
August
  30, 1985
Dear
  Mr Plant:
Many
  thanks for your letter of 30 May 85 and for a copy of your manuscript on
  chicken bone recoveries. I have now had an opportunity to read the manuscript.
  I enjoyed it very much and wish that I had had access to it when preparing the
  review chapter for Mason’s book on evolution of domesticated animals. You
  have done some remarkable sleuthing and have been marvellously successful in
  gaining access to some very obscure documents. I can find no general fault
  with your interpretations. As you clearly indicate, all of the evidences are
  fragmentary at best and firm conclusions are not warranted at this time. Let
  us hope that with passing time more pieces of evidence will accumulate so that
  eventually firm conclusions can be reached. I have no further information on
  the topic beyond that given in Mason’s book. But can pass along comments on
  a couple matters.
A
  former graduate student from Chile is interested in the blue egg and ear tuft
  traits and in their association with indigenous Chilean chickens. She has
  either returned to a faculty position in Chile or will be soon. She wants to
  do some local sleuthing and perhaps with time she may be able to extend our
  knowledge. She told me that the Araucana people are extinct - they strongly
  resisted authority of the Spanish in the early days of colonization; to solve
  the problem, the Spanish granted colonizing rights to a group of rough tough
  Germans and there soon were no Araucana people. She told me that the blue egg
  trait is presently very common in local chicken stocks of Chile but she did
  not know about the ear tuft trait, I continue to wonder whether some important
  clues might be found in relation to single gene characteristics. Thus far I
  have found no evidence that the blue egg trait occurred historically other
  than in South America. I have heard that the mutation might have occurred
  independently within this century in Scandinavia but this has not been
  documented. Comb type variation raises some questions. My own observations are
  that the mutation to rose comb is Mediterranean and the mutation to pea comb
  is south-east Asian. Combination of the two gives walnut comb, which is
  currently characteristic of Malay chickens, but I wonder how long they have
  been walnut-combed. One of the genetic complications is that rose comb is not
  easily fixed in a population; homozygous rose comb males are effectively
  sterile, heterozygotes are fully fertile and thereby ensure that the single
  comb condition remains within a population. Pea comb reached Egypt very early,
  and my interpretation as given in the Mason book is that this was an exotic
  introduction which did not persist. When did rose comb reach the Far East? I
  wonder if it was very recently and was inserted into Malays only a short while
  ago. It is unfortunate that we have no record of comb type in the first
  Araucanas described in the technical literature. Linkage with pea comb and
  blue egg may be a clue, but the linkage is not complete and recombination is
  fully possible; as for instance, the research flock of Araucanas with which I
  have been working has both blue egg pea comb individuals and blue egg single
  comb birds.
I expect to be undertaking a very major writing assignment in the next several years and will have occasion again to consider origins and dispersal as part of that work. And so I am especially happy to have had the opportunity to read your work. I hope you will keep me informed of any future developments.
Yours very truly,
Roy
  Crawford