M Database Inspector (cheetah)
|Not logged in. Login|
|OriginOfSpecies - 475 Rows|
|05 - Laws of Variation||05-12 - Reversion to Long Lost Characters||70||
I am aware that Colonel Hamilton Smith, who has written on this subject, believes that the several breeds of the horse are descended from several aboriginal species- one of which, the dun, was striped; and that the above described appearances are an due to ancient crosses with the dun stock.
But this view may be safely rejected; for it is highly improbable that the heavy Belgian cart-horse, Welsh ponies, Norwegian cobs, the lanky kattywar race, &c., inhabiting the most distant parts of the world, should all have been crossed with one supposed aboriginal stock.
|08 - Hybridism||08-08 - Hybrids and mongrels compared independently of their fertility||10||
Hybrids and Mongrels compared, independently of their fertility.
Independently of the question of fertility, the offspring of species when crossed and of varieties when crossed may be compared in several other respects.
Gaertner, whose strong wish was to draw a marked line of distinction between species and varieties, could find very few and, as it seems to me, quite unimportant differences between the so-called hybrid offspring of species, and the so-called mongrel offspring of varieties.
And, on the other hand, they agree most closely in very many important respects.
I shall here discuss this subject with extreme brevity.
The most important distinction is, that in the first generation mongrels are more variable than hybrids; but Gaertner admits that hybrids from species which have long been cultivated are often variable in the first generation; and I have myself seen striking instances of this fact.
Gaertner further admits that hybrids between very closely allied species are more variable than those from very distinct species; and this shows that the difference in the degree of variability graduates away.
When mongrels and the more fertile hybrids are propagated for several generations an extreme amount of variability in their offspring is notorious; but some few cases both of hybrids and mongrels long retaining uniformity of character could be given.
The variability, however, in the successive generations of mongrels is, perhaps, greater than in hybrids.
This greater variability of mongrels than of hybrids does not seem to me at all surprising.
For the parents of mongrels are varieties, and mostly domestic varieties (very few experiments having been tried on natural varieties), and this implies in most cases that there has been recent variability; and therefore we might expect that such variability would often continue and be super-added to that arising from the mere act of crossing
The slight degree of variability in hybrids from the first cross or in the first generation, in contrast with their extreme variability in the succeeding generations, is a curious fact and deserves attention.
For it bears on and corroborates the view which I have taken on the cause of ordinary variability; namely, that it is due to the reproductive system being eminently sensitive to any change in the conditions of life, being thus often rendered either impotent or at least incapable of its proper function of producing offspring identical with the parent-form.
Now hybrids in the first generation are descended from species (excluding those long cultivated) which have not had their reproductive systems in any way affected, and they are not variable; but hybrids themselves have their reproductive systems seriously affected, and their descendants are highly variable.
But to return to our comparison of mongrels and hybrids: Gaertner states that mongrels are more liable than hybrids to revert to either parent-form; but this, if it be true, is certainly only a difference in degree.
Gaertner further insists that when any two species, although most closely allied to each other, are crossed with a third species, the hybrids are widely different from each other; whereas if two very distinct varieties of one species are crossed with another species, the hybrids do not differ much.
But this conclusion, as far as I can make out, is founded on a single experiment; and seems directly opposed to the results of several experiments made by Koelreuter.
These alone are the unimportant differences, which Gaertner is able to point out, between hybrid and mongrel plants.
On the other hand, the resemblance in mongrels and in hybrids to their respective parents, more especially in hybrids produced from nearly related species, follows according to Gaertner the same laws.
When two species are crossed, one has sometimes a prepotent power of impressing its likeness on the hybrid; and so I believe it to be with varieties of plants.
With animals one variety certainly often has this prepotent power over another variety.
Hybrid plants produced from a reciprocal cross, generally resemble each other closely; and so it is with mongrels from a reciprocal cross.
Both hybrids and mongrels can be reduced to either pure parent-form, by repeated crosses in successive generations with either parent.
These several remarks are apparently applicable to animals; but the subject is here excessively complicated, partly owing to the existence of secondary sexual characters; but more especially owing to prepotency in transmitting likeness running more strongly in one sex than in the other, both when one species is crossed with another, and when one variety is crossed with another variety.
For instance, I think those authors are right, who maintain that the ass has a prepotent power over the horse, so that both the mule and the hinny more resemble the ass than the horse; but that the prepotency runs more strongly in the male-ass than in the female, so that the mule, which is the offspring of the male-ass and mare, is more like an ass, than is the hinny, which is the offspring of the female-ass and stallion.
Much stress has been laid by some authors on the supposed fact, that mongrel animals alone are born closely like one of their parents; but it can be shown that this does sometimes occur with hybrids; yet I grant much less frequently with hybrids than with mongrels.
Looking to the cases which I have collected of cross-bred animals closely resembling one parent, the resemblances seem chiefly confined to characters almost monstrous in their nature, and which have suddenly appeared such as albinism, melanism, deficiency of tail or horns, or additional fingers and toes; and do not relate to characters which have been slowly acquired by selection.
Consequently, sudden reversions to the perfect character of either parent would be more likely to occur with mongrels, which are descended from varieties often suddenly produced and semi-monstrous in character, than with hybrids, which are descended from species slowly and naturally produced.
On the whole I entirely agree with Dr Prosper Lucas, who, after arranging an enormous body of facts with respect to animals, comes to the conclusion, that the laws of resemblance of the child to its parents are the same, whether the two parents differ much or little from each other, namely in the union of individuals of the same variety, or of different varieties, or of distinct species.
Laying aside the question of fertility and sterility, in all other respects there seems to be a general and close similarity in the offspring of crossed species, and of crossed varieties.
If we look at species as having been specially created, and at varieties as having been produced by secondary laws, this similarity would be an astonishing fact.
But it harmonizes perfectly with the view that there is no essential distinction between species and varieties.
|04 - Natural Selection||04-01 - Natural Selection||10||
How will the struggle for existence, briefly discussed in the last chapter, act in regard to variation?
Can the principle of selection, which we have seen is so potent in the hands of man, apply under nature?
I think we shall see that it can act most efficiently.
Let the endless number of slight variations and individual differences occurring in our domestic productions, and, in a lesser degree, in those under nature, be borne in mind; as well as the strength of the hereditary tendency.
Under domestication, it may be truly said that the whole organisation becomes in some degree plastic.
But the variability, which we almost universally meet with in our domestic productions, is not directly produced, as Hooker and Asa Gray have well remarked, by man; he can neither originate varieties, nor prevent their occurrence; he can preserve and accumulate such as do occur.
Unintentionally he exposes organic beings to new and changing conditions of life, and variability ensues; but similar changes of conditions might and do occur under nature.
Let it also be borne in mind how infinitely complex and close-fitting are the mutual relations of all organic beings to each other and to their physical conditions of life; and consequently what infinitely varied diversities of structure might be of use to each being under changing conditions of life.
Can it, then, be thought improbable, seeing that variations useful to man have undoubtedly occurred, that other variations useful in some way to each being in the great and complex battle of life, should occur in the course of many successive generations?
If such do occur, can we doubt (remembering that many more individuals are born than can possibly survive) that individuals having any advantage, however slight, over others, would have the best chance of surviving and of procreating their kind?
On the other hand, we may feel sure that any variation in the least degree injurious would be rigidly destroyed.
This preservation of favourable individual differences and variations, and the destruction of those which are injurious, I have called Natural Selection.
|06 - Difficutiles in Theory||06-12 - Organs not in all Cases Absolutely Perfect||90||
How the sense of beauty in its simplest form- that is, the reception of a peculiar kind of pleasure from certain colours, forms, and sounds- was first developed in the mind of man and of the lower animals, is a very obscure subject.
The same sort of difficulty is presented, if we enquire how it is that certain flavours and odours give pleasure, and others displeasure.
Habit in all these cases appears to have come to a certain extent into play; but there must be some fundamental cause in the constitution of the nervous system in each species.