Sufficient evidence has now been advanced to prove that animals when first
confined are eminently liable to suffer in their reproductive systems. We feel
at first naturally inclined to attribute the result to loss of health, or at
least to loss of vigour; but this view can hardly be admitted when we reflect
how healthy, long-lived, and vigorous many animals are under captivity, such
as parrots, and hawks when used for hawking, cheetahs when used for hunting,
and elephants. The reproductive organs themselves are not diseased; and the
diseases, from which animals in menageries usually perish, are not those which
in any way affect their fertility. No domestic animal is more subject to
disease than the sheep, yet it is remarkably prolific. The failure of animals
to breed under confinement has been sometimes attributed exclusively to a
failure in their sexual instincts: this may occasionally come into play, but
there is no obvious reason why this instinct should be especially liable to be
affected with perfectly tamed animals, except, indeed, indirectly through the
reproductive system itself being disturbed. Moreover, numerous cases have been
given of various animals which couple freely under confinement, but never
conceive; or, if they conceive and produce young, these are fewer in number
than is natural to the species. In the vegetable kingdom instinct of course
can play no part; and we shall presently see that plants when removed from
their natural conditions are affected in nearly the same manner as animals.
Change of climate cannot be the cause of the loss of fertility, for, whilst
many animals imported into Europe from extremely different climates breed
freely, many others when confined in their native land are completely sterile.
Change of food cannot be the chief cause; for ostriches, ducks, and many other
animals, which must have undergone a great change in this respect, breed
freely. Carnivorous birds when confined are extremely sterile, whilst most
carnivorous mammals, except plantigrades, are moderately fertile. Nor can the
amount of food be the cause; for a sufficient supply will certainly be given
to valuable animals; and there is no reason to suppose that much more food
would be given to them than to our choice domestic productions which retain
their full fertility. Lastly, we may infer from the case of the elephant,
cheetah, various hawks, and of many animals which are allowed to lead an
almost free life in their native land, that want of exercise is not the sole
cause.
Public-domain text, read in full here on John Shaqi.
Reviews
Reviews
No reviews yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this work.
Elsewhere in the archive
Join the Discussion
Join the discussion
Sign in to leave a comment or review.
Sign InorCreate an account