A Note on Telegony, Xenia and " Hybrid Oology." 



By G. P. Bulmak. 



A good sub-title for this paper would be " not proven " ; as its object 

 is to point out that though we have few grounds for any belief in the 

 above phenomena, we have still fewer (apart from our personal wishes 

 regarding our view of the causes of heredity !) for disbelief. 



Telegony. 



The phenomenon for which this word was suggested l is, as tele- 

 gony, completely hypothetical at the present moment, and by a large 

 number of scientific men is regarded simply as a manifestation of 

 reversion. However, some consider that although in the great majority 

 of cases the effect is probably due to reversion, yet there are a few 

 cases (perhaps even less than one or two per cent as mentioned 

 by Eomanes 2 ) in which an effect is produced which is telegonic. 

 The fact that all those cases which are known, can be as easily ex- 

 plained by the one as by the other, makes scientific men feel rather 

 shy of introducing a new cause. A good catalogue of such cases will 

 be found in Natural Science, Dec. 1893, pp. 436-440, by Mr. F. 

 Finn. 



The first duty, therefore, of a student of this problem of heredity is 

 to prove its existence, and I think the best way to do this is to 

 reverse the usual experiments, and see if the progeny of a less highly 

 specialised pair do not sometimes display traces of the previous union 

 of the mother with a more highly specialised male ; these effects could 

 not be due to reversion. 



My friend, Mr. Alex. Meek, and I are at present engaged in 

 conducting experiments of this nature ; but telegony is probably of 

 such great rarity that it would be necessary for a very large number of 

 verdicts of " not proven " to be given before any conclusion as to its 

 non-existence could be arrived at. Perhaps the best experiment in 

 this way is that of the rabbits suggested in our letter in Natural 

 Science, Feb. 1899, p. 166. 



1 A. Weismann, " The Germ-Plasm," p. 383. 



2 G. J. Romanes, "An Examination of Weismannism," p. 199. 



39 2 



