The figures given here were taken from Dr. Weckherlin's textbook more than 15 years ago. This number may thus be added to those now given :"The King of Würtemberg's stud of pure Arabs have been bred exceedingly close for 60 odd years with good results-the best breeds of Dutch cattle for 50 years; the cattle of the Canton Schwytz, 40 years; the Swiss Gurteurind cattle, 60 years; the Simmenthaler cattle, 40 years; the merino flock of Achalm, 50 odd years. It is also the case with the most famous fine-woolled flocks of Saxony, Silesia, Moravia, and Mecklenburg."

Whether this applies to some of the best Tasmanians, I am not in the position to state. It has been stated that some of them have been Vermontised. That wonderful flock of Ercildoun, so far as the quality of its wool is concerned, which I saw at the hey-day of its greatest popularity (1867), represented then the unalloyed progeny of the old Campden as the result of careful selection and subsequent inbreeding.

So far as domestic animals are concerned, inbreeding, along with systematic selection, wherever anything like suitable material is present, has been proved to be the only rational method by which superior breeds with strong transmitting power can be formed.

The question of intermarriages between near relations-so far as the human family is concerned-does not affect the breeder of domestic animals. We know from our observations of the life of wild animals that the closest possible inbreeding frequently occurs, and that, in spite of it, the wild races are strong and healthy. We are thus justified in believing that, just as much as disposition to diseases and idiocy may be intensified in the progeny if near relations so constituted will intermarry, just so much will health, physical strength, and mental capacities be improved if the breeder persistently excludes any weak animals.

On the whole, I believe we are safe in considering that the good or bad effects of in-and-in breeding entirely depend upon the constitution of the animals. Strong and healthy ones will transfer good constitutions to their offspring. A tender and weak race that is bred in-and-in will soon come to an end. Of such instances the history of merinos furnishes many. Animals of bad constitutions should always be excluded from breeding, no matter how good they might be in other respects. In spite of what may be said against it, there is not the slightest doubt that in-and-in breeding affords us the only means of thoroughly consolidating an improved breed, so long as it is carried on with judgment, and is assisted by careful selection and good feeding.

Having expressed myself to a certain degree an advocate of inbreeding, I think I should also make a few remarks on what is generally termed crossing. In order to avoid any misconception about the meaning in which I intend to make use of that word, I shall settle, first of all, by clear definitions, a few terms which I shall be obliged to use pretty frequently. We must make a distinction between a cultivated breed and a pure breed, and we have to settle the question what is a breed. Breeds or races are varieties of the same species, which varieties, through having been under the same influence of climate, food, and method of living, &c., for years, have adopted certain peculiarities, and a general type of their own. We may say a breed is a variety that has become sui generis: for instance, the Maoris in New Zealand, the Japanese, the Shetland pony, A pure breed has never been mixed with other varieties. The Maoris and the Australian blacks probably descended from common progenitors, yet each of these nations, having lived separated from the other for a great number of years, have become distinct races. The safest test or the truest indication of their purity consists in the uniformity and constancy with which they transfer their distinctive characteristics. With reference to animals, this would chiefly apply to wild or semi-domesticated races; for instance, to the wild chamois goats in Switzerland and the original country sheep of Spain. Purebred animals are therefore the progeny of a pure breed in the sense I have explained. In speaking of pure merinos I mean that the sheep in question are the descendants of merinos that lived in Spain, and that have suffered no admixture of blood not originating from that country-for instance,

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 New Zealand may now be as differest from those in Spain as is a Clydesdale from 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 breed 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 appearance, 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 calling it a "cultivated one." I should apply that term, for instance, to all the wellestablished breeds of English sheep as well as to many valuable French breeds, that, though of unknown descent, do now possess special characteristics that are transmitted with constancy, and that may thus be said to have become sui 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 systematic selection. Such are all the highbred pure merino flocks in different parts of the world.

pure

I hope to have succeeded in clearly defining the terms "breed," breed" and "cultivated breed," and I shall now say a few words about "crossing." Dr. Manly Miles defines "crossing" as the pairing of animals belonging 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 as 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 characters 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 hereditary 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 parent; 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.

Crossing is not, as a rule, the method by which the best breeds are produced. It is still resorted to, however, by owners of common sheep, in the belief that crossing with highbred animals affords a much easier and shorter way of improving a breed than selection and inbreeding. The latter, on the other hand, is generally followed in the very best and the most inferior flocks - in superior flocks, because there might be no obvious necessity of infusing another kind of blood, particularly considering the danger that the blood freshly infused might be followed by serious reversions. Very common flocks are inbred, simply because the owners do not think it worth their while to attempt improvements. In some cases crossing becomes imperative if a breed is comparatively free from the qualities we desire. The common merino flocks in Germany are produced through continued crosses of the common long-woolled country sheep with pure merinos. The mongrels so produced differ very slightly from their purebred ancestors on the side of the sire. There can be no doubt that we might succeed very well in making lasting improvements by continual crosses with superior blood if the general conditions are favourable. In a case like the one I mentioned, crossing amounted really to what might be called an entire subjugation of the inferior blood. Animals of the fifth and sixth generations, produced by fresh crosses, contain, practically speaking, scarcely any inferior blood at all, and they might answer very well for ordinary purposes; but we should certainly not attempt to use any of them for stud purposes.

If crossing amounts to nothing more than amalgamating two breeds that have derived their distinctive characters through selection and inbreeding, but have originally sprung from the same ancestors, it might be justifiable. If it were possible to amalgamate the densely woolled, regularly stapled, and well covered Saxon merinos with the longer stapled and open woolled sheep of Victoria, such as the old Ercildouns and similar types, we might eventually establish breeds of the highest possible perfection that can be attained. I for one doubt whether such an amalgamation would be successful, except after a long time, owing to the great constancy of transmitting which either of these breeds possesses.

Some breeders make periodical infusions of fresh blood into their flocks simply for the purpose of avoiding anything that might approach in-and-in breeding, for fear of destroying the constitutions of their sheep. I have already made suitable comments on that point. Others, again, keep on crossing individuals of two distinct breeds in order to obtain halfbred stock to be reared and fattened for the butcher. As the crossbred wool obtained from crosses between the heavy English breeds and merinos has fetched very satisfactory prices, many of such crosses have been carried out in almost every part of Australia, and the crossbred sheep do quite as well in North Queensland as they do in the Southern colonies. If that style of wool should be in permanent demand, and fetch good prices, it might be better to import an English breed out of which even a better style of that class of wool might be developed.

It is evident that those who are desirous of improving a breed by crossing will have to deal with the following questions:-1. What degree of inheritance does either of the two breeds possess? 2. Are the animals that are to be crossed very different in external appearance, and what kind of animals were the ancestors of either side with reference to the qualities we wish to cultivate, and to the degree of inheritance they are likely to exercise?

In the foregoing explanations I have tried to explain the general principles of breeding domestic animals, as they are-1st, based upon the results of scientific inquiries on the part of naturalists; 2nd, backed up by the most successful practical breeders. I shall now mention a few facts that will serve to illustrate the principle of transmission generally. It has been observed that "if animals of a common stock are crossed with thoroughbred ones, it mostly happens that the improving influence of the thoroughbred animals is chiefly noticed. about the head, the neck, and the forequarters. The hindquarters are said to exhibit a greater tendency to resist the refining influence of the thoroughbred sire." From my own observation amongst sheep, I am inclined to think that

that this observation holds good. I have frequently noticed, particularly in newborn lambs, that the improvement in the quality of the wool derived from a wellbred ram is clearly visible in the parts I have mentioned, whilst the others remained coarse. A number of fine-woolled Negretti rams were put with a flock of comparatively mixed elements. A great number of the lambs so got strongly resembled the fine-woolled purebred rams about the head and the forequarters ; the hindquarters were much coarser-in some cases even hairy. This naturally leads us to the question whether the male sex has a special influence on some portions of the body of his offspring, and the female on others. I mean whether the influence of either sex is confined to special provinces. Dr. Miles has devoted a whole chapter to the relative influence of the parents, yet the evidence collected by him is somewhat contradictory. Some cases in his evidence may be explained by reversion.

Animals of superior condition and health, particularly if they are active and lively, generally transfer their peculiarities better than torpid and sluggish ones; neither do very young and very aged ones transfer so well as those in the prime of life. Not only natural qualities are transferred, but those also which have been systematically developed through the will of the breeder. The evidence of a number of experienced dairy farmers seems to corroborate the notion that cows can be very much improved as milk-producers through frequent and careful milking, and also through a system of feeding being adopted that exercises a special developing influence on the udder calculated to keep it in healthy activity. It is reasonable to suppose that cows so treated will produce offspring of similar tendencies. Perhaps it might not be out of place here to mention that I have seen preserved in spirit, taken out of it, and shown to be handled-the genitals of a bull with a fully developed udder. I have no doubt this curiosity still exists. in the Anatomical Museum at Berlin, where I have seen it on three different occasions, and I am prepared to bring authentic proofs of the apparently extraordinary statement which I have made. The fact in itself might be explained in several ways, and each of them has an interesting feature of its own. Let us suppose that the udder in question, which, according to Professor Gurlt's testimony, was moderately filled with a milky fluid when fresh, was nothing but an instance of reversion. If we wish to account for it in this way, we must suppose that the earliest progenitors of the animal in question, or, for that matter, of all our domestic animals, had udders and allowed them to be suckled. We are justified in supposing such to be probable from analogy, because there are tribes of birds where males and females do the hatching of the eggs in turns. The exceeding scarcity of such udders amongst the males at the present time might be attributed to discontinuance of their use-the teats are there still, and their size and position in the male are now considered to be good indications whether the daughters of such males are likely to be good milk-producers. Perhaps the existence of the udder in the case in question may be accounted for as the result of an effort on the part of the breeder to breed for large and good udders. The probably strong development of the mother's udder, and the judicious treatment of the animal on the part of the owner, exercised a favourable influence on the growth of the udder in the male calf.

In this case a valuable point has been artificially produced, and has become transmitted. A case is mentioned in the Journal of the Royal Agricultural Society, where the tendency of producing milk was very nearly lost altogether through not sufficient attention having been paid to this matter. Professor Tanner says he knew of a very striking instance of the loss of milk in a flock (previously celebrated for their supply of milk) being traced entirely to the use of a well-formed ram bred from a ewe singularly deficient in milk.

Dr. Miles says:-"It is well known to the breeders of Ayrshire cattle taat the sire has, an important influence upon the form and the functional activity of the udder, and the position and development of the false teats of the bull are believed to furnish an indication of the milking qualities he will be likely to transmit. In the large number of grade Ayrshires that I have bred for dairy purposes, the udder, in most instances, has resembled the family type

of the sire in form and general proportions. The males of the dairy breeds generally are prepotent in the transmission of the characteristics of the females of their race.

I shall now quote from the same source a few instances which prove that qualities acquired by habit, practice, or training are also inheritant.

A new instinct has become hereditary in a mongrel race of dogs employed by the inhabitants of the banks of the Magdalena almost exclusively in hunting the white-lipped peccary. The peculiarity of these dogs consist in their restraining their ardour, and attaching themselves to no individual animal in particular, but keeping the whole in check. Now, amongst these dogs some are found which, the first time they are taken to the woods, are acquainted with this mode of attack, whereas a dog of another breed starts forward at once, is surrounded by the peccaries, and, whatever may be his strength, is destroyed immediately.

A race of dogs employed for hunting deer in the platform of Santa Fé, in Mexico, is distinguished by the peculiar mode in which they attack their game. This consists in seizing the animal by the belly, and overturning it by a sudden effort, taking advantage of the moment when the body of the deer rests only upon his forelegs, the weight of the animal thus thrown being often six times that of his antagonist. Now, the dog of pure breed inherits a disposition of this kind of chase, and never attacks a deer from before while running; and even should the deer, not perceiving him, come directly upon him the dog steps aside and then makes his assault upon the flank. On the other hand, European dogs, though of superior strength and sagacity, are destitute of this instinct, and for want of similar precautions they are often killed by the deer on the spot, the cervical vertebræ being dislocated by the violence of the shock. Herbert Spencer says, in his "Principles of Biology": "Mr. Lewes had a puppy taken from his mother at six weeks old, which, although never taught to beg (an accomplishment his mother had been taught), spontaneously took to begging for everything he wanted when about seven or eight months old. He would beg for food, beg to be let out of the room, and one day was found opposite the rabbit-hutch, apparently begging the rabbits to come out and play."

Darwin says: "I find in the domestic duck that the bones of the wing weigh less and the bones of the leg more in proportion to the whole skeleton than do the same bones of the wild duck, and I presume that this change may safely be attributed to the domestic duck flying much less and walking much more than its wild parent. The great and inheritant development of udders in cows and goats in countries where they are habitually milked in comparison with the state of these organs in other countries is another instance of the effects of use." So far Darwin. I have mentioned on a former occasion that mental peculiarities are as much inheritant as those of the body. Weckherlin says that, according to his experience, "horses whose ancestors were easily trained are generally more docile than others." The horses in Arabia are certainly treated in a different manner to our Australian stockhorses. The gentleness and docility of the Arab horse are proverbial. Many of the qualities, however, which seem to have been artificially inculcated into the parent animals, and have reappeared in the offspring, have probably existed in the blood of the ancestors, and were merely developed through being cultivated.

With reference to accidental mutilations being inherited, Darwin mentions the remarkable case observed by Brown Sequard of epilepsy produced by injuring the spinal cord of guinea pigs being inherited. In his experiments with guinea pigs Dr. Brown Sequard observed that in those subjected to a particular operation, involving a portion of the spinal cord or sciatic nerve, a slight pinching of the skin of the face would throw the animals into a kind of epileptic convulsion. When these epileptic guinea pigs bred together, their offspring showed the same predisposition without having been themselves subjected to any lesion whatever; while no such tendency showed itself in any of the large number of young which were bred from parents that had not been operated upon.