Early  Journal  Content  on  JSTOR,  Free  to  Anyone  in  the  World  
This  article  is  one  of  nearly  500,000  scholarly  works  digitized  and  made  freely  available  to  everyone  in  
the  world  by  JSTOR.    

Known  as  the  Early  Journal  Content,  this  set  of  works  include  research  articles,  news,  letters,  and  other  
writings  published  in  more  than  200  of  the  oldest  leading  academic  journals.  The  works  date  from  the  
mid-­‐seventeenth  to  the  early  twentieth  centuries.    

 We  encourage  people  to  read  and  share  the  Early  Journal  Content  openly  and  to  tell  others  that  this  
resource  exists.    People  may  post  this  content  online  or  redistribute  in  any  way  for  non-­‐commercial  
purposes.  

Read  more  about  Early  Journal  Content  at  http://about.jstor.org/participate-­‐jstor/individuals/early-­‐

journal-­‐content.    

JSTOR  is  a  digital  library  of  academic  journals,  books,  and  primary  source  objects.  JSTOR  helps  people  
discover,  use,  and  build  upon  a  wide  range  of  content  through  a  powerful  research  and  teaching  
platform,  and  preserves  this  content  for  future  generations.  JSTOR  is  part  of  ITHAKA,  a  not-­‐for-­‐profit  
organization  that  also  includes  Ithaka  S+R  and  Portico.  For  more  information  about  JSTOR,  please  
contact  support@jstor.org.  
RECIPROCAL CROSSES BETWEEN REEVES'S PHEAS-
ANT AND THE COWMMON RING-NECK PHEASANT
PRODUCING UNLIKE HYBRIDS

MANY sex-linked characters have been described in birds

(fowls,pigeons,canaries and doves). The pheasant hybridsto
be described,however,show merely a differentappearance of
male sexual plumage charactersin the F' hybridsof a reciprocal
cross between Reeves's pheasant and the common ring-neck
pheasant (P. torquatus). These hybridsare sterile,and there-
fore the experimentends with the firstcross, although Cronaul
stated that the offspringfrom a Reeves's cock and common
pheasant hen were occasionally fertile. Poll,2 however, who
studiedthe spermatogenesisof numerouspheasant crosses,found
the hybridsbetween Reeves's and the commonpheasants and
betweenReeves's and Somuierings's pheasants always sterile.
The Reeves's pheasant was originally given generic recogni-
tion by Wagler under the name Syrmaticusreeresi. This dis-
tinctionit certainlydeserves,althoughlater writershave often
placed it under Phacsianus. The ring-neckpheasant, so called,
refersto the commonstock pheasant which is now practically
pure torquatus.
In the fall of 1911 two hens were mated as follows: Pen D
contained a cp Reeves's with two ring-neckhens; pen H a &
ring-neckwith two Reeves's hens. These were all birds of the
season. The Reeves's were fromthe same clutch of eggs from
a single pair, and the ring-necksfroma strain of which large
numbershave been bred on the farm. The Reeves's never, to
my knowledge,shows any variation of plumage in captivity.
The strainof ring-necksis practicallyconstant,thoughthe white
neck ring sometimesdiffersin its width.
It is thereforefair to suppose that the somatic differenceof
the hybridsto be describedis a constantfeature,althoughfrom
pen D only two males were reared to maturity,and frompen H
only four. The six birds, however,immediatelyfall into two
classes. They have all the appearance of two well-markedspe-
cies. Hens were reared only frompen H.
1 Cronau, C., Zool. Gacoten.,1899, p. 99.
2Poll, H., GesellschctftNatur.-Freuvde, 1908, p. 127.
701
702 THE AMERICAN NATURALIST [VOL. XLVII

A large numberof eggs fromthesetwo pens was set,but from

pen D only five chickswere hatched; frompen H, ten. These
two lots of chickswere noted as differingboth in down and in
firstplumage in the following way: those with the Reeves's
father and ring-neckmother,pen D, were lighter-coloredthan
the birds of the reciprocalcross. No detailed observationswere
made. On maturitythis same differencewas found to hold.
On comparingthe adult specimens dorsal side up, there is at
once seen to be a constantdifferenceinvolvingall the feather
regions. In general,it may be said that in crossD the Reeves's
fathertransmittedto his hybridoffspring more of his own char-
acters than the female Reeves's transmittedto her offspringin
cross H. This is especially shown in the almost pure Reeves's
head patternof cross D, and in the general lightertone of the
whole upper parts and flanks.
On the otherhand, the strongertail barringof Reeves's pheas-
ant, as contrastedwith the ring-neck,has been transmittedto
cross H by the Reeves's hen, and has not been carried to the
same extentby the male Reeves's in the othercross.
The plate showsthe difference, and needs no explanation. The
otherdifferences are brieflyas follows:
Cross D, feathersof mantle with reduced and irregularblack
band.
H, feathersof mantlewithbroad black band.
D, feathersof mantle tending to sub-terminalbar of buck-
thornbrown (Ridgway, 1912).
H, brown bar absent.
D, general color of mantle more tawny and less dark than
in H. Back and rump much lighter than in H, with also an
entirelydifferent featherpattern. Upper tail covertslighterin
D than in H. Barring of tail reduced in D to basal third and
not heavy. In H, heavy barringof whole tail, becomingblotchy
and obscuredtowardsterminalthird.
Scapulars, greaterand lesser wing coverts,and even primary
quills differentin the two crosses; and tending to more rich
brownsand larger light areas in D than in H. First primary
withlarger and more distinctlight bars on innerweb in D than
in H.
Flanks lighterand with tawny sub-terminalbars in D, which
are not presentin H.
No.563] SHORTER ARTICLES AND DISCUSSIONS '703

FIG. 1. Male hybridfroma mating of a male Reeves's with a female ring-

neck pheasant.
FIG. 2. Male Reeves's pheasant.
FIG. 3. Male ring-neckpheasant.
FIG. 4. Male hybridfroma matingof a male ring-neck
witha femaleReeves's
pheasant.
70-1 THE AMERICAN NATURALIST [VOL. XLVI

Breast and lower throatslightlydarker in H than in D, but

verysimilar. Rest of lower parts about the same in bothcrosses.
Three hen birds were reared frompen H. They all showed
strong tail barring and other well-markedReeves's characters.
The females of the two species involved are quite different,
and it is thereforeto be regrettedthat there are no specimens
fromboth crossesfor comparison.

SUMMARY
That this somaticdifferencebetweenreciprocalcrossesin other
pheasants is not always present,is shown by the uniformF,
generation in the two crosses, AmherstX Gold, of the genus
Chrysolophus,bred by myself. In the work of ProfessorAlle-
sandro Ghigi and Mrs. Haig-Thomas on pheasants no reciprocal
crosseshave apparentlybeen made.
The significanceof the present case is not clear, and it is
desired simply to put it on record. Further work is necessary
to prove that reciprocal crosses between Reeves and the true
pheasants always give differentresults.
It is interestingto note that the differences
which have been
described are rather subtle ones and quantitative rather than
qualitative.
JOHN C. PHILLIPS