FANCIERS’ JOURNAL AND POULTRY EXCHANGE. 
435 
time they were considered quite inferior to the Aylesbury 
variety, especially in weight; but of late are fully equal, 
if not superior to the latter, and at the English shows they 
have carried oft' the palm in nearly every instance where 
weight is the chief end desired ; yet for market purposes, 
though their flesh is very delicate in flavor, they are not so 
desirable for early demands, as they do not come to maturity 
so soon. For exhibition purposes the Drake should have 
a yellow bill with a greenish tinge; without which it would 
be objectionable. The shape should he as shown in the cut, 
it being comparatively long, broad and straight, and rather 
longer than that of the female. The head is a rich green 
and purplish shade, extending down the neck to the collar 
or ring of pure white which nearly encircles it. The under 
parts of the body are of a fine silver-gray, extending under 
the tail, where pure white is considered objectionable. The 
back is of a rich greenish-black, extending to the tail, the 
curls which distinguish it from the female sex being dark- 
green. The wings are grayish-brown, having a band across 
them which should be of a bright and perfect blue, edged 
on both sides with white. The flights are gray and brown ; 
a white flight feather being very objectionable. The legs a 
deep orange. The appearance is noble and commanding, 
and the whole make-up is that of a beautifully perfect bird. 
The general color of the female is a ground of brown, 
pencilled with a darker shade of the same on the breast. 
It almost amounts to black pencilling, which should be 
very distinct. The head should have two distinct lines on 
each side, extending down to the darker part of the neck, 
which is essential to perfection. The bill, though of orange 
color, is splashed with markings of a dark color, nearly 
black, which, during the laying season, changes to a dull 
brown, which nearly covers it. The legs are of a duller 
tinge of orange than those of the drake, which are clear. 
The wing has, like his, a ribbon mark. The pair for “ show- 
ing” may reach a weight of 22 pounds, but in such cases 
the other features, coloring, marking, brilliancy, &c., would 
generally be found deteriorated, and in this country objection- 
able in respect to any but third-class prizes. As a rule the eggs 
are smaller than those of the Aylesburys, but of the same vari- 
able shades ; yet the size of the eggs may not be compared 
to the size of the bird. The larger birds frequently lay the 
smaller eggs. For breeding purposes look more to shape 
and perfection of markings than to weight, being especially 
careful to reject those having malformation of wing, unless 
they come from well-known, pure, and generally reliable 
breeding stock. The .Rouen drake puts on a summer dress 
like that of the duck, when the curl in his tail is to a novice 
the chief distinction of sex. 
(For Fanciers’ Journal.) 
CROTCHETS OF THE POULTRY FANCY. 
By Peter Simple. 
No. 1. 
“ I have so great a contempt and detestation for meanness, that I could 
sooner make a friend of one who had committed murder, than of a man 
who could be capable, in any instance, of the former vice. Under mean- 
ness, I comprehend dishonesty; under dishonesty, ingratitude; under 
ingratitude, irreligion ; and under this latter, every species of vice and 
immorality in human nature .” — Laurence Slerne. 
In the chapter upon “ Poultry Exhibitions and Show 
Fowls,” in G. P. Burnham’s “ New Poultry Book" issued 
in 1871 (and now published by Messrs. Lee & Shepard, 
Boston), I have recently read the following — which I 
extract from pp. 142, 143, 144, of that very creditable and 
interesting work, which your recent worried correspondent, 
a Mr. Athole, of New York, most unjustly decries, in my 
opinion ; and whose late offensive letter in your columns 
(which I was sorry to see you publish), first called my 
attention to Mr. Burnham’s really excellent last issued 
volume. In those pages Mr. Burnham writes thus : 
“ The emulation incited through the establishment of these 
poultry associations and their annual or semi-annual exhibi- 
tions, is altogether commendable. They bring together the 
best stock, side by side, and the society-principle keeps the 
breeders in friendly communication with each other (or 
ought to do so), whereby they may readily compare notes, 
and excel their neighbors if possible, from year to year. 
The prices maintained at these shows for good fowls are kept 
up to paying limits; and those who expend their money, 
time, and brains upon this kind of undertaking, are thus 
enabled to obtain remunerative returns for their investments 
and their labors towards improving the general poultry stock 
of the country ; since successful contributors are now re- 
quired to bring the quality of their birds up to a high mark 
— to win. 
“ The breeding of good stock is in consequence reduced to 
a very fine point, with some fanciers among us. I have 
noticed recent accounts of one elaborate raiser of Brahmas , 
who has elevated it to the ‘ pedigree ’ system — Mr. I. K. 
Felch, of Natick. His birds have been successful in the 
show-room, and are noted for good size, color, &e. 
“This nicety in the genealogy of poultry, may answer to 
amuse the enthusiastic fancier who indulges in its observ- 
ance, and it may prove sufficiently interesting to him to pur- 
sue its ramifications, and attend to the records it involves. 
But its utility is, in our humble judgment, altogether equivo- 
cal, in a general way. Still, for original breeding stock, 
such birds as the brothers Felch produce, and offer 1 with a 
pedigree,’ may be desirable to certain purchasers. 
“ For ourselves, however, we agree with the editor of the 
N. Y. Bulletin that ‘ the fowls must stand or fall upon their 
individual merits when they come into the ring.’ And, 
though this furnishing of ‘a pedigree ’ for •poultry (!) which 
no one cares to dispute, or inquire into, may serve the pur- 
pose of such ticketed stock, it is of no mortal use, certainly, 
to the general purchaser. The fowl bought is either a good 
or an indifferent one, and a paper record of his (nominal) 
ancestry surely makes him no better — no worse. Yet this 
‘hobby’ of the Messrs. Felch has proved no disadvantage 
to them , probably.” 
Thus much from “ Burnham’s New Poultry Book,” in 
1871, about the “ poultry pedigree ” nonsense. Well may 
this pleasant and pungent writer exclaim, as he does upon 
another page, in this same readable volume, that “ the matter 
of the standard, too, is brought down to a pretty fine point, 
already, on this side of the Atlantic ; and we respectfully 
suggest that this refining process may be easily 1 run into 
the ground.’” In which connection I quote from Lewis 
Wright’s first number of his new London Fanciers’ Gazette , 
started a few weeks since, this paragraph : “ An American 
monthly poultry paper for March announces a poultry pedi- 
gree book. It will no doubt pay the projectors, each entry 
being charged twenty-five cents, and this notion beingjwsf 
consonant with (some) present American ideas on the subject 
of poultry. The promoters probably understood this. No 
doubt a couple of thousand dollars will thus be readily paid 
(thrown away) in this way, about which time it will be dis- 
covered that 1 pedigrees ’ of fowls are no good.” 
Thus, though I notice that Mr. Burnham and Mr. Lewis 
Wright have at present (through the poultry press, and 
Wright’s two recently published books), a little ‘ onpleas- 
ant ’ difference, which B. so far seems, to my view, decidedly 
to have the best of, in that controversy, yet these two notable 
writers, Mr. B., in 1871, and Mr. W., in 1874, very closely 
agree about this silly “fowl pedigree” business; which a 
