Table 33 shows that the Silkie crosses yield an exceptionally high per cent of the dominant clear-footed condition. This is additional evidence that the Silkies are DR, and so this cross produces 50 per cent of pure extracted dominants in addition to 50 per cent of heterozygotes in booting.
To get further light on the nature of inheritance of booting we pass to the examination of the second hybrid generation (table 34).
In the case of Silkies, which throw 67.6 per cent clean-shanked progeny in F1, we find in F2 only about 60 per cent clean-shanked. This diminution is, of course, due to the extraction of some pure booted recessives, which draw from the proportion of clean shanks.
In the case of the Cochins and Dark Brahmas, expectation, with perfect dominance, is that 75 per cent of the offspring shall be clean-shanked. Since dominance is imperfect (as shown by the occurrence of many booted birds in F1) we should look for an actual failure to reach so large a proportion, but we are hardly prepared for the result that in most of the F2 crosses of Cochins and Brahmas less than 25 per cent of the offspring are clean-shanked. In 4 pens the average is only 10 to 12 per cent, and in one only 2 per cent of the offspring fail to develop feathers on the feet. What shall we say of such a case as the last? The history of the father (No. 666) is absolutely certain; his mother was No. 121, the original Dark Brahma female, with a boot of grade 9 and a record in her immediate progeny that indicates perfect purity of booting in her germ-cells. His father was a White Leghorn with clean shanks and without a suspicion of having such antipodal blood as the Asiatic in his ancestry. No. 666 is certainly heterozygous in boot, if boot is a single unit. The hens with which No. 666 were mated were clearly heterozygous, as is known not only from their ancestry, but also from their behavior when mated with another cock, No. 254, in which case they threw 12 per cent non-booted offspring. If now both parents are heterozygous they must produce 25 per cent recessives. This is the fact that forces us to conclude that clean shank is not recessive, but dominant and due to an inhibitor that frequently fails to dominate. In table 31 the two recessive varieties, mated inter se, produce no featherless shanks; the feathers grow freely as they do over the rest of the body. Some of the Silkies of table 31, however, are really heterozygous, with the dominant inhibitor not showing; consequently they throw a large proportion of non-booted offspring. In F1, as table 33 shows, the heterozygous offspring have a reduced boot and perfect dominance—complete inhibition of boot—in from 6 to 68 per cent. Dominance is most complete in the Silkies, where, the feathering being feeble, the inhibitor has, as it were, less to do in overcoming it. In F2 the expected 75 per cent dominant is approached in the case of the Silkies (62 per cent and 59 per cent, respectively), but inhibition is very imperfect in the Cochin and Brahma crosses, being reduced to between 25 and 2 per cent. More proof that boot is due to the absence of a factor rather than to its presence is found in this generation. If absence of boot is recessive, then, combined with imperfection of dominance, at least 25 per cent of the offspring should be recessive and probably a much larger proportion. The results in table 34 are absolutely incompatible with this hypothesis, since, in one case, there are only 2 per cent that can not develop boot. Two extracted clean-footed birds sometimes throw boot and sometimes not, and this result is to be expected on the hypothesis that clean-footedness is dominant, but two heavily booted birds can not transmit the boot inhibitor.
Table 34.—Distribution of boot-grade in the F2 generation of booted × non-booted poultry.
| COCHIN CROSSES. | ||||||||||||
| Pen No. | Mother. | Father. | Offspring. | |||||||||
| No. | Gen. | Races. | Grade. | No. | Gen. | Races. | Grade. | Boot present. | Boot slight. | Boot absent. | P. ct. absent. | |
| 650 | 170 | F1 | Bl. Coch. × Wh. Legh | Pr. | 265 | F1 | Bl. Coch. × Wh. Legh. | Pr. | 19 | 2 | 2 | 8.7 |
| 650 | 263 | F1 | Do. | Pr. | 265 | F1 | Do. | Pr. | 36 | 2 | 2 | 5.0 |
| 650 | 278 | F1 | Do. | Pr. | 265 | F1 | Do. | Pr. | 26 | 4 | 4 | 11.8 |
| 650 | 361 | F1 | Do. | Pr. | 265 | F1 | Do. | Pr. | 24 | 2 | 9 | 25.7 |
| 650 | 364 | F1 | Do. | Pr. | 265 | F1 | Do. | Pr. | 39 | 5 | 3 | 6.4 |
| Totals (179) | 144 | 15 | 20 | 11.1 | ||||||||
| 654 | 602 | F1 | Wh. Legh. × Bf. Coch | Pr. | 704 | F1 | Wh. Legh. × Bf. Coch | Pr. | 11 | 4 | 5 | 25.0 |
| 654 | 828 | F1 | Do. | Pr. | 704 | F1 | Do. | Pr. | 7 | 11 | 0 | 0.0 |
| 654 | 640 | F1 | Do. | Pr. | 704 | F1 | Do. | Pr. | 13 | 2 | 3 | 16.7 |
| 654 | 696 | F1 | Do. | Pr. | 704 | F1 | Do. | Pr. | 8 | 5 | 8 | 38.1 |
| 654 | 767 | F1 | Do. | Pr. | 704 | F1 | Do. | Pr. | 3 | 1 | 3 | 42.9 |
| 654 | 697 | F1 | Do. | Pr. | 704 | F1 | Do. | Pr. | 4 | 3 | 6 | 46.2 |
| Totals (97) | 46 | 26 | 25 | 25.8 | ||||||||
TABLE 34.—Distribution of boot-grade in the F2 generation of booted × non-booted poultry—Continued.
| DARK BRAHMA CROSSES. | ||||||||||||
| Pen No. | Mother. | Father. | Offspring. | |||||||||
| No. | Gen. | Races. | Grade. | No. | Gen. | Races. | Grade. | Boot present. | Boot slight. | Boot absent. | P. ct. absent. | |
| 608 | 384 | F1 | Wh. Legh. × Dk. Brah. | Pr. | 409 | F1 | Wh. Legh. × Dk. Brah. | Pr. | 36 | 5 | 3 | 6.8 |
| 608 | 248 | F1 | Do. | Pr. | 409 | F1 | Do. | Pr. | 32 | 5 | 4 | 9.8 |
| 608 | 249 | F1 | Do. | Pr. | 409 | F1 | Do. | Pr. | 39 | 11 | 13 | 20.6 |
| 608 | 395 | F1 | Do. | Pr. | 409 | F1 | Do. | Pr. | 20 | 11 | 10 | 24.4 |
| 608 | 385 | F1 | Do. | Pr. | 409 | F1 | Do. | Pr. | 20 | 6 | 14 | 35.0 |
| Totals (229) | 147 | 38 | 44 | 19.2 | ||||||||
| 659 | 762 | F1 | Wh. Legh. × Dk. Brah. | Pr. | 375 | F1 | Wh. Legh. × Dk. Brah. | Pr. | 18 | 4 | 1 | 4.4 |
| 659 | 503 | F1 | Do. | Pr. | 375 | F1 | Do. | Pr. | 23 | 6 | 2 | 6.5 |
| 659 | 382 | F1 | Do. | Pr. | 375 | F1 | Do. | Pr. | 10 | 2 | 1 | 7.7 |
| 659 | 250 | F1 | Do. | Pr. | 375 | F1 | Do. | Pr. | 33 | 7 | 5 | 11.1 |
| 659 | 737 | F1 | Do. | Pr. | 375 | F1 | Do. | Pr. | 19 | 2 | 3 | 12.5 |
| 659 | 387 | F1 | Do. | Pr. | 375 | F1 | Do. | Pr. | 16 | 6 | 4 | 15.4 |
| Totals (162) | 119 | 27 | 16 | 9.9 | ||||||||
| 655 | 720 | F1 | Wh. Legh. × Dk. Brah. | Pr. | 666 | F1 | Wh. Legh. × Dk. Brah. | Pr. | 5 | 2 | ... | 0.0 |
| 655 | 724 | F1 | Do. | Pr. | 666 | F1 | Do. | Pr. | 6 | 1 | ... | 0.0 |
| 655 | 728 | F1 | Do. | Pr. | 666 | F1 | Do. | Pr. | 3 | 1 | ... | 0.0 |
| 655 | 730 | F1 | Do. | Pr. | 666 | F1 | Do. | Pr. | 4 | ... | ... | 0.0 |
| 655 | 732 | F1 | Do. | Pr. | 666 | F1 | Do. | Pr. | 9 | ... | ... | 0.0 |
| 655 | 734 | F1 | Do. | Pr. | 666 | F1 | Do. | Pr. | 3 | ... | ... | 0.0 |
| 655 | 761 | F1 | Do. | Pr. | 666 | F1 | Do. | Pr. | 6 | 2 | ... | 0.0 |
| 655 | 800 | F1 | Do. | Pr. | 666 | F1 | Do. | Pr. | 1 | ... | ... | 0.0 |
| 655 | 721 | F1 | Do. | Pr. | 666 | F1 | Do. | Pr. | 9 | 1 | 1 | 9.1 |
| Totals (54) | 46 | 7 | 1 | 1.9 | ||||||||
| 655 | 724 | F1 | Wh. Legh. × Dk. Brah. | Pr. | 254 | F1 | Wh. Legh. × Dk. Brah. | Pr. | 3 | ... | ... | 0.0 |
| 655 | 734 | F1 | Do. | Pr. | 254 | F1 | Do. | Pr. | 12 | 1 | ... | 0.0 |
| 655 | 800 | F1 | Do. | Pr. | 254 | F1 | Do. | Pr. | 13 | ... | 1 | 7.1 |
| 655 | 720 | F1 | Do. | Pr. | 254 | F1 | Do. | Pr. | 12 | ... | 1 | 7.7 |
| 655 | 728 | F1 | Do. | Pr. | 254 | F1 | Do. | Pr. | 8 | 1 | 1 | 10.0 |
| 655 | 761 | F1 | Do. | Pr. | 254 | F1 | Do. | Pr. | 17 | 4 | 4 | 16.0 |
| 655 | 732 | F1 | Do. | Pr. | 254 | F1 | Do. | Pr. | 8 | 1 | 2 | 18.2 |
| 655 | 730 | F1 | Do. | Pr. | 254 | F1 | Do. | Pr. | 7 | ... | 2 | 22.2 |
| 655 | 721 | F1 | Do. | Pr. | 254 | F1 | Do. | Pr. | 9 | ... | 3 | 25.0 |
| Totals (110) | 89 | 7 | 14 | 12.7 | ||||||||
| 632 | 742 | F1 | Min. × Dk. Brah. | Pr. | 637 | F1 | Min. × Dk. Brah. | Pr. | 4 | 1 | 0 | 0.0 |
| 632 | 690 | F1 | Do. | Pr. | 637 | F1 | Do. | Pr. | 27 | 6 | 1 | 2.9 |
| 632 | 631 | F1 | Do. | Pr. | 637 | F1 | Do. | Pr. | 32 | 11 | 2 | 4.4 |
| 632 | 618 | F1 | Do. | Pr. | 637 | F1 | Do. | Pr. | 35 | 8 | 2 | 4.4 |
| 632 | 700 | F1 | Do. | Pr. | 637 | F1 | Do. | Pr. | 18 | 3 | 2 | 8.7 |
| 632 | 703 | F1 | Do. | Pr. | 637 | F1 | Do. | Pr. | 14 | 11 | 3 | 10.7 |
| 632 | 743 | F1 | Do. | Pr. | 637 | F1 | Do. | Pr. | 22 | 2 | 3 | 11.1 |
| 632 | 599 | F1 | Do. | Pr. | 637 | F1 | Do. | Pr. | 23 | 8 | 4 | 11.4 |
| 632 | 524 | F1 | Do. | Pr. | 637 | F1 | Do. | Pr. | 18 | 6 | 5 | 17.2 |
| 632 | 576 | F1 | Do. | Pr. | 637 | F1 | Do. | Pr. | 14 | 9 | 6 | 20.7 |
| 632 | 638 | F1 | Do. | Pr. | 637 | F1 | Do. | Pr. | 8 | 2 | 6 | 37.5 |
| Totals (316) | 215 | 67 | 34 | 10.8 | ||||||||
| Pen No. | Mother. | Father. | Boot-grade in offspring. | ||||||||||||||||||
| No. | Gen. | Races. | Gr. | No. | Gen. | Races. | Gr. | 0 | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | Aver- age. | P. ct. absent. | |
| 801 | 2526 | F1 | Min. × Dk. Brah. | 2 | 5399 | F1 | W. L. × Dr. Brah. | 8 | ... | ... | ... | ... | 1 | ... | ... | 1 | ... | ... | 1 | 7.0 | 0.0 |
| 801 | 2831 | F1 | Do. | 4 | 5399 | F1 | Do. | 8 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 4 | 1 | 7 | 2 | 2 | 2 | ... | 2 | 5.0 | 4.3 |
| 801 | 1892 | F1 | Do. | 3 | 5399 | F1 | Do. | 8 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 1 | 2 | ... | 1 | ... | 1 | 1 | 1 | 5.0 | 11.1 |
| Totals (35) | 2 | 2 | 1 | 5 | 4 | 7 | 3 | 3 | 3 | 1 | 4 | 5.2 | 5.71 | ||||||||