Defeats of the Existing Scales i-or Judging. 233 



In comparing these two scales, the first general question that arises is regarding the best 

 standard total for the value of points. Any one who t;sts the total of fifteen points before the 

 actual pens, will soon find it inadequate ; but this does not decide the point we are considering, 

 which really is whether as small a number as possible, in which the least important points are 

 represented by unity, shall be chosen, or the higher number of the American fanciers. A small 

 number has the advantage of simplicity, and hence apparent quickness of application ; but it fails 

 in elasticity, and therefore in accuracy. It is, in fact, absolutely incapable of being applied at all. 

 Taking for example the series of points — head and comb, carriage of wings, legs, and fluff — which are 

 each represented by unity in Mr. Tegetmeier's scale, it is conceivable that such representation might 

 give with approximate accuracy their comparative value as related to each other and to the more 

 important points, in forming a general idea of the merits of a bird. But if it is pretended to 

 estimate the rank of the bird by really adding up the points, and giving the award to the one 

 which carries the highest number, such a scale must fail ; for it can but very rarely happen that 

 head and comb will be either so perfect as fully to deserve the ideal estimate, or so bad as fairly 

 to lose all their value in competition. Partial excellence or failure is the rule ; and in such cases 

 a scale based on unity could only be applied by the expedient of deducting what we may call a 

 portion of a point from such as require it, as by allotting either two or three points in the total to 

 the four we have been now considering. Su^h a process is necessarily too rough to be worth much 

 in its results ; and it is a simple fact that, in spite of the recent amusing assertion by its editor 

 that the points of excellence in the English scale "have been so generally agreed upon by the 

 exhibitors and judges" (whatever the definite article may mean), and in spite also of the good we 

 have gladly admitted to have been done by it in some respects, there is not at present a single 

 acknowledged judge in England who professes that his awards are even intended to be generally 

 in accord with the " Standard of Excellence," or a skilled fancier who pretends to breed to it. No 

 doubt this is partly owing to actual error in the scales ; but much of it is due to the fault, inherent 

 in any small-scale system, which we have been considering, and which we regard as fatal. 



On the other hand, a scale which allows to the least important points a numerical value of 

 say four or five is at least free from this defect. If a perfect comb is to count five, the judge may 

 deduct for partial faults either one or more, or the whole points for it, according to his estimate 

 of the amount of defect. And although we have freely admitted, in our chapter on " Shows and 

 Judging," that no good judge will ever, unless in very rare cases, attempt actually to add up the 

 points in making his awards ; still, as he insensibly acts according to real though not actually 

 reasoned-out canons which govern his decisions, if these are to be tabulated at all, it should be 

 done in such a way as adequately to represent what is intended. We think therefore, that in this 

 respect American fanciers have decided wisely ; and that for these practical reasons, as well as 

 such as are connected with decimal and other properties, the number lOO combines the greatest 

 advantages of any which could be chosen. 



Having made these general remarks, which to some extent cover the whole ground, we will 

 now briefly consider both scales in detail. As regards Mr. Tegetmeier's : in many respects it is 

 really creditable, and perhaps at the time could hardly have been surpassed. In all the remarks 

 we have made or may make as to the deficiencies of this set of scales, we do not wish to have it. 

 forgotten how much more difficult it was to frame them with the very inferior competition and 

 limited experience then available, than from such ample materials as our best shows now afford 

 That they should show evident traces of having been constructed " round a table" rather than before 

 the pens was almost inevitable under the circumstances ; and so it is in the specimen before us. 

 A very short testing by any good judgment at a large show will show that it is faulty — i, in not 



