3OO K \VMOND PEARL. 



is every reason to suppose that entire reliance may be placed 

 on the statements made, so far as they go. In other words, 

 Mr. Entwisle may be regarded a reliable witness as to the facts. 

 He held a distinguished place among British fanciers, and his 

 book furnishes much evidence that he was a keen and careful 

 observer. Of course, as is usual in such fanciers' reports, critical 

 evidence is lacking at important points in the case here under 

 discussion. 



One thing, however, seems clear, namely that while in the 

 particular instance cited, the barred pattern appeared in the 

 FI generation from a mating of black by white, it is by no means 

 certain that one or the other of the parents did not carry barring 

 latent (i. e., as a cryptomere). The difficulty in taking this case 

 as proof of the de novo origin of the barring lies in the fact that 

 a "Mr. Leno" had at that time a cuckoo cock "imported from 

 China," which evidently carried the barred pattern in heredi- 

 tary form. If this w r ere the case it is obvious that other color 

 varieties of Asiatic bantams might carry the barred pattern 

 determiner or factor in their gametes, without its being 1 somat- 

 ically visible. That this is the true explanation of the case is 

 indicated by the fact that in this pullet the pattern appeared 

 at once in apparently almost perfect condition ("faint but regular 

 bars"). This would scarcely be expected if what is occurring 

 here is the beginning of the synthesis of a barred pattern 

 from pure black and white. Rather one would suppose that at 

 the outstart the barring would be irregular and indefinite in 

 character. 



This case described by Entwisle must, then, be regarded as 

 failing to furnish critical evidence of the de novo origin of the 

 barred pattern in fowls from crossing solid black and solid 

 white. 



Incomplete as are the data, however, the case is of interest in 

 another direction. If it be assumed, for the reasons set forth 

 above, that one of the parents of this faintly barred pullet carried 

 the gametic determiner for barring, then one must conclude that 

 it was the White Booted parent. The reasons are, (a) that in all 

 cases now known at least (and they cover in published and un- 

 published work a fair number of different breeds of poultry), if 



