SINGLE COMBS OF FOWLS 197 



of quoting fully the statement which we purposed criti- 

 cising was followed. On page 184 it was stated : "The 

 apparently real object of the investigators, that with 

 which they commenced their investigation, seems to 

 be contained in the following statement : ' In this paper 

 we have endeavoured to give a clear and, as far as possible, 

 quantitative description of the nature and amount of 

 variation normally occurring in a homogeneous pure- 

 bred strain of Barred Plymouth Rock hens in respect to 

 the form and size of the comb.' " And now. Dr. Pearl 

 in endeavouring to put our putatively aberrant pen 

 right, quotes in his reply (pages 190-1) this very sentence, 

 as explaining the object of his investigation ! This is just 

 what we said was the object of his investigation as stated 

 in his own words. Surely Dr. Pearl must have overlooked 

 this part of our article. 



In another matter Dr. Pearl has misread the comments 

 which wo ventured to pass upon his conclusions. Nowhere 

 was it asserted or implied that he was " so stupid as to 

 undertake a purely descriptive biometrical investigation 

 of variation, and only that kind of investigation, for the 

 purpose of determining whether the domestic fowl 

 ' breeds true ' with reference to comb characters." Our 

 criticism was confined wholly to Dr. Pearl's own state- 

 ments and conclusions, and had he carefully read 

 page 185, he would have surely noticed the sentence 

 in which was indicated again the real problem we had to 

 consider. " The object then before us is a study of the 

 range and nature of the variation in the single comb of a 

 certain race of hens." That is precisely what Dr. Pearl 

 tells us was the nature of his enquiries in the sentence 

 which we have just extracted from his reply, and quoted 

 above. 



In our article two general objections to the conclusions 

 arrived at by Dr. Pearl were raised. First, it was 

 contended his methods were invahd. Second, that the 

 so-called homogeneous material was not homogeneous at 

 all but markedly heterogeneous. And that, therefore, 

 conclusions based upon material which is assumed to be 

 one thing but is in reality the reverse, can be of no value. 



Now Dr. Pearl, in his reply (p. 191) "freely admits 

 that there is room for a difference of opinion as to whether 



