What about the Barnacle Goose of the Hebrides? Is it also descended from the Greylag?

I remember a novel titled The Strange One by Canadian author Fred Bodsworth (c. 1958) where a barnacle gander that got blown off-course by a storm ended up in Canada mated to a Canada goose. (There was also a young biologist from Barra who ended up in the same vicinity attracted to a young antive Canadian girl. Sounds contrived, put like that, but it was an excellent novel.)

So I am asking... would the offspring of the Barnacle and Canada be fertile or not? The novel never got into that aspect of things.... LOL.

I think the Barnacle is a Branta also but thats all I know of them? Try a search and I am sure there will be something. I only researched the Grey Lag & the Swan Goose as I was researcing the domestic varieties.
Any time I decide to acquire a new breed, or species I do all the research I can on the subject; it just adds to the knowledge base and increases the depth of the hobby. I do the same thing when making nearly any purchase like a certain caliber of gun or train model.I also collect books on birds.

Fancifowl, thanks for this post. Nice to see some factual information here for a change.

Barnacle geese, Branta leucopsis, are a seperate species from the Canada, however they are both in the same genus, so cross breeding is probably possible. Being somewhat closely related, they have a higher possibility of producing fertile hybrids than does the Canada/Greylag cross.

I would argue one point, the theory that the African derived from a China/Toulouse cross. To look at one, it's understandable how one could think so, and this theory is still perpetuated by many today. The truth is, it has been proven to be false. Chris Ashton, in 'Domestic Geese' describes the results of DNA analysis which show the China and African to be descended from the swan goose, and are unrelated to the greylag. She also goes on to provide references to records of importation from China to the US in 1852 of our "Africans", which the Chinese had named Tse Tay, Lion Head. Additionally, records show that the dewlaps on Toulouse were not developed until after 1850, by British exhibition breeders. The Africans, complete with dewlaps, had arrived in Britain even earlier than in the US, so if anything, it's possible that the African was used to develop the Toulouse, and not the other way around. Ashton doesn't say that, and neither am I, just pointing out that the African in it's current form is shown to exist before the toulouse that we know today.

Patrick, thankyou for your post. I welcome criticism, especially when I dont give proper information. You know, I remember discussing the Africans heritage somewhere else, maybe the rare poultry forums of Yahoo or somewhere? Its been several years, but, I should have been more correct as long as I bothered.
I think there is some ongoing DNA research of the Swan Goose in Russia??

I would like to see something definitive regarding the genetic makeup of the Australian Spotted Duck.There are claims it is a multi species cross??

This is absolutely fascinating to me. Thank you, both.

I've been reading every scrap of info I can about Africans since we brought our wee ones home in a box last spring. Funny thing is, the more I study the breed, the more I'm convinced that ours are less African, and lots more Brown Chinese! (I know I spelled "African" correctly on the order form, so I defer to the hatchery on that one!)

We recently added a couple of barnyard Toulouse to keep them company, though I doubt that our mutt meat goslings next spring will be any closer to the Africans we'd hoped for - but we'll hold one back to check your theory, Patrick! (just kidding). Frankly I'll be happy if their offspring is just a wee bit quieter. Our gander screeches louder than a roo!

Anyway, thanks again for the indepth study. I've not come across this postulation before...all of the literature I've read holds dear to the chinese/toulouse cross.

LF(RJ)

Unfortunatly most hatchery type Africans are poor quality; just check the pricing and its a dead giveaway. Better quality Toulouse & Africans will run around $20 per gozling and up. 1 reason is that they just arent as prolific, geese of their wights have more difficulty in mating. You can look at Metzers price list and not the difference in their African and their super African. Embdens bred for exhibition are also huge and pricey, Richard Shock could sell all the day olds he could produce at 450 per day old.
seems to be an uphill struggle to educate the general poultry buying public on the quality and proper naming of fowl. Probably the biggest problem is with the Araucana, Ameraucana, Americana & easter egger. Hatcheries should be more responsible toward those goals, some few are.

Aloha Fancifowl,

Have you seen much on the Hawaiian Nene goose? They kinda look a bit Canadian, but I'd guess they are from greylag stock. Not that I have any sort of informed guess, though.

I'd like to have a Nene in my back yard, but they are an endangered species so I doubt it would be possible. Perhaps a pair of Pilgrim geese at sometime would be a good addition to our few hens in the backyard although my DH says geese are fierce and would bite him, the chickens and our dogs. Not to mention what he says he would end up stepping in all the time. But, he didn't want chickens at first and now seems to think they are great yard art, so maybe there will be a "funny looking" chicken out there honking next spring.

A hui hou,
Cathy

All I know about the Nene is what I have googled up. You do need a license to keep them, they are protected for 1 thing. They are costly for another. You can try Dan Cowells' Game bird & Waterfowl forum for some info. They aren't of Gray Lag stock.
Some geese are better than others, mostly an individyal thing, for pets. I prefer the American Buff and the Pilgrims for they seem to be the most easy to work around. Mine Buffs are not aggresive, but can be a bit during the set and with young. I dont allow them free access to my yard areas, they get to range for a few hours daily then back to their pasture.

Regarding goose behaviour, I think we need to make a distinction between "protective" and "aggressive". If a goose or gander with a nest or young goslings hisses, snakes its head and charges you, that is protective. If it bites, pinches and flails you with its wings - unprovoked - that is aggressive.

Our late unlamented mutt gander (Embdem/Toulouse?) was aggressive. His two gals (a Buff and a Pilgrim) were protective. The gals are still with us and are sweet again. The gander... well, he was delicious!

What a great thread. Sorry I've been away.

Fancifowl, praise you for being one of the few who actually takes the time to research and understand the proper names of the breeds, the differences between the real thing and the made up imposters and for being able to think for yourself about some of these so called "breeds". The true African and Toulouse vs the imposters is a favorite cause of mine, so yes, if you've been on any other waterfowl forums you've probably seen me go off about it. I'm not aware of any DNA studies involving the Swan Goose. I'd love to hear about it, but my interest is mainly with the domestics and their relationships.

Australian spotted....there's another farce being perpetrated on the gullible and the unsuspecting. Why do none of them ever question how a mysterious Australian species supposedly contributed to the breed, when it's widely accepted that other species when crossed with a mallard or any of it's derivatives produces a mule? I've no problem with anyone creating their own new breed, if they actually have the dedication to follow through and it breeds true, but they need to be honest, and not concoct some fanciful story, just to make them seem all the more mysterious. They do sell well, after all, with a neat story attached. Have you never seen my tirade about the "Ancona" ducks that Holderread pushes?

LFRJ, just so we're clear, it's not my theory that the African was not created with crosses of the Toulouse, it's been scientifically proven that it didn't happen. The opposite, creating the Toulouse from the African is not a theory either, it was merely me trying to state an example, if you'll read closely. Either way, you'll never be able to attempt to show it by using the Africans that you have from the hatchery. You're probably catching on by now from what fancifowl wrote, that those hatchery Africans are nothing more than China crosses. The hatcheries which sell two different types of Africans and Toulouse, a regular, and a 'super' or a 'dewlap' are just pulling a fast one, and trying to pass off crossbred or inferior stock as one thing, and pure stock as another more desireable (and more expensive) thing. The average Africans which they sell are not pure. The average Toulouse are something called the common Grey Goose of Europe, which has never been recognized as a pure breed in this country, but it is not a toulouse. It's also not as easy as just crossing an African with a common grey goose and , bingo, you have a Toulouse. That's probably not what happened, but if it did, it would take years of back crossing to fix the new breed.

Cathy, nenes are their own distinct wild species, not a domestic or a derivative of the greylag. They are a Brant, in the same genus as CANADA geese, hence the resemblance which you recognize. Captive bred birds actually are available, at least in the 48, with not all that much red tape in federal permits. I don't know what you consider expensive, but compared to some other wild species in captivity which may go for thousands, they are only roughly in the $300 range for a pair. They are commonly available in the 48, although I'm not sure if things are different in HI. They may be more restrictive in awarding permits there, so as to not have the captive private bred birds interfer with the reintroduction efforts. I've worked with many wild species, and they're one of my favorites. They'll be first on my list when I start to breed wilds again.

Patrick,
I am not so sure about the Australian Spotted? Wasnt that John Kriner who worked on them? I forget now, but if it were him, he had vast knowledge of breeding fowls. There very well could be a duck that would make a sucessful cross, or even 1 viable sex in the cross to be recombined? Im not ready to discount it all yet but lack the interest at least now, to persue it further.

I must have missed your piece on the Anconas, where can I find it?
I did have some Anconas from Holderreads and to be honest I kind of liked them. They were very active, produced lots of good sized eggs and had some eye appeal. I only bred them for about 3 years before selling them all. I think they would have offered me a breeding challenge but I just wanted to make some directional changes in breeding overall.

I am really not sure what I am going to do re waterfowl; would like the Egyptians but have always thought the barheads were interesting. Neither make very good pets! but pets is not my interest.

I'm not sure who it was that started the Aussies. It may be who you say. I'll have to look up my info. I know at least one of the 'big shot' bantam duck breeders in PA, Oakes or Sheraw had a hand in it too. Then they went to Holderread, who has been pushing them. I agree with you, there could be a wild species when crossed with the mallard which produced a viable hybrid, or the off chance that a fertile hybrid was produced and used from a cross in which they would normally be sterile. Fertile mules as in horse/ass have been reported. My big question is that with all of this documentation on the origin of the breed, with originators and everything, why is it that no one has once offered to name the mysterious Australian species of wildfowl which was used in the cross? It is my opinion that the reason is that by perpetuating this mystique, it creates higher perceived value for the ducklings in some people who just gobble up the story without question, and want to own some of these new creations. As you see, I'm much more skeptical than you. I also have reservations because of the near impossibility to differentiate the females of the 3 varieties. There is enough confusion among people already regarding proper breed and variety designations, as you know with the African and Toulouse thing that's been going on now for over 100 years. All of the new call varieties, and even some recently recognized breeds such as Welsh Harlequins and Silver Appleyards have confusing colorations that most breeders and judges cannot even agree on. How is one expected to keep pure the different varieties of these Aussies when we can't even tell the females apart? There are differences, I know, but if given one female of each variety, I doubt that there are a dozen people who could tell which one is of which variety.

The Anconas, oh boy. I'll tell you now, I'm probably about to insult you. I'll start off by saying that I do support the recognition of a randomly pied duck. I'm not big into pied animals of any species myself, but I believe that there is a place for them, and that they can add another dimention to domestic waterfowl breeding. I even support anyone who creates such a breed, and introduces it to the world for what it is. My big problem here, is the unfounded claims by the breed's originator, Holderread, who claims that they are of ancient English origin. Anyone who has had much experience with Magpie ducks knows that they are extremely difficult to breed with correct markings. Great numbers of offspring are mismarked, but a majority of them still retain a trace of the pattern, with colored feathers concentrated on the head cap and the back. Many, many of these so called Anconas also have the colored feathers concentrated in these areas. There is a close resemblance of Anconas to the many mismarked magpies which occur. As I said, I'd welcome the creation of such a new breed, even if derived from another, as long as it's done honestly. Holderread claims an ancient English origin, but he offers not one reference to the breed before he began offering them. I've done a fair amount of breed history research, and have collected a fairly good library of domestic waterfowl and poultry historical books, and have found not one mention anywhere of these so called Anconas. I've even offered $100 to anyone who could provide me with a written reference to the Ancona duck prior to Holderread. It is my opinion that the Ancona breed was made up, simply as a way to sell mismarked Magpie ducklings which would otherwise be worthless. Holderread has long since graduated from being a breeder with quality stock, to a hatchery business, hatching and selling as many birds as possible. It's a brilliant business move if you're a hatchery to find a way to profit from a formerly unsalable commodity, but where is the proof of these claims which are made? What's worse IMO, is that he's somehow convinced the American Livestock Breeds Conservancy of his claims, and they now pass along the same story. Ironically, neither one pays much attention to breeds such as the Dutch Hookbill, which does have an extensive written historical record, by many early poultry historians, and others, including none other than Charles Darwin himself. My opinion for the reason for that is that the Hookbills are very difficult to hatch, and so will never provide a hatchery owner with much of an income.

End of pontification for now. Take it or leave it, but, please, try to prove me wrong. I'll even send you the 100 bucks.

Patrick,
I think I can appreciate your thoughts on both subjects. I thought I had read somewhere? the duck breeds used in the Aussie Spots?/ I may be wrong?
I did want to work on improving the Anconas as they had some positive qualities, yet nothing outstanding really except a breeding challenge for color markings. I gave all my papers on Anconas to the buyers so cant refer back to them now, but I was thinking the Ancona and Magpie both were dericed, slightly differently, from the same ancestor breeds which I cannot recall now; Huttgart or something??
I dont think Curtiss has worked with either breed (he does breed the Magpie)and Sheraw left town before I came here.

It's obvious that you're getting most of your info from ALBC, which as I said, has relied on Holderread and taken his word as gospel without any actual references to back his claims. Their latest updated "history" of the Ancona finally links it to the "closely related" magpie, but this is a very recent change. Prior to this they've never even mentioned a relationship to the magpie, as Holderread would never admit it. It took lots of criticism before they'd even look into the issue. Interestingly, Dr Chris Ashton of Wales, in her book "The Domestic Duck" details the history of most of the domestic breeds, especially those developed in England. Not once anywhwere in the book does she even mention the term Ancona in reference to a breed of duck. I find it odd that this British author goes to such lengths to fully describe the documentation of so many early breeds which were developed in England, but somehow omits any reference to the so called Ancona. Could it be that there never was any such breed called the Ancona, until the 1980's in Oregon? It's really a great book, and if you're interested in breed histories it's well worth it IMO, as are her "Domestic Geese" and "The Indian Runner Duck".

I've seen several lists which claim to be be the breeds and species used to make up the Aussies. One had even included the wild pintail. They all inlcude the mysterious unnamed wild Australian species.

I would like the Ashton book, many others as well, but finances dont allow some things these days!
I dont peruse the ALBC site, I have been there once I think. I probably relied on Holderrreads info sheet for a good share of my info? I am mostly in agreement with you, I would like to know more but I doubt that is gonna be possible?
A friend of mine had a mentor( from Cornell poultry dept.) who was friends with Kriner and a few other distinguised breeders. He told me there were several ongoing projects these guys worked on and some were very secretive, others more willing to share. There is just a ton of poultry history lost to us. I am interested in finding more history on the Sumatra but its difficult at times.