

FANCIERS’ JOURNAL AND POULTRY EXCHANGE. 
75 

morning thoroughly, so that the droppings are excluded, 
and your fowls will be kept warm, healthy, and comfort- 
| able. 
In a future article we will treat on the game fowl. 
Tuomas S. ARMSTRONG. 

TRENTON, N. J. 
i 
AT a meeting of the Executive Committee of Wisconsin 
| State Poultry Association, held at Milwaukee, January 7th, 
| 1874, it was decided to hold an exhibition of poultry, pigeons, 
pet stock, &c., in the city of Milwaukee, Wisconsin, Feb. 
| 17th, 18th, 19th, and 20th, 1874. Competition open to the 
world. 
| P. A. VAN VRANKEN. 
Wauwatosa, WIs., Jan. 8th, 1874. 

(For Fanciers’ Journal.) 
MATCHING AND MATING. 
As I understand these words, Mr. Hditor, there isin many 
| cases a wide difference, and yet in many cases they areina 
| measure synonymous. Rather let me say, sometimes in 
| matching for exhibition and matching for breeding, the 
| same pair or trio of fowls may be used and sometimes not. 
| Now, is this a fault in the fowls or the breed, or is it a 
| fault in the standard, which requires such matching ina pen 
| as will destroy the same pen, so far as breeding is concerned ? 
| It seems to me to be in the latter. 
| To make the matter plainer let us take a case. 
trio of Plymouth Rocks; they are ready matched for exhi- 
bition, dark pullets and dark cockerel. But I dare not 
breed from a trio mated like this. True, it will bring me 
nice cockerels, but more thun one-half probably of my pul- 
lets will be pure black. In fact this is about the only way to 
produce the exhibition cockerel. Now to breed exhibition 
pullets, I must mate differently. Here I must put with my 
same hens a light cock or cockerel, and I will get fine pul- 
lets, but all the cocks will come light. Thus to insure success 
for exhibition, I am compelled to undergo double expense, 
and be burdened with double care and trouble, in breeding 
from two pens, because matching and proper mating do not 
agree. 
This is true, not only of this variety, but also of many 
others. Philander Williams, of Massachusetts, whose ex- 
perience as a breeder and character as a man are unques- 
tioned, wrote me a year ago as follows: ‘‘ Most of our ex- 
perienced breeders of Partridge Cochins are of the opinion 
that brown in the breast and fluff of a Partridge Cochin 
cock is no objection to him as a breeder, such cocks pro- 
ducing the best marked pullets.”? My own limited experi- 
ence in this matter would fully confirm, so far as it goes, 
the assertion of Mr. Williams. But what body of judges 
would for a moment think of looking on a pen of Partridge 
Cochins in an exhibition favorably, if the cock were mottled 
with brown on the breast. 
The same is true of light Brahmas. There are very few 
exibition trios, or pairs, and particularly premium birds, 
which an experienced breeder would care to breed from as 
matched for the show-room, simply because he knows that 
as the birds are matched a large percentage of the progeny 
would be not only imperfect but badly marked birds. 
I urge no objection to the present plan and the present 
standard, because we are getting around and behind the de- 
fects by offering premiums for single birds, thus permitting 
I have a. 

the stock breeder to mate for himself. But were we to ad- 
here to the old plan of trios, it does seem to me that it would 
be well to extend the premium list, particularly in those cases 
where matching and mating do not agree, *and offer pre- 
miums, say for best mated pairs or trios for breeding pul- 
lets, and for best mated pairs or trios for breeding cockerels. 
This plan would enlist in our ranks not only the present 
fanciers, but also many other scientific stock-breeders who 
are not properly embraced within what is known as ‘the 
fancy.” It would of course somewhat increase the ex- 
penses of premium lists, &c., but its effect would be to bring 
in a new and interested class of breeders who do not now 
grace the show-room with their presence. 
An Na, 
Lock Haven, Pa. 

(For Fanciers’ Journal.) 
““PEA-COMB PARTRIDGE COCHINS.” 
In a recent number of a poultry journal, I saw an account 
of a breed of Asiatics, of the “‘ Partridge cochin ” variety, in 
possession of C. H. Edmonds, of Melrose, Mass., that it 
strikes me is new, if he has established this breed per- 
manently. 
It is stated that he has no fowls or eggs for sale at present, 
but the account given is interesting to fanciers of the large 
Chinese fowls; since, with the Brahmas, the ‘“ pea-comb,”’ 
upon the dark or light varieties, is now a sine qua non among 
breeders, and single combed birds of those varieties are dis- 
qualified for competition in our exhibition-rooms. Has Mr. 
Edmonds originated the pea-combed Partridge Cochins? 
In brief, it is stated that he obtained three years ago a few 
choice Partridge Cochins, which were chickens, the first re- 
move from stock imported from England; two or three of 
which, upon maturing, showed the pea-comb distinctly de- 
veloped. 
He bred this trio together, set all the eggs, got a good lot 
of chicks (a majority of which were cocks, however), the 
first year, selected from these, all pea-combed, a fresh lot, 
bred them the second year with continued success, and last 
year went on again, breeding back with the original stock, 
until he now has a fine lot of birds for the coming year, all 
perfectly marked with the pea-comb in both sexes; whose 
size, form, color, and other characteristics of these at present 
coveted large fowls are described as very superior. 
The Partridge Cochin has hitherto been bred only with the 
single upright seriated comb, within my knowledge; and the 
‘¢standard of excellence’? provides this mark as a qualifica- 
tion, if I remember rightly. Howabout the pea-comb upon 
this variety? If it be established, is it an improvement in 
this fowl? And what becomes of Wright’s theory upon 
this subject, in his ‘‘ Monograph of the Brahma Fowl?” Is 
this variety really new? If so, and if like will produce its 
like (as in the case of the Brahmas in this particular), why 
hasn’t Mr. Edmonds got a ‘‘ good thing ”’ in his ‘* Pea-comb 
Partridge Cochins ?’’ baeGe 
New York, January, 1874. 

(For the Fanciers’ Journal.) 
INSIDE TUMBLERS, 
TuEsE beautiful birds have been my study for at least 
fifteen years past, and I think, without exaggerating, they 
are the most interesting of the whole pigeon family. The 
very fact of having birds that cannot reach a fence four feet 
