FINCHforum

Just recently, there was a rather interesting debate on another Thread, regarding whether there is such a thing as a Man made Bird, or not.

The subject really didn't belong on that Thread, but I thought that it was quite interesting, and would love to see it resurrected on it's own Thread.

Would love to hear everyone's opinion on the subject....

Is there such a thing as a Man made Bird????

Isn't the society finch man-made?

lovezebs I guess you may be able to classify a society finch as a man made species people in China created.. and they have never been exposed to the wild naturally. Just my thought on this. Interested to see what others have to say about this!

Benegalese are a Man-Made bird.

Hi society’s/beglasease are man made however I’ve saw few articles of rumped Muniais that look identical to society’s would be great if you could buy these and maybe hybrid

The only "man-made" birds are domesticated species, which at some point in time trace their ancestry back to some wild species. They are man-made in that they don't exist in nature in their current form. They are not man-made in the way that implies they never existed in the wild. They are selectively-bred, domesticated animals. This is true for finches as it is for cats (descended from - and same species as - the African wildcat), the domestic dog (a subspecies of gray wolf), and all other domestic species.

There are some domestic animals whose natural ancestors are believed to be extinct, such as the guinea pig and the cow. In these species, the population taken captive by human beings and selectively bred has survived, while the ancestral population living in the wild has died out.

The domestic zebra finch is the same species as the wild one, simply bred into larger sizes and novel color morphs. The domestic canary is the same species as its counterpart on the Canary islands, but it has been domesticated longer and the captive population has been more selectively bred into various races, colours, and sizes, along with a general selection for birds that aren't afraid of people and readily breed in small enclosures.

The society finch is a domesticated subspecies of the white-rumped munia, Lonchura striata. It originated as a cage bird in China, sometime prior to the 1600's, though the exact time of its domestication is not certain because bird keeping fell dramatically out of favor in the country during the 1800's, where the political regime in power discouraged and even banned the keeping of caged birds. It is believed that during this period, a lot of recorded history on the species was lost. Its origins are likely at least a few hundred years earlier, as I recall reading that some examples of Chinese artwork from close to 1000 years ago depicts white and pied caged birds similar to the society finch.

The society finch is often cited as originating in Japan. This is false; the Japanese did not obtain the species until the 1600's, though they certainly made contribution in producing new varieties. The original Chinese society finch was apparently only found in chocolate pied coloration, with the fawn variations as well as crested and frills mutations being produced by Japanese breeders over the following centuries. It is from this Japanese stock that all birds in the west - Europe and America - originate, thus the reason they are likely cited as coming out of Japan in the first place. While it's unlikely the Japanese would bring back plain wild munias from China in their search for novelty to bring back to their homeland, it was much more likely Chinese people hundreds of years before would have captured and caged them, since they were a common, local garden bird there which would have been easily accessible even to the poor common man, lending further credence to the Chinese origin of the society finch. Like the canary, these peasants and villagers would have caught the wild munias and then selectively bred only those which accepted captive conditions, and later to propagate unusual color mutations Occasional mutants with white spots would have been especially valued for their novelty, and it was over centuries of this methodical selective breeding they eventually produced the finch we know today, and which would later reach Japan through overseas trade routes.

Not only is the society finch so often cited as being ancestrally Japanese, but even more irksome is the continued parroting that it somehow originates as a hybrid species. This is false, and the claim seems to have originated in a book of birdkeeping by a man named Dr Arthur Butler's, titled Foreign Finches in Captivity, published in 1894. In this writing, Dr. Butler suspected the species to be of white-rumped munia and silverbill origin, but at this time this was nothing more than conjecture. It was later disproven. The first study to officially determine its origins involved comparisons of the skins of hundreds of self society finches and the various wild races of white-rumped munia in 1957, finding the society finch to fit well within the physical parameters of this species and finding no reason to suspect it descended from any other type of finch (if you look at a self chocolate society and a wild white-rumped munia, you can still the they are effectively identical, both in appearance and mannerism - see the attached image below.)



In more recent years, the society finch's taxonomy as a subspecis of whte-rumped munia has been proven with genetic studies. The species' genes have been compared side by side with the Indian silverbill (the species normally mentioned as the other contributing species in the society's ancestry), among other members of the genus, and they are most closely related, of all other munias tested, to the white-rumped munia. Further, the society finch does not exhibit any silverbill-specific behaviors which would be expected if it carried significant silverbill genetics. White-rumped munias and society finches breed freely and there are no behavioral differences in their courtship behavior, as occur in other munia species. Their calls are identical - only the songs of the males differ, because captivity has largely removed any selection in the society for a fixed song and thus most individuals - at least of different family lines - sing differently. Even so, the white-rumped munia and society finch have the most similar song structure of all munias. The silverbill's song and their version of the "puffy dance", conversely, is quite different. While most munias can hybridize, there are normally behavioral differences that make it less likely than among birds of the same species (I suspect most hybrids occur either as a result of uneven numbers in a captive collection, where birds cannot find their own species and accept another instead, or by sneak-mating. I observed my own captive spice finches, who outnumbered available females of their breed, very regularly sneak in behind courting male societies and jump on the society hens as soon as they presented themselves; even though spice finches have a similar courtship dance to societies, the hens would never show interest in them to let them mate in any other way. Male silverbills (who are behaviorally less similar to societies than spice finches, and have even more different vocalizations and courtship behavior, acted exactly the same, and were ignored otherwise by society hens. While this is only anecdotal evidence, I would not expect this if societies were part silverbill.)

The third species sometimes cited as being part of the society's ancestry is something called a sharp-tailed finch. I have only seen this species mentioned in very old texts, and cannot find a distinct species called this today, leading me to suspect it simply referred to one of the various extant subspecies of the white-rumped munia common across India and China. To go back to the issue of the society's origin again for a minute, it makes even more sense the species originally came out of China because neither the white-rumped munia nor the Indian silverbill even occur naturally on Japan to be domesticated in the first place! They had to have been imported; it's very unlikely they'd have bothered to import the wild munias, as they were nothing special, but the already domesticated pied forms would likely have caught their interest much more.

While it's possible some hybridization occured somewhere back in the society's history, it is not supported by any study to have contributed in any significant way to differentiate the society from the white-rumped munia. The old story of the species being of some exotic hybrid, artificial origin is just that - a story, which is not backed up by evidence. The only society finches today which are of significant hybrid ancestry are the Continental selfs and black-brown societies bred in Europe, which are recent crosses of the society with the black munia and white-headed munia, among possible others, and some possible though unverified spice finch ancestry in some chocolate selfs, bred in to improve the scaling pattern on their plumage. In any case, these are recent hybridization events occurring only in the last few decades and which don't have any significance to the ancestry of the breed as a whole.

So there, that is my opinion on the "man-made" bird debate.

Sheather a lot of information but I totally agree with u if I think what you was saying, that they look identical

Sheather

To be perfectly fair Dylan there's obviously been a lot of debate about the ansestary of the bengalese over the last few hundred years, there's clearly been much speculation about the origin about China / Japan etc and the white rumped munia, sharp tailed munia and the silverbill,

I'm not what you'd call a 100% devotee to the bengalese and although I know of various freinds within the national bengalese club I've only gone with the belief of what others have mentioned,

You're obviously very dedicated to yer bengalese / society finches and have done some very extensive research and obviously a hell of a lot of reading and studying over the years to come up with such info as you've just put up,

All I can say Dylan is hats off to yer respectively

Be lucky

I am sorry but I refuse to call any living thing man-made. I prefer to use the term domesticated. Just my opinion !!

After giving it some thought where would the hybrids stand in this respect, would these be man made

Take a look at the British bullfinch hybrids, there's absolutely no way that these would ever exist in the wild, well throughout the whole of my 37 year bird keeping life I meself and many others have certainly never heard of it,
Yes these birds in captivity are obviously now domesticated because of the years of breeding straight British birds the strains have obviously somewhat become a lot tamer / steadier, these birds paired up with various other finches are not what the birds would generally pick out and pair up with themselves if the same species of birds were to be present in an avairy.

If there are only 2 birds in an avairy that have been put in there by man being cock and hen of different finch species then to me it stands to reason that if they wanna breed they've then got no choice in the matter to who they pair up with, there eaither gonna produce hybrids or nothing

If these hybrids are produced its down to man that helped in the creation of these birds and to me you could technically say they are " man made "

Bullfinch hybrids are an excellent example of man-made birds. They have never been documented in the wild. Canary mules are another excellent example, along with all other hybrids of birds which never meet in the wild; zebra x society, Gouldian x parrot finch, and others. However, none of these birds are fertile - they can be bred once, but like the mule (as in the hybrid of a donkey and a horse), they can never be bred to produce a line of their own kind.

But if you do want to learn of a domesticated, "man-made" bird which has confirmed hybrid ancestry, you need look no further than your local grocery store.

The domestic chicken we all know and love is a hybrid!

The chicken was long thought to be descended from the red jungle fowl of East Asia. Looking at this bird, it's easy to see the resemblance.



The chicken and red jungle fowl share the same behavioral repertoire and breed freely in the fowl's native range.

It was only relatively recently, though, that scientists noticed one thing which didn't match up: yellow skin.



Now, not all chickens have yellow beaks and legs, but a great many do, but what's notable is that the wild red jungle fowl never does. It was generally assumed the yellow color was just a mutation originating after the chicken's domestication, like pied markings and other color morphs. When scientists mapped the chicken's genome, however, they found a surprise; the chicken's ancestors got this yellow gene from an ancient cross-breeding event with a different species - the grey jungle fowl.



Now, the grey jungle fowl doesn't look quite as much like a chicken. It acts a little different, and there are some behavioral barriers to cross-breeding. Despite these, there was at least one bird of this species in the family tree of all modern chickens. Most of its genes were lost over time, but the one which gives chickens their yellow pigment has survived.

Sheather wrote: Bullfinch hybrids are an excellent example of man-made birds. They have never been documented in the wild. Canary mules are another excellent example, along with all other hybrids of birds which never meet in the wild; zebra x society, Gouldian x parrot finch, and others. However, none of these birds are fertile - they can be bred once, but like the mule (as in the hybrid of a donkey and a horse), they can never be bred to produce a line of their own kind.

But if you do want to learn of a domesticated, "man-made" bird which has confirmed hybrid ancestry, you need look no further than your local grocery store.

The domestic chicken we all know and love is a hybrid!

The chicken was long thought to be descended from the red jungle fowl of East Asia. Looking at this bird, it's easy to see the resemblance.

[ http://www.hbw.com/sites/default/files/styles/ibc_1k/public/ibc/p/_mg_9064.jpg?itok=w5jt02b_ ]

The chicken and red jungle fowl share the same behavioral repertoire and breed freely in the fowl's native range.

It was only relatively recently, though, that scientists noticed one thing which didn't match up: yellow skin.

[ http://awesomehdwallpapersdesktop.weebly.com/uploads/1/9/7/6/19768865/1001008_orig.jpg ]

Now, not all chickens have yellow beaks and legs, but a great many do, but what's notable is that the wild red jungle fowl never does. It was generally assumed the yellow color was just a mutation originating after the chicken's domestication, like pied markings and other color morphs. When scientists mapped the chicken's genome, however, they found a surprise; the chicken's ancestors got this yellow gene from an ancient cross-breeding event with a different species - the grey jungle fowl.

[ https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/b/b6/Gallus_sonneratii_%28Bandipur%29.jpg/1024px-Gallus_sonneratii_%28Bandipur%29.jpg ]

Now, the grey jungle fowl doesn't look quite as much like a chicken. It acts a little different, and there are some behavioral barriers to cross-breeding. Despite these, there was at least one bird of this species in the family tree of all modern chickens. Most of its genes were lost over time, but the one which gives chickens their yellow pigment has survived.

Spot on Dylan, well said

The red factor canary is also a domesticated species of hybrid origin, originating from a fertile cross between canaries and red siskens around a century ago, but like the chicken so far as can be determined only a single sisken-specific gene still exists from the hybridization event (that for red coloring.) The rest of the wild traits have been long since bred back out of the birds.

There is some anecdotal evidence which says red canaries are less territorial than other breeds, but whether this is because they have sisken ancestry is uncertain. My personal hypothesis is that the wild Atlantic canary is also less aggressive and more social than the average pet canary, as pet canaries have been bred both for stronger song (which requires more testosterone and thus better singers are likely to be more aggressive), and because song canaries have a long history of being raised in single cages where their temperament didn't matter too much. Canaries are often cited as solitary, but it's been my experience that they do gather in flocks outside nesting season given the space to do so, and I strongly suspect wild canaries do this too for at least part of the year. So it may well be that red canaries are not less aggressive because they're part sisken, but because they have not been as vigorously bred for aggressive traits like song canaries.

Sheather

Thank you Dylan .

Oh you are very welcome.

I am fascinated by domestication and as beautiful as wild animals are, I just find the process that we've taken them and selectively bred them until they are perfectly suited to living with us is so interesting. That's why society finches, budgies, and canaries are my favorite birds - they are all highly domesticated, to the point where captivity is now their natural habitat. I think the society finch is the perfect pet bird - they are docile, breed easily, sing, come in a variety of colors, each one looks unique, and they adjust well not only to small cages and basic diets, but also modern lighting which can carry on well past dusk (the budgie is also quite well-suited though.) The canary who requires a strict seasonal cycle to keep his body healthy suffers in those lighting conditions, but the society finch hardly notices. While it would remove some of the challenge to domesticate other finch species to this level, it would also make them more suited to captivity. Waxbills for example are still wild birds, flighty and afraid even in cages, where there are no predators and no tangible threat to warrant their elevated stress levels. Selectively breeding for calmer birds would also make for happier birds with less stress. This has already been done with canaries, budgies, zebras and societies. It doesn't mean we need to completely change their appearance with new colors and morphs so that they look nothing like their wild forms, like has happened in some individuals of the domestic species, but just producing a calmer bird with a more adaptable diet would be of great benefit to these birds long-term success in the pet trade.

Of course, there are times we take domestication too far. I am strongly opposed to domestic breeds which are hampered from enjoying life, such as bulldogs whose snouts are so short they struggle to breathe or give birth naturally, the farmed meat chickens who grow so fast they become lame by a few months of age, and the horror which is the Gibber Italicus canary.



Whoever decided this was how a living animal should be made to look is pretty sick in the head.

I also don't like English budgies with so much fluff that it obscures their eyes, and the same thing with extremely heavy-crested Gloster canaries. A little fluff or a modest crest is adorable, but for goodness sake let the bird see!