FANCIERS’ 

JOURNAL AND POULTRY 
EXCHANGE. 403 

to judge it more leniently ; though even then our opinion 
could not have been favorable. As it is, the impression 
produced by its perusal is, that its merits are those of its 
predecessor, while the worst of its imperfections are its own; 
and we trust it will serve as a warning to English fanciers, 
in seeking to build up those standards which all of us so 
much desire to see, to proceed in a larger spirit, to express 
opinion—in the earlier stages at least—with more modesty, 
and to take more time. To our American brethren our 
advice is, to settle first who are their best judges; to employ 
these as frequently as possible, in order thereby to obtain a 
body of consistent awards, which will practically and in the 
best way gradually make a standard of itself; and then 
finally, by patient collation and analysis, reduce their opin- 
ions and practice to a tabular form, caring nothing whether 
or not that form suits the ‘‘ views” of any Convention in 
the world. By so doing, there will be less danger of such 
gigantic labors resulting in the little animal known to natu- 
ralists as a ridiculus mus.—Fanciers’ Gazette. 

THE NEW STANDARD. 
Epitor FANCIERS’ JOURNAL: 
I was much surprised when I received the new standard 
not to find my favorites, the Pigeons, mentioned at all. I 
am sure, Mr. Editor, they ought to have a place in the new 
standard, for it takes by far more trouble to raise a fine pair 
of pigeons, that are perfect in marking, than it does for 
fowls, and they command much higher prices. It is not 
uncommon for me to get $150 for a good pair of pigeons, 
and it is seldom fowls reach one-third this price. It is not 
for the value of the birds, but I think that pigeons, rabbits, 
fish, and song birds ought to have their place in the so-called 
standard, so that fanciers will know what to breed up to. 
It certainly ought not to be for fowls alone. I was present 
at the Convention when the new standard was adopted, but 
people were not allowed admission to the almighty sanctum 
without paying their $3.00. I did not intend to say anything 
about the new standard, but it has proved such a failure that 
I thought it best to express myself in the matter. 
EXHIBITION. 
From long experience I am decidedly opposed to holding 
exhibitions from six to eight days in length. It is entirely 
too long to keep fowls confined, especially when they are in 
small coops, and not properly cared for and fed. Under any 
circumstances I think three days is long enough ; add to this 
two days in transit, going and returning to the show, which 
makes five days’ confinement. 1 am also decidedly opposed 
to sawdust being put in the coops, especially of the pigeons, 
which I think injures them very much; and I have no 
doubt but many of them die from eating sawdust with their 
food, and drinking from cups half filled with sawdust and 
water. 
GUELPH POULTRY SHOW (CANADA). 
We had a poultry show at the above place the past winter, | 
and I must say that all the stock was properly cared for, and 
was returned from the show in as good condition as when 
received. We used oat chaff in the coops, which we found 
much better than sawdust or other material commonly used. 
SHOW COOPS. 
T also wish to call the attention of the committees, espe- 
cially at Buffalo and Boston, to the fact that coops for Pou- 
ters and Fantails ought to be much larger than for Toy 
birds; in fact, to show a first-class pair of Pouters the coop 
ought to be as large as for fowls. 
Hoping you will excuse me for taking up so much room 
in your valuable journal, I remain, 
Respectfully yours, ALBERT GoOEBLE, 

MITCHELL, ONTARIO, CANADA. 




Pouttry Department: 
CLEAN-LEGGED BUFF COCHINS. 
A correspondent says, in reply to our Winnsboro’, S. C. 
friend, that ‘the clean-limbed Cochins of all colors, Buff 
included, have been bred very largely in former days.” 
Tegetmeier (in 1867) describes Mr. Sturgeon’s famous im- 
portation of Buff Cochins of 1848, which were very ‘“ early 
birds’? in modern Cochin history. Mr. Sturgeon says: 
“All our birds came from Shanghai, China, and at first 
were all heavily feathered upon the legs.”’ Subsequently, 
Mr. Robert Fortune says (page 39): ‘“‘ The Shanghais occur 
both with feathered and unfeathered legs, but more fre- 
quently unfeathered. Iam safe in adding,’ he continues, 
‘that the Chinese do not attach so much importance as we 
(Englishmen) do to purity of color, &c., and they are not 
particularly careful in the management of their poultry.” 
The Queen’s Cochin Chinas (1843 to 1850), bred with almost 
uniformly clean limbs, as our correspondent Mr. G. P. 
Burnham lately stated; and he had a large experience with 
that importation in 1848 to 1855. 
The requirements of both the British. and American 
standards, have, of late years, made heavily feathered legs 
on ‘‘Cochins’’ (now so called) of all colors imperative in 
shows; and, though it is not uncommon to see exceptions to 
this rule even nowadays, still, the ‘‘ Buff Cochins,” how- 
ever otherwise finely pointed, would to-day be ‘ disquali- 
fied’’ in competition by judges at our exhibitions, if the 
legs were devoid of ‘‘ heavy feathering to the toes.” 
It must be remembered that the so-called ‘* Cochins” of 
our time, and the ‘‘Shanghais ” of the early days, are iden- 
tical in origin. The original Queen’s ‘‘ Cochin Chinas,” 
though sent to her Majesty from Shanghai, direct (in 1843) 
by the British Minister resident there, were clean-limbed. 
But, no one has ever yet given any good reason why they 
should have been ealled ‘* Cochin China,”’ since all authori- 
ties agree that these fine fowls never saw the province of 
Cochin China. On the other hand, the famous Bailies’ 
importation into Massachusetts from Shanghai, in 1846 
(said to have come from Cochin China at that time), were 
smooth-legged; but the progeny from these birds came 
partly feathered at first on the legs, and in the third year, 
and afterwards, most of the strain were heavily feathered to 
the toes, as was the case (very similarly) in the Massachu- 
setts Cushing importation in 1858, from Shanghai. 
Mr. Burnham contributes to the Massachusetts Ploughman 
in 1850, the following remarks on this subject, which will 
apply now as clearly as at that period. He says: “All my 
imported Shanghais (and I have three different varieties 
from different sources) are heavily feathered upon the legs. 
My Royal ‘Cochins’ are all smooth-legged, and though 
