ON THE ABORIGINAL PARENT-STOCK OF THE SEVERAL DOMESTIC RACES—HABITS OF
LIFE—WILD RACES OF THE ROCK-PIGEON—Dovecot-PIGEONS—PROOFS OF THE
DESCENT OF THE SEVERAL RACES FROM COLUMBA LIVIA—FERTILITY OF THE RACES
WHEN CROSSED—REVERSION TO THE PLUMAGE OF THE WILD
ROCK-PIGEON—CIRCUMSTANCES FAVOURABLE TO THE FORMATION OF THE
RACES—ANTIQUITY AND HISTORY OF THE PRINCIPAL RACES—MANNER OF THEIR
FORMATION—SELECTION—UNCONSCIOUS SELECTION—CARE TAKEN BY FANCIERS IN
SELECTING THEIR BIRDS—SLIGHTLY DIFFERENT STRAINS GRADUALLY CHANGE INTO
WELL-MARKED BREEDS—EXTINCTION OF INTERMEDIATE FORMS—CERTAIN BREEDS
REMAIN PERMANENT, WHILST OTHERS CHANGE—SUMMARY.
The differences described in the last chapter between the eleven chief
domestic races and between individual birds of the same race, would be
of little significance, if they had not all descended from a single
wild stock. The question of their origin is therefore of fundamental
importance, and must be discussed at considerable length. No one will
think this superfluous who considers the great amount of difference
between the races, who knows how ancient many of them are, and how
truly they breed at the present day. Fanciers almost unanimously
believe that the different races are descended from several wild
stocks, whereas most naturalists believe that all are descended from
the Columba livia or rock-pigeon.
Temminck[1] has well observed, and Mr. Gould has made the same
remark to me, that the aboriginal parent must have been a species
which roosted and built its nest on rocks; and I may add that it
must have been a social bird. For all the domestic races are highly
social, and none are known to build or habitually to roost on
trees. The awkward manner in which some pigeons, kept by me in a
summer-house near an old walnut-tree, occasionally alighted on the
barer branches, was evident.[2] Nevertheless, Mr. R. Scot Skirving
informs me that he often saw crowds of pigeons in Upper Egypt
settling on low trees, but not on palms, in preference to alighting
on the mud hovels of the natives. In India Mr. Blyth[3] has been
assured that the wild _C. livia,_ var. _intermedia,_ sometimes
roosts in trees. I may here give a curious instance of compulsion
leading to changed habits: the banks of the Nile above lat. 28° 30′
are perpendicular for a long distance, so that when the river is
full the pigeons cannot alight on the shore to drink, and Mr.
Skirving repeatedly saw whole flocks settle on the water, and drink
whilst they floated down the stream. These flocks seen from a
distance resembled flocks of gulls on the surface of the sea.
If any domestic race had descended from a species which was not
social, or which built its nest and roosted in trees,[4] the sharp
eyes of fanciers would assuredly have detected some vestige of so
different an aboriginal habit. For we have reason to believe that
aboriginal habits are long retained under domestication. Thus with
the common ass we see signs of its original desert life in its
strong dislike to cross the smallest stream of water, and in its
pleasure in rolling in the dust. The same strong dislike to cross a
stream is common to the camel, which has been domesticated from a
very ancient period. Young pigs, though so tame, sometimes squat
when frightened, and thus try to conceal themselves even on an open
and bare place. Young turkeys, and occasionally even young fowls,
when the hen gives the danger-cry, run away and try to hide
themselves, like young partridges or pheasants, in order that their
mother may take flight, of which she has lost the power. The
musk-duck (_Cairina moschata_) in its native country often perches
and roosts on trees,[5] and our domesticated musk-ducks, though
such sluggish birds, “are fond of perching on the tops of barns,
walls, etc., and, if allowed to spend the night in the hen-house,
the female will generally go to roost by the side of the hens, but
the drake is too heavy to mount thither with ease.”[6] We know that
the dog, however well and regularly fed, often buries, like the
fox, any superfluous food; and we see him turning round and round
on a carpet, as if to trample down grass to form a bed; we see him
on bare pavements scratching backwards as if to throw earth over
his excrement, although, as I believe, this is never effected even
where there is earth. In the delight with which lambs and kids
crowd together and frisk on the smallest hillock, we see a vestige
of their former alpine habits.
We have therefore good reason to believe that all the domestic races of
the pigeon are descended either from some one or from several species
which both roosted and built their nests on rocks, and were social in
disposition. As only five or six wild species have these habits, and
make any near approach in structure to the domesticated pigeon, I will
enumerate them.
Firstly, the _Columba leuconota_ resembles certain domestic
varieties in its plumage, with the one marked and never-failing
difference of a white band which crosses the tail at some distance
from the extremity. This species, moreover, inhabits the Himalaya,
close to the limit of perpetual snow; and therefore, as Mr. Blyth
has remarked, is not likely to have been the parent of our domestic
breeds, which thrive in the hottest countries. Secondly, the _C.
rupestris,_ of Central Asia, which is intermediate[7] between the
_C. leuconota_ and _livia_; but has nearly the same coloured tail
as the former species. Thirdly, the _ Columba littoralis_ builds
and roosts, according to Temminck, on rocks in the Malayan
archipelago; it is white, excepting parts of the wing and the tip
of the tail, which are black; its legs are livid-coloured, and this
is a character not observed in any adult domestic pigeon; but I
need not have mentioned this species or the closely-allied _C.
luctuosa,_ as they in fact belong to the genus Carpophaga.
Fourthly, _Columba guinea,_ which ranges from Guinea[8] to the Cape
of Good Hope, and roosts either on trees or rocks, according to the
nature of the country. This species belongs to the genus
Strictoenas of Reichenbach, but is closely allied to Columba; it is
to some extent coloured like certain domestic races, and has been
said to be domesticated in Abyssinia; but Mr. Mansfield Parkyns,
who collected the birds of that country and knows the species,
informs me that this is a mistake. Moreover, the _C. guinea_ is
characterised by the feathers of the neck having peculiar notched
tips,—a character not observed in any domestic race. Fifthly, the _
Columba œnas_ of Europe, which roosts on trees, and builds its nest
in holes, either in trees or the ground; this species, as far as
external characters go, might be the parent of several domestic
races; but, though it crosses readily with the true rock-pigeon,
the offspring, as we shall presently see, are sterile hybrids, and
of such sterility there is not a trace when the domestic races are
intercrossed. It should also be observed that if we were to admit,
against all probability, that any of the foregoing five or six
species were the parents of some of our domestic pigeons, not the
least light would be thrown on the chief differences between the
eleven most strongly-marked races.
We now come to the best known rock-pigeon, the _Columba livia,_
which is often designated in Europe pre-eminently as the
Rock-pigeon, and which naturalists believe to be the parent of all
the domesticated breeds. This bird agrees in every essential
character with the breeds which have been only slightly modified.
It differs from all other species in being of a slaty-blue colour,
with two black bars on the wings, and with the croup (or loins)
white. Occasionally birds are seen in Faroe and the Hebrides with
the black bars replaced by two or three black spots; this form has
been named by Brehm[9] _C. amaliæ,_ but this species has not been
admitted as distinct by other ornithologists. Graba[10] even found
a difference in the bars on the right and left wings of the same
bird in Faroe. Another and rather more distinct form is either
truly wild or has become feral on the cliffs of England and was
doubtfully named by Mr. Blyth[11] as _C. affinis,_ but is now no
longer considered by him as a distinct species. _C. affinis_ is
rather smaller than the rock-pigeon of the Scottish islands, and
has a very different appearance owing to the wing-coverts being
chequered with black, with similar marks often extending over the
back. The chequering consists of a large black spot on the two
sides, but chiefly on the outer side, of each feather. The
wing-bars in the true rock-pigeon and in the chequered variety are,
in fact, due to similar though larger spots symmetrically crossing
the secondary wing-feather and the larger coverts. Hence the
chequering arises merely from an extension of these marks to other
parts of the plumage. Chequered birds are not confined to the
coasts of England; for they were found by Graba at Faroe; and W.
Thompson[12] says that at Islay fully half the wild rock-pigeons
were chequered. Colonel King, of Hythe, stocked his dovecot with
young wild birds which he himself procured from nests at the Orkney
Islands; and several specimens, kindly sent to me by him, were all
plainly chequered. As we thus see that chequered birds occur
mingled with the true rock-pigeon at three distinct sites, namely,
Faroe, the Orkney Islands, and Islay, no importance can be attached
to this natural variation in the plumage.
Prince C. L. Bonaparte,[13] a great divider of species, enumerates,
with a mark of interrogation, as distinct from _C. livia,_ the _C.
turricola_ of Italy, the _C. rupestris_ of Daouria, and the _C.
schimperi_ of Abyssinia; but these birds differ from _C. livia_ in
characters of the most trifling value. In the British Museum there
is a chequered pigeon, probably the _C. schimperi_ of Bonaparte,
from Abyssinia. To these may be added the _C. gymnocyclus_ of G. R.
Gray from W. Africa, which is slightly more distinct, and has
rather more naked skin round the eyes than the rock-pigeon; but
from information given me by Dr. Daniell, it is doubtful whether
this is a wild bird, for dovecot-pigeons (which I have examined)
are kept on the coast of Guinea.
The wild rock-pigeon of India (_C. intermedia_ of Strickland) has
been more generally accepted as a distinct species. It differs
chiefly in the croup being blue instead of snow-white; but as Mr.
Blyth informs me, the tint varies, being sometimes albescent. When
this form is domesticated chequered birds appear, just as occurs in
Europe with the truly wild _C. livia._ Moreover we shall
immediately have proof that the blue and white croup is a highly
variable character; and Bechstein[14] asserts that with
dovecot-pigeons in Germany this is the most variable of all the
characters of the plumage. Hence it may be concluded that _C.
intermedia_ cannot be ranked as specifically distinct from _C.
livia._
In Madeira there is a rock-pigeon which a few ornithologists have
suspected to be distinct from _C. livia._ I have examined numerous
specimens collected by Mr. E. V. Harcourt and Mr. Mason. They are
rather smaller than the rock- pigeon from the Shetland Islands, and
their beaks are plainly thinner, but the thickness of the beak varied
in the several specimens. In plumage there is remarkable diversity;
some specimens are identical in every feather (I speak after actual
comparison) with the rock-pigeon of the Shetland Islands; others are
chequered, like _C. affinis_ from the cliffs of England, but generally
to a greater degree, being almost black over the whole back; others are
identical with the so-called _C. intermedia_ of India in the degree of
blueness of the croup; whilst others have this part very pale or very
dark blue, and are likewise chequered. So much variability raises a
strong suspicion that these birds are domestic pigeons which have
become feral.
From these facts it can hardly be doubted that _C. livia, affinis,
intermedia,_ and the forms marked with an interrogation by
Bonaparte ought all to be included under a single species. But it
is quite immaterial whether or not they are thus ranked, and
whether some one of these forms or all are the progenitors of the
various domestic kinds, as far as any light can thus be thrown on
the differences between the more strongly-marked races. That common
dovecot-pigeons, which are kept in various parts of the world, are
descended from one or from several of the above-mentioned wild
varieties of _C. livia,_ no one who compares them will doubt. But
before making a few remarks on dovecot-pigeons, it should be stated
that the wild rock-pigeon has been found easy to tame in several
countries. We have seen that Colonel King at Hythe stocked his
dovecot more than twenty years ago with young wild birds taken at
the Orkney Islands, and since then they have greatly multiplied.
The accurate Macgillivray[15] asserts that he completely tamed a
wild rock-pigeon in the Hebrides; and several accounts are on
records of these pigeons having bred in dovecots in the Shetland
Islands. In India, as Captain Hutton informs me, the wild
rock-pigeon is easily tamed, and breeds readily with the domestic
kind; and Mr. Blyth[16] asserts that wild birds come frequently to
the dovecots and mingle freely with their inhabitants. In the
ancient ‘Ayeen Akbery’ it is written that, if a few wild pigeons be
taken, “they are speedily joined by a thousand others of their
kind.”
Dovecot-pigeons are those which are kept in dovecots in a semi-
domesticated state; for no special care is taken of them, and they
procure their own food, except during the severest weather. In
England, and, judging from MM. Boitard and Corbié’s work, in
France, the common dovecot- pigeon exactly resembles the chequered
variety of _C. livia;_ but I have seen dovecots brought from
Yorkshire without any trace of chequering, like the wild
rock-pigeon of the Shetland Islands. The chequered dovecots from
the Orkney Islands, after having been domesticated by Colonel King
for more than twenty years, differed slightly from each other in
the darkness of their plumage and in the thickness of their beaks;
the thinnest beak being rather thicker than the thickest one in the
Madeira birds. In Germany, according to Bechstein, the common
dovecot-pigeon is not chequered. In India they often become
chequered, and sometimes pied with white; the croup also, as I am
informed by Mr. Blyth, becomes nearly white. I have received from
Sir. J. Brooke some dovecot-pigeons, which originally came from the
S. Natunas Islands in the Malay Archipelago, and which had been
crossed with the Singapore dovecots: they were small and the
darkest variety was extremely like the dark chequered variety with
a blue croup from Madeira; but the beak was not so thin, though
decidedly thinner than in the rock- pigeon from the Shetland
Islands. A dovecot-pigeon sent to me by Mr. Swinhoe from Foochow,
in China, was likewise rather small, but differed in no other
respect. I have also received through the kindness of Dr. Daniell,
four living dovecot-pigeons from Sierra Leone,[17] these were fully
as large as the Shetland rock-pigeon, with even bulkier bodies. In
plumage some of them were identical with the Shetland rock pigeon,
but with the metallic tints apparently rather more brilliant;
others had a blue croup, and resembled the chequered variety of _C.
intermedia_ of India; and some were so much chequered as to be
nearly black. In these four birds the beak differed slightly in
length, but in all it was decidedly shorter, more massive, and
stronger than in the wild rock-pigeon from the Shetland Islands, or
in the English dovecot. When the beaks of these African pigeons
were compared with the thinnest beaks of the wild Madeira
specimens, the contrast was great; the former being fully one-third
thicker in a vertical direction than the latter; so that any one at
first would have felt inclined to rank these birds as specifically
distinct; yet so perfectly graduated a series could be formed
between the above-mentioned varieties, that it was obviously
impossible to separate them.
To sum up: the wild _Columba livia,_ including under this name _C.
affinis, intermedia,_ and the other still more closely-affined
geographical races, has a vast range from the southern coast of Norway
and the Faroe Islands to the shores of the Mediterranean, to Madeira
and the Canary Islands, to Abyssinia, India, and Japan. It varies
greatly in plumage, being in many places chequered with black, and
having either a white or blue croup or loins; it varies also slightly
in the size of the beak and body. Dovecot-pigeons, which no one
disputes are descended from one or more of the above wild forms,
present a similar but greater range of variation in plumage, in the
size of body, and in the length and thickness of the beak. There seems
to be some relation between the croup being blue or white, and the
temperature of the country inhabited by both wild and dovecot pigeons;
for nearly all the dovecot-pigeons in the northern parts of Europe have
a white croup, like that of the wild European rock-pigeon; and nearly
all the dovecot-pigeons of India have a blue croup like that of the
wild _C. intermedia_ of India. As in various countries the wild
rock-pigeon has been found easy to tame, it seems extremely probable
that the dovecot-pigeons throughout the world are the descendants of at
least two and perhaps more wild stocks; but these, as we have just
seen, cannot be ranked as specifically distinct.
With respect to the variation of _C. livia,_ we may without fear of
contradiction go one step further. Those pigeon-fanciers who believe
that all the chief races, such as Carriers, Pouters, Fantails, etc.,
are descended from distinct aboriginal stocks, yet admit that the
so-called toy-pigeons, which differ from the rock-pigeon in little
except colour, are descended from this bird. By toy-pigeons are meant
such birds as Spots, Nuns, Helmets, Swallows, Priests, Monks,
Porcelains, Swabians, Archangels, Breasts, Shields, and others in
Europe, and many others in India. It would indeed be as puerile to
suppose that all these birds are descended from so many distinct wild
stocks as to suppose this to be the case with the many varieties of the
gooseberry, heartsease, or dahlia. Yet these kinds all breed true, and
many of them include sub-varieties which likewise transmit their
character truly. They differ greatly from each other and from the
rock-pigeon in plumage, slightly in size and proportions of body, in
size of feet, and in the length and thickness of their beaks. They
differ from each other in these respects more than do dovecot-pigeons.
Although we may safely admit that dovecot-pigeons, which vary slightly,
and that toy- pigeons, which vary in a greater degree in accordance
with their more highly-domesticated condition, are descended from _C.
livia,_ including under this name the above-enumerated wild
geographical races; yet the question becomes far more difficult when we
consider the eleven principal races, most of which have been profoundly
modified. It can, however, be shown, by indirect evidence of a
perfectly conclusive nature, that these principal races are not
descended from so many wild stocks; and if this be once admitted, few
will dispute that they are the descendants of _C. livia,_ which agrees
with them so closely in habits and in most characters, which varies in
a state of nature, and which has certainly undergone a considerable
amount of variation, as in the toy-pigeons. We shall moreover presently
see how eminently favourable circumstances have been for a great amount
of modification in the more carefully tended breeds.
The reasons for concluding that the several principal races are not
descended from so many aboriginal and unknown stocks may be grouped
under the following six heads:—
_Firstly._—If the eleven chief races have not arisen from the variation
of some one species, together with its geographical races, they must be
descended from several extremely distinct aboriginal species; for no
amount of crossing between only six or seven wild forms could produce
races so distinct as Pouters, Carriers, Runts, Fantails, Turbits,
Short-faced Tumblers, Jacobins, and Trumpeters. How could crossing
produce, for instance, a Pouter or a Fantail, unless the two supposed
aboriginal parents possessed the remarkable characters of these breeds?
I am aware that some naturalists, following Pallas, believe that
crossing gives a strong tendency to variation, independently of the
characters inherited from either parent. They believe that it would be
easier to raise a Pouter or Fantail pigeon from crossing two distinct
species, neither of which possessed the characters of these races, than
from any single species. I can find few facts in support of this
doctrine, and believe in it only to a limited degree; but in a future
chapter I shall have to recur to this subject. For our present purpose
the point is not material. The question which concerns us is, whether
or not many new and important characters have arisen since man first
domesticated the pigeon. On the ordinary view, variability is due to
changed conditions of life; on the Pallasian doctrine, variability, or
the appearance of new characters, is due to some mysterious effect from
the crossing of two species, neither of which possesses the characters
in question. In some few instances it is possible that well-marked
races may have been formed by crossing; for instance, a Barb might
perhaps be formed by a cross between a long-beaked Carrier, having
large eye-wattles, and some short-beaked pigeon. That many races have
been in some degree modified by crossing, and that certain varieties
which are distinguished only by peculiar tints have arisen from crosses
between differently-coloured varieties, is almost certain. On the
doctrine, therefore, that the chief races owe their differences to
their descent from distinct species, we must admit that at least eight
or nine, or more probably a dozen species, all having the same habit of
breeding and roosting on rocks and living in society, either now exist
somewhere, or formerly existed, but have become extinct as wild birds.
Considering how carefully wild pigeons have been collected throughout
the world, and what conspicuous birds they are, especially when
frequenting rocks, it is extremely improbable that eight or nine
species, which were long ago domesticated and therefore must have
inhabited some anciently known country, should still exist in the wild
state and be unknown to ornithologists.
The hypothesis that such species formerly existed, but have become
extinct, is in some slight degree more probable. But the extinction of
so many species within the historical period is a bold hypothesis,
seeing how little influence man has had in exterminating the common
rock-pigeon, which agrees in all its habits of life with the domestic
races. The _C. livia_ now exists and flourishes on the small northern
islands of Faroe, on many islands off the coast of Scotland, on
Sardinia, and the shores of the Mediterranean, and in the centre of
India. Fanciers have sometimes imagined that the several supposed
parent-species were originally confined to small islands, and thus
might readily have been exterminated; but the facts just given do not
favour the probability of their extinction, even on small islands. Nor
is it probable, from what is known of the distribution of birds, that
the islands near Europe should have been inhabited by peculiar species
of pigeons; and if we assume that distant oceanic islands were the
homes of the supposed parent-species, we must remember that ancient
voyages were tediously slow, and that ships were then ill-provided with
fresh food, so that it would not have been easy to bring home living
birds. I have said ancient voyages, for nearly all the races of the
pigeon were known before the year 1600, so that the supposed wild
species must have been captured and domesticated before that date.
_Secondly._—The doctrine that the chief domestic races are descended
from several aboriginal species, implies that several species were
formerly so thoroughly domesticated as to breed readily when confined.
Although it is easy to tame most wild birds, experience shows us that
it is difficult to get them to breed freely under confinement; although
it must be owned that this is less difficult with pigeons than with
most other birds. During the last two or three hundred years, many
birds have been kept in aviaries, but hardly one has been added to our
list of thoroughly reclaimed species: yet on the above doctrine we must
admit that in ancient times nearly a dozen kinds of pigeons, now
unknown in the wild state, were thoroughly domesticated.
_Thirdly._—Most of our domesticated animals have run wild in
various parts of the world; but birds, owing apparently to their
partial loss of the power of flight, less often than quadrupeds.
Nevertheless I have met with accounts showing that the common fowl
has become feral in South America and perhaps in West Africa, and
on several islands: the turkey was at one time almost feral on the
banks of the Parana; and the Guinea-fowl has become perfectly wild
at Ascension and in Jamaica. In this latter island the peacock,
also, “has become a maroon bird.” The common duck wanders from its
home and becomes almost wild in Norfolk. Hybrids between the common
and musk-duck which have become wild have been shot in North
America, Belgium, and near the Caspian Sea. The goose is said to
have run wild in La Plata. The common dovecot-pigeon has become
wild at Juan Fernandez, Norfolk Island, Ascension, probably at
Madeira, on the shores of Scotland, and, as is asserted, on the
banks of the Hudson in North America.[18] But how different is the
case, when we turn to the eleven chief domestic races of the
pigeon, which are supposed by some authors to be descended from so
many distinct species! no one has ever pretended that any one of
these races has been found wild in any quarter of the world; yet
they have been transported to all countries, and some of them must
have been carried back to their native homes. On the view that all
the races are the product of variation, we can understand why they
have not become feral, for the great amount of modification which
they have undergone shows how long and how thoroughly they have
been domesticated; and this would unfit them for a wild life.
_Fourthly._—If it be assumed that the characteristic differences
between the various domestic races are due to descent from several
aboriginal species, we must conclude that man chose for domestication
in ancient times, either intentionally or by chance, a most abnormal
set of pigeons; for that species resembling such birds as Pouters,
Fantails, Carriers, Barbs, Short-faced Tumblers, Turbits, etc., would
be in the highest degree abnormal, as compared with all the existing
members of the great pigeon family, cannot be doubted. Thus we should
have to believe that man not only formerly succeeded in thoroughly
domesticating several highly abnormal species, but that these same
species have since all become extinct, or are at least now unknown.
This double accident is so extremely improbable that the assumed
existence of so many abnormal species would require to be supported by
the strongest evidence. On the other hand, if all the races are
descended from _C. livia,_ we can understand, as will hereafter be more
fully explained, how any slight deviation in structure which first
appeared would continually be augmented by the preservation of the most
strongly marked individuals; and as the power of selection would be
applied according to man’s fancy, and not for the bird’s own good, the
accumulated amount of deviation would certainly be of an abnormal
nature in comparison with the structure of pigeons living in a state of
nature.
I have already alluded to the remarkable fact that the characteristic
differences between the chief domestic races are eminently variable; we
see this plainly in the great difference in the number of the
tail-feathers in the Fantail, in the development of the crop in
Pouters, in the length of the beak in Tumblers, in the state of the
wattle in Carriers, etc. If these characters are the result of
successive variations added together by selection, we can understand
why they should be so variable: for these are the very parts which have
varied since the domestication of the pigeon, and therefore would be
likely still to vary; these variations moreover have been recently, and
are still being accumulated by man’s selection; therefore they have not
as yet become firmly fixed.
_Fifthly._—All the domestic races pair readily together, and, what
is equally important, their mongrel offspring are perfectly
fertile. To ascertain this fact I made many experiments, which are
given in the note below; and recently Mr. Tegetmeier has made
similar experiments with the same result.[19] The accurate
Neumeister asserts that when dovecots are crossed with pigeons of
any other breed, the mongrels are extremely fertile and hardy.[20]
MM. Boitard and Corbié[21] affirm, after their great experience,
that the more distinct the breeds are which are crossed, the more
productive are their mongrel offspring. I admit that the doctrine
first broached by Pallas is highly probable, if not actually
proved, namely, that closely allied species, which in a state of
nature or when first captured would have been in some degree
sterile if crossed, lose this sterility after a long course of
domestication; yet when we consider the great difference between
such races as Pouters, Carriers, Runts, Fantails, Turbits, Tumblers
etc., the fact of their perfect, or even increased, fertility when
intercrossed in the most complicated manner becomes a strong
argument in favour of their having all descended from a single
species. This argument is rendered much stronger when we hear (I
append in a note[22] all the cases which I have collected) that
hardly a single well-ascertained instance is known of hybrids
between two true species of pigeons being fertile, _inter se,_ or
even when crossed with one of their pure parents.
_Sixthly._—Excluding certain important characteristic differences, the
chief races agree most closely both with each other and with _C. livia_
in all other respects. As previously observed, all are eminently
sociable; all dislike to perch or roost, and refuse to build in trees;
all lay two eggs, and this is not a universal rule with the Columbidæ;
all, as far as I can hear, require the same time for hatching their
eggs; all can endure the same great range of climate; all prefer the
same food, and are passionately fond of salt; all exhibit (with the
asserted exception of the Finnikin and Turner which do not differ much
in any other character) the same peculiar gestures when courting the
females; and all (with the exception of Trumpeters and Laughers, which
likewise do not differ much in any other character) coo in the same
peculiar manner, unlike the voice of any other wild pigeon. All the
coloured breeds display the same peculiar metallic tints on the breast,
a character far from general with pigeons. Each race presents nearly
the same range of variation in colour; and in most of the races we have
the same singular correlation between the development of down in the
young and the future colour of plumage. All have the proportional
length of their toes, and of their primary wing-feathers, nearly the
same,—characters which are apt to differ in the several members of the
Columbidæ. In those races which present some remarkable deviation of
structure, such as in the tail of Fantails, crop of Pouters, beak of
Carriers and Tumblers, etc., the other parts remain nearly unaltered.
Now every naturalist will admit that it would be scarcely possible to
pick out a dozen natural species in any family which should agree
closely in habits and in general structure, and yet should differ
greatly in a few characters alone. This fact is explicable through the
doctrine of natural selection; for each successive modification of
structure in each natural species is preserved, solely because it is of
service; and such modifications when largely accumulated imply a great
change in the habits of life, and this will almost certainly lead to
other changes of structure throughout the whole organisation. On the
other hand, if the several races of the pigeon have been produced by
man through selection and variation, we can readily understand how it
is that they should still all resemble each other in habits and in
those many characters which man has not cared to modify, whilst they
differ to so prodigious a degree in those parts which have struck his
eye or pleased his fancy.
Besides the points above enumerated, in which all the domestic
races resemble _C. livia_ and each other, there is one which
deserves special notice. The wild rock-pigeon is of a slaty-blue
colour; the wings are crossed by two bars; the croup varies in
colour, being generally white in the pigeon of Europe, and blue in
that of India; the tail has a black bar close to the end, and the
outer webs of the outer tail-feathers are edged with white, except
near the tips. These combined characters are not found in any wild
pigeon besides _C. livia._ I have looked carefully through the
great collections of pigeons in the British Museum, and I find that
a dark bar at the end of the tail is common; that the white edging
to the outer tail-feathers is not rare; but that the white croup is
extremely rare, and the two black bars on the wings occur in no
other pigeon, excepting the alpine _C. leuconota_ and _C.
rupestris_ of Asia. Now if we turn to the domestic races, it is
highly remarkable, as an eminent fancier, Mr. Wicking, observed to
me, that, whenever a blue bird appears in any race, the wings
almost invariably show the double black bars.[23] The primary
wing-feathers may be white or black, and the whole body may be of
any colour, but if the wing-coverts are blue, the two black bars
are sure to appear. I have myself seen, or acquired trustworthy
evidence, as given below,[24] of blue birds with black bars on the
wing, with the croup either white or very pale or dark blue, with
the tail having a terminal black bar, and with the outer feathers
externally edged with white or very pale coloured, in the following
races, which, as I carefully observed in each case, appeared to be
perfectly true: namely, in Pouters, Fantails, Tumblers, Jacobins,
Turbits, Barbs, Carriers, Runts of three distinct varieties,
Trumpeters, Swallows, and in many other toy-pigeons, which as being
closely allied to _C. livia,_ are not worth enumerating. Thus we
see that, in purely-bred races of every kind known in Europe, blue
birds occasionally appear having all the marks which characterise
_C. livia,_ and which concur in no other wild species. Mr. Blyth,
also, has made the same observation with respect to the various
domestic races known in India.
Certain variations in the plumage are equally common in the wild
_C. livia,_ in dovecot-pigeons, and in all the most highly modified
races. Thus, in all, the croup varies from white to blue, being
most frequently white in Europe, and very generally blue in
India.[25] We have seen that the wild _C. livia_ in Europe, and
dovecots in all parts of the world, often have the upper
wing-coverts chequered with black; and all the most distinct races,
when blue, are occasionally chequered in precisely the same manner.
Thus I have seen Pouters, Fantails, Carriers, Turbits, Tumblers
(Indian and English), Swallows, Bald-pates, and other toy-pigeons
blue and chequered; and Mr. Esquilant has seen a chequered Runt. I
bred from two pure blue Tumblers a chequered bird.
The facts hitherto given refer to the occasional appearance in pure
races of blue birds with black wing-bars, and likewise of blue and
chequered birds; but it will now be seen that when two birds
belonging to distinct races are crossed, neither of which have, nor
probably have had during many generations, a trace of blue in their
plumage, or a trace of wing-bars and the other characteristic
marks, they very frequently produce mongrel offspring of a blue
colour, sometimes chequered, with black wing-bars, etc.; or if not
of a blue colour, yet with the several characteristic marks more or
less plainly developed. I was led to investigate this subject from
MM. Boitard and Corbié[26] having asserted that from crosses
between certain breeds it is rare to get anything but bisets or
dovecot pigeons, which, as we know, are blue birds with the usual
characteristic marks. We shall hereafter see that this subject
possesses, independently of our present object, considerable
interest, so that I will give the results of my own trials in full.
I selected for experiment races which, when pure, very seldom
produce birds of a blue colour, or have bars on their wings and
tail.
The Nun is white, with the head, tail, and primary wing-feathers black;
it is a breed which was established as long ago as the year 1600. I
crossed a male Nun with a female red common Tumbler, which latter
variety generally breeds true. Thus neither parent had a trace of blue
in the plumage, or of bars on the wing and tail. I should premise that
common Tumblers are rarely blue in England. From the above cross I
reared several young: one was red over the whole back, but with the
tail as blue as that of the rock-pigeon; the terminal bar, however, was
absent, but the outer feathers were edged with white: a second and
third nearly resembled the first, but the tail in both presented a
trace of the bar at the end: a fourth was brownish, and the wings
showed a trace of the double bar: a fifth was pale blue over the whole
breast, back, croup, and tail, but the neck and primary wing-feathers
were reddish; the wings presented two distinct bars of a red colour;
the tail was not barred, but the outer feathers were edged with white.
I crossed this last curiously coloured bird with a black mongrel of
complicated descent, namely, from a black Barb, a Spot, and
Almond-tumbler, so that the two young birds produced from this cross
included the blood of five varieties, none of which had a trace of blue
or of wing and tail-bars: one of the two young birds was
brownish-black, with black wing-bars; the other was reddish-dun, with
reddish wing-bars, paler than the rest of the body, with the croup pale
blue, the tail bluish with a trace of the terminal bar.
Mr. Eaton[27] matched two Short-faced Tumblers, namely, a splash
cock and kite hen (neither of which are blue or barred), and from
the first nest he got a perfect blue bird, and from the second a
silver or pale blue bird, both of which, in accordance with all
analogy, no doubt presented the usual characteristic marks.
I crossed two male black Barbs with two female red Spots. These
latter have the whole body and wings white, with a spot on the
forehead, the tail and tail-coverts red; the race existed at least
as long ago as 1676, and now breeds perfectly true, as was known to
be the case in the year 1735.[28] Barbs are uniformly-coloured
birds, with rarely even a trace of bars on the wing or tail; they
are known to breed very true. The mongrels thus raised were black
or nearly black, or dark or pale brown, sometimes slightly piebald
with white: of these birds no less than six presented double
wing-bars; in two the bars were conspicuous and quite black; in
seven some white feathers appeared on the croup; and in two or
three there was a trace of the terminal bar to the tail, but in
none were the outer tail-feathers edged with white.
I crossed black Barbs (of two excellent strains) with purely-bred,
snow-white Fantails. The mongrels were generally quite black, with a
few of the primary wing and tail feathers white: others were dark
reddish-brown, and others snow-white: none had a trace of wing-bars or
of the white croup. I then paired together two of these mongrels,
namely, a brown and black bird, and their offspring displayed
wing-bars, faint, but of a darker brown than the rest of body. In a
second brood from the same parents a brown bird was produced, with
several white feathers confined to the croup.
I crossed a male dun Dragon belonging to a family which had been
dun- coloured without wing-bars during several generations, with a
uniform red Barb (bred from two black Barbs); and the offspring
presented decided but faint traces of wing-bars. I crossed a
uniform red male Runt with a White trumpeter; and the offspring had
a slaty-blue tail with a bar at the end, and with the outer
feathers edged with white. I also crossed a female black and white
chequered Trumpeter (of a different strain from the last) with a
male Almond-tumbler, neither of which exhibited a trace of blue, or
of the white croup, or of the bar at end of tail: nor is it
probable that the progenitors of these two birds had for many
generations exhibited any of these characters, for I have never
even heard of a blue Trumpeter in this country, and my
Almond-tumbler was purely bred; yet the tail of this mongrel was
bluish, with a broad black bar at the end, and the croup was
perfectly white. It may be observed in several of these cases, that
the tail first shows a tendency to become by reversion blue; and
this fact of the persistency of colour in the tail and
tail-coverts[29] will surprise no one who has attended to the
crossing of pigeons.
The last case which I will give is the most curious. I paired a mongrel
female Barb-fantail with a mongrel male Barb-spot; neither of which
mongrels had the least blue about them. Let it be remembered that blue
Barbs are excessively rare; that Spots, as has been already stated,
were perfectly characterised in the year 1676, and breed perfectly
true; this likewise is the case with white Fantails, so much so that I
have never heard of white Fantails throwing any other colour.
Nevertheless the offspring from the above two mongrels was of exactly
the same blue tint as that of the wild rock-pigeon from the Shetland
Islands over the whole back and wings; the double black wing-bars were
equally conspicuous; the tail was exactly alike in all its characters,
and the croup was pure white; the head, however, was tinted with a
shade of red, evidently derived from the Spot, and was of a paler blue
than in the rock-pigeon, as was the stomach. So that two black Barbs, a
red Spot, and a white Fantail, as the four purely-bred grandparents,
produced a bird exhibiting the general blue colour, together with every
characteristic mark, the wild _Columba livia._
With respect to crossed breeds frequently producing blue birds
chequered with black, and resembling in all respects both the
dovecot-pigeon and the chequered wild variety of the rock-pigeon, the
statement before referred to by MM. Boitard and Corbié would almost
suffice; but I will give three instances of the appearance of such
birds from crosses in which one alone of the parents or
great-grandparents was blue, but not chequered. I crossed a male blue
Turbit with a snow-white Trumpeter, and the following year with a dark,
leaden-brown, Short-faced Tumbler; the offspring from the first cross
were as perfectly chequered as any dovecot-pigeon; and from the second,
so much so as to be nearly as black as the most darkly chequered
rock-pigeon from Madeira. Another bird, whose great-grandparents were a
white Trumpeter, a white Fantail, a white Red-spot, a red Runt, and a
blue Pouter, was slaty-blue and chequered exactly like a
dovecot-pigeon. I may here add a remark made to me by Mr. Wicking, who
has had more experience than any other person in England in breeding
pigeons of various colours: namely, that when a blue, or a blue and
chequered bird, having black wing- bars, once appears in any race and
is allowed to breed, these characters are so strongly transmitted that
it is extremely difficult to eradicate them.
What, then, are we to conclude from this tendency in all the chief
domestic races, both when purely bred and more especially when
intercrossed, to produce offspring of a blue colour, with the same
characteristic marks, varying in the same manner, as in _Columbia
livia_? If we admit that these races are all descended from _C. livia,_
no breeder will doubt that the occasional appearance of blue birds thus
characterised is accounted for on the well-known principle of “throwing
back” or reversion. Why crossing should give so strong a tendency to
reversion, we do not with certainty know; but abundant evidence of this
fact will be given in the following chapters. It is probable that I
might have bred even for a century pure black Barbs, Spots, Nuns, white
Fantails, Trumpeters, etc., without obtaining a single blue or barred
bird; yet by crossing these breeds I reared in the first and second
generation, during the course of only three or four years, a
considerable number of young birds, more or less plainly coloured blue,
and with most of the characteristic marks. When black and white, or
black and red birds, are crossed, it would appear that a slight
tendency exists in both parents to produce blue offspring, and that
this, when combined, overpowers the separate tendency in either parent
to produce black, or white, or red offspring.
If we reject the belief that all the races of the pigeon are the
modified descendants of _C. livia,_ and suppose that they are descended
from several aboriginal stocks, then we must choose between the three
following assumptions: firstly, that at least eight or nine species
formerly existed which were aboriginally coloured in various ways, but
have since varied in exactly the same manner so as to assume the
colouring of _C. livia_; but this assumption throws not the least light
on the appearance of such colours and marks when the races are crossed.
Or secondly, we may assume that the aboriginal species were all
coloured blue, and had the wing-bars and other characteristic marks of
_C. livia,_—a supposition which is highly improbable, as besides this
one species no existing member of the Columbidæ presents these combined
characters; and it would not be possible to find any other instance of
several species identical in plumage, yet as different in important
points of structure as are Pouters, Fantails, Carriers, Tumblers, etc.
Or lastly, we may assume that all the races, whether descended from _C.
livia_ or from several aboriginal species, although they have been bred
with so much care and are so highly valued by fanciers, have all been
crossed within a dozen or score of generations with _C. livia,_ and
have thus acquired their tendency to produce blue birds with the
several characteristic marks. I have said that it must be assumed that
each race has been crossed with _C. livia_ within a dozen, or, at the
utmost, within a score of generations; for there is no reason to
believe that crossed offspring ever revert to one of their ancestors
when removed by a greater number of generations. In a breed which has
been crossed only once, the tendency to reversion will naturally become
less and less in the succeeding generations, as in each there will be
less and less of the blood of the foreign breed; but when there has
been no cross with a distinct breed, and there is a tendency in both
parents to revert to some long-lost character, this tendency, for all
that we can see to the contrary, may be transmitted undiminished for an
indefinite number of generations. These two distinct cases of reversion
are often confounded together by those who have written on inheritance.
Considering, on the one hand, the improbability of the three
assumptions which have just been discussed, and, on the other hand, how
simply the facts are explained on the principle of reversion, we may
conclude that the occasional appearance in all the races, both when
purely bred and more especially when crossed, of blue birds, sometimes
chequered, with double wing-bars, with white or blue croups, with a bar
at the end of the tail, and with the outer tail-feathers edged with
white, affords an argument of the greatest weight in favour of the view
that all are descended from _Columba livia,_ including under this name
the three or four wild varieties or sub-species before enumerated.
To sum up the six foregoing arguments, which are opposed to the belief
that the chief domestic races are the descendants of at least eight or
nine or perhaps a dozen species; for the crossing of any less number
would not yield the characteristic differences between the several
races. _ Firstly,_ the improbability that so many species should still
exist somewhere, but be unknown to ornithologists, or that they should
have become within the historical period extinct, although man has had
so little influence in exterminating the wild _C. livia. Secondly,_ the
improbability of man in former times having thoroughly domesticated and
rendered fertile under confinement so many species. _Thirdly,_ these
supposed species having nowhere become feral. _Fourthly,_ the
extraordinary fact that man should, intentionally or by chance, have
chosen for domestication several species, extremely abnormal in
character; and furthermore, the points of structure which render these
supposed species so abnormal being now highly variable. _Fifthly,_ the
fact of all the races, though differing in many important points of
structure, producing perfectly fertile mongrels; whilst all the hybrids
which have been produced between even closely allied species in the
pigeon-family are sterile. _Sixthly,_ the remarkable statements just
given on the tendency in all the races, both when purely bred and when
crossed, to revert in numerous minute details of colouring to the
character of the wild rock-pigeon, and to vary in a similar manner. To
these arguments may be added the extreme improbability that a number of
species formerly existed, which differed greatly from each other in
some few points, but which resembled each other as closely as do the
domestic races in other points of structure, in voice, and in all their
habits of life. When these several facts and arguments are fairly taken
into consideration, it would require an overwhelming amount of evidence
to make us admit that the chief domestic races are descended from
several aboriginal stocks; and of such evidence there is absolutely
none.
The belief that the chief domestic races are descended from several
wild stocks no doubt has arisen from the apparent improbability of such
great modifications of structure having been effected since man first
domesticated the rock-pigeon. Nor am I surprised at any degree of
hesitation in admitting their common parentage: formerly, when I went
into my aviaries and watched such birds as Pouters, Carriers, Barbs,
Fantails, and Short-faced Tumblers, etc., I could not persuade myself
that all had descended from the same wild stock, and that man had
consequently in one sense created these remarkable modifications.
Therefore I have argued the question of their origin at great, and, as
some will think, superfluous length.
Finally, in favour of the belief that all the races are descended
from a single stock, we have in _Columba livia_ a still existing
and widely distributed species, which can be and has been
domesticated in various countries. This species agrees in most
points of structure and in all its habits of life, as well as
occasionally in every detail of plumage, with the several domestic
races. It breeds freely with them, and produces fertile offspring.
It varies in a state of nature,[30] and still more so when
semi-domesticated, as shown by comparing the Sierra Leone pigeons
with those of India, or with those which apparently have run wild
in Madeira. It has undergone a still greater amount of variation in
the case of the numerous toy-pigeons, which no one supposes to be
descended from distinct species; yet some of these toy-pigeons have
transmitted their character truly for centuries. Why, then, should
we hesitate to believe in that greater amount of variation which is
necessary for the production of the eleven chief races? It should
be borne in mind that in two of the most strongly-marked races,
namely, Carriers and Short-faced Tumblers, the extreme forms can be
connected with the parent-species by graduated differences not
greater than those which may be observed between the
dovecot-pigeons inhabiting different countries, or between the
various kinds of toy-pigeons,—gradations which must certainly be
attributed to variation.
That circumstances have been eminently favourable for the
modification of the pigeon through variation and selection will now
be shown. The earliest record, as has been pointed out to me by
Professor Lepsius, of pigeons in a domesticated condition, occurs
in the fifth Egyptian dynasty, about 3000 B.C.;[31] but Mr. Birch,
of the British Museum, informs me that the pigeon appears in a bill
of fare in the previous dynasty. Domestic pigeons are mentioned in
Genesis, Leviticus, and Isaiah.[32] In the time of the Romans, as
we hear from Pliny,[33] immense prices were given for pigeons;
“nay, they are come to this pass, that they can reckon up their
pedigree and race.” In India, about the year 1600, pigeons were
much valued by Akbar Khan: 20,000 birds were carried about with the
court, and the merchants brought valuable collections. “The monarch
of Iran and Turan sent him some very rare breeds. His Majesty,”
says the courtly historian, “by crossing the breeds, which method
was never practised before, has improved them astonishingly.”[34]
Akber Khan possessed seventeen distinct kinds, eight of which were
valuable for beauty alone. At about this same period of 1600 the
Dutch, according to Aldrovandi, were as eager about pigeons as the
Romans had formerly been. The breeds which were kept during the
fifteenth century in Europe and in India apparently differed from
each other. Tavernier, in his Travels in 1677, speaks, as does
Chardin in 1735, of the vast number of pigeon-houses in Persia; and
the former remarks that, as Christians were not permitted to keep
pigeons, some of the vulgar actually turned Mahometans for this
sole purpose. The Emperor of Morocco had his favourite keeper of
pigeons, as is mentioned in Moore’s treatise, published 1737. In
England, from the time of Willughby in 1678 to the present day, as
well as in Germany and in France, numerous treatises have been
published on the pigeon. In India, about a hundred years ago, a
Persian treatise was written; and the writer thought it no light
affair, for he begins with a solemn invocation, “in the name of
God, the gracious and merciful.” Many large towns, in Europe and
the United States, now have their societies of devoted
pigeon-fanciers: at present there are three such societies in
London. In India, as I hear from Mr. Blyth, the inhabitants of
Delhi and of some other great cities are eager fanciers. Mr. Layard
informs me that most of the known breeds are kept in Ceylon. In
China, according to Mr. Swinhoe of Amoy, and Dr. Lockhart of
Shangai, Carriers, Fantails, Tumblers, and other varieties are
reared with care, especially by the bonzes or priests. The Chinese
fasten a kind of whistle to the tail-feathers of their pigeons, and
as the flock wheels through the air they produce a sweet sound. In
Egypt the late Abbas Pacha was a great fancier of Fantails. Many
pigeons are kept at Cairo and Constantinople, and these have lately
been imported by native merchants, as I hear from Sir W. Elliot,
into Southern India, and sold at high prices.
The foregoing statements show in how many countries, and during how
long a period, many men have been passionately devoted to the
breeding of pigeons. Hear how an enthusiastic fancier at the
present day writes: “If it were possible for noblemen and gentlemen
to know the amazing amount of solace and pleasure derived from
Almond Tumblers, when they begin to understand their properties, I
should think that scarce any nobleman or gentleman would be without
their aviaries of Almond Tumblers.”[35] The pleasure thus taken is
of paramount importance, as it leads amateurs carefully to note and
preserve each slight deviation of structure which strikes their
fancy. Pigeons are often closely confined during their whole lives;
they do not partake of their naturally varied diet; they have often
been transported from one climate to another; and all these changes
in their conditions of life would be likely to cause variability.
Pigeons have been domesticated for nearly 5000 years, and have been
kept in many places, so that the numbers reared under domestication
must have been enormous: and this is another circumstance of high
importance, for it obviously favours the chance of rare
modifications of structure occasionally appearing. Slight
variations of all kinds would almost certainly be observed, and, if
valued, would, owing to the following circumstances, be preserved
and propagated with unusual facility. Pigeons, differently from any
other domesticated animal, can easily be mated for life, and,
though kept with other pigeons, rarely prove unfaithful to each
other. Even when the male does break his marriage-vow, he does not
permanently desert his mate. I have bred in the same aviaries many
pigeons of different kinds, and never reared a single bird of an
impure strain. Hence a fancier can with the greatest ease select
and match his birds. He will also see the good results of his care;
for pigeons breed with extraordinary rapidity. He may freely reject
inferior birds, as they serve at an early age as excellent food.
_History of the principal Races of the Pigeon._[36]
Before discussing the means and steps by which the chief races have
been formed, it will be advisable to give some historical details, for
more is known of the history of the pigeon, little though this is, than
of any other domesticated animal. Some of the cases are interesting as
proving how long domestic varieties may be propagated with exactly the
same or nearly the same characters; and other cases are still more
interesting as showing how slowly but steadily races have been greatly
modified during successive generations. In the last chapter I stated
that Trumpeters and Laughers, both so remarkable for their voices, seem
to have been perfectly characterised in 1735; and Laughers were
apparently known in India before the year 1600. Spots in 1676, and Nuns
in the time of Aldrovandi, before 1600, were coloured exactly as they
now are. Common Tumblers and Ground Tumblers displayed in India, before
the year 1600, the same extraordinary peculiarities of flight as at the
present day, for they are well described in the ‘Ayeen Akbery.’ These
breeds may all have existed for a much longer period; we know only that
they were perfectly characterised at the dates above given. The _
average_ length of life of the domestic pigeon is probably about five
or six years; if so, some of these races have retained their character
perfectly for at least forty or fifty generations.
_Pouters._—These birds, as far as a very short description serves
for comparison, appear to have been well characterised in
Aldrovandi’s time,[37] before the year 1600. Length of body and
length of leg are at the present time the two chief points of
excellence. In 1735 Moore said (see Mr. J. M. Eaton’s edition)—and
Moore was a first-rate fancier—that he once saw a bird with a body
20 inches in length, “though 17 or 18 inches is reckoned a very
good length;” and he has seen the legs very nearly 7 inches in
length, yet a leg 6½ or 6¾ long “must be allowed to be a very good
one.” Mr. Bult, the most successful breeder of Pouters in the
world, informs me that at present (1858) the standard length of the
body is not less than 18 inches; but he has measured one bird 19
inches in length, and has heard of 20 and 22 inches, but doubts the
truth of these latter statements. The standard length of the leg is
now 7 inches, but Mr. Bult has recently measured two of his own
birds with legs 7½ long. So that in the 123 years which have
elapsed since 1735 there has been hardly any increase in the
standard length of the body; 17 or 18 inches was formerly reckoned
a very good length, and now 18 inches is the minimum standard; but
the length of leg seems to have increased, as Moore never saw one
quite 7 inches long; now the standard is 7, and two of Mr. Bult’s
birds measured 7½ inches in length. The extremely slight
improvement in Pouters, except in the length of the leg, during the
last 123 years, may be partly accounted for by the neglect which
they suffered, as I am informed by Mr. Bult, until within the last
20 or 30 years. About 1765[38] there was a change of fashion,
stouter and more feathered legs being preferred to thin and nearly
naked legs.
_Fantails._—The first notice of the existence of this breed is in
India, before the year 1600, as given in the ‘Ayeen Akbery;’[39] at
this date, judging from Aldrovandi, the breed was unknown in
Europe. In 1677 Willughby speaks of a Fantail with 26
tail-feathers; in 1735 Moore saw one with 36 feathers; and in 1824
MM. Boitard and Corbié assert that in France birds can easily be
found with 42 tail-feathers. In England, the number of the
tail-feathers is not at present so much regarded as their upward
direction and expansion. The general carriage of the bird is
likewise now much valued. The old descriptions do not suffice to
show whether in these latter respects there has been much
improvement: but if Fantails with their heads and tails touching
had formerly existed, as at the present time, the fact would almost
certainly have been noticed. The Fantails which are now found in
India probably show the state of the race, as far as carriage is
concerned, at the date of their introduction into Europe; and some,
said to have been brought from Calcutta, which I kept alive, were
in a marked manner inferior to our exhibition birds. The Java
Fantail shows the same difference in carriage; and although Mr.
Swinhoe has counted 18 and 24 tail-feathers in his birds, a
first-rate specimen sent to me had only 14 tail-feathers.
_Jacobins._—This breed existed before 1600, but the hood, judging from
the figure given by Aldrovandi, did not enclose the head nearly so
perfectly as at present: nor was the head then white; nor were the
wings and tail so long, but this last character might have been
overlooked by the rude artist. In Moore’s time, in 1735, the Jacobin
was considered the smallest kind of pigeon, and the bill is said to be
very short. Hence either the Jacobin, or the other kinds with which it
was then compared, must since that time have been considerably
modified; for Moore’s description (and it must be remembered that he
was a first-rate judge) is clearly not applicable, as far as size of
body and length of beak are concerned, to our present Jacobins. In
1795, judging from Bechstein, the breed had assumed its present
character.
_Turbits._—It has generally been supposed by the older writers on
pigeons, that the Turbit is the Cortbeck of Aldrovandi; but if this be
the case, it is an extraordinary fact that the characteristic frill
should not have been noticed. The beak, moreover, of the Cortbeck is
described as closely resembling that of the Jacobin, which shows a
change in the one or the other race. The Turbit, with its
characteristic frill, and bearing its present name, is described by
Willughby in 1677; and the bill is said to be like that of the
bullfinch,—a good comparison, but now more strictly applicable to the
beak of the Barb. The sub-breed called the Owl was well known in
Moore’s time, in 1735.
_Tumblers._—Common Tumblers, as well as Ground Tumblers, perfect as
far as tumbling is concerned, existed in India before the year
1600; and at this period diversified modes of flight, such as
flying at night, the ascent to a great height, and manner of
descent, seem to have been much attended to in India, as at the
present time. Belon[40] in 1555 saw in Paphlagonia what he
describes as “a very new thing, viz. pigeons which flew so high in
the air that they were lost to view, but returned to their
pigeon-house without separating.” This manner of flight is
characteristic of our present Tumblers, but it is clear that Belon
would have mentioned the act of tumbling if the pigeons described
by him had tumbled. Tumblers were not known in Europe in 1600, as
they are not mentioned by Aldrovandi, who discusses the flight of
pigeons. They are briefly alluded to by Willughby, in 1687, as
small pigeons “which show like footballs in the air.” The
short-faced race did not exist at this period, as Willughby could
not have overlooked birds so remarkable for their small size and
short beaks. We can even trace some of the steps by which this race
has been produced. Moore in 1735 enumerates correctly the chief
points of excellence, but does not give any description of the
several sub-breeds; and from this fact Mr. Eaton infers[41] that
the Short-faced Tumbler had not then come to full perfection. Moore
even speaks of the Jacobin as being the smallest pigeon. Thirty
years afterwards, in 1765, in the Treatise dedicated to Mayor,
short-faced Almond Tumblers are fully described, but the author, an
excellent fancier, expressly states in his Preface (p. xiv.) that,
“from great care and expense in breeding them, they have arrived to
so great perfection and are so different from what they were 20 or
30 years past, that an old fancier would have condemned them for no
other reason than because they are not like what used to be thought
good when he was in the fancy before.” Hence it would appear that
there was a rather sudden change in the character of the
short-faced Tumbler at about this period; and there is reason to
suspect that a dwarfed and half-monstrous bird, the parent-form of
the several short-faced sub-breeds, then appeared. I suspect this
because short-faced Tumblers are born with their beaks (ascertained
by careful measurement) as short, proportionally with the size of
their bodies, as in the adult bird; and in this respect they differ
greatly from all other breeds, which slowly acquire during growth
their various characteristic qualities.
Since the year 1765 there has been some change in one of the chief
characters of the short-faced Tumbler, namely, in the length of the
beak. Fanciers measure the “head and beak” from the tip of the beak
to the front corner of the eyeball. About the year 1765 a “head and
beak” was considered good,[42] which, measured in the usual manner,
was 7/8 of an inch in length; now it ought not to exceed 5/8 of an
inch; “it is however possible,” as Mr. Eaton candidly
confesses,“for a bird to be considered as pleasant or neat even at
6/8 of an inch, but exceeding that length it must be looked upon as
unworthy of attention.” Mr. Eaton states that he has never seen in
the course of his life more than two or three birds with the “head
and beak” not exceeding half an inch in length; “still I believe in
the course of a few years that the head and beak will be shortened,
and that half-inch birds will not be considered so great a
curiosity as at the present time.” That Mr. Eaton’s opinion
deserves attention cannot be doubted, considering his success in
winning prizes at our exhibitions. Finally in regard to the Tumbler
it may be concluded from the facts above given that it was
originally introduced into Europe, probably first into England,
from the East; and that it then resembled our common English
Tumbler, or more probably the Persian or Indian Tumbler, with a
beak only just perceptibly shorter than that of the common
dovecot-pigeon. With respect to the short-faced Tumbler, which is
not known to exist in the East, there can hardly be a doubt that
the whole wonderful change in the size of the head, beak, body and
feet, and in general carriage, has been produced during the last
two centuries by continued selection, aided probably by the birth
of a semi- monstrous bird somewhere about the year 1750.
_Runts._—Of their history little can be said. In the time of Pliny the
pigeons of Campania were the largest known; and from this fact alone
some authors assert that they were Runts. In Aldrovandi’s time, in
1600, two sub-breeds existed; but one of them, the short-beaked, is now
extinct in Europe.
_Barbs._—Notwithstanding statements to the contrary, it seems to me
impossible to recognise the Barb in Aldrovandi’s description and
figures; four breeds, however, existed in the year 1600 which evidently
were allied both to Barbs and Carriers. To show how difficult it is to
recognise some of the breeds described by Aldrovandi I will give the
different opinions in regard to the above four kinds, named by him _C.
indica, cretensis, gutturosa,_ and _persica._ Willughby thought that
the _Columba indica_ was a Turbit, but the eminent fancier Mr. Brent
believes that it was an inferior Barb: _C. cretensis,_ with a short
beak and a swelling on the upper mandible, cannot be recognised: _C._
(falsely called) _gutturosa,_ which from its _rostrum, breve, crassum,
et tuberosum_ seems to me to come nearest to the Barb, Mr. Brent
believes to be a Carrier; and lastly, the _C. persica et turcica,_ Mr.
Brent thinks, and I quite concur with him, was a short-beaked Carrier
with very little wattle. In 1687 the Barb was known in England, and
Willughby describes the beak as like that of the Turbit; but it is not
credible that his Barbs should have had a beak like that of our present
birds, for so accurate an observer could not have overlooked its great
breadth.
_English Carrier._—We may look in vain in Aldrovandi’s work for any
bird resembling our prize Carriers; the _C. persica et turcica_ of
this author comes the nearest, but is said to have had a short
thick beak; therefore it must have approached in character a Barb,
and have differed greatly from our Carriers. In Willughby’s time,
in 1677, we can clearly recognise the Carrier, yet he adds, “the
bill is not short, but of a moderate length;” a description which
no one would apply to our present Carriers, so conspicuous for the
extraordinary length of their beaks. The old names given in Europe
to the Carrier, and the several names now in use in India, indicate
that Carriers originally came from Persia; and Willughby’s
description would perfectly apply to the Bussorah Carrier as it now
exists in Madras. In later times we can partially trace the
progress of change in our English Carriers: Moore, in 1735, says
“an inch and a half is reckoned a long beak, though there are very
good Carriers that are found not to exceed an inch and a quarter.”
These birds must have resembled or perhaps been a little superior
to the Carriers, previously described, now found in Persia. In
England at the present day “there are,” as Mr. Eaton[43] states,
“beaks that would measure (from edge of eye to tip of beak) one
inch and three-quarters, and some few even two inches in length.”
From these historical details we see that nearly all the chief domestic
races existed before the year 1600. Some remarkable only for colour
appear to have been identical with our present breeds, some were nearly
the same, some considerably different, and some have since become
extinct. Several breeds, such as Finnikins and Turners, the
swallow-tailed pigeon of Bechstein and the Carmelite, seem to have
originated and to have disappeared within this same period. Any one now
visiting a well-stocked English aviary would certainly pick out as the
most distinct kinds, the massive Runt, the Carrier with its wonderfully
elongated beak and great wattles, the Barb with its short broad beak
and eye-wattles, the short-faced Tumbler with its small conical beak,
the Pouter with its great crop, long legs and body, the Fantail with
its upraised, widely-expanded, well-feathered tail, the Turbit with its
frill and short blunt beak, and the Jacobin with his hood. Now, if this
same person could have viewed the pigeons kept before 1600 by Akber
Khan in India and by Aldrovandi in Europe, he would have seen the
Jacobin with a less perfect hood; the Turbit apparently without its
frill; the Pouter with shorter legs, and in every way less
remarkable—that is, if Aldrovandi’s Pouter resembled the old German
kind; the Fantail would have been far less singular in appearance, and
would have had much fewer feathers in its tail; he would have seen
excellent flying Tumblers, but he would in vain have looked for the
marvellous short-faced breeds; he would have seen birds allied to
Barbs, but it is extremely doubtful whether he would have met with our
actual Barbs; and lastly, he would have found Carriers with beaks and
wattle incomparably less developed than in our English Carriers. He
might have classed most of the breeds in the same groups as at present;
but the differences between the groups were then far less strongly
pronounced than at present. In short, the several breeds had at this
early period not diverged in so great a degree as now from their
aboriginal common parent, the wild rock-pigeon.
_Manner of Formation of the chief Races._
We will now consider more closely the probable steps by which the chief
races have been formed. As long as pigeons are kept semi-domesticated
in dovecots in their native country, without any care in selecting and
matching them, they are liable to little more variation than the wild
_C. livia,_ namely, in the wings becoming chequered with black, in the
croup being blue or white, and in the size of the body. When, however,
dovecot-pigeons are transported into diversified countries, such as
Sierra Leone, the Malay archipelago, and Madeira, they are exposed to
new conditions of life; and apparently in consequence vary in a
somewhat greater degree. When closely confined, either for the pleasure
of watching them, or to prevent their straying, they must be exposed,
even in their native climate, to considerably different conditions; for
they cannot obtain their natural diversity of food; and, what is
probably more important, they are abundantly fed, whilst debarred from
taking much exercise. Under these circumstances we might expect to
find, from the analogy of all other domesticated animals, a greater
amount of individual variability than with the wild pigeon; and this is
the case. The want of exercise apparently tends to reduce the size of
the feet and organs of flight; and then, from the law of correlation of
growth, the beak apparently becomes affected. From what we now see
occasionally taking place in our aviaries, we may conclude that sudden
variations or sports, such as the appearance of a crest of feathers on
the head, of feathered feet, of a new shade of colour, of an additional
feather in the tail or wing, would occur at rare intervals during the
many centuries which have elapsed since the pigeon was first
domesticated. At the present day such “sports” are generally rejected
as blemishes; and there is so much mystery in the breeding of pigeons
that, if a valuable sport did occur, its history would often be
concealed. Before the last hundred and fifty years, there is hardly a
chance of the history of any such sport having been recorded. But it by
no means follows from this that such sports in former times, when the
pigeon had undergone much less variation, would have been rejected. We
are profoundly ignorant of the cause of each sudden and apparently
spontaneous variation, as well as of the infinitely numerous shades of
difference between the birds of the same family. But in a future
chapter we shall see that all such variations appear to be the indirect
result of changes of some kind in the conditions of life.
Hence, after a long course of domestication, we might expect to see in
the pigeon much individual variability, and occasional sudden
variations, as well as slight modifications from the lessened use of
certain parts, together with the effects of correlation of growth. But
without selection all this would produce only a trifling or no result;
for without such aid differences of all kinds would, from the two
following causes, soon disappear. In a healthy and vigorous lot of
pigeons many more young birds are killed for food or die than are
reared to maturity; so that an individual having any peculiar
character, if not selected, would run a good chance of being destroyed;
and if not destroyed, the peculiarity in question would generally be
obliterated by free intercrossing. It might, however, occasionally
happen that the same variation repeatedly occurred, owing to the action
of peculiar and uniform conditions of life, and in this case it would
prevail independently of selection. But when selection is brought into
play all is changed; for this is the foundation-stone in the formation
of new races; and with the pigeon, circumstances, as we have already
seen, are eminently favourable for selection. When a bird presenting
some conspicuous variation has been preserved, and its offspring have
been selected, carefully matched, and again propagated, and so onwards
during successive generations, the principle is so obvious that nothing
more need be said about it. This may be called _methodical selection,_
for the breeder has a distinct object in view, namely, to preserve some
character which has actually appeared; or to create some improvement
already pictured in his mind.
Another form of selection has hardly been noticed by those authors who
have discussed this subject, but is even more important. This form may
be called _unconscious selection,_ for the breeder selects his birds
unconsciously, unintentionally, and without method, yet he surely
though slowly produces a great result. I refer to the effects which
follow from each fancier at first procuring and afterwards rearing as
good birds as he can, according to his skill, and according to the
standard of excellence at each successive period. He does not wish
permanently to modify the breed; he does not look to the distant
future, or speculate on the final result of the slow accumulation
during many generations of successive slight changes; he is content if
he possesses a good stock, and more than content if he can beat his
rivals. The fancier in the time of Aldrovandi, when in the year 1600 he
admired his own Jacobins, Pouters, or Carriers, never reflected what
their descendants in the year 1860 would become: he would have been
astonished could he have seen our Jacobins, our improved English
Carriers, and our Pouters; he would probably have denied that they were
the descendants of his own once-admired stock, and he would perhaps not
have valued them, for no other reason, as was written in 1765, “than
because they were not like what used to be thought good when he was in
the fancy.” No one will attribute the lengthened beak of the Carrier,
the shortened beak of the Short-faced Tumbler, the lengthened leg of
the Pouter, the more perfectly enclosed hood of the Jacobin,
etc.—changes effected since the time of Aldrovandi, or even since a
much later period,—to the direct and immediate action of the conditions
of life. For these several races have been modified in various and even
in directly opposite ways, though kept under the same climate and
treated in all respects in as nearly uniform a manner as possible. Each
slight change in the length or shortness of the beak, in the length of
leg, etc., has no doubt been indirectly and remotely caused by some
change in the conditions to which the bird has been subjected, but we
must attribute the final result, as is manifest in those cases of which
we have any historical record, to the continued selection and
accumulation of many slight successive variations.
The action of unconscious selection, as far as pigeons are
concerned, depends on a universal principle in human nature,
namely, on our rivalry, and desire to outdo our neighbours. We see
this in every fleeting fashion, even in our dress, and it leads the
fancier to endeavour to exaggerate every peculiarity in his breeds.
A great authority on pigeons,[44] says, “Fanciers do not and will
not admire a medium standard, that is, half and half, which is
neither here nor there, but admire extremes.” After remarking that
the fancier of Short-faced Beard Tumblers wishes for a very short
beak, and that the fancier of Long-faced Beard Tumblers wishes for
a very long beak, he says, with respect to one of intermediate
length, “Don’t deceive yourself. Do you suppose for a moment the
short or the long-faced fancier would accept such a bird as a gift?
Certainly not; the short-faced fancier could see no beauty in it;
the long-faced fancier would swear there was no use in it, etc.” In
these comical passages, written seriously, we see the principle
which has ever guided fanciers, and has led to such great
modifications in all the domestic races which are valued solely for
their beauty or curiosity.
Fashions in pigeon-breeding endure for long periods; we cannot change
the structure of a bird as quickly as we can the fashion of our dress.
In the time of Aldrovandi, no doubt the more the pouter inflated his
crop, the more he was valued. Nevertheless, fashions do to a certain
extent change; first one point of structure and then another is
attended to; or different breeds are admired at different times and in
different countries. As the author just quoted remarks, “the fancy ebbs
and flows; a thorough fancier now-a-days never stoops to breed
toy-birds;” yet these very “toys” are now most carefully bred in
Germany. Breeds which at the present time are highly valued in India
are considered worthless in England. No doubt, when breeds are
neglected, they degenerate; still we may believe that, as long as they
are kept under the same conditions of life, characters once gained will
be partially retained for a long time, and may form the starting-point
for a future course of selection.
Let it not be objected to this view of the action of unconscious
selection that fanciers would not observe or care for extremely slight
differences. Those alone who have associated with fanciers can be
thoroughly aware of their accurate powers of discrimination acquired by
long practice, and of the care and labour which they bestow on their
birds. I have known a fancier deliberately study his birds day after
day to settle which to match together and which to reject. Observe how
difficult the subject appears to one of the most eminent and
experienced fanciers. Mr. Eaton, the winner of many prizes, says, “I
would here particularly guard you against keeping too great a variety
of pigeons, otherwise you will know a little about all the kinds, but
nothing about one as it ought to be known.” “It is possible there may
be a few fanciers that have a good general knowledge of the several
fancy pigeons, but there are many who labour under the delusion of
supposing they know what they do not.” Speaking exclusively of one sub-
variety of one race, namely, the short-faced almond tumbler, and after
saying that some fanciers sacrifice every property to obtain a good
head and beak, and that other fanciers sacrifice everything for
plumage, he remarks: “Some young fanciers who are over covetous go in
for all the five properties at once, and they have their reward by
getting nothing.” In India, as I hear from Mr. Blyth, pigeons are
likewise selected and matched with the greatest care. We must not judge
of the slight divergences from existing varieties which would have been
valued in ancient days, by those which are now valued after the
formation of so many races, each with its own standard of perfection,
kept uniform by our numerous Exhibitions. The ambition of the most
energetic fancier may be fully satisfied by the difficulty of excelling
other fanciers in the breeds already established, without trying to
form a new one.
A difficulty with respect to the power of selection will perhaps
already have occurred to the reader, namely, what could have led
fanciers first to attempt to make such singular breeds as Pouters,
Fantails, Carriers, etc.? But it is this very difficulty which the
principle of unconscious selection removes. Undoubtedly no fancier
ever did intentionally make such an attempt. All that we need
suppose is that a variation occurred sufficiently marked to catch
the discriminating eye of some ancient fancier, and then
unconscious selection carried on for many generations, that is, the
wish of succeeding fanciers to excel their rivals, would do the
rest. In the case of the Fantail we may suppose that the first
progenitor of the breed had a tail only slightly erected, as may
now be seen in certain Runts,[45] with some increase in the number
of the tail-feathers, as now occasionally occurs with Nuns. In the
case of the Pouter we may suppose that some bird inflated its crop
a little more than other pigeons, as is now the case in a slight
degree with the œesophagus of the Turbit. We do not know the origin
of the common Tumbler, but we may suppose that a bird was born with
some affection of the brain, leading it to make somersaults in the
air;[46] and before the year 1600 pigeons remarkable for their
diversified manner of flight were much valued in India, and by the
order of the Emperor Akber Khan were sedulously trained and
carefully matched.
In the foregoing cases we have supposed that a sudden variation,
conspicuous enough to catch a fancier’s eye, first appeared; but even
this degree of abruptness in the process of variation is not necessary
for the formation of a new breed. When the same kind of pigeon has been
kept pure, and has been bred during a long period by two or more
fanciers, slight differences in the strain can often be recognised.
Thus I have seen first- rate Jacobins in one man’s possession which
certainly differed slightly in several characters from those kept by
another. I possessed some excellent Barbs descended from a pair which
had won a prize, and another lot descended from a stock formerly kept
by that famous fancier Sir John Sebright, and these plainly differed in
the form of the beak; but the differences were so slight that they
could hardly be given by words. Again, the common English and Dutch
Tumbler differ in a somewhat greater degree, both in length of beak and
shape of head. What first caused these slight differences cannot be
explained any more than why one man has a long nose and another a short
one. In the strains long kept distinct by different fanciers, such
differences are so common that they cannot be accounted for by the
accident of the birds first chosen for breeding having been originally
as different as they now are. The explanation no doubt lies in
selection of a slightly different nature having been applied in each
case; for no two fanciers have exactly the same taste, and consequently
no two, in choosing and carefully matching their birds, prefer or
select exactly the same. As each man naturally admires his own birds,
he goes on continually exaggerating by selection whatever slight
peculiarities they may possess. This will more especially happen with
fanciers living in different countries, who do not compare their stocks
or aim at a common standard of perfection. Thus, when a mere strain has
once been formed, unconscious selection steadily tends to augment the
amount of difference, and thus converts the strain into a sub-breed and
this ultimately into a well-marked breed or race.
The principle of correlation of growth should never be lost sight of.
Most pigeons have small feet, apparently caused by their lessened use,
and from correlation, as it would appear, their beaks have likewise
become reduced in length. The beak is a conspicuous organ, and, as soon
as it had thus become perceptibly shortened, fanciers would almost
certainly strive to reduce it still more by the continued selection of
birds with the shortest beaks; whilst at the same time other fanciers,
as we know has actually been the case, would in other sub-breeds,
strive to increase its length. With the increased length of the beak,
the tongue becomes greatly lengthened, as do the eyelids with the
increased development of the eye-wattles; with the reduced or increased
size of the feet, the number of the scutellæ vary; with the length of
the wing, the number of the primary wing-feathers differ; and with the
increased length of the body in the pouter the number of the sacral
vertebræ is augmented. These important and correlated differences of
structure do not invariably characterise any breed; but if they had
been attended to and selected with as much care as the more conspicuous
external differences, there can hardly be a doubt that they would have
been rendered constant. Fanciers could assuredly have made a race of
Tumblers with nine instead of ten primary wing-feathers, seeing how
often the number nine appears without any wish on their part, and
indeed in the case of the white-winged varieties in opposition to their
wish. In a similar manner, if the vertebræ had been visible and had
been attended to by fanciers, assuredly an additional number might
easily have been fixed in the Pouter. If these latter characters had
once been rendered constant, we should never have suspected that they
had at first been highly variable, or that they had arisen from
correlation, in the one case with the shortness of the wings, and in
the other case with the length of the body.
In order to understand how the chief domestic races have become
distinctly separated from each other, it is important to bear in mind,
that fanciers constantly try to breed from the best birds, and
consequently that those which are inferior in the requisite qualities
are in each generation neglected; so that after a time the less
improved parent-stocks and many subsequently formed intermediate grades
become extinct. This has occurred in the case of the Pouter, Turbit,
and Trumpeter, for these highly improved breeds are now left without
any links closely connecting them either with each other or with the
aboriginal rock-pigeon. In other countries, indeed, where the same care
has not been applied, or where the same fashion has not prevailed, the
earlier forms may long remain unaltered, or altered only in a slight
degree, and we are thus sometimes enabled to recover the connecting
links. This is the case in Persia and India with the Tumbler and
Carrier, which there differ but slightly from the rock-pigeon in the
proportions of their beaks. So again in Java, the Fantail sometimes has
only fourteen caudal feathers, and the tail is much less elevated and
expanded than in our improved birds; so that the Java bird forms a link
between a first-rate Fantail and the rock-pigeon.
Occasionally a breed may be retained for some particular quality in a
nearly unaltered condition in the same country, together with highly
modified off-shoots or sub-breeds, which are valued for some distinct
property. We see this exemplified in England, where the common Tumbler,
which is valued only for its flight, does not differ much from its
parent-form, the Eastern Tumbler; whereas the Short-faced Tumbler has
been prodigiously modified, from being valued, not for its flight, but
for other qualities. But the common-flying Tumbler of Europe has
already begun to branch out into slightly different sub-breeds, such as
the common English Tumbler, the Dutch Roller, the Glasgow
House-tumbler, and the Long-faced Beard Tumbler, etc.; and in the
course of centuries, unless fashions greatly change, these sub-breeds
will diverge through the slow and insensible process of unconscious
selection, and become modified, in a greater and greater degree. After
a time the perfectly graduated links which now connect all these
sub-breeds together, will be lost, for there would be no object and
much difficulty in retaining such a host of intermediate sub-varieties.
The principle of divergence, together with the extinction of the many
previously existing intermediate forms, is so important for
understanding the origin of domestic races, as well as of species in a
state of nature, that I will enlarge a little more on this subject. Our
third main group includes Carriers, Barbs, and Runts, which are plainly
related to one another, yet wonderfully distinct in several important
characters. According to the view given in the last chapter, these
three races have probably descended from an unknown race having an
intermediate character, and this race from the rock-pigeon. Their
characteristic differences are believed to be due to different breeders
having at an early period admired different points of structure; and
then, on the acknowledged principle of admiring extremes, having gone
on breeding, without any thought of the future, as good birds as they
could,—Carrier-fanciers preferring long beaks with much
wattle,—Barb-fanciers preferring short thick beaks with much
eye-wattle,—and Runt-fanciers not caring about the beak or wattle, but
only for the size and weight of the body. This process would have led
to the neglect and final extinction of the earlier, inferior, and
intermediate birds; and thus it has come to pass, that in Europe these
three races are now so extraordinarily distinct from each other. But in
the East, whence they were originally brought, the fashion has been
different, and we there see breeds which connect the highly modified
English Carrier with the rock-pigeon, and others which to a certain
extent connect Carriers and Runts. Looking back to the time of
Aldrovandi, we find that there existed in Europe, before the year 1600,
four breeds which were closely allied to Carriers and Barbs, but which
competent authorities cannot now identify with our present Barbs and
Carriers; nor can Aldrovandi’s Runts be identified with our present
Runts. These four breeds certainly did not differ from each other
nearly so much as do our existing English Carriers, Barbs, and Runts.
All this is exactly what might have been anticipated. If we could
collect all the pigeons which have ever lived, from before the time of
the Romans to the present day, we should be able to group them in
several lines, diverging from the parent rock-pigeon. Each line would
consist of almost insensible steps, occasionally broken by some
slightly greater variation or sport, and each would culminate in one of
our present highly modified forms. Of the many former connecting links,
some would be found to have become absolutely extinct without having
left any issue, whilst others, though extinct, would be recognised as
the progenitors of the existing races.
I have heard it remarked as a strange circumstance that we occasionally
hear of the local or complete extinction of domestic races, whilst we
hear nothing of their origin. How, it has been asked, can these losses
be compensated, and more than compensated, for we know that with almost
all domesticated animals the races have largely increased in number
since the time of the Romans? But on the view here given, we can
understand this apparent contradiction. The extinction of a race within
historical times is an event likely to be noticed; but its gradual and
scarcely sensible modification through unconscious selection, and its
subsequent divergence, either in the same or more commonly in distant
countries, into two or more strains, and their gradual conversion into
sub-breeds, and these into well- marked breeds are events which would
rarely be noticed. The death of a tree, that has attained gigantic
dimensions, is recorded; the slow growth of smaller trees and their
increase in number excite no attention.
In accordance with the belief in the great power of selection, and of
the little direct power of changed conditions of life, except in
causing general variability or plasticity of organisation, it is not
surprising that dovecot-pigeons have remained unaltered from time
immemorial; and that some toy-pigeons, which differ in little else
besides colour from the dovecot-pigeon, have retained the same
character for several centuries. For when one of these toy-pigeons had
once become beautifully and symmetrically coloured,—when, for instance,
a Spot had been produced with the crown of its head, its tail, and
tail-coverts of a uniform colour, the rest of the body being
snow-white,—no alteration or improvement would be desired. On the other
hand, it is not surprising that during this same interval of time our
highly-bred pigeons have undergone an astonishing amount of change; for
in regard to them there is no defined limit to the wish of the fancier,
and there is no known limit to the variability of their characters.
What is there to stop the fancier desiring to give to his Carrier a
longer and longer beak, or to his Tumbler a shorter and shorter beak?
nor has the extreme limit of variability in the beak, if there be any
such limit, as yet been reached. Notwithstanding the great improvement
effected within recent times in the Short-faced Almond Tumbler, Mr.
Eaton remarks, “the field is still as open for fresh competitors as it
was one hundred years ago;” but this is perhaps an exaggerated
assertion, for the young of all highly-improved fancy birds are
extremely liable to disease and death.
I have heard it objected that the formation of the several domestic
races of the pigeon throws no light on the origin of the wild species
of the Columbidæ, because their differences are not of the same nature.
The domestic races, for instance do not differ, or differ hardly at
all, in the relative lengths and shape of the primary wing-feathers, in
the relative length of the hind toe, or in habits of life, as in
roosting and building in trees. But the above objection shows how
completely the principle of selection has been misunderstood. It is not
likely that characters selected by the caprice of man should resemble
differences preserved under natural conditions either from being of
direct service to each species, or from standing in correlation with
other modified and serviceable structures. Until man selects birds
differing in the relative length of the wing-feathers or toes, etc., no
sensible change in these parts should be expected. Nor could man do
anything unless these parts happened to vary under domestication: I do
not positively assert that this is the case, although I have seen
traces of such variability in the wing-feathers, and certainly in the
tail-feathers. It would be a strange fact if the relative length of the
hind toe should never vary, seeing how variable the foot is both in
size and in the number of the scutellæ. With respect to the domestic
races not roosting or building in trees, it is obvious that fanciers
would never attend to or select such changes in habits; but we have
seen that the pigeons in Egypt, which do not for some reason like
settling on the low mud hovels of the natives, are led, apparently by
compulsion, to perch in crowds on the trees. We may even affirm that,
if our domestic races had become greatly modified in any of the above
specified respects, and it could be shown that fanciers had never
attended to such points, or that they did not stand in correlation with
other selected characters, the fact, on the principles advocated in
this chapter, would have offered a serious difficulty.
Let us briefly sum up the last two chapters on the pigeon. We may
conclude with confidence that all the domestic races, notwithstanding
their great amount of difference, are descended from the _Columba
livia,_ including under this name certain wild races. But the
differences between the latter throw no light whatever on the
characters which distinguish the domestic races. In each breed or
sub-breed the individual birds are more variable than birds in a state
of nature; and occasionally they vary in a sudden and strongly-marked
manner. This plasticity of organisation apparently results from changed
conditions of life. Disuse has reduced certain parts of the body.
Correlation of growth so ties the organisation together, that when one
part varies other parts vary at the same time. When several breeds have
once been formed, their intercrossing aids the progress of
modification, and has even produced new sub-breeds. But as, in the
construction of a building, mere stones or bricks are of little avail
without the builder’s art, so, in the production of new races,
selection has been the presiding power. Fanciers can act by selection
on excessively slight individual differences, as well as on those
greater differences which are called sports. Selection is followed
methodically when the fancier tries to improve and modify a breed
according to a prefixed standard of excellence; or he acts
unmethodically and unconsciously, by merely trying to rear as good
birds as he can, without any wish or intention to alter the breed. The
progress of selection almost inevitably leads to the neglect and
ultimate extinction of the earlier and less improved forms, as well as
of many intermediate links in each long line of descent. Thus it has
come to pass that most of our present races are so marvellously
distinct from each other, and from the aboriginal rock-pigeon.
REFERENCES
[1] Temminck ‘Hist. Nat. Gén. des Pigeons,’ etc., tom. i. p. 191.
[2] I have heard through Sir C. Lyell from Miss Buckley, that some
half-bred Carriers kept during many years near London regularly
settled by day on some adjoining trees, and, after being disturbed in
their loft by their young being taken, roosted on them at night.
[3] ‘Annals and Mag. of Nat. Hist.,’ 2nd ser., vol. xx., 1857, p. 509;
and in a late volume of the Journal of the Asiatic Society.
[4] In works written on the pigeon by fanciers I have sometimes
observed the mistaken belief expressed that the species which
naturalists called ground-pigeons (in contradistinction to arboreal
pigeons) do not perch and build on trees. In these same works by
fanciers wild species resembling the chief domestic races are often
said to exist in various parts of the world; but such species are
quite unknown to naturalists.
[5] Sir R. Schomburgk in ‘Journal R. Geograph. Soc.,’ vol. xiii.,
1844, p. 32.
[6] Rev. E. S. Dixon ‘Ornamental Poultry,’ 1848, pp. 63, 66.
[7] ‘Proc. Zoolog. Soc.,’ 1859, p. 400.
[8] Temminck, ‘Hist. Nat. Gén. des Pigeons,’ tom. i.; also ‘Les
Pigeons’ par Mme. Knip and Temminck. Bonaparte, however, in his ‘Coup-
d’œil’ believes that two closely allied species are confounded
together under this name. The _C. leucocephala_ of the West Indies is
stated by Temminck to be a rock-pigeon; but I am informed by Mr. Gosse
that this is an error.
[9] ‘Handbuch der Naturgesch. Vögel Deutschlands.’
[10] ‘Tagebuch, Reise nach Färo,’ 1830, s. 62.
[11] ‘Annals and Mag. of Nat. Hist.,’ vol. xix., 1847, p. 102. This
excellent paper on pigeons is well worth consulting.
[12] ‘Natural History of Ireland,’ Birds, vol. ii. (1850), p. 11. For
Graba _see_ previous reference.
[13] ‘Coup-d’œil sur l’Ordre des Pigeons,’ ‘Comptes Rendus,’ 1854-55.
[14] ‘Naturgeschichte. Deutschlands,’ Band. iv. 1795, s. 14.
[15] ‘History of British Birds,’ vol. i. pp. 275-284. Mr. Andrew
Duncan tamed a rock-pigeon in the Shetland Islands. Mr. James Barclay,
and Mr. Smith of Uyea Sound, both say that the wild rock-pigeon can be
easily tamed; and the former gentleman asserts that the tamed birds
breed four times a year. Dr. Lawrence Edmondstone informs me that a
wild rock-pigeon came and settled in his dovecot in Balta Sound in the
Shetland Islands, and bred with his pigeons; he has also given me
other instances of the wild rock-pigeon having been taken young and
breeding in captivity.
[16] ‘Annals and Mag. of Nat. History,’ vol. xix. 1847, p. 103, and
vol. for 1857, p. 512.
[17] Domestic pigeons of the common kind are mentioned as being pretty
numerous in John Barbut’s ‘Description of the Coast of Guinea’ (p.
215), published in 1746; they are said, in accordance with the name
which they bear, to have been imported.
[18] With respect to feral pigeons—for Juan Fernandez, _ see_ Bertero
in ‘Annal. des Sc. Nat.,’ tom. xxi. p. 351. For Norfolk Islands, _see_
Rev. E. S. Dixon in the ‘Dovecote,’ 1851, p. 14, on the authority of
Mr. Gould. For Ascension I rely on MS. information given me by Mr.
Layard. For the banks of the Hudson, _see_ Blyth in ‘Annals of Nat.
Hist.,’ vol. xx., 1857, p. 511. For Scotland, _see_ Macgillivray,
‘British Birds,’ vol. i. p. 275; also Thompson’s ‘Nat. Hist. of
Ireland, Birds,’ vol. ii. p. 11. For ducks, _see_ Rev. E. S. Dixon,
‘Ornamental Poultry,’ 1847, p. 122. For the feral hybrids of the
common and musk-ducks, _see_ Audubon’s ‘American Ornithology,’ and
Selys-Longchamp’s ‘Hybrides dans la Famille des Anatides.’ For the
goose, Isidore Geoffroy St.-Hilaire, ‘Hist. Nat. Gén.,’ tom. iii. p.
498. For guinea-fowls, _see_ Gosse’s ‘Naturalist’s Sojourn in
Jamaica,’ p. 124; and his ‘Birds of Jamaica,’ for fuller particulars.
I saw the wild guinea-fowl in Ascension. For the peacock, _see_ ‘A
Week at Port Royal,’ by a competent authority, Mr. R. Hill, p. 42. For
the turkey I rely on oral information; I ascertained that they were
not Curassows. With respect to fowls I will give the references in the
next chapter.
[19] I have drawn out a long table of the various crosses made by
fanciers between the several domestic breeds but I do not think it
worth while publishing. I have myself made for this special purpose
many crosses, and all were perfectly fertile. I have united in one
bird five of the most distinct races, and with patience I might
undoubtedly have thus united all. The case of five distinct breeds
being blended together with unimpaired fertility is important, because
Gärtner has shown that it is a very general, though not, as he
thought, universal rule, that complex crosses between several species
are excessively sterile. I have met with only two or three cases of
reported sterility in the offspring of certain races when crossed.
Pistor (‘Das Ganze der Feldtaubenzucht,’ 1831, s. 15) asserts that the
mongrels from Barbs and Fantails are sterile: I have proved this to be
erroneous, not only by crossing those hybrids with several other
hybrids of the same parentage, but by the more severe test of pairing
brother and sister hybrids _inter se,_ and they were _perfectly_
fertile. Temminck has stated (‘Hist. Nat. Gén. des Pigeons,’ tom. i.
p. 197) that the Turbit or Owl will not cross readily with other
breeds: but my Turbits crossed, when left free with Almond Tumblers
and with Trumpeters; the same thing has occurred (Rev. E. S. Dixon,
‘The Dovecote,’ p. 107) between Turbits and Dovecots and Nuns. I have
crossed Turbits with Barbs, as has M. Boitard (p. 34), who says the
hybrids were very fertile. Hybrids from a Turbit and Fantail have been
known to breed _inter se_ (Riedel, ‘Taubenzucht,’ s. 25, and
Bechstein, ‘Naturgesch. Deutsch.,’ B. iv. s. 44. Turbits (Riedel, s.
26) have been crossed with Pouters and with Jacobins, and with a
hybrid Jacobin-trumpeter (Riedel, s. 27). The latter author has,
however, made some vague statements (s. 22) on the sterility of
Turbits when crossed with certain other crossed breeds. But I have
little doubt that the Rev. E. S. Dixon’s explanation of such
statements is correct, viz. that individual birds both with Turbits
and other breeds are occasionally sterile.
[20] ‘Das Ganze der Taubenzucht,’ s. 18.
[21] ‘Les Pigeons,’ etc., p. 35.
[22] Domestic pigeons pair readily with the allied _C. œnas_
(Bechstein, ‘Naturgesch. Deutschlands,’ B. iv. s. 3); and Mr. Brent
has made the same cross several times in England, but the young were
very apt to die at about ten days old; one hybrid which he reared
(from _C. œnas_ and a male Antwerp Carrier) paired with a Dragon, but
never laid eggs. Bechstein further states (s. 26) that the domestic
pigeon will cross with _C. palumbus, Turtur risoria,_ and _T.
vulgaris,_ but nothing is said of the fertility of the hybrids, and
this would have been mentioned had the fact been ascertained. In the
Zoological Gardens (MS. report to me from Mr. James Hunt) a male
hybrid from _Turtur vulgaris_ and a domestic pigeon “paired with
several different species of pigeons and doves, but none of the eggs
were good.” Hybrids from _C. œnas_ and _gymnophthalmos_ were sterile.
In Loudon’s ‘Mag. of Nat. Hist.,’ vol. vii. 1834, p. 154, it is said
that a male hybrid (from _Turtur vulgaris_ male, and the
cream-coloured _T. risoria_ female) paired during two years with a
female _T. risoria,_ and the latter laid many eggs, but all were
sterile. MM. Boitard and Corbié (‘Les Pigeons,’ p. 235) state that the
hybrids from these two turtle-doves are invariably sterile both _inter
se_ and with either pure parent. The experiment was tried by M. Corbié
“avec une espèce d’obstination;” and likewise by M. Mauduyt, and by M.
Vieillot. Temminck also found the hybrids from these two species quite
barren. Therefore, when Bechstein (‘Naturgesch. Deutschlands Vögel,’
B. iv. s. 101) asserts that the hybrids from these two turtle-doves
propagate _inter se_ equally well with pure species, and when a writer
in the ‘Field’ newspaper (in a letter dated Nov. 10th, 1858) makes a
similar assertion, it would appear that there must be some mistake;
though what the mistake is I know not, as Bechstein at least must have
known the white _variety_ of _T. risoria_: it would be an unparalleled
fact if the same two species sometimes produced _extremely_ fertile,
and sometimes _extremely_ barren, offspring. In the MS. report from
the Zoological Gardens it is said that hybrids from _Turtur vulgaris_
and _ suratensis,_ and from _T. vulgaris_ and _Ectopistes
migratorius,_ were sterile. Two of the latter male hybrids paired with
their pure parents, viz. _Turtur vulgaris_ and the Ectopistes, and
likewise with _T. risoria_ and with _ Columba œnas,_ and many eggs
were produced, but all were barren. At Paris, hybrids have been raised
(Isid. Geoffrey Saint-Hilaire, ‘Hist. Nat. Générale,’ tom. iii. p.
180) from _Turtur auritus_ with _T. cambayensis_ and with _T.
suratensis_; but nothing is said of their fertility. At the Zoological
Gardens of London the _Goura coronata_ and _victoriæ_ produced a
hybrid which paired with the pure _G. coronata,_ and laid several
eggs, but these proved barren. In 1860 _Columba gymnophthalmos_ and
_maculosa_ produced hybrids in these same gardens.
[23] There is one exception to the rule, namely, in a sub-variety of
the Swallow of German origin, which is figured by Neumeister, and was
shown to me by Mr. Wicking. This bird is blue, but has not the black
wing-bars; for our object, however, in tracing the descent of the
chief races, this exception signifies the less as the Swallow
approaches closely in structure to _C. livia._ In many sub-varieties
the black bars are replaced by bars of various colours. The figures
given by Neumeister are sufficient to show that, if the wings alone
are blue, the black wing-bars appear.
[24] I have observed blue birds with all the above-mentioned marks in
the following races, which seemed to be perfectly pure, and were shown
at various exhibitions. Pouters, with the double black wing-bars, with
white croup, dark bar to end of tail, and white edging to outer
tail-feathers. Turbits, with all these same characters. Fantails with
the same; but the croup in some was bluish or pure blue. Mr. Wicking
bred blue Fantails from two black birds. Carriers (including the
Bagadotten of Neumeister) with all the marks: two birds which I
examined had white, and two had blue croups; the white edging to the
outer tail-feathers was not present in all. Mr. Corker, a great
breeder, assures me that, if black carriers are matched for many
successive generations, the offspring become first ash-coloured, and
then blue with black wing-bars. Runts of the elongated breed had the
same marks, but the croup was pale blue; the outer tail-feathers had
white edges. Neumeister figures the great Florence Runt of a blue
colour with black bars. Jacobins are very rarely blue, but I have
received authentic accounts of at least two instances of the blue
variety with black bars having appeared in England; blue Jacobins were
bred by Mr. Brent from two black birds. I have seen common Tumblers,
both Indian and English, and Short-faced Tumblers, of a blue colour,
with black wing-bars, with the black bar at the end of the tail, and
with the outer tail-feathers edged with white; the croup in all was
blue, or extremely pale blue, never absolutely white. Blue Barbs and
Trumpeters seem to be excessively rare; but Neumeister, who may be
implicitly trusted, figures blue varieties of both, with black
wing-bars. Mr. Brent informs me that he has seen a blue Barb; and Mr.
H. Weir, as I am informed by Mr. Tegetmeier, once bred a silver (which
means very pale blue) Barb from two yellow birds.
[25] Mr. Blyth informs me that all the domestic races in India have
the croup blue; but this is not invariable, for I possess a very pale
blue Simmali pigeon with the croup perfectly white, sent to me by Sir
W. Elliot from Madras. A slaty-blue and chequered Nakshi pigeon has
some white feathers on the croup alone. In some other Indian pigeons
there were a few white feathers confined to the croup, and I have
noticed the same fact in a carrier from Persia. The Java Fantail
(imported into Amoy, and thence sent me) has a perfectly white croup.
[26] ‘Les Pigeons,’ etc., p. 37.
[27] ‘Treatise on Pigeons,’ 1858, p. 145.
[28] J. Moore’s ‘Columbarium,’ 1735; in J. M. Eaton’s edition, 1852,
p. 71.
[29] I could give numerous examples; two will suffice. A mongrel,
whose four grandparents were a white Turbit, white Trumpeter, white
Fantail, and blue Pouter, was white all over, except a very few
feathers about the head and on the wings, but the whole tail and
tail-coverts were dark bluish-grey. Another mongrel whose four
grandparents were a red Runt, white Trumpeter, white Fantail, and the
same blue Pouter, was pure white all over, except the tail and upper
tail-coverts, which were pale fawn, and except the faintest trace of
double wing-bars of the same pale fawn tint.
[30] It deserves notice, as bearing on the general subject of
variation, that not only _C. livia_ presents several wild forms,
regarded by some naturalists as species and by others as sub-species
or as mere varieties, but that the species of several allied genera
are in the same predicament. This is the case, as Mr. Blyth has
remarked to me, with Treron, Palumbus, and Turtur.
[31] ‘Denkmäler,’ Abth. ii. Bl. 70.
[32] ‘The ‘Dovecote,’ by the Rev. E. S. Dixon, 1851, pp. 11-13.
Adolphe Pictet (in his ‘Les Origines Indo-Européennes,’ 1859, p. 399)
states that there are in the ancient Sanscrit language between 25 and
30 names for the pigeon, and other 15 or 16 Persian names; none of
these are common to the European languages. This fact indicates the
antiquity of the domestication of the pigeon in the East.
[33] English translation, 1601, Book x. ch. xxxvii.
[34] ‘Ayeen Akbery,’ translated by F. Gladwin, 4to edit., vol. i. p.
270.
[35] J. M. Eaton, ‘Treatise on the Almond Tumbler,’ 1851; Preface, p.
6.
[36] As in the following discussion I often speak of the present time,
I should state that this chapter was completed in the year 1858.
[37] ‘Ornithologie,’ 1600, vol. ii. p. 360.
[38] ‘A Treatise on Domestic Pigeons,’ dedicated to Mr. Mayor, 1765.
Preface, p. 14.
[39] Mr. Blyth has given a translation of part of the ‘Ayeen Akbery’
in ‘Annals and Mag. of Nat. Hist.,’ vol. xix. 1847, p. 104.
[40] ‘L’Histoire de la Nature des Oiseaux,’ p. 314.
[41] ‘Treatise on Pigeons,’ 1852, p. 64.
[42] J. M. Eaton ‘Treatise on the Breeding and Managing of the Almond
Tumbler,’ 1851. Compare p. v. of Preface, p. 9, and p. 32.
[43] ‘Treatise on Pigeons,’ 1852, p. 41.
[44] Eaton’s ‘Treatise on Pigeons,’ 1858, p. 86.
[45] _See_ Neumeister’s figure of the Florence Runt, tab. 13 in ‘Das
Ganze der Taubenzucht.’
[46] Mr. W. J. Moore gives a full account of the Ground Tumblers of
India (‘Indian Medical Gazette,’ Jan. and Feb. 1873), and says the
pricking the base of the brain, and giving hydrocyanic acid, together
with strychnine, to an ordinary pigeon, brings on convulsive movements
exactly like those of a Tumbler. One pigeon, the brain of which had
been pricked, completely recovered, and ever afterwards occasionally
made somersaults.