FANCIERS' JOURNAL AND POULTRY EXCHANGE. 



75 



morning thoroughly, so that the droppings are excluded, 

 and your fowls will be kept warm, healthy, and comfort- 

 able. 



In a future article we will treat on the game fowl. 



Thomas S. Armstrong. 

 Trenton, N. J. 



At a meeting of the Executive Committee of Wisconsin 

 State Poultry Association, held at Milwaukee, January 7th, 

 1874, it was decided to hold an exhibition of poultry, pigeons, 

 pet stock, &c, in the city of Milwaukee, Wisconsin, Feb. 

 17th, 18th, 19th, and 20th, 1874. Competition open to the 

 world. 



P. A. Van Vranken. 

 Wauwatosa, Wis., Jan. 8th, 1874. 



(For Fanciers' Journal.) 



MATCHING AND MATING. 



As I understand these words, Mr. Editor, there is in many 

 cases a wide difference, and yet in many cases they are in a 

 measure synonymous. Bather let me say, sometimes in 

 matching for exhibition and matching for breeding, the 

 same pair or trio of fowls may be used and sometimes not. 



Now, is this a fault in the fowls or the breed, or is it a 

 fault in the standard, which requires such matching in a pen 

 as will destroy the same pen, so far as breeding is concerned? 

 It seems to me to be in the latter. 



- To make the matter plainer let us take a case. I have a 

 trio of Plymouth Rocks ; they are ready matched for exhi- 

 bition, dark pullets and dark cockerel. But I dare not 

 breed from a trio mated like this. True, it will bring me 

 nice cockerels, but more than one-half probably of my pul- 

 lets will be pure black. In fact this is about the only way to 

 produce the exhibition cockerel. Now to breed exhibition 

 pullets, I must mate differently. Here I must put with my 

 same hens a light cock or cockerel, and I will get fine pul- 

 lets, but all the cocks will come light. Thus to insure success 

 for exhibition, I am compelled to undergo double expense, 

 and be burdened with double care and trouble, in breeding 

 from two pens, because matching and proper mating do not 

 agree. 



This is true, not only of this variety, but also of many 

 others. Philander Williams, of Massachusetts, whose ex- 

 perience as a breeder and character as a man are unques- 

 tioned, wrote me a year ago as follows : " Most of our ex- 

 perienced breeders of Partridge Cochins are of the opinion 

 that brown in the breast and fluff of a Partridge Cochin 

 cock is no objection to him as a breeder, such cocks pro- 

 ducing the best marked pullets." My own limited experi- 

 ence in this matter would fully confirm, so far as it goes, 

 the assertion of Mr. Williams. But what body of judges 

 would for a moment think of looking on a pen of Partridge 

 Cochins in an exhibition favorably, if the cock were mottled 

 with brown on the breast. 



The same is true of light Brahmas. There are very few 

 exibition trios, or pairs, and particularly premium birds, 

 which an experienced breeder would care to breed from as 

 matched for the show-room, simply because he knows that 

 as the birds are matched a large percentage of the progeny- 

 would be not only imperfect but badly marked birds. 



I urge no objection to the present plan and the present 

 standard, because we are getting around and behind the de- 

 fects by offering premiums for single birds, thus permitting 



the stock breeder to mate for himself. But were we to ad- 

 here to the old plan of trios, it does seem to me that it would 

 be well to extend the premium list, particularly in those cases 

 where matching and mating do not agree, and offer pre- 

 miums, say for best mated pairs or trios for breeding pul- 

 lets, and for best mated pairs or trios for breeding cockerels. 

 This plan would enlist in our ranks not only the present 

 fanciers, but also many other scientific stock-breeders who 

 are not properly embraced within what is known as "the 

 fancy." It would of course somewhat increase the ex- 

 penses of premium lists, &c, but its effect would be to bring 

 in a new and interested class of breeders who do not now 

 grace the show-room with their presence. 



A. N R. 

 Lock Haven, Pa. 



(For Fanciers' Journal.) 



"PEA-COMB PARTRIDGE COCHINS." 



In a recent number of a poultry journal, I saw an account 

 of a breed of Asiatics, of the " Partridge cochin " variety, in 

 possession of C. H. Edmonds, of Melrose, Mass., that it 

 strikes me is new, if he has established this breed per- 

 manently. 



It is stated that he has no fowls or eggs for sale at present, 

 but the account given is interesting to fanciers of the large 

 Chinese fowls; since, with the Brahmas, the "pea-comb," 

 upon the dark or light varieties, is now a sine qua non among 

 breeders, and single combed birds of those varieties are dis- 

 qualified for competition in our exhibition-rooms. Has Mr. 

 Edmonds originated the pea-combed Partridge Cochins? 



In brief, it is stated that he obtained three 3'ears ago a few 

 choice Partridge Cochins, which were chickens, the first re- 

 move from stock imported from England ; two or three of 

 which, upon maturing, showed the ^ea-comb distinctly de- 

 veloped. 



He bred this trio together, set all the eggs, got a good lot 

 of chicks (a majority of which were cocks, however), the 

 first year, selected from these, all pea-combed, a fresh lot, 

 bred them the second year with continued success, and last 

 year went on again, breeding back with the original stock, 

 until he now has a fine lot of birds for the coming year, all 

 perfectly marked with the pea-comb in both sexes; whose 

 size, form, color, and other characteristics of these at present 

 coveted large fowls are described as very superior. 



The Partridge Cochin has hitherto been bred only with the 

 single upright seriated comb, within my knowledge ; and the 

 "standard of excellence " provides this mark as a qualifica- 

 tion, if I remember rightly. How about the pea-comb upon 

 this variety? If it be established, is it an improvement in 

 this fowl ? And what becomes of Wright's theory upon 

 this subject, in his "Monograph of the Brahma Fowl 1" Is 

 this variety really new? If so, and if like will produce its 

 like (as in the case of the Brahmas in this particular), why 

 hasn't Mr. Edmonds got a " good thing " in his " Pea-comb 

 Partridge Cochins ?" B. G. 



New York, January, 1874. 



(For the Fanciers' Journal.) 



INSIDE TUMBLERS. 



These beautiful birds have been my stud} 7 for at least 

 fifteen years past, and I think, without exaggerating, they 

 are the most interesting of the whole pigeon family. The 

 very fact of having birds that cannot reach a fence four feet 



