800 Derivation of the Domestic Polled Breeds, 
resemblance. The two breeds are totally dissimilar. If there is 
any resemblance in general contour and appearance between the 
Suffolk and Scotch Poll, it is to the Aberdeen-Angus, and not the 
Galloway. Photographs or engravings of these two breeds are 
strangely similar, and might be taken for either breed, except, in 
reality, the color and size; while pictures of Red Polls and Gallo- 
ways could be distinguished at a glance. As Mr. R. E. Loftt 
points out, in a letter he has favored me with, “black and red are 
convertible colors, red Galloways being every now and then pro- 
duced from pure-bred black sire and dam.” But whoever heard 
of a black Suffolk polled cow ?—which would be bound to appear 
once in a while if the breed owed any origin to a black polled 
breed. So that “an investigation of even a very limited nature is 
sufficient to convince any one that the theory has been properly 
exploded,” “that a breed of cattle, themselves hornless from their 
earliest origin, needed a cross with another hornless breed in order 
to make them polled.” : 
I have carefully examined all the earliest authorities on the coun- 
ties of Norfolk and Suffolk that could be expected to throw light 
on this subject. These authorities are: Norfols—Nathaniel Kent, 
“General View of Norfolk,’ 1794; William Marshall, “ Rural 
Economy of Norfolk,” 1787; Arthur Young, 1804. Suffolk— 
Arthur Young, “General View of Agriculture of Suffolk,” 1794; 
and the following: Culley, “On Live Stock”; John Lawrence, 
“ Cattle”? 1805; and Richard Parkinson, “Live Stock,” 1810. 
The particulars given by these authorities need not be repea 
here. Suffice it to say—as these notes are only required to g0 
so far as will establish the correct origin of the polled breeds— 
in none of these county reports is there any evidence to support 
the assertion that the Red Polls owed any origin to the Galloway 
Scot; in fact, “no allegation had ever been made in such well- 
informed quarters” to such effect. Culley appears to have been 
the genius who “ discovered ” this supposititious origin for a breed 
already polled, and Lawrence, Parkinson, Henderson, Youatt ane 
others have been content to serve up the same old fable without 
examination—thus leaving a legacy of error to the Galloway histo- 
rian, to his own detriment. ay 
As to the claims of the Galloway, therefore, as being the origm 
