Miscellanea 
399 
Manchester Coppy would be " pure-bred." This meaning of " pure-bred " is at least clear ; but 
its utility may be doubted ; nor does such "pure breeding" insure uniformity of progeny, since 
even if the crested parents have had only crested ancestors for many generations they may still 
throw plainheads. As a matter of fact, all philosophical breeders of experience realize that the 
fetish of " pure breeding " is a will-of-the-wisp, and for the most part a hopelessly obscure, and 
unsatisfactory conception. Practically the exi)erienced breeder need not greatly care (within 
limits) about the ancestry of his birds. A little experience in breeding will give him greater 
assurance as to the character of the germ plasm than the affidavits of the fancier. To return to 
my stock, they were live, healthy and mostly fecund birds, — canary birds, no doubt. That is 
about as far as it was necessary to go. If I oftered the additional information that they might 
be classified as " Harz " or " Norwich," that might help a possible critic ; but I laid little stress 
on the statement and, from my experience, think it unimi)ortant. I would defy anybody to 
classify my canaries now, but nevertheless I know more about their germ plasm than most 
punctilious fanciers do about that of their pure breeds. And a knowledge of performance 
of germ plasm, not capacity for satisfying the conditions of the " Standard," is what I have 
worked for. 
As for my terms, it is the privilege of an author to use them as he sees fit provided he 
defines them clearly. Not having the fortune to live at Aberdeen and to mingle with Scotch 
fanciei's, I have, no doubt, defined some terms differently from my critic. That was not only 
harmless but necessary. I specifically defined " imperfect " crest as I was about to use it 
for the immediate purpose of the Table and four paragraphs of Text (p. 11) as "more or less 
bald on the occiput." I cannot find that my critic anywhere gives his definition of the term. 
He merely says (p. 2) " this bald spot accompanies most of the perfect crests of the present 
day." Our use of the word " perfect " in the two sentences differs — that is clear and sufficient. 
Next, my critic objects to my sense of the word "yellow." I was not unaware of the use of 
"Yellow" by most English fanciers in a technical sense. Thus Blakston says (p. 94), "we 
speak of a Yellow Green or a Buff" Green, a Yellow Cinnamon or a Buff" Cinnamon, when it is 
patent that neither of these colours can be yellow or buff' in reality ; and the words, therefore, 
taken in their general application, are technicalities." Now I was not writing for English 
fanciers merely, I was writing for men of science without regard to nationality, and to have 
used "Yellow" in the fanciers' sense without a long explanation would have led to confusion. 
I preferred, in common with some other authors in English (and as clearly stated on page 14 of 
my book), to use Jonque and Mealy instead of " Yellow " and " Bufif." That left me free to use 
yellow in what Blakston calls the real sense ; the sense also in which the German fanciers, 
as exemplified by Karl Russ, use it when they speak of Hochgelbe and Strohgelbe. If I had 
intended to use yellow as a technical group-name I should certainly have printed it in capitals, 
as Blakston does, and as I print " Buff' Cochin." As for the assertion that my definitions 
of "jonque" and "mealy" are inadequate, referring to colour merely, instead of including the 
form of the feathering and that of the whole body of the bird, I may say merely that not having 
been acquainted with my critic I could not have known his use of the terms ; that my definitions 
were based on and are practically identical with those of Blakston's great English classic 
(p. 94). In .«o far as they do not include form of' the body of the bird they are devoid of the 
probably fantastic associations of a special group of fanciers in the vicinity of Aberdeen. 
At least, I find in my hybrids no necessary correlation of jonque and mealy plumage colour 
with the form of the body of the bird. 
As for the emphatic denial (p. 4) of ray statement that hybrids of the yellow canary 
" frequently show moi'e or less of the canary yellow," I need only ask any intelligent reader if the 
assertion is contradicted by my critic's statement that " the great bulk " of such hybrids are 
dark. "Frequently" implies less than half of them light; "the great bulk" more than half 
dark. I might willingly have added to my book the same words as my critic, except to avoid 
51—2 
