I. Length of Skull (inches).

II. Length of Body from Incisors to a.n.u.s (inches).

III. Weight of whole Body (pounds and ounces).

IV. Capacity of Skull measured by Small Shot (grains).

V. Capacity calculated according to Length of Skull relatively to that of No. 1 (Wild Rabbit, Kent) (grains).

VI. Difference between actual and calculated capacities of Skulls (grains).

VII. Showing how much per cent the Brain, by calculation according to the length of the Skull is too light (-) or too heavy (+), relatively to the Brain of the Wild Rabbit No. 1.

NAME OF BREED: I. II. III. IV. V. VI.

VII.

WILD AND SEMI-WILD RABBITS:

1. Wild Rabbit, Kent: 3.15 17.4 3,5 972 .. ..

+2

2. Wild Rabbit, Shetland Islands: 3.15 .. .. 979 .. ..

+2

3. Wild Rabbit, Ireland: 3.15 .. .. 992 .. ..

+2

4. Domestic rabbit, run wild, Sandon: 3.15 18.5 .. 977 .. ..

+2

5. Wild, common variety, small specimen, Kent: 2.96 17.0 2,14 875 913 38 - 4

6. Wild, fawn-coloured variety, Scotland: 3.1 .. .. 918 950 32 - 3

7. Silver-grey, small specimen, Thetford warren: 2.95 15.5 2,11 938 910 28 +3

8. Feral rabbit, Porto Santo: 2.83 .. .. 893 873 20 +2 9. Feral rabbit, Porto Santo: 2.85 .. .. 756 879 123 - 16 10.Feral rabbit, Porto Santo: 2.95 .. .. 835 910 75 - 9 Average of three Porto Santo rabbits: 2.88 .. .. 828 888 60 - 7

DOMESTIC RABBITS:

11.Himalayan: 3.5 20.5 .. 963 1080 117 - 12

12.Moscow: 3.25 17.0 3,8 803 1002 199 - 24

13.Angora: 3.5 19.5 3,1 697 1080 383 - 54

14.Chinchilla: 3.65 22.0 .. 995 1126 131 - 13

15.Large lop-eared: 4.1 24.5 7,0 1065 1265 200 - 18 16.Large lop-eared: 4.1 25.0 7,13 1153 1265 112 - 9 17.Large lop-eared: 4.07 .. .. 1037 1255 218 - 21 18.Large lop-eared: 4.1 25.0 7,4 1208 1265 57 - 4 19.Large lop-eared: 4.3 .. .. 1232 1326 94 - 7 20.Large lop-eared: 4.25 .. .. 1124 1311 187 - 16 21.Large hare-coloured: 3.86 24.0 6,14 1131 1191 60 - 5 22.Average of above seven large lop-eared rabbits: 4.11 24.62 7,4 1136 1268 132 - 11

23.Hare (L. timidus) English specimen: 3.61 7,0 1315

24.Hare (L. timidus) German specimen: 3.82 7,0 1455

In the upper half of Table 3 I have given the measurements of the skull of ten wild rabbits; and in the lower half, of eleven thoroughly domesticated kinds. As these rabbits differ so greatly in size, it is necessary to have some standard by which to compare the capacities of their skulls. I have selected the length of skull as the best standard, for in the larger rabbits it has not, as already stated, increased in length so much as the body; but as the skull, like every other part, varies in length, neither it nor any other part affords a perfect standard.

In the first column of figures the extreme length of the skull is given in inches and decimals. I am aware that these measurements pretend to greater accuracy than is possible; but I have found it the least trouble to record the exact length which the compa.s.s gave. The second and third columns give the length and weight of body, whenever these observations were made. The fourth column gives the capacity of the skull by the weight of small shot with which the skulls were filled; but it is not pretended that these weights are accurate within a few grains. In the fifth column the capacity is given which the skull ought to have had by calculation, according to the length of skull, in comparison with that of the wild rabbit No. 1; in the sixth column the difference between the actual and calculated capacities, and in the seventh the percentage of increase or decrease, are given. For instance, as the wild rabbit No. 5 has a shorter and lighter body than the wild rabbit No. 1, we might have expected that its skull would have had less capacity; the actual capacity, as expressed by the weight of shot, is 875 grains, which is 97 grains less than that of the first rabbit. But comparing these two rabbits by the length of their skulls, we see that in No. 1 the skull is 3.15 inches in length, and in No. 5 2.96 inches in length; according to this ratio, the brain of No. 5 ought to have had a capacity of 913 grains of shot, which is above the actual capacity, but only by 38 grains. Or, to put the case in another way (as in column VII), the brain of this small rabbit, No. 5, for every 100 grains of weight is only 4 grains too light,--that is, it ought, according to the standard rabbit No. 1, to have been 4 per cent heavier. I have taken the rabbit No.

1 as the standard of comparison because, of the skulls having a full average length, this has the least capacity; so that it is the least favourable to the result which I wish to show, namely, that the brain in all long-domesticated rabbits has decreased in size, either actually, or relatively to the length of the head and body, in comparison with the brain of the wild rabbit. Had I taken the Irish rabbit, No. 3, as the standard, the following results would have been somewhat more striking.

Turning to Table 3: the first four wild rabbits have skulls of the same length, and these differ but little in capacity. The Sandon rabbit (No. 4) is interesting, as, though now wild, it is known to be descended from a domesticated breed, as is still shown by its peculiar colouring and longer body; nevertheless the skull has recovered its normal length and full capacity. The next three rabbits are wild, but of small size, and they all have skulls with slightly lessened capacities. The three Porto Santo feral rabbits (Nos. 8 to 10) offer a perplexing case; their bodies are greatly reduced in size, as in a lesser degree are their skulls in length and in actual capacity, in comparison with the skulls of wild English rabbits. But when we compare the capacities of the skull in the three Porto Santo rabbits, we observe a surprising difference, which does not stand in any relation to the slight difference in the length of their skulls, nor, as I believe, to any difference in the size of their bodies; but I neglected weighing separately their bodies. I can hardly suppose that the medullary matter of the brain in these three rabbits, living under similar conditions, can differ as much as is indicated by the proportional difference of capacity in their skulls; nor do I know whether it is possible that one brain may contain considerably more fluid than another.

Hence I can throw no light on this case.

Looking to the lower half of Table 3, which gives the measurements of domesticated rabbits, we see that in all the capacity of the skull is less, but in very various degrees, than might have been antic.i.p.ated according to the length of their skulls, relatively to that of the wild rabbit No. 1. In line 22 the average measurements of seven large lop-eared rabbits are given. Now the question arises, has the average capacity of the skull in these seven large rabbits increased as much as might have been expected from the greatly increased size of body. We may endeavour to answer this question in two ways: in the upper half of the Table we have measurements of the skulls of six small wild rabbits (Nos. 5 to 10), and we find that on an average the skulls are .18 of an inch shorter, and in capacity 91 grains less, than the average length and capacity of the three first wild rabbits on the list. The seven large lop-eared rabbits, on an average, have skulls 4.11 inches in length, and 1136 grains in capacity; so that these skulls have increased in length more than five times as much as the skulls of the six small wild rabbits have decreased in length; hence we might have expected that the skulls of the large lop-eared rabbits would have increased in capacity five times as much as the skulls of the six small rabbits have decreased in capacity; and this would have given an average increased capacity of 455 grains, whilst the real average increase is only 155 grains. Again, the large lop-eared rabbits have bodies of nearly the same weight and size as the common hare, but their heads are longer; consequently, if the lop-eared rabbits had been wild, it might have been expected that their skulls would have had nearly the same capacity as that of the skull of the hare. But this is far from being the case; for the average capacity of the two hare-skulls (Nos. 23, 24) is so much larger than the average capacity of the seven lop-eared skulls, that the latter would have to be increased 21 per cent to come up to the standard of the hare. (4/23. This standard is apparently considerably too low, for Dr.

Crisp ('Proc. Zoolog. Soc.' 1861 page 86) gives 210 grains as the actual weight of the brain of a hare which weighed 7 pounds, and 125 grains as the weight of the brain of a rabbit which weighed 3 pounds 5 ounces, that is, the same weight as the rabbit No. 1 in my list. Now the contents of the skull of rabbit No. 1 in shot is in my table 972 grains; and according to Dr. Crisp's ratio of 125 to 210, the skull of the hare ought to have contained 1632 grains of shot, instead of only (in the largest hare in my table) 1455 grains.)

I have previously remarked that, if we had possessed many domestic rabbits of the same average size with the wild rabbit, it would have been easy to compare the capacity of their skulls. Now the Himalayan, Moscow, and Angora rabbits (Nos. 11, 12, 13 of Table 3) are only a little larger in body and have skulls only a little longer, than the wild animal, and we see that the actual capacity of their skulls is less than in the wild animal, and considerably less by calculation (column 7), according to the difference in the length of their skulls. The narrowness of the brain-case in these three rabbits could be plainly seen and proved by external measurement. The Chinchilla rabbit (No. 14) is a considerably larger animal than the wild rabbit, yet the capacity of its skull only slightly exceeds that of the wild rabbit. The Angora rabbit, No. 13, offers the most remarkable case; this animal in its pure white colour and length of silky fur bears the stamp of long domesticity. It has a considerably longer head and body than the wild rabbit, but the actual capacity of its skull is less than that of even the little wild Porto Santo rabbits. By the standard of the length of skull the capacity (see column 7) is only half of what it ought to have been! I kept this individual animal alive, and it was not unhealthy nor idiotic. This case of the Angora rabbit so much surprised me, that I repeated all the measurements and found them correct. I have also compared the capacity of the skull of the Angora with that of the wild rabbit by other standards, namely, by the length and weight of the body, and by the weight of the limb-bones; but by all these standards the brain appears to be much too small, though in a less degree when the standard of the limb- bones was used; and this latter circ.u.mstance may probably be accounted for by the limbs of this anciently domesticated breed having become much reduced in weight, from its long-continued inactive life. Hence I infer that in the Angora breed, which is said to differ from other breeds in being quieter and more social, the capacity of the skull has really undergone a remarkable amount of reduction.]

From the several facts above given,--namely, firstly, that the actual capacity of the skull in the Himalayan, Moscow, and Angora breeds, is less than in the wild rabbit, though they are in all their dimensions rather larger animals; secondly, that the capacity of the skull of the large lop- eared rabbits has not been increased in nearly the same ratio as the capacity of the skull of the smaller wild rabbits has been decreased; and thirdly, that the capacity of the skull in these same large lop-eared rabbits is very inferior to that of the hare, an animal of nearly the same size,--I conclude, notwithstanding the remarkable differences in capacity in the skulls of the small Porto Santo rabbits, and likewise in the large lop-eared kinds, that in all long-domesticated rabbits the brain has either by no means increased in due proportion with the increased length of the head and increased size of the body, or that it has actually decreased in size, relatively to what would have occurred had these animals lived in a state of nature. When we remember that rabbits, from having been domesticated and closely confined during many generations, cannot have exerted their intellect, instincts, senses, and voluntary movements, either in escaping from various dangers or in searching for food, we may conclude that their brains will have been feebly exercised, and consequently have suffered in development. We thus see that the most important and complicated organ in the whole organisation is subject to the law of decrease in size from disuse.

Finally, let us sum up the more important modifications which domestic rabbits have undergone, together with their causes as far as we can obscurely see them. By the supply of abundant and nutritious food, together with little exercise, and by the continued selection of the heaviest individuals, the weight of the larger breeds has been more than doubled.

The bones of the limbs taken together have increased in weight, in due proportion with the increased weight of body, but the hind legs have increased less than the front legs; but in length they have not increased in due proportion, and this may have been caused by the want of proper exercise. With the increased size of the body the third cervical has a.s.sumed characters proper to the fourth cervical vertebra; and the eighth and ninth dorsal vertebrae have similarly a.s.sumed characters proper to the tenth and posterior vertebrae. The skull in the larger breeds has increased in length, but not in due proportion with the increased length of body; the brain has not duly increased in dimensions, or has even actually decreased, and consequently the bony case for the brain has remained narrow, and by correlation has affected the bones of the face and the entire length of the skull. The skull has thus acquired its characteristic narrowness. From unknown causes the supra-orbital process of the frontal bones and the free end of the malar bones have increased in breadth; and in the larger breeds the occipital foramen is generally much less deeply notched than in wild rabbits. Certain parts of the scapula and the terminal sternal bones have become highly variable in shape. The ears have been increased enormously in length and breadth through continued selection; their weight, conjoined probably with the disuse of their muscles, has caused them to lop downwards; and this has affected the position and form of the bony auditory meatus; and this again, by correlation, the position in a slight degree of almost every bone in the upper part of the skull, and even the position of the condyles of the lower jaw.

CHAPTER 1.V.

DOMESTIC PIGEONS.

ENUMERATION AND DESCRIPTION OF THE SEVERAL BREEDS.

INDIVIDUAL VARIABILITY.

VARIATIONS OF A REMARKABLE NATURE.

OSTEOLOGICAL CHARACTERS: SKULL, LOWER JAW, NUMBER OF VERTEBRAE.

CORRELATION OF GROWTH: TONGUE WITH BEAK; EYELIDS AND NOSTRILS WITH WATTLED SKIN.

NUMBER OF WING-FEATHERS, AND LENGTH OF WING.

COLOUR AND DOWN.

WEBBED AND FEATHERED FEET.

ON THE EFFECTS OF DISUSE.

LENGTH OF FEET IN CORRELATION WITH LENGTH OF BEAK.

LENGTH OF STERNUM, SCAPULA, AND FURCULUM.

LENGTH OF WINGS.

SUMMARY ON THE POINTS OF DIFFERENCE IN THE SEVERAL BREEDS.

I have been led to study domestic pigeons with particular care, because the evidence that all the domestic races are descended from one known source is far clearer than with any other anciently domesticated animal. Secondly, because many treatises in several languages, some of them old, have been written on the pigeon, so that we are enabled to trace the history of several breeds. And lastly, because, from causes which we can partly understand, the amount of variation has been extraordinarily great. The details will often be tediously minute; but no one who really wants to understand the progress of change in domestic animals, and especially no one who has kept pigeons and has marked the great difference between the breeds and the trueness with which most of them propagate their kind, will doubt that this minuteness is worth while. Notwithstanding the clear evidence that all the breeds are the descendants of a single species, I could not persuade myself until some years had pa.s.sed that the whole amount of difference between them, had arisen since man first domesticated the wild rock-pigeon.

I have kept alive all the most distinct breeds, which I could procure in England or from the Continent; and have prepared skeletons of all. I have received skins from Persia, and a large number from India and other quarters of the world. (5/1. The Hon. C. Murray has sent me some very valuable specimens from Persia; and H.M. Consul, Mr. Keith Abbott, has given me information on the pigeons of the same country. I am deeply indebted to Sir Walter Elliot for an immense collection of skins from Madras, with much information regarding them. Mr. Blyth has freely communicated to me his stores of knowledge on this and all other related subjects. The Rajah Sir James Brooke sent me specimens from Borneo, as has H.M. Consul, Mr. Swinhoe, from Amoy in China, and Dr. Daniell from the west coast of Africa.) Since my admission into two of the London pigeon-clubs, I have received the kindest a.s.sistance from many of the most eminent amateurs. (5/2. Mr. B.P. Brent, well known for his various contributions to poultry literature, has aided me in every way during several years: so has Mr. Tegetmeier, with unwearied kindness. This latter gentleman, who is well known for his works on poultry, and who has largely bred pigeons, has looked over this and the following chapters. Mr. Bult formerly showed me his unrivalled collection of Pouters, and gave me specimens. I had access to Mr. Wicking's collection, which contained a greater a.s.sortment of kinds than could anywhere else be seen; and he has always aided me with specimens and information given in the freest manner. Mr. Haynes and Mr. Corker have given me specimens of their magnificent Carriers. To Mr. Harrison Weir I am likewise indebted. Nor must I by any means pa.s.s over the a.s.sistance received from Mr. J.M. Eaton, Mr. Baker, Mr. Evans, and Mr. J. Baily, jun., of Mount-street--to the latter gentleman I have been indebted for some valuable specimens. To all these gentlemen I beg permission to return my sincere and cordial thanks.)

The races of the Pigeon which can be distinguished, and which breed true, are very numerous. MM. Boitard and Corbie (5/3. 'Les Pigeons de Voliere et de Colombier' Paris 1824. During forty-five years the sole occupation of M.

Corbie was the care of the pigeons belonging to the d.u.c.h.ess of Berry.

Bonizzi has described a large number of coloured varieties in Italy: 'Le variazioni dei colombi Domestici' Padova 1873.) describe in detail 122 kinds; and I could add several European kinds not known to them. In India, judging from the skins sent me, there are many breeds unknown here; and Sir W. Elliot informs me that a collection imported by an Indian merchant into Madras from Cairo and Constantinople included several kinds unknown in India. I have no doubt that there exist considerably above 150 kinds which breed true and have been separately named. But of these the far greater number differ from each other only in unimportant characters. Such differences will be here entirely pa.s.sed over, and I shall confine myself to the more important points of structure. That many important differences exist we shall presently see. I have looked through the magnificent collection of the Columbidae in the British Museum, and, with the exception of a few forms (such as the Didunculus, Calaenas, Goura, etc.), I do not hesitate to affirm that some domestic races of the rock-pigeon differ fully as much from each other in external characters as do the most distinct natural genera. We may look in vain through the 288 known species (5/4.

'Coup d'Oeil sur l'Ordre des Pigeons' par Prince C.L. Bonaparte, Paris 1855. This author makes 288 species, ranked under 85 genera.) for a beak so small and conical as that of the short-faced tumbler; for one so broad and short as that of the barb; for one so long, straight, and narrow, with its enormous wattles, as that of the English carrier; for an expanded upraised tail like that of the fantail; or for an oesophagus like that of the pouter. I do not for a moment pretend that the domestic races differ from each other in their whole organisation as much as the more distinct natural genera. I refer only to external characters, on which, however, it must be confessed that most genera of birds have been founded. When, in a future chapter, we discuss the principle of selection as followed by man, we shall clearly see why the differences between the domestic races are almost always confined to external, or at least to externally visible, characters.