CHAP. i. ORIGIN OF DOMESTIC FOWLS. 593 



"But it is with regard to the Eastern Asiatic type of fowl that my 

 doubts .as to the descent from the Gr. ferruginous are strongest. We 

 have in the Cochin a fowl so different from the ordinary domestic birds 

 that, when first introduced, the most ridiculous legends were current 

 respecting it. Putting these on one side, we have a bird with many 

 structural peculiarities that could hardly have been induced by 

 domestication. Thus the long axis of the occipital foramen in the 

 Cochin is perpendicular, in our old breeds horizontal, a difference that 

 could never have been bred for, and which it is difficult to see could 

 be co-relative with any other change. The same may be said respect- 

 ing the deep sulcus or groove, up the centre of the frontal bone. The 

 extraordinary diminution in the size of the flight feathers, and in that 

 of the pectoral muscles, could hardly have been the result of human 

 selection and careful breeding, as the value of the birds as articles of 

 food is considerably lessened by the absence of flesh on the breast. 

 Nor is the extreme abundance of fluffy soft body feathers a character likely 

 to be desiderated in a fowl. The vastly increased size may have been a 

 matter of selection, although, as the inhabitants of Shanghai feed their 

 poultry but scantily, and, according to Mr. Fortune, mainly on paddy 

 or unhusked rice, it is not easy to see how the size of the breed was 

 obtained if, as generally surmised, it arose from the little jungle fowl. 



" Taking all these facts into consideration I am induced to believe 

 that the birds of the Cochin type did not descend from the same species 

 as our game fowl. It may be asked what bird I would suggest as the 

 origin of these Eastern Asiatic breeds. In reply I would suggest the 

 possibility, or even probability, of their being descended from some 

 easily captured and readily domesticated short-winged species, that 

 may have entirely passed into a state of domestication, as has the 

 camel and the horse. I can see no inherent impossibility in this 

 suggestion, nor any fatal objection to the theory I have advanced." 



We have, therefore, got just thus far, namely, that there is more 

 than a doubt in the minds of naturalists, for Mr. Tegetmeier is not 

 alone in his opinion, as to the theory advanced by Darwin. The 

 idea is that we must go farther back to find a common progenitor, one 

 which was the parent of all the four species of Galli that have been 

 named. 1 It is very interesting to note that the first advancement of 

 this view was not from a naturalist, but from a poultry-breeder, the late 

 Mr. Lewis Wright. 



It may, therefore, be accepted without question, that the original 

 home of the fowl was in Asia, whence have come so many of our 

 domesticated animals. The tracing of the ways by which they left 

 their first habitat and have come down to us in the forms now seen 

 would be of great interest, but is beyond our purpose. It will suffice 

 to say that from India the fowl migrated to Persia, and thence to 

 Europe. Many references are made to it in ancient literature, and 

 the evidences show that it was known in Syria and Eastern Europe 

 at least six centuries before the Christian Era. So soon as civiliza- 

 tion commences its benign influence the fowl begins to appear, finding 



1 Gallus Sonneratii, Gallus Stanleyii, Gallus furcatus, and Gallus Bankiva. 



Q <i 



