1350. 
THE CULTIVATOR. 
267 
lisli, or Top-Knot fowls, of which we are presented 
with some striking original illustrations. The 
skill of the “artist,” prompted by the ingenuity of 
Dr. Bennett, has brought out a cut of the white 
fowl with a black top-knot, which, if it ever exist¬ 
ed, is considered by most late writers as having 
been long extinct. Dr. B. says—“This variety of 
Polish fowl is the most pure and unmixed of the 
three; it is indeed, the uncontaminated descendant 
of the great fowl of St. Jago. Its color is a 
brilliant white with a jet black top-knot.” He 
states that various applications have been made to 
persons in Germany and Poland to procure speci¬ 
mens of this breed at any cost, but that the answers 
were, “they were no longer to be had.” He re¬ 
marks—“I have never myself seen a specimen of 
the breed, and have every reason to suppose it to be 
extinct or nearly so.” And yet, as if to confound 
his own language, he says in the next paragraph-— 
“Of this variety there are some beautiful specimens 
in this country!” 
Dr. B. speaks of the “Dominique fowl” as a 
“very perfect breed,” adding that he has “never 
seen the least variation in their appearance for the 
last thirty years. * * * Why it is that no perfect 
bloods should have escaped description by poulter¬ 
ers, I am unable to divine.” 
But suppose the question is asked—what consti¬ 
tutes a Dominique fowl ? It may not be easy to 
give a definite answer; but it will probably be said 
that the term Dominique applies to fowls of a par¬ 
ticular color. It is a fact, however, that the mark¬ 
ings of plumage which have given rise to the appli¬ 
cation of this term, are not confined to one breed, 
but are found among several breeds. They are 
very frequently seen among the common fowls, usu- 
ually called “Dunghills,” and have been met with 
in fowls imported as Dorkings, as well as in the 
Jersey Blues, &c; so that Dominiques may be said 
to occur in many breeds, but of themselves are no 
breed at all. 
Dr. B. closes his descriptive list of thirty-three 
varieties of fowls, with the “African Bantam,” of 
which he says-—“They are the best of all the Ban¬ 
tam race, yet I have never seen them described in 
the books on ornithology.” No! and he never will, 
till men who know nothing of “ornithology” make 
“the books!” 
From the space which this article has already 
occupied, I am induced to pass without notice, Dr. 
Bennett’s vagaries in regard to turkies, geese, 
ducks, &e., together with those parts of his work 
relating to the management of poultry, and proceed 
to an examination of his remarks on “Breeding 
Fowls,” though I shall not attempt a detailed crit¬ 
icism of the chapter. 
Dr. B. observes, in the outset, that in the treat¬ 
ment of this subject generally, “there is a loose 
and indefinite use of terms, which serves only to dis¬ 
tract and confuse the inquirer.” If I am not mis¬ 
taken, the readers of Dr. Bennett’s book, may with 
propriety complain of the “loose and indefinite use 
of terms”—not less in this chapter than in the parts 
of the work already noticed. For example, he 
pretends to lay down certain “physiological princi¬ 
ples,” which, he thinks, if “well understood and 
faithfully applied, will prove of great value.” The 
first of these principles is as follows: 
“ When animals differing in order, genus, and 
species cohabit, no offspring results.” 
Now what a strange compounding of terms does 
this proposition comprise! And the sense is so 
obscure that it is doubtful what idea it was intended 
to convey. If the meaning is that animals of 
different orders are incapable of producing an 
intermediate offspring, it will be admitted; but of 
what use are the terms genus and species in this 
connexion? Animals of different orders, must of 
course be of different genera and species. The effect 
of this “loose use of terms” therefore, can only be 
to “distract and confuse the inquirer.” 
Again, though the proposition be admitted as 
correct , so far as it relates to orders, it is incorrect 
in its relation to genera and species ; for offspring is 
sometimes produced between animals of different 
genera, and not unfrequently between those of dif¬ 
ferent species. Thus Dr. Morton says—-“ Hybrid- 
ity occurs not only among different species, but 
among different genera; and the cross-breeds have 
been prolific in both cases.”* For instance, the 
Guinea-fowl,which belongs to the genus Numida, and 
the common fowl, genus Gallus , have been known to 
breed together. I have myself seen hybirds which 
were the result of this union; and Dr. Morton 
mentions two which he had seen, and refers to three 
others of which he had heard.f 
Dr. Bennett’s second proposition is, that with 
“animals of the same order, differing in genus and 
species, the progeny is sterile in the first genera¬ 
tion , as with the mule, the mongrel-goose,” 8tc. 
By “ mule,” it is supposed he means the joint 
offspring of the horse and ass; but what naturalist 
regards those animals as “differing in genus?” 
Or is this only to be received as part of a new clas¬ 
sification which the learned Doctor intends to in¬ 
troduce? 
Again, Dr. Bennett cites the “mongrel goose” 
(as if there was only one mongrel goose,) as an 
example of sterility. What is a mongrel? Webster’s 
definition (which is within reach of all) is “an 
animal of mixed breed.” But are all geese which 
are of “mixed breed,” or all “ mongrels” sterile? 
“Looseness of terms,” indeed! The Canadian 
wild goose and the common domestic goose, are of 
distinct species, and their joint offspring are pro¬ 
perly mules. They do not breed. 
Dr. Bennett’s third proposition is, that with “an¬ 
imals of the same order and genus, differing in 
species or variety, only, the progeny becomes barren, 
in the second generation , as with the mulattoes.” 
Well, if the “natives” are not astonished at this, 
the Doctor may give up! The progeny of animals 
“ differing in species or variety only , becomes bar¬ 
ren in the second generation!” What gloomy phi¬ 
losophy! How soon must vanish from earth those 
transcendent fowls, the “Yankee Games,” the 
“Plymouth Rocks,” the “Pride of Indias,” &c.,— 
all crosses of different varieties. 
Yet Dr. Bennett, in another part of this chapter, 
tells us—“The best breeding is to cross or mix the 
races. This process improves the breeds in every 
respect. The best mixture is the Yankee Game 
with the Cochin-China fowls. This produces a 
race [?] of equal proportions of Wild Indian Game, 
Spanish Game, Chittagong, and Shanghae. Such 
a mixture gives great size, fine flesh and brilliant 
plumage; and at the same time the breed, [not 
“race” as above] will be very prolific /” [p. 202.] 
Whether Dr. B. regards whites and negroes as of 
different species, or only different varieties, does 
not appear, and I have no occasion to enter on the 
discussion of the question. His conclusion in respect 
to mulattoes, I leave to the observation of others 
without comment. 
Dr. B.’s fourth and last proposition has no special 
connexion with the main subject, and if it had it is 
* Sillman’s Journal, vol. Ill, p. 212. 
t Ibid. p. 204. 
