BRAHMA FEMALE SHAPE. 



Criticisms of Foremost Judges and Brahma Breeders on a Composite Ideal From Live Models, as 



Drawn by Franklane L. Sewell— A Collection of Opinions That Are in Themselves 



Authority on the Ideal Shape of a Standard-bred Female Brahma. 



From the Reliable Poultry Journal. 



DT IS highly creditable for the judges and breeders of 

 standard-bred fowls to submit their criticisms on these 

 drawings. Their doing so proves that they take an 

 active interest in whatever is for the good of Poultry 

 Culture; proves that they are ready and willing to do their 

 part in the work of developing and improving the thorough- 

 bred poultry industry along right lines. It takes a degree 

 of courage for these friends of better poultry to write down 

 for publication their opinions, pro and con, of Mr. Sewell's 

 sketches. Located, as they are, hundreds, and in some 

 cases thousands of miles apart, they have no way of know- 

 ing what the other judges and breeders are going to ap- 

 prove or object to. Bach one must depend on his or 

 her own knowledge, on his or her own interpreta- 

 tion of the standard. It is a good training for all. The 

 standard has been carefully read and re-read on account of 

 this series! The future is bright for Poultry Culture, for 

 the thoroughbred poultry industry so long as the foremost 

 men and women engaged in it will do such work as this. 

 The R. P. J. greatly appreciates the courage and good will 

 of the judges and breeders. We know that the many read- 

 ers of the Journal also feel under obligations to them, and 

 to Mr. Sewell.— Ed. 



D. J. Lambert, Rhode Island, judge and breeder: "Head 

 is r oo small; neck is not long enough; hackle should come 

 down more on the shoulders. The back is too long; it wants 

 a more concave sweep to the tail. The tail is uneven; the 

 upper feathers should be longer so as to appear more 

 pointed. The legs and toes would look better if longer." 



J. Y. Bieknell, New York, judge and breeder: "Back 

 and body are too short for the depth of the bird. Breast 

 shows, too much fullness; unnatural and undesirable. Head 

 looks as if a portion in front had been cut out to make room 

 for the comb instead of having an oval sweep, and the comb 

 placed above as it should be. A small comb is desirable, 

 but this one is too small. Give the head the natural oval 

 front, make the comb a little larger, place it above the skull 

 instead of having it crowding the latter out of the way." 



L. P. Harris, Nebraska, judge and breeder: "I have no 

 criticism to make on female Brahma drawing sent to me." 



D. A. Stoner, Indiana, judge and breeder: "In regard 

 to Mr. SeweH's Light Brahma female, I would say that in 

 shape she is overdrawn, or she shows a bird so fat that she 

 would be of no use as a breeder. The back is too straight; 

 cushion is not full enough to rise to tail nicely; breast is 

 too full; body hangs too low; fluff between legs also hangs 

 too low; too much like an over-fat goose. Too much fat, 

 too much fat!" 



D. T. Heimlich, Illinois, judge and breeder: "The draw- 

 ing of female shows too much of a Cochin type of body. The 

 back is straight, not concave enough. Breast is too deep 

 and fluff too full. Leg and toe feathering is too heavy for a 

 Brahma. A line should be drawn from upper edge of "hackle 

 where it joins the back to tail to the depth of one-fourth of 

 an inch, tapering. Cut the breast away one-fourth of an 

 inch in front of the thighs to a point, to the lines in front 

 where breast joins the neck. Cut away a full half inch of 

 the fluff back of hocks, tapering to the vent. Between vent 

 and lower tail feathers fill out more fully. This would then 

 take away the Wyandotte character of tail and make the 

 whole harmonize with the perfect makeup of the male." 



F. J. Marshall, Georgia, judge and breeder: "The Light 

 Brahma female is not nearly so good us the male drawing; 

 too much Cochin entirely. Head is pretty good, except 

 comb is set too far forward. I like the shape of throat, but 

 the neck is a little short, not much, though, if the body were 

 not so blocky looking. Back is too high and straight from 

 base of hackle to tail. Tail is carried too low and it is a 

 little too long at the middle of it. The breast is decidedly 

 too full and carried too low, looks like a pouter pigeon. 

 Body and fluff are too well feathered, especially about the 

 thighs. Thighs and shanks are too short and look too much 

 like they came right out of the body like a peg." 



F. H. Shella'barger, Iowa, judge and breeder: "The fe- 

 male is not as good as the male. The neck is short in 

 length, the back too long and not sufficiently concave in 

 front of the tail. The breast is overdrawn and too prom- 

 inent at point of breast bone. Legs and toes would fit a 

 Cochin better than a Brahma, as they are too short." 



H. S. Babcock, Rhode Island, judge and breeder: "The 

 female shows more of the Cochin than the male. Back 

 should be more concave — too straight now, which makes tail 

 set on badly. Body too deep for its length. Thighs too much 

 hidden by the fluff. Leg and toe feathering too profuse. A 

 hen with such a general shape would be markedly cushioned. 

 I do not like the type of Brahma hen shown in this illustra- 

 tion." 



John C. Snyder, Oklahoma, judge and breeder: "The 

 female is too short in neck; crown is too high above eyes; 

 back is. too low in saddle; tail is rather large; fluff is too 

 low, which makes thighs too short. Altogether she is not 

 so good as the male." 



S. L. Roberts, California, judge and breeder: "The head 

 is good with exception of beak, which is too flat at nostril ' 

 and curves at point too near the tip. Comb appears to be 



