This really interesting and also relevant to all other poultry breeds in existence. It would be nice to collect on this here knowledge here. Some interesting historical, archaeological and genetic information exists or is being developed.
Bankovid versus Oriental Gamefowl
- Thread starter centrarchid
- Start date
- Aug 16, 2013
- 1,096
- 1,349
- 256
There has been much conjecture. There is no doubt that most of the first domestication of the chicken was for their use as gamefowl. There is no doubt that the bankivoid fowl strongly resemble their namesake gallus gallus bankiva, though more probably descended from galus gallus gallus.
The other designation for gamefowl is malayoid or shamoid. I rather take exception to the term "malayoid" as a Malay is a fairly recent invention used to describe the various birds of southern India and Bangladesh that were brought to Europe and named Malay, because that is where the Dutch traders sailed from. We know that Shamoid is probably more historically correct, but still incorrect, as shamo is a derivation of the word "Siam" which is modern day Thailand. So the Japanese give a hint that their birds came from Thailand, where Thai games share features of the Shamo. They share these traits with the Asil of India and Pakistan, the Lari of Iran, the Hint Horoz of Turkey.
Many have conjectured that there was a different ancestor. Gallus Giganteus. BW Saylor thought he found this missing link in the Saipan jungle fowl, which was nothing more than a strain of feral Shamo.The Shamoids do lack hollow bones, are lager, longer legged and longer necked, have bare skin patches, have a shorter intestinal tract, a different skull structure, can see in the dark, are more prone to run than fly, have brittle feathers, a short crow, but outside of those things there is little evidence that such a parent bird existed, and what we are seeing is simply a mutation. No different than the fact that a pug looks nothing like a wolf, yet is descended from a wolf.
So since we are not dealing with a different species, so we are told by the scholars, the question is where did this mutation first occur? I would conjecture that we look no further than Vietnam. The Ga Noi Don has the most exaggerated oriental game features. Certainly within trading distance of all of the offshoots. Even the madagascar game has roots in Vietnam, it perhaps having even more exaggerated oriental features, possibly a purer strain of Ga Noi from an earlier time. The huge footed dong tao shares some of these features, coming from the same area. No doubt there were some interesting mutations stemming from that area.
The answers are shrouded in the mists of time, there has been so much trading and reblending over thousands of years, that it's hard to say. Since we have indigenous breeds that exibit those traits in that area, somewhere between the middle east and the far east is the epicenter for the mutation to have occurred, which also happens to be somewhere very close to the epicenter for chicken domestication itself.
The other designation for gamefowl is malayoid or shamoid. I rather take exception to the term "malayoid" as a Malay is a fairly recent invention used to describe the various birds of southern India and Bangladesh that were brought to Europe and named Malay, because that is where the Dutch traders sailed from. We know that Shamoid is probably more historically correct, but still incorrect, as shamo is a derivation of the word "Siam" which is modern day Thailand. So the Japanese give a hint that their birds came from Thailand, where Thai games share features of the Shamo. They share these traits with the Asil of India and Pakistan, the Lari of Iran, the Hint Horoz of Turkey.
Many have conjectured that there was a different ancestor. Gallus Giganteus. BW Saylor thought he found this missing link in the Saipan jungle fowl, which was nothing more than a strain of feral Shamo.The Shamoids do lack hollow bones, are lager, longer legged and longer necked, have bare skin patches, have a shorter intestinal tract, a different skull structure, can see in the dark, are more prone to run than fly, have brittle feathers, a short crow, but outside of those things there is little evidence that such a parent bird existed, and what we are seeing is simply a mutation. No different than the fact that a pug looks nothing like a wolf, yet is descended from a wolf.
So since we are not dealing with a different species, so we are told by the scholars, the question is where did this mutation first occur? I would conjecture that we look no further than Vietnam. The Ga Noi Don has the most exaggerated oriental game features. Certainly within trading distance of all of the offshoots. Even the madagascar game has roots in Vietnam, it perhaps having even more exaggerated oriental features, possibly a purer strain of Ga Noi from an earlier time. The huge footed dong tao shares some of these features, coming from the same area. No doubt there were some interesting mutations stemming from that area.
The answers are shrouded in the mists of time, there has been so much trading and reblending over thousands of years, that it's hard to say. Since we have indigenous breeds that exibit those traits in that area, somewhere between the middle east and the far east is the epicenter for the mutation to have occurred, which also happens to be somewhere very close to the epicenter for chicken domestication itself.
Recent Studies on Genetics of the domestic chickens have confirm that statement(no contribuition from Gallus G Bankiva to domestic chickens, so calling any chicken breed that is not of clear Malayoid type a Bankivoid is really misleading)
The Origin and Genetic Variation of Domestic Chickens with Special Reference to Junglefowls Gallus g. gallus and G. varius
excerpt: "Using the D-loop sequences of mitochondrial DNA (mtDNA) in various gallinaceous birds in family Phasianidae, Fumihito et al. concluded that two red junglefowl subspecies, G. g. gallusand G. g. spadiceus, are the direct ancestors of chickens, but that another subspecies, G. g. bankiva, does not contribute"
"This conclusion was subsequently supported by other studies using microsatellite DNA and a large number of D-loop sequences. Recently, these molecular data also show that Indian red junglefowl (G. g. murghi) also contributes to the domestication, as well as G. g. gallus and G. g. spadiceus. In particular, the analysis of the entire mtDNA genome showed the presence of identical haplotypes between gray junglefowl and chickens, and the nucDNA analysis of CR1 and OTC loci demonstrated an intermingling clustering pattern among chickens, red and gray junglefowls. These results raised the possibility that junglefowls other than red junglefowl were also involved in the domestication of chickens. In accordance with this possibility, genes responsible for yellow leg skin could be derived from gray junglefowl during the domestication"
I highlighted that part because I recently created a Thread about that conclusion here(which of course did not receive many responses):
Yellow Skin, Clear Yellow Shanks = Grey Junglefowl/Ceylon Junglefowl introgression: https://www.backyardchickens.com/th...fowl-ceylon-junglefowl-introgression.1315425/
Here is the 5 subspecies of Red Jungle Fowls
https://www.researchgate.net/figure...g-jabouillei-2-Gg-bankiva-3-Gg_fig2_283495638
- Thread starter
- #4
How many mutations are involved in the upright posture of the shamoid games? The other differences you indicate could be in response to different selective pressures operating on mutations accrued over the millennia since first domestication. Or they could the result of a very different jungle fowl involved in their initial development that no longer exists? I have difficulty seeing a less flight capable wild jungle fowl developing where there are many terrestrial predators. Such a jungle fowl on a island lacking major terrestrial predators is much more plausible.
I am yet to look, but wander if the shamoid type chickens where treated in the larger genetic studies.
I am yet to look, but wander if the shamoid type chickens where treated in the larger genetic studies.
- Thread starter
- #5
Gallus gallus bankiva does not equal bankavoid. Former is a subspecies while latter is composite of breeds having a particular look and may not represent a true taxonomic grouping.
I believe you were trying to type "Bankivoid"? So you mean to say that "Bankivoids" are a composite breed of game fowl that are not descendants from Gallus gallus bankiva? Basically a domesticated chicken? The weird thing is that I keep hearing that term us for European type of game birds(OEG, Spaniards, American Game)
- Thread starter
- #7
It is the weird usage that is involved. The "oid" ending I associate with meaning "like". I am not an advocate of chickens being derived from only one Red Jungle Fowl subspecies on the Red Jungle Fowl side. I can not spell well enough to get out of jail.
How the word bankiva was developed may be contributing to current confusion.
- Aug 16, 2013
- 1,096
- 1,349
- 256
The use of the term "bankivoid" or "bankivoid" to describe Spanish, English or American gamefowl has long been in practice to differentiate between them and the malayoid or shamoid type. Based largely on historic writings on the subject by those such as Finterbush and Atkinson. At the time of such writing the ever changing world of taxonomy and the lack of DNA knowledge most likely led the writers to assume that gallus gallus bankiva was the ancestor of such fowl.
- Aug 16, 2013
- 1,096
- 1,349
- 256
From what I understand there is more current research going on encompassing genetic material from bonafide shamoid examples, instead of just assuming that modern breeds shared genetics with these birds based on breed histories, when in fact they could just be approximations by hatcheries or breeders with none of the historic breed makeup. It will be interesting to see what the new research turns up. I'm still not writing off the possibility of an unknown ancestor, but I believe a mutation is responsible.
One problem with dna research is that finding a wild red jungle fowl that can be verified free of any input from a wandering village chicken gone feral is next to impossible. Chickens have been raised in captivity in wrjf habitat since before written history. Such village chickens are still in a very unrefined state and go feral quite easily.
One problem with dna research is that finding a wild red jungle fowl that can be verified free of any input from a wandering village chicken gone feral is next to impossible. Chickens have been raised in captivity in wrjf habitat since before written history. Such village chickens are still in a very unrefined state and go feral quite easily.
- Thread starter
- #10
I bet the introgression from domestic into wild stocks can be dealt with. There will be many novel alleles in the wild stocks that are not in any domestics making it possible to work out relationships between different wild stocks and the different branches of of the current and past domestic chicken family.
Sampling will need to involve localities from which breeds were developed. The technology is now to point where they can test bones and possibly even feathers from chickens that died long ago.
Similar threads
New posts New threads Active threads
-
Latest threads
-
-
-
-
-
Limping hen. Help please!
- Started by Karilynn624
- Replies: 3
-
-
Threads with more replies in the last 15 days
-
