Mihos Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------

> I beg to differ with you on a number
> of points. Let's agree to not let this be just
> another pissing war between vastly outmatched
> pedants.
>
> Having worked at the Yamashina institute I am very
> familiar with Dr. Yamashina's pioneering work on
> mapping of the genome of the chicken.

Dr. Yamashina began his work before they'd even discovered DNA, and his career tapered off well before the advent of modern genetic techniques.

(Heh, I'd wondered whether you were speaking of him OR his institute.....)

> Many authors have repeated his efforts with
> different results that basically agree that the
> Burmese Red JF Gallus gallus/spadiceus is the
> matriarchal ancestor of 99% of all tested domestic
> chicken breeds. Further analysis has taken this a
> little further.
>
> Genet. Sel. Evol. 35 (2003) 403-423
> DOI: 10.1051/gse:2003031
> Evolutionary relationships of Red Jungle Fowl and
> chicken breeds
> Irina G. Moiseyevaa, Michael N. Romanovb, Andrey
> A. Nikiforova, Antonina A. Sevastyanovac and
> Serafima K. Semyenovad

Available online at [www.edpsciences.org]

1) It says NOTHING about spadiceus being involved as a matriarchal ancestor.

2) It only briefly mentions Polynesian chickens at all, and does NOT mention any South American chicken breeds. No mention is made of any unique genetic status re Polynesian chickens, or of relationships between Polynesian & South American chickens. No mention is made of blue eggs.

Frankly, this article has absolutely no bearing the claim of pre-COlumbian chickens in the Americas.

Are you simply posting every chicken evolution related cite you can dredge up?

> However, there are in actuality five species of
> Junglefowl.
> Gallus varius is basal to the other four closely
> related species.
> Gallus lafayetti and Gallus sonnerati form one
> cluster
> Gallus murghi and Gallus bankiva form a second
> cluster branching from the aforementioned.
> Gallus Gallus is very recent and forms secondary
> branch from the latter.
>
> Gallus bankiva of Java is genetically distinctive
> from Gallus gallus.
> Some will call it a subspecies others a true
> species. The Javanese red JF was historically
> genetically isolated from the mainland red.
> The first cultures to inhabit the Indonesian
> Islands captured wild bankiva from Java and
> domesticated them. Their RFLP type is found in
> Ayam pelung, Ayam katai and a few other archaic
> breeds.
>
> Vol. 93, Issue 13, 6792-6795, June 25, 1996
> Evolution
> Monophyletic origin and unique dispersal patterns
> of domestic fowls
> Akishinonomiya Fumihito*,dagger , Tetsuo
> MiyakeDagger , Masaru Takada§, Ryosuke Shingu¶,
> Toshinori Endopar , Takashi Gojoboripar , Norio
> Kondo§, and Susumu Ohno**

I've got this one already. It concluded that "a continental population of G.g.gallus was the real matriarchic origin of all the chicken breeds examined in this study".... with this population being in Thailand & adjacent regions.

Note..... gallus, not spadiceus, Thailand, not Burma per se.

> The Fumihoto et al paper studied samples from
> primarily English Poultry conservationists in the
> forementioned paper. This was in part, due to
> Yamashina's theory and supporting data published
> in Japanese based on Japanese poulty conservation
> source data. Japanese honorable fowl
> conservationists keep poultry in very genetically
> isolated manner.
>
> A third paper has been published I will find a
> reference that compared and contrasted the two
> findings and discusses the different pioneer and
> selective breeding practices of respective
> European and Japanese cultures. I think you may
> find it sophmoric and it was written for poultry
> specialist audience.

If it was written for poultry specialist audiences, it shouldn't be sophmoric...

On the other hand, from the sound of it I WOULD find it irrellevant to the question of whether chickens existed in the pre-Columbian Americas. And irrellevant to the question of Polynesian/South American chicken breed relationships.

Don't you have ANY relevant cites?

> Regardless, the facts are that Green Jf males
> contributed some genetics to a few archaic breeds.
> Their nuclear DNA has been found somewhat more
> sporadically than might be excepted by some to be
> construed as hard evidence of a rule but thousands
> of years have passed since the inception of the
> unique phenotypes and long crowing traits.
> THe breeds include the Ayam katai, Ayam kedu, Ayam
> cemani the last of which is generally of a
> different RFLP type than the first two. The ayam
> katai and the ayam kedu share the same exceedingly
> rare RFLP types with fowl in Oceania including
> Rapanui and Pitcairn.
>
>

(I'm taking the liberty of reinserting the attribution marks into the following)

>> PLEASE be logical here.
>
>> Rapanui had chickens... as did other Polynesian
>> islands.... obtained in Melanesia & SE Asia
>> back when their proto-Polynesian ancestors resided
>> there. Chickens were part of the standard “canoe
>> colonizing package” of domesticates.
>
>> Pitcairn HAD no resident chickens, anything the
>> original Polynesian settlers might have introduced
>> died with them when that colony failed (centuries
>> BEFORE European contact). The (in)famous Bounty
>> mutineers brought chickens with them from
>> Tahiti.... along with actual Tahitians.... when
>> they resettled the island. Other breeds have
>> subsequently been added to the mix.
>
>
>
> Before you jump to the conclusion that chickens
> died out when the proto Polynesians colonies
> failed, please research up on the Green JF.

Better yet, why don't you read up on the traditions left by the descendants of the Bounty mutineers.

They found no feral chickens on Pitcairn. But they DID bring some of their own.

> THe
> hybrids with this wild species quickly revert to
> wild type and have survived on many isolated
> islands. They are so unique looking and acting
> these hybrid races that they were originally
> assigned Gallus violaceous and Gallus temminiki.
> The two respective phenotypes occupy different
> regions of the Oceania/ Paua Indonesian region.
> They ARE NOT chickens. They are however truly
> feral junglefowl that avoid humans like any wild
> birds perhaps more so. I visited Chile and Easter
> Island in March and observed wild Rapanui fowl in
> two crater lakes.

Which could quite easily be feral specimens descended from recent introductions.

You need detailed genetic analyses on a population level to say otherwise.

> There are so many domestic chickens on the islands
> it is easy to miss them or assume them to be
> nothing special that is unless you know what you
> are looking for.

Translation: There are so many domestic chickens on the islands that could have produced the ferals, that they are nothing special unless you are REALLY trying to go to desperate lengths for evidence.

> These birds do not look like
> chickens. They are exceedingly skinny, long legged
> and have black skin and glossy purple and yellow
> feathers.

Yup. I live in exteme SE California, less than an hour from the Mexican border. The local population is something like 80% Mexican. I see chickens like that every so often, running unfenced in people's yards.

Heh, a Hmong employee of ours recently bought a pair of VERY Asian looking chickens that a local Hispanic was growing..... he said they made him homesick.

> You may recall discussion of feather capes of
> Easter Island? Many of the feathers in museum
> collections capes are of obvious green jf hybrids.
> Polynesians did not come from a region with Green
> JF. They had Burmese red jf the slightly more
> distant than sibling species of the Proto
> Indonesian's bankiva. The Burmese is less
> genetically compatible with varius. There is even
> less f1-f3 fecundity between varius and gallus
> than varius and bankiva.
>
> Predators and typhoons tend to wipe out domestic
> fowl and in many cases red jf.
> This is not the case with the Green Jf hybrids.
>
> Regardless, this where I get cagey.

No, it's where you digress even further.

Please stick to the subject and provide the following:

1) Hard cites re archaeological evidence for pre-Columbian chickens in the Americas.

2) Hard cites re Spanish finding definitely ID'd chickens in first contact contexts, in the Americas.

3) Hard cites re the relationship between South American & Polynesian chickens.

4) Hard cites on the genetic distinction between Polynesian and OTHER SE Asian chicken breeds.

5) Hard cites that ANY Polynesian chickens laid blue eggs..... PRIOR to significant Spanish trade between South America & Polynesia (for example, a hypothetical 1880's account of blue egg laying Rapa Nui chickens would be soft evidence, given the fact that Chilean contact with Rapa Nui was extensive by that date, and would easily have allowed for the introduction of Auracana or other blue egg laying Chilean breeds).

> > These domestic fowl were in Easter ISland when the
> > first Europeans arrived.
>
> Yep.... introduced BY Rapanui's Polynesian
> population when they settled the island.
>
> YUP from peoples traveling from southern Indonesia
> earlier than
>
> those brought in from SE ASIA

Uh..... you DO realize that Southern Indonesia *IS* part of SE Asia, don't you? And that Indonesia played a role in Polynesian evolution?

And if you're somehow trying to claim that folk from "southern Indonesia" introduced domestic fowl to Easter Island BEFORE Polynesians arrived, please contact the archaeological community.... and Gavin Menzies.... immediately! I'm sure they'll be fascinated & oh so grateful to hear you present your evidence.....

> >And brought from SE Asia, accompanying Polynesians
> >on their spread throughout the Pacific.
>
> But there is no way to prove that the CURRENT Rapa
> Nui chickens are significantly descended from that
> original stocking….
>
> Yes Kenuchelover there is. The phenotypic analysis
> of Easter Island capes is sufficient enough to
> determine that when the very first Europeans
> arrived in Easter Island there were
> upwards of eight or nine distinctive breeds on the
> Rapanui Islands. They are named after the
> clans they arrived with.

1) Provide cites for these phenotypic analyses.

2) Provide proof that individual breeds existed, rather than a single variable population from which certain plumes would be selected for certain capes.

3) Provide proof that IF the individual breeds existed, they were associated with specific clans.

4) Provide proof that these breeds arrived with the clans, as opposed to being bred into distinct types after arrival, out of a single undifferentiated population.

> Some interbred we can be sure.
> Until you have studied the morphology of these
> fowl you will continue to find me exceedingly
> stupid and naive or worse.

Uh, you said it, not me.

What *I* will admit to finding you is highly illogical. You are straying from the subject, refusing to post cites re pre-Columbian chicken evidence, and refusing to even post cites re any special relationship between Polynesian & South American chicken breeds.

Neh, so far all you've done is sound like every other empty headed fanatic with a theory he heard on the internet somewhere..... long on unproven assumptions, short on fact.

Please feel free to prove me wrong by posting relevant cites!

> THe green jf hybrid stock are very unique. Their
> plumage is morphologically similar with green jf.
> The feathers are rounded and have special
> waterproofing qualities red jf lack. They are also
> able to subsist on different foods and with very
> little water.
> They can fly for many miles OVER THE OCEAN.
> They are not chickens in the simplest sense of the
> word.
> When you see them flying in a tight formation like
> sandpipers it startles you.
>
>
>
> > And there were domestic fowl in South America
> when
> > the first Europeans arrived as well.
>
> The paper YOU cite says that the Auracana chicken
> has the common type V mtDNA of Gallus gallus
> gallus…..
>
> And I was unable to locate ANY decent subspecies
> level studies of nuclear DNA among Gallus ssp. So
> I’d be VERY interested in tracking down such
> “cutting edge” research…….
>
>
> I never mentioned Araucana chickens.

I know.... but it was the ONLY South American breed the paper even mentioned. True, it actually contradicts your position, but if you disregard it, the paper was TOTALLY IRRELEVANT and raises the issue of WHY you even cited it in the first place. Ouch.... you got hit with a double whammy! Don't you have any actual data?

> Any breed
> with this name designation is an outcross with
> only some Chilean genes. The Chilean Indians have
> two breeds the Colloncas and the Quetero which
> share the same RFLP type as Ayam kedu and Ayam
> katai.

Snicker... the Araucana is documented as a cross BETWEEN the Collonca & Quetero chickens, with no known outside ancestry.

Perhaps you are thinking of the AMERacuana chicken breed, which is a 20th century cross of the Araucana and standard U.S. chickens?

> I never suggested nuclear DNA was used to
> determine which Subspecies of junglefowl were male
> ancestors. I stated clearly that the nuclear DNA
> of the GReen JF has been found in these oceanic
> breeds as well as those of the Quechua and Some of
> the South American fowl.
> Oddly, the other breeds have the Nuclear DNA of
> Gallus lafayetti and or sonnerati present in some
> not all specimens tested.

Sigh... how can I tell you this without insulting your intelligence.

The various Gallus species and subspecies are so closely related that they would have virtually identical nuclear DNA.... you'd have to do HIGH RESOLUTION, large scale population studies in order to detect "nuclear DNA" from one particular species or another in particular modern chicken breeds. And nothing that you've cited, nor that my searches have found, says that this level of research knowledge exists......

Uh, do you actually know anything about DNA, or are you parroting bits & pieces you've cribbed from some of these old papers?

> And yes all ahve now been thoroughly polluted with
> European domestic fowl which are truly chickens.
>
>
> I think it is difficult for you to envision what
> these fowl look like.

I've seen them. Both in person (excellent zoos here in Southern California), and online (lots & lots of exotic poultry breed & avian research websites).

> They don't even look like
> chickens most anyway. They are shaped like a
> pear, have no bare facial skin, combs or wattles,
> The roosters do not crow like a domestic fowl but
> have weird screams. The others are tailed but look
> like they've survived an oil slick.
> We know that they do not fare well in close
> confinement with domestic chickens and quickly
> succumb to common chicken ailments.
>
>
> Molecular evidence for hybridization of species in
> the genus Gallus except for Gallus varius
> M. Nishibori*, T. Shimogiri+, T. Hayashi and H.
> Yasue

Ah, FINALLY a recent paper that isn't online. Eh, I'll pick up a copy the next time I'm over in San Diego.

But I *DO* note that the abstract speaks of a dearth of detailed phylogenetic data re the various Gallus species... and that this "cutting edge"(?) 2005 paper sequenced whole mtDNA and TWO short segments of the nuclear genome. Eh, was your "nuclear DNA" talk earlier some of Dr. Yamashina's old style (phenotypic gene frequencies, etc) work from the 1940's & 1950's or such?

Eh, the abstract ALSO makes no mention of finding any hybridization between GREEN junglefowl & domestic/RED junglefowl type chickens.... it found only hybridization between GREY junglefowl & other types. Matter of fact, based on this abstract, the study didn't cover GREEN junglefowl at all, nor domestic chickens.

This REALLY sounds like you're just posting cites you dredge up at random, that you haven't read & don't know to be relevant, but have titles dealing with chicken evolution & so are seized apon by you as "maybe, somehow" supporting whatever non-linear argument it is that you're trying to make.

Kenuchelover.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 08/02/2005 01:15PM by DougWeller.