April 7, 1881. ] 
JOURNAL OF HORTICULTURE AND COTTAGE GARDENER. 
285 
tendency to breed the darker ones also for feather, and to keep 
them darker than any originally were for the sake of contrast 
with the Silvers. As I said before, I cannot help admiring the 
beauty of the rich dark brown hens, but I much regret that that 
colour should be considered a sine qua non for a first-class winner. 
Why a much greater diversity of colour in the cocks of the dark 
variety should be tolerated than in the hens I never have been 
able to discover. Cocks are occasionally found in the prize pen 
which might do duty as Silver-Greys, and others which are almost 
black ; but to please some great judges the hens must be all of a 
particular brown, and of late have been required to have black 
neck hackles. This last is, I venture to think, a particularly un¬ 
necessary new point, for some of the prettiest and finest hens in 
shape, and of rich dark colour too, will have straw markings on 
the neck hackle. 
It may interest some of the inquirers if I briefly describe some 
of the various Dorkings which I remember in past years at the 
Birmingham shows and elsewhere. There was little difference in 
the cocks from those seen now. Some had more and some less 
dark marking in their hackles; some had brown on their upper 
wing coverts and back, and some silver or straw colour. From 
the same cocks pullets of various shades were then bred, and may 
still be bred, following as they do the colour of their mothers. 
The hens varied much more in colour than they do now, and it is 
of them that I will attempt to give a description. 
1, There were hens of a shade approaching Silver-Greys, but 
with much darker and more cloudy neck hackles, and a browner 
and more indistinct tinge all over the body. I cannot say that 
I admired them, but they often were very large. I bought one 
when quite a novice from Mrs. Arkwright’s yard, and a magnifi¬ 
cent bird she was. 
2, The commonest colour, I think, was what I described in my 
last letter as much lighter than the now fashionable brown with 
darker edging or spangling to most of the feathers. Such even 
now sometimes win. 
3, A very beautiful type of hen was not uncommon, which I 
remember hearing called “ Dark Silvers.” Their general colour 
was very dark brown with a white shaft to each feather, their 
tails almost black, but their breast of a pale salmon colour, and 
their neck hackle silver and black. They were very handsome 
and striking, but are, I fancy, birds of the past. 
4, Really brown hens were common fifteen years ago, but the 
brown was more rusty and less uniform than the favourite brown 
of to-day. The first Dorkings I ever possessed, hatched from eggs 
bought of Mr. Baily of Mount Street, were of this type ; they 
were square, and short-legged, and were not large hens. I subse¬ 
quently bred pullets from them like their mothers, and also light 
pullets from light hens (No. 1) by the same cock. 
It may be asked, What is the use of recalling what Dorkings 
have been when we have so beautiful and magnificent a bird as 
the best Dark Dorking of to-day? My object is to show that a 
few years ago there was not required so great a uniformity of 
colour in Dark Dorkings as at present. All fanciers know to their 
cost how many birds fall short of the colour standard : and what I 
would advocate is that an otherwise fine bird should never be 
rejected for too rusty a wing or too light a hackle, or indeed for 
any colour point which did not clearly show impurity of race. 
Some will say that a strain which shows much diversity of colour 
cannot possibly be a pure one. This seems to me by no means 
self-evident. There are many distinct breeds of horses and other 
animals which show great variety of colour; and given in a race 
of fowls several distinctive characteristics of form—such as comb, 
feet, thickness of body, and roundness of breast—I cannot under¬ 
stand why these should not be sufficient evidence of its genuine¬ 
ness, and some diversity of plumage be permissible. The general 
form and characteristics of the Dorking are most ancient. Modern 
breeders may laugh at the supposition that they were imported 
into England by the Roman invader, because the description of 
the best fowls given by the Latin naturalists is certainly like 
them. This, however, I can testify—that on the walls of Pompeii 
I have seen in mosaic fowls with all their characteristics ; where, 
by-the-bv, are also to be seen many of our fancy Duck3—con¬ 
spicuously the Mandarin and Shelldrake. A race whose form 
has essentially been preserved through such ages can hardly be 
one the purity of which should be judged by a tinge of colour.— 
O. E. Cresswell. 
P.S.—Since writing the above lines I have read with much 
. interest the letters which have followed my former communi¬ 
cation on the “ Modern Dorking.” Every word written by a 
fancier of such long standing as Mr. Harrison Weir, and who has, it 
seems, had such exceptional opportunities of observing the Dorking 
fowl, is worthy of careful consideration. I am therefore anxious 
at once to explain myself on one or two points where he has per¬ 
haps misapprehended my meaning. 
1, Mr. Harrison Weir says, “ I think Mr. Cresswell is scarcely 
within the mark when he writes somewhat slightingly of those 
fanciers who from various causes do not exhibit.” I can find no 
words of mine which contain such a slight, but if any seem to do 
so I beg most emphatically to disclaim all intention of slighting 
such fanciers. On the contrary, 1 have the greatest respect for 
them, and have repeatedly written to the effect that I believe 
there are many of the truest and best fanciers who never exhibit; 
and I added at one time that if poultry shows were not more 
jealously guarded from malpractices, that I believe most true 
fanciers would cease to exhibit. 
2, Mr. Harrison Weir says that I am “ somewhat wrong, though 
possibly right in the main,” about Dorkings having been formerly 
more judged by weight than now. I base my opinion solely on 
facts. In former days nearly everybody who wanted a Dorking 
from my yards inquired the exact weights of birds, now such a 
question is hardly ever asked ; but, what is more to the point, for 
six or seven years I have never heard of such a thing as Dorkings 
being put into the scales in judging. In my earlier days of 
poultry fancying I have several times seen this done. 
3, I quite agree with Mr. Weir that large bones are objection¬ 
able in a table fowl. I always look for small-boned Dorkings, 
and have frequently written to the effect that large bones are 
generally weak. I can, however, see no reason why a large fowl 
should not have bones small in proportion to its size. I agree, too, 
with Mr. Weir that a 4-lb. chicken is, as a chicken, better for eating 
than an 8-lb. one, but the advantage which I find in the modern 
Dorking is that one can grow the 4-lb. chicken in three months 
instead of waiting six months for it. It is also convenient at 
times to have 8-lb. and even larger fowls. Turkeys are trouble¬ 
some to rear and to accommodate. I find a large and well-fed 
Dorking fowl if stuffed like a Turkey as nearly as possible its 
equal on the table. Large Dorkings are so dressed in my house, 
and I have many times heard visitors observe that they could not 
tell them from Turkey poults. 
In answer to Mr. Smyth’s query whether I consider spots on the 
legs of Dorkings worse than dark feet, I can only say that I con¬ 
sider them both equally blemishes, though spots are more likely 
to escape the notice of a judge than a general dark tinge.—0. E. C. 
[We find by a reference to our former volumes that the Silver- 
Greys had special classes at Birmingham as early as 1862. These 
classes, however, were omitted in subsequent years down to I860, 
when the Silver-Greys definitely took the position they have since 
maintained.—E ds.] 
HOMING. 
There has been much that is interesting written on the powers of 
the Carrier Pigeon—the length and rapidity of itsflights. and the 
modes of training it, as also speculations as to its guide tor its home¬ 
ward course ; these latter point to the theory of this bird flymg by 
sicrlit alone. I find that the Rev. E. S. Dixon, in his very interesting 
work “ The Dovecote and Aviary,” takes this view. I always hesi- 
tate to place my opinion against that of such men of letters as Mr. 
Dixon, still on this point—the guide of the Carrier on the wing—I 
be- most respectfully to differ from him. It is pretty well known 
that I am not an Antwerp Carrier faneier, and do not encourage the 
Antwerp as a bird that ought to be in the fancy, for several reasons 
which I shall not discuss at present; but I keep Antwerps for t\vo 
purposes—first as feeders for my young Pouters, and second for table 
use. For both these purposes I find them most suitable. 
First, then, as to the power of wing possessed by this bird, bo tar 
as my personal experience goes I do not think this point is yet fully 
developed in this country. The plain narrative of what I have ex¬ 
perienced may be interesting, and I hope it will not weaiy your 
readers. Several years ago when in Manchester I called on the late 
Mr. W. Millward, a bird dealer, from whom I got all my Belgian 
Canaries. He had lately arrived from the continent and biought 
with him a stock of Antwerp Carriers, which he thel ? ^nd to be 
most unprofitable. Not having previously seen any birds which I 
could be sure had been imported I purchased three pans. The stock 
consisted of mostly Blues, some Mealies, and some nameless colouis , 
but all were self-coloured, and all showing a cross of the Owl and 
having!slight division of the feathers on the breast Some of them 
had the breast feathers slightly turned, indicating the frill. They 
were wild as newly caught Hawks, and strong enough to cairy before 
them a pane of window glass, as indeed one of them did when in my 
possession. After much care and caution I got them to take to their 
new home and found them to be hardy birds. They bred almost the 
whole year round ; indeed, I was never without some few young 
ones During the summer season, when there was early light, they 
took two flights per day-the cocks and unooeupied heiiB at about 
7 a M. and the hens and unoccupied cocks about 1 P.M. lhe hock 
invariably flew southward, and were away for about an hour and a 
half each time. I have seen them fully ten miles soutn still holdm„ 
in that direction. When first noticed on their return they vvere 
always at a very great height, but if it were blowing haid (the 
