THE CALL OF THE HEN. 61 
at other times the cock bird, transmitting their characteristics. When 
I was assured of this through numerous experiments, I reasoned that 
my failures were because the male birds were of a different type from 
the hens, and when I had demonstrated that the male birds were of a 
different physiology by practice and scientific measures, and mated ac- 
cordingly, I flattered myself with the assurance that I had discovered 
all that was necessary in order to breed poultry intelligently. But 
after more experiments, I was not wholly satisfied with results; and as 
I had adopted the motto, ‘Like begets like,” I reasoned that although 
the birds we had mated were alike, as far as we could see, the remaining 
difference must be some place where I had failed to look for it. My 
knowledge of the different variations in form of the skulls of animals 
and birds of the same breed, together with the knowledge I possessed 
of human skulls, led me to investigate the head as the only remaining 
factor in the problem. When I reduced this proposition to a method, 
and when I was able to measure its potentiality, then I assembled the 
hens and cock birds, mating the 180-egg type hens and the 180-egg 
type cock birds, each bird with the same degree of prepotency. Then, 
and not until then, had I ever knowingly mated like to like. For years, 
like many others, I thought I had mated males to like females, but I 
was mistaken. And here is where I discovered my second great secret. 
After this I mated like to like more intelligently, and the results were 
more satisfactory. 
I consider the selection of the male birds for mating along anatomical 
and physiological lines, together with the proper understanding and use 
of the faculty that governs the reproductive function, as the greatest 
discoveries ever made in the poultry industry. 
The reader may think there is very little difference in the skulls 
in Fig. 35. If you add an inch to the length of a man’s legs, it does 
not seem to make much difference in his height, but if you add an inch 
to the end of his nose, it would make a great difference in his looks. 
I found this expansion on the back of the skull corresponded to the faculty 
of amativeness in the human family. I found that when it was large in 
both male and female the parents possessed the ability to transmit their 
predominating characteristics to their offspring. If the parents were 
fancy birds, their progeny would in some cases excel their parents in 
feather, vigor, and other good qualities. If the parents were of the 
egg type, some of the chicks would be as good and some better layers 
and more vigorous than the parents; if of the meat type, the progeny 
would be of a stronger constitution, of a quicker growth, and assimilate 
their food better—in a word, if both parents have this faculty (called 
“‘prepotency”’ by some) large, the chicks will be more likely to be equal 
to, and some will, excel their parents along the lines in which the parents 
predominate. If the parents have the faculty small, the chicks will 
not be so good as the parent stock, but will degenerate along the lines 
that the parents excel in. If a hen is a 200-egg type and she has this 
faculty small, she will be just as valuable as an egg-producer as if she 
had the faculty large, but she will be of no value as a breeder; she will 
be an old maid from choice, and her eggs will not be fertile, if she has the 
faculty small enough. If the male bird has it small, his eggs will not 
hatch well, and if small, they will not hatch at all. I have found a few 
cases where the cock bird had the faculty of prepotency (amativeness) 
