1850. 
THE CULTIVATOR. 
211 
at once; or if this is not done, to confine them in 
separate places till they forget the habit. In this 
way, the trouble, if taken in time, may be easily 
got rid of, but if allowed to run on, it is difficult of 
eradication. As to medical treatment—“pomatum” 
is sometimes used to promote the growth of hair on 
coxcombs, and it might have a similar effect on 
cock’s feathers. If any substance disagreeable to 
the taste of fowls were mixed with it, it might tend 
to preserve the subjects to which it was applied, 
from further molestation; but it is probable that 
grease, “ by any other name,” would do as well. 
The 11 American Fowl Breeder” takes its illus¬ 
trations and- descriptions of varieties chiefly from 
Richardson, though it occasionally puts forth an idea 
not found in the original. It speaks of “the Java 
fowl ” as if there were but one variety belonging to 
Java, and this, it says “resembles the Malay in 
shape,” and also in “ its character and qualities,” 
but which is “supposed to be a cross of the Malay 
and the Dorking or Spanish breeds.” This suppo¬ 
sition, the authors of course derive from their pro¬ 
totype, as has been shown above; but another hy¬ 
pothesis is added, viz., “ it is generally supposed 
that from this variety, the English game cock ori¬ 
ginated.” In other words, the English game fowl 
originated with a variety resembling the Malay “in 
character and qualities,” and that variety origina¬ 
ted in a “cross between the Malay and Dorking or 
Spanish breeds!” Toll such stories to the marines 
—who else will believe them? 
The Cochin-China fowl is described as a “ spe¬ 
cies ” which has been “ very recently introdu¬ 
ced into England,” as a present to Queen Vic¬ 
toria. Following Richardson, it is said—“This 
fowl surpasses, both in size and power, all known 
descriptions of poultry,” being “ nearly allied to 
the Bustards.” Whether geese, turkeys, &c., 
are considered “poultry,” does not appear. The 
phenomenon of the hens laying three eggs a day, 
“ and within a few moments of each other,” is told 
in Richardson’s language, though not credited. 
To the Bantam fowl, the same strange propensi¬ 
ties are attributed as mentioned by Richardson, and 
the description, with no intimation of its being co¬ 
pied, is given mostly in his language. We have the 
same story of their thirst for each other’s blood, of 
their hankering after eggs, even while in the body 
of the hen—and the same account of the “ marble 
egg,” and other means resorted to for curing the 
habit, with the additional prescription, by way of 
improvement , of washing the fowls “with hot wa¬ 
ter ” to “allay the irritation.” If the water were 
suffic'iently heated, it would undoubtedly produce 
this effect. 
The “ New-England Poultry Breeder,” may, 
perhaps, be said to be a more independent work 
than some of its cotemporaries, though it can have 
but trifling claims to be considered a systematic 
(much less scientific) treatise. This “Practical 
Poulterer,” as he styles himself, begins his enume¬ 
ration of breeds, with the “ Chittagong fowl,” a 
“ magnificent bird,” he says, and of which he pre¬ 
tends to give a description from Richardson, and 
applies to it, verbatim, that writer’s description of 
the Malay, adding that “ a species [I make the 
italics] of this fowl is frequently called the 1 Great 
Malay,’ ” Now the fact is, that Richardson, after 
having described the Malay, says—“This fowl is al¬ 
so frequently called the Chittagong ” Many wri¬ 
ters, as Mowbray, Dickson, and others, very pro¬ 
perly use the terms Malay and Chittagong as syno¬ 
nymous—and they are usually applied to the same 
fowl. But the “ Practical Poulterer” then goes 
on with the “Grey Chittagong,” as the second 
breed. Then passing to the Cochin-China, the 
Shanghae, the “ Plymouth Rock fowl,” the Dork¬ 
ing, the Spanish, the Bolton Grey, the Black Po¬ 
land, the Game, and the Bantam, he at length 
comes to what he calls the “Common Malay fowl.” 
This variety he represents by a copy of the engra¬ 
ving of the hen given by Richardson as a represen¬ 
tation of the Malay, and from the description of 
which, this “ Practical Poulterer” 0 takes the des¬ 
cription of his Chittagong! 
Of the Cochin-China fowl, Richardson’s descrip¬ 
tion is first given, to which is added an account of 
some of this “species,” as they are called, import¬ 
ed by G. P. Burnham, of Roxbury, Mass. His 
next variety is the “ Shanghae fowl.” These and 
the Cochin-Chinas, it is said, are often confounded. 
And why should they not be? This writer himself 
says'—“That the Cochin-China and the Shanghae 
fowl originate from the same country and stock,we 
have no question. They are very like each other, 
generally—and all the best specimens we have yet 
seen in America, resemble each other strongly.” 
Yet he pretends to make a characteristic distinction 
between them, and that distinction is, merely, that 
the Cochin-Chinas are not feathered on the legs, 
and the Shanghaes are. 
The humbuggery of this notion is apparent to 
every one who has had much experience with fowls 
of the Malay tribe, (Gallus giganteus )—whether 
under the name of Malay, Chittagong, Java, Co¬ 
chin-China, China, Shanghae, &c.—all of which, 
especially when first brought from their native 
country, have more or less tendency to be feathered 
on the legs. Even those brag specimens of the Ma¬ 
lay which this “Practical Poulterer” calls the 
“Grey Chittagong ” are thus feathered. They are 
so represented in the cuts and so described. “The 
pullet,” it is said, “ is rather heavily feathered on 
the legs, the cockerel shows but few feathers below 
the thigh.” The trait is generally less conspicuous 
after the fowls have been bred for several generations 
in Europe or in this country. This may result part¬ 
ly from acclimation, and partly from the general se¬ 
lection of such specimens for breeding as are most 
free from feathers on the legs—they being common¬ 
ly regarded as a blemish. 
There are various other things in these books 
which it might be well to notice, if sufficient space 
could with propriety bo allowed in your pages; but 
the length to which these remarks have already 
been extended, obliges me to close. Observer. 
$l)e i)ctcrinar£> department. 
Inflammation of the Lungs in Horses. 
The transportation of live-stock by railroads, has 
been latterly much adopted on the principal lines in 
this country. It is, in many cases, cheaper to con¬ 
vey animals in this way, besides avoiding the great 
loss of weight which takes place, especially in fat 
animals, when they are obliged to travel to market. 
The present season, many horses destined for sale 
in New-York and Boston, have been brought to Al¬ 
bany by Railroad from Western New-York. On 
reaching Albany, it has been common for them to 
tarry several days, in order to recruit and appear in 
the market in the best possible condition. Many of 
these horses, while stopping here, have been attack¬ 
ed with inflammation of the lungs, which in several 
cases has terminated fatally. The disease has 
sometimes been so violent and rapid in its prog ss 
