CHAPTER IV

THE TURKEY HISTORIC

Having disposed of such records as we have of the extinct ancestors

of the American turkeys--the so-to-speak meleagrine records--we can

now pass to what is, comparatively speaking, the modern history of

these famous birds, although some of this history is already several

centuries old.

We have seen in the foregoing chapter that all the described fossil

species of turkeys have been restricted to the genus _Meleagris_, and

this is likewise the case with the existing species and subspecies.

Right here I may say that the word _Meleagris_ is Greek as well as

Latin, and means a guinea-fowl. This is due to the fact that when

turkeys were first described and written about they were, by several

authors of the early times, strangely mixed up with those African

forms, and the two were not entirely disentangled for some time,

as we shall see further on in this chapter. In modern ornithology,

however, the generic name of _Meleagris_ has been transferred from

the guinea-fowls to the turkeys. These last, as they are classified

in "The A. O. U. Check-List of the American Ornithologists' Union,"

which is the latest authoritative word upon the subject, stand as

follows:

Family MELEAGRIDÆ. Turkeys.

Genus MELEAGRIS Linnæus.

_Meleagris_ Linnæus, Syst. Nat., ed. 10, 1, 1758, 156. Type, by

subs, desig., _Meleagris gallopavo_ Linnæus (Gray, 1840).

_Meleagris gallopavo_ (Linnæus).

Range.--Eastern and south central United States, west to

Arizona and south to the mountains of Oaxaca.

a. [Meleagris gallopavo gallopavo. Extralimital.]

b. Meleagris gallopavo silvestris Vieillot. Wild Turkey

[310_a_].

_Meleagris silvestris_ Vieillot Nouv., Dict. d'Hist. Nat., IX,

1817, 447.

Range.--Eastern United States from Nebraska, Kansas, western

Oklahoma, and eastern Texas east to central Pennsylvania,

and south to the Gulf coast; formerly north to South Dakota,

southern Ontario, and southern Maine.

c. Meleagris gallopavo merriami Nelson. Merriam's Turkey [310].

_Meleagris gallopavo merriami_ Nelson, Auk, XVII, April, 1900,

120.

(47 miles southwest of Winslow, Arizona.)

Range.--Transition and Upper Sonoran zones in the mountains of

southern Colorado, New Mexico, Arizona, western Texas, northern

Sonora, and Chihuahua.

d. Meleagris gallopavo osceola Scott. Florida Turkey [310_b_].

_Meleagris gallopavo osceola_ Scott, Auk, VII, Oct., 1890, 376.

(Tarpon Springs, Florida.)

Range.--Southern Florida.

e. Meleagris gallopavo intermedia Sennett. Rio Grande Turkey

[310_c_].

_Meleagris gallopavo intermedia_ Sennett. Bull. U. S. Geol. &

Geog. Surv. Terr., V, No. 3, Nov., 1879, 428. (Lomita, Texas.)

Range.--Middle northern Texas south to northeastern Coahuila,

Nuevo Leon, and Tamaulipas.

The presenting of the above list here does away with giving, in the

history of the wild turkeys, any of the very numerous changes that

have taken place through the ages which led up to its adoption. The

discussion of these changes, as a part of meleagrine history, would

make an octavo volume of two hundred pages or more.

It may be said here, however, that the word _gallopavo_ is from the

Latin, _gallus_ a cock, and _pavo_ a peafowl, while the meanings

of the several words _silvestris_, _merriami_, _osceola_, and

_intermedia_ are self-evident and require no definitions.

Audubon, who gives the breeding range of the wild turkey as extending

"from Texas to Massachusetts and Vermont" (Vol. V., p. 56), says of

them in his long account: "I have ascertained that some of these

valuable birds are still to be found in the states of New York,

Massachusetts, Vermont, and Maine. In the winter of 1832-33, I

purchased a few fine males in the city of Boston"; and further, "At

the time when I removed to Kentucky, rather more than a fourth of a

century ago, turkeys were so abundant that the price of one in the

market was not equal to that of a common barn-fowl now. I have seen

them offered for the sum of three pence each, the birds weighing from

ten to twelve pounds. A first-rate turkey, weighing from twenty-five

to thirty pounds avoirdupois, was considered well sold when it

brought a quarter of a dollar."[9]

From these remarks we may imagine how plentiful wild turkeys must

have been on the North American continent, when Aristotle wrote

his work "On Animals," over three hundred years before the birth of

Christ, upward of twenty-three centuries ago! A good many changes can

take place in the avifauna of a country in that time.

How these big, gallinaceous fowls ever got the name of "turkey" has

long been a matter of dispute; and not a few ornithologists and

writers of note in the 16th and 17th centuries erroneously conceived

that the term had something to do either with the Turks or their

country. But this idea has now been entirely abandoned, for it has

become quite clear that, during the times mentioned, the turkey was

strangely confused with the guinea-fowl, a bird to which the name

turkey was originally applied.

Later on, both these birds became more abundant, as more of them were

domesticated and reared in captivity, and the fact was gradually

realized that they were entirely different species of fowls. During

these times, the word turkey was finally applied only to the New

World species, and the West African form was thereafter called

"Guinea-fowl."[10] After the word turkey was more generally applied

to the bird now universally so known, some believe that there was

another reason as to how it came about, and this "possibly because of

its reputed call-note," says Newton, "to be syllabled _turk, turk,

turk_, whereby it may be almost said to have named itself." (Notes

and Queries, ser. 6, III, pp. 23, 369.)[11]

[Illustration: PLATE II

Fig. 6. Superior view of the skull of an old male wild turkey;

lower jaw removed. No. 9695, Coll. U. S. National Museum. Fig.

7. Lower jaw or mandible of the skull shown in Fig. 6., seen

from above. Fig. 8. Superior view of a skull of a wild turkey

and probably a female. Lower jaw removed and shown in Fig. 9.

No. 19684, Coll. U. S. National Museum. Fig. 9. Lower jaw of

the skull shown in Fig. 8. Superior aspect. Fig. 10. Upper view

of the skull of a wild Florida turkey (_Meleagris g. osceola_);

lower jaw removed and not figured. Female. No. 18797, Coll.

U. S. National Museum. All the figures in this plate are

reproductions of photographs of the specimens made natural size

by Dr. Shufeldt. Reduced about one-fourth.]

So much for the origin of the name _turkey_; and when one comes to

search through the literature devoted to this fowl to ascertain who

first described the wild species, the opinion seems to be pretty

general that this was done by Oviedo in the thirty-sixth chapter of

his "Summario de la Natural Historia de las Indias," which it is

stated appeared about the year 1527.

Professor Spencer F. Baird, apparently quoting Martin, says: "Oviedo

speaks of the turkey as a kind of peacock abounding in New Spain,

which had already in 1526 been transported in a domestic state to the

West India Islands and the _Spanish Main_, where it was kept by the

Christian colonists."[12]

In an elegant and comprehensive article on "The Wild Turkey," Bennett

states: "Oviedo, whose Natural History of the Indies contains the

earliest description extant of the bird, and whose acquaintance

with the animal productions of the newly discovered countries was

surprisingly extensive. He speaks of it as a kind of Peacock found

in New Spain, of which a number had been transported to the islands

of the Spanish Main, and domesticated in the houses of the Christian

inhabitants. His description is exceedingly accurate, and proves that

before the year 1526, when his work was published at Toledo, the

turkey was already reduced to a state of Domestication."[13]

Again, in a very elaborate and now thoroughly classical contribution,

Pennant states: "The first precise description of these birds is

given by Oviedo, who, in 1525, drew up a summary of his greater

work, the History of the Indies, for the use of his monarch Charles

V.[14] This learned man had visited the West Indies and its islands

in person, and paid particular regard to the natural history. It

appears from him, that the Turkey was in his days an inhabitant

of the greater islands and of the mainland. He speaks of them as

Peacocks; for being a new bird to him, he adopts that name from the

resemblance he thought they bore to the former. 'But,' says he, 'the

neck is bare of feathers, but covered with a skin which they change

after their phantasie into diverse colours. They have a horn (in the

Spanish Peçon corto) as it were on their front, and hairs on the

breast.' (In Purchas, III, 995.) He describes other birds which he

also calls Peacocks. They are of the gallinaceous genus, and known by

the name of Curassao birds, the male of which is black, the female

ferruginous."[15]

Dr. Coues, who has also written an article on the history of the

wild turkey, which, by the way, is mainly composed of a lengthy

quotation from the above cited article of Bennett's, says: "Linnæus,

however, knew perfectly well that the turkey was American. He says

distinctly: 'Habitat in America septentrionali,' and quotes as his

first reference (after Fn. Soec. 198), the _Gallopavo sylvestris novæ

angliæ_, or New England Wild Turkey of Ray. Brisson distinguished

the two perfectly, giving an elaborate description, a copious

synonomy, and a good figure of each; and from about this time it may

be considered that the history of the two birds, so widely diverse,

was finally disentangled, and the proper habitat ascribed to each."

(Refers to first describers of the pintado and turkey.)[16]

So much for the earliest describers of the wild turkey, and I

shall now pass on to the general history of the bird, and, through

presenting what has been collected for us by the best authors on the

subject, endeavor to show how, after the wild turkey was found in

America by different navigators and explorers, it was brought, from

time to time, to several of the countries of the Old World--chiefly

Spain and Great Britain--from whence it probably was taken, upon

different occasions, into other countries of the continent.

Wild turkeys have always been easy to capture, and we are aware of

the fact that they are quite capable of crossing the Atlantic on

shipboard in comfort and safety, landing in as good a condition--if

properly cared for during the voyage--as when they left America.

Josselyn (1672) in his _New England Rarities_ (p. 9) has not a little

to say on this point.

As already stated, the literature and bibliography of the turkey

is quite sufficient to fill a good many volumes. Nothing of

importance, however, has been added to it, gainsaying what we now

have as a truthful account of the bird's introduction into Europe.

Indeed Buffon (Ois, II, pp. 132-162), Broderip (_Zool. Recreat._

pp. 120-137), Pennant (_Arct. Zool._ pp. 291-300), and others,

practically cleared up nearly all the points on this part of the

turkey's history, making but a few statements that are not wholly

reliable and worthy of acceptance. Pennant very properly ignored in

his work Barrington's essay (_Miscellanies_, pp. 127-151) in which

the latter attempted to prove that turkeys were known before America

was discovered, and that they were shipped over there subsequently to

its discovery!

I have already cited above Pennant's article in the Philosophical

Transactions of the Royal Society of London (1781), and quoted

from it to some extent. It is one of the standard writings on the

wild turkey invariably referred to by all authors when writing on

the history of that bird. As it is only accessible to the few, and

so full of reliable information, I propose to give here, somewhat

in full, those paragraphs in it having special reference to the

historical side of our subject, and in doing so I retain the spelling

and composition of the original production.

"Belon, ('Hist. des Oys.,' 248) the earliest of those writers," says

Pennant, "who are of the opinion that these birds were natives of the

old world, founds his notion on the description of the Guinea-fowl,

the Meleagrides of Strabo, Athenæus, Pliny, and others of the

ancients. I rest the refutation on the excellent account given by

Athenæus, taken from Clytus Milesius, a disciple of Aristotle, which

can suit no other than that fowl. 'They want,' says he, 'natural

affection towards their young; their head is naked, and on the top

is a hard round body like a peg or nail; from their cheeks hangs a

red piece of flesh like a beard. It has no wattles like the common

poultry. The feathers are black, spotted with white. They have no

spurs; and both sexes are so alike as not to be distinguished by

the sight.' Varro (Lib. III. c. 9.) and Pliny (Lib. X. c. 26) take

notice of the spotted plumage and the gibbous substance on the head.

Athenæus is more minute, and contradicts every character of the

Turkey, whose females are remarkable for their natural affection, and

differ materially in form from the males, whose heads are destitute

of the callous substance, and whose heels (in the males) are armed

with spurs."

"Aldrovandus, who died in 1605, draws his arguments from the same

source as Belon; I therefore pass him by, and take notice of the

greatest of our naturalists Gesner (Av. 481.), who falls into a

mistake of another kind, and wishes the Turkey to be thought a native

of India. He quotes Ælian for that purpose, who tells us, 'That

in India are very large poultry not with combs, but with various

coloured crests interwoven like flowers, with broad tails either

bending or displayed in a circular form, which they draw along the

ground as peacocks do when they do not erect them; and that the

feathers are partly of a gold colour, partly blue, and of an emerald

colour.' (De Anim. lib. XVI, c. 2.).

"This in all probability was the same bird with the Peacock Pheasant

of Mr. Edwards, _Le Baron de Tibet_ of M. Brisson, and the _Pavo

bicalcaratus_ of Linnæus. I have seen this bird living. It has a

crest, but not so conspicuous as that described by Ælian; but it has

not those striking colours in form of eyes, neither does it erect

its tail like the Peacock (Edw. II. 67.), but trails it like the

Pheasant. The _Catreus_ of Strabo (Lib. XV. p. 1046) seems to be the

same bird. He describes it as uncommonly beautiful and spotted, and

very like a Peacock. The former author (De Anim. lib. XVII, c. 23.)

gives more minute account of this species, and under the same name.

He borrows it from Clitarchus, an attendant of Alexander the Great in

all his conquests. It is evident from his description that it was of

this kind; and it is likewise probable that it was the same with his

large Indian poultry before cited. He celebrates it also for its fine

note; but allowance must be made for the credulity of Ælian.

"The _Catreus_, or Peacock Pheasant, is a native of Tibet, and in

all probability of the north of India, where Clitarchus might have

observed it; for the march of Alexander was through that part which

borders on Tibet, and is now known by the name of Penj-ab or five

rivers."

"I shall now collect from authors the several parts of the world

where Turkies are unknown in the state of nature. Europe has no share

in the question; it being generally agreed that they are exotic in

respect to that continent."

"Neither are they found in any part of Asia Minor, or the Asiatic

Turkey, notwithstanding ignorance of their true origin first caused

them to be named from that empire. About Aleppo, capital of Syria,

they are only met with, domesticated like other poultry. (Russel,

63). In Armenia they are unknown, as well as in Persia; having been

brought from Venice by some Armenian merchants into that empire

(Tavernier, 145), where they are still so scarce as to be preserved

among other rare fowls in the royal menagery" (Bell's Travels, I.

128).

"Du Halde acquaints us that they are not natives of China; but were

introduced there from other countries. He errs from misinformation in

saying that they are common in India."

"I will not quote Gemelli Careri, to prove that they are not found in

the Philippine Islands, because that gentleman with his pen traveled

round the world in his easy chair, during a very long indisposition

and confinement, (Sir James Porter's Obs. Turkey, I, 1, 321), in his

native country."

"But Dampier bears witness that none are found in Mindanao" (Barbot

in Churchill's Coll., V. 29).

"The hot climate of Africa barely suffers these birds to exist in

that vast continent, except under the care of mankind. Very few are

found in Guinea, except in the hands of the Europeans, the negroes

declining to breed any on account of the great heats (Bosman, 229).

Prosper Alpinus satisfies us they are not found either in Nubia or in

Egypt. He describes the Meleagrides of the ancients, and only proves

that the Guinea hens were brought out of Nubia, and sold at a great

price at Cairo (Hist. Nat. Ægypti. I, 201); but is totally silent

about the turkey of the moderns."

"Let me in this place observe that the Guinea hens have long been

imported into Britain. They were cultivated in our farm-yards; for

I discover in 1277, in the Grainge of Clifton, in the parish of

Ambrosden in Buckinghamshire, among other articles, six _Mutilones_

and six _Africanæ foeminæ_ (Kennett's Parochial Antiq. 287), for

this fowl was familiarly known by the names of Afra Avis and Gallina

Africana and Numida. It was introduced into Italy from Africa, and

from Rome into our country. They were neglected here by reason of

their tenderness and difficulty of rearing. We do not find them in

the bills of fare of our ancient feasts (neither in that of George

Nevil nor among the delicacies mentioned in the Northumberland

household book begun in the beginning of the reign of Henry VIII);

neither do we find the turkey; which last argument amounts almost to

a certainty, that such a hardy and princely bird had not found its

way to us. The other likewise was then known by its classical name;

for that judicious writer Doctor Caius describes in the beginning

of the reign of Elizabeth, the Guinea-fowl, for the benefit of

his friend Gesner, under the name of Meleagris, bestowed on it by

Aristotle" (CAII Opusc. 13. Hist. An., lib. VI. c. 2).

"Having denied, on the very best authorities, that the Turkey ever

existed as a native of the old world, I must now bring my proofs of

its being only a native of the new, and of the period in which it

first made its appearance in Europe."

"The next who speaks of them as natives of the mainland of the warmer

parts of America is Francusco Fernandez, sent there by Philip II, to

whom he was physician. This naturalist observed them in Mexico. We

find by him that the name of the male was Huexolotl, of the female

Cihuatotolin. He gives them the title of Gallus Indicus and Gallo

Pavo. The Indians, as well as the Spaniards, domesticated these

useful birds. He speaks of the size by comparison, saying that the

wild were twice the magnitude of the tame; and that they were shot

with arrows or guns (Hist. Av. Nov. Hisp. 27). I cannot learn the

time when Fernandez wrote. It must be between the years 1555 and

1598, the period of Philip's reign."

"Pedro de Ciesa mentions Turkies on the Isthmus of Darien (Seventeen

Years Travels, 20). Lery, a Portuguese author, asserts that they are

found in Brazil, and gives them an Indian name (In De Laet's Descr.

des Indes, 491); but since I can discover no traces of them in that

diligent and excellent naturalist Marcgrave, who resided long in that

country, I must deny my assent. But the former is confirmed by that

able and honest navigator Dampier, who saw them frequently, as well

wild as tame, in the province of Yucatan (Voyages, Vol II, part II,

pp. 65, 85, 114), now reckoned part of the Kingdom of Mexico."

"In North America they were observed by the very first discoverers.

When Rene de Landonniere, patronized by Admiral Coligni, attempted to

form a settlement near where Charlestown now stands, he met with them

on his first landing in 1564, and by his historian has represented

them with great fidelity in the fifth plate of the recital of his

voyage (Debry): from his time the witnesses to their being natives

of the continent are innumerable. They have been seen in flocks of

hundreds in all parts from Louisiana even to Canada; but at this time

are extremely rare in a wild state, except in the more distant parts,

where they are still found in vast abundance."

"It was from Mexico or Yucatan that they were first introduced

into Europe; for it is certain that they were imported into England

as early as the year 1524, the 15th of Henry VIII. (Baker's Chr.

Anderson's Dict., Com. 1, 354. Hackluyt, II, 165, makes their

introduction about the year 1532. Barnaby Googe, one of our early

writers on Husbandry, says they were not seen here before 1530. He

highly commends a Lady Hales of Kent for her excellent management of

these fowl, p. 166.)

"We probably received them from Spain, with which we had great

intercourse till about that time. They were most successfully

cultivated in our Kingdom from that period; insomuch that they grew

common in every farm-yard, and became even a dish in our rural

feasts by the year 1585; for we may certainly depend on the word of

old Tusser in his Account of the Christmas Husbandrie Fare." (Five

Hundred Points of good Husbandrie, p. 57.)

"Beefe, Mutton, and Porke, shredpiece of the best,

Pig, Veale, Goose, and Capon, and Turkie well drest,

Cheese, Apples and Nuts, jolie carols to heare,

As then in the countrie, is counted good cheare."

"But at this very time they were so rare in France, that we are told,

that the very first which was eaten in that Kingdom appeared at

the nuptial feast of Charles IX. in 1570 (Anderson's Dict. Com. 1,

410)."[17]

[Illustration: PLATE III

Fig. II. Left lateral view of the skull of an old male wild

turkey (_Meleagris gallopavo_). See Plate II, Fig. 6, No.

9695, Coll. U. S. National Museum. Photo natural size by Dr.

Shufeldt. _pmx_, premaxillary; _n_, nasal bone; _l_, lacrymal

bone; _eth_, ethmoid; _p_, parietal; _so_, supraoccipital;

_pl_, palatine; _ju_, jugal; _ty_, tympanic; _q_, quadrate;

_a_, angular of lower jaw; _d_, dentary. There are many more

bones in the skull than those indicated, while the latter serve

to invite attention to the principal ones as landmarks.]

A little later on Bartram in his travels in the South published some

notes on the wild turkey [now _M. g. osceola_] as he found them

in Florida during the latter part of the eighteenth century. The

original edition of his book, which I have not seen, appeared in

1791. I have, however, examined the edition of 1793, wherein on page

14 he says: "Our turkey of America is a very different species from

the Meleagris of Asia and Europe; they are nearly thrice their

size and weight. I have seen several that have weighed between twenty

and thirty pounds, and some have been killed that have weighed near

forty."

And further on in the same work he adds [Florida, p. 81]: "Having

rested very well during the night, I was awakened in the morning

early by the cheering converse of the wild turkey-cocks (Meleagris

occidentalis) saluting each other from the sun-brightened tops of

the lofty Cupressus disticha and Magnolia grandiflora. They begin

at early dawn and continue till sunrise, from March to the last of

April. The high forests ring with the noise, like the crowing of the

domestic cock, of these social sentinels; the watchword being caught

and repeated, from one to another, for hundreds of miles around,

insomuch that the whole country is for an hour or more in a universal

shout. A little after sunrise, their crowing gradually ceases, they

quit then their high lodging places, and alight on the earth, where,

expanding their silver-bordered train, they strut and dance round

about the coy female, while the deep forests seem to tremble with

their shrill noise."[18]

Another of the early writers (1806), who paid some attention to the

history and distribution of the wild turkeys was Barton. I find

the following having reference to some of his observations, viz.:

"A memoir has been read before the American Philosophical Society

in which the author has shown that at least two distinct species

of Meleagris, or turkey, are known within the limits of North

America. These are the _Meleagris gallopavo_, or Common Domesticated

Turkey, which was wholly unknown in the countries of the Old World

before the discovery of America; and the Common Wild Turkey of the

United States, to which the author of the memoir has given the name

_Meleagris Palawa_--one of its Indian names.

"The same author has rendered it very probable that this latter

species was _domesticated_ by _some_ of the Indian tribes living

within the _present_ limits of the United States, before these tribes

had been visited by the Europeans. It is certain, however, that the

turkey was not domesticated by the _generality_ of the tribes, within

the limits just mentioned, until _after_ the Europeans had taken

possession of the countries of North America."[19]

Nine or ten years after Barton wrote, De Witt Clinton, who was a

candidate for President of the United States in 1812, and a son

of James Clinton, was one of the writers of that time on the wild

turkey. He pointed out how birds, the turkey included, change their

plumage after domestication, and, after giving what he knew of the

introduction of the turkey into Spain from America and the West

Indies, he adds: "From the Spanish turkey, which was thus spread over

Europe, we have obtained our domestic one. The wild turkey has been

frequently tamed, and his offspring is of a large size." (p. 126.)[20]

Nearly a quarter of a century after Clinton's article appeared, the

_anatomy_ of the wild turkey began to attract some attention. Among

the first articles to appear on this part of the subject was one by

the late Sir Richard Owen, who, apparently taking the similarity of

the vernacular names into account, made anatomical comparisons of the

organs of smell in the turkey and the turkey buzzard. Naturally, he

found them very different,--quite as different, perhaps, as are the

olfactory organs of an owl and an ostrich, which I, for one, would

not undertake to make a comparison of for publication, simply for the

fact that in both these birds their vernacular name begins with the

letter o.[21]

Even twenty years after this paper appeared there were those who

still entertained doubts as to the origin of the domesticated

turkeys, and believed that they had nothing to do with the wild

forms. Among the doubters, no one was more prominent than Le Conte,

who published the following as his opinion at the time, stating:

"The conviction that these two birds were really distinct species

has long existed in my mind. More than fifty years ago, when I first

saw a Wild Turkey, I was led to conclude that one never could have

been produced from the other." [Bases it on differences of external

characters] (p. 179), adding toward the close of his article: "I defy

anyone to show a Turkey, even of the first generation, produced from

a pair hatched from the eggs of a wild hen," etc. "I repeat, contrary

to the assertions of many others, that no one has ever succeeded in

domesticating our Wild Turkey," etc. "Thoroughly believe that the

tame and wild bird are different species, and the latter not the

ancestor of the tame one." (p. 181.)[22]

During the year 1856, the papers Gould published on the wild turkeys

attracted considerable attention, and they have been widely quoted

since. In one of his first papers on the subject he quotes from

Martin the same paragraph which Baird quoted in his article in the

Report of the Commissioner of Agriculture (1866 _antea_), while

Baird in his article misquotes Gould by saying that the turkey

was introduced into England in 1541; whereas Gould states the

introduction took place in 1524.[23]

Before passing to the more recent literature on these birds, and

what I will have to say further on about their comparative osteology

and their eggs, it will be as well to reproduce here a few more

statements made by Bennett, whose work, "The Gardens and Menagerie of

the Zoölogical Society Delineated," I have already quoted.[24]

Bennett was also of the opinion that "Daines Barrington was the last

writer of any note who denied the American origin of the turkey, and

he seems to have been actuated more by a love of paradox than by any

conviction of the truth of his theory. Since the publication of his

Miscellanies, in 1781, the knowledge that has been obtained of the

existence of large flocks of turkeys, perfectly wild, clothed in

their natural plumage, and displaying their native habits, spread

over a large portion of North America, together with the certainty

of their non-existence in a similar state in any other part of

the globe, have been admitted on all hands to be decisive of the

question." (p. 210).

I have already cited the evidence above to prove that it was Oviedo

who first published an accurate description of the wild turkey,--his

work being published at Toledo in about the year 1526, at which time

the turkey had already become domesticated. In other words, it was

the Spaniards who first reduced the bird to a state of domestication,

and very soon thereafter it was introduced into England. Spain and

England were the great maritime nations of those times, and this fact

will amply account for the early introduction of the bird into the

latter country. Singularly enough, however, we have no account of any

kind whatever through which we can trace the exact time when this

took place. As others have suggested, it is just possible that it may

have been Cabot, the explorer of the then recently discovered coasts

of America, who first transported wild turkeys into England. Baker

quotes the popular rhyme in his Chronicle:

"Turkeys, carps, hoppes, picarel and beer,

Came into England all in one year,"

that is, about 1524, or the 15th of the reign of Henry VIII.[25]

What was said by the German author Heresbach was translated by a

writer on agricultural subjects, Barnaby Googe, who published it in

his work. This appeared in the year 1614, and he refers to "those

outlandish birds called Ginny-Cocks and Turkey-Cocks," stating that

"before the yeare of our Lord 1530 they were not seene with us!"

Further, Bennett points out that "A more positive authority is

Hakluyt, who in certain instructions given by him to a friend at

Constantinople, bearing date of 1582, mentions, among other valuable

things introduced into England from foreign parts, 'Turkey-Cocks and

hennes' as having been brought in 'about fifty years past.' We may

therefore fairly conclude that they became known in this country

about the year 1530."[26]

Guinea-fowls were extremely rare in England throughout the sixteenth

century, while tame turkeys became very abundant there, forming by

no means an expensive dish at festivals,--the first were obtained

from the Levant, while the latter were to be found in poultry yards

nearly everywhere. In one of the Constitutions of Archbishop

Cranmer it was ordered that of fowls as large as swans, cranes, and

turkey-cocks, "there should be but one in a dish."[27]

When in 1555 the serjeants-at-law were created, they provided for

their inauguration dinner two turkeys and four turkey chicks at a

cost each of only four shillings, swans and cranes being ten, and

half a crown each for capons. At this rate, turkeys could not have

been so very scarce in those parts.[28] "Indeed they had become so

plentiful in 1573," continues Bennett, "that honest Tusser, in his

'Five Hundred Points of Good Husbandrie,'" enumerates them among the

usual Christmas fare at a farmer's table, and speaks of them as "ill

neighbors" both to "peason" and to hops. (pp. 212, 213.)

"A Frenchman named Pierre Gilles has the credit of having first

described the turkey in this quarter of the globe, in his additions

to a Latin translation of Ælian, published by him in 1535. His

description is so true to nature as to have been almost wholly

relied on by every subsequent writer down to Willoughby. He speaks of

it as a bird that he has seen; and he had not then been further from

his native country than Venice; and states it to have been brought

from the New World.

"That turkeys were known in France at this period is further proved

by a passage in Champier's 'Treatise de Re Cibaria,' published in

1560, and said to have been written thirty years before. This author

also speaks of them as having been brought but a few years back from

the newly discovered Indian islands. From this time forward their

origin seems to have been entirely forgotten, and for the next two

centuries we meet with little else in the writings of ornithologists

concerning them than an accumulation of citations from the ancients,

which bear no manner of relation to them. In the year 1566 a present

of twelve turkeys was thought not unworthy of being offered by the

municipality of Amiens to their king, at whose marriage, in 1570,

Anderson states in his History of Commerce, but we know not on what

authority, they were first eaten in France. Heresbach, as we have

seen, asserts that they were introduced into Germany about 1530;

and that a sumptuary law made at Venice in 1557, quoted by Zanoni,

particularizes the tables at which they were permitted to be served.

"So ungrateful are mankind for the most important benefits that

not even a traditionary vestige remains of the men by whom, or the

country from whence, this most useful bird was introduced into any

European states. Little therefore is gained from its early history

beyond the mere proof of the rapidity with which the process of

domestication may sometimes be effected." (pp. 213, 214.)

Some ten or more years ago, at a time when I was the natural history

editor of _Shooting and Fishing_, in New York City, I published a

number of criticisms and original articles upon turkeys, both the

wild and domesticated forms.[29]

About twelve years ago, Mr. Nelson contributed a very valuable

article on wild turkeys, portions of which are eminently worthy of

the space here required to quote them.[30] He says among other things

in this article that "All recent ornithologists have considered the

wild turkey of Mexico and the southwestern United States (aside

from _M. gallopavo intermedia_) as the ancestor of the domesticated

bird. This idea is certainly erroneous, as is shown by the series of

specimens now in the collection of the Biological Survey. When the

Spaniards first entered Mexico they landed near the present city of

Vera Cruz and made their way thence to the City of Mexico.

[Illustration: PLATE IV

Fig. 12. Superior view of the cranium of a large male tame

turkey, with right nasal bone (_n_) attached _in situ_.

Specimen in Dr. Shufeldt's private collection. Fig. 13. Left

lateral view of the skull of a female turkey, probably a wild

one. No. 19684, Coll. U. S. National Museum. (See Fig. 8, Pl.

II.) _e_, bony entrance to ear. Compare contour line of cranium

with Fig. 14. Fig. 14. Left lateral view of the cranium of a

tame turkey; male. Dr. Shufeldt's private collection. Fig. 15.

Direct posterior view of the cranium of a tame turkey, probably

a female. _pf_, postfrontal. Specimen in Dr. Shufeldt's

collection. Fig. 16. Skull of a wild Florida turkey, seen from

below (_M. g. osceola_). (See Fig. 10, Pl. II.) Bones named in

Fig. 18. Photo natural size by Dr. Shufeldt and considerably

reduced.]

"At this time they found domesticated turkeys among the Indians of

that region, and within a few years the birds were introduced into

Spain.[31]

"The part of the country occupied by the Spanish during the first

few years of the conquest in which wild turkeys occur is the eastern

slope of the Cordillera in Vera Cruz, and there is every reason to

suppose that this must have been the original home of the birds

domesticated by the natives of that region.

"Gould's description of the type of _M. mexicana_ is not sufficiently

detailed to determine the exact character of this bird, but

fortunately the type was figured in Elliot's "Birds of North

America."... In addition Gould's type apparently served for the

description of the adult male _M. gallopavo_ in the 'Catalogue of

Birds Brit. Mus.' (xxii, p. 387), and an adult female is described

in the same volume from Ciudad Ranch Durango.... Thus it will become

necessary to treat _M. gallopavo_ and _M. mexicana_ as at least

subspecifically distinct. Whatever may be the relationship of _M.

mexicana_ to _M. gallopavo_, the _M. g. merriami_ is easily separable

from _M. g. mexicana_ of the Sierra Madre of western Mexico, from

Chihuahua to Colima. Birds from northern Chihuahua are intermediate."

In this article Mr. Nelson names _M. g. merriami_ and gives full

descriptions of the adult male and female in winter plumage.

What has thus far been presented above on the first discovery of

the American wild turkeys, their natural history in the New World,

their introduction into Spain, England, France, and elsewhere, is

practically all we have on this part of our subject up to date.

What I have given is from the very best ornithological and other

authorities. Domesticated turkeys are now found in nearly all parts

of the world, while in only a very few instances has any record been

kept of the different times of their introduction. With the view of

accumulating such data, one would have to search the histories of all

the countries of all the civilized and semi-civilized peoples of the

world, which would be the labor of almost a man's entire lifetime,

and in only too many instances his search would be in vain, for the

several records of the times of introducing these birds were not made.

Apart from the description of the wild turkeys, there is still a

very large literature devoted to the domesticated forms of turkeys

as they occur in this country and abroad, as well as descriptions of

their eggs. I have gone over a large part of this literature, but

shall be able to use only a small, though nevertheless essential,

part of it here. This I shall complete with an account of _turkey

eggs_, which will be presented quite apart from anything to do with

their nests, nesting habits, and much else which will be fully

treated in other chapters of this book. In some works we meet with

the literature of all these subjects together, others have only a

part, while still others are confined to one thing, as the eggs.[32]

Darwin in his works paid considerable attention to the wild and

tame turkeys. He states that "Professor Baird believes (as quoted

in Tegetmeier's 'Poultry Book,' 1866, p. 269) that our turkeys are

descended from a West Indian species, now extinct. But besides the

improbability of a bird having long ago become extinct in these large

and luxuriant islands, it appears, as we shall presently see, that

the turkey degenerates in India, and this fact indicates that this

was not aboriginally an inhabitant of the lowlands of the tropics.

"F. Michaux," he further points out, "suspected in 1802 that the

common domestic turkey was not descended from the United States

species alone, but was likewise from a southern form, and he went

so far as to believe that English and French turkeys differed from

having different proportions of the blood of the two parent-forms.[33]

"English turkeys are smaller than either wild form. They have not

varied in any great degree; but there are some breeds which can be

distinguished--as Norfolks, Suffolks, Whites, and Copper-Coloured

(or Cambridge), all of which, if precluded from crossing with other

breeds, propagate their kind truly. Of these kinds, the most distinct

is the small, hardy, dull-black Norfolk turkey, of which the chickens

are black, with occasionally white patches about the head. The other

breeds scarcely differ except in colour, and their chickens are

generally mottled all over with brownish-grey.[34]

"In Holland there was formerly, according to Temminick, a beautiful

buff-yellow breed, furnished with an ample white topknot. Mr.

Wilmot has described a white turkey-cock with a crest formed of

'feathers about four inches long, with bare quills, and a tuft of

soft down growing at the end.'[35] Many of the young birds whilst

young inherited this kind of crest, but afterwards it either fell

off or was pecked out by the other birds. This is an interesting

case, as with care a new breed might probably have been formed;

and a topknot of this nature would have been, to a certain extent,

analogous to that borne by the males in several allied genera, such

as _Euplocomus_, _Lophophorus_, and _Pavo_."[36]

Darwin has further pointed out that "The tuft of hair on the breast

of the wild turkey-cock cannot be of any use, and it is doubtful

whether it can be ornamental in the eyes of the female birds; indeed,

had the tuft appeared under domestication, it would have been called

a monstrosity.

"The naked skin on the head of a vulture is generally considered as

a direct adaptation for wallowing in putridity; and so it may be, or

it may possibly be due to the direct action of putrid matter; but

we should be very cautious in drawing any such inference, when we

see that the skin on the head of the clean-feeding male turkey is

likewise naked."[37]

[Illustration: PLATE V

Fig. 17. Left lateral view of the skull, including lower jaw,

of a wild turkey; probably a female. No. 19684, Coll. U. S.

National Museum. (See Fig. 8, Pl. II, and Fig. 13.) _ena_,

external narial aperture. Fig. 18. Skull of wild Florida

turkey. (See Fig. 16.) _pmx_, premaxillary; _l_, lacrymal;

_pt_, pterygoids; _q_, quadrate; _c_, occipital condyle;

_mxp_, maxillo-palatine; _pl_, palatines. Fig. 19. Skeleton

of the left foot of a wild turkey (female?) No. 19684, Coll.

U. S. National Museum. Several views of the skull of this

individual are given above. The shortest toe is the hind toe

or hallux, and has a claw and a joint; then there are 3, 4,

and 5 phalangeal joints to the second, third, and fourth toes

respectively--that is in the inner, middle, and outer one.

This count includes the distal or claw joints (ungual joints).

All three figures photo natural size by Dr. Shufeldt and

considerably reduced in reproduction.]

Newton has pointed out that the topknotted turkeys were figured by

Albin in 1738, and that it "has been suggested with some appearance

of probability that the Norfolk breed may be descended from the

northern form, _Meleagris gallopavo_ or _americana_, while the

Cambridgeshire breed may spring from the southern form the _M.

mexicana_ of Gould (P. Z. S. 1856, p. 61), which indeed it very

much resembles, especially in having its tail-coverts and quills

tipped with white or light ochreous--points that recent North

American ornithologists rely upon as distinctive of this form. If

this supposition be true, there would be reason to believe in the

double introduction of the bird into England at least, as already

hinted, but positive information is almost wholly wanting." (_Ibid._,

p. 996.).

It is an interesting fact that the males of both the wild and tame

forms of turkeys frequently lack spurs;[38] and Henshaw has pointed

out that in the case of _M. g. merriami_ "A few of the gobblers had

spurs; in one instance these took the form of a blunt, rounded knob

half an inch long. In others, however, it was much reduced, and in

others still the spur was wanting; though my impression is that all

the old males had this weapon."[39]

One of the best articles which have been contributed to the present

part of our subject, appeared several years ago from the pen of

that very excellent naturalist, the late Judge Caton of Chicago.

This contribution is rather a long one, and I shall only select

such paragraphs from it as are of special value in the present

connection.[40]

It is a well-known fact that the author of this work made a long

series of observations on wild turkeys which he kept in confinement.

He raised many from the eggs of the wild turkey taken in nature and

hatched out by the common hen on his own preserves. At one time he

had as many as sixty such birds, and he lost no opportunity to study

their habits. They were of the pure stock with all their characters

as in the wild form. These turkeys became very tame when thus raised

from the eggs of the wild birds, and they did not deteriorate, either

in size or in their power of reproduction. "This magnificent game

bird," says Caton, "was never a native of the Pacific Coast. I have

at various times sent in all about forty to California, in the hope

that it may be acclimatized in the forests. Their numerous enemies

have thus far prevented success in this direction, but they have done

reasonably well in domestication, and Captain Rodgers of the United

States Coast Survey has met with remarkable success in hybridizing

them with the domestic bronze turkey. Last spring I sent some which

were placed on Santa Clara Island, off Santa Barbara. They remained

contentedly about the ranch building and, as I am informed, raised

three broods of young which are doing well. As there is nothing

on the island more dangerous to them than a very small species of

fox, we may well hope that they will in a few years stock the whole

island, which is many miles in extent. As the island is uninhabited

except by the shepherds who tend the immense flocks of sheep there,

they will soon revert to the wild state, when I have no doubt they

will resume markings as constant as is observed in the wild bird

here, but I shall be disappointed if the changed condition of life

does not produce a change of color or in the shades of color, which

would induce one unacquainted with their history to pronounce them

specifically different from their wild ancestors here. Results will

be watched with interest.

"My experiments in crossing the wild with the tame have been

eminently successful." (Followed by a long account, p. 329.)

"My experiments establish first that the turkey may be domesticated,

and that each succeeding generation bred in domestication loses

something of the wild disposition of its ancestors.

"Second, that the wild turkey bred in domestication changes its

form and the color of its plumage and of its legs, each succeeding

generation degenerating more and more from these brilliant colors

which are so constant on the wild turkey of the forest, so that it is

simply a question of time--and indeed a very short time--when they

will lose all of their native wildness and become clothed in all the

varied colors of the common domestic turkey; in fact be like our

domestic turkey,--yes, be our domestic turkey.

"Third, that the wild turkey and the domestic turkey as freely

interbred as either does with its own variety, showing not the least

sexual aversion always observed between animals of different species

of the same genus, and that the hybrid progeny is as vigorous, as

robust, and fertile as was either parent.

"It must be already apparent that I, at least, have no doubt that

our common domestic turkey is a direct descendant of the wild turkey

of our forests, and that therefore there is no specific difference

between them. If such marked changes in the wild turkey occur by

only ten years of domestication, all directly tending to the form,

habits, and colorings of the domestic turkey,--in all things which

distinguish the domestic from the wild turkey,--what might we not

expect from fifty or a hundred years of domestication? I know that

the best ornithological authority at the present time declares them

to be of a different species, but I submit that this is a question

which should be reconsidered in the light of indisputable facts which

were not admitted or established at the time such decision was made.

"There has always been diffused among the domestic turkeys of the

frontiers more or less of the blood of the wild turkey of the

neighboring forests, and as the wild turkey has been driven back by

the settlement of the country, the domestic turkey has gradually lost

the markings which told of the presence of the wild; though judicious

breeding has preserved and rendered more or less constant some of

this evidence in what is called the domestic bronze turkey, as the

red leg and the tawny shade dashed upon the white terminals of the

tail feathers and the tail-coverts, the better should the stock be

considered, because it is the more like its wild ancestor.

"That the domestic turkey in its neighborhood may be descended from

or largely interbred with the wild turkey of New Mexico, which in its

wild state more resembles the common domestic turkey than our wild

turkey does, may unquestionably be true, and it may be also that the

wild turkey there has a large infusion of the tame blood, for it is

known that not only our domestic turkey, but even our barnyard fowls,

relapse to the wild state in a single generation when they are reared

in the woods and entirely away from the influence of man, gradually

assuming uniform and constant colorings. But I will not discuss

the question whether the Mexican wild turkey is of a different

species from ours or merely a variety of the same species, only with

differences in color which have arisen from accidental causes, and

certainly I will not question that the Mexican turkey is the parent

of many domestic turkeys, but I cannot resist the conclusion that our

wild turkey is the progenitor of our domestic turkey."

We have now come to where we can study the eggs of these birds, and

in the same article I have just quoted so extensively from, Judge

Caton says on page 324 of it, "The eggs of the wild turkey vary much

in coloring and somewhat in form, but in general are so like those of

the tame turkey that no one can select one from the other. The ground

color is white, over which are scattered reddish-brown specks. These

differ in shades of color, but much more in numbers. I have seen some

on which scarcely any specks could be detected, while others were

profusely covered with specks, all laid by the same hen in the same

nest. The turkey eggs are more pointed than those of the goose or

the barnyard fowl, and are much smaller in proportion to the size of

the bird."

This, in the main, is a fair description of the eggs of _Meleagris_,

while at the same time it may be said that the ground color is not

always "white," nor the markings exactly what might be denominated

"specks."

Turkey eggs of all kinds, laid by hens of the wild as well as by

those of the domesticated birds, have been described and figured in a

great many popular and technically scientific books and other works,

in this country as well as abroad. A large part of this literature

I have examined, but I soon became convinced of the fact that _no

general description_ would begin to stand for the different kinds

of eggs that turkeys lay. They not only differ in size, form, and

markings, but in ground colors, numbers to the clutch, and some other

particulars. Then it is true that no wild turkey hen, of any of the

known subspecies or species of this country, has ever laid an egg

but what some hen of the domestic breeds somewhere has not laid one

practically exactly like it in all particulars. In other words, the

eggs of our various breeds of tame turkeys are like the eggs of the

several forms of the wild bird, that is, the subspecies known to

science in the United States avifauna. Therefore I have not thought

it necessary to present here any descriptions of the eggs of the tame

turkeys or reproductions of photographs of the same.

Among the most beautiful of the wild turkey eggs published are those

which appear in Major Bendire's work. They were drawn and painted

by Mr. John L. Ridgway of the United States Geological Survey.[41]

These very eggs I have not only examined, studied and compared, but,

thanks to Dr. Richmond of the Division of Birds of the Museum, and

to Mr. J. H. Riley, his assistant, I had such specimens as I needed

loaned me from the general collection of the Museum, in that I might

photograph them for use in the present connection. Dr. Richmond did

me a special kindness in selecting for my study the four eggs here

reproduced from my photograph of them in Plate VI. These are all of

_M. g. silvestris_.

Of these, figures 20 and 21 are from the same clutch, and doubtless

laid by the same bird. (Nos. 30014, 30014.) They were collected by J.

H. Riley at Falls Church, Va. Figure 20 is an egg measuring 66 mm. x

45 mm., the color being a pale buffy-brown, finely and nearly evenly

speckled all over with umber-brown, with very minute specks to dots

measuring a millimetre in diameter. The finest speckling, with no

larger spots, is at the greater end (butt) for a third of the egg.

[Illustration: PLATE VI

Eggs of wild turkey (_M. g. silvestris_)

Names and descriptions given in the text. All the specimens

photo natural size by Dr. Shufeldt and somewhat reduced in

reproduction. Fig. 20. Upper left-hand one. Fig. 21. Upper

right-hand one. Fig. 22. Lower left-hand one. Fig. 23. Lower

right-hand one.]

Figure 21 measures 63 mm. x 45 mm., the ground color being a pale

cream, speckled somewhat thickly and uniformly all over with fine

specks of light brown and lavender, with larger spots and ocellated

marks of lavender moderately abundant over the middle and the apical

thirds, with none about the larger end or remaining third. Figure

22 (Plate VI) is No. 31185 of the collection of the U. S. National

Museum (ex Ralph Coll.); it was collected at Bridgeport, Michigan,

by Allan Herbert (376, 4700, '77) and measures 68 x 46. It is of

a rather deep buffy-brown or ochre, very thickly and quite uniformly

speckled all over with more or less minute specks of dark brown.

Figure 23 was collected by H. R. Caldwell (91310), the locality being

unrecorded (Coll. U. S. Nat. Museum, No. 32407), and measures 63 x

48. It is of a pale buffy-brown or pale _café au lait_ color, quite

thickly speckled all over with fine dots and specks of light brown.

Some few of the specks are of noticeably larger size, and these are

confined to the middle and apical thirds. Speckling of the butt or

big end extremely fine, and the specks of lighter color.

Referring to the wild turkey (_M. g. silvestris_) Bendire says (_loc.

cit._, p. 116): "In shape, the eggs of the Wild Turkey are usually

ovate, occasionally they are elongate ovate. The ground color varies

from pale creamy white to creamy buff. They are more or less heavily

marked with well-defined spots and dots of pale chocolate and reddish

brown. In an occasional set these spots are pale lavender. Generally

the markings are all small, ranging in size from a No. 6 shot to that

of dust shot, but an exceptional set is sometimes heavily covered

with both spots and blotches of the size of buckshot, and even

larger. The majority of eggs of this species in the U. S. National

Museum collection, and such as I have examined elsewhere, resemble in

coloration the figured type of _M. gallopavo mexicanus_, but average,

as a rule, somewhat smaller in size.

"The average measurement of thirty-eight eggs in the U. S. National

Museum collection is 61.5 by 46.5 millimetres. The largest egg

measures 68.5 by 46, the smallest 59 by 45 millimetres."

At the close of his account of _M. g. mexicanus_ Bendire states

that "The only eggs of this species in the U. S. National Museum

collection, about whose identity there can be no possible doubt, were

collected on Upper Lynx Creek, Arizona, in the spring of 1870, by Dr.

E. Palmer, whose name is well known as one of the pioneer naturalists

of that Territory.

"The eggs are ovate in shape, their ground color is creamy white, and

they are profusely dotted with fine spots of reddish brown, pretty

evenly distributed over the entire egg. The average measurements of

these eggs is 69 by 49 millimetres. The largest measures 70.5 by 49,

the smallest 67 by 48 millimetres.

"The type specimen (No. 15573, U. S. National Museum collection, Pl.

3, Fig. 15) is one of the set referred to above" (_loc. cit._ p. 119).

This set of three eggs I have personally studied; they are of _M. g.

merriami_, and I find them to agree exactly with Captain Bendire's

description just quoted.[42]

In the Ralph Collection (U. S. Nat. Mus. No. 27232; orig. No. 10/6)

I examined six (6) eggs of _M. g. intermedia_. They are of a pale

ground color, all being uniformly speckled over with minute dots of

lightish brown. These eggs are rather large for turkey eggs. They

were collected at Brownsville, Texas, May 26, 1894.

Another set of _M. g. intermedia_ collected by F. B. Armstrong (No.

25765, coll. U. S. Nat. Mus.) are practically _unspotted_, and such

spots as are to be found are very faint, both the minute and the

somewhat large ones.

In Dr. Ralph's collection (U. S. Nat. Mus. No. 27080) eggs of _M.

g. intermedia_ are _short_, with the large and fine dots of a pale

_orange yellow_. I examined a number of eggs and sets of eggs of

_M. g. osceola_, or Florida turkey. In No. 25787 the eggs are short

and broad, the ground color being pale whitish, slightly tinged

with brown. Some of the spots on these eggs are unusually large, in

a few places, three or four running together, or are more or less

confluent; others are isolated and of medium size; many are minute,

all being of an earth brown, varying in shades. In the case of

No. 25787 of this set, the dark-brown spots are more or less of a

size and fewer in number; while one of them (No. 25787) is exactly

like the egg of Plate VI, Fig. 22; finally, there is a pale one

(No. 25787) with _fine_ spots, few in number in middle third, very

numerous at the ends. There are _scattered large spots_ of a dark

brown, the surface of each of which latter are raised with a kind

of incrustation. Another egg (No. 27869) in the same tray (_M. g.

osceola_) is _small_, pointed; pale ground color with very fine spots

of light brown (coll. W. L. Ralph). Still another in this set (No.

27868) is markedly _roundish_, with minute brown speckling uniformly

distributed. There are nine (9) eggs in this clutch (No. 27868), and

apart from the differences in form, they all closely resemble each

other; and this is by no means always the case, as the same hen may

lay any of the various styles enumerated above, either as belonging

to the same clutch, or at different seasons.

As it is not the plan of the author of the present work to touch,

in this chapter, upon the general habits of wild turkeys--their

courtship, their incubation, the young at various stages, nesting

sites, and a great deal more having to do with the natural history of

the family and the forms contained in it--it would seem that what has

been set forth above in regard to the eggs of the several subspecies

in our avifauna pretty thoroughly covers this part of the subject.

Shortly after the last paragraph was completed I received a valuable

photograph of the nest and eggs of _M. g. merriami_, and this I

desire to publish here with a few notes, although in so doing it

constitutes a departure from what I have just stated above in regard

to the nests of turkeys.

This photograph was kindly furnished me by my friend Mr. F. Stephens

of the Society of Natural History of San Diego, California, with

permission to use it in the present connection. It has not to my

knowledge been published before, though the existence of the negative

from which it was printed has been made known to ornithologists by

Major Bendire, who says, in his account of the "Mexican Turkey" in

his _Life Histories of North American Birds_ (_loc. cit._ p. 118):

"That well-known ornithologist and collector, Mr. F. Stephens, took a

probably incomplete set of nine fresh eggs of this species, on June

15th, 1884. He writes me: 'I was encamped about five miles south of

Craterville, on the east side of the Santa Rita Mountains in Arizona;

the nest was shown to my assistant by a charcoal burner. On his

approach to it the bird ran off or flew before he got within good

range. He did not disturb it but came to camp, and in the afternoon

we both went, and I took my little camera along and photographed it.

The bird did not show up again. The locality was on the east slope

of the Santa Rita Mountains, in the oak timber, just where the first

scattering pines commenced, at an altitude of perhaps 5000 feet.'

"A good photograph, kindly sent me by Mr. Stephens, shows the nest

and eggs plainly. It was placed close to the trunk of an oak tree on

a hillside, near which a good-size yucca grew, covering, apparently,

a part of the nest; the hollow in which the eggs were placed was

about 12 inches across and 3 inches deep. Judging from the photograph

the nest was fairly well lined."

In order to complete my share of the work, I will now add here a

few paragraphs and illustrations upon the skeletal differences to

be found upon comparison of that part of the anatomy of wild and

domesticated turkeys. This is a subject I wrote upon many years

ago; what I then said I have just read over, and I find I can do no

better than quote the part contained in the "Analytical Summary" of

the work. It is more or less technical and therefore must be brief,

though it is none the less necessary to complete the subject of the

present treatise.[43]

1. As a rule, in adult specimens of _M. g. merriami_, the posterior

margins of the nasal bones indistinguishably fuse with the frontals;

whereas, as a rule, in domesticated turkeys these sutural traces

persist with great distinctness throughout life.

2. As a rule, in wild turkeys we find the craniofrontal region more

concaved and wider across than it is in the tame varieties.

3. The parietal prominences are apt to be more evident in _M. g.

merriami_ than they are in the vast majority of domesticated turkeys;

and the median longitudinal line measured from these to the nearest

point of the occipital ridge is longer in the tame varieties than it

is in the wild birds. Generally speaking, this latter character is

very striking and rarely departed from.

4. The figure formed by the line which bounds the occipital area is,

as a rule, roughly semicircular in a domesticated turkey, whereas

in _M. g. merriami_ it is nearly always of a cordate outline, with

the apex upward. In the case of the tame turkeys I have found it

to average one exception to this in every twelve birds; in the

exception, the bounding line of the area made a cordate figure as in

wild turkeys.

5. Among the domesticated turkeys, the interorbital septum almost

invariably is pierced by a large irregular vacuity; as a rule this

osseous plate is entire in wild ones.

6. The descending process of a lacrymal bone is more apt to be longer

in a wild turkey than in a tame one; and for the average the greater

length is always in favor of the former species.

7. In _M. g. merriami_ the arch of the superior margin of the orbit

is more decided than it is in the tame turkey, where the arc formed

by this line is shallowed, and not so elevated.

8. We find, as a rule, that the pterygoid bones are rather longer and

more slender in wild turkeys than they are among the tame ones.

9. At the occipital region of the skull, the osseous structures are

denser and thicker in the tame varieties of turkeys; and, as a whole,

the skull is smoother, with its salient apophyses less pronounced

in them than in the wild types. There is a certain delicacy and

lightness, very difficult to describe, that stamps the skull of a

wild turkey, and at once distinguishes it from any typical skull of a

tame one.

10. I have predicted that the average size of the brain cavity will

be found to be smaller and of less capacity in a tame turkey than it

is in the wild one. In the case of this class of domesticated birds,

as pointed out above, this would seem to be no more than natural,

for the domestication of the turkey has not been of such a nature

as to develop its brain mass through the influences of a species of

education; its long contact with man has taught it nothing--quite the

contrary, for the bird has been almost entirely relieved from the

responsibilities of using its wits to obtain its food, or to guard

against danger to itself. These factors are still in operation in the

case of the wild types, and the advance of civilization has tended

to sharpen them.

From this point of view, then, I would say that mentally the average

wild turkey is stronger than the average domesticated one, and I

believe it will be found that in all these long years the above

influences have affected the size of the brain-mass of the latter

species in the way above indicated, and perhaps it may be possible

some day to appreciate this difference. Perhaps, too, there may

have been also a slight tendency on the part of the brain of the

wild turkey to increase in size, owing to the demands made upon its

functions due to the influence of man's nearer approach, and the

necessity of greater mental activity in consequence.

Recently I examined a mounted skeleton of a female wild turkey in

the collection of the United States National Museum, and apart from

the skull it presented the following characters: There were fifteen

vertebræ, the last one having a pair of free ribs, before we arrived

at the fused vertebræ of the dorsum. Of these latter there were three

coössified into one piece.

The sixteenth vertebra supports a pair of free ribs that fail to meet

the sternum, there being no costal ribs for them. They bear uncinate

processes.

Next we find four pairs of ribs that articulate with hæmapophyses,

and through them with the sternum. There are two free vertebræ

between the consolidated dorsal ones and the pelvis; and the pelvis

bears a pair of free ribs, the costal ribs of which articulate by

their anterior ends with the posterior border of the pair of costal

ribs in front of them.

A kind of long abutment exists at the middle point on each, there

to accommodate the articulation. There are six free tail vertebræ

plus a long pointed pygostyle. The os furcula is rather slender,

being of a typical V-shaped pattern, with a small and straight

hypocleidium. With a form much as we find it in the fowl, the pelvis

is characterized by _not_ having the ilia meet the sacral crista

in front. The prepubis is short and stumpy. The external pair of

xiphoidal processes of the sternum are peculiar in that their

posterior ends are strongly bifurcated.

[Illustration: PLATE VII

Fig. 24. Nest of a wild turkey _in situ_. (_M. g. merriami._)

Photo by Mr. F. Stephens, San Diego, California.]

In the skeleton of the manus, the pollex metacarpal projects forward

and upward as a rather conspicuous process. Its phalanx does not bear

a claw, and on the index metacarpal the indicial process is present

and overlaps the shaft of the next metacarpal behind it. In the leg

the fibula is free, and extends halfway down the tibiotarsal shaft.

The hypotarsus of the tarso-metatarsus is grooved mesially for the

passage of tendons behind, and is also once perforated near its

middle for the same purpose. As I have already stated, the remainder

of the skeleton of this bird is characteristically gallinaceous

and need not detain us longer here. I would add, however, that the

"tarsal cartilages" in the turkey extensively ossify.

FOOTNOTES:

[9] Audubon, J. J. "The Birds of America," Vol. V, pp. 54-55. Even

in Audubon's time the wild turkeys were being rapidly exterminated.

At this time _M. g. silvestris_ does not occur east of central

Pennsylvania.

[10] Columella. (_De Re Rustica_, VIII, cap. 2.) Edwards

(_Gleanings_, II, p. 269). 1760?

[11] Newton, Alfred. _A Dictionary of Birds._ (Assisted by Hans

Gadow, with contributions from Richard Lydekker, Chas. S. Roy, and

Robert W. Shufeldt, M. D.) Pt. IV, 1896, p. 994. The quotation

is from the Art. "Turkey," and in further reference to its name,

Professor Newton remarks, "The French _Coq_ and _Poule d'Inde_

(whence _Dindon_) involve no contradiction, looking to the general

idea of what India then was. One of the earliest German names for the

bird, _Kalekuttisch Hiim_ (whence the Scandinavian _Kalkun_) must

have arisen through some mistake at present inexplicable; but this

does not refer, as is generally supposed, to Calcutta, but to Calicut

on the Malabar coast (Notes and Queries, ser. 6, X, p. 185).

"But even Linnæus could not clear himself of the confusion,

and, possibly following Sibbald, unhappily misapplied the name

_Meleagris_, undeniably belonging to the guinea-fowl, as the

generic term for what we now know as the turkey, adding thereto

as its specific designation the word _gallopavo_, taken from the

_Gallopavus_ of Gesner, who, though not wholly free from error, was

less mistaken than some of his contemporaries and even successors."

[12] Baird, Spencer F. _The Origin of the Domestic Turkey._ Rep. of

the Comm. of Agricul. for the year 1866. Washington Gov. Printing

Office, 1867, pp. 288-290. In this article Professor Baird undertakes

to demonstrate "that there are two species of wild turkey in North

America; one confined to the more eastern and southern United States,

the other to the southern Rocky Mountains and adjacent part of Texas,

New Mexico, and Arizona; that the latter extends along eastern Mexico

as far south at least as Orizaba, and that it is from this Mexican

species and not from that of eastern North America that this domestic

turkey is derived." [Reprinted in Hist. of N. Amer. Birds, III, p.

411, footnote.]

[13] Bennett, E. T. "The Gardens and Menagerie of the Zoölogical

Society delineated." [The Drawings by William Harvey; Engr. by

Branston and Wright, assisted by other artists] London, 1835. Further

on, this article will be quoted on other points, as it treats of the

entire history of the wild turkey.

[14] In the original work, here quoted, names of persons and some

other nouns are printed in capitals--an old custom which publishers

of the present work decided not to follow. My MS. was made to agree

with the original in all particulars. R. W. S.

[15] Pennant, Thos. Esqr. F. R. S. "An Account of the Turkey." Phil.

Trans. of the Royal Society of London. Vol. LXXI for the year 1781.

London [Art.] No. 1. Communicated by Joseph Banks, Esqr., P. R. S.

Read December 21, 1781, pp. 77, 78.

Pennant's contribution fills a large place in the literature of the

wild turkey, and further on I shall take occasion to quote still more

extensively from it. It starts in by giving in brief the characters

of the turkey, and in describing the wild turkey he cites the

previous works of Josselyn (Voyage); Clayton (Virginia); Catesby,

Belon, Gesner, Aldrovandus, Ray, Buffon, and others. He gives a

"Description" of the bird, especially the "Tail," and adds that a

"White Turkey"--"A most beautiful kind has of late been introduced

into England of a snowy whiteness, finely contrasting with its

red head. These I think came from Holland, probably bred from an

accidental white pair; and from them preserved pure from any dark or

variegated birds." (p. 68.)

He presents variation in "Size," quoting Josselyn (New-Eng.

Rarities); Lawson (History of Carolina); and Clayton (Phil. Trans.).

Also their "Manners"; their being "Gregarious"; "Their Haunts,"

"Place," and much else, having more to do with their habits than

their history, and consequently not legitimately to be touched upon

in this chapter.

[16] Coues, Elliott. "History of the Wild Turkey." _Forest and

Stream_, XIII, January 1, 1879, p. 947.

Another work I have examined on this part of our subject is D. G.

Elliot's "Game Birds of America," and the turkey cuts in this book

were copied by Coues into the last edition of his "Key to North

American Birds," and very poorly done. Dr. D. G. Elliot's superb

work, illustrated by magnificent colored plates by the artist Wolfe,

on "A Monograph of the Phasianidæ or the Family of the Pheasants,"

I have not examined. The copy in the Library of Congress was out on

a loan when I made application for it. Several plates of different

species of wild turkeys are to be found in it.

[17] Pennant's article is illustrated by a folding plate giving the

leg of a turkey bearing a supernumery toe situated in front of the

tibiotarsus with the claw above. The note in reference to it is here

reproduced in order to complete the article. Philos. Trans., Vol.

LXXI, Ab. III, p. 80:

"To this account I beg leave to lay before you the very extraordinary

appearance on the thigh of a turkey bred in my poultry yard, and

which was killed a few years ago for the table. The servant in

plucking it was very unexpectedly wounded in the hand. On examination

the cause appeared so singular that the bird was brought to me. I

discovered that from the thigh-bone issued a short upright process,

and to that grew a large and strong toe, with a sharp and crooked

claw, exactly resembling that of a rapacious bird."

[18] Bartram, William. Travels through North and South Carolina,

Georgia, East and West Florida, the Cherokee Country, the Extensive

Territories of the Muscogalges or Creek Confederacy, and the Country

of the Choctaws. Containing an account of the soil and Natural

Productions of those regions; together with the observations on the

manners of the Indians. Embellished with Copper Plates.

The original edition of Bartram is cited in the _Third Instalment

of American Ornithological Bibliography_ by Elliott Coues (the

references being pp. 83 and 290 _bis_). Bull. U. S. Geol. and Geogr.

Surv. Terr. 1879, p. 810, Govm't Printing Office. It is here in

this work of his that Bartram designates the domestic turkey as

_Meleagris gallopavo_, Linn.; and the wild turkey of this country

(_M. occidentalis_) (p. 83) as _M. americanus_ (p. 290 _bis_).

[19] Barton, P. S. _The Philadelphia Medical and Physical Journal_,

Vol. II, 1806, pp. 162-164. Coues, in his _Ornitho. Biblio._, cited

above, omits the words, "The Philadelphia," which gives trouble to

find the work in a library; he also has the year wrong, giving 1805

for 1806--the latter being correct. The copy I consulted had no Pl.

1, with the article, that I happened to see.

[20] Clinton, De Witt. _Trans. Lit. and Philos. Soc._, New York, 1,

1815, pp. 21-184. Note S. pp. 125-128.

[21] Owen, R. P. Z. S., V. 1837, pp. 34, 35.

[22] Le Conte, John. _Proc. Acad. Nat. Sci. of Phila._ IX, 1857,

pp. 179-181. The distinctive characters and the habits, as given

by this author of the wild and domesticated turkeys of the United

States, are doubtless of some value; but the deductions he draws from

the comparisons made are, as we know, quite erroneous. I have not

examined the article by E. Roger in the _Bull. Soc. Acclim._ cited

by Coues in his _Ornitho. Biblio._ as having appeared in the "2c

Ser. VII, 1870, pp. 264-266." Either the year or the pagination, or

both, of the citation is wrong, and as many of the copies were out

at the time of my search, and the others distributed through several

libraries, I failed to obtain it. R. W. S.

[23] Gould, J. 2. On a new turkey, _Meleagris Mexicana_. P. Z. S.

XXIV, 1856, pp. 61-63. (In his _Ornithol. Bibliogr._) Coues remarks

upon this as follows: "Subsequently determined to be the stock whence

the domestic bird descended, and hence a synonym of _M. gallopavo_,

Linn."

This paper was extensively republished at the time, generally under

the title of "A new species of turkey from Mexico" [all citing the

P. Z. S. article]. One journal quoted it as follows: "Mr. Gould

exhibited a specimen of turkey which he had obtained in Mexico,

and which differed materially from the wild turkey of the United

States. At the same time this turkey so closely resembled the

domesticated turkey of Europe that he believed naturalists were

wrong in attributing its origin to the United States species. The

present specimen was therefore a new species, and he proposed to

call it _Meleagris Mexicana_, which, if his theory was correct, must

henceforth be the designation of the common turkey." Amer. Jour. Sci.

XXII, 1856, p. 139. Under the same title this latter was reprinted in

Edinb. _New Philos. Journ._ n. s., iv, 1856, pp. 371, 372. See also

Bryant, H. "_Remarks on the supposed new species of turkey, Meleagris

Mexicana, recently described by Mr. Gould._" Proc. Bost. Soc. Nat.

Hist. vi, 1857, pp. 158, 159. "In the Proceedings of the Zoölogical

Society of London for 1856, page 61," says Professor Baird, "Mr.

Gould characterizes as new a wild turkey from the mines of Real del

Norte, in Mexico, under the name of _Meleagris Mexicana_, and is the

first to suggest that it is derived from the domesticated bird, and

not from the common wild turkey of eastern North America, on which he

retains the name of _M. gallopavo_, of Linnæus. He stated that the

peculiarities of the new species consist chiefly in the creamy white

tips of the tail feathers and of the upper tail coverts, with some

other points of minor importance. I suggest that the wild turkey of

New Mexico, as referred to by various writers, belongs to this new

species, and not to the _M. gallopavo_." (loc. cit. p. 289.) Compare

the above with what Professor Baird states in the series of the

_Pacif. Railroad Reports_, vol. ix, p. 618, with the remainder of the

above quoted article, which is too long to reproduce here.

[24] Bennett, E. T. "Publ. with the sanction of the council under the

superintendence of the Secretary and Vice Secretary of the Society.

Birds. Vol. II. London, 1835, pp. 209-224." There is a very excellent

wood-cut of a turkey illustrating this article (left lateral view),

of which the author says: "Our own figure is taken from a young male,

in imperfect plumage, brought from America by Mr. Audubon. Another

specimen, in very brilliant plumage, but perhaps not purely wild,

forms a part of the Society's Museum" (p. 223). Bennett derived most

of his information about the habits of the wild turkey in nature

"from an excellent memoir by M. Charles Lucien Bonaparte, in his

continuation of Wilson's American Ornithology."

"In that work M. Bonaparte claims credit for having given the first

representation of the wild turkey;* and justly so, for the figures

introduced into a landscape in the account of De Laudonniere's Voyage

to Florida in De Bry's Collection, and that published by Bricknell

in his Natural History of North Carolina, cannot with certainty be

referred to the native bird. They are besides too imperfect to be

considered as characteristic representations of the species. Much

about the same time with M. Bonaparte's figure appeared another, in

M. Viellot's Galerie des Oiseaux, taken from a specimen in the Paris

Museum.

"It is somewhat singular that so noble a bird, and in America at

least by no means a rare one, should have remained unfigured until

within five years of the present time; all the plates in European

works being manifestly derived from domestic specimens." Bennett was

aware that Audubon's Plates were published about this time, for he

mentions them. He also was well informed in matters regarding the

crossing of the wild male turkey with the female domestic one, and

with the improvement in the breed thus obtained.

* Note: Newton disputes this and says: "In 1555 both sexes were

characteristically figured by Belon (Oiseaux, p. 249), as was

the cock by Gesner in the same year, and these are the earliest

representations of the bird known to exist." (Dict. of Birds,

pp. 995, 996.)

[25] Newton states that this assertion "is wholly untrustworthy," as

carp, pickerel (and other commodities) both lived in this country

(England) long before 1524, "if indeed they were not indigenous to

it." (Dict. of Birds, p. 995).

[26] No two authors seem to agree upon the exact date when the turkey

was really introduced into England. Here Bennett states positively

1530; Professor Baird has it 1541; Alfred Newton 1524, and so on.

[27] Leland's Collectanea, (1541).

[28] _Dugdale._ "Origines Juridiciales."

[29] Shufeldt, R. W. "The Ancestry of the American Turkey," _Shooting

and Fishing_, Vol. 24, No. 13, New York, July 14, 1898, p. 246. "Wild

and Domesticated Turkeys," _Ibid._ No. 17, August 11, 1898, p. 331.

"A Reply to the Turkey Hunters," _Ibid._ No. 23, September 22, 1898,

pp, 451, 452. "The Wild Turkey of Arizona," _Ibid._ Vol. 32, No. 5,

New York, May 22, 1902, pp. 108, 109.

[30] Nelson, E. W. "Description of a New Subspecies of _Meleagris

gallopavo_ and proposed changes in the nomenclature of certain North

American birds." Auk, XVII, April 1900, pp. 120-123.

[31] Among the luxuries belonging to the high condition of

civilization exhibited by the Mexican nation at the time of the

Spanish conquest was the possession of Montezuma by one of the most

extensive zoölogical gardens on record, numbering nearly all the

animals of that country, with others brought at much expense from

great distances, and it is stated that turkeys were supplied as food

in large numbers daily to the beasts of prey in the menagerie of the

Mexican Emperor. (Baird, _ibid._ pp. 288, 289.)

[32] Ogilvie-Grant, W. R. "A Hand-book to the Game-Birds." (Lloyd's

Nat. Hist., London, 1897, pp. 103-111.) Genus _Meleagris_. Describes

briefly some of the North American Turkeys, and also _M. ocellata_

(full page colored figure). Nest and eggs of all described in brief.

[33] Michaux, F. "Travels in N. Amer." 1802 Eng. Trans., p. 217. See

also the following: Blyth, E., "Ann. and Mag. of Nat. Hist.," 1847,

vol. xx., p 391. This author points out that these turkeys in India

are flightless, black in color, small, and the appendage over the

bill of great size.

[34] Dixon, E. S. "Ornamental Poultry," 1818, p. 34. This author also

noted the interesting fact that the female of the domesticated turkey

sometimes has the tuft of hair on her breast like the male. Bechstein

refers to the old German fable or superstition that a hen turkey lays

as many eggs as the gobbler has feathers in the under tail-coverts,

which, as we know, vary in number. (Naturgesch. Deutschlands, B iii,

1793, s. 309.).

[35] "Gardener's Chronicle," 1852, p. 699.

[36] Darwin, Charles. "Animals and Plants Under Domestication," Vol.

1, 1868, pp. 352-355. Other facts of this character are set forth

here which are of interest in the present connection.

[37] Darwin, Charles. "The Origin of Species," 1880, pp. 70, 158. He

also shows that the young of wild turkey are instinctively wild.

[38] Woodhouse, Dr. (Amer. Nat. vii, 1873, p, 326.).

[39] Henshaw, H. W. Rept. Geogr. and Geol. Expl. and Surv. West of

the 100th meridian. 1875. Chap. III. The Ornith. Coll. 1871-1874, p.

435.

[40] Caton, J. D. "The Wild Turkey and Its Domestication." Amer. Nat.

xi, No. 6, 1877, pp. 321-330, also _Ibid._ vii, 1873, where this

author states that "The vision of the wild turkey is very acute but

the sense of smell is very dull." (p. 431.)

[41] Bendire, Charles, "Life Histories of North American Birds with

Special Reference to Their Breeding Habits and Eggs." Washington,

Govmt. Printing Office, 1892.

[42] Some of the English books contain descriptions of the eggs of

our wild turkeys, as for example "A Hand-book to the Game-birds." By

W. R. Ogilvie-Grant. (Lloyd's Nat. Hist.) London, 1897, pp. 103-111.

[43] Shufeldt, R. W. "Osteology of Birds," Education Dept. Bull.

No. 447, Albany, N. Y., May 15, 1909. N. Y. State Mus. Bull. 130,

pp. 222-224; based upon a former contribution which appeared in

_The Journal of Comparative Medicine and Surgery_, July, 1887,

entitled "A Critical Comparison of a Series of Skulls of the Wild

and Domesticated Turkeys." (_Meleagris gallopavo silvestris_ and _M.

domestica_.)