2l8 
Our  Canaries 
probably,  inter  alia,  were  the  joint  ancestors  of  our  Canaries.  For  it  must  be 
remembered  that  the  sub-species  in  some  cases  are  so  closely  related  as  practically 
to  merge  one  into  another  with  the  least  possible  line  of  demarcation  to  separate 
them  from  each  other. 
Granting  the  probability  of  such  dual  ancestors,  it  is  reasonable  to  suppose 
that  some  departure  from  the  fundamental  green  colour  would  occur  more  quickly 
and  in  a  greater  number  of  cases,  and  also  that  abnormalities  of  type  and  colour 
markings  would  occur  more  freely  than  if  a  single  ancestral  type  were  employed, 
and  it  would  then  be  far  more  clearly  understood  how  certain  varieties  of  our 
Canaries  throughout  the  historical  times  of  the  Fancy  have  possessed  certain 
.strongly  marked  features  in  common,  yet  stood  quite  apart,  as  it  were,  from  their 
equally  domesticated  brethren.  We  should  better  understand,  for  instance,  why 
the  Lizards  and  London  Fancy,  though  so  closely  allied  to  each  other,  yet  differ 
so  widely  from  other  breeds,  and  why  the  Cinnamon  has  always  appeared  to  stand 
alone  as  a  unique  colour  variety  possessing  peculiar  powers  of  stamping  its 
characteristic  colour  on  other  breeds,  and  yet  retaining  its  own  peculiarities 
undiminished  within  itself. 
ACCIDENTAL  CROSSING. 
These  considerations  lend  a  certain  amount  of  colour  to  the  theory  of  more 
than  one  sub-species  being  concerned  in  the  ancestry  of  our  Canaries,  and  the 
probability  gains  some  strength  when  we  consider  the  condition  of  aviculture  and 
the  limited  extent  of  our  scientific  knowledge  of  ornithology  in  those  days.  The 
knowledge  even  of  generic  distinctions  must  have  been  decidedly  limited,  and  the 
separation  of  species  and  sub-species  of  the  most  primitive  description.  It  is, 
therefore,  not  improbable  that  more  than  one  of  these  Serins  which  had  a  close 
affinity  (alike  in  typical  characteristics  and  external  appearance),  were  known  to 
these  old  fanciers  by  a  common  name,  and  believed  to  be  one  and  the  same  species, 
and  were,  therefore,  unconsciously,  in  a  sense,  bred  with  each  other  and  among 
themselves  indiscriminately,  until  a  sufficiently  pronounced  break  occurred  in  the 
general  type  of  the  progeny  to  attract  attention  and  direct  breeders'  eflforts  into 
particular  grooves,  which  eventually  led  to  the  evolution  of  distinct  varieties  with 
more  or  less  fixed  and  hereditary  features.  Hence,  assuming  this  theory  to  be 
correct—  and  the  evidence  in  its  favour  is  at  least  fully  as  strong  and  convincing  as 
any  against  it — it  is  a  curious  fact  that  we  owe  our  present-day  wonderful  array 
of  striking  and  unique  varieties,  as  portrayed  in  our  frontispiece,  to  the  accidental 
crossing  of  closely  related  sub-species  arising  out  of  ignorance  of  minor  specific 
distinctions  on  the  part  of  the  pioneers  of  the  Fancy. 
AN  EARLY  CENSUS  OF  VARIETIES. 
After  many  long  years  of  patient  breeding  we  come  down  to  the  dawn  of  the 
eighteenth  century,  when  we  have  what  is  probably  the  earliest,  and  certainly  the 
most  extensive,  complete  record  of  the  then  known  varieties  of  Canary — in  all 
