1... .. .33....E. w 5 9.91 —f._. ...Z...I. .. .1.. .1-.... .1. ... ... ... .... .1.. .. . .... _ ..n......_.:_:..;.:. . ...A 1...... 1 .23..“ H... 11.1.1.1... ........._.1..1..._ .. . . _. . ...1......... .1............. ....1. .. . ......1.... ......y.v..1....1....._........ ...... 1..1_.1..m..1....q.:.....1 1...... r“. ...1........,:.1 .....1 11...... 1.1.1.1.... . 1...... 1.111.111.1119...1.1.11. .1 1.1.1.1. 11.131.111.11... .....1....... 1.... 1.3:... .... ......i. ....1.....1. ........... .....z ... .1..... 42111711351...........11.,..1;:.,1.._1.....«129.. .....1;:....r.; ... .1....1...1.«...._. ......1. .1.......9....._....:..1.......1......11......9.. 1.1.1.. ...»........1..............1.1.2.1.... 11.1.1... ..:.1...111.1r1_......9 ......._......... 11...... 2.31.111? ...... ...... ...... .....x: .....2. .... ...........1 ......1: ...1. ...........,r.......1........ ....._....1..._.. .. . ...... .. .1.. ......_.1.1_ ..1...1.1.1.7....1......... .......:.. ........r..............._.. ...........1..1.1.._ . ...........; ... .... ......1..._..;3 12.1....11.......1..1....1.. .......Z...............y...... .......1...1....1............... ......21. 7.11.321... . ....111........ 1.1... ......... 2...... .......1 1...... ... ..... 2:13.71: .1. . . .. .5514: ...... ......i... .1....._1...._7. .1.. 7:, ..........11 .....:.__1.. ...........1...1.. ... ..1........ ....... ... . . .... . ....11...,...1._.;1.. .......r......1....... ........._.._.....:.. ...... . 5....-. .. .... .. ....v-.........1...........1_... . 1. r . . .......1.....1. ...1 .. .1115-.. . .1 . .1......»..........t..................1......1....;1....11..-. ..-... ..1...1...1.1.. 1.1.3.23... ........._.... _ 2.11.3... ........_......_....... .....u............1. ....1...... ...............:. v...1.1..71............_......L.. ...... 1. .....1. 1.....1_.....1......71 ., ......» ..\.:I_.'~¥..1..._- 1..-5:1... ..............._1._...Z. .1...........Z...........1....11.52.13. .21... .. .. . a . ., 1..}...3 ............. ... ... .. . . 1....-. . . . ....»..1....... 1...... £3.71. .... ... .34.}... ..1...1.,...........; L .1..... . ................. .... ... .1..... . .. .... .1............1.1. .1..... 31......1. .23-... ...... . .-.. .... w7111...........1....._....-...- 1 .. .. ._..x.,.......J...1..r....u...... 1... .,.....a........ . ..... t. 1......11. . .1 ...11.....1.. ...... . 1.1 :1...1.\-1>uI..1.l~.. ...... ..... ...: ...... ......t . ... .. .... .. .4. : 51...}... 11.1.7111... 7 2.1.1.1” .... .....1.......«.r1h p. ... 11.1.1... . I . ...; ; . 313...... 11::...............1:._. .1..... ...........11....\.1.. .. 11.3.3. .... .....5... . .....1 ......3..1.2.Z . .1..: ..1... . «a ..1...o1..._ .1. . .1.....1 ...: .. 1 ... 31.x. 1 -... ..- 7331...... .... 11.113111“ 1..... i. 9....1‘1n :13: .1...~..I?1H 1......1...1......... ......................a.:... 1.1.... .....x...... .... 1.71.11.71...»11.1.. .... .....r.........:1.....1..3.1.6....1.1.2.1....11fi ...... 1...... 1...... .1... 5...... .. .. 7...... . ...1.....>1 ...1..1.....1..1........... ... .21... .. 1.."; 31.13.1117.-- ..:.....1...:..... .1. .....n... . . . 11.5. 1.... 31:21.... ..1.111....1...9T ...:1... , 1.1.1.1. ..A7.1..1..3.}...1 . 1:16.331! ... . 1.1.: .311!» 11.1.... ...w....I.1...1. 1:11.... ..1 .....1...1......1. .........z...1.v~...711..1.? .. a... .... 1., .. :99); n. I . .1... ...Ja. .1...1..11...11 1 .. . 21.31.113.311. . ..yu........1.f........1....... .. . . ...... . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . , ._ . . . . 1 . . . . 1 .. ....1,....11...2.... . ...15..2.3.1.0....41... ......A. ........i i 1217...... THESS . ‘ LIBRARY Michigan State University This is to certify that the thesis entitled THE NATURAL COLOR PREFERENCES OF THE DOMESTIC CHICKEN AND THE EUROPEAN QUAIL presented by DAVID THOMAS 103E has been accepted towards fulfillment of the requirements for Ph . D . Zoology degree in (if? “74‘ X [ARK/pa (.k ajor Chrofessor Date June 26, 196k 0469 HQOM ESE 0M?" ROOM USE ONLY- ~-.-—-—M 1 ABSTRACT NATURAL COLOR PREFERENCES OF THE DOMESTIC CHICKEN AND THE EUROPEAN QUAIL by David T. Kee The fact that birds exhibit apparent color preferences has been noted since the latter half of the nineteenth cen- tury. This study was undertaken to attempt to determine for two members of the family Phasianidae, the Domestic Chicken (Gallus domesticus) and the European Quail (Coturnix coturnix), (1) their natural color preferences, (2) differ— ences between sexes as to color preference, and (3) the effect of peck order on color preference. The test animals were fed from a specially constructed feeder. The feeder contained seven interchangeable colored insert boxes which held correspondingly colored food. Each insert box was illuminated by incident light passing through a cellophane filter Which corresponded in color to the food contained therein. A one-way analysis of the variance of two or more sam- ple.means was applied to the data collected on color selec- tion, position of the colored insert boxes in the experi- mental feeder, and intensity of the incident light H—_'”-_‘A“—M—‘+ Var ”—1.... David T. Kee illuminating the insert boxes. Individual unconditioned chickens show a marked pref- erence for green-colored food under the test conditions. The position of the green-colored food within the experi- mental feeder and the intensity of the incident illumina— tion seemingly had no effect on their choice. The sex of the Domestic Chicken had no effect on color preference. Male and female chickens both showed a marked preference for the green—colored food. When tested in groups of four, Domestic Chickens showed a preference for green-colored food. The position of the colored food and the incident illumination seemingly had no effect on their choice. When tested in groups of two, four, or six, European Quail showed a preference for green—colored food under the test conditions. The position of the colored food and the incident illumination seemingly had no effect on their choice. The peck order may be of importance in that it insures the utilization of all the foods present. The dominant and most subordinate individuals were most successful in util- izing the preferred food. The peck order may be of impor— tance, under wild conditions, in preventing the development David T. Kee of a high degree of food specialization. NATURAL COLOR PREFERENCES OF THE DOMESTIC CHICKEN AND THE EUROPEAN QUAIL by " \k f) w David T. Kee A THESIS Submitted to Michigan State University in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY DEPARTMENT OF ZOOLOGY 1964 .>?Jb7 «" . ‘I ‘I ACKNOWLEDGMENTS The author wishes to express his sincere thanks to Dr. George J. Wallace for his interest, encouragement, and direction during the course of this investigation. Appreciation is also extended to Drs. Rollin H. Baker, James C. Braddodk, and Miles D. Pirnie for their assistance as committee members. A special acknowledgment of appreciation is made to my wife, Angela, whose sacrifices have made this study pos— sible. Also, thanks are due my wife for the many hours spent in typing during the course of this investigation. Appreciation is also extended to Mrs. Bernadette "Mac" Henderson who was helpful in many ways. ii INTRODUCTION . . TABLE OF CONTENTS MATERIALS AND METHODS. . .Experimental Experimental Food . . . . Procedures . Analysis . . Experiments. RESULTS. . . . . Experiment 1 Experiment 2 Experiment 3 Experiment 4 DISCUSSION . . . Cage. . Feeder. SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS. LITERATURE CITED iii PAGE 10 10 12 12 15 15 16 37 52 58 63 66 TABLE II III IV VI VII VIII IX LIST OF TABLES Food Consumption in Grams by Color for Individual Unconditioned Chickens, Group H . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Food Consumption in Grams by Color for Individual Unconditioned Chickens, Group I . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Food Consumption in Grams by Color for Individual Unconditioned Chickens, Group J . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Consumption in Grams by Feeder Position for Individual Unconditioned Chickens, Group H . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Consumption in Grams by Feeder Position for Individual Unconditioned Chickens, Group I . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Consumption in Grams by Feeder Position for Individual Unconditioned Chickens, Group J . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Food Consumption in Grams by Incident Light Intensity, Individual Unconditioned Chickens, Group H . . . . . . . . . Food Consumption in Grams by Incident Light Intensity, Individual Unconditioned Chickens, Group I . . . . . . . . . Food Consumption in Grams by Incident Light Intensity, Individual Unconditioned Chickens, Group J . . . . . . . . . Food Consumption in Grams by Color for Groups of Four Experienced Chickens, Group X . . . . . . . . . . . . . . iv PAGE l7 l8 19 22 23 24 26 27 28 29 (LIST OF TABLES, Continued) XI XII XIII XIV XVII XVIII XIX Food Consumption in Grams by Color for Groups of Four Experienced Chickens, Group Y . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Food Consumption in Grams by Color for Groups of Four Experienced Chickens, Group Z . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Food Consumption in Grams by Feeder Position for Groups of Four Experienced Chickens, Group X .0 O 0 O O O O O O O O O O O O O 0 Food Consumption in Grams by Feeder Position for Groups of Four Experienced Chickens, Group Y O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O 0 Food Consumption in Grams by Feeder Position for Groups of Four Experienced Chickens, Group Z O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O 0 Food Consumption in Grams by Incident Light Intensity for Groups of Four Experienced Chickens, Group X . . . . . . . . . . . . Food Consumption in Grams by Incident Light Intensity for Groups of Four Experienced Chickens, Group Y . . . . . . . . . . . . Food Consumption in Grams by Incident Light Intensity for Groups of Four Experienced Chickens, Group Z . . . . . . . . . . . . Food Consumption in Grams by Color for Groups of Four Experienced European Quail . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Food Consumption in Grams by Color for Groups of Six Experienced European Quail O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O 30 31 34 35 36 38 39 4O 41 42 (LIST OF TABLES, Continued) XI XII XIII XIV XVIII XIX Food Consumption in Grams by Color for Groups of Four Experienced Chickens, Group Y . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Food Consumption in Grams by Color for Groups of Four Experienced Chickens, Group Z . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Food Consumption in Grams by Feeder Position for Groups of Four Experienced Chickens, Group X . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Food Consumption in Grams by Feeder Position for Groups of Four Experienced Chickens, Group Y . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Food Consumption in Grams by Feeder Position for Groups of Four Experienced Chickens, Group Z . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Food Consumption in Grams by Incident Light Intensity for Groups of Four Experienced Chickens, Group X . . . . . . . . . . . . Food Consumption in Grams by Incident Light Intensity for Groups of Four Experienced Chickens, Group Y . . . . . . . . . . . . Food Consumption in Grams by Incident Light Intensity ”or Groups of Four Experienced Chickens, Group Z . . . . . . . . . . . . Food Consumption in Grams by Color for Groups of Four Experienced European Quail . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Food Consumption in Grams by Color for Groups of Six Experienced European Quail . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30 31 34 35 36 38 39 4O 41 42 (LIST OF TABLES, Continued) XXI Food Consumption in Grams by Color for Groups of Two Experienced Europeanm Quail O O O O O O O O O 0 O O O O O O O O XXII Food Consumption in Grams by Feeder Position for Groups of Four Experienced European Quai l O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O XXIII Food Consumption in Grams by Feeder Position for Groups of Six Experienced European Quail O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O XXIV Food Consumption in Grams by Feeder Position for Groups of Two Experienced European Quail O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O XXV Food Consumption in Grams by Incident Light for Groups of Four Experienced European Quail O O O O O O O 0 O O O O O C O O O O XXVI Food Consumption in Grams by Incident Light for Groups of Six Experienced European Quail O O O O O O 0 O O O 0 O O O O O O O XXVII Food Consumption in Grams by Incident Light for Groups of Two Experienced European Quail . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . XXVIII Food Consumption in Grams by Color for Individual Unconditioned Female Chickens . XXIX Food Consumption in Grams by Color for Individual Unconditioned Male Chickens . . XXX The Effect of the Peck Order on Color Utili- zation as Shown by Total Pecks Relative to Feeder Position from Green . . . . . . . . Vi LIST OF FIGURES FIGURE PAGE 1 Percent Food Consumption for Individual Chickens, Group H . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20 2 Percent Food Consumption for Individual Chickens, Group I . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20 3 Percent Food Consumption for Individual Chickens, Group J . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21 4 Percent Food Consumption for Groups of Four Chickens, Group X . . . . . . . . . . 32 5 Percent Food Consumption for Groups of Four Chickens, Group Y . . . . . . . . . . 32 6 Percent Food Consumption for Groups of Four Chickens, Group Z . . . . . . . . . . 33 7 Percent Food Consumption for Groups of Four European Quail . . . . . . . . . . . . 44 8 Percent Food Consumption for Groups of Six European Quail . . . . . . . . . . . . 44 9 Percent Food Consumption for Groups of Two European Quail . . o . . . . . . . . . 45 10 Percent Food Consumption for Individual Female Chickens . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 54 11 Percent Food Consumption for Individual Male Chickens . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 54 vii LIST OF PLATES PLATE PAGE I Experimental Feeder and Inserts . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 viii INTRODUCTION The fact that birds exhibit color preference has been realized for many years. During the latter portion of the nineteenth century Renshaw (1877) reported that sparrows were pecking yellow crocuses while leaving all other vari- eties untouched. Tegetmeier (1877) immediately replied that this was not antipathy toward or preference for yellow but was an example of imitative behavior. Tegetmeier's reason- ing came from the fact that he disliked yellow crocuses and therefore had planted only blue and white varieties. These ware left untouched until a sparrow happened to sample one; thereafter havoc was wrought on his blue and white crocuses by the sparrows. White (1891) believed the birds pulled the yellow crocuses because they preferred yellow rather than having antipathy to it. During the same period Stokoe (1877) stressed the idea that color may be more important than taste in regards to food selection by birds. Stokoe, quoting from Gilbert White's "Observations on Nature,” stated: ”Birds are much influenced in the choice of food by colour, for though white currents are a much sweeter fruit than red, yet they seldom touch the former till they have devoured every bunch of the latter." Birds may also show preferences for certain colors in their nest construction. Three pairs of sparrows decorated their nests with the yellow flowers of laburnum (White, 1877). These nests were repeatedly destroyed by man but were reconstructed each time and again decorated with the yellow blooms. -Smith (1928) reports that Baltimore Orioles (Icterus galbula) were furnished with red and white strings for construction of their nest. The orioles would utilize all the white string provided but would not use the red. The House Wren (Troglodytes aedon) exhibits a preference for a red or green bird house (McCabe, 1961)° McCabe found that 72 of 98 nests were constructed in houses of these colors. Blue, yellow, and white bird houses were also available. People had assumed for many years that birds could de- tect color, but it was not until 1915 that it was positively shown that they possessed this ability. Yerkes (1915), us- ing elaborate equipment for that period, showed that the —"Ring Dove (Turtur risorius)” could differentiate between red—blaCk and red-greeno He concluded also that there may be a sex difference in color selection as he obtained much better results with the male than the female. Lashley (l9l6),using Domestic Chickens (Gallus domesticus) conditioned to certain colors, found that they could read— ily distinguish color changes within the range of the human spectrum. He also concluded that color brightness had little apparent effect on the fowls' color determination. The members of the family Trochilidae are often involved in discussions of color preference. Pickens (1935) found that the Ruby-throated Hummingbird (Archilochus colubris) preferred red over all other colors. Nearly a third of all feedings utilized red blooms though only four percent of the blooms were red (Pickens et a1,, 1931). Pickens (1951) also mentions the possibility of red flowers having evolved by unconscious selective pollination by these birds. Greenwalt (1960), from personal observations, agrees that trochilids show a marked preference for red. He has Observed these birds attempting to feed from the red knobs of his camera equipment, a red tie that he was wearing, and the red alcohol within a wall thermometer. Other investigators (Sherman, 1913; Bené, 1941, and Lyerly stall“ 1950) indicate that hummingbirds do not show a definite innate color preference but may show a conditioned preference. Bené also claimed that there was no justification in believing that the par- tiality to red by hummingbirds, or of the family Trochilidae as a whole, could be regarded as a phylogenetic trait. Tinbergen (1953), testing the reaction of the Herring Gull (Larug argentatus) to colored eggs, found that red eggs elicited the pecking response, and in turn the shape of the egg elicited the brooding response. Thus, the eggs were not deserted or destroyed. The red bill of this spe- cies elicits the pecking response in the young. Presenting colored eggs to Mourning Doves (Zenaidura macroura) does not inhibit or affect incubation in any way (McClure, 1945). Marples (1931) indicates that some birds may be color blind, probably living in a world of greys, as the Ringed Plover (Charadrius hiaticula) is unable to recognize its eggs by color. Young chicks and ducklings appear to have a natural preference for certain colors in their pecking response (Hess 1954, 1956). Hess found that chicks appear to have an equal preference for either orange or blue, while duck— lings have a preference for green. The avian eye may or may not be adapted for color vision. The presence and relative number of cone elements is the deciding factor. Diurnal birds, which utilize chromatic Vision, have an abundance of these elements in their ret— inas, while nocturnal species have relatively few cones (possibly none in the Apterigidae) but an abundance of rods. The eye of diurnal birds may be said to be cone dominated. A peculiar feature of the avian eye is the presence of colored, highly refractive oil droplets located within the cones. The droplets are of red, orange, yellow, or green and may act as filters which may reduce the sensitivity of the eye to the blue region of the spectrum. The oil drop— lets may form a mechanism whereby hue discrimination can be modified and improved in certain spectral regions (Walls, 1942). The droplets form an adaptive mechanism whereby hue discrimination is varied from species to species ac- cording to the demands of feeding habits and environment (Donner, 1960). The preference or antipathy of birds for a color has been utilized from an economical standpoint. Kaleach (1943, 1946) reports using colored poisons to reduce rodent popula- tions without harming the avian life in the same areas. He found that when properly used, green-colored poisons effec- tively reduced the rodent populations without causing any bird mortality. However, the use of colored seeds for plant- ing had no effect as a repellent for Ring-necked Pheasants (Phasianus colchicus) in Ohio (Dalmbach §£_al,, 1948). The eye of diurnal birds may be said to be cone dominated. A peculiar feature of the avian eye is the presence of colored, highly refractive oil droplets located within the cones. The droplets are of red, orange, yellow, or green and may act as filters which may reduce the sensitivity of the eye to the blue region of the spectrum. The oil drop- lets may form a mechanism whereby hue discrimination can be modified and improved in certain spectral regions (Walls, 1942). The droplets form an adaptive mechanism whereby hue discrimination is varied from species to species ac- cording to the demands of feeding habits and environment (Donner, 1960). The preference or antipathy of birds for a color has been utilized from an economical standpoint. Kalpbach (1943, 1946) reports using colored poisons to reduce rodent popula— tions without harming the avian life in the same areas. He found that when properly used, green-colored poisons effec— tively reduced the rodent populations without causing any bird mortality. However, the use of colored seeds for plant— ing had no effect as a repellent for Ring-necked Pheasants (Phasianus colchicus) in Ohio (Dalmbach t al,, 1948). The eye of diurnal birds may be said to be cone dominated. A peculiar feature of the avian eye is the presence of colored, highly refractive oil droplets located within the cones. The droplets are of red, orange, yellow, or green and may act as filters which may reduce the sensitivity of the eye to the blue region of the spectrum. The oil drop- lets may form a mechanism whereby hue discrimination can be modified and improved in certain spectral regions (Walls, 1942). The droplets form an adaptive mechanism whereby hue discrimination is varied from species to species ac- cording to the demands of feeding habits and environment (Donner, 1960). The preference or antipathy of birds for a color has been utilized from an economical standpoint. Kalpbach (1943, 1946) reports using colored poisons to reduce rodent popula— tions without harming the avian life in the same areas. He found that when properly used, green—colored poisons effec— tively reduced the rodent populations without causing any bird mortality. However, the use of colored seeds for plant- ing had no effect as a repellent for Ring-necked Pheasants (Phasianus colchicus) in Ohio (Dalmbach §£_§1,, 1948). This study was undertaken to determine for two members of the family Phasianidae, the European Quail (Coturnix coturnix) and the Domestic Chicken (Gallus domesticus), (1) their natural color preferences, (2) differences between sexes as to color preference, and (3) the effect of peck order on color preference. MATERIALS AND METHODS Experimental Cage: The experimental cage was a wooden frame structure measuring 74 x 37 x 34 inches. The sides, ends, and top were covered with one-inch chicken wire; the floor was made with 0.63 inch hardware cloth. The cage was sup- ported on 23-inch wooden legs. The top and one end were hinged. At the front of the cage was a platform measuring 37 x 8 x 1 inches whidh supported the experimental feeder. Removable sheet—metal pans were placed on a wooden frame four inches below the wire floor of the cage. These pans collected any food spilled from the experimental feeder. The experimental cage was installed in a room measuring 8 x 12 feet having a northern exposure. One window facing the north was the only natural source of light. Experimental Feeder: The experimental feeder was constructed of 0.75 inch plywood and measured 32 x 6 x 18 inches (Plate -I, Fig. A). The inside of the feeder box was partitioned into seven equal-sized compartments measuring approximately 4 x 5.5 x 11 inches. In the center of the anterior wall of each compartment was a 3 x 3 inch window Whose lower edge was 2.75 inches above the base of the feeder. On the inside wall, 5.5 inches from the top, was a 0.25 inch shelf used to support a sheet of clear window glass measuring 31.5 x 5.5 x 0.25 inches. This glass shelf was used to support colored filters which are discussed later. The inner walls of the box above the glass shelf were lined with aluminum foil which served as a reflecting surface. The top or lid of the box was hinged and had an electrical socket installed 10 inches from each end. Two 60-watt incandescent bulbs were used for illumination. The front of the box was equipped with a series of per- pendicular slots, whose function was to hold colored inserts in front of the individual compartments. A series of colored inserts measuring 4 x 11 inches with a 3 x 3 inch window corresponding in position to the‘ window of the feeding box was used (Plate I, Fig. c). The hue (color), value (lightness), and chroma (purity) of each insert were standardized by use of the Munsell Color Charts (Munsell, 1929). The colors were: R/4/12 hereafter referred to as red, YR/7/8 hereafter referred to as orange, Y/8/12 hereafter referred to as yellow, GY-G/6/4 hereafter referred to as green, B-PB/3/8 hereafter referred to as blue, and RP/3/10 hereafter referred to as violet. The inserts were uniform.in size and could be placed in front of any internal compartment at random. Plate: l. E'XIL'--r'lif't€f'li ll r-eeder and 'llaSBrTS / / /7 7 /7 /7 / // / / // / / / / / / l / / / / _ u Cl Cl Cl Cl Cl Cl—h‘ Cl 181 “ 3" I H 6 L l ...... LL’:-U:.'T_.‘.' 'ff." IL "I _-'—- l'—~' 'Ji —"—." ' I 1 L “"“ "“‘fi. ““" 32 Figwre A. '.xperimer.‘ol Feeder _ 1 l i l 1 I , E i I )III r8" 2.75 . 525.. ‘ H—fl ~—~--—-———2‘ 4' 4.. Figure B, Feeder Insert box fi_II=3 C. Colcred Insert 10 A series of filters measuring 5 x 5 inches was con— structed of colored cellophane. The filters were of red, orange, yellow, green, blue, and violet. The wave lengths of the transmitted light were not determined. The filters were placed on the previously mentioned glass shelf above the individual compartments in such order as to correspond by color to the colored inserts. Six insert boxes measuring 4 x 5.25 x 8 inches were used to hold the test foods (Plate I, Fig. B). The front of each box was open except for the lower 2.5 inches. The lower portion was equal in height to the lower level of the windows of the experimental feeder. The inner surfaces of each box were painted the same hue, value, and chroma of their corresponding colored inserts. Since the insert boxes had equal measurements they could be interchanged randomly in the compartments of the experimental feeder. Eggg: The food utilized was fine cracked corn which was colored as nearly as possible to correspond to the six hues of the colored inserts of the experimental feeder. The coloring agents employed were red, yellow, green, and blue commercial vegetable dyes. Procedures: The colored food was placed in correspondingly COlor insert boxes and weighed. Each insert box would 11 contain between 530 and 600 grams of food. Numbers were assigned to colors as follows: red 1, orange 2, yellow 3, green 4, blue 5, violet 6, and 7 to a blank. The position in the experimental feeder of any given color was then determined by referring to a table of random numbers. Each insert box in each experimental trial thus occupied an unbiased position. The colored insert, insert box, and filter was then placed in its proper position. After the experimental feeder and test bird, or birds, were placed in the feeding cage, they were left undisturbed for 6 hours in case of chickens and 12 hours in case of quail. Following this elapse of time the experimental feeder was removed, the food weighed, and the weight loss for each insert box recorded. The experimental birds had a tendency to spill a large portion of the food presented. A correction factor was em- ployed to compensate for this and to obtain the amount of food consumed. The correction factor was based on the assumption that if 50 percent of the total weight loss came from a single insert box, then 50 percent of the spillage came from that box. On two trials, samples of the spillage 12 were separated by color and weighed. The assumption was found to hold with relatively little error. The correction factor for each insert box was then subtracted from the total weight loss for each to obtain the amount of food consumed. This value was then recorded. Analysis: The statistical test applied to the data col— lected was a one—way analysis of the variance of two or more sample means. This test was applied to the data for color selection, feeding position in regard to the experi- mental feeder, and the incident illumination projected on the food. This statistical test will show only if a heterogeneity exists between the categories, not where it is. When a heterogeneity was present, the percent of food consumed for each color was plotted on a histogram to reveal its position. Experiments: 1. Color Preferences of Individual Unconditioned Domestic Chickens. The experimental birds were subjected to the experi- mental feeder without having had any previous experience with it. As far as could be determined these birds had never been exposed to any colors except the browns and 13 white of the holding pen. The experimental birds ranged from 4 to 12 weeks of age. The object of the experiment was to determine the color preference of the unconditioned chicken. 2. Color Selection by Groups of Experienced Domestic Chickens and Unconditioned Eurgpean Quail. Here the groups of experimental birds consisted of four chickens or two, four, or six quail. The chickens had had previous experience with the experimental feeder but the quail had not. The object of the experiment was to deter- mine the effect a group of individuals had on the overall color selection. 3. Color Preferences of Unconditioned Domestic Chidkens by Sex. Data recorded in the experiment involving the individual unconditioned chickens were utilized in this experiment. The object of this experiment was to determine if any dif- ferences in color preference exist between the sexes of the species involved. 4. The Effect of the Peck Order on Color Preference in Groups of Individuals. This experiment was conducted with three groups composed of four chickens in each group, all of Which had shown a 14 preference for the same color on previous tests. The test birds were all adults. Each of the three groups utilized was allowed to establish a peck order prior to testing. Then the number of pecks each individual made at each colored feeder was recorded. Prior to testing, the birds were without food for a period of 12 hours. Data were recorded for only the first five minutes the experimental feeder was in the experimental cage. The object of the experiment was to determine the effect of the peck order on the color preference of the groups and the effects upon the individual members. RESULTS The results of these experiments are presented below in the same order as described in the section on Materials and Methods. Experiment 1. Color Preference of Individual Unconditioned Domestic Chickens. Tables I, II, and III present the results of the individ- ual chickensI selection of food by color. A one-way analysis of variance of the means on each of the three test groups indicates the presence of heterogeneity at the one percent level. Figures 1, 2, and 3 indicate that the heterogeneity exists in the green area of the spectra. Green was the pre- ferred color of food in each of the three test groups, rang— ing from 42.1 to 53.0 percent of all food consumed. The test groups consisted of birds of different ages. The indi- viduals comprising group “H” were 4 to 5 weeks of age, group "J" were 8 to 9 weeks of age, and group ”I” were 11 to 12 weeks of age. There was no significant difference in food selection by color between the groups. Tables IV, V, and VI present the results of food con— sumption according to position in the experimental feeder. A one-way analysis of variance indicates that there is no 15 16 heterogeneity present at the one percent level. The experi— mental birds did not show a preference for any individual feeder because of its position in the experimental feeder. Tables VII, VIII, and IX present the results of food consumption according to the incident light intensity di- rected upon the food. The light intensities were one, two, three, four and ten candle power. A one-way analysis of variance indicates that in groups "H” and "J‘' there is no heterogeneity present at the one precent level. The analy- sis of group ”I“ does indicate slight heterogeneity in the three candle power range. This test is probably biased, how— ever, as green, the preferred color, did not appear at ran- dom among the different candle power magnitudes. The green feeder appeared in the three candle power range 9 times out of 12 or 75 percent of the time. The experimental animals, with the exception of test group ”I”, did not show a prefer- ence for any individual feeder because of the intensity of the incident light. Experiment 2. Color Selection by Groups of Experienced Domestic Chickens and European Quail. Tables X, XI, and XII present the results of food se— lection by color in groups of four chidkens. A one—way analysis of variance indicates the presence of heterogeneity l7 Table I. Food Consumption in Grams by Color for Individual Unconditioned Chickens, Group H EA Red Orange Yellow Green Blue Violet H-l 9.1 0.1 0.4 12.0 0.1 0.0 H-2 12.6 0.7 7.2 2.2 0.1 1.8 H-3 0.5 1.2 0.4 4.9 3.0 0.8 H-4 9.5 5.6 13.6 8.4 2.7 4.4 H-5 2.3 3.4 1.7 2.8 3.8 3.8 H—6 0.9 0.2 0.1 7.1 0.1 0.9 H-7 0.3 0.1 0.2 16.0 5.9 0.2 H-8 0.1 0.0 0.7 7.1 0.1 0.1 H-9 4.2 0.7 2.6 7.7 1.3 2.1 H-10 1.3 0.9 0.0 15.2 0.2 2.4 H—ll 11.6 0.3 1.8 12.0 2.6 0.5 Total EX 52.4 13.2 28.7 95.4 19.9 17.0 226.6 x 4.76 1.20 2.61 8.67 1.81 1.55 20.60 EA = experimental animal, EX = total consumption, X — average consumption/trial. F: 7.49 Critical F 99 (5 and 60 d.f.) .— _ 3.34 18 Table II. Food Consumption in Grams by Color for Individual Unconditioned Chickens, Group I EA Red Orange Yellow Green Blue Violet I-l 5.1 2.1 1.2 12.4 2.5 0.3 I—2 0.4 0.0 0.8 17.3 1.2 0.9 I—3 0.5 0.9 0.0 15.6 2.2 0.5 I—4 0.0 0.1 0.5 8.0 1.3 4.9 I—5 1.8 0.5 0.8 1.6 3.3 9.8 I-6 0.4 0.7 1.1 1.3 0.0 1.4 I-7 0.8 0.0 0.0 0.0 2.2 1.0 I-8 1.2 2.3 1.5 20.3 1.7 8.0 I-9 1.8 2.1 1.2 17.7 0.0 11.2 I-10 16.0 1.0 0.0 15.1 2.6 4.8 I-11 7.5 0.4 0.0 4.7 0.0 0.0 I-12 0.0 0.0 0.9 15.1 1.0 0.0 Total EX 35.5 10.1 8.0 129.1 18.0 42.8 243.5 2 2.96 0.84 0.67 10.76 1.50 3.57 20.30 EA = experimental animal, EX 2 total consumption, = average consumption/trial. F: 11.06 Critical F .99 (5 and 66 d.f.) = 3.31 Table III. 19 Food Consumption in Grams by Color for Individual Unconditioned Chickens, Group J EA Red Orange Yellow Green Blue Violet J-l 1.2 0.3 0.2 6.1 0.0 0.2 J-2 0.7 0.0 0.0 11.9 0.7 6.7 J-3 0.7 2.9 3.0 5.2 0.9 3.1 J—4 5.7 1.6 0.0 0.5 0.0 2.2 J—5 0.0 0.5 0.0 13.9 2.2 1.0 J—6 0.4 1.7 1.0 8.0 1.9 0.2 J-7 1.9 8.7 3.6 4.9 3.8 2.6 J-8 2.1 1.3 0.8 3.1 0.0 1.9 J-9 0.8 0.0 5.6 1.7 0.0 1.1 J-10 0.1 1.6 2.8 11.1 5.1 11.7 J—ll 0.0 0.0 0.8 20.8 0.0 0.0 J-12 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.1 0.0 2.0 Total EX 13.6 -18.6 17.8 88.3 14.6 32.7 185.6 X yfl1.13 1.55 1.48 7.36 1.22 2.73 15.47 qr“, EA = experimental animal, EX average consumption/trial. F = 6.63 Critical F099 = total consumption, (5 and 66 d.f.) = 3.31 20 70- 3‘01 30-: +31 b 301 R 20~ r |.)_, B J V 25.12 5.43 l2.67 42.Ir‘. 8.78 7.50 Figure I. Percent Food Consum; or Individual Chickens, Grow H °/o 7')_ 603 G 50_ 40.. 30- V b r———-——« 53.02 7.39 l7.58 Figure 2. Percent Food Consumphm ?-)r Individual Chickens, Grour l 2]. % 70.. st. 50... G 40_ 2.. 20- V I02 R O Y B 7.37. i002 9.59 47.58 7.87 l7.“i FiJure 3. Percent Food Consumption for Individual Chickens, Grcup J r__ll Table IV. Consumption in Grams by Feeder Posi— tion for Individual Unconditioned Chickens, Group H EA w—1 w—2 w-3 W—4 w-s W—6 w—7 H-l 0.1 0.4 0.0 --- 0.1 9.1 12.0 H-2 7.2 12.6 2.2 0.1 1.8 0.7 ~—- H-3 0.5 0.4 1.2 0.8 --- 4.9 3.0 H-4 —-- 2.7 9.5 4.4 13.6 8.4 5.6 H—5 3.8 2.3 2.8 3.4 1.7 3.8 —-- H-6 0.1 -—~ 7.1 0.9 0.2 0.9 0.1 H-7 0.1 0.2 0.2 5.9 0.3 16.0 --- H—8 0.1 0.1 -~» 0.1 0.7 7.1 0.0 H-9 2.6 4.2 2.1 7.7 -~— 1.3 0.7 H—10 0.0 -—- 0.9 15.2 2.4 1.3 0.2 H-ll 2.6 11.6 --- 0.3 0.5 12.0 1.8 Total EX 17.1 34.5 26.0 38.8 21.3 65.5 23.4 226.6 f 1.71 3.83 2.89 3.88 2.37 5.95 2.93 20.60 EA = eXperimental animal, EX = total consumption, X = average consumption/trial, We: = experimental feeder window. F = 1.10 Critical F 99 i6 and 60 d.f) = 3.12 23 Table V. Consumption in Grams by Feeder Posi— tion for Individual Unconditioned Chickens, Group I EA W-l W-2 W—3 W—4 W-5 W—6 W—7 I-l 0.3 —-- 2.5 2.1 5.1 12.4 1.2 1—2 ——— 17.3 0.8 1.2 0.4 0.9 0.0 1-3 0.0 0.5 0.9 0.5 2.2 15.6 -—— 1—4 8.0 0.1 4.9 —~~ 1.3 0.5 0.0 1-5 0 8 0.5 1.8 1.6 3.3 9.8 -—- I-6 --- 0.0 0.7 1.1 1.4 1.3 0.4 1-7 0.0 --- 0.0 2.2 1.0 0.8 0.0 I-8 —-— 8.0 1.2 1.5 20.3 1.7 2 3 1-9 11.2 0.0 2.1 17.7 1.8 1.2 ——— I-10 1.0 2.6 16.0 15.1 4.8 —~- 0.0 I-11 7.5 0.4 0.0 --- 0.0 4.7 0.0 1-12 0.0 15.1 0.9 1.0 0.0 --- 0.0 Total EX 28.8 44.5 31.8 44.0 41.6 48.9 3.9 243.5 f 3.20 4.45 2.65 4.40 3.47 4.89 0.43 20.30 EA = experimental animal, EX = total consumption, X = average consumption/trial, W-- = experimental feeder window. F = 0.80 Critical F (6 and 65 d.f.) = 3.09 .99 Table VI. Consumption in Grams by Feeder Posi- tion for Individual Unconditioned Chickens, Group J EA W-l W—2 W—3 W-4 W=5 W—6 W-7 J-l -—- 1.2 0.2 6.1 0.3 0.2 0.0 J-2 6.7 0.7 0.7 0.0 11.9 0.0 —- J-3 2.9 --— 0.9 5.2 3.1 3.0 .7 J—4 1.6 0.5 0.0 5.7 ~m~ 0.0 .2 J-5 2.2 ——- 13.9 1.0 0.0 0.0 .5 J—6 0.4 -—- 1.9 1.7 1.0 8.0 .2 J—7 3.6 8.7 3.8 2.6 4.9 ——- .9 J-8 3.1 2.1 0.8 1.9 1.3 -~- .0 J-9 0.8 0.0 -1- 1.7 1.1 0.0 .6 J-10 0.1 2.8 11.1 5.1 1.6 11.7 -- J-11 20.8 --- 0.0 0.0 0.8 0.0 .0 J—12 -—— 0.0 1.1 0.0 2.0 0.0 .0 Total EX 42.2 16.0 34.4 31.0 28.0 22.9 11.1 185.6 x 4.22 2.00 3.13 2.58 2.55 2.29 1.11 .15.47 EA = experimental animal, EX = total consumption, X = average consumption/trial, W—m window. F: 0.61 Critical F 99 O = experimental feeder i6 and 65 d.f.) 3.09 25 at the one percent level. Figures 4, 5, and 6 indicate that the heterogeneity exists in the green area of the spectra. The green-colored food was the preferred food of the experimental animals. It constituted 29.4 to 32.4 per- cent of the diet. Tables XIII, XIV, and XV present the results of food consumption by feeder position for the three test groups. A oneeway analysis of variance indicates no heterogeneity at the one percent level. The test animals did not show a preference for feeding from any individual feeder because of its position. Tables XVI, XVII, and XVIII present the results of food consumption in relation tothe intensity of incident light falling upon the test foods. A one-way analysis of yariance indicates no heterogeneity is present. The intensity of the incident light falling upon the test foods did not affect the experimental animals0 choice of food. Tables XIX, XX, and XXI present the results of food selection by color for the European Quail. A one-way anal— ysis of the variance indicates the presence of heterogene— ity in each of the three test groups. Figures 7, 8, and 9 indicate that the heterogeneity exists in the green region of the spectra. The green-colored food constituted between 26 Table VII. Food Consumption in Grams by Incident Light Intensity for Individual Unconditioned Chickens, Group H 1 CP 2 CP 3 CP 4 CP 10 CP . 12.0 0.7 9.1 5.9 . 0.0 0.2 . 7.2 0.0 12.6 16.0 . 0.1 0.3 . 0.5 1.8 0.1 0.1 . 2.2 0.7 2.7 0.8 4.2 1.8 7.1 5.6 4.9 7.7 1.2 2.1 3.8 4.4 15.2 9.5 0.9 0.1 8.4 1.3 13.6 2.4 0.1 2.3 11.6 2.8 0.5 0.0 0.9 12.0 1.7 2.6 0.9 7.1 1.3 0.2 0.2 EX 38.4 119.3 54 4 " 2.74 5.68 2.86 CP = candle power, EX = total consumption, X = average consumption/trial. F C ' ' F rltlcal 099 (4 and 61 d.f.) = 3.62 27 Table VIII. Food Consumption in Grams by Incident Light Intensity for Individual Unconditioned Chickens, Group I 1 cp 2 cp 3 cp 4 cp 10 cp . 1.2 0.0 12.4 1.2 2.5 5.1 . . 0.9 1.7 17.3 15.1 2.1 0.8 . 0.0 2.3 1.2 4.7 0.5 0.4 0.0 0.0 0.5 15.1 2.2 0.9 0.1 1.0 15.6 1.0 1.3 4.9 0.0 2.6 0.5 3.3 1.8 0.8 0.0 1.6 1.1 0.7 0.5 7.5 1.3 1.5 1.4 9.8 0.4 2.2 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.8 1.0 0.4 0.0 8.0 1.2 0.0 17.7 20.3 EX 19.5 29.2 116.2 14.5 64.1 243.5 f 4.88 1.27 6.84 1.61 3.37 20.30 CP = candle power, EX = total consumption, X = average consumption/trial. Critical F (4 and 67 dofo) = 3.61 O F = 3.70 28 3.91 Table IX. Food Consumption in Grams by Incident Light Intensity for Individual Unconditioned Chickens, Group J 1 CP 2 CP 3 CP 4 CP 10 CP 0.0 0.2 1.9 1.2 .1 0.0 0.2 0.8 6.7 0.7 0.8 6.1 .9 0.9 0.3 1.3 2.2 2.9 0.0 0.0 .7 5.7 0.7 1.1 2.2 0.7 0.0 5.2 .1 1.9 11.9 11.1 0.2 1.6 5.6 3.0 .0 1.7 3.1 1.6 3.1 0.0 0.1 0.5 .0 3.8 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.5 11.7 1.0 2.8 13.9 0.8 20.8 0.4 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.1 0.0 3.6 0.0 8.0 1.0 2.0 8.7 0.0 2.6 4.9 EX 35.2 39 4 38.4 16.8 55.8 1.97 2.40 2.10 2.94 candle power, 0.46 Critical F consumption/trial. = total consumption, X = average 99 (4 and 67 d.f.) = 3.61 29 Table X. Food Consumption in Grams by Color for Groups of Four Experienced Chickens, ' Group X EG Red Orange Yellow Green Blue Violet X-l 21.0 10.0 27.6 56.7 6.1 24.2 x—2 12.5 10.1 30.3 60.6 2.7 40.7 x—3 30.5 26.9 22.3 58.9 32.4 39.2 x-4 34.8 37.3 8.0 44.9 11.2 11.2 x—s 35.2 30.3 19.3 52.3 18.8 37.1 X—6 47.7 38.1 63.3 78.6 14.4 50.3 x—7 20.7 2.1 21.9 69.8 16.9 31.7 Total EX 202.4' 154.8 192.7 421.8 102.5 234.4 1308.6 2 28.91 22.11 27.52 60.26 14.64 33.49 186.94 EG = experiment group, EX = total consumption, X = average consumption/trial. F = 10.01 Critical F (5 and 36 d.f.) = 3.58 99 30 Table XI. Food Consumption in Grams by Color for Groups of Four Experienced Chidkens, Group Y Red Orange Yellow Green Blue Violet EG Y-l 27.5 24.9 19.0 42.3 31.6 36.0 Y—2 12.5 8.1 20.2 30.8 9.7 37.7 Y-3 20.5 3.1 22.6 58.8 17.1 30.5 Y—4 18.1 14.3 18.8 45.7 30.6 22.7 Y-5 22.5 35.1 40.3 61.2 21.8 28.3 Y—6 33.9 36. 10.4 43.7 12.6 16.5 Y-7 19.5 23.6 31.4 41.8 12.6 10.1 Total EX 154.5 145.5 162.7 324.3 136.0 181.8 1104.8 2 22.07 20.78 23.24 46.33 19.43 25.97 157.83 EG = experimental group, EX = total consumption, X = average consumption/trial. F = 7.09 Critical F 99 (5 and 36 d.f.) = 3.58 31 Table XII. Food Consumption in Grams by Color for Groups of Four Experienced Chickens, Group Z EG Red Orange Yellow Green Blue Violet Z-l 9.0 4.0 10.9 78.0 60.7 34.3 z—2 19.1 14.5 17.9 45.5 33.1 23.5 z—3 41.5 4.0 23.8 45.9 26.1 21.8 z-4 63.3 7.4 9.7 67.0 11.0 20.2 z-5 7.9 7.9 17.8 27.6 21.3 19.8 Z-6 6.7 45.3 37.8 64.0 5.0 12.2 2—7 22.7 35.1 40.7 54.4 24.9 31.5 Z-8 17.5 21.1 35.0 40.9 10.5 6.0 Total EX 187.7 139.3 193.6 423.3 192.6 169.3 1305.8 3 23.46 17.41 24.20 52.91 24.07 21.16 163.21 EG = experimental group, EX = total consumption, X = average consumption/trial. F = 5.55 Critical F 99 (5 and 42 d.f.) = 3.49 96 l5.47 “3 Li."3 32.2.5 R 7.63 I".'Jl Figure 4. Groups ‘7. 70... 60.. 501 40- of Percerl Four Food Consumption Chickens, Group X for U .IT l-l.7“ ' 1 r. .'. f l...3l .-i' F:4:rc Groups J f VPICGHT Four Food Chickens, Consumption Group Y for 33 %. 7c- 60- 502 4!...1 30- 20‘- H IC- 0 l—‘o.37 i'f‘? Ii..--“ .41 Figure 6. l Groups “f Four Chickens, l4. 7 i._ . ‘5 7 n‘. -—-—-.—. '-—.-.L.—-p-——.— urnpiion for Group 2 34 Table XIII. Food Consumption in Grams by Feeder Position for Groups of Four Experienced Chickens, Group X EG W-l W—2 W—3 W—4 WFS W—6 W-7 X-l 6.1 27.6 10.0 —-- 56.7 24.2 21.0 X—2 2.7 12.5 60.6 40.7 10.1 -—— 30.3 X—3 22.3 39.2 30.5 --— 58.9 26.9 32.4 X-4 8.0 44.9 34.8 11.2 11.2 37.3 ——— Xh5 35.2 30.3 37.1 52.3 19.3 -—- 18.8 X-6 14.4 78.6 38.1 -—— 63.3 50.3 47.7 X-7 69.8 21.9 31.7 —-- 20.7 16.9 2.1 Total EX 158.5 255.0 242.8 104.2 240.2 155.6 152.3 1308.6 X 22.64 36.43 34.69 34.73 34.31 31.12 25.38 186.94 E6 = experimental group, EX = total consumption, X = average consumption/trial, W—- = experimental feeder window. (6 and 37 d.f.) = 3.33 F = 0.47 Critical F.99 35 Table XIV. Food Consumption in Grams by Feeder Position for Groups of Four Experienced Chickens, Group Y EG W-l W-2 W-3 W—4 W—5 W-6 W—7 Y—l 31.6 36.0 27.5 42.3 19.0 --- 24.9 Y-2 20.2 12.5 8.1 —-- 37.7 30.8 9.7 Y-3 17.1 58.8 30.5 —~- 3.1 22.6 20.5 Y—4 18.8 45.7 -—- 30.6 22.7 14.3 18.1 Y-5 22.5 28.3 61.2 -—- 40.3 35.1 21.8 Y—6 43.7 10.4 -—- 33.9 36.4 12.6 16.5 Y-7 41.8 10.1 31.4 12.6 23.6 19.5 -—— Total EX 195.7 201.8 158.7 119.4 182.8 134.9 111.5 1104.8 X 27.96 28.83 31.74 29.85 26.11 22.48 18.58 157.83 EG = experimental group, EX = total consumption, X = average consumption/trial, W-- = experimental feeder window. F = 0.47 Critical F 99 (6 and 37 d.f.) = 3.33 36 Table XV. Food Consumption in Grams by Feeder Positions for Groups of Four Experienced Chickens, Group Z EG W-l W—2 W-3 W-4 W—5 W-6 W—7 Z—l 10.9 ——- 4.0 78.0 34.3 9.0 60.7 Z—2 23.5 -—- 33.1 14.5 19.1 45.5 17.9 Z-3 ——— 4.0 45.9 23.8 21.8 41.5 26.1 Z-4 67.0 —-- 7.4 20.2 9.7 11.0 63.3 Z-5 7.9 21.3 17.8 19.8 27.6 7.9 ——- Z—6 -—— 5.0 6.7 12.2 37.8 64.0 45.3 Z—7 31.5 54.4 40.7 35.1 24.9 —-— 22.7 Z—8 21.1 17.5 6.0 10.5 ——— 35.0 40.9 Total EX 161.9 102.2 161.6 214.1 175.2 213.9 276.9 1305.8 X 26.98 20.44 20.20 26.76 25.02 30.55 39.55 163.23 EG = experimental group, EX = total consumption, X = average consumption/trial, W—— = experimental feeder window. F = 0.83 Critical F (6 and 41 d.f.) = 3.27 .99 37 25.0 and 54.2 percent of the diet of the quail under the experimental conditions. Tables XXII, XXIII, and XXIV present the results of food selection by feeder position. A one-way analysis of vari- ance reveals no evidence of heterogeneity at the one per- cent level. Position had no effect on the choice of food by the quail under the experimental conditions. Tables XXV, XXVI, and XXVII present the results for food consumption by the quail in relation to the intensity of the light falling upon the test foods. A one-way analysis of variance reveals no evidence of heterogeneity at the one percent level. The incident light intensity had no effect on the choice of food by the experimental animals. Experiment 3. Color Preferences of Unconditioned Domestic Chickens by Sex. Table XXVIII presents the results on food selection by color by individual unconditioned female Domestic Chickens. A one-way analysis of variance indicates the presence of heterogeneity at the one percent level. Figure 10 reveals the heterogeneity to be in the green area of the spectra. The green food constituted 60.6 percent of the diet of the females. Table XXXIX presents the results of food selection by 38 Table XVI. Food Consumption in Grams by Incident Light Intensity for Groups of Four Experienced Chickens, Group X 1 CP 2 CP 3 CP’ 4 CP 5 CP . 24.2 12.5 27.6 10.0 . 21.0 40.7 21.9 56.7 30.3 39.2 60.6 22.3 26.9 10.1 8.0 44.9 30.5 35.2 11.2 58.9 30.3 37.3 34.8 50.3 52.3 11.2 47.7 78.6 37.1 16.9 19.3 2.1 38.1 63.3 31.7 20.7 Total EX 144.2 288.3 343.6 49.2 483.0 1308.6 X 24.03 26.21 38.18 24.60 34.50 186.94 CP = candle power, EX = total consumption, X = average consumption/trial. F = 0.86 Critical F 99 (4 and 37 d.f.) = 3.87 39 Table XVII. (Food Consumption in Grams by Incident Light Intensity for Groups of Four Experienced Chickens, Group Y 1 CP 2 CP 3 CP 4 CP 10 CP 31.6 24.9 36.0 10.4 27.5 9.7 20.2 42.3 33.9 19.0 17.1 20.5 12.5 8.1 21.8 18.8 30.8 37.7 43.7 18.1 58.8 30.5 16.5 22.5 22.6 3.1 41.8 12.6 45.7 22.7 30.6 61.2 14.3 40.3 28.3 36.4 35.1 31.4 10.1 23.6 12.6 19.5 Total EX 182.2 137.6 399.2 44.3 341.5 1104.8 3 26.03 19.66 28.51 22.20 28.46 7157.83 CP = candle power, EX = total consumption, i = average consumption/trial. F = 0.46 Critical F 99 (4 and 37 d.f.) = 3.87 40 Table XVIII. Food Consumption in Grams by Incident Light Intensity for Groups of Four Experienced Chidkens, Group Z 1 CP 2 CP 3 CP 4 CP 10 CP 60.7 10.9 78.0 33.1 4.0 23.5 17.9 9.0 14.5 34.3 26.1 4.0 45.5 23.8 19.1 67.0 11.0 41.5 35.1 45.9 31.5 63.3 20.2 24.9 21.8 7.9 19.8 9.7 21.3 7.9 7.4 5.0 12.2 17.8 45.3 54.4 27.6 22.7 17.5 6.7 21.1 10.5 37.8 40.9 35.0 64.0 40.7 6.0 Total EX 208.8 271.3 351.5 131.4 342.8 1305.8 2 41.76 22.61 29.29 26.28 24.49 163.21 CP = candle power, EX = total consumption, X = average consumption/trial. Critical F (4 and 42 d.f.) = 3.80 F = 1.05 .99 41 Table XIX. Food Consumption in Grams by Color for Groups of Four Experienced European Quail EG Red Orange Yellow Green Blue .Violet A—l 0.0 0.0 1.5 34.5 14.5 ,7.3 A-2 1.6 2.2 4.5 37.3 16.8 5.7 A-3 1.5 1.6 5.6 28.9 28.5 2.5 A-4 0.8 0.7 2.5 13.4 12.5 7.2 A—S 7.2 0.0 0.0 15.1 17.5 14.4 A-6 0.6 2.4 3.5 17.2 9.3 13.4 A-7 4.3 0.0 1.1 46.1 19.1 12.3 A-8 15.7 4.7 3.8 4.7 12.8 14.1 A-9 0.0 0.0 0.4 7.7 30.8 2.8 A—lo 7.7 0.7 0.0 4.2 1.0 0.0 A-ll 9.0 2.2 2.0 27.8 7.3 4.9 A-12 4.2 2.4 1.7 25.8 6.0 13.6 A—13 5.3 1.4 0.6 11.8 3.9 31.3 A414 1.0 1.7 1.6 20.0 11.5 22.6 A-15 0.9 0.5 0.2 26.0 5.5 15.9 A—16 5.1 0.6 0.3 27.2 7.3 13.7 A-17 5.3 0.0 0.0 8.4 11.0 8.2 A—l8 0.0 0.0 0.0 28.8 8.5 20.1 A-19 15.6 11.7 10.8 19.9 15.7 7.6 Total EX 85.8’ 32.8 40.1 404.8 239.5 217.6 1020.6 2 4.52 1.73 2.11 21.31 12.61 11.45 53.72 EG = experimental group, EX = total consumption, X = average consumption/trial. F = 22.82 Critical F (5 and 108 d.f.) = 3.19 99 42 Table XX. Food Consumption in Grams by Color for Groups of Six Experienced European Quail EG Red Orange Yellow Green Blue iViolet B-l 6.6 , 0.6 3.8 24.4 20.2 1.2 B-2 3.3 2.6 20.5 35.9 33.4 20.2 B-3 1.5 0.8 20.1 37.3 33.5 34.0 B-4 0.5 2.1 2.9 19.7 12.2 21.7 B-5 1.4 1.7 42.4 48.4 2.2 5.2 B-6 0.1 2.0 32.4 30.7 2.1 10.0 B-7 0.3 5.2 28.4 32.1 24.5 20.6 B-8 4.4 2.1 12.2 31.8 31.7 33.5 B-9 2.9 8.6 8.4 13.2 13.1 11.1 B-lO 3.4 44.5 11.1 49.9 10.9 41.7 B-ll 6.1 22.7 6.4 49.7 54.0 20.5 B-12 10.5 4.2 38.0 21.7 43.5 5.5 B-13 24.4 5.9 46.1 16.5 31.2 4.9 B-14 24.3 5.9 33.9 27.9' 34.4 30.0 B-15’ 4.0 8.1 24.3 37.2 33.2 34.4 B—16 25.7 - 4.7 21.5 19.0 28.5 30.8 B-l7 35.3 12.6 10.2 20.9 62.3 19.4 B-18 5.2 1.4 5.0 7.4 37.3 38.9 B-19 13.8 1.8 2.4 18.0 28.2 27.6 Total EX 173.7 137.5 370.0 541.7 536.4 411.12 2170.5 2 9.14 7.24 19.47 28.51 28.23 21.64 114.24 EG = experimental group, EX = total consumption, X = average consumption/trial. ' F = 9.74 Critical F (5 and 108 d.f.) = 3.19 99 . k . 1 . I.. IV a. a . . ..rr - .V; . ..uufi .. 43 Table XXI. Food Consumption in Grams by Color for Groups of Two Experienced European Quail EG Red Orange Yellow Green Blue Violet C-l 0.0 0.0 0.0 24.3 0.1 2.5 C-2 0.4 0.2 0.3 0.6 1.1 18.5 C-3 0.0 0.1 7.3 0.0 0.4 2.5 C-4 1.4 5.5 9.0 20.1 3.0 2.1 C-5 0.3 0.2 1.4 2.7 1.0 8.7 C-6 0.2 0.2 0.2 14.1 4.3 6.8 C-7 0.9 5.9 4.2 14.9 0.6 0.8 C-8 0.0 0.0 0.0 9.1 0.1 4.3 C-9 0.0 6.6 0.0 17.0 0.3 0.2 C-10 11.2 5.1 1.0 33.9 4.0 2.1 C-ll 0.4 0.4 0.5 22.4 1.1 9.5 C—12 0.0 0.0 0.0 13.7 12.0 0.2 C-13 0.0 0.0 0.0 12.3 6.4 0.7 Total EX 14.8 24.2 23.9 185.1 34.4 58.9 341.3 X 1.14 1.86 1.84 14.24 2.65 4.53 26.25 EG = experimental group, EX 2 average consumption/trial. Critical F F = .99 11.97 total consumption, X (5 and 72 d.f.) = 3.28 44 "I. -,._ (3'... 4 9 G B 2 .. V l _, R O Y .-'ol ‘ --__1 I 3.. flj'gfi.“ Z’nij 11.32 Figure 7. Percent Food Concurr-rti'n for a Group of Fcur European w'JClil, Group A ' —l r' a 4 _. 7 1 G B 2-_ Y V "‘1 R 0 «00 7.!5 24.9r 24.71 15.234 Figure 8. Percent Food Consumption for a Group of Six European uuail, Griup B 45 l 7~I_ 60., 50- 4(_. 3(_ 2"»_. IL 4.34 7.09 7.00 54.23 10.08 I726 Figure 9. Percent Food Consumrri'n fora Group of Two European ..unil, imur C 46 Table XXII. Food Consumption in Grams by Feeder Posi— tion for Groups of Four Experienced European Quail EG W—l W—2 W—3 W—4 W-S W—6 W—7 A-l 34.5 14.5 1.5 --— 7.3 0.0 0.0 A-2 2.2 ——— 1.6 37.3 16.8 5.7 4.5 A—3 28 5 1.5 ——— 28.9 2.5 5.6 1.6 A—4 —-— 13.4 12.5 0.8 2.5 0.7 7.2 A—S 14.4 7.2 15.1 0.0 17.5 0.0 —-— A-6 9.3 2.4 13.4 17.2 0.6 —-— 3.5 A—7 19.1 46.1 12.3 4.3 --- 0.0 1.1 A-8 14.1 3.8 4.7 -—— 15.7 12.8 4.7 A-9 0.4 0.0 ——— 7.7 2.8 0.0 30.8 A-lO 0.7 1.0 4.2 ——— 7.7 0.0 0.0 A-ll 9.0 4.9 2.0 7.3 2.2 27.8 ——— A-12 2.4 6.0 4.2 13.6 ——— 25.8 1.7 rA—13 0.6 3.9 —-— 31.3 11.8 1.4 5.3 A-14 11.5 1.7 1.6 ——- 20.0 1.0 22.6 A-15 -—- 0.5 0.9 0.2 5.5 15.9 26.0 A—l6 0.3 0.6 5.1 13.7 —-— 7.3 27.2 A—17 11 0 0.0 5.3 8.2 0.0 -—- 8 4 A—18 0 0 20.1 0.0 8.5 28.8 0.0 --- A-19 15 7 11.7 19.9 7.6 ——— 10.8 15.6 Total EX 173.7 139.3 104.3 186.6 141.7 114.8 160.2 1020.6 X 10.22 7.74 6.52 12.44 9.45 6.75 10.01 53.72 EG = experimental group, EX = total consumption, X = average consumption/trial, W-- = experimental feeder window. F = 0.75 Critical F 99 (6 and 108 d.f.) = 2.98 Table XXIII. 47 Food.Consumption in Grams by Feeder Posi— 'tion for Groups of Six Experienced European Quail EG W—l W—2 W—3 W—4 W-5 W—6 W-7 B-l 6.6 0.6 1.2 -—- 3.8 20.2 24.4 B—2 20.5 20.2 33.4 2.6 3.3 -—- 35.9 B-3 0.8 20.1 34.0 37.3 1.5 --- 33.5 B-4 21.7 2.1 2.9 0.5 12.2 19.7 -—— B-S 42.4 --- 2.2 1.7 48.4 1.4 5.2 B-6 32.4 --- 0.1 30.7 10.0 2.0 2.1 B-7 28.4 5.2 --— 0.3 20.6 32.1 24.5 B-8 31.8 31.7 4.4 -—- 2.1 12.2 33.5 B-9 13.1 8.6 11.1 --- 13.2 2.9 8.4 B-10 11.1 41.7 3.4 --— 49.9 10.9 44.5 B-ll 54.0' 49.7 22.7 --- 6.4 20.5 6.1 B-12 38.0 21.7 --- 5.5 10.5 43.5 4.2 B—l3 24.4 5.9 16.5 4.9 —-— 31.2 46.1 B-14 30.0 24.3 27.9 33.9 -11 5.9 34.4 B-15 37.2 34.4 33.2 24.3 4. 8.1 -—— B-l6 19.0 28.5 -—- 30.8 25.7 4.7 21.5 B-l7 20.9 ——- 12.6 19.4 35.3 10.2 62.3 B—18 1.4 -—- 7.4 37.3 5.0 38.9 5.2 B-19 13.8 2.4 27.6 -—— 18.0 1.8 28.2 Total EX 447.5 297.1 240.6 229.2 269.9 266.2 420.0 2170.5 2 23.55 19.81 15.04 17.63 15.88 15.66 24.71 114.24 EG = experimental group, EX 2 total consumption, X = average consumption/trial, W-- = experimental feeder window. 15‘ = 1.18 (6 and 108 d.f.) = 2.98 Critical F 99 48 Table XXIV. Food Consumption in Grams by Feeder Posi- tion for Groups of Two Experienced European Quail EG W—l w—2 w-3 w—4 w-5 W-6 w—7 C-l 0.0 0.0 0.1 24.3 0.0 2.5 —-— c-2 18.5 0.4 1.1 --~ 0.2 0.3 0.6 c-3 0.0 7.3 0.1 0.4 0.0 --- 2.5 c-4 3.0 5.5 2.1 20.1 -—- 1.4 9.0 c-5 8.7 1.0 0.3 2.7 1.4 0.2 -—— C-6 --— 0.2 14.1 4.3 0.2 6.8 0.2 c-7 14.9 4.2 0.6 0.8 0.9 5.9 -—— C-8 --- 9.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 4.3 0.1 c-9 6.6 17.0 0.0 -—- 0.0 0.2 0.3 C-lO 5.1 11.2 2.1 1.0 33.9 4.0 - - C-ll 0.4 --— 0.5 0.4 9.5 1.1 22.4 c-12 0.2 0.0 --— 0.0 12.0 13.7 0.0 c-13 0.0 0.0 12.3 0.7 --- 0.0 6.4 Total EX 57.4 55.9 33.3 54.7 58.1 40.4 41.5 341.3 x 5.22 4.66 2.78 4.97 5.28 3.37 4.61 26.25 EG = experimental group, EX = total consumption, X = average consumption/trial, W-— 2 experimental feeder window. F = 0.22 Critical F (6 and 71 d.f.) = 3.07 99 49 Food Consumption in Grams by Incident Light Table XXV. for Groups of Four Experienced European Quail CP CP 10 CP CP CP 1.0 16.8 1.5 20.0 7.3 13.7 0.0 37.3 14.5 0.6 34.5 12.5 3.9 5.3 0.0 28.5 5.3 1.6 0.8 0.0 17.5 8.2 20.1 28.9 2.2 5.7 2.5 1.7 4.5 22.6 1.6 0.5 14.4 2.5 4.3 15.1 3.8 13.4 0.2 5 8 5.6 13.4 9.3 19.1 0.0 28.8 7.6 10.8 0.7 0.0 15.9 2.4 26.0 4.7 14.1 19.9 0.6 7.2 17.2 30.8 12.3 0.3 3.5 1.1 0.6 12.8 11.5 0.0 46.1 4.7 15.7 7.3 11.0 0.0 7.7 4.9 7.3 27.8 0.4 27.2 0.0 8.4 0.7 1.0 0.0 4.2 0.0 15.7 0.0 11.7 13.6 9.0 15.6 2.4 4.2 11.8 25.8 31.3 Total 1.4 1020.6 53.72 235.1 8.40 86.7 232.8 306.2 6.29 EX 159.8 8.67 11.34 13.32 X EX = total consumption, average X: CP = candle power, consumption/trial. 3.61 Critical F 99 (4 and 67 d.f.) = F = 0.46 50 Food Consumption in Grams by Incident Light for Groups of Six Experienced European Quail Table XXVI. 10 CP 4 CP CP 7CP CP 10.9. 6.6 44.5 4.9 33.4 1.2 16.5 24.3 20.2 6.6 33.5 3.8 27.9 20.1 35.9 21.7 3.3 33.9 12.2 34.0 0.5 20.5 37.3 20.2 5.2 4.0 25.7 1.5 34.4 19.7 6.1 38.0 2.6 43.5 24.4 2.1 24.5 2.9 2.2 20.5 1.7 48.4 0.3 33.2 10.0 24.3 20.6 30.8 1.4 30.7 33.5 12.6 35.3 0.1 4.2 13.1 7.4 5.0 18.0 19.4 .2.0 2.1 24.4 34.4 42.4 30.0 37.2 32.1 10.2 12.2 5.9 28.4 46.1 13.2 31.2 2.4 4.4 37.3 32.4 2.1 11.1 27.6 19.0 1.8 5.2 28.5 31.7 20.9 3.4 49.9 41.7 1.4 49.7 21.5 62.3 31.8 28.2 22.7 54.0 38.9 8.6 6.4 10.5 21.7 5.2 13.8 Total 11.1 130.3 421.1 2170.5 15.60 591.1 20.38 662.4 19.48 EX 365.6 114.24 13.03 26.11 SE average 2 = EX = total consumption, CP = candle power, consumption/trial. 3.61 Critical E 99 (4 and 67 d.f.) = 1.63 F: Table XXVII. for Groups of Two Experienced European Quail 51 Food Consumption in Grams by Incident Light 1 CP 2 CP 3 CP 4 CP ~10 CP 18.5 0.0 4.3 24.3 5.9 0.1 0.0 0.0 2.5 0.0 6.6 0.4 9.1 1.1 0.2 0.0 3.0 2.5 0.2 0.3 17.0 7.3 0.1 0.0 8.7 0.6 5.1 0.4 11.2 0.2 0.0 0.0 14.9 0.0 4.0 20.1 33.9 4.2 2.1 2.1 0.1 5.5 0.4 1.4 0.0 0.6 0.3 1.0 0.3 9.0 1.1 2.7 0.2 0.0 1.4 22.4 9.5 1.0 0.0 0.2 0.7 0.5 14.1 0.4 12.0 6.8 0.0 4.3 0.0 12.3 0.2 ,13.7 0.0 0.2 6.4 0.8 0.0 0.9 Total EX 69.5 53.7 132.9 26.3 58.9 341.3 x 6.95 2.69 6.99 2.63 3.10 26.25 CP = candle power, = total consumption, X = average consumption/trial. F: 1.78 Critical F 99 (4 and 73 d.f.) = 3.59 52 color by individual unconditioned male Domestic Chickens. A one—way analysis of variance indicates the presence of heterogeneity at the one percent level. Figure ll indicates the heterogeneity to exist in the green area of the spectra. The green-colored food constituted 42.5 percent of the food consumed by the males. Experiment 4. The Effect of the Peck Order on Color Pref- erences in Groups of Individuals. Table XXX presents the combined data of three different peek orders composed of four Domestic Chickens. The numbers of each block represent the total number of pecks taken in each feeder position by the rank of the bird in the hier- archy. The feeder position number refers to its position in regards to the green feeder, i.e., a feeder position one being adjacent to green and consisting of one or two feeders depending upon the position of green in the experimental feeder. All experimental birds had shown a strong prefer- eence for green in the previous experiments involving indi— xridual birds. The dominant individual in each case continues to select tihe green food, Which elicited 77.9 percent of all pecks. iIQIe dominant individual becomes very antagonistic towards 53 Food Consumption in Grams by Color for Individual Unconditioned Female Chickens Table XXVIII. Blue‘iViolet Red Orange Yellow Green EA 08 00 44 o o 00 12 01.. 15 90 113 HHH 1.8 12.0 2.6 . 1.2 11.6 H-ll I-2 17.3 1.3 1.1 0.0 0.0 I-11 I-12 J-l 1.0 15.1 1.2 6.7 1.6 . 5.7 J-4 1.0 2.0 2.2 13.9 Total 0.0 . . 1.1 . J-12 250.7 151.8 20.0 20.5 9.6 0.56 8.93 39.6 EX 1.21 14.75 1.18 0.54 2.33 X EX = total consumption, EA = experimental animal, average consumption/trial. Critical F 99 (5 and 96 d.f.) = 3.52 F = 20.56 54 O Y IF. B .59 -'.PT 1 5.85 C .55 7.98 EulB Figure l0. Pet cent .Ci'ud Cmsumption for Individual Female Chickem 3/6 70_ l.)...4 O Y U’ l4.52 7.9”. 9.48 b" V —_1 42.48 8.09 l7.46 Fig we Ii. F’urucrn? Fuod Cons-3:71p??- lndividual Mole Chickens n fcr 55 Food Consumption in Grams by Color for Individual Unconditioned Male Chickens Table XXIX. Violet Blue Red Orange Yellow Green EA 12.0 8 0.4 H-9 1.3 H-10 1.7 20.3 11.2 16.0 I-lO 1.1 11.7 J-lO J-ll Total 0.0 58.4 32.1 38.1 170.8 32.5 70.2 402.1 EX 22.34 9.49 1.81 3.90 2.24 3.24 1.78 EX = total consumption, EA = experimental animal, X average consumption/trial. Critical F 99 (5 and 102 d.f.) = 3.20 F = 10.09 56 Table XXX. The Effect of the Peck Order on Color Utilization as Shown by Total Pecks Relative to Feeder Position from Green Feeder Position Rank , GFrom in reen Green 1 2 3 4 5 6 Peck Order 1160 70 100 95 45 15 15 255 270 75 150 115 125 50 325 175 170 160 65 70 40 670 180 50 155 70 115 20 waH 57 birds No. 2 and No. 3 of the peck order when they approach the green feeder. The individuals occupying the center of the peck order were forced to utilize feeders other than the previously shown preferred green. The No. 4, or the lowest ranking bird of the peck order, was second in ability to utilize the preferred green food. In each case this position in the peck order was occupied by a very submissive individual. This bird would repeatedly occupy the green feeder position during the periods when the dominant bird was antagonistically driving birds No. 2 and No. 3 away from the area of the green food. The No. 4 bird would immediately give up the green feeder position upon the return of the dominant bird without any sign of antagonism. The small amount of feeding by birds No. 2 and No. 3 from the green feeder generally took place after the dominant bird appeared satiated. When a group of birds is tested together the intermedi— ate members of the peck order are forced to the less pre— ferred colors. This results in an increase in the percentage of un— preferred colored food consumed and a decrease in the per— centage of the preferred green food. .4- ~-~——_ __ _ , ________,_. ._ — —: '_‘——-.— » — - - ——..n——.¢-..._n———-—-. -._ _»..' -~». v—-— - ---* DISCUSSION The role of preferred colors in regard to food selection has been discussed periodically in the literature for nearly a hundred years. The early references pertaining to selec— tion of yellow by sparrows in feeding and for nesting mate- rials are of interest, but may be viewed with some scepti- cism. The publications of Renshaw (1877) and White (1877) appear to result from casual observation and seemingly are lacking in scientific experimentation. Pidkens (1931, 1935) hypothesized that hummingbirds possessed a natural preference for red flowers. Greenwalt (1960), from his observations in the field, agreed with Pickens. Sherman (1913) could detect no color preference by hummingbirds feeding from colored vials. He noted, however, that inter—specific antagonism occurred when sev- eral individuals were simultaneously in the area of the feeders. This may have accounted for the absence of color preference being observed. Bené (1941) also found no evidence of a preferred color although he did present the hypothesis that color preferences may be the result of con— ditioning. Lyerly §t_al_(l950) found no color preference by a single Mexican Violet—eared Hummingbird (Colibri thal- assinus) held in a cage. However, this bird appeared to 58 59 have an aversion to yellow and the feeder position was ob- served to have an effect on the feeder chosen by the bird. Statistical analysis was not applied by the above mentioned authors to their data. In my experiments, single unconditioned Domestic Chick— ens, feeding undisturbed from the experimental feeder, showed a strong preference for green. The green-colored food made up 42.1, 53.0, and 47.6 percent of the diet of the three test groups which consisted of 11, 12, and 12 individ- uals respectively. The relative positions of the six colored feeder inserts in the experimental feeder had no significant influence on the color choice of the individual birds. The incident light intensity illuminating the food had no significant effect on the food preference in two of the three test groups. Analysis of the data of the single posi- tive test group indicated that the incident light might be a factor in the selection of food° The data show, however, that the preferred green color did not occur randomly with regards to the various light intensities available. The green feeder insert occurred 75 percent of the time under the three candle power illumination. Comparison of the single significant ”F” score with the "F” scores of the two non-significant groups showed it was at least threefold 60 greater. Hence, this test is considered biased. Yerkes (1915), while conducting color discrimination experiments on the Ring Dove, found that the male bird con- sistently gave more positive results than the female. He believed that a difference in color discrimination or pref- erence between the sexes may exist. He states, however, that his two experimental animals were of different temperaments. This factor, coupled with the small sample size, lends scep— ticism to his hypothesis. In my experiments, the sex of the Domestic Chicken had no effect on the color preference in food selection. Both sexes exhibited marked preference for the green—colored food, which made up 60.6 percent of the diet of the females and 42.5 percent of the diet of the males. A difference in color preference may exist between the individuals of the species, which can not be explained by sex. The Domestic Chicken and the European Quail, when fed in groups, showed a preference for the green—colored food. The diet of the quail consisted of 39.6, 25.0, and 54.2 per— cent of green—colored food. The diet of the chickens, when fed in groups, consisted of 34.2, 29.4, and 32.4 percent green food in three trials. An average decrease of 15.6 percent in the consumption 60 greater. Hence, this test is considered biased. Yerkes (1915), while conducting color discrimination experiments on the Ring Dove, found that the male bird con— sistently gave more positive results than the female. He believed that a difference in color discrimination or pref— erence between the sexes may exist. He states, however, that his two experimental animals were of different temperaments. This factor, coupled with the small sample size, lends scep— ticism to his hypothesis. In my experiments, the sex of the Domestic Chicken had no effect on the color preference in food selection. Both sexes exhibited marked preference for the green—colored food, which made up 60.6 percent of the diet of the females and 42.5 percent of the diet of the males. A difference in color preference may exist between the individuals of the species, which can not be explained by sex. The Domestic Chicken and the European Quail, when fed in groups, showed a preference for the green-colored food. The diet of the quail consisted of 39.6, 25.0, and 54.2 per- cent of green-colored food. The diet of the chickens, when fed in groups, consisted of 34.2, 29.4, and 32.4 percent green food in three trials. An average decrease of 15.6 percent in the consumption —+- — _. _ _- 2,4,”..— . 61 of green food was noted in comparing the data on individual chickens with those of groups of chickens. The decrease appears to be the result of the influence of the peck order. The dominant individual was antagonistic towards the other members of the group relative to their respective rank when the preferred feeder was approached. This results in a more complete utilization by the other birds of all the colored foods available. One might infer that this could be bene- ficial to wild birds in that a high degree of food speciali— zation might not develop. The dominant and the most sub— ordinate individuals appear to be most successful in the utilization of the preferred color of food. Bené (1941) suggested that there is no justification- for believing that color preferences in the family Trochil- igag may be regarded as a phylogenetic trait. Kalmbadh §t_ §1_(1946), utilizing colored rodent poisons, found that wild birds possessed an aversion to green. However, they fed on the yellow and uncolored poisoned foods and died. The af- fected birds all belonged to the family Icteridae with the exception of one species of Alaudidae. The experiments con- ducted on two members of the family Phasianidae indicated a strong preference for green. The possible preference for red by some Trochilidae, 62 the apparent aversion to green by the Icteridae, and the preference for green by certain Phasianidae suggested that color preferences may be a phylogenetic trait. This hypoth- esis should not be abandoned until more complete studies, involving closely and distantly related families, have been conducted. SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS Color preference in two species of Phasianidae, the Domestic Chicken and the European Quail, was studied by measuring the consumption of food whidh was arti- ficially colored red, orange, yellow, green, blue, and violet with commercial vegetable dyes. The test animals were fed from a specially constructed experimental feeder. The feeder contained seven inter— Changeable colored insert boxes which held the experi— mental food. Each insert box was illuminated by inci— dent light passing through a cellophane filter which corresponded in color to the food contained therein. The incident light intensity was one, two, three, four, and ten candle power. A one-way analysis of the variance of two or more sam- ple means was applied to the data collected on color selection, position of the insert boxes in the experi— mental feeder, and intensity of the incident light il- luminating the insert boxes. Individual unconditioned Domestic Chickens showed a marked preference for green—colored food under these test conditions. The position of the green—colored food within the experimental feeder and the intensity 63 64 of the incident illumination seemingly had no effect on their choice. The sex of the Domestic Chicken had no effect on color preference. Male and female chickens both showed a marked preference for the green—colored food. When tested in groups of four, Domestic Chickens showed a preference for green-colored food. The position of the green-colored food within the experimental feeder and the intensity of the incident illumination seeming- ly had no effect on their choice. When tested in groups of two, four, or six, European Quail showed a preference for green—colored food under the test conditions. The position of the green—colored food and the intensity of the incident illumination seemingly had no effect on their choice. The peck order may be of importance in that it insures the utilization of all the colored foods presented. The dominant and the most subordinate individuals were most successful in utilizing the green—colored food. The intermediate members were forced to utilize the least preferred colors. The peck order of birds, under wild conditions, may be of importance in preventing the development of a high 65 degree of food specialization. 10. Color preferences exhibited by birds may be a phylo- genetic trait. LITERATURE CITED Bené, F. 1941. Experiments on the Color Preference of Black—chinned Hummingbirds. Condor 43: 237-242 Dambach, C. A.,and D. L. Leedy, 1948. Ohio Studies with Re— pellent Materials with Notes on Damage to Corn by Pheasants and Other Wildlife. Jour. Wildl. qut. 12: 392-398 Donner. K. O., 1960. On the Effect of the Coloured Oil Drop— lets on the Spectral Sensitivity of the Avian Ret- ina. Proc. Intern. Ornith. Cong. 12: 167-172 Greenwalt, C. H., 1960. Hummingbirds. Doubleday, Garden City, ‘ N.Y. 250 pp. Hess, E. H., 1954. Natural Preferences of the Chick for Ob- jects of Different Colors. Jour. Psychol. 38: 483-493 —-1956. Natural Preferences of Chicks and Ducklings for Objects of Different Colors. Psydh. Rept. 2: 477-483 Kalmbach, E. R., 1943. Birds, Rodents, and Colored Lethal Baits. Trans. 8th N, Amer. Wildl. Conf. 408-416 Lashley, K. S., 1916. The Color Vision of Birds. I. The Spectrum of the Domestic Fowl. Jour. Anim. Behav. 6: 1-26 Lyerly, S. B., B. F. Rises, and S. Ross, 1950. Color Pref— erence in the Mexican Violet-eared Hummingbird. .Calibri t. thalassinus (Swainson). Behaviour 2: 237-248 McCabe, R. A., 1961. The Selection of Colored Nest Boxes by House Wrens. Condor 63: 322-329 McClure, E. H., 1945. Reaction of the Mourning Dove to Colored Eggs. Auk 62: 270-272 Marples, G., 1931. Experimental Studies of the Ringed Plover. The Retrieving, Recognition, Orientation, and Ro— tation of Its Eggs by the Bird. Brit. Birds 25: 34-44 66 67 -Munsell, A. H., 1929. Munsell Book of Color. Munsell Co., Baltimore, Md. Pickens, A. L., and L. P. Garrison, 1931. Two Year Record of the Ruby-throat”s Visits to a Garden. Auk 48: 532-537 --1935. Studies in Avian Color Reaction. Condor 37: 279-281 —-1951. Red and the Red-kin Colors in Bird Visited Flowers. Castanea 16: 105—109 Renshaw, A. G., 1877. Yellow Crocuses. Nature 15: 530 Sherman, A R., 1913. Experiments in Feeding Hummingbirds During Seven Summers. Wilson Bull. 25: 153-166 Smith, M., 1928. An Oriole's Color Sense. Bird-Lore 30 (2): 116 Stokoe, P. H., 1877. Colour Sense in Birds. Nature 16: 143 Tegetmeier, W. B., 1877. Colour Sense in Birds-—Blue and Yellow Crocuses. Nature 16: 163 Tinbergen, N., 1953. The Herring Gulls World. Collins, London. 255 pp. Walls, G. L., 1942. The Vertebrate Eye and Its Adaptive Ra— diation. Bull. 19, Cranbrook Inst. Sci. 785 pp. White, W., 1877. The Use of Flowers by Birds. Nature 36: 173-174 --, 1891. Antipathy of Birds for Color. Nature 43: 608 Yerkes, R. M., 1915. Preliminaries to a Study of Color Vision in the Ring Dove Turtur risorius. Jour. Anim. Behav. 5: 25-43 ,. A; n- a VER “111111111111!“INN”I HI 111111111155 3 1 2 9 3 0 3 8 8 1 111 083 1