PIGEONS--_continued_.
ON THE ABORIGINAL PARENT-STOCK OF THE SEVERAL DOMESTIC RACES--HABITS OF
LIFE--WILD RACES OF THE ROCK-PIGEON--DOVECOT-PIGEONS--PROOFS OF THE
DESCENT OF THE SEVERAL RACES FROM COLUMBA LIVIA--FERTILITY OF THE RACES
WHEN CROSSED--REVERSION TO THE PLUMAGE OF THE WILD
ROCK-PIGEON--CIRCUMSTANCES FAVOURABLE TO THE FORMATION OF THE
RACES--ANTIQUITY AND HISTORY OF THE PRINCIPAL RACES--MANNER OF THEIR
FORMATION--SELECTION--UNCONSCIOUS SELECTION--CARE TAKEN BY FANCIERS IN
SELECTING THEIR BIRDS--SLIGHTLY DIFFERENT STRAINS GRADUALLY CHANGE INTO
WELL-MARKED BREEDS--EXTINCTION OF INTERMEDIATE FORMS--CERTAIN BREEDS
REMAIN PERMANENT, WHILST OTHERS CHANGE--SUMMARY.
The differences described in the last chapter between the eleven chief
domestic races and between individual birds of the same race, would be of
little significance, if they had not all descended from a single wild
stock. The question of their origin is therefore of fundamental importance,
and must be discussed at considerable length. No one will think this
superfluous who considers the great amount of difference between the races,
who knows how ancient many of them are, and how truly they breed at the
present day. Fanciers almost unanimously believe that the different races
are descended from several wild stocks, whereas most naturalists believe
that all are descended from the _Columba livia_ or rock-pigeon.
Temminck[316] has well observed, and Mr. Gould has made the same remark to
me, that the aboriginal parent must have been a species which roosted and
built its nest on rocks; and I may add that it must have been a social
bird. For all the domestic races are highly social, and none are known to
build or habitually to roost on trees. The awkward manner in which some
pigeons, kept by me in a summer-house near an old walnut-tree, occasionally
alighted on the barer branches, was {181} evident.[317] Nevertheless, Mr.
R. Scot Skirving informs me that he often saw crowds of pigeons in Upper
Egypt settling on the low trees, but not on the palms, in preference to the
mud hovels of the natives. In India Mr. Blyth[318] has been assured that
the wild _C. livia_, var. _intermedia_, sometimes roosts in trees. I may
here give a curious instance of compulsion leading to changed habits: the
banks of the Nile above lat. 28 deg. 30' are perpendicular for a long distance,
so that when the river is full the pigeons cannot alight on the shore to
drink, and Mr. Skirving repeatedly saw whole flocks settle on the water,
and drink whilst they floated down the stream. These flocks seen from a
distance resembled flocks of gulls on the surface of the sea.
If any domestic race had descended from a species which was not social, or
which built its nest or roosted in trees,[319] the sharp eyes of fanciers
would assuredly have detected some vestige of so different an aboriginal
habit. For we have reason to believe that aboriginal habits are long
retained under domestication. Thus with the common ass we see signs of its
original desert life in its strong dislike to cross the smallest stream of
water, and in its pleasure in rolling in the dust. The same strong dislike
to cross a stream is common to the camel, which has been domesticated from
a very ancient period. Young pigs, though so tame, sometimes squat when
frightened, and thus try to conceal themselves even on an open and bare
place. Young turkeys, and occasionally even young fowls, when the hen gives
the danger-cry, run away and try to hide themselves, like young partridges
or pheasants, in order that their mother may take flight, of which she has
lost the power. The musk-duck (_Dendrocygna viduata_) in its native {182}
country often perches and roosts on trees,[320] and our domesticated
musk-ducks, though such sluggish birds, "are fond of perching on the tops
of barns, walls, &c., and, if allowed to spend the night in the hen-house,
the female will generally go to roost by the side of the hens, but the
drake is too heavy to mount thither with ease."[321] We know that the dog,
however well and regularly fed, often buries, like the fox, any superfluous
food; and we see him turning round and round on a carpet, as if to trample
down grass to form a bed; we see him on bare pavements scratching backwards
as if to throw earth over his excrement, although, as I believe, this is
never effected even where there is earth. In the delight with which lambs
and kids crowd together and frisk on the smallest hillock, we see a vestige
of their former alpine habits.
We have therefore good reason to believe that all the domestic races of the
pigeon are descended either from some one or from several species which
both roosted and built their nests on rocks, and were social in
disposition. As only five or six wild species with these habits and making
any near approach in structure to the domesticated pigeon are known to
exist, I will enumerate them.
Firstly, the _Columba leuconota_ resembles certain domestic varieties
in its plumage, with the one marked and never-failing difference of a
white band which crosses the tail at some distance from the extremity.
This species, moreover, inhabits the Himalaya, close to the limit of
perpetual snow; and therefore, as Mr. Blyth has remarked, is not likely
to have been the parent of our domestic breeds, which thrive in the
hottest countries. Secondly, the _C. rupestris_, of Central Asia, which
is intermediate[322] between the _C. leuconota_ and _livia_; but has
nearly the same coloured tail with the former species. Thirdly, the
_Columba littoralis_ builds and roosts, according to Temminck, on rocks
in the Malayan archipelago; it is white, excepting parts of the wing
and the tip of the tail, which are black; its legs are livid-coloured,
and this is a character not observed in any adult domestic pigeon; but
I need not have mentioned this species or the closely-allied _C.
luctuosa_, as they in fact belong to the genus Carpophaga. Fourthly,
_Columba Guinea_, which ranges from Guinea[323] to the Cape of Good
Hope, {183} and roosts either on trees or rocks, according to the
nature of the country. This species belongs to the genus Strictoenas of
Reichenbach, but is closely allied to true Columba; it is to some
extent coloured like certain domestic races, and has been said to be
domesticated in Abyssinia; but Mr. Mansfield Parkyns, who collected the
birds of that country and knows the species, informs me that this is a
mistake. Moreover the _C. Guinea_ is characterized by the feathers of
the neck having peculiar notched tips,--a character not observed in any
domestic race. Fifthly, the _Columba oenas_ of Europe, which roosts on
trees, and builds its nest in holes, either in trees or the ground;
this species, as far as external characters go, might be the parent of
several domestic races; but, though it crosses readily with the true
rock-pigeon, the offspring, as we shall presently see, are sterile
hybrids, and of such sterility there is not a trace when the domestic
races are intercrossed. It should also be observed that if we were to
admit, against all probability, that any of the foregoing five or six
species were the parents of some of our domestic pigeons, not the least
light would be thrown on the chief differences between the eleven most
strongly-marked races.
We now come to the best known rock-pigeon, the _Columba livia_, which
is often designated in Europe pre-eminently as the Rock-pigeon, and
which naturalists believe to be the parent of all the domesticated
breeds. This bird agrees in every essential character with the breeds
which have been only slightly modified. It differs from all other
species in being of a slaty-blue colour, with two black bars on the
wings, and with the croup (or loins) white. Occasionally birds are seen
in Faroe and the Hebrides with the black bars replaced by two or three
black spots; this form has been named by Brehm[324] _C. amaliae_, but
this species has not been admitted as distinct by other ornithologists.
Graba[325] even found a difference between the wing-bars of the same
bird in Faroe. Another and rather more distinct form is either truly
wild or has become feral on the cliffs of England, and was doubtfully
named by Mr. Blyth[326] as _C. affinis_, but is now no longer
considered by him as a distinct species. _C. affinis_ is rather smaller
than the rock-pigeon of the Scottish islands, and has a very different
appearance owing to the wing-coverts being chequered with black, with
similar marks often extending over the back. The chequering consists of
a large black spot on the two sides, but chiefly on the outer side, of
each feather. The wing-bars in the true rock-pigeon and in the
chequered variety are, in fact, due to similar though larger spots
symmetrically crossing the secondary wing-feather and the larger
coverts. Hence the chequering arises merely from an extension of these
marks to other parts of the plumage. Chequered birds are not confined
to the coasts of England; for {184} they were found by Graba at Faroe;
and W. Thompson[327] says that at Islay fully half the wild
rock-pigeons were chequered. Colonel King, of Hythe, stocked his
dovecot with young wild birds which he himself procured from nests at
the Orkney Islands; and several specimens, kindly sent to me by him,
were all plainly chequered. As we thus see that chequered birds occur
mingled with the true rock-pigeon at three distinct sites, namely,
Faroe, the Orkney Islands, and Islay, no importance can be attached to
this natural variation in the plumage.
Prince C. L. Bonaparte,[328] a great divider of species, enumerates,
with a mark of interrogation, as distinct from _C. livia_, the _C.
turricola_ of Italy, the _C. rupestris_ of Daouria, and the _C.
Schimperi_ of Abyssinia; but these birds differ from _C. livia_ in
characters of the most trifling value. In the British Museum there is a
chequered pigeon, probably the _C. Schimperi_ of Bonaparte, from
Abyssinia. To these may be added the _C. gymnocyclus_ of G. R. Gray
from W. Africa, which is slightly more distinct, and has rather more
naked skin round the eyes than the rock-pigeon; but from information
given me by Dr. Daniell, it is doubtful whether this is a wild bird,
for dovecot-pigeons (which I have examined) are kept on the coast of
Guinea.
The wild rock-pigeon of India _(C. intermedia_ of Strickland) has been
more generally accepted as a distinct species. It chiefly differs in
the croup being blue instead of snow-white; but as Mr. Blyth informs
me, the tint varies, being sometimes albescent. When this form is
domesticated chequered birds appear, just as occurs in Europe with the
truly wild _C. livia_. Moreover we shall immediately have proof that
the blue and white croup is a highly variable character; and
Bechstein[329] asserts that with dovecot-pigeons in Germany this is the
most variable of all the characters of the plumage. Hence it may be
concluded that _C. intermedia_ cannot be ranked as specifically
distinct from _C. livia_.
In Madeira there is a rock-pigeon which a few ornithologists have
suspected to be distinct from _C. livia_. I have examined numerous
specimens collected by Mr. E. V. Harcourt and Mr. Mason. They are
rather smaller than the rock-pigeon from the Shetland Islands, and
their beaks are plainly thinner; but the thickness of the beak varied
in the several specimens. In plumage there is remarkable diversity;
some specimens are identical in every feather (I speak after actual
comparison) with the rock-pigeon of the Shetland Islands; others are
chequered, like _C. affinis_ from the cliffs of England, but generally
to a greater degree, being almost black over the whole back; others are
identical with the so-called _C. intermedia_ of India in the degree of
blueness of the croup; whilst others have this part very pale or very
dark blue, and are likewise chequered. So much variability raises a
strong suspicion that these birds are domestic pigeons which have
become feral.
{185}
From these facts it can hardly be doubted that _C. livia_, _affinis_,
_intermedia_, and the forms marked with an interrogation by Bonaparte,
ought all to be included under a single species. But it is quite
immaterial whether or not they are thus ranked, and whether some one of
these forms or all are the progenitors of the various domestic kinds,
as far as any light is thus thrown on the differences between the more
strongly-marked races. That common dovecot-pigeons, which are kept in
various parts of the world, are descended from one or from several of
the above-mentioned wild varieties of _C. livia_, no one who compares
them will doubt. But before making a few remarks on dovecot-pigeons, it
should be stated that the wild rock-pigeon has been found easy to tame
in several countries. We have seen that Colonel King at Hythe stocked
his dovecot more than twenty years ago with young wild birds taken at
the Orkney Islands, and since this time they have greatly multiplied.
The accurate Macgillivray[330] asserts that he completely tamed a wild
rock-pigeon in the Hebrides; and several accounts are on record of
these pigeons having bred in dovecots in the Shetland Islands. In
India, as Captain Hutton informs me, the wild rock-pigeon is easily
tamed, and breeds readily with the domestic kind; and Mr. Blyth[331]
asserts that wild birds come frequently to the dovecots and mingle
freely with their inhabitants. In the ancient 'Ayeen Akbery' it is
written that, if a few wild pigeons be taken, "they are speedily joined
by a thousand others of their kind."
Dovecot-pigeons are those which are kept in dovecots in a
semi-domesticated state; for no special care is taken of them, and they
procure their own food, except during the severest weather. In England,
and, judging from MM. Boitard and Corbie's work, in France, the common
dovecot-pigeon exactly resembles the chequered variety of _C. livia_;
but I have seen dovecots brought from Yorkshire, without any trace of
chequering, like the wild rock-pigeon of the Shetland Islands. The
chequered dovecots from the Orkney Islands, after having been
domesticated by Colonel King for more than twenty years, differed
slightly from each other in the darkness of their plumage, and in the
thickness of their beaks; the thinnest beak being rather thicker than
the thickest one in the Madeira birds. In Germany, according to
Bechstein, the common dovecot-pigeon is not chequered. In India they
often become chequered, and sometimes pied with white; the croup also,
as I am informed by Mr. Blyth, becomes nearly white. I have received
from Sir J. Brooke some dovecot-pigeons, {186} which originally came
from the S. Natunas Islands in the Malay archipelago, and which had
been crossed with the Singapore dovecots; they were small, and the
darkest variety was extremely like the dark chequered variety with a
blue croup from Madeira; but the beak was not so thin, though decidedly
thinner than in the rock-pigeon from the Shetland Islands. A
dovecot-pigeon sent to me by Mr. Swinhoe from Foochow, in China, was
likewise rather small, but differed in no other respect. I have also
received, through the kindness of Dr. Daniell, four living
dovecot-pigeons from Sierra Leone;[332] these were fully as large as
the Shetland rock-pigeon, with even bulkier bodies. In plumage some of
them were identical with the Shetland rock-pigeon, but with the
metallic tints apparently rather more brilliant; others had a blue
croup and resembled the chequered variety of _C. intermedia_ of India;
and some were so much chequered as to be nearly black. In these four
birds the beak differed slightly in length, but in all it was decidedly
shorter, more massive, and stronger than in the wild rock-pigeon from
the Shetland Islands, or in the English dovecot. When the beaks of
these African pigeons were compared with the thinnest beaks of the wild
Madeira specimens, the contrast was great; the former being fully
one-third thicker in a vertical direction than the latter; so that any
one at first would have felt inclined to rank these birds as
specifically distinct; yet-so perfectly graduated a series could be
formed between the above-mentioned varieties, that it was obviously
impossible to separate them.
To sum up: the wild _Columba livia_, including under this name _C. affinis,
intermedia_, and the other still more closely-affined geographical races,
has a vast range from the southern coast of Norway and the Faroe Islands to
the shores of the Mediterranean, to Madeira and the Canary Islands, to
Abyssinia, India, and Japan. It varies greatly in plumage, being in many
places chequered with black, and having either a white or blue croup or
loins: it varies also slightly in the size of the beak and body.
Dovecot-pigeons, which no one disputes are descended from one or more of
the above wild forms, present a similar but greater range of variation in
plumage, in the size of body, and in the length and thickness of the beak.
There seems to be some relation between the croup being blue or white, and
the temperature of the country inhabited by both wild and dovecot pigeons;
for nearly all the dovecot-pigeons in the northern parts of Europe have a
white croup, like that of the wild European {187} rock-pigeon; and nearly
all the dovecot-pigeons of India have a blue croup like that of the wild
_C. intermedia_ of India. As in various countries the wild rock-pigeon has
been found easy to tame, it seems extremely probable that the
dovecot-pigeons throughout the world are the descendants of at least two
and perhaps more wild stocks, but these, as we have just seen, cannot be
ranked as specifically distinct.
With respect to the variation of _C. livia_, we may without fear of
contradiction go one step further. Those pigeon-fanciers who believe that
all the chief races, such as Carriers, Pouters, Fantails, &c., are
descended from distinct aboriginal stocks, yet admit that the so-called
toy-pigeons, which differ from the rock-pigeon in little except in colour,
are descended from this bird. By toy-pigeons are meant such birds as Spots,
Nuns, Helmets, Swallows, Priests, Monks, Porcelains, Swabians, Archangels,
Breasts, Shields, and others in Europe, and many others in India. It would
indeed be as puerile to suppose that all these birds are descended from so
many distinct wild stocks as to suppose this to be the case with the many
varieties of the gooseberry, heartsease, or dahlia. Yet these pigeons all
breed true, and many of them present sub-varieties which likewise truly
transmit their character. They differ greatly from each other and from the
rock-pigeon in plumage, slightly in size and proportions of body, in size
of feet, and in the length and thickness of their beaks. They differ from
each other in these respects more than do dovecot-pigeons. Although we may
safely admit that the latter, which vary slightly, and that the
toy-pigeons, which vary in a greater degree in accordance with their more
highly-domesticated condition, are descended from _C. livia_, including
under this name the above-enumerated wild geographical races; yet the
question becomes far more difficult when we consider the eleven principal
races, most of which have been so profoundly modified. It can, however, be
shown, by indirect evidence of a perfectly conclusive nature, that these
principal races are not descended from so many wild stocks; and if this be
once admitted, few will dispute that they are the descendants of _C.
livia_, which agrees with them so closely in habits and in most characters,
which varies in a state of nature, and which has certainly {188} undergone
a considerable amount of variation, as in the toy-pigeons. We shall
moreover presently see how eminently favourable circumstances have been for
a great amount of modification in the more carefully tended breeds.
The reasons for concluding that the several principal races have not
descended from so many aboriginal and unknown stocks may be grouped under
the following six heads:--_Firstly_, if the eleven chief races have not
arisen from the variation of some one species, together with its
geographical races, they must be descended from several extremely distinct
aboriginal species; for no amount of crossing between only six or seven
wild forms could produce races so distinct as pouters, carriers, runts,
fantails, turbits, short-faced tumblers, jacobins, and trumpeters. How
could crossing produce, for instance, a pouter or a fantail, unless the two
supposed aboriginal parents possessed the remarkable characters of these
breeds? I am aware that some naturalists, following Pallas, believe that
crossing gives a strong tendency to variation, independently of the
characters inherited from either parent. They believe that it would be
easier to raise a pouter or fantail pigeon from crossing two distinct
species, neither of which possessed the characters of these races, than
from any single species. I can find few facts in support of this doctrine,
and believe in it only to a limited degree; but in a future chapter I shall
have to recur to this subject. For our present purpose the point is not
material. The question which concerns us is, whether or not many new and
important characters have arisen since man first domesticated the pigeon.
On the ordinary view, variability is due to changed conditions of life; on
the Pallasian doctrine, variability, or the appearance of new characters,
is due to some mysterious effect from the crossing of two species, neither
of which possess the characters in question. In some few instances it is
credible, though for several reasons not probable, that well-marked races
have been formed by crossing; for instance, a barb might perhaps have been
formed by a cross between a long-beaked carrier, having large eye-wattles,
and some short-beaked pigeon. That many races have been in some degree
modified by crossing, and that certain varieties which are distinguished
only by peculiar tints have arisen from crosses between
differently-coloured {189} varieties, may be admitted as almost certain. On
the doctrine, therefore, that the chief races owe their differences to
their descent from distinct species, we must admit that at least eight or
nine, or more probably a dozen species, all having the same habit of
breeding and roosting on rocks and living in society, either now exist
somewhere, or formerly existed but have become extinct as wild birds.
Considering how carefully wild pigeons have been collected throughout the
world, and what conspicuous birds they are, especially when frequenting
rocks, it is extremely improbable that eight or nine species, which were
long ago domesticated and therefore must have inhabited some anciently
known country, should still exist in the wild state and be unknown to
ornithologists.
The hypothesis that such species formerly existed, but have become extinct,
is in some slight degree more probable. But the extinction of so many
species within the historical period is a bold hypothesis, seeing how
little influence man has had in exterminating the common rock-pigeon, which
agrees in all its habits of life with the domestic races. The _C. livia_
now exists and flourishes on the small northern islands of Faroe, on many
islands off the coast of Scotland, on Sardinia and the shores of the
Mediterranean, and in the centre of India. Fanciers have sometimes imagined
that the several supposed parent-species were originally confined to small
islands, and thus might readily have been exterminated; but the facts just
given do not favour the probability of their extinction, even on small
islands. Nor is it probable, from what is known of the distribution of
birds, that the islands near Europe should have been inhabited by peculiar
species of pigeons; and if we assume that distant oceanic islands were the
homes of the supposed parent-species, we must remember that ancient voyages
were tediously slow, and that ships were then ill-provided with fresh food,
so that it would not have been easy to bring home living birds. I have said
ancient voyages, for nearly all the races of the pigeon were known before
the year 1600, so that the supposed wild species must have been captured
and domesticated before that date.
_Secondly._--The doctrine that the chief domestic races have descended from
several aboriginal species, implies that several {190} species were
formerly so thoroughly domesticated as to breed readily when confined.
Although it is easy to tame most wild birds, experience shows us that it is
difficult to get them to breed freely under confinement; although it must
be owned that this is less difficult with pigeons than with most other
birds. During the last two or three hundred years, many birds have been
kept in aviaries, but hardly one has been added to our list of thoroughly
reclaimed species; yet on the above doctrine we must admit that in ancient
times nearly a dozen kinds of pigeons, now unknown in the wild state, were
thoroughly domesticated.
_Thirdly._--Most of our domesticated animals have run wild in various parts
of the world; but birds, owing apparently to their partial loss of the
power of flight, less often than quadrupeds. Nevertheless I have met with
accounts showing that the common fowl has become feral in South America and
perhaps in West Africa, and on several islands: the turkey was at one time
almost feral on the banks of the Parana; and the Guinea-fowl has become
perfectly wild at Ascension and in Jamaica. In this latter island the
peacock, also, "has become a maroon bird." The common duck wanders from its
home and becomes almost wild in Norfolk. Hybrids between the common and
musk-duck which have become wild have been shot in North America, Belgium,
and near the Caspian Sea. The goose is said to have run wild in La Plata.
The common dovecot-pigeon has become wild at Juan Fernandez, Norfolk
Island, Ascension, probably at Madeira, on the shores of Scotland, and, as
is asserted, on the banks of the Hudson in North America.[333] But how
different is the case, when we turn {191} to the eleven chief domestic
races of the pigeon, which are supposed by some authors to be descended
from so many distinct species! no one has ever pretended that any one of
these races has been found wild in any quarter of the world; yet they have
been transported to all countries, and some of them must have been carried
back to their native homes. On the view that all the races are the product
of variation, we can understand why they have not become feral, for the
great amount of modification which they have undergone shows how long and
how thoroughly they have been domesticated; and this would unfit them for a
wild life.
_Fourthly._--If it be assumed that the characteristic differences between
the various domestic races are due to descent from several aboriginal
species, we must conclude that man chose for domestication in ancient
times, either intentionally or by chance, a most abnormal set of pigeons;
for that species resembling such birds as pouters, fantails, carriers,
barbs, short-faced tumblers, turbits, &c., would be in the highest degree
abnormal, as compared with all the existing members of the great
pigeon-family, cannot be doubted. Thus we should have to believe that man
not only formerly succeeded in thoroughly domesticating several highly
abnormal species, but that these same species have since all become
extinct, or are at least now unknown. This double accident is so extremely
improbable that the assumed existence of so many abnormal species would
require to be supported by the strongest evidence. On the other hand, if
all the races are descended from _C. livia_, we can understand, as will
hereafter be more fully explained, how any slight deviation in structure
which first appeared would continually be augmented by the preservation of
the most strongly marked individuals; and as the power of selection would
be applied according to man's fancy, and not for the bird's own good, the
accumulated amount of deviation would certainly be of an abnormal nature in
comparison with the structure of pigeons living in a state of nature.
I have already alluded to the remarkable fact, that the {192}
characteristic differences between the chief domestic races are eminently
variable: we see this plainly in the great difference in the number of the
tail-feathers in the fantail, in the development of the crop in pouters, in
the length of the beak in tumblers, in the state of the wattle in carriers,
&c. If these characters are the result of successive variations added
together by selection, we can understand why they should be so variable:
for these are the very parts which have varied since the domestication of
the pigeon, and therefore would be likely still to vary; these variations
moreover have been recently, and are still being accumulated by man's
selection; therefore they have not as yet become firmly fixed.
_Fifthly._--All the domestic races pair readily together, and, what is
equally important, their mongrel offspring are perfectly fertile. To
ascertain this fact I made many experiments, which are given in the note
below; and recently Mr. Tegetmeier has made similar experiments with the
same result.[334] The accurate Neumeister[335] asserts that when dovecots
{193} are crossed with pigeons of any other breed, the mongrels are
extremely fertile and hardy. MM. Boitard and Corbie[336] affirm, after
their great experience, that with crossed pigeons the more distinct the
breeds, the more productive are their mongrel offspring. I admit that the
doctrine first broached by Pallas is highly probable, if not actually
proved, namely, that closely allied species, which in a state of nature or
when first captured would have been in some degree sterile when crossed,
lose this sterility after a long course of domestication; yet when we
consider the great difference between such races as pouters, carriers,
runts, fantails, turbits, tumblers, &c., the fact of their perfect, or even
increased, fertility when intercrossed in the most complicated manner
becomes a strong argument in favour of their having all descended from a
single species. This argument is rendered much stronger when we hear (I
append in a note[337] {194} all the cases which I have collected) that
hardly a single well-ascertained instance is known of hybrids between two
true species of pigeons being fertile, _inter se_, or even when crossed
with one of their pure parents.
_Sixthly._--Excluding certain important characteristic differences, the
chief races agree most closely both with each other and with _C. livia_ in
all other respects. As previously observed, all are eminently sociable; all
dislike to perch or roost, and refuse to build in trees; all lay two eggs,
and this is not a universal rule with the Columbidae; all, as far as I can
hear, require the same time for hatching their eggs; all can endure the
same great range of climate; all prefer the same food, and are passionately
fond of salt; all exhibit (with the asserted exception of the finnikin and
turner, which do not differ much in any other character) the same peculiar
gestures when courting the females; and all (with the exception of
trumpeters and laughers, which likewise do not differ much in any other
character) coo in the same peculiar manner, unlike the voice of any other
wild pigeon. All the coloured breeds display the same peculiar metallic
tints on the breast, a character far from general with pigeons. Each race
presents nearly the same range of variation in colour; and in most of the
races we have the same singular correlation between the development of down
in the young and the future colour of plumage. All have the proportional
length of their toes, and of their primary wing-feathers, nearly the
same,--characters which are apt to differ in the several members of the
Columbidae. In those races which present some remarkable deviation of
structure, such as in the tail of fantails, crop of pouters, beak of
carriers and tumblers, &c., the other parts remain nearly unaltered. Now
every naturalist will admit that it would be scarcely possible to pick out
a dozen natural species in any Family, which should agree closely in habits
and in general structure, and yet should differ greatly in a few {195}
characters alone. This fact is explicable through the doctrine of natural
selection; for each successive modification of structure in each natural
species is preserved, solely because it is of service; and such
modifications when largely accumulated imply a great change in the habits
of life, and this will almost certainly lead to other changes of structure
throughout the whole organisation. On the other hand, if the several races
of the pigeon have been produced by man through selection and variation, we
can readily understand how it is that they should still all resemble each
other in habits and in those many characters which man has not cared to
modify, whilst they differ to so prodigious a degree in those parts which
have struck his eye or pleased his fancy.
Besides the points above enumerated, in which all the domestic races
resemble _C. livia_ and each other, there is one which deserves special
notice. The wild rock-pigeon is of a slaty-blue colour; the wings are
crossed by two black bars; the croup varies in colour, being generally
white in the pigeon of Europe, and blue in that of India; the tail has a
black bar close to the end, and the outer webs of the outer tail-feathers
are edged with white, except near the tips. These combined characters are
not found in any wild pigeon besides _C. livia_. I have looked carefully
through the great collection of pigeons in the British Museum, and I find
that a dark bar at the end of the tail is common; that the white edging to
the outer tail-feathers is not rare; but that the white croup is extremely
rare, and the two black bars on the wings occur in no other pigeon,
excepting the alpine _C. leuconota_ and _C. rupestris_ of Asia. Now if we
turn to the domestic races, it is highly remarkable, as an eminent fancier,
Mr. Wicking, observed to me, that, whenever a blue bird appears in any
race, the wings almost invariably show the double black bars.[338] The
primary wing-feathers may be white or black, and the whole body may be
{196} of any colour, but if the wing-coverts alone are blue, the two black
bars surely appear. I have myself seen, or acquired trustworthy evidence,
as given below,[339] of blue birds with black bars on the wing, with the
croup either white or very pale or dark blue, with the tail having a
terminal black bar, and with the outer feathers externally edged with white
or very pale coloured, in the following races, which, as I carefully
observed in each case, appeared to be perfectly pure: namely, in Pouters,
Fantails, Tumblers, Jacobins, Turbits, Barbs, Carriers, Runts of three
distinct varieties, Trumpeters, Swallows, and in many other toy-pigeons,
which, as being closely allied to _C. livia_, are not worth enumerating.
Thus we see that, in purely-bred races of every kind known in Europe, blue
birds occasionally appear having all the marks which characterise _C.
livia_, and which concur in no other wild species. Mr. Blyth, also, has
made the same observation with respect to the various domestic races known
in India.
Certain variations in the plumage are equally common in the wild _C.
livia_, in dovecot-pigeons, and in all the most highly modified races.
Thus, in all, the croup varies from white to {197} blue, being most
frequently white in Europe, and very generally blue in India.[340] We have
seen that the wild _C. livia_ in Europe, and dovecots in all parts of the
world, often have the upper wing-coverts chequered with black; and all the
most distinct races, when blue, are occasionally chequered in precisely the
same manner. Thus I have seen Pouters, Fantails, Carriers, Turbits,
Tumblers (Indian and English), Swallows, Bald-pates, and other toy-pigeons
blue and chequered; and Mr. Esquilant has seen a chequered Runt. I bred
from two pure blue Tumblers a chequered bird.
* * * * *
The facts hitherto given refer to the occasional appearance in pure races
of blue birds with black wing-bars, and likewise of blue and chequered
birds; but it will now be seen that when two birds belonging to distinct
races are crossed, neither of which have, nor probably have had during many
generations, a trace of blue in their plumage, or a trace of wing-bars and
the other characteristic marks, they very frequently produce mongrel
offspring of a blue colour, sometimes chequered, with black wing-bars, &c.;
or if not of a blue colour, yet with the several characteristic marks more
or less plainly developed. I was led to investigate this subject from MM.
Boitard and Corbie[341] having asserted that from crosses between certain
breeds it is rare to get anything but bisets or dovecot-pigeons, which, as
we know, are blue birds with the usual characteristic marks. We shall
hereafter see that this subject possesses, independently of our present
object, considerable interest, so that I will give the results of my own
trials in full. I selected for experiment races which, when pure, very
seldom produce birds of a blue colour, or have bars on their wings and
tail.
The nun is white, with the head, tail, and primary wing-feathers black; it
is a breed which was established as long ago {198} as the year 1600. I
crossed a male nun with a female red common tumbler, which latter variety
generally breeds true. Thus neither parent had a trace of blue in the
plumage, or of bars on the wing and tail. I should premise that common
tumblers are rarely blue in England. From the above cross I reared several
young: one was red over the whole back, but with the tail as blue as that
of the rock-pigeon; the terminal bar, however, was absent, but the outer
feathers were edged with white: a second and third nearly resembled the
first, but the tail in both presented a trace of the bar at the end: a
fourth was brownish, and the wings showed a trace of the double bar: a
fifth was pale blue over the whole breast, back, croup, and tail, but the
neck and primary wing-feathers were reddish; the wings presented two
distinct bars of a red colour; the tail was not barred, but the outer
feathers were edged with white. I crossed this last curiously coloured bird
with a black mongrel of complicated descent, namely, from a black barb, a
spot, and almond tumbler, so that the two young birds produced from this
cross included the blood of five varieties, none of which had a trace of
blue or of wing and tail bars: one of the two young birds was
brownish-black, with black wing-bars; the other was reddish-dun, with
reddish wing-bars, paler than the rest of the body, with the croup pale
blue, the tail bluish, with a trace of the terminal bar.
Mr. Eaton[342] matched two short-faced tumblers, namely, a splash cock and
kite hen (neither of which are blue or barred), and from the first nest he
got a perfect blue bird, and from the second a silver or pale blue bird,
both of which, in accordance with all analogy, no doubt presented the usual
characteristic marks.
I crossed two male black barbs with two female red spots. These latter have
the whole body and wings white, with a spot on the forehead, the tail and
tail-coverts red; the race existed at least as long ago as 1676, and now
breeds perfectly true, as was known to be the case in the year 1735.[343]
Barbs are uniformly-coloured birds, with rarely even a trace of bars on the
wing or tail; they are known to breed very true. The mongrels thus raised
were black or nearly black, or dark or pale brown, {199} sometimes slightly
piebald with white: of these birds no less than six presented double
wing-bars; in two the bars were conspicuous and quite black; in seven some
white feathers appeared on the croup; and in two or three there was a trace
of the terminal bar to the tail, but in none were the outer tail-feathers
edged with white.
I crossed black barbs (of two excellent strains) with purely-bred,
snow-white fantails. The mongrels were generally quite black, with a few of
the primary wing and tail-feathers white: others were dark reddish-brown,
and others snow-white: none had a trace of wing-bars or of the white croup.
I then paired together two of these mongrels, namely, a brown and black
bird, and their offspring displayed wing-bars, faint, but of a darker brown
than the rest of body. In a second brood from the same parents a brown bird
was produced, with several white feathers confined to the croup.
I crossed a male dun dragon belonging to a family which had been
dun-coloured without wing-bars during several generations, with a uniform
red barb (bred from two black barbs); and the offspring presented decided
but faint traces of wing-bars. I crossed a uniform red male runt with a
white trumpeter; and the offspring had a slaty-blue tail, with a bar at the
end, and with the outer feathers edged with white. I also crossed a female
black and white chequered trumpeter (of a different strain from the last)
with a male almond-tumbler, neither of which exhibited a trace of blue, or
of the white croup, or of the bar at end of tail: nor is it probable that
the progenitors of these two birds had for many generations exhibited any
of these characters, for I have never even heard of a blue trumpeter in
this country, and my almond-tumbler was purely bred; yet the tail of this
mongrel was bluish, with a broad black bar at the end, and the croup was
perfectly white. It may be observed in several of these cases, that the
tail first shows a tendency to become by reversion blue; and this fact of
the persistency of colour in the tail and tail-coverts[344] will surprise
no one who has attended to the crossing of pigeons.
{200}
The last case which I will give is the most curious. I paired a mongrel
female barb-fantail with a mongrel male barb-spot; neither of which
mongrels had the least blue about them. Let it be remembered that blue
barbs are excessively rare; that spots, as has been already stated, were
perfectly characterized in the year 1676, and breed perfectly true; this
likewise is the case with white fantails, so much so that I have never
heard of white fantails throwing any other colour. Nevertheless the
offspring from the above two mongrels was of exactly the same blue tint as
that of the wild rock-pigeon from the Shetland Islands over the whole back
and wings; the double black wing-bars were equally conspicuous; the tail
was exactly alike in all its characters, and the croup was pure white; the
head, however, was tinted with a shade of red, evidently derived from the
spot, and was of a paler blue than in the rock-pigeon, as was the stomach.
So that two black barbs, a red spot, and a white fantail, as the four
purely-bred grandparents, produced a bird of the same general blue colour,
together with every characteristic mark, as in the wild _Columba livia_.
With respect to crossed breeds frequently producing blue birds chequered
with black, and resembling in all respects both the dovecot-pigeon and the
chequered wild variety of the rock-pigeon, the statement before referred to
by MM. Boitard and Corbie would almost suffice; but I will give three
instances of the appearance of such birds from crosses in which one alone
of the parents or great-grandparents was blue, but not chequered. I crossed
a male blue turbit with a snow-white trumpeter, and the following year with
a dark, leaden-brown, short-faced tumbler; the offspring from the first
cross were as perfectly chequered as any dovecot-pigeon; and from the
second, so much so as to be nearly as black as the most darkly chequered
rock-pigeon from Madeira. Another bird, whose great-grandparents were a
white trumpeter, a white fantail, a white red-spot, a red runt, and a blue
pouter, was slaty-blue and chequered exactly like a dovecot-pigeon. I may
here {201} add a remark made to me by Mr. Wicking, who has had more
experience than any other person in England in breeding pigeons of various
colours: namely, that when a blue, or a blue and chequered bird, having
black wing-bars, once appears in any race and is allowed to breed, these
characters are so strongly transmitted that it is extremely difficult to
eradicate them.
What, then, are we to conclude from this tendency in all the chief domestic
races, both when purely bred and more especially when intercrossed, to
produce offspring of a blue colour, with the same characteristic marks,
varying in the same manner, as in _Columba livia_? If we admit that these
races have all descended from _C. livia_, no breeder will doubt that the
occasional appearance of blue birds thus characterised is accounted for on
the well-known principle of "throwing back" or reversion. Why crossing
should give so strong a tendency to reversion, we do not with certainty
know; but abundant evidence of this fact will be given in the following
chapters. It is probable that I might have bred even for a century pure
black barbs, spots, nuns, white fantails, trumpeters, &c., without
obtaining a single blue or barred bird; yet by crossing these breeds I
reared in the first and second generation, during the course of only three
or four years, a considerable number of young birds, more or less plainly
coloured blue, and with most of the characteristic marks. When black and
white, or black and red birds, are crossed, it would appear that a slight
tendency exists in both parents to produce blue offspring, and that this,
when combined, overpowers the separate tendency in either parent to produce
black, or white, or red offspring.
If we reject the belief that all the races of the pigeon are the modified
descendants of _C. livia_, and suppose that they are descended from several
aboriginal stocks, then we must choose between the three following
assumptions: firstly, that at least eight or nine species formerly existed
which were aboriginally coloured in various ways, but have since varied in
so exactly the same manner as to assume the colouring of _C. livia_; but
this assumption throws not the least light on the appearance of such
colours and marks when the races are crossed. Or secondly, we may assume
that the aboriginal species {202} were all coloured blue, and had the
wing-bars and other characteristic marks of _C. livia_,--a supposition
which is highly improbable, as besides this one species no existing member
of the Columbidae presents these combined characters; and it would not be
possible to find any other instance of several species identical in
plumage, yet as different in important points of structure as are pouters,
fantails, carriers, tumblers, &c. Or lastly, we may assume that all the
races, whether descended from _C. livia_ or from several aboriginal
species, although they have been bred with so much care and are so highly
valued by fanciers, have all been crossed within a dozen or score of
generations with _C. livia_, and have thus acquired their tendency to
produce blue birds with the several characteristic marks. I have said that
it must be assumed that each race has been crossed with _C. livia_ within a
dozen, or, at the utmost, within a score of generations; for there is no
reason to believe that crossed offspring ever revert to one of their
ancestors when removed by a greater number of generations. In a breed which
has been crossed only once, the tendency to reversion will naturally become
less and less in the succeeding generations, as in each there will be less
and less of the blood of the foreign breed; but when there has been no
cross with a distinct breed, and there is a tendency in both parents to
revert to some long-lost character, this tendency, for all that we can see
to the contrary, may be transmitted undiminished for an indefinite number
of generations. These two distinct cases of reversion are often confounded
together by those who have written on inheritance.
Considering, on the one hand, the improbability of the three assumptions
which have just been discussed, and, on the other hand, how simply the
facts are explained on the principle of reversion, we may conclude that the
occasional appearance in all the races, both when purely bred and more
especially when crossed, of blue birds, sometimes chequered, with double
wing-bars, with white or blue croups, with a bar at the end of the tail,
and with the outer tail-feathers edged with white, affords an argument of
the greatest weight in favour of the view that all are descended from
_Columba livia_, including under this name the three or four wild varieties
or sub-species before enumerated. {203}
To sum up the six foregoing arguments, which are opposed to the belief that
the chief domestic races are the descendants of at least eight or nine or
perhaps a dozen species; for the crossing of any less number would not
yield the characteristic differences between the several races. _Firstly_,
the improbability that so many species should still exist somewhere, but be
unknown to ornithologists, or that they should have become within the
historical period extinct, although man has had so little influence in
exterminating the wild _C. livia_. _Secondly_, the improbability of man in
former times having thoroughly domesticated and rendered fertile under
confinement so many species. _Thirdly_, these supposed species having
nowhere become feral. _Fourthly_, the extraordinary fact that man should,
intentionally or by chance, have chosen for domestication several species,
extremely abnormal in character; and furthermore, the points of structure
which render these supposed species so abnormal being now highly variable.
_Fifthly_, the fact of all the races, though differing in many important
points of structure, producing perfectly fertile mongrels; whilst all the
hybrids which have been produced between even closely allied species in the
pigeon-family are sterile. _Sixthly_, the remarkable statements just given
on the tendency in all the races, both when purely bred and when crossed,
to revert in numerous minute details of colouring to the character of the
wild rock-pigeon, and to vary in a similar manner. To these arguments may
be added the extreme improbability that a number of species formerly
existed, which differed greatly from each other in some few points, but
which resembled each other as closely as do the domestic races in other
points of structure, in voice, and in all their habits of life. When these
several facts and arguments are fairly taken into consideration, it would
require an overwhelming amount of evidence to make us admit that the chief
domestic races are descended from several aboriginal stocks; and of such
evidence there is absolutely none.
The belief that the chief domestic races are descended from several wild
stocks no doubt has arisen from the apparent improbability of such great
modifications of structure having been effected since man first
domesticated the rock-pigeon. Nor am I surprised at any degree of
hesitation in admitting their common {204} origin: formerly, when I went
into my aviaries and watched such birds as pouters, carriers, barbs,
fantails, and short-faced tumblers, &c., I could not persuade myself that
they had all descended from the same wild stock, and that man had
consequently in one sense created these remarkable modifications. Therefore
I have argued the question of their origin at great, and, as some will
think, superfluous length.
Finally, in favour of the belief that all the races are descended from a
single stock, we have in _Columba livia_ a still existing and widely
distributed species, which can be and has been domesticated in various
countries. This species agrees in most points of structure and in all its
habits of life, as well as occasionally in every detail of plumage, with
the several domestic races. It breeds freely with them, and produces
fertile offspring. It varies in a state of nature,[345] and still more so
when semi-domesticated, as shown by comparing the Sierra Leone pigeons with
those of India, or with those which apparently have run wild in Madeira. It
has undergone a still greater amount of variation in the case of the
numerous toy-pigeons, which no one supposes to be descended from distinct
species; yet some of these toy-pigeons have transmitted their character
truly for centuries. Why, then, should we hesitate to believe in that
greater amount of variation which is necessary for the production of the
eleven chief races? It should be borne in mind that in two of the most
strongly-marked races, namely, carriers and short-faced tumblers, the
extreme forms can be connected with the parent-species by graduated
differences not greater than those which may be observed between the
dovecot-pigeons inhabiting different countries, or between the various
kinds of toy-pigeons,--gradations which must certainly be attributed to
variation.
That circumstances have been eminently favourable for the modification of
the pigeon through variation and selection will now be shown. The earliest
record, as has been pointed out to me by Professor Lepsius, of pigeons in a
domesticated condition, occurs in the fifth Egyptian dynasty, about {205}
3000 B.C.;[346] but Mr. Birch, of the British Museum, informs me that the
pigeon appears in a bill of fare in the previous dynasty. Domestic pigeons
are mentioned in Genesis, Leviticus, and Isaiah.[347] In the time of the
Romans, as we hear from Pliny,[348] immense prices were given for pigeons;
"nay, they are come to this pass, that they can reckon up their pedigree
and race." In India, about the year 1600, pigeons were much valued by Akber
Khan: 20,000 birds were carried about with the court, and the merchants
brought valuable collections. "The monarchs of Iran and Turan sent him some
very rare breeds. His Majesty," says the courtly historian, "by crossing
the breeds, which method was never practised before, has improved them
astonishingly."[349] Akber Khan possessed seventeen distinct kinds, eight
of which were valuable for beauty alone. At about this same period of 1600
the Dutch, according to Aldrovandi, were as eager about pigeons as the
Romans had formerly been. The breeds which were kept during the fifteenth
century in Europe and in India apparently differed from each other.
Tavernier, in his Travels in 1677, speaks, as does Chardin in 1735, of the
vast number of pigeon-houses in Persia; and the former remarks that, as
Christians were not permitted to keep pigeons, some of the vulgar actually
turned Mahometans for this sole purpose. The Emperor of Morocco had his
favourite keeper of pigeons, as is mentioned in Moore's treatise, published
1737. In England, from the time of Willughby in 1678 to the present day, as
well as in Germany and in France, numerous treatises have been published on
the pigeon. In India, about a hundred years ago, a Persian treatise was
written; and the writer thought it no light affair, for he begins with a
solemn invocation, "in the name of God, the gracious and merciful." Many
large towns, in Europe and the United States, now have their societies of
devoted pigeon-fanciers: at present there are three such societies in
London. In India, as I hear from {206} Mr. Blyth, the inhabitants of Delhi
and of some other great cities are eager fanciers. Mr. Layard informs me
that most of the known breeds are kept in Ceylon. In China, according to
Mr. Swinhoe of Amoy, and Dr. Lockhart of Shangai, carriers, fantails,
tumblers, and other varieties are reared with care, especially by the
bonzes or priests. The Chinese fasten a kind of whistle to the
tail-feathers of their pigeons, and as the flock wheels through the air
they produce a sweet sound. In Egypt the late Abbas Pacha was a great
fancier of fantails. Many pigeons are kept at Cairo and Constantinople, and
these have lately been imported by native merchants, as I hear from Sir W.
Elliot, into Southern India, and sold at high prices.
The foregoing statements show in how many countries, and during how long a
period, many men have been passionately devoted to the breeding of pigeons.
Hear how an enthusiastic fancier at the present day writes: "If it were
possible for noblemen and gentlemen to know the amazing amount of solace
and pleasure derived from Almond Tumblers, when they begin to understand
their properties, I should think that scarce any nobleman or gentleman
would be without their aviaries of Almond Tumblers."[350] The pleasure thus
taken is of paramount importance, as it leads amateurs carefully to note
and preserve each slight deviation of structure which strikes their fancy.
Pigeons are often closely confined during their whole lives; they do not
partake of their naturally varied diet; they have often been transported
from one climate to another; and all these changes in their conditions of
life would be likely to cause variability. Pigeons have been domesticated
for nearly 5000 years, and have been kept in many places, so that the
numbers reared under domestication must have been enormous; and this is
another circumstance of high importance, for it obviously favours the
chance of rare modifications of structure occasionally appearing. Slight
variations of all kinds would almost certainly be observed, and, if valued,
would, owing to the following circumstances, be preserved and propagated
with unusual facility. Pigeons, differently from any other domesticated
animal, can easily be mated for life, and, though kept with other pigeons,
they rarely prove unfaithful to each other. Even when the {207} male does
break his marriage-vow, he does not permanently desert his mate. I have
bred in the same aviaries many pigeons of different kinds, and never reared
a single bird of an impure strain. Hence a fancier can with the greatest
ease select and match his birds. He will also soon see the good results of
his care; for pigeons breed with extraordinary rapidity. He may freely
reject inferior birds, as they serve at an early age as excellent food. To
sum up, pigeons are easily kept, paired, and selected; vast numbers have
been reared; great zeal in breeding them has been shown by many men in
various countries; and this would lead to their close discrimination, and
to a strong desire to exhibit some novelty, or to surpass other fanciers in
the excellence of already established breeds.
_History of the principal Races of the Pigeon_.[351]
Before discussing the means and steps by which the chief races have
been formed, it will be advisable to give some historical details, for
more is known of the history of the pigeon, little though this be, than
of any other domesticated animal. Some of the cases are interesting as
proving how long domestic varieties may be propagated with exactly the
same or nearly the same characters; and other cases are still more
interesting as showing how slowly but steadily races have been greatly
modified during successive generations. In the last chapter I stated
that Trumpeters and Laughers, both so remarkable for their voices, seem
to have been perfectly characterized in 1735; and Laughers were
apparently known in India before the year 1600. Spots in 1676, and Nuns
in the time of Aldrovandi, before 1600, were coloured exactly as they
now are. Common Tumblers and Ground Tumblers exhibited in India, before
the year 1600, the same extraordinary peculiarities of flight as at the
present day, for they are well described in the 'Ayeen Akbery.' These
breeds may all have existed for a much longer period; we know only that
they were perfectly characterized at the dates above given. The
_average_ length of life of the domestic pigeon is probably about five
or six years; if so, some of these races have retained their character
perfectly for at least forty or fifty generations.
_Pouters._--These birds, as far as a very short description serves for
comparison, appear to have been well characterized in Aldrovandi's
time,[352] before the year 1600. Length of body and length of leg are
at the present time the two chief points of excellence. In 1735 Moore
said (see Mr. J. M. Eaton's edition)--and Moore was a first-rate
fancier--that he once saw a bird with {208} a body 20 inches in length,
"though 17 or 18 inches is reckoned a very good length;" and he has
seen the legs very nearly 7 inches in length, yet a leg 61/2 or 63/4 long
"must be allowed to be a very good one." Mr. Bult, the most successful
breeder of Pouters in the world, informs me that at present (1858) the
standard length of the body is not less than 18 inches; but he has
measured one bird 19 inches in length, and has heard of 20 and 22
inches, but doubts the truth of these latter statements. The standard
length of the leg is now 7 inches, but Mr. Bult has recently measured
two of his own birds with legs 71/2 long. So that in the 123 years which
have elapsed since 1735 there has been hardly any increase in the
standard length of the body; 17 or 18 inches was formerly reckoned a
very good length, and now 18 inches is the minimum standard; but the
length of leg seems to have increased, as Moore never saw one quite 7
inches long; now the standard is 7, and two of Mr. Bult's birds
measured 71/2 inches in length. The extremely slight improvement in
Pouters, except in the length of the leg, during the last 123 years,
may be partly accounted for by the neglect which they suffered, as I am
informed by Mr. Bult, until within the last 20 or 30 years. About
1765[353] there was a change of fashion, stouter and more feathered
legs being preferred to thin and nearly naked legs.
_Fantails._--The first notice of the existence of this breed is in
India, before the year 1600, as given in the 'Ayeen Akbery;'[354] at
this date, judging from Aldrovandi, the breed was unknown in Europe. In
1677 Willughby speaks of a Fantail with 26 tail-feathers; in 1735 Moore
saw one with 36 feathers; and in 1824 MM. Boitard and Corbie assert
that in France birds can easily be found with 42 tail-feathers. In
England, the number of the tail-feathers is not at present so much
regarded as their upward direction and expansion. The general carriage
of the bird is likewise now much regarded. The old descriptions do not
suffice to show whether in these latter respects there has been much
improvement; but if fantails had formerly existed with their heads and
tails touching each other, as at the present time, the fact would
almost certainly have been noticed. The Fantails which are now found in
India probably show the state of the race, as far as carriage is
concerned, at the date of their introduction into Europe; and some,
said to have been brought from Calcutta, which I kept alive, were in a
marked manner inferior to our exhibition birds. The Java Fantail shows
the same difference in carriage; and although Mr. Swinhoe has counted
18 and 24 tail-feathers in his birds, a first-rate specimen sent to me
had only 14 tail-feathers.
_Jacobins._--This breed existed before 1600, but the hood, judging from
the figure given by Aldrovandi, did not enclose the head nearly so
perfectly as at present: nor was the head then white; nor were the
wings and tail so long, but this last character might have been
overlooked by the rude artist. In Moore's time, in 1735, the Jacobin
was considered the {209} smallest kind of pigeon, and the bill is said
to be very short. Hence either the Jacobin, or the other kinds with
which it was then compared, must have been since considerably modified;
for Moore's description (and it must be remembered that he was a
first-rate judge) is clearly not applicable, as far as size of body and
length of beak are concerned, to our present Jacobins. In 1795, judging
from Bechstein, the breed had assumed its present character.
_Turbits._--It has generally been supposed by the older writers on
pigeons, that the Turbit is the Cortbeck of Aldrovandi; but if this be
the case, it is an extraordinary fact that the characteristic frill
should not have been noticed. The beak, moreover, of the Cortbeck is
described as closely resembling that of the Jacobin, which shows a
change in the one or the other race. The Turbit, with its
characteristic frill and bearing its present name, is described by
Willughby in 1677; and the bill is said to be like that of the
bullfinch,--a good comparison, but now more strictly applicable to the
beak of the Barb. The sub-breed called the Owl was well known in
Moore's time, in 1735.
_Tumblers._--Common Tumblers, as well as Ground Tumblers, perfect as
far as tumbling is concerned, existed in India before the year 1600;
and at this period diversified modes of flight, such as flying at
night, the ascent to a great height, and manner of descent, seem to
have been much attended to, as at the present time, in India.
Belon[355] in 1555 saw in Paphlagonia what he describes as "a very new
thing, viz. pigeons which flew so high in the air that they were lost
to view, but returned to their pigeon-house without separating." This
manner of flight is characteristic of our present Tumblers, but it is
clear that Belon would have mentioned the act of tumbling if the
pigeons described by him had tumbled. Tumblers were not known in Europe
in 1600, as they are not mentioned by Aldrovandi, who discusses the
flight of pigeons. They are briefly alluded to by Willughby, in 1687,
as small pigeons "which show like footballs in the air." The
short-faced race did not exist at this period, as Willughby could not
have overlooked birds so remarkable for their small size and short
beaks. We can even trace some of the steps by which this race has been
produced. Moore in 1735 enumerates correctly the chief points of
excellence, but does not give any description of the several
sub-breeds; and from this fact Mr. Eaton infers[356] that the
short-faced Tumbler had not then come to full perfection. Moore even
speaks of the Jacobin as being the smallest pigeon. Thirty years
afterwards, in 1765, in the Treatise dedicated to Mayor, short-faced
Almond Tumblers are fully described, but the author, an excellent
fancier, expressly states in his Preface (p. xiv.) that, "from great
care and expense in breeding them, they have arrived to so great
perfection and are so different from what they were 20 or 30 years
past, that an old fancier would have condemned them for no other reason
than because they are not like what used to be thought good when he was
in the fancy before." {210} Hence it would appear that there was a
rather sudden change in the character of the short-faced Tumbler at
about this period; and there is reason to suspect that a dwarfed and
half-monstrous bird, the parent-form of the several short-faced
sub-breeds, then appeared. I suspect this because short-faced Tumblers
are born with their beaks (ascertained by careful measurement) as
short, proportionally with the size of their bodies, as in the adult
bird; and in this respect they differ greatly from all other breeds,
which slowly acquire during growth their various characteristic
qualities.
Since the year 1765 there has been some change in one of the chief
characters of the short-faced Tumbler, namely, in the length of the
beak. Fanciers measure the "head and beak" from the tip of the beak to
the front corner of the eyeball. About the year 1765 a "head and beak"
was considered good,[357] which, measured in the usual manner, was 7/8
of an inch in length; now it ought not to exceed 5/8 of an inch; "it is
however possible," as Mr. Eaton candidly confesses, "for a bird to be
considered as pleasant or neat even at 6/8 of an inch, but exceeding
that length it must be looked upon as unworthy of attention." Mr. Eaton
states that he has never seen in the course of his life more than two
or three birds with the "head and beak" not exceeding half an inch in
length; "still I believe in the course of a few years that the head and
beak will be shortened, and that half-inch birds will not be considered
so great a curiosity as at the present time." That Mr. Eaton's opinion
deserves attention cannot be doubted, considering his success in
winning prizes at our exhibitions. Finally in regard to the Tumbler it
may be concluded from the facts above given that it was originally
introduced into Europe, probably first into England, from the East; and
that it then resembled our common English Tumbler, or more probably the
Persian or Indian Tumbler, with a beak only just perceptibly shorter
than that of the common dovecot-pigeon. With respect to the short-faced
Tumbler, which is not known to exist in the East, there can hardly be a
doubt that the whole wonderful change in the size of the head, beak,
body, and feet, and in general carriage, has been produced during the
last two centuries by continued selection, aided probably by the birth
of a semi-monstrous bird somewhere about the year 1750.
_Runts._--Of their history little can be said. In the time of Pliny the
pigeons of Campania were the largest known; and from this fact alone
some authors assert that they were Runts. In Aldrovandi's time, in
1600, two sub-breeds existed; but one of them, the short-beaked, is now
extinct in Europe.
_Barbs._--Notwithstanding statements to the contrary, it seems to me
impossible to recognise the barb in Aldrovandi's descriptions and
figures; four breeds, however, existed in the year 1600 which were
evidently allied both to Barbs and Carriers. To show how difficult it
is to recognise some of the breeds described by Aldrovandi, I will give
the different opinions in regard to the above four kinds, named by him
_C. Indica_, _Cretensis_, _Gutturosa_, and _Persica_. Willughby thought
that the _Columba Indica_ was a {211} Turbit, but the eminent fancier
Mr. Brent believes that it was an inferior Barb: _C. Cretensis_, with a
short beak and a swelling on the upper mandible, cannot be recognised:
_C._ (falsely called) _gutturosa_, which from its _rostrum_, _breve_,
_crassum_, et _tuberosum_ seems to me to come nearest to the Barb, Mr.
Brent believes to be a Carrier; and lastly, the _C. Persica et
Turcica,_ Mr. Brent thinks, and I quite concur with him, was a
short-beaked Carrier with very little wattle. In 1687 the Barb was
known in England, and Willughby describes the beak as like that of the
Turbit; but it is not credible that his Barb should have had a beak
like that of our present birds, for so accurate an observer could not
have overlooked its great breadth.
_English Carrier._--We may look in vain in Aldrovandi's work for any
bird resembling our prize Carriers; the _C. Persica et Turcica_ of this
author comes the nearest, but is said to have had a short thick beak;
therefore it must have approached in character a Barb, and have
differed greatly from our Carriers. In Willughby's time, in 1677, we
can clearly recognise the Carrier, but he adds, "the bill is not short,
but of a moderate length," a description which no one would apply to
our present Carriers, so conspicuous for the extraordinary length of
their beaks. The old names given in Europe to the Carrier, and the
several names now in use in India, indicate that Carriers originally
came from Persia; and Willughby's description would perfectly apply to
the Bussorah Carrier as it now exists in Madras. In later times we can
partially trace the progress of change in our English Carriers: Moore
in 1735 says "an inch and a half is reckoned a long beak, though there
are very good Carriers that are found not to exceed an inch and a
quarter." These birds must have resembled, or perhaps been a little
superior to, the Carriers, previously described, which are now found in
Persia. In England at the present day "there are," as Mr. Eaton[358]
states, "beaks that would measure (from edge of eye to tip of beak) one
inch and three-quarters, and some few even two inches in length."
From these historical details we see that nearly all the chief domestic
races existed before the year 1600. Some remarkable only for colour appear
to have been identical with our present breeds, some were nearly the same,
some considerably different, and some have since become extinct. Several
breeds, such as Finnikins and Turners, the swallow-tailed pigeon of
Bechstein and the Carmelite, seem both to have originated and to have
disappeared within this same period. Any one now visiting a well-stocked
English aviary would certainly pick out as the most distinct kinds, the
massive Runt, the Carrier with its wonderfully elongated beak and great
wattles, the Barb with its short broad beak and eye-wattles, the
short-faced Tumbler {212} with its small conical beak, the Pouter with its
great crop, long legs and body, the Fantail with its upraised,
widely-expanded, well-feathered tail, the Turbit with its frill and short
blunt beak, and the Jacobin with its hood. Now, if this same person could
have viewed the pigeons kept before 1600 by Akber Khan in India and by
Aldrovandi in Europe, he would have seen the Jacobin with a less perfect
hood; the Turbit apparently without its frill; the Pouter with shorter
legs, and in every way less remarkable--that is, if Aldrovandi's Pouter
resembled the old German kind; the Fantail would have been far less
singular in appearance, and would have had much fewer feathers in its tail;
he would have seen excellent flying Tumblers, but he would in vain have
looked for the marvellous short-faced breeds; he would have seen birds
allied to barbs, but it is extremely doubtful whether he would have met
with our actual Barbs; and lastly, he would have found Carriers with beaks
and wattle incomparably less developed than in our English Carriers. He
might have classed most of the breeds in the same groups as at present; but
the differences between the groups were then far less strongly pronounced
than at present. In short, the several breeds had at this early period not
diverged in so great a degree from their aboriginal common parent, the wild
rock-pigeon.
_Manner of Formation of the chief Races._
We will now consider more closely the probable steps by which the chief
races have been formed. As long as pigeons are kept semi-domesticated in
dovecots in their native country, without any care in selecting and
matching them, they are liable to little more variation than the wild _C.
livia_, namely, in the wings becoming chequered with black, in the croup
being blue or white, and in the size of the body. When, however,
dovecot-pigeons are transported into diversified countries, such as Sierra
Leone, the Malay archipelago, and Madeira (where the wild _C. livia_ is not
known to exist), they are exposed to new conditions of life; and apparently
in consequence they vary in a somewhat greater degree. When closely
confined, either for the pleasure of watching them, or to prevent their
straying, they must be exposed, even under their native climate, to {213}
considerably different conditions; for they cannot obtain their natural
diversity of food; and, what is probably more important, they are
abundantly fed, whilst debarred from taking much exercise. Under these
circumstances we might expect to find, from the analogy of all other
domesticated animals, a greater amount of individual variability than with
the wild pigeon; and this is the case. The want of exercise apparently
tends to reduce the size of the feet and organs of flight; and then, from
the law of correlation of growth, the beak apparently becomes affected.
From what we now see occasionally taking place in our aviaries, we may
conclude that sudden variations or sports, such as the appearance of a
crest of feathers on the head, of feathered feet, of a new shade of colour,
of an additional feather in the tail or wing, would occur at rare intervals
during the many centuries which have elapsed since the pigeon was first
domesticated. At the present day such "sports" are generally rejected as
blemishes; and there is so much mystery in the breeding of pigeons that, if
a valuable sport did occur, its history would often be concealed. Before
the last hundred and fifty years, there is hardly a chance of the history
of any such sport having been recorded. But it by no means follows from
this that such sports in former times, when the pigeon had undergone much
less variation, would have been rejected. We are profoundly ignorant of the
cause of each sudden and apparently spontaneous variation, as well as of
the infinitely numerous shades of difference between the birds of the same
family. But in a future chapter we shall see that all such variations
appear to be the indirect result of changes of some kind in the conditions
of life.
Hence, after a long course of domestication, we might expect to see in the
pigeon much individual variability, and occasional sudden variations, as
well as slight modifications from the lessened use of certain parts,
together with the effects of correlation of growth. But without selection
all this would produce only a trifling or no result; for without such aid
differences of all kinds would, from the two following causes, soon
disappear. In a healthy and vigorous lot of pigeons many more young birds
are killed for food or die than are reared to maturity; so that an
individual having any peculiar character, if not selected, would run a good
chance of being destroyed; and if not destroyed, the {214} peculiarity in
question would almost certainly be obliterated by free intercrossing. It
might, however, occasionally happen that the same variation repeatedly
occurred, owing to the action of peculiar and uniform conditions of life,
and in this case it would prevail independently of selection. But when
selection is brought into play all is changed; for this is the
foundation-stone in the formation of new races; and with the pigeon,
circumstances, as we have already seen, are eminently favourable for
selection. When a bird presenting some conspicuous variation has been
preserved, and its offspring have been selected, carefully matched, and
again propagated, and so onwards during successive generations, the
principle is so obvious that nothing more need be said about it. This may
be called _methodical selection_, for the breeder has a distinct object in
view, namely, to preserve some character which has actually appeared; or to
create some improvement already pictured in his mind.
Another form of selection has hardly been noticed by those authors who have
discussed this subject, but is even more important. This form may be called
_unconscious selection_, for the breeder selects his birds unconsciously,
unintentionally, and without method, yet he surely though slowly produces a
great result. I refer to the effects which follow from each fancier at
first procuring and afterwards rearing as good birds as he can, according
to his skill, and according to the standard of excellence at each
successive period. He does not wish permanently to modify the breed; he
does not look to the distant future, or speculate on the final result of
the slow accumulation during many generations of successive slight changes:
he is content if he possesses a good stock, and more than content if he can
beat his rivals. The fancier in the time of Aldrovandi, when in the year
1600 he admired his own jacobins, pouters, or carriers, never reflected
what their descendants in the year 1860 would become; he would have been
astonished could he have seen our jacobins, our improved English carriers,
and our pouters; he would probably have denied that they were the
descendants of his own once admired stock, and he would perhaps not have
valued them, for no other reason, as was written in 1765, "than because
they were not like what used to be thought good when he was in the fancy."
No one will attribute the lengthened beak of the {215} carrier, the
shortened beak of the short-faced tumbler, the lengthened leg of the
pouter, the more perfectly-enclosed hood of the jacobin, &c.,--changes
effected since the time of Aldrovandi, or even since a much later
period,--to the direct and immediate action of the conditions of life. For
these several races have been modified in various and even in directly
opposite ways, though kept under the same climate and treated in all
respects in as nearly uniform a manner as possible. Each slight change in
the length or shortness of the beak, in the length of leg, &c., has no
doubt been indirectly and remotely caused by some change in the conditions
to which the bird has been subjected, but we must attribute the final
result, as is manifest in those cases of which we have any historical
record, to the continued selection and accumulation of many slight
successive variations.
The action of unconscious selection, as far as pigeons are concerned,
depends on a universal principle in human nature, namely, on our rivalry,
and desire to outdo our neighbours. We see this in every fleeting fashion,
even in our dress, and it leads the fancier to endeavour to exaggerate
every peculiarity in his breeds. A great authority on pigeons[359] says,
"Fanciers do not and will not admire a medium standard, that is, half and
half, which is neither here nor there, but admire extremes." After
remarking that the fancier of short-faced beard tumblers wishes for a very
short beak, and that the fancier of long-faced beard tumblers wishes for a
very long beak, he says, with respect to one of intermediate length, "Don't
deceive yourself. Do you suppose for a moment the short or the long-faced
fancier would accept such a bird as a gift? Certainly not; the short-faced
fancier could see no beauty in it; the long-faced fancier would swear there
was no use in it, &c." In these comical passages, written seriously, we see
the principle which has ever guided fanciers, and has led to such great
modifications in all the domestic races which are valued solely for their
beauty or curiosity.
Fashions in pigeon-breeding endure for long periods; we cannot change the
structure of a bird as quickly as we can the fashion of our dress. In the
time of Aldrovandi, no doubt the more the pouter inflated his crop, the
more he was valued. Nevertheless, fashions do to a certain extent change;
first one {216} point of structure and then another is attended to; or
different breeds are admired at different times and in different countries.
As the author just quoted remarks, "the fancy ebbs and flows; a thorough
fancier now-a-days never stoops to breed toy-birds;" yet these very "toys"
are now most carefully bred in Germany. Breeds which at the present time
are highly valued in India are considered worthless in England. No doubt,
when breeds are neglected, they degenerate; still we may believe that, as
long as they are kept under the same conditions of life, characters once
gained will be partially retained for a long time, and may form, the
starting-point for a future course of selection.
Let it not be objected to this view of the action of unconscious selection
that fanciers would not observe or care for extremely slight differences.
Those alone who have associated with fanciers can be thoroughly aware of
their accurate powers of discrimination acquired by long practice, and of
the care and labour which they bestow on their birds. I have known a
fancier deliberately study his birds day after day to settle which to match
together and which to reject. Observe how difficult the subject appears to
one of the most eminent and experienced fanciers. Mr. Eaton, the winner of
many prizes, says, "I would here particularly guard you against keeping too
great a variety of pigeons, otherwise you will know a little about all the
kinds, but nothing about one as it ought to be known." "It is possible
there may be a few fanciers that have a good general knowledge of the
several fancy pigeons, but there are many who labour under the delusion of
supposing they know what they do not." Speaking exclusively of one
sub-variety of one race, namely, the short-faced almond tumbler, and after
saying that some fanciers sacrifice every property to obtain a good head
and beak, and that other fanciers sacrifice everything for plumage, he
remarks: "Some young fanciers who are over covetous go in for all the five
properties at once, and they have their reward by getting nothing." In
India, as I hear from Mr. Blyth, pigeons are likewise selected and matched
with the greatest care. But we must not judge of the slight differences
which would have been valued in ancient days, by those which are now valued
after the formation of many races, each with its own standard of
perfection, kept uniform by our numerous {217} Exhibitions. The ambition of
the most energetic fancier may be fully satisfied by the difficulty of
excelling other fanciers in the breeds already established, without trying
to form a new one.
* * * * *
A difficulty with respect to the power of selection will perhaps already
have occurred to the reader, namely, what could have led fanciers first to
attempt to make such singular breeds as pouters, fantails, carriers, &c.?
But it is this very difficulty which the principle of unconscious selection
removes. Undoubtedly no fancier ever did intentionally make such an
attempt. All that we need suppose is that a variation occurred sufficiently
marked to catch the discriminating eye of some ancient fancier, and then
unconscious selection carried on for many generations, that is, the wish of
succeeding fanciers to excel their rivals, would do the rest. In the case
of the fantail we may suppose that the first progenitor of the breed had a
tail only slightly erected, as may now be seen in certain runts,[360] with
some increase in the number of the tail-feathers, as now occasionally
occurs with nuns. In the case of the pouter we may suppose that some bird
inflated its crop a little more than other pigeons, as is now the case in a
slight degree with the oesophagus of the turbit. We do not in the least
know the origin of the common tumbler, but we may suppose that a bird was
born with some affection of the brain, leading it to make somersaults in
the air; and the difficulty in this case is lessened, as we know that,
before the year 1600, in India, pigeons remarkable for their diversified
manner of flight were much valued, and by the order of the Emperor Akber
Khan were sedulously trained and carefully matched.
In the foregoing cases we have supposed that a sudden variation,
conspicuous enough to catch a fancier's eye, first appeared; but even this
degree of abruptness in the process of variation is not necessary for the
formation of a new breed. When the same kind of pigeon has been kept pure,
and has been bred during a long period by two or more fanciers, slight
differences in the strain can often be recognised. Thus I have seen
first-rate jacobins in one man's possession which certainly {218} differed
slightly in several characters from those kept by another. I possessed some
excellent barbs descended from a pair which had won a prize, and another
lot descended from a stock formerly kept by that famous fancier Sir John
Sebright, and these plainly differed in the form of the beak; but the
differences were so slight, that they could hardly be described by words.
Again, the common English and Dutch tumbler differ in a somewhat greater
degree, both in length of beak and shape of head. What first caused these
slight differences cannot be explained any more than why one man has a long
nose and another a short one. In the strains long kept distinct by
different fanciers, such differences are so common that they cannot be
accounted for by the accident of the birds first chosen for breeding having
been originally as different as they now are. The explanation no doubt lies
in selection of a slightly different nature having been applied in each
case; for no two fanciers have exactly the same taste, and consequently no
two, in choosing and carefully matching their birds, prefer or select
exactly the same. As each man naturally admires his own birds, he goes on
continually exaggerating by selection whatever slight peculiarities they
may possess. This will more especially happen with fanciers living in
different countries, who do not compare their stocks and aim at a common
standard of perfection. Thus, when a mere strain has once been formed,
unconscious selection steadily tends to augment the amount of difference,
and thus converts the strain into a sub-breed, and this ultimately into a
well-marked breed or race.
The principle of correlation of growth should never be lost sight of. Most
pigeons have small feet, apparently caused by their lessened use, and from
correlation, as it would appear, their beaks have likewise become reduced
in length. The beak is a conspicuous organ, and, as soon as it had thus
become perceptibly shortened, fanciers would almost certainly strive to
reduce it still more by the continued selection of birds with the shortest
beaks; whilst at the same time other fanciers, as we know has actually been
the case, would, in other sub-breeds, strive to increase its length. With
the increased length of the beak, the tongue would become greatly
lengthened, as would the eyelids with the increased development {219} of
the eye-wattles; with the reduced or increased size of the feet the number
of the scutellae would vary; with the length of the wing the number of the
primary wing-feathers would differ; and with the increased length of the
body in the pouter the number of the sacral vertebrae would be augmented.
These important and correlated differences of structure do not invariably
characterise any breed; but if they had been attended to and selected with
as much care as the more conspicuous external differences, there can hardly
be a doubt that they would have been rendered constant. Fanciers could
assuredly have made a race of tumblers with nine instead of ten primary
wing-feathers, seeing how often the number nine appears without any wish on
their part, and indeed in the case of the white-winged varieties in
opposition to their wish. In a similar manner, if the vertebrae had been
visible and had been attended to by fanciers, assuredly an additional
number might easily have been fixed in the pouter. If these latter
characters had once been rendered constant we should never have suspected
that they had at first been highly variable, or that they had arisen from
correlation, in the one case with the shortness of the wings, and in the
other case with the length of the body.
In order to understand how the chief domestic races have become distinctly
separated from each other, it is important to bear in mind, that fanciers
constantly try to breed from the best birds, and consequently that those
which are inferior in the requisite qualities are in each generation
neglected; so that after a time the less improved parent-stocks and many
subsequently formed intermediate grades become extinct. This has occurred
in the case of the pouter, turbit, and trumpeter, for these highly improved
breeds are now left without any links closely connecting them either with
each other or with the aboriginal rock-pigeon. In other countries, indeed,
where the same care has not been applied, or where the same fashion has not
prevailed, the earlier forms may long remain unaltered or altered only in a
slight degree, and we are thus sometimes enabled to recover the connecting
links. This is the case in Persia and India with the tumbler and carrier,
which there differ but slightly from the rock-pigeon in the {220}
proportions of their beaks. So again in Java, the fantail sometimes has
only fourteen caudal feathers, and the tail is much less elevated and
expanded than in our improved birds; so that the Java bird forms a link
between a first-rate fantail and the rock-pigeon.
Occasionally a breed may be retained for some particular quality in a
nearly unaltered condition in the same country, together with highly
modified offshoots or sub-breeds, which are valued for some distinct
property. We see this exemplified in England, where the common tumbler,
which is valued only for its flight, does not differ much from its
parent-form, the Eastern tumbler; whereas the short-faced tumbler has been
prodigiously modified, from being valued, not for its flight, but for other
qualities. But the common-flying tumbler of Europe has already begun to
branch out into slightly different sub-breeds, such as the common English
tumbler, the Dutch roller, the Glasgow house-tumbler, and the long-faced
beard tumbler, &c.; and in the course of centuries, unless fashions greatly
change, these sub-breeds will diverge through the slow and insensible
process of unconscious selection, and become modified, in a greater and
greater degree. After a time the perfectly graduated links, which now
connect all these sub-breeds together, will be lost, for there would be no
object and much difficulty in retaining such a host of intermediate
sub-varieties.
The principle of divergence, together with the extinction of the many
previously existing intermediate forms, is so important for understanding
the origin of domestic races, as well as of species in a state of nature,
that I will enlarge a little more on this subject. Our third main group
includes carriers, barbs, and runts, which are plainly related to each
other, yet wonderfully distinct in several important characters. According
to the view given in the last chapter, these three races have probably
descended from an unknown race having an intermediate character, and this
from the rock-pigeon. Their characteristic differences are believed to be
due to different breeders having at an early period admired different
points of structure; and then, on the acknowledged principle of admiring
extremes, having gone on breeding, without any thought of the future, as
good birds as they could,--carrier-fanciers preferring {221} long beaks
with much wattle,--barb-fanciers preferring short thick beaks with much
eye-wattle,--and runt-fanciers not caring about the beak or wattle, but
only for the size and weight of the body. This process will have led to the
neglect and final extinction of the earlier, inferior, and intermediate
birds; and thus it has come to pass, that in Europe these three races are
now so extraordinarily distinct from each other. But in the East, whence
they were originally brought, the fashion has been different, and we there
see breeds which connect the highly modified English carrier with the
rock-pigeon, and others which to a certain extent connect carriers and
runts. Looking back to the time of Aldrovandi, we find that there existed
in Europe, before the year 1600, four breeds which were closely allied to
carriers and barbs, but which competent authorities cannot now identify
with our present barbs and carriers; nor can Aldrovandi's runts be
identified with our present runts. These four breeds certainly did not
differ from each other nearly so much as do our existing English carriers,
barbs, and runts. All this is exactly what might have been anticipated. If
we could collect all the pigeons which have ever lived, from before the
time of the Romans to the present day, we should be able to group them in
several lines, diverging from the parent rock-pigeon. Each line would
consist of almost insensible steps, occasionally broken by some slightly
greater variation or sport, and each would culminate in one of our present
highly modified forms. Of the many former connecting links, some would be
found to have become absolutely extinct without having left any issue,
whilst others though extinct would be seen to be the progenitors of the
existing races.
I have heard it remarked as a strange circumstance that we occasionally
hear of the local or complete extinction of domestic races, whilst we hear
nothing of their origin. How, it has been asked, can these losses be
compensated, and more than compensated, for we know that with almost all
domesticated animals the races have largely increased in number since the
time of the Romans? But on the view here given, we can understand this
apparent contradiction. The extinction of a race within historical times is
an event likely to be noticed; but its gradual and scarcely sensible
modification through unconscious selection, {222} and its subsequent
divergence, either in the same or more commonly in distant countries, into
two or more strains, and their gradual conversion into sub-breeds, and
these into well-marked breeds, are events which would rarely be noticed.
The death of a tree, that has attained gigantic dimensions, is recorded;
the slow growth of smaller trees and their increase in number excite no
attention.
In accordance with the belief of the great power of selection, and of the
little direct power of changed conditions of life, except in causing
general variability or plasticity of organisation, it is not surprising
that dovecot-pigeons have remained unaltered from time immemorial; and that
some toy-pigeons, which differ in little else besides colour from the
dovecot-pigeon, have retained the same character for several centuries. For
when one of these toy-pigeons had once become beautifully and symmetrically
coloured,--when, for instance, a Spot had been produced with the crown of
its head, its tail, and tail-coverts of a uniform colour, the rest of the
body being snow-white,--no alteration or improvement would be desired. On
the other hand, it is not surprising that during this same interval of time
our highly-bred pigeons have undergone an astonishing amount of change; for
in regard to them there is no defined limit to the wish of the fancier, and
there is no known limit to the variability of their characters. What is
there to stop the fancier desiring to give to his carrier a longer and
longer beak, or to his tumbler a shorter and shorter beak? nor has the
extreme limit of variability in the beak, if there be any such limit, as
yet been reached. Notwithstanding the great improvement effected within
recent times in the short-faced almond tumbler, Mr. Eaton remarks, "the
field is still as open for fresh competitors as it was one hundred years
ago;" but this is perhaps an exaggerated assertion, for the young of all
highly improved fancy birds are extremely liable to disease and death.
I have heard it objected that the formation of the several domestic races
of the pigeon throws no light on the origin of the wild species of the
Columbidae, because their differences are not of the same nature. The
domestic races for instance do not differ, or differ hardly at all, in the
relative lengths and shapes of the primary wing-feathers, in the relative
length of the hind {223} toe, or in habits of life, as in roosting and
building in trees. But the above objection shows how completely the
principle of selection has been misunderstood. It is not likely that
characters selected by the caprice of man should resemble differences
preserved under natural conditions, either from being of direct service to
each species, or from standing in correlation with other modified and
serviceable structures. Until man selects birds differing in the relative
length of the wing-feathers or toes, &c., no sensible change in these parts
should be expected. Nor could man do anything unless these parts happened
to vary under domestication: I do not positively assert that this is the
case, although I have seen traces of such variability in the wing-feathers,
and certainly in the tail-feathers. It would be a strange fact if the
relative length of the hind toe should never vary, seeing how variable the
foot is both in size and in the number of the scutellae. With respect to the
domestic races not roosting or building in trees, it is obvious that
fanciers would never attend to or select such changes in habits; but we
have seen that the pigeons in Egypt, which do not for some reason like
settling on the low mud hovels of the natives, are led, apparently by
compulsion, to perch in crowds on the trees. We may even affirm that, if
our domestic races had become greatly modified in any of the above
specified respects, and it could be shown that fanciers had never attended
to such points, or that they did not stand in correlation with other
selected characters, the fact, on the principles advocated in this chapter,
would have offered a serious difficulty.
Let us briefly sum up the last two chapters on the pigeon. We may conclude
with confidence that all the domestic races, notwithstanding their great
amount of difference, are descended from the _Columba livia_, including
under this name certain wild races. But the differences between these
latter forms throw no light whatever on the characters which distinguish
the domestic races. In each breed or sub-breed the individual birds are
more variable than birds in a state of nature; and occasionally they vary
in a sudden and strongly-marked manner. This plasticity of organisation
apparently results from changed conditions of life. Disuse has reduced
certain parts of the body. Correlation of growth so ties the organisation
together, that when one part varies other parts {224} vary at the same
time. When several breeds have once been formed, their intercrossing aids
the progress of modification, and has even produced new sub-breeds. But as,
in the construction of a building, mere stones or bricks are of little
avail without the builder's art, so, in the production of new races,
selection has been the presiding power. Fanciers can act by selection on
excessively slight individual differences, as well as on those greater
differences which are called sports. Selection is followed methodically
when the fancier tries to improve and modify a breed according to a
prefixed standard of excellence; or he acts unmethodically and
unconsciously, by merely trying to rear as good birds as he can, without
any wish or intention to alter the breed. The progress of selection almost
inevitably leads to the neglect and ultimate extinction of the earlier and
less improved forms, as well as of many intermediate links in each long
line of descent. Thus it has come to pass that most of our present races
are so marvellously distinct from each other, and from the aboriginal
rock-pigeon.
* * * * *
{225}