JOURNAL OF HORTICULTURE AND COTTAGE GARDENER. 
9G 
[ July 28, 1881. 
I believe a new “ Standard of Excellence ” is likely to be pub¬ 
lished by the Poultry Club. This, it is to be hoped, will clearly 
show what our ideal Dorking is.— 0. E. Cresswell. 
POULTRY NOTES. 
Truly history repeats itself. Twenty-seven years ago Mr. L. A. 
Meall, in writing his new edition of “ Moubrav on Poultry,” dis¬ 
cussed the Dorking question, and contended that the White 
Dorking was the only genuine and original breed entitled to that 
name. He refused to allow that the coloured birds, which he 
called “the Sussex fowl or ‘Improved’ Dorking,” were anything 
more thau the result of crosses. The following extract is instruc¬ 
tive :—“Not that we wish to speak in any way disparagingly of 
the merits of the Sussex as a fowl , for we readily admit that cross¬ 
bred birds often surpass their original progenitors ; but all we 
contend for is, that as a breed or variety they ought not to be 
permitted to be classed or to enter into competition with that of 
the true-bred White Dorking.” To-day we have Mr. Harrison 
Weir adducing a similar charge against the modern Coloured 
Dorking, with the difference, however, that it is not for the White 
Dorking alone that he claims title to purity of blood, but also for 
the very birds which Mr. Meall denounced nearly thirty years 
since as being mere pretenders to the name. 
In his first letter Mr. Weir disclaimed having said all that we 
attributed to “the praisers of the time that is past” in reference 
to the demerits of the modern Dorking. We never alleged that 
he bad, but we think we may now safely leave it to our readers to 
judge whether our statement as to the general condemnation of 
the modern Dorking by the admirers of the Dorking of the past 
was an exaggeration. With the single exception that Mr. Weir 
does not allege that the modern Dorking has “ black feet ” (an 
expression which we of course did not intend to betaken literally), 
and substitutes the term “ sooty-legged ” as conveying his ideas 
in this respect, we really cannot see that his estimate of the 
modern Dorking differs very much from that attributed by us to 
the “ praisers of the time that is past.” We will not attempt to 
combat these doctrines, as there are apparently others able and 
willing to do so, and it has been discussed at some length recently. 
Mr. Weir must have been grievously affected by the death of 
that last bird of his old strain, or he would surely not have run 
such a tilt as he has done against all molern poultry fanciers. 
Having said in his first letter that he “knows none of the fan¬ 
ciers,” he in his second describes them as “little dealers who 
buy up a few well-bred birds, show them, and get prizes as long 
as those birds last, and advertise birds and eggs from suijh and 
such a prize strain ; ” and again as men “ who kill the birds they 
ought to love by sending them from show to show until they die 
from sheer exhaustion through their owners’ greed for gain.” It 
is true that he denies the right of such men to be called fanciers, 
and defines a fancier as “ one who keeps anything from the pure 
love of it, looking to and keeping and purifying its most minute 
points of stated excellence and beauty,” but he al<o implies that 
no such enthusiasts in poultry exist. All we can say is that Mr. Weir 
evidently “ does not know any of the fanciers,” and that if he did 
he would find amongst their ranks many who are just as far removed 
from “little dealers” as the fanciers of flowers he refers to. 
There are, of course, dealers in poultry just as there are nursery¬ 
men who supply the wants of the fanciers of flowers, but that 
does not justify the condemnation of all modem fanciers, nor 
indeed such a sweeping condemnation of those who earn a living 
by exhibiting and dealing in fancy poultry. Many dealers are 
perfectly free from blame on the score of cruelty in over-exhi¬ 
biting their birds, and surely dealing in poultry is not of itself 
a more vicious pursuit than dealing in anything else. 
The illustration drawn from the fanciers of flowers shows 
clearly the distinction we sought to draw between the fancier and 
the farmer, by which latter term we meant the man who keeps 
poultry for the supply of eggs and meat. Would anyone think of 
blaming the enthusiastic gazer upon the Auricula or the Tulip be¬ 
cause he did not devote his attention to the Potato or the Onion ? 
We contended, and still contend, that the fancier as fancier has 
no more to do with the edible qualities of his pets than the Tulip 
fancier has to do with the question whether or not his choicest 
bulbs would eat well if cooked. Indeed, we are surprised that 
Mr. Weir, who shows so fine an appreciation of the “loving tender¬ 
ness ” of the true fancier, should for a moment be led so far away 
from the paths of the true fancier as to calmly contemplate the 
appearance of his favourites on the dinner table. 
One word as to crosses. Mr. Weir asks, “ Why is the fancier 
so anxious to breed poultry pure that the farmer may have them 
to cross with his common fowls ?” We answer that the fancier 
has no such anxiety. He does not in the least regard what the 
farmer may do in the way of crossing. It does not in the least 
concern him ; but as we write for farmers as well as fanciers, we 
advise the farmers to do what we have found most advantageous. 
If the farmer has a breed of poultry, be they ancient Dorkings 
or be they anything else, which gives him a liberal supply of good- 
sized eggs, is hardy, and makes a fine table fowl, let him keep to 
it by all means ; but if this breed cannot be found—and we frankly 
confess that we do not know where to find it—then we advise as 
the next best course the use of a judicious cross. It is well known 
that however much the original good or useful qualities of a breed 
may have been lost by breeding for purely fancy points, these 
good qualities almost invariably re-appear upon an entirely fresh 
cross. It is further well known that although it is difficult to 
combine very superior laying and table qualities in the same 
breed, yet both these qualities may be found in cross-bred birds. 
We therefore recommend the farmer to make an effort at im¬ 
provement in this direction. If the cross be judicious there may 
be some variety in “ colour, comb, and topknot,” which are purely 
fancy points, with which the farmer as such is not concerned ; 
but there should not be any great variety in size or shape, nor yet 
in laying qualities, which are the matters of most importance to 
the farmer. 
In using the heading, “ Fanciers versus Farmers ” we did not 
mean to imply that there was or should be any hostility between 
the two classes. We do not for a moment doubt that many 
farmers have been and are good fanciers, but in so far as they 
have become fanciers of poultry we think it will be found that 
they have ceased to be farmers of them. In some breeds, and 
perhaps more in the Dorking than any other, the two aims are, to 
a certain extent, consistent with each other ; but even here the 
struggle between utility and beauty must come sooner or later, 
and one has to give way to the other. To the fancier beauty is of 
primary importance, and utility must take a secondary position. 
To the farmer the useful qualities are all-important, and beauty is 
hardly worth consideration. We simply desired to emphasise 
this distinction, and we do not suppose that our title conveyed to 
any other of our readers thaa Mr. Weir the idea that we meant to 
imply the existence of any hostility between fanciers and farmers. 
OUR LETTER BOX. 
Boiled Indian Corn (J. J .).—Boiled Indian corn mixed with bran is good 
food for working horses if given at the same cost as two bushels of Oats and 
half bushel of Beans per week, aud is especially adapted for feeding mares with 
foals. 
METEOROLOGICAL OBSERVATIONS. 
CAMDEN SQUARE,LONDON. 
Lat. 51° 32'40" N.; Long.0°8'0" W.; Altitude,111 feet. 
DATE. 
9 A.M. 
IN THE DAY. 
• o 
OJ c3_ 
Hygrome- 
a . 
Shade Tern- 
Radiation 
1881. 
> 
ter. 
’-M d 
cL. —i o 
a^.o 
perature. 
Temperature. 
■3 
Ph 
July. 
U, 
In 
On 
^ W cj 
Dry. 
Wet. 
So 
fH 
Max. 
Min. 
sun. 
grass. 
Inches. 
deg. 
deg. 
deg. 
deg. 
deg. 
deg. 
deg. 
In. 
Sun. 17 
30.099 
71.8 
64.5 
w. 
69.0 
84.4 
60.2 
125.6 
58.2 
Mon. 18 
29.997 
75.0 
63.8 
N.W. 
68.9 
88.7 
60.9 
133.4 
54.7 
Tues. 19 
29.891 
70.3 
66.6 
N.W. 
69.7 
89.3 
62.0 
137.7 
57.0 
Wed. 20 
29.857 
58.8 
56.3 
N.W. 
70.3 
77.7 
58.2 
129.3 
57.9 
Thurs. 21 
30.020 
81.6 
53.0 
N. 
68.5 
75.9 
49.4 
121.9 
43.3 
0.010 
Friday 22 
29.980 
59 0 
53.9 
E. 
67.9 
656 
53.9 
89.4 
48.6 
0.038 
Satur. 23 
29.919 
65.1 
59.4 
W. 
6 >.9 
73.5 
54.0 
116.4 
48.8 
0.018 
Means. 
29.973 
66.8 
59.6 
68.6 
79.3 
56.9 
122.0 
52.6 
0.066 
REMARKS. 
17th.—Brilliantly fine and hot. 
18th.—Fine, bright, very warm. 
19th.—Misty early, afterwards fine, bright, and hot; latter part of the day 
cloudy and oppressive. 
20th.—Much cooler; overcast at first, afterwards bright and fine. 
21st.—Very fine, with cool breeze. 
22nd.—Overcast, cool, and slight showers. 
23rd.—Fair, but very dull and rainy-looking at times. 
The early part of the week nearly as hot as the previous one, but since the 
19th it has been much cooler, though almost without rain. For the whole week 
the temperature, though much below last week, is considerably above the average. 
—G. J. Symons. 
