EDWARDS’S PHEASANT

Lophura edwardsi  (Oustalet, 1896)

French:    Faisan d’Edwards                            Dutch:  Edwards-fazant     

Spanish:  Faisan de Edwards                           Italian:  Fagiano di Edwards

German:  Edwardsfasan   

Description

Male (65cm): plumage brilliant dark blue with the feathers of the neck and underparts terminating in light borders. Upper parts with lighter edges forming a lacy pattern on a background of black crescents, giving the impression of scales. Head adorned with a short white crest (a few of the terminal feathers mixed with black) and with bright red wattles. Area around the wattles, cheeks, and throat, black. Primaries brown-black, secondaries and tertiaries blue-black. Wing coverts bordered with bluish-green around black crescent shapes. Tail blue-black, straight and rigid, with shorter outer feathers. Feet red, each featuring a single spur. Beak ivory with horn base.

Photo was taken by Don Butler

Female (58cm): plumage chestnut brown tinted with grey on the head, neck, and underparts. Breast feathers with lighter shafts. Wings brown-reddish chestnut with lighter coverts. Primaries black. Tail bluish-black with main feathers brown-red chestnut. Absence of crest. Area of bare red skin around the eyes. Beak horn. Legs red, sometimes featuring spurs.

Photo was taken by John Corder

 Young: brown chestnut, feathers peppered with black. Head and neck grey. Breast buff brown. Male gains his adult plumage in the first year, blue feathers appearing at 12 weeks, first on the neck, then the chest.

 Chick: head buff, with a black eye stripe beginning behind the eye and stopping on each side of the neck, as well as a central, finer stripe beginning at the base of the beak and finishing on the crown. Crown darker overall. Cheeks lighter. Back dark brow with a buff stipe on each side. Wings brownish-black with a buff band on the secondaries. Underparts buff. Beak horn, with lighter tip; legs and feet red.

 Egg: pinkish buff with small white spots, denser in markings at the poles. 45 x 36 mm. 5 to 7 eggs per clutch. Incubation time 23 days.

Distribution

According to Delacour (1983), their area of distribution ranges from central Annam to southern Quang Binh, and to Vinh Linh and Thua Thien Hue to the south, as well as Thua Luu and the Hai Van Pass with Land Khoai, and Huong Hoa to the west. Delacour defined the limit of their distribution based on results from expeditions in Vietnam, but three additional pieces of information suggest that this area likely extends further north than originally thought. Firstly, genetic analyses showed that the imperial pheasant from the Dong Hoi region, described by Delacour is in fact a hybrid between female Edwards’s and male Silver pheasants (Hennache et al., 2003). This suggests that in 1923, Edwards’s pheasant also lived in the forests of Dong Hoi region, extending the area of distribution of the species by 55 km to the north of the region described by Delacour. Secondly, the discovery of remains of a female Edwards’s pheasant in the Co Bang region in 1999 indicates that the area of distribution can be further extended by 20 km to the north. Finally, Hennache & Dickinson (2000) retraced Delacour’s steps from his seven expeditions and found no data from the Ha Tinh region. Considering that the Vietnamese pheasant is a form of Edwards’s and is endemic to the Ha Tinh region in Ke Go (Hennache et al., 2012), it is almost certain that Edwards’s pheasant also lived in the Ha Tinh province, but Delacour likely never obtained a specimen there as he had fixed their area of distribution too far to the south.

Subspecies

Currently no recognised subspecies. Some authors (del Hoyo et al., 1994; Johnsgard, 1999; Madge & McGowan, 2002) suggest that the Vietnamese pheasant (Lophura hatinhensis) could be considered a subspecies of Edwards’s.

Morphological variations

The Vietnamese pheasant, Lophura hatinhensis, was first described in 1975 by Professor Vo Quy based on observations of a single male specimen collected in 1964 from Ky Son Village (Ky Anh District, Ha Tinh Province).

The males of hatinhensis and edwardsi have very similar phenotypes. The most marked difference is the presence of white central tail feathers in hatinhensis. Several authors have suggested that the Vietnamese pheasant is larger than Edwards’s, that the tail feathers are pointed, slightly curved downwards and that the legs are longer, with blue-black plumage (Dang Gia Tung & Le Sy Thuc 1996, Hennache et al 1999). A captive male with these traits was photographed at the Hanoi Zoo by John Corder in 2016, however a study of captive Vietnamese pheasants did not confirm these differences which may just be the result of morphological changes in the captive population of Edwards’s, as suggested by Corder (1996).

A second male was captured in 1974 at the same location in Ky Anh District. The remains of several other birds were obtained by trappers in the same area. The species was again observed in 1990 in Ky Thuong Village (Ky Anh District) and, shortly thereafter, the Hanoi Zoological Garden purchased two pairs from an unidentified area in the Minh Hoa district, province of Quang Binh. Only then could the female be fully described. In 1994, several pheasants from Vietnam were seen in their area of distribution (Lambert et al., 1994). In 1998, other specimens were found at a hunter's house in the vicinity of Chin Xai, Ky Anh District, Ha Tinh Province (Thomas Ziegler in litt.). All data seemed to show that this species was native to southern Ha Tinh province and northern Quang Binh province. However, in 1999, a male was collected near the Khai Dinh mausoleum, around the village of Thuy Bang, Huong Thuy District, Thua Thien Hue Province, about 240 km further south, within the previously defined range of Edwards’s Pheasant. This individual could have been transported by hunters and released quickly, in case of spot checks by government authorities for example (Truong Van La in litt.), but no available data confirm this hypothesis.

The Vietnamese pheasant also exhibits striking plumage variations, reported by several authors (Corder 1996, Dang Gia Tung & Sy Thuc 1996, Davison 1996). White central tail feathers normally appear in the second year, when the male is about 18 months old, but their quantity is variable; from one to six, as is the age at which these grow, which can range from 15, 18, 24 to 30 months. They may also be asymmetric. Additionally, they can be completely white or have spots or brown streaks, suggesting an inherent variability. A 30-month-old male, found dead at the Cau Dien breeding center, had three white central feathers, two on the left and one on the right. Only one of the left feathers was entirely white, the other two being more or less marked with brown; one only showed white at its tip. This colour may also extend further than the tail; a male captured near Huê in 1999, outside the normal area of distribution and now kept at the Hanoi Zoo, had white tertiary coverts acquired after the moult in 1999. These could be the result of an old injury but also be an indication of a certain degree of inbreeding, or a variability of plumage. In captivity, several Vietnamese pheasants have shown white in feathers elsewhere than in the tail.

The female Vietnamese pheasant is very similar to that of Edwards’s, the plumage being a little more reddish (Dang Gia Tung & Sy Thuc 1996, Hennache et al., 1999), but again showing significant variability. Some females have very similar plumage to that of Edwards’s hens; they can have white tail feathers, from one to four, pure white throughout, or more commonly, laced with white. Thus, hatinhensis does not tend to have a fixed phenotype. The only constant physical characteristics are those of Edwards's pheasant. This hypothesis had to be confirmed by genetic analyses, which were carried out by Ettore Randi (Hennache et al., 2012) who performed mitochondrial DNA sequencing on eight Edwards’s pheasants; six of them wild, two from museum skin samples; four were captured in recent years. The samples from Vietnamese pheasants numbered 15, including 10 wild examples. The results show that the sequences obtained on L. hatinhensis differ very little from those of L. edwardsi, from 0.6% to 1% maximum, whereas the threshold of divergence between species, in the genus Lophura, is between 2% and 4.4% (Randi et al., 2001). Vietnamese pheasants analysed show eight haplotypes one of which is identical to that of Edwards’s pheasant. Additional microsatellite analyses were carried out by the WPA between 2015 and 2017; and showed that these two forms are in fact not entirely differentiated at species-level, a wild individual of Edwards’s pheasant even having a mixed hatinhensis - edwardsi genotype. Therefore, the difference between hatinhensis and edwardsi is therefore not at the species level and the Vietnam pheasant cannot be recognised as a different species to Edwards’s pheasant.

The most likely hypothesis is that Edwards’s pheasants in fragmented forest areas evolved as small isolated populations and all suffered from the same issues, including genetic drift. Unexpressed alleles, revealed by homozygosity, or mutations are currently revealing plumage variations, both in wild birds and in the captive population (Hennache et al., 2012). However, the fact that a micro population is evolving in Ha Tinh province, isolated, and yielding a new morphological variation, and unstable for the moment, could suggest some level of speciation in progress, especially since this population shows slightly different haplotypes that cannot be linked to biogeography due to the lack of data on the exact geographic origin of the animals. Edwards's pheasants have developed white central tail feathers without any crossbreeding with Vietnamese pheasants or Swinhoe’s pheasant being the cause: a male in the USA, a female in Germany and a six year old male in France, all of whose genealogy is well described in the international studbook. These birds are indistinguishable from Vietnamese pheasants. This phenotypic variation, presumably due to inbreeding, has already been reported in Australia in a male Swinhoe pheasants with a high degree of inbreeding that had four white tail feathers instead of two; another male had five. These feathers did not appear in offspring produced when the males were crossed with unrelated birds (Weber, 1992). Continued crosses between Edwards’s pheasants and Vietnamese pheasants also seem to show that some hybrid offspring carry white tail feathers.

Hybridisation

Hennache et al. (2003) showed that the imperial pheasant, Lophura imperialis (Delacour et Jabouille, 1925) was a natural hybrid of Edwards’s or Vietnamese with Silver pheasants. The discovery of the imperial pheasant describes one of the most captivating episodes of the exploration of Central Annam by Jean Delacour. In 1923, he obtained a pair of pheasants from local missionaries which were as yet undescribed and originated from an unknown region to the south of the Quang Binh province, or north of Quang Tri (Delacour & Jabouille, 1924). The pair soon arrived in Clères, France, and began to breed the following year. All later attempts to find this species in nature resulted in failure. A French missionary, Father Meaunier, claimed to have obtained other individuals from the same region, but these died during transport and did not arrive alive in France (Delacour, 1977). Their identity was never determined. In 1938, Charles Cordier, a bird collector and friend of Delacour also failed to find additional specimens. At the end of the 1930s, B. Björkegren spent two weeks searching for the imperial pheasant, to no avail (Eames & Ericson, 1996), and finally due to socio-political issues, Vietnam became inaccessible. Numerous authors have reported that this species could also be found in central Laos (Delacour & Jabouille 1931, David-Beaulieu 1949, King et al. 1975) but no specimens have been obtained. The only information seems to have come from vague descriptions provided by local hunters, or cries of animals which “could” have belonged to imperial pheasants. Recent expeditions in Laos have also failed to find the species (McGowan & Garson, 1995). The imperial pheasant has also been added to the list of endangered birds in China (Xu et al., 1996). This species is therefore historically classified in only one single region in central Vietnam, where they are endemic and extremely rare. This is why its conservation has always been the subject of significant worry to naturalists (Collar et al. 1994, McGowan & Garson 1995, Fuller & Garson 2000). It was not until the 28^th February 1990 that a juvenile male was captured in a secondary forest, 12km west of Cat Bin, nearly 200 km away from their known area of distribution in Dong Hoi. Two adult male Vietnamese pheasants were trapped on the same day in the same area (Robson et al. 1993a et 1993b,  Eames et al. 1994). A second juvenile imperial pheasant was captured on the 27^th February 2000, also in a secondary forest in Da Krong district, Quang Tri province in the area of distribution of Edwards’s (Truong Van La in litt., Dang Gia Tung in litt., Huynh Van Keo 1999). In both cases, the captured individuals differed significantly from those described by Delacour. Indeed, there were differences in a few details of their plumage, which we verified in Hanoi, in the skin of a specimen captured in 1990 and in photos sent by Vo Quy. The most remarkable aspect appeared to be that the imperial pheasant was sympatric with two closely geographically related species, sharing the same habitat. This is why, in 1997, Kermit Wood (in litt.) suggested that the Imperial pheasant could be just a natural hybrid between Edwards’s pheasant and the Siamese fireback. Indeed, this hypothesis needed to be tested, with Pamela Rasmussen deciding to study all available museum skins, noting down morphological details. Available skins included a wild female originating from a breeding pair, birds obtained from experiments carried out in Antwerp zoo, skins from birds captured in 1990 and 2000 and conserved in Hanoi. Her conclusion is particularly interesting, as she indicates that no two skins resembled each other, all reflecting the characteristics of some form of hybridisation, not between Edwards’s and Siamese firebacks, but between Edwards’s/Vietnamese and Silver pheasants. This hypothesis (Rasmussen, 1998, 1999) was re-examined by Hennache and Randi, one attempting to recreate the imperial pheasant through crossing species in captivity, the other using DNA sequencing based on skin samples from museums. Hennache (2003) obtained five youngsters from crosses of Edwards’s pheasant with Berlioz’s silver pheasant. Among them, one female and two males strongly resembled the descriptions given by Delacour. One other young male was similar to the bird captured in 2000 in the Quang Tri region. The few morphological variations observed in these hybrids could all be identified on the historical skins from the museums, or in pheasants captured in 1990 and 2000. Randi (Hennache et al., 2003) analysed mitochondrial D loop sequences on all museum skins, and carried out microsatellite analyses. They concluded that the mitochondrial sequences of imperial pheasants were identical either to those of Edwards’s, or those of Silver pheasants, microsatellites revealing hybridisation between the two species. These results (Hennache et al., 2003) show that the imperial pheasant is but a hybrid between Edwards’s and likely Bel’s Silver pheasant originally, between Vietnamese and Beaulieu’s Silver in the case of the 1990 captured individual, and between Bel’s and Edwards’s for the 2000 captured individual. Hybridisation can occur in contact zones between the two taxa but in these cases, habitat alteration such as degradation of forests can lead to hybridisation between rare and more specialised individuals, for example between Edwards’s pheasant, which is confined to particular forests, and a more ubiquitous species such as the Silver (Hennache et al., 2003) where these species can occur together in small areas of forest.

Etymology

Oustalet (1986) named this species Gennaeus Edwardsi. It was later split into the genera Delacourigallus and Hierophasis before being moved to Lophura. Oustalet ascribed this name to them in homage to Pr A. Milne-Edwards (1835-1900), famed French naturalist and director of the National Museum of Natural History in Paris.

History

Father Renauld, a French missionary in Annam, discovered this species in 1895 in the mountains of the Quang Tri province, about 30 km northwest of Huê in Vietnam. He sent four specimens to the Paris Museum (three males and one female) from which Oustalet formulated his description. Twenty-eight years passed without any further mention of this species. No living specimen was imported until 1924 when Jean Delacour brought back fifteen individuals from his first expedition to Indochina. "When we went to Indochina for the first time, in 1923, our friend Pierre Jabouille was the Resident of the province of Quangtri, a happy coincidence, because he was an excellent ornithologist and owned several large aviaries in his garden. Soon, the inhabitants, tempted by generous proposals, brought live birds caught in the hills and mountains of the region and, after three months, we had twenty-two Edwards’s Pheasants, the first seen since 1895. In May of 1924, we brought back fifteen subjects to Clères; we kept four males and three females, all the others being cocks that we offered to various zoos and associates" (Delacour 1925).

In the years that followed, other specimens were captured alive or skinned in the wild. Some were brought back to Europe or sent to Delacour's friends, others to museums in Paris or London. These imports were studied in detail by Ciarpaglini and Hennache (1997) then by Hennache and Dickinson (2000). During his second expedition to Indochina (November 1925 - April 1926), Delacour obtained only seven males that were all prepared as skins. Jabouille had Edwards’s pheasants in his aviaries, captured between the first and second expedition by his local hunters. In April 1926, Delacour, during a trip to Japan, took two males and a female to Prince Taka Tsukasa, eminent ornithologist, both breeding successfully the following year. It was not until the fourth expedition (November 1927 - April 1928) that Edwards’s pheasants again reached Europe alive: two brought back by Delacour on his return to France in late April 1928 (Anonymous 1928a, Delacour 1928), then four (two pairs) by the Webb brothers, known bird collectors hired by Delacour and Spedan Lewis. These were shared between Delacour and Lewis (Anonymous 1928b, Delacour 1928), who raised young the following year, in aviaries in Leckford (Delacour 1929). No Edwards’s pheasants were captured during the fifth expedition (October 1929 - February 1930), but Jabouille brought back two pairs from his aviaries in Hue, to Clères, where he intended to retire (Delacour 1931). The sixth and seventh expeditions carried out by Delacour also failed to bring live birds back to Europe. The Second World War and the years of fighting that ensued in Vietnam, prevented any research on Edwards’s pheasant until the beginning of the 1980s. Their habitat had been ravaged, especially in central Annam, where they live on the border between the two Vietnamese regions. The use of defoliants, including the infamous "Agent Orange", followed by deforestation linked to the intensification of agriculture, reduced the original primary forest to shreds. Between 1988 and 1992, BirdLife organised several expeditions to locate the species, without success (Eames et al., 1992). In 1992, at the Lahore Congress, Edwards's pheasant was concluded to likely be extinct in the wild and considered as such until August 1996, when two birds were found in Khe Lâu ô Lâu, Phuong Dien District, northern province of Thua Thien Hue (Eve, 1997). Another male was trapped on 23 November 1996 in Huong Phuong, Huong Hoa District, west of Quang Tri Province (Vo Quy, 1997). Later, other specimens were captured: a male in Xuan Loc, Phu Loc District, in the buffer zone of Bach Ma National Park on May 2, 1998, in secondary forest (Huynh Van Keo 1999); the remains of a female were found in Co Bang, Bo Trach District, Quang Binh Province in May 1999, in secondary forest (Truong Van La in litt.); a pair, including a female sitting on five eggs, in late May 2000, was found along My Chauh River, Hai Lang District, Quang Tri Province, also in secondary forest (Dang Gia Tung in litt., Eames, in litt. ). No other Edwards’s pheasant has been found since this last recorded sighting.

Habitat

According to Jean Delacour, Edwards’s pheasant live in wooded hills in the mountains of central Annam, in forests and amongst the undergrowth, in regions of extreme humidity where winters are fresh (+8^oC) and summers are hot (+35^oC), with year-round rain (Delacour, 1938). “It appears that they do not enjoy high altitudes and prefer low to moderate levels, from sea level to approximately 600m” (Delacour, 1931)… “from sea level to approximately 3000 feet (about 900m)” (Delacour, 1977)… and “from sea level to 1000m (Delacour, 1983). Recent captures suggest that the species also lives in secondary forests, and have adapted to such habitats, with the Vietnamese pheasant being found only in humid, low altitude secondary forests.

Food

No data is available, apart from that obtained in captivity.

Non-social behaviour

No data apart from that obtained in captivity, but it appears that the species is relatively wary. The only wild birds observed have been trapped specimens, even after months of field studies and expeditions. Delacour only observed them twice, rapidly crossing paths.

Social behaviour

No data available apart from that in captivity, but their forest habitat does not imply a highly established social structure in the species. In captivity, males rear the young with females. Conversely, some males can kill females, young and other occupants of the aviary during the breeding season. Territorial behaviour is only observed in the repetitive cries of the male.

Courtship display

These data were obtained in captivity. The display is simple, and similar to kalijs. The male erects his crest, vibrates his wings, erects the feathers on his back and adopts a lateral posture.

Nesting

No data available in the wild, except for a hen incubating five eggs in May 2000, mentioned above. In captivity, the nest is usually well hidden and built under thick undergrowth or bamboo and consists of a simple depression dug into the ground and furnished with plant debris.

Predation and competition

No data on potential predators apart from humans. It is supposed that felines and birds of prey share the same habitat and represent potential threats. Other species of pheasant also share areas of their habitat but none enter into any real competition. Research carried out on the imperial pheasant suggests that Silvers can cross with Edwards’s in fragmented habitats.

Conservation status

Edwards's pheasants are one of the most endangered species of galliformes. They are listed as "Critically Endangered" on the IUCN Red List and many field researchers believe that they are now extinct in the wild and only remain in captivity. The latest records suggest that if Edwards's pheasants do indeed survive, their habitat is highly fragmented. At best, some forest areas may appear intact with good vegetation cover, but intensive hunting and trapping to supply the illegal market have significantly affected all local species of animals. Under these conditions, there can be no exchange of genetic material between the different subpopulations which have become isolated from each other. Recent work (Hennache et al., 2003, 2012) has also shown that in these forests, Edwards's pheasant could cross with other species such as silver pheasants (yielding the imperial pheasant) or undergo genetic drift, characteristic of small populations, of which the Vietnamese pheasant is likely an example. The species is therefore destined to become extinct in the mid to long term if nothing is done to reconnect these fragmented forest habitats, translocate individuals, or strengthen wild populations. Currently the Bach Ma National Park is within the area of distribution of Edwards’s Pheasant but no individual has ever been observed there. Several other reserves and national parks, Khe Nuoc Trong, Bac Huong Hoa, Sakrong, Phong Dien and Kẻ Gỗ could also play a role in the future conservation efforts with regards to this species, as some hope remains in the captive population of several hundred birds descended from those imported by Jean Delacour in the 1920s. International collaboration involving the main conservation stakeholders in Vietnam, including VietNature (representing BirdLife), the Hanoi Zoo, WPA and private breeders, EAZA and European zoological parks are currently attempting to establish a genetically selected captive population in Vietnam. VietNature is planning the construction of a breeding centre, coupled with an environmental education centre, in Quang Binh province. The program includes several stages: the construction of aviaries to breed selected birds and establish a viable population in Vietnam, giving priority to natural rearing by the hen; poaching eradication in Khe Nuoc Trong, Bac Huong Hoa, Đakrong, Phong Dien and Kẻ Gỗ; and releasing birds into the wild, probably in the Khe Nuoc Trong Reserve where VietNature has a 30-year management concession on 768 hectares.

Legal status

Annexe A of regulation CE n°338/97 of the 9^th December 1996, and annexe X of regulation CE 1801/2001 of the Commission of the 30^th August 2001. Annexe I of the Washington Convention.

Captive population

The captive population includes several hundred birds managed by the World Pheasant Association, for private breeders and an EEP for European zoos. Genetic analyses revealed hybrids with Swinhoe’s pheasant. In addition, no imports have been made since 1930 and the captive breeding stock, which originates from at least 28 founding individuals (Ciarpaglini & Hennache 1997), is highly inbred, so much so that morphological changes have occurred, the first in the late 1960s, where the disappearance of the crest of the males was observed. A renewal of genetic resources was then managed by the WPA through crossing English birds in Jersey with American females. Today it seems that in at least three cases, in the USA, France and Germany, birds with white central tail feathers (similar to those of the Vietnamese pheasant) have appeared in highly inbred lines of Edwards’s pheasants. The future of the captive population of Edwards’s pheasant thus appeared to be seriously compromised in the long term if no new supply of genetic material was provided, especially since hybridisation with Swinhoe’s pheasant remains a constant concern.

There is still hope, however; firstly, the case of the male captured in November 1996, medically treated following trapping and kept in captivity at the Hanoi Zoo until his death in 2016. He reproduced, crossed with a captive female from English breeding stock, and produced several offspring which were kept at the zoo in Hanoi. Then followed greater genetic diversity than first expected; the WPA undertook a series of genetic analyses of 72 carefully selected Edwards’s pheasants in the global captive population between 2015 and 2017 and showed that there were still around 20 possible breeding pairs with good genetic diversity indices. The export of such birds to Vietnam, however, remains a challenge given the health restrictions governing international bird transfers between the West and Asia.

Breeding

Edwards’s pheasants are one of the hardiest species of gallopheasant, along with the silver pheasant. They do not suffer from the cold, and can easily spend winters outside in temperate climates, as long as they have a simple shelter to protect them from any significantly bad weather. An aviary of 15 m² will suffice to house a breeding pair. The ground should be well drained and planted with various species of vegetation, allowing the female and young to escape from the behaviour of the male during the breeding season. This species appreciates hiding in low vegetation such as dwarf bamboo, for example. This is a species originating from an area of very dense undergrowth. Some examples of rearing this species in complete freedom exist, although we have not attempted this at Clères. A well-known breeder, Keith Howman, current president of the WPA, has kept Edwards’s pheasants for years in semi-liberty in his collection in England. Ordinarily, and even though we are not aware of the social structures that exist between them in nature, Edwards’s pheasants in captivity tend to be bred in pairs. There are also examples of breeding trios being formed and reproducing successfully over a number of years, such as at Tokyo Zoo. It is easy to form pairs with young birds, but this is greatly complicated with adults, the male usually being highly aggressive towards his new partner, especially if the female is introduced into the aviary previously occupied by the male. The best option in this case appears to involve introductions being carried out at the end of the breeding season, in summer, during the moult. If introductions must indeed be carried out later on, just before the breeding season, the male should be removed from the aviary and the female left to get her bearings in the new environment for some time before reintroducing the male (whilst keeping a watchful eye). In cases where the male behaves aggressively, it is also possible to cut his primary flight feathers, thereby allowing the female to attain higher perches alone and escape the behaviour of the male, re-joining the male when she sees fit. Edwards’s pheasants breed early. The male begins displaying with the arrival of good weather, in late January or early February, emitting a few brief cries and vibrating his wings whilst erecting his crest. The first clutches do not tend to appear before the last few days in March for adult females, and April for young hens, at least in Europe. The hen will lay well in small crates on the floor, in the corner of shelters and covered with some form of roof to hide her from the male. If no crate is available, she will fashion a nest in the densest vegetation or at the foot of a tree. However, if no crate/nest box or dense vegetation is available, there is a high risk that eggs will be eaten, and if this is the case, the habit is very difficult to break. Females tend to lay only after two years, although some hens have been known to produce clutches at only approximately 12 months of age, of between 2 and 14 eggs, possibly suggesting a certain domestication of the species (Hennache, 1997). The maximum fertility is attained at the age of four to five years, with an average of 11 eggs per female if clutches are removed as they are laid, with 24 to 36 hours between laying. Above six years of age, the size of clutches tends to decrease. In the case of artificial rearing and the removal of eggs, the female can produce numerous clutches. A second clutch is very likely, with a third in 25% of cases, but the number of eggs decreases (5% of the total clutch, Hennache, 1997). The interval between clutches is significant and varies between 9 and 21 days with an average of two weeks. The fertility rate is at a maximum at the age of four years, regardless of the age of the male and in the case of entirely unrelated pairs. If young are reared naturally, the hen will lay a single clutch of eggs, between 4 and 10, with an average of 6.9 eggs per female (Hennache, 1997). Incubation time is 23 days. Hens tend to be good sitters and rear their young relatively easily, although the mortality rate in natural rearing appears high, at 70% according to Hennache (1997). This mortality is linked to the quality of their environment, aviary and surroundings, aggressiveness of the male, and atmospheric conditions in April and May. If certain males appear very aggressive towards their chicks, they should be separated during rearing. Other males will be excellent fathers, even participating in rearing and defending the hen and chicks. Frequent surveillance should take place to ensure that the behaviour of the male does not endanger the chicks, female or other species sharing the same aviary. We can cite an example of a male killing two pigeons and a White-wing duck in quick order to defend his family. Artificial incubation does not pose any problems, as young will feed on chick crumb, to which greenery and seeds should be added progressively. Edwards’s pheasant are relatively hardy when it comes to disease and can live twenty-odd years, especially males, with a record of 22 years in the international studbook, but females can be subject to gynandry from 6 to 8 years of age. As for all other pheasants, they should be vermifuged at least twice a year.