Oriental Gamefowl Thread!

[wood&feathers]

I read with interest the link several pages ago discussing galliforme ancestry and proposing the existence of "gallus giganteus", an extinct ancestor for Malay and other Asian gamefowl. For fun I Googled various search terms and found the following paper.

http://www.plosone.org/article/info:doi/10.1371/journal.pone.0010639

Aside from the details of genome and statistical variation, they propose domestication of chickens occurred 58, 000 years BCE, give or take 16,000 years. In the discussion at the end of the paper it becomes clear there is room for multiple ancestors to contribute to the diversity in domesticated chickens.

In addition to their main study subjects, these Japanese scientists also sequenced some unique Japanese breeds, Koshamo and Ukokkei.

" More interestingly, although the small τ value indicates 29,000 years, the two ancestral lineages leading to Koshamo and Ukokkei appear to have been distinct well before their domestication."

Hmmm, gonna take me a little time to try and sift through all the minutiae and see the whole picture.

 

[centrarchid]

I read with interest the link several pages ago discussing galliforme ancestry and proposing the existence of "gallus giganteus", an extinct ancestor for Malay and other Asian gamefowl.  For fun I Googled various search terms and found the following paper.

http://www.plosone.org/article/info:doi/10.1371/journal.pone.0010639

Aside from the details of genome and statistical variation, they propose domestication of chickens occurred  58, 000 years BCE, give or take 16,000 years.  In the discussion at the end of the paper it becomes clear there is room for multiple ancestors to contribute to the diversity in domesticated chickens.

In addition to their main study subjects, these Japanese scientists also sequenced some unique Japanese breeds, Koshamo and Ukokkei.

" More interestingly, although the small τ value indicates 29,000 years, the two ancestral lineages leading to Koshamo and Ukokkei appear to have been distinct well before their domestication."

Hmmm, gonna take me a little time to try and sift through all the minutiae and see the whole picture. 

Re-read paper cited above. I come to very different conclusions (relative to yours) based on their assertions and what they postulate could occur within mainstream thought about domestic chicken development.

 

[wood&feathers]

Yes centrarchid. I followed some links on the same subject to a much different Indian paper, and they conclude they are ALL red jungle fowl, with even domestic chickens material not justifying separate species category. Sort of like asserting all dogs and coyotes are races of Canis lupus.

Lumpers Vs splitters...

The quote in my previous post was cut and pasted from the Japanese paper, I do not feel prepared to have an opinion on this just yet. I found it interesting that they did test their own unique domesticated breeds, and that alone justified mention on this thread.

 

[wood&feathers]

http://www.biomedcentral.com/1471-2148/8/174 link to the Indian paper

Centrarchid I look forward to hearing your perspective on this paper. My impression of their conclusion is that there were multiple, widespread domestication events of related continental jungle fowl. Variation in parent population was believed to be large due to wide geographic distribution of jungle fowl ancestors at time of domestication - multiple domestication events, not necessarily from birds that warrant differing species names.

I'm just trying to understand the authors, and am enjoying reading all the material that has become available since I last searched the web on the subject. I need to read more such papers to begin having an opinion.

 

[centrarchid]

First paper indicated chickens diverged 58,000 +/- 16,000 years ago from red jungle fowl used in the analysis. That does not preclude the possibility (a strong possibility) that the jungle fowl subspecies involved also diverged from each other at that time.

Second paper suggest multiple centers for domestication (multiple populations of red jungle involved) and they tried to use larger sample size. Their interpretation of results does not preclude possibility that a single domestication event incorporated additional red jungle fowl genetics as domestic chicken was spread from its region of origin. The hybridization was considered to be one way where red jungle fowl genes introgressed into domestic fowl but not the reverse.


I saw no evidence to suggest the existence of a wild form that was responsible for the development of odd shaped oriental domestic forms. My opinion is that selection for a peculiar type of performance in the pit caused the morphologies we see today in oriental games.

 

[ameraucanacrazy]

Hey does anyone have any brazilian or pama birds for sale?

 

[Lauravonsmurf]

First paper indicated chickens diverged 58,000 +/- 16,000 years ago from red jungle fowl used in the analysis. That does not preclude the possibility (a strong possibility) that the jungle fowl subspecies involved also diverged from each other at that time.

Second paper suggest multiple centers for domestication (multiple populations of red jungle involved) and they tried to use larger sample size. Their interpretation of results does not preclude possibility that a single domestication event incorporated additional red jungle fowl genetics as domestic chicken was spread from its region of origin. The hybridization was considered to be one way where red jungle fowl genes introgressed into domestic fowl but not the reverse.


I saw no evidence to suggest the existence of a wild form that was responsible for the development of odd shaped oriental domestic forms. My opinion is that selection for a peculiar type of performance in the pit caused the morphologies we see today in oriental games.

Yeah, I too have been trying to digest these papers & others... it seems to me the scientists have camps so they tend to interpret toward that end it is pretty much single event vs multiple event. Also with these studies there has got to be people who want the event to happen in their country. I know from when I last took any science classes, statistics can be presented or nudged the way you want them interpreted or the same information can be interpreted radically different by different people, some scientist have even gone as far as to lie, create false data, destroy data or evidence that contradicts their pet theory... they get busted in the end, but not before tons of false information is taught as fact. I learned along time ago you got to read & reread and compare results and just because the author of the paper interprets the data one way, it does not mean it can not be viewed another. Now if we give everyone the benefit of the doubt and assume they are all trying to do their ethical best to answer the origin of the chicken we do have conflicting data in some areas.

Personally I just don't think the G. g, d. happened in a wild setting or just in one village, as humans where involved (and our collective ancestors really got around allot more then we like to give them credit), probably somebody got the bright idea to catch RJF and keep them alive in cages to eat latter fresh, then one thing led to another and domestication was started.

Based on what I have read so far RJF seems to be the start species. But keep in mind that then as other people found out from other people you could catch wild birds, keep them in cages and have eggs and fatten them up for dinner the possibility of multiple domestication events increases not just in the first village but in other villages to copy the practice. I am sure they just caught what was local and tamed them up a bit, then you figure trade and areas where the different JF species overlapped probably led to accidental hybrids as different species where housed together... it really isn't hard to imagine how it happened, and as humans spread and moved to new places dragging their RJF/JFxs along and then discovering other kinds of JF then more mixing would have occurred in those specific areas, probably allot like what is done in Java today.

Also small captive breeding populations bring genetic traits to the surface that are much rarer or not obvious in the wild (but present in the DNA none the less) in a more visible and concentrated way and humans do tend to keep the animal that is different alive to breed and get more of. So my gut is that a few things probably happened over many centuries to create the domestic chicken and that is probably why we see slightly different data. I tend toward the multi-event combined with hybridization events and selective breeding because it makes the most logical sense to me, but for other people they see the data as saying only the RJF & selective breeding (which ignores traditional breeding practices of living human cultures where multiple JF species & domestic chickens occur). I think we are only just starting to see the data on this debate and it should be interesting to see what the new research produces.

Science is fun!

 

[wood&feathers]

"... it seems to me the scientists have camps so they tend to interpret toward that end it is pretty much single event vs multiple event. Also with these studies there has got to be people who want the event to happen in their country. I know from when I last took any science classes, statistics can be presented or nudged the way you want them interpreted or the same information can be interpreted radically different by different people, some scientist have even gone as far as to lie, create false data, destroy data or evidence that contradicts their pet theory... they get busted in the end, but not before tons of false information is taught as fact. I learned along time ago you got to read & reread and compare results and just because the author of the paper interprets the data one way, it does not mean it can not be viewed another. Now if we give everyone the benefit of the doubt and assume they are all trying to do their ethical best to answer the origin of the chicken we do have conflicting data in some areas."

Absolutely LauravonSmurf! It takes me a long time to digest technical papers now. I wish I had time to take some new genetics courses and "freshen up" - so many changes year to year now. And you are absolutely right about national pride being involved in domestication theories.

 

[centrarchid]

Lets not bash the scientists. They work very hard to find understanding. Initial findings may not always realize that aim but they seldom operate in a manner that is not beyond reproach.

 

[Lauravonsmurf]

Lets not bash the scientists. They work very hard to find understanding. Initial findings may not always realize that aim but they seldom operate in a manner that is not beyond reproach.

I am not trying to bash them, I am just being honest. I have learned that some scientists are ethical people, while others are not, just like in other fields. Scientists are humans and thus sometimes the very human flaws of human nature have an effect on what is presented to the world as fact. It is okay to question authority even scientific authority... in fact the data should be able to stand up to review. "I have a degree" or "I am a scientist" means zero to me until I see the quality of someone's work. The papers posted look like well done studies to me.

I do not think these groups are trying to be unethical, but they are all starting with a hypothesis (even if not stated in the paper) that they are trying to prove. I may lean towards one way of thinking about this but if someone presented me with strong evidence of one event with diffusion of the DC from one local I would accept that. I have not actually ruled any idea out. I have no vested interest one way or another on what the data ultimately will show, I really do look forward to more studies by different groups of scientists from different fields.

Plus for me it is an excuse to blow the cobwebs out of the brain and try and get up to speed on what's new in the genetics world since the 1980s.

Science! I really do love it!