10 



THE ASIATICS. 



t»are with wattles. The body seems 'too short for height, 

 that is, the distance measured in a straight line from point 

 where the hackle divides at the front of neck, touching the 

 highest point of wing bow and terminating in the lower 

 part of tail, is too short. His neck and legs are perfect. 

 Head, a little too narrow above the eye. His tail is good 

 except that it does not spread enough, the sickles especially. 



0. B. Skinner, Kansas, breeder of Light Brah- 

 mas: "Referring to the proof of Light Brahma male which 

 you sent me, would say the cockerel does not please me at 

 all. T want a bird with a much larger head, broader skull 

 and much larger ear-lobes. His tail appears in the cut too 

 pointed, that is, not spread enough. I should want longer 

 shanks. His breast and back shape is good." 



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

 Brahmas: "I consider the etching of male Brahma excel- 

 lent, with one exception — the head is a trifle too small and 

 comb too large or prominent." 



T. N. Smiley & Son, Indiana, breeders of Light 

 Brahmas: "The proofs of Light Brahmas received, and we 

 think they are excellent. We have no criticism to make on 

 the male. We think he Is grand." 



Sid Conger, Indiana, breeder of Light Brahmas: 

 "The male is fairly good in general shape. The head is too 

 small, narrow, pinched in the throat. It fails in the hand- 

 some head the Light Brahma usually shows. It is not quite 

 deep enough in the breast for an ideal. The coloring of the 

 neck indicates smuttiness, and white lacing around the les- 

 ser siclfles is not standard. Shape of back fairly good." 



W. A. Irvin, Nebraska, breeder of Light Brahmas: 

 "The excellent proofs of the Light Brahma male and female 

 came duly to hand. I consider the shape and outline of the 

 male the best drawing that I have ever seen, and- when we 

 as breeders can breed them up to the typical standard shape, 

 as outlined by Mr. Sewell, there will not be any cause for 

 complaint." 



George Luhrsen, Illinois, breeder of Light Brahmas: 

 "In regard to Mr. Sewell's drawing of Brahma male, I will 

 say that in my judgment he is as near perfect as can be 

 drawn. Perhaps some breeders would say he is a little too 

 deep in saddle and .short in back, but I think him just about 

 right." 



Mrs. Ella Thomas, Missouri, breeder of Light Brah- 

 mas: "In regard to the drawing of ideal Light Brahma 

 male cockerel, as submitted by Mr. Sewell, would say I think 

 It very good, though I would prefer the comb to extend a 

 little further back on head, skull broader, wattles slightly 

 longer, first row of tail coverts solid black instead of edged 

 with white. Lesser coverts are all right. Body should be 

 slightly longer for the breadth and depth; wings a little 

 longer and tucked slightly higher; foot-feathering mottled 

 well with black. The whole body is too short for true 

 Brahma shape, according to my notion." 



George Clough, Illinois, breeder of Dark Brah- 

 mas- "I consider the male Brahma to be good in shape, 

 but I think he is a little short in back; hardly flat enough 

 at shoulders; breast not round, deep or full enough; fluff 

 not abundant enough." 



John H. Ryan, Illinois, breeder of Light anda 

 Dark Brahmas: "I can find but little fault with Mr. Sew- 

 ell's idea of Light Brahma male. He is a little too narrow- 

 across the head, hardly full enough over front of eyes; a. 

 little low at base of hackle; a trifle too much sweep to tail; 

 hackle is too dark. Otherwise he is all right, to my notion. '- 



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

 "I think the head of the male Brahma is a trifle small and 

 the tail is not spread enough. But I wish I could raise all 

 my birds to be as good." 



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

 "The drawing of the male comes so near to perfection that 

 there is very little room for criticism. The breast could be> 

 a trifle fuller, otherwise he suits me first rate." 



E. Dunstan, Mississippi, breeder of Light Brahmas: 

 "In offering my criticism on the Light Brahma male draw- 

 ing by Mr. Sewell, would say that I think the wattles are 

 too small to be called medium size, and the ear-lobes are 

 certainly not 'large pendant,' as required by the standard. 

 The junction between the head and back part of the neck is- 

 not defined clearly enough. The remainder of the neck, 

 looks very nice. I consider the back too short, and the 

 wings not being held high enough, give the back a narrow- 

 appearance instead of being broad and flat at the shoulders. 

 And from his saddle to the vent he looks shallow enoughv 

 for a Leghorn. I do not consider his tail is carried high 

 enough to be called 'carried tolerably upright,' and is too> 

 contracted to be considered full, well spread and well filled 

 underneath with curling feathers. The breast is round and 

 full enough, but lacks depth. The thighs and legs are, I 

 think, about right, but from the back of leg to vent he is 

 too short." 



Miss Hattie Winship, Illinois, breeder of Light Brah- 

 mas: "When it comes to calling this the Standard Light 

 Brahma for all strains and cutting every bird one or more 

 on symmetry, which does not resemble this male or female 

 exactly, I think it an impossibility, and would be doing; 

 what is unjust. When it comes to this strain, the Mammoths. 

 Light Brahma, they are very good, still if my preference 

 was for this strain, I should work for the heavier, more 

 blocky and more heavily feathered type. The male is too* 

 high in proportion to the width and length, is too long- 

 legged; tail too high-; "breast might be a trifle fuller, an« 

 when you have the feathers looser and heavier all over youi 

 will have a bird more of the style in the March, 1896, num- 

 ber R. P. J. frontispiece. I would not object to one or two> 

 pens of this strain; but as to a large flock or many pens,, 

 and when it comes right down to the money-making birde 

 (what we are after), I should not wish for them in the least. 

 I had some of that type last year and find they are not lay- 

 ers; the smaller types are those where the feathers are 

 smoother, or not so fluffy, and my customers, like myself, 

 met with poorer hatches from this mammoth 'strain. The. 

 male which gave me the best satisfaction is of the type Miss. 

 Forbes, of California, .has- represented on page 242, May, 

 1896. R. P. J., and is the strain I shall work for. There is 

 something much richer in color and form, making them a. 

 beautiful, noble, lordly type. The large type is nothing but 

 a rough, coarse, lazy bird. If your birds are very small it 

 is well to mix the larger with them to bring them up. E 

 think we need an ideal for each of the two or three strains, 

 as .some will prefer one strain whereas others will choose 

 another. They will never all ch oose the same." 



