AMERICAN BEE JOURNAL.. 



495 



In-Breeliii£ In Plants anl Animals. 



Written for the American Be^- Journal 

 BY HON. EUGENE SECOK. 



On page 220 I find a friendly criticism 

 by Mr. O. P. Miller, of an essay pre- 

 pared by me for the last annual meeting 

 of our State Horticultural Society. 



After carefully reading his letter, I 

 am convinced that about the only differ- 

 ence between us is the meaning of the 

 term " in-breeding." 



The proof he cites of wild birds and 

 wild animals mating only with their own 

 kind, I do not attempt to overthrow, but 

 I do not call that in-breeding, unless he 

 attempts to show that birds from the 

 same nest, that is, brothers and sisters, 

 or near relatives, habitually mate for 

 propagating the species, which I do not 

 believe. 



The same position is taken regarding 

 all wild animals. I do not believe that 

 near relatives mate, as a rule. I have 

 no positive proof of this, but reason 

 from analogy, which my own observation 

 leads me to endorse, and cite further on, 

 authorities to corroborate ray view. 



In a breed so well established and so 

 widely known as the Hereford cattle, it 

 is not necessary to breed within the 

 lines of close consanguinity in order to 

 keep the race pure. 



Relationship further removed than 

 cousins I had not thought would be re- 

 garded as coming within the meaning of 

 the term. 



I am a breeder of Short-Horns, and 

 have had a little experience in the prac- 

 tice of in-breeding, which was not favor- 

 able. I have also observed the practice 

 in my neighbors, with common cattle, 

 with like results. I have seen forced in- 

 breeding for 10 or 15 years in an isola- 

 ted poultry-yard, resulting in deteriora- 

 ted stock. In the human family I have 

 known several cases where cousins 

 married to the evident disadvantage of 

 the offspring. 



I do not base my objections to in- 

 breeding alone on the Mosaic law for- 

 bidding marriages between near relatives. 

 I believe, however, the prohibition there 

 inculcated is founded on sound physio- 

 logical principles, which the human 

 race had even then come to acknowledge. 

 Is there a civilized (or uncivilized) nation 

 on the face of the earth that practices 

 it? If so, is it to their mental or phys- 

 ical advantage, or otherwise ? The les- 

 son learned from plant life is certainly 

 against it. 



Hence I argue that it is contrary to 

 nature, I do not maintain that an 

 occasional judicious mating of near 

 relatives, in order to fix some desirahle 

 type, is not wise, but this does not dis- 

 prove the general rule ; because while 

 it is possible to perpetuate some desire- 

 able type by close in-breeding, if not 

 done with some definite result in view, 

 and carried on in an intelligent manner, 

 it may lead to very undesirable results. 

 Defects are as likely to be transmitted 

 and intensified by the practice as virtues 

 — perhaps more so. 



Where one man can walk a rope over 

 Niagara, ten thousand will fall in. So 

 it is with this dangerous business of try- 

 ing to improve nature's methods by vio- 

 lating one of its fundamental laws — it 

 requires a " level " head to succeed. 



But I wrote the article in question to 

 show that bees were a necessary adjunct 

 to horticulture ; that they were created 

 for a wise purpose in connection with 

 the growth, development and perfection 

 of the vegetable kingdom. Experience 

 has taught us that the flowers of certain 

 plants need insect aid to perfect fertiliz- 

 ation. What I meant by the benefits of 

 cross-fertilization was, that it was an 

 advantage to the individual plant to be 

 fertilized by the pollen of some other 

 individual plant of the same species, 

 growing as far as possible from the first, 

 and under different conditions. 



My authority for this statment is 

 Charles Darwin, whose eleven years of 

 careful and systematic experiments are 

 in his book entitled " Cross and Self- 

 Fertilization." 



To show how nature has provided 

 against incestuous mating of flowers 

 from the same plant, he says : 



"Cross-fertilization is sometimes en- 

 sured by the sexes being separated, and 

 in a large number of cases by the pollers 

 and stigma of the same flower being 

 matured at different times." Again, 

 "Cross-fertilization is also ensured ini 

 many cases by mechanical contrivances; 

 of wonderful beauty, preventing the im- 



