THE LEGHORNS 



111 our Standard of Perfection the different varieties 

 -Iiniild be shown in their natural colors. Any one would 

 Tiay a little more for the book if this were done.— A. T. 

 Liiidgren. 



Possibly you have sketched the tail of the male a little 

 large and a trifle long. I believe you have a better shape 

 tor both male and female than the 1910 Standard. You 

 will remove, I think, the call for the separate utihty 

 standard if you succeed in having these sketches adopted 

 by the association, because they give that longer shape 

 to the hen that is so desirable for the heavy production of 

 eggs.— F. R. Merk. 



The two outlines as submitted are nearer my ideal 

 of what the Leghorns should be than those figured in the 

 new edition of the Standard. However, I do not believe 

 that either of them literally interprets the wording of the 

 Standard. 



Of course you understand that when one starts to 

 criticise a thing he will naturally put into that criticism 

 his ideal, despite any illustration or printed text which 

 might be before him. One's interpretation of the Stand- 

 ard then is what one wills to think. It is a fact, well un- 

 derstood, that most of us will, either consciously or un- 

 consciously, think very diflferently about the same thing. 



In criticising these two outlines I am going to pro- 

 ceed on the assumption that Mr. Schilling intended these 

 to interpret the Standard literally. My criticism will also 

 embodv what to me would seem an ideal male and female 

 shape, 'the literal interpretation of the Standard to the 

 contrary, notwithstanding. 



The Male: Head: Not enough vertical depth. Beak: 

 slightly undersized. Eyes: Slightly small. Should be in- 

 creased in proportion to head and beak criticism. Comb: 

 Verv good though slightly unbalanced over beak. Would 

 desire it a little less angular in front. Wattles and Ear- 

 lobes: Very good indeed. Suit my ideal exactly, though 

 I do not believe they are literal interpretations of the 

 Standard. Xeck: Very good. Wings: Outline too angu- 

 lar. Back: .'Ml right. Tail: Very satisfactory for shape 

 and carried at an angle that is very pleasing and desir- 

 able but not in accord with Standard. Standard calls for 

 forty-five degrees, outline shows tail carried at twenty- 

 four and one-half degrees (see sketch). Breast: Too 

 much of a curve, should be filled in a little as indicated by 

 pencil marks. Body and Fluff: Seem too short at first 

 glance but upon analysis would say that body is all right 

 in length; the trouble lies in fluff and breast. FlufT should 

 be slightly more rounded. Legs and Toes: Length of 

 shank a trifle short and decidedly thin. Hock has about 

 the right amount exposed, but is a trifle light for this 

 weight bird. 



The Female. Head: All right. Beak: 

 Eyes: Slightly small. Comb: Very good. 

 Xeck: Good. Back: Very good. Tail: 

 impression of being too short, however, 

 be due to the fact that there is too muc 



Very good. 

 Face: Good. 

 Leaves the 

 -, this may 



cushion. 



«5^ 



The heavy black lines illustrate the 

 < riticisms of A T Lingdren of Call 

 lornia Mr Lindgren s changes show 

 less depth of body and more length of 

 shank. 



neck le^s depth and length of body i 

 a slightlj higher tail These changes 

 shown by the heavy black line in 

 above illustration. 



Would say that cushion should be decreased or tail 

 lengthened. Couldn't tell which would give correct ini- 

 pression but there is an absence of pleasing balance in this 

 section. Here, as in the case of the male bird, the angle 

 or carriage is pleasing to look at but not in accordance 

 with Standard requirements. Breast: Good. Body: A 

 little light at fluflf and just a trifle thick at junction of 

 wishbone and sternum. Fluff should be slightly length- 

 ened, lowered and rounded. Legs and Toes: Proportion 

 very good but seem awkwardly placed and stiff. — Yester- 

 laid Egg Farms Company, R. C. Lawry, Mgr. 



I have made an effort to go over them carefully. Have 

 criticised them a little, but have no serious objections to 

 the shape of either. They are both very good indeed. 



Male bird: Tail is carried a little too high to suit my 

 fancy. Neck, breast and body are ideal. Would lower tail 

 about one-eighth of an inch. — R. A. .Alexander. 



I think they are a decided improvement on those in 

 the new Standard. While I consider myself quite a Leg- 

 horn crank, I have no criticisms to rnake of these sug- 

 gested ideals. In my judgment the picture of the White 

 I-.eghorn male in the new Standard, is, to use the slang 

 phrase, bum. However, I notice that in order to win in 

 the big shows we have to have the tails of our Leghorn 

 male birds below 45 degrees. — F. D. Rogers. 



The sketches of Leghorns, male and female, that you 

 submitted are just about ideal, in my opinion. It seems 

 to me there might be just a little more fullness in the 

 upper part of the neck (rear portion) of the male and pos- 

 sibly just a little more below the hackle where it ap- 

 proaches the back. 



It seems to me that the back of the female is just a 

 little long and could be just a little more concave. Her 

 neck may be just a trifle fuller about the throat or just be- 

 low the wattles.— Dr. F. M. Reed. 



The two outline sketches sent us of the Leghorns, 

 male and female, are as near perfection to our mind as 

 anything that we have ever seen, and if the American 

 Poultry Association keeps near these outlines we shall be 

 perfectly satisfied. — W. R. Curtiss & Co. 



"Think they are ideal interpretations of the Standard 

 text. We do not know where we could criticise these 

 sketches. — W. A. Bode. 



As for the male in the 1910 Standard, I think it not 

 right because we want the curving back. This has been 

 taken away and I think it wrong to spoil the breed in 

 this way. The outlines for Leghorns, male and female, 

 you sent me I think are right and what we want. Let's 

 keep the nice curve of back. — F. C. Gutknecht. 



I hardly think I can cut them a point. They have the 

 true Leghorn shape. I think the American Poultry .\sso- 

 ciation should use these shape outlines in the next Stand- 

 ard. — G. Schimke. 



I think the outlines of Leghorns, male and female, as 

 submitted by you, are fully up to what we wish to have 

 them and that they fit the Standard description. 



The comb of the male is about 

 right. I do not know why the artists 

 put the legs so far apart in almost all 

 drawings. It is not natural in the 

 first place and in the second place it 

 is very hard to get them true. 



In the female the one thigh is 

 too far back — or the whole leg. — W. 

 W. Kulp. 



.\fter looking over the Leghorn 

 cuts, male and female,. you have sub- 

 mitted, I have no criticism to make, 

 other than to say these drawings are 

 exactly mv idea of what Standard 

 Leghorns should be. I think the cut 

 in the new Standard of the White 

 I cghorn male is a very bad one. — E. 

 A. Vosburgh. 



I have very little fault to find 

 with these drawings. My criticisms 

 would be as follows: 



Male: Comb is good. I think 

 much better than in our Standard. 

 Wattles are good. Earlobes are a 

 little too large, or too long, in my 

 estimation. Body shape is good. Car- 

 riage of tail is ideal — in fact I think 

 this cut of male is hard to criticise. 



