The Hybrid

[Resolution]

Moving ahead, let's touch on the problem of ecological species .

In some situations, what may appear to be a good species is actually something slightly more effusive. It's an ecological form adapted to a unique habitat. It's essentially identical with another ecological form living in another unique habitat. They might be described as distinct species and given the situation where both were separated off onto separate islands they just might become actual species, that is two different forms that simply cannot interbreed.


In many regions where diverse habitats are spread out over huge expanses, ancient ecological histories producing endless mosaics branching out across the foothills or savannah for example, there will be small pockets of different ecological species thriving on their own respective ecological oases.

One way to visualise this is to imagine elevation of a mountain range. The geographic populations of a high altitude eco-species may be adapted to very different ecological parameters than those at the lowest elevational zone of that same mountain range. A third and even forth elevational form, quite distinctive from the aforementioned high and low altitude forms may exist that are somewhat intermediate to the same. They may also be quite unlike the other forms, so different or uncharacteristic is the preferred habitat of that one mid-elevational form.

Lophura annamensis engelbachii/lewisi

For example, the Silver Pheasant lives at high elevations. They are adapted for life in deciduous montane bamboo grassland and montane mixed pine and bamboo forest.
The seemingly showy males are quite camouflaged at night and when snow, and/or winter grassland are dominating features of the landscape. This is an important attribute of phenotype in pheasants that needs to be kept in mind at all times. People get into the habit of looking at wild species as fitting into some standard of perfection, which is just silly. There are no standards in nature. A male silver pheasant that lives at 12-15,000' elevation is often much showier and whiter with finer vermiculation than a form that lives at more moderate elevations. Females are equally tied to the ecosystem- their critical camouflage being on the nest and foraging in the forest.

Lophura diardi

Concurrently, the closely related Crested Fireback Pheasant lives at the lowest elevations, adapted for life in swamp forest and bamboo hill forest.
It is concealed in the shade of the forest.

and between them in elevation resides the Edward's Kalij Pheasant, which lives at moderate elevations, adapted for life in sub montane evergreen forest and cloud forest.

There are regions where two respective habitats merge or crash into one another. These regions are unstable in nature. They migrate up and down the mountain slopes and back and forth across box canyons over millenia. Similarly unstable "hybrid swarms" have been known to follow them.

Imperial Kalij Pheasant

The Imperial Pheasant is one such creature. Wherever the Edward's Kalij comes into contact with high altitude silver or low altitude fireback it produces the Imperial morph.

To a systematist, this might suggest that the Imperial morph may be a close approximation of the common ancestor of all the aforementioned ecological forms{ species.

In other words, before there were any Silver, Edwards, or Fireback there may have been a small, dark species that inhabited an ecological zone that gave way to new forest types over time. With the new forest habitats evolved new ecological species of Lophura pheasant until there came to be high altitude forms, moderate altitude forms and low altitude forms.

Even while the Imperial known to us in captivity may resemble a theoretical ancestor, it is not a species.

The fact that it is not a species should not discourage people from maintaining any populations that might still exist from the selective breeding initiatives of Delacour et al.
It should however discourage further allocation of conservation dollars into locating wild populations of the morph.

I was asked to produce the Imperialis morph by conservation biologists, which I did using the three species involved. Other scientists followed suit in order for independent verification of the phenomenon.

It's unlikely that we will share or trade offspring across the sea with one another but the potential is there, if it were one day determined that the hybrid progeny maintained might be of further use to science. Inheritance experiments for example. But neither facility will be polluting the gene pool of either of the parental species with the Imperial morphs' demes.

I'm not relating this experience to condone or encourage intentional hybrids or intercrosses but rather to illustrate the complexity of the issue and to explain the value that some hybrids or intercrosses have been to science.

As so few people rearing wild birds or domestic breeds these days seem to comprehend the difference between a species and a breed, much less subspecies, ecospecies or superspecies- it seems prudent to discourage everyone from producing intercrosses or hybrids of any kind. This has been the driving message of all the serious aviculturists for many decades now. It is disturbing to everyone invested in the discipline of aviculture and conservation how few hobbyists take this to heart. They are in the get rich quick and f(oul) everyone that doesn't like it guild.

I would however, encourage the beginner to only work with domestic mutations instead of wild species and suggest they move on to existing hybrid mutations; building on experience, all the while embracing an ethic to keep lines separate and insist all that you encounter to do the same. Some are puzzled at this suggestion. These selectionists are going to kick everyone's butt with the level of documentation that they can and must bring to the field to make their investment worthwhile. Again, study the domestic cat industry.

It's unfortunate that some people feel that they need to continue making money off higher and higher % wild type hybrids- and unconscionable that they would then go on to sell that surplus stock at every swap meet and bird club sale as pure anything- to make a dollar.

You know who you are and you suck rotten eggs right out of the incubator. Knock it off. If you are a hybridologist follow the example of the exotic feline industry and get far and removed from the mother aviculturist that only capitulates non-mixed stock.

 

[Sir Birdaholic]

 

[oleduke]

I am of no mind to pick an Internet quarrel with anyone as I find all of this information fascinating. When facts or opinions are posted, I simply read them all, do research, LISTEN (pay attention to what is being said), and make an informed decision on what has been provided. Resolution seems like an intelligent person with a lot of important information and experience on the "pheasant" subject. That being said, it is still only my opinion.

I would still like to know about the hybridization of Red Golden's and Yellow Golden's. I posted in another thread what I have come across but no one knows or is willing to respond to it. Since Resolution seems to have more knowledge on hybrids than myself, maybe he will address the questions/statements I made. To sum up what is in the other thread: if a Red Golden Male is bred with a Yellow Golden Female what would the birds look like?

The Yellow Golden was created by selective breeding and its ancestors are Red Golden's if I am not mistaken. Please feel free to elaborate or correct me where necessary. I do not breed hybrids but I would really like to see pictures of what the offspring may or would look like. Please don't give me XY, heterogeneous, etc... as it will simply go over my head. I am no idiot but that is not my field of expertise. I am honestly not being sarcastic, but I really would like "helpful" feedback.

Thanks

 

[Resolution]

Quote:

That XY heterogeneous stuff soars right above my head too.

The short of it is this, a Ghigi's Golden is the domestic descendant of the wild Golden Pheasant Chrysolophus pictus. I am pretty certain that I read that hybridization between a Swinhoe's and a Golden were produced in Ghighi's laboratory, a fertile male being used in subsequent crosses that took more than a decade as so many hybrid progeny were sterile or produced eggs that could not hatch. Eventually, as the experiment continued, breeding back to Goldens for nearly twenty years, they came across the Ghighi's Golden or Yellow Golden as people have taken to calling it. This is what I recall reading but many people have disagreed with me.

At any rate, the Ghighi is a strictly domestic breed of alternative livestock so far as I am concerned. If your Red Golden came from Kurt Landig or Clarence Bir or some other reputable breeder you wouldn't be pairing it with anything that didn't come from a similar source. If you picked up a Red Golden at a swap meet it may well be the normal coloured sport of someone's exhaustive artificial selection initiative attempting to create some domestic mutation of the Golden Pheasant.

In short, you would likely produce birds that look very similar if not almost identical to the Red Golden. Here lies the rub. The fact that they are so similar is what is disconcerting. An unethical person will turn around and sell that stock as pure Red Golden without so much as a hiccup of self loathing. I rather doubt that this describes your character or you wouldn't be transparently asking the question. You will produce mostly Red Goldens unless one of the goldens recent ancestors was a Ghigi, then you would probably produce more of the same and or some of the other mutations one sees about these days. You won't sell them but the other guy will and does. Often he's just a middle man.

That's the problem. No sense of personal accountability. Everyone is quick to blame the sold them the birds. Few demand records documenting the inferred value of the stock.
Personally, if the aviculturist has no qualms picking up birds on the cheap, foregoing any documentation of the birds she or he is purchasing, they too are contributing to the problem of unethical breeding practices.

What happens is people can afford to buy incubators and produce hundreds of chicks which they end up selling for the cost of feed. They are obliged to sell the stock that does not meet their criteria - expressing whatever mutation they are breeding for- or those that belie domestic mutation ancestry; hybrid ancestry etc. They dump that stock on the market. I may or may not ask for documentation that one expects from a dog or horse exchange but I really appreciate it when someone just has a little blank book they picked up for three bucks at a stationary store or supermarket- it will outline the history of the bird and its recent ancestors- I won't buy the bird if it is just passing through from some wheeler dealer- I hate those guys. I prefer to only purchase birds that were parent-reared by birds hatched at that aviculturists facilities. Even better if they have been at that facility for several generations. That small book will outline what stock came in and include the notes from their buddies that also contributed genestock.
Some people are so paranoid about every little thing. I don't need names and numbers just initials and dates and some inckling that you are not a wheeler dealer or someone that just sees birds as material possessions used to make a dime. If you are going to sell me a pair of pheasants, which Im going to have to drive to you to get or pay for shipping and boxes or whatever- but you won't take the time to make me a tiny breed registry- you don't cherish your stock enough to do that or respect my time and energy enough to do that- then you are not ready to participate in real aviculture. That doesn't mean what you're doing doesn't have merit. It also doesn't mean that your stock is not going to impact the genetic integrity of the larger gene pool.

I don't want my Red Goldens to be domestic goldens any more than I want my Red Junglefowl to be modern games. I appreciate both in their respective forms and can respect a disciplined selective breeding master that has, on occasion, dipped back into the Red Jf gene pool and only in one direction, that being into the domestic and not the other way around. But the disciplined poultier and domestic gamebird selectionist is fully aware that domestic breeds of both pheasants and chickens are more often disease vectors than their wild progenitors because substandard husbandry practices are status-quo for the majority of people keeping them. They just don't have the foundations of responsible husbandry required to keep purely wild species. You wont find a professional aviculturist allowing his captive born wild species to stand in moulted feathers, for instance. The novice has yet to learn why that practice is most regrettable and we've all ended up in that situation a few times in our avicultural careers.

People that raise domestic mutations should not intercross them with wild captive stock. If they do, they must be responsible and either destroy the progeny or permanently identify that progeny with documentation. It can simply never leave your property if a party willing to take that stock off your hands is not prepared to maintain it ethically to the standards of conservation aviculture. If they will not maintain and contribute to your domestic breed or hybrid mutation registry they are not responsible enough to have dealings with. Your stock becomes junk two steps out of your door and your reputation with it if that person ends up being a wheeler dealer. This is why it is up to you to protect the collective stock of everyone by being proactive and contributing something back to the birds, which amounts to acknowledging how much you appreciate all that they have brought into your life.

 

[Choctaw Valley Farm]

Quote:
I fear there are just too many drunken hillybillies and such doing this as a "hobby" who cannot comprehend the significance of the potential consequences. Actually, I think the thing is that they refuse to acknowledge the real danger that they themselves are posing with their little projects. I personally take a pretty hard-line approach to such breeding projects even between breeds of chickens because a major f[oul] up doesn't even require actual outright deception, such as misrepresentation while selling. It can occur under the most ignorantly blissful, well-intentioned circumstances. I think these offspring just simply should not be put out there in the general public. For example, crossing Marans and "World Fair Quechua" to make Olive Eggers...what do I do with all the culls? I don't want some mutt that looks 100% Marans in phenotype out there, not even in June Cleaver's backyard. The next thing you know, Beaver Cleaver is selling Marans chicks on craigslist and there you have it... And that's "just a chicken". The stakes are so much higher in the case of wild captive stock.

Do we even have any 100% pure RJF anymore? Anywhere...on earth?
​

The Red Jungle Fowl that I seen yesterday for sale looked more like an over sized BB Red OEGB or like a Bantam Leghorn.

 

[Resolution]

I've seen quite a few wild Red Junglefowl that are as naturally selected as they come in Western Yunnan China and the Shan states of Myanmar. There may be many other populations that I don't know about. Consequently, I'm not quite as ready to write off the Red JF as extinct as some others are just yet. It certainly is in major trouble in captive populations. There can be no question of that. Crossing different breeds (crossbreeding) of poultry doesn't quite equate with hybridizing captive wild species or even intercrossing domestic breeds of wild species like the Ghighi's yellow golden with clearly defined lines of Red Golden but it still creates problems and falls in the realm of ethics. In my opinion, we are observing the demise of ethical dealings with these last five or ten generations of hobbyists and commercial breeders. They simply fail to appreciate the significance of their actions; don't care or just need to make that dollar, F(oul) ewe to the unwitting that purchase stock from these sources ( including the swap meets that encourage a free for all in the interest of money first ethics last). I've been watching the steady melt down of the "fancy peacock" debacle for some time now. There are some master selectionists out there, and then there is everyone else. Everyone elses' stock is dumped on the open market and its definitely having a negative impact on the populations of captive peafowl. The rage of golden pheasant mutations seems to be headed in the same direction unfortunately. We've already witnessed the near extinction in captivity of what must be considered as among the most exquisite of all pheasants, those familiar members of the diverse Phasianus genus. The special interests of game hunting enthusiasts trumps conservation as these "sport" hunters encourage private breeders and commercial breeders alike to intercross different subspecies to produce strains of birds that exhibit superior flightiness- making more interesting targets on wing...

It's interesting that you've brought up World's Fair Quechua because of course it is already a carefully constructed crossbreed ( Quechua x Eurasian dual purpose white egg producers and selectively bred for generations = WFQ or Ameraucana) that has over time become a well-defined breed.
So has the Rhode Island Red, another carefully constructed crossbreed ( Malay Game X Y and Z etc.); and the Marans ( Bankivoid Game X Langshan etc. etc. )

It does come down to ethics. The olive egg selectionista are a whole new breed unto themselves. The onus is on them to take up breed registries, collaborate and work with direction and purpose to define their new subbreeds. I purposely haven't touched much on domestics yet because managing flocks versus pairs presents its own challenges.

I feel as if the concept of species and breed constantly gets conflated so let's take another few looks at taxonomy; systematics; family, genera and species before traveling down that well-trodden path that leads to domestic variations of a theme.

I do have to agree with you about the comprehension level of many a hobbyist these days. It does seem to be more or less directly related to a sort of undisciplined directive to "do whatever I darn well feel like cause this is Amerika and Freedom aint free!" and " breed em up like chickens (wild species) to save em from dyin out in the wild!"

That said, we need all hands on deck. I've often argued that one of the most endangered of husbanders is the artificial selectionists and without them we live in a world of big corporations producing all our domestic strains of livestock and crops- leaving us in the very dangerous position of being powerless to generate our own food.

It's a different topic but related and interlocked with the first. Encourage the discipline of artificial selection regardless of the education level or socio-economic strata of the husbander because its of vital importance to humanity and national interest in every country. I'll touch on how selective breeding initiatives are coming to life in countries like Chile that have contributed their cultural heritage breeds to highly developed nations, as our own, but lost sight of what it is that they gave away and in the process, very nearly lost the breeds themselves.

Anyway- back to the hybrid between genera and between species and how that may or may not impact speciation.

 

[Resolution]

If you are reading this page you likely keep Pheasants and or Partridges and or Chukar (which are actually not partridges).
You should know that they belong to a well-defined and ancient order known as the Galliformes. The Chukar is not a member of the monophyletic family Phasianidae that includes the Genuine Pheasants ( Silvers, Goldens, Long-Tailed, Cheer, Eared and True Pheasants) and the Perdix Partridge but it is a member of the same order. (* This author prescribes to the theory that each of the major deeply rooted clades of the former Phasianidae should be split into a number of families, a theory that is not embraced by all scientists.)

To make this a bit less reflexive lets have a look at a subset of the Ruminantia order.

Amongst the more familiar families of Ruminants we have a curious end note consisting of two related families that shared a common ancestor at a period well before a good deal of the other Ruminants had even emerged from their primitive ancestors. This deeply rooted trunk branched into the two families below. Strange as it may seem these creatures are one another's closest living relatives.

Family Giraffidae

Genus Giraffa

Species Giraffa camelopardalis Giraffe

Genus Okapia

Species Okapia johnstoni Okapi

Family Antilocapridae

Genus Antilocapra

Species Antilocapra americana Pronghorn

The common ancestors of these two well-demarcated families (Pronghorns and Giraffes ) belonged to a once extremely successful monophyletic family of its own.

The existing species are just tiny remnants of a once bustling and diverse menagerie of multiple bony-horned ruminants with strangely elongated faces and unique foot and rib morphology.

Getting back to the issue of the hybrid as it relates to higher systematics ( versus this deeply rooted phylogeny illustrated above), both the Giraffe and the Pronghorn are described by some authors as single species that are broken up into several (Giraffe) or a very few (Pronghorn) geographic races or subspecies.

The question of the validity of each respective geographic population often amounts to the appearance of the creature in question. Molecular data is very helpful as it helps us determine which are variations of a phenotypical theme that share the majority of their genetic markers and distinguish those from actual species, those populations with significant divergences.

Of course, when the first giraffes were imported into foreign countries to grace zoological gardens and private estates, there was no such thing as molecular data. People were thrilled to have any giraffe at all and so many of our captive giraffes are composites or intercrosses between geographic forms.

Who can determine the value of a composite? It determines what level of evolutionary novelty the cooperative effort is interested in conserving.

Many of you are wondering why I felt it necessary to delve so deep into the ancient ancestry of the Giraffes and Pronghorn " antelopes" to make a point about hybridization of captive Landfowls. It all comes down to relative ages of taxa. While we are astonished at the diversity of fossil giraffes and pronghorns and perhaps even more surprised by the findings that they are one anothers closest living relatives, that they shared more common ancestors with one another than say either shared with deer or genuine antelopes; cattle or camels for that matter, we appreciate the great time that these creatures have roamed this wonderful earth**.

But as old as we might envision these two great families nested within the greater ruminant order evidently are, they are still babes in the woods in direct comparison to many of the birds we keep in our aviaries. The genetic distances between Giraffe and Okapi are comparable to the distances between Reeves Pheasant and Mikado Pheasant.

The genetic distance between the Giraffe family and the Pronghorn is comparable to that between the Reeves Pheasant and the Sage Grouse, which is surprisingly not that far.
The Reeves Pheasant and Sage Grouse shared a common, monophyletic ancestor just as the Giraffes and Pronghorn did. The Reeve's Pheasant is more closey related to the Sage Grouse than either are related to Junglefowl, Peafowl, Chukar or Guineafowl for instance. These pheasant-like birds are older than the pheasants and the grouses.
Their placement on the phylogeny tree of the Galliformes is more akin to where the Camels and Pigs are placed beneath the Ruminants on the phylogeny tree above. The Guineafowl are basal or "primitive" the Junglefowl, Peafowl and Chukar are as well but derived from the base. The Pheasants and Grouses are derived of the latter tree.

So we might wonder why birds are grouped as genera rather than families. I can't answer that but it should be suffice to say that the difference between a Junglefowl and a Pheasant are of such enormous magnitude - someone that labours at producing a hybrid between a chicken and a pheasant is producing a guaranteed dead end with no possible second generation. They are simply not closely related enough and their progeny are neither biologically male or female.


Landfowl are much more conservative in body plans and ecological niches than ruminants. Consequently, the Landfowl all look much more closely related to one another than say deer and antelope may to some people.

Waterfowl are a different topic and subject altogether and there is simply no way to neatly generalise anything about them as it relates to hybridization between species, genera and even families.


**I do realise that some of you cannot prescribe to the precepts of evolutionary biology as it relates to the geologic age of this planet and this conversation will consequently be of very little if any use for you.

 

[Resolution]

Let's take this a step further. Guineafowl form an ancient, well-defined family of their own known as the Numididae.

The Numididae is further split into a number of genera.

Like the Giraffe superspecies, the collective geographic populations of Guttera Guineafowl had an extensive range, which covered a great deal of the African continent.

The Plumed Guineafowl is akin to the Okapi in its relationship to the Giraffe as G. plumifera is quite unlike other Crested Guineafowl. It does not interbreed with them and inhabits habitats quite unlike those preferred by typical Guttera. It should probably be elevated into its own genus.

The other Guttera Guineafowl are quite unlike in appearance, size and are scattered over a wide geographic range.
Two of the nominate phases being the fringe forest adapted "Kenya Crested"

and the more or less closed canopy forest adapted " Edward's Crested".

Like Giraffes, there are any number of unusual geographic populations that are quite unique in appearance and range. Many of these are isolated from other populations and are defined as subspecies.

The closer we look at the Guttera guineafowl ( and giraffes) the more we realise that theirs is a complex evolutionary mosaic. Some forms may even be good species.
Others are recent populations formed by the intercrossing of two or more geographic or ecological races that have merged- for example with the emergence of new forest habitat of unique composition subsequent to a large volcanic explosion that destroyed large swaths of former habitat - respective ecolological zones preferred by respective geographic races- new flocks forming along rivers consisting of mixed populations; these populations migrating into the new forest habitat - forming a new sub-montane form for example.

Differences between the Guttera Guineafowl and other Guineafowl, for example Numida ( the group to which our familiar domestic guineafowl belong) are easily as large as those exhibited between Giraffe and Pronghorn families.
Again, why birds are not afforded the same level of taxonomic rank is a mystery to me.
Guttera and Numida are considered two different genera within a single family.

No hybrids between Guttera and Numida are possible. They simply cannot interbreed.
They could probably be elevated in rank into different subfamilies but we have the issue of

the basal Guineafowl genera:

Agelastes

Acryllium

Phasidus (Telecrex)

Agelastes, Acryllium and Phasidus, the spurred guineafowls. Hybridization between Acryllium and Numida is common, producing sterile progeny.
Strangely, there are some geographic forms of Numida that have been hybridized with Acryllium that were partially fertile and were capable breeding back to the Numida parental species or a third Numida form. We will touch on this again in a discussion on the possible role of hybridization in the formation of some species and genera.

Similarly, the other two spurred guineafowl genera Agelastes and Phasidus (Telecrex) have been recorded hybridizing with members of both Guttera and Acryllium but strangely incapable of interbreeding with one another.

I'm attempting elucidate how distantly related some species and genera are from one another and how they are related to common ancestors.
This is all in an attempt to not only distinguish, but to also underscore the difference between a true hybrid between barely related species from different genera and intercrosses between geographic races.

It goes without saying that yet another magnitude of difference is the topic of crossing different domestic breeds of a single domestic species.

By the way, for those interested, the Roul Roul, Polyplectron, Peafowl are likely more closely allied with spurred guineafowl than any are to partridges or pheasants.
The Ithagenis snow thorn or Blood Pheasant is another topic altogether for it appears both basal to all genuine pheasants and grouses- it also appears to be derived of an extinct fossil species of spurred guineafowl called Telecrex .

Getting back to the narrow definition of hybrid, it is too easy to purchase Kenya Crested Guineafowl from one importer and yet some others from a breeder that accrued her or his stock from yet another and end up recombining representatives of two different geographic populations. As this happens with Peacock Pheasants, Koklass, Tragopans and Green Peafowl, it is prudent to resist finger pointing.

The issue is going to always come back to documentation and cooperation between serious aviculturists.

 

[SamG347]

I fear there are just too many drunken hillybillies and such doing this as a "hobby" who cannot comprehend the significance of the potential consequences.

Umm first off we prefer to be called Appalachians! I think you guys are all fine and dandy talking about the "Dooms Day" of pheasant and exotic fowl species because of cross breeding and hybridization. And Resolution you obviously know what your talking about. But lets be real here people. Do not get mad or angry because someone might be crossing their birds in a way you see to be threatening of the species. Sure some exotics are rare and need to be kept pure. But the birds getting crossed are ringnecks....red golden varieties.....amherst...etc. These birds are more common than Barred Rocks. Everyone who has or breeds gamebirds knows of them and if they are like me could call up 10-20 breeders that have them to get them from. Even big name hatcheries have these birds for sale. There is no immediate threat in my eyes of these birds dieing out...well not in my lifetime at least...or my kids...or their kids.

Yes I do this as a hobby and no I might not be a geneticist or a harvard grad but for someone to make an ignorant comment like the one posted above is just funny to me. Especially about a subject that really calls for no bashing but just a sharing of the facts. I fully understand whats going on and I would say all of the "hillybillie" breeders I know understand it and avoid more than you would be able to "comprehend" coq au vin!​

 

[coq au vin]

Quote:
Hatchery Barred Rocks or real Barred Rocks?

Quote:
If the shoe fits, by all means, do us a favor and put it on. If not, no need to get bent over a comment directed at no particular person. I have hillybillies in my lineage as well.