Talk:Peafowl

relocate article to Peacock?

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?

undefined terms

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? 165.91.64.171 (talk)RKH —Preceding undated comment was added at 16:16, 12 October 2008 (UTC).

How many?

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 moar!

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. 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 204.49.209.155 13:43, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Important Details

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 75.104.96.56 (talk) 18:34, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

How long do they live?!

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)

Pavoninidae

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:

• Family: Phasianidae

and sometimes

• Subfamily: Phasianinae

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 [1]. 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. [2]. 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 [3]. These same people also believe that the green peafowl is actually five different species. Frankyboy5 22:36, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

Reformat

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

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)

Obscurity

"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)

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 124.149.85.19 (talk) 01:34, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

Polygymous vs. Polygynous

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)

Peafowl+Consumption

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)

Eggs

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

Cleanup

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

--64.148.27.27 03:44, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

Evolutionary problem

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)

nonsense,

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.

Feral in Mexico & US

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. [4] 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??

"maybe they started in Texas"

Maybe??

"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. [5] 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)

---

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)

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

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 ."

UPDATE!!!!!!!!!!!!! Breaking News!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! This can now be confirmed!!!!!!!!!!!!! One source tells of many morphotypes and species[6]!!!!!!!. Unfortunately many photos cannot show up. But I found a photo of what looks like a golden colored green peacock[7]!!!!!!!!!!!! They claim there is a unique form of blue peacock [8]. 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 WhatBird.com: 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 70.109.217.204 (talk) 01:54, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

Why people added the argus stuff

The argus stuff was added because those people are probably involved with this site [9]. 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 [10], 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 124.149.85.19 (talk) 01:38, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

Are White Peacocks Albino?

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?

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 69.41.206.21 (talk) 19:23, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

WTF?

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.

"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

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

—Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.120.228.181 (talk) 19:41, 27 January 2008 (UTC) 

Flight?

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? 66.71.35.218 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). 66.71.35.218 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.99.246.33.58 (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 :) 81.140.74.41 (talk) 00:53, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

When do they open?

When do they open the wings??I Saw one opening today.... Do they do that at random moments?? —Preceding unsigned comment added by MightySaiyan (talk • contribs) 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.

Is it a lab-created albino, or is it a legit type of Peafowl? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.19.236.142 (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)

Unicode...

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 (talk • contribs) 12:43, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

UK

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

I'm sure this bird is popular in Asia and has many historical/cultural significances. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 210.3.6.254 (talk) 05:16, 6 March 2010 (UTC)