402 
FANCIERS’ JOURNAL AND POULTRY EXCHANGE. 

fornia, imbued with the independence of character which 
these men well understood, that which has been publicly 
charged upon them, as the work of a ‘clique’ or ‘ring?’ ” 
Mr. Burnham repeatedly tells us that he is unbiased, a 
thing I am ready to grant; but when he gives as the reason 
for that the fact that he is not any more an exhibitor or 
competitor, it is well for us in considering his fitness for a 
leader in the ‘‘ new departure ”’ to see what is the real weight 
of such reason. For my own part, I prefer intrusting the 
work of a standard to men who are up with the times, men 
who fave an ‘‘axe to grind”’ incoming to the front as breed- 
ers of to-day, of fowls as they are now, not the antiquated 
mongrels of twenty or thirty years ago, and these with other 
men who breed the same varieties, fix according to what 
modern experience has taught them, will fill the wants of the 
present generation. The fact of a man having bred birds, 
and imported and exported them, and produced a ‘hen 
fever,’’ and written books thereupon successfully when there 
were comparatively few varieties, and when poultry breeding 
as it is now was unknown, is no reason, my young fancier 
friend of to-day, for discarding the action of those who are 
up with the times, and who are ready to be judged by their 
fruits. 
We must have some better reasons, I think, for the ‘‘ New 
Departure.”’ 
J. C. Hiecins. 
JUNE 15th, 1874. 
a 

NEW AMERICAN POULTRY STANDARD. 
BY L. WRIGHT. 
Havine carefully examined this work, we regret to say, 
that of the two, we think it somewhat worse than the old 
one, which was founded on Mr. Tegetmeier’s. We have at 
different times freely criticised that gentleman’s scales, and 
we elsewhere, in this week’s Gazette, have said what we 
think of ‘fixing ’’ values of points at all, ctherwise than by 
patient analysis of good judging; but at least his values 
were carefully considered, and his descriptions were care- 
fully drawn upon a uniform plan, and had some claim to 
consistency. The present ‘“standard,’? now before us, on 
the contrary, has most of the vices of a ‘‘scale’’ empirically 
fixed—robbed of many.of its merits; being framed in what 
we consider the very worst manner possible. First of all 
a convention appears to have been called, to which all soci- 
eties in America were invited to send delegates; but, on 
the arrival of these delegates—so far as we can gather— 
they were required each to pay three dollars, and join the 
so-called ‘‘ American Poultry Association,” or they were 
thenceforth excluded from the Convention. Now, we have 
nothing to urge against an American Association—which 
may be avery good thing if properly managed and well 
supported—but such was no longer in any sense of the word | 
a convention of fanciers, but became at once a close corpor- 
ation of less than one hundred names. We observe that 
one apologist draws a parallel between this method of pro- 
ceeding and membership of State societies, or entry fees at 
shows. ‘‘One must pay,’ he says, ‘“‘or he cannot show his 
fowls; must buy a ticket, or he cannot get in.”” The com- 
parison is vicious, and we hope, essentially false ; for, in the 
case supposed payment is made simply for certain individual 
privileges, not in any sense for responding to an invitation 
for assistance in passing public laws. If the new standard 
is meant for the private benefit of its framers, the comparison 
holds good, and not else; but we cannot suppose this is 

meant. Then, finally, the different breeds were given over 
to sub-committees, who drew up and reported their various 
standards, and the consequence is, the want of any unity of 
plan or execution in the work. Lastly, from some neglect 
or other, the new standard swarms with errors—the result 
of a most slovenly carelessness in revision. 
We should have expressed our disapproval in less decided 
terms, but that the work opens with two pages of the most 
ridiculous ‘‘ Instructions to Judges’? we have ever seen. 
They ~ begin by saying: ‘The Association instructs its 
judges in applying the scale of points, that they each and 
severally test the merits of the fowls by a close examina- 
tion and exact enumeration of the points.” They go on 
with most minute directions for deducting so many points 
per pound, as regards size; and they close with the words, 
‘‘ All judges applying this standard, are positively instructed 
to adhere strictly to the foregoing rules.’? Such pretensions 
as these, put forth by any body of men, would be resented 
by all competent judges, not one of whom would submit to 
such dictation; and we should always suspect, and test with 
some severity, any work introduced in such an arrogant 
manner, 
In giving one or two details, it would not be fair to fasten 
on such as present views admittedly different from English 
ideas; such for instance, as describing the back of a Light 
Brahma as ‘“‘rather long.’”’ But when we find dark and 
light described in totally different terms, and the various 
parts taken in different order—the light cock being taken 
in the order of tail, legs, toes, and fluff; while the dark fol- 
lows the enumeration of tail, thighs, fluff, legs, toes—it is a 
fair example, from the very first breed mentioned, of the 
want of unity and consistence we have mentioned; and we 
are not surprised that both leg-feather and shape of the tail 
in the two breeds are described in quite different terms, nor 
to find the wings of the light cock, on the very first page, 
described in the following remarkable manner: ‘* Primaries 
closely folded under the secondaries, the bows of the same 
being covered by the breast feathers, the bow and coverts (!) 
being white on the outside web and black on the inside web, 
the whole being nicely folded in’a point under the saddle- 
feathers.’’ It is only needful to consider what the wing- 
bow and coverts are, to appreciate the many beauties of this 
description. As further examples of error, we note that the 
plumage of Dominiques and Plymouth Rocks, which are 
identical, is described in radically different terms; that the 
plumage of the Spanish cock is described as black with a 
green lustre, and of the hen as black with a reddish lus- 
tre (!) on the back and wings; and that among disqual- 
ifications in Black Bantams, such trifling matters as single 
combs or legs of the wrong color are omitted. 
As a type of the grave omissions, we may instance that 
the only color that might exist in Buff Cochins, so far as 
this standard is concerned, is “ clear deep Buff’’; the beauti- 
ful Lemons, Silvers, and Cinnamons being quite ignored. 
A bad specimen of the errors obviously arising from over- 
sight, and not intentional—we admit it is one of the worst 
specimens—is the description of the Black Bantam cock’s 
comb as “the top covered with [small points, with] a peak 
behind, turning slightly upwards;’* where the words we 
have inserted in brackets are evidently omitted. 
The assumption of authority with which this standard is 
put forth of itself challenges a more rigid scrutiny than we ° 
might otherwise have given. Had it been offered as an 
unassuming effort at improvement, we might have striven 
