COMBS OF FOWLS 195 



implies above everything else the maintenance of a 

 critical spirit, both in regard to observations and to 

 theories. Dogma, whether it be Mendelian or " bio- 

 metric," has, it seems to me, no place in science. It 

 has appeared to many biologists that the standpoint of 

 some of the workers along Mendelian lines has been 

 that a critical attitude towards Mendelian results or 

 theories was necessarily a hostile one. Such a position 

 is, of course, in the long run not tenable. The present 

 writer, and he feels tolerably sure that the majority 

 of conservative biological opinion is with him on this 

 point, proposes to continue in his study of inheritance, 

 to maintain a • critical attitude towards all methods 

 and ideas, whether Mendelian or otherwise, trying all 

 and holding fast to those which are good. Nobod}^ is 

 going to be argued, whipped, or ridiculed into the adoption 

 of any view of heredity. If the basic and iunclamental 

 Mendelian data and ideas regarding inheritance cannot 

 withstand the most searching criticism which can be 

 brought to bear upon them (the writer believes that 

 they can) then the sooner they are relegated to the 

 scrap heap the better it will be for biology. To seek to 

 avoid criticism or to crush and annihilate it by militant 

 rhetoric is not onlj^ futile but foolish. 



Biological Laboratory', 



Maine Agricultural Experiment Station, 

 Orono, Maine, U.S.A. 



A Note Regarding Variation in the Single Combs 

 of rowls. 



A REPLY BY "ARDENT MENDELIAN." 



We are afraid that Dr. Pearl in his reply to some comments 

 of ours, concerning the memoir published by him in 

 " Biometrika," and which he has we cannot help thinking 

 ungenerously called a "rather violent and caustic criti- 

 cism."' has not done us the honour to read that criticism 

 with sufficient care. Had he done so, he would have learned 



