408 
Miscellanea 
In those last two experiments it is not stated whether the crest is perfect or imperfect in 
the case of at least one of the parents, Birds Nos. 50, 269, and the mate of 269 which has no 
number. 
Of this list, Nos. 513, 604, 608 and 703 are given in Tables III, C, a and /3, but their inclu- 
sion is in flat contradiction to Table E. 
Table III, C, a, is stated on p. 13 to consist of matings between perfectly feathered individuals 
that are probably hybrids between dominants and recessives, i.e. DR's and imperfectly feathered 
consorts. The heading of the Table is, however, "One Parent has Imperfect Crest." According 
to Table E, however. Bird No. 34 has a perfect crest and Exp. 513 should thus be included in 
Table B. As before, however, "absence of crest" is considered as equivalent to "perfect crest" 
in dealing with the parents, but birds without crest are rejected in counting the offspring. 
In Table III, C the following should also be included: Exps. 511, 601, 620, 621 and perhaps 
514, 613, 702 and 714, but absence of information in Table E leaves the matter in doubt. 
The gametic scheme on p. 13 which assumes that in the crest there are two pairs of allelo- 
morphs is not justified. It required the presence of bald plainheads, and out of Davenport's 
154 non-crested birds none have been found to be bald. Galloway also says {Bionietrika, Vol. vii. 
p. 25) that no bald plainheads have occurred in his experience. 
The material used by Davenport is also unsatisfactory. Of the birds used in those experi- 
ments some are said to have been of the "Norwich" type, and in Plate I, Fig. 2, in Davenport's 
paper, is given an illustration of a crested Norwich canary. This is however so far removed from 
what is known as a Norwich crest that it seems desirable to consider the point further. I have 
examined carefully every Norwich canary exhibited at the 1910 exhibitions of the Scottish 
National Cage Bird Society at Edinburgh and of the London and Provincial Ornithological 
Society at the Crystal Palace, some hundreds in all, and saw no bird at all like that shown 
in Fig. 2. Such birds sometimes appear but they are rare and are certainly not representative of 
the class. 
There are three well-marked types of Norwich canaries : the Norwich plainhead, the crest- 
bred plainhead, and the Norwich crest. These three birds are quite distinct and cannot be 
confused by anyone who has ever seen them. The crest-bred plainhead and the Norwich crest 
are visually bred together, but the Norwich plainhead is never bred with the other two. Now it 
is not clear whether Davenport's non-crested birds are plainheads or crest-bred plainheads or 
indeed whether he is aware of the distinction between these two types, but that they are quite 
distinct can be seen clearly from the illustrations given here. In Fig. 1, we have a typical 
Norwich plainhead. It is very neat in appearance and shows no trace of overhanging eyebrows 
and offers a strong contrast to Fig. 2 which is a crest-bred canary. In this bird the head feather 
is very dense, and when it is turned forward with the finger it reaches right over the tip of the 
beak. The illustration also shows the typically heavy eyebrows of this class. 
In Fig. 3 is given an illustration of a Norwich crest. The crest is very regular and radiates 
from a well-defined centre ; the eyes and beak are completely covered by the crest and it is clear 
that this bird has very little in common with the "Norwich crest" illustrated by Davenport. 
It is obviously of the highest importance that the existence of these three distinct types should 
be recognised. In respect of crest the crest-bred plainhead occupies a distinctly intermediate 
position and cannot be classed either with the Norwich crest or with the Norwich plainhead. 
It has thus been shown that every conclusion made by Davenport can be jjroved to be false 
from a study of his own material; that if a fact has to be stated twice the one statement is 
flatly opposed to the other and that blunder is heaped on blunder until patience is exhausted. 
Yet such work is accepted as showing that Mendelian rules ajjply to Canaries ! (See Bateson, 
loc. Git. pp. 37 and 43.) 
Before the cautious man of science can be convinced of the truth of Mendelism, it will be 
necessary that in Mendelian writings a much higher standard of observational and statistical 
accuracy should be employed. 
