54. 



that the work had been brought out by more able pens, and hoped it would provoke 

 otherd with more skUl and abilities to follow in the tract which lie had only pointed out, 

 to which I gave my hearty Amen. (Query.) Do not for a moment suppose that I 

 consider myself equal to the task ; but as a humble, unassuming Fancier, like Mooee, 

 I tell you boldly and fearlessly, without evasion or equivocation, that the Horseman is 

 an original bird. That is my opinion. I throw down the gauntlet to provoke others 

 to take it up ; some of you may say, that, although written in such humble language, 

 you should give us the why and the wherefore it is your opinion ; I will endeavour to 

 do so. All the Authors state the Horseman is a" hybrid, in shape and make veiy 

 much resembles the Carrier, only it is smaller in all its properties, viz., less in body, 

 shorter necked, the wattle on the beak sm?ller, as likewise that round the eye ; there re- 

 mains a larger space or distance between the wattle on the beak and the eye in this Pigeon 

 than in the Carrier. They are more inclined to be barrel-headed, and their eye some- 

 what pinched. To sum up this account, although it comes the nearest to a Carrier 

 than any other Pigeon, altogether less than any of its properties (save thickness of 

 neck, broad head, and the want of elegance.) . I put. it to the experienced Carrier 

 Fancier, whether this bird, taking all its properties into consideration, is a Carrier in 

 miniature. Certainly not. How comes it to be short and thick-necked and bruad- 

 headed ? There are Horseman of all manner of feathers, and pieds ; but Carriers are 

 chiefly blacks, duns, and blues. I have often asked Fanciers, how they distinguished 

 between a Carrier and a Horseman ? They have thought it too delicate a question to 

 answer. I have, in conversation with some of the most experienced Fanciers, heard 

 them say, if, in breeding from a pair of Horseman, they throw and breed an extra- 

 ordinary bird, they call it a Carrier ; if, on the contrary, they breed from an extraordi- 

 nary pail- of Carrier plain birds, then they are called Horseman ; I believe this to be 

 near the mark. What is there, then, in a name ! 



(Eaton). — I know two Gentlemen, stout Bird Fanciers (this is the term generally 

 made use of by the Fanciers of Carriers and Horseman) ; one gentleman said he had 

 nothing but Carriers, the other said he had nothing but Horseman ; I admired the 

 Horseman of the one better than the Carrier of the other, which- only proves " What 

 there is in a name ? It would appear contradictory if we come to the feather, for if 

 Carriers breed Horseman and the Horseman Carriers, how comes it to pass that we 

 have so few Carriers but are principally blacks and duns ? — for we have Horseman of 

 all colours, I am sensible we have Carriers also, but very few comparatively speaking. 

 In Horseman the blue and pied are most noted to be genuine and good. Then how 

 comes it to pass we have so few blue and blue-pied Carriers, unless the blacks and duns 

 answer best to breed up to ? It was so in 1735, and is now, the blacks and duns hav- 

 ing been so bred together. If you were to breed from two blacks or two duns, or from 

 a black and a dun, who would say what the colour of their young would be? Yery 

 likely a black and a dun in every nest, or contrary to the colour of the parent birv.;s 

 from which they are bred ; yet being a black and dun simply, for ought I know, the 

 blacks and duns have been bred together hundreds of years back as they are now, I 

 have no doubt, if the blues had been brought up as the blacks and duns have been, we 

 should have had as elegant for all properties, which so characterises the Carrier for that 

 elegance and wonderful symmetry of shape beyond other Pigeons. Whereas, the 

 Horseman appears a short, dumpy, thick-neck, broad-headed bird. How did it obtain 

 that broad head ? Nyver from the Dragon, Tumbler, or the Pouter, is my opinion ; 

 but that the Horseman is the original bird, and the Carrier is not. Do you sup[}0se 

 for a moment that the Carriers of the East are hke the engraving of the Carrier that 

 accompanies this Work ? (see) It is my opinion that it is no more like it than the 

 Antwerp Carrier is like it ; but who knows what the spirited experienced English Fan- 

 cier will bring the Antwerp Carrier to in the next fifty years. I have seen Dragons 

 that appeared to come neai-er in shape and symmetry to the Carrier than some Horse- 

 man (but with less wattle), ajipearing more like a Carrier in miniature. I stated it to 

 be my opinion that the Horseman was the original bird, and not the Carrier, and I will 

 endeavour to prove my assertion. Imagine to yourself an old and experienced Fancier, 

 of forty years standing, possessing the acknowledged best strain of Carriers, to die, 

 and all he possessed willed over to his nearest and only relation, a nephew,^ and among 

 other things, this beautiful strain of Carriers comes into his possession : being grateful 

 for wh.it he has received, he is determined not to part with this strain of Carriers 



