User:Frankyboy5/Green Peafowl Species
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
The Green Peafowl is one of my favorite birds. It's one of the most beautiful. I believe there is a possibility that there is six species of the Green Peafowl. Some believe there should be subspecies inside a subspecies, as in Pavo muticus annamensis angkorensi. Peafowl look so distinct that some believe they should be included in their own family, unrelated to pheasants. Some genetic work has proven that Peafowl are unrelated to pheasants [1].
The top researchers in this notion are Kermit Blackwood, and Wolfgang Mennig. Kermit believes in the generally accepted taxonomy, but his preliminary data supports the notion of multiple species.
[edit] Malay or Pahang Dragonbird Pavo muticus
Formerly P. m. muticus. Subspecies include Greater Malay (nominate muticus), Resplendent Kra or Lesser Pahang (malacensi or malacense).
This bird is likely extinct in the wild. Some birds still exist in captivity. This is the brightest of the six species. This species was thought to be identical to the Javanese Dragonbird, but fossil records from the Pliocene epoch rules this out. However, some believe that they are identical, as recent DNA tests were done [2]. But still, it's possible. Maybe they are conspecific but are different morphotypes or different subspecies. Also, I believe that this was false information from the World Pheasant Association UK. Wolfgang Mennig of WPA Germany says that genetic work had actually disproved the two were identical. See below for more information.
[edit] Javanese Dragonbird Pavo javanensis
Formerly P. m. muticus. Subspecies include Sunda (nominate javanensis), Baluran (baluranensis).
Although this is a very brilliantly colored species, when compared to the Pahang, it is duller.
[edit] Arakan Dragonbird or Spicifer Pavo spicifer (or spiciferus)
Formerly Pavo m. spicifer. Subspecies include Southern (nominate spicifer), Arakan (arakansis), Yangon (yangonensis), Shan Plateau (name unknown), Salween (name unknown).
One of the most dullest (in my opinion, the Deqen form is duller), it has more blue plumage.
[edit] Indo-Chinese Dragonbird or Imperator Pavo imperator
Formerly P. m. imperator. Subspecies include the Kunming (yunnanensis), Tonkin (tonkinensis), Siamese (siamensis), Southern Vietnamese (cattiensis), and nominate (imperator).
This species is native to southeast Myanmar and Thailand. It actually has more color than the Javan or the Pahang, but just has just has less iridescence and therefore looks duller. The Siamese race (picture on top of page) is more closely related to the Indian Peafowl Pavo cristatus, so I think it might become a distinct species soon. The race cattiensis may be the same as siamensis.
The Kunming subspecies yunnanensis was the original Yunnan Dragon. There are at least four different forms of Dragonbirds in Yunnan. These are the Deqen P. antiqus, Greater Annamese P. a. annamensis, and the possible Shan Spicifer (P. spicifer unknown subspecies).
[edit] Annametic (or Annamese or Annamite) Dragonbird Pavo annamensis (or angkorensis)
Formerly P. m. imperator. Subspecies include Greater or Yunnan (nominate annamensis), Laotian or Bolovan Plateau (laotius), Bokor or Western Cambodian (isanapuransis, angkorensi, or bokorensis), Vietnamese (vietnamensis), Uthai Thani (name unknown)
Although this species is duller than the Pahang or the Javanese, it has the beautiful golden and coppery sheen on its body similar to the Pahang, making almost as colorful as the Pahang. The Bokor subspecies is unusual for Dragons because pairs make duet calls. This species inhabits broadleaf evergreen and hill forests of western Cambodia, Vietnam, Laos and southern Yunnan China, which are unusual habitats for Green Peafowl. The morphology of the bill, spur and crest are unique. The irides are unusually pale. Males exhibit dark blue black plates and blue crowns surmounted with well developed mounds and double crests. Females tend to exhibit intense golden and coppery colouration in the neck and upper breast. Both sexes show blue violet secondary wing coverts.
The WPA believes annamensis is a subspecies in the imperator group and treats all subspecies as geographical variations, or even subspecies inside subspecies. Foremost Green Peafowl expert Wolfgang Mennig who works for the WPA had also stated this.
[edit] Deqen Dragonbird Pavo antiqus (formerly Pavo suparnaensi)
Formerly P. m. imperator. Subspecies include Deqen (deqenisis), Yunnan (nominate antiqus).
The dullest of the six species, the Deqen Dragon has never been formally described by science. Although many regard the Spicifer to be the dullest of the Dragons, in my opinion, the Deqen Dragon is the dullest. It is one of the largest of all the species of Dragonbirds and one of the most distinctive. It was formerly known as the Yunnan Dragonbird, but renamed because many species exist in that area (the Kunming was also known as P. yunnanensis once creating confusion). This is probably the most oldest species, and the most closely related to the early peafowl Pavo Bravardi.
[edit] Hainan Dragonbird Pavo hainanensis (speculative name)
Extinct. It is said that it has mixed with the Tonkin Imperator (P. imperator tonkinensis) in captivity so some hybrids may still exist.
[edit] Notes
- Only some of the subspecies of each species are shown. This is because it has not been stated the name of every subspecies. It remains hard to determine how many subspecies exist for each species, and what their names are.
- I cite all statements from the photo gallery because it has more up-to-date taxonomy.
[edit] Taxonomic differences between the two sites
The MSN group's taxonomy is slightly outdated because:
- P. muticus and P. javanensis have been split because fossil records rule out that the species were identical.
- The Suparna Dragonbird Pavo suparnaensi has been renamed the Deqen Dragonbird P. antiqus.
[edit] Additional info
I was a skeptic of such species, because there were no sites with such information, until I saw an MSN group and this photo gallery discussing this topic. They are most likely made by the same people. A skeptic may say there is no evidence of such new species, but keeping true science in mind, I say there is no evidence that there isn't six species.
Because many breeders don't know about such species, the birds accidentally hybridize. The Pahang and Java are seen hybridising in captivity because many people think they are identical, but fossil records rule this out. Even worse, the Pahang is hybridising with the Imperator.
While a publication by the WPA UK stated Javans and Pahangs were the same, and made me think that the wrong subspecies was introduced, Wolfgang Mennig told me it was the Malay form that was introduced.
Only an expert can tell these species apart. Look at these skin comparisons between the Pahang and the Boloven Plateau (of species P. annamensis) Dragonbirds. Very different, right?
Here is what the guys on the MSN site said [3]:
| “ | As for the concept of three subspecies described by Delacour- preliminary data does not support the assemblage of:
As we find more genetic distance between specimens of the proposed Pavo imperator along the Annametic mountain range than would be normal for a race or subspecies. In other words, the tested specimens of peafowl from populations of "imperator" collected from one side of the Annametic mountain range are more distant genetically speaking- from one another than had been expected. Moreover, populations of peafowl from southern Yunnan and Southern Vietnam were found to be genetically isolated and most closely related to one another suggesting a single event probably ecological catastrophism about 2 million years ago that split that population. Still other populations of peafowl in Yunnan are clading closely with the Greater Annamese form. Two other distinct forms of green peafowl are to be found in Yunnan whose genetic history is poorly known. From very limited samples, the northern Yunnan forms are not closely related to any surviving green peafowl but a central Yunnan form which in turn shares some relationship with four distinct genotype lineages 1. western and southern spicifer 2. Greater Annamese and west Cambodian 3, Southern Vietnamese and Southern Yunnan/Laos imperator 4. Salween "spicifer" (isolated) We have not resolved Malaysian and Javanese interrelationships as of yet nor have we pinned down conclusively the relationship of the Siamese imperator which may prove to be more closely related to Javanese birds than the Malay which appears to be an isolated genotype not more closely allied to any of living green peafowl populations in the study but showing similarities with spicifer and annamensis. |
” |
[edit] WPA's views
The german World Pheasant Association site also states similar notions, although they think the bird is really three main subspecies, they think that the Imperator is a group of subspecies that contains the subspecies P. m. annamensis, which in turn contains the laotius, vietnamensis, and angkorensi. This is odd because those are subspecies inside subspecies [4]. There is also a mentioning of P. m. yunnanensis, which I think is the Kunming Imperator, not the Deqen Dragon. Wolfgang Mennig, a foremost Green Peafowl breeder, thinls it may be up to five distinct subspecies, the laotius, vietnamensis (alternative annamensis, says Mennig), and angkorensi being distinct too.
It has been revealed that Kermit Blackwood is a colleague and close friend of Wolfgang Mennig.
[edit] Red Data Book
The Red Data Book says that the birds of Yunnan, while not separated taxonomically, "differs in a few aspects from other forms, particularly in its forest-dwelling habits, an "odd, monal-like bill", a curiously long hind toe and longer, more slender wings (K. B. Woods in litt. 2000). Its taxonomic placement should perhaps be investigated further."
- K. B. Woods is Kermit Blackwood.
[edit] Malay Pahang and Javanese comparisons
Recent genetic work on the Pahang P. muticus and the Javanese Javanensis suggest that they are identical. However, I don't believe that to be true because:
- The Pahang looks very different from the Javanese.
- The Pahang is extinct in the wild, only a few numbers exist in captivity, so it's hard to know who's who.
- See below for what Kermit said.
[edit] Kermit Blackwood and Wolfgang Mennig's view: forms not identical
I (as Mario) recently asked Kermit Blackwood, a person who often posts comments on the Gallery site, and he said:
| “ |
Hi. Despite some recent publications there is no scientific data supporting the notion that Pahang and Javanese birds are genetically identical. I am very familiar with the recent research where the misinformation was unfortunately published. The individual responsible for taking the tissue samples from Raffle Natural History Museum 'inadvertantly' switched the tissue samples. This is a travesty because Javanese birds were recently introduced into Malaysia when more appropriate species with closer genetic relationships were also available in other zoological parks and on the mainland of Asia versus Java. These birds were captive born European reared peafowl originally imported from Java. The special interests of the WPA UK obviously trump true conservation science in this instance.
One can compare and contrast the natural collective range of the respective green peafowls with those of the Lophura Pheasants ( Kalij, Crested Firebacks, Silver Pheasants, edwards, swinhoes* crestless firebacks are more closely allied to the cheer pheasant/ Bulwer's is more closely allied with the golden/amherst)> Just as the Lophura pheasants of one ecosystem differ markedly from those endemic to another so too are the peafowls divergent phenotypically and genetically. It should be noted that peafowls are many tens of millions of years older than members of the pheasant family. They also travel further in flight than pheasants. Large rivers do not create barriers for peafowl as they do for many pheasants. All the same, river sheds/ flood zones are never inhabited by peafowl but are sometimes inhabited by Lophura pheasants. |
” |
[edit] Reintroductions into Malaysia and concerns
In 2005, The Star newspaper of Malaysia announced that the World Pheasant Association had made a successful reintroduction of the Green Peafowl back into Malaysia. This was where the Green Peafowl had become extinct for over forty years. The reintroduction was very successful. But knowing that the Java and Malay forms were not identical, could the wrong form have been reintroduced?
The Star claimed that research done by Dr. Ettore Randi, the most foremost authority of bird DNA, showed that the Malaysian form was the same as the Javan. Further emphasizing the possibility of the Javan being accidentally reintroduced, was that the photo of the group of young birds was identified by Kermit as the Baluran race of the Javan.
For a moment, I thought that the Green Peafowl currently living in Malaysia were of the wrong species.
But I got very encouraging news. I recently e-mailed Wolfgang Mennig and this is what he told me:
| “ | I know, because I was involved from the beginning first day, that the birds send to Malaysia were not Javanese birds. All birds were DNA tested before and compare material, called "reference markers", were skin and feather parts from birds of the Museum of Natural History in Tring / England and Raffles Museum / Singapore. I have all those markers here at home to start a new DNA research here in Germany this time. These markers are proovable all from birds collected near 1900 in Malaysia, f. e. in Sungkai, Korhan Trang, Wimpong or Ulu Pahang. All those skins are of that age and collected by hunting, so we can be sure that nothing was mixed before in humans hands. That this DNA control had been done before transporting birds to Malaysia was the most importing thing for the WPA, because that would be a large fault to reintroduce birds of wrong ancestors, a noncorrectable fault. I am member of the WPA and have a very critical eye on this project, believe me. Caused by that I have not only friends there, but the project is too important to let it go unwatched. So, all parental birds of the sended material were DNA tested as being pure Malaysian birds, my own birds and those from GB. They were not taken uncontrolled and send to Malaysia, as you might think. The Malaysian Government, the Department of Wildlife and National Parks and the WPA, had set up these regulations before starting the project. You can´t imagine what efforts the WPA did make to have this project running. There were hired many rangers to be responsible in person for each single bird sent there. Aviaries were build and the whole agriculture was changed by the Malaysian government, especiallly for this project. Isn´t that some kind of honourable by the WPA ? I see this positive, expecting the project will work.
Regarding the Pavo muticus muticus, it´s fact, that those from Malaysia (extinct now since the 1960s) and those from Java are different. There are even some differences easy to see for nonspecialists, the shape and keeping of the crest is one. |
” |
So, they never even did the comparison of the DNA of the Javanese and Malay! Instead, they knew the differences and just tried to check if the birds they reintroduced were Malaysian. Then misleading facts were added because of Dr. Ettore Randi's alleged research.
Wolfgang Mennig has also stated that the Malay form is genetically different from the Javan and also says that the Javan (javanensis) has the additional Baluran (baluranensis) race.
[edit] "Courtship Displays" for other purposes instead?
We often view a peacock's train feathers as a way for him to attract hens. But could there be more than that? What if that was never even that purpose?
Kermit says, that such displays are actually to threaten predators. Notice how a Green Peafowl's double-striped face resembles that of certain pit vipers. When a peafowl looks at you, it is trying to mimic the look you get form pit vipers with a similar face. The reason why Green Peafowl shake their quills is another way they try to mimic snakes. Kermit has called this “Maahesian Mimicry" as shown on this userpage. Milad Sourial is Kermit's alternate name. He has many of them.
In my opinion, not only does the peacock's train help him attract a mate, but it also helps him greet his young, and save his flock of juveniles.
[edit] Monogamous, not Polygynous
It all started when I found a photo of a male Spicifer displaying to what some think is a family unit [5].
I later asked Kermit if that Green and Congo Peafowl are monogamous. He said they as well as the arguses are monogamous. The male is seen with the group of young, which are thought to be his harem, but are really his subadult young. Kermit says the exact opposite about captivity -that the male is polygamous. This is what he said:
| “ |
Green Peafowl are monogamous in nature and like Congo Peafowl, Crested Argus and Great Argus, the adult male green peafowl adopts the duties of the of his mate while she is nesting. In other words, the male takes up the responsibilities of his own juvenile offspring while his mate incubates her eggs and rears her young chicks. Male peafowls defend the nest site and foraging territory that his mate and young chicks occupy against intruders and potential chick predators including monitor lizards, cobras and civets. Though it is often described as polygamous this theory has never been quantified in the field. Many normally monogamous species are facultatively polygnous in captivity. Note the close similarity between the sexes in the green peafowls. I have observed complex helper systems in each of the wild populations of green peafowl I have studied. In these systems the subadult males adopt the juvenile creche about the time the adult male takes up the duties of assisting his mate with her chicks of the year. Many captive green peafowl males will brood their own chicks and allow them under their wings on the nocturnal roost and also during rain storms. This is also true for captive Great Argus. These events only occur when the species are kept in naturalistic environments and never or only very rarely in barren environments. If you keep green peafowl and are interested in observing their reproductive behaviors and chick rearing behaviors, plant an aviary with corn and pumpkins and lock the peafowl out of it until the corn is about four and one half feet tall. Horizontal perches must be present for sentinel perching by the male. Potential nest sites should be built utilizing straw bales built into three walled structures resembling the elementary school kid's "fort". At least two potential nest sites should be built. Turn the peafowl into the enclosure after the first two weeks of the breeding season. The pen they are held in would be adjacent to the nesting enclosure. |
” |
The Red Data Book also mentions such notions.
[edit] Conclusion
I am confident that P. muticus is really a complex of several species, and that while they are very similar, some are only distantly related to each other.
Jean Théodore Delacour automatically assumed that any green-colored peafowl would be included in one species. He then labelled any strange-looking Green Peafowl that does not look like any one of the the typical subspecies as mere "individual variations". One of the birds that was different was an Annamite Dragon.
I find that to be very wrong and misleading. It is very bad science to simply automatically assume that any green-colored peafowl should be included as one species.
I believe that we should never classify birds as one species just by appearance. For example, while the Green-winged Teal and the Common Teal are obviously closely related and are sometimes treated as being conspecific, they are more closely related to the Speckled Teal than to each other.
