MUSEUM OF COMPARATIVE ZOOLOGY. 345 



that they were based on groundless assumptions, as an investigation of 

 the subject fully proves, have been so generally entertained by subsequent 

 authors, who have accepted his statements without investigating the 

 facts for themselves, that a careful revision of the subject is now 

 required. Major LeConte observes : " Whoever has compared the wild 

 turkey of the United States with the domestic animal of the same genus 

 must have observed that there existed very striking differences between 

 them." While asserting that "'these differences do not consist of slight and 

 unimportant particularities, but in radical disagreements, which ought to 

 remain unchangeable under all circumstances, and which form good spe- 

 cific characteristics," his sole point of distinction consists "in the posses- 

 sion by the tame bird of an enormous palear or dewlap," which he affirms, 

 contrary to fact, is not possessed by the wild bird. * He refers also to 

 the conviction that had long existed in his mind, that the two birds — the 

 wild and domestic — "were really distinct species." "More than fifty 

 years ago," he says, " when I first saw a wild turkey, I was led to con- 

 clude that one never could have been produced from the other. I have 

 mentioned this to many ornithologists, but no one would take the trouble 

 to investigate the matter [!]," etc. It does not appear, however, that 

 even with him this long-standing conviction had resulted from a thorough 

 investigation of the subject, for he gives no detailed comparison of the two, 

 and many of his statements are not simply erroneous, but diametrically 

 opposed to facts previoudy well substantiated. He refers to the early in- 

 troduction of the turkey into Europe, and to the fact that it was found by 

 the first explorers of America in both the wild and domesticated state. 

 He alludes also to Mr. Gould's above-cited paper, remarking respecting it 

 that he was unable to determine whether Mr. Gould's supposed new Mexi- 

 can species was the same as the M. gallopavo, or was the original of the 

 domestic bird. He thought, however, that the Mexican was identical with 

 the common wild bird. He then remarks : " I have before observed that 

 the turkey was found domesticated among the nations of Central America. 

 Now the bird which ice hare native among us has never been domesticated. 

 All attempts to conquer its peculiar habits have failed, nolwi'hslanding what 

 has been said and written on the subject to the contrary. I defy axy oxe 



TO SHOW A TURKEY, EVEN OF THE FIRST GEXERATIOX, PRODUCED 



from A pair hatched from A wild HEX.f We have every year 

 in our market offered for sale birds of a very dark color, and in 

 some degree resembling the wild species ; but in every instance, 

 by the presence of the palear, the imposition can be detected at 



* It is usually, however, either entirely absent in the wild bird, or present only in a 

 rudimentary state. 



t The italicizing in this extract is of course my own. 



