FANCIERS’ 
JOURNAL AND POULTRY: EXCHANGH. 
373 

from Shanghai, China.” My second lot of Light Grays 
were procured in 1850, through Wm. T. Porter, Esq., 
editor of the New York Snirit of the Times, from on board 
a ship at New York, direct from Shanghai, China. I then 
had other Chinese fowls of different colors, but these last 
were light gray. What else cowld I properly call them, 
but what I did, viz.: ‘Gray Shanghais.” 
And here let me quote what Dr. Gwynne, of England, 
says: ‘IT obtained of Dr. Bennett, of the United States, 
five pairs of these birds. Three of these ten fowls only had 
compressed pea-combs; in none of the others was this found, 
nor could I recognize in them anything but what could be 
‘found in the Shanghai birds. I had several communica- 
tions from Dr. Bennett, and in reply to all my inquiries, 
directed to learn the cause of naming as ‘a new breed,’ 
birds, most of which were essentially Shanghais, in shape 
and character, I could gather no information but that the 
difference of color between these and other Shanghais pre- 
cluded their being thus classed; but I cannot accept this as 
adequate proof of ‘Brahma-Pootras’ being a ‘new breed,’ 
and therefore prefer the conclusion that they are identical 
‘with the Shanghais, and only a new variety of that fowl. 
Another circumstance which confirms me in this view, as 
to the identity of these birds with the Shanghai breed, is 
the fact that the fowls recently presented to her Majesty, 
‘by Mr. Geo. P. Burnham, under the name of Gray Shang- 
hais, are admitted by Dr. Bennett to be precisely similar to 
his own, and Mr. Burnham assures me that the original 
stock from which the ‘Gray Shanghais,’ presented to her 
Majesty were bred, was imported by himself, through Dr. 
Kerr, of Philadelphia, direct from Shanghai.’? Did Mr. 
Lewis Wright find it convenient or useful to place this 
square, clear evidence about me and my fowls, (written by 
Dr. Gwynne in 1852) in his poultry book? Not much! 
Thus I continued to designate my fowls, long years after 
Dr. Bennett fixed ‘‘ Brahma-Pootra’’ first, and then 
‘‘Brahma’”’ for his birds, though at that very time (1852) 
Dr. Bennett voluntarily wrote Dr. Gwynne, as above, which 
was the ¢rwe statement, but which I do not find in Mr. 
Wright’s account. 
Observe, J did not say this. Mr. Tegetmeier did not say 
so; but this was Dr. J. C. Bennett’s own account, published 
from him direct, in Tegetmeier’s early editions of his 
‘«Tllustrated Poultry Book; see page 177, indorsed by 
Dr. Gwynne, himself; yet, notwithstanding this patent fact, 
Mr. Lewis Wright goes out of his way in the extract ‘ F. 
R. W.”’ furnishes, to assert that ‘‘ Dr. Bennett got his stock 
from Connecticut ’’—meaning from Cornish, I presume. I 
do not know but he did. What I believe, is that it was all 
originally bred from my stock, though thus variously 
named; and Mr. Cornish himself (see his letter) called his 
fowls ‘‘ Chittagongs’’ (not Brahmas) at first, because they 
so nearly resembled the large gray fowls (mine) then bred 
in this country—so he says—and under which very name 
Dr. Kerr sent me my /irst ones from Philadelphia. ' 
Now, who knew best, at that time, where Bennett’s fowls 
came from? Dr. Bennett, or Mr. Wright? The former 
being the man who sent the fowls to England; who raised 
this question about a name for them; who says in 1852, 
mine and his were the same; the latter in London, simply 
uttering an ipse dixit, based on the Cornish letter, which 
does not mention Dr. Bennett either. Now, herein lies the 
utter inconsistency of Mr. Wright’s theory, to wit: He 
took for granted that what Mr. Cornish meant (not what 

he said) was that his fowls were ‘* Brahmas ;”’ but this was 
not true. Neither Mr. Cornish, Mr. Chamberlin, nor “the 
sailor who reported he had found some light gray fowls”’ 
(see the Cornish letter) then said anything about these 
being ‘‘ Brahmas.’’ This name, at that time, had not been 
decided upon by anybody, and Mr. Wright cannot find it 
so used at all anywhere (in 1852) at the time when he 
undertakes to prove his position by quoting Cornish’s let- 
ter. This is very unfair, to say the least of it; but, which- 
ever way it was, surely J had nothing whatever to do with 
all this. I neither suggested, made, approved, used, or 
adopted this name of ‘‘ Brahma-Pootra” or Brahma for my 
fowls—never; yet Mr. Wright distinctly asserts that ‘‘ Mr. 
Cornish’s statement was published long before Mr. Burn- 
ham’s,’’ and that ‘‘Burnham might have bred some very 
good imitation Brahmas,’’ etc. ; when it is so well known, 
and always has been, and I am surprised Mr. Wright did 
not see this, that I had never claimed, or asserted at any 
time, anywhere—in those years—that I ever imported, 
bought, bred, owned, or sold any fowls known as ‘‘ Brahma- 
Pootra.’? Never, Mr. Wright! and you can not find it in 
the published records anywhere, prior to the late war— 
unless you have so written it yourself. 
Now let us see. My fowls—which led the world of poul- 
try then—were steadily and uniformly called by me, what 
they were— Gray Shanghais ;’’ please notice. But, because 
they were the finest and best ; because they were the original 
American birds of this general character, color, and class; 
because all England and America were ordering my ‘birds 
like those sent to the Queen,’’ which Dr. Kerr called “ Chit- 
tagong,’’ and I called ‘Gray Shanghai,” (never ‘‘ Brahma’’) 
Mr. Cornish first called his fowls Chittagong, as he himself 
states in his letter; and Dr. Bennett (who called his fowls 
“ Brahma-Pootras’’ then) finding my stock so popular, at 
once declares to Dr. Gwynne that his fowls and Mr. Burn- 
ham's of the United States (mot Cornish’s) are precisely 
similar; a fact occurring at about the time when Mr. Cor- 
nish’s letter appears, which I think explains itself. 
Will Mr. Wright inform us if Cornish’s stock was the 
original true bird; why Bennett did not go back and call 
his fowls ‘Chittagongs,”’ as Cornish and Chamberlin 
named their fowls? (See Cornish’s letter again.) Keep 
the fact in mind, that I never had anything to do with 
naming any fowls for Cornish, for Chamberlin, for Bennett, 
or for any body on earth—except my own. I named that 
stock after the Chinese port whence they came, only, to 
wit—Shanghai; and Gray, because I then bred the Buff, 
Partridge, Black, Red, &c. ; and this was their true name, 
simply to distinguish them from the others. Had I the 
right so to name my own property, or not? 
Now I consider Mr Wright a good writer, and no doubt 
he isan honorable man. I never have, and never shall 
‘fling mud” at him. I never wrote a word against him 
or his theory before; but, now I propose to make a clean 
thing of it, in my poor way —though I cannot conceive why 
he thus devotes so many pages in his poultry book to abuse 
me, who never uttered one word in my life, up to the date 
of his book, which he thus wrongfully imputes to me about 
‘¢ Brahma’’ fowls. 
Here is where the trouble is. The premises of Mr. 
Wright were utterly without foundation, inasmuch as I 
never then claimed that I originated ‘‘ Brahmas.’”’ I never 
had ought to do with praising the ‘“ Brahma” fowl. I 
always opposed this bald nonsense, and would never permit 
