408 
Chapter XLIX. 
ORIGIN OF DOMESTIC POULTRY. 
The origin of our Domestic Poultry is certainly a question of more than passing interest, and, though various 
theories have been brought forward from time to time, their origin is still a matter for conjecture. Many 
renowned naturalists (among whom the late Mr. Charles Darwin stood pre-eminent) devoted a great deal of 
attention and study towards solving the problem of the origin of the Domestic Fowl, but, so far, none have 
yet conclusively proved their respective arguments. 
Most, however, agree that there is only one distinct breed of Wild Poultry, viz., Galliis Bankivn or 
Gallns Fcrnigiiieiis, and that the varieties known to naturalists as Galliis Stanlcvii, Gallus Soncmtii, and 
the Javanese Jungle Fowl, or Gallus Fiircatus, are off-shoots or sub-varieties of the Gallns Bankiva. 
Taking Gallns Bankiva as being fully recognised as the one wild breed, as to which little doubt exists 
as being the progenitor of some of our Domestic Poultry, and which is clearly proven by analogy, it is found 
that this wild breed is widely distributed throughout India, Burmah, Siam, Annam, the Malay Peninsula, and 
the islands in proximity ; and, though generally resembling a rather small, low-set Black-Breasted Red Game 
Fowl, with the tail carried in a more drooping position than the latter, there is still a marked difference in 
size and colour in the Fowl as found in different localities. These variations support the theory that the 
Gallus Bankiva is in reality the progenitor of the major portion of our Domestic Breeds and the sub- 
varieties mentioned, variations of the Gallns Bankiva. 
Strong arguments in favour of this theory are that the Gallus Bankiva will breed freely with the Domestic 
Fowl, the hybrids being fertile with either parent, and will also breed inter-se ; and, though the crow of the 
cock is scarcely as prolonged as in the Domestic bird, the voice of the hen is almost identical with that of 
the Domestic hen, and, further, it has been proved that the wild breed is quite capable of domestication. 
That the Gallus Bankiva may or may not be the sole progenitor of our present-day Poultry few are 
qualified to dispute, as any experienced breeder is fully aware what problems reversion will at times confront 
him with if his strain is crossed, and that the variations in any breed, owing possibly to climatic conditions 
and environments, and a sudden infusion of alien blood, will probably account for the sports produced. On 
the other hand, in examining Gallus Bankiva and its three supposed off-shoots, one is confronted with the 
peculiarities and latent characteristics present in our various breeds of Poultry, which seemingly strengthen 
the supposition that to one or other of the so-called sub-varieties, or to still another wild breed quite distinct 
from Gallics Bankiva, they actually owe their origin. 
It is surprising that there should be such a wide difference in shape and carriage between Gallus 
Bankiva and the true Indian fighting cock, the Aseel, more especially as naturalists assert that the former is 
the progenitor 'of the Game races, of which the latter is exceptionally typical, being possessed of extraordinary 
prepotent powers, and marked with a most pronounced characteristic in the triple comb, closely approaching 
that found in Gallus Furcatus, though in structural development quite unlike that breed. The Gallus 
Bankiva invariably possesses a single comb with even serrations, and, though naturalists uphold the theory 
that the Game tribes are descended from this wild breed only, the wide difference in their structure seems to 
point that to quite another distinct wild breed they owe their existence. This difference in shape and skull 
formation is very marked in the Malay Fowl, and, according to Temminck, Gallus Giga?itens is responsible 
for the latter. If this theory is correct, the origin of the Aseel should not be difiScult to determine. 
It will be noted that the Brahma, Cochin, and Aseel are almost identical in shape of skull, the Brahma 
and Aseel exactly similar in shape of comb, while at the same time there is not the slightest resemblance in 
structural development and carriage of the latter with either the Brahma or Cochin, 
