64 



THE TROPICAL AGR!CULTURIST. 



[JutY I, 1882. 



and Assam indigenous, its reputed pai'ents, are but 

 varieties of the same species, camellia theifera, and 

 before a hybrid can be produced there must be a 

 second species. The modest liope expressed that liis 

 wonderful suggestions should prove a restorative to 

 some bewildered brains is simply delicious, and we 

 must take it for granted — since the writer says 

 so — that the facts he alludes to !ire difficult of di- 

 gestion. I must confess that I have been unable to 

 discover them even after reading over the letter 

 •several times. 



"Your correspondent 'X.' (2ud May) makes me 

 say that ' there can be no such an occurrence as 

 hybridization among cinchonas,' &c. AVill 'X.' be 

 so good as to point out where I liave ever made 

 any statement that can, by the greatest stretch of 

 imagination, be construud into anythiog of llie sort? 

 I most distinctly deny ever haviug done so. Will 

 he at the same time till us whire hybrid h;ii-es or 

 rabbits are to be seen ? He writes as it sucli were 

 quite common, but I have never either seen or heard 

 of one. There are, of course, any number of varieties 

 of the common rabbit under domestication, as there 

 are of most other domestic animals : but is there any 

 known instance of the rabbit aud hare interbreeding 

 iu'a stale of nature? 



" In my last I quoted, as you did, that hybridity 

 in nature is exceedingly rare, and ventured the 

 opmiou that no single instance of hybridity among 

 either the indigenous plants or animals of Ceylon could 

 be pointed out, and inferred that hybrids in tlie 

 South American forests were equally rare, aud that 

 consequently, if C. pubescetiK of Howard could be proved 

 to be of Andes origin, we had no right to call it a 

 hybrid. But I certainly did not imagine that these 

 statements could be taken as expressing my belief iu 

 the non-occurrence of hybrid cinchonas in this country, 

 •where the unnatural — if I may U8e the term — condi- 

 tions of cultivation and close proximity of spec'es 

 naturally found a long way apart are most favorable 

 to hybridity. While thinking Ibat the Pata-de-Gal- 

 liuazo of Cross is a true species, I have not the slight- 

 est doubt that there are now many hybrid cinchonas 

 both in India aud Ceylon, liut at the same time feel 

 convinced that there are fur fewer than many people 

 think. With so many notable examples of known 

 hybrid origin among the cultivated begonias and 

 orchids, there is no deuyiug the pussibiliiy of hybridism, 

 either by intentional or accidentiil means, in the 

 vegetable kingdom ; but it is none the less true that 

 hybridity in nature is exceedingly rare," 



Ja.s. a. Gammie." 



" Darjiling, May 22nd, 1S82." 



On receiving Mr. Gammie's letter we thought it well 

 to " read up' on the subject of controversy. We have 

 accordingly read and noted what Darwin wrote on 

 hybrids and crosses, in his Animals and Plants under 

 Domestication (the 1868 edition) and the articles 

 " Hjbrid" in Chambers's Cyclopadia and " Hybridism'' 

 in the latest edition of the Encyclopedia Britannica. 

 The article in Ghamhers is, what most of the articles 

 are, multiwi in parvo and reliable. The more elabor- 

 ate article in the great book is confessedly a con- 

 densation of Darwin's already closely packed facts, 

 while the writer, G. J. Romanes, avowedly reflects 

 the Darwinian theory aud inferences. All the au- 

 thorities agree in the application of the term hybrid to the 

 offspring of parents belonging to two different species, 

 the word mongrel being used to distinguish the far 

 more common results of the union or croesing of 

 VASIETIBS more or less differing from each other. The 



first is a hybrid proper and the second a mongrel, 

 or more popularly a cross. So rare in nature is 

 the crossing process that the Latin word hijhrida is 

 derived from a Greek word which signifies an outrage. 

 But when animals or plants are domesticated, what 

 would ba an outrage on so-called natural laws be- 

 comes the rule, man profiting largely by the result 

 in improved breeds of horses, cattle, sheep and poultry, 

 as also in the increased fruitfuluess, or value other- 

 wise, of plants. As a general rule, but admitting of 

 many and striking exceptions, ths offspring of two 

 distiuct species is generally sterile ; the crossing of 

 varieties, on the other baud, gemrally results in im- 

 provement, in quality and in fertility. To this cross- 

 ing of varieties judiciously pursued we owe such 

 horses as the English racer, such cattle as the short- 

 horns, and such sheep as the best merinos and south- 

 downs ; as also the choicest fruits, vegetables aud 

 flowers of our gardens. Much is gained by preserv- 

 ing purity of race on the one hand, but, if in-and-in 

 breeding is carried too far, a cross with another vari- 

 ety is necessary to restore fertility and vigour. The 

 questions of course arise,. What is a species? and 

 What is a variety ? and often it is not easy to answer. 

 The well-marked variety sometimes only wants a 

 sufficiency of time to become a distinct form with all 

 the qualities of a species, esijecially that of producing 

 sterile offspring if by the agency of insects or of man 

 it i< crossed by a separate species. On the other hand, 

 varieties, like hybrids, have often a strong tendency to 

 reversion : to going back to the parent or original 

 type. Darwin, the foundation principle of whose 

 system is the descent or development of all organisms 

 from a common ancestor, naturally enough oc- 

 civeioually uses the terms hybrids or mongrel convert- 

 ibly. As our readers are aware, the keen observer who 

 has recently dejjarted, and the members of liis school 

 ncluding now the vast majority of naturalists and 

 scientific men, do not believe that what we call 

 species, or even genera and orders, however dissimilar 

 in habits and characteristics they may be, were 

 created distinct or so existed from the beginning. 

 Creation with the Darwinists who do not deny the 

 existence of a Creator (and many of them, like their 



master, devoutly acknowledge such an existence) 



creation to them signifies simply the production of 

 matter stamped with certain laws under which varied 

 and progressive life is developed, — from the jellyfish 

 to the man of highest intellect ; from the lowest 

 cryptogam to the nobleat oak or palm. The differences 

 which have arisen aud iu time stamped themselves on 

 various forms, classified now for convenience sake 

 into species, genera, orders, &o., were due to circum- 

 stances of locality and surroundings, abundance of 

 food or its absence, &c. We are old enougli to 

 remember the time when to talk of the transmutation 

 of species would stamp a man as being uusci^ntific and 

 ignorant, as much as would his expressed belief in 

 the transmuting of mctds. Now the highest 

 order of science recognizes such transmutations in the 

 past ns the explanation of all we see in ourselves and 

 in our relatives of the animal and plant world, and 

 looks for such trausmutatioua in the future 



