text:
Page:Henry VIII and the English Monasteries.djvu/63

 Rh 'that he would rather give unto your grace the abbey of St. Albans than to any monk.'" Thus at the cardinal's petition the revenues of the premier abbey were given in reward for secular services.

At the commencement of the year 1524, Clerk, the cardinal's agent in Rome, wrote that he was "almost at a point with the pope about Wolsey's matters." Clement VII. was "contented to confirm the legateship," he said, "with all faculties for life, which was never heard before." Further, that "the ordering of Frideswide's in Oxford was also at Wolsey's pleasure."

Later on the agents report further attempts to obtain extended powers from Clement VII. The pope appeared willing, but said, "what a business other men made" about it. They conclude their communication by a significant hint to their master. It would be well, they think, for him to secure a pension out of the revenues of the bishopric of Worcester for one of the pope's officers who has been "good to him." By this time, however, Wolsey had obtained the bull which enabled him to dissolve the monastery of St. Frideswide's at Oxford and apply its property to the foundation of his college. The document had been sent off from Rome by the end of April. It had been procured at the earnest request of the cardinal's agents, yet they made it appear to be the result of Clement's own desire. It was not exactly such a faculty as they had wished to obtain. Still, it contained, as they said, "the clause motus proprii" and they trusted that it might be made more advantageous. In fact, Clerk altered the document in this sense without asking the pope; but at the last moment he found that the enlarged faculties would not be granted. The agent again concluded his communication by saying that Ghiberto, one of the pope's officials, "openly will not be known," but he has done his best, and he thinks that he is waiting to see whether he gets the pension from the See of Worcester. This Clerk advises Wolsey not to refuse, "as he may be useful."

For the next few months great pressure was put upon the Holy Father to grant permission for further suppressions in order to help out the cardinal's design at Oxford. The


text:
Page:Manners and customs of ye Englyshe.djvu/10

YE CONTRIBUTOR HYS PREFACE. wizard of any point of the compaſs, and, it is probable, could be cleverly achieved by no adept inferior to the ingenious.

However, there flouriſhed in a ſomewhat later day a philoſopher, for ſuch he was after his faſhion, a virtuoſo, antiquary, and F.R.S., whoſe ghoſt an inconſiderable perſon may perhaps attempt to raiſe without being accuſed of pretending to be too much of a conjuror. He appears to have been a Peripatetic, at leaſt until he could keep a coach, but on the ſubjects of dreſs, dining, and ſome others, his opinions favour ſtrongly of Epicuriſm. A little more than a hundred and eighty years ago he employed his leiſure in going about everywhere, peeping into everything, feeing all that he could, and chronicling his experiences daily. In his Diary, which happily has come down to our times, the hiſtorical fads are highly valuable, the comments moſtly ſenſible, the ſtyle is very odd, and the autobiography extremely ludicrous. I have adventured reverently to evoke this worſhipful gentleman, that, renaming his old vocation as a journaliſt, he might comment on the "Manners and Cvſtoms of ye Englyſhe in 1849," in the name of. I hope his ſhadow, if not his ſpirit, may be recogniſed in the following pages. PERCIVAL LEIGH.
 * December 12, 1849.
 * December 12, 1849.

license: Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/


text: Page:Manners and customs of ye Englyshe.djvu/11


text:
User talk:Lukas

— billinghurst  sDrewth  06:21, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

UB stuff
Italicizing is my current task, I've made it up to paper 17. If you've got an electronic SRT (which sounds like a good thing to me) and can import it with some fancy formatting, go for it. In this particular case, I'm not sure if the DjVu files are necessary; I'm on my way to the Scriptorium to see if anybody's answered my earlier question. Xaxafrad (talk) 09:46, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

After a little digging, I think we'd like a copy of the 1st edition as scanned files on Wikisource, perhaps followed by comparing it to the SRT, and adding footnotes to the spots where errors and changes have occurred. I'll start working on importing the DjVu files to bring it in line with the rest of Wikisource, unless you beat me to it. ;) Xaxafrad (talk) 19:48, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

 * Your changes to the Foreword looked fine, except for some jumps in section numbering, but that's probably from the old vs new ref system. I'll let your script do the italics....I was just flipping through my paper copy looking for italics; it would take me weeks to finish, whereas you could probably do it in a few days. Xaxafrad (talk) 07:08, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

I was just reviewing random stuff for formatting consistency, and I just noticed the nature of the punctuation/quotation mark changes you made. In most cases where you put a comma or question mark inside the quote marks, they weren't really quotations. Most of them were formatting characters used to produce italics, and doing a little research on proper formatting, I found Wikipedia's guidelines, which specifically excludes punctuation from being italicized (well, not in all cases; I'm referring to a single emphasized words, or list of words). I hope this won't seriously disturb your efforts. Xaxafrad (talk) 08:24, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

title: User talk:Lukas


text:
Edison's Talking Machine

_______

BY COMMERCIAL CABLE FROM OUR OWN CORRESPONDENT.

_______

Copyright, 1888, by the New-York Times

. Aug. 14. - Thomas A. Edison was given a very handsome reception this afternoon by Col. Gourand at his beautiful villa, Little Menlo, at Upper Norwood, in Surrey. A large number of ladies and gentlemen gathered there to meet the distinguished inventor of America. The reception included a dinner, lasting from 3 to 8 o'clock. Under the inspiring influence of popular appreciation Mr. Edison made a speech, in which he dwelt first upon his first visit to England, 18 years ago, and then devoted himself to a humorous criticism of English politics and climate. He then proceeded to amaze the company by reciting "Bingen on the Rhine," and winding up with a most extraordinary whistling spasm. Then he sang a funeral march, and without waiting for an encore gave "Mary had a little lamb." he told funny stories, and, in fact, conducted quite a variety of entertainment all by himself. Mr. Edison was not entirely present but he was not entirely absent, and the perplexity of the company over the human voice and its absent owner, 3,000 miles away, was very great.

Mrs. Alice Shaw, who has quite conquered London, whistled for the perfected phonograph, and it whistled back quite as brilliantly as she did. A large number of guests were presented to Mr. Edison via the phonograph, each making a short speech to him suitable to the occasion. When the company was breaking up three rousing cheers were given for Edison, with a tiger and long clapping of hands. The effect, when the cheers and applause were repeated a moment later, was funny in the extreme. All the introductions, whistling solos, British cheers, &c., dryly recorded on the wax cylinders, will be taken to America by Mr. W.H. Crane of "The Henrietta." When they arrive Mr. Edison will find that he has a lot of acquaintances who know him very well by voice but not by sight. The reception was an exceedingly novel one, and the new machines, with their perfect articulation, excited wonder, reaching in many cases to amazement.

Mr. Crane leaves to-morrow on the City of Chester, accompanied by Mrs. Crane and Walter Williams. He has been traveling for two months on the Continent, going as far east as Vienna. His stay in London has been devoted to collecting all the data obtainable concerning Falstaff, including old prompt books of famous actors, stage directions, and the like, as a preliminary to starring in the legitimate drama. He has also been to Stratford-apon-Avon, has dropped a tear over Shakespeare's tomb, and drank a pot of sack in the old Shakespeare's Hotel, and consequently he now regards his success as a modern exponent of Falstaff as completely assured.

title: Edison's Talking Machine


text: Page:Edward Buttoneye and his adventures.djvu/3


text: Page:Edward Buttoneye and his adventures.djvu/2


text: Talk:Edison's Talking Machine

title: Talk:Edison's Talking Machine


text:
Page:Folk-lore - A Quarterly Review. Volume 4, 1893.djvu/119

 Rh Stones and Folk-Tales. G. B. Grinnell, Blackfoot Lodge Tales.

newly constituted Irish Literary Society held its first meeting on March 1st, the opening address being given by the Rev. Stopford Brooke, who dwelt on the interest and charm of the mythic and traditional literature of the Celts. It is sincerely to be hoped that the new Society may be able to rouse enthusiasm for, and direct energy towards, the collecting and preservation of Irish legend and folk-lore. In so doing it may count upon the sympathy and support of the Folk-lore Society. The Hon, Sec. of the Irish Literary Society is Mr. T. W, Rolleston, Hart Street, Bloomsbury.

, etc., intended for the next (June) number of should reach the Office, 270, Strand, W.C., on or before May 1st.


text:
Page:Folk-lore - A Quarterly Review. Volume 4, 1893.djvu/88

 REPORT ON FOLK-TALE RESEARCH,

1892.

{{hanging indent|4. Ueber den lettischcn Drachen-Mythus {Puhkis). Ein Beitrag zur lettischen Mythologie von Robert Auning, Pastor zu Sesswegen. Mitau: J. F. Steffenhagen & Sohn, 1892.}}


text: Page:Manners and customs of ye Englyshe.djvu/12


text:
Page:Folk-lore - A Quarterly Review. Volume 4, 1893.djvu/90

82 the strength of the attack made by Mr. Newell, M. Cosquin, and Mr. Jacobs on the anthropological position. Their papers and that of Mr. Nutt have brought into fresh prominence the extreme complexity, as well as the importance,, of the issues. The editors indeed claim, and not without justice, that "in the burning question of folk-tale diffusion issue has rarely been joined by the opposing schools with greater definiteness". On this question there is a strong temptation to agnosticism. And indeed, to judge by some of the discussions at the Congress, as well as by the expressions of scientific opinion outside, the problem of the place of origin of any folk-tale is by many students regarded as insoluble. It may be so, of course; but until some serious attempt has been made to trace a number of these stories back to their cradles, an avowal of disbelief in the possibility of the feat is premature. The resources of modern inquiry have not yet been exhausted; nay, they have hardly been tapped. M. Cosquin's learning, reinforced by Mr. Jacobs' acuteness, has done little more than scratch the surface.

The truth is that before we can make much progress in the work we must have improved instruments. With two of these Mr. Jacobs in his paper proposes to furnish us—a folk-tale map and a list of incidents. To speak to the eye is always an aid to the understanding. This is Mr. Jacobs' aim in the outline map of Europe which accompanies his paper. Upon his map he has marked the names of a number of collections, with the dates of their publication, over the localities where the collections were made. To be effective, however, a map of this kind must be on a larger scale than the one before us, and the political divisions—rather, if possible, the linguistic divisions—should be marked. Having analysed the principal types of a folk-tale, we could indicate on such a map its distribution. A map containing the names of collections will hardly be useful save as a key-map for reference. But the idea of a map is a good one, and should not be lost sight of.


text:
Page:Manners and customs of ye Englyshe.djvu/13

O-NIGHT to an Evening Party with my Wife, to, whereunto we had been bidden to come at 10 of the Clock; for and her Ladyſhip have taken to keeping rare Hours. Thereat was a goodly Company of about an hundred, and the Women all very fine, my Wife being in her laſt Year's Gown, which I am tired of, and do hate to ſee. We did fall to dancing Quadrilles, wherein I made one, and had for my Partner a pretty little black Damſel, whom after the Dance was ended, did hand to a Sofa, and thereon ſit me by her Side; but ſeeing my Wife looking hard at us, did preſently make my Bow, and ſo away. Then to look on while ſome did dance the Polka, which did pleaſe me not much, for had beheld it better danced at the Caſino, and do think it more ſuitable to ſuch a Place than to a Drawing Room. The Young Fellows did take their Partners by the Waiſt, and theſe did lean upon the others' Shoulders, and with one Arm ſtretched out, and holding Hand in Hand, they did ſpin round the Room together. But, Lack! to ſee the kicking up of Heels and ſtamping of them on the Ground, which did mightily remind me of Jim Crow. In truth, I am told that the Polka is but a Peaſant's Hop, from Hungary, and now to think of Perſons of Quality cutting ſuch Capers! to his Taſte; but a Minuet for me at Home, with Gentlewomen, and a Polka with Milkmaids at a


text:
Edison Head Resigns

_______________

__________

Special to The New York Times.

WEST ORANGE, N.J., Nov. 17. - As his 66th birthday approaches Thomas A. Edison is credited with contemplating one of the most radical business steps of his quarter century residence here. The assumption of the Presidency of Thomas A. Edison, Inc., and the other companies not yet embraced under that title. The resignation of Frank L. Dyer, now at the head of the allied corporations based on Edison's inventions, has been received and will probably be accepted, as he intends to become President of the Motion Picture Patents Company of New York.

Mr. Dyer was not at his home in Montclair to-day, but it was admitted at his home that he had accepted the new position. There it was understood also that Mr. Edison would be his successor. There was talk in West Orange to the effect that Miller Reese Hutchinson, chief engineer of the Edison plant, would succeed Mr. Dyer, but that could not be confirmed. Mr. Edison himself declined to discuss the situation.

As Mr. Edison is practically the sole owner of all the allied companies, he is able to suit his own fancy as to the naming of a successor. If he chooses to take an active part in the business he is free to do so, to the neglect, however, of his favorite laboratory work. For that reason those who are close to him are of the opinion that he will not become President, but will name someone else.

title: Edison Head Resigns


text: Talk:Edison Head Quits

title: Talk:Edison Head Quits


text: Life and Works of Abraham Lincoln/Volume 3/Preface


text:
Page:Horse shoes and horse shoeing.djvu/50

 that when they suffer from being ridden they become useless.’ He also, in the treatise on horsemanship, speaks of the water used to wash the horses' legs as doing harm to the hoofs by, I suppose, softening them, as the spirit of his teaching was to keep them hard and dry. He makes no mention whatever of any defence for the horses' feet; though he notices the fashion of defending the legs of soldiers by embattai or leggings (εμβΑται), and in passing them under the feet, he says, they might also serve as shoes. These may have been used in cases of emergency for horses, but nothing is said on this point. He specifies horse-armour and its value: ‘Since, then, if the horse is disabled, the rider will be in extreme peril, it is necessary to arm the horse also with defences for his head, his breast, and his shoulders. But of all parts of the horse we must take most care to protect his belly, for it is at once a most vital and a most defenceless part; but it is possible to protect it by something connected with the housings. It is necessary, too, that that which covers the horse's back should be put together in such a way that the rider may have a firmer seat (than if he sat on the horse's bare back), and that the back of the horse may not be galled. As to other parts, also, both horse and horseman should be armed with the same precaution (so that the armour may not chafe).’

In a treatise on hunting, ascribed to this author, in speaking of the horse, it is remarked: ‘Before the task is accomplished, he falls, the hoofs worn off.’ And in another work he incidentally relates that certain people of


text:
Page:Horse shoes and horse shoeing.djvu/51

 Asia (Armenians?) whom he saw, were in the habit of tying sandals, or rather, drawing socks over the feet of their horses when the snow lay very thick on the ground, to prevent their sinking too deeply. ‘The horses in this country were smaller than those of Persia, but far more spirited. The chief instructed the men to tie little bags (Κυρ Αναβ) round the feet of the horses, and other cattle, when they drove them through the snow, for without such bags they sank up to their bellies.’

This is the only mention made of a garniture for the feet of horses by the renowned author and soldier, and I am not aware of any recent writer mentioning this contrivance in the uplands of Armenia. It may be remarked, however, that in Kamschatka the dogs employed to draw sledges or catch seals wear socks provided with small holes to allow the claws to protrude. These may to some extent not only protect the feet from injury, but also help to guard against sinking in the snow. Arctic travellers have likewise availed themselves of these appliances for their dogs.

The only Greek writer before the Christian era, after Xenophon, who alludes to a defence for the feet of animals is Aristotle (B.C. 340). In describing the camel's foot, he writes: ‘The foot is fleshy underneath, like that of a bear; wherefore, when camels are used in war, and become footsore, their drivers put them on leather shoes (ΥΠΟΔΕΟΥΣΙ Καζβατιναις).’ They were probably most frequently


text: Author talk:Bernard Westermann

title: Author talk:Bernard Westermann


text:
Page:Horse shoes and horse shoeing.djvu/52

 made of raw hide or coarse cloth (as Ludolphus tells us the Tartars used cow-hide for their horses' feet), passing round the feet and up the legs, like a laced boot. They will be noticed hereafter as solea.

Polydore Vergil (A.D. 1550), in his ‘De Inventoribus Rerum,’ informs us that the Thessalians were reported to have been the first who protected their horses' hoofs with shoes of iron. ‘Hos quoque (Peletronios, qui Thessaliæ populi sunt) primos equorum ungulas munire ferreis soleis cœpisse ferunt.’ This author, whose Latin was generally more elegant than his descriptions were faithful, does not give his authorities for this statement, which is unsupported by any proof of its correctness. In all likelihood, as Mr Pegge observes, he has misled himself by referring to Virgil, where that poet asserts that

Vergil made a mistake, or allowed himself to be deceived, when he described these primitive people of North Greece as the inventors of horse-shoes.

If we turn from the Greek writers who lived previous to our era, to the wonderful productions of the Greek sculptors, those divine works of art—those graceful chisellings portraying groups of men and horses, which are


text:
Page:Horse shoes and horse shoeing.djvu/53

we will find our suspicions as to the inaccuracy of those who assert that this people provided an armour for their horses' feet, more than confirmed.

It must be remembered that the Greeks were the first true interpreters of nature. To this their physical organization, their climate, but, perhaps, most of all their religion, concurred to develop those principles of beauty that induce man to select from nature the forms and combinations which give the highest and most endurable pleasure.

The creations of these people, who, according to Pindar,

now that two thousand years have passed away, yet, and will ever, command the admiration of refined taste, speaking, as they do, to our imagination and understanding, while carrying with them the greatest beauty of proportion, the utmost simplicity and truth in design, and blending a harmony with a purity and regard for nature such as has never been surpassed. We recognize in their sculptures of horses that intense and astonishing expression of life, which none but the greatest artists are capable of bestowing on their imitations of nature, when teeming with vitality and action. Theocritus, two thousand years ago, was enraptured with these chisellings:


text:
Page:Horse shoes and horse shoeing.djvu/54

 Such a people must have loved the bold, dauntless courage of the horse, and while seeking to do its unmatchable powers justice in their poetry and adoration in their religion, they have testified to all posterity, by the unerring delineations of their chisels, the beauty and the grandeur of his form and disposition. We have an example of this in the Panathenaic frieze, where the horses are not only of exquisite beauty, but full of life and fire. No two out of the hundred and ten which are introduced are in the same attitude, and each is characterized by a different expression. Flaxman ever spoke of these horses with enthusiasm, and we cannot wonder at it. ‘The horses in the frieze in the Elgin collection,’ he said, ‘appear to live and move, to roll their eyes, to gallop, prance, and curvet; the veins of their faces and legs seem distended with circulation; in them are distinguished the hardness and decision of bony forms, from the elasticity of tendons and the softness of flesh. The beholder is concerned with the deer-like lightness and elegance of their make, and although the relief is not above an inch from the background, and they are so much smaller than nature, we can scarcely suffer reason to persuade us they are not alive.’

The horses of Thessaly are there depicted as they exist at the present day, even to the characteristic large heads and thick necks.

To say that they are exactly portrayed in every anatomical detail, is to declare nothing but the simple truth, and is sufficient for our object. And yet the very


text:
Page:Horse shoes and horse shoeing.djvu/55

 closest scrutiny of the horses' feet in these marbles with a practised—might I add a professional—eye, leads to the unhesitating conclusion that they are exact copies of nature in every respect, but nature never adorned or protected by an iron or bronze furniture. So true do they appear to real life, that we can almost fancy the animals in their spirited movements have chipped their hoofs at the sides (or quarters); and they are of a shape and perfectness which one seldom sees in hoofs that have been shod for any length of time.

These unrivalled relics of antiquity offer additional proofs that metal shoes were not in use. The ancient Greeks were very careful in representing the different costumes worn by the riders of these horses, even to the fashion of their foot covers. Not only this, but they had their marble statues adorned with metals in many instances, which again were not unfrequently gilt. ‘For the fragments show that the weapons, the reins of the horses, and other accessories, were in metal, probably gilt.’ The horses appeared to have had bits in their mouths, and the holes yet remain at the commissures of the lips wherein they have been fixed; but no evidence is to be found that any metal was attached to the hoofs. In a bas-relief of Castor and Pollux in the Townley gallery of the British Museum, instead of metal bridles for the two horses, red paint appears to have been used. No paint, however, is to be discovered on the feet of any horses to indicate that shoes were worn.

In the Temple collection (case 56) in the British


text:
Page:Horse shoes and horse shoeing.djvu/56

 Museum, among bronze fragments of a statue and sacrificial implements, is a very perfect hind foot and pastern of a horse, from Magna Græcia. This is unshod, and from the shape and general appearance of the hoof, there can be no doubt that the original of this model had never been submitted to this badge of servile subjection, as old Gwillin has been pleased to designate the modern horseshoe. And among all the relics to be found in this and other museums, nothing can be discerned that the most lively imagination would transform into a horse-shoe, as employed by the ancient Greeks. Weapons there are without number, articles belonging to religious and domestic requirements, armour and spurs for riders, armour and bits for horses, and in the British Museum are also two excellent specimens of muzzles for horses. Xenophon informs us that, in his day, the groom put on the muzzle (κημος) when the horse was led from his stable to be groomed or exercised; indeed on every occasion when he had no bridle on his head or bit in his mouth, to prevent his doing any mischief to other horses or to men. While it prevented the horse from biting it did not interfere with his breathing.

A civilized nation which prized the horse so highly, and so largely employed it in war and in the public diversions, could not but display its wisdom in providing everything for its comfort and well-being; but it appears that the Greeks did not understand extending its utility by preventing undue wear of the hoofs and consequent lameness. All the paintings on vases and elsewhere represent the horse with nude feet.


text:
Page:Horse shoes and horse shoeing.djvu/57

 The climate of Greece, it must not be forgotten, is dry, and favourable to the hardness and durability of horses' hoofs; so that solipedes brought from the north or west, where their journeys would be of a limited character without shoes, may there acquire sufficient strength and cohesiveness in the horny box covering the inferior extremity of the limbs, as to perform a certain amount of labour with no defence.

Paul Louis Courier, who translated Xenophon's treatise on horsemanship, was so pleased with his method of managing the feet of horses, that during the very brief campaign in Calabria in 1807, while with the army corps to which he belonged, he rode horses without shoes, and, as he believed, with advantage. In a note he adds: ‘The ancients did not shoe their horses; this is evidenced in all the writings and monuments they have left us, and we cannot be astonished that the people who, in so many different countries, do not know the use of shoes, should not yet have introduced them. The Tonguses, as well as the majority of the Tartars—the best and the most indefatigable horsemen in the world—scarcely work at all in iron; and for that reason it is impossible for them to shoe their steeds. The Dutch at the Cape of Good Hope have little horses which are never shod, according to Sparmann. And M. Thunberg has made the same remark in the island of Java. Another traveller assures us, that at Mogador, and the west coast of Africa, all the horses journey without shoes, and Niebuhr says the same for those of Yemen. Pallas has seen the horses of the Kalmucks, which have small and extremely hard hoofs,


text:
Page:Horse shoes and horse shoeing.djvu/58

 ridden without any shoes, and the Cossacks' on the banks of the Jaïk, he adds, are never shod.’

Of the evil effects of prolonged marches, and consequent excessive wear of the undefended hoofs in the Greek armies, we find casual mention now and again in the early historians. Diodorus Siculus (B.C. 44) in one of his volumes, when describing the victories of Alexander, states that ‘the hoofs of the horses, through ceaseless journeying, had been worn away, and the matériel of war was used up.’

And Cinnamus speaks in the same strain of the war in Attalia. ‘He ordered them to await the rest of the army in Attalia, and to look after the horses, for a disease to which they are liable had attacked their hoofs, and had done serious hurt.’

In the account which Appian gives of the victory achieved by Lucullus over Mithridates, King of Pontus, at the siege of Cyzicum (B.C. 73), we find that Mithridates sent part of his cavalry back to Bithynia, such as were useless, feeble from want of forage, and footsore or lame in consequence of their hoofs being worn out (και χαλευοντας εξ υποτριβης).

This description has been differently given by H. Stephanus (edit. Stephanus, 1592, p. 221), and this has


text:
Page:Horse shoes and horse shoeing.djvu/59

 given rise to a serious mistake. His translation is as follows: ‘Equos vero tum inutiles et infirmos ob inediam, claudicantesque solearum inopia, detritis ungulis, aversis ab hoste itineribus, misit in Bithyniam.’ No such words as solearum inopia occur in the original text; they are an interpolation by the learned translator without the faintest authority, and have led several writers of note to believe that horse-shoes were then in use: whereas the contrary may be inferred, for the horses, it is explicitly mentioned, were lame by the attrition of their hoofs; which implies that horses were not shod. Montfauçon was led astray by this addition to the original account. He writes: ‘There are certain and undoubted proofs that the ancients shod their horses; thus much Homer and Appian say;’ and Fosbrooke remarks that ‘an iron horse-shoe is mentioned by Appian; so that the conclusion from Xenophon's recommendation for hardening the hoof, that the ancients did not shoe beasts of burden, is too rash.’

Subsequent to the Christian era, we find Arrian (A.D. 200) comparing the human body to a pack-ass—οναριον εωισεαγμένο, and speaking of a kind of shoe for that animal: ‘Οταν εχεινο οναριον η, ταλλα γίνεται χαλιναρια του οναριον, σχημαατια, υωοδηματια, κριθαι, χορτος. Some translators have rendered υωοδηματια as ‘ferreæ calces;’ but Didot, in his new Collection of Classical Greek authors, translates it as sparteæ calces: ‘Si asselus est corpus, cetera freni erunt aselli, clitellæ, sparteæ calces, hordeum, fœnum.’

Artemidorus, in his Interpretation of Dreams, about


text:
Page:Horse shoes and horse shoeing.djvu/60

 the same period as Arrian, also speaks of a horse shod with a sock or shoe, υωδημα, which was probably made of spartea, like the above.

I find on a silver coin of Tarentum, now in the British Museum, and struck, it is surmised, about B.C. 300, a curious representation of a horse and two men, which might, at the first glance, be supposed to be connected with our subject (fig. ).

fig.

The horse is beautifully delineated, and admirably represents the breed then famous in this part of Magna Græcia. A groom or boy, nude as the horse attendants are generally represented on ancient Greek vases and sculpture, is seated on the horse's back, and strokes his


text:
Page:Horse shoes and horse shoeing.djvu/61

 mane as if to soothe him, while another individual, also nude, holds up one of the fore feet, as if to apply a shoe. The attitude is very striking, and it would be interesting to discover why such a group should be represented on a coinage.

It may be observed, however, that there is no instrument in the hands of the dismounted figure whereby to fasten on the shoe, if such be his vocation, and that his attitude is not a very convenient one. This is, nevertheless, the posture assumed on the continent of Europe, and generally all over the East, by the workman who arms the hoofs, but then there is another person to hold up the limb. In this example he may be only trying on a shoe; though the figure on the horse's back would not add to the facility with which this operation might otherwise be performed. I may mention that I have seen and heard of troop horses which, though otherwise tractable, would scarcely allow themselves to be shod unless a man were seated on their backs, stroking their ears and necks in the manner shown on the Greek coin; and Cæsar Fiaschi, in the fifteenth century, recommends for horses that will not be shod quietly, that ‘mots plaisants’ be used, and ‘faire mettre un cavalier sur le dos.’ It has been suggested that a stone is being removed from the sole; but without shoes it is almost, if not quite, impossible that a stone could lodge in the foot. Might he not be fastening on a temporary shoe or sock?

Beyond the illustration this affords, we have no evidence of shoeing among the Greeks; and, after all, this may be only an allegorical representation, or a reference to some mythological subject.


text:
Author:Bernard Westermann

Works

 * Oriental Verses (1913)
 * The Mermaid

title: Author:Bernard Westermann


text:
Col. Roosevelt's Reports

__________

__________

_______

Toil in the Trenches and Suffering for the Lack of Food, Shelter and Medicines.

_______

WASHINGTON, Dec. 22 - The War Department to-day made public two reports of Col. Roosevelt on the fights of the First United States Volunteer Cavalry, "Rough Riders." in front of Santiago. One is addressed to Col. Wood, commanding, and the second is to Brig. Gen. Wood, after Col. Roosevelt took command of the regiment. The War Department has hitherto refused to make these reports public.

The first report is as follows:

 * "Trenches Outside of Santiago,
 * "July 4, 1898.

 * "Col. Leonard Wood, commanding Second Cavalry Brigade:
 * Sir: On July 1, the regiment, with myself in command, was moved out by your orders directly following the First Brigade. Before leaving the camping ground several of our men were wounded by shrapnel.  After crossing the river at the ford we were moved along and up the right bank under fire and were held in reserve at a sunk road.  Here we lost a good many men, including Capt. O'Neill, killed, and Lieut. Haskell, wounded.  We then received your order to advance and support the regular cavalry in the attack on the entrenchments and blockhouses on the hills to the left.

 * "The regiment was deployed on both sides of the road and moved forward until we came to the rearmost lines of the regulars. We continued to move forward until I ordered a charge, and the men rushed the blockhouse and rifle pit on the hill to the right of our advance.  They did the work in fine shape, although suffering severely.  The guidons of Troops E and G were first planted on the summit; though the first men up were some of A and B troopers who were with me.  We then opened fire on the entrenchments on a hill to our left, which some of the other regiments were assailing and which they carried a few minutes later.

 * "Meanwhile, we were under a heavy rifle fire from the intrenchments along the hills to our front, whence they also shelled with a piece of field artillery until some of our marksmen silenced it. When the men go their second wind we charged again and carried the second line of entrenchments with a rush.  Swinging to the left, we then drove the Spaniards over the brow of the chain of hill fronting on Santiago, troops were commanded, two by Captains, three by First Lieutenants, two by Second Lieutenants, and one by the Sergeant whom you made Acting Lieutenant.  We went into the fight about 490 strong; 86 were killed or wounded, and there are half a dozen missing.  The great heat prostrated nearly 40 men, some of them among the best in the regiment.  Besides Capt. O'Neill and Lieut. Haskill, Lieuts Leahy, Devereaux, and Case were wounded.  All behaved with great gallantry.  As for Capt. O'Neill, his loss is one of the severest that could have befallen the regiment.  He was a man of cool head, great executive ability, and literally dauntless courage.

GUERRILLAS IN TREES

 * "The guerrillas in trees not only fired at our troops, but seemed to devote themselves especially to shooting at the surgeons, the hospital assistants with Red Cross badges on their arms, the wounded who were being carried in litters, and the burying parties. Many of these guerrillas were dressed in green uniforms.  We sent out a detail of sharpshooters among those in our rear, and also along the line where they had been shooting the wounded, and killed thirteen.

 * "To attempt to give a list of the men who showed signal valor would necessitate sending in an almost complete roster of the regiment. Many of the cases which I mention stand merely as examples of the rest, not as exceptions.  Capt. Jenkins acted as Major, and showed such conspicuous gallantry and efficiency that I earnestly hope he may be promoted to Major as soon as a vacancy occurs.  Capts. Lewellen, Muller, and Luna led their troops throughout the charges, handling them admirably.  At the end of the battle Lieuts Kane, Greenwood, and Goodrich were in charge of their troops, immediately under my eye, and I wish particularly to commend their conduct throughout.

 * "Corps. Waller and Fortescue and Trooper McKinley of Troop E; Corp. Rhoades of Troop D; Troopers Albertson, Winter, McGregor, and Ray Clark of Troop F; Troopers Bugbe, Jackson, and Waller of Troop A; Trumpeter McDonald of Troop L; Sergt. Hughes of Troop B, and Trooper Geieren of Troop G all continued to fight after being wounded, some very severely. Most of them fought until the end of the day.  Trooper Oliver B. Norton of B, who, with his brother, was by my side throughout the charging, was killed while fighting with marked gallantry.  Sergt. Ferguson, Corp. Lee, and Troopers Bell and Carroll of Troop K, Sergt. Dame of Troop E, Troopers Goodwin, Campbell, and Dudley Dean, Trumpeter Foster of B, and Troopers Greenwold and Bardehan of A are all worthy of special mention for coolness and galantry.  They all merit promotion when the time comes.

 * "But the most conspicuous gallantry was shown by Trooper Rowland. He was wounded in the side in our first fight, but kept in the firing line.  He was sent to the hospital the next day, but left it and marched out to us, overtaking us, and fought all through this battle with such indifference to danger that I was forced again and again to rate and threaten him for running needless risks.

 * "Great gallantry was also shown by four troopers whom I cannot identify, and by Trooper Winslow Clark of G. It was after we had taken the first hill.  I had called out to rush the second and having by that time lost my horse climbed a wire fence and started towards it.  After going a couple of hundred yards under a heavy fire.  I found that no one else had come.  As I discovered later, it was simply because, in the confusion with men shooting and being shot, they had not noticed me start.  I told the five men to wait a moment, as it might be misunderstood if we all ran back, while I ran back and started the regiment, and as soon as I did so the regiment came with a rush.

 * "But meanwhile the five men cooly lay down in the open, returning the fire from the trenches. It is to be wondered at that only Clark was seriously wounded, and he called out as we passed again to lay his canteen where he could reach it, but to continue the charge and leave him where he was.  All the wounded had to be left until after the fight, for we could spare no men from the firing line.  Very respectfully,

 * "THEODORE ROOSEVELT
 * "Lieutenant Colonel First U.S. V. Cavalry."

SUFFERING OF THE MEN.

The second report is dated "Camp Hamilton, near Santiago de Cuba, July 20," and is drected to Brig. Gen Leonard Wood, commanding the "Second Brigade Cavalry Division." Col. Roosevelt recounts the incidents covered in his first report and continues:

 * "For the next seven days, until the 10th we lay in our line while the truce continued. We had continually to work at additional bombproofs and at the trenches, and as we had no proper supply of food and utterly inadequate medical facilities the men suffered a good deal.  The officers chipper together, purchased beans, tomatoes, and sugar for the men, so that they might have some relief from the bacon and hardtack.  With a great deal of difficulty we got them coffee.  As for the sick and wounded, they suffered so in the hospitals  when sent to the rear, for lack of food and attention, that we found it best to keep them at the front and give them care as our own doctors could.

 * "As I mentioned in my previous letter, thirteen of our wounded men continued to fight through the battle in spite of their wounds, and of those sent to the rear many, both of the sick and wounded, came up to rejoin us as soon as their condition allowed them to walk. Most of the worst cases were ultimately sent to the States.

 * "On the 10th the truce was at an end and the bombardment reopened. As far as our lines were concerned, it was, on the Spanish part, very feeble.  We suffered no losses and speedily got the fire from their trenches in our front completely under.  On the 11th we were moved three-quarters of a mile to the right, the truce again being on, nothing happening here except we continued to watch and do our best to get the men, especially the sick, properly fed, and having no transportation and being able to get hardly any through the regular channels, we used anything we could find, capturing Spanish cavalry horses, abandoned mules which had been shot, but which our men took and cured; diminutive skinny ponies, purchased from the Cubans, &c.

 * But these means and by the exertions of the officers we were able from time to time to get supplies of beans, sugar, tomatoes, and even oatmeal, while from the Red Cross people we got our invaluable load of rice, cornmeal, &c. All of this was of the utmost consequence, not only for the sick but for those nominally well, as the lack of proper food was telling terribly on the men.  It was utterly impossible to get them clothes and shoes.  Those thy had were in many cases, literally dropping to pieces.

THE RANKS DECIMATED

 * On the 17th the city surrendered. On the 18th we shifted camp to here, the best camp we have had, but the march hither under the noonday sun told very heavily on our men, weakened by underfeeding and overwork, and the next morning 123 cases were reported to the doctor, and I now have but half of the 600 men with which I landed four weeks ago, fit for duty, and these are not fit to do anything like the work they could do then.  As we had but one wagon the change necessitated leaving much of my stuff behind, with a night of discomfort, with scanty shelter, and scanty food for the most of the officers and many of the men.  Only the possession of the improvised pack train, alluded to above, saved us from being worse.

 * Yesterday I sent in a detail of six officers and men to see if they could not purchase or make arrangements for a supply of proper food and proper clothing for the men, even if we had to pay for it out of our own pockets. Our suffering has been due primarily to lack of transportation and of proper food or sufficient clothing, and of medical supplies.  We should now have wagon sheets for tentage.  Very respectfully,
 * THEODORE ROOSEVELT

title: Col. Roosevelt's Reports


text: Author:Benjamin Bussey Thatcher

title: Author:Benjamin Bussey Thatcher


text: Talk:Col. Roosevelt's Reports

title: Talk:Col. Roosevelt's Reports


text: Author talk:Benjamin Bussey Thatcher

title: Author talk:Benjamin Bussey Thatcher


text:
Author:Benjamin Constant

Works

 * Principes de Politique
 * Adolphe (1816)
 * Adolphe, trans. by Paul Hookham (1924)
 * The Liberty of Ancients Compared with that of Moderns (1816)
 * De la religion considérée dans sa source, ses formes, et ses développements (5 vols., 1825–1831)
 * Philosophical miscellanies, trans. by George Ripley (1838)

title: Author:Benjamin Constant


text: Author:Bernard Austin Dwyer

title: Author:Bernard Austin Dwyer


text: Category:Authors-Dw

title: Category:Authors-Dw


text:
Page:Folk-lore - A Quarterly Review. Volume 4, 1893.djvu/399

 Rh KEY MAGIC.

To the Editor of.

, —The key, either in conjunction with the Bible or alone, played an important part in our East-Anglian divination ceremonies. But a use to which it was put is, I think, almost unique, namely, to influence wind and tide on behalf of a vessel coming into or leaving port.

The following is a brief account supplied by our friend and representative for Norfolk, Miss Matthews; and it is the more interesting as it is corroborated by a friend at Lynn, who states in a letter to me that he well remembers seeing the action, but did not attach any value or interest to it at the time (not being a folk-lorist, perhaps). But since I told him of the information I had received he called it to mind; but, though he has since been on the look-out at intervals for its recurrence, he has not been able to trace even an isolated instance of its survival at this date. If it does still exist he has not been fortunate enough to observe it. Possibly the decrease in the shipping may partly account for this; or possibly it has been proved to be ineffectual in its results. But in any case it does not appear popular with the younger generation of seamen's wives, and will probably be, ere long, entirely forgotten. The following is the account supplied to Miss Matthews by a friend.

"At a time when there were no docks at Lynn, and all ships trading to the port moored in the harbour, I have seen groups of women, no doubt the wives and sweethearts of the sailors, assembled on the quay, watching for the arrival or departure of a ship, in the crew of which one or all might have an interest. Each carried in her hand a key, generally apparently the key of the house-door; and if she was watching for a vessel expected 'up with the tide' she would, by inserting one finger in the bow of it,


text:
Page:Folk-lore - A Quarterly Review. Volume 4, 1893.djvu/398

 CORRESPONDENCE.

LENTEN CUSTOM IN THE SOUTH OF ITALY.

To the Editor of.

, —Seven years ago, whilst I was at Castellamare (below Naples), I noticed in the old town that a cord was hanging from one side of the narrow street to the other, fastened to the upper part of the many-storied houses. From the middle of the cord hung a roughly-made puppet, about a foot long, dressed all in black, rather like a nun in general appearance, and from the skirts of the puppet came five or six hen's feathers, rather like feather legs in arrangement. I asked a peasant what was the meaning of the doll, and he said, with true Italian vagueness, "It is merely Lent." However, by means of questions, in my very limited Italian, I found that, at the expiration of every week throughout Lent, one feather leg was pulled off the puppet, and that it was finally destroyed on the last day of Lent. If I remember well, Mr. Story, the sculptor, refers to a similar custom in his Saints and Superstitions, which I have not got by me, but he does not mention the feather legs. Mr. Story wrote of the custom a good many years ago as being one which was fast dying out in Italy.

Could any folk-lorist explain why feathers should be used? Would there be any connection between them and the Easter hens and Easter eggs which are so much seen in Italy? The destruction of the black doll no doubt has the same meaning as the Easter customs mentioned in Mr. Frazer's Golden Bough, as being so widely spread, and, I suppose, typifies the destruction of Winter and Death?


text:
Page:Folk-lore - A Quarterly Review. Volume 4, 1893.djvu/400

 392 and placing a finger of the other hand in the angle of the wards and the stem, continue turning the key towards herself until the vessel arrived, or until the tide turned and its coming was, for a time, hopeless. The object of the winding motion was to bring the vessel home. If, however, the person was watching the departure of a ship, the key would be turned in the same manner, but in the contrary direction, viz., from the holder, which act was supposed to invoke good luck for the vessel and the crew. I have little doubt that the custom is still (1891) observed, though now probably to only a very limited extent." I should be glad if any member could give other examples of a similar custom elsewhere.

Great Yarmouth.

"THE SIN-EATER."

To the Editor of.

,—In connection with Mr. Hartland's article on "The Sin-Eater" in for June 1892, the following occurrence at a funeral near Market Drayton in Shropshire may interest you.

The funeral took place on the first of this present month.

The minister of the chapel where the deceased woman had been a regular attendant held a short service in the cottage before the coffin was removed.

The lady, who gave ms the particulars, arrived rather early, and found the bearers enjoying a good lunch in the only downstairs room. Shortly afterwards the coffin was brought down and placed on two chairs in the centre of the room, and the mourners having gathered round it the service proceeded. Directly the minister ended, the woman in charge of the arrangements poured out four glasses of wine and handed one to each bearer present across the coffin, with a biscuit called a "funeral biscuit".


text:
Page:Folk-lore - A Quarterly Review. Volume 4, 1893.djvu/401

 Rh One of the bearers being absent at the moment, the fourth glass of wine and biscuit were offered to the eldest son of the deceased woman, who, however, refused to take them, and was not obliged to do so.

The biscuits were ordinary sponge biscuits, usually called "sponge fingers" or "lady's fingers". They are, however, also known in the shops of Market Drayton as "funeral biscuits".

The minister, who had lately come from Pembrokeshire, remarked to my informant that he was sorry to see that pagan custom still observed. He had been able to put an end to it in the Pembrokeshire village where he had formerly been.

July 27, 1893.


text:
Page:Dictionary of National Biography volume 46.djvu/8

 to Plymouth to refit. He was not able to reach Plymouth till 15 April, and a few days later he and his ship's company were turned over to the Cumberland, in which he went out to the East Indies.

On 4 Feb. 1755 he was promoted to be rear-admiral of the white, and, hoisting his flag on board the Cumberland, remained with Watson as second in command. On 8 Dec. 1756 he was advanced to the rank of vice-admiral, and, on Watson's death on 16 Aug. 1757, succeeded to the chief command. At Madras, in March 1758, he was joined by [q. v.], and, having moved his flag to the Yarmouth of 64 guns, he put to sea on 17 April, his squadron now consisting of seven small ships of the line, ships of 64, 60, or 50 guns. On the 29th, off Fort St. David, he fell in with the French squadron of about the same nominal force, all being French East India company's ships, except the one 74-gun ship which carried the broad-pennant of Comte d'Aché. Pocock led the attack as prescribed by the English ‘Fighting Instructions.’ An indecisive action followed, the French practising the familiar manœuvre of withdrawing in succession and reforming their line to leeward. Battles fought in this manner never led to any satisfactory result. It generally happened that some of the English ships were unable to get into action in time; and on this occasion, as on many others, the captains of the rearmost ships were accused of misconduct. Three were tried by court-martial, found guilty of not using all possible means to bring their ships into action, and severally sentenced to be dismissed from the ship, to lose one year's seniority, and to be cashiered. The court failed to recognise that the manœuvre required of them was practically impossible (Minutes of the Courts-martial, vol. xxxviii.)

On 1 Aug. the two squadrons were again in sight of each other off Tranquebar, the French, with two 74-gun ships, having a considerable nominal superiority. It was not, however, till the 3rd that Pocock succeeded in bringing them to action, and then in the same manner and with the same indecisive result. The French then went to Mauritius, and Pocock, having wintered at Bombay, returned to the Coromandel coast in the following spring. The French fleet of eleven ships did not come on the coast till the end of August, and on 2 Sept. it was sighted by the English. After losing it in a fog, and finding it again on the 8th, off Pondicherry, on the 10th Pocock brought it to action, but again in the manner prescribed by the ‘Fighting Instructions,’ and with unsatisfactory results. The fighting was more severe than in the previous actions; on both sides many men were killed and wounded, and the ships were much shattered, but no advantage was gained by either party. That the prize of victory finally remained with the English was due not to Pocock and the East Indian squadron, but to the course of the war in European waters. In the following year Pocock returned to England, arriving in the Downs on 22 Sept. On 6 May 1761 he was nominated a knight of the Bath, and about the same time was promoted to be admiral of the blue.

In February 1762 he was appointed commander-in-chief of ‘a secret expedition,’ destined, in fact, for the reduction of Havana, which sailed from Spithead on 5 March, the land forces being under the command of the Earl of Albemarle [see, third ]. On 26 April it arrived at Martinique, sailed again on 6 May, and, taking the shorter though dangerous route on the north side of Cuba, under the efficient pilotage of [q. v.], landed Albemarle and the troops six miles to the eastward of Havana on 7 June, under the immediate conduct of Commodore Keppel, Albemarle's brother [see ]. The siege-works were at once commenced. A large body of seamen were put on shore, and ‘were extremely useful in landing the cannon and ordnance stores of all kinds, manning the batteries, making fascines, and in supplying the army with water’ (, ii. 547). By the 30th the batteries were ready, and on 1 July opened a heavy fire, supported by three ships of the line, under the immediate command of Captain Hervey of the Dragon. The Moro was engaged, but, after some six hours, the ships were obliged to haul out of action, two of them—the Cambridge and the Dragon—having sustained heavy loss and much damage [see ]. After this the work of the fleet was mainly limited to preventing any movement on the part of the Spanish ships which might otherwise have effectually hindered the English works. The English batteries gradually subdued the enemy's fire, though the Spaniards were materially assisted by the climate, which rendered the exposure and fatigue very deadly. By 3 July more than half of the army, and some three thousand seamen, were down with sickness. Under all difficulties, however, the siege was persevered with. The Moro was taken by storm on 30 July, and on 13 Aug. the town,


text:
Page:Origin of Species 1859 facsimile.djvu/257

Rh

view generally entertained by naturalists is that species, when intercrossed, have been specially endowed with the quality of sterility, in order to prevent the confusion of all organic forms. This view certainly seems at first probable, for species within the same country could hardly have kept distinct had they been capable of crossing freely. The importance of the fact that hybrids are very generally sterile, has, I think, been much underrated by some late writers. On the theory of natural selection the case is especially important, inasmuch as the sterility of hybrids could not possibly be of any advantage to them, and therefore could not have been acquired by the continued preservation of successive profitable degrees of sterility. I hope, however, to be able to show that sterility is not a specially acquired or endowed quality, but is incidental on other acquired differences.

In treating this subject, two classes of facts, to a large extent fundamentally different, have generally been confounded together; namely, the sterility of two


text:
Page:Origin of Species 1859 facsimile.djvu/258

246 species when first crossed, and the sterility of the hybrids produced from them.

Pure species have of course their organs of reproduction in a perfect condition, yet when intercrossed they produce either few or no offspring. Hybrids, on the other hand, have their reproductive organs functionally impotent, as may be clearly seen in the state of the male element in both plants and animals; though the organs themselves are perfect in structure, as far as the microscope reveals. In the first case the two sexual elements which go to form the embryo are perfect; in the second case they are either not at all developed, or are imperfectly developed. This distinction is important, when the cause of the sterility, which is common to the two cases, has to be considered. The distinction has probably been slurred over, owing to the sterility in both cases being looked on as a special endowment, beyond the province of our reasoning powers.

The fertility of varieties, that is of the forms known or believed to have descended from common parents, when intercrossed, and likewise the fertility of their mongrel offspring, is, on my theory, of equal importance with the sterility of species; for it seems to make a broad and clear distinction between varieties and species.

First, for the sterility of species when crossed and of their hybrid offspring. It is impossible to study the several memoirs and works of those two conscientious and admirable observers, Kölreuter and Gärtner, who almost devoted their lives to this subject, without being deeply impressed with the high generality of some degree of sterility. Kölreuter makes the rule universal; but then he cuts the knot, for in ten cases in which he found two forms, considered by most authors as distinct species, quite fertile together, he


text:
Page:Origin of Species 1859 facsimile.djvu/259

 unhesitatingly ranks them as varieties. Gärtner, also, makes the rule equally universal; and he disputes the entire fertility of Kölreuter's ten cases. But in these and in many other cases, Gärtner is obliged carefully to count the seeds, in order to show that there is any degree of sterility. He always compares the maximum number of seeds produced by two species when crossed and by their hybrid offspring, with the average number produced by both pure parent-species in a state of nature. But a serious cause of error seems to me to be here introduced: a plant to be hybridised must be castrated, and, what is often more important, must be secluded in order to prevent pollen being brought to it by insects from other plants. Nearly all the plants experimentised on by Gärtner were potted, and apparently were kept in a chamber in his house. That these processes are often injurious to the fertility of a plant cannot be doubted; for Gärtner gives in his table about a score of cases of plants which he castrated, and artificially fertilised with their own pollen, and (excluding all cases such as the Leguminosæ, in which there is an acknowledged difficulty in the manipulation) half of these twenty plants had their fertility in some degree impaired. Moreover, as Gärtner during several years repeatedly crossed the primrose and cowslip, which we have such good reason to believe to be varieties, and only once or twice succeeded in getting fertile seed; as he found the common red and blue pimpernels (Anagallis arvensis and cœrulea), which the best botanists rank as varieties, absolutely sterile together; and as he came to the same concluson in several other analogous cases; it seems to me that we may well be permitted to doubt whether many other species are really so sterile, when intercrossed, as Gärtner believes.


text:
Page:Origin of Species 1859 facsimile.djvu/260

 It is certain, on the one hand, that the sterility of various species when crossed is so different in degree and graduates away so insensibly, and, on the other hand, that the fertility of pure species is so easily affected by various circumstances, that for all practical purposes it is most difficult to say where perfect fertility ends and sterility begins. I think no better evidence of this can be required than that the two most experienced observers who have ever lived, namely, Kölreuter and Gärtner, should have arrived at diametrically opposite conclusions in regard to the very same species. It is also most instructive to compare—but I have not space here to enter on details—the evidence advanced by our best botanists on the question whether certain doubtful forms should be ranked as species or varieties, with the evidence from fertility adduced by different hybridisers, or by the same author, from experiments made during different years. It can thus be shown that neither sterility nor fertility affords any clear distinction between species and varieties; but that the evidence from this source graduates away, and is doubtful in the same degree as is the evidence derived from other constitutional and structural differences.

In regard to the sterility of hybrids in successive generations; though Gärtner was enabled to rear some hybrids, carefully guarding them from a cross with either pure parent, for six or seven, and in one case for ten generations, yet he asserts positively that their fertility never increased, but generally greatly decreased. I do not doubt that this is usually the case, and that the fertility often suddenly decreases in the first few generations. Nevertheless I believe that in all these experiments the fertility has been diminished by an independent cause, namely, from close interbreeding. I have collected so large a body of facts, showing


text:
Page:Origin of Species 1859 facsimile.djvu/261

 that close interbreeding lessens fertility, and, on the other hand, that an occasional cross with a distinct individual or variety increases fertility, that I cannot doubt the correctness of this almost universal belief amongst breeders. Hybrids are seldom raised by experimentalists in great numbers; and as the parent-species, or other allied hybrids, generally grow in the same garden, the visits of insects must be carefully prevented during the flowering season: hence hybrids will generally be fertilised during each generation by their own individual pollen; and I am convinced that this would be injurious to their fertility, already lessened by their hybrid origin. I am strengthened in this conviction by a remarkable statement repeatedly made by Gärtner, namely, that if even the less fertile hybrids be artificially fertilised with hybrid pollen of the same kind, their fertility, notwithstanding the frequent ill effects of manipulation, sometimes decidedly increases, and goes on increasing. Now, in artificial fertilisation pollen is as often taken by chance (as I know from my own experience) from the anthers of another flower, as from the anthers of the flower itself which is to be fertilised; so that a cross between two flowers, though probably on the same plant, would be thus effected. Moreover, whenever complicated experiments are in progress, so careful an observer as Gärtner would have castrated his hybrids, and this would have insured in each generation a cross with the pollen from a distinct flower, either from the same plant or from another plant of the same hybrid nature. And thus, the strange fact of the increase of fertility in the successive generations of artificially fertilised hybrids may, I believe, be accounted for by close interbreeding having been avoided.

Now let us turn to the results arrived at by the third most experienced hybridiser, namely, the Hon. and


text:
Page:Origin of Species 1859 facsimile.djvu/262

 Rev. W. Herbert. He is as emphatic in his conclusion that some hybrids are perfectly fertile—as fertile as the pure parent-species—as are Kölreuter and Gärtner that some degree of sterility between distinct species is a universal law of nature. He experimentised on some of the very same species as did Gärtner. The difference in their results may, I think, be in part accounted for by Herbert's great horticultural skill, and by his having hothouses at his command. Of his many important statements I will here give only a single one as an example, namely, that "every ovule in a pod of Crinum capense fertilised by C. revolutum produced a plant, which (he says) I never saw to occur in a case of its natural fecundation." So that we here have perfect, or even more than commonly perfect, fertility in a first cross between two distinct species.

This case of the Crinum leads me to refer to a most singular fact, namely, that there are individual plants, as with certain species of Lobelia, and with all the species of the genus Hippeastrum, which can be far more easily fertilised by the pollen of another and distinct species, than by their own pollen. For these plants 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 fertilised distinct species. So that certain individual plants and all the individuals of certain species can actually be hybridised much more readily than they can be self-fertilised! For instance, a bulb of Hippeastrum aulicum produced four flowers; three were fertilised by Herbert with their own pollen, and the fourth was subsequently fertilised by the pollen of a compound hybrid descended from three other and distinct species: the result was that "the ovaries of the three first flowers soon ceased to grow, and after a


text:
Page:Origin of Species 1859 facsimile.djvu/263

 few days perished entirely, whereas the pod impregnated by the pollen of the hybrid made vigorous growth and rapid progress to maturity, and bore good seed, which vegetated freely." In a letter to me, in 1839, Mr. Herbert told me that he had then tried the experiment during five years, and he continued to try it during several subsequent years, and always with the same result. This result has, also, been confirmed by other observers in the case of Hippeastrum with its sub-genera, and in the case of some other genera, as Lobelia, Passiflora and Verbascum. Although the plants in these experiments appeared perfectly healthy, and although both the ovules and pollen of the same flower were perfectly good with respect to other species, yet as they were functionally imperfect in their mutual self-action, we must infer that the plants were in an unnatural state. Nevertheless these facts show on what slight and mysterious causes the lesser or greater fertility of species when crossed, in comparison with the same species when self-fertilised, sometimes depends.

The practical experiments of horticulturists, though not made with scientific precision, deserve some notice. It is notorious in how complicated a manner the species of Pelargonium, Fuchsia, Calceolaria, Petunia, Rhododendron, &c., have been crossed, yet many of these hybrids seed freely. For instance, Herbert asserts that a hybrid from Calceolaria integrifolia and plantaginea, species most widely dissimilar in general habit, "reproduced itself as perfectly as if it had been a natural species from the mountains of Chile." I have taken some pains to ascertain the degree of fertility of some of the complex crosses of Rhododendrons, and I am assured that many of them are perfectly fertile. Mr. C. Noble, for instance, informs me that he raises stocks for grafting from a hybrid


text:
Page:Origin of Species 1859 facsimile.djvu/264

 between Rhod. Ponticum and Catawbiense, and that this hybrid "seeds as freely as it is possible to imagine." Had hybrids, when fairly treated, gone on decreasing in fertility in each successive generation, as Gärtner believes to be the case, the fact would have been notorious to nurserymen. Horticulturists raise large beds of the same hybrids, and such alone are fairly treated, for by insect agency the several individuals of the same hybrid variety are allowed to freely cross with each other, and the injurious influence of close interbreeding is thus prevented. Any one may readily convince himself of the efficiency of insect-agency by examining the flowers of the more sterile kinds of hybrid rhododendrons, which produce no pollen, for he will find on their stigmas plenty of pollen brought from other flowers.

In regard to animals, much fewer experiments have been carefully tried than with plants. If our systematic arrangements can be trusted, that is if the genera of animals are as distinct from each other, as are the genera of plants, then we may infer that animals more widely separated in the scale of nature can be more easily crossed than in the case of plants; but the hybrids themselves are, I think, more sterile. I doubt whether any case of a perfectly fertile hybrid animal can be considered as thoroughly well authenticated. It should, however, be borne in mind that, owing to few animals breeding freely under confinement, few experiments have been fairly tried: for instance, the canary-bird has been crossed with nine other finches, but as not one of these nine species breeds freely in confinement, we have no right to expect that the first crosses between them and the canary, or that their hybrids, should be perfectly fertile. Again, with respect to the fertility in successive generations of the more fertile


text:
Page:Origin of Species 1859 facsimile.djvu/265

 hybrid animals, I hardly know of an instance in which two families of the same hybrid have been raised at the same time from different parents, so as to avoid the ill effects of close interbreeding. On the contrary, brothers and sisters have usually been crossed in each successive generation, in opposition to the constantly repeated admonition of every breeder. And in this case, it is not at all surprising that the inherent sterility in the hybrids should have gone on increasing. If we were to act thus, and pair brothers and sisters in the case of any pure animal, which from any cause had the least tendency to sterility, the breed would assuredly be lost in a very few generations.

Although I do not know of any thoroughly well-authenticated cases of perfectly fertile hybrid animals, I have some reason to believe that the hybrids from Cervulus vaginalis and Reevesii, and from Phasianus colchicus with P. torquatus and with P. versicolor are perfectly fertile. The hybrids from the common and Chinese geese (A. cygnoides), species which are so different that they are generally ranked in distinct genera, have often bred in this country with either pure parent, and in one single instance they have bred inter se. This was effected by Mr. Eyton, who raised two hybrids from the same parents but from different hatches; and from these two birds he raised no less than eight hybrids (grandchildren of the pure geese) from one nest. In India, however, these cross-bred geese must be far more fertile; for I am assured by two eminently capable judges, namely Mr. Blyth and Capt. Hutton, that whole flocks of these crossed geese are kept in various parts of the country; and as they are kept for profit, where neither pure parent-species exists, they must certainly be highly fertile.

A doctrine which originated with Pallas, has been


text:
Page:Origin of Species 1859 facsimile.djvu/266

 largely accepted by modern naturalists; namely, that most of our domestic animals have descended from two or more aboriginal species, since commingled by intercrossing. On this view, the aboriginal species must either at first have produced quite fertile hybrids, or the hybrids must have become in subsequent generations quite fertile under domestication. This latter alternative seems to me the most probable, and I am inclined to believe in its truth, although it rests on no direct evidence. I believe, for instance, that our dogs have descended from several wild stocks; yet, with perhaps the exception of certain indigenous domestic dogs of South America, all are quite fertile together; and analogy makes me greatly doubt, whether the several aboriginal species would at first have freely bred together and have produced quite fertile hybrids. So again there is reason to believe that our European and the humped Indian cattle are quite fertile together; but from facts communicated to me by Mr. Blyth, I think they must be considered as distinct species. On this view of the origin of many of our domestic animals, we must either give up the belief of the almost universal sterility of distinct species of animals when crossed; or we must look at sterility, not as an indelible characteristic, but as one capable of being removed by domestication.

Finally, looking to all the ascertained facts on the intercrossing of plants and animals, it may be concluded that some degree of sterility, both in first crosses and in hybrids, is an extremely general result; but that it cannot, under our present state of knowledge, be considered as absolutely universal.

Laws governing the Sterility of first Crosses and of Hybrids.—We will now consider a little more in detail the


text:
Page:Origin of Species 1859 facsimile.djvu/267

 circumstances and rules governing the sterility of first crosses and of hybrids. Our chief object will be to see whether or not the rules indicate that species have specially been endowed with this quality, in order to prevent their crossing and blending together in utter confusion. The following rules and conclusions are chiefly drawn up from Gärtner's admirable work on the hybridisation of plants. I have taken much pains to ascertain how far the rules apply to animals, and considering how scanty our knowledge is in regard to hybrid animals, I have been surprised to find how generally the same rules apply to both kingdoms.

It has been already remarked, that the degree of fertility, both of first crosses and of hybrids, graduates from zero to perfect fertility. It is surprising in how many curious ways this gradation can be shown to exist; but only the barest outline of the facts can here be given. When pollen from a plant of one family is placed on the stigma of a plant of a distinct family, it exerts no more influence than so much inorganic dust. From this absolute zero of fertility, the pollen of different species of the same genus applied to the stigma of some one species, yields a perfect gradation in the number of seeds produced, up to nearly complete or even quite complete fertility; and, as we have seen, in certain abnormal cases, even to an excess of fertility, beyond that which the plant's own pollen will produce. So in hybrids themselves, there are some which never have produced, and probably never would produce, even with the pollen of either pure parent, a single fertile seed: but in some of these cases a first trace of fertility may be detected, by the pollen of one of the pure parent-species causing the flower of the hybrid to wither earlier than it otherwise would have done; and the early withering of the flower is well known to be a sign


text:
Page:Origin of Species 1859 facsimile.djvu/268

 of incipient fertilisation. From this extreme degree of sterility we have self-fertilised hybrids producing a greater and greater number of seeds up to perfect fertility.

Hybrids from two species which are very difficult to cross, and which rarely produce any offspring, are generally very sterile; but the parallelism between the difficulty of making a first cross, and the sterility of the hybrids thus produced—two classes of facts which are generally confounded together—is by no means strict. There are many cases, in which two pure species can be united with unusual facility, and produce numerous hybrid-offspring, yet these hybrids are remarkably sterile. On the other hand, there are species which can be crossed very rarely, or with extreme difficulty, but the hybrids, when at last produced, are very fertile. Even within the limits of the same genus, for instance in Dianthus, these two opposite cases occur.

The fertility, both of first crosses and of hybrids, is more easily affected by unfavourable conditions, than is the fertility of pure species. But the degree of fertility is likewise innately variable; for it is not always the same when the same two species are crossed under the same circumstances, but depends in part upon the constitution of the individuals which happen to have been chosen for the experiment. So it is with hybrids, for their degree of fertility is often found to differ greatly in the several individuals raised from seed out of the same capsule and exposed to exactly the same conditions.

By the term systematic affinity is meant, the resemblance between species in structure and in constitution, more especially in the structure of parts which are of high physiological importance and which differ little in the allied species. Now the fertility of first crosses


text:
Page:Origin of Species 1859 facsimile.djvu/269

 between species, and of the hybrids produced from them, is largely governed by their systematic affinity. This is clearly shown by hybrids never having been raised between species ranked by systematists in distinct families; and on the other hand, by very closely allied species generally uniting with facility. But the correspondence between systematic affinity and the facility of crossing is by no means strict. A multitude of cases could be given of very closely allied species which will not unite, or only with extreme difficulty; and on the other hand of very distinct species which unite with the utmost facility. In the same family there may be a genus, as Dianthus, in which very many species can most readily be crossed; and another genus, as Silene, in which the most persevering efforts have failed to produce between extremely close species a single hybrid. Even within the limits of the same genus, we meet with this same difference; for instance, the many species of Nicotiana have been more largely crossed than the species of almost any other genus; but Gärtner found that N. acuminata, which is not a particularly distinct species, obstinately failed to fertilise, or to be fertilised by, no less than eight other species of Nicotiana. Very many analogous facts could be given.

No one has been able to point out what kind, or what amount, of difference in any recognisable character is sufficient to prevent two species crossing. It can be shown that plants most widely different in habit and general appearance, and having strongly marked differences in every part of the flower, even in the pollen, in the fruit, and in the cotyledons, can be crossed. Annual and perennial plants, deciduous and evergreen trees, plants inhabiting different stations and fitted for extremely different climates, can often be crossed with ease.


text:
Page:Origin of Species 1859 facsimile.djvu/270

 By a reciprocal cross between two species, I mean the case, for instance, of a stallion-horse being first crossed with a female-ass, and then a male-ass with a mare: these two species may then be said to have been reciprocally crossed. There is often the widest possible difference in the facility of making reciprocal crosses. Such cases are highly important, for they prove that the capacity in any two species to cross is often completely independent of their systematic affinity, or of any recognisable difference in their whole organisation. On the other hand, these cases clearly show that the capacity for crossing is connected with constitutional differences imperceptible by us, and confined to the reproductive system. This difference in the result of reciprocal crosses between the same two species was long ago observed by Kölreuter. To give an instance: Mirabilis jalappa can easily be fertilised by the pollen of M. longiflora, and the hybrids thus produced are sufficiently fertile; but Kölreuter tried more than two hundred times, during eight following years, to fertilise reciprocally M. longiflora with the pollen of M. jalappa, and utterly failed. Several other equally striking cases could be given. Thuret has observed the same fact with certain sea-weeds or Fuci. Gärtner, moreover, found that this difference of facility in making reciprocal crosses is extremely common in a lesser degree. He has observed it even between forms so closely related (as Matthiola annua and glabra) that many botanists rank them only as varieties. It is also a remarkable fact, that hybrids raised from reciprocal crosses, though of course compounded of the very same two species, the one species having first been used as the father and then as the mother, generally differ in fertility in a small, and occasionally in a high degree.

Several other singular rules could be given from


text:
Page:Origin of Species 1859 facsimile.djvu/271

 Gärtner: for instance, some species have a remarkable power of crossing with other species; other species of the same genus have a remarkable power of impressing their likeness on their hybrid offspring; but these two powers do not at all necessarily go together. There are certain hybrids which instead of having, as is usual, an intermediate character between their two parents, always closely resemble one of them; and such hybrids, though externally so like one of their pure parent-species, are with rare exceptions extremely sterile. So again amongst hybrids which are usually intermediate in structure between their parents, exceptional and abnormal individuals sometimes are born, which closely resemble one of their pure parents; and these hybrids are almost always utterly sterile, even when the other hybrids raised from seed from the same capsule have a considerable degree of fertility. These facts show how completely fertility in the hybrid is independent of its external resemblance to either pure parent.

Considering the several rules now given, which govern the fertility of first crosses and of hybrids, we see that when forms, which must be considered as good and distinct species, are united, their fertility graduates from zero to perfect fertility, or even to fertility under certain conditions in excess. That their fertility, besides being eminently susceptible to favourable and unfavourable conditions, is innately variable. That it is by no means always the same in degree in the first cross and in the hybrids produced from this cross. That the fertility of hybrids is not related to the degree in which they resemble in external appearance either parent. And lastly, that the facility of making a first cross between any two species is not always governed by their systematic affinity or


text:
Page:Origin of Species 1859 facsimile.djvu/272

 degree of resemblance to each other. This latter statement is clearly proved by reciprocal crosses between the same two species, for according as the one species or the other is used as the father or the mother, there is generally some difference, and occasionally the widest possible difference, in the facility of effecting an union. The hybrids, moreover, produced from reciprocal crosses often differ in fertility.

Now do these complex and singular rules indicate that species have been endowed with sterility simply to prevent their becoming confounded in nature? I think not. For why should the sterility be so extremely different in degree, when various species are crossed, all of which we must suppose it would be equally important to keep from blending together? Why should the degree of sterility be innately variable in the individuals of the same species? Why should some species cross with facility, and yet produce very sterile hybrids; and other species cross with extreme difficulty, and yet produce fairly fertile hybrids? Why should there often be so great a difference in the result of a reciprocal cross between the same two species? Why, it may even be asked, has the production of hybrids been permitted? to grant to species the special power of producing hybrids, and then to stop their further propagation by different degrees of sterility, not strictly related to the facility of the first union between their parents, seems to be a strange arrangement.

The foregoing rules and facts, on the other hand, appear to me clearly to indicate that the sterility both of first crosses and of hybrids is simply incidental or dependent on unknown differences, chiefly in the reproductive systems, of the species which are crossed. The differences being of so peculiar and limited a nature,


text:
Page:Origin of Species 1859 facsimile.djvu/273

 that, in reciprocal crosses between two species the male sexual element of the one will often freely act on the female sexual element of the other, but not in a reversed direction. It will be advisable to explain a little more fully by an example what I mean by sterility being incidental on other differences, and not a specially endowed quality. As the capacity of one plant to be grafted or budded on another is so entirely unimportant for its welfare in a state of nature, I presume that no one will suppose that this capacity is a specially endowed quality, but will admit that it is incidental on differences in the laws of growth of the two plants. We can sometimes see the reason why one tree will not take on another, from differences in their rate of growth, in the hardness of their wood, in the period of the flow or nature of their sap, &c.; but in a multitude of cases we can assign no reason whatever. Great diversity in the size of two plants, one being woody and the other herbaceous, one being evergreen and the other deciduous, and adaptation to widely different climates, does not always prevent the two grafting together. As in hybridisation, so with grafting, the capacity is limited by systematic affinity, for no one has been able to graft trees together belonging to quite distinct families; and, on the other hand, closely allied species, and varieties of the same species, can usually, but not invariably, be grafted with ease. But this capacity, as in hybridisation, is by no means absolutely governed by systematic affinity. Although many distinct genera within the same family have been grafted together, in other cases species of the same genus will not take on each other. The pear can be grafted far more readily on the quince, which is ranked as a distinct genus, than on the apple, which is a member of the same genus. Even different varieties of the pear take


text:
Page:Origin of Species 1859 facsimile.djvu/274

 with different degrees of facility on the quince; so do different varieties of the apricot and peach on certain varieties of the plum.

As Gärtner found that there was sometimes an innate difference in different individuals of the same two species in crossing; so Sagaret believes this to be the case with different individuals of the same two species in being grafted together. As in reciprocal crosses, the facility of effecting an union is often very far from equal, so it sometimes is in grafting; the common gooseberry, for instance, cannot be grafted on the currant, whereas the currant will take, though with difficulty, on the gooseberry.

We have seen that the sterility of hybrids, which have their reproductive organs in an imperfect condition, is a very different case from the difficulty of uniting two pure species, which have their reproductive organs perfect; yet these two distinct cases run to a certain extent parallel. Something analogous occurs in grafting; for Thouin found that three species of Robinia, which seeded freely on their own roots, and which could be grafted with no great difficulty on another species, when thus grafted were rendered barren. On the other hand, certain species of Sorbus, when grafted on other species, yielded twice as much fruit as when on their own roots. We are reminded by this latter fact of the extraordinary case of Hippeastrum, Lobelia, &c., which seeded much more freely when fertilised with the pollen of distinct species, than when self-fertilised with their own pollen.

We thus see, that although there is a clear and fundamental difference between the mere adhesion of grafted stocks, and the union of the male and female elements in the act of reproduction, yet that there is a rude degree of parallelism in the results of grafting and


text:
Page:Origin of Species 1859 facsimile.djvu/275

 of crossing distinct species. And as we must look at the curious and complex laws governing the facility with which trees can be grafted on each other as incidental on unknown differences in their vegetative systems, so I believe that the still more complex laws governing the facility of first crosses, are incidental on unknown differences, chiefly in their reproductive systems. These differences, in both cases, follow to a certain extent, as might have been expected, systematic affinity, by which every kind of resemblance and dissimilarity between organic beings is attempted to be expressed. The facts by no means seem to me to indicate that the greater or lesser difficulty of either grafting or crossing together various species has been a special endowment; although in the case of crossing, the difficulty is as important for the endurance and stability of specific forms, as in the case of grafting it is unimportant for their welfare.

Causes of the Sterility of first Crosses and of Hybrids.—We may now look a little closer at the probable causes of the sterility of first crosses and of hybrids. These two cases are fundamentally different, for, as just remarked, in the union of two pure species the male and female sexual elements are perfect, whereas in hybrids they are imperfect. Even in first crosses, the greater or lesser difficulty in effecting a union apparently depends on several distinct causes. There must sometimes be a physical impossibility in the male element reaching the ovule, as would be the case with a plant having a pistil too long for the pollen-tubes to reach the ovarium. It has also been observed that when pollen of one species is placed on the stigma of a distantly allied species, though the pollen-tubes protrude, they do not penetrate the stigmatic surface. Again, the


text:
Page:Origin of Species 1859 facsimile.djvu/276

 male element may reach the female element, but be incapable of causing an embryo to be developed, as seems to have been the case with some of Thuret's experiments on Fuci. No explanation can be given of these facts, any more than why certain trees cannot be grafted on others. Lastly, an embryo may be developed, and then perish at an early period. This latter alternative has not been sufficiently attended to; but I believe, from observations communicated to me by Mr. Hewitt, who has had great experience in hybridising gallinaceous birds, that the early death of the embryo is a very frequent cause of sterility in first crosses. I was at first very unwilling to believe in this view; as hybrids, when once born, are generally healthy and long-lived, as we see in the case of the common mule. Hybrids, however, are differently circumstanced before and after birth: when born and living in a country where their two parents can live, they are generally placed under suitable conditions of life. But a hybrid partakes of only half of the nature and constitution of its mother, and therefore before birth, as long as it is nourished within its mother's womb or within the egg or seed produced by the mother, it may be exposed to conditions in some degree unsuitable, and consequently be liable to perish at an early period; more especially as all very young beings seem eminently sensitive to injurious or unnatural conditions of life.

In regard to the sterility of hybrids, in which the sexual elements are imperfectly developed, the case is very different. I have more than once alluded to a large body of facts, which I have collected, showing that when animals and plants are removed from their natural conditions, they are extremely liable to have their reproductive systems seriously affected. This, in fact, is


text:
Page:Origin of Species 1859 facsimile.djvu/277

 the great bar to the domestication of animals. Between the sterility thus superinduced and that of hybrids, there are many points of similarity. In both cases the sterility is independent of general health, and is often accompanied by excess of size or great luxuriance. In both cases, the sterility occurs in various degrees; in both, the male element is the most liable to be affected; but sometimes the female more than the male. In both, the tendency goes to a certain extent with systematic affinity, for whole groups of animals and plants are rendered impotent by the same unnatural conditions; and whole groups of species tend to produce sterile hybrids. On the other hand, one species in a group will sometimes resist great changes of conditions with unimpaired fertility; and certain species in a group will produce unusually fertile hybrids. No one can tell, till he tries, whether any particular animal will breed under confinement or any plant seed freely under culture; nor can he tell, till he tries, whether any two species of a genus will produce more or less sterile hybrids. Lastly, when organic beings are placed during several generations under conditions not natural to them, they are extremely liable to vary, which is due, as I believe, to their reproductive systems having been specially affected, though in a lesser degree than when sterility ensues. So it is with hybrids, for hybrids in successive generations are eminently liable to vary, as every experimentalist has observed.

Thus we see that when organic beings are placed under new and unnatural conditions, and when hybrids are produced by the unnatural crossing of two species, the reproductive system, independently of the general state of health, is affected by sterility in a very similar manner. In the one case, the conditions of life have been disturbed, though often in so slight a degree as to


text:
Page:Origin of Species 1859 facsimile.djvu/278

 be inappreciable by us; in the other case, or that of hybrids, the external conditions have remained the same, but the organisation has been disturbed by two different structures and constitutions having been blended into one. For it is scarcely possible that two organisations should be compounded into one, without some disturbance occurring in the development, or periodical action, or mutual relation of the different parts and organs one to another, or to the conditions of life. When hybrids are able to breed inter se, they transmit to their offspring from generation to generation the same compounded organisation, and hence we need not be surprised that their sterility, though in some degree variable, rarely diminishes.

It must, however, be confessed that we cannot understand, excepting on vague hypotheses, several facts with respect to the sterility of hybrids; for instance, the unequal fertility of hybrids produced from reciprocal crosses; or the increased sterility in those hybrids which occasionally and exceptionally resemble closely either pure parent. Nor do I pretend that the foregoing remarks go to the root of the matter: no explanation is offered why an organism, when placed under unnatural conditions, is rendered sterile. All that I have attempted to show, is that in two cases, in some respects allied, sterility is the common result,—in the one case from the conditions of life having been disturbed, in the other case from the organisation having been disturbed by two organisations having been compounded into one.

It may seem fanciful, but I suspect that a similar parallelism extends to an allied yet very different class of facts. It is an old and almost universal belief, founded, I think, on a considerable body of evidence, that slight changes in the conditions of life are beneficial to all living things. We see this acted on by


text:
Page:Origin of Species 1859 facsimile.djvu/279

 farmers and gardeners in their frequent exchanges of seed, tubers, &c., from one soil or climate to another, and back again. During the convalescence of animals, we plainly see that great benefit is derived from almost any change in the habits of life. Again, both with plants and animals, there is abundant evidence, that a cross between very distinct individuals of the same species, that is between members of different strains or sub-breeds, gives vigour and fertility to the offspring. I believe, indeed, from the facts alluded to in our fourth chapter, that a certain amount of crossing is indispensable even with hermaphrodites; and that close interbreeding continued during several generations between the nearest relations, especially if these be kept under the same conditions of life, always induces weakness and sterility in the progeny.

Hence it seems that, on the one hand, slight changes in the conditions of life benefit all organic beings, and on the other hand, that slight crosses, that is crosses between the males and females of the same species which have varied and become slightly different, give vigour and fertility to the offspring. But we have seen that greater changes, or changes of a particular nature, often render organic beings in some degree sterile; and that greater crosses, that is crosses between males and females which have become widely or specifically different, produce hybrids which are generally sterile in some degree. I cannot persuade myself that this parallelism is an accident or an illusion. Both series of facts seem to be connected together by some common but unknown bond, which is essentially related to the principle of life.

Fertility of Varieties when crossed, and of their Mongrel offspring.—It may be urged, as a most forcible argument,


text:
Page:Origin of Species 1859 facsimile.djvu/280

 that there must be some essential distinction between species and varieties, and that there must be some error in all the foregoing remarks, inasmuch as varieties, however much they may differ from each other in external appearance, cross with perfect facility, and yield perfectly fertile offspring. I fully admit that this is almost invariably the case. But if we look to varieties produced under nature, we are immediately involved in hopeless difficulties; for if two hitherto reputed varieties be found in any degree sterile together, they are at once ranked by most naturalists as species. For instance, the blue and red pimpernel, the primrose and cowslip, which are considered by many of our best botanists as varieties, are said by Gärtner not to be quite fertile when crossed, and he consequently ranks them as undoubted species. If we thus argue in a circle, the fertility of all varieties produced under nature will assuredly have to be granted.

If we turn to varieties, produced, or supposed to have been produced, under domestication, we are still involved in doubt. For when it is stated, for instance, that the German Spitz dog unites more easily than other dogs with foxes, or that certain South American indigenous domestic dogs do not readily cross with European dogs, the explanation which will occur to every one, and probably the true one, is that these dogs have descended from several aboriginally distinct species. Nevertheless the perfect fertility of so many domestic varieties, differing widely from each other in appearance, for instance of the pigeon or 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 intercrossed. Several considerations, however, render the fertility of domestic varieties less remarkable than