File:American bee journal (1894) (18113886801).jpg

Title: American bee journal
Identifier: americanbeejourn3394hami (find matches)
Year: 1861 (1860s)
Authors:
Subjects: Bee culture; Bees
Publisher: (Hamilton, Ill. , etc. , Dadant & Sons)
Contributing Library: UMass Amherst Libraries
Digitizing Sponsor: UMass Amherst Libraries

View Book Page: Book Viewer
About This Book: Catalog Entry
View All Images: All Images From Book
Click here to view book online to see this illustration in context in a browseable online version of this book.

Text Appearing Before Image:
AMERICAN BEE JOURNAL.. 495
Text Appearing After Image:
In-Breeliii£ In Plants anl Animals. Written for the American Be^- Journal BY HON. EUGENE SECOK. On page 220 I find a friendly criticism by Mr. O. P. Miller, of an essay pre- pared by me for the last annual meeting of our State Horticultural Society. After carefully reading his letter, I am convinced that about the only differ- ence between us is the meaning of the term " in-breeding." The proof he cites of wild birds and wild animals mating only with their own kind, I do not attempt to overthrow, but I do not call that in-breeding, unless he attempts to show that birds from the same nest, that is, brothers and sisters, or near relatives, habitually mate for propagating the species, which I do not believe. The same position is taken regarding all wild animals. I do not believe that near relatives mate, as a rule. I have no positive proof of this, but reason from analogy, which my own observation leads me to endorse, and cite further on, authorities to corroborate ray view. In a breed so well established and so widely known as the Hereford cattle, it is not necessary to breed within the lines of close consanguinity in order to keep the race pure. Relationship further removed than cousins I had not thought would be re- garded as coming within the meaning of the term. I am a breeder of Short-Horns, and have had a little experience in the prac- tice of in-breeding, which was not favor- able. I have also observed the practice in my neighbors, with common cattle, with like results. I have seen forced in- breeding for 10 or 15 years in an isola- ted poultry-yard, resulting in deteriora- ted stock. In the human family I have known several cases where cousins married to the evident disadvantage of the offspring. I do not base my objections to in- breeding alone on the Mosaic law for- bidding marriages between near relatives. I believe, however, the prohibition there inculcated is founded on sound physio- logical principles, which the human race had even then come to acknowledge. Is there a civilized (or uncivilized) nation on the face of the earth that practices it? If so, is it to their mental or phys- ical advantage, or otherwise ? The les- son learned from plant life is certainly against it. Hence I argue that it is contrary to nature, I do not maintain that an occasional judicious mating of near relatives, in order to fix some desirahle type, is not wise, but this does not dis- prove the general rule ; because while it is possible to perpetuate some desire- able type by close in-breeding, if not done with some definite result in view, and carried on in an intelligent manner, it may lead to very undesirable results. Defects are as likely to be transmitted and intensified by the practice as virtues —perhaps more so. Where one man can walk a rope over Niagara, ten thousand will fall in. So it is with this dangerous business of try- ing to improve nature's methods by vio- lating one of its fundamental laws—it requires a " level " head to succeed. But I wrote the article in question to show that bees were a necessary adjunct to horticulture ; that they were created for a wise purpose in connection with the growth, development and perfection of the vegetable kingdom. Experience has taught us that the flowers of certain plants need insect aid to perfect fertiliz- ation. What I meant by the benefits of cross-fertilization was, that it was an advantage to the individual plant to be fertilized by the pollen of some other individual plant of the same species, growing as far as possible from the first, and under different conditions. My authority for this statment is Charles Darwin, whose eleven years of careful and systematic experiments are in his book entitled " Cross and Self- Fertilization." To show how nature has provided against incestuous mating of flowers from the same plant, he says : "Cross-fertilization is sometimes en- sured by the sexes being separated, and in a large number of cases by the pollers and stigma of the same flower being matured at different times." Again, "Cross-fertilization is also ensured ini many cases by mechanical contrivances; of wonderful beauty, preventing the im-

Note About Images