Miscellanea 
401 
II. Canary Breeding. A Rejoinder to C. B. Davenport. 
By a. RUDOLF GALLOWAY. 
In writing my "Canary Breeding," one of the chief objects I had in view, was to secure 
some sort of agreement between scientific men and fanciers ; for the attainment of such an end 
would undoubtedly result in an increase of knowledge, and would greatly benefit both parties. 
Dr Daveuport's frequent references to fanciers and their terras, and his acknowledgment of 
Blakston's Great English Classic, compel me to judge his statements from the fancier's jjoint 
of view, as well as from that of the scientific man. 
From the scientific standpoint only, his statements might be more consistent, though in all 
probability valueless ; from the fancier's point of view, which is pre-eminently that of his 
great authority Blakston, it is easy to show that his interpretation of terms is extremely 
faulty : — 
In his Rejoinder, he makes the startling admission that he has in his tables classed dark 
crested birds as "clears or yellows." The very thought of this is enough to make Blakston turn 
in his grave, for the following is his (Blakston's) definition of a clear bird : — 
" And here we draw the line " (at dark underflue), " and define ' Clear ' to mean not having 
the remotest tinge of dark colour in quill, flue, or feather ; birds from which every trace of 
the green has been eliminated ; which have a clear, silky, snowy-white underflue and show 
by it that they have arrived at the goal" (Cassell's Canaries and Cage Birds, p. 100). 
Such an interpretation of standard nomenclature is unwarranted, and indeed incompre- 
hensible in one who regards Blakston with reverence and authority. It is needless to enter 
further into the meaning of the term " variegation," which Blakston so fully and clearly 
explains (pp. 95-101), for it is evident that Davenport's interpretation of it is his own con- 
ception (as indeed he admits), and consequently his results cannot be accepted by the initiated. 
Another extract from the Rejoinder must be given in full : — 
"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 so 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." 
Nevertheless, if Dr Davenport will turn to p. 101 of the Great English Classic (of which, he 
will be glad to hear, a new edition will shortly be published— the original one having served its 
time and generation *) he will read as follows : — 
" The feathering on the Buff' birds is much denser than in the Jonques, the under-flue being 
very thick and long, as the fancier will be able to observe when he makes his first essay in 
washing. Altogether the Buif bird is built on a larger and stouter scale, and is, in every respect, 
the more lustij bird of the two." 
It is hopeless for Dr Davenport to escape from lii.s erroneous use of the word " yellow," for 
certainly Blakston never used it as he does, and if I am not greatly mistaken his aj^peal 
* Cassell's Canaries and Cage Birds was published in London, Paris, New York and Melbourne, 
some thirty years ago. 
