Page:Condor14(6).djvu/3

THE. CO.IB.OR ol?me lqovember-December, 1912 STUDY OF THE EGGS OF THE MELEAGRIDAE By DR. R. W. SHUFELDT WITH ONI? 1;I-IOTO BY THE'AUTHOR 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 a?d markings o{ 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 Gallits banleiz,ct of India; while those of ali the other fancy and extravagantly formed fowls of the arm 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 materiai 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 (Aia: ,galericulata), swans, geese, pheasants, peacocks, and others. In most of these forms, if not ?n 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 ?eries 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 sireliar variations; by which is meant,