8t5:pt. 39 1893.) 



F'OREST AND STREAM. 



278 



\ 



VV. CoNNERS. Db. L. C. Saovbitr. Bkn Lewis. 



Claremout Heather. Oh, Lam a B, Cli. Tim. Pride of Pataey. Montniik, .Jr. 



WINNING IRISH SETTER TEAM AT TORONTO AND XINGSTON" SHOW^, 18f2. 



A KINGSTON GROUP. 



CENTRAL FIELD TRIAL CLUB DERBY. 



Editor Forest and Stream: 



Herewith I hand yon a list of 89 Derby entries that have 

 paid their second forfeit— 52 Ensrli^h setters, 1 Irish setter 

 and 3(1 pointers, whelped in 1891. We would have sent them 

 earlier, but have been so busy that it was impossible to pre- 

 pare them sooner. 



ENGLISH SETTERS. 



Cecilk H. (J. L. Adams), dog fDr. Machliu— Cosette). 



vSiK Kent (J L. Adains), dog (Kent IL— Nicoletts) 



Chevalier (Avent & Thayer Kennels), dng (Jean Val Jean 

 —Lucy Avent ). 



Shado {Avent & Thayer Kennels), bitch (Jean Val Jean— 

 Imcy Avent). 



BoNiAR (Avent & Thayer Kenuels), dog (Roderigo— Juno 

 A.). 



Kingston (Avent & Thayer Kennels),dog (Chance— Bessie 

 Avent). 



HAMLET (A vent & Thayer Kennels), dog (Chance— Brssie 

 Avt^nt). 



LocHiNVAls (Avent & Thayer Kennels), clog (Chance— Bes- 

 sie Avent). 



PPvOctor Knott iBIue Ridge Kennels), dog (Gfath's Hope 

 — Dashing Lidv). 



Hope's Mint (Blue Ridge Kennels), dog (Gath's Hope— 

 Dashinsj Ladv). 



LANCiEB (Blue Ridge Kennels), do2 ('J i! Hope— Stock- 

 ings). 



Dick Fox (Blue Ridge Kennels), do k, i e— Countess 

 Bush). 



LADT Brooks (Blue Ridge Kennels), bitch (Chance— 

 Counter's Rush ). 



Oesiko (K. W. Clark. Jr.), dog (Rod Gem— Winnie Davis). 



SUK FLOWER (C. S. Cross) bitch (Dick Turner— Babe Glad- 

 stone) 



Fling (Bert Crane), bitch (Rowdy Rod— Maud). 

 Brighton Clip (T. C. Davey), 'bitch (Canadian Jester- 

 Lassie). 



Gale Noble (H. K. Deveraux), bitch (Breeze Gladstone- 

 Katie Noble). 



Spot Cash (H. K. Deveraux). dog (Vanguard— Georgia 

 Belle). 



Nah.mke Phillip If. (E. W.Durkee), dog (Nahmke Phillip 

 -Mercy). 



Nahmke A lice (E. W. Durkee), bitch (Nahmke Phillip— 

 Mprc\ ). 



El Rey Del Mondo (El Grato Kennels), dog (Toledo Blade 

 —Jessie Gladstone) 



Roger's Spark (L. Gardner), dog (Roger— Dora Deane). 



Hoosii?R Girl (J. H. & J. A. Hunter), bitch (Dad Wilson 

 — Daiav Hunter) 



DUFE (W. T. Hunter), bitch (Toss— Pitti Sing). 



Gladstone's Pet (W. T. Hunter), bitch (Roderigo— 

 Gladstone's Girl). 



HoosiER Lady (F. R. Hitchcock), bitch (Dad Wilson- 

 Daisy Hunter). 



Cricket (F. R. Hitchcock), bitch (Roderigo— Juno A.). 



Chinaman (F. R. Hitchcock), dog (Chance— Bessie Avent). 



Kt-Ko (O. F. Joyce), dog (Tan— Ightfleld Sophie). 



WiNNEPEG (Thos. Johnson), dog (Manitoba Toss— Pitti 

 Sing). 



Nat GooDvriN IL (H. Merriam), dog (Nat Goodwin— Royal 

 Myrtle). 



Pan (H. Merriam), bitch (Nat Goodwin— Royal Myrtle), 

 Flyaway (S. Merriam), bitch (Rowdy Rod— Eve). 

 Speedaway (H. Merriam), bitch (Rowdy Rod— Eve). 

 Dessie Hope (P. T. Madison), bitch (Gath's Hope— Stock- 

 ings). 



Princess Ray (G. A. McLin, agent), bitch (Prince Lucifer 

 — Priricess Lil). 



Flirt (Randolph Kennels), bitch (Dakota— Rose). 



Gaiety (Royal Robinson), bitch (Lone Jack — Gay Phoebe). 



Clem Gladstone (J. L. Sueed), dog (Paul Gladstone— 

 Latonia). 



Mecca (T. E. Shreve), dog (Paul Gladstone— Latonin). 

 RAP Eye-Dan (W. Wilson), dog (Ben Hill— Dolly S.). 

 St, Anthony f J . H. Winslow), dog (Rowdy Rod— Celeste C). 

 Lady Belton (T. M. Lawry), bitch (Tennessee Bob— Dixie 

 Belton). 



Rod's Sue (P. Lorillard, Jr.), bitch (Roderigo— Gladstone's 

 Girl). 



Dot Rogers (P. Lorillard, Jr.), bitch (Roderigo— Glad- 

 stone's Gir!). 



Addie T. (P. Lorillard, Jr.), bitch (Roderigo— Maggie 

 Glad.stor e). 



Maiden Mine (P. Lorillard, Jr.), bitch (Vanguard— Geor- 

 gia Belle). 



Gladevla (P. Lorillard, Jr.), hitch (Blade— Estelle). 

 Spikek's Girl (P. Lorillard, Jr.), bitch lOhaDce- Spike), 

 Rexicls (J. Maclia), dog (Van Vleete— May). 

 Belle of Kentucky (Fairmouut Kennels) bitch (Dad 

 Wil.5on— Bohemian Giri). 



IRISH SETTERS. 



Elphin II. (E, B. Bishop), bitch (Tyrconnel— Kinvarra). 



POINTERS. 



Kent Elgin ( T. T. Ashford). dog (King of Kent— Vera 



Bang), 



Lad of Rush (J. L Adams), dog (Rush of Lad— Topsy L.). 

 DaiseySocwell (J. L. Adams), bitch (Ossiau— Devonshire 

 Jilt). 



RiDGEvrooD Beppo (Graphic Kennels), dog (Beppo III.— 

 Revelation). 



Hunt's Cbosie (Bob Cooper), bitch (King of Kent— Croxie 

 Wise). 



Chin Chin (Charlottesville Field Trial Kennels), dog (Rip 

 Rap — Fannie Bijou). 



JOHS Paul (C'uarlottesville Field Trial Kennels), dog (Rip 

 Ran— Petticoats). 



■ Ruffle (Charlottesville Field Trial Kennels), bitch (Rip 

 Rap— Dex'er's Dolly). 



Conscript (Charlottesville Field Trial Kennels), dog (King 

 of Kent— Hops). 



Cosette (Charlottesville Field Trial Kennels), bitch (King 

 of Kent — Hops). 



SEARSPRiNG(CharlottevilleF.T. Kennel), dog (Mainspring 

 — Qupenie). 



Jingo (Charlotteville F. T. Kennel), dog (Mainspring— 

 Qupenie). 



Varro (J. B. Castleman), bitch (Rex— Nell). 

 MAtkos (J. B. Castlemanj, bitch (Rex— Nell). 

 LADY Peg (W. T. Hunter), bitch (King of Kent— Lass of 

 Bloorao). 



Dennis (F. R. Hitchcock), dog (King of Kent— Croxie 

 Wise). 



Hempstead Blossom (Hempstead Farm Kennels), bitch 

 (Duke of Hessen— Woolton Game). 



Hempstead Game (Hempstead. Farm Kennels), bitch 

 (Duke of Hessen— Woolton Game). 



Hempstead Duchess (Hempstead Farm Kennels), bitch 

 (Duke of Hessen — Merry Legs). 



LiTCK of Hempstead (Hempstead Farm Kennels), dog 

 (Duke of Hessen — Merry Legs). 



Manitoba Shot (T. Johnson), dog (Coton— Psyche). 



Croxie Kent (W. N. Lipscomb), bitch (King of Kent— 

 Croxie Wise). 



Florine (C. H. Odell), bifch (Rip Rap— Dalgorouki). 



Trim (C H. Odell), dog (Roger Willidms-Ruby). 



Pete (C. H. Odell), dog (Roger Williams— Ruby). 



Bradley (C. H. Paine), dog (King of Kent— Lass of 

 Kent). 



Early Dawn (Randolph Kennels), dog (Duke of Beaufort 

 — Mam'zelle). 



Kent's Maid (H. L Reginald), bitch (King of Kent- 

 Galena). 



CoxiE O'BANNON (R. I. Shannon), bitch (King of Kent 

 — Croxie Wise). 



Ginger Alb (R. I. Shannon), bitch (Osborn Ale— Pearl's 

 Dot). 



Duchess of Highlands (Ellioit Smith), bitch (Beppo III. 

 -Belle). 



Graceful II. (Luke W. White), bitch (Duke of Hessen— 

 Concave). 



Grace; IV. (Luke W.White), bitch (Duke of Hessen— 

 Concave). 



Clancarty (J. H. Winslow), bitch (Beppo III.— White 

 Fawn). 



Redemption (J. H. Winslow), dog (Graphic— Vandalia). 

 Aspiration (J. H. Winslow), dog (Dick Swiveler— Bloomo 

 in ) C. H. Odell, Sec'y-Treas. 



POINTS AND FLUSHES. 



Chicago, Sept. 17.— In a recent issue of Forest and 

 Stream I touched briefly on the subject of judging by scor- 

 in.g, in reply to a communication from Dr. Mills on that 

 matter, and I now desire to treat it more fully. 



Scoring by points is a most plairsible fallacy, since noth- 

 ing appears more reasonable than that if each important 

 part of the perfect dog is given a fixed value, the sum total 

 of all these will represent the perfect dog. This, it should 

 be noted, is the ideal perfect dog, a most iadeterminate 

 quantity as a starting point, since there is hardly any ques- 

 tion on which fanciers differ more radically than on what 

 constitutes the ideal dog of any breed. There are also wide 

 differences of opinion as to what constitutes type and general 

 race characteristics, these differences, as a matter of course, 

 being greater in respect to certain breeds than to others. By 

 compromises, a certain vague ideal type is agreed upon. 

 Each important part of the vague ideal dog is given an 

 arbitrary and relative value, it being assumed that the value 

 may represent the anatomical value of the part of its value 

 as indicative of important I'ace characteristic, or both. As 

 to the relative values of the different parts, the value of the 

 loin as compared to the head: the value of the forelegs, tail 

 and chest as compared to the neck or to each other, etc., are 

 all established by agreement, and are therefore entirely arti- 

 ficial and arbitrary. 



Taking 100 as representing the total value of a dog in the 

 scale of points, it is subdivided into such values as are con- 

 sidered necessary to give as good a representation of the ani- 

 mal as can be done by figures. If head is valued at 1.5 and 

 feet and legs at 6, it is entirely a matter of agreement, and 

 is, therefore, wholly artificial. There is, however, notning 

 whatever in the nature or structure of an animal that will 

 permit its race characteristics and anatomy to be portrayed 

 by figures. 



It is a fair assumption that if all the scales of points, as 

 expressed by figures, were placed before a man who was 

 familiar with all recognized breeds cf do.gs, but who had 

 never seen any scales of points, he could not determine the 

 breed to which any one of them belonged, this of course 

 assuming that there was no explanatory matter, but only 



the different columns of figures wMch represent the dififer- 

 en*- breeds of dogs. 



To be intelligible, the unit, represented by any figure, 

 must be a constant, fixed quantity, thus, two feet, or ten 

 bushels, etc., have a conventional meaning known to every- 

 body. But 20, as applied to the head and neck of the 

 dog, has no fixed meaning. No two dogs have heads pre- 

 cisely alike. IS' or are they alike in other respects. The 

 judge, in scoring dogs by a scale of points, has constantly 

 varying quantities to estimate and upon which to fix values 

 and as no two parts are precisely alike, or alike as related 

 to other parts, there is no exact knowledge applied at any 

 time. It all rests on estimates and guesses in practically 

 applying the scale of points. I do not believe that any two 

 judges in the world could go through a class of any bred of 

 dogs, and, working independently, score the dogs alike. It 

 is an open secret among sbow goers that the same dog has 

 been scored differently by the same judge. 



But the knowledge of how to apply a scale of points, such 

 as it is. only comes after one has learned thoroughly the 

 breed of dogs to which it belongs. No one can study a scale 

 of points by itself and learn anything about the breed it is 

 supposed to represent. It is then simplj' an abstraction. No 

 one can take the difirerent scores of each individual in a class 

 cf dogs, made by a judge, and tell anything about what kind 

 of dogs were in it. Type, expression, characteristics, sym- 

 metry, etc., cannot be represented by figures. Aftfr a judge 

 has made a score of a dog according to the recognized stand- 

 ard, it has no meaning to any one but himself. The course 

 of reasoning by which be arrived at certain conclusions, his 

 mental estimates, his data, acquired knowledge and his 

 ipeas of the ideal type on which he founds his score are all 

 personal with him and do not show in the column of figures. 

 The latter represents his judgment, supposedly in a form' 

 that will make it plain to all in an exact mathematical way, 

 but which conveys no meaning whatever of the dog it is 

 intended to represent. Most assuredly, a judge does not 

 need to score a dog for his own information, for, if he has 

 the proper knowledge uf dogs, he can judge without scoring 

 them. The column of figures being of no value to any one, 

 and no assistance to the judge himself, of what value is it? 



If a perfect head were represented by the figure 10, a 

 judge might represent a coarse head by the figure 8, and a 

 small weak head by the same figure. There is nothing 

 precise in such figures to the reader, because they rest on no 

 fixed quantity outside of the mind of the judge. If a judge 

 has sufficient knowledge of dogs to estimate their worth 

 and compare them one with another, he does not need a 

 column of figures of his own creation to assist him. His 

 scores can be no more to him than memoranda, and they are 

 mere abstractions to all others. 



These intrinsic weaknesses are greatly aggravated by the 

 well known fact that nearly all recognized judges, the ones 

 on whom the public depends for correct interpretations of 

 the standard, differ greatly in their ideas of type, and prac- 

 tically in respect to what specimens are the b^-st dogs, as 

 shown by different judges reversing each other's decisions 

 at shows. luferentially, they must have difterent ideas, 

 although it is supposed that they have the same standard 

 to govern them. 



The idea of scoring by a scale of points was carried still 

 further by some field trial clubs in the past, in attempting 

 to score a dog's work in a field trial by a scale of points. 

 Pointing, backing, ranging, etc., were all valued at a mixi- 

 ■mum value, supposed to be perfection, and anything short 

 of it was graduated, according to the degree it fell short. It 

 seems to me that it would be no more absurd to attempt to 

 represent the lights, shadows, colors and configuration of 

 an autumn sunset than to sum up the intelligence, powers 

 of scent, general knowledge and practical work of a dog in 

 a c )lumn of figures. 



So long as the units, on which the figures are based, are 

 unknown, unlike or constantly shifting and changing, the 

 figures are meaningless. The general trend of progress is to 

 abandon the fallacy. Field trial clubs gave it a thorough 

 trial and abandoned it. But few breeds of dogs are now 

 judged by scoring them. 



Chicken fanciers, among whom it was most firmly cher- 

 ished, have become divided on its merits both in theory and 

 practice, and the signs of the times indicate that it will take 

 its place with the wrecks which have marked the march of 

 progress throtxgh the centuries. 



I think that Dr. Mills will concede at the outset that there 

 must be some fixed, unalterable unit as a starting point, to 

 deal intelligibly with it by figures. Granting this, it de- 

 stroys the possibility of a correct scale of points, for there 

 is no fixed unit possible in comparing the relative parts of 

 a dog with each other, as their sum total with that of some 

 other dog. 



Still, there are probably points of view which admit of 

 a more favorable presentation of the matter, and I feel so 

 sure that Dr. Mills can do the subject justice that I shall 

 look forward with great interest to his commttnication on 

 the matter, which he has promised. 



That dogs are property in fact if not in law, the follow- 

 ing reprint from the Chicago Tribune of this date will go 

 far to show: 



"A St. Bernard dog was the result of a replevin suit in 

 Justice Woodman's court yesterday afternoon. E. H. Kohn 

 filed the suit against Nicholas Greenwold. He claimed that 

 his dog had either been lost or stolen and was in the posses- 

 sion of the defendant. The justice ordered the dog broTight 



