THE-C9nD9R 
®e;sG€tt\i\- oTsftiGiicajOGY- 
Volume XIV November-December, 1912 Number 6 
STUDY OF THE EGGS OF THE MELBAGRIDAE 
By DR. R. W. SHUFELDT 
WITH ONE PHOTO BY THE, AUTHOR 
W HEN one comes to study the eggs of the various domesticated fowls, and 
compares those eggs with series of others laid by wild birds, belonging 
to genera of the supposed-to-be stock from which the several kinds of 
domesticated ones were derived, it is interesting, and of no little importance, to 
note the variations which have arisen in the form, colors and markings of the 
former. 
With respect to chickens, for example, the widest variations have become es- 
tablished, since the time, of their deviating from the wild stock. The eggs of our 
true breeds of game hens very closely resemble those of the Gallus baiikiva of 
India ; while those of all the other fancy and extravagantly formed fowls of the 
farm and barnyard depart from them in every particular. These are too well 
known to require any comment here. 
As to guinea fowls, there appears to be, upon careful comparison of exten- 
sive series of the eggs of the wild birds with those of the domesticated ones, no 
material difference, and certainly none worthy of mention. This statement is 
likewise true of the eggs of the wild and tame mallards, muscovy ducks, man- 
darin duck or Chinese teal {Aix galericulata) , swans, geese, pheasants, peacock.s, 
and others. 
In most of these forms, if not in all, the eggs are unmarked, and therefore 
any variations that might exist, would be only seen in shape and ground-color. 
In these particulars, the eggs of the wild birds themselves sometimes exhibit 
marked variations, as everyone knows who has, for example, ever compared large 
series of eggs of the wild mallards. 
Caton, as I shall take occasion to point out farther on in this article, settled 
the point that the eggs of tame and wild turkeys were indistinguishable, that is, 
when we come to compare those exhibiting similar variations; by which -is meant, 
