Mihos Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> You are both incorrect and suffer from smugness
> inherent to those that stand behind cattle.
>
> I have provided a dearth of information. You are
> the percecutors its your burden to prove me wrong
> with the materials I have provided. Don't just sit
> there and smoke your smug pipe.

Wrong! The proponent of a theory has the burden of providing convincing evidence for it. Extraordinary claims require extraoridinary evidence. It is NOT our task to prove you wrong. A claim that the moon is made of blue cheese does not require that I get a moon rack and prove it is not a mmilk product.


> I asked where the blue egg came. You cant answer
> it. In every one of these references there are
> discussions supporting the foundations of the
> issue. THere is genetic homology and their is
> genetic diversity. There are assumptions and there
> are facts.

Blue aggs are irrelevant to question of the precolumbian presence of rapanui chickens in the Americas, unless of course we found blue chicken eggs in a precolumbian dig (it woould be an intersting question if one could determine a precise chicken origin if one only found eggshells .

> I have a very large list of references as I
> subscribe to the chicken genome mapping mail
> service and contribute when needed.
> Theoretically speaking you have not disproven any
> theory that domestic fowl NOT CHICKENS arrived in
> SA before Europeans. ANd since you still think we
> are talking about chickens you missed the irony.
> Europeans never brought the original stock back to
> Europe it never survived the trip. Hybrids called
> Araucana did.
> The South American stock, the Ponape NOT Pitcairn
> as I mistakenly typed earlier my apologies.
> and the Rapanui were originally described as
> Megapodes, Scrub Fowl or a new species of
> junglefowl. The Colloncas of South America was
> originally described as a Tinamou.
> You havent even heard of a tinamou have you?

Well the tinamou (Family Tinamidae, Order Tinamiformes) has no relationship to chickens (Family Phasianidae, Order Galliformes)-- so it is irrelevant. The name tinamou is a corruption of the native name- "inambue" According to the standard zoological book on Latin America-- Luis Cendrero.1972. Zoologia Hispanoamericana vol. 2,.p. 648 "The first colonists [Spanish] of the American lands erronously called them [tinamou] pheasants and quail" {BOM] Colloncas are not listed in Cendrero which lista all the native species.

Why don't we stick to latin binomials and trinomials since common names are so misleading and confusing?

Bernard
>