User:Frankyboy5/Green Peafowl Species
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
This is a sub-userpage about the Green Peafowl. It is an article with unpublished data but this data will be published and added to the Green Peafowl article in the future.
[edit] Introduction
One of the most beautiful birds in the world, the Green Peafowl or Dragonbird (Pavo muticus species complex) is not very well known by many. Its relative the Indian Peafowl, is one of the best known birds. If you can see a Green Peafowl and contrast the two species you will notice that the Green Peafowl is much prettier. Its green plumage and iridescent blue-wings set it apart. It is only until you have laid eyes on the Dragonbird that you will see the beauty of nature, through hundreds of years of evolution (or one day of creation as Christians like me may interpret), this bird is a jewel.
However, we have to be worried about the conservation status of the Dragonbird. The Dragonbird is getting rarer and rarer as time goes by. It has been evaluated by the IUCN as Vulnerable to extinction because of hunting and habitat destruction. Hybridisation has also been reported when feral populations of one species mix with wild populations of the other. The Green Peafowl population is decreasing.
On the bright side, populations of Green Peafowl have been reintroduced and wildlife reserves have been established as protection for the species. I have not been to any reserve nor have I even seen a wild Green Peafowl but I know that there can be a few hundred in one park.
Now we will move on to the systematics. This is where the whole thing gets interesting.
[edit] Taxonomy and Systematics: My main focus of this page.
On the left is the current classification of the Green Peafowl.
| Green Peafowl | ||||||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Scientific classification | ||||||||||||||
|
||||||||||||||
| Binomial name | ||||||||||||||
| Pavo muticus Linnaeus, 1766 |
||||||||||||||
| Subspecies | ||||||||||||||
But is this true? Some misleading remarks have been made by the people who discovered these subspecies especially the last. Jean Theodore Delacour assumed that an unusual bird would be a mere "individual variation." Today any sort of unusual morphotype would be examined. New evidence has suggested that Delacour's conclusion was wrong.
The taxonomic classification right now cannot be viewed as valid in my eye.
In 2000 came the first real support that Delacour's assumptions were wrong.
Kermit Blackwood, a zoologist, ethologist and systematist, had made careful observations of the birds in Yunnan, China. His observations had shocking results. He wrote in literature that the Green Peafowl of the region seem to apparently differ from all three of the other subspecies.
"The form in Yunnan is not separated taxonomically but it apparently 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. Its taxonomic placement should perhaps be investigated further."[1]
It was from here that Kermit had studied this more closely. And in about five years, he would reinvision the systematics completely and put the first hint of evidence on the web. In a few years from present day he will make his findings public through an encyclopedia.
But is already 2007, and nothing has been published. But I already know about his unpublished data.
His data shows there are at least six distinct lineages of Green Peafowl, each having their own subspecific races. His hypothesis was supported by genetic, anatomical, morphological, and ecological data. Each lineage he described lives in a different ecological zone.
Kermit believes in the generally accepted taxonomy, but his preliminary data supports the notion of multiple species.
His data also supports other hypotheses he thought out. First of all he believes Peafowl are not closely related to pheasants. He also believes that the Indian Peafowl has two subspecies, the new one being Pavo cristatus singhalensis, which is a distinct Sri Lankan race. There are also a number of morphs of Indian Peafowl, too closely related to the nominate subspecies to be considered a subspecies. [2].
I will tell you in the next few sections, each species of Green Peafowl, where they live, and how many subspecies there are.
[edit] Malay or Pahang Dragonbird Pavo muticus
Habitat: Lowland, semi-deciduous dipterocarp forest and lowland rainforest
Distribution: Pahang Malaysia (muticus), Isthmus of Kra (malacense)
Taxonomy: Formerly P. m. muticus. Subspecies include Greater Malay (nominate muticus), Resplendent Kra or Lesser Pahang (malacensi or malacense).
[edit] Description
This bird is extinct in the wild. Some birds still exist in captivity. This is the brightest of the six species. Its neck is a brilliant golden green and its train and back plate is the color of roses. On its crown there is a very tall bluish crest, giving the impression of a majestic bird. I can't describe the beauty. Though I have not seen one personally, I know that seeing this bird in the wild would have been a thrill, a dream that has been shattered by Man's greediness.
This species was thought to be identical to the Javanese Dragonbird, but fossil records from the Pliocene epoch rules this out. Some claim that DNA tests showed that the two were identical, but I believe that this was false or misunderstood 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.
The Pahang appears to be similar to Pavo annamensis. While there are still some significant differences such as the color of the back plate and the color of the irides, there is some possibility that muticus was actually a distinct species of annamensis.
[edit] Javanese Dragonbird Pavo javanensis
Habitat: Coastal rainforest and dry monsoon forest
Distribution: Confined to Java
Taxonomy: Formerly P. m. muticus. Subspecies include Ujung Kulon (nominate javanensis), Baluran (baluranensis).
[edit] Description
Although this is a very brilliantly colored species, when compared to the Pahang, it is duller. The Baluran race does have a very bright face, with a bold tangerine war stripe and blue loral axe, perhaps it is related to imperator, though the latter is more related to the Indian Peafowl Pavo cristatus. The Baluran subspecies is so distinctive from the nominate Ujung Kulon subspecies that it has been suggested that the Baluran birds are really cative introduced imperators from Thailand!
[edit] Burmese Dragonbird or Spicifer Pavo spicifer
Habitat: Semi-evergreen rainforest; dry montaine forest, northern subtropical forest and elephant grass/bamboo forest
Distribution: Salween Drainage basin (spicifer and yangonensis), and Arakan Yomas in Myanmar (arakansis), India (arakansis), Thailand, Malaysia (spicifer).
Taxonomy: Formerly Pavo m. spicifer. Subspecies include Southern/Tennasirim/Shan Plateau (nominate spicifer), Yangon (yangonensis), Salween (name unknown).
[edit] Description
Though it has a reputation for being a dull bird, even this bird has some beauty. Its profile is skinnier than other Green Peafowl, and looks a bit more majestic.
In terms of evolutionary purposes, it is from this bird that the most prettiest of all morphotypes had evolved. annamensis first evolved from this bird, and it was from there that muticus evolved.
Despite publications that either javanensis or muticus were introduced to Malaysia, I'm afraid that spicifer or a related species might have been instead, as John Corder photographed the related Tennasirim form.
[edit] Arakan Dragonbird Pavo arakansis
Habitat:Moist evergreen, elephant grass and timber bamboo forest
Distribution:Greater Arakan Mountain range, Northern Salween River, Sikkim India
[edit] Description
Kermit recently said that this subspecies of the Spicifer is distinct to describe the ecological zones of each species.
[edit] Indo-Chinese Dragonbird or Imperator Pavo imperator
Habitat: Moist deciduous forest and tropical savannah
Distribution: Central and West Yunnan China (yunnanensis), Thailand (siamensis), Vietnam (cattiensis, tonkinensis and imperator), Laos (tonkinensis), Cambodia (siamensis)
Taxonomy: Formerly P. m. imperator. Subspecies include the Kunming (yunnanensis), Tonkin or Hue (tonkinensis), Siamese (siamensis), Southern Vietnamese (cattiensis), and nominate (imperator). Some genetic work suggests that some Thailand birds are genetically distinct.
[edit] Description
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 is similar to the Indian Peafowl Pavo cristatus, and has the brightest facial pattern of any bird. The race cattiensis and siamensis have prominent barring on the hind wing. There once was a white color phase of coastal populations. The Tonkin or Hue subspecies, tonkinensis is the most bluish of all the imperator subspecies. Birds of this race can easily be confused with hybrids with the Indian Peafowl, but DNA evidence shows that this is not true. The Hue Imperator also has a shorter crest lined up with the loral axe, and virtually no hind wing barring.
The Kunming subspecies yunnanensis can often be confused with the Deqen Dragon's former name Pavo yunnanensis. There are at least three other forms of Dragonbirds in Yunnan. These are the Deqen P. antiqus, Greater Annamese P. a. annamensis, and the possible Shan/Tennasirim Spicifer (P. s. spicifer).
[edit] Annametic (or Annamese or Annamite) Dragonbird Pavo annamensis
Habitat: Broadleaf evergreen, mixed broadleaf and deciduous broadleaf forests
Distribution: South Yunnan China (annamensis), Annamite Range in Laos and Vietnam (annamensis and laotius), Cambodia (bokorensis), Uthai Thani in Thailand (uthaiensis)
Taxonomy: 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, but I am referring it as uthaiensis). This species is closely related to the Malay, and may even be conspecific.
[edit] Description
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. 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] Bokor Dragonbird Pavo bokorensis
Habitat: Broadleaf evergreen forest, submontane forest, and submontane grassland
Distribution: Cambodia
Taxonomy: Monotypic, though currently conspecific with annamensis.
[edit] Description
This is a fairly distinctive subspecies of annamensis, so I consider it to be distinct. It has been biogeographically isolated. However, if this species were split, that would lead to Lophura (nycthemera) annamensis engelbachii (Engelbach's black silver pheasant of Boloven Plateau) and Pavo annamensis laotius being split too. They had diverged long ago. It is unusual for Dragons because pairs make duet calls.
[edit] Deqen Dragonbird Pavo antiqus (formerly Pavo suparnaensi)
Habitat: Montane forests
Distribution: Endemic to Northern Yunnan, China (both subspecies)
Taxonomy: Formerly P. m. imperator. Subspecies include Deqen (deqenisis), Yunnan (nominate antiqus).
[edit] Description
An old living fossil, the Deqen Dragon has never been formally described by science. Though it is rather dull, it's the largest species of Green Peafowl alive. It is a majestic bird, with it's large size making it the largest galliform alive today. It was formerly known as the Yunnan Dragonbird Pavo yunnanensis, but was then renamed.
This bird was first described by Kermit in 2000. He described that the wings were more long and slender, the bill was like that of a Monal, and the bird seemed to have a very hind toe. It also apparently favored forest habitats.
Looking at the morphology, Kermit was sure that this was the closest relative of the extinct Pavo bravardi, the oldest form of Green Peafowl. This ultimately led him to rename the bird Pavo antiqus.
I believe that Pavo bravardi was a very big bird, with a dull green and bronze neck. It must have been huge, considering the size of the Yunnan bird.
[edit] Hainan Dragonbird Pavo hainanensis (speculative name)
Habitat: Unknown
Distribution: Was endemic to Hainan, now extinct
Taxonomy: Either a form of Imperator or a relative of the Pahang and Annamese
Extinct. It is said that it has mixed with the Tonkin Imperator (P. imperator tonkinensis) in captivity so some hybrids may still exist.
[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] 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, the originator of the species hypothesis, 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 or Spicifer. 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] What if it was neither muticus nor javanensis?
However, another possible bird was Spicifer. Looking at how dull the birds in Malaysia look support this. One expert had also confirmed that a bird photographed by John Corder was a Spicifer, which may have been used in the introduction. Kermit also confirmed that this photograph was of a bird related to the Spicifer, the Tennasirim Dragonbird. While it is possible and if the Spicifer was indeed introduced, according to Kermit the Spicifer also existed in Malaysia.
Corder's photograph has deeply disappointed me.
My life has never been the same after I found that the Pahang was not brought to Malaysia. This bird is my life, it is a jewel. My attitude towards most WPA officials have changed.
[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 one of his userpages[1].
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. He told me that the females fight like crazy and the males are very tolerant of each other and seem to cooperate to defend their territories. 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 mentioned Kermit suggested this hypothesis in 2000.
[edit] Sort of polyandrous....
However, Green Peafowl are also facultatively polyandrous, in which the alpha female only mates with the alpha male, and both help raise the young, but they are also helped by a number of young males. This is not true polyandry but a helper system.
The same applies to Indian Peafowl, a male mates with the alpha female but while they are a pair there are other males, these do not fight him, instead, they cooperate to defend, him, who is usually their father or an older brother. To many of us the male is lekking with the other males, but he's not.
In argus peafowl the males do not fight with each other but instead cooperate to defend their territories. The females, on the other hand, are extremely aggressive towards each other.
[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.
However, this is only info based on preliminary DNA samples. Even though we've also got morphological and ecological information to support Blackwoods hypothesis, we will never know for sure if the Green Peafowl, the jewel of nature, is really several species.
[edit] Notes
- ^ Kermit has several usernames here on Wikipedia including User:Amoun-Pinudjem, User:Milad A.P. Sourial and User:Pinudjem. On aviculture forums his accounts include "Kermit" and "K", and "Resolution".
- 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 have made up my own names for subspecies.
- I cite all statements from the photo gallery because it has more up-to-date taxonomy.
- Kermit is working on a book called Encyclopedia Gallinacea
- Milad Sourial is Kermit's alternate name. He has many of them. He is sometimes referred to as K. B. Woods and as Kermit Wood due to the lack of an actual name.
- Kermit was adopted explaining his lack of a true name (though he was called Nasser Ramsesse by his biological father before his parents got assacinated).
