AMERICAN AGRICULTURIST. 
9 
18??.] 
plant by their remote ancestors, we hope they will con¬ 
tribute it, and help clear up the history—now rather 
obscure—of this useful plant. 
Basket Items con¬ 
tinued on page 33. 
Danger to Horses in Connecticut. 
The State Board of Agriculture of Connecticut—much 
more efficient than such bodies often are—should investi¬ 
gate and make public the facts concerning a plant which 
is dangerous, and even fatal to horses, as alleged by a 
citizen of their State, ir papers published in the adjoin¬ 
ing commonwealths of Massachusetts and New York. 
This should be done, not only as a matter of great im¬ 
portance to farmers and other horse-owners, but as one 
of scientific interest, as the plant to which these danger- 
our qualities are attributed, has not heretofore been 
known as poisonous, nor has it previously been found in 
New England. A knowledge of the useful or deleterious 
qualities of plants, especially those which grow spon¬ 
taneously, is important to the farmer, but it is very essen¬ 
tial that this knowledge should be accurate. Mr. W. H. 
White, of Connecticut, a copious writer for some agri¬ 
cultural papers, published in the “N. E. Homestead,” in 
1873, an account of the poisoning of horses by the 
“ Horse-tail,” Equisetum arvense , a plant which has the 
reputation of being injurious ; in the same article Mr. 
W. mentioned that another plant, popularly known as 
“ Mares-tail,” Hippuris vulgaris, was fatal to horses. We 
at the time pointed out the probability of an error in this 
case, Hippuris being an aquatic, and an exceedingly rare 
one. To this Mr. W. replied, averring the abundance of 
“ Mares-tail ” in the Connecticut Valley, and that more 
of it grew upon “ moist land ” than did in the water. 
That the plant known to him as “Mares-tail ” might pos¬ 
sibly not be Hippuris, does not seem to have occurred to 
Mr. White; it would not be a difficult matter to deter¬ 
mine what the plant is, as any botanist would willingly 
examine it for him, and he need not go outside of his own 
State to find some of the most skilled botanists in the 
conntry. He seems to be quite satisfied with the accu¬ 
racy of his own knowledge, as he persists in his asser¬ 
tion, which is repeated in the “Country Gentleman,” 
for Nov. 30th, last. He says; “ Hippuris, ‘ Mare’s-tail,’ 
although Prof. Gray says it grows in water, I have seen 
growing in moist ground; it is a poison which proves 
fatal to horses, and it may be barely possible it can be 
mingled with hay.”—Several points suggest themselves 
as desirable for the Board to investigate. 
(1) Does Hippuris grow at all in Connecticut ?—Mr. 
W. says it “ is found in many towns lying contiguous to 
the Connecticut River, from Hartford np to Vermont.”— 
It is very strange that no one else has observed and re¬ 
corded it. A few quotations will show how rare it has 
formerly been considered. In his “Flora,” (1824), Doct. 
Torrey stated: “The only American locality for this 
plant, with which I am acquainted, is that near Schenec¬ 
tady.” Later, (1840), Torrey and Gray, in their “Flora 
of North America,” say: “ This plant is very uncommon 
in the United States.”—Prof. Gray in his “Manual,” 
(1867), gives for its localities: “New York to Kentucky, 
and northward; rare.”—If the plant, heretofore regarded 
as a botanical rarity, has made an irruption into the Con¬ 
necticut Valley, and suddenly become abundant, it is an 
interesting fact in the distribntion of plants, and should 
be authenticated. 
(2) . All American authorities, as well as those of Eu¬ 
rope, (where the plant is much more freqnent than here), 
describe Hippuris as growing in the water, either wholly 
submerged, or with the tips rising out of the water; the 
only time we ever found it, the plant was wholly nnder 
water. Mr. White asserts that he has seen “more on 
moist land, not ponds or springs, than I ever saw grow¬ 
ing in water.”—Here is another point of interest; if this 
statement is verified, we have a capital illustration for 
the advocates of the development doctrine—a plant 
which everywhere else is aquatic, is in 'he Connecticut 
Valley on its way toward becoming a dry-land plant; 
it is being already more abundant on moist land than it 
is in the water. The plant shoil'd be watched, for the 
Mares-tail may, on dry land, develop into a Colt’s-foot or 
a Horse-mint. 
(3) . Still more important is it that the Board should as¬ 
certain whether Hippuris is really, as alleged, “ a poison 
which proves fatal to horses.” If the plant is as abund¬ 
ant as stated, it is a matter that can not be too soon de¬ 
termined, and the facts made known. The Board should 
have no difficulty in procuring evidence in this matter, 
as Mr. W. says in the “ N. E. Homestead ” : “ and as for 
its growing in Vermont, and horses eating it and being 
poisoned, or dying after having eaten it, I have the au¬ 
thority of the fanners who have lost their horses in that 
way.”—Aside from the practical importance of this ques¬ 
tion, it will be, if established, an interesting addition to 
our knowledge of the plant. No others of the family 
to which Hippuiis belongs, are known to have poi¬ 
sonous or other active qualities; this, however, is no 
proof that the little known Hippuiis may not be danger¬ 
ous, as cases exist in other families of one member being 
poisonous, while all its kin are harmless. 
(4). Perhaps the most direct way of coming at the mat¬ 
ter, would be to ascertain what plant, abundant in the 
Valley of the Connecticut, besides the Horse-tail, ( Equi- 
setum), has the reputation of being poisonous to horses. 
As the most careful sometimes make mistakes, it is just 
possible that it may not be Hippuiis at all; but it is none 
the less important to find out what the plant is, and what 
foundation there is for the statements that have been so 
widely published. When the plant is identified, aud it 
proves to be something not familiarly known to our read¬ 
ers generally, and one that we have not recently illustrat¬ 
ed, we shall be glad to publish its portrait, in order that 
it may be recognized and avoided. 
Some Popular Breeds of Poultry. 
The agricultural interest owes much to poultry- 
fanciers. Those who devote their attention to fan¬ 
cy poultry are too often misunderstood by farmers, 
as well as by others. As in many other cases, 
where people devote themselves to some special 
pursuit—or hobby, as it is considered—the poultry 
fanciers are generally looked upon as enthusiasts, 
who simply amuse themselves, without conferring 
any benefit upon the public; an error which does 
the poultry breeder great injustice. In nearly every 
farmer’s yard may be seen either some pure-bred or 
some crossed fowls that are much superior to the 
ordinary run of “barn-door” poultry. The com¬ 
mon fowls may weigh two pounds at maturity, and 
may lay two or three dozen of eggs in the summer, 
and none in the winter. But the improved fowls, 
now kept by the majority of farmers, will reach an 
average weight of four pounds, and produce eggs, 
if not in the winter, at least very early in the spring, 
and continue late in the fall. The product of flesh 
and eggs is at least doubled. This result is due to 
the labors of poultry fanciers, who have ransacked 
the world for new varieties, until perhaps there arc 
none worth having that are not now to be found in 
this country. The Light Brahma, the most general¬ 
ly popular fowl at the present day, we owe to an 
American poultry fancier, Dr. J. C. Bennett, of 
Great Falls, N. H., who exhibited a pen of them at 
the Fitchburg Poultry Show in 1850. Dr. Bennett 
procured these birds of Mr. Cornish, of Connecti¬ 
cut, who obtained them from a Mr. Chamberlain, 
and he purchased them from a sailor who brought 
the original fowls from India. This at least is the 
statement given in Wright’s Monograph on the 
Brahma Fowls, published by the Orange Judd Co. 
We therefore owe the Brahmas to the American 
poultry fanciers, and since they started the breed 
on its way to popular favor, it has been improved, 
and now stands first in pumbers and value of all 
our poultry. In like manner the very popular Leg¬ 
horns have been introduced and improved, and 
now we have a new and most promising breed com¬ 
ing into favor, which we owe entirely to the fanci¬ 
ers, and that is the Plymouth Rocks. All these are 
fowls of general utility, valuable for their flesh and 
eggs. No one can become a successful breeder of 
poultry—indeed one can hardly succeed in any 
thing—unless he is an enthusiast; therefore enthu¬ 
siasm, when usefully directed, is something to be 
commended rather than blamed. The profit de¬ 
rived by farmers from poultry, is now an important 
item in their income. The total product of fowls 
and eggs cannot be less than from 150 to 200 mil¬ 
lions of dollars annually, and nearly the whole of 
this should be credited to the enthusiasm of poul¬ 
try breeders, through whose labors it has been 
made possible. We would, therefore, advance the 
improvement of poultry by encouraging those who 
make it the business of their lives, and every farm¬ 
er should visit the poultry exhibitions, and see. that 
his wife and children take interest in them. 
We give on our front page portraits from life, of 
some choice fowls that have been recently exhibit¬ 
ed. The central figures are portraits of a pair of 
Light Brahmas, bred and owned by Mr. J. J. Berry 
of Hackensack, and which took the first premium 
at the Bergen Co., N. J., Poultry Exhibition. At 
the right of these are a pair of Plymouth Rocks, 
bred and owned by Mr. D. Benedict, of the Staten 
Island Poultry Farm, Rossville, Staten Island, N. Y. 
They were also exhibited at the Bergen Co. show. 
This breed is rapidly coming into favor as excellent 
layers, heavy bodied, hardy, and well-fleshed fowls. 
Their plumage is bluish-speckled, and very pleas¬ 
ing, the cock is somewhat lighter in color than the 
hen ; the legs are yellow and without feathers. A 
flock of these fowls is a very attractive ornament 
to a well kept yard, and they promise to become a 
very favorite farmers’ and amateurs’ fowl. On the 
left is a pair of White Dorkings, bred from stock 
imported from England by Mr. Wm. Crozier, of 
Northport, Long Island, N. Y. At the bottom is a 
trio of Sumatra Game fowls, bred from imported 
stock, by Messrs. Benson & Burpee, of Philadelphia. 
These are very handsomely plumaged birds, the 
cock magnificently colored, and the hen jet black, 
with brilliant green reflections. They are great 
layers. These birds were exhibited at the Centen¬ 
nial Poultry Show, as were also the pair of Sultan 
fowls, whose portraits appear on the upper part of 
the engraving. These birds are white, with legs 
feathered to the toes, and with large crests. They 
came originally from Constantinople, where they 
are kept in the Sultan’s palace, and are therefore 
called the Sultan’s fowls. They are probably more 
curious than useful. The active competition 
amongst poultry breeders has tended to reduce 
prices for choice fowls to a very moderate figure, so 
that every farmer can now afford to procure a few 
birds wherewith to improve his common stork. 
Bee Notes for January. 
BY L. C. ROOT, MOHAWK, N. Y. 
While bees are left in perfect quiet, as they should be 
(luring the present month, the beekeeper may be active 
in gaining information, preparing hives and boxes, and 
in other ways making ready for the coming busy season. 
From the many communications I have received, I 
conclude that the “Notes” for Jan. ’76 were of general 
interest, as at this season the question of “ what hive to 
use ” is receiving attention. I find from inquiries that 
I did not make some points so clear as I intended. 
- Standing or Hanging Frames. 
A correspondent says: “ I have referred to your Notes 
in the Jan. No., ’76, but cannot learn from it, whether 
you prefer the standing or hanging frame of the Quinby 
Hive.”—I am aware that three hives are known as the 
“Quinby Hive,” they having been made, used, and recom¬ 
mended by him. In speaking of his last hive, I should 
have called it the “New Quinby Hive.” This is the 
hive with standing frames, described in the Notes re¬ 
ferred to. He farther says: “ The point I am particular¬ 
ly interested in, is to know which of these two kinds of 
Fig. 1. frames. Fig. 2. 
frames you prefer, with your reasons for changing from 
suspended to hanging frames, if you have done so.”— 
The new Quinby frame is made as follows: The ends 
are lli inches long, li in. wide, and i^n. thick. Top 
and bottom pieces are 18i in. long, i in. wide, and i in. 
thick. If the combs are to be built directly in the frames 
by the bees, a triangular piece, 18i in. long, (fig. 1), 
should be placed under the top bar as a guide ; but it 
combs are to be transferred to them, from other hives, a 
simple comer block, (fig. 2), is all that is necessary to 
stiffen the frame. The top and bottom pieces are nailed 
i in. from the top and bottom of the end pieces, and be¬ 
ing narrower, at equal distances from each edge ; a hook 
on the bottom of one end, made of a piece of hoop iron, 
will support the frame in a standing position. This 
makes, when completed, a frame lli x 191. in. If a small¬ 
er frame is desired, it may be made shorter., I describe 
the frame that I may more clearly give my preference for 
the use of the same, as well as to answer some inquiries 
as to its construction. The principal advantage o' this 
frame over the hanging frame, is the fact that one or 
more frames may be placed together, making a perfect 
hive without the necessity of the outside case. I have 
only to place them on a small bottom board, with the 
panels at the sides, and a mat or board on the top, they 
