Mexican form of which it quite agrees in colour. White, pied and buff turkeys are also often seen, and if care be taken they are commonly found to “breed true.” Occasionally turkeys, the cocks especially, occur with a top-knot of feathers, and one of them was figured by Albin in 1738. It has been suggested with some appearance of probability that the Norfolk breed may be descended from the northern form, Meleagris gallopavo or americana, while the Cambridge breed may spring from the southern form, the M. mexicana of Gould (Proc. Zool. Society, 1856, p. 61), which indeed it very much resembles, especially in having its tail-coverts and quills tipped with white or light ochreous—points that recent North American ornithologists rely upon as distinctive of this form. If this supposition be true, there would be reason to believe in the double introduction of the bird into England at least, as already hinted, but positive information is almost wholly wanting.[1] The northern form of wild turkey, whose habits have been described in much detail by all the chief writers on North American birds, is now extinct in the settled parts of Canada and the eastern states of the Union, where it was once so numerous; and in Mexico the southern form, which would seem to have been never abundant since the conquest, has been for many years rare. Farther to the south, on the borders of Guatemala and British Honduras, there exists a perfectly distinct species, M. ocellata, whose plumage almost vies with that of a peacock in splendour, while the bare skin which covers the head is of a deep blue studded with orange caruncles (Proc. Zool. Society, 1861, pl. xl.).
The genus Meleagris is considered to enter into the family Phasianidae, in which it forms a subfamily Meleagrinae, peculiar to North and Central America. The fossil remains of three species have been described by Professor Marsh one from the Miocene of Colorado, and two, one much taller and the other smaller than the existing species, from the post-Pliocene of New Jersey. Both the last had proportionally long and slender legs. (A. N.)
TURKI, strictly speaking an Arabic or Persian adjective formed from Turk, used by European writers in two rather different senses. (1) It is applied to tribes or languages which are Turkish as opposed to Aryan, Semitic, &c. (2) It is used as the special designation of the tribes and languages of Kashgaria and Eastern Turkestan. (See Turks.)
TURKOMAN, a name applied to certain Turkish tribes still nomad or only recently settled in Transcaspia and northern Afghanistan and Persia. (See Turks.)
TURKS AND CAICOS ISLANDS, a group in the British West Indies. They belong geographically to the Bahamas and lie between 21° and 22° N. and 71° and 72° 37′ W. They are of coral and sand formation, their combined area being 169 sq. m. The Turks Islands, taking their name from a species of cactus having the appearance of a turbaned head, are nine in number, but Grand Turk (10 sq. m.) and Salt Cay (5½ sq. m.) are the only two of any size. The town of Grand Turk, on the west of the island of that name, is the seat of government and a port of registry. Salt Cay has a good harbour.
The Caicos Islands lie to the north-west of Turks Islands and are seven in number. Cockburn Harbour on South Caicos, 22m. from Grand Turk, is the principal settlement and a port of entry. The climate, though somewhat relaxing, is healthy, but there is a scarcity of drinking water, the average annual rainfall being only 27½ in. The mean temperature is 82° F., but owing to the sea breezes the climate is never oppressive. Salt raking is the staple industry. Sisal hemp is grown, sponges are found in some quantities off the coast and there are four sponge-curing factories on the Caicos Islands. Pink pearls are occasionally found. The exports, chiefly to the United States, include salt, sponges and sisal hemp. Grand Turk is in cable communication with Bermuda and with Kingston, Jamaica, some 420 m. to the S.W.
The islands were uninhabited when, about 1678, the Bermudians began to visit them to rake the salt found in the ponds. These visits became annual and permanent settlements were made. In 1710 the British were expelled by the Spaniards, but they returned and the salt trade (largely with the American colonies) continued to be carried on by the Bermudians despite attacks by Spaniards and French, and counter-claims to the islands by the British authorities at the Bahamas, who about 1765 made good their claim. In 1799 the islands were given representation in the Bahamas Assembly, and they remained part of that colony until 1848, when on the petition of the inhabitants they were made a separate colony under the supervision of the governor of Jamaica. This arrangement proving financially burdensome the islands were in 1873 definitely annexed to Jamaica. They are governed by a commissioner assisted by a nominated legislative board. The census of 1901 showed a total population of 5287, of whom 342 were whites, the rest being negroes or mulattoes; 1751 of the inhabitants lived in Grand Turk Island.
See J. N. Bellin, Description géographique des débouquements au nord de St Dominique (1768); the Jamaica Handbook (London, yearly) and Sir C. P. Lucas, Historical Geography of the British Colonies, vol. ii. (2nd ed., Oxford, 1905).
TURKS. The words “Turk” and “Turkish” are used in three senses, political, linguistic and ethnological. Politically, Turk means a Mahommedan subject of the sultan of Turkey. In the East at any rate it is not employed in speaking of Christians, and its application to Arabs, Albanians, Kurds, &c., living in Turkey, though not unusual, is hardly correct. The linguistic use of the name, by which it designates a well-marked division of the Ural-Altaic languages and their speakers, is the most satisfactory. The languages in question are easily identified and defined (see below), and there can be little doubt that they were spoken by the vast majority of the people called Turks since the 6th century of the Christian era. Ethnographically, the use of the word presents difficulties, for it is not easy to differentiate the Turks by physique or customs from allied tribes such as the Finno-Ugrians, Mongolians and Manchus. The Bashkirs, who are probably of Finno-Ugrian stock, speak a Turkish language, and the Magyars, who speak a Ugrian language, have many Turkish characteristics. At the present day there is no difficulty in making a practical distinction between Turks and Mongols. The former speak Turkish languages, are Moslems by religion, live almost entirely in the western half of Asia and fall within the Arabic, and to some extent the European, sphere of influence; the latter speak Mongolian languages, are Buddhists by religion, live in the eastern half of Asia and fall within the sphere of Chinese influence. Yet both Turkish and Mongol traditions represent the two nations as descended from two brothers: Jenghiz Khan, the founder of the Mongol power, must have had large numbers of Turks in his armies, for the chief traces left in Europe of the Mongol invasions are the settlements of Turkish-speaking Tatars in Russia; and the name of his son, Jagatai,is commonly used for a Turkish dialect and khanate in the regions of the Oxus. In Central Asia the distinctions between tribes, nations and races are unusually fluid: we are dealing with predatory nomads for ever fighting with one another or with the settled populations round them. The conquerors enslaved the men and married the women of the conquered, a successful leader attracted round his standard men of different tribes and languages. The corps of janissaries instituted by the Turks in Europe is no doubt an illustration of what happened during many centuries in Asia. The Turks after taking Constantinople claimed from the Christian population a certain number of male children, who were brought up as Turkish soldiers with few ties or principles except obedience to their officers. There was thus a large class, of Turkish speech and Turkish habits, who had absolutely no Turkish blood in their veins. In addition to this, intermarriage has taken place to so large an extent that the modern Turks are almost entirely European in physique. Similarly, no doubt, among the hordes of Central Asia the youths of conquered tribes were absorbed and assimilated by the conquerors and lost their original language. Such transformations were facilitated by the fact that there was no great difference in the manners and customs of these tribes. They were all nomadic, mostly horsemen, and rapacious. As they settled down from time
- ↑ For results of a comparison of the skulls of wild and domesticated turkeys, see Dr Shufeldt, in Journ. of Comp. Medicine and Surgery (July 1887).
