304 



JOURNAIi OF HOBTIODLTURE AND COTTAGE GABDBHEE. 



[ April IS, 187G. 



Trnmpeters are all illuBtrations of the power of mind over 

 matter. They are the masterpiecea of grand fanciers, and put 

 UB to shame. In charity let us suppose we never had good of 

 the kind to begin with, but to crack up our own miserable half- 

 bred or deteriorated things is what I cannot do. If flyers are 

 wanted better can be had than coarse Owls, one of the funniest 

 of Pigeons. 



We have at least three breeds of our own — the Pouter, Carrier, 

 and Short-faced Tumbler. These grand Pigeons seem to have 

 no attraction for many who spend their money (which is nothing, 

 as it only goes from flat to sharp), and precious time (which is 

 something, for it might be devoted to better work), on Dragoons 

 — save the mark— about which no two can agree as to what they 

 are, Short-faced, Antwerps, and the like. — James C. Lyell. 



I We have omitted the vituperation you wrote relative to the 

 plagiarism on FantaUs by "13. C. D.," in a contemporary; we 

 have omitted it because we informed the editor that another 

 correspondent had noticed the plagiary, and the editor in his 

 last number has made a due acknowledgment. — Eds.] 



TOT PIGEONS. 



After the common Pigeons the Toys, or birds noted for 

 combinations of colours, were the earliest succeeding links in 

 the chain of varieties of Pigeons. In the development of art 

 colour was the first thing of interest to the ancient savages, 

 just as now it first attracts the child ; this comparison is a just 

 one, for the a-sthetics of the aborigines were no more developed 

 than are those of a child of the nineteenth century. An ordinary 

 amount of intelligence is pleased with colouring; it requires 

 education to notice and appreciate special points, such as heads, 

 beaks, crojis, ito. Therefore, in the earlier days of mankind and 

 Pigeon fancying, colouring was the attraction ; certain Pigeons 

 were kept because of their being sports of different markings 

 from their ancestors; thrown together they produced other 

 sports, and so varieties of Toys were produced. 



Almost every boy whose opportunities are few to obtain 

 varieties, grows (in a small way) through precisely the experi- 

 ence of the whole human family, in its efforts to develope the 

 varieties. As the life of an individual is really the life of a 

 nation, so is the life of a fancier really an epitome of the world's 

 Pigeon fancying. As in childhood he is pleased with a common, 

 then a Baldhead common, until he can procure Toys, fancies, 

 and at last high fancies; so the human family first kept their 

 commons, then selected the sports, and finding from experience 

 that two birds looking alike might produce their like, took 

 pains to match such together, and so developed colours or 

 Toys, until some trait, as tumbling, accidental at first, or 

 pouting, or increased wattle, turned their attention to and pro- 

 duced more intricate differences. Each fancier grows throagh 

 these eras, unless he starts late in life and founds himself on 

 the books. 



Toys are, therefore, the first removes from the commons, 

 and those parts of the Pigeons that are easiest to change were 

 undoubtedly the first distinguishing marks ; white tails and 

 flights, then white heads, wings, breasts, &c., at last the perfect 

 white bird. After such markings were admired for countless 

 years, varieties became fixed, certain combinations of colours 

 were looked upon as standards, and names were given to such. 



The names prove more conclusively than any other source 

 of information at what era certain varieties were acknowledged 

 to be sufficiently fixed to be entitled to that distinction. The 

 name Nun, as applied to Pigeons, shows that the variety was 

 named because of a fancied resemblance to the head-dress of a 

 religious devotee of the Catholic Church ; therefore, we can set 

 the variety down as having been developed since the establish- 

 ment of Catholicism. So of the Helmet, from Anglo-Saxon 

 derivation, not only proving the variety to have come into 

 existence since the use of helmets in war, but also pointing out 

 its birthplace. 



Most of the Toys can be traced in this manner to an era and 

 a birthplace, and many changes have been noted in the class 

 and in the different varieties of the class. Not only has the 

 class been increased by additional numbers, but the varieties 

 have been subdivided into blacks, reds, yellows, blues, &c., until 

 combinations of any kind can be obtained ; or when not im- 

 mediately obtainable, can be bred. The birds that rank as 

 standard varieties are Suabians, Archangels, Hyacinths, Porce- 

 lains, Starlings, Nuns, Priests, Spots, Swallows, Magpies, 

 Helmets, and Ice Pigeons. From this list a fancier can choose 

 those he wishes to breed. As standards, or to cross for new 

 specimens, none of them breed perfectly true. No matter which 

 you take, there will always be some of the young that turn out 

 foul ; and nothing is a surer proof of their common ancestry 

 than that the foul young are of no more worth in appearance or 

 value than so many commons. 



After Tumblers became known that trait was engrafted upon 

 the more ancient Toys, and not many years ago there were 

 Magpied, Helmeted, and Nun Tumblers ; and these varieties 

 can again be reproduced by matching proper specimens of the 



Tumblers and Toys together, selecting the well-marked tumbling 

 young as nuclei for the strain. Any enterprising fancier can 

 multiply the strains of Toys ad infinitum; but it is not every 

 Toy fancier that can handle successfully the fancies or high 

 fancies, each of which definition supposes a higher degree of 

 excellence in the Pigeons designated, and a greater knowledge 

 on the part of the fancier admiring. 



The Toy fancy is but the entered apprentice degree; the fancy 

 that of feUowcraf fc ; and the high fancy ranks as the master 

 degree. 



One may understand both the first and never rise to the 

 dignity of the last ; but one cannot know thoroughly the last 

 without holding the first as a mere stepping-stone on the road 

 to knowledge. 



There may be a few readers to whom it should be told the 

 Toys refer to Pigeons whose sole value consists in one point- 

 colour, properly distributed upon a designated ground colour, 

 which is generally white. The fancies refer to a large class 

 having more than one point, such as Owls, Turbits, Fantails, 

 &G. ; and high fancy but three varieties, whose intricate points 

 are numerous and difScult to obtain — viz.. Almonds, Carriers, 

 and Pouters. One or two varieties, such as Barbs, might be 

 entitled to a place in the latter class, but are not as yet so re- 

 cognised. — Dr. Wilbur P. MoRciN, Baltimore, Md. — (American 

 Fanciers' Journal.) 



[If Dr. Morgan does not always throw new light upon a anb- 

 ject, he at any rate always throws additional interest around it; 

 sometimes indeed he does both. Toys appear to be more gene- 

 rally fancied in America than in England. In this we see the 

 leading characteristic of each country — England holds to the 

 old, America attaches itself to what is new. With us a boy 

 fancier obtains common Tumblers or interior Pouters, but his 

 desire is, or will be, to have good Tumblers and good Pouters, 

 Toys are untbought of. I think that with us it is rather wealthy 

 and adult fanciers take to Toys. 



Dr. Morgan is no doubt right that Toys are the first removes 

 from the common : thus the dovehouse beak and form is re- 

 tained by one of the oldest Toy Pigeons — viz., the Nun; and it 

 would be a pretty theory that the boy fancier is the Toy fancier, 

 but untrue now with us, for the old gentlemen — the bald, the 

 grey, the portly, or the shrivelled, are mostly given to Toys. 

 The solemn and somewhat pompous announcement in old 

 Moore at the end of his article on the Runt, " The following 

 sorts of Pigeons are generally deemed and called Toys by the 

 gentlemen of the fancy," rather points to the conclusion that in 

 his day the upper-class fanciers only eared for Carriers and 

 their kindred the Horseman and the Dragoon ; the Pouter and 

 his kindred, the Parisian and the Uploper; the Tumbler in his 

 many varieties, and the three varieties of the Runt. And I 

 suppose that the grandees of the fancy sniffed at the poor Toys 

 and their owners. This was very absurd, for certainly the 

 Barb and the Jacobin and the Fantail are as beautiful and as 

 distinct, and as far removed from the common type as the 

 Carrier, Pouter, or Almond. Brent, with his good common 

 sense, includes the Fantail, the Jacobin, the Trumpeter, the 

 Turbit, Owl, Barb, and Frillback, among high fancy Pigeons, 

 and makes the Toy list to include only Pigeons having the 

 common shape with variations of plumage, and this I fully 

 agree to. Dr. Morgan ingeniously connects the names of some 

 of the Toys with the time of their first cultivation. 



I would certainly give the older Toys the highest place, for 

 two reasons. First because they are oldest, and secondly be- 

 cause they breed the more" true ; for oh ! the foul feathers that 

 come in the best Toys ! what gardening they have before they 

 are exhibited, and how unlike often their young are to them- 

 selves ! As Brent and Dr. Morgan divide Pigeons there is no 

 cause to complain. The high fancy birds give the most trouble, 

 but success in them wins the highest rewards of pleasure per- 

 haps, and certainly of money. 



The fancy give much pleasure with much less trouble, and 

 suit those who cannot be much at home with their pets, or who 

 have no trustworthy substitute to see to feeders, &o. And the 

 Toys according to Dr. Morgan's arrangement just suit some 

 ladies who have an eye for feather, or those who love the new 

 or think they can win a prize in the Any variety class. Also 

 there are certain minds which are greatly attracted by Toys, and 

 it is well, for in England they would cease to be cultivated but 

 for a few ardent feather-loving fanciers. — Wiltshire Rector.] 



LIGURIAN VERSUS COMMON BEES. 



As one whose hobby is bees I hope you will allow me to pro- 

 test against Mr. Hunter's suggestion to set aside the proposed 

 trial side by side of Ligurian and Black bees. I am one of the 

 doubters as to the superiority of the Ligurians as honey-collec- 

 tors, and do not see the logic of Mr. Hunter's argument, that be- 

 cause Ligurians are more prolific breeders they are therefore 

 better honey-collectors by virtue of their being more numerous. 

 Is it not possible that one kind of bees go in more for swarm- 

 ing, another more for honey-collecting? The former is the 



