THE ROLLER CANARY 105 
‘ > 
it—no “guts,” to use an expressive term. There are 
some who will tell you he is a “‘soft”’ bird, whereas 
he simply lacks power, volume, tone. As a matter of 
fact, he is not in the same street with the bird mentioned 
above with the mark against him, either as a contest bird, 
a tutor or a sire. 
A WRONG IDEA OF MODERN TIMES 
It is for this reason that I have always opposed the 
idea that no bird with a mark against him should ever 
win a first or any other prize, when there are these 
‘pure ” (so-called) singers in the same class. 
Having expressed these views, I must hasten to add 
important qualifications. It must not be understood that 
I hold a brief for sharp bell, sharp flutes and aufzug—I 
do not. Nor do I think that any bird penalized for two 
faults should ever be a first prize-winner. There is a 
vast difference between two and one. The law, you 
know, gives every dog first bite—but he mustn’t take 
another, or off goes his head. 
My firm conviction is that a really high-class bird 
with one fault is still a good bird, and that a second-rate 
bird, with no fault, is still a second-rater. All things 
being equal, and the scores level, the unpenalized bird 
should win, and that has always been done. But no 
more than that if we value the progress of the birds. 
When we hear it said, then, that all winners in 
champion classes ought to be “ pure ”’ birds, let us think 
of our definition, remember how many faults there are 
that have no penalty column, and how few of those so- 
called “pure” birds are really free from even more 
serious faults than the bird penalized has himself. 
