Definition
In legal usage, a dove is a bird of the pigeon family (genus *Columba*) treated under common law property doctrine as an animal *ferae naturae* — that is, a wild animal by nature — and therefore not ordinarily capable of being the subject of larceny. Because doves are classified as wild by legal default, a person cannot commit theft of them unless the birds are sufficiently within an owner's custody or control to qualify as personal property.
The critical exception: doves confined to a dove-house, or young doves (squabs) still in the nest and not yet able to fly, are considered sufficiently reduced to possession that they may be the subject of larceny. The owner's practical control substitutes for the domesticity the animal otherwise lacks.
Common Language
Modern common usage (Wiktionary): A dove is a bird, commonly a symbol of peace or purity; also used as a term of endearment. Wiktionary's primary legal-adjacent entries for "Dove" are geographical (rivers in England, a Missouri community) or astronomical — none touching property law.
Historical common usage (Webster's 1913): A pigeon of the genus *Columba*; a term of endearment for one regarded as pure and gentle; also, in slang, a soiled dove (a prostitute).
The gap between common and legal meaning here is not definitional — a dove is a dove — but categorical. Common usage treats the dove as simply a bird; legal usage asks a precise structural question about the bird's relationship to human custody, which determines whether it can be stolen at all. The word triggers a property classification analysis that ordinary usage never contemplates.
Common Confusion
Doves and pigeons are treated interchangeably in the historical legal sources. Bouvier explicitly notes the extension of the doctrine to pigeons that, though they have access to open air, are tame and return habitually to their house or box — a meaningful expansion. Researchers should not assume that the legal rule for doves is neatly cabined to ornithological "doves" and that pigeons are treated differently. The operative question is always custody and the degree to which the bird has been reduced to possession, not species taxonomy.
Why It Matters in Research
DOVE as a standalone legal dictionary entry is a historical artifact — it appears in Black's and Bouvier's as a vehicle for illustrating the *ferae naturae* doctrine and its custody exception, not because doves were frequent subjects of litigation. Researchers encountering this entry are almost certainly researching the broader property-in-animals framework, larceny of animals, or the *ferae naturae* classification system.
Two navigational points matter:
First, the rule stated is common law, and its vitality in any modern jurisdiction depends on whether that jurisdiction has codified larceny or theft statutes that displace common law animal-property distinctions. Most modern theft statutes define "property" broadly enough to render the *ferae naturae* question moot for prosecution purposes, though it may still surface in civil conversion or trespass contexts.
Second, the Bouvier entry's extension to pigeons — citing *2 Den. Cr.* — is the more practically significant rule, because homing pigeons and racing pigeons historically had real economic value and generated actual disputes. The dove-house hypothetical in Black's is largely illustrative; the pigeon cases reflect genuine controversy. Researchers tracing the custody exception should follow the pigeon line of authority alongside the dove entries.
Historical Dictionary Support
All three source dictionaries agree on the core rule: doves are *ferae naturae* and not subject to larceny except when in the owner's custody (dove-house) or when nestlings not yet capable of flight. Black's (both editions) and Bouvier's track each other closely, suggesting a settled common law formulation rather than active doctrinal dispute.
Bouvier's is the richest of the three entries. It adds the pigeon extension and cites a second authority (*2 Den. Cr.*), signaling awareness that the doctrine had been tested in slightly different factual configurations. Black's 2nd Ed. supplies the most complete citation to *Commonwealth v. Chace*, 9 Pick. (Mass.) 15, 19 Am. Dec. 348, and adds *Ruckman v. Outwater*, 28 N.J. Law 581 — making it the most useful starting point for tracing primary authority.
What all three historical sources omit: any discussion of statutory modification, regulatory frameworks governing bird ownership (which became significant with migratory bird laws in the early twentieth century), or the interplay between the *ferae naturae* doctrine and game laws. A researcher relying solely on the dictionary entries would miss that federal migratory bird protection statutes (beginning with the Migratory Bird Treaty Act of 1918) introduced a separate public-law layer governing many bird species entirely apart from common law property doctrine.
Jurisdictional Note
The rule is common law English in origin and was received into American jurisprudence through Massachusetts and New Jersey decisions. Modern theft and property statutes in most U.S. jurisdictions have substantially displaced common law distinctions between wild and domestic animals for criminal purposes, though civil law contexts (conversion, bailment, trespass to chattels) may still invoke custody-based reasoning.
Encyclopedia Cross-Reference
Law Mind Encyclopedia — Animals, Property in
Law Mind Encyclopedia — Ferae Naturae
Law Mind Encyclopedia — Larceny (Common Law Elements)