192 JOURNAL OF HORTICULTURE AND COTTAGE GARDENER. t August 25, issi 
4.009,811 great hundreds of eggs (120 to the great hundred), of 
the value of £1,471,006. These figures show a considerable in¬ 
crease over the imports during the corresponding period of last 
year, but are not so large as those for 1879. The value of the dead 
poultry and game imported is given as 165.707 in 1881, as against 
137,997 in 1880 and 173,840 in 1879. We find, then, that we 
are paying no less a sum than £7000 per diem to foreign countries 
for our eggs and nearly £800 per diem for dead poultry and game. 
Such figures as these demand attention, and ought to lead us to 
consider whether some portion of this money might not with 
profit be retained in the country. Apart from regular poultry 
farming, cannot our farmers and cottagers see their way to increase 
the number of birds they keep, and give more attention to their 
poultry than they have hitherto done ? We have no doubt that it 
would pay them even though they only obtained the price set 
down as the value of the foreign eggs—namely, about 7s. 3 d. per 
great hundred. In many places more might easily be obtained 
for some of the produce as “ fresh eggs,” and the profit would 
then be considerable. We shall return to this subject before long, 
and meantime shall be glad to have information from our readers 
as to the average cost per head per annum of their fowls’ food, 
the number of eggs per annum they obtain from each hen, and par¬ 
ticulars as to the sort of fowls they keep. 
THE DORKING CONTROVERSY. 
Tiie kind and courteous tone towards myself of Mr. Harrison 
Weir’s letter in your last week’s issue requires me again to trouble 
you with a few line3. I am extremely glad to learn from it, a3 I 
have learnt from a private communication from Mr. Weir, that he 
does not consider us fanciers all in the same boat, but excepts some 
of us from the list of those who have done harm to the Dorking 
fowl. There is really, then, little difference between us as to the 
present state of the breed. I will, if I may, briefly recapitulate 
what at different times I have given (for what it is worth) as my 
opinion on the subject. 
1, The Dorking was formerly a more uniformly square-shaped, 
short-legged, round, deep-breasted, and white-footed bird than it 
now is. How far that race was a purely bred one I cannot pre¬ 
tend to say, for my memory only reaches back to the time when 
it was being partially superseded by birds of a different type ; 
but anyhow, its purity must have been rather a long descent of 
uniformity in shape than in feather, for its admirers all confess to 
great diversity in the plumage of good specimens of both sexes. 
This breed I always understood to be, at least in chickenhood, a 
very delicate one. My small early experience confirmed this 
opinion, which all the writers of the older poultry books seem to 
have held. Mr. Weir believes it to have been a hardy race. 
2, When exhibitions became frequent breeders found that 
judges of poultry gave great weight to size and weight in Dork¬ 
ings ; indeed, at the Birmingham Show they used to weigh them, 
and in spite of the well-known rule about “ purity of breed, &c.,” 
being rather taken into account “ than mere weight,” seemed to 
ignore many of the old points. Every tyro in breeding knows 
that a first cross gives increased size and weight; naturally, there¬ 
fore, breeders—some through utter ignorance of the effects of 
crossing and of the years it may take to eradicate a taint; others 
from mere selfishness, caring alone for their own present success 
—began to try crosses. Their birds so produced won prizes, were 
bought as prize birds, and spread far over the country ; hence long 
legs, dark feet, want of breast, and many defects which have long 
been the trouble of the real Dorking fancier. Here I quite agree 
with Mr. Weir, and 1 wrote similar words in your columns years 
ago before the present controversy arose. 
3, It must not, however, be forgotten that all the time these 
spurious birds were being foisted int > Dorking yards some fanciers 
saw and deplored the evil, wrote and spoke against it, exhibited 
better birds, and were beaten by worse. Some even changed 
their strains to suit the times ; others, like myself, preferred to be 
defeated for awhile, and to wait for better days. Time has shown 
that we were wise. That at which l took umbrage was an 
apparent confusion under the term “ fancier,” of us the latter 
class, whom Mr. Weir is now good enough to term “ true fanciers,” 
with the former class of breeders and exhibitors for mere gain, or 
rather, I should say, an ignoring of the fact that there has been 
and is such a class of true fanciers. 
This is, I believe, a rough outline of the modern history of the 
Dorking; the controversy concerning it is explained by its 
history. 
There are other minor points worthy of amicable discussion 
which arise from it. They are not to be decided in an otf-hand 
manner, but an opinion can only be formed from the experience 
of the majority. 
1, Confessedly nearly all our yards have some trace of the 
modern crosses in them, however much we may try to keep to 
the old form, and though we may have quite succeeded in re¬ 
establishing it. Has this very small drop of some foreign blood 
given no increased hardihood in the Dorking and absence of 
bumble foot ? I certainly believe it has. 
2, A grand and hardy fowl being in our yards, how far ought 
we, as judges, to vigorously insist upon such “fancy” points as 
white legs and feet ? or rather, how far is such a point a “ faucy ” 
point. I believe that it is not a “fancy” point, but is always 
found to go with the shape desired, and with superior flesh, and 
other useful qualities. It is not, however, for those who write 
with little responsibility to dictate to those in a position of great 
responsibility, as are judges at shows, exactly what value they 
should give to such points. 
On the latter two I should sincerely like to hear the opinions 
of some true Dorking fanciers who are also judges.—O. E. 
Cresswell. 
OUR LETTER BOX. 
Vulture Hock (F. J.). —The long feathers on the thigh you ask about are 
very common amongst feather-legged fowls. They are known as vulture hooks. 
Marking Chickens {Inquirer). —When quite young chickens may be dis¬ 
tinguished by marking their (luff with Judson’s dyes of various colours. After¬ 
wards woollen threads may bo tied round their legs. Tney can also be marked 
by snicking the beak over the nostril with a scissors on one or botli sides, or by 
passing a red-hot wire through the web of the wing. Some breeders punch 
small holes in the web between the toes. We prefer the first and second methods, 
as being painless. 
Ptarmigan Fowls (A Youngster). —These at first were also called “ Grouse¬ 
legged Polands.” They are rather larger than Bantams, pure dead white, with 
white topknots, or rather crests, for these resemble somewhat that of a Cockatoo’s 
in disorder; legs well feathered and vulture-hocked ; combs cupped; cock’s tail 
well sickled. They are very light and agile in their movemeuts, and are pretty ; 
but we know of no other merits. 
House for Ducks (J. E.). —Any easily built wooden house with a tiled 
or felted roof will do for your Ducks. If you have a spare corner where two 
walls join, a lean-to house may easily be put up at small cost; if not, a low- 
roofed moveable house with the roof made of light materials and hung on 
hinges, so that the interior may be easily accessible aud thoroughly cleansed, or 
with one side made as a double door for the same purpose, will be cheapest. 
A house 6 feet long, 4 feet wide, aud 4 feet high in front, runuing off to 2 feet 
high at the back, will be a convenient size, and hold from eight to ten Ducks. 
The floor should be raised above the level of the surrounding ground, so that it 
may keep dry. We use sand or dry earth to cover the floor, and bed the Ducks 
ou straw or hay, which is shaken up daily and changed about once a week. 
Spanish Cock Ailing, &c. (K. C.). —We can hardly tell from your 
description whether it is obstruction of sight or vertigo that your Spanish cock 
is affected with. If the eyes are closed up by the pressure of the white under 
the eye, the part pressing upon the eyelid may be cut off with a sharp pair of 
scissors. If, on the other hand, the sight is obstructed by the white over the 
eye, this can oulv be dealt with by putting a piece of thread through a small por¬ 
tion of it on each side, and fastening the two pieces of thread together behind 
the comb just tightly enough to keep the white from pressing on the eye. If 
the cock’s sight is sufficiently clear for him to see to eat it is probably vertigo 
which causes the symptoms you describe. In that case you must give a dose of 
castor oil or salts, and feed sparingly on non-stimulating food. The corns or 
lumps on the hens’ breasts are probably caused by the roost being narrow and 
sharp. Bathe them daily with vinegar, and remove the hard matter from time 
to time. Keep the hens lying upon clean straw until the corns are better. The 
roost should be 3 inches wide, aud have the corners carefully rounded off. 
METEOROLOGICAL OBSERVATIONS. 
CAMDEN SQUARE,LONDON. 
Lat. 51° 32'40" N.; Long.0° 8'0” W.; Altitude,lll feet. 
DATE. 
9 A.M. 
IN THE DAY. 
• O 
Hygrome- 
0 . 
Shade Tern- 
Radiation 
0 
1881. 
ter. 
33 a 
«;h 
p— . o 
s *r o 
perature. 
Temperature. 
33 
August. 
<s >r, 
S<Z2 r- 
In 
On 
«-> 03 
Dry. 
Wet. 
5o 
Pi 
Max. 
Min. 
sun. 
grains. 
Inches. 
deg. 
deg. 
deg. 
deg. 
deg. 
deg. 
des. 
In. 
Sun. 14 
29.800 
56.0 
53.2 
N.W. 
58.7 
65.0 
51.8 
112.2 
47 8 
_ 
Mon. 1.5 
29.882 
58 8 
53.3 
N.W. 
58.6 
68.6 
50.4 
122.6 
45.8 
0.622 
Tues. 1C 
i9.fi 2:1 
62.2 
68.8 
W. 
68.9 
71.5 
55.7 
119.5 
54.0 
0.082 
Wed. 17 
29.448 
59.7 
55.0 
N.W. 
60.0 
68 3 
53.3 
126.0 
52 9 
0.246 
Thurs. 18 
29.571 
60.2 
55.3 
N.W. 
59.7 
67.7 
52.4 
111.3 
49.4 
0.160 
Friday 19 
29.577 
56.8 
55.2 
S.E. 
53.7 
67.8 
53.3 
109.7 
48.7 
— 
Satur. 20 
29.897 
58.0 
52.0 
S.W. 
58.5 
68.1 
46.7 
119.8 
41.5 
— 
Means. 
29.685 
58.8 
54.7 
59.2 
68.1 
51.9 
117.3 
48.6 
0.510 
REMARKS. 
14th.—Fine, cool, overcast at intervals. 
15th.—Bright in early morning; occasionally dull, slight rain 4 r.M.; dull 
evening. 
16th.—Fair until 4 P.M., afterwards slight showers. 
17th.—Fine in morning; heavy shower 2.5 P.M., and rest of the day. 
18th.—Very fine bright day. 
19th.—Wet close morning; fine, bright, and breezy after 2 p.m. 
20th.—Overcast at times, but generally fine and bright; solar halo 5.40 r.M. 
Showery and damp atmosphere, damper than the previous week, although 
that had three times as much rain as the week just passed.—G. J. SYMONS. 
