Abstract
MR. MURPHY has mistaken my meaning, which I will try to make clear by an example. Suppose one brood of an ancient species of Gallinæ to have exhibited, as a sport, a partial infertility with the rest of the species, while the birds composing the brood remained abundantly fertile among themselves. Suppose the main body of that species to have become, by natural selection, our pheasants, while the isolated brood became the ancestors of our grouse. Suppose one brood of these grouse to have become partially infertile with the main body of grouse, and to have been the ancestors of our red grouse, while the main body of the grouse became, by natural selection, our black grouse. If, as I believe, variation does not produce or increase infertility, the black grouse will still be only partially infertile with the pheasant, and the red only partially infertile with the black grouse; but it seems probable, primâ facie, that the second spontaneous infertility would remove the red grouse further from the pheasant, so that thsse would be quite infertile. But this is merely argument from analogy; there is no evidence of the result of such superposed “sports,” and retrogression to greater fertility seems possible.
This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution
Access options
Subscribe to this journal
Receive 51 print issues and online access
$199.00 per year
only $3.90 per issue
Buy this article
- Purchase on Springer Link
- Instant access to full article PDF
Prices may be subject to local taxes which are calculated during checkout
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
CATCHPOOL, E. The Origin of Species. Nature 35, 76–77 (1886). https://doi.org/10.1038/035076f0
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1038/035076f0
Comments
By submitting a comment you agree to abide by our Terms and Community Guidelines. If you find something abusive or that does not comply with our terms or guidelines please flag it as inappropriate.