| → OMIT 1861 1866 1869 1872 |
| number of the 1859 1860 |
|
| → in number; as 1861 1866 1869 1872 |
| as 1859 1860 |
|
| → leg and of the feet; 1859 1860 1861 1866 1869 |
| the leg and foot; 1872 |
|
| → and 1861 1866 1869 1872 |
| differs remarkably; as does 1859 1860 |
|
| → disposition, differ remarkably. 1861 1869 1872 |
| disposition. 1859 1860 |
| disposition, differ re- markably. 1866 |
|
| → place 1859 1860 1861 1866 1869 |
| in this case place 1872 |
|
|
of the bones of the face in length and breadth and curvature differs enormously. The shape, as well as the breadth and length of the ramus of the lower jaw, varies in a highly remarkable manner. The
→OMIT
caudal and sacral vertebræ
→in number; as
does the number of the ribs, together with their relative breadth and the presence of processes. The size and shape of the apertures in the sternum are highly variable; so is the degree of divergence and relative size of the two arms of the furcula. The proportional width of the gape of mouth, the proportional length of the eyelids, of the orifice of the nostrils, of the tongue (not always in strict correlation with the length of beak), the size of the crop and of the upper part of the œsophagus; the development and abortion of the oil-gland; the number of the primary wing and caudal feathers; the relative length of
and tail to each other and to the body; the relative length of
→leg and of the feet;
the number of scutellæ on the toes, the development of skin between the toes, are all points of structure which are variable. The period at which the perfect plumage is acquired varies, as does the state of the down with which the nestling birds are clothed when hatched. The shape and size of the eggs vary. The manner of
→and
in some breeds the voice and
→disposition, differ remarkably. Lastly, in certain breeds, the males and females have come to differ
a slight degree from each other. |
|
| Altogether at least a score of pigeons might be chosen,
if shown to an ornithologist, and he were told that they were wild birds, would
be ranked by him as well-defined species. Moreover, I do not believe that any ornithologist would
→place
the English carrier, the short-faced tumbler, the runt, the barb, pouter, and fantail in the same genus; more especially as in each of these breeds several truly-inherited
|
