FANCIERS' JOURNAL AND POULTRY EXCHANGE. 



373 



from Shanghai, China." My second lot of Light Grays 

 were procured in 1850, through Wm. T. Porter, Esq., 

 editor of the New York Spirit of the Times, from on hoard 

 a ship at New York, direct from Shanghai, China. I then 

 had other Chinese fowls of different colors, but these last 

 were light gray. "What else could I properly call them, 

 but what I did, viz. : " Gray Shanghais." 



And here let me quote what Dr. Gwynne, of England, 

 says: "I obtained of Dr. Bennett, of the United States, 

 five pairs of these birds. Three of these ten fowls only had 

 compressed pea-combs ; in none of the others was this found, 

 nor could I recognize in them anything but what could be 

 found in the Shanghai birds. I had several communica- 

 tions from Dr. Bennett, and in reply to all my inquiries, 

 directed to learn the cause of naming as 'anew breed,' 

 birds, most of which were essentially Shanghais, in shape 

 and character, I could gather no information but that the 

 difference of color between these and other Shanghais pre- 

 cluded their being thus classed ; but I cannot accept this as 

 adequate proof of ' Brahma-Pootras ' being a 'new breed,' 

 and therefore prefer the conclusion that they are identical 

 with the Shanghais, and only a new variety of that fowl. 

 Another circumstance which confirms me in this view, as 

 to the identity of these birds with the Shanghai breed, is 

 the fact that the fowls recently presented to her Majesty, 

 by Mr. Geo. P. Burnham, under the name of Gray Shang- 

 hais, are admitted by Dr. Bennett to be precisely similar to 

 his own, and Mr. Burnham assures me that the original 

 stock from which the 'Gray Shanghais,' presented to her 

 Majesty were bred, was imported by himself, through Dr. 

 Kerr, of Philadelphia, direct from Shanghai." Did Mr. 

 Lewis "Wright find it convenient or useful to place this 

 square, clear evidence about me and my fowls, (written by 

 Dr. Gwynne in 1852) in his poultry book ? Not much 1 



Thus I continued to designate my fowls, long years after 

 Dr. Bennett fixed " Brahma-Pootra " first, and then 

 "Brahma" for his birds, though at that very time (1852) 

 Dr. Bennett voluntarily wrote Dr. Gwynne, as above, which 

 was the true statement, but which I do not find in Mr. 

 Wright's account. 



Observe, / did not say this. Mr. Tegetmeier did not say 

 so; but this was Dr. J. C. Bennett's own account, published 

 from him direct, in Tegelmeier's early editions of his 

 "Illustrated Poultry Book;" see page 177, indorsed by 

 Dr. Gwynne, himself; yet, notwithstanding this patent fact, 

 Mr. Lewis "Wright goes out of his way in the extract " P. 

 E. "W." furnishes, to assert that " Dr. Bennett got his stock 

 from Connecticut "■■ — meaning from Cornish, I presume. I 

 do not know but he did. "What I believe, is that it was all 

 originally bred from my stock, though thus variously 

 named ; and Mr. Cornish himself (see his letter) called his 

 fowls " Chittagongs " (not Brahmas) at first, because they 

 so nearly resembled the large gray fowls (mine) then bred 

 in this country — so he says — and under which very name 

 Dr. Kerr sent me my first ones from Philadelphia. 



Now, who knew best, at that time, where Bennett's fowls 

 citme from ? Dr. Bennett, or Mr. "Wright ? The former 

 being the man who sent the fowls to England; who raised 

 this question about a name for them ; who says in 1852, 

 mine and his were the same ; the latter in London, simply 

 uttering an ipse dixit, based on the Cornish letter, which 

 does not mention Dr. Bennett either. Now, herein lies the 

 utter inconsistency of Mr. "Wright's theory, to wit : He 

 took for granted that what Mr. Cornish meant (not what 



he said) was that his fowls were " Brahmas ;" but this was 

 not true. Neither Mr. Cornish, Mr. Chamberlin, nor "the 

 sailor who reported he had found some light gray fowls " 

 (see the Cornish letter) then said anything about these 

 being " Brahmas." This name, at that time, had not been 

 decided upon by anybody, and Mr. "Wright cannot find it 

 so used at all anywhere (in 1852) at the time when he 

 undertakes to prove his position by quoting Cornish's let- 

 ter. This is very unfair, to say the least of it; but, which- 

 ever way it was, surely I had nothing whatever to do with 

 all this. I neither suggested, made, approved, used, or 

 adopted this name of " Brahma-Pootra" or Brahma for my 

 fowls — never ; yet Mr. "Wright distinctly asserts that " Mr. 

 Cornish's statement was published long before Mr. Burn- 

 ham's," and that "Burnham might have bred some very 

 good imitation Brahmas," etc. ; when it is so well known, 

 and always has been, and I am surprised Mr. "Wright did 

 not see this, that I had never claimed, or asserted at any 

 time, anywhere — in those years — that I ever imported, 

 bought, bred, owned, or sold any fowls known as "Brahma- 

 Pootra." Never, Mr. Wright I and you can not find it in 

 the published records anywhere, prior to the late war — 

 unless you have so written it yourself. 



Now let us see. My fowls — which led the world of poul- 

 try then — were steadily and uniformly called by me, what 

 they were — " Gray Shanghais ;" please notice. But, because 

 they were the finest and best ; because they were the original 

 American birds of this general character, color, and class; 

 because all England and America were ordering my " birds 

 like those sent to the Queen," which Dr. Kerr called " Chit- 

 tagong," and I called "Gray Shanghai," (never "Brahma") 

 Mr. Cornish first called his fowls Chittagong, as he himself 

 states in his letter ; and Dr. Bennett (who called his fowls 

 " Brahma-Pootras " then) finding my stock so popular, at 

 once declares to Dr. Gw3 7 nne that his fowls and Mr. Burn- 

 ham's of the United States (not Cornish's) are precisely 

 similar; a fact occurring at about the time when Mr. Cor- 

 nish's letter appears, which I think explains itself. 



"Will Mr. Wright inform us if Cornish's stock was the 

 original true bird ; why Bennett did not go back and call 

 his fowls "Chittagongs," as Cornish and Chamberlin 

 named their fowls? (See Cornish's letter again.) Keep 

 the fact in mind, that I never had anything to do with 

 naming any fowls for Cornish, for Chamberlin, for Bennett, 

 or for any body on earth — except my own. I named that 

 stock after the Chinese port whence they came, only, to 

 wit — Shanghai; and Gray, because I then bred the Buff, 

 Partridge, Black, Bed, &c. ; and this was their true name, 

 simply to distinguish them from the others. Had I the 

 right so to name my own property, or not ? 



Now I consider Mr Wright a good writer, and no doubt 

 he is an honorable man. I never have, and never shall 

 " fling mud " at him. I never wrote a word against him 

 or his theory before; but, now I propose to make a clean 

 thing of it, in my poor way — though I cannot conceive why 

 he thus devotes so many pages in his poultry book to abuse 

 me, who never uttered one word in my life, up to the date 

 of his book, which he thus wrongfully imputes to me about 

 " Brahma" fowls. 



Here is where the trouble is. The premises of Mr. 

 Wright were utterly without foundation, inasmuch as I 

 never then claimed that I originated " Brahmas." I never 

 had ought to do with praising the "Brahma" fowl. I 

 always opposed this bald nonsense, and would never permit 



