1851. 
THE CULTIVATOR. 
293 
the former, he says, “ from the mountains in the ex¬ 
treme north of China”—“ the Cochin-China originates 
in a country of that name, in a more southern latitude.” 
And he raises the hypothesis, that “ nature may have 
provided the Shanghae fowl with feathers upon their 
legs and feet, as a protection,” which “protection” is 
thought to be unnecessary for the Cochin-Chinas in their 
native climate. This, Dr. Bennett says, is his “ opin¬ 
ion j” but he complains that “ many poulterers declare, 
spite of 1 feathers or no feathers,’ that their fowls are 
‘ Cochin-Chinas’ or 1 Shanghaes’—just as they please”— 
adding, that he finds in many instances, “ a decision on 
this point depends entirely upon which particular kind 
you want to buy” [p. 34.] 
Perhaps Dr. Kerr could inform the public whether any 
such motive as that hinted by Dr. Bennett in the expres¬ 
sion last quoted, had any influence in giving the names 
of “Cochin-China” and “ Shanghae,” to his two impor¬ 
tations, which he says were “direct from the city of 
Shanghae.”* 
But on perusing the preface to the work whose title 
is at the head of this article, the reader will be led to 
believe that Dr. Kerr has formed a determination to 
have nothing more to do with this nonsensical twaddle 
of fowls, being sometimes Shanghaes and somtimes Co¬ 
chin-Chinas, for in a note on page 10, he says he “ is 
quite confident that the fowl described in English trea¬ 
tises on poultry as the Cochin-China, is, when pure, 
identical with our thorough-bred Shanghaes.” But as 
we proceed in examining the work, we find he by no 
means relieves himself from these inconsistencies. His 
sixth chaptef is headed “Varieties of the Shanghae 
Fowl,” and his seventh “ The Cochin-China Fowl.” 
The former opens with four figures, said to be “ por¬ 
traits of Dr. Kerr’s Shanghaes”—three have, and one 
has not, feathers on the legs. Next, in the same chap¬ 
ter, we have “ portraits of Mr. E. R. Cope’s Shanghaes” 
which it is said were imported in April 1850, “direct 
from the city of Shanghae.” There are three figures, 
none of which have any feathers on the legs. In the 
chapter on “ Cochin China Fowls,” we have “portraits 
of Mr. E. R. Cope’s Cochin-Chinas,” said to have been 
procured “last summer” (1850) of Messrs- Baker, of 
London. They are thickly feathered on the legs. Next, 
in this chapter, we have figures of Mr. G. P. Burnham’s 
“ Cochin-Chinas,” and another plate entitled “ Mr. G. 
P. Burnham’s Royal Cochin-China Fowls,” all of which 
are represented without feathers on the legs; and several 
pages from Mr. B.’s pen are inserted, in which he labors 
to prove that there is a “distinct” difference between 
* There is some mystery in the accounts of the importation of Dr. 
Kerr’s fowls, as given by him and by Dr. Bennett. In the extract 
from Dr. K.’s letter in Mr. Dixon’s book, (before referred to) it is said 
that the two importations were made “in 1847, direct from the city 
of Shanghae; the one in the American ship Huntress, the other in the 
ship Tartar.” Dr. Kerr states the same thing in his “ additions,” (so 
called,) to the book he has got up, under the head of “ Varieties of 
Ihe Shanghae Fowl,” page 126. Now let it be borne in mind that 
Dr. Kerr acknowledges himself the veritable “Asa Rugg” of Dr. 
Bennett’s Poultry-Book, &c. In that Book, under the head of “ Co¬ 
chin-China Fowl,” Dr. Kerrs’ (alias Mr. Rugg’s) fowls, are spoken 
of as follows: “ Of the purity of Mr. Rugg’s stock, there can be no 
question, as they were imported by him, through Mr. Taylor, ofNew- 
York, in the ship Huntress, in May, 1847, direct from Cochin China 
[p. 42.] As the “doctors disagree,” who shall decide whether the 
fowls came from Cochin-China or Shanghae ? 
the Cochin-Chinas and Shanghaes, chiefly in regard to 
the legs of the former not being feathered, and the lat¬ 
ter being, when “ pure, heavily feathered upon the legs.” 
It is hardly necessary to say that whatever distinction 
some may pretend to make between the Cochin-China 
and Shanghae fowls, or those known by these names in 
this country, it is a distinction without a real difference. 
Nothing of the kind is recognized by Mr. Dixon. Neither 
does he or any other English author on poultry recog¬ 
nise Dr. Kerr’s pretended distinction between Malay and 
Chittagong fowls. It is true, however, that Nolan, an 
Irish writer, says, though the Chittanong is “ frequent¬ 
ly confounded with the Malay, there is no doubt of its 
being a distinct species.” (!) But it is not worth while 
to occupy space with this matter, since Dr. Kerr, him¬ 
self, admits that the very fowls to which he has applied 
the name of Chittagong, were formerly known, and in¬ 
deed, are almost every where called Malay. A little at¬ 
tention, however, may be given in relation to what Dr. 
Kerr says of the Chittagong, and the place he assigns it 
in his arrangement of breeds. After having noticed 
what he calls the Malay, and other large fowls of the 
same tribe, he introduces the Pheasant Malay, the Guel- 
derland, the Dorking, the Spanish, and the Game fowl, 
(comprising five different chapters,) and then comes to 
the Chittagong, which forms his fourteenth chapter or 
division of breeds. Of this fowl he says— 
“ In and around Philadelphia, we have a large fowl 
to which the above name has been incorrectly given, as, 
on further acquaintance, it has proved to be a mongrel, 
and like most mongrels, comparatively worthless. Un¬ 
til within a short time, it went under various names, as 
Ostrich Fowl, the Turkey breed, the Big breed, the 
Booby, the Bucks county Fowl, and even the Malay ” 
An interesting question here presents itself, viz: whe¬ 
ther the fowls described in this quotation as “ mongrels, 
comparatively worthless,” are not the same as are figured 
and described as Chittagongs in Dr. Bennett’s book, (pp. 
27, 28, 305,) which are there said to have been obtained 
from “Asa Rugg, Esq., [the l nom deplume ’ of Dr. Kerr} 
of Kensington, near Philadelphia,” and of which it is re¬ 
marked, “they are, as near as may be, perfect samples 
of their kind, and excite astonishment and admiration in 
all fowl fanciers who behold them?” 
Again: Dr. Kerr says of these Chittagongs, (in his 
book, p. 270)—“ I once had a Pullet of this kind which 
weighed eleven and a quarter pounds.” And under the 
head of “ Cochin-China Fowl,” (p. 143,) he says—“ I 
had a Pullet once, a mixture of Malay, Cochin-China, 
and perhaps Shanghae, that, when she came to her first 
laying, being then about seven or eight months old, 
weighed exactly nine and a quarter pounds; and when 
she began to lay the third season, she weighed thirteen 
and a quarter pounds. She then passed out of my 
hands.” 
In the appendix to Dr. Bennett’s Poultry Book, (p. 
305,) is a “ portrait, drawn from life,” of what is call¬ 
ed “Imperial Chittagong Fowl,” procured from this 
“ Asa Rugg. Esq., of Kensington, Philadelphia.” It is 
claimed that the original of the figure “ is unquestiona¬ 
bly the largest hen in America, weighing thirteen pounds 
and four ounces .” In the same book, (p. 309.) an ex¬ 
tract is given from a letter of the same “ Asa Rugg,” in 
which he says—I have a Chittagong hen, three years 
