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