OSTEOLOGY OF BIRDS 211 



my observations ran thus : As one would surely have predicted, 

 Darwin, when he came to compare series of skulls of the numerous 

 varieties of the domesticated fowls, \vith the skull ofG.bankiva, 

 and similarly, skulls of a number of species of tame ducks with the 

 wild duck, found some very striking differences among them. So 

 far as I have been able to ascertain, however, he never compared 

 the skulls of the tame and wild turkeys ; and so far as his com- 

 parisons of fowls and ducks are concerned, I believe they are prin- 

 cipally intended to show the great variation that has taken place in 

 those parts, and the marked departures from the wild type in the 

 case of the fowd and duck, respectively. 



Indeed, it would be difficult, I imagine, unless one could secure 

 skulls from an entire line of fowls showing the gradual changes in 

 them as they descended from the parent wild stock, to demonstrate 

 anything else. The same remark applies, of course, to the ducks. 

 I am not aware that any such a series has ever been made, with 

 the view of pointing out these intermediate variations, as they must 

 have occurred in some of the breeds. It would not be difficult, 

 however, to picture in our minds the shading differences that must 

 have taken place in the skulls in a line of fowds extending between 

 G . b an k i V a , and, for instance, a White-crested Polish cock. 



With respect to the turkeys we have some very interesting data 

 to start from, and of such a character, I think, that when taken 

 in connection with the facts that I intend to present herewith, it 

 will lend some additional light to certain phases of this question. 



In the first place, ornithologists now recognize four well defined 

 subspecies of wild turkeys in the avifauna of the United States, vi:;, 

 yi . g . s i 1 V e s t r i s , M. g . m e r r i a m i , intermedia, and 

 M . g' . o s c e o 1 a ; then there are in this country alone several 

 very well marked varieties of the domesticated turkey. So there 

 seems to be no reason but that by careful selection and breeding we 

 might not in time have quite as many varieties of turkeys as we now 

 have of chickens, and presenting the same extraordinary differences 

 in form and plumage. 



Further, to quote quite extensively from Darwin's Animals and 

 Plants under Domestication [i : 352-55], and omitting the authori- 

 ties from whom he derived some of his information, we find that : 



It seems fairly well established by Mr Gould, that the turkey, in 

 accordance with the history of its first introduction, is descended 

 from a wild Mexican species (Meleagris mexicana) which 

 had been already domesticated by the natives before the discovery of 

 America, and which differs specifically, as it is generally thought, 

 from the common wild species of the United States. 



