3] Dr. Broca, in Brown-Sequard's 'Journal de Phys.,' tom. ii. p. 361.
[424] Dixon's 'Ornamental Poultry,' p. 325.
[425] 'Poultry Chronicle,' vol. i. p. 485. Tegetmeier's 'Poultry Book,'
1866, p. 41. On Cochins grazing, idem, p. 46.
[426] Ferguson on 'Prize Poultry,' p. 187.
[427] Col. Sykes in 'Proc. Zoolog. Soc.,' 1832, p. 151. Dr. Hooker's
'Himalayan Journals,' vol. i. p. 314.
[428] _See_ Mr. Tegetmeier's account, with woodcuts, of the skull of Polish
fowls, in 'Proc. Zoolog. Soc.,' Nov. 25th, 1856. For other references,
_see_ Isid. Geoffroy Saint Hilaire, 'Hist. Gen. des Anomalies,' tom. i. p.
287. M. C. Dareste suspects ('Recherches sur les Condicions de la Vie,'
&c., Lille, 1863, p. 36) that the protuberance is not formed by the frontal
bones, but by the ossification of the dura mater.
[429] 'Naturgeschichte Deutschlands,' Band iii. (1793), s. 400.
[430] The 'Field,' May 11th, 1861. I have received communications to a
similar effect from Messrs. Brent and Tegetmeier.
[431] It appears that I have not correctly designated the several groups of
vertebrae, for a great authority, Mr. W. K. Parker ('Transact. Zoolog.
Soc.,' vol. v. p. 198), specifies 16 cervical, 4 dorsal, 15 lumbar, and 6
caudal vertebrae in this genus. But I have used the same terms in all the
following descriptions.
[432] Macgillivray, 'British Birds,' vol. i. p. 25.
[433] It may be well to explain how the calculation has been made for the
third column. In _G. bankiva_ the leg-bones are to the wing-bones as 86 :
54, or as (neglecting decimals) 100 : 62;--in Cochins as 311 : 162, or as
100 : 52;--in Dorkings as 557 : 248, or as 100 : 44; and so on for the
other breeds. We thus get the series of 62, 52, 44 for the relative-weights
of the wing-bones in _G. bankiva_, Cochins, Dorkings, &c. And now taking
100, instead of 62, for the weight of the wing-bones in _G. bankiva_, we
get, by another rule of three, 83 as the weight of the wing-bones in
Cochins; 70 in the Dorkings; and so on for the remainder of the third
column in the table.
[434] Mr. Blyth (in 'Annals and Mag. of Nat. Hist.,' 2nd series, vol. i.,
1848, p. 456) gives 31/4 lb. as the weight of a full-grown male _G. bankiva_;
but from what I have seen of the skins and skeletons of various breeds, I
cannot believe that my two specimens of _G. bankiva_ could have weighed so
much.
[435] The third column is calculated on the same principle as explained in
the previous foot-note,
|