22 QUEENSLAND AGRICULTURAL JOURNAL. [1 Juny, 1899. 
the pure offspring of Spanish merinos in England, Germany, France, America, 
Australia, or in any other country into. which merinos from Spain have been 
imported. All these are pure merinos, yet some merinos in Australia or Nev, 
Zealand may now be as differest from those in Spain as is a Clydesdale fron, 
an Arab. The term ‘purebred animals” refers chiefly to purity of descent. A 
pure breed is, therefore, quite a different thing from a cultivated one. The 
latter is a variety produced by methodical selection and other proceedings on 
the part of man with the intention of accomplishing certain aims. ‘ A cultivated” 
breed need not necessarily be a “ pure” breed. For instance, the French breeq 
of Lacharmoise, which I mentioned before, is a cultivated one, but avowedly of 
impure descent. If the term “ cultivated” is to be applied, the animals referred 
to must possess uniformity in their external Se os and constancy of 
transmission in the same degree, if possible, as wild animals. Until a breed of 
impure descent has really obtained all that, we can hardly be justified in callin 
it a “cultivated one.” I should apply that term, for instance, to all the well. 
established breeds of English sheep as well as to many valuable French breeds, 
that, though of unknown descent, Rb now possess special characteristics that arg 
transmitted with constancy, and that may thus be said to have become swz generis, 
Some breeds, again, may be cultivated and pure at the same time—namely, 
those, for instance, that have directly descended from pure Spanish merinos, and 
whose fleeces have attained a certain degree of perfection, owing to systematig 
selection. Such are all the highbred pure merino flocks in different parts of 
the world. 
I hope to have succeeded in clearly defining the terms “ breed,” “pure 
breed” and “ cultivated breed,” and I shall now say a few words about ‘‘cross, 
ing.” Dr. Manly Miles defines “crossing” as the pairing of animals belongin 
to distinct breeds, and in this limited sense it may be considered the opposite of 
in-and-in breeding. The same author expresses himself upon this subject ag 
follows :—‘‘ As the dominant peculiarities of the purebred animal are developed 
by a system of vigorous selection and inbreeding in a certain definite direction, 
they will also as readily disappear and become latent if the opposite practice of 
crossbreeding is resorted to, and this is one of the most uniform effects of this 
method of breeding. If a cross of two distinct breeds is effected by the selection 
of animals of equal power in the transmission of their peculiar characteristics, 
the tendency is to make dominant the original characters that the breeds had in 
common, and to obscure the special qualities that constituted their distinguishing 
characteristics. The greater the contrast presented in the two breeds, and the 
greater the specialisation of their qualities through the development of artificial 
characters, the stronger is the tendency to obscure the best siemens of each, 
and restore the original type from which they had been developed. In such 
cases the offspring would in all probability prove to be inferior in quality, from 
the inheritance of defects of both parents, without retaining the most desirable 
characters of either.” 
Professor Tanner remarks that “in the case of purebred animals there 
should be no opposing influence to weaken the hereditary tendencies of the 
offspring ; but, on the other hand, a concurrent and sympathetic nature, so that 
the Heredtae character may be confirmed and strengthened. Anything like a 
cross should be most jealously guarded against, as introducing a conflict of 
influences which impairs the character of the race.” 
It is generally admitted that in cases in which improvements are effected 
by crossing the greatest change is produced by the first cross, and that the 
improvement resulting from a repetition of the process is uniformly slight. 
This would undoubtedly be the case from the principle already presented; the 
greater the difference between the two parents, when one is prepotent in the 
transmission of its characters, the greater would be the resemblance of the 
offspring to the one, and the wider the divergence from the characters of the other 
arent; and, as the resemblance of the parents to each other would be gradually 
increased by successive crosses, the difference between the offspring and the 
inferior parent would as gradually be diminished at a similar rate. 
