the Gallinaceæ, certain characters in our domestic fowls appear to have
been transferred from the one sex to the other. In all the species
(except in Turnix), when there is any conspicuous difference in plumage
between the male and female, the male is always the most beautiful; but
in golden-spangled Hamburghs the hen is equally beautiful with the
cock, and incomparably more beautiful than the hen in any natural
species of Gallus; so that here a masculine character has been
transferred to the female. On the other hand, in Cuckoo Dorkings and in
other cuckoo breeds the pencilling, which in Gallus is a female
attribute, has been transferred to the male: nor, on the principle of
analogous variation, is this transference surprising, as the males in
many gallinaceous genera are barred or pencilled. With most of these
birds head ornaments of all kinds are more fully developed in the male
than in the female; but in Polish fowls the crest or top-knot, which in
the male replaces the comb, is equally developed in both sexes. In the
males of certain other sub-breeds, which from the hen having a small
crest, are called lark-crested, “a single upright comb sometimes almost
entirely takes the place of the crest.”[54] From this latter case, and
more especially from some facts presently to be given with respect to
the protuberance of the skull in Polish fowls, the crest in this breed
must be viewed as a feminine character which has been transferred to
the male. In the Spanish breed the male, as we know, has an immense
comb, and this has been partially transferred to the female, for her
comb is unusually large, though not upright. In Game fowls the bold and
savage disposition of the male has likewise been largely transferred to
the female;[55] and she sometimes even possesses the eminently
masculine character of spurs. Many cases are on record of fertile hens
being furnished with spurs; and in Germany, according to Bechstein,[56]
the spurs in the Silk hen are sometimes very long. He mentions also
another breed similarly characterised, in which the hens are excellent
layers, but are apt to disturb and break their eggs owing to their
spurs.
Mr. Layard[57] has given an account of a breed of fowls in Ceylon with
black skin, bones, and wattle, but with ordinary feathers, and which
cannot “be more aptly described than by comparing them to a white fowl
drawn down a sooty chimney; it is, however,” adds Mr. Layard, “a
remarkable fact that a male bird of the pure sooty variety is almost as
rare as a tortoise-shell tom-cat.” Mr. Blyth found the same rule to
hold good with this breed near Calcutta. The males and females, on the
other hand, of the black-boned European breed, with silky feathers, do
not differ from each other; so that in the one breed, black skin and
bones and the same kind of plumage are common to both sexes, whilst in
the other breed, these characters are confined to the female sex.
At the present day all the breeds of Polish fowls have the great bony
protuberance on their skulls, which includes part of the brain and
supports the crest, equally developed in both sexes. But formerly in
Germany the skull of the hen alone was protuberant: Blumenbach,[58] who
particularly attended to abnormal peculiarities in domestic animals,
states, in 1805, that this was the case; and Bechstein had previously,
in 1793 observed the same fact. This latter author has carefully
described the effects on the skull of a crest not only in the case of
fowls, but of ducks, geese, and canaries. He states that with fowls,
when the crest is not much developed, it is supported on a fatty mass;
but when much developed, it is always supported on a bony protuberance
of variable size. He well describes the peculiarities of this
protuberance; he attended also to the effects of the modified shape of
the brain on the intellect of these birds, and disputes Pallas’
statement that they are stupid. He then expressly remarks that he never
observed this protuberance in male fowls. Hence there can be no doubt
that this extraordinary character in the skulls of Polish fowls was
formerly in Germany confined to the female sex, but has now been
transferred to the males, and has thus become common to both sexes.
_External Differences, not connected with the Sexes, between the
Breeds and between individual Birds._
The size of the body differs greatly. Mr. Tegetmeier has known a Brahma
to weigh 17 pounds; a fine Malay cock 10 pounds; whilst a first-rate
Sebright Bantam weighs hardly more than 1 pound. During the last 20
years the size of some of our breeds has been largely increased by
methodical selection, whilst that of other breeds has been much
diminished. We have already seen how greatly colour varies even within
the same breed; we know that the wild _G. bankiva_ varies slightly in
colour; we know that colour is variable in all our domestic animals;
nevertheless some eminent fanciers have so little faith in variability,
that they have actually argued that the chief Game sub-breeds, which
differ from each other in nothing but colour, are descended from
distinct wild species! Crossing often causes strange modification of
colour. Mr. Tegetmeier informs me that when buff and white Cochins are
crossed, some of the chickens are almost invariably black. According to
Mr. Brent, black and white Cochins occasionally produce chickens of a
slaty-blue tint; and this same tint results, as Mr. Tegetmeier tells
me, from crossing white Cochins with black Spanish fowls, or white
Dorkings with black Minorcas.[59] A good observer[60] states that a
first-rate silver-spangled Hamburgh hen gradually lost the most
characteristic qualities of the breed, for the black lacing to her
feathers disappeared, and her legs changed from leaden-blue to white:
but what makes the case remarkable is, that this tendency ran in the
blood for her sister changed in a similar but less strongly marked
manner; and chickens produced from this latter hen were at first almost
pure white, “but on moulting acquired black colours and some spangled
feathers with almost obliterated markings;” so that a new variety arose
in this singular manner. The skin in the different breeds differs much
in colour, being white in common kinds, yellow in Malays and Cochins,
and black in Silk fowls; thus mocking, as M. Godron[61] remarks the
three principal types of skin in mankind. The same author adds that, as
different kinds of fowls living in distant and isolated parts of the
world have black skin and bones, this colour must have appeared at
various times and places.
The shape and carriage of the body, and the shape of the head differ
much. The beak varies slightly in length and curvature, but
incomparably less than with pigeons. In most crested fowls the nostrils
offer a remarkable peculiarity in being raised with a crescentic
outline. The primary wing-feathers are short in Cochins; in a male,
which must have been more than twice as heavy as _G. bankiva,_ these
feathers were in both birds of the same length. I have counted, with
Mr. Tegetmeier’s aid, the primary wing-feathers in thirteen cocks and
hens of various breeds; in four of them, namely in two Hamburghs, a
Cochin, and Game bantam, there were 10, instead of the normal number 9;
but in counting these feathers I have followed the practice of
fanciers, and have _not_ included the first minute primary feather,
barely three-quarters of an inch in length. These feathers differ
considerably in relative length, the fourth, or the fifth, or the
sixth, being the longest; with the third either equal to, or
considerably shorter than the fifth. In wild gallinaceous species the
relative length and number of the main wing and tail-feathers are
extremely constant.
The tail differs much in erectness and size, being small in Malays and
very small in Cochins. In thirteen fowls of various breeds which I have
examined, five had the normal number of 14 feathers, including in this
number the two middle sickle-feathers; six others (viz., a Caffre cock,
Gold-spangled Polish cock, Cochin hen, Sultan hen, Game hen and Malay
hen had 16; and two (an old Cochin cock and Malay hen) had 17 feathers.
The rumpless fowl has no tail and in one which I possessed there was no
oil-gland; but this bird though the os coccygis was extremely
imperfect, had a vestige of a tail with two rather long feathers in the
position of the outer caudals. This bird came from a family where, as I
was told, the breed had kept true for twenty years; but rumpless fowls
often produce chickens with tails.[62] An eminent physiologist[63] has
recently spoken of this breed as a distinct species; had he examined
the deformed state of the os coccyx he would never have come to this
conclusion; he was probably misled by the statement, which may be found
in some works, that tailless fowls are wild in Ceylon; but this
statement, as I have been assured by Mr. Layard and Dr. Kellaert who
have so closely studied the birds of Ceylon, is utterly false.
The tarsi vary considerably in length, being relatively to the femur
considerably longer in the Spanish and Frizzled, and shorter in the
Silk and Bantam breeds, than in the wild _G. bankiva_; but in the
latter, as we have seen, the tarsi vary in length. The tarsi are often
feathered. The feet in many breeds are furnished with additional toes.
Golden-spangled Polish fowls are said[64] to have the skin between
their toes much developed: Mr. Tegetmeier observed this in one bird,
but it was not so in one which I examined. Prof. Hoffmann has sent me a
sketch of the feet of a fowl of the common breed at Giessen, with a web
extending between the three toes, for about a third of their length. In
Cochins the middle toe is said[65] to be nearly double the length of
the lateral toes, and therefore much longer than in _G. bankiva_ or in
other fowls; but this was not the case in two which I examined. The
nail of the middle toe in this same breed is surprisingly broad and
flat, but in a variable degree in two birds which I examined; of this
structure in the nail there is only a trace in _G. bankiva._
The voice differs slightly, as I am informed by Mr. Dixon, in almost
every breed. The Malays[66] have a loud, deep, somewhat prolonged crow,
but with considerable individual difference. Colonel Sykes remarks that
the domestic Kulm cock in India has not the shrill clear pipe of the
English bird, and “his scale of notes appears more limited.” Dr. Hooker
was struck with the “prolonged howling screech” of the cocks in
Sikhim.[67] The crow of the Cochin is notoriously and ludicrously
different from that of the common cock. The disposition of the
different breeds is widely different, varying from the savage and
defiant temper of the Game-cock to the extremely peaceable temper of
the Cochins. The latter, it has been asserted, “graze to a much greater
extent than any other varieties.” The Spanish fowls suffer more from
frost than other breeds.
Before we pass on to the skeleton, the degree of distinctness of the
several breeds from _G. bankiva_ ought to be noticed. Some writers
speak of the Spanish as one of the most distinct breeds, and so it is
in general aspect; but its characteristic differences are not
important. The Malay appears to me more distinct, from its tall
stature, small drooping tail with more than fourteen tail-feathers, and
from its small comb and wattles; nevertheless, one Malay sub-breed is
coloured almost exactly like _G. bankiva._ Some authors consider the
Polish fowl as very distinct; but this is a semi-monstrous breed, as
shown by the protuberant and irregularly perforated skull. The Cochin,
from its deeply furrowed frontal bones, peculiarly shaped occipital
foramen, short wing-feathers, short tail containing more than fourteen
feathers, broad nail to the middle toe, fluffy plumage, rough and
dark-coloured eggs, and especially from its peculiar voice, is probably
the most distinct of all the breeds. If any one of our breeds has
descended from some unknown species, distinct from _G. bankiva,_ it is
probably the Cochin; but the balance of evidence does not favour this
view. All the characteristic differences of the Cochin breed are more
or less variable, and may be detected in a greater or lesser degree in
other breeds. One sub-breed is coloured closely like _G. bankiva._ The
feathered legs, often furnished with an additional toe, the wings
incapable of flight, the extremely quiet disposition, indicate a long
course of domestication; and these fowls come from China, where we know
that plants and animals have been tended from a remote period with
extraordinary care, and where consequently we might expect to find
profoundly modified domestic races.
_Osteological Differences._—I have examined twenty-seven skeletons and
fifty-three skulls of various breeds, including three of _G. bankiva_:
nearly half of these skulls I owe to the kindness of Mr. Tegetmeier,
and three of the skeletons to Mr. Eyton.
Illustration: Fig. 33—Occipital Foramen of the Skulls of Fowls
The _Skull_ differs greatly in size in different breeds, being nearly
twice as long in the largest Cochins, but not nearly twice as broad, as
in Bantams. The bones at the base, from the occipital foramen to the
anterior end (including the quadrates and pterygoids), are absolutely
identical in _ shape_ in all the skulls. So is the lower jaw. In the
forehead slight differences are often perceptible between the males and
females, evidently caused by the presence of the comb. In every case I
take the skull of _G. bankiva_ as the standard of comparison. In four
Games, in one Malay hen, in an African cock, in a Frizzled cock from
Madras, in two black-boned Silk hens, no differences worth notice
occur. In three _Spanish_ cocks, the form of the forehead between the
orbits differs considerably; in one it is considerably depressed,
whilst in the two others it is rather prominent, with a deep medial
furrow; the skull of the hen is smooth. In three skulls of _Sebright
Bantams_ the crown is more globular, and slopes more abruptly to the
occiput, than in _ G. bankiva._ In a Bantam or Jumper from Burmah these
same characters are more strongly pronounced, and the supra-occiput is
more pointed. In a black Bantam the skull is not so globular, and the
occipital foramen is very large, and has nearly the same sub-triangular
outline presently to be described in Cochins; and in this skull the two
ascending branches of the premaxillary are overlapped in a singular
manner by the processes of the nasal bone, but, as I have seen only one
specimen, some of these differences may be individual. Of Cochins and
Brahmas (the latter a crossed race approaching closely to Cochins) I
have examined seven skulls; at the point where the ascending branches
of the premaxillary rest on the frontal bone the surface is much
depressed, and from this depression a deep medial furrow extends
backwards to a variable distance; the edges of this fissure are rather
prominent, as is the top of the skull behind and over the orbits. These
characters are less developed in the hens. The pterygoids, and the
processes of the lower jaw, are broader, relatively to the size of the
head, than in _G. bankiva_; and this is likewise the case with Dorkings
when of large size. The fork of the hyoid bone in Cochins is twice as
wide as in _G. bankiva,_ whereas the length of the other hyoid bones is
only as three to two. But the most remarkable character is the shape of
the occipital foramen: in _G. bankiva_ (A) the breadth in a horizontal
line exceeds the height in a vertical line, and the outline is nearly
circular; whereas in Cochins (B) the outline is sub-triangular, and the
vertical line exceeds the horizontal line in length. This same form
likewise occurs in the black Bantam above referred to, and an approach
to it may be seen in some Dorkings, and in a slight degree in certain
other breeds.
Illustration: Fig. 34—Skulls of Fowls
Of _Dorkings_ I have examined three skulls, one belonging to the
white-sub-breed; the one character deserving notice is the breadth of
the frontal bones, which are moderately furrowed in the middle; thus in
a skull which was less than once and a half the length of that of _G.
bankiva,_ the breadth between the orbits was exactly double. Of
_Hamburghs_ I have examined four skulls (male and female) of the
pencilled sub-breed, and one (male) of the spangled sub-breed; the
nasal bones stand remarkably wide apart, but in a variable degree;
consequently narrow membrane-covered spaces are left between the tips
of the two ascending branches of the pre-maxillary bones, which are
rather short, and between these branches and the nasal bones. The
surface of the frontal bone, on which the branches of the premaxillary
rest, is very little depressed. These peculiarities no doubt stand in
close relation with the broad, flattened rose-comb characteristic of
the Hamburgh breed.
Illustration: Fig. 35—Longitudinal sections of Skulls of Fowls
I have examined fourteen skulls of _ Polish and other crested breeds._
Their differences are extraordinary. First for nine skulls of different
sub-breeds of English Polish fowls. The hemispherical protuberance of
the frontal bones[68] may be seen in fig. 34, in which (B) the skull of
a white-crested Polish fowl is shown obliquely from above, with the
skull (A) of _G. bankiva_ in the same position. In fig. 35 longitudinal
sections are given of the skull of a Polish fowl, and, for comparison,
of a Cochin of the same size. The protuberance in all Polish fowls
occupies the same position but differs much in size. In one of my nine
specimens it was extremely slight. The degree to which the protuberance
is ossified varies greatly, larger or smaller portions of bone being
replaced by membrane. In one specimen there was only a single open
pore; generally, there are many variously shaped open spaces, the bone
forming an irregular reticulation. A medial, longitudinal, arched
ribbon of bone is generally retained, but in one specimen there was no
bone whatever over the whole protuberance, and the skull, when cleaned
and viewed from above, presented the appearance of an open basin. The
change in the whole internal form of the skull is surprisingly great.
The brain is modified in a corresponding manner, as is shown in the two
longitudinal sections, which deserve attentive consideration. The upper
and anterior cavity of the three into which the skull may be divided,
is the one which is so greatly modified; it is evidently much larger
than in the Cochin skull of the same size, and extends much further
beyond the interorbital septum, but laterally is less deep. This
cavity, as I hear from Mr. Tegetmeier, is entirely filled with brain.
In the skull of the Cochin and of all ordinary fowls a strong internal
ridge of bone separates the anterior from the central cavity; but this
ridge is quite absent in the Polish skull here figured. The shape of
the central cavity is circular in the Polish, and lengthened in the
Cochin skull. The shape of the posterior cavity, together with the
position, size, and number of the pores for the nerves, differ much in
these two skulls. A pit deeply penetrating the occipital bone of the
Cochin is entirely absent in this Polish skull, whilst in another
specimen it was well developed. In this second specimen the whole
internal surface of the posterior cavity likewise differs to a certain
extent in shape. I made sections of two other skulls,—namely, of a
Polish fowl with the protuberance singularly little developed, and of a
Sultan in which it was a little more developed; and when these two
skulls were placed between the two above figured (fig. 35), a perfect
gradation in the configuration of each part of the internal surface
could be traced. In the Polish skull, with a small protuberance, the
ridge between the anterior and middle cavities was present, but low;
and in the Sultan this ridge was replaced by a narrow furrow standing
on a broad raised eminence.
Illustration: Fig. 36—Skulls of Horned Fowl
It may naturally be asked whether these remarkable modifications in the
form of the brain affect the intellect of Polish fowls; some writers
have stated that they are extremely stupid, but Bechstein and Mr.
Tegetmeier have shown that this is by no means generally the case.
Nevertheless Bechstein[69] states that he had a Polish hen which “was
crazy, and anxiously wandered about all day long.” A hen in my
possession was solitary in her habits, and was often so absorbed in
reverie that she could be touched; she was also deficient in the most
singular manner in the faculty of finding her way, so that, if she
strayed a hundred yards from her feeding-place, she was completely
lost, and would then obstinately try to proceed in a wrong direction. I
have received other and similar accounts of Polish fowls appearing
stupid or half-idiotic.[70]
To return to the skull of Polish fowls. The posterior part, viewed
externally, differs little from that of _G. bankiva._ In most fowls the
posterior-lateral process of the frontal bone and the process of the
squamosal bone run together and are ossified near their extremities:
this union of the two bones, however, is not constant in any breed; and
in eleven out of fourteen skulls of crested breeds, these processes
were quite distinct. These processes, when not united, instead of being
inclined anteriorly, as in all common breeds, descend at right angles
to the lower jaw; and in this case the longer axis of the bony cavity
of the ear is likewise more perpendicular, than in other breeds. When
the squamosal process is free instead of expanding at the tip, it is
reduced to an extremely fine and pointed style, of variable length. The
pterygoid and quadrate bones present no differences. The palatine bones
are a little more curved upwards at their posterior ends. The frontal
bones, anteriorly to the protuberance, are, as in Dorkings, very broad,
but in a variable degree. The nasal bones either stand far apart, as in
Hamburghs, or almost touch each other, and in one instance were
ossified together. Each nasal bone properly sends out in front two long
processes of equal lengths, forming a fork; but in all the Polish
skulls, except one, the inner process was considerably, but in a
variable degree, shortened and somewhat upturned. In all the skulls,
except one, the two ascending branches of the premaxillary, instead of
running up between the processes of the nasal bones and resting on the
ethmoid bone, are much shortened and terminate in a blunt, somewhat
upturned point. In those skulls in which the nasal bones approach quite
close to each other or are ossified together, it would be impossible
for the ascending branches of the premaxillary to reach the ethmoid and
frontal bones; hence we see that even the relative connection of the
bones has been changed. Apparently in consequence of the branches of
the premaxillary and of the inner processes of the nasal bones being
somewhat upturned, the external orifices of the nostrils are upraised
and assume a crescentic outline.
I must still say a few words on some of the foreign Crested breeds. The
skull of a crested, rumpless, white Turkish fowl was very slightly
protuberant, and but little perforated; the ascending branches of the
premaxillary were well developed. In another Turkish breed, called
Ghoondooks, the skull was considerably protuberant and perforated; the
ascending branches of the premaxillary were so much aborted that they
projected only 1/15th of an inch; and the inner processes of the nasal
bone were so completely aborted, that the surface where they should
have projected was quite smooth. Here then we see these two bones
modified to an extreme degree. Of Sultans (another Turkish breed) I
examined two skulls; in that of the female the protuberance was much
larger than in the male. In both skulls the ascending branches of the
premaxillary were very short, and in both the nasal portion of the
inner processes of the nasal bones were ossified together. These Sultan
skulls differed from those of English Polish fowls in the frontal
bones, anteriorly to the protuberance, not being broad.
The last skull which I need describe is a unique one, lent to me by Mr.
Tegetmeier: it resembles a Polish skull in most of its characters, but
has not the great frontal protuberance; it has, however, two rounded
knobs of a different nature, which stand more in front, above the
lachrymal bones. These curious knobs, into which the brain does not
enter, are separated from each other by a deep medial furrow; and this
is perforated by a few minute pores. The nasal bones stand rather wide
apart, with their inner processes, and the ascending branches of the
premaxillary, upturned and shortened. The two knobs no doubt supported
the two great horn-like projections of the comb.
From the foregoing facts we see in how astonishing a manner some of the
bones of the skull vary in Crested fowls. The protuberance may
certainly be called in one sense a monstrosity, as being wholly unlike
anything observed in nature: but as in ordinary cases it is not
injurious to the bird, and as it is strictly inherited, it can hardly
in another sense be called a monstrosity. A series may be formed
commencing with the black-boned Silk fowl, which has a very small crest
with the skull beneath penetrated only by a few minute orifices, but
with no other change in its structure; and from this first stage we may
proceed to fowls with a moderately large crest, which rests, according
to Bechstein, on a fleshy mass, but without any protuberance in the
skull. I may add that I have seen a similar fleshy or fibrous mass
beneath the tuft of feathers on the head of the Tufted duck; and in
this case there was no actual protuberance in the skull, but it had
become a little more globular. Lastly, when we come to fowls with a
largely developed crest, the skull becomes largely protuberant and is
perforated by a multitude of irregular open spaces. The close relation
between the crest and the size of the bony protuberance is shown in
another way; for Mr. Tegetmeier informs me that if chickens lately
hatched be selected with a large bony protuberance, when adult they
will have a large crest. There can be no doubt that in former times the
breeder of Polish fowls attended solely to the crest, and not to the
skull; nevertheless, by increasing the crest, in which he has been
wonderfully successful, he has unintentionally made the skull
protuberant to an astonishing degree; and through correlation of
growth, he has at the same time affected the form and relative
connexion of the premaxillary and nasal bones, the shape of the orifice
of the nose, the breadth of the frontal bones, the shape of the
post-lateral processes of the frontal and squamosal bones, the
direction of the axis of the bony cavity of the ear, and lastly the
internal configuration of the whole skull together with the shape of
the brain.
Illustration: Fig. 37—Sixth Cervical Verterbra of Fowls
_Vertebræ._—In _G. bankiva_ there are fourteen cervical, seven dorsal
with ribs, apparently fifteen lumbar and sacral, and six caudal
vertebræ;[71] but the lumbar and sacral are so much anchylosed that I
am not sure of their number, and this makes the comparison of the total
number of vertebræ in the several breeds difficult. I have spoken of
six caudal vertebræ, because the basal one is almost completely
anchylosed with the pelvis; but if we consider the number as seven, the
caudal vertebræ agree in all the skeletons. The cervical vertebræ are,
as just stated, in appearance fourteen; but out of twenty-three
skeletons in a fit state for examination, in five of them, namely, in
two Games, in two pencilled Hamburghs, and in a Polish, the fourteenth
vertebra bore ribs, which, though small, were perfectly developed with
a double articulation. The presence of these little ribs cannot be
considered as a fact of much importance, for all the cervical vertebræ
bear representatives of ribs; but their development in the fourteenth
vertebra reduces the size of the passages in the transverse processes,
and makes this vertebra exactly like the first dorsal vertebra. The
addition of these little ribs does not affect the fourteenth cervical
alone, for properly the ribs of the first true dorsal vertebra are
destitute of processes; but in some of the skeletons in which the
fourteenth cervical bore little ribs the first pair of true ribs had
well-developed processes. When we know that the sparrow has only nine,
and the swan twenty-three cervical vertebræ,[72] we need feel no
surprise at the number of the cervical vertebræ in the fowl being, as
it appears, variable.
There are seven dorsal vertebræ bearing ribs; the first dorsal is never
anchylosed with the succeeding four, which are generally anchylosed
together. In one Sultan fowl, however, the two first dorsal vertebræ
were free. In two skeletons, the fifth dorsal was free; generally the
sixth is free (as in _G. bankiva_), but sometimes only at its posterior
end, where in contact with the seventh. The seventh dorsal vertebra, in
every case excepting in one Spanish cock, was anchylosed with the
lumbar vertebræ. So that the degree to which these middle dorsal
vertebræ are anchylosed is variable.
Seven is the normal number of true ribs, but in two skeletons of the
Sultan fowl (in which the fourteenth cervical vertebra was not
furnished with little ribs) there were eight pairs; the eighth pair
seemed to be developed on a vertebra corresponding with the first
lumbar in _G. bankiva_; the sternal portion of both the seventh and
eighth ribs did not reach the sternum. In four skeletons in which ribs
were developed on the fourteenth cervical vertebra, there were, when
these cervical ribs are included, eight pairs; but in one Game cock, in
which the fourteenth cervical was furnished with ribs, there were only
six pairs of true dorsal ribs; the sixth pair in this case did not have
processes, and thus resembled the seventh pair in other skeletons; in
this Game cock, as far as could be judged from the appearance of the
lumbar vertebræ, a whole dorsal vertebra with its ribs was missing. We
thus see that the ribs (whether or not the little pair attached to the
fourteenth cervical vertebra be counted) vary from six to eight pair.
The sixth pair is frequently not furnished with processes. The sternal
portion of the seventh pair is extremely broad in Cochins, and is
completely ossified. As previously stated, it is scarcely possible to
count the lumbo-sacral vertebræ; but they certainly do not correspond
in shape or number in the several skeletons. The caudal vertebræ are
closely similar in all the skeletons, the only difference being whether
or not the basal one is anchylosed to the pelvis; they hardly vary even
in length, not being shorter in Cochins, with their short
tail-feathers, than in other breeds; in a Spanish cock, however, the
caudal vertebræ were a little elongated. In three rumpless fowls the
caudal vertebræ were few in number, and anchylosed together into a
misformed mass.
In the individual vertebræ the differences in structure are very
slight. In the atlas the cavity for the occipital condyle is either
ossified into a ring, or is, as in Bankiva, open on its upper margin.
The upper arc of the spinal canal is a little more arched in Cochins,
in conformity with the shape of the occipital foramen, than in _G.
bankiva._ In several skeletons a difference, but not of much
importance, may be observed, which commences at the fourth cervical
vertebra, and is greatest at about the sixth, seventh, or eighth
vertebra; this consists in the hæmal descending processes being united
to the body of the vertebra by a sort of buttress. This structure may
be observed in Cochins, Polish, some Hamburghs, and probably other
breeds; but is absent, or barely developed, in Game, Dorking, Spanish,
Bantam, and several other breeds examined by me. On the dorsal surface
of the sixth cervical vertebra in Cochins three prominent points are
more strongly developed than in the corresponding vertebra of the Game
fowl or _G. bankiva._
_Pelvis._—This differs in some few points in the several skeletons. The
anterior margin of the ilium seems at first to vary much in outline,
but this is chiefly due to the degree to which the margin in the middle
part is ossified to the crest of the vertebræ; the outline, however,
does differ in being more truncated in Bantams, and more rounded in
certain breeds, as in Cochins. The outline of the ischiadic foramen
differs considerably, being nearly circular in Bantams, instead of
egg-shaped as in the Bankiva, and more regularly oval in some
skeletons, as in the Spanish. The obturator notch is also much less
elongated in some skeletons than in others. The end of the pubic bone
presents the greatest difference; being hardly enlarged in the Bankiva;
considerably and gradually enlarged in Cochins, and in a lesser degree
in some other breeds; and abruptly enlarged in Bantams. In one Bantam
this bone extended very little beyond the extremity of the ischium. The
whole pelvis in this latter bird differed widely in its proportions,
being far broader proportionally to its length than in Bankiva.
Illustration: Fig. 38—Extremity of the Furcula of Fowls
_Sternum._—This bone is generally so much deformed that it is scarcely
possible to compare its shape strictly in the several breeds. The form
of the triangular extremity of the lateral processes differs
considerably, being either almost equilateral or much elongated. The
front margin of the crest is more or less perpendicular and varies
greatly, as does the curvature of the posterior end, and the flatness
of the lower surface. The outline of the manubrial process also varies,
being wedge-shaped in the Bankiva, and rounded in the Spanish breed.
The _furculum_ differs in being more or less arched, and greatly, as
may be seen in the accompanying outlines, in the shape of the terminal
plate; but the shape of this part differed a little in two skeletons of
the wild Bankiva. The _coracoid_ presents no difference worth notice.
The _scapula_ varies in shape, being of nearly uniform breadth in
Bankiva, much broader in the middle in the Polish fowl, and abruptly
narrowed towards the apex in the two Sultan fowls.
I carefully compared each separate bone of the leg and wing, relatively
to the same bones in the wild Bankiva, in the following breeds, which I
thought were the most likely to differ; namely, in Cochin, Dorking,
Spanish, Polish, Burmese Bantam, Frizzled Indian, and black-boned Silk
fowls; and it was truly surprising to see how absolutely every process,
articulation, and pore agreed, though the bones differed greatly in
size. The agreement is far more absolute than in other parts of the
skeleton. In stating this, I do not refer to the relative thickness and
length of the several bones; for the tarsi varied considerably in both
these respects. But the other limb-bones varied little even in relative
length.
Finally, I have not examined a sufficient number of skeletons to say
whether any of the foregoing differences, except in the skull, are
characteristic of the several breeds. Apparently some differences are
more common in certain breeds than in others,—as an additional rib to
the fourteenth cervical vertebra in Hamburghs and Games, and the
breadth of the end of the pubic bone in Cochins. Both skeletons of the
Sultan fowl had eight dorsal vertebræ, and the end of the scapula in
both was somewhat attenuated. In the skull, the deep medial furrow in
the frontal bones and the vertically elongated occipital foramen seem
to be characteristic of Cochins; as is the great breadth of the frontal
bones in Dorkings; the separation and open spaces between the tips of
the ascending branches of the premaxillaries and nasal bones, as well
as the front part of the skull being but little depressed, characterise
Hamburghs; the globular shape of the posterior part of the skull seems
to be characteristic of laced Bantams; and lastly, the protuberance of
the skull with the ascending branches of the premaxillaries partially
aborted, together with the other differences before specified, are
eminently characteristic of Polish and other Crested fowls.
But the most striking result of my examination of the skeleton is the
great variability of all the bones except those of the extremities. To
a certain extent we can understand why the skeleton fluctuates so much
in structure; fowls have been exposed to unnatural conditions of life,
and their whole organisation has thus been rendered variable; but the
breeder is quite indifferent to, and never intentionally selects, any
modification in the skeleton. External characters, if not attended to
by man, such as the number of the tail and wing feathers and their
relative lengths, which in wild birds are generally constant,—fluctuate
in our domestic fowls in the same manner as the several parts of the
skeleton. An additional toe is a “point” in Dorkings, and has become a
fixed character, but is variable in Cochins and Silk fowls. The colour
of the plumage and the form of the comb are in most breeds, or even
sub-breeds, eminently fixed characters; but in Dorkings these points
have not been attended to, and are variable. When any modification in
the skeleton is related to some external character which man values, it
has been, unintentionally on his part, acted on by selection, and has
become more or less fixed. We see this in the wonderful protuberance of
the skull, which supports the crest of feathers in Polish fowls, and
which by correlation has affected other parts of the skull. We see the
same result in the two protuberances which support the horns in the
horned fowl, and in the flattened shape of the front of the skull in
Hamburghs consequent on their flattened and broad “rose-combs.” We know
not in the least whether additional ribs, or the changed outline of the
occipital foramen, or the changed form of the scapula, or of the
extremity of the furculum, are in any way correlated with other
structures, or have arisen from the changed conditions and habits of
life to which our fowls have been subjected; but there is no reason to
doubt that these various modifications in the skeleton could be
rendered, either by direct selection, or by the selection of correlated
structures, as constant and as characteristic of each breed, as are the
size and shape of the body, the colour of the plumage, and the form of
the comb.
_Effects of the Disuse of Parts._
Judging from the habits of our European gallinaceous birds, _Gallus
bankiva_ in its native haunts would use its legs and wings more than do
our domestic fowls, which rarely fly except to their roosts. The Silk
and the Frizzled fowls, from having imperfect wing-feathers, cannot fly
at all; and there is reason to believe that both these breeds are
ancient, so that their progenitors during many generations cannot have
flown. The Cochins, also, from their short wings and heavy bodies, can
hardly fly up to a low perch. Therefore in these breeds, especially in
the two first, a considerable diminution in the wing-bones might have
been expected, but this is not the case. In every specimen, after
disarticulating and cleaning the bones, I carefully compared the
relative length of the two main bones of the wing to each other, and of
the two main bones of the leg to each other, with those of _G.
bankiva_; and it was surprising to see (except in the case of the
tarsi) how exactly the same relative length had been retained. This
fact is curious, from showing how truly the proportions of an organ may
be inherited, although not fully exercised during many generations. I
then compared in several breeds the length of the femur and tibia with
the humerus and ulna, and likewise these same bones with those of _G.
bankiva_; the result was that the wing-bones in all the breeds (except
the Burmese Jumper, which has unnaturally short legs, are slightly
shortened relatively to the leg-bones; but the decrease is so slight
that it may be due to the standard specimen of _G. bankiva_ having
accidentally had wings of slightly greater length than usual; so that
the measurements are not worth giving. But it deserves notice that the
Silk and Frizzled fowls, which are quite incapable of flight, had their
wings _less_ reduced relatively to their legs than in almost any other
breed! We have seen with domesticated pigeons that the bones of the
wings are somewhat reduced in length, whilst the primary feathers are
rather increased in length, and it is just possible, though not
probable, that in the Silk and Frizzled fowls any tendency to decrease
in the length of the wing-bones from disuse may have been checked
through the law of compensation, by the decreased growth of the
wing-feathers, and consequent increased supply of nutriment. The
wing-bones, however, in both these breeds, are found to be slightly
reduced in length when judged by the standard of the length of the
sternum or head, relatively to these same parts in _G. bankiva._
The actual weight of the main bones of the leg and wing in twelve
breeds is given in the two first columns in Table I. The calculated
weight of the wing-bones relatively to the leg-bones, in comparison
with the leg and wing-bones of _G. bankiva,_ are given in the third
column,—the weight of the wing-bones in _G. bankiva_ being called a
hundred.[73]
Table I.
Names of Breeds. Actual
Weight
of
Femur
and
Tibia. Actual
Weight of
Humerus
and Ulna. Weight of Wing-
bones relatively to
the Leg-bones in
comparison with
these same bones
in _G. bankiva._ Grains. Grains. Gallus bankiva (wild
male) 86 54 100 1 Cochin
(male) 311 162 83 2 Dorking
(male) 557 248 70 3 Spanish (Minorca)
(male) 386 183 75 4 Gold-Spangled Polish
(male) 306 145 75 5 Game, black-breasted
(male) 293 143 77 6 Malay
(female) 231 116 80 7 Sultan (male) 189
94 79 8 Indian Frizzled (male) 206 88 67
9 Burmese Jumper (female) 53 36 108
10 Hamburgh (pencilled) (male) 157 104 106
11 Hamburgh (pencilled) (female) 114 77 108
12 Silk (black-boned) (female) 88 57 103
In the eight first birds, belonging to distinct breeds, in this table,
we see a decided reduction in the weight of the bones of the wing.
In the Indian Frizzled fowl, which cannot fly, the reduction is carried
to the greatest extent, namely, to thirty-three per cent of their
proper proportional weight. In the next four birds, including the Silk
hen, which is incapable of flight, we see that the wings, relatively to
the legs, are slightly increased in weight; but it should be observed
that, if in these birds the legs had become from any cause reduced in
weight, this would give the false appearance of the wings having
increased in relative weight. Now a reduction of this nature has
certainly occurred with the Burmese Jumper, in which the legs are
abnormally short, and in the two Hamburghs and Silk fowl, the legs,
though not short, are formed of remarkably thin and light bones. I make
these statements, not judging by mere eyesight, but after having
calculated the weights of the leg-bones relatively to those of G.
bankiva, according to the only two standards of comparison which I
could use, namely, the relative lengths of the head and sternum; for I
do not know the weight of the body in _G. bankiva,_ which would have
been a better standard. According to these standards, the leg-bones in
these four fowls are in a marked manner far lighter than in any other
breed. It may therefore be concluded that in all cases in which the
legs have not been through some unknown cause much reduced in weight,
the wing-bones have become reduced in weight relatively to the
leg-bones, in comparison with those of _G. bankiva._ And this reduction
of weight may, I apprehend, safely be attributed to disuse.
To make Table I quite satisfactory, it ought to have been shown that in
the eight first birds the leg-bones have not actually increased in
weight out of due proportion with the rest of the body; this I cannot
show, from not knowing, as already remarked, the weight of the wild
Bankiva.[74] I am indeed inclined to suspect that the leg-bones in the
Dorking, No. 2 in the table, are proportionally too heavy; but this
bird was a very large one, weighing 7 pounds 2 ounces, though very
thin. Its leg-bones were more than ten times as heavy as those of the
Burmese Jumper! I tried to ascertain the length both of the leg-bones
and wing-bones relatively to other parts of the body and skeleton: but
the whole organisation in these birds, which have been so long
domesticated, has become so variable, that no certain conclusions could
be reached. For instance, the legs of the above Dorking cock were
nearly three-quarters of an inch too short relatively to the length of
the sternum, and more than three-quarters of an inch too long
relatively to the length of the skull, in comparison with these same
parts in _G. bankiva._
Table II.
Names of Breeds. Length
of
Sternum. Depth of
Crest of
Sternum Depth of Crest
relatively to the
length of the
Sternum, in
comparison with
_G. bankiva._ Inches. Inches Gallus bankiva
(male) 4·20 1·40 100 1 Cochin
(male) 5·83 1·55 78 2 Dorking
(male) 6·95 1·97 84 3 Spanish
(male) 6·10 1·83 90 4 Polish
(male) 5·07 1·50 87 5 Game
(male) 5·55 1·55 81 6 Malay
(female) 5·10 1·50 87 7 Sultan
(male) 4·47 1·36 90 8 Frizzled hen
(male) 4·25 1·20 84 9 Burmese Jumper
(female) 3·06 0·85 81 10 Hamburgh
(male) 5·08 1·40 81 11 Hamburgh
(female) 4·55 1·26 81 12 Silk fowl
(female) 4·49 1·01 66
In Table II in the two first columns we see in inches and decimals the
length of the sternum, and the extreme depth of its crest to which the
pectoral muscles are attached. In the third column we have the
calculated depth of the crest, relatively to the length of the sternum,
in comparison with these same parts in _G. bankiva._[75]
By looking to the third column we see that in every case the depth of
the crest relatively to the length of the sternum, in comparison with
_G. bankiva,_ is diminished, generally between 10 and 20 per cent. But
the degree of reduction varies much, partly in consequence of the
frequently deformed state of the sternum. In the Silk fowl, which
cannot fly, the crest is 34 per cent less deep than what it ought to
have been. This reduction of the crest in all the breeds probably
accounts for the great variability, before referred to, in the
curvature of the furculum, and in the shape of its sternal extremity.
Medical men believe that the abnormal form of the spine so commonly
observed in women of the higher ranks results from the attached muscles
not being fully exercised. So it is with our domestic fowls, for they
use their pectoral muscles but little, and, out of twenty-five sternums
examined by me, three alone were perfectly symmetrical, ten were
moderately crooked, and twelve were deformed to an extreme degree. Mr.
Romanes, however, believes that the malformation is due to fowls whilst
young resting their sternums on the sticks on which they roost.
Finally, we may conclude with respect to the various breeds of the
fowl, that the main bones of the wing have probably been shortened in a
very slight degree; that they have certainly become lighter relatively
to the leg-bones in all the breeds in which these latter bones are not
unnaturally short or delicate; and that the crest of the sternum, to
which the pectoral muscles are attached, has invariably become less
prominent, the whole sternum being also extremely liable to deformity.
These results we may attribute to the lessened use of the wings.
_Correlation of Growth._—I will here sum up the few facts which I have
collected on this obscure, but important, subject. In Cochin and Game
fowls there is perhaps some relation between the colour of the plumage
and the darkness of the egg-shell. In Sultans the additional
sickle-feathers in the tail are apparently related to the general
redundancy of the plumage, as shown by the feathered legs, large crest,
and beard. In two tailless fowls which I examined the oil-gland was
aborted. A large crest of feathers, as Mr. Tegetmeier has remarked,
seems always accompanied by a great diminution or almost entire absence
of the comb. A large beard is similarly accompanied by diminished or
absent wattles. These latter cases apparently come under the law of
compensation or balancement of growth. A large beard beneath the lower
jaw and a large top-knot on the skull often go together. The comb when
of any peculiar shape, as with Horned, Spanish, and Hamburgh fowls,
affects in a corresponding manner the underlying skull; and we have
seen how wonderfully this is the case with Crested fowls when the crest
is largely developed. With the protuberance of the frontal bones the
shape of the internal surface of the skull and of the brain is greatly
modified. The presence of a crest influences in some unknown way the
development of the ascending branches of the premaxillary bone, and of
the inner processes of the nasal bones; and likewise the shape of the
external orifice of the nostrils. There is a plain and curious
correlation between a crest of feathers and the imperfectly ossified
condition of the skull. Not only does this hold good with nearly all
crested fowls, but likewise with tufted ducks, and as Dr. Gunther
informs me with tufted geese in Germany.
Lastly, the feathers composing the crest in male Polish fowls resemble
hackles, and differ greatly in shape from those in the crest of the
female. The neck, wing-coverts, and loins in the male bird are properly
covered with hackles, and it would appear that feathers of this shape
have spread by correlation to the head of the male. This little fact is
interesting; because, though both sexes of some wild gallinaceous birds
have their heads similarly ornamented, yet there is often a difference
in the size and shape of feathers forming their crests. Furthermore,
there is in some cases, as in the male Gold and in the male Amherst
pheasants (_P. pictus_ and _amherstiæ_), a close relation in colour, as
well as in structure, between the plumes on the head and on the loins.
It would therefore appear that the same law has regulated the state of
the feathers on the head and body, both with species living under
natural conditions, and with birds which have varied under
domestication.
REFERENCES
[1] I have drawn up this brief synopsis from various sources, but
chiefly from information given me by Mr. Tegetmeier. This gentleman
has kindly looked through this chapter; and from his well-known
knowledge, the statements here given may be fully trusted. Mr.
Tegetmeier has likewise assisted me in every possible way in obtaining
for me information and specimens. I must not let this opportunity pass
without expressing my cordial thanks to Mr. B. P. Brent, a well-known
writer on poultry, for continuous assistance and the gift of many
specimens.
[2] The best account of Sultans is by Miss Watts in ‘The Poultry
Yard,’ 1856, p. 79. I owe to Mr. Brent’s kindness the examination of
some specimens of this breed.
[3] A good description, with figures, is given of this sub-breed in
the ‘Journal of Horticulture,’ June 10, 1862, p. 206.
[4] A description, with figures, is given of this breed in ‘Journal of
Horticulture,’ June 3, 1862, p. 186. Some writers describe the comb as
two-horned.
[5] Mr. Crawfurd ‘Descript. Dict. of the Indian Islands,’ p. 113.
Bantams are mentioned in an ancient native Japanese Encyclopædia, as I
am informed by Mr. Birch of the British Museum.
[6] ‘Ornamental and Domestic Poultry,’ 1848.
[7] ‘Ornamental and Domestic Poultry,’ 1848.
[8] Ferguson’s ‘Illustrated Series of Rare and Prize Poultry,’ 1854,
p. vi. Preface.
[9] Rev. E. S. Dixon in his ‘Ornamental Poultry,’ p. 203, gives an
account of Columella’s work.
[10] Mr. Crawfurd ‘On the Relation of the Domesticated Animals to
Civilization,’ separately printed, p. 6; first read before the Brit.
Assoc. at Oxford 1860.
[11] ‘Quadrupèdes du Paraguay,’ tom. ii. p. 324.
[12] ‘Proc. Zoolog. Soc.,’ 1832, p. 151.
[13] These feathers have been described by Dr. W. Marshall ‘Der
Zoolog. Garten,’ April 1874, p. 124. I examined the feathers of some
hybrids raised in the Zoological Gardens between the male _G.
sonneratii_ and a red game-hen, and they exhibited the true character
of those of _G. sonneratii,_ except that the horny laminæe were much
smaller.
[14] _See also_ an excellent letter on the Poultry of India, by Mr.
Blyth, in ‘Gardener’s Chronicle,’ 1851, p. 619.
[15] Mr. S. J. Salter, in ‘Natural History Review,’ April 1863, p.
276.
[16] _See also_ Mr. Layard’s paper in ‘Annals and Mag. of Nat.
History,’ 2nd series, vol. xiv. p. 62.
[17] _See also_ Mr. Crawfurd’s ‘Descriptive Dict. of the Indian
Islands,’ 1856, p. 113.
[18] Described by Mr. G. R. Gray, ‘Proc. Zoolog. Soc.,’ 1849, p. 62.
[19] The passage from Marsden is given by Mr. Dixon in his ‘Poultry
Book,’ p. 176. No ornithologist now ranks this bird as a distinct
species.
[20] ‘Coup-d’œeil général sur l’Inde Archipélagique,’ tom. iii. (1849)
p. 177; _see also_ Mr. Blyth in ‘Indian Sporting Review,’ vol. ii. p.
5, 1856.
[21] Mr. Blyth, in ‘Annals and Mag. of Nat. Hist.,’ 2nd ser., vol. i.
(1848), p. 455.
[22] Crawfurd, ‘Desc. Dict. of Indian Islands,’ 1856, p. 112.
[23] In Burmah, as I hear from Mr. Blyth, the wild and tame poultry
constantly cross together, and irregular transitional forms may be
seen.
[24] Ibid. p. 113.
[25] Mr. Jerdon, in the ‘Madras Journ. of Lit. and Science,’ vol.
xxii. p. 2, speaking of _G. bankiva,_ says, “unquestionably the origin
of most of the varieties of our common fowls.” For Mr. Blyth _see_ his
excellent article in ‘Gardener’s Chron.,’ 1851, p. 619; and in ‘Annals
and Mag. of Nat. Hist.,’ vol. xx., 1847, p. 388.
[26] ‘Gardener’s Chronicle,’ 1851, p. 619.
[27] I have consulted an eminent authority, Mr. Sclater, on this
subject, and he thinks that I have not expressed myself too strongly.
I am aware that one ancient author, Acosta, speaks of fowls as having
inhabited S. America at the period of its discovery; and more
recently, about 1795, Olivier de Serres speaks of wild fowls in the
forests of Guiana; these were probably feral birds. Dr. Daniell tells
me, he believes that fowls have become wild on the west coast of
Equatorial Africa; they may, however, not be true fowls, but
gallinaceous birds belonging to the genus Phasidus. The old voyager
Barbut says that poultry are not natural to Guinea. Capt. W. Allen
(‘Narrative of Niger Expedition,’ 1848, vol. ii. p. 42) describes wild
fowls on Ilha dos Rollas, an island near St. Thomas’s on the west
coast of Africa; the natives informed him that they had escaped from a
vessel wrecked there many years ago; they were extremely wild and had
“a cry quite different to that of the domestic fowl,” and their
appearance was somewhat changed. Hence it is not a little doubtful,
notwithstanding the statement of the natives, whether these birds
really were fowls. That the fowl has become feral on several islands
is certain. Mr. Fry, a very capable judge, informed Mr. Layard, in a
letter, that the fowls which have run wild on Ascension “had nearly
all got back to their primitive colours, red, and black cocks, and
smoky-grey hens.” But unfortunately we do not know the colour of the
poultry which were turned out. Fowls have become feral on the Nicobar
Islands (Blyth in the ‘Indian Field,’ 1858, p. 62), and in the
Ladrones (Anson’s Voyage). Those found in the Pellew Islands
(Crawfurd) are believed to be feral; and lastly, it is asserted that
they have become feral in New Zealand, but whether this is correct I
know not.
[28] Mr. Hewitt, in ‘The Poultry Book,’ by W. B. Tegetmeier, 1866, p.
248.
[29] ‘Journal of Horticulture,’ Jan. 14th, 1862, p. 325.
[30] ‘Die Hühner- und Pfauenzucht,’ Ulm, 1827, s. 17. For Mr. Hewitt’s
statement with respect to the white Silk fowl _see_ the ‘Poultry
Book,’ by W. B. Tegetmeier, 1866, p. 222. I am indebted to Mr. Orton
for a letter on the same subject.
[31] Dixon ‘Ornamental and Domestic Poultry,’ p. 253, 324, 335. For
game fowls, _see_ Ferguson on ‘Prize Poultry,’ p. 260.
[32] ‘Poultry Chronicle,’ vol. ii. p. 71.
[33] ‘Die vorgeschichtlichen Alterthümer,’ II. Theil, 1872, p. 5. Dr.
Pickering, in his ‘Races of Man,’ 1850, p. 374, says that the head and
neck of a fowl is carried in a Tribute-procession to Thoutmousis III.
(1445 B.C.); but Mr. Birch of the British Museum doubts whether the
figure can be identified as the head of a fowl. Some caution is
necessary with reference to the absence of figures of the fowl on the
ancient Egyptian monuments, on account of the strong and widely
prevalent prejudice against this bird. I am informed by the Rev. S.
Erhardt that on the east coast of Africa, from 4° to 6° south of the
equator, most of the pagan tribes at the present day hold the fowl in
aversion. The natives of the Pellew Islands would not eat the fowl nor
will the Indians in some parts of S. America. For the ancient history
of the fowl _ see also_ Volz ‘Beiträge zur Culturgeschichte,’ 1852, s.
77; and Isid. Geoffroy St.-Hilaire, ‘Hist. Nat. Gén.,’ tom. iii. p.
61. Mr. Crawfurd has given an admirable history of the fowl in his
paper ‘On the Relation of Domesticated Animals to Civilisation,’ read
before the Brit. Assoc. at Oxford in 1860, and since printed
separately. I quote from him on the Greek poet Theognis, and on the
Harpy Tomb described by Sir C. Fellowes. I quote from a letter of Mr.
Blyth’s with respect to the Institutes of Manu.
[34] ‘Ornamental and Domestic Poultry,’ 1847, p. 185; for passages
translated from Columella, _see_ p. 312. For Golden Hamburghs _see_
Albin’s ‘Natural History of Birds,’ 3 vols., with plates 1731-38.
[35] ‘Ornamental and Domestic Poultry,’ p. 152.
[36] Ferguson on ‘Rare Prize Poultry,’ p. 297. This writer, I am
informed, cannot generally be trusted. He gives, however, figures and
much information on eggs. _See_ pp. 34 and 235 on the eggs of the Game
fowl.
[37] _See_ ‘Poultry Book,’ by Mr. Tegetmeier, 1866, pp. 81 and 78.
[38] ‘The Cottage Gardener,’ Oct. 1855, p. 13. On the thinness of the
eggs of Game-fowls _see_ Mowbray on Poultry, 7th edit., p. 13.
[39] My information, which is very far from perfect, on chickens in
the down, is derived chiefly from Mr. Dixon’s ‘Ornamental and Domestic
Poultry.’ Mr. B. P. Brent has also communicated to me many facts by
letter, as has Mr. Tegetmeier. I will in each case mark my authority
by the name within brackets. For the chickens of white Silk-fowls
_see_ Tegetmeier’s ‘Poultry Book,’ 1866, p. 221.
[40] As I hear from Mr. Tegetmeier; _see also_ ‘Proc. Zoolog. Soc.,’
1856, p. 366. On the late development of the crest _ see_ ‘Poultry
Chronicle,’ vol. ii. p. 132.
[41] On these points, _see_ ‘Poultry Chronicle,’ vol. iii. p. 166; and
Tegetmeier’s ‘Poultry Book,’ 1866, pp. 105 and 121.
[42] Dixon, ‘Ornamental and Domestic Poultry,’ p. 273.
[43] Ferguson on ‘Rare and Prize Poultry,’ p. 261.
[44] Mowbray on Poultry, 7th edit., 1834, p. 13.
[45] _See_ the full description of the varieties of the Game-breed in
Tegetmeier’s ‘Poultry Book,’ 1866, p. 131. For Cuckoo Dorkings, p. 97.
[46] Mr. Hewitt in Tegetmeier’s ‘Poultry Book,’ 1866, pp. 246 and 156.
For hen-tailed game-cocks, _see_ p. 131.
[47] ‘The Field,’ April 20th, 1861. The writer says he has seen
half-a-dozen cocks thus sacrificed.
[48] ‘Proceedings of Zoolog. Soc.,’ March 1861, p. 102. The engraving
of the hen-tailed cock just alluded to was exhibited before the
Society.
[49] ‘The Field,’ April 20th, 1861.
[50] I am much indebted to Mr. Brent for an account, with sketches, of
all the variations of the comb known to him, and likewise with respect
to the tail as presently to be given.
[51] The ‘Poultry Book,’ by Tegetmeier, 1866, p. 234.
[52] ‘Die Hühner-und Pfauenzucht,’ 1827, s. 11.
[53] ‘Poultry Chronicle,’ vol. i. p. 595. Mr. Brent has informed me of
the same fact. With respect to the position of the spurs in Dorkings
_see_ ‘Cottage Gardener,’ Sept. 18th, 1860, p. 380.
[54] Dixon, ‘Ornamental and Domestic Poultry,’ p. 320.
[55] Mr. Tegetmeier informs me that Game hens have been found so
combative, that it is now generally the practice to exhibit each hen
in a separate pen.
[56] ‘Naturgeschichte Deutschlands,’ Band iii. (1793), s. 339, 407.
[57] On the Ornithology of Ceylon in ‘Annals and Mag. of Nat.
History,’ 2nd series, vol. xiv. (1854), p. 63.
[58] ‘Handbuch der vergleich. Anatomie,’ 1805, p. 85, note. Mr.
Tegetmeier, who gives in ‘Proc. Zoolog. Soc.,’ Nov. 25th, 1856, a very
interesting account of the skulls of Polish fowls, not knowing of
Bechstein’s account, has disputed the accuracy of Blumenbach’s
statement. For Bechstein _see_ ‘Naturgeschichte Deutschlands,’ Band
iii. (1793), s. 399, note. I may add that at the first exhibition of
Poultry at the Zoological Gardens in May, 1845, I saw some fowls,
called Friezland fowls, of which the hens were crested, and the cocks
furnished with a comb.
[59] ‘Cottage Gardener,’ Jan. 3rd, 1860, p. 218.
[60] Mr. Williams, in a paper read before the Dublin Nat. Hist. Soc.,
quoted in ‘Cottage Gardener,’ 1856, p. 161.
[61] ‘De l’Espèce,’ 1859, p. 442. For the occurrence of black-boned
fowls in South America, _see_ Roulin in ‘Mém. de l’Acad. des
Sciences,’ tom. vi. p. 351; and Azara, ‘Quadrupèdes du Paraguay,’ tom.
ii. p. 324. A frizzled fowl sent to me from Madras had black bones.
[62] Mr. Hewitt, in Tegetmeier’s ‘Poultry Book,’ 1866, p. 231.
[63] Dr. Broca, in Brown-Séquard’s ‘Journal de Phys.,’ tom. ii. p.
361.
[64] Dixon’s ‘Ornamental Poultry,’ p. 325.
[65] ‘Poultry Chronicle,’ vol. i. p. 485. Tegetmeier’s ‘Poultry Book,’
1866, p. 41. On Cochins grazing, ibid., p. 46.
[66] Ferguson on ‘Prize Poultry,’ p. 87.
[67] Col. Sykes in ‘Proc. Zoolog. Soc.,’ 1832, p. 151. Dr. Hooker’s
‘Himalayan Journals,’ vol. i. p. 314.
[68] _See_ Mr. Tegetmeier’s account with woodcuts of the skull of
Polish fowls in ‘Proc. Zoolog. Soc.,’ Nov. 25th, 1856. For other
references, _see_ Isid. Geoffroy Saint-Hilaire, ‘Hist. Gén. des
Anomalies,’ tom. i. p. 287. M. C. Dareste suspects (‘Recherches sur
les Conditions de la Vie,’ etc., Lille 1863, p. 36) that the
protuberance is not formed by the frontal bones, but by the
ossification of the dura mater.
[69] ‘Naturgeschichte Deutschlands,’ Band iii. (1793), s. 400.
[70] The ‘Field,’ May 11th, 1861. I have received communications to a
similar effect from Messrs. Brent and Tegetmeier.
[71] It appears that I have not correctly designated the several
groups of vertebræ, for a great authority, Mr. W. K. Parker
(‘Transact. Zoolog. Soc.,’ vol. v. p. 198), specifies 16 cervical, 4
dorsal, 15 lumbar, and 6 caudal vertebræ in this genus. But I have
used the same terms in all the following descriptions.
[72] Macgillivray, ‘British Birds,’ vol. i. p. 25.
[73] It may be well to explain how the calculation has been made for
the third column. In _G. bankiva_ the leg-bones are to the wing-bones
as 86 : 54, or as (neglecting decimals) 100 : 62;—in Cochins as 311 :
162, or as 100 : 52;—in Dorkings as 557 : 248, or as 100 : 44; and so
on for the other breeds. We thus get the series of 62, 52, 44 for the
relative weights of the wing-bones in _G. bankiva,_ Cochins, Dorkings,
etc. And now taking 100, instead of 62, for the weight of the
wing-bones in _G. bankiva,_ we get, by another rule of three, 83 as
the weight of the wing-bones in Cochins; 70 in the Dorkings; and so on
for the remainder of the third column in the table.
[74] Mr. Blyth (in ‘Annals and Mag. of Nat. Hist.,’ 2nd series, vol.
i., 1848, p. 456) gives 3¼ pounds as the weight of a full-grown male
_G. bankiva_; but from what I have seen of the skins and skeletons of
various breeds, I cannot believe that my two specimens of _G. bankiva_
could have weighed so much.
[75] The third column is calculated on the same principle as explained
in footnote 73 above.