Now he might have, as you said, changed some of his ideas later on and these are the type of things we would discuss.

In Story of Civilization we have found that reading it now with the advantage of links rather than reading it 25 years ago without the internet enabled us to compare Durant's original thoughts with what we have since learned. We can do the same here.

So far there are four of us. Bring in your friends.

Tell your friends about this new forum.

Folks, Mal will be the rabble-rouser (and I say this in a warm friendly way) in this new discussion who will help us to do some deep thinking.

One proviso -- if your mom gets out of hand, you have to do something about it.

Talk it up among your friends.

You guys remind me of the horses (autos) at the starting line who can hardly wait for the signal. My concern -- I have not even begun as a DL and I am already concerned -- is that our discussion will roam all over the map depending on our individual interests. I am hoping (please, I'm begging) that we examine Darwin's words slowly and carefully and all try to stay together on the same paragraph or page. Our goal (or mine at least) is to be able to say when we finish the book that I have a pretty good idea of what Darwin was trying to tell us.

Are you telling your friends?

So the list so far includes Kleo, Mal, Eloise, Scrawler, JoanK, Dorian, Kidsal, Sunknow, Mippy, Bubble, and myself.

And Mippy, as for my being commended, we are ALL attempting this daunting task.

And Denizen!! Welcome back after all these years. And be sure to tell your lovely new wife that Senior Net is important in your life and that she is welcome to join us as well.

Signed up so far are Kleo, Mal, Eloise, Scrawler, JoanK, Dorian, Kidsal, Sunknow, Mippy, Bubble, Cheshire Cat. Mort, Hank (MaryW), John (Denizen) and myself. Oh, are we going to have a marvelous time!!

To prepare myself, I have read so far the Introduction and part of Chapter I of Origin of Species. I am convinced that we must discuss only one paragraph at a time. Darwin packs lots of meat into each sentence, sometimes into just one phrase in a sentence. If we were to gloss over what he is trying to explain, we would not be doing justice to his book and to his theory in general.

In my opinion, trying to discuss a whole page would throw us all in different directions as just one of his pages often contains a half dozen of his powerful thoughts and we would all be cross-discussing. Using my position as DL, therefore, I intend to guide the discussion of this book just one paragraph at a time. How long we remain with one paragraph will depend on the amount and length of postings by participants. When we appear to have exhausted the sub-topic, I will move us on to the next paragraph, etc.

Those of us who read this book in the past know that it is meant to be studied, not lightly read. It is, after all, non-fiction. And it is my understanding that we are all taking part in this so that we can become "experts", so to speak, in how Species come about.

I invite your comments on what I have just said.

It had been my intent to discuss each and every paragraph, one right after another, starting at the beginning exactly as Darwin would have wanted us to. One paragraph might elicit only 2 or 3 postings. Another might take us two days to discuss because of the heavy interest.

I agree with you completely that once we actually start, we might find ourselves making modifications.

Regarding Darwin's lack of knowledge -- knowledge that we now have learned since his time. This fact is exactly what has made our discussion of Story of Civilization much more fascinating that just a reading of the book would have been. The answer is the use of Links. We have constantly pulled in information that Durant didn't have when he wrote SofC and our ability to do that has enriched our discussion ten fold.

Where we find paragrapahs to be repetitive, we obviously will pass over them much more quickly.

Where Darwin refers to other research, we will find Google to be our dear friend, just as we have in SofC. We have found in SofC that from time to time we wander, as you say, "all over the place," but somehow or other with my cajoling and the good humor of the participants, we always come back to the topic.

As for my being flexible plus the flexibility of all the participants, the secret ingredient will be, in my opinion, the sincere desire of all of us to really understand Darwin's conclusions and how he came to them.

Thank you so much for your detailed assessment.

We have almost a month to go so I suggest that we not get ourselves too worked up in advance over procedures.

In the meantime I would like to know why each of you found this topic of interest.

What reason do some of you others have for joining us here?

Very simply, the little boy in me has never grown up. Thank goodness! He gets me into the most intriguing situations. It is the same trait that moved me into becoming a Psychologist. I want to know many things. Above all, I want to know about people and their behavior. And above that, I want to know about myself.

Who am I? What am I? I am a human being. So what is that? I know the answers that many people give and I never discount the views and opinions of others. But I want to think it through for myself. I consider myself a "critical thinker." Give me the "facts" as best you can present them. Show me what the facts lead to. What are the implications? If you disagree, give me your "facts."

And maybe after all this, there won't be any conclusions, per se. That's OK. In the process of searching, I will have learned many things I didn't know before.

I am a vessel thirsty for knowledge. Pour it on me!!

What are your thoughts?

JoanK will be looking at animal behavior as she discusses with us. How about the rest of you? What were your reasons for signing up?

And that makes me wonder what books or articles published these days on the topic of evolution are having an effect on today's populace. We, of course, are going back to the source but not everyone is doing that.

Interesting that you celebrate Orthodox Christmas. I am pleased that we have a true cross section of people in our discussion.

As indicated earlier, this is not a religious discussion group. This link takes us to a historical event and is not meant to start us on a religion/science discussion. Also, as usual, consider the source of this link or any other link.

I hope I am not scaring anyone off. There were those who thought that The Story of Civilization would die off in a month or two because it was too deep and time consuming. To the contrary, it is now the longest running book discussion on Senior Net.

On January 1 we will start to read "Origin of Species," probably one paragraph at a time, and your expertise will be much valued.

May I tell you a story.----

It was Sunday in a rural area and only one farmer showed up at church. There had been a heavy snowstorm. All the other farmers were either snowbound or out looking for their cows. The pastor had prepared a good sermon but didn't know what to do. He asked Zeke for his advice. "Well, Reverend," said Zeke, "if even only one cow showed up at the barn, I would feed her."

The pastor caught the message and proceeded -- starting with Genesis, going on through all the begats, pausing to comment on Methusaleh, Jonah in the whale, and Joseph with the coat of many colors, Moses and the Pharoah, the opening of the Red Sea, -- pounding on the lecturn as he spoke about Joshua and the trumpets marching around the city walls, and emphasizing the cries of the many prophets in the Wilderness.

Just getting warmed up, he moved onto the New Testament never forgetting about the star over Bethlehem, the gifts of gold, frankincense, and myrhh, Jesus in the temple with the money changers, His walking on the water, His bringing someone dead back to life, His changing water into wine, His riding into Jerusalem on a donkey, the final moments in the Garden at Gethsemene, the crucifixion, and -- with more pounding on the lectern and shouts to be heard at the back of the church -- ending the sermon with His rising on Easter morn.

The pastor paused to catch his breath and then asked:-"Well, Zeke, what do you think?" "Well, Reverend," said Zeke, " if only one cow arrived at the barn, I would feed her - - - but I wouldn't give her the whole load."

I don't know about you, Ann, but I am not intending to learn all there is about how species originate but hopefully, I will get to know just a bit more than most people around the nation (if not the world) and will be able to read news items about evolution with greater wisdom.

As Discussion Leader, I will watch this trend carefully and will move us back to the sub-topic at hand. The sub-topic will be determined by the particular paragraph in Darwin's book we are discussing at the moment.

I must emphasize -- we are in no way going to let this discussion group become a replication of what we are seeing in the news. As a matter of fact, I don't believe that most of us are qualified to do so. That is exactly why we are reading Darwin's own words -- to strengthen our qualifications.

What kind of a man was he? What traits did he have which enabled him to obtain the necessary information? What was his background which caused him to think in the manner in which he did?

Let us not talk about the text within the book. We will save that until January 1st. Let us just talk about the man himself -- the man who had and has such a profound influence on the entire world.

Charles Darwin was born on Feb. 12, 1809, The Mount, Shrewsbury, Shropshire, Eng. d. April 19, 1882, Down House, Downe, Kent. His full name is Charles Robert Darwin.

Darwin was an English naturalist renowned for his documentation of evolution and for his theory of its operation, known as Darwinism. His evolutionary theories, propounded chiefly in two works--On the Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection (1859) and The Descent of Man, and Selection in Relation to Sex (1871)--have had a profound influence on subsequent scientific thought. Darwin was the son of Robert Waring Darwin, who had one of the largest medical practices outside of London, and the grandson of the physician Erasmus Darwin, the author of Zoonomia, or the Laws of Organic Life, and of the artisan-entrepreneur Josiah Wedgwood. Darwin thus enjoyed a secure position in the professional upper middle class that provided him with considerable social and professional advantages.

Youth and Education Darwin's mother died when he was eight years old. Otherwise he enjoyed a golden childhood, cosseted and encouraged by adoring sisters, an older brother, and the large Darwin and Wedgwood clans. He was keenly interested in specimen collecting and chemical investigations, but at the Shrewsbury school, where he was an uninspired student, the headmaster, Dr. Samuel Butler, stressed the classics and publicly rebuked Darwin for wasting his time with chemical experiments.

At age 16 he was sent to study medicine at the University of Edinburgh, where he was repelled by surgery performed without anesthetics. During his two years in Scotland Darwin benefited from friendships with the zoologist Robert Grant, who introduced him to the study of marine animals, and the geologist Robert Jameson, who fed his growing interest in the history of the Earth. Disappointed by Darwin's lack of enthusiasm for medicine, his father sent him to the University of Cambridge in 1827 to study divinity. At the time Darwin adhered to the conventional beliefs of the Church of England. His academic record at Christ's College was as undistinguished as it had been at Edinburgh.

He socialized considerably with hunting, shooting, riding, and sporting friends. Cambridge did not yet offer a degree in the natural sciences, but, guided by his older cousin William Darwin Fox (an entomologist who inspired in him a lifelong passion for collecting beetles), Darwin met the circle of Cambridge scientists led by the cleric-botanist John Stevens Henslow. Soon a regular at Henslow's "open houses," Darwin accompanied him on daily walks and became known as "the man who walks with Henslow." Henslow encouraged Darwin's excitement about science and confidence in his own abilities.

On leaving Cambridge in the spring of 1831 Darwin, in preparation for a scientific trip to the Canary Islands, read Alexander von Humboldt's Personal Narrative of Travels to the Equinoctial Regions of the New Continent, a scientific travelogue of a journey to Central and the northern parts of South America. At Henslow's recommendation he accompanied Adam Sedgwick, Woodwardian professor of geology at Cambridge, on a three-week tour of North Wales to learn geologic fieldwork.

In August 1831, at Henslow's recommendation to the Admiralty, Darwin was invited to sail as the unpaid naturalist on HMS Beagle. The ship was to survey the east and west coasts of South America and continue to the Pacific islands to establish a chain of chronometric stations. Henslow suggested Darwin as both an acute observer and a companion for the aristocratic young captain, Robert FitzRoy. (The Beagle already had a naturalist-surgeon, but one whom FitzRoy found socially unsuitable.) Robert Darwin first refused permission on grounds that it was dangerous and would not advance Charles in his career. But upon the intercession of his brother-in-law, Josiah Wedgwood II, he changed his mind.

On Dec. 27, 1831, Charles Darwin sailed from Plymouth, Eng., on the Beagle, a 10-gun brig that had been refitted as a three-masted bark. The voyage, planned for two years, lasted five, during which Darwin kept meticulous notes and sent back geologic and biologic specimens.

My wish at this point that we all spend some time reading the bio about Darwin and commenting on that. The more we understand Darwin, the man, the better we will, in my opinion, understand his book.

And that, George, is exactly why we have started this discussion group. We could all sit back and read Darwin's book and, as a result, see evolution only through the knowledge he had at that time. Or we can read his book and simultaneously, using links and the knowledge of other participants, gain from the knowledge of our day. January 1st will begin a fascinating discussion.

Mippy:-I could be wrong but I am assuming that the majority of people have not read in a detailed fashion anything about Darwin himself. Many of us have read articles about him but not to the extent that we feel we have gotten to know his character and personality and life's experiences. Speaking for myself, whenever I read a book or an article, I like to know a bit about the person who wrote it. It helps me to better understand the content of his writing.

If you have read a lot about him as a person (not his theories), then you are way ahead of many of us. Please tell us more about him and perhaps comment on his brief bio that I posted above.

Like yourself, many of us "don't have a good understanding of Darwin's theory of evolution." The purpose of this discussion group, therefore, is not to examine how other people or authors see the theory but to go to the source itself. In other words, we will go very very slowly through each paragraph of his, checking out his wordage, trying to understand his thinking, so we can learn what his thoughts were, and not to arrive at the theory second or third hand.

One of our greatest obstacles will be the temptation to go too fast.

Rich:-Four years of experience with Story of Civilization has taught me that I, as the DL, had nothing to do with the speed with which we moved. The interest of the participants make that decision. I say "paragraph by paragraph" but at a speed determined by you folks. If a particular paragraph doesn't pique any one's interest, it may take one day. Another paragraph may stimulate post after post and lots of links and we may find ourselves on that one paragraph four days.

If we don't understnd what Darwin is trying to say in that one paragraph, we may examine it from all different angles until we "get it."

But I implore each of you not to push the rest of us hard to move on because each person reads and makes comments at different rates. Please rely on me to "get the feeling" of the group as best I can. There can be only one Discussion Leader and folks who have worked with me in Story of Civilization say that I am fair and just.

Not deception by writing the book but deception in coming to his conclusions. As we move along he might show us 2 and then 2 more and come to the conclusion that is 5. Wait a minute, we might say, you are assuming something. Your assumption is not necessarily so.

This is what the Creationism people are saying. They say evolution is just a theory, nothing more.

What do you say that we all enjoy a bit of "peace on earth" as well as here in our discussion group. Let us have a week's hiatus between Christmas and New Years Day. We might enter now and then with a bit of a Seasons Greeting to each other but shall we give our overworked brains a rest?

It's obvious that we are all rarin' to go. Come Sunday, New Years Day, I will write the opening paragraph, (may I have that privilege as DL?) will paste the first paragraph as Horselover says, will wave the Starters flag -- and we're off!!

Robby

I know, I said "cool it", but it's not Christmas Day yet.

Sometimes certain scientists like to lord it over the rest of us when, in fact, our logical approach to life is just as practical as their "scientific" approach. They call it an hypothesis. We call it an educated guess.

You'll do well, Phoenix. Rest easy!!

Are we amateur scientists here or just waiting to gather enough "facts" so we can thumb our noses at those believing in Creationism?

Why are we reading this book in the first place?

We most certainly will argue and there most certainly will be controversy. And that is great! Whether we call ourselves "scientists" or not, all of us here are thinkers or we would not have come together in the first place.

HOWEVER! I intend to establish the same ground rules that work so well for us in The Story of Civilization -- very simply -- Principles, not Personalities. We address the issues; we do not attack the participants. With that in mind, we are going to have a wonderful time!

For those who have not been part of our Story of Civilization "family" -- and you are all invited to become part of it -- be patient. You will see how it works.

Perhaps it would help if we all take a 48-hour sabbatical and refrain posting until we start Sunday morning. Then we can dig into Darwin's words.

And so we are on our way. It is a serious topic but this should not prevent us from having fun as we increase our self-knowledge. Whether you intend to be an active participant or only a "lurker," please make at least one posting now so that we will know that you are present.

I much regret that want of space prevents my having the satisfaction of acknowledging the generous assistance which I have received from very many naturalists, some of them personally unknown to me. I cannot, however, let this opportunity pass without expressing my deep obligations to Dr. Hooker, who, for the last fifteen years, has aided me in every possible way by his large stores of knowledge and his excellent judgment."

In just these opening paragraphs of Darwin's introduction, certain phrases strike me, e.g. "mystery of mysteries." Do you folks see it that way? Do you see it as something beyond the comprehension of most of us? He speaks of "patiently accumulating and reflecting on all sorts of facts." Ah-h, patience! I wonder if most of us here will have the patience to reflect on the facts which he presents to us. He reminds us that he had "not been hasty in coming to a decision."

Darwin pleads with us:-"I must trust to the reader reposing some confidence in my accuracy." Speaking for myself, Mr. Darwin, while I respect your credentials, I will be alert to any possible inaccuracies. You are, after all, a mere mortal and there are many around the world who doubt your conclusions.

Darwin is well aware that "scarcely a single point discussed in this volume on which facts cannot be adduced, often apparently leading to conclusions directly opposite to those at which I have arrived." Aye, there's the rub. Let us see what conclusions our group here arrive at.

What are your reactions and comments, folks, regarding just the opening paragraphs of Darwin's Introduction? He has thrown down the gauntlet to us. Are we ready to accept at face value everything he tells us?

Everyone is urged to read Darwin's words in Post 340 and give a reaction.

" I may venture to express my conviction of the high value of such studies, although they have been very commonly neglected by naturalists."

Would you, as a naturalist, "come to the conclusion that species had descended like varieties from other species?" Naturalists of all sorts had existed for centuries and yet they had all thought that each one was created independently. Just what is a naturalist anyway?

According to Darwin, "it is preposterous to attribute to climate, food, etc. the structure of the woodpecker, the mistletoe or whatever." I wonder why it is that no one had thought that the structure of the organism itself played a part.

Darwin considers it very important that we "get a clear insight"into why and how organisms are changed and it was at that point that he decided to examine more fully domesticated animals and cultivated plants. In other words, to start with what we know before examining the wild animals and plants that we don't know that well.

Seems to make sense, doesn't it? Anyone here from farming families who are well acquainted with the changes that occur in domestic animals? Any gardeners here who are well acquainted with the changes that occur in flowers?

I am convinced that Natural Selection has been the most important, but not the exclusive, means of modification."

Darwin now gives us a more detailed explanation of the content of each chapter.

Chapter 1 - Abstract to Variation under Domestication. The power of man in accumulating by his selection successive slight variation.
Chapter 2 - Variability of species in a state of nature.
Chapter 3 - Struggle for existence among all organic beings throughout the world, this following the doctrine of Malthus.
Chapter 4 - Natural Selection and the extinction of of the less improved forms of life.
Chapter 5 - Laws of Variation.
Chapters 6, 7, 8, 9, 10 - Difficulties in accepting the theory.
Chapter 11 - Geological succession of organic beings.
Chapters 12 & 13 - Geographical distribution.
Chapter 14 - Classification of mutual affinities.
Chapter 15 - Recapitulation of the whole work.

Darwin speaks of our profound ignorance in regard to the mutual relations of the many beings which live around us. He adds that we know even less of the mutual relations of the innumerable inhabitants of the world during the many past geological epochs in history.

Darwin says that he formerly believed that each species had been independently created. He is now convinced that those belonging to the same genera are lineal descendents of some other and generally extinct species. Furthermore, that Natural Selection has been the most important means of modification.

Darwin has been kind enough to show us the steps he will take in helping us to understand his theory. Let us absorb this introduction ever so slowly and then move on to the first chapter about domesticated animals.

Your comments, please?

Eloise, you say:-"This book has caused a revolution worldwide."

If I may be just a bit picky -- the book hasn't caused a revolution as very few people have read it. It is the topic of evolution about which most people are ignorant which has caused the world wide controversy.

You folks are right. How can we use a word when we don't know what it means? Much of the trouble in this world of ours is people using the same word in different ways.

No case is on record of a variable organism ceasing to vary under cultivation. Our oldest cultivated plants, such as wheat, still yield new varieties: our oldest, domesticated animals are still capable of rapid improvement or modification.

If I understand this correctly, in our cultivated gardens we find many many more different kinds of flowers and plants than we find in the wild. I'm not a gardener but this seems to be true. And Darwin believes that this is true because we raise these plants in conditions (environments) different from the environment their parent plants had in nature. As I read this, I think of greenhouses (hothouses) and soil more highly fertilized than in the wild and giant sprinkler systems furnishing more water than an occasional rain does.

Andrew Knight (according to Darwin) speaks of the "excess of food" and I guess that our use of fertilizer relates to that.

Darwin adds that changing the parent plant we recognize in the wild to the many variations we see in the cultivated garden takes "several generations."

This, according to Darwin, is true as well with animals.

Any gardeners here? Farmers? Horticulturists? Veterinarians? Horse breeders? Dog breeders? Let us have your thoughts.

I hope that newcomers here will now understand how reading Darwin's book, accompanied by links to life in our day, makes reading his book even more enjoyable.

EVERYBODY HAVING FUN?!! Anybody learning anything?

It will be so easy with this intriguing subject to wander all over the place. The temptation will be to bring info which may have to do with Evolution but which will be much farther ahead than Paragraph One.

I ask patience from those who have already read the book. Let us pretend that we haven't and learn step by step along with everyone else.

Someone a month ago told me that when I took on being DL for this subject that it would be like "herding cats." Please don't be that Specie!

I assume that most people read those links so now we are all together with the definition.

As for everything on the Internet being "much further ahead" than Paragraph One, note that I pulled off the internet the links to the flower gardens and to the domestic animals which was exactly what Darwin was referring to in his first paragraph. I am trying to practice what I preach. I will continue to create links and they will refer to the paragraph we are discussing.

Here is Darwin's first paragraph which I posted in Post #402. In Story of Civilization I split up Durant's paragraphs because he has long ones. This makes it easy for us to read. Darwin also writes long paragraphs so the four you see here are, in fact, his first paragraph.

Such facts as the complex and extraordinary out-growths which variably follow from the insertion of a minute drop of poison by a gall-producing insect, show us what singular modifications might result in the case of plants from a chemical change in the nature of the sap."

I am probably the least knowledgeable person here regarding evolution, so I must emphasize that my comments here are merely my opinions.

As I see it, there is direct action on the organism or its parts -- or there is indirect action through affecting the reproductive system. Concerning direct action, two factors are taken into consideration -- the organism itself and its environment (what Darwin calls conditions.)

Darwin (I think) places more emphasis on the organism than the environment. There are times, he says, when there are different environments but the organisms remain somewhat the same. Other times the environments are pretty much the same but the organisms vary. Could an example of this be some birds who go south for the winter but others remain all year long? The environment changes but the organism remains as before? Or the reverse -- where the weather in the Southwest is pretty much the same all year but the various desert plants change as the months progress? I don't know. Help me folks.

He describes the effects on the offspring as "definite" or "indefinite." They are definite when changes among all the offspring over a number of generations are much the same. Some of the changes he sees are size from the amount of food, color from the kind of food, and thickness of hair and skins from the climate. Bubble mentioned earlier about the height of Americans which possibly result from better food and vitamins. Do people in the northern climes have thicker hair?

According to Darwin, changes occur within the organism, e.g. the chemical change in the composition of sap.

Please, folks, get me out of this! Am I interpreting any of this as Darwin meant it?

I started in Chapter I by printing out Darwin's first paragraph from TEXT in the heading. I divided up the paragraph for easier reading but it was still only one of Darwin's paragraphs. It began with "When we compare" and ended with "improvement or modification." I printed these in italics with quotes around them. At the end of the post I printed in red some remarks (not italicized) of my own. Then I waited for reactions from various participants about this specific paragraph.

When it appeared that the interest in that paragraph was waning, from TEXT in the heading I posted in italics the second paragraph which begins "As far as I am able" and ends with "nature of the sap." I ended the post with my remarks in red and am waiting for the interest in this second paragraph to wane. Shortly I will be posting Darwin's third paragraph which begins "Indefinite variability" and which ends "various organs." We have not arrived at that paragraph yet.

Some participants here who do not have the book are printing out each paragraph as soon as I post it. This saves constantly backing up through the postings or going up to the heading to read the TEXT although that is one method.

I can only repeat that procedure has been very smooth throughout the four years of its use.

"Indefinite variability is a much more common result of changed conditions than definite variability, and has probably played a more important part in the formation of our domestic races.

"We see indefinite variability in the endless slight peculiarities which distinguish the individuals of the same species, and which cannot be accounted for by inheritance from either parent or from some more remote ancestor.

"Even strongly marked differences occasionally appear in the young of the same litter, and in seedlings from the same seed-capsule.

"At long intervals of time, out of millions of individuals reared in the same country and fed on nearly the same food, deviations of structure so strongly pronounced as to deserve to be called monstrosities arise; but monstrosities cannot be separated by any distinct line from slighter variations.

"All such changes of structure, whether extremely slight or strongly marked, which appear amongst many individuals living together, may be considered as the indefinite effects of the conditions of life on each individual organism, in nearly the same manner as the chill affects different men in an indefinite manner, according to their state of body or constitution, causing coughs or colds, rheumatism, or inflammation of various organs."

Once again, as I see it, Darwin looks at endless slight peculiarities which distinguish individuals of the same species and calls that "Indefinite Variability." He calls it that if he does not believe the traits were inherited from parents (flowers or animals) or from a remote ancestor. He uses as an example strongly marked differences in the young of the same litter. Anybody have any examples? What about puppies?

Sometimes, he says, there are what he calls "monstrosities" even though the animals are fed the same food and born in the same environment. Examples might be two-headed cows or humans with six fingers on each hand.

Darwin calls such changes as "indefinite effects" of the conditions of life (environment.) He uses as an example that one man might be chilled and have no effect but that another in the same temperature might have a cough or cold.

I may be over-simpligying here but my understanding now is that changes occurring through heredity are Direct Variability and changes occurring by the environmental effects are Indirect Variability.

Your thoughts, folks?

Any comments here about the third paragraph?

"With respect to what I have called the indirect action of changed conditions -- namely, through the reproductive system of being affected -- we may infer the variabiility is thus induced -- partly from the fact of this system being extremely sensitive to any change in the conditions and partly from the similarity between the variability which follows from the crossing of distinct species and that which may be observed with plants and animals when reared under new or unnatural conditions.

"Many facts clearly show how eminently susceptible the reproductive system is to very slight changes in the surrounding conditions.

"Nothing is more easy than to tame an animal and few things more difficult than to get it to breed freely under confinement, even when the male and female unite.

"How many animals there are which will not breed, though kept in an almost free state in their native country! This is generally but erroneously attributed to vitiated instincts.

"Many cultivated plants display the utmost vigour and yet rarely or never seed!

"In some few cases it has been discovered that a very trifling change such as a little more or less water at some particular period of growth will determine whether or not a plant will produce seeds. I cannot here give the details which I have collectd and elwsewhere published on this curious subject but to show how singular the laws are which determine the reproduction of animals under confinement.

"I may mention that carnivorous animals -- even from the tropics -- breed in this country pretty freely under confinement -- with the exception of the plantigrades or bear family which seldom produce young -- whereas carnivorous birds with the rarest exceptions hardly ever lay fertile eggs.

"Many exotic plants have pollen utterly worthless in the same condition as in the most sterile hybrids.

"When on the one hand we see domesticated animals and plants though often weak and sickly breeding freely under confinement -- and on the other hand we see individuals, though taken young from a state of nature perfectly tamed, long-lived, and healthy -- yet having their reproductive system so seriously affected by imperceived causes as to fail to act, we need not be surprised at this system, when it does act under confinement acting irregularly and producing offspring somewht unlike their parents.

"I may add, that as some organisms breed freely under the most unnatural conditions (for instance, rabbits and ferrets kept in hutches), showing that their reproductive organs are not easily affected -- so will some animals and plants withstand domestication or cultivation and vary very slightly -- perhaps hardly more than in a state of nature."

Let me see if I have this correct. Changes in offspring is caused because the reproductive system is very sensitive to any changes in the environment and also because of similarities between species. According to Darwin, any slight change in the environment can cause a change in the ability of the animal or plant to reproduce.

He points out that it is often easy to tame an animal but exeedingly difficult to get it to breed while in captivity. He adds that even when the animals copulate, there is often no offspring. In the same way, he says, many wild plants which have been cultivated thrive and appear strong, yet do not produce seed.

And yet he adds, sometimes changing the amount of water at certain times will suddenly cause this same plant to seed.

Carnivorous birds (I'm trying to think of some types) under confinement hardly ever lay fertile eggs. He speaks of exotic plants (orchids?) which under cultivation produce pollen which is worthless.

On the one hand, Darwin says, even though various domestic animals may be sickly, they often breed freely. On the other hand, young wild animals or plants may be brought into confinement, remain healthy and long-lived, yet they do not produce offspring.

When these rare cases do breed and produce young, he says, the offspring are often different from their parents.

Is this it, folks? Are you understanding this chapter of Variation Under Domestication in the way I am?

This is the chapter where I am looking for help from those of you who are gardeners or who have grown up on a farm.

"Some naturalists have maintained that all variations are connected with the act of sexual reproduction but this is certainly an error.

"I have given in another work a long list of 'sporting plants', as they are called by gardeners -- that is, of plants which have suddenly produced a single bud with a new and sometimes widely different character from that of the other buds on the same plant.

"These bud variations, as they may be named, can be propagated by grafts, offsets, etc. and sometimes by seed.

"They occur rarely under nature but are far from rare under culture. As a single bud out of the many thousands, produced year after year on the same tree under uniform conditions, has been known suddenly to assume a new character.

"As buds on distinct trees, growing under different conditions, have sometimes yielded nearly the same variety -- for instance, buds on peach-trees producing nectarines, and buds on common roses producing moss-roses -- we clearly see that the nature of the conditions is of subordinate importance in comnparison with the nature of the organism in determining each particular form or variation -- perhaps of not more importance than the nature of the spark, by which a mass of combustible matter is ignited, has in determining the nature of the flames."

Anybody here who has had a plant which suddenly produced a single bud with a new and widely different character? I remember when I was a boy my father planting a white onion and a red onion grew up.

According to Darwin this type of thing is rare in nature but common in domestication. What nature plants is what nature gets. He speaks of peach trees producing nectarines and buds on common roses producing moss-roses.

Darwin's conclusion, if I understand correctly, is that the environment has nothing to do with these "sporting plants" -- that there is something happening within the plant which determines each change.

But why only when under domestication? Why not in the wild?

Any thoughts here?

"Changed habits produce an inherited effect, as in the period of the flowering of plants when transported from one climate to another.

"With animals the increased use or disuse of parts has had a more marked influence.

"Thus I find in the domestic duck that the bones of the wing weigh less and the bones of the leg more in proportion to the whole skeleton, than do the same bones in the wild duck.

"This change may be safely attributed to the domestic duck flying much less and walking more than its wild parents.

"The great and inherited development of the udders in cows and goats in countries where they are habitually milked, in comparison with these organs in other countries, is probably another instance of the effects of use.

"Not one of our domestic animals can be named which has not in some country drooping ears. The view has been suggested that the drooping is due to disuse of the muscles of the ear from the animals being seldom much alarmed seems probable."

All this, in my opinion, relates to the common expression "use it or lose it." What I wonder, however, is why the offspring does not continue to have alert ears. If you don't mind, Mal, in my using your situation as a case. Most of your life you were not able to use your legs due to polio. But your children's legs were not affected.

"Many laws regulate variation, some few of which can be dimly seen and will hereafter be briefly discussed.

"I will here only allude to what may be called correlated variation. Important changes in the embryo or larva will probably entail changes in the mature animal.

"In monstrosities, the correlations between quite distinct parts are very curious. Many instances are given in Isidore Geoffroy St. Hilarire's great work on this subject.

"Breeders believe that long limbs are almost always accompanied by an elongated head. Some instances of correlation are quite whimsical.

"Thus cats which are entirely white and have blue eyes are generally deaf. But it has been lately stated by Mr. Tait that this is confined to the males.

"Colour and constitutional peculiarities go together, of which many remarkable cases could be given amongst animals and plants. From facts collected by Heusinger, it appears that white sheep and pigs are injured by certain plants, whilst dark-coloured individuals escape.

"Professor Wyman has recently communicated to me a good illustration of this fact. On asking some farmers in Virginia how it was that all their pigs were black, they informed him that the pigs ate the paint-root (Lachnanthes) which coloured their bones pink and which caused the hoofs of all but the black varieties to drop off. One of the 'crackers' (the Virginia squatters) added:-'we select the black members of a litter for raising as they alone have a good chance of living'

"Hairless dogs have imperfect teeth.

"Long-haired and coarse-haired animals are apt to have, as is asserted, long or many horns.

"Pigeons with feathered feet have skin between their outer toes. Piegons with short beaks have small feet and those with long beaks large feet.

"Hence if man goes on selecting and thus augmenting any peculiarity he will almost certainly modify unintentionally other parts of the structure owing to the mysterious laws of correlation."

Aren't some of these illustrations amazing? What are your thoughts?

I request again that those people giving us links give us only links related to the paragraph we are currently reading. "Origin of Species" is a difficult topic. Let us not confuse ourselves even more.

In no way do I see a confusion here.

1 - As Discussion Leader I use my prerogative to choose whatever book (edition) I wish.

2 - I intend to continue to use the one in the Heading which is entitled "Text" whatever edition we may call it.

3 - This is the one I have been using since we started the discussion.

4 - This is the one I decided to use because it is available to everyone here.

5 - Because I regularly post the paragraphs as we move along and ask for comments from that posting, it really makes no difference from where I took that paragraph.

Kleo, I have heard your regular comments on "what edition", have listened to them, and have made my decision. From my point of view there is no need for us to further comment on the edition.

SHALL WE ALL GET ON WITH DISCUSSING THE TOPIC ITSELF?

"The results of the various, unknown, or but dimly understood laws of variation are infinitely complex and diversified.

"It is well worth while carefully to study the several treatises on some of our old cultivated plants as on the hyacinth, potato, even the dahlia, etc.

"It is really surprising to note the endless points of structure and constitution in which the varieties and sub-varieties differ slightly from each other.

"The whole organisation seems to have become plastic and departs in a slight degree from that of the parental type."

How is it that there can be different types of hyacinth or dahlia? How can it be that there are different types of potato? In the wild there are not that many different kinds of potato. Darwin sees the organization as "plastic."

"Any variation which is not inherited is unimportant for us.

"But the number and diversity of inheritable deviations of structure, both those of slight and those of considerable physiological importance, are endless. Dr. Prosper Lucas's treatise, in two large volumes, is the fullest and the best on this subject.

"No breeder doubts how strong is the tendency to inheritance; that like produces like is his fundamental belief: doubts have been thrown on this principle only by theoretical writers.

"When any deviation of structure often appears, and we see it in the father and child, we cannot tell whether it may not be due to the same cause having acted on both; but when amongst individuals, apparently exposed to the same conditions, any very rare deviation, due to some extraordinary combination of circumstances, appears in the parent- say, once amongst several million individuals- and it reappears in the child, the mere doctrine of chances almost compels us to attribute its reappearance to inheritance.

"Every one must have heard of cases of albinism, prickly skin, hairy bodies, &c., appearing in several members of the same family. If strange and rare deviations of structure are really inherited, less strange and commoner deviations may be freely admitted to be inheritable.

"Perhaps the correct way of viewing the whole subject would be, to look at the inheritance of every character whatever as the rule, and non-inheritance as the anomaly?

In this paragraph Darwin is talking about inherited variations. He says that the diversity of inheritable deviations is endless. That is amazing when we think of it.

The usual thought, he says, is that "like produces like." Darwin asks, in effect:-"If the father and son are exposed to the identical environment and there is a rare deviation, in the parent and again in his child, we are almost forced to believe that this is inheritance." He uses, as examples, albinism and hairy bodies occurring in different members of the same family. Any other examples from you folks?

Darwin goes on to say that if such extraordinary conspicuous deviations can be inheritable, so can less obvious traints.

He ends up by wondering if maybe every trait is inheritable.

Am I understanding him correctly? What are your thoughts, folks?

This is the paternal (Italian) side of my heritage. On my mother's side (Swedish), I never knew her father or her brother who died at an early age.

In my case, with my mixed heritage, I had a good head of hair. At age 60 my hair was black with just a sprinkling of white - salt and pepper with practically no salt. Now we get to the "direction" of baldness I spoke about earlier. Every so gradually my baldness started in the center of my forehead (exactly as happened with each of my uncles) so that now at the age of 85 I have a good head of hair, now mostly white with a fair amount of black, and more balding in the middle.

As I looked at my uncles, I could have predicted my stages of baldness and my Swedish side probably prevented me from being too bald.

Isn't inheritance an inteesting subject?

"These remarks are of course confined to the first appearance of the peculiarity, and not to the primary cause which may have acted on the ovules or on the male element -- in nearly the same manner as the increased length of the horns in the offspring from a short-horned cow by a long-horned bull, though appearing late in life, is clearly due to the male element."

As I indicated in my previous posting, I watched each of my uncles and their tendency toward baldness began at approximately the same age as their older brother.

I have a tremendous amount of admiration for this man who did not have the computer and the internet and all that technology we have and ever so slowly -- doing a lot of deep cogitation I suppose - trying to figure out something he probably just "felt" but could not put into words.

Our goal here is not to cover material by Wallace or Mendel or Johannsen or deVries or Correns or von Tschermak-Seysenegg. Our goal is very simple. It is to read carefully the words of Darwin, try to get into his mind (not into the thinking of others), and understand as best we can the path he was traveling.

I am asking that we all narrow that down even more -- not to talk about "Origins" but to speak only to the specific paragraph which I post.

I warned even before we started on Jan. 1st that we might be tempted to wander all over the lot. Please, let us stick to just one paragraph at a time and to make comments or bring in links related to only that one paragraph I posted.

Currently the sub-topic is the paragraph I posted in #524.

"Having alluded to the subject of reversion, I may here refer to a statement often made by naturalists- namely, that our domestic varieties, when run wild, gradually but invariably revert in character to their aboriginal stocks.

"Hence it has been argued that no deductions can be drawn from domestic races to species in a state of nature. I have in vain endeavoured to discover on what decisive facts the above statement has so often and so boldly been made.

"There would be great difficulty in proving its truth. We may safely conclude that very many of the most strongly marked domestic varieties could not possibly live in a wild state. In many cases, we do not know what the aboriginal stock was, and so could not tell whether or not nearly perfect reversion had ensued.

"It would be necessary, in order to prevent the effects of intercrossing, that only a single variety should have been turned loose in its new home.

"Nevertheless, as our varieties certainly do occasionally revert in some of their characters to ancestral forms, it seems to me not improbable that if we could succeed in naturalising, or were to cultivate, during many generations, the several races, for instance, of the cabbage, in very poor soil (in which case, however, some effect would have to be attributed to the definite action of the poor soil), that they would, to a large extent, or even wholly, revert to the wild aboriginal stock.

"Whether or not the experiment would succeed, is not of great importance for our line of argument; for by the experiment itself the conditions of life are changed.

"If it could be shown that our domestic varieties manifested a strong tendency to reversion -- that is, to lose their acquired characters, whilst kept under the same conditions -- and whilst kept in a considerable body, so that free intercrossing might check, by blending together, any slight deviations in their structure, in such case -- I grant that we could deduce nothing from domestic varieties in regard to species.

"But there is not a shadow of evidence in favour of this view. To assert that we could not breed our cart- and race-horses, long and short-horned cattle, and poultry of various breeds, and esculent vegetables, for an unlimited number of generations, would be opposed to all experience."

I am interpreting Darwin's word "reversion" to what the layman calls "throwback." He quotes naturalists as saying that domestic varieties, when allowed to run wild, become more like the wild stock from which they came. He does not agree with them that no deductions can be made from this.

He argues that many domestic animals (plants) could not live back in the wild state. In fact, Darwin says, we do not really know what the original state of that animal or plant was and, therefore, would not know if there was a true throwback. To do this scientifically, he argues, we would need to do this just to one single variety and watch it carefully.

Having said all this, Darwin nevertheless admits that numerous domestic varieties do occasionally show traits more like the ancestor of the variety. He suggests that if we might cultivate a cabbage over many generations in poor soil, they would probably revert to the "original" cabbage.

At this point he refers to a problem often encountered by scientists -- that is, the very act of conducting the experiement affects the subject. It would not be exactly the same as if the experimenter were not there.

Darwin concludes that if, indeed, the cabbage, for instance, when let alone tended to revert to its ancestor. that proves nothing. He points out that for centuries people have bred horses, cattle, poultry, and vegetables and they do not revert to the original type.

Help me out with this, folks. And PLEASE! In your answers refer only to this particular paragraph.

"When it is explained how genera originate under nature, it will be seen that we have no right to expect often to find a generic amount of difference in our domesticated races."

Help me out, folks. True species, according to Darwin show uniformity of character whereas there are many many differences in cultivated animals and plants. Furthermore, he adds, they often differ to an extreme degree.

I tend to agree with this. There are many many different kinds of cabbages and kings (to throw Lewis Carroll in here). Kings can be cultivated, can't they? Not to mention the numerous kinds of cattle, dogs, cats, roses, chrisanthemum, and on and on -- their differences at times being amazing. And to go even further, says Darwin, each dog, for example, is not only very very different from the other kinds of dogs but there is an even great difference from the original "dog" in nature.

Some judges, says Darwin, rank these descendent dogs, for example, as distinct species whereas others judge them to be merely different varieties.

He speaks of genera or generic value but I admit to not knowing what "genera" means. Darwin does not expect to find a "generic amount" of difference in our domesticated races.

Please have your reactions refer only to this paragraph.

This discussion was never meant to be an easy-going casual exchange of opinions. Our purpose was always to avoid the shrill shrieking in the media and in certain areas of our nation regarding a topic which most people did not understand. Our plan was to go to the source and see what Darwin himself said.

If we are patient, step by step, thought by thought, we may be able to understand what Darwin had in mind.

Darwin continues.

"In attempting to estimate the amount of structural difference between allied domestic races, we are soon involved in doubt, from not knowing whether they are descended from one or several parent species.

"This point, if it could be cleared up, would be interesting. If, for instance, it could be shown that the greyhound, bloodhound, terrier, spaniel, and bull-dog, which we all know propagate their kind truly, were the offspring of any single species, then such facts would have great weight in making us doubt about the immutability of the many closely allied natural species- for instance, of the many foxes- inhabiting different quarters of the world.

"I do not believe, as we shall presently see, that the whole amount of difference between the several breeds of the dog has been produced under domestication. I believe that a small part of the difference is due to their being descended from distinct species.

"In the case of strongly marked races of some other domesticated species, there is presumptive or even strong evidence, that all are descended from a single wild stock."

Darwin calls to our attention the fact that when we look at a domestic animal (dog for instance), that we don't know if a particular breed of dog descends from one parent species or many. He points out that a bloodhound gives birth to a bloodhound, a terrier gives birth to a terrier, etc. Do they come from a specific species? If so, Darwin says, then we might begin to doubt the immutability of the many closely alied natural species. How about foxes, he asks. They can be found in all areas of the world.

He believes that a small part of the difference between various dog breeds means that they come from specific species and not just because of their domestication.

On the other hand, he says, other animals may descend from a single wild stock."

Darwin is obviously vacillating as he tries to set up a solid theory.

"It has often been assumed that man has chosen for domestication animals and plants having an extraordinary inherent tendency to vary, and likewise to withstand diverse climates.

"I do not dispute that these capacities have added largely to the value of most of our domesticated productions. But how could a savage possibly know, when he first tamed an animal, whether it would vary in succeeding generations, and whether it would endure other climates? Has the little variability of the ass and goose, or the small power of endurance of warmth by the reindeer, or of cold by the common camel, prevented their domestication?

"I cannot doubt that if other animals and plants, equal in number to our domesticated productions, and belonging to equally diverse classes and countries, were taken from a state of nature, and could be made to breed for an equal number of generations under domestication, they would on an average vary as largely as the parent species of our existing domesticated productions have varied.

Could primitive man have known in advance that specific animals, cattle and dogs for example, would be able to "vary" into sub-species? Could he have known whether they would have been able to survive different climates?

Darwin believes that other types of animals could have been domesticated and would also have varied as much as dogs or cattle. Could we have bred them to the point where we would have many different types of elephants, giraffes, gorillas, kangaroos, etc. and would they have been able to withstand climates much different from their own?

"In the case of most of our anciently domesticated animals and plants, it is not possible to come to any definite conclusion, whether they are descended from one or several wild species.

"The argument mainly relied on by those who believe in the multiple origin of our domestic animals is, that we find in the most ancient times, on the monuments of Egypt, and in the lake-habitations of Switzerland, much diversity in the breeds -- and that some of these ancient breeds closely resemble, or are even identical with, those still existing.

"But this only throws far backwards the history of civilisation, and shows that animals were domesticated at a much earlier period than has hitherto been supposed.

"The lake-inhabitants of Switzerland cultivated several kinds of wheat and barley, the pea, the poppy for oil, and flax; and they possessed several domesticated animals. They also carried on commerce with other nations.

"All this clearly shows, as Reer has remarked, that they had at this early age progressed considerably in civilisation -- and this again implies a long continued previous period of less advanced civilisation, during which the domesticated animals, kept by different tribes in different districts, might have varied and given rise to distinct races.

"Since the discovery of flint tools in the superficial formations of many parts of the world, all geologists believe that barbarian man existed at an enormously remote period -- and we know that at the present day there is hardly a tribe so barbarous, as not to have domesticated at least the dog."

All right, people, struggle along with me. Darwin tells us that he cannot come to any conclusion as to whether most domesticated animals and plants have descended from just one wild species or several. Even in ancient times, he says, there was much diversity in the various breeds and not only that but many of those breeds seem similar or even identical with breeds existing today.

This doesn't help us a bit, says Darwin. All it tells us is that civilization existed much earlier than we thought and that domesticated animals apparently were part of that civilization. It also tells us that nations (tribes?) carried on commerce with other nations. It tells us that civilization had progressed considerably. This implied, therefore, that there was an earlier civilization which was perhaps a bit less advanced.

In the earlier civilization, according to Darwin, variation in domesticated animals might have taken place and new "races" might have come into existence.

Darwin at this point leans on geologists who believe that barbarian man existed far earlier than most of us think. Even today, he adds, if we look at various barbarous tribes around the globe, we find practically every one of them owns dogs.

Let us be careful, folks. Was it Darwin's intention to wage a battle against the Bible's version or was he just trying (as a good biologist) to learn the truth? I suggest that we stay away from this ticklish subject and continue in a scientific vein as we have been doing.

"The origin of most of our domestic animals will probably for ever remain vague.

"But I may here state, that, looking to the domestic dogs of the whole world, I have, after a laborious collection of all known facts, come to the conclusion that several wild species of Canidae have been tamed, and that their blood, in some cases mingled together, flows in the veins of our domestic breeds.

"In regard to sheep and goats I can form no decided opinion.

"From facts communicated to me by Mr. Blyth, on the habits, voice, constitution, and structure of the humped Indian cattle, it is almost certain that they are descended from a different aboriginal stock from our European cattle. Some competent judges believe that these latter have had two or three wild progenitors,- whether or not these deserve to be called species.

"This conclusion, as well as that of the specific distinction between the humped and common cattle, may, indeed, be looked upon as established by the admirable researches of Professor Rutimeyer.

"With respect to horses, from reasons which I cannot here give, I am doubtfully inclined to believe, in opposition to several authors, that all the races belong to the same species.

"Having kept nearly all the English breeds of the fowl alive, having bred and crossed them, and examined their skeletons, it appears to me almost certain that all are the descendants of the wild Indian fowl, Gallus bankiva; and this is the conclusion of Mr. Blyth, and of others who have studied this bird in India.

"In regard to ducks and rabbits, some breeds of which differ much from each other, the evidence is clear that they are all descended from the common wild duck and rabbit."

Darwin starts us off in this paragraph acknowledging that we probably won't ever know much of the origins of our familiar domestic animals. Of course, at this point, we with our superior knowledge of the 21st century and the DNA technology could probably find the answer but we must be fair to him. We are pretending that we live in his era and therefore have no way of gaining this knowledge.

He does believe that most dogs of the world descend from the Canidae species.

He has no opinion at all regarding sheep and goats.

After examining the habits, voice, constitution and structure of the humped Indian cattle, he sees them as having descended from a different stock than European cattle, the latter possibly descended from two or three wild sources.

Horses, Darwin believes, all belong to the same species.

English fowl, in his opinion, descend from wild Indian fowl.

Ducks and rabbits, he says, all come from the same wild duck and rabbit.

Any comments regarding this paragraph?

"The doctrine of the origin of our several domestic races from several aboriginal stocks, has been carried to an absurd extreme by some authors. They believe that every race which breeds true, let the distinctive characters be ever so slight, has had its wild prototype.

"At this rate there must have existed at least a score of species of wild cattle, as many sheep, and several goats, in Europe alone, and several even within Great Britain.

"One author believes that there formerly existed eleven wild species of sheep peculiar to Great Britain! When we bear in mind that Britain has now not one peculiar mammal, and France but few distinct from those of Germany, and so with Hungary, Spain, &c. -- but that each of these kingdoms possesses several peculiar breeds of cattle, sheep, &c. -- we must admit that many domestic breeds must have originated in Europe. Whence otherwise could they have been derived?

"So it is in India.

"Even in the case of the breeds of the domestic dog throughout the world, which I admit are descended from several wild species, it cannot be doubted that there has been an immense amount of inherited variation. Who will believe that animals closely resembling the Italian greyhound, the bloodhound, the bull-dog, pug-dog, or Blenheim spaniel, &c.- so unlike all wild Canidae- ever existed in a state of nature?

"It has often been loosely said that all our races of dogs have been produced by the crossing of a few aboriginal species; but by crossing we can only get forms in some degree intermediate between their parents. If we account for our several domestic races by this process, we must admit the former existence of the most extreme forms, as the Italian greyhound, bloodhound, bulldog, &c., in the wild state.

"Moreover, the possibility of making distinct races by crossing has been greatly exaggerated. Many cases are on record, showing that a race may be modified by occasional crosses, if aided by the careful selection of the individuals which present the desired character. To obtain a race intermediate between two quite distinct races, would be very difficult. Sir J. Sebright expressly experimented with this object and failed.

"The offspring from the first cross between two pure breeds is tolerably and sometimes (as I have found with pigeons) quite uniform in character, and everything seems simple enough. But when these mongrels are crossed one with another for several generations, hardly two of them are alike and then the difficulty of the task becomes manifest."

Darwin believes it is ridiculous to think that several domestic races come from several aboriginal stocks. Other people, he says, believe that each race comes from a wild prototype. If this were so, he says, back there in ancient biological times there would have been a score of aboriginal species of cattle, numerous species of sheep, numerous species of goats, etc. in just Europe alone, never mind the rest of the world.

If I understand Darwin correctly, in his time Britain did not have even one animal peculiar to that island -- and that the same situation existed in France, Hungary, and Spain where they have various animals which were not peculiar to that area.

He sees many domestic breeds as having originated in Europe and which could not have come from anywhere else.

He sees dogs as having descended from several wild species and that there was a lot of inherited variation. He cannot bring himself to believe that breeds so dissimilar as the Italian greyhound, the bloodhound, the bull-dog, the pug-dog, or the Blenheim spaniel, etc. could all have existed as such in nature.

He wonders about the possibility of making distinct races by crossing them. He does consider that races could be modified by crossing. Darwin says it would be extremely difficult to create a new race merely by obtaining an intermediate between two distinct races. He has found -- in experimenting with pigeons -- that if he crossed two pure breeds, the offspring would be pretty much the same. But -- he adds -- if he mated these offspring for a few generations, they would all look different.

What do you think about all this, folks? You don't have to be a biologist to have questions.

"Believing that it is always best to study some special group, I have, after deliberation, taken up domestic pigeons.

"I have kept every breed which I could purchase or obtain, and have been most kindly favoured with skins from several quarters of the world, more especially by the Hon. W. Elliot from India, and by the Hon. C. Murray from Persia.

"Many treatises in different languages have been published on pigeons, and some of them are very important, as being of considerable antiquity. I have associated with several eminent fanciers, and have been permitted to join two of the London Pigeon Clubs.

"The diversity of the breeds is something astonishing. Compare the English carrier and the short-faced tumbler, and see the wonderful difference in their beaks, entailing corresponding differences in their skulls. The carrier, more especially the male bird, is also remarkable from the wonderful development of the carunculated skin about the head. This is accompanied by greatly elongated eyelids, very large external orifices to the nostrils, and a wide gape of mouth.

"The short-faced tumbler has a beak in outline almost like that of a finch. The common tumbler has the singular inherited habit of flying at a great height in a compact flock, and tumbling in the air head over heels.

"The runt is a bird of great size, with long massive beak and large feet. Some of the sub-breeds of runts have very long necks, others very long wings and tails, others singularly short tails.

"The barb is allied to the carrier, but, instead of a long beak has a very short and broad one.

"The pouter has a much elongated body, wings, and legs. Its enormously developed crop, which it glories in inflating, may well excite astonishment and even laughter.

"The turbit has a short and conical beak, with a line of reversed feathers down the breast. It has the habit of continually expanding slightly, the upper part of the oesophagus.

"The Jacobin has the feathers so much reversed along the back of the neck that they form a hood. It has, proportionally to its size, elongated wing and tail feathers.

"The trumpeter and laugher, as their names express, utter a very different coo from the other breeds.

"The fantail has thirty or even forty tailfeathers, instead of twelve or fourteen- the normal number in all the members of the great pigeon family. These feathers are kept expanded, and are carried so erect, that in good birds the head and tail touch: the oil-gland is quite aborted. Several other less distinct breeds might be specified."

In this paragraph Darwin speaks quite clearly describing the various types of pigeons. His main point, as we can all see, is that there are many many different kinds of pigeons. A number of the upcoming paragraphs will continue regarding his examination of pigeons so we will be able to see his thinking as he moves along.

It is so important in written material, as in Senior Net, that we not read between the lines, that we not infer that the other person is making a statement. Perhaps she does not think so either. She is merely asking a question.

This is a scientific discussion group. Any question is permissible. In fact, to be truly scientific, all questions should be asked. Making a flat statement as if it were a conclusion is entirely different.

I am of Italian heritage. You have a perfect right to ask if perhaps all Italians are lazy. Instead of being hurt, I would answer back that I don't think so.

One type of pigeon I had was Tipplers. They were very high flying pigeons, much higher than most other pigeons to the point where they had to be observed through binoculars. Another type I had were Rollers. They would fly to a medium height and then would start rolling down, down, down before catching themselves. At times a Roller would not catch itself in time and would be killed.

I would mate a Tippler with a Roller. Sometimes my goal would be reached, i.e. a Roller that would fly so high that they would almost never hit the ground. However, sometimes the offspring would be a Tippler that would not fly as his parents.

Regarding mating -- the usual method was to take a male that had no mate and a female that had no mate and put them in a darkened box where they were separated by a screen. They would see and hear each other but could not touch each other. Furthermore, they had no contact with any other pigeons. After a period of time, perhaps a week or more, "chemistry" being what it is, one could tell that they wanted to be together and the divider would be removed.

Shortly after that (not always) the male would mount the female with obviously her permission. But we are not talking about one-night stands! These two, expect for rare exceptions, would remain mates for life.

"In the skeletons of the several breeds, the development of the bones of the face in length and breadth and curvature differs enormously.

"The shape, as well as the breadth and length of the ramus of the lower jaw, varies in a highly remarkable manner.

"The caudal and sacral vertebrae vary in number; as does the number of the ribs, together with their relative breadth and the presence of processes. <P<"The size and shape of the apertures in the sternum are highly variable; so is the degree of divergence and relative size of the two arms of the furcula.

"The proportional width of the gape of mouth -- the proportional length of the eyelids -- of the orifice of the nostrils -- of the tongue (not always in strict correlation with the length of beak) -- the size of the crop and of the upper part of the oesophagus -- the development and abortion of the oil-gland -- the number of the primary wing and caudal feathers -- the relative length of the wing and tail to each other and to the body -- the relative length of the leg and foot -- the number of scutellae on the toes -- the development of skin between the toes -- are all points of structure which are variable.

"The period at which the perfect plumage is acquired varies, as does the state of the down with which the nestling birds are clothed when hatched. The shape and size of the eggs vary.

"The manner of flight, and in some breeds the voice and disposition, differ remarkably.

"Lastly, in certain breeds, the males and females have come to differ in a slight degree from each other."

One can begin to see here how meticulous Darwin was in examining each minor point, not only of pigeons, but of every organism he inspectd. This helps us to see that he did not quickly jump to his later theories. In fact, he not only examined the differences between organisms but even the male-female differences.

The program is still on for those interested.

"Altogether at least a score of pigeons might be chosen, which, if shown to an ornithologist, and he were told that they were wild birds, would certainly be ranked by him as well-defined species.

"Moreover, I do not believe that any ornithologist would in this case place the English carrier, the short-faced tumbler, the runt, the barb, pouter, and fantail in the same genus.

"More especially as in each of these breeds several truly-inherited sub-breeds, or species, as he would call them, could be shown him."

Would anyone disagree that the tumbler, the pouter, and the fantail all appear to be separate species? Do they not appear that they descend from a bird which looks like them?

If I understand the term "rock pigeon" correctly, it meant that this aboriginal bird landed and walked on rocks and similar substances. We see other birds usually on trees where their rounded talons can grasp branches or on soft ground where their claws sink in.

"Great as are the differences between the breeds of the pigeon, I am fully convinced that the common opinion of naturalists is correct, namely, that all are descended from the rock-pigeon (Columba livia), including under this term several geographical races or sub-species, which differ from each other in the most trifling respects.

As several of the reasons which have led me to this belief are in some degree applicable in other cases, I will here briefly give them.

If the several breeds are not varieties, and have not proceeded from the rock-pigeon, they must have descended from at least seven or eight aboriginal stocks. It is impossible to make the present domestic breeds by the crossing of any lesser number. How, for instance, could a pouter be produced by crossing two breeds unless one of the parent-stocks possessed the characteristic enormous crop?

"The supposed aboriginal stocks must all have been rock-pigeons, that is, they did not breed or willingly perch on trees. Besides C. livia, with its geographical sub-species, only two or three other species of rock-pigeons are known; and these have not any of the characters of the domestic breeds.

"Hence the supposed aboriginal stocks must either still exist in the countries where they were originally domesticated, and yet be unknown to ornithologists -- and this, considering their size, habits, and remarkable characters, seems improbable -- or they must have become extinct in the wild state.

"But birds breeding on precipices, and good fliers, are unlikely to be exterminated. The common rock-pigeon, which has the same habits with the domestic breeds, has not been exterminated even on several of the smaller British islets, or on the shores of the Mediterranean. Hence the supposed extermination of so many species having similar habits with the rock-pigeon seems a very rash assumption.

"Moreover, the several above-named domesticated breeds have been transported to all parts of the world. Therefore, some of them must have been carried back again into their native country. Not one has become wild or feral, though the dovecot-pigeon, which is the rock-pigeon in very slightly altered state, has become feral in several places. All recent experience shows that it is difficult to get wild animals to breed freely under domestication. Y

"et on the hypothesis of the multiple origin of our pigeons, it must be assumed that at least seven or eight species were so thoroughly domesticated in ancient times by half-civilised man, as to be quite prolific under confinement.

As far as pigeons are concerned, Darwin begins to narrow things down. He is convined that the Columba livia (rock pigeon) is the original pigeon leading to all the extraordinarily various types of pigeons known today. He calls the pouter, or fantail, or what have you type of pigeon sub-species. He can not believe that there was an original fantail pigeon or original pouter pigeon.

The original C. livia, he says, did not breed or willingly perch on trees. So it is with modern day pigeons.

Furthermore, he adds, the tendency of the original C. livia to breed on precipices and to be good flyers kept them away from predators. They were unlikely, he says, to be exterminated and could continue on to our present day.

He is surprised, however, that while experience has shown that it is difficult to get wild animals to breed in domestication, nevertheless this must have been accomplished eons ago by half-civilized man.

"An argument of great weight, and applicable in several other cases, is, that the above-specified breeds, though agreeing generally with the wild rock-pigeon in constitution, habits, voice, colouring, and in most parts of their structure, yet are certainly highly abnormal in other parts.

"We may look in vain through the whole great family of Columbidae for a beak like that of the English carrier -- or that of the short-faced tumbler, or barb -- for reversed feathers like those of the Jacobin -- for a crop like that of the pouter -- for tail-feathers like those of the fantail.

"Hence it must be assumed not only that half-civilised man succeeded in thoroughly domesticating several species, but that he intentionally or by chance picked out extraordinarily abnormal species. Further, that these very species have since all become extinct or unknown.

"So many strange contingencies are improbable in the highest degree."

Darwin points out the similarities between the various kinds of pigeons and the original rock pigeon. At the same time, he calls to our attention the great differences. Could it be, he asks, that half-civilized man located many of these different kinds of pigeons and domesticated them? That these are the pigeons of our day but that the original breeds -- pouter, tumbler, etc. -- have disappeared?

Unlikely, he concludes.

This method, I submit, is why in his writings, Darwin seems to have so many negative remarks and sometimes double negatives. Combine this with 19th century English and there you are.

Let us be patient as we try to follow Darwin as he looked this way and that -- considered this and that -- came to this or that conclusion -- threw away this or that conclusion -- came to different conclusions -- checked with this person and agreed with him -- checked with that person and disagreed with him.

All that is not as haphazard as one would believe. In many ways a research scientist is like a curious little boy. Why is the sky blue? Is the air blue up there? Is it an illusion? Does it have something to do with the sun? But what about nighttime? What does this scientist say? What does that scientist say?

Science is tedious but it has to be if it going to try to be accurate. More than one scientist has thrown away his whole year's work and started all over again.

I agree, in addition, that his British 19th century way of speaking is difficult for those of us now -- but PATIENCE PLEASE! Stay with us. Bit by bit it will all come together.

PARAGRAPH SIX.

"Some facts in regard to the colouring of pigeons well deserve consideration.

"The rock-pigeon is of a slaty-blue, with white loins. The Indian sub-species, C. intermedia of Strickland, has this part bluish.

"The tail has a terminal dark bar, with the outer feathers externally edged at the base with white.

"The wings have two black bars. Some semi-domestic breeds, and some truly wild breeds, have, besides the two black bars, the wings chequered with black.

"These several marks do not occur together in any other species of the whole family.

"Now, in every one of the domestic breeds, taking thoroughly well-bred birds, all the above marks, even to the white edging of the outer tail-feathers, sometimes concur perfectly developed.

"Moreover, when birds belonging to two or more distinct breeds are crossed, none of which are blue or have any of the above-specified marks, the mongrel offspring are very apt suddenly to acquire these characters.

"To give one instance out of several which I have observed:- I crossed some white fantails, which breed very true, with some black barbs- and it so happens that blue varieties of barbs are so rare that I never heard of an instance in England. The mongrels were black, brown, and mottled.

"I also crossed a barb with a spot, which is a white bird with a red tail and red spot on the forehead, and which notoriously breeds very true. The mongrels were dusky and mottled.

"I then crossed one of the mongrel barb-fantails with a mongrel barb-spot. They produced a bird of as beautiful a blue colour, with the white loins, double black wing-bar, and barred and white-edged tail-feathers, as any wild-rock pigeon! We can understand these facts, on the well-known principle of reversion to ancestral characters, if all the domestic breeds are descended from the rock-pigeon.

"But if we deny this, we must make one of the two following highly improbable suppositions. Either, first, that all the several imagined aboriginal stocks were coloured and marked like the rock-pigeon, although no other existing species is thus coloured and marked, so that in each separate breed there might be a tendency to revert to the very same colours and markings. Or, secondly, that each breed, even the purest, has within a dozen, or at most within a score, of generations, been crossed by the rock-pigeon. I say within dozen or twenty generations, for no instance is known of crossed descendants reverting to an ancestor of foreign blood, removed by a greater number of generations.

"In a breed which has been crossed only once, the tendency to revert to any character derived from such a cross will naturally become less and less. In each succeeding generation there will be less of the foreign blood.

"When there has been no cross, and there is a tendency in the breed to revert to a character which was lost during some former generation, this tendency, for all that we can see to the contrary, may be transmitted undiminished for an indefinite number of generations.

"These two distinct cases of reversion are often confounded together by those who have written on inheritance."

I have broken up the paragraph into smaller sentences and underlined what I consider the points Darwin is emphasizing.

"Is Darwin saying that it is impossible that all the different kinds of pigeons could not have descended from individual primordial species - which have since gone extinct? And if this is what he is saying, or implying, then why isn't it possible?"

There's an extra negative in there, but yes. He is trying to show that all of the kinds of pigeons that he knows descended from the same wild ancestor, and the differences appeared over time. He is doing it by considering an opposite hypothesis and showing that it doesn't make sense.

Current (religious) belief apparently held that each "kind" of animal was created by God in one day. Darwin says: but look at all the different kinds of pigeon. We only see all these different kinds in breeders hands: we never see them in the wild. It doesn't make sense that there were originally all those kinds in the wild, but after early breeders started breeding them, they all became extinct in the wild. There are too many of them, and it's too unlikely a coincidence that they ALL would have become extinct.

No, it only makes sense if all these variations that we see appeared during breeding, and never existed in the wild. But this contradicts the idea that all animals were created by God on a fixed day. If he can show that at least ONE new animal came into being later, then his idea of evolution becomes possible. He hasn't proved it, but he's opened the door to it.

(Robby adding here) May I suggest folks that although Darwin's use of various phrases or compound sentences may add a bit to the difficulty, the primary obstacle is our (including myself) being able to think things through logically. If a pure white cat mated with a pure white cat and some of the offspring were black, then we don't have to be scientists to KNOW that there was a black cat somewhere in the ancestry of at least one of the cats. It is not that Darwin is so difficult to understand, it is that the steps he follows require slow logical thinking.

The logical thinking that Darwin is leading us through at this point will be extremely important as he comes to certain conclusions on how species originated. He is helping lay a foundation for his theory.

"Lastly, the hybrids or mongrels from between all the breeds of the pigeon are perfectly fertile, as I can state from my own observations, purposely made, on the most distinct breeds.

"Now, hardly any cases have been ascertained with certainty of hybrids from two quite distinct species of animals being perfectly fertile. Some authors believe that long-continued domestication eliminates this strong tendency to sterility in species.

"From the history of the dog, and of some other domestic animals, this conclusion is probably quite correct, if applied to species closely related to each other.

"But to extend it so far as to suppose that species, aboriginally as distinct as carriers, tumblers, pouters, and fantails now are, should yield offspring perfectly fertile inter se, would be rash in the extreme."

Darwin, if I understand this, does not know of any cases where two distinct species are mated and have a hybrid which is fertile. This may be so, he adds, if the species are closely related, as in the dog.

But Darwin finds it unbelievable that this could happen with distinct species, e.g. pouters and fantails.

I thought so too, Phoenix. Perhaps someone here can help us.

"From these several reasons, namely,-

1 - the improbability of man having formerly made seven or eight supposed species of pigeons to breed freely under domestication --
2 - these supposed species being quite unknown in a wild state --
3 - and their not having become anywhere feral --
4 - these species presenting certain very abnormal characters, as compared with all other Columbidae, though so like the rock-pigeon in most respects --
5 - the occasional reappearance of the blue colour and various black marks in all the breeds, both when kept pure and when crossed --
6 - and lastly, the mongrel offspring being perfectly fertile --

from these several reasons taken together,

we may safely conclude that all our domestic breeds are descended from the rock-pigeon or Columba livia with its geographical sub-species."

Let us follow the steps and see if we come to the same conclusion as Darwin. I hope my breaking it up helped.

Thank you again, Kleo!

And if I understand correctly, would all those you named be different breeds but the same species?

Your last roar said:-"Mutations is beyond the scope of what we have read thus far. I assure you that modern day genetics, biochemistry, molecular cell biology and the like will only make this more complex, what Darwin is trying to say. It will not make it easier to understand, and it is not necessary for understanding this as this is not what the book is about."

I agree completely with this. Let us crawl before we start to walk.

And now let us invite Darwin back into our conversation.

"In favour of this view, I may add, firstly, that the wild C. livia has been found capable of domestication in Europe and in India; and that it agrees in habits and in a great number of points of structure with all the domestic breeds.

Secondly, that, although an English carrier or a short-faced tumbler differs immensely in certain characters from the rock-pigeon, yet that, by comparing the several sub-breeds of these two races, more especially those brought from distant countries, we can make, between them and the rock-pigeon, an almost perfect series; so we can in some other cases, but not with all the breeds.

Thirdly, those characters which are mainly distinctive of each breed are in each eminently variable, for instance the wattle and length of beak of the carrier, the shortness of that of the tumbler, and the number of tailfeathers in the fantail; and the explanation of this fact will be obvious when we treat of Selection. Fourthly, pigeons have been watched and tended with the utmost care, and loved by many people. They have been domesticated for thousands of years in several quarters of the world; the earliest known record of pigeons is in the fifth Egyptian dynasty, about 3000 B.C., as was pointed out to me by Professor Lepsius; but Mr. Birch informs me that pigeons are given in a bill of fare in the previous dynasty.

In the time of the Romans, as we hear from Pliny, immense prices were given for pigeons; "nay, they are come to this pass, that they can reckon up their pedigree and race."

Pigeons were much valued by Akber Khan in India, about the year 1600; never less than 90,000 pigeons were taken with the court. "The monarchs of Iran and Turan sent him some very rare birds"; and continues the courtly historian, "His Majesty by crossing the breeds, which method was never practised before, has improved them astonishingly."

About this same period the Dutch were as eager about pigeons as were the old Romans.

The paramount importance of these considerations in explaining the immense amount of variation which pigeons have undergone, will likewise be obvious when we treat of Selection.

We shall then, also, see how it is that the several breeds so often have a somewhat monstrous character.

It is also a most favourable circumstance for the production of distinct breeds, that male and female pigeons can be easily mated for life; and thus different breeds can be kept together in the same aviary."

I don't think it is necessary for me to once again mis-interpret Darwin's words here. His words speak for themselves - simply that there has been much domestication of pigeons over the centuries. He also whets our appetite and says he will tell us a bit about how ancient people practiced "selection" and what happened from that.

"I have discussed the probable origin of domestic pigeons at some, yet quite insufficient, length.

"When I first kept pigeons and watched the several kinds, well knowing how truly they breed, I felt fully as much difficulty in believing that since they had been domesticated they had all proceeded from a common parent, as any naturalist could in coming to a similar conclusion in regard to the many species of finches, or other groups of birds, in nature.

"One circumstance has struck me much -- namely, that nearly all the breeders of the various domestic animals and the cultivators of plants, with whom I have conversed, or whose treatises I have read, are firmly convinced that the several breeds to which each has attended, are descended from so many aboriginally distinct species.

"Ask, as I have asked, a celebrated raiser of Hereford cattle, whether his cattle might not have descended from long-horns, or both from a common parent-stock, and he will laugh you to scorn.

"I have never met a pigeon, or poultry, or duck, or rabbit fancier, who was not fully convinced that each main breed was descended from a distinct species.

"Van Mons, in his treatise on pears and apples, shows how utterly he disbelieves that the several sorts, for instance a Ribston-pippin or Codlin-apple, could ever have proceeded from the seeds of the same tree. Innumerable other examples could be given.

"The explanation, I think, is simple. From long-continued study they are strongly impressed with the differences between the several races. Though they well know that each race varies slightly, for they win their prizes by selecting such slight differences, yet they ignore all general arguments, and refuse to sum up in their minds slight differences accumulated during many successive generations.

"May not those naturalists who, knowing far less of the laws of inheritance than does the breeder, and knowing no more than he does of the intermediate links in the long lines of descent, yet admit that many of our domestic races are descended from the same parents -- may they not learn a lesson of caution, when they deride the idea of species in a state of nature being lineal descendants of other species?"

Darwin is coming to the conclusion that all types of pears originate from the one aboriginal pear tree -- that all breeds of pigeons originate from the one aboriginal pigeon, etc. etc. What do you folks think?

I agree with Bubble. Read only the underlined words. This was a new idea, species coming from other species. Let us not deride it.

"Let us now briefly consider the steps by which domestic races have been produced, either from one or from several allied species.

"Some effect may be attributed to the direct and definite action of the external conditions of life, and some to habit. He would be a bold man who would account by such agencies for the differences between a dray- and race-horse, a greyhound and bloodhound, a carrier and tumbler pigeon.

"One of the most remarkable features in our domesticated races is that we see in them adaptation, not indeed to the animal's or plant's own good, but to man's use or fancy. Some variations useful to him have probably arisen suddenly, or by one step. Many botanists, for instance, believe that the fuller's teasel, with its hooks, which cannot be rivalled by any mechanical contrivance, is only a variety of the wild Dipsacus. This amount of change may have suddenly arisen in a seedling.

"So it has probably been with the turnspit dog. And this is known to have been the case with the ancon sheep.

"But when we compare the dray-horse and race-horse, the dromedary and camel, the various breeds of sheep fitted either for cultivated land or mountain pasture, with the wool of one breed good for one purpose, and that of another breed for another purpose. When we compare the many breeds of dogs, each good for man in different ways. When we compare the game-cock, so pertinacious in battle, with other breeds so little quarrelsome, with "everlasting layers" which never desire to sit, and with the bantam so small and elegant.

"When we compare the host of agricultural, culinary, orchard, and flower-garden races of plants, most useful to man at different seasons and for different purposes, or so beautiful in his eyes, we must, I think, look further than to mere variability.

"We cannot suppose that all the breeds were suddenly produced as perfect and as useful as we now see them. Indeed, in many cases, we know that this has not been their history. The key is man's power of accumulative selection. Nature gives successive variations. Man adds them up in certain directions useful to him.

"In this sense he may be said to have made for himself useful breeds.

If I am understanding this correctly, Darwin is saying that environment may undoubtedly have some effect on the various changes in breeds but that we would be ridiculous to think that this was the only cause.

He points out that many, if not most, of the changes came into being to, as he says, to meet "man's use or fancy." He then lists many of them which he says were "useful to man" or were "beautiful in his eyes."

He emphasizes what he terms "man's power of accumulative selection." This power to select has been known to man for thousands of years but all of a sudden, under Darwin's guidance, we are looking at that ability through different eyes.

I never thought of it that way before. Sure indicates a selfishness on the part of mankind, doesn't it?

"The great power of this principle of selection is not hypothetical.

"It is certain that several of our eminent breeders have, even within a single lifetime, modified to a large extent their breeds of cattle and sheep.

"In order fully to realise what they have done, it is almost necessary to read several of the many treatises devoted to this subject, and to inspect the animals. Breeders habitually speak of an animal's organisation as something plastic, which they can model as they please.

"If I had space I could quote numerous passages to this effect from highly competent authorities. Youatt, who was probably better acquainted with the works of agriculturists than almost any other individual, and who was himself a very good judge of animals, speaks of the principle of selection as "that which enables the agriculturist, not only to modify the character of his flock, but to change it altogether. It is the magician's wand, by means of which he may summon into life whatever form and mould he pleases."

"Lord Somerville, speaking of what breeders have done for sheep, says:- "It would seem as if they had chalked out upon a wall a form perfect in itself, and then had given it existence."

"In Saxony the importance of the principle of selection in regard to merino sheep is so fully recognised, that men follow it as a trade -- the sheep are placed on a table and are studied, like a picture by a connoisseur. This is done three times at intervals of months, and the sheep are each time marked and classed, so that the very best may ultimately be selected for breeding.

Although this has been going on for millennia, it becomes more amazing as we look at it through Darwin's eyes. We look at a particular animal or plant and decide, based upon our own whims, so to speak, what the next generation will look like. As a boy I did this with pigeons and Peruvian Cavies (fancy guinea pigs), never thinking of the "great power" or the "magician's wand" I possessed.

Any comments here about Post 722?

I agree, George, with everything you say here. Of course we all have the right to read these articles. There are many many articles I have been reading about evolution, Darwin, etc. but I do not post them for the reason given when we started this discussion, i.e. that we would find ourselves wandering far afield and not following Darwin's original thoughts as he prepared us for his theory.

I also agree with you that when we finish the book, it would be most appropriate to "consider this topic in a more current way." The better we understand exactly what Darwin meant, the more knowledgeable we will be able to discuss evolution, not falling into the wild diatribes often seen these days in various media. Knowing about plants and animals and how they evolve will, if I am correct, help us to later understand human evolution.

"What English breeders have actually effected is proved by the enormous prices given for animals with a good pedigree. These have been exported to almost every quarter of the world.

"The improvement is by no generally due to crossing different breeds. All the best breeders are strongly opposed to this practice, except sometimes amongst closely allied sub-breeds. And when a cross has been made, the closest selection is far more indispensable even than in ordinary cases.

"If selection consisted merely in separating some very distinct variety, and breeding from it, the principle would be so obvious as hardly to be worth notice. But its importance consists in the great effect produced by the accumulation in one direction, during successive generations, of differences absolutely inappreciable by an uneducated eye- differences which I for one have vainly attempted to appreciate.

"Not one man in a thousand has accuracy of eye and judgment sufficient to become an eminent breeder. If, gifted with these qualities, he studies his subject for years, and devotes his lifetime to it with indomitable perseverance, he will succeed, and may make great improvements; if he wants any of these qualities, he will assuredly fail.

"Few would readily believe in the natural capacity and years of practice requisite to become even a skilful pigeon fancier."

In this paragraph, Darwin, I believe, calls our attention to professional breeders who note every specific trait or appearance of an animal and their efforts not to mix other breeds unless the breeds are very close. I live in what is often called the "horse country" of Virginia. Our local newspaper has a regular page on horses, horse riding, and horse breeding. In this same area where I live many farmers raise beef cattle and, as Darwin says, devote a lifetime to choosing specific breeds of cattle.

I wonder when we began this book because we were interested in "evolution" if the topic of "breeding" ever came into our minds.