CHAPTER V. DOMESTIC PIGEONS.

ENUMERATION AND DESCRIPTION OF THE SEVERAL BREEDS—INDIVIDUAL

VARIABILITY—VARIATIONS OF A REMARKABLE NATURE—OSTEOLOGICAL CHARACTERS:

SKULL, LOWER JAW, NUMBER OF vertebræ—CORRELATION OF GROWTH: TONGUE WITH

BEAK; EYELIDS AND NOSTRILS WITH WATTLED SKIN—NUMBER OF WING-FEATHERS,

AND LENGTH OF WING—COLOUR AND DOWN—WEBBED AND FEATHERED FEET—ON THE

EFFECTS OF DISUSE—LENGTH OF FEET IN CORRELATION WITH LENGTH OF

BEAK—LENGTH OF STERNUM, SCAPULA, AND FURCULUM—LENGTH OF WINGS—SUMMARY

ON THE POINTS OF DIFFERENCE IN THE SEVERAL BREEDS.

I have been led to study domestic pigeons with particular care, because

the evidence that all the domestic races are descended from one known

source is far clearer than with any other anciently domesticated

animal. Secondly, because many treatises in several languages, some of

them old, have been written on the pigeon, so that we are enabled to

trace the history of several breeds. And lastly, because, from causes

which we can partly understand, the amount of variation has been

extraordinarily great. The details will often be tediously minute; but

no one who really wants to understand the progress of change in

domestic animals, and especially no one who has kept pigeons and has

marked the great difference between the breeds and the trueness with

which most of them propagate their kind, will doubt that this

minuteness is worth while. Notwithstanding the clear evidence that all

the breeds are the descendants of a single species, I could not

persuade myself until some years had passed that the whole amount of

difference between them, had arisen since man first domesticated the

wild rock-pigeon.

I have kept alive all the most distinct breeds, which I could

procure in England or from the Continent; and have prepared

skeletons of all. I have received skins from Persia, and a large

number from India and other quarters of the world.[1] Since my

admission into two of the London pigeon-clubs, I have received the

kindest assistance from many of the most eminent amateurs.[2]

The races of the Pigeon which can be distinguished, and which breed

true, are very numerous. MM. Boitard and Corbié[3] describe in

detail 122 kinds; and I could add several European kinds not known

to them. In India, judging from the skins sent me, there are many

breeds unknown here; and Sir W. Elliot informs me that a collection

imported by an Indian merchant into Madras from Cairo and

Constantinople included several kinds unknown in India. I have no

doubt that there exist considerably above 150 kinds which breed

true and have been separately named. But of these the far greater

number differ from each other only in unimportant characters. Such

differences will be here entirely passed over, and I shall confine

myself to the more important points of structure. That many

important differences exist we shall presently see. I have looked

through the magnificent collection of the Columbidæ in the British

Museum, and, with the exception of a few forms (such as the

Didunculus, Calænas, Goura, etc.), I do not hesitate to affirm that

some domestic races of the rock-pigeon differ fully as much from

each other in external characters as do the most distinct natural

genera. We may look in vain through the 288 known species[4] for a

beak so small and conical as that of the short-faced tumbler; for

one so broad and short as that of the barb; for one so long,

straight, and narrow, with its enormous wattles, as that of the

English carrier; for an expanded upraised tail like that of the

fantail; or for an œsophagus like that of the pouter. I do not for

a moment pretend that the domestic races differ from each other in

their whole organisation as much as the more distinct natural

genera. I refer only to external characters, on which, however, it

must be confessed that most genera of birds have been founded.

When, in a future chapter, we discuss the principle of selection as

followed by man, we shall clearly see why the differences between

the domestic races are almost always confined to external, or at

least to externally visible, characters.

Owing to the amount and gradations of difference between the several

breeds, I have found it indispensable in the following classification

to rank them under Groups, Races, and Sub-races; to which varieties and

sub-varieties, all strictly inheriting their proper characters, must

often be added. Even with the individuals of the same sub-variety, when

long kept by different fanciers, different strains can sometimes be

recognised. There can be no doubt that, if well-characterised forms of

the several races had been found wild, all would have been ranked as

distinct species, and several of them would certainly have been placed

by ornithologists in distinct genera. A good classification of the

various domestic breeds is extremely difficult, owing to the manner in

which many of the forms graduate into each other; but it is curious how

exactly the same difficulties are encountered, and the same rules have

to be followed, as in the classification of any natural but difficult

group of organic beings. An “artificial classification” might be

followed which would present fewer difficulties than a “natural

classification;” but then it would interrupt many plain affinities.

Extreme forms can readily be defined; but intermediate and troublesome

forms often destroy our definitions. Forms which may be called

“aberrant” must sometimes be included within groups to which they do

not accurately belong. Characters of all kinds must be used; but as

with birds in a state of nature, those afforded by the beak are the

best and most readily appreciated. It is not possible to weigh the

importance of all the characters which have to be used so as to make

the groups and sub-groups of equal value. Lastly, a group may contain

only one race, and another and less distinctly defined group may

contain several races and sub-races, and in this case it is difficult,

as in the classification of natural species, to avoid placing too high

a value on the number of forms which a group may contain.

In my measurements I have never trusted to the eye; and when

speaking of a part being large or small, I always refer to the wild

rock-pigeon (_Columba livia_) as the standard of comparison. The

measurements are given in decimals of an inch.[5]

Illustration: Fig. 17—The Rock-Pigeon, or Columba livia.[6] The

parent-form of all domesticated pigeons.

_COLUMBA LIVIA_ or ROCK-PIGEON.

Illustration:

Illustration:

I will now give a brief description of all the principal breeds. The

diagram above may aid the reader in learning their names and seeing

their affinities. The rock-pigeon, or _ Columba livia_ (including under

this name two or three closely-allied sub-species or geographical

races, hereafter to be described), may be confidently viewed, as we

shall see in the next chapter, as the common parent-form. The names in

italics on the right-hand side of the page show us the most distinct

breeds, or those which have undergone the greatest amount of

modification. The lengths of the dotted lines rudely represent the

degree of distinctness of each breed from the parent-stock, and the

names placed under each other in the columns show the more or less

closely connecting links. The distances of the dotted lines from each

other approximately represent the amount of difference between the

several breeds.

Illustration: Fig. 18—English Pouter.

GROUP I.

This group includes a single race, that of the Pouters. If the most

strongly marked sub-race be taken, namely, the Improved English Pouter,

this is perhaps the most distinct of all domesticated pigeons.

Race I. Pouter Pigeons.

(Kropftauben, German. Grosses-gorges, or Boulans, French.)

_Œsophagus of great size, barely separated from the crop, often

inflated. Body and legs elongated. Beak of moderate dimensions._

_Sub-race I._—The improved English Pouter, when its crop is fully

inflated, presents a truly astonishing appearance. The habit of

slightly inflating the crop is common to all domestic pigeons, but is

carried to an extreme in the Pouter. The crop does not differ, except

in size, from that of other pigeons; but is less plainly separated by

an oblique constriction from the œsophagus. The diameter of the upper

part of the œsophagus is immense, even close up to the head. The beak

in one bird which I possessed was almost completely buried when the

œsophagus was fully expanded. The males, especially when excited, pout

more than the females, and they glory in exercising this power. If a

bird will not, to use the technical expression, “play,” the fancier, as

I have witnessed, by taking the beak into his mouth, blows him up like

a balloon; and the bird, then puffed up with wind and pride, struts

about, retaining his magnificent size as long as he can. Pouters often

take flight with their crops inflated. After one of my birds had

swallowed a good meal of peas and water, as he flew up in order to

disgorge them and feed his nearly fledged young, I heard the peas

rattling in his inflated crop as if in a bladder. When flying, they

often strike the backs of their wings together, and thus make a

clapping noise.

Pouters stand remarkably upright, and their bodies are thin and

elongated. In connexion with this form of body, the ribs are generally

broader and the vertebræ more numerous than in other breeds. From their

manner of standing their legs appear longer than they really are,

though, in proportion with those of _C. livia_, the legs and feet are

actually longer. The wings appear much elongated, but by measurement,

in relation to the length of body, this is not the case. The beak

likewise appears longer, but it is in fact a little shorter (about ·03

of an inch), proportionally with the size of the body, and relatively

to the beak of the rock-pigeon. The Pouter, though not bulky, is a

large bird; I measured one which was 34½ inches from tip to tip of

wing, and 19 inches from tip of beak to end of tail. In a wild

rock-pigeon from the Shetland Islands the same measurements gave only

28¼ and 14¾. There are many sub-varieties of the Pouter of different

colours, but these I pass over.

_Sub-race II. Dutch Pouter._—This seems to be the parent-form of

our improved English Pouters. I kept a pair, but I suspect that

they were not pure birds. They are smaller than English pouters,

and less well developed in all their characters. Neumeister[7] says

that the wings are crossed over the tail, and do not reach to its

extremity.

_Sub-race III. The Lille Pouter._—I know this breed only from

description.[8] It approaches in general form the Dutch Pouter, but

the inflated œsophagus assumes a spherical form, as if the pigeon

had swallowed a large orange, which had stuck close under the beak.

This inflated ball is represented as rising to a level with the

crown of the head. The middle toe alone is feathered. A variety of

this sub-race, called the claquant, is described by MM. Boitard and

Corbié; it pouts but little, and is characterised by the habit of

violently hitting its wings together over its back,—a habit which

the English Pouter has in a slight degree.

_Sub-race IV. Common German Pouter._—I know this bird only from the

figures and description given by the accurate Neumeister, one of the

few writers on pigeons who, as I have found, may always be trusted.

This sub-race seems considerably different. The upper part of the

œsophagus is much less distended. The bird stands less upright. The

feet are not feathered, and the legs and beak are shorter. In these

respects there is an approach in form to the common rock-pigeon. The

tail-feathers are very long, yet the tips of the closed wings extend

beyond the end of the tail; and the length of the wings, from tip to

tip, and of the body, is greater than in the English Pouter.

Illustration: Fig. 19—English Carrier.

GROUP II.

This group includes three Races, namely, Carriers, Runts, and Barbs,

which are manifestly allied to each other. Indeed, certain carriers and

runts pass into each other by such insensible gradations that an

arbitrary line has to be drawn between them. Carriers also graduate

through foreign breeds into the rock-pigeon. Yet, if well-characterised

Carriers and Barbs (see figs 19 and 20) had existed as wild species, no

ornithologist would have placed them in the same genus with each other

or with the rock-pigeon. This group may, as a general rule, be

recognised by the beak being long, with the skin over the nostrils

swollen and often carunculated or wattled, and with that round the eyes

bare and likewise carunculated. The mouth is very wide, and the feet

are large. Nevertheless the Barb, which must be classed in this same

group, has a very short beak, and some runts have very little bare skin

round their eyes.

Race II.—Carriers.

(Türkische Tauben; pigeons turcs, dragons.)

_Beak elongated, narrow, pointed; eyes surrounded by much naked,

generally carunculated, skin; neck and body elongated._

_Sub-race I. The English Carrier._—This is a fine bird, of large size,

close feathered, generally dark-coloured, with an elongated neck. The

beak is attenuated and of wonderful length: in one specimen it was 1·4

inch in length from the feathered base to the tip; therefore nearly

twice as long as that of the rock-pigeon, which measured only ·77.

Whenever I compare proportionally any part in the carrier and

rock-pigeon, I take the length of the body from the base of the beak to

the end of the tail as the standard of comparison; and according to

this standard, the beak in one Carrier was nearly half an inch longer

than in the rock-pigeon. The upper mandible is often slightly arched.

The tongue is very long. The development of the carunculated skin or

wattle round the eyes, over the nostrils, and on the lower mandible, is

prodigious. The eyelids, measured longitudinally, were in some

specimens exactly twice as long as in the rock-pigeon. The external

orifice or furrow of the nostrils was also twice as long. The open

mouth in its widest part was in one case ·75 of an inch in width,

whereas in the rock-pigeon it is only about ·4 of an inch. This great

width of mouth is shown in the skeleton by the reflexed edges of the

ramus of the lower jaw. The head is flat on the summit and narrow

between the orbits. The feet are large and coarse; the length, as

measured from end of hind toe to end of middle toe (without the claws),

was in two specimens 2·6 inches; and this, proportionally with the

rock-pigeon, is an excess of nearly a quarter of an inch. One very fine

Carrier measured 31½ inches from tip to tip of wing. Birds of this

sub-race are too valuable to be flown as carriers.

_Sub-race II. Dragons; Persian Carriers._—The English Dragon differs

from the improved English Carrier in being smaller in all its

dimensions, and in having less wattle round the eyes and over the

nostrils, and none on the lower mandible. Sir W. Elliot sent me from

Madras a Bagdad Carrier (sometimes called khandesi), the name of which

shows its Persian origin: it would be considered here a very poor

Dragon; the body was of the size of the rock-pigeon, with the beak a

little longer, namely, 1 inch from the tip to the feathered base. The

skin round the eyes was only slightly wattled, whilst that over the

nostrils was fairly wattled. The Hon. C. Murray, also, sent me two

Carriers direct from Persia; these had nearly the same character as the

Madras bird, being about as large as the rock-pigeon, but the beak in

one specimen was as much as 1·15 in length; the skin over the nostrils

was only moderately, and that round the eyes scarcely at all wattled.

_Sub-race III. Bagadotten-Tauben of Neumeister_ (Pavdotten-or

Hocker-Tauben).—I owe to the kindness of Mr. Baily, jun., a dead

specimen of this singular breed imported from Germany. It is

certainly allied to the Runts; nevertheless, from its close

affinity with Carriers, it will be convenient here to describe it.

The beak is long, and is hooked or bowed downwards in a highly

remarkable manner, as will be seen in fig. 24-D when I treat of the

skeleton. The eyes are surrounded by a wide space of bright red

skin, which, as well as that over the nostrils, is moderately

wattled. The breast-bone is remarkably protuberant, being abruptly

bowed outwards. The feet and tarsi are of great length, larger than

in first-rate English Carriers. The whole bird is of large size,

but in proportion to the size of the body the feathers of the wing

and tail are short; a wild rock-pigeon, of considerably less size,

had tail-feathers 4·6 inches in length, whereas in the large

Bagadotten these feathers were scarcely over 4·1 inches in length.

Riedel[9] remarks that it is a very silent bird.

_Sub-race IV. Bussorah Carrier._—Two specimens were sent me by Sir

W. Elliot from Madras, one in spirits and the other skinned. The

name shows its Persian origin. It is much valued in India, and is

considered as a distinct breed from the Bagdad Carrier, which forms

my second sub-race. At first I suspected that these two sub-races

might have been recently formed by crosses with other breeds,

though the estimation in which they are held renders this

improbable; but in a Persian treatise,[10] believed to have been

written about 100 years ago, the Bagdad and Bussorah breeds are

described as distinct. The Bussorah Carrier is of about the same

size as the wild rock-pigeon. The shape of the beak, with some

little carunculated skin over the nostrils,— the much elongated

eyelids,—the broad mouth measured internally,—the narrow head,—the

feet proportionally a little longer than in the rock-pigeon,—and

the general appearance, all show that this bird is an undoubted

Carrier; yet in one specimen the beak was of exactly the same

length as in the rock-pigeon. In the other specimen the beak (as

well as the opening of the nostrils) was only a very little longer,

viz., by ·08 of an inch. Although there was a considerable space of

bare and slightly carunculated skin round the eyes, that over the

nostrils was only in a slight degree rugose. Sir W. Elliot informs

me that in the living bird the eye seems remarkably large and

prominent, and the same fact is noticed in the Persian treatise;

but the bony orbit is barely larger than that in the rock-pigeon.

Amongst the several breeds sent to me from Madras by Sir W. Elliot

there is a pair of the _Kali Par_, black birds with the beak slightly

elongated, with the skin over the nostrils rather full, and with a

little naked skin round the eyes. This breed seems more closely allied

to the Carrier than to any other breed, being nearly intermediate

between the Bussorah Carrier and the rock-pigeon.

The names applied in different parts of Europe and in India to the

several kinds of Carriers all point to Persia or the surrounding

countries as the source of this Race. And it deserves especial notice

that, even if we neglect the Kali Par as of doubtful origin, we get a

series broken by very small steps, from the rock-pigeon, through the

Bussorah, which sometimes has a beak not at all longer than that of the

rock-pigeon and with the naked skin round the eyes and over the

nostrils very slightly swollen and carunculated, through the Bagdad

sub-race and Dragons, to our improved English Carriers, which present

so marvellous a difference from the rock-pigeon or _Columba livia._

Race III.—Runts.

(Scanderoons: die Florentiner Tauben and Hinkeltauben of

Neumeister; pigeon bagadais, pigeon romain.)

_Beak long, massive; body of great size._

Inextricable confusion reigns in the classification, affinities, and

naming of Runts. Several characters which are generally pretty constant

in other pigeons, such as the length of the wings, tail, legs, and

neck, and the amount of naked skin round the eyes, are excessively

variable in Runts. When the naked skin over the nostrils and round the

eyes is considerably developed and wattled, and when the size of body

is not very great, Runts graduate in so insensible a manner into

Carriers, that the distinction is quite arbitrary. This fact is

likewise shown by the names given to them in different parts of Europe.

Nevertheless, taking the most distinct forms, at least five sub-races

(some of them including well-marked varieties) can be distinguished,

which differ in such important points of structure, that they would be

considered as good species in a state of nature.

_Sub-race I. Scanderoon of English Writers_ (die Florentiner and

Hinkeltauben of Neumeister).—Birds of this sub-race, of which I kept

one alive and have since seen two others, differ from the Bagadotten of

Neumeister only in not having the beak nearly so much curved downwards,

and in the naked skin round the eyes and over the nostrils being hardly

at all wattled. Nevertheless I have felt myself compelled to place the

Bagadotten in Race II., or that of the Carriers, and the present bird

in Race III., or that of the Runts. The Scanderoon has a very short,

narrow, and elevated tail; wings extremely short, so that the first

primary feathers were not longer than those of a small tumbler pigeon!

Neck long, much bowed; breast-bone prominent. Beak long, being 1·15

inch from tip to feathered base; vertically thick; slightly curved

downwards. The skin over the nostrils swollen, not wattled; naked skin

round the eyes, broad, slightly carunculated. Legs long; feet very

large. Skin of neck bright red, often showing a naked medial line, with

a naked red patch at the distal end of the radius of the wing. My bird,

as measured from the base of the beak to the root of the tail, was

fully 2 inches longer than the rock-pigeon; yet the tail itself was

only 4 inches in length, whereas in the rock-pigeon, which is a much

smaller bird, the tail is 4-5/8 inches in length.

The Hinkel-or Florentiner Taube of Neumeister (Table 13 fig. 1) agrees

with the above description in all the specified characters (for the

beak is not mentioned), except that Neumeister expressly says that the

neck is short, whereas in my Scanderoon it was remarkably long and

bowed; so that the Hinkel forms a well-marked variety.

_Sub-race II. Pigeon cygne and Pigeon bagadais of Boitard and Corbié_

(Scanderoon of French writers).—I kept two of these birds alive,

imported from France. They differed from the first sub-race or true

Scanderoon in the much greater length of the wing and tail, in the beak

not being so long, and in the skin about the head being more

carunculated. The skin of the neck is red; but the naked patches on the

wings are absent. One of my birds measured 38½ inches from tip to tip

of wing. By taking the length of the body as the standard of

comparison, the two wings were no less than 5 inches longer than those

of the rock-pigeon! The tail was 6¼ inches in length, and therefore 2¼

inches longer than that of the Scanderoon,—a bird of nearly the same

size. The beak is longer, thicker, and broader than in the rock-pigeon,

proportionally with the size of body. The eyelids, nostrils, and

internal gape of mouth are all proportionally very large, as in

Carriers. The foot, from the end of the middle to end of hind toe, was

actually 2·85 inches in length, which is an excess of ·32 of an inch

over the foot of the rock-pigeon, proportionally to the relative size

of the two birds.

_Sub-race III. Spanish and Roman Runts._—I am not sure that I am

right in placing these Runts in a distinct sub-race; yet, if we

take well-characterised birds, there can be no doubt of the

propriety of the separation. They are heavy, massive birds, with

shorter necks, legs, and beaks than in the foregoing races. The

skin over the nostrils is swollen, but not carunculated; the naked

skin round the eyes is not very wide, and only slightly

carunculated; and I have seen a fine so-called Spanish Runt with

hardly any naked skin round the eyes. Of the two varieties to be

seen in England, one, which is the rarer, has very long wings and

tail, and agrees pretty closely with the last sub-race; the other,

with shorter wings and tail, is apparently the _Pigeon romain

ordinaire_ of Boitard and Corbié. These Runts are apt to tremble

like Fantails. They are bad flyers. A few years ago Mr.

Gulliver[11] exhibited a Runt which weighed 1 pound 14 ounces; and,

as I am informed by Mr. Tegetmeier, two Runts from the south of

France were lately exhibited at the Crystal Palace, each of which

weighed 2 pounds 2½ ounces. A very fine rock-pigeon from the

Shetland Islands weighed only 14½ ounces.

_Sub-race IV. Tronfo of Aldrovandi_ (Leghorn Runt?).—In Aldrovandi’s

work published in 1600 there is a coarse woodcut of a great Italian

pigeon, with an elevated tail, short legs, massive body, and with the

beak short and thick. I had imagined that this latter character so

abnormal in the group, was merely a false representation from bad

drawing; but Moore, in his work published in 1735, says that he

possessed a Leghorn Runt of which “the beak was very short for so large

a bird.” In other respects Moore’s bird resembled the first sub-race or

Scanderoon, for it had a long bowed neck, long legs, short beak, and

elevated tail, and not much wattle about the head. So that Aldrovandi’s

and Moore’s birds must have formed distinct varieties, both of which

seem to be now extinct in Europe. Sir W. Elliot, however, informs me

that he has seen in Madras a short-beaked Runt imported from Cairo.

_Sub-race V. Murassa (adorned Pigeon) of Madras._—Skins of these

handsome chequered birds were sent me from Madras by Sir W. Elliot.

They are rather larger than the largest rock-pigeon, with longer and

more massive beaks. The skin over the nostrils is rather full and very

slightly carunculated, and they have some naked skin round the eyes;

feet large. This breed is intermediate between the rock-pigeon and a

very poor variety of Runt or Carrier.

From these several descriptions we see that with Runts, as with

Carriers, we have a fine gradation from the rock-pigeon (with the

Tronfo diverging as a distinct branch) to our largest and most massive

Runts. But the chain of affinities, and many points of resemblance,

between Runts and carriers, make me believe that these two races have

not descended by independent lines from the rock-pigeon, but from some

common parent, as represented in the Table, which had already acquired

a moderately long beak with slightly swollen skin over the nostrils,

and with some slightly carunculated naked skin round the eyes.

Illustration: Fig. 20—English Barb.

Race IV.—Barbs.

(Indische Tauben; pigeons polonais.)

_Beak short, broad, deep; naked skin round the eyes, broad and

carunculated; skin over nostrils slightly swollen._

Misled by the extraordinary shortness and form of the beak, I did not

at first perceive the near affinity of this Race to that of Carriers

until the fact was pointed out to me by Mr. Brent. Subsequently, after

examining the Bussorah Carrier, I saw that no very great amount of

modification would be requisite to convert it into a Barb. This view of

the affinity of Barbs to Carriers is supported by the analogical

difference between the short and long-beaked Runts; and still more

strongly by the fact, that, young Barbs and Dragons, within 24 hours

after being hatched, resemble each other much more closely than do

young pigeons of other and equally distinct breeds. At this early age,

the length of beak, the swollen skin over the rather open nostrils, the

gape of the mouth, and the size of the feet, are the same in both;

although these parts afterwards become widely different. We thus see

that embryology (as the comparison of very young animals may perhaps be

called) comes into play in the classification of domestic varieties, as

with species in a state of nature.

Fanciers, with some truth, compare the head and beak of the Barb to

that of a bullfinch. The Barb, if found in a state of nature would

certainly have been placed in a new genus formed for its reception. The

body is a little larger than that of the rock-pigeon, but the beak is

more than ·2 of an inch shorter; although shorter, it is both

vertically and horizontally thicker. From the outward flexure of the

rami of the lower jaw, the mouth internally is very broad, in the

proportion of ·6 to ·4 to that of the rock-pigeon. The whole head is

broad. The skin over the nostril is swollen, but not carunculated,

except slightly in first-rate birds when old; whilst the naked skin

round the eye is broad and much carunculated. It is sometimes so much

developed, that a bird belonging to Mr. Harrison Weir could hardly see

to pick up food from the ground. The eyelids in one specimen were

nearly twice as long as those of the rock-pigeon. The feet are coarse

and strong, but proportionally rather shorter than in the rock-pigeon.

The plumage is generally dark and uniform. Barbs, in short, may be

called short-beaked Carriers, bearing the same relation to Carriers

that the Tronfo of Aldrovandi does to the common Runt.

GROUP III.

This group is artificial, and includes a heterogeneous collection of

distinct forms. It may be defined by the beak, in well-characterised

specimens of the several races, being shorter than in the rock-pigeon,

and by the skin round the eyes not being much developed.

Illustration: Fig. 21—English Fantail.

Race V.—Fantails.

_Sub-race I. European Fantails_ (Pfauentauben; trembleurs).

_Tail expanded, directed upwards, formed of many feathers; oil-gland

aborted; body and beak rather short._

The normal number of tail-feathers in the genus Columba is 12; but

Fantails have from only 12 (as has been asserted) up to, according

to MM. Boitard and Corbié, 42. I have counted in one of my own

birds 33, and at Calcutta Mr. Blyth[12] has counted in an

_imperfect_ tail 34 feathers. In Madras, as I am informed by Sir W.

Elliot, 32 is the standard number; but in England number is much

less valued than the position and expansion of the tail. The

feathers are arranged in an irregular double row; their permanent

fanlike expansion and their upward direction are more remarkable

characters than their increased number. The tail is capable of the

same movements as in other pigeons, and can be depressed so as to

sweep the ground. It arises from a more expanded basis than in

other pigeons; and in three skeletons there were one or two extra

coccygeal vertebræ. I have examined many specimens of various

colours from different countries, and there was no trace of the

oil-gland; this is a curious case of abortion.[13] The neck is thin

and bowed backwards. The breast is broad and protuberant. The feet

are small. The carriage of the bird is very different from that of

other pigeons; in good birds the head touches the tail-feathers,

which consequently often become crumpled. They habitually tremble

much: and their necks have an extraordinary, apparently convulsive,

backward and forward movement. Good birds walk in a singular

manner, as if their small feet were stiff. Owing to their large

tails, they fly badly on a windy day. The dark-coloured varieties

are generally larger than white Fantails.

Although between the best and common Fantails, now existing in

England, there is a vast difference in the position and size of the

tail, in the carriage of the head and neck, in the convulsive

movements of the neck, in the manner of walking, and in the breadth

of the breast, the differences so graduate away, that it is

impossible to make more than one sub-race. Moore, however, an

excellent old authority[14] says, that in 1735 there were two sorts

of broad-tailed shakers (_i.e._ Fantails), “one having a neck much

longer and more slender than the other;” and I am informed by Mr.

B. P. Brent, that there is an existing German Fantail with a

thicker and shorter beak.

_Sub-race II. Java Fantail._—Mr. Swinhoe sent me from Amoy, in China,

the skin of a Fantail belonging to a breed known to have been imported

from Java. It was coloured in a peculiar manner, unlike any European

Fantail; and, for a Fantail, had a remarkably short beak. Although a

good bird of the kind, it had only 14 tail-feathers; but Mr. Swinhoe

has counted in other birds of this breed from 18 to 24 tail-feathers.

From a rough sketch sent to me, it is evident that the tail is not so

much expanded or so much upraised as in even second-rate European

Fantails. The bird shakes its neck like our Fantails. It had a

well-developed oil-gland. Fantails were known in India, as We shall

hereafter see, before the year 1600; and we may suspect that in the

Java Fantail we see the breed in its earlier and less improved

condition.

Illustration: Fig. 22—African Owl.

Race VI.—Turbit and Owl.

(Möventauben; pigeons à cravate.)

_Feathers divergent along the front of the neck and breast; beak very

short, vertically rather thick; œsophagus somewhat enlarged._

Turbits and Owls differ from each other slightly in the shape of the

head; the former have a crest, and the beak is differently curved; but

they may be here conveniently grouped together. These pretty birds,

some of which are very small, can be recognised at once by the feathers

irregularly diverging, like a frill, along the front of the neck, in

the same manner, but in a less degree, as along the back of the neck in

the Jacobin. They have the remarkable habit of continually and

momentarily inflating the upper part of the œsophagus, which causes a

movement in the frill. When the œsophagus of a dead bird is inflated,

it is seen to be larger than in other breeds, and not so distinctly

separated from the crop. The Pouter inflates both its true crop and

œsophagus; the Turbit inflates in a much less degree the œsophagus

alone. The beak of the Turbit is very short, being ·28 of an inch

shorter than that of the rock-pigeon, proportionally with the size of

their bodies; and in some owls brought by Mr. E. Vernon Harcourt from

Tunis, it was even shorter. The beak is vertically thicker, and perhaps

a little broader, in proportion to that of the rock-pigeon.

Race VII.—Tumblers.

(Tümmler, or Burzeltauben; culbutants.)

_During flight, tumble backwards; body generally small; beak generally

short, sometimes excessively short and conical._

This race may be divided into four sub-races, namely, Persian, Lotan,

Common, and short-faced Tumblers. These sub-races include many

varieties which breed true. I have examined eight skeletons of various

kinds of Tumblers: excepting in one imperfect and doubtful specimen,

the ribs are only seven in number, whereas the rock-pigeon has eight

ribs.

_Sub-race I. Persian Tumblers._—I received a pair direct from Persia,

from the Hon. C. Murray. They are rather smaller birds than the wild

rock-pigeon, about the size of the common dovecot pigeon, white and

mottled, slightly feathered on the feet, with the beak just perceptibly

shorter than in the rock-pigeon. H.M. Consul, Mr. Keith Abbott, informs

me that the difference in the length of beak is so slight, that only

practised Persian fanciers can distinguish these Tumblers from the

common pigeon of the country. He informs me that they fly in flocks

high up in the air and tumble well. Some of them occasionally appear to

become giddy and tumble to the ground, in which respect they resemble

some of our Tumblers.

_Sub-race II. Lotan, or Lowtun: Indian Ground Tumblers._—These

birds present one of the most remarkable inherited habits or

instincts ever recorded. The specimens sent to me from Madras by

Sir W. Elliot are white, slightly feathered on the feet, with the

feathers on the head reversed; and they are rather smaller than the

rock or dovecot pigeon. The beak is proportionally only slightly

shorter and rather thinner than in the rock-pigeon. These birds

when gently shaken and placed on the ground immediately begin

tumbling head over heels, and they continue thus to tumble until

taken up and soothed,—the ceremony being generally to blow in their

faces, as in recovering a person from a state of hypnotism or

mesmerism. It is asserted that they will continue to roll over till

they die, if not taken up. There is abundant evidence with respect

to these remarkable peculiarities; but what makes the case the more

worthy of attention is, that the habit has been inherited since

before the year 1600, for the breed is distinctly described in the

‘Ayeen Akbery.’[15] Mr. Evans kept a pair in London, imported by

Captain Vigne; and he assures me that he has seen them tumble in

the air, as well as in the manner above described on the ground.

Sir W. Elliot, however, writes to me from Madras, that he is

informed that they tumble exclusively on the ground, or at a very

small height above it. He also mentions birds of another

sub-variety, called the Kalmi Lotan, which begin to roll over if

only touched on the neck with a rod or wand.

_Sub-race III. Common English Tumblers._—These birds have exactly

the same habits as the Persian Tumbler, but tumble better. The

English bird is rather smaller than the Persian, and the beak is

plainly shorter. Compared with the rock-pigeon, and proportionally

with the size of body, the beak is from ·15 to nearly ·2 of an inch

shorter, but it is not thinner. There are several varieties of the

common Tumbler, namely, Baldheads, Beards, and Dutch Rollers. I

have kept the latter alive; they have differently shaped heads,

longer necks, and are feather-footed. They tumble to an

extraordinary degree; as Mr. Brent remarks,[16] “Every few seconds

over they go; one, two, or three summersaults at a time. Here and

there a bird gives a very quick and rapid spin, revolving like a

wheel, though they sometimes lose their balance, and make a rather

ungraceful fall, in which they occasionally hurt themselves by

striking some object.” From Madras I have received several

specimens of the common Tumbler of India, differing slightly from

each other in the length of their beaks. Mr. Brent sent me a dead

specimen of a “House-tumbler,”[17] which is a Scotch variety, not

differing in general appearance and form of beak from the common

Tumbler. Mr. Brent states that these birds generally begin to

tumble “almost as soon as they can well fly; at three months old

they tumble well, but still fly strong; at five or six months they

tumble excessively; and in the second year they mostly give up

flying, on account of their tumbling so much and so close to the

ground. Some fly round with the flock, throwing a clean summersault

every few yards, till they are obliged to settle from giddiness and

exhaustion. These are called Air Tumblers, and they commonly throw

from twenty to thirty summersaults in a minute, each clear and

clean. I have one red cock that I have on two or three occasions

timed by my watch, and counted forty summersaults in the minute.

Others tumble differently. At first they throw a single

summersault, then it is double, till it becomes a continuous roll,

which puts an end to flying, for if they fly a few yards over they

go, and roll till they reach the ground. Thus I had one kill

herself, and another broke his leg. Many of them turn over only a

few inches from the ground, and will tumble two or three times in

flying across their loft. These are called House-tumblers, from

tumbling in the house. The act of tumbling seems to be one over

which they have no control, an involuntary movement which they seem

to try to prevent. I have seen a bird sometimes in his struggles

fly a yard or two straight upwards, the impulse forcing him

backwards while he struggles to go forwards. If suddenly startled,

or in a strange place, they seem less able to fly than if quiet in

their accustomed loft.” These House-tumblers differ from the Lotan

or Ground Tumbler of India, in not requiring to be shaken in order

to begin tumbling. The breed has probably been formed merely by

selecting the best common Tumblers, though it is possible that they

may have been crossed at some former period with Lotans.

Illustration: Fig. 23—Short-faced English Tumbler.

_Sub-race IV. Short-faced Tumblers._—These are marvellous birds,

and are the glory and pride of many fanciers. In their extremely

short, sharp, and conical beaks, with the skin over the nostrils

but little developed, they almost depart from the type of the

Columbidæ. Their heads are nearly globular and upright in front, so

that some fanciers say[18] “the head should resemble a cherry with

a barleycorn stuck in it.” These are the smallest kind of pigeons.

Mr. Esquilant possessed a blue Baldhead, two years old, which when

alive weighed, before feeding-time, only 6 ounces 5 drs.; two

others, each weighed 7 ounces. We have seen that a wild rock-pigeon

weighed 14 ounces 2 drs., and a Runt 34 ounces 4 drs. Short-faced

Tumblers have a remarkably erect carriage, with prominent breasts,

drooping wings, and very small feet. The length of the beak from

the tip to the feathered base was in one good bird only ·4 of an

inch; in a wild rock-pigeon it was exactly double this length. As

these Tumblers have shorter bodies than the wild rock-pigeon, they

ought of course to have shorter beaks; but proportionally with the

size of the body, the beak is ·28 of an inch too short. So, again,

the feet of this bird were actually ·45 shorter, and proportionally

·21 of an inch shorter, than the feet of the rock-pigeon. The

middle toe has only twelve or thirteen, instead of fourteen or

fifteen scutellæ. The primary wing-feathers are not rarely nine

instead of ten in number. The improved short-faced Tumblers have

almost lost the power of tumbling; but there are several authentic

accounts of their occasionally tumbling. There are several

sub-varieties, such as Bald-heads, Beards, Mottles, and Almonds;

the latter are remarkable from not acquiring their

perfectly-coloured plumage until they have moulted three or four

times. There is good reason to believe that most of these

sub-varieties, some of which breed truly, have arisen since the

publication of Moore’s treatise in 1735.[19]

Finally, in regard to the whole group of Tumblers, it is impossible to

conceive a more perfect gradation than I have now lying before me, from

the rock-pigeon, through Persian, Lotan, and common Tumblers, up to the

marvellous short-faced birds; which latter, no ornithologist, judging

from mere external structure, would place in the same genus with the

rock-pigeon. The differences between the successive steps in this

series are not greater than those which may be observed between common

dovecot-pigeons (_C. livia_) brought from different countries.

Race VIII.—Indian Frill-back.

_Beak very short; feathers reversed._

A specimen of this bird, in spirits, was sent to me from Madras by Sir

W. Elliot. It is wholly different from the Frill-back often exhibited

in England. It is a smallish bird, about the size of the common

Tumbler, but has a beak in all its proportions like our short-faced

Tumblers. The beak, measured from the tip to the feathered base, was

only ·46 of an inch in length. The feathers over the whole body are

reversed or curl backwards. Had this bird occurred in Europe, I should

have thought it only a monstrous variety of our improved Tumbler: but

as short-faced Tumblers are not known in India, I think it must rank as

a distinct breed. Probably this is the breed seen by Hasselquist in

1757 at Cairo, and said to have been imported from India.

Race IX.—Jacobin.

(Zopf-or Perrückentaube; nonnain.)

_Feathers of the neck forming a hood; wings and tail long; beak

moderately short._

This pigeon can at once be recognised by its hood, almost enclosing

the head and meeting in front of the neck. The hood seems to be

merely an exaggeration of the crest of reversed feathers on the

back of the head, which is common to many sub-varieties, and which

in the Latztaube[20] is in a nearly intermediate state between a

hood and a crest. The feathers of the hood are elongated. Both the

wings and tail are likewise much elongated; thus the folded wing of

the Jacobin, though a somewhat smaller bird, is fully 1¼ inch

longer than in the rock-pigeon. Taking the length of the body

without the tail as the standard of comparison, the folded wing,

proportionally with the wings of the rock-pigeon, is 2¼ inches too

long, and the two wings, from tip to tip, 5¼ inches too long. In

disposition this bird is singularly quiet, seldom flying or moving

about, as Bechstein and Riedel have likewise remarked in

Germany.[21] The latter author also notices the length of the wings

and tail. The beak is nearly ·2 of an inch shorter in proportion to

the size of the body than in the rock-pigeon; but the internal gape

of the mouth is considerably wider.

GROUP IV.

The birds of this group may be characterised by their resemblance in

all important points of structure, especially in the beak, to the

rock-pigeon. The Trumpeter forms the only well-marked race. Of the

numerous other sub-races and varieties I shall specify only a few of

the most distinct, which I have myself seen and kept alive.

Race X.—Trumpeter.

(Trommeltaube; pigeon tambour, glouglou.)

_A tuft of feathers at the base of the beak curling forward; feet much

feathered; voice very peculiar; size exceeding that of the

rock-pigeon._

This is a well-marked breed, with a peculiar voice, wholly unlike that

of any other pigeon. The coo is rapidly repeated, and is continued for

several minutes; hence their name of Trumpeters. They are also

characterised by a tuft of elongated feathers, which curls forward over

the base of the beak, and which is possessed by no other breed. Their

feet are so heavily feathered, that they almost appear like little

wings. They are larger birds than the rock-pigeon, but their beak is of

very nearly the same proportional size. Their feet are rather small.

This breed was perfectly characterised in Moore’s time, in 1735. Mr.

Brent says that two varieties exist, which differ in size.

Race XI.—Scarcely differing in structure from the wild _Columba

livia._

_Sub-race I. Laughers.—Size less than the Rock-pigeon; voice very

peculiar._—As this bird agrees in nearly all its proportions with the

rock-pigeon, though of smaller size, I should not have thought it

worthy of mention, had it not been for its peculiar voice—a character

supposed seldom to vary with birds. Although the voice of the Laugher

is very different from that of the Trumpeter, yet one of my Trumpeters

used to utter a single note like that of the Laugher. I have kept two

varieties of Laughers, which differed only in one variety being

turn-crowned; the smooth-headed kind, for which I am indebted to the

kindness of Mr. Brent, besides its peculiar note, used to coo in a

singular and pleasing manner, which, independently, struck both Mr.

Brent and myself as resembling that of the turtle-dove. Both varieties

come from Arabia. This breed was known by Moore in 1735. A pigeon which

seems to say Yak-roo is mentioned in 1600 in the ‘Ayeen Akbery’ and is

probably the same breed. Sir W. Elliot has also sent me from Madras a

pigeon called Yahui, said to have come from Mecca, which does not

differ in appearance from the Laugher; it has “a deep melancholy voice,

like Yahu, often repeated.” Yahu, yahu, means Oh God, oh God; and

Sayzid Mohammed Musari, in the treatise written about 100 years ago,

says that these birds “are not flown, because they repeat the name of

the most high God.” Mr. Keith Abbott, however, informs me that the

common pigeon is called Yahoo in Persia.

_Sub-race II. Common Frill-back_ (die Strupptaube).—_Beak rather longer

than in the rock-pigeon; feathers reversed._—This is a considerably

larger bird than the rock-pigeon, and with the beak, proportionally

with the size of body, a little (viz. by ·04 of an inch) longer. The

feathers, especially on the wing-coverts, have their points curled

upwards or back-wards.

_Sub-race III. Nuns_ (Pigeons coquilles).—These elegant birds are

smaller than the rock-pigeon. The beak is actually 1·7, and

proportionally with the size of the body ·1 of an inch shorter than in

the rock-pigeons, although of the same thickness. In young birds the

scutellæ on the tarsi and toes are generally of a leaden-black colour;

and this is a remarkable character (though observed in a lesser degree

in some other breeds), as the colour of the legs in the adult state is

subject to very little variation in any breed. I have on two or three

occasions counted thirteen or fourteen feathers in the tail; this

likewise occurs in the barely distinct breed called Helmets. Nuns are

symmetrically coloured, with the head, primary wing-feathers, tail, and

tail-coverts of the same colour, namely, black or red, and with the

rest of the body white. This breed has retained the same character

since Aldrovandi wrote in 1600. I have received from Madras almost

similarly coloured birds.

_Sub-race IV. Spots_ (die Blasstauben; pigeons heurtés).—These

birds are a very little larger than the rock-pigeon, with the beak

a trace smaller in all its dimensions, and with the feet decidedly

smaller. They are symmetrically coloured, with a spot on the

forehead, with the tail and tail-coverts of the same colour, the

rest of the body being white. This breed existed in 1676;[22] and

in 1735 Moore remarks that they breed truly, as is the case at the

present day.

_Sub-race V. Swallows._—These birds, as measured from tip to tip of

wing, or from the end of the beak to the end of the tail, exceed in

size the rock-pigeon; but their bodies are much less bulky; their feet

and legs are likewise smaller. The beak is of about the same length,

but rather slighter. Altogether their general appearance is

considerably different from that of the rock-pigeon. Their heads and

wings are of the same colour, the rest of the body being white. Their

flight is said to be peculiar. This seems to be a modern breed, which,

however, originated before the year 1795 in Germany, for it is

described by Bechstein.

Besides the several breeds now described, three or four other very

distinct kinds existed lately, or perhaps still exist, in Germany

and France. Firstly, the Karmeliten, or carme pigeon, which I have

not seen; it is described as of small size, with very short legs,

and with an extremely short beak. Secondly, the Finnikin, which is

now extinct in England. It had, according to Moore’s[23] treatise,

published in 1735, a tuft of feathers on the hinder part of the

head, which ran down its back not unlike a horse’s mane. “When it

is salacious it rises over the hen and turns round three or four

times, flapping its wings, then reverses and turns as many times

the other way.” The Turner, on the other hand, when it “plays to

the female, turns only one way.” Whether these extraordinary

statements may be trusted I know not; but the inheritance of any

habit may be believed, after what we have seen with respect to the

Ground-tumbler of India. MM. Boitard and Corbié describe a

pigeon[24] which has the singular habit of sailing for a

considerable time through the air, without flapping its wings, like

a bird of prey. The confusion is inextricable, from the time of

Aldrovandi in 1600 to the present day, in the accounts published of

the Draijers, Smiters, Finnikins, Turners, Claquers, etc., which

are all remarkable from their manner of flight. Mr. Brent informs

me that he has seen one of these breeds in Germany with its

wing-feathers injured from having been so often struck together but

he did not see it flying. An old stuffed specimen of a Finnikin in

the British Museum presents no well-marked character. Thirdly, a

singular pigeon with a forked tail is mentioned in some treatises;

and as Bechstein[25] briefly describes and figures this bird, with

a tail “having completely the structure of that of the

house-swallow,” it must once have existed, for Bechstein was far

too good a naturalist to have confounded any distinct species with

the domestic pigeon. Lastly, an extraordinary pigeon imported from

Belgium has lately been exhibited at the Philoperisteron Society in

London,[26] which “conjoins the colour of an archangel with the

head of an owl or barb, its most striking peculiarity being the

extraordinary length of the tail and wing-feathers, the latter

crossing beyond the tail, and giving to the bird the appearance of

a gigantic swift (Cypselus), or long-winged hawk.” Mr. Tegetmeier

informs me that this bird weighed only 10 ounces, but in length was

15½ inches from tip to beak to end of tail, and 32½ inches from tip

to tip of wing; now the wild rock-pigeon weighs 14½ ounces, and

measures from tip to beak to end of tail 15 inches, and from tip to

tip of wing only 26¾ inches.

I have now described all the domestic pigeons known to me, and have

added a few others on reliable authority. I have classed them under

four Groups, in order to mark their affinities and degrees of

difference; but the third group is artificial. The kinds examined by me

form eleven races, which include several sub-races; and even these

latter present differences that would certainly have been thought of

specific value if observed in a state of nature. The sub-races likewise

include many strictly inherited varieties; so that altogether there

must exist, as previously remarked, above 150 kinds which can be

distinguished, though generally by characters of extremely slight

importance. Many of the genera of the Columbidæ, admitted by

ornithologists, do not differ in any great degree from each other;

taking this into consideration, there can be no doubt that several of

the most strongly characterised domestic forms, if found wild, would

have been placed in at least five new genera. Thus a new genus would

have been formed for the reception of the improved English Pouter: a

second genus for Carriers and Runts; and this would have been a wide or

comprehensive genus, for it would have admitted common Spanish Runts

without any wattle, short-beaked Runts like the Tronfo, and the

improved English Carrier: a third genus would have been formed for the

Barb: a fourth for the Fantail: and lastly, a fifth for the short

beaked, not-wattled pigeons, such as Turbits and short-faced Tumblers.

The remaining domestic forms might have been included, in the same

genus with the wild rock-pigeon.

_Individual Variability; variations of a remarkable nature._

The differences which we have as yet considered are characteristic of

distinct breeds; but there are other differences, either confined to

individual birds, or often observed in certain breeds but not

characteristic of them. These individual differences are of importance,

as they might in most cases be secured and accumulated by man’s power

of selection and thus an existing breed might be greatly modified or a

new one formed. Fanciers notice and select only those slight

differences which are externally visible; but the whole organisation is

so tied together by correlation of growth, that a change in one part is

frequently accompanied by other changes. For our purpose, modifications

of all kinds are equally important, and if affecting a part which does

not commonly vary, are of more importance than a modification in some

conspicuous part. At the present day any visible deviation of character

in a well-established breed is rejected as a blemish; but it by no

means follows that at an early period, before well-marked breeds had

been formed, such deviations would have been rejected; on the contrary,

they would have been eagerly preserved as presenting a novelty, and

would then have been slowly augmented, as we shall hereafter more

clearly see, by the process of unconscious selection.

I have made numerous measurements of the various parts of the body

in the several breeds, and have hardly ever found them quite the

same in birds of the same breed,—the differences being greater than

we commonly meet with in wild species within the same district. To

begin with the primary feathers of the wing and tail; but I must

first mention, as some readers may not be aware of the fact, that

the number of the primary wing and tail-feathers in wild birds is

generally constant, and characterises, not only whole genera, but

even whole families. When the tail-feathers are unusually numerous,

as for instance in the swan, they are apt to be variable in number;

but this does not apply to the several species and genera of the

Columbidæ, which never (as far as I can hear) have less than twelve

or more than sixteen tail-feathers; and these numbers characterise,

with rare exception, whole sub-families.[27] The wild rock-pigeon

has twelve tail-feathers. With Fantails, as we have seen, the

number varies from fourteen to forty-two. In two young birds in the

same nest I counted twenty-two and twenty-seven feathers. Pouters

are very liable to have additional tail-feathers, and I have seen

on several occasions fourteen or fifteen in my own birds. Mr. Bult

had a specimen, examined by Mr. Yarrell, with seventeen

tail-feathers. I had a Nun with thirteen, and another with fourteen

tail-feathers; and in a Helmet, a breed barely distinguishable from

the Nun, I have counted fifteen, and have heard of other such

instances. On the other hand, Mr. Brent possessed a Dragon, which

during its whole life never had more than ten tail-feathers; and

one of my Dragons, descended from Mr. Brent’s, had only eleven. I

have seen a Bald-head Tumbler with only ten; and Mr. Brent had an

Air-Tumbler with the same number, but another with fourteen

tail-feathers. Two of these latter Tumblers, bred by Mr. Brent,

were remarkable,—one from having the two central tail-feathers a

little divergent, and the other from having the two outer feathers

longer by three-eighths of an inch than the others; so that in both

cases the tail exhibited a tendency, but in different ways, to

become forked. And this shows us how a swallow-tailed breed, like

that described by Bechstein, might have been formed by careful

selection.

With respect to the primary wing-feathers, the number in the Columbidæ,

as far as I can find out, is always nine or ten. In the rock-pigeon it

is ten; but I have seen no less than eight short-faced Tumblers with

only nine primaries, and the occurrence of this number has been noticed

by fanciers, owing to ten primaries of a white colour being one of the

points in Short-faced Bald-head-Tumblers. Mr. Brent, however, had an

Air-Tumbler (not short-faced) which had in both wings eleven primaries.

Mr. Corker, the eminent breeder of prize Carriers, assures me that some

of his birds had eleven primaries in both wings. I have seen eleven in

one wing in two Pouters. I have been assured by three fanciers that

they have seen twelve in Scanderoons; but as Neumeister asserts that in

the allied Florence Runt the middle flight-feather is often double, the

number twelve may have been caused by two of the ten primaries having

each two shafts to a single feather. The secondary wing-feathers are

difficult to count, but the number seems to vary from twelve to

fifteen. The length of the wing and tail relatively to the body, and of

the wings to the tail, certainly varies; I have especially noticed this

in Jacobins. In Mr. Bult’s magnificent collection of Pouters, the wings

and tail varied greatly in length; and were sometimes so much elongated

that the birds could hardly play upright. In the relative length of the

few first primaries I have observed only a slight degree of

variability. Mr. Brent informs me that he has observed the shape of the

first feather to vary very slightly. But the variation in these latter

points is extremely slight compared with the differences which may be

observed in the natural species of the Columbidæ.

In the beak I have seen very considerable differences in birds of the

same breed, as in carefully bred Jacobins and Trumpeters. In Carriers

there is often a conspicuous difference in the degree of attenuation

and curvature of the beak. So it is indeed in many breeds: thus I had

two strains of black Barbs, which evidently differed in the curvature

of the upper mandible. In width of mouth I have found a great

difference in two Swallows. In Fantails of first-rate merit I have seen

some birds with much longer and thinner necks than in others. Other

analogous facts could be given. We have seen that the oil-gland is

aborted in all Fantails (with the exception of the sub-race from Java),

and, I may add, so hereditary is this tendency to abortion, that some,

although not all, of the mongrels which I reared from the Fantail and

Pouter had no oil-gland; in one Swallow out of many which I have

examined, and in two Nuns, there was no oil-gland.

The number of the scutellæ on the toes often varies in the same

breed, and sometimes even differs on the two feet of the same

individual; the Shetland rock-pigeon has fifteen on the middle, and

six on the hinder toe; whereas I have seen a Runt with sixteen on

the middle and eight on the hind toe; and a short-faced Tumbler

with only twelve and five on these same toes. The rock-pigeon has

no sensible amount of skin between its toes; but I possessed a Spot

and a Nun with the skin extending for a space of a quarter of an

inch from the fork, between the two _ inner_ toes. On the other

hand, as will hereafter be more fully shown, pigeons with feathered

feet very generally have the bases of their _outer_ toes connected

by skin. I had a red Tumbler, which had a coo unlike that of its

fellows, approaching in tone to that of the Laugher: this bird had

the habit, to a degree which I never saw equalled in any other

pigeon, of often walking with its wings raised and arched in an

elegant-manner. I need say nothing on the great variability, in

almost every breed, in size of body, in colour, in the feathering

of the feet, and in the feathers on the back of the head being

reversed. But I may mention a remarkable Tumbler[28] exhibited at

the Crystal Palace, which had an irregular crest of feathers on its

head, somewhat like the tuft on the head of the Polish fowl. Mr.

Bult reared a hen Jacobin with the feathers on the thigh so long as

to reach the ground, and a cock having, but in a lesser degree, the

same peculiarity: from these two birds he bred others similarly

characterised, which were exhibited at the Philoperisteron Soc. I

bred a mongrel pigeon which had fibrous feathers, and the wing and

tail-feathers so short and imperfect that the bird could not fly

even a foot in height.

There are many singular and inherited peculiarities in the plumage

of pigeons: thus Almond-Tumblers do not acquire their perfect

mottled feathers until they have moulted three or four times: the

Kite Tumbler is at first brindled black and red with a barred

appearance, but when “it throws its nest feathers it becomes almost

black, generally with a bluish tail, and a reddish colour on the

inner webs of the primary wing-feathers.”[29] Neumeister describes

a breed of a black colour with white bars on the wing and a white

crescent-shaped mark on the breast; these marks are generally

rusty-red before the first moult, but after the third or fourth

moult they undergo a change; the wing-feathers and the crown of the

head likewise then become white or grey.[30]

It is an important fact, and I believe there is hardly an exception

to the rule, that the especial characters for which each breed is

valued are eminently variable: thus, in the Fantail, the number and

direction of the tail-feathers, the carriage of the body, and the

degree of trembling are all highly variable points; in Pouters, the

degree to which they pout, and the shape of their inflated crops;

in the Carrier, the length, narrowness, and curvature of the beak,

and the amount of wattle; in Short-faced Tumblers, the shortness of

the beak, the prominence of the forehead, and general carriage,[31]

and in the Almond-Tumbler the colour of the plumage; in common

Tumblers, the manner of tumbling; in the Barb, the breadth and

shortness of the beak and the amount of eye-wattle; in Runts, the

size of body; in Turbits the frill; and lastly in Trumpeters, the

cooing, as well as the size of the tuft of feathers over the

nostrils. These, which are the distinctive and selected characters

of the several breeds, are all eminently variable.

There is another interesting fact with respect to the characters of

the several breeds, namely, that they are often most strongly

displayed in the male bird. In Carriers, when the males and females

are exhibited in separate pens, the wattle is plainly seen to be

much more developed in the males, though I have seen a hen Carrier

belonging to Mr. Haynes heavily wattled. Mr. Tegetmeier informs me

that, in twenty Barbs in Mr. P. H. Jones’s possession, the males

had generally the largest eye-wattles; Mr. Esquilant also believes

in this rule, but Mr. H. Weir, a first-rate judge, entertains some

doubt on the subject. Male Pouters distend their crops to a much

greater size than do the females; I have, however, seen a hen in

the possession of Mr. Evans which pouted excellently; but this is

an unusual circumstance. Mr. Harrison Weir, a successful breeder of

prize Fantails, informs me that his male birds often have a greater

number of tail-feathers than the females. Mr. Eaton asserts[32]

that if a cock and hen Tumbler were of equal merit, the hen would

be worth double the money; and as pigeons always pair, so that an

equal number of both sexes is necessary for reproduction, this

seems to show that high merit is rarer in the female than in the

male. In the development of the frill in Turbits, of the hood in

Jacobins, of the tuft in Trumpeters, of tumbling in Tumblers, there

is no difference between the males and females. I may here add a

rather different case, namely, the existence in France[33] of a

wine-coloured variety of the Pouter, in which the male is generally

chequered with black, whilst the female is never so chequered. Dr.

Chapuis also remarks[34] that in certain light-coloured pigeons the

males have their feathers striated with black, and these striæ

increase in size at each moult, so that the male ultimately becomes

spotted with black. With Carriers, the wattle, both on the beak and

round the eyes, and with Barbs that round the eyes, goes on

increasing with age. This augmentation of character with advancing

age, and more especially the difference between the males and

females in the above-mentioned several respects, are remarkable

facts, for there is no sensible difference at any age between the

two sexes in the aboriginal rock-pigeon; and not often any strongly

marked difference throughout the family of the Columbidæ.[35]

_Osteological Characters._

In the skeletons of the various breeds there is much variability; and

though certain differences occur frequently, and others rarely, in

certain breeds, yet none can be said to be absolutely characteristic of

any breed. Considering that strongly-marked domestic races have been

formed chiefly by man’s selection, we ought not to expect to find great

and constant differences in the skeleton; for fanciers neither see, nor

do they care for, modifications of structure in the internal framework.

Nor ought we to expect changes in the skeletons from changed habits of

life; as every facility is given to the most distinct breeds to follow

the same habits, and the much modified races are never allowed to

wander abroad and procure their own food in various ways. Moreover, I

find, on comparing the skeletons of _Columba livia, oenas, palumbus,_

and _turtur_, which are ranked by all systematists in two or three

distinct though allied genera, that the differences are extremely

slight, certainly less than between the skeletons of some of the most

distinct domestic breeds. How far the skeleton of the wild rock-pigeon

is constant I have had no means of judging, as I have examined only

two.

Illustration: Fig. 24—Skulls of Pigeons, viewed laterally.

_Skull._—The individual bones, especially those at the base, do not

differ in shape. But the whole skull, in its proportions, outline, and

relative direction of the bones, differs greatly in some of the breeds,

as may be seen by comparing the figures of (A) the wild rock-pigeon,

(B) the Short-faced Tumbler, (C) the English Carrier, and (D) the

Bagadotten Carrier (of Neumeister), all drawn of the natural size and

viewed laterally. In the Carrier, besides the elongation of the bones

of the face, the space between the orbits is proportionally a little

narrower than in the rock-pigeon. In the Bagadotten the upper mandible

is remarkably arched, and the premaxillary bones are proportionally

broader. In the Short-faced Tumbler the skull is more globular: all the

bones of the face are much shortened, and the front of the skull and

descending nasal bones are almost perpendicular: the maxillo-jugal arch

and premaxillary bones form an almost straight line; the space between

the prominent edges of the eye-orbits is depressed. In the Barb the

premaxillary bones are much shortened, and their anterior portion is

thicker than in the rock-pigeon, as is the lower part of the nasal

bone. In two Nuns the ascending branches of the premaxillaries, near

their tips, were somewhat attenuated, and in these birds, as well as in

some others, for instance in the Spot, the occipital crest over the

foramen was considerably more prominent than in the rock-pigeon.

Illustration: Fig. 25—Lower jaws, seen from above.

Illustration: Fig. 26—Skull of Runt.

Illustration: Fig. 27—Lateral view of jaws.

In the lower jaw, the articular surface is proportionably smaller in

many breeds than in the rock-pigeon; and the vertical diameter, more

especially of the outer part of the articular surface, is considerably

shorter. May not this be accounted for by the lessened use of the jaws,

owing to nutritious food having been given during a long period to all

highly improved pigeons? In Runts, Carriers, and Barbs (and in a lesser

degree in several breeds), the whole side of the jaw near the articular

end is bent inwards in a highly remarkable manner; and the superior

margin of the ramus, beyond the middle, is reflexed in an equally

remarkable manner, as may be seen in fig. 25, in comparison with the

jaw of the rock-pigeon. This reflection of the upper margin of the

lower jaw is plainly connected with the singularly wide gape of the

mouth, as has been described in Runts, Carriers, and Barbs. The

reflection is well shown in fig. 26 of the head of a Runt seen from

above; here a wide open space may be observed on each side, between the

edges of the lower jaw and of the premaxillary bones. In the

rock-pigeon, and in several domestic breeds, the edges of the lower jaw

on each side come close up to the premaxillary bones, so that no open

space is left. The degree of downward curvature of the distal half of

the lower jaw also differs to an extraordinary degree in some breeds,

as may be seen in the drawings (fig. 27 A) of the rock-pigeon, (B) of

the Short-faced Tumbler, and (C) of the Bagadotten Carrier of

Neumeister. In some Runts the symphysis of the lower jaw is remarkably

solid. No one would readily have believed that jaws differing in the

several above-specified points so greatly could have belonged to the

same species.

_Vertebræ._—All the breeds have twelve cervical vertebræ.[36] But

in a Bussorah Carrier from India the twelfth vertebra carried a

small rib, a quarter of an inch in length, with a perfect double

articulation.

The _dorsal vertebræ_ are always eight. In the rock-pigeon all eight

bear ribs; the eighth rib being very thin, and the seventh having no

process. In Pouters all the ribs are extremely broad, eight bear ribs;

the eighth rib being very thin and the seventh having no process. In

Pouters all the ribs are extremely broad, and, in three out of four

skeletons examined by me, the eighth rib was twice or even thrice as

broad as in the rock-pigeon; and the seventh pair had distinct

processes. In many breeds there are only seven ribs, as in seven out of

eight skeletons of various Tumblers, and in several skeletons of

Fantails, Turbits and Nuns.>

In all these breeds the seventh pair was very small, and was destitute

of processes, in which respect it differed from the same rib in the

rock-pigeon. In one Tumbler, and in the Bussorah Carrier, even the

sixth pair had no process. The hypapophysis of the second dorsal

vertebra varies much in development; being sometimes (as in several,

but not all Tumblers) nearly as prominent as that of the third dorsal

vertebra; and the two hypapophyses together tend to form an ossified

arch. The development of the arch, formed by the hypapophyses of the

third and fourth dorsal vertebræ, also varies considerably, as does the

size of the hypapophysis of the fifth vertebra.

The rock-pigeon has twelve sacral vertebræ; but these vary in number,

relative size, and distinctness, in the different breeds. In Pouters,

with their elongated bodies, there are thirteen or even fourteen, and,

as we shall immediately see, an additional number of caudal vertebræ.

In Runts and Carriers there is generally the proper number, namely

twelve; but in one Runt, and in the Bussorah Carrier, there were only

eleven. In Tumblers there are either eleven, or twelve, or thirteen

sacral vertebræ.

The _caudal vertebræ_ are seven in number in the rock-pigeon. In

Fantails, which have their tails so largely developed, there are eight

or nine, and apparently in one case ten, and they are a little longer

than in the rock-pigeon, and their shape varies considerably. Pouters,

also, have eight or nine caudal vertebræ. I have seen eight in a Nun

and Jacobin. Tumblers, though such small birds, always have the normal

number seven; as have Carriers, with one exception, in which there were

only six.

The following table will serve as a summary, and will show the most

remarkable deviations in the number of the vertebra and ribs which I

have observed:—

Rock Pigeon. Pouter, from Mr. Bult. Tumbler,

Dutch Roller. Bussorah Carrier. Cervical

Vertebræ 12 12 12 12

The 12th bore a small rib. Dorsal Vertebræ 8 8

8 8 Dorsal Ribs 8

The 6th pair with processes, the 7th pair without a

process. 8

The 6th and 7th pair with processes. 7

The 6th and 7th pair without processes. 7

The 6th and 7th pair without processes. Sacral

Vertebræ 12 14 11 11 Caudal Vertebræ 7 8

or 9 7 7 Total Vertebræ 39 42 or

43 38 38

The _pelvis_ differs very little in any breed. The anterior margin of

the ilium, however, is sometimes a little more equally rounded on both

sides than in the rock-pigeon. The ischium is also frequently rather

more elongated. The obturator-notch is sometimes, as in many Tumblers,

less developed than in the rock-pigeon. The ridges on the ilium are

very prominent in most Runts.

Illustration: Fig. 28—Scapulæ of Pigeons.

Illustration: Fig. 29—Furcula of Pigeons.

In the bones of the extremities I could detect no difference, except in

their proportional lengths; for instance, the metatarsus in a Pouter

was 1·65 inch, and in a Short-faced Tumbler only ·95 in length; and

this is a greater difference than would naturally follow from their

differently-sized bodies; but long legs in the Pouter, and small feet

in the Tumbler, are selected points. In some Pouters the _scapula_ is

rather straighter, and in some Tumblers it is straighter, with the apex

less elongated, than in the rock-pigeon: in fig. 28, the scapula of the

rock-pigeon (A), and of a short-faced Tumbler (B), are given. The

processes at the summit of the _coracoid,_ which receive the

extremities of the furculum, form a more perfect cavity in some

Tumblers than in the rock-pigeon: in Pouters these processes are larger

and differently shaped, and the exterior angle of the extremity of the

coracoid, which is articulated to the sternum, is squarer.

The two arms of the _furculum_ in Pouters diverge less, proportionally

to their length, than in the rock-pigeon; and the symphysis is more

solid and pointed. In Fantails the degree of divergence of the two arms

varies in a remarkable manner. In fig. 29, B and C represent the

furcula of two Fantails; and it will be seen that the divergence in B

is rather less even than in the furculum of the short-faced,

small-sized Tumbler (A), whereas the divergence in C equals that in a

rock-pigeon, or in the Pouter (D), though the latter is a much larger

bird. The extremities of the furculum, where articulated to the

coracoids, vary considerably in outline.

In the _sternum_ the differences in form are slight, except in the size

and outline of the perforations, which, both in the larger and lesser

sized breeds, are sometimes small. These perforations, also, are

sometimes either nearly circular, or elongated as is often the case

with Carriers. The posterior perforations occasionally are not

complete, being left open posteriorly. The marginal apophyses forming

the anterior perforations vary greatly in development. The degree of

convexity of the posterior part of the sternum differs much, being

sometimes almost perfectly flat. The manubrium is rather more prominent

in some individuals than in others, and the pore immediately under it

varies greatly in size.

_Correlation of Growth._—By this term I mean that the whole

organisation is so connected, that when one part varies, other parts

vary; but which of two correlated variations ought to be looked at as

the cause and which as the effect, or whether both result from some

common cause, we can seldom or never tell. The point of interest for us

is that, when fanciers, by the continued selection of slight

variations, have largely modified one part, they often unintentionally

produce other modifications. For instance, the beak is readily acted on

by selection, and, with its increased or diminished length, the tongue

increases or diminishes, but not in due proportion; for, in a Barb and

Short-faced Tumbler, both of which have very short beaks, the tongue,

taking the rock-pigeon as the standard of comparison, was

proportionally not shortened enough, whilst in two Carriers and in a

Runt the tongue, proportionally with the beak, was not lengthened

enough, thus, in a first-rate English Carrier, in which the beak from

the tip to the feathered base was exactly thrice as long as in a

first-rate Short-faced Tumbler, the tongue was only a little more than

twice as long. But the tongue varies in length independently of the

beak: thus in a Carrier with a beak 1·2 inch in length, the tongue was

·67 in length: whilst in a Runt which equalled the Carrier in length of

body and in stretch of wings from tip to tip, the beak was ·92 whilst

the tongue was ·73 of an inch in length, so that the tongue was

actually longer than in the carrier with its long beak. The tongue of

the Runt was also very broad at the root. Of two Runts, one had its

beak longer by ·23 of an inch, whilst its tongue was shorter by ·14

than in the other.

With the increased or diminished length of the beak the length of the

slit forming the external orifice of the nostrils varies, but not in

due proportion, for, taking the rock-pigeon as the standard, the

orifice in a Short-faced Tumbler was not shortened in due proportion

with its very short beak. On the other hand (and this could not have

been anticipated), the orifice in three English Carriers, in the

Bagadotten Carrier, and in a Runt (_pigeon cygne_), was longer by above

the tenth of an inch than would follow from the length of the beak

proportionally with that of the rock-pigeon. In one Carrier the orifice

of the nostrils was thrice as long as in the rock-pigeon, though in

body and length of beak this bird was not nearly double the size of the

rock-pigeon. This greatly increased length of the orifice of the

nostrils seems to stand partly in correlation with the enlargement of

the wattled skin on the upper mandible and over the nostrils; and this

is a character which is selected by fanciers. So again, the broad,

naked, and wattled skin round the eyes of Carriers and Barbs is a

selected character; and in obvious correlation with this, the eyelids,

measured longitudinally, are proportionally more than double the length

of those of the rock-pigeon.

The great difference (see fig. 27) in the curvature of the lower jaw in

the rock-pigeon, the Tumbler, and Bagadotten Carrier, stands in obvious

relation to the curvature of the upper jaw, and more especially to the

angle formed by the maxillo-jugal arch with the premaxillary bones. But

in Carriers, Runts, and Barbs the singular reflexion of the upper

margin of the middle part of the lower jaw (see fig. 25) is not

strictly correlated with the width or divergence (as may be clearly

seen in fig. 26) of the premaxillary bones, but with the breadth of the

horny and soft parts of the upper mandible, which are always overlapped

by the edges of the lower mandible.

In Pouters, the elongation of the body is a selected character, and the

ribs, as we have seen, have generally become very broad, with the

seventh pair furnished with processes; the sacral and caudal vertebræ

have been augmented in number; the sternum has likewise increased in

length (but not in the depth of the crest) by ·4 of an inch more than

would follow from the greater bulk of the body in comparison with that

of the rock-pigeon. In Fantails, the length and number of the caudal

vertebræ have increased. Hence, during the gradual progress of

variation and selection, the internal bony framework and the external

shape of the body have been, to a certain extent, modified in a

correlated manner.

Although the wings and tail often vary in length independently of

each other, it is scarcely possible to doubt that they generally

tend to become elongated or shortened in correlation. This is well

seen in Jacobins, and still more plainly in Runts, some varieties

of which have their wings and tail of great length, whilst others

have both very short. With Jacobins, the remarkable length of the

tail and wing-feathers is not a character which is intentionally

selected by fanciers; but fanciers have been trying for centuries,

at least since the year 1600, to increase the length of the

reversed feathers on the neck, so that the hood may more completely

enclose the head; and it may be suspected that the increased length

of the wing and tail-feathers stand in correlation with the

increased length of the neck-feathers. Short-faced Tumblers have

short wings in nearly due proportion with the reduced size of their

bodies; but it is remarkable, seeing that the number of the primary

wing-feathers is a constant character in most birds, that these

Tumblers generally have only nine instead of ten primaries. I have

myself observed this in eight birds; and the Original Columbarian

Society[37] reduced the standard for Bald-head Tumblers from ten to

nine white flight-feathers, thinking it unfair that a bird which

had only nine feathers should be disqualified for a prize because

it had not ten _white_ flight-feathers. On the other hand, in

Carriers and Runts, which have large bodies and long wings, eleven

primary feathers have occasionally been observed.

Mr. Tegetmeier has informed me of a curious and inexplicable case of

correlation, namely, that young pigeons of all breeds which when mature

become white, yellow, silver (_i.e.,_ extremely pale blue), or

dun-coloured, are born almost naked; whereas pigeons of other colours

are born well-clothed with down. Mr. Esquilant, however, has observed

that young dun Carriers are not so bare as young dun Barbs and

Tumblers. Mr. Tegetmeier has seen two young birds in the same nest,

produced from differently coloured parents, which differed greatly in

the degree to which they were at first clothed with down.

I have observed another case of correlation which at first sight

appears quite inexplicable, but on which, as we shall see in a future

chapter, some light can be thrown by the law of homologous parts

varying in the same manner. The case is, that, when the feet are much

feathered, the roots of the feathers are connected by a web of skin,

and apparently in correlation with this the two outer toes become

connected for a considerable space by skin. I have observed this in

very many specimens of Pouters, Trumpeters, Swallows, Roller-tumblers

(likewise observed in this breed by Mr. Brent), and in a lesser degree

in other feather-footed pigeons.

The feet of the smaller and larger breeds are of course much smaller or

larger than those of the rock-pigeon; but the scutellæ or scales

covering the toes and tarsi have not only decreased or increased in

size, but likewise in number. To give a single instance, I have counted

eight scutellæ on the hind toe of a Runt, and only five on that of a

Short-faced Tumbler. With birds in a state of nature the number of the

scutellæ on the feet is usually a constant character. The length of the

feet and the length of the beak apparently stand in correlation; but as

disuse apparently has affected the size of the feet, this case may come

under the following discussion.

_On the Effects of Disuse._—In the following discussion on the relative

proportions of the feet, sternum, furculum, scapulæ, and wings, I may

premise, in order to give some confidence to the reader, that all my

measurements were made in the same manner, and that they were made

without the least intention of applying them to the following purpose.

Table I.

_Pigeons with their beaks generally shorter than that of the

Rock-pigeon, proportionally to the size of their bodies._

Name of Breed. Actual

length

of Feet Difference between

actual and calculated

length of feet, in

proportion to length of

feet and size of body

in the Rock-pigeon. Wild rock-pigeon (mean

measurement) 2·02 Too short

by Too long

by Short-faced Tumbler, blad-head 1·57 0·11 —

Short-faced Tumbler, almond 1·60 0·16 — Tumbler, red

magpie 1·75 0·19 — Tumbler, red common (by standard

to end of tail) 1·85 0·07 — Tumbler, common

bald-head 1·85 0·18 — Tumbler,

roller 1·80 0·06 — Turbit 1·75 0·17 —

Turbit 1·80 0·01 — Turbit 1·84 0·15 —

Jacobin 1·90 0·02 — Trumpeter,

white 2·02 0·06 — Trumpeter,

mottled 1·95 0·18 — Fantail (by standard to end of

tail) 1·85 0·15 — Fantail (by standard to end of

tail) 1·95 0·15 — Fantail crested va. (by standard

to end of tail) 1·95 0·0 0·0 Indian Frill-back (by

standard to end of tail) 1·80 0·19 — English

Frill-back 2·10 0·03 — Nun 1·82 0·02 —

Laugher 1·65 0·16 — Barb 2·00 0·03 —

Barb 2·00 — 0·03 Spot 1·90 0·02 —

Spot 1·90 0·07 — Swallow, red 1·85 0·18 —

Swallow, blue 2·00 — 0·03

Pouter 2·42 — 0·11 Pouter,

German 2·30 — 0·09 Bussorah

Carrier 2·17 — 0·09 Number of

specimens 28 22 5

I measured most of the birds which came into my possession, from the

feathered _base_ of the beak (the length of beak itself being so

variable) to the end of the tail, and to the oil-gland, but

unfortunately (except in a few cases) not to the root of the tail; I

measured each bird from the extreme tip to tip of wing; and the length

of the terminal folded part of the wing, from the extremity of the

primaries to the joint of the radius. I measured the feet without the

claws, from the end of the middle toe to the end of the hind toe; and

the tarsus and middle toe together. I have taken in every case the mean

measurement of two wild rock-pigeons from the Shetland Islands, as the

standard of comparison. The following table shows the actual length of

the feet in each bird; and the difference between the length which the

feet ought to have had according to the size of body of each, in

comparison with the size of body and length of feet of the rock-pigeon,

calculated (with a few specified exceptions) by the standard of the

length of the body from the base of the beak to the oil-gland. I have

preferred this standard, owing to the variability of the length of

tail. But I have made similar calculations, taking as the standard the

length from tip to tip of wing, and likewise in most cases from the

base of the beak to the end of the tail; and the result has always been

closely similar. To give an example: the first bird in the table, being

a Short-faced Tumbler, is much smaller than the rock-pigeon, and would

naturally have shorter feet; but it is found on calculation to have

feet too short by ·11 of an inch, in comparison with the feet of the

rock-pigeon, relatively to the size of the body in these two birds, as

measured from the base of beak to the oil-gland. So again, when this

same Tumbler and the rock-pigeon were compared by the length of their

wings, or by the extreme length of their bodies, the feet of the

Tumbler were likewise found to be too short in very nearly the same

proportion. I am well aware that the measurements pretend to greater

accuracy than is possible, but it was less trouble to write down the

actual measurements given by the compasses in each case than an

approximation.

Table II.

_Pigeons with their beaks longer than that of the Rock-pigeon,

proportionally to the size of their bodies._

Name of Breed. Actual

length

of

Feet Difference between

actual and calculated

length of feet, in

proportion to length of

feet and size of body

in the Rock-pigeon. Wild rock-pigeon (mean

measurement) 2·02 Too short

by Too long

by Short-faced Tumbler, bald-head 1·57 0·11 —

Carrier 2·60 — 0·31 Carrier 2·60 — 0·25

Carrier 2·40 — 0·21 Carrier

Dragon 2·25 — 0·06 Bagadotten

Carrier 2·80 — 0·56 Scanderoon,

white 2·80 — 0·37 Scanderoon, Pigeon

cygne 2·85 — 0·29 Runt 2·75 — 0·27 Number

of specimens 8 — 8

In these two tables (Tables I and II) we see in the first column the

actual length of the feet in thirty-six birds belonging to various

breeds, and in the two other columns we see by how much the feet are

too short or too long, according to the size of bird, in comparison

with the rock-pigeon. In the first table twenty-two specimens have

their feet too short, on an average by a little above the tenth of an

inch (viz. ·107); and five specimens have their feet on an average a

very little too long, namely, by ·07 of an inch. But some of these

latter cases can be explained; for instance, with Pouters the legs and

feet are selected for length, and thus any natural tendency to a

diminution in the length of the feet will have been counteracted. In

the Swallow and Barb, when the calculation was made on any standard of

comparison besides the one used (viz. length of body from base of beak

to oil-gland), the feet were found to be too small.

In the second table we have eight birds, with their beaks much

longer than in the rock-pigeon, both actually and proportionally

with the size of body, and their feet are in an equally marked

manner longer, namely, in proportion, on an average by ·29 of an

inch. I should here state that in Table I there are a few partial

exceptions to the beak being proportionally shorter than in the

rock-pigeon: thus the beak of the English Frill-back is just

perceptibly longer, and that of the Bussorah Carrier of the same

length or slightly longer, than in the rock-pigeon. The beaks of

Spots, Swallows, and Laughers are only a very little shorter, or of

the same proportional length, but slenderer. Nevertheless, these

two tables, taken conjointly, indicate pretty plainly some kind of

correlation between the length of the beak and the size of the

feet. Breeders of cattle and horses believe that there is an

analogous connection between the length of the limbs and head; they

assert that a race-horse with the head of a dray-horse, or a

grey-hound with the head of a bulldog, would be a monstrous

production. As fancy pigeons are generally kept in small aviaries,

and are abundantly supplied with food, they must walk about much

less than the wild rock-pigeon; and it may be admitted as highly

probable that the reduction in the size of the feet in the

twenty-two birds in the first table has been caused by disuse,[38]

and that this reduction has acted by correlation on the beaks of

the great majority of the birds in Table I. When, on the other

hand, the beak has been much elongated by the continued selection

of successive slight increments of length, the feet by correlation

have likewise become much elongated in comparison with those of the

wild rock-pigeon, notwithstanding their lessened use.

As I had taken measures from the end of the middle toe to the heel of

the tarsus in the rock-pigeon and in the above thirty-six birds, I have

made calculations analogous with those above given, and the result is

the same— namely, that in the short-beaked breeds, with equally few

exceptions as in the former case, the middle toe conjointly with the

tarsus has decreased in length; whereas in the long-beaked breeds it

has increased in length, though not quite so uniformly as in the former

case, for the leg, in some varieties of the Runt varies much in length.

As fancy pigeons are generally confined in aviaries of moderate size,

and as even when not confined they do not search for their own food,

they must during many generations have used their wings incomparably

less than the wild rock-pigeon. Hence it seemed to me probable that all

the parts of the skeleton subservient to flight would be found to be

reduced in size. With respect to the sternum, I have carefully measured

its extreme length in twelve birds of different breeds, and in two wild

rock-pigeons from the Shetland Islands. For the proportional comparison

I have tried three standards of measurement, with all twelve birds

namely, the length from the base of the beak to the oil-gland, to the

end of the tail, and from the extreme tip to tip of wings. The result

has been in each case nearly the same, the sternum being invariably

found to be shorter than in the wild rock-pigeon. I will give only a

single table, as calculated by the standard from the base of the beak

to the oil-gland; for the result in this case is nearly the mean

between the results obtained by the two other standards.

_Length of Sternum._

Name of Breed Actual

Length.

Inches Too

short by Wild Rock-pigeon 2·55 — Wild

Rock-pigeon 2·55 — Pied Scanderoon 2·80 0·60

Bagadotten Carrier 2·80 0·17 Dragon 2·45 0·41

Carrier 2·75 0·35 Short-faced Tumbler 2·05 0·28

Barb 2·35 0·34 Nun 2·27 0·15 German

Pouter 2·36 0·54 Jacobin 2·33 0·22 English

Frill-back 2·40 0·43 Swallow 2·45 0·17

This table shows that in these twelve breeds the sternum is of an

average one-third of an inch (exactly ·332) shorter than in the

rock-pigeon, proportionally with the size of their bodies; so that the

sternum has been reduced by between one-seventh and one-eighth of its

entire length; and this is a considerable reduction.

I have also measured in twenty-one birds, including the above dozen,

the prominence of the crest of the sternum relatively to its length,

independently of the size of the body. In two of the twenty-one birds

the crest was prominent in the same relative degree as in the

rock-pigeon; in seven it was more prominent; but in five out of these

seven, namely, in a Fantail, two Scanderoons, and two English Carriers,

this greater prominence may to a certain extent be explained, as a

prominent breast is admired and selected by fanciers; in the remaining

twelve birds the prominence was less. Hence it follows that the crest

exhibits a slight, though uncertain, tendency to be reduced in

prominence in a greater degree than does the length of the sternum

relatively to the size of body, in comparison with the rock-pigeon.

I have measured the length of the scapula in nine different large and

small-sized breeds, and in all the scapula is proportionally shorter

(taking the same standard as before) than in the wild rock-pigeon. The

reduction in length on an average is very nearly one-fifth of an inch,

or about one-ninth of the length of the scapula in the rock-pigeon.

The arms of the furcula in all the specimens which I compared, diverged

less, proportionally with the size of body, than in the rock-pigeon;

and the whole furculum was proportionally shorter. Thus in a Runt,

which measured from tip to tip of wings 38½ inches, the furculum was

only a very little longer (with the arms hardly more divergent) than in

a rock-pigeon which measured from tip to tip 26½ inches. In a Barb,

which in all its measurements was a little larger than the same

rock-pigeon, the furculum was a quarter of an inch shorter. In a

Pouter, the furculum had not been lengthened proportionally with the

increased length of the body. In a Short-faced Tumbler, which measured

from tip to tip of wings 24 inches, therefore only 2½ inches less than

the rock-pigeon, the furculum was barely two-thirds of the length of

that of the rock-pigeon.

We thus clearly see that the sternum, scapula, and furculum are all

reduced in proportional length; but when we turn to the wings we

find what at first appears a wholly different and unexpected

result. I may here remark that I have not picked out specimens, but

have used every measurement made by me. Taking the length from the

base of beak to the end of the tail as the standard of comparison,

I find that, out of thirty-five birds of various breeds,

twenty-five have wings of greater, and ten have them of less

proportional length, than in the rock-pigeon. But from the

frequently correlated length of the tail and wing-feathers, it is

better to take as the standard of comparison the length from the

base of the beak to the oil-gland; and by this standard, out of

twenty-six of the same birds which had been thus measured,

twenty-one had wings too long, and only five had them too short. In

the twenty-one birds the wings exceeded in length those of the

rock-pigeon, on an average, by 1-1/3 inch; whilst in the five birds

they were less in length by only ·8 of an inch. As I was much

surprised that the wings of closely confined birds should thus so

frequently have been increased in length, it occurred to me that it

might be solely due to the greater length of the wing-feathers; for

this certainly is the case with the Jacobin, which has wings of

unusual length. As in almost every case I had measured the folded

wings, I subtracted the length of this terminal part from that of

the expanded wings, and thus I obtained, with a moderate degree of

accuracy, the length of the wings from the ends of the two radii,

answering from wrist to wrist in our arms. The wings, thus measured

in the same twenty-five birds, now gave a widely different result;

for they were proportionally with those of the rock-pigeon too

short in seventeen birds, and in only eight too long. Of these

eight birds, five were long-beaked,[39] and this fact perhaps

indicates that there is some correlation of the length of the beak

with the length of the bones of the wings, in the same manner as

with that of the feet and tarsi. The shortening of the humerus and

radius in the seventeen birds may probably be attributed to disuse,

as in the case of the scapula and furculum to which the wing-bones

are attached;—the lengthening of the wing-feathers, and

consequently the expansion of the wings from tip to tip, being, on

the other hand, as completely independent of use and disuse as is

the growth of the hair or wool on our long-haired dogs or

long-woolled sheep.

To sum up: we may confidently admit that the length of the sternum, and

frequently the prominence of its crest, the length of the scapula and

furculum, have all been reduced in size in comparison with the same

parts in the rock-pigeon. And I presume that this may be attributed to

disuse or lessened exercise. The wings, as measured from the ends of

the radii, have likewise been generally reduced in length; but, owing

to the increased growth of the wing-feathers, the wings, from tip to

tip, are commonly longer than in the rock-pigeon. The feet, as well as

the tarsi conjointly with the middle toe, have likewise in most cases

become reduced; and this it is probable has been caused by their

lessened use; but the existence of some sort of correlation between the

feet and beak is shown more plainly than the effects of disuse. We have

also some faint indication of a similar correlation between the main

bones of the wing and the beak.

_Summary on the Points of Difference between the several Domestic

Races, and between the individual Birds._—The beak, together with the

bones of the face, differ remarkably in length, breadth, shape, and

curvature. The skull differs in shape, and greatly in the angle formed

by the union of the pre-maxillary, nasal, and maxillo-jugal bones. The

curvature of the lower jaw and the reflection of its upper margin, as

well as the gape of the mouth, differ in a highly remarkable manner.

The tongue varies much in length, both independently and in correlation

with the length of the beak. The development of the naked, wattled skin

over the nostrils and round the eyes varies in an extreme degree. The

eyelids and the external orifices of the nostrils vary in length, and

are to a certain extent correlated with the degree of development of

the wattle. The size and form of the œsophagus and crop, and their

capacity for inflation, differ immensely. The length of the neck

varies. With the varying shape of the body, the breadth and number of

the ribs, the presence of processes, the number of the sacral vertebræ,

and the length of the sternum, all vary. The number and size of the

coccygeal vertebræ vary, apparently in correlation with the increased

size of the tail. The size and shape of the perforations in the

sternum, and the size and divergence of the arms of the furculum,

differ. The oil-gland varies in development, and is sometimes quite

aborted. The direction and length of certain feathers have been much

modified, as in the hood of the Jacobin and the frill of the Turbit.

The wing and tail-feathers generally vary in length together, but

sometimes independently of each other and of the size of the body. The

number and position of the tail-feather vary to an unparalleled degree.

The primary and secondary wing-feathers occasionally vary in number,

apparently in correlation with the length of the wing. The length of

the leg and the size of the feet, and, in connection with the latter,

the number of the scutellæ, all vary. A web of skin sometimes connects

the bases of the two inner toes, and almost invariably the two outer

toes when the feet are feathered.

The size of the body differs greatly: a Runt has been known to

weigh more than five times as much as a Short-faced Tumbler. The

eggs differ in size and shape. According to Parmentier,[40] some

races use much straw in building their nests, and others use

little; but I cannot hear of any recent corroboration of this

statement. The length of time required for hatching the eggs is

uniform in all the breeds. The period at which the characteristic

plumage of some breeds is acquired, and at which certain changes of

colour supervene, differs. The degree to which the young birds are

clothed with down when first hatched is different, and is

correlated in a singular manner with the colour of the plumage. The

manner of flight, and certain inherited movements, such as clapping

the wings, tumbling either in the air or on the ground, and the

manner of courting the female, present the most singular

differences. In disposition the several races differ. Some races

are very silent; others coo in a highly peculiar manner.

Although many different races have kept true in character during

several centuries, as we shall hereafter more fully see, yet there

is far more individual variability in the most constant breeds than

in birds in a state of nature. There is hardly any exception to the

rule that those characters vary most which are now most valued and

attended to by fanciers, and which consequently are now being

improved by continued selection. This is indirectly admitted by

fanciers when they complain that it is much more difficult to breed

high fancy pigeons up to the proper standard of excellence than the

so-called toy pigeons, which differ from each other merely in

colour; for particular colours when once acquired are not liable to

continued improvement or augmentation. Some characters become

attached, from quite unknown causes, more strongly to the male than

to the female sex; so that we have in certain races, a tendency

towards the appearance of secondary sexual characters,[41] of which

the aboriginal rock-pigeon displays not a trace.

REFERENCES

[1] The Hon. C. Murray has sent me some very valuable specimens from

Persia; and H.M. Consul, Mr. Keith Abbott, has given me information on

the pigeons of the same country. I am deeply indebted to Sir Walter

Elliot for an immense collection of skins from Madras, with much

information regarding them. Mr. Blyth has freely communicated to me

his stores of knowledge on this and all other related subjects. The

Rajah Sir James Brooke sent me specimens from Borneo, as has H.M.

Consul, Mr. Swinhoe, from Amoy in China, and Dr. Daniell from the west

coast of Africa.

[2] Mr. B. P. Brent, well known for his various contributions to

poultry literature, has aided me in every way during several years: so

has Mr. Tegetmeier, with unwearied kindness. This latter gentleman,

who is well known for his works on poultry, and who has largely bred

pigeons, has looked over this and the following chapters. Mr. Bult

formerly showed me his unrivalled collection of Pouters, and gave me

specimens. I had access to Mr. Wicking’s collection, which contained a

greater assortment of kinds than could anywhere else be seen; and he

has always aided me with specimens and information given in the freest

manner. Mr. Haynes and Mr. Corker have given me specimens of their

magnificent Carriers. To Mr. Harrison Weir I am likewise indebted. Nor

must I by any means pass over the assistance received from Mr. J. M.

Eaton, Mr. Baker, Mr. Evans, and Mr. J. Baily, jun., of

Mount-street—to the latter gentleman I have been indebted for some

valuable specimens. To all these gentlemen I beg permission to return

my sincere and cordial thanks.

[3] ‘Les Pigeons de Volière et de Colombier’ Paris 1824. During

forty-five years the sole occupation of M. Corbié was the care of the

pigeons belonging to the Duchess of Berry. Bonizzi has described a

large number of coloured varieties in Italy: ‘Le variazioni dei

colombi Domestici,’ Padova, 1873.

[4] ‘Coup d’Oeil sur l’Ordre des Pigeons’ par Prince C. L. Bonaparte,

Paris, 1855. This author makes 288 species, ranked under 85 genera.

[5] As I so often refer to the size of the _C. livia,_ or rock-pigeon,

it may be convenient to give the mean between the measurements of two

wild birds, kindly sent me by Dr. Edmondstone from the Shetland

Islands.

Inches From feathered base of beak to end of tail: 14·25 From

feathered base of beak to oil-gland: 9·50 From tip of beak to

end of tail: 15·02 Of tail-feathers: 4·62 From tip to tip of

wing: 26·75 Of folded wing: 9·25 Beak: Length from tip of

beak to feathered base: ·77 Thickness, measured vertically at

distal end of nostrils: ·23 Breadth, measured at same

place: ·16 Feet: From end of middle toe (without claw) to

distal end of tibia: 2·77 From end of middle toe to end of hind

toe (without claws): 2·02 Weight: 14-1/4 ounces.

[6] This drawing was made from a dead bird. The six following figures

were drawn with great care by Mr. Luke Wells from living birds

selected by Mr. Tegetmeier. It may be confidently asserted that the

characters of the six breeds which have been figured are not in the

least exaggerated.

[7] ‘Das Ganze der Taubenzucht:’ Weimar, 1837, pl. 11 and 12.

[8] Boitard and Corbié, ‘Les Pigeons,’ etc., p. 177, pl. 6.

[9] ‘Die Taubenzucht,’ Ulm, 1824, s. 42.

[10] This treatise was written by Sayzid Mohammed Musari, who died in

1770: I owe to the great kindness of Sir W. Elliot a translation of

this curious treatise.

[11] ‘Poultry Chronicle,’ vol. 2, p. 573.

[12] ‘Annals and Mag. of Nat. History,’ vol. xix, 1847, p. 105.

[13] This gland occurs in most birds; but Nitzsch (in his

‘Pterylographie,’ 1840, p. 55) states that it is absent in two species

of Columba, in several species of Psittacus, in some species of Otis,

and in most or all birds of the Ostrich family. It can hardly be an

accidental coincidence that the two species of Columba, which are

destitute of an oil-gland, have an unusual number of tail-feathers,

namely 16, and in this respect resemble Fantails.

[14] _See_ the two excellent editions published by Mr. J. M. Eaton in

1852 and 1858, entitled ‘A Treatise on Fancy Pigeons.’

[15] English translation, by F. Gladwin, 4th edition, vol. i. The

habit of the Lotan is also described in the Persian treatise before

alluded to, published about 100 years ago: at this date the Lotans

were generally white and crested as at present. Mr. Blyth describes

these birds in ‘Annals and Mag. of Nat. Hist.,’ vol. xiv., 1847, p.

104; he says that they “may be seen at any of the Calcutta

bird-dealers.”

[16] ‘Journal of Horticulture,’ Oct. 22, 1861, p. 76.

[17] _See_ the account of the House-tumblers kept at Glasgow, in the

‘Cottage Gardener,’ 1858, p. 285. Also Mr. Brent’s paper, ‘Journal of

Horticulture,’ 1861, p. 76.

[18] J. M. Eaton, ‘Treatise on Pigeons,’ 1852, p. 9.

[19] J. M. Eaton, ‘Treatise,’ edit. 1858, p. 76.

[20] Neumeister, ‘Taubenzucht,’ tab. 4. fig. i.

[21] Riedel, ‘Die Taubenzucht,’ 1824, s. 26. Bechstein,

‘Naturgeschichte Deutschlands,’ Band iv. s. 36, 1795.

[22] Willughby’s ‘Ornithology,’ edited by Ray.

[23] J. M. Eaton’s edition (1858) of Moore, p. 98.

[24] Pigeon pattu plongeur. ‘Les Pigeons,’ etc., p. 165.

[25] ‘Naturgeschichte Deutschlands,’ Band iv. s. 47.

[26] Mr. W. B. Tegetmeier, ‘Journal of Horticulture,’ Jan. 20, 1863,

p. 58.

[27] ‘Coup-d’œil sur L’Ordre des Pigeons,’ par C. L. Bonaparte

(‘Comptes Rendus’), 1854-55. Mr. Blyth, in ‘Annals of Nat. Hist.,’

vol. xix., 1847, p. 41, mentions, as a very singular fact, “that of

the two species of Ectopistes, which are nearly allied to each other,

one should have fourteen tail-feathers, while the other, the passenger

pigeon of North America, should possess but the usual number—twelve.”

[28] Described and figured in the ‘Poultry Chronicle,’ vol. iii.,

1855, p. 82.

[29] ‘The Pigeon Book,’ by Mr. B. P. Brent, 1859, p. 41.

[30] ‘Die staarhälsige Taube. Das Ganze, etc.,’ s. 21, tab. i. fig. 4.

[31] ‘A Treatise on the Almond-Tumbler,’ by J. M. Eaton, 1852, p. 8,

_et passim._

[32] ‘A Treatise, etc.,’ p. 10.

[33] Boitard and Corbié ‘Les Pigeons,’ etc., 1824, p. 173.

[34] ‘Le Pigeon Voyageur Belge,’ 1865, p. 87. I have given in my

‘Descent of Man’ (6th edit. p. 466) some curious cases, on the

authority of Mr. Tegetmeier, of silver-coloured (_i.e._ very pale

blue) birds being generally females, and of the ease with which a race

thus characterised could be produced. Bonizzi (_see_ ‘Variazioni dei

Columbi domestici:’ Padova, 1873) states that certain coloured spots

are often different in the two sexes, and the certain tints are

commoner in females than in male pigeons.

[35] Prof. A. Newton (‘Proc. Zoolog. Soc.,’ 1865, p. 716) remarks that

he knows no species which present any remarkable sexual distinction;

but Mr. Wallace informs me, that in the sub-family of the Treronidæ

the sexes often differ considerably in colour. _See also_ on sexual

differences in the Columbidæ, Gould, ‘Handbook to the Birds of

Australia,’ vol. ii., pp. 109-149.

[36] I am not sure that I have designated the different kinds of

vertebræ correctly: but I observe that different anatomists follow in

this respect different rules, and, as I use the same terms in the

comparison of all the skeletons, this, I hope, will not signify.

[37] J. M. Eaton’s ‘Treatise,’ edit. 1858, p. 78.

[38] In an analogous, but converse, manner, certain natural groups of

the Columbidæ, from being more terrestrial in their habits than other

allied groups, have larger feet. _See_ Prince Bonaparte’s ‘Coup d’œil

sur l’Ordre des Pigeons.’

[39] It perhaps deserves notice that besides these five birds two of

the eight were Barbs, which, as I have shown, must be classed in the

same group with the long-beaked Carriers and Runts. Barbs may properly

be called short-beaked Carriers. It would, therefore, appear as if,

during the reduction of their beaks, their wings had retained a little

of that excess of length which is characteristic of their nearest

relations and progenitors.

[40] Temminck, ‘Hist. Nat. Gén. des Pigeons et des Gallinacés,’ tom.

i., 1813, p. 170.

[41] This term was used by John Hunter for such differences in

structure between the males and females, as are not directly connected

with the act of reproduction, as the tail of the peacock, the horns of

deer, etc.