and whether it would endure other climates? Has the little variability of the ass or Guinea-fowl, or the small power of endurance of warmth by the reindeer, or of cold by the common camel, prevented their domestication? I cannot doubt that if other animals and plants, equal in number to our domesticated productions, and belonging to equally diverse classes and countries, were taken from a state of nature, and could be made to breed for an equal number of generations under domestication, they would vary on an average as largely as the parent species of our existing domesticated productions have varied."

As to amount of variation, there is the common remark of naturalists that the varieties of domesticated plants or animals often differ more widely than do the individuals of distinct species in a wild state: and even in Nature the individuals of some species are known to vary to a degree sensibly wider than that which separates related species. In his instructive section on the breeds of the domestic pigeon, our author remarks that "at least a score of pigeons might be chosen which if shown to an ornithologist, and he were told that they were wild birds, would certainly be ranked by him as well-defined species. Moreover, I do not believe that any ornithologist would place the English carrier, the short-faced tumbler, the runt, the barb, pouter, and fantail, in the same genus; more especially as in each of these breeds several truly inherited sub-breeds, or species, as he might have called them, could be shown him." That this is not a case like that of dogs, in which probably the blood of more than one species is mingled, Mr. Darwin proceeds to show, adducing cogent reasons for the common opinion that all have descended from the wild rockpigeon. Then follow some suggestive remarks:

"I have discussed the probable origin of domestic pigeons at somo, yet quito insufficient, length; beenuso when I first kopt pigeons and watched the several kinds, knowing well how truo they bred, I felt fully as much difliculty in believing that they could ever have descended from a common parent as any natu ralist could in coming to a similar conclusion in regard to many species of finches, or other largo groups of birds, in Nature. Ono circumstanco has struck mo much; namely, that all tho breeders of the various domestic animals and the cultivators of plants, with whom I havo ever conversed, or whoso treatises I have read, are firmly convinced that the several breeds to which each has attended aro descended from so many aboriginally distinct species. Ask, as I have asked, a celebrated raiser of Heroford cattle, whether his cattle might not have descended from long-horns, and he will laugh you to scorn. I have never met a pigeon, or poultry, or duck, or rabbit fancier, who was not fully convinced that each main breed was descended from a distinct species. Van Mons, in his treatiso on pears and apples, shows how utterly he disbelieves that the several sorts, for instanco a Ribston-pippin or Codlin-apple, could ever havo proceeded from the seeds of the samo treo. Innumerable other examples could be given. The explanation, I think, is simple: from long-continued study they are strongly impressed with tho differences between the several races; and though they well know that each raco varies slightly, for they win their prizes by selecting such slight differences, yet they ignore all general arguments, and refuso to sum up in their minds slight differences accumulated during many successivo generations. May not those naturalists who, knowing far less of the laws of inheritance than does the breeder, and knowing no more than ho does of the intermediate links in the long lines of descent, yet admit that many of our domestic races have descended from the same parents-may they not learn a lesson of caution, when they deride the idea of species in a stato of naturo being lineal descendants of other species ?"

The actual causes of variation aro unknown. Mr. Darwin favors the opinion of the late Mr. Knight, the

great philosopher of horticulture, that variability under domestication is somehow connected with excess of food. He regards the unknown cause as acting chiefly upon the reproductive system of the parents, which system, judging from the effect of confinement or cultivation upon its functions, he concludes to be more susceptible than any other to the action of changed conditions of life. The tendency to vary certainly appears to be much stronger under domestication than in freo Nature. But we are not sure that the greater variableness of cultivated races is not mainly owing to the far greater opportunities for manifestation and accumulation—a view seemingly all the more favorable to Mr. Darwin's theory. The actual amount of certain changes, such as size or abundance of fruit, size of udder, stands of course in obvious relation to supply

of food.

Really, we no more know the reason why the pro- . geny occasionally deviates from the parent than we do why it usually resembles it. Though the laws and conditions governing variation are known to a certain extent, those governing inheritance are appar ently inscrutable. "Perhaps," Darwin remarks, "the correct way of viewing the whole subject would be, to look at the inheritance of every character whatever as the rule, and non-inheritance as the anomaly." This, from general and obvious considerations, we have long been accustomed to do. Now, as exceptional instances are expected to be capable of explanation, while ultimato laws are not, it is quite possible that variation may bo accounted for, while the great primary law of Inheritance remains a mysterious fact.

The common proposition is, that apccics reproducs their like; this is a sort of general inference, only a degreo closer to fact than the statement that genera reproduce their like. The true proposition, the fact incapable of further analysis, is, that individuals reproduce their like-that characteristics are inheritable. So varieties, or deviations, once originated, are perpetuable, like species. Not so likely to be perpetuated, at the outset; for the new form tends to re-emblo a grandparent and a long line of similar ancestors, na well as to resemble its immediate progenitors. Two forces which coincide in the ordinary case, where the offspring resembles its parent, act in different direc tions when it does not and it is uncertain which will prevail. If the remoter but very potent ancestral influenco predominates, the variation disappears with the life of the individual. If that of the immediato parent-feebler no doubt, but closer-the variety sur vives in the offspring; whose progeny now has a ro doubled tendency to produce its own like; whose progeny again is almost sure to produce its like, since it is much the same whether it takes after its mother or its grandmother.

In this way races arise, which under favorable conditions may be as hereditary as species. In following the o indications, watching opportunities, and breeding only from those individuals which vary most in a desirable direction, man leads the course of variation as he leads a streamlet--apparently at will, but never against the force of gravitation--to a long distanco from its source, and makes it more subservient to his use or fancy. He unconsciously strengthens thoro

variations which he prizes when he plants the seed of a favorite fruit, preserves a favorite domestic animal, drowns the uglior kittens of a litter, and allows only the handsomest or the best mousers to propagato. Still more, by methodical selection, in recent times alinost marvelous results have been produced in new breeds of cattle, sheep, and poultry, and new varieties of fruit of greater and greater size or excellence.

It is said that all domestic varieties, if left to run wild, would revert to their aboriginal stocks. Probably they would wherever various races of one species were left to commingle. At least the abnormal or exaggerated characteristics induced by high feeding, or high cultivation and prolonged close breeding, would promptly disappear; and the surviving stock would Moon blend into a homogeneous result (in a way pres ently explained), which would naturally be taken for the original form; but we could seldom know if it were so. It is by no means certain that the result would be the same if the races ran wild each in a separate region. Dr. Hooker doubts if there is a true reversion in the case of plants. Mr. Darwin's observations rather favor it in the animal kingdom. With mingled races reversion seems well made out in the case of pigeons. The common opinion upon this subject therefore probably has some foundation. But even if wo regard varieties ns oscillations around a primitivo centro or type, still it appears from the readiness with which such varieties originate that a certain amount of disturbance would carry them beyond the influence of the primordial attraction, where they may become new centres of variation.