to the variability of the length of
tail. But I have made similar calculations, taking as the standard the
length from tip to tip of wing, and likewise in most cases from the
base of the beak to the end of the tail; and the result has always been
closely similar. To give an example: the first bird in the table, being
a short-faced tumbler, {172} is much smaller than the rock-pigeon, and
would naturally have shorter feet; but it is found on calculation to
have feet too short by .11 of an inch, in comparison with the feet of
the rock-pigeon, relatively to the size of the body in these two birds,
as measured from the base of beak to the oil-gland. So again, when this
same tumbler and the rock-pigeon were compared by the length of their
wings, or by the extreme length of their bodies, the feet of the
tumbler were likewise found to be too short in very nearly the same
proportion. I am well aware that the measurements pretend to greater
accuracy than is possible, but it was less trouble to write down the
actual measurements given by the compasses in each case than an
approximation.

TABLE I.

_Pigeons with their beaks generally shorter than that of the Rock-pigeon,
proportionally with the size of their bodies._

+-----------------------------------------+--------+-------------------+
| | | Difference |
| | | between |
| | | actual and |
| | | calculated |
| | | length of |
| Name of Breed. | Actual | feet, in |
| | length | proportion to |
| | of | length of |
| | Feet | feet and size |
| | | of body in the |
| | | Rock-pigeon |
| | +-------------------+
| Wild rock-pigeon (mean measurement) | 2.02 |Too short|Too long |
| | | by | by |
+-----------------------------------------+--