DIFFERENT KINDS OF INHERITANCE BEHAVIOR II 



readily comparable although (as will be pointed out) not wholly 

 identical results. The differences in the actual work of crossing and 

 rearing seem chiefly to be that Toyama has brought larger proportions 

 of the individuals in each of his experimental lots safely through to 

 maturity (or cocooning time), while I have used a larger number of 

 what may be called repetition lots; that is, lots of exactly similar 

 parentage to serve as checks on each other. The differences in results 

 and conclusions reached by Toyama and myself will be found, I believe, 

 to rest largely on these differences in actual rearing methods. 



Toyama has published his results first, and has put into admirably 

 well organized and lucid arrangement his statements of data, results 

 and generalizations. He finds and brings out clearly the indisputable 

 alternative (or Mendelian) character of the inheritance behavior of 

 certain characteristics. He finds a few exceptions to this kind of 

 inheritance, both as to characteristics and as to individual cases of the 

 usually Mendelian characteristics. On the whole he stands as a strong 

 exponent of the generally Mendelian character of inheritance in the 

 silkworms. 



In those respects, which are many, in which my own experiments, 

 carried on simultaneously with Toyama's, confirm his published con- 

 clusions it will be sufiicient for me to do away almost entirely with 

 any exposition of data and details of rearing, and to give simply sum- 

 mary statements of the results of a great deal of work. It is unneces- 

 sary to remind any experimental student of heredity of the laborious, 

 exacting and anxiety-breeding character of this kind of work. The 

 results of the expenditure of much energy, time and money can be 

 stated in a few sentences. And especially where these sentences 

 take on the character of simple confirmation of another man's already 

 stated results and conclusions they may be fewer still. Such is my 

 position in the present writing concerning that part of my seven years' 

 work which has absorbed most time and attention. But this confirma- 

 tion is of course worth while. Our science of heredity, based on 

 experimental study, is too new not to welcome gladly independent 

 confirmation of results already once attained. Such confirmation 

 shows us that we are working on sure ground. 



It is where my results disagree with Toyama's, or, perhaps, better 

 expressed, where by circumstance of a considerable recourse to repeti- 

 tion some conspicuous exceptions have been noted, indicating a less 

 rigorously controlled or rigidly regular behavior of inheritance, that I 

 shall use more words than are used in discussing the cases of clear 



