14 



THE ASIATICS. 



.good. Eyes, ear-lobes and wattles all right; expression, by 

 .reason of projection over eye, Brahmistic. Neck, not of 

 'medium length' as compared with size of body, and it some- 

 what deteriorates from the arch. Back, not concave nor 

 flat enough. Breast, deep enough, round enough and full 

 enough, in all conscience. Body and fluff good. Wings, not 

 .-square at shoulders by reason of a slight droop at butts. Tail 

 .all right. Legs and toes right. All considered ft is as good 

 in outline as one need to wish, the foregoing exceptions 

 •being made." 



Theo. Hewes, Indiana, judge and breeder: "The female 

 is not so good as the male; it is too low on the ground; too 

 much Cochin. Head and neck are set too far back, and 

 when you remedy this you get the back too long. The back 

 is too straight and too long. Tail is pinched. There is too 

 much fluff and too much leg and toe feathering. Breast is 

 ■entirely too prominent, due to the position in which she now 

 -carries her neck. We could add a little to the length of this 

 neck, the same as in the male." 



D. M. Owen, Tennessee, judge and breeder: "The neck 

 ■is too much arched. Breast and body are both too deep 

 through up and down. I do not like the set of tail. The 

 -main tail feathers set too horizontally. The tail should 

 -continue the even concave shape of back. Legs are too 

 rshort, and legs and feet are too heavily feathered. General 

 -appearance of the specimen is too blocky." 



H. B. Savage, Texas, judge and breeder: "The head is 

 a-ather too small. Comb is set back loo far from front of 

 beak; it needs just a trifle more curve to beak. Breast is 

 too full and prominent;- neck a trifle too short. Tail is a 

 little too low, and back is too long. I should like a little 

 -better concave sweep to it. Outer toe, like that of the cock, 

 is too short." 



F. W. Hitchcock, Colorado, judge and breeder: "In the 

 :female there is more to criticise, as it is too gross and heavy 

 for a typical American Light Brahma female. It looks too 

 much like an over-fat hen. There is not quite concave 

 sweep enough to the back. The breast and body are -too 

 •deep and the stern altogether too heavy. It is also too 

 heavily feathered around the thighs. Head, neck and tail 

 are all right." 



W. S. Russell, Iowa, judge and breeder: "I can find but 

 little to criticise. I would prefer to see the back flat at 

 .-shoulders and then rising with a concave sweep to the tail. 

 If the tail were raised just a trifle it would add to the appear- 

 ance of the back. I consider the thighs too short."' 



C. A. Emry, Missouri, judge and breeder: 

 ■Cochin in legs and fluff, otherwise it suits me.' 



'Too much 



George H. Northup, New York, judge and breeder: "The 

 Tproof of the Brahma hen seems perfect, except that the tail 

 is a little too long and the back is too flat near the tail. The 

 back should have a more concave sweep." 



F. B. Zimmer, New York, judge and breeder: "What I 

 said last month applies with equal force in this connection." 



H. A. Bridge, Ohio, judge and breeder: "The comb is 

 too delicately drawn and not distinct enough in formation, 

 especially outside serrations are not prominent enough. The 

 back at junction of tail should be raised to relieve the 

 *roken sweep. The ends of main tail feathers should be of 



a length to form a gentle convex sweep from the top main 

 tail feather to the bottom covert as they are in cut, then 

 bring out the coverts to a little less sweep, showing the main 

 tail beyond the coverts in unbroken lines. 



■'I did not intend to say anything about color, and will 

 not, except to give my fancy regarding tail and coverts. The 

 lacing on first row is a little broad — make it clear and 

 distinct and sharply defined. Bring out the first row as sug- 

 gested and add another row, but overlap them just a little 

 more and have one less covert in second row than first. 

 Now add still another row with one less than the second. 

 These coverts should be overlapped enough to show plainly, 

 and at the same time give feathers of back and side the same 

 convex outline as they finish up on the tail as the breast 

 has, this will give the bird a slightly rounded-up finish at 

 both ends with the snow-white feathers. The breast is too 

 full and the wings are carried a little too low. Legs are a 

 little short; thighs do not show quite enough. Body and 

 fluff are too full and in connection with the legs make the 

 bird a little Cochiny. 



"In connection with the above, I wish to say that with 

 all my faultfinding I consider these among the very best Mr. 

 Sewell has given us in all the varieties, and as regards their 

 merits as typical Light Brahmas they are the best pair I 

 have ever seen drawn, and had I placed an order with Mr. 

 Sewell for cuts of Light Brahmas and received these I 

 should have been very much pleased. My criticism of the 

 drawings is not so much on the work of Mr. Sewell, but 

 rather more to give my idea of the ideal. 



"Sickness prevented any remarks on former drawings, 

 but. I assure you I enjoyed them very much and I hope to 

 be favored with invitations to participate in all future criti- 

 cisms of ideal cuts, as this worthy enterprise of the Reliable 

 merits the support of all true fanciers." 



Charles McClave, Ohio, judge and breeder: "Symmetry 

 is good. Shape of head is good, but it is a trifle too deep 

 from eye back, giving back of head and upper neck & heavy 

 appearance. Back is rather long when compared with that 

 of the cock, and too low at base of tail. The breast is plenty- 

 full and in fact, Cochin full. Tail is a trifle too low. Shanks 

 aro too short, Cochin- type. Feathering is pretty heavy for 

 a Brahma. General outlines are a little after the Cochin 

 type with the exception of the tail. The Brahma and Cochin 

 shapes seem to be drifting nearer together in females." 



0. E. Skinner, Kansas, breeder of Light Brahmas: "Re- 

 ferring to the proof sheet of Light Brahma female I would 

 not suggest any great changes in the bird. I would want a 

 little larger head with broader skull and more throat wattle 

 and ear-lobes a little more prominent. Would want quite a 

 little longer shanks. Shape of breast, back and tail is 

 good." 



W. P. Oeam (Deam & Eby), Ohio, breeders of Light and 

 Dark Brahmas: "The female's head is too small, it has not 

 enough expression above the eyes. The neck is too short 

 and too large at base. The body is too low between the 

 legs. Point of breast is not prominent enough. The tail 

 is too long for size of bird. The cut looks too round, it 

 does not show points that should be prominent." 



C. F. Foster, Kansas, breeder of Light Brahmas: "The 

 female is so near my ideal that I pass her, only saying that 

 she has a too sluggish and listless expression. In my opin- 

 ion the Reliable is to be complimented on this good work 

 in the interest of the poultry fraternity." 



