The several above-specified differences in the park-cattle, slight though they be, are worth recording, as they show that animals living nearly in a state of nature, and exposed to nearly uniform conditions, if not allowed to roam freely and to cross with other herds, do not keep as uniform as truly {85} wild animals. For the preservation of a uniform character, even within the same park, a certain degree of selection—that is, the destruction of the dark-coloured calves—is apparently necessary.

The cattle in all the parks are white; but, from the occasional appearance of dark-coloured calves, it is extremely doubtful whether the aboriginal Bos primigenius was white. The following facts, however, show that there is a strong, though not invariable, tendency in wild or escaped cattle, under widely different conditions of life, to become white with coloured ears. If the old writers Boethius and Leslie[195] can be trusted, the wild cattle of Scotland were white and furnished with a great mane; but the colour of their ears is not mentioned. The primaeval forest formerly extended across the whole country from Chillingham to Hamilton, and Sir Walter Scott used to maintain that the cattle still preserved in these two parks, at the two extremities of the forest, were remnants of its original inhabitants; and this view certainly seems probable. In Wales,[196] during the tenth century, some of the cattle are described as being white with red ears. Four hundred cattle thus coloured were sent to King John; and an early record speaks of a hundred cattle with red ears having been demanded as a compensation for some offence, but, if the cattle were of a dark or black colour, one hundred and fifty were to be presented. The black cattle of North Wales apparently belong, as we have seen, to the small longifrons type: and as the alternative was offered of either 150 dark cattle, or 100 white cattle with red ears, we may presume that the latter were the larger beasts, and probably belonged to the primigenius type. Youatt has remarked that at the present day, whenever cattle of the short-horn breed are white, the extremities of their ears are more or less tinged with red.

The cattle which have run wild on the Pampas, in Texas, and in two parts of Africa, have become of a nearly uniform dark {86} brownish-red.[197] On the Ladrone Islands, in the Pacific Ocean, immense herds of cattle, which were wild in the year 1741, are described as "milk-white, except their ears, which are generally black."[198] The Falkland Islands, situated far south, with all the conditions of life as different as it is possible to conceive from those of the Ladrones, offer a more interesting case. Cattle have run wild there during eighty or ninety years; and in the southern districts the animals are mostly white, with their feet, or whole heads, or only their ears black; but my informant, Admiral Sulivan,[199] who long resided on these islands, does not believe that they are ever purely white. So that in these two archipelagos we see that the cattle tend to become white with coloured ears. In other parts of the Falkland Islands, other colours prevail: near Port Pleasant brown is the common tint; round Mount Usborne, about half the animals in some of the herds were lead or mouse-coloured, which elsewhere is an unusual tint. These latter cattle, though generally inhabiting high land, breed about a month earlier than the other cattle; and this circumstance would aid in keeping them distinct and in perpetuating this peculiar colour. It is worth recalling to mind that blue or lead-coloured marks have occasionally appeared on the white cattle of Chillingham. So plainly different were the colours of the wild herds in different parts of the Falkland Islands, that in hunting them, as Admiral Sulivan informs me, white spots in one district, and dark spots in another district, were always looked out for on the distant hills. In the intermediate districts intermediate colours prevailed. Whatever the cause may be, this tendency in the wild cattle of the Falkland Islands, which are all descended from a few brought from La Plata, to break up into herds of three different colours, is an interesting fact.

Returning to the several British breeds, the conspicuous difference in general appearance between Short-horns, Long-horns (now rarely seen), Herefords, Highland cattle, Alderneys, &c., must be familiar to every one. A large part of the {87} difference, no doubt, may be due to descent from primordially distinct species; but we may feel sure that there has been in addition a considerable amount of variation. Even during the Neolithic period, the domestic cattle were not actually identical with the aboriginal species. Within recent times most of the breeds have been modified by careful and methodical selection. How strongly the characters thus acquired are inherited, may be inferred from the prices realised by the improved breeds; even at the first sale of Colling's Short-horns, eleven bulls reached an average of 214l., and lately Short-horn bulls have been sold for a thousand guineas, and have been exported to all quarters of the world.

Some constitutional differences may be here noticed. The Short-horns arrive at maturity far earlier than the wilder breeds, such as those of Wales or the Highlands. This fact has been shown in an interesting manner by Mr. Simonds,[200] who has given a table of the average period of their dentition, which proves that there is a difference of no less than six months in the appearance of the permanent incisors. The period of gestation, from observations made by Tessier on 1131 cows, varies to the extent of eighty-one days; and what is more interesting, M. Lefour affirms "that the period of gestation is longer in the large German cattle than in the smaller breeds."[201] With respect to the period of conception, it seems certain that Alderney and Zetland cows often become pregnant earlier than other breeds.[202] Lastly, as four fully-developed mammae is a generic character in the genus Bos,[203] it is worth notice that with our domestic cows the two rudimentary mammae often become fairly well developed and yield milk.

As numerous breeds are generally found only in long-civilized countries, it may be well to show that in some countries inhabited by barbarous races, who are frequently at war with each other and therefore have little free {88} communication, several distinct breeds of cattle now exist or formerly existed. At the Cape of Good Hope Leguat observed, in the year 1720, three kinds.[204] At the present day various travellers have noticed the differences in the breeds in Southern Africa. Sir Andrew Smith several years ago remarked to me that the cattle possessed by the different tribes of Caffres, though living near each other under the same latitude and in the same kind of country, yet differed, and he expressed much surprise at the fact. Mr. Andersson has described[205] the Damara, Bechuana, and Namaqua cattle; and he informs me in a letter that the cattle north of Lake Ngami are likewise different, as Mr. Galton has heard is the case with the cattle of Benguela. The Namaqua cattle in size and shape nearly resemble European cattle, and have short stout horns and large hoofs. The Damara cattle are very peculiar, being big-boned, with slender legs and small hard feet; their tails are adorned with a tuft of long bushy hair nearly touching the ground, and their horns are extraordinarily large. The Bechuana cattle have even larger horns, and there is now a skull in London with the two horns 8 ft. 81/4 in. long, as measured in a straight line from tip to tip, and no less than 13ft. 5in. as measured along their curvature! Mr. Andersson in his letter to me says that, though he will not venture to describe the differences between the breeds belonging to the many different sub-tribes, yet such certainly exist, as shown by the wonderful facility with which the natives discriminate them.

That many breeds of cattle have originated through variation, independently of descent from distinct species, we may infer from what we see in South America, where the genus Bos was not endemic, and where the cattle which now exist in such vast numbers are the descendants of a few imported from Spain and Portugal. In Columbia, Roulin[206] describes two peculiar breeds, namely, pelones, with extremely thin and fine hair, and calongos, absolutely naked. According to Castelnau there are two races in Brazil, one like European cattle, the other different, with {89} remarkable horns. In Paraguay, Azara describes a breed which certainly originated in S. America, called chivos, "because they have straight vertical horns, conical, and very large at the base." He likewise describes a dwarf race in Corrientes, with short legs and a body larger than usual. Cattle without horns, and others with reversed hair, have also originated in Paraguay.

Another monstrous breed, called niatas or natas, of which I saw two small herds on the northern bank of the Plata, is so remarkable as to deserve a fuller description. This breed bears the same relation to other breeds, as bull or pug dogs do to other dogs, or as improved pigs, according to H. von Nathusius, do to common pigs.[207] Ruetimeyer believes that these cattle belong to the primigenius type.[208] The forehead is very short and broad, with the nasal end of the skull, together with the whole plane of the upper molar-teeth, curved upwards. The lower jaw projects beyond the upper, and has a corresponding upward curvature. It is an interesting fact that an almost similar conformation characterizes, as I have been informed by Dr. Falconer, the extinct and gigantic Sivatherium of India, and is not known in any other ruminant. The upper lip is much drawn back, the nostrils are seated high up and are widely open, the eyes project outwards, and the horns are large. In walking the head is carried low, and the neck is short. The hind legs appear to be longer, compared with the front legs, than is usual. The exposed incisor teeth, the short head and upturned nostrils, give these cattle the most ludicrous, self-confident air of defiance. The skull which I presented to the College of Surgeons has been thus described by Professor Owen:[209] "It is remarkable from the stunted development of the nasals, premaxillaries, and fore-part of the lower jaw, which is unusually {90} curved upwards to come into contact with the premaxillaries. The nasal bones are about one-third the ordinary length, but retain almost their normal breadth. The triangular vacuity is left between them, the frontal and lachrymal, which latter bone articulates with the premaxillary, and thus excludes the maxillary from any junction with the nasal." So that even the connexion of some of the bones is changed. Other differences might be added: thus the plane of the condyles is somewhat modified, and the terminal edge of the premaxillaries forms an arch. In fact, on comparison with the skull of a common ox, scarcely a single bone presents the same exact shape, and the whole skull has a wonderfully different appearance.

The first brief published notice of this race was by Azara, between the years 1783-96; but Don F. Muniz, of Luxan, who has kindly collected information for me, states that about 1760 these cattle were kept as curiosities near Buenos Ayres. Their origin is not positively known, but they must have originated subsequently to the year 1552, when cattle were first introduced. Signor Muniz informs me that the breed is believed to have originated with the Indians southward of the Plata. Even to this day those reared near the Plata show their less civilized nature in being fiercer than common cattle, and in the cow, if visited too often, easily deserting her first calf. The breed is very true, and a niata bull and cow invariably produce niata calves. The breed has already lasted at least a century. A niata bull crossed with a common cow, and the reverse cross, yield offspring having an intermediate character, but with the niata character strongly displayed. According to Signor Muniz, there is the clearest evidence, contrary to the common belief of agriculturists in analogous cases, that the niata cow when crossed with a common bull transmits her peculiarities more strongly than does the niata bull when crossed with a common cow. When the pasture is tolerably long, these cattle feed as well as common cattle with their tongue and palate; but during the great droughts, when so many animals perish on the Pampas, the niata breed lies under a great disadvantage, and would, if not attended to, become extinct; for the common cattle, like horses, are able just to keep alive by browsing on the twigs of trees and on reeds with their lips: this the niatas cannot so {91} well do, as their lips do not join, and hence they are found to perish before the common cattle. This strikes me as a good illustration of how little we are able to judge from the ordinary habits of an animal, on what circumstances, occurring only at long intervals of time, its rarity or extinction may depend. It shows us, also, how natural selection would have determined the rejection of the niata modification had it arisen in a state of nature.

Having described the semi-monstrous niata breed, I may allude to a white bull, said to have been brought from Africa, which was exhibited in London in 1829, and which has been well figured by Mr. Harvey.[210] It had a hump, and was furnished with a mane. The dewlap was peculiar, being divided between its fore-legs into parallel divisions. Its lateral hoofs were annually shed, and grew to the length of five or six inches. The eye was very peculiar, being remarkably prominent, and "resembled a cup and ball, thus enabling the animal to see on all sides with equal ease; the pupil was small and oval, or rather a parallelogram with the ends cut off, and lying transversely across the ball," A new and strange breed might probably have been formed by careful breeding and selection from this animal.

I have often speculated on the probable causes through which each separate district in Great Britain came to possess in former times its own peculiar breed of cattle; and the question is, perhaps, even more perplexing in the case of Southern Africa. We now know that the differences may be in part attributed to descent from distinct species; but this will not suffice. Have the slight differences in climate and in the nature of the pasture, in the different districts of Britain, directly induced corresponding differences in the cattle? We have seen that the semi-wild cattle in the several British parks are not identical in colouring or size, and that some degree of selection has been requisite to keep them true. It is almost certain that abundant food given during many generations directly affects the size of a breed.[211] That climate directly affects the thickness of the {92} skin and the hair is likewise certain: thus Roulin asserts[212] that the hides of the feral cattle on the hot Llanos "are always much less heavy than those of the cattle raised on the high platform of Bogota; and that these hides yield in weight and in thickness of hair to those of the cattle which have run wild on the lofty Paramos." The same difference has been observed in the hides of the cattle reared on the bleak Falkland Islands and on the temperate Pampas. Low has remarked[213] that the cattle which inhabit the more humid parts of Britain have longer hair and thicker skins than other British cattle; and the hair and horns are so closely related to each other, that, as we shall see in a future chapter, they are apt to vary together; thus climate might indirectly affect, through the skin, the form and size of the horns. When we compare highly improved stall-fed cattle with the wilder breeds, or compare mountain and lowland breeds, we cannot doubt that an active life, leading to the free use of the limbs and lungs, affects the shape and proportions of the whole body. It is probable that some breeds, such as the semi-monstrous niata cattle, and some peculiarities, such as being hornless, &c., have appeared suddenly from what we may call a spontaneous variation; but even in this case a rude kind of selection is necessary, and the animals thus characterized must be at least partially separated from others. This degree of care, however, has sometimes been taken even in little-civilized districts, where we should least have expected it, as in the case of the niata, chivo, and hornless cattle in S. America.

That methodical selection has done wonders within a recent period in modifying our cattle, no one doubts. During the process of methodical selection it has occasionally happened that deviations of structure, more strongly pronounced than mere individual differences, yet by no means deserving to be called monstrosities, have been taken advantage of: thus the famous Long-horn Bull, Shakespeare, though of the pure Canley stock, "scarcely inherited a single point of the long-horned breed, his horns excepted;[214] yet in the hands of Mr. Fowler, {93} this bull greatly improved his race. We have also reason to believe that selection, carried on so far unconsciously that there was at no one time any distinct intention to improve or change the breed, has in the course of time modified most of our cattle; for by this process, aided by more abundant food, all the lowland British breeds have increased greatly in size and in early maturity since the reign of Henry VII.[215] It should never be forgotten that many animals have to be annually slaughtered; so that each owner must determine which shall be killed and which preserved for breeding. In every district, as Youatt has remarked, there is a prejudice in favour of the native breed; so that animals possessing qualities, whatever they may be, which are most valued in each district, will be oftenest preserved; and this unmethodical selection assuredly will in the long run affect the character of the whole breed. But it may be asked, can this rude kind of selection have been practised by barbarians such as those of southern Africa? In a future chapter on Selection we shall see that this has certainly occurred to some extent. Therefore, looking to the origin of the many breeds of cattle which formerly inhabited the several districts of Britain, I conclude that, although slight differences in the nature of the climate, food, &c., as well as changed habits of life, aided by correlation of growth, and the occasional appearance from unknown causes of considerable deviations of structure, have all probably played their parts; yet that the occasional preservation in each district of those individual animals which were most valued by each owner has perhaps been even more effective in the production of the several British breeds. As soon as two or more breeds had once been formed in any district, or when new breeds descended from distinct species were introduced, their crossing, especially if aided by some selection, will have multiplied the number and modified the characters of the older breeds.

SHEEP.

I shall treat this subject briefly. Most authors look at our domestic sheep as descended from several distinct species; but how many still exist is doubtful. Mr. Blyth believes that there {94} are in the whole world fourteen species, one of which, the Corsican moufflon, he concludes (as I am informed by him) to be the parent of the smaller, short-tailed breeds, with crescent-shaped horns, such as the old Highland sheep. The larger, long-tailed breeds, having horns with a double flexure, such as the Dorsets, merinos, &c., he believes to be descended from an unknown and extinct species. M. Gervais makes six species of Ovis;[216] but concludes that our domestic sheep form a distinct genus, now completely extinct. A German naturalist[217] believes that our sheep descend from ten aboriginally distinct species, of which only one is still living in a wild state! Another ingenious observer,[218] though not a naturalist, with a bold defiance of everything known on geographical distribution, infers that the sheep of Great Britain alone are the descendants of eleven endemic British forms! Under such a hopeless state of doubt it would be useless for my purpose to give a detailed account of the several breeds; but a few remarks may be added.

Sheep have been domesticated from a very ancient period. Ruetimeyer[219] found in the Swiss lake-dwellings the remains of a small breed, with thin and tall legs, and with horns like those of a goat: this race differs somewhat from any one now known. Almost every country has its own peculiar breed; and many countries have many breeds differing greatly from each other. One of the most strongly marked races is an Eastern one with a long tail, including, according to Pallas, twenty vertebrae, and so loaded with fat, that, from being esteemed a delicacy, it is sometimes placed on a truck which is dragged about by the living animal. These sheep, though ranked by Fitzinger as a distinct aboriginal form, seem to bear in their drooping ears the stamp of long domestication. This is likewise the case with those sheep which have two great masses of fat on the rump, with the tail in a rudimentary condition. The Angola variety of {95} the long-tailed race has curious masses of fat on the back of the head and beneath the jaws.[220] Mr. Hodgson in an admirable paper[221] on the sheep of the Himalaya infers from the distribution of the several races, "that this caudal augmentation in most of its phases is an instance of degeneracy in these pre-eminently Alpine animals." The horns present an endless diversity in character; being, especially in the female sex, not rarely absent, or, on the other hand, amounting to four or even eight in number. The horns, when numerous, arise from a crest on the frontal bone, which is elevated in a peculiar manner. It is remarkable that multiplicity of horns "is generally accompanied by great length and coarseness of the fleece."[222] This correlation, however, is not invariable; for I am informed by Mr. D. Forbes, that the Spanish sheep in Chile resemble, in fleece and in all other characters, their parent merino-race, except that instead of a pair they generally bear four horns. The existence of a pair of mammae is a generic character in the genus Ovis as well as in several allied forms; nevertheless, as Mr. Hodgson has remarked, "this character is not absolutely constant even among the true and proper sheep: for I have more than once met with Cagias (a sub-Himalayan domestic race) possessed of four teats."[223] This case is the more remarkable as, when any part or organ is present in reduced number in comparison with the same part in allied groups, it usually is subject to little variation. The presence of interdigital pits has likewise been considered as a generic distinction in sheep; but Isidore Geoffroy[224] has shown that these pits or pouches are absent in some breeds.

In sheep there is a strong tendency for characters, which have apparently been acquired under domestication, to become attached either exclusively to the male sex, or to be more highly developed in this than in the other sex. Thus in many breeds the horns are deficient in the ewe, though this likewise occurs occasionally with the female of the wild musmon. In the rams of the Wallachian breed "the horns spring almost perpendicularly {96} from the frontal bone, and then take a beautiful spiral form; in the ewes they protrude nearly at right angles from the head, and then become twisted in a singular manner."[225] Mr. Hodgson states that the extraordinarily arched nose or chaffron, which is so highly developed in several foreign breeds, is characteristic of the ram alone, and apparently is the result of domestication.[226] I hear from Mr. Blyth that the accumulation of fat in the fat-tailed sheep of the plains of India is greater in the male than in the female; and Fitzinger[227] remarks that the mane in the African maned race is far more developed in the ram than in the ewe.

Different races of sheep, like cattle, present constitutional differences. Thus the improved breeds arrive at maturity at an early age, as has been well shown by Mr. Simonds through their early average period of dentition. The several races have become adapted to different kinds of pasture and climate: for instance, no one can rear Leicester sheep on mountainous regions, where Cheviots flourish. As Youatt has remarked, "in all the different districts of Great Britain we find various breeds of sheep beautifully adapted to the locality which they occupy. No one knows their origin; they are indigenous to the soil, climate, pasturage, and the locality on which they graze; they seem to have been formed for it and by it."[228] Marshall relates[229] that a flock of heavy Lincolnshire and light Norfolk sheep which had been bred together in a large sheep-walk, part of which was low, rich, and moist, and another part high and dry, with benty grass, when turned out, regularly separated from each other; the heavy sheep drawing off to the rich soil, and the lighter sheep to their own soil; so that "whilst there was plenty of grass the two breeds kept themselves as distinct as rooks and pigeons." Numerous sheep from various parts of the world have been brought during a long course of years to the Zoological Gardens of London; but as Youatt, who attended the animals as a {97} veterinary surgeon, remarks, "few or none die of the rot, but they are phthisical; not one of them from a torrid climate lasts out the second year, and when they die their lungs are tuberculated."[230] Even in certain parts of England it has been found impossible to keep certain breeds of sheep; thus on a farm on the banks of the Ouse, the Leicester sheep were so rapidly destroyed by pleuritis[231] that the owner could not keep them; the coarser-skinned sheep never being affected.

The period of gestation was formerly thought to be so unalterable a character, that a supposed difference between the wolf and the dog in this respect was esteemed a sure sign of specific distinction; but we have seen that the period is shorter in the improved breeds of the pig, and in the larger breeds of the ox, than in other breeds of these two animals. And now we know, on the excellent authority of Hermann von Nathusius,[232] that Merino and Southdown sheep, when both have long been kept under exactly the same conditions, differ in their average period of gestation, as is seen in the following Table:—

Merinos 150.3 days. Southdowns 144.2 " Half-bred Merinos and Southdowns 146.3 " 3/4 blood of Southdown 145.5 " 7/8 " " 144.2 "

In this graduated difference, in these cross-bred animals having different proportions of Southdown blood, we see how strictly the two periods of gestation have been transmitted. Nathusius remarks that, as Southdowns grow with remarkable rapidity after birth, it is not surprising that their foetal development should have been shortened. It is of course possible that the difference in these two breeds may be due to their descent from distinct parent-species; but as the early maturity of the Southdowns has long been carefully attended to by breeders, the difference is more probably the result of such attention. Lastly, the fecundity of the several breeds differs much; some generally producing twins or even triplets at a birth, of which fact the curious Shangai sheep (with their truncated and rudimentary {98} ears, and great Roman noses), lately exhibited in the Zoological Gardens, offer a remarkable instance.

Sheep are perhaps more readily affected by the direct action of the conditions of life to which they have been exposed than almost any other domestic animal. According to Pallas, and more recently according to Erman, the fat-tailed Kirghisian sheep, when bred for a few generations in Russia, degenerate, and the mass of fat dwindles away, "the scanty and bitter herbage of the steppes seems so essential to their development." Pallas makes an analogous statement with respect to one of the Crimean breeds. Burnes states that the Karakool breed, which produces a fine, curled, black, and valuable fleece, when removed from its own canton near Bokhara to Persia or to other quarters, loses its peculiar fleece.[233] In all such cases, however, it may be that a change of any kind in the conditions of life causes variability and consequent loss of character, and not that certain conditions are necessary for the development of certain characters.

Great heat, however, seems to act directly on the fleece: several accounts have been published of the change which sheep imported from Europe undergo in the West Indies. Dr. Nicholson of Antigua informs me that, after the third generation, the wool disappears from the whole body, except over the loins; and the animal then appears like a goat with a dirty door-mat on its back. A similar change is said to take place on the west coast of Africa.[234] On the other hand, many wool-bearing sheep live on the hot plains of India. Roulin asserts that in the lower and heated valleys of the Cordillera, if the lambs are sheared as soon as the wool has grown to a certain thickness, all goes on afterwards as usual; but if not sheared, the wool detaches itself in flakes, and short shining hair like that {99} on a goat is produced ever afterwards. This curious result seems merely to be an exaggerated tendency natural to the Merino breed, for as a great authority, namely, Lord Somerville, remarks, "the wool of our Merino sheep after shear-time is hard and coarse to such a degree as to render it almost impossible to suppose that the same animal could bear wool so opposite in quality, compared to that which has been clipped from it: as the cold weather advances, the fleeces recover their soft quality." As in sheep of all breeds the fleece naturally consists of longer and coarser hair covering shorter and softer wool, the change which it often undergoes in hot climates is probably merely a case of unequal development; for even with those sheep which like goats are covered with hair, a small quantity of underlying wool may always be found.[235] In the wild mountain-sheep (Ovis montana) of North America there is an annual analogous change of coat; "the wool begins to drop out in early spring, leaving in its place a coat of hair resembling that of the elk, a change of pelage quite different in character from the ordinary thickening of the coat or hair, common to all furred animals in winter,—for instance, in the horse, the cow, &c., which shed their winter coat in the spring."[236]

A slight difference in climate or pasture sometimes slightly affects the fleece, as has been observed even in different districts in England, and as is well shown by the great softness of the wool brought from Southern Australia. But it should be observed, as Youatt repeatedly insists, that the tendency to change may generally be counteracted by careful selection. M. Lasterye, after discussing this subject, sums up as follows: "The preservation of the Merino race in its utmost purity at the Cape of Good Hope, in the marshes of Holland, and under the rigorous climate of Sweden, furnishes an additional support of this my unalterable principle, that fine-woolled sheep may be kept wherever industrious men and intelligent breeders exist."

That methodical selection has effected great changes in several {100} breeds of sheep no one, who knows anything on the subject, entertains a doubt. The case of the Southdowns, as improved by Ellman, offers perhaps the most striking instance. Unconscious or occasional selection has likewise slowly produced a great effect, as we shall see in the chapters on Selection. That crossing has largely modified some breeds, no one who will study what has been written on this subject—for instance, Mr. Spooner's paper—will dispute; but to produce uniformity, in a crossed breed, careful selection and "rigorous weeding," as this author expresses it, are indispensable.[237]

In some few instances new breeds have suddenly originated; thus, in 1791, a ram-lamb was born in Massachusetts, having short crooked legs and a long back, like a turnspit-dog. From this one lamb the otter or ancon semi-monstrous breed was raised; as these sheep could not leap over the fences, it was thought that they would be valuable; but they have been supplanted by merinos, and thus exterminated. These sheep are remarkable from transmitting their character so truly that Colonel Humphreys[238] never heard of "but one questionable case" of an ancon ram and ewe not producing ancon offspring. When they are crossed with other breeds the offspring, with rare exceptions, instead of being intermediate in character, perfectly resemble either parent; and this has occurred even in the case of twins. Lastly, "the ancons have been observed to keep together, separating themselves from the rest of the flock when put into enclosures with other sheep."

A more interesting case has been recorded in the Report of the Juries for the Great Exhibition (1851), namely, the production of a merino ram-lamb on the Mauchamp farm, in 1828, which was remarkable for its long, smooth, straight, and silky wool. By the year 1833 M. Graux had raised rams enough to serve his whole flock, and after a few more years he was able to sell stock of his new breed. So peculiar and valuable is the wool, that it sells at 25 per cent. above the best merino wool: even the fleeces of half-bred animals are valuable, and are known in France as the "Mauchamp-merino." It is interesting, as {101} showing how generally any marked deviation of structure is accompanied by other deviations, that the first ram and his immediate offspring were of small size, with large heads, long necks, narrow chests, and long flanks; but these blemishes were removed by judicious crosses and selection. The long smooth wool was also correlated with smooth horns; and as horns and hair are homologous structures, we can understand the meaning of this correlation. If the Mauchamp and ancon breeds had originated a century or two ago, we should have had no record of their birth; and many a naturalist would no doubt have insisted, especially in the case of the Mauchamp race, that they had each descended from, or been crossed with, some unknown aboriginal form.

GOATS.

From the recent researches of M. Brandt, most naturalists now believe that all our goats are descended from the Capra aegagrus of the mountains of Asia, possibly mingled with the allied Indian species C. Falconeri of India.[239] In Switzerland, during the early Stone period, the domestic goat was commoner than the sheep; and this very ancient race differed in no respect from that now common in Switzerland.[240] At the present time, the many races found in several parts of the world differ greatly from each other; nevertheless, as far as they have been tried,[241] they are all quite fertile when crossed. So numerous are the breeds, that Mr. G. Clark[242] has described eight distinct kinds imported into the one island of Mauritius. The ears of one kind were enormously developed, being, as measured by Mr. Clark, no less than 19 inches in length and 43/4 inches in breadth. As with cattle, the mammae of those breeds which are regularly milked become greatly developed; and, as Mr. Clark remarks, "it is not rare to see their teats touching the ground." The following cases are worth notice as presenting unusual {102} points of variation. According to Godron,[243] the mammae differ greatly in shape in different breeds, being elongated in the common goat, hemispherical in the Angora race, and bilobed and divergent in the goats of Syria and Nubia. According to this same author, the males of certain breeds have lost their usual offensive odour. In one of the Indian breeds the males and females have horns of widely-different shapes;[244] and in some breeds the females are destitute of horns.[245] The presence of interdigital pits or glands on all four feet has been thought to characterise the genus Ovis, and their absence to be characteristic of the genus Capra; but Mr. Hodgson has found that they exist in the front feet of the majority of Himalayan goats.[246] Mr. Hodgson measured the intestines in two goats of the Dugu race, and he found that the proportional length of the great and small intestines differed considerably. In one of these goats the caecum was thirteen inches, and in the other no less than thirty-six inches in length!

* * * * *

{103}

CHAPTER IV.

DOMESTIC RABBITS.

DOMESTIC RABBITS DESCENDED FROM THE COMMON WILD RABBIT—ANCIENT DOMESTICATION—ANCIENT SELECTION—LARGE LOP-EARED RABBITS—VARIOUS BREEDS—FLUCTUATING CHARACTERS—ORIGIN OF THE HIMALAYAN BREED—CURIOUS CASE OF INHERITANCE—FERAL RABBITS IN JAMAICA AND THE FALKLAND ISLANDS—PORTO SANTO FERAL RABBITS—OSTEOLOGICAL CHARACTERS—SKULL—SKULL OF HALF-LOP RABBITS—VARIATIONS IN THE SKULL ANALOGOUS TO DIFFERENCES IN DIFFERENT SPECIES OF HARES—VERTEBRAE—STERNUM—SCAPULA—EFFECTS OF USE AND DISUSE ON THE PROPORTIONS OF THE LIMBS AND BODY—CAPACITY OF THE SKULL AND REDUCED SIZE OF THE BRAIN—SUMMARY ON THE MODIFICATIONS OF DOMESTICATED RABBITS.

All naturalists, with, as far as I know, a single exception, believe that the several domestic breeds of the rabbit are descended from the common wild species; I shall therefore describe them more carefully than in the previous cases. Professor Gervais[247] states "that the true wild rabbit is smaller than the domestic; its proportions are not absolutely the same; its tail is smaller; its ears are shorter and more thickly clothed with hair; and these characters, without speaking of colour, are so many indications opposed to the opinion which unites these animals under the same specific denomination." Few naturalists will agree with this author that such slight differences are sufficient to separate as distinct species the wild and domestic rabbit. How extraordinary it would be, if close confinement, perfect tameness, unnatural food, and careful breeding, all prolonged during many generations, had not produced at least some effect! The tame rabbit has been domesticated from an ancient period. Confucius ranges rabbits among animals worthy to be sacrificed to the gods, and, as he prescribes their multiplication, they were probably at this early period domesticated in China. They are mentioned by several of the classical writers. {104} In 1631 Gervaise Markham writes, "You shall not, as in other cattell, looke to their shape, but to their richnesse, onely elect your buckes, the largest and goodliest conies you can get; and for the richnesse of the skin, that is accounted the richest which hath the equallest mixture of blacke and white haire together, yet the blacke rather shadowing the white; the furre should be thicke, deepe, smooth, and shining; ... they are of body much fatter and larger, and, when another skin is worth two or three pence, they are worth two shillings." From this full description we see that silver-grey rabbits existed in England at this period; and, what is far more important, we see that the breeding or selection of rabbits was then carefully attended to. Aldrovandi, in 1637, describes, on the authority of several old writers (as Scaliger, in 1557), rabbits of various colours, some "like a hare," and he adds that P. Valerianus (who died a very old man in 1558) saw at Verona rabbits four times bigger than ours.[248]

From the fact of the rabbit having been domesticated at an ancient period, we must look to the northern hemisphere of the Old World, and to the warmer temperate regions alone, for the aboriginal parent-form; for the rabbit cannot live without protection in countries as cold as Sweden, and, though it has run wild in the tropical island of Jamaica, it has never greatly multiplied there. It now exists, and has long existed, in the warmer temperate parts of Europe, for fossil remains have been found in several countries.[249] The domestic rabbit readily becomes feral in these same countries, and when variously coloured kinds are turned out they generally revert to the ordinary grey colour.[250] The wild rabbits, if taken young, can be domesticated, though the process is generally very troublesome.[251] The various {105} domestic races are often crossed, and are believed to be perfectly fertile together, and a perfect gradation can be shown to exist from the largest domestic kinds, having enormously developed ears, to the common wild kind. The parent-form must have been a burrowing animal, a habit not common, as far as I can discover, to any other species in the large genus Lepus. Only one wild species is known with certainty to exist in Europe; but the rabbit (if it be a true rabbit) from Mount Sinai, and likewise that from Algeria, present slight differences; and these forms have been considered by some authors as specifically distinct.[252] But such slight differences would aid us little in explaining the more considerable differences characteristic of the several domestic races. If the latter are the descendants of two or more closely allied species, all, excepting the common rabbit, have been exterminated in a wild state; and this is very improbable, seeing with what pertinacity this animal holds its ground. From these several reasons we may infer with safety that all the domestic breeds are the descendants of the common wild species. But from what we hear of the late marvellous success in rearing hybrids between the hare and rabbit,[253] it is possible, though not probable, from the great difficulty in making the first cross, that some of the larger races, which are coloured like the hare, may have been modified by crosses with this animal. Nevertheless, the chief differences in the skeletons of the several domestic breeds cannot, as we shall presently see, have been derived from a cross with the hare.

There are many breeds which transmit their characters more or less truly. Every one has seen the enormous lop-eared rabbits exhibited at our shows; various allied sub-breeds are reared on the Continent, such as the so-called Andalusian, which is said to have a large head with a round forehead, and to attain a greater size than any other kind; another large Paris breed is named the Rouennais, and has a square head; the so-called Patagonian rabbit has remarkably short ears and a large round head. Although I have not seen all these breeds, I feel some doubt about there being any marked difference in the {106} shape of their skulls.[254] English lop-eared rabbits often weigh 8 lbs. or 10 lbs., and one has been exhibited weighing 18 lbs.; whereas a full-sized wild rabbit weighs only about 31/4 lbs. The head or skull in all the large lop-eared rabbits examined by me is much longer relatively to its breadth than in the wild rabbit. Many of them have loose transverse folds of skin or dewlaps beneath the throat, which can be pulled out so as to reach nearly to the ends of the jaws. Their ears are prodigiously developed, and hang down on each side of their faces. A rabbit has been exhibited with its two ears, measured from the tip of one to the tip of the other, 22 inches in length, and each ear was 5-3/8 inches in breadth. In a common wild rabbit I found that the length of the two ears, from tip to tip, was 7-5/8 inches, and the breadth only 1-7/8 inch. The great weight of the body in the larger rabbits, and the immense development of their ears, are the qualities which win prizes, and have been carefully selected.

The hare-coloured, or, as it is sometimes called, the Belgian rabbit, differs in nothing except colour from the other large breeds; but Mr. J. Young, of Southampton, a great breeder of this kind, informs me that the females, in all the specimens examined by him, had only six mammae; and this certainly was the case with two females which came into my possession. Mr. B. P. Brent, however, assures me that the number is variable with other domestic rabbits. The common wild rabbit always has ten mammae. The Angora rabbit is remarkable from the length and fineness of its fur, which even on the soles of the feet is of considerable length. This breed is the only one which differs in its mental qualities, for it is said to be much more sociable than other rabbits, and the male shows no wish to destroy its young.[255] Two live rabbits were brought to me from Moscow, of about the size of the wild species, but with long soft fur, different from that of the Angora. These Moscow rabbits had pink eyes and were snow-white, excepting the ears, two spots near the nose, the upper and under surface of the tail, and the hinder tarsi, which were blackish-brown. In short, they were {107} coloured nearly like the so-called Himalayan rabbits, presently to be described, and differed from them only in the character of their fur. There are two other breeds which come true to colour, but differ in no other respect, namely silver-greys and chinchillas. Lastly, the Nicard or Dutch rabbit may be mentioned, which varies in colour, and is remarkable from its small size, some specimens weighing only 11/4 lb.; rabbits of this breed make excellent nurses for other and more delicate kinds.[256]

Certain characters are remarkably fluctuating, or are very feebly transmitted by domestic rabbits: thus, one breeder tells me that with the smaller kinds he has hardly ever raised a whole litter of the same colour: with the large lop-eared breeds "it is impossible," says a great judge,[257] "to breed true to colour, but by judicious crossing a great deal may be done towards it. The fancier should know how his does are bred, that is, the colour of their parents." Nevertheless, certain colours, as we shall presently see, are transmitted truly. The dewlap is not strictly inherited. Lop-eared rabbits, with their ears hanging flat down on each side of the face, do not transmit this character at all truly. Mr. Delamer remarks that, "with fancy rabbits, when both the parents are perfectly formed, have model ears, and are handsomely marked, their progeny do not invariably turn out the same." When one parent, or even both, are oar-laps, that is, have their ears sticking out at right angles, or when one parent or both are half-lops, that is, have only one ear dependent, there is nearly as good a chance of the progeny having both ears full-lop, as if both parents had been thus characterized. But I am informed, if both parents have upright ears, there is hardly a chance of a full-lop. In some half-lops the ear that hangs down is broader and longer than the upright ear;[258] so that we have the unusual case of a want of symmetry on the two sides. This difference in the position and size of the two ears probably indicates that the lopping of the ear results {108} from its great length and weight, favoured no doubt by the weakness of the muscles consequent on disuse. Anderson[259] mentions a breed having only a single ear; and Professor Gervais another breed which is destitute of ears.



The origin of the Himalayan breed (sometimes called Chinese, or Polish, or Russian) is so curious, both in itself, and as throwing some light on the complex laws of inheritance, that it is worth giving in detail. These pretty rabbits are white, except their ears, nose, all four feet, and the upper side of tail, which are all brownish-black; but as they have red eyes, they may be considered as albinoes. I have received several accounts of their breeding perfectly true. From their symmetrical marks, they were at first ranked as specifically distinct, and were provisionally named L. nigripes[260] Some good observers thought that they could detect a difference in their habits, and stoutly maintained that they formed a new species. Their origin is now well known. A writer, in 1857,[261] stated that he had produced Himalayan rabbits in the following manner. But it is first necessary briefly to describe two other breeds: silver-greys or silver-sprigs generally have black heads and legs, and their fine grey fur is interspersed with numerous black and white long hairs. {109} They breed perfectly true, and have long been kept in warrens. When they escape and cross with common rabbits, the product, as I hear from Mr. Wyrley Birch, of Wretham Hall, is not a mixture of the two colours, but about half take after the one parent, and the other half after the other parent. Secondly, chinchillas or tame silver-greys (I will use the former name) have short, paler, mouse or slate-coloured fur, interspersed with long, blackish, slate-coloured, and white hairs.[262] These rabbits breed perfectly true. Now, the writer above referred to had a breed of chinchillas which had been crossed with the common black rabbit, and their offspring were either blacks or chinchillas. These latter were again crossed with other chinchillas (which had also been crossed with silver-greys), and from this complicated cross Himalayan rabbits were raised. From these and other similar statements, Mr. Bartlett[263] was led to make a careful trial in the Zoological Gardens, and he found that by simply crossing silver-greys with chinchillas he could always produce some few Himalayans; and the latter, notwithstanding their sudden origin, if kept separate, bred perfectly true.

The Himalayans, when first born, are quite white, and are then true albinoes; but in the course of a few months they gradually assume their dark ears, nose, feet, and tail. Occasionally, however, as I am informed by Mr. W. A. Wooler and the Rev. W. D. Fox, the young are born of a very pale grey colour, and specimens of such fur were sent me by the former gentleman. The grey tint, however, disappears as the animal comes to maturity. So that with these Himalayans there is a tendency, strictly confined to early youth, to revert to the colour of the adult silver-grey parent-stock. Silver-greys and chinchillas, on the other hand, present a remarkable contrast in their colour whilst quite young, for they are born perfectly black, but soon assume their characteristic grey or silver tints. The same thing occurs with grey horses, which, as long as they are foals, are generally of a nearly black colour, but soon become grey, and get whiter and whiter as they grow older. Hence the usual rule is that Himalayans are born white and afterwards become in certain parts of their bodies dark-coloured; whilst {110} silver-greys are born black and afterwards become sprinkled with white. Exceptions, however, and of a directly opposite nature, occasionally occur in both cases. For young silver-greys are sometimes born in warrens, as I hear from Mr. W. Birch, of a cream-colour, but these young animals ultimately become black, The Himalayans, on the other hand, sometimes produce, as is stated by an experienced amateur,[264] a single black young one in a litter; but such, before two months elapse, become perfectly white.

To sum up the whole curious case: wild silver-greys may be considered as black rabbits which become grey at an early period of life. When they are crossed with common rabbits, the offspring are said not to have blended colours, but to take after either parent; and in this respect they resemble black and albino varieties of most quadrupeds, which often transmit their colours in this same manner. When they are crossed with chinchillas, that is, with a paler sub-variety, the young are at first pure albinoes, but soon become dark-coloured in certain parts of their bodies, and are then called Himalayans. The young Himalayans, however, are sometimes at first either pale grey or completely black, in either case changing after a time to white. In a future chapter I shall advance a large body of facts showing that, when two varieties are crossed both of which differ in colour from their parent-stock, there is a strong tendency in the young to revert to the aboriginal colour; and what is very remarkable, this reversion occasionally supervenes, not before birth, but during the growth of the animal. Hence, if it could be shown that silver-greys and chinchillas were the offspring of a cross between a black and albino variety with the colours intimately blended—a supposition in itself not improbable, and supported by the circumstance of silver-greys in warrens sometimes producing creamy-white young, which ultimately become black—then all the above-given paradoxical facts on the changes of colour in silver-greys and in their descendants the Himalayans would come under the law of reversion, supervening at different periods of growth and in different degrees, either to the original black or to the original albino parent-variety.

{111}

It is, also, remarkable that Himalayans, though produced so suddenly, breed true. But as, whilst young, they are albinoes, the case falls under a very general rule; for albinism is well known to be strongly inherited, as with white mice and many other quadrupeds, and even with white flowers. But why, it may be asked, do the ears, tail, nose, and feet, and no other part of the body, revert to a black colour? This apparently depends on a law, which generally holds good, namely, that characters common to many species of a genus—and this, in fact, implies long inheritance in common from the ancient progenitor of the genus—are found to resist variation, or to reappear if lost, more persistently than the characters which are confined to the separate species. Now, in the genus Lepus, a large majority of the species have their ears and the upper surface of the tail tinted black; but the persistence of these marks is best seen in those species which in winter become white: thus, in Scotland the L. variabilis[265] in its winter dress has a shade of colour on its nose, and the tips of its ears are black: in the L. tibetanus the ears are black, the upper surface of the tail greyish-black, and the soles of the feet brown: in L. glacialis the winter fur is pure white, except the soles of the feet and the points of the ears. Even in the variously-coloured fancy rabbits we may often observe a tendency in these same parts to be more darkly tinted than the rest of the body. Thus, as it seems to me, the appearance of the several coloured marks on the Himalayan rabbit, as it grows old, is rendered intelligible. I may add a nearly analogous case: fancy rabbits very often have a white star on their foreheads; and the common English hare, whilst young, generally has, as I have myself observed, a similar white star on its forehead.

When variously coloured rabbits are set free in Europe, and are thus placed under their natural conditions, they generally revert to the aboriginal grey colour; this may be in part due to the tendency in all crossed animals, as lately observed, to revert to their primordial state. But this tendency does not always prevail; thus silver-grey rabbits are kept in warrens, and remain true though living almost in a state of nature; but a {112} warren must not be stocked with both silver-greys and common rabbits; otherwise "in a few years there will be none but common greys surviving."[266] When rabbits run wild in foreign countries, under different conditions of life, they by no means always revert to their aboriginal colour. In Jamaica the feral rabbits are described as "slate-coloured, deeply tinted with sprinklings of white on the neck, on the shoulders, and on the back; softening off to blue-white under the breast and belly."[267] But in this tropical island the conditions were not favourable to their increase, and they never spread widely; and, as I hear from Mr. R. Hill, owing to a great fire which occurred in the woods, they have now become extinct. Rabbits during many years have run wild in the Falkland Islands; they are abundant in certain parts, but do not spread extensively. Most of them are of the common grey colour; a few, as I am informed by Admiral Sulivan, are hare-coloured, and many are black, often with nearly symmetrical white marks on their faces. Hence, M. Lesson described the black variety as a distinct species, under the name of Lepus magellanicus, but this, as I have elsewhere shown, is an error.[268] Within recent times the sealers have stocked some of the small outlying islets in the Falkland group with rabbits; and on Pebble Islet, as I hear from Admiral Sulivan, a large proportion are hare-coloured, whereas on Rabbit Islet a large proportion are of a bluish colour which is not elsewhere seen. How the rabbits were coloured which were turned out on these islets is not known.

The rabbits which have become feral on the island of Porto Santo, near Madeira, deserve a fuller account. In 1418 or 1419, J. Gonzales Zarco[269] happened to have a female rabbit on board which had produced young during the voyage, and he turned them all out on the island. These animals soon increased so {113} rapidly, that they became a nuisance, and actually caused the abandonment of the settlement. Thirty-seven years subsequently, Cada Mosto describes them as innumerable; nor is this surprising, as the island was not inhabited by any beast of prey or by any terrestrial mammal. We do not know the character of the mother-rabbit; but we have every reason to believe that it was the common domesticated kind. The Spanish peninsula, whence Zarco sailed, is known to have abounded with the common wild species at the most remote historical period. As these rabbits were taken on board for food, it is improbable that they should have been of any peculiar breed. That the breed was well domesticated is shown by the doe having littered during the voyage. Mr. Wollaston, at my request, brought home two of these feral rabbits in spirits of wine; and, subsequently, Mr. W. Haywood sent to me three more specimens in brine, and two alive. These seven specimens, though caught at different periods, closely resembled each other. They were full grown, as shown by the state of their bones. Although the conditions of life in Porto Santo are evidently highly favourable to rabbits, as proved by their extraordinarily rapid increase, yet they differ conspicuously in their small size from the wild English rabbit. Four English rabbits, measured from the incisors to the anus, varied between 17 and 173/4 inches in length; whilst two of the Porto Santo rabbits were only 141/2 and 15 inches in length. But the decrease in size is best shown by weight; four wild English rabbits averaged 3 lb. 5 oz., whilst one of the Porto Santo rabbits, which had lived for four years in the Zoological Gardens, but had become thin, weighed only 1 lb. 9 oz. A fairer test is afforded by the comparison of the well-cleaned limb-bones of a P. Santo rabbit killed on the island with the same bones of a wild English rabbit of average size, and they differed in the proportion of rather less than five to nine. So that the Porto Santo rabbits have decreased nearly three inches in length, and almost half in weight of body.[270] The head has not decreased in length {114} proportionally with the body; and the capacity of the brain-case is, as we shall hereafter see, singularly variable. I prepared four skulls, and these resembled each other more closely than do generally the skulls of wild English rabbits; but the only difference in structure which they presented was that the supra-orbital processes of the frontal bones were narrower.

In colour the Porto Santo rabbit differs considerably from the common rabbit; the upper surface is redder, and is rarely interspersed with any black or black-tipped hairs. The throat and certain parts of the under surface, instead of being pure white, are generally pale grey or leaden colour. But the most remarkable difference is in the ears and tail; I have examined many fresh English rabbits, and the large collection of skins in the British Museum from various countries, and all have the upper surface of the tail and the tips of the ears clothed with blackish-grey fur; and this is given in most works as one of the specific characters of the rabbit. Now in the seven Porto Santo rabbits the upper surface of the tail was reddish-brown, and the tips of the ears had no trace of the black edging. But here we meet with a singular circumstance: in June, 1861, I examined two of these rabbits recently sent to the Zoological Gardens, and their tails and ears were coloured as just described; but when one of their dead bodies was sent to me in February, 1865, the ears were plainly edged, and the upper surface of the tail was covered, with blackish-grey fur, and the whole body was much less red; so that under the English climate this individual rabbit had recovered the proper colour of its fur in rather less than four years!

The two little Porto Santo rabbits, whilst alive in the Zoological Gardens, had a remarkably different appearance from the common kind. They were extraordinarily wild and active, so that many persons exclaimed on seeing them that they were more like large rats than rabbits. They were nocturnal to an unusual degree in their habits, and their wildness was never in the least subdued; so that the superintendent, Mr. Bartlett, assured me that he had never had a wilder animal under his charge. This is a singular fact, considering that they are descended from a domesticated breed; I was so much surprised at it, that I requested Mr. Haywood to make inquiries on the spot, {115} whether they were much hunted by the inhabitants, or persecuted by hawks, or cats, or other animals; but this is not the case, and no cause can be assigned for their wildness. They live on the central, higher rocky land and near the sea-cliffs, and, being exceedingly shy and timid, seldom appear in the lower and cultivated districts. They are said to produce from four to six young at a birth, and their breeding season is in July and August. Lastly, and this is a highly remarkable fact, Mr. Bartlett could never succeed in getting these two rabbits, which were both males, to associate or breed with the females of several breeds which were repeatedly placed with them.

If the history of these Porto Santo rabbits had not been known, most naturalists, on observing their much reduced size, their reddish colour above and grey beneath, with neither tail nor ears tipped with black, would have ranked them as a distinct species. They would have been strongly confirmed in this view by seeing them alive in the Zoological Gardens, and hearing that they refused to couple with other rabbits. Yet this rabbit, which there can be little doubt would thus have been ranked as a distinct species, has certainly originated since the year 1420. Finally, from the three cases of the rabbits which have run wild in Porto Santo, Jamaica, and the Falkland Islands, we see that these animals do not, under new conditions of life, revert to or retain their aboriginal character, as is so generally asserted to be the case by most authors.

Osteological Characters.

When we remember, on the one hand, how frequently it is stated that important parts of the structure never vary; and, on the other hand, on what small differences in the skeleton, fossil species have often been founded, the variability of the skull and of some other bones in the domesticated rabbit well deserves attention. It must not be supposed that the more important differences immediately to be described strictly characterise any one breed; all that can be said is, that they are generally present in certain breeds. We should bear in mind that selection has not been applied to fix any character in the skeleton, and that the animals have not had to support themselves under {116} uniform habits of life. We cannot account for most of the differences in the skeleton; but we shall see that the increased size of the body, due to careful nurture and continued selection, has affected the head in a particular manner. Even the elongation and lopping of the ears have influenced in a small degree the form of the whole skull. The want of exercise has apparently modified the proportional length of the limbs in comparison with the body.





As a standard of comparison, I prepared skeletons of two wild rabbits from Kent, one from the Shetland Islands, and one from Antrim in Ireland. As all the bones in these four specimens from such distant localities closely resembled each other, presenting scarcely any appreciable difference, it may be concluded that the bones of the wild rabbit are generally uniform in character.

Skull.—I have carefully examined skulls of ten large lop-eared fancy rabbits, and of five common domestic rabbits, which latter differ from the lop-eared only in not having such large bodies or ears, yet both larger than in the wild rabbit. First for the ten lop-eared rabbits: in all these the skull is remarkably elongated in comparison with its breadth. In a wild rabbit the length was 3.15 inches, in a large fancy rabbit 4.30; whilst the breadth of the cranium enclosing the brain was in both almost exactly the same. Even by taking as the standard of comparison the widest part of the zygomatic arch, the skulls of the lop-eared are proportionally to their breadth three-quarters of an inch too long. The depth of the head has increased almost in the same proportion with the length; it is the breadth alone which has not increased. The parietal and occipital bones enclosing the brain are less arched, both in a longitudinal and transverse line, than in the wild rabbit, so that the shape of the cranium is somewhat different. The surface is rougher, less cleanly sculptured, and the lines of sutures are more prominent.

Although the skulls of the large lop-eared rabbits in comparison with those of the wild rabbit are much elongated relatively to their breadth, yet, relatively to the size of body, they are far from elongated. The lop-eared rabbits which I examined were, though not fat, more than twice as heavy as the wild specimens; but the skull was very far from being twice as long. Even if we take the fairer standard of the length of body, from the nose to the anus, the skull is not on an average as long as it ought to be by a third of an inch. In the small feral P. Santo rabbit, on the other hand, the head relatively to the length of body is about a quarter of an inch too long.



This elongation of the skull relatively to its breadth, I find a universal character, not only with the large lop-eared rabbits, but in all the artificial breeds; as is well seen in the skull of the Angora. I was at first much surprised at the fact, and could not imagine why domestication should produce this uniform result; but the explanation seems to lie in the circumstance that during a number of generations the artificial races have been closely confined, and have had little occasion to exert either their senses, or intellect, or voluntary muscles; consequently the brain, as {117} we shall presently more fully see, has not increased relatively with the size of body. As the brain has not increased, the bony case enclosing it has not increased, and this has evidently affected through correlation the breadth of the entire skull from end to end.

In all the skulls of the large lop-eared rabbits, the supra-orbital plates or processes of the frontal bones ere much broader than in the wild rabbit, and they generally project more upwards. In the zygomatic arch the posterior or projecting point of the malar-bone is broader and blunter; and in the specimen, fig. 8, it is so in a remarkable degree. This point approaches nearer to the auditory meatus than in the wild rabbit, as may be best seen in fig. 8; but this circumstance mainly depends on the changed direction of the meatus. The inter-parietal bone (see fig. 9) differs much in shape in the several skulls; generally it is more oval, or has a greater width in the line of the longitudinal axis of the skull, than in the wild rabbit. The {118} posterior margin of "the square raised platform" [271] of the occiput, instead of being truncated, or projecting slightly as in the wild rabbit, is in most lop-eared rabbits pointed, as in fig. 9, C. The paramastoids relatively to the size of the skull are generally much thicker than in the wild rabbit.

The occipital foramen (fig. 10) presents some remarkable differences: in the wild rabbit, the lower edge between the condyles is considerably and almost angularly hollowed out, and the upper edge is deeply and squarely notched; hence the longitudinal axis exceeds the transverse axis. In the skulls of the lop-eared rabbits the transverse axis exceeds the longitudinal; for in none of these skulls was the lower edge between the condyles so deeply hollowed out; in five of them there was no upper square notch, in three there was a trace of the notch, and in two alone it was well developed. These differences in the shape of the foramen are remarkable, considering that it gives passage to so important a structure as the spinal marrow, though apparently the outline of the latter is not affected by the shape of the passage.





In all the skulls of the large lop-eared rabbits, the bony auditory meatus is conspicuously larger than in the wild rabbit. In a skull 4.3 inches in length, and which barely exceeded in breadth the skull of a wild rabbit (which was 3.15 inches in length), the longer diameter of the meatus was exactly twice as great. The orifice is more compressed, and its margin on the side nearest the skull stands up higher than the outer side. The whole meatus is directed more forwards. As in breeding lop-eared rabbits the length of the ears, and their consequent lopping and lying flat on the face, are the chief points of excellence, there can hardly be a doubt that the great change in the size, form, and direction of the bony meatus, relatively to this same part in the wild rabbit, is due to the continued selection of individuals having {119} larger and larger ears. The influence of the external ear on the bony meatus is well shown in the skulls (I have examined three) of half-lops (see fig. 5), in which one ear stands upright, and the other and longer ear hangs down; for in these skulls there was a plain difference in the form and direction of the bony meatus on the two sides. But it is a much more interesting fact, that the changed direction and increased size of the bony meatus have slightly affected on the same side the structure of the whole skull. I here give a drawing of the skull of a half-lop; and it may be observed that the suture between the parietal and frontal bones does not run strictly at right angles to the longitudinal axis of the skull; the left frontal bone projects beyond the right one; both the posterior and anterior margins of the left zygomatic arch on the side of the lopping ear stand a little in advance of the corresponding bones on the opposite side. Even the lower jaw is affected, and the condyles are not quite symmetrical, that on the left standing a little in advance of that on the right. This seems to me a remarkable case of correlation of growth. Who would have surmised that by keeping an animal during many generations under confinement, and so leading to the disuse of the muscles of the ears, and by continually selecting individuals with the longest and largest ears, he would thus indirectly have affected almost every suture in the skull and the form of the lower jaw!



In the large lop-eared rabbits the only difference in the lower jaw, in comparison with that of the wild rabbit, is that the posterior margin of the ascending ramus is broader and more inflected. The teeth in neither jaw present any difference, except that the small incisors, beneath the large ones, are proportionally a little longer. The molar teeth have increased in size proportionally with the increased width of the skull, measured across the zygomatic arch, and not proportionally with its increased length. The inner line of the sockets of the molar teeth in the upper jaw of the wild rabbit forms a perfectly straight line; but in {120} some of the largest skulls of the lop-eared this line was plainly bowed inwards. In one specimen there was an additional molar tooth on each side of the upper jaw, between the molars and premolars; but these two teeth did not correspond in size; and as no rodent has seven molars, this is merely a monstrosity, though a curious one.

The five other skulls of common domestic rabbits, some of which approach in size the above-described largest skulls, whilst the others exceed but little those of the wild rabbit, are only worth notice as presenting a perfect gradation in all the above-specified differences between the skulls of the largest lop-eared and wild rabbits. In all, however, the supra-orbital plates are rather larger, and in all the auditory meatus is larger, in conformity with the increased size of the external ears, than in the wild rabbit. The lower notch in the occipital foramen in some was not so deep as in the wild, but in all five skulls the upper notch was well developed.

The skull of the Angora rabbit, like the latter five skulls, is intermediate in general proportions, and in most other characters, between those of the largest lop-eared and wild rabbits. It presents only one singular character: though considerably longer than the skull of the wild, the breadth measured within the posterior supra-orbital fissures is nearly a third less than in the wild. The skulls of the silver-grey, and chinchilla and Himalayan rabbits are more elongated than in the wild, with broader supra-orbital plates, but differ little in any other respect, excepting that the upper and lower notches of the occipital foramen are not so deep or so well developed. The skull of the Moscow rabbit scarcely differs in any respect from that of the wild rabbit. In the Porto Santo feral rabbits the supra-orbital plates are generally narrower and more pointed than in our wild rabbits.

As some of the largest lop-eared rabbits of which I prepared skeletons were coloured almost like hares, and as these latter animals and rabbits have, as it is affirmed, been recently crossed in France, it might be thought that some of the above-described characters had been derived from a cross at a remote period with the hare. Consequently I examined skulls of the hare, but no light could thus be thrown on the peculiarities of the skulls of the larger rabbits. It is, however, an interesting fact, as illustrating the law that varieties of one species often assume the characters of other species of the same genus, that I found, on comparing the skulls of ten species of hares in the British Museum, that they differed from each other chiefly in the very same points in which domestic rabbits vary,—namely, in general proportions, in the form and size of the supra-orbital plates, in the form of the free end of the malar bone, and in the line of suture separating the occipital and frontal bones. Moreover two eminently variable characters in the domestic rabbit, namely, the outline of the occipital foramen and the shape of the "raised platform" of the occiput, were likewise variable in two instances in the same species of hare.

Vertebrae.—The number is uniform in all the skeletons which I have examined, with two exceptions, namely, in one of the small feral Porto Santo rabbits and in one of the largest lop-eared kinds; both of these had as usual seven cervical, twelve dorsal with ribs, but, instead of seven lumbar, both had eight lumbar vertebrae. This is remarkable, as Gervais gives {121} seven as the number for the whole genus Lepus. The caudal vertebrae apparently differ by two or three, but I did not attend to them, and they are difficult to count with certainty.

In the first cervical vertebra, or atlas, the anterior margin of the neural arch varies a little in wild specimens, being either nearly smooth, or furnished with a small supra-median atlantoid process; I have figured a specimen with the largest process (a) which I have seen; but it will be observed how inferior this is in size and different in shape to that in a large lop-eared rabbit. In the latter, the infra-median process (b) is also proportionally much thicker and longer. The alae are a little squarer in outline.



Third cervical vertebra.—In the wild rabbit (fig. 13, A a) this vertebra, viewed on the inferior surface, has a transverse process, which is directed obliquely backwards, and consists of a single pointed bar; in the fourth vertebra this process is slightly forked in the middle. In the large lop-eared rabbits this process (B a) is forked in the third vertebra, as in the fourth of the wild rabbit. But the third cervical vertebrae of the wild and lop-eared (A b, B b) rabbits differ more conspicuously when their anterior articular surfaces are compared; for the extremities of the antero-dorsal processes in the wild rabbit are simply rounded, whilst in the lop-eared they are trifid, with a deep central pit. The canal for the spinal marrow in the lop-eared (B b) is more elongated in a transverse direction than in the wild rabbit; and the passages for the arteries are of a slightly different shape. These several differences in this vertebra seem to me well deserving attention.



First dorsal vertebra.—Its neural spine varies in length in the wild rabbit; being sometimes very short, but generally more than half as long as that of the second dorsal; but I have seen it in two large lop-eared rabbits three-fourths of the length of that of the second dorsal vertebra.

Ninth and tenth dorsal vertebrae.—In the wild rabbit the neural spine of the ninth vertebra is just perceptibly thicker than that of the eighth; and {122} the neural spine of the tenth is plainly thicker and shorter than those of all the anterior vertebrae. In the large lop-cared rabbits the neural spines of the tenth, ninth, eighth, and even in a slight degree that of the seventh vertebra, are very much thicker, and of somewhat different shape, in comparison with those of the wild rabbit. So that this part of the vertebral column differs considerably in appearance from the same part in the wild rabbit, and closely resembles in an interesting manner these same vertebrae in some species of hares. In the Angora, Chinchilla, and Himalayan rabbits, the neural spines of the eighth and ninth vertebrae are in a slight degree thicker than in the wild. On the other hand, in one of the feral Porto Santo rabbits, which in most of its characters deviates in an exactly opposite manner to what the large lop-cared rabbits do from the common wild rabbit, the neural spines of the ninth and tenth vertebrae were not at all larger than those of the several anterior vertebrae. In this same Porto Santo specimen there was no trace in the ninth vertebra of the anterior lateral processes (see woodcut 14), which are plainly developed in all British wild rabbits, and still more plainly developed in the large lop-eared rabbits. In a half-wild rabbit from Sandon Park,[272] a haemal spine was moderately well developed on the under side of the twelfth dorsal vertebra, and I have seen this in no other specimen.





Lumbar vertebrae.—I have stated that in two cases there were eight instead of seven lumbar vertebrae. The third lumbar vertebra in one skeleton of a wild British rabbit, and in one of the Porto Santo feral rabbits, had a haemal spine; whilst in four skeletons of large lop-eared rabbits, and in the Himalayan rabbit, this same vertebra had a well-developed haemal spine.

Pelvis.—In four wild specimens this bone was almost absolutely identical in shape; but in several domesticated breeds shades of differences {123} could be distinguished. In the large lop-eared rabbits the whole upper part of the ilium is straighter, or less splayed outwards, than in the wild rabbit; and the tuberosity on the inner lip of the anterior and upper part of the ilium is proportionally more prominent.

Sternum.—The posterior end of the posterior sternal bone in the wild rabbit (fig. 15, A) is thin and slightly enlarged; in some of the large lop-eared rabbits (B) it is much more enlarged towards the extremity; whilst in other specimens (C) it keeps nearly of the same breadth from end to end, but is much thicker at the extremity.



Scapula.—The acromion sends out a rectangular bar, ending in an oblique knob, which latter in the wild rabbit (fig. 16, A) varies a little in shape and size, as does the apex of the acromion in sharpness, and the part just below the rectangular bar in breadth. But the variations in these respects in the wild rabbit are very slight; whilst in the large lop-eared rabbits they are considerable. Thus in some specimens (B) the oblique terminal knob is developed into a short bar, forming an obtuse angle with the rectangular bar. In another specimen (C) these two unequal bars form nearly a straight line. The apex of the acromion varies much in breadth and sharpness, as may be seen by comparing figs. B, C, and D.

Limbs.—In these I could detect no variation; but the bones of the feet were too troublesome to compare with much care.

I have now described all the differences in the skeletons which I have observed. It is impossible not to be struck with the high degree of variability or plasticity of many of the bones. We see how erroneous the often-repeated statement is, that only the crests of the bones which give attachment to muscles vary in shape, and that only parts of slight importance {124} become modified under domestication. No one will say, for instance, that the occipital foramen, or the atlas, or the third cervical vertebra is a part of slight importance. If the several vertebrae of the wild and lop-eared rabbits, of which figures have been given, had been found fossil, palaeontologists would have declared without hesitation that they had belonged to distinct species.

The effects of the use and disuse of parts.—In the large lop-eared rabbits the relative proportional lengths of the bones of the same leg, and of the front and hind legs compared with each other, have remained nearly the same as in the wild rabbit; but in weight, the bones of the hind legs apparently have not increased in due proportion with the front legs. The weight of the whole body in the large rabbits examined by me was from twice to twice and a half as great as that of the wild rabbit; and the weight of the bones of the front and hind limbs taken together (excluding the feet, on account of the difficulty of perfectly cleaning so many small bones) has increased in the large lop-eared rabbits in nearly the same proportion; consequently in due proportion to the weight of body which they have to support. If we take the length of the body as the standard of comparison, the limbs of the large rabbits have not increased in length in due proportion by one inch, or by one inch and a half. Again, if we take as the standard of comparison the length of the skull, which, as we have before seen, has not increased in length in due proportion to the length of body, the limbs will be found to be, proportionally with those of the wild rabbit, from half to three-quarters of an inch too short. Hence, whatever standard of comparison be taken, the limb-bones of the large lop-eared rabbits have not increased in length, though they have in weight, in full proportion to the other parts of the frame; and this, I presume, may be accounted for by the inactive life which during many generations they have spent. Nor has the scapula increased in length in due proportion to the increased length of the body.

The capacity of the osseous case of the brain is a more interesting point, to which I was led to attend by finding, as previously stated, that with all domesticated rabbits the length of the skull relatively to its breadth has greatly increased in comparison with that of the wild rabbit. If we had possessed a large number of domesticated rabbits of nearly the same size with the wild rabbit, it would have been a simple task to have measured and compared the capacities of their skulls. But this is not the case; almost all the domestic breeds have larger bodies than wild rabbits, and the lop-eared kinds are more than double their weight. As a small animal has to exert its senses, intellect, and instincts equally with a large animal, we ought not by any means to expect an animal twice or thrice as large as another to have a brain of double or treble the size.[273] Now, after weighing {125} the bodies of four wild rabbits, and of four large but not fattened lop-eared rabbits, I find that on an average the wild are to the lop-eared in weight as 1 to 2.47; in average length of body as 1 to 1.41; whilst in capacity of skull (measured as hereafter to be described) they are only as 1 to 1.15. Hence we see that the capacity of the skull, and consequently the size of the brain, has increased but little, relatively to the increased size of the body; and this fact explains the narrowness of the skull relatively to its length in all domestic rabbits.

In the upper half of the following table I have given the measurements of the skulls of ten wild rabbits; and in the lower half of eleven thoroughly domesticated kinds. As these rabbits differ so greatly in size, it is necessary to have some standard by which to compare the capacities of their skulls. I have selected the length of skull as the best standard, for in the larger rabbits it has not, as already stated, increased in length so much as the body; but as the skull, like every other part, varies in length, neither it nor any other part affords a perfect standard.

In the first column of figures the extreme length of the skull is given in inches and decimals. I am aware that these measurements pretend to greater accuracy than is possible; but I have found it the least trouble to record the exact length which the compass gave. The second and third columns give the length and weight of body, whenever these measurements have been made. The fourth column gives the capacity of the skull by the weight of small shot with which the skulls had been filled; but it is not pretended that these weights are accurate within a few grains. In the fifth column the capacity is given which the skull ought to have had by calculation, according to the length of skull, in comparison with that of the wild rabbit No. 1; in the sixth column the difference between the actual and calculated capacities, and in the seventh the percentage of increase or decrease, are given. For instance, as the wild rabbit No. 5 has a shorter and lighter body than the wild rabbit No. 1, we might have expected that its skull would have had less capacity; the actual capacity, as expressed by the weight of shot, is 875 grains, which is 97 grains less than that of the first rabbit. But comparing these two rabbits by the length of their skulls, we see that in No. 1 the skull is 3.15 inches in length, and in No. 5 2.96 inches in length; according to this ratio, the brain of No. 5 ought to have had a capacity of 913 grains of shot, which is above the actual capacity, but only by 38 grains. Or, to put the case in another way (as in column VII), the brain of this small rabbit, No. 5, for every 100 grains of weight is only 4 per cent. too light,—that is, it ought, according to the standard rabbit No. 1, to have been 4 per cent. heavier. I have taken the rabbit No. 1 as the standard of comparison because, of the skulls having a full average length, this has the least capacity; so that it is the least favourable to the result which I wish to show, namely, that the brain in all long-domesticated rabbits has decreased in size, either actually, or relatively to the length of the head and body, in comparison with the brain of the wild rabbit. Had I taken the Irish rabbit, No. 3, as the standard, the following results would have been somewhat more striking.