•/,r.:.V - . ::,-. .'.... .- v-V S ,;Xi' 
 
 m 
 
 k» 
 
 BBEEI 
 
 « 
 
 ' 
 
 ■M 
 
 
COONELL UNIVERSIT' 
 
 924 055 004 299 
 
 CORNELL 
 
 UNIVERSITY 
 
 LIBRARY 
 
 BOUGHT WITH THE INCOME 
 OF THE SAGE ENDOWMENT 
 FUND GIVEN IN 189I BY 
 
 HENRY WILLIAMS SAGE 
 
THE 
 
 Refutation of Darwinism; 
 
 AND THE 
 
 CONVERSE THEORY OF DEVELOPMENT; 
 
 BASED EXCLUSIVELY UPON DARWIN'S FACTS, 
 
 And comprising Qualitative and Quantitative Analyses of the 
 Phenomena of Variation; of Reversion; of Correlation; 
 of Crossing; of Close-Interbreeding; of the Repro- 
 duction of Lost Members; of the Repair of 
 Injuries ; of the Reintegration of Tissue; 
 and of Sexual and Asexual Generation. 
 
 by 
 T. WARREN p'NEILL, 
 
 MEMBER OF THE PHILADELPHIA EAR. 
 
 PHILADELPHIA: 
 
 J. B. LIPPINCOTT & CO. 
 
Copyright : 
 
 T. Warren O'Neill, 
 
 1879- 
 
PREFACE. 
 
 All religious discussion has been studiously avoided in 
 this work, and solely positive processes of discovery have 
 been employed. The argument is founded, exclusively, upon 
 an analysis of the facts of variation, and of selection, as 
 those facts are presented by Mr. Darwin, in his " Origin of 
 Species," in his "Animals and Plants under Domestica- 
 tion," and in his "Fertilization of Orchids." 
 
 The design is to show, that the very same facts, which Dar- 
 win confesses his inability to explain, yet upon which he relies 
 to sustain his theory, may be explained, to the advantage of 
 every breeder, fancier, horticulturist, and agriculturist ; and 
 explained in a way which signally disproves the theory, that 
 Man, and other species of animal, and species of plant, were 
 evolved from lower types. 
 . The arguments herein are all drawn from the phenomena 
 presented by plants, and by the lower animals ; it having been 
 deemed more favorable to a temperate and unprejudiced dis- 
 cussion of the subject, to exclude all mention of Man, — upon 
 the understanding, however, that such laws as may be proven 
 to obtain with the lower organisms, must prevail (ceteris 
 paribus) also with Man. 
 
 Of the cause of Variations, or improvements ; of the cause of 
 the good generally resulting from Crossing ; of the cause of 
 the evils frequently attendant upon Close-Interbreeding ; of 
 
IV PREFACE. 
 
 the cause of Correlation of Growth ; and of the causes of 
 others of his many colligations of facts, Darwin asserts that 
 he is "in profound ignorance." Their explanation, in this 
 work, however, puts a wholly different phase upon the prob- 
 lem of development, from that which Darwin (by merely 
 estimating the ratio of development of seemingly inexplicable 
 variations) has given it ; and, further, demonstratively proves 
 that species are normally immutable ; that there is, for each 
 species, a physiologically perfect type (capable of being real- 
 ized by careful selection) ; and that this type, although it is 
 susceptible of modification, in countless ways, is or may be 
 modified, only at the cost of evil results which soon lead to the 
 sterility, lessened constitutional vigor, and consequent extinc- 
 tion, of the line of those individuals which have so departed 
 from the true moulds of their respective species. 
 
 These conclusions are arrived at, simply by making a 
 slightly different apportionment of Darwin's facts, under Dar- 
 win's principles. 
 
 Mr. Darwin has a body of facts, and a certain set of scientific 
 factors. These facts he distributes under his several factors, 
 conformably to a system of apportionment which leaves a re- 
 siduum which, in default of ability to explain, he is unwillingly 
 constrained to refer to such confessedly illegitimate factors, or 
 entities, as, " an innate tendency," " spontaneous variability," 
 " the nature and constitution of the being which varies," 
 " some great law of nature," etc. 
 
 In this Refutation and Converse Theory, all of Darwin's 
 facts are taken for granted, as are all of his scientific factors. 
 These same facts, however, are differently apportioned, with 
 but a slight variation from Darwin's mode of distribution of 
 them ; and they are relegated to the same set of factors, in 
 
PREFACE. V 
 
 such relative quantities, as to leave no residuum of facts unex- 
 plained ; and, thereby, the necessity is obviated, of any refer- 
 ence to such metaphysical and unscientific entities, as " innate 
 tendency," and others, such as Darwin employs. 
 
 The result, moreover, of this mode of distribution of the 
 same facts under the same set of principles, is (as the author 
 conceives) to prove, unmistakably, the immutability of each 
 species. 
 
 The advantage of the plan herein pursued, is, that no con- 
 troversy, whatever, can reasonably arise, respecting either the 
 validity of the facts employed, or the legitimacy of the princi- 
 ples assumed. The issue is narrowed down to the mere ques- 
 tions, of the soundness of the mode in which the facts are 
 distributed, and of the significance of the results of such a 
 manner of apportionment. 
 
 To avoid the appearance of egotism, and the circumlocution 
 by which such effect might have been avoided, the plural pro- 
 noun has been used, instead of the more obtrusive I. 
 
 T. WARREN O'NEILL. 
 
 Philadelphia, December 20, 1879. 
 
Cornell University 
 Library 
 
 The original of this book is in 
 the Cornell University Library. 
 
 There are no known copyright restrictions in 
 the United States on the use of the text. 
 
 http://www.archive.org/details/cu31924055004299 
 
CONTENTS. 
 
 CHAPTER I. 
 
 Darwin's Theory . . 9 
 
 CHAPTER II. 
 Darwin's Ignorance of the Law of Variations ; and his 
 False Assumption of no Limit to Improvements . 35 
 
 CHAPTER III. 
 
 The Variations, or Improvements, in each Species, Limited 
 in Number and Kind to the Number and Kind of the 
 Characters previously Lost by such Species, under 
 Nature : or, the Law of Reversion . . .48 
 
 CHAPTER IV. 
 Reversion not a Law, Sui Generis ; but a Derivative Law, 
 Assimilable to other Well Known Laws . 106 
 
 CHAPTER V. 
 
 The Fallacies of Darwin's Argument from Natural Se- 
 lection . 133 
 
 CHAPTER VI. 
 The Several Processes of Formation of Varieties . 170 
 
 CHAPTER VII. 
 Evils caused by a Departure from the Original Type of 
 a Species ; and Good occasioned by a Return to such 
 Original Type: or, Crossing and Close-Interbreeding 194 
 
Vlll CONTENTS. 
 
 CHAPTER VIII. page. 
 
 The Crossing and the Close-Interbreeding of Pigeons and 
 of Fowls 242 
 
 CHAPTER IX. 
 The Crossing and the Close-Interbreeding of Pigs . . . 280 
 
 CHAPTER X. 
 The Crossing and Close-Interbreeding of Horses, Sheep 
 and Cattle . 298 
 
 CHAPTER XI. 
 
 The Crossing, and the Self- Fertilization, of Plants . . 334 
 
 CHAPTER XII. 
 
 Sterility of Hybrids 408 
 
 CHAPTER XIII. 
 Concluding Remarks . . 429 
 
THE 
 
 REFUTATION OF DARWINISM: 
 
 AND THE 
 
 Converse Theory of Development, &c. 
 
 CHAPTER I. 
 Darwin's Theory. 
 
 TO appreciate a Refutation, it is necessary to know 
 exactly what it is which is refuted. To meet this 
 need, we commence by giving Darwin's theory. 
 
 Mr. Darwin's theory of the Origin of Species, as 
 propounded in his works " The Origin of Species" and 
 "Animals and Plants Under Domestication" is as fol- 
 lows : 
 
 As Mr. Darwin professes to base his theory, not 
 upon mere speculation as to the processes which have 
 obtained in the past, but upon obvious inferences from 
 tlje actual behaviour of things in the present, and from 
 processes now in operation under our very eyes, he 
 takes the reader directly to the barnyard, to the gar- 
 den, and to the field. Here, under domestication, the 
 
 individuals of each species, display great variation and 
 
 2 (9) 
 
10 DARWIN'S THEORY. 
 
 improvement, compared with the state, in which they 
 were, when first placed under cultivation. The phe- 
 nomena, here observed, apparently imply an universal 
 tendency to vary, which ever seems to manifest itself, 
 under certain changes in the circumstances ; that is, 
 that while the offspring of animals and of plants, taken 
 from the state of nature, are, in all their main charac- 
 teristics or features, like their parents, they nevertheless 
 improve, more or less, upon their parents ; and vary 
 or differ in character, to some degree, from each other. 
 These variations, and improvements, are also trans- 
 mitted to the descendants of the varying individuals, 
 which also go on, from generation to generation, super- 
 adding to the measure of variation, first displayed. 
 For, when a modification is acquired by any individ- 
 ual, the law of inheritance transmits the acquired char- 
 acter to the offspring. 
 
 Variation, as Darwin remarks, is everywhere seen, 
 under domestication. Scarcely any species, or indi- 
 vidual of any species, either animal or vegetable, has 
 escaped this tendency. Some species, such as the 
 Pigeon and the Fowl, display more variation and im- 
 provement than others. Some have developed many 
 important organs not present in the same species, 
 under nature. Other species have developed few, or no 
 new features ; yet have improved wonderfully and va- 
 riedly, in the quality and size of the characteristics they 
 possessed when first placed under domestication. The 
 improvements, arising in some species, have been 
 divided or apportioned among different, and widely 
 distinct varieties. In other species, the improvements 
 
DARWIN'S THEORY. 11 
 
 appearing, have been developed in all of the varieties, 
 and each of those varieties is marked solely by the 
 high degree of development to which some one of its 
 features has been carried. Where, in any species, all 
 of the characters arising by variation, have been fixed 
 and retained in each variety, with no one character 
 extraordinarily well developed, in comparison with the 
 others — the breeds or varieties of the species, being 
 distinguishable from each other merely by minute dif- 
 ferences in the size or proportion of the features devel- 
 oped — there results convergence of character; which 
 is less frequently met with, than is divergence of char- 
 acter. An instance in point, with respect to the diver- 
 sity, or divergence of character above mentioned, is the 
 Pigeon ; each of whose principal varieties, has some 
 one feature peculiarity characteristic of it. An instance 
 of convergence of character, which Darwin gives, is 
 the Cow, whose varieties, or breeds, have peculiarities 
 which are not very distinct. 
 
 Variation also results, through the loss or reduction 
 of some characters which the species had, when taken 
 from the state of nature. Variation, of this kind, is 
 exemplified in the case of the tailless breeds, the ear- 
 less breeds, turn-spit dogs, niata cattle (with their lips 
 shortened) and, in the case of the " improved " Pig, 
 whose tusks have been greatly reduced, whose bristles 
 and hair have been well-nigh lost, whose legs have 
 been reduced to the smallest possible size compatible 
 with locomotion, and the front of whose head has 
 been rendered short and concave. 
 
 While some species, under domestication, such as 
 
12 DARWIN'S THEORY. 
 
 the goose, the turkey, the hive-bee, &c, have not 
 developed features, in their individuals, sufficiently 
 marked and varied, to serve as the foundation of any 
 very distinct varieties, a multitude of other species dis- 
 play modifications which form the distinguishing char- 
 acters of very widely divergent breeds. Many of the 
 modifications, or improvements, which have arisen 
 under man's care, and which were not known to the 
 species, when taken from the state of nature, have led 
 to the formation of varieties, in such species, with dis- 
 tributed differences distinguishing them, greater even 
 than those differences which distinguish one species 
 from another ; and, in some cases, greater even than 
 those which mark one genus from another. 
 
 The distinction between species and varieties, should 
 be thoroughly appreciated, by the reader, that he may 
 understand Darwin's argument. A species is gener- 
 ally taken to be, that class of organisms which are 
 known to have a common descent from some ancient 
 progenitor, and which are capable of indefinitely- 
 continued, fertile reproduction among each other ; but 
 which, on being crossed with individuals of another 
 species, ' are either sterile, or give birth to offspring, 
 called hybrids, which are sterile. Thus, a horse, and 
 an ass, are taken to be distinct species. A mule, how- 
 ever, is a hybrid — being the result of a cross between 
 the two species — and, as is well known, is sterile. A 
 variety, or breed, on the other hand, is one of a class 
 of organisms, within a species, distinguished from its 
 fellow varieties of the same species, by the possession 
 of some peculiar, negative or positive character ; and 
 
darwin's theory. 13 
 
 which is capable of indefinitely-continued, fertile repro- 
 duction, not only among its own individuals, but, pecu- 
 liarly so, with the individuals of any other variety of 
 the same species. Thus, an Arab horse, the English 
 race horse, the dray-horse, the Shetland pony, &c, 
 represent varieties, or breeds, of the species horse : 
 and a Fantail, a Pouter, a Carrier, a Runt, a Barb, 
 a Jacobin, &c, represent varieties of the Pigeon 
 species. 
 
 The variation, modification, or improvement, occurring 
 under domestication, Darwin represents truly, as matter 
 of fact, to be very great. It is proved, by him, con- 
 clusively, that there is scarcely any part of the organ- 
 ization of any individual of any species of plant or ani- 
 mal, under domestication, which is not susceptible of 
 some, and, in the majority of instances, of great modi- 
 fication. Even the bones, and the internal organs — 
 the liver, the kidneys, the vertebrae, the reproductive 
 organs, the oesophagus, the intestinal canal — have been 
 shown to be greatly modified. Cases of increase, and 
 of decrease in the number of the vertebrae, have been 
 demonstrated to be of frequent occurrence. There are 
 improvements, or variations, in the legs, in the tongue, 
 in the eyes, in the skin, in the hair, in the feathers, in 
 the hoofs, in the horns, in the tail, and in the 
 wings. There are the greatest variations in the head. 
 Even the teeth have varied greatly, in number, size, 
 and other characters. 
 
 Modifications, most favorable, and most different, in 
 character, have arisen, in a variety of ways, with birds 
 
 of the same species ; in their head, or crest feathers, in 
 
 2* 
 
14 DARWIN'S THEORY. 
 
 their wing-feathers, and in their tail-feathers. In plants, 
 by the process of bud-variation, have been known to 
 arise, in one generation alone, nectarines from the 
 peach, the red magnum-bonum plum from the yellow 
 magnum-bonum ; and the moss rose from the Provence 
 rose. An astonishingly great improvement has taken 
 place in the wild carrot, and the parsnip, which, from 
 mere stringy roots that they were, when taken from 
 nature, have developed into great size and delicacy. 
 Gooseberries also have attained great size and weight : 
 The London Gooseberry being seven and eight times 
 the weight of the wild fruit. The fruit of one variety 
 of the Curcurbita pepo, exceeds, in volume, that of an- 
 other of the same species, which is less cultivated, by 
 more than 2000 fold ! 
 
 Whatever part of the plant, man values most, that 
 part has been sure to increase surprisingly, in size, in 
 general development, and in quality. If it be the 
 flower, to which man attaches value, the most astonish- 
 ing improvement, in that character, is seen ; while the 
 other parts show little, or no improvement. The same 
 occurs, where it is the fruit, the leaves, or the root, 
 which man prizes. 
 
 Varieties of the fowl, of the turkey, of the canary- 
 bird, of the duck, and of the goose, have developed 
 top-knots, and reversed head feathers, since they have 
 been taken care of by man. It would be but writing, 
 anew, Darwin's book on "Animals and Plants under 
 Domestication]' to record all of the great, and wonder- 
 ful improvements which have arisen, within a short 
 time, under domestication. 
 
DARWIN'S THEORY. 15 
 
 Varieties, or breeds, are formed, in each species, of 
 these variations and improvements. The reader is suf- 
 ficiently well acquainted with the great improvements 
 which have occurred in the horse, in the sheep,, and in 
 cattle, not to need a detailed statement thereof. The 
 Pigeon, however, having displayed, probably, the great- 
 est amount of variation, and as Darwin has not only given 
 the greatest care and attention to this species, but has 
 also used it as the most prominent and striking subject 
 with which to illustrate his view, that divergence of 
 character generates distinct species from the variations 
 of another, a more detailed account of this species, as 
 it exists under man's fostering care, may not be need- 
 less. 
 
 The progenitor of the pigeons now under domestica- 
 tion, was, Darwin says, the rock pigeon, or Columba 
 livia; which, when redeemed from a state of nature, 
 had not the slightest vestige of many of the charac- 
 ters which now form the striking peculiarities of many 
 of the varieties which have descended from it ; and, of 
 those characters, which it had, the development Was, 
 by no means, so great and pronounced, as is now seen 
 in many of the varieties. 
 
 Darwin says, that so great has been the variation or 
 improvement, with the pigeon, that there are now not less 
 than one hundred and fifty distinct varieties, and sub- 
 varieties, descended from this original rock pigeon ! 
 The wing feathers, head feathers, and tail feathers, in 
 several varieties, have been greatly changed in char- 
 acter and size. The well known, well marked, up- 
 wardly expanded tail, which characterizes the variety, 
 
16 DARWIN'S THEORY. 
 
 known as the Fantail, has been developed, since the 
 bird was taken from a state of nature. The oesophagus 
 has attained an enormous size, in the Pouter. A sur- 
 prisingly large beak marks the Carrier. A great quan- 
 tity of eye wattle has arisen, and now adorns the 
 Barb. Divergent, and large feathers, along the front 
 of the neck and breast, have appeared, where not even 
 a ruffled feather was discernible before, and distin- 
 guish the Turbit. The Jacobin has the feathers so 
 much reversed, along the back of the neck, that they 
 form a hood. These feathers, also, are absent in the 
 common bird, as found under nature. Other varieties 
 have, proportionally to their size, much elongated, or 
 much shortened, heads, necks, legs, tails, wings, bodies ; 
 and the proportions of the several characters, have 
 been so much varied, that almost every possible ratio 
 of the development of the species' characters, is to be 
 found among the several varieties. As in the case of 
 other animals, even the bones, and the internal organs, 
 have experienced a marked change in size, number, 
 and other characters. 
 
 So great, in fact, has been the range of variation, in 
 this species, that, as Darwin truly remarks, a naturalist, 
 did he not know of the community of descent of these 
 varieties, would be induced to esteem many of them, 
 as distinct species, and a few of them, as even distinct 
 genera. 
 
 Judging merely by structural differences, and ignor- 
 ing the physiological effect which the development or 
 reduction of a character, has upon organisms, there 
 are many other varieties, under domestication, which 
 
DARWIN'S THEORY. 17 
 
 should be regarded as distinct species ; and, perhaps, 
 others which a person, so judging, would be not too 
 bold in accounting as belonging to different genera. 
 The argument of Darwin is, 
 
 " How possibly can there be fixed species, or immut- 
 able species, when the individuals, which represent 
 those species, vary and change so greatly ? A species 
 is made up of individuals ; and, when those individuals 
 change, the species, also, must necessarily change." 
 
 And, again, he argues, if difference in structural 
 build is what alone constitutes the distinction between 
 species, why, then, should not the great differences in 
 structural build, between varieties of what has hereto- 
 fore been known, or taken, to be one species, be taken 
 as specific distinctions ? 
 
 Having detailed, at large, these- facts of variation, 
 from which Darwin purposes to deduce his theory, the 
 necessity of some inquiry into the natural forces at 
 work in inducing these improvements, occurred to 
 Darwin. Some aspect of these variations — either 
 founded upon a scientific analysis of the phenomena, 
 or, else, gratuitously assumed — -had necessarily to be 
 taken for granted, as a basis for further research. The 
 question, for instance, whether these variations are 
 amenable to any limit ; the question, too, whether it be 
 legitimate to estimate the amount of improvement 
 possible to occur in millions of years, by means of these 
 variations, from the amount of development known to 
 have taken place during the last one hundred years ; 
 could not be resolved, unless some view was taken. 
 Darwin admits — aye, explicitly states — that he has not 
 
18 DARWIN'S THEORY. 
 
 made such an analysis ; but that he has gratuitously 
 assumed a view, the sole warrant of which, is, he 
 urges, that there is no reasonable, opposing view. He 
 candidly admits that he has made no scientific induc- 
 tion from the facts. He contents himself with the fact 
 alone that these improvements do arise. Conscious, 
 that such a treatment of this subject, at the very incep- 
 tion of his problem, is practically to limit all inquiry 
 at the point where the principles of the inductive phil- 
 .osoghy especially require an analysis, he concedes rhat 
 there must be a law governing them, but that it is 
 seemingly inscrutable ; and, all that he can say, on the 
 subject, is, that the reason animals and plants vary, or 
 improve, is because they are possessed of " an innate 
 tendency to vary," or because of a " spontaneous vari- 
 ability!" though this, he admits, "is wholly incorrect, 
 and only serves to show our ignorance of the cause of 
 each particular variation." 
 
 In science, in law, in the every day affairs of life, it 
 is fair to presume that, in the absence of all evidence, 
 or other presumption to the contrary, anything which 
 occurs regularly, or at frequent intervals, will ever con- 
 tinue so to recur. This presumption is a valid one, 
 always, if all the preceding points in the problem, of 
 which this presumption enters as an element, have been 
 resolved. If, however, there be an hiatus in the chain of 
 reasoning, anterior to the employment of this presump- 
 tion that things will ever continue as they have been, 
 the presumption is manifestly invalid. In Darwin's 
 problem, he would be fairly entitled to the presump- 
 tion, that, as variations have ever been occurring, under 
 
DARWIN'S THEORY. 19 
 
 domestication, they will ever so occur, if he had re- 
 solved the question of the law of variation, and the lazv 
 were silent on the subject of a limit. 
 
 Darwin, however, takes the fact, viz., that variations 
 do occur, and have occurred, in the past ; and holds 
 from this, that he is entitled to the presumption, that 
 these variations will go on forever, or, at least, indefi- 
 nitely. He reverses the usual canons- of logic; appeals 
 to his ignorance (!) of any law of variations ; and, 
 hence, to the absence of any such law, imposing a 
 limit to such variations ; and complacently assumes, 
 therefore, that there is no limit to variations. He turns 
 the logician's gun against the logician, albeit, most 
 absurdly ; and with charming simplicity, declares that 
 the assumption of any such limit is wholly gratuitous 
 — oblivious to the fact that, in the absence of knowl- 
 edge of the law of variation, his assumption of no- 
 limit is both illegitimate and gratuitous. Variation is 
 ever occurring, now, with all the animals and plants 
 under domestication ; and, therefore, the presumption 
 (Darwin holds) is a fair one, that in default of proof to 
 the contrary, those variations ever will occur. What 
 evidence, he triumphantly demands, is there to induce 
 a belief that there is a limit ? 
 
 Such proof to the contrary, it is the purpose of this 
 work to advance ; and full warrant for the belief that 
 there is such a limit, we shall adduce. 
 
 It is clear to the reader, that, if there is a law of 
 variation, and it should prescribe a limit, it is happily 
 for Darwin, and for his theory, that his " ignorance of 
 the law of variation" is so "profound." 
 
20 DARWIN'S THEORY. 
 
 Darwin, availing himself thus of the presumption of 
 no-limit (which, other things legitimate would be itself 
 legitimate) takes the fact, that, during a short period 
 under domestication, most numerous and important 
 improvements have sprung up, in animals and plants ; 
 and he concludes therefrom, that the species are not 
 immutable ; that varieties are but incipient species ; 
 that each and every species changes, with the changes 
 in the individuals of which it is composed ; and that, 
 given a sufficient length of time — he intimates several 
 millions of generations — it is quite probable, that, at 
 the same (or even greatly less) rate of improvement 
 now displayed under our very eyes, the higher forms 
 will go on progressing, and improving, into still higher 
 forms ; and that the lower forms will develop into the 
 higher forms : And that, as these changes of structure, 
 occurring now with each individual, are accumulated, 
 and made to form divergent varieties within each spe- 
 cies ; each variety of such species will further di- 
 verge into species, distinct from the parent species ; 
 and evolve, also, into other genera, families and 
 orders. 
 
 In other words, he concludes, from the progress 
 made with domesticated animals, that a variety of the 
 Duck species, for example, will diverge into several 
 distinct types, as high in the order of beings, as the 
 Fowl, the Goose, the Turkey,. the Peacock, the Con- 
 dor, and the Eagle ; and, that, there would be nothing 
 impossible, but rather probable, in the circumstance of, 
 another variety of the Duck diverging, successively, 
 into the Bat, the Flying-Squirrel, the Rabbit, the Pig, 
 
DARWIN'S THEORY. 21 
 
 the Cow, the Horse, the Tiger, the inevitable Monkey, 
 and into Man ! 
 
 This is his conclusion, from the facts of variation, 
 under domestication. This is his reasoning, viz., given, 
 the amount of improvement observed to occur during 
 the last hundred years; and, given, the preservation 
 and accumulation of these variations by Man's Selec- 
 tion, the evolution of any of the lower forms, into any 
 of the higher, is to be considered highly probable, 
 and consistent with all of the analogies of science. 
 
 There is no question, with a scientist, that, if his 
 reasoning holds good with the lower animals, it obtains 
 equally well with Man. 
 
 Darwin now draws an analogy, between animals and 
 
 plants under . domestication, and all organisms under 
 
 nature. He declares, and adduces some evidence in 
 
 support of his statement, that variations occur, also, 
 
 under nature. As then, he argues, it is possible for 
 
 such great advances in development, to take place in 
 
 the future, with respect to the domesticated organisms ; 
 
 so, it is likewise possible, and probable, that Nature 
 
 has, in the past, brought about similar results ; and 
 
 that such a progression, from simplicity to complexity 
 
 of structure, has been gradually going on, in the past 
 
 under nature, by means of accumulated variations, as 
 
 to have evolved the higher animals (including Man) 
 
 from the simplest type of structure ; or in Darwin's 
 
 own words, " that all the organic beings which have 
 
 lived on this earth, have descended from some one 
 
 primordial form into which life was first breathed." 
 
 It is here, at this point, that Darwin anticipates an 
 3 
 
22 DARWIN'S THEORY. 
 
 i 
 
 objection which was possible to be made to his theory 
 of development. His success in obviating this objec- 
 tion, constitutes his chief claim to the wide reputation 
 he now enjoys. 
 
 It was apparent, that, under nature, and even under 
 domestication, variability might be frequently displayed; 
 yet, if the varying individuals were not, in some way, 
 especially favored ; if there were no process or care 
 employed to fix, and preserve these slight appreciable 
 variations, as they arose, and render them permanent ; 
 the variations would appear, perhaps, in individuals ; 
 but, if those individuals had not a better chance, than 
 others, of leaving offspring ; or, if they intercrossed 
 with others displaying different modifications, or none ; 
 the variations most probably would not be transmitted, 
 nor would any increase in such modification, or any 
 divergence of character, result. Under domestication, 
 such a process, and such a care, is well known to 
 obtain. This process is Selection by Man. To this 
 we are greatly indebted, for the great amount of im- 
 provement, observable in our domestic animals and 
 plants. By this, the favorable modifications which 
 arise (genenally in very small increments of growth), 
 are preserved and accumulated ; and, by this means, is 
 the great divergence of character effected, in the 
 varieties of many different species. The modifications, 
 under domestication, are carefully looked for; and, 
 when they arise, are distributed to the different varie- 
 ties of the given species. Those varieties, which pre- 
 sent such marked divergence of character, within cer- 
 tain species, result from man's careful selection of those 
 
DARWIN'S THEORY. 23 
 
 individuals presenting any modification, or improve- 
 ment ; and from Man's judicious pairing of such indi- 
 viduals, with others with like variations. In this way, 
 the " tendency to vary," by being combined in pairs 
 which similarly vary, is strengthened, and fixed ; and 
 an increase in the quality and quantity of the modi- 
 fications, is insured in the offspring. 
 
 By this preservation, and accumulation, of slight, 
 successive, scarcely appreciable modifications, most dis- 
 tinct varieties are formed ; and great differences result, 
 between the individuals of the same species. Where- 
 as, if Man's intervention did not interpose, the individ- 
 uals of each of these species would all be of one, uni- 
 form character ; and the improvements which did arise, 
 would be sunk again, by the varying individuals' inter- 
 crossing with others, of the same species, which had no 
 like tendency to vary, or which had tendencies of growth, 
 perhaps, adverse to the continued development of the 
 said improvements. Under domestication, however, the 
 individuals, similarly varying, are interbred. Favora- 
 ble changes are noted by the breeder, or fancier ; care- 
 fully preserved ; and further developed, by the mating 
 of such individuals, with others displaying a tendency 
 to a like change of character. The individuals, which 
 display no variation, or which develop changes, or vari- 
 ations, which are not the recognized peculiarities of 
 their varieties, are neglected or suppressed. If this 
 process of Man's selection were not employed, those 
 individuals, not varying, being in the majority, would 
 most probably run out the varying ones, or completely 
 negative, or nullify, the tendency to vary, in others, by 
 
24 DARWIN'S THEORY. 
 
 intercrossing with them. Further: even if the "tend- 
 ency to vary" held its own, the species would probably 
 go on varying in one, only, line of growth. All the 
 features which now distinguish the different varieties, 
 would be suffered to develop themselves in each and 
 every variety, or individual ; and no diversity of char- 
 acter, such as is requisite to explain the great diversity 
 of forms under nature, would be displayed ; as it now 
 is, through means of Man's selection. Darwin requires 
 such divergence of character, in order to prove the 
 evolution of distinct species, one from another. Con- 
 vergence of character, however, would result, in the 
 absence of Selection; and the only effect of development 
 would be to produce, simply, a graduated series of 
 developments, from his first primordial form. When, 
 however, under domestication, each new character is 
 developed, it is allotted by the breeder or fancier, to a 
 certain variety, of which it is to form the distinguishing 
 characteristic. In each variety, therefore, especial and 
 exclusive attention is given to the development of the 
 character which constitutes the peculiarity, and the 
 other features which appear, are made to form the 
 peculiarities of the other varieties. In this way, by 
 not suffering all the characters which may arise, to be- 
 come developed in every individual or variety, but by 
 apportioning these characters among the several varie- 
 ties of the species, is the required divergence of char- 
 acter effected; and, thus, each variety becomes (as Dar- 
 win fancies), a point of divergence, from which similar, 
 multiplied divergences will also arise, from increased va- 
 riations, which again will be apportioned or distributed. 
 
DARWIN'S THEORY. 25 
 
 Thus, when any individual of the species, Pigeon, 
 displays the variation of the upwardly expanded tail, 
 it is then allotted to a variety, called the Fantail variety; 
 and suffered to be developed in that variety only. All 
 attempts, which individuals, of the other varieties, may 
 make to develop this feature, are discouraged ; and all 
 attempts, which any individuals, of this Fantail variety, 
 may make to develop 'any of the peculiarities of the 
 other varieties, are likewise baffled by the fancier. 
 Again; when an enlargement of the oesophagus 
 appears, it is allotted -to the Pouter variety of the 
 Pigeon ; and a similar policy of repression of erratic 
 individuals, is pursued. Individuals, presenting very 
 long beaks, are allotted to the Carrier variety. The 
 divergent feathers, along the front of the neck, and on 
 the breast, are developed in the Turbit only ; quantity 
 of eye-wattle, in the Barb ; and, reversed feathers, 
 along the back of the head, and on the neck, forming 
 a hood, in the Jacobin. Should any individual, of any 
 one of these varieties, evince an inclination to take 
 upon itself the peculiarity of any one of the other 
 varieties, that individual the fancier remorselessly and 
 systematically suppresses ; because the standard of 
 character, for each variety, must be maintained. By 
 the careful mating of those individuals, of a variety, 
 which develop the peculiarity of their variety, and 
 which also display no disposition to superadd the 
 peculiarities of other varieties, is this great divergence 
 of character effected, upon which Darwin relies to 
 show that these varieties are but incipient species, and 
 that they diverge by different lines of growth into dis- 
 3* 
 
26 DARWIN'S THEORY. 
 
 tinct species. Occasionally, when any individuals of 
 any variety, develop some new feature, not known to 
 any of the other varieties, they are taken from the 
 variety within which they have been before classed, and 
 placed within a new category, or variety, carefully 
 mated, and the accretions of growth, in the new direc- 
 tion, thereby preserved, accumulated, and fixed to a 
 certain persistency of type. 
 
 In this way, by Man's care and selection, has been 
 occasioned, and rendered possible, the great amount of 
 variation, which domestication has to show ; as, also, 
 the great divergence of character there seen. To 
 Darwin's course, in pursuing the analogy of variation 
 into the domain of nature,^ objection would have been 
 taken ; for, as it would have been said, even if varia- 
 tions did take place under nature, the improvements 
 could not have gone on accumulating to any extent, or 
 effecting any great divergence: of character ; by reason 
 of the fact, that these results: have been attained, under 
 domestication, only because Man's selection has guided 
 and fostered the irregular, and feeble action of varia- 
 tion. 
 
 To this, Darwin rejoins, by stating that there is, and 
 has been, in full and constant ' operation, under nature, 
 a process precisely analogous to Man's selection — a 
 process to the full as efficient, and quite competent 
 (given, a requisite allowance of time) to effect similar, 
 great results. This process is Darwin's much -vaunted 
 principle of Natural Selection. 
 
 This Natural Selection, or power of nature to select 
 the best of the individuals, of any species, for purposes 
 
DARWIN'S THEORY. 21 
 
 of breeding, Darwin infers from the Struggle for Exist- 
 ence which, he says, is, under nature, constantly carried 
 on, by all organisms, each with the others ; whereby 
 the weak succumb, and those which are the fittest, 
 strongest, and most vigorous survive. Besides the ; 
 selection of those which are the strongest, there will 
 also be a selection of those which display some new 
 modification ; and these mating with their fellow vic- 
 tors in the struggle for life, will attain, through their 
 offspring, to a higher and still higher development. 
 Conformably to the theory of Malthus, he contends, 
 that, under nature, the production of new organisms 
 far outruns the means of their subsistence ; that all 
 Nature is at war, one species with another, and the 
 individuals of the same species with each other. The 
 result of this Struggle 'for Existence, is Natural 
 Selection ; by which, the lucky and the stronger pre- 
 vail, and the weaker and ill-favored perish. As many 
 more individuals are born than can possibly survive, 
 those individuals which possess any variation which 
 contributes to give them an advantage in this warfare, 
 are, in the main, more likely to survive, to propagate, 
 and to occupy the places of their weaker brethren, 
 with their offspring. If but a single variation occurred 
 once in a thousand generations, says Darwin ; and that 
 variation were preserved by Natural Selection, until, at 
 the end of another thousand of generations, another 
 variation was superadded, the improvement and di- 
 versity of the species would, eventually, be such as to 
 occasion a divergence, by the different individuals fa- 
 vored, into distinct species. 
 
28 daewin's theory. 
 
 The question of the origination of these improve- 
 ments, or variations (which are modestly assumed to 
 occur but once in a thousand generations), is equally- 
 left unresolved by Darwin, and referred, as are the 
 variations under domestication, to "an innate ten- 
 dency to vary," or to " spontaneous variability !" 
 
 It is impossible to deny, that there is such a Struggle 
 for Existence, as Darwin pictures ; and, equally impos- 
 sible to deny, that there is some such process as 
 Natural Selection, in operation under nature, favoring 
 at times the preservation of the strongest and most 
 fitted. It is scarcely possible, even, to read Darwin's 
 graphic description of the Struggle for Existence, 
 among animals and plants, under nature, and not mar- 
 vel that any survived. Under nature, he says, organ- 
 isms are subjected to the greatest vicissitudes, and to 
 the severest competition with their fellows, with other 
 species, and with the adverse conditions of nature. 
 They all enter into competition, for the means of sub- 
 sistence. All, almost without exception, he says, have 
 to struggle against the hard conditions of life, and 
 against their competitors, from the moment of their 
 birth, to the hour of their death. * He alleges, that 
 there is no exception to the rule, that every organic 
 being naturally increases at so high a rate that, if num- 
 bers were not destroyed, the earth would soon be cov- 
 ered with the progeny of a single pair. The struggle, 
 he holds, will almost invariably be the most severe, 
 between the individuals of the same species ; for, they 
 frequent the sf me districts, require the same food, and 
 are exposed to the same dangers. Consequent upon 
 
DARWIN'S THEORY. - 29 
 
 the astonishingly great increase, is the Natural Extinc- 
 tion of large numbers. 
 
 Those whom nature exempts from this wholesale de- 
 struction, are naturally those which are the fittest to 
 live, the strongest, and most vigorous; and, notably, 
 those who "at intervals of a thousand generations" or 
 so, have developed some character, or modification, 
 which gives them an advantage, in the general contest 
 for life, over their competitors, and over the hard con- 
 ditions of life. 
 
 This selection, of the strongest and fittest, and of the 
 favorably modified organisms, as the ones of the num- 
 ber ordained to live, is what constitutes Darwin's 
 Natural Selection — a factor which depends necessarily 
 upon this Struggle for Existence. 
 
 Natural Selection has nothing whatever to do, Dar- 
 win says, with the production, or appearance, of any of 
 the variations or improvements. How any favorable 
 modification, or variation, comes to present itself, Dar- 
 win insists that he is profoundly ignorant. But, after 
 the variation has appeared, this Natural Selection 
 merely preserves it, insures its transmission to offspring, 
 and so accumulates successive variations which arise, 
 independently of it, owing to " an innate tendency." 
 Natural Selection, Darwin says, does not at all cause 
 the variations which may occur. Their origin is inex- 
 plicable to him, he says ; but, " it acts exclusively by 
 the preservation and accumulation of those variations 
 after they have arisen." Variations occur in some 
 strange way, by " accident or chance," independently 
 of Natural Selection, though so to refer them to acci- 
 
30 DARWIN'S THEORY. 
 
 dent or chance, is, he says, merely to express our 
 ignorance of the law. Natural Selection but preserves 
 and accumulates the variations as they arise, and 
 directs them into favorable lines of growth. "As all the 
 individuals- of each district are struggling together with 
 nicely balanced forces, extremely slight modifications 
 in the structure or habits of one individual often give 
 it an advantage over the others." And (what is part of 
 the same Natural Selection, called Sexual Selection), 
 were the individual varying, a male, the acquired modi- 
 fication would doubtless give it an advantage, in a 
 contest for the most favored, and, perhaps, similarly 
 varying, females; and, thereby, the modification ac- 
 quired, would be the more surely impressed upon the 
 offspring. In "several thousand generations," or a 
 "million of generations," one of the descendants of 
 this offspring would, probably, also vary, adding thus 
 another character to the complexity of its structure. 
 
 As, under domestication, Man's care and choice of 
 those animals and plants, displaying some improve- 
 ment, tends to the preservation and accumulation of 
 the characters presenting themselves, and assures the 
 transmission of those characters to offspring; so, this 
 Selection by Nature, of the favorably modified animals 
 and plants, as among those which are suffered to sur- 
 vive and propagate their kind, represents the same 
 principle. 
 
 "Can it be thought improbable," says Darwin, "see- 
 ing 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, 
 
DARWIN'S THEORY. 31 
 
 should sometimes occur in the course of thousands of 
 generations? If such variations do occur, can we doubt 
 (remembering that many more individuals are born 
 than can possibly survive), that individuals, having an 
 advantage, however slight, oyer others, would have the 
 best chance of surviving and procreating their kind?" 
 "If," he continues, "a man can, by patience, select 
 variations useful to him, why, under changing and 
 complex conditions of life, should not variations, use- 
 ful to nature's living products, often arise and be pre- 
 served and selected?" 
 
 Darwin asks, " What limit can be put to this power, 
 acting during long ages, and rigidly scrutinizing the 
 whole constitution, structure, and habits of each crea- 
 ture — favoring the good and rejecting the bad?" "I 
 can see no limit to this power, in slowly and beautifully 
 adapting each form to the most complex relations of 
 life." 
 
 "Selection," continues Darwin, "will pick out, with 
 unerring skill, each improvement. Let this process go 
 on for millions of years, and may we not have a low 
 primordial type" continuing to evolve into higher and 
 still higher forms of life, until, at last, as the result of 
 this "innate tendency to vary," producing improve- 
 ments, and of this Natural Selection preserving these 
 improvements,, all of the higher animals, including 
 Man, are successively evolved, by the gradual opera- 
 tion of strictly natural processes? In this way, Dar- 
 win contends, the present development, and diversity 
 of structure, of the several species, have been effected; 
 and in this way "some one low primordial form into 
 
32 DARWIN'S THEORY. 
 
 which life was first breathed,'' and its descendants, 
 have been gradually and variously developed, and differ- 
 entiated, through all intervening species, into the mon- 
 key, and thence, by an easy transition, into Man ! 
 
 The above is a fair statement of Darwin's theory. 
 Condensed, it may be thus stated: Variations, or 
 improvements, or slight, successive advances from sim- 
 plicity to greater complexity of structure, have, owing to 
 an " innate tendency to vary," occurred with animals 
 and plants, under domestication. Similar, inexplicable 
 modifications may have occurred (and some warrant 
 for this assumption is furnished) with animals and 
 plants, in the state of nature. Under domestication, 
 Man's Selection has so accumulated, and directed these 
 variations or improvements, that, at the same rate of 
 progression from simplicity to complexity of structure, 
 the higher species may continue to improve indefi- 
 nitely, and each of the lower species may continue to 
 improve into other species, genera, families and orders, 
 as high as the highest in the existing scale of develop- 
 ment. By analogy with domestication, the same pro- 
 gression, or evolution, may be 'said to have occurred 
 in the past under nature; and it is possible, if not 
 probable, that man, and all other animals, have evolved, 
 by means of these inexplicable variations, and with the 
 aid of the process of Natural Selection, from the low- 
 est type of organic structure. 
 
 There is — dove-tailed within this theory of the evo- 
 lution of the species — another theory with which 
 Darwin supplements his main argument. It is, that, 
 besides an advance in development, by means of the 
 
DARWIN'S THEORY. 33 
 
 slight successive, positive variation, there has been a 
 prodigious amount of degeneration, during the past, 
 under nature. Natural Selection has very frequently 
 simplified and degraded the structure of animals and 
 plants. 
 
 So widespread, Darwin says, has been this degenera- 
 tion, under nature, that there exists now scarcely a 
 single species which has not lost some organs or 
 features. 
 
 From changed habits of life, and from the hard 
 conditions of the Struggle for Existence — which needs 
 must be excessively vigorous to give play to Natural 
 Selection — organs, he says, have become of less and 
 less use, and ultimately superfluous; and disuse, and 
 Natural Extinction, acting on the individuals, have 
 gone on reducing the organs, until, finally, they have 
 either become wholly suppressed, leaving not a vestige 
 of their existence (save the power of reappearing 
 which, he says, they are ever competent to do, even 
 after having lain latent for millions of generations); 
 or, they have become only greatly reduced, having the 
 character of rudiments. 
 
 With respect to this power of Reversion, in the 
 many long-lost characters ; he says, that characters, 
 proper to both sexes, to both the right and left side of 
 the body, and to a long line of male and female ances- 
 tors, separated by hundreds, or even thousands of gen- 
 erations from the present time, frequently lie latent in 
 many individuals, without our being able to detect any 
 signs of their presence; yet that "these characters, 
 like those written on paper with invisible ink, all lie" 
 
34 daewin's theory. 
 
 ever "ready to be evolved, under certain known, or 
 unknown conditions;" and, of the many variations 
 which he adduces, fully nine-tenths are by him explic- 
 itly referred to the mere re-appearance of these long 
 lost characters. Of the cause of the appearance of 
 the other tithe, he says that he is in "profound ig- 
 norance." 
 
CHAPTER II. 
 
 Darwin's Ignorance of the Law of Variations ; and his 
 False Assumption of no Limit to Improvements. 
 
 After Darwin had adduced his facts, of the improve- 
 ments among animals and plants, the next step which 
 it behooved him to take, before he assumed that there ' 
 was no-limit to such improvements, was to generalize " 
 those facts; to develop their cause; to discover the 
 law, governing the appearance of the variations; and 
 ' to ascertain, whether such law fixed a limit to such, 
 variations, or was silent on the subject. If, when dis- 
 covered, the law assigned a limit to the improvements* 
 in each species, then, manifestly, no theory of the 
 indefinite accumulation of such variations, would be"~ 
 possible. If, however, the law, when resolved, were to 
 imply that such variations were possible to be carried ■ 
 on to an unlimited extent; or, even if the law were, 
 silent on the subject; no exception to the principal pos- • 
 tulate of Darwinism (viz., unlimited improvement)' 
 could be taken. 
 
 But, while the cause, or law, of the improvements, 
 remained unresolved, it was evident, that any theory, 
 based upon such improvements, must needs be illegiti- 
 mate ; not necessarily false, but illegitimate, inasmuch 
 
 as the assumption of a limit, or the assumption of 
 
 (35) 
 
36 LAW OF VARIATIONS. 
 
 no-limit, in any theory, would be not only gratuitous, 
 but also in plain derogation of that canon of the 
 inductive philosophy, which enjoins that no principle 
 whatever shall be reasoned from, until_ it first shall 
 have been reasoned to. 
 
 The question, therefore, of the cause, or law of the 
 improvements, is the point where Darwin's claim to 
 the title of a Baconian philosopher should have been 
 made good. A theory, which is to illustrate the sig- 
 nal triumph which "modern thought" has achieved 
 over the ignorance of nineteen centuries, should stand 
 upon a principle, which is as a buttress of adamant, 
 against every assault, — not upon a gratuitous assump-. 
 tion formulated in the teeth of the fact that the law of 
 its data, is yet unresolved; and despite the circum- 
 stance (which we shall develop most clearly), that those' 
 data conclusively negative such assumption. N . 
 
 What is the law of Variation ? What is the cause 
 of the improvements ? 
 
 Darwin says, the reason that animals and plants 
 vary, and improve, is because they possess " an innate 
 tendency" to vary and improve ! 
 
 This assumption of his, is a barren, metaphysical 
 entity, which, by the concurring testimony of every 
 inductive philosopher, from the time of Bacon down to 
 the present, suffices to vitiate, and wholly invalidate 
 every hypothesis in which it is present. In his "Ani- 
 mals and Plants under Domestication]' and in his "Ori- 
 gin of Species]' he generalizes, and explains (!) the 
 facts of variation, by ascribing them to "an innate, „ 
 tendency," to " spontaneous or accidental variability," 
 
LAW OF VARIATIONS. 31 
 
 to "an innate tendency," to "the. nature asid constitu- 
 tion of the being which varies," and, in numerous 
 other portions of his works, to the same " innate ten- 
 dency," variedly paraphrased. 
 
 This is the way in which Darwin resolves the 
 problem of the cause, or law, of improvements, in 
 order to see whether they are amenable, or not, to any 
 limit. This is the manner in which Darwinism stands 
 the test of the principal canon of the inductive philoso- 
 phy. This " innate tendency " it is, which serves for a 
 foundation stone to his theory; — a foundation upon 
 which every subsequent assumption and deduction of 
 his, depends for its strength and validity. This is the 
 outcome of his peculiar, inductive reasoning : Ani- ■ 
 mals and Plants vary, because they have an innate 
 tendency to vary ! A miserable, farcical assumption,, 
 which is naught but a restatement of the phenomena 
 to be explained. The foundation of a theory, such as 
 Darwin's, fraught as it would be, if true, with conse- 
 quences of such moment, ought to be as incontestably 
 established, as the most positive principle within the 
 realm of science. It is not the mere failure to account 
 for phenomena, to which exception is taken. Such 
 failure may well characterize any fair and legitimate 
 hypothesis or theory. But, it is the failure, the signal 
 and avowed failure, to account for phenomena which 
 lie at the very start of the inquiry, and upon which 
 the whole of the superstructure rests for support. 
 Before men should be asked to forswear their past 
 impression of the descent of Man, and required to 
 
 admit (under pain of ostracism from the ranks of the 
 4* 
 
38 LAW OF VAEIATIONS. 
 
 learned and scientific), that their derivation is as Dar- 
 win would have it, they, beyond question, are entitled 
 to have the ground alleged in support of such an 
 hypothesis, formed of something more substantial 
 than such flimsy material as an " innate tendency." 
 Even though the consequences of the theory were 
 comparatively of no moment whatever, it might well 
 be required in the name of science, and of common 
 sense, that the base of the theory — the base especially 
 — should present at least some semblance of solidity. 
 Most assuredly — even though there were no law, yet 
 discovered, which governed the facts of variation, and 
 though there were no converse theory deducible from 
 that law — Darwin would be bound to find a law of 
 variation, or frame some legitimate induction, before 
 he could rightly mount one step higher in his theory. 
 It is not, merely, because there is a known, scientific 
 law governing variations, nor because there is a con- 
 verse theory of development, resting on that law, that 
 Darwin's passing by the facts of variations, with a 
 mere ascription of them to " an innate tendency," is to 
 be deemed unscientific and illegitimate. Those are 
 reasons, to the treatment of which we have not yet 
 come. They are over and beyond the point of the 
 intrinsic illegitimacy of Darwin's first assumption. 
 Darwin's process would be unscientific, and Darwin's 
 theoiy would be wholly illegitimate, if there were no 
 explanation, of variation, known ; and, if science gave, 
 at present, not the faintest glimmering of a promise of 
 one. It may be demurred, that the foundation of 
 Darwin's theory is found in the facts of variation. 
 
LAW OF VARIATIONS. 39 
 
 Not to quibble and say that the facts and the theory- 
 are altogether two different things ; it may be admitted, 
 that the facts are a foundation; but, between those 
 facts and Darwin's theory, there is no connection, no 
 intervening support for the superstructure of the 
 theory. A wide hiatus yawns between. 
 
 The inductive method, of which Darwin's theory 
 has been lauded to the skies, as the bright exemplar, 
 has, in this ascription of the facts of variation, to an 
 "innate tendency," been ruthlessly violated. That 
 method forbids any principle to be taken for granted 
 (save in a merely tentative hypothesis, avowedly tenta- 
 tive) : or assumed at all, unless it represents truly the 
 resolution of the unknown into the known. Thus, 
 had Darwin conceived some law which he fancied 
 governed variations, he might, tentatively only, have 
 assumed it, though the evidence^ in support of it were 
 very inadequate. But, merely to formulate his ignor- 
 ance, in some set expression, as he has done, is grossly 
 illegitimate, and never tolerated, when the canons of 
 science are held in any esteem. Had his " innate ten- 
 dency," not been a mere formula for his ignorance, but 
 a hypothesis; to reason downwards, from such an 
 assumption, which had not withstood all the tests of 
 induction, would have been to violate the veiy spirit 
 and letter of the scientific method. This method will 
 concede nothing, but insists upon first reasoning 
 upwards ; and scoffs at the idea that any theory can be 
 scientific, when based upon a principle which has not 
 complied with the requirements of proof. Yet, Dar- 
 win violates all science, by perpetrating something 
 
40 LAW OP VARIATIONS. 
 
 infinitely worse: He reasons downwards from his 
 ignorance! which, avowedly, is the first term in his 
 theory. 
 
 He says that he does not know the cause of varia- 
 tions — the law to which his data conform! He, 
 further, tacitly deprecates all inquiry into the legiti- 
 macy of his' methods, and requires that all should 
 accept his metaphysical formula of confessed ignorance, 
 as matter of necessary belief. Such devices, the advo- 
 cates of the scientific method say, they leave to tricky 
 metaphysicians, with which to beguile the ignorant and 
 superstitious. Yet, this vaunted champion of the in- 
 ductive method, confesses that his first assumption (or 
 apology therefor) in a theory which essays to revo- 
 lutionize all preconceived ideas of the origin and 
 dignity of the human race, cannot satisfy the require- 
 ments of inductive or scientific thought; but, that he 
 is constrained, at the very outset of such theory, to 
 deal with his subject on transcendental grounds only. 
 He himself tacitly concedes, in a mild deprecating 
 way, that the very base of his theory is sapped, if any 
 one be so unkind as to take exception to his first 
 assumption of ignorance; and intimates, in a mode 
 little short of explicit expression (aye, directly states) 
 that the sole strength of his theory lies in an assumed 
 agreement between his deductions from this principle 
 of ignorance, and the phenomena in hand. You may 
 read between the lines that he hopes this fancied agree- 
 ment may atone for his gross violation, at the start, of 
 the canons of science. 
 
 We say fancied agreement; and such it is. For, he, 
 
LAW OP VARIATIONS. 41 
 
 in illustrating the many phenomena of variation, has 
 adduced a multitude of facts, showing reversion, cor- 
 relation, crossing, close interbreeding, reproduction, 
 and generation; yet the reader, the breeder, the fancier, 
 the horticulturist, the agriculturist will look in vain to 
 find any one of the facts under either of these heads, 
 explained, or the law of their operation resolved. His 
 theory is confessedly incompetent to explain any of 
 the facts, while numbers of them are irreconcilably at 
 variance with his theory. The sum of his knowledge 
 of them all and each is that they are "peculiar." The 
 facts of variation are "peculiar." The facts of cross- 
 ing are "peculiar." The facts of close interbreeding 
 are "peculiar," the facts of correlation are "peculiar," 
 and the facts of generation are "peculiar." 
 On page 327, Origin of Species, he says : 
 
 " How ignorant we are of the precise causes of 
 sterility:" and, again, "in the presence of all the phe- 
 nomena" (of crossing and close interbreeding) "we 
 must feel how ignorant we are, and how little likely it 
 is that we should understand why certain forms are 
 fertile, and other forms are sterile when crossed." On 
 p. 330, he speaks of " how entirely ignorant we are on 
 the causes of both fertility and sterility." And of the 
 phenomena of Correlation, he says, "this is a very 
 important subject" (p. 170, Origin of Species) "most 
 imperfectly understood." And "the nature of the 
 bond of Correlation" (p. 171, Origin of Species) "is 
 very frequently quite obscure." 
 
 On p. 231, Vol. 2, he says, of the phenomena of 
 Crossing and close interbreeding : 
 "We are far from precisely knowing the cause; nor 
 
42 LAW OF VARIATIONS. 
 
 is this surprising seeing how profoundly ignorant we 
 are in regard to the normal and abnormal action of the 
 reproductive organs." 
 
 He might, with equal propriety, say (and actually 
 does say it), " seeing how profoundly ignorant " he is, 
 respecting every one of the 100,000 facts of which he 
 treats — how profoundly ignorant he is of variation, of 
 reversion, of correlation, of crossing, &c. His ignor- 
 ance of the cause of crossing, and of close interbreed- 
 ing, is not near so surprising as is his temerity, in 
 endeavoring to teach breeders that they are only well 
 developed ourang outangs, when he confesses he can- 
 not inform them of the cause of any of the phenomena 
 with which they are meeting every day of their lives. 
 
 His inability, however, to explain these facts, does 
 not necessarily vitiate his theory, as does his inability 
 to give the explanation, or the law, of variation. For 
 in the former case, he simply knows not how to explain 
 the facts; but, in the latter case, he is ignorant of the 
 law to which his data conform. He appears, through- 
 out his works, to plead most pathetically with his 
 readers (and all who are conversant with science, and 
 with his theory, know full well that he has ample 
 occasion to do so), to be so kind as not to be too 
 exacting at the start; and kindly to shut their eyes to 
 the circumstance that he is reasoning, not to a first prin- 
 ciple, but from his ignorance ! He also appears to plead 
 with his readers to be considerately blind to the cir- 
 cumstance, that, in default of any resolution of the law 
 of variations, he is is not entitled to the presumption 
 that they go on forever. 
 
LAW OP VARIATIONS. 43 
 
 He actually endeavors to make a potent factor out 
 of his own ignorance. For, he appeals to his ignor- 
 ance of any law of variation (therefore, of any law 
 imposing a limit to variation), in justification of his 
 gratuitous assumption of No Limit to Variation. 
 
 We do not wish to be understood, as alleging that 
 Darwin, when he assumes this occult quality, this, mys- 
 terious force which manifests itself in the organism 
 which varies, or this " innate tendency," really affects 
 to explain the phenomena by means of such entity. 
 He confesses (how frankly, we do not know) that this 
 "innate tendency" is the mere symbol of his ignorance 
 of the cause, or law of variation. He stops, for a 
 moment, occasionally to meet the inquiry, of what is 
 the cause of these improvements which arise, and says : 
 
 " We can only attribute them to spontaneous or 
 accidental variability, or as due to chance. This, how- 
 ever, is a supposition wholly incorrect and only serves 
 to indicate plainly our ignorance of the cause of each 
 particular variation." 
 
 Again, he says (p. 195, Origin of Species): 
 
 "Our ignorance of the law of variation is profound." 
 " Not in one case out of a hundred can we pretend to 
 assign any reason why this or that differs, more or less, 
 from the same part in the parent." 
 
 Again, he says (p. 157, Origin of Species'): 
 
 " I have hitherto sometimes spoken as if the varia- 
 tions — so common and multiform in organic beings 
 under domestication, and, in a lesser degree, in those 
 in a state of nature — had been due to chance. This, 
 of course, is a wholly incorrect expression, but it serves 
 to acknowledge plainly our ignorance of the cause of 
 
44 LAW OF VARIATIONS. 
 
 each particular variation. * * * Why because the 
 reproductive system is disturbed, this or that part 
 should vary more or less, we are profoundly ignorant. 
 Nevertheless, we can here and there dimly catch a faint 
 ray of light, and we may feel sure that there must be 
 some cause for each deviation of structure, however 
 slight." 
 
 Not so much even as a guess lies at the foundation 
 of his theory. 
 
 No wonder that he says, respecting his theory (p. 
 199, Origin of Species) : 
 
 " A crowd of difficulties will have occurred to the 
 reader. Some of them are so serious that to this day 
 I can hardly reflect on them without being staggered." 
 
 Page 300, Vol. ii. 
 
 " Throughout this chapter and elsewhere I have 
 spoken of selection as the paramount power, yet its 
 action absolutely depends on what we, in our ignor- 
 ance, call spontaneous or accidental variability." 
 
 After speaking of those authors who attribute varia- 
 tion to what are manifestly but the conditions of varia- 
 tion, such as "an excess of food," "the amount of 
 exercise taken," and "a more genial climate," he says: 
 
 " But we must, I think, take a broader view, and 
 conclude that organic beings, when subjected during 
 several generations to any change whatever in their 
 conditions, tend to vary (sic); the kind of varying 
 which ensues depends in a far higher degree on the 
 nature or constitution of the being than on the nature 
 of the changed conditions." 
 
 Page 302, Vol. ii. 
 
 " We will now consider, as far as we can, the causes 
 
LAW OF VARIATIONS. 45 
 
 of the almost universal variability of our domestic 
 productions. The subject is an obscure one; but it 
 may be useful to probe our ignorance." 
 
 It is impossible for Darwin to take refuge behind any 
 presumption, that the facts of variation are ultimate in 
 their character, that they are inscrutable, and that 
 therefore it is no reproach to him, or to his theory, 
 that he has not generalized the facts ; for, he precludes 
 himself from the adoption of any such subterfuge by 
 averring that " a cause for each variation must exist." 
 
 Thus, the base of Darwin's theory is ignorance ! 
 
 It is true, that here and there, throughout his works, 
 he seemingly endeavors to convey the impression, that 
 the facts of variation are ultimate, and even forgets 
 himself so far, in his work on Animals and Plants 
 Under Domestication, as to assert that the problem of 
 the cause of variations is " a difficulty as insoluble as 
 is that of free will and predestination." (P. 516, Vol. 
 ii, Animals and Plants, &c.) 
 
 It must be an occasion, for surprise, to the reader, 
 that such an all important matter, as the cause or the 
 law of the improvements, arising all around us, should 
 receive the scant treatment of only a few sentences, 
 scattered here and there, through Darwin's works. 
 One would have thought that the great multitude of 
 facts which he has collated, would have furnished, at 
 least, a clue which the author might have wrought 
 into some conjecture as to the law. He has several 
 chapters on what he terms " The Causes of Variability," 
 which might mislead his readers, if he did not, in the 
 most explicit terms, state that these "causes" are hot 
 
46 LAW OF VARIATIONS. 
 
 causes at all, but merely the physical conditions of 
 variability ; and that they do not come under the cate- 
 gory of laws or causes, in that higher sense in which 
 the terms indicate a discovered method, under which 
 natural forces are observed to work. He avers also 
 that he would be " a bold man," who would esteem 
 these physical conditions as of any account, in induc- 
 ing variation, " in comparison with the nature or con- 
 stitution of the being which varies." 
 
 The surprise, of the reader, however, at this neglect 
 by Darwin of such an important inquiry, would doubt- 
 less much abate, were he to scan closely Darwin's 
 facts, and have to confront him, a well known factor of 
 development, which, upon Darwin's own showing, and 
 own admission, fully explains every improvement 
 which arises ; but which, it was antecedently improba- 
 ble, should find favor in the sight of Darwin, because 
 that factor unequivocally negatives, and refutes Dar- 
 win's next, succeeding, and indispensable assumption, 
 viz., that these improvements go on forever, or indefi- 
 nitely. The discovery of this factor or law, might 
 suggest to the reader, that Darwin, in being so com- 
 placently content with his ignorance of any cause for 
 variation, was governed by the fear, that, if he evinced 
 any great solicitude to find a cause, the cause might be 
 only too ready in forthcoming, to the signal discom- 
 fiture both of himself and of his theory. 
 
 Darwin's " innate tendency," is postulated, and the 
 ignorance, for which this " innate tendency " is confess- 
 edly the mere symbol, is assumed, in wanton deroga- 
 tion, and disregard, of a known, scientific law which 
 
LAW OE VARIATIONS. 41 
 
 explains all the facts of variation, or of improvement, 
 in animals and plants. The cause, or law, of variations 
 and improvements, is not wrapped in such mystery 
 as Darwin asserts it to be. The explanation of the 
 improvements is to be found in his most prominent 
 factor, Reversion; or the law of the regain of positive 
 characters, or organs, once lost by ancient progenitors 
 of the given species. 
 
 This law settles the question as to whether there is 
 a limit to the improvements. This known scientific 
 law explaining variations, imposes a definite limit to 
 such variations, and thereby effectively disposes of 
 Darwin's whole theory, which lays claim to being a 
 probable hypothesis, only in the event of those improve- 
 ments proceeding forever, or indefinitely. Not only is 
 the origin of the improvements, as they occur, under 
 domestication, and under nature, explained by this law 
 of the regain of long lost characters of the respective 
 species, but a full, qualitative, and quantitative analysis 
 of the operation of those improvements after they have 
 arisen is rendered possible; and the phenomena of 
 crossing, of close interbreeding, of correlation, and of 
 generation, in each and several of their many and 
 diverse manifestations, are equally explicable, upon this 
 assumption, viz., that the reason why individuals of any 
 species improve, is because their ancient progenitors 
 have under nature, in the struggle for existence, degen- 
 erated ; and have lost, or had reduced, those features 
 and organs which, now, when favorable conditions are 
 supplied, reappear. 
 
CHAPTER III. 
 
 The Variations, or Improvements, in each Species, Lim- 
 ited in Number and Kind to the Number and Kind 
 of the Characters previously Lost by such Species, 
 under Nature : or, the Law of Reversion. 
 
 There is no principle, or law, in the whole domain of 
 Natural Histoiy, which Darwin so conclusively estab- 
 lishes, and which is attested by such a multitude of 
 proofs, as what is known as the law of positive Rever- 
 sion ; or, the principle that each species, under nature, 
 has suffered greatly from the effects of the Struggle for 
 Existence, and has lost many characters, features or 
 organs; and that when, as under domestication, the 
 conditions of the individuals' environment are propi- 
 tious, those lost characters, features, and organs reap- 
 pear. 
 
 This law militates against the hypothesis of Dar- 
 winism, in two ways, First, a converse theory is 
 deducible therefrom, which explains all of the phe- 
 nomena, and so apportions the facts among Darwin's 
 scientific factors, as to preclude the necessity of referring 
 any of them to such confessedly objectionable entities 
 as an "innate tendency," "a spontaneous variability," 
 "a law of nature," "vital force," "nature and constitu- 
 tion of the being,' 7 etc. Second, this law conclusively 
 
 negatives Darwin's gratuitous assumption, that varia- 
 (48) 
 
VARIATIONS, DUE TO REVERSION. 49 
 
 tions, or improvements, may go on forever, or indefi- 
 nitely; and shows that there exists a limit, within each 
 species, to the amount of improvement of which its 
 individuals are susceptible. 
 
 Darwin, in treating of this law of reversion, ascribes 
 to it the appearance of nearly every improvement under 
 domestication. Almost every character, and organ, 
 which has been developed, under man's care, and 
 ■ those which have arisen induced only by the presence 
 of favorable conditions of growth, he says, were once 
 in some period past, in a perfect state, and fully devel- 
 oped in some remote ancestor; that, owing to adverse 
 conditions, under nature, those characters and organs 
 had become either wholly lost, or partially reduced; 
 that those characters and organs lay latent, during the 
 long interval, ready ever to be evolved again, whenever 
 the favorable conditions, essential to their growth, were 
 restored; and that their reappearance, under domesti- 
 cation, is due to this capacity of reversion, which resides 
 in every individual whose structure has been impaired. 
 Almost every feature, which has appeared under domes- 
 tication, he, in detail, ascribes to the mere reappearance 
 of some character, once lost by an ancient progenitor. 
 So widespread, he asserts, has been the degeneration 
 under nature, that there exists scarcely a single species 
 which has not lost some organs or features. He asserts 
 that characters which have been lost, may lie in the 
 organisms, either in a rudimentary state, or with not a 
 trace of them discernible; and do so lie, for thousands 
 and millions of generations, with their power of rever- 
 sion, or of re-development, undiminished; that, when 
 5* 
 
50 
 
 the individuals of any species, so deprived of some of 
 its characters, are placed under domestication, or under- 
 other propitious surroundings, these characters not only 
 may, but do reappear, and resume in a greater or lesser 
 degree, the perfectly developed condition in which they 
 were, originally. He actually shows, whilst affecting 
 profound ignorance of the cause of variation, that the 
 features and organs which were lost by each species 
 under nature, are more than sufficient, in both number 
 and kind, to account for all of the improvements which 
 appear in such species under domestication, or which 
 may appear under nature. 
 
 Any doubts, which may arise, in the reader's mind, 
 as to whether Darwin has been truly represented in this 
 connection, will assuredly be dissipated by the follow- 
 ing copious and telling extracts, from Darwin's "Origin 
 of Species," and from his "Animals and Plants Under 
 Domestication." 
 
 With respect to past degeneration, or the loss of char- 
 acters, and to present Reversion, or the regain of such 
 lost characters, Darwin says (p. 1 26, Origin of Species) : 
 
 " Characters reappear after having been lost for many 
 generations." 
 
 " Organs in a rudimentary condition, plainly show 
 that an early progenitor had the organ, in a fully devel- 
 oped state; and this, in some instances, implies an 
 enormous amount of modification in the descendants " 
 (p. 572, Origin of Species). 
 
 "With species, under a state of nature, rudimentary 
 organs are so extremely common, that scarcely one 
 species can be mentioned which is wholly free from a 
 
VARIATIONS, DUE TO REVERSION. 51 
 
 blemish of this nature" (p. 381, Vol. ii, Animals and 
 Plants, &c). 
 
 Why should there be any mystery about the cause 
 of variations, or improvements? In the second ex- 
 tract above, he asserts that these rudimentary organs 
 plainly show, that an early progenitor had the organs 
 in a fully developed state. In the last quotation, he 
 says - that, of species in a state of nature, there is 
 scarcely one which has not these suppressed organs. 
 Will not these assertions of his, cover and explain 
 every favorable or positive variation which has arisen, 
 or which may arise, under domestication, or under 
 nature? When the animal or plant is placed under 
 domestication, it improves solely by reason of the re- 
 development of reduced, or suppressed organs. Ac- 
 cording to Darwin's own showing, each species is 
 imperfect when taken from a state of nature; and, 
 therefore, it is, that it possesses a certain margin for 
 improvement. Within this margin, Man's care and 
 selection are operative. No greater complexity of 
 structure is ever acquired by an individual under 
 domestication, than that which its species once lost. 
 If any great variation, or change, has taken place 
 under nature, this assertion of Darwin, viz., of the im- 
 perfection of each species, shows that such variation, 
 or such change, has not, as he contends, been in the 
 direction of increase of development; but, rather, in 
 the direction of decrease, of degeneration, of devolu- 
 tion, instead of evolution. Indeed, the very condi- 
 tions, under which he represents his Natural Selec- 
 tion as operating, imply degeneration, rather than any 
 
52 
 
 advance in development. The loss of characters, under 
 nature, explains the appearance of characters under 
 domestication. The reduction of characters under 
 nature, explains the improvement of characters under 
 domestication. When the characters, lost under nature, 
 are regained under domestication, Darwin absurdly 
 argues that, because a certain number of characters 
 have appeared within a certain time, he need only 
 multiply such number of characters, by any given 
 time, to ascertain the number which is possible to 
 be acquired: Whereas, the fact is, the number of 
 characters possible to be acquired, within any species, 
 is not dependent upon any estimate of time, or of se- 
 lection, but upon the number of the characters which 
 have been lost by such species. 
 
 Continuing his remarks, respecting these rudimen- 
 tary organs, he says : 
 
 " Such organs are generally variable, as several nat- 
 uralists have observed ; for being useless, they are. not 
 regulated by Natural Selection ; and they are more or 
 less liable to reversion. The same rule certainly holds 
 good with parts which have become rudimentary under 
 domestication. We do not know through what steps 
 under nature, rudimentary organs have passed in being 
 reduced to their present condition; but we so inces- 
 santly see, in species of the same group, the finest 
 gradations between an organ, in a rudimentaiy and (in 
 a) perfect state, that we are led to believe that the pas- 
 sage must have been extremely gradual. It may be 
 doubted whether a change of structure, so abrupt as 
 the sudden loss of an organ, would ever be of service 
 to a species in a state of nature; for, the conditions to 
 which all organisms are closely adapted, usually change 
 
VARIATIONS, DUE TO REVERSION. 53 
 
 very slowly. Even if an organ did suddenly disappear 
 in some one individual, by an arrest of development, 
 intercrossing with other individuals of the same species, 
 would cause it to reappear in a more or less perfect 
 manner, so that its final reduction could only be effected 
 by the slow process of continued disuse or natural selec- 
 tion. It is much more probable that, from changed 
 habits, of life, organs first become of less and less use, 
 and ultimately superfluous; or their place may be sup- 
 plied by some other organ; and then disuse, acting on 
 the offspring through inheritance at corresponding pe- 
 riods of life, would go on reducing the organ; but as 
 most organs could be of no use at an early embryonic 
 period, they would not be affected by disuse ; conse- 
 quently, they would be preserved at this stage of 
 growth, and would remain as rudiments." 
 
 Again on page 353, Vol. ii, Animals and Plants, &c, 
 he says: 
 
 " With domesticated animals, the reduction of a part, 
 from disuse, is never carried so far that a mere rudi- 
 ment is left; but we have good reason to believe that 
 this has often occurred under nature. * * * Struc- 
 tures which are rudimentary in the parent-species, be- 
 come partially re-developed in their domesticated prog- 
 eny. * * * They are of interest, as showing that 
 rudiments are the relics of organs once perfectly de- 
 veloped." 
 
 "With Plants, the position of the flowers on the 
 axis, and of the seed in the capsules, sometimes leads, 
 through a freer flow of sap, to changes of structure ; 
 but these changes are often due to reversion." 
 
 " Domesticated races, descended from the same spe- 
 cies, are liable to revert to characters derived from their 
 common progenitor." 
 
 " Every one would wish to explain to himself, even 
 
54 VARIATIONS, DUE TO REVERSION. 
 
 in an imperfect manner, how it is possible for a charac- 
 ter possessed by some remote ancestor, to reappear in 
 the offspring." (P. 428, Vol.. ii, Animals and Plants, &c.) 
 
 " I have stated that the most probable hypothesis to 
 account for the reappearance of very ancient charac- 
 ters, is, that there is a tendency in the young of each 
 successive generation, to produce the long-lost charac- 
 ters ; and that this tendency, from some unknown cause, 
 sometimes prevails." 
 
 " It would be difficult to name one of the higher 
 animals, in which some organ is not in a rudimentary 
 condition." (P. 353, Origin of Species) 
 
 By this, of course, he means " an organ which has 
 been perfectly developed in some remote ancestor," 
 and subequently suppressed. When, however, he is 
 treating of variations which are due to the reappear- 
 ance of these characters, under domestication, all rec- 
 ollection of what he here alleges, seems to forsake 
 him; and he professes himself unable to account for 
 them. He says, unqualifiedly, without distinction, 
 that he is ignorant of the cause of the appearance of 
 variations. As, in his search for the law of variations, 
 he conveniently forgets these reduced and suppressed 
 organs, and is so strangely obtuse to the fact, that they 
 amply supply the cause for which he affects to seek, 
 there exist, to his seeming, no objection to his settling 
 down to the conviction, that variations are inexplicable ; 
 and no reason why he should not assume, that these 
 variations or improvements go on multiplying, indefi- 
 nitely, or forever. If, however, the variations are to be 
 explained by the reappearance of long lost characters 
 of the respective species, it is obvious that there must 
 
VARIATIONS, DUE TO REVERSION. 55 
 
 be a limit to them. But, strangely enough, the deteri- 
 oration of each species under nature, and the capacity 
 of each species to regain what it has lost, slip Darwin's 
 memory, in connection with the question of the cause 
 of variations ; and, therefore, there exists, for him, no 
 assignable limit to the improvement of animals and 
 plants. He treats of variations under domestication, 
 as if they were clear gain to the species, to which the 
 varying individuals belong, and proceeds to estimate 
 thereupon a ratio of increase of development : Where- 
 as, as he himself shows, variations are but the re-ac- 
 quisition of what had been lost. Again : Is it not 
 much more scientific, to ascribe variations to a known, 
 scientific factor, such as is Reversion, than to ascribe 
 them to an " innate tendency," or to " profound ignor- 
 ance" ? 
 
 Again he remarks (p. 51, Vol. ii, Animals and Plants, 
 &c): 
 
 " From what we see of the power and scope of re- 
 version, both in pure races, and when varieties or spe- 
 cies are crossed, we may infer that characters of almost 
 every kind are capable of reappearing, after having 
 been lost for a great length of time." 
 
 He might also have remarked : " From what we see 
 of the power and scope of reversion, both in pure races, 
 and when varieties are crossed, we may infer that char- 
 acters of every kind," which appear under domestica- 
 tion, and positive variations of every kind, which may 
 appear under nature, are not due to any " innate ten- 
 dency ;" but that they may be referred to this well- 
 known scientific factor, Reversion. 
 
56 VARIATIONS, DUE TO REVERSION. 
 
 On page 382, Vol. ii, Animals and Plants, &c, he 
 says : 
 
 " Organs which are naturally rudimentary, in The 
 parent species, become partially re-developed in the 
 domesticated descendants. Thus, cows, like most 
 other ruminants, properly have four active, and two 
 rudimentary mamma ; but, in our domesticated ani- 
 mals, the latter occasionally become considerably de- 
 veloped, and yield milk. * * * The hind feet of 
 dogs include rudiments of a fifth toe, and in certain 
 large breeds, these toes, though still rudimentary, be- 
 come considerably developed and are furnished with 
 claws. In the common hen, the spurs and comb are 
 rudimentary, but in certain breeds, these become, inde- 
 pendently of age, or disease of the ovaria, well devel- 
 oped. The stallion has canine teeth, but the mare has 
 only traces of the alveoli, which, as I am informed by 
 the eminent veterinary, Mr. G. T. Brown, frequently 
 contain minute, irregular nodules of bone. These 
 nodules, however, sometimes become developed into 
 imperfect teeth, protruding through the gums, and 
 coated with enamel ; and, occasionally, they grow to a 
 third, or even a fourth, of the length of the canines in 
 the stallion. With Plants, I do not know whether the 
 re-development of rudimentary organs, occurs more 
 frequently under culture, than under nature." 
 
 On page 177, Origin of Species, he says : 
 
 " Rudimentary parts, it has been stated by some 
 authors, and I believe with truth, are apt to be highly 
 variable. * * * Rudimentary parts are left " (i. e. 
 subject) " to the tendency to reversion." 
 
 On page 380, Animals and Plants, &c, he says : 
 
 " With cultivated plants, it is far from rare to find 
 the petals, stamens, and pistils represented by rudi- 
 ments, like those observed in natural species. So it 
 
VARIATIONS, DDE TO REVERSION. 5t 
 
 is with the whole seed in many fruits; thus near As- 
 trakhan there is a grape with mere traces of seeds, ' so 
 small and lying so near the stalk that they are not per- 
 ceived in eating the grape.' In certain varieties of the 
 gourd, the tendrils, according to Naudin, are repre- 
 sented by the rudiments, or by various monstrous 
 growths. In the broccoli and cauliflower, the greater 
 number of the flowers are incapable of expansion, and 
 include rudimentary organs. In the Feather hyacinth 
 (Muscari comosuiti) the upper and central flowers are 
 brightly colored, but rudimentary ; under cultivation, 
 the tendency to abortion, travels downwards and out- 
 wards, and all the flowers become rudimentary; but 
 the abortive stamens and pistils are not so small in the 
 lower, as in the upper flowers. In the Viburnum opulus 
 on the other hand, the outer flowers naturally have their 
 organs of fructification in a rudimentary state, and the 
 corolla is of large size; under cultivation, the change 
 spreads to the centre, and all the flowers become rudi- 
 mentary ; thus, the well-known Snow-ball bush is pro- 
 duced. * * * In these several cases We have a 
 natural tendency (!) in certain parts, to become rudi- 
 mentary, and this under culture spreads either to, or 
 from, the axis of the plant." 
 
 Would it not be manifestly fallacious, if, when these 
 rudimentary parts became re-developed (which Darwin 
 asserts they are ever competent so to become) any one 
 were to take such re-growth, and use it as the basis 
 of a calculation of indefinite, or unlimited growth ? If 
 a person had cut his little finger, and then, observing 
 the reparative power displayed, had estimated, from the 
 degree of- repair which had occurred, within a week, 
 that, in a year's time, the finger would attain to the 
 thickness of his thumb, he would not commit an ab- 
 6 
 
58 
 
 surdity any greater than that, of which Darwin is 
 guilty, when he takes variations which are but the 
 mere regain of what the given species once lost, and 
 concludes, from the amount of such improvements, 
 that such species may develop into another species, 
 higher in the scale of development. 
 
 Again, he says (p. 383, Vol. ii, Animals and Plants, 
 &c.) : 
 
 " Finally, though organs which must be classed as 
 rudimentary, frequently occur in our domesticated ani- 
 mals and cultivated plants, these have generally been 
 formed suddenly, through an arrest of development. 
 They usually differ, in appearance, from the rudiments 
 which so frequently characterize natural species. In 
 the latter, rudimentary organs have been slowly formed 
 through continued disuse, acting, by inheritance, at a 
 corresponding age, aided by the principle of the econ- 
 omy of growth, all under the control of natural selec- 
 tion. With domesticated animals, on the other hand, 
 the principle of economy is far from coming into action, 
 and their organs, although often slightly reduced by 
 disuse, are not thus almost obliterated, with mere rudi- 
 ments left." 
 
 Under the heading, " Rudimentary, Atrophied, and 
 Aborted Organs," he says (p. 533, Origin of Species): 
 
 "Organs, or parts, in this strange condition, bear- 
 ing the stamp of inutility, are extremely common, 
 throughout nature. * * I presume that the 'bas- 
 tard wing,' in birds, may be safely considered as a 
 digit in a rudimentary state; in very many snakes, 
 there are rudiments of the pelvis and hind limbs. 
 Some of the cases of rudimentary organs are very 
 curious ; for instance, the presence of teeth in fcetal 
 whales which, when grown up, have not a tooth in 
 
VARIATIONS, DUE TO REVERSION. 59 
 
 their heads ; and the presence of teeth, which never 
 cut through the gums, in the upper jaws of our un- 
 born calves. It has even been stated, on good author- 
 ity, that rudiments of teeth can be detected in the 
 beaks of certain embryonic birds. Nothing can be 
 plainer than that wings are formed for flight; yet in 
 how many insects do we see wings so reduced in size 
 as to be utterly incapable of flight, and not rarely lying 
 under wing-cases, firmly soldered together ! The mean- 
 ing of rudimentary organs is often quite unmistakable ; 
 for instance, there are beetles of the same genus (and 
 even of the same species) resembling each other most 
 closely in all respects, one of which will have full- 
 sized wings, and another mere rudiments of mem- 
 brane; and here it is impossible to doubt that the 
 rudiments represent wings. * * * In plants of 
 the same species, the petals sometimes occur as mere 
 rudiments, and sometimes, in a well-developed state. 
 In some plants with their sexes separated, the male 
 flowers include a rudiment of a pistil." 
 
 When these animals and plants are placed under 
 domestication, or cultivated, the rudimentary organs 
 which " relate to a former condition," become re-devel- 
 oped ; and then Darwin proceeds to calculate, thus for 
 instance : If this beetle (say) has developed a pair of 
 wings, within one year, is it not probable that, at the 
 same rate of variation, it may develop into an eagle, in 
 the course of the next million years ? 
 
 " Rudimentaiy organs may be utterly aborted," * * 
 with "no trace left" (p. 533, Origin of Species). 
 
 Darwin adduces variations, or improvements, under 
 domestication, to prove how transitions from lower to 
 higher specific forms may be made, and have been 
 made ; but, in the very exposition of his problem, he 
 
60 VARIATIONS, DUE TO REVERSION. 
 
 shows that, in the past, there have been, in each spe- 
 cies, many transitions from a previously higher form 
 to the lower, degenerate form now extant, under na- 
 ture ; and, that the improvements, which he adduces to 
 prove the transition of a species to higher forms," are 
 but the steps which the organism takes to retrieve its 
 lost ground, to regain its lost characters, to recover its 
 lost integrity. 
 
 In the consideration of the problem, the reader must 
 bear in mind, that, even according to Darwin's own 
 showing, any advance, or improvement, under nature, 
 is at the best problematical : Darwin urges only, that 
 it is not improbable that a variation such as those which 
 occur under domestication, should occur under nature, 
 " once in a thousand generations ;" whereas, on the 
 other hand, degeneration, in the past, under nature, is 
 well attested, unquestionable, and wide-spread, cover- 
 ing every species of animal and plant. So far from 
 there having been such advance, in development, as is 
 competent to the evolution of the different species, 
 there have riot been, upon Darwin's own showing, 
 sufficient improvements or variations, to retrieve a 
 tithe of the deterioration which many species are 
 positively known to have suffered ! 
 
 The above remarks, and quotations, refer princi- 
 pally to lost characters which have left some traces of 
 their past existence. There are, however, many more 
 characters or organs, belonging to the different species, 
 which have been so entirely suppressed, that not a ves- 
 tige of them is discernible, before they commence to 
 reappear. The prototype of each species, was an 
 
VARIATIONS, DUE TO REVERSION. 61 
 
 organism of a higher state of development than the 
 type of such species, as now found under nature. Ad- 
 verse conditions entailed the suppression of the char- 
 acters ; and the mere restoration of the favorable con- 
 ditions, secures their re-development. 
 
 The races of each species, under nature, were formed, 
 exclusively, by the varied modification of the one, 
 original, perfect mould of such species. These races 
 are, all, but various degenerations of the one specific 
 type of the given species. By this, it is not meant to 
 imply any " innate tendency " (such as Darwin postu- 
 lates) in organisms, to degenerate. Certain conditions 
 were needed for the full and proportionate development 
 of the characters of each species. The withdrawal of 
 some of those conditions, entailed the reduction and 
 suppression of some of the characters — of those char- 
 acters to which those conditions were immediately 
 correlated. While the conditions remained favorable, 
 the species held its own ; when the conditions changed 
 — when the state of affairs ensued, which Darwin repre- 
 sents in his Struggle for Existence — loss of characters, 
 and loss of size resulted. As these adverse conditions 
 varied in degree, and in kind, in different districts and 
 countries, the degree and the manner in which the 
 individuals became modified, were also different. The 
 structure of each race, became slightly different from 
 that of the other races of the same species ; because 
 the conditions, in one country, wrought a deleterious 
 effect on one organ or character, and the conditions, in 
 the other countries, wrought injury upon other parts of 
 
 the organization. 
 6* 
 
62 VARIATIONS, DUE TO REVERSION. 
 
 Starting out, therefore, with these degenerate indi- 
 viduals of a species, Darwin essays to prove that their 
 development may proceed ad infinitum — and the evi- 
 dence, he adduces to countenance such an hypothesis, 
 is that, when placed under favorable conditions, those 
 individuals regain the characters which they once lost ! 
 The true, and only, induction from his facts, is, that 
 there are no positive characters which appear, which 
 are not due to the principle of reversion. The reader 
 should bear in mind, that the problem is, not how 
 species with all their characters, have been evolved ; 
 but, how have been evolved those slight increments of 
 development, which constitute the data of all the pre- 
 vailing theories of Evolution — those positive varia- 
 tions, or improvements, which arise under domestica- 
 tion, and (perhaps) under nature. The problem, How 
 species have been evolved, is the point to which Dar- 
 win addresses himself. But, in the solution of that 
 problem, he has availed himself of these variations, 
 and he professes, that these variations solve the ques- 
 tion. If, however, these variations be due to reversion 
 — if they be but the regain of what was once lost — 
 (which he furnishes such ample warrant for believing) 
 then is he mistaken in his belief, that they explain the 
 evolution of species. Therefore it is, that the prob- 
 lem of the evolution of species, gives place, in this 
 controversy, to the problem of the cause of variations ; 
 and, to the question whether there be a limit to the 
 improvements of which any species is shown to be 
 capable. If each species is capable of that amount, 
 only, of growth or development, of which it was pos- 
 
VARIATIONS, DUE TO REVERSION. 63 
 
 sessed, at some time in the past ; then, there is an end 
 to Darwin's hypothesis, which is tenable, only upon 
 the supposition, that the progress displayed by such 
 species is new growth (i. e., new to the given species) 
 or new development; and upon the supposition that 
 there is no limit to such progress, or variation. 
 
 Respecting the degeneration, which has taken 
 place in the past under nature, and the capacity, 
 ever resident in the deteriorated individuals, to re- 
 cover what they lost, Darwin says (p. 188, Origin of 
 Species) : 
 
 " No doubt it is a very surprising fact, that charac- 
 ters should reappear, after having been lost for many, 
 perhaps, for hundreds, of generations. * * * In a 
 breed which has not been crossed, but in which both 
 parents have lost some characters which their progeni- 
 tor possessed, the tendency, whether strong or weak, 
 to reproduce the lost characters, might be, as was form- 
 erly remarked, for all that we can see to the contrary, 
 transmitted for almost any number of generations. 
 When a character, which has been lost in a breed, 
 reappears, after a great number of generations, the 
 most probable hypothesis is, not that the offspring 
 suddenly takes after an ancestor some hundreds of 
 generations distant, but that, in each successive gener- 
 ation, there has been a tendency to reproduce the 
 character in question, which, at last, under unknown 
 favorable conditions, gains an ascendancy." 
 
 This power of reversion, as he says, is ever opera- 
 tive, and is only kept down by adverse conditions. 
 Each individual of a species would, were the condi- 
 tions propitious, develop all the positive characters, 
 known to any individual of its species. 
 
64 VARIATIONS, DUE TO REVERSION. 
 
 Continuing, he says : 
 
 "' I can see no more abstract improbability in a ten- 
 dency to produce any character, being inherited for an 
 endless (!) number of generations, than in quite use- 
 less and rudimentary organs, being as we all know 
 them to be, thus inherited. Indeed, we may some- 
 times observe that a mere tendency to produce a rudi- 
 ment, is inherited." 
 
 Again, on p. 27, Origin of Species, he says : 
 
 "When there has been no cross with a distinct 
 breed, and there is a tendency in both parents to re- 
 vert to a character which has been lost, during some 
 former generation, this" tendency, for all that we can 
 see to the contrary, may be transmitted, undiminished, 
 for an indefinite number of generations." 
 
 On page 446, Vol. ii, Animals and Plants, &c, he 
 says: 
 
 " What can be more wonderful, than that characters 
 which have disappeared during scores, or hundreds, or 
 even thousands (!) of generations, should suddenly re- 
 appear, perfectly developed, as in the case of pigeons 
 and fowls." 
 
 The characters lost, do not, in any wise, lie within 
 the organisms, during the interval before their reap- 
 pearance. The forces of the organization are, when 
 all the characters are fully and proportionately devel- 
 oped, beautifully correlated together, making one, 
 determinate coordination. When a character is lost, 
 the forces so correlated, are capable of reintegrating 
 the lost part, and of restoring the mutual relations of 
 the parts ; if the conditions will allow. Cut off the 
 edge of a crystal ; the crystal may remain, so impaired, 
 
VARIATIONS, DUE TO REVERSION. 65 
 
 for a hundred or a thousand years, and when placed in 
 a solution, like that in which it was originally formed, 
 it will restore the lost edge. No one will say, that the 
 lost edge remained in embryo, or in any way, within 
 the crystal, during that period. It was the correlation 
 of the forces of the crystal, which conspired to effect 
 the reintegration which was so necessary to. the nor- 
 mal coordination of the whole. So is it with organic 
 reversion. The capacity for reintegrating is, generally 
 to the full as efficient, after a thousand generations, as 
 it would be after the lapse of a day, or of an hour. 
 All of the improvements, effected by breeders, fanciers, 
 horticulturists, and agriculturists, are but reintegra- 
 tions, partial or complete, of the animals and plants. 
 
 "This principle of Reversion is the most wonderful 
 of all the attributes of Inheritance. * * * Rever- 
 sion is not a rare event, depending on some unusual or 
 favorable combination of circumstances, but occurs so 
 regularly, with crossed animals and plants, and so fre- 
 quently, with uncrossed breeds, that it is evidently an 
 essential part of the principle of inheritance. We 
 know that changed conditions have the power of evok- 
 ing long-lost characters, as in the case of some feral 
 animals. The act of crossing in itself possesses this 
 power in a high degree." 
 
 The reason, that " changed ' conditions have the 
 power of evoking long-lost characters," is because, 
 upon a change, those conditions are restored to the 
 individual, the absence of which entailed the loss of 
 those characters. Crossing " possesses the power in a 
 high degree," because the union, in the offspring, of 
 the two peculiarities, derived respectively from the two 
 
66 VARIATIONS, DUE TO REVERSION. 
 
 parent breeds, so strengthens the correlation of the 
 forces of the organism, as to enable it, the more, to 
 repair its lost integrity. 
 Continuing, he says : 
 
 " Many monstrosities come under this same head, as 
 when rudimentary organs are re-developed, or when an 
 organ which we must believe was possessed by an 
 early progenitor, but of which not even a rudiment 
 was left, suddenly reappears, as with the fifth stamen 
 in some Scrophulariacae. We have already seen that 
 reversion acts in bud-reproduction ; and we know that 
 it occasionally acts during the growth of the same 
 individual animal, especially, but not exclusively, when 
 of crossed parentage — as in the rare cases described of 
 individual fowls, pigeons, cattle and rabbits." 
 
 " We are led to believe, as formerly explained, that 
 every character which occasionally reappears, is present 
 in a latent form in each generation. * * * In every 
 (!) living creature, we may feel assured that a host of 
 lost characters lie ready to be evolved under proper 
 conditions. How can we make intelligible, and con- 
 nect with other facts, this wonderful and common 
 capacity of Reversion — this power of calling back to 
 life long-lost characters !" 
 
 " Long-lost characters," break out in mystic refrain, 
 upon almost every page of his works. Why he does 
 not see, that these " long-lost characters " are attuned 
 most harmoniously to the improvements which arise, 
 is a psychological phenomenon which it behooves us 
 not here to explain. Yet, we cannot help suspecting, 
 and cannot refrain from delicately intimating, that 
 either a dim, or a well-defined consciousness, on his 
 part, that the discovery of the harmony of these "long- 
 
VARIATIONS, DUE TO REVERSION. 6t 
 
 lost characters," with the variations which he, in 
 his ignorance, attributes to spontaneous variability, 
 would sound the knell of Darwinism ; alone pre- 
 vented him from disclosing the part these " long-lost 
 characters " play, in the grand diapason of Biology. 
 In a future chapter, it will be shown, that each organ- 
 ism is as a sweet bell, jangled and out of tune, if these 
 "long-lost characters" fail to join in that symphony of 
 correlation which, when perfect, alone may make the 
 coordination which is consistent with physiological in- 
 tegrity. 
 
 On page 14, Vol. i, Animals and Plants, &c, he says: 
 
 " By thus adding up variations, he (man) has effected 
 wonderful changes and improvements." 
 
 This sum of variations, or improvements, avails his 
 argument just nothing ; for, he shows, that the only 
 scientific view is, that this sum of improvements 
 effected, is but the sum,_ or part of the sum, of char- 
 acters once lost by the varying species. To show that 
 a species has been divested, by unfavorable conditions, 
 of a number of characters; and then, when -the indi- 
 viduals of that species regain those characters, to pro- 
 ceed to estimate a ratio of indefinitely continued devel- 
 opment, is obviously absurd. 
 
 On page 54, Vol. ii, Animals and Plants, &c, he 
 says, under the heading, " Crossing as a Direct Cause 
 of Reversion ": 
 
 " It has long been notorious, that hybrids and mon- 
 grels often revert to both or to one of their parent 
 forms, after an interval of from two to seven or eight 
 generations, or, according to some authorities, even a 
 
68 
 
 greater number of generations. But, that the act of 
 crossing, in itself, gives an impulse towards Reversion, 
 as shown by the reappearance of long-lost (!) charac- 
 ters, has never, I believe, been hitherto proved. The 
 proof lies in certain peculiarities which do not charac- 
 terize the immediate parents, and therefore cannot have 
 been derived from them, frequently appearing in the 
 offspring of two breeds when crossed, which peculiari- 
 ties never appear, or appear with extreme rarity, in 
 these same breeds, as long as they are precluded from 
 crossing." 
 
 This remark, of his, attests strongly, that he has 
 settled in his own mind, that all the improvements 
 which arise, are due to Reversion. He says, "The 
 proof lies in " the appearance of " certain peculiarities 
 which do not characterize the immediate parents and 
 therefore cannot have been derived from them." It 
 will be observed, that this circumstance, viz., of the 
 characters not having been derived from the immedi- 
 ate parents, he makes the sole criterion of their being 
 due to Reversion. The rest of his sentence, has rela- 
 tion to his proof, that crossing gives an impulse to 
 this Reversion. That is the true law, namely that posi- 
 tive characters, which are not derived from the immedi- 
 ate parents, are due to Reversion. Had he, however, 
 formulated this rule in set terms, it would have pro- 
 voked an immediate response to his gratuitous as- 
 sumption, that there is no limit to variations. This, 
 his assumption, of no limit to improvements, is the 
 witching point in the whole controversy. Yet, strange 
 to say, such assumption is not formulated even once^ 
 but remains a tacit assumption merely, throughout all 
 
VARIATIONS, DUE TO REVERSION. 69 
 
 his works ! To all seeming, he thought it discreet to 
 advance that point in his theory, by implication solely. 
 If he had explicitly stated, that all the characters 
 which arise in each individual, and which did not 
 characterize that individual's immediate parents, are 
 long-lost characters reappearing by Reversion, the 
 fallacy of his theory would immediately have become 
 glaring. For, if each and every variation, or improve- 
 ment, is but the regain of what was once lost, it is, 
 then, an unavoidable corollary, that variation has a 
 limit, which will be reached in each individual, when 
 all of its lost characters are regained. All of the im- 
 provements, which were assumed to be increments of 
 evolution, obeying those mysterious laws, " innate ten- 
 dency," and " spontaneous variability," are then, mani- 
 festly, to be relegated to that known, well-established, 
 scientific factor, Reversion. 
 
 Continuing his remarks, respecting the reappearance 
 of long-lost characters, which is occasioned by Cross- 
 ing, he says, "As this conclusion seems to me highly 
 curious and novel, I will give the evidence in detail." 
 He then gives numerous instances with the pigeon, 
 with the fowl, with the duck, with the rabbit, with the 
 cow, with the horse, and with the ass ; and says : 
 
 " It would appear, that, with crossed animals, a simi- 
 lar tendency to the recovery of lost characters, holds 
 good with instincts ;" 
 
 And gives instances, in the case of the fowl, of cat- 
 tle, of the pig, of the duck, of the horse, and of the 
 ass. Everything is " highly curious," with him, as it 
 
 must be, with every scientist, who essays to colligate 
 7 
 
TO VARIATIONS, DUE TO REVERSION. 
 
 facts, with a theory based upon an assumption which 
 is not only wholly gratuitous, but in wanton deroga- 
 tion of a competent, known, and well-established, scien- 
 tific factor. The phenomenon of the recovery of long- 
 lost characters, by means of crossing, is shown, in a 
 future chapter of this work, to be perfectly explicable. 
 
 " In many cases," says he (p. 105, Vol. ii, Animals 
 and Plants, &c), " the failure of the parents to trans- 
 mit their likeness, is due to the breed having been at 
 some former period crossed ; and the child takes after 
 his grandparent, or more remote ancestor, of foreign 
 blood. In other cases, in which the breed has not 
 been crossed, but some ancient character has been lost 
 through variation, it occasionally reappears through 
 Reversion, so that the parents apparently fail to trans- 
 mit their own likeness. In all cases, however, we may 
 safely conclude that the child inherits all its characters 
 from its parents, in whom certain characters are latent. 
 * * * When, after a long succession of bud gen- 
 erations, a flower or fruit becomes separated into dis- 
 tinct segments, having the colors or other attributes of 
 both parent forms, we cannot doubt that these charac- 
 ters were latent in the earlier buds, though they could 
 not then be detected, or could be detected only in an 
 intimately commingled state. So it is with animals of 
 crossed parentage, which, with advancing years, occa- 
 sionally exhibit characters, derived from one of their 
 two parents, of which not a trace could at first be per- 
 ceived." 
 
 Again he says, on the same page with the above 
 remarks : 
 
 " It is assuredly an astonishing fact, that the male 
 and female sexual elements, that buds, and even full- 
 grown animals, should retain characters, during several 
 
VAKIATIONS, DUE TO REVERSION. 11 
 
 generations, in the case of crossed breeds, and during 
 thousands of generations, in the case of pure breeds, 
 written as it were in invisible ink, yet ready, at any 
 time, to be evolved under the requisite conditions." 
 
 " What these conditions are, we do not in many 
 cases at all know. But, the act of crossing, in itself, 
 apparently from causing some disturbance in the or- 
 ganization, certainly gives a strong tendency to the re- 
 appearance of long-lost characters, both corporeal and 
 mental, independently of those derived from the cross." 
 
 The purpose in quoting this, and other remarks of 
 Darwin, upon the subject of long-lost characters, is, to 
 show the wide-spread operation of Reversion, and its 
 competency to cover all the variations adduced by 
 Darwin. Having thus furnished full warrant for the 
 assumption of Reversion as the sole cause of all posi- 
 tive variations, or improvements, we shall also en- 
 lighten him as to what those mysterious conditions 
 are, of which he speaks, and as to what that curious 
 " some disturbance in the organization," is. 
 
 On page 113, Vol. ii, Animals and Plants, &c, he 
 says: 
 
 " But in all cases " (of crossing different breeds) 
 "there will be, during many subsequent generations, 
 more or less liability to reversion. * * * In con- 
 sidering the final result of the commingling of two or 
 more breeds, we must not forget that the act of cross- 
 ing in itself tends to bring back long-lost characters, 
 not proper to the immediate parent-forms." 
 
 Again, on page 2 1 2, Vol. ii, Animals and Plants, &c, 
 he speaks of 
 
 " The excessive variability of the crossed offspring 
 due to the principle of reversion." 
 
72 
 
 On page 319, Vol. ii, Animals and Plants, &c, it is 
 amusing to remark, with what an air of judicial im- 
 partiality, he insinuates, that there are characters inde- 
 pendent of reversion. 
 
 * * * "It is probable," says he, "that the cross- 
 ing of two forms, when one or both have long been 
 domesticated or cultivated, adds to the variability of 
 the offspring, independently of the commingling of the 
 characters derived from the two parent forms, and 
 this implies that new characters actually arise." 
 
 The implication is, merely, that they are new to 
 either of the crossed breeds ; and upon this construc- 
 tion, Darwin is right. It is evident, too, that this is 
 the idea he had in his mind. But, the idea he evi- 
 dently desires to convey, under the shadow of the 
 double meaning of which his words are susceptible, is 
 that they are new to the given species ; an idea, which 
 he is ever intent upon insinuating, and an idea which 
 is absolutely essential to the support of his theory. 
 Mark the tone of the following sentence — a tone which 
 is ingeniously calculated to convey to the readers' 
 minds, the conviction that they may place implicit 
 confidence in him, and count most securely upon his 
 duly qualifying his remarks, and upon his not over- 
 stating the strength of the evidence he adduces. 
 
 Continuing : 
 
 " But we must not forget the facts advanced in the 
 thirteenth chapter, which clearly prove that the act of 
 crossing often leads to the reappearance or reversion 
 of long-lost characters ; and in most cases, it would 
 be impossible to distinguish between the reappearance 
 
"73 
 
 of ancient characters, and the first appearance of new 
 characters." 
 
 This, again, may mean characters new to either of 
 the crossed breeds, or characters new to the species. 
 It is, obviously, to the interest of Darwin's theory, 
 that the latter idea be accepted by the reader. If it 
 be so " impossible to distinguish between the reappear- 
 ance of ancient characters, and the first appearance of 
 new characters," why, in any case, refer them to an 
 " innate tendency," or to " profound ignorance," in 
 derogation of the known, scientific law, Reversion, to 
 which no possible objection can be taken ? Assume, 
 as there is so iriuch ground for doing, that all the vari- 
 ations, arising in each species, are but the regain of 
 what that species once lost, and " innate tendency," 
 "vital force," "spontaneous variability," and all the 
 other " metaphysical entities," which clog the path of 
 inquiry, and attest the poverty of scientific thought, 
 may be wholly dispensed with. 
 
 Continuing his remarks with reference to the ques- 
 tion whether the given characters are "ancient" or 
 " new," he says : 
 
 " Practically, whether new or old, they would be 
 new to the breed in which they reappeared." 
 
 Doubtless, they would ; as a breed formed of the 
 varying offspring of a cross, is, generally, a new breed. 
 
 Again he says (page 321, Vol. ii, Animals and 
 
 Plants, &c): 
 
 " We seldom have the means of distinguishing, as 
 previously remarked, between the appearance of really 
 7* 
 
7* VARIATIONS, DUE TO REVERSION. 
 
 new characters, and the reappearance of long-lost 
 characters evoked through the act of crossing." 
 
 Darwin in Chap, xxivth, of his Animals and Plants, 
 &c, reviews all of the conditions of development, viz., 
 food, exercise, climate, crossing, &c, which divers 
 authors have ignorantly regarded as the causes of 
 variability ; and he says (p. 303, Vol. ii) : 
 
 " But we must, I think, take a broader view, and 
 conclude that organic beings, when subjected during 
 several generations to any change whatever in their 
 conditions, ' tend (!) to vary ; the kind of variation, 
 which ensues, depending in a far higher degree on the 
 nature or constitution (!) of the being, than on the 
 nature of the changed conditions." 
 
 On the preceding page, he says : 
 
 " The subject (2. e., of " the causes of the almost 
 universal variability of our domesticated productions") 
 " is an obscure one ; but it may be useful to probe our 
 ignorance." 
 
 With him, the obscurity arises from this : That he 
 finds it " impossible* to distinguish between the reap- 
 pearance of ancient characters, and the first appearance 
 of "new characters," because, the characters which 
 arise are all " ancient characters." 
 
 He says that variation may be accounted for, 
 
 " By the more or less complete recovery, through 
 reversion, of ancestral characters on either side ; but 
 we thus only push the difficulty further back in time, 
 for what made the parents, or their progenitors differ- 
 ent?" 
 
 If the explanation by means of Reversion, only 
 pushes the difficulty further back in time, why does 
 
VARIATIONS, DUB TO REVERSION. 75 
 
 he, then, adduce variations as the data for his theory ? 
 He essayed to solve the problem of indefinitely con- 
 tinued development, by means of variations. Varia- 
 tions are then shown to be incapable of sustaining his 
 theory; because, being but the regain of what was 
 once lost, they have a limit ; and proof of a limit to 
 the improvements, constitutes complete disproof of his 
 theory. But, with a coolness most unique, he 'rejoins, 
 To explain the variations by means of Reversion is 
 only pushing the difficulty further back ; for, they 
 need to be explained, when they appeared for the first 
 time, and effected the development of the different 
 species ; Whereas, this assumption, of his, viz., that 
 the characters did arise originally, as variations, and 
 did thereby effect the development of the different 
 species, is the very point in controversy, and which he 
 started out to prove. 
 
 What puzzles him, and so " obscures " the subject of 
 the cause of variations, is, that he feels logic prodding 
 him to know, Why, if reversion is " only pushing the 
 difficulty further back in time," he does, not meet the 
 issue at that point further back in time, and there grap- 
 ple with his problem ; and, What business, or concern, 
 has he with the improvements or variations under do- 
 mestication, or with those variations, under nature, 
 which occur at a period subsequent to the great degen- 
 eration he has shown, when, by his own confession, the 
 issue does not hinge where he essays to meet it, but 
 rests at a point, in the past, respecting which, not a 
 syllable of evidence, or even a word of mention, is 
 adduced by him throughout all of his works. 
 
16 VARIATIONS, DUE TO REVERSION. 
 
 A fair analogue of Darwin's argument, is this : An 
 individual lays claim to a piece of real estate, of which 
 another has long been, and is, in adverse possession. 
 The evidence adduced by the plaintiff to sustain such 
 claim is — the plaintiff's satisfaction of what purported 
 to be a mortgage upon the property, given by the 
 plaintiff; and to the objection, naturally raised, that 
 such evidence is no proof of any acquirement of title, 
 by the plaintiff, to the property, the insensate retort 
 comes, That is " merely pushing the difficulty further 
 back in time." True, true " as proof of Holy Writ ;" 
 but make your testimony competent and relevant, by 
 adducing evidence which has some relation to that 
 difficulty further back in time : — would obviously be 
 the response of the defendant. 
 
 So, to Darwin it may be said : If Reversion ac- 
 counts for the improvements under domestication, and 
 for those which are assumed occasionally to appear 
 under nature, and such explanation but pushes the 
 difficulty further back in time, why not adduce, in- 
 stead, evidence and arguments which meet that diffi- 
 culty further back in time ? 
 
 A true conception of the relation in which Darwin's 
 theory of evolution, stands to the law of Reversion, 
 may be gained, if the reader does but fancy Darwin 
 standing by a canal-lock, immediately subsequent to 
 the passage of a boat, from the river above, to the 
 channel below. He turns to the lock-master, and 
 assures him, that he can explain to him clearly, how 
 the river was originally formed: — If you will notice 
 the action of the water within this lock, you will ob- 
 
77 
 
 serve, that the water is rising slowly, by a succession 
 of apparently spontaneous impulses. Since I have 
 been standing here, the water has arisen some four 
 or five feet. Now, it is clear, that this water may 
 arise to any height, if it be confined above, by a wall, 
 as it is below. It is manifestly gratuitous, for any one 
 to assume a limit to the ascension of this water. It 
 has been ascending, during the whole time I have been 
 standing here, and the presumption is, in default of 
 proof to the contrary, that it ever will continue so to 
 rise. • Now, the formation of the whole river, may be 
 clearly demonstrated by analogy with this lock. It is 
 fair to assume that, in the river, also, there exist, and 
 have ever existed, spontaneous impulses of water, 
 similar to what we here observe. Given, then, those 
 ascending, spontaneous impulses, the formation, in the 
 past, of this river, becomes clear. 
 
 To the response of the lock-master, that Darwin 
 evidently does not understand the reason, or the cause, 
 why the water so ascends in the lock, he rejoins, that 
 there is the fact — that suffices for him — and that an 
 inquiry into efficient causes is metaphysical. The 
 lock-master explains, that the water has previously 
 fallen below the level of the river above, that it is now 
 returning to that level, and that his theory of the un- 
 limited ascent of the water, is all wrong, for the limit 
 will be reached when the water reaches the plane of 
 the river above. 
 
 Darwin recognizes the truth of such explanation, 
 but declares that that is but pushing the difficulty 
 farther back in time ; for, how account for these origi- 
 
78 VARIATIONS, DUE TO REVERSION. 
 
 nal, spontaneous impulses, when they first arose, and 
 formed the fiver ! 
 
 The lock-master declares, that these spontaneous im- 
 pulses never did form the river, but that Darwin him- 
 self started to prove that very point ; and now, instead 
 of proving it, he assumes it to obviate a fatal objection 
 to that very idea. He also shows him that he cannot 
 prove the origin of the river by means of the spontane- 
 ous impulses in the lock, for they are due to the action 
 of a river already formed. Darwin, however, is proof 
 against all objections, and departs to assure his friend 
 Tyndall that his theory, about "giving the religious sen- 
 timents of mankind, reasonable satisfaction," is alto- 
 gether Utopian. 
 
 So, in his theory of development, he assumes his 
 very conclusion — viz., that variations formed the differ- 
 ent species — to ward off the objection, namely, that 
 variations did not constitute the process of develop- 
 ment, because they are but the regain of developments 
 lost. 
 
 As all of the individuals of a species have, gener- 
 ally, lost the same characters, and all have the same 
 capacity for regaining such characters, it is to be ex- 
 pected, that the individuals of the several varieties of 
 such species, will not confine themselves to the devel- 
 opment of the peculiarities which man has assigned 
 them, but will display their power of reversion in char- 
 acters, of their species, other than those which mark 
 their respective varieties. The fact, also, that similar 
 varieties are produced in different countries, from indi- 
 viduals of the same species, attests strongly, that the 
 
VARIATIONS, DUE TO REVERSION. 19 
 
 improvements or variations which arise, are due to re- 
 version. Darwin has noted this disposition, on the 
 part of individuals of a species, to develop all of the 
 characters of the given species, and refers it, as he 
 should, to the fact of these characters having once been 
 lost, and to the capacity, in each of the individuals, to 
 regain such characters. As if fearful, that the signifi- 
 cance of the phenomenon, should thrust itself upon 
 the reader's attention, to the prejudice of his hypothe- 
 sis of development without a limit, he assures his 
 readers, that he is " concerned not as hitherto with the 
 causes of variation, but with the results!' He concerns 
 himself about the causes of variation, only when he is 
 engaged upon an enumeration of the conditions of 
 variation (such as food, and climate, and exercise, &c.) 
 which he is able to demonstrate, can furnish no ade- 
 quate explanation of the appearance of the improve- 
 ments. When, however, he trenches upon a well- 
 known, scientific law, such as is reversion, he hastens 
 to add, that all discussion upon causes, has been closed ! 
 On page 417, Vol. ii, Animals and Plants, &c, under 
 the heading, "Analogous or Parallel Variation," he 
 says: 
 
 " By this term I wish to express that similar char- 
 acters occasionally make their appearance in the sev- 
 eral varieties or races descended from the same species. 
 * * * We are here concerned, not as hitherto with 
 the causes of variation, but with the results ; but this 
 discussion could not have been more conveniently in- 
 troduced elsewhere." 
 
 All of the individuals, of a species, are lacking in 
 
80 VARIATIONS, DUE TO REVERSION. 
 
 characters which their ancient progenitors had; and, of 
 course, each does not tamely submit to the develop- 
 ment alone of that character to which the conditions 
 at first gave the ascendant, and which man afterwards 
 made very predominant, but strives ever to regain all of 
 the characters which it lacks, or (as Darwin once hap- 
 pily puts it, when he approaches very near to the true 
 law of development) " to bring all of the parts again 
 into harmony with each other." 
 
 Darwin proceeds to arrange the " results " into 
 classes : 
 
 " The cases of analogous variation, so far as their 
 origin is concerned, may be grouped, disregarding 
 minor sub-divisions, under "two main heads ; firstly, 
 those due to unknown (sic) causes having acted on 
 organic beings with nearly the same constitution, and 
 which consequently vary in an analogous manner ; and 
 secondly, those due to the reappearance of characters 
 which were possessed by a more or less remote pro- 
 genitor." 
 
 When a scientist has a body of facts, and has, em- 
 pirically, or provisionally, arranged them under two 
 heads ; one head consisting of facts presumably due to 
 " unknown causes," and the other head comprehend- 
 ing facts acknowledging a known, scientific factor ; he, 
 when he is a fair, as well as able scientist, tests all of 
 those facts, and when he finds that the known cause 
 will cover all of the phenomena under either head, and 
 that no possible exception may be taken to the com- 
 petency of such factor, so to cover all, he relegates 
 them all to one head — to the one known cause ; and 
 
81 
 
 dispenses with the services of the " unknown cause." 
 This is the modus opera?idi of an able scientist who 
 has not a pet theory, to which a recognition of the 
 competency of the known cause, to cover all of the 
 facts, threatens, instant explosion. This, however, is 
 not the mode of research of a scientist, who has a 
 theory of the character mentioned. This is not, as is 
 manifest, the mode of Darwin. All of the phenomena 
 of variation, are, as he concedes, with an unimportant 
 qualification, possible to be ranged under his second 
 head, viz., Reversion ; and there is not a single fact, to 
 be found in any of his works, or within the range of 
 physiology, .which militates against such a course. 
 But, should he so arrange them, and dispense with his 
 " unknown causes," with his " innate tendency," etc., in 
 which he fancies he has at least a ghost of a chance of 
 salvation for his theory; where would be even his 
 flimsy semblance of support for the hypothesis of in- 
 definitely continued development ? — of variation with- 
 out any assignable limit ? One, disposed to suspicion, 
 and to invidious comment, might doubtless assert, that 
 Darwin saw there was no earthly necessity for his class 
 of " unknown causes," and that, to preclude the im- 
 mediate dissolution of his theory, into the thinnest of 
 air, with " infinite dexterity of wit," threw in the fol- 
 lowing remark, to occasion a bewildering doubt, in his 
 readers' minds, as to whether the problem of the cause 
 of variation, was so simple as it really is. He says, 
 immediately subsequent to his elaboration of the two 
 heads mentioned, 
 
 " But these two main divisions can often be only 
 
82 VARIATIONS, DUE TO REVERSION. 
 
 conjecturally separated, and graduate, as we shall 
 presently see, into each other." 
 
 Now, the only warrant he has for this assertion is, that 
 some changes in an organism, and some varietal types 
 are not due to Reversion. They are not due to Rever- 
 sion, merely because they are negative changes, negative 
 variations, or types which are formed by modifications of 
 the original perfect type of the species to which they re- 
 spectively belong. A cat or dog loses its ear : A pig is 
 modified by the reduction, or the suppression of its tusks, 
 its bristles, its tail, its legs, and its snout : These are the 
 kinds of changes to which he appeals, to show that his 
 unknown causes are operative. He fancies, or affects 
 to believe, that the Fantail pigeon, for instance, cannot 
 be due to Reversion, because the species from which it 
 is known to have descended, has produced varieties 
 with a well developed oesophagus, with length of body, 
 with a long beak, with divergent feathers on the neck 
 and breast, &c. But, it is not the type which has been 
 regained by Reversion, but those positive characters, 
 or features of development, which enter into such 
 types. The feature, fan-tail, is due to reversion. All 
 the positive features of the other varieties of the 
 pigeon, are due to reversion ; the types of those vari- 
 eties are not. There was but one type originally; 
 that type in which is contained all the positive de- 
 velopments of the given species ; and that type alone 
 is perfect. 
 
 Sometimes, it is true, there is a reversion, by an 
 organism, from a positive character, to a negative 
 character. Thus a pig, once under cultivation, has 
 
VARIATIONS, DUE TO REVERSION. 83 
 
 been suffered to run wild ; or little care has been taken 
 of it. Its offspring are placed under cultivation, and 
 they return to the condition in which their progenitor 
 was ; they have their legs, tusks, bristles, snout, &c, 
 reduced. This is negative reversion, however. This 
 is the dexterous way in which Darwin clouds the sub- 
 ject of the cause of the positive variations, which, as 
 he essays to prove, were successively accumulated, 
 and made to produce all positive developments. . This 
 is the manner in which he redeems his promise of 
 showing that his " two main divisions " of " unknown 
 causes," and of a known cause, graduate into each 
 other. 
 
 All of the positive variations; all the positive changes; 
 all the positive improvements; all the positive incre- 
 ments of growth or of development; all the advances 
 made by organisms from comparative simplicity to 
 complexity of structure, which Darwin fain would 
 accumulate, ad infinitum; are due to Reversion. If 
 the conditions of the growth of a character, are taken 
 away, the character becomes reduced, or suppressed. 
 If Darwin desires to exalt adverse conditions, to the 
 dignity of " unknown causes," and show that species 
 may change one into another, by removes from com- 
 plexity to simplicity of structure, he stultifies his 
 theory of evolution, which predicates advance in de- 
 velopment; but, we are prepared to meet even that 
 issue, and do so meet it; for we show, in the chapters 
 following, treating of crossing and of close interbreed- 
 ing, that no individual is capable of any remove from 
 complexity to simplicity of structure, and that no 
 
84 
 
 character of any species is possible to be reduced ir 
 any way, or suppressed, without impairing the consti- 
 tutional vigor and fertility of the organism; and thai 
 such reduction or suppression of the characters of a 
 species, may progress to a very slight extent only, 
 without entailing complete sterility, and a general 
 breaking up of the whole constitution, — very soon 
 ending in death. 
 
 But, Darwin started to prove the evolution of species 
 from one another, by means of slight, successive ad- 
 vances in development, or variations. This issue we 
 meet, by conclusively showing, that the variations to 
 which he appeals, could not have produced the devel- 
 opment in question, because they are amenable to a 
 limit, very soon reached; and, because every such in- 
 crement, or every such variation, which is of a posi- 
 tive character, is but the mere regain of a character 
 lost, by the species in which it occurs, by a process 
 of degeneration conclusively established by Darwin 
 himself. But, one^half of the time, Darwin seems to 
 have forgotten his predicate, and postulates, in the 
 stead thereof, degeneration. He, instead of showing 
 the evolution of species, seems rather to contend, 
 that all the different species have been produced by 
 degeneration, — that they are all various degenerations 
 of some higher type. Notably, in his work on the 
 "Fertilization of Orchids" which is a work ancillary 
 to his " Origin of Species" does he argue that the 
 different species are modifications of one Higher type. 
 But, even the hypothesis of degeneration, is refuted 
 by the converse theory, propounded in this work. As 
 
VARIATIONS, DUE TO REVERSION. 85 
 
 above mentioned, it is proven that an animal is not 
 capable of modification in any of its characters, with- 
 out proportional injury to its physiological integrity; 
 and that a distinct species may not be produced by 
 such a process of degeneration ; for, sterility and death 
 ensue, before half of the requisite amount of change, in 
 structure, can be effected. 
 
 Speaking of the "similar characters," which "make 
 their appearance in the several varieties or races de- 
 scended from the same species," he says : 
 
 "These facts are important from showing, as re- 
 marked in a former chapter, that each trifling varia- 
 tion is governed by law, and is determined, in a much 
 higher degree, by the nature of the organization, than 
 by the nature of the conditions to which the varying 
 being has been exposed." 
 
 Darwin confesses, that, of this "law," and of "the 
 nature of the organization," he is wholly ignorant. As 
 he says, " Our knowledge of the cause of variation is 
 profound." For "law," and for "the nature of the 
 organization," read, the power of reversion of charac- 
 ters once lost by the given species; and the above 
 counters for ignorance may be eliminated from the 
 problem. 
 
 Again he says (page 502, Vol. ii, Animals and 
 Plants, &c): 
 
 "Although every variation is either directly or in- 
 directly caused by some change in the surrounding 
 conditions, we must never forget that the nature of the 
 organization which is acted on, essentially governs the 
 result. Distinct organisms, when placed under similar 
 8* 
 
86 VARIATIONS, DUE TO REVERSION. 
 
 conditions, vary in different manners, whilst closely 
 allied organisms under dissimilar conditions, often 
 vary in nearly the same manner. We see this in 
 the same modification frequently reappearing at long 
 intervals of time in the same variety, and likewise 
 in the several striking cases given of analogous or 
 parallel varieties. Although some of these latter cases 
 are simply due to reversion, others cannot thus be 
 accounted for." 
 
 The only reason he can advance, for urging that 
 some positive variations "cannot thus be accounted 
 for," is, that he does not know of any individuals of 
 the species under nature, in which the characters 
 which arise, are to be seen. It is clear that, if de- 
 generation has been so rife under nature, then, this 
 objection cannot obtain. 
 
 On page 307 (Vol. ii, Animals and Plants, &c), he 
 says: 
 
 " Bud-variation, which we fully discussed in a former 
 chapter, shows us that variability may be quite inde- 
 pendent of seminal reproduction, and likewise a rever- 
 sion to long-lost ancestral characters." 
 
 In this former chapter, to which he alludes, he says* 
 (p. 449, Vol. i, Animals and Plants, &c): 
 
 " Nor can we account, in all cases, for the appear- 
 ance, through bud-variation, of new characters, by the 
 principle of reversion to long-lost characters." 
 
 Darwin's inability to account, by reversion, for some 
 
 ■>f the variations, is due to his idea that varietal types 
 
 xi thus to be explained. It is not the types, which 
 
 1 be explained by reversion; but those positive 
 
VARIATIONS, DUE TO REVERSION. 87 
 
 features which arise. That it is this idea (viz., that 
 varietal types negative the hypothesis of reversion, 
 because such types were never known in the past), 
 which causes him to urge, that there are variations, 
 not due to reversion, is shown in the following re- 
 marks of his (p. 488, Vol. i, Animals and Plants, &c.) : 
 
 " Many cases of bud-variation, however, cannot be 
 attributed to reversion, but to spontaneous variability 
 (sic), 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." 
 
 The six varietal types of the Chrysanthemum, are 
 not due to reversion. Nor are the types of the four 
 varieties of the gooseberry. But the positive features 
 which have arisen in the six varieties of the Chrysan- 
 themum, are due to partial reversions to that original 
 perfect type of the Chrysanthemum, which was the 
 sum of all the positive characters of the species. By 
 modifying this original type of the species, it might be 
 possible to obtain a hundred varietal types. What 
 complicates the problem somewhat, is, that these varie- 
 ties are not the result of direct modifications of the 
 original form. But, that original forrn has been re- 
 duced to the degenerated condition in which the plant 
 is, under nature. Then, it is placed under cultivation ; 
 and, because it regains, in different ways, the characters 
 it lost, different varieties or types are formed ; and 
 
OS VARIATIONS, DUE TO REVERSION. 
 
 when the idea of reversion is suggested, in connectioi 
 with any variety, the possibility of the type of sue! 
 variety, having previously existed, is entertained b; 
 the mind, and rejected under a false conception o 
 the solution. So, also, the idea, of there having ex 
 isted in the past, as many types as there are varieties o 
 the given species, is rejected, and the hypothesis of re 
 version accordingly suffers. The fact is, that, for eacl 
 species, there originally existed a type (then realizec 
 in the members of such species), which included 
 within it, all of the characters which it was ever pos 
 sible for any member of that species to develop. Thi: 
 type, it is possible to modify in an infinity of ways 
 but, as is shown in future chapters of this work, eacl 
 such modified type, suffers physiological evil in pn> 
 portion to the amount of modification it displays. 
 
 From the above quotation, it is made manifest tc 
 the reader that, if Reversion cannot account for varia- 
 tion, the only alternative is "Spontaneous Variability!' 
 Well may Darwin say, " We are (he is) far too ignor- 
 ant to speculate on the relative importance of the sev- 
 eral known and unknown causes of variation." He 
 cannot lay a foundation for a theory of development, 
 but he is an adept in the erection of a superstructure ! 
 
 He says (p. 351, Vol. 2, Animals and Plants, 6r.): 
 
 " To recur once again to bud-variation. When we 
 reflect on the millions of buds, which many trees have 
 produced, before some one bud varied, we are lost in 
 wonder what the precise cause of each variation can 
 be." 
 
 Then after speaking of the improvements which 
 
VARIATIONS, DUE TO REVERSION. 89 
 
 have arisen in the peach, the plum, the rose, and the 
 camellia, he says : 
 
 " When we reflect on these facts, we become deeply- 
 impressed with the conviction, that, in such cases, the 
 nature of the variation depends but little on the condi- 
 tions to which the plant has been exposed, and not 
 in any especial manner on its individual character, but 
 much more on the general nature or constitution, in- 
 herited from some remote progenitor, of the whole 
 group of allied beings to which the plant belongs." 
 
 This shows that the variations are due to reversion. 
 If they are due to reversion ; then, his hypothesis of the 
 community of origin of the species is refuted, because it 
 was by means of these variations, and by means of the 
 assumption, that these variations arose for the first 
 time, that he sought to prove the community of origin 
 of the species. Yet, here he assumes the community of 
 origin of the species (which was the conclusion at which 
 he professed to arrive by means of the accumulation of 
 variations arising for the first time), to account, by past 
 degeneration and present Reversion, for the appear- 
 ance of these very variations ! Leave out this assump- 
 tion of the community of origin of the species, — which 
 is the very conclusion which is in dispute (!), — and 
 assume, that the degeneration which has confessedly 
 taken place, has occurred within the limits only of 
 each species ; and assume, that»the variations, arising 
 in each species, are due to the mere regain of charac- 
 ters lost by such species ; and all the phenomena 
 of growth and development will round themselves 
 into a perfect, scientific whole, rigidly exclusive of 
 
90 
 
 all such metaphysical factors as "spontaneous varia- 
 bility," &c. 
 
 Darwin evidently sees that, if Reversion may lay 
 claim to all the variations which arise, his theory is at 
 an end. As has doubtless been observed, he strives to 
 show, that Reversion cannot account for "some char- 
 acters." These "some characters" are the ones upon 
 which hangs his only hope of salvation for his theory. 
 One of the devices, to which he resorts, to confound 
 the problem of reversion, is to appeal to our ignorance 
 of such and such a character ever having been de- 
 veloped before. Deftly playing upon the prejudice 
 of the orthodox, to the effect that God made and 
 placed animals and plants in the existing state of 
 nature, and that therefore it is derogatory to Infinite 
 Power, that He should make any of them in an in- 
 complete condition; he affects to deem it a sufficient 
 answer to the ascription of any variations to Rever- 
 sion, to refer the reader to the given species as it exists 
 under nature, and to point to the absence, in it, of any 
 such character, as the one in question. When it serves 
 his purpose to refer variations solely to a "spontane- 
 ous variability," or to an " innate tendency," he plays* 
 the card above indicated. When he endeavors to 
 show the great scope of reversion, he coolly contests 
 any such notion that animals or plants, under nature, 
 need necessarily, to be complete in structure. What 
 involves him in such a mesh of inconsistencies, is that 
 he is endeavoring to arrive at the conclusion, that 
 species had a common origin, by two different sets of 
 premises. By one of the two modes of reasoning, he 
 
VARIATIONS, DUE TO KB VERSION. 91 
 
 strives to show a community of origin of species, by- 
 showing that variations have arisen, and that such varia- 
 tions have been accumulated, and have evolved all the 
 different species from 'one low, primordial organism. 
 This course necessitates the assumption, that such varia- 
 tions arise for the first time. His other design is, to 
 show a community of origin of the species, by show- 
 ing that the species have been formed by degeneration ; 
 and that they are but the various modifications of some 
 higher type than them all. This, on the other hand, 
 requires him to maintain, that such variations as arise, 
 were once fully developed in a type higher in the scale 
 of development, than is the species in which the varia- 
 tions occur. Would it be believed, were not Darwin's 
 works so easy of reference, that on the one side of his 
 problem of the evolution of species, is arrayed a mass 
 of positive evidence, which is well nigh appalling, 
 showing degeneration to have been wide-spread, and 
 to have invaded every known species; while, on the 
 other hand, to offset this antithesis to evolution, is 
 Darwin's mere assumption of an occasional variation 
 occurring, under nature, "once in a thousand gen- 
 erations!" The degeneration of each species, under 
 nature, is positive and incontestably attested; whereas, 
 any evolution in any species, under nature, is wholly 
 problematical. When such degeneration, in each 
 species, under nature, is so well established, and when 
 the capacity of each species to regain what it lost, 
 is so fully conceded, is not the presumption an over- 
 powering one, viz., that each and every positive varia- 
 tion, or improvement, occurring under domestication, 
 
92 VARIATIONS, DUE TO REVERSION. 
 
 or under nature, is due to the regain of characters, 
 once lost, by the respective species ? 
 
 Mark the alternative : If included under the head of 
 reversion, these variations confessedly obey a known, 
 scientific law. If taken without the operation of that 
 law (as Darwin does, without warrant or excuse, and 
 only to save his theory from signal explosion) they 
 must be relegated to what? to "innate tendency," to 
 "spontaneous variability,'' to "nature and constitution 
 of the being that varies" and to "unknown causes," 
 of all of which "our ignorance is profound." The 
 theory of reversion does not rely solely upon this 
 overpowering presumption; nor upon its competency 
 to cover all the'facts; nor upon the absurdity of the 
 alternative explanation (!) of variations. For, it is 
 shown, aliunde, that an ancient progenitor of each 
 species, had all the characters fully and proportion- 
 ately developed. The proof lies in the circumstance, 
 that each and every animal and plant, in the world, 
 is defective (not merely structurally, but physiologi- 
 cally), in proportion as it lacks any positive characters- 
 of its species; and that the injury, thereby caused, 
 abates proportionately as it regains the integrity of 
 its species. And then, to round this theory of devel- 
 opment, there is the sterility of hybrids ! 
 
 On page 49, Vol. ii, Animals and Plants, &c, he 
 says: 
 
 "When two distinct races are crossed, it is notorious 
 that the tendency in the offspring, to revert to one or 
 both parent forms, is strong, and endures for many 
 generations. I have myself seen the clearest evi- 
 
93 
 
 dence of this, in crossed pigeons, and with various 
 plants. Mr. Sidney states that, in a litter of Essex 
 pigs, two young ones appeared which were the image 
 of the Berkshire boar that had been used twenty-eight 
 years before in giving size and constitution to the 
 breed. I observed in the barn yard at Betley Hall, 
 some fowls, showing a strong likeness to the Malay 
 breed, and was told by Mr. Toilet that he had, forty 
 years before, crossed his birds with Malays, and that, 
 though he had at first attempted to get rid of this 
 strain, he had subsequently given up the attempt, as 
 the Malay characters would appear * * * No 
 rule can be laid down, in cases of a cross, how soon 
 the tendency to reversion will be obliterated * * * 
 But we must be careful, not to confound these cases 
 of reversion to characters gained from a cross, with 
 those given under the first class, in which characters 
 originally common to both parents, but lost at some 
 former period ; for such characters may recur, after an 
 almost indefinite number of generations." 
 
 Again he says: 
 
 "Many sub-varieties of the pigeon have reversed, 
 and somewhat lengthened feathers on the back of 
 the head, and this is certainly not due to the species, 
 under nature, which shows no trace of such a struc- 
 ture, but * * * we may suspect that reversion 
 to some extremely remote form has come into action." 
 
 On page 74, Vol. ii, Animals and Plants, &c, he 
 says: 
 
 " No doubt it appears, at first sight, in the highest 
 degree improbable that, in. every horse, of every gen- 
 eration, there should be a latent capacity and tendency 
 to produce stripes, though these may not appear once 
 in a thousand generations ; that in every white, black, 
 9 
 
94 
 
 or other colored pigeon, which may have transmitted 
 its proper color, during centuries, there should be a 
 latent capacity, in the plumage, to become, and to be 
 marked, with certain characteristic bars ; that, in every 
 child, in a six-fingered family, there should be the 
 capacity for the production of an additional digit; 
 and so in other cases. Nevertheless, there is no 
 more inherent improbability in this being the case, 
 than in a useless and rudimentary organ, or even in 
 only a tendency to the production of a rudimentary 
 organ, being inherited during millions of generations (!), 
 as is well known to occur with a multitude of organic 
 beings. There is no more inherent improbability, in 
 each domestic pig, during a thousand generations, re- 
 taining the capacity and tendency to develop great 
 tusks, under fitting conditions, than in the young calf 
 having retained, for an indefinite number of genera- 
 tions, rudimentary incisor teeth, which never protrude 
 through the gums." 
 
 Again he says, on page 70, Vol. ii : 
 
 "The subject of latent characters is so important, 
 as we shall see in a future chapter, that I will give 
 another illustration. Many animals have the right 
 and left sides of their body unequally developed: 
 this is well known to be the case with flat fish, in 
 which the one side differs, in thickness and colorf 
 and in the shape of the fins, from the other; and 
 during the growth of the young fish, one eye ac- 
 tually travels, as shown by Steenstrup, from the 
 lower to the upper surface. In most flat fishes, the 
 left is the blind side, but, in some, it is the right; 
 though, in both cases, 'wrong fishes,' which are 
 developed in a reversed manner to what is usual, 
 occasionally occur, and in Platessa flesus, the right 
 or left side is indifferently developed, the one as 
 often as the other. With gasteropods, or shell-fish, 
 
VARIATIONS, DUE TO REVERSION. 95 
 
 the right and left sides are extremely unequal; the 
 far greater number of species are dextral, with rare 
 and occasional reversals of development, and some 
 few are normally sinistral; but, certain species of 
 Bulimus, and many Achitinellae, are as often sinis- 
 tral as dextral. I will give an analogous case in 
 the great articulate kingdom: the two sides of Ve- 
 rucca are so wonderfully unlike, that without careful 
 dissection, it is extremely difficult to recognize the 
 corresponding parts on the opposite sides of the 
 body; yet it is apparently a mere matter of chance, 
 whether it be the right or the left side that under- 
 goes so singular an amount of change. One plant is 
 known to me, in which the flower, according as it 
 stands on the one or other side of the spike, is un- 
 equally developed. In all the foregoing cases, the 
 two sides of the animal are perfectly symmetrical at 
 an early period of growth. Now, whenever a species 
 is as liable to be unequally developed on the one side, 
 as on the other side, we may infer that the capacity for 
 such development is present, though latent, in the un- 
 developed side. And as a reversal of development 
 occasionally occurs in animals of many kinds, this 
 latent capacity is probably very common." 
 
 After citing a multitude of instances, showing past 
 degeneration; that characters may long lie latent in 
 the individuals of the species ; and the capacity, of such 
 individuals, to regain such characters, whenever the 
 conditions of their development are restored to them ; 
 he says : 
 
 " From these several facts, it must be admitted, that 
 certain characters, capacities, and instincts, may lie 
 latent, in an individual, and even in a succession of 
 individuals, without our being able to detect the least 
 signs of their presence." 
 
96 VARIATIONS, DUE TO REVERSION. 
 
 If characters may thus lie latent, "without our being 
 able to detect the least signs of their presence," where- 
 in consists the force of the only objection to ascribing 
 characters to Reversion? namely, that the species, 
 under nature, was "never known, by man, to have 
 had characters, similar to those arising by variation? 
 
 On page 67, Vol. ii, Animals and Plants, &c, he 
 says: 
 
 "Finally, we have seen that characters often reap- 
 pear in purely-bred races, without our being able to 
 assign any proximate cause; but when they become 
 feral, this is either indirectly or, directly induced by 
 the change in their conditions of life. With cross- 
 breeds, the act of crossing, in itself certainly leads to 
 the recovery of long-lost characters, as well as of 
 those derived from either parent form. Changed 
 conditions, consequent on cultivation, and the rela- 
 tive position of buds, flowers, and seeds on the plant, 
 all apparently aid in giving this same tendency. Re- 
 version may occur, either through seminal or bud 
 generation, generally at birth, but sometimes only 
 with an advance of age. Segments, or portions of 
 the individual, may alone be thus affected. That a 
 being should be born resembling in certain charac- 
 ters, an ancestor removed by two or three, and in 
 some cases, by hundreds or even thousands of gen- 
 erations, is assuredly a wonderful fact. In these cases, 
 the child is commonly said to inherit such characters 
 directly from its grandparents, or more remote an- 
 cestors. But, this view is hardly conceivable. If, 
 however, we suppose that every character is derived 
 exclusively from the father or mother, but that many 
 characters lie latent in both parents, during a long 
 succession of generations, the foregoing facts are in- 
 telligible." 
 
VARIATIONS, DUE TO REVERSION. 9t 
 
 It is difficult to conceive, how any one, who looks 
 this evidence fairly in the face, can entertain the 
 slightest doubt that the cause which Darwin pro- 
 fesses to have sought in vain, to explain variations, 
 is furnished by the regain of long-lost characters of 
 the varying species; or, by reversion. The reader 
 will mark, that it is variation which constitutes the 
 problem, not development in general. Development 
 in general, is Darwin's problem; but he chose to 
 solve that problem by the problem of variations. 
 His failure to solve the subordinate problem should 
 alone suffice to demolish his theory of development. 
 A fortiori, is his theory destroyed, when there is found 
 a solution of the problem of variations, diametrically 
 opposed to such theory. 
 
 To represent, as the author does, that he cannot 
 explain all of the variations or improvements, is to 
 affect an ignorance, simulated under the stress and 
 necessities of his theory. The impression, so wide- 
 spread and general, that species, taken from a state 
 of nature, are necessarily perfect, after their kind, aids 
 Darwin materially in cloaking the significance of this 
 law of reversion. The current conception, hut most 
 erroneous one, is, that all improvements which animals 
 or plants make, after they are placed under domestica- 
 tion, is clear gain, or advance upon what they normally 
 should be. This idea has even been carried so far, as 
 to induce some scientists (?) to maintain, that Provi- 
 dence has introduced something plastic into organisms 
 under domestication, which enables them to vary, 
 in order that they might be of better use to man. 
 9* 
 
98 VARIATIONS, DUE TO REVERSION. 
 
 The facts, quoted from Darwin, show that the im- 
 provements, or variations, in each species, are but the 
 regain, partial or complete, of an original, normal con- 
 dition of such species. 
 
 On page 447, Vol. ii, he says: 
 
 "-In every living creature, we may feel assured, that 
 a host of lost characters lie ready to be evolved under 
 proper conditions. How can we make intelligible, and 
 connect with other facts, this wonderful and common 
 capacity of reversion, — this power of calling back to 
 life long-lost characters?" 
 
 When he speaks of a "host" of characters, latent in 
 each individual, he is rather overstating the case. But, 
 it places his theory of evolution in a bad light, for it 
 proves that Natural Selection has been engaged in the 
 past, in degenerating organisms, instead of develop- 
 ing them; and, that "the strongest, fittest, and most 
 vigorous," which Natural Selection is said to have 
 preserved, were, instead of being the better for the 
 Struggle for Existence, in a condition only to con- 
 gratulate themselves, that they were not so completely 
 used up, as were the weakest, which succumbed. 
 
 There are not a "host" of such lost characters, in 
 each individual. That is a mere speculative assump- 
 tion, with Darwin. But, there were a certain number 
 of characters which each species lost under nature, 
 and those characters are represented, in part, by the 
 improvements which arise in each such species under 
 domestication, and at intervals under nature. Even 
 according to Darwin's own showing, there is not a 
 scintilla of evidence, going to prove that one, single, 
 
' VARIATIONS, DUE TO REVERSION. 99 
 
 new character, feature, organ, or instinct — nay, one 
 single cell — has been added to the general organic 
 fund, for "millions of generations" past. His facts 
 demonstrate, that every apparent accession of such, 
 has been the mere regain of what was previously lost, 
 by the varying species, at some near, or remote, period 
 in the past. 
 
 Darwin, in combating the view of his adversaries, 
 that the existing state of nature is the same state in 
 which each species was originally created, has pursued 
 a suicidal course; for, in revealing the degeneration 
 which has occurred under the state of nature, and in 
 displaying the extent and scope of reversion under 
 domestication, he has swept the ground from under 
 his feet, by furnishing an explanation of the initial 
 developments (variations), with which his argument 
 starts; and thereby puts an imperative veto on that 
 liberty to extend such developments indefinitely, which 
 the improvements under domestication, at first seem- 
 ingly gave him. What led to Darwin's giving such 
 a suicidal exposition of Reversion, is this: Notwith- 
 standing that there was, to his theory that the species 
 evolve one from another, the insuperable objection, 
 that the species are effectually divided from each 
 other by the sterility of hybrids, he fancied that he 
 had so far sustained his theory, by the view of an 
 indefinite accumulation of variations, that he might 
 corroborate it by a collateral hypothesis. He fancied 
 that, if he showed that a vast number of characters 
 had been lost, then when different species within the 
 same family, developed each a similar long-lost charac- 
 
100 VARIATIONS, DUE TO REVERSION. 
 
 ter, it might be argued, that all these species inherited 
 similar characters from some remote, common ances- 
 tor from which these several species evolved. But, 
 the mere possession, of a similar character, by several 
 species, does not argue a common origin for them. 
 The turkey, the pigeon, the duck and the chicken, 
 have tail feathers; but this does not prove they 
 descended from a common ancestor. If not, then 
 the loss and regain of such a character by such 
 species, cannot prove it. If proof, aliunde, of a 
 common origin, had been adduced; then, the pos- 
 session, or the regain of such common characters 
 might be advanced as corroborative evidence. If 
 Darwin had shown that improvements, or variations, 
 go on indefinitely, and that therefore it was possible 
 for species to evolve, one from another, this fact of the 
 possession, or of the re-development of a similar charac- 
 ter by different species, might be brought in as cumu- 
 lative proof. But, standing by itself, it has not the 
 weight of levity itself. But, while Darwin thought 
 that he had established the proof, aliunde, his col- 
 lateral hypothesis was sapping that very proof. In 
 attempting to give extra support to his theory, by 
 showing this great degeneration and this ever-active 
 reversion, he undermined his principal theory, by 
 showing that the variations, which his theory required 
 should be extended indefinitely, were due to reversion, 
 and that therefore there was a limit to such variations ; 
 which limit conclusively negatived the idea of a com- 
 munity of Origin of the species. Another absurdity, 
 in which he involved himself, was by displaying the 
 
VARIATIONS, DUE TO REVERSION. 101 
 
 fact that, instead of there having been evolution in 
 the past, under nature, there has been great degen- 
 eration, which is the very antithesis to evolution. 
 Fancy his assumed, slight variation, arising once in 
 "the course of thousands of generations," and de- 
 pendent upon the fitful action of Natural Selection 
 for its preservation, contending against the wide-spread 
 degeneration which Darwin shows! And when the 
 variation has arisen, and is preserved, who is to tell, 
 whether or not, it is only a lost character regained? 
 
 On page 449, Vol. ii, Animals and Plants, &c, 
 Darwin says, that Herbert Spencer's "Principles of 
 Biology" "are not brought to bear on reversion; and 
 this is unintelligible to me." It is not unintelligible to 
 Herbert Spencer. He is a wiser man, in his genera- 
 tion, than is Darwin. He had his own sound reasons 
 for not bringing his- principles to bear on reversion. 
 Spencer doubtless saw that his synthesis would be 
 shattered in heaps over his head, by his own act, 
 did he not steer clear of all mention of Reversion. 
 Spencer's synthesis requires that variations should be 
 regarded as wholly ultimate facts, inexplicable by any 
 law save the one which Spencer devised for the nonce, 
 viz., "the instability of the homogeneous." Were it 
 admitted, by Spencer, that the varying individuals 
 have degenerated, and that the appearance, in any 
 individual, of characters similar to the ones which 
 such individual's progenitors lost, must be ascribed 
 to the law of reversion, the inevitable outcome must 
 have been, some day, the complete exposition of the 
 fallacy upon which the synthesis rests. The theory, 
 
102 VARIATIONS, DUE TO REVERSION. 
 
 that Herbert Spencer saw this, and was loth to con- 
 tribute to the downfall of his gossamer structure, may- 
 alone explain the omission, by a man of his philo- 
 sophical acumen, of such well known phenomena as 
 are those of Reversion. 
 
 On page 77, Vol. ii, Animals and Plants, &c, Darwin 
 says : 
 
 "S(5me flowers have almost certainly become more 
 or less completely peloric through reversion. Cory- 
 dalis tuberosa probably has one of its two nectaries 
 colorless, destitute of nectar, only half the size of the 
 other, and therefore, to a certain extent, in a rudimen- 
 tary state; the pistil is curved towards the perfect 
 nectary, and the hood, formed of the inner petals, 
 slips off the pistil and stamens in one direction alone, 
 so that, when a bee sucks the perfect nectary, the 
 stigma and stamens are exposed and rubbed against 
 the insect's body. In several closely allied genera, as 
 in Dielytra, &c, there are two perfect nectaries, the 
 pistil is straight, and the hood slips off on either side, 
 according as the bee sucks either nectary. Now, I 
 have examined several flowers of Gorydalis tuberosa, in 
 which both nectaries were equally developed and con- 
 tained nectar; in this, we see only the re-development 
 of a partially aborted organ ; but, with this re-develop- * 
 ment, the pistil becomes straight, and the hood slips 
 off in either direction; so that these flowers have 
 acquired the perfect structure, so well adapted for 
 insect agency, of Dielytra and its allies. We cannot 
 attribute these coadapted modifications to chance, or 
 to correlated variability; we must attribute them to a 
 primordial condition of the species." 
 
 Is it not rather inconsistent, in an author, according 
 to whose theory, every structure, coadaptation, rela- 
 
VARIATIONS, DUE TO REVERSION. 108 
 
 tion, and dependency, in organic nature, must, at some 
 time, have arisen by variation, to assert, as Darwin does 
 here, that he is compelled to ascribe the improvements 
 to reversion; because it is so difficult to believe that 
 they have arisen in any other way? 
 
 On the same, and on the following page, he cites 
 other Startling improvements, which he says, he is 
 constrained to refer to reversion. He also says * 
 
 " The case of the fifth stamen, in the peloric Antir- 
 rhinum, which is produced by the re-development of a 
 rudiment always present, * * * probably reveals 
 to us the state of the flower, as far as the stamens are 
 concerned, at some ancient epoch. It is also difficult 
 to believe, that the other four stamens, and the petals, 
 after an arrest of development, at a very early embry- 
 onic age, would have come to full perfection, in color, 
 structure, and function, unless these organs had, at 
 some former period, normally passed through a similar 
 course of growth. Hence it appears to me probable, 
 that the progenitor of the genus Antirrhinum, must, at 
 some remote epoch, have included five stamens, and 
 borne flowers, in some degree resembling those now 
 produced by the peloric form. 
 
 " Lastly, I may add that many instances have been 
 recorded of flowers, not generally ranked as peloric, in 
 which certain organs, normally few in number, have 
 been abnormally augmented. As such an increase of 
 parts cannot be looked at as an arrest of development, 
 nor due to the re-development of rudiments, for no 
 rudiments are present, and as these additional parts 
 bring the plant into closer relationship with its natural 
 allies, they ought probably to be viewed as reversions 
 to a primordial condition." 
 
 . These quotations, from Darwin's works, showing 
 
104 VARIATIONS, DUE TO REVERSION. 
 
 Reversion, might be multiplied indefinitely, for he 
 gives several chapters to the subject, and almost every 
 other page of his works, is filled with references to this 
 factor. With one more quotation we will close the 
 direct proofs of Reversion. 
 
 On page 80, Vol. ii, Animals and Plants, &c, he 
 says: 
 
 "On the doctrine of reversion, as given in this 
 chapter, the germ becomes a far more marvelous ob- 
 ject; for, besides the visible changes to which it is sub- 
 jected, we must believe that it is crowded with invisible 
 characters, proper to both sexes, to both the right and 
 left side of the body, and to a long line of male and 
 female ancestors, separated by hundreds, or even thou- 
 sands, of generations from the present time; and these 
 characters, like those written on paper with invisible 
 ink, all lie ready to be evolved, under certain known or 
 unknown conditions." 
 
 Assume but a tithe of the degeneration, which is 
 above implied, and the scope of reversion is suf- 
 ficiently wide to cover every variation, under domesti- 
 cation, or under nature. Darwin's theory lays claim 
 to be a tenable hypothesis, only in the event, that 
 variations are inexplicable, and may proceed forever* 
 or indefinitely. This assumption of his, is, however, 
 completely negatived by the facts of Reversion, which 
 show that the sole variation possible, is the regain of 
 characters lost, and that when all of the characters, 
 which any species has lost, have been recovered, the 
 limit of positive variation, for that species, is reached. 
 
 If it be conceded, that proof of a glaring hiatus, inter- 
 vening between a theory and the facts upon which such 
 
VARIATIONS, DUE TO REVERSION. 105 
 
 theory purports to rest, invalidates that theory ; and, if 
 the filling up of that hiatus, with a known, scientific law, 
 diametrically opposed to the assumption essential to 
 such theory, is disproof of the theory; then, the evi- 
 dence already advanced, constitutes a Refutation of 
 Darwinism. But, the Refutation does not depend upon 
 such mere agreement, of the facts, with the hypothesis 
 of Reversion. Demonstrative proof of the truth of 
 the theory of Reversion is readily available ; which is 
 furnished, in the subsequent chapters, which treat of 
 Crossing, Close-Interbreeding, and Self-Fertilization. 
 
 10 
 
CHAPTER IV. 
 
 Reversion not a Law, Sui Generis ; but a Derivative Law, 
 Assimilable to other Well Known Laws. 
 
 We have shown Reversion to be a most potent 
 factor, and proven it to be abundantly able to explain 
 every improvement which has arisen, or which may 
 arise, under Nature, or under domestication. Although 
 it does not explain the origin of the development of 
 each species, it does explain, clearly and fully, what 
 that phase of development is, which, in Biology, has 
 been termed Progress. It does explain, — and explains 
 them in a manner inconsistent with Darwin's theory, — 
 all those slight increments or gradations of growth, 
 called variations or improvements, upon which Darwin 
 endeavors to base his theory. 
 
 As heretofore used, the word, Progress, has been 
 simply a metaphysical entity, with as little title to 
 recognition, by science, as have "innate tendency," 
 "inherent aptitude," "vital force," or any of those 
 other, barren terms by which men have shaped ignor- 
 ance into the semblance of knowledge. There is a law 
 of Progress ; but that law, when rightly resolved, is 
 Reversion, or the regain of characters, organs, faculties, 
 instincts and powers which were once lost by the 
 
 species, now progressing. Thus regarded, Progress is 
 (106) 
 
REVERSION, NOT A LAW, SUI GENERIS. 107 
 
 a positive, definite, scientific factor ; founded upon well " 
 established physiological principles, not upon chance, 
 as it has heretofore been, nor upon a "tendency," nor 
 upon any metaphysical entity, or other makeshift of 
 ignorance, nor upon any obscure, fatalistic hypothesis. 
 The advocates of Progress need not abate any of their 
 enthusiasm, for their cherished watchword ; for, in 
 each species, and notably in Man, there still remains a 
 wide margin for improvement. 
 
 There are, also, four other laws, — three of which are 
 most familiarly known to the vulgar, as well as to the 
 learned, — with which, the identity of Reversion is 
 possible to be fully established, (i). One is the capac- 
 ity of redintegration, following the disintegration of 
 the tissues. (2). Another is the power of reparation 
 which is manifested, either by what is termed, healing 
 by first intention, or healing with inflammation, upon 
 the occurrence of any wound or abrasion. (3). Another 
 law, with which Reversion is identical, is the power of 
 immediate reproduction of a lost member; a power 
 which is displayed, to the fullest extent, by the lower 
 orders of animals, and, measurably, by even the high- 
 est. (4.) The fourth and last law, is Generation, both 
 sexual and asexual. 
 
 Of the first, — viz., the repair which is continually 
 making good the waste of the tissue in the organic 
 system, — no evidence is needed, as it is well known 
 by physiologists ; and, even the unlearned, in science, 
 attest their knowledge of it, in the current conception, 
 that the body undergoes a complete change, every 
 seven years. 
 
108 REVERSION, NOT A LAW, SUI GENERIS. 
 
 Of the second law, Darwin speaks, at much length, 
 in Chapter xxvn, of Vol. ii, of Animals and Plants, 
 &c. This law, also, is matter of common knowledge. 
 
 Of the third law, — viz., the reproduction of lost limbs, 
 in the course of the same generation in which they 
 were lost, — evidence perhaps may better be produced, 
 as it is a matter not so generally known. 
 
 "It is notorious" (says Darwin) "that some of the 
 lower animals, when cut into many pieces, reproduce 
 so many perfect individuals. Lyonnet cut a Nais, or 
 freshwater worm, into nearly fifty pieces, and these all 
 reproduced perfect animals. It is probable that seg- 
 mentation could be carried much further in some of 
 the protozoa, and, with some of the lowest plants, each 
 cell will reproduce the parent form" (pp. 429, 430, Vol. 
 ii, Animals and Plants, &c). 
 
 The power of this reversion, or ability, of any 
 organism to recomplete itself, when any part or parts 
 have been cut off, is such, that a mere fragment, taken 
 from a Begonia leaf, will re-develop the whole plant, if 
 imbedded in fit soil, and kept at an appropriate tem- 
 perature. So small, frequently, is the fragment which 
 is capable of reproducing for itself the whole plant 
 from which it is torn, that something like a hundred 
 plants, may be produced from the fragments of a 
 single leaf. If this power be kept down by adverse 
 conditions, is it any wonder that, upon the return of 
 the favorable conditions, to a plant which has had a 
 part or organ missing for ten, a hundred, or a thousand 
 generations, it should regain its integrity, byre-develop- 
 ing such part or organ ? 
 
REVERSION, NOT A LAW, SUI GENERIS. 109 
 
 " Now, when the leg, for instance, of a salamander, 
 is cut off, a slight crust forms over the wound, and be- 
 neath this crust, the uninjured cells, or units of bone, 
 muscle, nerves, &c, are supposed to unite with the 
 diffused gemmules of those cells which in the perfect 
 leg come next in order; and these as they become 
 slightly developed, unite with others, and so until a 
 papilla of soft cellular tissue, the 'budding leg' is 
 formed ; and in time a perfect leg. Thus, that portion of 
 the leg which had been cut off, neither more nor less, 
 would be reproduced. If the tail or leg of a young 
 animal had been cut off, a young tail or leg would have 
 been reproduced, as actually occurs with the ampu- 
 tated tail of the tad-pole" (pp. 450, 45 1, Vol. ii, Animals 
 and Plants, &c). 
 
 " Spallanzani, by cutting off the legs and tail of a 
 salamander, got in the course of three months, six 
 crops of these members; so that 687 perfect bones 
 were reproduced, by one animal, during one season. 
 At whatever point, the limb was cut off, the deficient 
 part, and no more, was exactly reproduced. Even 
 with Man, as we have seen in the twelfth chapter, 
 when treating of polydactylism, the entire limb, whilst 
 in an embryonic state, and supernumary digits, are 
 occasionally, though imperfectly, reproduced after am- 
 putation. When a diseased bone has been removed, 
 a new one sometimes gradually assumes the regular 
 form, and all the attachments of muscles, ligaments, 
 &c, become as complete as before" (p. 354, Vol. ii, 
 Animals and Plants, &c). 
 
 "No doubt, the power of reparation, though not 
 always quite perfect, is an admirable provision, ready 
 for various emergencies, even for those which occur 
 only at long intervals of time" (p.. 355, Vol. ii, Animals 
 and Plants, &c). 
 
 In all of these cases of repair, or reproduction, the 
 10* 
 
110 BJEVERSION, NOT A LAW, SUI GENERIS. 
 
 integrity of the organism has been impaired; and, 
 "the coordinating power of the organization" has 
 repaired such integrity. Darwin speaks of this power, 
 as the 
 
 " Reparative power which is common, in a higher 
 or lower degree, to all organic beings, and which was 
 formerly designated by physiologists as the nisus for- 
 mativus" (p. 353, Vol. ii, Animals and Plants, &c). 
 
 Now, Reversion is, essentially, the same power. It is 
 but a manifestation of the same law; only, not occur- 
 ring in the same generation, with that in which the 
 integrity of the organism, was impaired. The only 
 difference is, that, in the case of reintegration of tissue, 
 in the case of repair of wounds, and in the reproduc- 
 tion of a lost limb, the impaired integrity, consequent, 
 respectively, upon the disintegration of the tissue, 
 upon the infliction of the wound, and upon the dis- 
 memberment, is immediately retrieved; while, in Re- 
 version, the return to such state of integrity, is deferred, 
 for one or more generations, owing to unfavorable 
 conditions, — the same conditions, generally, which 
 entailed the loss, or the reduction, of the given part. 
 The relation which Reversion bears to the healing 
 of a wound, is, essentially, that which this same 
 healing, when attended by inflammation, bears to 
 this same healing, when it is effected by what is 
 termed, "first intention." As, the immediate healing 
 of a wound has been thus termed ; and, as it is mani- 
 festly implied, that healing, by inflammation, may be 
 called healing by second, third, fourth, fifth, sixth, or 
 twentieth intention; so, Reversion might consistently 
 
REVERSION, NOT A LAW, SUI GENERIS. Ill 
 
 be termed, hundredth, thousandth, or ten thousandth 
 intention; according to the interval of time, during 
 which, the characters, eventually regained, have re- 
 mained reduced or suppressed. 
 
 The mistake, made by those who have advocated 
 the evolution of the species, has been, in placing 
 the fixed type, — that is, the organism, which is in 
 its full, normal integrity, — in those individuals of the 
 given species, which have the average structure of the 
 species, as it exists under nature. The type there, now, 
 however, is a degenerated type, with its structural in- 
 tegrity impaired, by the loss of some characters, and 
 by the reduction of others ; and, the type of the given 
 species is not fixed under the existing state of nature. 
 It is fixed (i. e., normally fixed), at a certain margin of 
 development, above such structure as it subsists in the 
 state of nature. The improvement, in each species, 
 under domestication, is a margin, merely, correspond- 
 ing with the margin of previous degeneration. The 
 characters which arise, do but resume their lost, struc- 
 tural integrity, as characters do, when reproduced in a 
 truncated salamander. The fact, that function takes 
 precedence of structure, should suffice to indicate that 
 the power displayed, is Reversion. 
 
 Air of these powers, of repair, are Reversions to the 
 primordial integrity of the given organism's species. 
 The Reversion, which is especially so called, is solely 
 a different manifestation of the same power which, in 
 nutrition, replaces the disintegrated tissue ; of the same 
 power, which repairs a wound, or a bruise; of the same 
 power, which shows itself in the reproduction of a lost 
 
112 REVERSION, NOT A LAW, SUI GENERIS. 
 
 member; — the only difference being, in the amount of 
 time taken to operate. In the one case, the reintegra- 
 tion occurs immediately, or in the same generation, in 
 which the loss of structural integrity occurred ; and, in 
 the other case, the reintegration is deferred, owing to 
 the absence of favorable conditions, for several, or for 
 many generations. 
 
 "It is notorious," says Darwin, "and we shall im- 
 mediately adduce proofs, that increased use or action 
 strengthens muscles, glands, sense-organs, &c. ; and, 
 that disuse, on the other hand, weakens them. I have 
 not met with a clear explanation of this fact, in works 
 on Physiology. Mr. Herbert Spencer maintains that, 
 when muscles are much used, or when intermittent 
 pressure is applied to the epidermis, an excess of 
 nutritious matter exudes from the vessels, and that 
 this gives additional development to the adjoining 
 parts." 
 
 It may be remarked, en passant, that Mr. Herbert 
 Spencer never yet failed to explain (?) any phenomena, 
 where language was capable of converting a mere re- 
 statement of the facts, into the semblance of a vera causa. 
 
 The greater efficiency in function, and the greatejr 
 development in structure, which follow greater ac- 
 tivity, are fully explicable, upon the view, that this 
 greater efficiency and greater development, were 
 once part of the perfect coordination of the organ- 
 ism, either in the individual itself, or in its ances- 
 tors; that the organism has degenerated; and that 
 the organism has ever been striving, — as Darwin 
 asserts Reversion to be ever striving, in the off- 
 spring of each successive generation, — to bring into 
 
REVERSION, NOT A LAW, SUI GENERIS. 113 
 
 play its reparative power, or nisus formativus, in order 
 to restore the lost integrity. The greater activity does 
 not cause the functional, or structural increase. That 
 is but a condition. The absence of such activity has 
 atrophied, or reduced the organ. The subsequent 
 restoration of such condition, occasions the re-de- 
 velopment. There is but one normal coordination 
 of the parts of any one species. The absence of 
 any part, or organ, impairs such coordination. By 
 disintegration; by the loss of tissue, consequent upon 
 a wound; or, by the loss or reduction of a character or 
 organ, either suddenly by dismemberment, or by the 
 slow operation of adverse conditions, this coordina- 
 tion is rendered abnormal. Perfect coordination is 
 compatible, only with the sum of all the characters 
 and parts, of a species, fully and proportionately 
 developed. When all the parts are present, and the 
 full complement of tissue is realized, in the individual, 
 the coordination is active, perfect, and normal, in each 
 and every part. When a part is missing, impaired co- 
 ordination results; but, the remaining parts are corre- 
 lated to the parts missing; and this correlation, being 
 essentially a coordinating power, — which acts equally 
 when a part is missing, or present, — the reintegration 
 of the lost part results, when the conditions allow. 
 The same force which binds the given part, when 
 present, to the whole, restores it when lost. If a num- 
 ber of parts be missing, or reduced, and the conditions 
 (increased activity, &c), be exclusively propitious to 
 the re-development of one of such parts; then, that 
 part alone will develop. 
 
114 KEVERSION, 
 
 The finger-reading of the blind; the exalted ability 
 of an orchestral conductor, to discriminate delicate 
 differences of sound; the pronounced development of 
 a dancer's legs, and of the jockey's crural adductors; 
 the many instances of high cultivation of the senses, 
 and of the intellect, either special or general ; attest, — 
 not a development, caused by mere activity, — but the 
 reparative power, which follows, very late, upon a de- 
 generation suffered by the individual's ancient pro- 
 genitors. Had the said tactual ability of the blind, 
 and the other cases of development, been at their 
 maximum, in an individual; and had they, then, from 
 some cause, been lost; their regain, by means of the 
 nisus formativus, or reparative power, would be con- 
 sidered perfectly natural. Why, then, should their 
 restoration to full integrity, and to full power, be 
 deemed in anywise singular, when Darwin himself 
 testifies, that this reparative power is operative, with 
 the largest and most important organs, after thou- 
 sands, and even millions, of generations ? As a fact, 
 this functional and structural development does ensue 
 upon mere activity. But the activity is but the 
 mere condition. The cause is to be sought, else- 
 where. To explain it; which is the more scientific 
 and reasonable? — to refer it to "evolution," to "pro- - 
 gress," to "innate tendency,'' etc., terms which are, 
 confessedly, but the mere symbols of a cause un- 
 known; or, to ascribe it to a power, which we see 
 daily in operation, in the repair of the slightest injury 
 to the skin? 
 
 If an individual should forswear all manner of exer- 
 
REVERSION, NOT A LAW, SUI GENERIS. 115 
 
 cise of his» crural appendages, those members would 
 become, either atrophied, or greatly shrunken in size. 
 If, then, he were to indulge in judiciously-increased 
 activity, they would regain their normal, functional, 
 and structural integrity. This regain will not, then, 
 be caused, by such increased activity; but, by the 
 coordinating power of the organism, which ties to- 
 gether all the parts, and which, of itself, never nor- 
 mally changes; but which is changed, or modified, 
 in its efficiency, by the absence of the condition, 
 needful for the exercise of its power. It thus changes 
 and the minimum of such change, to which it is 
 subjected by external conditions, is, doubtless, that 
 flux which it experiences, when the usual process of 
 the disintegration of tissue, is taking place. We are 
 engaged, now, only in establishing our assumption 
 that, after primal Evolution, the only kind of de- 
 velopment, or of growth, possible, is Reversion, which 
 is the regain of a. species' lost integrity; but it is 
 the purpose of this work, to demonstrate, that the 
 only, normal state of this coordinating (or as some 
 may call it, vital) force, is the state in which it is in the 
 maximum degree of efficiency, possible for any indi- 
 vidual of the given species; — and that, within any 
 given species, it is impossible to have any other, 
 normal coordination of parts, -than that coordination 
 which comprises all of the characters of such species. 
 All of the differences, between individuals of the same 
 species, are due to the different manners and degrees 
 in which this full integrity of the organism, has been 
 modified; together with the different modes and de- 
 
116 REVERSION, NOT A 
 
 grees in which their power of reversion to the full 
 structural build, has been modified by their conditions 
 of life. 
 
 That reversion is ever ready to operate, — as are the 
 other powers of repair, in the case of a wound, in the 
 case of interstitial waste, and in the case of the repro- 
 duction of a lost member, — Darwin shows, when he 
 says (p. 483, Vol. ii, Animals and Plants, &c): 
 
 "That there is a tendency, in the young of each, 
 successive generation, to produce the long-lost charac- 
 ters, and that this tendency, from some unknown 
 cause, sometimes prevails." 
 
 This Reversion is, equally with the other powers of 
 repair, but a process of redintegration ; and, between it 
 and the others, there is no fundamental distinction. 
 All of the instances, which he adduces, of improve- 
 ment or positive variation, are merely instances of such 
 reintegration. When Mr. Darwin has furnished his 
 thousands of facts, he has not yet given a scintilla of 
 proof, or of evidence, of the indefinite development 
 of any species. For, all of the improvements, and all 
 of the positive variations, adduced by him, are but re- 
 growth, redintegration, and repair merely, of the specific 
 type ; and, upon no principle of logic, or of common 
 sense, may instances of regrowth, or of reintegration, or 
 of repair, or of re- development, or of reversion, serve as 
 data, for any theory of unlimited growth, or of unlim- 
 ited development; for the limit of this repair, reinte- 
 gration, or reversion, is the form respectively, of the 
 structure, from which the organism, in question, de- 
 parted. How repair, re-growth, regain, re-develop- 
 
REVERSION, NOT A LAW, STJI GENERIS. lit 
 
 ment, reproduction, reversion, or redintegration, can, 
 by any possibility, justly enter, as an element, into a 
 process of development, designed to prove unlimited 
 growth, unlimited development or unlimited integra- 
 tion, is a mystery, to every one acquainted with the 
 canons of logic. Darwin has collected, from various 
 sources, a great number of interesting facts; and -has 
 thereby rendered a great service to science; but, if he 
 had devoted a tithe of the labor, and of the time, to 
 showing the relevancy of those facts, in connection 
 with his theory, he would have furnished his read- 
 ers, with something of infinitely more value than 
 facts. 
 
 He has, however, ingeniously availed himself of an 
 erroneous notion of his adversaries ; namely, that, as 
 the state of nature was the state in which the Creator 
 placed the Animals and Plants, when He created 
 them, therefore, the structure, as existing now, in the 
 state of nature, must be the normal, perfect mould, — 
 which is a glaring non sequitur. Darwin, however, 
 though he does not believe in any such alleged, normal 
 structure, derives a great, temporary benefit from the 
 said mistake; for, it allows him to argue thus: If the 
 structure, of any animal or plant, as now existing 
 under nature, is the normal build, then the variations 
 occurring under domestication, are something over 
 and above the development which the Creator estab- 
 lished: If so; then, who is to say, that there is a 
 limit to such residual development? And, if so, it is 
 probable, that the Creator never fixed any structure for 
 
 any species ; but, instead thereof, the species have gone 
 11 
 
118 
 
 on developing, by means of slow accretions, such as 
 we perceive under domestication. 
 
 A most clever trick ! He accepts, provisionally, — 
 although not concurring in, — the truth of his adver- 
 saries' assumption ; he is suffered, then, to work in his 
 false hypothesis (which he would never have been 
 allowed to do, if his adversaries had not been in error 
 in their said assumption) ; and then arrives at his 
 conclusion, which negatives completely the as- 
 sumption by which alone it was possible for him to 
 achieve it ! 
 
 The identity of the several powers, is well shown by 
 the two following quotations, from Darwin's Animals 
 and Plants, &c: 
 
 " Between the powers, which repair a trifling injury 
 in any part, and the power which previously was occu- 
 pied, in its maintenance, by the continued mutation of 
 its particles" (z. e., the reintegration of the tissues), 
 "there cannot be any great difference; and we may 
 follow Mr. Paget in believing them to be the self-same 
 power. As at each stage of growth, an amputated 
 part is replaced, by one in the same state of develop- 
 ment, we must likewise follow Mr. Paget in admitting, 
 ' that the powers of development from the embryo are 
 identical with those exercised for the restoration from 
 injuries'" (p. 430, Vol. ii). 
 
 These remarks show the identity of all the powers 
 of repair, which operate in the same generation in 
 which the organism suffered the departure from its 
 proper type. The following quotation, from Darwin, 
 shows, that the repair which occurs in the next, or 
 succeeding generations (that is, Reversion, or appear- 
 
REVERSION, NOT A LAW, SUI GENERIS. 119 
 
 ance of improvements) is also identical with the other 
 . powers of returning to the perfect type : 
 
 "No # doubt the power of reparation, though not 
 always quite perfect, is an admirable provision, ready 
 for various emergencies, even for those which occur 
 only at long intervals of time" (p. 355, Vol. ii). 
 
 In speaking of the power of reproduction of lost 
 members, he says : 
 
 " This power of regrowth does not, however, always 
 act perfectly ; the reproduced tail of a lizard differs in 
 the forms of the scales from the normal tail " (p. 354, 
 Vol. ii). 
 
 So, with the improvements, arising in animals and 
 plants under domestication ; this nisus formativus, this 
 reparative power, or Reversion, — as it is especially 
 so called, when it occurs in a generation following that 
 in which the injury was caused, or the characters were 
 lost, — does not always retrieve, in a complete or perfect 
 state, the characters which were lost by the species. 
 The conditions are not perfectly supplied. When they 
 are perfectly supplied, there will be perfect reparation, 
 perfect reversion, in those animals and plants, as well 
 as in the lizard. 
 
 This "power is greater in animals, the lower they 
 are in the scales of organisms," says Darwin (p. 354, 
 Vol. ii, Animals and Plants, &c). 
 
 The reason of this lessened reproductive power, in 
 the higher animals, is, that such animals are more 
 complex, the conditions of growth are correspondingly 
 more complex, and le.ss easily supplied ; and, therefore, 
 lost members are less likely to be supplied, when 
 
120 REVERSION, NOT A LAW, SUI GENERIS. 
 
 required. The power, however, ever potentially exists 
 in these higher animals ; and (with but an abatement, 
 in degree), actually exists, in the power of repair of 
 wounds, of reintegration of tissue, and also manifests 
 itself through Reversion. Darwin quotes quite a 
 number of authors who, to explain variability, have 
 formulated a law, sui generis, which absolutely requires 
 offspring to differ, in some degree, from their parents. 
 This is absurd. Facts are noticed; no explanation 
 can be furnished to explain them; and then some 
 genius always steps forward, and complacently declares 
 that it is a "law of nature" that the phenomena should 
 so be, or so act; and fancies, that he has thereby 
 added immensely to the^body of scientific knowledge. 
 No such "law" is formulated here. The explanation 
 requires no such hypothetical, and barren device, 
 fashioned for the nonce. The offspring, when they 
 differ, in some positive character, from their parents, 
 differ, because their reparative power, or capacity to re- 
 trieve characters, which were lost by some ancient 
 progenitor, is, in the said character, manifested 
 more strongly, than it was, in their parents. Off- 
 spring, when they differ, in some negative character, 
 from their parents, differ, because they, in that charac- 
 ter, depart further from the original and perfect type 
 than their parents have done. Their coordinative 
 power has been more weakened than has that of their 
 parents; or, than has that which their parents in- 
 herited. 
 
 That there is but one, normal mould, for the indi- 
 viduals of any species; and, that the coordination of 
 
REVERSION, NOT A LAW, SUI GENERIS. 121 
 
 an organism is normal, only when it has all of the 
 positive characters of its species to coordinate; and, is 
 impaired, proportionally, when there is any disintegra- 
 tion, or loss or reduction of any of the characters of 
 the given species; are necessary inferences from the 
 following assertion : 
 
 "This subject has been here noticed, because we 
 may infer, that when any part or organ is either greatly 
 increased in size, or wholly suppressed, through varia- 
 tion and continued selection, the coordinating power 
 of the organization will continually tend to bring all 
 the parts again into harmony with each other" (p. 355, 
 Vol. ii, Animals and Plants, &c). 
 
 Had Darwin adhered to this principle, in his treat- 
 ment of the facts of variation, and of breeding, he 
 would never have propounded a theory of the evolu- 
 tion of the species, from one another. For, it shows 
 that, with each species, there is a certain ratio of 
 development of its several characters, which cannot 
 normally be varied from. How was it possible for 
 him to be apprised of this principle, and yet fancy that 
 each variety (of the Pigeon, for instance) could 
 normally and safely diverge, as it has, both through 
 having a part, or organ which constitutes its peculiarity, 
 greatly increased in size ; and by having others wholly 
 suppressed ? and, how could he ignore the facts, that 
 the evil results of close-interbreeding, in the pigeon, 
 are due to this very disproportionate development, and 
 that the good, which results from crossing, is due to 
 the parts again being, measurably, brought into har- 
 mony with each other? Are not the varieties of the 
 11* 
 
122 REVERSION, NOT A LAW, SUI GENERIS. • 
 
 pigeon, each, possessed of a character, of the species, 
 which the others lack ? and" does not each such variety 
 lack all of those characters of the same species, which 
 respectively constitute the peculiarities of the other 
 varieties ? Is not, then, " the coordinating power of 
 the organization " impaired, by such great increase of 
 the one part, and by the suppression of the other 
 parts ? Does not the reduction in the pig, of the 
 snout, tusks, bristles, legs, tail, &c, militate against 
 this ."tendency" of "the coordinating power of the 
 organization," " to bring all the parts again into 
 harmony with each other ?" Assuredly, the evil 
 results from close-interbreeding the individuals of 
 these varieties, would imply as much ; and, the decline 
 in the measure of those evil effects, when the individ- 
 uals have all the parts again brought into harmony 
 with each other, looks as if the principle of his, above 
 quoted, was pregnant with more consequences than he 
 has anticipated. Upon what hypothesis, other than 
 that, which holds it necessary to have all of the charac- 
 ters, of a species, developed in each individual, is this 
 " coordinating power of the organization," to be ex- 
 plained ? This coordinating power is the bond, whfch 
 links all the parts of the species together; and, it 
 operates, in Reversion, by again bringing them to- 
 gether, when they have been lost. The same principle 
 holds good, in the slightest wound, and in interstitial 
 waste; the coordinating power reintegrates the parts, 
 and restores the type of the species ; and, all of these 
 powers are but different phases of the one process of 
 coordination. 
 
REVERSION, NOT A LAW, SUI GENERIS. 123 
 
 Darwin's remark, that that portion of the leg of the 
 salamander, which was cut off, " neither more nor less" 
 will be reproduced, is, mutatis mutandis, applicable to 
 the improvements, or variations, under domestica- 
 tion. Those characters only, no more (though possi- 
 bly less), will be regained, by a species, which were at 
 one. time lost by such species. The like remark, 
 which he makes, when he says, the deficient part, and 
 no more, was reproduced, is equally pertinent to the 
 variatipns which arise. Parts only which are deficient, 
 or absent, where they were once developed, can be ac- 
 quired, by Man's selection, or by Natural Selection. 
 
 To illustrate the absurdity, of taking any of these 
 cases of Reversion, as the basis of an indefinitely-con- 
 tinued development, which is to produce higher ani- 
 mals from lower ones, we shall take the case of redin- 
 tegration, in the crystal. 
 
 It is well known, that, if a crystal has had one of its 
 edges cut off, and the crystal is placed in a solution, 
 similar to that, in which it was first formed, it will re- 
 produce the lost edge, and thus repair its lost integrity. 
 When the edge was absent, there was an imperfect 
 equilibrium of the forces of the crystal. When the 
 coordinating power of the crystal, restored the lost 
 edge, the equilibrium, or coordination, was repaired. 
 The restoration of the part, before cut off, was effected, 
 by correlation with all the other parts, and with the 
 aggregate. The part reproduced, resumes its rela- 
 tions to the other parts, and to the aggregate; and 
 effects a return to the balance, which was impaired 
 by its absence. The reproduction of a part, by the 
 
124 REVERSION, NOT A LAW, SUI GENERIS. 
 
 crystal, is precisely analogous to reversion, to the 
 reproduction of a lost member, to the reintegration 
 of tissue, and to the repair of a wound or abrasion. 
 Darwin merely mentions, that he has heard this re- 
 parative power of the crystal, likened to the repair of 
 a wound, in an animal. Herbert Spencer also re- 
 frains from any extended allusion to this power in the 
 crystal ; doubtless, from distrust of the effect its impli- 
 cations would have, upon his hypothesis. 
 
 This analogy most happily illustrates the absurdity, 
 of Darwin's adducing the phenomena of variation, to 
 prove the evolution of the species. 
 
 Suppose the same crystal, truncated of its edge. 
 With this edge gone, the crystal is found by Darwin. 
 He places it in a solution, similar to that in which it 
 was first formed. The reproduction of the lost edge, 
 then ensues. He inquires the reason, why this part of 
 the crystal has developed. To this he can answer, 
 only that it develops, because it has an "innate ten- 
 dency" so to develop. (As Ancient Pistol has it, 
 "Semper idem, absque hoc nihil est.") He affects to 
 believe himself forced to conclude that the growth of 
 the edge, is an ultimate fact. He then says that*as 
 this development has taken place, he is entitled to the 
 presumption that it will continue forever, or indefi- 
 nitely. Given, then (he would by analogy, say), a 
 thousand years or a thousand hours; and who is to 
 say, into what, this crystal will not develop ? and, may 
 not each of the species, of crystals, evolve one from 
 another? You cannot assume a limit (he would say), 
 other than gratuitously. There cannot, possibly, then, 
 
REVERSION, NOT A LAW, STJI GENERIS. 125 
 
 be any such thing as the immutability of the species, 
 of crystals; for, the individual crystals vary, and the 
 species is made up of such individuals. 
 
 Such an argument could not be invalidated, if it 
 were conceded, that the growth of the lost edge was 
 absolutely new growth, and that it was not mere re- 
 pair, or mere reproduction. It is obvious, however, 
 that it is repair only, or reproduction, or Reversion 
 back to the state which existed, in the crystal, previous 
 to its truncation. It is equally obvious, therefore, that 
 there is in the said crystal, no such capacity for un- 
 limited growth, or integration, as Darwin would allege 
 to exist in organisms. It is equally obvious, to a min- 
 eralogist, that those forms, of the crystals, which have 
 not been truncated, are normally immutable; — that is, 
 that no change can take place in them, after they have 
 once assumed their specific, determinate form, save in 
 derogation of that peculiar segregation, or coordina- 
 tion, of forces which make up a crystal. It is equally 
 manifest, that all of the different kinds of crystals, 
 ranging from the simplest to the most complex, are 
 not evolved, one from another; that their beautiful 
 subordination, of group under group, which rivals 
 the arrangement of organisms, is no argument, what- 
 ever, in favor of a view, that they evolved from one 
 another. They, each and every one, on the contrary, 
 were evolved from independent centres, — centres, pos- 
 sibly, in the same matrix, yet perfectly independent 
 centres, so far as the processes of integration are con- 
 cerned. The initial force, involved in the deposition of 
 the first molecule, pre-determined the form, shape, and 
 
126 REVERSION, NOT A LAW, SUI GENERIS. 
 
 complexity of the crystal, and controlled the whole 
 formative process, for that crystal. It is equally mani- 
 fest, that, when the integration, of the crystal, is once 
 fully attained, there is a peculiar play, and correlation, 
 of the forces of the crystal, which constitute a coordi- 
 native power, invested with the capacity, to keep all of 
 the parts together, and capable of repairing any part, 
 when lost or injured. 
 
 It may be well to state, that the organic species, is 
 not the analogue of what is termed a species, in 
 crystals; but, it is the analogue of those forms, 
 which are absolutely alike, when they are not in- 
 jured, or truncated. Thus, the flowers of snow, in 
 crystallographic parlance, are termed a species. These, 
 however, do not correspond to an organic species, but, 
 rather, to an organic genus ; it is those of the flowers 
 of snow, which are precisely identical, in shape and 
 form, cleavage, &c, which are analogous to a species 
 of animal or of plant. 
 
 These different flowers of snow did not evolve, from 
 one another, but they commenced, and completed, 
 their integration, independently of the others. No 
 similarity can, with them, afford an argument in favor 
 of their evolution, one from another. So, with species 
 of animals and plants. They were evolved, specially, 
 each from an independent centre. Neither, the simi- 
 larity of different species, nor their natural subor- 
 dination, group under group, justly implies that 
 they evolved, one from another. Kinship is not 
 necessarily the bond, between the individuals of the 
 same species. The only necessary tie between them, 
 
REVERSION, NOT A LAW, SUI GENERIS. 127 
 
 is an identical, normal coordination, however derived, 
 whether by descent, or by independent evolution. 
 Organisms, to be of the same species, need not, 
 necessarily, to be descended from a common pro- 
 genitor; all that is required to class them, within 
 the same species, is to ascertain if their normal co- 
 ordinations are isochronous. If they have the same 
 number of characters, and the same ratio of develop- 
 ment of those characters, when they are free from 
 physiological defects, they belong to the same species. 
 The test by which to determine whether they are 
 free from physiological defect, and of full integrity, 
 is to be found under our chapters, upon Crossing 
 and Close-interbreeding. Near similarities, and such 
 arrangement, group resembling group, may imply, and 
 doubtless do imply, that different species were evolved 
 from a similar matrix, and under similar conditions. 
 
 The variations under domestication, are the same 
 with the repair of a lost edge in a crystal, — simply, a 
 regain of lost integrity. With an organic species, how- 
 ever, the individuals composing it are descended, one 
 from another; while, even the individuals, of what, in 
 crystals, is a species, by analogy, are evolved from in- 
 dependent centres. 
 
 He says (p. 486, Origin of Species): 
 
 " From the first dawn of life, all organic beings are 
 found to resemble each other in descending degrees; 
 so that they can be classed in groups under groups." 
 
 So, crystals are likewise "found to resemble each 
 other in descending degrees, so that they can be 
 classed in groups under groups;" yet, they were not 
 
128 REVERSION, NOT A LAW, S€I GENERIS. 
 
 evolved one from another; but were evolved, each, 
 from an independent centre. Crystals also, may be 
 modified, as are organic beings under nature ; and, like 
 them, such modification will be injurious to the coor- 
 dination of their forces. They will also regain a lost 
 edge, as well as organic beings will acquire, by rever- 
 sion, a lost character; and, in proportion as they repair 
 their lost edges, will their coordination approximate its 
 normal type; the same as will the coordination of an 
 organism be repaired, in proportion as Reversion re- 
 stores the lost characters. Although you may trun- 
 cate each individual crystal, after it has attained its full 
 integrity, you do it only in derogation of its coordina- 
 ting, crystallogenic force. 
 
 These crystals occur of all sizes, from the merest 
 microscopic point, to a yard, or more, in diameter, and 
 of all degrees of complexity. A single crystal of 
 quartz, now at Milan, is three- and a quarter feet long, 
 and five and a half feet in circumference, and its weight 
 is estimated at 870 pounds. Each mineral has its 
 own mode of crystallization, by which it may be dis- 
 tinguished, just as one distinguishes a genus of plant, 
 by its characters, and mode of growth. And if: is 
 known, at once, to a mineralogist, of what mineral, a 
 crystal is formed, wherever it may be found, by its 
 angles, and by peculiarities of internal structure, such 
 as its lines of cleavage. A variety of forms is often 
 presented by a single mineral ; and this variety may be 
 very great, as with Calc-spar which is found in double 
 pyramid, in prisms, and in rhombohedrons; and so 
 with other species, as they are called; althqugh only 
 
NOT A LAW, STJI GENERIS. 129 
 
 those individuals of exactly alike form, and with all their 
 features in common, are, by analogy, with organic spe- 
 cies, to be termed species. But, however great the num- 
 ber of all the forms in each case, they are referable to a 
 single, generic, or family type, and little skill is re- 
 quired to trace out extreme simplicity amid appar- 
 ent complexity, for all the various modifications are 
 arranged in beautiful order. 
 
 Why are they so arranged ? If a mineralogist should 
 argue, as Darwin argues from a like due subordination 
 of group under group, in descending complexity, he 
 would contend for an absurdity; and hold, that they 
 were evolved, the more complex from the simpler. 
 The fact, however, is — not that they were evolved from 
 one another — but that they started from independent 
 centres, and that the degrees of similarity between 
 them, is referable to the circumstance, that they. were 
 independently evolved from the like, or the same 
 mineral, and were subject to like conditions of tem- 
 perature, &c. The initial force, implied in the depo- 
 sition of each molecule of each crystal, pre-determined 
 a regular, definite structure, and compelled a form 
 which needed to be attained, or, the correlation of 
 the forces involved in the crystal would have been 
 thrown intd disorder, and the forces involved in the 
 crystal would have become so much the less crystal- 
 logenic in character. A truncated crystal may have 
 been long out of a solution ; yet, if restored thereto, it 
 will repair the lost part. If a mineralogist should meet 
 with such a truncated crystal, he, being unconscious 
 
 that it was truncated, should restore it to a solution, 
 12 
 
IBfi REVERSION, NOT A LAW, SUI GENERIS. 
 
 and should proceed to estimate a ratio of integration 
 for that crystal, based upon his observation of the 
 degree of reparative power displayed before his eyes ; 
 he would be the perfect analogue of Darwin, who takes 
 truncated organisms, places them under domestication, 
 observes their power of repair, or of Reversion, and 
 then absurdly essays to estimate, what would be the 
 development of such organisms, if a few millions of 
 years were assumed. 
 
 No crystal, nor organic species, is possible to be 
 normally modified, after it has been once evolved. 
 You may truncate the crystal; you may deprive the 
 organic species of many of its characters; but a dis- 
 turbance of the integrity of the forces involved, in 
 either case will inevitably result. The only way, 
 either to modify a crystal normally, or normally to 
 change an organic species, is to resolve either into 
 its original elements, then modify the forces primarily 
 involved in its integration, or evolution, and start a 
 new integration or evolution. That, however, is tanta- 
 mount, with an organism, to new creation ; or to primal 
 evolution from inorganic forces and matter. The test 
 of any abnormal.modification of a species, is close inter- 
 breeding. The principal differences between a crystal 
 and an organism are: (i). That a crystal- is not sus- 
 ceptible to that ebb and flow which we find manifested 
 in an organism, in the waste and repair of its tissue. 
 (2). That the crystal, though capable of integrating a 
 like form when a portion of its substance is detached 
 by force ab extra, is not capable of spontaneously ex- 
 uding or detaching a portion of its substance for the 
 
REVERSION, NOT A LAW, SUI GENERIS. 131 
 
 purpose of forming a new, like coordination; as, is 
 an organism, when it evolves, or exudes sexually, or 
 asexually, a reproductive element. 
 
 Not a little prejudice exists against a perfect type. 
 This prejudice is, in a measure, justified; owing to the 
 vague and gratuitous manner in which it is generally 
 assumed, — and, owing to the fact, that those, assuming 
 it, cannot give any definite idea of what they mean by 
 it. But, such prejudice cannot be extended to the per- 
 fect type, which we show. This of ours, is an individ- 
 ual in which all the characters of its species, are fully 
 and proportionately developed. It is no Platonic idea; 
 and is no more metaphysical, than the assumption of a 
 specific shape, for a truncated crystal, which, at the time, 
 falls short of that shape, in the matter of a lost edge. 
 
 Thus, we have furnished, at least, warrant for as- 
 suming, that there is but one coordination, which is 
 normal, for each species; that, when the structural in- 
 tegrity, of any individual, is impaired, such coordination 
 is proportionally impaired; that this coordinatidn is 
 capable of restoring the lost, structural integrity; that the 
 reintegration of tissues wasted by function, that the re- 
 pair of a wound, that the reproduction of a lost member, 
 that the regain of characters lost in some preceding gen- 
 eration, and that the reproduction of a lost edge in a 
 crystal, are all merely different phases of one and the 
 same power, — i. <?., the power, of any body whose parts 
 are correlated together with reference to a definite form 
 of structure, to recomplete itself, when any of its cor- 
 related parts have, by influences ab extra, been reduced 
 or suppressed. As before intimated, we do not rely 
 
132 REVERSION, NOT A LAW, SUI GENERIS. 
 
 upon the mere capacity of the assumption to explain 
 all of the facts. Proof, approximating demonstration, 
 is to be found in the chapters on Crossing and close- 
 interbreeding, where a crucial test is furnished, by 
 which it is possible ever, to ascertain, with respect to 
 organisms, whether the structure is complete, and 
 whether the coordination is of full integrity; or, how 
 far such structural integrity, and such full, normal coor- 
 dination have been departed from. Before proceeding 
 to develop this test, it is incumbent upon us to show 
 what a petitio principii, the argument from Natural Se- 
 lection (Darwin's potent factor) is. 
 
 It is possible, also, to establish the similarity of the 
 Law of Generation, with that of Reversion. Genera- 
 tion is, equally, a process of repair. A portion of an 
 organism is exuded by an individual, and this portion 
 at once proceeds to complete, for itself, the type of the 
 given species. The reproductive element differs but 
 little, essentially, in its operation, from the part (spoken 
 of by Darwin), which is cut off from a Nais, or fresh- 
 water worm, and which then reproduces the whole. 
 The only difference lies in the manner in which the 
 parts are separated from the parent organism, and in 
 the necessity which, in some modes of Generation, 
 there is, that the reproductive element should be united 
 to that of the other sex. 
 
 The point, sought to be illustrated, is, that every 
 mode of growth and of development (save that process 
 which controlled the evolution of the first member, or 
 members, of each species), is but a regain of the lost 
 integrity of the given species. 
 
CHAPTER V. 
 
 The Fallacies of Darwin's Argument from Natural 
 Selection. 
 
 It is possible, without, in the least, questioning the 
 potential efficiency of Natural Selection, to show that 
 Darwin's argument from Natural Selection begs the 
 whole question at issue. For it gratuitously assumes 
 that the variations (which Darwin would have Natural 
 Selection to preserve and accumulate to an indefinite 
 or unlimited extent) are not restricted to the number 
 and kind which the varying species once lost. 
 
 Darwin says, that the higher species have been 
 evolved from the lower, by means of the preservation 
 and accumulation of slight, successive increments of 
 development, and by means of the preservation and 
 accumulation of those marked variations which are 
 assumed to spring up mysteriously, under nature, 
 " once in the course of thousands of generations." 
 
 The reader will perceive that there are thus two 
 ways in which Darwin gets the units of development 
 which, he purports to prove, are accumulated in- 
 definitely, or without limit. 
 
 The one mode is by attempting, by argument, to prove 
 that slight advances in development necessarily result 
 from Natural Selection. Under nature, there has been 
 12* (133) 
 
134 THE FALLACIES OF NATURAL SELECTION. 
 
 ever recurring, he alleges, a fearful struggle for Exist- 
 ence (brought on by adverse conditions, want of food, 
 and the severe competition consequent upon the ratio 
 of increase of living beings), in which the weak suc- 
 cumb, and "the strongest and most vigorous" survive. 
 These "strongest and most vigorous" being the ones, 
 exclusively, which continue the line of descent, in- 
 crease in development, he contends, must obviously 
 follow. The indefinitely- continued accumulation of 
 increments of development so occasioned, explains, he 
 says, the process by which the lower species have 
 been evolved into the higher. 
 
 Darwin's other mode of getting units of develop- 
 ment for Natural Selection to accumulate to an indefi- 
 nite extent, is, not by any argument from Natural 
 Selection, but by assuming that marked variations — 
 similar to the "sports" which appear under domestica- 
 tion — arise under nature, at least once in the course of 
 thousands of generations. Then he contends that 
 Natural Selection preserves and accumulates these 
 marked variations to an unlimited or indefinite extent, 
 and so evolves the species one from another. 
 
 Now, it is intended to show, in this chapter, * 
 
 First : That Natural Selection, or "the survival of 
 the stronger and more vigorous," does not prove any, 
 even the slightest advance in development, or any, 
 even the slightest variation. 
 
 Second: It is intended to show that even though 
 slight advances in development, or variations, were 
 proven by "the survival of the stronger and more vig- 
 orous,'' or were proven in any way; and even though 
 
THE FALLACIES OP NATURAL SELECTION. 135 
 
 Natural Selection were proven to be perfectly compe- 
 tent, in itself, to preserve and accumulate such ad- 
 vances in development, or such variations; the ac- 
 cumulation of such advances in development, or such 
 variations, by means of Natural Selection, could not 
 proceed to the extent necessary to evolve one species 
 into another, because the presumption — which arises 
 from Darwin's very detail of the operation of Natural 
 Selection— which arises from the many rudimentary 
 organs adduced by him — which arises from the many 
 features which he admits have been reduced or simpli- 
 fied by the action of the conditions of Natural Selec- 
 tion — which arises from the many characters which, 
 Darwin says, have been so wholly suppressed, under 
 nature, that not a vestige of their past development 
 remains — which arises from the multitude of organs 
 and features which he confesses are due to Rever- 
 sion — and which arises from the fact that there is, 
 confessedly, no other scientific explanation of varia- 
 tions than Reversion — is, that any such advances in de- 
 velopment, and any such slight variations, are but the 
 regain of what was previously lost by the varying 
 species; and, being restricted, therefore, in amount, to 
 the amount lost by such species, the amount preserved 
 and accumulated by Natural Selection must necessarily 
 be commensurately restricted. 
 
 Third; With respect to Darwin's assumption, that 
 an occasional, marked variation may probably "arise 
 once in the course of thousands of generations ;" it is 
 not intended to gainsay this point, but, 
 
 Fourth : It is intended .to show that even though these 
 
136 THE FALLACIES OP NATURAL SELECTION. 
 
 occasional, marked variations did arise under nature, 
 and as many arose there as are known to arise under 
 domestication, and even though Natural Selection 
 were proven to be fully competent, in itself, to pre- 
 serve and accumulate these variations; the accumula- 
 tion of such variations, by means of Natural Selection, 
 could not proceed to the extent necessary to evolve 
 one species into another; because the presumption, 
 before adverted to — arising from the very conditions 
 under which, Darwin says, Natural Selection works, — 
 arising from rudimentary, reduced and wholly sup- 
 pressed organs which, Darwin admits, are so rife 
 among all animals and plants — and arising from the 
 absence of any other scientific explanation of the 
 variations — is, that such occasional variations are due 
 to Reversion ; that, in consequence, they are limited to 
 the number and kind which the given species once 
 lost; and that their accumulation by Natural Selection, 
 beyond the number and kind once lost, is impossible. 
 
 First : Now, with respect to the first point, Does the 
 extinction of the weakest, and the selection of "the 
 strongest and most vigorous " prove any, even the 
 slightest advance in development ? 
 
 As Darwin alleges Natural Selection to be the 
 analogue of Man's Selection, it is well, first, to ascer- 
 tain the conditions under which Man'.s Selection 
 works; and, to see whether Man's Selection implies 
 any advance in development. 
 
 The Selection of certain inviduals, under man's 
 care, for breeding purposes, is generally held to induce 
 the improvement of the animals. 
 
THE FALLACIES OP NATURAL SELECTION. 137 
 
 Is it the Selection which causes such advance? 
 
 Manifestly, it is not. The advance in development 
 is produced, independently of the Selection. Man's 
 Selection does but preserve and accumulate the devel- 
 opments. 
 
 Selection either does but preserve those which 
 progress the fastest ; or, where some alone of the in- 
 dividuals improve, it does but preserve those which 
 have improved; or, where none improve, but some de- 
 generate, and some hold their own, it does but pre- 
 serve those which hold their own ; or, where all have 
 degenerated, it does but preserve those which have de- 
 generated the least. 
 
 Obviously, then, the fact, that those selected have 
 increased in development, must first, either be assumed, 
 or be proven; before any argument may be drawn 
 from Selection, designed to prove any ratio of accumu- 
 lation of slight successive increments of develop- 
 ment. 
 
 Therefore, it is, that we contend that Darwin cannot 
 justly prove the needful, slight advances in develop- 
 ment, by means of Selection ; for, that process never 
 even implies advance in development, unless advance 
 in development is first assumed, or proven, aliunde ! 
 
 If, in any generation, the individuals, of a species, 
 under nature, do but hold their own; or, if they 
 degenerate, it is manifest, that Natural Selection, /«r se, 
 cannot imply any advance in development. Advance 
 in development must be established, independently, as 
 a fact; or, inferred from the circumstance, that the 
 conditions, to which the individuals of the given 
 
138 THE FALLACIES OP NATURAL SELECTION. 
 
 species are subjected, are favorable ; that the organisms 
 have an abundance of food, a healthy climate and all 
 the other requisites of a propitious habitat ; and, that 
 they suffer not from a ruinous competition. Even 
 these circumstances, however, would but argue, that 
 the individuals held their own. 
 
 If, however, the fact be ; or, if the presence of un- 
 favorable conditions imply; that all of the individuals, 
 of such species, are degenerating, the mere Selection 
 of those which are the least degenerate, cannot argue 
 any advance in development. If, again, the fact be ; 
 or the nature of the conditions imply ; that some of 
 the individuals have degenerated, and that some do 
 but hold their own, the mere selection of those, which 
 do but hold their own, cannot argue advance in devel- 
 opment. 
 
 Now, Darwin, represents the conditions, under na- 
 ture, to be very unfavorable. In fact, it was absolutely 
 incumbent upon him to picture them, as well nigh fear- 
 ful, in order that they should work the extinction of 
 those which prove the weakest. Yet, those individuals, 
 the elect, which have been, similarly with the weakest, 
 subjected to these conditions, he pretends, are advanc- 
 ing in development ! 
 
 Let the reader fancy his emotion, were he the owner 
 of live stock, and were his farmer to assure him that he 
 "reckoned," that the stock were improving, because 
 (sic) the conditions, to which all of the herd were sub- 
 jected, had long been so hard and rigorous, that all of the 
 weaker ones were being killed off; and, as the strong- 
 est and" most vigorous (?) were the only individuals, of 
 
THE FALLACIES OP NATURAL SELECTION. 139 
 
 the herd, which could endure, at all, the effects of the 
 climate, of the rough treatment, of the insufficient food, 
 and of the bitter competition prevailing to obtain the 
 necessaries of life, the breed must eventually offer 
 many prize animals; because, "the strongest and most 
 vigorous,'' only, would survive, to produce offspring. 
 Even if the reader cared, only to raise a few, from the 
 herd, which might be capable of taking a prize, would 
 not his fears be justly and reasonably provoked for 
 these, by such a statement? and would not he be thank- 
 ful, under the circumstances, if the result showed, that 
 "the strongest and most vigorous " had but managed 
 to hold their own? It would be absurd, in the absence 
 of a special excuse, to fancy any farmer talking and 
 arguing, in such a manner. Yet, such a farmer would 
 display, to the full, as much intelligence and sense, as 
 does Darwin, in propounding his theory of Natural 
 Selection. 
 
 The problem of Selection resolves itself into the 
 question: What are the conditions? do they imply 
 development? or do they imply degeneration? or, do 
 they imply any more than that the individuals hold 
 their own ? 
 
 Ask any farmer, of even inferior intelligence, if the 
 mere Selection of the best animals, of a herd, will pro- 
 duce advance in development; and, he will, before 
 answering, desire to know, under what conditions, 
 favorable or adverse, the herd is placed. If the whole 
 herd be degenerating, and if the elect are but those 
 which are least degenerated, he will laugh at the idea 
 of advance in development; and assure his questioner 
 
140 THE FALLACIES OP NATURAL SELECTION. 
 
 that mere Selection, by itself, does hot argue any ad- 
 vance in development. If, he were told, that it was not 
 Man's agency which wrought the Selection ; but that 
 such Selection was effected through the extinction of 
 the weaker animals, by means of unfavorable condi- 
 tions to which all the animals were alike subjected, he 
 would doubtless guffaw most vulgarly, at the idea of 
 even the possibility of any advance being inferred from 
 Selection so occasioned. 
 
 Advance in development is usually, or ordinarily, 
 implied by Man's Selection ; because, usually, or ordi- 
 narily, there is an advance in development, among the 
 select of animals, under domestication, owing to the 
 favorable conditions there generally prevailing. In 
 extending the idea of Selection to animals and plants, 
 under nature, Darwin has gratuitously carried, along 
 with such idea, this implication of an advance in 
 development, — an implication which arose, under do- 
 mestication, from the favorable conditions under which 
 the animals and plants are there placed. Before apply- 
 ing the idea of Selection, to animals and plants, under 
 domestication, it was known, that, with them, there 
 was advance in development ; and, even if it were not 
 known, as a fact, the favorable conditions, there gener- 
 ally prevailing, implied it. Before, however, Darwin 
 could be justified, in carrying, to the state of nature, 
 this implication, raised by the facts, and by the favor- 
 able conditions under domestication, it was neces- 
 sary that he should adduce full warrant for such impli- 
 cation of advance under nature. Proof was needed, 
 either, of the fact, or of favorable conditions. 
 
THE FALLACIES OP NATURAL SELECTION. 141 
 
 But, he has, neither, the fact, nor the favorable con- 
 ditions. 
 
 He has not the fact, required to warrant such an im- 
 plication; for, this very point of advance in development 
 . under nature, is what he is endeavoring to prove, by 
 means of an argument from Natural Selection, into the 
 premises of which argument, he has surreptitiously con- 
 veyed this very implication which issues forth, zvith 
 such eclat, as his conclusion/ Advance in develop- 
 ment, figures, both, in his assumption, and in his con- 
 clusion. What he inserts in his premises, he, with 
 ease, extracts in the conclusion. 
 
 ' Neither, is he able to establish such an implication, 
 by proof of favorable conditions, under nature ; for, he 
 shows that the very converse there obtains. By the 
 very terms of his argument, the conditions, under nature, 
 to which, he says, all of the organisms, zvithout exception, 
 are subjected, are absolutely required to be adverse, and 
 very unfavorable to development, in order to work the 
 very Selection, which is designed to prove advance in 
 development ! Insufficient food, and all the other ele- 
 ments of the Struggle for Existence, are required to 
 operate upon all, in order to kill off the weaker; and 
 such conditions obviously cannot establish an implica- 
 tion of advance in development, when their effect is 
 death and extinction, to myriads of the numbers ex- 
 posed to them. For; given, the effect of such con- 
 ditions, upon the latter individuals, to be death and 
 extinction; what will, presumptively, be the effect upon 
 the development of those which Natural Selection pre- 
 serves? Will not Natural Selection be doing all that 
 13 
 
142 THE FALLACIES OF NATURAL SELECTION. 
 
 may reasonably be required of it, if it enable its select 
 to hold their own ? 
 
 Such implication is negatived, not only by the un- 
 favorable conditions under nature, but by all of the 
 facts which bear upon the problem. The many " rudi- 
 mentary organs," which, he says Natural Selection has 
 reduced to their present condition; from a perfectly 
 developed state; and the many " long-lost characters," 
 which, he says, lie latent in organisms, militate against 
 his assumption. 
 
 The very order, in which he arrays his argument, 
 exposes the above fallacies, and reveals still others. 
 
 i. The first proposition which he lays down, is, that 
 there is an ever-recurring Struggle for Existence, 
 among all animals and plants under nature, entailing 
 the extinction of many such animals and plants ; which 
 Struggle for Existence, in the order of time, precedes 
 the Selection, and is absolutely necessary to such 
 Selection. 
 
 He avers, that all organisms, under nature, have had 
 to struggle hard for their existence. 
 
 " More individuals are born, than can possibly sur- 
 vive. A grain in the balance will determine which 
 individuals shall live, and which shall die" (p. 552, 
 Origin of Species). 
 
 Even "the strongest and most vigorous" have had 
 to enter into competition with their fellows, and with 
 other species, for the means of existence ; and have 
 had to withstand, in each generation, the action of 
 adverse climatic influences, of want of food, and of the 
 other hard conditions which entailed the extinction of 
 
THE FALLACIES OP NATURAL SELECTION. 143 
 
 their weaker brethren. An idea of the battle for life, 
 which Darwin pictures, as the ordeal through which 
 all organisms have to. pass, may be derived from the 
 extracts given below. The tale which the picture tells, 
 it must be acknowledged, is not the happiest possible 
 inducement to an argument, designed to prove advance 
 in development — net advance, too. It is, however, the 
 misfortune with Darwin, in his exposition of his theory 
 of Evolution, that, at each stage, as he advances, he 
 has been constrained to a choice between rival absurdi- 
 ties. Darwin's description of the Struggle for Exist- 
 ence, shows conclusively, that, so far from animals and 
 plants, having advanced in development, the most that 
 it has been possible for them to do, has been to hold 
 their own; and, that, when they have not remained 
 stationary (which, as the reader will see, is quite diffi- 
 cult of performance, in the face of such conditions), 
 their movement has been in the direction of degenera- 
 tion. It must be conceded, that the adverse conditions 
 under nature, are sufficiently strongly portrayed, in the 
 following quotations, to prompt an estimate, rather, of 
 how much even "the strongest and most vigorous" ' 
 have deteriorated, than of how much they have ad- 
 vanced in development. 
 
 In his Origin of Species, Darwin says: 
 
 " Nothing is easier than to admit, in words, the truth 
 of the universal struggle for life, or more difficult, — at 
 least I have found it so, — than constantly to bear this 
 conclusion in mind. Yet, unless it be thoroughly in- 
 grained in the mind, I am convinced that the whole 
 economy of Nature, with every fact on distribution, 
 rarity, abundance, extinction, and variation, will be 
 
144 THE FALLACIES OF NATURAL SELECTION. 
 
 dimly seen, or quite misunderstood. We behold the 
 face of Nature, bright with gladness; we "often see 
 superabundance of food; we do not see, or we forget, 
 that the birds which are idly singing around us, mostly 
 live on insects or seeds, and are thus continually de- 
 stroying life ; or, we forget how largely these songsters, 
 or their eggs, or their nestlings, are destroyed by 
 birds and beasts of prey; we do not always bear in 
 mind that, though food may be now superabundant, 
 it is not so at all seasons of each recurring year." 
 
 Again he says : 
 
 " Climate plays an important part in determining the 
 average numbers of a species; and periodical seasons 
 of extreme cold or drought, I believe to be the most 
 effective of all checks. I estimated that the winter of 
 1854-55 destroyed four-fifths of the birds on my own 
 grounds; and this is a tremendous destruction when 
 we remember that ten per cent, is an extraordinarily 
 severe mortality from epidemics with man. The action 
 of the climate seems at first sight to be quite independ- 
 ent of the struggle for existence, but in so far as cli- 
 mate chiefly acts in reducing food, it brings on the 
 most severe struggle between the individuals, whether 
 of the same or of distinct species, which subsist on the 
 same kind of food. Even when climate, for instance, 
 extreme cold, acts directly, it will be the least vigorous, 
 or those which have got least food, through the ad- 
 vancing winter, which will suffer most. When we 
 travel from south to north, or from a damp region to 
 a dry, we invariably see some species gradually get- 
 ting rarer and rarer, and finally disappearing; and the 
 change of climate being conspicuous, we are tempted 
 to attribute the whole effect to its direct action. But, 
 this is a very false view; we forget that each species, 
 even where it most abounds, is constantly suffering 
 enormous destruction at some period of its life, from 
 
THE FALLACIES OF NATURAL SELECTION. 145 
 
 enemies or competitors for the same place or food; 
 and if these enemies or competitors be in the least 
 degree favored by any slight change of climate, they 
 will increase in numbers, and as each area is already 
 stocked with inhabitants, the other species will decrease. 
 When we travel southwards and see a species decreas- 
 ing in numbers, we may feel sure that the cause lies 
 quite as much in other species being favored, as in this 
 one being hurt. So it is, when we travel northward, 
 but in a somewhat lesser degree, for the number of 
 species of all kinds, and therefore of competitors, de- 
 creases northward; hence, in going northward, or in 
 ascending a mountain, we far oftener meet with stunted 
 forms, due to the directly injurious action of climate, 
 than we do in proceeding southward, or descending a 
 mountain. When we reach the Arctic regions, or snow- 
 capped summits, or absolute deserts, the struggle for 
 life is almost exclusively with the elements." 
 
 Again he says : 
 
 "Battle within battle must ever be recurring, with 
 varying success; and yet, in the long run, the forces 
 are so nicely balanced, that the face of Nature remains 
 uniform, for long periods of time, though assuredly 
 the merest trifle would often give the victory to one 
 organic being over another. Nevertheless, so pro- 
 found is our ignorance, and so high our presumption, 
 that we marvel when we hear of the extinction of an 
 organic being; and, as we do not see the cause, we in- 
 voke cataclysms to desolate the world, or invent laws 
 on the duration of the forms of life." 
 
 Speaking of a forest, in order to exemplify the 
 
 Struggle for Existence, he says : 
 
 "What a struggle between the several kinds of 
 trees, must here have gone on during long centuries, 
 each annually scattering its seeds, by the thousand; 
 13* 
 
146 THE FALLACIES OF NATUKAL SELECTION. 
 
 what wars between insect and insect, — between insects, 
 snails and other animals, with beasts and birds of 
 prey, — all striving to increase, and all feeding on each 
 other, or on the trees, or their seeds and seedlings, or 
 on the other plants which first clothed the ground, and 
 thus checked the growth of the trees!" 
 
 What is the obvious outcome, of such a condition of 
 affairs ? Is it not, manifestly, degeneration ? 
 
 But, the effect of this Struggle for Existence, is not 
 left to presumption alone, strong as is that presump- 
 tion. Darwin shows the actual effect of the action of 
 this factor, in the many "rudimentary organs," which 
 " plainly show that an early progenitor had the organ 
 in a fully developed state ; and this, in some instances, 
 implies an enormous amount of modification in the 
 descendants." He shows the actual effect of this 
 factor, when he says, that " Rudimentary organs are so 
 extremely common throughout nature, that scarcely a 
 single species can be mentioned, which is free from 
 such a blemish." He shows the actual effect of this 
 factor, in the multitude of "long-lost characters," to 
 which he so frequently refers. He shows the actual 
 effect of this factor when he admits that, " Not but 
 that it" (the Struggle for Existence) "may and will 
 leave many creatures, with simple and unimproved 
 structures, fitted for simpler conditions of life, and in 
 some cases will even degrade and simplify the organi- 
 zation. * * " 
 
 Now, we have not moved beyond the first stage in 
 the order, in which he arrays his argument, before we 
 find that, at that stage, — in the very inducement to his 
 
THE FALLACIES OF NATURAL SELECTION. 141 
 
 argument, — degeneration (which is the converse and 
 refutation of the conclusion, at which his argument 
 aims), is established, beyond question, by, both, an 
 overwhelming presumption, arising from the very 
 terms used in the inducement to such argument, and 
 by facts conceded by Darwin, to be incident to the 
 conditions under which works the main factor that 
 he employs. 
 
 The reader doubtless fancies, that, assuredly, the 
 very first care, with Darwin, will be to obviate, — or, at 
 least to endeavor to obviate, — this strong and apparently 
 insuperable objection to his argument. But, no ; Dar- 
 win proceeds with his ratiocination, — or induction, for 
 it is always well nigh impossible to determine how he 
 reasons, — as serenely and complacently, as if he had 
 essayed, exclusively, to prove the descent of a mouse 
 from an elephant, instead of the descent of an elephant 
 from a mouse. 
 
 By the methods with which he argues, the outcome 
 may be, as of old, the evolution of a ridiculous, little 
 mouse ; but it will never be the evolution of any other 
 organism. 
 
 2. His next proposition, in order, is that, in this 
 Struggle for Existence, "the strongest and most vig- 
 orous" alone survive. 
 
 There is a fallacy, lying perdu, in these terms, 
 "strongest and most vigorous." They beg the whole 
 question ; and they beg it, in the face of a state of facts, 
 which wholly disprove the gratuitous assumption. 
 
 Viewed with reference to the circumstances of the 
 fearful "battle for life," to which, Darwin says, all or- 
 
148 THE FALLACIES OF NATURAL SELECTION. 
 
 ganisms have been subjected, the terms, "strongest 
 and most vigorous," are, even in a grammatical sense, 
 incorrect. 
 
 Viewed with reference to the same circumstances of 
 the Struggle for Existence, and viewed with reference 
 to the inference, intended to be drawn from the appli- 
 cation of such terms, the terms "strongest and most 
 vigorous," are wholly false/in the connection in which 
 Darwin uses them. 
 
 "The strongest and most vigorous survive!" Let us 
 define terms. Are these elect, which have survived, to 
 be styled "strongest and most vigorous;" when, the 
 sole idea possible to be gained, of the state of their 
 strength, or of their weakness, is that which is_to be 
 gathered from the conditions, to which they, similarly 
 with those which succumbed, have been subjected? 
 and when such conditions are represented, by the very 
 argument, to be adverse, and wholly unfavorable to 
 strength or to development? According to the argu- 
 ment, the Struggle for Existence has acted upon those 
 styled "the strongest and most vigorous," as well as 
 upon those, yclept, the "weakest." Those, in which 
 the conditions induced such impaired constitutions as 
 were incompatible with prolonged existence, were, evi- 
 dently, to be termed the weakest and most degenerate. 
 What then, manifestly are the survivors correctly to 
 be styled, which were alike subjected to such adverse 
 conditions, and which owe their prolonged existence 
 to a mere "grain in the balance?" What do even 
 merely grammatical principles prescribe, that these 
 should be called, which had also to fight the con- 
 
THE FALLACIES OF NATURAL SELECTION. 149 
 
 ditions which proved too much for their weaker 
 brethren? Should not they, in view of the unfa- 
 vorable conditions so graphically described by Dar- 
 win, be styled, the least degenerate, or the least weak- 
 ened? 
 
 In the use of terms of comparison, regard must be 
 had to surrounding circumstances. If the surrounding 
 circumstances of Natural Selection had conveyed the 
 idea of strength, then, "strongest or most vigorous'' 
 would be proper. But, when the conditions of Natural 
 Selection are confessedly so adverse, and when the 
 effect of the operation of such conditions, is, obviously, 
 to induce weakness and degeneration, terms of com- 
 parison, in harmony with such conditions, alone should 
 be used. Darwin's use, therefore, of such terms as 
 "strongest and most vigorous," is, in connection with 
 the idea of such a fearful Struggle for Existence, clearly 
 improper, irrespective of any argument which may 
 follow. Usage, it is true, often countenances such a 
 grammatical latitude, as the employment of the terms 
 "strongest and most vigorous," where "the least weak- 
 ened," in strictness, should be used; and, it would 
 unquestionably be the very quintessence of pedan- 
 try, to cavil wantonly at such a slight departure 
 from what, upon a rigid construction alone, is im- 
 proper. But, Darwin has here availed himself of 
 such latitude of expression, to hide a fallacy, fraught 
 with the most momentous consequences; and, there- 
 fore, a correct use of terms is demanded. Had Darwin 
 rigidly conformed to true principles of expression, he 
 would have said : The weakest and most degenerate 
 
150 THE FALLACIES OF NATURAL SELECTION. 
 
 succumb to the hard conditions which constitute the 
 Struggle for Existence; and the least weak and the 
 least degenerate, and those which manage to hold 
 their own, survive. Had he so expressed himself, no 
 implication of advance in development would have 
 arisen, as it does arise, when, in the face of the con- 
 verse implication, arising from the fact of the Struggle 
 for Existence, he uses the terms "strongest and most 
 vigorous," in the stead of the terms, least degenerate, 
 or least weak. 
 
 When Darwin says, that, in each generation, " the 
 strongest and most vigorous " survive, and that they 
 alone continue the line of descent for the given species, 
 the presumption, arising in the mind of his reader 
 (and the presumption which Darwin evidently designed 
 should arise), is, that there is, therefore, advance in 
 development. This presumption, as has already been 
 shown, does not necessarily attend the fact of the 
 selection of "the strongest and most vigorous." This 
 presumption legitimately arises, only from such selec- 
 tion, and from conditions favorable to an advance in 
 development, combined. The place, where the pre- 
 sumption has been generally employed, has been 
 under domestication. There, the two conditions of 
 the presumption, prevail. There are, generally, under 
 domestication, both selection, and favorable conditions 
 which have been observed generally to induce an 
 advance in development. 
 
 Under nature, there is selection, but there are not fav- 
 orable conditions ; for, to work the selection there, there 
 needs must be unfavorable conditions ! In drawing the 
 
THE FALLACIES OE NATURAL SELECTION. 151 
 
 presumption, respecting animals under Man's care, 
 especial note has been taken of the selection ; the 
 favorable conditions remaining understood. Darwin 
 has carried the idea of Selection, to organisms under 
 nature ; and, availing himself of the circumstance, that 
 the favorable conditions, have long been only tacitly 
 understood^ in drawing the presumption of advance in 
 development, he has, in a field where favorable condi- 
 tions do not obtain, — where unfavorable conditions 
 confessedly prevail, aye, where the other condition of 
 the presumption (namely, Selection) cannot obtain 
 where favorable conditions exist, — illegitimately helped 
 himself to the presumption of advance in development, 
 which holds good, only where there are favorable con- 
 ditions to imply such advance in development. Under 
 domestication, "the stronger and more vigorous," of 
 'any one generation, are usually . stronger and more 
 vigorous (where selection is exercised) than the indi- 
 viduals of the preceding generation. Darwin, affects 
 to believe, that all that is necessary, in order to prove 
 advance under nature, is to show Selection; as that, 
 generally, is all that seemingly needs to be done, under 
 domestication. But, the implication, which attends the 
 fact of Selection, under domestication, does not attend 
 the same fact under nature ; for, under domestication, 
 there is an advance in development, which is implied 
 by the favorable conditions under domestication: 
 Whereas, the conditions under nature, — aye, the very 
 conditions which, according to the argument needs 
 must be very adverse, to work the Selection which is 
 designed to prove the advance in development, — imply 
 
152 THE FALLACIES OF NATURAL SELECTION. 
 
 the converse, viz., that there is not such advance in 
 development, but, rather, a retrograde movement, in 
 even the elect, or the " stronger and more vigorous." 
 
 There is another fallacy in Darwin's use of the terms, 
 "stronger and more vigorous;" independently of the 
 consideration that, in view of the circumstances, they 
 are grammatically incorrect. The assertion, that the 
 "stronger and more vigorous " survive, may (when the 
 sometime-mentioned latitude of expression is allowed) 
 be true, in one sense; but is false, when viewed with 
 reference to the inference designed to be drawn. In 
 Darwin's statement of the fact of the Selection under 
 nature, he uses the terms " stronger and more vigor- 
 ous," as if he intended them as terms of comparison 
 with their contemporaries only. In the inference which 
 he draws, however, he employs them, — not as terms of 
 comparison only with those individuals which have 
 succumbed, — but as terms of comparison with the in- 
 dividuals of a preceding generation. When his readers 
 read his statement, that "the stronger and more vig- 
 orous" survive, they yield assent to the proposition. 
 Yes (they reason), they (the elect) are stronger and 
 more vigorous than the weak ones with constitu- 
 tions so impaired as to cause death. But, when the 
 readers are asked to accept Darwin's alleged inference 
 therefrom (i e., of advance in. development), they are 
 assumed (by Darwin) to have yielded assent to. some- 
 thing entirely different. They assented to the implica- 
 tion, that the elect were stronger and more vigorous 
 than certain of their contemporaries ; and, now, in the 
 inference forced upon them, they are coolly assumed 
 
THE FALLACIES OF NATURAL SELECTION. 153 
 
 to have assented to an implication, that the elect were 
 stronger and more vigorous than their progenitors! 
 Verily, is it, that, by "words, words," alone, Darwin 
 passes " through the safe-gate into the temple of cer- 
 tainty." The touchstone to Darwin's fallacy, that Se- 
 lection, per se, argues any advance in development, — 
 the failure to apply which has led to all the confusion, 
 — is the query : " Stronger and more vigorous ? Com- 
 pared with whom? Their contemporaries only? or 
 their contemporaries and predecessors ?" 
 
 In Paris, under the Commune, when famine and 
 murder vied for the mastery, and in cities stricken with 
 the plague, " the stronger and more vigorous " survived 
 — But, "stronger and more vigorous," compared with 
 whom? Manifestly; compared, not with individuals 
 of the preceding generation, but with those only, placed 
 in the same straits with themselves. 
 
 According to Darwin's argument (?), the more ad- 
 verse and unfavorable the conditions of life are, the 
 greater is the advance in development! because, as he 
 contends, the harder the conditions of life, the more 
 rigid and exclusive will be the Selection! Mephis- 
 topheles doubtless had in mind, this theory of D arwm , 
 when, in his advice to the student, he counseled him 
 to stick to "words," as a theory might well be built of 
 "words." 
 
 That the conditions, under nature, imply a retro- 
 grade movement in those even which are preserved 
 by Natural Selection; and, that, therefore, those con- 
 ditions militate against Darwin's use of the terms 
 
 " stronger and more vigorous " to denote those se- 
 14 
 
154 THE FALLACIES OF NATURAL SELECTION. 
 
 lected, cannot well be questioned by any one who 
 reads Darwin's statements respecting Natural Extinc- 
 tion and Natural Selection. According to Darwin, 
 all, even the elect, are amenable to the Struggle for 
 Existence. Numbers are born into the world at a 
 rate, Darwin says, which, if not met by Natural Ex- 
 tinction, would soon cover the world with the progeny 
 of a single pair. They all join in the battle for life; 
 and, although thousands succumb, they have during 
 even their short lives, helped to sharpen the competi- 
 tion which " the stronger and more vigorous " have to 
 endure; and have thus lent their aid to induce the 
 deterioration of those selected to continue the line of 
 descent. All have to struggle for their existence, from 
 the hour of their birth to the moment of their death : 
 according to Darwin. Natural Extinction carries off 
 — not those whose constitutions are merely impaired, 
 or those which are merely degenerate in structure, 
 for multitudes of these do actually survive and pro- 
 create others endowed with their defects — but those 
 only, whose impaired constitutions, or whose defective 
 structures, are absolutely incompatible with prolonged 
 existence. The adverse conditions, which occasion 
 Natural Selection, manifestly do more than kill off 
 the weakest. They also cause a degeneration, both 
 of those which have barely escaped extinction, and of 
 "the stronger and more vigorous." The "stronger 
 and more vigorous " may, in view of the competition 
 for means of subsistence, to which Darwin pictures 
 them as being subjected, count themselves very fortu- 
 nate, if they merely manage to hold their own. Hold- 
 
THE FALLACIES OF NATURAL SELECTION. 155 
 
 ing their own, implies no advance in development; 
 and the adverse conditions, shown by Darwin, imply- 
 that any move made by the " stronger and more vigor- 
 ous," was in the direction of degeneration. Does not 
 Darwin's statement of the fearful battle for life, imply, 
 that, though possibly "stronger and more vigorous," 
 they are generally, less fit, less strong, and less vigor- 
 ous than the preceding generation ? 
 
 Natural Selection, at the best, is nothing but a 
 struggle or a protest against degeneration. The retreat 
 of a man, with his face, however, towards the foe, 
 typifies Natural Selection and the Struggle for Exist- 
 ence ; and any argument, designed to prove that the 
 man was advancing upon his enemies, based upon the 
 mere circumstance that his face was in the direction of 
 advance, would be a perfect analogue of Darwin's 
 argument from Natural Selection. The man's retro- 
 grade movement symbolizes the obvious effect of the 
 adverse conditions under nature, which provoke the 
 Struggle for Existence. The position of the man, 
 confronting his foe while he retreats, symbolizes 
 Natural Selection, or the survival of "the stronger and 
 more vigorous." The mere survival of "the stronger 
 and more vigorous" does not imply any advance in 
 development. At the most, it can but imply a contin- 
 uance, of those organisms, in the same state. Under 
 the conditions of Natural Selection, and under the 
 evidence which Darwin gives, of so many " rudi- 
 mentary organs," and of so many "long-lost charac- 
 ters," the survival of "the stronger and more vigor- 
 ous," proves only that the minimum of degeneration, 
 
156 THE FALLACIES OP NATURAL SELECTION. 
 
 possible under the circumstances, obtains with these 
 elect; or, in other words, that the less degenerate and 
 the less injuriously modified individuals survive, whilst 
 the more degenerate and the more injuriously modified 
 individuals succumb. Given, the absence of all knowl- 
 edge of the nature of the conditions of life under 
 nature, the selection of " the stronger and more vigor- 
 ous " implies merely, that these hold their own. Given, 
 that knowledge of the conditions, which Darwin com- 
 municates " to the reader, in his descriptions of the 
 Struggle for Existence, the selection of "the stronger 
 and more vigorous" implies that the "stronger and 
 more vigorous " merely yield the least, to the effect of 
 such adverse conditions. 
 
 Owing to the ingenious manner, in which Darwin 
 has availed himself of the presumption of advance in 
 development, from the fact of Selection, without form- 
 ulating such presumption in set and explicit terms ; it 
 is open, to him, to deny that he has attempted to 
 prove that increments of development must generally 
 result from the selection of "the stronger and more 
 vigorous." The main part of the strength with which 
 his theory of Natural Selection is credited, however, is 
 due to the belief, on the part of his readers, that the 
 selection of "the stronger and more vigorous" does 
 imply advance in development; and to the belief that 
 Darwin so contends. Darwin, himself, unquestionably 
 counts throughout, for support to his theory, upon 
 this impression, so subtly conveyed by his handling 
 of the question. It is true, that, with respect to the 
 variations, which, he confesses, are gratuitously assumed 
 
THE FALLACIES OF NATURAL SELECTION. 15T 
 
 to arise, " in the course of thousands of generations," 
 he explicitly disclaims any intention to maintain that 
 Natural Selection causes, or in any way produces their 
 appearance, and alleges that Natural Selection confines 
 its operation, solely to the preservation and accumula- 
 tion of those variations after they have arisen. But, 
 this disclaimer he employs, solely in relation to these 
 marked variations assumed to arise "in the course of 
 thousands of generations;" and it ever seems, to the 
 reader, not to apply to those very slight increments of 
 development, which Darwin intimates, as strongly as 
 he may, without explicit expression, to be the outcome 
 of the mere selection of "the strongest and most vig- 
 orous." The idea which, wittingly or unwittingly, has 
 been conveyed by Darwin, and which has caused 
 Natural Selection to be so widely reputed as a most 
 potent factor of development, is, that, although the 
 pronounced, tangible variations assumed to arise " in 
 the course of thousands of generations," are not, in any 
 way, produced by Natural Selection, but are merely 
 preserved and accumulated by that factor; yet that 
 Natural Selection does produce very slight, scarcely 
 appreciable increments of development, by means of 
 the survival exclusively of "the stronger and more 
 vigorous." Had Darwin's disclaimer, of any desire to 
 maintain that Natural Selection induced the appear- 
 ance of variations, been explicitly declared to cover 
 these slight advances in development (which every 
 one who reads Darwin's works, needs must conclude 
 that he meant to represent as having been produced 
 by the mere selection of "the stronger and more.vig- 
 14* 
 
158 THE FALLACIES OP NATURAL SELECTION. 
 
 orous"), Natural Selection would never have enjoyed 
 the reputation it has had, of being such a grand and 
 important principle. 
 
 Second: Assuming, however, that the mere Selec- 
 tion, of " the stronger and more vigorous," does prove 
 the appearance of slight increments of development, 
 still his argument, that these may be so accumulated 
 as to evolve higher species from ones lower in the 
 scale, both begs the question at issue, and is negatived, 
 in two several ways, by the very argument itself of 
 Natural Selection. It begs the question," by tacitly 
 assuming, that these slight increments of development 
 are new developments, and that they may be accumu- 
 lated indefinitely, or without any assignable limit ; and, 
 conversely, by assuming, that they are not the mere 
 regain of developments, once lost by the given species, 
 and that they are not capable, only of being accumu- 
 lated to an extent, commensurate with the past degen- 
 eration of such species. 
 
 The argument itself of Natural Selection negatives 
 this assumption, — viz., that these increments are new 
 developments, — by postulating the necessary depend- 
 ence, of Natural Selection, upon a hard Struggle for 
 Existence which manifestly implies previous degenera- 
 tion, in the organisms displaying the slight advances ; 
 and Natural Selection itself implies, that any such 
 increments of development which may arise in " the 
 stronger and more vigorous," are the mere regain, by 
 means of the law of reversion, of what was before 
 lost. For, the argument of Natural Selection abso- 
 lutely requires, that the Struggle for Existence — which 
 
THE FALLACIES OF NATURAL SELECTION. 159 
 
 manifestly is a process of degeneration — should, in the 
 order of time, precede Natural Selection; which is 
 assumed to be a process of growth or of development. 
 So, by the very terms of Darwin's argument, the 
 strong presumption arises, that the increments of de- 
 velopment — assumed to be the outcome of the selec- 
 tion of "the stronger and more vigorous " — are but 
 the mere regain of what was lost by the degeneration 
 so forcibly implied by the Struggle for Existence 
 which preceded the action of Natural Selection. 
 
 But, the fact, of such degeneration, is not left to im- 
 plication alone. Darwin shows explicitly, in his detail 
 of a multitude of " rudimentary organs," and of "long- 
 lost characters,' 7 that such degeneration actually did 
 precede the action of Natural Selection. 
 
 It was open to Darwin, also to contend, that the 
 Struggle for Existence implied advances in develop- 
 ment, upon the principle that increase of activity often 
 induces increase of growth in an organ. But, assuming 
 such increase of structure, this is equally an instance 
 of begging the question at issue. The presumption is, 
 that such increase is but the regain of what was once 
 lost. Any argument, of indefinite development, based 
 upon such assumed increase of structure, would beg 
 the question, by assuming, that the increase was a new 
 development, in the given species. Darwin speaks of 
 ducks which, by reason of their habitat having been 
 removed to the highlands, have rudimentary, webbed 
 feet. Place these ducks in an environment, where they 
 may paddle, ad lib., in the water; then argue from the 
 re-development of the web in their feet, that, given 
 
160 THE FALLACIES OF NATURAL SELECTION. 
 
 such development within a year, these ducks may, 
 within a million of years, develop into higher species 
 and genera ; and a perfect analogue will be had, of the 
 argument from increase of structure following increased 
 activity. The webbed feet are but the re-development, 
 of what was once lost, by the species in question; and 
 any argument, founded thereupon, designed to prove 
 the possibility of indefinitely continued development, 
 is manifestly a gross petitio principii. 
 
 Third: As we have seen, Darwin argues, that there 
 must be slight advances in development, because, in 
 each generation, Natural Selection picks out "the 
 stronger and more vigorous" to continue the line of 
 descent. Whatever semblance of strength is in this 
 argument, we have shown to be due to the most 
 transparent of fallacies. Conscious, probably, of the 
 absurdity of such an argument, Darwin deemed it 
 necessary to supplement this mode of getting the 
 slight development, for Natural Selection to accumu- 
 late, with a gratuitous assumption. 
 
 He assumes, that there are pronounced variations 
 which arise, under nature, seemingly in the same inex- 
 plicable and spontaneous manner in which he deems 
 the improvements, under domestication, to present 
 themselves. This is his assumption. His argument 
 therefrom, runs to the effect; that, most probably the 
 possession of such a variation gives to the individual 
 possessing it, such an advantage in the struggle for 
 existence, as to ensure its survival, and the transmis- 
 sion of such variation to its descendants; that such 
 descendants, " in the course of thousands of genera- 
 
THE FALLACIES OF NATURAL SELECTION. 161 
 
 tions," may develop another such variation ; and, that, 
 by the indefinitely continued accumulation of such 
 variations, these individuals may develop into organ- 
 isms as high as any in the scale of development. 
 
 Respecting his assumption, of the variations occur- 
 ring " in the course of thousands of generations," he 
 says: 
 
 " Can it be thought improbable {sic) seeing that va- 
 riations useful to Man have undoubtedly occurred, 
 that other variations useful, in some way, to each 
 being, in the great and complex battle for life, should 
 sometimes occur in the course of thousands (sic) of 
 generations? If such variations do occur (sic) can 
 we doubt (remembering that many more individuals' 
 are born than can possibly survive), that individuals 
 having an advantage, however slight, over others, 
 would have the best chance of surviving and procre- 
 ating their kind ? " 
 
 Now, this is honest, frank, and ingenuous. He does 
 not here, — as he does when treating of the survival of 
 the merely " stronger and more vigorous " — endeavor to 
 prove, by fallacious argument, that there are advances 
 in development. But, he assumes that there are such 
 advances in development; — the only appearance of an 
 argument, in this connection, being his appeal to the 
 circumstance that it cannot be alleged that the proba- 
 bilities are against his assumption, inasmuch as such 
 things occur under domestication. The probabilities, 
 however, do obtain, against his argument ; for, the con- 
 ditions of life are different, being favorable to develop- 
 ment in the one place, and unfavorable in the other. 
 Having assumed these variations, he then proceeds 
 
162 THE FALLACIES OF NATURAL SELECTION. 
 
 in his endeavor to show, that Natural Selection may- 
 accumulate them, ad infinitum. 
 
 Exception to this assumption of variations occurring 
 "in the course of thousands of generations," may be 
 taken, only on the ground that it is gratuitous; and 
 that (as with variations under domestication), he terms 
 these variations " spontaneous," and gives no law by 
 which their appearance is governed. 
 
 Fourth: Now, as to his theory, that Natural Selec- 
 tion may accumulate these assumed variations indefi- 
 nitely : It begs the whole question ; and begs it, too, 
 in the face of a strong presumption, arising from the 
 .very requirements of the theory itself, and begs it, in 
 the face of what Darwin has explicitly shown to be the 
 actual effects of the operation of Natural Selection, the 
 main factor of the theory. 
 
 The said presumption is the one, upon which we 
 have already commented at length, namely, The pre- 
 sumption, of previous degeneration, arising from the 
 unfavorable conditions under nature, which absolutely 
 require to be 4mfavorable, upon Darwin's theory of 
 Natural Selection, in order to bring about this very 
 Selection. 
 
 The alleged, actual effects of the operation of 
 Natural Selection, are, namely, the " rudimentary 
 organs," and "long-lost characters," adduced, so fre- 
 quently and abundantly, by Darwin himself. 
 
 Therefore, it is clear that Darwin's argument, from 
 Natural Selection, is a petitio principii. Nay, more, 
 the premises of such argument rebut its conclusion. 
 For, the presumption, from Darwin's own argument, 
 
THE FALLACIES OP NATURAL SELECTION. 163 
 
 and from Darwin's own facts, is, that the variations, 
 which he gratuitously assumes to occur under nature, 
 are but the mere regain of developments, lost by the 
 respective species in which they occur. 
 
 Given, the variations which he asks ; assuming, 
 even, that as many variations occur under nature, as 
 are known to occur under domestication, and they 
 avail Darwin nothing. The presumption is, that the 
 species, in so varying, are but retrieving past de- 
 generation. 
 
 Concede-the efficiency of Natural Selection, in pre- 
 serving and accumulating such variations, and it aids 
 Darwin as little to attain the result he is so solicitous 
 to achieve ; for, if such variations are but the regain of 
 lost characters, and are limited to the number and kind 
 of such lost characters, how may Natural Selection con- 
 tinue long to accumulate, when the variations, which 
 it is to accumulate, needs must give out, when all the' 
 lost characters are regained ? 
 
 There is, really, no limit to the potential efficiency 
 of Natural Selection. If the conditions of its opera- 
 tion would but hold out, it could perform all the won- 
 ders which Darwin ascribes to it. But they do not 
 hold out. No more characters can be regained, and 
 then accumulated by Natural Selection, than were lost- 
 Darwin has proceeded upon the false assumption, that 
 the gratuitously assumed variations under nature, are 
 new developments. But this assumption of new 
 growth or development is more than false; it is ex- 
 quisitely absurd, inasmuch as the very argument itself, 
 in which it appears, implies that it is false ! 
 
164 THE FALLACIES OP NATURAL SELECTION. 
 
 The question of the efficiency of Natural Selection 
 is wholly immaterial. There is little doubt that, if 
 this factor were not so " cabined, cribbed, and confined," 
 it would be fully equal to the task of evolving a 
 dragon from a mosquito. Natural Selection may be 
 so efficient, potentially, that its capacity, — where suffered 
 to display itself, — might be shown to be almost infinite. 
 But, when the efficiency of Natural Selection, in 
 accumulating variations, organs, or features, is circum- 
 scribed by the fact, that the variations, organs, or 
 features, possible to be so accumulated, are restricted, 
 in number and kind, to the number and kind previ- 
 ously lost by the respective, varying species ; all specu- 
 lation, as to what Natural Selection might or could do, 
 if only it had sufficient variations, organs, or features 
 to accumulate, will-advance the theory of development, 
 not a hair's breadth. 
 
 Darwin fancies, that, in the fearful struggle for exist- 
 ence which he describes as being continually waged, 
 the possession of one of these slight variations, which 
 are assumed to " occur in the course of thousands of 
 generations," will give its owner such an advantage 
 over its competitors, as will ensure its being classed 
 with "the strongest and most vigorous," and as will 
 therefore occasion its survival, by which it will be 
 enabled to procreate its kind, and perpetuate the said 
 variation in its descendants. This process, of the 
 preservation of a varying individual, is assumed to 
 repeat itself again and again, at intervals of a thousand 
 generations or so; and the consequent aggregation of 
 such vaiiations is alleged to represent the assumed 
 
THE FALLACIES OP NATURAL SELECTION. 165 
 
 development of a lower into a higher species. But, 
 unfortunately, the consistency of the beautiful and in- 
 genious hypothesis, is marred, by the part thereof 
 which prompts the reader to an estimate of the 
 amount of degeneration wrought upon such a vary- 
 ing organism, by the fearful Struggle for Existence, 
 in the interval, of the thousand generations, which pre- 
 ceded the mysterious appearance of such a variation. 
 Given, the " Battle for Life " to have been continually 
 waging, during such interval, as Darwin assumes it to 
 have been ; was the degeneration, effected during such 
 period, greater or less, than the degree of subsequent 
 development, represented by such occasional variation ? 
 and, is it likely, in view of the circumstances detailed, 
 that such variation was net gain to the given species ? 
 are questions which obtrude themselves upon the 
 reader, who is competent to discern, that .subjective 
 harmony, even, is wanting in Darwin's argument from 
 Natural Selection. 
 
 This question, of net gain to the species is an emi- 
 nently suggestive one. Fancy a person endeavoring to 
 prove that a certain friend of his was growing rich, in 
 trade; and doing it thus: He has a large stock of 
 goods — Everybody seems to be in the same line of 
 trade — Sharpest competition, between them, that you 
 ever saw — There have been "panic times" ever since 
 he started in the business, and the same lively compe- 
 tion — He has a large number of clerks and salesmen, 
 whom he has to pay, whether there is business or not — 
 He is under a heavy rent — The disadvantages, over which 
 he triumphs, may be conceived, when I state, that only 
 15 
 
166 THE FALLACIES OP NATURAL SELECTION. 
 
 once or twice in a month, does a customer stray along, 
 to buy a dollar's worth of goods, and that the whole 
 amount realized upon sales, during the year, by the 
 whole trade, is only about twenty dollars — When 
 such a customer makes his appearance, every one in 
 the trade attempts to seize upon the poor man, and he 
 stands the risk of being torn, limb from limb — My friend, 
 however, is so bland, persistent, and persuasive that, 
 during the whole time he has been in the business, he 
 has secured every customer, despite all the exertions 
 of his fellow-tradesmen, and borne him off trium- 
 phant — Such being the case, can you doubt that he, 
 having such an advantage over the others (sic), has 
 rapidly grown rich ? 
 
 His friend is thus proven (?) to have grown rich, — 
 not by any calculation of his profits and losses, — but 
 by an argument, based solely upon the advantages he 
 possesses, over his competitors ! The inducement to 
 the argument, represents the friend and his fellow- 
 tradesmen, suffering, most severely, from dullness of 
 ' the times, from severe mutual competition, from heavy, 
 current expenses, and from adverse conditions of 
 almost every kind. Yet, nothwithstanding the continual 
 drain upon his friend's capital, our hypothetical friend 
 lays stress, exclusively upon the circumstance, that 
 once or twice, in' a month or so, his friend alone, of all 
 his guild, is able to secure a dollar's worth of sales ; 
 and he deduces the conclusion, that, because his friend 
 is the most successful (or, to put it, as it should be, the 
 least unfortunate) man in the business, the amount of 
 his profits is to be estimated, simply and solely, by the 
 
THE FALLACIES OP NATURAL SELECTION. 16T 
 
 measure in which he is more fortunate (or, rather, less 
 unfortunate) than his fellows. It is manifest, however, 
 that such measure of fortune, accruing from the occa- 
 sional dollar which he receives, is not net profit, but the 
 mere return, or regain (and that, but in a small degree), 
 of the capital stock which has been fast melting away. 
 The analogy, we presume, is clear to all. This case 
 is a fair analogue of Darwin's argument from Natural 
 Selection. There was, originally, a certain amount of 
 organic capital, in each species under nature. Darwin, 
 in picturing the operation of Natural Selection, neces- 
 sarily shows adverse conditions, whose obvious effect 
 is a drain upon that capital. (Such effect is not merely 
 obviously implied; but is shown in Darwin's "rudi- 
 mentary organs," in his "long-lost characters," and in 
 the wide scope which he ascribes to Reversion.) A 
 favorable modification is assumed to occur " sometimes 
 during the course of thousands of generations." This 
 is the analogue of the tradesman's monthly sale of a 
 dollar's worth of goods. Now, says Darwin, this as- 
 sumed, favorable modification is a step in the advance 
 of the given species towards a higher development. 
 But, he has ignored the vital question as to whether 
 it is net profit to the species in which the variation 
 arises. It is, evidently, but the mere return of what 
 has been lost. There has been, — according to the 
 very argument which is used, — previous, organic ex- 
 pense, or loss ; and this variation is but a partial return 
 of the organic capital before expended. Before it was 
 possible for him fairly to found any argument upon the 
 profit or improvement, accruing to any animal or plant, 
 
168 THE FALLACIES OF NATURAL SELECTION. 
 
 he should have shown, that the organic capital, lost 
 either a generation or two back, or thousands of 
 generations back, had been all regained ; and that the 
 favorable variations assumed, are net profit, to the 
 given species. This, it is impossible for him to do. 
 
 We intend to show, in this work, by Darwin's own 
 organic profit and loss account, contained in the books, 
 entered up by himself, that there is not a single instance 
 of profit (z. e. variation or improvement) adduced by him, 
 which is net profit; and, conversely, that every positive 
 variation or improvement, which he presents, is but 
 gross profit, or mere regain of organic capital, once lost 
 by the given species. We have heretofore shown, only, 
 that all of the variations are explicable upon this sup- 
 position, and inexplicable, scientifically, upon any other. 
 We shall, however, demonstrate that they are but the 
 regain of capital once lost, under nature. We shall 
 demonstrate that each individual is ruined or impaired, 
 in constitution and in fertility, in proportion as it falls 
 short of the original, organic capital of its species. We 
 shall show, that not a single individual has, by means 
 of variation, ever made any net organic gain, relatively 
 to the amount of organic capital with which its species 
 once, originally started; but that, in proportion as it 
 has retrieved what it once lost, is it normal in health, 
 constitutional vigor, and fertility; and we shall point 
 out the individuals, and the different species, which, 
 either, have had but small losses under nature, or 
 having had great losses, have, in a great measure, 
 recovered them; and contrast their health, constitu- 
 tional vigor and fertility, with the respective degrees, 
 
THE FALLACIES OF NATURAL SELECTION. 169 
 
 of ruin, of those which still suffer under great losses 
 of organic capital, incurred under nature; or, of those 
 which, having lost but little under nature, have been 
 greatly degenerated by Man's Selection operating 
 solely for his benefit, instead of for the organisms' 
 good. This we shall do, not by mere speculation; 
 nor by the mere balancing of degrees of probability, 
 but by the crucial tests, Crossing and Close-Inter- 
 breeding, which are scales, or Biometers, adjustable, 
 respectively, degree for degree, to the several degrees 
 of ruin, and to the several degrees of accruing (gross) 
 profit, of all the individuals of every species. 
 
 15* 
 
CHAPTER VI. 
 The Several Processes of Formation of Varieties. 
 
 In the fourth Chapter, we alleged that there is but 
 one, normal coordination of characters, in each spe- 
 cies, — a coordination comprising all of the positive 
 characters of the given species ; and we asserted, and 
 promised to prove, that the impaired coordination in 
 individuals, consequent upon the struggle for existence 
 under nature, is repaired and made perfect, in propor- 
 tion to the regain of the long-lost characters of the 
 species. The same principle was formulated, in the 
 last chapter, wherein it was asserted that the regain. of 
 that portion of the organic capital, once lost by the 
 respective species, is attended with physiological good. 
 
 Were reversion, under domestication, or the re-devel- 
 opment of features once lost by an ancient progenitor, 
 proportionately displayed under domestication, in all of 
 the lost characters, the redemption of our promise, 
 were a brief task. But, the characters suppressed, or 
 reduced in the individuals, when taken from a state of 
 nature, are not concurrently re-developed. Quite fre- 
 quently, the re-development of a character, to the 
 neglect of other characters, impairs the harmony and 
 the coordination of the organization, to a greater 
 
 degree, than existed before the animal or plant was 
 (170) 
 
THE FORMATION OP VARIETIES. Ill 
 
 placed under domestication. The phenomena of di- 
 vergence of character, or of disproportionate Rever- 
 sion, whilst complicating the problem greatly, afford, 
 however, proof stronger, and more conclusive, than 
 would be available, were full and concurrent reversion, 
 the unvarying feature, under domestication. 
 
 That physiological good, does, as a general rule 
 attend the improvement of animals and plants under 
 domestication, may be shown. Darwin says (p. 212, 
 Vol. ii, Animals and Plants, &c): 
 
 "Domestication, as a general rule, increases the 
 prolificness of animals and plants." 
 
 As we shall see, increase of prolificness, or of fertil- 
 ity, is the principal test of an improved, physiological 
 state. 
 
 Instead of all the parts of the organization of an ani- 
 mal or plant being simultaneously and proportionately 
 developed, under domestication, Man, when he has 
 utility for his guide, preserves and accumulates those 
 parts only, which he values, and which are useful to 
 him, for some special purpose of his own. In species, 
 where man's fancy, or amusement, comes into play, he 
 develops but one of the varying parts, in each variety ; 
 sacrificing, and subordinating the other parts, in the 
 same variety, to the end he has in view. In some 
 species, Man looks to the improvement of one or two 
 characters only, in the individuals. In other species, 
 while he develops all of the characters, he does what is 
 most injurious to the individual organisms ; he suffers 
 those characters to be developed, only, each in a differ- 
 ent variety. Each individual of a species, Darwin, in 
 
172 THE' FORMATION OF VARIETIES. 
 
 his chapters on Analogous variation, shows to be 
 capable of developing all of the positive characters of 
 its species. But, the way varieties are formed, and 
 formed so distinct, is, by Man's selection repressing 
 this capacity in every direction, or in every character, 
 and suffering it to be exercised in only the one charac- 
 ter which Man assigns as the peculiar character of the 
 variety, in which the individual has been placed. Dar- 
 win says, as has been before quoted, 
 
 " That we may infer, that, when any part, or organ, 
 is either greatly increased in size, or wholly suppressed, 
 * * the coordinating power of the organization will 
 continually tend to bring all the parts again into har- 
 mony with each other." 
 
 If this be the tendency of the coordinating power of 
 the organization, which it unquestionably is, it is mani- 
 fest, that the system of man's formation of varieties, 
 under domestication, — namely, of increasing, to a great 
 size, the peculiarity of each variety, and of suppressing, 
 or reducing, the other parts in the same variety, — is in 
 derogation of this power, which " tends to bring all of 
 the parts again into harmony with each other." The 
 object of this chapter, is to see how, and how far, man 
 has violated the normal, mutual relation of the parts. 
 After having shown the many ways, in which he has 
 varied the normal relation of the parts of a species, we 
 shall proceed to show that Darwin is wrong, when he 
 fancies, that man may mould an organism into any 
 form he pleases, and yet not injure the individuals in 
 a physiological sense. In this connection, he says 
 (Vol. ii, p. 425): 
 
THE FORMATION OF VARIETIES. 173 
 
 "It is difficult to overrate our ignorance of the use* 
 of various parts of the organization." 
 
 The principal use of the various parts, is to preserve 
 the normal relation, or balance of the whole; and this 
 relation or balance may not be varied, ad lib., by man, 
 without evil effects upon the physiology of the organ- 
 ism. Such evil effects we shall show to be registered, 
 in each individual ; and to be susceptible of being read, 
 with perfect ease, by every fancier, breeder, horticul- 
 turist and agriculturist. 
 
 The principal reason, why proportionate re-develop- 
 ment does not occur under domestication, — why all of 
 the characters- do not, in each or in any individual, re- 
 turn concurrently to the original, perfect type, — why 
 all of the lost characters are not regained, in each in- 
 dividual, — is, not only because man does not desire to 
 develop all of the characters in each individual, but 
 because, also, the different individuals are subjected 
 to different conditions of life, which favor the de- 
 velopment of special characters, in advance of the 
 development of others. Man avails himself of this 
 circumstance, and pushes the development of the first 
 character presenting itself (if it be a desirable charac- 
 ter), to an extreme point. When an individual has one 
 character in the ascendant, man seizes it, and makes it 
 the peculiarity of a given variety, and suppresses the 
 development of all the other characters. Other indi- 
 viduals, with another character in an exceptionally- 
 advanced state of development, are made to constitute 
 another varietal type; and, the further the exclusive 
 development of the distinguishing mark of this type, 
 
1T4 THE FORMATION OF VARIETIES. 
 
 is carried, the more the individuals of this class, be- 
 come disproportionately developed. Every deviation, 
 among the individuals of a variety, "from the standard 
 of excellence which the breeder has established in 
 his own mind" (p. 237), is esteemed a degeneration; 
 although such variation be of a positive character, 
 and although it consist of an organ essentially neces- 
 sary to secure the normal relation of the parts. 
 
 Thus, it is, generally, the case, that each variety 
 possesses a character, which it is necessary that the 
 other varieties should possess ; and, each variety lacks 
 all of the positive peculiarities, of the other varieties, 
 which, for full physiological integrity, it is necessary 
 that it should possess. In other words, the positive 
 characters of a species, which it is essential should all 
 be developed in each individual of that species, are, in- 
 stead thereof, apportioned among different individuals, 
 or different varieties. In other words, a multiplicity of 
 divergent varieties in any species, necessarily implies 
 the loss, in each variety, of the positive characters 
 peculiar to the other varieties of the species. With 
 many animals, absence of true proportion is occa- 
 sioned, frequently, by blind conformity to • certain 
 standards, existing in the breeders' minds. Thus, 
 when a breed acquires a reputation, or distinct charac- 
 ter, all of its then existing points, — both those posi- 
 tive, and those negative, both, those parts, of intrinsic 
 value, and those not, — are faithfully preserved ; as if, 
 the preservation intact, of the existing structure, were 
 a sine qua non of its good quality, or of its purity of 
 blood; and this occurs, even when some of its features 
 
THE FORMATION OF VARIETIES. 175 
 
 are shockingly out of proportion, and when some are 
 wholly suppressed. 
 
 Darwin says (p. 16, Origin of Species) : 
 
 " Domesticated races * * often differ in an ex- 
 treme degree, in some one part, * * when com- 
 pared with one another." 
 
 (Page 31, Origin of Species): "One of the most 
 remarkable features in our domesticated races, is, that 
 we see, in them, adaptation, not indeed to the animal's 
 or plant's own good, but to man's use or fancy." 
 
 (Page 33, Origin of Species): Darwin quotes Youatt, 
 approvingly, as saying, that man, by Selection, as "with 
 the magician's wand, * * may summon into life, 
 whatever form and mould he pleases." 
 
 Simply varying the relations of the given number 
 of parts belonging to a species, is not developing; 
 and it shall be shown that, when the parts are not 
 of the one, true ratio, there is evil inevitably entailed. 
 
 (Page 33, Origin of Species): Darwin says, that the 
 very distinct varieties, observable under domestication, 
 are " produced by the accumulation in one direction, 
 during successive generations, of differences.'' 
 
 For breeders, and fanciers, to work upon, there are, 
 at the start, under domestication, a certain number of 
 characters in each species. In addition thereto, there 
 are a number of characters, which were lost by a past 
 generation, and which arise under the favorable condi- 
 tions of domestication. From these characters, Man 
 has formed the varieties of each species under domes- 
 tication, by the following processes : 
 
 I. By the retention, of the individuals of a species, 
 
176 THE FORMATION OF VARIETIES. 
 
 at several stages of reversion, accounting merely for 
 differences of size; 
 
 2. By continuing the process, of degeneration, com- 
 menced under nature, and retaining the individuals of 
 the given species, at each stage of such degeneration, 
 also accounting merely for difference of size ; 
 
 3. By the re-development of the long-lost characters 
 of the species, of which not a vestige remained; but, 
 with an apportionment, or distribution of them, among 
 different varieties ; 
 
 4. By the retention, of the individuals of several 
 varieties, at each stage of the re-development of the 
 lost characters allotted to their respective varieties, 
 thus accounting for the sub-varieties of the third class ; 
 
 5. By the re-development of the rudimentary organs 
 of the species, and their apportionment among different 
 varieties ; 
 
 6. By the retention of the individuals of several 
 varieties, at each stage of the development of the 
 rudimentary organs allotted to their respective varie- 
 ties, thus accounting for the sub-varieties of the fifth 
 class ; 
 
 7. By the extreme, and exclusive re-development 
 (or selection), of one part only, in each variety, among 
 those parts which have been only partially reduced, 
 under nature ; 
 
 8. By the retention, of the individuals of several 
 varieties, at each stage of the re-development of those 
 parts, only partially reduced under nature ; thus ac- 
 counting for the sub-varieties of the seventh class ; 
 
 9. By a process of degeneration, by which in several 
 
THE FORMATION OF VARIETIES. 1?T 
 
 varieties under domestication, Man effects the reduc- 
 tion or suppression of characters, which were not 
 reduced or suppressed under nature ; 
 
 10. By the retention of the individuals, of several 
 varieties, at each stage of such degeneration; thus ac- 
 counting for the sub-varieties of the ninth class ; 
 
 1 1. By the re-development of one only of the charac- 
 ters which have been lost, suppressed or reduced under 
 nature ; 
 
 12. By the retention of the individuals of several 
 varieties, at each stage of the re-development of this 
 one character which was lost, suppressed or reduced 
 under nature, thus accounting for sub-varieties of the 
 eleventh class. 
 
 Take a hundred rubber balls, of like size and charac- 
 ter, and compress them all to half their size; then, in 
 ten, or a dozen of the balls, relax the pressure, in a dif- 
 ferent part, in each ball ; then, in others of the balls, re- 
 lax, but slightly, the pressure, in each ball, in a part 
 corresponding to the part with its pressure relaxed, in 
 one of the balls of the first class ; then, in other balls, 
 relax the pressure all around, but in a different degree, 
 in each ball ; then, in other balls, instead of relaxing the 
 pressure, much increase the pressure, upon a different 
 part, in each ball; then, in other balls, instead of greatly 
 increasing the pressure, in a different part, in each ball, 
 increase the pressure, but increase it somewhat less, 
 in a descending degree, in a part in each ball, corres- 
 ponding to the same part in each of the balls of the 
 preceding class ; then, in other balls, increase the pres- 
 sure, all around, in a degree varying with each ball, 
 16 
 
118 THE FORMATION OF VARIETIES. 
 
 instead of increasing it in parts only; then, in one ball, 
 relax the pressure fully, in one part only; and then in 
 other balls, relax the pressure in the same just-men- 
 tioned part, but relax it less and less, in a descending 
 degree, in the several, remaining balls. 
 
 Having done this, conformably to direction, you will 
 have varieties, of the, originally, one kind of ball, ex- 
 actly analogous to varieties of a species under domes- 
 tication. The compression, of the ball, represents 
 degeneration; the elasticity, displayed upon relaxa- 
 tion of the pressure, corresponds to reversion. The 
 disproportionate compression, and disproportionate 
 relaxation, are respectively analogous to dispropor- 
 tionate Reversion, and to disproportionate degener- 
 ation, in organisms. The balls, in their original, 
 normal state of expansion, represent the original, 
 normal type of a species. As the restraint, upon the 
 several balls, constraining them to a shape, not in 
 harmony with the natural properties of their matter, 
 is abnormal; so, the disproportionate development of 
 varieties, is abnormal, as the retention, of their parts, 
 at any stage short of full, complete reversion, is in 
 derogation of the one, true ratio of their development. 
 In the case of an organism, there is a crucial test, 
 demonstrating most positively, that any constraint to 
 a shape, short of the full development of all the posi- 
 tive features of the species, is injurious to physiologi- 
 cal integrity. 
 
 The compression, of the ball, to half its size, does 
 not exactly represent the degeneration in species, under 
 nature. For the compression, above mentioned, is im- 
 
THE FORMATION OF VARIETIES. 179 
 
 pliedly equal, all around; whereas, degeneration is not 
 equally effective, upon all the characters of a species. 
 It reduces some very slightly; much reduces others; 
 and wholly suppresses still others; according to the 
 conditions of life, to which the several races, under na- 
 ture, were subjected. 
 
 The several processes, of formation of varieties under 
 domestication, are nearly all exemplified in the case of 
 the Pigeon. This species, under domestication, is pre- 
 eminently conspicuous among those whose varieties 
 are greatly divergent in character. 
 
 " In practice," says Darwin (p. 1 25 , Origin of Species), 
 " a fancier is, for instance, struck by a Pigeon having a 
 slightly shorter beak; another fancier is struck by a 
 Pigeon having a rather larger beak; and on the ac- 
 knowledged principle that ' fanciers do not and will not 
 admire a medium standard, but like extremes,' they 
 both go on choosing and breeding from birds with 
 longer and longer beaks, or with shorter and shorter 
 beaks." 
 
 "Compare," says he (p. 22, Origin of Species), "the 
 English Carrier, and the shortfaced tumbler, and see 
 the wonderful difference, in their beaks, entailing cor- 
 responding differences in their skulls." 
 
 "The Carrier is also remarkable" (p. 22, Origin of 
 Species), "from the wonderful development about the 
 head" — from "greatly elongated eyelids, very large 
 external orifices to the nostrils, and a wide gape of 
 mouth. The shortfaced tumbler has a beak, in out- 
 line, like that of a finch. * * The Runt is a bird 
 of great size, with long massive beak and large feet ; 
 some of the sub-breeds of Runts have very long 
 necks, others very long wings and tails, others simply 
 short tails. The Barb is allied to the Carrier, but in- 
 
180 THE FORMATION OF VARIETIES. 
 
 stead of a very long beak, has a very short and very 
 broad one. The Pouter has a much elongated body, 
 wings, and legs, and an enormously developed crop. 
 * * The Turbit has a very short and conical 
 beak, with a line of reversed feathers down the breast, 
 and it has the habit of continually expanding, slightly, 
 the upper part of the oesophagus. The Jacobin has 
 the feathers so much reversed along the back of the 
 neck, that they form a hood, and it has proportionally 
 to its size, much elongated wing and tail feathers. 
 The Trumpeter and Laugher, as their names express, 
 utter a very different coo, from the other breeds. The 
 Fantail has thirty or even forty tail feathers, instead of 
 twelve or fourteen, the normal number in all members 
 of the great pigeon family; and these feathers are kept 
 expanded, and are carried so erect, that in good birds, 
 the head and tail touch ; the oil gland is quite aborted." 
 
 A certain number of characters belong to the species, 
 Pigeon. Those characters, which were, under nature, 
 lost, and which are re-developed, under domestication, 
 are distributed among different varieties and these 
 characters, and the others, simply have their propor- 
 tions, and their number, varied in the different varie- 
 ties. In some varieties, some of these characters are 
 wholly suppressed, or greatly reduced. All of the 
 positive characters should be developed, fully and pro- 
 portionately, in each individual. Each variety, ob- 
 viously, then, falls short of the true type, viz., the sum 
 of all the features. It is our task to show, that, inas- 
 much as each variety so falls short, evil is entailed upon 
 it. This is done in the succeeding chapter. 
 (Page 262, Vol. i.) The fancier, says Darwin : 
 "Endeavors to exaggerate every peculiarity in his 
 
THE FORMATION OF VARIETIES. 181 
 
 breeds. A great authority 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.' " 
 
 " Domesticated races differ much, in some one organ, 
 from the other races of the same species," * * 
 though "the remaining parts of the organization will 
 always be found in some degree different" (p. 150, 
 Origin of Species). 
 
 Varieties, under domestication, "show adaptation to 
 his (man's) wants and pleasure " (p. 14, Vol. i, Animals 
 and Plants, &c). 
 
 " Domesticated 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 " (p. 14, Vol. i). 
 
 Each individual Pigeon varies a little, in several 
 ways, from even the others of the same variety, or 
 sub-variety. Each differs, slightly, from the others of 
 the same variety, and, greatly, from others of the 
 other varieties, in the length, size, or number, of the 
 wing-feathers; in the length, size, or number of the 
 tail feathers; in the length, number, or size of the 
 primary wing-feathers; in the number, length, or 
 breadth of the ribs; in the size, and form of the body; 
 in the number, and size of the s'cutellse ; in the size of 
 the eye, and eyelids ; in the size, length, and thick- 
 ness of the feet and legs ; in the length, and size, and 
 breadth of the tongue and beak ; in the size, and 
 shape of the lower jaw; in the amount of wattle; in 
 the heaviness of the coating of feathers; in the size, 
 IB* 
 
182 THE FORMATION OF VARIETIES. 
 
 and shape of the sternum, and of the scapula ; and in 
 every detail of the internal organs, of the skeleton, 
 and of external adornment. 
 
 The mode, in which Man gets such distinct varieties, 
 is by refusing to re-develop all of the characters, con- 
 currently; and, by pushing the re-development of one, 
 two, or but a few characters only, in any one variety. 
 
 Under the heading of "Tendency in Man to carry 
 the practice of Selection to an extreme point" (p. 290, 
 Vol. ii), Darwin says : 
 
 " It is an important principle that, in the process of 
 selection, man almost invariably wishes to go to an 
 extreme point (!) Thus, in useful qualities, there is no 
 limit to his desire to breed certain horses and dogs as 
 fleet as possible, and others as strong as possible ; cer- 
 tain kinds of sheep, for extreme fineness, and others, 
 for extreme length of wool ; and he wishes to produce 
 fruit, grain, tubers, and other useful parts of plants, as 
 large and excellent as possible. With animals, bred 
 for amusement, the same principle is even more power- 
 ful ; for fashion, as we see even in our dress, always 
 runs to extremes (!) This view has been expressly 
 admitted by fanciers. Instances were given in the 
 chapter on the Pigeon, but here is another: Mr. 
 Eaton, after describing a comparatively new variety, 
 namely, the Archangel, remarks, 'What fanciers intend 
 doing with this bird, 1 am at' a loss to know, whether 
 they intend to breed it down to the Tumbler's head 
 and beak, or carry it out to the Carrier's head and 
 beak; leaving it as they found it, is not progressing.' 
 Ferguson, speaking of Fowls, says, ' their peculiarities, 
 whatever they may be, must necessarily be fully de- 
 veloped ; a little peculiarity forms naught but ugliness, 
 seeing it violates the existing laws of symmetry.' So, 
 Mr. Brent, in discovering the merits of the sub-varie- 
 
THE FORMATION OP VARIETIES. 183 
 
 ties of the Belgian canary-bird, remarks, 'Fanciers 
 always go to extremes; they do not admire indefinite 
 properties.' " 
 
 He continues: 
 
 "This principle, which necessarily leads to diver- 
 gence of character, explains the present state of various 
 domesticated races. We can thus see, how it is that 
 race-horses and dray-horses ; greyhounds and mastiffs ; 
 which are opposed to each other in every character, 
 — how varieties so distinct as Cochin-China fowls, 
 and bantams; or Carrier Pigeons with very long 
 beaks, and Tumblers with excessively short beaks; 
 have been derived from the same stock. As each 
 breed is slowly improved, the inferior varieties are 
 first neglected, and finally lost. * * * Selection, 
 whether methodical or unconscious, always tending 
 toward an extreme point, together with the neglect, 
 and slow extinction, of the intermediate and less valued 
 forms, is the key which unlocks the mystery how man 
 has produced such wonderful results * * * Con- 
 tinued divergence of character depends on, and is, in- 
 deed, a clear proof, as previously remarked, of the same 
 parts continuing to vary in the same direction." 
 
 Instead of the pressure of degeneration being re- 
 lieved in every part, in every individual, it is relieved, 
 and reversion allowed to operate, solely in one part, or 
 in a few parts, in each variety of the species. With 
 the Pigeon, and with some other animals, all, or almost 
 all of the characters of the species are regained; but 
 they are suffered to be developed, not in each indi- 
 vidual, or variety, but in different individuals or varie- 
 ties. Then, many characters are reduced or suppressed, 
 either directly by man, or owing to disuse. This dis- 
 use would not reduce the characters, were a reasonable 
 
184 THE FORMATION OP VARIETIES. 
 
 degree of selection, or of care, exercised by man. But, 
 the reduction, or suppression, is thus suffered by man, 
 because : 
 
 " Man," as Darwin says (p. 492, Vol. ii), " does not 
 regard modifications in the more important organs 
 * * * as long as they are compatible with health 
 and life. What does the breeder care about slight 
 changes in the molar teeth of his pigs, or for an addi- 
 tional molar tooth in the Dog ; or for any change in 
 the intestinal canal or other internal organ?" (Darwin 
 does not say this invidiously, but approvingly). "The 
 breeder cares for the flesh of his cattle, being well 
 marbled with fat, and for an accumulation of fat, with- 
 in the abdomen of his sheep, and this he has effected. 
 What would the floriculturist care for any change 
 in the structure of the ovarium, or of the ovules? 
 
 * * * When he has produced any modification 
 in an important part, it has generally been unintention- 
 ally, in correlation with some other part, as when he 
 has given ridges and protuberances to the skulls of 
 fowls by attending to the form of the comb." 
 
 Every character, which goes to make up any spe- 
 cies, even the hair, feathers, hoofs, horns, teeth, tail, 
 and ears is, by man, in some variety, exalted into 
 undue prominence, or wholly, or partially suppressed ; 
 and thus a line of divergence from the other varieties 
 of the given species, is thereby established. As Dar- 
 win says, If the fancier : 
 
 "Simply" (p. 506, Vol. ii) "admired, for instance, 
 short-beaked, more than long-beaked birds, he would, 
 when he had to reduce the number (of birds) generally 
 kill the latter ; and there can be no doubt that he 
 would thus, in course of time, sensibly modify his 
 stock." 
 
THE FORMATION OF VARIETIES. 185 
 
 A priori, it is not likely that nature suffers tamely this 
 moulding, of a species, into any form which the utility, 
 fancy, fashion, or caprice of man may dictate. There 
 is a penalty visited upon each individual organism, 
 commensurate with the degree of its departure from 
 the sum of all the positive features of its species. 
 The most outrageous liberties are taken with animal 
 and plant forms ; and, when the penalty presents itself 
 in the shape of the evil effects of close-interbreeding, 
 man, blind as a mole, can not discern the relation 
 between these evil effects, and the disproportionate 
 development which he has occasioned ; but, needs 
 must relegate the phenomena to his favorite category 
 of the inexplicable; or, what is more asinine, he lumps 
 all of the degrees of such effects together, and dubs 
 them a "great law of nature !" 
 
 Among all the animals, under domestication, which 
 have been degenerated, in character, by man, the pig 
 is pre-eminently conspicuous. The more improved (?) 
 the pig becomes, the more are its legs reduced. In 
 the " best bred " pigs, the legs are so small as to be 
 absolutely incompatible with locomotion, and they are 
 incompetent to the very support of the animal. When 
 it is required to remove such individuals, from place to 
 place, it is necessary to carry them. It is, also, often 
 as much as the existence of the individual is worth, to 
 stand it upon its legs. The snout is likewise reduced; 
 being, sometimes, no longer than the nose of a human 
 individual. The tusks are well nigh suppressed; the 
 front of its head is rendered short and concave. Its 
 coat of bristles is suppressed. Its hair is much re- 
 
186 THE FORMATION OP VARIETIES. 
 
 duced. Its tail is infinitesimal in character; and the 
 whole plan of the organization of the animal, seems to' 
 have been resolved into a mere barrel of fat. Darwin, 
 in an ecstacy of admiration, at the signal triumph 
 achieved, in these animals, by means of selection, 
 terms them, "wonderfully improved." He says (p. 
 283, Vol. ii) : 
 
 "Our wonderfully improved pigs could never have 
 been formed, if they had been forced to search for 
 their own food." 
 
 He says (p. 360, Vol. ii) : 
 
 "Nathusius has shown, that, with the improved 
 races of the pig, the shortened legs and snout, the 
 form of the auricular condyles, of the occiput, and the 
 position of the jaws, with the upper canine teeth pro- 
 jecting in a most anomalous manner in front of the 
 lower canines, may be attributed to these parts not 
 having been fully exercised. For, the highly culti- 
 vated races do not travel in search of food, nor root up 
 the ground with their ringed muzzles." 
 
 "Again," he says (236, Vol. ii), " hear what an excel- 
 lent judge of pigs, says : ' The legs should be no longer 
 than just to prevent the animal's belly from trailing on 
 the ground. The leg is the least profitable (!) portion 
 of the hog, and we therefore require no more of it than 
 is absolutely necessary for the support of the rest.' 
 Let any one compare the wild boar with any im- 
 proved breed, and he will see how effectually the legs 
 have been shortened." 
 
 With horses, sheep, and cows, all of the characters 
 of the respective species, are generally re-developed, 
 in each variety; although in all of the varieties, the 
 perfect proportion of the characters is, in a greater or 
 less degree, absent. 
 
THE FORMATION OP VARIETIES. 187 
 
 With Plants, there is a great reduction and suppres- 
 sion of many characters. Under domestication, the 
 floriculturist and agriculturist aim at the exclusive de- 
 velopment of those parts which they value. Other 
 characters of the species, are, either, left greatly re- 
 duced, are suffered to become wholly suppressed, or 
 are systematically suppressed by man. 
 
 Darwin says (p. 509, Vol. ii) : 
 
 "The best proof of what selection has effected, is, 
 perhaps, afforded by the fact that, whatever part or 
 quality, in any animal, and more especially, in any 
 plant, is most valued by man, that part, or quality 
 differs most in the several races. This result is well 
 seen, by comparing the amount of difference between 
 the fruits produced by the varieties of the same fruit 
 tree ; between the flowers of the varieties in one flower 
 garden ; between the seeds, roots, or leaves of our culi- 
 nary and agricultural plants, in comparison with the 
 oflier, and not valued, parts of the same plants." 
 
 Thus, if it is the fruit which is the desired feature, 
 the plant will have that character so developed as to 
 approximate perfection; whilst the flowers (including 
 the petals, stamens, pistils, ovaries, ovules) and the 
 leaves, the seed, the roots, the bark, the chemical ele- 
 ments, and the many other characters, will not only be 
 neglected, but will be greatly reduced or suppressed; 
 entailing thus, a development of the most dispro- 
 portionate kind. With different plants of the same 
 species, and even of the .same variety, the neglected 
 parts will vary, to some extent, in the degree of their 
 development, owing to the varying conditions of life 
 to which they are subjected; for, as Darwin says 
 
188 THE FORMATION OP VARIETIES. 
 
 (p. 304, Vol. ii), in speaking of the action of the condi- 
 tions : 
 
 " Even the seeds, nurtured in the same capsule, are 
 not subjected to absolutely uniform conditions, as they 
 draw their nourishment from different points." 
 
 And again (p. 337, Vol. ii): 
 
 "Slight variations of many kinds * * * are 
 retained as long as plants are grown in certain soils, 
 of which Sageret gives, from his own experience, some 
 instances." 
 
 These conditions, entailing slight changes, or slight 
 advances in re-development, in the neglected parts, it 
 may be well carefully to note ; as they resolve the 
 puzzling (to Darwin) phenomena of the Self-Impotence, 
 and of the Crossing of plants. 
 
 Darwin says : 
 
 "The Relative position of flowers, with respect to 
 the axis, and of seeds in the capsules," has some 
 effect, in "inducing variability." 
 
 " With cultivated plants," he says, " it is far from 
 rare, to find the petals, stamens, and pistils represented 
 by rudiments." 
 
 Again, he says : 
 
 " The chemical qualities, odors, and tissues of 
 plants are often modified by a change which seems to 
 us slight. The Hemlock is said not to yield conicine, 
 in Scotland. The root of the Aconitum napellus 
 becomes innocuous, in frigid countries. The medicinal 
 properties of the Digitalis are easily affected," &c, &c. 
 
 "With all improved Plants, * * they (floricul- 
 turists and agriculturists) examine the seedlings, and 
 destroy those which depart from the proper type." 
 
THE FORMATION OF VARIETIES. 189 
 
 By this "proper type," is meant, a type in which the 
 valued character of the individuals is improved, in a 
 special way, and in which the parts not valued are 
 degenerated in a particular way. It has required a 
 great deal of care, and of selection, to fix the individ- 
 uals of a variety, to a certain persistency of type. 
 All of the characters evince an inclination to improve, 
 i. e., to revert; and, if this disposition is not kept 
 down by vigorous weeding out of the " sports," as 
 they are called, the individuals might, it is true, improve 
 in those of their characters which are little developed ; 
 but that is not what the agriculturist, or horticulturist, 
 wants. He desires to keep the variety uniform, so as 
 to make it recognizable ; and he effects this, by requir- 
 ing the individuals of the variety, to adhere strictly to 
 the standard he has formed. Man is jealous, fre- 
 quently, even of an improvement, in the part he 
 values; fearing lest he may not be able to fix the 
 additional improvement, and make a variety; and, 
 apprehensive that the plant may take upon itself to 
 improve, also, in the other characters which he does not 
 desire to have developed. Thus, if a " Bullock's heart " 
 variety of the Cabbage, should present individuals, 
 with an improvement obviously superior to the " Bul- 
 lock's heart" leaf, those individuals would be re- 
 morselessly destroyed ; for, improvement is not so 
 much an object, as a class of individuals which 
 will perpetuate their exact kind. Again, if grain be, 
 for instance, slightly cylindrical in character, the indi- 
 vidual grains, adhering rigidly to the prescribed type, 
 will be valued, and alone preserved. Those departing 
 17 
 
190 THE FORMATION OF VARIETIES. 
 
 from the regular shape, or form, will be mercilessly 
 proscribed ; and, if the leaves, or other portions of the 
 plant (the flowers, for instance), should attempt to im- 
 prove, and to revert to the original type, subsisting before 
 the degeneration, under nature, occurred ; the agricul- 
 turist would be almost transfixed with horror, at such 
 audacity. He adheres most religiously, to the belief 
 that plants were made for his use ; but the trouble is, 
 that he, on the whole, defeats such use, by the manner 
 in which he uses the bounty vouchsafed him. 
 Darwin says (p. 242, Vol. ii) : 
 
 "The finest shades of difference, in wheat, have 
 been discriminated, and selected with * * * 
 much care." 
 
 The seeds only, in this species, are attended to. 
 The leaves, flowers, &c, are all disproportionately 
 developed. In fact, the further the exclusive improve- 
 ment of the seed is carried, the more the true, normal 
 relation of the parts, is violated. Darwin may well 
 assert that " Sterility is the bane of horticulture," when 
 all plants are cultivated upon a vicious system, entail- 
 ing a most abnormal coordination of the parts of the 
 species." 
 
 "Compare," says Darwin (p. 34, Origin of Species), 
 " the diversity of Flowers, in the different varieties of 
 the same species, in the flower-garden; the diversity 
 of leaves, pods, or tubers, or whatever part is valued, 
 in comparison with the flowers of the same varieties; 
 and the diversity of the fruit of the same species in the 
 orchard, in comparison with the leaves and flowers of 
 the same set of varieties. See how different the leaves 
 of the Cabbage are, and how extremely alike the 
 
THE FORMATION OF VARIETIES. 191 
 
 flowers ; how much the fruit of the different kinds of 
 gooseberries differ in size, color, and hairiness; and 
 yet, the flowers present very slight differences. It is 
 not that the varieties which differ largely, in some one 
 point, do not differ at all in other points. * * * 
 The laws of correlation of growth, the importance of 
 which should not be overlooked, will ensure some 
 differences, but the leaves, the flowers, or the fruit 
 will produce races differing from each other, chiefly in 
 these characters." 
 
 (It is these slight differences which, when united in 
 mongrel offspring, effect the good which is occasioned 
 by Crossing.) 
 
 The above cases represent the formation of varieties, 
 by the development of one character only, of the 
 species; and, by the retention of such character, at 
 each stage of reversion. Each part, itself, is composed 
 of several characters; and the different development 
 of these characters, constitute varieties formed of the va- 
 rious developments of the one part. Thus, the leaves in 
 different varieties of a species, may be of many different 
 sizes, and of many different shapes (the same being 
 modifications of the one normal shape), or, they may 
 be more or less fleshy, and variously reticulated; or, 
 they may be of several degrees of smoothness, or of 
 several degrees of hairiness. The stems also may be 
 variedly herbaceous, or variedly woody. The branches 
 also may be more or less drooping, or more or less 
 erect. In the flowers of each, or of several varieties, 
 the stamens, pistils, calyx, corolla, anthers, ovules, 
 ovaries, seed vessels, &c, may be of a different ratio 
 with each other; or, some of these characters may even 
 
192 THE FORMATION OP VARIETIES. 
 
 be greatly reduced or wholly suppressed, represented 
 by mere rudiments, or having not a vestige left. The 
 capacity for reversion, in the parts not valued, is not 
 encouraged, but, rather, suppressed, by every possible 
 means. 
 
 " No one supposes," says Darwin (p. 48, Origin of 
 Species), " that all the individuals of the same species, 
 are cast in the same actual mould." 
 
 No one supposes that they are actually cast in the 
 same mould ; but, he who would understand the de- 
 velopments, arising under domestication, must hold 
 that there is but one, normal mould for all the 
 individuals of the same species, and that all of the 
 varieties and races, under domestication, and under 
 nature, are but various modifications of such original, 
 true mould. All of the individuals of a species, are, 
 originally, from the same mould. The mould, how- 
 ever, has been bent and distorted (by the adverse 
 conditions of nature, and by man's misguided policy of 
 selection), into every conceivable, diminished shape, 
 and size. Those individuals only, which answer, in 
 their structure, to the true mould of their species, are 
 physiologically perfect. The true, normal mould is 
 capable of covering all the positive differences of the 
 varieties, and of the individuals of the same species. 
 Given, the modification which, in any individual, the 
 true mould of its species has undergone ; and, the evil 
 effects which constitute the penalty for such departure 
 from such mould, will be observed to be in proportion. 
 In proportion also, as the individuals return to the size, 
 and shape of the original mould, will the evil, attendant 
 
THE FORMATION OP VARIETIES. 193 
 
 upon their modification of such mould, abate. It is evi- 
 dent, upon Darwin's own showing of the manner in which 
 varieties of a species are formed, that each variety, when 
 not distinguished from the others of the same species, 
 merely by a negative character, has in it an element, 
 which, if joined to another variety, would measurably 
 advance the development, of such other variety, towards 
 the original type or mould of the given species ; and, 
 that the combination of all the positive characters of 
 many and widely distinct varieties of a species, in a 
 single, or in each, individual, would realize the true 
 mould, which is the sum of all the positive develop- 
 ments, possible in such species. 
 
 17* 
 
CHAPTER VII. 
 
 Evils caused by a Departure from the Original Type of 
 a Species ; and Good occasioned by a Return to such 
 Original Type : or, Crossing and Close-Interbreed- 
 ing. . 
 
 The principle of Reversion implies, that all the posi- 
 tive characters, of any given species, were originally, 
 fully and proportionately developed, in each member of 
 such species, and that such type alone is perfect, physi- 
 ologically, as well as anatomically. Hence, it follows, 
 that any modification of such type, must be injurious. 
 It also follows, that the physiological state, of individ- 
 uals, previous to their developing variations under do- 
 mestication, should be a defective one, owing to the 
 then absence or reduction, in them, of the characters, 
 which they subsequently develop, and which are as- 
 sumed to be essentially necessary to their physiological 
 as well as structural integrity. It equally follows that, in 
 proportion as such individuals regain these lost or reduced 
 characters, should there be an abatement of the physi- 
 ological evil occasioned by such loss or reduction ; and 
 it follows that, when all the positive variation possible 
 for an individual of a given species, has been effected, 
 there should exist a perfect, physiological condition in 
 such individual. 
 
 To this, it may be answered, that such results are 
 (194) 
 
CROSSING AND CLOSE-INTERBREEDING. 195 
 
 obvious, theoretically ; but, in default of positive proof 
 thereof, it is all mere speculation. At the same time, 
 it will be admitted that, if such required proof is 
 adduced, the principle of one, normal type, to each 
 species, and the principle that all positive variations are 
 but the regain of lost or reduced characters, are demon- 
 stratively proven. 
 
 Such proof is available. The phenomena of Cross- 
 ing, and of Close-Interbreeding, conclusively, aye, 
 demonstratively, show, that an organism is vitiated by 
 the reduction, suppression, or absence of any character 
 or characters of its species. They show, that- any 
 ratio, between the characters of which an individual is 
 composed, other than that ratio which subsists, when 
 all of the positive features of the species are fully 
 and proportionately developed, impairs the normal 
 coordination of the parts. They show, there can be 
 perfect coordination of parts in an individual, only 
 when all the . positive characters of its species are 
 present and fully developed. They show that, in each 
 species, all of the positive features, which it is possible 
 for such species to develop, are wonderfully united, 
 and have such delicate and intimate relations, that it is 
 impossible to vary the proportions of such parts, with- 
 out detriment to the organism, as a whole. They 
 show, that such reciprocal dependence of all the char- 
 acters, of a species, on each other, precludes the possi- 
 bility of any organism being modified in any part, 
 without entailing a breach of the laws of organization. 
 They show, that the laws, of the whole organism, fail 
 to operate fully, perfectly, or normally, when any of 
 
196 CROSSING AND CLOSE-INTERBREEDING. 
 
 the characters, of its species, is modified or absent. 
 They show, that the further that degeneration, under 
 nature, or that degeneration under domestication, has 
 been carried, the more is the physiological integrity of 
 the individuals, in question, impaired, on account of 
 the loss, in such individuals, of characters of their 
 respective species, or on account of the establishment of 
 an abnormal ratio of the characters of their respective 
 species. They show, that the further that positive 
 Reversion is carried, or the more that characters are 
 regained, and the nearer the original, perfect type of 
 the given species, is approximated, the greater is the 
 repair of this lost, physiological integrity. They show, 
 that, only when reversion has been fully effected, — 
 when all of the lost characters, of the respective 
 species, have been regained, — and when the sum of 
 all the positive features, of the given species, is realized 
 in the individual, can there be full, physiological per- 
 fection. 
 
 The state of the individuals which vary, is shown to 
 be a deficient, physiological condition, previous to their 
 development of positive variations. That this is due , 
 to their then, deficient, structural condition, is attested 
 by the circumstance that in proportion as they return 
 to their full structural integrity, — that is, in proportion 
 as they vary positively, or re-develop the characters as- 
 sumed to have been originally lost, — do the physiologi- 
 cal evils abate, and cease altogether when the full 
 amount of positive variation possible for that species, 
 has been effected. The connection of the evil effects 
 with the deficient, structural condition of the indi- 
 
CROSSING AND CLOSE-INTERBREEDING. 19t 
 
 viduals, is also proven by the fact, that, if the varia- 
 tion under domestication be of a negative character, — 
 that is, if any character be reduced or suppressed, — the 
 evils are observed to be proportionally augmented. 
 
 As then, the loss or reduction of any character entails 
 physiological evil, the deficient, physiological condition 
 of- individuals, previous to their development of posi- 
 tive variations under domestication, proves that such 
 individuals have had characters lost or reduced, under 
 Nature; and, as the development of positive variations 
 under domestication, abates the physiological evils 
 (when such variations are proportionately developed), 
 it follows that such variations are but the regain of 
 those lost or reduced characters. 
 
 That evil is caused by a departure from the perfect 
 type of the species, is shown by the phenomena of 
 close-interbreeding. That good is occasioned, — or, 
 rather, that the evils of a departure from the perfect 
 type, are retrieved, — by a return to such normal type 
 of the given species, is shown by the phenomena of 
 Crossing. 
 
 Darwin asserts, reiterates again and again, and seem- 
 ingly never tires of adducing facts to show, that good 
 results from crossing distinct varieties of the same 
 species, and that evil follows from interbreeding indi- 
 viduals of the same variety. Why these effects should 
 flow, he does not know. But, such results, while con- 
 fessedly wholly inexplicable upon Darwin's hypothesis, 
 are, a priori, to be expected upon the theory of Rever- 
 sion. 
 
 By crossing, each parent variety supplies, in the 
 
198 CROSSING AND CLOSE-INTERBREEDING. 
 
 mongrel offspring, a character or characters which the 
 other parent variety lacks. The offspring of a cross, 
 then, possesses two characters, at least, where either of 
 its parents possessed one; and, thereby, either a full, 
 or a measurable return to the original, perfect type, 
 comprising all of the characters of the species, is 
 effected. If a return to the sum of all the characters 
 of the species, should result in physiological good, 
 then a cross does but fulfill the requirements of the 
 theory of Reversion, when the effects of a cross are 
 (what Darwin has established, as unexplained facts 
 merely), viz., increased fertility, and increased constitu- 
 tional vigor. 
 
 If, on the other hand, an individual, wanting in any 
 character, or lacking the full development of any 
 character of its species, is, upon the theory of Rever- 
 sion, to be esteemed physiologically defective, inas- 
 much as it falls short of the full, possible development 
 of its species ; then, it is to be expected that, when 
 such individual is interbred with another, similarly de- 
 fective, the evil entailed by such incomplete, or dispro- 
 portionate development, will, in the offspring, be inten- t 
 sified, and become more manifest. As a fact, such is 
 the case. 
 
 The evil effects of Close-Interbreeding, Darwin con- 
 fesses, are wholly inexplicable upon any theory that 
 he can devise. Yet, the theoiy of Reversion gives 
 them a rational, full and conclusive'explanation. 
 
 Not only are these results of crossing, and of close- 
 interbreeding, wholly unintelligible to Darwin, but he 
 shows, that there is a graduated scale of such results, 
 
CROSSING AND CLOSE-INTEEBREEDING. 199 
 
 both in crossing and in close-interbreeding ; and, these 
 almost infinite variations in quantity of effect, he is 
 alike at a loss to explain. 
 
 Now, the reader will see that, if it can be shown 
 that, in Close-Interbreeding, such graduated scale of 
 effects, ranges from the maximum, in those individuals 
 most degenerated or most disproportionately devel- 
 oped, down to zero, in those individuals with all the 
 characters of their respective species fully and pro- 
 portionately developed, the theory, that there can be 
 but one, perfect form, for each species, and that any 
 modification of such form is deleterious, will be con- 
 clusively proven. 
 
 If, conversely, it can be shown, that the graduated 
 scale, of good effects, in Crossing, ranges from the 
 maximum, in those individuals which have mutually 
 much to contribute to the offspring, which their mates 
 respectively lack, down to zero in those individuals 
 which cannot mutually contribute to the offspring, a 
 character or characters which their mates respectively 
 lack, such theory, of a perfect, normally immutable 
 type, for each species, will be proven to demonstration. 
 
 The phenomena of Crossing, and of Close-Inter- 
 breeding, not only prove the theory of Reversion, but 
 they directly disprove Darwinism. They not only tell 
 a tale, the converse of that which Darwin would have 
 his disciples to believe; but they are grossly and ir- 
 reconcilably at variance with his theory. They show, 
 demonstratively, that varieties are not "incipient spe- 
 cies," and that varieties may not, by any possibility, 
 diverge into distinct species. They show, demon- 
 
200 CROSSING AND CLOSE-INTERBREEDING. 
 
 stratively, that the divergence of character, by which 
 he affects to believe, varieties are evolved into dis- 
 tinct species, is not normally possible; for, they 
 show, that the actual divergence of character shown, 
 is at the expense of the animals' and plants' vigor 
 of constitution, and of their fertility; and that, in- 
 stead of such divergent varieties diverging into dis- 
 tinct species, they diverge inevitably to sterility and 
 to death ! They show that the exclusive possession, 
 of any positive character, by any variety of a species 
 (which is necessarily implied by divergence of charac- 
 ter), is to the detriment of the individuals of the other 
 varieties of the same species. They show, that the 
 possession of any negative feature, or the reduction, 
 suppression, or absence of any character, or a different 
 ratio of the development of the characters, from that 
 of the original type, is injurious. They show, that 
 there cannot be more than one variety, of any species, 
 consistent with physiological integrity; and that Dar- 
 win's divergent varieties are but injurious modifica- 
 tions of such normal variety which is the sum of all 
 the possible characters of the given species. 
 
 The phenomena of Crossing, and the phenomena 
 especially of Close-Interbreeding, have long been the 
 occasion of a spirited controversy between two schools 
 (as they may be called), intent, the one on affirming, 
 and the other on denying, the fact that the alleged 
 effects do flow. 
 
 The question, particularly, whether evil effects re- 
 sult from Close-Interbreeding, became of moment, 
 with them, not because of its intrinsic importance, 
 
CROSSING AND CLOSE-INTERBREEDING. 201 
 
 but by reason of the implications, it was fancied, 
 its determination carried with it. Those who were of 
 a " liberal" cast of thought, wished, by establishing the 
 negative, to prove that the inhibition of religion against 
 marriages of consanguinity, is wholly arbitrary, and 
 that it has no justification, upon natural grounds. The 
 other school are, for obvious reasons, bent- upon show- 
 ing that such intermarriages may not be contracted, 
 with impunity. 
 
 On the one side, the almost universal aversion to 
 such marriages, is adduced. The lowest and most 
 degenerate tribes of men are pointed out as holding it 
 in the most abhorrence. Nor does their evidence end 
 here. The lower animals and plants contribute testi- 
 mony which is seemingly well nigh overwhelming. 
 The sterility of well-bred pigs, and of the high fancy 
 breeds of pigeons and of fowls, when interbred, are 
 noted ; aye, so peculiar are the evil results, in many in- 
 stances, that it is generally remarked, that the very im- 
 provements, which man effects in Pigs, Pigeons, Fowls, 
 and Plants, seem only to aggravate the evil results of 
 Interbreeding. _ The many instances, of Self-Impotent 
 Plants, also furnish evidence so pronounced, that it 
 would seem that the voice of cavil should be hushed. 
 
 On the other hand, those who contend that evil 
 does not result from marriages of consanguinity, ad- 
 vance facts which are equally impossible to be gain- 
 1 said. They argue, that, although the aversion to in- 
 terbreeding is general, the fact that the prohibition 
 obtained with the least force among the most civilized 
 
 nations of antiquity, and the fact that it is observed 
 18 
 
202 CROSSING AND CLOSE-INTERBREEDING. 
 
 most religiously by the most degenerate tribes of 
 Africa, show that it is a mere superstition, lingering 
 traces only of which prevail, and prevailed of old, 
 among the most cultured nations. Egypt, they say, 
 even in the zenith of her civilization, observed the pro- 
 hibition not at all ; and, they contend, that the preju- 
 dice has ever been least, in the regions around the Cau- 
 casus, where the proportionate development of Man 
 implies intellect above the average. The history of 
 the Ptolemies, whose frequent intermarriages between 
 brother and sister, during a period of 300 years, are 
 attested by history, affords, they contend, conclusive 
 proof that evil does not result. The history of Cleo- 
 patra, the last sovereign of that dynasty, though not 
 the last descendant, was certainly not, they urge, that 
 of a person, in whom any mental or physical degener- 
 acy was observable; although, they concede, with 
 delicate irony, that her moral comportment may have, 
 to some extent, betokened the evil. 
 
 Nor is it to Man only, they say, that they must look 
 for evidence to sustain their position. Horses, sheep, 
 and cattle have been bred, inter se, in the closest rela- 
 tionship, for generation and generation following gen- 
 eration ; yet, no evil resulted ; but, on the contrary, 
 the animals displayed marked improvement. Many 
 special instances are given, where the horse has long 
 resisted breeding, in-and-in, between the nearest rela- 
 tions. The Leicester sheep have been bred in-and-in, 
 over sixty years, without the introduction of a single 
 new ram into the flock. With Cattle, the bull, " Comet," 
 is a well known instance of very close interbreeding. 
 
CROSSING AND OLOSE-INTERBBEEDrNG. 203 
 
 Its pedigree, and that of its descendants, are frequently- 
 quoted. Another equally remarkable case, is that of 
 
 " The famous bull, Favorite (who was himself the 
 offspring of a half brother and sister from Foljambe"), 
 which " was matched with his own daughter, grand- 
 daughter, and great-granddaughter ; so that the produce 
 of this last union, or the great-granddaughter, had 
 fifteen-sixteenths, or 93.75 per cent, of the blood of 
 Favorite, in her veins. This cow was matched with 
 the bull Wellington, having 62.5 per cent, of Favorite 
 blood in his veins, and produced Clarissa : Clarissa 
 was matched with the bull Lancaster, having 68.75 P er 
 cent, of the same blood, and she yielded valuable off- 
 spring " (Darwin's Animals and Plants, &c, Vol. ii, p. 
 146). 
 
 These instances, they hold, show conclusively, that 
 evil effects do not result from close-interbreeding, or 
 from marriages of consanguinity ; that, there is some- 
 thing wrong, or suspicious,- about the cases, implying 
 that evil does follow; and, that, to sum up the whole 
 question, the prohibition against marriages of near v 
 relations, is but another device of priestcraft to hold 
 the ignorant in bondage. 
 
 The further these schools advance their accumu- 
 lations of facts, the worse confounded, seemingly, 
 grows the problem; and, the cream of the joke lies in 
 this, that each side taunts the other, with the imputa- 
 tion, that those of the other school have no practical 
 knowledge of the subject, or they would not deny, what 
 is established by the experience of all breeders. The 
 retort to this, by either, is, the confrontation, of their 
 opponents, with facts, respectively, showing no evil, 
 
204 CROSSING AND CLOSE-INTERBREEDING. 
 
 and showing great evil ; and the cynical query, how 
 the others avoid the inference from such phenomena? 
 
 Those, to whom it never has occurred, to consider 
 whether interbreeding may not be merely the occasion 
 of the evils entailed, and not the cause, have long been 
 puzzled to know, to which side, the balance of the evi- 
 dence inclines. If disciplined in scientific habits of 
 thought, they find, — when assured as to which side 
 has the preponderance of testimony, — that such as- 
 surance aids not at all to extricate them from their 
 quandary. For, what is, then, to be done with the 
 residual facts, — the well attested phenomena, advanced 
 in support of the argument on the other side? There 
 will still remain, to plague the man who has settled, in 
 his own mind, that the weight of the evidence is on a 
 particular side, a perplexing array of facts, which are 
 as far from being resolved scientifically, as they are 
 impossible to be gainsaid. If the conclusion achieved 
 be, that interbreeding does cause evil, how deal with 
 the many instances showing, that close interbreeding ■ 
 may be carried on, in the closest degree of relation- 
 ship, for generation upon generation ; and which refuse 
 to be moulded into even seeming accordance with such 
 conclusion? And, if the other opinion be adopted, 
 there equally remains a number of similarly stubborn 
 facts, which refuse to conform to any such award. 
 
 There was, once, a man named Buckle. This man 
 commenced to write what he termed a "History of 
 Civilization in England." Happily, for civilization in 
 England, he, his demise made, before the work was 
 half finished. He plumed himself upon being an in- 
 
CROSSING AND CLOSE-INTERBREEDING. 205 
 
 ductive philosopher (it was lucky that he did, as his 
 readers would have never suspected it); and repre- 
 sented his mode of discovery of sociological, ethno- 
 logical, and other truths, to be a process peculiarly 
 positive and scientific. The process was this: He 
 relied solely upon statistics: When a problem pre- 
 sented itself, he carefully added up such of the 
 figures, in said statistics, which to him appeared to 
 refer to that side, of the question, which he fancied 
 to be the truth. He also added the figures on the 
 opposing side : He compared them : If the sum on 
 the side, first mentioned, preponderated; the ques- 
 tion was, then, scientifically and positively resolved. 
 All cavil at the result, could be naught but the emana- 
 tion of an ignorant and superstitious mind, fatally bent 
 upon being perverse. 
 
 To give the man his due, in candor it must be 
 stated, that, if the sum, of those figures, in the statis- 
 tics, which pertained to. the side, from which his 
 prejudices leaned, was greater than the sum of those 
 on the side he favored, he yielded his preconceived 
 opinion, and deferred, with grace, to the statistics ; for, 
 from them, it was scientific heresy, to hold, there could 
 be any appeal. Thus, the " liberal " tone of his mind 
 would have occasioned a predilection for the side which 
 contended, that no evil results from close interbreed- 
 ing; as the ascertainment of such to be a fact, would 
 show that the religious command, to abstain from 
 consanguineous marriages, was a senseless prohibi- 
 tion. If, however, he had added up his little sums, 
 
 and had found the testimony of experience to be (to 
 
 18* 
 
208 CEOSSING AND CLOSE-INTERBREEDING. 
 
 the extent, only, of one, two, or half a dozen instances), 
 preponderant in favor of the view, that evil does result; 
 he would have declared, upon the infallible authority 
 of those statistics, that evil always does result from 
 close interbreeding, or from consanguineous mar- 
 riages; and this, despite his laudable desire to curtail 
 the tyranny which priestcraft exercises over the vulgar, 
 — principally, by withholding from them, all statistics ! 
 Darwin is a disciple of Buckle (in the second 
 volume of his "Animals and Plants under Domestica- 
 tion,'' the former, in a plaintive tone, regrets that Mr. 
 Buckle's rigid processes of discovery precluded his 
 acceptance of the evidence, showing Inheritance, be- 
 cause the results had not been formulated in statistics, 
 and were, therefore, not susceptible of addition, and of 
 comparison, by sums). Following out Buckle's pro- 
 cess, and prompted thereto by an ulterior aim to which 
 we shall later advert, Darwin affects to believe that, in 
 the solution of the question of interbreeding, where 
 there is such an amount of conflicting evidence, it 
 merely behooves him, to ascertain the weight of the 
 different testimony, and then to determine for the side, 
 which he finds preponderant. The weight of the 
 testimony appears to be overwhelming, in favor of the 
 view, that evils do flow from interbreeding. There- 
 fore, he concludes, that evil inevitably follows, and is 
 always eventually caused by the mating of relations. 
 The exceptional phenomena are allowed to care for 
 themselves. As he postulated "an innate tendency," 
 to stop all inquiry into the cause of variations, so he 
 here lumps i all of the phenomena of crossing and of 
 
CROSSING AND CLOSE-INTERBREEDING. 207 
 
 close-interbreeding, and ascribes them to "a great law 
 of nature," — a mode of explanation which obviously 
 is naught but a rendering of his ignorance into the 
 semblance of knowledge. He remarks (p. 327, Origin 
 of Species) : 
 
 " How ignorant we are, on the precise causes of 
 sterility;" and, he says (on p. 109, Origin of Species), 
 "that close interbreeding is a general law of nature, 
 utterly ignorant though we be of the meaning of the 
 law." 
 
 Thus he states his "great law of nature" (p. 109, 
 Origin of Species) : 
 
 " I have collected so large a body of facts, showing, 
 in accordance with the universal testimony of breeders, 
 that, with animals and plants, a cross between different 
 varieties, or between individuals of the same variety, 
 but of another strain, gives vigor and fertility to the 
 offspring; and, on the other hand, that close-inter- 
 breeding diminishes vigor and fertility; that these 
 facts alone incline me to believe that it is a general 
 law of nature {utterly ignorant though we be of the 
 meaning of the law) that no organic being fertilizes 
 itself for an eternity of generations ; but that a cross 
 with another individual is occasionally ,^-perhaps, at 
 very long intervals, — indispensable." 
 
 If it be "a general law of nature," that evil should 
 flow from close-interbreeding, and that good should 
 result from crossing, why do not the same degree 
 of evil, and the same degree of good, result, respec- 
 tively, from crossing, and from close-interbreeding, in 
 different individuals, when there is a like degree of 
 relationship, or a like distinction between the animals 
 or plants coupled ? We should at least, expect a like 
 
208 CROSSING AND CLOSE-INTERBREEDING. 
 
 degree of good, and a like degree of evil, when 
 there is a like degree of relationship, or of distinction 
 in individuals of the same species. . Why do the evil 
 effects of close-interbreeding, recur, at different periods, 
 with different individuals of the same species ? Why 
 is close interbreeding of such doubtful, and varying 
 effect? Why is it .so problematical, in any given 
 degree of interbreeding, whether evil, or good, will 
 result? Why is it, that good frequently results, from 
 this process, when by " a general law of nature," as 
 Darwin has it, evil is essentially inherent in such a 
 process ? He himself says, again and again, that close- 
 interbreeding is that process, upon which breeders 
 mainly rely, to effect improvement in their breeds. 
 He also shows, that different species of animals and 
 plants, are differently affected, by the same degree of 
 interbreeding; and that different animals and different 
 plants, of the very same species, are also differently 
 affected. The effects of the same degree of inter- 
 breeding, are also shown to be different, in different 
 varieties; different, in individuals of the same variety; 
 different, in individuals of the same herd or flock; 
 different, in individuals of the same family; aye, differ- 
 ent in flowers on the same plant; different, in flowers 
 on the same bough or branch; and different, in flowers 
 on the same twig! 
 
 The good, from the same degree of crossing, like- 
 wise, differs, in the same way. Why this inconstancy? 
 Why this variability, in the effects which follow, if 
 there be " a great law of nature ? " 
 
 Why is it, if the evil effects are due to interbreeding, 
 
CROSSING AND CLOSE-INTERBREEDING. 209 
 
 per se, that, with the same degree of interbreeding, with 
 different individuals of the very same species, fertility 
 -graduates from zero to perfect fertility? 
 
 Why is it, that, with horses, sheep, and cattle, very 
 little evil effects are observable? and, that, with some 
 individuals of those species, no evil whatever follows, 
 however long continued, and close the interbreeding 
 may be ? 
 
 Why is it, on the contrary, that with pigeons, fowls, 
 and pigs, the greatest evil is the outcome of any 
 degree of interbreeding, even when there is no relation- 
 ship of blood? Why is it, that, with a short-beaked 
 tumbler, for instance, interbreeding is not possible, 
 without great evil resulting, even when the individual 
 is interbred with another of the same variety, which is 
 removed from it, in blood, for thousands of genera- 
 tions, and which was reared in a distant country ? 
 
 Why is it, that, with cattle, sheep, and horses, vary- 
 ing degrees of evil are observable, in different individ- 
 uals of the same species, and in different individuals 
 of the same breed, from the same degree of close- 
 interbreeding; and that, in some individuals, there are 
 no evil effects? Why is it, that, with pigeons, fowls, 
 and pigs, varying degrees of evil are observable in 
 different individuals of the same species, and in differ- 
 ent individuals of the same variety, from the same 
 degree of interbreeding? 
 
 Why is it; that with pigeons, fowls and pigs, the 
 more highly improved the varieties are, the greater 
 are the evil effects ; and, the less improved that the 
 varieties are, the less are the evil effects ? Why is it, 
 
210 CROSSING AND CLOSE-INTERBREEDING. 
 
 that the highly cultivated pig is susceptible of the 
 
 greatest evil effects ; and that the least-cared for pig, 
 
 the one which is forced to root around, for its living, — 
 displays little, or no evil effects, from the same degree 
 of close-interbreeding? Why is it, that the more 
 widely divergent the varieties of a species are, the 
 greater are the evil effects from interbreeding? and 
 why is it that the increase of good, from crossing, is 
 the greatest with them ? 
 
 Why is it, that the most well-bred animals, of the 
 horse, sheep, and cow species, are the ones which need 
 the least crossing, to ward off lessened fertility, when 
 it is the finest bred animals among the pig, pigeon, 
 and fowl species, which require it the most ? 
 
 Why is it, that the more that varieties realize Dar- 
 win's divergence of character (which, according to his 
 view, is to convert them into distinct species), the 
 greater is the need, that they be crossed in order to avert ■ 
 the sterility and delicacy of constitution which, he as- 
 serts, always accompany such divergence of character? 
 
 Why, — to urge the most significant of questions, 
 the answer to which involves a full refutation of Dar- 
 winism, — are the individuals of a divergent variety, 
 which Darwin deems an "incipient species," sterile, or 
 partially so, when interbred together; and, why are 
 they of greatly increased fertility, when crossed with 
 individuals of other divergent varieties of the same 
 species; when the individuals of a species, are gener- 
 ally fertile with each other, and absolutely sterile (or 
 produce absolutely sterile hybrids), when crossed with 
 individuals of another species ? 
 
CROSSING AND CLOSE-INTERBREEDING. 211 
 
 Possibly, it is below the dignity of " a great law 
 of nature," to resolve such trivial details. 
 
 In some cases, there are no such effects as are 
 alleged by Darwin. In the other cases, there is such 
 an infinite variety, in the quantity of the effects, that 
 the mind instinctively spurns such a makeshift of 
 ignorance, as is Darwin's " law of nature," ascribing 
 the good which results from Crossing, to Crossing, 
 per se, and the evils resulting from interbreeding, to 
 interbreeding, per se. 
 
 The objections here urged against his "law of 
 nature," are not mere objections ; they are disproofs. 
 For, the facts, adverted to, are not only left unex- 
 plained by his doctrine, but are wholly subversive 
 of it. 
 
 The confusion, prevailing upon the 'subject, has 
 been only augmented, made worse confounded, by < 
 Darwin's senseless generalization. The subject, too, 
 is one, a correct understanding of which, is absolutely 
 necessary to correct principles of breeding. There is, 
 probably, no necessity, more imperatively felt, than 
 that of a knowledge of the cause of the effects of 
 crossing, and of close-interbreeding. Darwin has 
 committed himself to a general proposition which, a 
 very slight consideration of the facts, should have 
 shown him, to be both unsustainable, and absurd. 
 There are published, at the present time, by the veriest 
 and most unlearned of tyros, in the veterinary art, 
 works on breeding, in which the "law of nature," 
 which Darwin propounds, is contemptuously rejected,' 
 as plainly incompetent to cover the facts; and, in 
 
212 CROSSING AND CLOSE-INTERBREEDING. 
 
 which, is intimated the existence of some other, and 
 true law, which, while rendering explicable all the 
 many variations in the quantity of the effects, and the 
 frequent absence of all such effects, will show close- 
 interbreeding to be but a mere condition. 
 
 Infinitely varied as are the facts of crossing, and of 
 close-interbreeding, they are susceptible of easy and 
 simple resolution, when the fact is recognized, that 
 want of integrity of structure, in the individuals of 
 any species, entails, in proportion, a want of physio- 
 logical integrity; and, that, when such want of in- 
 tegrity of structure is repaired (as it is in crossing, 
 through each parent contributing to the offspring, a 
 positive character which the other parent lacks), a pro- 
 portionate return to physiological integrity, is secured. 
 
 Upon this principle, every one, without exception, 
 of the various perturbations, to which the reproductive 
 elements are observed to be subject, becomes per- 
 fectly explicable, and susceptible of both qualitative 
 and quantitative prevision. This explanation accords, 
 most rigorously, with each and every one of Darwin's 
 tens of thousands of facts, — whether of sexual, or of 
 asexual reproduction. Each one, of the thousands of 
 individuals of each species, will, when questioned, by 
 means of this rule, respond, and give the degree of its 
 departure from the original, perfect type of its species. 
 The evil effects of close-interbreeding, are faithful indi- 
 cations of the degree of such departure; and, the in- 
 crease of good from crossing, is an indication of the 
 degree of return, which has been made towards such 
 type. By this rule, moreover, the different data, — 
 
CROSSING AND CLOSE-INTERBREEDING. 213 
 
 esteemed so mutually incompatible, — of those who 
 concur in, and of those who demur to Darwin's 
 conception, are shown to be in perfect harmony with 
 each other. All the discord is harmony, when under- 
 stood. The variations in the quantity of the results of 
 crossing and of close-interbreeding, are a mighty maze, 
 but not without a plan. Each degree of effect, answers, 
 faithfully, to a corresponding degree of the cause as- 
 signed ; and, where the cause is observed to be absent, 
 there the effects are seen not to prevail. 
 
 The theory of reversion, — or theory of the necessity 
 of the proportionate development of all the characters 
 of a species, — explains, in the simplest manner possi- 
 ble, all and each of the many different variations in 
 the quantity of the effects of crossing, and close-in- 
 terbreeding; and explains the irregular recurrence of 
 such effects. By it, scientists, and every breeder, fan- 
 cier, horticulturist, and agriculturist, are enabled to 
 solve the question, why there exists such a grada- 
 tion, even within the same species, between those in- 
 dividuals evincing the greatest evil effects, and those 
 displaying the least, or none at all; by having dis- 
 closed to them, in the cause, a corresponding grada- 
 tion, between those individuals, lacking a large number 
 of characters, or having them disproportionately de- 
 veloped to the greatest degree, and those individuals 
 possessing all, or nearly all of the characters of their 
 species, fully and proportionately developed. 
 
 It is in the similar departure, of each of the parents 
 
 interbred, from the true mould, or original type of their 
 
 species, that we find the cause of all the disorder 
 19 
 
214 CROSSING AND CLOSE-INTERBREEDING. 
 
 manifested in the general organization, and of all the 
 disorder in the reproductive system. The power of 
 propagation, in the parents, and the constitutional 
 vigor of the offspring, are lessened, in proportion to 
 the amount of departure from the sum of all the 
 characters; and are increased, in proportion as the 
 individuals return to that type. It is not relationship, 
 which causes the evil. Relationship simply implies 
 similarity of structure, in the parents. The evils of 
 lessened fertility, and of lessened constitutional vigor, 
 are displayed, when the parents are similarly dispro- 
 portionately developed, similarly wanting, or simi- 
 larly defective, in features of their species. 
 
 The loss, or reduction, of any characters, is dele- 
 terious to either parent : When the parents pair, the 
 evil, consequent upon such loss or reduction, is aggra- 
 vated, or intensified. Thus, there are one hundred 
 and fifty different varieties of the pigeon. The mem- 
 bers of each divergent variety, necessarily lack the 
 positive peculiarities of the other varieties. If, then, 
 two of the same variety interbreed, the evil, entailed 
 by the absence of the positive peculiarities of the 
 other varieties, is intensified. 
 
 Full health of the whole, or full functional activity 
 of the whole organism, subsists, not in the develop- 
 ment of some parts, or of some organs alone, but 
 solely in the full development of them all. Perfect 
 fertility, or perfect, constitutional vigor, consists only 
 with the sum of all the positive features of the species. 
 The capacity of the reproductive elements, is depend- 
 ent upon the full representation, therein, of all the 
 
CROSSING AND CLOSE-INTERBREEDING. 215 
 
 parts. Where, then, some of the parts are not present, 
 the reproductive capacity is impaired; and, if there be 
 a certain number of characters wanting, absolute ster- 
 ility sets in. Harmonious playjind movement of all 
 the parts, as in a mechanism, is requisite. There 
 must, as a sine qua non of physiological integrity, or of 
 normal coordination, be perfect exactness, — the closest 
 fitting in of each part. " All must full or not coherent 
 be," And all must rise (i. e., revert), in due degree. If 
 " Tis but a part we see, and not the whole," the 
 organism is thrown out of gear (to use a Yankeeismj. 
 
 An individual, of any species, can exist in a per- 
 fectly healthy, normal state, only as a whole ; — that 
 whole, which comprises all the positive features of its 
 species; and, it is a fundamental and egregious error, 
 to suppose that, — as with pigeons and fowls, under 
 domestication, — the characters of the respective spe- 
 cies may be divided among many different varieties, 
 consistently with physiological perfection. It is an 
 error, also, to suppose, that the characters which, in 
 the well-bred (?) pig, are reduced or suppressed, may 
 be so reduced or suppressed, without evil being en- 
 tailed. It is an error, also, to suppose that the true 
 ratio of the development of the characters, respec- 
 tively, of the horse, sheep, and cattle, may be varied 
 in the individuals of those species, without detriment 
 to their fertility and constitutional vigor. 
 
 Either, immediately, as with fancy pigeons, with 
 fancy fowls, and with highly cultivated pigs; ot, in 
 course of time, as with well-bred horses, cattle, and 
 sheep, — dependent, always, upon the degree of dis- 
 
216 CROSSING AND CLOSE-INTERBREEDING. 
 
 proportionate development of the individuals, — will 
 the individuals, when interbred, dwindle, grow feeble, 
 become of lessened fertility, and eventually grow 
 sterile. 
 
 If a great number of characters, of the respective 
 species, be reduced, or suppressed, the evil will ensue 
 immediately, with any individual bred with another of 
 the same variety ; although there subsist between the 
 two, no degree of relationship. If the number of 
 characters so lost or reduced, be a degree less, the 
 evil will, either, be less, from the same degree of in- 
 terbreeding ; or be the same, from interbreeding with 
 a distant relative. If, still less, be the loss or reduc- 
 tion, the evil will, either, be less from the last men- 
 tioned degree of interbreeding; or, be the same, from 
 interbreeding with a relative, a degree nearer. If, 
 less, again, be the disproportionate development, the 
 evil will, either, be less, in the last named degree of 
 relationship; or, be the same, only, with a nearer rela- 
 tive (say), a cousin. If, less, still, the evil will, either, 
 be less, with the cousin; or, be the same, if the inter- 
 breeding, with a cousin, be continued for more than 
 one generation ; or, be the same, from an intermar- 
 riage of father and daughter, or of mother and son. 
 If the reduction, or suppression, of characters, be 
 small, the evil will, either, be less from the inter- 
 breeding of a son and mother, or of a father and 
 daughter ; or, be the same, if such interbreeding be 
 continued for more than one generation ; or, be the 
 same, if the intermarriage be between brother and 
 sister. If the organisms approximate the full and' 
 
CROSSING AND CLOSE-INTERBREEDING. 21 T 
 
 proportionate development of all the characters of 
 their species, the evil will, either, be less, from the- 
 intermarriage of brother and sister; or, be the same, if 
 the interbreeding be carried on for more than one gen- 
 eration. If the approach to the original type of the 
 species be nearer, the interbreeding of brother and 
 sister, may be carried on, for many generations; but, 
 the effects of the slight disproportionate development, 
 will begin to tell, after some period of such long-con- 
 tinued close-interbreeding. 
 
 If there be no reduction or suppression of any of 
 the characters of the species, and no disproportionate 
 development whatsoever, the original type is then 
 realized, and interbreeding may be carried on, ad in- 
 finitum, in any degree of relationship, however close, 
 without any evil effects; provided, of course, the in- 
 dividuals, in question, always retain their full integrity, 
 and, that each of those individuals with which any 
 such interbreeds, is alike the sum of all the positive 
 features of the species. 
 
 The above descending scale of effects obtains, of 
 course, only where the law of inheritance fully oper- 
 ates, where like produces like, and where relationship 
 actually occasions, what it generally implies, viz., simi- 
 larity of defects. The effect is .due, to each parent 
 lacking like points of structure, and to the aggra- 
 vation, or augmentation of such evil, in the off- 
 spring. 
 
 The evils, from close-interbreeding, grow less and 
 less as the integrity of the organism is repaired or 
 regained; or, they grow greater and greater, in pro- 
 19* 
 
218 CROSSING AND CLOSE-TNTERBREEDING. 
 
 portion as the animal or plant recedes from the original 
 type of its species. 
 
 The close-interbreeding, of those which answer to 
 the original type of their respective species, is attended 
 with no evil whatever. 
 
 Darwin attributes every imperfection, existing in the 
 offspring of parents related in blood, to the fact of con- 
 sanguinity alone; which is manifestly absurd. For, 
 even if there be no consanguinity, or relationship be- 
 tween the parents, but there be similarity of defects, 
 the result is the same; and, if there be consanguinity, 
 and no structural defects, there will be no evil entailed. 
 Consanguinity, per se, adds not a jot nor a tittle to the 
 evil effects. 
 
 Mere relationship has not any influence, in producing 
 the evil effects. Given, full and proportionate develop- 
 ment, the same blood is in no wise injurious. There is 
 nothing necessarily pernicious, in a marriage of con- 
 sanguinity. It occasions evil, generally, merely be- 
 cause, it is far more likely for parents, which are 
 descendants of the same near ancestor, to have simi- 
 lar defects, than it is, for those not bound together by 
 any tie of blood. The nearer the connection, between 
 the individuals paired, the greater is the probability of 
 evil in the offspring; but, solely because, such blood 
 relationship generally implies, that the defects which 
 every individual has, more or less, will be similar, in 
 the pair so related, and thus augmented in the offspring. 
 The more remote is the connection between the couple, 
 the less, the Other things equal, will be the probability 
 of evil ; for, remoteness of connection generally implies 
 
CROSSING AND CXOSE-INTERBREEDING. 219 
 
 dissimilarity of development. If the connection be very 
 remote, there is even some probability, that good, in- 
 stead of evil, will result from pairing; for, it is likely, 
 that though the parents may, perhaps, be equally de- 
 fective, their defects may lie, in each, in a different por- 
 tion of the structure, from what they do in the other ; 
 and, thus such, or some of the defects, in either, may 
 then be supplied, in the offspring, by corresponding, 
 positive developments, in the other. 
 
 There is evil wrought upon the aggregate of every 
 organism, in proportion to the amount of characters 
 which are reduced or suppressed. The breeding of 
 one such individual, with another, defective in exactly 
 the same characters, aggravates the evil. The reason, 
 and the sole reason, why relationship enters as an 
 element into the problem, is because the ratio of the 
 development of the characters, is similarly incomplete. 
 To produce evil, the ratio of development of the charac- 
 ters must, in the animals interbred, be a like, false ratio. 
 If a true ratio, no evil follows; if a false ratio, but not 
 a like ratio, good instead of evil may flow; for, the 
 deficiencies in the ratio of each, are likely, then, to be 
 supplied by positive quantities in the ratio of the other. 
 
 Two cousins may be seemingly free from all defect ; 
 but, nevertheless, may possess, and most probably 
 will possess, a similarly disproportionate development. 
 Lessened fertility, and loss of constitutional vigor, in 
 their offspring, will then be displayed, through the evil 
 of the disproportionate development, above assumed, 
 being intensified by the progeny's having transmitted 
 to it the accumulated evil. 
 
220 CROSSING AND CLOSE-INTERBREEDING. 
 
 On the other hand, two cousins may marry, who are 
 equally disproportionately developed, and as much so 
 as were the pair last assumed; and no evil be observed 
 to result. The reason will be ; the relationship does 
 not, in such instance, carry with it similarity of defect. 
 Although equally disproportionately developed, they 
 are not similarly so. Relationship, even when there 
 are defects, does not always or necessarily imply simi- 
 larity of defect, in form or structure. One of the two 
 cousins, may, — where the bond of his relationship with 
 his cousin, was his maternal grandmother, — have in- 
 herited his structure from, either, his paternal grand- 
 father, or paternal grandmother, or from his maternal 
 grandfather ; or, where his parent, who was of kin to 
 his cousin, was his mother, he may have inherited his 
 structure wholly or in great degree, from his father. 
 If he derived a structure from either of these, or from 
 all conjointly, or from some only; and, if his maternal 
 grandmother had thus no influence in determining his 
 features of growth ; it is manifest, that the circum- 
 stance of his wife being his cousin, could not occasion 
 any evil in his offspring. 
 
 To ascribe the difference, in the quantity of effects 
 from the same degree of interbreeding, to unlikeness, 
 per se, or to likeness,/*??" se, is absurd. Such an expla- 
 nation is little more than a mere restatement of the 
 phenomena; or, rather, a restatement of some only 
 of the phenomena. For, such an hypothesis fails to 
 cover many facts, — facts which are not merely left un- 
 resolved, but which conclusively negative such an 
 idea. 
 
CROSSING AND CLOSE-INTERBREEDING. 221 
 
 Herbert Spencer attributes the differences in the 
 effects to likeness, and to unlikeness, per se ; and, it is 
 amusing to note the pretentiously philosophical manner 
 in which he gives back to his readers, as an explana- 
 tion, the very facts which he essayed to explain for 
 
 Individuals, realizing the 'perfect type, will be abso- 
 lutely alike; yet, they are the very individuals which 
 are exempt from any evil, from any degree of close- 
 interbreeding; whereas, if they interbreed with indi- 
 viduals unlike themselves, their offspring will be of 
 lessened fertility, and of lessened vigor; because, such 
 unlike individuals will necessarily be defective in some 
 • character, in order to be unlike those of the perfect type. 
 
 It is not mere unlikeness; it is unlikeness of defect, 
 which abates, or precludes the evil effects; and it is not 
 mere likeness, but. likeness of defects, which causes or, 
 rather, aggravates, the evil. Where two animals are 
 deficient in the same endowments of their species, there 
 is no or little chance of repairing those portions of the 
 organism's balance; but, rather, an almost inevitable 
 necessity of augmenting those faults, in the offspring. 
 When, however, they are dissimilarly defective, there 
 is a strong probability, that the faults of either will be 
 remedied, in the offspring, by positive, corresponding 
 features in the other. Defects in each, or some defects 
 in each, will be supplied by an excellence which the 
 other derives, perhaps, from an ancestor, not common 
 to the former. 
 
 Darwin says (p. 84, Vol. ii): 
 
 "Certain individuals are prepotent, in transmitting 
 
222 CROSSING AND CLOSE-INTERBREEDING. 
 
 their likeness. * * * It would appear that, in cer- 
 tain families, some one ancestor, and, after him, others 
 in the same family, must have had great power in 
 transmitting their likeness through the male line; for 
 we cannot otherwise understand how the same features 
 should so often be transmitted after marriages with 
 various females, as has been the case with the Austrian 
 Emperors, and, as, according to Niebuhr, formerly 
 occurred in certain Roman families, with the mental 
 qualities. The famous bull, Favorite, is believed to 
 have had a prepotent influence on the short-horn race. 
 It has also been observed with the English race-horse, 
 that certain mares have generally transmitted their 
 own characters, whilst other mares, of equally pure 
 blood, have allowed the character of the sire to pre- 
 vail." 
 
 When an individual, with a positive character, 
 strongly developed, mates with another, with the same 
 character less developed, or indifferently well devel- 
 oped, or somewhat reduced, the former will be pre- 
 potent, in such character, over the other; because the 
 character mentioned, will, other things equal — for in- 
 stance, if the same character, in the less potent parent, 
 be not so much reduced, or so wholly suppressed, as to 
 dimmish, in the offspring, the size of the character — 
 be transmitted to such offspring. The reason why, in 
 these cases, the smaller development, of the character, 
 in the less potent parent, does not obtain to diminish 
 the size of the character, as it exists in the prepotent 
 parent, is because, there still remains, in the less potent 
 parent, the power of reversion in such character, which 
 concurs with the same character, in the prepotent 
 parent, to keep it up to the high state of development. 
 
CROSSING AND CLOSE-INTERBREEDING. 223 
 
 This is borne out by observation; for, as a general 
 rule, when an individual is prepotent, the features 
 which evidence the prepotency, are characters which 
 are positively and strongly developed. This is the 
 case with the likeness of the Austrian Emperors, with 
 the likeness of the Stuarts and others, which, were dis- 
 played by strongly-marked facial features. 
 
 The line of Judah, it may here be remarked, would 
 never have continued so long as it has, in despite of 
 interbreeding, had not the Jews been broad-faced, and 
 of strong facial features, implying proportionate devel- 
 opment in other respects. The extermination of the 
 Puritan race is not wholly due to the cause so gener- 
 ally assigned by physicians. The "hatchet-face" of 
 the Yankee, and the corresponding development of the 
 rest of his frame, are answerable for much of the ster- 
 ility which has awakened inquiry into the said " social 
 evil." The matrons of New England have been sinned 
 against most vilely, in this regard, by ignorant and pre- 
 sumptuous sciolists. The race is fast being run out ; 
 but its women, at least, should not be suffered to pass 
 away, unrelieved of a load of unmerited obloquy. 
 
 Mental characters obey the same rule of prepo- 
 tency; as they are ever dependent upon structural 
 conformations — upon particular coordinations of cere- 
 bral tissue. If, however, characters, in any individual, 
 are positively developed in structure, but through dis- 
 use, or other cause, have become rudimentary in func- 
 tion, any individual, of corresponding, negative charac- 
 ters, with whom the former mates, may be prepo- 
 tent. 
 
224 CROSSING AND CLOSE-INTERBREEDING. 
 
 Another rule, which may be observed to obtain, in 
 determining prepotency, is, that, if any given ratio 
 (whether of a positive, or of a negative cast) of the 
 development of the characters, of the species, has 
 been long maintained, either through interbreeding, or 
 through the long-continued, fortuitous mating of indi- 
 viduals similar in development, the product of such a 
 line will generally be prepotent, even when mated with 
 individuals, with characters whose usual effect would 
 be to alter or amend such ratio. 
 
 With respect to the prepotency of sex, adverted to 
 above by Darwin: While such prepotency is fre- 
 quently explicable, upon the above principles, it is 
 also amenable, frequently, to another rule. Many char- 
 acters are correlated, either directly or indirectly, with 
 both primary and secondary sexual characters. Both 
 the sperm, and the germ, undergo, before fecundation 
 occurs, an independent, though very small develop- 
 ment, just appreciable by the microscope. If the con- 
 gression of the two transpires, when the spermatozoon, 
 for instance, has advanced, but little, in its development, 
 and after the ovum has run much or .all of its course 
 of little, independent development, the female element 
 will have, not only the power of impressing its special, 
 sexual coordination upon the foetus, but will often, per- 
 haps, have also the power to influence the development 
 of the characters, common to both sexes, but which are 
 correlated, in some respects, with the female's primary 
 or secondary, sexual parts. As this physiological law 
 is operative, in so many ways which are determined by 
 ' an equal variety of degrees of the respective develop- 
 
CROSSING AND CLOSE-INTERBREEDING. 225 
 
 ment of either, and of both, of the sexual elements, it is 
 proper to reserve the full treatment of the question until 
 the phenomena of generation engage our attention. 
 
 A case, illustrative of the rule, that prepotency is due, 
 frequently, to the long maintenance of a given ratio of 
 development, is to be found in the following remark of 
 Darwin (p. 89, Vol. ii, Animals and Plants, &c.) : 
 
 "A purely bred form of either sex, in all cases in 
 which prepotency does not run more strongly in one 
 sex than the other, will transmit its character, with pre- 
 potent force over a mongrelized and already variable 
 form." 
 
 There is another reason for this phenomenon, besides 
 the fact, that the prepotent form has long been per- 
 sistent in its peculiar type. The reason is an obvious 
 one, upon the theory of reversion. To Darwin, this, 
 with all of the other facts on breeding, is inexplicable. 
 Having vitiated his theory at the start, by leaving the 
 question of the cause of variation, or improvements, un- 
 resolved, it is incompetent to the; explanation of any of 
 the phenomena. 
 
 In the "mongrelized and already variable form," all 
 of the characters of its species, or the major portion of 
 them, are striving to revert to the original, full develop- 
 ment, proper to the perfect type. No one, of the char- 
 acters, is predominant; or, if there be one or more 
 advanced in development, it is very little in the ascend- 
 ant. When crossed with "a purely bred form," which 
 has (especially when it belongs to a widely divergent 
 variety), one character, of its species, most decidedly 
 developed, this "purely bred form" becomes prepo- 
 20 
 
226 CROSSING AND CLOSE-INTERBREEDING. 
 
 tent, in the offspring; because its pronounced pecu- 
 liarity, concurs solely with the corresponding character 
 in "the mongrelized and variable form," and aids its 
 development alone, and not that of the other charac- 
 ters. The consequence is, that the offspring resembles 
 more the purely bred form. It could not well do 
 otherwise. If it resembled the mongrel form, the in- 
 fluence of the strongly marked character in the "purely 
 bred form," would be left unaccounted for; whereas, 
 when the result is as is seen, in the prepotency of the 
 "purely bred form," all of the influences of the several 
 characters, in either form, are manifest. This prepo- 
 tency is explained, simply, as the resultant, of the ac- 
 cession of one very dominant force, to a like, but lesser 
 force which is one of many equal forces. 
 
 Darwin says (p. 92, Vol. ii, Animals and Plants, &c.) ; 
 
 "On the whole, the subject of prepotency is ex- 
 tremely intricate. * * * ft j s> therefore, not sur- 
 prising that eveiy one hitherto has been baffled in 
 drawing up general rules on the subject of prepo- 
 tency." 
 
 If the improvements, and positive variations observa- 
 ble, had been recognized, as the mere regain of impaired 
 integrity; neither he, nor others, would have been so 
 baffled. Darwin's error has lain, in ignoring physi- 
 ology; and, in confining himself, exclusively, to ana- 
 tomical tests, — to mere diversities in structure, without 
 ascertaining whether those diversities had any effect 
 upon the general system of functions. Anatomy and 
 physiology are correlative sciences, each being the 
 complement of the other; and neither may be well 
 
CROSSING AND CLOSE-INTERBREEDING. 227 
 
 studied, or understood, without the other. It is a fact, 
 beyond all question, that Darwin, so far from striving 
 to resolve the physiological phases of his problem, is 
 systematically bent upon rendering them worse con- 
 founded. It is possible, that he is moved to such a 
 course, by an uneasy consciousness that their explana- 
 tion would confound all of his speculations. -Be that 
 as it may, however, there is no doubt, whatever, — for, 
 it is by him explicitly avowed, — that his design, in 
 adducing the facts of physiology, is to show that they 
 cannot be explained, and, then, from the impossibility 
 of accounting for them, to deduce the conclusion, that 
 the insuperable objection to his theory, the sterility of 
 hybrids, is an argument which cannot be relied upon as 
 conclusive, as the whole subject of fertility and sterility 
 is incomprehensible. This flimsy device will be com- 
 pletely unraveled in the succeeding chapters of this 
 work. 
 
 Two Classes of Evil Effects occasioned by Close- 
 Interbreeding: 
 
 There are two classes, of the evil effects, which are 
 occasioned by close-interbreeding. 
 
 The one class, comprises the effects wrought upon 
 a part, or parts, in the offspring, by the mere augmen- 
 tation of the structural defects, in such part or parts, 
 in the parents. 
 
 The influence, however, which the reduction, or 
 suppression of any part, exerts, does not stop with the 
 said reduction or suppression of such characters ; but, 
 entails evil upon the aggregate, — upon the organiza- 
 tion, as a whole, and upon the reproductive elements. 
 
228 CROSSING AND CLOSE-INTERBREEDING. 
 
 The evils entailed upon the aggregate, upon the or- 
 ganization as a whole, and upon the reproductive 
 capacity, constitute the second of the two classes. 
 
 In all organisms, there is, normally, a reciprocal bal- 
 ance of all the organs, and parts, of the respective 
 species. The maintenance of this balance, constitutes 
 full physiological perfection ; and, when any part or 
 parts are wanting, or reduced, this balance is impaired; 
 and an evil effect is wrought, which is over and above 
 the mere deficiency in the parts. The evils, entailed 
 upon the aggregate, are loss of fertility, and of consti- 
 tutional vigor. 
 
 The deficiency, in parts, sometimes works no appre- 
 ciable functional derangement, in such parts, or in the 
 adjoining parts ; although a deficiency, whether work- 
 ing functional derangement or not, in the part, always 
 effects some functional derangement, in the aggregate. 
 But again, quite frequently, the slightest possible loss 
 of tissue, will occasion deleterious effects upon the 
 parts involved, of the most serious character; while, 
 the effect upon the aggregate, or upon the coordinating 
 force of the whole, is infinitesimal, as in blindness. If 
 cousins married, who, in the structure of the eye, were 
 slightly deficient, but not so deficient as to produce, in 
 them, any inconvenience, or consciousness of their de- 
 fect, their offspring would, possibly, then, have said 
 defects augmented, and be wholly, or partially blind. 
 If such couple were proportionately developed in other 
 respects, the evil upon the aggregate, would never be 
 appreciably displayed, in any degree of close-inter- 
 breeding, however long-continued. The degree, in 
 
CROSSING AND CLOSE-INTERBREEDING. 229 
 
 which the offspring's fertility and constitutional vigor 
 would be affected, would be proportionate, simply, to 
 the small amount of tissue, which was wanting in the 
 structure of the eye, — which effect would be, prac- 
 tically, nil, even if the offspring and their descendants 
 interbred, brother and sister, for thousands of genera- 
 tions. 
 
 A long catalogue could be given, of all sorts of 
 evils, in parts,- which are augmented in close-inter- 
 breeding ; but, whose effect is, of itself, little upon the 
 coordination of the whole; viz., cerebral affections, apo- 
 plexy, epilepsy, insanity, gout, consumption, asthma, 
 stone in the bladder, amaurosis, hypermetropia or 
 morbid long sight, myopia or short sight ; and, in 
 horses, for instance, ring-bones, curbs, splints, spavin, 
 founder, roaring, or broken and thick wind, melarosis 
 and blindness. 
 
 Contradistinguished from these effects upon the 
 parts themselves, are the effects upon the aggregate ; 
 which Darwin cannot explain. They are lessened 
 fertility, sterility, loss of constitutional vigor, and a 
 general breaking up of the whole constitution. 
 
 A man may have all of the specific diseases, to which 
 flesh is heir; yet, if he be otherwise proportionately de- 
 veloped, in all the characters of his species, he, and his 
 descendants, may go on, for many generations, inter- 
 breeding as close as did the Ptolemies, and remain of 
 undiminished fertility. The impairment of the balance, 
 would be in proportion only to the amount of tissue 
 destroyed, in the parts so affected, and not to the 
 
 degree of the diseases' ordinary, baneful influence. 
 20* 
 
230 CROSSING AND CLOSE-INTERBREEDING. 
 
 This proportion, too, would not be a direct one; for, 
 if the diseases involved many parts, their symmetrical 
 effect would measurably poise the balance which, action 
 in one part alone, would have more disturbed. 
 
 A man, however, very disproportionately developed, 
 may be free from all specific diseases ; yet, if he breed 
 with even the most distant of traceable relatives, he 
 probably will, either, be sterile, or give birth to off- 
 spring which will be sterile; and he, and his offspring, 
 will be of much weakened constitution. The well- 
 bred (?) pig, with the regulation reduction of legs, of 
 snout, of front of the head, of tusks, and with bristles 
 suppressed, may be free from all particular diseases, 
 yet it will most probably be sterile with even distant 
 relatives, and even with others of the same breed; 
 whereas, the pig that roams the woods for a living, and 
 has the characters, above mentioned, proportionately 
 developed, instead of having them reduced; may have 
 every disease, peculiar or common to pigs, yet it will 
 be very prolific, in any degree of close-interbreeding. 
 
 Darwin cannot understand why this is so. He can 
 appreciate, how there is evil from the mere augmenta- 
 tion of morbid tendencies ; or, how there is evil in par- 
 ticular parts from the aggravation of the parents' defects 
 in those parts ; but, he is at a complete loss, to under- 
 stand how, or why, the effects upon the aggregate, and 
 upon the reproductive system, are wrought. His idea, 
 that he may vary an animal or plant, ad lib., and mould 
 it, to any form he pleases, precludes his arriving at the 
 truth, namely, that normal coordination consists solely 
 with the development of all the parts of the given 
 
CROSSING AND CLOSE-INTERBREEDING. 231 
 
 species ; that full capacity of the reproductive element 
 requires a full representation therein, of all the forces 
 of all the parts of the species; and, that, when any of 
 the parts fail to contribute their quota, of force, to such 
 reproductive element, the capacity of such is lessened, 
 and impaired, in proportion. 
 
 He says (p. 144, Vol. ii, Animals and Plants, &c) : 
 
 " That evil directly follows from any degree of close- 
 interbreeding, has been denied by many persons ; but, 
 rarely, by any particular breeder ; and never, as far as 
 I know, by one who has largely bred animals which 
 propagate their kind quickly. Many physiologists 
 attribute the evil, exclusively, to the combination, and 
 consequent increase of morbid tendencies, common to 
 both parents ; that this is an active source of mischief, 
 there can be no doubt. It is, unfortunately, too notori- 
 ous, that men, and various domestic animals, endowed 
 with a wretched constitution, and with a strong heredi- 
 tary disposition to disease, if not actually ill, are fully 
 capable of procreating their kind. Close-interbreeding, 
 on the other hand, induces sterility ; and this indicates 
 something quite distinct (/) from the augmentation of 
 morbid tendencies common to both parents. The evi- 
 dence, immediately to be given, convinces me that it 
 is a great law of nature " (" Law of nature " was 
 an excellent good term, before it was ill sorted ; 
 therefore, scientists had need look to it), " that all or- 
 ganic beings profit from an occasional cross with indi- 
 viduals, not closely related to them in blood ; and, that, 
 on the other hand, long-continued close-interbreeding 
 is injurious. Various general considerations have had 
 much influence in leading me to this conclusion ; but 
 the reader will probably rely more on special facts and 
 opinions. The authority of experienced observers, 
 even when they do not advance the grounds of their 
 
232 CROSSING AND CLOSE-INTERBREEDING. 
 
 belief, is of some little value. Now, almost all men 
 who have bred many kinds of animals, and have 
 written on the subject, such as Sir J. Sebright, Andrew 
 Knight, &c, have expressed the strongest convic- 
 tion, on the impossibility of long-continued close-in- 
 terbreeding. Those who have compiled works on 
 agriculture, and have associated much with breeders, 
 such as the sagacious Youatt, Low, &c, have strongly 
 declared their opinion to the same effect. Prosper 
 Lucas, trusting largely to French authorities, has 
 come to a similar conclusion. The distinguished Ger- 
 man agriculturist, Hermann von Nathusius, who has 
 written the most able treatise, on this subject, which I 
 have met with, concurs." 
 
 It is thus seen, that Darwin, while rightly conjec- 
 turing the cause of the evil effects upon the parts of 
 the organism, is puzzled, respecting the cause of the 
 effects wrought upon the aggregate — effects which are 
 evidenced in loss of fertility and of constitutional vigor. 
 
 The experienced breeders and writers, of whom he 
 speaks, are unquestionably right, in their conclusion 
 that, as a fact, such effects do most frequently result. 
 But, they do not all refer them to "a great law of 
 nature," or to any other such " innate tendency," or 
 similar, metaphysical entity; and, then cpmplacently 
 imagine that they have explained (!) them. Fancy the 
 perfect howl of derision, which would be set up, by the 
 mutual admiration society of English philosophers, 
 were a person, suspected of being tinctured with or- 
 thodoxy, to attempt to shirk the solution of a body of 
 facts, by referring them to "a great law of nature!" 
 Breeders, whilst recognizing the truth of the facts, 
 advanced by Darwin, are not so obtuse, as to disre- 
 
CROSSING AND CLOSE-INTERBREEDING. 233 
 
 gard the significance of the important circumstance, 
 that the effects of the same degree of close-interbreed- 
 ing, vary widely, not only with individuals of different 
 species, but also with individuals of the same species, 
 and even of the same variety, and of the same breed, 
 both in the quantity of the evil, and in the period of 
 its recurrence. It is a consideration, of these circum- 
 stances, which moves many, even of the unlearned, to 
 scorn such an unphilosophical mode of induction (or 
 deduction, for it is hard to tell what it is), as Darwin 
 essays, when he postulates, or deduces, "a great law 
 of nature !" It would afford inexhaustible amusement, 
 to know what Darwin's major premise is, if his "great 
 law of nature" be a conclusion. It must be, in the 
 similitude of this: Phenomena, which are scientifically 
 inexplicable, are due to a "great law of nature;" the 
 phenomena of close-interbreeding, are scientifically 
 inexplicable; Ergo: the phenomena of close-inter- 
 breeding are due to "a great law of nature." If his 
 law be an induction: the mere intimation, to such 
 effect, should suffice to start Bacon from his grave, to 
 deplore the time, the event shows that he wasted, in 
 warning his disciples against the error of incomplete 
 induction. 
 
 Breeders see, that, with such variations in the quan- 
 tity of effect, attendant upon close-interbreeding, the 
 process itself cannot be the cause, but must be the 
 occasion only. What the cause is, they are at a_ loss 
 to say. But, they can well see, that in-and-in breeding 
 is not the cause. 
 
 A scientist, however, who may, — as Darwin has 
 
234 CROSSING AND CLOSE-INTERBREEDING. 
 
 done, with full impunity, and with the hearty con- 
 currence of the scientific world, — deduce a law of in- 
 definite progress, from what the very terms of his 
 problem show, to be but instances of regain of de- 
 velopments previously lost; who founds his theoiy 
 upon an "innate tendency," or upon ignorance; and, 
 who, throughout all of his works, makes his ignorance 
 enact the role of positive factors, may well, and con- 
 fidently, count upon the implicit reception of any 
 absurdity which he may see fit to devise, to hide the 
 inconsistencies of his hypothesis. 
 
 All of the exceptions, here taken, to Darwin's "law 
 of nature," as applying to close-interbreeding, obtain, 
 ■mutatis mutandis, with equal force, when urged against 
 the other phase of his "law," which applies to Cross- 
 ing. The same variations in the quantity of the ef- 
 fects, from the same degree of crossing, are observ- 
 able. 
 
 When each, of two individuals paired, has much to 
 contribute, to the offspring, which the other lacks, the 
 good, resulting from such cross, is great. Where each 
 has but little to contribute, which the other lacks, the 
 good resulting is small. If but one of the parents has 
 any characters to contribute to the offspring, which the 
 other lacks, the increase of good, in the offspring, will 
 be such only, relatively to the parent whose deficiencies 
 were supplied, and which had naught to give, but what 
 the other parent also gave. When good results to the 
 offspring, relatively to both parents, as it generally does ; 
 it is because, defective parts in either, are supplied, 
 by positive parts in the other, — through each of the 
 
CROSSING AND CLOSE-INTERBREEDING. 235 
 
 parents having something to bestow, where existed de- 
 fects in the coordination of the other. 
 
 If proof of this principle be required, observe all of 
 the cases of crossing; note the amount of structure, 
 which is possessed by either parent, and which is 
 wanting in the other; mark the advance towards 
 structural integrity, made upon the parents, by the off- 
 spring; and, then observe the constant relation, sub- 
 sisting between the gain, to the offspring, 'in fertility, 
 and in constitutional vigor, and the advance, made 
 by such offspring, in mere, structural development. 
 
 Note the great improvement, in fertility, and in con- 
 stitutional vigor, resulting from crossing two widely 
 divergent varieties, of. pigeons, which have, each, an 
 important; and strongly pronounced character, which 
 the other does not possess. Note, on the other hand, 
 the comparatively little increase in fertility, and in 
 vigor, which follows from crossing two well-bred 
 varieties of the horse, of the sheep, or of the cow 
 species, which are distinguished from each other, by 
 but some slight differences in the ratio of the develop- 
 ment of their characters. 
 
 In order to demonstrate, that the good effects, occa- 
 sioned by crossing, are due to the increased return, 
 made by the offspring, to the structure of the original 
 type, which possessed all of the characters of the 
 given species, it is not necessary to invent any meta- 
 physical entity; to seek refuge behind any "great law 
 of nature," fashioned for the nonce ; nor to appeal to 
 any gratuitous supposition, which is, besides, incompe- 
 tent to explain the many differences in the quantity of 
 
236 CROSSING AND CLOSE-INTERBREEDING. 
 
 the effects. The reason alleged, is founded on the 
 observed results of breeding, as detailed by Darwin ; 
 is in the strictest accordance with every variation in 
 the results ; is a reason, not merely deduced from the 
 law of reversion, but supported and confirmed by 
 daily experience ; and is the only reason, or explana- 
 tion, which covers all of the phenomena. 
 
 To Darwin, the good, resulting from crossing, is as 
 insoluble, as are the phenomena of close-interbreed- 
 ing; or (to use a simile of his own, respecting the 
 cause of variations), as insoluble as the problem "of 
 free will and predestination." The phenomena of 
 crossing, are also, by him, relegated to the mysterious 
 operation of the same "great law of nature,'' to which 
 he refers the phenomena of close-interbreeding. Con- 
 troversialists, speculating upon the problem of free- 
 will and predestination, might acquire from Darwin, 
 light to guide them through their theological mazes. 
 If he, Darwin, may, within the realm of nature, re- 
 solve a body of conflicting phenomena, by ascribing 
 them to "a great law of nature;" may not a theologian, 
 with equal (aye, immeasurably greater), propriety, 
 resolve his transcendental difficulties, by ascribing all 
 the points for which he contends, in the controversy 
 respecting Free will, to "a great supernatural law!!" 
 
 He says (p: 213, Vol. ii, Animals and Plants, &c): 
 
 " Abundant evidence has been given, that crossing 
 adds to the size, vigor, and fertility of the offspring. 
 This holds good, even when there has been no previ- 
 ous close-interbreeding. It applies to individuals, of 
 the same variety, but belonging to different families, 
 
CROSSING AND CLOSE-INTERBREEDING. 23 T 
 
 to distinct varieties, and partially even to species. In 
 the latter case, though size is often gained, fertility is 
 lost." 
 
 Even if Darwin had perceived, that the contribu- 
 tion, to the offspring, by either parent, of a character 
 which answered to the part deficient in the other 
 parent, could furnish an explanation of the good re- 
 sulting from crossing; such a solution upon the hypoth- 
 esis of evolution, would not be so satisfactory, as it 
 is upon the theory of Reversion. For, upon the 
 theory of Reversion, the characters, supplied to the 
 offspring, are characters which were once lost, the 
 regain of which, is needed to secure perfection ; where- 
 as, upon the theory of evolution, there is no explana- 
 tion, of why the mere addition of characters, should 
 bring with it, increased fertility : seeing, that species, 
 with a small number of characters, are generally as 
 fertile, and sometimes more so, than species, with a 
 development greatly more complex. Neither would 
 there be any assignable reason, upon Darwin's theory, 
 why, where there was, in each parent, a positive peculi- 
 arity, and a defective character, the defective character 
 should not be prepotent over the positive character, 
 and evil result, in the offspring, through the defects 
 in either, sinking the corresponding, positive develop- 
 ments in the other parent. 
 
 The reason, why good, instead of evil, results, when 
 two individuals, dissimilarly defective, are crossed, is r 
 because, in the defective points of each, the power of 
 reversion exists, ever ready to assert itself, under con- 
 ditions in anywise favorable ; and, this capacity joins 
 21 
 
238 CROSSING AND CLOSE-INTERBREEDING. 
 
 with the other parent's positive characters which cor- 
 respond, to effect the development of such characters 
 in the offspring, and a return, full or measurable, as 
 the case may be, to the perfect type. If this power of 
 reversion were not present, there would be no reason, 
 why the defective points of each parent should not, in 
 the offspring, be prepotent, over the positive peculi- 
 arities of the other ; instead of, as is the fact, the posi- 
 tive peculiarities of the one, supplying the deficiencies 
 of the other. It is true, that, under certain unfavora- 
 ble conditions, militating against the operation of re- 
 version, the defects in each or in one, may be, to some 
 degree, prepotent over the positive features in the 
 other. Such a phenomenon, however, is rare. When 
 such is the case, however, there is always to be ob- 
 served an abatement, or absence, of the good, ordina- 
 rily resulting from crossing. This explains the few 
 cases) where, as Darwin shows (with reluctance, be- 
 cause they contravene his law), no good, and even evil, 
 result from a cross. 
 
 Crossing undoes, either wholly, or in a measure, 
 the injury attendant upon a departure from the origi- 
 nal type ; — restores, in a degree, to the offspring the 
 vigor and fertility which defects in development, had, 
 in the parents, destroyed or impaired. It is by the 
 conjunction, in the offspring, of the positive characters 
 in which either parent differs from the other, that the 
 good is effected. It is not the mere addition of struc- 
 tural parts, but the consequent, improved physiology, 
 which secures the benefit from a cross. 
 
 Darwin says (p. 142, Vol. ii, Animals and Plants, &c.)\ 
 
CROSSING AND OLOSE-INTEEBREEDING. 239 
 
 " The gain in constitutional vigor, derived from an 
 occasional cross, between individuals of the same va- 
 riety, but belonging to distinct families, or between 
 distinct varieties, has not been so largely, or so fre- 
 quently discussed as have the evil effects of close inter- 
 breeding. But the former point (the gain in constitu- 
 tional vigor, which is derived from crossing) is the 
 more important of the two, inasmuch as the evidence 
 is more decisive. The evil results from close-inter- 
 breeding, are difficult to detect, for they accumulate 
 slowly and differ much in degree, whilst the good 
 effects which almost invariably follow a cross, are from 
 the first manifest." 
 
 In the following Chapters, we shall trace in detail, 
 the truth of the principle of Reversion in its application 
 to Crossing and Close-Interbreeding; and show that, 
 however widely the several species may differ in the 
 results of the several modes of Selection to which they 
 have been subjected, they all establish and confirm, 
 most positively, the theory that the evil results, of 
 Close-Interbreeding, are due to the absence, in the 
 individuals, of characters proper to their respective 
 species ; that the good results, from Crossing, are due 
 to each of the parents' contributing, to the offspring, a 
 character or characters which, are absent in the other 
 parent; that there is but one normal type, for each 
 species, which is the sum of all the positive characters 
 of such species; that no positive variation is possible, 
 in any species, after the members thereof, have re- 
 gained all the characters which the species once lost; 
 that any modification, or departure from the perfect 
 type of a species, is attended by physiological evil 
 which is merely aggravated by Close-Interbreeding; 
 
240 CROSSING AND CLOSE-INTERBEEEDING. 
 
 and that any return to such type, whether effected by 
 direct Reversion, by Crossing, or by Grafting, is at- 
 tended by a physiological regain, or abatement of the 
 evils entailed by the loss or reduction of characters. 
 
 The space available would not suffice for all the 
 proofs on hand; so, it has been deemed advisable, 
 merely, to furnish evidence respecting one or more of 
 those species which principally illustrate either of the 
 four more pronounced modes of Selection. 
 
 Pigeons and Fowls constitute the subject of one 
 Chapter, because they both represent the mode of 
 Selection by which lost characters, of a species, are 
 indeed all regained, but regained only to be apportioned 
 among distinct varieties, and not developed, all, in each 
 variety. 
 
 Pigs form the subject of another Chapter, because 
 they represent that mode of Selection, pursued by 
 breeders, by which characters, of a species, instead of 
 being developed, are reduced and suppressed. 
 
 Horses, Sheep, and Cows constitute the subject of 
 another Chapter, because they represent the mode of 
 Selection by which the lost and. reduced characters, of 
 a species, are (comparatively speaking) all concurrently 
 regained and re-developed in each individual or variety, 
 and a very close approximation to the full and pro- 
 portionate development of all the parts, of a species, 
 effected. 
 
 Plants form the subject of another Chapter, because 
 they illustrate the effects flowing from that mode of 
 Selection which develops to a great, or to the extreme 
 point, one only of the characters of a species; and, 
 
CROSSING AND CLOSE-INTERBREEDING. 241 
 
 principally, because they show that Reversion ex- 
 plains the seemingly-inexplicable results of Crossing, 
 of Close-Interbreeding, and of Self-Fertilization, even 
 when there prevail such infinite variations in the quan- 
 tity and quality of those results, as are known to obtain 
 with Plants. 
 
 Numberless other evidences, — showing that any de- 
 parture from the type of the sum of all the positive 
 characters of the species, is fraught with proportional 
 evil upon the aggregate, as well as upon the parts in- 
 volved, and showing that any (proportionate) return to 
 the perfect type (however effected), issues in an abate- 
 ment of such evil, — could be furnished from Darwin's 
 own notes of the breeding of Dogs, Rabbits, Bees 
 and, in fact, of all the domestic animals. The reader, 
 however, will doubtless concur in the opinion that, 
 after the testimony adduced in relation to the Cross- 
 ing, Close-Interbreeding, and Self-Fertflization, respec- 
 tively, of Plants, Pigeons, Fowls, Pigs, Horses, Sheep, 
 and Cows, all further proofs, in support of the theory 
 of Reversion, and in Refutation of Darwinism, may 
 justly be dispensed with. 
 
 21* 
 
CHAPTER VIII. 
 
 The Crossing and the Close-Interbreeding of Pigeons 
 and of Fowls. 
 
 Each of the species, Pigeon and Fowl, affords a 
 crucial instance of the truth of that theory of inter- 
 breeding, which is deducible from the assumption of 
 reversion. 
 
 It has already been shown in Chapter vi, on 
 The Processes of Formation of Varieties, that, with 
 Pigeons and Fowls, all or most of the characters, re- 
 spectively lost or reduced by those species, have been 
 regained, not concurrently, but each character, in a dif- 
 ferent variety. Man, it has been shown, there looks to 
 the development of only one of such lost or reduced 
 characters, in each variety. In the Fantail, the charac- 
 ter, which such name connotes, is alone regained, and 
 its development pushed to an extreme point; whilst 
 the rest of the long-lost or reduced parts are suf- 
 fered to remain respectively reduced, and suppressed. 
 In the Pouter variety of the Pigeon, the individuals 
 "show" such "adaptation to his (man's) wants and 
 pleasures," and "have been" so "modified not for their 
 own benefit, but for that of man," that the individuals 
 of this variety (for instance), lack all, or nearly, all, of 
 the positive peculiarities of the other one hundred and 
 
 forty-nine varieties of the said species. 
 
 (242) 
 
THE CROSSING, AC, OF PIGEONS AND FOWLS. 243 
 
 Not only is the principle illustrated, in these two 
 species, the Pigeon and Fowl, of a distribution, among 
 several and distinct varieties, of the characters regained ; 
 but, the effects of all the other processes of the forma- 
 tion of varieties, are also observable, in varieties of 
 these two species. Disproportionate development, 
 with the varieties of these species, is effected, not 
 merely by failure to develop all of the characters, con- 
 currently, in each individual, but also by direct degen- 
 eration, — by the direct suppression or reduction of fea- • 
 tures which had escaped the ordeal of the Struggle for 
 Existence. 
 
 Such species should, ex hypothesi, be notable for evil 
 effects when their individuals are bred in-and-in. If, 
 for instance, the individuals of the Fantail variety which 
 is below referred to, lack not only the full develop- 
 ment of the peculiar character of their variety, but 
 lack also, all of the positive peculiarities of all the other 
 varieties of their species, — which they needs must, — it 
 is manifest, that interbreeding will, by the physiological 
 effects, wrought upon such individuals, decide posi- 
 tively, one way or the other, whether evil flows, from 
 the departure of the individuals from the type of the 
 sum of all the positive features of their species. 
 
 If the individuals of a variety, not only lack all the 
 positive peculiarities of the other varieties, but are dis- 
 tinguished from the others by a negative, instead of a 
 positive, feature, the evil effects of close-interbreeding 
 should, a priori, be the greater. 
 
 Darwin says (p. 237, Vol. ii, Animals and Plants, &c) : 
 
 "A great winner of prizes at the Pigeon shows, in de- 
 
244 THE CROSSING, AC, OF PIGEONS AND FOWLS. 
 
 scribing the shortfaced Almond Tumbler, says, 'There 
 are many first-rate fanciers who are particularly partial 
 to what is called the goldfinch beak which is very beau- 
 tiful; others say, take a full-sized round cherry, then 
 take a barley-corn, and judiciously placing and thrust- 
 ing it into the cherry, form as it were your beak ; and 
 that is not all, for it will form a good head and beak, 
 provided, as I said before, it is judiciously done; others 
 take an oat; but as I think the goldfinch beak the hand- 
 somest, I would advise the inexperienced fancier to get 
 the head of a goldfinch, and keep it by him for his 
 observation.' Wonderfully different as is the beak of 
 the rock-pigeon and goldfinch, undoubtedly, as far as 
 external shape and proportions are concerned, the end 
 has been nearly gained." 
 
 When it is remembered, that, not merely is the beak, 
 in this variety, moulded according to the fashion, 
 caprice, and fancy of man, in violation of the true pro- 
 portion which is essential to physiological integrity; 
 that, not merely does it lack, from eighteen to twenty- 
 eight (of the forty) tail-feathers, of the Fantail vari- 
 ety, together with its <power of erection of the same ; 
 that, not merely does it lack " the wonderful develop- 
 ment of the head," "the greatly elongated eyelids," the 
 " very large external orifice to the nostrils," and " the 
 wide gape of mouth," of the Carrier ; that, not merely, 
 also, does it lack the " great size," " long, massive 
 beak," "large feet," the "very long neck," and the 
 " very long wings, and tail " of the Runt ; that, not 
 merely does it lack the " much elongated body and 
 legs," and " the enormously developed crop," of the 
 Pouter; that, not merely does it lack the "line of 
 reversed feathers, down the breast," of the Turbit ; 
 
THE CROSSING, 4C, OP PIGEONS AND FOWLS. 245 
 
 that, not merely does it lack " the feathers, so much 
 reversed, along the back of the neck that they form a 
 hood," of the Jacobin ; and, that, not merely does it 
 lack the power of utterance of the coo, alone retained 
 by the Trumpeter and Laugher; but, that it also lacks, 
 to a greater or less degree, development in the size, 
 and shape of the body; in the number, and size of the 
 scutellse ; in the size of the eyes, and eyelids ; in the 
 length, and breadth of the tongue ; in the amount of 
 wattle ; in its coating of feathers ; in the size, and 
 shape of its sternum, and of its scapulae ; in the number, 
 and size of its vertebrae, and in many details of its 
 skeleton, and of other internal and external organs ; it 
 is apparent, that here, in this variety, and in the other 
 divergent varieties of the species, which are, mutatis 
 mutandis, likewise, disproportionately developed, the 
 greatest evils are to be expected from close-interbreed- 
 ing, and the greatest increase of good, from crossing 
 distinct varieties. 
 
 The Fowl has its characters, similarly distributed, 
 among its different varieties, and similar, evil effects 
 are, therefore, to be expected to result from close-inter- 
 breeding. 
 
 It is also to be expected, that, when two varieties, of 
 the Pigeon or of the Fowl, are crossed, good will result; 
 owing to the fact, that some of the characters which 
 one variety lacks, will be supplied by the characters 
 which the other possesses. 
 
 The results anticipated, ex hypothesi, are fully borne 
 out, by the facts recorded by Darwin. (It is scarcely 
 necessary to reiterate again, that the facts are inexplica- 
 
246 THE CEOSSING, AC, OF PIGEONS AND FOWLS. 
 
 ble by him ; for, they are all inexplicable, by him. The 
 sum of his insight into the phenomena he has collated, 
 is, that " the stronger and .more vigorous survive." If 
 enlightenment should be sought, by a breeder, upon 
 any one of the million of facts contained in "Animals 
 and Plants under Domestication" Darwin would an- 
 swer, that, upon that subject, " our ignorance is pro- 
 found;" but, the breeder would be assured, that, of his 
 descent from a monkey, there was neither ignorance, 
 nor doubt.) 
 
 The following quotation, from Darwin, establishes, 
 conclusively, the point maintained. Not only is the 
 absence, in any given variety, of the peculiarities of the 
 other varieties, prolific of evil; but, the further the de- 
 velopment of the peculiarity of the given variety, is 
 pushed, the greater becomes the evil ; because, such 
 development, by making such character more and 
 more predominant, augments the disproportion, and 
 vitiates the true ratio of development of the charac- 
 ters of the species. It is, also, to be remarked, that, 
 where the degeneration of any character is desirable, 
 with fanciers, the evil, wrought by close-interbreeding 
 upon such part, will not be esteemed an evil, because it 
 subserves the object designed by the fancier. The 
 evils, however, which are wrought upon the aggregate, 
 and which display themselves in lessened fertility and 
 in delicacy of constitution, are, all other things equal, 
 the greater in such a case. 
 
 "With Pigeons," says Darwin (p. 150, Vol. '^Ani- 
 mals and Plants, &c), "breeders are unanimous, as 
 previously stated, that it is absolutely indispensable, 
 
THE CROSSING, AC, OF PIGEONS AND FOWLS. 241 
 
 notwithstanding the trouble and expense this caused, 
 occasionally to cross their much-prized birds with in- 
 dividuals of another strain, -but belonging, of course, 
 to the same variety. It deserves notice, that when 
 large size is one of the desired characters, as with 
 Pouters, the evil effects of close-interbreeding are 
 much sooner perceived, than when small birds, such 
 as shortfaced tumblers, are valued. The extreme deli- 
 cacy of the high fancy breeds, such as these Tumblers, 
 and improved English Carriers, is remarkable, they are 
 liable to many diseases, and often die in the egg, or 
 in the first moult; and, their eggs have generally to be 
 hatched under foster mothers. Although these highly- 
 prized birds have invariably been subjected to much 
 close-interbreeding, yet their delicacy of constitution 
 cannot, perhaps, be thus fully explained. Mr. Yarnall 
 informed me, that Sir J. Sebright continued close- 
 interbreeding some owl-pigeons, until from their ex- 
 treme sterility, he as nearly as possible, lost the 
 whole family. Mr. Brent tried to raise a breed of 
 Trumpeters, by crossing a common pigeon, and re- 
 crossing the daughter, granddaughter, and great-grand- 
 daughter, with the same male trumpeter, until he ob- 
 tained a bird with fifteen-sixteenths of Trumpeters' 
 blood; but then the experiment failed, for 'breeding so 
 close, stopped reproduction.' The experienced Neu- 
 meister also asserts, that the offspring from dovecotes, 
 and various other breeds, are 'generally very fertile, 
 and very hardy birds;' so again MM. Boitard and 
 Corbie, after forty-five years of experience, recommend 
 persons, to cross their breeds for amusement; for, if 
 they fail to make interesting birds, they will succeed, 
 under an economical point of view, 'as it is found that 
 mongrels are more fertile than pigeons of pure race! " 
 
 "Pigeons of pure race" lack many of the characters 
 of their species. "Mongrels" possess two characters, 
 
248 THE CROSSING, &C, OF PIGEONS AND FOWLS. 
 
 and frequently more, where either of their parents pos- 
 sessed one ; hence, the greater fertility of the mongrels. 
 The reason that dovecotes, trumpeters, and common 
 pigeons, "and various other breeds,'' are, compared 
 with the "high fancy breeds," "generally very fertile 
 and hardy birds," is because, whilst in the "high fancy 
 breeds," one character, or more, is pushed to an ex- 
 treme point, the development of the characters, in 
 the dovecotes, &c, is nearer to the true proportion. 
 Although many of the characters are reduced, they 
 are reduced, in these breeds, in something like pro- 
 portion. 
 
 The extreme delicacy, and sterility, of the "'high 
 fancy breeds," of pigeons and fowls, should be borne in 
 mind, by the reader ; for, as will be seen, these traits 
 conclusively negative Darwin's conception, that these 
 divergent varieties may diverge into distinct species. 
 
 Darwin speaks, above, of the mongrels from a cross, 
 not being " interesting " birds. The reason they are 
 esteemed, " not interesting," to the breeder, is, because 
 they have the characters of the species, approximating 
 concurrent, and proportionate development ; whereas, 
 no pigeons are " interesting," to men happily termed 
 " fanciers," unless they have one, or a few characters, 
 pushed to the extreme of development, and out of all 
 proportion to the others. The " interesting " birds, 
 have to pay for their charms, by the " delicacy of con- 
 stitution," and the " sterility," which are so " remark- 
 able." 
 
 "Evidence of the evil effects of close-inter- 
 breeding," says Darwin (p. 145, Vol. ii, Animals and 
 
THE CROSSING, AC, OF PIGEONS AND FOWLS. 249 
 
 Plants, &C.), " CAN MOST READILY BE ACQUIRED IN THE 
 CASE OF ANIMALS SUCH AS FpWLS, PlGEONS, &C. * * 
 
 Now, I have inquired of very many breeders of these 
 birds, and / have hitherto not met with a single man 
 who was not thoroughly convinced, that an occasional 
 cross with another strain of the same sub-variety, was 
 not absolutely necessary. Most breeders of highly im- 
 proved, or fancy birds, value their own strain, and are 
 most unwilling, at the risk, in their Opinion, of deterio- 
 ration, to make a cross. The purchase of a first-rate 
 bird, of another strain, is expensive, and exchanges 
 are troublesome ; yet all breeders, as far as I can hear, 
 excepting those who keep large stocks, at different 
 places, for the sake of crossing, are driven, after a 
 time, to take this step!' 
 
 The reason, why " evidence of the evil effects of 
 close -interbreeding, can most readily be acquired, in 
 the case of animals, such as Pigeons, Fowls, &c," is in- 
 soluble by Darwin. He simply records the fact, with- 
 out attempting to explain it. The real reason, is, be- 
 cause the varieties of these species are divergent in char- 
 acter; and divergence necessarily implies dispropor- 
 tionate development. For, it takes many positive char- 
 acters to make many divergent varieties, and such char- 
 acters, instead of forming peculiarities of several classes 
 within the same species, are all, according to the theory 
 of reversion, needed in each individual of the species. 
 Consequently, it is to be expected, that, when these 
 characters, instead of being concurrently developed, in 
 each individual, are apportioned among different varie- 
 ties, and when the true integrity of the species, is thus 
 impaired, some evil or injury must follow ; and, as 
 
 Pigeons and Fowls are the species, wherein the true 
 22 
 
250 THE CROSSING, &C, 
 
 proportion of their respective characters, has been thus 
 most outraged, it is, to them, one should look, for the 
 greatest evil effects from interbreeding individuals, simi- 
 lar in the defects of their development. 
 
 Each one of the varieties, respectively, of the 
 Pigeon, and of the Fowl, lacks all of the positive char- 
 acters which form the distinguishing marks of the 
 other varieties of the same species. As, therefore, the 
 absence, in any variety, or individual, of any character 
 of its species, must, ex hypothesi, be deleterious to its 
 physiological integrity, there is little room for marvel 
 at the evil results of the close-interbreeding of these 
 animals. 
 
 There is as little occasion, to wonder at the good 
 which, Darwin alleges, results from crossing two varie- 
 ties of any one of these species. For, as he elsewhere 
 says, they "differ in an extreme degree, in some one 
 part, when compared with one another" (p. 16, Origin 
 of Species). When two such varieties are crossed, the 
 offspring acquires some character, or characters, which 
 either of its parents lacked, and so much the nearer is 
 the approximation, in the offspring, to the original, per- 
 fect type ; hence, the good resulting. 
 
 These two species, the Pigeon, and the Fowl, are 
 the species, upon the divergence of character in whose 
 varieties, Darwin mainly relies, to show that varieties 
 are "incipient species," or distinct species, in the pro- 
 cess of formation. Yet, in the very exposition of his 
 hypothesis of such divergence, he reveals a state of 
 facts, which signally confutes such a view. For, he 
 clearly shows, by his remarks (which are frequently 
 
THE CROSSING, &C, OP PIGEONS AND FOWES. 251 
 
 reiterated) concerning the evil results of interbreeding 
 the highly improved or fancy birds, and concerning 
 the absolute necessity of crossing them with individ- 
 uals of the other varieties, that this very divergence 
 of character, is in derogation of the fertility and con- 
 stitutional vigor of the individuals of the divergent 
 varieties; — aye, incompatible, when carried to any 
 great extent, with their very existence ; for, he says (p. 
 270, Vol i, Animals and Plants, &c), that : 
 
 " The young of all highly improved fancy breeds, are 
 extremely liable to disease and death /" 
 
 This shows conclusively, that the further that this 
 process of divergence (upon which he counts to evolve 
 the varieties of any species, into distinct species), is 
 carried, the nearer, step by step, do the varieties, so 
 divergent, approximate complete sterility and extinc- 
 tion! 
 
 On the other hand, it is shown, by his remarks, 
 already quoted, and by those quoted below, that the 
 only means, by which such divergent varieties may re- 
 gain their fertility, and retrieve their shattered consti- 
 tutions, is, by undoing the very process which, he would 
 have his readers believe, evolves them into distinct species! 
 
 Even though the phenomena of close-interbreeding, 
 and' of crossing, did not conclusively imply, that the 
 sum of all the positive characters of the respective 
 species, was the only, perfect type; what would be 
 the strength of an argument, favoring the evolution 
 of species, by means of divergence of character, when 
 the individuals of each of the varieties, assumed to be 
 so diverging into distinct species, meets with com- 
 
252 THE CROSSING, &C, OP PIGEONS AND FOWLS. 
 
 pletely shattered constitutions, and with sterility, before 
 they have half accomplished such process of diver- 
 gence ! 
 
 Not only do the phenomena of close-interbreeding, 
 constitute an insuperable bar to any such result as evo- 
 lution, into distinct species, by means of this divergence; 
 but, the man is likewise blocked, in the other direction, 
 by the fact of the sterility of hybrids ! 
 
 If the proofs of reversion, the phenomena of close- 
 interbreeding, the phenomena of crossing, and the fact 
 of the sterility of hybrids, do not constitute the elements 
 of a complete demonstration; then a demonstration is 
 impossible, without the domain of mathematics. 
 
 Again, he says (p. 150, Vol. ii, Animals and Plants, 
 &c): 
 
 " With all highly bred animals " (he here obviously 
 speaks of the animals which are divergent in charac- 
 ter; for, he elsewhere says, "with animals not divergent 
 in character, such as cattle and sheep, interbreeding may 
 be long carried vn without any decrease in fertility or 
 vigor"), "with all highly bred animals, there is more or 
 less difficulty, in getting them to procreate quickly, and 
 all suffer much from delicacy of constitution ; but, I do 
 not pretend that these effects ought to be wholly at- 
 tributed to close-interbreeding." 
 
 Strictly speaking, no evil is to be attributed to 
 close-interbreeding. It is disproportionate develop- 
 ment which causes the evil : Close-interbreeding but 
 aggravates such evil. The " difficulty," of which he 
 speaks, " in getting highly-bred animals to procreate," 
 and their "delicacy of constitution," are in proportion to 
 divergence of character, or rather to defects in struc- 
 
THE CROSSING, &C, OF PIGEONS AND FOWLS. 253 
 
 ture which such divergence ordinarily implies. Each 
 highly-bred, divergent variety obviously lacks all of 
 the positive peculiarities of the other varieties of its 
 species. It generally lacks even more characters, than 
 these. The more varieties, with positive peculiarities, 
 there are, within a species, the greater, generally, is 
 the number of characters which each such variety 
 lacks. Therefore, the evils of close-interbreeding tell 
 sooner, and are the most disastrous, with the most 
 divergent varieties. 
 
 Those who do not discern the method, in Darwin's 
 seeming candor, may express surprise, that this con- 
 stant relation, — traceable between lessened fertility, 
 and the absence or reduction, in the individuals, of 
 characters which belong to the given species, — should 
 not have suggested itself to Darwin. But, it is mani- 
 fest, that, if he saw this relation, it must have occurred 
 to him, that it was to the interest of his strained 
 hypothesis, that it should not appear; for, it forcibly, 
 and necessarily implies, that all of " the characters, 
 possible to be developed in any individual, belong to 
 each and every individual of that species ; and, that 
 divergent varieties subsist, in derogation of their full 
 vigor and fertility. 
 
 But, why, — it may be urged, — is it, that Darwin 
 states the facts, which thus tell against his hypothe- 
 sis, so fully and so clearly? The reason is, that 
 the possibility of such relation being perceived, was, 
 to his mind, very remote ; whereas, there stood, like 
 Fate, confronting his hypothesis, the objection of the 
 
 sterility of hybrids, which was an inevitable and well- 
 22* 
 
254 THE CROSSING, &C, OF PIGEONS AND FOWLS. 
 
 known difficulty in his way ; and which, he saw, 
 could be dodged, only by recording all of the com- 
 plicated and seemingly inconsistent and inexplicable 
 phenomena of the crossing and close-interbreeding of 
 individuals of the same species, and, then, candidly (?) 
 putting it to his readers, Whether any reliance could 
 be placed upon the obvious inference from the sterili- 
 ty of hybrids, when the whole subject of sterility and 
 fertility, both within the same species, and with differ- 
 ent species, was in such an inextricable maze ! 
 ' This accounts for his suicidal course, in adducing so 
 plentifully, and so strongly, phenomena which show, 
 that evil attends, degree for degree, departure from 
 the one, normal type of any species. This expedient 
 is (to borrow an expression, once used by George 
 Henry Lewes, in another connection), "facile, but 
 futile." For, the maze, in which the phenomena men- 
 tioned are involved, is not inextricable; the idea of 
 reversion, and of proportionate development, being 
 the thread, which resolves all of the confusion into 
 the most beautiful harmony. 
 
 But, his device is equally futile, even upon the 
 supposition, that the facts adduced, are not explicable. 
 Explicable or not, both classes of phenomena con- 
 found all of his speculations. For, as the obvious in- 
 ference, from the sterility of hybrids (even when such 
 phenomenon is unexplained), is the negation of Dar- 
 win's theory ; so, the obvious inference, from the ster- 
 ility which attends divergence of character, is (even 
 when such phenomenon is unresolved), in diametrical 
 opposition to such theory. To take, then, these two 
 
&C, OF PIOEONS AND FOWLS. 255 
 
 obvious inference's, and with each, gratuitously to 
 attempt to cancel the other, is to perform a feat, never 
 before surpassed by the most dextrous of intellectual 
 jugglers. 
 
 Darwin says (p. 143, Vol. ii): 
 
 " It should, however, be clearly understood, that the 
 advantage of close-interbreeding, as far as the reten- 
 tion of characters is concerned, is indisputable, and 
 often outweighs the evil of a slight loss of constitu- 
 tional vigor." 
 
 The expression " as far as the retention of characters 
 is concerned," shows, that he means, that when a 
 breeder is developing one lost or reduced, character 
 alone, in a variety, in order to secure the dominance 
 of that character, and the suppression or reduction of 
 the other characters, it is necessaiy and desirable, to 
 breed it closely with individuals possessing the same 
 abnormal, or monstrous structure. He frequently re- 
 iterates an injunction of his, to breed from the "best" 
 animals; when it is apparent, to every one who enter- 
 tains the idea of reversion, even for an instant, that, 
 with varieties in whose species there are many other 
 varieties with positive peculiarities, those individuals, 
 which are intimated to be the "best," are the ones 
 in which disproportionate development invites the 
 greatest evils, from close-interbreeding; — and, they 
 are the ones which are really the more degenerate, 
 the further the development of the special excellence 
 of each, is pushed, because the proportion of the char- 
 acters is thus marred. 
 
 With varieties, such as those of the Pigeon, and of 
 
256 THE CROSSING, 4C, OF PIGEONS AND FOWLS. 
 
 the Fowl, which, to the fancier, have their criterion of 
 excellence, in the abnormally great development of one 
 character alone, to the exclusion of the development of 
 many other characters of that species, barrenness, and 
 delicacy of constitution, are always prolific sources of 
 trouble ; and this trouble is always in proportion to the 
 degree of "improvement," which the individuals of 
 such divergent varieties attain. Of this, the "high 
 fancy breeds" of the Pigeon and of the Fowl, are 
 notable instances; — the very "improvement" of such 
 breeds, is productive of the evils which usually accom- 
 pany close-interbreeding. 
 
 Darwin, in the following remarks, ventures very close 
 to the true law of development, and to the true reason 
 of the evils, concomitant on interbreeding. The Bantam 
 is wanting, in several characters of the Fowl species; 
 and, of course, evil is attendant upon their absence. 
 The true light seems just to glimmer, for an instant, 
 upon Darwin's mental horizon: 
 
 "The Sebright Bantam is much less prolific" |p. 127, 
 Vol. ii, Animals and Plants, &c), "than any other breed 
 of fowl, and is descended from a cross between two 
 very distinct breeds, recrossed by a third sub-variety. 
 But, it would be extremely rash to infer, that the loss 
 of fertility was in any manner connected with its crossed 
 origin, for it may, with more probability, be attributed 
 either to long- continued close-interbreeding, or to 
 an innate tendency (/) to sterility, correlated with the 
 absence (/) of hackles, and sickle tail-feathers." 
 
 It is strange, that, when Darwin can perceive such a 
 relation between the sterility of the Bantam, and the 
 absence of certain of the characters of its species, he 
 
4C, OP PIGEONS AND FOWLS. 257 
 
 does not also discern the relation, which is observable, 
 in every individual of eveiy species, between its sterility, 
 or the degree of its lessened fertility, and that amount 
 of the characters of its species, which it lacks. It is 
 equally strange, that such partial guess at the truth, 
 has not led him further, and revealed to him, that the 
 full and concurrent development of all the parts of a 
 species, is essential to physiological integrity, and to 
 full procreative power. It is, however, requiring too 
 much to expect a theorist to develop such a "lead," 
 when the absolute requirement of his hypothesis, is, 
 that many of the characters of each species should be 
 distributed, or apportioned, among several varieties. 
 
 One type alone, of each species, is normal. Nature 
 errs not from her end, by the existence of a multiplicity 
 of types (i. e. varieties), in a species. For, for each and 
 every deviation from the one type, a penalty, com- 
 mensurate with such departure, is visited upon the in- 
 dividual. Nature, then, does not deviate from the type 
 prescribed; for every fact, in the whole of her realm, 
 attests most clearly, that physiological integrity can be 
 retained, only by strict conformity to the mould en- 
 joined. 
 
 "Turning now to Birds," says Darwin (p. 154, Vol. 
 ii, Animals and Plants, &c), "In the case of the Fowl, a 
 whole array of authorities could be given against too 
 close-interbreeding. Sir J. Sebright positively asserts 
 that he made many trials, and that his fowls became 
 
 * * * small in the body, and bad breeders. He 
 produced the famous Sebright Bantams, by compli- 
 cated crosses, and by breeding in-and-in ; and since his 
 time, there has been much close-interbreeding with 
 
258 THE CROSSING, &C, OF PIGEONS AND FOWLS. 
 
 these Bantams. I have seen Silver Bantams, directly 
 descended from his stock, which had become almost 
 as barren as hybrids; for, not a single chicken had 
 been, that year, hatched from two full nests of eggs." 
 
 The proofs, which we advance, of the truth of the 
 theory of Reversion, are, viz., the fact, that, with all 
 of the individuals, which are most wanting in the 
 characters of their respective species, there is the 
 greatest evil, from close-interbreeding; and, the fact, 
 that, with all of the individual animals or plants 
 which most approximate full and proportionate devel- 
 opment, there is the least degree of such evil. But; 
 taking a single instance, there is none which presents 
 such a delicate, crucial test of the truth of the theory 
 of reversion, as the following remarkable case. The 
 animal, mentioned below, advances, in but the slight- 
 est appreciable degree, to the perfect type of its 
 species; yet, Darwin, who is wholly ignorant of the 
 cause of the effect which he records, has remarked 
 the physiological gain, which accompanies the slight, 
 structural regain. 
 
 He says (p. 154, Vol. ii, Animals and Plants, &c): 
 
 "I have noticed, as a general rule, that even the 
 slightest deviation from feminine character, in the 
 tail of the male Sebright (Fowl) — say, the elonga- 
 tion, by only a half an inch, of the two principal tail- 
 feathers (/) — brings with it improved probability of in- 
 creased fertility /" 
 
 In a note, to page 155, Vol. ii, Animals and Plants, 
 &c, Darwin says: 
 
 "See also the 'Poultry Book,' by Tegetmeier, 1866, 
 
THE CROSSING, &C, OF PIGEONS AND FOWLS. 259 
 
 p. 135, with respect to the extent to which cock -fight- 
 ers found that they could venture to breed in-and-in, 
 viz., occasionally, a hen with her own son ; ' but they 
 were cautious not to repeat the in-and-in breeding.'" 
 
 Again he says, on the same page : 
 
 "Mr. Wright states that Mr. Clark, 'whose fighting- 
 cocks were so notorious, continued to breed from his 
 own kind, till they lost their disposition to fight, but 
 stood to be cut up, without making any resistance, 
 and were so reduced in size, as to be under those 
 weights required for the best prizes ; but on obtaining 
 a cross from Mr. Leighton, they again resumed their 
 former carriage and weight.' It should be borne in 
 mind, that game-cocks, before they fought, were always 
 weighed, so that nothing was left to the imagination, 
 about any reduction or increase in weight. Mr. Clark 
 does not seem to have bred from brothers and sisters, 
 which is the most injurious kind of union. * * I 
 may add that Mr. Eyton, of Eyton, the well-known 
 ornithologist, who is a large breeder of Gray Dork- 
 ings, informs me, that they certainly diminish in size, 
 and become less prolific, unless a cross with another 
 strain is occasionally obtained. So it is with Malays, 
 according to Mr. Hewitt, as far as size is concerned." 
 
 "We thus see," Darwin continues, "that there is 
 almost complete unanimity, with poidtry breeders, 
 that when Fowls are kept at the same place, evil 
 quickly follows from interbreeding carried on to any 
 extent, which would be disregarded in the case of 
 most quadrupeds. On the 6ther hand, it is a gener- 
 ally received opinion that cross-bred chickens are the 
 hardiest, and most easily reared. Mr. Tegetmeier, 
 who has carefully attended to poultry of all breeds, 
 says that Dorking hens allowed to run with Houdan, 
 or Crevecceur cocks, 'produce, in the early spring, 
 
260 THE CROSSING, &C, OF PIGEONS AND FOWLS. 
 
 chickens, that for size, hardihood, early maturity, and 
 fitness for the market, surpass those of any pure breed 
 that we have ever raised.'" 
 
 The reason, why these great evils prevail among 
 Fowls, is, because each individual, either, lacks many 
 of the followirrg characters, or has them, in a greater 
 or less degree, reduced; viz.: the beak, the comb, the 
 spurs, sickle tail-feathers, head, neck, wings, legs, feet, 
 wattle, hackles, ear-lobes, wing-feathers, vertebras, coat- 
 ing of feathers, crest of feathers, &c. All of the breeds 
 are but various modifications of the sum of all the 
 characters, fully developed. It is apparent, then, that, 
 generally, each of the breeds possesses some positive 
 character or characters, which the other breeds lack. 
 What he says, therefore, respecting the physiological 
 advantages to be derived from ■ crossing the breed, is 
 exactly what is to be expected by one whom the 
 conception of reversion has led to believe, that per- 
 fection resides, only in that individual in which no 
 positive character, of its species, is wanting. 
 
 He says (p. 280, Vol. i, Animals and Plants, &c); 
 Fanciers "admit, and even overrate, the effects of cross- 
 ing the various- breeds" of fowls. On page 287, Vol. 
 i, Animals and Plants, &c, he again notes the fertility 
 of the offspring of crossed breeds. 
 
 On page 229, Vol. ii, Animals and Plants, &c, he 
 again says: 
 
 " Domesticated varieties, such as those of the Dog, 
 Fowl, Pigeon, several Fruit trees, and culinary vege- 
 tables, which differ from each other, in external char- 
 acters, more than many species, are perfectly fertile, 
 
THE CROSSING, &C, OE PIGEONS AND FOWLS. 261 
 
 when crossed, or even fertile in excess, whilst closely- 
 allied species are almost invariably in some degree 
 
 sterile." 
 
 Each variety, of the Fowl, and of the Pigeon, is 
 not only defective in the mere ratio of the develop- 
 ment of its characters, but it also lacks many charac- 
 ters. Such disproportion entails the evils of close-inter- 
 breeding. Each variety possesses a feature which, if 
 joined with that of another variety, will insure a step 
 towards the original type. This conjunction of the 
 characters of two varieties, in one individual, is effected 
 by crossing; and, as a consequence, there is a bene- 
 ficial effect. 
 
 Each variety moves along a separate, divergent line, 
 towards the true mould of the species. This advance, 
 however, produces more evil, than if all the characters 
 were suffered to lie proportionately reduced; because 
 the true ratio of the development of the characters, is 
 greatly prejudiced by this exclusive development of one 
 character. Only by the union of all the divergent lines 
 of growth, may physiological perfection be attained; 
 and, when two such divergent lines are united, in one 
 individual, the evil is measurably lessened. 
 
 As he has asserted, that it is difficult to get highly- 
 bred animals to procreate, so he says again, that (p. 
 271, Vol. ii, Animals and Plants, &c): "Highly-bred 
 animals are liable to degeneration." As has been more 
 than once asserted, a multiplicity of divergent varie- 
 ties, in any species, implies the absence, in each, of 
 what constitutes the peculiarities of the other varieties. 
 
 It is the disturbance of the balance of the characters, 
 23 
 
262 THE CROSSING, &C, OF PIGEONS AND FOWLS. 
 
 occasioned by pushing these peculiarities to an " ex- 
 treme point," which causes the pronounced degenera- 
 tion of the highly-bred animals. 
 
 With respect to Pigeons, which are more divergent 
 in character, than even the Fowl, he says (p. 27, Origin 
 of Species) : 
 
 "The hybrids, or mongrels, from between all the 
 domestic breeds of Pigeons, are perfectly fertile. I 
 can state this from my own observation purposely 
 made, on the most distinct breeds. Now, it is difficult, 
 perhaps impossible, to bring forward one case of the 
 hybrid offspring of two animals clearly distinct, being 
 themselves perfectly fertile." 
 
 In the chapter on "The Sterility of Hybrids," it 
 will be seen how strongly this militates against his 
 theory. 
 
 " Pigeons " (p. 29, Origin of Species) " were much val- 
 ued by Abner Khan in India, about the year 1600; 
 never less than 20,000 Pigeons were taken with the 
 court. 'The monarchs of Iran and Turan sent him 
 some very rare birds;' and, continues the courtly his- 
 torian, 'His Majesty, by crossing the breeds, which 
 method was never before practiced, has improved them 
 astonishingly.' " 
 
 It is obvious, that, if the gain in sterility and consti- 
 tutional vigor, resulting from crossing, be due to each 
 parent contributing, to the formation of the offspring, a 
 character or characters which the other parent lacks, 
 the gain must be in proportion to the number of fea- 
 tures so contributed ; and, that the more distinct the 
 crossed breeds are, the greater should be the good 
 which flows. Darwin states, as matter of fact, — the 
 
THE CROSSING, &C, OP PIGEONS AND FOWLS. 263 
 
 cause of which is wholly undreamt of in his philoso- 
 phy, — that such is the case. 
 
 Says he, p. 236, Vol. i, Animals and Plants, &c: 
 
 "MM. Boitard and Corbie affirm, after their great 
 experience, that, with crossed pigeons, the more distinct 
 the breeds, the more productive are their mongrel off- 
 spring!' (!) 
 
 The above quotation furnishes the key to the whole 
 mystery of the good resulting from crossing. Apply 
 this rule, to all of the many millions of animals of every 
 species, and it will be found, that the increased good 
 from crossing, is in proportion to the amount of posi- 
 tive characters, of the given species, which have been 
 supplied, to fill a want, existing in either parent. 
 
 Darwin says : 
 
 "Varieties, however much they differ from each 
 other in external appearance, cross with perfect facility, 
 and yield perfectly fertile offspring" (p. 326, Origin of 
 Species). 
 
 Aye; and, as he states above, the more that they 
 differ, the greater is the increase of fertility, when 
 crossed. 
 
 "The perfect fertility of so many domestic varieties, 
 differing widely from each other in appearance, for in- 
 stance, as those of the Pigeon, or those of the cabbage, 
 is a remarkable fact; more especially, when we re- 
 flect how many species there are, which, though re- 
 sembling each other most closely, are utterly sterile 
 when crossed" (p. 327, Origin of Species). 1 
 
 Now, would any suspect, from the bland manner in 
 which this last observation is made, that the obvious 
 and admitted significance of the fact of the sterility of 
 
264 
 
 species when crossed, militated most strongly against 
 Darwin's theory? He is aware, as he shows by ex- 
 plicit statements made elsewhere to that effect, that 
 such is the necessary import of the fact. Yet, here, 
 instead of using a deprecating tone, in stating the fact, 
 he records it, as though, if not strongly confirming his 
 theory, it was in no manner, — apparent or real, — in 
 opposition to his views of development. He resorts, 
 throughout his works, most frequently, to this happy 
 device, of obviating the adverse impression which the 
 facts are calculated to awaken in the minds of his 
 readers. This is a sample of the child-like and bland 
 comportment, from which has enured to him, a repu- 
 tation for candor. He is never candid, save when the 
 facts are so well-known, that the absence of their men- 
 tion, would recoil with hundred -fold force against his 
 theory; or, where the facts are designed to subserve 
 spme ulterior aim he has in view. There are many 
 facts, which come naturally within the scope of his 
 work, which are, by him, quietly ignored. The fact of 
 the sterility of crossed species, or of their hybrids, had 
 to be stated; for, it would have been fully recognized 
 as fatal to his theory, if urged first by an opponent. As 
 its mention was inevitable, he does the next best thing 
 to omitting it; he recites it, in a tone which seemingly 
 goes very far to divest it of its dangerous effect upon 
 his theory. 
 
 That it is possible; to combine the features of all the 
 different varieties of a species, in one individual, is 
 shown by the experiment of Darwin, recorded below. 
 That, which has hitherto precluded the conception of 
 
THE CROSSING, &C, OP PIGEONS AND FOWLS. 265 
 
 a perfect type for a species, has been the notion, that 
 such a type would involve the union of all the varietal 
 types; whereas, it is not the types which need to be 
 united, — but the positive characters, those which are 
 peculiar, and those which are common to the several 
 varieties. 
 
 "All the domesticated races" (of the Pigeon), says 
 Darwin (p. 235, Vol. i, Animals and'Plants, &c), "pair 
 readily. together, and what is equally important, their 
 mongrel offspring are perfectly fertile. To ascertain 
 this fact, I have made many experiments which -are 
 given in the note below; and recently Mr. Tegetmeier 
 has made similar experiments, with the same result." 
 
 Note: — "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 publish- 
 ing. 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 have united them all (!) The 
 case of five distinct breeds being blended together, with 
 unimpaired fertility, is important, because Gartner has 
 shown, that it is a very general, though not as he 
 thought, universal rule, that complex crosses between 
 several species are excessively sterile." 
 
 Again he says (p. 236, Vol. i, Animals and Plants, 
 &c): 
 
 "When we consider the great differences between 
 such races as pouters, carriers, runts, fantails, turbits, 
 tumblers, &c, the fact of their perfect, or even increased 
 fertility, when inter-crossed in the most complicated 
 manner, becomes a strong argument in favor of their 
 having all descended from a single species." 
 
 Aye ; and, when we consider that " increased fer- 
 23* 
 
266 THE CROSSING, &C, 
 
 tility " attends, degree for degree, the union, in any indi- 
 vidual, of the peculiar characters of any two or more 
 of these varieties, it becomes a strong argument in 
 favor of there being but one normal type for the 
 species Pigeon ; and, becomes a strong argument, also, 
 in favor of the view, — so strongly confirmed by the 
 phenomena of close-interbreeding, — that any modifica- 
 tions of that type, such as are implied by the many 
 great and positive differences between such varieties, 
 work evil- to the constitutions, and to the reproductive 
 systems of the individuals. When Darwin had united, 
 in one bird, five distinct varieties, he had, before his 
 eyes, the closest approximation to the perfect type of 
 the Pigeon, which he had ever beheld. Had he ex- 
 perimented further, with that bird, he would have 
 found that its offspring could withstand, what no other 
 Pigeons could possibly suffer, viz., long-continued 
 close-interbreeding, for generation after generation, in 
 the nearest degree of relationship, and without any, or 
 with very little, evil effects wrought upon the constitu- 
 tion, or reproductive system. 
 
 Again, on pages 247-8, he cites as a " fact," that : 
 
 "All the races, though differing in many important 
 points of structure, produce perfectly fertile offspring ; 
 whilst, all the hybrids which have been produced 
 between even closely allied species, in the Pigeon 
 family, are sterile." 
 
 It is, because the races do differ "in many im- 
 portant points of structure," that their mongrels are 
 "perfectly fertile." Physiology demands, that all of 
 those "many important points of structure," be com- 
 
THE CROSSING, 4C, OF PIGEONS AND FOWLS. 261 
 
 bined in each individual; as a sine qua non of full, 
 functional integrity. The same good does not follow, 
 from crossing species (such as the common pigeon, 
 and the dove), because, as is obvious, there is not, in 
 such a case, an advance to a common, perfect type ; and, 
 because, in a hybrid, the characters of the two species, 
 are mixed together, in a manner, which precludes the 
 actual coordination from being impressed, in minia- 
 ture, upon the reproductive tissue ; as is done, where 
 the characters of the individual, belong to one and the 
 same species. 
 
 With respect to this question, as it concerns the 
 Fowl, he says : x 
 
 " In considering whether the domestic breeds (Fowl) 
 are descended from one species, namely, G. bankiva, 
 or from several, we must not overlook, though we 
 must not exaggerate, the influence of the test of fer- 
 tility. Most of our domestic breeds have been so 
 often crossed, and the mongrels are so largely kept, 
 that it is almost certain, that, if any degree of infer- 
 tility had existed among them, it would have been 
 detected. On the other hand, the four well-known 
 species of Gallus, when crossed with each other, or 
 when crossed, with the exception of G. bankiva, with 
 the domesticated Fowl, produce infertile hybrids. * * 
 The argument of fertility must go. for something.'' 
 
 The address, with which this delicate subject is here 
 handled, would move the envy of Oily Gammon. Every 
 one knows, and Darwin clearly understands, that an 
 unanswerable objection to his theory, is the sterility of 
 hybrids, which imposes an effectual bar to his con- 
 founding- the species. Yet, with tact inimitable, he 
 
268 THE CROSSING, &C, OF PIGEONS AND FOWLS. 
 
 requests his readers not to overlook (sic) the facts 
 upon which the said objection is based ! and gravely 
 assures them that " the argument of fertility must go for 
 something." Solicitous, however, lest his injunction, 
 not to overlook the question of fertility, should be 
 too fully complied with, he, with an air, exquisitely 
 judicial, guards them, carefully, from running upon 
 Gharybdis, by warning them, that they " must not ex- 
 aggerate the influence of the test of fertility." The 
 state of mind, which is occasioned, in his readers, by 
 this dexterous treatment of a witching point, is such, 
 that they wholly waive the impression, by them first 
 entertained; suffer vague doubts, respecting the validity 
 of the objection, to enter their minds; modestly dis- 
 trust their own capacity to gauge the question ; and, 
 end by fancying, that they owe a debt of gratitude to 
 Darwin, for kindly arresting them, when they were on 
 the very verge of metaphysics — which, an English- 
 man ever affects to regard, as his bete noir. 
 
 "The argument of fertility" does "go for some- 
 thing." What it "goes for," is, that the varieties are 
 not "incipient" species; and, that they are physiologi- 
 cally incompetent to become distinct species : for, the 
 individuals composing these divergent varieties lose 
 their fertility, when bred among themselves, and ap- 
 proximate perfect fertility, only when crossed with in- 
 dividuals of a separate variety; whereas, species are 
 notable, for having their respective individuals fertile, 
 inter se, and sterile, when crossed with individuals of 
 other species. Verily, "the argument of fertility must 
 go for something;" but, it is refreshing, here to see 
 
, OF PIGEONS AND FOWLS. 269 
 
 Darwin coolly advance such a proposition, when he is 
 desirous of having the argument of sterility go for 
 nothing. 
 
 "It is a singular fact," says Darwin, p. 305, Vol. i, 
 "that the males, in certain sub-breeds (of Fowls), have 
 lost their x 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, but this may have been caused by too close-in- 
 terbreeding." 
 
 The mere absence of the said characters explains 
 the sterility, partial or total. Each degree, of loss or 
 of reduction of characters, entails lessened fertility, 
 until that amount of modification is reached, which is 
 the maximum compatible with any reproduction; then 
 total sterility sets in. 
 
 "An experienced writer remarks," says Darwin, p. 
 155, Vol. ii, "that the same amateur (in Fowls), as is 
 well-known, seldom long maintains the superiority of 
 his birds ; and this, he adds, undoubtedly is due to all 
 his stock 'being of the same blood;' hence, it is indis- 
 pensable, that he should occasionally procure a bird of 
 another strain. But, this is not necessary, with those 
 who keep a stock of fowls, at different stations. Thus, 
 Mr. Bollance, ,who has bred Malays, for thirty years, 
 and has won more prizes with these birds, than any 
 other fancier, in England, says, the breeding in-and-in 
 does not necessarily cause deterioration; 'but all de- 
 pends upon how this is managed. My plan has been, 
 to keep about five or six distinct runs, and to rear 
 about two hundred or three hundred chickens each 
 year, and select the best birds from each run for cross- 
 
210 THE CROSSING, &C, OF PIGEONS AND FOWLS. 
 
 ing. I thus secure sufficient crossing to prevent dete- 
 rioration.' " 
 
 It is plain, that, when Mr. Bollance says, that "breed- 
 ing in-and-in does not necessarily cause deterioration," 
 he shows, that he knows whereof he speaks, better than 
 does Darwin. It is clear, that Mr. Bollance would not 
 have formulated any "general law of nature," for a 
 factor so infinitely variable in the quantity of its re- 
 sults, as is close-interbreeding. 
 
 The reason, why the evils of interbreeding, are 
 lessened by keeping the animals at different places, 
 is, because the different conditions, prevailing, at such 
 different places, entail slight differences in the growth 
 of the individuals. Such slight structural differences 
 suffice to stave off the evils attendant upon close-inter- 
 breeding. Different organs of the body, are differently 
 affected, — either favorably or unfavorably, — in different 
 places. This may be due to the differences in the food, 
 in the air, in the water, or in the amount of exercise 
 required for the legs and wings. These conditions act 
 directly, upon the organs or parts obviously involved. 
 But, differences of growth, are entailed in other parts 
 of the organization, by correlation with the parts, 
 immediately affected. 
 
 Thus, two individuals, derived from the same strain 
 or family, will have their likeness to each other less- 
 ened, by being subjected to different conditions. When 
 they interbreed, therefore, there is not the same amount 
 of increased evil, that there would have been, had they 
 been reared under exactly similar circumstances; for, 
 there is not close similarity of defects; but each, proba- 
 
&C, OP PIGEONS AND FOWLS. 211 
 
 bly, has, to contribute to the offspring, a little of posi- 
 tive structure in which the other is deficient. 
 
 The slight differences, which distinguish individuals 
 in the same herd, or flock, will, in some cases, where 
 such differences are positive, and where the degenera- 
 tion, reduction, or suppression of the several characters, 
 is not too far gone, suffice to avert the evils of inter- 
 breeding. They may avert them, for a time; or, make 
 the evils manifest themselves, only when there is the 
 closest interbreeding; or, after many generations of 
 such close-interbreeding. 
 
 Darwin commends certain processes of selection by 
 man, which involve the loss, to individuals, of char- 
 acters of their species, and he also notes the evils of 
 lessened fertility, and of -lessened constitutional vigor, 
 which follow the loss or reduction of any characters ; 
 yet, with the two terms of an obvious relation, thus 
 clearly present to him, and while he even formulates 
 such relation, he is conveniently obtuse to the fact, 
 that it bears most conclusively against his theory. 
 Thus, in the quotations given below, he approvingly 
 quotes the reduction and the suppression of charac- 
 ters ; and then remarks the deterioration, attendant 
 upon such "serious defects in structure," and upon 
 such' violation of " the mutual relations of the parts." 
 Yet, notwithstanding all, he pursues the uneven tenor 
 of his hypothesis, — namely, that divergence of charac- 
 ter will produce distinct species, — seemingly serenely 
 oblivious of having mentioned anything which, in the 
 least, militated against his views. 
 
212 THE CROSSING, AC, OF PIGEONS AND FOWLS. 
 
 He says (p. 241, Vol. ii, Animals and Plants, &c): 
 
 " It was ordered that the Polish cock should have no 
 comb or wattles, and now a bird thus furnished, would 
 be at once disqualified." 
 
 It will be remembered, that he has previously stated, 
 that the absence of secondary, masculine characters, 
 occasioned partial or perfect sterility. 
 
 He then states the induction (alluded to above), 
 which, if he had any scientific acumen at all, should 
 convince him, that he may not normally, or with im- 
 punity, mould organisms into any form he lists ; but, 
 that all of the characters of the species, are absolutely 
 essential to physiological integrity. 
 
 " When man," says he (p. 273, Vol. ii, Animals 
 and Plants, &c.) "attempts to breed an animal with 
 some serious defect in structure, or in the mutual rela- 
 tion of the parts, he will either partially, or completely 
 fail or encounter much difficulty, and this is, in fact, a 
 form of natural selection. We have seen, that the 
 attempt was once made, in Yorkshire, to, breed cattle 
 with enormous buttocks, but the cows perished so 
 often, that the attempt had to be given up. In some 
 short-faced Tumblers, Mr. Eyton says, ' I am convinced 
 that better head and beak birds have perished in the 
 shell, than were ever hatched.' " 
 
 The " better head and beak birds " to which he 
 ■refers, means those with the smallest beaks and heads. 
 The violation of "the mutual relation of the parts," 
 does not end with this deterioration, in size, of the 
 head and beak, but extends, by correlation with those 
 characters, to the legs and feet; and is aggravated by 
 the reduction, in such birds, of many other features. 
 
THE CROSSING, &C, OF PIGEONS AND FOWLS. 2T3 
 
 " In order," he says (p. 283, Vol. ii, Animals and 
 Plants, &c), "that selection should produce any result, 
 it is manifest that the crossing of distinct races, must 
 be prevented. * * Although free crossing is a 
 danger on the one side, which every one can see, too 
 close-interbreeding is a hidden danger, on the other 
 side." 
 
 In other words, crossing "must be prevented," be- 
 cause such a process would prejudice the special ex- 
 cellence of the breed, and imperil the predominance of 
 the one part valued, by the development of the other 
 parts. " Serious defects in parts," and " in the mutual 
 relation of the parts," are what constitute the excellence 
 of the birds, in fanciers' eyes; for the pronounced 
 and exclusive development of some one peculiarity 
 is what makes each variety so unique and valuable. 
 
 On the other hand, "too close-interbreeding is a 
 hidden danger," because it is the Nemesis attending, 
 the suppression of those other parts, which are sup- 
 pressed in order to throw the given peculiarity into 
 prominence. 
 
 To put the whole philosophy of Darwin's double 
 warning, in a nutshell : All the characters are neces- 
 sary to be developed, in each individual; but, if the 
 fancier desires individuals, with one character only well- 
 developed, and with the other characters reduced or 
 suppressed, he must take care not to cross, for that will 
 be aiding the development of the characters which it is 
 desirable should be suppressed; and on the other hand, 
 he must look out for the evils which are visited upon 
 the individuals, for having those other parts reduced, 
 
 or suppressed. 
 24 
 
214 THE CROSSING, &C, OF PIGEONS AND FOWLS. 
 
 Another close miss is made, below, at the true 
 law. 
 
 "Facts teach us," says he (p. 282, Vol. ii, Animals 
 and Plants, &c), "a valuable lesson; namely, that we 
 ought to be extremely cautious in judging what char- 
 acters are of importance, in a state of nature, to animals 
 and plants." 
 
 This question is solved, to a nicety, by the process 
 of close-interbreeding. If great evil flows from such a 
 process, there are many characters wanting, which are 
 of importance : If no evils flow from any interbreeding, 
 however close or however prolonged, all of the charac- 
 ters of importance are present in the individual : All 
 of the positive characters of the given species, are in'a 
 physiological view, of importance ; both, in a state of 
 nature, and in a state of domestication. 
 , It is manifest, that, if the theory of reversion, or pro- 
 portionate development be true, it must be impossible 
 for any of these divergent varieties to transmit its type 
 for any great length of time, in an unbroken line of de- 
 scent. Such is the fact. The long-continued inter- 
 breeding of animals, lacking so many of the characters 
 of their species, would necessarily occasion debilitated 
 constitutions incompatible with existence, and also 
 occasion complete sterility. The history of the differ- 
 ent breeds, respectively, of the Pigeon, of the Fowl, 
 and of the Pig, reveals that such has been the case; 
 that it is, and has ever been, necessary, frequently to 
 replenish the stock of such breeds, by means of cross- 
 ing, and by accessions, or the new selection of such 
 varieties, from the races under nature, or from the less 
 
OF PIGEONS AND FOWLS. 275 
 
 divergent, and therefore the more proportionately de- 
 veloped varieties. 
 
 Darwin notices, that mention has been made, at in- 
 tervals during the last three hundred years, of several 
 varieties of the Pigeon, like those at present prevailing; 
 and he tacitly assumes, that those varieties have been 
 propagated, for that length of time, and that existing 
 varieties are the pure, lineal descendants of those varie- 
 ties. Now, the existing varieties cannot be traced, to 
 any great period back. They are independently pro- 
 duced from the wild, or rock-Pigeon ( Columba livia). 
 It was impossible, for our fancy varieties, to have 
 survived for the assumed length of time, without an 
 immense amount of crossing. For, individuals, so dis- 
 proportionately developed, as are those of the high 
 fancy breeds, must inevitably die out, unless such viola- 
 tion of the true mutual relation of their parts, is re- 
 trieved by crossing, continually resorted to. The indi- 
 viduals are incapable of close-interbreeding, without 
 injury; and, the further their divergence in character 
 is carried, the more their eventual extinction is hastened. 
 The only way that they may be able to survive, is at the 
 cost of their distinguishing type, namely by crossing. 
 When they have been crossed, interbreeding may be 
 carried on for awhile; after which, to stave off extinc- 
 tion and sterility, they are compelled to take on other 
 characters than those which distinguish their variety, 
 and they suffer, thereby, both the decrease of their 
 special excellence, and a relative abatement of its pre- 
 dominance. In this way only, may varieties, which 
 lack any of the positive characters of their species, and 
 
276 THE CROSSING, 4C, OF PIGEONS AND FOWLS. 
 
 which have the development of one character alone 
 carried to an extreme point, be saved from extinction. 
 The following is the cycle, around which such abnormal 
 types must swing : They diverge, in character; meet, 
 in consequence, the plainest threat of absolute sterility 
 and death from interbreeding'; they then forsake their 
 types, for the nonce, .to retrieve, by crossing, the char- 
 acters they need, to secure physiological repair; and 
 then diverge, anew, to repeat again the same round. 
 
 Such a round, however, has not long been pursued, 
 in the past. These divergent varieties have died out, 
 from the evil effects which such an abnormal ratio of 
 development of their characters has entailed. The 
 seeming, long continuance of high fancy breeds of 
 Pigeons, for instance, is due, not to those breeds hav- 
 ing perpetuated their kind, for such length of time; 
 but, to such breeds, having been recruited, from time 
 to time, by accessions from the wild pigeon stock 
 which, though degenerate, is yet of greater physiologi- 
 cal value, owing to the proportion of the characters 
 being better preserved, than it is in those breeds 
 wherein one or more characters are given an undue k 
 ascendancy. It is impossible for any breed or variety, 
 long to exist and preserve its type, when it lacks many 
 of the characters of its species. Forms, and groups of 
 forms, have disappeared from the earth. These forms, 
 after having arisen, have spread and continued abund- 
 ant for an era, and have eventually declined and 
 become extinct. It is not necessary, to invoke cata- 
 clysms, with which to account for species having been 
 swept from the face of the earth. Certain sets of con- 
 
THE CROSSING, AC., OF PIGEONS AND FOWLS. 217 
 
 ditions are necessary for the full development of the 
 characters of the several species. These conditions 
 change. With the change in the conditions, comes 
 the modification or suppression of certain of the char- 
 acters. Such modification of structure, entails less- 
 ened fertility, and, eventually, absolute sterility. The 
 Madeira beetles, for instance, which, Darwin says, have 
 been compelled, by the prevalence of high winds, to re- 
 duce their wings to a rudimentary condition, are pass- 
 ing through a course of extinction. Such reduction 
 creates lessened fertility, and lessened constitutional 
 vigor. The accumulated action of interbreeding, will, 
 in time, carry them off. Doubtless, other changes, in 
 the conditions of life, will ensue, and will, by causing 
 further modification of their form, hasten the sterility, 
 which will end the species. 
 
 Evolutionists argue, that there is a harmony, in 
 these adaptations, between the organism and its envi- 
 ronment ; that is, for instance, between the reduction of 
 these beetles' wings and the high winds of their 
 habitat. Whatever that harmony may be ; there is no 
 harmony, but an absolute incongruity, between the 
 modified structure and a perfect, physiological state. 
 There is, in one sense, a harmony subsisting between 
 the fox who has gnawed off his leg, and the trap 
 which closed upon Reynard's crural appendage. For, 
 if the relation were not that of a trap and a dismem- 
 bered fox, there soon would be no Reynard. But, 
 perfect harmony, assuredly, cannot be here predicated. 
 Vital, or Life harmony (as it might be termed), there 
 
 doubtless is ; but anatomical and physiological har- 
 24* 
 
278 THE CROSSING, &C, OF PIGEONS AND FOWLS. 
 
 mony, there, incontestably, is not. All of the instances 
 of adaptation, shown by Darwin, are, when they involve 
 a decrease of structure, instances which imply an ad- 
 vance towards sterility, and consequent extinction. 
 Where the adaptations cited, show increase of struc- 
 ture, the adaptations are possible, only because they 
 are the regain of structural integrity, previously lost. 
 It has been urged, that it is gratuitous, to allege that an 
 animal is in any way inferior, after having lost a char- 
 acter, through adaptation to changed conditions of 
 life. The answer to this is: We do not call im- 
 perfection what we merely fancy such, but prove it to 
 be imperfection, by the facts of close-interbreeding, 
 which demonstrate, that physiological evils, viz., less- 
 ened fertility, and lessened constitutional vigor, are 
 wrought upon the organism, in proportion, degree for 
 degree, with such alleged imperfection. 
 
 With varieties, under domestication, this process of 
 extinction, by means of the evils resulting from the 
 interbreeding of forms wanting in characters of their 
 species, is, with Pigeons, Fowls, and Pigs, hastened 
 by Man, through his effecting the reduction of so, 
 many characters, in each variety, and through his 
 altering the ratio of the development of the characters 
 which remain. Such varieties cannot long survive, if 
 they retain always their peculiarity of form. Darwin 
 speaks of high fancy varieties of the Pigeon, being 
 known, for hundreds of years ; and, obviously desires 
 it to be inferred, that such varieties may so long breed 
 their kind. This they cannot do. Of these varieties, 
 he himself says ; that they " seem both to have origi- 
 
THE CROSSING, AC, OP PIGEONS AND FOWLS. 219 
 
 nated and disappeared," and to have appeared again, 
 "within this same period," of two hundred and odd 
 years. He also refers to, and records the many breeds 
 which "have become extinct" (p. 508, Vol. ii, Animals 
 and Plants, &c). 
 
 The reason, that these fancy varieties continue their 
 breed the length of time that they do, is, because, first, 
 the differences, between the individuals of each variety, 
 serve, in a measure, to stave off the evil effects for a 
 time ; secondly, because these varieties frequently cross ; 
 and, thirdly, because these varieties change their forms, 
 from time to time, by means of the action of reversion 
 in some of their characters, and of the influence of 
 Man's Selection. 
 
 Darwin says (p. 262, Vol. ii, Animals and Plants, &c.) : 
 
 " Fashions do, to a certain extent, change ; first, one 
 point of structure, and then another, is attended to." 
 And again he says, " The fancy ebbs and flows." 
 
 This fashion and fancy are quite frequently controlled 
 and directed, unconsciously to man, by the fact that 
 health and breeding capacity are to be found, only in 
 those individuals which depart in some point from the 
 defective, varietal type. Man, therefore, in picking out 
 the strong individuals and the good breeders, unwit- 
 tingly changes the form of the variety. 
 
 With improved breeds of horses, of sheep, and of 
 cattle, there is a probability of their being able to con- 
 tinue their line, for many centuries, because they gener- 
 ally approximate the full and proportionate develop- 
 ment of their respective species. 
 
CHAPTER IX. 
 The Crossing and the Close-Interbreeding of Pigs. 
 
 Of the smaller animals, the Pigeon, and the Fowl, 
 as we have seen, show adaptation to man's use or 
 fancy, at the greatest expense to their structural integ- 
 rity. The results are, great disproportionate develop- 
 ment and, as a necessary consequence of this, the 
 greatest degree of the evils which are occasioned by 
 close-interbreeding. In all of the larger animals, except 
 the Pig, adaptation to man's use, has harmonized, to a 
 greater or less degree, with the development, in each 
 individual, of all the characters of its species. 
 
 With the Pig, as has just been remarked, it is other-, 
 wise. This species is the most disproportionately 
 developed, of all the larger animals, under domestica- 
 tion. The disproportionate development, however, i$ 
 due to a different occasion, from that which has entailed 
 the abnormal structures of varieties of the Fowl, and 
 of the Pigeon. In these species, under domestication, 
 the false ratio of the development of their characters, 
 is due, principally, to man's selecting, as the peculiarity 
 of each variety, one only of the characters which were 
 reduced or suppressed, under nature ; and to his push- 
 ing the development of that character, to an extreme 
 
 point. Thus, while all of the characters of the species, 
 (280) 
 
THE CEOSSING, AC, OF PIGS. 281 
 
 Pigeon, for instance, are developed, under domestica- 
 tion, they are not all developed, in each individual ; 
 but, many of them are apportioned among different 
 varieties. 
 
 With the Pig, however, there has been, under do- 
 mestication, direct reduction and suppression of many 
 of its characters. The same characters, have, in the 
 main, been reduced or suppressed, in all of the im- 
 proved (?) varieties of this species. Darwin, speaking 
 of breeding in general, and of the divergence, which 
 is so notably exemplified in the case of the pigeon, says 
 (p. 290, Vol. ii, Animals and Plants, &c.) : 
 
 " Selection, whether methodical or unconscious, 
 always tending towards an extreme point, together 
 "with the neglect and slow extinction of the inter- 
 mediate and less valued forms, is the key which un- 
 locks the mystery how man has produced such won- 
 derful results. In a few instances, selection, guided 
 by utility, for a single purpose, has led to' convergence 
 of character. All the improved and different races of the 
 Pig, as Nathusius has well shown, closely approach 
 each other in character, in their shortened legs, and 
 muzzles, their almost hairless, large, rounded bodies, 
 and small tusks:" 
 
 The only differences between the several breeds of 
 Pigs, are the degrees to which this reduction and sup- 
 pression has been carried ; and the degrees in which 
 those characters which have been retained, have been 
 developed. 
 
 In all of the highly improved breeds, the legs, the 
 tusks, the bristles, the hairy covering, the skin, the 
 front of the head, the jaws, and the tail, have., as 
 
282 THE CROSSING, 4C, OF PIGS. 
 
 has already been shown, been well-nigh eradicated, 
 leaving them to serve as the merest appendages to a 
 trunk, which, the more to vitiate the true ratio of the fea- 
 tures of the species, has been monstrously developed. 
 
 It is manifest, then, that it is to the Pig, of all the 
 larger animals, to which recourse should be had, for 
 evidence of the theory, that the evil effects of inter- 
 breeding, are due to a departure from the mould, which 
 comprises the full development of all the characters of 
 the given species. 
 
 If there was ever a species, under domestication, with 
 "serious defects in structure, or in the mutual relation 
 of the parts," it is the Pig, as it presents itself, when 
 "highly-bred." 
 
 Similarly : If there was ever a species, under domes-- 
 tication, which displayed marked evil effects from in- 
 terbreeding, it is the Pig. To no other species, under 
 man's care, does Darwin's remark, that, " Highly-bred 
 animals are eminently liable to degeneration," so appro- 
 priately apply. For, it has been frequently remarked, 
 by breeders, unconscious of the cause of the phe- 
 nomenon they note, that the more improved the Pig, # 
 the more susceptible does it appear to be to the evils of 
 lessened fertility, and delicacy of constitution. 
 
 Conformable to the presumption, raised by the great 
 reduction in the characters of the Pig, is the following 
 remark of Darwin : 
 
 "With Pigs," says he (p. 151, Vol. ii, Animals and 
 Plants, &c), " there is more unanimity amongst 
 breeders, on the evil effects of close-interbreeding, than, 
 perhaps, with any other large animal!' 
 
of pigs. 283 
 
 The evil effects of interbreeding, in the case of the 
 Pig, are a matter of general notoriety. In all of the 
 discussions, on the subject of in-and-in breeding, no 
 case meets.with such continual mention. Those, who 
 endeavor to gainsay the fact, that evil is generally 
 attendant upon close-interbreeding, signally and mis- 
 erably fail to invalidate the fact, that " well-bred " Pigs 
 die out altogether, after having been bred in-and-in, for 
 only a few generations. No one considers the fact, at 
 all questionable; though a few verge close upon the 
 truth, when they demur to the force of the circum- 
 stance; and allege that, somehow or other, man's 
 treatment of the animals, has occasioned the evil 
 effects. How the course of breeding, to which the 
 Pigs are subjected, has to do with the phenomenon, 
 they are at a loss to say. 
 
 The theory of proportionate development, discloses 
 the mystery. The suppression of certain characters, — 
 which, though of no direct use to the breeder, are yet 
 of incalculable, physiological importance to the ani- 
 mal, — has been the aim and object, in the development 
 of all the breeds. Being thus abnormally developed, 
 physiological, evil effects result, as matters of course. 
 
 It is apparent, that the evils, of interbreeding, will 
 never be corrected, whilst scientists prescribe to breed- 
 ers, such a mode of selection, as the following : 
 
 "Again," says Darwin (p. 236, Vol. ii, Animals and 
 Plants, &c), "hear what an excellent judge of Pigs, 
 says, ' The legs should be no longer, than just to pre- 
 vent the animal's belly from trailing on the ground. 
 The leg is the least profitable portion of the hog, and 
 we therefore require no more of it, than is absolutely 
 
284 THE CROSSING, 4C, OF PIGS. 
 
 necessary for the support of the rest.' Let any one 
 compare the wild boar with any improved breed, and 
 he will see how effectually the legs have been short- 
 ened." 
 
 Let any one compare, also, the fertility and strength 
 of constitution, of. the wild boar, or of any other pig 
 which runs wild and has its several characters devel- 
 oped by exercise, or by correlation with organs which 
 have been developed by exercise, with the little breeding 
 capacity, and the weakness of any, so-called, improved 
 breed, and he will see how effectually has the improved 
 breed been punished for its departure from the true 
 proportions of the original type. 
 
 Darwin says : 
 
 " Our wonderfully (!) improved Pigs could never 
 have been formed, if they had been forced to search 
 for their own food" (p. 283, Vol. ii, Animals and 
 Plants, &c). 
 
 No ; nor would they be so susceptible to the evil 
 effects, which have been brought upon them, through 
 outraging the proportion which is so necessary to 
 physiological integrity. Had they been suffered to 
 search for their own food, their legs would have grown*' 
 to a size, proportionate to that of their body ; and their 
 hair, bristles, tail, head, tusks, and snout, would also 
 have been adequately developed, through correlation 
 with the legs. 
 
 But, as Darwin says (p. 492, Vol. ii): 
 
 " Man does not regard modifications in the more 
 important organs * * as long as they are compati- 
 ble with life. What does the breeder care about any 
 slight change in the molar teeth of Pigs * * ?" 
 
op pigs. 285 
 
 Man thus contemptuously intimates his indifference 
 to the development of characters which do not sub- 
 serve his purposes ; yet, when grave evil waits upon 
 such neglect, Man shuts his eyes to the clear connection 
 between the two, and lulls his scientific instincts, by 
 pompously referring the strange phenomena to a " great 
 law of nature !" 
 
 That the cause assigned by the theory of Reversion, 
 for the lessened fertility, and for the delicacy of consti- 
 tution of Pigs, is a true one, is placed beyond all doubt, 
 by the fact, before alluded to, viz., that, with those in- 
 dividuals of the species, under nature, and with those 
 individuals of which little or no care is taken, there is 
 very little evil entailed; and, that little is developed, 
 only after many generations of the closest interbreed- 
 ing. The reason lies in the circumstance, that, in the 
 individuals under nature, and in those individuals which 
 are little cared for, those characters are developed, which 
 man either directly, or indirectly suppresses when he 
 superintends the breeding of the animals. With Pigeons 
 and Fowls, as has been seen, the farther, also, that man 
 carries his care of the animals, the greater are the evils 
 of close-interbreeding. But the cases are not exactly 
 analogous. With Pigeons and Fowls, the reason why 
 physiological degeneration attends the highly bred 
 breeds, is generally because, in each such variety, the 
 major portion of the characters become relatively re- 
 duced, by the exclusive development of the peculiarity, 
 of the breed, — which peculiarity is ever being carried 
 to an "extreme point." With the Pig, however, the re- 
 duction, in many of the characters, is not only relative 
 25 
 
286 THE CROSSING, 4C, OF PIGS. 
 
 to the advanced, exclusive improvement of other char- 
 acters, but is an absolute reduction. The more the 
 trunk is developed, the further, absolutely, are the legs, 
 tusks, hair, bristles, &c, reduced. Therefore, the greater 
 the improvement, the greater the evils of close-inter- 
 breeding. For, the point is made, by breeders, to carry 
 the reduction of the legs, tusks, hair, snout, &c, as far 
 as is compatible with the continued existence of the 
 animal. 
 
 Although the characters, mentioned as reduced, are 
 reduced in all of the highly improved individuals and 
 breeds, yet the very capacity to discriminate between 
 the different breeds, and between different individuals 
 of the same breed, shows, that the characters have not 
 all been reduced in the same degrees. The reduction, 
 in one character, has not, in one breed, or in one indi- 
 vidual, been so great, as it has been in another breed, 
 or other individual ; and, where one individual, or 
 breed, is much reduced in one character, and little re- 
 duced in another character, the converse may obtain, 
 in other breeds, or in the other individuals. So, it is 
 clear, that some gain, to offspring, in physiological^ 
 integrity is possible, when two breeds, or distant indi- 
 viduals, are crossed. 
 
 Where individuals fail to breed, owing to their dis- 
 proportionate development, the impotence is not abso- 
 lute. Those very individuals will be quite prolific, when 
 paired with individuals of dissimilar development. The 
 reason is, a certain number and proportion of charac- 
 ters are required, in the parent, for reproduction. If 
 an individual falls short of the required number and 
 
THE CROSSING, &C, OF PIGS. 28"? 
 
 proportion, it will be sterile, with others, of a like 
 structure ; because, from them, the characters wanting, 
 obviously cannot be supplied. But, when such indi- 
 vidual is bred with another, dissimilarly developed, he 
 will be fertile ; because this other has positive differ- 
 ences which go to make up, in the reproductive ele- 
 ments, the requisite number of characters required for 
 any degree of fertility. Thus, it is clear, that two indi- 
 viduals of different breeds, each of which is perfectly 
 sterile with others of its own breed, may be highly 
 fertile with each other. 
 
 The keeping, of stock, at different localities, has been 
 noticed, by Darwin, to have a tendency to eradicate 
 the evils of interbreeding. The reason is, at different 
 localities, there is different air, different food, there may 
 be different occasions for exercise of the legs and of 
 other parts ; and the effect on the development of any 
 one part, by means of such agencies, involves a cer- 
 tain degree of effect upon the development of other 
 parts, by correlation. This is the mystery of the less- 
 ened evil, effects, attendant upon the same degree of 
 interbreeding, when the individuals have been kept at 
 different stations. The mere difference, of the ground, 
 in one yard, where fowls, or Pigs are kept, being undu- 
 lating, to a degree, just perceptible to the eye ; and of 
 the ground, in the other yard, being of a dead level, 
 would occasion some decrease in the evil effects of 
 breeding two relations, kept at the different places. 
 The little increase, in exercise, required by the nature 
 of the ground, in the first instance, would strengthen 
 different parts and muscles of the legs and feet ; thence, 
 
288 THE CROSSING, 4C, OP PIGS. 
 
 by correlation, the head, and all of its appendages, would 
 be developed ; and thence, also, by correlation, the 
 hind portion of the body, and its appendages, would 
 be favorably influenced. 
 
 Darwin's theory denies him all knowledge of these 
 principles. The facts, however, which are inexplicable 
 to him, and which most forcibly suggest such princi- 
 ples, he gives : 
 
 "Mr. Druce," he says (p. 151, Vol. ii, Animals and 
 Plants, &c), "a great and successful breeder of the 
 Improved Oxfordshires (a crossed race), writes, 'with- 
 out a change of boars, of a different tribe, but of the 
 same breed, constitution cannot be preserved.' Mr. 
 Fisher Hobbes, the raiser of the celebrated Improved 
 Essex breed, divided his stock into three separate fami- 
 lies, by which means he maintained the breed for more 
 than twenty years (!) 'by judicious selection from the 
 three distinct families.' Lord Western was the importer 
 of a Neapolitan boar and sow. From this pair, he bred 
 in-and-in, until the breed \yas in danger of becoming 
 extinct, 'a sure result (as Mr. Sidney remarks) of in- 
 and-in breeding.' " 
 
 These pigs, to which he refers, would not have with- 
 stood the interbreeding, which they did, before threat-t 
 ening to become extinct, had they been of the type of 
 the well-bred (?) English pigs. They were Neapolitan 
 pigs, and had not the characters of legs, &c, so much 
 reduced, as the fashion, prevailing in England, requires. 
 
 Darwin continues : 
 
 " Lord Western then crossed his Neapolitan Pigs 
 with the old Essex, and made the first great step 
 towards the improved Essex breed. Here is a more in- 
 teresting case. Mr. J. Wright, well known as a breeder, 
 
289 
 
 crossed the same boar with • the daughter, grand- 
 daughter, and great-granddaughter, and so on, for 
 seven generations. The result was, that, in many in- 
 stances, the offspring failed to breed ; in others, they 
 produced few that lived; and, of the latter, many 
 were idiotic, without sense even to suck, and when 
 attempting to move, could not walk straight. Now, 
 it deserves especial notice, that the two best sows 
 produced by this long course of interbreeding, were 
 sent to other boars, and they bore several litters of 
 healthy pigs. The best sow, in external appearance, 
 produced during the whole seven generations, was one 
 in the last stage of descent ; but the litter consisted of 
 this one sow. She would not breed to her sire; yet 
 bred, at the first trial, to a stranger in blood, so that, 
 in Mr. Wright's case, long-continued and extremely 
 close-interbreeding did not affect the general form or 
 merit of the young; but, with many of these, the gen- 
 eral constitution, and mental powers, and especially 
 the reproductive functions, were seriously affected." 
 
 With respect to this last remark of his, it may be 
 asked : How is it possible, in his eyes, for close-inter- 
 breeding to affect, unfavorably, the general form of 
 the young, when the very degeneration in form, 
 which is occasioned by interbreeding, is what he, and 
 other breeders of Pigs, esteem an improvement ? In- 
 terbreeding intensifies any evil in parts. So, when a 
 well-bred Pig has its legs, tusks, &c, further reduced 
 by such a process, Darwin looks upon such an effept, 
 as an improvement which but enhances the value of 
 the animal. The same simple remark he makes, when 
 speaking of Pigeons. As before noticed, he, with 
 charming simplicity, notes that the evil effects pro- 
 duced upon the form, is far more noticeable in the case 
 25* 
 
290 THE CROSSING, AC, OP PIGS. 
 
 of long-beaked Tumblers, than it is with short-beaked 
 Carriers. Of course it is ; for, the aim of the breeder, 
 with the Tumblers, is to reduce the beak ;, and, when 
 this purpose is subserved by interbreeding, the breeder, 
 of course, cannot see, that any evil is produced. 
 
 To show, that these " innate-tendency "-and-" great- 
 law-of-nature " breeders and philosophers actually ' 
 fancy, that they may, ad lib., normally mould the form 
 of an animal, as clay in the hands of the potter, the 
 following suffices (page 236, Vol, ii, Animals and 
 Plants, &c.) : 
 
 " The eye has its fashion at different periods ; at one 
 time the eye high and outstanding from the head, and 
 at another the sleepy eye sunk into the head." 
 
 The sleepy eye, sunk into the head, is both a struc- 
 tural, and a physiological defect. * When, then, inter- 
 breeding were to intensify such defect, Darwin would 
 naively note, that he could not see that interbreeding 
 injuriously affected the form of the animal. The ques- 
 tion, in all such cases of evil effect upon the form, is, 
 with Darwin, resolved into the inquiry, What is the 
 fashion ? , 
 
 When a sow has not been bred in the strictest con- 
 formity to the English standard for the porcine form, — 
 which demands the greatest reduction, of all the char- 
 acters (save the fatj, that is consistent with the Pig's 
 existence, — it is possible for such sow to reproduce a 
 Pig. But, it is rather hard to expect the sow, — when 
 a lump of fat only, has left the impress of its force, 
 upon her reproductive element, — to effect such a dif- 
 ferentiation of parts, as is required for the formation of 
 
291 
 
 offspring. " Bricks without straw," were a facile opera- 
 tion, by comparison. It is, without doubt, true, that, 
 were the sow as well discipline.4 in habits of thought, 
 as have been those of her brethren who have "trod 
 the boards;" and, were she to devote her accom- 
 plishments to the study of Herbert Spencer's " First 
 Principle," she might (were no aberration of her 
 cerebral or reproductive system, to follow therefrom) 
 learn the trick (even were she the mould of form so 
 dear to an English pork-breeder's heart) of how to 
 evolve, by a necessary law, a homogeneity of fat, into 
 that heterogeneity of adipose tissue, yclept a Pig. 
 Herbert Spencer is immeasurably more astute than 
 is Darwin, in his exposition of the processes of evolu- 
 tion. When improvements occur, Darwin, with a sim- 
 plicity, born of little knowledge of the cavils in which 
 some people unkindly indulge, ascribes them to " in- 
 nate tendency," to "spontaneous variability;" a course, 
 which at once discloses, that such terms are but the 
 counters for ignorance. Not so Herbert Spencer. 
 Herbert Spencer explains the improvements, by re- 
 ferring them to a law which lies on the uttermost 
 verge of the domain of the Knowable; which he 
 terms " the instability of the homogeneous," by which 
 a "differentiation" ever results, from "a state of homo- 
 geneity," into " a state of heterogeneity." The beauty 
 of this explanation lies in the circumstance, that his 
 disciples, by the time that they have acquired a faint 
 glimmering of the meaning of his terms, are so com- 
 pletely exhausted, that they have not even a grain 
 of cerebral phosphorus left, with which to gauge the 
 
292 THE CROSSING, 
 
 utility of information, so happily conveyed. If English- 
 men valued their reputation among posterity, they 
 would make a holocaust of Spencer's works; for, to 
 have such a tissue of charlatanry represent, as it is 
 said to do, the highest phase of English thought, is the 
 most disgraceful commentary upon the intellectual life 
 of a nation, ever recorded in history. By this, it is not 
 meant to intimate that the intellect of Spencer, is on a 
 level with his works. To insinuate anything of the 
 kind, would be as unfair, as it would be to estimate 
 the understanding of a politician, from the impolitic 
 and inane measures which party exigencies, and am- 
 bition for preferment, had counseled him to advocate. 
 Herbert Spencer has merely availed himself of the pre- 
 vailing mode of thought, and of the intellectual weak- 
 nesses of the English people, to insure his personal 
 fame. No man could play so deftly upon the preju- 
 dices of the heterodox, and make them digest such 
 absurdities as he has propounded; and not be a man 
 of an order of intellect, somewhat above the average. 
 It seems, even, here and there throughout his works, 
 that he has, in a vein of cynical humor, endeavored^ 
 to see how far he might carry an experiment, upon 
 English credulity, without detection. A case in point, 
 is where he animadverts, in the most unmeasured terms, 
 against the illegitimate and unphilosophical mode of 
 referring any phenomena to "innate tendencies," or 
 other "metaphysical entities;" whereas, his whole 
 system is built ugon such proscribed references; and 
 these " metaphysical entities " do yeoman's duty, upon 
 well-nigh every page of his works. His principal cue, 
 
THE CEOSSING, 4C, Or PIQS. 293 
 
 in the elaboration of his synthesis, seems to have been, 
 that man, however heterodox he may be, is not, — can- 
 not be, — content with disbelief alone ; he needs a com- 
 plimentary belief, and is ever ready to believe anything 
 and everything (however absurd) which harmonizes 
 with his disbelief. Very, very few have ever read 
 Spencer's works; yet every man of "liberal" ideas, 
 swears by them. 
 
 To return to the sow: Darwin says (p. 151, Vol. ii, 
 Animals and Plants, &c): 
 
 "Nathusius gives an analagous, and even more 
 striking case ; he imported, from England, a pregnant 
 sow, of the large Yorkshire breed, and bred the pro- 
 duct closely in-and-in, for three generations ; the result 
 was unfavorable, as the young were weak in constitu- 
 tion, with impaired fertility. One of the latest sows, 
 which he esteemed a good animal, produced, when 
 paired with her own uncle (who was known to be pro- 
 ductive with sows of other breeds), a litter of six, and a 
 second time, a litter of only five weak, young pigs. 
 He then paired this sow with a boar of a small, black 
 breed, which he had likewise imported, and which boaf , 
 when matched with sows of his own breed, produced 
 from seven to nine young ; now, the sow, of the large 
 breed, which was so unproductive when paired with 
 her own uncle, yielded to the small black boar, in the 
 first litter, twenty-one, and in the second litter, eighteen 
 young pigs ; so that, in one year, she produced thirty- 
 nine fine, young animals." 
 
 The reason was : from the boar, of her own kind, 
 she received a male, sexual element, impressed with 
 the force of the few characters only, which she herself 
 had ; while, from the strange boar, which most probably 
 
294 THE CROSSING, AC, OP PIGS. 
 
 differed positively, from her, in several characters, she 
 received an element which augmented the power, of 
 reproduction, by adding, to what she gave to the forma- 
 tion of the offspring, the force of characters which she 
 had not. 
 
 The effects of interbreeding, upon the fertility of 
 Pigs, must not be estimated by the amount of fer- 
 tility in this animal, as compared with the amount 
 of fertility, in other species. The evil effects are to be 
 estimated, by comparison only, with the maximum 
 amount of fertility, for the given species. Thus, even 
 when the disproportionate development of a Pig, 
 causes the fertility of such animal to fall far short of 
 the maximum fertility of its species, it is more fertile 
 than (say) an elephant which is perfect in the integrity 
 of its species. So, the injury to the physiological in- 
 tegrity, would be erroneously estimated, were not the 
 criterion of perfection, to be the full measure of pro- 
 ductiveness, within the same species. Thus, the Pig 
 may have twenty, or thirty offspring, at a birth, and 
 another species have but two. In the one species, 
 therefore, the circumstance of having two at a birth, 
 might consist with perfection, in the animals; whereas, 
 the fact of having only a dozen, at a birth, would, with 
 the Pig, imply disproportionate development. A simi- 
 lar caution obtains, in estimating the degree of advance 
 towards perfection, by the number of characters re- 
 gained. It is not absolutely, the number, of characters, 
 which is necessary to physiological integrity. It is 
 the full number of the characters, proper to the given 
 species. As before remarked, the tiniest insect which 
 
THE CROSSING, AC, OF PIGS. 295 
 
 flies, if possessed of all the characters of its species, is, 
 to the full, as perfect, physiologically, as the elephant, 
 which is of such complex development 
 
 The principle before referred to, respecting the im- 
 possibility of an ill -proportioned breed, long continu- 
 ing its existence, without crossing, or otherwise chang- 
 ing its form, is strikingly displayed in the case of the 
 Pig, whose breeds are, under domestication, all ill-pro- 
 portioned. To ward off the extinction of the highly- 
 bred breeds of Pigs, crossing has to be resorted to, all 
 the time. In one of the quotations, above given, it is 
 seen that Darwin deems it worthy of note, that a Mr. 
 Fisher Hobbes, by means of "judicious selection," and 
 by " dividing his stock into three separate families," 
 "maintained the breed for more than twenty (!) years." 
 
 In this connection, Darwin says (p. 240, Vol. ii, 
 Animals and Plants, &c.) : 
 
 "Our Pigs, as Mr. Carrington remarks, during the 
 last twenty years, have undergone, through rigorous 
 selection, together with crossing, a complete metamor- 
 phosis!" 
 
 And again, in noting the many breeds, of all species, 
 which " have become extinct," he says : * * * 
 
 "At the present time, improved breeds sometimes 
 displace, at an extraordinarily rapid rate, older breeds ; 
 as has recently occurred throughout England, with 
 Pigs." 
 
 All of the present, cultivated breeds of Pigs, have 
 been produced by crossing. When crossed, the animals 
 start off with a stock of characters, derived from the 
 two old breeds ; which enables them to run for awhile, 
 
296 THE CROSSING, AC, OF PIGS. 
 
 before sterility and completely shattered constitutions, 
 are threatened. When these effects occur, the animal 
 is required again to be crossed, to preserve it ; and that 
 tolls the knell of the old breeds, and rings in the 
 advent of a new breed. When the individuals of this 
 new breed, become, by interbreeding, of a dead uni- 
 formity of character, they must repeat the same process, 
 and their breed undergo a complete metamorphosis. 
 Were the characters, which are reduced in these breeds, 
 all developed, th'e breeds might run their course, for 
 centuries, without being driven to a cross. Or, did 
 breeders give the legs a little shoWj they would not 
 be forced to the unpleasant necessity of so frequently 
 crossing their choice breeds. 
 
 Darwin says (page 120, Vol. ii, Animals and 
 Plants, &c): 
 
 "The improved Essex Pig owes its excellence to 
 repeated crosses with the Neapolitan, together, proba- 
 bly, with some infusion of Chinese blood." 
 
 The advantage of crossing with the Neapolitan, and 
 with Chinese breeds, is due to the fact, that the Nea- 
 politan and Chinese standards do not require the # 
 reduction of so many characters, as does the English 
 standard of Pig breeding. 
 
 " With most of the improved races of the Pig," says 
 Darwin (p. 120, Vol. ii, Animals and Plants, &c), 
 "there have been repeated crosses." 
 
 He says, that, owing to the great delicacy of consti- 
 tution, and to the sterility entailed upon highly-bred 
 animals, a great amount of crossing has been found 
 necessary, to keep the breeds from extinction. 
 
THE CROSSING, &C, OP PIGS. 291 
 
 "Chiefly in consequence of so much crossing" (p. 
 101, Vol. i, Animals and Plants, &c), "some well 
 known breeds have undergone rapid changes; thus, 
 according to Nathusius, the Berkshire breed of 1780, 
 is quite different from that of 1 8 10; and, since this 
 latter period, at least two distinct forms have borne the 
 same name." 
 
CHAPTER X. 
 
 The Crossing and Close-Jnterbreeding of Horses, 
 Sheep and Cattle. v 
 
 It has been shown, that, with Fowls and Pigeons, the 
 multiplicity of divergent varieties, observable in either 
 of these species, involves great disproportionate de- 
 velopment of the individual ; and, comformably to the 
 theory adduced in this work, it has been found, by 
 reference to the phenomena recorded by Darwin, that 
 such individuals are peculiarly susceptible to the evils 
 occasioned by interbreeding. 
 
 With the Pig, although there is no or very little di- 
 vergence of character, a failure in proportion of the 
 characters, has been caused, by a process of degenera- 
 tion, persisted in by Man, through a very mistaken 
 sense of policy. It has, likewise, been shown by Dar- 
 win's facts, that very great evil results from the reduc- 
 tion of the characters of the Pig. 
 
 It is now designed to show, that with those species, 
 
 under domestication, whose individuals approximate 
 
 the true type of their respective species, there is an 
 
 almost complete exemption from the evils of lessened 
 
 fertility, and of lessened constitutional vigor, however 
 
 long and closely, the individuals may be interbred. It 
 
 must be remembered, that it is not necessary to show 
 (298) 
 
THE CROSSING, &C, OF CATTLE, ET AL. 299 
 
 a total absence of evil ; for, even individuals of the same 
 family, differ, in some degree, from each other; and, 
 that necessarily, implies, that all but one of the indi- 
 viduals, are measurably degenerate. 
 
 The true ratio of the development of the characters 
 of a species, or due coordination, is realized more in the 
 Horse, in the Cow, and in the Sheep, than in any other 
 animals upon which man has bestowed any degree of 
 care. Though the individuals, of each of these species, 
 may lack one or more of the characters of their respec- 
 tive species, and may vary, to some extent, the just 
 relation of their parts; they are, comparatively, pro- 
 portionately developed. With them, there is no such 
 division of features, among the different varieties, as is 
 met with, in the case of the Pigeon and of the Fowl. 
 Neither, is there such a reduction and suppression of 
 parts, as are observed in the Pig. 
 
 With Cattle, with Sheep, and with Horses, all of the 
 characters, of the respective species, are retained, in 
 each of the varieties. True it is, especial care may be 
 given, in each of several varieties, to some one excel- 
 lence; and, the true proportion may be thus, in some 
 degree, affected; yet, such proportion is not much 
 altered, because, together with the special feature, the 
 other parts are suffered to develop themselves: — to 
 which development accidental circumstances often con- 
 tribute, such as the exercise which the animals are per- 
 mitted, and the degree of self-feeding, to which they are 
 accustomed. This concurrent bringing- up of all the 
 characters, in each individual, has precluded that diver- 
 gence of character, which is so observable, in Pigeons 
 
300 THE CROSSING, 4C, OF CATTLE, ET AL. 
 
 and Fowls, and, which is so prolific of evil, by reason 
 of its entailing, in each individual or variety, the absence 
 of the important, positive peculiarities of others of the 
 same species. 
 
 The fact, of individuals of each of the Horse, Sheep, 
 and Cow species, falling thus so little short of the 
 original type of their respective species, leads to the 
 expectation, that little, or no evil is the outcome of 
 their interbreeding. This expectation, with respect to 
 Cattle, and to Sheep, is amply fulfilled by Darwin's 
 facts. 
 
 With respect to the Horse, it may be said, that it is, 
 manifestly, of all animals, the most proportionately de- 
 veloped. Race-horses, and dray-horses, are very dis- 
 tinct; but very distinct, only, for breeds of Horses. 
 What constitutes a great difference, between breeds 
 of Horses, is, compared with the differences between 
 breeds of other species, a very slight distinction. In 
 the Horse, all or nearly all of the characters maintain 
 the true relation. The theory of reversion, then, re- 
 quires, that the facts should show the possibility of the 
 highly-bred animals, of this species, being long and^ 
 closely interbred, with impunity. It would be an occa- 
 sion of surprise, if the horse was not a most striking 
 instance, of exemption from the injurious results of 
 this process. 
 
 Yet, strange to relate, there is, notwithstanding the 
 fact that the evidence, obtainable upon this subject, is 
 both most abundant and widespread, a remarkable 
 absence, in Darwin's works, of all mention of the ex- 
 perience of breeders, respecting the crossing and the 
 
OF CATTLE, ET AL. 301 
 
 interbreeding of Horses. Could it have been, — what 
 there is so much throughout his books, to warrant 
 one in suspecting, — that Darwin guessed the true 
 secret of the in-and-in breeding process, and feared 
 lest, if he noted the Horse's exemption from the evil 
 results, the current conception of symmetry, which 
 attaches, peculiarly, to the Horse, would evoke the 
 truth, namely, that the proportionate development of 
 the characters of a species, is the sine qua non of per- 
 fect physiological condition ? 
 
 The stipulation, with which we started, — viz., that 
 both the Refutation and the Converse Theory, would 
 be based exclusively upon Darwin's facts, — precludes 
 any detailed reference to the evidence, showing how 
 the Horse does withstand in-and-in breeding. It is a 
 matter of such common notoriety, however, that, pos- 
 sibly, any such evidence which Darwin might have 
 furnished, would be esteemed by the ' reader, as need- 
 less, furnished as the reader now has been with the 
 light afforded by the idea of Reversion. 
 
 With respect to Cattle, and to Sheep, Darwin says 
 (p. 146, Vol. ii, Animals and Plants, &c): 
 
 "With Cattle, there can be no doubt, that 
 extremely close-interbreeding may be long car- 
 RIED on; advantageously, with respect to external char- 
 acters, and with no manifestly apparent evil, as far as 
 constitution is concerned. The same remark is appli- 
 cable to Sheep. 
 
 "Whether these animals have gradually been ren- 
 dered less susceptible, than others, to this evil, in order 
 to permit them to live in herds, — a habit which leads 
 the old and vigorous leaders to expel all intruders, 
 W 
 
302 
 
 and, in consequence, often to pair with their own 
 daughters,, I will not pretend to decide." (!) 
 
 How coolly, Design is here invoked, to extricate 
 this brilliant disciple of Bacon, from the quandary he 
 is now in. When our heterodox friends fancy, that 
 some secondary law which they have discovered, or 
 some apology therefor, which they have deftly de- 
 vised, contravenes the doctrine of Final Causes, they 
 take care to acquaint the world, in tones of dignified 
 severity, that they esteem such doctrine, a monster of 
 most frightful mien, born 6f the distempered imagina- 
 tions of the superstitious ; but, when this principle, — so 
 much abused in the houses, both of its friends and of 
 its foes,: — will alone, they conceive, subserve the pur- 
 pose of patching up their ragged, and flimsy theories, 
 with what charming suavity, they court and embrace 
 it ! We believe in the doctrine, — not in such an appli- 
 cation, as is above made of it however ; — but, we do 
 not deem ourselves bound therefore to believe every 
 absurdity which is adduced in evidence thereof. It is 
 ignorance alone, which holds itself constrained to fall 
 back upon the doctrine of Final Causes. There is. 
 never, need to invoke the doctrine, to solve any diffi- 
 culty. For, wherever its operation, in any instance, 
 may be definitively settled; there are always sec- 
 ondary laws which wholly preclude the necessity of 
 any reference to it. Where such secondary laws 
 are not positively known to subserve it, — however 
 proper it may be to admit it as an element of moral 
 evidence, — it has no title to admission within the do- 
 main of positive science. So, in either contingency, 
 
THE CROSSING, &C, Or CATTLE, ET AL. 303 
 
 it has no concern to be mixed up in scientific contro- 
 versies. 
 
 Darwin's beautiful tribute to the efficacy of Divine 
 Government, will avail him, or his theory, not a jot, 
 in the presence of the facts. It is to be lamented, that, 
 when Darwin does essay a little orthodoxy, it should 
 be so palpably misdirected. The simple solution, of 
 the phenomenon to which he refers, is, that, for what- 
 ever disproportion resides in any individual, that 
 individual must pay the penalty, in the evils, usually 
 incident to close-interbreeding: But, as with Cattle, 
 the violation of structural symmetry, has been little, 
 the physiological penalty is correspondingly small. 
 Could an explanation be more satisfying? or, could 
 any assigned cause be more readily and easily adjust- 
 able to actual and possible variations in the quantity of 
 the effects? 
 
 Continuing, Darwin says: 
 
 "The case of Bakewell's Longhorns, which were 
 closely interbred for a long period, has often been 
 quoted; yet, Youatt says, the 'breed had acquired a 
 delicacy of constitution, inconsistent with common 
 management,' and 'the propagation of the species 
 was not always certain.' But, the Shorthorns offer 
 the most striking case of close-interbreeding : for in- 
 stance, the famous bull, Favorite (who was himself, 
 the offspring of a half-brother and sister from Foljambe), 
 was matched with his own daughter, granddaughter, 
 and great-granddaughter; so that the produce of this 
 last union, or the great-great-granddaughter had fifteen- 
 sixteenths or 93.75 per cent, of the blood of Favorite 
 in her veins. This cow was matched with the bull 
 Wellington, having 62.5 per cent, of Favorite blood 
 
304 
 
 THE CEOSSING, 4C, OF CATTLE, ET AL. 
 
 in his veins, and produced Clarissa: Clarissa was 
 matched with the bull Lancaster, having 68.75 P e r 
 cent, of the same blood, and she yielded valuable 
 offspring. Nevertheless, Collings, who- reared these 
 animals, and was a strong advocate for close-inter- 
 breeding, once crossed his stock with a Galloway, and 
 the cows from the cross realized the highest prices." 
 
 These animals approached very close to the perfect 
 form of their species. They needed, perhaps, little 
 more than a greater development of their horns (which 
 were short), to enable them to withstand, forever, the 
 closest interbreeding. With respect to the Longhorns ; 
 the reason, that evil results began eventually to tell 
 upon them, was due, perhaps, to their horns being 
 pushed to a development, far out of proportion to the 
 size of their other characters (which is a defect as se- 
 rious, as where the error lies in the other direction, 
 viz.: of inordinate decrease in size of such a feature); 
 and, due to other defects in proportion. The absence, 
 in an animal, of the many slight, positive differences 
 which characterize others of the same breed, and of 
 other breeds, occasions defects which a long continued 
 course of in-and-in breeding will cause to tell palpably % 
 upon the organization. Even, when the true theory 
 of development is accepted, as a standard, an individual 
 may be esteemed the very ideal of proportionate de- 
 velopment, yet, when a minute comparison is made of 
 the animal, with others of its species, it will be dis- 
 covered, in how many little points, here and there, 
 improvement remains to be effected, 
 
 For, as Darwin says (p. 10, Vol. 2, Animals 
 Plants, &c): 
 
OF CATTLE, ET AL. 305 
 
 " Probably, no two individuals are identically the 
 same:" no two "are of a face:" "the shepherd knows 
 each sheep, and man can distinguish a fellow-man, out 
 millions, upon millions, of other men:'" and "Shep- 
 herds have won wagers, by recognizing each sheep, 
 in a flock of a hundred, which they had never seen, 
 until the previous fortnight." 
 
 Now, this power of discrimination, — based as it is, 
 upon the conscious, or unconscious perception of fea- 
 tures, peculiar to the individuals so distinguished, — gen- 
 erally implies, that there are many positive points of 
 structure, which even a seemingly perfect and symmet- 
 rical individual must lack. Many, therefore, of these 
 little features, — just recognizable by a practiced eye, — 
 when added up, make a sum of defects, which is calcu- 
 lated to tell, after many generations of close-inter- 
 breeding. 
 
 In a cow, for instance, in which it would be difficult 
 to see, wherein the animal was in any wise deficient, 
 there may yet be some slight detail of proportion,, 
 wanting, in every one of the following characters : in 
 the horns, in the legs, in the hoofs, in the ears, in the 
 eyes, in the tail, in the nostrils, in the muzzle, in the 
 coating of hair, in the neck, in the chest, in the ribs 
 (defected slightly, for instance, from the true curve, or 
 arch), in the shoulder, in the rump, in the vertebrse, 
 and in numberless other characters, both internal, and 
 external. 
 
 When two individuals, which are similarly defective 
 in these almost infinitesimal points, are matched, they 
 will not be susceptible, to any appreciable degree, of 
 evil ; but will, for many generations, rather, go on im- 
 
306 
 
 THE CROSSING, &C, OF CATTLE, ET AL. 
 
 proving. But, after (say) twenty, or thirty generations 
 of interbreeding, between (say) brothers and sisters, 
 the evil will begin to manifest itself; unless, the ca- 
 pacity for reversion, in these slightly deteriorated parts, 
 has been able to outstrip the exacerbation, consequent 
 upon the community of defects, in the individuals 
 paired; or unless the brothers and sisters were dis- 
 similar in these little points,— which would not be 
 unlikely. 
 
 When regarded by themselves, it is apparent, from 
 what is known of the diversity'prevailing among the 
 different breeds of cattle, that the individuals vary 
 much from what can be estimated to Be the true ratio 
 of the development of the characters of the said 
 species. But, such, departure from the true type, im- 
 plied from their diversity, seems scarce worthy of 
 thought, when the great disproportion of Pigs, Pigeons, 
 and Fowls (especially of the high fancy breeds thereof), 
 recurs to the mind. 
 
 Again Darwin says, respecting Cattle : 
 
 " Mr. Bates's herd was esteemed the most celebrated 
 in the world. For thirteen years, he bred most * 
 closely in-and-in ; but, during the next seventeen 
 years, though he had the most exalted notion of the 
 value of his own stock, he thrice infused fresh blood 
 into his herd; it is said, that he did this, not to im- 
 prove the form of his animals, but on account of their 
 lessened fertility. Mr. Bates's own view, as given by 
 a celebrated breeder, was that ' to breed in-and-in from 
 a bad stock, was ruin and devastation ; yet, that the 
 practice may be safely followed, within certain limits, 
 when the parents, so related, are descended from first- 
 
THE CROSSING, &C, OF CATTLE, ET AL. 307 
 
 rate animals.' We thus see that there has been ex- 
 tremely close-interbreeding with Shorthorns ; but Na- 
 thusius, after the most careful study of their pedi- 
 grees, says that he can find no instance of a breeder, 
 who has strictly followed this practice, during his 
 whole life. From this study, and his own experience, 
 he concludes that close-interbreeding is necessary to 
 ennoble the stock; but that, in effecting this, the great- 
 est care is necessary on account of the tendency to in- 
 fertility and weakness." 
 
 Had the defect, which the name, Shorthorns, con- 
 notes, been supplied, the animals just mentioned, could 
 go on interbreeding, for double, treble the time ; aye, ' 
 forever, were there no positive differences, possessed 
 by other cattle, — thereby implying that, in some details, 
 the former were deficient. The evil, of the shortened 
 horns, is indirectly, but surely shown, by the following 
 remark of Darwin: 
 
 "It may be added" (p. 174, Vol. ii, Animals and 
 Plants, &c), "that another high authority asserts, that 
 many more calves are born cripples, from Shorthorns, 
 than from any other and less closely interbred races of 
 Cattle." 
 
 This effect is due, to the fact, that the horns and the 
 legs are correlated, in all animals ; and, therefore, when 
 one, of two parts which are so tied or correlated to- 
 gether, is absent or reduced, the other is, in some 
 degree, weakened. This injury to the balance of the 
 organization, is, of course, augmented by the mating 
 of two individuals in which the said defects similarly 
 obtain ; and, this is the reason of the strange phenome- 
 non which Darwin notes. 
 
308 
 
 With respect to the interbreeding of Sheep, Darwin 
 says: 
 
 "With Sheep, there has often been long-con- 
 tinued INTERBREEDING WITHIN THE LIMITS OF THE 
 
 same flock ; but, whether the nearest relatives have 
 been matched so frequently, as in the case of Short- 
 horn Cattle, I do not know. The Messrs. Brown, during 
 fifty years, have never infused fresh blood into their ex- 
 cellent flock of Leicesters. Since 1810, Mr. Barford has 
 acted on the same principle, with the Foscote flock. 
 He asserts, that one half a century of experience, has 
 convinced him, that when two nearly related animals 
 are quite sound in constitution, in-and-in breeding does 
 not induce degeneracy; but, he adds, that he 'does not 
 pride himself on breeding from the nearest affinities.' 
 In France, the Naz flock has been bred, for sixty years, 
 without the introduction of a single, strange ram. Never- 
 theless, most great breeders of sheep have protested 
 against close-interbreeding prolonged for too great 
 length of time. The most celebrated of recent breeders, 
 Jonas Webb, kept five separate families to work on, 
 thus retaining the requisite distance of relationship be- 
 tween the sexes." 
 
 And, then continuing, Darwin says, that : 
 
 "By the aid of careful selection, the near interbreed- % 
 ing of Sheep may be long continued, without any mani- 
 fest evil" 
 
 It is a noteworthy fact, that all of the breeders, 
 quoted by Darwin, unlike Darwin, seem to have hewn 
 their opinions, close to the line of the facts. They 
 formulate no " great law of nature ! " Darwin doubt- 
 less calls it a "law" upon the lucusa non lucendo prin- 
 ciple; — because it governs nothing. 
 
 It may be thought strange, that Darwin, who so 
 
THE CROSSING, AC, OF CATTLE, ET At. 309 
 
 economizes facts which are " ugly'' in the aspect they 
 wear towards his theory, should have adduced these 
 phenomena, respecting Cattle and Sheep, which mili- 
 tate so strongly against his "law." 
 
 There is one explanation, which needs not any con- 
 jecture, to establish its soundness. It is, — that he is bent 
 upon showing, that the whole subject of fertility is so 
 completely "muddled," that it is unfair to draw any 
 inference, against his theory, from the sterility of hy- 
 brids. As before intimated, it shall be demonstrated 
 how little such an ingenious device avails him. An- 
 other reason, which may explain why he adduces the 
 evidence of the exemption, of these proportionately 
 developed animals, from the evils of^ interbreeding, is, 
 that he doubtless deems the strength and validity of 
 his " law," in question and in doubt, until he shows 
 exceptions to its operation; — upon the principle, that 
 "the exceptions prove the rule." If such be the case, 
 his readers have a perfect Bonanza of assurance upon 
 that point. 
 
 On page 175, Vol. ii, Animals and Plants, &c, 
 he again reiterates his "great law of nature," and 
 adds : 
 
 "The rule applies to all animals, even to Cattle and 
 Sheep, which can long resist breeding in-and-in 
 between the nearest blood relations." 
 
 The fact, of his here being necessitated to note, that 
 the rule applies " even to Cattle and Sheep," is not 
 without its significance. 
 
 Again he says (p. 213, Vol, ii, Animals and Plants, 
 
 &c), referring to Cattle and Sheep, and, doubtless, to 
 27 
 
310 THE CROSSING, 
 
 those individuals of each species, which have all the 
 characters of their species, well developed : 
 
 "With some animals, close-interbreeding may be 
 carried on, for a long period, with impunity, by the 
 selection of the most vigorous and healthy individuals ; 
 but, sooner or later, evil follows." 
 
 The questions, however, for Darwin to answer, are, 
 Why sooner? and, Why later? 
 
 The experience of breeders shows unequivocally, 
 that extremely long-continued, close-interbreeding is 
 possible with Cattle and Sheep. This is an occasion 
 of no surprise, when it is remarked, how propor- 
 tionately developed these animals are, in comparison 
 with other species. 
 
 The testimony also acquaints us with the fact, that, 
 although this process may be long carried on, evil at 
 length begins to manifest itself. Nor, is there room 
 for marvel, in this connection. For, although all of the 
 characters of each species, have a passably fair chance 
 to become developed, there is always some one char- 
 acter, in each breed, to the development of which the 
 breeder devotes especial care. Besides this, some de- % 
 fects in the true proportion, are frequently occasioned 
 by blind conformity to certain standards existing in the 
 breeder's mind; or, to a certain standard prescribed 
 by fashion; or, defects are present, through breeders 
 having deemed it politic to continue a certain, defec- 
 tive arrangement, of characters, which originally and 
 accidentally accompanied the special excellence of 
 the breed, as the preservation intact of the build as 
 originally discovered (inclusive of such defects), would 
 
THE CROSSING, AC, OF CATTLE, ET AL. 311 
 
 be deemed a guaranty of purity of blood. They are 
 moved to this, frequently, by the fancy that, in some 
 mysterious way, the special excellence is dependent 
 upon such peculiar build. To preserve this peculiar 
 ratio of the characters, the breeder is forced to inter- 
 breed the individuals, and, of course, after a time, short 
 or long, according as the proportion has been impaired, 
 the consequent evil become.s manifest. 
 
 It is apparent, that, when it is an object with each 
 breeder, to preserve the type of his breed, there is 
 little attempt to remedy any defects in structure. 
 
 As Darwin remarks (page 195, Vol. i, Animals and 
 Plants, &c): 
 
 "Any visible deviation of character, in a well-estab- 
 lished breed, is rejected as a blemish." 
 
 Is it any wonder, that evil effects do eventually 
 result, when, not only are many little points of struc- 
 ture left to continue defective, but, when the point 
 aimed at, by breeders, is to bring all of the animals, 
 of a breed, which are to be interbred, to a dead uni- 
 formity of character, which is replete with defects ? 
 
 " Youatt urges the necessity," says Darwin (p. 236, 
 Vol. ii, Animals and Plants^ &c), " of annually draft- 
 ing each flock (of sheep) ; as many animals will cer- 
 tainly degenerate, ' from the standard of excellence 
 which the breeder has established in his own mind.' " 
 
 Breeders, in pursuance of this course of preserving 
 what they have seen fit to regard as the proper type, 
 for any variety, even discard, and " weed " out (as they 
 say), many positive points of structure, which are 
 sorely needed, to fill out the proportion. 
 
312 THE CROSSING, &C, OF CATTXE, ET AL. 
 
 As before marked, the undue development of the 
 special excellence of a variety, is the principal element, 
 in the evils which ultimately manifest • themselves. 
 Where the horns are the peculiarity of a breed, they 
 are pushed to a development, out of all proportion. 
 The extreme development of the udders, and mam- 
 mary glands, in many breeds, is not without its dele- 
 terious effect. It will be, doubtless, fully understood, 
 that this extreme development, referred to, is not an 
 absolute evil ; but an evil, only relatively to the lesser 
 development of the other characters. Then, the im- 
 mense coats of wool, which many small sheep are 
 forced to produce, mar the proportion. 
 
 Darwin says (page 239, Vol. ii, Animals and 
 Plants, &c) : 
 
 " Sheep are bred and valued, almost exclusively for 
 the fineness of the wool." 
 
 It remains a question, to be settled by future experi- 
 ments in close-interbreeding, whether coarseness is not 
 the normal condition of the wool. If so (which is 
 probable), the quality of wool, produced for Man's 
 benefit contributes its quota to the evil. 
 
 Of course, it would never do, for Man to forego the 
 production of fine wool, in order to perfect the physi- 
 ological integrity of the Sheep. Nor, would there be 
 any adequate occasion ; for, the effect of reduction, in 
 size, of the threads of wool, would not manifest itself, — 
 if all other characters of the sheep were fully and pro- 
 portionately developed, — until after fifty generations, 
 perhaps, of the closest possible interbreeding. 
 
 The fault to be found with Man's processes of breed- 
 
THE CROSSING, AC, OF CATTLE, ET AL. 313 
 
 ing, is not, that he subordinates the health and fertility 
 of the animal or plant, to the special object in view ; 
 but that he ignorantly reduces and suppresses parts, in 
 the organisms, and suffers them to remain reduced or 
 suppressed, when no purpose of his is to be subserved 
 thereby ; and, when the ends he aims at, are thereby 
 eventually defeated, and toil and trouble occasioned 
 him, by the lessened fertility, the sterility, and deli- 
 cacy of constitution which, after all he has done to 
 provoke them, appear so mysterious to him. The 
 same remark is applicable to the extreme development 
 of the udders, in cattle : Let man but see that points in 
 the structure of the animals, are developed, which it 
 is now a matter of indifference to breeders, whether 
 they are developed or not; and he will find no 
 material obstacle in the effect on the fertility and vigor, 
 produced by such undue development of the udders. 
 Not only does Man, in his breeding of Cattle and of 
 Sheep, produce the evil results of close interbreeding, 
 by carrying a special excellence to excess, and by con- 
 tinuing the false proportion, of characters, which ex- 
 isted when such special excellence was assigned as the 
 peculiarity of a breed ; but he also, from misguided 
 policy, reduces some characters which, he fancies, are 
 in no wise profitable to him. How far profitable, they 
 may be, to the animal, he never stops to consider. 
 He considers a little, when the results of interbreeding 
 occur to vex him ; but, so blinded is he, and so im- 
 bued with the idea, that all organisms were assigned to 
 his care, to mould, as he lists, that this element, — the 
 reduction of which he has effected, — never enters into 
 27* 
 
314 
 
 any conjecture he may make as to the cause of the 
 evil. 
 
 Not only are characters directly reduced by the 
 breeder; but other characters, also, are degenerated, 
 either, owing to the adverse conditions in which the 
 animals are placed, or owing to correlation with fea- 
 tures which, from any cause, do not attain to propor- 
 tionate development. 
 
 An example of this, is given by Darwin, in the 
 following remark (page 361, Vol. ii, Animals and 
 Plants, &c): 
 
 "With respect to Cattle, Professor Tanner has re- 
 marked, that the lungs and liver in the improved breeds, 
 'are found to be considerably reduced in size, when 
 compared with those possessed by animals having per- 
 fect liberty;' and the reduction of these organs affects 
 the general shape of the body. The cause of the re- 
 duced lungs, in highly-bred animals which take little 
 exercise, is obvious; and, perhaps, the liver may be 
 affected by the nutritious and artificial food on which 
 they largely subsist." 
 
 It is likely, also, that the reduced size of the liver 
 may be due, either to direct correlation with the com- 
 paratively little exercised legs, or to correlation with 
 the head and its several appendages, which are, them- 
 selves, immediately correlated with the legs. 
 
 Of the reduction of characters, by Man, the Pig 
 affords the most notable instance. With the Sheep, 
 however, it has been deemed, in some instances, desira- 
 ble to make the bones of the leg, as thin as possible ; 
 such being considered a "saving!" The legs have 
 also been divested, as far as possible, of any woolly 
 
THE CROSSING, &C, Or CATTLE, ET AL. 315 
 
 covering; and the flesh thereon, it has been a point, to 
 reduce to a minimum. The animals are even placed 
 upon a table, as mentioned below by Darwin; and, it 
 is thus ascertained, how far a " saving " may be had, 
 in the internal organs; and, how far the fat (which is 
 tissue which has undergone a retrograde metamorpho- 
 sis) may be extended. These things ascertained; the 
 relatives of those animals esteemed worthy of com- 
 mendation, are interbred ; and (some of), the results de- 
 sired, thereby attained — and some, results, too, which 
 are not desired. 
 
 Darwin says (p. 33, Origin of Species): 
 
 "Sheep are placed on a table, and are studied, like a 
 picture by a connoisseur; this is done three times, at 
 intervals of months, arid the sheep are each time 
 marked and classed, so that the very best may ulti- 
 mately be selected for breeding." 
 
 Even Darwin sees that the reduction of characters 
 is injurious; but he does not extend the induction, — 
 doubtless, because he perceived that, if he did, his 
 "great law of nature" would lose in dignity, by thus 
 becoming less mysterious and inscrutable. 
 
 " Youatt believes," says he (p. 293, Vol. ii, Animals 
 and Plants, &c), "that the reduction of bone, in some 
 of our Sheep, has already been carried so far that it 
 entails great delicacy of constitution." 
 
 The reason, for instance, that Merinoes have a ten- 
 dency to barrenness, is because, among other defects, 
 their legs are small in the bone, their breasts and backs 
 are narrow, and their sides are somewhat flat; and 
 because their foreheads are low, and there is under 
 
316 THE CROSSING, AC, OF CATTLE, ET AL. 
 
 the throat, a singular looseness of skin, or hollow- 
 ness in the neck. Everything is sacrificed to fineness 
 and quantity of wool, in them. This is the criterion ; 
 and, however deformed, or miserable the carcase is, it 
 always passes muster, if the special excellence be su- 
 perior, or up to the average of the breed. The conse- 
 quence is, invariably, the eventual ruin of the animals, 
 which die out, unless crossing is resorted to ; which re- 
 plenishes the organic stock, and saves the individuals 
 from sterility and extinction. The proportion of the 
 carcase, is not even a secondary consideration, with 
 breeders ; the most radical defects, in structure, being 
 often relied on, as assuring the purity of the breed. 
 
 Bakewell, of Leicestershire, in the middle of the 
 last century, seems to have been the only breeder who 
 ever had a glirhmering of the correct principle of 
 breeding. His aim was, to procure the proportionate 
 development of all the characters, in his Sheep. The 
 effects of this policy, are observable to the present 
 day, in the .descendants of his breed. It is they, to 
 which Darwin refers, as being the animals which are 
 exceptionally exempt from the evils of long-continued, 
 close-interbreeding ! Darwin also remarks, respecting 
 them (p. 236, Vol. ii, Animals and Plants, &c): 
 
 " Lord Somerville, in speaking of the marvelous 
 improvement of the New Leicester Sheep, effected by 
 Bakewell, and his successors, says, 'It would seem, as 
 if they had just drawn a perfect form, and then given 
 it life.' " 
 
 Yet, breeders, whilst admiring the perfection of form, 
 and the almost complete exemption from evil, attend- 
 
THE CROSSING, &C, OF CATTLE, ET AL. 317 
 
 ant thereon, will go on breeding animals, and make no 
 attempt to repair such defects, as legs reduced in size, 
 and in bone, and void of wool ; a head hornless, 
 small, concave or too abruptly tapering ; body either 
 diminished in width, towards the rump, or, with chest 
 and barrel narrow and shallow; the ribs, forming but 
 a meagre arch from the spine ; the back, hollow ; the 
 ears, small; the withers, depressed; the tail, short and 
 small ; and other variations from the true symmetry 
 of build. 
 
 Blackwell made, what must be considered, in theory, 
 as a mistake; although, practically, it was not such. 
 Reference is had, to the small size at which he aimed, 
 in all his animals. He was governed, in this, by per- 
 ceiving, that smaller animals are of more profit to the 
 breeder, because they consume less food, as the same 
 amount of pasture, which feeds a smaller number of 
 large animals, will suffice a larger number of small 
 ones. 
 
 Upon even the strictest, practical principles of breed- 
 ing, he was justified, in this course. For, if the pro- 
 portion of the characters be maintained, it matters but 
 little, within certain limits, how the general size may 
 be reduced ; and, as the very little evil entailed by mere 
 reduction in size, would be made manifest, only after 
 many generations of the closest interbreeding, the gain, 
 resulting to the breeder, would more than outweigh 
 any consideration of the slight and remote injury to 
 the animals. 
 
 That some evil, though, generally, inappreciably 
 small, does result from reduced size, is manifest, a 
 
318 THE CROSSING, &C, OF CATTLE, ET At. 
 
 posteriori, by actual observation; and a priori, from 
 the loss of interstitial tissue, necessarily involved; from 
 the fact, that many organs must be measurably im- 
 paired, in function, when their size is reduced; and, 
 from the fact, that, when dissimilarly developed ani- 
 mals, of a species, are crossed, increase in size results, 
 and when disproportionately developed animals are 
 interbred, decrease in size is occasioned. The small 
 size of many Horses (Ponies, &c), is due to their close 
 interbreeding, which was incompetent, by reason of the 
 animals' little disproportion, to work much loss of fer- 
 tility, or of constitutional vigor; but, which elicited the 
 evil of disproportion, chiefly by means of reduction in 
 size. This view is confirmed by the fact, that, when a 
 small number of animals, much disproportionately de- 
 veloped, are restricted within a narrow range, such 
 as an island, or a valley enclosed by impassable moun- 
 tains, thus necessitating their interbreeding, the ani- 
 mals die out; but, when animals but little dispro- 
 portionately developed (such as Horses), are so con- 
 fined, and constrained to interbreed, they do not so die 
 out, but become, instead, much reduced in size, — the t 
 reduction being caused by the little disproportion 
 which is insufficient much to affect their fertility and 
 vigor. Jersey and Alderney breeds are also instances 
 of the operation of this principle. 
 
 They are too little disproportionately developed to 
 have entailed upon them the evils of much lessened 
 fertility and of much lessened constitutional vigor, from 
 interbreeding not very close ; but the defects in struc- 
 ture which they have, entail, instead, reduction in size. 
 
THE CROSSING, 4C, OF CATTLE, ET AL. 319 
 
 If an organism has all of its features, proportionately- 
 reduced, the' evil entailed, will be less, than if some 
 only of its characters are reduced ; for, the balance is, in 
 the former case, immeasurably less disturbed. But, even 
 when the proportion is preserved as well as may be, in 
 the reduction of the animal's size, evil results, because 
 perfect proportion is incompatible with any reduction ; 
 for, the tissue which filled the interstitial spaces, is 
 wanting, and full functional play of the several organs 
 of the body, is inconsistent with any reduction. The 
 evil effects, entailed by a measurably proportionate 
 reduction of all the characters, are inappreciable, and 
 infinitesimal, when compared with the injury effected 
 by disproportionate development, such as is occasioned 
 by the loss of some characters, or the greater, or less 
 reduction of some only of the features. In the first 
 case, viz., of proportionate reduction, the evils would 
 begin to manifest themselves, only after long-continued 
 (say, a score of generations of) close-interbreeding of 
 the nearest relatives. In the second case, viz., of dis- 
 proportionate development, the evils would begin to 
 display themselves, in the first stage of interbreeding, 
 either, with the furthest removed individuals of the 
 same variety, or with individuals in the relation of 
 cousins, or of father and daughter, or of brother and 
 sister; or after several generations of interbreeding, in 
 any of the degrees of relationship ; according to the 
 degree of such disproportionate development. 
 
 An individual may be twice, or thrice, the size of its 
 fellows, and have most of its organs twice, or thrice 
 the size they are, in others of its species ; yet, if one of 
 
320 THE CROSSING, AC, OF CATTLE, ET AL. 
 
 its organs, be not of proportionate size, with the other 
 features ( — and the disproportion may lie, either, in 
 being smaller, or larger, in proportion, than the other 
 organs, and, even though the organ, out of proportion, 
 be greatly superior in size to the same organ, as it 
 exists in the other individuals — ), the evil manifesting 
 itself in interbreeding, will, other things equal, be many 
 fold greater, than in the smaller, well-proportioned in- 
 dividuals. There is, however, a limit which may be 
 reached, to the size to which some organs, — notably 
 those obviously of vital importance to the organic 
 economy, — may be proportionately reduced, with but 
 little evil resulting. 
 
 It is therefore, evident, that, breeders need not fear 
 to reduce the size, if they have retained, as far as pos- 
 sible, the proportion of the characters. The interests 
 of the breeder, and of the animal, are, generally, in the 
 long run, identical. But, where the gain to the breeder, 
 is so great, — as, in the instance of Bakewell's breeding 
 small Sheep, for the purpose named, in the case of 
 pushing the development of the wool in Sheep to an 
 advanced degree, and in the extreme development of 
 the udders in a small breed of Cattle, say, the Alder- 
 ney, — and the injury to the animal is so little and so 
 remote in its manifestation, the animals' interests may 
 justly be made subordinate. Breeders, however, in 
 their ignorance of the true laws of growth, and of inter- 
 breeding, work adversely to their own, and to the 
 animals' interests, by suffering disproportion to exist 
 in parts and organs which it is a matter of indifference, 
 with them, whether they are developed or reduced, 
 
ET AL. 321 
 
 but the development of which is necessary to fertility 
 and vigor. 
 
 "In 1791," says Darwin (p. 126, Vol. ii, Animals and 
 Plants, &c), " a ram-lamb was born, in Massachusetts, 
 having short, crooked legs, and long back, like a turn- 
 spit 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, they 
 would be valuable," and it was deemed desirable to 
 increase their number indefinitely. 
 
 But, this semi-monstrosity, — as it was so violative of 
 the true proportion of the characters of its species, — 
 could not but inevitably fall a victim to the extinction 
 occasioned, always, under like circumstances, by inter- 
 breeding. As a matter of fact, the breed, as Darwin 
 records, did become extinct. That their dispropor- 
 tion was the cause of the extinction of this "valuable" 
 breed, is clearly evidenced by the fact, that their ex- 
 tinction was not owing to their being supplanted by 
 crossing with other breeds, or to any failure of theirs 
 t.o transmit their peculiarities ; for, first, they were 
 esteemed " valuable," according to Darwin, and, there- 
 fore, pains must have been taken, as Darwin implies, 
 to preserve the type ; and, secondly, because they were 
 peculiarly capable of breeding true to their kind, so 
 far as they were capable of breeding at all ; for Dar- 
 win says : 
 
 " These sheep are (were) remarkable from transmit- 
 ting their character so truly that Col. Humphreys never 
 heard of ' but one questionable case ' of an Ancon ram, 
 and ewe, not producing Ancon offspring," and " when 
 they crossed with other breeds, the offspring, with rare 
 28 
 
322 THE CROSSING, AC, OF CATTLE, ET AL. 
 
 exceptions, instead of being intermediate in character, 
 perfectly resemble either parent; and this has occurred, 
 even in the case of twins." 
 
 It is possible, however, that this monstrous pecu- 
 liarity might have been retained, and that without in- 
 ducing lessened fertility ; if only care had been taken 
 that no other features of disproportion remained. 
 
 It is susceptible of a very easy explanation why Dar- 
 win, in his exposition of the process of Natural Selec- 
 tion, failed to record this factor, viz., of the gradual ex- 
 tinction of all organisms which departed far from the 
 type of the sum of all the positive characters of their 
 respective species; and, conversely, viz., of the as- 
 sured perpetuation of their kind, by individuals which 
 realized or approximated such perfect type. Had the 
 phenomenon been in accord with his theoiy, he would 
 not have ignored it, as he has done; but would have 
 rung all the changes upon it, ad nauseam. 
 
 The conditions of nature seem to be more propitious 
 to the development of Cattle and of Horses, than to 
 that of most other species. Most other species, have 
 had many of their characters reduced or suppressed, 
 but, with Cattle, especially, the existing state of nature 
 seems to afford a better habitat, than does domestica- 
 tion. The wild cattle not only present, to the eye, an 
 almost perfect symmetry of development, but the close- 
 interbreeding which they withstand, with no or little 
 evil effect, is a proof of their proportionate develop- 
 ment. As Darwin has before remarked, they are 
 generally sired by only one bull, which, older and 
 stronger than the others, compels the closest inter- 
 
ET AL. 323 
 
 breeding. The half-wild Chillingham, Pembroke, and 
 other cattle, justify the theory of a 1 one only, perfect 
 type, by the results they afford, of in-and-in breeding. 
 Domestic Cattle, which are, — as compared with the 
 half-wild breeds, — degenerate, so far as symmetry of 
 build is concerned, would, if placed under the same 
 conditions as to their interbreeding, as are the Chilling- 
 ham, and Pembroke breeds, have never been able to 
 be preserved so long from extinction. 
 
 Referring to these half-wild Cattle, Darwin says (p. 
 148, Vol. ii, Animals and Plants, &c) : 
 
 "The half- wild Cattle, which have been kept in the 
 British parks, probably, for 400 or 500 years, or even 
 for a longer period, have been advanced by Cully and 
 others, as a case of long continued interbreeding within 
 the limits of the same herd, without any consequent 
 injury." 
 
 This instance of Cattle, sired by one bull, at each 
 successive period, during 500 years and over, is a fair 
 test of the truth of the theory of proportionate devel- 
 opment. It is the more remarkable, because Darwin 
 says, each herd has of late been kept down by slaugh- 
 ter and by fighting to the average number of fifty. 
 But their appearance, form and size, render their ex- 
 emption from loss of fertility, and of constitutional 
 vigor, in no wise surprising. They but fulfill the 
 requirements of the theory, propounded in this 
 work. All of their characters are developed, and pro- 
 portionately developed, in marked contrast with those 
 of domestic breeds. Their horns (which in domestic 
 animals are kept down, by man), are of enormous 
 
324 THE CROSSING, AC, OF CATTLE, ET AL. 
 
 size, and their hoofs and legs are well developed by- 
 exercise, which aids also the growth of all the features 
 to which these are correlated. The close interbreed- 
 ing is manifest, for it is probable, that one dynasty of 
 autrocratic bulls, has ever been dominant. 
 
 Darwin remarks that, of late, it has been discovered, 
 that they are bad breeders. But, this was to be ex- 
 pected, ultimately ; for, it was natural, that such close 
 interbreeding, for 500 years, within a breed, of late 
 kept down to the number of fifty, would eventually 
 augment the evil due to those slight defects of struct- 
 ure, which are implied by the very capacity, of man, 
 to discriminate between the individuals. Darwin con- 
 trasts their alleged, present, bad breeding, with the fer- 
 tility of the wild herds of South America. But, the 
 individuals of the wild herds of South America, oc- 
 casionally repair their slight deficiencies, in structure, 
 by intercrossing with other individuals, possessing 
 slight, positive differences, due to their being reared, 
 under slightly different conditions. 
 
 The principle, that animals, but little defective in 
 proportion, display, when interbred, the evil of the % 
 little defects they have, by means of decrease in size, 
 is confirmed by what is known of these half-wild 
 Cattle. Darwin says (p. 149, Vol. ii, Animals and 
 Plants &c): 
 
 " The decrease in size, from ancient times, in the 
 Chillingham and Hamilton cattle (wild), must have 
 been prodigious, for Professor Riitimeyer has shown 
 that they are almost certainly the descendants of the 
 gigantic Bos primigenius." 
 
THE CROSSING, AC, OF CATTLE, ET AL. 325 
 
 This Bos, from which, also, all our domestic Cattle 
 have descended, is described by Csesar, as being not 
 much inferior to the elephant in size. 
 
 The decrease in size, from interbreeding, is due to 
 the reverse reason of that of the increase in size, 
 attendant upon crossing. The latter namely, increase 
 of size resulting from crossing two breeds, is owing to 
 room having to be made, in the offspring, to allow of 
 the combination of the characters contributed by both 
 parents. The decrease in size referred to, is due to 
 the saving of interstitial space, due to the augmenta- 
 tion of the similar defects of the parents interbred. 
 
 The principle of the decrease in size, from interbreed- 
 ing animals, with but slight defects of proportion, is 
 further illustrated by the case of the Sebright Bantam 
 (Fowl). This animal was produced by many very 
 complicated crosses, until, at least, the bases of all or 
 nearly all the characters of the Fowl, were united in it. 
 Then it was closely interbred for a long period, which 
 gradually reduced its size, so that it now weighs but 
 one pound! 
 
 It is clear, that, when the different breeds cross, 
 some of the deficiencies of each, are corrected by the 
 positive differences, or by the special excellence, of 
 another; and that such result must, ex hypotkesi,brmg, 
 with it, increased fertility and constitutional vigor. 
 This is shown by Darwin's facts. But, the increase in 
 fertility is less, in the case of Cattle, and of Sheep ; be- 
 cause they are little divergent in character, and because 
 there is little room for improvement. The crossing of 
 
 varieties of the Pigeon, and of varieties of the Fowl, is 
 28* 
 
326 THE CROSSING, &C, OF CATTLE, ET AL. 
 
 attended with the greatest increase of fertility, because 
 the many widely divergent varieties of these species, 
 necessarily imply great disproportionate development, 
 of each variety. They are, therefore, extremely sus- 
 ceptible to improvement, because they lack so many 
 characters ; and, when two varieties, of one of those 
 species, cross, there results, to the offspring, the acces- 
 sion of some important character which one of the 
 parents lacked. 
 
 The different breeds of Cattle, and of Sheep, on the 
 other hand, approximate closely to the sum of all the 
 characters of their respective species. There is, there- 
 fore, comparatively little, to be gained, by any one of 
 these breeds, from a cross. The positive differences, 
 distinguishing the other varieties, are very few, very 
 slight, and of comparatively little importance. 
 
 Strikingly in harmony with this interpretation, is 
 the fact, that the more highly-bred the Pigeons are, 
 the greater, is the gain, from a cross. The reason is, 
 because the more highly-bred the breeds are, the more 
 divergent they are ; the more distinct they are ; and 
 the greater is the need for each to possess the charac- , 
 ters which, in the others, have been pushed to an ex- 
 treme point. 
 
 Equally congruous, is the converse fact, namely, 
 that the more highly-bred, generally, that the breeds 
 of Cattle and of Sheep, are, the less is the gain from 
 the crossing of two varieties of one of the species. This 
 is because, the more highly-bred the breeds of Cattle 
 and of Sheep, become, the more, generally, do they all 
 converge to the full and proportionate development of 
 
327 
 
 all the characters of their species, and, therefore, the 
 less are the differences between them. It is, only when 
 each variety lacks very much that the other crossed 
 variety possesses, that great good results. There is 
 but little margin, for increase of good, with varieties of 
 Cattle and of Sheep, because those varieties, generally, 
 have nearly all the development, which is required for 
 perfection. The results from crossing varieties of 
 these last-named species, are generally shown, mainly, 
 in increase of size, and in some accession of vigor. 
 
 Darwin says (p. 149, Vol. ii, Animals and Plants, &c.) : 
 
 "Although, by the aid of careful selection, the near 
 interbreeding of sheep, may be long continued, without 
 any manifest evil, yet it has often been the practice, 
 with farmers, to cross distinct breeds, to obtain animals 
 for the butcher, which plainly shows that good is de- 
 rived from this practice. Mr. Spooner sums up his 
 excellent Essay on Crossing, by asserting, that there 
 is a direct pecuniary advantage, in judicious cross- 
 breeding, especially, when the male is larger than the 
 female. A former celebrated breeder,- Lord Somer- 
 ville, distinctly states, that his half-breeds from Rye- 
 lands and Spanish sheep, were larger animals than, 
 either, the pure Ryelands, or pure Spanish sheep." 
 
 The reason of the increase of size, attendant upon 
 crossing, is not only because of reversion to the original 
 type (which was of a size, sufficient to cover any at 
 present existing individual of the given species), but, 
 also because greater size, or room, is demanded in the 
 offspring of a cross, in order to accommodate the pecu- 
 liarities of both parents. The reason, increase of size 
 from a cross, is especially observable, when the male is 
 
328 THE CROSSING, 4C, OF CATTLE, ET AL. 
 
 larger than the female, is, as we shall see, when treat- 
 ing of generation, because the formative capacity of the 
 male element is of an exogenetic character, and has a 
 peculiar, but not an exclusive influence, over the de- 
 velopment of the periphery of the organism. 
 
 With respect to the Crossing of Cattle, Darwin says 
 (p. 147, Vol. ii, Animals and Plants &c.) : 
 
 " Although, by carefully selecting the best animals, 
 close-interbreeding may be long carried on with Cattle, 
 yet the good effects of a cross between almost any two 
 breeds, is at once shown by the greater size and vigor 
 of the offspring ; as Mr. Spooner writes to me, ' cross- 
 ing distinct breeds certainly improves Cattle, for the 
 butcher.' Such crossed animals are, of course, of no 
 value to the breeder, but they have been raised 
 during many years, in several parts of England, to be 
 slaughtered; and their merit is now so fully recognized, 
 that at fat-cattle shows, a separate class has been formed 
 for their reception. The best fat ox, at the great show 
 at Islington, in 1862, was a crossed animal." 
 
 The reason why, as Darwin asserts, such crossed 
 animals, though " their merit is now so fully recog- 
 nized," " are of course of no value to the breeder," is, 
 because they will not persist in one type, but drop off- 
 spring, of every variety of improved types, though with 
 no one excellence predominant. They have, united, in 
 them, the peculiarities of two varieties, and this com- 
 bination stimulates all the other centres of growth. 
 The breeder desires to develop each excellence, in a 
 different variety. In one, he wishes to have fine meat- 
 producing qualities ; in another, quantity of milk ; in 
 another, good butter-making capacity, &c. On the 
 
THE CROSSING, AC, OP CATTLE, ET AL. 329 
 
 other hand, the offspring of a cross, whilst it abates 
 the extreme degree of each excellence, is bent upon 
 the proportionate development of all its characters 
 and capacities ; and that is why it and the breeder 
 cannot agree. If is, perhaps, the only fair show, that 
 the poor animal has had, for " millions of genera- 
 tions," to regain the proportionate development of all 
 the characters of its species ; and, it endeavors to 
 avail itself of the golden opportunity. But, the 
 breeder, disgusted with such " Vielseitigkeit" and im- 
 bued with the wisdom of that sound, old English 
 proverb, that "Jack of all trades can be master of 
 none," ships the poor wretch off to the butcher ; and 
 individuals, only, which respectively restrict their im- 
 provement to the special quality which the breeder 
 has assigned them ; which patiently suffer their other 
 structural, and functional points, to remain little devel- 
 oped ; and which do not aspire to become Goethes, 
 are allowed to propagate their kind. 
 
 The breeder desires persistency of type,, in his ani- 
 mals. However good, the product may be, he does 
 not want offspring of one and the same cow, to possess, 
 the one, the excellence of a Durham, the other, the 
 peculiar excellence of an Alderney, another that of a 
 Jersey, and another to be like a Chillingham. He 
 desires to be able, to count upon the character, of the 
 calves which his cows will drop. Mongrels are too 
 diversified ; they yield too many characters to suit the 
 breeder. Each mongrel-calf seems bent upon regain- 
 ing its lost integrity, in a different way, from the 
 others. This, to the breeder, is positively disgusting. 
 
330 THE CROSSING, AC, OP CATTLE, ET AL. 
 
 He would have them, to be all alike, in some one 
 character, so that he may give them a name, and form 
 a breed of them. He cannot count, with any confi- 
 dence, upon a mongrel-cow, with a fine butter-making 
 capacity, dropping a calf of its kind. For aught he 
 knows, the offspring may wantonly forego the charac- 
 ter of an Alderney, and develop, instead, fine meat- 
 growing qualities. Such results occasion emotions, 
 within the breeder, similar to those indulged by a bow- 
 legged man, driving a pig to market. The breeder is 
 so imbued with the love of order, and of regularity, 
 that it positively piques him, to have one animal, with 
 one set of characters, producing offspring each of 
 which has started a different ratio of characters for 
 itself; or producing several calves which have, more 
 or less, succeded in acquiring all the peculiarities of 
 every breed. How is he, in such a case, to give them 
 a name ? to call them a certain breed ? His desire, is 
 that they shall be content, with one special peculiarity 
 alone; whereas, every individual, which is dropped, 
 seems to be pushing on, to the recovery of the mould 
 of " some ancient progenitor," in a different direction, 
 or* in all directions ; which direction, or sum of them 
 all it will not even adhere to, but it, in its turn at this 
 confusion worse confounded, drops offspring, with 
 some different character slightly in the ascendant, or 
 with an altogether different ratio from them all. What 
 cares the breeder for their repaired integrity? What 
 he aims at, is to get them with one special character, 
 only, developed. The capacity of these mongrels to 
 withstand close-interbreeding, for dozens of genera- 
 
THE CROSSING, AC, OF CATTLE, ET AL. 331 
 
 tions, without injury, pleads in vain for their lives. 
 The butcher closes the last scene of all. 
 
 Is it any wonder, that crossing is regarded, with 
 aversion, by every breeder? 
 
 "Until quite recently," says Darwin (p 5 . 122, Vol. ii, 
 Animals and Plants, &c), "cautious and experienced 
 breeders, though not averse to a single infusion of 
 foreign blood, were almost universally convinced, that 
 the attempt to establish a new race, intermediate be- 
 tween two widely distinct races, was hopeless; 'they 
 cling with superstitious tenacity, to the doctrine of 
 purity of blood, believing it to be the ark in which 
 alone true safety could be found.' " 
 
 And again he says, not of Cattle and Sheep espe- 
 cially, but of all animals (p. 122, Vol. ii, Animals and 
 Plants, &c.) : 
 
 "As cross-bred animals are, generally, of large size 
 and vigorous, they have been raised in great numbers, 
 for immediate consumption. But, for breeding, they 
 are found to be utterly useless ; for, though they may 
 be themselves uniform in character, when paired to- 
 gether, they yield during many generations, offspring 
 astonishingly diversified. The breeder is driven to 
 despair, and concludes that he will never form an in- 
 termediate race. But, from the causes already given, 
 and from others which have been recorded, it appears 
 that patience alone is necessary; as Mr. Spooner re- 
 marks 'nature opposes no barrier to successful admix- 
 ture; in the course of time, by the aid of selection and 
 careful weeding, it is practicable to establish a new 
 breed.' After six or seven generations, the hoped-for 
 result will, in most cases, be obtained; but even then, 
 an occasional reversion, or failure to keep true, may be 
 expected. The attempt, however, will assuredly fail, if 
 
332 THE CROSSING, AC, OF CATTLE, ET AL. 
 
 the conditions of life be decidedly unfavorable to the 
 characters of either parent breed." 
 
 It is for this object, namely, the formation of new 
 varieties, that crossing is resorted to. It is also re- 
 sorted to, as, seen above, to procure fine animals for 
 immediate consumption. The other reason that it is 
 adopted, is to ward off the evils which have accrued, 
 from interbreeding. This motive seldom obtains with 
 respect to Cattle and Sheep, unless there has been very 
 long-continued and very close-interbreeding. With 
 animals, like the Pigeon, the Fowl, and the Pig, as has 
 been already shown, breeders of the high fancy breeds 
 are constantly compelled to have recourse to crossing. 
 Yet, even with Cattle and Sheep, the breeder, in push- 
 ing the peculiarity, of a breed, to an extreme point, 
 needs must interbreed the individuals ; this leads to its 
 natural, evil results; and crossing is then required. 
 The criterion, generally, with breeders, of the good 
 resulting from a cross, is, whether the offspring has 
 improved or deteriorated, in the quality precious to the 
 breeder. It may have improved most wonderfully, iji 
 a physiological sense, and have regained every char- 
 acter of its species, in a comparatively high degree of 
 development; yet, if it has abated the least, in the spe- 
 cial excellence required for the breeder's purpose, it is 
 esteemed shamefully deteriorated; although all immu- 
 nity from danger, for tens of generations, from the 
 closest interbreeding, may have succeeded previous 
 loss of (nigh) all fertility. 
 
 When a breed is suffering from the results of close- 
 interbreeding, there is no necessity to cross with a 
 
THE CROSSING, &C, OF CATTLE, ET Ali. 333 
 
 very distinct breed. The slight, positive differences of 
 a near variety, or of a different strain, will frequently 
 suffice to ward off "the evils of disproportion ; and by 
 this crossing with a different strain only, the special 
 excellence of the breed is saved from injury, or from 
 abatement, while sufficient vigor and fertility are ac- 
 quired. It is even possible, to bring up the individuals, 
 to the original, perfect type, by merely taking advan- 
 tage of the slight, positive differences which present 
 themselves at times in the individuals of the same 
 variety. As Darwin's facts show, breeders have learned, 
 that it is not necessary to cross the animals of a 
 variety, with a very distinct variety, in order to stave 
 off the evil of interbreeding. Breeders, however, are 
 just as likely as not, in crossing, to select those individ- 
 uals of a different strain or sub-variety, which have 
 negative differences distinguishing them, as they are 
 to cross their animals with the individuals of such dif- 
 ferent strain, which have positive peculiarities to con- 
 tribute to the offspring. Breeders, together with Dar- 
 win, fancy, that the good resulting from a cross, is due 
 to difference, per se ; whereas, it is solely positive, dif- 
 ferences, from which the favorable result accrues. 
 
 29 
 
CHAPTER XI. 
 
 The Crossing, and the Self-Fertilization, of Plants. 
 
 In Chapter vi, on the processes by which races have 
 . been formed under nature, and varieties have been 
 formed, under domestication, it was shown, that Plants 
 have been greatly modified. Not only do the improve- 
 ments which arise, under domestication, imply the 
 previous loss and reduction of many organs and 
 features; but, this conclusion is incontestably estab- 
 lished by Darwin's testimony, to the effect, that, 
 
 "With species in a state of nature, rudimentary 
 organs are so extremely common that scarcely one can 
 be mentioned which is free from a blemish of this 
 nature ; " 
 
 And, in Chapter iii, authority from Darwin has been 
 adduced to the effect, that nearly every species of Plant 
 has had organs, either reduced, made rudimentary, or 
 completely suppressed, with no vestige of their past 
 existence left. These organs, he asserts, have first be- 
 come of less and less use and ultimately superfluous. 
 He shows, in detail, that there is scarcely an individ- 
 ual plant, under nature, which has not some of the 
 features of its species, absent. Some one, or several, 
 of the following characters, viz., Stamens, stems, ten- 
 drils, tubers, roots, leaves, fruit, flowers, pistil, calyx, 
 (334) 
 
THE SELF-FERTILIZATION OF PLANTS. 335 
 
 corolla, anthers, ovules, stigma, ovaries, seeds, seed- 
 capsules, medicinal qualities, &c, are, save in a few ex- 
 ceptional cases, found to be wanting, in each Plant, as 
 it exists under nature. Besides the loss of one, or of 
 several of these characters, there is a false ratio of the 
 development of those remaining. Frequently, too, 
 though developed, in structure, characters are rudimen- 
 tary, in function. 
 
 Nor is this degeneration, in structure (necessarily 
 resulting, exhypothesi, in lessened fertility and sterility), 
 at all remedied, when the plants are placed under 
 domestication. The physiological injury has only 
 been augmented, by the " improvements" which Man 
 has effected. As Darwin confesses : 
 
 " Cultivated races of Plants often exhibit an abnor- 
 mal character, as compared with natural species ; for 
 they have been modified, not for their own benefit, 
 but for that of Man " (page 14, Vol. i, Animals and 
 Plants, &c). 
 
 Man even augments the degeneration, commenced 
 by the adverse conditions of nature : 
 
 "With cultivated Plants," says Darwin (p. 380, Vol. 
 ii, Animals and Plants, &c), " it is far from rare, to 
 find the petals, stamens, and pistils represented by ru- 
 diments, like those observed in natural species. So it 
 is, with the whole seed, in many fruits. * * In cer- 
 tain varieties of the gourd, the tendrils, according to 
 Naudin, are represented by the rudiments, or various 
 monstrous growths." 
 
 In fact, it is not possible to mention any organ, or 
 part of a plant, which has not, in some species, under 
 cultivation, been systematically or unintentionally re- 
 
336 THE SELF-FEKTILIZATION OF PLANTS. 
 
 duced by Man ; under the ignorant impression that it 
 is useless. 
 
 Together with the reduction of certain characters, 
 by man, there ensues a reduction of other features, to 
 which the first are correlated. With respect to these, 
 Darwin speaks most learnedly, of " a natural tendency ; 
 in certain parts, to. become rudimentary." 
 
 "In the Broccoli and cauliflower,'' says he, "the 
 greater number of the flowers are incapable of expan- 
 sion, and include rudimentary organs. In the Feather 
 hyacinth (Muscari comosuni), the upper, and central 
 florets are rudimentary ; under cultivation,' the ten- 
 dency to abortion travels downwards and outwards, and 
 all the flowers become rudimentary. * * In these 
 several cases, we have a natural tendency (sic) in cer- 
 tain parts, to become rudimentary, and this, under cul- 
 ture, spreads either to, or from, the axes of the Plants. 
 * * According to A de Jussieu, the abortion is only 
 partial,- in Carthamus creticus, but more extended in 
 C. lanatus ; for, in this species, two or three alone, of 
 the central seeds, are furnished with a pappus, the 
 surrounding seeds being either quite naked, or fur- 
 nished with a few hairs ; and, .lastly, in C. tinctorins, 
 even the central seeds are destitute of pappus, and the 
 abortion is complete." 
 
 But, not merely by the degeneration, effected under 
 nature, and by the systematic, or the unintentional re- 
 duction or suppression of organs, by Man, is the struc- 
 tural and the physiological integrity of Plants, impaired. 
 Man's object, in cultivating Plants, is to increase their 
 development. But, the manner in which he strives to 
 effect this, only adds to the physiological injury. For, 
 he vitiates, the more, the true proportion, by selecting 
 
THE SELF-FERTILIZATION OF PLANTS. 337 
 
 some one part only, of a Plant, and pushing its de- 
 velopment to an extreme point! 
 
 This is the dominant feature of Man's Selection, with 
 Plants, — viz., the disproportionate ascendancy of one 
 part or organ. All of the modes of Selection may be 
 discerned, with Plants, but this carrying of one part 
 alone to an extreme development peculiarly charac- 
 terizes the cultivation of these organisms. 
 
 If it be the fruit, which he values, that character 
 alone is developed, and all of the other features are re- 
 tained in statu quo, or still further reduced. 
 
 If it be the leaves, or the flowers, or the roots, or 
 any other part which, in a given species, subserves his 
 pleasure or profit, the same disproportionate develop- 
 ment is to be seen; and, the individuals are but the 
 more injured, in their reproductive power, by the care 
 which is bestowed upon them. All the parts of the 
 given species, are not concurrently re-developed, in 
 each individual. 
 
 As Darwin shows (p. 14, Vol. i, Animals and Plants, 
 &c), cultivated varieties of Plants " show adaptation to 
 his (Man's) wants and pleasures." 
 
 In order to disclose the cause of the greatly lessened 
 fertility of Plants, after they are placed under domesti- 
 cation, it may be advisable, again to quote Darwin's 
 description of the manner which Man adopts, in the 
 cultivation of plants. Under the heading of " Ten- 
 dency in Man to carry the practice of Selection to an 
 Extreme Point" he says (p. 290, Vol. ii, Animals and 
 Plants, &c): 
 
 "It is an important principle, that, in the process 
 29* 
 
338 THE SELF-FERTILIZATION OF PLANTS. 
 
 of selection, man almost invariably wishes to go to 
 an extreme point" i. e., zvitk some one character only. 
 "On the whole" (p. 266, Vol. ii, Animals and Plants, 
 &c), "we may conclude that whatever part or charac- 
 ter is most valued, — whether the leaves, stems, tubers, 
 bulbs, flowers, fruit, or seed of Plants * * * — that 
 character will, almost invariably , be found to present 
 the greatest amount of difference, in kind, and degree. 
 And, this result may be safely attributed to man having 
 preserved, during a long course of generations, the 
 variations which were useful to him, and neglected the 
 others." 
 
 And again he shows (page 34, Origin of Species), 
 that there are great differences, in the parts which 
 are valued, and no or little differences, in the parts 
 neglected; which is owing to the parts, which are 
 valued, being retained at each stage of their re-develop- 
 ment, while the parts, not valued, occupy a common 
 level of degeneration ! 
 
 " Compare," says he, " the diversity of Flowers, in the 
 different varieties of the same species, in the Flower- 
 garden; the diversity of Leaves, Pods, or Tubers, 
 or whatever part is valued, in comparison with the 
 Flowers, of the same varieties ; and the diversity of 
 the Fruit, of the same species, in the Orchard, in com- 
 parison with the Leaves, and Flowers, of the same set 
 of varieties. See how different, the Leaves of the 
 Cabbage are, and how extremely alike the Flowers; 
 how unlike, the Flowers of the Hearts-ease are, and 
 how alike the Leaves; how much the Fruit of the dif- 
 ferent kinds of Gooseberries, differ in size, color, and 
 hairiness, and yet the Flowers present very slight 
 differences. It is not, that the varieties which differ 
 largely, in some one point, do not differ at all in other 
 points. * * * The laws of Correlation of growth, 
 
THE SELF-FERTILIZATION OF PLANTS. 339 
 
 the importance of which should not be overlooked, will 
 ensure some differences, but" (the exclusive and con- 
 tinued selection, by man, of those parts only, which he 
 values, in the Plants, be it) "the Leaves, the Flowers, 
 or the Fruit, will produce races differing from each 
 other, chiefly in those characters." 
 
 Again he says (page 509, Vol. ii, Animals and 
 Plants, &c.) : 
 
 "The best proof of what selection has effected, is 
 perhaps afforded by the fact, that whatever part or 
 quality, in any animal, and more especially in any 
 Plant, is most valued by Man, that part or quality 
 differs most, in the several races. This result is well 
 seen, by comparing the amount of difference between 
 the Fruits, produced by the varieties of the same 
 Fruit tree ; between the Flowers of the varieties, in 
 our Flower-gardens ; between the Seeds, Roots, or 
 Leaves of our culinary and agricultural plants, in com- 
 parison with the other, and not valued parts of the 
 same plants." 
 
 Each species, under cultivation, departs from its 
 degenerated type under nature, only in that way which 
 will be serviceable to man. If it should essay the 
 re-development of any other part, than that for which 
 it is valued, it will be destroyed. As Darwin says : 
 
 "With all improved Plants * * they examine 
 the seedlings, and destroy those which depart from the 
 proper type" (p. 242, Vol. ii, Animals and Plants, &c). 
 
 Is it any wonder, then, considering the many charac- 
 ters, which are reduced and suppressed, in each plant, 
 and the false ratio which is established with the charac- 
 ters remaining, which is increased in proportion as the 
 one part valued is pushed out of all proportion, that (as 
 
340 THE SELF-FERTILIZATION OF PLANTS. 
 
 Darwin notes, in profound ignorance of the reason, p. 
 9, Origin of Species), "Sterility has been said to be 
 the bane of horticulture;" and, that so many plants 
 become self-impotent? 
 
 Strange, mysterious, and inexplicable seem, to Dar- 
 win, to be the many phenomena of self-impotent 
 Plants, recorded by him ; but, the disorder is resolved 
 into the fullest harmony, when it is observed, that 
 the lessened fertility and lessened vigor, attend- 
 ant upon Interbreeding and upon Self-Fertiliza- 
 tion, are ever proportionate to the plants' depart- 
 ure from the type of the sum of all the positive 
 parts of its species j and that gain in fertility 
 and in constitutional vigor from crossing, is due 
 to either of the crossed parents contributing a 
 character or characters which the other parent 
 lacks, and to the consequent remove which is 
 made towards the original, perfect type of the 
 given species. 
 
 It is not by the exclusive development " of the part 
 valued," to the neglect, or suppression of the other 
 characters, that any Plant may progress toward per- 
 fection. The further such culture is carried, the worse 
 it becomes, physiologically, for the plant; for, the 
 more is its balance disturbed. 
 
 Darwin talks about "serious defects in structure," 
 and about the policy of not violating " the mutual re- 
 lation of the parts." If he had but availed himself of 
 such ideas, to resolve the phenomena which he records, 
 he would have spared himself the mortification of con- 
 fessing his ignorance of the many phenomena of 
 
THE SELF-FERTILIZATION OF PLANTS. 341 
 
 sterile, and of self-impotent plants. Those ideas, — viz., 
 " serious defects in structure," and " mutual relation 
 of the parts," — are the threads which will lead the in- 
 quirer, safely through the labyrinth of plant-sterility. 
 
 As the development, of the different varieties of 
 Plants, differs ; and, as positive characters are gener- 
 ally found, in each, which are absent in the other 
 varieties, - it becomes matter of little surprise, that 
 good, — viz., constitutional vigor, and fertility, — flows 
 from the crossing of two varieties. 
 
 To show, that the reproductive organs are not 
 necessarily implicated, in this good resulting from a 
 cross, it is necessary only to refer to the phenomena, 
 which Darwin gives, showing that the good, from the 
 union of two varieties, is displayed, even when the 
 union is effected by Grafting ! 
 
 In order to improve in fertility and vigor, nothing 
 more is needed, tiian the accession, to the individual, 
 of characters which it lacked. It is immaterial, how 
 this may be effected. The gain to physiological integ- 
 rity accrues, whether the return, to the sum of all the 
 positive characters of the species, be secured by means 
 of Reversion, of Crossing, or of Grafting ! 
 
 The following are proofs, from Darwin, showing the 
 evil, entailed by the reduction of characters to a 
 rudimentary condition, and entailed by the dispropor- 
 tionate development, effected by Man, in attending 
 exclusively to the culture of some one part which he 
 values, in a Plant. It must be noted, in connection 
 with these proofs, that Darwin is, confessedly, in pro- 
 found ignorance, both of their cause, and of the reason 
 
342 THE SELF-FERTILIZATION OF PLANTS. 
 
 of the many variations in the quantity of the effects. 
 He traces many of the phenomena to the action of 
 the conditions ; but, he truly recognizes that such are 
 but conditions. 
 
 On page 1 36, Vol. ii, Animals and Plants, &c, he 
 
 says : 
 
 " I raised a number of purple-flowered, long-styled 
 seedlings (of Primrose) from seed, kindly sent me by 
 Mr. Scott, and though they were all in some degree 
 sterile, they were much more fertile, with pollen taken 
 from the common Primrose, than with their own 
 pollen." 
 
 To understand the philosophy of this, we .need only 
 turn to Darwin's statements, showing that, in plants, 
 valued alone for their flowers (as is the Primrose), the 
 development of this especial excellence, is pushed to 
 an extreme point, while the other portions of the or- 
 ganism, viz., the seed, seed-capsules, ovules, ovaries, 
 leaves, roots, &c, are neglected, reduced, or suppressed. 
 The true ratio of the development of the characters, is 
 vitiated by the abnormal disproportion of the flowers. 
 When a cultivated variety of the Primrose is crossed 
 with the common Primrose, good results, because 
 some of the characters which, in the cultivated plant, 
 are reduced or suppressed, are supplied; and the evil 
 is also remedied, by means of the abatement, in the 
 extreme and disproportionate development of the Flow- 
 ers, which ensues. 
 
 Again he says (page 164, Vol. ii, Animals and 
 Plants, &c.) : 
 
 " It has recently been discovered, that certain plants, 
 
THE SELF-FERTILIZATION OF PLANTS. 343 
 
 whilst growing in their native country, under natural 
 conditions, cannot be fertilized with pollen from the 
 same plant. They are sometimes so utterly impotent, 
 that though they can readily be fertilized by the pollen 
 of a distinct species, or even distinct genus, yet wonder- 
 ful as the fact is, they never produce a single seed by 
 their own pollen. In some races, moreover, the plant's 
 own pollen and stigma mutually act on each other, in 
 a deleterious manner." 
 
 In all of these plants, so self-impotent, and of injuri- 
 ous self-action, there are to be found many of the 
 organs reduced to a rudimentary condition ; in some 
 cases, with the rudiments still traceable ; and, in others, 
 with not, as Darwin shows, a single vestige of the lost 
 characters, discernible. 
 
 Darwin fancies, that these parts which are wholly 
 lost, and these rudimentary parts, have " first become 
 of less and less use and then absolutely valueless." 
 But, valueless as he may esteem them, they, by their 
 absence, work serious effects upon the constitution, 
 and upon the capacity of the reproductive elements, 
 which can never regain their full potency and vigor, 
 until these lost and rudimentary characters are fully 
 re-developed. The perfect type alone, is consistent 
 with physiological integrity ; and, the various degrees 
 of lessened fertility and of sterility, which are empiri- 
 cally noted by Darwin, are but the registers of the 
 several degrees of departure from such type. 
 
 Even in Plants, seemingly very much alike, there 
 are positive differences which, if united in an indi- 
 vidual, or united in the reproductive elements, will 
 frequently, where the parents are but little prolific, 
 
344 THE SELF-FERTILIZATION OP PLANTS. 
 
 enhance the fertility; or, where the parents are self- 
 impotent, restore the reproductive power. 
 As Darwin has said : 
 
 " It is not that the varieties which differ largely in 
 some one point, do not differ at all in other points. 
 The laws of Correlation, the importance of which 
 should not be overlooked, will ensure some differ- 
 ences." 
 
 The slightly different conditions of plants, growing 
 along side of each other, will entail a dissimilarity of 
 development, which will furnish occasion for good 
 from a cross between them. This applies, not merely 
 to different plants, but even to the different sets of re- 
 productive elements, growing upon the same plant! 
 By' the following remarks, Darwin shows, what little 
 differences, in the conditions, entail different modifica- 
 tions of the specific type : 
 
 "Even the seeds," he says (p. 304, Vol. ii, Animals 
 and Plants, &c), "nurtured in the same capsule, are 
 not subjected to absolutely uniform conditions, as they 
 draw their nourishment from different points." 
 
 This explains the reason of cases like the following, 
 where the action of the same pollen is widely different, 
 according as it is placed upon the stigma of the same 
 flower, upon the stigma of a flower on the same twig, 
 upon the stigma of a flower on another bough, or upon 
 the stigma of a flower on a different plant. It is pos- 
 sible for Darwin to see, that, in many such cases, the 
 good derived, is in proportion to the differences between 
 the organisms, or to the differences between the parts, 
 of organisms, contributing the reproductive elements. 
 
THE SELF-FEKTILIZATION OF PLANTS. 345 
 
 But he does not see, that this distinction is required, 
 only where there is disproportionate development; nor 
 does he perceive, that the difference works fertility, 
 merely because it implies the contribution, by each 
 parent-form, of the forces of some characters which 
 are wanting in the other. 
 
 " Sixty-three flowers," says Darwin (p. 164, Vol. ii, 
 Animals and Plants, &c), " of Corydalis cava, born on 
 distinct plants, were fertilized by Dr. Hildebrand, with 
 the pollen from other plants of the same species ; and 
 fifty-eight capsules were obtained, including, on an 
 average, 4.5 seed, in each. He then fertilized sixteen 
 flowers, produced by the same raceme, one with 
 another, but obtained, only three capsules, one of which 
 alone produced any good seeds, namely two in num- 
 ber. Lastly, he fertilized twenty-seven flowers, each, 
 with its own pollen ; he left also fifty-seven flowers to 
 be spontaneously fertilized, and this would certainly 
 have ensued, if it had been possible, for the anthers 
 not only touch the stigma, but the pollen-tubes were 
 seen by Dr. Hildebrand to penetrate it; nevertheless, 
 these 84 flowers did not produce a single seed capsule. 
 This whole case is highly instructive, as it shows how 
 widely different the action of the same pollen is, 
 according as it is placed on the stigma of the same 
 flower, or on that of another flower on the same raceme, 
 or on that of a distinct plant." 
 
 Here, Darwin wisely and grandiloquently asserts, 
 that the fact of "the widely different action of the 
 same pollen," "is highly instructive," because {sic) "it 
 shows how widely different the action of the same 
 pollen" is! This is a clever device, by which Darwin 
 frequently conceals his inability to explain the phe- 
 nomena which he records. The student is naturally 
 30 
 
346 THE SELF-FERTILIZATION OF PLANTS. 
 
 solicitous to know the reason of this widely different 
 action of the same pollen. Darwin, by a dexterous 
 re-statement of the very facts which were to be ex- 
 plained, insidiously conveys the idea that, by so re- 
 stating them, he has achieved a full solution. 
 
 This is on a par with the explanation, he affords, of 
 the reason why animals and plants vary, — Because, 
 they possess an " innate tendency to vary ! " 
 
 But, if he had revealed the true reason of the widely 
 different action of the same pollen ; if he had shown, 
 that the reason sterility existed, was because of the 
 evil due to the disproportionate development of the 
 plants, which evil self-fertilization but augmented; and 
 had shown that the regain of the lost fertility, was due 
 to the different reproductive elements having added 
 together their slightly different coordinating forces, 
 and thus secured the complement necessary for repro- 
 duction ; the result would have been disastrous to his 
 hypothesis of the Origin of Species ; for, it would have 
 proven the normal immutability of each species, and 
 the impossibility of any organism's departure from a 
 certain set of characters, peculiar to its species, save at m 
 the cost of its physiological integrity. 
 
 On page 174, Vol. ii, Animals and Plants, &c, he 
 speaks of " Plants becoming, under culture, self-impo- 
 tent. A cutivated plant, in this state," he continues, 
 " generally remains so during its whole life, and from 
 this fact, we may infer that the state is probably con- 
 genital." The breeder has but to abate the abnormal 
 development of the part which he values, and to 
 develop the parts reduced, or suppressed, to have the 
 
THE SELF-FERTILIZATION OF PLANTS. 341 
 
 self-impotence " vanish like a morning cloud " (as 
 Tyndall has it), "into the infinite azure of the past." 
 " Kolreuter, however," continues Darwin, " has de- 
 scribed some plants of Verbascurri, which varied in this 
 respect, even during the same season." If the plants 
 had suffered a change, from comparatively favorable, 
 to poor conditions, of light, heat, electricity, chemical 
 elements, &c, and this change had lessened the vigor 
 of the neglected parts of the plants, this variation 
 from fertility to sterility, during the same season, 
 would be explicable. Or, if the favorable conditions 
 were peculiarly propitious to the advanced develop- 
 ment of the special excellence of the plants, this 
 improvement in one character alone, would, through 
 affecting the proportion, induce self-impotence. In 
 corroboration of this last remark, is the following 
 from Darwin (p. 380, Vol. ii, Animals and Plants, &c): 
 
 " In the Compositae, the so-called doubling of the 
 flowers consists in the greater development of the 
 corolla of the central florets, generally accompanied 
 with some degree of sterility." 
 
 This sterility results, because the corolla alone, of 
 the central florets, and the central florets alone, have 
 been greatly developed, without the concurrent devel- 
 opment of the other florets, of the other parts of the 
 central florets, and of the several leaves, racemes, 
 stamens, branches, pistils, anthers, and other charac- 
 ters normally proper to the given species. As a 
 consequence, the true coordination has been im- 
 paired, — all the parts have not been brought into 
 harmony with each other. If the parts valued are 
 
348 THE SELF-FERTILIZATION OF PLANTS. 
 
 pushed any further, out of proportion, or if the less- 
 valued or neglected parts are any further reduced, 
 the " some degree of sterility '' will be succeeded by 
 self-impotence. 
 
 According to Darwin's own showing, there are many 
 plants which are capable of self-fertilization, without 
 any apparent evil resulting to them from the process. 
 
 It is manifest, to the reader, that these owe their 
 fertility, to the absence of all reduction, in them,, of any 
 of the characters of their respective species ; or to such 
 reduction, as they may have, being too little, in degree, 
 to have much effect upon their reproductive powers. 
 
 Then, there are many plants which display lessened 
 fertility, from self-fertilization. 
 
 These are disproportionately developed, to an extent 
 sufficient to effect their fertility, but not sufficient to 
 render them self-impotent. 
 
 Again; there are many plants which are wholly 
 self-impotent. 
 
 These have many of their characters reduced to a 
 rudimentary condition, or so completely suppressed as 
 not to leave a vestige of their past development. From 
 these two latter classes, namely, of plants self-impotent, 
 and plants with their fertility lessened, Darwin has 
 empirically generalized the conclusion, that self-fertil- 
 ization is radically injurious. Those, however, among 
 the more intelligent of botanists who are sufficiently 
 well disciplined in scientific habits of thought, to see 
 that his "great law of nature" is manifestly an incom- 
 plete induction, have openly questioned the validity of 
 Darwin's conclusions; and to warrant their skepticism, 
 
THE SELF-FERTILIZATION OF PLANTS. 349 
 
 have appealed to many plants, of the first-class, — name- 
 ly, those which are very fertile, though self-fertilized, — 
 which conclusively show, that, however much evi- 
 dence Darwin may accumulate to justify his "law," 
 there is an immense array of evidence which obviously 
 militates against any such induction as he would fain 
 draw. 
 
 Darwin, 1 piqued by the distrust displayed, in many 
 quarters, towards his "law of nature," resolutely de- 
 termines to- confound all of the incredulous, by the re- 
 sults of a series of experiments which he has partially 
 made, and which he intends to continue. He declares, 
 that he intends to "settle forever" the question, by 
 means of the experiments he is now conducting, with 
 many plants of a certain species. 
 
 It will, doubtless, be the occasion of some amuse- 
 ment to those who find that the theory of proportion- 
 ate development reconciles all of the vast array of 
 seemingly conflicting evidences, on this point, to see 
 Darwin patiently experimenting with many plants of 
 one species, in the full confidence, that his results will 
 confound all of those who dared to draw into question 
 what he, the autocrat of the world of natural history, 
 had declared to be a " law of nature." 
 
 The cream of the joke lies in this, That the results, 
 of his experiments, depend entirely upon the struct- 
 ural condition of the species, which, he fixes upon, 
 with which to experiment ! If the species he were to 
 determine to use, had, as its individuals, ones which 
 had no characters reduced to a rudimentary condition, 
 or had no character pushed to the extreme of develop- 
 30* 
 
350 THE SELF-FERTILIZATION OF PLANTS. 
 
 merit, whilst the others remained reduced, his "great 
 law of nature" would be completely negatived. If, 
 however, the individuals of the species, were, compara- 
 tively, little disproportionately developed, his heart 
 would be rejoiced, to find that some evil did result 
 from. self-fertilization, and that, on the other hand, good 
 resulted from a cross between varieties of such species. 
 If again ; he chose a species that had many of its char- 
 acters reduced to a rudimentary condition; and had 
 one or two only of the remaining characters pushed to 
 an extreme of development, the results of his experi- 
 ments, would be, in his eyes, so signal and conclusive, 
 as to cause him regret that he had suffered himself to 
 be ruffled, for a moment, by mere quibblers who had 
 not taste enough to recognize the implicit deference 
 they owed to genius so transcendant. 
 
 The following quotation, in which Darwin gives as- 
 surance that he intends "forever (to) settle the ques- 
 tion," is rich. 
 
 "Experiments have not been tried," says he (pp. 
 157-8, Vol. ii, Animals and Plants, &c), "on the 
 effects of fertilizing flowers with their own pollen, 
 during several generations. But, we shall presently* 
 see that certain plants, either normally or abnormally, 
 are more or less sterile, even in the first generation, 
 when fertilized by their own pollen. Although nothing 
 is known on the evil effects of long-continued close-in- 
 terbreeding, with plants, the converse proposition, that 
 great good 'is derived from crossing, is well established. 
 
 "With respect to the crossing of individuals belong- 
 ing to the same sub-variety, Gartner, whose accuracy 
 and experience exceeded that of all other hybridizers, 
 states that he has many times observed good effects 
 
THE SELF-FERTILTZATION OF PLANTS. 351 
 
 from this step (crossing), especially with exotic genera, 
 of which the fertility is somewhat impaired, such as 
 Passiflora, Lobelia and Fuchsia. Herbert also says, 
 'I am inclined to think that I have derived advan- 
 tage from impregnating the flowers from which I 
 wished to obtain seed, with pollen from another indi- 
 vidual of the same variety, or at least from another 
 flower, rather than with its own.' Again, Professor 
 Lecoy asserts that he has ascertained that crossed off- 
 spring are more vigorous and robust than their parent. 
 " General statements of this kind, however, can 
 seldom be fully trusted; consequently, I have begun 
 a series of experiments which, if they continue to give 
 the same results as hitherto, will forever settle the ques- 
 tion of the good effects of crossing two distinct plants 
 of the same variety, and of the evil effects of self-ferti- 
 lization. A clear light will then be thrown (sic) on the 
 fact that flowers are invariably constructed so as to 
 permit, or favor or necessitate the union of two indi- 
 viduals." 
 
 With respect to this last statement, he has been a 
 little negligent in the use of the word "invariably;" 
 for, he himself gives cases of flowers so enclosed 
 as to preclude all possibility of a cross. These en- 
 closed flowers, too, are perfectly fertile, notwithstand- 
 ing that their structure forbids the supposition, that 
 there ever was anything, with them, but self-fertiliza- 
 tion! 
 
 But, to accompany Darwin, in the experiments which 
 are "forever to settle the question" of his "great law 
 of nature:" 
 
 "The plan," continues he, "which I have followed, 
 in my experiments, is to grow plants in the same pot, 
 or in pots of the same size, or close together in the 
 
352 THE SELF-FERTILIZATION OF PLANTS. 
 
 open ground; to carefully exclude insects; and then 
 to fertilize some of the flowers with pollen from the 
 same flower, and others on the same plant with pollen 
 from a distinct, but adjoining plant. In many, but not 
 all, of these experiments, the crossed plants yielded 
 much more seed than the self-fertilized plants; and I 
 have never seen the reversed case. * * * Now, I 
 have carefully observed the growth of plants raised 
 from crossed and self-fertilized seed, from their germi- 
 nation to maturity, in species of the following genera, 
 namely, Brassica, Lathyrus, Lupinus, Lobelia, Lac- 
 tuca, ' Dianthus, Myosptis, Petunia, Linaria, Calceo- 
 laria, Miranda, and Ipomcea, and the difference in 
 their powers of growth and of withstanding, in cer- 
 tain cases, unfavorable conditions, was most manifest 
 and strongly marked." ***** 
 
 " I will briefly describe the two most striking cases as 
 yet observed by me. Six crossed, and six self-fertil- 
 ized seeds of Ipomoea purpurea from plants treated in 
 the manner above described, were planted as soon as 
 they had germinated, in pairs, on opposite sides of 
 two pots, and rods of equal thickness were given them 
 to twine up. Five of the crossed plants grew from the 
 first more quickly than the opposite self-fertilized 
 plants ; the sixth, however, was weakly, and was for a 
 time beaten, but at last its sounder constitution pre- 
 vailed, and it shot ahead of its antagonist. As soon as 
 each crossed plant reached the top of its seven foot 
 rod, its fellow was measured, and the result was that 
 when the crossed plants were seven feet high, the self- 
 fertilized had attained the average height of only five 
 feet, four and a half inches. The crossed plants 
 flowered a little before, and more profusely than the 
 self- fertilized plants. On opposite sides of another 
 small pot, a large number of crossed and self-fertilized 
 seeds were sown, so that they had to struggle for bare 
 existence; a single rod was given to each lot: here 
 
THE SELF-FERTILIZATION OF PLANTS. 353 
 
 again, the crossed plants showed from the first their 
 advantage; they never quite reached the summit of the 
 seven foot rod, but relatively to the self-fertilized 
 plants, their average height was 7 feet to 5 feet 2 
 inches." (This is a good instance of Darwin's Natu- 
 ral Selection. Although stronger and more vig- 
 orous than the other lot of plants in the same pot they 
 were, — relatively to the plants, in the other pot, which 
 had, each, a pole.to itself, — rather degenerated. If the 
 conditions were made more unfavorable, they would — 
 even whilst retaining their character of being stronger 
 and more vigorous than those succumbing — be degen- 
 erating. Yet, Darwin, in his argument of Natural 
 Selection, would have his readers believe, that the 
 mere fact that they were stronger and more vigorous 
 than those of their fellow lot, argued a net advance in 
 development for the species). " The experiment was 
 repeated in the two following generations, with plants 
 raised from the self-fertilized and crossed plants, treated 
 in exactly the same manner, and with nearly the same 
 result. In the second generation, the crossed plants, 
 which were again crossed, produced 1 2 1 seed-capsules, 
 whilst the self-fertilized plants, again self-fertilized, pro- 
 duced only 84 capsules. 
 
 " Some flowers of the Mimulus luteus were fertilized 
 with their own pollen, and others were crossed with 
 pollen from distinct plants, growing in the same pot. 
 The seeds after germination, were thickly planted on 
 opposite sides of a pot. The seedlings were at first 
 equal in height ; but, when the young crossed plants 
 were exactly one-half an inch, the self-fertilized plants 
 were only a quarter of . an inch high. But, this 
 inequality did not continue, for when the crossed plants 
 were four and a half inches high, the self-fertilized 
 plants were three inches, and they retained the same 
 relative difference, till their growth was complete. The 
 crossed plants looked far more vigorous than the un- 
 
354 THE SELF-FERTILIZATION OP PLANTS. 
 
 crossed, and flowered before them ; they produced 
 also a far greater number of flowers which yielded 
 capsules (judging, however, from only a few) contain- 
 ing more seeds. As, in the former case, the experi- 
 ment was repeated in the same manner during the next 
 two generations, and with exactly the same result. 
 Had I not watched these plants of the Mimulus and 
 Ipomcea during their whole growth, I could not have 
 believed it possible, that a difference, apparently so 
 slight as that of the pollen being taken from the same 
 flower, and from a distinct plant growing in the same 
 small pot, could have made so wonderful a difference 
 in the growth and vigor of the plants thus produced. 
 This, under a physiological point of view, is a most 
 remarkable phenomenon." 
 
 It is to be lamented, that such experiments, so care- 
 fully and patiently conducted, and so faithfully re- 
 ported, should add not. a jot of weight to his "great 
 law of nature;" that, such a simple idea, as the want 
 of full structural integrity, should explain the lessened 
 vigor, and the lessened fertility of self-fertilized plants ; 
 and, that the union of the different structural points, 
 of the different plants, and the return, thereby effected, 
 towards the sum of all the positive features of the 
 species ; should account for the good thence resulting. 
 All of these " most remarkable " phenomena, are 
 wholly inexplicable to Darwin. Yet, the explanation 
 is so simple and clear. The self-fertilized plants are 
 deficient in the integrity of their structural conforma- 
 tion ; whilst, when crossed, the same integrity is meas- 
 urably repaired, through each parent's supplying struc- 
 tural defects in the other, by means of the positive 
 differences which distinguish it from the other. The 
 
THE SELF-FERTILIZATION OF PLANTS. 355 
 
 induced return, to the original type of the species, 
 brings with it vigor and fertility. 
 
 Had Darwin but learned the lesson, which is fairly 
 thrust upon him by so many of the facts of breed- 
 ing, — prominent among which, and most significant, is 
 the fact which he records, that the mere increase, of 
 one-half an inch, to one of the sickle tail-feathers of the 
 Fowl, " brings with it increased probability of in- 
 creased fertility," — all of the mystery of the phenomena 
 of fertility, and of sterility, would have been dispelled ; 
 and all necessity of his invoking that most senseless of 
 all expedients, a " law of nature," would have been 
 obviated. 
 
 There is no occasion for the indulgence of such an 
 idle and ignorant wonder, as that to which Darwin 
 gives expression, when it is observed, that each of the 
 positive differences, in the several individuals or varie- 
 ties of a species, which it is possible, and practicable, 
 for each plant to obtain, either, directly, by reversion, 
 or by grafting, or, indirectly, through crossing, ensures 
 a measurable return to the type upon which close- 
 interbreeding, or self-fertilization, is incapable of en- 
 tailing any evil, effect. Each slight difference, which 
 enables a person, acquainted with plants, to distin- 
 guish one from the others, is of moment to the plant ; 
 for, each such slight, positive difference gained, carries 
 with it a guarantee of exemption from weakness and 
 sterility. 
 
 Darwin says, " this, under a physiological point of 
 view, is a most remarkable phenomenon." If he had 
 but paid a tithe of the attention, to the "physiological 
 
356 THE SELF-FERTILIZATION OF PLANTS. 
 
 point of view," which he has given to the mere ana- 
 tomical differences ; or, if he had but thought, for a mo- 
 ment, what physiological effect must be wrought by 
 anatomical changes ; and if he had heeded the almost 
 infinite number of hints which physiology has actually 
 obtruded, but in vain, upon him ; he would have been 
 spared the egregious blunders which he has made; 
 and, phenomena, instead of being insensately charac- 
 terized by him, in ignorant wonder, as " remarkable," 
 would have been fraught, to him, with knowledge of 
 laws, the simplest and most beautiful possible. 
 
 Instead of being constrained, as he is, to regard his 
 facts with the awe the savage shows to his fetich, he 
 would have been enabled, a priori, to expect results 
 which, now, he says, he could not have believed pos- 
 sible. 
 
 How any man, with the least tincture of scientific 
 habits of thought, could range through such varying 
 phenomena; could ignore the significance of their 
 almost infinite variations in quantity of effect; could 
 escape the conclusion, that the modification of a cer- 
 tain ratio of characters, underlies all the evil effects of 
 close-interbreeding and of self-fertilization; and could 
 so completely lull all of his scientific instincts, as to 
 formulate an iliflexible "law of nature," in derogation 
 of such a wide diversity of effects ; are mysteries which 
 can be explained, solely by resorting to the one 
 hypothesis that, "Motley's the only wear" for this 
 standard-bearer of modern thought; or, to the other 
 hypothesis, that the author of the Origin of Species 
 systematically and wilfully ignored the element of 
 
THE SELF-FERTILIZATION OF PLANTS. 357 
 
 physiology, governed by the conviction, that the least 
 insight, by his readers, into that phase of the problem, 
 would suffice to explode his fanciful notion, that the 
 higher animals are evolved from the lower. 
 
 Darwin, in connection with his "great law of na- 
 ture," that good follows from crossing, per se, and evil 
 from interbreeding, per se, is proof against any amount 
 of evidence. In some cases, the. evil from close-inter- 
 breeding, or from self-fertilization, is manifest; and, 
 then he is exultant. In other cases, where it is clear, 
 that close-interbreeding, or self-fertilization, may be 
 long carried on, without any evil effects, he finds 
 refuge in the supposition, that the animals or plants 
 must have been crossed, at some time back. 
 
 But it is possible, and practicable, to prove even the 
 negation of his gratuitous supposition. For there is 
 one class of facts, recorded by Darwin, which should 
 suffice to give his "great law of nature," its quietus. 
 It is, viz., that certain flowers are enclosed! 
 
 These flowers are fertile! and the fertility must have 
 been long continued; for, there is a radical impossi- 
 bility that they ever were crossed. The only means, 
 by which crossing, can be effected, is, either, by foreign 
 pollen being conveyed to the stigmatic surface of the 
 flower, by mechanical forces, winds, &c, or by the 
 transportation of such, by bees, or other insects. But, 
 in the cases mentioned, all ingress for foreign pollen, 
 is absolutely precluded. The flowers, containing the 
 stigmatic surface, are enclosed; and each flower needs 
 must have been ever fertilized by its own pollen. Of 
 these enclosed flowers, which he recognizes as milita- 
 31 
 
358 THE SELF-FERTILIZATION OF PLANTS. 
 
 ting against his "law," he speaks as follows (p. 116, 
 Vol. ii, Animals and Plants, &c.) : 
 
 "The Leersia oryzoids produces minute, enclosed 
 flowers which cannot possibly be crossed, and these alone, 
 to the exclusion of the ordinary flawers, have as yet been 
 known to yield seed. (/) A few additional and analo- 
 gous cases could be advanced. But, these facts do not 
 make me doubt, that it is a general law of nature, that 
 the individuals of the same species occasionally inter- 
 cross, and that some great advantage is derived from 
 this act." 
 
 Some great good is derived from the intercrossing 
 of individuals of the same species, because they each 
 have, in them, some positive point of structure, which 
 is needed in every individual of the given species. In 
 presence of facts, like these enclosed flowers, preclud- 
 ing the possibility of crossing, Darwin trims, some- 
 what, his "law." As he states his "law," elsewhere, 
 it is an absolute necessity, that individuals of the same 
 species should cross. Here, however, in the quotation 
 above, he states it, in a manner which is very little de- 
 fective. 
 
 " Some great advantage " is, undoubtedly, often " de- 
 rived from this act" of Crossing. But, it is not a great 
 "law of nature." It is due to structural defects in 
 either parent being supplied by positive differences in 
 the other parent. 
 
 When individuals of a species are disproportionately 
 developed, a " great advantage is," without doubt, " de- 
 rived from the act'-' of crossing. But, there is no 
 " law of nature," requiring a cross. An individual, and 
 its descendants, which have, each, all of the positive 
 
THE SELF-FERTILIZATION OF PLANTS. 359 
 
 characters of their species, need never cross, if their 
 type is never modified. With them, a cross must needs 
 entail evil upon them, instead of good. For, the only 
 variety with which they could possibly cross, must 
 necessarily be one, distinguished from them, by nega- 
 tive features, which ever work evil. 
 
 But, when individuals are deficient in some of the 
 characters of their species, it is necessary, in order for 
 good to accrue to their offspring, — in order for the 
 physiological evil, attendant upon their structural de- 
 fects, to abate, — that they regain the characters they 
 lack. It is a law of nature, that all the characters, of a 
 species, should be developed, in every individual of 
 such species. The good accruing from a cross, is not 
 due to crossing, per se, but to that accession, of extra 
 characters, which a cross generally involves. The 
 good flows, from the repair, made to the lost integrity, 
 by the addition, in the offspring, to the one set of char- 
 acters of one variety, of another set of characters of 
 another variety. Darwin would be correct, were he to 
 say, that an advantage frequently results from the act 
 of crossing two varieties ; for, each generally possesses 
 characters which the other lacks. But, when indi- 
 viduals have the complement of characters, necessary 
 to fertility, they may long continue their breeding 
 without crossing. 
 
 The instances, which Darwin cites, of the enclosed 
 flowers, which are incapable of crossing, alone being 
 fertile; and, the instances of other plants of the same 
 species, which are sterile, are fully explicable, upon 
 the theory, that the reason why the enclosed flowers 
 
360 THE SELF-FERTILIZATION OF PLANTS. 
 
 are fertile, is because they are fully and propor- 
 tionately developed; while, the reason the unenclosed 
 flowers are sterile, is because, in the feature of enclo- 
 sure, and most, probably, in other characters, they are 
 deficient. The smallness of the enclosed flowers, is a 
 feature which weighs but little, in the account of fer- 
 tility, in comparison with disproportionate develop- 
 ment. The mere lack of enclosure, would suffice to 
 make an appreciable difference in fertility only after 
 very long continued self-fertilization. But, this lack of 
 enclosure, is doubtless conjoined with other structural 
 defects. 
 
 On p. 229, Animals and Plants, &c, Darwin says, as : 
 
 "In several well authenticated instances, already 
 often alluded to; certain species have been affected, in 
 a veiy different manner, for they have become self-im- 
 potent, whilst still retaining the capacity of fertilizing, 
 and being fertilized, by distinct species." 
 
 Frequently, individuals only, of a species, are modi- 
 fied in character, and have parts reduced to a rudimen- 
 tary condition. These individuals, of the species, will 
 of course be sterile; while those, individuals of the 
 species, which are unmodified, or very little modified, 
 will preserve their fertility. Of such cases, Darwin 
 really speaks, in the following remarks (page 168, 
 Animals and Plants, &c.) : 
 
 "We now come to cases clearly analogous with 
 those just given, but different, inasmuch as individual 
 plants alone, of a species, are self-impotent. This self- 
 impotence does not depend on the pollen, or ovules, 
 being in a state unfit for fertilization, for both have 
 been found effective, in union with other plants of the 
 
THE SELF-FERTILIZATION OF PLANTS. 361 
 
 same, or of a distinct species. The fact of these plants 
 having spontaneously acquired so peculiar a constitu- 
 tion, that they can be fertilized more readily by the 
 pollen of a distinct species, than by their own, is re- 
 markable (!) These abnormal cases, as well as the 
 foregoing normal cases, in which certain, orchids, for 
 instance, can be much more easily fertilized by the 
 pollen- of a distinct species, than by their own, are 
 exactly the reverse of what occurs with all ordinary 
 species (!) For, in these latter, the two sexual elements 
 of the same individual plant, are capable of freely act- 
 ing on each other; but are so constituted, that they 
 are more or less impotent, when brought into union 
 with the sexual elements of a distinct species, and pro- 
 duce more or less sterile hybrids. It would appear, 
 that the pollen, or ovules, or both, of the individual 
 plants which are in this abnormal state, have been 
 affected in some strange (!) manner, by the conditions 
 to which they themselves or their parents have been 
 exposed; but whilst thus self-sterile, they have re- 
 tained the capacity, common to most species, of par- 
 tially fertilizing, and being partially fertilized, by allied 
 forms. However this may be, the subject, to a certain 
 extent, is related to our general conclusion, that good 
 is derived from the act of crossing." 
 
 "Conclusion!" The term is a happy one; for his 
 explanation concludes precisely where it begins, — at 
 the very fact to be explained. If, from the fact, that 
 good results from crossing, he deduces, or induces, a 
 conclusion, that good results from crossing, how unique, 
 and ingenious, must have been the process of ratiocina- 
 tion, or of induction, by which he effected the transi- 
 tion from the fact to the conclusion ! 
 
 He makes a passably good guess at the remote cause 
 31* 
 
362 THE SELF-FERTILIZATION OF PLANTS. 
 
 of the self-impotence, of these plants, when he says 
 above : 
 
 " It would appear, that the pollen or ovules, or both, 
 of the individual plants which are in this abnormal 
 state, have been affected in some strange (!) manner, 
 by the conditions to which they themselves, or their 
 parents have been exposed." 
 
 Had he but eliminated the "strange," and the 
 "remarkable" elements from his problem, he would 
 have found, that the conditions were at the bottom of 
 the sterility, through the reduction, or suppression, of 
 certain parts, in the plants, which they effected. This 
 reduction, or suppression (as he would have found), 
 has reduced the number of characters, in each plant so 
 self-impotent, below the complement necessary to give 
 the reproductive elements their needed capacity. 
 
 Conformably to this idea, it was to be expected, 
 that, when plants of full reproductive power, were 
 placed under conditions which were adverse to the 
 development of certain of their characters, they would 
 become self-impotent, or abate the measure of their 
 fertility, in proportion as they became so modified in 
 their development. The result is due to the absence 
 of certain chemical elements, &c, necessary to the 
 development of some part, or parts, of the organism. 
 Not only may this be the occasion ; but, frequently, 
 of a number of plants, which are comparatively fertile, 
 there are some, placed where the conditions are 
 peculiarly favorable to some one, or more parts only. 
 The proportion of the parts being thereby vitiated, 
 injury results to the reproductive organs ; whilst it 
 
THE SELF-FERTILIZATION OF PLANTS. 363 
 
 does not result, in the other plants, to all of whose parts, 
 the conditions are unfavorable, in the degree in which 
 they are to most of the parts, in the sterile plants just 
 mentioned. Thus, favorable conditions, if favorable 
 only to one part or organ, will often produce loss of 
 fertility. Darwin in the quotation below, notes the 
 sterility of the plants, and sees that the conditions are, 
 in some way, answerable for the results ; yet, he can- 
 not imagine the mode, in which the conditions work 
 the effect ; but concludes that the sum of the knowable, 
 in this respect, is that the conditions are " unnatural!' 
 He says (p. 218, Animals and Plants, &c.) : 
 
 " Plants, which have been exposed to unnatural 
 conditions, sometimes become modified, in so peculiar 
 a manner, that they are much more fertile, when 
 crossed by a distinct species, than when fertilized by 
 their own pollen." 
 
 This explanation, that the "peculiar" manner, in 
 which they are modified, is due to conditions being 
 "unnatural" is to the full as satisfactory, and to the 
 full as scientific, as the explanation, that variations are 
 due to "an innate tendency to vary;" or, as the 
 explanation, that it is a " great law of nature," that evil 
 should attend close-interbreeding, and that good should 
 follow crossing. 
 
 When plants, such as these which have been in 
 "unnatural conditions," are changed to other condi- 
 tions, and these other conditions are favorable to the 
 development of the parts which before were reduced or 
 suppressed, a gain in fertility naturally follows. 
 
 "Returning to P. alata," says Darwin (p. 170, Vol. 
 
364 THE SELF-FERTILIZATION OF PLANTS. 
 
 ii, Animals and Plants, &c), "I have received (1866) 
 some interesting details from Mr. Robinson Munro. 
 These plants, including one in England, have already- 
 been mentioned, were inveterately sterile, and Mr. 
 Munro informs me of several others, which after 
 repeated trials, during many years, have been found 
 in the same predicament. At some other places (!), 
 however, this species fruits readily, when fertilized 
 with its own pollen." 
 
 At these " some other places," it has found the, 
 chemical elements, and other conditions of life, which 
 are essential to the development of those of the parts 
 whose loss, or reduction, produced the sterility of the 
 individuals, found in the bad "predicament." Conse- 
 quently, the development of these parts, with that of 
 the others, secures the fertility, which attains its maxi- 
 mum, only when a full return is made to the original, 
 perfect type. 
 
 In different habitats, different plants receive unlike 
 quantities of the gases; liquids, and solids, necessary to 
 their development. The proportion, therefore, of a 
 Plant varies, according to the place to which it is 
 fixed. The soil, in such cases, possesses, generally, 
 some ingredient which is favorable to the development 
 of some one part. In another place, to which the 
 plant may be transplanted, there may be an abundance 
 of the matter required for a certain other part, or 
 for a certain class of its tissues. When so trans- 
 planted, it not only derives a benefit, from the devel- 
 opment of these latter portions of its organization, but 
 the high development of the other part, may be sus- 
 tained for a time, through the capacity for assimilating 
 
THE SELF-FERTILIZATION OF PLANTS. 365 
 
 and making thoroughly available, the ingredient first 
 mentioned, which may or may not be present only in 
 meagre quantities, in its new location. It is therefore, 
 to be expected, that good will be derived from slight 
 changes in the conditions of life. 
 
 Under the heading of " On the Good derived from 
 slight Changes in the Condition of Life" (p. 178, Vol. 
 ii, Animals and Plants, &c), Darwin says : 
 
 "In considering whether any facts were known, 
 which might throw light on the conclusion arrived at 
 in the last chapter, namely, that benefits ensue from 
 crossing, and that it is a law of nature that all organic 
 beings should occasionally cross, it appeared to me 
 probable, that the good, derived from slight changes 
 in the conditions of life, from being an analogous phe- 
 nomenon might serve this purpose. No two individu- 
 als, and still less no two varieties are absolutely alike, 
 in constitution and structure; and when the germ of 
 one is fertilized by the male element of another, we 
 may believe that it is acted on in a somewhat similar 
 manner as an individual, when exposed to slightly 
 changed conditions. Now, every one must have ob- 
 served the remarkable influence on convalescents, of a 
 change of residence, and no medical man doubts the 
 truth of this fact. Small farmers, who hold but little 
 land, are convinced that their cattle derive great benefit 
 from a change of pasture. In the case of plants, the 
 evidence is strong that a great advantage is derived 
 from exchanging seeds, tubers, bulbs, and cuttings, 
 from one soil or place to another as different as pos- 
 sible. 
 
 "The belief that plants are thus benefited, whether 
 or not well founded, has been frequently maintained 
 from the time of Columella, who wrote shortly after 
 
366 THE SELE-EERTILIZATION OF PLANTS. 
 
 the Christian era* {sic!), to the present day; and it now 
 prevails in England, France, and Germany. A saga- 
 cious observer, Bradley, writing-in 1724, says, 'When 
 we once become Masters of a good Sort of Seed, we 
 should at least put it into Two or Three Hands, where 
 the Soils and Situations are as different as possible; 
 and every Year, the Parties should change with one 
 another, by which Means, I find the Goodness of the 
 Seed will be maintained for several Years. For Want 
 of this Use, many Farmers have failed in their Crops, 
 been great Losers.' He then gives his own practical 
 experience on this head. A modern writer asserts, 
 ' Nothing can be more clearly established in agricul- 
 ture, than that the continual growth of any one variety 
 in the same district, makes it liable to deteriorate either 
 in quality or quantity.' Another writer states that he 
 sowed close together, in the same field, two lots of 
 wheat-seed, the product of the same original stock, 
 one of which had been grown on the same land, and 
 the other at a distance, and the difference in favor of 
 the crop from the latter seed was remarkable. A gen- 
 tleman, in Surrey, who has long made it his business 
 to raise wheat to sell for seed, and who has constantly 
 realized in the market, higher prices than others, as- 
 sures me that he finds it indispensable continually to 
 change his seed ; and that for this purpose, he keeps 
 two farms differing much in soil and elevation." 
 
 (Darwin thinks, that the good derived is due to the 
 change, per se /) 
 
 If, on the other hand, plants are changed to a local- 
 ity, wanting in some of the conditions, present at the 
 former habitat, and which supplies none of the condi- 
 tions which may have been absent, or in meagre 
 
 *The impression, with the writer, has ever been, that the " Chris- 
 tian era" lasted, at least, until the Origin of Species was published. 
 
THE SELF-FERTILIZATION OF PLANTS. 36? 
 
 quantity, at the former locality, the plant must, instead 
 of gaining in fertility, become of lessened fertility or 
 sterile ; on account of the reduction or suppression of 
 those parts the conditions whereof, are wanting. Such 
 is the case. 
 
 Darwin says (p. 182, Vol. ii, Animal's and Plants, &c), 
 under the heading of "Sterility from Changed Condi- 
 tions ": 
 
 " I will now attempt to show, that animals and plants 
 when removed from their natural (!) conditions, are 
 often rendered in some degree infertile, or completely 
 barren, and this occurs when the conditions have not 
 been greatly changed. It is notorious that many 
 animals, though perfectly tamed, refuse to breed in 
 captivity." 
 
 The animals, which refuse to breed in captivity, are 
 those which have been taken from a state of nature, 
 and subjected to close confinement. They are barren, 
 because, — though their new conditions may be incapa- 
 ble of reducing any of their features, — those new con- 
 ditions are yet capable of suspending the functions of 
 some of the organs, which is next injurious to their 
 being divested of those parts; inasmuch as the absence 
 of this activity, bereaves the respective organs of that 
 influence upon the aggregate, which is essential to the 
 balance of the whole. Consequently, those organs 
 have not their due influence upon that portion of the 
 system, from which the reproductive element is differ- 
 entiated. This reproductive element is the reflex of 
 the forces of the aggregate, and when the latter is 
 modified, the reproductive power is impaired. Fancy 
 
868 THE SELF-FERTILIZATION OF PLANTS. 
 
 a monkey, taken from the wild state, wherein he so 
 disported himself as to keep his cerebellum constantly 
 on the qui vive in order to coordinate every fibre and 
 muscle in his body; and placed in a cage, three feet 
 by three, where he is constrained to a quiet, modest 
 behavior. If the reproductive element derives its 
 capacity, from the coordination of all the parts, is it 
 any wonder, that the animal refuses to breed? Of 
 course, the conditions of food, of drink, of air, etc., 
 enter into the problem. But, in every aspect of the 
 case, the cause of the sterility resolves itself into the 
 want of perfect coordination of the parts — be those parts 
 suppressed, reduced, or only measurably atrophied ; be 
 the reduction in characters, structural, or merely func- 
 tional. 
 
 But, in these cases, where animals, in captivity, re- 
 fuse to breed, there has often been an actual reduction 
 and suppression of some of the features of the animals ; 
 — doubtless due to correlation" with those parts con- 
 strained to unwonted inactivity. On page 193, Vol. ii, 
 Animals and Plants, &c, Darwin notices many cases, 
 where the sterility of captive animals has been at- 
 tended with the loss of characters of the individual. 
 He does not discern the relation between the two, but 
 he states the facts as severally existing. 
 
 Darwin says (p. 337, Vol. ii, Animals and Plants, &c)\ 
 
 "Slight variations, of many kinds, * * * are 
 retained as long as plants are grown in certain soils, of 
 which Sageret gives, from his own experience, some 
 instances." 
 
 If such plants are removed to another soil, wanting 
 
THE SELF-FERTILIZATION OF PLANTS. 369 
 
 in the conditions necessary to retain such variations ; 
 and if, in addition, the new soil is not capable of de- 
 veloping some other characters which the plant has 
 lacked, and which may serve to keep up the comple- 
 ment of developments, necessary to any degree of fer- 
 tility, the plant will manifestly become sterile. 
 
 Darwin says, that, "Any two self-impotent plants 
 can reciprocally fertilize each other." This conclusion 
 of his is supported by an immense array of facts. But, 
 when the cause is known, the said conclusion is seen 
 to be a little too broad. Self-impotent plants can, and 
 generally do, fertilize each other. But, this is, be- 
 cause the plants are somewhat different in structure. 
 Where two self-impotent plants are similarly defective 
 in structure, they cannot fertilize each other. Plants 
 are self-impotent, because they are defective in struc- 
 ture, and because, in the self-impregnation, each re- 
 productive element supplies the forces, of exactly 
 the same number (and no more) of characters, which 
 the other element does. But, when two individual 
 plants, with any positive differences distinguishing 
 them, cross, the reproductive element of each has 
 some positive character or characters to contribute 
 to the formation of the seed, which the other plant 
 has not; and, between the two of them, they make up 
 the forces of the number of parts requisite for success- 
 ful fertilization. To Darwin, the fact of the capacity 
 of two self-impotent plants to fertilize each other, is 
 simply anomalous. 
 
 He says (p. 174, Vol. ii, Animals and Plants, &c): 
 
 " It is interesting (!) to observe the graduated series, 
 32 
 
370 THE SELF-FERTILIZATION OF PLANTS. 
 
 from plants which, when fertilized by their own pollen, 
 yield the full number of seeds, but with the seedlings a 
 little dwarfed in stature, — to plants which, when self- 
 fertilized, yield few seeds, — to those which yield none, 
 — and, lastly, to those in which the plant's own pollen 
 and stigma act on each other like poison." 
 
 One would presume, that this "graduated series" of 
 effects, instead of being " interesting," would be rather 
 disheartening, to a scientist who had given nearly a 
 half century to the study of plants, without making 
 one step towards a solution which could give a quan- 
 titative explanation of these phenomena ! His " law 
 of nature " is no explanation — it is a farce, in the 
 light of the many exceptions there are to it, and in the 
 light of this " graduated series." It does not allow 
 such exceptions; it permits no such " graduated series ;" 
 nor does it contemplate such infinite variations in the 
 quantity of effect. This "law of nature," of his, is but 
 the formula of the re-statement of an observed general 
 effect. It is an insult to the very name of science to 
 formulate such a " law." His " law of nature " is 
 born of an order of thought, no higher than that 
 which ascribes results to a fetich. It would have 
 been the occasion of little surprise, that Darwin 
 assigned such a " cause," had his acquaintance with 
 the phenomena of lessened fertility, been a meagre 
 one. But, to perpetrate such an absurdity, after no- 
 ting such a diversity of effects (a diversity, plainly 
 intimating, that a vera causa exists, and that it lies 
 within easy reach of discovery, at the recurrence of 
 each variation in the effects), betrays habits of thought 
 of the most slovenly character. Darwin has genius ; 
 
THE SELF-FERTILIZATION OF PLANTS. 3T1 
 
 but, it is for this, principally : For exalting converti- 
 ble platitudes into " explanations 1" 
 
 Darwin, while gazing, contemplatively, upon this 
 "graduated series" of effects, which stands as a monu- 
 ment to his well-nigh phenomenal obtuseness, ejacu- 
 lates, with all the impressiveness of Pickwick, How 
 " interesting !" It is " interesting " to him (mark), be- 
 cause it is inscrutable. 
 
 It may be " interesting," so to indulge a barbar- 
 ous wonder; to regard phenomena as due to chance, or 
 some innate tendency ; and to obviate the incongrui- 
 ties of his theory, by recourse to the proverbial 'idea 
 that Nature is capricious ; but, it should be infinitely 
 more " interesting," to a scientist, to resolve this 
 " graduated series ;" to discover the vera causa there- 
 of; and to note how this seemingly fortuitous diversity 
 of effects, corresponds most faithfully, in every in- 
 stance, and degree for degree, to like gradations in 
 the quantity of a given cause. It is more gratifying, 
 by far, to be able to place, side by side with this 
 "graduated series" of effects, a similarly graduated 
 series of departures from a normal type; than, to be 
 lost in dumb wonder, as Darwin is, at phenomena 
 which, with silent eloquence, tell him, who is so fer- 
 tile in "great laws of nature," to obey the injunction 
 which follows Pope's request to teach Omnipotence 
 how to rule. 
 
 A man, of "liberal" ideas, may, when it subserves 
 his purpose, repose with perfect confidence, upon the 
 hypothesis, that there are phenomena which it is never 
 for Man to solve. But, woe betide the unlucky sprite, 
 
312 THE SELF-FERTILIZATION OF PLANTS. 
 
 tinctured with the faintest trace of orthodoxy, who may 
 have the effrontery to entertain or propound such a 
 view! 
 
 When, in times past, before was waged that "fearful 
 Struggle for Existence," of which "Natural Selection'' 
 was the outcome, all of the chemical elements and con- 
 ditions essential to the full and proportionate develop- 
 ment of a plant, were adequately supplied; all the fea- 
 tures and organs of the plant, were in full and harmo- 
 nious proportion. When fertilized by its own pollen, 
 its fertility was at its maximum, and the flowers yielded 
 their" full number of seeds. When the species became 
 modified, — when parts of the plant became some- 
 what reduced, — the plant "when fertilized by its own 
 pollen," had its "flowers to yield the full number of 
 seeds, but with the seedlings a little dwarfed ; " When 
 the plant, "in the terrible battle of life," had departed 
 further from its primitive, and normal type; when the 
 loss and reduction of parts, became more pronounced, 
 the plant, when self-fertilized, yielded "few seeds;" 
 When the departure from full integrity, grew greater 
 still ; when many organs had been reduced to a ru- , 
 dimentary condition; the plant yielded "no seed;" 
 When the degeneration progressed, the reproductive 
 elements found not, represented in them, the forces 
 of that number of characters of the species which 
 was necessary to the reciprocal play of their functions 
 of integration. Self-impotence, then, characterized the 
 plants: When this, or a greater, departure from the 
 original mould had ensued, the reproductive elements, 
 being incapable of any integration whatever, under- 
 
THE SELF-FERTILIZATION OF PLANTS. 313 
 
 went a retrograde metamorphosis; "the surface of the 
 stigma, in contact with the pollen, and the pollen itself, 
 becoming * * dark brown and then decaying;" 
 When the plant became still more modified, the vigor 
 of the plant was gone; and the individual died. The 
 individuals of each species of plant are at present to be 
 seen in one, several, many, or all of these stages. This 
 is the explanation of the "graduated series." This is 
 more than "interesting:" It is a complete, quantita- 
 tive solution of all the diverse phenomena. 
 
 Speaking of those species, which have but some in- 
 dividuals self-impotent, Darwin says (p. 174, Vol. ii, 
 Animals and Plants, &c.) : 
 
 " This peculiar state of the reproductive organs, 
 when occurring in certain individuals alone, is evi- 
 dently abnormal." 
 
 What a wealth of knowledge, is here conveyed. 
 He can but mean, that exceptions to the general rule 
 for a given species, are (sic) evidently exceptions ! He 
 cannot intend anything else ; for, he is precluded from 
 using the words "normal," and "abnormal" in any 
 other sense, by his theory, viz., that there is no fixed 
 status, for any organisms, because the law of their 
 development is constant change. The above, is but 
 another of his re-statements of what he affects to ex- 
 plain. 
 
 The self-impotence, of which he speaks, and all 
 cases of sterility and of lessened fertility, are ab- 
 normal. It matters not, whether they occur in certain 
 individuals alone, of a species ; or whether they occur 
 
 in all of the individuals of a species. It is not the 
 32* 
 
3*74 THE SELF-FERTILIZATION OF PLANTS. 
 
 fact, that they contravene an observed, general result, 
 which makes them abnormal (although it does in one 
 sense ; but that sense is so obvious, that no one, unless 
 he was solicitous to give an impression that he was 
 not passing by facts without explaining them, would 
 ever think of imparting what it needs no ghost, come 
 from his grave, to tell). They are abnormal, by 
 reason of the fact, that they prevail, only when there 
 is a breach of the true coordination of the characters 
 of the given species. "This peculiar state of the 
 reproductive organs,'' is the consequence of the ab- 
 sence, or reduction of characters; which, also, is ab- 
 normal. It is the penalty, entailed upon the organisms, 
 for their departures from the true integrity of their 
 respective species. 
 
 Referring to the self-impotence of many plants, Dar- 
 win remarks (p. in, Origin of Species) : 
 
 " How strange are these facts ! How strange, that 
 the pollen and stigmatic surface of the same flower, 
 though placed so close together, as if for the very 
 purpose of self-fertilization, should, in so many cases, 
 be mutually useless to each other. How simple are 
 these facts explained, on the view of an occasional 
 cross with a distinct individual, being advantageous or 
 indispensable !" 
 
 " How simple ?" aye, how idiotic ! to explain, that 
 the cause of the bane, is the existence of the antidote ! 
 We are lost in wonder, at this evidence of how 
 great an amount of cerebral phosphorus, some of 
 these highly-developed Quadrumana may secrete. 
 
 To paraphrase Darwin's statement : Men frequently 
 fall sick ; " How strange are these facts' How simple 
 
THE SELF-FERTILIZATION OF PLANTS. 375 
 
 are these facts explained, on the view of an occa- 
 sional " dose of medicine " being advantageous or 
 indispensable !" 
 
 Darwin, in striving to explain the causes of the 
 lessened fertility of plants, essays the very ingenious 
 surmise, that " their sexual functions are disturbed." 
 But, it is to be remarked, that he gives not the 
 remotest approach to a conjecture, as to what is the 
 reason for this disturbance ; how it is brought about ; 
 nor why the disturbance is absent in one case, is great 
 in another, is less in a third, and but slight in a fourth. 
 He says, respecting these phenomena (p. 231, Vol. ii, 
 Animals and Plants, &c): 
 
 "We are far from knowing the cause; nor is this 
 surprising, seeing how profoundly ignorant we are in 
 regard to the normal and abnormal action of the 
 reproductive organs." 
 
 It has been shown, with respect to animals, that 
 varieties are generally incapable of long continuing the 
 same form ; that, unless crossing is resorted to, — which 
 varies the form, — or reversion occurs in some of the 
 parts, such varieties die out, and give place to others ; 
 owing to the evil effects resulting from their incom- 
 plete, or disproportionate development. The same 
 holds good, with plants. Varieties, either die out 
 altogether, after a time, or they vary somewhat their 
 form. To this principle, is due the degeneration 
 which, as Darwin has shown, requires that there 
 should be frequent exchanges of seed, or change of 
 conditions. A variety which long remains " genuine," 
 may be relied upon, as being comparatively propor- 
 
316 THE SELF-FERTILIZATION OE PLANTS. 
 
 tionately developed. The evils which result to plants 
 from disproportionate development, are encouraged by 
 the process which planters have of " roguing " (i. e., 
 weeding out) those individuals, of a variety, which de- 
 part from the type prescribed by their owners. Dar- 
 win says (p. 34, Origin of Species) : 
 
 " When a race of Plants is pretty well established, 
 the seed-raisers do not pick out the best plants, but 
 merely go over their seed-beds, and pull up the ' rogues,' 
 as they call the plants that deviate from the proper 
 standard." 
 
 As this "proper standard," generally requires the 
 monstrous development of some one character only 
 (that character, which is valued); and suffers, or has 
 compelled, the reduction of other characters to a rudi- 
 mentary condition ; it is impossible for the plants, long 
 to continue their kind. To remain constant long, to a 
 a given type; either that type must approximate the 
 sum of all the positive characters of its species ; or it 
 must deviate from such "proper standard," by abating 
 the abnormally developed part; by increasing the de- 
 velopment of one or more of the other (i. e., the not 
 valued) parts; or by restoring some of the parts which 
 were wholly suppressed or rudimentary; or it must 
 supply some of these defects of structure by crossing 
 with individuals of another variety. 
 
 So imperative is this alternative, of either extinction, 
 or change of form, where plants are defective in struc- 
 ture, that Darwin comments upon it, with some sur- 
 prise. The change of form is effected, generally, un- 
 consciously to man. For, those plants which persist 
 
THE SELF-FERTILIZATION OF PLANTS. 371 
 
 in a varietal type which is of defective structure, be- 
 come of lessened fertility, and of lessened vigor. 
 These, man, for obvious reasons, rejects; and selects 
 those which are hardier and most fertile. The latter 
 owe this vigor and fertility to such slight successive in- 
 crements of growth in various parts, that the change 
 escapes man's eyes, until he awakes, with surprise, to 
 the fact of how different the variety is, to what it was 
 but a few years back ! He himself has occasioned it, 
 by his selection of the strongest and most fertile. 
 Then ; it is very difficult to confine a plant to a given 
 type, when its seed is distributed and grown in many 
 places, where the supplies of the conditions of growth, 
 are so different. A variety is, very frequently the 
 outcome both of man's selection, and of a given set 
 of conditions. Where this set of conditions, is not 
 realized, all of man's care cannot prevent a change of 
 form, in the transplanted variety. 
 
 • "De Candolle," says he (p. 513, Origin of Species), 
 " has fully discussed the antiquity of various races of 
 plants." 
 
 He then speaks of old varieties of the poppy, of the 
 almond, of the cabbage, of the turnip, &c, which ex- 
 isted, many centuries back, and which are measurably 
 like the varieties existing at the present day. 
 
 "But," says he, "it does not seem improbable, that 
 some of these varieties may have been lost and reap- 
 peared;" and "whether any of these plants are abso- 
 lutely identical with our present sub-varieties, is not 
 certain." 
 
 Respecting the changes of form, which are required 
 
318 THE SELF-PEETILIZATION OP PLANTS. 
 
 to save varieties from extinction, the following asser- 
 tion of Darwin may be quoted : 
 
 " Whether," says he . (p. 397, Vol. i, Animals and 
 Plants, &c), " the incessant supply of new varieties, is 
 partly due to * * 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-fertilization, are weakly and 
 soon perish, I cannot even conjecture." 
 
 The doubt, in his mind, as to their becoming 
 weakly, and perishing, arises probably from the fact, of 
 his having observed several varieties which, — being 
 proportionately developed, — contravene his incomplete 
 induction. 
 
 The loss, or reduction, of characters, entails loss of 
 fertility. This fertility may be regained by the restora- 
 tion of such lost or reduced characters. It matters 
 not, by what process is effected the addition of char- 
 acters to a defective variety, to make up the comple- 
 ment necessary to induce fertility, or increase of fer- 
 tility. If the result be attained by direct reversion (i. e., 
 by what is called improvement), the fertility ensues: 
 If by crossing, the same gain follows. Even when 
 a measurable return to perfect type, is secured by that 
 addition of characters, which is effected by splicing 
 two varieties together, in Grafting, the good equally 
 results. 
 
 As Darwin remarks (p. 1 2, Origin of Species) : 
 
 " It is really surprising, to note the endless points in 
 structure, and constitution, in which the varieties and 
 sub-varieties," (" of some of our cultivated plants 
 as the " varieties of the " hyacinth, potato, even the 
 
THE SELF-FERTILIZATION OF PLANTS. 319 
 
 dahlia," &c), " differ slightly from each other. The 
 whole organization seems to have become plastic and 
 tends to depart, in some small degree, from the 
 parental type." 
 
 Each variety has some positive peculiarity, which is 
 wanting in all the other varieties of the same species, 
 and the absence of which, lessens the capacity of those 
 varieties, for reproduction. A plant, lacking many, and 
 important features will, as has been shown, have its re- 
 productive elements wholly incapacitated for union with 
 each other, or for union with the sexual elements of 
 other plants of exactly the same mould ; and yet, the 
 plant will be quite fertile, with other individuals of the 
 species, with forms dissimilar. The reason is; in the 
 former cases, the reproductive elements cannot build 
 a structure, when each lacks so many, and the same, 
 materials. In the latter case, they may build (though 
 each lacks many of the materials), if both make up, 
 with the forces of what characters they have, all, or 
 most, of what is needed. To be functionally perfect, an 
 organism must be, of the full structural integrity, of its 
 species. Man may mould the individuals, of a species, 
 into a multitude of shapes; but each such form (save 
 one), will, of necessity, be in derogation, both of its struc- 
 tural, and of its functional perfection. In such a way, 
 the whole organization may be shown to be "plastic;" 
 but, plastic, in much the same manner a man may be 
 shown to be, by cutting off his leg. May a truncated 
 crystal, with an edge lopped off, be rightly said to be 
 plastic ? Or, may a number of such truncated crystals, 
 be said to be plastic, merely because it is possible to 
 
380 THE SELF-FERTILIZATION OF PLANTS. 
 
 arrest each crystal, at a different stage, in its process 
 of reintegrating its lost edge ? 
 
 Of the three processes, by which lessened fertility is 
 regained, reversion by means of slight accretions of 
 growth, is one. The evidence from Darwin, on this 
 point, — namely, of increased fertility, concomitant upon 
 the development of structure by means directly of Re- 
 version, — is not abundant; for two reasons. The one 
 is, that Darwin, not being conscious, — or seeming not to 
 be, — of the connection between the two, has not made 
 it a subject of close observation; and, direct Reversion, 
 not being abrupt, as Reversion, of course, is in Cross- 
 ing, the resulting gain, in fertility, has just been noticed 
 by Darwin, and left without further remark. 
 
 He says (p. 2 1 2, Vol. ii, Animals and Plants, &c.) : 
 "Domestication, as a general rule, increases the pro- 
 lificness of animals and plants." 
 
 Another reason is, that the gain, in fertility, which 
 should ensue from the improvement, or reversion, oc- 
 curring under domestication, is quite frequently pre- 
 cluded by man's vitiating the proportion, through 
 pushing the development of one or two characters 
 only, to an extreme point. This, as we have before 
 frequently observed, is often worse, in its effects, than 
 was the comparatively uniform degeneration which 
 obtained, before Man bestowed care upon the indi- 
 viduals. Another reason is that Man suppresses and 
 reduces organs, as he has done with the Pigv These 
 are the reasons, why the result required by the theory 
 of reversion, and noticed by Darwin, obtains, as he 
 says, "as a general rule" only. 
 
THE SELF-FERTILIZATION OF PLANTS. 381 
 
 On the other hand, as Darwin says (p. 144, Vol. ii, 
 Animals and Plants, &c.) : 
 
 " The benefit from a cross, even when there has not 
 been any very close-interbreeding, is almost invariably 
 at once conspicuous." 
 
 In the chapters, on Pigeons and Fowls, it will be 
 remembered, that Darwin says, what he repeats, and 
 reiterates in one form, or another, again and again, 
 throughout his works; that: 
 
 "The more distinct the breeds, that are crossed, the 
 more fertile, the mongrel offspring." Below, he notices 
 the exceptional excellence of mongrel plants '"of 
 which, the parents were the two most dissimilar varie- 
 ties, I could select.' " 
 
 It will be noticed, that the gardener erroneously 
 terms mongrels, "hybrids;" a fault which Darwin 
 corrects. The other term, "hybridizations," Darwin 
 doubtless thought it needless to rectify. 
 
 "With respect to the benefit, derived from crossing 
 distinct varieties" (Vol. ii, p. 160, Animals and Plants, 
 &c), "plenty of evidence has been published; Sageret 
 speaks, in strong terms, of the vigor of melons raised 
 by crossing different varieties, and adds, that they are 
 more easily fertilized than common melons, and pro- 
 duce numerous good seed. Here follows the evidence 
 of an English gardener. 'I have, this summer, met 
 with better success, in my cultivation of melons, in an 
 unprotected state, from the seeds of hybrids (2. e., mon- 
 grels), obtained by cross-impregnation, than with old 
 varieties. The offspring of these different hybridiza- 
 tions (?) (one, more especially, of which the parents 
 were the two .most dissimilar (!) varieties I could select), 
 each yielded more ample and finer produce than any- 
 33 
 
382 THE SELF-FERTILIZATION OP PLANTS. 
 
 one, of between twenty, and thirty established varie- 
 ties.'" 
 
 The mongrels, from a cross between " the two most 
 dissimilar varieties I could select," were remarkably 
 excellent, because the amount of positive differences, 
 is generally greatest, with individuals, or varieties, the 
 most dissimilar; for, the union of the characters which 
 constitute these differences, in the mongrels, secures a 
 great remove, towards the original, perfect type. Each 
 of these varieties, therefore, had much to contribute, 
 which the other lacked. Here, with the varieties of 
 the melon, as with the varieties of all cultivated spe- 
 cies, the excellences, which should be compounded, or 
 united, in each individual, of the species, are frittered 
 away, by apportioning them among different individ- 
 uals and varieties. Hence ; the evil effects, which are 
 attendant upon the close-interbreeding and the self- 
 fertilization of the individuals of each variety, which 
 lacks the special excellences of all the other varieties. 
 Hence; the good from Crossing, which remedies such 
 apportionment, by uniting the special excellences, or 
 other positive, peculiar characters, of two varieties, ( 
 in the one individual, the offspring. 
 
 Again he says : 
 
 " Andrew Knight believed that his seedlings, from 
 crossed varieties of the Apple, exhibited increased 
 vigor, and luxuriance ; and, M. Chevreul alludes to 
 the extreme vigor of some of the crossed fruit trees, 
 raised by Sageret." 
 
 "By crossing, reciprocally, the tallest and shortest 
 peas, Knight says, ' I had, in this experiment, a strik- 
 
THE SELF-FERTILIZATION OF PLANTS. 383 
 
 ing instance of the stimulating effects of crossing 
 the breeds ; for, the smallest variety, whose height 
 rarely exceeded two feet, was increased to six feet ; 
 whilst the height of the large and luxuriant kind, was 
 very little diminished.' " 
 
 The offspring was not diminished, or increased, to a 
 mere mean, between the two varieties which were, re- 
 spectively, large and small; because the capacity for 
 reversion to the greater height, lay ready to be ex- 
 ercised, in the smaller variety ; and, doubtless, the 
 latter also made amends, for its small size, by con- 
 tributing some positive differences, in some of its 
 characters, in which the large variety was deficient. 
 For, the accession of new characters, always, — or nearly 
 always, — brings with it increased size ; due, both to 
 the capacity for reversion, and to the room which this 
 accession demands. Crossing, Darwin asserts, in- 
 creases the size ; though, the fact belongs only to his 
 voluminous repertory of things which are " strange," 
 " wonderful," "remarkable," "peculiar," etc., and which 
 obey an " innate tendency." Darwin's forte lies in 
 facts ; his explanatory sagacity he seems to have ex- 
 hausted, in devising his " innate tendency," and his 
 " great law of nature." Those explanations (?) contain, 
 within them, the very quintessence of the absurd; but, 
 it is no paradox to assert, that there is ever a greater 
 expenditure of cerebral phosphorus, involved in the 
 conception and application of a fallacious doctrine, 
 than there is, in the discovery of the grandest truths. 
 The hard attrition, of each fact, against the fallacy, is 
 most wearing to the~~brain; whereas, a true principle 
 
384 THE SELF-FERTILIZATION OF PLANTS. 
 
 evolves itself most gracefully, and courses with perfect 
 ease, in and out, among all of the phenomena. 
 Continuing, Darwin remarks: 
 
 " Mr. Laxton gave me seed-peas, produced from 
 crosses between four distinct kinds; and the plants, 
 thus raised, were extraordinarily vigorous, being in 
 each case, from one to two or three feet, taller than the 
 parent forms growing close along side of them." 
 
 On page 161, Vol. ii, Animals and Plants, &c, he 
 says: 
 
 "Weigmann made many crosses between several 
 varieties of cabbage ; and he speaks with astonishment, 
 of the vigor and height of the mongrels, which excited 
 the amazement of all the gardeners who beheld them. 
 Mr. Chaundry raised a great number of mongrels, by 
 planting together six distinct varieties of cabbage. 
 These mongrels displayed an infinite diversity of char- 
 acter; but the most remarkable circumstance was, that, 
 while all the other cabbages and borecoles, in the nur- 
 sery, were destroyed by a severe winter, these hybrids (?) 
 were little injured, and supplied the kitchen, when there 
 was no other cabbage to be had." 
 
 The height, which was observed in these mongrel 
 cabbages, was due, doubtless, to reversion in the stock * 
 which, according to Darwin, in some individuals, has 
 attained an enormous height. 
 
 "In the Island of Jersey," says he (p. 389, Vol. i, 
 Animals and Plants, &c), "from the effects of particu- 
 lar 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, and as walking sticks." 
 
THE SELF-FEKTILIZATION OF PLANTS. 385 
 
 The great room, for improvement, there is in the 
 cabbage, by means of reversion direct, or reversion by- 
 crossing, is here shown (although no useful purpose 
 of Man will be served by effecting such improvement 
 in the said plant) ; and the " infinite diversity of charac- 
 ter," which Darwin notes, is explained, by the fact, 
 that many of the characters of the cabbage species, 
 have been distributed among the different varieties. 
 The above quotation shows one feature, in which most 
 of the varieties have been modified. " Every one," says 
 Darwin, " knows how greatly the various kinds of cab- 
 bage, differ in appearance." He then notices the height 
 the plant has attained in the Island of Jersey, and 
 gives many of the forms which the cabbage has as- 
 sumed, in several parts of the world. 
 
 On page 281, Vol. ii, he says, "No variety of wheat 
 is quite uniform, in character." This shows, that, not 
 only do the varieties of wheat differ in character, but 
 so, also, do the individuals of each variety. His obser- 
 vation has doubtless been confined, to the part which 
 man values, viz., the seed; but, together with varia- 
 tions, in the special excellence of that species, there 
 are, also, many variations in the leaves, in the stalks, 
 and in other not-valued parts. When these positive 
 differences are united, in an individual plant, as they 
 are, by crossing, good must, according to the theory 
 of reversion, result. The facts consist with this in- 
 ference. 
 
 "Mr. Maund," says Darwin (p. 161, Vol. ii, Animals 
 and Plants, &c), "exhibited before the Royal Agri- 
 cultural Society specimens of crossed wheat, together 
 33* 
 
386 THE SELF-FERTILIZATION OF PLANTS. 
 
 with their parent varieties, and the editor states, that 
 they were intermediate in character, ' united with that 
 greater vigor of growth, which, it appears, in the vege- 
 table, as in the animal world, is the result of a first 
 cross.' Knight also crossed several varieties of wheat, 
 and he says, 'that in the years 1795 and 1796, when 
 almost the whole crop of corn, in the island, was 
 blighted, the varieties thus obtained, and these only, 
 escaped in this neighborhood, though sown in several 
 different soils and situations.'" 
 
 On page 281, Vol. ii, Animals and Plants, &c, he 
 says: 
 
 "The straw of the Fenton wheat, is remarkably un- 
 equal in height; and, a competent observer believes, 
 that this variety is highly productive, partly because 
 the ears, from being distributed, at various heights, 
 above the ground, are less crowded together." 
 
 Doubtless, to this is due some of the effect; but, it 
 is probable, that, with the inequality in height, there is 
 a diversity in the quality of the different classes of 
 tissues, in the proportion of the chemicals assimilated, 
 and in others of the characters; and, that the fertility 
 arises from the interbreeding of the individuals, which 
 is, under the circumstances, tantamount to crossing. 
 
 It may be asked, by the reader, unacquainted with 
 the motives which govern seed-growers, in their selec- 
 tion; Why, if such great increase in vigor, size, fer- 
 tility, &c., is secured by crossing, is not that process 
 generally resorted to? The reason is, that the im- 
 provement of /the plants is but a secondary considera- 
 tion, with planters. Their first aim is, to secure uni- 
 formity of character, in the individuals of each variety, 
 and this end is frustrated by crossing. Upon a cross, 
 
THE SELF-FERTILIZATION OF PLANTS. 381 
 
 each of the mongrels starts out, in a different direction, 
 towards the perfect type of its species, and there is but 
 little chance, if crossing be continued, of ever getting 
 them uniform again, until they attain their goal. The 
 case, where the mongrels may be made uniform, is 
 unique. 
 
 On p. 121, Vol. ii, Animals and Plants, &c, Darwin 
 says: 
 
 " The history of a variety of wheat, which was raised 
 from two very distinct varieties, and which, after six 
 years' culture, presented an even sample, has been 
 recorded on good authority." 
 
 In this case, the wheat must have been grown for 
 those six years upon the same piece of ground. In 
 no other way, could they have been brought under 
 subjection. 
 
 Planters are jealous of the development, in their 
 plants, of any characters other than the special excel- 
 lence. They even grudge other characters, the chemi- 
 cal elements, and even the carbonic acid of the atmos- 
 phere, which are needful for their growth. The preju- 
 dice they entertain, respecting a cross (which starts the 
 development of all the characters of the plant), may, 
 therefore, be appreciated. Planters have never had 
 more than two ideas, on the subject of the cultiva- 
 tion of Plants, namely, Selection, and " Fertilizers ;" 
 despite the fact that every plant, under their care 
 has ever been vocal, with the cry, that the true Fer- 
 tilizer is proportionate development. Full, propor- 
 tionate development may, at times, not consist with the 
 profit of the planter ; but that degree of proportionate 
 
388 THE SELF-FERTILIZATION OP PLANTS. 
 
 development, which is requisite to stave off sterility, 
 and lessened fertility, is an important item in culti- 
 vation. 
 
 Darwin says (p. 505, Vol. ii, Animals and Plants, 
 &c): 
 
 "I have just said, that the crossed offspring would 
 gain in vigor and fertility. From the facts given 
 in the xviith chapter, there can be no doubt of 
 this ; and there can be little doubt * * that long- 
 continued, close-interbreeding leads to evil results. 
 From these various considerations, the conclusion, 
 arrived at in the chapter just referred to, — namely, 
 that great good of some kind, is derived from the 
 sexual concourse of distinct individuals, — must be ad- 
 mitted." 
 
 What a brilliant and satisfying conclusion to come 
 to ! With what admiration must his readers regard 
 him, thus: 
 
 " * * boldly soaring, in sublimer mood, 
 Through trackless skies, on metaphysic wings." 
 
 With what a hush of profoundest awe, must his dis- 
 ciples here contemplate their master, who has just 
 proved that he is capable of discovering, that, in a con- 
 geries of effects, — varying, too infinitely in quantity, — 
 there is at work, some mysterious law ! Good is ob- 
 served to recur, at times, from crossing: Then, the 
 scientist (this scientist, par excellence) frames a " great 
 law of nature," viz., that good recurs ! Truly, the 
 following tribute should be paid, to Darwin's genius, as 
 it was to that of his grandfather, the author of " Loves 
 of the Plants" ': 
 
THE SELF-FERTILIZATTON OE PLANTS. 389 
 
 " Willing Nature to thy curious eye, 
 Involved in night, her mazy depths betray." 
 * x * * * * 
 
 " And Nature in primordial beauty seems 
 To breathe, inspired by thee, the Philosophic Soul !"* 
 
 Again does Darwin say (p. 175, Vol. ii, Animals and 
 Plants, &c.) : 
 
 " These facts all point to the same general conclusion, 
 namely, that good is derived from a cross between in- 
 dividuals which, either innately (sic), or from ex- 
 posure to dissimilar conditions, have come to differ in 
 sexual constitution." 
 
 Why, (1) good should be derived from a cross; (2) 
 what this " innate " tendency is, which causes the indi- 
 viduals to differ in sexual constitution; (3) What are 
 these differences in sexual constitution ; (4) and Why 
 exposure to dissimilar conditions produces these sex- 
 ual differences, are conundrums which are not solved 
 upon Darwin's theory, doubtless because it was deemed 
 that to attempt their solution would be in derogation 
 of the respect due to " a great law of nature." 
 
 Darwin is mistaken, not only when he refers the 
 phenomena to "a great law of nature," but also when 
 he contends, that the good from crossing, has any neces- 
 sary connection with any sexual features, or sexual 
 constitution. The good accrues, whenever there is an 
 increase of the number of characters of the individual, 
 
 * These chaste effusions, by admiring friends of Dr. Erasmus Dar- 
 win, are to be found incorporated within an edition of the latter's 
 " Botanic Garden." It is to be regretted, that those works of the 
 imagination, " The Origin of Species" and "Animals and Plants 
 under Domestication" which are much superior, in poetical merit, to 
 " The Loves of the Plants;' were not also set to metre. 
 
390 THE SELF-FERTILIZATION OF PLANTS. 
 
 however such increase may be wrought. In Grafting, 
 the condition is supplied, and the good results; and, 
 there, the element of sex, and that of reproduction, 
 are wanting. Each variety possesses some peculiar or 
 other feature which it is necessary, for perfect physio- 
 logical integrity, that the others should have. The 
 fact of the good results being occasioned also by the 
 process of Grafting, is strikingly out of harmony with 
 his idea, of the good being due to some quality, resi- 
 dent in the sexual organs. Crossing is not the cause, 
 but merely one of the occasions, of the good. The 
 ultimate reason of the good effects, is, that the union, 
 or addition, of characters, supplies a deficient integrity, 
 and brings the individual receiving such an accession 
 of features, back to the type, from which it. should 
 never have departed. As frequently remarked, differ- 
 ence, per se, is not the cause; the beneficial effect is 
 wrought, only when there is some positive difference 
 capable of covering, or of supplying, a deficiency. 
 Darwin says (p. 1 74, Vol. ii., Animals and Plants, &c) : 
 
 " The self-impotent Passiflora alata, which recovered 
 its' self-fertility, after having been grafted on a distinct * 
 stock, shows how small a change is sufficient to act 
 powerfully on the reproductive system." 
 
 This case of the self-impotent Passiflora alata be- 
 coming again capable of self-fertilization, shows clearly 
 that no matter how the lost integrity of an individual, 
 is repaired; or how the individual regains the charac- 
 ters, lost by itself, or by its ancestors, the recompense, 
 due a return to the original type, is always paid. 
 
 The above quotation reveals another of his ingenious 
 
THE SELF-FERTILIZATION OF PLANTS. 391 
 
 fallacies. By introducing the remark, that the grafting 
 acts powerfully on the reproductive system, he wishes 
 to insinuate the idea that the phenomena incident to 
 grafting, are not inconsistent with the view he pre- 
 viously propounded, to wit, that the good from cross- 
 ing is due to some peculiarity in the sexual constitu- 
 tion. The fallacy lies in this, that in either of his two 
 propositions, cause and effect are transposed, when 
 compared with the relation the good effects and their 
 cause bore to each other in the other proposition. His 
 first proposition is to the effect that some peculiarity 
 in the sexual constitution is the cause, and the good 
 observed is the effect. His latter proposition, however, 
 is to the effect that the good observed is the cause, 
 and the peculiarity in the sexual constitution is the 
 effect ! 
 
 On page 437, Vol. ii., Animals and Plants, &c, he 
 speaks of the " facts which render it, to a certain degree 
 probable, that when the tissues of two plants, belong- 
 ing to distinct varieties, are intimately united," in Graft- 
 ing, " the characters of the two forms are united." 
 
 On page 180, Vol. ii, Animals and Plants, &c, he 
 gives many instances of the good derived from Grafting. 
 
 It is a matter, of supreme consequence, to understand 
 the reason of the lessened fertility, and of the sterility, 
 among individuals of the same species ; for, it is by the 
 test of sterility, that botanists determine what are and 
 what are not species. Where this is not the test, with 
 them, structural difference is ; and the consequence has 
 been, that the classification of species of plants is most 
 absurd. How can they safely make sterility, per se, a 
 
392 THE SELF-FERTILIZATION OF PLANTS. 
 
 test, when individuals of the same species are frequently 
 sterile with each other ! How safely make structural 
 difference, per se, a test, when there are many cultivated 
 varieties, and many natural races, of the same species, 
 distinguished from each other, by differences, greater 
 than those which mark even genera from each other ! 
 It has been popular faith in this idea, of mere structural 
 difference, which has hitherto secured Darwin's theory 
 against confutation. As soon as the idea is broached, 
 that structural difference is of little account, compared 
 with physiological difference, the main stay of his 
 theory is gone. 
 
 The result of the test of structural difference, and of 
 the ignorant application of the test of sterility, has 
 been, to make the science of classification, chaos worse 
 confounded. The true test, of a species of plant, is 
 the capacity for long-continued self-fertilization, with- 
 out abatement in fertility, vigor, or size. All plants 
 capable of indefinitely-continued reproduction with 
 one capable of such self-fertilization, belong to the 
 same species, however structurally different such plants 
 may be. Each plant, which is self-impotent, or of 
 lessened fertility, falls short of the full structure of the 
 species. Plants, of the same, and plants of different 
 species, may be discriminated, by breeding them each 
 with another. If they are capable of long-continued 
 fertilization, they are of the same species. If, how- 
 ever, they are sterile with each other, it is not conclu- 
 sive evidence of their being of distinct species. For, 
 that may occur with individuals of the same species; 
 in fact, those most alike in structure, if wanting in any 
 
THE SELF-FERTILIZATION OF PLANTS. 393 
 
 character, will be generally, the most liable to ste- 
 rility, inter se. 
 
 Agriculturists, and horticulturists, with Plants, and 
 breeders, and fanciers, with animals, may count confi- 
 dently upon an individual being susceptible of improve- 
 ment, or of increase in structure, whenever such indi- 
 vidual suffers any loss of vigor or fertility when self- 
 fertilized, or when closely interbred. The margin of 
 improvement, still possible, will be susceptible of ascer- 
 tainment, by noting the degree of the evil resulting from 
 (say) the animal mating with one of its own kind ; or, if 
 it be a plant, from the degree of evil resulting from 
 its self-impregnation. If it be a plant, and it be self- 
 impotent, it will ever be found, either that it has many 
 organs, in a rudimentary condition; or, that some one 
 organ has become extraordinarily dominant. In esti- 
 mating, however, whether a plant with perfect, or but 
 little impaired fertility, is fully and proportionately de- 
 veloped, or nearly so, security must be had against 
 such possible crossing with other varieties, or with 
 other individuals, as may be effected through the 
 agency of bees, and other insects. If, however, there 
 are no varieties, or individuals of the same species, 
 which have any positive differences distinguishing 
 them from the given individual, it may be safely con- 
 cluded, that the full fertility and vigor of the individual, 
 truly imply its full and proportionate development; 
 for, if those varieties, with which it is possible for it to 
 cross, have no points of structure, other than those 
 also possessed by the individual in question ; it is clear, 
 
 that the fertility cannot be due to crossing. There is 
 34 
 
394 THE SELF-FERTILIZATION OF PLANTS. 
 
 still another consideration, which obtains, in connec- 
 tion with this subject. A plant may be very degener- 
 ate in structure; possess very many organs in a rudi- 
 mentary condition ; may not have crossed with another 
 variety of the same species; and yet such plant may 
 be, at least for one generation, very fertile and vigor- 
 ous. Such conditions would well consist with a state 
 of facts, where the plant had been crossed by an indi- 
 vidual of a distinct, but allied species. It is frequently 
 possible, as Darwin shows, for an individual which is 
 wholly self-impotent, to cross with a distinct species, 
 and be very prolific. 
 
 On page 297, Origin of Species, Darwin says, that 
 he is led: 
 
 " To refer to a most singular fact, namely, that there 
 are individual plants, of a certain species of Lobelia, 
 and of some other genera, which can be far more easily 
 fertilized by the pollen of another, and distinct species, 
 than by their own pollen. * * For these species 
 (Lobelia and Hippeastrum) have been found to yield 
 seed to the pollen of a distinct species, though quite 
 sterile with their own pollen, notwithstanding that their 
 own pollen was found to be perfectly good, for it fer- 1 
 tilized distinct species." 
 
 It may be asked : is the fertility and vigor acquired, 
 for one generation, by a cross with a distinct species, 
 due to a return to the perfect type ? In a measure, or, 
 sub modo, it is. It is not, however, a perfect type com- 
 mon to both species. The reason, why fertilization 
 may be effected, for one generation, by the pollen of a 
 distinct species, is because, in the reproductive element 
 of the foreign, but allied species, the given individual 
 
THE SELF-FERTILIZATION OF PLANTS. 395 
 
 finds many characters, either like its own, and with 
 which its characters may isochronize; or (as in the case 
 given above, where the plant was self-impotent), like 
 the characters, of its species, which it has lost, and 
 which fail to be represented in its own pollen. 
 
 With the characters of another species, it may, for 
 one generation, make up its lost integrity. But, the 
 escape of the line of such individuals from extinction, 
 by means of crossing with a distinct species, is only a 
 temporary and slightly deferred one. For, on account 
 of such a cross, their hybrids become irremediably 
 sterile. Had the individual crossed with one of its 
 species, it might have continued indefinitely fertile. 
 The sterility of an individual, whose ancestors have 
 never been crossed with a different species, is not abso- 
 lute. All that makes such individual sterile, is the loss 
 or reduction of characters; which may be remedied, 
 and the fertility of the individual restored, either by 
 reversion, crossing with an individual of the same spe- 
 cies, differing positively in structure, or by grafting. 
 But, when a cross is had with a distinct species, a defi- 
 nite, and inevitable failure of issue, is entailed upon the 
 offspring. There exists a barrier to further reproduc- 
 tion. When two individuals of different species cross, 
 the reproductive element of each is capable of the pro- 
 cess of integration, because such element has been 
 normally secreted by a pure species ! If the forces of 
 such element, are isochronous with the forces of the 
 other reproductive element, as is the fact generally in 
 the case of closely allied species, the two may concur 
 in building up an organism. But, though the forces 
 
396 TIIE SELF-FERTILIZATION OF PLANTS. 
 
 of each element are not so far wanting in rhythmical 
 harmony as to prevent such a coordination as is re- 
 quired for the production of a hybrid, yet that hybrid 
 has in it the characters of the two species, so com- 
 pounded or coalesced as to preclude its possession of 
 the power of spontaneously exuding a new organism ; 
 or in other words, of impressing its coordinating force 
 upon a part of itself, so as to make such part capable 
 of reproducing a likeness of itself. 
 
 This is the reason of the good resulting from a 
 cross with a distinct, but allied species, viz. : The 
 plant, in question, is wanting in some of the charac- 
 ters of its species. In the distinct species, it finds 
 characters, like those which are wanting in itself; and, 
 it is possible for it to avail itself of them to amend its 
 lost integrity. But, the line of descent is not capa- 
 ble of being carried any further; and, there is no 
 means possible of averting the extinction which occurs 
 in the succeeding generation, as there is, when an in- 
 dividual of a pure species, becomes self-impotent, or 
 sterile. Two self-impotent individuals of the same 
 species, may be fertile together; and they are fertile, 
 because they have made up, together-, the complement 
 of the characters necessaiy for reproduction ; but they 
 are different from distinct species, for these characters 
 are perfectly in harmony with each other, when joined 
 in the mongrel ; and, therefore, there is no impedi- 
 ment to the offspring, and its line, continuing indefi- 
 nitely fertile. All such offspring need do, to continue 
 the fertility, is to keep up the requisite number and 
 proportion of the characters of its species. 
 
THE SELF-FERTILIZATION OF PLANTS. 397 
 
 To the theory of the necessity for the full and pro- 
 portionate development of all the characters of a spe- 
 cies, it might possibly be objected that the law of 
 Compensation, propounded by Gcethe and the elder 
 Geoffroy, shows that "in order to spend on one side, 
 nature is forced to economize on the other side." 
 Darwin says, respecting this law of balancement of 
 growth, "I think this holds true to a certain extent 
 with our domestic productions ; " but doubts the uni- 
 versality of the rule. 
 
 The fact is, that the rule holds good only where the 
 organism is impoverished; where, either, it is denied 
 food, chemical elements, &c, in amount sufficient for 
 the needs of all parts of the system ; or, where having 
 them to hand, it lacks the capacity for assimilating 
 enough for all of its parts. In either case, the reduc- 
 tion of some parts will benefit the growth of other 
 parts of the organism. 
 
 This interpretation, however, is not needed to ob- 
 viate the objection to the theory of full and propor- 
 tionate development of all the parts, being necessary 
 to perfection ; for, even when by economy on the one 
 side of an organism, an impulse is given to the growth 
 of the other part, physiological injury accrues in pro- 
 portion to the extent to which the normal ratio of the 
 characters has been vitiated. Quite frequently, by keep- 
 ing down the growth of some of the parts of a plant, 
 other parts, — say, the reproductive organs, the repro- 
 ductive elements, and the fruit thereof, — will be greatly 
 augmented in structure. But, this augmentation in 
 structure, even in such parts, will lessen the fertility 
 34* 
 
398 THE SELF-FERTILIZATION OP PLANTS. 
 
 and vigor of the organism instead of enhancing them ; 
 because such growth violates the proportion. Thus, 
 you may cut away the leaves in a plant, and thereby 
 much increase the size of the seed, but the seed will 
 have its vitality lessened, instead of increased, by aug- 
 mentation in size, so occasioned. 
 
 Fertilization of Orchids. 
 
 In this connection, it may be well to notice Darwin's 
 work, on the Fertilization of Orchids, which was writ- 
 ten, with the design to prove the truth of his "general 
 law of nature," that evil results from close-interbreed- 
 ing, per se, and from self-fertilization, per se, and that a 
 cross with another individual or variety, is absolutely 
 necessary. 
 
 This "law," Darwin, as we have shown, promul- 
 gated first, in his Origin of Species. Of course, his 
 "law" was demurred to, by every breeder and fancier, 
 horticulturist and agriculturist, who knew of the great 
 variation in the quantity of the effects of interbreeding, 
 and of fertilization; and, who had noted, that, fre- 
 quently, there resulted no evil whatever from such a 
 process. 
 
 Darwin says, on page I, of the Fertilization of 
 Orchids : 
 
 " Having been blamed for propounding this doctrine, 
 without giving ample facts, for which I had not in that 
 work (Origi?i of Species) sufficient space, I wished to 
 show that I have not spoken without having gone into 
 details. I have been led to publish this little treatise, 
 separately, as it has become inconveniently large to be 
 incorporated with the rest of the discussion on the 
 same subject." 
 
THE SELF-FERTILIZATION OF PLANTS. 399 
 
 In this work, he shows that many of the species of 
 Orchids, are incapable of self-fertilization, and are com- 
 pelled to be fertilized by means of insect agency, to 
 which the structure of the flower, is very elaborately 
 adapted. His argument is, that as these plants are 
 mechanically incapable of self-fertilization, and as the 
 contrivances of the flowers so manifestly subserve in- 
 sect agency, it follows, that there must be something 
 radically injurious in the process of self-fertilization; 
 and that an advantage is derived from a cross, with a 
 distinct flower. The whole argument presses upon 
 the fact, that the flowers are incapable of self-fertiliza- 
 tion. The adaptation to insect agency exists in other 
 flowers, which are able to fertilize themselves; and, 
 with these, no presumption therefore arises, that there 
 is a necessity for the cross which insects effect. 
 
 But, the whole significance of his facts, is taken 
 away, when it is observed, that the original form of 
 the flowers, and of the plants, has been modified, in a 
 number of ways ; that many characters, as he shows, 
 have been reduced to a rudimentary condition, and 
 that the incapacity for self-fertilization (which is a 
 mechanical, or structural incapacity, and not a physio- 
 logical incapacity) has arisen (as may be shown, by 
 analogy with the forms of other species of the 
 same genus), from the reproductive organs, of the 
 plants, having become partially rudimentary in struc- 
 ture. The whole structure, of the flowers (barring, 
 the slightest, possible modification), is consistent with 
 adaptation to self-fertilization, as well as to insect 
 agency. The only detail wanting, is but a little more 
 
400 THE SELF-FERTILIZATION OF PLANTS. 
 
 efficiency in the working of the mechanism. The 
 pollen-mass does not slip, of itself, from the anther- 
 cells but requires force, ab extra, to be torn therefrom. 
 Were the anther-cells and the pollen-mass to proceed a 
 little further in their development, so as naturally to 
 disengage the latter from the meshes of the former, 
 the flower could well be self-fertilized, by means of the 
 very beautiful adaptations which facilitate the action 
 of insects. 
 
 Now, this is the case with one of the species of 
 Orchids, and such species, so self-fertilized, is excep- 
 tionally fertile and vigorous ! 
 
 " Robert Brown," says Darwin (p. 65, "Fertilization 
 of Orchids "), " first observed that the structure of the 
 Bee Ophrys is adapted for self-fertilization. When 
 we consider the unusual and perfectly adapted length, 
 as well as the remarkable thinness, of the caudicles of 
 the pollinia; when we see that the anther-cells naturally 
 open, and that the masses of pollen, from their weight, 
 slowly fall down to the exact level of the stigmatic 
 surface, and are there made to vibrate to and fro by 
 the slightest breath of wind, till the stigma is struck ; it 
 is impossible to doubt, that these points of structure 
 and function, which occur in no other British Orchid, 
 are specially adapted for self-fertilization." 
 
 Now, although the different species of Orchids have 
 certain specific differences of structure, they were origi- 
 nally all capable of self-fertilization; and it has been 
 but a slight modification of their structure, which has 
 deprived them of such capacity. Did space permit, it 
 would be possible, to take up each species, and point 
 out the modification mentioned. In the first species, 
 mentioned by Darwin, the failure of the flowers to 
 
THE SELF-FERTILIZATION OF PLANTS. 401 
 
 fertilize themselves is due to the anther-cells lack- 
 ing the power to open naturally, and to the conse- 
 quent inability of the pollen-mass to release itself and 
 fall to the level of the stigmatic surface. The modifi- 
 cation is very slight. It is simply a case of slightly ar- 
 rested development of the pollen-mass, and of the 
 anther-cells where they cohere. And, as to the possi- 
 bility of the modification's having been induced; Dar- 
 win shows (chap. ■ vii) that, many great modifications 
 have occurred, in almost every individual of this genus, 
 in many and important characters. 
 
 Robert Brown, who "first observed that the struc- 
 ture of the Bee Ophrys is adapted for self-fertilization," 
 "believed" (though "erroneously," as Darwin con- 
 tends), "that this peculiarity (of self-fertilization) was 
 common to the genus." Darwin's only answer to this 
 induction of Mr. Brown, is, that " this one alone of the 
 four species" of British Orchids, shows this capacity. 
 But, this is no objection, as the assumption is, that the 
 other species originally fertilized themselves, and sub- 
 sequently becoming modified, thus lost, the power so 
 to do. 
 
 The test, by which to ascertain, whether they have 
 so become modified, and by which to ascertain whether 
 the process of fertilization, per se, is injurious, is to be 
 found in a comparison of the fertility of the self-fertil- 
 ized plants, with the fertility of those which depend, for 
 their reproduction, upon the crossing which is effected 
 by insect agency. The test is the fairest possible; for, 
 Darwin's principal criterion, by which to judge of the 
 injurious effects wrought by self-fertilization, or by 
 
402 THE SELF-FERTILIZATION OF PLANTS. 
 
 close-interbreeding, has ever been (in his " Origin of 
 Species," and in his "Animals and Plants under Domes- 
 tication") the lessened fertility, or the sterility, of the 
 individuals so impregnated. And, the test is also that, 
 required by the theory of reversion. Such theory, of 
 Reversion, maintains, that, where there is little, or no 
 modification, there are no, or very little evil effects 
 occasioned by the process, in question. If, then, there 
 is, in some of the Orchids, the modification which en- 
 tails the mechanical incapacity for self-fertilization ; 
 and, if there is an absence, of such modification, in 
 others of the Orchids, the test of fertility — which is 
 the test with either theory — should, upon Darwin's 
 theory, show that the modified plants (which are ever 
 crossed) are superior, in fertility, to the plants capable of 
 self-fertilization ; whereas, upon the theory of reversion, 
 or proportionate development, it should show, that it 
 is the less modified plants (which, in this case, are the 
 self-fertilized ones) which are more fertile than the ones 
 which are crossed, and which have parts which are 
 structurally and functionally rudimentary. 
 
 Darwin, as above remarked, has, in his works to 
 which this "Fertilization of Orchids" is merely sup- 
 plementary, clearly defined what he means, by the evil 
 effects of the process of close-breeding. He there ever 
 states, and states explicitly, that those effects are, prin- 
 cipally, lessened fertility, and sterility. In all of the 
 phenomena, adduced in his former works, his test has 
 not, to his mind, conclusively failed him. With the 
 light, derived from the theory of reversion, the phe- 
 nomena mentioned may be proved (as already shown), 
 
THE SELF-FERTILIZATION OF PLANTS. 403 
 
 to confound, completely, all of his views. But, evil 
 has, in the main, been shown (however much it has 
 varied in character), to be, in some way, occasioned by 
 close-interbreeding. In those instances, even, where 
 good has resulted, the gratuitous supposition has ever 
 appeared open to him that, if the interbreeding were 
 only continued long enough, the evil would manifest 
 itself. And, his " law '' has had a semblance of support 
 from the good resulting from crossing; because, each 
 crossed variety had some feature, to contribute to the 
 offspring. Consequently, he has hitherto been pleased 
 and satisfied with the test of lessened fertility, and of 
 sterility. 
 
 He finds, however, that the crucial test — admissible 
 on both theories — reveals, that, with Orchids, the self- 
 fertilized plants are much more fertile, than the crossed 
 plants! Such a result is the very antithesis to what 
 Darwin's theory requires, and fully refutes his "great 
 law." The reason, to the reader, is plain, and exactly 
 what was to be expected. The self-fertilized plants 
 are, — at least in the reproductive features above men- 
 tioned, — unmodified and therefore just that much less 
 provocative of sterility; whereas, the plants, incapable 
 of self-fertilization, and which are crossed, are rudimen- 
 tary in such features, and therefore just that much more 
 susceptible of lessened fertility. 
 
 Here is the proof. He says (p. 66, " Fertilization of 
 Orchids"): 
 
 "I have often noticed, that the spikes of the Bee 
 Ophrys apparently produced as many seed-capsules as 
 flowers; and, near Torquay, I carefully examined 
 
404 THE SELF-FERTILIZATION OF PLANTS. 
 
 many dozen plants, some time after the flowering 
 season; and, on all, I found from one to four, and 
 occasionally five, fine capsules; that is, as many cap- 
 sules, as there had been flowers (/) ; in extremely few 
 cases (excepting a few deformed flowers, generally on 
 the summit of the spike), could a flower be found ivhich 
 had not produced a capside (/). Let it be observed, what 
 a contrast this case presents, with that of the Fly Ophrys, 
 
 WHICH REQUIRES INSECT AGENCY, and which FROM 
 FORTY-NINE FLOWERS, PRODUCED ONLY SEVEN CAPSULES ! 
 
 " From what I have seen of other British Orchids, I 
 was so much surprised at the self-fertilization of this 
 species, that, during many years, I have looked at the 
 state of the pollen-masses in hundreds of flowers, and 
 I have never seen, in a single instance, reason to be- 
 lieve that pollen had been brought from one flower to 
 another. Excepting in a few monstrous flowers, I 
 have never seen an instance of the pollinia failing to 
 reach their own stigma." 
 
 These results stare him in the face. Not only, as 
 he admits, does it " seem conclusive, that we here have 
 a plant which is self-fertilized for perpetuity;" but, 
 these plants even exceed — and enormously exceed — 
 the crossed plants, in fertility! The test of fertility, 
 here flatly contradicts his " law." 
 
 After such a blow at his law, he concludes to aban- 
 don such a dangerous test. He falls back upon one 
 of those mysterious, occult factors, which he evokes, 
 whenever he is in a dilemma, and vaguely declares 
 that ''some great good" is derived from crossing, and 
 some kind of evil from self-fertilization. He even says 
 (p. 71), respecting the "some great good" (which the 
 reader will remember has, with him, ever been in- 
 
THE SELF-FERTILIZATION OF PLANTS. 405 
 
 creased fertility), resulting from the crossing of the 
 plants incapable of self-fertilization : 
 
 " But the good, in the case of the Fly and Spider 
 Ophrys is gained at the expense {sic/) of much lessened 
 fertility!" 
 
 And immediately thereupon, he says : 
 "In the Bee Ophrys, great fertility is gained, at the 
 expense {sic/) of apparently perpetual self-fertilization." 
 
 Such self-stultification (so coolly, and complacently 
 committed, too!) is unparalleled, in the annals of 
 thought. Naught but itself could be its parallel. We 
 have known of a humorous individual, who upon being 
 confronted with a fact signally confounding the view 
 he took, then coolly maintained the proposition con- 
 tended for by his adversary. But, we never knew of 
 such a device being resorted to, in all seriousness, as 
 it has here been, by Darwin. 
 
 His argument, the reader will remember, has always 
 been the direct converse of this. When he specified, 
 what the evil of close-breeding was, his argument 
 was, viz., Self-fertilization, or close-interbreeding, is at 
 the expense of much lessened fertility! Here, how- 
 ever, he shows increase of fertility; and, as if he were 
 bent upon starting the ghosts of Aristotle, Bacon, and 
 Comte, horror-stricken, from their graves, he coolly 
 deduces the proposition, that the fertility is gained at 
 the expense of self-fertilization! His argument also 
 was: .Crossing, per se, is productive of the good of 
 "much increased fertility! Here, he shows crossing 
 occasions loss of fertility ! and, then, notwithstanding 
 
 that he has shown evil, where his argument required 
 35 
 
406 THE SELF-FERTILIZATION OF PLANTS. 
 
 good, he says, " The good * * is gained at the ex- 
 pense of much lessened fertility!" The reader will 
 appreciate the difficulty of dealing with a theorist, to 
 whom all results are apparently welcome, as well those 
 which seemingly favor his theory, as those which 
 signally confute it. > 
 
 Well, may he say, that the above case is, to him, 
 "perplexing, in an unparalleled degree." Upon the 
 theory of reversion, or proportionate development, the 
 phenomena are perfectly explicable. Some of the 
 plants have had their reproductive organs modified. 
 Hence the incapacity for self-fertilization. Their cross- 
 ing does not much improve their fertility, because all 
 those, with which they cross, are similarly modified. 
 Other plants are not modified; hence, physiologi- 
 cally, their great fertility ; and hence, physically, their 
 capacity for self-fertilization. Their great fertility is 
 not due to their self-fertilization, but to the fact that 
 they are not, or but little, modified. 
 
 With respect to the facilities afforded to insects, Dar- 
 win, if he lists, may invoke his doctrine of Final 
 Causes, and contend, that such apparent adaptations 
 were constructed, in anticipation of the sterility which 
 would accrue from the modification of any parts of the 
 plants, and in view of the necessity there would then 
 exist for crossing the plants. The light of science has 
 as yet scarce begun to dawn, in that wide department 
 of nature, wherein lie the many beautiful correlations 
 which subsist between different organisms, and be- 
 tween organisms and the physical world. 
 
 A chick, with its advent into the world, scarce 
 
THE SELF-FERTILIZATION OF PLANTS. 40? 
 
 accomplished, yet beautifully concentering its muscles 
 and sight, with a view to the capture of a passing in- 
 sect, is a phenomenon which is to be seen, just within 
 the portals of a world of knowledge, which needs as 
 yet a Columbus to explore. But, unresolved as such 
 coadaptations may be; and, however much they may 
 subserve physiological purposes — as they unquestion- 
 ably do, for many species which are ill-proportioned 
 would long since have become extinct, were not cross- 
 ing effected, with them, by means of insects — the truth 
 remains, that no crude, empirical inferences from such 
 unexplained data, will avail against the law, that physi- 
 ological integrity is consistent, only with full develop- 
 ment, in any individual, of all the characters of its 
 species; and that neither self-fertilization, nor close- 
 interbreeding, can in any way affect such integrity 
 where the above condition, proportionate development, 
 is fulfilled. 
 
CHAPTER XII. 
 Sterility of Hybrids. 
 
 An objection, which has ever obtained, to Darwin's 
 theory, is the fact of the sterility of species, when 
 crossed, or the sterility of the hybrids from a cross be- 
 tween two species. This has ever precluded the idea 
 of the evolution of one species into another. 
 
 Since varieties cross readily, and their offspring are 
 fertile, this feature, of the sterility of hybrids, clearly 
 appears to be a fundamental distinction between varie- 
 ties and species. 
 
 Darwin admits the fact, of the sterility of species 
 when crossed, or of their hybrids, and recognizes the 
 antagonism it bears to his hypothesis. 
 
 He says (p. 293, Origin of Species): 
 
 " Hybrids * * have their reproductive organs 
 functionally impotent, as may be clearly seen in the . 
 state of the male element in both plants and ani- 
 mals ; though their formative organs themselves are 
 perfect in structure, as far as the microscope reveals." 
 
 Again, on p. 299, Origin of Species, he says : 
 " I doubt whether any case of a perfectly fertile 
 hybrid can be considered as thoroughly well authenti- 
 cated." 
 
 On p. 27, Origin of Species, he says : 
 
 " It is difficult, perhaps impossible, to bring forward 
 (408) 
 
STERILITY OF HYBRIDS. 409 
 
 one case of the hybrid offspring of two animals, clearly- 
 distinct, being themselves perfectly fertile." 
 On page 327, Origin of Species, he says : 
 
 " The perfect fertility of the many domestic varie- 
 ties differing widely from each other in appearance, for 
 instance those of the Pigeon or (those) of" the cabbage, 
 is a remarkable fact ; more especially when we reflect, 
 how many species there are which though resembling 
 each other most closely, are utterly sterile, when 
 crossed." 
 
 On page 126, Vol. ii, Animals and Plants, &c, he 
 says : 
 
 " The domestic races of both animals and plants, 
 when crossed, are with extremely few exceptions, 
 quite fertile. * *. The offspring, also, raised from 
 such crosses, are likewise generally more vigorous and 
 fertile than their parents. On the other hand, species 
 when crossed, and their hybrid offspring are almost in- 
 variably, in some degree sterile; and here there seems 
 to exist a broad and insuperable distinction (sic) be- 
 tween races and species." 
 
 On page 213, Vol. ii, Animals and Plants, &c, he 
 says that, where species are crossed, "though size is 
 often gained, fertility is lost." 
 
 On page 490 of same volume, he says : 
 
 "There is, however, one important constitutional 
 difference (!) between domestic races and species. I 
 refer to the sterility which almost invariably follows, 
 in a greater or less degree, when species are crossed, 
 and the perfect fertility of the most distinct domestic 
 races, with the exception of very few plants, when 
 similarly crossed. It certainly appears a remarkable 
 fact, that many closely allied species, which in appear- 
 ance differ extremely little, should yield, when united, 
 35* 
 
410 STERILITY OP HYBRIDS. 
 
 only a few more or less sterile offspring, or none at all ; 
 whilst domestic races, which differ conspicuously from 
 each other, are when united, remarkably fertile, and 
 yield perfectly fertile offspring." 
 
 He finds it impossible to reconcile this sterility, with 
 his theory. But, he has endeavored to show, that the 
 objection may not be so conclusive against his theory, 
 as it appears to be. He essays this, in two ways, each 
 of which betrays about as cool a device as may be 
 conceived. 
 
 He argues, (i) that the objection should not be 
 deemed conclusive, because there is an infinite num- 
 ber of degrees of fertility, and of sterility, among even 
 individuals of the same species, all of which phenomena, 
 he says, are inexplicable; and argues that, therefore, our 
 ignorance of such phenomena, deprives us of a full as- 
 surance, that the obvious and conceded import of the 
 sterility of hybrids, is the true one ! 
 
 He argues further, (2) "that the invariable sterility 
 of first crosses between species, and of their hybrids, is 
 not a special endowment, but is incidental on modifica- 
 tions slowly impressed, by unknown means, on the re- 
 productive systems of the parent forms." 
 
 1. It is on page 327 of his Origin of Species, that he 
 advances the first argument (?). He there exclaims, 
 " how ignorant we are on the precise causes of ster- 
 ility;" and asserts, that, in presence of all the cases of 
 lessened fertility, and of sterility, among individuals of 
 the same species, " we must feel how ignorant we are, 
 and how little likely it is, that we should understand, 
 why certain forms are fertile and other forms are ster- 
 ile when crossed." 
 
STERILITY OF HYBRIDS. 411 
 
 It is in pursuance of this design, to show " how igno- 
 rant we are," and thus to weaken the force of the prin- 
 cipal objection to his theory; that he, in his different 
 works, devotes such an amount of space, to the many- 
 instances of crossing and of close-interbreeding, of 
 which "we are so ignorant." 
 
 It is with this same design^ that he says (p. 462, Vol. 
 ii, Animals and Plants, &c.) : 
 
 "With respect to the sterility of hybrids, produced 
 from the union of two distinct species, it was shown in 
 the xixth chapter, that this depends exclusively on the 
 reproductive organs being specially affected; but, why 
 these organs should be thus affected, we do not know 
 any more (sic) than why unnatural conditions of life, 
 though compatible with health, should cause sterility, 
 or why continued close-interbreeding, or the illegiti- 
 mate union of dimorphic or trimorphic plants should 
 induce the same result." 
 
 The idea he wishes to convey, is, that the whole 
 subject of sterility and of fertility, forms such an inex- 
 tricable maze, that it is presumption, in any one, to 
 say, that any aspect of the question, either rebuts, or 
 confirms, any theory. In other words : instead of ex- 
 plaining anything to his readers, he demands of them 
 to give up, for his gratification, the little positive knowl- 
 edge they have upon the subject, merely because there 
 is quite a number of similar orders of facts which seem 
 inexplicable! It is a curious feature, discernible 
 throughout all of Darwin's works purporting to prove 
 the evolution of the species, that his hypothesis abso- 
 lutely demands, that an embargo should be laid on the 
 acquisition of any knowledge of the cause of any class 
 
412 STERILITY OF HYBEIDS. 
 
 of facts he has in hand. His theory requires, that all of 
 the phenomena of Variation, of Reversion, of Correla- 
 tion, of Crossing, of Close-Interbreeding, of Genera- 
 tion, &c, be deemed inscrutable, ultimate in their 
 character, and absolutely inexplicable. True it is, 
 that his theory demands this, not without reason; for, 
 as the reader sees, knowledge of the causes of these 
 phenomena, explodes his theory. 
 
 The answer, to be made to his argument of an 
 appeal to every person's ignorance of the causes of 
 the evil effects of close-interbreeding, and of the good 
 resulting from crossing individuals of the same spe- 
 cies, is, — that there is no such ignorance ! — all of the 
 phenomena, to which he appeals, as being inexplica- 
 ble, are susceptible, as has been fully shown in previ- 
 ous chapters of this book, of a full qualitative and 
 quantitative explanation. Evil effects flow from the 
 interbreeding of individuals of the same species, be- 
 cause such individuals have characters of their species, 
 reduced or suppressed. Those differences in the quan- 
 tity of effects, which make Darwin so confident, that 
 the subject is hopelessly confused, are simply due to 
 corresponding degrees of defective development, in 
 the individuals so interbred. The good resulting from 
 the crossing of varieties, is, as has been shown, due to 
 the fact, that one variety contributes, to the offspring, 
 a character or characters which the other variety 
 lacks; and the physiological gain, evidenced in the 
 fertility resulting, is because, by such contribution of 
 characters, the mongrel offspring has removed the 
 nearer to the perfect type of the species. Those dif- 
 
STERILITY OP HYBRIDS. 413 
 
 ferences in the quantity of these good effects, which 
 Darwin similarly accounts as phenomena the cause of 
 which " no fellow can find out," are due to the differ- 
 ent degrees, in which each such pair of varieties, con- 
 tribute characters to such offspring. There is no 
 phase of sterility, or of fertility, which is not suscepti- 
 ble of clear explanation, by means of the theoiy of 
 reversion. 
 
 Therefore : his argument of an appeal to other 
 things of which we are assumed to be ignorant, must 
 fall to the ground, when it is found that we are not 
 ignorant of those things. We shall show below, that 
 this appeal of his, to the different degrees of fertility 
 and of sterility, with individuals of the same species, 
 instead of getting him out of one difficulty, only causes 
 him to put his foot into another, infinitely worse. The 
 explanation of those things of which he assumes we 
 are ignorant, is replete with disproofs stronger, by far, 
 than is even the fact of the sterility of hybrids. • 
 
 2. It is on page 330, of his Origin of Species, that he 
 advances his other argument, viz., That the sterility of 
 species, and of their hybrid offspring, is not " a special 
 endowment," but has been slowly acquired. He there 
 repeats his argument from ignorance, and adds his 
 second reason why the objection, founded on sterility 
 of hybrids, should not obtain. He says : 
 
 "The general fertility of varieties, considering how 
 entirely ignorant we are on the causes of both fertility 
 and sterility, does not seem to me sufficient to over- 
 throw the view taken" (by himself) "that the invaria- 
 ble 'sterility of first crosses between species, and of 
 
414 STERILITY OF HYBRIDS. 
 
 their hybrids, is not a special endowment, but is inci- 
 dental on modifications slowly impressed, by unknown 
 means, on the reproductive systems of the parent 
 forms." 
 
 There are three answers to be made to this view, 
 that the sterility of hybrids "is not a special endow- 
 ment, but is incidental on modifications, slowly im- 
 pressed, by unknown means, on the reproductive 
 systems of the parent forms." 
 
 (i.) It is a barren assumption. Not the faintest in- 
 timation, or conjecture, does he give of the manner in 
 which this sterility might have been acquired. The 
 phrase, " unknown means " (a twin brother of " innate 
 tendency," of "nature and constitution of the being," 
 of "a great law of nature," and of that legion of other 
 metaphysical entities which serve him in good stead, 
 whenever he is in a dilemma), proves conclusively, 
 that he had as little idea of what he meant, when he 
 propounded his "view," as his readers may derive 
 from his proposition. _ 
 
 (2.) There is not a scintilla of evidence, in his 
 works, which, upon the most liberal construction, can 
 be tortured into proof, that the sterility of hybrids was 
 ever acquired by modifications slowly impressed. 
 
 (3.) There are modifications, which have been im- 
 pressed, and are still being impressed, by known means, 
 however, on the reproductive systems of the varieties 
 which he terms "incipient species," or "species in the 
 process of formation;" but, these modifications, so far 
 from accounting for the sterility of hybrids, consist- 
 ently with his hypothesis, demonstrate most clearly, 
 
STERILITY OF HYBRIDS. 415 
 
 that the sterility of hybrids was never slowly acquired, 
 but that it is "a special endowment;" that varieties 
 are hot " incipient species," nor ever can become dis- 
 tinct species ; and that each species is physiologically 
 fixed. 
 
 Now, let us see, what the facts should be, to meet 
 the requirements of his hypothesis (what, indeed, by 
 the above argument of his, he intimates that they 
 should be); and then observe what the facts really 
 are, by his own showing. It will then be seen, that 
 the sterility of hybrids is not the only physiological 
 argument, in favor of the fixity of the species; but 
 that the fertility and sterility of individuals of the 
 same species, add arguments of even superior weight, 
 in demonstration of the same fact, of the immutability 
 of the species. 
 
 Here is what it was absolutely requisite, that Dar- 
 win should have shown, to obviate the objection of 
 the sterility of species, and of their hybrids : — 
 
 Seeing, that hybrids, — the result of a cross between 
 different species, — are invariably sterile, it is clear that 
 if the conception, that the varieties of a species were 
 " incipient species," or species in the process of forma- 
 tion, were a true one, we should expect, that the more 
 marked, distinct, and widely divergent such varieties 
 became, they would grow sterile, in proportion, when 
 crossed with each other; as sterility is the character- 
 istic of distinct species : 
 
 If the differences, between varieties, do really be- 
 come augmented into the greater differences between 
 species, all fertility, among the mongrels of such varie- 
 
416 STERILITY OF HYBRIDS. 
 
 ties, should grow less and less; and those mongrels 
 should acquire, by degrees, the sterility characteristic 
 of hybrids : 
 
 Furthermore; as it is generally characteristic of in- 
 dividuals of the same species, to be fertile with each 
 other, the fertility of the individuals of each variety, 
 when bred, inter se, should grow greater, and greater, 
 in proportion as the variety, to which they belonged, 
 diverged : 
 
 Long continued domestication, or this divergence of 
 character which according to Darwin evolves the 
 varieties into species, should eliminate any tendency 
 to sterility, with the individuals of the same variety ; 
 and eliminate any tendency to fertility, with the mon- 
 grels between such varieties : 
 
 The individuals of different varieties should grow 
 mutually sterile, and the individuals of the same va- 
 riety, should grow more fertile: 
 
 The greater the structural differences, between varie- 
 ties, the more sterile should be their mongrels. 
 
 Such are not the facts. The facts are diametrically 
 at variance with those required by Darwin's hypothesis. 
 
 On page 162, Vol. ii, Animals and Plants, &c, he 
 says : 
 
 "It deserves especial attention, that mongrel ani- 
 mals and plants which are so far from being sterile, 
 that their fertility is often actually augmented, have, as 
 previously shown, their size, hardihood and constitu- 
 tional vigor generally increased." 
 
 Again, he says, p. 326, Origin of Species : 
 
 "Varieties, however much they differ from each 
 
STERILITY OF HYBRIDS. 411 
 
 other in external appearance, cross with perfect facil- 
 ity, and yield perfectly fertile offspring." 
 
 On page 200, Origin of Species, he says : 
 
 " How can we account for species, when crossed, 
 being sterile, and producing sterile offspring, whereas, 
 when varieties are crossed, their fertility is unim- 
 paired !" 
 
 Again he says, page 236, Vol. i, Animals and 
 Plants, &c: 
 
 "* * The more distinct the breeds, the more 
 productive are their mongrel offspring." ! 
 
 In divers other portions of his works, he has, as 
 has already been shown, also declared, that the more 
 divergent the breeds, the less fertile are the individuals 
 of each variety, when bred inter se. He says, that in- 
 dividuals of divergent varieties are extremely liable to 
 sterility, degeneration, and death, when bred inter se ; 
 and that crossing needs must be resorted to, all the 
 time, with such individuals, in order to remedy such 
 sterility, and prevent their extinction. 
 
 So, it is manifest, that the " modifications which are 
 slowly impressed on the reproductive systems," tell a 
 tale, not only in refutation of his " view," but also in- 
 finitely more significant of the falseness of his theory, 
 than is even the sterility of hybrids. The facts prove, 
 that the sterility of hybrids has not been acquired, as the 
 varieties diverged. The facts, on the contrary, prove, 
 that varieties grow more and more unlike distinct spe- 
 cies, the further they diverge. The facts show, that 
 the varieties not only do not acquire sterility, in their 
 crosses, as they diverge in character; but that, as they 
 36 
 
418 STERILITY OF HYBRIDS. 
 
 diverge, they actually grow more fertile when they 
 cross, and that, by means of crossing, they eliminate 
 whatever tendency to sterility has been produced by 
 divergence, in their individuals ! 
 
 So far from any difference, however great, inducing 
 sterility in the varieties, or in their mongrels, that cir- 
 cumstance it is, which gives the crossed breeds, and 
 their mongrels, the greatest increase of fertility! 
 This shows, that the structural differences of varieties, 
 are not being augmented into the greater differences 
 which distinguish species. Not only is the assump- 
 tion negatived completely, that varieties are " incipient 
 species," and that the sterility of species, and of their 
 hybrids, has been acquired, as the varieties grew, by 
 divergence, into species ; but the very converse obtains. 
 There are modifications slowly impressed upon the re- 
 productive systems of animals and plants, by the re- 
 duction or suppression of their characters, but those 
 modifications add additional force to the objection 
 founded on the sterility of hybrids. Independently 
 of this fact of the sterility of hybrids, and even though 
 the question of a limit to variation, had not been re- 
 solved, as it has been ; the fact that the varieties, of a 
 species, are incompetent to become distinct species, 
 would have been shown, by the phenomena of the 
 lessened fertility, and of the sterility of the individuals 
 of such a modified species. The explanation of varia- 
 tions, by means of reversion, disproves Darwin's theory. 
 The sterility of hybrids disproves Darwin's theory : 
 And, — to perfect the demonstration, — the phenomena 
 of the close-interbreeding and crossing of the indi- 
 
STERILITY OP HYBRIDS. 419 
 
 viduals of the several varieties of a species, disprove 
 Darwin's theory. 
 
 If the reader will reflect on the steps by which less- 
 ened fertility and sterility, among individuals of the 
 same species, are acquired, he will appreciate the 
 blunder which Darwin made, when he sought to obvi- 
 ate the objection of the sterility of hybrids, by assert- 
 ing that such sterility might have been slowly ac- 
 quired. Darwin says, that divergence of character, in 
 varieties, leads to the evolution of distinct species. He 
 then shows, that the further such divergence of character 
 is carried, the nearer do the individuals of each such 
 divergent variety, approach complete sterility and death I 
 and that the only way that this sterility and extinction 
 may be staved off, is by the individuals of such variety, 
 crossing with individuals of another of the varieties of 
 that species, — which process undoes the very diver- 
 gence OF CHARACTER, UPON WHICH DARWIN DEPENDS 
 TO SHOW THE EVOLUTION OF THE VARIETIES INTO DIS- 
 TINCT SPECIES ! 
 
 As divergence of character is occasioned by the exclu- 
 sive possession, by each variety, of some positive pecu- 
 liarity which (being a peculiarity) needs must, therefore, 
 be absent in all of the other varieties of the same spe- 
 cies; and, conversely, is occasioned by the absence, in 
 each variety, of all the positive peculiarities of the other 
 varieties; evil effects result from close-interbreeding. 
 As these evil effects become intensified, degree for de- 
 gree, with the divergence of such varieties, it is clear, 
 that distinct species cannot be evolved from such varie- 
 ties, for those varieties are fast verging on death and 
 
420 STERILITY OP HYBRIDS. 
 
 extinction. This death and extinction may be es- 
 caped, by doing what? — by crossing the varieties ! 
 which is, joining the characters of different varieties, 
 in an individual, the mongrel. This mongrel is fertile 
 and constitutionally vigorous, because it is not diver- 
 gent, — because it has more of the characters of its 
 species, than have the divergent individuals. 
 
 Very great structural differences may mark the varie- 
 ties of a species. The characters of such species may 
 be variedly modified, reduced, suppressed, retained in 
 every stage of degeneration, or every stage of rever- 
 sion, and apportioned among the different varieties, so 
 as to make those varieties most widely divergent and 
 more distinct in character, than are many species, or 
 than are some genera. But, these diversities can sub- 
 sist, within a species, only by impairing a physiologi- 
 cal bond which normally ties together all the positive 
 characters of the species. The further, therefore, any 
 apportionment, or division, of the characters, among 
 different varieties, is carried, the worse impaired be- 
 comes such bond ; the weaker, and less fertile, grow 
 the individuals of the divergent varieties ; until, at last, , 
 that degree of impairment of the bond, is reached, 
 which is incompatible with the function of the repro- 
 ductive element, and with even the existence of the 
 individual. 
 
 How, then, is it possible, for varieties to diverge into 
 distinct species, when Darwin's own facts show demon- 
 stratively, that the only redemption possible, from 
 death and sterility, is in returning to the full and pro- 
 portionate development of all the characters of the 
 
STERILITY OF HYBRIDS. 421 
 
 given species, — in acquiring, by reversion, or by cross- 
 ing (or by grafting), the positive peculiarities of the 
 other varieties. Is it not a farce, for him to adduce the 
 pouter pigeon, the fantail, and the tumbler, as " incipi- 
 ient species," becoming distinct species by divergence 
 of character, when the poor animals are almost com- 
 pletely sterile, and of a delicacy of constitution, due to 
 the absence, in each individual, of the other organs 
 and features possessed by the other varieties, and due 
 to the peculiarity of the variety, having been carried to 
 the extreme of development, without the concurrent 
 development of the other characters ? 
 
 The degrees of lessened fertility, and of sterility, 
 among individuals of a species, trend in the wrong 
 direction for Darwin's conception of the sterility of 
 hybrids having been acquired. If the facts would but 
 course, in exactly the opposite direction, Darwin's 
 theory might have some semblance of probability, or 
 vestige of support. If, for instance, the sterility had 
 characterized the crossing of varieties, instead of the 
 interbreeding of the individuals of each variety; and, 
 if increase of fertility had marked the interbreeding, in- 
 stead of the crossing, of individuals of the varieties, 
 Darwin might have been justified in making light of 
 the objection of the sterility of hybrids. 
 
 Professor Huxley (the gentleman who inculcates 
 Darwinism, as an axiom, to the workingmen of Eng- 
 land, and who teaches them resignation to their hard 
 lot, by revealing to them, that their misery is but a 
 beautiful exemplification of the grand, scientific prin- 
 ciple of Natural Extinction, which is so necessary to 
 36* 
 
422 STERILITY OF HYBRIDS. 
 
 the Selection of the Plutocrats and land-holders), says, 
 in an article in No. LII, of the Popular Science Monthly: 
 
 "What is needed for the completion of Darwin's 
 theory of the origin of species, is, first, definite proof 
 that selective breeding is competent to convert perma- 
 nent races into physiologically distinct species." 
 
 As the reader has already been shown, the very 
 antithesis to such proof is to be found in Darwin's 
 facts. Darwin's facts show, that such definite proof, 
 as Huxley requires, is absolutely impossible ever to be 
 supplied. These demonstrate, that selective breeding 
 (so far as it has any effect) endows permanent races 
 with a physiological character, more and more unlike 
 that of distinct species, inasmuch as it makes the indi- 
 viduals of each such race, sterile inter se (i. e. with 
 other individuals of the same race), and gives them an 
 increase of fertility and of constitutional vigor, when 
 they are crossed with individuals of other races of the 
 same species : a result, the direct converse of the char- 
 acter marking distinct species, whose individuals are, 
 in the main, fertile with the individuals of their own 
 species, and sterile with individuals of other species. 
 
 As has been mentioned, Huxley further says : 
 
 "What is needed for the completion of Darwin's 
 theory, is, * * * secondly, the elucidation of the 
 nature of variability." 
 
 Darwin's facts show, also, that there is an elucidation 
 of the nature of variability ; but such elucidation, equally 
 with the solution of the physiological problem, militates 
 against Darwin's theory, inasmuch as it shows, that 
 there is a definite limit to such variability, and that 
 
STERILITY OP HYBRIDS. 423 
 
 such limit precludes the possibility of the evolution 
 of "permanent races," into distinct species. Huxley 
 says; that Darwin starts with an incontestable assump- 
 tion, viz., " the existence of living matter endowed with 
 variability." Incontestable it is ; but, Darwin essays, at 
 the next stage in his argument, an assumption which is 
 contestable, viz. : General ignorance of the law of such 
 variability; and the absence, therefore, of any law for- 
 bidding his next gratuitous assumption, that variability 
 is unlimited. This assumption is not tenable, for, (i) 
 there is a law governing variability, and (2) such law 
 completely imposes a limit to positive variations, while 
 (3) the law of proportionate development imposes a 
 limit to negative variations. All variability, of a positive 
 character, is limited to the regain of characters, once 
 lost by the species ; and variability, of a negative char- 
 acter, is confined within a narrow range in each species, 
 by the sterility and extinction which await the loss of 
 a given number of the organs and features of such 
 species. 
 
 The cause of the sterility, and of the lessened fer- 
 tility, among individuals of a variety deficient in fea- 
 tures of its species, is, that there are not sufficient char- 
 acters in those individuals, to impress their reproduc- 
 tive tissue with due, formative power. The reason of 
 the sterility of hybrids, is because the hybrid is 
 formed of characters belonging to two different spe- 
 cies, and, therefore, the result of the coordination of 
 the characters of the organism is not directed to the 
 required point. The influence of the aggregate is not 
 centered upon that tissue which is specially prepared 
 
424 STERILITY OP HYBRIDS. 
 
 for exudation from the organism, for reproductive 
 purposes. 
 
 An individual, with all the characters of its species 
 fully and proportionately developed, may be likened 
 to a perfect, symmetrically-formed "burning lens," 
 with all of the rays, which pass through it, determin- 
 ing to the center. An individual, belonging to a di- 
 vergent variety deficient in some of the characters of 
 its species, may be likened to the same lens, but 
 notched, and with a ragged edge. The force, therein 
 coursing, does but imperfectly converge ; and the degree 
 of the imperfection determines whether the effective 
 concentration of the rays may at all be attained. If 
 the imperfection be very great, the said effect will be 
 wholly precluded. So, if the reduction of characters, 
 in an individual, be great, the reproductive power is 
 wholly absent, upon interbreeding with another indi- 
 vidual similarly deficient. On the other hand, a hy- 
 brid, — the product of a cross between two distinct 
 species, — may be likened to a glass, made in the simili- 
 tude of a "burning lens" with two foci. The forces, 
 contained therein, — which would be competent to the 
 production of a given effect, were the rays converged 
 to one point, — are, as there are two foci, rendered 
 wholly inoperative for such a result. So ; the hybrid 
 would be fertile, were the point, or points, to which 
 the influence of its aggregate determines, susceptible 
 of being exuded. But, as there is but one point, viz., 
 the site of the reproductive organs, where the structure 
 contemplates exudation; and as the influence of the 
 aggregate is not concentrated there, the hybrid needs 
 
STERILITY OF HYBRIDS. 425 
 
 must be sterile. The above remark, that there is but 
 one reproductive point in that individual, has reference 
 solely to the animals highest in the scale of develop- 
 ment. A plant has many such reproductive cen- 
 ters, and so. have many animals low in the scale of de- 
 velopment. But, mutatis mutandis, the principle also 
 obtains with them. Strictly stated, it should be said, 
 that in a hybrid, the influence of the aggregate deter- 
 mines to a point or points other than those devoted to 
 purposes of exudation. 
 
 The reason, why closely-allied species produce at 
 times hybrid offspring, is because they possess organs 
 and features somewhat alike ; and their reproductive 
 forces, having come, severally, from pure species, need 
 only to be sufficiently isochronous, to coalesce and 
 concur in the mutual formation of an organism. The 
 question, with the reproductive elements, in this 
 case, is not one of formative power ; for each, having 
 been 'derived from a pure species which concentrated 
 the influence of its aggregate upon the tissue which 
 was physically adapted for exudation, they have, other 
 things equal, the power of integration. The question 
 is one, simply of the possibility of their uniting and 
 working to the same end. The reason, why very dis- 
 tinct species are absolutely sterile with each other, 
 — not capable even of the formation of a hybrid, — is not 
 because of the reproductive elements of the two lack- 
 ing the usual formative power, but because there is 
 a physical impossibility of the two forces uniting, 
 through each of them pursuing an absolutely differ- 
 ent rhythm. 
 
426 STERILITY OP HYBRIDS. 
 
 The hybrid, produced by the union of the two closely 
 allied species, — though capable of coordinating within 
 itself, the coalesced forces of the characters of the two 
 species, — is incapable of reflecting the result of that co- 
 ordination, to that point, or those points, where the 
 process of exudation of tissue, is possible. If the 
 forces of the whole organism are converged, as in a 
 hybrid, to any point, and the tissue, there, be modified 
 into a miniature likeness of the whole, such tissue is 
 incompetent, by reason of the nature of the mechan- 
 ism, to become exuded, i. e., to sever the correlation in 
 which it stands with the rest of the structure; and 
 therefore cannot serve as a reproductive element. The 
 hybrid, then partakes of the character of a crystal. It 
 has all of its parts correlated ; each of such parts, if 
 exuded or detached, and if the environment were 
 propitious, would be capable of reintegrating the 
 whole ; but the crystal has not the power of detach- 
 ing a portion of itself, for the purpose of such rein- 
 tegration. Each portion of a crystal is capable of 
 reintegrating the whole. But, the crystal is not capa- 
 ble of exuding, or of detaching, a part of itself, for 
 such a purpose. For a crystal to accomplish such 
 reintegration, a part must be detached by force ap- 
 plied ab extra. Were it capable, by itself, of this de- 
 tachment, it would be, in all essentials, like an organ- 
 ism. Another characteristic of an organism (possessed 
 by a crystal, but in small degree if at all), is that sus- 
 ceptibility to the influence of its environment, which 
 entails that ebb and flux of the coordinating force, which 
 is displayed in the waste and repair of its tissue. This 
 
STERILITY OP HYBRIDS. 427 
 
 recurrence of alternate degeneration and reintegration, 
 is a general characteristic of life ; but it is absurd to 
 pronounce it Life itself. It is more in keeping with 
 the phenomena, to term the coordination of actions, 
 Life. This Herbert Spencer has done; but he has 
 made an egregious mistake, when he fancies, that the 
 coordination, peculiar to any species, is susceptible of 
 any normal modification. 
 
 As before remarked, there is no necessity more im- 
 peratively felt, than that of a test by reference to which, 
 the precise nature and bounds of the several species, 
 maybe susceptible of ascertainment; and, as the absence 
 of all explanation, both qualitative and quantitative, of 
 the varied phenomena of sterility and of fertility, has 
 heretofore lain in the way of attaining such a test, the 
 importance of the solution herein given of such varied 
 phenomena, cannot well be over-estimated. The hy- 
 brid is the sole possible element of confusion, in the 
 practical classification of species. Such organism, 
 whilst in theory affording no difficulty, may be often, 
 to the naturalist, a temporary source of confusion. 
 But, its sterility will preclude the possibility of its con- 
 fusing specific distinctions. Although ; when an indi- 
 vidual, of one species, with some of its characters re- 
 duced or suppressed, crosses with an individual of 
 another species, which has characters so like those 
 which the former lacks, that they may serve to repair, 
 in a measure, the defect in the coordination of the for- 
 mer ; gain in constitutional vigor results to the hybrid 
 offspring of such a cross ; the hybrid will, however, be 
 sterile, and the line of descent from either parent-form, 
 
428 STERILITY OF HYBRIDS. 
 
 will (so far as this hybrid is concerned) forever end. 
 There is a definite and absolute failure of issue, with the 
 hybrid; unlike the failure of issue, in the case of an in- 
 dividual of a pure species, whose sterility is caused 
 solely by its reproductive element being modified by 
 the forces of an inadequate number of the characters of 
 its species. As Darwin has noted, from observations 
 made, the sterility of this individual is not absolute: As 
 Darwin, however, has failed to note, the reason its ste- 
 rility may be remedied, is because it needs only to mate 
 with another individual of the same species, which has 
 the complement of characters required for the purposes 
 of reproduction, or which (failing to possess such com- 
 plement) can contribute other characters which the 
 former lacks, the addition whereof to the number it 
 already possesses, may make up the number which is 
 necessary to restore fertility. 
 
CHAPTER XIII. 
 Concluding Remarks. 
 
 To recapitulate, the controversy stands thus : 
 
 1. Darwin says, that variations or improvements 
 arise among animals and plants, under domestication. 
 
 This has been conceded. 
 
 2. Darwin's next proposition, is, Descent with Modi- 
 fication : That is, that when a modification is acquired 
 by an individual, the law of Inheritance generally 
 transmits the acquired character to the offspring. 
 
 This, also, has been conceded. 
 
 3. Another proposition of Darwin, is, That many 
 organs, or characters, after having been in a state of 
 full development, have been so wrought upon by the 
 adverse conditions of Nature, as to become, viz., some 
 of them, slightly reduced; others of them, greatly re- 
 duced, having the character of rudiments merely; and 
 others of them, completely suppressed, leaving not a 
 vestige of their past development. 
 
 This proposition, also, has been fully conceded. 
 
 4. A proposition, which Darwin formulates respect- 
 ing these reduced and suppressed organs and char- 
 acters is, viz., That, given, favorable conditions these 
 reduced and these suppressed characters are compe- 
 tent to reappear, and on many occasions have reap- 
 
 37 (429) 
 
430 CONCLUDING REMARKS. 
 
 peared, even after having lain latent for millions of 
 generations. 
 
 This, too, has been conceded. 
 
 5. Darwin's next point, is, viz., That it is competent 
 and allowable to take the amount of variation or im- 
 provement, positively known to take place during (say) 
 the last hundred years, or during the historical period, 
 and therefrom to estimate the amount of variation or 
 improvement possible to occur within a million of 
 years, or other long interval of time. This proposition 
 has been demurred to, because such a proposition 
 necessarily involves 
 
 ■ 6. The further proposition, viz., That variations, or 
 improvements may proceed without any limit to them, 
 or multiply to an indefinite extent. 
 
 This assumption, of his, of No Limit, has been 
 shown to be, both intrinsically erroneous, and conclu- 
 sively negatived by Darwin's most important factor. 
 
 It is intrinsically erroneous, because it is both gratui- 
 tous and illegitimate. 
 
 First: It is gratuitous, because no evidence what- 
 ever is adduced by Darwin, showing that the varia- 
 tions, or improvements, are without a limit, or that 
 they may proceed to an indefinite extent. In fact, the 
 most curious feature in Darwin's theory, and in every 
 theory of Evolution which has been propounded, is 
 that this assumption of No Limit remains a tacit 
 assumption throughout all of his works, and through- 
 out all works on the subject; notwithstanding that it 
 is an indispensable point in such theories, without 
 which they could not be constructed. 
 
CONCLUDING REMARKS. 431 
 
 Second: This assumption of No Limit, is illegitimate, 
 because the sole, possible warrant which might have 
 been urged to sustain it, — viz., the presumption that, as 
 variations' are now seen to go on multiplying, they 
 may still go on multiplying forever, or indefinitely, or 
 may have, in the past, gone on multiplying indefi- 
 nitely, — is invalidated by reason of Darwin's prece- 
 dent (alleged) failure to resolve the law or the cause 
 of variations, which law or cause, if discovered, would, 
 presumably, have determined whether there was or 
 was not a limit. 
 
 Third: This assumption of No Limit is, on the 
 other hand, negatived by the fact, that the law of 
 Variations is actually resolved by Darwin, and that 
 law, — namely, Reversion, or the principle of the regain 
 or re-development of characters which were previ- 
 ously lost or reduced, — imposes a definite limit to the 
 Variations; — no more characters may be regained 
 than were originally lost by the respective, varying 
 species. 
 
 7. Darwin's next proposition is, that it is possible, 
 upon principles of analogy, that Variations now arise, 
 under Nature, and that they may, in the past, have 
 there arisen, in much the same manner that Varia- 
 tions arise under domestication ; and that those Varia- 
 tions may have frequently given their owners such an 
 advantage, in their competition with their fellows, 
 as to secure to them a prolonged existence, and the 
 opportunity of leaving offspring in whom the said 
 variations would be continued. 
 
 No exception has been taken to this proposition, 
 
432 CONCLUDING REMARKS. 
 
 save this, viz., that he has not resolved the law or cause 
 of such possible variations, and thereby ascertained 
 whether the variations are amenable or not to any 
 limit; and that he has illegitimately referred them to 
 an "innate tendency" which he has the grace to con- 
 fess, is but a name for his ignorance. 
 
 8. Darwin's next proposition is, that there is, and 
 has ever been, a fearful Struggle for Existence waging 
 almost incessantly under Nature, among the different 
 animals and plants. 
 
 No exception has been taken to this proposition. 
 
 9. His next proposition is, that the effect of this 
 Struggle for Existence, is the Natural .Selection of 
 "the strongest and most vigorous" individuals, and 
 the extinction of the weakest and least fitted to live; 
 and he implies that, by this Selection of " the strongest 
 and most vigorous," slight increments of development 
 are secured, in each generation. 
 
 Exception has been taken to this proposition, be- 
 cause there is a fallacy resident in the terms " strongest 
 and most vigorous." Viewed with reference to the 
 hard conditions of the Struggle for Existence which 
 he pictures, to which even these elect are subjected, 
 the terms to be used, should have been, the least weak 
 and the least degenerate. When these terms are used, 
 no implication of any advance in development arises, 
 as it does, when the terms, '" strongest and most vig- 
 orous," are used. The implication of advance in de- 
 velopment, from the Selection of the best of any one 
 generation, may arise only where exist, both, Selec- 
 tion, and favorable conditions. Under domestication, 
 
CONCLUDING REMARKS. 433 
 
 these two requisites generally concur. Under nature, 
 they do not, — even according to Darwin's showing. 
 Selection is present, there; but, by the very terms 
 of Darwin's argument, the other requisite — viz., favor- 
 able conditions, — must be absent, in order to effect 
 the Natural Selection. According to the very terms 
 of his argument, if this requisite of advance in de- 
 velopment — favorable conditions — were present, the 
 other requisite — Natural Selection — would necessarily 
 be wanting; for unfavorable conditions are required 
 (according to Darwin) to work off the weakest and 
 most degenerate, and thus occasion the Selection of 
 the others. 
 
 Subject to this qualification, the principle of Natural 
 Selection has been recognized. The argument from 
 Natural Selection, however, is a different matter. 
 
 10. Darwin's next proposition, is that those slight 
 variations which are assumed to arise occasionally, 
 under nature, " in the course of thousands of genera- 
 tions;" and those slight increments of development 
 which are assumed to be the outcome of the Natural 
 Selection of " the strongest and most vigorous " of each 
 generation, may be accumulated by Natural Selection 
 to an indefinite or unlimited extent : in other words, 
 that by means of the accumulation of such occasional 
 variations and of those slight increments of develop- 
 ment, the higher animals have all been evolved from 
 the lowest forms of life. 
 
 Exception has been taken to. this proposition for the 
 same reasons which were urged against the assump- 
 tion of unlimited variation, when it was considered 
 37* 
 
434 CONCLUDING REMARKS. 
 
 independently of the question of Natural Selection. 
 Such a conclusion, of indefinite or of unlimited results 
 from Natural Selection, involves the assumption that 
 the accretions of development, represented by the 
 strongest and most vigorous individuals and the 
 variations present in the varying individuals, proceed 
 forever, or without any limit : Whereas, as has been 
 before shown, such assumption of No Limit is both 
 (i) gratuitous, and (2) illegitimate, and (3) is negatived 
 by the fact that the sole law of which such variations 
 and such increments of development are susceptible, 
 viz., Reversion, imposes a limit to such variations and 
 increments, and consequently restricts the extent of the 
 accumulation of such, which is effected by Natural 
 Selection. 
 
 Thus the controversy stood, before the positive dis- 
 proofs of Darwin's theory were developed. Such 
 theory was shown to be untenable because of three 
 salient objections. These were (to repeat) : 
 
 First: This assumption of No Limit (which assump- 
 tion is absolutely essential to his theory) is invalidated 
 by being gratuitous ; i. e., for want of any evidence to 
 sustain it: 
 
 Second: His assumption of No Limit is invalidated 
 by being illegitimate ; i. e., by reason of his precedent 
 (alleged) failure to resolve the law, or the cause, of 
 variations, which, if resolved, would presumably have 
 informed him whether these variations were, or were 
 not amenable to a limit. 
 
 Third: His assumption of No Limit is invalidated 
 by reason of the fact that a certain law — viz., Rever- 
 
CONCLUDING REMARKS. 435 
 
 sion — which constitutes his most prominent factor, 
 really explains those variations, and imposes a definite 
 limit to them. 
 
 If the theory that variations are due to Reversion ;* 
 that the improvements arising under domestication are 
 due to the reappearance of characters lost or reduced 
 under nature; and that the variations or increments of 
 development which are preserved and accumulated by 
 Natural Selection, under nature, are but the regain of 
 what was lost by the respective species, at some former 
 period ; be true, then Darwinism, and every theory of 
 Biology, of Psychology, and of Sociology, which is 
 based upon the assumption of the unlimited accumu- 
 lation of those slight increments of development, 
 known as Variations, must be false. 
 
 But is the' theory of Reversion true ? 
 
 * Of course, the positive features which are due to Reversion, and 
 which are essential to the integrity of a species, do not comprise patho- 
 logical characters where (for instance) inorganic, or foreign, or mis- 
 placed, organic processes of integration have effected a coalescence 
 with the normal forces of growth. Nor do they include the features 
 of local hypertrophy, or other monstrous growths. 
 
 The perfect type, of any species, is not the sum of all the modifica- 
 tions of which all the characters of such species, are susceptible, but 
 it is the sum of all the positive characters of a species, as those charac- 
 ters are when fully and normally developed. These words, " fully and 
 normally," do not here beg the question as they would were the 
 theory dependent upon its mere agreement with the facts; for, we 
 have the crucial test of self-fertilization, or of close-interbreeding, by 
 which to determine what is normal and what abnormal. That which 
 is abnormal will ever manifest itself in the evil attendant upon self- 
 fertilization or close-interbreeding. 
 
 There is one of the features of species, which may occasion doubt. 
 Reference is had to color. It is difficult, frequently, to tell what color, 
 
436 t CONCLUDING REMARKS. 
 
 It has to recommend it, that it is in full accordance 
 with all the facts of Variation. 
 
 It has to recommend it, that the weight of probabili- 
 ties is in its favor. 
 
 It has to recommend _ it, that there is no converse 
 assumption competent to explain the facts of Variation. 
 
 It has to recommend it, that the law of Reversion to 
 which it looks for an explanation, is a well-known 
 scientific factor. 
 
 It has to recommend it, that there is no fact which is 
 inconsistent with such explanation. 
 
 It has to recommend it, that, in default of such ex- 
 planation, there is no recourse but to a metaphysical 
 entity, an "innate tendency." 
 
 But, great as are the intrinsic defects of Darwin's 
 theory, and overpowering as are the above considera- 
 
 or variegation of colors is proper and normal to any given species. 
 The difficulty lies in this : When any other feature is abnormal in 
 any way, evil is entailed by self-fertilization, or by close-interbreeding, 
 either immediately or when such process has been long continued. 
 In such way, the abnormal character is ascertained: But, with an 
 abnormal color, the evil entailed thereby, is so inappreciably small, 
 that the test of interbreeding, or of self-fertilization, is practically 
 valueless. 
 
 As has been before remarked, the Converse Theory, propounded in 
 this work, has relation, directly, solely to the problem of Variations. 
 Darwin's problem was, How species were evolved. But, in the so- 
 lution of such problem, he employed these Variations as his data, and 
 contended that the species were evolved simply by the indefinite ac- 
 cumulation of such Variations. To confute him, a converse theory 
 of the Evolution of the Species, was not needed, but a converse theory, 
 merely, of his data, namely the Variations. Such theory has here 
 been supplied, showing that the evolution of species was not accom- 
 plished by means of Variations ; that each species is normally im- 
 
CONCLUDING REMARKS. 437 
 
 tions in favor of the theory of Reversion, we have not 
 relied, for the Refutation of Darwinism, upon these 
 points alone. We have not left the theory of Rever- 
 sion dependent upon its mere agreement with the facts, 
 or sustained by a mere balance of probabilities; nor 
 have we counted, for its acceptance, upon the mere 
 fact that the law to which we look for an explanation 
 of the phenomena, and which alone is competent to 
 explain those phenomena, is a well-established scien- 
 tific factor, whose additional recommendation is that 
 it is assimilable to other well-known laws, such as that 
 of the reproduction of lost limbs, that of the redintegra- 
 tion of tissue, that of the repair of injuries, and all laws 
 whose operation is to restore the lost integrity of an 
 organism. 
 
 Such considerations are amply competent to the 
 
 mutable; and that each was evolved from a distinct, independent 
 center of inorganic forces. If such converse theory, or History of 
 Variations, be true, it is competent, also, to the refutation of the 
 whole of Herbert Spencer's synthesis, of Bain's hypotheses, and of 
 every theory of Biology, of Psychology, or of Sociology, which as- 
 sumes that those slight increments of development, known as Varia- 
 tions, may be accumulated indefinitely. 
 
 But, although the converse theory of the Evolution of Species, is 
 not needed to the explosion of Darwinism, or other theory of general 
 evolution, — the question of whether or not these are true, being defi- 
 nitively settled by the phenomena of Variation, — a detail of the 
 modes of integration in which the several species were evolved from 
 independent" centers, is desirable on other grounds. Therefore, in' a 
 future work on The Special Evolution of Species, founded princi- 
 pally, if not exclusively, upon data furnished by Darwin, Bain and 
 Spencer, the evolution of species from independent centers; the 
 differentiation of organisms into sexual, neuter, and otherwise modi- 
 fied individuals-; the cause which determines the sex' of off- 
 
438 CONCLUDING REMARKS. 
 
 refutation of Darwinism, but they do not suffice to en- 
 title the theory of Reversion to a place within the body 
 of positive truths. 
 
 We have, however, supplemented such arguments and 
 evidences, with adequate, scientific proofs of the truth of 
 the theory of Reversion, and with positive disproofs of 
 the theory of Darwin. The phenomena of Crossing 
 and of Close-Interbreeding accomplish these ends, 
 with the full, unerring force of demonstration. 
 
 These phenomena declare the law, beyond all con- 
 troversy or cavil, to be, viz., that the positive varia- 
 tions in each species are but the regain of what was 
 previously lost by such species ; that that organic struct- 
 ure which is the sum of all the possible developments 
 of its species, is alone consistent with full physiological 
 integrity ; that there is a limit to Variation in both di- 
 rections, in the direction of increase and in the direc- 
 
 spring ; which occasions the transmission to an individual of either 
 sex of the primary and secondary, sexual characters of the opposite 
 sex ; the philosophy of hydrophobia, of catamenia, of petrifaction, of 
 the several phases of metamorphosis, and of monstrosities ; and the 
 phenomena of embryology, will receive an explanation as complete as 
 that which has been given of the phenomena of Crossing and Close- 
 Interbreeding. This synthesis — the principles of which shall be 
 evolved from the facts, and descend again to the facts, by as rigorous 
 processes of induction and deduction, as have characterized the pres- 
 ent work — will include the true theory of classification ; the explana- 
 tion of numerous, recondite, psychological problems; an explana- 
 tion of the history and function of the caecum; and such a full 
 and detailed explanation of the function of the cerebellum, as 
 harmonizes the two seemingly conflicting classes of facts which now 
 are appealed to by the advocates, respectively, of the two prevailing 
 theories. 
 
CONCLUDING REMARKS. 439 
 
 tion of decrease; that there is a limit in the direction 
 of increase of structure, or to positive Variations, for 
 no more Variations can occur in any species, than that 
 amount of characters or features which such species 
 once lost; that there is a limit in the direction of de- 
 crease of structure, or to Degeneration, or negative 
 variations, because any organism which falls short of the 
 full organic complement of its species, has thereby en- 
 tailed upon it, a proportional physiological, evil effect, 
 while if such modification of the specific type be carried 
 beyond what is a comparatively very narrow margin, 
 the effect upon the fertility and constitutional vigor of 
 the individual will be such as to entail the extinction of 
 its line, and death to itself; that the structural degenera- 
 tion which has taken place under nature, in almost 
 every species, has been in derogation of the physiologi- 
 cal integrity of the individuals, and this is evidenced by 
 the evil effects which accompany the close-interbreed- 
 ing of individuals of each such species ; that each and 
 every return which is made towards the full structural 
 complement, viz.j the original perfect type, — made, 
 either, by means of direct Reversion, or positive Va- 
 riation, by means of Crossing (whereby the offspring 
 has, contributed to it by either parent, a character or 
 characters which the other parent lacked), or by means 
 of Grafting, — is fraught with proportional increase of 
 physiological good, or fraught, rather, with propor- 
 tional abatement of the evil which was caused by the 
 departure from such normal build. 
 
 The obvious import of this law, of proportionate de- 
 velopment, is that each species is normally immutable. 
 
440 CONCLUDING REMARKS. 
 
 The state of the individuals, previous to their develop- 
 ment of positive variations, is a deficient, physiological 
 condition, due to their deficient, structural condition. 
 Their positive variation is a structural return, which is 
 attended by a return to a perfect physiological condi- 
 tion. The same result is effected by Crossing. By this 
 process, two individuals which have made structural 
 returns, in different ways or in different characters, 
 toward the original mould of their common species, 
 combine those characters, or the bases thereof, in their 
 offspring; and the augmented return, so induced, meets 
 with a proportional response in the gain in fertility 
 and vigor which is ever then observed. 
 
 If the variation, under domestication, be of a nega- 
 tive character, the departure from the normal type is 
 then evidenced by the lessened vigor and lessened fer- 
 tility which mark this departure from physiological in- 
 tegrity, which follows fast upon any departure from 
 structural integrity. 
 
 As, then, the reduction, or suppression of any char- 
 acter, is ever observed to entail physiological evil, 
 the deficient physiological condition of any organisms, 
 in a state of nature, or when just placed under domesti- 
 cation, must imply the reduction and suppression of 
 some characters in those individuals ; and, it follows 
 that any development, subsequently under domestica- 
 tion, of positive variations, must be the recovery, 
 merely, of such lost characters — especially, as it is 
 observed, that the regain of such lost characters, or the 
 ' appearance of such variations, is attended by a like 
 and proportional decrease of the physiological, evil 
 
CONCLUDING REMARKS. 441 
 
 effects under which those individuals were observed to 
 suffer. 
 
 The following propositions illustrate the manner in 
 which the normal immutability of each species, has 
 been demonstrated by this law, of the complementary 
 nature of the structural integrity, and of the physio- 
 logical integrity of organisms. 
 
 From Darwin's repertory of facts this induction has 
 been made, viz. : 
 
 II. That there has been degeneration in each spe- 
 cies under nature, to the extent of a margin commen- 
 surate with the margin of the possible, positive varia- 
 tion in that species, under Domestication. 
 
 Warrant for this induction, is to be found 
 
 First: In the conditions of the Struggle for Exist- 
 ence, which needs must have been very adverse, if 
 Darwin's graphic description of them is to be received : 
 
 Second: Warrant for the induction, of Degenera- 
 tion under Nature, is to be found in the many rudi- 
 mentary organs which, Darwin says, were once in a 
 fully developed state; and the scope of this degenera- 
 tion may be conceived when Darwin says that these 
 rudiments " imply an enormous amount of modifica- 
 tion," and when he says, that "there is scarcely a 
 single species under nature which is free from such 
 blemishes." 
 
 Third: Degeneration is shown by the many organs 
 which, Darwin declares, have been greatly reduced 
 and simplified by the action of the conditions of Natu- 
 ral Selection: 
 
 Fourth: This degeneration is shown by the many 
 38 
 
442 CONCLUDING REMARKS. 
 
 characters which, Darwin shows, have been so wholly- 
 suppressed that not a vestige of their past development 
 now remains. 
 
 Fifth: This degeneration is shown by the many 
 "latent" characters and organs, "proper to both the 
 right and left sides of the body, and to a long line of 
 male and female ancestors," which lie, according to 
 Darwin, within every organism, and which need only 
 the proper conditions, to reappear. 
 
 Sixth: This degeneration is shown by the number- 
 less characters which Darwin ascribes to- Reversion — 
 Reversion necessarily implying, as Darwin admits, 
 past reduction or suppression of the characters which 
 now revert. 
 
 12. The next induction is, That all of the positive 
 Variations, or improvements, in each species, are due 
 . to the mere regain of the characters which were lost 
 or reduced in such species, under nature; and that 
 they are limited, therefore, in number and kind to the 
 number and kind of the characters so lost or reduced, 
 under nature. 
 
 Warrant for this is found 
 
 First: In the previous proposition, and in the proofs 
 adduced in support thereof. 
 
 Second: In the numberless instances where Varia- 
 tions are ascribed, by Darwin, to Reversion, the ex- 
 ceptions being rare where he does not thus account 
 for the phenomena of variation. 
 
 Third: In Darwin's admission that all Variations 
 are susceptible of such explanation, his only objection 
 being that they must at some time have arisen as new 
 
CONCLUDING REMARKS. 443 
 
 Variations, and thus formed the species: Such objec- 
 tion, however, is -obviously absurd; as that point— viz., 
 that species were formed by the mere accumulation of 
 Variations — is the very conclusion which he is striving 
 how to attain, by means of those very Variations which 
 he admits are most probably the mere regain of what 
 was previously lost. If the mere regain of what was 
 lost, they manifestly stop when all that was lost is re- 
 gained ; and therefore, having a limit, they cannot have 
 formed the several species. 
 
 Fourth: Warrant for the assumption that all positive 
 Variations are but the mere regain of what was lost, is 
 found in the fact that Reversion is a well-known, well- 
 established, scientific factor. 
 
 Fifth: Warrant is found in the fact that Reversion 
 is, confessedly, the sole explanation of which positive 
 variations are susceptible. 
 
 Sixth : Warrant is found in the fact that there are 
 no phenomena which militate against such explana- 
 tion. 
 
 Seventh: Warrant is found in the fact that the sole 
 alternative of the explanation of Reversion, is an " in- 
 nate tendency," or other metaphysical entities which 
 Darwin admits are but synonyms of ignorance. 
 
 Now to the proofs of the foregoing propositions. 
 
 A proposition of Darwin, is, That self-fertilization, or 
 in-and-in breeding is injurious, and productive of ste- 
 rility, of lessened fertility, loss of constitutional vigor 
 and loss of size. 
 
 An analysis of the facts upon which he professes to 
 found this proposition, discloses : 
 
444 CONCLUDING EEMAEKS. 
 
 13. That self-fertilization, or in-and-in breeding is 
 not, perse, injurious; 
 
 14. That it is the loss or reduction, in the individuals, 
 of some of the characters, proper to their species, which 
 causes the evil results which are so frequently seen to 
 follow self-fertilization and in-and-in breeding: 
 
 15. That, when the individuals are fully and propor- 
 tionately developed in all the positive characters of 
 their species — that is, when the perfect type, which is 
 normally immutable, is realized in the individuals — 
 they may be self-fertilized, or closely interbred in the 
 nearest degree of relationship, without any evil re- 
 sults. 
 
 Proof of these propositions is found 
 
 First : In the fact that animals and plants in the 
 state of nature, and when first placed under domesti- 
 cation, are susceptible of the evils resulting from 
 close-interbreeding, to a degree corresponding with 
 the amount of reduction or suppression of characters, 
 which either is known to have occurred, or which is 
 implied by the individuals' subsequent development of 
 positive features : 
 
 Second : In the fact that these evil results from 
 close-interbreeding abate (other things equal) in pro- 
 portion as the variations appear under domestication ; 
 or in other words, in proportion as the reduced or 
 suppressed characters which occasioned the evil, re- 
 develop. 
 
 Third : In the fact that, where other things are not 
 equal, viz., — where Man's selection has been so erratic 
 as to preclude the proportionate re-development, in each 
 
CONCLUDING REMARKS. 445 
 
 individual, of all the lost or reduced characters — the 
 evil results from close-interbreeding correspond most 
 faithfully, degree for degree, with the disproportionate 
 development of the individuals — the variations in the 
 quantity of the effects observed, tallying exactly with 
 the variations in the quantity of cause assigned. 
 
 The modes of Man's Selection which thus vary the 
 evil results, may be conveniently classed as four : viz., 
 
 a. That mode of Selection which, while it re-devel- 
 opes all or most of the lost or reduced characters of a 
 given species, does not develop them all in the same 
 individuals, or in the same variety; but, instead there- 
 of, apportions or distributes them among different va- 
 rieties, thereby causing each variety of said species to 
 lack the many important characters which constitute 
 the peculiarities of the other varieties of the same 
 species, and thereby restricting such variety to one 
 only of the recovered characters, which is pushed to 
 an extreme of development which aids the more to 
 mar the true proportion. 
 
 This process of Selection is exemplified in the case 
 of the Pigeon, and of the Fowl. 
 
 In consequence, therefore, of each variety of either 
 of these species, lacking the characters, which have 
 been appropriated as peculiarities by the other varie- 
 ties of the given species, and in consequence of the 
 extreme, disproportionate development of the special 
 excellence of each variety, it was to be expected, that 
 the interbreeding of individuals of each such variety, 
 would be prolific of great evil results. This expecta- 
 tion has been fully justified by the facts, from Darwin, 
 38* 
 
446 CONCLUDING REMARKS. 
 
 recorded in the chapter on Pigeons and Fowls. These 
 animals not only display the greatest evil upon close- 
 interbreeding, but, — in conclusive refutation of Dar- 
 win's theory that the Pigeon and Fowl best illustrate 
 the divergence of character which (he fancies) evolves 
 varieties into species, — the further the varieties diverge, 
 the more sterile and weakened in constitution do they 
 become ! proving clearly that divergence of character 
 cannot result in the evolution of distinct species, for 
 the apportionment or separation of characters, which 
 it involves, is in derogation of the fertility and strength 
 of the individuals sa diverging, and comes soon to a 
 dead stop within a very short interval, owing to the 
 sterility and excessive delicacy of constitution which 
 the absence in each individual, of the characters which 
 form the peculiarities of the other varieties of the 
 same species, entails. 
 
 b. Another of the modes of Man's Selection, which 
 vary the evil results, is that mode which, instead of — 
 or in addition to — re-developing lost or reduced char- 
 acters, continues the reduction or suppression of char- 
 acters of the species; thereby greatly modifying the 
 normal type which is the sum of the full and propor- 
 tionate development of all the positive characters of 
 the given species. 
 
 This process of Man's Selection is exemplified in the 
 case of the Pig which — in what are esteemed the best, 
 domesticated breeds — has its snout reduced, the front 
 of its head short and concave, its bristles well-nigh 
 suppressed, its legs reduced to a size often incom- 
 patible not alone with locomotion, but with the very 
 
CONCLUDING REMARKS. 441 
 
 support of the animal, and its tusks almost oblitera- 
 ted. 
 
 In consequence of this degeneration, the interbreed- 
 ing of individuals of the domesticated breeds is preg- 
 nant (as has been shown) with very great loss of fer- 
 tility and of constitutional vigor; greater, in fact (as 
 Darwin shows, unconscious as he is of the reason), than 
 in the case of any other large animal; greater, in fact, 
 than with any other animals, save, perhaps the Pigeon 
 in which the true principles of development, have been 
 equally outraged, only in a somewhat different way. 
 On the other hand, in the interbreeding of the least 
 well-bred animals of this species (the Pig), the evil 
 results, owing to the nearer approximation to the nor- 
 mal type of the species, are in a measure absent. 
 
 c. Another of the modes of Man's Selection which 
 vary the evil results of Close-Interbreeding, is that 
 mode which, in a great measure, re-develops all or 
 nearly all of the lost or reduced characters of the 
 given species ; leaving the varieties to be distinguished 
 from one another, simply by some slight variations in 
 the ratio of the development of the species' characters. 
 
 This process of Man's Selection is exemplified, in a 
 greater or less degree, in Horses, Sheep, and Cows. 
 
 In consequence of this mode of Selection, so favor- 
 able to development, the interbreeding of individuals 
 of each variety of either of these species, is observed 
 to be replete with very little evil results ; the well-pro- 
 portioned animals often being capable of very close 
 and long continued in-and-in breeding, without the 
 slightest apparent prejudice; and, where evil is ob- 
 
448 CONCLUDING REMARKS. 
 
 served to result, it is ever traceable to the individuals 
 which are paired, being similarly wanting in full struc- 
 tural integrity. 
 
 d. Another of the modes of Man's Selection, which 
 vary the evil results of Interbreeding, is that mode 
 which re-develops only one of the lost or reduced 
 characters of the species; the several varieties of each 
 such species being formed by the mere retention of each 
 variety at a different stage of the exclusive develop- 
 ment of this one character. 
 
 This process of Selection is principally exemplified 
 in the case of Plants, there being, in each species, gen- 
 erally only one character which Man values, and to 
 which exclusively he devotes his attention. In one 
 species, it is, perhaps, the fruit alone which he prizes ; 
 in another, it is the flower; in another, the leaves; in 
 another, the roots, &c. The extreme development of 
 this one, valued feature, and the reduction, both positive 
 and relative, of the other characters of the species, have 
 sensibly modified the normal structure of the Plants. 
 
 In consequence of this modification of the structural 
 integrity of Plants, there is observed to be an injurious 
 modification of the physiological integrity, which re- 
 veals itself when the Plants are self-fertilized, or when 
 two individuals, similarly modified, are interbred; loss 
 of fertility, loss of constitutional vigor, and sterility 
 being the outcome of such self-fertilization, or of such 
 interbreeding, in proportion to the degree in which the 
 parents similarly depart from the full, structural integrity 
 of their species. 
 
 All of the species under domestication furnish con- 
 
CONCLUDING REMARKS. 449 
 
 firmation to the doctrine that each and every modifica- 
 tion of the type of the sum of all the positive characters 
 of a species, is fraught with physiological injury which 
 beyond a very narrow limit entails the extinction of 
 the line of the individuals so modified. 
 
 So, even if all the individuals of every species in the 
 world had departed from the types of their respective 
 species, and even if there were no form extant, which 
 realized the perfect type of its species, the type of 
 each species would not be involved in doubt; for it 
 is ever susceptible of ascertainment. Interbreed the 
 individuals, and the evil effects, consequent upon such 
 process, will furnish a perfect register of the amount of 
 departure which they have made from the original, 
 normal form. By careful breeding, modify a human 
 being, until he closely resembles a monkey — in the 
 length and proportion of his arms and legs, in the con- 
 tour of his head, in his facial angle, in the character of 
 the ribs, &c, — place the man and a monkey side by 
 side; and if structural differences alone are to be taken 
 into account, as Darwin holds, there would be a 
 close similarity between the two. But, when physio- 
 logical tests are applied, there is revealed a wide 
 distinction. Breed either of the two, with one of 
 its own kind, similarly modified, and it will respond, 
 and give a faithful register of the distance it has re- 
 moved from its normal type. The human being will 
 be prolific of the greatest possible evils; thus evi- 
 dencing the enormous amount of modification which 
 it has suffered. The monkey, on the other hand, 
 will be free from all display of evil effects; or, possi- 
 
450 CONCLUDING REMARKS. 
 
 bly, will evince a slight degree of evil, after long- 
 continued and very close interbreeding; thereby evi- 
 dencing that it has departed not at all, or but slightly, 
 from the perfect type of its species. 
 
 1 6. As, then, the loss or reduction of characters, in 
 any individual, is observed to entail physiological in- 
 jury; and as, previous to their variation under domesti- 
 cation, organisms are observed to be defective in pro- 
 portion to the number of characters which it is subse- 
 quently observed to be possible for them to develop 
 under domestication, it follows that those positive 
 variations which appear under domestication, are but 
 the regain of characters which the given species lost 
 under nature. 
 
 17. Further proof is furnished by the fact that the 
 physiological defects, which are occasioned by the loss 
 or reduction of characters, are ever observed to abate 
 in proportion as the individuals develop the variations 
 which appear under domestication; thus proving that 
 such variations are but the regain of the characters 
 whose loss or reduction caused the physiological in- 
 jury. 
 
 18. Warrant for this is found in Darwin's remark 
 that " Domestication, as a general rule increases the 
 prolificness of animals and plants." 
 
 19. If, however, further proof be required, it is found 
 in abundance in the phenomena of Crossing, which as 
 it is the converse of the law of Close-Interbreeding, is 
 fraught with more significance than if it were evidence 
 of an independent character. Besides, by means of 
 the several modes of Man's Selection, which have been 
 
CONCLUDING REMARKS. 451 
 
 before detailed, the good resulting from Crossing is 
 infinitely varied ; and the close correspondence which 
 is seen to subsist between such variations in the quan- 
 tity of the effects, and the like variations which- are 
 __ pointed out as prevailing also in the quantity of the. 
 cause assigned, proves the theory of Reversion to de- 
 monstration. 
 
 20. Darwin says that it is " a great law of nature 
 that good should follow Crossing." 
 
 An analysis of the facts upon which' he professes to 
 found this law, discloses 
 
 21. That Crossing is not, perse, beneficial; but is the 
 mere occasion of the good which results ; 
 
 22. That the cause of the good resulting from Cross- 
 ing, is to be found in the fact that, in that process, each 
 of the crossed parents contributes, to the formation of 
 the offspring, a character or characters which the other 
 parent lacks ; the physiological good which is observed 
 to follow, being consequent upon that induced, struct- 
 ural remove toward the perfect type, which is thus 
 effected by the union in the offspring, of the positive 
 peculiarities of both parents. 
 
 Proof of these propositions is found 
 
 First : In the fact that the good resulting from Cross- 
 ing is ever observed to be in proportion to the amount of 
 the positive, structural differences of the crossed parents ; 
 
 Second: In the fact that where either parent has no 
 positive features to contribute to the offspring, which 
 the other parent lacks, there is, relatively to such last 
 mentioned parent, no increase of good whatever dis- 
 played by the offspring. 
 
452 CONCLUDING REMARKS. 
 
 Third; In the fact that where a variety has all of the 
 positive features of its species ; or, where it possesses 
 all of the positive features which characterize the other 
 varieties of the species, no advantage accrues from its 
 -crossing with another variety. 
 
 To these proofs and evidences, has been added the 
 following, which' sets an effectual bar to the admixt- 
 ure of distinct species, and shows that there exists " a 
 broad and insuperable distinction between varieties or 
 races and species :" 
 
 23. Species when crossed, are either sterile them- 
 selves, or produce offspring which are sterile. 
 
 The obvious and even the admitted import of this 
 phenomenon is diametrically opposed to Darwin's 
 theory. Darwin, however, has attempted two hypoth- 
 eses, with which to obviate the force of this objection 
 to his theory. These wholly fanciful hypotheses of his 
 are not only susceptible of signal confutation, but the 
 one, viz., that even individuals of the same species are 
 susceptible of all degrees of lessened fertility and ste- 
 rility, and that therefore sterility is not distinctive of 
 species ; and the other, viz., that this sterility subsist- 
 ing between different species, may not be a special en- 
 dowment, but may have been induced by modifications 
 ■ slowly impressed by unknown means, on the reproduc- 
 tive systems of the parent forms ; recoil with ten-fold 
 force upon him and his theory, and disclose the full 
 extent of the significance with which the sterility of 
 hybrids is fraught. 
 
 The phenomena, of lessened fertility among individ- 
 uals of the same species, to which he appeals, show 
 
CONCLUDING REMARKS. 453 
 
 incontestably that not merely are those phenomena in- 
 consistent with his suppositions, but that the very con- 
 verse and refutation of them prevails. They show 
 that the sterility of hybrids, is "a special endowment," 
 and that, instead of the sterility of hybrids having 
 been induced by slowly acquired modifications, it is 
 the lessened fertility of individuals of the , same spe- 
 cies, which has been induced by modifications, and 
 that not only do such modifications operate in a way 
 the very reverse of that required by his gratuitous 
 supposition; but, in proportion to his Divergence of 
 Character (which he fain would believe evolves varie- 
 ties in distinct species), do those varieties become of 
 lessened fertility and of lessened vigor, culminating 
 very soon in death and extinction. 
 
 Thus, from four several quarters of the science of 
 Biology — namely, first, from the phenomena of Re- 
 version which fix a limit to positive Variations ; 
 second, from the phenomena of Interbreeding which, 
 in the opposite direction, fix a limit to negative Varia- 
 tions, by entailing evil effects upon any organism in 
 proportion to the modification of the perfect type of 
 the given species, which such individual has suffered, 
 which evil effects amount to complete sterility and ex- 
 tinction, at a point which is comparatively a very 
 small remove from such perfect type; thirdly, from 
 the phenomena of Crossing, which show that only in 
 proportion as an individual regains the features which 
 it lacks, and recovers the lost integrity of its species 
 (whether the same be effected by direct Variation, by 
 Crossing, or by Grafting), does it regain its lost physi- 
 39 
 
454 CONCLUDING REMARKS. 
 
 ological integrity, its fertility, and constitutional vigor ; 
 and fourthly, from the phenomena of the Sterility 
 of Species, or of their Hybrids which proves that 
 there is an insuperable bar to the admixture of the 
 species — do the facts converge to the following con- 
 clusions, viz. : 
 
 That there is but one, normal mould or type for any 
 given species : 
 
 That such normal type alone is consistent with 
 physiological integrity. 
 
 That the several, existing varieties, or races, of any 
 given species, are but negative modifications, or seg- 
 ments of the proper type of such species : 
 
 That any departure from the full, structural integrity 
 of the perfect type of the given species, is fraught with 
 proportional physiological evils : 
 
 That any return towards the perfect type of the 
 given species, is attended with proportional abatement 
 of the physiological evils under which the individual 
 suffered : and 
 
 That each species, although susceptible of countless 
 injurious modifications, is normally immutable. 
 
 THE END. 
 
h&kn 
 
 
 ..