|
so often and so boldly been made. There would be great difficulty in proving its truth: we may safely conclude that very many of the most
domestic varieties could not possibly live in a wild state. In many cases we do not know what the aboriginal stock was, and so could not tell whether or not nearly perfect reversion had ensued. It would be
in order to prevent the effects of intercrossing, that only a single variety should
turned loose in its new home. Nevertheless, as our varieties certainly do occasionally revert in some of their characters to ancestral forms, it seems to me not
that if we could succeed in naturalising, or were to cultivate, during many generations, the several races, for instance, of the cabbage, in very poor soil (in which case, however, some effect would have to be attributed to the
action of the poor soil), that they
to a large extent, or even wholly, revert to the wild aboriginal stock. Whether or not the experiment would succeed, is not of great importance for our line of argument; for by the experiment itself the conditions of life are changed. If it could be shown that our domestic varieties manifested a strong tendency to reversion, — that is, to lose their acquired characters, whilst kept under
conditions, and whilst kept in a considerable body, so that free intercrossing might check, by blending together, any slight deviations
structure, in such case, I grant that we could deduce nothing from domestic varieties in regard to species. But there is not a shadow of evidence in favour of this view: to assert that we could not breed our cart and race-horses, long and short-horned cattle, and poultry of various breeds, and esculent vegetables, for an
number of generations, would be opposed to all experience. I may add,
when under nature the conditions of life do change, variations and reversions
|
