mm 
FOREST AND STREAM. 
— 
Fixtures. 
BENCH SHOWS. 
March 5-8.— Pittsburg.— Duquesne Kennel Club's bench show. 
F, S. Stedman, Sec'y. , , , - 
I March 1.2-15.— Chicago.— Chicago Kennel Club's show. D. is, 
Gardner, Sec'y. „. , , 
March 20-22.— Winnipeg, Man.— Western Canada Kennel Uub s 
-bench show. A. H. M. Clark, Sec'y. , _,, . , . 
March 18-21— Uhrichsville, O.— Twin City Kennel Club s bench 
show. C. S. Walker, Sec'y. , J. T . , „. , , 
March 26-29— Atlantic City, X. J.— Atlantic City Kennel Club s 
show. Thos. H. Terry, Sec'y. . _, t , . , , 
April 1-4.— Boston— New England Kennel Club s eighteenth 
annual show. Wm. B. Emery, Sec'y. , , 
April 9-12,— Seattle, Wash.— Seattle Kennel Club s annual show. 
H. S. Jordan, Sec'y. . . , , 
Oct. 7-9.— Danbury, Conn.— Danbury Agricultural Society s show. 
Tohn W. Bacon, Treas. .... » . . , 
Oct 21-24.— New York.— Ladies' Kennel Association of America s 
show." Miss M. K, Bird, Westbury, L. L, Hon. Sec ! y. 
Nov. 26-29.— Philadelphia.— Philadelphia Dog Show Association s 
show. M. A. Viti, Sec'y. 
FIELD TRIALS. 
Aug. 26.— Salem, S. D— South Dakota Field Trial Association's 
third annual trials. E. H« Gregory, Sec'y. 
Aug —.—O'Neill, Neb.— Nebraska Field Trial Association s 
inaugural chicken trials. M. H. McCarthy, Sec'y •' 
Oct. 13.— Ruthven, Ont.— North American Field I rial Clubs 
fourth annual trials. Richard Bangham, Sec'y. . . , 
Oct 20. , Mich.— Michigan Field Trial Association s 
fifth annual trials. ' C. D. Stuart, Sec'y. 
Oct. 27. , Mo.— Missouri Field Trial Association s sixth 
be ingendred." "Of the second we are not utterly voide 
of some." * * * "The thirde, which is bred of a beare 
and a bandog we want not heere in England." To re- 
turn to the bandog, Topsell says it is "vaste, huge, stub- 
borne, ougly, and eager, of a hevy and bourthenous body, 
terrible, and fright full to behold, and more fierce and fell 
than Arcadian cur, notwithstanding they are said to 
have their generation of the violent lion." Such was our 
knowledge of the dog A. D. 1607, which is the date of the 
first edition of Topsell 's translation. — London Field. 
L. S. Eddins, Sec'y. _■ 4 , - , , 
Pa— Monongahela Field Trial Club s held 
annual trials. 
Oct. 27. 
trials. A. C. Paterson, Sec'y. 
Nov. 3.— Robinson. 111.— Illinois Field Trial Association s fourth 
annual trials. W. R. Green. Sec'y. - . *- 
Nov. 10.— Bicknell, Ind.— Independent Field Trial Uub s fourth 
annual trials. H. S. Humphrey, Sec'y. - 
Nov 11.— St. Toachim, Ont— International Field Trial Club* 
fourteenth annual trials. W. B. Wells Hon Sec'y. 
Nov. 17.— Elizabethtown. Ky— Kentucky Field Trial Club s third 
annuai trials. F. W. Samuel, Sec'y. , 
Nov. 24.— Washington C. H., O.— Ohio Field Trial Association s 
fifth annual trials. C. E. Baughn, Sec'y. . . 
p_) ec 1. , __ _. — Interstate Championship bield I rial 
Association's second annual trials. C. D. Cooke, Sec'y. 
— . — . — Western Field Trial Association s sec- 
ond annual trials. ' C. W. Buttles, Sec'y, 
Field Trial and Bench Show Judging. 
Philadelphia, Pa., Feb. 27— With each recurring year 
the field sportsman, or rather the practical sportsman, who 
believes that setters, pointers and spaniels are pre-eminent- 
ly workers rather than house or pet dogs, on his visit to 
the bench shows deplores the utter disregard of the work- 
ing features of these dogs as they refer to his powers of 
motion, and, indeed, the judge is likely to impose a 
penalty for visible signs of work, such as shown by a 
ragged, faded, mud-stained coat, featherless legs and 
stern, rough feet, and a general appearance of the veteran 
field campaigner. When placed in contrast with the 
smoothly groomed, even-haired, full-coated dog of leisure, 
with colors brought out in perfection, and each hair 
groomed to perfect cleanliness, the field dog, though pos-, 
sibly of incomparably better physique, has not a possible 
show of winning. It has these many years been the 
plea of the practical field man that this should not be so. 
He unyieldingly maintains that show type should be field 
type, and vice versa. To him the setter, the pointer and 
the spaniel should be the same everywhere, whether on 
bench or' field. It is a comfortable theory, but it is not a 
success in practice. It is of the ideal world and not of 
the practical. It is a belief that would best be abandoned. 
If we consider the matter apart from one's special 
prejudices, we find that the bench show and the field trial 
or field work features are irreconcilable. There is no 
relation between the two in a way to be recognizable in a 
competition. A field dog, fresh from a season's work, is 
not in a condition to take part in a beauty show any more 
than his master in soiled field costume is fit to appear in 
an opera box among gentlemen and ladies in evening 
dress. The master can change his coat, however, and the 
dog cannot. It is quite time to recognize that bench 
shows and field work are two distinct and separte fields of 
effort, so different in purpose that one is not essentially a 
part of the other. They are as distinct in a way as the 
mimic stage of the theater and the stage of real life. How 
a dog looks at rest and how a dog acts in serious work 
are two distinct matters. 
It has been said that there are bench judges so wise 
that they could judge of a dog's field ability by his form. 
Is it not strange that judges of such abnormal acumen 
could not judge a field trial by looking the dogs over 
and deciding their merits without actual competition. 
The preparation of the dog for a bench show is neces- 
sarily different from that of the field. He is judged by 
a different scale. His bench show merit is one of physique 
and type ; his field merit is one of work. No theory can 
reconcile the two specialties. The practice negatives the 
theory every time. No bench show judge can judge of 
type and beauty on a basis of worn or absent coat, faded 
co1or>and a scarred skin, etc. Conversely, no judge_ can 
judge of field merit by a clean coat, full grown and richly 
colored. Let us abandon our bench-field delusions. 
H. A. 
Some Ancient Classification. 
Some very funny ideas as to dogs prevailed in Eng- 
land even so recently as .300 years ago. In Topsell' s trans- 
lation of Gemer's Natural History a peculiarly quaint 
list of "dogges" is given, of which the following is an 
epitome: The harier (leverarius) heads the list, followed 
by the terrar (terrarius), the bloudhound (sangui- 
narius). the gasehound (agasaeus), the greyhound 
(Ieporarius) , the Lyemmer (lorarius). the tumbler (vcr- 
tagu.s). the theevish dogge (Canis furax), the spaniell 
( hispaniolus ) , the setter (index), the water spaniell or 
tinder (aquaticus), the fisher (Canis piscator), the spaniell 
gentle (melitaeus) or fotor, also called comforter, the 
shepherd's dog (C. pastoralis), the mastive or .bandog 
( villaticus or. cathenarius). After this follow the "Curres 
of the Mungrell and rascall sort," headed by the wappe or 
warner. the. turnspete, the dauncer, and ending with three 
very remarkable crosses with the wolf, fox, and beare. Of 
the first of these crosses. Topsell says:' "We- have none 
naturally bred within the borders of England, the reason 
is for the want of "wolves without whorqe so such dog can 
ff&chting. 
— $ — 
Designing Competition. 
First prize, $25, and special prize offered by Mr. Theo- 
dore Zerega, for the best Cabin plans, $10, won by 
Me. Morgan Barney, New York City. 
Second prize, $15, won by 
Mr. Charles H. Hall, Brooklyn, N. Y. 
Third prize, $10, won by 
Mr. Harold W. Patterson, New York City. 
The time limit of the Forest and Stream's designing 
competition expired on Friday, Feb. 28, and twenty-six 
drawings were received up to that day. The competition 
was thus a great success, both in point of numbers, and it 
was so too in the excellence of the work, only one design 
being thrown aside, as it was too badly drawn for con- 
sideration. 
Mr. Clinton H. Crane, who judged the drawings, 
reached his conclusions with much difficulty, because of 
the large number of designs submitted. One unfortunate 
feature of the competition was the fact that several of 
the competitors made the mistake of drawing their plans 
to the wrong scale, thus disqualifying them on the start. 
An undoubted prize winner was thus shut out. This 
plan was submitted by Trysail (Mr. Charles D. Mower, 
of New York city). 
Other designs just missed a prize because of some 
important technical error — poor arrangement of center- 
board, faulty overhangs, too large plans, etc. 
It is our intention to publish not only the plans of the 
winners, but also to use a number of others, for white 
not considered quite so good as the first three, still a 
number of them would make really excellent craft. 
Before awarding the prizes, Mr. Crane had gone over 
all the drawings and checked up the calculations on each 
to see that they were correct. Thus every boat receiving 
a prize is a practical craft in every way, and not only 
are the lines fair, but the boat will float on her designed 
waterline, and carry the sail shown in the plans. Mr. 
Crane has also found that the cabin accommodation would 
really exist if the boat was built as shown on paper. 
When laying out the conditions governing the compe- 
tition, it was not realized that such splendid boats would 
be produced under them. The drawings of the prize 
winners show cruising boats of 25ft. waterline length 
which are as fine as exist anywhere. 
Mr. Crane has very kindly consented to give a short 
criticism on all the drawings sent in, and we shall pub- 
lish this in our next issue. A criticism from one of Mr. 
Crane's ability will be of very great^ value to those who 
wish to improve the standard of their work. While the 
criticisms will necessarily be short, owing to the large num- 
ber of drawings, still they will cover the main points in each. 
Several of the designs will be very highly commended. 
Four sets of plans were received from England, and the 
work on each of these was of a high order, and had the 
authors been familiar with the weather conditions existing 
over here, and could they have made their designs con- 
form to these conditions, they, too, might have been among 
the prize winners. 
It is proposed to put all the drawings on exhibition for 
inspection and comparison by those who are interested. 
Mr. Crane suggests that this will be of unquestionable 
benefit and interest to all the competitors, and might also 
attract many outsiders interested in yachting matters. 
Competitors will not receive their drawings for some little 
time yet, if they are to be exhibited, for it will mean a 
delay, and. in some cases, where the drawings are to be 
published, there will be further delay in making the 
engravings. 
The Theory of Measurement Rules. 
Editor Forest and Stream: 
There is so much sound sense, so lucidly and cogently 
expressed, in the article of Mr- William Q. Phillips on 
yacht measurement in Forest and Stream of Dec, 21, 
1001, that one hesitates to take issue with the author on 
some points. His three statements following go to the 
root of the mischief that arises from the current type of 
measurement formulas : 
(1) "The prime function of a measurement rule is 
simply to measure the size of a yacht." [In terms of 
speed.] 
(2) "Restrictions on form or proportions are a sepa- 
rate and distinct consideration, and should not be em- 
bodied in the measurement formula unless it is entirely 
convenient to do so." 
(3) "We have got into the habit of thinking that re- 
striction gained by an elaborate formula is proper, scien- 
tific and right, while the same end attained by plain 
figures is empirical and wrong." 
These propositions, if true, prove that the current type 
of measurement formulas is illogical and mischievous. 
The advocate of such formulas have repeatedly been chal- 
lenged to show any error in these three statements of 
the^fundamental principles governing yacht measurement; 
but they have never attempted it to the writer's knowl- 
edge. . • , , ' 
The words supplied by the writer in brackets in the 
foregoing proposition (1) are implied in Mr. Phillips' 
conclusion, though not stated by him ; and they serve to 
illuminate the question raised by his correspondents, 
Thalassa and another, who disagree whether the old Sea- 
wanhaka rule measures speed or size. " 
This formula, and all other so-called measurement for- 
mulas used for measuring^ racing yachts, are, if logical, 
attempts to express thesize of yachts in terms of speed- 
to express the speed-size, the speed of the yachts being 
supposed to vary as their size expressed in units of the 
measuring or rating rule — i. e., speed-size units. 
Whether a formula be a measure of mere size, or of 
speed-size or of something else, depends upon what fac- 
tors compose it. If the factors are units of dimension 
which have definite numerical relations to speed, and their 
coefficients are so fixed that the speed will be propor- 
tioned to the number of such speed-size units, and that 
the relative speed of yachts of different dimensions can 
be calculated by means of the formula, it will be a meas- 
ure of speed in terms of size — i. e., of speed-size. 
If a formula is made up of factors whose sum is pro- 
portioned to cargo-carrying power, it is a measure of 
tonnage size. If made up of ^dimensions in such rela- 
tions as are necessary for good performance in a sea- 
way, the formula is a measure of seaworthiness. If 
composed of cabin dimensions, it measures what Thalassa 
calls "hotel accommodations." 
If all of these elements are included, the hybrid com- 
pound measures — makers of formulas of the current type 
may state what. 1 
Obviously but one of these formulas would be suitable 
for measuring racing yachts for speed contests — viz., the 
one expressing size in terms of speed alone, racing length 
or rating, which' is proportional to speed. 
The only dimension of a yacht that is a true speed fac- 
tor is S ; and this therefore should be the only factor in 
a speed formula. 
Here we regret to find ourselves at odds with Mr. Phil- 
lips. He thinks the - L * S formula is a logical meas- 
ure of speed; though it is not entirely clear from his 
article why he holds this opinion. He accepts the theory 
of naval architects that the possibilities of speed vary as 
1 f this means sail spread being constant, there can be 
no more fallacious statement. Other dimensions con- 
stant, length is a hindrance to speed. This may be 
demonstrated by increasing the length of a well-designed 
yacht, leaving the sails of the same size. The amount 
of sail (to which speed is due) carried by sailing vessels 
is roughly proportional to length ; and this probably ac- 
counts for the use L. as a measure of speed. Mr. George 
Hill, who has contributed many valuable articles to 
Forest and Stream on yacht measurement, once pointed 
out in these columns that if the possibilities of speed 
varied as, ^ L, it would be possible by merely increasing 
length to get any degree of speed. 
Mr. Phillips says further: "The necessity of taking 
into account ether factors of size, beside length, led up to 
the measurement of sail area which is not itself a factor 
of size. * * *" He does not state what the necessity 
was that led to this step, though he maintains that the 
makers of the L S rule, did not insert *'S~Tn Order 
to influence design. 
If V S is not a factor of speed-size (as he says, it 
clearly does not belong in a measurement formula. The 
writer has always supposed that v S was introduced into 
the length formula for. the express purpose of influencing 
design— namely, in order that length might be exchanged 
for sail — i. e., increased at the expense of sail area with- 
out enlarging racing length. If speed is assumed to 
vary as the ^L, there would seem to be no reason for 
adding v S to a pure speed formula. 
In the restricted classes — ^ does not vary largely 
from V S; and therefore the old Seawanhaka formula 
may be used as an approximate practical measure of 
speed ; but it is not a logical measure of speed. 
Sextant. 
Thalassa's Measurement Rule. 
Editor Forest and Stream: 
In your issue of Dec. 7, 1901, Thalassa asked if it is not 
evident that any logical rating rule for yacht racing should 
tax the "three speed producers" S, L and D. To which 
the writer suggested (1) that L and D are not speed 
producers, and (2) that it is futile to try to rate fairly in 
a rule the effect of D and L upon speed, because the 
complex relations of D and L to speed cannot be quanti- 
tatively stated. * 
In his reply (Forest and Stream, Jan. 11), Thalassa 
confines his remarks to (1), and does not mention ob- 
jection (2) which would be fatal to the proposed type of 
rules even if objection (1) were not valid. 
Will Thalassa, for instance, state how he arrived at the 
conclusion that S and L are of equal effect in producing 
speed? Also how he ascertained that 16 should be\the 
coefficient of v D, and how certain he is that 14 or 18 
or some other number would not more truly represent the 
relations of D to S and L in the matter of speed? And 
will he state whether in his opinion the coefficient 16 
fairly represents these relations for all speeds or for an 
average of the speeds made by large and small yachts, 
say from 3 to 13 knots? If it represents an average, like 
8 knots, how much is the mean value of coefficient 16 in 
error for the extreme speeds 3 and 13 knots? 
Concerning the objection that L and D should not be 
included in the formula because they. are not speed pro- 
ducers, his reply is in substance, that.L and D should 
not be omitted from the formula, because taxing S alone 
would be like taxing racing steam yachts on horse power 
only; whereas (he alleges), "we all know that a rating 
rule for steam yachts should certainly acknowledge the 
weight driven at speed." _ On this point he says again: 
"In yacht racing the rating rules should be a measure 
of the yacht's speed efficiency, and consequently must 
deal with some other elements than sail alone." 
It is not quite clear what this means. These two 
quotations taken by themselves would seem to mean that, 
so far as resistance is due to weight, the performance of a 
yacht caused by sail power should be measured by the 
weight carried per mile per hour, instead of by speed 
