Chapter VI: PIGEONS—continued (2)

That circumstances have been eminently favourable for the
modification of the pigeon through variation and selection will now
be shown. The earliest record, as has been pointed out to me by
Professor Lepsius, of pigeons in a domesticated condition, occurs
in the fifth Egyptian dynasty, about 3000 B.C.;[31] but Mr. Birch,
of the British Museum, informs me that the pigeon appears in a bill
of fare in the previous dynasty. Domestic pigeons are mentioned in
Genesis, Leviticus, and Isaiah.[32] In the time of the Romans, as
we hear from Pliny,[33] immense prices were given for pigeons;
“nay, they are come to this pass, that they can reckon up their
pedigree and race.” In India, about the year 1600, pigeons were
much valued by Akbar Khan: 20,000 birds were carried about with the
court, and the merchants brought valuable collections. “The monarch
of Iran and Turan sent him some very rare breeds. His Majesty,”
says the courtly historian, “by crossing the breeds, which method
was never practised before, has improved them astonishingly.”[34]
Akber Khan possessed seventeen distinct kinds, eight of which were
valuable for beauty alone. At about this same period of 1600 the
Dutch, according to Aldrovandi, were as eager about pigeons as the
Romans had formerly been. The breeds which were kept during the
fifteenth century in Europe and in India apparently differed from
each other. Tavernier, in his Travels in 1677, speaks, as does
Chardin in 1735, of the vast number of pigeon-houses in Persia; and
the former remarks that, as Christians were not permitted to keep
pigeons, some of the vulgar actually turned Mahometans for this
sole purpose. The Emperor of Morocco had his favourite keeper of
pigeons, as is mentioned in Moore’s treatise, published 1737. In
England, from the time of Willughby in 1678 to the present day, as
well as in Germany and in France, numerous treatises have been
published on the pigeon. In India, about a hundred years ago, a
Persian treatise was written; and the writer thought it no light
affair, for he begins with a solemn invocation, “in the name of
God, the gracious and merciful.” Many large towns, in Europe and
the United States, now have their societies of devoted
pigeon-fanciers: at present there are three such societies in
London. In India, as I hear from Mr. Blyth, the inhabitants of
Delhi and of some other great cities are eager fanciers. Mr. Layard
informs me that most of the known breeds are kept in Ceylon. In
China, according to Mr. Swinhoe of Amoy, and Dr. Lockhart of
Shangai, Carriers, Fantails, Tumblers, and other varieties are
reared with care, especially by the bonzes or priests. The Chinese
fasten a kind of whistle to the tail-feathers of their pigeons, and
as the flock wheels through the air they produce a sweet sound. In
Egypt the late Abbas Pacha was a great fancier of Fantails. Many
pigeons are kept at Cairo and Constantinople, and these have lately
been imported by native merchants, as I hear from Sir W. Elliot,
into Southern India, and sold at high prices.

The foregoing statements show in how many countries, and during how
long a period, many men have been passionately devoted to the
breeding of pigeons. Hear how an enthusiastic fancier at the
present day writes: “If it were possible for noblemen and gentlemen
to know the amazing amount of solace and pleasure derived from
Almond Tumblers, when they begin to understand their properties, I
should think that scarce any nobleman or gentleman would be without
their aviaries of Almond Tumblers.”[35] The pleasure thus taken is
of paramount importance, as it leads amateurs carefully to note and
preserve each slight deviation of structure which strikes their
fancy. Pigeons are often closely confined during their whole lives;
they do not partake of their naturally varied diet; they have often
been transported from one climate to another; and all these changes
in their conditions of life would be likely to cause variability.
Pigeons have been domesticated for nearly 5000 years, and have been
kept in many places, so that the numbers reared under domestication
must have been enormous: and this is another circumstance of high
importance, for it obviously favours the chance of rare
modifications of structure occasionally appearing. Slight
variations of all kinds would almost certainly be observed, and, if
valued, would, owing to the following circumstances, be preserved
and propagated with unusual facility. Pigeons, differently from any
other domesticated animal, can easily be mated for life, and,
though kept with other pigeons, rarely prove unfaithful to each
other. Even when the male does break his marriage-vow, he does not
permanently desert his mate. I have bred in the same aviaries many
pigeons of different kinds, and never reared a single bird of an
impure strain. Hence a fancier can with the greatest ease select
and match his birds. He will also see the good results of his care;
for pigeons breed with extraordinary rapidity. He may freely reject
inferior birds, as they serve at an early age as excellent food.

_History of the principal Races of the Pigeon._[36]

Before discussing the means and steps by which the chief races have been formed, it will be advisable to give some historical details, for more is known of the history of the pigeon, little though this is, than of any other domesticated animal. Some of the cases are interesting as proving how long domestic varieties may be propagated with exactly the same or nearly the same characters; and other cases are still more interesting as showing how slowly but steadily races have been greatly modified during successive generations. In the last chapter I stated that Trumpeters and Laughers, both so remarkable for their voices, seem to have been perfectly characterised in 1735; and Laughers were apparently known in India before the year 1600. Spots in 1676, and Nuns in the time of Aldrovandi, before 1600, were coloured exactly as they now are. Common Tumblers and Ground Tumblers displayed in India, before the year 1600, the same extraordinary peculiarities of flight as at the present day, for they are well described in the ‘Ayeen Akbery.’ These breeds may all have existed for a much longer period; we know only that they were perfectly characterised at the dates above given. The _ average_ length of life of the domestic pigeon is probably about five or six years; if so, some of these races have retained their character perfectly for at least forty or fifty generations.

_Pouters._—These birds, as far as a very short description serves
for comparison, appear to have been well characterised in
Aldrovandi’s time,[37] before the year 1600. Length of body and
length of leg are at the present time the two chief points of
excellence. In 1735 Moore said (see Mr. J. M. Eaton’s edition)—and
Moore was a first-rate fancier—that he once saw a bird with a body
20 inches in length, “though 17 or 18 inches is reckoned a very
good length;” and he has seen the legs very nearly 7 inches in
length, yet a leg 6½ or 6¾ long “must be allowed to be a very good
one.” Mr. Bult, the most successful breeder of Pouters in the
world, informs me that at present (1858) the standard length of the
body is not less than 18 inches; but he has measured one bird 19
inches in length, and has heard of 20 and 22 inches, but doubts the
truth of these latter statements. The standard length of the leg is
now 7 inches, but Mr. Bult has recently measured two of his own
birds with legs 7½ long. So that in the 123 years which have
elapsed since 1735 there has been hardly any increase in the
standard length of the body; 17 or 18 inches was formerly reckoned
a very good length, and now 18 inches is the minimum standard; but
the length of leg seems to have increased, as Moore never saw one
quite 7 inches long; now the standard is 7, and two of Mr. Bult’s
birds measured 7½ inches in length. The extremely slight
improvement in Pouters, except in the length of the leg, during the
last 123 years, may be partly accounted for by the neglect which
they suffered, as I am informed by Mr. Bult, until within the last
20 or 30 years. About 1765[38] there was a change of fashion,
stouter and more feathered legs being preferred to thin and nearly
naked legs.

_Fantails._—The first notice of the existence of this breed is in
India, before the year 1600, as given in the ‘Ayeen Akbery;’[39] at
this date, judging from Aldrovandi, the breed was unknown in
Europe. In 1677 Willughby speaks of a Fantail with 26
tail-feathers; in 1735 Moore saw one with 36 feathers; and in 1824
MM. Boitard and Corbié assert that in France birds can easily be
found with 42 tail-feathers. In England, the number of the
tail-feathers is not at present so much regarded as their upward
direction and expansion. The general carriage of the bird is
likewise now much valued. The old descriptions do not suffice to
show whether in these latter respects there has been much
improvement: but if Fantails with their heads and tails touching
had formerly existed, as at the present time, the fact would almost
certainly have been noticed. The Fantails which are now found in
India probably show the state of the race, as far as carriage is
concerned, at the date of their introduction into Europe; and some,
said to have been brought from Calcutta, which I kept alive, were
in a marked manner inferior to our exhibition birds. The Java
Fantail shows the same difference in carriage; and although Mr.
Swinhoe has counted 18 and 24 tail-feathers in his birds, a
first-rate specimen sent to me had only 14 tail-feathers.

_Jacobins._—This breed existed before 1600, but the hood, judging from the figure given by Aldrovandi, did not enclose the head nearly so perfectly as at present: nor was the head then white; nor were the wings and tail so long, but this last character might have been overlooked by the rude artist. In Moore’s time, in 1735, the Jacobin was considered the smallest kind of pigeon, and the bill is said to be very short. Hence either the Jacobin, or the other kinds with which it was then compared, must since that time have been considerably modified; for Moore’s description (and it must be remembered that he was a first-rate judge) is clearly not applicable, as far as size of body and length of beak are concerned, to our present Jacobins. In 1795, judging from Bechstein, the breed had assumed its present character.

_Turbits._—It has generally been supposed by the older writers on pigeons, that the Turbit is the Cortbeck of Aldrovandi; but if this be the case, it is an extraordinary fact that the characteristic frill should not have been noticed. The beak, moreover, of the Cortbeck is described as closely resembling that of the Jacobin, which shows a change in the one or the other race. The Turbit, with its characteristic frill, and bearing its present name, is described by Willughby in 1677; and the bill is said to be like that of the bullfinch,—a good comparison, but now more strictly applicable to the beak of the Barb. The sub-breed called the Owl was well known in Moore’s time, in 1735.

_Tumblers._—Common Tumblers, as well as Ground Tumblers, perfect as
far as tumbling is concerned, existed in India before the year
1600; and at this period diversified modes of flight, such as
flying at night, the ascent to a great height, and manner of
descent, seem to have been much attended to in India, as at the
present time. Belon[40] in 1555 saw in Paphlagonia what he
describes as “a very new thing, viz. pigeons which flew so high in
the air that they were lost to view, but returned to their
pigeon-house without separating.” This manner of flight is
characteristic of our present Tumblers, but it is clear that Belon
would have mentioned the act of tumbling if the pigeons described
by him had tumbled. Tumblers were not known in Europe in 1600, as
they are not mentioned by Aldrovandi, who discusses the flight of
pigeons. They are briefly alluded to by Willughby, in 1687, as
small pigeons “which show like footballs in the air.” The
short-faced race did not exist at this period, as Willughby could
not have overlooked birds so remarkable for their small size and
short beaks. We can even trace some of the steps by which this race
has been produced. Moore in 1735 enumerates correctly the chief
points of excellence, but does not give any description of the
several sub-breeds; and from this fact Mr. Eaton infers[41] that
the Short-faced Tumbler had not then come to full perfection. Moore
even speaks of the Jacobin as being the smallest pigeon. Thirty
years afterwards, in 1765, in the Treatise dedicated to Mayor,
short-faced Almond Tumblers are fully described, but the author, an
excellent fancier, expressly states in his Preface (p. xiv.) that,
“from great care and expense in breeding them, they have arrived to
so great perfection and are so different from what they were 20 or
30 years past, that an old fancier would have condemned them for no
other reason than because they are not like what used to be thought
good when he was in the fancy before.” Hence it would appear that
there was a rather sudden change in the character of the
short-faced Tumbler at about this period; and there is reason to
suspect that a dwarfed and half-monstrous bird, the parent-form of
the several short-faced sub-breeds, then appeared. I suspect this
because short-faced Tumblers are born with their beaks (ascertained
by careful measurement) as short, proportionally with the size of
their bodies, as in the adult bird; and in this respect they differ
greatly from all other breeds, which slowly acquire during growth
their various characteristic qualities.

Since the year 1765 there has been some change in one of the chief
characters of the short-faced Tumbler, namely, in the length of the
beak. Fanciers measure the “head and beak” from the tip of the beak
to the front corner of the eyeball. About the year 1765 a “head and
beak” was considered good,[42] which, measured in the usual manner,
was 7/8 of an inch in length; now it ought not to exceed 5/8 of an
inch; “it is however possible,” as Mr. Eaton candidly
confesses,“for a bird to be considered as pleasant or neat even at
6/8 of an inch, but exceeding that length it must be looked upon as
unworthy of attention.” Mr. Eaton states that he has never seen in
the course of his life more than two or three birds with the “head
and beak” not exceeding half an inch in length; “still I believe in
the course of a few years that the head and beak will be shortened,
and that half-inch birds will not be considered so great a
curiosity as at the present time.” That Mr. Eaton’s opinion
deserves attention cannot be doubted, considering his success in
winning prizes at our exhibitions. Finally in regard to the Tumbler
it may be concluded from the facts above given that it was
originally introduced into Europe, probably first into England,
from the East; and that it then resembled our common English
Tumbler, or more probably the Persian or Indian Tumbler, with a
beak only just perceptibly shorter than that of the common
dovecot-pigeon. With respect to the short-faced Tumbler, which is
not known to exist in the East, there can hardly be a doubt that
the whole wonderful change in the size of the head, beak, body and
feet, and in general carriage, has been produced during the last
two centuries by continued selection, aided probably by the birth
of a semi- monstrous bird somewhere about the year 1750.

_Runts._—Of their history little can be said. In the time of Pliny the pigeons of Campania were the largest known; and from this fact alone some authors assert that they were Runts. In Aldrovandi’s time, in 1600, two sub-breeds existed; but one of them, the short-beaked, is now extinct in Europe.

_Barbs._—Notwithstanding statements to the contrary, it seems to me impossible to recognise the Barb in Aldrovandi’s description and figures; four breeds, however, existed in the year 1600 which evidently were allied both to Barbs and Carriers. To show how difficult it is to recognise some of the breeds described by Aldrovandi I will give the different opinions in regard to the above four kinds, named by him _C. indica, cretensis, gutturosa,_ and _persica._ Willughby thought that the _Columba indica_ was a Turbit, but the eminent fancier Mr. Brent believes that it was an inferior Barb: _C. cretensis,_ with a short beak and a swelling on the upper mandible, cannot be recognised: _C._ (falsely called) _gutturosa,_ which from its _rostrum, breve, crassum, et tuberosum_ seems to me to come nearest to the Barb, Mr. Brent believes to be a Carrier; and lastly, the _C. persica et turcica,_ Mr. Brent thinks, and I quite concur with him, was a short-beaked Carrier with very little wattle. In 1687 the Barb was known in England, and Willughby describes the beak as like that of the Turbit; but it is not credible that his Barbs should have had a beak like that of our present birds, for so accurate an observer could not have overlooked its great breadth.

_English Carrier._—We may look in vain in Aldrovandi’s work for any
bird resembling our prize Carriers; the _C. persica et turcica_ of
this author comes the nearest, but is said to have had a short
thick beak; therefore it must have approached in character a Barb,
and have differed greatly from our Carriers. In Willughby’s time,
in 1677, we can clearly recognise the Carrier, yet he adds, “the
bill is not short, but of a moderate length;” a description which
no one would apply to our present Carriers, so conspicuous for the
extraordinary length of their beaks. The old names given in Europe
to the Carrier, and the several names now in use in India, indicate
that Carriers originally came from Persia; and Willughby’s
description would perfectly apply to the Bussorah Carrier as it now
exists in Madras. In later times we can partially trace the
progress of change in our English Carriers: Moore, in 1735, says
“an inch and a half is reckoned a long beak, though there are very
good Carriers that are found not to exceed an inch and a quarter.”
These birds must have resembled or perhaps been a little superior
to the Carriers, previously described, now found in Persia. In
England at the present day “there are,” as Mr. Eaton[43] states,
“beaks that would measure (from edge of eye to tip of beak) one
inch and three-quarters, and some few even two inches in length.”

From these historical details we see that nearly all the chief domestic races existed before the year 1600. Some remarkable only for colour appear to have been identical with our present breeds, some were nearly the same, some considerably different, and some have since become extinct. Several breeds, such as Finnikins and Turners, the swallow-tailed pigeon of Bechstein and the Carmelite, seem to have originated and to have disappeared within this same period. Any one now visiting a well-stocked English aviary would certainly pick out as the most distinct kinds, the massive Runt, the Carrier with its wonderfully elongated beak and great wattles, the Barb with its short broad beak and eye-wattles, the short-faced Tumbler with its small conical beak, the Pouter with its great crop, long legs and body, the Fantail with its upraised, widely-expanded, well-feathered tail, the Turbit with its frill and short blunt beak, and the Jacobin with his hood. Now, if this same person could have viewed the pigeons kept before 1600 by Akber Khan in India and by Aldrovandi in Europe, he would have seen the Jacobin with a less perfect hood; the Turbit apparently without its frill; the Pouter with shorter legs, and in every way less remarkable—that is, if Aldrovandi’s Pouter resembled the old German kind; the Fantail would have been far less singular in appearance, and would have had much fewer feathers in its tail; he would have seen excellent flying Tumblers, but he would in vain have looked for the marvellous short-faced breeds; he would have seen birds allied to Barbs, but it is extremely doubtful whether he would have met with our actual Barbs; and lastly, he would have found Carriers with beaks and wattle incomparably less developed than in our English Carriers. He might have classed most of the breeds in the same groups as at present; but the differences between the groups were then far less strongly pronounced than at present. In short, the several breeds had at this early period not diverged in so great a degree as now from their aboriginal common parent, the wild rock-pigeon.

_Manner of Formation of the chief Races._

We will now consider more closely the probable steps by which the chief races have been formed. As long as pigeons are kept semi-domesticated in dovecots in their native country, without any care in selecting and matching them, they are liable to little more variation than the wild _C. livia,_ namely, in the wings becoming chequered with black, in the croup being blue or white, and in the size of the body. When, however, dovecot-pigeons are transported into diversified countries, such as Sierra Leone, the Malay archipelago, and Madeira, they are exposed to new conditions of life; and apparently in consequence vary in a somewhat greater degree. When closely confined, either for the pleasure of watching them, or to prevent their straying, they must be exposed, even in their native climate, to considerably different conditions; for they cannot obtain their natural diversity of food; and, what is probably more important, they are abundantly fed, whilst debarred from taking much exercise. Under these circumstances we might expect to find, from the analogy of all other domesticated animals, a greater amount of individual variability than with the wild pigeon; and this is the case. The want of exercise apparently tends to reduce the size of the feet and organs of flight; and then, from the law of correlation of growth, the beak apparently becomes affected. From what we now see occasionally taking place in our aviaries, we may conclude that sudden variations or sports, such as the appearance of a crest of feathers on the head, of feathered feet, of a new shade of colour, of an additional feather in the tail or wing, would occur at rare intervals during the many centuries which have elapsed since the pigeon was first domesticated. At the present day such “sports” are generally rejected as blemishes; and there is so much mystery in the breeding of pigeons that, if a valuable sport did occur, its history would often be concealed. Before the last hundred and fifty years, there is hardly a chance of the history of any such sport having been recorded. But it by no means follows from this that such sports in former times, when the pigeon had undergone much less variation, would have been rejected. We are profoundly ignorant of the cause of each sudden and apparently spontaneous variation, as well as of the infinitely numerous shades of difference between the birds of the same family. But in a future chapter we shall see that all such variations appear to be the indirect result of changes of some kind in the conditions of life.

Hence, after a long course of domestication, we might expect to see in the pigeon much individual variability, and occasional sudden variations, as well as slight modifications from the lessened use of certain parts, together with the effects of correlation of growth. But without selection all this would produce only a trifling or no result; for without such aid differences of all kinds would, from the two following causes, soon disappear. In a healthy and vigorous lot of pigeons many more young birds are killed for food or die than are reared to maturity; so that an individual having any peculiar character, if not selected, would run a good chance of being destroyed; and if not destroyed, the peculiarity in question would generally be obliterated by free intercrossing. It might, however, occasionally happen that the same variation repeatedly occurred, owing to the action of peculiar and uniform conditions of life, and in this case it would prevail independently of selection. But when selection is brought into play all is changed; for this is the foundation-stone in the formation of new races; and with the pigeon, circumstances, as we have already seen, are eminently favourable for selection. When a bird presenting some conspicuous variation has been preserved, and its offspring have been selected, carefully matched, and again propagated, and so onwards during successive generations, the principle is so obvious that nothing more need be said about it. This may be called _methodical selection,_ for the breeder has a distinct object in view, namely, to preserve some character which has actually appeared; or to create some improvement already pictured in his mind.

Another form of selection has hardly been noticed by those authors who have discussed this subject, but is even more important. This form may be called _unconscious selection,_ for the breeder selects his birds unconsciously, unintentionally, and without method, yet he surely though slowly produces a great result. I refer to the effects which follow from each fancier at first procuring and afterwards rearing as good birds as he can, according to his skill, and according to the standard of excellence at each successive period. He does not wish permanently to modify the breed; he does not look to the distant future, or speculate on the final result of the slow accumulation during many generations of successive slight changes; he is content if he possesses a good stock, and more than content if he can beat his rivals. The fancier in the time of Aldrovandi, when in the year 1600 he admired his own Jacobins, Pouters, or Carriers, never reflected what their descendants in the year 1860 would become: he would have been astonished could he have seen our Jacobins, our improved English Carriers, and our Pouters; he would probably have denied that they were the descendants of his own once-admired stock, and he would perhaps not have valued them, for no other reason, as was written in 1765, “than because they were not like what used to be thought good when he was in the fancy.” No one will attribute the lengthened beak of the Carrier, the shortened beak of the Short-faced Tumbler, the lengthened leg of the Pouter, the more perfectly enclosed hood of the Jacobin, etc.—changes effected since the time of Aldrovandi, or even since a much later period,—to the direct and immediate action of the conditions of life. For these several races have been modified in various and even in directly opposite ways, though kept under the same climate and treated in all respects in as nearly uniform a manner as possible. Each slight change in the length or shortness of the beak, in the length of leg, etc., has no doubt been indirectly and remotely caused by some change in the conditions to which the bird has been subjected, but we must attribute the final result, as is manifest in those cases of which we have any historical record, to the continued selection and accumulation of many slight successive variations.

The action of unconscious selection, as far as pigeons are
concerned, depends on a universal principle in human nature,
namely, on our rivalry, and desire to outdo our neighbours. We see
this in every fleeting fashion, even in our dress, and it leads the
fancier to endeavour to exaggerate every peculiarity in his breeds.
A great authority on pigeons,[44] says, “Fanciers do not and will
not admire a medium standard, that is, half and half, which is
neither here nor there, but admire extremes.” After remarking that
the fancier of Short-faced Beard Tumblers wishes for a very short
beak, and that the fancier of Long-faced Beard Tumblers wishes for
a very long beak, he says, with respect to one of intermediate
length, “Don’t deceive yourself. Do you suppose for a moment the
short or the long-faced fancier would accept such a bird as a gift?
Certainly not; the short-faced fancier could see no beauty in it;
the long-faced fancier would swear there was no use in it, etc.” In
these comical passages, written seriously, we see the principle
which has ever guided fanciers, and has led to such great
modifications in all the domestic races which are valued solely for
their beauty or curiosity.

Fashions in pigeon-breeding endure for long periods; we cannot change the structure of a bird as quickly as we can the fashion of our dress. In the time of Aldrovandi, no doubt the more the pouter inflated his crop, the more he was valued. Nevertheless, fashions do to a certain extent change; first one point of structure and then another is attended to; or different breeds are admired at different times and in different countries. As the author just quoted remarks, “the fancy ebbs and flows; a thorough fancier now-a-days never stoops to breed toy-birds;” yet these very “toys” are now most carefully bred in Germany. Breeds which at the present time are highly valued in India are considered worthless in England. No doubt, when breeds are neglected, they degenerate; still we may believe that, as long as they are kept under the same conditions of life, characters once gained will be partially retained for a long time, and may form the starting-point for a future course of selection.

Let it not be objected to this view of the action of unconscious selection that fanciers would not observe or care for extremely slight differences. Those alone who have associated with fanciers can be thoroughly aware of their accurate powers of discrimination acquired by long practice, and of the care and labour which they bestow on their birds. I have known a fancier deliberately study his birds day after day to settle which to match together and which to reject. Observe how difficult the subject appears to one of the most eminent and experienced fanciers. Mr. Eaton, the winner of many prizes, says, “I would here particularly guard you against keeping too great a variety of pigeons, otherwise you will know a little about all the kinds, but nothing about one as it ought to be known.” “It is possible there may be a few fanciers that have a good general knowledge of the several fancy pigeons, but there are many who labour under the delusion of supposing they know what they do not.” Speaking exclusively of one sub- variety of one race, namely, the short-faced almond tumbler, and after saying that some fanciers sacrifice every property to obtain a good head and beak, and that other fanciers sacrifice everything for plumage, he remarks: “Some young fanciers who are over covetous go in for all the five properties at once, and they have their reward by getting nothing.” In India, as I hear from Mr. Blyth, pigeons are likewise selected and matched with the greatest care. We must not judge of the slight divergences from existing varieties which would have been valued in ancient days, by those which are now valued after the formation of so many races, each with its own standard of perfection, kept uniform by our numerous Exhibitions. The ambition of the most energetic fancier may be fully satisfied by the difficulty of excelling other fanciers in the breeds already established, without trying to form a new one.

A difficulty with respect to the power of selection will perhaps
already have occurred to the reader, namely, what could have led
fanciers first to attempt to make such singular breeds as Pouters,
Fantails, Carriers, etc.? But it is this very difficulty which the
principle of unconscious selection removes. Undoubtedly no fancier
ever did intentionally make such an attempt. All that we need
suppose is that a variation occurred sufficiently marked to catch
the discriminating eye of some ancient fancier, and then
unconscious selection carried on for many generations, that is, the
wish of succeeding fanciers to excel their rivals, would do the
rest. In the case of the Fantail we may suppose that the first
progenitor of the breed had a tail only slightly erected, as may
now be seen in certain Runts,[45] with some increase in the number
of the tail-feathers, as now occasionally occurs with Nuns. In the
case of the Pouter we may suppose that some bird inflated its crop
a little more than other pigeons, as is now the case in a slight
degree with the œesophagus of the Turbit. We do not know the origin
of the common Tumbler, but we may suppose that a bird was born with
some affection of the brain, leading it to make somersaults in the
air;[46] and before the year 1600 pigeons remarkable for their
diversified manner of flight were much valued in India, and by the
order of the Emperor Akber Khan were sedulously trained and
carefully matched.

In the foregoing cases we have supposed that a sudden variation, conspicuous enough to catch a fancier’s eye, first appeared; but even this degree of abruptness in the process of variation is not necessary for the formation of a new breed. When the same kind of pigeon has been kept pure, and has been bred during a long period by two or more fanciers, slight differences in the strain can often be recognised. Thus I have seen first- rate Jacobins in one man’s possession which certainly differed slightly in several characters from those kept by another. I possessed some excellent Barbs descended from a pair which had won a prize, and another lot descended from a stock formerly kept by that famous fancier Sir John Sebright, and these plainly differed in the form of the beak; but the differences were so slight that they could hardly be given by words. Again, the common English and Dutch Tumbler differ in a somewhat greater degree, both in length of beak and shape of head. What first caused these slight differences cannot be explained any more than why one man has a long nose and another a short one. In the strains long kept distinct by different fanciers, such differences are so common that they cannot be accounted for by the accident of the birds first chosen for breeding having been originally as different as they now are. The explanation no doubt lies in selection of a slightly different nature having been applied in each case; for no two fanciers have exactly the same taste, and consequently no two, in choosing and carefully matching their birds, prefer or select exactly the same. As each man naturally admires his own birds, he goes on continually exaggerating by selection whatever slight peculiarities they may possess. This will more especially happen with fanciers living in different countries, who do not compare their stocks or aim at a common standard of perfection. Thus, when a mere strain has once been formed, unconscious selection steadily tends to augment the amount of difference, and thus converts the strain into a sub-breed and this ultimately into a well-marked breed or race.

The principle of correlation of growth should never be lost sight of. Most pigeons have small feet, apparently caused by their lessened use, and from correlation, as it would appear, their beaks have likewise become reduced in length. The beak is a conspicuous organ, and, as soon as it had thus become perceptibly shortened, fanciers would almost certainly strive to reduce it still more by the continued selection of birds with the shortest beaks; whilst at the same time other fanciers, as we know has actually been the case, would in other sub-breeds, strive to increase its length. With the increased length of the beak, the tongue becomes greatly lengthened, as do the eyelids with the increased development of the eye-wattles; with the reduced or increased size of the feet, the number of the scutellæ vary; with the length of the wing, the number of the primary wing-feathers differ; and with the increased length of the body in the pouter the number of the sacral vertebræ is augmented. These important and correlated differences of structure do not invariably characterise any breed; but if they had been attended to and selected with as much care as the more conspicuous external differences, there can hardly be a doubt that they would have been rendered constant. Fanciers could assuredly have made a race of Tumblers with nine instead of ten primary wing-feathers, seeing how often the number nine appears without any wish on their part, and indeed in the case of the white-winged varieties in opposition to their wish. In a similar manner, if the vertebræ had been visible and had been attended to by fanciers, assuredly an additional number might easily have been fixed in the Pouter. If these latter characters had once been rendered constant, we should never have suspected that they had at first been highly variable, or that they had arisen from correlation, in the one case with the shortness of the wings, and in the other case with the length of the body.

In order to understand how the chief domestic races have become distinctly separated from each other, it is important to bear in mind, that fanciers constantly try to breed from the best birds, and consequently that those which are inferior in the requisite qualities are in each generation neglected; so that after a time the less improved parent-stocks and many subsequently formed intermediate grades become extinct. This has occurred in the case of the Pouter, Turbit, and Trumpeter, for these highly improved breeds are now left without any links closely connecting them either with each other or with the aboriginal rock-pigeon. In other countries, indeed, where the same care has not been applied, or where the same fashion has not prevailed, the earlier forms may long remain unaltered, or altered only in a slight degree, and we are thus sometimes enabled to recover the connecting links. This is the case in Persia and India with the Tumbler and Carrier, which there differ but slightly from the rock-pigeon in the proportions of their beaks. So again in Java, the Fantail sometimes has only fourteen caudal feathers, and the tail is much less elevated and expanded than in our improved birds; so that the Java bird forms a link between a first-rate Fantail and the rock-pigeon.

Occasionally a breed may be retained for some particular quality in a nearly unaltered condition in the same country, together with highly modified off-shoots or sub-breeds, which are valued for some distinct property. We see this exemplified in England, where the common Tumbler, which is valued only for its flight, does not differ much from its parent-form, the Eastern Tumbler; whereas the Short-faced Tumbler has been prodigiously modified, from being valued, not for its flight, but for other qualities. But the common-flying Tumbler of Europe has already begun to branch out into slightly different sub-breeds, such as the common English Tumbler, the Dutch Roller, the Glasgow House-tumbler, and the Long-faced Beard Tumbler, etc.; and in the course of centuries, unless fashions greatly change, these sub-breeds will diverge through the slow and insensible process of unconscious selection, and become modified, in a greater and greater degree. After a time the perfectly graduated links which now connect all these sub-breeds together, will be lost, for there would be no object and much difficulty in retaining such a host of intermediate sub-varieties.

The principle of divergence, together with the extinction of the many previously existing intermediate forms, is so important for understanding the origin of domestic races, as well as of species in a state of nature, that I will enlarge a little more on this subject. Our third main group includes Carriers, Barbs, and Runts, which are plainly related to one another, yet wonderfully distinct in several important characters. According to the view given in the last chapter, these three races have probably descended from an unknown race having an intermediate character, and this race from the rock-pigeon. Their characteristic differences are believed to be due to different breeders having at an early period admired different points of structure; and then, on the acknowledged principle of admiring extremes, having gone on breeding, without any thought of the future, as good birds as they could,—Carrier-fanciers preferring long beaks with much wattle,—Barb-fanciers preferring short thick beaks with much eye-wattle,—and Runt-fanciers not caring about the beak or wattle, but only for the size and weight of the body. This process would have led to the neglect and final extinction of the earlier, inferior, and intermediate birds; and thus it has come to pass, that in Europe these three races are now so extraordinarily distinct from each other. But in the East, whence they were originally brought, the fashion has been different, and we there see breeds which connect the highly modified English Carrier with the rock-pigeon, and others which to a certain extent connect Carriers and Runts. Looking back to the time of Aldrovandi, we find that there existed in Europe, before the year 1600, four breeds which were closely allied to Carriers and Barbs, but which competent authorities cannot now identify with our present Barbs and Carriers; nor can Aldrovandi’s Runts be identified with our present Runts. These four breeds certainly did not differ from each other nearly so much as do our existing English Carriers, Barbs, and Runts. All this is exactly what might have been anticipated. If we could collect all the pigeons which have ever lived, from before the time of the Romans to the present day, we should be able to group them in several lines, diverging from the parent rock-pigeon. Each line would consist of almost insensible steps, occasionally broken by some slightly greater variation or sport, and each would culminate in one of our present highly modified forms. Of the many former connecting links, some would be found to have become absolutely extinct without having left any issue, whilst others, though extinct, would be recognised as the progenitors of the existing races.

I have heard it remarked as a strange circumstance that we occasionally hear of the local or complete extinction of domestic races, whilst we hear nothing of their origin. How, it has been asked, can these losses be compensated, and more than compensated, for we know that with almost all domesticated animals the races have largely increased in number since the time of the Romans? But on the view here given, we can understand this apparent contradiction. The extinction of a race within historical times is an event likely to be noticed; but its gradual and scarcely sensible modification through unconscious selection, and its subsequent divergence, either in the same or more commonly in distant countries, into two or more strains, and their gradual conversion into sub-breeds, and these into well- marked breeds are events which would rarely be noticed. The death of a tree, that has attained gigantic dimensions, is recorded; the slow growth of smaller trees and their increase in number excite no attention.

In accordance with the belief in the great power of selection, and of the little direct power of changed conditions of life, except in causing general variability or plasticity of organisation, it is not surprising that dovecot-pigeons have remained unaltered from time immemorial; and that some toy-pigeons, which differ in little else besides colour from the dovecot-pigeon, have retained the same character for several centuries. For when one of these toy-pigeons had once become beautifully and symmetrically coloured,—when, for instance, a Spot had been produced with the crown of its head, its tail, and tail-coverts of a uniform colour, the rest of the body being snow-white,—no alteration or improvement would be desired. On the other hand, it is not surprising that during this same interval of time our highly-bred pigeons have undergone an astonishing amount of change; for in regard to them there is no defined limit to the wish of the fancier, and there is no known limit to the variability of their characters. What is there to stop the fancier desiring to give to his Carrier a longer and longer beak, or to his Tumbler a shorter and shorter beak? nor has the extreme limit of variability in the beak, if there be any such limit, as yet been reached. Notwithstanding the great improvement effected within recent times in the Short-faced Almond Tumbler, Mr. Eaton remarks, “the field is still as open for fresh competitors as it was one hundred years ago;” but this is perhaps an exaggerated assertion, for the young of all highly-improved fancy birds are extremely liable to disease and death.

I have heard it objected that the formation of the several domestic races of the pigeon throws no light on the origin of the wild species of the Columbidæ, because their differences are not of the same nature. The domestic races, for instance do not differ, or differ hardly at all, in the relative lengths and shape of the primary wing-feathers, in the relative length of the hind toe, or in habits of life, as in roosting and building in trees. But the above objection shows how completely the principle of selection has been misunderstood. It is not likely that characters selected by the caprice of man should resemble differences preserved under natural conditions either from being of direct service to each species, or from standing in correlation with other modified and serviceable structures. Until man selects birds differing in the relative length of the wing-feathers or toes, etc., no sensible change in these parts should be expected. Nor could man do anything unless these parts happened to vary under domestication: I do not positively assert that this is the case, although I have seen traces of such variability in the wing-feathers, and certainly in the tail-feathers. It would be a strange fact if the relative length of the hind toe should never vary, seeing how variable the foot is both in size and in the number of the scutellæ. With respect to the domestic races not roosting or building in trees, it is obvious that fanciers would never attend to or select such changes in habits; but we have seen that the pigeons in Egypt, which do not for some reason like settling on the low mud hovels of the natives, are led, apparently by compulsion, to perch in crowds on the trees. We may even affirm that, if our domestic races had become greatly modified in any of the above specified respects, and it could be shown that fanciers had never attended to such points, or that they did not stand in correlation with other selected characters, the fact, on the principles advocated in this chapter, would have offered a serious difficulty.

Let us briefly sum up the last two chapters on the pigeon. We may conclude with confidence that all the domestic races, notwithstanding their great amount of difference, are descended from the _Columba livia,_ including under this name certain wild races. But the differences between the latter throw no light whatever on the characters which distinguish the domestic races. In each breed or sub-breed the individual birds are more variable than birds in a state of nature; and occasionally they vary in a sudden and strongly-marked manner. This plasticity of organisation apparently results from changed conditions of life. Disuse has reduced certain parts of the body. Correlation of growth so ties the organisation together, that when one part varies other parts vary at the same time. When several breeds have once been formed, their intercrossing aids the progress of modification, and has even produced new sub-breeds. But as, in the construction of a building, mere stones or bricks are of little avail without the builder’s art, so, in the production of new races, selection has been the presiding power. Fanciers can act by selection on excessively slight individual differences, as well as on those greater differences which are called sports. Selection is followed methodically when the fancier tries to improve and modify a breed according to a prefixed standard of excellence; or he acts unmethodically and unconsciously, by merely trying to rear as good birds as he can, without any wish or intention to alter the breed. The progress of selection almost inevitably leads to the neglect and ultimate extinction of the earlier and less improved forms, as well as of many intermediate links in each long line of descent. Thus it has come to pass that most of our present races are so marvellously distinct from each other, and from the aboriginal rock-pigeon.

REFERENCES

[1] Temminck ‘Hist. Nat. Gén. des Pigeons,’ etc., tom. i. p. 191.

[2] I have heard through Sir C. Lyell from Miss Buckley, that some half-bred Carriers kept during many years near London regularly settled by day on some adjoining trees, and, after being disturbed in their loft by their young being taken, roosted on them at night.

[3] ‘Annals and Mag. of Nat. Hist.,’ 2nd ser., vol. xx., 1857, p. 509; and in a late volume of the Journal of the Asiatic Society.

[4] In works written on the pigeon by fanciers I have sometimes observed the mistaken belief expressed that the species which naturalists called ground-pigeons (in contradistinction to arboreal pigeons) do not perch and build on trees. In these same works by fanciers wild species resembling the chief domestic races are often said to exist in various parts of the world; but such species are quite unknown to naturalists.

[5] Sir R. Schomburgk in ‘Journal R. Geograph. Soc.,’ vol. xiii., 1844, p. 32.

[6] Rev. E. S. Dixon ‘Ornamental Poultry,’ 1848, pp. 63, 66.

[7] ‘Proc. Zoolog. Soc.,’ 1859, p. 400.

[8] Temminck, ‘Hist. Nat. Gén. des Pigeons,’ tom. i.; also ‘Les Pigeons’ par Mme. Knip and Temminck. Bonaparte, however, in his ‘Coup- d’œil’ believes that two closely allied species are confounded together under this name. The _C. leucocephala_ of the West Indies is stated by Temminck to be a rock-pigeon; but I am informed by Mr. Gosse that this is an error.

[9] ‘Handbuch der Naturgesch. Vögel Deutschlands.’

[10] ‘Tagebuch, Reise nach Färo,’ 1830, s. 62.

[11] ‘Annals and Mag. of Nat. Hist.,’ vol. xix., 1847, p. 102. This excellent paper on pigeons is well worth consulting.

[12] ‘Natural History of Ireland,’ Birds, vol. ii. (1850), p. 11. For Graba _see_ previous reference.

[13] ‘Coup-d’œil sur l’Ordre des Pigeons,’ ‘Comptes Rendus,’ 1854-55.

[14] ‘Naturgeschichte. Deutschlands,’ Band. iv. 1795, s. 14.

[15] ‘History of British Birds,’ vol. i. pp. 275-284. Mr. Andrew Duncan tamed a rock-pigeon in the Shetland Islands. Mr. James Barclay, and Mr. Smith of Uyea Sound, both say that the wild rock-pigeon can be easily tamed; and the former gentleman asserts that the tamed birds breed four times a year. Dr. Lawrence Edmondstone informs me that a wild rock-pigeon came and settled in his dovecot in Balta Sound in the Shetland Islands, and bred with his pigeons; he has also given me other instances of the wild rock-pigeon having been taken young and breeding in captivity.

[16] ‘Annals and Mag. of Nat. History,’ vol. xix. 1847, p. 103, and vol. for 1857, p. 512.

[17] Domestic pigeons of the common kind are mentioned as being pretty numerous in John Barbut’s ‘Description of the Coast of Guinea’ (p. 215), published in 1746; they are said, in accordance with the name which they bear, to have been imported.

[18] With respect to feral pigeons—for Juan Fernandez, _ see_ Bertero in ‘Annal. des Sc. Nat.,’ tom. xxi. p. 351. For Norfolk Islands, _see_ Rev. E. S. Dixon in the ‘Dovecote,’ 1851, p. 14, on the authority of Mr. Gould. For Ascension I rely on MS. information given me by Mr. Layard. For the banks of the Hudson, _see_ Blyth in ‘Annals of Nat. Hist.,’ vol. xx., 1857, p. 511. For Scotland, _see_ Macgillivray, ‘British Birds,’ vol. i. p. 275; also Thompson’s ‘Nat. Hist. of Ireland, Birds,’ vol. ii. p. 11. For ducks, _see_ Rev. E. S. Dixon, ‘Ornamental Poultry,’ 1847, p. 122. For the feral hybrids of the common and musk-ducks, _see_ Audubon’s ‘American Ornithology,’ and Selys-Longchamp’s ‘Hybrides dans la Famille des Anatides.’ For the goose, Isidore Geoffroy St.-Hilaire, ‘Hist. Nat. Gén.,’ tom. iii. p. 498. For guinea-fowls, _see_ Gosse’s ‘Naturalist’s Sojourn in Jamaica,’ p. 124; and his ‘Birds of Jamaica,’ for fuller particulars. I saw the wild guinea-fowl in Ascension. For the peacock, _see_ ‘A Week at Port Royal,’ by a competent authority, Mr. R. Hill, p. 42. For the turkey I rely on oral information; I ascertained that they were not Curassows. With respect to fowls I will give the references in the next chapter.