1852 
THE CULTIVATOR. 
211 
Platanus Reviewed. 
The readers of the Cultivator for April, were treated 
to an article claiming to he a Review of the “Dai¬ 
ryman’s Manual,” edited by Gurdon Evansj and 
were it, as pretended, a fair and candid expose of the 
volume in question, there would be no occasion for call¬ 
ing the attention of its readers to the subject a second 
time. 
Platanus, like a surgeon well hardened by the sight 
of flowing blood and flayed muscles, opens the subject 
with a masterly cut . Hear him: “ Book-making is wor¬ 
king wonderful progress in these United States. Gen¬ 
uine authorship is quite another thing, * * and the 
work now presented is a genuine, unadulterated type of 
the book-making genus.” 
May we not suggest that a genuine review of a new 
book, whether meritorious or otherwise, involves a de¬ 
gree of responsibility to the book-maker, as well as to the 
reading public, over whose education and purses our re¬ 
viewer watches with such paternal solicitude. Would not 
courtesy alone, dictate that the court hear the case be¬ 
fore judgment is pronounced? But here the grave judge 
has declared the verdict even before favoring us with a 
single reason. Thus the reader is prepared for a hearing 
of the subject. One can but remark a degree of acerbi¬ 
ty in Platanus’ whole manner and tone, that forcibly re¬ 
minds the reader of the mastiff in the old fable j for he 
cannot speak of the “ clear large type, good print, and 
good paper,” all of which he places to the book-maker’s 
credit, without almost complaining of it. In such a re¬ 
view, one cannot fail to see its author, (in imagination, 
at least.) rise late in the morning, throw off his night-cap, 
and without washing his face, seize his pen, and wreak 
his vengeance upon some imagined insult received late 
the evening previous, by dashing off a hasty review of 
some half-read, luckless author. Woe to the victim! 
Platanus, in his review, is vulnerable either to the 
charge of wilful misrepresentation, or of an unpardona¬ 
ble degree of ignorance upon subjects where much pre¬ 
tended wisdom is displayed. 
This charge I propose to substantiate. In the first 
place, he promises to deal with the book-maker candid¬ 
ly • how candidly we shall see. 
Next, Mr. Platanus turns up his nose at the idea sug¬ 
gested near the close of the third chapter, relative to im¬ 
proving the present race of cows, by rearing calves from 
the best milkers only, both male and female. This every 
man of sense must know is the only practical mode of ge¬ 
nerally improving dairy stock at present, for the supply of 
Short-horns, or other pure blood animals approved for 
the dairy, is by far too limited to furnish a tithe of the 
stock, if such alone are to be used. Now which is the 
wisest course—to persist in milking indiscriminately eve- 
ay heifer, no matter how poor, till a supply of improved 
animals can be produced, or may we have the privilege 
of selecting? 
Particular attention is called to the fact, that certain 
extracts from the “ Encyclopedia of Geography,” are 
acknowledged, leading the reader to infer that other ex¬ 
tracts and quotations are not acknowledged—when the 
truth is, all the borrowed matter in the work is particu¬ 
larly acknowledged, either by references or points, and 
generally in the preface. To allow such an inference, is 
unjust and libelous. 
He says Chapter IY “ opens rich,” on the history of 
improved Short-horns. Now I wish the reader would 
examine his comments on this subject before proceed¬ 
ing any farther, (as in this appears to rest the burden of 
his message,) and then compare the language quoted 
from the “ Manual,” with Youatt’s nistory of this fine 
race of cattle, given on page 229 of his “ Treatise on Cat¬ 
tle.” After giving a history of the bull ITubback, he 
says: “It has been remarked that we have at present no 
superior horses on the turf which do not boast the blood 
of the Godolphin Arabian; so it may be asserted that we 
have no superior Short-horns which do not claim descent 
nearly or remotely, from Hubback.” Then in a note he 
adds: “ This is true, because Hubback was the sire of the 
dam of Mr. Charles Colling’s bull Fojambe, who was the 
grandsire of Favorite, and there can be no doubt that 
there has not been for many years, any superior Short¬ 
horn who has not descended from Favorite.” So the 
matter must be left between Platanus and Youatt; and 
if Platanus is interested in any family of Short-horns not 
descended from Hubback, Mr. Youatt would not pro¬ 
nounce them “ superior.” Who is the best prepared to 
judge of these matters? An American, (for I suppose 
Platanus is one,) or an Englishman like Youatt, who has 
spent his life among the improved Short-horns. 
In relation to the Galloway cow referred to, Youatt 
says: “ Mr. Colling’s Short-horn bull Bolingbroke, (a 
descendant of Hubback,) was put to a beautiful red- 
polled Galloway cow, and the product being a bull calf, 
was in due time put to Johanna, a pure Short-horn. 
She also produced a bull calf. This grandson of Boling¬ 
broke, was the sire of the cow Lady, by another Short¬ 
horn dam, and from Lady has sprung the highly valua¬ 
ble family termed in reproach the Alloju How far the 
alloy was derogatory, let facts testify.” Then comes the 
bill of sales made by Mr. Charles Colling in 1810, rang¬ 
ing for cows, from $175 to $2,000—for bulls, from $275 
to $5,000—for bull calves, from $75 to $750, and so on. 
I can only wish that there was space to extend the inte¬ 
resting quotations from Youatt. 
The reader will see where the quarrel lies, and I more 
than half suspect that the “ Manual” has been transform¬ 
ed from a “ well printed volume,” to a hobbyhorse. 
The book-maker is next reprimanded for once using 
the term Devonshire instead of Devon. This does ap¬ 
pear like a small bite, scarcely a nibble , yet let us call 
up the shades of Youatt again. From page 14 to 20, 
this great author, (I suppose he maybe called,) has fall¬ 
en into the same blunder no less than ten times. Is this 
ignorance in Platanus, or malice prepense? 
In relation to Devon cows, there is either a wilful mis¬ 
representation, or gross ignorance displayed. Platanus 
makes the Manual read, “ The author puts them down as 
no milkers, and consequently' in their high blood, unfit for 
the dairy.” Now if you ever buy one of these books, (for 
they are made to sell!!) you will find it to read thus— 
“ But for the daily the pure Devon can boast but few 
excellencies; the principal are their hardiness and the 
richness of their milk. Yet some crosses with our na¬ 
tive breeds have produced the best of milkers, both by 
quality and quantity. Undoubtedly dairymen located 
in cold, elevated, and less fertile regions, will find this 
race of cows, or judicious grades of natives and Devons, 
a more profitable stock than the Short-horns.” How 
much more magnanimous it would be in a reviewer to 
have said nothing about this matter, or else given his 
readers a short extract, which would give all a just idea 
of the subject. 
Of Devons for the dairy, Youatt says, page 20—“ for 
the Dairy, the North Devons mus be acknowleded to be 
inferior to several other breeds. Their milk is good, and 
yields more than an average proportion of cream and but¬ 
ter, but it is deficient in quantity. There are those, how¬ 
ever, and no mean judges, who deny this, and select the 
North Devons even for the Dairy.” How much does this 
differ in import from the paragraph quoted from the 
“ Manual,” and who can be expected to be a better 
judge in this matter than Youatt? 
From what is said about breeding for the dairy, the 
readers of Platanus would get an idea that the introduc¬ 
tion of Short-horn blood, by the use of such bulls with 
the native cows, was entirely overlooked or discarded by 
the author of the Manual. The fact is, more than half 
the chapter devoted to this subject, is upon the very sub¬ 
ject of recommending such crosses, containing many evi¬ 
dences, both from American and European dairymen, in 
favor of Short-horn grade heifers for the dairy. Yet our 
reviewer has argued the subject as though it was an idea 
entirely new, both to the author and readers of the re¬ 
view. What can be more unjust in a reviewer, than a 
course like this? One short extract may serve to con¬ 
vince the reader of Platanus’ implied libel. He speaks 
wisely of tire pedigree of the “ Creampots.” What says 
the Manual on the same subject, page 37—“ There can 
be no doubt that Coelebs, a grandson of Mr. Colling’s 
bull Comet, caused a great improvement in the stock of 
Massachusetts, and other sections, where his progeny 
