78 



should include the whole ten and not nine. I know no reason why the last should be 

 overlooked more than the first ; why not omit one on each side of the tail ? Surely, 

 one would be equally just with the other. Mr. J. M. E. will, I have no doubt, excuse 

 the remarks of a brother Fanciei ; I believe he was lead to express this wish from 

 being a head and beak fancier, and not a feather fancier. 



187. (Eaton.) — I believe in another part of this Work, now in the hands of the prin- 

 ters, therefore cannot refer to it, the cause of my recommending Splash birds, as 

 they are called, being shown among Almonds, viz., a prize for the best pair of Almond 

 or Splash-Almond bred birds, I do not approve of disquahfying a bird altogether from 

 competing simply because it is deficient of a feather, and therefore is not a standard 

 Almond Tumbler, while it could take the other properties out of five, it opens the door 

 to let in an Almond standard bird, seven-eighths of an inch, a regular Skinnum, a pre- 

 cious specimen of an Almond Tumbler. I have never gone the length to introduce 

 Kites, Duns, or any other colour. If there is one prize in a show I admire above all 

 others, it is for the best pair of Tumblers ; then they must be awarded on the five pro- 

 perties, provided the judges are up to the mark. I will not wnrite more here on the 

 subject, having written elsewhere. I am desirous of hastening on to pick a bone with 

 Mr. Beent, as we are too far distant from each other to take a rump steak and oyster 

 sauce with it, &c-, &c., although I feel grateful to Mr. Bkent for his kindness, he will 

 not think the less of me if J do not believe all he preaches. Mr. Brent observes, as 

 well might a Sebright Fancier require a first prize for a deeply-laced cock and faintly- 

 laced hens, in preference to an evenly-laced pen of birds. I mentioned in a former 

 part of this Work I knew, comparatively speaking, very httle about fowls; so 

 foohsh about them I thought Bantams had more properties than one (feather). I am 

 so foolish in this science, I thought the double rose comb a property, shape, carriage, 

 or form a property, besides many others. Mr. Brent here only mentions one property 

 (feather) ; am I to draw my inference they have only one property, or that the Ban- 

 tam is disqualified from showing on account of a single feather wrong, although on 

 all the other properties this pen of Bantams could hck their competitors into fits. 

 How would it be if an exhibitor saw pens of Bantams disquahfied from showing, sim- 

 ply because they did not match (hke tailor's twist in a button hole to the cloth). Ex- 

 amining his own birds, and calling to his aid brother Fanciers, equally as good Fan- 

 ciers as the Judge, they declared his the most marked, laced, or spangled, &c., pen of 

 Bantams in the show, the exhibitor afterwards has an interview with the Judge, and 

 informs him as he has disqualified many Pens of Bantams, because they did not 

 match, he claimed the prize for his bu-ds because they matched infinitely better than any 

 other pens of Bantams, on principle, how would the Judge look, but what could he 

 say ? They are too wise to hear these beautiful remarks ; it does not sound '"hke music 

 to their ears ;" classically speaking, they '* cut their sticks" before the exhibitors are 

 admitted to the shows. I shall never forget the fine and beautiful remarks that dropped 

 from Mr. Tegetmeir's Hps one one occasion, when he called upon me at my house. 

 Talking over the Fancy, one thing led to another. He asked me— Did I not know 

 how to take the prizes at a show ? to which I answered — No. He repHed — By buying 

 the birds of the Judge or Judges. I thought I never heard so much truth in so few 

 words in my life. As regards feather, whether in a fowl or pigeon, provided they have 

 no other property, I would not give as much as a poulterer would for it after the bird 

 was dead, trussed and fit for the spit. I think these remarks are appHcable to other 

 birds as well as to — beyond all doubt the first of Fancy fowls— the Bantam. With 

 regard to tuhps, I don't underetand. 'Tis hard for a man to understand himself ; I am 

 tuhp enough myself. 



(Eaton.) — Mr. Brent is not correct in stating that all Pigeons have ten flight- 

 feathers ; he alludes to the long flight (for they have short flights also), and he alludes 

 to the turn of the long flights ; some Almond Fanciers state that there are as many 

 Almonds that have only nine feathers in their flight as there are that have ten at the 

 turn of their flight. I will not go so far as that. The Fanciers of the original Columba- 

 rian Society acted wise in taking the nine first feathers of each wing, counting from 

 their extremities, simply because there are many Almonds that have only nine'feathers 

 at the tmn of the flight, would it be fair that one Fancier should have to show ten 

 feathers aside, or to the turn feather, while another is shown with nine feathers only 

 at the turn flight ; the length feather might not be a standard feather, which would 

 prove fatal. There are a great many Almonds that have only nine feathers aside ; it 



