6 
 1 
 6 
 
 8; 
 
 4 i 
 4 i 
 
 11 Right Mixture makes good Mortar." 
 
 THE THEORY AND PRACTICE 
 
 RATIONAL BREEDING. 
 
 EVERETT MILLAIS.
 

 
 UCSB LIBRARY 
 
 Eft' F* f> 
 HI 
 
 58 GHJ 
 
 EAST ORANGE,
 
 THE THEORY AND PRACTICE OF 
 RATIONAL BREEDING.

 
 THE THEORY AND PRACTICE 
 
 RATIONAL BREEDING. 
 
 BY EVERETT MILLAIS. 
 
 LONDON : 
 
 THE "FANCIERS GAZETTE," LIMITED, 
 
 54 TO 57, IMPERIAL BUILDINGS, LUDGATE CIRCUS, E.G.
 
 CONTENTS, 
 
 C HA IT Ell I. 
 
 PAGE 
 ORIGIN OF LIFE, AND ITS KI.SE TO ORDERS, WITH THEIR 
 
 SUB-DIVISIONS 1 
 
 CHAPTER II. 
 
 CAUSE OF VARIATION HEliEIUTY S 
 
 CHAITKK III. 
 
 TVI'KS 6F A UNIT NATURAL TYPE MAN'S "CORRECT 
 
 TYPE" RESIDENCE Ol TYPE VALUE OF TYPE 14 
 
 CHA1TEK IV. 
 
 ARTIFICIAL SELECTION THE ORIGINAL UMTS OF DOMI->TI- 
 CATION AND THEIK RISE, AFTER THE APPEARANCE OF 
 RATIONAL MAN, INTO FA Ml I, IKS, STRAIN'S, VARIETIES. 1>2 
 
 ( II AITKI! V. 
 THE TYPES FORMED J!Y THE Ei^l'AI.-FACTOR SYSTEM ... 29 
 
 CHAITKK VI. 
 THE TYPES FORMED liY THE UNEIJUAL-FACTOR s^'sTEM ... 3(i
 
 CONTENTS. 
 
 CHAPTER VII. 
 
 I'AGK 
 
 RESULTS OF CARRYING THE UNEQUAL-KACTOU SYSTEM TOO 
 FAR IN VARIETIES, STRAINS, FA MIMES, AND INDIVI- 
 DUALS .. ' 44 
 
 CHAPTER VIII. 
 
 INTRODUCTION OF FRESH BLOOD INTO DETERIORATING 
 
 VARIETIES, STRAINS, FAMILIES, AND INDIVIDUALS ... 52 
 
 CHAPTER IX. 
 
 STRENGTH REQUIRED IN THE GREATER FACTOR. TO PRODUCE 
 GOOD TYPE IN VARIETIES, STRAINS. FAMILIES, AND 
 INDIVIDUALS, AND A BREEDER'S AXIOM AS TO HOW 
 THEY MAY BE PRODUCED 59 
 
 CHAPTER X. 
 
 TRUE SPORTS AND PSEUDO-SPORTS THEIR ORIGIN AND 
 
 PROPAGATION 68 
 
 CHAPTER XI. 
 
 VALUE, USE, AND REDUCTION OF PEDIGREE 79 
 
 CHAPTER XII. 
 
 THE RISE OF A UNIT TO A STRAIN, AND THE PRECEDENCE 
 
 OF THE FAMILIES IN IT 85 
 
 CHAPTER XIII. 
 
 RATIONAL BREEDING 90
 
 INTRODUCTION. 
 
 IN 1886, after having been a breeder of basset-hounds for some 
 fourteen years, during which time I was an exceedingly close 
 observer of the results brought about by the crossing of individual 
 hounds of the same family, of hounds of differing families, of 
 hounds of differing strains, ami accidental alliances of l>;- 
 hounds with other varieties of the species Dog, I produced being 
 firmly convinced that there was some rea>on for the differences in 
 individual, family, strain, and variety types of the species, deterio- 
 ration, degeneration, difficulty in rearing, and, finally, non-repro- 
 duction in the breed a small work for the purpose of giving the 
 reasons for the above, and for the additional purpose of showing 
 the members of the Basset Hound Club how a better result could 
 be obtained. 
 
 This small work was brought out, or at least the principles on 
 which it wa> based, by the Chus.-n: lllii-ftrfe, in three articles 
 written by Mon. K. Frechon, who, having studied its scientific 
 ba>i*. -ays : 
 
 " It is in the formation and application of these rules that the 
 English have become, and have remained, so far as breeding i- 
 concerned, our ma-ter-. 
 
 Whereas we in France leave everything to luck, awaiting 
 some fortuitous and unforeseen circumstance to produce superior 
 types in a breed, over there (England) they have for ages modified 
 tlie laws which regulate eroding. They have, I might almost -ay, 
 ' weighed ' the exact proportion of blood necessary to be added, 
 through several generations, to that of some celebrated individual, 
 to en MI re in the end his type and attributes. 
 
 "Yet. notwithstanding pedigrees and the like, we, on the 
 other hand, unfortunately tor us. continue to breed, trusting to 
 luck, the outcome being, of course, that our produce is invariably 
 destined to be inferior, and therefore beaten by the produce of 
 rational breeding, of breeding reduced to a system of algebraical 
 formula'. Yes. formula- at which we may laugh, but a system, 
 nevertheless, which furnishes, nineteen out of twenty times, field 
 prize winners, champions on the show l>ench, celebrities on the 
 turf, and prixe winners at the agricultural meetings." 
 
 Such, then, are Mons. Frechon 's views, and lie has put them 
 before his countrymen more in the manner of an Englishman than 
 any one el>e. They are straightforward enough even to bluntii'--.
 
 At the same time I think the writer has considerably over- 
 estimated Englishmen ; nor is England quite such a breeder's 
 Utopia as Mons. Frechon would have his fellow-countrymen 
 believe. 
 
 The number of breeders in England is far greater than abroad, 
 as may l>e seen by the greater support all show- have, and the 
 greater numljer of exhibitors. In fact, there is scarcely an 
 Englishman who lias half .an acre of ground who doe- not breed 
 some stock. On the other hand, lam certain the percent: 
 men who breed with no object, and trusting to luck, i- quite a- 
 large here as it is in France. 
 
 I most thoroughly endorse, however, Mons. F reel ion's con 
 eluding statements, ami they are amply justified when I >ay 
 that every winning basset-hound at the' late Agricultural Hail 
 Kennel Club Show was bred upon my system, ami five of them by 
 one exhibitor who has followed my view-. 
 
 These hounds were the result of crossing two differing .-train- 
 and then inbreeding to one of them. I advised another cross still : 
 nevertheless, even without that, they are good enough to win. 
 In my small work on these hounds, I nave said I had the luck to 
 have a beginning. In a work of this kind, however, there is 
 practically no beginning, unless one goes back to the very com- 
 mencement of all. 
 
 When we observe Darwin's experiments on the blue rook pigeon, 
 and how from it by selection he produced most of the common 
 varieties of our domestic ones, we cannot help being greatly struck 
 with the fact that if one of the domestic pigeons, as Darwin Im- 
 proved it to l>e, is a variety of the common blue rock, then the 
 common blue rook is a variety of something else. Gradually then. 
 by a system of retmgreion instead of progression, we mu>t 
 arrive at the original unit of life and this is exactly where I have 
 found it necessary to l>egin a work of this kind. 
 
 To many the name of Darwin conjures up vi-i.>n- of human 
 monkeys, men with tails, to others the destruction of Faith and 
 the disbelief in a Deity. To this I will refer, but at the same time 
 I must confess I fail to appreciate any vision of this kind. To 
 me, Darwin's theory is the stupendous work of a >tupendous 
 mind, and, in making u>e of it a.s the base of thi> bonk, the reader 
 will agree with me that it is the only theory put before the world 
 that will satisfactorily account for the multiplicity of life-forms at 
 present extant, and the variation which is constantly going on in 
 nature, whether the reader be a student of nature or not. 
 
 Now, without going into the question of whether men were 
 descended from monkeys or <//<: m'.v/, neither of which i> correct, 
 let us for a moment look on the other side of the question the 
 religious aspect. It is the habit of many to cavil at Darwin, t 
 urge that his writings tend to annihilate religion, to .-weep a\\ay 
 the religious truths a> pre-ented to us in the Bible. 
 
 In consequence of tin- there are a class of people of >o narrow 
 an intellect that they will inform you that I)arwin'> work- are 
 unfit to be in the hands of Christian men and women.
 
 Might I not say with equal truth tluit tliere is a class of Chris- 
 tian men and women who are unfit to have- Darwin's works in 
 their hands. 
 
 Again, there are classes which variate in their appreciation of 
 Darwin ; they accept a certain amount, hut stick at the descent of 
 man. Might they not just as well accept it all ? No, they say, 
 " it is nut in accordance with the Word of ( Jod." 
 
 Now if we look at the question without prejudice, which many 
 cannot do, since they believe Darwin's teachings impious, the 
 reason is not very indistinct. It is simple want of power of intellect 
 a want of education. 
 
 It is not in the power of the mass of mankind to understand his 
 work. Look what it means, the intimate knowledge of some 
 half-dozen " ologies. " How many have this necessary education. 
 Why is it that the scientific world accept Darwin's theory, and the 
 unscientific refuse it? Plainly because the former have the neces- 
 sary knowledge, the latter are without it. 
 
 How many unscientific men or women can follow his arguments 
 and comparisons I What period of the earth's structure does the 
 Pliocene represent to them, the Miocene, or the Tertiary? What 
 life-forms do such words as Archeopteryx, Pterodactyle, Eohippus 
 or 1'roto/oon convey to their minds ? None whatever. 
 
 Can we wonder, then, that Darwin's works are fruitlessly read, 
 misunderstood, and finally misrepresented ? 
 
 In a recent publication, "The Story of Creation" (Clodd), an 
 effort has been made to put Darwin's theory before the reading 
 public in a shape that can be perused by the unscientific mind ; but 
 clever though the author's intentions are, and well arranged as the 
 work is, personally I consider it beyond the range still of many. 
 Now Darwin's theory dues not sweep away the history of creation 
 as given in dencsis. I maintain that lit; simply augments it, and 
 reveals to us that the six biblical days and nights, during which 
 creation from chaos to man was effected, were nothing more than 
 cycles of time, during which j>eriods there was a gradual varia- 
 tion and change going on, a progressive movement from an 
 original life-form, whatever that might have been, until it cul- 
 minated in the advent of man in the sixth of these periods. 
 
 This definition of day and night is one now practically admitted 
 by our best informed and must enlightened ( 'hnrchmen, but docs 
 this fact do away with the possibility of ;i Deitv? Nut in the 
 least. 
 
 It is not my province or intention to enter into the question as 
 to whether life is the result of a Divine jiower or of natural forces, 
 and in making use of Darwin's theory as the basis of this work 
 1 do it >im]ily as a means to an end. 
 
 His theory is nuw the accepted theory of the most advanced 
 and admittedly able scientists of the day : consequently, in dealing 
 with rational breeding, which is in itself a scientific question, it 
 would l>e must unwise to make use of any other when one so 
 powerful is in our hands. 
 
 Personally, 1 have n hesitation in saying that I accept the
 
 Darwinian theory as the correct one, and if his experiments on 
 the blue rock pigeons are to be accepted a.s correct and no one 
 can but! accept them in like Inanner if our system of breeding 
 can be applied with success to basset-hounds, which is a variety 
 of the species dog, it may certainly be applied just as success- 
 fully to any other variety of the same species, or any variety of 
 any other species, viz. : horses, cattle, sheep, pigs, goats, dogs, 
 cats, fowls, ducks, pigeons, rabbits, and canaries, all of which 
 comprise in a large measure our domestic stock. 
 
 I have gone as clearly as I possibly am able to into the results 
 of the equal and unequal-factor systems ; the cause of deteriora- 
 tion and the means of introducing fresh blood, without sacri- 
 licing existing types. I have attempted in a new way to explain 
 this almost inexplainable term, and through a portion of the work 
 I have made use of the basset-hound, the variety with which I am 
 best acquainted, as examples. 
 
 In making use of my work, then, or perusing it, I must ask my 
 readers to forget that there is such a variety of hound as the 
 basset, and to substitute for it the variety, the strain, the 
 family, and the individual in which he (the reader) is most nearly 
 interested. 
 
 Successful breeding, no one will deny, is .a curiously complex 
 question, and its factors are numerous. It comprises the actual 
 mating of individuals, care, attention, rearing, food, training, 
 &c., &c. ; but no amount of care or attention, food or training, 
 will cause a unit once born into the world to assume good type 
 and correct points if it is born with bad. I have, therefore, applied 
 myself simply to a series of laws for the production of units of 
 correct type to start with, and I leave care and attention, food 
 and training, to those more able to teach me than I them. 
 
 It is an old maxim that it costs no more to keep a pure-bred 
 dog than a mongrel. Why then keep a mongrel ? It is a Avant of 
 knowledge in practical breeding the want of a rational system 
 that produces mongrels, whether they be of variety, strain, or 
 family types. In offering, then, this present work to the public 
 as breeders of stock, my object is to show how pure stock of all 
 kinds and of correct type may be bred ; and in doing so I must ask 
 my readers to remember that the times have much altered in the 
 last few years. Nearly every variety of stock has now its specialist 
 club. We have a code of points, as well as a type, laid down ; 
 competition is more severe, exhibitions more plentiful, judges 
 more difficult to please. To succeed in any branch of life, a man 
 must know his business. To succeed in the exhibiting world a 
 man must know how to breed ; and in every pursuit of life, 
 whether it be one of business as a profession, or business as a 
 pleasure, there must be an object in view and a goal to obtain. 
 
 The art of breeding, the reader will see for himself as he works 
 through these pages, is not in itself a difficult one to master, 
 although it will be allowed it is a somewhat complex one, and I 
 have, therefore, not gone out of my way to .add to it. I have 
 assumed all through that the results of mating will be what we
 
 liavc a right to expect. Under these circumstances the reader 
 will search in vain my pages for examples of such eccentric results. 
 as can lie grouped under the head of " mental impress." 
 Of these we have the following kinds : 
 
 i. Cases in which the female gives hirth to progeny which do- 
 not resemble the actual sire, but the sire of a previous 
 progeny of the same female. 
 Ditto on the part of the male. 
 
 ii. Cases in which the male and female, more frequently the 
 female, are affected by external objects such as other 
 animals, colour, &C. during the period of coition and 
 conception. 
 
 iii. Cases of mental impress during the period of gestation, 
 resulting in malformations from fright, &e. 
 
 Into such questions as these I have not attempted to enter. 
 We hear of such oases frequently, principally amongst a class of 
 people who, having no better reason for an eccentricity in nature, 
 at once assume that it is one of these causes, whereas, as will IK? 
 seen, it is generally due to the introduction of either fresh family 
 or strain blood. Such cases, if they do occur, are the very, very 
 rare exception, not the rule, .and in dealing with rules we cannot 
 accept the exceptions, but, as I have done, pass them by as of no 
 object.
 
 THE THEORY AND PRACTICE OF 
 RATIONAL BREEDING. 
 
 CHAPTER I. 
 
 ORIGIN OF LIFE, AND ITS RISE TO ORDERS, WITH THEIR 
 SUB-DIVISIONS. 
 
 I "\VILL presume that the reader is a man of an observant nature ; 
 if so, he cannot look around him without being struck by the 
 
 Srofuse differentiation of form under which life has existed, and 
 oes so still, upon this earth of ours. 
 
 Seldom indeed can we visit an agricultural, dog, poultry, or 
 Hower show without hearing the remark rej>eated]y made, " I had 
 no idea there were so many varieties.'' 
 
 Indeed, a visit to the Zoological Gardens, Kew Gardens, or the 
 Natural History Museum at South Kensington, must cause su<-h 
 an effect on the mind of any man, be he student of nature or 
 totally uninterested in the variety of life-forms to be seen in these 
 collections. 
 
 The man who can pass this all by, and not ask himself in some 
 form or other, " What is the meaning of all this ? " must l>e, I'm 
 afraid, of a singularly uneiniuiring nature. 
 
 Be this, however, as it may, there certainly is a reason for the 
 diversity of form that I here call attention to. There was a time 
 when man's intellectual power was lower than it is to-day. There 
 was likewise a period when science had not reached its present 
 state of perfection, consequently there was every reason for man 
 remaining in ignorance, since no practical or rational answer 
 could be given for the multiplicity of forms under which life reveals 
 itself. 
 
 Man in these days was content with the Biblical version as 
 given in Genesis, and it sufficed for him to know that there wa* a 
 period in the history of the world when " all was null and void," 
 
 B
 
 and as to life, it was created ; further than this, man knew or 
 cared nothing. 
 
 But nowadays this is all changed. Science has advanced to a 
 high degree of perfection, added to which, man's powers of 
 intellect and habits of observation are increased, and through the 
 theory given to us by the late Charles Darwin, we are now aware 
 of a reason, the only one that will scientifically account for what 
 has taken place since that period in which all was " null and 
 void," and light first broke on original life. This theory is known 
 as the origin of species, a knowledge of which is absolutely 
 necessary if the breeder would desire to understand and penetrate 
 the somewhat complex art of rational breeding. 
 
 In attempting then to tell the tale of progression, which has 
 been going on gradually in the cycles of years which have elapsed 
 since the prototype of modern life appeared on earth, I will try 
 to give a brief resmn& of the origin or species, and also in phrase- 
 ology as little technical as possible, though it must be borne in 
 mind that, simple as the language will be, I cannot at times help 
 making use of certain technical terms for which we have no 
 equivalent in the unscientific English tongue. 
 In brief then the following is the theory : 
 
 Below the strata or upper crusts of the earth on which we now 
 dwell is to be found a stratum bearing the mark of fire, which 
 is held to be a proof that at some period of the world's existence 
 it could have been nothing more than a vast glowing mass, of such 
 intense heat that no life could under any conditions have existed 
 on its surface. This period is known as the lifeless period of the 
 earth's existence. 
 
 Into the cause of the earth being in this condition, it must be 
 obvious I cannot go, since it raises questions which are of no 
 interest to the point at issue. 
 
 It is sufficient for us to know that this was the case, and that 
 on the cooling down of the molten mass life appeared, not on dry 
 land, for as yet there was none, but in a waste of waters, the out- 
 come of condensation. I say life appeared, but the cause of its 
 appearance, that is to say, its origin, is the one question which 
 raises a difficulty, and which no amount of argument will, I 
 believe, ever make clear or join the scientific and religious 
 theories. 
 
 Now, the great argument, on the scientific side, is that life wa> 
 due to natural forces; on the religious, divine inspiration. Against 
 the scientific theory the argument was brought to bear that, since 
 organic matter could not be obtained from inorganic, it was im- 
 possible that life could have been produced by natural forces. I 
 need not say that science has removed this difficulty, and that 
 organic matter has been obtained from inorganic ; wherefore the 
 religious argument against the scientific ceases to have any re /.tun 
 d'etre. Consequently, the scientific theory stands higher than 
 ever. It would be useless, however, to go into the pros and cons 
 for and against these theories, so let us take a middle course and 
 assume that life arose from natural forces inspired by a divine
 
 3 
 
 power, a course that will meet both side* of the question, since 
 we have to do with life itself and not the origin of it. 
 
 It is sufficient for us to know that on the mass cooling down to 
 a sufficient temperature to admit of life enduring on its surface, 
 it appeared as an original germ, aquatic in nature, and from 
 which a new order of things was in due course to be evolved, so 
 terminating the lifeless period and commencing that of the life 
 history of the earth. 
 
 Now let us consider the form of this first life. 
 
 Nature is always progressive, not retrogressive, consequently it 
 is quite impossible that the iirst life was a unit of a complex 
 organisation, such as we sec surrounding us to-day, therefore it 
 could only be a low form ; and not only a low form, but, being the 
 first, it must have been the lowest form of all, but of its actual 
 life-form we know absolutely nothing. 
 
 Although, however, the power of forming an idea of its shape 
 is wanting to us, we can commence at the lowest form of life we 
 are cognisant of, and from such a life-form we can gradually 
 work up to the highest, and so form an approximate idea of how 
 this progression has come about. 
 
 We must be all aware that life is divided into tAvo great 
 kingdoms 
 
 (I.) The Animal ; 
 
 (II.) The Vegetable ; 
 
 every unit of which is of cellular construction ; anil the cause of 
 differentiation is due primarily to variation, secondly to evolution, 
 questions which must be reserved for another chapter. 
 
 Now, us to the epoch at which life so variated as to give rise to 
 these two kingdoms, I will not enter, but will confine myself to 
 the rise of these two branches of life. 
 
 It is a noticeable fact that the higher the organisation of a unit 
 we examine in either of these kingdoms the greater will be the 
 variation and complexity of the cells of which the unit i- 
 composed. 
 
 If, for example, we take ourselves, every function that our body 
 performs has a certain variation of cell set apart for its per- 
 formance and to do the especial work that it is called upon to do. 
 
 What, then, will be the lowest life-form? Obviously that in 
 which all the functions that are required of it have to be performed 
 by a single cell. Consequently the lowest form of life will be a 
 single cell. 
 
 With such a life-form we are acquainted. 
 
 Commencing, then, with this lowest life-form, the protozoon, we 
 can trace a rise by variation to a life-form composed of two or 
 more cells ; then to a multicellular life-form. Then a further 
 ri-e to a life-form of variated and diflerentiated cells, and 
 from this to a lish-like form devoid of any backbone ; all which are 
 designated, from the absence of backbone, invertebrates. A 
 further rise bring^ us to a lish-like form with a rudimentary 
 backbone, and then we enter the true vertebrates. 
 
 The first of these is a true fish.
 
 Now up to this epoch in progression every life-form has had 
 not only to live in the water, but to obtain the oxygen necessary 
 for its being from the water ; but a further rise by successive 
 variations brings us to a fish-like form that can breathe air. 
 
 If we now turn to the vegetable kingdom we find exactly the 
 same order of progression, namely the rise of plant life from a 
 plant represented by a single cell growing below the water to one 
 of many cells raising itself above the waters, by which we at once 
 note that the waters on the face of the earth have begun to 
 decrease, leaving it in a more or less swampy condition. Thus it 
 comes about that, by the time variation had evolved the amphibia* 
 from the fish, the swamps were ready for their reception. 
 
 Further into the vegetable kingdom I need not go, but following 
 that of the animal we note a rise from that of amphibiae to reptiles, 
 thus showing that the earth had now begun to be fitted for the 
 reception of animal life. Then we have a rise from reptiles to 
 saurians, and from saurians to birds. 
 
 From the same stock whence the birds came we have a rise to a 
 bird-beast (monotremes), such as the platypus ; then a rise to the 
 marsupials (placentals), as typified by the kangaroos ; and, lastly, 
 a further rise to the mammalia, the highest of which is man. 
 
 Animal life, then, may be thus divided into orders : 
 
 1 Unicellular bodies. 
 
 2 Multicellular. 
 
 3 Annulata. 
 
 4 Fish. 
 
 5 Amphibia*. 
 
 6 Reptiles. \- All cellular. 
 
 17 Saurians. 
 8 Birds. 
 9 Monotremes. 
 10 Placentals. 
 11 Mammals. 
 
 Now if we take any one of these orders, and examine it, we 
 find that the units of one order differ not only in form from those 
 of another order, but differ in special attributes, viz. : 
 
 If we take as an instance tne order of mammalia we find that 
 they differ not only in form from the next order below them, but 
 in attributes, the placentals giving birth to their young in an 
 immature condition, the mammalia in a mature condition, and 
 suckling them (hence the name). But not only do the units of au 
 order differ in form and attributes from those of another order, but 
 they differ amongst themselves. Vastly, as can be seen when we 
 place side by side a man and a mouse, and for why ? For exactly 
 the same reason that one order differs from another, just as the 
 mammalian differs from the placenta!, by variation. Hence we 
 must sub-divide an order, and the sub-division of an order brings 
 about species, all of which have a common prototype in the first of 
 the order thus the first of the species of the mammalia was a 
 protomammalian derived by variation from a placental. 
 
 Invertebrates. 
 
 Vertebrates.
 
 Species again, although they have common attributes belonging 
 to the species, differ amongst themselves, and for the same reason 
 they may be sub-divided. Hence we have varieties. 
 
 Varieties again may be sub-divided into strains, strains into 
 families, and families into units, the origin of the first family 
 being (as the first of the mammalian was a protomammalian) a 
 protofamilias, which can be only a single unit. 
 
 Hence owing to this sub-division we find that a unit must 
 belong to a family of a strain, of a variety of species, of an order 
 of one of the two kingdoms of which life is composed. 
 
 From this then we can easily arrive at the progression which 
 ha-* taken place from the cell life-form to the mammalian, of which 
 the highest is man. 
 
 The protozoon, a single cell, would in the first place found a 
 family, which by repeated variations would work its way up 
 through strain, variety and species to an order. 
 
 From this protozoon order a unit would in course of time variate 
 and in the same way work its way up to a second order, which 
 sequence of events repeated over and over again would finally 
 culminate in a mammalian order such as I have described. Now it 
 must not be supposed, that because life rose in this manner, 
 the lower orders became extinct as progression took place. 
 
 All these differing orders, both in the animal and vegetable 
 kingdom, have their present representatives, and exist as food for 
 each other. Hence we have the following problem as represent- 
 ing the gradual evolution which has taken place and contem- 
 poraneous orders. 
 
 Protozoon. 
 
 Q 
 
 Invertebrates. 
 
 Vertebrates. 
 
 MODERN LIFE-FORMS. 
 
 It is numberless species of these orders that have ceased to 
 exist, one of which, the monotremes, have now only one. 
 
 Now life as it has risen from the protozoon stage to that of the 
 mammalian resembles a tree, the limbs of which are the orders, 
 the bigger branches the species, the smaller branches varieties, 
 branchlets strains, sticks families, and single twigs units, a tree
 
 6 
 
 from which the limbs, iSrc., have continually grown in a lateral 
 formation. 
 
 Could we see such a tree standing perfect and intact, unscathed 
 by the storms which have raged around it, we should have a 
 bird's-eye view of not only such a hypothetical tree but of every 
 order, every species, etc., that has ever been evolved, and in 
 addition we should be able to trace the present flourishing species 
 back through the antediluvian world and periods before that, to 
 the division between the animal and vegetable kingdoms, and so 
 on to the great prototype of .all Original life. 
 
 But the antediluvian species would still be in existence were the 
 tree intact, consequently we should have species that now only 
 exist as fossils, and species that would not bear a fossilisation, 
 existing contemporaneously. 
 
 Not only would we see this, but we would be able to note the 
 small variation which caused the establishment of each successive 
 order, and the variations which occurred which raised a unit to an 
 order. In this way would it be possible to see how life has 
 progressed from a sexless, nerveless, stomachless, unicellular in- 
 vertebrate, reproducing itself by division, and propelling itself by 
 contraction, to such an organism as ourselves. 
 
 We cannot imagine a more enormous stride than the above. It 
 is so vast and so complex that we can only grasp its full meaning, 
 and the gigantic leaps which nature has taken since the first life- 
 form appeared on the earth through the medium and the doctrine 
 of variation and evolution. But here we must pause. The tree 
 of life is not in this perfect state, such as I have ventured to 
 portray it. 
 
 Great storms have raged around it, destruction has overtaken 
 it, circumstances have arisen which have caused its branches 
 whole species with their varieties, strains, families, and indi- 
 viduals to be swept away. In certain parts it seems to have been 
 allowed to grow so far, and then a cataclysm of nature has taken 
 place which has broken it down, allowing only the topmost twigs 
 to take root and under a change of surroundings to exist, and to 
 break into new trees de novo. 
 
 They, in their turn, have risen to grandeur, only to be, like 
 their prototype, destroyed, thus bringing their topmost twigs 
 again to the ground, where they have sprang up under 
 differing circumstances anew, leaving not a trace behind them of 
 their own birth, their parent tree, or the great prototype of them 
 all. 
 
 We therefore know no more of that portion of the world in 
 which life began than we know what its life-form was, or how it 
 originated. 
 
 If we attempt to trace back the present trees, which we look 
 upon as species, we find ourselves brought to a sudden, even an 
 abrupt stop ; we are arrested in our investigations, for the simple 
 reason that, owing to the catastrophes that have overcome the 
 parent trees of which they are but the topmost twigs, we are quite 
 unable to follow them back.
 
 It is only owing t<> t lie researches of motlern science, ai< led by 
 the testimony of the surface of the soil upon which these many 
 species now nourish as trees, that we are in any wise able to fonu 
 an idea, such as I have given, of the descent of present life-fonns 
 and of the .aspect the parent tree of all would have presented had 
 it not been overthrown and destroyed. 
 
 The fossil remains, both animal and vegetable, which we find in 
 the strata in a definite and progressive order, give to us Darwin's 
 theory, such as I have attempted to place before my readers. The 
 differing life-forms now existent are but the fallen bouglis of 
 previously existing species, and it is through this fact that we 
 have any notion of now present life-forms are derived from an 
 original unit "life." 
 
 The gradual development of man brought alxmt a gigantic 
 change in the varieties of some of these life-forms. In his early 
 state he could have been nothing more than one of them too 
 nothing more than a brute beast, of superior cunning and intellect 
 to those other species surrounding him. Gradually he rose to a 
 distinct species --into a rational being, when with such an endow- 
 ment he became their master and held dominion over all units 
 below him in a lower state of progression. But until this epoch in 
 the history of the world that is, from the first appearance of life 
 a^ a form on the earth down to the life-form Man all differing 
 life-forms were due, were the outcome of variation and necessary 
 evolution, all taking place under a system of natural selection, 
 and totally uninfluenced by the hand of man. 
 
 The number of separate trees or species is at present enormous, 
 and they are composed as follows : 
 
 1. A great number of individual units which form separate 
 families ; 
 
 2. Which families form strains ; 
 
 3. Which strains form varieties ; 
 
 4. Which varieties form one species or a tree ; 
 
 each individual having his own particular life-form, each family, 
 each strain, each variety, and each species. 
 
 In conclusion, then, we may deduce the following facts : 
 
 1. That ever since life appeared there IHIS been and ever will be 
 a tendency to variate ; 
 
 2. That up to man it was due to natural causes ; 
 
 3. That species consist nf \arietie-. -trains, families and indi- 
 viduals.
 
 CHAPTER II. 
 
 CAUSE OF VARIATION HEREDITY. 
 
 To understand the gigantic progression which I have outlined in 
 the preceding chapter over an expanse of time too far-reaching 
 for our limited minds to comprehend, we must look to variation 
 and evolution. It is a curious fact that it is nature's habit never 
 to make two things exactly alike, whether they be animal or 
 vegetable units. Low or high life-forms, there is an individual 
 difference of form in some way or another ; were it not for this 
 we should see exactly similar objects, which we do not. They 
 may be very very similar, the variation between them may be 
 even microscopic ; but there is a difference which does and must 
 exist. 
 
 Before, however, proceeding further, let me draw the reader's 
 attention to the result of variation on a single unit, since he will 
 have a clearer idea at the outset of how variation leads on to 
 evolution, and consequently how the complicity of life-forms has 
 been brought about, viz. : 
 
 Variation on one unit creates two or more, viz., a family. 
 ,, on a family ,, ,, ,, ,, a strain. 
 
 ,, ,, strain ,, ,, ,, variety. 
 
 ,, variety ,, species. 
 
 ,, ,, species ,, ,, ,, ,, order. 
 
 By the time, however, that an order is reached we have 
 completed evolution. 
 
 Let us now commence again with the same form of life we did 
 in the preceding chapter, viz., a cell. 
 
 Now, a cell is sexless, and, being so, it must be obvious that 
 parents are not required for its reproduction as is the case in the 
 higher life-forms. 
 
 The process by which fresh cells are formed is curious, and may 
 be followed by the accompanying illustration : 
 
 ^- nucleus. 
 a cell. 
 
 Now, when the cell reaches adult age it commences reproduc- 
 tion by division, and in doing so the nucleus first divides into two. 
 Hence we have this formation : 
 
 o
 
 Gradually the cell wall contracts, until we have an hourglass 
 arrangement, in the bulbs of which is a nucleus, and then entire 
 division takes place, when we have two single cells. Why this 
 should happen we do not know, it is the secret of life. 
 
 The birth then of these first two cells from a single one was 
 the first family a variation on an original unit. Fresh division 
 in these two new ones would lead to four, and eventually an 
 enormous number of similar cells all belonging to the same 
 family, the only difference between them and the original cell 
 l>eing that of individuality. This then is an instance of the varia- 
 tion of which I speak at the commencement of this chapter. 
 
 It must be obvious, therefore, that had there been no other 
 form of variation, even after all these years of time, since life 
 l>egan, the world of to-day would not be such as it is. On the 
 contrary it would simply consist of an enormous family of uni- 
 cellular* life-forms, of identical family form, and differing indi- 
 viduality, founded on the individual form of the first cell. 
 
 Consequently we have another kind of variation to deal with, 
 viz., that due to necessity. 
 
 To understand how this new change came alxnit, we must look 
 at the matter in the following light : 
 
 This first family of cells must have had certain surroundings, 
 must have existed under certain circumstances or environment* 
 as Darwin calls them. 
 
 Now supposing that the>e environments had remained for ever 
 the same, that is to say, never changed, then for ever would the 
 same family form in the cells be produced ; but if a change came 
 in their surroundings, then those units of the family which resided 
 in the area affected by the change would either have to variate to 
 adapt themselves to their novel environments or perish. 
 
 Hence we have variation due to adaptation. 
 
 The result of this would be that we would have the formation 
 of a second family form, built up on the individual variation of 
 the first unit of family No. 1, that adapted its life-form to the 
 change of environment, and the original cell of all would now 
 be represented by a strain of two families, each with a separate 
 family life-form, separate individual life-forms, and a common 
 strain life-form. 
 
 For a similar reason the new strain would variate, and as a 
 result we should rise to a variety, a variety to a species, and finally 
 a species to an order. 
 
 On reaching this point we observe evolution to have been 
 effected ; that is to say, from a single cell an order has been evolved, 
 and this order may be thus illustrated : 
 
 
 ..Differing 
 
 , Differing 
 
 
 Differing ' individuals 
 
 individuals 
 
 Single 
 
 /Differing 
 individuals 
 
 individuals 
 of differing , 
 
 of differing 
 families of 
 
 of differing 
 families of 
 
 individual 
 
 1 of differing 
 
 families "i differing 
 
 differing strains 
 
 
 ^families 
 
 of differing 
 
 strains of 
 
 of differing 
 
 
 strains differing 
 
 varieties of 
 
 
 Wari 
 
 ^differing specie*
 
 10 
 
 Which species form an order of sexless unicellular life-forms, 
 with the common attribute of reproduction by cell division. 
 
 Variation now commences on this order, and as a result by a 
 similar state of progression we arrive at order No. 2, viz., an 
 order of multicellular sexless units with the common attribute 
 of reproduction by single cell division, which single cell com- 
 mences to variate to a multicellular life-form as soon as it is 
 divided off from the parent life-form. 
 
 Gradually then in this manner we climb up the orders in pro- 
 gressive order, each order as it is formed adding a fresh variation 
 to its common attribute, till we reach the last order, viz. , that of 
 the mammalia, whose complicity is but the outcome of continual 
 evolution. 
 
 This last order has succeeded to the variations and evolutions 
 of all the orders that have preceded it, and naturally that of its 
 own, consequently we have in the mammalia an order of high 
 sexual life-forms, with the common attribute of reproduction from 
 a single cell, which single cell gradually commences to variate as 
 soon as it is fertilised. Let us take an instance : 
 
 Individuals. Family. Strains. Variety. Species. Order. 
 :* I Fino de Paris. Couteulx. Basset. Dog. Mammalia. 
 
 Now on coition between A and B conception follows, which 
 means that a cell (it generally is several cells) is fertilised, an 
 exactly similar cell in form to the primary cell of order No. 1, rapid 
 division in this cell follows, then variation in cell form, gradually 
 it passes from an invertebrate to a vertebrate, from a sexless con- 
 dition to one of sex, from a single cell to a mammal, being finally 
 born into the world in a mature state of development ready to be 
 suckled, being of the Dog species, the Basset variety, the Couteulx 
 strain, the Fino de Paris family, but not as individual A or as B, 
 
 but as '--' the likeness of both parents. 
 
 What does such an illustration show us ? Comparatively that 
 during the period of gestation, in this case sixty-three days, 
 nature has reproduced all her variations and evolutions, evolu- 
 tions which have in the first place taken time beyond the in- 
 telligence of man to bring to a state of perfection, from the 
 simple cell to the mammal, in the incredibly short period of nine 
 weeks. 
 
 Variation, however, which lias at length culminated in com- 
 plete evolution, shows us something more, viz., the reason that 
 one species of an order will not breed with another of the same 
 order or one of another order. 
 
 For example : 
 
 Let A represent the prototype of an order C, B, D, E, variations
 
 11 
 
 from A, which commencing at A gradually pass the family strain 
 variety, culminating finally as species of an order, viz. : 
 
 B 
 
 ID 
 
 A-. long then as the units belong to the families, strains, and 
 varieties of A, as marked by the three enlarging circles round 
 the prototype, then they will breed Avith A and amongst them- 
 selves, but by the time they variate into species they have become 
 so differentiated in form and habits that they have neither the 
 power nor desire to breed together. 
 
 Thus, if we look upon the Eohippus as the prototype of the 
 modern horse, donkey, and tapir, we can understand how, as long 
 as they were simply differing families, strains, and varieties of 
 Eohippus, they would breed together, and with other varieties 
 sprung from the same common stock, at first easily, then, as they 
 rose, with difficulty, as is to be seen nowadays in the case of the 
 horse and donkey, and finally, not at all, as in the case of the 
 species Equus and Tapir, they having become differing species. 
 
 But variation points to something more than all this, it gives us 
 the clue to heredity, or the power all units possess of passing on 
 to their progeny their attributes. 
 
 If Ave go back to the first page of this chapter, it Avill be noticed 
 that I mention a difference Avhich exists in every life-form nature 
 produces, and to this I may add every life-form Avhich man causes 
 nature to produce. This difference is that of individuality, an 
 attribute \vhich no two units can have in common. Why this 
 should be I do not know, but it is so, and breeders should at the 
 oxitset bear this in mind. 
 
 NOAV if Ave turn again to the lowest of the orders, the Protozoon, 
 and take the prototype of it, the primary cell, AVC Avill observe that 
 Avhen it at the outset divided itself into two, it handed doAvn to 
 its halves ; what? its likeness ; not as a Avhole to each, but half. 
 Each of these HCAV \inits then had an individuality of its oAvn, 
 and a family likeness to each other, founded upon tlie individual 
 personal appearance (not individuality) of the first. This and the 
 attribute of reproduction by cell division was the Avhole hereditary 
 gift of the first unit to its progeny. 
 
 The offspring that is to say, the first family in like manner 
 ] Hissed on to their progeny the same hereditary gifts, but in 
 addition the family life-form. 
 
 Variation, however, due to adaptation, raised the families to the
 
 18 
 
 dignity of a strain, which variation became added to those in 
 which it had occurred. 
 
 Gradually in this way heredity was added to, until the first 
 order was evolved, by which period the hereditary powers of a 
 unit of the order may be thus represented. 
 
 The power of passing on 
 
 Half its personal life-form, 
 fanrily 
 strain ,, 
 
 ,, ,, variety 
 
 >i species ,, 
 
 to each of its halves. 
 
 But as we have seen each of these halves eventually grow into 
 a whole, eventually we should have two new cells having the 
 whole personal appearance, family, strain, variety, and species 
 appearances of the first with a differing individuality to their 
 parent, and with the common attribute of the order they 
 belonged to. 
 
 It is for this reason that units of sexless orders resemble one 
 another so minutely. 
 
 When, however, we come to deal with units of the higher life- 
 forms, we observe the reasons for a greater difference in personal 
 appearances. 
 
 In the sexless orders a unit divides into two halves, which 
 eventually become wholes. 
 
 In the sexual two units divide to make a new whole or wholes. 
 In other words, one-half does not grow into a whole it requires 
 two. 
 
 But the hereditary powers of units of sexual orders are just the 
 same as those of the non-sexual ones. They pass on to their 
 offspring each unit a half, and the two form a new whole with 
 a differing individuality. 
 
 Now, if we turn again to the illustration I gave of the ba- 
 hound, we see at once the reason for AB being of the Fino de Paris 
 family and the Couteulx strain ; it was l>ecause both parents were 
 of the same family and the same strain, the only difference 
 existing between AB and A and B being personal, and between 
 AB and his brethren, if he had any, being individuality. 
 
 Species life-form must be the same, as only units of the same 
 species can breed together. 
 
 Such is an instance of heredity under the most favourable 
 circumstances ; if we, however, require it more fully explained, 
 let us take the instance of breeding together a horse and a 
 donkey, viz. : 
 
 SIRE. DAM. PRODUCE. 
 
 Individual A B Al>. 
 
 Family ... C D CD. 
 
 Strain E F E F. 
 
 Variety... Horse ... Donkey. Horse-donkey Mule. 
 Species . . . Equus . . . Equus . . . Equus.
 
 13 
 
 in this case both parents have passed one-half of their personal 
 appearance, family, strain, and variety life-forms to the new unit 
 which we call a mule in other words, a composite the only form 
 which it has in common with its parents being that of species, 
 to which they both gave two halves which were similar. 
 
 It is for these reasons that we may have pure or composite 
 family life-forms, strain, and variety in the higher life-forms, and 
 not so in the lower, and it is for the same reasons in the higher 
 life-forms that personal appearances must always differ, because 
 it requires two individuals to form one or more new ones, and it is 
 because of individuality that these latter differ too. 
 
 In conclusion, then, we may say that adaptation is the cause of 
 variation, evolution the result of continual variation. 
 
 That every unit has the power of heredity, and that 
 
 Species form is always pure. 
 Variety pure or a variation. 
 Strain pure or a variation. 
 Family pure or a variation. 
 Individual form always a variation.
 
 14 
 
 CHAPTER III. 
 
 TYPES OF A UNIT NATURAL TVPE MAX'.S "CORRECT TYPE" 
 RESIDENCE OF TYPE VALUE OF TYPE. 
 
 WE have already arrived at the conclusion that there are species, 
 and that species are divided up into varieties, which varieties are 
 composed of strains, the strains of families, and finally, the 
 families into individuals. 
 
 Again, we have seen that every individual must belong to a 
 family, of a strain, of a variety, of 'a species. 
 
 When, then, we describe a unit, we also describe the family, 
 strain, and variety of the species he belongs to, viz. : 
 
 Individual Fino VI. 
 
 Family Fino de Paris. 
 
 Strain Couteulx. 
 
 Variety Basset-hound . 
 
 Species Do;,'. 
 
 And unless we describe a unit thus, we give but a portion of his 
 description. 
 
 It is clearly evident, then, that each of these differing variation- 
 a unit belongs to has a distinction, and must have some peculiar 
 appellation given to them, that there must be some distinguishing 
 feature in them, and to them has been given the word " type." 
 
 Hitherto I have continuously used the word form for con- 
 venience' sake, now I must make use of the word type as applied 
 to a life-form. 
 
 Now this word "type" is a standing cause of quarrel, ami 
 when exhibitors commence an argument on the respective point> 
 of the exhibits, and the word type is imported into the argument, 
 it generally finishes in an argument on the definition of the word 
 "type," irrespective of the original question. 
 
 So much has been written on it, and it is at all times such a 
 vexed question, so frequently misapplied and so commonly mi>- 
 understood, that I am sure a chapter on it alone will not l>e out of 
 place, since if a man is breeding for " tvpe" he must necessarily 
 know what "type" really means. Were it not for this latter 
 necessity I should think twice before I began upon "type;" but 
 notwithstanding that it is a sort of stand ing dish in its way, I shall 
 attempt it anew. At the same time I shall try the task of 
 explaining it in a totally different way to what has been pre-
 
 15 
 
 viously attempted, and in doing so I shall, as many another lias 
 done, try to explain it correctly. 
 
 Nevertheless I must candidly admit that the word " type" is a 
 difficult one to define ; it is a word of considerable subtlety, and 
 very doubtful if a benefit ; but we have only to thank the paucity 
 of the English language that it is so, and that it remains to us 
 as a bugbear and a pitfall to many. In one word, " type" means 
 " form.' 
 
 Now, if we look at Fino VI., the first form or type that pro- 
 duces an effect on our mind is that he is a dog (species), next a 
 basset-hound (variety), then a Couteulx (strain), then a Fino de 
 Paris (family), and lastly, his own peculiar characteristic 
 (individual). 
 
 He, therefore, has live types, or distinctions, by which \\ 
 recognise him. 
 
 Now, to prove that these live types do exist, I will proceed to 
 demonstrate as follows, viz. : 
 
 Species Type. Compare the species type of Fino VI. with any 
 other species man for instance only a madman would fail to 
 observe the difference in the two forms. Directly we see a man 
 and a dog together we instinctively say one is human type, the 
 other canine. It matters absolutely nothing whether the man be 
 a prince or an East-end cadger; the dog a champion bloodhound or 
 a ratcatcher's mongrel, the species type between the two i^ 
 extreme, and we cannot help acknowledging it. 
 
 Variety Type. Just then as species differ, as two forms of life, 
 we have the same difference in two or more varieties of one species. 
 No man, notwithstanding that he does not even know the names 
 of the two varieties, can help observing the difference of variet\ 
 type between Fino VI. as a basset, and Moonstone as a retriever. 
 They both belong to the same species, but they differ in variety 
 as, is commonly said, chalk from cheese. 
 
 Strain Type. Again a difference, hut we require a finer per- 
 ception to see it. Fino VI. belongs to the Couteulx strain, Cham- 
 pion to the Lane ; they both belong to the same variety and the 
 same species, yet no man who pretended any knowledge of the 
 breed would mistake one strain type for the other or fail to note 
 the difference. 
 
 Family T///IC. Still a difference in type, but smaller than the 
 last. If we compare Fino VI. as an example of the Fino de 1'ari.-, 
 with Chopette, an example of the Tcrmino family, we note a 
 difference between them, notwithstanding that they have three 
 types in common, vi/. , strain, variety, and species. 
 
 Individual Type. Here again exists a difference in type, but 
 it is necessarily very small. 
 
 Darwin most truly points out that no two leaves of the same 
 tree are identical, no matter how much they may appear so to Un- 
 common eye. Again, no two sheep iu the same flock are exactly 
 similar, although people can be found who fail to see a difference. 
 To go even further, every grain of sand has its own individual 
 type, whilst, if we should de.-in- ;i still more minute example,
 
 16 
 
 no two hairs of one's head are similar. If we place them under 
 the microscope and examine them, there Avill appear to the 
 microscopist's eye as much difference between the two as the 
 ordinary mortal will see between a photograph of Windsor Castle 
 and one of Buckingham Palace. 
 
 But to take an ordinary example, look at two pins, one black, 
 and the other white. Both are pins, but no one, unless he wus 
 totally colour-blind, would fail to observe a difference. 
 
 Such being the case, if M - e compare Fino VI. with his own 
 brother Texas Fino, we observe a difference of individual type ; 
 both have family types, strain, variety, and species in common, 
 but the difference between them is in markings, size, &c. , all of 
 which make up individuality. 
 
 I think then that now my readers will agree with me that there 
 are five types, and that Fino VI. has them all. 
 
 Up to this point I have arrived at showing that there are live 
 types. Now, it is my purpose to show that three of these five may 
 be composite types equalling whole ones, viz., my basset hound 
 " Joyeuse." 
 
 Individual Joyeuse. 
 
 Family Fino + Ramono. 
 
 ~2~~ 
 Strain Couteulx + Lane. 
 
 2 
 
 Variety Basset Hound. 
 
 Species Dog. 
 
 Now, if we compare her with Fino VI. we see that she has only 
 two types in common, species and variety, and that she differs in 
 strain, family and individual types. 
 
 Again, I might give an instance of a unit that only possiv cd 
 one type in common with Fino VI., viz. : 
 Basset + Spaniel. 
 2 
 
 We should call this a mongrel, nevertheless it would have 
 species type in common with Fino VI. , though it differed in variety, 
 and consequently in strain, family, and individual types. 
 
 It follows then that a unit may have four types in common, 
 three, two or one, but no unit can have five types in common, 
 because no individual can possibly be exactly the counterpart of 
 another. 
 
 Again, a unit may have three composite types variety, strain, 
 and family ; but species type he cannot have composite, as no two 
 species will breed together ; nor can he have a common individual 
 type with another, since his must be different to every other in- 
 dividual's. 
 
 We have now arrived at the conclusion that a unit may have 
 five whole types, or that three of them may be composite ; the 
 question therefore which must next arise is which of the two is 
 correct, or what is " correct type."
 
 Now. t understand this question, we must look on the above in 
 iinotlier light altogether. Naturally there is no such tiling a- 
 "correct type." it is an invention of man's mind, undoubtedly, a 
 manufactured phrase to aid the breeder (as well as confuse him ? ). 
 
 Now. supposing for a moment that Ave placed ourselves in the 
 position of a man who is not a breeder, and who knows absolutely 
 nothing about types, a man who has no interest in the question at 
 all. What would be correct type in species, varieties, strains, 
 families and individuals to that man. vix. : - 
 
 Sj-r,',.-- TUI-. If I gave as an example of specie- man and dog, the 
 religious question would at once come in. since a religious man would 
 at once say that man was the correct type, that he was fashioned 
 in the image of the Creator ; but if I gave instead the dog specio 
 and the cat species, there would be no question of such a kind 
 raised. What man would dare to commit himself to the state- 
 ment that a dog as a life-form was better than a cat ? He might 
 prefer the dog certainly, whilst his grandmother might do the 
 same with the cat. but the question of one being correct and the 
 other incorrect would resolve itself into one of personal ta-te. 
 
 It must, therefore, naturally come about that neither the dog 
 nor the cat are correct type as sj>ecies, one is just as good as the 
 other. 
 
 Variety Ti/pc. Here I give two whole types and one composite, 
 viz. : 
 
 The basket, the retriever, a half-bred basset and spaniel. 
 
 Again the question simply is, which do you likeliest? All are life- 
 forms, one is just as good as another, the two pure-bred ones and 
 the mongrel. 
 
 Strain Type. Ex Couteulx. Lane (pure). Couteulx + Lane (im- 
 pure). 
 
 Familji TI/IIC. Fino de Paris. Termino. Fino de Paris + 
 Termino, ditto. 
 
 litdii-iilwil TI/JX Fino VI. rhopette. .loyeuse, ditto. 
 
 Now, in the above instances, whether it be species, variety, 
 composite variety, strain, composite strain, family, composite 
 family or individual, which must be a composite, in whichever 
 way we look at it, it is a pure matter of taste, but as a matter 
 of fact no specie-. v\<-. . a- a type i> better than any other or more 
 correct. 
 
 Look at it in this way, 1 might say I liked roast rabbit, you on 
 the contrary might say boiled rabbit : who i> to decide which i 
 the proper or correct way to cook a rabbit ': Undoubtedly both are 
 equally good. 
 
 Any species then is correct type, any variety composite or not, 
 any strain or composite, any family or composite, any individual. 
 The fact is. the whole question i- one of " Which side do you like 
 your bread buttered?" Without any guide, if we try to compare 
 types a- -pecie-. \c.. we fail, and come to the conclusion that there 
 is no correct type in any of them. 
 
 The tirst type, ami. therefore, what we might if we chose look 
 upon a- the only correct type, wa- the type of the great proto- 
 
 c
 
 18 
 
 type of all, and the complication that exists HOW is hut the con- 
 sequence of it. For this reason, then, every life-form in the worM, 
 be it the most beautiful or the most hideous, ha- it- own five 
 types or composites, and whatever they may le they are as good 
 as any other life-forms. Everything then naturally i- good type, 
 there is no such thing as bad type in nature. Type variate- us 
 the units variate, consequently the units and type must journey 
 together, and as the units of to-day are very differing from their 
 prototypes, type is for ever in a state of evolution too. Type, 
 therefore, never can be correct for any length of time, for it must 
 continually be in a state of change. 
 
 In conclusion, then, we may prefer a cat to a dog as a sp> 
 a basset to a retriever or a mongrel, the Couteulx strain to the 
 Lane or a mongrel strain, the Fino de Paris to the Tennino or 
 a mongrel family type, or the individual Fino VI. to Fino V. or 
 Joyeuse, but naturally, putting man out of the question, none are 
 good or bad type ; all are equally good, as life-forms or type- of 
 life, and correct. 
 
 How then is it that there is such a thing as "correct type ?I if 
 naturally it does not exist ? 
 
 Byron, speaking of man in reference to the sea, say- that he 
 "the vain title take of lord of thee and arbiter of war." If we 
 substituted "type" in place of "war "it would be a somewhat 
 gross parody, but still this is exactly what man does do. He 
 makes himself lord of type and defines it ; but man does not go 
 far enough in his definition, as I shall presently show. Now, if 
 my reader be an elderly man, he will remember that before the 
 institution of shows and exhibitions of live-stock, every little 
 squire, every breeder, no matter what his special line was, thought 
 his own stock the " correct type. " Where are all these differing 
 types now? A few have been taken up and exist as large breeds 
 now ; but the rest ? They have disappeared. Where are to go 
 a step further the Talbots, the Wolf-hounds, the turn-pit- ': They 
 are gone. To come to a later period, where is the heavy old 
 pointer? Out of date. These were all correct type in their day. 
 \Vhy, then, are they no longer so? Because the use for the 
 Talbot, the Wolf-hound, and the turnspit has gone, and in their 
 place we have new types, the staghound, the Scotch deerhound, 
 and an automatic machine. As far as the old pointer is concerned, 
 there was no better dog in his day, but variation in sowing the 
 fields he was used in has brought about a change in him too. In 
 those days there were no furrows ; now furrows exist, up these the 
 birds run, and the pointer of twenty years ago i- not fast enough ; 
 consequently a new type of pointer has been manufactured. 
 "Correct type," then, is what suits the times, and the correct type 
 of a life-form is what we make it to-day, but we cannot in-i-t that 
 it shall be the same one hundred years hence. In all probability 
 the correct type of to-day will be forgotten. 
 
 Let us see then which types man can change. It is obvious he 
 cannot change species ; but from a variation he can make a new 
 variety. He can form new strains, fresh families. Individual- he
 
 19 
 
 cannot change, since individuality is born and dies with its 
 owner. 
 
 Species type is, then, limited, and change in it is the work of 
 cycles of years of evolution ; consequently, as far as existing man 
 is concerned, it is at a standstill. Variety, strain, and family 
 type are practically changeable. Individual type is, as Byron 
 says of the ocean, " boundless, endless, and sublime," never the 
 same and under no command. 
 
 Yet, although man is aware of this, or should be so, he sets to w< >rk 
 to define "correct type.'' Now, do not think because I sneer at 
 his doing so that 1 tliiuk he is wrong. What I am thinking of is, 
 that when a man defines his notion of correct type he imagines 
 that it is going to last for ever. It will not, but it will last just 
 as long as it is convenient for those of his day, and, if suitable to 
 thoMi who come after him, a little longer. "Correct type" is 
 manufactured in this way. Supposing that man agreed that the 
 species dog was the correct species type, and that the basset-hound 
 was the correct variety type, and that the Couteulx strain was 
 the correct strain type, and that the correct family type was the 
 Fino de Paris, and that the correct individual type was Kino VI., 
 then Fino VI. would be the only correct life-form in the world. 
 
 Thus "correct type" would be most clearly and accurately 
 defined ; it would no longer be a question of taste, since every 
 one was agreed ; consequently the quality of every other unit in 
 the world, whether he has good type or bad type, would depend 
 entirely upon how nearly he approached, or how far he differed 
 from, the acme of perfection Fino VI. It is needless to say that 
 man does not draw such a sweeping conclusion as this, since it is 
 evidenced by the fact that we cultivate a variety of species, &c., 
 \e. , all of which have their "correct type," and man leaves to his 
 compeers the individual choice of what species he shall cultivate. 
 Man proceeds as follows, nowadays : A certain number interested 
 in a variety form a club and lay down certain rules for their 
 guidance. Amongst these rules the type of the variety is defined, 
 and the points of the variety. 
 
 Now, 1 hope I shall make it clearly understood that "type" 
 and "points" are not analogous terms, but are separate and 
 distinctly different. For instance, a basset-hound may have its 
 variety type, but it may not have the points ; it is here that men 
 fail in understanding the word "type.' Type and points run, as 
 it Mere, in couples, hut "type" is not points, or points "type," 
 and the consequence is that in arguing upon a question of points, 
 in walks the dreadful word " type," and the real question at issue 
 comes to a sudden and abrupt conclusion. 
 
 As an instance of this we may safely sav that Fino VI. is in all 
 types perfect, but he is not absolutely perfect in points. 
 
 When, then, they have come to a decision on the type of the 
 variety, the variety i- judged by their own judges, and, no 
 matter whether they l>e right or wrong, the type laid down by 
 the club is the correct type and none other. 
 
 It will be now evident that they acknowledge two correct types
 
 20 
 
 species and variety ; but since strain, family, and individual 
 type are not taken into account, what man calls "correct type" 
 is not "correct type" at all. It is here that man fails in his 
 definition ; he does not go far enough. 
 
 Having denned the species type, which cannot be a composite 
 having defined the variety type, which might be a composite, but 
 which he rightly does not allow he leaves it an open question as 
 to what strain is correct type, what family, what individual, or 
 what composite strain or composite family. 
 
 It must be- then clear that, having laid down the variety type 
 and the points, he leaves it open for perfection to be reached 
 by differing strain types, differing family types, and differing 
 individual types. They cannot all be correct type, and therefore 
 the strain, family and individual types become matters of taste, 
 and you cannot argue that one is better than another. There is 
 no means of settling which is correct type under the circum- 
 stances. Were type actually defined, such a hound as Fino VI. 
 or any other with pure types would be "correct type." 
 
 The result of this incorrect definition of "correct type" is that 
 in competition you see two or more strain types, composite strain 
 types, to say nothing of family and individual types ; consequently, 
 if the judge have a preference for one strain, one family or one 
 individual type over another, there is no question as to which the 
 prize will go to, and if you ask for the reason, the answer will be 
 that the other strain, composite strain, family, &c. , is not correct 
 type. It must be obvious to any thinking man that this must be 
 wrong, since, as long as strain and family type is not defined, one is 
 just as good as another, and that it is a question of personal taste. 
 
 These are the objections that I have to what is termed ' ' correct 
 type." 
 
 In a late number of the Kennel Gazette I advocated a model, 
 of an ideal variety type, in addition to a code of points, con- 
 sidering that such a visible definition would just as easily be 
 agreed upon as a written description. My opinion is that with 
 it every breeder would have the same object in view, namely, the 
 reproduction in life of the model form. Thus, only two type:-. 
 would be required, and these could be termed "correct type '- 
 viz., species and variety and it Avould be open to the breeder to 
 make use of any strain, family, or individual types to reach the 
 desired standard of excellence. In this way the question of 
 .strain, family, and individual types would be done away with, 
 but until these halcyon days arrive, we will have to recognise five 
 types and put up with an incorrect " correct type." 
 
 .Again a good deal of difference exists in where we should look 
 for these types, and most authors agree that it is in the head. 
 The reason that this difference exists is that the authors do 'not 
 understand that there are five types, owing to the custom of usinj;- 
 the word "type" in the singular. It would be a lamentable 
 thing if we saw something in the distance, and had to go up to 
 it and look into its face to find out and satisfy ourselves that it 
 belonged to the species man. On the other hand, if you wished 
 to make absolutely certain that it was Mr. Smith you would have
 
 21 
 
 to do it, in order to sati-i'y yi.nr-elf of the individual; for these 
 reasons we look for type as follows, viz. : 
 
 In species, the entire life-form. 
 
 In varieties, the shape, coat, colour. 
 
 In strains, the colour and minor attributes. 
 
 In families, the head and colour, and minor attributes. 
 
 In individual, the head, colour, and individual attributes. 
 Now, as there are five types, one must be of greater value than 
 the other, and undoubtedly their value is as in the above order. 
 It may be asked why this should be so, and why the supposition 
 that to look for type in the head is not strictly accurate. I admit 
 that the head of 'any unit is it- most distinctive feature, but its 
 species type might easily be detected were the head covered up, 
 viz. : 
 
 Supposing you were going along a long straight road, such as a 
 chaussi'-e in France, and in the distance you saw something. At 
 first it would be indescribable, but in a short time you would per- 
 ceive it to be a man (species); gradually, as the distance grew 
 snorter between you and the man, he would appear a European 
 (variety), an Englishman (strain), then you would say, "I am 
 certain it is one of the Smiths, they all walk alike'' (family), and 
 finally you would say, ' How are yoti, Smith?" (individual). 
 
 Such an example as this is shows that these live types have 
 
 each a definite value. If I were an auctioneer I might be tempted 
 
 N'ow, gentlemen, what price shall we say for these five 
 
 types ': " Virtually you may say what you like as long as the value 
 
 was proportionate. Thus : 
 
 Presuming that "correct type" -by this I mean whole types (5) 
 is a unit, then it may be written as J =(1). 
 
 In the same way a pack of ti'2 cards is a unit |;H = (1). There- 
 fore if we take the unit correct type, and give to it the number of 
 cards in the pack, we can apportion the value of it accordingly : 
 
 Species 32 
 
 Variety 16 
 
 Strain 8 
 
 Family 4 
 
 Individual 2 
 
 ( 'orrect Type 62 
 
 If this then is the value of correct type, something a little below 
 it will be very good ; but into this question I will not now enter, 
 it will be sufficient for us at present to deduct the following 
 conclusions : 
 
 1. That there are five types. 
 
 '2. Naturally there is no " correct type." 
 
 3. Man delines a "correct type," but it is incorrect, as he only 
 defines two types out of the five. 
 
 4. That the various types have to be looked for in different 
 portions of a unit. 
 
 5. That correct type according to man has a certain definite value.
 
 CHAPTER IV. 
 
 ARTIFICIAL SELECTION THE ORIGINAL UNITS OF DOMESTICA- 
 TION AND THEIR RISE, AFTER THE APPEARANCE OF 
 RATIONAL MAN, INTO FAMILIES, STRAINS, VARIETIES. 
 
 THE development of man brought about an enormous change in 
 certain species of life-forms. How is this to be accounted for ? 
 As follows, viz. : 
 
 Ever since man became a rational being, not of course in the 
 state he is in at present, but from the daVn in him of reason up to 
 the present day, he has waged a ceaseless and increasing warfare 
 against those species inimical to his person ; in consequence of 
 which many of those varieties and sub-divisions formerly 
 numerous are dying out or are already extinct ; even whole species 
 have passed away where he dwells ; whilst, on the other hand, with 
 fostering care and increasing knowledge he has vastly multiplied 
 and improved those species and their sub-divisions necessary to 
 his being. 
 
 The species man has chosen to domesticate are indeed few 
 compared with those he finds no use for. Consequently those that 
 he attempts to destroy or leave to themselves, being almost 
 neutral either for good or forbad, continue to exist under the same 
 circumstances as they did prior to his development. For this 
 reason we see but little change in their life-forms, a fact 
 evidenced by the rude drawings we find in the caves inhabited 
 by primitive man of species existing synchronously with him, 
 and but little changed in their outward form and habits at the 
 present day. 
 
 In this we have abundant proof that the change going on in 
 nature is so slow and so gradual that cycles of years must pa-s, 
 the " morning and evening" of the 1st chapter of Genesis, before 
 variation can possibly, under natural means, turn into positive 
 evolution, a cycle of time not having passed since primitive man as 
 a rational bang WM developed. 
 
 Had man not been developed, is it possible for a moment to 
 believe that in the species he lias selected to cultivate there could 
 have existed the enormous number of varieties at present to be 
 found ?
 
 23 
 
 Certainly not. Natural selection debars .such a probability. 
 Altered circumstances, such as comparative isolation, change of 
 climate, food, \-c. , would certainly have produced differentiation 
 of form, because of the necessity life-forms would iind of adapting 
 themselve* to these particular circumstances ; but it would be 
 improbable, ay, even impossible, for such a numlier of varieties 
 of the same species as at present exist, living together and repro- 
 ducing their kind, at the same time and in the same locality and 
 under similar circumstances as ours do now around us, under a 
 natural system of selection. 
 
 How then can we account for it ? 
 
 All this change, not of species, but of varietie>, all thi> profusion 
 of breeds, all this complication on original prototypes, ari-e- 
 entirely and solely from the development of man himself. 
 
 The gradual rise of man's intellect has caused him to put aside 
 a s\ stem of natural selection for one of artificial selection, and the 
 greater the mass of varieties of a species we Hnd the greater will 
 be the intellectual power in breeding of the variety of the species 
 of man, who cultivates them ; consequently, since in England 
 breeding is better understood, and every species of domestic unit 
 has a larger number of varieties than is to be found in other 
 countries, the outcome is that we can only suppose that the 
 Knglish nation is in a higher state of intellectual progression as 
 far as breeding is concerned than any other nationality. Hence 
 the reason the French nation cannot produce such specimens of 
 their own indigenous breeds as we can. 
 
 In natural selection we Hnd the following facts, namely, that a 
 unit will breed with another unit as long a- it belongs to the same 
 >pecie>. and that they need not belong to the same variety, strain, 
 or family ; again, that man has no control over the alliances of 
 units in a wild state. 
 
 In artificial selection this is all reversed. Man chooses which 
 units shall mate, and in doin^ -o arrogate- to himself the (juestion 
 of their alliances, and consequently in a large measure tori 
 desired life-form in the progeny. 
 
 Now, it must not be supposed fora moment that man suddenly 
 appeared upon earth as typified by Adam a> an immediate 
 rational being, and capable of making u>e of hi- reason. I have 
 previously remarked that I shall not enter into the question of a 
 divine creation or not : consequently, when 1 say that we mu-t nt 
 believe in man appearing as Adam, it mu>t not be inferred that I 
 mean that Adam did not exist. Adam most eertaiuly did e\i-t. 
 but not as a single individual of that name. 
 
 Adam (the word) means the fir>t man, consequently to me 
 Adam mean- the first life-form or race of being- of a new life- 
 form, dill'ering to what had previously existed. An Eastern form 
 of expressing that creation had attained its highest grade of 
 earthly progression a rea-oning life-form, a life-form having 
 dominion over the life-forms in a lower state t' organisation, a 
 necessary adjunct to any forms of life. Science precludes, without
 
 24 
 
 detracting an iota from the value of the Holy Script, the idea of 
 man suddenly appearing, such as the inference is that one would 
 draw from an absolutely literal translation of Genesis. 
 
 Man was the outcome of evolution on a brute beast. 
 
 To ns primitive man living in the stone age and dwelling in 
 caves, as we know him to have done, surrounded by the Indies 
 and remains of the wild beasts lie preyed upon, could not have 
 been far removed from the level of a beast as such some small 
 races of mankind still remain. 
 
 If, then, this was the condition of life of primitive man, which it 
 undoubtedly was, what must have been the condition of our 
 primitive man's primitive predecessor, that is allowing the same 
 ratio of time anil advance in have taken place between him and 
 his predecessor as between him and us? Undoubtedly the 
 difference between man and the beast would be removed man 
 and the beast would appear on the same level. Therefore 
 primitive man in the first stage was a brute beast, and could only 
 have been so. 
 
 It would be absurd to state that he was a monkey such as 
 exists at the present moment, but undoubtedly primitive man ami 
 the monkeys and we too are descended from a common prototype, 
 whose existence certainly was, hut whose life-form has not yet 
 come to light. Primitive man could not, therefore, have at once 
 commenced a system of artificial selection, for the simple reason 
 that instead of keeping units in a state of domestication he 
 preyed like a wild beast, living from hand to mouth, in the 
 same way as they do, and searched for food when obliged by 
 hunger. 
 
 In all probability, therefore, the first of our domestic species 
 that was domesticated by primitive man was the dog, and taken 
 in hand by primitive man as an adjunct or aid in obtaining food, 
 but even to arrive at such a height of reasoning power as this 
 shows man must have progressed far in advance of his pre- 
 decessors. Again, as he advanced he became a pastoral being 
 keeping examples of the same species as we do to-day. 
 
 Alan must then have roamed, as some species of men do to-day, 
 over wide expanses of country, and in these journeys he could not 
 help having observed that the cattle, &c., he kept differed greatly 
 in outward form from those kept by other men. He could not 
 have accounted for the dissimilarity existing, but he must have 
 perceived the difference. 
 
 Gradually in process of time he must have noted that, if he 
 desired the same stamp of animal, he must always breed from his 
 own, and not cross with those of other Hocks, and lastly he came to 
 perceive that if he saw a unit in the herd of a distinctive shape, 
 markings, &c., he must find another as like it as possible, isolate 
 the pair, and in -breed for the furtherance of the particular 
 life-form. Thus then has the artificial system of breeding arisen, 
 and with it an increase of variation in species nnder domestica- 
 tion. Domestication no longer entails upon its units the
 
 29 
 
 of adapting themselves in their surroundings to the same extent 
 as in nature pure, nor is there any longer the same necessity for 
 change. Under domestication it is no longer the survival of the 
 fittest. They are governed by a higher power than their own 
 instinct. Man says which shall be the sire and which shall be the 
 dam, and compels them to reproduce the stamp of creature he 
 desires, but he has no power over them in two ways. He cannot 
 altogether insist upon them quenching the unconquerable desire, 
 the inherent longing born in them, to return to a condition of 
 natural selection ; nor can he compel them to lay aside the here- 
 ditary gift, handed down to them through myriads of generations, 
 a gift which he too participates in the heirloom of every unit in 
 the world given to us by the great prototype of all, Original life, 
 viz., the right of variation. 
 
 In a few words, then, both the wild species and the domestic 
 species of all kinds came from a common stock. These species 
 might have existed as single varieties or as several, and from them 
 man took units of the one variety or of several natural varieties, 
 and from that one variety or several our domestic varieties, strains 
 and families are now evolved. Hut when we come to try and 
 explain what the life-forms of the horse, the cattle, the sheep, the 
 dog, &c., were when man first took them up, we do not know. 
 In all probablity they must have been much the same as they now 
 are. 
 
 No man can say what was the life-form of the first dog of 
 domestication, since the dog tribe exists in one form or another all 
 over the world. Therefore, by the time man arrived at the state 
 of intelligence which allowed him to domesticate the dog, he 
 too was possibly all over the world, consequently the dog 
 domesticated might have been of a variety of life-forms. The 
 same thing we may say of cattle, sheep, fowls and ducks, but in 
 the case of the pigeon it is different. Darwin clearly proves the 
 origin of the domestic pigeons to lie that of the common blue rock; 
 but of all others, that is to say, the origin or the parent stock, it 
 is lost in obscurity. All we know is that each domestic species has 
 its wild life-form, and that from the wild species man brought 
 into domestication our tame ones, and that whether the first lie 
 domesticated was of one variety or half a dozen, he 1ms greatly 
 increased tin- varieties, made them into families and strains, and 
 is still doing M>. 
 
 Ndw, since we have understood how artificial selection arose, 
 we might profitably see the result it brings about. "When man 
 desires an increase in si/e he breeds only from the biggest, if for 
 speed from the speediest, if for colour 'from those of the colour 
 he desires. 
 
 There is no reason why we should not have a race of horses about 
 the size of a i>oodle, a' race of cattle marked like a draught- 
 board, t\'C. 
 
 Such examples may appear exee-Mvely absurd; 1 give them 
 nevertheless, well knowing that, if by natural selection or varia-
 
 26 
 
 tion one of them was produced, man by artificial selection could, 
 if he so de.sired, reproduce them in numbers. 
 
 The doctrine of selection applies not less perfectly to the animal 
 kingdom than it does to the vegetable. Indeed, in the latter it 
 is probably seen at its best. Year by year new varieties of nearly 
 every plant are produced. Nature certainly produces them, but 
 would not reproduce them, or indeed few. Man, however, by 
 artificial means does so. 
 
 I have explained that if we want size, speed, colour, &c., in our 
 life-forms we always mate the biggest, the speediest, and those of 
 the same colour. The result of this is that we not only get a big 
 animal, a speedy animal or a well-coloured animal, but we get an 
 advance in the attribute ; we get a bigger, and a speedier, and a 
 better coloured life-form than we began with. As exemplification 
 of the above we have : 
 
 1. The cart horse. 
 
 2. The race horse. 
 
 3. The Queen's cream-coloured horses. 
 
 Bred for size, bred for speed, bred for colour. The first is a 
 bigger animal than he used to be, the second a speedier, and the 
 last now breeds this colour. 
 
 But of colour I can produce one equally as good, namely in the 
 basset-hound. 
 
 Of this breed we have two strains in this country the Cou- 
 teulx and the Lane. 
 
 Now the Couteulx is, as a rule, a very perfectly marked tri- 
 colour, with the tan and black markings deeply accentuated. 
 The Lane hounds, on the other hand, are very weak in markings if 
 they happen to be tricolour, but as a fact they are far more 
 generally to be found lemon and white. 
 
 Some years ago my attention was drawn to the fact that the 
 Couteulx hounds were, as a strain, becoming degenerate from too 
 great inbreeding, and to stop the manifest deterioration in size, 
 besides other points which we hold to be necessary in the basset 
 variety, I recommended a cross with the Lane hounds. 
 
 Without going into the various objections brought forward 
 against the cross, the one that most clearly interests us here was 
 that of colour. I Avas met with the reply that the cross would 
 ruin the colouring of the Couteulx hounds. 
 
 Nevertheless, I urged the cross, arguing that while in the first 
 cross there would necessarily be a large number of lemon-and- 
 whitc hounds, as we inbred to the desired colour the lemon-and- 
 white puppies would disappear, in ratio to the amount of the 
 Couteulx blood we infused into the life-forms, and finally disappear 
 altogether. 
 
 I have myself bred in the last two years every cross which 
 might be tried with advantage, and I give the results, though be 
 it said, I might largely supplement the table, with the results of 
 several friends' experiments too, but, as they are almost identical 
 with my own, I do not see the necessity of giving them, viz. :
 
 27 
 
 C=Couteulx strain. 
 L=Lane strain. 
 
 Crosses. >"o. in Litter. Tricolour. 
 
 1st. C i L = ^ (Half bred) 10 5 5 
 
 rc r T ( 8 5 3 
 
 2nd. C + M-. SlibLQ bred) 7 5 2 
 
 2 ~ 4 ( fi 3 2 
 
 Intermediate Cro. 
 
 CL + C3L = C 5 L 3 (5 bred) 963 
 
 3rd. C+2?!_9xi(*lwd) 2 
 
 4 " 8 (6 6 
 
 Now the object was the introduction of fresh blood into the 
 Couteulx hound*, and the opposition that colour would be destroyed 
 thereby. The results, however, have destroyed the opposition 
 theory. 
 
 In the first cns the colours were evenly balanced. In the second 
 there was a preponderance in favour of the Couteulx colouring. In 
 the third, in tnree litters, there was only one lemon-and-white 
 puppy, whilst in the intermediate cross, one virtually unnecessary 
 for the experiment, we observe the preponderance in favour of the 
 Couteulx hounds. In fact, it would be difficult to find a theory 
 prove more exact than this one has done, when put to the te-t 
 of actual experiment. 
 
 Only in one instance have I known it actually to fail, and this 
 
 was in -oinc s - hounds, but then both parents were lemon-and- 
 
 o 
 
 white: but. taking the whole set of experiments into considera- 
 tion, the results will prove still more remarkable when I add that 
 in nearly every litter of even pure Couteulx there is generally a 
 lemon-and-white puppy. 
 
 We come now to a point as regards breeders in which selection 
 i> of the highest value. I have stated that nowadays every 
 variety has a club, and that the club has formulated a code of 
 point-. 
 
 Artificial selection then becomes a most important aid and an 
 undoubted one in enabling us to reach that agreed-upon standard, 
 
 Compared with this standard every unit po>.-c cs point.-, which 
 are either - or +, that is to -ay, the unit may fail becau-c it doc-, 
 not attain the perfection laid down in this standard, or it may 
 fail becau.-e it overreaches the standard. Now -iippo-ing A to be 
 minus a certain number of point.- and we breed him with 15, who 
 is minus the same point.- as A i- minus in and plus the same 
 points as A, the result will be the formation of life-forms which 
 will be .-till more - and still more -i- the standard than cither A
 
 28 
 
 or B were. In other words, the bad points of both parents are 
 intensified. 
 
 This may appear somewhat strange, and the breeder may be 
 unable to account for the production of life-forms further away 
 from the standard than ever, but he will at once perceive the 
 cause, when he understands that he has mated the units which will 
 bring about such a result. He will perceive that in breeding for 
 the attribute speed, &c., a speedier life-form than the original 
 parents was developed. In like manner, in breeding these two 
 units together, A and B, he lias mated units which will produce 
 their attributes still more distinctly, and, as these attributes are 
 defects according to the standard of points, the offspring will be 
 still more deficient. 
 
 If, for instance, we say that the point A is deficient in is loin, 
 and that the point I> is wanting in is also loin, the produce of the 
 two, say C, will be still slacker in loin than either the parents 
 A and B. 
 
 Undoubtedly the breeder expects to get from the two a unit 
 or units with better loin, but from want of knowledge he has 
 selected two units which will bring about exactly the reverse to 
 what he really desires. Now the unit the breeder should have 
 mated A to should have been the exact reverse to B. That is to 
 say B should have been - the points A was + in, and + those he 
 was - in. 
 
 In this way - would equalise +, and + on the other hand -. 
 
 The result certainly might not reach the standard, since it 
 would depend entirely on the worth or value of the stock em- 
 ployed, but at the same time the result of the alliance would be 
 far more likely to reach the standard points than any other 
 method of breeding, and at the same time have every chance of 
 being considerably better than either of the parents. 
 
 I need scarcely bring to my readers' minds the very superior 
 units bred from very indifferent-looking dams and even sires ; the 
 fact is that the selection has been properly applied, whether it was 
 intentional on the part of the breeder or not. 
 
 The term is frequently applied that such and such a pair 
 " nick " well. Now it must not be supposed that together they 
 have a special power to produce good stock, they have not, they 
 are simply "selectively compatible." 
 
 Thus if we have a Spanish cock who is faulty because he is 
 - length of lobe, he must be mated with a hen Avho is faulty 
 because she is + or too great a length of lobe. 
 
 Such then is the value of artificial selection in the breeder's 
 hands, and we cannot too highly esteem it ; but at the same 
 time it must be used only as one of the tools in producing good 
 stock. 
 
 In conclusion, then, we may carry away from this Chapter 
 
 1. That artificial selection has complicated varieties, strains, 
 and families. 
 
 2. That in breeding it must be employed.
 
 CHAPTER V. 
 
 THE TYPES FORMED 1JV THE EtjUAL- FACTOR SYSTEM. 
 
 DIRECTLY a man commences to breed any kind of stock he c;; 
 two units to divide, and division is carried on in every ca.-e under 
 a system of factor-. 
 
 Now the first system which presents itself to our notice is the 
 "equal-factor" .system. Before, however, bringing the system 
 under the notice of my reader*, it would be well for them to 
 remember that every life-form, if correct, has live whole type-. 
 and by it I mean such a life-form as Fino V]., where every type 
 is pure. Secondly, it is of equal importance that it )>e borne in 
 mind that heredity is one of the powers of a unit. The question, 
 therefore, which arises from the above is 
 
 Will a given or existing life-form be perpetuated by the equal- 
 factor system or not ? 
 
 In species, variety, strains, and families it will, if the unit 
 employed be of the same species, variety, strain, and family, but 
 it will not if the species, variety, strain, and family (and of 
 course individuals) be differing. In the case, however, of similar 
 families we cannot possibly have an equal-factor system, since 
 they are related, and the breeding of them together must pro- 
 duce units borne on an unequal system of factors. 
 
 If we take the arithmetical unit 1 as an example, we are aware 
 that it is formed by the amalgamation <>f two halves, viz. : 
 
 1 4. i _ - \ 
 % t- ._, 2 i 
 
 or by four quarters, viz. 
 
 i+i+i+i=i=l 
 
 Arithmetically, then, we have the formation of the unit 1 ; we 
 see absolutely no distinction between one of the halve.- and the 
 other, one of the fourths or quarter.- and the other three ; all that 
 we do remark is that the unit 1 has been formed on an equal 
 system of factors, and I give the example now to .-how exactly 
 what a unit is composed of, if formed on this system ; but sup- 
 posing instead of making use of arithmetical factor- we represent 
 them by alphabetical ones, we at once observe an enormou- 
 change 
 
 -44- !; f- 
 
 Here then a given type would be perpetuated ; but if we, on the 
 contrary, brought together A and I! on the .-ame system, the new
 
 30 
 
 unit would le neither A nor B ; it would be a new formation a 
 composition, an alloy a mongrel of the two types, viz.: 
 
 A AB 
 
 AB 
 
 2~ is, then, no longer pure A or pure B. Now, if we represent 
 
 A as the sire and B as the dam, many people would say that - ... 
 
 m 
 
 should resemble A ; on the other hand, for exactly similar reasons, 
 
 -~- should resemble B. When I say this, it must not be inferred 
 
 AB 
 that '-y- does not at times resemble A or B. The reasons that 
 
 the offspring take more after the sire's type or more after the 
 dam's is a question which will be treated in another chapter ; but 
 given A and B, and they be bred themselves on an equal-factor 
 
 AB 
 system, then the produce -~- will, as I say, be a mongrel. 
 
 AB 
 
 f does not resemble one of its factors more than the other ; it 
 
 SB 
 
 resembles them both in proportion to their value in its composition, 
 aud as each is ^, the hereditary power of A and B will be the same ; 
 
 AB 
 therefore ~-, the produce, will be an alloy of them both equally. 
 
 m 
 
 As an experiment of this, let any man take a glass of water and a 
 glass of wine, then mix them. The produce is no longer wine, 
 nor is it water ; it is an alloy of both, a composition of the two 
 equal halves, wine and water. 
 
 Again, if we take the gas of the metal hydrogen and bring it 
 into contact with the gas chlorine, volume for volume, the result 
 is the formation of a new unit, viz.: 
 
 If, then, we apply such a system to the types of a life-form, the 
 result is exactly similar, viz. : 
 
 Species. Similar Types. 
 
 Dog\ Dog + Dog 
 -- ~~ 
 
 Variety. 
 
 Basset Hound 1 Basset Hound + Basset Hound _T>. O 
 
 T j V r ~ = --- -~ - . --- . -- - I KlSbcli 
 
 Basset Hound/ Hound. 
 
 Strain, 
 
 Couteulx | _ Couteulx + Couteulx =Cuu } 
 Couteulx J 2 
 
 Fa n til if. 
 
 Finode Paris j = 
 
 rino de Pane ) 
 Individual. 
 
 Fino VI.
 
 31 
 
 Here we are obliged to stop, because there is no other unit 
 Fino VI. ; the other individual must differ. But when we apply 
 this system to species, varieties, strains, and families, which differ 
 exactly as individuals do, the equal-factor system brings about a 
 double type, a blend, or a composite, viz. : 
 
 Species. Differing Types. 
 
 , "j' j- = No life-form of any type. 
 
 Va/rietwt, 
 
 In this case I will again give, as a first example, the horse and 
 the donkey, viz. : 
 
 The Donkey \ Horse + Donkey _ , _ M , 
 The Mare ) = ~ 2~ 
 
 It will be observed that the horse and the donkey are types 
 of two varieties, both descended from a previously existing 
 prototype, the Eohippus. Naturally they would hardly breed 
 together. At the same time, as mules are produced, it is evident 
 that they will. In consequence of this we class them as varieties, 
 but they have, through evolution, drifted so far apart that we 
 might almost class them as quasi-species. 
 
 In the preceding example of species, it will have been observed 
 that no offspring can be produced. In such an example as this we 
 have the curious phenomenon of production by the parents, but 
 incapability of reproduction by the offspring. In fact, as far as 1 
 am aware, only one instance of reproduction by a mule is on 
 record, namely, a jenny in the Jardin d'Acclimatation, Paris. 
 The question, however, more clearly of interest to us in the mule 
 is its variety type, since the life-form must have been produced on 
 the equal-factor system. 
 
 The mule, then, is a new composite variety, half a donkey and 
 half a horse, clearly an alloy or a mixture of two types to form 
 one. 
 
 It is impossible to look at a mule of any kind, be it 
 Horse Dcm^y Goldfinch Canary 
 
 Pheasant Fowl ^ Turkey Fmd 
 
 lardin d'Acclimatation, without being .struck with the resemblance 
 to both parents. The fact is too patent to be passed by without 
 being animadverted upon. 
 
 I could give numl>erless cases of the experiments which the 
 Jardin d'Acclimatation goes in for, many not necessarily mules, 
 hut crosses of varieties. Still the resemblance to both parent-* is 
 always to be seen. One cannot wonder at this when one looks .it 
 the factors ; they are equal, consequently the hereditary power of 
 Imth units as varieties is equal, and the variety type produced 
 being neither that of the sire nor that of the dam, we can only 
 come to the conclusion that they are composite varieties alloys 
 or mongrels.
 
 32 
 
 The case, however, of the mule, be it horse-donkey or any other 
 non -producer, I should not have given, were it not for the fact 
 that such examples mark the border-line between varieties and 
 true species in the parents. 
 
 Speaking, however, in general terms, varieties of a species which 
 have been formed by man through selection have no difficulty in 
 breeding and producing offspring, which will in their turn re- 
 produce, viz. : 
 
 Basset hound and Spaniel. 
 
 Now, when we cross these two, the result is the formation not 
 of a mule but a mongrel or hybrid, vi/. : 
 
 Basset Hound ) Basset Hound + Spaniel. 
 Spaniel j ~ 2 
 
 We see in this creature, not only the likeness to the sire, l>ut 
 also to the type of the dam equally so ; the factor of both 1> 
 hound and spaniel being equal in the unit, the hereditary power is 
 likewise equal, consequently the produce is a composite variety. 
 
 Strains. 
 
 Couteulx 1 _ Couteulx + Lane. 
 Lane .. / 2 
 
 I have already referred to the objections which were raised 
 against the crossing of the Couteulx hounds with the Lanes, and 
 I nave said that the opposition as regards colour has been proved 
 to have no raison d'etre. Had my adversaries imagined that I 
 intended to produce a variety such as the composite one above, 
 they would nave been perfectly right in crying down my theory, 
 since not only would the question involved 'be one of colour, but 
 the produce as a strain would be a mongrel. Notwithstanding 
 this very apparent fact, as I have already explained, such mongrel 
 types are allowed to compete, and what is more, often win. Mr. 
 Krehl, one of our largest and most experienced breedersof bassets, 
 has often assured me that the most perfect bitch (as far as point 
 go) that he ever had was bred this way, a very strong instance 
 in point of the remark I made in the last chapter that type and 
 points are not synonymous terms. The question, however, 
 which we have to deal with here is not whether such units should 
 be allowed to compete or not (personally I think they should, 
 since no club accepts strain type as a type), but whether the strain 
 type of either Coutenlx or Lane? is reproduced on the equal-factor 
 system. It is not, and I would guarantee, and I am sure many 
 other breeders would too, to pick out a composite Couteulx + Lane 
 hound out of tifty pure-bred specimens of either Lane or Couteulx 
 
 . Couteulx + Lane . 
 strain. A - hound is an alloy, and nothing more. 
 
 m 
 
 The very fact is apparent, so frequently is it seen in the result 
 obtained by breeders, say for instance of pigeons a man buys the 
 cup bird at the Palace show of one strain, and the hen the cup 
 bird at Birmingham of another ; he mates them. How many 
 winners does he produce? Does he produce one? No, the
 
 33 
 
 offspring is generally worthless, and the breeder is disgusted. 
 Were he to look at the real reason he would see it was because he 
 was breeding on an equal-factor system, in which heredity 
 was equal and the produce an alloy ; good as it possibly might be 
 as a combination of two strains, it has not a chance in severe com- 
 petition where only one is wanted. 
 
 Families. 
 
 Fino VI. (Kino de Paris family) ) Fino de Paris + Jupiter 
 
 Scandal (Jupiter family) / 2 
 
 Finoliug 
 
 In this case we have the union of two mumlters of the same strain, 
 the same variety, and the same species . consequently, the difference 
 of type is that of family ; nevertheless, the offspring (Finoling) is 
 ;i commixture of the two, a mongrel family type. The hound in 
 question resembles his sire's family greatly, bat if you look at him 
 carefully you observe that he al-u re-embles his mother. Such 
 ffimily crosses are absolutely necessary, as I shall show later on, 
 but at the same time the produce is neither that of the sire's 
 family type nor that of the dam's, but a blend of the two. 
 
 Indwiditals, 
 
 *' ilu) V - l = 
 Igerne / - 
 
 In this ca>e we have two hounds, both of the same family typr. 
 the same strain, variety, ami species type, yet they differ in indi- 
 vidual type. As a result of this \vr have Fiddler with an indi- 
 vidual type of his own, a composite of two individual types, a 
 type which even his own brother-; and sisters differ in, so di- 
 tmct is individuality. At the same time he has family, strain, 
 variety, and species type in common with hi* parents, all but 
 individuality. 
 
 We, therefore, come to the conclusion that individual type is a 
 commixture of two individual type-, and practically impossible 
 even in brothers and sisters to be reproduced twice, though it may 
 ]>e so very nearly. 
 
 In the above examples, then, no type ha- been reproduced in 
 purity, except where the species, variety, -train, and family are 
 the same. 
 
 In every other case, even in individual type, the equal-factor 
 system brings about a blend of two types. Thus, instead of repro- 
 ducing a distinctive or desired type, we have the destruction of 
 two pure types to make way for a hybrid one, an alloy or a 
 mongrel. 
 
 Now when we come to look at nature, it becomes evident that 
 this is exactly what doe- go on. Man ha- no power over the wild 
 creatures : consequently, although varieties of the same specie- 
 rarely mate, strains do, families do, and individuals of the sam-- 
 family : consequently as the wild units breed in this fashion tin i,^ 
 can be no correct type (~i) in nature : specie- type is correct enough. 
 <o i~ variety, but as to strain and family and individual, it i- In 
 
 D
 
 34 
 
 a constant state of change and composition ; ergo, man with his 
 " correct " yet incorrect type is not very much in advance of 
 nature. 
 
 Breeding then on the equal-factor system, whether it l>e with 
 the same species, &c., or with differing varieties, &c. , is very 
 nearly tantamount to breeding according to natural selection, and 
 natural selection cannot produce " correct type" any more than 
 can the equal-factor system. I take it for granted that the object 
 of a breeder is to get as near an individual type a* he can ; con- 
 sequently, since he cannot reproduce individual type on an equal - 
 factor system he must try another, and even with that he will 
 fail, since the nearest he can get to it is a family type founded 
 on an individual type, but this I must leave to the following 
 chapter. 
 
 For the moment let us look the equal-factor system in the face, 
 and observe what really would occur if we left nature to herself. 
 Varieties in nature I have said rarely breed together. Why? 
 Because they have taken a long time to develop into varieties and 
 have little or no inclination to breed together. As instances of this 
 we have the grouse and ptarmigan residing together, but rarely in- 
 termingling ; the rabbit and hare, the red and the fallow (leer, 
 the rook and the jackdaw. 
 
 It is, indeed, seldom we see the hybrid, and when we do it is 
 looked upon as a mongrel, the results of a mesalliance, which 
 should not have occurred. On the other hand, our domestic 
 varieties are of so recent a creation that they freely breed 
 together without any such compunction as is \vitnp*sp<l by the 
 few alliances of the wild varieties. 
 
 To give an idea of what would occur, as far as our domestic 
 varieties are concerned, were the life-form man to be swept off 
 the face of the earth to-morrow, would it be difficult to portray 
 the result of what would inevitably ensue ? 
 
 Just suppose, for an instance, that some vegetable bacterium, 
 such as is the cause of malarias, fever, cholera, &c. some bacillus, 
 only with ten times the virulence of either that of enteric fever or 
 rabies were to be evolved, man would be unprepared for it, and 
 the greater part of mankind, especially those in a high state of 
 civilisation, being closely segregated, would fall victims to the 
 attack of this excessively low form of life. Were this to occur, is it 
 to be supposed for an instant that our domestic stock would con- 
 tinue to reproduce the varieties we have by artificial selection 
 formed? Certainly not. All the differing varieties, strains, 
 families, and individuals of them would breed together on an equal- 
 factor system. Many of them would perish that have become 
 through man's agency dependent on him, many who cannot exist 
 without him. 
 
 In course of time all man's varieties, strains, and families 
 would revert to a condition of natural type to an almost similar 
 state of existence that they were in before man, by evolution, 
 became a reasoning life-form. Look, if you desire instances of 
 this, if you turn out half-a-dozen kinds of pigeons into a dovecot,
 
 K 
 
 how soon they will return to the blue-rock. Look, as I have seen 
 in Australia and New Zealand, how soon the cattle will return to 
 an original type. Look how Captain Cook's pigs have returned to 
 the wild tusker. Look in America, how the horses and cattle 
 have returned to a primitive type. Just as a garden or land, if 
 left uncared-for or untilled, glides out of cultivation and runs 
 wild, so would man's artificial types gradually revert to their 
 primitive prototypes and run wild too. Isolated breeds, such as 
 the Channel Island cattle and Shetland ponies, would continue to 
 exist for many years ; but, though it might be called an equal- 
 factor system, individually it would become an unequal system, 
 and with that an end would come too. They could not form with 
 other life-forms of the same species type, mongrel varieties, 
 because of their isolation, but they would perish because of it. 
 In the end, however, entire creation would once more resume its 
 own natural progression towards a goal of which we know naught, 
 and the time would soon come about when all traces would be 
 lost of the influence that was once felt of the civilising power of 
 its highest life-form man. 
 In conclusion, then 
 
 1. Similar varieties, strains, and families bred on the equal- 
 
 factor system do not variate in type. 
 
 2. Differing varieties, strains, families, and individuals always 
 
 variate in type. 
 
 3. Man's object is to check variation in type of existing 
 
 varieties, strains, and families.
 
 CHAPTER VI. 
 
 THE TYPES FORMED BY THE UNEQUAL-FACTOR SYSTEM. 
 
 IN the preceding chapter I gave the formation of the arithmetical 
 unit 1, by halves and quarters, as an illustration of the equal- 
 factor system. By making use of the same we can equally illus- 
 trate the system we have now to deal with, namely, the unequal- 
 factor system, viz. : 
 
 1 may be composed thus 
 
 H+iV== 
 
 A unit, then, may be composed of two or more factors, one of 
 which is the greater. Beyond this we observe nothing. 
 
 But if we, on the other hand, make use of alphabetical factors, 
 in the same way as we have previously done, we then observe that 
 the greater represents the greater part of a previous whole that 
 was called into use to form the new unit. 
 
 We have already observed that heredity was one of the attributes 
 of a unit ; consequently, if this is the case, the greater the factor 
 is the greater will be tlie resemblance of the new unit to the unit 
 of which the greater factor is a portion. In other words, if we 
 increase one factor in a unit over that of the other factor or factor: 
 which together go to form a whole, the greater will be the type of 
 the unit towards the type of the unit of which the greater factor 
 
 a part, viz. : 
 
 Bx 
 
 A..BC 
 
 If Ave carefully follow what has happened here we will not only 
 understand the unequal-factor system, but the results which follow 
 its employment. 
 
 A, B, C are three types. In the first place we have the produc- 
 
 , AB , AC v All . Ac- 
 tion of -75- ana -^-. JNow and are bred upon the equal- 
 
 & 
 
 factor system ; they are composite types, having in them an equal 
 proportion of respectively A and B types and A and C types. AB a
 
 37 
 
 consequence, they have no right to resemble respectively A more 
 than B, A more than C. But when we come to look at the 
 
 -AB , AC A,.BC , . ,.. 
 
 produce of and ^-, namely, - , there is a difference. 
 
 In the lirst place, the unit is not bred upon an equal-factor 
 system, but an unequal. Secondly, although the unit is a compo- 
 site type, there is no longer an equal proportion of the factors. 
 There is twice as much A as B, twice as much A as C, and when 
 we look into the matter still further A is equal to both B and C 
 put together. 
 
 Consequently the unit has a right to resemble A more than either 
 of its parents. It therefore follows that the type produced is that 
 of A. It is not strong, certainly ; it amounts to little more than 
 a preponderance in favour of A ; this is only to be expected ; but, 
 if this be understood, it will be then seen that, if the factor A be 
 still further increased, the higher the factor is made the greater 
 will be the resemblance of the unit to the type represented by A. 
 
 Now, it will l)e remembered that I said in the last chapter that 
 
 under the equal-factor system similar types would produce similar 
 
 types, but I .also remarked that in process of time the equal-factor 
 
 in even in them would have to give way to an unequal -factor 
 
 system. 
 
 This could only take place if absolute isolation were ensured. 
 
 I hardly think that it is necessary in giving an example of the 
 results that would come about in the type of species, varieties, 
 strains, and families, to give them all as I did in the former 
 chapter, since it will be better understood when I come to deal 
 with those of (littering varieties, strains, families, and individuals, 
 but I will give a single one in order to show what would occur. 
 
 In reality the variety type might differ, the strain and family 
 types might (litter, and of course the individual mufet ; but I will 
 assume for a moment that they are all similar except that of 
 individual, and the illustration I shall give will be not only that 
 of how nature keeps up her types, but one in which domestic life- 
 forms also would too if isolated, that is supposing always that 
 the units employed were similar in all types hut that of individual, 
 viz. : 
 
 Formation of a herd of wild cattle. 
 
 Let us imagine that a young bull A has been driven off from a 
 herd by the leader, and that he has managed to entice away three 
 cows of his own family ; we have then A, B, C, D, who are capable 
 of reproducing a new herd. 
 
 A necessarily becomes the sire, consequently all units born will 
 
 , AB AC AD u . 
 
 085 > - .. > .. , units of composite individual type. 
 A jff Z 
 
 During the period in which A lives or remains master of the 
 situation no other bull is the sire, consequently the units born 
 must, after the first generation, be produced on the unequal-factor 
 system, viz. : 
 
 A 3 B, A 3 C, A 3 D, and as every fresh generation was born the 
 A factor would rise, the greater factor in the new units being A.
 
 38 
 
 In course of time, however, A must die, or more likely IUK 
 throne is usurped by one of his sons, who in eastern fashion either 
 kills him or drives him from it, and all other claimants to the 
 throne, who in turn move oft' to form new herds themselves. 
 
 But if we stick to the "original herd, and presume, so as not to 
 make a greater complication of figures necessary, that a bull, 
 
 -jj-, becomes master, then he breeds with units whose factor* 
 
 may be ^ _ ^?_^1_^M?, and the same with C and D. 
 
 -4 4 o lo 
 
 The result is that there is an enormous increase of individual 
 of A type, since a larger number of units will have a greater 
 
 factor of A than , the sire, has himself, and so matters go on 
 
 Zi 
 
 AR 
 until _ i s driven from the post of honour. The increase of A 
 
 A C 
 as a type may be well imagined then if a new bull - becomes 
 
 o 
 
 sire. 
 
 Now looking at such an example as this is, we see in the first 
 place that the species type remains the same, the variety and the 
 strain, but the family type is not that of original A, it is replaced 
 by his individual type, wnich has become a Family type, which in 
 time will variate too. 
 
 In addition to all this the illustration affords us a clue to the 
 prolonged period nature takes for evolution to come about, since 
 it shows us that family type is formed on individual type, strain 
 on family, and so up the ladder till we arrive at species. 
 
 In due time we shall see how long it takes to form these 
 differing types in artificial types, but it will be sufficient now to 
 see that the unequal-factor system checks variation in nature by 
 limiting it to family type, or at most strains, since wild varieties 
 decline to reproduce together offspring. If then nature takes 
 years to bring about a perfect variation in family type, so much so 
 that it almost amounts to strain type, how long will it take nature 
 to produce a real strain, a perfect variety, and at length an 
 absolute species ? 
 
 1 1 must have taken some cycles and cycles of years to bring 
 al iout the variation of such varieties as the red deer and the fallow ; 
 li<>\\ long then did it take to produce such a quasi-species as the 
 donkey and the horse, such true species as man and the dog ? 
 
 As for the bird tribe and man, it is almost impossible to con- 
 jecture. I scarcely like to give man and the original germ of life, 
 it is past comprehension. 
 
 In nature then the unequal-factor system simply keeps up variety, 
 strain, and family types, and lessens individual variation. 
 
 On the other hand, in the hands of man it may be made to keep 
 up variety and strain and family, and to forma desired new family 
 type. This we will better understand further on. Supposing, 
 however, that instead of the same variety, the same strain, and the
 
 39 
 
 same family we turned out on to an island a number of variety 
 types, viz. : Black Spanish, Cochin, Brahma, and Dorking fowls, 
 tuna isolating them so that no fresh variety could come nigh them. 
 No doubt .some of them would breed together at first on an equal- 
 factor system. Thus for a short time we should have an equal- 
 factor system in both similar varieties and dissimilar, but before 
 very long the time would come when one bird would become the 
 master, the result being that all the units would gradually lose 
 the distinctive variety type of the first prototypes we placed on the 
 island ; for a time following this there would be mongrel composite 
 type of the four varieties, and following upon this would arise a 
 new variety type, which if man chose he could cultivate into a new 
 one. The four original artificial types would then have reverted to 
 an original natural one, which would again variate if fresh artificial 
 varieties were added, or become a still more natural one if the 
 gamefowl were added instead. 
 
 At any rate, after the introduction on to the island of the first 
 four varieties named an equal-factor system would first take place, 
 and then speedily an unequal would follow. 
 
 Now, I have already mentioned the cattle of the Channel Islands 
 and the ponies of Shetland ; how is it supposed their especial 
 type- i;i- varieties) were produced ? In dealing with this I do not 
 <>l course refer to their attribute of diminutiveness, since this will 
 appear in the next chapter. What I refer to is their particular life- 
 form by which we at once know them from others of a similar 
 species. 
 
 Surely it cannot be supposed that they, like the Biblical Adam, 
 were formed in a day and have continued their particular variety 
 type ever since? 
 
 I cannot even believe that they were the remains of a previously 
 existing variety which has elsewhere become extinct, and which 
 must have been, were this supposition correct, a variety existing 
 before the islands were separated from the mainland. 
 
 No ; just as in the case of the fowls, a new variety or a natural 
 type of variety has arisen through isolation a new variety which 
 man took a fancy to and cultivated. We can understand this 
 perfectly when we consider the circumstances which surround the 
 type, \i/.. :- 
 
 Both groups of islands are at a considerable distance from the 
 mainland, and had at one time undoubtedly no cattle and no 
 I>onies. Probably in the case of Jersey or Alderney one or two 
 units were imported from Normandy, the people being of Norman 
 extraction, and Normandy being considerably nearer to the islands 
 than England. 
 
 The consequence of this would be that, if the first two units were 
 unrelated, they would commence breeding on an equal-factor 
 system ; if related, on an unequal. In any case, in one or two 
 generations, whether the original imj>ort was two or a do/en units, 
 the unequal-factor system would replace the equal. The conse- 
 quence of this is that, if they were originally allied, a new family 
 type became produced which in time has become a strain and
 
 40 
 
 finally a new variety type. If, on the contrary, the original units 
 were ot differing variety type, the unequal -factor system has pro- 
 duced a natural variety type through isolation. Now, it is quite 
 immaterial whether this variety arose either one of these way- or 
 another on the unequal-factor system. What we have to take 
 into account is that it was produced by an iinequal-factor sys- 
 tem, and, having been taken up by man, has been perfected by 
 artificial selection. 
 
 And what I say of the Channel cattle is equally applicable to the 
 Shetland or Iceland ponies. 
 
 Now, under a system of artificisil selection we can make use of 
 this unequal -factor system to bring back a composite type to one 
 of the types from which it was formed, not, of course, in species, 
 since species type> do not form composites, but in varieties, strains, 
 families, and 'in addition to this it forms} new family type from an 
 individual, viz.: 
 
 Varieties. 
 
 Basset + Spaniel) = Basset 3 Spanieh 
 
 Baaaei 
 
 4 
 
 It will be observed that the composite has no distinctive type a^ 
 a variety, but directly you bring it into connection with one of the 
 types of which it is composed, which in this case is the basset, a 
 new variety unit is produced, still a composite, but with a pre- 
 ponderance in favour of the basset. This is, of course, accounted 
 for, since the equal-factor system has given way to an unequal 
 one ; a greater factor has been produced, and that being the 
 basset, type follows the type factor. 
 
 How much more would this be if we continued to make use of 
 bassets as sires ? The unit produced would in a short time return 
 to basset type, since the factor representing the spaniel prototype 
 would be reduced, attenuated, and, in consequence, lose its 
 hereditary power entirely. 
 
 In conclusion, then, the units would return to the original type 
 of one of the prototypes. 
 
 Strains. 
 
 Couteulx + Lane { _ C'outeulx 3 Lane. 
 Coutenlx j ~ 4 
 
 Parallel to that of varieties. 
 
 Families. 
 
 Fino de Paris* Jupiter-^ _ Finp de PariMui , itei , 
 
 Fino de Paris ) 
 
 Parallel with varieties.
 
 41 
 Individuals. 
 
 Fino de Paris J 
 
 /Fino de Paris 3 Trouvette\ 
 
 y ~^~ J 
 
 Parallel with varieties. 
 
 J5ut, in addition, we obtain a family type formed on the 
 iinividual, Fino de Paris. 
 
 Now, in every one of these cases we see an enormous advance 
 towards the types of the type factor. In varieties we can bring 
 a composite back to an original prototype, so we can in strains 
 and families; but we cannot bring it exactly back to individual 
 type, as none are exactly the same ; consequently, since an 
 individual becomes the parent of a family, his individual type is 
 produced by this method as a family type, and a new individual 
 type is formed. It must not be supposed, however, that factors 
 of a similar value, such as 1 .show above, are the proper ones to 
 reproduce a type of either a variety, strain, or family, or, indeed, 
 a new family. We have seen that the value of type in varieties, 
 strains, families, and individuals is different ; consequently, the 
 value of the factor necessaiy for their reproduction will be 
 different. This question, however, I will leave for another 
 chapter. It is at present sufficient to note that the unequal-factor 
 sy-tem will cause a type of one of the prototypes to return. 
 Tims it will appear obvious to the reader that, if this takes place 
 in composites of differing varieties, strains, families, and indi- 
 viduals, it must necessarily do something more in those that are 
 not different. 
 
 In a word, it increases their hereditary power. 
 
 Bumming up, then, the use of the unequal-factor system 
 Naturally, it increases the hereditary power of units. 
 Artificially, it stops variation. 
 
 Hy this time it must have occurred to my readers that the 
 unequal-factor system is tantamount to the ordinaiy word 
 ''inbreeding," .and on this question, just as we have found it in 
 "correct type," an enormous amount of prejudice and ignorance 
 prevails. 
 
 There is a vast number of breeders who, directly the word 
 "inbreeding" is mentioned, put their foot (metaphorically speak- 
 ing) down and declare that it is wrong, unnatural, and absolute 
 ruin to the stock on which it is practised. So it is, I am bound to 
 say, if it is carried too far. So is everything in this world, if it 
 is abused. We have already seen that in nature this must 
 and does exist ; we have seen that in spite of it life-forms con- 
 tinue of the same species, variety, strain, and family type for 
 ages without coming to grief. It cannot be, then, wrong, 
 unnatural, and ruinous. There are a class of people who go on the 
 principle that there i* no such tiling as a medium in the use of 
 anything that savours of danger. They say, "Don't touch the
 
 fire and you won't burn yourself." The men who condemn 
 inbreeding in this way are synonymous with those who say 
 you must not smoke, or drink, or play at cards, since you 
 will inevitably spoil your health, become a drunkard, or ruin 
 yourself. 
 
 Such ideas as these are wrong, unnatural, and ruinous. In- 
 breeding is like smoking, drinking, and playing at cards to a 
 man who knows what he is alxrat, who knows how far he may 
 go without damage to his stock, health, or pocket. It is an aid to 
 the breeder, as are the others to the comfort and enjoyment of life, 
 and those who decry the system may sit down and ruminate the 
 fact that not a single species, variety, strain, family, or indi- 
 vidual could have been produced in this world without its em- 
 ployment at the beginning of sexual life in ages past. Again 
 no individual type can become a family one, no family a strain, 
 &c. , without it. 
 
 If another instance were required, it is before us in the shape 
 of the enormous sums given for pedigree stock of all kinds. Is it 
 to be supposed that they are produced on an equal -factor system? 
 No, on a very carefully worked unequal one. 
 
 Yet those that condemn the system are the first to buy good 
 stock of this kind or make use of pedigree sires ; they know that 
 these sires have a higher hereditary power than ordinary stock. 
 How do they suppose that they are thus gifted ? Naturally ? No, 
 because they have been inbred to a certain type, they have a 
 big factor of that type, and when bred from, impose that type 
 upon their offspring, so that even if the offspring have been 
 bred upon an equal-factor system, they will have a pre- 
 ponderance in favour of their sire or dam, as the case 
 
 A B 
 
 mav be. It stands to reason that a unit such as 7 niust 
 
 4 
 
 have a greater hereditary power than - in the production of 
 
 type. 
 Supposing, for instance, that a farmer has a mare bred upon an 
 
 DF F( ' 
 equal-factor system, viz., - , and that his desire is to breed 
 
 to the type of a well-known horse M (carefully inbred). In such 
 a case as this the two units would have species and variety type 
 in common, very probably strain type also, but not family or 
 individual. 
 
 M DEF(i 
 The offspring would be - , and Mould consequently have 
 
 o 
 
 a large factor of M, which would give not only INI type as 
 the family type, but the individual type of the unit would 
 
 resemble M more than it would ' . 
 
 But were M not procurable and the farmer had two stallion.- to 
 select from, viz., p \ , doubtless tlfe first would have a
 
 43 
 
 greater hereditary power in producing M type than the other,. 
 viz, : 
 
 MB 
 
 DEFG I 
 
 M.,CB 
 
 4 
 DEFG 
 
 M.CBDEFG. 
 
 To all intents and purposes all three would be bred upon an 
 equal-factor system, but the produce would be really units in 
 winch the factors were unequal, and as a result we would have a 
 preponderance also towards M type, both family and individual, 
 though necessarily it would be less than were the farmer to breed 
 from M direct. 
 
 Clearly then we have before us the true value of a carefully- 
 bred pedigree animal. Vast sums, I have said, are day by day 
 given for them, and whether it is wrong, unnatural, and ruinous, 
 according to the idea of some, these prices will be given as long as 
 men breed to improve stock towards a desired type, simply for 
 the reason that they have a higher hereditary power of transmit- 
 ting their type than units bred on an equal system of factors. 
 
 We may then conclude that the unequal -factor system, whilst 
 increasing the hereditary power of units of similar types, promotes 
 it in those of differing types towards a desired type and checks 
 variation.
 
 44 
 
 CHAPTER VII. 
 
 RESULTS OF CARRYING THE UNEQUAL - FACTOR SYSTEM TOO 
 FAR IN VARIETIES, STRAINS, FAMILIES, AND INDIVIDUALS. 
 
 Now, whether the unequal-factor system be applied to the wild 
 varieties, &c., or whether it be applied to domestic ones, there 
 comes a time when a limit has to be put to it, otherwise if isola- 
 tion be complete it brings itself to an end. 
 
 If allowed to be continuously practised it most certainly means 
 ruin, but in the domestic varieties, &c., sooner than in tne wild, 
 individuals sooner than in families, families than strains, and 
 strains sooner than in varieties. I have said that inbreeding is 
 condemned, and I have given the reasons that this supposition is 
 put forward. I have also shown that for the reproduction of type 
 it is absolutely necessary. 
 
 I purpose now to show what follows on a continuous practice of 
 it, and to show that it is wrong, unnatural, and ruinous if it be 
 abused. 
 
 Unfortunately, those that protest against the system look at 
 the ultimate results rather than the immediate, ana that they see 
 these results only in families and individuals, not in varieties and 
 strains. 
 
 Now, supposing A and B were to be absolutely isolated so 
 that no other unit could possibly be added to them, they would 
 commence to reproduce on an equal-factor system, and as a result 
 we should have units thus composed, viz. : 
 
 AB 
 2 
 
 Following on this would come the unequal-factor system, or 
 inbreeding and the production of units, viz. : 
 A 3 B A 7 B A ir ,B & & 
 4 "8 10 ' 
 
 On arriving at this stcige it must be obvious that we have 
 returned to a condition of things in which we might certainly 
 
 represent A-}-jjB as Aj.1 (A), since B as is absolutely worthless 
 
 compared with A}. 
 
 We have, then, returned to A, and B, as a type, has vanished. 
 
 AB . A 3 B A.B 
 
 Again, supposing such units as - and > +- commence to 
 
 ... 4 o
 
 reproduce, then we would have a large number of fresh units in 
 which there would be a greater factor of A. 
 
 Now, such a system as this for the production of types is perfec- 
 tion, but if we attempt to apply it to either wild or domestic stock 
 for any length of time, it does mean ruin. In both cases, if isolation 
 is perfect, whether naturally or artificially, the results are the 
 same, and the reasons are not difficult to see. 
 
 At first both wild and domestic units will stand a certain amount 
 of inbreeding, but after that the properties of their blood, as in the 
 case of A and B, become exhausted, and, like a field from which 
 crop after crop has been raised, without lying fallow for a time or 
 being manured, the produce becomes weak, impoverished, and 
 valueless ; and just as we abuse the soil on which we raise the 
 crop, we abuse the constitutions of the units on whom we entail 
 the unequal-factor system. Neither can stand the constant wear 
 and tear, and exhibit their repugnance in a very marked manner. 
 
 At first we see a deterioration in constitution, then in size and 
 other attributes ; in fact, I might say they become weedy ; then 
 conies a difficulty in rearing offspring, and finally incapability of 
 reproduction when degeneracy becomes complete. 
 
 We should find that a species would soon degenerate into a 
 variety, a variety to a strain, a family, and then a single individual, 
 when the species would become extinct a systematic descent of a 
 species to a single individual, instead of what it should be- 
 namely, the ascent of a single individual 10 a species. 
 
 But the descent is almost electrical in its swiftness compared 
 with the ascent. It is so in all things. Unlv start a stone at the 
 top of a hill. At first it begins to go slowly, but as it rolls ii 
 gathers speed, and finally reaches the bottom with a headlong 
 rush. So it is in species, varieties, strains, families and indi- 
 viduals. Once isolate them and set the unequal -factor system in 
 motion, you are bound to bring the whole edifice to the ground 
 with a crash ; it gathers forces as it goes, and in the end destroy.- 
 them. It must not be supposed that this takes place in a day or a 
 year, since in the case of the wild varieties they will endure for 
 ages. On the other hand, domestic ones speedily show its evils ; 
 but, given either wild or domestic ones, perfect isolation hrinxs 
 about deterioration, degeneration, and extinction sooner or later. 
 It is this fact which causes the unequal-factor system to he .-o 
 strongly denounced, and rightly so, if it be abused. 
 
 It is the abuse of alcohol and tobacco which makes their n.-r 
 condemned, and abstinence, entire abstinence, crammed down our 
 throats. 
 
 Let us now look at nature and examine what takes place under 
 perfect isolation. 
 
 Supposing we placed on an island, or in an enclosure, a herd of 
 deer, the units of which were all unrelated, at first they would 
 breed on the equal -factor system, then would come the unequal. 
 
 At first they would keep up to the average si/e and strength, 
 but gradually" they would get smaller and less in number, and 
 then finally become extinct ; but deer not being domesticated, it
 
 46 
 
 would take a very long time for them to come to such a climax as 
 this. Why ? Because only the strongest becomes the sire, and 
 for ever, while the herd exists, the strongest male is the sire. 
 
 On the part of the females, only the strong become the dams ; 
 whilst on the part of the offspring only the strong are reared all 
 sick and wounded being left to die. Thus, we have always a 
 strong stock left, though, by degrees, the stock itself, owing to 
 the unequal-factor system, becomes weakened ; so that after a 
 lapse of time the strong stock of to-day will not compare with 
 that of bygone times. Such a herd might exist for a hundred 
 years or more, but it must in course of time decay and become 
 extinct. It is for these reasons that we cannot point out a single 
 small island in which there is an indigenous species or variety Of 
 the mammalia. They cannot exist under complete isolation. 
 
 At this very moment we hear of the tendency to degeneracy 
 shown in the Scotch red deer, and the means taken to improve 
 them. But should we wish for a typical instance of how a 
 variety has degenerated into a few individuals, we have it in the 
 so-calfed wild cattle of Great Britain, viz. : 
 
 In the early days of Great Britain that is to say, prior to the 
 Roman invasion the country was little more than a vast forest, 
 in which the wild cattle as well as the inhabitants found a 
 dwelling. I do not suppose that anything was done, even after 
 the Roman epoch, to enclose herds of this variety until the 
 Norman invasion ; but when this latter epoch was arrived at, 
 certain districts were turned into large forests and kept thus as 
 hunting grounds, in one of which it is well known one of the 
 Norman monarchs met his death. As civilisation increased and 
 land came into cultivation, the wild cattle, as a variety, l)ecame 
 isolated in various parts of the country, and of these forests or 
 chases that remain we have several, amongst them being Cliil- 
 lingham, Cadzow, and Lyme. 
 
 I doubt very much whether the three named could produce five 
 dozen individuals ; in fact, if the information which reaches me 
 is correct, and it is given on good authority, the condition of the 
 latter named was a herd (?) of two miserable, attenuated speci- 
 mens of a bygone race. This is the condition of a variety that 
 once covered the face of the land, and in it we see the results of 
 isolation a variety reduced not only to one or two families, but 
 actually to a couple of degenerated individuals, whilst in other 
 chases they have oecorue extinct. The unequal-factor system or 
 inbreeding has been allowed to be pushed to abuse. The idea that, 
 by keeping up this isolation, puritv of the variety would be ensured, 
 has lieen a suicidal policy, really it has destroyed them. Yet 
 they have existed thus for many hundreds of years, notwithstand- 
 ing breeding of a very gross character which must have gone on. 
 
 But it is only because they have lived in a state of nature, under 
 a state of natural selection, under a system of the strong always 
 being the sires and dams of the progeny, that they have lived or 
 existed so long. Had they been in a state of civilisation, they 
 would have passed away and become extinct long since.
 
 47 
 
 When, however, under such circumstances, we turn to units in 
 a. state of domesticity we find that they cannot exist any period in 
 comparison to the wild creatures. 
 
 The sire is not always the strongest, he is selected because lie is 
 the most typical, according to man's idea. The dams are not 
 invariably the strongest ; man breeds from all, even the very 
 weakest, "and trusts to attention and care to bring up the progeny. 
 It is not always the strongest of the progeny that live to become 
 the sires and dams of future generations. Hundreds that under a 
 natural state of life would die and perish, man carefully nurtures 
 and rears so that he can breed from them too. 
 
 Under such circumstances, it is not the survival of the fittest, 
 but the survival of many also that are unfit, and which nature, had 
 she her way, would reject as useless. 
 
 What must be the result of this ? 
 
 Undoubtedly that domestic life-forms are more prone to 
 degeneracy, and as a fact do degenerate speedily, compared with 
 those in a state of nature. 
 
 As examples of this I give the .following, \l/.. : 
 
 Varieties. In a previous chapter I stated that 1 would 
 account for the diminutive size of the cattle of the Channel 
 Islands and the ponies of Shetland, &c. Why is it? 
 
 Undoubtedly because the unequal -factor system has been run 
 too far, undoubtedly because deterioration has set in from it. 
 In the case of the ponies, climate, bad food, &c., has of course been 
 a factor ; but the primary cause in both has been the results of 
 inbreeding caused by isolation. 
 
 It is impossible to glance round any exhibition of fowls, pigeons 
 or dogs without being struck by the fact that we have large and 
 small representatives of many similar varieties. 
 
 In the case of fowls we have bantams. 
 
 In pigeons, pigmies. 
 
 In dogs, Italian greyhounds, toy terriers, <S:c.,all dwarfs. How 
 are they produced ? 
 
 Undoubtedly, in one sense, by artificial selection, by breeding 
 always from the smallest. But such a system would necessitate a 
 much longer period to produce them than it at present takes ; 
 scarcely anew variety appears in poultry and pigeons before in a 
 very short time a corresponding dwarf appears too, either bantam 
 or pigmy. By artificial selection, this would necessitate a scon- 
 of years, instead of two or three as it now takes. 
 
 If we were to say that a gross abuse of the unequal-factor 
 >\>tem was the cause, added to a system of artificial selection, 
 then we would arrive at a true statement of the existence of these 
 dwarfs, and this is proved beyond doubt, since the difficulties 
 which arise in their production are immense. The system lias 
 been abused, and man is perfectly aware of it. 
 
 Strains. In a previous chapter I said that the Couteulx strain of 
 bassets had degenerated in si/e. Our first importations were largo 
 animals, of fine bone, colour, and physique, but in 1886, after a 
 somewhat prolonged absence from England and from illness, I
 
 48 
 
 was unable to perceive what had occurred in the breed, until 
 I was asked in that year to judge the big show of that variety at 
 the Royal Aquarium. 
 
 Now nearly every hound exhibited there was of the Couteulx 
 strain, and bred from the original importations or their offspring. 
 I was considerably struck at the time with the hold the variety 
 had already taken on the public, on account of the number brought 
 together ; out I was also greatly struck with the deterioration in 
 size, colour, &c. 
 
 I therefore set to work to find the reason, the result being that 
 in the following year I was able to bring out my small book on 
 the basset and its breeding. To do this I was obliged to look up 
 the pedigree of nearly every hound in the breed, and from the 
 statistics which I had furnished to me by the breeders of the 
 variety I made out the sum total of over 1,000 hounds born in 
 the country since their importation. This, however, must be con- 
 siderably less than the actual sum, since I only asked the- best' 
 known amateurs to give me statistics of their breeding. 
 
 Nevertheless, the result was that, in addition to the statistics, 
 I was furnished with such evidence that it could not l>e other- 
 wise than that the reason for the diminution of sixc, inability to 
 rear offspring, and incapability of production after a stud visit 
 was the outcome of inbreeding of a very gross character. 
 
 Many of these hounds had never had a new factor brought into 
 their composition since their arrival in this country, whilst others, 
 on the contrary, were bred apparently from differing blood rela- 
 tions, but which on examination I found to be actually blood >i>ter.- 
 and brothers, with factors identical in blood and value. 
 
 Again, considering that although I made out the original im- 
 portations to be of no relationship at all, for the sake of my 
 theory, coming as they did from the same kennel, there is \<>iy 
 little doubt that they were related before they arrived here. This 
 point, however, I was unable to make out, as the pedigrees further 
 than the English ones I could not obtain. 
 
 The results, however, of my investigations were to me ample 
 and sufficient to give inbreeding as the cause of the too apparent 
 deterioration. Nor was I wrong. It was to me manifest that the 
 unequal-factor system had been grossly but inadvertently abused. 
 If then this took place in a strain, it can be Avell imagined what 
 would happen in the same time in a family, where all the units 
 employed must be more closely related. 
 
 Families. One of the earliest importations into this country of 
 the basset variety was a hound of the name of Fino, letter 
 known perhaps as " Onslow Fino," since he was imported by Lord 
 Onslow. 
 
 In due time a family was established on his individual type, 
 one branch of which was in the possession of a gentleman who 
 shall be nameless, since he brought me to task for saying that 
 deterioration was evident in his stock, although I gave my own 
 experiments, having the other branch of the family in my own 
 possession. In both cases the n suits were the same loss of size,
 
 49 
 
 colour, and almost type, though type is the last thing except 
 incapability of production that an abuse of the unequal-factor 
 system brings about. 
 
 After a certain period, deterioration manifested itself. Notwith- 
 standing this, from inexperience, and not altogether my own 
 fault, I began mating hounds of the following factors together 
 
 , whilst on the other hand the gentleman unnamed mated, 
 
 A V AV AV 
 
 or if lie did not, a friend of his did, j with p, this -rr- being 
 
 AV AV 
 
 produced by mating p with . 
 
 Such a system of breeding was absolute lunacy, yet I did not 
 see it for some few years afterwards. 
 
 I have previously remarked that tricolor was one of the desired 
 points in the Couteulx strain In the unnamed breeder's kennel, 
 before he learned experience/ the results of continuously breeding 
 together members of the same family brought into existence 
 hounds not only deficient in size, &c., but 20 lemon-and-white 
 ones out of a total of 48. In my own it was worse still. 
 
 I am not aware that the mental powers of the lower-class higher 
 life-forms are impaired to any great degree, except that they 
 become nervous, shy, and of a highly sensitive order, so much so 
 that in pointers the percentage of gun-shy dogs is considerably 
 higher than those bred on an equal system of factors ; but at the 
 same time I think I can produce one instance of lunacy (I am 
 sorry to say of my own breeding), a basset-hound in the possession 
 of Dr. Clifford Allnutt, of Leeds. He describes it as a canine 
 " idiot." 
 
 On the other hand, congenital malformation in bassets bred on 
 this system are appalling, and it is seen invariably in the tail, not 
 only in the shape of an unmistakable "kink, "but absolutely in 
 the abbreviation of the organ. 
 
 Turning no\v from such examples in life-forms of a considerably 
 advanced organisation to the highest, man, we note the marriage 
 of cousins to be the origin of many grievous ills idiocy, blindness, 
 and malformations frequently appearing in the children of such 
 unions ; and yet, with all this staring us in the face, the English 
 law, as it at present stands, debars a man marrying his deceased 
 wifi-'s sister, unions which in nearly every case would result in the 
 production of children who would lie born on an equal system of 
 factors. And why? Because it is said that it would interfere 
 with the social status of a sister-in-law in a married man's house. 
 
 From a breeding point of view, the marriage with a deceased 
 wife's sister would result in no evil to the offspring, whilst the 
 union of cousins certainly does, and personally I consider that ii 
 would be far better to legalise the Deceased Wife's Sister's J5ill 
 and make the union of cousins illegal, though in many cases the 
 children are not visited by the evils as described. 
 
 Again, if we go a step further, we find the marriage of an uncle 
 and a niece allowed in some Catholic countries, by special Papal 
 Dispensation. As an instance in point, let me oiler the Spanish 
 
 E
 
 50 
 
 throne, as an example of what it lias resulted in a few generations 
 back. 
 
 Individuals. When we come to consider that families before 
 long degenerate, it may well be imagined that in individuals it 
 will come more speedily still, under an unequal-factor system, 
 viz. : 
 
 When Comte Le Couteulx mated his well-known hound Fino de 
 Paris to Trouvette, a union which resulted in the Fino de Paris 
 family type at present in this country, he produced a bitch named 
 Mignarde. This he again mated with her own sire, viz. : - 
 
 } Mi S narde I _Finette(Fino de Paris 3 + Trouvette). 
 Fino de Paris J 
 
 In all probability Trouvette was already related to Fino de 
 Paris, but arguing that she was not there is not the slightest 
 doubt that Finette exhibited deterioration, since, instead cf mating 
 her with one of his own hounds, Mons. Le Couteulx had her served 
 by the stud hound of another breeder. 
 
 Supposing instead that he had again mated her with Fino de 
 Paris, the result would have been more degenerate still, a dwarf 
 and constitutionally a wreck. 
 
 Dr. Walsh (Stonehenge), my late friend, gives us an admirable 
 instance of this in his work, namely, the continuous use of one 
 sire, which very soon brought about degeneracy and finally incapa- 
 bility of production in the offspring. 
 
 It must be now obvious that if the unequal-factor system 
 arrests variation and produces types, it also causes deteriora- 
 tion, degeneration, and extinction. In fact, it may be looked 
 upon, as are alcoholic drinks and tobacco, as a source of good or of 
 evil. 
 
 Virtually, it has a right side and a wrong side ; put to proper 
 use, it is of the utmost value, but if abxised it is fatal. 
 
 Turning back for a moment, it will be observed that I men- 
 tioned, in dealing with strains, that I found in the case of the 
 Couteulx that breeders were actually mating blood sisters and 
 brothers. To understand this correctly, a knowledge of pedigree 
 is necessary, a question I have not arrived at yet, but without that 
 the following example Avill put before my readers what I mean, 
 viz. : 
 
 Supposing a breeder to have two females got by the same sire 
 
 out of the same dam, and their factors to be -=-, and that they 
 
 SB 
 
 be mated with their own sire A, then the offspring Avill be 
 
 A B 
 
 Supposing again that the breeder give one - female away 
 
 and keeps another himself, and that in course of time they are 
 
 A D 
 
 sent to two brothers, viz., - , what would be the relationship
 
 between the produce? Most men would say that the produce 
 
 A 8 BD 
 
 ^ were cousins, because they were out of two sisters am; 
 
 by two brothers, and that, therefore, there would be no harm in 
 breeding them together. On the other hand, it must be obvious 
 that they are more than cousins. 
 
 AB * AB 
 
 and t? were simply sisters. 
 
 3_ and ^ 2 were more than sisters. 
 
 4 4 
 
 A,D and A, I) were more tlian brothers. 
 
 A RD A RI) 
 
 Consequently, ^-~ and '~~ are cousins, sisters, and more 
 
 o o 
 
 than sisters, and breeding them together would be wrong, un- 
 natural, and ruinous. 
 
 In conclusion now on tills subject, it must be amply apparent 
 that no variety, no strain, no family and no individuals, if isolated, 
 can continue to produce their types or themselves for any length 
 of time on the unequal -factor 'system if in a state of isolation. 
 They are bound to degenerate and become extinct. The unequal- 
 factor system must not be abused, and to those who are inclined 
 to push it too far I say, as " Punch " does to those about to marry, 
 "Don't." Neither can we do without it; therefore we must, if 
 possible, find a medium course, in the same way as we can find a 
 man moderate in his pleasures. 
 
 At present it will be sufficient to conclude that isolation or abuse 
 of the unequal -factor system brings about deterioration, degeneracy 
 and extinction in varieties, strains, families and individuals.
 
 52 
 
 CHAPTER VIII. 
 
 INTRODUCTION OF FRESH BLOOD INTO DETERIORATING VARIETIES 
 STRAINS, FAMILIES AND INDIVIDUALS. 
 
 IN a former chapter I stated that the life-forms of the wild 
 creatures had little altered since the time of primitive man ; 
 consequently, when we come to imagine the lapse of time 
 which lies between primitive man and man of to-day it will be 
 granted that there has been opportunity afforded for not only 
 varieties, strains, families and individual types to die out 
 through isolation, but whole species. Indeed, many species since 
 primitive man's time have passed away. How then is it that 
 the same types exist at present as did then ? Simply localise 
 isolation is imperfect. 
 
 Inequality of factors still exists, otherwise we should have no 
 pure type, and units of similar factors of equal and unequal value 
 still breed together, yet there is but little appreciable deteriora- 
 tion. Why is this ? 
 
 Because isolation is just complete enough to keep up pure type, 
 but incomplete enough to allow fresh factors to be added. An 
 addition, which on the one hand does not interfere with existing 
 type, and on the other, brings fresh vigour to the deteriorating 
 old ones. 
 
 Now, we have seen that if differing variety, strain, family and 
 individual types be brought together, the result is the production 
 of units in which, instead of one pure type, a composite one takes 
 its place. 
 
 At the same time we must not forget that if one type be the 
 result of greater inbreeding than the other, the hereditary power of 
 the units of that type is greater; consequently, although the 
 produce of two differing types is a composite, a preponderance in 
 favour of the type which is the result of great inequality of factors 
 will be found in the composite, vi/. : 
 
 Presuming A to be the variety, strain, and family type of a 
 herd of wild cattle, which, from an abuse of the unequal-factor 
 system, have commenced to deteriorate ; then if isolation be 
 perfect, an example of which I have given in the last chapter, 
 they will in due course become extinct ; but if, on the other hand, 
 isolation be imperfect, they will 1>e joined by T>. The result of 
 
 this will l>e the formation of composite units, viz. . , in whom 
 A will be the preponderating type.
 
 53 
 
 In due course of time the unequal-factor system will again 
 
 commence, and the formation of units 2, I, 1 - , at 
 
 4 4 16 
 
 which time the herd will have absorbed B. Revigorated, it 
 will not only be brought back to what it was before deterioration 
 commenced, but it will also return to the type of prototype A. 
 
 Again, -in due time it would commence to deteriorate, but C 
 then joins, when the same process by which B was absorbed takes 
 place again. 
 
 The outcome of this is that a constant variation is taking place ; 
 or it may be described as a wave, in which there is a systematic 
 rise and fall from vigour to commencing deterioration, and then 
 
 A_B 
 
 to vigour again, or it may be illustrated as follows : A, f 
 
 m 
 
 A JL?, AL!*, A i5_ A A_A, but A at the end of the wave, or 
 
 8 16 16 
 
 when it has reached its full height, is not exactly what A was 
 before the wave commenced at the previous A, as may be seen 
 thus, viz. : 
 
 A B / AC ,' 
 
 Such an illustration as I give here in alphabetical terms shows 
 us exactly how nature; not only prevents deterioration of life- 
 forms by giving them fresh blood, but it also shows how type is 
 maintained. 
 
 And, in addition to this, it shows us how variation takes place 
 too this imperceptible change that, from our minute period of 
 existence, we are unable to fully appreciate. If we look back 
 through the lapse of time which has taken place between us and 
 primitive man, and can imagine a series of ripples in an 
 unbroken line between him and us, we can imagine how and why 
 we variate from what he must have been ; and why, if we were 
 isolated, we should by this time have perished from oft" the face 
 of the earth. 
 
 At the same time it must be obvious that the more perfect the 
 isolation is, the smaller the life-forms become, although they keep 
 up their types. 
 
 \Vhat applies here to man applies equally so to every form of 
 life ; but to continue our subject more clearly to our interest, 
 namely, that of fresh blood, we have seen that the wild creatures 
 n-ijiiire it much less often than the domestic ones, from the fact 
 that in nature the strong is always the sire and dam of the 
 oH'spring, whilst in domesticity it is the most typical. Now, if 
 man bred his stock in the same way as nature does, and intro- 
 duced fresh blood by the same means, we should have a succession 
 of waves or variations between " correct type ;" we should have 
 a year or two of typical unity, and then a succession of years of
 
 54 
 
 declining tyne, then medium type, anil then a rise to good type, 
 culminating in " correct type " again. Such a system would find 
 no favour, and would put an end to the objects of specialist 
 clubs. In fact, we would have to acknowledge that inbreeding 
 was useless?, since as soon as we perfected "type" we had to 
 undo it again to rebuild it up. 
 
 One thing, however, we must acknowledge, viz., that fresh 
 blood is necessary ; but we need not destroy existing types, a- 
 natnre does, for the time being, when she introduces it. 
 
 Varieties, if they are large, seldom require to have fresh blood 
 brought in, on account of the mass of unrelated units ; strains do, 
 because of the few ; families constantly, because there are no 
 unrelated units in them ; individuals at once, as, in bringing fresh 
 blood to them, we are trying to keep up a family type as well. 
 But in whatever way new blood is introduced it must l)e so done 
 
 as not to interfere, or as little as possible, with existing type.-. 
 
 Now, supposing A to be an existing type, which, through al._ 
 of the unequal-factor system, is in a fair way to deterioration, 
 
 then B must be introduced ; but we have already seen that B, 
 although it will stay deterioration and bring the units of A back to 
 a state of vigour, will entirely, pro ton., destroy A as a pure 
 
 AB 
 type, by substituting - instead, a type which will only have a 
 
 m 
 
 slight preponderance in favour of A, and it will require a certain 
 time to arrive again at A. 
 
 Supposing now that we removed all the male units of A type 
 and substituted B ones in their place ; we should not only destroy 
 A type, but we should change it to B, since B, as the sires, would 
 
 BA B A B A 
 
 continue to produce -5-, - j , - ^ , &c. , until the type would 
 
 A 4 o 
 
 become pure B. For these reasons fresh blood cannot l>e too 
 carefully brought in. 
 
 Xow nature's manner of introducing fresh blood is a correct 
 method, but it is too slow for man, and on the other hand domestic 
 units require it sooner than wild ones, consequently we have to 
 anticipate nature, wh<e system we have seen to be 
 . AB A S B A 7 B A I5 B A 
 
 .rY. . . . ,rY 
 
 2 4 8 16 
 
 AB 
 
 Man, on the contrary, sees that will bring matters to perfec- 
 tion sooner than B, - quicker than , !cc. Therefore he 
 
 introduces his fresh blood, not as whole B, but as a factor, and by 
 doing so keeps his stock always up to the top of the wave which 
 represents " correct type ;" but on the other hand, by anticipating 
 nature in this way, fresh blood \\n^ to be more frequently 
 brought in. 
 
 Thus, in introducing fresh blood it must be done by mating 
 units together, one of which must have a greater factor of the 
 desired type and a lesser of the blood to be introduced, viz.:
 
 55 
 A ) A r B 
 
 A,BJ 
 
 And in this alphabetical example we probably see the explana- 
 tion of the ola adage, " It taltes four generations to make a 
 gentleman." 
 
 Now, if we had a number of such units, viz.: 
 
 B 
 
 C 
 
 A 7l 
 
 it is clear we could go on breeding them together for a lengthened 
 period without deterioration stepping in, or recourse having to be 
 made to fresh blood, whilst A as a type would remain practically 
 unaltered. 
 
 Xo\v, if we apply such a system to varieties, strains, families, 
 and individuals of our domestic kinds, we can see how it will 
 work. 
 
 ]'f<rictii:n. In this case I shall again give the basset hound, 
 though it must not be supposed for a moment that I should advise 
 such a procedure as this will appear. France is still in existence 
 and the basset to be obtained there, though not in the same state 
 of perfection as it has now been brought to in England. At the 
 same time, supposing that we could not obtain another pure bred 
 basset in the world, and that the breed was deteriorating from 
 want of fresh blood, it most certainly could be kept up in full 
 vigour, and perfect as far as type goes, by producing first a com- 
 posite thus : 
 
 Basset + Beagle 
 2 
 
 then increasing the basset factor until the beagle type was 
 destroyed, when the produce could be nm through the deteriorated 
 pure bassets. 
 
 There would be no alteration in type, no appreciable difference 
 in the life-form of the animal, whilst the variety would be brought 
 back to full vigour and strength. 
 
 This is exactly what I did do in 1875, when there was no basset 
 hound bitch in England, and bassets thus bred were exhibited 
 by me in 1S77 at the Agricultural Hall. 
 
 But if, on the contrary, we employed beagle sires on all the 
 basset bitches, a composite generation of units would be formed, 
 which it would take years to bring to a state of basset purity as a 
 variety type the same as existed prior to the cross. 
 
 As an example of this in point, the ancient Irish wolf hound 
 has become almost extinct, but by careful selection and intro- 
 duction of fresh bloo.l through units, which contain a large factor 
 of that blood and a small one of "great Dane," the almost lost 
 variety as a type is in a fair way to become as well-known as it 
 was in years gone by, not only a.s a type of a variety, but in all
 
 its pristine size and vigour, which years of abuse of the unequal - 
 factor system and neglect have brought down to a few degenerated 
 specimens. 
 
 It is the same with the blood hound ; it has been found al>so- 
 lutely necessary to go to the New Forest hound to find fresh 
 blood, yet by introducing it as a factor the type of the blood 
 hound has not altered one bit. And it would be the same witli 
 the so-called wild cattle, which in a few years will absolutely 
 become extinct, unless this craze for purity of blood is put aside. 
 They could be brought back to their former numl>ers to-morrow, 
 not perhaps exactly as man does, but by doing it a< nature docs, 
 and destroying the male composite units for the first two or three 
 generations. At first there would be necessarily a composite in 
 the female units, but in a very short time type would return to 
 that of the original variety, besides being brought back to a state 
 of vigour. At the same time selection would have to be made 
 use of, as to what blood most nearly resembled that of the wild 
 cattle, and without doubt this would be found in the variety 
 known as that of "Perugia," whose type very closely resembles 
 that of the wild cattle as a variety. 
 
 Strains. When dealing with the strain type formed by differing 
 strains, under the equal-factor system, I showed that the result 
 must be a composite, and I then referred to the objections raised 
 against the proposal I made to restore to their original state of 
 vigour the Couteulx Basset, which through a too great abuse of the 
 unequal -factor system had become deteriorated. 
 
 The strain I selected was the Lane. 
 
 Now my intention was not to replace the Couteulx sires by 
 those of Lane, but to produce units with a greater Couteulx factor 
 and a lesser Lane, so that these might l>e used through the strain 
 and so bring it back to vigour. 
 
 It has now been undoubtedly proved to lie correct, so much so 
 that even those who at one time decried the system find it i: 
 sary, if they want to go on breeding, to make use of it. 
 
 Type suffers in nowise, the greater Couteulx factor annihilating 
 the Lane as a type, whilst the lesser Lane is sufficient to bring 
 back the Couteulx to their former average size. 
 
 x - ml t Couteulx, Lane , 
 
 Numbers ot - i- hounds as a strain type are now 
 
 to be seen on our benches, and although they exhibit a certain 
 Lane type, yet the preponderance is far on the Couteulx side ; 
 consequently it is evident that the Couteulx factor requires to be 
 still further strengthened, but of this I shall treat in the following 
 chapter. 
 
 Fainilirs. Now, since all families are made up of units, all the 
 units of a family must necessarily be related ; consequently fresh 
 blood is more frequently required than in strains, and to introduce 
 fresh blood into a deteriorating family we must do it by means 
 of a factor, just as in the previous ca-c>. -o as not to interfere 
 with the existing type of that family. Just as in the case of 
 varieties we had to make use of a very similar variety of the
 
 57 
 
 same species ; just as in the case of strains we had to make use 
 of a strain of the same variety, so in the case of families we 
 must make use of another family of the same strain. 
 
 In supposing now, which is more than a supposition, that Comte 
 Le Couteulx found the Fino de Paris family lie had begun to be 
 commencing deterioration, viz. : 
 
 Finette (Fino de Paris family) 
 
 he had to breed out to another family, namely, the Termino. 
 
 This at once gave him a blend or composite, viz. : 
 rpr /Termino+Fino de l'aris\ 
 \ 2t I 
 
 with a bias in favour of the Termino family, which was pro- 
 bably quite, if not more carefully bred than the Fino de Paris ; 
 but directly the Fino de Paris factor is increased we at once find 
 a return to the Fino de Paris family type, as viz. : 
 
 Fino V. (Fino de Paris a Termino), 
 and at the same time there is no deterioration in the units. 
 
 ln(lirit/Hf(ls. Here we arrive at a question which must neces- 
 sarily require a knowledge of pedigree; since we must, if we are 
 going to introduce fresh blood, Know the individual factors of the 
 units themselves, not their factors of family type, strain type, or 
 variety type. 
 
 Both units necessarily have a large similar factor to produce 
 family type, a large factor of their individual prototype which has 
 become a family type, but, notwithstanding that we nave not yet 
 arrived at a knowledge of pedigrees, the examples I give will, 
 I think, be readily understood. 
 
 At the same time it must be remembered that we are not 
 breeding for a new family type, nor do we wish to bring fresh 
 blood into an old family type, but into the produce of two indi- 
 viduals of the same family type. Now, units of the same family 
 may have : 
 
 1. Identical factors as well in blood as in value, viz. : 
 A 3 B A,B 
 
 ~~4~' 4 
 
 2. Or thev may be identical in blood, but different in value, 
 yiz . AJB A 7 B 
 
 4 ' 8 
 
 3. Or they may have one similar and the other differing, but 
 
 both of the same value, vix.: - ** A j. 
 
 4 4 
 
 4. Or they may be similar and the other differing, and at the 
 
 same time differing in value, viz.: 3 , X 
 
 4 8 
 
 .">. Again, they may be similar, dissimilar, but with an opposite 
 
 value, viz.: ***, I**!
 
 58 
 
 Now, in Case 1 it is obvious that the units are identical in every 
 way, consequently they cannot be bred together ; and I may say 
 the same of No. 2. 
 
 Nos. 3 and 4 are the proper units to breed together, as by this 
 means we not only keep up A type, but introduce a fresh factor 
 
 into the progeny, viz.: (No. 3) A BC , (No. 4) A i B 2 C , 
 
 8 16 
 
 viz Fipo de Paris 15 Jupiter 8 Juno., Pallas, - t 
 
 32 
 Fino de Paris 21 Termino 4 Ravande 4 Trouvette s . 
 
 32 
 
 These together form the new unit 
 
 FinodeParis 3a Termino 4 Jupiter g Ravande 4 Trouvette 3 Juno PaIlas 3 
 
 64 
 
 Now, the parents of the new unit have two factors in common, 
 but two differing ; consequently we produce in the new unit, not 
 only a large type factor for the established family type, but we 
 bring in two differing ones as not individually in common. 
 
 Pedigree, therefore, must be known to allow us to introduce 
 fresh blood into units that have a tendency to deterioration ; 
 consequently, it will be obvious that breeding for family type, in 
 addition to bringing in fresh blood, but not that of another 
 family, is one of the most advanced kinds of breeding we can go 
 in for, because it must be remembered that we are not only 
 introducing fresh blood, bxit that we are keeping up family, strain, 
 and variety types into the bargain. 
 
 Case No. 5, however, I must warn my reader to beware of, 
 since, instead of keeping up the family type of the individual, you 
 at once destroy it, viz. : 
 
 (a composite) 
 
 or a return to the type of the first two individuals that gave rise 
 to the family type. 
 
 In conclusion, then, we may deduct from this chapter the 
 following facts : 
 
 1. That fresh blood, if it be required in varieties, strains, 
 
 families, and individuals, must be brought in as a 
 factor. 
 
 2. That in this way many types will be maintained and 
 
 vigour added.
 
 CHAPTER IX. 
 
 STRENGTH REQUIRED IN THE GREATER FACTOR TO PRODUCE 
 GOOD TYPE IN VARIETIES, STRAINS, FAMILIES, AND INDI- 
 VIDUALS, AND A BREEDER'S AXIOM AS TO HOW THEY MAY 
 
 BE PRODUCED. 
 
 IN the last chapter we saw that fresh blood or a new factor could 
 be added to a unit without interference with any of its existing 
 types, even into almost the most fleeting of them all, family type. 
 Hitherto, we have taken our ideas from nature on the one hand, 
 and added man's intelligence on the other, so as to bring about a 
 quicker result, and by acting thus, we find that, if we cannot 
 produce a variety, a strain, a family, or an individual type, abso- 
 lutely and exactly as it previously existed before the introduction 
 of fresh blood, we can nevertheless reproduce it so nearly that 
 practically there is to all intents and purposes no material change 
 or variation from the prototype. 
 
 Now in Chapter III. I called the reader's attention to the fact 
 that the five types which existed in a unit or life-form had a 
 definite value individually, and that the value of each type must 
 be differing, localise of the material difference that existed between 
 them. 
 
 I then gave the value of the whole five, were they each to be 
 accepted as correct, as 62, thus apportioning them : 
 
 Species ... ... ... ... ... 32 
 
 \ ariety ... ... ... ... ... 16 
 
 Strain 8 
 
 Family ... ... ... ... ... 4 
 
 Individual ... ... ... ... 2 
 
 Total 62 
 
 This then would represent " correct type " were it absolutely 
 defined, but we have seen that only species and variety are de- 
 fined, and that any strain, any family, and any individual type 
 may be correct. 
 
 This, however, does not in any way alter the value of type, 
 since species and variety, although defined, still have the same 
 value 32 and 16, and strain, family, and individual types, although 
 not defined, still remain at 8, 4, and 2 ; consequently, correct or 
 undefined, the whole value of the types a unit is composed of 
 remains at 62.
 
 60 
 
 But when we introduce fresh blood into a unit, although we 
 may or may not materially change the type or its value, we split 
 the value of the type up into factors, viz. : 
 
 Supposing we take as an instance strain type. My basset 
 " Joyeuse" 
 
 Strain ... Couteulx Lane ... 4 + 4 = 8. 
 
 Here we have a composite strain, and, the value of the type 
 being 8, it has been divided into the factors 4 + 4 or halves, each 
 type of which the whole composite type is composed being given 
 the value to which it is entitled, and, since in this case it is 
 half, each type is apportioned the half of the value of a whole type, 
 which is in itself 8. 
 
 But supposing we take the case of another hound, viz., 
 " Chastelard "- 
 
 Strain ... Couteulx 7 Lane ... 7 + 1 = 8 
 
 There is no change in Couteulx type as a strain, although Lane 
 blood has been added. Strain type still remains at 8, but type 
 value has been divided up into two factors, namely 7 and 1, and 
 each type in the composite receives the value that it is en- 
 titled to. 
 
 Now when we look at the value of the various types in this 
 light, we observe that if we cannot in our domestic units get 
 absolutely a whole 32, 16, 8, 4, 2, it is possible to get almost a 
 correct life-form by having the nearest value to them. We also 
 observe that if these figures were kept up as 32, 16, 8, 4, 2, and not 
 in factors, we could not possibly have fresh blood introduced ; as 
 the introduction of fresh blood would at once cause them to split 
 into factors. But as fresh blood must be brought in to ward off 
 deterioration it is necessary to have them as factors, and since we 
 never can produce a unit in whom we can find absolutely ' ' correct 
 type" (5), the question at once arises, 
 
 "What factor of 32, 16, 8, 4, 2, will give us good strong type, 
 and enough fresh blood to ward off deterioration ? " 
 
 In a word, " What is the strength required in the greater factor 
 to produce good type in species, varieties, strains, and families, 
 and to produce individual type as a family type, since we cannot 
 reproduce individual type in an individual ? " 
 
 Obviously it must be the next thing to 32, 16, 8, 4, 2, which we 
 may place thus : 
 
 Sixties ...... 31| + ^=32 
 
 Variety ... 15H + T5 =1 6 
 Strain ...... 7 + i = 8 
 
 Family ...... 3| + } = 4 
 
 Individual 1 + \ = 2 
 
 But it must be also apparent that such a system of figures must 
 be cumbrous in handling, and most perplexing to deal with, there- 
 fore we can simplify matters exceedingly by looking upon the 
 value of each type thus :
 
 61 
 
 Species || 
 
 Variety } 
 
 Strain f 
 
 Family | 
 
 Individual H 
 
 and in doing so we can represent the value of each type as 1. 
 
 Consequently we may have the value of type represented 
 thus : 
 
 Species |-J- + 7rV=l 
 
 Variety t* + A=l 
 
 Strain | + i =1 
 
 Family 3 + = 1 
 
 Individual + i =1 
 
 In each unit we see a greater factor excepting in that of indi- 
 vidual, the reasons for which I will explain when we come to deal 
 with that especial type ; but at present what concerns us is the 
 question whether the greater factors given above will produce 
 good type. I believe they will, and, if I can prove that this is so, 
 it will solve a difficulty which many breeders have to contend 
 with, namely, the odium that rests upon an exhibit that is sup- 
 posed not to be pure-bred, because it has had a cross or a bar 
 sinister somewhere in its ancestry. 
 
 This is utterly wrong, since it must be obvious that every 
 variety, strain, and family must have a bar sinister, otherwise they 
 could not exist. Fresh blood must come in sometimes, and I can- 
 not suppose any life-form to exist without it, since if we trace it 
 back we find that some other variety than its own is there, some 
 other strain, some other family. 
 
 (Jood variety, good strain, good family type never can be found 
 absolutely pure, it must be as the greater factor of a one. 
 Let us see, then, if these factors such as I have given will do, and 
 if they will, then we may look upon the types that contain them as 
 pure, and the life-forms that contain the types as pure-bred, viz. : 
 
 Species. Without recapitulating, species will not breed together, 
 consequently the value of this type will remain a whole 
 
 Variety. Now we have already seen that a variety, being, as 
 it is, composed of a vast number of unrelated units, all of which 
 have one type in common, viz. species, when the introduction 
 of fresh blood is desired we do not inbreed to a single unit, other- 
 wise we are breeding for a new family type, but we inbreed to 
 the variety type through a number of units, after the introduction 
 of another variety, viz. : 
 
 Supposing that we had a number of basset-hounds that were 
 commencing to degenerate, and that fresh blood was required, 
 and that we could not obtain another basset, obviously we would 
 have to employ some other variety to bring it in. 
 
 Now in the last chapter I explained that, by increasing the 
 li;i.rt factors in the composite, we would return to basset type. 
 
 A whole then composed thus would give us perfect type, since
 
 62 
 
 the lesser factor would have absolutely no hereditary power of 
 representing its variety type at all, whatever it might be, vix. : - 
 Basset, ^X 
 16 
 
 To advise such a proceeding as this would be farcical and ridi- 
 culous, nevertheless I may query whether many of our most 
 typical varieties could show even so large a factor as this is, yet 
 they are called pure. The reason for this is obvious. 
 
 Poor stock of all kind is gradually being improved in some 
 direction, viz. : 
 
 Let x represent a cow of no variety known, a complete mongrel, 
 such as may be seen grazing on some hillside, nevertheless from 
 it both a pure-bred Shorthorn or a pure-bred Hereford might very 
 soon be manufactured, viz. : 
 
 A 
 
 Hereford 15 x Shorthorn 15 x 
 16 16 
 
 To do so, we should simply have to breed in to the two variety 
 types through pure bulls, viz. : 
 
 Let A represent the Hereford ; B the Shorthorn : 
 
 A+ x +B 
 
 ! I 
 
 Ax Bx 
 
 A s x B 3 x 
 
 I I 
 
 Ax B T x 
 
 A 15 x B 15 x 
 
 By this time both A ls x and B 15 x would have arrived at pure 
 A and B. 
 
 Fresh blood in large varieties is constantly being added in this 
 way, although we do or may not notice it, but in small ones which 
 are nearly extinct it has to be done intentionally, as, for instance, 
 in the case of the almost extinct Irish wolf-hound, which Captain 
 Graham and other members of the Wolf-hound Club are, and 
 have almost in a few years succeeded in, resuscitating. 
 
 A factor of ff wolf-hound will amply suffice to reproduce the 
 variety type in all its purity. 
 
 Strains. Possessing as they do already two types in common 
 viz., species and variety both of greater value than that of strain 
 type, the factor required for strain type will not, therefore, be 
 necessarily so large as in the preceding cases. 
 
 Again, strains having but few unrelated units in their compo- 
 sition, a certain amount of inbreeding will lie necessary ; conse-
 
 63 
 
 quently in reproducing strain type, after the addition of a fresh 
 factor, the unequal-factor system will have to be employed. 
 
 This we have already seen promotes type ; consequently, for this 
 reason also, the factor necessary for good strain type will be less 
 than in that of species and variety. We have already seen that 
 in crossing the Couteulx and Lane strains to give the former fresh 
 
 blood, ' eu x ? . - was no t sufficient, and that a further mul- 
 
 4 
 tiplication of the Couteulx factor was necessary. Hounds of 
 
 * 7 ane have now been bred, and amongst them I may 
 8 
 
 mention " Chastelard." He has absolute purity of Couteulx type, 
 consequently we may assume that the factor necessary for pure 
 strain type is |. 
 
 Family. Here again we find the distinctive value of type less, 
 since families have not only species type in common, but variety 
 type and strain type, consequently the value of the factor will be 
 less. 
 
 Again, as families can have no unrelated units, inbreeding must 
 at once ensue after the introduction of fresh blood. 
 
 Type therefore is more rapidly produced than in any of the 
 former types, for this reason accordingly the necessary factor will 
 be less. As an example, we have a complete instance of what 
 the factor should be in this case, in fact quite as good as that in 
 strain, viz. : 
 
 (Fino de Paris., Termino) 
 4 
 
 is then the amount required in family type. 
 
 l. Now in breeding a single individual to another of 
 
 the same family, we have four types in common vi/., species, 
 variety, strain, and family and when we mate members of 
 the same family together there must be immediate inbreeding, 
 consequently the factor is considerably less than in family type. 
 
 I have placed it as \. 
 
 Now when we come" to consider that every fresh individual type, 
 which must he different to any other, is formed on an equal-factor 
 system, \ve find that \ is the proper factor, since every new indi- 
 vidual type is a direct composite of two other individual types, 
 viz. : 
 
 Fiddler (FinoV.+Igerno) 
 
 2 
 
 This must be obvious. 
 
 But if we desire to form a family type on an individual type, 
 i will not do this, although after a new family type has been esta- 
 blished i will. 
 
 Consequently we must have a factor somewhat over \ to com- 
 mence with. 
 
 Now we may take as examples either the mode in which the 
 Fino de Paris type came to be produced as a family type or of 
 Bourbon, viz. :
 
 64 
 
 ds } Mignarde( Fino (le ^ris + Trouvette^ composite , 
 
 Finette(Fino de Paria s Trouvette). 
 
 On arriving at this stage deterioration commenced, consequently 
 fresh blood was required. Termino was then introduced, viz. : 
 
 Termino } Guinevere (Tcrmino 4 Fino de Paris s Trouvette). 
 
 As, however, a bias was found in favour of Termino, Fino de Paris 
 became again used, viz. : 
 
 Guinevere 1 TJ.- v /Fino de Paris, 1 Termino 4 Trouvette 
 Fino de Paris f " no V " \~ ~16~ 
 
 By this time the Fino de Paris individual type has become a 
 family one, and by keeping up the factor we have in direct suc- 
 cession 
 
 Fino VI. (a Fino de Paris factor of y' ff and three lesser ones). 
 Forester and Merlin (a Fino de Paris factor of $$ and six lesser 
 nes). 
 Comte de Paris ( T " 5 V Fino de Paris and six lesser ones). 
 
 It will now be apparent that in producing an individual a> a 
 family type something more is required than ; it should therefore 
 be a factor ranging between i and f , but as the type as a family 
 one becomes established it may represent itself as or even ]> 
 
 Again 
 
 ?neo bOP } Ch P ette ( Bourb % +Theu ) a composite individual 
 
 type. (Termino family type.) 
 
 Here fresh blood is required (as both Bourbon and Theo have 
 exactly the same individual factors, though dissimilar in value), 
 viz. : 
 
 Chopette "I pi 101>c H. e jy /Chassepot., Bourbon Theo\ 
 Chassepot J ' \ 4 / 
 
 then 
 
 Chopette II. ) . /Hourhon ..( 'liassepot./fhecA 
 Bourbon J x \ g 
 
 Here we come back to Bourbon individual type as a family 
 type, although it is generally called the Termino, because Bourbon, 
 Theo, and Chopette all show the type <>f their prototype Termino. 
 Nevertheless, f appears t o be the factor here, virtually the same 
 as that required to establish the Fino de Paris individual type a- 
 a family one. 
 
 We may conclude, therefore, that to establish a family type 
 from an individual one, a factor ranging between i and | is re- 
 quired at first, and as fresh factors come in it may be reduced, 
 since the factor that i;ives the family type is out of all proportioj.
 
 to thy other* that with it form the unit. As an example of this 
 I give the whole factors of that remarkable litter Forester, Fresco, 
 Merlin, Flora, viz. : 
 
 Fino tie Paris .^TermiiiOj z Ravande 4 Trouvette 3 Juno 8 Mo(leI 4 Fino j 
 
 64 
 
 It will now be obvious to my readers that since every unit must 
 belong to a family, and a family to a strain, and a strain to a 
 variety, and a variety to a species, all these various type factors 
 have to be studied together ; consequently, we may have units 
 composed thus : That is to say, if we take as the standard value 
 of correct type as 
 
 Species '+$ 
 
 Variety ^f 
 
 Strain f 
 
 Family 
 
 Individual ?, 
 
 Nearly correct would be for established families 
 
 Species ^f 
 
 Variety ... j4 + T V (differing) 
 
 Strain 3 + i ( ) 
 
 Family -J + i ( ) 
 
 Individual J + A ( ,, ) 
 
 Whilst to form new family type we may place it thus: 
 
 Species || 
 
 Variety ... if + T V (differing) 
 
 Strain I + J ( ,, ) 
 
 Family (ft or ) + ( T % or |) (differing) 
 
 Individual i + i ( ,, ) 
 
 On the other hand bad type would be 
 
 Species -g; 
 
 Variety ... ,- + -f, ; (differing) 
 
 Strain + f ( ,, ) 
 
 Family f - 5 ( ,, ) 
 
 Individual A + i ( ,, ) 
 
 in other words a pure mongrel. 
 
 Now there is a very good old axiom which many breeders hold 
 to, namely, in breeding for good " type" you must breed "Twice 
 in, once out;" but when you come to look at it carefully, it will be 
 seen that the word "type " as applied to a unit is wrong, and that 
 if we applied this axiom to varieties and strains, we should land 
 ourselves in a hopeless mess we should never reach even good 
 variety or good strain type, consequently this is only an additional 
 proof that there is not 1 type but 5. 
 
 Supposing for a moment that this axiom held good for variety 
 type just see what would ensue, viz. : 
 
 F
 
 66 
 
 Basset ^ Basset + Spaniel 
 Spaniel J ~~ > 
 
 We have, therefore, bred once into the basset 
 
 2 f 
 
 Basset J 
 
 We have now bred twice into the basset variety, consequently 
 vi- should then have to breed out again, and the result v.-wild be 
 
 S] >aniel 5 Basset 3 
 8 
 
 and by doing so we should produce a composite variety type which 
 would have a far greater preponderance in favour of the spaniel 
 than the basset the exact opposite to what we were breeding for ; 
 and a continuance of breeding twice in and once out would simply 
 represent a balance at one time in favour of the basset and then of 
 the spaniel. 
 
 No ; the axiom can only apply to one of the types out of the five, 
 which we will come to directly. Were it to apply to all five, or 
 rather four since we cannot change that of species, it would reduce 
 them all to a common value. It would signify that there was no 
 difference between two brothers, no difference between family types, 
 strain types, or variety types, and that the type of an individual 
 or his individual characteristics were on a par with the value of 
 the variety type that he belongs to. 
 
 Surely the difference bet ween the characteristics or the individual 
 type of 'Fresco and his brother Forester is infinitely more minute 
 than the difference between the variety type of Fresco and the 
 variety type of a retriever. 
 
 For these reasons and others that I might urge were I inclined, 
 the axiom " Twice in, once out ' : cannot apply to the single word 
 " type," since the word signifies that a life-form hastily one type, 
 whereas on the application of it to variety type we find it. must be 
 wrong ; if there were no other reason at all, this in itself would 
 prove the existence of more than one type. 
 
 We have already seen that to get good variety type }f; may be 
 represented by j-J, and to do this we must breed four times in and 
 once outb 
 
 In the case of strains, for the same reasons it will be, if a g factor 
 is desired, three times in, once out. 
 
 That this is the case, I give as an instance Mr*. Stokes' 
 
 Couteulx, Lane , rn> i 
 
 * hounds. " Twice in, once out was not enough. 
 
 They were excessively good, but there was just enough Lane in 
 them to show that the cross had been employed. 
 
 ., Couteulx -Lane 
 
 1 e - ^ - show no Lane in their composition, con- 
 
 sequently " three times in, once out " is the axiom when applied 
 to strain type.
 
 07 
 
 But in the case of family type, that is to say an already 
 es tablished family tvpe, the axiom is correct ; f is the factor 
 required ; consequently, if we look back to the introduction of fresh 
 blood into the Fino tie Paris family, we see that Fino V. has a 
 
 . , (Fino de Paris , Termino) 
 
 family type factor of ^ - , which is tlie 
 
 result of breeding twice in, once out. 
 
 But when we come to individual type, which is always a compo- 
 site, the axiom no longer holds good -J- is the factor required here. 
 Fiddler represents the individual types of Fino V. and Igerne, as a 
 composite half of one and half of the other. We do not breed 
 twice in to Fino V. and once out to Igerne, but once to each. 
 
 Therefore it is once in ^ mee out , ami in breeding for individual 
 
 type, whether you like it or not, the axiom must be "once in, 
 once out." 
 
 No longer either is the axiom correct in breeding to an indi- 
 vidual type to form a new family type. Something midway 
 between \ and is required, and we observe that in breeding, to 
 form both the Fino de Paris family and the Termino family as 
 represented by Bourbon, we were obliged to breed twice in, once 
 out, once in, in the ca-e >f the Fino de Paris, and twice in, once 
 out, once in, in the case of Bourbon (Chopette being the same 
 type as Bourbon). The axiom, then, for producing a new family 
 type is "twice in, once out, once in." 
 
 In conclusion, then, we may deduct the following rules for the 
 formation of good type, viz. : 
 
 Species type represents 
 Variety H+irVi r * our times in, once out. 
 Strain + , or three times in, once out. 
 Family J + , or twice in, once out (established), 
 Individual i + i, or once in, once out. 
 
 Or, 
 
 Species ff . 
 
 Variety Itr-H-iV- Four times in, once out. 
 Strain'! -h|. Three times in, once out. 
 Family |J + tV, TZ + J'-S, J + f (the lesser factors being made up of 
 
 'others). Twice in, once out, once in. (To establish. ) 
 Individual \ + ^. Unce in, once out.
 
 68 
 
 CHAPTER X. 
 
 TRITK SPORTS AND PSEUDO-SPORTS THEIR ORIGIN AND 
 PROPAGATION. 
 
 N<>\\" when we come to compare species existing in a wild .state 
 with species existing in a state of domesticity, we cannot help 
 being enormously struck with the comparative poverty of the wild 
 Aperies as regards variety, strain, and family types, as compared 
 with the same species in a state of domestication. 
 
 How is it, then, that we have such a large variety, &c., compared 
 with nature? 
 
 I have already said that it is owing to selection, but selection 
 alone would not do this. 
 
 Man never for a moment "imagined " any of the types we have 
 produced. Man never dreamed of a type, and then by a process 
 of si-lection began to reproduce his ideal in a life-form. He could 
 not do this. He can do a good many things, but he cannot theo- 
 retically form a variety, strain, family, or individual type, and 
 then set to work to produce it in life or living form. 
 
 He must have it first produced by nature, and then he can by 
 selection increase it into family, strain, and variety type, and 
 modify those if he likes ; but he cannot, as it were, draw one in 
 shape such as a dragon and then bring it into life, in the same 
 way as Pygmalion did Galatea, or Coleridge under the influence 
 of opium "did "The Ancient Mariner." Nature must first pro- 
 duce a type, and then she can, if she finds it necessary, reproduce 
 it. Nature must first produce a type, or man cannot artificially 
 reproduce it and bring it to possible perfection. 
 
 Now the true reason that nature has so few types and man has 
 made so many is as follows, viz. : 
 
 Directly a new type appeal's in nature, unless it is assisted by 
 some extraordinary circumstance, it has no chance of reproducing 
 itself, consequently it becomes subservient to the type that it 
 strayed from, and again becomes incorporated with the prototype 
 or life-form that it should have resembled, viz. : 
 
 A Prototype 
 A sB a sport 
 
 Return to A type.
 
 Thus B becomes again extinct. 
 
 Man on the other hand observes this, and knows that, if lie MH - 
 round B as a sport with favourable circumstances, B will in <lne 
 time reproduce itself, consequently we may exemplify nature 
 under favourable circumstances, and man by artificial cireum- 
 tances, thus 
 
 A Prototype 
 
 B New Prototype 
 
 A B 
 
 Both A and B continued as differing life-forms or types. 
 
 Having now arrived at this example, it would be well to pause 
 and go back a little. When the great Darwin commenced his 
 experiments upon the Hlue-rock pigeons, which we may look upon 
 as the first prototype A, lie finished by producing from them a 
 variety of differing types B, and from this he argued that, if the 
 new types B were produced from the prototype A, every variety 
 in nature was similarly produced ; every species too, and so he got 
 back to original life, the prototype of all. 
 
 It is plain, therefore, that when life rose from a non-sexual state 
 to a Hermaphrodite age, great inbreeding took place, and again, 
 as life rose to one in which two separate sexes were produced, 
 great inbreeding must again have gone on to reproduce distinctive 
 type. 
 
 Now, the Bible says that Adam and Eve, whom we may look 
 upon as prototypes, as far as man and woman are concerned", were 
 the tirst of their kind, consequently between Adam and his 
 offspring great inbreeding must have taken place, and also between 
 their offspring, to further this particular type, our own particular 
 species type, or cUe there must have been some other life-forms of 
 a similar type extant. 
 
 Now, we have seen that if a species, if a variety, if a strain, if 
 two individuals remain isolated, they must eventually deteriorate, 
 degenerate and cease to exist. This is undoubtedly the ra-e, 
 consequently had Adam and Eve been prototypes, without any 
 other allied type, they could not have been the only parents, as it 
 is commonly believed they were, of the present human world. 
 
 In the sexless stage of the world fresh blood was not necessary, 
 in the Hermaphrodite stage not absolutely necessary : hut when 
 \\e come to the stage in which there are two sexes, and an exceed- 
 ingly high organisation, fresh blood is absolutely necessary, and 
 we can only suppose that units have the power', as they become 
 distantly related and then unrelated by constant sub-division, to 
 renew the lilood or bring fresh blood to inbred units of the same 
 species, and sprung from a similar prototype. 
 
 Hence every species, every variety, every strain, every family,
 
 70 
 
 every individual, must have one allied to it, which although un- 
 related may bring to another fresh blood. 
 
 We can only look upon this as the means by which any 
 individual has risen to a species by progressive steps, or any type 
 from species to family been saved from certain extinction. 
 
 If then we look upon B as the first of his kind " Adam," and A 
 as the previously existing life-form from which he came, we will 
 arrive at the solution of a question which puzzles many, namely, 
 verses 15, 16, Genesis iv., m which allusion .is made to Cain's ex- 
 pulsion, and his marriage with a daughter of the land of Nod. If 
 Cain was the lirst son of Adam and Eve, and was dismissed from 
 their presence for the murder of his brother Abel, and, on his 
 arrival in the land of Nod, married a daughter of the land, there 
 must have been an allied race in existence of a previous age to 
 Adam ; consequently, if we make use of B as Cain and A as the 
 daughter of the land of Nod, we will understand how Adam must 
 simply have been a new prototype, and the wife of Cain the type 
 of a race from whom "Adam ' or a fresh type had variated. 
 Under no other circumstances can we imagine any higher life- 
 form to reproduce itself in abundance and vigour, such as both 
 man, beast and fowl have continued for ages to do. 
 
 When then I look upon Adam not as the first 'man" as an 
 individual, I may be permitted to say that I look upon him as a 
 typical example of an "Adam ?> or first man of his kind, a varia- 
 tion from another kind of man, a true sport ; Eve another of a 
 similar character. 
 
 Now there are two kinds of sport, a true sport and a pseudo- 
 sport, but with the lirst -named I will commence, viz. : 
 
 A Prototype 
 
 Sport 
 
 A must necessarily have live type. >pecie>, variety, strain, 
 family, and individual. 
 
 Its offspring A lias the same, with the exception of individual 
 
 belonged to another variety of the same species, until you know 
 there was none other like him. 
 
 He then is a true sport, and in himself contains the lirst type 
 of a new variety, strain, family, and individual type. He is, if 
 cultivated, a prototype in himself. He is ;ni " Adam " x is in a 
 word an original life-form from whom a family type can be formed, 
 from whom a strain can be formed and from whom a large variety- 
 fan be produced, with numerous strain^, families, and indi- 
 viduals; x is an "Adam" from whom a small world of his kind 
 can arise. 
 
 How can we account for the seeming anomaly of A giving birth 
 to such form as x 1
 
 71 
 
 To understand this we must return to Chapter I. There we 
 will have observed that the first step nature took to develop the 
 enormous and complicated mass of variations which at present 
 make up the sum of life was the production of a life-form, 
 variating from the first and original prototype of all, whatever 
 might be the causes which brought about the change. Since that 
 first step, every unit in the world has inherited the power of that 
 first variation namely, that of variatiii"' too, and of in thi 
 way adding a fresh variation to the already colossal fabric 
 (Chapter II). 
 
 Although, then, it may appear extraordinary to see x differing 
 from A, in reality we see nothing more than the tendency nature 
 has ever shown towards variation, since the first life-form graced 
 the earth with its presence. 
 
 x then is in reality no sport or freak or eccentricity of nature, 
 it is the result of a cause, the nature of which we do not fully 
 understand ; all that we do know is that it is nature's habit, a 
 habit which man vainly attempts to correct and to curb. 
 
 It is for this reason that 1 say man cannot form a theoretical 
 sport and then proceed to produce it. We now see why nature 
 has so few varieties and man so many in some half-a-dozen dis- 
 tinct species; we now see why it is that it would be impossible 
 for there to be a large number of varieties of the same species 
 in nature, all living side by side. No sooner is a sport produced 
 by nature than nature at once brings it back to the type it has 
 strayed from ; it has not the chance of raising itself or advancing 
 to the dignity of even a family. Man, on the contrary, seizes 
 greedily on a sport if it is worth cultivating, and the result is the 
 vast variety of types of a single species we now possess, far out of 
 proportion to what nature herself would have permitted. 
 
 Such sports as x are continually being produced, more often, 
 perhaps, in the vegetable kingdom than the animal; and, as a 
 consequence, we have the reproduction yearly of many new 
 varieties, some of which have entirely eclipsed the varieties which 
 gave them birth. Into the question of their cultivation I will not 
 go, since we have not to do with new varieties, but those already 
 in existence. It will be, however, sufficient when I say that, as a 
 sport is a single unit containing the elements of four new types, 
 "twice in, once out, once in" will bring him quickly to a family, 
 and from this his development into strain and variety is but a 
 question of time. 
 
 Pteudo-Sporte. Now, in dealing with units under this heading, 
 we have something of an entirely differing description before us, 
 
 A Prototype 
 
 A 1> Pseudo-sport 
 
 A here, just as in the previous example, represents the proto- 
 type, and has live types vi/., species, variety, strain, family
 
 72 
 
 and individual so has its offspring A, with the exception of dif- 
 ering individual type. 
 
 But B, the pseudo-sport, although it has species and variety in 
 common, or more likely species, variety, and strain in common, 
 yet it differs in family and individual type. 
 
 Now, in dealing with this, I will leave out the question of 
 strain, since what applies to family applies equally to that of 
 strain type. 
 
 Assuming, therefore, that B differs from its prototype A in 
 family and individual types, the question naturally must arise, 
 just as it did in the question of true sports, "What is th<- 
 reason?" and, in giving the answer to this question, I may say 
 that a definite one can l>e given, and of a reasonable nature. In 
 the first place B is bound to differ in individual type : therefore, 
 we are left with only one, viz., family. 
 
 It will be remembered that I have said no family. n<> strain, n<> 
 variety can be absolutely pure ; since to aid in developing them, 
 differing, yet allied blood, must necessarily be brought in, other- 
 wise they would perish from inbreeding ; we must, therefore, 
 suspect that this addition of fresh blood is the cause, and we are 
 further led to this surmise, because B represents the type of a 
 family which existed or is still in existence. 
 
 How, then, does A produce B, when B as a type already has its 
 own prototype elsewhere ? To answer this, we must look to the 
 pedigree of A, and we will find not very far from A that B, the 
 prototype, was introduced (not B, the pseudo-type) to keep A 
 type from breaking down from an abuse of the unequal-factor 
 system, and to aid in A's development as a family. AVe will also 
 find that A as a prototype, compared with B as a prototype, is 
 new, and bein*' new lias not established itself sufficiently to 
 extinguish the hereditary power of B as a factor in its composi- 
 tion. The outcome of tfiis is that B reasserts its family type in 
 one or two of A's produce, not of course as strong B type, but as 
 weak. The pseudo-sport B lias, then, reverted to a previous 
 prototype, viz. : 
 
 A + B (Both prototypes) 
 
 B then is no true sport, no original life-form, but a somewhat 
 weak example of a previous prototype ; l>e is then a pseudo-sport 
 or false sport. 
 
 Nevertheless, many men would claim B, without knowing how 
 he came to exist, to be a true sport or an original type, but from 
 the accompanying example it must be obvious that this is not 
 the case.
 
 The actual reason for the appeanuu-e f these so-called .sports, or 
 in reality pseudo-spurts, is Ijecause freh blood of another family 
 has been introduced, or if it be in strains because a fresh strain has 
 been imported into them from another strain, and we only rind it 
 in freshly formed strains or families, not when they have settled 
 down into recognised strain or family typ<-. 
 
 An example as far as strains -K. 1 do not give, as I have said, 
 in this pseudo-sport question, it matters little whether it be in 
 strains or families. One, however, in families 1 will give, as it is 
 most interesting and appropriate. \ i/.. : 
 
 When Comte Couteulx bred Kino de Paris to Trouvette, the first 
 step towards the formation of the Fino de Paris family, now 5*0 
 well known in this country, lie followed it up by putting the 
 produce, li Mignarde," to her own sire, Fino de Paris, thus bring- 
 
 ing about Finette 
 
 Fino de Paris, Trouvette \ 
 
 4 / 
 
 Degeneration stepping in, he sent Finette to Termino, a hound 
 of another family. The produce of this union was Guinevere and 
 rp, /Tennino.Fino de Paris .Trouvette; 
 3 ~ - -' 
 
 Both Fino de Paris and Guinevere (and Tlieo) were then im- 
 ported into England by Mr. G. Krehl, who at once mated them 
 together, producing 
 
 Fino V. Bourbon f Fino de 1>aris ' i Termino, Trouvette\ 
 \ 16 / 
 
 Both these two hounds have the same pedigree, the same 
 factors necessarily, and are litter brothers, yet Fino is true to his 
 prototype Fino de Paris, whilst Jiourlion i> a p-eudo-sport and 
 untrue, but true to hi- prototype Termino, viz. : 
 
 Fino V. 
 
 Species.. : 1 >o- 
 
 Variety . . !!a--et Hound 
 
 Strain ^ < ,'outeulx 
 
 Family ...... J Fino de Pari> ii Termino) 
 
 Individual '- Fino de Paris i \ Guinevere). 
 
 Bourbon, 
 
 Species ...... y !>_; 
 
 Variety ... |;-j Basset Hound 
 
 Strain ...... i Couteulx 
 
 Family ...... i Termino (^ Fino de 1'ari-i 
 
 Individual A Guinevere i.V Fino de Paris). 
 
 Family type then in Fino V. is represented b\ the greater factor, 
 Bourbon by the less ; Fino V. represented \>y one half of hi.* 
 individual type factor, Bourbon by the other. 
 
 Now, had Fino V. and Bourbon been imported bassets, instead 
 of being born in England, it would have l>een impossible to say 
 which was true to hi< factor and true to ln> prototype, Fino de 
 Paris, which was untrue, and therefore a pseudo-sport. 
 
 Fortunately, however, Fino de Pan- Mas in England, and
 
 74 
 
 numberless other hounds, true to their factors also, accordingly we 
 are able to distinguish that Fino V. is not the pseudo-spurt. 
 
 On the other hand we have had several examples of the hounds 
 emanating from the kennels of Mons. Masson, the owner of 
 Termino, and since Bourbon resembles them we can at once say 
 that he is a pseudo-sport, and has reverted to the family type of 
 Mons. Masson's hounds. Such an example, it will be seen, is most 
 typical, but owing to this peculiarity of a previous type appear- 
 ing of a unit representing a type by the lesser factor instead of the 
 greater the cultivation of a pseudo-sport is a matter of some 
 difficulty, and a question which has to be carefully studied. 
 
 Now, at the commencement of this chapter we saw that nature, 
 if circumstances were not favourable, brought the true sport or the 
 pseudo-sport back to the type which they should have followed. 
 Of course I do not mean that the sport or the pseudo-sport become 
 themselves changed, but their offspring or descendants come back 
 to the original type, vix. : 
 
 1 
 
 Prototype 
 B Sport, or Pseudo-sport 
 
 This must be obvious if we look at it in this light, vi/. : 
 The Pseudo-sport representing B type A 3 B) _A a BC 
 A unit true to its factor = A type A 3 C / 8 
 
 The result is lli.it w increase the A factor, decrease the B, and 
 the unit returns to the type (A), which the pseudo-sport should 
 have represented, but did not. 
 
 In a word, then, a pseudo-sport is a unit which is untrue to his 
 greater factor, and has reverted to a previous family or strain as 
 the case may be. 
 
 Now in the case of the basset-hound I only know of one ex- 
 ample of Bourbon, the pseudo-sport, reproducing his own family 
 type with a female of Fmo de Paris type ; in every other case the 
 produce are of Fino de Paris family type, and a composite indi- 
 vidual type (x representing the individual type of the 
 
 dam). How then are we to reproduce the family type which the 
 pseudo-sport represents v 
 There are three methods, viz. : 
 
 1. Breeding the pseudo-sport with a unit, who lias a greater 
 
 factor of the prototype the pseudo-sport represents, by a 
 lesser factor. 
 
 2. Breeding the pseudo-sport with a unit, who has no factors 
 
 in common with him.
 
 3. Breeding the parado-opart with the family that he belongs 
 to, but whose type lie does not represent. 
 
 In every case we must breed twice in, once out, once in ; but in. 
 case No. 1 we are breeding to the prototype of the pseudo-sport's 
 type, in cases 2 and 3 wd are breeding to the pseudo-sport as a 
 prototype himself. 
 
 No. 1 is by far the best, as we shall see : No. 2 not so good ; 
 No. 3 the worst. 
 
 Now, if we take an example of these, we shall see why this 
 is so. 
 
 I have said that Bourbon was a pseudo-sport, consequently he 
 is a weak example of hi~ prototype Termino. In breeding from 
 him, then, to reproduce Termino, it is obviou> that the Termino 
 factor must be increased in his (Bom-lum's) produce, and to do this 
 a unit must be found with a large Termino type factor. 
 
 Now supposing that there were a number of sucli units extant, 
 Termino as a family type could be .at once revived, but in the 
 case of Bourbon there were only two in England, viz., Guinevere, 
 his dam, and Theo, her sister. Fortunately, he was mated with 
 Theo, when we have ca>e 1 : 
 
 The result of this cross \\ as the birth of 
 
 Cho tte /Fino de Paris t . Termino 12 Trouvette 3 \ 
 \ o2 / 
 
 We have now bred once in to the pseudo-sport, we have also 
 inbred, since both the pseudo-sport and Theo have factors in 
 common though differing in value ; we have also had two units of 
 similar type together, consequently in Chopette we have stronger 
 Termino type than either her sire or her dam. 
 
 But we have only produced one unit and not a family, conse- 
 quently we must go on, but it must be borne in mind, though we 
 are going to breed out, we are also breeding in, not to the pseudo 
 sport, but to Chopette, who is the same type but still stronger. In 
 the following alliance then we breed, for the second time, in to th 
 Termino family type and once out, viz. : 
 
 Chopette \_ 
 Chassepot/ 
 
 Chooette II /Ch^-^lx'tsaFino de Paris ir Termino l3 Trouvette 3 \ 
 \ 64 / 
 
 Now, the reason I advised fha-q.t. a ' '" nteid > x Lane hound, 
 
 was because no hound other than related and bearing a large Fino 
 de Paris factor could be found. To breed thus would have 
 brought the produce back to Fino de Paris type i family). 
 
 Therefore, the produce of Chopette was ( 'onteulx 3 Lane Fof 
 
 4 
 
 this reason, the offspring, Chopette II.. on being bred to Bourbon, 
 not only brought hack Couteulx strain type, but were the result 
 of breeding in once again. These hounds I shall name x, sine*
 
 76 
 
 they have not yet l>een named. If this breeding be not under- 
 stood, I will put it in this form : 
 
 Once in Bourbon - Theo 
 
 Once in, once out Chopette - Chassepot 
 
 Once in Bourbon - Chopette II. 
 
 Now, if we compare these hounds viz., Bourbon and x 
 together, we will observe that we have returned not only to 
 Bourbon himself but to his prototype Termino, viz. : 
 
 Bourbon. Species !} Dog 
 
 \ ariety ... {-$ Basset 
 
 Strain f Couteulx 
 
 Family \ Termino (\ Fino de Paris) 
 
 Individual .V Guinevere (\ Fino de Paris) 
 
 x. Species |f Dog 
 
 Variety ... {?? Basset 
 
 Strain | Couteulx (J Lane) 
 
 Family \ Termino (\ Chassepot) 
 
 Individual \ Bourbon (\ Chopette II.) 
 
 But Bourbon and Theo are Termino type, therefore the 
 family type of these hounds (x) is Termino. Consequently, if 
 Bourbon as a pseudo-sport is represented by |, they, as true to 
 their factors, are g Termino type, which we have seen to be 
 enough for established family type. They are also g Bourbon 
 type, which is sufficient to form a new family type, but, as 
 that new family type is on the individual type of Bourbon, and 
 Bourbon, the pseudo-sport, represents Termino, it will be agreed 
 on both sides that the Termino family type has been reproduced. 
 
 But having done so, we must no longer look upon their factors 
 as having Fino de Paris in them, since we have produced a race of 
 Termino hounds in which type is represented by a new Termino 
 one, viz., Bourbon. 
 
 These individual factors, then, instead of being 
 
 Fino de Paris,, , Termino,, s Chassepot., 2 Trouvette T 
 
 128 
 
 Bourbon. Chassepot.Theo 
 T~ 
 
 Thus, Bourbon is their prototype, although he is a pseudo-sport 
 himself, and in reproducing him yon reproduce his prototype 
 Termino. 
 
 Case No. 2. Here we have a supposititious case that no unit can 
 be found with a large Termino factor. Consequently, we must
 
 breed out at once; at the same time \ve must, although we know 
 Bourbon to be a pseudo-sport, look upon him as a tme sport, as a 
 prototype in himself, and breed to him exactly as Omnte Couteulx 
 began the Fino de Paris family with Fino de Paris. \ [/.. . 
 A = Bourbon, BC = fresh blood 
 
 Once in ...... A + B 
 
 Twice in ... All-- A 
 Once out ... A 3 B + C 
 Once in ...... (.', A I'. \ 
 
 16 
 
 A type here will, however, be weaker than the last, but the 
 factors will be much the same, viz. : 
 
 Case 3. Here a Termino factor (small) maybe present or not, 
 whilst there will be sure to be a large Fino de Paris one. The 
 consequence of this will be, if the small factor be that of the 
 pseudo- sport's prototype, that the pseudo-sport will reproduce 
 himself at once, but if there be no such factor, then the fa'rst pro- 
 duce will be of Fino de Paris type. Again, breeding in we wilfget 
 a weak type of the pseudo-sport. Fresh blood must then come in, 
 which will destroy the weak type. Once in again will bring back 
 individual likeness and fair family type. \ i/. -. 
 
 (a) A small Termino factor 
 
 Bourbon + Vivien ( Fino tle P ari *7 Ter '" ino * Kavan ^e 4 Trouvette\ 
 i V 16 / 
 
 Beau Good type (Termino) 
 
 (B) No Termino factor. 
 
 A = Bourbon. 
 
 B = Fino de Paris bitch. 
 
 Once into A A -f- U 
 
 I 
 Twice in A+AB (Fino de Paris) 
 
 Ajl> i \veak Termino) 
 Once out A S B + C (Fresh blood) 
 
 A + C 4 A.U (Termino destroyed) 
 
 Once in Al ^ 4 ^ (Faint Termino) 
 
 16
 
 78 
 
 In conclusion then we may say : 
 
 1. That true sports are the result of a natural action of which 
 
 we know nothing, but they can be reproduced. 
 
 2. Pseudo-sports are the result of introducing fresh blood, 
 
 and are only found in newly established families. 
 
 3. Pseudo-sports can be bred from in three ways, viz. : 
 
 (A) To reproduce their prototype. 
 
 (B) To reproduce themselves as prototype. 
 (C)
 
 CHAPTER XI. 
 
 VALUK, USE, -VXD REDUCTION OF PEDIGREE. 
 
 WK liave now to do with a .subject "which might have been 
 Chapter I. of this work or any other, but I have preferred to keep 
 it for the last but one. It is that of pedigree, its value and use. 
 
 Every life-form on this earth, every unit, be it of the highest 
 organisation, such as man, or the very lowest, such as a single cell, 
 lias a pedigree, and no life-form of any kind can have existence 
 without one. 
 
 If we look through the pages of the Bible we see that it is, 
 apart from its religious character, a history of the rise of the 
 Jewish nation, the pedigree of the most advanced race of men of 
 that time. Nothing strikes us more than the care with which the 
 descent of the people is treated, and, notwithstanding the over- 
 throw of the nation and its dispersal into all parts of the earth, 
 the genealogical tree has l>een carefully preserved. It is, indeed, 
 < me to l>e proud of, since it shows the rise of a people from a single 
 unit, and what is more, the most talented people m the world, the 
 most artistic, the most musical, the most wealthy, and, most un- 
 nably, the most de*pi>ed. Pedigree has always been the 
 first subject of interest to man since he became a civilised being. 
 Even the most primitive nations record their descent, celebrate it 
 in verse ; it shows where they came from and who they are, and in 
 latter days there are few who have not dipped with wonder into 
 the pages of " Burke" and " Debrett." 
 
 Speaking of the latter work, the late Lord Cairns says " It is a 
 depository of information which I never open without amazement; 
 or admiration." 
 
 I most thoroughly endorse every word the late Earl makes use 
 of, and I say more, " in breeding we cannot hope TO -noceed with- 
 out making use of the information that pedigree gives ns.' ; 
 
 One of the very first questions a man asks when he buys any 
 kind of stock is, "How is it bred V " This in other words is, 
 " What is its pedigree? : ' and, as a rule, he receives with the unit 
 in question a written or printed slip, viz. :
 
 80 
 
 Name of unit 
 
 ! 
 
 'Dam 
 
 it! lG.dam 
 
 Dale of birth j (( , 
 
 iTkunJ 
 
 G. dam j 
 
 and in the place of sire anil dam, &c., are written names, some 
 of which are frequently prize-winners, and, as a rule, the greater 
 the number of prize-winning names the pedigree contains, the 
 higher in all probability will be the price asked for the unit to 
 which the pedigree refers. 
 
 Pedigree then has a pecuniary value, and I am sorry to say that 
 to a large class of men this is its only value. Again, how often 
 do we meet a friend who delights to inform u.s that he has a 
 horse descended from a winner of the Derby ; a cow bred from 
 a winner at the Agricultural Show ; a fowl from the cup bird at 
 the Crystal Palace ; or a dog, a basset, bred down from Champion 
 Fino de Paris. 
 
 Being a connoisseur in one of these species or of the variety 
 that the unit belongs to, you may very likely smile not with dis- 
 belief, but at the simple faith of your friend in supposing that 
 because the unit in question has a prize-winner for an ancestor or 
 perhaps a parent, it is of greater value than any one else's. 
 
 Your friend is probably nettled at your cynical smile, and tells 
 you sharply that since you don't believe him. which is in itself 
 quite a mistake, he will show yon the pedigree. 
 
 In such a case as this the value of pedigree Is synonymous with 
 the amount of pleasure it gives a man to tell you that the unit has 
 a pedigree, and that it contains a prize-winner's name in it. 
 
 The unit itself may be a well-bred one or it may be bad, and 
 the owner in a delightful state of ignorance which it is. It might be 
 a possible champion or be the first to receive its rouge at the hands 
 of the judge. Still that it has descended from a prize-winner is 
 all that our friend cares, and this is the value of tne pedigree to 
 him. 
 
 Here is a possible instance of what the pedigree of our friend's 
 unit might be 
 
 R , /Champion I'linlimmon (St. Bernard) 
 10 \Champion Duchess (Bloodhound) 
 
 Both sire and dam are champions, but although Bob is of the 
 same species he is a mongrel as far as variety, -train, family, and 
 individual types are concerned. Poor Bob is not valued, it is his 
 pedigree, which in this case is absolutely worthless. 
 
 The value of pedigree in this light is exactly the same as the 
 superior value a man has, in the eyes of a snob, who is descended 
 from or related to another in the peerage, or that it is infra <1iy. to 
 put your hands to honest work, as we lately had an instance in the
 
 81 
 
 "Daily Telegraph" under the heading "What are we to do 
 with our daughters who have the misfortune to be related to a 
 baronet on their mother's side ? " 
 
 In every one of these cases the value of pedigree in its true sense 
 i- misconstrued, and I cannot sufficiently deprecate the fashion 
 of looking upon the value of pedigree in this light. 
 
 The true value of pedigree is the use to which we can put the infor- 
 mation it affords us. Its true worth lie* in the knowledge it supplies 
 the breeder with with the antecedents of a unit, of the c: 
 that have taken place, and the alliance* of the immediate ancestor 
 of the unit. By it \ve can see whether a unit has been bred on an 
 equal or unequal-factor system, whether it ought to have fresh 
 blood added to its progeny, whethei by mating it with another we 
 shall obtain good types or bad, whether it has a right to the type* 
 it represents or not. Again, it must be apparent that it will show 
 us whether a unit is a true sport or a pseudo-sport, and to re- 
 produce a known type of any kind, a sport .as a family ; to bring 
 back a pseudo-type to hi* prototype or to cultivate him as a pro- 
 totype, a knowledge of pedigree i* absolutely essential otherwise 
 we are breeding, as Mons. Freehon says of his countrymen, "for 
 luck, 1 ' and exactly as many of our countrymen do too. 
 
 A man who breeds in this way, whether he be a Frenchman or 
 an Englishman, without any definite plan in his mind, is nothing 
 more than a " Micawher " a man who is waiting and hoping^ for 
 -omething to turn up. Now a written pedigree is usually a useless, 
 bulky, and unwieldy instrument to deal with, and as a rule it is 
 only the individual pedigree of the unit. Nothing in it is said 
 about what family the unit belong- to, what strain, and when we 
 buy a unit of a variety we get its individual pedigree, but we must 
 not forget that just as a unit is an individual of a family, of a 
 strain, of a variety, of a species. >o the unit has five identical 
 pedig : 
 
 Fortunately, however, we never worry ourselves with the 
 variety and specie* pedigrees, but if we have to do with breeding 
 for high competition, individual, family, and strain pedigrees arc 
 neces*;uy. 
 
 Supposing now we take such an (individual) pedigree as there 
 i-. vi/. : 
 
 Ho\v coiild you tell what family Lynette belonged to, what 
 *train? You would certainly note that it lias a basset hound 
 (variety), and a dog (species), but you could not say what family 
 or strain she belonged to. But if you had it written thus, viz. : 
 
 T /Kamee (Couteulx strain) 
 
 te \Blanchette (Lane strain) 
 
 you might by a roundabout way find it out, viz. : 
 
 Ilamee the sire, and Blanchette the dam, are (littering strains, 
 ergo, Lynette is a composite of the two, and a> *he i- a composite 
 
 a
 
 82 
 
 of two strains she must necessarily be of composite family. But 
 if you had such a pedigree as this, viz. : 
 
 /Fino de Paris (Couteulx) 
 
 'Fino VI. - 
 
 viin. v -f / Termino (Couteulx) 
 
 -> * j (!iiin<u>-F /!<; ,lo T>o, 
 
 \ Guinevere | Vinf . tto / Fino de Paris (Couteulx) 
 
 . * mette j / Fi no de Paris(Coutc-ulx) 
 
 ^J-lj-Hai (.1C ~i T,,,,, ,, .,-,** /r*^**4-Aiii-*\ 
 
 Finfarn 
 ro 
 
 Fino 
 
 Tl . ouvette (Couteulx) 
 
 I Vivien 1 lu \Ravaude (Couteulx) 
 
 ^Theo (same as Guinevere) 
 
 {Bourbon (same as Fino V.) 
 f Prootor / Motlel (Couteulx) 
 Cigarette i" ol \ Finette (Couteulx) 
 ^Jiino (Couteulx) 
 
 you could neither tell what family he belonged to, nor could 
 you say what strain he belonged to, although you might guc^. 
 nor could you make any use of it. 
 
 To make pedigree of use it has to be reduced, and it will then 
 appear whether a unit has a right to a family type and a strain 
 type. It will also show his individual factors, his family factors, 
 and his strain factors ; and if these be compared with the standard 
 value of "correct type" it will be at once seen whether he is 
 good or bad type, as the case may be. 
 
 The reduction of individual, family, and strain type is brought 
 about as follows, and in each case the pedigree must be reduced to 
 the arithmetical unit 1. 
 
 AVe have already seen that a unit is composed of a certain 
 number of factors, that form the numerator and denominator, and 
 that the value of them is comprised as follows : 
 
 G.G.G.Parents. etc., etc. 
 16 rVths etc., etc. 
 
 Unit. 
 1 
 
 f',. Parents. I G.G. Parents. 
 4-^ths I 8-Jths 
 
 and wherever we come to a stop in the pedigree, we must only 
 add up that stop, viz. , as italicised : 
 
 (Fino de Parts (Couteulx) 
 Fino V. -! ( Termino (Couteulx) 
 
 ( ( Juinevere-j ( Fino de Paris (Couteulx) 
 
 (. Finette \ Mifmarflp / FinodeParis(C 
 
 ( Ml 8 liarcte [ Trouvette (Couteulx) 
 
 If, then, we add these stops up we get the following sum : 
 
 Fino de Paris (\ + + T V) + Termino + Trouvette /,, or 
 Fino de Paris, 1 Termino 4 Trouvette =1 (Individual Factors) . 
 ID 
 
 This shows us at once that Fino V. is individually \ Fino de 
 Paris, i Guinevere, and has a right to be called a Fino de Paris 
 hound, since he has | of Fino de Paris in him. At the same time 
 he has f of the old blood and \ of the new, so that as a new 
 family founded on Fino de Paris's individual type, or as ,111
 
 88 
 
 i.Mablished family in which new blood has been brought in, he 
 N Kino de Paris family type either way. 
 
 ..,. , . Fino de Paris, Trouvette, + Tennino , -.-. ., e * 
 I hen he is - - - - - - ? - = 1 Family factors, 
 
 4 
 
 or, Fino de Paris, . + (Termino 4 Trouvette) _ l FainUy factor 
 
 16 
 Lastly, 
 
 Couteulx fg = 1 Strain factor. 
 
 Compare him now with the value of correct type in Chapter IX., 
 and he will be found nearly correct (points of course I do not 
 include). 
 
 Again, 
 
 ( Jvpiter (Couteulx) 
 
 C-u-illon rFino tle Paris (Cou 
 >n iBlanchette(Lane) 
 
 Individual Factor^ Ju P iter + Fin " (le I'aris 
 
 4 
 
 Family Jupiter,, + Fino de Paris + BIanchette 
 
 Strain 
 
 Jupiter g + (Fino de Paris + Blanchette _ , 
 
 4 
 Couteulx, Lane 
 
 compare this hound with the nearly correct standard of 
 type ab at its highest value, when it will at once appear, though 
 ~lio is correct in individual type, she is deficient in both family 
 and >train. 
 
 The reduction, then, of these three pedigrees in a unit is of the 
 highest value : since, if a man has the intention of mating two 
 units together, by writing out the pedigree of the possible produce, 
 and bringing them down to numerical units of 1, he will at once 
 >ee whether the produce will reach the value of nearly correct 
 type, or if not quite that, so near as to be called good. 
 
 Now, a great many pedigrees are too long, and for this reason. 
 It is frequently supposed that by going as far back as it is po-- 
 sible it adds value to the pedigree. This is a great mistake, since 
 at the place where a great name is mentioned, the pedigree 
 -liould stop. If we again look at the pedigree of Fino V. we lind 
 it stops at Fino de Paris, Termino and Trouvette. Now, every 
 variety, no matter what it is, has a prototype. In the case of the 
 i-hound, one of these is Fino de Paris ; we therefore stop at 
 Termino and Trouvette a- -ul-^r\ ient to him ; consequently, we 
 make them all stops and we come to the iinal stop, where the iiist 
 alliance of Fino de Paris is found. It is absolutely useless putting 
 in the pedigree of Fino de Paris to encumber the pedigree, since 
 we are not breeding to his parents, but to him; nor would we,
 
 84 
 
 eveu if we had it, put in the pedigree of Terniino or Trouvette. 
 They are useless, too, as they are quite subservient. 
 
 When, however, we come to deal with a pseudo-sport, such as 
 Bourbon is, although he was descended from Fino de Paris, Fino 
 de Paris is no longer the hound we desire to reproduce ; it is 
 Terniino, consequently Fino de Paris and Finette become sub- 
 servient and we limit the pedigree at them, viz. : 
 
 Fino de Paris 
 
 and we try to increase the Terniino factors in the produce, if we 
 can find another unit with a large Terniino factor, but although 
 Bourbon is the pseudo-sport we make him a new prototype. 
 
 Thus, in forming a family after his individual type, w'e limit the 
 pedigree with him and call'it Terniino, viz. : 
 
 /'Bourbon (Couteulx) 
 x4 ( Chassepot (Couteulx - Lane) 
 
 tchopette II. 4 
 
 , f Bourbon (Couteulx) 
 Vch P ette XTheo (Couteulx) 
 
 Individual Factors Bourbon, _+ Chnwepot, + Theo = 1 
 
 o 
 
 p ., Bourbon r , + (Chassepot 2 + Tbeo) 
 
 s 
 Bourbon., +Theo + (Chassepotg), 
 
 Strain Couteulx 7 Lan e=1 
 
 s 
 
 Whatever unit then the breeder desires to reproduce, that unit 
 becomes the prototype, and the pedigree terminates with him or 
 her. All other prototypes become subservient. We must do this, 
 or a pedigree very soon becomes enormous in size and unwieldy. 
 In conclusion then 
 
 1. A pedigree must stop at the unit we make the prototype. 
 2. It must be reduced to individual, family, and strain factor*. 
 3. Its value is as stated.
 
 CHAPTER XII. 
 
 THE RISE OK A UNIT TO A ST1IAIN, AND THE PRECEDENCE OK 
 THE KAMILIES IN IT. 
 
 \Yi; have im\v to do with a question of considerable importance 
 in breeding, namely, the relative position that one family has in a 
 strain to another or others. 
 
 If the reader will refer to the commencement of Chapter X. he 
 will see that I there state, "He (man) must first have it (a life- 
 form) produced by nature, and then he can by selection increase it 
 into a family, a strain, \c., with corresponding types, and modify 
 any one of them if he will." 
 
 Now, it matters little whether we take a true sport, a pseudo- 
 sport, or a unit that is true to its factors ; from any one of them we 
 can form a family on his individual type. 
 
 From this family in due time may rise a pseudo-sport that 
 gives birth to another family, and from this a third, &c., which 
 families combine together to form a strain, a new strain, not 
 exactly that to which the prototype of them all belonged ; but 
 a modified strain formed just as was the first family on his 
 individual type, on his family type, the whole strain being anew 
 sub-variety of the variety type of the iirst prototype. If an 
 instance of this is required we have it in the Shorthorn cattle of 
 to-day. 
 
 Such a parallel must strike the reader that this is just how the 
 rise took place to specie-; as in Chapter I. In the one case we 
 have the rise of a single unit, original life to species. Here we 
 have a single unit rising in like manner to a strain, and on its way 
 to a species were we to look upon it in cycles of years hence. 
 
 Vuain. it must be obvious that since a first family must arise 
 before another can, ivc., one strain before another, there must be 
 precedence in families, strains, \c. 
 
 Into the question of further than families I cannot go, since 
 ii resolves itself into one which cannot be answered. lam .sure, 
 however, that the problems I shall put forward as to families will 
 demonstrate as much as we will require. 
 
 Fresh strains are constantly being formed in this way. How 
 often we hear friends say " So-and-so lias the old strain," as much 
 a- to say all new ones are worthless. This is a mistake. To-day
 
 86 
 
 we breed to a unit, and form fresh strains, whilst to-morrow a new 
 one springs up and takes the public eye; consequently the old 
 strain, although it has the virtue of priority, is no more the 
 correct strain than the one which it forestalled.' 
 
 Now, the first family of a strain is true to one of the units 
 called in to develop it. 
 
 Thus if we desired a strain which was to have the factors A. 
 B, C, D, E, F, G, one of these units would in the iirst place have 
 to preponderate in the first family, and this unit we call the 
 prototype. 
 
 Now r A must represent five complete types or be equal to five 
 types, which in other words is equivalent to saying that he may 
 be a pure-bred unit or a mongrel as far as strain and family an 1 
 concerned. It does not signify what he is, a new family can !<> 
 formed on his individual type, and a strain modified on tliat of Ids 
 family type. 
 
 We will, however, assume that A is a pure-bred unit ; what then 
 are B, C, D, E, F, G? They are also prototypes, but subsidiary 
 ones which we are going to call in to aid in the development 
 of the strain. A, the prototype, has no factors, neither have 
 II, C, D, E, F, G. 
 
 Starting now with this hypothesis, let us construct a family 
 
 A Prototype 
 B Sub-prototype 
 
 D 
 E 
 F 
 
 G 
 
 Formation of a Strain, 
 
 A+B 
 
 Ab + A 
 
 I 
 
 C 4 A S B + A 
 
 A has now increased to a family, the factors of which are 
 A 11 C 4 B, and the descent of this family may be represented 
 tlm* : 
 
 (A 
 
 j\.
 
 87 
 
 This then is family No. 1, Imt it must not be supposed that this 
 is likely to be the only family A. A may have been forming 
 it her families with other of the subsidiary prototypes, in all of 
 which A is of course the type factor. 
 
 Now if we take A, 1 C 4 B as the family that produces the pseudo- 
 sport, we will at once perceive that C is the cause of it, C being 
 the unit by which fresh blood was introduced into, the A family. 
 As a result we have a. unit A 11 C 4 B, which I will now write 
 ( ' 4 A! a B, weakly representing the sub-prototype C, and the con- 
 dition of the state of affairs may now be represented thus : 
 
 A Prototype 
 
 Family of A units (Aj^'JI) (C 4 A l t B) a single unit and 
 
 a 1 'seudo-sport. 
 
 Now we have seen that if a pseudo-sport is cultivated, it must 
 be bred with a unit in which there is a C factor or some other 
 unit, but not with one representing A type (unless we grossly 
 inbreed), otherwise we return to A. 
 
 Let us, then, take a unit with a C factor and proceed, looking 
 upon C 4 A X1 B as the prototype. 
 
 C + CD 
 C 3 D + E 
 E 4 C.,D + C 
 C tl E 4 D 
 
 What lias now occurred ? 
 
 A family has gone on increasing by breeding with other A 
 families, and C 4 A t ^>, the pseudo-sport, has become a second proto- 
 type, as a family has been formed on his individual type, and as a 
 rnnsequence we have a second family added to the new strain, 
 which may now be represented thus, viz. : 
 
 A 1st prototype 
 
 A 
 
 [ 
 
 < ' 'Jiid prototype 
 (
 
 88 
 
 The same thing again occurs, and \ve have the new strain thus, 
 viz. : 
 
 A 1st prototype 
 
 C 2nd prototype 
 
 E 3rd prototype 
 
 -G Pssudo-sport and 4th proto- 
 
 A C E tyP e > if required. 
 
 Families. 
 
 What is now the condition of things? Why A, B, C, D, E, V, G 
 have risen from single units to a strain with three families, and 
 could be still further increased, and what is the difference in their 
 types compared with the prototype A ? 
 
 This :' 
 
 A, C, and E remain the same species as A. 
 ,, ,, ,, variety as A. 
 
 A, C, E are families of an A strain modified on whatever family 
 A belonged to. 
 
 A, C, E differ in family types. 
 
 A, C, E have all differing individual types. 
 
 A, B, C, D, E, F, G now represent three families and one strain, 
 of which A is the first family, C and E second and third. 
 
 Now, unless a man knows what the precedence of these families 
 is, and how they have come about, it is obvious that if lie were to 
 go into a show-yard, and one unit took his fancy, should he 
 determine to breed to him he must know what precedence he 
 bears as the unit of a family in the strain that he belongs to, also 
 what was his prototype ; in fact, it is perfectly possible that he 
 might be a pseudo-sport, and second or third, or even fourth 
 prototype. 
 
 As a rule, there is generally more than one strain exhibited in 
 classes for a certain variety at shows, and in looking over tin; 
 exhibits one is pretty sure to observe the following types of 
 units : 
 
 1st. Every one differing in individual type. 
 
 '2nd. One or two groups of units belonging to differing family 
 
 types. 
 
 3rd. Units belonging to (say) two strains. 
 4th. Units belonging to two family typos and two strain 
 
 types (bred on the equal-factor' system), that is to say, 
 
 mongrel ty ]><>. 
 5th. One or two units that have no particular types at all, 
 
 except that of individuality.
 
 89 
 
 But if the would-be breeder make use of his pedigree, he may 
 group them, viz. : 
 
 Strain. Families. 
 A A.C.E Pure 
 
 x HI Pure 
 
 AC.CE.EA Half-bred 
 Ax Half-bred 
 
 K.L.M., units which cannot be grouped. 
 
 He may then tell whether he is breeding for A strain or x strain, 
 and which of their families ; again, whether the unit he h;is 
 decided to breed from is pure >tram, half-bred, or quite isolated as 
 K, L, M are; again, whether the unit is prototype 1, 2, or 3, or 
 the pseudo-sport of E family. 
 
 It is, indeed, rare to Bad all the prototypes existing syn- 
 chronously, for the very simple reason that, as one family must 
 be older than another, the prototypes must be older too ; con- 
 sequently prototype No. 1 in A strain would be dead, C aging, 
 K in his prime, and ( I, the p>eudo-sport, not yet begun to found'a 
 family. 
 
 The result, then, of getting the precedence of families into 
 proper order is that the breeder can in a moment tell where he is 
 ami what materials he lias at hand to work with.
 
 90 
 
 CHAPTER XIII. 
 
 RATIONAL BREEDING. 
 
 WE have now come to an end of the questions which interest us, 
 as breeders, and all that remains to us is to see how they may be 
 put to account ; but, before doing so, it would be well to run over 
 them again, in order to impress them more thoroughly on our 
 minds, viz. : 
 
 We have seen that, starting with an original unit, "Life," 
 owing to the gift of heredity and the power of variation, numerous 
 species have been evolved, and that every species has varieties, 
 which varieties contain numerous strains consisting of more 
 numerous families, which families are made up of single indi- 
 viduals. 
 
 We have seen that one of these species namely, man has 
 advanced to a much higher state of life than any of the others, 
 and that, owing to his powers of intellect, he has taken certain of 
 the other species into domestication. 
 
 We have seen that every individual unit has five types, but 
 that naturally there is no such thing as "correct type," except it 
 be original life. 
 
 We have seen that man defines a "correct type," but that it is 
 incorrect, inasmuch as he has never defined more than two types, 
 and that, were he to define one individual as "correct type," n< 
 other unit could ever be again correct, since no two units are or 
 can be exactly alike. 
 
 We have seen that one type \\/.., individual -must always 
 variate. I 
 
 We have seen that each type has a distinct value, and putting tin- 
 value of them individually at f,H, };!-, , $, f, we would, if we had 
 these figures, have "correct type." But, as we cannot reach 
 this, we can represent the value of as correct type as we need 
 desire by f^, -|-g or \^, |- or f , $ or , f or (for an individual 
 unit), whilst to establish a family we require {^ or of the pro- 
 totype. 
 
 We have seen that we can do this under the equal-factor 
 system if the species, &c. , be the same, but if they be differing we 
 cannot. 
 
 We have seen that in both similar and dissimilar varieties, &c., 
 types are promoted by an unequal-factor system ; but if this 
 system be abused deterioration, degeneration, and extinction 
 must follow.
 
 91 
 
 We have seen that the antidote to abuse is fresh blood, but 
 that it must be introduced as a factor, not as a whole ; otherwise 
 we are breeding on an equal-factor system and destroy existing 
 types. 
 
 \Ve have seen that sports are the outcome of nature's habit of 
 variation, pseudo-sports the result of the introduction of fresh 
 blood. 
 
 We have seen that selection is a necessity, and that pedigree to 
 be of value and use must be reduced, and the correct position o 
 the families of a strain defined. 
 
 These are the main points hi the previous chapters, and I have 
 given the reasons in each case ; but there are others, too, worthy 
 of notice and attention. 
 
 Now, Ilational Breeding consists in applying such conclusions 
 to any stock which may especially interest the reader, and in this 
 chapter I shall attempt to place before my reader how he should 
 proceed to ensure success. 
 
 First and foremost, we have the question, why does a man 
 commence breeding? Well, the circumstances are manifold; so 
 differing that it would be foolish to enter into them. But when a 
 man does, whether it be for profit, as a business, or business as .1 
 pleasure or hobby, his aim is to produce not only a good animal 
 or fowl, but one better than what has been previously pro 
 duced. This is, or ought to be, the aim of the breeder. Con- 
 sequently, if he trusts to luck, in all probability he will very soon 
 throw his hobby up. He will not succeed. Breeding, I need not 
 say, is a somewhat deep and intricate subject ; there is no specific 
 or royal road to success. As a rule, those who do succeed are 
 men who have devoted years to the art, and who learn, by 
 patience and experience, what others can never learn. One in a 
 hundred may, by some fortuitous circumstance, produce good 
 stock by "luck;" but when we come to look into what 1ms 
 brought this luck about, we see that the lucky breeder has simply 
 been fortunate enough to alight on two units which have the 
 necessary qualities in common to produce good results ; but when 
 mated with other units " luck " no longer favours the breeder. 
 
 Now, directly a man takes up breeding he has to choose the 
 species lie intends to breed and the variety. When he has done 
 tliis, he has chosen t\vo of the types he intends his future stock 
 shall possess To that would-be breeder I should say, "Pause," 
 the reason being as follows, viz. : 
 
 As a rule, the would-be breeder rushes headlong into the fray : 
 lie is exceedingly sanguine of success, and the time arrives, 
 frequently, as I have myself observed, in a year or so, that the 
 hobby is thrown up hi disgust, the breeder having failed 
 miserably failed in his endeavours to produce anything that will 
 repay him for the attention, trouble, and expense he has put 
 himself to. Why? Because he knows absolutely nothing about 
 the variety in question ; he frequently is unaware whether his 
 stock is related ; whether they belong to the same strains ; 
 whether his units are of good 'type or" bad. He is like a man
 
 endeavouring to make a steam engine, to build a house, to bake a 
 loaf, without having served his apprenticeship to the trade. 
 
 If we look at it calmly, the idea at once forces itself upon one- 
 how is it possible for a man to succeed when he knows absolutely 
 nothing about the variety in question ? How can he expect to 
 produce as good results as others who have had years of 
 experience ? A man, I say again, may have a stroke of luck, but 
 to the majority of such breeders it is simply a repetition of the 
 time-honoured adage, " Many in haste and repent at leisure,'' 
 and to prevent this education by bitter experience, I say to the 
 would-be breeder, "Pause." 
 
 My advice to any man who thinks of entering the field of com- 
 petition which breeding leads one into is, after having chosen the 
 species and the variety you intend to cultivate, "Learn some- 
 thing about it first. Don't follow your natural inclination to 
 begin at once ; if you do, be guided by someone who does know 
 what he is about, who has learned by experience ; but, in any 
 case, at once join the club formed for the advancement and 
 improvement of that variety you have selected." 
 
 Think for a moment what an enormous amount of good these 
 specialist clubs have done. Remember that it is they who define 
 the variety type ; they who codify the necessary points ; they who 
 support the classes at shows with pecuniary aid ; they who 
 appoint the judges. There are people generally the unsuccessful 
 who say that the specialist clubs are cliques, just as there are 
 unsuccessful men in all walks of life who denounce successful men 
 and the societies they belong to, because they have failed. 
 
 I do not care whether a specialist club is a clique or not it is 
 generally a body of gentlemen who have laid down certain points 
 by which the breed is to be judged, and as long as these points 
 are accepted by the majority of breeders, then the breeder, if he 
 intends to be successful, must accept the variety type of the club, 
 the points, and the judges ; and he must remember that any stock 
 be may breed will have to be judged according to these rules and 
 by these men. 
 
 He must learn what is required of him in his stock, otherwise 
 he may be likened to a man who, having painted a picture, with- 
 out knowing the rudiments of drawing, sends it before the 
 Hanging Committee of the lloyal Academy. It is bound to be 
 rejected. 
 
 I say, then, to the would-be breeder, join the specialist club of 
 the variety you intend to breed. Make certain of the variety 
 type ; this is the most important. Since no club accepts strain or 
 family, learn the points desired in the variety. In addition to this, 
 visit the shows where classes are given for the variety. 
 
 AVlien you are certain of the variety type and points, you may 
 think about commencing. 
 
 Now, many would-be breeders commence by buying the male 
 unit first and then the female, making a stipulation that they 
 shall not be related ; the result of this being that they must 
 either be units of differing family type or differing strain type.
 
 93 
 
 What happens ? The produce is neither one family nor the other, 
 one strain nor another; although it is perfectly possible that, if one 
 unit l>e more in-bred than another, there will be a bias in the 
 produce towards the family and strain types of the in-bred parent. 
 
 Again, the two parents may be selectively iin>uited to one 
 another ; consequently, they prove unsuccessful, the points in the 
 produce being still more deficient than in the parents. 
 
 Personally, I consider it a great mistake to buy a male at all 
 for breeding from when the variety is large, unless the would-l>e 
 breeder is prepared to embark in some noted sire, then by all 
 means buy one ; but it is an enormous mistake to buy a second- 
 rate male to start with, when the services of a first-rate one are 
 always to be had for a small fee. By all means acquire a female, 
 hut before doing so, make sure of the male. 
 
 Now, supposing that a man has chosen the variety he intends 
 to breed, there opens to him four varieties of breeding, viz. : 
 
 1. Breeding for no type except that of the variety. 
 
 2. Breeding for simply strain and variety type-. 
 
 3. Breeding for family, strain and variety types. 
 
 4. Breeding a new family type on the individual type of a 
 
 unit, who belongs to a recognised family of a strain of 
 the variety or in other words forming a sub-family from 
 an existing one. 
 
 The first of these varieties can scarcely be called breeding at 
 all. Nor can we say much more of No. 2 ; but No. 3 does deserve 
 our attention, since it is the means generally adopted in breeding 
 a high class of stock. 
 
 No. 4 commands our best attention, as it is the highest form 
 that the art can attain. 
 
 I will, therefore, deal only with Nos. 3 and 4, and trust I will 
 place the matter in a clear manner before the reader. 
 
 Before commencing, however, I will assume that the would-l>e 
 breeder has joined the club formed for the improvement of the 
 particular variety he intends to breed, and that, having done so, 
 he has made himself perfectly au fait with regard to the points 
 desired in the variety. 
 
 So far armed with knowledge, let him proceed to select a sire. 
 and, having chosen his sire, let him make certain of the strain he 
 belongs to and his family ; as also the position the family he 
 lielongs to holds in the strain. 
 
 Now, supposing that the sire belong to A family and A strain, 
 ,i- given in the preceding chapter, and the breeder simply desire- 
 to produce good stock (not to improve on it), we have then Itefore 
 u- the third kind of breeding that I have mentioned. 
 
 Now, supposing that the sire is (A) (I put A within parent he-e- 
 to differentiate the unit A from family A and strain A, to which 
 he lelongs), then all the breeder has to do is, in the lirst case, to 
 reduce the pedigree of (A), viz. :
 
 94 
 
 (Hansom 
 (.Master 
 Stella-! ( Ransom 
 
 I Venus -! 
 
 I Ransom 
 
 l 
 
 We then find that his factors are- 
 
 Ransom,,, Master 4 , Troublesome. 
 Which makes Ransom =A, 
 
 Master C, 
 
 Troublesome B. 
 
 Ami as this is the case, then (A) = A,, C 4 B, and as A,, is the 
 greater factor, A must be the prototype, and consequently the 
 founder of the family type, Avhicli the breeder desires to continue. 
 
 His next step must be to take note of (A) points, and see where 
 he is + and- tne club standard, and having made certain of this, 
 the breeder may look out for the dam, which must lie of the same 
 family type, and of course the same strain. 
 
 Personally, I should not advise the dam's factors to be iden- 
 tically of the same blood, that is of A, B, and C ; let him look for 
 another of those families which I have said in Chapter XI I. are 
 also descended from A, and are equally families No. 1. 
 
 If the A family be a large one, considerable breeding will have 
 ensued, and the breeder may easily find a female several genera- 
 tions below that of (A), who, being a unit of ]{j, is four generations 
 from the prototype. 
 
 The dam, therefore, may be fg, -}|, Jj, &c. ; but, so as not to 
 complicate the figures, I will suppose that she, too, is a unit of |g, 
 and that she is (B) with the following factors A,,, S 4 , T, and 
 points + and - opposite to (A). 
 
 Here, then, we have a female that will mate, as far as family 
 type goes, with (A), she having a large type factor, and, being <>t 
 the same strain as the male, will reproduce in her oll'spring the 
 same strain type. The points also will probably be better than 
 either sire 01 dran. 
 
 Such nmte the breeder can safely breed together, and the pro- 
 duce would be 
 
 Units. Factors. Ind. Type. Fain. Type. Strain Type. 
 
 ? A 33 C 4 S 4 BT (ab) A A 
 
 the only difference being that of individual type. In like manner 
 we can reproduce units of families C and K, supposing (A) to 
 belong to one of these families. 
 
 Supposing, however, (A) to be the prototype; A or C or E, then 
 a female must be found of weak type. A union with the proto- 
 type will at once raise it, viz. : 
 
 (A) = A 
 
 SB! A
 
 95 
 
 We now come to that kind of breeding given under No. 4, in 
 which the hypothesis is that either the prototype is dead and 
 cannot be used, or that one of his descendants is deemed a more 
 perfect creature and is used instead of him. 
 
 Under No. i I will give three cases, viz. : 
 
 1. Where no deterioration through in-breeding manifests 
 
 itself in the first cross. 
 _'. Where deterioration does manifest itself, and fresh blood 
 
 (family) has to be introduced. 
 .'!. Where fresh family blood is unattainable, and recourse has 
 
 to be had to another strain. 
 
 In these three eases, as we are breeding to (A) as a prototype, 
 we must employ a new set of factors for the new family ; but, in 
 breeding, we must not forget that although the old factors will 
 not appear here, in each case the type factor of the units bred 
 together must be that of (A)'s prototype, i.e., A, and it is neces- 
 sary that the selection for points be alluded to. 
 
 Ind. Family Strain 
 
 ( 'ase I. Individual. Factor. Type. Type. Type. 
 
 I , (,-' < A ) a <A) A A 
 
 "1 (B) (B) A A 
 
 Produce (ab) o (ab) A A 
 
 Variation in individual type. 
 
 "nd Cross' (C) 7 (C) A A 
 
 " S ( (ab) /J (ab) A A 
 
 Produce (C,ab) y. 2 a0 (C 2 ab) A A 
 
 Variation in individual type. 
 
 inl Cross' (A) a (A) A A 
 
 B8 \(C 9 abj 7,0 (C ab) A \ 
 
 Produce (A fi C,B) a.-y^ (a 5 C 2 B) (A) A 
 
 Variation in individual type and a new family type modified 
 <m (A). 
 
 In the same manner, (A) may be reproduced as a new family if 
 lie belong to C or F. 
 
 Case II. Now. it is not improbable that deterioration may have 
 shown itself in the 15 ret produce of (A) and (B) ; consequently, 
 instead of goin^ to another individual of the same family, such as 
 (C) in the previous case, we must go to another (C) belonging to 
 family C or E. 
 
 Let us, then, suppose it to be C. 
 
 In this case, in each cross we will have the same individuals 
 ;md the same factors as in the last case, and therefore I will not 
 reproduce them all again, but otherwise there will be a difference, 
 viz. : 
 
 Individual Type. Family Type. Strain Type, 
 IstCros,} <A> A ' 
 
 Produce (ab) A A
 
 96 
 
 Here deterioration has manifested itself ; accordingly we bring in 
 fresh family blood, viz. : 
 
 **<*{$>' C A 
 
 Produce (C 2 ab) AC A 
 
 Variation in individual and family type. 
 o rf i rc rft<i . ( (a) A A 
 
 t(C 2 ab) AC A 
 
 Produce (A S C 2 B) A 3 C = (A) A 
 
 Variation in individual type ; but as A,C is sutlicient, as we have 
 seen in Chapter IX., to produce A family type, we have returned 
 to A family type, and as (A) is here the prototype, A family 
 tvpe is modified to that of the new prototype (A), and it is there- 
 fore (A). 
 
 In like manner, new families in C and D may be, if (A) 1>elong 
 to them. 
 
 Case III. Here (a) would be bound to belong to A family, as 
 no other family in A strain could exist ; otherwise we should not 
 have to go out, as in this case we must do, to another strain for 
 fresh blood ; (C), in this case, would belong to another strain. 
 say, x. 
 
 In this case, the individuals and factors will appear the same, 
 and, for the same reasons as in Case II., I will not repeat them. 
 
 We have, then, the breeding thus, viz. . 
 
 Individual Type. Family Type. Strain Type. 
 
 "<*{ ('S') A A 
 
 Produce (ab) A A 
 
 Here deterioration has manifested itself, and, no fresh family 
 Ijeing obtainable, we bring in fresh strain blood from a half-bred. 
 
 *dC.{'|*> H A C _ 
 
 Produce (C 2 ab) A 2 HC A \ 
 
 Variation in individual type, family type, and strain type. 
 
 3rd Cross/ (C * ab) A * HC A x 
 
 *H (A) A A 
 
 Prodiice (A 5 C 2 B) A a HC = (A) A-x = A 
 
 Variation in individual of the units. 
 
 Return to family type, as A 6 = | of A, and a- (A) is the proto- 
 type, A family type is mollified to that of (A). 
 
 Return to strain type, A 7 x being equal to A, // Chapter IX. 
 
 In like manner could C and E family be supplied with frf>h 
 blood, if (A) belonged to them, and fresh blood through a strain 
 l>e deemed advisable. 
 
 Now, in every one of the cases I have given of this fourth 
 variety of breeding, it will have been observed that three on 
 are necessary to produce a (I.) new family type, (II.) to do the 
 same with a fresh family factor and consequently new individual
 
 9f 
 
 factors, (III.) to do the same with fresh strain blood, and 
 consequently, fresh family and individual factors. This, of 
 course, takes a considerable time to accomplish, and it might very 
 well be argued that while the breeder was conscientiously work- 
 ing from (A) up to (a) family type, (A) might no longer be the 
 unit that he desired to have, another unit being fancied. In 
 other words, his years for it would, in the generality of stock, 
 be a period of years would have been utterly thrown away. 
 
 Were (a) a unit that had never been a sire, it would certainly 
 take a considerable time to get down, as we must, three genera- 
 tions, even with him, the sire of the third, as he lias to be; but 
 generally the unit who iinds his way to the top of the tree in 
 exhibitions is one of a certain age and has been bred from ; con- 
 sequently, if the breeder knows the variety he has to deal with, as 
 I have ventured to point out that he should, before attempting to 
 begin breeding, he will be aware where he can lind a female to 
 mate with (A), so as at once to bring about the produce of the 
 third cross in whichever case he may find necessary. 
 
 Lastly, if (A) be a pseudo-sport, such as that which lias sprung 
 from the last of the families, viz., E family, we have the means 
 of reproducing him as a family in Chapter X. 
 
 I have now but one word to add. Breeding is not a lottery, it 
 is a certainty, and if conducted on a proper basis with a definite 
 object in view, and on such principles as I have endeavoured to 
 show in these chapters, it will repay a rational breeder, and do 
 more to prove that life and its varied forms are not the outcome 
 of laws which man's understanding cannot fathom, but built up 
 upon a definite system of rules and progression such as I have 
 ventured to portray. 
 
 THE END. 
 
 LONDON: R. K. rur.T AND co., I'RIMTERS, FETTER LANE, E.C
 
 Every Friday.] Established 1874, [One Penny. 
 
 THE 
 
 FANCIERS GAZETTE 
 
 A Weekly Journal devoted to Dogs, Poultry, Pigeons, 
 Rabbits, Cats, Cavies, and Cage-Birds. 
 
 Articles by the Leading Authorities ; 
 
 Letters and Notes on Current Subjects; 
 Prompt and Reliable Reports ; 
 
 Queries answered by Specialists; 
 
 Illustrations by best Artists. 
 
 ONLY PENNY JOURNAL DEALING WITH ALL THE FANCIES, 
 
 Terms of Subscription : 
 
 .(Payable in advance.) jr. d, 
 
 One Copy. per post .. .. 1 i 
 
 Six months do. .. .. .. .. .. .- .. '.. 3 3 
 
 Twelve months do. . . . . . . . . 66 
 
 Ditto, India do 10 10 
 
 Ditto, other Foreign Countries. . .. .. .. .. .. .. 8 8 
 
 Rate for Advertisements : 
 
 Per Line (containing on the average six words) . . . . . . . . 6 
 
 Shows, and Stud Dogs : 
 
 i to 3 insertions per line . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 
 
 4 to6 05 
 
 71012 ., 04 
 
 13 and upward* .. .. 3 
 
 Auction Sales 9 
 
 Discount alltnvcd on series, prepaid. 
 
 Per inch in column (12 lines to the inch) 60 
 
 Contracts made for series. 
 
 SPECIAL ADVERTISEMENTS 
 
 For Sales, Purchases, or Exchanges, 1 Penny for every 3 (or part of 3) Words. 
 
 No Aek-crtisciiiivt is received for a less sum than Fourpence. Addresses c' .-.. 
 Remittances must accompany order. 
 
 Address Cheques, Post Office Orders, and Communications to 
 The "FANCIERS GAZETTE," Limited, 
 54 to 57, IMPEBLAL BUILDINGS, 
 
 LUDGATE CIBCUS, 
 
 LONDON, E,C.
 
 Purveyors by Special Warrants to H.M. The QUEEN and 
 H.R.H. The PRINCE OF WALES. 
 
 Spratt's Patent 
 
 MEAT "FIBRINE" VEGETABLE 
 
 DOG CAKES 
 
 (WITH BEETROOT). 
 
 20s. per Cwt. 
 JBe-wai'e of* "Worthless Imitations. 
 
 See each Cake is Stamped " SPRATT'S PATENT " and a " X." 
 
 PET DOG BISCUITS 
 
 KEEP THE BREATH SU'EET AND THE COAT HEALTHY. 
 
 2s. 3d. per 71b. Tin, 4s. 6d. per Ulb. Tin. 
 
 PUPPY BISCUITS. 
 
 2s. par 71b. Tin, 4s. per 141b. Tin, 20s. psr Cwt, Bag. 
 
 PAMPHLET ON CANINE DISEASES anJ Full List of 
 Medicines Post Free. 
 
 DOG, POULTRY, and GAME HOUSES and Appliances. 
 Illustrated List Post Free. 
 
 " SPRATT'S BISCUITS have many things to recommend them 
 cleanliness of preparation, purity of meat and flour, friability, 
 and general wholesomeness. All dogs bark in their favour, and 
 all dog-owners who try them swear by them. 
 
 "GORDON STABLES, M.D., R.N." 
 
 Oi ALL DEALERS, OR 01 
 
 SPKATT'S PATENT, Limited, London, S.E,
 
 CHAMBERLIN & SMITH'S 
 
 MEAT BISCUITS 
 
 (SUPERSEDE ALL YET INTRODUCED). 
 
 "SUPPLIED TO THE ROYAL KENNELS AT SANDRINGHAM, 
 
 Price 16s. per cwt., bag included. Special Quotations for 5 cwt. and 1 ton lots. 
 
 WORM PILLS for DOGS. 
 
 DISTEMPER PILLS for DOGS. 
 ECZEMA PILLS for DOGS. 
 
 TONIC PILLS for DOGS. 
 MANGE OINTMENT for DOGS. 
 
 Above Preparations 1s. per Bottle ; Post Free, 1s. 2d. 
 
 The Pills named above are packed in specially-prepared bottles, which are sent 
 
 out^ in wooden cases, and will keep any length of time. Directions for use 
 
 with each bottle or box. 
 
 IN PREPARING DOGS FOR EXHIBITION 
 
 GHAMBERLIN'S DOG SOAP 
 
 SHOULD BE TTSED. 
 
 PRICE SIXPENCE PER TABLET. 
 
 Boxes Containing One Dozen Tablets, 5s. Per Dozen. Post Free, 5s, 7^d. 
 
 PREPARED ONLY BY 
 
 CHAMBERLIN & SMITH, 
 
 DOG AND PHEASANT FOOD MANUFACTURERS, 
 NORWICH, ENGLAND. 
 
 CAN BE OBTAINED OF ALL CHEMISTS, CORN DEALERS, etc.
 
 UCSB LIBRARY 

 
 A 000616844 7
 
 Soi 
 LJ