The Variation of Animals and Plants under Domestication

by Charles Darwin

It has been boldly maintained by some authors that the amount of variation to which our domestic productions are liable is strictly limited; but this is an assertion resting on little evidence. Whether or not the amount of change in any particular direction is limited, the tendency to general variability is, as far as we can judge, unlimited. Cattle, sheep, and pigs have varied under domestication from the remotest period, as shown by the researches of Rutimeyer and others; yet these animals have been improved to an unparalleled degree, within quite recent times, and this implies continued variability of structure. Wheat, as we know from the remains found in the Swiss lake-dwellings, is one of the most anciently cultivated plants, yet at the present day new and better varieties frequently arise. It may be that an ox will never be produced of larger size and finer proportions, or a racehorse fleeter, than our present animals, or a gooseberry larger than the London variety; but he would be a bold man who would assert that the extreme limit in these respects has been finally attained. With flowers and fruit it has repeatedly been asserted that perfection has been reached, but the standard has soon been excelled. A breed of pigeons may never be produced with a beak shorter than that of the present short-faced tumbler, or with one longer than that of the English carrier, for these birds have weak constitutions and are bad breeders; but shortness and length of beak are the points which have been steadily improved during the last 150 years, and some of the best judges deny that the goal has yet been reached. From reasons which could be assigned, it is probable that parts which have now reached their maximum development, might, after remaining constant during a long period, vary again in the direction of increase under new conditions of life. But there must be, as Mr. Wallace has remarked with much truth,[^[3]] a limit to change in certain directions both with natural and domestic productions; for instance, there must be a limit to the fleetness of any terrestrial animal, as this will be determined by the friction to be overcome, the weight to be carried, and the power of contraction in the muscular fibres. The English racehorse may have reached this limit; but it already surpasses in fleetness its own wild progenitor and all other equine species. The short-faced tumbler-pigeon has a beak shorter, and the carrier a beak longer, relatively to the size of their bodies, than that of any natural species of the family. Our apples, pears and gooseberries bear larger fruit than those of any natural species of the same genera; and so in many other cases.

It is not surprising, seeing the great difference between many domestic breeds, that some few naturalists have concluded that each is descended from a distinct aboriginal stock, more especially as the principle of selection has been ignored, and the high antiquity of man, as a breeder of animals, has only recently become known. Most naturalists, however, freely admit that our various breeds, however dissimilar, are descended from a single stock, although they do not know much about the art of breeding, cannot show the connecting links, nor say where and when the breeds arose. Yet these same naturalists declare, with an air of philosophical caution, that they will never admit that one natural species has given birth to another until they behold all the transitional steps. Fanciers use exactly the same language with respect to domestic breeds; thus, an author of an excellent treatise on pigeons says he will never allow that the carrier and fantail are the descendants of the wild rock-pigeon, until the transitions have “actually been observed, and can be repeated whenever man chooses to set about the task.” No doubt it is difficult to realise that slight changes added up during long centuries can produce such great results; but he who wishes to understand the origin of domestic breeds or of natural species must overcome this difficulty.

The causes which excite and the laws which govern variability have been discussed so lately, that I need here only enumerate the leading points. As domesticated organisms are much more liable to slight deviations of structure and to monstrosities than species living under their natural conditions, and as widely-ranging species generally vary more than those which inhabit restricted areas, we may infer that variability mainly depends on changed conditions of life. We must not overlook the effects of the unequal combination of the characters derived from both parents, or reversion to former progenitors. Changed conditions have an especial tendency to render the reproductive organs more or less impotent, as shown in the chapter devoted to this subject; and these organs consequently often fail to transmit faithfully the parental characters. Changed conditions also act directly and definitely on the organisation, so that all or nearly all the individuals of the same species thus exposed become modified in the same manner; but why this or that part is especially affected we can seldom or ever say. In most cases, however, a change in the conditions seems to act indefinitely, causing diversified variations in nearly the same manner as exposure to cold or the absorption of the same poison affects different individuals in different ways. We have reason to suspect that an habitual excess of highly-nutritious food, or an excess relatively to the wear and tear of the organisation from exercise, is a powerful exciting cause of variability. When we see the symmetrical and complex outgrowths, caused by a minute drop of the poison of a gall-insect, we may believe that slight changes in the chemical nature of the sap or blood would lead to extraordinary modifications of structure.

The increased use of a muscle with its various attached parts, and the increased activity of a gland or other organ, lead to their increased development. Disuse has a contrary effect. With domesticated productions, although their organs sometimes become rudimentary through abortion, we have no reason to suppose that this has ever followed solely from disuse. With natural species, on the contrary, many organs appear to have been rendered rudimentary through disuse, aided by the principle of the economy of growth together with intercrossing. Complete abortion can be accounted for only by the hypothesis given in the last chapter, namely, the final destruction of the germs or gemmules of useless parts. This difference between species and domestic varieties may be partly accounted for by disuse having acted on the latter for an insufficient length of time, and partly from their exemption from any severe struggle for existence entailing rigid economy in the development of each part, to which all species under nature are subjected. Nevertheless the law of compensation or balancement, which likewise depends on the economy of growth, apparently has affected to a certain extent our domesticated productions.

As almost every part of the organisation becomes highly variable under domestication, and as variations are easily selected both consciously and unconsciously, it is very difficult to distinguish between the effects of the selection of indefinite variations and the direct action of the conditions of life. For instance, it is possible that the feet of our water-dogs and of the American dogs which have to travel much over the snow, may have become partially webbed from the stimulus of widely extending their toes; but it is more probable that the webbing, like the membrane between the toes of certain pigeons, spontaneously appeared and was afterwards increased by the best swimmers and the best snow-travellers being preserved during many generations. A fancier who wished to decrease the size of his bantams or tumbler-pigeons would never think of starving them, but would select the smallest individuals which spontaneously appeared. Quadrupeds are sometimes born destitute of hair and hairless breeds have been formed, but there is no reason to believe that this is caused by a hot climate. Within the tropics heat often causes sheep to lose their fleeces; on the other hand, wet and cold act as a direct stimulus to the growth of hair; but who will pretend to decide how far the thick fur of arctic animals, or their white colour, is due to the direct action of a severe climate, and how far to the preservation of the best-protected individuals during a long succession of generations?

Of all the laws governing variability, that of correlation is one of the most important. In many cases of slight deviations of structure as well as of grave monstrosities, we cannot even conjecture what is the nature of the bond of connexion. But between homologous parts—between the fore and hind limbs—between the hair, hoofs, horns, and teeth—which are closely similar during their early development and which are exposed to similar conditions, we can see that they would be eminently liable to be modified in the same manner. Homologous parts, from having the same nature, are apt to blend together, and, when many exist, to vary in number.

Although every variation is either directly or indirectly caused by some change in the surrounding conditions, we must never forget that the nature of the organisation which is acted on, is by far the more important factor in the result. We see this in different organisms, which when placed under similar conditions vary in a different manner, whilst closely-allied organisms under dissimilar conditions often vary in nearly the same manner. We see this, in the same modification frequently reappearing in the same variety at long intervals of time, and likewise in the several striking cases given of analogous or parallel variations. Although some of these latter cases are due to reversion, others cannot thus be accounted for.

From the indirect action of changed conditions on the organisation, owing to the reproductive organs being thus affected—from the direct action of such conditions, and these will cause the individuals of the same species either to vary in the same manner, or differently in accordance with slight differences in their constitution—from the effects of the increased or decreased use of parts—and from correlation,—the variability of our domesticated productions is complicated to an extreme degree. The whole organisation becomes slightly plastic. Although each modification must have its own exciting cause, and though each is subjected to law, yet we can so rarely trace the precise relation between cause and effect, that we are tempted to speak of variations as if they arose spontaneously. We may even call them accidental, but this must be only in the sense in which we say that a fragment of rock dropped from a height owes its shape to accident.

It may be worth while briefly to consider the result of the exposure to unnatural conditions of a large number of animals of the same species and allowed to cross freely with no selection of any kind, and afterwards to consider the result when selection is brought into play. Let us suppose that 500 wild rock-pigeons were confined in their native land in an aviary and fed in the same manner as pigeons usually are; and that they were not allowed to increase in number. As pigeons propagate so rapidly, I suppose that a thousand or fifteen hundred birds would have to be annually killed. After several generations had been thus reared, we may feel sure that some of the young birds would vary, and the variations would tend to be inherited; for at the present day slight deviations of structure often occur and are inherited. It would be tedious even to enumerate the multitude of points which still go on varying or have recently varied. Many variations would occur in correlation with one another, as the length of the wing and tail feathers—the number of the primary wing-feathers, as well as the number and breadth of the ribs, in correlation with the size and form of the body—the number of the scutellae with the size of the feet—the length of the tongue with the length of the beak—the size of the nostrils and eyelids and the form of lower jaw in correlation with the development of wattle—the nakedness of the young with the future colour of the plumage—the size of the feet with that of the beak, and other such points. Lastly, as our birds are supposed to be confined in an aviary, they would use their wings and legs but little, and certain parts of the skeleton, such as the sternum, scapulae and feet, would in consequence become slightly reduced in size.

As in our assumed case many birds have to be indiscriminately killed every year, the chances are against any new variety surviving long enough to breed. And as the variations which arise are of an extremely diversified nature, the chances are very great against two birds pairing which have varied in the same manner; nevertheless, a varying bird even when not thus paired would occasionally transmit its character to its young; and these would not only be exposed to the same conditions which first caused the variation in question to appear, but would in addition inherit from their modified parent a tendency again to vary in the same manner. So that, if the conditions decidedly tended to induce some particular variation, all the birds might in the course of time become similarly modified. But a far commoner result would be, that one bird would vary in one way and another bird in another way; one would be born with a beak a little longer, and another with a shorter beak; one would gain some black feathers, another some white or red feathers. And as these birds would be continually intercrossing, the final result would be a body of individuals differing from each other in many ways, but only slightly; yet more than did the original rock-pigeons. But there would not be the least tendency towards the formation of several distinct breeds.