AMERICAN AGRICULTURIST 
57 
BREEDING ANIMALS. 
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 
relative influence of the male and female 
parent in determining the characters of the 
progeny. According to a very prevalent 
notion, the male bestows all valuable quali¬ 
ties, whether of form or of vigor; while the 
female is regarded merely as a passive in¬ 
strument 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 in¬ 
genious hypothesis has lately been pro¬ 
pounded by Mr. Orton of Sunderland, in a 
paper published in the Newcastle Chronicle 
of 10th March, 1854, and noticed at consid¬ 
erable length in the Monthly Medical Jour¬ 
nal for August of the same year. The male 
animal, according to Mr. Orton, influences 
especially the external, and the female the 
internal organization of the offspring. The 
outward form, general appearance, and or¬ 
gans of locomotion are chiefly determined by 
the male ; the vital organs, size, general 
vigor, and endurance, by the female. Many 
most interesting facts, of which we subjoin 
a few, are adduced in support of this prop¬ 
osition. There are many reasons for be¬ 
lieving that Mr. Orton's views afford a clue 
to an important law of physiology. But this, 
it must be remembered, can not be the only 
law operating in the process of generation, 
and as Mr. Orton himself states, it must con¬ 
sequently be liable to many modifications, 
and must only be accepted with certain re¬ 
strictions. Thus the parent, which at the 
time of copulation is more powerful and vig¬ 
orous, doubtless imparts to the progeny an 
unduly large share of its own prominent 
characters. 
The mule is the produce of a male ass and 
the mare ; the hinny, (or as it is called the 
muto) that of the horse and the she-ass. 
Both hybrids are the produce of the same 
set of animals. They differ widely, how¬ 
ever, in their respective characters—the mule 
in all that relates to its external characters, 
having the distinctive features of the ass— 
the hinny, in the same respects, having all 
the distinctive features of the horse ; while, 
in all that relates to the internal organs anc 
vital qualities, the mule partakes of the char¬ 
acters of the horse, and the hinny of those 
ofthe ass. Mr. Orton, speaking of this says : 
“ The mule, the produce of the male ass and 
mare, 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 an 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 re¬ 
spects it is an ass somewhat modified. The 
body an barrel of the mule ax-e round and 
full, in which it differs from the ass, and re¬ 
sembles the mare. The hinny, (or muto) on 
the other hand, the produce of the stallion 
and she-ass, is essentially a modified horse ; 
the ears are those of a horse somewhat 
lengthened ; the mane flowing ; the tail is 
bushy, like that of the horse ; the skin is fine, 
like that of the horse; and the color varies 
also like the horse ; the legs are stronger, 
and the hoofs broad and expanded, like those 
of the horse. In fact, in all these respects, 
it is a horse somewhat modified. The body 
and barrel, however, ofthe hinny are flat and 
narrow, in which it differs from the horse, 
and resembles its mother the ass. The mule 
and hinny,” adds Mr. Orton, “ have been se¬ 
lected and placed first, because they afford 
the most conclusive evidence, and are the 
most familiar.” Equally conclusive, although 
perhaps less striking instances, may be drawn 
from other sources. Thus it has been ob¬ 
served, that when the Ancona,or othersheep, 
are allowed to breed with common ewes, the 
cross is not a medium between the two breeds, 
but that the offspring i - etains in a great meas¬ 
ure the short and twisted legs of the sire. 
Buffon made a cross between the male 
goat and ewe ; the resulting hybrid in all the 
instances, which were many, were strongly 
characteristic of the male parent, more pax - - 
ticularly so in the hair and length of leg. 
Curiously enough, the number of teats in 
some of the cases corresponded with those 
of the goat. 
A cross between a male wolf and a bitch 
illustrates the same law ; the oft’spi-ing hav¬ 
ing a markedly wolfish aspect, 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 desci-iptions and illustrations 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 wolf 
is this 1” whereas in the case of the second, 
“ What a curious mongrel dog l" 
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 carrier cock and a dragoon 
hen, is always a fine bird, and very nearly 
equal to the carrier; whereas a cross be¬ 
tween a dragoon cock and carrier hen re¬ 
sults in nothing better than a dragoon. Pi'e- 
cisely the same may be observed in the 
cross between the tumbler and pouter. 
“ It is curious to observe,” continues Mr. 
Orton, that the proposition 1 make regarding 
male influence should not only have been 
observed, but distinctly stated in so many 
words. Mr. Lloyd says : “ The capercailli 
occasionally breed with the black grouse, and 
the produce are in Svveeden called racklelia- 
nen. These partake of the leading charac¬ 
ters of both parents, but their size and color 
greatly depend upon whether they have been 
produced between the capercailli cock and 
gray hen,oraiceaer^a.(Yarrell,p. 298.) The 
hybrid between the pheasant and grouse is 
a striking illustration, showing so clearly its 
male parent; in almost all respects it is a 
pheasant, only the tail slightly shortened. 
It may be observed, too, that the feathered 
feet of the grouse have disappeared in the 
offspring. (Ibid. p. 309.) Another instance of 
the same cross, is given, (p. 311) in which 
the general characteristics are those of the 
pheasant; and this would have been still 
more striking if the tail had not been spread, 
a liberty, I suspect, either of the artist or 
the stuffer of the specimen. The legs in this 
instance are slightly feathered. Another 
hybrid is given (p. 313) between the ptarmi¬ 
gan and the grouse. Although the precise 
parentage of the bird is not stated, I am per¬ 
fectly satisfied that in this case the grouse 
has been the male parent, and the tail indi¬ 
cated this, being somewhat forked and di¬ 
vergent. In your museum there is an in¬ 
teresting specimen illustrating the same law, 
a hybrid between the pheasant and greyhen. 
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 observed. Sir Anthony Carlisle 
produced mule fish, by impregnating the 
spawn of the salmon by means of the male 
trout. The results 1 give in his own words : 
“ These mules partook of the character of 
the trout more than of the salmon. They 
had bright red spots on their sides, but the 
black color was shaded dowmward in bars 
like those of the perch. The tails were not 
forked like those of the salmon, as I have 
seen them in the Thames skeggers (from 
which I infer the male salmon in that case 
to have been the impregnators.”) We thus 
see in the case of fish, as in that of animals, 
the male parent giving the external charac¬ 
teristics ; those produced by the male trout 
had not forked tails; the skeggers, on the 
other hand, produced by the male salmon, 
had forked tails.—Jour, ofthe Roy. Ag. So. 
CURING BACON WITHOUT SMOKE. 
“ Oh the trouble folks have taken 
To smoke and spoil their bacon. - ’ 
To make the best bacon, fat your hogs 
early and fat them well. By fattening early 
you make a great saving in food, and well 
fattened pork. Then kill as early as the 
weather will allow, and salt as soon as the 
animal heat is gone, rvith a plenty of the 
purest salt, and about half an ounce of salt¬ 
petre to one hundred pounds of pork. 
As soon as the meat is salted to your taste, 
which will generally be in about five weeks, 
take it out, and if any of it has been cov¬ 
ered with brine, let it drain a little. Then 
take black pepper, finely ground, and dust on 
the hock end as much as will stick, then hang 
it up in a good, clean, dry, airy place. If 
all this is done as it should be, (it ought to be 
done now,) you will have no further trouble 
with it, for by fly time in spring, your bacon 
is so well cured on the outside, that flies or 
bugs will not disturb it. 
Curing bacon is like the Irishman’s mode 
of making punch. He said, “ Put in the 
sugai - , then fill it up with whiskey, and every 
drop of water you put in after that spoils the 
punch.” Just so with curing bacon, after 
following the directions given above, every 
“ di-op ” of smoke you put about it, spoils the 
bacon.—-Portage Dem. 
