FREE BOOKS

Author's List




PREV.   NEXT  
|<   277   278   279   280   281   282   283   284   285   286   287   288   289   290   291   292   293   294   295   296   297   298   299   300   301  
302   303   304   305   306   307   308   309   310   311   312   313   314   315   316   317   318   319   320   321   322   323   324   325   326   >>   >|  
tic animals. I saw clearly what an immense aid this would be, but gave it up. Disinclination to cross seems to have been independently acquired, probably by Natural Selection; and I do not see why it would not have sufficed to have prevented incipient species from blending to have simply increased sexual disinclination to cross. (Paragraph 11.) I demur to a certain extent to amount of sterility and structural dissimilarity necessarily going together, except indirectly and by no means strictly. Look at vars. of pigeons, fowls, and cabbages. I overlooked the advantage of the half-sterility of reciprocal crosses; yet, perhaps from novelty, I do not feel inclined to admit probability of Natural Selection having done its work so queerly. I will not discuss the second case of utter sterility, but your assumptions in Paragraph 13 seem to me much too complicated. I cannot believe so universal an attribute as utter sterility between remote species was acquired in so complex a manner. I do not agree with your rejoinder on grafting: I fully admit that it is not so closely restricted as crossing, but this does not seem to me to weaken the case as one of analogy. The incapacity of grafting is likewise an invariable attribute of plants sufficiently remote from each other, and sometimes of plants pretty closely allied. The difficulty of increasing the sterility through Natural Selection of two already sterile species seems to me best brought home by considering an actual case. The cowslip and primrose are moderately sterile, yet occasionally produce hybrids. Now these hybrids, two or three or a dozen in a whole parish, occupy ground which might have been occupied by either pure species, and no doubt the latter suffer to this small extent. But can you conceive that any individual plants of the primrose and cowslip which happened to be mutually rather more sterile (i.e. which, when crossed, yielded a few less seed) than usual, would profit to such a degree as to increase in number to the ultimate exclusion of the present primrose and cowslip? I cannot. My son, I am sorry to say, cannot see the full force of your rejoinder in regard to second head of continually augmented sterility. You speak in this rejoinder, and in Paragraph 5, of all the individuals becoming in some slight degree sterile in certain districts: if you were to admit that by continued exposure to these same conditions the sterility would inevitably increase, th
PREV.   NEXT  
|<   277   278   279   280   281   282   283   284   285   286   287   288   289   290   291   292   293   294   295   296   297   298   299   300   301  
302   303   304   305   306   307   308   309   310   311   312   313   314   315   316   317   318   319   320   321   322   323   324   325   326   >>   >|  



Top keywords:
sterility
 

sterile

 

species

 

Paragraph

 

plants

 

cowslip

 

primrose

 

rejoinder

 

Natural

 

Selection


degree
 

increase

 
closely
 

remote

 

grafting

 

attribute

 

acquired

 

extent

 

hybrids

 

animals


happened

 
conceive
 

individual

 

brought

 
moderately
 

actual

 

produce

 
occupy
 

ground

 

parish


occasionally

 

occupied

 

suffer

 

individuals

 

augmented

 

regard

 

continually

 

conditions

 

inevitably

 
exposure

continued

 
slight
 
districts
 

yielded

 

crossed

 

present

 

exclusion

 

profit

 

number

 

ultimate