much
    importance as a species, and sometimes far more so."[775] I may mention
    one rather important point in which this tree occasionally varies; in
    the classification of the Coniferae, sections are founded on whether
    two, three, or five leaves are included in the same sheath; the Scotch
    fir has properly only two leaves thus enclosed, but specimens have been
    observed with groups of three leaves in a sheath.[776] Besides these
    differences in the semi-cultivated Scotch fir, there are in several
    parts of Europe natural or geographical races, which have been ranked
    by some authors as distinct species.[777] Loudon[778] considers _P.
    pumilio_, with its several sub-varieties, as _Mughus_, _nana_, &c.,
    which differ much when planted in different soils and only come
    "tolerably true from seed," as alpine varieties of the Scotch fir; if
    this were proved to be the case, it would be an interesting fact as
    showing that dwarfing from long exposure to a severe climate is to a
    certain extent inherited.

    The _Hawthorn_ (_Crataegus oxycantha_) has varied much. Besides endless
    slighter variations in the form of the leaves, and in the size,
    hardness, fleshiness, and shape of the berries, Loudon[779] enumerates
    twenty-nine well-marked varieties. Besides those cultivated for their
    pretty flowers, there are others with golden-yellow, black, and whitish
    berries; others {364} with woolly berries, and others with recurved
    thorns. Loudon truly remarks that the chief reason why the hawthorn has
    yielded more varieties than most other trees, is that curious
    nurserymen select any remarkable variety out of the immense beds of
    seedlings which are annually raised for making hedges. The flowers of
    the hawthorn usually include from one to three pistils; but in two
    varieties, named _Monogyna_ and _Sibirica_, there is only a single
    pistil; and d'Asso states that the common thorn in Spain is constantly
    in this state.[780] There is also a variety which is apetalous, or has
    its petals reduced to mere rudiments. The famous Glastonbury thorn
    flowers and leafs towards the end of December, at which time it bears
    berries produced from an earlier crop of flowers.[781] It is worth
    notice that several varieties of the hawthorn, as well as of the lime
    and juniper, are very distinct in their foliage and habit whilst young,
    but in the course of thirty or forty years become extremely like each
    other;[782] thus reminding us of the well-known fact that the deodar,
    the cedar of Lebanon, and that of the Atlas, are distinguished with the
    greatest ease whilst young, but with difficulty when old.

    FLOWERS.

    I shall not for several reasons treat the variability of plants which
    are cultivated for their flowers alone at any great length. Many of our
    favourite kinds in their present state are the descendants of two or
    more species crossed and commingled together, and this circumstance
    alone would render it difficult to detect the differences due to
    variation. For instance, our Roses, Petunias, Calceolarias, Fuchsias,
    Verbenas, Gladioli, Pelargoniums, &c., certainly have had a multiple
    origin. A botanist well acquainted with the parent-forms would probably
    detect some curious structural differences in their crossed and
    cultivated descendant; and he would certainly observe many new and
    remarkable constitutional peculiarities. I will give a few instances,
    all relating to the Pelargonium, and taken chiefly from Mr. Beck,[783]
    a famous cultivator of this plant: some varieties require more water
    than others; some are "very impatient of the knife if too greedily used
    in making cuttings;" some, when potted, scarcely "show a root at the
    outside of the ball of the earth;" one variety requires a certain
    amount of confinement in the pot to make it throw up a flower-stem;
    some varieties bloom well at the commencement of the season, others at
    the close; one variety is known,[784] which will stand "even pine-apple
    top and bottom heat, without looking any more drawn than if it had
    stood in a common greenhouse; and Blanche Fleur seems as if made on
    purpose for growing in winter, like many bulbs, and to rest all
    summer." These odd constitutional peculiarities would fit a plant when
    growing in a state of nature for widely different circumstances and
    climates.

    {365}

    Flowers possess little interest under our present point of view,
    because they have been almost exclusively attended to and selected for
    their beautiful colours, size, perfect outline, and manner of growth.
    In these particulars hardly one long-cultivated flower can be named
    which has not varied greatly. What does a florist care for the shape
    and structure of the organs of fructification, unless, indeed, they add
    to the beauty of the flower? When this is the case, flowers become
    modified in important points; stamens and pistils may be converted into
    petals, and additional petals may be developed, as in all double
    flowers. The process of gradual selection by which flowers have been
    rendered more and more double, each step in the process of conversion
    being inherited, has been recorded in several instances. In the
    so-called double flowers of the Compositae, the corollas of the central
    florets are greatly modified, and the modifications are likewise
    inherited. In the columbine _(Aquilegia vulgaris)_ some of the stamens
    are converted into petals having the shape of nectaries, one neatly
    fitting into the other; but in one variety they are converted into
    simple petals.[785] In the hose and hose primulae, the calyx becomes
    brightly  and enlarged so as to resemble a corolla; and Mr. W.
    Wooler informs me that this peculiarity is transmitted; for he crossed
    a common polyanthus with one having a  calyx,[786] and some of
    the seedlings inherited the  calyx during at least six
    generations. In the "hen-and-chicken" daisy the main flower is
    surrounded by a brood of small flowers developed from buds in the axils
    of the scales of the involucre. A wonderful poppy has been described,
    in which the stamens are converted into pistils; and so strictly was
    this peculiarity inherited that, out of 154 seedlings, one alone
    reverted to the ordinary and common type.[787] Of the cock's-comb
    (_Celosia cristata_), which is an annual, there are several races in
    which the flower-stem is wonderfully "fasciated" or compressed; and one
    has been exhibited[788] actually eighteen inches in breadth. Peloric
    races of _Gloxinia speciosa_ and _Antirrhinum majus_ can be propagated
    by seed, and they differ in a wonderful manner from the typical form
    both in structure and appearance.

    A much more remarkable modification has been recorded by Sir William
    and Dr. Hooker[789] in _Begonia frigida_. This plant properly produces
    male and female flowers on the same fascicles; and in the female
    flowers the perianth is superior; but a plant at Kew produced, besides
    the ordinary flowers, others which graduated towards a perfect
    hermaphrodite structure; and in these flowers the perianth was
    inferior. To show the importance of this modification under a
    classificatory point of view, I may quote what Prof. Harvey says,
    namely, that had it "occurred in a state of nature, and had a botanist
    collected a plant with such flowers, he would not only have {366}
    placed it in a distinct genus from Begonia, but would probably have
    considered it as the type of a new natural order." This modification
    cannot in one sense be considered as a monstrosity, for analogous
    structures naturally occur in other orders, as with Saxifragas and
    Aristolochiaceae. The interest of the case is largely added to by Mr. C.
    W. Crocker's observation that seedlings from the _normal_ flowers
    produced plants which bore, in about the same proportion as the
    parent-plant, hermaphrodite flowers having inferior perianths. The
    hermaphrodite flowers fertilised with their own pollen were sterile.

    If florists had attended to, selected, and propagated by seed other
    modifications of structure besides those which are beautiful, a host of
    curious varieties would certainly have been raised; and they would
    probably have transmitted their characters so truly that the cultivator
    would have felt aggrieved, as in the case of culinary vegetables, if
    his whole bed had not presented a uniform appearance. Florists have
    attended in some instances to the leaves of their plant, and have thus
    produced the most elegant and symmetrical patterns of white, red, and
    green, which, as in the case of the pelargonium, are sometimes strictly
    inherited.[790] Any one who will habitually examine highly-cultivated
    flowers in gardens and greenhouses will observe numerous deviations in
    structure; but most of these must be ranked as mere monstrosities, and
    are only so far interesting as showing how plastic the organisation
    becomes under high cultivation. From this point of view such works as
    Professor Moquin-Tandon's 'Teratologie' are highly instructive.

    _Roses._--These flowers offer an instance of a number of forms
    generally ranked as species, namely, _R. centifolia_, _gallica_,
    _alba_, _damascena_, _spinosissima_, _bracteata_, _Indica_,
    _semperflorens_, _moschata_, &c., which have largely varied and been
    intercrossed. The genus Rosa is a notoriously difficult one, and,
    though some of the above forms are admitted by all botanists to be
    distinct species, others are doubtful; thus, with respect to the
    British forms, Babington makes seventeen, and Bentham only five
    species. The hybrids from some of the most distinct forms--for
    instance, from _R. Indica_, fertilised by the pollen of _R.
    centifolia_--produce an abundance of seed; I state this on the
    authority of Mr. Rivers,[791] from whose work I have drawn most of the
    following statements. As almost all the aboriginal forms brought from
    different countries have been crossed and recrossed, it is no wonder
    that Targioni-Tozzetti, in speaking of the common roses of the Italian
    gardens, remarks that "the native country and precise form of the wild
    type of most of them are involved in much uncertainty."[792]
    Nevertheless Mr. Rivers in referring to _R. Indica_ (p. 68) says that
    the descendants of each group may generally be recognised by a close
    observer. The same author often speaks of roses as having been a little
    hybridised; but {367} it is evident that in very many cases the
    differences due to variation and to hybridisation can now only be
    conjecturally distinguished.

    The species have varied both by seed and by buds; such modified buds
    being often called by gardeners sports. In the following chapter I
    shall fully discuss this latter subject, and shall show that
    bud-variations can be propagated not only by grafting and budding, but
    often even by seed. Whenever a new rose appears with any peculiar
    character, however produced, if it yields seed, Mr. Rivers (p. 4) fully
    expects it to become the parent-type of a new family. The tendency to
    vary is so strong in some kinds, as in the Village Maid (Rivers, p.
    16), that when grown in different soils it varies so much in colour
    that it has been thought to form several distinct kinds. Altogether the
    number of kinds is very great: thus M. Desportes, in his Catalogue for
    1829, enumerates 2562 as cultivated in France; but no doubt a large
    proportion of these are merely nominal.

    It would be useless to specify the many points of difference between
    the various kinds, but some constitutional peculiarities may be
    mentioned. Several French roses (Rivers, p. 12) will not succeed in
    England; and an excellent horticulturist[793] remarks, that "Even in
    the same garden you will find that a rose that will do nothing under a
    south wall will do well under a north one. That is the case with Paul
    Joseph here. It grows strongly and blooms beautifully close to a north
    wall. For three years seven plants have done nothing under a south
    wall." Many roses can be forced, "many are totally unfit for forcing,
    among which is General Jacqueminot."[794] From the effects of crossing
    and variation Mr. Rivers enthusiastically anticipates (p. 87) that the
    day will come when all our roses, even moss-roses, will have evergreen
    foliage, brilliant and fragrant flowers, and the habit of blooming from
    June till November. "A distant view this seems, but perseverance in
    gardening will yet achieve wonders," as assuredly it has already
    achieved wonders.

    It may be worth while briefly to give the well-known history of one
    class of roses. In 1793 some wild Scotch roses (_R. spinosissima_) were
    transplanted into a garden;[795] and one of these bore flowers slightly
    tinged with red, from which a plant was raised with semi-monstrous
    flowers, also tinged with red; seedlings from this flower were
    semi-double, and by continued selection, in about nine or ten years,
    eight sub-varieties were raised. In the course of less than twenty
    years these double Scotch roses had so much increased in number and
    kind, that twenty-six well-marked varieties, classed in eight sections,
    were described by Mr. Sabine. In 1841[796] it is said that three
    hundred varieties could be procured in the nursery-gardens near
    Glasgow; and these are described as blush, crimson, purple, red,
    marbled, two-, white, and yellow, and as differing much in the
    size and shape of the flower.

    {368}

    _Pansy or Heartsease_ (_Viola tricolor_, &c.).--The history of this
    flower seems to be pretty well known; it was grown in Evelyn's garden
    in 1687; but the varieties were not attended to till 1810-1812, when
    Lady Monke, together with Mr. Lee the well-known nurseryman,
    energetically commenced their culture; and in the course of a few years
    twenty varieties could be purchased.[797] At about the same period,
    namely in 1813 or 1814, Lord Gambier collected some wild plants, and
    his gardener, Mr. Thomson, cultivated them together with some common
    garden varieties, and soon effected a great improvement. The first
    great change was the conversion of the dark lines in the centre of the
    flower into a dark eye or centre, which at that period had never been
    seen, but is now considered one of the chief requisites of a first-rate
    flower. In 1835 a book entirely devoted to this flower was published,
    and four hundred named varieties were on sale. From these circumstances
    this plant seemed to me worth studying, more especially from the great
    contrast between the small, dull, elongated, irregular flowers of the
    wild <DW29>, and the beautiful, flat, symmetrical, circular, velvet-like
    flowers, more than two inches in diameter, magnificently and variously
    , which are exhibited at our shows. But when I came to inquire
    more closely, I found that, though the varieties were so modern, yet
    that much confusion and doubt prevailed about their parentage. Florists
    believe that the varieties[798] are descended from several wild stocks,
    namely, _V. tricolor_, _lutea_, _grandiflora_, _amoena_, and _Altaica_,
    more or less intercrossed. And when I looked to botanical works to
    ascertain whether these forms ought to be ranked as species, I found
    equal doubt and confusion. _Viola Altaica_ seems to be a distinct form,
    but what part it has played in the origin of our varieties I know not;
    it is said to have been crossed with _V. lutea_. _Viola amoena_[799] is
    now looked at by all botanists as a natural variety of _V.
    grandiflora_; and this and _V. sudetica_ have been proved to be
    identical with _V. lutea_. The latter and _V. tricolor_ (including its
    admitted variety _V. arvensis_) are ranked as distinct species by
    Babington; and likewise by M. Gay,[800] who has paid particular
    attention to the genus; but the specific distinction between _V. lutea_
    and _tricolor_ is chiefly grounded on the one being strictly and the
    other not strictly perennial, as well as on some other slight and
    unimportant differences in the form of the stem and stipules. Bentham
    unites these two forms; and a high authority on such matters, Mr. H. C.
    Watson,[801] says that, "while _V. tricolor_ passes into _V. arvensis_
    on the one side, it approximates so much towards _V. lutea_ and _V.
    Curtisii_ on the other side, that a distinction becomes scarcely more
    easy between them."

    {369}

    Hence, after having carefully compared numerous varieties, I gave up
    the attempt as too difficult for any one except a professed botanist.
    Most of the varieties present such inconstant characters, that when
    grown in poor soil, or when flowering out of their proper season, they
    produce differently  and much smaller flowers. Cultivators
    speak of this or that kind as being remarkably constant or true; but by
    this they do not mean, as in other cases, that the kind transmits its
    character by seed, but that the individual plant does not change much
    under culture. The principle of inheritance, however, does hold good to
    a certain extent even with the fleeting varieties of the Heartease, for
    to gain good sorts it is indispensable to sow the seed of good sorts.
    Nevertheless in every large seed-bed a few almost wild seedlings often
    reappear through reversion. On comparing the choicest varieties with
    the nearest allied wild forms, besides the difference in the size,
    outline, and colour of the flowers, the leaves are seen sometimes to
    differ in shape, as does the calyx occasionally in the length and
    breadth of the sepals. The differences in the form of the nectary more
    especially deserve notice; because characters derived from this organ
    have been much used in the discrimination of most of the species of
    Viola. In a large number of flowers compared in 1842 I found that in
    the greater number the nectary was straight; in others the extremity
    was a little turned upwards, or downwards, or inwards, so as to be
    completely hooked; in others, instead of being hooked, it was first
    turned rectangularly downwards, and then backwards and upwards; in
    others the extremity was considerably enlarged; and lastly, in some the
    basal part was depressed, becoming, as usual, laterally compressed
    towards the extremity. In a large number of flowers, on the other hand,
    examined by me in 1856 from a nursery-garden in a different part of
    England, the nectary hardly varied at all. Now M. Gay says that in
    certain districts, especially in Auvergne, the nectary of the wild _V.
    grandiflora_ varies in the manner just described. Must we conclude from
    this that the cultivated varieties first mentioned were all descended
    from _V. grandiflora_, and that the second lot, though having the same
    general appearance, were descended from _V. tricolor_, of which the
    nectary, according to M. Gay, is subject to little variation? Or is it
    not more probable that both these wild forms would be found under other
    conditions to vary in the same manner and degree, thus showing that
    they ought not to be ranked as specifically distinct?

    The _Dahlia_ has been referred to by almost every author who has
    written on the variation of plants, because it is believed that all the
    varieties are descended from a single species, and because all have
    arisen since 1802 in France, and since 1804 in England.[802] Mr. Sabine
    remarks that "it seems as if some period of cultivation had been
    required before the fixed qualities of the native plant gave way and
    began to sport into those changes which now so delight us."[803] The
    flowers have been greatly modified in shape from a flat to a globular
    form. Anemone and {370} ranunculus-like races,[804] which differ in the
    form and arrangement of the florets, have arisen; also dwarfed races,
    one of which is only eighteen inches in height. The seeds vary much in
    size. The petals are uniformly  or tipped or striped, and
    present an almost infinite diversity of tints. Seedlings of fourteen
    different colours[805] have been raised from the same plant; yet, as
    Mr. Sabine has remarked, "many of the seedlings follow their parents in
    colour." The period of flowering has been considerably hastened, and
    this has probably been effected by continued selection. Salisbury,
    writing 1808, says that they then flowered from September to November;
    in 1828 some new dwarf varieties began flowering in June;[806] and Mr.
    Grieve informs me that the dwarf purple Zelinda in his garden is in
    full bloom by the middle of June and sometimes even earlier. Slight
    constitutional differences have been observed between certain
    varieties: thus, some kinds succeed much better in one part of England
    than in another;[807] and it has been noticed that some varieties
    require much more moisture than others.[808]

    Such flowers as the carnation, common tulip, and hyacinth, which are
    believed to be descended, each from a single wild form, present
    innumerable varieties, differing almost exclusively in the size, form,
    and colour of the flowers. These and some other anciently cultivated
    plants which have been long propagated by offsets, pipings, bulbs, &c.,
    become so excessively variable, that almost each new plant raised from
    seed forms a new variety, "all of which to describe particularly," as
    old Gerarde wrote in 1597, "were to roll Sisyphus's stone, or to number
    the sands."

    _Hyacinth_ (_Hyacinthus orientalis_).--It may, however, be worth while
    to give a short account of this plant, which was introduced into
    England in 1596 from the Levant.[809] The petals of the original
    flower, says Mr. Paul, were narrow, wrinkled, pointed, and of a flimsy
    texture; now they are broad, smooth, solid, and rounded. The erectness,
    breadth, and length of the whole spike, and the size of the flowers,
    have all increased. The colours have been intensified and diversified.
    Gerarde, in 1597, enumerates four, and Parkinson, in 1629, eight
    varieties. Now the varieties are very numerous, and they were still
    more numerous a century ago. Mr. Paul remarks that "it is interesting
    to compare the Hyacinths of 1629 with those of 1864, and to mark the
    improvement. Two hundred and thirty-five years have elapsed since then,
    and this simple flower serves well to illustrate the great fact that
    the original forms of nature do not remain fixed and stationary, at
    least when brought under cultivation. While looking at the extremes, we
    must not however forget that there are intermediate stages which are
    for the most part lost to us. Nature will {371} sometimes indulge
    herself with a leap, but as a rule her march is slow and gradual." He
    adds that the cultivator should have "in his mind an ideal of beauty,
    for the realisation of which he works with head and hand." We thus see
    how clearly Mr. Paul, an eminently successful cultivator of this
    flower, appreciates the action of methodical selection.

    In a curious and apparently trustworthy treatise, published at
    Amsterdam[810] in 1768, it is stated that nearly 2000 sorts were then
    known; but in 1864 Mr. Paul found only 700 in the largest garden at
    Haarlem. In this treatise it is said that not an instance is known of
    any one variety reproducing itself truly by seed: the white kinds,
    however, now[811] almost always yield white hyacinths, and the yellow
    kinds come nearly true. The hyacinth is remarkable from having given
    rise to varieties with bright blue, pink, and distinctly yellow
    flowers. These three primary colours do not occur in the varieties of
    any other species; nor do they often all occur even in the distinct
    species of the same genus. Although the several kinds of hyacinths
    differ but slightly from each other except in colour, yet each kind has
    its own individual character, which can be recognised by a highly
    educated eye; thus the writer of the Amsterdam treatise asserts (p. 43)
    that some experienced florists, such as the famous G. Voorholm, seldom
    failed in a collection of above twelve hundred sorts to recognise each
    variety by the bulb alone! This same writer mentions some few singular
    variations: for instance, the hyacinth commonly produces six leaves,
    but there is one kind (p. 35) which scarcely ever has more than three
    leaves; another never more than five; whilst others regularly produce
    either seven or eight leaves. A variety, called la Coriphee, invariably
    produces (p. 116) two flower-stems, united together and covered by one
    skin. The flower-stem in another kind (p. 128) comes out of the ground
    in a  sheath, before the appearance of the leaves, and is
    consequently liable to suffer from frost. Another variety always pushes
    a second flower-stem after the first has begun to develop itself.
    Lastly, white hyacinths with red, purple, or violet centres (p. 129)
    are the most liable to rot. Thus, the hyacinth, like so many previous
    plants, when long cultivated and closely watched, is found to offer
    many singular variations.

In the two last chapters I have given in some detail the range of
variation, and the history, as far as known, of a considerable number of
plants, which have been cultivated for various purposes. But some of the
most variable plants, such as Kidney-beans, Capsicum, Millets, Sorghum,
&c., have been passed over; for botanists are not agreed which kinds ought
to rank as species and which as varieties; and the wild parent-species are
unknown.[812] Many plants long cultivated in tropical {372} countries, such
as the Banana, have produced numerous varieties; but as these have never
been described with even moderate care, they also are here passed over.
Nevertheless a sufficient, and perhaps more than sufficient, number of
cases have been given, so that the reader may be enabled to judge for
himself on the nature and extent of the variation which cultivated plants
have undergone.

       *       *       *       *       *


{373}

CHAPTER XI.

ON BUD-VARIATION, AND ON CERTAIN ANOMALOUS MODES OF REPRODUCTION AND
VARIATION.

    BUD-VARIATIONS IN THE PEACH, PLUM, CHERRY, VINE, GOOSEBERRY, CURRANT,
    AND BANANA, AS SHOWN BY THE MODIFIED FRUIT--IN FLOWERS: CAMELLIAS,
    AZALEAS, CHRYSANTHEMUMS, ROSES, ETC.--ON THE RUNNING OF THE COLOUR IN
    CARNATIONS--BUD-VARIATIONS IN LEAVES--VARIATIONS BY SUCKERS, TUBERS,
    AND BULBS--ON THE BREAKING OF TULIPS--BUD-VARIATIONS GRADUATE INTO
    CHANGES CONSEQUENT ON CHANGED CONDITIONS OF LIFE--CYTISUS ADAMI, ITS
    ORIGIN AND TRANSFORMATION--ON THE UNION OF TWO DIFFERENT EMBRYOS IN ONE
    SEED--THE TRIFACIAL ORANGE--ON REVERSION BY BUDS IN HYBRIDS AND
    MONGRELS--ON THE PRODUCTION OF MODIFIED BUDS BY THE GRAFTING OF ONE
    VARIETY OR SPECIES ON ANOTHER--ON THE DIRECT OR IMMEDIATE ACTION OF
    FOREIGN POLLEN ON THE MOTHER-PLANT--ON THE EFFECTS IN FEMALE ANIMALS OF
    A FIRST IMPREGNATION ON THE SUBSEQUENT OFFSPRING--CONCLUSION AND
    SUMMARY.

This chapter will be chiefly devoted to a subject in many respects
important, namely, bud-variation. By this term I include all those sudden
changes in structure or appearance which occasionally occur in full-grown
plants in their flower-buds or leaf-buds. Gardeners call such changes
"Sports;" but this, as previously remarked, is an ill-defined expression,
as it has often been applied to strongly marked variations in seedling
plants. The difference between seminal and bud reproduction is not so great
as it at first appears; for each bud is in one sense a new and distinct
individual; but such individuals are produced through the formation of
various kinds of buds without the aid of any special apparatus, whilst
fertile seeds are produced by the concourse of the two sexual elements. The
modifications which arise through bud-variation can generally be propagated
to any extent by grafting, budding, cuttings, bulbs, &c., and occasionally
even by seed. Some few of our most beautiful and useful productions have
arisen by bud-variation.

Bud-variations have as yet been observed only in the vegetable {374}
kingdom; but it is probable that if compound animals, such as corals, &c.,
had been subjected to a long course of domestication, they would have
varied by buds; for they resemble plants in many respects. Thus any new or
peculiar character presented by a compound animal is propagated by budding,
as occurs with differently  Hydras, and as Mr. Gosse has shown to
be the case with a singular variety of a true coral. Varieties of the Hydra
have also been grafted on other varieties, and have retained their
character.

I will in the first place give all the cases of bud-variations which I have
been able to collect, and afterwards show their importance. These cases
prove that those authors who, like Pallas, attribute all variability to the
crossing either of distinct races, or of individuals belonging to the same
race but somewhat different from each other, are in error; as are those
authors who attribute all variability to the mere act of sexual union. Nor
can we account in all cases for the appearance through bud-variation of new
characters by the principle of reversion to long-lost characters. He who
wishes to judge how far the conditions of life directly cause each
particular variation ought to reflect well on the cases immediately to be
given. I will commence with bud-variations, as exhibited in the fruit, and
then pass on to flowers, and finally to leaves.

    _Peach_ (_Amygdalus Persica_).--In the last chapter I gave two cases of
    a peach-almond and double-flowered almond which suddenly produced fruit
    closely resembling true peaches. I have also recorded many cases of
    peach-trees producing buds, which, when developed into branches, have
    yielded nectarines. We have seen that no less than six named and
    several unnamed varieties of the peach have thus produced several
    varieties of nectarine. I have shown that it is highly improbable that
    all these peach-trees, some of which are old varieties, and have been
    propagated by the million, are hybrids from the peach and nectarine,
    and that it is opposed to all analogy to attribute the occasional
    production of nectarines on peach-trees to the direct action of pollen
    from some neighbouring nectarine-tree. Several of the cases are highly
    remarkable, because, firstly, the fruit thus produced has sometimes
    been in part a nectarine and in part a peach; secondly, because
    nectarines thus suddenly produced have reproduced themselves by seed;
    and thirdly, because nectarines are produced from peach-trees from seed
    as well as from buds. The seed of the nectarine, on the other hand,
    occasionally produces peaches; and we have seen in one instance that a
    nectarine-tree yielded peaches by bud-variation. As the peach is
    certainly the oldest or primary variety, the {375} production of
    peaches from nectarines, either by seeds or buds, may perhaps be
    considered as a case of reversion. Certain trees have also been
    described as indifferently bearing peaches or nectarines, and this may
    be considered as bud-variation carried to an extreme degree.

    The _grosse mignonne_ peach at Montreuil produced "from a sporting
    branch" the _grosse mignonne tardive_, "a most excellent variety,"
    which ripens its fruit a fortnight later than the parent tree, and is
    equally good.[813] This same peach has likewise produced by
    bud-variation the _early grosse mignonne_. Hunt's large tawny nectarine
    "originated from Hunt's small tawny nectarine, but not through seminal
    reproduction."[814]

    _Plums._--Mr. Knight states that a tree of the yellow magnum bonum
    plum, forty years old, which had always borne ordinary fruit, produced
    a branch which yielded red magnum bonums.[815] Mr. Rivers, of
    Sawbridgeworth, informs me (Jan. 1863) that a single tree out of 400 or
    500 trees of the Early Prolific plum, which is a purple kind, descended
    from an old French variety bearing purple fruit, produced when about
    ten years old bright yellow plums; these differed in no respect except
    colour from those on the other trees, but were unlike any other known
    kind of yellow plum.[816]

    _Cherry_ (_Prunus cerasus_).--Mr. Knight has recorded (_idem_) the case
    of a branch of a May-Duke cherry, which, though certainly never
    grafted, always produced fruit, ripening later, and more oblong, than
    the fruit on the other branches. Another account has been given of two
    May-Duke cherry-trees in Scotland, with branches bearing oblong, and
    very fine fruit, which invariably ripened, as in Knight's case, a
    fortnight later than the other cherries.[817]

    _Grapes_ (_Vitis vinifera_).--The black or purple Frontignan in one
    case produced during two successive years (and no doubt permanently)
    spurs which bore white Frontignan grapes. In another case, on the same
    footstalk, the lower berries "were well- black Frontignans;
    those next the stalk were white, with the exception of one black and
    one streaked berry;" and altogether there were fifteen black and twelve
    white berries on the same stalk. In another kind of grape black and
    amber- berries were produced in the same cluster.[818] Count
    Odart describes a variety which often bears on the same stalk small
    round and large oblong berries; though the shape of the berry is
    generally a fixed character.[819] Here is another striking case given
    on the excellent authority of M. Carriere:[820] "a black Hamburgh grape
    (Frankenthal) was cut down, and produced three suckers; one of these
    was layered, and after a time produced much smaller berries, which
    always ripened at least a fortnight {376} earlier than the others. Of
    the remaining two suckers, one produced every year fine grapes, whilst
    the other, although it set an abundance of fruit, matured only a few,
    and these of inferior quality.

    _Gooseberry_ (_Ribes grossularia_).--A remarkable case has been
    described by Dr. Lindley[821] of a bush which bore at the same time no
    less than four kinds of berries, namely, hairy and red,--smooth, small
    and red,--green,--and yellow tinged with buff; the two latter kinds had
    a different flavour from the red berries, and their seeds were 
    red. Three twigs on this bush grew close together; the first bore three
    yellow berries and one red; the second twig bore four yellow and one
    red; and the third four red and one yellow. Mr. Laxton also informs me
    that he has seen a Red Warrington gooseberry bearing both red and
    yellow fruit on the same branch.

    _Currant_ (_Ribes rubrum_).--A bush purchased as the Champagne, which
    is a variety that bears blush- fruit intermediate between red
    and white, produced during fourteen years, on separate branches and
    mingled on the same branch, berries of the red, white, and champagne
    kinds.[822] The suspicion naturally arises that this variety may have
    originated from a cross between a red and white variety, and that the
    above transformation may be accounted for by reversion to both
    parent-forms; but from the foregoing complex case of the gooseberry
    this view is doubtful. In France, a branch of a red-currant bush, about
    ten years old, produced near the summit five white berries, and lower
    down, amongst the red berries, one berry half red and half white.[823]
    Alexander Braun[824] also has often seen branches bearing red berries
    on white currants.

    _Pear_ (_Pyrus communis_).--Dureau de la Malle states that the flowers
    on some trees of an ancient variety, the _doyenne galeux_, were
    destroyed by frost: other flowers appeared in July, which produced six
    pears; these exactly resembled in their skin and taste the fruit of a
    distinct variety, the _gros doyenne blanc_, but in shape were like the
    _bon-chretien_: it was not ascertained whether this new variety could
    be propagated by budding or grafting. The same author grafted a
    _bon-chretien_ on a quince, and it produced, besides its proper fruit,
    an apparently new variety, of a peculiar form, with thick and rough
    skin.[825]

    _Apple_ (_Pyrus malus_).--In Canada, a tree of the variety called Pound
    Sweet, produced,[826] between two of its proper fruit, an apple which
    was well russetted, small in size, different in shape, and with a short
    peduncle. As no russet apple grew anywhere near, this case apparently
    cannot be accounted for by the direct action of foreign pollen. I shall
    hereafter give {377} cases of apple-trees which regularly produce fruit
    of two kinds, or half-and-half fruit; these trees are generally
    supposed, and probably with truth, to be of crossed parentage, and that
    the fruit reverts to both parent-forms.

    _Banana_ (_Musa sapientium_).--Sir R. Schomburgk states that he saw in
    St. Domingo a raceme on the Fig Banana which bore towards the base 125
    fruits of the proper kind; and these were succeeded, as is usual,
    higher up the raceme, by barren flowers, and these by 420 fruits,
    having a widely different appearance, and ripening earlier than the
    proper fruit. The abnormal fruit closely resembled, except in being
    smaller, that of the _Musa Chinensis_ or _Cavendishii_, which has
    generally been ranked as a distinct species.[827]

       *       *       *       *       *

    FLOWERS.--Many cases have been recorded of a whole plant, or single
    branch, or bud, suddenly producing flowers different from the proper
    type in colour, form, size, doubleness, or other character. Half the
    flower, or a smaller segment, sometimes changes colour.

    _Camellia._--The myrtle-leaved species (_C. myrtifolia_), and two or
    three varieties of the common species, have been known to produce
    hexagonal and imperfectly quadrangular flowers; and the branches
    producing such flowers have been propagated by grafting.[828] The
    Pompone variety often bears "four distinguishable kinds of
    flowers,--the pure white and the red-eyed, which appear promiscuously;
    the brindled pink and the rose-, which may be kept separate
    with tolerable certainty by grafting from the branches that bear them."
    A branch, also, on an old tree of the rose- variety has been
    seen to "revert to the pure white colour, an occurrence less common
    than the departure from it."[829]

    _Crataegus oxycantha._--A dark pink hawthorn has been known to throw out
    a single tuft of pure white blossoms;[830] and Mr. A. Clapham,
    nurseryman, of Bradford, informs me that his father had a deep crimson
    thorn grafted on a white thorn, which, during several years, always
    bore, high above the graft, bunches of white, pink, and deep crimson
    flowers.

    _Azalea Indica_ is well known often to produce by buds new varieties. I
    have myself seen several cases. A plant of _Azalea Indica variegata_
    has been exhibited bearing a truss of flowers of _A. Ind. Gledstanesii_
    "as true as could possibly be produced, thus evidencing the origin of
    that fine variety." On another plant of _A. Ind. variegata_ a perfect
    flower of _A. Ind. lateritia_ was produced; so that both _Gledstanesii_
    and _lateritia_ no doubt originally appeared as sporting branches of
    _A. Ind. variegata_.[831]

    _Cistus tricuspis._--A seedling of this plant, when some years old,
    produced, at Saharunpore,[832] some branches "which bore leaves and
    flowers widely different from the normal form." "The abnormal leaf is
    much less {378} divided, and not acuminated. The petals are
    considerably larger, and quite entire. There is also in the fresh state
    a conspicuous, large, oblong gland, full of a viscid secretion, on the
    back of each of the calycine segments."

    _Althaea rosea._--A double yellow Hollyock suddenly turned one year into
    a pure white single kind; subsequently a branch bearing the original
    double yellow flowers reappeared in the midst of the branches of the
    single white kind.[833]

    _Pelargonium._--These highly cultivated plants seem eminently liable to
    bud-variation. I will give only a few well-marked cases. Gaertner has
    seen[834] a plant of _P. zonale_ with a branch having white-edged
    leaves, which remained constant for years, and bore flowers of a deeper
    red than usual. Generally speaking, such branches present little or no
    difference in their flowers: thus a writer[835] pinched off the leading
    shoot of a seedling _P. zonale_, and it threw out three branches, which
    differed in the size and colour of their leaves and stems; but on all
    three branches "the flowers were identical," except in being largest in
    the green-stemmed variety, and smallest in that with variegated
    foliage: these three varieties were subsequently propagated and
    distributed. Many branches, and some whole plants, of a variety called
    _compactum_, which bears orange-scarlet flowers, have been seen to
    produce pink flowers.[836] Hill's Hector, which is a pale red variety,
    produced a branch with lilac flowers, and some trusses with both red
    and lilac flowers. This apparently is a case of reversion, for Hill's
    Hector was a seedling from a lilac variety.[837] Of all Pelargoniums,
    Rollisson's Unique seems to be the most sportive; its origin is not
    positively known, but is believed to be from a cross. Mr. Salter, of
    Hammersmith, states[838] that he has himself known this purple variety
    to produce the lilac, the rose-crimson or _conspicuum_, and the red or
    _coccineum_ varieties; the latter has also produced the _rose d'amour_;
    so that altogether four varieties have originated by bud variation from
    Rollisson's Unique. Mr. Salter remarks that these four varieties "may
    now be considered as fixed, although they occasionally produce flowers
    of the original colour. This year _coccineum_ has pushed flowers of
    three different colours, red, rose, and lilac, upon the same truss, and
    upon other trusses are flowers half red and half lilac." Besides these
    four varieties, two other scarlet Uniques are known to exist, both of
    which occasionally produce lilac flowers identical with Rollisson's
    Unique;[839] but one at least of these did not arise through
    bud-variation, but is believed to be a seedling from Rollisson's
    Unique.[840] There are, also, in the trade[841] two other slightly
    different varieties, of unknown origin, of Rollisson's Unique: so that
    altogether we have a curiously complex case {379} of variation both by
    buds and seeds.[842] An English wild plant, the _Geranium pratense_,
    when cultivated in a garden, has been seen to produce on the same plant
    both blue and white, and striped blue and white flowers.[843]

    _Chrysanthemum._--This plant frequently sports, both by its lateral
    branches and occasionally by suckers. A seedling raised by Mr. Salter
    has produced by bud-variation six distinct sorts, five different in
    colour and one in foliage, all of which are now fixed.[844] The
    varieties which were first introduced from China were so excessively
    variable, "that it was extremely difficult to tell which was the
    original colour of the variety, and which was the sport." The same
    plant would produce one year only buff-, and next year only
    rose- flowers; and then would change again, or produce at the
    same time flowers of both colours. These fluctuating varieties are now
    all lost, and, when a branch sports into a new variety, it can
    generally be propagated and kept true; but, as Mr. Salter remarks,
    "every sport should be thoroughly tested in different soils before it
    can be really considered as fixed, as many have been known to run back
    when planted in rich compost; but when sufficient care and time are
    expended in proving, there will exist little danger of subsequent
    disappointment." Mr. Salter informs me that with all the varieties the
    commonest kind of bud-variation is the production of yellow flowers,
    and, as this is the primordial colour, these cases may be attributed to
    reversion. Mr. Salter has given me a list of seven differently 
    chrysanthemums, which have all produced branches with yellow flowers;
    but three of them have also sported into other colours. With any change
    of colour in the flower, the foliage generally changes in a
    corresponding manner in lightness or darkness.

    Another Compositous plant, namely, _Centauria cyanus_, when cultivated
    in a garden, not unfrequently produces on the same root flowers of four
    different colours, viz., blue, white, dark-purple, and
    particoloured.[845] The flowers of Anthemis also vary on the same
    plant.[846]

    _Roses._--Many varieties of the rose are known or are believed to have
    originated by bud-variation.[847] The common double moss-rose was
    imported into England from Italy about the year 1735.[848] Its origin
    is unknown, but from analogy it probably arose from the Provence rose
    (_R. centifolia_) by bud-variation; for branches of the common
    moss-rose have several times been known to produce Provence roses,
    wholly or partially destitute of moss: I have seen one such instance,
    and several others have been recorded.[849] {380} Mr. Rivers also
    informs me that he raised two or three roses of the Provence class from
    seed of the old single moss-rose;[850] and this latter kind was
    produced in 1807 by bud-variation from the common moss-rose. The white
    moss-rose was also produced in 1788 by an offset from the common red
    moss-rose: it was at first pale blush-, but became white by
    continued budding. On cutting down the shoots which had produced this
    white moss-rose, two weak shoots were thrown up, and buds from these
    yielded the beautiful striped moss-rose. The common moss-rose has
    yielded by bud-variation, besides the old single red moss-rose, the old
    scarlet semi-double moss-rose, and the sage-leaf moss-rose, which "has
    a delicate shell-like form, and is of a beautiful blush colour; it is
    now (1852) nearly extinct."[851] A white moss-rose has been seen to
    bear a flower half white and half pink.[852] Although several
    moss-roses have thus certainly arisen by bud-variation, the greater
    number probably owe their origin to seed of moss-roses. For Mr. Rivers
    informs me that his seedlings from the old single moss-rose almost
    always produced moss-roses; and the old single moss-rose was, as we
    have seen, the product by bud-variation of the double moss-rose
    originally imported from Italy. That the original moss-rose was the
    product of bud-variation is probable, from the facts above given and
    from the moss-rose de Meaux (also a var. of _R. centifolia_)[853]
    having appeared as a sporting branch on the common rose de Meaux.

    Prof. Caspary has carefully described[854] the case of a six-year-old
    white moss-rose, which sent up several suckers, one of which was
    thorny, and produced red flowers, destitute of moss, exactly like those
    of the Provence rose (_R. centifolia_): another shoot bore both kinds
    of flowers and in addition longitudinally striped flowers. As this
    white moss-rose had been grafted on the Provence rose, Prof. Caspary
    attributes the above changes to the influence of the stock; but from
    the facts already given, and from others to be given, bud-variation,
    with reversion, is probably a sufficient explanation.

    Many other instances could be added of roses varying by buds. The white
    Provence rose apparently thus originated.[855] The double and
    highly- Belladonna rose has been known[856] to produce by
    suckers both semi-double and almost single white roses; whilst suckers
    from one of these semi-double white roses reverted to perfectly
    characterised Belladonnas. Varieties of the China rose propagated by
    cuttings in St. Domingo often revert after a year or two into the old
    China rose.[857] Many cases {381} have been recorded of roses suddenly
    becoming striped or changing their character by segments: some plants
    of the Comtesse de Chabrillant, which is properly rose-, were
    exhibited in 1862,[858] with crimson flakes on a rose ground. I have
    seen the Beauty of Billiard with a quarter and with half the flower
    almost white. The Austrian bramble (_R. lutea_) not rarely[859]
    produces branches with pure yellow flowers; and Prof. Henslow has seen
    exactly half the flower of a pure yellow, and I have seen narrow yellow
    streaks on a single petal, of which the rest was of the usual copper
    colour.

    The following cases are highly remarkable. Mr. Rivers, as I am informed
    by him, possessed a new French rose with delicate smooth shoots, pale
    glaucous-green leaves, and semi-double pale flesh- flowers
    striped with dark red; and on branches thus characterised there
    suddenly appeared, in more than one instance, the famous old rose
    called the Baronne Prevost, with its stout thorny shoots, and immense,
    uniformly and richly , double flowers; so that in this case the
    shoots, leaves, and flowers, all at once changed their character by
    bud-variation. According to M. Verlot[860] a variety called _Rosa
    cannabifolia_, which has peculiarly shaped leaflets, and differs from
    every member of the family in the leaves being opposite instead of
    alternate, suddenly appeared on a plant of _R. alba_ in the gardens of
    the Luxembourg. Lastly, "a running shoot" was observed by Mr. H.
    Curtis[861] on the old Aimee Vibert Noisette, and he budded it on
    Celine; thus a climbing Aimee Vibert was first produced and afterwards
    propagated.

    _Dianthus._--It is quite common with the Sweet William (_D. barbatus_)
    to see differently  flowers on the same root; and I have
    observed on the same truss four differently  and shaded
    flowers. Carnations and pinks (_D. caryophyllus_, &c.) occasionally
    vary by layers; and some kinds are so little certain in character that
    they are called by floriculturists "catch-flowers."[862] Mr. Dickson
    has ably discussed the "running" of particoloured or striped
    carnations, and says it cannot be accounted for by the compost in which
    they are grown: "layers from the same clean flower would come part of
    them clean and part foul, even when subjected to precisely the same
    treatment; and frequently one flower alone appears influenced by the
    taint, the remainder coming perfectly clean."[863] This running of the
    parti- flowers apparently is a case of reversion by buds to the
    original uniform tint of the species.

    I will briefly mention some other cases of bud-variation to show how
    many plants belonging to many orders have varied in their flowers;
    numerous cases might be added. I have seen on a snap-dragon
    (_Antirrhinum majus_) white, pink, and striped flowers on the same
    plant, and branches with striped flowers on a red- variety. On
    a double stock (_Matthiola incana_) I have seen a branch bearing single
    flowers; and {382} on a dingy-purple, double variety of the wall-flower
    (_Cheiranthus cheiri_) a branch which had reverted to the ordinary
    copper colour. On other branches of the same plant, some flowers were
    exactly divided across the middle, one half being purple and the other
    coppery; but some of the smaller petals towards the centre of these
    same flowers were purple longitudinally streaked with coppery colour,
    or coppery streaked with purple. A Cyclamen[864] has been observed to
    bear white and pink flowers of two forms, the one resembling the
    Persicum strain, and the other the Coum strain. _Oenothera biennis_ has
    been seen[865] bearing flowers of three different colours. The hybrid
    _Gladiolus colvillii_ occasionally bears uniformly  flowers,
    and one case is recorded[866] of all the flowers on a plant thus
    changing colour. A Fuchsia has been seen[867] bearing two kinds of
    flowers. _Mirabilis jalapa_ is eminently sportive, sometimes bearing on
    the same root pure red, yellow, and white flowers, and others striped
    with various combinations of these three colours.[868] The plants of
    the Mirabilis which bear such extraordinarily variable flowers, in
    most, probably in all cases, owe their origin, as shown by Prof. Lecoq,
    to crosses between differently- varieties.

       *       *       *       *       *

    _Leaves and Shoots._--Changes, through bud-variation, in fruits and
    flowers have hitherto been treated of, but incidentally some remarkable
    modifications in the leaves and shoots of the rose and Cistus, and in a
    lesser degree in the foliage of the Pelargonium and Chrysanthemum, have
    been noticed. I will now add a few more cases of variation in
    leaf-buds. Verlot[869] states that on _Aralia trifoliata_, which
    properly has leaves with three leaflets, branches bearing simple leaves
    of various forms frequently appear; these can be propagated by buds or
    grafting, and have given rise, as he states, to several nominal
    species.

    With respect to trees, the history of but few of the many varieties
    with curious or ornamental foliage is known; but several probably have
    originated by bud-variation. Here is one case:--An old ash-tree
    (_Fraxinus excelsior_) in the grounds of Necton, as Mr. Mason states,
    "for many years has had one bough of a totally different character to
    the rest of the tree, or of any other ash-tree which I have seen; being
    short-jointed and densely covered with foliage." It was ascertained
    that this variety could be propagated by grafts.[870] The varieties of
    some trees with cut leaves, as the oak-leaved laburnum, the
    parsley-leaved vine, and especially the fern-leaved beech, are apt to
    revert by buds to the common form.[871] The fern-like leaves of the
    beech sometimes revert only partially, and the branches display here
    and there sprouts bearing common leaves, fern-like, and variously
    shaped leaves. Such cases differ but little from the so-called {383}
    heterophyllous varieties, in which the tree habitually bears leaves of
    various forms; but it is probable that most heterophyllous trees have
    originated as seedlings. There is a sub-variety of the weeping willow
    with leaves rolled up into a spiral coil; and Mr. Masters states that a
    tree of this kind kept true in his garden for twenty-five years, and
    then threw out a single upright shoot bearing flat leaves.[872]

    I have often noticed single twigs and branches on beech and other trees
    with their leaves fully expanded before those on the other branches had
    opened; and as there was nothing in their exposure or character to
    account for this difference, I presume that they had appeared as
    bud-variations, like the early and late fruit-maturing varieties of the
    peach and nectarine.

    Cryptogamic plants are liable to bud-variation, for fronds on the same
    fern are often seen to display remarkable deviations of structure.
    Spores, which are of the nature of buds, taken from such abnormal
    fronds, reproduce, with remarkable fidelity, the same variety, after
    passing through the sexual stage.[873]

    With respect to colour, leaves often become by bud-variation zoned,
    blotched, or spotted with white, yellow, and red; and this occasionally
    occurs even with plants in a state of nature. Variegation, however,
    appears still more frequently in plants produced from seed; even the
    cotyledons or seed-leaves being thus affected.[874] There have been
    endless disputes whether variegation should be considered as a disease.
    In a future chapter we shall see that it is much influenced, both in
    the case of seedlings and of mature plants, by the nature of the soil.
    Plants which have become variegated as seedlings, generally transmit
    their character by seed to a large proportion of their progeny; and Mr.
    Salter has given me a list of eight genera in which this occurred.[875]
    Sir F. Pollock has given me more precise information: he sowed seed
    from a variegated plant of _Ballota nigra_ which was found growing
    wild, and thirty per cent. of the seedlings were variegated; seed from
    these latter being sown, sixty per cent. came up variegated. When
    branches become variegated by bud-variation, and the variety is
    attempted to be propagated by seed, the seedlings are rarely
    variegated; Mr. Salter found this to be the case with plants belonging
    to eleven genera, in which the greater number of the seedlings proved
    to be green-leaved; yet a few were slightly variegated, or were quite
    white, but none were worth keeping. Variegated plants, whether
    originally produced from seeds or buds, can generally be propagated by
    budding, grafting, &c.; but all are apt to revert by bud-variation to
    their ordinary foliage. This tendency, however, differs much in the
    varieties of even the same species; for instance, the golden-striped
    variety of _Euonymus Japonicus_ "is very liable to run back to the
    green-leaved, while the silver-striped {384} variety hardly ever
    changes."[876] I have seen a variety of the holly, with its leaves
    having a central yellow patch, which had everywhere partially reverted
    to the ordinary foliage, so that on the same small branch there were
    many twigs of both kinds. In the pelargonium, and in some other plants,
    variegation is generally accompanied by some degree of dwarfing, as is
    well exemplified in the "Dandy" pelargonium. When such dwarf varieties
    sport back by buds or suckers to the ordinary foliage, the dwarfed
    stature sometimes still remains.[877] It is remarkable that plants
    propagated from branches which have reverted from variegated to plain
    leaves[878] do not always (or never, as one observer asserts) perfectly
    resemble the original plain-leaved plant from which the variegated
    branch arose: it seems that a plant, in passing by bud-variation from
    plain leaves to variegated, and back again from variegated to plain, is
    generally in some degree affected so as to assume a slightly different
    aspect.

       *       *       *       *       *

    _Bud-variation by Suckers, Tubers, and Bulbs._--All the cases hitherto
    given of bud-variation in fruits, flowers, leaves, and shoots, have
    been confined to buds on the stems or branches, with the exception of a
    few cases incidentally noticed of varying suckers in the rose,
    pelargonium, and chrysanthemum. I will now give a few instances of
    variation in subterranean buds, that is, by suckers, tubers, and bulbs;
    not that there is any essential difference between buds above and
    beneath the ground. Mr. Salter informs me that two variegated varieties
    of Phlox originated as suckers; but I should not have thought these
    worth mentioning, had not Mr. Salter found, after repeated trials, that
    he could not propagate them by "root-joints," whereas, the variegated
    _Tussilago farfara_ can thus be safely propagated;[879] but this latter
    plant may have originated as a variegated seedling, which would account
    for its greater fixedness of character. The Barberry (_Berberis
    vulgaris_) offers an analogous case; there is a well-known variety with
    seedless fruit, which can be propagated by cuttings or layers; but
    suckers always revert to the common form, which produces fruit
    containing seeds.[880] My father repeatedly tried this experiment, and
    always with the same result.

    Turning now to tubers: in the common Potato (_Solanum tuberosum_) a
    single bud or eye sometimes varies and produces a new variety; or,
    occasionally, and this is a much more remarkable circumstance, all the
    eyes in a tuber vary in the same manner and at the same time, so that
    the whole tuber assumes a new character. For instance, a single eye in
    a tuber of the {385} old _Forty-fold potato_, which is a purple
    variety, was observed[881] to become white; this eye was cut out and
    planted separately, and the kind has since been largely propagated.
    _Kemp's Potato_ is properly white, but a plant in Lancashire produced
    two tubers which were red, and two which were white; the red kind was
    propagated in the usual manner by eyes, and kept true to its new
    colour, and, being found a more productive variety, soon became widely
    known under the name of _Taylor's Forty-fold_.[882] The _Old
    Forty-fold_ potato, as already stated, is a purple variety; but a plant
    long cultivated on the same ground produced, not as in the case above
    given a single white eye, but a whole white tuber, which has since been
    propagated and keeps true.[883] Several cases have been recorded of
    large portions of whole rows of potatoes slightly changing their
    character.[884]

    Dahlias propagated by tubers under the hot climate of St. Domingo vary
    much; Sir R. Schomburgk gives the case of the "Butterfly variety,"
    which the second year produced on the same plant "double and single
    flowers; here white petals edged with maroon; there of a uniform deep
    maroon."[885] Mr. Bree also mentions a plant "which bore two different
    kinds of self- flowers, as well as a third kind which partook
    of both colours beautifully intermixed."[886] Another case is described
    of a dahlia with purple flowers which bore a white flower streaked with
    purple.[887]

    Considering how long and extensively many Bulbous plants have been
    cultivated, and how numerous are the varieties produced from seed,
    these plants have not varied so much by offsets,--that is, by the
    production of new bulbs,--as might have been expected. With the
    Hyacinth a case has been recorded of a blue variety which for three
    successive years gave offsets which produced white flowers with a red
    centre.[888] Another hyacinth has been described[889] as bearing on the
    same truss a perfectly pink and a perfectly blue flower.

    Mr. John Scott informs me that in 1862 _Imatophyllum miniatum_, in the
    Botanic Gardens of Edinburgh, threw up a sucker which differed from the
    normal form, in the leaves being two-ranked instead of four-ranked. The
    leaves were also smaller, with the upper surface raised instead of
    being channelled.

    In the propagation of _Tulips_, seedlings are raised, called _selfs_ or
    _breeders_, which "consist of one plain colour on a white or yellow
    bottom. These, being cultivated on a dry and rather poor soil, become
    broken or variegated and produce new varieties. The time that elapses
    before they break varies from one to twenty years or more, and
    sometimes this change never takes place."[890] The various broken or
    variegated colours which give value to all tulips are due to
    bud-variation; for although the {386} Bybloemens and some other kinds
    have been raised from several distinct breeders, yet all the Baguets
    are said to have come from a single breeder or seedling. This
    bud-variation, in accordance with the views of MM. Vilmorin and
    Verlot,[891] is probably an attempt to revert to that uniform colour
    which is natural to the species. A tulip, however, which has already
    become broken, when treated with too strong manure, is liable to flush
    or lose by a second act of reversion its variegated colours. Some
    kinds, as Imperatrix Florum, are much more liable than others to
    flushing; and Mr. Dickson maintains[892] that this can no more be
    accounted for than the variation of any other plant. He believes that
    English growers, from care in choosing seed from broken flowers instead
    of from plain flowers, have to a certain extent diminished the tendency
    in flowers already broken to flushing or secondary reversion.

    During two consecutive years all the early flowers in a bed of
    _Tigridia conchiflora_[893] resembled those of the old _T. pavonia_;
    but the later flowers assumed their proper colour of fine yellow
    spotted with crimson. An apparently authentic account has been
    published[894] of two forms of Hemerocallis, which have been
    universally considered as distinct species, changing into each other;
    for the roots of the large-flowered tawny _H. fulva_, being divided and
    planted in a different soil and place, produced the small-flowered
    yellow _H. flava_, as well as some intermediate forms. It is doubtful
    whether such cases as these latter, as well as the "flushing" of broken
    tulips and the "running" of particoloured carnations,--that is, their
    more or less complete return to a uniform tint,--ought to be classed
    under bud-variation, or ought to be retained for the chapter in which I
    treat of the direct action of the conditions of life on organic beings.
    These cases, however, have this much in common with bud-variation, that
    the change is effected through buds and not through seminal
    reproduction. But, on the other hand, there is this difference--that in
    ordinary cases of bud-variation, one bud alone changes, whilst in the
    foregoing cases all the buds on the same plant were modified together;
    yet we have an intermediate case, for with the potato all the eyes in
    one tuber alone simultaneously changed their character.

    I will conclude with a few allied cases, which may be ranked either
    under bud-variation, or under the direct action of the conditions of
    life. When the common Hepatica is transplanted from its native woods,
    the flowers change colour, even during the first year.[895] It is
    notorious that the improved varieties of the Heartsease (_Viola
    tricolor_) when transplanted often produce flowers widely different in
    size, form, and colour: for instance, I transplanted a large
    uniformly- dark purple variety, whilst in full flower, and it
    then produced much smaller, more elongated flowers, with the lower
    petals yellow; these were succeeded by flowers marked with large purple
    spots, and ultimately, towards the end of the same summer, by the
    original large dark purple flowers. The slight changes which some {387}
    fruit-trees undergo from being grafted and regrafted on various
    stocks,[896] were considered by Andrew Knight[897] as closely allied to
    "sporting branches," or bud-variations. Again, we have the case of
    young fruit-trees changing their character as they grow old; seedling
    pears, for instance, lose with age their spines and improve in the
    flavour of their fruit. Weeping birch-trees, when grafted on the common
    variety, do not acquire a perfect pendulous habit until they grow old:
    on the other hand, I shall hereafter give the case of some weeping
    ashes which slowly and gradually assumed an upright habit of growth.
    All such changes, dependent on age, may be compared with the changes,
    alluded to in the last chapter, which many trees naturally undergo; as
    in the case of the Deodar and Cedar of Lebanon, which are unlike in
    youth and closely resemble each other in old age; and as with certain
    oaks, and with some varieties of the lime and hawthorn.[898]

Before giving a summary on Bud-variation I will discuss some singular and
anomalous cases, which are more or less closely related to this same
subject. I will begin with the famous case of Adam's laburnum or _Cytisus
Adami_, a form or hybrid intermediate between two very distinct species,
namely, _C. laburnum_ and _purpureus_, the common and purple laburnum; but
as this tree has often been described, I will be as brief as I can.

    Throughout Europe, in different soils and under different climates,
    branches on this tree have repeatedly and suddenly reverted to both
    parent-species in their flowers and leaves. To behold mingled on the
    same tree tufts of dingy-red, bright yellow, and purple flowers, borne
    on branches having widely different leaves and manner of growth, is a
    surprising sight. The same raceme sometimes bears two kinds of flowers;
    and I have seen a single flower exactly divided into halves, one side
    being bright yellow and the other purple; so that one half of the
    standard-petal was yellow and of larger size, and the other half purple
    and smaller. In another flower the whole corolla was bright yellow, but
    exactly half the calyx was purple. In another, one of the dingy-red
    wing-petals had a bright yellow narrow stripe on it; and lastly, in
    another flower, one of the stamens, which had become slightly
    foliaceous, was half yellow and half purple; so that the tendency to
    segregation of character or reversion affects even single parts {388}
    and organs.[899] The most remarkable fact about this tree is that in
    its intermediate state, even when growing near both parent-species, it
    is quite sterile; but when the flowers become pure yellow or pure
    purple they yield seed. I believe that the pods from the yellow flowers
    yield a full complement of seed; they certainly yield a large number.
    Two seedlings raised by Mr. Herbert from such seed[900] exhibited a
    purple tinge on the stalks of their flowers; but several seedlings
    raised by myself resembled in every character the common laburnum, with
    the exception that some of them had remarkably long racemes: these
    seedlings were perfectly fertile. That such purity of character and
    fertility should be suddenly reacquired from so hybridized and sterile
    a form is an astonishing phenomenon. The branches with purple flowers
    appear at first sight exactly to resemble those of _C. purpureus_; but
    on careful comparison I found that they differed from the pure species
    in the shoots being thicker, the leaves a little broader, and the
    flowers slightly shorter, with the corolla and calyx less brightly
    purple: the basal part of the standard-petal also plainly showed a
    trace of the yellow stain. So that the flowers, at least in this
    instance, had not perfectly recovered their true character; and in
    accordance with this, they were not perfectly fertile, for many of the
    pods contained no seed, some produced one, and very few contained as
    many as two seeds; whilst numerous pods on a tree of the pure _C.
    purpureus_ in my garden contained three, four, and five fine seeds. The
    pollen, moreover, was very imperfect, a multitude of grains being small
    and shrivelled; and this is a singular fact; for, as we shall
    immediately see, the pollen-grains in the dingy-red and sterile flowers
    on the parent-tree, were, in external appearance, in a much better
    state, and included very few shrivelled grain. Although the pollen of
    the reverted purple flowers was in so poor a condition, the ovules were
    well-formed, and, when mature, germinated freely with me. Mr. Herbert
    also raised plants from seeds of the reverted purple flowers, and they
    differed _very little_ from the usual state of _C. purpureus_; but this
    expression shows that they had not perfectly recovered their proper
    character.

    Prof. Caspary has examined the ovules of the dingy-red and sterile
    flowers in several plants of _C. adami_ on the Continent,[901] and
    finds them generally monstrous. In three plants examined by me in
    England, the ovules were likewise monstrous, the nucleus varying much
    in shape, and projecting irregularly beyond the proper coats. The
    pollen-grains, on the other hand, judging from their external
    appearance, were remarkably good, and readily protruded their tubes. By
    repeatedly counting, under the microscope, the proportional number of
    bad grains, Prof. Caspary ascertained that only 2.5 per cent. were bad,
    which is a less proportion than in the pollen of three pure species of
    Cytisus in their cultivated state, viz. _C. purpureus_, _laburnum_, and
    _alpinus_. Although the pollen of _C. adami_ is thus in appearance
    good, it does not follow, according {389} to M. Naudin's
    observations[902] on Mirabilis, that it would be functionally
    effective. The fact of the ovules of _C. adami_ being monstrous, and
    the pollen apparently sound, is all the more remarkable, because it is
    opposed to what usually occurs not only with most hybrids,[903] but
    with two hybrids in the same genus, namely in _C. purpureo-elongatus_,
    and _C. alpino-laburnum_. In both these hybrids, the ovules, as
    observed by Prof. Caspary and myself, were well-formed, whilst many of
    the pollen-grains were ill-formed; in the latter hybrid 20.3 per cent.,
    and in the former no less than 84.8 per cent. of the grains were
    ascertained by Prof. Caspary to be bad. This unusual condition of the
    male and female reproductive elements in _C. adami_ has been used by
    Prof. Caspary as an argument against this plant being considered as an
    ordinary hybrid produced from seed; but we should remember that with
    hybrids the ovules have not been examined nearly so frequently as the
    pollen, and they may be much oftener imperfect than is generally
    supposed. Dr. E. Bornet, of Antibes, informs me (through Mr. J.
    Traherne Moggridge) that with hybrid Cisti the ovarium is frequently
    deformed, the ovules being in some cases quite absent, and in other
    cases incapable of fertilisation.

       *       *       *       *       *

    Several theories have been propounded to account for the origin of _C.
    adami_, and for the transformations which it undergoes. These
    transformations have been attributed by some authors to simple
    bud-variation; but considering the wide difference between _C.
    laburnum_ and _purpureus_, both of which are natural species, and
    considering the sterility of the intermediate form, this view may be
    summarily rejected. We shall presently see that, with hybrid plants,
    two different embryos may be developed within the same seed and cohere;
    and it has been supposed that _C. adami_ might have thus originated. It
    is known that when a plant with variegated leaves is budded on a plain
    stock, the latter is sometimes affected, and it is believed by some
    that the laburnum has been thus affected. Thus Mr. Purser states[904]
    that a common laburnum-tree in his garden, into which three _grafts_ of
    the _Cytisus purpureus_ had been inserted, gradually assumed the
    character of _C. adami_; but more evidence and copious details would be
    requisite to make so extraordinary a statement credible.

    Many authors maintain that _C. adami_ is a hybrid produced in the
    common way by seed, and that it has reverted by buds to its two
    parent-forms. Negative results are of little value; but Reisseck,
    Caspary, and I myself, tried in vain to cross _C. laburnum_ and
    _purpureus_; when I fertilised the former with pollen of the latter, I
    had the nearest approach to success, for pods were formed, but in
    sixteen days after the withering of the flowers they fell off.
    Nevertheless, the belief that _C. adami_ is a spontaneously produced
    hybrid between these two species is strongly supported by the fact that
    hybrids between these species and two others have spontaneously {390}
    arisen. In a bed of seedlings from _C. elongatus_, which grew near to
    _C. purpureus,_ and was probably fertilised by it, through the agency
    of insects (for these, as I know by experiment, play an important part
    in the fertilisation of the laburnum), the sterile hybrid _C.
    purpureo-elongatus_ appeared.[905] Thus, also, Waterer's laburnum, the
    _C. alpino-laburnum_,[906] spontaneously appeared, as I am informed by
    Mr. Waterer, in a bed of seedlings.

    On the other hand, we have a clear and distinct account given by M.
    Adam, who raised the plant, to Poiteau,[907] showing that _C. adami_ is
    not an ordinary hybrid. M. Adam inserted in the usual manner a shield
    of the bark of _C. purpureus_ into a stock of _C. laburnum_; and the
    bud lay dormant, as often happens, for a year; the shield then produced
    many buds and shoots, one of which grew more upright and vigorous with
    larger leaves than the shoots of _C. purpureus_, and was consequently
    propagated. Now it deserves especial notice that these plants were sold
    by M. Adam, as a variety of _C. purpureus_, before they had flowered;
    and the account was published by Poiteau after the plants had flowered,
    but before they had exhibited their remarkable tendency to revert into
    the two parent-species. So that there was no conceivable motive for
    falsification, and it is difficult to see how there could have been any
    error. If we admit as true M. Adam's account, we must admit the
    extraordinary fact that two distinct species can unite by their
    cellular tissue, and subsequently produce a plant bearing leaves and
    sterile flowers intermediate in character between the scion and stock,
    and producing buds liable to reversion; in short, resembling in every
    important respect a hybrid formed in the ordinary way by seminal
    reproduction. Such plants, if really thus formed, might be called
    graft-hybrids.

       *       *       *       *       *

    I will now give all the facts which I have been able to collect
    illustrative of the above theories, not for the sake of merely throwing
    light on the origin of _C. adami_, but to show in how many
    extraordinary and complex methods one kind of plant may affect another,
    generally in connection with bud-variation. The supposition that either
    _C. laburnum_ or _purpureus_ produced by ordinary bud-variation the
    intermediate and the other form, may, as already remarked, be
    absolutely excluded, from the want of any evidence, from the great
    amount of change thus implied, {391} and from the sterility of the
    intermediate form. Nevertheless such cases as nectarines suddenly
    appearing on peach-trees, occasionally with the fruit half-and-half in
    nature,--moss-roses appearing on other roses, with the flowers divided
    into halves, or striped with different colours,--and other such cases,
    are closely analogous in the result produced, though not in origin,
    with the case of _C. adami_.

    A distinguished botanist, Mr. G. H. Thwaites,[908] has recorded a
    remarkable case of a seed from _Fuchsia coccinea_ fertilised by _F.
    fulgens_, which contained two embryos, and was "a true vegetable twin."
    The two plants produced from the two embryos were "extremely different
    in appearance and character," though both resembled other hybrids of
    the same parentage produced at the same time. These twin plants "were
    closely coherent, below the two pairs of cotyledon-leaves, into a
    single cylindrical stem, so that they had subsequently the appearance
    of being branches on one trunk." Had the two united stems grown up to
    their full height, instead of dying, a curiously mixed hybrid would
    have been produced; but even if some of the buds had subsequently
    reverted to both parent-forms, the case, although more complex, would
    not have been strictly analogous with that of _C. adami_. On the other
    hand, a mongrel melon described by Sageret[909] perhaps did thus
    originate; for the two main branches, which arose from two
    cotyledon-buds, produced very different fruit,--on the one branch like
    that of the paternal variety, and on the other branch to a certain
    extent like that of the maternal variety, the melon of China.

    The famous _bizzarria Orange_ offers a strictly parallel case to that
    of _Cytisus adami_. The gardener who in 1644 in Florence raised this
    tree, declared that it was a seedling which had been grafted; and after
    the graft had perished, the stock sprouted and produced the bizzarria.
    Gallesio, who carefully examined several living specimens and compared
    them with the description given by the original describer P. Nato,[910]
    states that the tree produces at the same time leaves, flowers, and
    fruit, identical with the bitter orange and with the citron of
    Florence, and likewise compound fruit with the two kinds either blended
    together, both externally and internally, or segregated in various
    ways. This tree can be propagated by cuttings, and retains its
    diversified character. The so-called trifacial orange of Alexandria and
    Smyrna[911] resembles in its general nature the bizzarria, but differs
    from it in the _sweet_ orange and citron being blended together in the
    same fruit, and separately produced on the same tree: nothing is known
    of its origin. In regard to the bizzarria, many authors believe that it
    is a graft-hybrid; Gallesio on the other hand thinks that it is an
    ordinary hybrid, with the habit of partially reverting {392} by buds to
    the two parent-forms; and we have seen in the last chapter that the
    species in this genus often cross spontaneously.

    Here is another analogous, but doubtful case. A writer in the
    'Gardener's Chronicle'[912] states that an _AEsculus rubicunda_ in his
    garden yearly produced on one of its branches "spikes of pale yellow
    flowers, smaller in size and somewhat similar in colour to those of _AE.
    flava_." If as the editor believes _AEsculus rubicunda_ is a hybrid
    descended on one side from _AE. flava_, we have a case of partial
    reversion to one of the parent-forms. If, as some botanists maintain,
    _AE. rubicunda_ is not a hybrid, but a natural species, the case is one
    of simple bud-variation.

    The following facts show that hybrids produced from seed in the
    ordinary way, certainly sometimes revert by buds to their parent-forms.
    Hybrids between _Tropaeolum minus_ and _majus_[913] at first produced
    flowers intermediate in size, colour, and structure between their two
    parents; but later in the season some of these plants produced flowers
    in all respects like those of the mother-form, mingled with flowers
    still retaining the usual intermediate condition. A hybrid Cereus
    between _C. speciosissimus_ and _phyllanthus_,[914] plants which are
    widely different in appearance, produced for the first three years
    angular, five-sided stems, and then some flat stems like those of _C.
    phyllanthus_. Koelreuter also gives cases of hybrid Lobelias and
    Verbascums, which at first produced flowers of one colour, and later in
    the season flowers of a different colour.[915] Naudin[916] raised forty
    hybrids from _Datura laevis_ fertilised by _D. stramonium_; and three of
    these hybrids produced many capsules, of which a half, or quarter, or
    lesser segment was smooth and of small size like the capsule of the
    pure _D. laevis_, the remaining part being spinose and of larger size
    like the capsule of the pure _D. stramonium_: from one of these
    composite capsules, plants were raised which perfectly resembled both
    parent-forms.

    Turning now to varieties. A _seedling_ apple, conjectured to be of
    crossed parentage, has been described in France,[917] which bears
    fruit, with one half larger than the other, of a red colour, acid
    taste, and peculiar odour; the other side being greenish-yellow and
    very sweet: it is said scarcely ever to include perfectly developed
    seed. I suppose that this is not the same tree with that which
    Gaudichaud[918] exhibited before the French Institute, bearing on the
    same branch two distinct kinds of apples, one a _reinette rouge_, and
    the other like a _reinette canada jaunatre_: this double-bearing
    variety can be propagated by grafts, and continues to produce both
    kinds; its origin is unknown. The Rev. J. D. La Touche sent me a
     drawing of an apple which he brought from Canada, of which
    half, surrounding and including the whole of the calyx and the
    insertion of the {393} footstalk, is green, the other half being brown
    and of the nature of the _pomme gris_ apple, with the line of
    separation between the two halves exactly defined. The tree was a
    grafted one, and Mr. La Touche thinks that the branch which bore this
    curious apple sprung from the point of junction of the graft and stock:
    had this fact been ascertained, the case would probably have come into
    the small class of graft-hybrids presently to be given. But the branch
    may have sprung from the stock, which no doubt was a seedling.

    Prof. H. Lecoq, who has made a great number of crosses between the
    differently  varieties of _Mirabilis jalapa_,[919] finds that
    in the seedlings the colours rarely combine, but form distinct stripes;
    or half the flower is of one colour and half of a different colour.
    Some varieties regularly bear flowers striped with yellow, white, and
    red; but plants of such varieties occasionally produce on the same root
    branches with uniformly  flowers of all three tints, and other
    branches with half-and-half  flowers and others with marbled
    flowers. Gallesio[920] crossed reciprocally white and red carnations,
    and the seedlings were striped; but some of the striped plants also
    bore entirely white and entirely red flowers. Some of these plants
    produced one year red flowers alone, and in the following year striped
    flowers; or conversely, some plants, after having borne for two or
    three years striped flowers, would revert and bear exclusively red
    flowers. It may be worth mentioning that I fertilised the _Purple
    Sweet-pea_ (_Lathyrus odoratus_) with pollen from the light-
    _Painted Lady_: seedlings raised from one and the same pod were not
    intermediate in character, but perfectly resembled both parents. Later
    in the summer, the plants which had at first borne flowers identical
    with those of the _Painted Lady_, produced flowers streaked and
    blotched with purple; showing in these darker marks a tendency to
    reversion to the mother-variety. Andrew Knight[921] fertilised two
    white grapes with pollen of the Aleppo grape, which is darkly
    variegated both in its leaves and fruit. The result was that the young
    seedlings were not at first variegated, but all became variegated
    during the succeeding summer; besides this, many produced on the same
    plant bunches of grapes which were all black, or all white, or
    lead- striped with white, or white dotted with minute black
    stripes; and grapes of all these shades could frequently be found on
    the same footstalk.

In most of these cases of crossed varieties, and in some of the cases of
crossed species, the colours proper to both parents appeared in the
seedlings, as soon as they first flowered, in the form of stripes or larger
segments, or as whole flowers or fruit of two kinds borne on the same
plant; and in this case the appearance of the two colours cannot strictly
be said to be due to reversion, but to some incapacity of fusion, leading
to their {394} segregation. When, however, the later flowers or fruit,
produced during the same season or during a succeeding year or generation,
become striped or half-in-half, &c., the segregation of the two colours is
strictly a case of reversion by bud-variation. In a future chapter I shall
show that, with animals of crossed parentage, the same individual has been
known to change its character during growth, and to revert to one of its
parents which it did not at first resemble. From the various facts now
given there can be no doubt that the same individual plant, whether a
hybrid or a mongrel, sometimes returns in its leaves, flowers, and fruit,
either wholly or by segments, to both parent-forms, in the same manner as
the _Cytisus adami_, and the _Bizzarria Orange_.

       *       *       *       *       *

We will now consider the few facts which have been recorded in support of
the belief that a variety when grafted or budded on another variety
sometimes affects the whole stock, or at the point of junction gives rise
to a bud, or graft-hybrid, which partakes of the characters of both stock
and scion.

    It is notorious that when the variegated Jessamine is budded on the
    common kind, the stock sometimes produces buds bearing variegated
    leaves: Mr. Rivers, as he informs me, has seen instances of this. The
    same thing occurs with the Oleander.[922] Mr. Rivers, on the authority
    of a trustworthy friend, states that some buds of a golden-variegated
    ash, which were inserted into common ashes, all died except one; but
    the ash-stocks were affected,[923] and produced, both above and below
    the points of insertion of the plates of bark bearing the dead buds,
    shoots which bore variegated leaves. Mr. J. Anderson Henry has
    communicated to me a nearly similar case: Mr. Brown, of Perth, observed
    many years ago, in a Highland glen, an ash-tree with yellow leaves; and
    buds taken from this tree were inserted into common ashes, which in
    consequence were affected, and produced the _Blotched Breadalbane Ash_.
    This variety has been propagated, and has preserved its character
    during the last fifty years. Weeping ashes, also, were budded on the
    affected stocks, and became similarly variegated. Many authors consider
    variegation as the result of disease; and on this view, which however
    is doubtful, for some variegated plants are perfectly healthy and
    vigorous, the foregoing cases may be looked at as the direct result of
    the inoculation of a disease. Variegation is much influenced, as we
    shall hereafter see, by the nature of the soil in which the {395}
    plants are grown; and it does not seem improbable that whatever change
    in the sap or tissues certain soils induce, whether or not called a
    disease, might spread from the inserted piece of bark to the stock. But
    a change of this kind cannot be considered to be of the nature of a
    graft-hybrid.

    There is a variety of the hazel with dark-purple leaves, like those of
    the copper-beech: no one has attributed this colour to disease, and it
    apparently is only an exaggeration of a tint which may often be seen on
    the leaves of the common hazel. When this variety is grafted on the
    common hazel,[924] it sometimes colours, as has been asserted, the
    leaves below the graft; but I should add that Mr. Rivers, who has
    possessed hundreds of such grafted trees, has never seen an instance.

    Gaertner[925] quotes two separate accounts of branches of dark and
    white-fruited vines which had been united in various ways, such as
    being split longitudinally, and then joined, &c.; and these branches
    produced distinct bunches of grapes of the two colours, and other
    bunches with grapes either striped or of an intermediate and new tint.
    Even the leaves in one case were variegated. These facts are the more
    remarkable because Andrew Knight never succeeded in raising variegated
    grapes by fertilising white kinds by pollen of dark kinds; though, as
    we have seen, he obtained seedlings with variegated fruit and leaves,
    by fertilising a white variety by the variegated dark Aleppo grape.
    Gaertner attributes the above-quoted cases merely to bud-variation; but
    it is a strange coincidence that the branches which had been grafted in
    a peculiar manner should alone have thus varied; and H. Adorne de
    Tscharner positively asserts that he produced the described result more
    than once, and could do so at will, by splitting and uniting the
    branches in the manner described by him.

    I should not have quoted the following case had not the author of 'Des
    Jacinthes'[926] impressed me with the belief not only of his extensive
    knowledge, but of his truthfulness: he says that bulbs of blue and red
    hyacinths may be cut in two, and that they will grow together and throw
    up a united stem (and this I have myself seen), with flowers of the two
    colours on the opposite sides. But the remarkable point is, that
    flowers are sometimes produced with the two colours blended together,
    which makes the case closely analogous with that of the blended colours
    of the grapes on the united vine-branches.

    Mr. E. Trail stated in 1867, before the Botanical Society of Edinburgh
    (and has since given me fuller information), that several years ago he
    cut about sixty blue and white potatoes into halves through the eyes or
    buds, and then carefully joined them, destroying at the same time the
    other eyes. Some of these united tubers produced white, and others blue
    tubers; and it is probable that in these cases the one half alone of
    the bud grew. Some, however, produced tubers partly white and partly
    blue; and the tubers from about four or five were regularly mottled
    with the two colours. in these latter cases we may conclude that a stem
    had been formed by {396} the union of the bisected buds; and as tubers
    are produced by the enlargement of subterranean branches arising from
    the main stem, their mottled colour apparently affords clear evidence
    of the intimate commingling of the two varieties. I have repeated these
    experiments on the potato and on the hyacinth on a large scale, but
    with no success.

    The most reliable instance known to me of the formation of a
    graft-hybrid is one, recorded by Mr. Poynter,[927] who assures me, in a
    letter of the entire accuracy of the statement, _Rosa Devoniensis_ had
    been budded some years previously on a white Banksian rose; and from
    the much enlarged point of junction, whence the Devoniensis and
    Banksian still continued to grow, a third branch issued, which was
    neither pure Banksian nor pure Devoniensis, but partook of the
    character of both; the flowers resembled, but were superior in
    character to those of the variety called _Lamarque_ (one of the
    Noisettes), while the shoots were similar in their manner of growth to
    those of the Banksian rose, with the exception that the longer and more
    robust shoots were furnished with prickles. This rose was exhibited
    before the Floral Committee of the Horticultural Society of London. Dr.
    Lindley examined it, and concluded that it had certainly been produced
    by the mingling of _R. Banksiae_ with some rose like _R. Devoniensis_,
    "for while it was very greatly increased in vigour and in the size of
    all the parts, the leaves were half-way between a Banksian and
    Tea-scented rose." It appears that rose-growers were aware that the
    Banksian rose sometimes affects other roses. Had it not been for this
    latter statement, it might have been suspected that this new variety
    was simply due to bud-variation, and that it had occurred by a mere
    accident at the point of junction between the two old kinds.

To sum up the foregoing facts: the statement that _Cytisus adami_
originated as a graft-hybrid is so precise that it can hardly be rejected,
and, as we have just seen, some analogous facts render the statement to a
certain extent probable. The peculiar, monstrous condition of the ovules,
and the apparently sound condition of the pollen, favour the belief that it
is not an ordinary or seminal hybrid. On the other hand, the fact that the
same two species, viz. _C. laburnum_ and _purpureus_, have spontaneously
produced hybrids by seed, is a strong argument in support of the belief
that C. _adami_ originated in a similar manner. With respect to the
extraordinary tendency which this tree exhibits to complete or partial
reversion, we have seen that undoubted seminal hybrids and mongrels are
similarly liable. On the whole, I am inclined to put trust in M. Adam's
statement; and if it should ever be proved true, the same view would
probably have {397} to be extended to the Bizzarria and Trifacial oranges
and to the apples above described; but more evidence is requisite before
the possibility of the production of graft-hybrids can be fully admitted.
Although it is at present impossible to arrive at any certain conclusion
with respect to the origin of these remarkable trees, the various facts
above given appear to me to deserve attention under several points of view,
more especially as showing that the power of reversion is inherent in Buds.

       *       *       *       *       *

_On the direct or immediate action of the Male Element on the Mother
Form._--Another remarkable class of facts must be here considered, because
they have been supposed to account for some cases of bud-variation: I refer
to the direct action of the male element, not in the ordinary way on the
ovules, but on certain parts of the female plant, or in the case of animals
on the subsequent progeny of the female by a second male. I may premise
that with plants the ovarium and the coats of the ovules are obviously
parts of the female, and it could not have been anticipated that they would
be affected by the pollen of a foreign variety or species, although the
development of the embryo, within the embryonic sack, within the ovule,
within the ovarium, of course depends on the male element.

    Even as long ago as 1729 it was observed[928] that white and blue
    varieties of the Pea, when planted near each other, mutually crossed,
    no doubt through the agency of bees, and in the autumn blue and white
    peas were found within the same pods. Wiegmann made an exactly similar
    observation in the present century. The same result has followed
    several times when a variety with peas of one colour has been
    artificially crossed by a differently- variety.[929] These
    statements led Gaertner, who was highly sceptical on the subject,
    carefully to try a long series of experiments: he selected the most
    constant varieties, and the result conclusively showed that the colour
    of the skin of the pea is modified when pollen of a differently
     variety is used. This conclusion has since been confirmed by
    experiments made by the Rev. J. M. Berkeley.[930]

    Mr. Laxton of Stamford, whilst making experiments on peas for the
    express purpose of ascertaining the influence of foreign pollen on the
    mother-plant, has recently[931] observed an important additional fact.
    He fertilised the Tall Sugar pea, which bears very thin green pods,
    becoming {398} brownish-white when dry, with pollen of the
    Purple-podded pea, which, as its name expresses, has dark-purple pods
    with very thick skin, becoming pale reddish-purple when dry. Mr. Laxton
    has cultivated the tall sugar-pea during twenty years, and has never
    seen or heard of it producing a purple pod; nevertheless, a flower
    fertilised by pollen from the purple-pod yielded a pod clouded with
    purplish-red, which Mr. Laxton kindly gave to me. A space of about two
    inches in length towards the extremity of the pod, and a smaller space
    near the stalk, were thus . On comparing the colour with that
    of the purple-pod, both pods having been first dried and then soaked in
    water, it was found to be identically the same; and in both the colour
    was confined to the cells lying immediately beneath the outer skin of
    the pod. The valves of the crossed pod were also decidedly thicker and
    stronger than those of the pods of the mother-plant, but this may have
    been an accidental circumstance, for I know not how far their thickness
    in the Tall Sugar-pea is a variable character.

    The peas of the Tall Sugar-pea, when dry, are pale greenish-brown,
    thickly covered with dots of dark purple so minute as to be visible
    only through a lens, and Mr. Laxton has never seen or heard of this
    variety producing a purple pea; but in the crossed pod one of the peas
    was of a uniform beautiful violet-purple tint, and a second was
    irregularly clouded with pale purple. The colour lies in the outer of
    the two coats which surround the pea. As the peas of the purple-podded
    variety when dry are of a pale greenish-buff, it would at first appear
    that this remarkable change of colour in the peas in the crossed pod
    could not have been caused by the direct action of the pollen of the
    purple-pod: but when we bear in mind that this latter variety has
    purple flowers, purple marks on its stipules, and purple pods; and that
    the Tall sugar-pea likewise has purple flowers and stipules, and
    microscopically minute purple dots on the peas, we can hardly doubt
    that the tendency to the production of purple in both parents has in
    combination modified the colour of the peas in the crossed pod. After
    having examined these specimens, I crossed the same two varieties, and
    the peas in one pod, but not the pods themselves, were clouded and
    tinted with purplish-red in a much more conspicuous manner than the
    peas in the uncrossed pods produced at the same time by the same
    plants. I may notice as a caution that Mr. Laxton sent me various other
    crossed peas slightly, or even greatly, modified in colour; but the
    change in these cases was due, as had been suspected by Mr. Laxton, to
    the altered colour of the cotyledons, seen through the transparent
    coats of the peas; and as the cotyledons are parts of the embryo, these
    cases are not in any way remarkable.

    Turning now to the genus Matthiola. The pollen of one kind of stock
    sometimes affects the colour of the seeds of another kind, used as the
    mother-plant. I give the following case the more readily, as Gaertner
    doubted similar statements with respect to the stock previously made by
    other observers. A well-known horticulturist, Major Trevor Clarke,
    informs me[932] that the seeds of the large red-flowered _biennial_
    stock {399} (_Matthiola annua_; _Cocardeau_ of the French) are light
    brown, and those of the purple branching Queen stock (_M. incana_) are
    violet-black; and he found that, when flowers of the red stock were
    fertilised by pollen from the purple stock, they yielded about fifty
    per cent. of _black_ seeds. He sent me four pods from a red-flowered
    plant, two of which had been fertilised by their own pollen, and they
    included pale brown seed; and two which had been crossed by pollen from
    the purple kind, and they included seeds all deeply tinged with black.
    These latter seeds yielded purple-flowered plants like their father;
    whilst the pale brown seeds yielded normal red-flowered plants; and
    Major Clarke, by sowing similar seeds, has observed on a greater scale
    the same result. The evidence in this case of the direct action of the
    pollen of one species on the colour of the seeds of another species
    appears to me conclusive.

In the foregoing cases, with the exception of that of the purple-podded
pea, the coats of the seeds alone have been affected in colour. We shall
now see that the ovarium itself, whether forming a large fleshy fruit or a
mere thin envelope, may be modified by foreign pollen, in colour, flavour,
texture, size, and shape.

    The most remarkable instance, because carefully recorded by highly
    competent authorities, is one of which I have seen an account in a
    letter written, in 1867, by M. Naudin to Dr. Hooker. M. Naudin states
    that he has seen fruit growing on _Chamaerops humilis_, which had been
    fertilised by M. Denis with pollen from the Phoenix or date-palm. The
    fruit or drupe thus produced was twice as large as, and more elongated
    than, that proper to the Chamaerops; so that it was intermediate in
    these respects, as well as in texture, between the fruit of the two
    parents. These hybridised seeds germinated, and produced young plants
    likewise intermediate in character. This case is the more remarkable as
    the Chamaerops and Phoenix belong not only to distinct genera, but in
    the estimation of some botanists to distinct sections of the family.

    Gallesio[933] fertilised the flowers of an orange with pollen from the
    lemon; and one fruit thus produced bore a longitudinal stripe of peel
    having the colour, flavour, and other characters of the lemon. Mr.
    Anderson[934] fertilised a green-fleshed melon with pollen from a
    scarlet-fleshed kind; in two of the fruits "a sensible change was
    perceptible; and four other fruits were somewhat altered both
    internally and externally." The seeds of the two first-mentioned fruits
    produced plants partaking of the good properties of both parents. In
    the United States, where Cucurbitaceae are largely cultivated, it is the
    popular belief[935] that the fruit is thus directly affected by foreign
    pollen; and I have received a similar statement with respect to {400}
    the cucumber in England. It is known that grapes have been thus
    affected in colour, size, and shape: in France a pale- grape
    had its juice tinted by the pollen of the dark- Teinturier; in
    Germany a variety bore berries which were affected by the pollen of two
    adjoining kinds; some of the berries being only partially affected or
    mottled.[936] As long ago as 1751[937] it was observed that, when
    differently  varieties of maize grow near each other, they
    mutually affect each other's seeds, and this is now a popular belief in
    the United States. Dr. Savi[938] tried the experiment with care: he
    sowed yellow and black-seeded maize together, and on the same ear some
    of the seeds were yellow, some black, and some mottled,[939] the
    differently  seeds being arranged in rows or irregularly. Mr.
    Sabine states[940] that he has seen the form of the nearly globular
    seed-capsule of _Amaryllis vittata_ altered by the application of the
    pollen of another species, of which the capsule has gibbous angles. Mr.
    J. Anderson Henry[941] crossed _Rhododendron Dalhousiae_ with the pollen
    of _R. Nuttallii_, which is one of the largest-flowered and noblest
    species of the genus. The largest pod produced by the former species,
    when fertilised with its own pollen, measured 1-2/8 inch in length and
    11/2 in girth; whilst three of the pods which had been fertilised by
    pollen of _R. Nuttallii_ measured 1-5/8 inch in length and no less than
    2 inches in girth. Here we see the effect of foreign pollen apparently
    confined to increasing the size of the ovarium; but we must be cautious
    in assuming, as the following case shows, that in this instance size
    has been directly transferred from the male parent to the capsule of
    the female plant. Mr. Henry fertilised _Arabis blepharophylla_ with
    pollen of _A. Soyeri_, and the pods thus produced, of which he was so
    kind as to send me detailed measurements and sketches, were much larger
    in all their dimensions than those naturally produced by either the
    male or female parent-species. In a future chapter we shall see {401}
    that the organs of vegetation in hybrid plants, independently of the
    character of either parent, are sometimes developed to a monstrous
    size; and the increased size of the pods in the foregoing cases may be
    an analogous fact.

    No case of the direct action of the pollen of one variety on another is
    better authenticated or more remarkable than that of the common apple.
    The fruit here consists of the lower part of the calyx and of the upper
    part of the flower-peduncle[942] in a metamorphosed condition, so that
    the effect of the foreign pollen has extended even beyond the limits of
    the ovarium. Cases of apples thus affected were recorded by Bradley in
    the early part of the last century; and other cases are given in old
    volumes of the Philosophical Transactions;[943] in one of these a
    Russeting apple and an adjoining kind mutually affected each other's
    fruit; and in another case a smooth apple affected a rough-coated kind.
    Another instance has been given[944] of two very different apple-trees
    growing close to each other, which bore fruit resembling each other,
    but only on the adjoining branches. It is, however, almost superfluous
    to adduce these or other cases, after that of the St. Valery apple,
    which, from the abortion of the stamens, does not produce pollen, but,
    being annually fertilised by the girls of the neighbourhood with pollen
    of many kinds, bears fruit, "differing from each other in size,
    flavour, and colour, but resembling in character the hermaphrodite
    kinds by which they have been fertilised."[945]

I have now shown, on the authority of several excellent observers, in the
case of plants belonging to widely different orders, that the pollen of one
species or variety, when applied to a distinct form, occasionally causes
the coats of the seeds and the ovarium or fruit, including even in one
instance the calyx and upper part of the peduncle of the mother-plant, to
become modified. Sometimes the whole of the ovarium or all the seeds are
thus affected; sometimes only a certain number of the seeds, as in the case
of the pea, or only a part of the ovarium, as with the striped orange,
mottled grapes and maize, are thus affected. It must not be supposed that
any direct or immediate effect invariably follows the use of foreign
pollen: this is far from being the case; nor is it known on what conditions
the result depends. Mr. Knight[946] expressly states that he has never seen
{402} the fruit thus affected, though he has crossed thousands of apple and
other fruit-trees. There is not the least reason to believe that a branch
which has borne seed or fruit directly modified by foreign pollen is itself
affected, so as subsequently to produce modified buds: such an occurrence,
from the temporary connection of the flower with the stem, would be hardly
possible. Hence but very few, if any, of the cases of sudden modifications
in the fruit of trees, given in the early part of this chapter, can be
accounted for by the action of foreign pollen; for such modified fruits
have commonly been afterwards propagated by budding or grafting. It is also
obvious that changes of colour in the flower which necessarily supervene
long before it is ready for fertilisation, and changes in the shape or
colour of the leaves, can have no relation to the action of foreign pollen:
all such cases must be attributed to simple bud-variation.

The proofs of the action of foreign pollen on the mother-plant have been
given in considerable detail, because this action, as we shall see in a
future chapter, is of the highest theoretical importance, and because it is
in itself a remarkable and apparently anomalous circumstance. That it is
remarkable under a physiological point of view is clear, for the male
element not only affects, in accordance with its proper function, the germ,
but the surrounding tissues of the mother-plant. That the action is
anomalous in appearance is true, but hardly so in reality, for apparently
it plays the same part in the ordinary fertilisation of many flowers.
Gaertner has shown,[947] by gradually increasing the number of pollen-grains
until he succeeded in fertilising a Malva, that many grains are expended in
the development, or, as he expresses it, in the satiation, of the pistil
and ovarium. Again, when one plant is fertilised by a widely distinct
species, it often happens that the ovarium is fully and quickly developed
without any seeds being formed, or the coats of the seeds are developed
without an embryo being formed within. Dr. Hildebrand also has lately shown
in a valuable paper[948] that, with several Orchideae, the action of the
plant's own {403} pollen is necessary for the development of the ovarium,
and that this development takes place not only long before the pollen-tubes
have reached the ovules, but even before the placentae and ovules have been
formed; so that with these orchids the pollen apparently acts directly on
the ovarium. On the other hand, we must not overrate the efficacy of pollen
in this respect; for in the case of hybridised plants it might be argued
that an embryo had been formed and had affected the surrounding tissues of
the mother-plant before it perished at a very early age. Again, it is well
known that with many plants the ovarium may be fully developed, though
pollen be wholly excluded. And lastly, Mr. Smith, the late Curator at Kew
(as I hear through Dr. Hooker), observed the singular fact with an orchid,
the _Bonatea speciosa_, the development of the ovarium could be effected by
mechanical irritation of the stigma. Nevertheless, from the number of the
pollen-grains expended "in the satiation of the ovarium and pistil,"--from
the generality of the formation of the ovarium and seed-coats in sterile
hybridised plants,--and from Dr. Hildebrand's observations on orchids, we
may admit that in most cases the swelling of the ovarium, and the formation
of the seed-coats, are at least aided, if not wholly caused, by the direct
action of the pollen, independently of the intervention of the fertilised
germ. Therefore, in the previously-given cases we have only to add to our
belief in the power of the plant's own pollen on the development of the
ovarium and seed-coats, its further power, when applied to a distinct
species or variety, of influencing the shape, size, colour, texture, &c.,
of these same parts.

       *       *       *       *       *

Turning now to the animal kingdom. If we could imagine the same flower to
yield seeds during successive years, then it would not be very surprising
that a flower of which the ovarium had been modified by foreign pollen
should next year produce, when self-fertilised, offspring modified by the
previous male influence. Closely analogous cases have actually occurred
with animals. In the case often quoted from Lord Morton,[949] a nearly
purely-bred, Arabian, chesnut mare bore a hybrid to a quagga; she was
subsequently sent to Sir Gore Ouseley, and produced {404} two colts by a
black Arabian horse. These colts were partially dun-, and were
striped on the legs more plainly than the real hybrid, or even than the
quagga. One of the two colts had its neck and some other parts of its body
plainly marked with stripes. Stripes on the body, not to mention those on
the legs, and the dun-colour, are extremely rare,--I speak after having
long attended to the subject,--with horses of all kinds in Europe, and are
unknown in the case of Arabians. But what makes the case still more
striking is that the hair of the mane in these colts resembled that of the
quagga, being short, stiff, and upright. Hence there can be no doubt that
the quagga affected the character of the offspring subsequently begot by
the black Arabian horse. With respect to the varieties of our domesticated
animals, many similar and well-authenticated facts have been
published,[950] and others have been communicated to me, plainly showing
the influence of the first male on the progeny subsequently borne by the
mother to other males. It will suffice to give a single instance, recorded
in the 'Philosophical Transactions,' in a paper following that by Lord
Morton: Mr. Giles put a sow of Lord Western's black and white Essex breed
to a wild boar of a deep chesnut colour; and the "pigs produced partook in
appearance of both boar and sow, but in some the chesnut colour of the boar
strongly prevailed." After the boar had long been dead, the sow was put to
a boar of her own black and white breed,--a kind which is well known to
breed very true and never to show any chesnut colour,--yet from this union
the sow produced some young pigs which were plainly marked with the same
chesnut tint as in the first litter. Similar cases have so frequently
occurred, that careful breeders avoid putting a choice female to an
inferior male on account of the injury to her subsequent progeny which may
be expected to follow.

{405}

Some physiologists have attempted to account for these remarkable results
from a first impregnation by the close attachment and freely
intercommunicating blood-vessels between the modified embryo and the
mother. But it is a most improbable hypothesis that the mere blood of one
individual should affect the reproductive organs of another individual in
such a manner as to modify the subsequent offspring. The analogy from the
direct action of foreign pollen on the ovarium and seed-coats of the
mother-plant strongly supports the belief that the male element acts
directly on the reproductive organs of the female, wonderful as is this
action, and not through the intervention of the crossed embryo. With birds
there is no such close connection between the embryo and mother as in the
case of mammals: yet a careful observer, Dr. Chapuis, states[951] that with
pigeons the influence of a first male sometimes makes itself perceived in
the succeeding broods; but this statement, before it can be fully trusted,
requires confirmation.

       *       *       *       *       *

_Conclusion and Summary of the Chapter._--The facts given in the latter
half of this chapter are well worthy of consideration, as they show us in
how many extraordinary modes one organic form may lead to the modification
of another, and often without the intervention of seminal reproduction.
There is ample evidence, as we have just seen, that the male element may
either directly affect the structure of the female, or in the case of
animals lead to the modification of her offspring. There is a considerable
but insufficient body of evidence showing that the tissues of two plants
may unite and form a bud having a blended character; or again, that buds
inserted into a stock may affect all the buds subsequently produced by this
stock. Two embryos, differing from each other and contained in the same
seed, may cohere and form a single plant. Offspring from a cross between
two species or varieties may in the first or in a succeeding generation
revert in various degrees by bud-variation to their parent-forms; and this
reversion or segregation of character may affect the whole flower, fruit,
or leaf-bud, or only the half or smaller segment, or a single organ. In
some cases this segregation of character apparently depends on some {406}
incapacity of union rather than on reversion, for the flowers or fruit
which are first produced display by segments the characters of both
parents. In the _Cytisus adami_ and the Bizzarria orange, whatever their
origin may have been, the two parent species occur blended together under
the form of a sterile hybrid, or reappear with their characters perfect and
their reproductive organs effective; and these trees, retaining the same
sportive character, can be propagated by buds. These various facts ought to
be well considered by any one who wishes to embrace under a single point of
view the various modes of reproduction by gemmation, division, and sexual
union, the reparation of lost parts, variation, inheritance, reversion, and
other such phenomena. In a chapter towards the close of the following
volume I shall attempt to connect these facts together by a provisional
hypothesis.

In the early half of this chapter I have given a long list of plants in
which through bud-variation, that is, independently of reproduction by
seed, the fruit has suddenly become modified in size, colour, flavour,
hairiness, shape, and time of maturity; flowers have similarly changed in
shape, colour, and doubleness, and greatly in the character of the calyx;
young branches or shoots have changed in colour, in bearing spines, and in
habit of growth, as in climbing and weeping; leaves have changed in colour,
variegation, shape, period of unfolding, and in their arrangement on the
axis. Buds of all kinds, whether produced on ordinary branches or on
subterranean stems, whether simple or, as in tubers and bulbs, much
modified and supplied with a stock of nutriment, are all liable to sudden
variations of the same general nature.

In the list, many of the cases are certainly due to reversion to characters
not acquired from a cross, but which were formerly present, and have been
lost for a longer or shorter period of time;--as when a bud on a variegated
plant produces plain leaves, or when variously- flowers on the
Chrysanthemum revert to the aboriginal yellow tint. Many other cases
included in the list are probably due to the plants being of crossed
parentage, and to the buds reverting to one of the two parent-forms. In
illustration of the origin of _Cytisus adami_, several cases were given of
partial or complete reversion, both {407} with hybrid and mongrel plants;
hence we may suspect that the strong tendency in the Chrysanthemum, for
instance, to produce by bud-variation differently- flowers, results
from the varieties formerly having been intentionally or accidentally
crossed; and that their descendants at the present day still occasionally
revert by buds to the colours of the more persistent parent-varieties. This
is almost certainly the case with Rollisson's Unique Pelargonium; and so it
may be to a large extent with the bud-varieties of the Dahlia and with the
"broken colours" of Tulips.

Many cases of bud-variation, however, cannot be attributed to reversion,
but to spontaneous variability, such as so commonly occurs with cultivated
plants when raised from seed. As a single variety of the Chrysanthemum has
produced by buds six other varieties, and as one variety of the gooseberry
has borne at the same time four distinct varieties of fruit, it is scarcely
possible to believe that all these variations are reversions to former
parents. We can hardly believe, as remarked in a previous chapter, that all
the many peaches which have yielded nectarine-buds are of crossed
parentage. Lastly, in such cases as that of the moss-rose with its peculiar
calyx, and of the rose which bears opposite leaves, in that of the
Imatophyllum, &c., there is no known natural species or seedling variety,
from which the characters in question could have been derived by crossing.
We must attribute all such cases to actual variability in the buds. The
varieties which have thus arisen cannot be distinguished by any external
character from seedlings; this is notoriously the case with the varieties
of the Rose, Azalea, and many other plants. It deserves notice that all the
plants which have yielded bud-variations have likewise varied greatly by
seed.

These plants belong to so many orders that we may infer that almost every
plant would be liable to bud-variation if placed under the proper exciting
conditions. These conditions, as far as we can judge, mainly depend on
long-continued and high cultivation; for almost all the plants in the
foregoing lists are perennials, and have been largely propagated in many
soils and under different climates, by cuttings, offsets, bulbs, tubers,
and especially by budding or grafting. The instances of annuals varying by
buds, or producing on the same plant {408} differently  flowers,
are comparatively rare: Hopkirk[952] has seen this with _Convolvulus
tricolor_; and it is not rare with the Balsam and annual Delphinium.
According to Sir R. Schomburgk, plants from the warmer temperate regions,
when cultivated under the hot climate of St. Domingo, are eminently liable
to bud-variation; but change of climate is by no means a necessary
contingent, as we see with the gooseberry, currant, and some others. Plants
living under their natural conditions are very rarely subject to
bud-variation: variegated and  leaves have, however, been
occasionally observed; and I have given an instance of the variation of
buds on an ash-tree; but it is doubtful whether any tree planted in
ornamental grounds can be considered as living under strictly natural
conditions. Gaertner has seen white and dark-red flowers produced from the
same root of the wild _Achillea millefolium_; and Prof. Caspary has seen
_Viola lutea_, in a completely wild condition, bearing flowers of different
colours and sizes.[953]

As wild plants are so rarely liable to bud-variation, whilst highly
cultivated plants long propagated by artificial means have yielded by this
form of reproduction many varieties, we are led through a series such as
the following,--namely, all the eyes in the same tuber of the potato
varying in the same manner,--all the fruit on a purple plum-tree suddenly
becoming yellow,--all the fruit on a double-flowered almond suddenly
becoming peach-like,--all the buds on grafted trees being in some very
slight degree affected by the stock on which they have been worked,--all
the flowers on a transplanted heartsease changing for a time in colour,
size, and shape,--we are led through such facts to look at every case of
bud-variation as the direct result of the particular conditions of life to
which the plant has been exposed. But if we turn to the other end of the
series, namely, to such cases as that of a peach-tree which, after having
been cultivated by tens of thousands during many years in many countries,
and after having annually produced thousands of buds, all of which have
apparently been exposed to precisely the same conditions, yet at last
suddenly produces a single bud with its whole character greatly
transformed, we are driven to an opposite {409} conclusion. In such cases
as the latter it would appear that the transformation stands in no _direct_
relation to the conditions of life.

We have seen that varieties produced from seeds and from buds resemble each
other so closely in general appearance, that they cannot possibly be
distinguished. Just as certain species and groups of species, when
propagated by seed, are more variable than other species or genera, so it
is in the case of certain bud-varieties. Thus the Queen of England
Chrysanthemum has produced by this latter process no less than six, and
Rollisson's Unique Pelargonium four distinct varieties; moss-roses have
also produced several other moss-roses. The Rosaceae have varied by buds
more than any other group of plants; but this may be in large part due to
so many members having been long cultivated; but within this one group, the
peach has often varied by buds, whilst the apple and pear, both grafted
trees extensively cultivated, have afforded, as far as I can ascertain,
extremely few instances of bud-variation.

The law of analogous variation holds good with varieties produced by buds,
as with those produced from seed: more than one kind of rose has sported
into a moss-rose; more than one kind of camellia has assumed an hexagonal
form; and at least seven or eight varieties of the peach have produced
nectarines.

The laws of inheritance seem to be nearly the same with seminal and
bud-varieties. We know how commonly reversion comes into play with both,
and it may affect the whole, or only segments, of a leaf, flower, or fruit.
When the tendency to reversion affects many buds on the same tree, it
becomes covered with different kinds of leaves, flowers, or fruit; but
there is reason to believe that such fluctuating varieties have generally
arisen from seed. It is well known that, out of a number of seedling
varieties, some transmit their character much more truly by seed than
others; so with bud-varieties some retain their character by successive
buds more truly than others; of which instances have been given with two
kinds of variegated Euonymus and with certain kinds of tulips.
Notwithstanding the sudden production of bud-varieties, the characters thus
acquired are sometimes capable of transmission by seminal reproduction: Mr.
Rivers has found that moss-roses generally {410} reproduce themselves by
seed; and the mossy character has been transferred by crossing, from one
species of rose to another. The Boston nectarine, which appeared as a
bud-variation, produced by seed a closely allied nectarine. We have however
seen, on the authority of Mr. Salter, that seed taken from a branch with
leaves variegated through bud-variation, transmits this character very
feebly; whilst many plants, which became variegated as seedlings, transmit
variegation to a large proportion of their progeny.

Although I have been able to collect a good many cases of bud-variation, as
shown in the previous lists, and might probably, by searching foreign
horticultural works, have collected more cases, yet their total number is
as nothing in comparison with that of seminal varieties. With seedlings
raised from the more variable cultivated plants, the variations are almost
infinitely numerous, but their differences are generally slight: only at
long intervals of time a strongly marked modification appears. On the other
hand, it is a singular and inexplicable fact that, when plants vary by
buds, the variations, though they occur with comparative rarity, are often,
or even generally, strongly pronounced. It struck me that this might
perhaps be a delusion, and that slight changes often occurred in buds, but
from being of no value were overlooked or not recorded. Accordingly I
applied to two great authorities on this subject, namely, to Mr. Rivers
with respect to fruit-trees, and to Mr. Salter with respect to flowers. Mr.
Rivers is doubtful, but does not remember having noticed very slight
variations in fruit-buds. Mr. Salter informs me that with flowers such do
occur, but, if propagated, they generally lose their new character in the
following year; yet he concurs with me that bud-variations usually at once
assume a decided and permanent character. We can hardly doubt that this is
the rule, when we reflect on such cases as that of the peach, which has
been so carefully observed and of which such trifling seminal varieties
have been propagated, yet this tree has repeatedly produced by
bud-variation nectarines, and only twice (as far as I can learn) any other
variety, namely, the Early and Late Grosse Mignonne peaches; and these
differ from the parent-tree in hardly any character except the period of
maturity. {411}

To my surprise I hear from Mr. Salter that he brings the great principle of
selection to bear on variegated plants propagated by buds, and has thus
greatly improved and fixed several varieties. He informs me that at first a
branch often produces variegated leaves on one side alone, and that the
leaves are marked only with an irregular edging or with a few lines of
white and yellow. To improve and fix such varieties, he finds it necessary
to encourage the buds at the bases of the most distinctly marked leaves,
and to propagate from them alone. By following with perseverance this plan
during three or four successive seasons, a distinct and fixed variety can
generally be secured.

Finally, the facts given in this chapter prove in how close and remarkable
a manner the germ of a fertilised seed and the small cellular mass forming
a bud resemble each other in function,--in their powers of inheritance with
occasional reversion,--and in their capacity for variation of the same
general nature, in obedience to the same laws. This resemblance, or rather
identity, is rendered far more striking if the facts can be trusted which
apparently render it probable that the cellular tissue of one species or
variety, when budded or grafted on another, may give rise to a bud having
an intermediate character. In this chapter we clearly see that variability
is not necessarily contingent on sexual generation, though much more
frequently its concomitant than on bud-reproduction. We see that
bud-variability is not solely dependent on reversion or atavism to
long-lost characters, or to those formerly acquired from a cross, but that
it is often spontaneous. But when we ask ourselves what is the cause of any
particular bud-variation, we are lost in doubt, being driven in some cases
to look to the direct action of the external conditions of life as
sufficient, and in other cases to feel a profound conviction that these
have played a quite subordinate part, of not more importance than the
nature of the spark which ignites a mass of combustible matter.

END OF VOL. I.

LONDON:
PRINTED BY W. CLOWES AND SONS, STAMFORD STREET,
AND CHARING CROSS.

       *       *       *       *       *


NOTES

[1] To any one who has attentively read my 'Origin of Species' this
Introduction will be superfluous. As I stated that work that I should soon
publish the facts on which the conclusions given in it were founded, I here
beg permission to remark that the great delay in publishing this first work
has been caused by continued ill-health.

[2] M. Pouchet has recently ('Plurality of Races,' Eng. Translat., 1864, p.
83, &c.) insisted that variation under domestication throws no light on the
natural modification of species. I cannot perceive the force of his
arguments, or, to speak more accurately, of his assertions to this effect.

[3] Leon Dufour in 'Annales des Scienc. Nat.' (3rd series, Zoolog.), tom.
v. p. 6.

[4] In treating the several subjects included in the present and succeeding
works I have continually been led to ask for information from many
zoologists, botanists, geologists, breeders of animals, and
horticulturists, and I have invariably received from them the most generous
assistance. Without such aid I could have effected little. I have
repeatedly applied for information and specimens to foreigners, and to
British merchants and officers of the Government residing in distant lands,
and, with the rarest exceptions, I have received prompt, open-handed, and
valuable assistance. I cannot express too strongly my obligations to the
many persons who have assisted me, and who, I am convinced, would be
equally willing to assist others in any scientific investigation.

[5] Owen, 'British Fossil Mammals,' p. 123 to 133. Pictet's 'Traite de
Pal.,' 1853, tom. i. p. 202. De Blainville, in his 'Osteographie, Canidae,'
p. 142, has largely discussed the whole subject, and concludes that the
extinct parent of all domesticated dogs came nearest to the wolf in
organization, and to the jackal in habits.

[6] Pallas, I believe, originated this doctrine in 'Act. Acad. St.
Petersburgh,' 1780, Part ii. Ehrenberg has advocated it, as may be seen in
De Blainville's 'Osteographie,' p. 79. It has been carried to an extreme
extent by Col. Hamilton Smith in the 'Naturalist Library,' vol. ix. and x.
Mr. W. C. Martin adopts it in his excellent 'History of the Dog,' 1845; as
does Dr. Morton, as well as Nott and Gliddon, in the United States. Prof.
Low, in his 'Domesticated Animals,' 1845, p. 666, comes to this same
conclusion. No one has argued on this side with more clearness and force
than the late James Wilson, of Edinburgh, in various papers read before the
Highland Agricultural and Wernerian Societies. Isidore Geoffroy Saint
Hilaire ('Hist. Nat. Gen.,' 1860, tom. iii. p. 107), though he believes
that most dogs have descended from the jackal, yet inclines to the belief
that some are descended from the wolf. Prof. Gervais ('Hist. Nat. Mamm.,'
1855, tom. ii. p. 69), referring to the view that all the domestic races
are the modified descendants of a single species, after a long discussion,
says, "Cette opinion est, suivant nous du moins, la moins probable."

[7] Berjeau, 'The Varieties of the Dog; in old Sculptures and Pictures,'
1863. 'Der Hund,' von Dr. F. L. Walther, s. 48, Giessen, 1817: this author
seems carefully to have studied all classical works on the subject. _See_
also 'Volz, Beitraege zur Kultur-geschichte,' Leipzig, 1852, s. 115. 'Youatt
on the Dog,' 1845, p. 6. A very full history is given by De Blainville in
his 'Osteographie, Canidae.'

[8] I have seen drawings of this dog from the tomb of the son of Esar
Haddon, and clay models in the British Museum. Nott and Gliddon, in their
'Types of Mankind,' 1854, p. 393, give a copy of these drawings. This dog
has been called a Thibetan mastiff, but Mr. H. A. Oldfield, who is familiar
with the so-called Thibet mastiff, and has examined the drawings in the
British Museum, informs me that he considers them different.

[9] 'Proc. Zoolog. Soc.,' July 12th, 1831.

[10] 'Sporting in Algeria,' p. 51.

[11] Berjeau gives fac-similes of the Egyptian drawings. Mr. C. L. Martin,
in his 'History of the Dog,' 1845, copies several figures from the Egyptian
monuments, and speaks with much confidence with respect to their identity
with still living dogs. Messrs. Nott and Gliddon ('Types of Mankind,' 1854,
p. 388) give still more numerous figures. Mr. Gliddon asserts that a
curl-tailed greyhound, like that represented on the most ancient monuments,
is common in Borneo; but the Rajah, Sir J. Brooke, informs me that no such
dog exists there.

[12] These, and the following facts on the Danish remains, are taken from
M. Morlot's most interesting memoir in 'Soc. Vaudoise des Sc. Nat.,' tom.
vi., 1860, pp. 281, 299, 320.

[13] 'Die Fauna der Pfahlbauten,' 1861, s. 117, 162.

[14] De Blainville, 'Osteographie, Canidae.'

[15] Sir R. Schomburgk has given me information on this head. _See_ also
'Journal of R. Geograph. Soc.,' vol. xiii., 1843, p. 65.

[16] 'Domestication of Animals:' Ethnological Soc., Dec. 22nd, 1863.

[17] 'Journal of Researches,' &c., 1845, p. 393. With respect to _Canis
antarcticus_, _see_ p. 193. For the case of the antelope, _see_ 'Journal
Royal Geograph. Soc.,' vol. xxiii. p. 94.

[18] The authorities for the foregoing statements are as
follow:--Richardson, in 'Fauna Boreali-Americana,' 1829, pp. 64, 75; Dr.
Kane, 'Arctic Explorations,' 1856, vol. i. pp. 398, 455; Dr. Hayes, 'Arctic
Boat Journey,' 1860, p. 167. Franklin's 'Narrative,' vol. i. p. 269, gives
the case of three whelps of a black wolf being carried away by the Indians.
Parry, Richardson, and others, give accounts of wolves and dogs naturally
crossing in the eastern parts of North America. Seeman, in his 'Voyage of
H.M.S. Herald,' 1853, vol. ii. p. 26, says the wolf is often caught by the
Esqimaux for the purpose of crossing with their dogs, and thus adding to
their size and strength. M. Lamare-Picquot, in 'Bull. de la Soc.
d'Acclimat.,' tom. vii., 1860, p. 148, gives a good account of the
half-bred Esquimaux dogs.

[19] 'Fauna Boreali-Americana,' 1829, pp. 73, 78, 80. Nott and Gliddon,
'Types of Mankind,' p. 383. The naturalist and traveller Bartram is quoted
by Hamilton Smith, in 'Nat. Hist. Lib.,' vol. x. p. 156. A Mexican domestic
dog seems also to resemble a wild dog of the same country; but this may be
the prairie-wolf. Another capable judge, Mr. J. K. Lord ('The Naturalist in
Vancouver Island,' 1866, vol. ii. p. 218), says that the Indian dog of the
Spokans, near the Rocky Mountains, "is beyond all question nothing more
than a tamed Cayote or prairie-wolf," or _Canis latrans_.

[20] I quote this from Mr. R. Hill's excellent account of the Alco or
domestic dog of Mexico, in Gosse's 'Naturalist's Sojourn in Jamaica,' 1851,
p. 329.

[21] 'Naturgeschichte der Saeugethiere von Paraguay,' 1830, s. 151.

[22] Quoted in Humboldt's 'Aspects of Nature' (Eng. transl.), vol. i. p.
108.

[23] Paget's 'Travels in Hungary and Transylvania,' vol. i. p. 501.
Jeitteles, 'Fauna Hungariae Superioris,' 1862, s. 13. _See_ Pliny, 'Hist. of
the World' (Eng. transl.), 8th book, ch. xl., about the Gauls crossing
their dogs. _See_ also 'Hist. Animal.' lib. viii. c. 28. For good evidence
about wolves and dogs naturally crossing near the Pyrenees, _see_ M.
Mauduyt, 'Du Loup et de ses Races,' Poitiers, 1851; also Pallas, in 'Acta
Acad. St. Petersburgh,' 1780, part ii. p. 94.

[24] I give this on excellent authority, namely, Mr. Blyth (under the
signature of Zoophilus), in the 'Indian Sporting Review,' Oct. 1856, p.
134. Mr. Blyth states that he was struck with the resemblance between a
brush-tailed race of pariah-dogs, north-west of Cawnpore, and the Indian
wolf. He gives corroborative evidence with respect to the dogs of the
valley of the Nerbudda.

[25] For numerous and interesting details on the resemblance of dogs and
jackals, _see_ Isid. Geoffroy St. Hilaire, 'Hist. Nat. Gen.,' 1860, tom.
iii. p. 101. _See_ also 'Hist. Nat. des Mammiferes,' par Prof. Gervais,
1855, tom. ii. p. 60.

[26] Gueldenstaedt, 'Nov. Comment. Acad. Petrop.,' tom. xx., pro anno 1775,
p. 449.

[27] Quoted by De Blainville in his 'Osteographie, Canidae,' pp. 79, 98.

[28] _See_ Pallas, in 'Act. Acad. St. Petersburgh,' 1780, part ii. p. 91.
For Algeria, _see_ Isid. Geoffroy St. Hilaire, 'Hist. Nat. Gen.,' tom. iii.
p. 177. In both countries it is the male jackal which pairs with female
domestic dogs.

[29] John Barbut's 'Description of the Coast of Guinea in 1746.'

[30] 'Travels in South Africa,' vol. ii. p. 272.

[31] Selwyn, Geology of Victoria; 'Journal of Geolog. Soc.,' vol. xiv.,
1858, p. 536, and vol. xvi., 1860, p. 148; and Prof M^cCoy, in 'Annals and
Mag. of Nat. Hist.' (3rd series), vol. ix., 1862, p. 147. The Dingo differs
from the dogs of the central Polynesian islands. Dieffenbach remarks
('Travels,' vol. ii. p. 45) that the native New Zealand dog also differs
from the Dingo.

[32] 'Proceedings Zoolog. Soc.,' 1833, p. 112. _See_, also, on the taming
of the common wolf, L. Lloyd, 'Scandinavian Adventures,' vol. i. p. 460,
1854. With respect to the jackal, _see_ Prof. Gervais, 'Hist. Nat. Mamm.,'
tom. ii. p. 61. With respect to the aguara of Paraguay, _see_ Rengger's
work.

[33] Roulin, in 'Mem. present. par divers Savans,' tom. vi. p. 341.

[34] Martin, 'History of the Dog,' p. 14.

[35] Quoted by L. Lloyd in 'Field Sports of North of Europe,' vol. i. p.
387.

[36] Quatrefages, 'Soc. d'Acclimat.,' May 11th, 1863, p. 7.

[37] 'Annals and Mag. of Nat. Hist.,' vol. xv., 1845, p. 140.

[38] Azara, 'Voyages dans l'Amer. Merid.,' tom. i. p. 381; his account is
fully confirmed by Rengger. Quatrefages gives an account of a bitch brought
from Jerusalem to France which burrowed a hole and littered in it. _See_
'Discours, Exposition des Races Canines,' 1865, p. 3.

[39] With respect to wolves burrowing holes, _see_ Richardson, Fauna
Boreali-Americana,' p. 64; and Bechstein, 'Naturgesch. Deutschlands,' b. i.
s. 617.

[40] _See_ Poeppig, 'Reise in Chile,' b. i. s. 290; Mr. G. Clarke, as
above; and Rengger, s. 155.

[41] Dogs, 'Nat. Library,' vol. x. p. 121: an endemic South American dog
seems also to have become feral in this island. _See_ Gosse's 'Jamaica,' p.
340.

[42] Low, 'Domesticated Animals,' p. 650.

[43] 'The Naturalist Library,' Dogs, vol. x. pp. 4, 19.

[44] Quoted by Prof. Gervais, 'Hist. Nat. Mamm.,' tom. ii. p. 66.

[45] J. Hunter shows that the long period of seventy-three days given by
Buffon is easily explained by the bitch having received the dog many times
during a period of sixteen days ('Phil. Transact.,' 1787, p. 253). Hunter
found that the gestation of a mongrel from wolf and dog ('Phil. Transact.,'
1759, p. 160) apparently was sixty-three days, for she received the dog
more than once. The period of a mongrel dog and jackal was fifty-nine days.
Fred. Cuvier found the period of gestation of the wolf to be ('Dict. Class.
d'Hist. Nat.,' tom. iv. p. 8) two months and a few days, which agrees with
the dog. Isid. G. St. Hilaire, who has discussed the whole subject, and
from whom I quote Bellingeri, states ('Hist. Nat. Gen.,' tom. iii. p. 112)
that in the Jardin des Plantes the period of the jackal has been found to
be from sixty to sixty-three days, exactly as with the dog.

[46] _See_ Isid. Geoffroy St. Hilaire, 'Hist. Nat. Gen.,' tom. iii. p. 112,
on the odour of jackals. Col. Ham. Smith, in 'Nat. Hist. Lib.,' vol. x. p.
289.

[47] Quoted by Quatrefages in 'Bull. Soc. d'Acclimat.,' May 11th, 1863.

[48] 'Journal de la Physiologie,' tom. ii. p. 385.

[49] _See_ Mr. R. Hill's excellent account of this breed in Gosse's
'Jamaica,' p. 338; Rengger's 'Saeugethiere von Paraguay,' s. 153. With
respect to Spitz dogs, _see_ Bechstein's 'Naturgesch. Deutschlands,' 1801,
b. i. s. 638. With respect to Dr. Hodgkin's statement made before Brit.
Assoc., _see_ 'The Zoologist,' vol. iv., for 1845-46, p. 1097.

[50] 'Acta Acad. St. Petersburgh,' 1780, part ii. pp. 84, 100.

[51] M. Broca has shown ('Journal de Physiologie,' tom. ii. p. 353) that
Buffon's experiments have been often misrepresented. Broca has collected
(pp. 390-395) many facts on the fertility of crossed dogs, wolves, and
jackals.

[52] 'De la Longevite Humaine,' par M. Flourens, 1855, p. 143. Mr. Blyth
says ('Indian Sporting Review,' vol. ii. p. 137) that he has seen in India
several hybrids from the pariah-dog and jackal; and between one of these
hybrids and a terrier. The experiments of Hunter on the jackal are well
known. See also Isid. Geoffroy St. Hilaire, 'Hist. Nat. Gen.,' tom. iii, p.
217, who speaks of the hybrid offspring of the jackal as perfectly fertile
for three generations.

[53] On authority of F. Cuvier, quoted in Bronn's 'Geschichte der Natur,'
B. ii. s. 164.

[54] W. C. L. Martin, 'History of the Dog,' 1845, p. 203. Mr. Philip P.
King, after ample opportunities of observation, informs me that the Dingo
and European dogs often cross in Australia.

[55] Rueppel, 'Neue Wirbelthiere von Abyssinien,' 1835-40; 'Mammif.,' s. 39,
pl. xiv. There is a specimen of this fine animal in the British Museum.

[56] Even Pallas admits this: _see_ 'Act. Acad. St. Petersburgh,' 1780, p.
93.

[57] Quoted by I. Geoffroy, 'Hist. Nat. Gen.,' tom. iii. p. 453.

[58] F. Cuvier, in 'Annales du Museum,' tom. xviii. p. 337; Godron, 'De
l'Espece,' tom. i. p. 342; and Col. Ham. Smith, in 'Naturalist's Library,'
vol. ix. p. 101.

[59] Isid. Geoffroy Saint Hilaire, 'Hist. des Anomalies,' 1832, tom. i. p.
660. Gervais, 'Hist. Nat. des Mammiferes,' tom. ii., 1855, p. 66. De
Blainville ('Osteographie, Canidae,' p. 137) has also seen an extra molar on
both sides.

[60] 'Osteographie, Canidae,' p. 137.

[61] Wuerzburger, 'Medecin, Zeitschrift,' 1860, B. i. s. 265.

[62] Mr. Yarell, in 'Proc. Zoolog. Soc.,' Oct. 8th, 1833. Mr. Waterhouse
showed me a skull of one of these dogs, which had only a single molar on
each side and some imperfect incisors.

[63] Quoted in 'The Veterinary,' London, vol. viii. p. 415.

[64] 'Hist Nat. General,' tom. iii. p. 448.

[65] W. Scrope, 'Art of Deer-Stalking,' p. 354.

[66] Quoted by Col. Ham. Smith in 'Naturalist's Library,' vol. x. p. 79.

[67] De Blainville, 'Osteographie, Canidae,' p. 134. F. Cuvier, 'Annales du
Museum,' tom. xviii. p. 342. In regard to mastiffs, see Col. Ham. Smith,
'Nat Lib.,' vol. x. p. 218. For the Thibet mastiff, see Mr. Hodgson in
'Journal of As. Soc. of Bengal,' vol. i., 1832, p. 342.

[68] 'The Dog,' 1845, p. 186. With respect to diseases, Youatt asserts (p.
167) that the Italian greyhound is "strongly subject" to polypi in the
matrix or vagina. The spaniel and pug (p. 182) are most liable to
bronchocele. The liability to distemper (p. 232) is extremely different in
different breeds. On the distemper, _see_ also Col. Hutchinson on 'Dog
Breaking,' 1850, p. 279.

[69] _See_ Youatt on the Dog, p. 15; 'The Veterinary,' London, vol. xi. p.
235.

[70] 'Journal of As. Soc. of Bengal,' vol. iii. p. 19.

[71] 'Travels,' vol. ii. p. 15.

[72] Hodgson, in 'Journal of As. Soc. of Bengal,' vol. i. p. 342.

[73] 'Field Sports of the North of Europe,' vol. ii. p. 165.

[74] 'Hist. Nat. des Mammif., 1855, tom. ii. pp. 66, 67.

[75] 'History of Quadrupeds,' 1793, vol. i. p. 238.

[76] 'Oriental Field Sports,' quoted by Youatt, 'The Dog,' p. 15.

[77] Quoted by Mr. Galton, 'Domestication of Animals,' p. 13.

[78] 'Hist. Nat. Gen.,' tom. iii. p. 450.

[79] Mr. Greenhow on the Canadian Dog, in Loudon's 'Mag. of Nat. Hist.,'
vol. vi., 1833, p. 511.

[80] _See_ Mr. C. O. Groom-Napier on the webbing of the hind feet of
Otter-hounds, in 'Land and Water,' Oct. 13th, 1866, p. 270.

[81] 'Fauna Boreali-Americana,' 1829, p. 62.

[82] 'The Horse in all his Varieties,' &c., 1829, pp. 230, 234.

[83] 'The Dog,' 1845, pp. 31, 35; with respect to King Charles's spaniel,
p. 45; for the setter, p. 90.

[84] In the 'Encyclop. of Rural Sports,' p. 557.

[85] 'The Farrier,' 1828, vol. i. p. 337.

[86] _See_ Col. Hamilton Smith on the antiquity of the Pointer, in
'Naturalist's Library,' vol. x. p. 195.

[87] The Newfoundland dog is believed to have originated from a cross
between the Esquimaux dog and a large French hound. _See_ Dr. Hodgkin,
'Brit. Assoc.,' 1844; Bechstein's 'Naturgesch. Deutschlands,' Band i. s.
574; 'Naturalist's Library,' vol. x. p. 132; also Mr. Jukes' 'Excursion in
and about Newfoundland.'

[88] De Blainville, 'Osteographie, Felis,' p. 65, on the character of _F.
caligulata_; pp. 85, 89, 90, 175, on the other mummied species. He quotes
Ehrenberg on _F. maniculata_ being mummied.

[89] Asiatic Soc. of Calcutta; Curator's Report, Aug. 1856. The passage
from Sir W. Jardine is quoted from this Report. Mr. Blyth, who has
especially attended to the wild and domestic cats of India, has given in
this Report a very interesting discussion on their origin.

[90] 'Fauna Hungariae Sup.,' 1862, s. 12.

[91] Isid. Geoffrey Saint Hilaire, 'Hist. Nat. Gen.,' tom. iii. p. 177.

[92] 'Proc. Zoolog. Soc.,' 1863, p. 184.

[93] 'Saeugethiere von Paraguay,' 1830, s. 212.

[94] 'Mem. presentes par divers Savans: Acad. Roy. des Sciences,' tom. vi.
p. 346. Gomara first noticed this fact in 1554.

[95] 'Narrative of Voyages,' vol. ii. p. 180.

[96] J. Crawfurd, 'Descript. Dict. of the Indian Islands,' p. 255. The
Madagascar cat is said to have a twisted tail: _see_ Desmarest, in
'Encyclop. Nat. Mamm.,' 1820, p. 233, for some of the other breeds.

[97] Admiral Lutke's Voyage, vol. iii. p. 308.

[98] 'Zoology of the Voyage of the Beagle, Mammalia,' p. 20. Dieffenbach,
'Travels in New Zealand,' vol. ii. p. 185. Ch. St. John, 'Wild Sports of
the Highlands,' 1846, p. 49.

[99] Quoted by Isid. Geoffroy, 'Hist. Nat. Gen.,' tom. iii. p. 427.

[100] Ruetimeyer, 'Fauna der Pfalbauten,' 1861, s. 122.

[101] _See_ Youatt on the Horse: J. Lawrence on the Horse, 1829: W. C. L.
Martin, 'History of the Horse,' 1845: Col. Ham. Smith, in 'Naturalist's
Library, Horses,' 1841, vol. xii.: Prof. Veith, 'Die Naturgesch.
Haussaeugethiere,' 1856.

[102] Crawfurd, 'Descript. Dict. of Indian Islands,' 1856, p. 153. "There
are many different breeds, every island having at least one peculiar to
it." Thus in Sumatra there are at least two breeds; in Achin and Batubara
one; in Java several breeds; one in Bali, Lomboc, Sumbawa (one of the best
breeds), Tambora, Bima, Gunung-api, Celebes, Sumba, and Philippines. Other
breeds are specified by Zollinger in the 'Journal of the Indian
Archipelago,' vol. v. p. 343, &c.

[103] 'The Horse,' &c., by John Lawrence, 1829, p. 14.

[104] 'The Veterinary,' London, vol. v. p. 543.

[105] Proc. Veterinary Assoc., in 'The Veterinary,' vol. xiii. p. 42.

[106] 'Bulletin de la Soc. Geolog.,' tom. xxii., 1866, p. 22.

[107] Mr. Percival, of the Enniskillen Dragoons, in 'The Veterinary,' vol.
i. p. 224: _see_ Azara, 'Des Quadrupedes du Paraguay,' tom. ii. p. 313. The
French translator of Azara refers to other cases mentioned by Huzard as
occurring in Spain.

[108] Godron, 'De l'Espece,' tom i. p. 378.

[109] 'Ueber die Eigenschaften,' &c., 1828, s. 10.

[110] 'Domesticated Animals of the British Islands,' pp. 527, 532. In all
the veterinary treatises and papers which I have read, the writers insist
in the strongest terms on the inheritance by the horse of all good and bad
tendencies and qualities. Perhaps the principle of inheritance is not
really stronger in the horse than in any other animal; but, from its value,
the tendency has been more carefully observed.

[111] Andrew Knight crossed breeds so different in size as a dray-horse and
Norwegian pony: see A. Walker on 'Intermarriage,' 1838, p. 205.

[112] 'Naturalist's Library,' Horses, vol. xii. p. 208.

[113] Gervais, 'Hist Nat. Mamm.,' tom. ii. p. 143. Owen, 'British Fossil
Mammals,' p. 383.

[114] 'Kenntniss der fossilen Pferde,' 1863, s. 131.

[115] Mr. W. C. L. Martin ('The Horse,' 1845, p. 34), in arguing against
the belief that the wild Eastern horses are merely feral, has remarked on
the improbability of man in ancient times having extirpated a species in a
region where it can now exist in numbers.

[116] 'Transact. Maryland Academy,' vol. i. part i. p. 28.

[117] Mr. Mackinnon on 'The Falkland Islands,' p. 25. The average height of
the Falkland horses is said to be 14 hands 2 inches. _See_ also my 'Journal
of Researches.'

[118] Pallas, 'Act. Acad. St. Petersburgh,' 1777, part ii. p. 265. With
respect to the tarpans scraping away the snow, _see_ Col. Hamilton Smith in
'Nat. Lib.,' vol. xii. p. 165.

[119] Franklin's 'Narrative,' vol. i. p. 87; note by Sir J. Richardson.

[120] Mr. J. H. Moor, 'Notices of the Indian Archipelago:' Singapore, 1837,
p. 189. A pony from Java was sent ('Athenaeum,' 1842, p. 718) to the Queen
only 28 inches in height. For the Loo Choo Islands, _see_ Beechey's
'Voyage,' 4th edit., vol. i. p. 499.

[121] J. Crawford, 'History of the Horse;' 'Journal of Royal United Service
Institution,' vol. iv.

[122] 'Essays on Natural History,' 2nd series, p. 161.

[123] 'Quadrupedes du Paraguay,' tom. ii. p. 333.

[124] Prof. Low, 'Domesticated Animals,' p. 546. With respect to the writer
in India, _see_ 'India Sporting Review,' vol. ii. p. 181. As Lawrence has
remarked ('The Horse,' p. 9), "perhaps no instance has ever occurred of a
three-part bred horse (_i.e._ a horse, one of whose grand-parents was of
impure blood) saving his distance in running two miles with thoroughbred
racers." Some few instances are on record of seven-eighths racers having
been successful.

[125] Prof. Gervais (in his 'Hist. Nat. Mamm.,' tom. ii. p. 144) has
collected many facts on this head. For instance, Solomon (Kings, b. i. ch.
x. v. 28) bought horses in Egypt at a high price.

[126] 'The Field,' July 13th, 1861, p. 42.

[127] E. Vernon Harcourt, 'Sporting in Algeria,' p. 26.

[128] I state this from my own observations made during several years on
the colours of horses. I have seen cream-, light-dun and mouse-dun
horses dappled, which I mention because it has been stated (Martin,
'History of the Horse,' p. 134) that duns are never dappled. Martin (p.
205) refers to dappled asses. In 'The Farrier' (London, 1828, pp. 453, 455)
there are some good remarks on the dappling of horses; and likewise in Col.
Hamilton Smith on 'The Horse.'

[129] Some details are given in 'The Farrier,' 1828, pp. 452, 455. One of
the least ponies I ever saw, of the colour of a mouse, had a conspicuous
spinal stripe. A small Indian chesnut pony had the same stripe, as had a
remarkably heavy chesnut cart-horse. Race-horses often have the spinal
stripe.

[130] I have received information, through the kindness of the
Consul-General, Mr. J. R. Crowe, from Prof. Boeck, Rasck, and Esmarck, on
the colours of the Norwegian ponies. _See_, also, 'The Field,' 1861, p.
431.

[131] Col. Ham. Smith, 'Nat. Lib.,' vol. xii. p. 275.

[132] Mr. G. Clark, in 'Annal and Mag. of Nat. History,' 2nd series, vol.
ii., 1848, p. 363. Mr. Wallace informs me that he saw in Java a dun and
clay- horse with spinal and leg stripes.

[133] _See_, also, on this point, 'The Field,' July 27th, 1861, p. 91.

[134] 'The Field,' 1861, pp. 431, 493, 545.

[135] 'Ueber die Eigenschaften,' &c, 1828, s. 13, 14.

[136] 'Naturalist's Library,' vol. xii. (1841), pp. 109, 156 to 163, 280,
281. Cream-colour, passing into Isabella (_i.e._ the colour of the dirty
linen of Queen Isabella), seems to have been common in ancient times. _See_
also Pallas's account of the wild horses of the East, who speaks of dun and
brown as the prevalent colours.

[137] Azara, 'Quadrupedes du Paraguay,' tom. ii. p. 307; for the colour of
mules, _see_ p. 350. In North America, Catlin (vol. ii. p. 57) describes
the wild horses, believed to have descended from the Spanish horses of
Mexico, as of all colours, black, grey, roan, and roan pied with sorrel. F.
Michaux ('Travels in North America,' Eng. translat., p. 235) describes two
wild horses from Mexico as roan. In the Falkland Islands, where the horse
has been feral only between 60 and 70 years, I was told that roans and
iron-greys were the prevalent colours. These several facts show that horses
do not generally revert to any uniform colour.

[138] Dr. Sclater, in 'Proc. Zoolog. Soc.,' 1862, p. 164.

[139] W. C. Martin, 'History of the Horse,' 1845, p. 207.

[140] Col. Sykes' Cat. of Mammalia, 'Proc. Zoolog. Soc.,' July 12th, 1831.
Williamson, 'Oriental Field Sports,' vol. ii., quoted by Martin, p. 206.

[141] Blyth, in 'Charlesworth's Mag. of Nat. Hist.,' vol. iv., 1840, p. 83.
I have also been assured by a breeder that this is the case.

[142] One case is given by Martin, 'The Horse,' p. 205.

[143] 'Journal As. Soc. of Bengal,' vol. xxviii. 1860, p. 231. Martin on
the Horse, p. 205.

[144] Hermann von Nathusius, 'Die Racen des Schweines,' Berlin, 1860; and
'Vorstudien fur Geschichte,' &c., 'Schweineschaedel,' Berlin, 1864.
Ruetimeyer, 'Die Fauna der Pfahlbauten,' Basel, 1861.

[145] Nathusius, 'Die Racen des Schweines,' Berlin, 1860. An excellent
appendix is given with references to published and trustworthy drawings of
the breeds of each country.

[146] For Europe, _see_ Bechstein, 'Naturgesch. Deutschlands,' 1801, b. i.,
s. 505. Several accounts have been published on the fertility of the
offspring from wild and tame swine. _See_ Burdach's 'Physiology,' and
Godron, 'De l'Espece,' tom. i. p. 370. For Africa, 'Bull. de la Soc.
d'Acclimat.,' tom. iv. p. 389. For India, _see_ Nathusius,
'Schweineschaedel,' s. 148.

[147] Sir W. Elliot, Catalogue of Mammalia, 'Madras Journal of Lit. and
Science,' vol. x. p. 219.

[148] 'Pfahlbauten,' s. 163 et passim.

[149] _See_ Ruetimeyer's Neue Beitrage, ... Torfschweine, Verh. Naturfor.
Gesell. in Basel, iv. i., 1865, s. 139.

[150] Stan. Julien, quoted by De Blainville, 'Osteographie,' p. 163.

[151] Richardson, 'Pigs, their Origin,' &c., p. 26.

[152] 'Die Racen des Schweines,' s. 47, 64.

[153] 'Proc. Zoolog. Soc.,' 1861, p. 263.

[154] Sclater, in 'Proc. Zoolog. Soc.,' Feb. 26th, 1861.

[155] 'Proc. Zoolog. Soc.,' 1862, p. 13.

[156] 'Journal of Voyages and Travels from 1821 to 1829,' vol. i. p. 300.

[157] Rev. G. Low, 'Fauna Orcadensis,' p. 10. _See_ also Dr. Hibbert's
account of the pig of the Shetland Islands.

[158] 'Die Racen des Schweines,' s. 70.

[159] These woodcuts are copied from engravings given in Mr. S. Sidney's
excellent edition of 'The Pig,' by Youatt, 1860. _See_ pp. 1, 16, 19.

[160] 'Schweineschaedel,' s. 74, 135.

[161] Nathusius, 'Die Racen des Schweines,' s. 71.

[162] 'Die Racen des Schweines,' s. 47. 'Schweineschaedel,' s. 104. Compare,
also, the figures of the old Irish and the improved Irish breeds in
Richardson on 'The Pig,' 1847.

[163] Quoted by Isid. Geoffroy, 'Hist. Nat. Gen.,' tom. iii. p. 441.

[164] S. Sidney, 'The Pig,' p. 61.

[165] 'Schweineschaedel,' s. 2, 20.

[166] 'Proc. Zoolog. Soc.,' 1837, p. 23. I have not given the caudal
vertebrae, as Mr. Eyton says some might possibly have been lost. I have
added together the dorsal and lumbar vertebrae, owing to Prof. Owen's
remarks ('Journal Linn. Soc.,' vol. ii. p. 28) on the difference between
dorsal and lumbar vertebrae depending only on the development of the ribs.
Nevertheless the difference in the number of the ribs in pigs deserves
notice.

[167] 'Edinburgh New Philosoph. Journal,' April 1863. _See_ also De
Blainville's 'Osteographie,' p. 128, for various authorities on this
subject.

[168] Eudes-Deslongchamps, 'Memoires de la Soc. Linn. de Normandie,' vol.
vii., 1842, p. 41. Richardson, 'Pigs, their Origin, &c.,' 1847, p. 30.
Nathusius, 'Die Racen des Schweines,' 1860, s. 54.

[169] D. Johnson's 'Sketches of Indian Field Sports,' p. 272. Mr. Crawfurd
informs me that the same fact holds good with the wild pigs of the Malay
peninsula.

[170] For Turkish pigs, _see_ Desmarest, 'Mammalogie,' 1820, p. 391. For
those of Westphalia, _see_ Richardson's 'Pigs, their Origin,' &c., 1847, p.
41.

[171] With respect to the several foregoing and following statements on
feral pigs, _see_ Roulin, in 'Mem. presentes par divers Savans a l'Acad.,'
&c., Paris, tom. vi., 1835, p. 326. It should be observed that his account
does not apply to truly feral pigs; but to pigs long introduced into the
country and living in a half-wild state. For the truly feral pigs of
Jamaica, _see_ Gosse's 'Sojourn in Jamaica,' 1851, p. 386; and Col.
Hamilton Smith, in 'Nat. Library,' vol. ix. p. 93. With respect to Africa,
_see_ Livingstone's 'Expedition to the Zambesi,' 1865, p. 153. The most
precise statement with respect to the tusks of the West Indian feral boars
is by P. Labat (quoted by Roulin); but this author attributes the state of
these pigs to descent from a domestic stock which he saw in Spain. Admiral
Sulivan, R.N., had ample opportunities of observing the wild pigs on Eagle
Islet in the Falklands; and he informs me that they resembled wild boars
with bristly ridged backs and large tusks. The pigs which have run wild in
the province of Buenos Ayres (Rengger, 'Saeugethiere,' s. 331) have not
reverted to the wild type. De Blainville ('Osteographie,' p. 132) refers to
two skulls of domestic pigs sent from Patagonia by Al. d'Orbigny, and he
states that they have the occipital elevation of the wild European boar,
but that the head altogether is "plus courte et plus ramassee." He refers,
also, to the skin of a feral pig from North America, and says, "il
ressemble tout a fait a un petit sanglier, mais il est presque tout noir,
et peut-etre un peu plus ramasse dans ses formes."

[172] Gosse's 'Jamaica,' p. 386, with a quotation from Williamson's
'Oriental Field Sports.' Also Col. Hamilton Smith, in 'Naturalist's
Library,' vol. ix. p. 94.

[173] S. Sidney's edition of 'Youatt on the Pig,' 1860, pp. 7, 26, 27, 29,
30.

[174] 'Schweineschaedel,' s. 140.

[175] 'Die Fauna der Pfahlbauten,' 1861, s. 109, 149, 222. _See_ also
Geoffroy Saint Hilaire, in 'Mem. du Mus. d'Hist. Nat.,' tom. x. p. 172; and
his son Isidore, in 'Hist. Nat. Gen.,' tom. iii. p. 69. Vasey, in his
'Delineations of the Ox Tribe,' 1851, p. 127, says the zebu has four, and
the common ox five, sacral vertebrae. Mr. Hodgson found the ribs either
thirteen or fourteen in number; _see_ a note in 'Indian Field,' 1858, p.
62.

[176] 'The Indian Field,' 1858, p. 74, where Mr. Blyth gives his
authorities with respect to the feral humped cattle. Pickering, also, in
his 'Races of Man,' 1850, p. 274, notices the peculiar character of the
grunt-like voice of the humped cattle.

[177] Mr. H. E. Marquand, in 'The Times,' June 23rd, 1856.

[178] Vasey, 'Delineations of the Ox-Tribe,' p. 124. Brace's 'Hungary,'
1851, p. 94. The Hungarian cattle descend, according to Ruetimeyer ('Zahmen.
Europ. Rindes,' 1866, s. 13), from _Bos primigenius_.

[179] Moll and Gayot, 'La Connaissance Gen. du Boeuf,' Paris, 1860. Fig 82
is that of the Podolian breed.

[180] A translation appeared in three parts in the 'Annals and Mag. of Nat.
Hist.,' 2nd series, vol. iv., 1849.

[181] _See_, also, Ruetimeyer's 'Beitrage pal. Gesch. der Wiederkauer,'
Basel, 1865, s. 54.

[182] Pictet's 'Paleontologie,' tom. i. p. 365 (2nd edit.). With respect to
B. trochoceros, _see_ Ruetimeyer's 'Zahmen Europ. Rindes,' 1866, s. 26.

[183] Owen, 'British Fossil Mammals,' 1846, p. 510.

[184] 'British Pleistocene Mammalia,' by W. B. Dawkins and W. A. Sandford,
1866. p. xv.

[185] W. R. Wilde, 'An Essay on the Animal Remains, &c., Royal Irish
Academy,' 1860, p. 29. Also 'Proc. of R. Irish Academy,' 1858, p. 48.

[186] 'Lecture: Royal Institution of G. Britain,' May 2nd, 1856, p. 4.
'British Fossil Mammals,' p. 513.

[187] Nilsson, in 'Annals and Mag. of Nat. Hist.,' 1849, vol. iv. p. 354.

[188] _See_ W. R. Wilde, ut supra; and Mr. Blyth, in 'Proc. Irish Academy,'
March 5th, 1864.

[189] Laing's 'Tour in Norway,' p. 110.

[190] Isid. Geoffroy St. Hilaire, 'Hist. Nat. Gen.,' tom. iii. p. 96.

[191] Idem, tom. iii. pp. 82, 91.

[192] 'Quadrupedes du Paraguay,' tom. ii. p. 360.

[193] Walther, 'Das Rindvieh,' 1817, s. 30.

[194] I am much indebted to the present Earl of Tankerville for information
about his wild cattle; and for the skull which was sent to Prof. Ruetimeyer.
The fullest account of the Chillingham cattle is given by Mr. Hindmarsh,
together with a letter by the late Lord Tankerville, in 'Annals and Mag. of
Nat. Hist.,' vol. ii., 1839, p. 274. _See_ Bewick, 'Quadrupeds,' 2nd edit.,
1791, p. 35, note. With respect to those of Duke of Queensberry, _see_
Pennant's 'Tour in Scotland,' p. 109. For those of Chartley, _see_ Low's
'Domesticated Animals of Britain,' 1845, p. 238. For those of Gisburne,
_see_ Bewick's 'Quadrupeds, and Encyclop. of Rural Sports,' p. 101.

[195] Boethius was born in 1470; 'Annals and Mag. of Nat. Hist.,' vol. ii.,
1839, p. 281; and vol. iv. 1849, p. 424.

[196] Youatt on Cattle, 1834, p. 48: _See_ also p. 242, on short-horn
cattle. Bell, in his 'British Quadrupeds,' p. 423, states that, after long
attending to the subject, he has found that white cattle invariably have
 ears.

[197] Azara, 'Des Quadrupedes du Paraguay,' tom. ii. p. 361. Azara quotes
Buffon for the feral cattle of Africa. For Texas, _see_ 'Times,' Feb. 18th,
1846.

[198] Anson's Voyage. _See_ Kerr and Porter's 'Collection,' vol. xii. p.
103.

[199] _See_ also Mr. Mackinnon's pamphlet on the Falkland Islands, p. 24.

[200] 'The Age of the Ox, Sheep, Pig,' &c., by Prof. James Simonds,
published by order of the Royal Agricult. Soc.

[201] 'Ann. Agricult. France,' April 1897. as quoted in 'The Veterinary,'
vol. xii. p. 725. I quote Tessier's observations from Youatt on Cattle, p.
527.

[202] 'The Veterinary,' vol. viii. p. 681, and vol. x. p. 268. Low's
'Domest. Animals of Great Britain,' p. 297.

[203] Mr. Ogleby, in 'Proc. Zoolog. Soc.,' 1836, p. 138, and 1840, p. 4.

[204] Leguat's Voyage, quoted by Vasey in his 'Delineations of the
Ox-tribe,' p. 132.

[205] 'Travels in South Africa,' pp. 317, 336.

[206] 'Mem. de l'Institut present. par divers Savans,' tom. vi., 1835, p.
333. For Brazil, _see_ 'Comptes Rendus,' June 15th, 1846. _See_ Azara,
'Quadrupedes du Paraguay,' tom. ii. pp. 359, 361.

[207] 'Schweineschaedel,' 1864, s. 104. Nathusius states that the form of
skull characteristic of the niata cattle occasionally appears in European
cattle; but he is mistaken, as we shall hereafter see, in supposing that
these cattle do not form a distinct race. Prof. Wyman, of Cambridge, United
States, informs me that the common cod-fish presents a similar monstrosity,
called by the fishermen the "bulldog cod." Prof. Wyman also concluded,
after making numerous inquiries in La Plata, that the niata cattle transmit
their peculiarities or form a race.

[208] Ueber Art des Zahmen Europ. Rindes, 1866, s. 28.

[209] 'Descriptive Cat. of Ost. Collect. of College of Surgeons,' 1853, p.
624. Vasey, in his 'Delineations of the Ox-tribe,' has given a figure of
this skull; and I sent a photograph of it to Prof. Ruetimeyer.

[210] Loudon's 'Magazine of Nat. Hist.,' vol. i., 1829, p. 113. Separate
figures are given of the animal, its hoofs, eye, and dewlap.

[211] Low, 'Domesticated Animals of the British Isles,' p. 264.

[212] 'Mem. de l'Institut present. par divers Savans,' tom. vi., 1835, p.
332.

[213] Idem, pp. 304, 368, &c.

[214] Youatt on Cattle, p. 193. A full account of this bull is taken from
Marshall.

[215] Youatt on Cattle, p. 116. Lord Spencer has written on this same
subject.

[216] Blyth on the genus Ovis, in 'Annals and Mag. of Nat. History,' vol.
vii., 1841, p. 261: with respect to the parentage of the breeds, see Mr.
Blyth's excellent articles in 'Land and Water,' 1867, pp. 134, 156.
Gervais, 'Hist. Nat. des Mammiferes,' 1855, tom. ii. p. 191.

[217] Dr. L. Fitzinger, 'Ueber die Racen des Zahmen Schafes,' 1860, s. 86.

[218] J. Anderson, 'Recreations in Agriculture and Natural History,' vol.
ii. p. 164.

[219] 'Pfahlbauten,' s. 127, 193.

[220] Youatt on Sheep, p. 120.

[221] 'Journal of the Asiatic Soc. of Bengal,' vol. xvi. pp. 1007, 1016.

[222] Youatt on Sheep, pp. 142-169.

[223] 'Journal Asiat. Soc. of Bengal,' vol. xvi., 1847, p. 1015.

[224] 'Hist. Nat. Gen.,' tom. iii. p. 435.

[225] Youatt on Sheep, p. 138.

[226] 'Journal Asiat. Soc. of Bengal,' vol. xvi., 1847, pp. 1015, 1016.

[227] 'Racen des Zahmen Schafes,' s. 77.

[228] 'Rural Economy of Norfolk,' vol. ii. p. 136.

[229] Youatt on Sheep, p. 312. On same subject, _see_ excellent remarks in
'Gardener's Chronicle,' 1858, p. 868. For experiments in crossing Cheviot
sheep with Leicesters, _see_ Youatt, p. 325.

[230] Youatt on Sheep, note, p. 491.

[231] 'The Veterinary,' vol. x. p. 217.

[232] A translation of his paper is given in 'Bull. Soc. Imp. d'Acclimat.,'
tom. ix., 1862, p. 723.

[233] Erman's 'Travels in Siberia' (Eng. trans.), vol. i. p. 228. For
Pallas on the fat-tailed sheep, I quote from Anderson's account of the
'Sheep of Russia,' 1794, p. 34. With respect to the Crimean sheep, _see_
Pallas' 'Travels' (Eng. trans.), vol. ii. p. 454. For the Karakool sheep,
_see_ Burnes' 'Travels in Bokhara,' vol. iii. p. 151.

[234] _See_ Report of the Directors of the Sierra Leone Company, as quoted
in White's 'Gradation of Man,' p. 95. With respect to the change which
sheep undergo in the West Indies, _see_ also Dr. Davy, in 'Edin. New. Phil.
Journal,' Jan. 1852. For the statement made by Roulin, _see_ 'Mem. de
l'Institut present. par divers Savans,' tom. vi., 1835, p. 347.

[235] Youatt on Sheep, p. 69, where Lord Somerville is quoted. _See_ p.
117, on the presence of wool under the hair. With respect to the fleeces of
Australian sheep, p. 185. On selection counteracting any tendency to
change, _see_ pp. 70, 117, 120, 168.

[236] Audubon and Bachman, 'The Quadrupeds of North America,' 1846, vol. v.
p. 365.

[237] 'Journal of R. Agricult. Soc. of England,' vol. xx., part ii. W. C.
Spooner on Cross-Breeding.

[238] 'Philosoph. Transactions,' London, 1813, p. 88.

[239] Isidore Geoffroy St. Hilaire, 'Hist. Nat. Generale,' tom. iii. p. 87.
Mr. Blyth ('Land and Water,' 1867, p. 37) has arrived at a similar
conclusion, but he thinks that certain Eastern races may perhaps be in part
descended from the Asiatic markhor.

[240] Ruetimeyer, 'Pfahlbauten,' s. 127.

[241] Godron, 'De l'Espece,' tom. i. p. 402.

[242] 'Annals and Mag. of Nat. History,' vol. ii. (2nd series), 1848, p.
363.

[243] 'De l'Espece,' tom. i. p. 406. Mr. Clark also refers to differences
in the shape of the mammae. Godron states that in the Nubian race the
scrotum is divided into two lobes; and Mr. Clark gives a ludicrous proof of
this fact, for he saw in the Mauritius a male goat of the Muscat breed
purchased at a high price for a female in full milk. These differences in
the scrotum are probably not due to descent from distinct species; for Mr.
Clark states that this part varies much in form.

[244] Mr. Clark, 'Annals and Mag. of  Nat. Hist.,' vol. ii. (2nd series),
1848, p. 361.

[245] Desmarest, 'Encyclop. Method. Mammalogie,' p. 480.

[246] 'Journal of Asiatic Soc. of Bengal,' vol. xvi., 1847, pp. 1020, 1025.

[247] M. P. Gervais, 'Hist. Nat. des Mammiferes, tom. i., 1854, p. 288.

[248] U. Aldrovandi, 'De Quadrupedibus digitatis,' 1637, p. 383. For
Confucius and G. Markham, _see_ a writer who has studied the subject, in
'Cottage Gardener,' Jan. 22nd, 1861, p. 250.

[249] Owen, 'British Fossil Mammals,' p. 212.

[250] Bechstein, 'Naturgesch. Deutschlands,' 1801, b. i. p. 1133. I have
received similar accounts with respect to England and Scotland.

[251] 'Pigeons and Rabbits,' by E. S. Delamer, 1854, p. 133. Sir J.
Sebright ('Observations on Instinct,' 1836, p. 10) speaks most strongly on
the difficulty. But this difficulty is not invariable, as I have received
two accounts of perfect success in taming and breeding from the wild
rabbit. _See_ also Dr. P. Broca, in 'Journal de la Physiologie' tom. ii. p.
368.

_Transcriber's Note: this note and the previous one were interchanged;
corrected by Errata page._

[252] Gervais, 'Hist. Nat. des Mammiferes,' tom. i. p. 292.

[253] _See_ Dr. P. Broca's interesting memoir on this subject in
Brown-Sequard's 'Journ. de Phys.' vol. ii. p. 367.

[254] They are briefly described in the 'Journal of Horticulture,' May 7th,
1861, p. 108.

[255] 'Journal of Horticulture,' 1861, p. 380.

[256] 'Journal of Horticulture,' May 28th, 1861, p. 169.

[257] 'Journal of Horticulture,' 1861, p. 327. With respect to the ears,
_see_ Delamer on 'Pigeons and Rabbits,' 1854, p. 141; also 'Poultry
Chronicle,' vol. ii. p. 499, and ditto for 1854, p. 586.

[258] Delamer, 'Pigeons and Rabbits,' p. 136. _See_ also 'Journal of
Horticulture,' 1861, p. 375.

[259] 'An Account of the different Kinds of Sheep in the Russian
Dominions,' 1794, p. 39.

[260] 'Proc. Zoolog. Soc.,' June 23rd, 1857, p. 159.

[261] 'Cottage Gardener,' 1857, p. 141.

[262] 'Journal of Horticulture,' April 9th, 1861, p. 35.

[263] Mr. Bartlett, in 'Proc. Zoolog. Soc.,' 1861. p. 40.

[264] 'Phenomenon in Himalayan Rabbits,' in 'Journal of Horticulture,'
1865, Jan. 27th, p. 102.

[265] G. R. Waterhouse, 'Natural History of Mammalia: Rodents,' 1846, pp.
52, 60, 105.

[266] Delamer on 'Pigeons and Rabbits,' p. 114.

[267] Gosse's 'Sojourn in Jamaica,' 1851, p. 441, as described by an
excellent observer, Mr. R. Hill. This is the only known case in which
rabbits have become feral in a hot country. They can be kept, however, at
Loanda (_see_ Livingstone's 'Travels,' p. 407). In parts of India, as I am
informed by Mr. Blyth, they breed well.

[268] Darwin's 'Journal of Researches,' p. 193; and 'Zoology of the Voyage
of the Beagle: Mammalia,' p. 92.

[269] Kerr's 'Collection of Voyages,' vol. ii. p. 177; p. 205 for Cada
Mosto. According to a work published in Lisbon in 1717, entitled 'Historia
Insulana,' written by a Jesuit, the rabbits were turned out in 1420. Some
authors believe that the island was discovered in 1413.

[270] Something of the same kind has occurred on the island of Lipari,
where, according to Spallanzani ('Voyage dans les deux Siciles,' quoted by
Godron sur l'Espece, p. 364), a countryman turned out some rabbits which
multiplied prodigiously, but, says Spallanzani, "les lapins de l'ile de
Lipari sont plus petits que ceux qu'on eleve en domesticite."

[271] Waterhouse, 'Nat. Hist. Mammalia,' vol. ii. p. 36.

[272] These rabbits have run wild for a considerable time in Sandon Park,
and in other places in Staffordshire and Shropshire. They originated, as I
have been informed by the gamekeeper, from variously- domestic
rabbits which had been turned out. They vary in colour; but many are
symmetrically , being white with a streak along the spine, and with
the ears and certain marks about the head of a blackish-grey tint. They
have rather longer bodies than common rabbits.

[273] _See_ Prof. Owen's remarks on this subject in his paper on the
'Zoological Significance of the Brain, &c., of Man, &c.,' read before Brit.
Association, 1862; with respect to Birds, _see_ 'Proc. Zoolog. Soc.,' Jan.
11th, 1848, p. 8.

[274] This standard is apparently considerably too low, for Dr. Crisp
('Proc. Zoolog. Soc.,' 1861, p. 80) gives 210 grains as the actual weight
of the brain of a hare which weighed 7lbs., and 125 grains as the weight of
the brain of a rabbit which weighed 3 lbs. 5 oz., that is, the same weight
as the rabbit No. 1 in my list. Now the contents of the skull of rabbit No.
1 in shot is in my table 972 grains; and according to Dr. Crisp's ratio of
125 to 210, the skull of the hare ought to have contained 1632 grains of
shot, instead of only (in the largest hare in my table) 1455 grains.

[275] The Hon. C. Murray has sent me some very valuable specimens from
Persia; and H.M. Consul, Mr. Keith Abbott, has given me information on the
pigeons of the same country. I am deeply indebted to Sir Walter Elliot for
an immense collection of skins from Madras, with much information regarding
them. Mr. Blyth has freely communicated to me his stores of knowledge on
this and all other related subjects. The Rajah Sir James Brooke sent me
specimens from Borneo, as has H.M. Consul, Mr. Swinhoe, from Amoy in China,
and Dr. Daniell from the west coast of Africa.

[276] Mr. B. P. Brent, well known for his various contributions to poultry
literature, has aided me in every way during several years; so has Mr.
Tegetmeier, with unwearied kindness. This latter gentleman, who is well
known for his works on poultry, and who has largely bred pigeons, has
looked over this and the following chapters. Mr. Bult formerly showed me
his unrivalled collection of Pouters, and gave me specimens. I had access
to Mr. Wicking's collection, which contained a greater assortment of many
kinds than could anywhere else be seen; and he has always aided me with
specimens and information given in the freest manner. Mr. Haynes and Mr.
Corker have given me specimens of their magnificent Carriers. To Mr.
Harrison Weir I am likewise indebted. Nor must I by any means pass over the
assistance received from Mr. J. M. Eaton, Mr. Baker, Mr. Evans, and Mr. J.
Baily, jun., of Mount-street--to the latter gentleman I have been indebted
for some valuable specimens. To all these gentlemen I beg permission to
return my sincere and cordial thanks.

[277] 'Les Pigeons de Voliere et de Colombier,' Paris, 1824. During
forty-five years the sole occupation of M. Corbie was the care of the
pigeons belonging to the Duchess of Berry.

[278] 'Coup d'Oeil sur l'Ordre des Pigeons,' par Prince C. L. Bonaparte,
Paris, 1855. This author makes 288 species, ranked under 85 genera.

[279] As I so often refer to the size of the _C. livia_, or rock-pigeon, it
may be convenient to give the mean between the measurements of two wild
birds, kindly sent me by Dr. Edmondstone from the Shetland Islands:--

                                                                Inches.
  Length from feathered base of beak to end of tail               14.25
   "      "      "          "       to oil-gland                  9.5
   "    from tip of beak to end of tail                          15.02
   "    of tail-feathers                                          4.62
   "    from tip to tip of wing                                  26.75
   "    of folded wing                                            9.25

  Beak.--Length from tip of beak to feathered base                  .77
  "     Thickness, measured vertically at further end of nostrils  .23
  "     Breadth, measured at same place                            .16

  Feet.--Length from end of middle toe (without claw) to distal
            end of tibia                                           2.77
  "     Length from end of middle toe to end of hind toe
            (without claws)                                        2.02

  Weight 141/4 ounces.

[280] This drawing was made from a dead bird. The six following figures
were drawn with great care by Mr. Luke Wells from living birds selected by
Mr. Tegetmeier. It may be confidently asserted that the characters of the
six breeds which have been figured are not in the least exaggerated.

[281] 'Das Ganze der Taubenzucht:' Weimar, 1837, pl. 11 and 12.

[282] Boitard and Corbie, 'Les Pigeons,' &c., p. 177, pl. 6.

[283] 'Die Taubenzucht,' Ulm, 1824, s. 42.

[284] This treatise was written by Sayzid Mohammed Musari, who died in
1770: I owe to the great kindness of Sir W. Elliot a translation of this
curious treatise.

[285] 'Poultry Chronicle,' vol. ii. p. 573.

[286] 'Annals and Mag. of Nat. History,' vol. xix., 1847, p. 105.

[287] This gland occurs in most birds; but Nitzsch (in his
'Pterylographie,' 1840, p. 55) states that it is absent in two species of
Columba, in several species of Psittacus, in some species of Otis, and in
most or all birds of the Ostrich family. It can hardly be an accidental
coincidence that the two species of Columba, which are destitute of an
oil-gland, have an unusual number of tail-feathers, namely 16, and in this
respect resemble Fantails.

[288] _See_ the two excellent editions published by Mr. J. M. Eaton in 1852
and 1858, entitled 'A Treatise on Fancy Pigeons.'

[289] English translation, by F. Gladwin, 4th edition, vol. i. The habit of
the Lotan is also described in the Persian treatise before alluded to,
published about 100 years ago: at this date the Lotans were generally white
and crested as at present. Mr. Blyth describes these birds in 'Annals and
Mag. of Nat. Hist.,' vol. xiv., 1847, p. 104: he says that they "may be
seen at any of the Calcutta bird-dealers."

[290] 'Journal of Horticulture,' Oct. 22, 1861, p. 76.

[291] _See_ the account of the House-tumblers kept at Glasgow, in the
'Cottage Gardener,' 1858, p. 285. Also Mr. Brent's paper, 'Journal of
Horticulture,' 1861, p. 76.

[292] J. M. Eaton's 'Treatise on Pigeons,' 1852, p. 9.

[293] J. M. Eaton's Treatise, edit. 1858, p. 76.

[294] Neumeister,'Taubenzucht,' Tab. 4, fig. i.

[295] Riedel, 'Die Taubenzucht,' 1824, s. 26. Bechstein, 'Naturgeschichte
Deutschlands,' Band iv. s. 36, 1795.

[296] Willoughby's 'Ornithology,' edited by Ray.

[297] J. M. Eaton's edition (1858) of Moore, p. 98.

[298] Pigeon Patu Plongeur. 'Les Pigeons,' &c., p. 165.

[299] 'Naturgesch. Deutschlands,' Band iv. s. 47.

[300] Mr. W. B. Tegetmeier, 'Journal of Horticulture,' Jan. 20th, 1863, p.
58.

[301] 'Coup-d'oeil sur l'Ordre des Pigeons,' par C. L. Bonaparte; Comptes
Rendus, 1854-55. Mr. Blyth, in 'Annals of Nat. Hist.,' vol. xix., 1847, p.
41, mentions, as a very singular fact, "that of the two species of
Ectopistes, which are nearly allied to each other, one should have fourteen
tail-feathers, while the other, the passenger pigeon of North America,
should possess but the usual number--twelve."

[302] Described and figured in the 'Poultry Chronicle,' vol. iii., 1855, p.
82.

[303] 'The Pigeon Book,' by Mr. B. P. Brent, 1859, p. 41.

[304] 'Die Staarhaelsige Taube, Das Ganze, &c.,' s. 21, tab. i. fig. 4.

[305] 'A Treatise on the Almond Tumbler,' by J. M. Eaton, 1852, p. 8, et
passim.

[306] A Treatise, &c, p. 10.

[307] Boitard and Corbie, 'Les Pigeons,' &c. 1824, p. 173.

[308] 'Le Pigeon Voyageur Belge,' 1865, p. 87.

[309] Prof. A. Newton ('Proc. Zoolog. Soc.' 1865, p. 716) remarks that he
knows no species which presents any remarkable sexual distinction; but it
is stated ('Naturalist's Library, Birds,' vol. ix. p. 117) that the
excrescence at the base of the beak in the _Carpophaga oceanica_ is sexual:
this, if correct, is an interesting point of analogy with the male Carrier,
which has the wattle at the base of its beak so much more developed than in
the female. Mr. Wallace informs me that in the sub-family of the Treronidae
the sexes often differ in vividness of colour.

[310] I am not sure that I have designated the different kinds of vertebrae
correctly: but I observe that different anatomists follow in this respect
different rules, and, as I use the same terms in the comparison of all the
skeletons, this, I hope, will not signify.

[311] J. M. Eaton's Treatise, edit. 1858, p. 78.

[312] In an analogous, but converse, manner, certain natural groups of the
Columbidae, from being more terrestrial in their habits than other allied
groups, have larger feet. _See_ Prince Bonaparte's 'Coup-d'oeil sur l'Ordre
des Pigeons.'

[313] It perhaps deserves notice that besides these five birds two of the
eight were barbs, which, as I have shown, must be classed in the same group
with the long-beaked carriers and runts. Barbs may properly be called
short-beaked carriers. It would, therefore, appear as if, during the
reduction of their beaks, their wings had retained a little of that excess
of length which is characteristic of their nearest relations and
progenitors.

[314] Temminck, 'Hist. Nat. Gen. des Pigeons et des Gallinaces,' tom. i.,
1813, p. 170.

[315] This term was used by John Hunter for such differences in structure
between the males and females, as are not directly connected with the act
of reproduction, as the tail of the peacock, the horns of deer, &c.

[316] Temminck, 'Hist. Nat. Gen. des Pigeons,' &c., tom. i. p. 191.

[317] I have heard through Sir C. Lyell from Miss Buckley, that some
half-bred carriers kept during many years near London regularly settled by
day on some adjoining trees, and, after being disturbed in their loft by
their young being taken, roosted on them at night.

[318] 'Annals and Mag. of Nat. Hist.,' 2nd ser., vol. xx., 1857, p. 509;
and in a late volume of the Journal of the Asiatic Society.

[319] In works written on the pigeon by fanciers I have sometimes observed
the mistaken belief expressed that the species which naturalists call
ground-pigeons (in contradistinction to arboreal pigeons) do not perch and
build on trees. In these same works wild species resembling the chief
domestic races are often said to exist in various parts of the world, but
such species are quite unknown to naturalists.

[320] Sir E. Schomburgk, in 'Journal R. Geograph. Soc.,' vol. xiii., 1844,
p. 32.

[321] Rev. E. S. Dixon, 'Ornamental Poultry,' 1848, pp. 63, 66.

[322] Proc. Zoolog. Soc., 1859, p. 400.

[323] Temminck, 'Hist. Nat. Gen. des Pigeons,' tom. i.; also 'Les Pigeons,'
par Mad. Knip and Temminck. Bonaparte however, in his 'Coup-d'oeil,'
believes that two closely allied species are confounded together under this
name. The _C. leucocephala_ of the West Indies is stated by Temminck to be
a rock-pigeon; but I am informed by Mr. Gosse that this is an error.

[324] 'Handbuch der Naturgesch. Vogel Deutschlands.'

[325] 'Tagebuch Reise nach Faero,' 1830, s. 62.

[326] 'Annals and Mag. of Nat. Hist.,' vol. xix., 1847, p. 102. This
excellent paper on pigeons is well worth consulting.

[327] 'Natural History of Ireland,' Birds, vol. ii. (1850), p. 11. For
Graba, _see_ previous reference.

[328] 'Coup-d'oeil sur l'Ordre des Pigeons,' Comptes Rendus, 1854-55.

[329] 'Naturgesch. Deutschlands,' Band iv., 1795, s. 14.

[330] 'History of British Birds,' vol. i. pp. 275-284. Mr. Andrew Duncan
tamed a rock-pigeon in the Shetland Islands. Mr. James Barclay, and Mr.
Smith of Uyea Sound, both say that the wild rock-pigeon can be easily
tamed; and the former gentleman asserts that the tamed birds breed four
times a year. Dr. Lawrence Edmondstone informs me that a wild rock-pigeon
came and settled in his dovecot in Balta Sound in the Shetland Islands, and
bred with his pigeons; he has also given me other instances of the wild
rock-pigeon having been taken young and breeding in captivity.

[331] 'Annals and Mag. of Nat. History,' vol. xix., 1847, p. 103, and vol.
for 1857, p. 512.

[332] Domestic pigeons of the common kind are mentioned as being pretty
numerous in John Barbut's 'Description of the Coast of Guinea' (p. 215),
published in 1746; they are said, in accordance with the name which they
bear, to have been imported.

[333] With respect to feral pigeons--for Juan Fernandez, _see_ Bertero in
'Annal. des Sc. Nat.,' tom. xxi. p. 351. For Norfolk Island, _see_ Rev. E.
S. Dixon in the 'Dovecote,' 1851, p. 14, on the authority of Mr. Gould. For
Ascension I rely on MS. information given me by Mr. Layard. For the banks
of the Hudson, _see_ Blyth in 'Annals of Nat. Hist.,' vol. xx., 1857, p.
511. For Scotland, _see_ Macgillivray, 'British Birds,' vol. i. p. 275;
also Thompson's 'Nat. History of Ireland, Birds,' vol. ii. p. 11. For
ducks, _see_ Rev. E. S. Dixon, 'Ornamental Poultry,' 1847, p. 122. For the
feral hybrids of the common and musk-ducks, _see_ Audubon's 'American
Ornithology,' and Selys-Longchamp's 'Hybrides dans la Famille des
Anatides.' For the goose, Isidore Geoffrey St. Hilaire, 'Hist. Nat. Gen.,'
tom. iii. p. 498. For guinea-fowls, _see_ Gosse's 'Naturalist's Sojourn in
Jamaica,' p. 124; and his 'Birds of Jamaica' for fuller particulars. I saw
the wild guinea-fowl in Ascension. For the peacock, _see_ 'A Week at Port
Royal,' by a competent authority, Mr. R. Hill, p. 42. For the turkey I rely
on oral information; I ascertained that they were not Curassows. With
respect to fowls I will give the references in the next chapter.

[334] I have drawn out a long table of the various crosses made by fanciers
between the several domestic breeds, but I do not think it worth
publishing. I have myself made for this special purpose many crosses, and
all were perfectly fertile. I have united in one bird five of the most
distinct races, and with patience I might undoubtedly have thus united all.
The case of five distinct breeds being blended together with unimpaired
fertility is important, because Gaertner has shown that it is a very
general, though not, as he thought, universal rule, that complex crosses
between several species are excessively sterile. I have met with only two
or three cases of reported sterility in the offspring of certain races when
crossed. Von Pistor ('Das Ganze der Feld-taubenzucht,' 1831, s. 15) asserts
that the mongrels from barbs and fantails are sterile: I have proved this
to be erroneous, not only by crossing these hybrids with several other
hybrids of the same parentage, but by the more severe test of pairing
brother and sister hybrids _inter se_, and they were _perfectly_ fertile.
Temminck has stated ('Hist. Nat. Gen. des Pigeons,' tom. i. p. 197) that
the turbit or owl will not cross readily with other breeds: but my turbits
crossed, when left free, with almond tumblers and with trumpeters; the same
thing has occurred (Rev. E. S. Dixon, 'The Dovecot,' p. 107) between
turbits and dovecots and nuns. I have crossed turbits with barbs, as has M.
Boitard (p. 34), who says the hybrids were very fertile. Hybrids from a
turbit and fantail have been known to breed _inter se_ (Riedel,
Taubenzucht, s. 25, and Bechstein, 'Naturgesch. Deutsch.' B. iv. s. 44).
Turbits (Riedel, s. 26) have been crossed with pouters and with jacobins,
and with a hybrid jacobin-trumpeter (Riedel, s. 27). The latter author has,
however, made some vague statements (s. 22) on the sterility of turbits
when crossed with certain other crossed breeds. But I have little doubt
that the Rev. E. S. Dixon's explanation of such statements is correct, viz.
that individual birds both with turbits and other breeds are occasionally
sterile.

[335] 'Das Ganze der Taubenzucht,' s. 18.

[336] 'Les Pigeons,' &c., p. 35.

[337] Domestic pigeons pair readily with the allied _C. oenas_ (Bechstein,
'Naturgesch. Deutschlands,' B. iv. s. 3); and Mr. Brent has made the same
cross several times in England, but the young were very apt to die at about
ten days old; one hybrid which he reared (from _C. oenas_ and a male
Antwerp carrier) paired with a dragon, but never laid eggs. Bechstein
further states (s. 26) that the domestic pigeon will cross with _C.
palumbus_, _Turtur risoria_, and _T. vulgaris_, but nothing is said of the
fertility of the hybrids, and this would have been mentioned had the fact
been ascertained. In the Zoological Gardens (MS. report to me from Mr.
James Hunt) a male hybrid from _Turtur vulgaris_ and a domestic pigeon
"paired with several different species of pigeons and doves, but none of
the eggs were good." Hybrids from _C. oenas_ and _gymnophthalmos_ were
sterile. In Loudon's 'Mag. of Nat. Hist.' vol. vii. 1834, p. 154, it is
said that a male hybrid (from _Turtur vulgaris_ male, and the
cream- _T. risoria_ female) paired during two years with a female
_T. risoria_, and the latter laid many eggs, but all were sterile. MM.
Boitard and Corbie ('Les Pigeons,' p. 235) state that the hybrids from
these two turtle-doves are invariably sterile both _inter se_ and with
either pure parent. The experiment was tried by M. Corbie "avec une espece
d'obstination;" and likewise by M. Manduyt, and by M. Vieillot. Temminck
also found the hybrids from these two species quite barren. Therefore, when
Bechstein ('Naturgesch. Vogel. Deutschlands,' B. 4, s. 101) asserts that
the hybrids from these two turtle-doves propagate _inter se_ equally well
with pure species, and when a writer in the 'Field' newspaper (in a letter
dated Nov. 10th, 1858) makes a similar assertion, it would appear that
there must be some mistake; though what the mistake is I know not, as
Bechstein at least must have known the white _variety_ of _T. risoria_: it
would be an unparalleled fact if the same two species sometimes produced
_extremely_ fertile, and sometimes _extremely_ barren, offspring. In the
MS. report from the Zoological Gardens it is said that hybrids from _Turtur
vulgaris_ and _suratensis_, and from _T. vulgaris_ and _Ectopistes
migratorius_, were sterile. Two of the latter male hybrids paired with
their pure parents, viz. _Turtur vulgaris_ and the Ectopistes, and likewise
with _T. risoria_ and with _Columba oenas_, and many eggs were produced,
but all were barren. At Paris, hybrids have been raised (Isid. Geoffrey
Saint Hilaire, 'Hist. Nat. Generale,' tom. iii. p. 180) from _Turtur
auritus_ with _T. cambayensis_ and with _T. suratensis_; but nothing is
said of their fertility. At the Zoological Gardens of London the _Goura
coronata_ and _victoriae_ produced a hybrid, which paired with the pure _G.
coronata_, and laid several eggs, but these proved barren. In 1860
_Columba_ _gymnophthalmos_ and _maculosa_ produced hybrids in these same
gardens.

[338] There is one exception to the rule, namely in a sub-variety of the
swallow of German origin, which is figured by Neumeister, and was shown to
me by Mr. Wicking. This bird is blue, but has not the black wing-bars; for
our object, however, in tracing the descent of the chief races, this
exception signifies the less as the swallow approaches closely in structure
to _C. livia_. In many sub-varieties, the black bars are replaced by bars
of various colours. The figures given by Neumeister are sufficient to show
that, if the wings alone are blue, the black wing-bars appear.

[339] I have observed blue birds with all the above-mentioned marks in the
following races, which seemed to be perfectly pure, and were shown at
various exhibitions. Pouters, with the double black wing-bars, with white
croup, dark bar to end of tail, and white edging to outer tail-feathers.
Turbits, with all these same characters. Fantails, with the same; but the
croup in some was bluish or pure blue: Mr. Wicking bred blue fantails from
two black birds. Carriers (including the Bagadotten of Neumeister), with
all the marks: two birds which I examined had white, and two had blue
croups; the white edging to the outer tail-feathers was not present in all.
Mr. Corker, a great breeder, assures me that, if black carriers are matched
for many successive generations, the offspring become first ash-,
and then blue with black wing-bars. Runts of the elongated breed had the
same marks, but the croup was pale blue; the outer tail-feathers had white
edges. Neumeister figures the great Florence Runt of a blue colour with
black bars. Jacobins are very rarely blue, but I have received authentic
accounts of at least two instances of the blue variety with black bars
having appeared in England: blue jacobins were bred by Mr. Brent from two
black birds. I have seen common tumblers, both Indian and English, and
short-faced tumblers, of a blue colour, with black wing-bars, with the
black bar at the end of the tail, and with the outer tail-feathers edged
with white; the croup in all was blue, or extremely pale blue, never
absolutely white. Blue barbs and trumpeters seem to be excessively rare;
but Neumeister, who may be implicitly trusted, figures blue varieties of
both, with black wing-bars. Mr. Brent informs me that he has seen a blue
barb; and Mr. H. Weir, as I am informed by Mr. Tegetmeier, once bred a
silver (which means very pale blue) barb from two yellow birds.

[340] Mr. Blyth informs me that all the domestic races in India have the
croup blue; but this is not invariable, for I possess a very pale blue
Simmali pigeon with the croup perfectly white, sent to me by Sir W. Elliot
from Madras. A slaty-blue and chequered Nakshi pigeon has some white
feathers on the croup alone. In some other Indian pigeons there were a few
white feathers confined to the croup, and I have noticed the same fact in a
carrier from Persia. The Java fantail (imported into Amoy, and thence sent
me) has a perfectly white croup.

[341] 'Les Pigeons,' &c., p. 37.

[342] 'Treatise on Pigeons,' 1858, p. 145.

[343] J. Moore's 'Columbarium,' 1735, in J. M. Eaton's edition, 1852, p.
71.

[344] I could give numerous examples; two will suffice. A mongrel, whose
four grandparents were a white turbit, white trumpeter, white fantail, and
blue pouter, was white all over, except a very few feathers about the head
and on the wings, but the whole tail and tail-coverts were dark
bluish-grey. Another mongrel, whose four grandparents were a red runt,
white trumpeter, white fantail, and the same blue pouter, was pure white
all over, except the tail and upper tail-coverts, which were pale fawn, and
except the faintest trace of double wing-bars of the same pale fawn tint.

[345] It deserves notice, as bearing on the general subject of variation,
that not only _C. livia_ presents several wild forms, regarded by some
naturalists as species and by others as sub-species or as mere varieties,
but that the species of several allied genera are in the same predicament.
This is the case, as Mr. Blyth has remarked to me, with Treron, Palumbus,
and Turtur.

[346] 'Denkmaler,' Abth. ii. Bl. 70.

[347] The 'Dovecote,' by the Rev. E. S. Dixon, 1851, pp. 11-13. Adolphe
Pictet (in his 'Les Origines Indo-Europeennes,' 1859, p. 399) states that
there are in the ancient Sanscrit language between 25 and 30 names for the
pigeon, and other 15 or 16 Persian names; none of these are common to the
European languages. This fact indicates the antiquity of the domestication
in the East of the pigeon.

[348] English translation, 1601, book x. ch. xxxvii.

[349] 'Ayeen Akbery,' translated by F. Gladvin, 4to. edit., vol. i. p. 270.

[350] J. M. Eaton, 'Treatise on the Almond Tumbler,' 1851; Preface, p. vi.

[351] As in the following discussion I often speak of the present time, I
should state that this chapter was completed in the year 1858.

[352] 'Ornithologie,' 1600, vol. ii. p. 360.

[353] 'A Treatise on Domestic Pigeons,' dedicated to Mr. Mayor, 1765.
Preface, p. xiv.

[354] Mr. Blyth has given a translation of part of the 'Ayeen Akbery' in
'Annals and Mag. of Nat. Hist.,' vol. xix., 1847, p. 104.

[355] 'L'Hist. de la Nature des Oiseaux,' p. 314.

[356] 'Treatise on Pigeons,' 1852, p. 64.

[357] J. M. Eaton's 'Treatise on the Breeding and Managing of the Almond
Tumbler,' 1851. Compare p. v. of Preface, p. 9, and p. 32.

[358] 'Treatise on Pigeons,' 1852, p. 41.

[359] Eaton's 'Treatise on Pigeons,' 1858, p. 86.

[360] _See_ Neumeister's figure of the Florence runt, tab. 13, in 'Das
Ganze der Taubenzucht.'

[361] I have drawn up this brief synopsis from various sources, but chiefly
from information given me by Mr. Tegetmeier. This gentleman has kindly
looked through the whole of this chapter; and from his well-known
knowledge, the statements here given may be fully trusted. Mr. Tegetmeier
has likewise assisted me in every possible way in obtaining for me
information and specimens. I must not let this opportunity pass without
expressing my cordial thanks to Mr. B. P. Brent, a well-known writer on
poultry, for indefatigable assistance and the gift of many specimens.

[362] The best account of Sultans is by Miss Watts in 'The Poultry Yard,'
1856, p. 79. I owe to Mr. Brent's kindness the examination of some
specimens of this breed.

[363] A good description with figures is given of this sub-breed in the
'Journal of Horticulture,' June 10th, 1862, p. 206.

[364] A description, with figures, is given of this breed in 'Journal of
Horticulture,' June 3rd, 1862, p. 186. Some writers describe the comb as
two-horned.

[365] Mr. Crawfurd, 'Descript. Dict. of the Indian Islands,' p. 113.
Bantams are mentioned in an ancient native Japanese Encyclopaedia, as I am
informed, by Mr. Birch of the British Museum.

[366] 'Ornamental and Domestic Poultry,' 1848.

[367] 'Ornamental and Domestic Poultry,' 1848.

[368] Ferguson's 'Illustrated Series of Rare and Prize Poultry,' 1854, p.
vi., Preface.

[369] Rev. E. S. Dixon, in his 'Ornamental Poultry,' p. 203, gives an
account of Columella's work.

[370] Mr. Crawfurd 'On the Relation of the Domesticated Animals to
Civilization,' separately printed, p. 6; first read before the Brit. Assoc.
at Oxford, 1860.

[371] 'Quadrupedes du Paraguay,' tom. ii. p. 324.

[372] 'Proc. Zoolog. Soc' 1832, p. 151.

[373] I have examined the feathers of some hybrids raised in the Zoological
Gardens between the male _G. Sonneratii_ and a red game-hen, and these
feathers exhibited the true character of those of _G. Sonneratii_, except
that the horny laminae were much smaller.

[374] See also an excellent letter on the Poultry of India, by Mr. Blyth,
in 'Gardener's Chronicle,' 1851, p. 619.

[375] Mr. S. J. Salter, in 'Natural History Review,' April, 1863, p. 276.

[376] _See_ also Mr. Layard's paper in 'Annals and Mag. of Nat. History,'
2nd Series, vol. xiv. p. 62.

[377] _See_ also Mr. Crawfurd's 'Descriptive Dict. of the Indian Islands,'
1856, p. 113.

[378] Described by Mr. G. R. Gray, 'Proc. Zoolog. Soc.,' 1849, p. 62.

[379] The passage from Marsden is given by Mr. Dixon in his 'Poultry Book,'
p. 176. No ornithologist now ranks this bird as a distinct species.

[380] 'Coup-d'oeil general sur l'Inde Archipelagique,' tom. iii. (1849), p.
177; _see_ also Mr. Blyth in 'Indian Sporting Review,' vol. ii. p. 5, 1856.

[381] Mr. Blyth, in 'Annals and Mag. of Nat. Hist.,' 2nd ser., vol. i.
(1848), p. 455.

[382] Crawfurd, 'Desc. Dict. of Indian Islands,' 1856, p. 112.

[383] In Burmah, as I hear from Mr. Blyth, the wild and tame poultry
constantly cross together, and irregular transitional forms may be seen.

[384] Idem, p. 113.

[385] Mr. Jerdon, in the 'Madras Journ. of Lit. and Science,' vol. xxii. p.
2, speaking of _G. bankiva_, says, "unquestionably the origin of most of
the varieties of our common fowls." For Mr. Blyth, _see_ his excellent
article in 'Gardener's Chron.' 1851, p. 619; and in 'Annals and Mag. of
Nat. Hist.,' vol. xx., 1847, p. 388.

[386] 'Gardener's Chronicle,' 1851, p. 619.

[387] I have consulted an eminent authority, Mr. Sclater, on this subject,
and he thinks that I have not expressed myself too strongly. I am aware
that one ancient author, Acosta, speaks of fowls as having inhabited S.
America at the period of its discovery; and more recently, about 1795,
Olivier de Serres speaks of wild fowls in the forests of Guiana; these were
probably feral birds. Dr. Daniell tells me, he believes that fowls have
become wild on the west coast of Equatorial Africa; they may, however, not
be true fowls, but gallinaceous birds belonging to the genus Phasidus. The
old voyager Barbut says that poultry are not natural to Guinea. Capt. W.
Allen ('Narrative of Niger Expedition,' 1848, vol. ii. p. 42) describes
wild fowls on Ilha dos Rollas, an island near St. Thomas's, on the west
coast of Africa: the natives informed him that they had escaped from a
vessel wrecked there many years ago; they were extremely wild, and had "a
cry quite different to that of the domestic fowl," and their appearance was
somewhat changed. Hence it is not a little doubtful, notwithstanding the
statement of the natives, whether these birds really were fowls. That the
fowl has become feral on several islands is certain. Mr. Fry, a very
capable judge, informed Mr. Layard, in a letter, that the fowls which have
run wild on Ascension "had nearly all got back to their primitive colours,
red and black cocks, and smoky-grey hens." But unfortunately we do not know
the colour of the poultry which were turned out. Fowls have become feral on
the Nicobar Islands (Blyth in the 'Indian Field,' 1858, p. 62), and in the
Ladrones (Anson's Voyage). Those found in the Pellew Islands (Crawfurd) are
believed to be feral; and lastly, it is asserted that they have become
feral in New Zealand, but whether this is correct I know not.

[388] Mr. Hewitt, in 'The Poultry Book,' by W. B. Tegetmeier, 1866, p. 248.

[389] 'Journal of Horticulture,' Jan. 14th, 1862, p. 325.

[390] 'Die Huehner und Pfauenzucht.' Ulm, 1827, s. 17. For Mr. Hewitt's
statement with respect to the white Silk fowl, _see_ the 'Poultry Book,' by
W. B. Tegetmeier, 1866, p. 222. I am indebted to Mr. Orton for a letter on
the same subject.

[391] Dixon, 'Ornamental and Domestic Poultry,' pp. 253, 324, 335. For game
fowls, _see_ Ferguson on 'Prize Poultry,' p. 260.

[392] 'Poultry Chronicle,' vol. ii. p. 71.

[393] Dr. Pickering, in his 'Races of Man,' 1850, p. 374, says that the
head and neck of a fowl is carried in a Tribute-procession to Thoutmousis
III. (1445 B.C.); but Mr. Birch of the British Museum doubts whether the
figure can be identified as the head of a fowl. Some caution is necessary
with reference to the absence of figures of the fowl on the ancient
Egyptian monuments, on account of the strong and widely prevalent prejudice
against this bird. I am informed by the Rev. S. Erhardt that on the east
coast of Africa, from 4 deg. to 6 deg. south of the equator, most of the pagan
tribes at the present day hold the fowl in aversion. The natives of the
Pellew Islands would not eat the fowl, nor will the Indians in some parts
of S. America. For the ancient history of the fowl, see also Volz,
'Beitrage zur Culturgeschichte,' 1852, s. 77; and Isid. Geoffroy St.
Hilaire, 'Hist. Nat. Gen.,' tom. iii. p. 61. Mr. Crawfurd has given an
admirable history of the fowl in his paper 'On the Relation of Domesticated
Animals to Civilisation,' read before the Brit. Assoc. at Oxford in 1860,
and since printed separately. I quote from him on the Greek poet Theognis,
and on the Harpy Tomb described by Sir C. Fellowes. I quote from a letter
of Mr. Blyth's with respect to the Institutes of Manu.

[394] 'Ornamental and Domestic Poultry,' 1847, p. 185; for passages
translated from Columella, _see_ p. 312. For Golden Hamburghs, _see_
Albin's 'Natural History of Birds,' 3 vols., with plates, 1731-38.

[395] 'Ornamental and Domestic Poultry,' p. 152.

[396] Ferguson on 'Rare Prize Poultry,' p. 297. This writer, I am informed,
cannot generally be trusted. He gives, however, figures and much
information on eggs. _See_ pp. 34 and 235 on the eggs of the Game fowl.

[397] _See_ 'Poultry Book,' by Mr. Tegetmeier, 1866, pp. 81 and 78.

[398] 'The Cottage Gardener,' Oct. 1855, p. 13. On the thinness of the eggs
of Game-fowls, _see_ Mowbray on Poultry, 7th edit., p. 13.

[399] My information, which is very far from perfect, on chickens in the
down, is derived chiefly from Mr. Dixon's 'Ornamental and Domestic
Poultry.' Mr. B. P. Brent has also communicated to me many facts by letter,
as has Mr. Tegetmeier. I will in each case mark my authority by the name
within brackets. For the chickens of white Silk-fowls, _see_ Tegetmeier's
'Poultry Book,' 1866, p. 221.

[400] As I hear from Mr. Tegetmeier; _see_ also 'Proc. Zoolog. Soc.' 1856,
p. 366. On the late development of the crest, _see_ 'Poultry Chronicle,'
vol. ii. p. 132.

[401] On these points, _see_ 'Poultry Chronicle,' vol. iii. p. 166; and
Tegetmeier's 'Poultry Book,' 1866, pp. 105 and 121.

[402] Dixon, 'Ornamental and Domestic Poultry,' p. 273.

[403] Ferguson on Rare and Prize Poultry, p. 261.

[404] Mowbray on Poultry, 7th edit. 1834, p. 13.

[405] _See_ the full description of the varieties of the Game-breed, in
Tegetmeier's 'Poultry Book,' 1866, p. 131. For Cuckoo Dorkings, p. 97.

[406] Mr. Hewitt in Tegetmeier's 'Poultry Book,' 1866, pp. 246 and 156. For
hen-tailed game-cocks, _see_ p. 131.

[407] 'The Field,' April 20th, 1861. The writer says he has seen
half-a-dozen cocks thus sacrificed.

[408] 'Proceedings of Zoolog. Soc.' March, 1861, p. 102. The engraving of
the hen-tailed cock just alluded to was exhibited at the Society.

[409] 'The Field,' April 20th, 1861.

[410] I am much indebted to Mr. Brent for an account, with sketches, of all
the variations of the comb known to him, and likewise with respect to the
tail, as presently to be given.

[411] The 'Poultry Book,' by Tegetmeier, 1866, p. 234.

[412] 'Die Huehner und Pfauenzucht,' 1827, s. 11.

[413] 'Poultry Chronicle,' vol. i. p. 595. Mr. Brent has informed me of the
same fact. With respect to the position of the spurs in Dorkings, _see_
'Cottage Gardener,' Sept. 18th, 1860, p. 380.

[414] Dixon, 'Ornamental and Domestic Poultry,' p. 320.

[415] Mr. Tegetmeier informs me that Game hens have been found so
combative, that it is now generally the practice to exhibit each hen in a
separate pen.

[416] 'Naturgeschichte Deutschlands,' Band iii. (1793), s. 339, 407.

[417] On the Ornithology of Ceylon in 'Annals and Mag. of Nat. History,'
2nd series, vol. xiv. (1854), p. 63.

[418] I quote Blumenbach on the authority of Mr. Tegetmeier, who gives in
'Proc. Zoolog. Soc.,' Nov. 25th, 1856, a very interesting account of the
skulls of Polish fowls. Mr. Tegetmeier, not knowing of Bechstein's account,
disputed the accuracy of Blumenbach's statement. For Bechstein, _see_
'Naturgeschichte Deutschlands,' Band iii. (1793), s. 399, note. I may add
that at the first exhibition of poultry at the Zoological Gardens, in May,
1845, I saw some fowls, called Friezland fowls, of which the hens were
crested, and the cocks were furnished with a comb.

[419] 'Cottage Gardener,' Jan. 3rd, 1860, p. 218.

[420] Mr. Williams, in a paper read before the Dublin Nat. Hist. Soc.,
quoted in 'Cottage Gardener,' 1856, p. 161.

[421] 'De l'Espece,' 1859, p. 442. For the occurrence of black-boned fowls
in South America, _see_ Roulin, in 'Mem. de l'Acad. des Sciences,' tom. vi.
p. 351; and Azara, 'Quadrupedes du Paraguay,' tom. ii. p. 324. A frizzled
fowl sent to me from Madras had black bones.

[422] Mr. Hewitt, in Tegetmeier's 'Poultry Book,' 1866, p. 231.

[423] Dr. Broca, in Brown-Sequard's 'Journal de Phys.,' tom. ii. p. 361.

[424] Dixon's 'Ornamental Poultry,' p. 325.

[425] 'Poultry Chronicle,' vol. i. p. 485. Tegetmeier's 'Poultry Book,'
1866, p. 41. On Cochins grazing, idem, p. 46.

[426] Ferguson on 'Prize Poultry,' p. 187.

[427] Col. Sykes in 'Proc. Zoolog. Soc.,' 1832, p. 151. Dr. Hooker's
'Himalayan Journals,' vol. i. p. 314.

[428] _See_ Mr. Tegetmeier's account, with woodcuts, of the skull of Polish
fowls, in 'Proc. Zoolog. Soc.,' Nov. 25th, 1856. For other references,
_see_ Isid. Geoffroy Saint Hilaire, 'Hist. Gen. des Anomalies,' tom. i. p.
287. M. C. Dareste suspects ('Recherches sur les Condicions de la Vie,'
&c., Lille, 1863, p. 36) that the protuberance is not formed by the frontal
bones, but by the ossification of the dura mater.

[429] 'Naturgeschichte Deutschlands,' Band iii. (1793), s. 400.

[430] The 'Field,' May 11th, 1861. I have received communications to a
similar effect from Messrs. Brent and Tegetmeier.

[431] It appears that I have not correctly designated the several groups of
vertebrae, for a great authority, Mr. W. K. Parker ('Transact. Zoolog.
Soc.,' vol. v. p. 198), specifies 16 cervical, 4 dorsal, 15 lumbar, and 6
caudal vertebrae in this genus. But I have used the same terms in all the
following descriptions.

[432] Macgillivray, 'British Birds,' vol. i. p. 25.

[433] It may be well to explain how the calculation has been made for the
third column. In _G. bankiva_ the leg-bones are to the wing-bones as 86 :
54, or as (neglecting decimals) 100 : 62;--in Cochins as 311 : 162, or as
100 : 52;--in Dorkings as 557 : 248, or as 100 : 44; and so on for the
other breeds. We thus get the series of 62, 52, 44 for the relative-weights
of the wing-bones in _G. bankiva_, Cochins, Dorkings, &c. And now taking
100, instead of 62, for the weight of the wing-bones in _G. bankiva_, we
get, by another rule of three, 83 as the weight of the wing-bones in
Cochins; 70 in the Dorkings; and so on for the remainder of the third
column in the table.

[434] Mr. Blyth (in 'Annals and Mag. of Nat. Hist.,' 2nd series, vol. i.,
1848, p. 456) gives 31/4 lb. as the weight of a full-grown male _G. bankiva_;
but from what I have seen of the skins and skeletons of various breeds, I
cannot believe that my two specimens of _G. bankiva_ could have weighed so
much.

[435] The third column is calculated on the same principle as explained in
the previous foot-note, p. 271.

[436] 'Poultry Chronicle' (1854), vol. ii. p.91, and vol. i. p. 330.

[437] Dr. Turral, in 'Bull. Soc. d'Acclimat.,' tom. vii., 1860, p. 541.

[438] Willughby's 'Ornithology,' by Ray, p. 381. This breed is also figured
by Albin, in 1734, in his 'Nat. Hist. of Birds,' vol. ii. p. 86.

[439] F. Cuvier, in 'Annales du Museum,' tom. ix. p. 128, says that
moulting and incubation alone stop these ducks laying. Mr. B. P. Brent
makes a similar remark in the 'Poultry Chronicle,' 1855, vol. iii. p. 512.

[440] Rev. E. S. Dixon, 'Ornamental and Domestic Poultry' (1848), p. 117.
Mr. B. P. Brent, in 'Poultry Chronicle,' vol. iii., 1855, p. 512.

[441] Crawfurd on the 'Relation of Domesticated Animals to Civilisation,'
read before the Brit. Assoc. at Oxford, 1860.

[442] Dureau de la Malle, in 'Annales des Sciences Nat.,' tom. xvii. p.
164; and tom. xxi. p. 55. Rev. E. S. Dixon, 'Ornamental Poultry,' p. 118.
Tame ducks were not known in Aristotle's time, as remarked by Volz, in his
'Beitraege zur Kulturgeschichte,' 1852, s. 78.

[443] I quote this account from 'Die Enten, Schwanen-zucht,' Ulm, 1828, s.
143. _See_ Audubon's 'Ornithological Biography,' vol. iii. p. 168, on the
taming of ducks on the Mississippi. For the same fact in England, _see_ Mr.
Waterton, in Loudon's 'Mag. of Nat. Hist.,' vol. viii., 1835, p. 542; and
Mr. St. John, 'Wild Sports and Nat. Hist. of the Highlands,' 1846, p. 129.

[444] Mr. E. Hewitt, in 'Journal of Horticulture,' 1862, p. 773; and 1863,
p. 39.

[445] I have met with several statements on the fertility of the several
breeds when crossed. Mr. Yarrell assured me that Call and common ducks are
perfectly fertile together. I crossed Hook-billed and common ducks, and a
Penguin and Labrador, and the crossed ducks were quite fertile, though they
were not bred _inter se_, so that the experiment was not fully tried. Some
half-bred Penguins and Labradors were again crossed with Penguins, and
subsequently bred by me _inter se_, and they were extremely fertile.

[446] 'Poultry Chronicle,' 1855, vol. iii. p. 512.

[447] 'Journal of the Indian Archipelago,' vol. v. p. 334.

[448] 'The Zoologist,' vols. vii., viii. (1849-1850), p. 2353.

[449] 'Poultry Chronicle,' 1855, vol. iii. p. 512.

[450] 'Poultry Chronicle,' vol. iii., 1855, p. 312. With respect to Rouens,
_see_ ditto, vol. i., 1854, p. 167.

[451] Col. Hawker's 'Instructions to young Sportsmen,' quoted by Mr. Dixon
in his 'Ornamental Poultry,' p. 125.

[452] 'Cottage Gardener,' April 9th, 1861.

[453] These hybrids have been described by M. Selys-Longchamps in the
'Bulletins (tom. xii. No. 10) Acad. Roy. de Bruxelles.'

[454] 'Proc. Zoolog. Soc.,' 1861, p. 261.

[455] 'Ceylon,' by Sir J. E. Tennent, 1859, vol. i. p. 485; also J.
Crawfurd on the 'Relation of Domest. Animals to Civilisation,' read before
Brit. Assoc., 1860. _See_ also 'Ornamental Poultry,' by Rev. E. S. Dixon,
1848, p. 132. The goose figured on the Egyptian monuments seems to have
been the Red goose of Egypt.

[456] Macgillivray's 'British Birds,' vol. iv. p. 593.

[457] Mr. A. Strickland ('Annals and Mag. of Nat. Hist.,' 3rd Series, vol.
iii. 1859, p. 122) reared some young wild geese, and found them in habits
and in all characters identical with the domestic goose.

[458] _See_ also Hunter's 'Essays,' edited by Owen, vol. ii. p. 322.

[459] Yarrell's 'British Birds,' vol. iii. p. 142. He refers to the
Laplanders domesticating the goose.

[460] L. Lloyd, 'Scandinavian Adventures,' 1854, vol. ii. p. 413, says that
the wild goose lays from five to eight eggs, which is a much fewer number
than that laid by our domestic goose.

[461] The Rev. L. Jenyns seems first to have made this observation in his
'British Animals.' _See_ also Yarrell, and Dixon in his 'Ornamental
Poultry' (p. 139), and 'Gardener's Chronicle,' 1857, p. 45.

[462] Mr. Bartlett exhibited the head and neck of a bird thus characterised
at the Zoological Soc., Feb. 1860.

[463] W. Thompson, 'Natural Hist. of Ireland,' 1851, vol. iii. p. 31. The
Rev. E. S. Dixon gave me some information on the varying colour of the beak
and legs.

[464] Mr. A. Strickland, in 'Annals and Mag. of Nat. Hist.,' 3rd series,
vol. iii., 1859, p. 122.

[465] 'Poultry Chronicle,' vol. i., 1854, p. 498; vol. iii. p. 210.

[466] 'The Cottage Gardener,' Sept. 4th, 1860, p. 348.

[467] 'L'Hist. de la Nature des Oiseaux,' par P. Belon, 1555, p. 156. With
respect to the livers of white geese being preferred by the Romans, _see_
Isid. Geoffroy St. Hilaire, 'Hist. Nat. Gen.,' tom. iii. p. 58.

[468] Mr. Sclater on the black-shouldered peacock of Latham, 'Proc. Zoolog.
Soc.,' April 24th, 1860.

[469] 'Proc. Zoolog. Soc.,' April 14th, 1835.

[470] 'Proc. Zoolog. Soc.,' April 8th, 1856, p. 61. Prof. Baird believes
(as quoted in Tegetmeier's 'Poultry Book,' 1866, p. 269) that our turkeys
are descended from a West Indian species now extinct. But besides the
improbability of a bird having long ago become extinct in these large and
luxuriant islands, it appears (as we shall presently see) that the turkey
degenerates in India, and this fact indicates that it was not aboriginally
an inhabitant of the lowlands of the tropics.

[471] Audubon's 'Ornithological Biograph.,' vol. i., 1831, pp. 4-13; and
'Naturalist's Library,' vol. xiv., Birds, p. 138.

[472] F. Michaux, 'Travels in N. America,' 1802, Eng. translat., p. 217.

[473] 'Ornamental Poultry,' by the Rev. E. S. Dixon, 1848, p. 34.

[474] Rev. E. S. Dixon, id., p. 35.

[475] Bechstein, 'Naturgesch. Deutschlands,' B. iii., 1793, s. 309.

[476] 'Gardener's Chronicle,' 1852, p. 699.

[477] E. Blyth, in 'Annals and Mag. of Nat. Hist.,' 1847, vol. xx. p. 391.

[478] Roulin makes this remark in 'Mem. de divers Savans, l'Acad. des
Sciences,' tom. vi., 1835, p. 349. Mr. Hill, of Spanish Town, in a letter
to me, describes five varieties of the guinea-fowl in Jamaica. I have seen
singular pale- varieties imported from Barbadoes and Demerara.

[479] For St. Domingo, _see_ M. A. Salle, in 'Proc. Soc. Zoolog.,' 1857, p.
236. Mr. Hill remarks to me, in his letter, on the colour of the legs of
the feral birds in Jamaica.

[480] Mr. B. P. Brent, 'The Canary, British Finches,' &c., pp. 21, 30.

[481] 'Cottage Gardener,' Dec. 11th, 1855, p. 184. An account is here given
of all the varieties. For many measurements of the wild birds, _see_ Mr. E.
Vernon Harcourt, id., Dec. 25th, 1855, p. 223.

[482] Bechstein, 'Naturgesch. der Stubenvoegel,' 1840, s. 243; _see_ s. 252,
on the inherited song of Canary-birds. With respect to their baldness,
_see_ also W. Kidd's 'Treatise on Song-Birds.'

[483] W. Kidd's 'Treatise on Song-Birds,' p. 18.

[484] The 'Indian Field,' 1858, p. 255.

[485] Yarrell's 'British Fishes,' vol. i, p. 319.

[486] Mr. Blyth, in the 'Indian Field,' 1858, p. 255.

[487] 'Proc. Zoolog. Soc.,' May 25th. 1842.

[488] Yarrell's 'British Fishes,' vol. i. p. 319.

[489] 'Dict. Class. d'Hist. Nat.,' tom. v. p. 276.

[490] 'Observations in Nat. Hist.,' 1846, p. 211. Dr. Gray has described,
in 'Annals and Mag. of Nat. Hist.,' 1860, p. 151, a nearly similar variety,
but destitute of a dorsal fin.

[491] 'De l'Espece,' 1859, p. 459. With respect to the bees of Burgundy,
_see_ M. Gerard, art. 'Espece,' in 'Dict. Univers. d'Hist. Nat.'

[492] _See_ a discussion on this subject, in answer to a question of mine,
in 'Journal of Horticulture,' 1862, pp. 225-242; also Mr. Bevan Fox, in
ditto, 1862, p. 284.

[493] This excellent observer may be implicitly trusted; _see_ 'Journal of
Horticulture,' July 14th, 1863, p. 39.

[494] 'Journal of Horticulture,' Sept. 9th, 1862, p. 463; _see_ also Herr
Kleine on same subject (Nov. 11th, p. 643), who sums up, that, though there
is some variability in colour, no constant or perceptible differences can
be detected in the bees of Germany.

[495] Mr. Woodbury has published several such accounts in 'Journal of
Horticulture,' 1861 and 1862.

[496] 'Annals and Mag. of Nat. Hist.,' 3rd series, vol. xi. p. 339.

[497] 'The Cottage Gardener,' May, 1860, p. 110; and ditto in 'Journal of
Hort.' 1862, p. 242.

[498] 'Transact. Entomolog. Soc.,' 3rd series, vol. iii. pp. 143-173, and
pp. 295-331.

[499] Godron, 'De l'Espece,' 1859, tom. i. p. 460. The antiquity of the
silk-worm in China is given on the authority of Stanislas Julien.

[500] _See_ the remarks of Prof. Westwood, General Hearsey, and others, at
the meeting of the Entomolog. Soc. of London, July, 1861.

[501] _See_, for instance, M. A. de Quatrefage's 'Etudes sur les Maladies
actuelles du Ver a Soie,' 1859, p. 101.

[502] My authorities for these statements will be given in the chapter on
Selection.

[503] 'Manuel de l'Educateur de Vers a Soie,' 1848.

[504] Robinet, idem, pp. 12, 318. I may add that the eggs of N. American
silk-worms taken to the Sandwich Islands were very irregularly developed;
and the moths thus raised produced eggs which were even worse in this
respect. Some were hatched in ten days, and others not until after the
lapse of many months. No doubt a regular early character would ultimately
have been acquired. _See_ review in Athenaeum,' 1844, p. 329, of J. Jarves'
'Scenes in the Sandwich Islands.'

[505] 'The Art of rearing Silk-worms,' translated from Count Dandolo, 1825,
p. 23.

[506] 'Transact. Ent. Soc.,' ut supra, pp. 153, 308.

[507] Robinet, idem, p. 317.

[508] Robinet, idem, pp. 306-317.

[509] 'Transact. Ent. Soc.,' ut supra, p. 317.

[510] Stephens' Illustrations, 'Haustellala,' vol. ii. p. 35. _See_ also
Capt. Hutton, 'Transact. Ent. Soc.' idem, p. 152.

[511] 'Etudes sur les Maladies du Ver a Soie,' 1859, pp. 304, 209.

[512] Quatrefages, 'Etudes,' &c., p. 214.

[513] 'Transact. Ent. Soc.,' ut supra, p. 151.

[514] 'Manuel de l'Educateur,' &c., p. 26.

[515] Godron, 'De l'Espece,' p. 462.

[516] Quatrefages, 'Etudes,' &c., pp. 12, 209, 214.

[517] Robinet, 'Manuel,' &c., p. 303.

[518] Robinet, idem, p. 15.

[519] 'Geographie Botanique Raisonnee,' 1855, pp. 810 to 991.

[520] Review by Mr. Bentham in 'Hort. Journal,' vol. ix. 1855, p. 133,
entitled 'Historical Notes on cultivated Plants,' by Dr. A.
Targioni-Tozzetti. _See_ also 'Edinburgh Review,' 1866, p. 510.

[521] 'Hist. Notes,' as above, by Targioni-Tozzeti.

[522] 'Considerations sur les Cereales,' 1842, p. 37. 'Geographie Bot.,'
1855, p. 930. "Plus on suppose l'agriculture ancienne et remontant a une
epoque d'ignorance, plus il est probable que les cultivateurs avaient
choisi des especes offrant a l'origine meme un avantage incontestable."

[523] Dr. Hooker has given me this information. _See_, also, his 'Himalayan
Journals,' 1851, vol. ii. p. 49.

[524] 'Travels in Central Africa,' Eng. translat., vol. i. pp. 529 and 390;
vol. ii. pp. 29, 265, 270. Livingstone's 'Travels,' p. 551.

[525] As in both North and South America, Mr. Edgeworth ('Journal Proc.
Linn. Soc.,' vol. vi. Bot., 1862, p. 181) states that in the deserts of the
Punjab poor women sweep up, "by a whisk into straw baskets," the seeds of
four genera of grasses, namely, of Agrostis, Panicum, Cenchrus, and
Pennisetum, as well as the seeds of four other genera belonging to distinct
families.

[526] Prof. O. Heer, 'Die Pflanzen der Pfahlbauten, 1865, aus dem Neujahr.
Naturforsc. Gesellschaft,' 1866; and Dr. H. Christ, in Ruetimeyer's 'Die
Fauna der Pfuhlbauten,' 1861, s. 226.

[527] 'Travels,' p. 535. Du Chaillu, 'Adventures in Equatorial Africa,'
1861, p. 445.

[528] In Tierra del Fuego the spot where wigwams had formerly stood could
be distinguished at a great distance by the bright green tint of the native
vegetation.

[529] 'American Acad. of Arts and Science,' April 10th, 1860, p. 413.
Downing, 'The Fruits of America,' 1845, p. 261.

[530] 'Journals of Expeditions in Australia,' 1841, vol. ii. p. 292.

[531] Darwin's 'Journal of Researches,' 1845, p. 215.

[532] De Candolle has tabulated the facts in the most interesting manner in
his 'Geographie Bot.,' p. 986.

[533] 'Flora of Australia,' Introduction, p. cx.

[534] For Canada, _see_ J. Cartier's Voyage in 1534; for Florida, _see_
Narvaez and Ferdinand de Soto's Voyages. As I have consulted these and
other old Voyages in more than one general collection of Voyages, I do not
give precise references to the pages. _See_ also, for several references,
Asa Gray, in the 'American Journal of Science,' vol. xxiv., Nov. 1857, p.
441. For the traditions of the natives of New Zealand, _see_ Crawfurd's
'Grammar and Dict. of the Malay Language,' 1852, p. cclx.

[535] _See_, for example, M. Hewett C. Watson's remarks on our wild plums
and cherries and crabs, 'Cybele Britannica,' vol. i. pp. 330, 334, &c. Van
Mons (in his 'Arbres Fruitiers,' 1835, tom. i. p. 444) declares that he has
found the types of all our cultivated varieties in wild seedlings, but then
he looks on these seedlings as so many aboriginal stocks.

[536] _See_ A. De Candolle, 'Geograph. Bot.,' 1855, p. 928 _et seq._
Godron, 'De l'Espece,' 1859, tom. ii. p. 70; and Metzger, 'Die
Getreidearten,' &c., 1841.

[537] Mr. Bentham, in his review, entitled 'Hist. Notes on cultivated
Plants,' by Dr. A. Targioni-Tozzetti, in 'Journal of Hort. Soc.,' vol. ix.
(1855), p. 133.

[538] 'Geograph. Bot.,' p. 928. The whole subject is discussed with
admirable fullness and knowledge.

[539] Godron, 'De l'Espece,' tom. ii. p. 72. A few years ago the excellent,
though misinterpreted, observations of M. Fabre led many persons to believe
that wheat was a modified descendant of AEgilops; but M. Godron (tom. i. p.
165) has shown by careful experiments that the first step in the series,
viz. _AEgilops triticoides_, is a hybrid between wheat and _AE. ovata_. The
frequency with which these hybrids spontaneously arise, and the gradual
manner in which the _AE. triticoides_ becomes converted into true wheat,
alone leave any doubt on the subject.

[540] Report to British Association for 1857, p. 207.

[541] 'Considerations sur les Cereales,' 1842-43, p. 29.

[542] 'Travels in the Himalayan Provinces,' &c., 1841, vol. i. p. 224.

[543] Col. J. Le Couteur on the 'Varieties of Wheat,' pp. 23, 79.

[544] Loiseleur-Deslongchamps, 'Consid. sur les Cereales,' p. 11.

[545] _See_ an excellent review in Hooker's 'Journ. of Botany,' vol. viii.
p. 82, note.

[546] 'De l'Espece,' tom. ii, p. 73.

[547] Idem, tom. ii. p. 75.

[548] For Dalbret and Philippar, _see_ Loiseleur-Deslongchamps, 'Consid.
sur les Cereales,' pp. 45, 70. Le Couteur on Wheat, p. 6.

[549] 'Varieties of Wheat,' Introduction, p. vi. Marshall, in his 'Rural
Economy of Yorkshire,' vol. ii. p. 9, remarks that "in every field of corn
there is as much variety as in a herd of cattle."

[550] 'Gardener's Chron. and Agricult. Gazette,' 1862, p. 963.

[551] 'Getreidearten,' 1841, s. 66, 91, 92, 116, 117.

[552] Quoted by Godron, 'De l'Espece,' vol. ii. p. 74. So it is, according
to Metzger ('Getreidearten,' s. 18), with summer and winter barley.

[553] Loiseleur-Deslongchamps, 'Cereales,' part ii. p. 224. Le Couteur, p.
70. Many other accounts could be added.

[554] 'Travels in North America,' 1753-1761, Eng. translat., vol. iii. p.
165.

[555] 'Cereales,' part ii. pp. 179-183.

[556] 'On the Varieties of Wheat,' Introduct., p. vii. _See_ Marshall,
'Rural Econ. of Yorkshire,' vol. ii. p. 9. With respect to similar cases of
adaptation in the varieties of oats, _see_ some interesting papers in the
'Gardener's Chron. and Agricult. Gazette,' 1850, pp. 204, 219.

[557] 'On the Varieties of Wheat,' p. 59. Mr. Sheriff, and a higher
authority cannot be given ('Gard. Chron. and Agricult. Gazette,' 1862, p.
963), says, "I have never seen grain which has either been improved or
degenerated by cultivation, so as to convey the change to the succeeding
crop."

[558] Alph. De Candolle, 'Geograph. Bot.,' p. 930.

[559] 'Pflanzen der Pfahlbauten,' 1866.

[560] 'Les Cereales,' p. 94.

[561] Quoted by Le Couteur, p. 16.

[562] A. De Candolle, 'Geograph. Bot.,' p. 932.

[563] O. Heer, 'Die Pflanzen der Pfahlbauten,' 1866. The following passage
is quoted from Dr. Christ, in 'Die Fauna der Pfahlbauten von Dr.
Ruetimeyer,' 1861, s. 225.

[564] Heer, as quoted by Carl Vogt, 'Lectures on Man,' Eng. translat., p.
355.

[565] _See_ Alph. De Candolle's long discussion in his 'Geograph. Bot.,' p.
942. With respect to New England, _see_ Silliman's 'American Journal,' vol.
xliv. p. 99.

[566] 'Travels in Peru,' Eng. translat., p. 177.

[567] 'Geolog. Observ. on S. America,' 1846, p. 49.

[568] This maize is figured in Bonafous' magnificent work, 'Hist. Nat. du
Mais,' 1836, Pl. v. bis, and in the 'Journal of Hort. Soc.,' vol. i., 1846,
p. 115, where an account is given of the result of sowing the seed. A young
Guarany Indian, on seeing this kind of maize, told Auguste St. Hilaire
_(see_ De Candolle, 'Geograph. Bot.,' p. 951) that it grew wild in the
humid forests of his native land. Mr. Teschemacher, in 'Proc. Boston Soc.
Nat. Hist.,' Oct. 19th, 1842, gives an account of sowing the seed.

[569] Moquin-Tandon, 'Elements de Teratologie,' 1841, p. 126.

[570] 'Die Getreidearten,' 1841, s. 208. I have modified a few of Metzger's
statements in accordance with those made by Bonafous in his great work,
'Hist. Nat. du Mais,' 1836.

[571] Godron, 'De l'Espece,' tom. ii. p. 80; Al. De Candolle, idem, p. 951.

[572] 'Transact. Bot. Soc. of Edinburgh,' vol. viii. p. 60.

[573] 'Voyages dans l'Amerique Meridionale,' torn. i. p. 147.

[574] Bonafous' 'Hist. Nat. du Mais,' p. 31.

[575] Idem, p. 31.

[576] Metzger, 'Getreidearten,' s. 206.

[577] 'Description of Maize,' by P. Kalm, 1752, in 'Swedish Acts,' vol. iv.
I have consulted an old English MS. translation.

[578] 'Getreidearten,' s. 208.

[579] 'Cabbage Timber,' 'Gardener's Chron.,' 1856, p. 744, quoted from
Hooker's 'Journal of Botany.' A walking-stick made from a cabbage-stalk is
exhibited in the Museum at Kew.

[580] 'Journal de la Soc. Imp. d'Horticulture,' 1855, p. 254, quoted from
'Gartenflora,' Ap. 1855.

[581] Godron, 'De l'Espece,' tom. ii. p. 52; Metzger, 'Syst. Beschreibung
der Kult. Kohlarten,' 1833, s. 6.

[582] Regnier, 'De l'Economie Publique des Celtes,' 1818, p. 438.

[583] _See_ the elder De Candolle, in 'Transact. of Hort. Soc.,' vol. v.;
and Metzger 'Kohlarten,' &c.

[584] 'Gardener's Chronicle,' 1859, p. 992.

[585] Alph. De Candolle, 'Geograph. Bot.,' pp. 842 and 989.

[586] 'Gardener's Chron.,' Feb. 1858, p. 128.

[587] 'Kohlarten,' s. 22.

[588] Godron, 'De l'Espece,' tom. ii, p. 52; Metzger, 'Kohlarten,' s. 22.

[589] 'Geograph, Bot.,' p. 840.

[590] Godron, 'De l'Espece,' tom. ii. p. 54; Metzger, 'Kohlarten,' s. 10.

[591] 'Gardener's Chron. and Agricult. Gazette,' 1856, p. 729.

[592] 'Gardener's Chron. and Agricult. Gazette,' 1855, p. 730.

[593] Metzger, 'Kohlarten,' s. 51.

[594] These experiments by Vilmorin have been quoted by many writers. An
eminent botanist, Prof. Decaisne, has lately expressed doubts on the
subject from his own negative results, but these cannot be valued equally
with positive results. On the other hand, M. Carriere has lately stated
('Gard. Chronicle,' 1865, p. 1154) that he took seed from a wild carrot,
growing far from any cultivated land, and even in the first generation the
roots of his seedlings differed in being spindle-shaped, longer, softer and
less fibrous than those of the wild plant. From these seedlings he raised
several distinct varieties.

[595] Loudon's 'Encyclop. of Gardening,' p. 835.

[596] Alph. De Candolle 'Geograph. Bot.,' 960. Mr. Bentham ('Hort.
Journal,' vol. ix. (1855), p. 141) believes that garden and field peas
belong to the same species, and in this respect he differs from Dr.
Targioni.

[597] 'Botanische Zeitung,' 1860, s. 204.

[598] 'Die Pflanzen der Pfahlbauten,' 1866, s. 23.

[599] A variety called the Rouncival attains this height, as is stated by
Mr. Gordon in 'Transact. Hort. Soc.' (2nd series), vol. i., 1835, p. 374,
from which paper I have taken some facts.

[600] 'Phil. Transact.,' 1799, p. 196.

[601] 'Gardener's Magazine,' vol. i., 1826, p. 153.

[602] 'Encyclopaedia of Gardening,' p. 823.

[603] _See_ Dr. Anderson to the same effect in the 'Bath Soc. Agricultural
Papers,' vol. iv. p. 87.

[604] I have published full details of experiments on this subject in the
'Gardener's Chronicle,' 1857, Oct. 25th.

[605] 'Gardener's Chronicle,' 1865, p. 387.

[606] 'Bonplandia,' x., 1862, s. 348.

[607] O. Heer, 'Die Pflanzen der Pfahlbauten,' 1866, s. 22.

[608] Darwin, 'Journal of Researches,' 1845, p. 285.

[609] Synopsis of the vegetable products of Scotland, quoted in Wilson's
'British Farming,' p. 317.

[610] Sir G. Mackenzie, in 'Gardener's Chronicle,' 1845, p. 790.

[611] 'Putsche und Vertuch, Versuch einer Monographie der Kartoffeln,'
1819, s. 9, 15. _See_ also Dr. Anderson's 'Recreations in Agriculture,'
vol. iv. p. 325.

[612] 'Gardener's Chronicle,' 1862, p. 1052.

[613] 'Bath Society Agricult. Papers,' vol. v. p. 127. And 'Recreations in
Agriculture,' vol. v. p. 86.

[614] 'Gardener's Chronicle,' 1863, p. 643.

[615] Heer, 'Pflanzen der Pfahlbauten,' 1866, s. 28.

[616] Alph. De Candolle, 'Geograph. Bot.,' p. 872; Dr. A.
Targioni-Tozzetti, in 'Jour. Hort. Soc.,' vol. ix. p. 133. For the fossil
vine found by Dr. G. Planchon, _see_ 'Nat. Hist. Review,' 1865, April, p.
224.

[617] Godron, 'De l'Espece,' tom. ii. p. 100.

[618] _See_ an account of M. Vibert's experiments, by Alex. Jordan, in
'Mem. de l'Acad. de Lyon,' tom. ii., 1852, p. 108.

[619] 'Gardener's Chronicle,' 1864, p. 488.

[620] 'Arbres Fruitiers,' 1836, tom. ii. 290.

[621] Odart, 'Ampelographie Universelle,' 1849.

[622] M. Bouchardat, in 'Comptes Rendus,' Dec. 1st, 1851, quoted in
'Gardener's Chron.,' 1852, p. 435.

[623] 'Etudes sur les Maladies actuelles du Ver a Soie,' 1859, p. 321.

[624] 'Productive Resources of India,' p. 130.

[625] 'Traite du Citrus,' 1811. 'Teoria della Riproduzione Vegetale,' 1816.
I quote chiefly from this second work. In 1839 Gallesio published in folio
'Gli Agrumi dei Giard. Bot. di Firenze,' in which he gives a curious
diagram of the supposed relationship of all the forms.

[626] Mr. Bentham, Review of Dr. A. Targioni-Tozzetti, 'Journal of Hort.
Soc.,' vol. ix. p. 133.

[627] 'Geograph. Bot.,' p. 863.

[628] 'Teoria della Riproduzione,' pp. 52-57.

[629] Hooker's 'Bot. Misc.,' vol. i. p. 302; vol. ii. p. 111.

[630] 'Teoria della Riproduzione,' p. 53.

[631] Gallesio, 'Teoria della Riproduzione,' p. 69.

[632] Gallesio, idem, p. 67.

[633] Gallesio, idem, pp. 75, 76.

[634] 'Gardener's Chronicle,' 1841, p. 613.

[635] 'Annales du Museum,' tom. xx. p. 188.

[636] 'Geograph. Bot.,' p. 882.

[637] 'Transactions of Hort. Soc.,' vol. iii. p. 1, and vol. iv. p. 369,
and note to p. 370. A  drawing is given of this hybrid.

[638] 'Gardener's Chronicle,' 1856, p. 532. A writer, it may be presumed
Dr. Lindley, remarks on the perfect series which may be formed between the
almond and the peach. Another high authority, Mr. Rivers, who has had such
wide experience, strongly suspects ('Gardener's Chronicle,' 1863, p. 27)
that peaches, if left to a state of nature, would in the course of time
retrograde into thick-fleshed almonds.

[639] 'Journal of Hort. Soc.,' vol. ix. p. 168.

[640] Whether this is the same variety as one lately mentioned ('Gard.
Chron.' 1865, p. 1154) by M. Carriere under the name of _Persica
intermedia_, I know not: this var. is said to be intermediate in nearly all
its characters between the almond and peach; it produces during successive
years very different kinds of fruit.

[641] Quoted in 'Gard. Chron.' 1866, p. 800.

[642] Quoted in 'Journal de la Soc. Imp. d'Horticulture,' 1855, p. 238.

[643] 'Teoria della Riproduzione Vegetale,' 1816, p. 86.

[644] 'Gardener's Chronicle,' 1862, p. 1195.

[645] Mr. Rivers, 'Gardener's Chron.,' 1859, p. 774.

[646] Downing, 'The Fruits of America,' 1845, pp. 475, 489, 492, 494, 496.
_See_ also F. Michaux, 'Travels in N. America' (Eng. translat.), p. 228.
For similar cases in France _see_ Godron, 'De l'Espece,' tom. ii. p. 97.

[647] Brickell's 'Nat. Hist. of N. Carolina,' p. 102, and Downing's 'Fruit
Trees,' p. 505.

[648] 'Gardener's Chronicle,' 1862, p. 1196.

[649] The peach and nectarine do not succeed equally well in the same soil:
_see_ Lindley's 'Horticulture,' p. 351.

[650] Godron, 'De l'Espece,' tom. ii. 1859, p. 97.

[651] 'Transact. Hort. Soc.,' vol. vi. p. 394.

[652] Downing's 'Fruit Trees,' p. 502.

[653] 'Gardeners Chronicle,' 1862, p. 1195.

[654] 'Journal of Horticulture,' Feb. 6th, 1866, p. 102.

[655] Mr. Rivers, in 'Gardener's Chron.,' 1859, p.774; 1862, p. 1195; 1865,
p.1059; and 'Journal of Hort.,' 1866, p. 102.

[656] 'Correspondence of Linnaeus,' 1821, pp. 7, 8, 70.

[657] 'Transact. Hort. Soc.,' vol. i. p. 103.

[658] Loudon's 'Gardener's Mag.,' 1826, vol. i. p. 471.

[659] Ibid., 1828, p. 53.

[660] Ibid., 1830, p. 597.

[661] 'Gardener's Chronicle,' 1841, p. 617.

[662] 'Gardener's Chronicle,' 1844, p. 589.

[663] 'Phytologist,' vol. iv. p. 299.

[664] 'Gardener's Chron.,' 1856, p. 531.

[665] Godron, 'De l'Espece,' tom. ii. p. 97.

[666] 'Gardener's Chron.,' 1856, p. 531.

[667] Alph. De Candolle, 'Geograph. Bot.,' p. 886.

[668] Thompson, in Loudon's 'Encyclop. of Gardening,' p. 911.

[669] 'Catalogue of Fruit in Garden of Hort. Soc.,' 1842, p. 105.

[670] Dr. A. Targioni-Tozzetti, 'Journal Hort. Soc.,' vol. ix. p. 167.
Alph. De Candolle, 'Geograph. Bot.,' p. 885.

[671] 'Transact. Hort. Soc.,' vol. v. p. 554.

[672] Loudon's 'Encyclop. of Gardening,' p. 907.

[673] M. Carriere, in 'Gard. Chron.,' 1865, p. 1154.

[674] 'Transact. Hort. Soc.,' vol. iii. p. 332. _See_ also 'Gardener's
Chronicle,' 1865, p. 271, to same effect. Also 'Journal of Horticulture,'
Sept. 26th, 1865, p. 254.

[675] 'Transact. Hort. Soc.,' vol. iv. p. 512.

[676] 'Journal of Horticulture,' Sept. 8th, 1863, p. 188.

[677] 'Transact. Hort. Soc.,' vol. vi. p. 412.

[678] 'Gardener's Chronicle,' 1857, p. 216.

[679] 'Journal of Hort. Soc.,' vol. ii. p. 283.

[680] Alph. De Candolle, 'Geograph. Bot.', p. 879.

[681] 'Transact. Hort. Soc' (2nd series), vol. i. 1835, p. 56. _See_ also
'Cat. of Fruit in Garden of Hort. Soc.,' 3rd edit. 1842.

[682] Downing,'The Fruits of America,' 1845, p. 157; with respect to the
Alberge apricot in France, _see_ p. 153.

[683] 'Gardener's Chronicle,' 1863, p. 364.

[684] 'Travels in the Himalayan Provinces,' vol. i, 1841, p. 295.

[685] _See_ an excellent discussion on this subject in Hewett O. Watson's
'Cybele Britannica,' vol. iv. p. 80.

[686] 'Gardener's Chronicle,' 1865, p. 27.

[687] 'De l'Espece,' tom. ii. p. 94. On the parentage of our plums, _see_
also Alph. De Candolle, 'Geograph. Bot.,' p. 878. Also Targioni-Tozetti,
'Journal Hort. Soc.,' vol. ix. p. 164. Also Babington, 'Manual of Brit.
Botany,' 1851, p. 87.

[688] 'Fruits of America,' pp. 276, 278, 314, 284, 276, 310. Mr. Rivers
raised ('Gard. Chron.,' 1863, p. 27) from the Prune-peche, which bears
large, round, red plums on stout robust shoots, a seedling which bears
oval, smaller fruit on shoots that are so slender as to be almost
pendulous.

[689] 'Gardener's Chronicle,' 1855, p. 726.

[690] Downing's 'Fruit Trees,' p. 278.

[691] 'Gardener's Chronicle,' 1863, p. 27. Sageret, in his 'Pomologie
Phys.,' p. 346, enumerates five kinds which can be propagated in France by
seed: _see_ also Downing's 'Fruit Trees of America,' p. 305, 312, &c.

[692] Compare Alph. De Candolle, p. 248. 'Geograph. Bot.,' p. 877; Bentham
and Targioni-Tozzetti, in 'Hort. Journal,' vol. ix. p. 163; Godron, 'De
l'Espece,' tom. ii. p. 92.

[693] 'Transact. Hort. Soc.,' vol. v., 1824, p. 295.

[694] Ibid., second series, vol. i., 1835, p. 248.

[695] Ibid., vol. ii. p. 138.

[696] These several statements are taken from the four following works,
which may I believe, be trusted. Thompson, in 'Hort. Transact.,' _see_
above; Sageret's 'Pomologie Phys.,' 1830, pp. 358, 364, 367, 379;
'Catalogue of the Fruit in the Garden of Hort. Soc.,' 1842, pp. 57, 60;
Downing, 'The Fruits of America,' 1845, pp. 189, 195, 200.

[697] Mr. Lowe states in his 'Flora of Madeira' (quoted in 'Gard. Chron.,'
1862, p. 215) that the _P. malus_, with its nearly sessile fruit, ranges
farther south than the long-stalked P. _acerba_, which is entirely absent
in Madeira, the Canaries, and apparently in Portugal. This fact supports
the belief that these two forms deserve to be called species. But the
characters separating them are of slight importance, and of a kind known to
vary in other cultivated fruit-trees.

[698] _See_ 'Journ. of Hort. Tour,' by Deputation of the Caledonian Hort.
Soc., 1823, p. 459.

[699] H. C. Watson, 'Cybele Britannica,' vol. i. p. 334.

[700] Loudon's 'Gardener's Mag.,' vol. vi., 1830, p. 83.

[701] _See_ 'Catalogue of Fruit in Garden of Hort. Soc.,' 1842, and
Downing's 'American Fruit Trees.'

[702] Loudon's 'Gardener's Magazine,' vol. iv., 1828, p. 112.

[703] 'The Culture of the Apple,' p. 43. Van Mons makes the same remark on
the pear, 'Arbres Fruitiers,' tom. ii., 1836, p. 414.

[704] Lindley's 'Horticulture,' p. 116. _See_ also Knight on the
Apple-Tree, in 'Transact. of Hort. Soc.,' vol. vi. p. 229.

[705] 'Transact. Hort. Soc.,' vol. i., 1812, p. 120.

[706] 'Journal of Horticulture,' March 13th, 1866, p. 194.

[707] 'Transact. Hort. Soc.,' vol. iv. p. 68. For Knight's case, _see_ vol.
vi. p. 547. When the _coccus_ first appeared in this country, it is said
(vol. ii. p. 163) that it was more injurious to crab-stocks than to the
apples grafted on them.

[708] 'Mem. de la Soc. Linn. de Paris,' tom. iii., 1825, p. 164; and
Seringe, 'Bulletin Bot.,' 1830, p. 117.

[709] 'Gardener's Chronicle,' 1849, p. 24.

[710] R. Thompson, in 'Gardener's Chron.,' 1850, p. 788.

[711] Sageret, 'Pomologie Physiologique,' 1830, p. 263. Downing's 'Fruit
Trees,' pp. 130, 134, 139, &c. Loudon's 'Gardener's Mag.,' vol. viii. p.
317. Alexis Jordan, 'De l'Origine des diverses Varietes,' in 'Mem. de
l'Acad. Imp. de Lyon,' tom. ii., 1852, pp. 95, 114. 'Gardener's Chronicle,'
1850, pp. 774, 788.

[712] 'Comptes Rendus,' July 6th, 1863.

[713] 'Gardener's Chronicle,' 1856, p. 804; 1857, p. 820; 1862, p. 1195.

[714] Most of the largest cultivated strawberries are the descendants of
_F. grandiflora_ or _Chiloensis_, and I have seen no account of these forms
in their wild state. Methuen's Scarlet (Downing, 'Fruits,' p. 527) has
"immense fruit of the largest size," and belongs to the section descended
from _F. Virginiana_; and the fruit of this species, as I hear from Prof.
A. Gray, is only a little larger than that of _F. vesca_, or our common
wood strawberry.

[715] 'Le Fraisier,' par le Comte L. de Lambertye, 1864, p. 50.

[716] 'Transact. Hort. Soc.,' vol. iii. 1820, p. 207.

[717] _See_ an account by Prof. Decaisne, and by others in 'Gardener's
Chronicle,' 1862, p. 335, and 1858, p. 172; and Mr. Barnet's paper in
'Hort. Soc. Transact.,' vol. vi., 1826, p. 170.

[718] 'Transact. Hort. Soc.,' vol. v., 1824, p. 294.

[719] 'Journal of Horticulture,' Dec. 30th, 1862, p. 779. _See_ also Mr.
Prince to the same effect, idem, 1863, p. 418.

[720] For additional evidence _see_ 'Journal of Horticulture,' Dec. 9th,
1862, p. 721.

[721] 'Le Fraisier,' par le Comte L. de Lambertye, pp. 221, 230.

[722] 'Transact. Hort. Soc.,' vol. vi. p. 200.

[723] 'Gardener's Chron.,' 1858, p. 173.

[724] Godron 'De l'Espece,' tom. i. p. 161.

[725] 'Gardener's Chron.,' 1851, p. 440.

[726] F. Gloede, in 'Gardener's Chron.,' 1862, p. 1053.

[727] Downing's 'Fruits,' p. 532.

[728] Barnet, in 'Hort. Transact.,' vol. vi. p. 210.

[729] 'Gardener's Chron.,' 1847, p. 539.

[730] For the several statements with respect to the American strawberries,
_see_ Downing, 'Fruits,' p. 524; 'Gardener's Chronicle,' 1843, p. 188;
1847, p. 539; 1861, p. 717.

[731] Mr. D. Beaton, in 'Cottage Gardener,' 1860, p. 86. _See_ also
'Cottage Gardener,' 1855, p. 88, and many other authorities. For the
Continent, _see_ F. Gloede, in' Gardener's Chronicle,' 1862, p. 1053.

[732] Rev. W. F. Radclyffe, in 'Journal of Hort.,' March 14, 1865, p. 207.

[733] Mr. H. Doubleday in 'Gardener's Chron.,' 1862, p. 1101.

[734] 'Gardener's Chronicle,' 1854, p. 254.

[735] Loudon's 'Encyclop. of Gardening,' p. 930; and Alph. De Candolle,
Geograph. Bot.,' p. 910.

[736] Loudon's 'Gardener's Magazine,' vol. iv. 1828, p. 112.

[737] The fullest account of the gooseberry is given by Mr. Thompson in
'Transact. Hort. Soc.,' vol. i., 2nd series, 1835, p. 218, from which most
of the foregoing facts are given.

[738] 'Catalogue of Fruits of Hort. Soc. Garden,' 3rd edit. 1842.

[739] Mr. Clarkson, of Manchester, on the Culture of the Gooseberry, in
Loudon's 'Gardener's Magazine,' vol. iv. 1828, p. 482.

[740] Downing's 'Fruits of America,' p. 213.

[741] 'Gardener's Chronicle,' 1844, p. 811, where a table is given; and
1845, p. 819. For the extreme weights gained, _see_ 'Journal of
Horticulture,' July 26, 1864, p. 61.

[742] Mr. Saul, of Lancaster, in Loudon's 'Gardener's Mag.,' vol. iii.
1828, p. 421; and vol. x. 1834, p. 42.

[743] 'Himalayan Journals,' 1854, vol. ii. p. 334. Moorcroft ('Travels,'
vol. ii. p. 146) describes four varieties cultivated in Kashmir.

[744] 'Gardener's Chronicle,' 1850, p. 723.

[745] Paper translated in Loudon's 'Gardener's Mag.,' 1829, vol. v. p. 202.

[746] Quoted in 'Gardener's Chronicle,' 1849, p. 101.

[747] 'Gardener's Chronicle,' 1847, pp. 541 and 558.

[748] The following details are taken from the Catalogue of Fruits, 1842,
in Garden of Hort. Soc., p. 103; and from Loudon's 'Encyclop. of
Gardening,' p. 943.

[749] 'Gardener's Chron.,' 1860, p. 956.

[750] 'Annales des Sc. Nat. Bot.,' 4th series, vol. vi. 1856, p. 5.

[751] 'American Journ. of Science,' 2nd ser. vol. xxiv. 1857, p. 442.

[752] Gaertner, 'Bastarderzeugung,' 1849, s. 87, and s. 169 with respect to
Maize; on Verbascum, idem, ss. 92 and 181; also his 'Kenntniss der
Berfruchtung,' s. 137. With respect to Nicotiana, _see_ Koelreuter, 'Zweite
Forts.,' 1764, s. 53; though this is a somewhat different case.

[753] 'De l'Espece,' par M. Godron, tom. ii. p. 64.

[754] Naudin, in 'Annal. des Sci. Nat.,' 4th ser. Bot. tom. xi. 1859, p.
28.

[755] 'Memoire sur les Cucurbitacees,' 1826, pp. 6, 24.

[756] 'Flore des Serres,' Oct. 1861, quoted in 'Gardener's Chronicle,'
1861, p. 1135. I have also consulted and taken some facts from M. Naudin's
Memoir on Cucumis in 'Annal. des Sc. Nat.,' 4th series, Bot. tom. xi. 1859,
p. 5.

[757] _See_ also Sageret's 'Memoire,' p. 7.

[758] Loudon's 'Arboretum et Fruticetum,' vol. ii. p. 1217.

[759] 'Gardener's Chronicle,' 1866, p. 1096.

[760] 'Geograph. Bot.,' p. 1096.

[761] 'Gardener's Chron.,' 1842, p. 36.

[762] Loudon's 'Arboretum et Fruticetum,' vol. iii. p. 1731.

[763] Ibid., vol. iv. p. 2489.

[764] Godron ('De l'Espece,' tom. ii. p. 91) describes four varieties of
Robinia remarkable from their manner of growth.

[765] 'Journal of a Horticultural Tour, by Caledonian Hort. Soc.,' 1823, p.
107. Alph. De Candolle, 'Geograph. Bot.,' p. 1083. Verlot, 'Sur la
Production des Varietes,' 1865, p. 55, for the Barberry.

[766] Loudon's 'Arboretum et Fruticetum,' vol. ii. p. 508.

[767] Verlot, 'Des Varietes,' 1865, p. 92.

[768] Loudon's 'Arboretum et Fruticetum,' vol. iii. p. 1376.

[769] 'Gardener's Chronicle,' 1841, p. 687.

[770] Godron, 'De l'Espece,' tom. ii. p. 89. In Loudon's 'Gardener's Mag.,'
vol. xii. 1836, p. 371, a variegated bushy ash is described and figured, as
having simple leaves; it originated in Ireland.

[771] 'Gardener's Chron.,' 1861, p. 575.

[772] Quoted from Royal Irish Academy in 'Gardener's Chron.,' 1841, p. 767.

[773] Loudon's 'Arboretum et Fruticetum:' for Elm, _see_ vol. iii. p. 1376;
for Oak, p. 1846.

[774] 'Gardener's Chronicle,' 1849, p. 822.

[775] 'Arboretum et Fruticetum,' vol. iv. p. 2150.

[776] 'Gardener's Chron.,' 1852, p. 693.

[777] _See_ 'Beitraege zur Kentniss Europaeischer Pinus-arten von Dr. Christ:
Flora, 1864.' He shows that in the Ober-Engadin _P. sylvestris_ and
_montana_ are connected by intermediate links.

[778] 'Arboretum et Fruticetum,' vol. iv. pp. 2159 and 2189.

[779] Ibid., vol. ii. p. 830; Loudon's 'Gardener's Magazine,' vol. vi.
1830, p. 714.

[780] Loudon's 'Arboretum et Fruticetum,' vol. ii. p. 834.

[781] Loudon's 'Gardener's Mag.,' vol. ix. 1833, p. 123.

[782] Ibid., vol. xi. 1835, p. 503.

[783] 'Gardener's Chron.,' 1845, p. 623.

[784] D. Beaton, in 'Cottage Gardener,' 1860, p. 377. _See_ also Mr. Beck,
on the habits of Queen Mab, in 'Gardener's Chronicle,' 1845, p. 226.

[785] Moquin-Tandon, 'Elements de Teratologie,' 1841, p. 213.

[786] _See_ also 'Cottage Gardener,' 1860, p. 133.

[787] Quoted by Alph. de Candolle, 'Bibl. Univ.,' November, 1862, p. 58.

[788] Knight, 'Transact. Hort. Soc.,' vol. iv. p. 322.

[789] 'Botanical Magazine,' tab. 5160, fig. 4; Dr. Hooker, in 'Gardener's
Chron.,' 1860, p. 190; Prof. Harvey, in 'Gardener's Chron.,' 1860, p. 145;
Mr. Crocker, in 'Gardener's Chron.,' 1861, p. 1092.

[790] Alph. de Candolle, 'Geograph. Bot.,' p. 1083; 'Gard. Chronicle,'
1861, p. 433. The inheritance of the white and golden zones in Pelargonium
largely depends on the nature of the soil. _See_ D. Beaton, in 'Journal of
Horticulture,' 1861, p. 64.

[791] 'Rose Amateur's Guide,' T. Rivers, 1837, p. 21.

[792] 'Journal Hort. Soc.,' vol. ix. 1855, p. 182.

[793] The Rev. W. F. Radclyffe, in 'Journal of Horticulture,' March 14,
1865, p. 207.

[794] 'Gardener's Chronicle,' 1861, p. 46.

[795] Mr. Sabine, in 'Transact. Hort. Soc.,' vol. iv. p. 285.

[796] 'An Encyclop. of Plants,' by J. C. Loudon, 1841, p. 443.

[797] Loudon's 'Gardener's Magazine,' vol. xi. 1835, p. 427; also 'Journal
of Horticulture,' April 14, 1863, p. 275.

[798] Loudon's 'Gardener's Magazine,' vol. viii. p. 575; vol. ix. p. 689.

[799] Sir J. E. Smith, 'English Flora,' vol. i. p. 306. H. C. Watson,
'Cybele Britannica,' vol. i. 1847, p. 181.

[800] Quoted from 'Annales des Sciences,' in the Companion to the 'Bot.
Mag.,' vol. i. 1835, p. 159.

[801] 'Cybele Britannica,' vol. i. p. 173. _See_ also Dr. Herbert on the
changes of colour in transplanted specimens, and on the natural variations
of V. grandiflora, in 'Transact. Hort. Soc.,' vol. iv. p. 19.

[802] Salisbury, in 'Transact. Hort. Soc.,' vol. i. 1812, pp. 84, 92. A
semi-double variety was produced in Madrid in 1790.

[803] 'Transact. Hort. Soc.,' vol. iii. 1820, p. 225.

[804] Loudon's 'Gardener's Mag.,' vol. vi. 1830, p. 77.

[805] Loudon's 'Encyclop. of Gardening,' p. 1035.

[806] 'Transact. Hort. Soc.,' vol. i. p. 91; and Loudon's 'Gardener's
Mag.,' vol. iii. 1828, p. 179.

[807] Mr. Wildman, in 'Gardener's Chron.,' 1843, p. 87.

[808] 'Cottage Gardener,' April 8, 1856, p. 33.

[809] The best and fullest account of this plant which I have met with is
by a famous horticulturist, Mr. Paul of Waltham, in the 'Gardener's
Chronicle,' 1864, p. 342.

[810] 'Des Jacinthes, de leur Anatomie, Reproduction, et Culture,'
Amsterdam, 1768.

[811] Alph. de Candolle, 'Geograph. Bot.,' p. 1082.

[812] Alph. de Candolle, 'Geograph. Bot.,' p. 983.

[813] 'Gardener's Chron.,' 1854, p. 821.

[814] 'Lindley's Guide to Orchard,' as quoted in 'Gard. Chronicle,' 1852,
p. 821. For the _Early mignonne peach_, _see_ 'Gardener's Chron.,' 1864, p.
1251.

[815] 'Transact. Hort. Soc.,' vol. ii. p. 160.

[816] _See_ also 'Gardener's Chron.,' 1863, p. 27.

[817] 'Gard. Chron.,' 1852, p. 821.

[818] 'Gardener's Chron.,' 1852, p. 629; 1856, p. 648; 1864, p. 986. Other
cases are given by Braun, 'Rejuvenescence,' in 'Ray Soc. Bot. Mem.,' 1853,
p. 314.

[819] 'Ampelographie,' &c., 1849, p. 71.

[820] 'Gardener's Chronicle,' 1866, p.970.

[821] 'Gardener's Chronicle,' 1855, pp. 597, 612.

[822] 'Gardener's Chron.,' 1842, p. 873; 1855, p. 646. In the 'Chronicle,'
1866, p. 876, Mr. P. Mackenzie states that the bush still continues to bear
the three kinds of fruit, "although they have not been every year alike."

[823] 'Revue Horticole,' quoted in 'Gard. Chronicle,' 1844, p. 87.

[824] 'Rejuvenescence in Nature,' 'Bot. Memoirs Ray Soc.,' 1853, p. 314.

[825] 'Comptes Rendus,' tom. xli., 1855, p. 804. The second case is given
on the authority of Gaudichaud, idem, tom. xxxiv., 1852, p. 748.

[826] This case is given in the 'Gard. Chronicle,' 1867, p. 403.

[827] 'Journal of Proc. Linn. Soc.,' vol. ii. Botany, p. 131.

[828] 'Gard. Chronicle,' 1847, p. 207.

[829] Herbert, 'Amaryllidaceae,' 1838, p. 369.

[830] 'Gardener's Chronicle,' 1843, p. 391.

[831] Exhibited at Hort. Soc., London. Report in 'Gardener's Chron.,' 1844,
p. 337.

[832] Mr. W. Bell, Bot. Soc. of Edinburgh, May, 1863.

[833] 'Revue Horticole,' quoted in 'Gard. Chron.,' 1845, p. 475.

[834] 'Bastarderzeugung,' 1849, s. 76.

[835] 'Journal of Horticulture,' 1861, p. 336.

[836] W. P. Ayres, in 'Gardener's Chron.,' 1842, p. 791.

[837] W. P. Ayres, idem.

[838] 'Gardener's Chron.,' 1861, p. 968.

[839] Idem, 1861, p. 945.

[840] W. Paul, in 'Gardener's Chron.,' 1861, p. 968.

[841] Idem, p. 945.

[842] For other cases of bud-variation in this same variety, see
'Gardener's Chron.,' 1861, pp. 578, 600, 925. For other distinct cases of
bud-variation in the genus Pelargonium, _see_ 'Cottage Gardener,' 1860, p.
194.

[843] Rev. W. T. Bree, in Loudon's 'Gard. Mag.,' vol. viii., 1832, p. 93.

[844] 'The Chrysanthemum, its History and Culture,' by J. Salter, 1865, p.
41, &c.

[845] Bree, in Loudon's 'Gard. Mag.,' vol. viii., 1832, p. 93.

[846] Bronn, 'Geschichte der Natur,' B. ii. s. 123.

[847] T. Rivers, 'Rose Amateur's Guide,' 1837, p. 4.

[848] Mr. Shailer, quoted in 'Gardener's Chron.,' 1848, p. 759.

[849] 'Transact. Hort. Soc.,' vol. iv., 1822, p. 137; 'Gard. Chron.,' 1842,
p. 422.

[850] See also Loudon's 'Arboretum,' vol. ii. p. 780.

[851] All these statements on the origin of the several varieties of the
moss-rose are given on the authority of Mr. Shailer, who, together with his
father, was concerned in their original propagation, in 'Gard. Chron.,'
1852, p. 759.

[852] 'Gard. Chron.,' 1845, p. 564.

[853] 'Transact. Hort. Soc.,' vol. ii. p. 242.

[854] 'Schriften der Phys. Oekon. Gesell. zu Koenigsberg,' Feb. 3, 1865, s.
4. _See_ also Dr. Caspary's paper in 'Transactions of the Hort. Congress of
Amsterdam,' 1865.

[855] 'Gard. Chron.,' 1852, p. 759.

[856] 'Transact. Hort. Soc.,' vol. ii. p. 242.

[857] Sir R. Schomburgk, 'Proc. Linn. Soc. Bot.,' vol. ii. p. 132.

[858] 'Gard. Chron.,' 1862, p. 619.

[859] Hopkirk's 'Flora Anomala,' p. 167.

[860] 'Sur la Production et la Fixation des Varietes,' 1865, p. 4.

[861] 'Journal of Horticulture,' March, 1865, p. 233.

[862] 'Gard. Chron.,' 1843, p. 135.

[863] Ibid., 1842, p. 55.

[864] 'Gard. Chron.,' 1867, p. 235.

[865] Gaertner, 'Bastarderzeugung,' s. 305.

[866] Mr. D. Beaton, in 'Cottage Gardener,' 1860, p. 250.

[867] 'Gard. Chron.,' 1850, p. 536.

[868] Braun, 'Ray Soc. Bot. Mem.,' 1853, p. 315; Hopkirk's 'Flora Anomala,'
p. 164; Lecoq, 'Geograph. Bot. de l'Europe,' tom. iii., 1854, p. 405; and
'De la Fecondation,' 1862, p. 303.

[869] 'Des Varietes,' 1865, p. 5.

[870] W. Mason, in 'Gard. Chron.,' 1843, p. 878.

[871] Alex. Braun, 'Ray Soc. Bot. Mem.,' 1853, p. 315; 'Gard. Chron.,'
1841, p. 329.

[872] Dr. M. T. Masters, 'Royal Institution Lecture,' March 16, 1860.

[873] _See_ Mr. W. K. Bridgman's curious paper in 'Annals and Mag. of Nat.
Hist.,' December, 1861; also Mr. J. Scott, 'Bot. Soc. Edinburgh,' June 12,
1862.

[874] 'Journal of Horticulture,' 1861, p. 336; Verlot, 'Des Varietes,' p.
76.

[875] _See_ also Verlot, 'Des Varietes,' p. 74.

[876] 'Gard. Chron.,' 1844, p. 86.

[877] Ibid., 1861, p. 968.

[878] Ibid., 1861, p. 433. 'Cottage Gardener,' 1860, p. 2.

[879] M. Lemoine (quoted in 'Gard. Chron.,' 1867, p. 74) has lately
observed that the Symphitum with variegated leaves cannot be propagated by
division of the roots. He also found that out of 500 plants of a Phlox with
striped flowers, which had been propagated by root-division, only seven or
eight produced striped flowers. See also, on striped Pelargoniums, 'Gard.
Chron.' 1867, p. 1000.

[880] Anderson's 'Recreations in Agriculture,' vol. v. p. 152.

[881] 'Gard. Chron.,' 1857, p. 662.

[882] Ibid., 1841, p. 814.

[883] Ibid., 1857, p. 613.

[884] Ibid., 1857, p. 679. _See_ also Phillips, 'Hist. of Vegetables,' vol.
ii. p. 91, for other and similar accounts.

[885] 'Journal of Proc. Linn. Soc.,' vol. ii. Botany, p. 132.

[886] Loudon's 'Gard. Mag.,' vol. viii., 1832, p. 94.

[887] 'Gard. Chron.,' 1850, p. 536; and 1842, p. 729.

[888] 'Des Jacinthes,' &c., Amsterdam, 1768, p. 122.

[889] 'Gard. Chron.,' 1845, p. 212.

[890] Loudon's 'Encyclop. of Gardening,' p. 1024.

[891] 'Production des Varietes,' 1865, p. 63.

[892] 'Gard. Chron.,' 1841, p. 782; 1842, p. 55.

[893] 'Gard. Chron.,' 1849, p. 565.

[894] 'Transact. Linn. Soc.,' vol. ii. p. 354.

[895] Godron, 'De l'Espece,' tom. ii. p. 84.

[896] M. Carriere has lately described, in the 'Revue Horticole' (Dec. 1,
1866, p. 457), an extraordinary case. He twice inserted grafts of the _Aria
vestita_ on thorn-trees (_epines_) growing in pots; and the grafts, as they
grew, produced shoots with bark, buds, leaves, petioles, petals, and
flower-stalks all widely different from those of the Aria. The grafted
shoots were also much hardier, and flowered earlier, than those on the
ungrafted Aria.

[897] 'Transact. Hort. Soc.,' vol. ii. p. 160.

[898] For the cases of oaks _see_ Alph. De Candolle in 'Bibl. Univers.,'
Geneva, Nov. 1862; for limes, &c., Loudon's 'Gard. Mag.,' vol. xi., 1835,
p. 503.

[899] For analogous facts, _see_ Braun, 'Rejuvenescence,' in 'Ray Soc. Bot.
Mem.,' 1853, p. 320; and 'Gard. Chron.,' 1842, p. 397.

[900] 'Journal of Hort. Soc.,' vol. ii., 1847, p. 100.

[901] _See_ 'Transact. of Hort. Congress of Amsterdam,' 1865; but I owe
most of the following information to Prof. Caspary's letters.

[902] 'Nouvelles Archives du Museum,' tom. i. p. 143.

[903] _See_ on this head, Naudin, idem, p. 141.

[904] The statement is believed by Dr. Lindley in 'Gard. Chron.,' 1857, pp.
382, 400.

[905] Braun, in 'Bot. Mem. Ray Soc.,' 1853, p. xxiii.

[906] This hybrid has never been described. It is exactly intermediate in
foliage, time of flowering, dark striae at the base of the standard petal,
hairiness of the ovarium, and in almost every other character, between _C.
laburnum_ and _alpinus_; but it approaches the former species more nearly
in colour, and exceeds it in the length of the racemes. We have before seen
that 20.3 per cent. of its pollen-grains are ill-formed and worthless. My
plant, though growing not above thirty or forty yards from both
parent-species, during some seasons yielded no good seeds; but in 1866 it
was unusually fertile, and its long racemes produced from one to
occasionally even four pods. Many of the pods contained no good seeds, but
generally they contained a single apparently good seed, sometimes two, and
in one case three seeds. Some of the seeds germinated.

[907] 'Annales de la Soc. de Hort. de Paris,' tom. vii., 1830, p. 93.

[908] 'Annals and Mag. of Nat. Hist.,' March, 1848.

[909] 'Pomologie Physiolog.,' 1830, p. 126.

[910] Gallesio, 'Gli Agrumi dei Giard. Bot. Agrar. di Firenze,' 1839, p.
11. In his 'Traite du Citrus,' 1811, p. 146, he speaks as if the compound
fruit consisted in part of lemons, but this apparently was a mistake.

[911] 'Gard. Chron.,' 1855, p. 628. _See_ also Prof. Caspary, in 'Transact.
Hort. Congress of Amsterdam,' 1865.

[912] 'Gard. Chron.,' 1851, p. 406.

[913] Gaertner, 'Bastarderzeugung,' s. 549. It is, however, doubtful whether
these plants should be ranked as species or varieties.

[914] Gaertner, idem, s. 550.

[915] 'Journal de Physique,' tom. xxiii., 1783, p. 100. 'Act. Acad. St.
Petersburgh,' 1781, part i. p. 249.

[916] 'Nouvelles Archives du Museum,' tom. i. p. 49.

[917] L'Hermes, Jan. 14, 1837, quoted in Loudon's 'Gard. Mag.,' vol. xiii.
p. 230.

[918] 'Comptes Rendus,' tom. xxxiv., 1852, p. 746.

[919] 'Geograph. Bot. de l'Europe,' tom. iii., 1854, p. 405; and 'De la
Fecondation,' 1862, p. 302.

[920] 'Traite du Citrus,' 1811, p. 45.

[921] 'Transact. Linn. Soc.,' vol. ix. p. 268.

[922] Gaertner ('Bastarderzeugung,' s. 611) gives many references on this
subject.

[923] A nearly similar account was given by Bradley, in 1724, in his
'Treatise on Husbandry,' vol. i. p. 199.

[924] Loudon's 'Arboretum,' vol. iv. p. 2595.

[925] 'Bastarderzeugung,' s. 619.

[926] Amsterdam, 1768, p. 124.

[927] 'Gard. Chron.,' 1860, p. 672, with a woodcut.

[928] 'Philosophical Transact.,' vol. xiiii., 1744-45, p. 525.

[929] Mr. Swayne, in 'Transact. Hort. Soc.,' vol. v. p. 234; and Gaertner,
'Bastarderzeugung,' 1849, s. 81 and 499.

[930] 'Gard. Chron.,' 1854, p. 404.

[931] Ibid., 1866, p. 900.

[932] _See_ also a paper by this observer, read before the International
Hort. and Bot. Congress of London, 1866.

[933] 'Traite du Citrus,' p. 40.

[934] 'Transact. Hort. Soc.,' vol. iv. p. 318. _See_ also vol. v. p. 65.

[935] Prof. Asa Gray, 'Proc. Acad. Sc.,' Boston, vol. iv., 1860, p. 21.

[936] For the French case, _see_ 'Proc. Hort. Soc.,' vol. i. new series,
1866, p. 50. For Germany, _see_ M. Jack, quoted in Henfrey's 'Botanical
Gazette,' vol. i. p. 277. A case in England has recently been alluded to by
the Rev. J. M. Berkeley before the Hort. Soc. of London.

[937] 'Philosophical Transactions,' vol. xlvii., 1751-52, p. 206.

[938] Gallesio, 'Teoria della Riproduzione,' 1816, p. 95.

[939] It may be worth while to call attention to the several means by which
flowers and fruit become striped or mottled. Firstly, by the direct action
of the pollen of another variety or species, as with the above-given cases
of oranges and maize. Secondly, in crosses of the first generation, when
the colours of the two parents do not readily unite, as in the cases of
Mirabilis and Dianthus given a few pages back. Thirdly, in crossed plants
of a subsequent generation, by reversion, through either bud or seminal
generation. Fourthly, by reversion to a character not originally gained by
a cross, but which had long been lost, as with white-flowered varieties,
which we shall hereafter see often become striped with some other colour.
Lastly, there are cases, as when peaches are produced with a half or
quarter of the fruit like a nectarine, in which the change is apparently
due to mere variation, through either bud or seminal generation.

[940] 'Transact. Hort. Soc.,' vol. v. p. 69.

[941] 'Journal of Horticulture,' Jan. 20, 1863, p. 46.

[942] _See_ on this head the high authority of Prof. Decaisne, in a paper
translated in 'Proc. Hort. Soc.,' vol. i. new series, 1866, p. 48.

[943] Vol. xliii., 1744-45, p. 525; vol. xlv., 1747-48, p. 602.

[944] 'Transact. Hort. Soc.,' vol. v. pp. 63 and 68. Puvis also has
collected ('De la Degeneration,' 1837, p. 36) several other instances; but
it is not in all cases possible to distinguish between the direct action of
foreign pollen and bud-variations.

[945] T. de Clermont-Tonnerre, in 'Mem. de la Soc. Linn. de Paris,' tom.
iii., 1825, p. 164.

[946] 'Transact. of Hort. Soc.,' vol. v. p. 68.

[947] 'Beitrage zur Kenntniss der Befruchtung,' 1844, s. 347-351.

[948] 'Die Fruchtbildung der Orchideen, ein Beweis fuer die doppelte Wirkung
des Pollen,' Botanische Zeitung, No. 44 et seq., Oct. 30, 1863; and 1865,
s. 249.

[949] 'Philos. Transact.,' 1821, p. 20.

[950] Dr. Alex. Harvey on 'A remarkable Effect of Cross-breeding,' 1851. On
the 'Physiology of Breeding,' by Mr. Reginald Orton, 1855. 'Intermarriage,'
by Alex. Walker, 1837. 'L'Heredite Naturelle,' by Dr. Prosper Lucas, tom.
ii. p. 58. Mr. W. Sedgwick in 'British and Foreign Medico-Chirurgical
Review,' 1863, July, p. 183. Bronn, in his 'Geschichte der Natur,' 1843, B.
ii. s. 127, has collected several cases with respect to mares, sows, and
dogs. Mr. W. C. L. Martin ('History of the Dog,' 1845, p. 104) says he can
personally vouch for the influence of the male parent of the first litter
on the subsequent litters by other fathers. A French poet, Jacques Savary,
who wrote in 1665 on dogs, was aware of this singular fact.

[951] 'Le Pigeon Voyageur Belge,' 1865, p. 59.

[952] 'Flora Anomala,' p. 164.

[953] 'Schriften der Phys.-Oekon. Gesell. zu Koenigsberg,' Band vi., Feb. 3,
1865, s. 4.

       *       *       *       *       *


Corrections made to printed original.

p. 65. "constant osteological characters": 'charcters' in original.

p. 76. "Phacochoerus": 'Phascochoerus' in original, corrected by Errata
page.

p. 213. "From what we now see occasionally": 'occasionlly' in original.

p. 275. "Amherstiae": 'Amherstii' in original, corrected by Errata page.

p. 282. "Anser AEgyptiacus": 'Tadorna AEgyptiaca' in original, corrected by
Errata page.

p. 286 (last row of table). "717": '713' in original, corrected by Errata
page.






End of the Project Gutenberg EBook of The Variation of Animals and Plants
Under Domestication, Vol. I., by Charles Darwin

*** 