484 
Bulletin No. 102.—1915. 
and replaced by a nest egg of bone or a waste pigeon's egg, to be 
replaced the evening the second is laid. This plan will save or improve 
many a hen that otherwise would be dwarfed in rearing. ” No figures 
are advanced in substantiation of the statements made. 
Assumptions (a) and (6) have both been disproven by the observa¬ 
tions of Cuenot (1900), and our results support his. Our general con¬ 
clusions were published in abstract several years ago (Cole, 1911); 
since then we have added many more corroborative data, all of which 
are presented below. Assumptions (c), (d) and (e) are considered in 
a later section; data bearing on (/) and (g) have already been pre¬ 
sented. Briefly, it may be said that none of these assumptions is 
true in its entirety; some are partially true, while others have no 
foundation whatever in fact. It will be noted that among these no 
mention is made of an excess of males hatched, one fact helping to 
explain their reputed excess in the breeders’ lofts which appears to 
be well established. 
Our data showing the relation of sex to order of laying of the eggs, 
summarized to July 18,1914, are presented in Table III. 
