Comparison with 1861 |
|
By a reciprocal cross between two species, I mean the case, for instance, of a stallion-horse
being first crossed with
a female-ass,
and then a male-ass with a mare:
these two species may then be said to have been reciprocally crossed. There is often the widest possible difference in the facility of making reciprocal crosses. Such cases are highly important, for they prove that the capacity in any two species to cross is often completely independent of their systematic affinity, or
of any recognisable
difference in their whole organisation.
↑1 blocks not present in 1859 1860 1861; present in 1866 1869 1872 | The diversity of result
in reciprocal crosses between the same two species was long ago observed by Kölreuter.
|
On the other hand, these cases clearly show that the capacity for crossing is connected with constitutional differences imperceptible by us, and confined to the reproductive system. This difference in the result of reciprocal crosses between the same two species was long ago observed by Kölreuter. To give an instance: Mirabilis
jalapa jalapa 1860 1861 1866 1869 1872 | jalappa 1859 |
can easily be fertilised by the pollen of M. longiflora, and the hybrids thus produced are sufficiently fertile; but Kölreuter tried more than two hundred times, during eight following years, to fertilise reciprocally M. longiflora with the pollen of M.
jalapa, jalapa, 1860 1861 1869 1872 | jalappa, 1859 | Jalapa, 1866 |
and utterly failed. Several other equally striking cases could be given. Thuret has observed the same fact with certain sea-weeds or Fuci. Gärtner, moreover, found that this difference of facility in making reciprocal crosses is extremely common in a lesser degree. He has observed it even between forms so
closely related (as
Matthiola annua and glabra) that
many botanists rank them
only as varieties. It is also a remarkable fact, that hybrids raised from reciprocal crosses, though of course compounded of the very same two species, the one species having first been used as the father and then as the mother, generally
differ in fertility
in a small, and occasionally in a high degree. |
|
Several other singular rules could be given from
|
By a reciprocal cross between two species, I mean the case, for instance, of a
stallion-horse stallion-horse 1859 1860 1861 1866 1869 | female-ass 1872 |
being first crossed
with with 1859 1860 1861 1866 1869 | by 1872 |
a
female-ass, female-ass, 1859 1860 1861 1866 1869 | stallion, 1872 |
and then a
male-ass with a mare: male-ass with a mare: 1859 1860 1861 1866 1869 |
mare by a male-ass; 1872 |
these two species may then be said to have been reciprocally crossed. There is often the widest possible difference in the facility of making reciprocal crosses. Such cases are highly important, for they prove that the capacity in any two species to cross is often completely independent of their systematic affinity,
or or 1859 1860 1861 1866 1869 | that is 1872 |
of any
recognisable recognisable 1859 1860 1861 | recognisable 1866 1869 1872 |
difference in their
whole organisation. whole organisation. 1859 1860 1861 |
whole organisation, except in their reproductive systems. 1866 1869 |
structure or constitution, excepting in their reproductive systems. 1872 |
↑1 blocks not present in 1859 1860 1861; present in 1866 1869 1872 | The diversity of result
in reciprocal crosses between the same two species was long ago observed by Kölreuter.
|
On the other hand, these cases clearly show that the capacity for crossing is connected with constitutional differences imperceptible by us, and confined to the reproductive system. This difference in the result of reciprocal crosses between the same two species was long ago observed by Kölreuter. To give an instance: Mirabilis
jalappa jalappa 1859 | jalapa 1860 1861 1866 1869 1872 |
can easily be fertilised by the pollen of M. longiflora, and the hybrids thus produced are sufficiently fertile; but Kölreuter tried more than two hundred times, during eight following years, to fertilise reciprocally M. longiflora with the pollen of M.
jalappa, jalappa, 1859 | jalapa, 1860 1861 1869 1872 | Jalapa, 1866 |
and utterly failed. Several other equally striking cases could be given. Thuret has observed the same fact with certain sea-weeds or Fuci. Gärtner, moreover, found that this difference of facility in making reciprocal crosses is extremely common in a lesser degree. He has observed it even between
forms so forms so 1859 1860 1861 1866 | forms so 1869 1872 |
closely related
(as (as 1859 1860 1861 1866 | forms (as 1869 1872 |
Matthiola annua and glabra)
that that 1859 1860 1861 1866 | which 1869 1872 |
many botanists rank
them them 1859 1860 1861 1866 | them 1869 1872 |
only as varieties. It is also a remarkable fact, that hybrids raised from reciprocal crosses, though of course compounded of the very same two species, the one species having first been used as the father and then as the mother,
generally generally 1859 1860 1861 |
though they rarely 1866 1869 1872 |
differ in
fertility fertility 1859 1860 1861 |
external characters, yet generally differ in fertility 1866 1869 1872 |
in a small, and occasionally in a high degree. |
|
Several other singular rules could be given from
|