176 
THE COTTAGE GARDENER. 
June 9. 
M. Sundevall, has regarded as the primitive ancestor, 
of whom they were both in quest, “M. Sundevall might 
well have sought in vain for traces of the wild Gallus 
Sonneratii,” i.e., in the native breeds of the domestic 
fowls of India. This latter bird, G. Sonneratii, wo should 
observe, occupies the southern portion of the Indian 
peninsula, while the Bengal Jungle fowl extends north¬ 
wards as far as the Himalayan range, and eastward to 
Arracan, and the territories of the Burmese empire; 
neither, however, seem likely to afford us any clue that 
may tend to unravel the difficulties of gallinaceous 
genealogy. Mr. lilyth, we should observe, loans to the 
opinion that the Bengal bird might have been this 
much-desired ancestor; but his own reference to the 
utter absence of all traces of the degrees by which this 
process has been effected is, at least, in strong opposition 
to his own theory. 
All our inquiries, in short, with respect to the present 
wild Galli of Borneo, Sumatra, and the other islands of 
the Indian Archipelago, fail to assist our search for a 
bird at all likely to have been the progenitor of our 
domestic fowls. Wo find neither evidence of any state 
of transition from the jungle to the yafd, nor any apti¬ 
tude for domestication. The Jungle fowls, indeed, 
breed readily in confinement, but the term “ domes¬ 
ticated” cannot be applied to any of pure blood that we 
have yet seen. In habits, character, and form, the 
interval between them and the domestic fowl is very 
great. 
Pheasants have been brought to the same state of 
tameness as these Jungle fowls; but it is hardly ncces- i 
sary to remark on the wide difference between this and 
domestication, where they become, as it were, the wil¬ 
ling docile companions of man. 
Mr. Dixon has justly observed, that one primary 
object of the institution of the Zoological Gardens was 
the hope of introducing various new birds as profitable 
inmates of our poultry-yards; and, without doubt, all 
available means that a liberal outlay, constant observa¬ 
tion, and long experience, could suggest, were employed 
for that purpose; but yet, in no case, has the desired 
end been realised. 
It has been said, however, that although efforts for 
.the domestication of such species of the animal king¬ 
dom as were likely to prove serviceable to us, have failed 
in our hands, they were, in former times, rewarded 
with complete success; and that the camel, the horse, 
the ox, the sheep, the ass, the goat, and the fowl, and 
such other animals as the earliest records make mention 
of in a state of domestication, were reduced to that 
condition solely by human means. It certainly appears 
to us that this presumption is not in accordance with 
the circumstances of mankind in those days; and the 
following remarks of the writer in the Quarterly Review 
before referred to, tend to the same conclusion:—“ These 
metamorphoses must have been effected at a period 
when our juvenile race had plenty of other things to 
occiqry them; it must have been to the dwellers in 
ever-shifting tents, the scourers of deserts, the explorers 
of untrodden tracts of interminable pasture;—it must 
have been to these busy pioneers of human progress 
that wc are indebted for the inestimable gift of domestic 
birds and animals, if not to the Divine forethought and 
bounty. We, in these later days, can make neither the 
shy Bustard, nor the gentle Guan, available in our 
poultry-yards; we cannot harness the Zebra, tempting 
as is his pattern, to our Dol'd Mayor’s coach, nor induce 
the Jackal to point and set, so as to become Cumming 
Gordons, instead of Tao’s, provider. But these toiling, 
way-worn patriarchs could train for us the horse, the 
ass, the camel, the dog, the fowl. By what process? 
and from what wild stock ? ” 
Ihe Camel, so far as is yet known, has never been 
found in a wild state. It may, therefore, have been 
created for the special purpose of subservience to man, 
and so on with the other instances, where Infinite 
wisdom and power foresaw and provided all that was 
requisite for human life. The Gallus, or Galli, there¬ 
fore—for here it matters not whether one or more were 
originally called into existence, to whom we may ascribe 
the paternity of the domestic fowl — may have been 
created in the same state in which wo now see it, viz , 
a state of domestication. If this bo so, and certainly 
the line of reasoning is not at variance with the sole 
authority of those early days, the difficulties of searching 
out the wild original parent are self-imposed, and we 
are again taught the infinite mercy and loving-kindness 
of our Creator. 
J o Mr. Dixon must the credit bo assigned of directing 
attention to this subject, and ably was his task fulfilled. 
To show, hbwever, that ho had the sanction of high 
authority for the expression of opinions so adverse to 
those generally entertained, I may quote the following 
passage from Bewick, which seems to denote the exist¬ 
ence of some misgivings, at least, on the part of that 
great naturalist, on what was then, as now, the cur- 
lently received idea of the necessity of seeking a common 
ancestor for the different families of the domestic fowl 
among the present denizens of Asiatic jungles. 
“The Cock, in his present state of domestication, 
differs so widely from his supposed wild original, as to 
render it a difficult matter to trace him back to his 
primitive stock; however, it is generally agreed, that he 
is to bo found in a state of nature in the forests of 
India, and in most of the islands of the Indian seas.” 
The expression of difficulty in assigning the primitive 
ancestor, and the term, “ it is generally agreed ,” lead us 
to infer, that the evidence was not, by any means, con¬ 
clusive to his own mind. 
Sir Charles Lyall, in his “ Principles of Geology,” 
chapter 35, has well observed that, “ if we are to infer 
that some one of the wild Grasses has been transformed 
into the common wheat; and that some animal of the 
genus canis, still unreclaimed, has been metamorphosed 
into the dog, merely because we cannot find the do¬ 
mestic dog, or the cultivated wheat, in a state of nature, 
we may be next called upon to make similar admissions 
in regard to the camel, for it seems very doubtful ' 
whether any race of this species of quadruped is now 
wild.” 
