Sex Ratios in Pigeons. 
465 
Sex Ratio in Pigeons* 
Hyperandry, or an excess of males, among pigeons has often been 
noted, and is occasionally mentioned in current articles on pigeons. 
It appears to be a matter of common belief among pigeon raisers, in 
fact, that the males exceed the females in number, and we find the 
same fact mentioned by Darwin (1875, p. 247), who says: “In 
regard to domestic pigeons there is good evidence either that the 
males are produced in excess, or that they live longer; for these 
birds invariably pair, and single males, as Mr. Tegetmeier informs 
me, can always be purchased cheaper than females.” Darwin sub¬ 
mits no definite figures, however, in support of his conclusion. We 
have, moreover, been unable to find any published figures on the 
sex ratio of pigeons, except those by Cuenot (1900), who reported on 
136 pigeons whose sex was determined soon after hatching. He 
found 73 males to 63 females, or a ratio of 115.87 to 100, which would 
mean a relatively pronounced over-production of males. 
The proportion of males per 100 females found by Cuenot is 
considerably higher than we have obtained. Our results for birds 
of all ages, tabulated to December 24, 1910, were 292 males to 278 
females, a ratio of 105.03 to 100. A later tabulation of all sexes 
determined to July 18, 1914, including the above, gives 845 males to 
803 females. This ratio (105.23 to 100) is practically the same as 
that obtained at the earlier date and since the correspondence is 
so close, and the numbers are fairly large, it may be assumed 
that 105:100 represents closely the regular proportion of the sexes 
in the pigeons we have used.* While these are mostly what are 
known in this country as Long-faced Tumblersf (both Clean 
Legged and Muffed), our stock has been derived from various sources 
and includes also some Parlor Tumbler stock. In addition there are 
*A still later tabulation was made to December 1, 1914, which added 74 males and 78 females 
to the list, bringing the total number of known sexes up to exactly 1,800; of these, 919 were males and 
881 females, or 104.31 ; 100. This slight lowering of the ratio is probably not enough to affect 
significantly the statement made above. 
fThey correspond in type to the "Mittelschnablige” rather than to the Langschnablige 
Tummler” of the Germans (cf., for example, the illustrations in Schnachtzabel, 1906). 
