Backyard Poultry Forum

The original drawing based on the Temminck bones show a straight spur, with later drawings even showing an upturned spur.

Not getting into this discussion, but based upon the fertile hybrids, if such a bird did exist surely a more accurate name would be gallus gallus giganteus?

_________________
-Tony
Oriental Gamefowl, Turkeys and Ducks

Hi Oaklands,

Good to have the perspective of another Malay breeder in this thread.



To me these traits give us an idea of the sheer depth of the history these birds have with Asian cultures. Bill Plant did a good job of describing how these traits are scattered through the poultry populations in Asia and are not limited to just one breed.



Where do you think Gallus giganteus originated? Are there any specific locations that you think this species could have evolved.

Regards

Oak

A poor translation on Gallus giganteus from Temminck's book "Histoire naturelle générale des pigeons et des gallinacés", 1813
https://openlibrary.org/books/OL6970419M/Histoire_naturelle_ge%CC%81ne%CC%81rale_des_pigeons_et_des_gallinace%CC%81s



So I'm wondering where the theories of Gallus giganteus originating from Africa, Madagascar, Comoros Islands, etc came from & whether any solid research behind it?

The research papers I've read on Eastern Africa, Madagascar etc are suggesting origins of domestic chickens is mostly from S.E. Asia (eg Austronesian migration, etc), not the other way around as Kermit suggests of origins for Gallus giganteus from Comoros Islands, his theory they were taken TO S.E. Asia by the Austronesians. But if Kermit's theory is true, why is the malayoid (Oriental) type so predominant in Asia but not Africa? But then, never made sense that there would be a disjunct native Gallus species around Madagascar, especially when there is no evidence of prehistoric Gallus in East Africa/Madagascar either.

------------------------------
P.s., considering my Modern Game bantams are excellent flyers, I find most of these arguments regarding flyer (bankiva)/ runner (malayoid) trait correlations not based on factual evidence (when regarding shape, height/leg length, wing size & carriage, hard-feather, etc). Weight/size, yes.

as oaklands points out the shortened keel where flight muscles should be connected definitely suggests a bird designed for running and not flight. William Plant had the same thought process. to look at the bird by a novice, like myself, they can tell the bird is not formed to be a flyer or glider only a runner. the other traits of hard feathered, small comb and downturned spur only confirm this theory.

The lack of chicken bones in prehistoric findings are due to their relative softness and the actual time of their domestication. predators and scavengers prior to domestication would annihilate the entire carcass of a chicken. with domestication(some estimate 5 to 10 thousand years ago), the cooking process and the domestication of dogs and cats made it even harder for chickens to leave their bones for people to find and be able to decipher the actual truth of their type.
Did the malgache chicken come from SE Asia or was it taken there by Austronesian travellers. the malagasy language of Madagascar can be traced back to the dialect of South Barito used between the fifth and seventh century. to consider the like of the Dodo and great auk of Mauritius, the elephant bird of Madagascar and the Moa of NZ only met their demise in the late 17th and 18th centuries, who can say a smaller ratite style of bird was not domesticated and transported around the world prior to their inevitable extinction in the wild by man.
Africans, in prior centuries, with there different religions and beliefs have different perception to chickens. where we can sit and admire chooks for their personalities they where more concerned with which way their bodies fell once their heads were chopped off. guinea fowl were their main source of poultry. this may pertain to the lack of early chicken domestication and establishment in some African culture. this is not to say the Austronesians didnt try to trade chickens with the Africans.
the Asian and Arabic nations ideals of the chicken may be attributable to chickens being prolific in both domesticated and wild states in these areas. given the right conditions can chickens become feral in Australia?

Yet there is plenty of evidence, both fossil and otherwise, for the past existence of the Dodo, the Great Auk, the Elephant Bird and the Moa. This does work against your theory.

Oak

hensbyshenhouse,

Do you know of where & when these Madagascar /African origins of G. giganteus theories originally came from?

Madagascar was one of the last large islands to be colonised by humans (around 2000 years ago), & the landmass has been isolated from Gondwana for many millions of years (88 million from India). There has been archaeological research, with records of Malagasy domesticated chickens. So why would fossil bones of ancient G. giganteus & Gallus ancestors (supposedly giant Gallus - big birds), not be found in archaeological findings like the Elephant Bird (Aepyornis maximus) & related extinct species? Why do prehistoric fossils of Gallus in Eurasia exist, but not Madagascar? Humans didn't eat fossilised bones. I.e. where is the pre-human evidence of Gallus ancestors, considering humans had only been around for approx. 2000 years. There is no lineage of ancient Gallus in Madagascar.

I don't see the two comb mutations P - peacomb & R - rosecomb supporting the G. giganteus origins from East Africa/Madagascar theory. I doubt very much that the P - peacomb mutation originated from East Africa/Madagascar regions, R - Rosecomb even more unlikely. For one thing, the historical timeline doesn't fit, especially if you think that P & R came from a now extinct Gallus species, extinction from humans (& the short human history of Madagascar).

The following from Tegetmeier 1873 "The Poultry Book" says it all as to why the Temminck Gallus giganteus theory was not accepted by many scientists.
https://archive.org/details/poultrybook00tege

_________________
MONEY can't buy happiness....but it can buy CHOOKS, and that's pretty much the same thing

Kazjaps,
your quote from 'The Domestic Fowl of India' is a 19th century belief based on Darwins theory. as Plant points out Darwin did not have Gregor Mendels paper on law of inherirtance, if he did he may have changed his assessment.
Here in the 21st century to approach a conundrum with an open mind we may find different answers. Cathy Forster in her book Digging for bird dinosaurs-an expedition to Madagascar she states 'the biggest problem is that bird bones are very rare. their bones are so fine and fragile they tend to get broken up before they turn into fossils'
finding feathers with fossilized bone is very rare, it is very rare circumstances the feathers will leave an imprint with the bone. how many bones from ratites or birds that may show origins to gallus giganteus have been put in the to hard basket due to the non existence of feather fossils near them. non hollow leg bones of malay antecedants may be in the mammal or reptilian section of archaeologists findings. not all dinosaur or bird ancestors have been found.
just because there is not a wild ancestor available to be seen does not mean there has not been one. this will only be proven when the very last bone has been dug up and properly examined.

Andy, I see your point.
shires bones and internals are all enlarged versions of the 'horse' as we recognise it.eg thoroughbred or welsh pony etc.
malay bones and internal vary greatly from RJF. and I believe as bill plant and others do that the malay is descended from something different to RJF
the horse is not a native to the Americas, however it has faired well in the American environment since its introduction. like Australian brumbies the American mustang is really a feral.
Could RJFs close homology to the domestic chicken be because they are a 'feral'

The horse is actually a good example of why I am not fully convinced about the Malay bone marrow argument. For a long time there was a theory that Arabian horses were descended from a different subspecies of horse. The strongest argument for this was that the number of vertebrae in an Arabian horse skeleton was different to that of other breeds. However, the research was based on too few individuals and it was later found that the number of vertebrae in a horse's back can vary from horse to horse regardless of breed.

The line of reasoning for a separate wild horse ancestor was quite reasonable when you consider how different Arabians are "in build" compared to their stocky relatives.

Oak

I just have to say I've never seen bigger than this.

_________________
Creator Of New Breeds For Oz

Photoshop?

_________________
MONEY can't buy happiness....but it can buy CHOOKS, and that's pretty much the same thing

I thought it a possible photoshop but in his right hand are feathers from the bird flexing to bend over his hand hold. Doubt the person doing a photoshop would do that and nothing else.

Plus it comes from Rurie Ahmed who regularly puts up images of large birds. This is his profile pic on facebook

_________________
Creator Of New Breeds For Oz