18 



THE ASIATICS. 



Casper Dice, Nebraska, breeder of Light Brahmas: "I 

 thiuk that both neck and legs of female are too short for 

 body. Back is too straight and narrow and the tail is 

 pinched too much. It looks as though the lower feather 

 were gone." 



John A. Myers, director West Virginia Agricultural Ex- 

 periment Station, breeder of Light Brahmas: "In the female 

 I think the fluff extends down and back a little too far, and 

 the line extending from the cape to the back part of the 

 cushion seems to me to be too straight. In other words, 

 I think the back should be depressed somewhat over the 

 cushion so as not to give it such a cocked up appearance. 

 I grant that many Light Brahma hens have a tendency to 

 carry themselves as shown in the cut, but I would prefer 

 the other form as ideal. It is a small matter, however, more 

 a question of taste than otherwise in selecting our model." 



F. L. Ackerman, Michigan, breeder of Light Brahmas: 

 "The back is too long and flat. Breast a trifle too full and 

 deep, with wings a trifle large and not carried high enough. 

 Tail too large and a trifle too short in shanks. Otherwise 

 it is good." 



R. R. Clendenen, Missouri, breeder of Light Brahmas: 

 "The cut representing standard shape of Brahma female is 

 good, but I think it might be improved. The wing is not 

 carried high enough; the back does not have that perfect 

 concave sweep to tail that I admire. It is too low on saddle 

 and perhaps the fluff above vent is not quite full enough, 

 giving her a pinched appearance in front of tail." 



L. 0. Berryman, Illinois, breeder of Light Brahmas: 

 "The female is all 0. K. except I would give her back a 

 little more concave sweep to the tail and perhaps lengthen 

 her legs a trifle." 



J. A. Roberts, Pennsylvania, breeder of Light Brahmas: 

 "The Brahma female is good. The eye, which we suppose 

 is bay, might be a little larger, and the tail should run 

 straight, not raised, bul run in line from back." 



M. Mayer, Jr., Illinois, breeder of Light Brahmas: "The 

 female should have a little more cushion, otherwise I con- 

 sider it an ideal drawing." 



J. J. Burnside, Indiana, breeder of Light Brahmas: "The 

 female is too straight on back from point of hackle to the 

 tail." 



George Luhrsen, Illinois, breeder of Light Brahmas: 

 "The female drawing of Light Brahma from Mr. Sewell is 

 excellent in my estimation, unless it might be a little long 

 in the back. I think her as near to the standard as any I 

 ever saw, and do not think there is much room for criti- 

 cism." 



Mrs. Ella Thomas, Missouri, breeder of Light Brahmas: 

 'The model for the female is better than the male, though 



the comb should be slightly longer and extend back farther 

 on head; skull broader, wattles heavier, back shorter for the 

 length of body, with more of concave sweep to tail. The 

 body should be longer in front of thighs, hocks more closely 

 rounded, and more distinct. Foot feathering with the 

 amount of black would be elegant. They are grand speci- 

 mens, but not quite far enough away from Cochin shape, 

 hardly up to my ideal of true Brahma shape." 



Mrs. B. F. Jackson, Kentucky, breeder of Light Brah- 

 mas: "The female is better in comb than the male. I 

 think the back is a little too straight and long." 



John H. Ryan, Illinois, breeder of Light and Dark 

 Brahmas: "I think the Brahma female, as drawn by Mr. 

 Sewell, excellent, but I think she is a little too short and 

 compact. I would suggest, that her body should be some- 

 what longer, and I think the back is a little too full and 

 straight. It would look better if more concave. Wing is 

 carried too low at rear. Otherwise it is all right." 



George Clough, Illinois, breeder of Dark Brahmas: "The 

 female is indeed excellent in shape. If she is faulty any- 

 where it must be in tail, which is, I think, a little high, and 

 the. fluff should be more abundant." 



E. E. Marlow, Missouri, breeder of Light Brahmas: 

 "The back of the female is too long and there is not enough 

 concave sweep to the tail. Otherwise she suits me all 

 right. Both are extra good drawings." 



E. Dunstan, Mississippi, breeder of Light Brahmas: 

 "Regarding the Light Brahma female drawing submitted 

 for criticism, I would say that I think the head, comb, bill 

 wattles and ear-lobes are all right, but the neck is far from 

 being of medium length and well arched. The back seems 

 broad and of medium length, and flat at the shoulders, but 

 • it lacks the concave sweep to the tail, and the tail is too 

 large and coarse to be described as rather small. The 

 breast, 'round, broad, deep and full,' is overdone, and the 

 same with the body and fluff. Take the cut altogether it 

 has the appearance of an over-fat Light Brahma with a very 

 ill-proportioned neck. If the neck were lengthened one- 

 quarter and in same proportion as presented, with the exces- 

 sive fullness of breast, body and fluff reduced to every day 

 proportions, I think you would have a comparatively good 

 Light Brahma hen. As it stands, I consider it a very ill- 

 proportioned bird and not in accordance with the Standard 

 of Perfection." 



Mrs. L. A. McMeekin & Son, breeders of Light Brahmas: 

 "Back of female is too much of an incline, instead of having 

 a concave sweep to the tail. Instead of the sweep, the tail 

 rises too abruptly. The bird is a little too much Cochin in 

 shape.' 



