344 BULLETIN OF THE 



should also be indigenous to the hotter country of Mexico, ■whence," he 

 adds, " and not from North America, the turkey was originally introduced 

 into Europe " ; thus leaving it to be inferred that, in his opinion, the Mexi- 

 can bird — bis new species — was the ancestor of the domestic turkey. 

 The facts in respect to the distribution of the wild turkey are briefly 

 these : It exists in Canada only in the warmer portions of that country, 

 and thence southward uninterruptedly throughout the table-lands of 

 Mexico. 



Dr. Henry Bryant, of Boston, in reviewing Mr. Gould's paper, a few 

 months after its appearance, took exceptions to the views of that gentle- 

 man, and in referring to the two principal statements made by Mr. Gould, 

 namely, that the wild and domestic turkeys were structurally different, and 

 refused to breed together, Dr. Bryant thus observes : " How far climate 

 and other influences may have affected the domestic variety in England 

 I do not yet know, but with us neither of these two statements is correct. 

 If it were not for the difference in the plumage it would be impossible in 

 many cases to distinguish the two birds ; and even with this aid it is some- 

 times very difficult to decide with certainty when the specimen is a 



female The wild turkey breeds here with the tame variety quite 



as readily as could be expected ; wherever the wild turkeys are numerous, 

 it is an ordinary occurrence for the tame hen to prefer the wild gobbler to 

 the domestic ones. I have had in my own possession wild hens that bred 

 with the tame gobblers, — a fact much stranger than that of the wild gob- 

 bler breeding with the tame ben. But the most satisfactory proof of their 

 specific identity is that the offspring of mixed blood is known to be har- 

 dier and more prolific than the domestic variety, — a fact which cannot 

 be reconciled with their specific diversity."* 



Dr. Bryant's facts, with those of previous writers, seem amply sufficient 

 to settle the question as to the origin of the domestic turkey ; yet a few 

 months later Major John EeConte, who probably at that time had not 

 seen Dr. Bryant's remarks, published a paper entitled " Observa- 

 tions on the Wild Turkey, or GaUopavo syloestris of Ilay."f In this 

 paper he took the ground that the tame turkey could not possibly have 

 been derived from the wild turkey of the United States. And, if what he 

 states in support of his opinion as facts were such, they would go far 

 towards rendering his position a tenable one, but in reality they are but 

 baseless, dogmatic assumptions, which not only ran counter to the then 

 generally received opinion, but were squarely opposed to unquestionable 

 evidence already on record. Major LeConte's opinions, notwithstanding 



* Proc. Bost Soc. Nat. Hist., Vol. VI, p. 158, March, 1857. 



t Proc. Phil. Acad. Nat. Sci., Vol. IX, p. 179, September, 1857. 



