The greater advantages of the asexual multiplication of extremes are of
course restricted to perennial and woody plants. Annual and biennial
species cannot as a rule, be propagated in this way, and even with some
perennials horticulturists prefer the sale of seeds to that of roots and
bulbs. In all these cases it is clear that the exclusion of the
individual variability, which was shown to be an important point in the
last lecture, must be sacrificed.
Seed-propagation is subject to individual as well as to fluctuating
variability. The first could perhaps be designated by another term,
embryonic variability, since it indicates the fluctuations occurring
during the period of development of the germ. This period begins with
the fusion of the male and female elements and is largely dependent upon
the vigor of these cells at the moment, and on the varying qualities
they may have acquired. It comprises in the main the time of the
ripening of the seed, and [771] might perhaps best be considered to end
with the beginning of the resting stage of the ripe seed. Hence it is
clear that the variability of seed-propagated annual races has a wider
range than that of perennials, shrubs and trees. At present it is
difficult to discern exactly the part each of these two main factors
plays in the process. Many indications are found however, that make it
probable that embryonic variability is wider, and perhaps of far greater
importance than the subsequent partial fluctuations. The high degree of
similarity between the single specimens of a vegetative variety, and the
large amount of variability in seed-races strongly supports this view.
The propagation and multiplication of the extremes of fluctuating
variability by means of seeds requires a close consideration of the
relation between seedling and parent. The easiest way to get a clear
conception of this relation is to make use of the ideas concerning the
dependency of variability upon nourishment. Assuming these to be correct
in the main, and leaving aside all minor questions, we may conclude that
the chosen extreme individual is one of the best nourished and
intrinsically most vigorous of the whole culture. On account of these
very qualities it is capable of nourishing all of its organs better and
also its seeds. In other words, the seeds [772] of the extreme
individuals have exceptional chances of becoming better nourished than
the average of the seeds of the race. Applying the same rule to them, it
is easily understood that they will vary, by reason of this better
nourishment, in a direction corresponding to that of their parent.
This discussion gives a very simple explanation of the acknowledged fact
that the seeds of the extremes are in the main the best for the
propagation of the race. It does not include however, all the causes for
this preferment. Some are of older date and due to previous influences.
A second point in our discussion is the appreciation of the fact that a
single individual may be chosen to gather the seed from, and that these
seeds, and the young plants they yield, are as a rule, numerous. Hence
it follows that we are to compare their average and their extremes with
the qualities of the parents. Both are of practical as well as of
theoretical interest. The average of the progeny is to be considered as
the chief result of the selection in the previous generation, while the
extremes, at least those which depart in the same direction, are
obviously the means of further improvement of the race.
Thus our discussion should be divided into [773] two heads. One of these
comprises the relation of the average of the progeny to the exceptional
qualities of the chosen parent, and the other the relation of
exceptional offspring to the exceptional parents.
Let us consider the averages first. Are they to be expected to be equal
to the unique quality of the parent, or perhaps to be the same as the
average of the whole unselected race? Neither of these cases occur.
Experience is clear and definite on this important point. Vilmorin, when
making the first selections to improve the amount of sugar in beets, was
struck with the fact that the average of the progeny lies between that
of the original strain and the quality of the chosen parent. He
expressed his observation by stating that the progeny are grouped around
and diverge in all directions from some point, placed on the line which
unites their parent with the type from which it sprang. All breeders
agree on this point, and in scientific experiments it has often been
confirmed. We shall take up some illustrative examples presently, but in
order to make them clear, it is necessary to give a closer consideration
to the results of Vilmorin.
From his experience it follows that the average of the progeny is higher
than that of the race at large, but lower than the chosen parent. [774]
In other words, there is a progression and a regression. A progression
in relation to the whole race, and a regression in comparison with the
parent. The significance of this becomes clear at once, if we recall the
constancy of the variety which could be obtained from the selected
extreme in the case of vegetative multiplication. The progression is
what the breeder wants, the regression what he detests. Regression is
the permanency of part of the mediocrity which the selection was invoked
to overcome. Manifestly it is of the highest interest that the
progression should be as large, and the regression as small as possible.
In order to attain this goal the first question is to know the exact
measure of progression and regression as they are exhibiting themselves
in the given cases, and the second is to inquire into the influences, on
which this proportion may be incumbent.
At present our notions concerning the first point are still very limited
and those concerning the second extremely vague. Statistical inquiries
have led to some definite ideas about the importance of regression, and
these furnish a basis for experimental researches concerning the causes
of the phenomenon. Very advantageous material for the study of
progression and regression in the realm of fluctuating variability is
afforded by the [775] ears of corn or maize. The kernels are arranged in
longitudinal rows, and these rows are observed to occur in varying, but
always even, numbers. This latter circumstance is due to the fact that
each two neighboring rows contain the lateral branches of a single row
of spikelets, the ages of which however, are included in the fleshy body
of the ear. The variation of the number of the rows is easily seen to
comply with Quetelet's law, and often 30 or 40 ears suffice to give a
trustworthy curve. Fritz Muller made some experiments upon the
inheritance of the number of the rows, in Brazil. He chose a race which
averaged 12 rows, selected ears with 14, 16 and 18 rows, etc., and sowed
their kernels separately. In each of-these cultures he counted the rows
of the seeds on the ears of all the plants when ripe, and calculated
their average. This average, of course, does not necessarily correspond
to a whole number, and fractions should not be neglected.
According to Vilmorin's rule he always found some progression of the
average and some regression. Both were the larger, the more the
parent-ear differed from the general average, but the proportion between
both remained the same, and seems independent of the amount of the
deviation. Putting the deviation at 5, the progression calculated from
his figures is [776] 2 and the regression 3. In other words the average
of the progeny has gained over the average of the original variety
slightly more than one-third, and slightly less than one-half of the
parental deviation. I have repeated this experiment of Fritz Miller's
and obtained nearly the same regression of three-fifths, though working
with another variety, and under widely different climatic conditions.
The figures of Fritz Muller were, as given below, in one experiment. In
the last column I put the improvement calculated for a proportion of
two-fifths above the initial average of 12.
Rows on Average of rows 12 + 2/5 of
parent ears of progeny Difference
14 12.6 12.8
16 14.1 13.6
18 15.2 14.4
20 15.8 15.2
22 16.1 16.0
Galton, in his work on natural inheritance, describes an experiment with
the seeds of the sweet pea or _Lathyrus odoratus_. He determined the
average size in a lot of purchased seeds, and selected groups of seeds
of different, but for each group constant, sizes. These were sown, and
the average of the seeds was determined anew in the subsequent harvest
they yielded. These figures agreed with the rule of Vilmorin and were
calculated in the manner [777] given for the test of the corn. The
progression and regression were found to be proportionate to the amount
of the deviation. The progression of the average was one-third, and the
regression in consequence two-thirds of the total deviation. The
amelioration is thus seen to be nearly, though not exactly, the same as
in the previous case.
From the evidence of the other corresponding experiments, and from
various statistical inquiries it seems that the value of the progression
is nearly the same in most cases, irrespective of the species used and
the quality considered. It may be said to be from one-third to one-half
of the parental deviation, and in this form the statement is obviously
of wide and easy applicability.
Our figures also demonstrate the great preeminence of vegetative
varieties above the improved strains multiplied by seeds. They have a
definite relation. Asexually multiplied strains may be said to be
generally two times or even three times superior to the common
offspring. This is a difference of great practical importance, and
should never be lost sight of in theoretical considerations of the
productive capacity of selection. Multiplication by seed however, has
one great advantage over the asexual method; it may be repeated. The
[778] selection is not limited to a single choice, but may be applied in
two or more succeeding generations. Obviously such a repetition affords
a better chance of increasing the progression of the average and of
ameliorating the race to a greater degree than would be possible by a
single choice. This principle of repeated selection is at present the
prominent feature of race improvement. Next to variety-testing and
hybridizing it is the great source of the steady progression of
agricultural crops. From a practical standpoint the method is clear and
as perfect as might be expected, but this is not the side of the problem
with which we are concerned here. The theoretical analysis and
explanation of the results obtained, however, is subject to much doubt,
and to a great divergence of conceptions. So it is also with the
application of the practical processes to those occurring in nature.
Some assume that here repeated selection is only of subordinate
importance, while others declare that the whole process of evolution is
due to this agency. This very important point however, will be reserved
for the next lecture, and only the facts available at present will be
considered here.
As a first example we may take the ray-florets of the composites. On a
former occasion we have dealt with their fluctuation in number and [779]
found that it is highly variable and complies in the main with
Quetelet's law. _Madia elegans_, a garden species, has on the average 21
rays on each head, fluctuating between 16 and 25 or more. I saved the
seeds of a plant with only 17 rays on the terminal head, and got from
them a culture which averaged 19 rays, which is the mean between 21 and
17. In this second generation I observed the extremes to be 22 and 12,
and selected a plant with 13 rays as the parent for a continuation of
the experiment. The plants, which I got from its seeds, averaged 18 and
showed 22 and 13 as extremes. The total progression of the average was
thus, in two generations, from 21 to 18, and the total regression from
13 to 18, and the proportion is thus seen to diminish by the repetition
rather than to increase.
This experiment, however, is of course too imperfect upon which to found
general conclusions. It only proves the important fact that the improved
average of the second generation is not the starting-point for the
further improvement. But the second generation allows a choice of an
extreme, which diverges noticeably more from the mean than any
individual of the first culture, and thereby gives a larger amount of
absolute progression, even if the proportion between progression and
regression remains [780] the same. The repetition is only an easy method
of getting more widely deviating extremes; whether it has, besides this,
another effect, remains doubtful. In order to be able to decide this
question, it is necessary to repeat the selection during a series of
generations. In this way the individual faults may be removed as far as
possible. I chose an experiment of Fritz Muller, relating to the number
of rows of grains on the ears exactly as in the case above referred to,
and which I have repeated in my experimental garden at Amsterdam.
I started from a variety known to fructify fairly regularly in our
climate, and exhibiting in the mean 12-14 rows, but varying between 8
and 20 as exceptional cases. I chose an ear with 16 rows and sowed its
seeds in 1887. A number of plants were obtained, from each of which, one
ear was chosen in order to count its rows. An average of 15 rows was
found with variations complying with Quetelet's law. One ear reached 22
rows, but had not been fertilized, some others had 20 rows, and the best
of these was chosen for the continuation of the experiment. I repeated
the sowing during 6 subsequent generations in the same way, choosing
each time the most beautiful ear from among those with the greatest
number of rows. Unfortunately with the increase of the number the [781]
size of the grains decreases, the total amount of nourishment available
for all of them remaining about the same. Thus the kernels and
consequently the new plants became smaller and weaker, and the chance of
fertilization was diminished in the ears with the highest number of
rows. Consequently the choice was limited, and after having twice chosen
a spike with 20 and once one with 24 rows, I finally preferred those
with the intermediate number of 22.
This repeated choice has brought the average of my race up from 13 to
20, and thus to the extreme limit of the original variety. Seven years
were required to attain this result, or on an average the progression
was one row in a year. This augmentation was accompanied by an
accompanying movement of the whole group in the same direction. The
extreme on the side of the small numbers came up from 8 to 12 rows, and
cobs with 8 or 10 rows did not appear in my race later than the third
generation. On the other side the extreme reached 28, a figure never
reached by the original variety as cultivated with us, and ears with 24
and 26 rows have been seen during the four last generations in
increasing numbers.
This slow and gradual amelioration was partly due to the mode of
pollination of the corn. [782] The pollen falls from the male spikes on
the ears of the same plant, but also is easily blown on surrounding
spikes. In order to get the required amount of seed it is necessary in
our climate to encroach as little as possible upon free pollination,
aiding the self-pollination, but taking no precautions against
intercrossing. It is assumed that the choice of the best ears indicates
the plants which have had the best pollen-parents as well as the best
pistil parents, and that selection here, as in other cases, corrects the
faults of free intercrossing. But it is granted that this correction is
only a slow one, and accounts in a great degree for the slowness of the
progression. Under better climatic conditions and with a more entire
isolation of the individuals, it seems very probable that the same
result could have been reached in fewer generations.
However this may be, the fact is that by repeated selection the strain
can be ameliorated to a greater extent than by a single choice. This
result completely agrees with the general experience of breeders and the
example given is only an instance of a universal rule. It has the
advantage of being capable of being recorded in a numerical way, and of
allowing a detailed and definite description of all the succeeding
generations. The entire harvest of all [783] of them has been counted
and the figures combined into curves, which at once show the whole
course of the pedigree-experiment. These curves have in the main taken
the same shape, and have only gradually been moved in the chosen
direction.
Three points are now to be considered in connection with this
experiment. The first is the size of the cultures required for the
resulting amelioration. In other words, would it have been possible to
attain an average of 20 rows in a single experiment? This is a matter of
calculation, and the calculation must be based upon the experience
related above, that the progression in the case of maize is equal to
two-fifths of the parental deviation. A cob with 20 rows means a
deviation of 7 from the average of 13, the incipient value of my race.
To reach such an average at once, an ear would be required with 7 x 5/2
= 17-1/2 rows above the average, or an ear with 30-32 rows. These never
occur, but the rule given in a previous lecture gives a method of
calculating the probability of their occurrence, or in other words, the
number of ears required to give a chance of finding such an ear. It
would take too long to give this calculation here, but I find that
approximately 12,000 ears would be required to give one with 28 rows,
which was the highest number attained in [784] my experiment, while
100,000 ears would afford a chance of one with 32 rows*. Had I been able
to secure and inspect this number of ears, perhaps I would have needed
only a year to get an average of 20 rows. This however, not being the
case, I have worked for seven years, but on the other hand have
cultivated all in all only about one thousand individuals for the entire
experiment.
Obviously this reduction of the size of the experiment is of importance.
One hundred thousand ears of corn could of course, be secured directly
from trade or from some industrial culture, but corn is cultivated only
to a small extent in Holland, and in most cases the requisite number of
individuals would be larger than that afforded by any single plantation.
Repeated selection is thereby seen to be the means of reducing the size
of the required cultures to possible measures, not only in the
experimental-garden, but also for industrial purposes. A selection from
among 60,000-100,000 individuals may be within reach of Burbank, but of
few others. As a rule they prefer a longer time with a smaller lot of
plants. This
* On about 200 ears the variability ranges from 8-22 rows, and
this leads approximately to one row more by each doubling of
the numbers of instances. One ear with 22 rows in 200 would
thus lead to the expectation of one ear with 32 rows in
100,000 ears.
[785] is exactly what is gained by repeated selections. To my mind this
reduction of the size of the cultures is probably the sole effect of the
repetition. But experience is lacking on this point, and exact
comparisons should be made whenever possible, between the descendants of
a unique but extreme choice, and a repeated but smaller selection. The
effect of the repetition on the nourishment of the chosen
representatives should be studied, for it is clear that a plant with 22
rows, the parents and grandparents of which had the same number,
indicates a better condition of internal qualities than one with the
same number of rows, produced accidentally from the common race. In this
way it may perhaps be possible to explain, why in my experiment an ear
with 22 rows gave an average offspring with 20, while the calculation,
founded on the regression alone would require a parental ear with 32
rows.
However, as already stated, this discussion is only intended to convey
some general idea as to the reduction of the cultures by means of
repeated selections, as the material at hand is wholly inadequate for
any closer calculation. This important point of the reduction may be
illustrated in still another manner.
The sowing of very large numbers is only required because it is
impossible to tell from the [786] inspection of the seeds which of them
will yield the desired individual. But what is impossible in the
inspection of the seeds may be feasible, at least in important measure,
in the inspection of the plants which bear the seeds. Whenever such an
inspection demonstrates differences, in manifest connection with the
quality under consideration, any one will readily grant that it would be
useless to sow the seeds of the worst plants, and that even the whole
average might be thrown over, if it were only possible to point out a
number of the best. But it is clear that by this inspection of the
parent plants the principle of repeated selection is introduced for two
succeeding generations, and that its application to a larger series of
generations is only a question of secondary importance.
Summing up our discussion of this first point we may assert that
repeated selection is only selection on a small and practical scale,
while a single choice would require numbers of individuals higher than
are ordinarily available.
A second discussion in connection with our pedigree-culture of corn is
the question whether the amelioration obtained was of a durable nature,
or only temporary. In other words, whether the progeny of the race would
remain constant, if cultivated after cessation of the selection. In
order to ascertain this, [787] I continued the culture during several
generations, choosing ears with less than the average number of rows.
The excellence of the race at once disappeared, and the ordinary average
of the variety from which I had started seven years before, returned
within two or three seasons. This shows that the attained improvement is
neither fixed nor assured and is dependent on continued selection. This
result only confirms the universal experience of breeders, which teaches
the general dependency of improved races on continued selection. Here a
striking contrast with elementary species or true varieties is obvious.
The strains which nature affords are true to their type; their average
condition remains the same during all the succeeding generations, and
even if it should be slightly altered by changes in the external
conditions, it returns to the type, as soon as these changes come to an
end. It is a real average, being the sum of the contribution of all the
members of the strain. Improved races have only an apparent average,
which is in fact biased by the exclusion of whole groups of individuals.
If left to themselves, their appearance changes, and the real average
soon returns. This is the common experience of breeders.
A third point is to be discussed in connection [788] with the detailed
pedigree-cultures. It is the question as to what might be expected from
a continuation of improvement selection. Would it be possible to obtain
any imaginable deviation from the original type, and to reach
independency from further selection? This point has not until now
attracted any practical interest, and from a practical point of view and
within the limits of ordinary cultures, it seems impossible to obtain a
positive answer. But in the theoretical discussion of the problems of
descent it has become of the highest importance, and therefore requires
a separate treatment, which will be reserved for the next lecture.
Here we come upon another equally difficult problem. It relates to the
proportion of embryonic or individual fluctuation, to partial variation
as involved in the process of selection. Probably all qualities which
may be subjected to selection vary according to both principles, the
embryonic decision giving only a more definite average, around which the
parts of the individual are still allowed to oscillate. It is so with
the corn, and whenever two or more ears are ripening or even only
flowering on the same plant, differences of a partial nature may be seen
in the number of their rows. These fluctuations are only small however,
ordinarily not exceeding two and rarely four [789] rows. Choosing always
the principal ear, the figures may be taken to indicate the degree of
personal deviation from the average of the race. But whenever we make a
mistake, and perchance sow from an ear, the deviation of which was
largely due to partial variation, the regression should be expected to
become considerably larger. Hence it must be conceded that exact
calculations of the phenomena of inheritance are subject to much
uncertainty, resulting from our very imperfect knowledge concerning the
real proportion of the contributing factors, and the difficulty of
ascertaining their influence in any given case. Here also we encounter
more doubts than real facts, and much remains to be done before exact
calculations may become of real scientific value.
Returning to the question of the effects of selection in the long run,
two essentially different cases are to be considered. Extremes may be
selected from among the variants of ordinary fluctuating variability, or
from ever-sporting varieties. These last we have shown to be double
races. Their peculiar and wide range of variability is due to the
substitution of two characters, which exclude one another, or if
combined, are diminished in various degrees. Striped flowers and stocks,
"five-leaved" clover, pistilloid opium-poppies and numerous other [790]
monstrosities have been dealt with as instances of such ever-sporting
varieties.
Now the question may be put, what would be the effect of selection if in
long series of years one of the two characters of such a double race
were preferred continuously, to the complete exclusion of the other.
Would the race become changed thereby? Could it be affected to such a
degree as to gradually lose the inactive quality, and cease to be a
double race?
Here manifestly we have a means by which to determine what selection is
able to accomplish. Physiologic experiments may be said to be too short
to give any definite evidence. But cases may be cited where nature has
selected during long centuries and with absolute constancy in her
choice. Moreover unconscious selections by man have often worked in an
analogous manner, and many cultivated plants may be put to the test
concerning the evidence they might give on this point. Stating
beforehand the result of this inquiry, we may assert that long-continued
selection has absolutely no appreciable effect. Of course I do not deny
the splendid results of selection during the first few years, nor the
necessity of continued selection to keep the improved races to the
height of their ameliorated qualities. I only wish to state that the
work [791] of selection here finds its limit and that centuries and
perhaps geologic periods of continued effort in the same direction are
not capable of adding anything more to the initial effect. Some
illustrative examples may suffice to prove the validity of this
assertion. Every botanist who has studied the agricultural practice of
plant-breeding, or the causes of the geographic distribution of plants,
will easily recall to his mind numerous similar cases. Perhaps the most
striking instance is afforded by cultivated biennial plants. The most
important of them are forage-beets and sugar-beets. They are, of course,
cultivated only as biennials, but some annual specimens may be seen each
year and in nearly every field. They arise from the same seed as the
normal individuals, and their number is obviously dependent on external
conditions, and especially on the time of sowing. Ordinary cultures
often show as much as 1% of these useless plants, but the exigencies of
time and available labor often compel the cultivator to have a large
part of his fields sown before spring. In central Europe, where the
climate is unfavorable at this season, the beets respond by the
production of far larger proportions of annual specimens, their number
coming often up to 20% or more, thus constituting noticeable losses in
the product [792] of the whole field. Rimpau, who has made a thorough
study of this evil and has shown its dependency on various external
conditions, has also tried to find methods of selection with the aim of
overcoming it, or at least of reducing it to uninjurious proportions.
But in these efforts he has reached no practical result. The annuals are
simply inexterminable.
Coming to the alternative side of the problem it is clear that annuals
have always been excluded in the selection. Their seeds cannot be mixed
with the good harvest, not even accidentally, since they have ripened in
a previous year. In order to bear seeds in the second year beets must be
taken from the field, and kept free from frost through the winter. The
following spring they are planted out, and it is obvious that even the
most careless farmer is not liable to mix them with annual specimens.
Hence we may conclude that a strict and unexcelled process of selection
has been applied to the destruction of this tendency, not only for
sugar-beets, since Vilmorin's time, when selection had become a well
understood process, but also for forage-beets since the beginning of
beet culture. Although unconscious, the selection of biennials must have
been uninterrupted and strict throughout many centuries.
It has had no effect at all. Annuals are seen [793] to return every
year. They are ineradicable. Every individual is in the possession of
this latent quality and liable to convert it into activity as soon as
the circumstances provoke its appearance, as proved by the increase of
annuals in the early sowings. Hence the conclusion that selection in the
long run is not adequate to deliver plants from injurious qualities.
Other proofs could be given by other biennials, and among them the stray
annual plants of common carrots are perhaps the most notorious. In my
own cultures of evening-primroses I have preferred the annuals and
excluded the biennials, but without being able to produce a pure annual
race. As soon as circumstances are favorable, the biennials return in
large numbers. Cereals give analogous proofs. Summer and winter
varieties have been cultivated separately for centuries, but in trials
it is often easy to convert the one into the other. No real and definite
isolation has resulted from the effect of the long continued unconscious
selection.
Striped flowers, striped fruits, and especially striped radishes afford
further examples. It would be quite superfluous to dwell upon them.
Selection always tends to exclude the monochromatic specimens, but does
not prevent their return in every generation. Numerous [794] rare
monstrosities are in the same category, especially when they are of so
rare occurrence as not to give any noticeable contribution to the
seed-production, or even if they render their bearers incapable of
reproduction. In such cases the selection of normal plants is very
severe or even absolute, but the anomalies are by no means exterminated.
Any favorable circumstances, or experimental selection in their behalf
shows them to be still capable of full development. Numerous cases of
such subordinate hereditary characters constitute the greater part of
the science of vegetable teratology.
If it should be objected that all these cases cover too short a time to
be decisive, or at least fail in giving evidence relative to former
times, alpine plants afford a proof which one can hardly expect to be
surpassed. During the whole present geologic epoch they have been
subjected to the never failing selection of their climate and other
external conditions. They exhibit a full and striking adaptation to
these conditions, but also possess the latent capacity for assuming
lowland characters as soon as they are transported into such
environment. Obviously this capacity never becomes active on the
mountains, and is always counteracted by selection. This agency is
evidently without any effect, for as we have seen when dealing [795]
with the experiments of Nageli, Bonnier and others, each single
individual may change its habits and its aspect in response to
transplantation. The climate has an exceedingly great influence on each
individual, but the continuance of this influence is without permanent
result.
So much concerning ever-sporting varieties and double adaptations. We
now come to the effects of a continuous selection of simple characters.
Here the sugar-beets stand preeminent. Since Vilmorin's time they have
been selected according to the amount of sugar in their roots, and the
result has been the most striking that has ever been attained, if
considered from the standpoint of practice. But if critically examined,
with no other aim than a scientific appreciation of the improvement in
comparison with other processes of selection, the support of the
evidence for the theory of accumulative influence proves to be very
small.
The amount of sugar is expressed by percentage-figures. These however,
are dependent on various causes, besides the real quantity of sugar
produced. One of these causes is the quantity of watery fluid in the
tissues, and this in its turn is dependent on the culture in dryer or
moister soil, and on the amount of moisture in the air, and the same
variety of sugar-beets [796] yields higher percentage-figures in a dry
region than in a wet one. This is seen when comparing, for instance, the
results of the analyses from the sandy provinces of Holland with those
from the clay-meadows, and it is very well known that Californian beets
average as high as 26% or more, while the best European beets remain at
about 20%. As far as I have been able to ascertain, these figures
however, are not indicative of any difference of race, but simply direct
responses to the conditions of climate and of soil.
Apart from these considerations the improvement reached in half a
century or in about twenty to thirty generations is not suggestive of
anything absolute. Everything is fluctuating now, even as it was at the
outset, and equally dependent on continual care. Vilmorin has given some
figures for the beets of the first generations from which he started his
race. He quotes 14% as a recommendable amount, and 7 and 21 as the
extreme instances of his analyses. However incorrect these figures may
be, they coincide to a striking degree with the present condition of the
best European races. Of course minor values are excluded each year by
the selection, and in consequence the average value has increased. For
the year 1874 we find a standard of 10-14% considered as normal, [797]
bad years giving 10%, good years from 12% to 14% in the average. Extreme
instances exceeded 17%. From that time the practice of the polarization
of the juice for the estimate of the sugar has rapidly spread throughout
Europe, and a definite increase of the average value soon resulted. This
however, often does not exceed 14%, and beets selected in the field for
the purpose of polarization come up to an average of 15 to 16%, varying
downward to less than 10% and upward to 20 and 21%. In the main the
figures are the same as those of Vilmorin, the range of variability has
not been reduced, and higher extremes are not reached. An average
increase of 1% is of great practical importance, and nothing can excel
the industry and care displayed in the improvement of the beet-races.
Notwithstanding this a lasting influence has not been exercised; the
methods of selection have been improved, and the number of polarized
beets has been brought up to some hundreds of thousands in single
factories, but the improvement is still as dependent upon continuous
selection as it was half a century ago.
The process is practically very successful, but the support afforded by
it to the selection theory vanishes on critical examination.
[798]