Jiuinary 16, 1868. ] 



JOUENAIi OF HOETICULTUEE AND COTTAGE GABDENER. 



C3 



to separate breeds ; "and it was to bis freedom of action that 

 hia fjreat success was mainly to be attributed." I knew Mr. 

 Bult well, and as well do I remember when he destroyed his 

 stock of Pouters by crossing them with a Mottled Kant, and 

 finding it hopeless to support his position as a fancier and 

 breeder cf Pouters by the produce of this unfortunate cross, 

 he applied for and received birds from his friends in Scotland, 

 which were the origin of his " celebrated strain." The cross- 

 bred Mottled birds were runtish to the last. The chapter on 

 the Pouter is lengthened-out by accounts of two sales of Pi- 

 geons by auction, of not the slightest interest. 



In Part IV. we have the Carrier and Dragon ; nothing new, 

 principally quotations, and then follow twenty pages, five of 

 them running into the following part, on " Homing Birds," or, 

 in other words. Mongrels, bred for flying, shooting matches, or 

 the table. I fear these twenty pages will be lost to those whom 

 they most concern, as the class who keep this sort of bird can, 

 as a general rule, seldom afford, and are as little inclined 

 to pay the sum of 8j-. for any book. Mr. Tegetmeier's " ex- 

 perience of the habits and management of these Homing 

 birds dates from a distant day " he says ; and this class of 

 birds seem to have been his " fancy," which in a great mea- 

 sure accounts for his want of knowledge of the distinct breeds 

 from theii' origin downwards. 



We have in Parts V., \'I., VII., and VIII. the Tumbler, Barb, 

 Fantail, Trumpeter, &c., an array of quotations, many of 

 them useless, and, according to the compiler's own showing, 

 absurd. The only original remark in thote parts, which I feel 

 constrained to notice, appears in page 152, in connection with 

 the Fantail. The compiler writes, " The author of ' The 

 Dovecote and Aviary,' in his facile and pleasant manner, 

 plays, as usual, round about his subject, without giving us any 

 new or even accurate information respecting it." I confess I 

 do not understand the purport of this paragraph. If nothing 

 " new or accurate," why give us a full page quoted from this 

 author ? Why, would the last part without it appear too thin ? 

 I do not personally know either the compiler of " Pigeons," or 

 the author of " The Dovecote and Aviary ;" but certainly the 

 latter is an " author," and one of no small merit ; and although 

 I cannot agree with him in all his ideas and remarks, still his 

 work alluded to is written in an original and popular style, and 

 its pages tell us that the author is one who writes from subjects 

 studied by himself. 



This book closes with the " Laws relating to Pigeons," and 

 " The Diseases of Pigeons." The former is not worth the 

 time occupied in reading it, while the latter leads me to the 

 conclusion that Mr. Tegetmeier has never kept a Pigeon worth 

 attempting to cure; if so, he gives us none of his experience, 

 does not say when or how he succeeded or failed, or even it he 

 tried. He tells us, " If birds are kept in localities where they 

 are permitted to fly at large, housed in well-sheltered lofts, 

 having a sufficient supply of wholesome food, clean water, &c." 

 .... "that disease will be almost if not entirely unknown 

 among them." I have fourteen paks of Blue Antwerps, kept 

 for feeders, fljing at large in a fine airy locahty outside this 

 city ; they are well sheltered in a large clean loft, and have 

 the best of everything. Almost daily, sometimes two or three 

 times a-day, they will take a flight of from three to six miles 

 at a stretch. During this past year X have had four cases of 

 wing disease among them, one of fallen gizzard, four of roup ; 

 and three young Pouters being fed by some of them, died of 

 purging. Mr. Tegetmeier talks of " scrofula " among Pigeons, 

 and of its being "hereditary." No such disease ever attacks 

 Pigeons, nor is there one that is " hereditary ;" not one disease 

 to which they are liable is even infectious. "Roup," the most 

 likely of all to be infectious, is not so, as any fancier of e;:- 

 perience must have discovered long ago. As for the prescrip- 

 tions for the diseases, what does Mr. Tegetmeier recommend ? 

 " Copaiba balsam " and " nitrate of silver," ancient prescrip- 

 tions, indeed. I have tried them twenty-five years ago, and 

 found them to be worse than useless — the best drugs for irri- 

 tating the diseases and killing the birds. 



Mr. Tegetmeier is evidently a disciple of Darwin, and pro- 

 fesses to adopt the theory of that autliior, as far at least as the 

 present fuLject is concerned; but although aspiring to scien- 

 tific attainments, he does not attempt to give us any experience 

 of his own in support of this theory, or any reason why he 

 should insist, as he does, upon those who may read his quota- 

 tions adopting it also. This style may suit Mr. Tegetmeier's 

 purpose, and that of all copyists and compilers — those who 

 write from what others have written, but who have not taken 

 their observations from the subject itself ; but I feel convinced 



that neither the theory, which ia so constantly introduced, nor 

 this book-making, can be acceptable to the inteUigent and 

 educated Pigeon fanciers of the present day. 



No one can write on this subject satisfactorily, even to him- 

 self, however scientific he may be, unless he be a "Pigeon 

 fancier " and one of practical experience ; and Mr. Teget- 

 meier shows himself throughout this book, to say the least of 

 it, ignorant of the subject he has taken in hand. 



The volume is, with the exception of a few pages, composed 

 of quotations (Mr. Tegetmeier actually quotes himaelf more 

 than once) ; and although void of anything new, I find on the 

 covers of the last two parts he ia advertised as " author of 

 ' Pigeons.' " 



The coloured illustrations, as a whole, are a failure ; some of 

 them are certainly near the mark, and I rather think the ori- 

 ginal outline of others may have been destroyed by the 

 " printing in colours." The Pouter is the best ; but no one 

 ever saw a Pouter blowing in the position represented— stand- 

 ing on one foot. If the bird is meant to be represented as 

 walking, the raised foot is much too high ; otherwise it is well 

 drawn and beautifully printed. The Almond Tumbler is the 

 worst. The woodcuts, with some exceptions, are truthfully 

 drawn and spiritedly engraved. The principal exceptions are 

 the front and back views of the Fantail. The former looks 

 like an apoplectic chicken issuing from a lady's muff, and the 

 latter reminds us of something like the footprint of an unshod 

 horse, both being monstrous caricatures of that graceful Uttlo 

 bird. The artist, like the writer, must be a practical Pigeon 

 fancier, to do his work perfectly in this very peculiar depart- 

 ment, for without doubt it is "a great art and mystery." — 

 James Huie, Roivan Cottage, Crosshill, Glasgow. 



CANARIES. 



Allow me correct an error that has crept into your report of 

 the Sunderland Ornithological Association's Show. Instead of 

 £5 in money, Mr. Ashton won £11 10s. iu money, and also 

 sold two Goldfinch mules for £20. This is almost the highest 

 price, if not quite, ever paid for Canaries at shows. I men- 

 tion the fact to show that the interesting study of breeding 

 Canaries and mules is, I am glad to say, on the increase. Why 

 cannot we have a standard of excellence and a Canary club just as 

 poultry fanciers have theirs ? I am quite willing to work if 

 somebody wUl help me. We could have a large exhibition every 

 year at some of the principal towns in England, and show 

 the public generally that Canary-breeding is as pleasant and 

 instructive a study as breeding Pelargoniums or bees ; and 

 when properly carried out, and good specimens bred, as profitable, 

 if not more so. I will subscribe £20 towards a club, and work 

 willingly if, as I said before, anybody will help me. — Heket 

 Bedwell, PoUfidd Hall, Presticich, Manchester. 



DOINGS IN A SMALL APIARY IN 1807. 

 (Concluded from jiage 38.) 



In connection with driving, I may mention a singular circum- 

 stance which happened to two of my stocks. On the 13th 

 of July the morning was fine, sunny, and rather calm. About 

 two o'clock in the afternoon clouds gathered in the west, and 

 distant thunder was heard. Between 4 and 5 p.m. a heavy 

 thunderstorm came on. The bees, acting on their instinct, 

 returned to their hives in vast numbers some little time before 

 the storm broke in force, and only a bee occasionally could be 

 seen at the entrance. At this period I had left the garden and 

 sought shelter. During the storm I observed a stream of 

 bees suddenly issuing from a hive vthich I had casually cast 

 my eye on, as I passed the window. My curiosity being excited, 

 I looked at a second hive just within sight ; there, too, the like 

 occurrence was taking place. At each of the alighting boards 

 cluster after cluster gathered and fell to the ground. The poor 

 bees were actually being driven out of their hives by the heavy 

 rain beating incessantly on the sides and roof of the casing. 

 After the storm abated, I went and inspected the hives, and 

 found them about as effectually deserted as though I had 

 operated on them with a view to that end. There was a large 

 cluster of bees under the bottom board, also a mass of bees 

 on the ground, many of which were buried from the heavy 

 splash. By night, "most had betaken themselves to their 

 hives, end the following day all went ou much as usual. 



In 18GG I asked the question, if common coarse brown sugar 



