From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
WikiProject Birds (Rated Start-class, Mid-importance)
WikiProject icon Peafowl is part of WikiProject Birds, an attempt at creating a standardized, informative and easy-to-use ornithological resource. If you would like to participate, visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks. Please do not substitute this template.
Start-Class article Start  This article has been rated as Start-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Mid  This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
Wikipedia Version 1.0 Editorial Team
WikiProject icon This article has been reviewed by the Version 1.0 Editorial Team.
Note icon
This article is included in the 2006 Wikipedia CD Selection, or is a candidate for inclusion in the next version. Please maintain high quality standards and, if possible, stick to GFDL-compatible images.
 ???  This article has not yet received a rating on the quality scale.

Peacocks in Flight[edit]

Could anyone upload some photos of peacocks in flight? The full spendidness of a peacock displays only in flight. --Roland 23:36, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

Please see: [1][dead link] — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 17:21, 2 February 2013 (UTC)

undefined terms[edit]

At present, the second paragraph begins by discussing peafowl but quickly changes subject to something called a "Great Argus," whatever it is. Unless, of course, a Great Argus is a type of peafowl... but if that were so, why isn't that mentioned? And, assuming that a Great Argus is a type of peafowl, does that imply that there are peafowl that are not Great Arguses? (talk)RKH —Preceding undated comment was added at 16:16, 12 October 2008 (UTC).

How many?[edit]

They are known for their numerous so wrongly called "tails" or, to make the numbering easier, eyespots but, no matter how useless it might seem... Is there any knowledge of how many of these they usually have? It would make a good addendum to the articleUndead Herle King (talk) 22:41, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

We're gonna need a peacock expert- eggs, flight, and more![edit]

As other people have noted, this article is greatly neglected. For example, no one notes that peacocks do not lay eggs, or any details as shown below by Stargoat. Also no one noted that peacocks are male peafowls and peahens are females. I think we need to do some research to fix this- just pointing this out, I came here to learn some peacock breeding habits. I made a new section in talk here so this will get noticed. kthxbai, Anonymous 13:43, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Important Details[edit]

This article seems to leave out some important details. What do peacocks eat? Do they fly? How fast? Where do they roost? What are their predators? Are they domesticated? If so, how well Stargoat 16:44, 27 Aug 2004 (UTC)

I'm no expert by any means, but I have 1 peacock and 2 peahens and this is what I've noticed/gathered.

Mine eat the same food I feed my chickens, as well as bugs and they LOVE dog food (it's corn based and tasty!)

They can be domesticated to a point. I'll compare them to chickens... you can get them to be friendly with you and let you handle them, but I wouldn't reccommend bringing them in your house by any means!

Yes they fly, pretty well. Not as high as say eagles, but they can get about 50 high for a short distance.

Mine like to roost up on top of either the power line, the house, or my husbands tool shed.

Their predators are anything bigger than them, for the most part. They are in the same family as turkeys, so they have a lot of the same attributes. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 18:34, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

How long do they live?![edit]

Please, tell me how long do the peafowl live!!! I need this information really much. I couldn't find anywhere what's the average continuance of their life... HELP ME!

Google search "peacock lifespan" gave me instant results. Answer: approximately 20 years. --Storkk 21:05, 9 August 2006 (UTC)


I removed this sentence from the page: "Peafowl are an ancient and isolated group of largely terrestrial Galliform birds belonging to the Pavoninidae." because it seems to conflict with the opening paragraph, which says they are a member of Phasianidae. Since "pavo" is indicative of peafowl, I wonder if this is a corruption of some smaller unit? Pavonininae as a sub-family, perhaps? I'm no expert, so please revert if you can provide insight. Matt Deres 01:14, 1 September 2005 (UTC)

It's necessary to revise the taxonomy for Peafowl. The most acceptted taxonomy now is:
and sometimes
Where did you get Pavoninidae (family) or Pavonininae (subfamily)? Give the reference, please. Look at Phasianidae. There are only Genus Pavo (2 species) and Afropavo congolesis(Congo Peafowl). Where did you get other peafowl species like "Deqen Dragonbird. Pavo antiqus (Northern Western Yunnan) Malaysian Great Argus, Argusianus argus Bornean Great Argus, Argusianus greyi Malay Crested Argus, Rheinartia nigrescens Annam Crested Argus, Rheinartia ocellata"? --Michael Romanov 01:18, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
I've rolled back the Argus stuff: many pheasants have showy tails, that doesn't make them peafowl. Apologies is any other edits have been lost in the process. Neither HBW nor Pheasants, Partridges and Grouse class Argus as pheasants jimfbleak 06:14, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

Some people say there are unique forms of the gree peafowl and classify them as separate species. Some classify them in their own subfamily [2]. It is Pavoninae. Some of the site's images don't appear. See the breaking news section on the bottom. Frankyboy5 23:58, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

Some people believe that peafowl are not related to pheasants and should be considered their own family. [3]. They said:

Molecular work has disproved the theory that peafowl are pheasants.

Frankyboy5 23:55, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

The argus stuff was added because those people are probably involved with this site [4]. These same people also believe that the green peafowl is actually five different species. Frankyboy5 22:36, 20 October 2006 (UTC)


This article appears to be in need of a reformat with sections on their distribution, breeding, food, behavior etc. There is also some mix up on studies in introduced areas and those in their original range. Details on the Green Peafowl should move into that species entry. This article should deal only with the commonalities and differences among the Peafowl species. Shyamal 06:26, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

curious about analogies[edit]

aren't showy men often times compared to peacocks? Why is this?

The reference alludes to the mating behaviour of the peacock, whereby a male will repeatedly display his train to a female to entice her to copulate.Tug201 17:43, 12 June 2006 (UTC)


"Many of the brilliant colors of the peacock plumage are due to an optical interference phenomenon (Bragg reflection) based on (nearly) periodic nanostructures found in the barbules (fiber-like components) of the feathers.

Different colors correspond to different length scales of the periodic structures. For brown feathers, a mixture of red and blue is required—one color is created by the periodic structure, while the other is a created by a Fabry-Perot interference peak from reflections off the outermost and innermost boundaries of the periodic structure."

OK. I realise this is trying to say something, but I don't know what it is. Is it possible for someone to rephrase this for the majority of us who don't have a degree in physics? El Pollo Diablo (Talk) 00:16, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

It is saying that the colors of a peacock's feathers are a sort of hologram, rather than being the result of pigments. That doesn't seem to fit with the existence of white peacocks, though; if the color doesn't come from pigments, having no pigment wouldn't affect it. If I understand the comment about brown feathers, the same should apply to other forms of fowl, and to peahens. Overall, it doesn't seem plausible to me. Ben Standeven 03:36, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

The discussion of the "eyes" of the plumage can be expanded on. The "eyes" are called ocelli and vary in size and number for each peacock. This will help clarify the use of the term ocelli later in the article. Mills.282 (talk) 01:39, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

Speaking of white peacocks, shouldn't this article include a section on the topic? Seems unusual enough to include as a special section. A neighbor just had one hatched and she thinks it is a weird cross between her rooster and the peakcock and I am having a hard time convincing her that it indeed a white peacock. Galen13 18:06, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

Are white peafowl their own species, or just albino mutatuions? I had always thought they were just albino peafowl... —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 01:34, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

The albino question has been answered below. @El Pollo Diablo and Benstandeven, I rewrote the section on color. It's a little better now, I think, and a casual reader could "guess" their way through it, without having to look up scientific phrases(?) At any rate, it's nice to have a speedy answer, isn't it?? Lol. (talk) 03:57, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

Somebody should clean it up. I don't know enough about the physics side of it - can someone contact a person who knows a fair amount to revise this section to make it more readable? Tears And Treachery (talk) 20:25, 14 December 2014 (UTC)

Polygymous vs. Polygynous[edit]

There seems to be some confusion of these terms in this article. Polygymous is not sex-specific, whereas polygynous refers to "A mating pattern in which a male mates with more than one female in a single breeding season.". In light of this, it seems nonsensical, that "Peafowl are considered to be polygynous." as the word peafowl refers to both males and females. Tug201 15:30, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

There is no such term "polygymous". Use polygamous, instead. --Michael Romanov 01:01, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

I do believe that the term "polygamous" is used correctly here. But... I don't agree completely with this statement: "Peafowl are considered to be polygamous. However in captivity, Green Peafowl and African Peafowl are monogamous". I did read that African Peafowl are monogamous in the wild, too. --Michael Romanov 06:05, 28 September 2006 (UTC)


Correct me if I am mistaken, but weren't peafowl eaten by the ancients as a delicacy? Are they still eaten? --V. Joe 22:08, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

I'd like to know too. They look rather turkey-like to me, so I'm wondering if they taste similar to chicken or turkey. =Axlq 20:54, 1 October 2006 (UTC)


Any information about their eggs? Laying and nesting habits? Morganfitzp 03:35, 28 June 2006 (UTC)


Much of this article is only about Indian peafowl, not the family, jimfbleak 06:19, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

-- 03:44, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

Evolutionary problem[edit]

We need an external source if not a wiki section about the evolutionary enigma of the somewhat counter evolutionary purpose of the tail. Creationist use this argument a lot against the theory of evolution. there's nothing in the article about this. Procrastinating@talk2me 17:59, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

  1. the purpose is to attract a mate, by showing the physical fitness of a male able to divert so much energy into an otherwise unnecessary encumbrance.
  2. This is a scientific article with no need to justify itself to American religious fundamentalists - if you want to discuss creationism do it there or in another religious article.
  3. These aren't even American species!
jimfbleak 18:58, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
Please dont prejudge by title. The peafowl traits have been a source of scientific controvercy around evolutionary biologist for more than 100 years. in 1975 an alternative theory to group selection was put forth (Handicap principle ), and this animal played a major role in it's production. This should be mentioned, regardless of creationism, americans or religion. --Procrastinating@talk2me 11:31, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
  • a)Assuming this even is problematic to explain within a Darwinian paradigm, that does NOT mean that it automatically supports the "Book of Genesis as literal history" frioge. b)What does the peafowl not being indigenous to the Americas have to do with anything? The fact that Christian Fundamentalism is most prevalent in the US doesn't mean that such people are only allowed to refer to North American flora and fauna to illustrate their "point"...clearly your reasoning here went way over my head, I apologise.(wormwoodpoppies71.232.117.127 16:58, 26 October 2006 (UTC))
The evolution of the peacock tail should definitely be mentioned somewhere in the article, given it is a "textbook example". Itub 19:10, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

I agree. The article should discuss the evolution of the tail. Bueller 007 12:07, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
'the purpose is to attract a mate, by showing the physical fitness of a male able to divert so much energy into an otherwise unnecessary encumbrance.' - I find this hard to believe. I can't see how it would benefit the female to breed with an individual who is likely to pass on this 'encumbrance' to her offspring. Given a situation where there is competition for resource, individuals with less of an encumbrance will tend to have the advantage. Is it not possible that it is simply a result of a female preference for males with super-masculine characteristics, in an environment where the big tail does not actually encumber them at all? (if it did then evolution would select against the encumbrance). In other words, females have the hots for males with big tails.
Many bird species, peacocks included use dramatic ritualised dances to attract a mate (the ostrich is a well known example), often evolving distinct plumage used to make the dance all the more dramatic and attractive. It's detailed in the Indian Peafowl article but something about it could possibly be added here, especially if the purpose of the tail is such a hot topic.
Another idea I've heard mentioned, but can't currently find a source for is that the tail helps defend the bird from predators. An animal attacking a peacock suddenly finds itself faced with what appears to be a much larger animal, or possibly even a group of animals (if the eye spots are indeed percieved as eyes). Alternatively it could simply generate confusion, the sudden raising of the tail, followed by shaking it, especially against a similarly coloured (green and brown) forest background could make the outline and position of the bird hard to identify. The one problem with this theory is that it doesn't explain why only males have the dramatic plummage. Danikat (talk) 10:31, 2 July 2010 (UTC)
There is more than one problem with this theory. The Peacocks lose that plumage soon after successful mating, so it clearly serves primarily a courtship function. The Peacock does not raise it's feathers when faced with an enemy, it runs or takes flight, so there is no behavior to support the theory. PastReflections (talk) 02:50, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

The colorful tail also serves as a signal to fitness. To use a human example, it's like having a clear complexion, as opposed to boils all over your face. (talk) 06:15, 28 July 2010 (UTC)JO

'This theory may be contrasted with Fisher's theory that male sexual traits, such as the peacock's train, are the result of selection for attractive traits because these traits are considered attractive.' This statement can be expanded on as follows: Fisher's theory was based on runaway selection, which is when females choose mates based on less useful or detrimental traits that they find attractive. This may clarify some information for the readers. Mills.282 (talk) 01:39, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

'Takahashi determined that the peacock's train was not the universal target of female mate choice, showed little variance across male populations, and, based on physiological data collected from this group of peafowl, do not correlate to male physical conditions.' This statement can be expanded on as follows for clarity: Takahashi concluded that calling, specifically male acoustic signaling, may affect the mating success of peacocks. This will help clarify the results of Takahashi's study.Mills.282 (talk) 01:39, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

Feral in Mexico & US[edit]

I cannot find information about feral peafowl in Mexico in the 19th century and their dispersion throughout Mexico and proliferation from there to much of the USA, from California to Florida, in the 20th century. Please, does anybody know anything about it? I need exact references. --Michael Romanov 06:15, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

You can do your own research, and I likely have details wrong, but don't delete it. Maybe it was 18th (17th?) century, maybe they started in Texas, but it's closer to correct than ignoring the North American population entirely.
People who don't know about the North American peafowl population are normally incredulous. Since I didn't provide a cite, I was expecting I would be asked for something. Well I've researched this before, and there's very little on the Internet. It's almost like a conspiracy to deny the existance of these birds. There are lots of pet peafowl in the USA so it's easy to assume they went feral recently and don't represent a sustained wild population.
Here's what I know:
  • I have seen them at the Los Angeles Zoo. They are not part of the zoo collection. They are wild birds who moved in when the zoo was built (about 1966).
  • A friend told me about the peafowl nest they had in a palm tree in Sunland in the San Fernando Valley.
  • I read more than one article in the Los Angeles Times about the local peafowl population. They said the colony in the Palos Verdes penisula dates to the 19th Century and that they came there from Mexico. The population in the San Gabriel Valley predates the Zoo.
  • One time I got on a plane in Phoenix AZ. A lady was carrying several peacock feathers, and was talking about how they were running all over the golf course.
  • I've heard of them in Texas.
  • I've heard of them being all over Mexico. You see a lot of them in Mexican art.
  • One of the cites in one of the peafowl articles mentions Florida. [5] In fact the article says they are protected because this is their natural habitat.
That's all I know. It's quite possible that these are mostly a California phenomenon. Call the Los Angeles Zoo; they ought to know more.
Barticus88 08:38, 28 September 2006 (UTC)
I've removed this section from the group page because it already occurs on the species page. Same with details of Green Peafowl taxonomy

"You can do your own research".

I did it in the performance of my official duty.

"Maybe it was 18th (17th?) century,"


"maybe they started in Texas"


"but it's closer to correct than ignoring the North American population entirely."

I am not ignoring the North American feral peafowl at all. I just need facts and citations in support of this statement.

"People who don't know about the North American peafowl population are normally incredulous."

I do know about few cases of feral peafowl in California and Florida. But those look like just recent importations or introductions that became feral. We cannot speak about a nationwide population of the wild turkey population size.

"Well I've researched this before"

Show me the references to ornithological books and scientific journals.

"and there's very little on the Internet."

Yes, I know it.

"It's almost like a conspiracy to deny the existance of these birds."

I don't deny the existance. I need historical evidences and zoological estimates for peafowl population in Mexico in the 19th or 18th (17th?) century and currently, and its proliferation from there to much of the USA, from California to Florida, in the 20th century.

"There are lots of pet peafowl in the USA so it's easy to assume they went feral recently and don't represent a sustained wild population."

Right! But we cannot claim proliferation from Mexico (if there is really a sustained population covering almost all the country) to much of the USA. You mentioned few cases around Los Angeles. The most important is that peafowl there did not come from Mexico. They were released from local imported flocks.

"They said the colony in the Palos Verdes penisula dates to the 19th Century and that they came there from Mexico."

Here is the complete and true story about the Palos Verdes Peninsula peafowl. No Mexican invasion. The presence of peafowl at some other sites around Los Angeles does not mean that they came from Mexico. I assume all of them had origin similar to Palos Verdes Peninsula birds.

"One time I got on a plane in Phoenix AZ. A lady was carrying several peacock feathers, and was talking about how they were running all over the golf course."

Did she tell you that these were descendants of a Mexican stock or how large is the Phoenix population?

"I've heard of them in Texas."

Did you hear that they crossed the Mexican-U.S. border to enter Texas? Or how many birds are over there? Probably the same feral stock escaped or released from somebody's ranch or introduced on purpose.

"I've heard of them being all over Mexico. You see a lot of them in Mexican art."

If so, there should be a lot of scientific books and journal articles covering the history and current state of Mexican peafowl. I do not know any one.

"One of the cites in one of the peafowl articles mentions Florida. [6] In fact the article says they are protected because this is their natural habitat."

I read the article. In fact it says that 18 years ago it started out as two peacocks. No other information can be derived from this article. Did these two birds escape from someone's else estate or were they introduced on purpose or did they come from Mexico? --Michael Romanov 19:39, 28 September 2006 (UTC)
My sister and her family live on a large piece of property in Stuart, Florida. On her property and all around the immediate area live feral peafowl. The residents are very fond of the flocks and feed them peanuts and other items from time to time. I've photographed them several times on visits to my sister's home. My sister knows the history of how they got there, but I've forgotten the complete story. IrishPrince (talk) 15:08, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

Hey dewwwwwd. I'm not going to answer you point by point, because I have never read a book on Peafowl, and I'm not all that interested. I am 1.5 billion seconds old, I have learned 1.5 billion things, and most of them are wrong. My data comes from dozens of tiny sources over the years, including miscellaneous news reports about peafowl. We all know how rigorous local news reporters are when adding scientific background to a story about squawking birds with four foot wide trains. The backbone of my knowledge of peafowl comes from two (maybe more) articles in the Los Angeles Times sometime between 1970 and 1990. LAT said wild peafowl spread from Mexico to Palos Verdes in the 19th century. I'm sure I took LAT as gospel and have interpreted miscellaneous news reports in ways that agree with what I learned there.

So there you have it. I am not Wikipedia's great expert on Peafowl. If you are, then edit the page any way you want. I added some stuff to this page, because it wasn't there. You want this page to have better quality, so it's your job to improve the quality. If you can find the LAT version and you like it, then go with that. If you prefer some other version of the story, then go with that. We're not writing truth here, just as close a simulation as we can handle.

Barticus88 09:33, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

I'm no peacock expert, but I've spent time in central Nevada, most recently traveling on Route 50, and I must say the portion of the state the feral population allegedy is in is so cold and high that I can't imagine a bird that is native to India and Southeast Asia surviving there. Someone might want to check that out. (talk) 05:52, 28 July 2010 (UTC)JO

BREAKING NEWS: 5 Species of Green Peacock and 11 supspecies!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!![edit]

From article: "Some taxonomists believe that the endangered Green Peafowl is actually a complex of five distinct species although they are currently treated as one species with three subspecies [citation needed]."

UPDATE!!!!!!!!!!!!! Breaking News!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! This can now be confirmed!!!!!!!!!!!!! One source tells of many morphotypes and species[7]!!!!!!!. Unfortunately many photos cannot show up. But I found a photo of what looks like a golden colored green peacock[8]!!!!!!!!!!!! They claim there is a unique form of blue peacock [9]. Strangely colored forms can be seen!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! We now have proof of more than one species of Green Peafowl!!!!!!!!!!!!! Frankyboy5 23:25, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

According to Common Peafowl (Pavo cristatus) is of the Order - GALLIFORMES and Family - Turkeys and Grouse (Phasianidae, which if you look beyond the plummage and focus spacifcally on the feet and beak it is more apparent. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 01:54, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

Why people added the argus stuff[edit]

The argus stuff was added because those people are probably involved with this site [10]. These same people also believe that the green peafowl is actually ait least five different species. They believe that peafowl and their allies are not related to pheasants at all. I believe this is why:

  • They don't look anything like other pheasants, just beautiful birds with iridescent plumage.
  • Their legs are far longer.
  • The arguses and the peafowl they believe, are related to each other.

I agree because they don't look like pheasants at all.

Additionally, that site could be related to this gallery [11], which also tells of more than one species of green peafowl. This site shows actual comparisons to other sub/species of dragonbirds and says that some captive birds are not Pavo muticus muticus (they call it P. m. javanensis) as many of us know them but P. muticus muticus which they say is different and is called the Pahang or Malay Dragonbird which they say is extinct in the wild. Frankyboy5 22:52, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

  • I think this would be best decided by genetics. I mean, if they're genetically similar, then technically they would be of the pheasent species... Hell, there's some creature in Africa that loooks like a guinea pig, but molecular genetics proved it was actually more closely related to the elephant family.

Sadly, I'm not sure how you'd find this out. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 01:38, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

Are White Peacocks Albino?[edit]

I know nothing of the details, but the picture on the peacock article states "The White Peacock is frequently mistaken for an albino", but in the article on Albinism, white peacocks are cited as albino. Seems a little inconsistent, why aren't the White Peacocks albino, and if they aren't then the Albinism article ought to be changed. --Nicolas.Wu 20:39, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

No, they are a genetic mutation very different from albinism. Albino peafowl are much rarer. The White Peafowl's eyes are blue, not red. Somebody already replaced the photo with a photo of an albino crocodilian of some kind. Frankyboy5 00:08, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

I don't know how rare they are, with all these pictures of them. I had a friend who raised them, white peacocks--they scream as loud and poop as much as regular peacocks. However, what genetic mutation is it, that differs so greatly from albinism, but appears to have the same result, lack of pigmentation? Cats may be white-masked or albinos, the white-mask being a completely different gene from the one, and different mechanism from the one that causes lack of pigment. Also, there are blue-eyed albino cats. Also, humans with albinism don't necessarily have red eyes, they often have light colored bluish pink eyes. But certainly this has a name, and it needs a reference. Humans are inherently fascinated with albinism, so I'm certain they are plenty of articles about it. KP Botany 22:58, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

Leucism, perhaps? Ben Standeven 03:33, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

Weird Peahen who develops male plumage?[edit]

I saw an episode of Amazing Animal Videos that showed a peahen that turned male-like and stopped laying eggs. It started to have a longer tail, like a female Green Peahen, and its upper tail coverts started to grow. Should we add something about this bird? Frankyboy5 08:52, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

If you have information from AAVs sources, it can be added. KP Botany 15:48, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

I have had aleast 3 peahens do this. What I would like to know is if they change sex or just plumage —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 19:23, 26 February 2010 (UTC)


Stop adding pictures please. I'll select the proper ones and eliminate the gallery it's out of control. If you wish your picture to be in Wikipedia you can upload it in the Commons. I'll wait for a response here. any votes? --((F3rn4nd0 ))(BLA BLA BLA) 20:59, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

Yes, it's completely, ridiculously, and purposefully out of control. Please eliminate over half. Take charge. Thanks for asking. KP Botany 22:43, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

To heck with the pictures, how do I get rid of the stinking peahens. They are worse than having geese crap everywhere.

Weird sentence that needs to be changed.[edit]

"The female of the speculated race/species annamensis has an incredibly golden sheen, but that is exhibited in both sexes."

This sentence seems contradictory, could someone fix it please? Gary 03:05, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

Do they really kill people[edit]

I've never heard of a killer peacock! Are they real?

—Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 19:41, 27 January 2008 (UTC) 


I've read about peafowl being able to fly (to reach trees to sleep in, for example), but aren't the cocks inhibited by their trains? For that matter, how does a typical peacock's train compare to the bird's own body weight? 18:18, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

How much do feathers weigh? The train of peacocks and tail of pheasants is insignificant compared to the body weight. Jimfbleak. Talk to me.19:14, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
They certainly don't weigh a lot, but when you have a whole bunch of them, they'll definitely add up. I'm mostly wondering about the train's interference in flight, though; I can't find any pictures of a peacock in flight, and I can't imagine how those feathers would be used (since they aren't like a typical bird tail). 21:24, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
Nevertheless, although preferring to walk or run, they always roost in tall trees and will fly to escape if desperate. {Pheasants of the World) Only the adult males have the long tail, and these are large powerful birds perfectly capable of the short flight needed to get to roost. Jimfbleak. Talk to me.06:59, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Green Peafowl do flight displays and the male even fly with their young in their wings ; the male is actually monogamous (K. Blackwood in literature). The person quoted in literature has not officially published anything like this but Kermit is expected to in a few years. He has however, been quoted in the Red Data Book. He is also known for the hypothesis of six distinct species of Green Peafowl.

At least Green Peafowl males can fly in order to display but the Indian Peafowl I'm not sure because work by K. Blackwood also shows that each species and even subspecies of Peafowl has a distinct wing shape. Frankyboy5 04:01, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

I have seen with my own eyes flying blue peafowl. They do not fly well, and they do not fly far, but they can escape predators by flapping up onto roofs and into trees, even with the trains. I used to live in a bird sanctuary that was overrun with donated peafowl. The most common question we had was "how to the peacocks get up in the trees?" We used to tell people we sent out crews to put them there every morning. (talk) 06:12, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

From first hand experience, yes, they can fly. I saw one whilst on a week's holiday that lived on the grounds of our accommodation. I only ever saw it fly once, though, when it flew 'down' from a tree, which seems to support what the person above me said :) (talk) 00:53, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

Shouldn't peafowl flight be mentioned here? It should be described here at least. Aren't there any sources that we can cite? Alphapeta (talk) 06:11, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

When do they open?[edit]

When do they open the wings??I Saw one opening today.... Do they do that at random moments?? —Preceding unsigned comment added by MightySaiyan (talkcontribs) 16:59, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

If you're talking about the tail, I believe it's a courting thing... the male opens the tail to impress the females and to attract their attention. If howeer, when you said wings you meant wings, my guess would be they open them when any bird would open its wings... when it wants to fly, stretch, or groom under them.~ ONUnicorn(Talk|Contribs)problem solving 02:03, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

White Peacock.[edit]

Is it a lab-created albino, or is it a legit type of Peafowl? —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 01:06, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

Not albino, recessive mutation, natural occuring, as with black-shoulder, cameo, etc. Frankyboy5 (talk) 03:59, 8 October 2008 (UTC)


Can someone change the text at the bottom of this page to Unicode? I can't even tell what encoding it is. Thanks... —Preceding unsigned comment added by AntiNeo (talkcontribs) 12:43, 5 October 2008 (UTC)


It's not uncommon here in Britain for stately homes etc to have some domesticated peafowl. In fact, I saw some today at Berrington Hall. Is this a specifically British thing (via the colonial connection with India) or does it happen elsewhere? Only North America is mentioned elsewhere as having populations, but as I say it's not rare at all here in the UK. Loganberry (Talk) 19:19, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

Need more on culture[edit]

I'm sure this bird is popular in Asia and has many historical/cultural significances. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 05:16, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

relocate article to Peacock?[edit]

The common term for the bird in this article Peacock, which redirects here. I tried swapping the two but got reverted, can we move this article to peacock ,and make peafowl a redirect? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Somegoals17 (talkcontribs) 05:22, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

I reverted it to encourage the discussion per WP:BRD. I have no strong view on the actual question - peacock is certainly more widely used but is perhaps less accurate. Should peacock possibly instead redirect to the disambiguation page? Euryalus (talk) 05:26, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

Disagree, the purpose of an encyclopaedia is to be correct and factual, not to pander to the ignorant. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 10:57, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

Ridiculous! Those who correctly use the word peacock as it has been used in English for more than 700 years are not ignorant. There is absolutely nothing incorrect about the standard usage of peacock. Peafowl is a more recent coinage and has never attained a wide spread usage regardless of any superior factuality it may or may not impart to the subject - original research conducted a few moments ago shows more than 30,000,000 returns for "peacock" and just under 500,000 for "peafowl". The first criterion listed at WP:TITLE is Recognizability,
an ideal title will confirm, to readers who are familiar with (though not necessarily expert in) the topic, that the article is indeed about that topic. One important aspect of this is the use of names most frequently used by English-language reliable sources to refer to the subject.
Not to say that "peafowl" doesn't belong in the article, but how about the explanation that it's a specialized word used to differentiate between male/female peacocks/hens, and the overall genus commonly known as peacock. (talk) 04:49, 16 February 2011 (UTC)
I second that. Everyone calls these birds peacocks. Just like cows are cows and dogs are dogs, even though sex-specific terms exist. (talk) 14:41, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

peafowl colors[edit]

My local peacock population here in rural S.E. Utah has the usual peacock blue and peahen green birds but also white peacocks that still have the grey wings. They apparently breed true, maintaining all 3 sets of colors. up to 33 or more birfs appear at a time in my yard. L don't know the actual size of the population They coexist peacefully with my domestic turkeys and my cats.NanSq (talk) 03:22, 4 July 2010 (UTC)


Living in the US, most peacocks I've seen are domesticated in zoos or on farms, where they wander freely, but apparently stay local for a reliable food supply? I know of a situation where people tried to kill uninvited peacocks on account of their noise and deficating habits. At any rate, there's a brief second on Feral Populations that needs some balance with other types of population. (talk) 06:53, 26 February 2011 (UTC)


Should Pavo (genus) be merged with this article? –anemoneprojectors– 13:16, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

After I posted this I realised there's an existing discussion on that article's talk page. –anemoneprojectors– 13:38, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

Hen plumage[edit]

The current article is inconsistent w.r.t. hen plumage. It looks to be written aimed at the Indian peacock. (Is that where this article originated, or is it simply wrong through OR?) Green peacock hens are colourful. (talk) 14:38, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

"extravagant eye-spotted tail"[edit]

In the sentence (in first line) "extravagant eye-spotted tail", the link of [tail] is misleading. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 00:55, 5 November 2011 (UTC)


Feedback> It is really hard for me to attach much credence to this article. I suppose you are doing your best, so thanks.

I think the article should be written by an expert from Asia. I have never seen a wild or domesticated peacock in Cambodia-- or perhaps I have seen many, but was not impressed. However, the Redemptorist center in Pattaya, Thailand had (1992) a pen of a dozen or so, which I entered. The males seemed to be displaying mostly for my benefit-- but I am not your Asian expert. Those males were intimidating. I slowly fled their territory within 5 minutes.

The most interesting part of the Article was the partial explanation of feather color in birds-- which I find totally fascinating but unbelievable-- and which I will research further. TheLordSayeth (talk) 08:06, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

Does anyone actually care to learn something about peafowl?[edit]

There are many questions below that are readily answerable but it would appear that those that pose them answer them themselves a bit abruptly. It's difficult to assuage intention from friendly banter but it would appear as if people are generally curious. Nevertheless, they are marginilising intellectually the great body of work by learned scholars.

Further, when individuals describe nutrition or behaviors or flight capacity of domestic peafowl as evidence of wild birds this should be acknowledged as at least problematic . There is a great deal to be learned in reference about peafowl. With least a dozen papers describing the monophyletic lineage of the Peafowl, which includes Congo Peafowl and two genera of Argus. Even a preliminary google search of phylogeny peafowl brings up several important references. 

Here is a block of references that I hope will be included in future discussions on peafowl. While many if not most of you are wikipedia brilliant, most researchers are not. Being a researcher myself, I find it distressing how primitive and poorly formed information on many animals are and pleasantly surprised with others. I understand this comes down to the authors of the material. Rhinoceros and Leaf Monkeys for instance, are noteworthy examples of excellence. Nothing written about Galliformes appears to have anything not resembling a 1970's pseudo-reference book on the subject. Please help me to improve this situation. Most researchers, myself included, are daunted by the time and complexity involved with what must seem incredibly elementary to most of you...

STIDHAM, Thomas A.. The first fossil of the Congo peafowl (Galliformes: Afropavo). S. Afr. j. sci. [online]. 2008, vol.104, n.11-12, pp. 511-512. ISSN 0038-2353.

 . Louchart A. (2003). A true peafowl in Africa. S. Afr. J. Sci. 99, 368–371. [ Links ]
   . Pickford M., Senut B. and Mourer-Chauviré C. (2004). Early Pliocene Tragulidae and peafowls in the rift valley, Kenya: evidence for rainforest in East Africa. C. R. Palevol 3, 179–189. [ Links ]
   . Dupain J. and Van Krunkelsven E. (1996). Recent observations of the Congo Peacock Afropavo congensis in the Equateur Province, Zaire. Ostrich 67, 94–95. [ Links ]
   . Stidham T.A. (2007). Preliminary assessment of the Late Miocene avifauna from Lemudong'o, Kenya. Kirtlandia 56, 173–176. [ Links ]
   . Kimball R.T., Braun E.L. and Ligon J.D. (1997). Resolution of the phylogenetic position of the Congo peafowl, Afropavo congensis: a biogeographic and evolutionary enigma. Proc. R. Soc. Lond. B 264, 1517–1523. [ Links ]

Phylogeny of major lineages of galliform birds (Aves: Galliformes) based on complete mitochondrial genomes

X.-Z. Kan1, J.-K. Yang1, X.-F. Li1, L. Chen1, Z.-P. Lei2, M. Wang1, C.-J. Qian1, H. Gao3 and Z.-Y. Yang3

Dyke, G.J., Gulas, B.E. and Crowe, T.M. 2003. The suprageneric relationships of galliform birds (Aves, Galliformes): a cladistic analysis of morphological characters. Zoological Journal of the Linnaean Society 137: 227-244.

van Tuinen, M. and Dyke, G.J. 2004. Calibration of galliform molecular clocks using multiple fossils and genetic partitions. Molecular Phylogenetics and Evolution 30(1): 74-86. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Amoun-Pinudjem (talkcontribs) 05:50, 10 March 2012 (UTC)

Photo Heading[edit]

the first photo says Male Indian Peacock. That's redundant since only males are pea-cocks, females are pea-hens, the neuter term is pea-fowl.Shieldwolf (talk) 10:10, 28 July 2012 (UTC)

Behavioral Ecology on Peafowl[edit]

Of the articles surveyed, the Peafowl is the most surprisingly lacking. Though it is not stub and, the article is not particularly well written nor well cited, and lacks much of the discussion surrounding the sexual selection in the Peafowl. The article mentions the different species of Peafowl, along with brief overviews of the plumage, coloration, evolution, behavior, diet, gastronomy, and cultural significance of the birds. The largest section is that referencing the bird’s importance in religions and its use as the symbol of NBC. Amazingly, in the discussion of the evolution of the Peacock’s tail, the article makes no mention of either sexual selection under Fisher’s Hypothesis nor selection under Zahavi’s Handicap Hypothesis. Instead, it merely mentions a quote by Darwin and misrepresents the current view surrounding sexual selection in the Peafowl. The article says,

“A seven-year study of a population of free-ranging peacocks, conducted in Japan, came to the conclusion that female peahens are virtually indifferent towards the male display of plumage. A suggestion is that the plumage may have been a signal that was important earlier but has become obsolete. However, there was little plumage variance in the studied population. Other researchers have found the plumage to be important.”

This is an incorrect representation of the current understanding of Peafowl sexual selection and serves to only cause confusion about the subject material. It is clear that this article is in great need of revision, especially considering the standing of peacocks within biology and popular culture. This need is reflected both in the history of the article and in the numerous posts under the Talk tab calling for editing, reformatting and expansion of the article’s content. Amazingly, the article is considered of only mid importance by the Wikiproject Birds despite the importance of understanding Peafowl behavior and sexual selection. I believe that editing the Peafowl article might be a good option for our group.


Editing the Evolution Portion of the Article[edit]

My first addition to the Peafowl Wikipedia page was directed towards the Evolution section of the article. The author, unfortunately, had overlooked numerous evolutionary principles in their explanation of peafowl mating behavior and the origin of the peacock’s elaborate train. The author did not discuss any of the scientific studies suggesting that the elaborate train is a result of sexual selection, nor did he/she remark on any of the important theories, such as the Handicap Principle, which have used the peacock’s tail as evidence. However, even more grievous than the lack of information provided in the section was the utter misrepresentation of information concerning the peacock’s train. The author used the results of Mariko Takahashi’s 2008 study to completely dismiss the idea of sexual selection by suggesting that the tail has no effect on mating. This was not Takahashi’s conclusion. He instead found that the train was not the key indicator in mating success and physiological fitness in a single sample population of peafowl, though the train was still part of the males’ sexual displays. Since then, there have been publications rebutting Takahashi’s conclusion and articles suggesting that the differences in results between Takahashi and others was due to the differences in the environments of the peafowl populations. Finally, the author included that the train was most likely the result of “natural selection, not sexual selection,” (an incorrect statement as sexual selection is a form of natural selection) based on conclusions made by Joseph Jordania in his book Why do People Sing? Music in Human Evolution. This book has been subject to much controversy and many of his conclusions have been dismissed in the scientific community, including those surrounding peacocks. Thus, the articles statement,

“Joseph Jordania recently suggested that the peacock's brilliantly colored and oversized tail (with plenty of eyespots), as well as its piercing, loud call, evolved through the forces of natural selection, not sexual selection, and were primarily designed to intimidate rivals and competitors, not to attract females,”

is hardly the currently help opinion in the scientific community.

In addition to editing the Evolution section of the article, I also added to and edited the References pertaining to this section.

Cobiorower (talk) 04:21, 25 September 2012 (UTC)cobiorower


A correction should be made to reference #7: "Petrie et al. (1991).Anim . Behav., 44; 585 –586." This article was published in 1992, not 1991. I would make the edit myself, however I'm not sure how to edit the reference section. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 04:49, 13 November 2012 (UTC)

Height and weight?[edit]

This article is incomplete without references to average height and weight. Thank you! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Steve0701 (talkcontribs) 00:32, 4 March 2013 (UTC)

Evolutionary connection between Peafowl and Wild Turkeys?[edit]

It would be interesting to address the connection between Indian peafowl and the wild turkeys indigenous to North America, given their physiological similarities and precisely identical mating rituals. A common ancestor seems more probable than parallel evolution, but I have been unable to locate any information about whether such an ancestor existed or when the species might have diverged. Unfortunately, given the geographical issues, I can think of no solution that would allow such an ancestor to have existed later than Cretaceous times before the breakup of Pangea. It's a matter of great interest if anyone knows anything about this. PastReflections (talk) 03:28, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

They aren't even in the same family, so convergent evolution may be to blame Jimfbleak - talk to me? 09:28, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

In Hindu culture, the peacock is the mount of the lord Karthikeya, the god of war. A demon king,[edit]

I think Hindus would Be more in favor with this page talking about the link of the peacock to lord Krishna who is famous for wearing the peacock feather, his story is far older then Karthikeya. (talk) 16:48, 8 January 2014 (UTC)Veda

  • Great! Got some references to back up what you are claiming? Even better! Go ahead and WP:BE BOLD and make the changes yourself whenever you feel the urge and as long as you have the documentation to support your statement. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia that anyone can edit, as true here today as when the article was created back in 2003. KDS4444Talk 02:22, 13 December 2014 (UTC)

Sexual dimorphism example[edit]

Hello. It seems unnecessary that this article presently displays two closeup pictures of a peacock feather. Would anyone object to my removing of the smaller image (above that of the 'green peafowl') in order to replace it with this one from the sexual dimorphism page? It would be nice to showcase male and female specimens together, let alone for the sake of drawing comparisons between them. AyrtonProst Radio 16:59, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

  • I agree, and support this proposed change. We do not need multiple images of the same basic "thing" here in the article: we need the best images, and those are frequently (though not necessarily always) the largest. I also support the idea of having a single picture that shows both a male and female bird in the same frame: this definitely allows the reader to gauge the size dimorphism of the species, which us useful to have. KDS4444Talk 02:29, 13 December 2014 (UTC)

Admin Help needed[edit]

Please create an edit notice for this article, placing in it the template {{British English|form=editnotice}}: the first non-stub version of the article (from Feb. 2003) appears to have been written using British English, and this should therefore be retained per MOS:RETAIN, especially so that future editors are given notice of this fact and will not attempt to casually switch "colour" back to "color" without first obtaining consensus on the matter. Much thanks! --KDS4444Talk 02:05, 13 December 2014 (UTC)

  • Yes check.svg Done ☺ · Salvidrim! ·  19:37, 13 December 2014 (UTC)