THE LAYMAN'S GUIDE AROUND THE EYESIGN MAZE (PART TWO)

As I stated in part one - this is a massive undertaking particularly because there is absolutely no scientific evidence to confirm the theory of eyesign. For this subject I have to draw upon my biology lessons from school (a long time ago) memory, opportunities of having been able to dissect and study under college microscopes the eyes of pigs, calves, sheep and various poultry (all of which are different in both shape and coloration) and obviously some advanced literature upon the subject of vision. Much of this takes a far finer brain than my own to understand (nobody can fully understand a multitude of specialised subjects) so I translate it into layman's form - then perhaps a better qualified person may expand upon the subject without attempting to denigrate my own sincere effort! We will deal with a pigeons eye and its visual capability - unfortunately there is very little literature if any that can be found to deal exclusively with this subject - so human examples must be borrowed and then differentiation's explained to the best of my own personal knowledge. Firstly it must be understood that the human being focuses both eyes in similar manner upon a single subject - this appears in an upside down manner and is then corrected by the brain. Experiments were tried with human beings by using special lenses to alter and reverse this process - the person would then see all things appearing to be upside down; until the brain eventually corrected this false impression. Once the lenses were removed the brain then translated everything in upside down manner, until eventually correcting the image once again with normal function! So it is possible to disorientate the mind through faulty vision, or alteration to the norm - this I know myself after having spent one week in a recording studio round the clock without any windows! Somewhere along the line all sense of time was lost; disorientation was the outcome and it took several days to readjust to normal! So the eyes, brain and comprehension of the norm are intertwined. Birds see differently than ourselves - they see a different range of colours; the second eyelid (which we do not possess) or nictanic membrane not only shields the eye from dust or rain whilst lubricating the pigeons eye - it also allows the bird to filter polarized light! This gives it far greater range of vision than our own although not through the spectrum of colours.

Colour filtration comes via the "Rods & Cones" as will be explained later; it is also determined by the "Melanin" (black) pigment cells. The next most important difference is that the bird has vision through approximately 340 degrees our own vision is limited to approximately 140 degrees when facing forwards. Obviously the turning of the head increases the overall perception of terrain etc. A pigeon is able to turn its head through greater revolution than our own for a total all round view. Another significant difference is that the bird may use each eye independently; giving both forward and rear vision at one and the same time. It can also focus eyes independently - scanning the sky and distance for predators whilst close focusing upon grain - this is why pigeons are often observed to be tilting the head in one direction to ground whilst the other is raised skyward. They also have the ability to focus both eyes upon a single subject - so now one might understand the difficulty arising with the theory of eyesign? We have to look at the various expounded theories i.e. - that small pupils are best, that circles of correlation denote distance capability of endurance or even intelligence; that sphincter muscles (a muscle that surrounds an opening) and which incidentally are also found in the anus but are no criterion towards intellect) denote a better bird - these are of course the ciliary body or muscle in the eye and their constriction or expansion controls the action of the iris in opening or closing around the pupil. Iris colour and density of same denoting better intellect or vision and of course the colour or shape of the circles etc. and even sometimes the shape of the pupil i.e. ovoid to be avoided!

Of course there is no medical foundation in any of these theories - pigeons being descendants of dinosaur lizards have a sophisticated reptilian eye by nature and in some the pupils are oval and yet do not exclude the bird from visual or physical performance - intelligence is determined by brain capacity and not by visual acuity! Of course - birds possess extremely large brains in comparison to skull size and this is also true of the eyes - the eyes see and the brain translates the picture! And it must not be forgotten that a brain can function in intelligence without the aid of vision but vision cannot possibly function in any living being without a brain - although it can be mechanically produced in a camera! From a physical point we must deal with the pupil - here we see the invisible - it is only a hole and nothing more; with the size and outer perimeter controlled by the iris muscles (ciliary's). Small or large being determined by the light available - it is small in bright light and larger as light dims and this is determined by photo receptors - too much or too little can damage the optic nerves - dilation and contraction are safety valves to avoid danger. This process is only altered by damage to the nerves or interference from drug abuse and pupil size will be determined by individual tolerance levels to light - it can be greater in some than in others - it does not denote better vision nor higher intellect!

The conjunctiva is the outer membrane and the cornea lies directly behind this being a clear layer allowing light to enter. The conjunctiva is lubricated by lachrymal glands which keep the eye clear and protected. This covers all but the center of the cornea. The eyes spherical structure consists of three walls - the outer sclera, the middle choroid layer and the inner retina. The sclera is what we would call the "white of the eye" - it is a tough outer fibrous coating and attached to the muscles allowing movement. The muscles at this point are what are commonly referred to by eyesign experts as "the heart line" and yet I can find no reference to these being in any way connected to heart efficiency, longevity nor brain capacity - that theory has no foundation whatever! One thing that I must point out is that the most vociferous exponents of these theories at point of inception were not themselves noted for exceptional performances by members of their own pigeon teams. Yet one can only speculate that they adopted the theory within their own lofts, and in that statement may be included, some more contemporary treatise writers than Gigot, Van der Linden or Van Schingen! Much of the theory was pure hyperbole and contentious catch-penny in motivation!

Inside the sclera is the choroid layer and this gradually modifies to become the iris towards the front of the eye. The iris contains pigment giving the eye its colour; the iris also contains radial bands (circle of correlation) and smooth rings of circular muscle. Constriction of the radial muscles and relaxing of the circular muscle cause the dilation or constriction to the hole which is the pupil. Various pupil size is controlled by autonomic reflexes as responses to changes in light values entering the eye - medically the contraction is named "constriction" (a lessening in gage or passage size). As a "layman" I would describe the iris as a light reflective surface which prevents excess and ambient non required light from entering the eye at any point other than the pupil! The colour is determined by pigmentation and reflected - it can have no bearing upon intellect or visual acuity, although it can be used as a health monitor - deterioration in pigmentation illustrating a lowering of vitality and general condition! Now from a pigeon fanciers point of view, we do not need to consider any other constituent parts of the eye in relation to EYESIGN THEORY . The only parts that we are concerned with are those related to Sphincter muscles, pupil, iris, circles of correlation and the mystical heart line - none of which can possible dictate intelligence.

The iris colour is determined by visible blood cells and pigmentation - these appearing as spread or compact in nature. They are genetic features within the species. The circle of correlation is also genetic - the rings are muscle and pigment visible in the iris, and like the iris the may be bright or dull dependent upon condition of health. The black dust spots are melanin, non reflective light absorbent pigmentation as are other streaks or spots; and the definitive density of the black is also a useful health monitor. The pupil itself is a hole to allow lights passage to the lens and optic nerves; the size dictated by tolerance to light and nerve impulses generating constriction or dilation as required - there is no possible way that the pupil can determine distance capability or intelligence and visual acuity would be determined by the health of the eye as a whole and the quality of the lens which we cannot see!

The heart line is only a band of muscle to assist with rotation or movement of the eye - it does not have any other known function! The next point to consider is that of colour vision - in humans we all perceive colours differently - to some certain colours of aesthetic beauty may be offensive to the eyes of others- we also perceive a variation in shades and males tend to lesser colour differential than females - particularly in red, green and browns. The colour perception comes via the rods and cones located in the fovea which is situated to the rear of the eye and connected to the optic nerves. Humans have considerably more of these than most animals and approximately forty per cent more than pigeons - so pigeons do not see shades of colour as we them! The rods and cones to use "layman's terms" contain "oil droplets" which act as filters - these are mainly red green and blue or more or lesser intensity; this allows translation of colour shades. Along with these is a layer of "melanin" (black pigmentation) - this absorbs excess or ambient light controlling colour intensity! That basically in "layman's terms" is the mechanics of the colour perception. From this we can deduce that although colour perception may be extremely useful to artists and our appreciation of the worlds beauty, it is not a standard of intelligence - although it might be risky to allow a colour blind person to change the wiring on a plug! So what value is there in eyesign?

Well firstly despite the scientific evidence against any value, personally I find it to be a very useful tool in pigeon selection amongst known families and individuals within that family. I prefer to call it "Eye-study" for this reason - it may not demonstrate intelligence per se in pigeons but it is useful within their own bloodlines when certain aspects repeat themselves in subsequent generations. It is also a good monitor of general health and can also monitor excesses of inbreeding! Now you might ask - "but you recently judged an eyesign show and chose the top breeder/winners from a massive class of 120 birds in two hours and wrote down their assessments - if it is only a "family" monitor, then how did you do this? Well the answer is quite straight forward - I have been a pigeon fancier for forty plus years and study my subject; I have also been successful in my own right and the majority of pigeons in that show were exhibited by fanciers of equal standing - almost any bird could have been the winner - there were some exceptional eyes possessed by exceptional pigeons. Some of these pigeons were known to me - for instance two champion racing cocks from my own club; one of which has topped the amalgamation every season of its five years racing life (you didn't realise that I recognized it George). As a judge I cannot award prizes to pigeons that I know almost as well as my own! So those pigeons were immediately eliminated, much to the surprise of the owners - however a judge must have a standard of ethics, and mine is to throw out known birds of known ownership! To hell if it costs me friends -- I don't like ringers!

There was another bird with odd eyes - I suspect that it was entered to fool me - it had no apparent eyesign, one eye mainly "bull" wine coloured, the other partially "bull" but carrying the brightest of gold to the very bottom of the circle. This I assessed as an exceptional pigeon - but there had to be a winner and placing's! The next thing is, that although I had little time to judge the birds - subconsciously because of my experience, I was judging the stance, the quality of feather, and the overall standard of the bird, even though my main concentration was upon the eye! Fanciers do this and can often select the best within a loft from nothing more than observation - I do it all of the time. The better the loft - the greater the success in prediction, when noticing family traits or the unusual i.e. old age (this is not there for nothing), a maverick amongst the team (this is a new introduction) selection is nothing more than deduction and elimination before arriving at a conclusion, dear Watson! There was also what I consider to be a failure upon my part as judge - the winner of the hens class (although I got the 2nd prize spot on) was a stray of some 7 yrs of age. This bird had a remarkable eye, the likes of which I have seen only upon rare occasions - each time it was a champion breeder and founder of the loft! On this occasion it was owned by a very nice chap, but not a fancier who breaks the pots each season - I had to ask myself - did he only retain this bird for eyesign shows and its age as a pet - why had it not bred him winners? This same pigeon went on to win all top honours in the eyesign class at the BHW Show of the Year, when judged by a leading expert in this field - so I wasn't the only one who was fooled. I maintain that in a top fanciers loft, that pigeon would have been a champion breeder. Fate denied it the chance.

That is an intangible and eyesign definitely improves with age and yet eyesight diminishes as the years advance! The only conclusion that I could arrive at, was that "eye study" is useful for determining vitality - not intelligence, nor racing ability - top class eyesign can often be found in pigeons of very poor racing or homing ability - I didn't draw this conclusion today, I proved it to myself many years ago when I was an eyesign fanatic! Yes I still pick the best by their eyes but I never neglect the family history of racing / breeding performance and I always consider the whole pigeon, not just a single part of the creature! There are other traits within families - length of cast, shape of wing (my own best distance performers carried a double "step' - step one between secondaries and primaries; step two between primaries six and seven - the last four flights being long, narrow and well spread). There are many other family traits in pigeons including "skull shape" with many theories being expounded and written around them. Once again they are only theories - they are characters within a gene pool that stretches back some sixty million years! Occasionally these characters appear and in line - bred or in - bred families they appear as a norm! The wise fancier utilizes these signs within his family by breeding around these characteristics to produce a fixed type and a fixed type can also be produced for eye patterns, as they were and are with Sions, Bricoux, Janssens, Jan Aarden, Ko Nipius etc. The evidence for family traits is far more worthy of study than just simply looking for magical signs, that are found equally in all animals, birds etc. and I am yet to see the violet eyed parrot that could win a pigeon race. SPINKSY.

Addendum.

This can also be the case with eye colour or "eye-sign" - the pearl eye is recessive to yellow or in other words two yellow eyed pigeons may breed a pearl eyed pigeon, but two pearl eyed birds can never breed a yellow eyed pigeon.( the problems with recessive genes and dogmatic thought is the fact that occasionally a mutation is spawned and a yellow eyed pigeon could possibly be bred from two pearl eyed birds - sex linking is not an infallible criterion, as pointed out in my colour breeding article) Sometimes a fancier may swear by the pearl eyed pigeon produced from a family of yellow eyed dominance. Family history has provided him with winners/breeders - in another loft the opposite might be true with all possessors being fools! Another eye colour to be somewhat recessive is the"nut brown iris with golden circle and these may also be valued or devalued in the same way (although in truth, I have always found them to be useful birds) So from what I have explained as a layman, several conclusions may be drawn

1) eyes are family monitors

2) they are signs of health.

3) they can have no bearing upon selection of champions through the board in unknown quantities or qualities.

4) eye-sign is only a fad but a very useful one when knowing family history.

The other thing to bear in mind is that it would be a total waste of money to employ an "Eye-sign Grader" he would only judge the birds as I have done at shows and use an overall (possibly subconscious) view of the birds.This any fancier can do for himself but - the only criteria towards racing/breeding success will be trial and error obtained via competition with the pigeons themselves. The best fancier in the world cannot win with poor stock in highly skilled competition and no amount of eye-sign knowledge will turn a poor family into a team of champions - but he could use it to find the healthiest or best amongst a bad lot! There are other conclusions drawn by myself many years ago -in this instance I will use the case of feral (wild type) pigeons. I often studied these as further interest apart from the breeding of "performance family" pigeons and certain things became noticeable. Within feral flocks certain pigeons attain great longevity, they are rarely sick; apparently fit and at ease with the environment in which they survive. Several and continual observations of these birds demonstrated them to also be the main stud progenitors of the flock. Upon catching these birds for study and release - almost infallibly they possessed tremendous eye-sign or my eye-study quality! These birds although often "boomeranging" to fields many miles away for feed and demonstrating limited homing ability - could not in any way be considered as racing candidates against a performance proven family! The same may be said of many "homer" but "none racer" type stock owned by unsuccessful fanciers- some of these birds can have exceptional eye-sign and the owner may breed specifically for this characteristic.Yet still there is no improved performance equation to his loft!

Other fanciers who are exceedingly successful, may never give eye-sign a second glance; although invariably their best performers racing/breeding have this quality in abundance! In some respects they have been lucky; because they could just as easily have bred this quality out through injudicious matings - very often they do not obtain the best breeding result from their champion - yet eye study and family relationship could have helped them to do so! Eye study can reveal the overall health, the vitality, the excesses of in-breeding - it could also reveal at an early date the unsuitability/suitability of an out-cross or even save money when making a new purchase! By studying the family of the prospective new introduction he/she would be able to pre-determine his chance of success or identify a "Mule" (a one off performer unlikely to reproduce its like). To myself, that is the value of "eye-study" as opposed to"eye-sign" - it is a very useful tool when used in conjunction with all other physical and genetical considerations within performance families of pigeons. On its own as a means of infallible selection it can never hold water in science, nor offer any practical guide to the racing fancier - a racing pigeon must have everything in balance; including the fancier who would race it! The most important eyes in any loft are the eyes of the fancier himself -develop the "fanciers eye" and learn to read the route map whilst observing all and viewing the whole horizon of things pigeon - then and only then will secret be revealed! It will hit you straight between your eyes and no mistake about it, or my name isn't Sally! Taken in the wrong context the best of eyes could be completely worthless! Nuff said?
SPINKSY (STEVE SPINKS)

NB : before anybody thinks - "What is Spinksy doing writing about eyesign when we have an eyesign scribe?" Allow me to point out that this article was written and published in the BHW during 1993/94 - several years before the appearance of an 'Eyesign Scribe'. Another observation : it doesn't matter which system some fanciers employ, they still don't win races and yet they hold dogmatic opinions about which system new starters should use. Many of them just don't know enough about racing pigeons, and would completely pooh-pooh the Novices Social Circle system. Those same fanciers would be beaten week after week whilst racing widowhood, by a new starter who had sufficient stock sense, and used that very same Novices Social Circle system. I have guided new starters to the very top within a short space of time, when they followed the system. On Homing World Net is the story of a 'Wonder Hen' - the owner telephoned me each week, whilst preparing that pigeon for National fame - she was flown upon the N.S.C. system! I would beat 95% of fanciers with a handful of birds, when employing that method and it wouldn't matter if they used widowhood or not. How do I know? Because I have done so and published the results in the British Homing World for all to see, at the risk of losing all credibility, as both a scribe and racing fancier. However the system won't work for fools! No system will, and neither will eyesign, wing theory nor anything else! Back to Page one

In association with Boglin Marsh Media Click Here to visit Boglin Marsh Web Site.

Click the links below to visit other Boglin Marsh associates [ Todgrove Lofts ] [ The Acton Specials ] [ Elimar Pigeons ] [ Keith Mott ][Jimmy & Susan Dickens]

[ Wolfenden & O'Neil ] [ Homing World.net ] [ Littlewood Lofts ] British Homing World][Jack Curtis]

[Taveirne-Rigole] [Derek Lawton Dordins] [Web Links] [ P.J. Lofts]