200 



JOUBNAL OF HOBTICOLTUBE AND COTTAGE QABDENEB. 



[ August 27, 1874. 



first birds, were very ragged in monlt, and many of them looked i 

 frightful. Barbs 'weie a good class, the first-prize Reds being 

 as promising as anything we have seen for some years. A 

 capital pair of Yellows, very evenly matched, were second. 

 This class contained some good Blacks. The Any variety class 

 was a show of itself, consisting of upwards of twenty-eight pens, 

 including Owls, Dragoons, Isabels, Archangels, Spangled and 

 Plain Ice, Swallows, Antwerps, Magpies three colours, and a 

 pair of small Kants. The first-prize went to Spangled, and the 

 second to a good pair of svls, one of which had an extraordinary 

 gullet. The Judges should have had about six extra prizes to 



that they could and ought to breed their Almonds from Almonds, 

 and that " no good fancier " would have anything to do with 

 such trash. This, at least, would have had the merit of con- 

 sistency. As I said before, I would be happy to hear any of the 

 members explain this (but not in Mr. Stuart's style), as it has 

 puzzled not a few, I am sorry the discussion has taken this dis- 

 agreeable turn, when it might have gone on pleasantly and per- 

 haps usefully. — Geoege Ure, Diotdee. 



P.S.— To show that Mr. Stuart does a thing thoroughly when 

 about it (his change of opinion on this matter), I give some ex- 

 tracts from a letter of his that appeared in The Journal of 



give in this class, as many of the birds not mentioned in the Horticoltube in March, 1868, during the controversy the 



prize list were good enough to win anywhere. 

 published last week. 



The awards were 



POUTERS, ANY OTHER COLOUR OR MARKINGS. 



On reading Mr. M. Stuart's article in one of your contempo- 

 raries, my first impulse was, that as it showed such a want of 

 the proper spirit in which this discussion should be carried on, 

 that I would write no more on the subject; but, on second 

 thoughts, I have to ask you to give me space for a few short 

 remarks. It is an article that will neither help his views nor 

 damage those of his opponents. It wanders from the point ; it 

 assumes an insolent tone towards those who differ from him ; 

 it is boastful ; it makes reckless assertions ; it contradicts itself; 

 in a word, it shows an utter want of good feeling, and a degree 

 of ignorance of the subject on which it professes to decide. 

 These may seem heavy charges, but I think they can be easily 

 made good. 



In the first place he starts with that unhappy word " mis- 

 marked," though he knows very well that no one advocates 

 classes for these birds. He then says that " every good Pouter 

 fancier" has been convinced by "Mr. Wallace's clear and 

 forcible statements," the meaning of which can only be that 

 those who cannot agree with what Mr. Wallace says are no 

 fanciers, yet he then admits that the off-coloured birds might 

 have a class, which is just about all we are striving for. He 

 then states that he knows more than our " first-class Pouter 

 fanciers " that gave them up because they could not breed them 

 to their mind. What proof is there that those who gave up in 

 disgust were "first-class fanciers?' Is it that they took up a 

 breed and failed to improve it or to keep it up ? There is no 

 other proof given, but apparently it is ample in Mr. Stuart's 

 opinion. But he immediately adds, after saying that Pouters 

 have been ruined beyond the energies of " first-class fanciers " 

 to redeem, that the birds of the present day are far superior to 

 the birds of the old school. Here is contradiction and ignorance 

 besides, for I remember the birds of the old school, and a few 

 other fanciers do so also, and I maintain that in all the best 

 points of a Pouter they could beat ua. We could, I daresay, 

 beat them by the tape line, but in nothing else. They bred for 

 elegance of style, and managed colour and marking better than 

 is now done. If Mr. Stuart had said that the birds of the pre- 

 sent day were the best he had seen, there could have been 

 nothing to say; but he makes them out to be the best and the 

 worst at the same time. His misuse of the word "mongrel" 

 is quite in keeping. He also boasts that " we can and will do 

 without Mealies, Chequers, &c." Time only will show; but a 

 prudent man, in attempting to do what has never before been 

 done, will delay the boasting until he has done it, and then, if 

 he is " to boasting inclined," one might forgive him. He also 

 boasts of a loft where there is only one chequer, and every bird 

 well marked. It may be so, a little judicious " Pie selection," 

 which he confessed to at one time would do this for any loft ; 

 but a loft may boast of this and yet be a poor one after all. 

 Colour and marking do not make a Pouter, they only finish one. 

 This wonderful loft adds also to the surprise and regret one feels 

 on hearing of first-class fanciers leaving off " in disgust." Could 

 they not have got what they so sorely required from such a 

 fountain of pure blood ? or were they fond of change, which a 

 certain class of people are said to be, and perhaps had a mind 

 to try their great powers on, perhaps flying Antwerps ? It is to 

 be hoped they will succeed better in their new sphere, as they 

 are not missed in the one they left. Mr. Stuart assures us that 

 '_' he is in downright earnest." Are we to infer from this that he 

 is not usually so in what he writes ? If not, why so strongly 

 assert it in the present instance ? His attack on Mr. Huie as a 

 breeder I only refer to as a further proof of ignorance, and of a 

 total disregard for the feelings of others. 



Before closing I would feel obliged by some of the members 

 of the North British Columbarian Society explaining a thing I 

 cannot understand. At their last show they had a class for 

 Short-faced Tumblers " any other colour or marking," compris- 

 ing Kites, Agates, Whole-feathers, Splashes, etc. By this time 

 they had become enlightened on the Pouter question, and there 

 was no class for oS-coloared birds. Now, as Pouters of this 

 description serve the breeder precisely in the same way as the 

 " any other colour " Short-faces do, how were the latter not ex- 

 cluded also ? Mr. Stuart might have to'd the Almond breeders 



Scotch fanciers had with Mr. Volckman on the same subject. 

 He says, " Mr. Volckman tells us that by the use of Mealies, 

 Chequers, and Splashes we have destroyed the colours and 

 markings in our Pouters, and that for the present they must be 

 ' vigorously discarded.' On the other hand, Mr. Tegetmeier 

 says, ' The Pouter fancier has a slavish fear of breeding away 

 from some one particular colour.* Now this is an awkward 

 position for a young fancier to be placed in. Whom is he to 

 believe ? and what is he to do ? My advice would be, as we 

 have no printed guide, to adopt neither theory, but use Mealies, 

 Chequers, and Splashes in their proper places, and he will find 

 to his own satisfaction, as I have done, that practical experience 

 is safer than theory." Very good. 



Again he says, " As far as my own experience goes, and from 

 observation in the lofts of our best Scotch breeders, I believe 

 that the Chequers bred from Blacks should be crossed with 

 Blacks only, and by following this method a Chequered Pouter 

 will be quite as good for stock purposes as a Black, and the pro- 

 duce will be ' Blacks of raven brUliancy.' " Very good also. 



He next says, " I approve of occasionally crossing the White 

 Pouter with the Blue. The White Pouter being constitutionally 

 a weak bird, the produce is improved in strength by this cross, 

 and the Blues gain in colour, as the White Pouter helps to clean 

 out the foul feathers so often found in the limbs, &c., of the 

 Blue-pied Pouters. It was from a cross of this description that 

 I produced the progenitors of the White and Blue Pouters that 

 stood first at Glasgow for more than one season." Very good 

 stiU. 



But Mr. Stuart has now veered round as far as it is possible 

 to go. Of course change of opinion is an everyday affair, but 

 when one does it so decidedly as Mr. Stuart has done, and, not 

 content with this, but derides those who will not follow him, 

 and parades his views in public, fanciers are surely entitled to 

 look for a good reason for such a change. Has he given one ? 

 I say he has completely failed in his attempt ; in fact, it is all 

 the other way, if we are to be guided by his experience, the only 

 sure guide in these matters, so that his desertion from the good 

 cause must arise from something foreign to the fancy, as facta 

 and theory are all against him. — G. U. 



MOTTLES. 



There are numerous birds among the varieties of Pigeons 

 that are called Mottles, and yet not one in ten approaches the 

 standard by which alone birds answering to that name should be 

 judged. The Mottles of one person are the Splashes of another, 

 or the Speckles of some other. So it turns out that B is dis- 

 satisfied with the birds C sends him, or D thinks E does not 

 know what a Mottle is because E rejects Splashes, ifcc. There 

 need be no difficulty about all this, for it has long been settled as 

 to what a Mottle should be. A Speckle is a spot of one colonr 

 upon another. For instance, upon a sheet of paper you drop 

 some ink ; it spots or specks it, and if you shake out a number 

 of drops the paper becomes speckled all over. And so it is with 

 a class of Pigeons ; the colour of the bird (black, red, or yellow, 

 ttc.) is spotted all over with specks of white, whence comes the 

 name of Speckles, or Speckled Tumblers, Ac. 



A splash is a different thing. A boy will stand in the gutter, 

 and splash mud over you as you walk by. In this instance a 

 large quantity of mud falls upon one or two places (the little 

 spots count for nothing here), and your wliite suit is said to be 

 splashed. Therefore among birds, a black (red, bine, &c.) one 

 with large spots of white occurring here and there on its 

 plumage is called a Splash; thus t«'o or three white feathers 

 will give a bird a splashed taU, or when the white extends across 

 the back it is a splashed back, as some call it a handkerchiei 

 back. 



A Mottle bears a definite meaning with it. It has not come 

 by chance, such as a speck or splash ; on the contrary, it denotes 

 that something has been carefully done. There is no sense in 

 saying I am mottled with mud, tplashed is the word for that ; 

 but when you look at a work of art, you say. How carefully that 

 mottling is done ! With birds a Mottle means a black (red, blue, 

 yellow, &c.) bird with a rose consisting of about twenty-four, 

 rather less than more, white feathers upon the shoulder of each 

 wing. If these feathers are arranged in a perfect circle, with a 

 black feather alternating between every two of the white ones, 

 it gives a brilliancy and beauty to the bird that will set any 



