228 
THE CULTIVATOR. 
July, 
to any race , or to fowls of any special affinities. 
Its appearance among the fowls of Surrey and Sus¬ 
sex (England.) does not appear to be of remote 
date. I do not find it spoken of by any writer pre¬ 
vious to Mowbray* whose work was first published 
about the close of the last century. Arthur Young, 
in his “ Survey of Sussex f written soon after the 
commencement of this century, speaks of the Dor¬ 
kings. He says—“ The five-clawed breed have 
been considered the best; this, however, is a great 
mistake, and took its origin in some fowls with this 
peculiarity that happened to be very large and fine. 
It is a bastard breed.” 
I see no reason to doubt that it is an accidental 
variety of the fowls kept in Surrey and Sussex fifty 
years ago. In regard to the latter, Mr. Young 
adds to the remarks already quoted, the following— 
“ The fowls of the Sussex breed, used at the table 
of Lord Egremont, have frequently astonished the 
company by their size.” Richardson says “the Sus¬ 
sex is but an improved variety of the Dorking, si¬ 
milar in shape and general character, usually of a 
brown color, but possessing the advantage of want¬ 
ing the fifth toe;” and in his article before referred 
to, written for the Irish Agricultural and Industri¬ 
al Journal , he says—“ The Sussex has latterly, to 
a great degree, superceded the Dorking in popular 
estimation,” 8tc. Instead of saying that “the Sus¬ 
sex is a variety of the Dorking,” would it not have 
been more in accordance with facts, to have said the 
Dorking is a variety of the Sussex? 
But to return to Mr. Browne’s classification. We 
have seen that he reckons the Dorking second to the 
Spanish, on the ground of the “ serrated upright 
comb.” Next to the Dorking, or the third remove 
from the Spanish, he places the Cochin China fowl, 
and this is represented by a figure, in which the 
comb is upright and deeply serrated —showing, on 
the basis of his arrangement, a much greater re¬ 
semblance to the type than the Dorking, which takes 
precedence over it in the list. 
Next to the Cochin-China, is placed the “ Kulm, 
or Great Malay fowl,” and in the figure accompa¬ 
nying the description, the comb is neither upright 
nor serrated; but is described as “low, thick , desti¬ 
tute of serrations ,” &c. Yet the Game fowl, 
which is placed the sixth remove from the type, has 
the “ serrated upright comb,” strikingly developed. 
He copies (without credit) a part of Dixon’s 
account of the “ Pheasant Malay fowl,” which it 
* It is proper to remark, that the name of Mowbray is believed to 
be fictitious—the work referred to having' been written, as some as¬ 
sert, by John Lawrence, author of several books on cattle and hor¬ 
ses, published forty to fifty years ago. See prefaces to Dickson’s and 
Boswell’s works on poultry. 
is said “ may claim the sad pre-eminence of 
having given rise to more disputes than any bird 
of its tribe, always excepting the game-cock.” 
This “Pheasant-Malay,” he asserts, has occasion¬ 
ed the idea that certain fowls are a cross of the 
pheasant. But whether the idea in regard to such 
a cross be sound or not, his own reasoning shows 
that this “ Pheasant-Malay fowl ” did not give 
rise to it. He takes his description, which he consi¬ 
ders very “graphic,” from “a late English writer;” 
and this writer says—■“ I have a strong suspicion, 
from various peculiarities, that they are of compa¬ 
ratively recent introduction into this country, [Eng¬ 
land.] Baker, of London and Chelsea, (one of the 
best fancy dealers,) told me they were a breed from 
Calcutta.” But the idea of fowls being produced 
by a cross of the pheasant, is by no means “ recent 
it has been held for a long time, and is mentioned by 
nearly all English writers on poultry. Upon the 
whole, it seems probable that this “ Pheasant-Ma¬ 
lay” fowl is a variety found in the East Indies, 
which bears a strong resemblance to the English 
game-fowl. Specimens of stock derived from Su¬ 
matra, corresponding, mainly, to Dixon’s descrip¬ 
tion of the Pheasant-Malay, were exhibited at the 
poultry-show at Boston, last fall, and are still bred 
in the vicinity of that city. I am unable to say, 
from what I have seen, whether they are an abori¬ 
ginal breed. 
But how is Mr. Browne to be understood? He 
tells us, in the first place, that those “ Pheasant- 
Malays ” gave rise to the idea that there were fowls 
derived from a cross with the pheasant, though they, 
(the “Pheasant Malays,”) he says, have no more 
of the blood of the pheasant, “ than the Cochin- 
China or ostrich fowl,” has of the blood of the os¬ 
trich; and yet in the very next sentence, he tells us 
that “ hybrid birds, produced between the pheas¬ 
ant and common fowl, are of frequent occurrence!” 
These hybrids, he continues, “ are considered un¬ 
productive among themselves, but when paired with 
the true pheasant or the fowl, the case is different;” 
that is, they will breed with the fowl or with the 
pheasant. 
Now to what does all this amount? First, we are 
told that the idea of fowls being part pheasant, is 
all a mistake—the idea has no foundation, but took 
its risefr om fowls that have no affinity with the 
pheasant; second, it is admitted that half-bred 
pheasant fowls “are of frequent occurrence and 
third, that they are capable of breeding when 
“paired with the true pheasant, or with the fowl!” 
Thus making a solecism, scarcely equalled by the 
plea of the Irish pettifogger, who defended his cli- 
