Mihos Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> A genetic variation map for chicken with 2.8
> million single-nucleotide polymorphisms.

(snip names of 115 authors, NONE of them connected to the "Yamashina" Mihos has been tossing around, as overly space consuming)

> Beijing Institute of Genomics of Chinese Academy
> of Sciences, Beijing Genomics Institute, Beijing
> Proteomics Institute, Beijing 101300, China.
>
> We describe a genetic variation map for the
> chicken genome containing 2.8 million
> single-nucleotide polymorphisms (SNPs). This map
> is based on a comparison of the sequences of three
> domestic chicken breeds (a broiler, a layer and a
> Chinese silkie) with that of their wild ancestor,
> red jungle fowl. Subsequent experiments indicate
> that at least 90% of the variant sites are true
> SNPs, and at least 70% are common SNPs that
> segregate in many domestic breeds. Mean nucleotide
> diversity is about five SNPs per kilobase for
> almost every possible comparison between red
> jungle fowl and domestic lines, between two
> different domestic lines, and within domestic
> lines--in contrast to the notion that domestic
> animals are highly inbred relative to their wild
> ancestors. In fact, most of the SNPs originated
> before domestication, and there is little evidence
> of selective sweeps for adaptive alleles on length
> scales greater than 100 kilobases.

Eh, this sounds like Polynesian & South American chickens are NOT involved in this study.

I thought you were going to try to find something relevant, rather than more redundancy re Gallus ssp evolution, & chicken domestication 8,000 years ago?

> While mtDNA has clearly shown that red jf are the
> matriarchal ancestors of most domestic fowl
> www.cib.nig.ac.jp/gfr/research_pdf/Shamo.pdf

Do you comprehend the concept of getting a clue? Or of staying on relevant topics?

The paper you linked to ("Japanese fighting chickens have been derived from Shamo traditional fighting cocks" by Komiyama et al) deals with mtDNA analysis & ONLY with JAPANESE chickens.

PLEASE STICK TO THE SUBJECT.... which is your claim that chickens were present in the pre-Columbian Americas, that South American & Polynesian chickens were closely related, and so on.

A paper on varietal relationships among fighting cocks in Japan is NOT relevant.


> The Nuclear DNA told a different story of the male
> founders of some birds.

The paper above says NOTHING about nuclear DNA. Please give cites.

> Ive provided references on nuclear DNA data-

Not to me you haven't.

> evidence of genetic contributions from two wild
> junglefowl species that split from the wild
> ancestor of the domestic fowl sometime during the
> end of the Miocene ( about five MILLION years ago)
> in COMMON JAPANESE AND CHINESE CHICKEN BREEDS.

Yawn. We've already knew (from previously discussed papers) that hybridization took place between different Gallus ssp, and that there was some deliberate male mediated introgression of Green junglefowl by poultry raisers in SE Asia (Indonesia in particular).

But fowl differentiation "MILLIONS OF YEARS" before humans existed has nothing to do with pre-Columbian chickens, unless you FIRST cite proof that pre-Columbian chickens existed.

Which you haven't.

Please stick to the subject. I appreciate that it is painful for you to do this, given your apparant total lack of supporting evidence and seeming ignorance of the subject.... but try anyway. It will be greatly appreciated.

> Applesauce continues to go on about fancy chickens

More fantasy of yours? Ah.... I understand now. Your ranting is coming from some applesauce that you left out too long & which fermented before you ate it.

Tsk tsk.... don't you know enough to lay off the sauce before trying to engage in an online discussion?

> as though I have not clearly stated that the birds
> in question are not genetically, phenotypically or
> behaviorally typical chickens.

Aren't you aware that exotic chicken germplasm & appearance results in their being characterized as "fancy chickens"....?

> I explained that hybrid founders in genetic
> isolation on oceanic islands often survived human
> settlement failures and typhoons when typical
> domestic chickens did not.

The only place you've even TRIED to mention this in conjunction with is Pitcairn.... and you've offered no proof that it actually happened there. Nor is it relevant, as you haven't cited any Polynesian vs South American chicken studies.

> Having lost secondary
> sexual traits, tails, vocalizations typical of
> chickens some of these island fowl were given
> species status by early explorers.

Ah, so you admit that early explorers were NOT credible zoological authorities? That they commonly misidentified species?

Some minor degree of progress HAS taken place!

> They were even
> described as megapodes and scrubfowl in some
> instances. In other situations where successive
> generations of hybrids arrived with different
> waves of human migrants after periods of isolation
> a host of different traits emerged producing
> unique phenotypey classified as violaceous and
> temminick's junglefowl and shoal fowl.
>
> The feathersite article was lifted from notes I
> provided to a student of mine some years ago from
> translated texts. It is a poor example of
> Yamashina's forty years of study on the subject to
> which I was a lowly curatorial intern

Ah..... a lowly curatorial intern of fairly primitive quality (quantitative analysis of phenotypic traits only? NO modern DNA analysis?) research. That explains quite a bit.

> and steward of living collections.

Ah.... you fed the chickens & mucked out the pens. High qualifications indeed!

> Few of you are truly interested in the veracity of
> the claims of the original paper on human
> lymphocyte antigens.

Because we know enough about HLA (& OTHER evidence) to tell that this paper is nonsense.

If you'd like, I can refer you to a geneticist who makes a particular specialty out of HLA data. I subscribe to a Yahoo Group he runs, focusing on human genetics research & what it tells us about human migration patterns & population relationships.

> I thought it was curious
> given the fact that Guns Germs and Steel was
> playing on the Discovery Channel while I typed in
> the first chicken notes. Don't people generally
> come into contact with the diseases of their
> domestic animals?
> Dont isolated populations of humans generally fare
> poorly when new humans arrive with their own
> viruses?
> This is certainly true for wild jf that come into
> contact with domestic chickens. The wild jf
> quickly die out anywhere domestic chickens come
> into contact with them.
> This is particulary true for the green and ceylon
> jf ( varius and lafayetti) which is curious given
> the fact that the nuclear DNA of varius is present
> in Koeyoshi and Rapanui, Quechua and Sumatran
> domestic and feral fowl.

CITES? You have still refused to give any to me on this.

> The nuclear DNA of
> lafayetti is present in the
> Belgium quail bantam, the rumpless bantam, marans
> chicken, colloncas and quetero fowl of South
> America.

Ditto.

> Many scientists including William Beebe,
> Jean Delacour and Yamashina attempted to hybridize
> the different wild jf species and discovered that
> while males are occasionally fertile in eggs
> hatched between varius males and lafayette males
> with domestic hens, Yamashina experimented with
> females of divergent rflp types. Each of the
> research groups discovered that fecundity was a
> major problem. Females never produce eggs that
> develop completly in f1, f2 or f3 hybrids.
> Males often have abnormal sperm. It was determined
> by these experiments that these distantly related
> species could not have contributed to
> domestication unless as Yamashina's crew
> discovered females of a different RFLP type were
> used.
> Simply put, the domestic fowl sharing the RFLP
> type with the Indonesian red jf versus the Burmese
> red jungleofowl produced a higher rate of male
> hybrids producing normal sperm.
> Female hybrids continue to have the same fecundity
> issues.
>
> So how can basically steril hybrids survive on
> isolated islands for thousands of years with
> typhoons, tropical storms, lack of food, not to
> mention human and any number of opportunistic
> predators? I don't know.

Space aliens? Gavin Menzies with a time machine?

Sigh.... I'm sure YOU find this digression interesting, but please stick to the topic at hand.... your totally unsupported claim that chickens were present in the pre-Columbian Americas.

> Yamashina believed that
> the arrival of new migrations FROM THE SAME region
> as the pioneers or at least carrying the same rflp
> type fighting games the ayam kedu and ayam katai
> endemic to Indonesia south of Sumatra insured that
> males with normal sperm came into contact with
> domestic fighting game hens.
> The sterile hens produced eggs for human and other
> nest predators and also set on eggs even when it
> was not in their interest. This is crucial for
> domestication by the way. Some of the sterile
> hybrid females were behaving abnormally even for a
> domestic chicken. CHickens were nowhere near as
> domesticated as they are today in those centuries.
> Fighting games at that time were little more than
> wild red jf.
>
> Researchers discovered that (sterile) hybrid
> females lay eggs all year. They are abnormally
> shaped and never hatch. Other hybrid females
> incubate on anything remotely looking like an egg
> and do so long after a normal hen domestic or
> otherwise would have quit the nest.
> Early inhabitants of the oceanic ( versus Pacific)
> islands between South America and New Caledonia
> had their own organic egg machines and incubators.
> Non hybridized hens which only laid seasonally
> like wild red jf and primitive fighting games were
> in Yamashina's theory conserved to produce more of
> the same. Their eggs were probably not eaten.
> Hybrid males with normal sperm were thus able to
> consistently fertilize the fighting games. The
> hybrid roosters were important for navigational
> reasons so it is believed that just about every
> new canoe from Indonesia had a hybrid male aboard
> as well as the normal semi domestic fighting
> games. The more isolated islands ended up
> generating what could almost be described as new
> species. A number of photos of skins collected in
> the 1500's ,1600's, and 1700's collected in
> Oceania and South America and live birds by
> Yamashina can be viewed here: .
>
> Im probably not articulating this in the genetic
> terminology that might be preferred to the best
> armed experts. Im not serving pedant machinations
> but would actually like people intimidated by some
> of the over the top attitude to have an
> opportunity to look at the evidence presented by
> the paper on Human Lymphocyte Antigens to learn
> about what they may have taken for granted.
> Kenuchelover writes as if there is but one chicken
> the kind that they serve at KFC the all white meat
> kind.

Liar. I've spoken of various exotic breeds, bred for highly divergent appearances & usages, with varying ancestries.

> Im attempting badly to explain how Yamashina came
> to the conclusion that chickens arrived in South
> America before the European conquest.

AH HAH! Finally you reveal what you're actually talking about....... some Japanese chicken researcher from the early days (pre-DNA) of genetic research came up with a pet theory, unsupported by archaeological or other hard evidence...... and you're trying to project a half remembered version of his theory as proven fact!!!!!

> If you continue to think about a chicken as an
> homologous man made creation than it will be
> impossible for you to take the important facts
> into consideration.
>
> The fact is it required thousands of generations
> to fix the blue egg gene into the domestic
> fowl because of genetic compatability issues
> between the Green JF and the domestic fowl.
> It required females of an archaic Indonesian game
> that has all but diseappeared with the arrival of
> Thailand's more domesticated genes and diseases.
> That these RFLP types exist in Oceania and South
> America is fascinating.
> How they got there is anyone's guess work.
> Yamashina believed that they drifted there ever so
> slowly on the ocean with a very few migrations of
> survivors.
>
>
> www.urbanext.uiuc.edu/eggs/res10-breedhistory.html
> - 53k

Yawn. This site notes the mixed Asiatic-European ancestry of many U.S. chicken breeds, nothing else.

NOTHING about South American chickens, pre-Columbian or otherwise. NOTHING about blue eggs.

> The most serious evidence is the blue egg itself.
> It did not exist in Asia nor Europe before
> Spaniards brought it back From South America.
> The South American birds were nearly wiped out by
> the diseases of the chicken brought to South
> America. The only surviving stock of the South
> American breeds is genetically and phenotypically
> unique. The genetic distance between those tested
> birds and those collected on Ponape near Saipan
> and Rapanui suggests that the ancestral population
> of the hybrid founders must have been genetically
> isolated from one another for at least one
> thousand years probably more.

Cites?

You make many sweeping claims WITHOUT ANY EVIDENCE!


>
> Contact: Michael C. Purdy
> (314) 286-0122
> purdym@w&#
> 117;stl.edu
>
>
>
> Printable Version
>
>
> First Analysis of Chicken Genome Offers Many New
> Insights
>
>
> Embargoed until 1 p.m. ET on Wednesday, Dec. 8
>
> (Editor’s Note: A phone press conference, led by
> Richard K. Wilson, will take place under embargo
> at 10 a.m. EST on December 8. Participants dial in
> and give the conference ID# to the operator:
> Conference ID # 2536965
> Dial in numbers: * US/Canada Dial-in #: 888 275
> 4480 * International Dial-In #: +1 706 679 7510)
>
> St. Louis, Dec. 8, 2004 — The first detailed
> analysis of the chicken genome has identified a
> chicken counterpart to an important human immune
> system protein, revised scientists’ assessment of
> the chicken’s sense of smell, and suggested that
> the chicken, long used to study gene activity in
> the earliest stages of life, may provide a good
> model for studying changes in DNA linked to aging
> and death.
>
> Other findings from the analysis, reported in the
> Dec. 9 issue of Nature by the International
> Chicken Genome Sequencing Consortium, include the
> identification of genes that affirm the chicken’s
> value as a model for study of developmental
> disorders like cleft palate and diseases like
> muscular dystrophy.
>
> Researchers completed and made available the
> genetic sequence of the red jungle fowl — a wild
> ancestor of the domestic chicken whose scientific
> name is Gallus gallus — in March 2004. The genome
> provides several firsts: it is the first bird, the
> first agricultural animal, and the first
> descendant of the dinosaurs to have its genome
> sequenced.

You have offered no evidence that this analysis.... (and WHY give outdated call-in information for a phone press conference that is long over?) has anything to do with pre-Columbian chickens.

Kenuchelover.