438 
FANCIERS’ JOURNAL AND POULTRY EXCHANGE. 

(For Fanciers’ Journal.) 
“ BRAHMA-POOTRAS,” OR ‘‘BRAHMAS.” 
In a recent number, your correspondent ‘F. R. W.”’ cites 
a long article from Lewis Wright’s Poultry Book about the 
‘origin of the Brahma-Pootras,’’ and this name. The per- 
sonal strictures in that lengthy extract upon Mr. Burnham, 
I think are highly prejudiced, as well as unwarranted, and 
are not in Mr. Wright’s usual clever vein. Your own re- 
marks (accompanying ‘‘ F. R. W.’s” article) seem to point 
to the fact that Pennsylvania, and not Connecticut, is entitled 
to the honor of originating the stock, which was subsequently 
bred by Mr. Burnham in Massachusetts, from which come 
the so-called ‘‘ Brahmas”’ of late years. I think there is no 
doubt of this—and I was confirmed in this opinion many 
years ago, from the following important facts, but partially 
stated in your editorial alluded to; which may easily be veri- 
fied by referring to the original and still existing authorities, 
from which I quote. 
Dr. Bennett’s first edition of his ‘‘ Poultry Book” was 
published in Boston, in 1850. A second edition came out 
(with appendix) in 1851, as you say. In both editions of 
his work appear very good illustrations, on separate pages, 
‘drawn from life in 1849, by Durivage,”’ of Mr. Burnham’s 
Gray Shanghais (as he culled them), but there called ‘ Chit- 
tagongs’’ by Dr. Bennett. Of these noble birds, Dr. Ben- 
nett says (see pages 26, 27, 28), ‘‘ This fowl, so remarkable 
for size and beauty, is placed first among domestic varieties. 
The specimens from which these portraits here presented were 
taken, are in possession of George P. Burnham, Esq., and 
were obtained by him from ‘ Asa Rugg’ (Dr. J. J. Kerr), 
of Kensington, near Philadelphia. They are, as near as may 
be, perfect samples, and excite astonishment and admiration 
in ail fowl fanciers who behold them.” In the Appendix to 
this work (on page 310), Dr. Bennett adds, some months swb- 
sequently, ‘* It will be observed that the descriptions in this 
work begin with Mr. Burnham’s imperial Chittagongs.”’ 
On page 306, Dr. Bennett says: ‘‘I have myself lately re- 
ceived from Mr. Rugg (Dr. Kerr) some very superiar speci- 
mens—of which he writes me: ‘ They are quite equal to Mr. 
Burnham’s.’ That isenough,” adds Dr. B. ‘' To have said 
more would have been a work of supererogation.”’ 
The above I extract from Dr. Bennett’s book, issued in 
1850-’51. Now, in 1869, Mr. Cornish says, in a letter to 
Mr. Weld, ‘‘ My Brahma fowls were exhibited in 1850, as 
‘ Chittagongs’ at Boston, when the name (Brahma) was estab- 
lished.”’? Mr. Wright says: ‘‘ Cornish originated the Brah- 
ma fowl, no¢ Mr. Burnham ;’’ and elsewhere Mr. Wright 
says, in his book, that ‘‘ Dr. Bennett and Mr. Cornish fostered 
and bred” these fowls from the outset, and ‘ Dre Bennett 
was a great admirer of the Brahmas, from the very start, 
got his stock from Cornish,” &c. 
According to Tegetmeier (in 1853), in Rev. Mr. Wingate’s 
elegant work on poultry, Dr. Bennett that year sent to Dr. 
W. C. Gwynne, in England, some of his first stock; and 
Dr. B. writes to Dr. Gwynne, ‘ Mr. Burnham's fowls and mine 
(Bennett’s) are precisely similar.” 
Now the real facts are that Dr. Bennett bought of Mr. 
Burnham the very old gray pair that Dr. Kerr sent to Burn- 
ham from Philadelphia in 1849, three years before this! Dr. 
B. bred them, and in 1851 or 1852, exhibited chickens from 
them; which were the first Brahmas, or then called “ Bur- 
rampooters’’ (see Report of Shaw), ever shown in the world. 
If this name was established in 1850 (as Mr. Wright makes 
Cornish say, in 1869, though in 1852 Mr. Cornish himself 

then calls them ‘‘ Chittagongs,”’ in his original letter), why 
did not Dr. Bennett, in his Poultry Book in 1850-’51, illus- 
trate and describe these fowls of Cornish’s? Dr. B. does 
not mention the word Cornish, ‘‘ Burrampooter,”’ ‘‘ Brahma 
Pootra,”’ or ‘“ Brahma,” in his entire book! Why not? 
Mr. Wright says, he ‘‘was an enthusiastic admirer of 
Brahmas,” and ‘got his stock of Cornish.’’ Cornish says, 
this ‘‘name was established in 1850.’? How can this be 
“correct history ?”’? If these fine fowls had been known as 
Brahmas in 1850, when Bennett (who loved them so dearly, 
according to Wright), wrote and published his deserip- 
tions of Burnham’s stock and others—would not Dr. Ben- 
nett have been likely to know something of the existence 
of Mr. Cornish, or his fowls, and gladly have then de- 
scribed them? I think this is clear; and I have never yet 
seen this important point brought forward! It certainly 
cannot be true that this ‘‘ Brahma’’ name was established 
in 1850. Probably Mr. Cornish meant 1852, or later—for 
he says himself, in his first published letter, March 2, 1852, 
that they were originally called ‘‘ Chittagong.” At that time 
Mr. Burnham had been breeding the light gray birds, which 
he always called ‘Gray Shanghais,’’ I believe, for several 
years, according to Dr. Bennett’s authority. 
Mr. Wright is very clearly at fault in this respect—and 
his statement in his ‘‘ Brahma Fowl,’’ that ‘‘ the first pair of 
Cornish fowls ever bred came into Connecticut in 1849,’’ con- 
tradicts his witness Cornish also; who says, in 1869, that 
the fowls came in 1846! Mr. Wright’s theory about this 
question seems to be the worst thing he ever tried to prove, 
with the conflicting testimony he has thus far produced ! 
While I think no poultry man in America, at least, ever put 
any faith in the stupid ‘sailor’s story ;’’ and the statement 
of “FF. R. W.” that Mr. Wright is acknowledged to be 
the best living authority on this breed of fowls, is simply 
ridiculous. How could he, three thousand mites away, know 
anything on this subject of origin except what he reads or 
hears about from this side of the water? Hees; 
WORCESTER, Mass. 

(For Fanciers’ Journal.) 
GAPE REMEDY. 
Mr. Eprror: After trying several experiments on gapes, 
I recommended the following in a circular on disease, and 
as many others have tried it and report success, especially so 
with young turkeys, it may be interesting to some readers of 
the Journal. Take a box or basket, if the latter, cover the 
bottom with paper, and put in dry slaked lime and flour of 
sulphur, then put the chicks into it (the more the better), 
and cover the top with a cloth of any kind; and shake the 
box or basket a few moments until they inhale the dust, then 
give them liberty. Care must be taken not to continue long 
enough to strangle them. A second performance is some- 
times necessary. 
A. C. HuNsBERGER. 
PORTLAND, Pa., June 20, 1874. 
N. B. I have just received a fine young pair of hawks; 
if any one knows anything about the sport of hawking, or 
training hawks, please let us have it through the columns 
of the Journal. Ad Cro: 

RAISING TURKEYS. 
It does not cost any more, or much more, to raise a pound 
of turkey than a pound of hen flesh. In the summer they re 
quire to be fed less, being masterly campaigners on their 
