316 
THE CULTIVATOR 
Sept 
From a daguerreotype by W. H. Gilman. 
This animal was bred by Mens. Cugnot, of the department of Seine et Oire, France, and owned by S. W. Jew¬ 
ett, H. S. Morse, and O. F. Holabird, of Vermont. Mr. Jewett has imported, during the last year and this, 
583 of the pure bred French Merinos, at a great cost, selected by himself, from the three best flocks in Franec. 
Breeding Stock. 
Messrs. Editors-— It is with pleasure that I have read 
the remarks by “ one who six days in seven wears thick 
boots,” upon the above subject. I have no doubt that 
lie, and those of his class, will, by careful observation, 
and their habits of judging for themselves, be able to 
arrive at the truth, when this cannot be attained by ab¬ 
stract reasoning; and it was for the purpose of directing 
their attention to a matter of deep importance, that I 
■wrote the article published in the May number of the 
Cultivator. 
I now write for the purpose, not of getting up a con¬ 
troversy with one who does not choose to adopt my views, 
but to correct some errors which it appears he has fallen 
into, in regard to the legitimate deductions which may 
be drawn from what was written in that article. 
In the first place it is of no practical importance wheth¬ 
er the peculiar influence which causes the offspring of 
animals to differ from their parents, be a contamination 
of the mother, by means of former pregnancies, or if this 
change be the product of an active imagination. If the 
result is proved, it is immaterial as to its source, so far 
as the propriety of guarding against a similar failure in 
the future is concerned; but to guard against disappoint¬ 
ment, it may be necessary to ascertain their source be¬ 
yond doubt. Although it may well be doubted whether 
the imagination can extend beyond the period of con¬ 
ception, as it must have done in every instance cited in 
the article referred to, it is now too late to deny the cor¬ 
rectness of the observations made. Many, very many 
more might be adduced, in regard to the domestic ani¬ 
mals, than were, presented in May, but it is supposed they 
must be sufficient; yet, as a matter of interest to all, I 
will venture to occupy a little space in referring to similar 
instances among mankind. Prof. Simpson, of Edinburgh, 
Scotland, says: 
<c Mrs. ——. a neighbor of Mr. McCombie, was twice 
married, and had issue by both husbands. The children 
by the first marriage were five in number, of the second 
three. One of these three, a daughter, bears an unmis¬ 
takable resemblance to her mother’s first husband. What 
makes the likeness the more discernable is that there was 
the most marked difference in their features and general 
appearance, between the two husbands.” 
Again, Dr. Simpson writes: 
“ Dr. George Oglevie, of this city informs me of a case 
which fell under his own observation, where a woman 
was twice married, and had children by both husbands, 
and when the children by both marriages were scrofulous, 
although only the first husband had marks of that dia¬ 
thesis, the woman herself and her second husband, being 
to all appearance quite healthy.” 
A similar case was communicated to Dr. Harvey by 
Professor Pirre, of Aberdeen; and many others still may 
be found recorded among the writings of physicians who 
have had no interest in presenting anything but the truth 
to the public. 
Dr. Harvey remarks of these cases, that —“ before the 
mother could have imparted the scrofulous taint to her 
offspring by the second husband, she must herself, have 
imbibed it from her first husband, through the medium 
of his offspring w r hile in utero. And, although still 
seemingly free of the taint, it may have required only the 
appropriate external condition to call it into full activity 
in her own person. And, with regard to the syphilitic 
