Mihos Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> squash! These are very good points Katherine. And
> the genetic evidence? South American fowl couldn't
> have come with the Europeans because the genetic
> difference between them and their nearest
> relatives in Saipan and Rapanui are too divergent
> from one another. It took many thousands of
> generations of genetic isolation to perpetuate
> their unique signatures.
> The South American stock brought from Peru to
> Japan had a major problem once DNA was affordable
> enough to use as a tool. They had to dump upwards
> of forty percent of the pioneer stock because
> those birds had been admixtured with domestic fowl
> of the Mediterranean genome. In a matter of a few
> hundred years the stock had been almost
> obliterated by interbreeding with the European
> chickens. In trials the authors crossed Green jf
> to bankiva and spadiceus females and determined
> that it took at least 1500 years to arrive at the
> Rapanui 'species' threshold. It is genetically so
> distinctive it was actually described as Gallus
> violaceous. The colloncas and quechua hens
> appeared genetically to be derived from Rapanui
> hens but the colloncas had genetic markers from a
> unique group of domestic fowl only found in Saipan
> and the Phillipines.
> Yamashina determined that the Peruvians must have
> had more than one source of domestic fowl but
> suggested that like the Oceanic islands, the
> entire population of fowls of a given culture may
> have originated from no more than a handful of
> founders.
> He explained during the congress that he believed
> that no more than twenty or forty pioneer fowl
> arrived in South America from Rapanui and that
> event may have only occured two or three times
> based on the genetics of the South American stock
> derived of Rapanui stock alone. THe blue egg came
> about due to a high degree of copper in the soil.
> Green jf lay a tinted egg that is effected by
> trace minerals and so on consumed in the
> crustaceans they eat. Alot of his colleagues
> pshawed his findings. But now the nuclear DNA has
> also been studied and his theory is very
> compelling. ALso, it should be noted,
> that though these fowls are described as chickens
> none are larger than an Alectoris partridge. Ive
> actually examined skins of these specimens and a
> living bird as well. It was about the size and
> weight of a Chukar. If I were to find its bones I
> might think they were quail or partridge bones
> before thinking they were pheasant or junglefowl
> because of their diminutive size. If any of you
> have seen a pheasant a red jf is about the same
> size. THe South American and Easter Island fowl
> are roughly a quarter of that size. They do not
> make chicken sounds either.
Please provide a refereed source for these data. this is not included in the 1994 PNAS paper
Bernard