4i o British Dogs. 



high forehead if you will, with a full dark eye and set rather wide 

 apart, ears small and to drop nicely at the side of the head, tail 

 well-curled on the back, or what is termed ' double curled.' The 

 old style was dogs to the right and bitches to the left, though I 

 like to see them myself in the centre ; but the important thing is 

 that they be well-curled, and not merely turned up on the back like 

 many street dogs. With regard to colour, the muzzle, eyebrows, ears, 

 and centre of head only should be black, with the requisite moles 

 on cheek and distinct line or trace down centre of back extending 

 to root of tail. Most old writers maintain that the trace should 

 extend to the tip of the tail, but this is seldom seen now. They 

 also should have what is called hare feet that is, toes well split up 

 and black toenails. Inasmuch as there is a fixed number of points 

 given by several of our best known breeders and writers on the pug 

 whom no one disputes, I think if judges at our shows would adopt 

 the point system to a greater extent it would assist breeders in 

 knowing what to breed to, and so to cross the many types of pugs 

 we have, and eventually get at the desired result." 



To the above the following responses were made : 



"I read with considerable pleasure Mr. T. Marples's letter about 

 ' pugs ' in your impression of last week, for, like him, I am an admirer 

 and a breeder of these canine aristocrats ; but I take exception to 

 some of the points as he describes them. 



" First as to size. Such loose expressions as ' the smaller the 

 better ' are objectionable in descriptions of our pets. Mr. Marples 

 is quite justified in making 121b. the maximum standard for his own 

 breeding, but he cannot tie others to it ; a very small dog might 

 be preferable if intended to be constantly nursed in a lady's lap, 

 but others prefer a dog that can take exercise on its own legs and 

 disport itself in park or field without being knocked up ; and I do 

 not think a 161b. pug too big for a companion and pet, and size I 

 consider as nothing in comparison with shape, points, and markings. 



" I know Mr. Marples has ' Stonehenge ' on his side in this, that 

 eminent writer stating that a pug should weigh from 61b. to lOlb. ; 

 but on this and one or two other points I think ' Stonehenge ' con- 

 tradicts himself, which I will endeavour to show presently ; but first 

 let me say I also take exception to the term * low in the leg ' or to 



