| Comparison with 1869 | 
  | 
sterility could be increased through natural selection to that high degree which is common with so many species, and which is universal with species which have been differentiated to a generic or family rank, will find the subject extraordinarily complex.  After mature reflection it seems to me that this could not have been effected through natural 
 selection; | selection; 1866 1869 |  | selection. 1872 |  
  
 for 
 it 
 could | could 1866 1869 |  could 1872 |  
  
 ..| ..... 1869 |  | not 1866 |  OMIT 1872 |  
  
 have 
 been 
 of 
 no 
 direct | direct 1866 1869 |  direct 1872 |  
  
 advantage | advantage 1866 1869 |  advantage 1872 |  
  
 to 
 an 
 individual | individual 1866 1869 |  individual 1872 |  
  
 animal | animal 1866 1869 |  animal 1872 |  
  
 to 
 breed | breed 1866 1869 |  breed 1872 |  
  
 badly | badly 1869 |  | poorly 1866 |  badly 1872 |  
  
 with 
 another | another 1866 1869 |  another 1872 |  
  
 individual | individual 1866 1869 |  individual 1872 |  
  
 of 
 a 
 different | different 1866 1869 |  different 1872 |  
  
 variety, | variety, 1866 1869 |  variety, 1872 |  
  
 and 
 thus 
 to 
 leave | leave 1866 1869 |  leave 1872 |  
  
 few 
 offspring; | offspring; 1866 1869 |  offspring; 1872 |  
  
 consequently | consequently 1866 1869 |  consequently 1872 |  
  
 such 
 individuals | individuals 1866 1869 |  individuals 1872 |  
  
 could | could 1866 1869 |  could 1872 |  
  
 not 
 have 
 been 
 preserved | preserved 1866 1869 |  preserved 1872 |  
  
 or 
 selected. | selected. 1866 1869 |  selected. 1872 |  
   
 Or 
 take 
the case of 
 two 
species 
 which 
 in their present state | in their present state 1869 |  
| OMIT 1872 |  
  
when crossed, produce few and sterile offspring; now, what is there which could favour the survival of those individuals which happened to be endowed in a slightly higher degree with mutual infertility, and which thus approached by one small step towards absolute sterility?  Yet an advance of this kind, if the theory of natural selection be brought to bear, must have incessantly occurred with many species, for a multitude are mutually quite barren.  With sterile neuter insects we have reason to believe that modifications in their structure have 
been slowly accumulated by natural selection, from an advantage having been thus indirectly given to the community to which they belonged over other communities of the same species; but an individual animal, 
if 
rendered slightly sterile when crossed with some other variety, would not thus indirectly give 
any advantage to its nearest relatives or to any 
other individuals of the same variety, thus leading to their preservation.  From these considerations I infer, as far as animals are concerned, that the various degrees of lessened fertility which occur with species when crossed cannot have been slowly accumulated by means of natural selection. ↑| 3 blocks not present in  1859 1860 1861 1866 1869; present in  1872 |  |  But it would be superfluous to discuss this question in detail; for with plants we have conclusive evidence that the sterility of crossed species must be due to some principle, quite independent of natural selection. 
Both Gärtner and Kölreuter have proved that in genera including numerous species, a series can be formed from species which when crossed yield fewer and fewer seeds, to species which never produce a single seed, but yet are affected by the pollen of certain other species, for the germen swells. 
It is here manifestly impossible to select the more sterile individuals, which have already ceased to yield seeds; so that this acme of sterility, when the germen alone is affected, cannot have been gained through selection; and from the laws governing the various grades of sterility being so uniform throughout the animal and vegetable kingdoms, we may infer that the cause, whatever it may be, is the same or nearly the same in all cases. 
 |  
    | 
 | 
|  With plants, it is possible that the case may be different.  With very 
many kinds, insects constantly bring 
pollen from neighbouring plants of 
the same or of other varieties to the 
stigma 
of each flower; and with some this 
is effected by the wind.  Now, 
if the pollen of any one 
variety 
should become by spontaneous variation in ever so slight a degree prepotent over the pollen of other varieties, so that, when deposited by any means on the stigmas of the flowers of 
its own variety, it 
obliterated 
the effects of previously placed 
pollen of other varieties, this would certainly be an advantage to the variety; for it would thus escape being bastardised and deteriorated in 
character.  And the more prepotent the pollen 
could be rendered through natural selection 
the greater the advantage would be.  We know from the researches of Gärtner that 
prepotency of this kind always accompanies the sterility which follows from crossing distinct 
species; 
but we do not know whether prepotency 
is a consequence of sterility, or 
sterility a consequence of prepotency.  If the latter view be correct, we may infer that, 
as the prepotency became stronger through natural selection, from being advantageous to a species in process of formation, so the sterility consequent on prepotency would at the same time be augmented; and the final result would be various degrees of sterility, such as actually 
occur 
with our 
existing species 
when  crossed.  
This same 
view might be extended to animals 
if the female before each birth received several males, so that the sexual element of the prepotent male of her own variety obliterated all 
effects from 
the access of previous males of 
other varieties; 
but we have no reason to believe, at least with terrestrial animals, that this is the case; as most males and females pair for each birth, and some few for life.  | 
 | 
|  On the whole we may conclude that with animals the sterility of crossed species has not been slowly augmented 
through natural selection; and as this sterility follows the same general laws in the vegetable as in the animal kingdom, it is improbable, though apparently possible, that crossed 
plants should 
have been rendered sterile by a different process 
from  animals.  
From this consideration, and remembering that species which have never co-existed in the same country, and which therefore could not have profited by 
having been rendered mutually infertile, yet are sterile 
when crossed; and bearing in mind that in reciprocal crosses between the same two species there is sometimes the widest difference in the resulting degrees of 
sterility, we must give up the belief that natural selection has come into play; 
and we are 
driven to our former proposition, that 
the sterility of first crosses, and indirectly of hybrids, is simply incidental on unknown differences in the reproductive systems of the parent-species.  | 
 | 
 We may now try and look a little closer at the probable nature of these differences, which induce sterility in first crosses, 
as well as 
in hybrids.  Pure species and hybrids differ, as already remarked, in the state of their reproductive organs; but from what will presently follow on reciprocally dimorphic and trimorphic plants, it would appear as if some unknown bond or law existed, which causes the young from a union not fully fertile to be themselves more or less infertile. ↑| 1 blocks not present in  1859 1860 1861 1866 1869; present in  1872 |  |  We will now look a little closer at the probable nature of the differences between species which induce sterility in first crosses and in hybrids. 
 |  
  
 | 
 In the case of first 
 crosses | crosses 1866 1869 |  | crosses, 1872 |  
  
 between pure species, | between pure species, 1866 1869 |  
| OMIT 1872 |  
  
the greater or less difficulty in effecting an union and in obtaining offspring apparently depends on several distinct causes.  There must sometimes be a 
 |