400 
Miscellanea 
tautology. Finally, my critic's categorical statement (p. 32) that my " greens " and " yellows " 
are both variegated (in his sense) is as gratuitous as it is unscientific and fake as a matter 
of fact. 
We may next consider the differences between Ur Galloway's experimental results and mine. 
(a) That, as stated on pages 3, 4, my critic should have got 15 unmottled to 5 mottled* 
offspring from non-crested birds, where 1 : 1 was expected is no argument against Mendeliau results, 
since the numbers are insufficient. In my breeding, single families showed such deviation from 
expectation, but the totals of 32 : 30 revealed the true significance of the mating. As to my 
critic's divergent proportions with crested birds no conclusion can be drawn without a knowledge 
of his definition of " variegated." I suspect he includes in this category birds with pigmented 
crests ; I did not. There is an interesting correlation between crest and head pigment in 
my birds and so head pigment was disregarded in crested birds, and such as had no other 
pigment were called "clears" or "yellows." 
(6) Dr Galloway finds that crest x crest-bred plainhead gives an equal number of crested 
and crestless young. As I showed in my paper this result follows when plainheads of any 
origin are mated with heterozygous crests. He finds that in the offspring of two crested parents, 
crests are to plainheads as 2:1. This is a very unanalytical grouping. The results are 1 ;0 
or 3:1 according as parents are homozygous or heterozygous in crest. 
(t") Dr Galloway finds no case of crest x plain that produces crests only. This is not 
strange, as at least twice as many heterozygous as homozygous crested are to be expected. 
Passing now to a criticism of other points in Dr Galloway's paper one might first wish for a 
clearer table of matings and progeny, with individual numbers so that one could trace results in 
cases where the same bird is used several times in different matings. This information the 
appendix does not readily, if at all, afford. Secondly, one can only regret that, as so commonly 
the case with scientifically untrained writers, so much stress is laid on crude speculation, in this 
case as to the origin of domestic races of birds through a " cinnamon sjiort." In its application 
to poultry, certainly, the cherished theory is not appealing. And why is the commonest of 
Hervieux' canary colour types, translated literally "gray" instead of technically "green" (p. 13), 
said to be closely allied to the cinnamon canary (p. 18) ; and even given as a sort of synonym of 
the latter (p. 30) ? 
At the end of this polemic it is a pleasure to speak of the valuable data in this paper 
of Dr Galloway's, the account of the inheritance in eye colour with its confirmation of the 
Bateson-Punnett theory and the conclusion that two Mealies cannot produce Jonques. With 
the general theory that the races of domestic animals have arisen by mutations the writer finds 
himself quite in accord with Dr Galloway. One can only wonder that, where the Mendelian 
theory is so often appreciated and supported, the author should occasionally fail to grasp 
it. And, best of all, it is a pleasure to see the increasing catholicitj' of the active editorship of 
Biometriha in accepting such a paper for publication t. 
* Mottled, as used by me, is not the equivalent of variegated as used by Blakston and, apparently, 
by Dr Galloway. It includes "light variegated," "heavily variegated" and " marked." 
t [This statement of Dr Davenport's needs an editorial comment. No paper dealing with heredity 
from the Mendelian standpoint has ever been refused by this journal, although such papers would 
be declined if they were considered inadequate experimentally or theoretically. Biometric papers 
British, American, and foreign have been rejected on these grounds. K.P.] 
