Blyth and others have noted, the voice of both sexes of the common domestic fowl; but the last note of the crow of the wild bird is rather less prolonged. Captain Hutton, well known for his researches into the natural history of India, informs me that he has seen several crossed fowls from the wild species and the Chinese bantam; these crossed fowls _bred freely_ with bantams, but unfortunately were not crossed _inter se_. Captain Hutton reared chickens from the eggs of the _Gallus bankiva_; and these, though at first very wild, afterwards became so tame that they would crowd round his feet. He did not succeed in rearing them to maturity; but, as he remarks, "no wild gallinaceous bird thrives well at first on hard grain." Mr. Blyth also found much difficulty in keeping _G. bankiva_ in confinement. In the Philippine Islands, however, the natives must succeed better, as they keep wild cocks to fight with their domestic game-birds.[382] Sir Walter Elliot informs me that the hen of a native domestic breed of Pegu is undistinguishable from the hen of the wild _G. bankiva_; and the natives constantly catch wild cocks by taking tame cocks to fight with them in the woods.[383] Mr. Crawfurd remarks that from etymology it might be argued that the fowl was first domesticated by the Malays and Javanese.[384] It is also a curious fact, of which I have been assured by Mr. Blyth, that wild specimens of the _Gallus bankiva_, brought from the countries east of the Bay of Bengal, are far more easily tamed than those of India; nor is this an unparalleled fact, for, as Humboldt long ago remarked, the same species sometimes evinces a more tameable disposition in one country than in another. If we suppose that the _G. bankiva_ was first tamed in Malaya and afterwards imported into India, we can understand an observation made to me by Mr. Blyth, that the domestic fowls of India do not resemble the wild _G. bankiva_ more closely than do those of Europe.