FANCIERS’ 
JOURNAL 
AND 
POULTRY EXCHANGE. 
VoL... 
PHILADELPHIA, APRIL 16, 1874. 


(For Fanciers’ Journal.) 
REMINISCENCES OF THE ‘HEN FEVER.” 
BY GEO. P. BURNHAM. 
A friend sends me a copy of the new ‘‘American Standard 
of Excellence.” 
After a careful examination of the contents of this little 
work, I am not surprised at meeting with various sharp 
criticisms upon its merits and defects, in your columns and 
in other leading poultry journals. 
In my judgment too much is attempted in this “‘ standard,”’ 
and I clearly coincide in opinion with one of your corre- 
spondents, ‘‘W;”’ first, that ‘there was no need of this 
(so-called) thorough revision of the previous American 
Standard ;”’ secondly, that ‘the history of such theoretical 
standards does not offer much encouragement to the mass of 
fanciers and breeders ;’’ thirdly, that the utter ‘ worthless- 
ness of all standards made upon the false basis of controlling 
the judges in their arbitrations,’’ by fixed technical rules, is 
apparent; and finally, that the new standard, being the 
result of but three days’ labor, it could not, of course, be 
what it purports to be, namely, anything approaching ‘a 
thorough revision ;”’ or, at best, in this brief time, much of 
an improvement upon former attempts in this direction. 
Take a single example of the additions made to the list of 
“ distinct breeds’ of fowls in this standard, for which pre- 
miums are to be awarded at American poultry exhibitions 
hereafter, to wit: the “Plymouth Rocks,” which variety 
are, in this work, for the first time I think, recognized asa 
breed. 
Now, no one pretends that this fowl is a distinct breed (or 
variety), as are the Games, the Cochins, the Black Spanish, 
&c. It is simply a cross, no doubt a very good one, but still 
only a mixture of two or three strains of established blood, 
which, being bred from, among themselves, must inevitably 
go back to the original blood. While the originator of this 
stock breeds from the parent strains, he can produce average 
good birds, to which he may appropriately give this (or any 
other) chosen name. But the man who purchases the pro- 
geny of him as ‘‘ Plymouth Rocks,” and breeds them together 
in the expectation that he will get chickens (beyond the first 
generation subsequently) like the fowls he buys, is destined 
to disappointment. And this kind of fowl is recognized in 
our new “American Standard of Excellence”’ as a distinct 
breed of poultry! 
I have not a word of fault to find with the bird alluded 
to. Itisa good one. I have said this before in one of my 
articles sent you. But I say now, that the recognition of 
any known cross of fowls, as a specific variety, by such 
authority as our American Standard ought to be, is a palpa- 
ble error; and I apprehend that we shall very shortly learn, 
from the other side of the water, how ridiculous such assum p- 
tions are in the estimation of clever breeders and good fan- 
ciers in England. 

Years ago, in the early days of the poultry mania in 
America, after the societies and clubs in Great Britain had 
put forth their original standard, the subject of adopting 
this in the first New England Association was bruited. 
Then it was tinkered, ‘‘improved upon,” ‘‘revised,’’ Ameri- 
canized, and—went into the tomb of the Capulets. 
Dr. Bennett, Miner, Devereaux, Capt. Williams, Plaisted, 
Colonel Jacques, Hatch, Cornish, Childs, Ad. White, Dr. 
Wight, Alden, Buckminster, Burnham—et id omne—all had 
breeds of fowls which they had manufactured, first or last, 
which each insisted was better, finer, handsomer, larger, or 
more prolific than other people’s fowls, and to which each 
owner gave an original name. 
I remember, for instance, the original “ Plymouth Rocks ”’ 
of those days, the ‘‘ Fawn-colored Dorkings,” the ‘Chitta- 
prats,’’ the ‘*Wild Indians,” the ‘“Wild Indian Games,” the, 
‘« Hong Kongs,”’ the ‘‘ Prince Alberts,”’ the ‘ Burampootet 
and many other crosses that were in the early years tiirned 
out ‘for a market,” until their name became ‘legion; and 
the purposes of the standard were entirely annulled, pecanike 
everybody was bent upon getting the name of his mongrel 
cross into the list as a pure breed. The consequence was that 
the standard was ignored, and every one bred and crossed 
and named his stock to suit his own fancy, until the first 
decadence commenced, which resulted finally in earning for 
the chicken trade the title of humbug for years afterward 
prior to the war. 
Subsequently, when the interest in poultry breeding re- 
vived (after 1865~-’66), a new impetus was given to this 
trade, and since then we have gone on improving our oppor- 
tunity, and enhancing the value of domestic fowls in this 
country immensely. The English standard was for a time 
adopted again. Then it was “improved,” ‘ revised,” and 
‘adopted’? to our needs and requirements in this coun- 
try. But this» was only short-lived. The original issue 
of the American work, as ‘‘W”’ states, ‘died in its infancy 
from its own inherent weakness.’’ The second edition 
served but a temporary and unsatisfactory purpose, and was 
of but small account, as we all know. And now we have 
the new one, prefaced with a list of arbitrary instructions to 
govern judges at our shows; a dictum which would kill it 
dead at sight if there were no other weighty objections to 
much of the arrangement of this last ‘‘ revision.’ 
Individually this subject is of little account with me. I 
long since graduated in the show business. I put no fowls 
into the exhibition rooms of late years. JI have been there, 
however, and my fowls have carried off the palm so often, 
and in so satisfactory a manner, that I am now content to 
see others enjoy the sport, and the cost of this operation. 
But this (‘standard ’’ matter is one of large interest to the 
fancier and breeder everywhere who goes for fine points, 
and who intends to become a competitor at our exhibitions. 
When the recent Buffalo Convention held its sessions upon 
this important subject, therefore, it was hoped and expected 
