This difficulty is met by an alternative explanation, the main feature of which was first suggested by our colleague, Dr. E. M. East, viz, that although we seem to be dealing with a single unit character as evidenced by the monohybrid ratios obtained, nevertheless the modifications which form a basis for selection are due (in part at least) to agencies transmitted independently of the hooded pattern (not forming a part of the same unit character), and which may be present in Irish as well as in wild rats. By crosses with such rats the supposed modifiers may become associated with the hooded pattern in extracted recessive individuals and so increase its extent. Such increase does actually occur in experiment. The hypothesis of modifiers independent in transmission of the hooded unit will account for the fact that F₂ is more variable than F₁ when crosses are made, on the familiar principle of recombination of independent factors. It will account for the observed effectiveness of selection on the ground that what selection accomplishes in the plus series is the isolation of homozygous conditions of modifiers at first present only in heterozygous form, and that what it accomplishes in the minus series is the isolation of conditions homozygous for _lack_ of modifiers (or for inhibitors) of pigmentation. This same hypothesis will account also for the observed reduction of variability during the progress of selection, for as soon as any particular modifier attains a homozygous condition in the race it will cease to occasion variability, and as more and more factors become homozygous the variability should accordingly diminish and finally disappear altogether, so far as it is due to internal and heritable causes. At this point the hypothesis of modifiers encounters serious difficulty, if one holds the prevalent or “genotype” conception as to the nature of Mendelian factors, viz, that they are fixed and unchangeable and not subject to quantitative variation, but only to combination in different ways with other factors. This conception has been presented very clearly by Dr. East (1912). Some objections to this view had previously been stated by Castle (1912) and need not here be repeated.