SOMATIC AND GENETIC STERILITY 51 



yolks among the viscera. In the ovary was a normal series of 

 five growing yolks, the largest one mature; there were also three 

 discharged follicles. It was apparent that the bird was ovulat- 

 ing into the body cavitj^ and resorbing the yolk directly. 



An examination of the egg record of this bird shows nesting 

 records in a rhythm similar to a laying rhythm, and records of 

 seven scattered eggs. These eggs occur in the nesting rhythms 

 and, as in the case of the scattered eggs of No. 141, probably 

 represent errors on the part of the attendant. - 



The peritoneum was slightly thickened, as in No. 141. The 

 fusion of the funnel lips may have been secondary, and due 

 to peritonitis caused by accidental ovulation into the body 

 cavity. However, there were no other visceral adhesions and 

 no present evidence of sufficient peritonitis to cause adhesions. 

 While it is impossible to say how long the oviduct had been 

 closed, at the time of autopsy, at least, there was no possibility 

 for a yolk to enter. 



Bird No. 364 also had the sex organs in laying condition at 

 autopsy. In the ovary was a series of five yolks and five follicles. 

 Ten centimeters from the mouth of the funnel attached to the 

 inner wall of the duct was a cystic tumor the size of a large egg 

 yolk. There was no evidence of yolk or egg material in the 

 body cavity. The visceral peritoneum, however, was thickened 

 as in the birds which had been absorbing yolks. Evidently 

 the bird had completely absorbed the yolk (or eggs) derived 

 from the ruptured follicles. She had records of three scattered 

 eggs, but only one nesting record. These recorded eggs may 

 have been mistakes, but, since the hen was not nesting regularly, 



- The difficulties of getting an attendant to look after trap-nesting operations 

 on a large scale, who will consistently maintain the maximum level of possible 

 accuracy (Pearl '11) are extremely great. During the past year we have been 

 particularly unfortunate in this respect. While making every effort to do his 

 best, the person who operated the trap-nests was psychologically poorly adapted 

 to such work, and consequently the records are marred by a number of such 

 easily detected errors as those referred to above in the cases of birds Nos. 81 and 

 141, and probably by some others not so readily detected. While this is a very 

 regrettable circumstance, it really is not so serious as it might appear at first 

 sight to be, since, after all, the total number of errors in the records is absolutely 

 and relatively small. 



