1850. 
THE CULTIVATOR. 
265 
The public will judge whether this omission to give 
the “ requisite credit,” is in accordance with the 
principles which should govern authors. 
The primary object of the author seems to have 
been to multiply varieties or breeds of the domestic 
fowl, or to describe those already known under such 
names, and in such terms as would lead to the belief 
tbat they are rare and desirable. Hence of the 
Malay tribe of fowls, he has the Chittagong, the 
Shanghae, the White Shanghae, the Cochin China, 
the Royal Cochin China. (Burnham’s importation,) 
Cochin China, (Baylies’ importation,) Great Malay, 
the Shakebag, Common Malay, the Great Java, and 
the Guilderland fowl. Persons acquainted with the 
fowls described under these names, will readily 
recognize affinities which prove them to belong to 
the same stock. They are not arranged precisely 
in the order here given, but are mixed up, in several 
instances, with other varieties. 
The Chittagong is represented by cuts which pur¬ 
port to be portraits of fowls from Mr. Rugg, who 
it is declared “ is beyond dispute, one of the best 
fowl breeders in America,” and whose fowls, it is 
said, “ excite astonishment and admiration, in all 
fowl fanciers.” A quotation is made from a letter 
of Mr. Rugg, in which he complains that this breed 
has heretofore been confounded with the great Ma¬ 
lay, whereas he thinks they have “ points of differ¬ 
ence which will be found to be important.” Dr. 
Bennett attempts to justify this notion by reference 
to Richardson, whose cuts and description of the Ma¬ 
lay he copies, giving the customary credit and 
marks of quotation, but with an interpolation of two 
words which entirely change the sense and purport 
of the language. Richardson says of the Malay,—- 
u This fowl is also frequently called the Chitta¬ 
gong,”—evidently intending to say, as almost every 
English writer on poultry has said, that the terms 
Malay and Chittagong, refer to the same fowl,* and 
to prevent this being said, Dr. Bennett inserts the 
words “ but erroneously,” making Richardson say 
11 this fowl [the Malay] is frequently, but errone¬ 
ously, called the Chittagong!” It is proper to 
notice that there is nothing to show that the words 
alluded to w r ere added, or that they were not in the 
original. Without stopping to comment on the 
honesty of this act, I will simply offer one quotation, 
though many similar passages by various authors 
might be adduced, to show that the Malay and 
Chittagong fowl are the same. In the work entitled 
11 Farming for Ladies ,” by the “ Author of British 
Husbandry,” page 75, it is said—“ The Malay or 
Chittagong, are natives of the isles of Java and 
Sumatra, from whence they have been introduced 
into this country [England,] where they are now 
common, and are the largest known breed of fowls.” 
Dr. Bennett makes three breeds of Cochin China 
fowls. The first of which is simply called “Cochin 
China,” and the cuts accompanying are copied from 
Richardson, together with that writer’s description 
of the Queen’s fowls. One would naturally suppose 
that these were royal fowls, if any could’be called 
such; yet the next chapter has the caption “ Royal 
Cochin-China Fowl—Burnham’s importation.” Here 
we have what are called “ original portraits” of 
Mr. Burnham’s fowls, and Dr. Bennett triumphantly 
declares that this representation “ is believed to be 
the only correct delineation of the species extant,” 
and he “ flatters” himself that it “ will henceforth 
be deemed the standard of comparison!” In the 
same style of vulgar boasting, it is added that 
“ Mr. Burnham’s importation is the best of the 
Cochin-China race which have been brought to this 
country;” and to crown their lofty pretensions, it is 
stated that Mr. Nolan’s stock, from which Mr. 
Burnham’s came, “ took the premium at one of the 
agricultural fairs in England, while standing at the 
side of Her Majesty’s fowls.” It is not stated that 
Her Majesty’s fowls were in competition for premi¬ 
um with Mr. Nolan’s, and yet, notwithtanding the 
ridiculousness of such an idea, it is obviously intend¬ 
ed to make the credulous and ignorant believe it, by 
saying that Mr. Nolan’s fowls were “standing 
beside” Her Majesty’s. 
Dr. Bennett pretends to know the precise origin 
of the Cochin-China fowls, and dogmatically asserts 
that they “ are derived from a mixture of the Chit¬ 
tagong's and Shanghaes; yet he says, “ those im¬ 
ported into England, undoubtedly participate in 
the blood of.the Wild Indian game.” He thinks 
this idea is “ corroborated by the fact that English 
writers pronounce them to be game, when speaking 
of their habits and prowess;” and he concludes that 
these “facts” (?) prove “ the Queen’s and Mr. 
Burnham’s fowls to be different from what are com¬ 
monly called Cochin-Chinas, which are the mere 
cross of the Chittagongs and Shanghaes.” [pp. 46, 
47.] 
But the “fact” in regard to the Queen’s fowls be¬ 
ing “game,” which was supposed to prove them to be 
“ different from what are commonly called Cochin- 
Chinas,” turns out, by Dr. Bennett’s own showing, 
to be no fact at all; for at the conclusion of the 
chapter, (page 50) he says, “ It may be well to 
add, that the London Illustrated News has fallen 
into another serious error in respect to the Royal 
fowls, in saying that ‘the cock is game, to the last 
degree, capable of killing the most powerful game 
cock in a few minutes.’ This is impossible, on 
account of their size and shape.” 
Thus what is given as 1 ‘ fact” on page 46, is con¬ 
demned as “ serious error” on page 50 ! 
But there are other strange inconsistencies con¬ 
nected with Dr. B.’s description of the Cochin- 
China fowl. It will be noticed that he calls them 
a “ species” and a “ race,” and yet, strangely 
enough, on the same page he asserts that they are 
“ derived from a mixture ” of what he calls distinct 
stocks ! Such palpable contradictions can only be 
accounted for on the supposition that the author is 
grossly ignorant of the terms he employs.* 
The cuts representing what Dr. B. calls the 
“Common Malay fowl,” are copies of those which 
Mr. Bement gives for the “Bucks County fowl.” 
We are told—“the best varieties of this breed in 
this country, are the Jersey Blues, the Bucks Coun¬ 
ty and the Boobies.” The Jersey Blues are said to 
have “all the characteristics of the East India 
fowls,” but “ have diminished in size by neglect 
and careless breeding.” Yet notwithstanding this 
“neglect” and diminution of size, Dr. B. gives the 
statement of Mr. Rugg, that the “he has known in 
a single instance, caponised fowls of this variety 
weigh twenty-five pounds a pair,” and it is added 
that the farmers of New Jersey “set a value upon 
the stock equivalent to that which the Dorking bears 
in England.” Rather singular evidence of “neg¬ 
lect and careless breeding.” 
The Bucks County and Booby fowls are summarily 
disposed of as “unprofitable,” being, “with what 
* Dr. Prichard, in his “ Natural History of Man,” gives the follow¬ 
ing definition of species: “ Species are simply tribes of plants of 
animals, which are ceratinly known or may be inferred on satisfac¬ 
tory grounds, to have descended from the same stocks, or from 
parentages precisely similar, and in no way distinguished from each 
other.” The same author defines varieties as follows : “ Varieties 
differ from species in this circumstance, that the peculiarities in 
question are not coeval with the tribe, but sprang up in it since the 
commencement of its existence, and constitute a deviation from its 
original character.” 
