Juke (). 
A little more courteous and civil treatment might 
redeem part of the lost influence at Chiswick ; but 
i any sudden changes in the manner of exhibiting col- 
j lections of plants there will assuredly be a dangerous 
■ step on the part of the Society, whose machinery is 
said to be much out of working order. 
With respect to Orchidaceous plants, and liases in pots, 
j they seem to improve still more every year. The Azaleas, 
though splendid in the mass, are now stationary, and 
require more novelty and fresh blood into the mixture 
to keep up the interest in them much longer. Their 
new seedlings are not worth looking at, as compared 
to what a few liberal prizes for them could draw out. 
The great Pelargoniums are as monotonous as a bed of 
Daisies, and almost as common. They are deficient in 
whites, purples, and rose - scarlets; orange-scarlets are 
in sufficient numbers already. The Fancy Pelargoniums 
go on improving slowly, but at a sure pace. The large 
and small collections of mixed plants have been sta¬ 
tionary these six years last past. The plants are only 
decreasing in numbers as the monstrous sizes increase. 
This department of the exhibitions has reached that 
point for which the fat pigs and bullocks have been con¬ 
demned at the Baker Street Bazaar, and must needs be 
remodelled, but upon what basis who can say, when we 
sec this once powerful Society obliged to bow down to 
less than half-a-dozen of the principal exhibitors, as 
instanced in the recent collision between them and the 
Society, in the matter of lowering the prizes for or- 
chideous plants? The Society were confessedly in a 
dilemma, and, at last, were compelled to retrace their 
steps by a compromise that is not honourable to either 
party. 
We believe there is a crisis in the state of the Society, 
and we advise them to weigh all things dispassionately 
before they come to any final decision about dealing 
with the difficulties. Let them not trust to our warn¬ 
ings, nor believe our assertions; but we ask them to 
inquire into these allegations. B. L. 
Being unable to recognize the sufficiency of either the 
j natural deviations from one original type, or the sub- 
; sequent effects of domestication and acclimatization to 
' account for the present distinct families of our domestic 
fowls, we are induced to ask the question whether these 
different families might not have been individually 
comprehended in the original species? Why might not 
the several properties and peculiarities of the Game fowl, 
the Polish, the Malay, the Shangliao, and the Bantam, 
have had form and existence in the earliest ages of the 
world ? 
It is obvious, that the reasons which would influence 
an opinion on this point must be rather of a negative 
than of a positive character. Thus, our first thought 
carries us to the Mosaical account of the Creation, and 
the narrative of the animals preserved in the Ark. 
Here, at any rate, we have nothing adverse to the 
supposition ; the male and female of each kind cannot, 
we think, be limited to a single species, but may fairly 
175 
be extended to the sub-divisions of that class, whether 
we call them families or races—but, might not the 
mention of the fowls taken in “ by sevens,” ( i. e., as 
commentators understand it, seven couples), confer a 
degree of positive evidence? Whether this, however, 
be so or not, it will hardly be contended that the idea of 
species, including families, even in the beginning of all 
things, is in any way opposed to the sacred records of 
the Creation. 
If reasoning by analogy, we now turn our attention 
to some of the more extensive species of the animal 
kingdom, the case of the Antelope tribe might, perhaps, 
be taken as representing a somewhat similar state to 
that of the domestic fowl in the light we are now 
regarding it. Recent accounts of the vast number of 
these animals inhabiting the districts of Southern 
Africa, detail distinctive features of the same character 
and importance in the eyes of the naturalist as are 
witnessed in the different families of fowls. We see in 
the Antelopes horns varying like combs; hair and fur 
of as many different textures and colours as feathers 
now present to us ; and the same with respect to both 
form and size. The denizens of a Caffrarian plain, 
universally recognized as distinct species, do not, in 
many instances, present so great a contrast as the 
Shanghae and Bantam, or the Game and the Silk fowl. 
But there is no hesitation in assigning these quadrupeds 
to distinct primitive parents; what greater difficulty, 
then, attends the hypothesis, that fowls might have had 
their parentage equally extensive ? presuming, be it 
remembered, that adequate reasons may appear wanting 
on behalf of the opinion that would assign them all to 
the narrow limits of a single pair. The doubts in our 
mind may be solved by the adoption of this theory, 
which seems in every wa.y reconcileable to Biblical 
history, and countenanced by the observation of the 
naturalist in other sections of the animal kingdom. 
The question of the probability of our domestic fowls 
owing their descent to the Bengal Jungle fowl ( Gallus 
Sonneratii), or any other of the wild Galli, which we 
proposed as a second subject for consideration, has been 
admirably treated in an article on “Poultry Literature,” 
in No. 88 of the Quarterly Review. 
Now, supposing that such a pedigree were authentic, 
might it not be expected that some traces of the various 
steps by which it was gradually brought about would 
be apparent in the native countries of the assumed 
original stock ; but this link is not merely wanting, but 
we have strong testimony to the contrary. Mr. Blyth, 
Curator to the Museum of the Asiatic Society, at Cal¬ 
cutta, tells us, that “ it is remarkable that the domestic 
poultry of India do not approximate to the wild race in 
any respect more closely than the common fowls of 
Europe; and I have sought in vain for traces of inter¬ 
mixture of Jungle fowl blood in districts where the 
species abound in a state of nature.” 
This, certainly, must be regarded as adverse to the 
Bengal Jungle fowl’s claim, for it is of this bird that 
Mr. Blyth is speaking; but he also says, in reference 
to the Gallus Sonneratii, which another naturalist, 
THE COTTAGE GARDENER. 
