RELATION OF NUMBER TO SIZE OF OFFSPRING. 229 



on number, and probably wholly so ; but of this I am not certain. When 

 we compare the foal with its mother, we do not find that disproportion 

 which exists between one pig and its mother, or one puppy and the 

 bitch. How far taking the whole Utter together, as one, will bear the 

 same proportion to the mother that the foal does to its mother, I do 

 not know. 



In the quadruped this relation, probably, varies the least of any ; for 

 if [the proportion be considered which] the whole litter bears to the 

 mother, then the variation is in common about one to ten or twelve. 



In other classes of animals which are oviparous, there is probably 

 not that necessity for such nicety [in this relation] ; yet, where they 

 hatch their young, some proportion as to size must exist between the 

 parent and generative product ; for it must be always within the power 

 of the parent to cover the eggs. However, even in this there is great 

 variety, from the dove-kind, which only lay two, to the wren, partridge, 

 &c, which lay sixteen. Here the bird would appear to be upon the 

 same footing [as the beast]. 



But when we come to still inferior classes of animals, we find the 

 relative size of the offspring to the parent to be much less. For instance, 

 of a turtle [Chelone] above 200 pounds weight, the egg shall not be larger 

 than that of a hen weighing only six or seven pounds. But then the 

 turtle lays some hundreds of eggs, while the hen only lays from sixteen 

 to twenty at most. The same, I should suppose, may be said of the 

 crocodile : however, not of all of that class of animals ; for in some 

 lizards, as the 'savage of the woods' \_T~hecadactylus Icevis] 1 , I never 

 saw but two eggs in the abdomen ; and in the viviparous snakes they 

 are upon the same footing [as regards number of young] with those 

 animals which are more immediately connected with the nourishing, 

 hatching, &c. of their young. 



The same observations are applicable to fishes ; for those which are 

 viviparous \_Spinax, Scoliodon, Torpedo'] have the fewest young : those 

 which hatch, as the guard-fish [Syngnaihus], the next ; and the common 

 fish, as the salmon, <fcc, the most of all ; and, in the same order, the 

 single young or egg bears a smaller proportionate size to the parent. 



In the insect class, those which take care of their eggs or young, and 

 have no assistance, have the fewest young ; such I believe to be the 

 case with some beetles, as the black-beetle \_Geotrupes], some of the 

 bee-tribe which have no assistance [i. e. no neuters or nurses], the 

 wasp-tribe. 



These facts show us why the young of many animals are so small, 



1 [Hunt. Prep. No. 3332.] 



