The Project Gutenberg EBook of Inheritance of Characteristics in Domestic Fowl, by Charles Benedict Davenport This eBook is for the use of anyone anywhere at no cost and with almost no restrictions whatsoever. You may copy it, give it away or re-use it under the terms of the Project Gutenberg License included with this eBook or online at www.gutenberg.org/license Title: Inheritance of Characteristics in Domestic Fowl Author: Charles Benedict Davenport Illustrator: Kako Morita Kenji Toda Release Date: February 17, 2015 [EBook #48288] Language: English Character set encoding: ISO-8859-1 *** START OF THIS PROJECT GUTENBERG EBOOK INHERITANCE *** Produced by Frank van Drogen, Nicole Pasteur, Bryan Ness and the Online Distributed Proofreading Team at http://www.pgdp.net (This file was produced from images generously made available by The Internet Archive/Canadian Libraries) INHERITANCE OF CHARACTERISTICS IN DOMESTIC FOWL. BY CHARLES B. DAVENPORT, DIRECTOR OF THE STATION FOR EXPERIMENTAL EVOLUTION, CARNEGIE INSTITUTION OF WASHINGTON. WASHINGTON, D. C. PUBLISHED BY THE CARNEGIE INSTITUTION OF WASHINGTON. 1909 Carnegie Institution of Washington Publication No. 121. Papers of the Station for Experimental Evolution, No. 14. PRESS OF J. B. LIPPINCOTT COMPANY PHILADELPHIA TABLE OF CONTENTS. PAGE Introduction 3 Chapter I. The Split or YY Comb 5 A. Interpretation of the YY Comb 5 B. Variability of the YY Comb and Inheritance of the Variations 12 Chapter II. Polydactylism 17 A. Types of Polydactylism 17 B. Results of Hybridization 18 Chapter III. Syndactylism 29 A. Statement of Problem 29 B. Results of Hybridization 32 Chapter IV. Rumplessness 37 Chapter V. Winglessness 42 Chapter VI. Booting 43 A. Types of Booting 43 B. Normal Variability 43 C. Results of Hybridization 46 Chapter VII. Nostril-Form 59 Chapter VIII. Crest 67 Chapter IX. Comb-lop 69 Chapter X. Plumage Color 71 A. The Gametic Composition of the Various Races 71 1. White 71 2. Black 72 3. Buff 72 B. Evidence 72 1. Silkie × Minorca (or Spanish) 72 2. Silkie × White Leghorn 75 3. Silkie × Buff Cochin 76 4. White Leghorn × Black Minorca 77 5. White Leghorn × Buff Cochin 77 6. Black Cochin × Buff Cochin 78 Chapter XI. Inheritance of Blue Color, Spangling, and Barring 79 A. Blue Color 79 B. Spangling 80 C. Barring 81 1. White Cochin × Tosa 81 2. White Leghorn Bantam × Dark Brahma 82 3. White Leghorn Bantam × Black Cochin 82 Chapter XII. General Discussion 85 A. Relation of Heredity and Ontogeny 85 B. Dominance and Recessiveness 88 C. Potency 92 D. Reversion and the Factor Hypothesis 93 E. The Limits of Selection 94 1. Increasing the Red in the Dark Brahma × Minorca Cross 94 2. Production of a Buff Race by Selection 95 F. Non-inheritable Characters 96 G. The Rôle of Hybridization in Evolution 97 Literature Cited 99 INHERITANCE OF CHARACTERISTICS IN DOMESTIC FOWL. BY CHARLES B. DAVENPORT. iii 1 3 INTRODUCTION. A series of studies is here presented bearing on the question of dominance and its varying potency. Of these studies, that on the YY comb presents a case where relative dominance varies from perfection to entire absence, and through all intermediate grades, the average condition being a 70 per cent dominance of the median element. When dominance is relatively weak or of only intermediate grade the second generation of hybrids contains extracted pure dominants in the expected proportions of 1:2:1; but as the potency of dominance increases in the parents the proportion of offspring with the dominant (single) comb increases from 25 per cent to 50 per cent. This leads to the conclusion that, on the one hand, dominance varies quantitatively and, on the other, that the degree of dominance is inheritable. The studies on polydactylism reveal a similar variation of potency in dominance and show, in Houdans at least, an inheritance of potency (table 11), and moreover they suggest a criticism of Castle's conclusion of inheritance of the degree of polydactylism. Syndactylism illustrates another step in the series of decreasing potency of the dominant. On not one of the F1 generation was the dominant (syndactyl) condition observed; and when these hybrids were mated together the dominant character appeared not in 75 per cent but in from 10 per cent to 0 per cent of the offspring. The question may well be asked: What is then the criterion of dominance? The reply is elaborated to the effect that, since dominance is due to the presence of a character and recessiveness to its absence, dominance may fail to develop, but recessiveness never can do so. Consequently two extracted recessives mated inter se can not throw the dominant condition; but two imperfect dominants, even though indistinguishable from recessives, will throw dominants. On the other hand, owing to the very fact that the dominant condition often fails of development, two extracted "pure" dominants will, probably always, throw some apparent "recessives." Now, two syndactyls have not been found that fail (in large families) to throw normals, but extracted normals have been found which, bred inter se, throw only normals; hence, "normal-toe" is recessive. In this character, then, dominance almost always fails to show itself in the heterozygote and often fails in pure dominants. The series of diminishing potency has now brought us to a point where we can interpret a case of great difficulty, namely, a case of rumplessness. Here a dominant condition was originally mistaken for a recessive condition, because it never fully showed itself in F1 and F2. Nevertheless, in related individuals, the condition is fully dominant. We thus get the notion that a factor that normally tends to the development of a character may, although present, fail to develop the character. Dominance is lacking through impotence. The last term of the series is seen in the wingless cock which left no wingless offspring in the F1 and F2 generations. In comparison with the results gained with the rumpless cock, winglessness in this strain is probably dominant but impotent. When a character, instead of being simply present or absent, is capable of infinite gradations, inheritance seems often to be blending and without segregation. Two cases of this sort—booting and nostril-height—are examined, and by the aid of the principle of imperfect dominance the apparent blending is shown to follow the principle of segregation. Booting is controlled by a dominant inhibiting factor that varies greatly in potency, and nostril-height is controlled by an inhibiting factor that stops the over-growth of the nasal flap which produces the narrow nostril. The extracted dominants show great variability in their progeny, but the extracted recessives show practically none. This is because a positive character may fail to develop; but an absent character can not develop even a little way. The difference in variability of the offspring of two extracted recessives and two extracted dominants is the best criterion by which they may be distinguished, or by which the presence (as opposed to the absence) of a factor may be determined. The crest of fowl receives especial attention as an example of a character previously regarded as simple but now known to comprise two and probably more factors—a factor for erectness, one for growth, and probably one or more that determine the restriction or extension of the crested area. The direction of lop of the single comb is an interesting example of a character that seems to be undetermined by heredity. In this it agrees with numerous right and left handed characters. It is not improbable that the character is determined by a complex of causes, so that many independent factors are involved. A series of studies is presented on the inheritance of plumage color. It is shown that each type of bird has a gametic formula that is constant for the type and which can be used with success to predict the outcome of particular combinations. New combinations of color and "reversions" receive an easy explanation by the use of these factors. The cases of blue, spangled, and barred fowl are shown also to contain mottling or spangling factors. 3 4 5 CHAPTER I. THE SPLIT OR YY COMB. A. INTERPRETATION OF THE YY COMB. When a bird with a single comb, which may be conveniently symbolized as II, is crossed with a bird with a "V" comb such as is seen in the Polish race, and may be symbolized as oo oo, the product is a split or YY comb. This YY comb is a new form. As we do not expect new forms to appear in hybridization, the question arises, How is this YY comb to be interpreted? Three interpretations seem possible. According to one, the antagonistic characters (allelomorphs) are II comb and oo oo comb, and in the product neither is recessive, but both dominant. The result is a case of particulate inheritance—the single comb being inherited anteriorly and the oo oo comb posteriorly. On this interpretation the result is not at all Mendelian. According to the second interpretation the hereditary units are not what appear on the surface, but each type of comb contains two factors, of which (in each case) one is positive and the other negative. In the case of the II comb the factors are presence of median element and absence of lateral or paired element; and in the case of the oo oo comb the factors are absence of median element and presence of lateral element. On this hypothesis the two positive factors are dominant and the two negative factors are recessive. The third hypothesis is intermediate between the others. According to it the germ-cells of the single-combed bird contain a median unit character which is absent in the germ-cells of the Polish or Houdan fowl. This hypothesis supposes further that the absence of the median element is accompanied by a fluctuating quantity of lateral cere, the so- called V comb. The split comb is obtained whenever the oo oo comb is crossed with a type containing the median element. Thus, the offspring of a oo oo comb and a pea comb is a split pea comb, and the offspring of a oo oo comb and a rose comb is a split rose. The three hypotheses may consequently be tested in three cases where a split comb is produced. Table 1. II YY No median. II × II 100 0 0 II × YY 50 50 0 II × no median 0 100 0 YY × no median 0 50 50 No median × no median 0 0 100 The first and third hypotheses will give the same statistical result, namely, the products of two YY-combed individuals of F1 used as parents, will exhibit the following proportions: median element, 25 per cent; split comb, 50 per cent; and no median element, 25 per cent. These proportions will show themselves, whatever the generation to which the YY-combed parents belong, whether both are of generation F1, or F2, or F3, or one parent of one generation and the other of another. Other combinations of parental characters should give the proportions in the progeny shown in table 1. On the second hypothesis, on the other hand, the proportions of the different kinds occurring in the progeny will vary with the generation of the parents. This hypothesis assumes the existence in each germ-cell of the original parent of two comb allelomorphs, M and l in single-combed birds and m and L in the Polish fowl, the capital letter standing for the presence of a character (Median element or Lateral element) and the small letter for the absence of that character. Consequently, after mating, the zygote of F1 contains all 4 factors, MmLl, and the soma has a YY comb; but in the germ- cells, which contain each only 2 unlike factors, these factors occur in the following 4 combinations, so that there are now 4 kinds of germ-cells instead of the 2 with which we started. These are ML, Ml, mL, and ml. Furthermore, since in promiscuous mating of birds these germ-cells unite in pairs in a wholly random fashion, 16 combinations are possible, giving 16 F2 zygotes (not all different) as shown in table 2. Table 2. Type. Zygotic constitution. Soma. a M2L2[A] YY b M2Ll YY b M2Ll YY c MmL2 YY d MmLl YY e M2Ll YY [A] This convenient form of zygotic formulæ, using a subscript 2 instead of doubling the letter, is proposed by Prof. W. E. Castle. 6 [A] This convenient form of zygotic formulæ, using a subscript 2 instead of doubling the letter, is proposed by Prof. W. E. Castle. f M2l2 II g MmLl YY h Mml2 II i mLML YY k mLMl YY l m2L2 oo oo m m2Ll oo oo n mlML YY o mlMl II p m2Ll oo oo q m2l2 Absent It is a consequence of this second hypothesis that, in F2, of every 16 young 9 should have the YY comb; 3 the II comb; 3 the oo oo comb, and 1 no comb at all. It follows further that the progeny of two F2 parents will differ in different families. Thus if a YY-combed bird of type a be mated with a bird of any type, all of the progeny will have the YY comb. From YY-combed parents of various types taken at random 4 kinds of families will arise having the following percentage distribution of the different types of comb: 1. YY comb, 100 per cent. 2. YY comb, 75 per cent; II comb, 25 per cent. 3. YY comb, 75 per cent; oo oo comb, 25 per cent. 4. YY comb, 56.25 per cent; II comb, 18.75 per cent; oo oo comb, 18.75 per cent; absent, 6.25 per cent. Again, mating two extracted II combs of F2 should yield, in F3, two types of families in equal frequency as follows: 1. II comb, 100 per cent. 2. II comb, 75 per cent; no comb, 25 per cent. Again, mating two extracted oo oo combs of F2 should yield, in F3, two types of families in equal frequency, as follows: 1. oo oo comb, 100 per cent. 2. oo oo comb, 75 per cent; no comb, 25 per cent. Single comb × YY comb should give families of the types: 1. YY comb, 100 per cent. 2. YY comb, 50 per cent; II comb, 50 per cent. 3. YY comb, 50 per cent; oo oo comb, 50 per cent. 4. YY comb, 25 per cent; II comb, 25 per cent; oo oo comb, 25 per cent; absent, 25 per cent. Mating oo oo comb and YY comb should give the family types: 1. YY comb, 100 per cent. 2. YY comb, 50 per cent; oo oo comb, 50 per cent. 3. YY comb, 50 per cent; II comb, 50 per cent. 4. YY comb, 25 per cent; oo oo comb, 25 per cent; II comb, 25 per cent; no comb, 25 per cent. Finally, II comb and oo oo comb should give the following types of families: 1. YY comb, 100 per cent. 2. II comb, 100 per cent. 3. YY comb, 50 per cent; oo oo comb, 50 per cent. 4. II comb, 50 per cent; no comb, 50 per cent. Now, what do the facts say as to the relative value of these three hypotheses? Abundant statistics give a clear answer. In the first place, the progeny of two YY-combed F1 parents is found to show the following distribution of comb types: YY comb 471, or 47.3 per cent; II comb 289, or 29.0 per cent; oo oo comb 226, or 22.7 per cent; and no comb 10, or 1 per cent. The presence of no comb in F2 speaks for the second hypothesis, but instead of the 6.25 per cent combless expected on that hypothesis only 1 per cent appears. There is no close accord with expectation on the second hypothesis. Coming now to the F3 progeny of two YY-combed parents, we get the distribution of families shown in table 3. Table 3. Pen No. Parents. Comb in offspring. ♀ (F2). ♂ (F2) II YY oo oo Absent. 7 707 366 1378 18 16 9 ... 522 1378 1 1 0 ... 763 2250 2247 9 5 4 1 2700 2247 3 5 3 1 3799 2247 5 4 3 ... 769 1305 911 7 4 6 ... 2254 911 15 15 7 ... Totals (142) 58 50 32 2 Proportions (per cent) 40.835.222.5 1.4 23.9 An examination of these families shows not one composed exclusively of YY-combed individuals nor those (of significant size) containing YY-combed and II-combed or oo oo-combed individuals exclusively, much less in the precise proportion of 3:1, yet such should be the commonest families if the second hypothesis were true. Notwithstanding the marked deviation—to be discussed later—from the expected proportions of II, 25 per cent; YY, 50 per cent; oo oo, 25 per cent, the result accords better with the first or third hypothesis. Since on either of these hypotheses the same proportions of the various types of comb are to be expected in the progeny of YY-combed parents of whatever generation, it is worth recording that from such parents belonging to all generations except the first the results given in table 4 were obtained, and it will be noticed that these results approach expectation on the first or third hypothesis. Table 4. II YY oo oo Absent. Total. Frequency 235 291 144 12 682 Percentage34.542.721.1 1.8 ... The progeny of two extracted single-combed parents of the F2 generation give in 3 families the following totals: Of 95 F3 offspring, 94 have single combs; one was recorded from an unhatched chick as having a slightly split comb, but this was probably a single comb with a slight side-spur, a form that is associated with purely II-combed germ-cells. This result is in perfect accord with the second and third hypotheses, but is irreconcilable with the first hypothesis. The progeny of two extracted oo oo-combed parents is given in table 5. Table 5. [A] Median element recorded as "small" in these offspring. [B] A median element visible in the mother, No. 2618. Pen No. Parents. Comb in offspring. ♀ (F2). ♂ (F2) II YY oo oo Absent. 729 2255 936 ... [A]4 36 ... 2269 936 ... ... 29 ... 756 369 1390 1 ... 3 ... 1067 1390 ... ... 8 1 1113 1390 ... ... 13 4 762 2011 444 ... ... 10 ... 2011 2621 ... ... 9 ... 2333 444 ... [A]5 11 ... 2333 2621 ... [A]1 2 ... 2618 444 ... ... 2 ... 2618 2621 ... ... 5 ... 3776 444 ... ... 2 ... 3776 2621 ... 1 14 ... 820 2016 4731 ... ... 10 ... 2255 4731 ... ... 16 ... 5143 4731 ... ... 45 ... 6479 4731 ... ... 31 ... 832 [B]2618 5119 [B]1 ... 23 ... 3776 5119 ... ... 28 ... 4404 5119 ... ... 9 ... 4732 5119 ... ... 3 ... 5803 5119 ... ... 21 2 6481 5119 ... ... 11 ... 834 2324 5090 ... ... 26 ... Total 2 11 367 7 The distribution of offspring in the 24 families of table 5 is in fair accord with any of the three hypotheses, but seems to favor the second, for that hypothesis calls for families with combless children, whereas such are not to be expected on 8 the first hypothesis. Moreover, agreement with the second hypothesis is fairly close, for that calls for 3 families with combless children and there were actually 3 such families showing a total of 1.8 per cent combless, where expectation is 2.8 per cent. What is opposed to any hypothesis is the appearance of some YY-combed offspring; and to account for this the hypothesis is suggested that the germ-cells of some parents with oo oo comb contain traces of the II-comb determiner. The word "traces" is used because the median element in these YY-combed offspring is practically always very small. It is fair, consequently, to conclude that oo oo × oo oo gives oo oo-combed, and occasionally combless, offspring. This conclusion is further supported by the statistics derived from extracted oo oo comb of all generations bred inter se, which give: YY 11, oo oo 427, and no comb 8, where the 11 YY-combed birds are those just referred to as progeny of F2 parents. The non-median comb, consequently, probably contains only non-median germ-cells. Table 6. Pen No. Parents. Offspring. ♀ (F2). Form of comb Degree of splitting. ♂ (F2) Form of comb Degree of splitting. II YY oo oo P. ct. P. ct. 628 427 YY 5 439 II 0 5 1 ... 722 YY 20 439 II 0 1 5 ... 725 YY 10 439 II 0 5 3 ... 629 427 II 0 491 YY 50 9 6 ... 765 1790 II 0 1794 YY 90 17 25 ... 802 3846 II 0 6652 YY 90 8 5 ... 5025 II 0 6652 YY 90 14 11 2 5087 II 0 6652 YY 90 13 17 2 812 4254 II 0 4118 YY 90 15 13 ... 5540 II 0 4118 YY 90 8 9 ... Totals (189) 95 95 4 Percentages 49.0 49.0 2.0 The mating of extracted II comb and YY comb, both of the second (or later) hybrid generation, gives the following distribution of types in the offspring (table 6): YY comb 95 (49 per cent); II comb 95 (49 per cent); oo oo comb 4 (2 per cent). In detail the results given in table 6 accord badly with the second hypothesis, which demands some families with 100 per cent YY comb. The mating of extracted oo oo comb×YY comb, where both parents are of the second hybrid generation, gave the distribution of comb types in the 6 families that are recorded in table 7. Table 7. Pen No. Parents. Offspring. ♀ (F2). ♂ (F2) I I Y Y oo oo Absent. 634 298 444 0 15 18 ... 366 444 5 23 15 ... 729 913 936 2 28 37 ... 935 936 ... 13 39 ... 756 1043 1390 ... 13 11 1 1048 1390 ... 0 5 ... Totals (214) 7 92 115 1 The single comb recorded in the case of 7 birds is doubtless merely the limiting condition of a YY comb in which the median element is developed to its fullest extent. All but 2 of the 7 were recorded from early embryos when an incipient bifurcation would be more difficult to detect. This explanation applies generally, and accounts for the usual excess of II comb when compared with YY comb, as for instance in table 3, page 7. Returning to table 7, it is, consequently, probable that only the YY-combed and non-median-combed offspring are produced and that they are in the proportion of 99 to 115 or of 46 per cent to 54 per cent. If we add together all records of a oo oo×YY cross, disregarding the generation of the parents, we get a total II comb 5,[1] YY comb 177, oo oo comb 172, and absent 3, or 182 (51 per cent) with the median element and 175 (49 per cent) without. Thus the oo oo×YY cross gives the 1:1 proportion called for on the first and third hypotheses and not at all the variety required by the second hypothesis. Table 8. Pen No. Mother. Father. Comb in offspring. No. Comb. P. ct. split. No. Comb. I I Y Y oo oo Abs. 704 65 F1 YY 50 1420 F2 Absent ... 10 6 8 1061 F2 YY 50 1420 F2 Do. ... 4 ... 1 9 10 819 57 F1 YY 50 1420 F2 Do. ... 8 6 5 65 F1 YY 60 1420 F2 Do. ... 1 ... 1 Total 0 23 12 15 Finally, we must consider the result of mating a bird without papillæ (No. 1420, pen 704) with a median-combed hen (480). When this typical single-combed hen was used the 49 progeny were all of the YY type.[2] This proves that the combless type behaves only as an extreme of the non-median type. When YY-combed hens were used with the combless cock the offspring had YY comb and non-median-comb in nearly equal numbers, 23:27 (table 8), but the latter included an unusually large proportion of combless fowl (15 in 27). When a combless hen (No. 4257) was used, 9 of the offspring had oo oo comb and 2 no comb; not a greater proportion of combless birds than in the no-comb×YY-combed cross. All of these facts indicate that "comblessness" is not entire absence of the comb factors, but a minimum case of the oo oo or paired comb. This result is opposed to the second hypothesis. The statistics of all matings between II, YY, and no comb on the one side and no comb on the other thus speak unanimously for the conclusion that in these matings we are not dealing with 2 pairs of allelomorphs, but with a single comb and its absence (third hypothesis) or with a case of particulate inheritance (first hypothesis). Moreover, it must be said that the split comb is obtained also when the Polish-Houdan comb is crossed with a pea comb or a rose comb; and the pea and rose combs can not be said to have "lateral comb absent," as required by the second hypothesis. Consequently the second hypothesis is definitely excluded. It now remains to decide between the two remaining hypotheses. First of all, it may be said that the perfection with which II and oo oo combs can be extracted from YY-combed birds indicates that we are here dealing with a case of Mendelian inheritance and, in so far, favors the third hypothesis. To accord with the theory of particulate inheritance, of which the first hypothesis is a special case, the two united characters should transmit the mosaic purely; but this they do not do. Hence the third hypothesis is to be preferred to the first. Comblessness is a necessary consequence of the second hypothesis and is inexplicable on the first hypothesis. On the third hypothesis it may be accounted for as follows: Absence of single comb is allelomorphic to its presence. The lateral comb is a character common to fowl either with or without the median comb, but it is ordinarily repressed in the birds with single comb and gains a large size when the median element is absent. It is a very variable element. At one extreme it forms the cup comb; at the other there is an absence of any trace of comb. My own records show all grades between these extremes, including minute papillæ on both sides of the head or on one side only, low paired ridges, the butterfly comb, and cup comb shorter than normal. This variability of the lateral element is comparable to the fluctuation in size of the single comb itself, as illustrated by the Single-comb Minorca on the one hand and the Cochin on the other. It is comparable, also, to the fluctuation in the paired part of the YY comb, which we shall consider in the next section, and to the variability of the oo oo comb as met with in the pens of fanciers. The foregoing considerations do not, at first sight, account for the YY comb as seen in F1. Yet they provide us with all the data for an explanation. Median comb of the Minorca dominates over no median of the Polish, and so in F1 we have the median element represented. But, on the well-known principle of imperfection of dominance in F1, the median comb is usually incomplete and, probably for some ontogenetic reason, incomplete only behind. The incompleteness behind permits the development there of the elsewhere repressed lateral comb, and we therefore have the YY comb—evidence at the same time of a repressed lateral-comb Anlage in the single-combed birds and of imperfection of dominance of the single comb in the first hybrid generation. B. VARIABILITY OF THE YY COMB AND INHERITANCE OF THE VARIATIONS. As already stated, the proportions of the median and the lateral elements in the YY comb are very variable; the median element may, indeed, constitute anywhere from 100 per cent to 0 per cent of the entire comb. Even full brothers and sisters show this variability. Thus the offspring of No. 13 ♀ Single-comb Minorca and No. 3 ♂ Polish have the median element of the YY comb ranging from 0 per cent to 70 per cent of the whole comb. Notwithstanding this variability of the median element in any family there is a difference in the average and the range of variability in families where different races are employed. Thus the offspring of two Polish × Minorca crosses show an average of 46 per cent of the median element in the comb; the Houdan × Minorca cross gives combs with 60 per cent of the median element; and in the combs of the offspring of two Houdan × White Leghorn crosses there is, on the average, 71 per cent of the median element. The Houdan × Dark Brahma (pea comb) gives combs with an average of 87 per cent median element and the Polish × Rose-comb Minorca cross gives 89 per cent median. The rose-combed hens used in this last cross were heterozygous, having single comb recessive; consequently they produced also chicks with typical YY combs. Such had, on the average, only 59 per cent of the median element and were thus in striking contrast with the slightly split rose combs. In the case of the partially split rose combs the median element ranged from 60 per cent to 100 per cent of the whole length of the comb; but in the split single combs the range is from 0 to 100 per cent. Thus, in the two cases, the proportion of the median element and the range of its variability differ greatly. Also, in generations subsequent to the first, the YY comb exhibits this same variability. We have already seen that the 11 12 13 progeny of the YY-combed offspring of any generation may be compared with those of any other, and so we may mass together the progeny of all hybrid generations so long as they are derived from the same ancestral pure races. Fig A.—The frequency of the different forms of YY comb, each form being based on the percentage of the median element of the YY comb to the entire length of comb. In inquiring into the meaning of this variability we must first construct the polygon of frequency of the various grades of median element. This is plotted in fig. A, which is a composite whose elements are, however, quite like the total curve. There is one empirical mode at 70 per cent and another at 0 per cent. The smaller mode at 50 per cent is, I suspect, due to the tendency to estimate in round numbers, and may be, in this discussion, neglected. From this polygon we draw the conclusions, first, that the median element in the YY comb tends to dominate strongly over the absence of this element, as 7:3, and, second, that dominance is rarely complete. Yet there is an important number of cases, even in F1, where the median element is almost or completely repressed (down to 10 to 0 per cent of the whole) and the comb consists of two high and long lateral elements—the "cup comb" of Darwin. There are, then, in the offspring of a median- combed and a non-median-combed parent, two types with few intergrades—the type of slightly incomplete dominance of the median element and the type of very incomplete dominance. We have now to consider how these two types of comb and their fluctuations behave in heredity. When two parents having each combs of the 70 per cent or 80 per cent median type are mated, their offspring belong to the three categories of II, YY, and "no-median" comb, but the relative frequency of these three categories is not close to the ideal of 25 per cent, 50 per cent, and 25 per cent, respectively. For there is actually in 336 offspring a marked excess of the II comb, 36 per cent, 44 per cent, and 20 per cent, respectively, resulting. When, on the other hand, two parents having each combs of the 10 per cent and 0 per cent types are mated their offspring are of the same three categories and the proportions actually found in 241 offspring (28 per cent, 47 per cent, 25 per cent) closely approximate the ideal. It is clear, then, that even the cup comb, without visible median element, has such an element in its germ-cells and is totally different in its hereditary behavior from the Polish comb, in which the median element is absent, not only from the soma, but also from the germ-cells. We have seen in the last paragraph that the YY comb with only 10 per cent to 0 per cent median element has germ-cells bearing median comb as truly as the YY comb containing 70 per cent to 80 per cent median element, but we have also seen that in the latter case there is an excess of single-combed progeny. We have now to inquire whether, in general, there is a close relation between the proportion of median element in the comb of the parents and the percentage of single-combed offspring. These relations are brought out in the lower half of table 9. Table 9.—Frequency of the different proportions of single element in the combs of offspring of parents having the average proportion of median element given in the column at the left. YY combs. Offspring. 0 10203040 50 60 70 80 90 Total. Parents 0 21 5 4 3 4 6 5 10 8 1 67 1021 5 3 0 3 9 2 4 2 0 49 20 5 4 2 1 0 4 2 12 0 1 31 30 8 17 8 10 9 22 12 30 8 3 127 40 9 7 4 2 7 39 18 46 26 5 163 50 7 5 2 1 5 32 13 48 35 11 159 6010 7 2 2 2 19 14 47 51 15 169 70 9 2 4 0 1 6 7 28 41 11 109 80 ... ... 1 1 1 1 6 12 11 6 39 14 90 ... 2 1 0 0 3 0 3 8 9 26 Total 9054312032141 79 240 190 62 939 All types of combs in offspring. Number of II YY Non-median. offspring. No. P. ct. No. P. ct. No. P. ct. Parents 0 146 42 20 67 46 37 25 10 99 25 25 49 50 25 25 20 73 22 30 31 43 20 27 30 249 61 25 127 51 61 24 40 309 73 24 163 53 73 23 50 329 93 28 159 48 77 23 60 368 120 33 169 46 79 21 70 232 80 35 109 47 43 18 80 104 42 40 39 38 23 22 90 75 38 51 26 34 11 15 Total 1984 596 30.0 939 47.3 449 22.7 The proportion of single-combed offspring in the total filial population is 30.0 per cent, a departure of such magnitude from the expected 25 per cent as to arrest our attention. Further inspection of table 9 shows that the excess of single- combed offspring is found only in the lower half of the series. When the percentage of median element in the parents is under 50 the proportions of II, YY, and no-median combs are as 25.5 per cent, 49.8 per cent, 24.7 per cent, or close to expectation; but when the percentage is 50 or over the proportions are, on the average, 33.6 per cent, 45.2 per cent, and 21.2 per cent, a wide departure from expectation, 1108 individuals being involved. An examination of table 9 shows, moreover, that the proportion of offspring with single comb rises steadily as the proportion of the median element in the parentage increases from 50 per cent. The meaning of this fact is at present obscure, but the suspicion is awakened that, while the "cup comb" and the more deeply split combs are typical heterozygotes the slightly split combs are a complex of 2 or more units, one of which is "single comb." But that this is not the explanation follows for two reasons: first, that even in the F1 generation slightly split combs are obtained, and, second, that the offspring of the cup combs are much more variable than those of slightly split combs (70 to 90 per cent median). What is strikingly true is that, from 50 per cent up, as the proportion of the median element in the parents increases the percentage of single- combed offspring rises. The matter may be looked at in another light. Median comb is dominant over its absence. Typically, we should expect F1 to show a single comb; the YY comb that we actually get is a heterozygous condition due to the failure of the median comb to dominate completely. Typically we should expect F2 to reveal 75 per cent single combs, of which 1 in 3 is homozygous and 2 in 3 are heterozygous. Owing to the failure of single comb always to dominate completely in the heterozygotes, we expect to find some of the 75 per cent with the YY comb. When in the parents dominance has been very incomplete in the heterozygote (as is the case in the 0 per cent to 40 per cent median-combed parents) we find it so in the offspring also and all heterozygotes show a YY comb of some type. But when in the parents dominance has been strong in the heterozygote (50 per cent to 90 per cent) it is so in the offspring also and only a part of the heterozygotes show the YY comb; the others show the single comb and thus swell the numbers of the single-combed type. The only objection to this explanation is found in the reduction in the percentages of the no-median type. Thus, adding together the homozygous and heterozygous median-combed offspring and comparing with the non-median- combed, we find these ratios: Parental per cent 0-40 50 60 70 80 90 Ratio 75.3 : 24.7 76 : 23 79 : 21 82 : 18 78 : 22 85 : 15 There is a great deviation from 25 per cent in the "non-median" offspring of the 90 per cent parents, but in this particular case the total number of offspring is not large, and the deviation has a greater chance of being accidental. Altogether this explanation of the varying per cents of single comb on the ground of inheritance of varying potency in dominance seems best to fit the facts of the case. From the foregoing facts and considerations we may conclude that the YY comb represents imperfect dominance of median over no-median comb; that there is a fluctuation in the potency of the dominance, so that the proportion of the median element varies from 0 to over 90 per cent; that the more potent the dominance of median element is in any parents the more complete will be the dominance in the offspring and the smaller will be the percentage of imperfectly dominant, or YY-combed, offspring. Dominance varies quantitatively and the degree of dominance is inheritable. The index of heredity may be readily obtained in the familiar biometric fashion from table 9. This I have calculated and found to be 0.301 ± 0.002. This agrees with Pearson's theoretical coefficient of correlation between offspring and parent. The index is larger than it would otherwise be because it is measured with an average of the parents and these parents assortatively mated. But this instance is, in any case, an interesting example of strong inheritance of a quantitative variation. What, it may be asked, is the relation of these facts to the general principle that inheritance is through the gametes? Why, when a gamete with the median element unites with a gamete without that element, does the zygote develop a 15 16 soma that in some cases shows a nine-tenths median and sometimes a one-tenth median element? We have seen that the YY comb is a heterozygous form due to imperfection of dominance of the median element; but why this variation in the perfection of the median element? This is probably a piece of the question, why any dominance at all. We find, in general, that the determiner of a well-developed organ dominates in the zygote over the determiner of a slightly developed condition of that organ or its obsolete condition. It is as though there were in the zygote an interaction between the strong and the weak form of the determiner, and the strong won; but sometimes the victory is imperfect. In the specific case of comb the interaction between median and no-median leads to a modification, weakening, or imperfection of the median element, and this weakening varies in degree. Sometimes the weakening is inappreciable— when the comb is essentially single; sometimes it is great, and the result is a comb in which the median element is reduced to one-half; sometimes, finally, the determiner of median comb is so completely weakened by its dilution with "no-median" as not to be able to develop, and we have the cup comb with only a trace of the median element. Nevertheless, such a cup comb is heterozygous and produces both single-combed and Polish-combed germ-cells. Thus the variation in the extent of the median comb seems to point to variations in relative potency of the median comb over its absence. 17 CHAPTER II. POLYDACTYLISM. The possession of extra toes is a character that crops out again and again among the higher, typically 5-toed vertebrates. Many cases have been cited in works on human and mammalian teratology (cf. Bateson, 1904, and Schwalbe, 1906), and it is recognized that this abnormality is very strongly inherited in man. Bateson and Saunders, and Punnett (1902 and 1905), Hurst (1905), and Barfurth (1908), as well as myself in my earlier report, have demonstrated the inheritableness of the character in poultry. Bateson and Punnett (1905, p. 114) say: "The normal foot, though commonly recessive, may sometimes dominate over the extra-toe character, and this heterozygote may give equality when bred with recessives, just as if it were an ordinary DR." Altogether, the inheritance of extra-toe diverges so far from typical Mendelian results as to deserve further study. A. TYPES OF POLYDACTYLISM. There are two main types of polydactylism: that in which the inner toe (I) of the normal foot is replaced by 2 simple toes, and that in which it is replaced by two toes, of which the mediad is simple and the laterad is divided distally. The former type is characteristic of the Houdans; the latter is usually associated with the Silkies. Both conditions are, however, found in both races. The simplest condition is seen in many Houdans of my strain. It consists of 2 equal, medium-sized toes (I' and I") lying close together and parallel to or slightly convex towards each other. This condition indicates that the 2 toes, together, are to be regarded as the equivalent of the normal single toe occupying the same position. The 2 toes are, I conjecture, derived from the single toe by splitting. The first series of changes consists of the increase in length of the lateral element (I") and a corresponding decrease of the median element (I'). In the last term of the series there are only 4 toes on the foot, but the inner toe is not like the normal inner toe of poultry, but is a much elongated I". In the Silkie, also, the series begins with 2 small, closely-applied toes (I' and I"). But when there are only 2 toes the lateral one is usually much the larger. Typically this lateral toe is, as stated, split, so that the nail is double, and the degree of splitting is variable, in extreme cases involving half or more than half of the toe. A second series of changes consists of the gradual reduction of toe I' (often concomitantly with an increase in I") which may end in its entire disappearance and thus reduce the number of toes to 5, but these are not equivalent to the 5 toes of the Houdans, since the extra Houdan toes are I', I", and those of the reduced Silkie are I"a and I"b. Finally, in Silkies, the inner toe (I') may split (more or less completely), and thus the 7-toed condition arises. Moreover, in Houdans I have on one or two occasions found the lateral element (I") bifid distally, resembling perfectly the typical condition found in the Silkies. A simple nomenclature is suggested for these various types of extra-toes. The simple double-toed condition, as found commonly in Houdans, may be called the duplex type (D). The loss of I' gives the reduced duplex (D'). The case of split I", as commonly seen in the Silkie, is the triplex type (T); with the loss of I' this becomes the reduced triplex (T', not duplex!). The 7-toed condition of Silkies may be called the quadruplex type (Q); the combination split I' and single I" gives the reduced quadruplex (Q').[3] The reduction that leads to the loss of I' consists of a loss of phalanges, as Bateson (1904) has already pointed out. It seems probable that the reduction affects first the proximal phalanges, since the distal nail-bearing phalanx is the last to disappear. B. RESULTS OF HYBRIDIZATION. First let us consider the result of mating extra-toed individuals belonging to "pure" extra-toed races. A typical Houdan cock (D type), of the well-known Petersen strain, was mated with 3 hens bred by me, but derived, several generations before, from the same strain. With the first hen he got 29 chicks, all with the extra-toe except one (3.3 per cent) that had 4 toes on both feet and two that had 4 toes on one foot and 5 on the other, i. e., one foot simplex and one duplex. With the second he got 12 chicks, of which one had 4-5 (D) toes. The third, in 26 young, gave one with 4 toes on each foot. Thus, in 67 chicks altogether there were 2, or 3 per cent, with the normal number of toes on both feet (4-4). Unfortunately these birds did not survive, so it is not known whether they would have thrown as large a proportion of extra-toed offspring as 5-toed Houdans. Bateson's Dorkings gave about 4 per cent of 4-toed offspring. Of the 83 offspring of 6-toed Silkies, 3, or 3.6 per cent, had 4 toes on each foot. Even in pure-bred polydactyl races, consequently, the character "extra-toe" does not uniformly appear in the offspring. Let us consider next what happens when a polydactyl individual is crossed with a normal individual. Table 10 gives the results of all matings of this sort and its most obvious result is that the polydactyl condition reappears in every family, but not, as in typically Mendelian cases, in all of the offspring; at least this is true of the Houdan crosses. In the Silkie crosses the 6 offspring given as having the single thumb may possibly have been of the type D', as that type was not in mind at the time of making the record and was not always distinguished from type S. It is also clear that the offspring of Silkie crosses are more apt to be polydactyl than those of Houdan crosses. For 27 per cent of the latter are non- polydactyl, while, taking the table as it stands, at most only about 4 per cent and (as just stated) probably none of the 18 Silkie offspring were of the typical single-thumbed type. Also the average degree of polydactylism is much greater in the Silkie than in the Houdan crosses. This excess is in part due to the different method of counting toes in the Silkie and the Houdan hybrids; for whereas in the latter the visible toes are counted as equivalent units, in the former in the case of each reduced type one unit more is assigned than appears. The actual number of toes occurring in the Silkie hybrids was also calculated, and it was found that this still averaged higher than that of the Houdans (9.45 as opposed to 9.26). Table 10.—Frequency of the various types of toes in the first hybrid generation between a normal and an extra-toed parent. [A] s, means type of single thumb; d, duplex type; d', reduced duplex; t', reduced triplex. [B] Of the reduced triplex type (t'). A. HOUDAN CROSSES. Pen No. Mother. Father. Offspring. No. Race involved. No. of toes. No. Race involved. No. of toes. Types of toes. 4-4 4-5 5-5 Average. 504 8 or 11 Houdan 5-5 13 Wh. Leghorn 4-4 0 1 8 9.9 8 Do 5-5 1 3 8 9.6 11 Do 5-5 2 2 7 9.5 525 8 or 11 Do 5-5 27 Minorca 4-4 8 3 13 9.2 727 "Y" Dk. Brahma 4-4 831 Houdan 5-5 3 2 5 9.2 121 Do 4-4 13 9 18 9.1 504 10-12 Wh. Leghorn 4-4 9 Do 5-5 3 2 0 8.4 Total (110) 30 21 59 9.26 Percentages 27.3 19.1 53.6 B. SILKIE CROSSES. Pen No. Mother. Father. Offspring. No. Race involved. No. of toes. No. Race involved. No. of toes. Types of toes.[A] ss. sd'. sd. d'd'. d'd. dd. st'. d't'. dt'. t't'. Average. 851 1002 Cochin 4-4 7526 Silkie 6-6 ... ... 1 ... 1 2 ... ... 2 3 10.78 851 3410 Do 4-4 7526 Do 6-6 1? ... ... ... 2 7 ... ... 1 3 10.43 815 131 Do 4-4 774 Do 6-6 ... ... ... 1 ... 8 ... 1 1 1 10.33 851 2073 Do 4-4 7526 Do 6-6 ... ... ... ... ... 7 1 ... ... 1 10.33 734 841 Do 4-4 774 Do 6-6 ... ... ... ... ... 3 .. ... 1 ... 10.25 851 838 Do 4-4 7526 Do 6-6 ... ... 1 1 ... 11 ... ... ... 3 10.25 851 2299 Do 4-4 7526 Do 6-6 ... ... 1? 1 ... 4 ... ... ... 1 10.14 851 5567 Do 4-4 7526 Do 6-6 ... ... ... ... 1 10 1 ... 1 ... 10.08 734 840 Do 4-4 7526 Do 6-6 ... ... ... 1 ... 7 ... ... ... ... 10.00 734 1002 Do 4-4 774 Do 6-6 ... ... ... ... 2 8 ... ... ... ... 10.00 851 840 Do 4-4 7526 Do 6-6 ... ... ... ... ... 4 ... ... ... ... 10.00 851 841 Do 4-4 7526 Do 6-6 ... ... ... ... 1 1 ... ... ... ... 10.00 744 777 Silkie. [B]5-6 1176 Wh. Leghorn. 4-4 ... ... ... ... ... 6 ... ... ... ... 10.00 744 496 Do 6-6 1176 Do 4-4 1? ... ... ... ... 12 ... ... 1 ... 9.93 851 6956 Cochin 4-4 7526 Silkie 6-6 4? 1 ... 2 ... 3 ... ... ... ... 9.50 Total (138) 6 1 3 6 7 93 2 1 7 12 10.13 In hybrids of both classes the greatest number of toes occurring on one foot never exceeds the greatest number possessed by its parents; indeed, the most polydactyl hybrids of the F1 generation of Silkies never have as many as 6 toes on one foot. This result is not to be explained as due to a regression towards the 4-4-toed condition, but rather as due to the intermediate condition of the heterozygote. For 80 per cent of the hybrids show either the typical or the reduced D type on one or both feet, although neither parent exhibits these types. We have next to consider the results of mating together the F1 hybrids. Table 11 gives the results of all matings of this sort. Table 11.—Frequency of the various types of toes in the second hybrid generation between normal and extra-toed races. Lettering as in table 10. A. HOUDAN CROSSES (F1 × F1). Serial No. Pen No. Mother. Father. Offspring. No. Race involved. No. of toes. No. Race involved. No. of toes. Types of toes. Average num. of toes per bird. 4-4 4-5 5-5 4-6 5-6 1 631 429 Houd. × Wh. Legh. 5-5 83 Wh. Legh. × Houd. 4-4 14[A] 7 28 1 ... 9.3 2 728 174 Do. 5-5 258 Do. 5-5 11 1 20 ... ... 9.3 3 631 448 Do. 5-5 409 Do. 4-4 13 4 18 ... ... 9.1 4 637 529 Houd. × Min. 5-5 570 Houd. × Min. 4-4 4 ... 5 ... ... 9.1 5 631 430 Houd. × Wh. Legh. 4-4 83 Wh. Legh. × Houd. 4-4 20 1 21 ... ... 9.0 6 631 504 Wh. Legh. × Houd. 5-5 83 Do. 4-4 27 3 23 ... ... 8.9 [A] Includes 1 case of 3-4 toes. 19 20