348 BULLETIN OF THE 



Finally, that the wild turkeys were probably completely exterminated by 

 the native?, as has been the case with equally large birds in other islands, 

 as the dodo and solitaire.* Tins hypothesis," he continues, " will ex- 

 plain the fact of our meeting nowhere at the present day any wild turkeys 

 resembling the domestic one. f .... The entire subject is one of much 

 interest, and deserves to be investigated thoroughly. It is quite possible 

 that a careful examination of the external form and habits of the New 

 Mexican bird may do much to throw full light on the whole question." 



It is not surprising that a theory presenting to the imagination so many 

 attractive features, and indorsed by authority so eminent, should have 

 been currently received, as has this, by those who have not had the oppor- 

 tunity, nor perhaps the desire, to examine the subject for themselves. But, 

 if I mistake not, it has also been accepted as at least a probably correct 

 hypothesis by many ornithologists.^ I have, however, already adduced 

 evidence from Bonaparte, Bachman, Audubon, and Bryant sufficient to 

 show, not only the erroneous character of Major LeConte's fundamental 

 proposition, to wit, that the wild turkey of the United States has never 

 been and never can be .domesticated, but that such an hypothesis as the 

 one above quoted is wholly uncalled for. As the whole question of the 

 origin of the domestic turkey and its relationship to the wild turkey of the 

 United States turns, however, upon the fact of the domesticability or non- 

 domesticability of the common wild turkey, it may perhaps be proper to 

 bring forward some recent testimony respecting this disputed point. 



I have myself always been more or less familiar with the domestic bird, 

 and with the fact that breeds exist which closely resemble the wild bird, 

 and which their owners claimed were one fourth, one half, or one eighth 



* Mr. Darwin, in referring to this gratuitous theory, refers to the fact of the de- 

 terioration of the turkey within the tropics, and very properly to the " improbability of 

 a bird having long ago become extinct in these large and luxuriant islands, or of its 

 ever having been aboriginally an inhabitant of the lowlands of the tropics." (Animals 

 and Plants under Domestication, Am. ed., Vol. I, p. 303, note.) 



t But does it explain the frequent occurrence of domestic ones so closely resembling 

 the wild ones as to be quite undistinguishable from them? 



t Dr. Cooper, who considers the western wild turkey specifically distinct from the 

 wild turkey of the cast, appears to believe that the domestic turkey originated from the 

 wild turk,ey of Mexico. He says: " It is well known that at the period of the Spanish 

 discovery the. native turkey was widely domesticated in Mexico, and was introduced 

 thence first into Europe, and thence into North America. Furthermore, the native bird 

 of Eastern North America does not occur in Mexico at all. The markings of the do- 

 mestic turkey are sometimes exactly like those of the wild bird of Mexico, while they 

 never assume the plumage of the wild Meleagris gallopavo of the north." (Orn. 

 Cab, Vol. I, p. 523, 1870.) Dr. Cooper's last remark is unfortunately erroneous, since 

 domestic birds do often occur, especially females, that cannot well be distinguished 

 from wild northern birds. 



