164 



ral appearance of being thrust upwards, which is the opposite of its natural tendency* 

 likewise appearing as though thrust further back into the head. I will give you a better 

 rule or criterion to judge by ; experience teaches me these tricks cannot be played upon 

 the head and beak of the Almond Tmnbler without greatly distorting the eye, making 

 it appear very unnatural, offending the eye of the Fancier ; it appears as though it was 

 a weak watery eye, always winking and blinking: at the same time should you, on 

 looking at a bird", beheve tricks have been plaj^ed upon it, but has a full, bold, beautiful 

 eye, I think you would be drawing a wrong conclusion; if the bird was for sale, you are 

 not botmd to buy it, being in doubt. 



514. There are Fanciers who scarce look at their young birds in the nest, but have 

 got into the habit of stroking the beak upwards; if they do nothing more I do not find 

 fault; I know it is the contrary of what I do, being determined to see what the beaks 

 will come to in a natural wa^' ; owing to this and having very fine beak birds, I should 

 not think there was a Fancier who bred more cross or wiy beaks than myself. It is not 

 the fault of the Almond Tumbler, but of the Fancier, in not keeping the beak straight; 

 they are not hatched crooked or wry, but are wi-enched by the feeding of the old ones; 

 those beaks we see crooked, if shortened and pared to the end of the quick, would look 

 different. If I examined a crooked beak bird., and saw by trimming its beak to the 

 quick it did not exceed five-eighths of an inch, or a little over, I would as soon breed 

 from, or sooner, than from a straight beak bird I knew nothing about, knowing huw 

 easy it is to keep the beak straight while the bird is young and the horn is sufiiciently 

 pliable; will not answer for an old bird, as the horn is hard and brittle, in the attempt 

 to bend it would snap off. I do not know that it is possible to make up the head of an 

 Almond Tumbler, this much I do know, it woxild be utterly impossible to produce 

 first-rate birds from such. The cause of my making these remarks is, you may suppose 

 that Fanciers of the present day had not heard of these reports, this is the reason of its 

 appearing in this treatise; I do not like wi'iting on such a dishonest subject; I informed 

 you before if I possesed both ability and dishonesty combined, I would not instruct you 

 how to make up a bird ; the only way I know of making a good bird is to breed it from 

 two first-rate birds. 



515 I believe there are Fanciers at this time, whose judgment of the Almond Tumbler 

 has never been sm-passed — are not likely to be eclipsed, yet is possible that the head and 

 beak Fancier»~o£±he present day may persevere in breeding such short-faced birds, as to 

 enable the young and rising Fanciers to breed birds whose distance shall not exceed the 

 half-inch from the iris round the pupil of the eye to the end of the quick on the beak, 

 I have some in my possession as short-faced as I have ever seen; I never witnessed 

 more than three birds whose "Head and Beak," as it is called, but did exceed the half- 

 inch in the course of my life. Still, I believe in a few years the head and beak will be 

 shoi-tened, and that half-inch distance birds will not be so rare, or considered so great a 

 cuiiosity as they are at the present time; at the same time, I believe seven-sixteenths of 

 an inch never was seen, or ever will be seen, if you was to live a thousand years. There 

 is an amazing difference in a short-faced Tumbler between an half-inch, and a seven- 

 sixteenth of an inch in an Almond Tumbler ; you may reason soundly that an inch is not 

 much in the length of a man's nose (on the contrary I have seen a face without any 

 nose), I agree with you, but the sixteenth part of au inch in a short-faced bird, after 

 taking the standard at half an inch, is that which never was nor ever will be seen; birds 

 may be hatched -without beaks, this I consider foreign to the question. 



516. When you are going your round at six o'clock in the evening to see if eggs are 

 laid, observe at the same time the eggs you expect to be hatched on that day ; if they 

 are not sprung or chipped, place the egg to your ear, if you hear a brisk crackling noise 

 within, put the eggs into your mouth, one after the other, and well saturate them with 

 your spittle, repeat this, it is to be hoped as the shell dries and becomes brittle it wii' 

 burst and let out a little wonder ! I particularly cautioned you to know the day the 

 eggs were to hatch, and that without doubt. If I was in your aviary or loft with you 

 in the evening, you showed me a pair of eggs you believed were to hatch that day or 

 the following, if these eggs had not sprung or chipped, on putting the eggs to my ear 

 did not hear so brisk a noise in the shell, I should conclude it was to-morrow. It ia 

 said to-moiTow never comes, it came a day too late for you when you find the two birds 

 dead in their shells. I am convinced better head and beak birds have perished in their 



