[27] ‘The Marriage of Near Kin,’ 1875. The evidence given by Mr. Huth would, I think, have been even more valuable than it is on this and some other points, if he had referred solely to the works of men who had long resided in each country referred to, and who showed that they possessed judgment and caution. See also Mr. W. Adam, ‘On Consanguinity in Marriage’ in the ‘Fortnightly Review,’ 1865, p. 710. Also Hofacker, ‘Ueber die Eigenschaften,’ etc., 1828.
[28] Sir G. Grey’s ‘Journal of Expeditions into Australia,’ vol. ii. p. 243; and Dobrizhoffer, ‘On the Abipones of South America.’
[29] ‘Descent of Man,’ 2nd. edit. p. 524.
[30] ‘Journal of Statistical Soc.’ June, 1875, p. 153; and ‘Fortnightly Review,’ June, 1875.
[31] ‘The Art of Improving the Breed,’ p. 13.
[32] ‘The Poultry Book,’ by W. B. Tegetmeier, 1866, p. 245.
[33] ‘Journal Royal Agricult. Soc.,’ 1846, vol. vii. p. 205; see also Ferguson on the Fowl, pp. 83, 317; see also ‘The Poultry Book,’ by Tegetmeier, 1866, p. 135, with respect to the extent to which cock-fighters found that they could venture to breed in-and-in, viz., occasionally a hen with her own son; “but they were cautious not to repeat the in-and-in breeding.”
[34] ‘The Poultry Book,’ by W. B. Tegetmeier, 1866, p. 79.
[35] ‘The Poultry Chronicle,’ 1854, vol. i. p. 43.
[36] ‘The Poultry Book,’ by W. B. Tegetmeier, 1866, p. 79.