FURTHER DEVELOPMENTS IN OVARIOTOMIZED FOWL. 287 



The first is that of the pullet described in the American Naturalist, 

 Volume XLVIL, 1913. The chick had been completely cas- 

 trated when three weeks of age. In due course of time, the bird 

 developed a good male's plumage with large comb and spurs. 

 However, there were a number of feathers in the dorsal region 

 which were shaped and stippled like those of the hen but rather 

 different in color. (Fig. 3, b, American Naturalist.} With the 

 coming of the moult it was found that the new feathers were 

 essentially like the old. That is, the plumage retained its inter- 

 mediate character. The bird was then killed and dissected. 

 The conditions found were so remarkable that it was thought 

 best to await confirmatory data before publishing. On either 

 side, at the level of the adrenals was an organ which had the 

 appearance of a small testis, though divided into several lobes. 

 Histologically, however, it was very different. Leading pos- 

 teriorly from each of these structures to the cloaca was a yellow- 

 ish white strand (cord, duct) resembling an immature vas 

 deferens. The left oviduct in an infantile condition was present. 



The presence of the bodies described for 1196 appears to be 

 more usual in ovariotomized fowl because such organs, with 

 one possible exception, have not been found among the eight or 

 ten ovariotomized ducks that have been opened or autopsied at 

 various times, though found in all fowl thus far examined. Both 

 species have ranged from a few months to three years of age, 

 all but one at least a year old. Evidently the possibility of the 

 development of the bodies in question rests upon some genetic 

 basis. Nor are they necessary for the assumption of male 

 characters by the ovariotomized female, since the ducks have 

 developed as good male plumage as the fowl. 



Perhaps the question will be raised regarding the possibility 

 that all these individuals were really males. It is desirable to 

 consider this phase of the matter in some detail. There are two 

 general possibilities of error first, a possibility that an error was 

 made in identifying the sex of the individual at the time of the 

 operation; an error however, that would be equivalent to one 

 made in identifying the sexes of domestic poultry by their 

 plumage. The gonads of the male and female are quite un- 

 like, even before hatching time (cf. Thompson, Arch. Ent., 



