218 RAYMOND PEARL 



This is a particularly interesting pedigree to anyone acquainted 

 with the practical breeding and breeders of Barred Plymouth 

 Rocks in this country, because, as already pointed out, & 68 was 

 purchased from Mr. G. W. Hillson, of Amenia, N. Y. Now it is 

 generally supposed, and indeed has been stated by Mr. Hillson 

 in his advertising, that his stock was founded from Mr. E. B. 

 Thompson's 'Ringlet' strain, a stock very well known for quality 

 in color and barring, but not commonly believed to be of any 

 particular value for utility purposes. Yet here we have produced 

 from this strain a male bird of the highest possible utility value, 

 namely one that gets high-producing daughters regularly and with- 

 out fail, regardless of the females to which he may be mated. 



The breeding history of d" 550 is as follows : 



Matings: A. With 5| 9 9 indicated to be of classes 1 or 2 = JLiL-i . Fhh or 

 /L1L2 . FLiU. 



B. With 4| 9 9 indicated to be of classes 3, 4, or G =fLih. Fhh_orfLJ-.. FLdi 

 orfliL2 . FliU. 



All 9 Progeny 



Winter Production: Over SO Under 30 Zero 



Observed 16^ | 1 



Expected 18 



Mean winter production of all 



9 9 in indicated class 51.25 eggs ^ eggs 



1 See p. 184 for explanation of the convention of dividing the birds which lay 

 exactly 30 eggs in the winter period. 



The one daughter (F379) with the zero record was evidently 

 abnormal in respect to her reproductive organs. During the 

 last days of September and early October she began and kept 

 up for a period of over a week daily visits to the nest (cf . section 

 on "Matings of Barred Plymouth Rock males with Barred Fi 

 females") This is normally a sure indication of approaching 

 laying. Further, birds which begin in this way not only are pre- 

 cocious in laying but make high winter records. This bird, how- 

 ever, stopped at once, and neither visited a nest, nor laid until 

 late the next spring and then laid only a few eggs. There is little 

 doubt that in this case the hereditary basis for high production 

 was present (LiLo) but failed of expression for purely physiological 

 reasons. Unfortunately no post-mortem examination of this 



