BRIEF DESCRIPTIONS OF THE CHIEF BREEDS—ARGUMENTS IN FAVOUR OF THEIR
DESCENT FROM SEVERAL SPECIES—ARGUMENTS IN FAVOUR OF ALL THE BREEDS
HAVING DESCENDED FROM GALLUS BANKIVA—REVERSION TO THE PARENT-STOCK IN
COLOUR—ANALOGOUS VARIATIONS—ANCIENT HISTORY OF THE FOWL—EXTERNAL
DIFFERENCES BETWEEN THE SEVERAL BREEDS—EGGS—CHICKENS—SECONDARY SEXUAL
CHARACTERS—WING-AND TAIL-FEATHERS, VOICE, DISPOSITION, ETC—OSTEOLOGICAL
DIFFERENCES IN THE SKULL, VERTEBRÆ, ETC—EFFECTS OF USE AND DISUSE ON
CERTAIN PARTS—CORRELATION OF GROWTH.
As some naturalists may not be familiar with the chief breeds of
the fowl, it will be advisable to give a condensed description of
them.[1] From what I have read and seen of specimens brought from
several quarters of the world, I believe that most of the chief
kinds have been imported into England, but many sub-breeds are
probably still unknown here. The following discussion on the origin
of the various breeds and on their characteristic differences does
not pretend to completeness, but may be of some interest to the
naturalist. The classification of the breeds cannot, as far as I
can see, be made natural. They differ from each other in different
degrees, and do not afford characters in subordination to each
other, by which they can be ranked in group under group. They seem
all to have diverged by independent and different roads from a
single type. Each chief breed includes differently coloured
sub-varieties, most of which can be truly propagated, but it would
be superfluous to describe them. I have classed the various crested
fowls as sub-breeds under the Polish fowl; but I have great doubts
whether this is a natural arrangement, showing true affinity or
blood relationship. It is scarcely possible to avoid laying stress
on the commonness of a breed; and if certain foreign sub-breeds had
been largely kept in this country they would perhaps have been
raised to the rank of main-breeds. Several breeds are abnormal in
character; that is, they differ in certain points from all wild
Gallinaceous birds. At first I made a division of the breeds into
normal and abnormal, but the result was wholly unsatisfactory.
1. GAME BREED.—This may be considered as the typical breed, as it
deviates only slightly from the wild _Gallus bankiva,_ or, as perhaps
more correctly named, _ferrugineus._ Beak strong; comb single and
upright. Spurs long and sharp. Feathers closely appressed to the body.
Tail with the normal number of 14 feathers. Eggs often pale buff.
Disposition indomitably courageous, exhibited even in the hens and
chickens. An unusual number of differently coloured varieties exist,
such as black and brown-breasted reds, duckwings, blacks, whites,
piles, etc., with their legs of various colours.
2. MALAY BREED.—Body of great size, with head, neck, and legs
elongated; carriage erect; tail small, sloping downwards, generally
formed of 16 feathers; comb and wattle small; ear-lobe and face red;
skin yellowish; feathers closely appressed to the body; neck-hackles
short, narrow, and hard. Eggs often pale buff. Chickens feather late.
Disposition savage. Of Eastern origin.
3. COCHIN, OR SHANGAI BREED.—Size great; wing feathers short, arched,
much hidden in the soft downy plumage; barely capable of flight; tail
short, generally formed of 16 feathers, developed at a late period in
the young males; legs thick, feathered; spurs short, thick; nail of
middle toe flat and broad; an additional toe not rarely developed; skin
yellowish. Comb and wattle well developed. Skull with deep medial
furrow; occipital foramen, sub-triangular, vertically elongated. Voice
peculiar. Eggs rough, buff-coloured. Disposition extremely quiet. Of
Chinese origin.
4. DORKING BREED.—Size great; body square, compact; feet with an
additional toe; comb well developed, but varies much in form; wattles
well developed; colour of plumage various. Skull remarkably broad
between the orbits. Of English origin.
The white Dorking may be considered as a distinct sub-breed, being a
less massive bird.
Illustration: Fig. 30—Spanish Fowl
5. SPANISH BREED (fig. 30).—Tall, with stately carriage; tarsi long;
comb single, deeply serrated, of immense size; wattles largely
developed; the large ear-lobes and sides of face white. Plumage black
glossed with green. Do not incubate. Tender in constitution, the comb
being often injured by frost. Eggs white, smooth, of large size.
Chickens feather late but the young cocks show their masculine
characters, and crow at an early age. Of Mediterranean origin.
The _Andalusians_ may be ranked as a sub-breed: they are of a
slaty-blue colour, and their chickens are well feathered. A smaller,
short-legged Dutch sub-breed has been described by some authors as
distinct.
Illustration: Fig. 31—Hamburgh Fowl
6. HAMBURGH BREED (fig 31).—Size moderate; comb flat, produced
backwards, covered with numerous small points; wattle of moderate
dimensions; ear lobe white; legs blueish, thin. Do not incubate. Skull,
with the tips of the ascending branches of the premaxillary and with
the nasal bones standing a little separate from each other; anterior
margin of the frontal bones less depressed than usual.
There are two sub-breeds; the _ spangled_ Hamburgh, of English origin,
with the tips of the feathers marked with a dark spot; and the
_pencilled_ Hamburgh, of Dutch origin, with dark transverse lines
across each feather, and with the body rather smaller. Both these
sub-breeds include gold and silver varieties, as well as some other
sub-varieties. Black Hamburghs have been produced by a cross with the
Spanish breed.
Illustration: Fig. 32—Polish Fowl
7. CRESTED OR POLISH BREED (fig 32).—Head with a large, rounded crest
of feathers, supported on a hemispherical protuberance of the frontal
bones, which includes the anterior part of the brain. The ascending
branches of premaxillary bones and the inner nasal processes are much
shortened. The orifice of the nostrils raised and crescentic. Beak
short. Comb absent, or small and of crescentic shape; wattles either
present or replaced by a beard-like tuft of feathers. Legs leaden-blue.
Sexual differences appear late in life. Do not incubate. There are
several beautiful varieties which differ in colour and slightly in
other respects.
The following sub-breeds agree in having a crest, more or less
developed, with the comb, when present, of crescentic shape. The skull
presents nearly the same remarkable peculiarities of structure as in
the true Polish fowl.
Sub-breed _(a) Sultans._—A Turkish breed, resembling white Polish
fowls with a large crest and beard with short and well-feathered
legs. The tail is furnished with additional sickle feathers. Do not
incubate.[2]
Sub-breed _(b) Ptarmigans._—An inferior breed closely allied to the
last, white, rather small, legs much feathered, with the crest pointed;
comb small, cupped; wattles small.
Sub-breed _(c) Ghoondooks._—Another Turkish breed having an
extraordinary appearance; black and tailless; crest and beard large;
legs feathered. The inner processes of the two nasal bones come into
contact with each other, owing to the complete abortion of the
ascending branches of the premaxillaries. I have seen an allied white,
tailless breed from Turkey.
Sub-breed _(d) Crève-cœur._—A French breed of large size, barely
capable of flight, with short black legs, head crested, comb produced
into two points or horns, sometimes a little branched like the horns of
a stag; both beard and wattles present. Eggs large. Disposition
quiet.[3]
Sub-breed _(e) Horned fowl._—With a small crest; comb produced into two
great points, supported on two bony protuberances.
Sub-breed _(f) Houdan._—A French breed; of moderate size,
short-legged with five toes, well developed; plumage invariably
mottled with black, white, and straw-yellow; head furnished with a
crest, on a triple comb placed transversely; both wattles and beard
present.[4]
Sub-breed _(g) Guelderlands._—No comb, head said to be surmounted by a
longitudinal crest of soft velvety feathers; nostrils said to be
crescentic; wattles well developed; legs feathered; colour black. From
North America. The Breda fowl seems to be closely allied to the
Guelderland.
8. BANTAM BREED.—Originally from Japan[5] characterised by small size
alone; carriage bold and erect. There are several sub-breeds, such as
the Cochin, Game, and Sebright Bantams, some of which have been
recently formed by various crosses. The Black Bantam has a differently
shaped skull, with the occipital foramen like that of the Cochin fowl.
9. RUMPLESS FOWLS.—These are so variable in character[6] that they
hardly deserve to be called a breed. Any one who will examine the
caudal vertebræ will see how monstrous the breed is.
10. CREEPERS OR JUMPERS.—These are characterised by an almost monstrous
shortness of legs, so that they move by jumping rather than by walking;
they are said not to scratch up the ground. I have examined a Burmese
variety, which had a skull of rather unusual shape.
11. FRIZZLED OR CAFFRE FOWLS.—Not uncommon in India, with the feathers
curling backwards, and with the primary feathers of the wing and tail
imperfect; periosteum of bones black.
12. SILK FOWLS.—Feathers silky, with the primary wing and tail-feathers
imperfect; skin and periosteum of bones black; comb and wattles dark
leaden-blue; ear-lappets tinged with blue; legs thin, often furnished
with an additional toe. Size rather small.
13. SOOTY FOWLS.—An Indian breed, having the peculiar appearance of a
white bird smeared with soot, with black skin and periosteum. The hens
alone are thus characterised.
From this synopsis we see that the several breeds differ
considerably, and they would have been nearly as interesting for us
as pigeons, if there had been equally good evidence that all had
descended from one parent-species. Most fanciers believe that they
are descended from several primitive stocks. The Rev. E. S.
Dixon[7] argues strongly on this side of the question; and one
fancier even denounces the opposite conclusion by asking, “Do we
not perceive pervading this spirit, the spirit of the _Deist_?”
Most naturalists, with the exception of a few, such as Temminck,
believe that all the breeds have proceeded from a single species;
but authority on such a point goes for little. Fanciers look to all
parts of the world as the possible sources of their unknown stocks;
thus ignoring the laws of geographical distribution. They know well
that the several kinds breed truly even in colour. They assert,
but, as we shall see, on very weak grounds, that most of the breeds
are extremely ancient. They are strongly impressed with the great
difference between the chief kinds, and they ask with force, can
differences in climate, food, or treatment have produced birds so
different as the black stately Spanish, the diminutive elegant
Bantam, the heavy Cochin with its many peculiarities, and the
Polish fowl with its great top-knot and protuberant skull? But
fanciers, whilst admitting and even overrating the effects of
crossing the various breeds, do not sufficiently regard the
probability of the occasional birth, during the course of
centuries, of birds with abnormal and hereditary peculiarities;
they overlook the effects of correlation of growth—of the
long-continued use and disuse of parts, and of some direct result
from changed food and climate, though on this latter head I have
found no sufficient evidence; and lastly, they all, as far as I
know, entirely overlook the all-important subject of unconscious or
unmethodical selection, though they are well aware that their birds
differ individually and that by selecting the best birds for a few
generations they can improve their stocks.
An amateur writes[8] as follows: “The fact that poultry have until
lately received but little attention at the hands of the fancier,
and been entirely confined to the domains of the producer for the
market, would alone suggest the improbability of that constant and
unremitting attention having been observed in breeding, which is
requisite to the consummating in the offspring of any two birds
transmittable forms not exhibited by the parents.” This at first
sight appears true. But in a future chapter on Selection, abundant
facts will be given showing not only that careful breeding, but
that actual selection was practised during ancient periods, and by
barely civilised races of man. In the case of the fowl I can adduce
no direct facts showing that selection was anciently practised; but
the Romans at the commencement of the Christian era kept six or
seven breeds, and Columella “particularly recommends as the best,
those sorts that have five toes and white ears.”[9] In the
fifteenth century several breeds were known and described in
Europe; and in China, at nearly the same period, seven kinds were
named. A more striking case is that at present, in one of the
Philippine Islands, the semi-barbarous inhabitants have distinct
native names for no less than nine sub-breeds of the Game fowl.[10]
Azara,[11] who wrote towards the close of the last century, states
that in the interior parts of South America, where I should not
have expected that the least care would have been taken of poultry,
a black-skinned and black-boned breed is kept, from being
considered fertile and its flesh good for sick persons. Now every
one who has kept poultry knows how impossible it is to keep several
breeds distinct unless the utmost care be taken in separating the
sexes. Will it then be pretended that those persons who, in ancient
times and in semi-civilised countries took pains to keep the breeds
distinct, and who therefore valued them, would not occasionally
have destroyed inferior birds and occasionally have preserved their
best birds? This is all that is required. It is not pretended that
any one in ancient times intended to form a new breed, or to modify
an old breed according to some ideal standard of excellence. He who
cared for poultry would merely wish to obtain, and afterwards to
rear, the best birds which he could; but this occasional
preservation of the best birds would in the course of time modify
the breed, as surely, though by no means as rapidly, as does
methodical selection at the present day, If one person out of a
hundred or out of a thousand attended to the breeding of his birds,
this would be sufficient; for the birds thus tended would soon
become superior to others, and would form a new strain; and this
strain would, as explained in the last chapter, slowly have its
characteristic differences augmented, and at last be converted into
a new sub-breed or breed. But breeds would often be for a time
neglected and would deteriorate; they would, however, partially
retain their character, and afterwards might again come into
fashion and be raised to a standard of perfection higher than their
former standard; as has actually occurred quite recently with
Polish fowls. If, however, a breed were utterly neglected, it would
become extinct, as has recently happened with one of the Polish
sub-breeds. Whenever in the course of past centuries a bird
appeared with some slight abnormal structure, such as with a
lark-like crest on its head, it would probably often have been
preserved from that love of novelty which leads some persons in
England to keep rumpless fowls, and others in India to keep
frizzled fowls. And after a time any such abnormal appearance would
be carefully preserved, from being esteemed a sign of the purity
and excellence of the breed; for on this principle the Romans
eighteen centuries ago valued the fifth toe and the white ear-lobe
in their fowls.
Thus from the occasional appearance of abnormal characters, though at
first only slight in degree; from the effects of the use and the
disuse of parts; possibly from the direct effects of changed climate
and food; from correlation of growth; from occasional reversions to
old and long-lost characters; from the crossing of breeds, when more
than one had been formed; but, above all, from unconscious selection
carried on during many generations, there is no insuperable
difficulty, to the best of my judgment, in believing that all the
breeds have descended from some one parent-source. Can any single
species be named from which we may reasonably suppose that all are
descended? The Gallus bankiva apparently fulfils every requirement. I
have already given as fair an account as I could of the arguments in
favour of the multiple origin of the several breeds; and now I will
give those in favour of their common descent from _G. bankiva._
But it will be convenient first briefly to describe all the known
species of Gallus. The _G. sonneratii_ does not range into the
northern parts of India; according to Colonel Sykes,[12] it
presents at different heights of the Ghauts, two strongly marked
varieties, perhaps deserving to be called species. It was at one
time thought to be the primitive stock of all our domestic breeds,
and this shows that it closely approaches the common fowl in
general structure; but its hackles partially consist of highly
peculiar, horny laminæ, transversely banded with three colours; and
I have met no authentic account of any such character having been
observed in any domestic breed.[13] This species also differs
greatly from the common fowl, in the comb being finely serrated,
and in the loins being destitute of true hackles. Its voice is
utterly different. It crosses readily in India with domestic hens;
and Mr. Blyth[14] raised nearly 100 hybrid chickens; but they were
tender and mostly died whilst young. Those which were reared were
absolutely sterile when crossed inter se or with either parent. At
the Zoological Gardens, however, some ‘hybrids of the same
parentage were not quite so sterile: Mr. Dixon, as he informed me,
made, with Mr. Yarrell’s aid, particular inquiries on this subject,
and was assured that out of 50 eggs only five or six chickens were
reared. Some, however, of these half-bred birds were crossed with
one of their parents, namely, a Bantam, and produced a few
extremely feeble chickens. Mr. Dixon also procured some of these
same birds and crossed them in several ways, but all were more or
less infertile. Nearly similar experiments have recently been tried
on a great scale in the Zoological Gardens with almost the same
result.[15] Out of 500 eggs, raised from various first crosses and
hybrids, between _G. sonneratii, bankiva,_ and _varius,_ only 12
chickens were reared, and of these only three were the product of
hybrids _inter se._ From these facts, and from the above-mentioned
strongly-marked differences in structure between the domestic fowl
and _G. sonneratii,_ we may reject this latter species as the
parent of any domestic breed.
Ceylon possesses a fowl peculiar to the island, viz. _G.
stanleyii_; this species approaches so closely (except in the
colouring of the comb) to the domestic fowl, that Messrs. Layard
and Kellaert[16] would have considered it, as they inform me, as
one of the parent-stocks, had it not been for its singularly
different voice. This bird, like the last, crosses readily with
tame hens, and even visits solitary farms and ravishes them. Two
hybrids, a male and female, thus produced, were found by Mr.
Mitford to be quite sterile: both inherited the peculiar voice of
_G. stanleyii._ This species, then, may in all probability be
rejected as one of the primitive stocks of the domestic fowl.
Java and the islands eastward as far as Flores are inhabited by _G.
varius_ (or _furcatus_), which differs in so many characters—green
plumage, unserrated comb, and single median wattle—that no one
supposes it to have been the parent of any one of our breeds; yet,
as I am informed by Mr. Crawfurd,[17] hybrids are commonly raised
between the male _G. varius_ and the common hen, and are kept for
their great beauty, but are invariably sterile: this, however, was
not the case with some bred in the Zoological Gardens. These
hybrids were at one time thought to be specifically distinct, and
were named _G. æneus._ Mr. Blyth and others believe that the _G.
temminckii_[18] (of which the history is not known) is a similar
hybrid. Sir J. Brooke sent me some skins of domestic fowls from
Borneo, and across the tail of one of these, as Mr. Tegetmeier
observed, there were transverse blue bands like those which he had
seen on the tail-feathers of hybrids from _G. varius,_ reared in
the Zoological Gardens. This fact apparently indicates that some of
the fowls of Borneo have been slightly affected by crosses with _G.
varius,_ but the case may possibly be one of analogous variation. I
may just allude to the _G. giganteus,_ so often referred to in
works on poultry as a wild species; but Marsden[19] the first
describer, speaks of it as a tame breed; and the specimen in the
British Museum evidently has the aspect of a domestic variety.
The last species to be mentioned, namely, _Gallus bankiva,_ has a
much wider geographical range than the three previous species; it
inhabits Northern India as far west as Sinde, and ascends the
Himalaya to a height of 4000 ft.; it inhabits Burmah, the Malay
peninsula, the Indo-Chinese countries, the Philippine Islands, and
the Malayan archipelago as far eastward as Timor. This species
varies considerably in the wild state. Mr. Blyth informs me that
the specimens, both male and female, brought from near the
Himalaya, are rather paler coloured than those from other parts of
India; whilst those from the Malay peninsula and Java are brighter
coloured than the Indian birds. I have seen specimens from these
countries, and the difference of tint in the hackles was
conspicuous. The Malayan hens were a shade redder on the breast and
neck than the Indian hens. The Malayan males generally had a red
ear-lappet, instead of a white one as in India; but Mr. Blyth has
seen one Indian specimen without the white ear-lappet. The legs are
leaden blue in the Indian, whereas they show some tendency to be
yellowish in the Malayan and Javan specimens. In the former Mr.
Blyth finds the tarsus remarkably variable in length. According to
Temminck[20] the Timor specimens differ as a local race from that
of Java. These several wild varieties have not as yet been ranked
as distinct species; if they should, as is not unlikely, be
hereafter thus ranked, the circumstance would be quite immaterial
as far as the parentage and differences of our domestic breeds are
concerned. The wild _G. bankiva_ agrees most closely with the
black-breasted red Game-breed, in colouring and in all other
respects, except in being smaller, and in the tail being carried
more horizontally. But the manner in which the tail is carried is
highly variable in many of our breeds, for, as Mr. Brent informs
me, the tail slopes much in the Malays, is erect in the Games and
some other breeds, and is more than erect in Dorkings, Bantams,
etc. There is one other difference namely, that in _G. bankiva,_
according to Mr. Blyth, the neck-hackles when first moulted are
replaced during two or three months not by other hackles, as with
our domestic poultry, but by short blackish feathers.[21] Mr.
Brent, however, has remarked that these black feathers remain in
the wild bird after the development of the lower hackles, and
appear in the domestic bird at the same time with them: so that the
only difference is that the lower hackles are replaced more slowly
in the wild than in the tame bird; but as confinement is known
sometimes to affect the masculine plumage, this slight difference
cannot be considered of any importance. It is a significant fact
that the voice of both the male and female _G. bankiva_ closely
resembles, as Mr. Blyth and others have noted, the voice of both
sexes of the common domestic fowl; but the last note of the crow of
the wild bird is rather less prolonged. Captain Hutton, well known
for his researches into the natural history of India, informs me
that he has seen several crossed fowls from the wild species and
the Chinese bantam; these crossed fowls _bred freely_ with bantams,
but unfortunately were not crossed _inter se._ Captain Hutton
reared chickens from the eggs of the _Gallus bankiva_; and these,
though at first very wild, afterwards became so tame that they
would crowd round his feet. He did not succeed in rearing them to
maturity; but as he remarks, “no wild gallinaceous bird thrives
well at first on hard grain.” Mr. Blyth also found much difficulty
in keeping _G. bankiva_ in confinement. In the Philippine Islands,
however, the natives must succeed better, as they keep wild cocks
to fight with their domestic game-birds.[22] Sir Walter Elliot
informs me that the hen of a native domestic breed of Pegu is
undistinguishable from the hen of the wild _G. bankiva_; and the
natives constantly catch wild cocks by taking tame cocks to fight
with them in the woods.[23] Mr. Crawfurd remarks that from
etymology it might be argued that the fowl was first domesticated
by the Malays and Javanese.[24] It is also a curious fact, of which
I have been assured by Mr. Blyth, that wild specimens of the _
Gallus bankiva,_ brought from the countries east of the Bay of
Bengal, are far more easily tamed than those of India; nor is this
an unparalleled fact, for, as Humboldt long ago remarked, the same
species sometimes evinces a more tameable disposition in one
country than in another. If we suppose that the _G. bankiva_ was
first tamed in Malaya and afterwards imported into India, we can
understand an observation made to me by Mr. Blyth, that the
domestic fowls of India do not resemble the wild _G. bankiva_ of
India more closely than do those of Europe.
From the extremely close resemblance in colour, general structure,
and especially in voice, between _Gallus bankiva_ and the Game
fowl; from their fertility, as far as this has been ascertained,
when crossed; from the possibility of the wild species being tamed,
and from its varying in the wild state, we may confidently look at
it as the parent of the most typical of all the domestic breeds,
namely, the Game fowl. It is a significant fact, that almost all
the naturalists in India, namely Sir W. Elliot, Mr. S. N. Ward, Mr.
Layard, Mr. J. C. Jerdon, and Mr. Blyth,[25] who are familiar with
G. bankiva, believe that it is the parent of most or all our
domestic breeds. But even if it be admitted that G. bankiva is the
parent of the Game breed, yet it may be urged that other wild
species have been the parents of the other domestic breeds; and
that these species still exist, though unknown, in some country, or
have become extinct. The extinction, however, of several species of
fowls, is an improbable hypothesis, seeing that the four known
species have not become extinct in the most ancient and thickly
peopled regions of the East. There is, in fact, not one other kind
of domesticated bird, of which the wild parent-form is unknown,
that is become extinct. For the discovery of new, or the
rediscovery of old species of Gallus, we must not look, as fanciers
often look, to the whole world. The larger gallinaceous birds, as
Mr. Blyth has remarked,[26] generally have a restricted range: we
see this well illustrated in India, where the genus Gallus inhabits
the base of the Himalaya, and is succeeded higher up by
Gallophasis, and still higher up by Phasianus. Australia, with its
islands, is out of the question as the home for unknown species of
the genus. It is, also, as improbable that Gallus should inhabit
South America[27] as that a humming-bird should be found in the Old
World. From the character of the other gallinaceous birds of
Africa, it is not probable that Gallus is an African genus. We need
not look to the western parts of Asia, for Messrs. Blyth and
Crawfurd, who have attended to this subject, doubt whether Gallus
ever existed in a wild state even as far west as Persia. Although
the earliest Greek writers speak of the fowl as a Persian bird,
this probably merely indicates its line of importation. For the
discovery of unknown species we must look to India, to the
Indo-Chinese countries, and to the northern parts of the Malay
Archipelago. The southern portion of China is the most likely
country; but as Mr. Blyth informs me, skins have been exported from
China during a long period, and living birds are largely kept there
in aviaries, so that any native species of Gallus would probably
have become known. Mr. Birch, of the British Museum, has translated
for me passages from a Chinese Encyclopædia published in 1609, but
compiled from more ancient documents, in which it is said that
fowls are creatures of the West, and were introduced into the East
(_i.e._ China) in a dynasty 1400 B.C. Whatever may be thought of so
ancient a date, we see that the Indo-Chinese and Indian regions
were formerly considered by the Chinese as the source of the
domestic fowl. From these several considerations we must look to
the present metropolis of the genus, namely, to the south-eastern
parts of Asia, for the discovery of species which were formerly
domesticated, but are now unknown in the wild state; and the most
experienced ornithologists do not consider it probable that such
species will be discovered.
In considering whether the domestic breeds are descended from one
species, namely, _G. bankiva,_ or from several, we must not quite
overlook, though we must not exaggerate, the importance of the test of
fertility. Most of our domestic breeds have been so often crossed, and
their mongrels so largely kept, that it is almost certain, if any
degree of infertility had existed between them, it would have been
detected. On the other hand, the four known species of Gallus when
crossed with each other, or when crossed, with the exception of _G.
bankiva,_ with the domestic fowl, produce infertile hybrids.
Finally, we have not such good evidence with fowls as with pigeons, of
all the breeds having descended from a single primitive stock. In both
cases the argument of fertility must go for something; in both we have
the improbability of man having succeeded in ancient times in
thoroughly domesticating several supposed species,—most of these
supposed species being extremely abnormal as compared with their
natural allies,—all being now either unknown or extinct, though the
parent-form of no other domesticated bird has been lost. But in
searching for the supposed parent-stocks of the various breeds of the
pigeon, we were enabled to confine our search to species having
peculiar habits of life; whilst with fowls there is nothing in their
habits in any marked manner distinct from those of other gallinaceous
birds. In the case of pigeons, I have shown that purely-bred birds of
every race and the crossed offspring of distinct races frequently
resemble, or revert to, the wild rock-pigeon in general colour and in
each characteristic mark. With fowls we have facts of a similar
nature, but less strongly pronounced, which we will now discuss.
_Reversion and Analogous Variation._—Purely-bred Game, Malay, Cochin,
Dorking, Bantam, and, as I hear from Mr. Tegetmeier, Silk fowls, may
frequently or occasionally be met with, which are almost identical in
plumage with the wild _G. bankiva._ This is a fact well deserving
attention, when we reflect that these breeds rank amongst the most
distinct. Fowls thus coloured are called by amateurs black-breasted
reds. Hamburghs properly have a very different plumage; nevertheless,
as Mr. Tegetmeier informs me, “the great difficulty in breeding cocks
of the golden-spangled variety is their tendency to have black breasts
and red backs. The males of white Bantams and white Cochins, as they
come to maturity, often assume a yellowish or saffron tinge; and the
longer neck hackles of black Bantam cocks,”[28] when two or three years
old, not uncommonly become ruddy; these latter Bantams occasionally
“even moult brassy-winged, or actually red-shouldered.” So that in
these several cases we see a plain tendency to reversion to the hues of
_G. bankiva,_ even during the lifetime of the individual bird. With
Spanish, Polish, pencilled Hamburgh, silver-spangled Hamburgh fowls,
and with some other less common breeds, I have never heard of a
black-breasted red bird having appeared.
From my experience with pigeons, I made the following crosses. I first
killed all my own poultry, no others living near my house, and then
procured, by Mr. Tegetmeier’s assistance, a first-rate black Spanish
cock, and hens of the following pure breeds,—white Game, white Cochin,
silver-spangled Polish, silver-spangled Hamburgh, silver-pencilled
Hamburgh, and white Silk. In none of these breeds is there a trace of
red, nor when kept pure have I ever heard of the appearance of a red
feather; though such an occurrence would perhaps not be very improbable
with white Games and white Cochins. Of the many chickens reared from
the above six crosses the majority were black, both in the down and in
the first plumage; some were white, and a very few were mottled black
and white. In one lot of eleven mixed eggs from the white Game and
white Cochin by the black Spanish cock, seven of the chickens were
white, and only four black. I mention this fact to show that whiteness
of plumage is strongly inherited, and that the belief in the prepotent
power in the male to transmit his colour is not always correct. The
chickens were hatched in the spring, and in the latter part of August
several of the young cocks began to exhibit a change, which with some
of them increased during the following years. Thus a young male bird
from the silver-spangled Polish hen was in its first plumage
coal-black, and combined in its comb, crest, wattle, and beard, the
characters of both parents; but when two years old the secondary
wing-feathers became largely and symmetrically marked with white, and,
wherever in _G. bankiva_ the hackles are red, they were in this bird
greenish-black along the shaft, narrowly bordered with brownish-black,
and this again broadly bordered with very pale yellowish-brown; so that
in general appearance the plumage had become pale-coloured instead of
black. In this case, with advancing age there was a great change, but
no reversion to the red colour of _G. bankiva._
A cock with a regular rose comb derived either from the spangled or
pencilled silver Hamburgh was likewise at first quite black; but in
less than a year the neck-hackles, as in the last case, became whitish,
whilst those on the loins assumed a decided reddish-yellow tint; and
here we see the first symptom of reversion; this likewise occurred with
some other young cocks, which need not here be described. It has also
been recorded[29] by a breeder, that he crossed two silver-pencilled
Hamburgh hens with a Spanish cock, and reared a number of chickens, all
of which were black, the cocks having _ golden_ and the hens brownish
hackles; so that in this instance likewise there was a clear tendency
to reversion.
Two young cocks from my white Game hen were at first snow white; of
these, one subsequently assumed male orange-coloured hackles, chiefly
on the loins, and the other an abundance of fine orange-red hackles on
the neck, loins, and upper wing-coverts. Here again we have a more
decided, though partial, reversion to the colours of _G. bankiva._ This
second cock was in fact coloured like an inferior “pile Came cock;”—now
this sub-breed can be produced, as I am informed by Mr. Tegetmeier, by
crossing a black-breasted red Game cock with a white Game hen, and the
“pile” sub-breed thus produced can afterwards be truly propagated. So
that we have the curious fact of the glossy-black Spanish cock and the
black-breasted red Game cock when crossed with white Game hens
producing offspring of nearly the same colours.
I reared several birds from the white Silk hen by the Spanish cock: all
were coal-black, and all plainly showed their parentage in having
blackish combs and bones; none inherited the so-called silky feathers,
and the non-inheritance of this character has been observed by others.
The hens never varied in their plumage. As the young cocks grew old,
one of them assumed yellowish-white hackles, and thus resembled in a
considerable degree the cross from the Hamburgh hen; the other became a
gorgeous bird, so much so that an acquaintance had it preserved and
stuffed simply from its beauty. When stalking about it closely
resembled the wild _Gallus bankiva,_ but with the red feathers rather
darker. On close comparison one considerable difference presented
itself, namely, that the primary and secondary wing-feathers were edged
with greenish-black, instead of being edged, as in _G. bankiva,_ with
fulvous and red tints. The space, also, across the back, which bears
dark-green feathers, was broader, and the comb was blackish. In all
other respects, even in trifling details of plumage, there was the
closest accordance. Altogether it was a marvellous sight to compare
this bird first with _G. bankiva,_ and then with its father, the glossy
green-black Spanish cock, and with its diminutive mother, the white
Silk hen. This case of reversion is the more extraordinary as the
Spanish breed has long been known to breed true, and no instance is on
record of its throwing a single red feather. The Silk hen likewise
breeds true, and is believed to be ancient, for Aldrovandi, before
1600, alludes probably to this breed, and described it as covered with
wool. It is so peculiar in many characters that some writers have
considered it as specifically distinct; yet, as we now see, when
crossed with the Spanish fowl, it yields offspring closely resembling
the wild _G. bankiva._
Mr. Tegetmeier has been so kind as to repeat, at my request, the cross
between a Spanish cock and Silk hen, and he obtained similar results;
for he thus raised, besides a black hen, seven cocks, all of which were
dark-bodied with more or less orange-red hackles. In the ensuing year
he paired the black hen with one of her brothers, and raised three
young cocks, all coloured like their father, and a black hen mottled
with white.
The hens from the six above-described crosses showed hardly any
tendency to revert to the mottled-brown plumage of the female _G.
bankiva_: one hen, however, from the white Cochin, which was at first
coal-black, became slightly brown or sooty. Several hens, which were
for a long time snow-white, acquired as they grew old a few black
feathers. A hen from the white Game, which was for a long time entirely
black glossed with green, when two years old had some of the primary
wing feathers greyish-white, and a multitude of feathers over her body
narrowly and symmetrically tipped or laced with white. I had expected
that some of the chickens whilst covered with down would have assumed
the longitudinal stripes so general with gallinaceous birds; but this
did not occur in a single instance. Two or three alone were
reddish-brown about their heads. I was unfortunate in losing nearly all
the white chickens from the first crosses; so that black prevailed with
the grandchildren; but they were much diversified in colour, some being
sooty, others mottled, and one blackish chicken had its feathers oddly
tipped and barred with brown.
I will here add a few miscellaneous facts connected with reversion, and
with the law of analogous variation. This law implies, as stated in a
previous chapter, that the varieties of one species frequently mock
distinct but allied species; and this fact is explained, according to
the views which I maintain, on the principle of allied species having
descended from one primitive form. The white Silk fowl with black skin
and bones degenerates, as has been observed by Mr. Hewitt and Mr. R.
Orton, in our climate; that is, it reverts to the ordinary colour of
the common fowl in its skin and bones, due care having been taken to
prevent any cross. In Germany[30] a distinct breed with black bones,
and with black, not silky plumage, has likewise been observed to
degenerate.
Mr. Tegetmeier informs me that, when distinct breeds are crossed, fowls
are frequently produced with their feathers marked or pencilled by
narrow transverse lines of a darker colour. This may be in part
explained by direct reversion to the parent-form, the Bankiva hen; for
this bird has all its upper plumage finely mottled with dark and rufous
brown, with the mottling partially and obscurely arranged in transverse
lines. But the tendency to pencilling is probably much strengthened by
the law of analogous variation, for the hens of some other species of
Gallus are more plainly pencilled, and the hens of many gallinaceous
birds belonging to other genera, as the partridge, have pencilled
feathers. Mr. Tegetmeier has also remarked to me that, although with
domestic pigeons we have so great a diversity of colouring, we never
see either pencilled or spangled feathers; and this fact is
intelligible on the law of analogous variation, as neither the wild
rock pigeon nor any closely allied species has such feathers. The
frequent appearance of pencilling in crossed birds probably accounts
for the existence of “cuckoo” sub-breeds in the Game, Polish, Dorking,
Cochin, Andalusian, and Bantam breeds. The plumage of these birds is
slaty-blue or grey, with each feather transversely barred with darker
lines, so as to resemble in some degree the plumage of the cuckoo. It
is a singular fact, considering that the male of no species of Gallus
is in the least barred, that the cuckoo-like plumage has often been
transferred to the male, more especially in the cuckoo Dorking; and the
fact is all the more singular, as in gold- and silver-pencilled
Hamburghs, in which pencilling is characteristic of the breed, the male
is hardly at all pencilled, this kind of plumage being confined to the
female.
Another case of analogous variation is the occurrence of spangled
sub-breeds of Hamburgh, Polish, Malay, and Bantam fowls. Spangled
feathers have a dark mark, properly crescent-shaped, on their tips;
whilst pencilled feathers have several transverse bars. The spangling
cannot be due to reversion to _G. bankiva_; nor does it often follow,
as I hear from Mr. Tegetmeier, from crossing distinct breeds; but it is
a case of analogous variation, for many gallinaceous birds have
spangled feathers,—for instance, the common pheasant. Hence spangled
breeds are often called “pheasant”-fowls. Another case of analogous
variation in several domestic breeds is inexplicable; it is, that the
chickens, whilst covered with down, of the black Spanish, black Game,
black Polish, and black Bantam, all have white throats and breasts, and
often have some white on their wings.[31] The editor of the ‘Poultry
Chronicle’[32] remarks that all the breeds which properly have red
ear-lappets occasionally produce birds with white ear-Tappets. This
remark more especially applies to the Game breed, which of all comes
nearest to the _G. bankiva_; and we have seen that with this species
living in a state of nature, the ear-lappets vary in colour, being red
in the Malayan countries, and generally, but not invariably, white in
India.
In concluding this part of my subject, I may repeat that there exists
one widely-ranging, varying, and common species of Gallus, namely, _G.
bankiva,_ which can be tamed, produces fertile offspring when crossed
with common fowls, and closely resembles in its whole structure,
plumage, and voice the Game breed; hence it may be safely ranked as the
parent of this, the most typical domesticated breed. We have seen that
there is much difficulty in believing that other, now unknown, species
have been the parents of the other domestic breeds. We know that all
the breeds are most closely allied, as shown by their similarity in
most points of structure and in habits, and by the analogous manner in
which they vary. We have also seen that several of the most distinct
breeds occasionally or habitually closely resemble in plumage _G.
bankiva,_ and that the crossed offspring of other breeds, which are not
thus coloured, show a stronger or weaker tendency to revert to this
same plumage. Some of the breeds, which appear the most distinct and
the least likely to have proceeded from _G. bankiva,_ such as Polish
fowls, with their protuberant and little ossified skulls, and Cochins,
with their imperfect tail and small wings, bear in these characters the
plain marks of their artificial origin. We know well that of late years
methodical selection has greatly improved and fixed many characters;
and we have every reason to believe that unconscious selection, carried
on for many generations, will have steadily augmented each new
peculiarity, and thus have given rise to new breeds. As soon as two or
three breeds were once formed, crossing would come into play in
changing their character and in increasing their number. Brahma
Pootras, according to an account lately published in America, offer a
good instance of a breed, lately formed by a cross, which can be truly
propagated. The well-known Sebright Bantams offer another and similar
instance. Hence it may be concluded that not only the Game-breed but
that all our breeds are probably the descendants of the Malayan or
Indian variety of _G. bankiva._ If so, this species has varied greatly
since it was first domesticated; but there has been ample time, as we
shall now show.
_History of the Fowl._—Rütimeyer found no remains of the fowl in the
ancient Swiss lake-dwellings; but, according to Jeitteles,[33] such
have certainly since been found associated with extinct animals and
prehistoric remains. It is, therefore a strange fact that the fowl is
not mentioned in the Old Testament, nor figured on the ancient Egyptian
monuments. It is not referred to by Homer or Hesiod (about 900 B.C.);
but is mentioned by Theognis and Aristophanes between 400 and 500 B.C.
It is figured on some of the Babylonian cylinders, between the sixth
and seventh centuries B.C., of which Mr. Layard sent me an impression;
and on the Harpy Tomb in Lycia, about 600 B.C.: so that the fowl
apparently reached Europe in a domesticated condition somewhere about
the sixth century B.C. It had travelled still farther westward by the
time of the Christian era, for it was found in Britain by Julius Cæsar.
In India it must have been domesticated when the Institutes of Manu
were written, that is, according to Sir W. Jones, 1200 B.C., but,
according to the later authority of Mr. H. Wilson, only 800 B.C., for
the domestic fowl is forbidden, whilst the wild is permitted to be
eaten. If, as before remarked, we may trust the old Chinese
Encyclopædia, the fowl must have been domesticated several centuries
earlier, as it is said to have been introduced from the West into China
1400 B.C.
Sufficient materials do not exist for tracing the history of the
separate breeds. About the commencement of the Christian era, Columella
mentions a five-toed fighting breed, and some provincial breeds; but we
know nothing about them. He also alludes to dwarf fowls; but these
cannot have been the same with our Bantams, which, as Mr. Crawfurd has
shown, were imported from Japan into Bantam in Java. A dwarf fowl,
probably the true Bantam, is referred to in an old Japanese
Encyclopædia, as I am informed by Mr. Birch. In the Chinese
Encyclopædia published in 1596, but compiled from various sources, some
of high antiquity, seven breeds are mentioned, including what we should
now call Jumpers or Creepers, and likewise fowls with black feathers,
bones, and flesh. In 1600 Aldrovandi describes seven or eight breeds of
fowls, and this is the most ancient record from which the age of our
European breeds can be inferred. The _Gallus turcicus_ certainly seems
to be a pencilled Hamburgh; but Mr. Brent, a most capable judge, thinks
that Aldrovandi “evidently figured what he happened to see, and not the
best of the breed.” Mr. Brent, indeed, considers all Aldrovandi’s fowls
as of impure breed; but it is a far more probable view that all our
breeds have been much improved and modified since his time; for, as he
went to the expense of so many figures, he probably would have secured
characteristic specimens. The Silk fowl, however, probably then existed
in its present state, as did almost certainly the fowl with frizzled or
reversed feathers. Mr. Dixon[34] considers Aldrovandi’s Paduan fowl as
“a variety of the Polish,” whereas Mr. Brent believes it to have been
more nearly allied to the Malay. The anatomical peculiarities of the
skull of the Polish breed were noticed by P. Borelli in 1656. I may add
that in 1737 one Polish sub-breed, viz., the Golden-spangled, was
known; but judging from Albin’s description, the comb was then larger,
the crest of feathers much smaller, the breast more coarsely spotted,
and the stomach and thighs much blacker: a Golden-spangled Polish fowl
in this condition would now be of no value.
_Differences in External and Internal Structure between the Breeds:
Individual Variability._—Fowls have been exposed to diversified
conditions of life, and as we have just seen there has been ample time
for much variability and for the slow action of unconscious selection.
As there are good grounds for believing that all the breeds are
descended from Gallus bankiva, it will be worth while to describe in
some detail the chief points of difference. Beginning with the eggs and
chickens, I will pass on to their secondary sexual characters, and then
to their differences in external structure and in the skeleton. I enter
on the following details chiefly to show how variable almost every
character has become under domestication.
_Eggs._—Mr. Dixon remarks[35] that “to every hen belongs an individual
peculiarity in the form, colour, and size of her egg, which never
changes during her life-time, so long as she remains in health, and
which is as well known to those who are in the habit of taking her
produce, as the hand-writing of their nearest acquaintance.” I believe
that this is generally true, and that, if no great number of hens be
kept, the eggs of each can almost always be recognised. The eggs of
differently sized breeds naturally differ much in size; but apparently,
not always in strict relation to the size of the hen: thus the Malay is
a larger bird than the Spanish, but she produces not such large eggs;
white Bantams are said to lay smaller eggs than other Bantams;[36]
white Cochins, on the other hand, as I hear from Mr. Tegetmeier,
certainly lay larger eggs than buff Cochins. The eggs, however, of the
different breeds vary considerably in character; for instance, Mr.
Ballance states[37] that his Malay “pullets of last year laid eggs
equal in size to those of any duck, and other Malay hens, two or three
years old, laid eggs very little larger than a good sized Bantam’s egg.
Some were as white as a Spanish hen’s egg, and others varied from a
light cream-colour to a deep rich buff, or even to a brown.” The shape
also varies, the two ends being much more equally rounded in Cochins
than in Games or Polish. Spanish fowls lay smoother eggs than Cochins,
of which the eggs are generally granulated. The shell in this latter
breed, and more especially in Malays is apt to be thicker than in Games
or Spanish; but the Minorcas, a sub-breed of Spanish, are said to lay
harder eggs than true Spanish.[38] The colour differs considerably,—the
Cochins laying buff-coloured eggs; the Malays a paler variable buff;
and Games a still paler buff. It would appear that darker-coloured eggs
characterise the breeds which have lately come from the East, or are
still closely allied to those now living there. The colour of the yolk,
according to Ferguson, as well as of the shell, differs slightly in the
sub-breeds of the Game. I am also informed by Mr. Brent that dark
partridge-coloured Cochin hens lay darker coloured eggs than the other
Cochin sub-breeds. The flavour and richness of the egg certainly differ
in different breeds. The productiveness of the several breeds is very
different. Spanish, Polish, and Hamburgh hens have lost the incubating
instinct.
_Chickens._—As the young of almost all gallinaceous birds, even of the
black curassow and black grouse, whilst covered with down, are
longitudinally striped on the back,—of which character, when adult,
neither sex retains a trace,—it might have been expected that the
chickens of all our domestic fowls would have been similarly
striped.[39] This could, however, hardly have been expected, when the
adult plumage in both sexes has undergone so great a change as to be
wholly white or black. In white fowls of various breeds the chickens
are uniformly yellowish white, passing in the black-boned Silk fowl
into bright canary-yellow. This is also generally the case with the
chickens of white Cochins, but I hear from Mr. Zurhost that they are
sometimes of a buff or oak colour, and that all those of this latter
colour, which were watched, turned out males. The chickens of buff
Cochins are of a golden-yellow, easily distinguishable from the paler
tint of the white Cochins, and are often longitudinally streaked with
dark shades: the chickens of silver-cinnamon Cochins are almost always
of a buff colour. The chickens of the white Game and white Dorking
breeds, when held in particular lights, sometimes exhibit (on the
authority of Mr. Brent) faint traces of longitudinal stripes. Fowls
which are entirely black, namely, Spanish, black Game, black Polish,
and black Bantams, display a new character, for their chickens have
their breasts and throats more or less white, with sometimes a little
white elsewhere. Spanish chickens also, occasionally (Brent), have,
where the down was white, their first true feathers tipped for a time
with white. The primordially striped character is retained by the
chickens of most of the Game sub-breeds (Brent, Dixon); by Dorkings; by
the partridge and grouse-coloured sub-breeds of Cochins (Brent), but
not, as we have seen, by the sub-breeds; by the pheasant-Malay (Dixon),
but apparently not (at which I am much surprised) by other Malays. The
following breeds and sub-breeds are barely, or not at all,
longitudinally striped: viz., gold and silver pencilled Hamburghs,
which can hardly be distinguished from each other (Brent) in the down,
both having a few dark spots on the head and rump, with occasionally a
longitudinal stripe (Dixon) on the back of the neck. I have seen only
one chicken of the silver-spangled Hamburgh, and this was obscurely
striped along the back. Gold-spangled Polish chickens (Tegetmeier) are
of a warm russet brown; and silver-spangled Polish chickens are grey,
sometimes (Dixon) with dashes of ochre on the head, wings, and breast.
Cuckoo and blue-dun fowls (Dixon) are grey in the down. The chickens of
Sebright Bantams (Dixon) are uniformly dark brown, whilst those of the
brown-breasted red Game Bantam are black, with some white on the throat
and breast. From these facts we see that young chickens of the
different breeds, and even of the same main breed, differ much in their
downy plumage; and, although longitudinal stripes characterise the
young of all wild gallinaceous birds, they disappear in several
domestic breeds. Perhaps it may be accepted as a general rule that the
more the adult plumage differs from that of the adult _G. bankiva,_ the
more completely the chickens have lost their stripes.
With respect to the period of life at which the characters proper to
each breed first appear, it is obvious that such structures as
additional toes must be formed long before birth. In Polish fowls, the
extraordinary protuberance of the anterior part of the skull is well
developed before the chickens come out of the egg;[40] but the crest,
which is supported on the protuberance, is at first feebly developed,
nor does it attain its full size until the second year. The Spanish
cock is pre-eminent for his magnificent comb, and this is developed at
an unusually early age; so that the young males can be distinguished
from the females when only a few weeks old, and therefore earlier than
in other breeds; they likewise crow very early, namely, when about six
weeks old. In the Dutch sub-breed of the Spanish fowl the white
ear-lappets are developed earlier than in the common Spanish breed.[41]
Cochins are characterised by a small tail, and in the young cocks the
tail is developed at an unusually late period.[42] Game fowls are
notorious for their pugnacity; and the young cocks crow, clap their
little wings, and fight obstinately with each other, even whilst under
their mother’s care.[43] “I have often had,” says one author,[44]
“whole broods, scarcely feathered, stone-blind from fighting; the rival
couples moping in corners, and renewing their battles on obtaining the
first ray of light.” The weapons and pugnacity of all male gallinaceous
birds evidently serve the purpose of gaining possession of the females;
so that the tendency in our Game chickens to fight at an extremely
early age is not only useless, but injurious, as they suffer much from
their wounds. The training for battle during an early age may be
natural to the wild Gallus bankiva; but as man during many generations
has gone on selecting the most obstinately pugnacious cocks, it is more
probable that their pugnacity has been unnaturally increased, and
unnaturally transferred to the young male chickens. In the same manner,
it is probable that the extraordinary development of the comb in the
Spanish cock has been unintentionally transferred to the young cocks;
for fanciers would not care whether their young birds had large combs,
but would select for breeding the adults which had the finest combs,
whether or not developed at an early period. The last point which need
here be noticed is that, though the chickens of Spanish and Malay fowls
are well covered with down, the true feathers are acquired at an
unusually late age; so that for a time the young birds are partially
naked, and are liable to suffer from cold.
_Secondary Sexual Characters._—The two sexes in the parent-form, the
_Gallus bankiva,_ differ much in colour. In our domestic breeds the
difference is never greater, but is often less, and varies much in
degree even in the sub-breeds of the same main breed. Thus in certain
Game fowls the difference is as great as in the parent-form, whilst in
the black and white sub-breeds there is no difference in plumage. Mr.
Brent informs me that he has seen two strains of black-breasted red
Games, of which the cocks could not be distinguished, whilst the hens
in one were partridge-brown and in the other fawn-brown. A similar case
has been observed in the strains of the brown-breasted red Game. The
hen of the “duck-winged Game” is “extremely beautiful,” and differs
much from the hens of all the other Game sub-breeds; but generally, as
with the blue and grey Game and with some sub-varieties of the
pile-game, a moderately close relation may be observed between the
males and females in the variation of their plumage.[45] A similar
relation is also evident when we compare the several varieties of
Cochins. In the two sexes of gold and silver-spangled and of buff
Polish fowls, there is much general similarity in the colouring and
marks of the whole plumage, excepting of course in the hackles, crest,
and beard. In spangled Hamburghs, there is likewise a considerable
degree of similarity between the two sexes. In pencilled Hamburghs, on
the other hand, there is much dissimilarity; the pencilling which is
characteristic of the hens being almost absent in the males of both the
golden and silver varieties. But, as we have already seen, it cannot be
given as a general rule that male fowls never have pencilled feathers,
for Cuckoo Dorkings are “remarkable from having nearly similar markings
in both sexes.”
It is a singular fact that the males in certain sub-breeds have lost
some of their secondary masculine characters, and from their close
resemblance in plumage to the females, are often called hennies. There
is much diversity of opinion whether these males are in any degree
sterile; that they sometimes are partially sterile seems clear,[46] but
this may have been caused by too close interbreeding. That they are not
quite sterile, and that the whole case is widely different from that of
old females assuming masculine characters, is evident from several of
these hen-like sub-breeds having been long propagated. The males and
females of gold and silver-laced Sebright Bantams can be barely
distinguished from each other, except by their combs, wattles, and
spurs, for they are coloured alike, and the males have not hackles, nor
the flowing sickle-like tail-feathers. A hen-tailed sub-breed of
Hamburghs was recently much esteemed. There is also a breed of
Game-fowls, in which the males and females resemble each other so
closely that the cocks have often mistaken their hen-feathered
opponents in the cock-pit for real hens, and by the mistake have lost
their lives.[47] The cocks, though dressed in the feathers of the hen,
“are high-spirited birds, and their courage has been often proved:” an
engraving even has been published of one celebrated hen-tailed victor.
Mr. Tegetmeier[48] has recorded the remarkable case of a brown-breasted
red Game cock which, after assuming its perfect masculine plumage,
became hen-feathered in the autumn of the following year; but he did
not lose voice, spurs, strength, nor productiveness. This bird has now
retained the same character during five seasons, and has begot both
hen-feathered and male-feathered offspring. Mr. Grantley F. Berkeley
relates the still more singular case of a celebrated strain of “polecat
Game fowls,” which produced in nearly every brood a single hen-cock.
“The great peculiarity in one of these birds was that he, as the
seasons succeeded each other, was not always a hen-cock, and not always
of the colour called the polecat, which is black. From the polecat and
hen-cock feather in one season he moulted to a full male-plumaged
black-breasted red, and in the following year he returned to the former
feather.”[49]
I have remarked in my ‘Origin of Species’ that secondary sexual
characters are apt to differ much in the species of the same genus, and
to be unusually variable in the individuals of the same species. So it
is with the breeds of the fowl, as we have already seen, as far as the
colour of plumage is concerned, and so it is with the other secondary
sexual characters. Firstly, the comb differs much in the various
breeds,[50] and its form is eminently characteristic of each kind, with
the exception of the Dorkings, in which the form has not been as yet
determined on by fanciers, and fixed by selection. A single,
deeply-serrated comb is the typical and most common form. It differs
much in size, being immensely developed in Spanish fowls; and in a
local breed called Red-caps, it is sometimes “upwards of three inches
in breadth at the front, and more than four inches in length, measured
to the end of the peak behind.”[51] In some breeds the comb is double,
and when the two ends are cemented together it forms a “cup-comb;” in
the “rose-comb” it is depressed, covered with small projections, and
produced backwards; in the horned and creve-coeur fowl it is produced
into two horns; it is triple in the pea-combed Brahmas, short and
truncated in the Malays, and absent in the Guelderlands. In the
tasselled Game a few long feathers rise from the back of the comb: in
many breeds a crest of feathers replaces the comb. The crest, when
little developed, arises from a fleshy mass, but, when much developed,
from a hemispherical protuberance of the skull. In the best Polish
fowls it is so largely developed, that I have seen birds which could
hardly pick up their food; and a German writer asserts[52] that they
are in consequence liable to be struck by hawks. Monstrous structures
of this kind would thus be suppressed in a state of nature. The
wattles, also, vary much in size, being small in Malays and some other
breeds; in certain Polish sub-breeds they are replaced by a great tuft
of feathers called a beard.
The hackles do not differ much in the various breeds, but are short and
stiff in Malays, and absent in Hennies. As in some orders male birds
display extraordinarily-shaped feathers, such as naked shafts with
discs at the end, etc., the following case may be worth giving. In the
wild _Gallus bankiva_ and in our domestic fowls, the barbs which arise
from each side of the extremities of the hackles are naked or not
clothed with barbules, so that they resemble bristles; but Mr. Brent
sent me some scapular hackles from a young Birchen Duckwing Game cock,
in which the naked barbs became densely re-clothed with barbules
towards their tips; so that these tips, which were dark coloured with a
metallic lustre, were separated from the lower parts by a
symmetrically-shaped transparent zone formed of the naked portions of
the barbs. Hence the coloured tips appeared like little separate
metallic discs.
The sickle-feathers in the tail, of which there are three pair, and
which are eminently characteristic of the male sex, differ much in the
various breeds. They are scimitar-shaped in some Hamburghs, instead of
being long and flowing as in the typical breeds. They are extremely
short in Cochins, and are not at all developed in Hennies. They are
carried, together with the whole tail, erect in Dorkings and Gaines;
but droop much in Malays and in some Cochins. Sultans are characterised
by an additional number of lateral sickle-feathers. The spurs vary
much, being placed higher or lower on the shank; being extremely long
and sharp in Games, and blunt and short in Cochins. These latter birds
seem aware that their spurs are not efficient weapons; for though they
occasionally use them, they more frequently fight, as I am informed by
Mr. Tegetmeier, by seizing and shaking each other with their beaks. In
some Indian Game cocks, received by Mr. Brent from Germany, there are,
as he informs me, three, four, or even five spurs on each leg. Some
Dorkings also have two spurs on each leg;[53] and in birds of this
breed the spur is often placed almost on the outside of the leg. Double
spurs are mentioned in an ancient Chinese Encyclopædia. Their
occurrence may be considered as a case of analogous variation, for some
wild gallinaceous birds, for instance, the Polyplectron, have double
spurs.