246 LOTSY AND KUIPER, A PRELIM. STATEMENT OF THE RESULTS OF MR. 
evendently is a mere segregate from these. There is a Sonneratian 
influence in the submarginal stripes in many of the feathers. 
276.23 2 (Pl. IX fig. 2 and Pl. VI fig. 6) has not become broody in 
1922 and laid but three eggs from which no chicks were raised; it looks 
very much like a partridge colored bantam but has Sonneratian sub- 
marginal stripes on the breast and belly-feathers and barred wing- 
coverts. 
276.10 2 (Pl. VI fig. 7) has not become broody in 1922 and laid but 4 
eggs, from which no chicks were raised, the animal got lost in Mook, so 
that we have only a photo of it; on this, it looks very much like a bankiva, 
with a Sonneratian influence perhaps visible in the white stripes on the 
breast feathers and on those of the shoulder. 
Conclusions from the F, and F, of the cross bankantam x Sonnerat. 
It is proven by these experiments, that the cross of an animal very 
close to bankiva with sonnerati is fertile and we shall see, that this 
fertility continues in future generations. 
There 1s consequently no longer any reason to assume, that all domestic 
poultry has descended from one wild species e. g. from Gallus bankiva. 
Is is true that the fertility was poor, but such can also happen in 
strains of domestic poultry. Darwin says for instance, in his Animals 
and Plants under Domestication p. 104: , I have seen silver (Sebright) 
bantams, directly descended from his (Sir. J. SEBRICHT’S) stock which 
had become almost as barren as hybrids; for not a single chicken had 
that year been hatched from two full nests of eggs.” It must moreover 
not be forgotten, that Gallus Sonnerati itself is a poor breeder in capti- 
vity and that our knowledge, as to the best food for them and for 
their hybrids, is practically nil. 
A remarkable, and to me at least, very unexpected result of this cross 1s 
the very slight visible influence of G. sonnerati in the hybrids and their 
descendants. 
As we have seen, but one F, cock, 198.1, which unfortunately was killed 
by a Putorius, plainly showed the waxy tips of its Sonnerat-father. 
This, alone, might merely indicate a greatly dominating influence of 
the bankivian ancestry, but, as in none of the F, animals, nor in any of - 
the later generations, this character reappeared, as was to be expected 
if it were a matter of dominance, it is doubtful whether this is the right 
