292 
THE CULTIVATOR 
Sept 
be conducted systematically, and the results must be 
placed in an intelligible form. 
The eagerness of our people to acquire information on 
this subject, is shown by the avidity with which they 
have seized the various effusions in the department of 
poultry literature, which have appeared within the last 
eighteen months. No less than five different poultry- 
books have been published in America during the last 
and present year, besides several editions of former 
works, and the importation, to a considerable extent, of 
several of British origin. The character of most of these 
books, is by this time pretty well understood by the pub¬ 
lic. A prominent object with most of the American au¬ 
thors, has evidently been to extol the value of certain 
varieties of fowls, which either are, or are represented 
to be, rare in this country. This has stimulated the de¬ 
mand for such fowls a desire to obtain the fowls, or to 
learn what they are, has induced the purchase of these 
books, and the books have induced the purchase of the 
fowls. How long a profitable trade of this kind can be 
carried on, cannot be foretold. As to the trade in the 
books, much, doubtless, depends on the accuracy of 
their descriptions, and the general truthfulness of their 
contents; for it is not to be doubted, that in this, as in 
other business, the sequel will prove that “ honesty is 
the best policy.” 
But to proceed to a notice of the work whose title ap¬ 
pears at the head of this article. The reader is led to 
suppose from this title, that the work comprises not only 
that of Mr. Dixon, but that it has “large additions” 
besides. The same idea is held out in the preface. It 
begins thus: “In offering to the public Mr. Dixon’s 
Treatise ‘ On Ornamental and Domestic Poultry,’ the 
Editor begs to submit a few preliminary remarks.” The 
editor, Dr. Kerr, then goes on to say, that he had been 
induced to engage in the work because the public had 
u seemed pleased with occasional articles” he had writ¬ 
ten on poultry, with the signature of “ Asa liugg.” On 
,l carefully consulting” the various treatises on poultry, 
he says, he “ came to the conclusion that the Rev. Ed¬ 
mund Saul Dixon’s work on *' Ornamental and Domestic 
Poultry,’ was decidedly the best. I [he] determined, 
therefore, instead of adding another book to this branch 
of Natural History, merely to edit this, adding portraits 
of the most important fowls described,” &c. 
After all this from the title page and preface of Dr. 
Kerr’s book, persons who have read Mr. Dixon’s, will 
be surprised to find that the two books have compara¬ 
tively little resemblance. In fact, the former is less a 
copy of the latter than is Mr. Browne’s Poultry-Book,* 
in which Mr. Dixon’s is only incidentally acknowledged. 
Dr. Kerr has not even followed Mr. Dixon in his general 
arrangement; but has in several instances given names 
of breeds not recognized by Mr. D., and has changed 
the names as given by the latter, in such a way as to 
completely nullify and contradict his statements. Thus 
Mr. Dixon forms into one family, called Hamburghs, the 
varieties known as Bolton Greys, Bolton Bays, Creoles 
or Corals, &c., none of which have top-knots —all the 
latter being comprised by him under the name of Poland 
Fowls,—as Black Polands, Golden Polands, and Silver 
* The American Poultry-Book. By D. J. Browne, New-York, 
1850. 
Polands. He says “ Certain fowls with top-knots are 
called by the above names, sometimes also Polanders.’ 
It is proper to say, in passing, that Mr. Dixon’s arrange¬ 
ment in regard to Hamburgh and Polish fowls, agrees 
with that of the London Zoological Society, and the 
Birmingham Poultry Association. Dr. Kerr, on the 
contrary, begins his chapter on Hamburgh fowls, by 
saying that the Spangled have “ large top-knots, colored 
instead of white, and the black and conspicuous muflie 
or ruff on the throat and under the beak.” And, as if 
to confuse and perplex the reader, he inserts, in the 
midst of Mr. Dixon’s description of the Hamburghs, 
(the chief part of which he copies,) a cut of these top- 
knot and muffled fowls! Could anything be more ab¬ 
surd than this perversion of the language and meaning 
of an author? Indeed, after a pretty thorough examina¬ 
tion, it is difficult to discover any better reason for the 
use of Mr. Dixon’s title by Dr. Kerr, than the advantage 
which would be afforded by the popularity of Mr. D.’s 
book. It is true that Dr. Kerr has extracted much 
from Mr. Dixon’s book, as well as considerable from 
others—in some instances perverting the sense and in 
others omitting the requisite credit—* though none of the 
authors he has thus pillaged will be desirous of standing 
god-father to Dr. K.’s bantling. But Mr. Dixon’s par¬ 
ticular opinion of his namesake has not yet transpired. 
It seems, however, that Mr. Dixon, when he wrote his 
book, was not entirely unacquainted with the compiler 
of the work under examination. At pages 293, 294 of 
Mr. Dixon’s second edition, an extract is given (in a note) 
from a letter signed “ J. J. K., Kensington, Philad: 
N. America.” This letter describes two importations 
of fowls said to have been made “ direct from Shanghae.’ 
Mr. D. remarks, in relation to the difference between 
the fowls of these importations, as described in the ex¬ 
tract, that the “ learned poultry fancier” would proba¬ 
bly turn the difference to good account. “ The name 
of Cochin-China,” says Mr. D., “ is appropriated to the 
first variety; ‘ Shanghae fowls’ may with advantage be 
given to the second.” Now just what is here given as a 
prediction, has been done—fowls from Dr. Kerr’s two 
importations “ direct from the city of Shanghae,” having 
been exhibited at the last Boston poultry-show as dif¬ 
ferent breeds—the one “Cochin-China” and the other 
“ Shanghae.” The names of the exhibitors can be given, 
if necessary. It is fair to say, however, that they pro- 
bably gave the names by which the fowls came to them 
from Dr. Kerr. 
This accommodation to circumstances is in some de- 
gree explained by the fact, that some of the Boston 
“fanciers” regard the Cochin-China and Shanghae fowls, 
as distinct breeds. Their savans have taught that this 
distinction consists in the legs of the former having no 
feathers on them, while those of the latter are feather¬ 
ed. This distinction is attempted to be set up by Dr. 
Bennett and Mr. George P. Burnham. (See Bennett’s 
Poultry-Book, pp.33, 34, and Dr. Kerr’s book, pp. 148, 
149.) Dr. Bennett, indeed, argues that the Shanghaes 
and Cochin-Chinas, come from very different countries— 
* In Dr. Kerr’s chapter on the game fowl, he copies several pages 
from Nolan’s work on poultry. He says before beginning to copy it 
that he takes “ the following” from a “ work recently published in Ire¬ 
land.” This is all the credit, and there is nothing whatever to show 
how much was meant by “the following.” 
