2l6 NEW YORK STATE MUSEUINI 



to be found in the descending portion of the bone, which is evidently 

 much longer, and more conspicuous in the former than it is in the 

 latter species. 



Passing now to the frontointerorbital region, it is the rule so far 

 as I have examined, that the transverse diameter here is manifestly 

 greater in the wild turkey than it is in the domesticated bird ; while, 

 as I have already stated, the forepart of this region is more sunken 

 in .the former fowl. Posterior to the frontal area again, we find 

 the parietal prominences better marked in wild turkeys than they are 

 in tame ones. 



There are two other well marked and comparable characters upon 

 this aspect of these skulls, but as they can be better appreciated upon 

 the lateral view, I will defer their discussion until we come to con- 

 sider that part of our subject. 



Let us now pass to the posterior views of these skulls, as shown 

 in figures 34 and 35 ; and, beginning at the top, we observe the 

 more prominent parietal prominences in the wild turkey, over the 

 evenly roimded, corresponding region of the domesticated one. The 

 principal feature, however, to be taken into consideration upon this 

 aspect of the skull is, what I please to call here, the occipital area. 

 By the occipital area I mean that space so definitely circumscribed 

 upon this face of the cranium by the bounding occipital ridge or line. 

 In a great many birds the general form of this area, constitutes 

 upon comparison a very good character. The rule here is, that in 

 the tame turkey this area is decidedly more rounded than we ever 

 find it in the wild one, although we occasionally observe in the 

 former that it assumes the cordate outline which, so far as my re- 

 searches carry me, is invariably the case in M . g . m e r r i a m i . 



Little or no difference seems to distinguish the form of the- oc- 

 cipital condyle among these fowls, for both in tame and wild 

 turkeys, we find the notch at its middle point above to be deeply 

 cleft in some cases, whereas in others it is barely perceptible. 



The occipital bone as a whole is thicker and apparently denser in 

 the tame turkey than it is in the wild one, but as to the relative size 

 of the brain cavities, I would prefer to measure a much larger series 

 of skulls than I now have at my disposal. I would say, tliough, that 

 little if any change has taken place in this particular; and to decide 

 "accurately upon this important point, at least a hundred skulls for 

 either species should be carefully measured, averaged, and com- 

 pared. If this ever be undertaken I sim])ly predict that the result 

 will show that the average capacity of the brain cavity will be found 

 to be rather larger in the wild turkev than it is in the tame one. 



