The Sonnerat Fowl. 
5°3 
a general knowledge of the subject off the track at once. Hence they succeed where others fail , 
and if, in the case of curassows or other birds it is desired to acclimatise, stock were judiciously 
distributed amongst such skilled breeders rather than to provincial “societies,” we are convinced 
that the results would be far greater than they now frequently are.* 
The very fact that both Mr. Parr and Mr. Nevile found the Sonnerat hens to lay only four 
eggs at a litter, may be taken to confirm the same view, of the unnatural confinement diminishing 
the fertility of even the pure breed. It is true, as Mr. Douglas has pointed out to us, that it may 
also have arisen from the hens being aged, since old Game hens will often only lay four eggs at a 
litter, or even three ; but the probability is, we think, rather as we have stated. Could it bf 
shown that the number four was the invariable litter of the Sonnerat Fowl, the fact would be 
stronger than any Mr. Darwin has mentioned in favour of distinctness of species, marking, in fact, 
even more distinctness than is the case with pheasants or turkeys ; but that this is not the case is 
certain. Not only is Mr. Douglas’s experience quite different, but Dr. Jerdon — a most excellent 
authority — writes that “ the hen (wild) lays from February to May, generally producing from seven 
to ten eggs, of a pinky cream-colour.” Hence we may conclude that, be the cause what it may, the 
number of four eggs was exceptional. The short period of incubation need scarcely be mentioned, 
being common to many breeds of Bantams, and in less degree to the Hamburghs also. 
With regard to the horny plates in the cock’s plumage, we have seen that in most of the cases, 
at least in Mr. Douglas’s experience, this feature readily disappeared or was absorbed, though 
in some specimens of hybrids Mr. Darwin found them present, but “ much smaller.” And Dr. 
Hornerf gives an account of some hybrids he had obtained from the Zoological Gardens, of which 
the cock was bred from a true Sonnerat with a Game hen, and the hen was his own grand-daughter 
through a Game hen. Dr. Horner, it is worthy of remark, states nothing about the birds being 
unprolific, though he says their chickens were delicate and reared with difficulty; but we refer to his 
account chiefly for a remark he makes, as follows: — “Mr. Hunt [then chief superintendent of the 
aviaries at the Zoological Gardens, Regent’s Park] informs me that he believes there are but 
two cock birds in England really bred direct from the Sonnerat Jungle Fowl, and which exhibit the 
peculiar golden plate on the feathers — the one at present in the Regent’s Park Gardens and my own. 
He also warns me of the difficulty of rearing chickens bred in-and-in.” The italics are Dr. Horner’s, 
and rather significant ; proving that hybrids of the Sonnerat did not always present the peculiar 
golden plate ; and the remark at the end inferentially renders it probable that many of the hybrids 
bred at the Gardens were produced from in-bred, and therefore partially unprolific stock. It seems, 
therefore, plain to us that the peculiar horny plate, supposed to be so strong a proof of distinctness 
of species, cannot be laid much stress upon, being readily absorbed and quickly disappearing. It 
certainly is not more distinct in its character than the crest of a Polish fowl ; yet this we have 
before seen is readily absorbed in a cross, and disappears in the same way, while in other cases it 
maintains its ground, and marks a variety breeding as true as any, though — and the coincidence is 
singular — often decidedly unfertile in comparison with some other breeds. The true character of 
this feature must also be considered, since its importance may otherwise be much exaggerated. 
* In an article by Mr. Tegetmeier on the Amherst Pheasant, in The Field for August 30th, 1873, is a remark which singularly 
illustrates this question of fertility. “It is found, says the writer, “that the breeding of the Amherst pheasant offers no difficulty, 
provided it be attempted under natural conditions , and not in the close pens and stifling vermin-haunted houses that are characteristic 
ot some ot our zoological collections.” We hardly need remark that no reference is here intended to the Regent’s Park Gardens : 
Mr. Bartlett s efforts to secure “ natural conditions,” and consequent comparative success, being well known; but even there the 
space at command is not sufficient to test the fertility of naturally wild fowls, 
f Wingfield and Johnson’s “Poultry Book,” 1855, pp. 148, 237. 
