To make the foregoing table quite satisfactory, it ought to have been shown that in the eight first birds the leg-bones have not actually increased in weight out of due proportion with the rest of the body; this I cannot show, from not knowing, as already remarked, the weight of the wild Bankiva.[434] I am indeed inclined to suspect that the leg-bones in the Dorking, No. 2 in the table, are proportionally too heavy; but this bird was a very large one, weighing 7 lb. 2 oz., though very thin. Its leg-bones were more than ten times as heavy as those of the Burmese Jumper! I tried to ascertain the length both of the leg-bones and wing-bones relatively to other parts of the body and skeleton; but the whole organisation in these birds, which have been so long domesticated, has become so variable, that no certain conclusions could be reached. For instance, the legs of the above Dorking cock were nearly three-quarters of an inch too short relatively to the length of the sternum, and more than {273} three-quarters of an inch too long relatively to the length of the skull, in comparison with these same parts in _G. bankiva_. In the following Table II. in the two first columns we see in inches and decimals the length of the sternum, and the extreme depth of its crest to which the pectoral muscles are attached. In the third column we have the calculated depth of the crest, relatively to the length of the sternum, in comparison with these same parts in _G. bankiva_.[435] TABLE II.