35 



ascertain if, apart from tlieir individual genius and aims, they 

 obey or seem to obey one common law ? 



The English sheep-breeder — from reasons easy to compre- 

 hend, aims at carcase rather than wool — the Australian at 

 wool rather than carcase. In these different objects do we 

 find them both adhering to one practice. Is the path by which 

 each seeks to obtain perfection but a different bye- way of the 

 one high road ? 



I believe the answer to be that all intelligent breeders pur- 

 sue and have pursued one common route, though their paths 

 may differ. They all breed, or try to breed, in-and-in. 



Their aim may be for carcase or for wool ; and again, 

 amongst wool-breeders for combing or for clothing wools. 

 But all experience shows that speciality and excellence in any 

 one quality is to be obtained only by breeding in-and-in ; by 

 breeding like with like. And though not a part of my subject, 

 I may remark parenthetically, that with cattle and horses the 

 same general law is accepted. 



This point, the necessity of in-and-in breeding, I am com- 

 pelled to assume ; it would take me too long to bring before 

 you evidence in support of what I assert, and I doubt if it be 

 necessary. 



But it is curious and illustrative of our scientific ignorance 

 of breeding, that whilst every celebrated horse, or bull, or 

 cow, or sheep, is invariably' the result of in-and-in breeding, 

 th9 wide and fixed popular prejudice is against it, and is ia 

 favour of cross-breeding. And whilst every farmer or squatter, 

 if he wish to improve his breed, will give an extravagant price 

 for an animal, which is the triumphant proof of what in-and- 

 in breeding in certain hands can achieve, yet as a rule, you 

 will find he declines to breed in-and-in himself, generally 

 alleging that he has tried it and that it does not pay. 



At present what is the practice, or what is I believe the 

 practice ? It is to confine on one station so many thousand 

 sheep of both sexes. If not to breed together absolutely 

 hugger-mugger fashion, yet subject to the selection of the 

 drafter, who culls and rejects all inferior specimens, to let 

 the rest breed together, fathers, mothers, sons, and daughters 

 promiscuously, and regardless of all shades of afiinity. 



But I argue that this is illogical. If affinity considered in 

 the gross has worked such wonders— if the mere shutting out 

 all foreign strains of blood has done so much for breeding — 

 what might not be effected if the principle were carried out, 

 and applied in the minor shades scientifically ? 



Might not this law, if applied scientiflcalli/, save the expense 

 and time wasted and lost in breeding the animals, which after 

 all have to be culled and sent to the butcher ? Not that the 



