m 
SOUTHERN CULTIVATOR. 
INFLUENCE OF PARENTS ON PROGENY. 
The following chapter affords a subject for thought and 
•observation, and is interesting and instructive withal : 
Much difference of opinion prevails as to the relative in- 
fluence of the male and female parent in determining the 
character of the progeny. According to a very prevalent 
notion, the male bestows all valuable qualities, whether 
of form or of vigor; while the female is regarded merely 
as as a passive instrument which hatches, as it were, the 
■male seed — an absurd doctrine, long preserved from well- 
merited obloquy as a convenient excuse for carelessness 
and neglect in the selection of the female parent, A most 
ingenious hypothesis has lately been propounded by Mr. 
Orton, of Sunderland, in a paper published in the New- 
castle Chronicle of iOth March, 1 804, and noticed at con- 
siderable length in the monthly Medical Journal (or Au- 
,gust of the same year. The male animal, according to 
Mr. Orton, influences especially the external, and the fe- 
«nale the internal organization of the offspring. The out- 
ward form, general appearance, and organs of locomotion 
are chiefly determined l)y the male; the vital organs, size, 
.general vigor, and endurance, by the female. Many most 
interesting facts, of which wesulijoin a few, are adduced 
in support of this proposition. There are many I'easons 
■for believing that Mr. Orton’s views afford a clue to an im- 
portant law of physiology. But this, it must be remem- 
bered, cannot be the only law operating in the process of 
generation, and as Mr. Orton himself states, it must con- 
.sequently be liable to many modifleations, and must only 
be accep‘:ed with certain restrictions. Thus the parent, 
which at the time of copulation is more powerful and vig- 
orous, doubtless imparts to the progeny an unduly large 
^hare of its own prominent characteristics. 
The mule is the produce of a male ass and the mare ; 
■ihe hinny (or, as it is called, the mufo,) that of the horse 
and the she-ass. Both hybrids are the produce of the same 
set of animals. They difler widely, however, in their re- 
spective characters — the mule in all that relates to its ex- 
ternal character, having the distinctive features of the 
ass — the hinny, in the same respects, having all the dis- 
tinctive features of the horse ; while, in all that relates to 
the internal organs and vital qualities, the mule partakes of 
the characters of the horse, and the hinny of those of the 
ass. Mr. Orton, speaking of all this says : 
“The mule, the produce of the male ass and rnare, is 
■essentially a modified ass; the ears are those of an ass, 
somewhat shortened; the mane is that of the ass, erect; 
■the tail is that of the ass ; the skin and color are those of 
.an ass, somewhat modified ; the legs are slender, and the 
hoofs high, narrow, and contracted, like those of an ass; 
in fact, in all these respects, it is an ass, somewhat modi- 
fled. The body and barrel of the mule are round and full, 
in which it differs from the assaitd' resembles the mare. 
The hinny, (or muto,) on the other hand, the produce of a 
-stallion and a she-ass, is essentially a modified horse ; the 
•ears are those of a liorse, somewhat lengthened ; the mane 
flowing; the tail is bushy, like that of tlie horse ; the skin 
is fine, like that of a horse ; and the color varies also, like 
the horse; tlie legs are stronger, and the hoofs broad and 
expanded, like liiose of the horse. In fact, in all these re- 
spects, it is a liorse, somewhat modified. The body and 
barrel, however, of the hinny, are flat and narrow, in 
which it differs from the horse, and resembles its mother, 
the ass. Tl;e mule and hinny,” adds Mr Orton, “h.ave 
been selected and placeil firat, becau.se they afibrd the. 
most cnneluoive evidence, and are the most f miliar 
Equally conclusive, although perhaps less striking im-tan 
ces, may he drawn from odier sources. Thusit has been 
observe.! that wluu tlie bncona, or other sheep, are al- 
lowed tOj^reed with common ewes, the cross i.snot a me- 
dium betvveen the two breeds, but that the offspring re- 
tains, in a great measure, the short and twisted legs of the 
sire. 
Bufion made a cross between the male goat and the ewe * 
the resulting hybrid, in all instances, which were many,* 
were strongly characteristic of the male parent, more par- 
ticularly so in the hair and length of the leg. Curiously 
enough, the number of teats, in some of the cases, corres- 
ponded with those of the goat. 
A cross between a male wolf and a bitch illustrates the 
same law; the offspring having a markedly wolfish as- 
pect, skin, color, ears and tail. On the other hand, a 
cross between the dog and female wolf, afforded animals 
much more dog-like in aspect— slouched ears, and even 
pied in color. If you look to the descriptions and illus- 
trations of these two hybrids, you will perceive at a glance 
that the doubt arises to the mind in the case of the first, 
“What genus of tins'? whereas, in the case of the 
second, “What a curious mongrel dog!" 
Among birds, we have the same results, and they afford 
the like illustrations to our subject. Those who have had 
much to do with pigeons must have perceived that a cross 
between a ca-irier cock and a drcigoun hen, is always a 
fine bird, and very nearly equal to the carrier; whereas a 
cross between a dragoon cock and carrier hen results in 
nothing better than a dragoon. Precisely the same may 
be observed in the cross between the tumbler and pouter. 
“It is curious to observe,” continues Mr. Orton, “that 
the proposition I make regarding male influence should 
not only have been observed, but distinctly stated in so 
many words. Mr. Lloyd says: “The occa- 
sionally breed with the black grouse, and the produce are 
in Sweden called racktelianen. These partake ofthe lead- 
ing characters of both parents, but their size and color 
greatly depend upon whether they have been produced 
between the capercailli cock and gray hen, or vice versa. 
(Yarrel, p. 298 ) The liybrid between the pheasant and 
grouse is a striking illustration, sho^ving so clearly its male 
parent ; in almost all respects it is a pheasant, only the 
tail is slightly shortened. It may be observed, too, that 
the feathered feet of the grouse have disappeared in the off- 
spring. (Ibid, p. 309.) Another instance of the same 
cross is given, (p 311,) in which the general character- 
istics are those of the pheasant ; and this would have been 
still more striking if the tail had not been spread, a liber- 
ty, I suspect, either of the artist or the staffer of the speci- 
men. The legs, in this instance, are slightly feathered. 
Another hybrid is given (p. 313) between the ptarmigan 
and the grouse. Although the precise parentage of the 
bird is not stated, I am perfectly satisfied that in this case 
the grouse has been the male parent, and the tail indicated 
this, being somewhat forked and divergent. In your mu- 
seum there is an interesting specimen illustrating the same 
law, a hybrid between the pheasant and gray hen. In 
this case, the produce is pheasant-like in aspect, tail like 
the pheasant, but somewhat spread; no appearance of 
forking of the tail. 
Even in the breeding of fish, the same law has been ob- 
served. Sir Anthony Carlisle produced mule fish, by im- 
pregnating the spawn of the salmon by means of the male 
trout. The results I give in his own words : “These 
mules partook of the trout more than the salmon. They 
had bright red spots on their sides, but the black color 
was shaded downward in bars like the perch. Their 
tails were not forked like those of the salmon, as I have 
seen them in the Thames skeggers." We thus see in the 
case of fish, as in that of animals, the male parent giving 
the external characteristics ; those produced by the male 
trout had not forked tails ; the skeggers, on the other 
'land, produced by the male salmon, had forked tails. — 
Jour, of the Royal Agricultural Society. 
Difficulty enobles duty. 
