O. Riddle and J. A. Harris 165 



f m twelve individuals of one group when compared with twelve 

 ilividuals of the other group. An illustration of the unsuit- 

 aility of the data for this purpose is the following: If the twelfth 

 ( st) bird in each series be omitted from the averages, these latter 

 a; changed from 0.405 and 0.396 to 0.268 and 0.263 respectively, 

 dly in males, in which the fluctuations of the blood fat values 

 a&amp;gt; much decreased, could one hope for success in a study of this 

 cestion in the fowl. Still another reason for the inadmissibility 

 c the data as submitted is that no basis for the selection of the 

 prticular individuals chosen and compared is given. As the 

 eta stand, and if one is permitted to select at will the &quot;non- 

 fiting&quot; birds from the whole group of fat determinations, it is 

 fusible to have those birds show more or show less blood fat than 

 ! i &quot;fasting&quot; birds. These data, therefore, supply no evidence 

 t it the fowl is an exception to the well known rule that the per 

 &amp;lt; it of fat in the blood increases soon after the ingestion of food. 

 I all of the fat determinations made by Lawrence and Riddle 

 tis fact was recognized, and the blood samples were all drawn at 

 cproximately the same time of day; namely, in the early after- 

 ion. 



Our next point concerns the correlation between the fat content 

 c the blood and egg production. Admitting that birds which are 

 1,-ing at the time the blood samples are taken differ from those 

 Mich are not laying, a further problem arises concerning the 

 i ationship of the percentage of fat found in the blood and the 

 ttal egg record of the bird for the year. 



These authors say: 8 &quot;The fat content of the blood is corre- 

 1 od with egg laying activity, and there is also a slight correla- 

 t n between the amount of fat in the blood and high yearly production.&quot; 

 But in their summary, they conclude: 9 &quot;There is little or no 

 (relation between the amount of fat in the hen s blood and her yearly 

 ffl yield. On the other hand the blood of a hen laying at the 

 tne the sample is taken is much richer in fat than that of a hen 

 \iich is not laying.&quot; 10 



Now both of these contradictory statements cannot be true. 

 r iere is, indeed, no reason why statements concerning correlation 



s Warner and Edmond, ibid., 288. 



9 Warner and Edmond, ibid., 293. 



10 The italics are ours in both quotations. 



