MISCELLANEA. 
I. Dr Galloway's " Canary Breeding." 
By C. B. davenport. 
In a paper published in Biometrika, Parts I and II of Vol. vii, Dr Galloway lias criticised a 
" recent memoir " by me, " especially the material used " and the " use of terms."' Criticism 
is always to be sought for by scientific workers and is usually beneficial to the progress of science ; 
and, just as criticism is good, a rejoinder is often helpful to afford the original author, in the 
light of that criticism, opportunity to state any necessary change of conclusions or to make 
clear any difficulty which the critic has encountered. Accordingly I feel it to be my duty, 
although a not altogether agreeable one, to take the time and space for a rejoinder. 
The principal points of criticism that Dr Galloway makes are (1) that I should "have 
selected the original stock with much greater care " (p. 2) ; (2) that my " sole criterion of a 
perfect crest... seems to be absence of a bald occiput" (p. 2) ; (3) that "yellow does not mean 
merely absence of dark feathering, as in Da\'enport's paper, but a particular quality of feather 
which may occur in a green, variegated or clear bird " ; (4) that my statement that hybrids with 
the yellow canary " frequently show more or less of the canary yellow " is to be contradicted ; 
and (5) that in my green x "yellow" matings, my "green" is not green but variegated and my 
" yellows " are also variegated. Besides these criticisms there are some points of difference in 
experimental results, namely ; (a) in the offspring of " variegated " x clear green, or variegated 
(pp. 3, 4, 26), {b) in the mating of two crests, and (c) in the absence of homozygous crests. 
Finally, I shall be glad if I can assist the author and science by a few criticisms of some new 
points in his paper. 
Of the five criticisms it will be observed that four deal with definitions and one with the 
material used by me. The latter point may be considered first. The criticism on my original 
stock is not directed towards any concealment on my part, for the data of origin, so far as 
known, are given and one or more paintings of original stock published. It is rather directed 
towards the unfitness of races that are bred for song to give evidence concerning inheritance of 
colour and towards the fact that my birds were not " pure-bred." I am somewhat embarrassed 
in replying to this criticism since the author does not define what he means by pure-bred. 
I know what notion I associate with " pure breeding," namely, continual self-fertilization, such 
as occurs in sweet peas and many other plants, but obviously that kind of pure breeding 
is unknown among canaries. Some fanciers, I know, mean by pure breeding mating inside the 
same race or variety ; but this definition is hopelessly vague since there is no agreement as to 
the limits of relationship or similarity compatible with these terms. A few fanciers mean 
by " pure-bred " birds, birds having a characteristic a all of whose ancestors for several gene- 
rations have the same characteristic a. For such, the offspring of Crested Norwich x Crested 
