210 
June 
THE CULTIVATOR. 
Having put down the Malay and Java as the two 
first varieties, Mr. Richardson goes on with the 
Shakebag as the third, the Spanish as the fourth, the 
Columbian as the fifth, the Dorking as the sixth, the 
Spangled Hamburgh as the seventh, the Polish as 
the eighth, the Dutch Every-day-layer as the ninth, 
the Barbary fowl as the tenth, and the Cochin-Chi¬ 
na as the eleventh variety. 
The consistency of an arrangement which thus pla¬ 
ces the Cochin-China fowl the tenth remove from the 
Malay,is not easily perceived. Aside from the hyper¬ 
bole of his own account, it is obvious that there is no 
material distinction between them. Mr. Richardson 
claims to draw his description of the Cochin China 
fowl, from specimens in Her Majesty Queen Victo¬ 
ria’s aviary. Mr. Martin, speaking of the same 
fowls, says he is aware that “ some regard these as 
distinct from the Gallus giganteus , but we look up¬ 
on them as a mere domestic variety of the Malay 
gigantic fowl.” 
But Mr. Richardson has doubtless heard the adage 
that “ the king’s chaff is better than other men’s 
corn.” He says—“ This variety of fowl [the Co¬ 
chin-China] so far surpasses both in size and pow¬ 
er, all that we have yet seen in the shape of poul¬ 
try (\) as to have led many persons not conversant 
with zoology, on first viewing them, to refer them 
to the family of Bustards.” But notwithstanding 
their wonderful size and other characteristics, he 
admits that they are “ genuine poultry.” One of 
the most “ striking ” of the “ distinctive ” traits 
which he represents as belonging to these fowls, is 
a peculiar structure of the wing, ‘‘so that the 
posterior half can, at pleasure, be doubled up and 
brought forward between the anterior half and the 
body. The birds,” he continues, “ can do this at 
pleasure, and the appearance the manoeuvre imparts 
to their form, has procured for them the title of ‘os¬ 
trich fowl.’ ” 
Many persons will recollect that the “title of os¬ 
trich fowl,” was given to various specimens of the 
Malay, long before the introduction of the Queen’s 
fowls; and those who have kept them know that the 
doubling of the wing, which Mr. Richardson mag¬ 
nifies into a strange anatomical peculiarity of the 
Cochin-Chinas, belongs, more or less, to the whole 
tribe. There is no mystery about it. The chicks 
are often thinly feathered, and in many instances 
remain quite naked until several months old. The 
feathers of the tail and wings are shorter than in 
ordinary fowls—in some individuals, indeed, are 
scarcely developed at all—and the whole plumage 
has a more downy character. From the absence of 
the wing-braces, or pinion feathers, there is nothing 
to prevent the close folding of the limb, as in newly 
hatched birds. 
But the fecundity of the Queen’s Cochin-China 
fowls, according to Mr. Richardson, is still more as¬ 
tonishing than their size and the structure of their 
wings. He says—“They are very prolific, frequent¬ 
ly laying two, and occasionally three eggs on the 
same day, and within a few moments of each other /” 
Verily, this is only equalled by “Old Grimes’ hen,” 
which is poetically described—(I cannot relate 
the story in verse)—as having laid two eggs every 
day, and three on Sunday. 
But Mr. Richardson’s encomiums of the Queen’s 
Cochin-China fowls do not end here. In a commu¬ 
nication on the varieties of fowls suited to the farm, 
published in the Irish Agricultural and Industrial 
Journal , 1848, after having described the principal 
qualities of these fowls, in language similar to that 
I have quoted from his book, he thus extols their 
prowess : “Thecbfck is game to the last degree, ca¬ 
pable of killing the most powerful game-cock in a 
few moments!” How crest-fallen must be the ama¬ 
teur breeders of the hitherto invincible game cock at 
this announcement! Why have we not already 
heard that the Earl of Derby has disposed of his 
aristocratic stock of game fowls, which he and his 
ancestors for several generations, have bred with 
such scrupulous care, and substituted in their place 
these valorous Cochin-Chinas'? But Mr. Richard¬ 
son is probably the only breeder who has discovered 
the superiority of these fowls as a fighting stock. 
In describing the Bantam fowl, Mr. Richardson 
gives the specimens of the breed “kept by her Ma¬ 
jesty, at the Home Park,” a prominent place. He 
tells us that “they possess some peculiar traits of 
habit and disposition that we cannot overlook.” 
The cocks possess the “strange propensity” of 
sucking the eggs laid by the hen, and their impulse 
to gratify this appetite is represented as so strong, 
that they will not only drive the hen from her nest 
to obtain the eggs, but “ have even been known to 
attack her, tear open the ovarium, and devour the 
shell-less contents.” But by the ingenuity of Her 
Majesty’s keeper, this habit was finally broken up. 
He gave the cocks a marble egg to “fight with,” 
preventing, at the same time, their access to the 
hens and to real eggs. This so thoroughly cured 
them in the course of a few weeks, that they made 
no further attempt at the “destruction either of the 
hen or of the actually laid egg.” 
But these Bantams exhibit another “strange pro¬ 
pensity,”—“ a passion for sucking each other’s 
blood.” They pulled out each other’s feathers, and 
sometimes pecked each other naked. But the keep¬ 
er overcame this propensity likewise. “ That per¬ 
son observing that the birds were subject to great 
heat of the skin, and that its surface occasionally 
became hard and tightened, conceived that in such 
cases the hard roots of the feathers being drawn in¬ 
to a position more nearly at right angles with the 
body than at ordinary times, the skin and superfi¬ 
cial muscles were thus subjected to an unusual de¬ 
gree of painful irritation ; and it immediately occur¬ 
red to him, that the disagreeable heat in question 
was simply a provision of nature for the relief of 
the suffering birds.” He was, however, induced to 
make some application to the skin of the fowls— 
such as anointing with “pomatum,” &c., and their 
plumage remained afterwards untouched. 
Now in what is here described, as remarkable and 
peculiar propensities of these Bantams, is anything 
more discernable than is often noticed in ordinary 
fowls? Almost every one knows that when fowls 
are confined to small enclosures, (and sometimes 
when running at large,) they are liable to contract 
the habit of pulling out and swallowing each other’s 
feathers. Generally one or two individuals of the 
flock, are made the special victims for the gratifica¬ 
tion of the morbid appetites of the others. Some¬ 
times the fowls which are “pecked upon” are al¬ 
most entirely denuded of feathers; but more fre¬ 
quently the plucking is confined to particular parts 
of the body—as the breast, or abdomen—and the 
habit is occasionally so inveterate, that the fowls do 
not stop with drawing the feathers merely, but 
break the skin, and tear out the crop, or the en¬ 
trails. Should the oviarum in such cases, be torn 
out, it is very probable that its “ shell-less con¬ 
tents” would be devoured. 
When this feather-eating habit first makes its ap¬ 
pearance in the poultry-yard, the mischief is often 
done by one or two of the flock. These should at 
once be sought out, and if they possess no special 
or extraordinary value, it is best to dispose of them 
