; QDPOWOO WP PEG SPEDSBOVOS 3

¢ LIBRARY OF CONGRESS. ¢
grag

al aye. - {opy tight No.

é° re
Shelf : BIS

SOD

DOSS

é UNITED STATES OF ‘AMERICA.

OEE BS DODDOPDDSDDSS 4

i ry i
; aeee HM
Pp. OF ne
} i, 5 va j ¢
Tul my
tui
im iT . 4
Wey na)
t 6)
¥
} .
*
ahi
@
' ,
‘
1)
‘7
-_
i
W 5

r
1 5 ™
Hi
a
ies
fh
a) M
i
y
Ly;
j
'
i
it . bi
>

Painted by F. Winterhalter.

®, ) > Aye ° P a, 2 2
H. MM. G. Majesty, Victoria, Queen of Grent Britain,
IN THE ROBES OF THE MOST NOBLE ORDER OF THE GARTER.

ENGRAVED BY BRICHER & CONANT, BOSTON.
Photographed from the Portrait in possession of Creo, YB. Burnham;
PRESENTED TO HIM BY HER MAJESTY, THE QUEEN, IN 1853.

CHINA FOWL.

SHANGHAE, COCHIN, 4

AND

eR A ETM A

.
By GEO. P. BURNHAM,

AUTHOR OF -

‘““NEW-ENGLAND POULTRY BREEDER,” A HUMOROUS “ HISTORY OF THE HEN FEVER,”
“BURNHAM’S NEW POULTRY BOOK,” ETC.

ares

te gp

With Forty Choice Illustrations.

MELROSE, MASS.
1874.

i.

Entered according to Act of Congress, in the year 1874, by
GEO. P. BURNHAM,
In the Office of the Librarian of Congress, at Washington.

Press of Rand, Avery, & Co., Boston.

PREFACE

THIS volume is written with two specific purposes in view: first, to give a brief and suc-
cinct account, as far as the record permits, of the introduction into America of the Chinese
varieties of domestic fowls, subsequently to the appearance of this notable race of poultry in
England (in 1843-44) ; and secondly, to correct the numerous errors and false theories that
have obtained, both in this country and in Great Britain, touching the origin and establish-
ment of the most noted of modern gallinaceous breeds, first known on both sides of the At-
lantic, as the reliable records show, to wit, the ‘Gray SHANGHAES ;” or, as they are latterly
denominated by common consent, the Light and Dark “ Brauma”’ fowls.

That these latter-mentioned birds descend direct from the Chinese, and not from any India,
race, is perfectly clear; since, as W. B. Tegetmeier, F.Z.S., correctly stated in 1853, “ there
is not a particle of evidence to show that (what is now called) the Brahma fowls ever came
from India.” And Mr. Tegetmeier truthfully added also at that early day, that “they
originated not in India, but in America.”

Lewis Wright of London, however, who has contributed no inconsiderable amount of inter-

_ esting matter to the poultry literature of modern times, most singularly and ignorantly per-
_ sists, in his later volumes, upon the idea that the Brahmas are of East India origin ; and that

the account given by Mr, Virgil Cornish, of an early pair of large gray fowls having been
“imported into New York from Luckipoor, up the Brahmapootra River,”’ furnishes the correct
theory as to the origin of this variety.

This silly sailor-Cornish-Chamberlin story (which for a time was believed in by some per-
sons), upon which Lewis Wright of England bases his utterly groundless notions, was many
years ago absolutely exploded. Mr. Cornish jirst wrote (March 2, 1852,) that he procured his
stock of Mr. Chamberlin of Connecticut, who was said through “a sailor” to have chanced
upon “a pair of large, light-gray fowls, which said Chamberlin first brought into the State of

8 PREFACE.

Connecticut, from somewhere, in the early part of the year 1849.” Upwards of sixteen years.
after this original account of Cornish had been published, this same authority, over his own
signature, in a second letter, to a Mr. Weid, just as clearly states that this very Chamberlin
“pair of gray fowls arrived at New York on board a ship from Luckipoor in India, in Sep-
tember, 1846;”’ of which two statements, Mr. Plaisted, in 1874, declares “there is nothing
accurate in the first, and the last one is still worse!”

And this is al] the evidence the world has ever had about the introduction of this remark-
able pair of Chamberlin gray birds, “imported from India,” vid New York, into Connecticut,
an event which, beyond cavil or dispute, never thus occurred at all; since the fact is now
established, beyond question or refutation, that neither in the year 1849 or 1846 (according to
Cornish, Wright, et als., or in 1847, as a later writer has it) did there arrive at New York
any ship or other vessel ‘from the port of Luckipoor in India;” as will be clearly demon-
strated in the succeeding pages of this work

At the same time, I shall endeavor to plainly show, herein, from the long-since-printed
testimony and records, that the large light “Gray Shanghaes” bred by the undersigned for
many years after 1849, were from China stock ; and that from these (imported by me in 1849-
50 from Shanghae) came the originals of the now famous so-called “ BRanMas.”’

I am indebted to Messrs. Lee & Shepard, publishers of Boston; to Jos. M. Wade, Esq., of
“ Fanciers’ Journal,’’ Philadelphia, Penn.; to H. H. Stoddard, Esq., of ‘‘ Poultry World,”
Hartford, Conn.; T. S. Cooper, Esq., of Coopersburg, Penn.; Philander Williams, Esq., of
Taunton, Mass. ; Dr. Kenegy of “ Polo Argus,” Ill.; T. T. Bacheller, Esq., of “ N.W. Poultry
Journal,” Minneapolis ; W. H. Todd, Esq., Vermillion, O. ; and other gentlemen — for some of
the fine illustrations in this work. And to these and various publicly unnamed friends, I hereby
tender my acknowledgments for hints and suggestions that are embodied in my present book,
which is now presented to the fanciers of America as a truthful and explicit account of what
the author knows regarding the origin, history, characteristics, and breeding qualities of the
Cuina Fowt, — Shanghae, Cochin, and Brahma, — from 1844 to 1874 inclusive ; accompanied
with corroborative authority for the statements I now make, gathered from the most reliable
data I have been able to reach or make myself acquainted with, during the thirty years I
have enjoyed so large a practical experience with all the varieties of this now universally
favorite race of Chinese fowls.
GEO. P. BURNHAM.

Metrose, Mass., September, 1874.

CONTENTS. ‘

PART I.

PAGE.

THE CHINA FOWL ol Soak ct baal vor ah ae cern IC ae OL la
PART IL.

PoE SEPANG EDA Mit Sh! eae oN le oe hoon oR
PART II.

REI CO OUMNGRmMNUe ar aut cM cee ey gel ile ea ee, | de
3 PART IV.

SER RSD AUUNING nnn Soya amen aL Da fog) ky ge
PART V.

SOLON ANDINDANG STN tc i pte tt ee Mn) TES
PART VI.

PENEEAM “vet WRIGHT (Mtr) 6S Pam uy ie. chug

SSS
—————

i

LM! |

B
iG

a

WI \[d =
ILA, Se

N

WW

NY

COOPER, COOPERSBURG, PA,

BELONGING TO T. 8.

IMPORTED PARTRIDGE COCHINS “ JEWETT” AND “LADY JANE.”

eae TN A ee WL:

SHANGHAE, COCHIN, “BRAHMA.”

Unper this general appellation, I include ald the various-colored domestic
fowls now popularly known in England and America as “ Shanghaes,’
“ Cochins,” or “ Brahmas ;” to wit, the white, gray, lemon, buff, cinnamon,
brown, partridge, grouse, and black, — feathered-legged or smooth-shanked.
And in this volume I shall show that atu these varieties, under whatever
name during the last thirty years they may have been denominated, or at
the present time are called, have one common origin; that xo “importation” of
any one of said varieties or strains have reached this country or Great Britain
from any place save Chinese ports; and especially that none of these fine
fowis have been brought, or can be authoritatively shown ever to have come,
into the two countries mentioned, either from the province of Cochin China,
originally, or more especially from India, in a single instance.

This averment at the outset, I make understandingly. Premising that I
shall not unduly urge upon the attention of the readers of this work any

12 THE CHINA FOWL.

theory or standpoint of my own, particularly, I will add that I intend, ney-
ertheless, to support this position by the production of ample corroborative
recorded facts regarding the history and origin of these several different vari-
eties, giving dates, the names of the early known owners and importers of
each kind, as I.find such records publicly made, —and the authorities I
adduce herein can be consulted, as I have consulted them, upon reference
to the sources quoted, from which I have gathered the information in this
book, —set down with the view to make it so clear and plain that “he who
runs may read” and comprehend my present history of this much-abused
as well as greatly-lauded race of poultry.

The Malay fowl, the Java, the Calcutta, and the Chittagong — all intro-
duced into America or England, first or last, in the past forty or fifty years —
have long been known to old writers, and the earlier breeders ; ship-masters
having not infrequently brought home in their vessels specimens of these
birds, upon their return voyages from the “Hast Indies.” And these
“ Asiatic” samples have been confounded, in the memories of some of these
“old salts,” with the Chinese birds more recently imported, of which latter
only I propose to write in these pages. From the similarity in size, form,
and certain general characteristics common to all these Eastern varieties, this
error on the part of mariners is not to be wondered at. But I do not
intend to enlarge upon the merits or demerits of the India, Kulm, Java, Cey-
lon, MaJay, Calcutta, or Chittagong varieties; and I set down this paragraph
just here, simply to advise the reader, in advance, that my present volume
will be devoted strictly to the consideration of the race comprised in the
leading title of this work; namely, Tae CuinA Fowu.

This bird has been found to be single-combed and pea-combed ; it is
smooth-limbed, and feathered upon the legs; it is short-legged and long-
shanked; it is bred of all colors, from pure white to dead black; it is found,
at times, long-bodied, stout and rangy in form,— or oftenest, compactly
built, broad-backed, full-breasted, and shapely; its proportions are massive
and commanding, and the better strains are comely, though inclining to a
heavy or clumsy exterior: yet in all, and over all, it has come to be esteemed
a general favorite everywhere, in some one or more of its different colors and
shapes. And it is safe to assert that o domestic fowl the world has ever
yet produced can excel this race in the admiration of a majority of the
breeders and fanciers of the present day.

SHANGHAE, COCHIN, BRAHMA. 13

Upon page 10, for example, will be found an excellent illustration of a
pair of thorough-bred, China fowls, a cock and hen of the now so-called “ Par-
tridge Cochins.” This pair of fowls are true representatives of the Chinese

YOUNG COCK AND PULLET; EARLY CHINA FOWLS.

race generally ; and the artistic drawing mentioned is one of the most accu-
rate I have ever met with. Without entering at present upon the qualities
of this particular pair of birds (which are life-like representations of two

14 THE CHINA FOWL.

specimens imported by T. S. Cooper, Esq., of Coopersburg, Penn., from Eng-
land, lately), we will only say here that we point to that portraiture as a
very perfect delineation of the naturally-formed better than ordinary type of
pure Chinese poultry, whose characteristics, in their original condition, we
will now describe in detail, as ows long experience with this race has taught
us to see the genuine Shanghae stock in America.

We write the term Shanghae here advisedly, for the simple reason that
almost all the known importations of these notable fowls came into the
United States originally from the port of Shanghae, China, and for years
were thus denominated. One or two importations have also been made,
within the last three decades, by ships arriving from Canton or Hong
Kong, which will be duly referred to hereafter.

These two last-mentioned places are Chinese ports also, situate on the
easterly coast of the Chinese Empire, about six hundred miles south of
the city of Shanghae, which lies in latitude 31° north, upon the Yellow Sea.
Upon the opposite page we present a map of the localities we shall have
occasion to refer to in this volume. This drawing is an accurate tracing of
the outline boundaries of the countries meritioned, taken from Johnson’s and
Ward’s “ New Illustrated Atlas,” revised and published in 1865.

By consulting this map, the reader will observe that the empire of Ohina
is far distant from the territory of India, even in “a bee-line;” while to
double the low-running peninsula of Malay, sailing vessels from the coast of
China to Calcutta have an immense distance to pass over, — say. from Shang-
hae to the mouth of the Ganges, — not less, at the shortest, than rising four
thousand miles.

The cities of Shanghae, north, on the coast; Nanking, up the Kate River ;
Ning Po, on the coast; Hong Kong, Sods and Canton, up the Si River
(near the last place), are all Chinese ports, accessible to American and Brit-
ish commerce. But the leading ports whence sail our ships trading with the
extreme East are Shanghae, Hong Kong, and Canton, —since the close of
the Chinese war with Great Britain, in 1843; the first of these three (Shang-
hae) being the principal point of destination and departure of vessels be-
longing to “foreign” countries, trading with the Celestials upon their sea-
coast territory.

YY

WK
SS

ww

SS

AS

SSaxs

“

SS

SSNS
>

iw)

Y, ly

ay lett
Yi YY Yy YY

Y

a

bir
yy Y

AY
Wy
BY

Wye

LE
ag

OUTLINE MAP OF CIIINA, COCHIN CHINA, EAST INDIA, ete.

r:
,
=
q
)
:
;
£
4 ©
t
:
“
r
;
‘
a
i

a

eg soi a ana i) ’ i
ce i Re caret den SS
jak ye piss :

a PSs 3,7. ll ee oe é

“SHANGHAE, COCHIN, BRAHMA. 17

It may be deemed an easy matter to “import” direct from China a few
native domestic fowls, that are worth taking off the deck of a returning
Indiaman into an American port, after its six or eight months’ voyage from
Chinese seas. But those who have tried to compass this seemingly trivial
manceuvre, in past years, have found it a very difficult feat to accomplish
satisfactorily, so far as my knowledge of this undertaking goes.

I have individually attempted this seven or eight times, and never suc-
ceeded but once in the endeavor to get from China direct, to my own order,
a dozen Shanghae fowls; and of these, when the consignment reached
Central Wharf, Boston (to purchase which I had placed in the ship’s first
officer’s hands one hundred Spanish-milled dollars, when he sailed from
Boston), there were but just three fowls, a cock and two hens, that I cared to
take home, of the fourteen birds he brought me from Shanghae; and which
he positively assured me were all there were left alive upon coming into home
port, out of sixty-five chickens he placed on ship-board when he sailed from:
Shanghae, seven months previously. The others died, he said, on the pas-
sage back. Far more likely, no doubt, was it, that they went one after
another, when wanted, into the cook’s pot for the captain’s dinners, — espe-
cially the largest and most desirable.

The difficulty m consummating this sort of enterprise is principally two-
fold, thus: As can well be understood, the mass of gentlemen or business-
men who go from the West to China possess neither the taste, the knowledge,
or the inclination to concern themselves about looking up poultry in that far-
away land. They do not go there for this purpose, and commonly think
they have a far more “ dignified” object in their journeys thither. Secondly,
the ship-masters and sailors who go there, know little or nothing of poultry
(except to eat it when cooked), and care less about this subject, which home-
fanciers are, to a greater or less degree, so interested in. Thus the latter
class never trouble themselves to secure any particular style, shape, color, or
sized fowl, when they put on board their vessels a few chickens, to be used
merely as food for the captain’s cabin table, usually, during a part or the
whole of their return voyage.

_ It occasionally happens that adZ the chickens thus placed on ship-board in
Shanghae, or other China ports, are no¢ devoured or killed en route home-
ward. The remains of such shipments reach American or British ports,

“IMOT (AVHONVUS WO) ,.NIHOOO AINA, AHL AO NOILVINUSTYAAN GOOD V

i ===
gle :

ev

Hil}
HTT

Mii

SHANGHAE, COCHIN, BRAHMA. 19

generally speaking, in a filthy, halfstarved, vermin-infested, or roupy con-
dition, — in consequence of their long confinement, and the neglect ard hard
weather they are subjected to while cooped up for months en voyage. And
these are nine times in ten the fowls “imported from China direct” that we
get both in America and England, or read of in the poultry and other
journals of the day. It is not always thus, however, as I will show by and
by. But this is the rule. The others are the exceptional cases.

Let me give a brief illustration upon this point. A near relative of my
own, the master of a fine vessel from a leading American port, has been in
command of a ship for the last twenty years, sailing between New York or
_ New Bedford, and Shanghae or Canton, and Whampoa. At least seven or
eight times within that period, when he has sailed from home, I have
arranged with him, personally, to bring me out from China a few good fowls;
which I supposed it would be no very difficult thing for him to accomplish,
Two or three times he has brought back with him six or eight or ten birds,
such as he could readily obtain while lying in port at Shanghae or Canton.
But these proved most indifferent samples, compared with what I bred my-
self by hundreds in my own yards, and were of all colors and grades except
the kinds I desired to obtain. Yet he thought them fine, and through per-
sonal friendship, in each instance, he did his level best to please me. I[
wouldn’t give them yard-room, — the best of them! Yet these were really
“imported Shanghaes,” direct from Chinese territory.

Thus, I repeat it, it is no¢ so simple a performance as most of us imagine
it is, to get out from Celestial ports direct a consignment of good specimens
of genuine Chinese domestic poultry. The merchants, travellers, and busi-
ness men who go hence to that far-off country, care nothing about this
“hobby ” of their friends; while the mariners and ship-masters, whose lives
are passed upon the seas only, know little or nothing of the “fine points”
of these birds. So we have always been, and must continue to be, depend-
ent upon the chances that occur now and then, to replenish our Chinese
stock ; and the opportunities to do this, satisfactorily to experienced breeders,
are certainly but rare, at the best.

These chance opportunities occasionally occur, however. In my own ex-
perience two or three times, and in instances of the experience of others
whom I will presently refer to, a few small clutches of excellent fowls, of

20 THE CHINA FOWL.

the genuine type and true stamp, as events have proven, have been obtained
from China, or brought thence into America and England, of the buff, drab,
brown, light gray, and yellow ; from which have been produced most of the
finest Shanghaes (now called “Cochins” or “ Brahmas”) that have ever
been seen or known in the world.

In the years of grace 1843-44, I had in my possession a goodly quantity
of domestic fowls, five or six hundred in number (which I had bred and
gathered together during those years), upon leased premises, some few acres
in area, located at the foot of Mt. Pleasant in Roxbury, Mass., known as
“ Williams’ Garden,” —a fine large estate, then belonging to the late Aaron
D. Williams, now entirely covered over with handsome dwelling-houses.

I had bred fowls some years prior to this time, on a limited scale, but at
this period was engaged in the then hopeful attempt to breed poultry to
profit, within limited space, in large numbers, successfully, —an experi-
ment which, I need hardly announce at this day, proved futile and ineffectual.

In 1846~47 I removed to more retired quarters, and, with my flocks of
poultry reduced to less than a hundred good birds, on an estate upon
which I erected a cottage house, I went on more successfully. I resided
upon Williams Street, Roxbury (now Shawmut Avenue extension), until late
in 1849, when I purchased the place in Melrose, Mass., where I now live,
and early in 1850 removed my greatly improved stock of fowls to this town ;
where I have since resided, now a quarter of a century.

From 1848~’49 down to thé present year (1874), for the most part I have
constantly had the Chinese fowls upon my premises, in large or lesser quan-
tities; and my long experience with this race has afforded me ample. oppor-
tunity to judge of their good quality, and to make myself — through almost
numberless practical experiments with them —thoroughly acquainted with
their habits, their characteristics, their points, and their general qualities.

The China fowl is a good bird; and the fanciers of this country and
Great Britain have shown their preference largely in favor of this breed, in
some of its various colors, by cultivating and improving the size, and
increasing the intrinsic value of this fowl, until the modernized “ Brahma”
or “Cochin,” as it is at this time denominated, has come to be known
deservedly as the most desirable of all the poultry we have among us.

Other breeders: of course have their favorites, and justly so. But the

SHANGHAE, COCHIN, BRAHMA. val

majority of fanciers prefer some of the varieties of the Chinese fowl. And the
“ Brahmas” or the “ Cochins ” —all of which come from Shanghae originally,
as we shall see—now lead the van in the estimation of the mass of
American or English breeders.

in

GAY,

AN EARLY-IMPORTED CHINA HEN.

The two illustrations preceding portray the shape and general forms of
an early-imported cock and hen of the Chinese race. They are neither so
comely or so attractive in shape or features as are those subsequently

22 THE CHINA FOWL.

received, or which were bred from the first stock had in America. Both of
these are coarse, ungainly, and dumpy. But we give these drawings of
original birds here, for comparison with the “improved ” samples of the race
to be found in these pages farther on.

From the evidence at hand, however, it is-very clear, whatever may’be the
theory of one or two late writers upon this subject, that all our large, fine,
so-called “ Asiatic varieties” of domesticated fowls belong to but one race,
of whatever color we breed them; and the entire testimony in modern
works on poultry goes directly to this point, as to the origin whence they
come into our hands, in every instance. And that origin is China. |

I am not now speaking of any of the still coarser grades of the Malay
species, the Javas, or even the Chittagongs, about which early authors used
to write so fluently without knowing any details as to the nativity of this
style of bird, except what they casually learned from some stray sailor, who
was not to be easily disputed, perhaps, in whatever yarn he might choose to
spin regarding the birds he brought home accidentally “from the E-Stingies.”
But my present pages will comprise a monograph of the Chinese fowl;
whence I proceed to show descend ald the pure “Cochins ” and “ Brahmas,”
of every shade we possess to-day, either in England or the United States.

In Great Britain, since the advent of the Queen’s famous so-called
“Cochin Chinas,” and more especially within the past twelve or fifteen
years, perhaps, the old China fowl has been manifestly improved, by careful
mating and judicious breeding, in the hands of the experienced fanciers who
have long maintained their ascendency over us in America, in a general way,
in their treatment of poultry, as we all very well understand.

The “importations” made into the United States in late years come from
this source principally; and very good fowls they send us too, as the
majority of American importations of “Cochins,” &c., of all colors, which
have been since 1865—’66 received thence into the United States, and which
are now arriving here every month, from some of the leading breeders in
England, amply demonstrate; the different classes of which we now propose
to describe in detail in the future pages of this volume, with the single
additional remark, here, that the English style of breeding the China fowl
(as evinced inthe latest specimens of the Light and Dark “Brahmas” we
have recetved thence) is not uniformly to American taste.

THE SHANGHAES.

THE Shanghae fowl, first brought from the Chinese port of that name, and
thus called by the early possessors of those birds in England or America,
usually with us upon this side of the Atlantic also, took the name of the
importer or owner of such birds, in the early days; as, for example, in the
instances of the Bailies’, the Forbes’, the Marsh, the Cushing, or the Burn-
ham Shanghaes; which exact types of fowls are, however, in accordance
with poultry society “Standard” rules at the present time, denominated
“ Cochins.” Of the “Cochin Chinas” we shall speak at length in another
chapter: we simply mention this “convertible term ” here, in order that the
reader of this volume may not confound the two names, as we proceed.

We will describe the old Shanghae fowl first, therefore, because through
priority in date we received in America — in Salem, Mass., in Philadelphia,

24. THE CHINA FOWL.

Penn., at New York City, and elsewhere (so it has been frequently stated) —
from Shanghae, China, the earliest consignments of this stock.
It has been said that as early as in 1843, such birds came both into Salem

-
A\ WW)

A

PAIR OF YELLOW SHANGHAES— COCK AND PULLET. (1849.)

and Philadelphia, though I deem this announcement problematical. The
well-known stock of Messrs. Sturgeon and Moody of England was received
from China by those gentlemen in 1847, —so they inform us; and these were

SHANGHAE, COCHIN, BRAHMA. 25°

among the very first accredited Shanghaes we heard of. They were cer-
tainly very early birds. Mr. Sturgeon writes to Mr. Tegetmeier of London
that he got his fowls in 1847, from a ship in the West India docks. A
clerk of his chanced to go on board, (who, struck by the appearance of these
extraordinary fowls, bought them, on his own responsibility, at what Mr.
Sturgeon considered and denounced as a most extravagant price, — six or eight
shillings (less than two dollars) each! A younger brother of Mr. Sturgeon’s
unwittingly killed two of the five birds on their arrival, leaving him but a
.cock and two pullets. He took little interest in them at that time; but he
subsequently raised from these the finest buff Shanghaes ever produced in
England. “ All our birds,” he adds, “ came from Shanghae, and were feath-
ered-legged.”

It is stated by those who have observed the fact in Chinese ports, that the
Shanghaes (or now so-called “Cochins”) of all colors, are seen quite as fre-
quently upon their native soil, without any feathering upon the shank below
the hocks, as with this feature. But the style in this country is, to breed
them heavily feathered upon the legs. The early importations spoken of
were all feathered-legged, some strains showing this more markedly than
others, though my own imported birds were thus generously feathered.

The Marsh Shanghaes, which comprised a dozen buff and partridge-colored
specimens, were brought from the “ Celestial domain” by the Rey. Mr. Marsh
of West Roxbury, Mass., or they were sent to him direct, as early as in 1846,
I think, or in 1847. These were a noble clutch of birds. They all had the
heavy leg-feathering, and were genuine imported stock. They were not bred by
him with any special care as to mating, for the producing of particular colors
of chickens, at that early time, however; and Mr. Marsh, at first having but
one cock, which was a superb light red and buff, bred him to all the hens
promiscuously. The result was, that, though all the true characteristics of
the China race were in a positive degree reproduced and maintained in the
progeny, the color became uncertain and various, — from rich golden yellow
to dark brown, with the intermediate shadings and markings of partridge and
grouse-colored birds, first and last. They were large, well-formed, magnifi-
cent specimens of the China variety, nevertheless, and enjoyed for many
years a reputation whieh subsequent importations did not interfere with, how-
ever fine they came.

The Forbes Shanghaes came*into Boston, direct from Shanghae also, in

4

26 THE CHINA FOWL.

the year 1848, — brought home by Capt. R. B. Forbes, after whom this strain
was named. They were beautiful birds too, but of a peculiar tint in color.
The hens were a pale drab, or silvery cinnamon hue, while the cock was of
a light reddish dominique, or marbled tint; and for years after their arrival
in America this importation bred, through generation after generation, drab
pullets and light reddish dominique cocks, almost invariably. The Forbes
fowls were frequently called “Yellow Shanghaes,” in those days; but the
color of the original birds was precisely what I have described it, and it was
quite different from what we afterwards knew as the Yellow or Buff Shanghaes,
—as in the cases of the Cushing importation at Kingston, Mass., and those of
S. A. Drake, known as the Rev. Mr. Missionary Brown’s stock. They bred
the full-feathered leg uniformly, and for a long period oom a deservedly
high reputation as first-class stock, in all respects.

The Cushing importation also came into America from Shanghae. These
were of a bright golden color, hens and cocks; the latter being the most bril-
liant, truly “ flame-colored” cast of plumage I ever met with, in my experi-
ence with the Shanghae race. They ran out shortly, however, or were crossed
with others, and were seen but for a year or two in their purity, when the old
stock disappeared altogether, as did the Palmer, and Cope strains.

A general description given in 1849, 1850, of the best Shanghae fowls, will be
found to closely correspond with the character of the birds at the present time
universally called “Cochins,” of which the drawing (page 23) is an admirable
representation, but which name, as in the instance of “ Brahma,” in late years
commonly given to the Gray Shanghaes, is a misnomer, as I shall show as we
proceed; albeit there is no valid objection to the establishment of both these
later cognomens, nevertheless, since it is the fashion now-a-days; and every-
body assents to these changes from the original true title.

Their legs, in the early time, “were uniformly stout, usually of a bright
reddish yellow, sometimes nearly flesh-colored; and, for the most part, the
limbs below the hock were very heavily feathered Their general plumage
was of a brilliant yellow or gold-color, variegated and ‘pencilled’ with black,
dark brown, or red. The tail was short and upright; body squarely formed ;
wings small and tucked up high; legs, when young, rather long for henittys
head full sized; comb single, upright, and serrated; feathers rather fine and
downy than otherwise, — and, altogether, they were a large, fine, showy
fowl, as then described by Bement, Dixon, Kerry, and Dr. Bennett.”

SHANGHAE, COCHIN, BRAHMA. 27

GRAY SHANGHAE COCK; BURNHAM’S STOCK, 1852. (Drawn by H. Weir.)

The Brown, or Drake fowls, as they were more commonly called, came into
Massachusetts from the city of Shanghae originally, in the year 1846. The

28 THE CHINA FOWL.

Rev. Mr. Brown was a missionary to China, as was Rey. C. B. Marsh, also,
of West Roxbury, Mass. Mr. Brown resided in China some ten years, and
thought his opportunity to select good birds was the best. He affirmed that
the natives prized those he brought to America upon his return home, above
all other varieties in that country; and they were very choice specimens for
those days. The editor of “The Massachusetts Ploughman” wrote of these
Brown’s Shanghaes in 1849, “‘We saw some of these fine birds sold at the first
Boston exhibition at as high as $13.00 the pair; and we were told that a few
were sold for $18.00 a pair.” At this early period these figures were con-
sidered enormous. Within four years from the time when this paragraph was
written, a pair of my Gray Shanghaes, sent to England to John Baily, Esq.,
of London, were sold at the Birmingham Exhibition, after taking first prize
there, for $500.00; and in that year, and subsequently, one to two hundred
dollars for a pair of good Shanghaes was not an uncommon price.

The uniformity in the size of the chickens bred in America during the first
few seasons after the introduction of the Shanghaes here, was very remarka-
ble; and this alone established the fact that the stock was, beyond cavil, a
distinct race of birds. The weights of adult specimens at that time did not
average so great as has frequently been since attained by American fanciers
quite generally. Seventeen to nineteen pounds per pair, cock and hen, at
twelve months old, was formerly very fair and quite satisfactory. Hundreds
of birds were raised whose weight per pair did not reach these figures, though
it not infrequently happened, as time went by, to hear reports of “a big
Shanghae cock” in the hands of Mr. A, B, C, or D, somewhere, that drew
fourteen, fifteen, sixteen pounds alone. I never saw the fowl that would take
down the steelyard at this latter weight, though others affirm — Lewis Wright
among these vouchers for the marvellous — that “single cocks have been bred
weighing over eighteen pounds; but this is not a common occurrence.” I
should say not /

The early Shanghaes, of all colors, were excellent layers. Hundreds of
veritable instances could be quoted from the accounts constantly being pub-
lished in the press during 1848 to 1855, of the extraordinary fertility of these
hens. The Marsh, Forbes, and Burnham Shanghaes were notably good lay-
ers. The pullets commenced laying at six to seven months old generally,
though many instances occurred of their beginning to lay at five or five and a.
half months. This is the fair average witl the “ Cochins” of to-day ; and upon

SHANGHAE, COCHIN, BRAHMA. . 29

this topic, in “The Massachusetts Ploughman ” of 1849, I find an article of
mine, contributed to that journal on this subject, which I reproduce here,
that gives a very fair description of these fowls as I saw them more than
twenty-five years since. The reader will perceive that the “Cochins ” of our
time are pretty accurately described in this extract, written by the author of
this present volume a quarter of a century ago =

“T am confident that the Shanghae fowls are confounded with the Cochin
Chinas ; and I think that some persons who have the stock, call both by this
name. We have not had the Shanghaes in America long enough yet, nor 1s
the distinction sufficiently well known, I imagine, to determine between the
real Shanghae and the Cochin Chinas we now have here, and more commonly
called by this last name. J make the distinction on the ground that my 1m-
ported Shanghaes (and I have now three different varieties, from different
sources) are all heavily feathered upon the legs, while my “Cochin China”.
fowls, which I consider possess all the good points that any specimens classed
under that name do, have no feathers on the legs. The Shanghaes come from
the extreme north of China, fifteen hundred miles up the coast. The ‘Cochin
Chinas,’ now so called, it is said originated in a country of that name in a
far more southerly latitude.”

(These two locations can be seen upon reference to the map, on page 15.)

The theory we all held to at that early period was, in substance, that nature
provided for the northern fowls, where the climate was coldest, this coating
or leg-feathering as a protection to the elongated shanks of the Shanghaes;
while the “Cochin Chinas” (represented in those years by the Queen’s stock,
thus misnamed), it was said, came from this extreme southern province of
Chinese. territory, and did ‘not need this feature in their formation. But all
this was merely theory, and had no basis, as we shall see anon.

The article from which I quote (and which was deemed of sufficient im-
portance at the time to be transferred entire to the pages of Dr. John C.
Bennett’s “Poultry Book,” published in 185051, by Phillips & Sampson, at
Boston,) continues thus: “There are very few, if any, bona fide Shanghae
fowls at present for sale in this region. Hundreds of so-called ‘Shanghaes’
are offered every week ; but this breed is now altogether too rare, and the real
‘Simon Pure’ will readily command too high a price at private sale, for these
genuine birds to be very common at present. The coming year there will be

more of them. And for the farmer, the poulterer, the breeder, or the
.

30 ' THE CHINA FOWL.

fancier, I consider this fowl, in its purity, one of the most economical and
most profitable of all the known large breeds extant.”

Dr. Bennett’s work, in 1850, is embellished with handsome illustrations,
drawn from life, of my Shanghae fowls, of which the drawing on p. 24 is
pretty accurate, though at that period it was difficult to find engravers who
could so artistically portray our birds as do those who succeeded the earlier
draughtsmen of domestic poultry. ‘

From Dixon and Kerr’s “Ornamental and Domestic Poultry Book,” pub-
‘lished in Philadelphia in 1850-’51, I extract the following account of my ,
Shanghaes, imported in 1849, and communicated by me to that work: — —

“From my own importations, last season, I have bred several very fine
specimens of pure Shanghaes, uniform in color and characteristics, remarka-
bly heavy for their ages —the cocks, at five to six months old, drawing eight
and a half to nine pounds, and pullets of same age, five and a half to six and
a half pounds each, live weight.” . . . “They are short-legged, heavy-bodied,
handsomely plumed, and among the best /ayers I have ever met with.” ...
“T have never seen their equals for laying early. The Shanghaes commence
to lay at six months old; they are very prolific, lay large eggs, and a great
many of them.” . . . “All things considered, they are certainly a very valua-
ble species of domestic fowl, and I am highly pleased with them.” ... “I
have now on the way, direct from Shanghae and Canton, two fresh lots, from
which, with the stock I have now reserved, I shall breed another year. These
last fowls were ordered by me a year ago.” . . . “For all the purposes of a
really good fowl, whether I speak of beauty of model, good size, or laying
qualities, I deem the thorough-bred Shanghaes among the very best and
generally most profitable of domestic birds.”

This standard poultry book of that period describes the true Shanghae fowl
imported and bred in those early years, 1847, ’48, ’49, 50, precisely to cor-
respond in features with the so-called “ Cochins ” of to-day, in detail — from
“single upright, serrated comb,” to “heavily feathered legs down to the tips
of toes.” And the authgrs conclude their minute description of this fowl,
then coming into general favor everywhere, as being “fully plumed with soft
downy feathering, in size of great proportions, quiet and docile in temper,
wonderful layers, making flesh rapidly from chickenhood, and we know not
of a better. In truth, we may say of the Shanghae, as the pious Isaac Walton
was wont to say of the trout, his favorite dish: ‘God certainly might have

SHANGHAE, COCHIN, BRAHMA. 31

made a better fish, but certainly he never did.’ So of the pure unadulterated
Shanghae fowl.”

Upon page 13 will be seen another early engraving of these yellow Shang-
haes, which will show what the general form and appearance of this stock
was in 1849, ’50, 751. By domestication in England, as well as in this coun-
try, and through subsequent care in mating and selection, improvement in
- the form, a notable development of the shape, and greatly enhanced propor-
tions in this variety, were soon realized among us. The various strains were
bred together, from time to time, thus introducing and intermingling fresh
blood among them all, and increasing their general size and desirable good
qualities, remarkably; though for a long time none of us considered color an
important matter—so that the progeny of our increasing flocks sustained
the otherwise general characteristics of the Chinese race; for, out of ald these
earliest importations, there caine every shade of yellow, red, buff, drab, light
cinnamon, brown, bronze, and almost or quite black chickens, — first or last,
—and no one then deemed this result either strange, or inappropriate. We
changed all that in the later years of our experience, of course.

In Rey. W. Wingfield’s “London Poultry Book,” a splendidly illustrated
octavo issued in 1853, and subsequently in 1867 re-issued under the editor-
ship of W. B. Tegetmeier, F.Z.S., appear numerous large and finely-colored
chromo likenesses of noted Chinese fowls, among other choice illustrations ;
at that time each being designated, in the title-line below these beautiful pic-
tures, as White Shanghae, Buff Shanghae, Lemon Shanghae, Partridge
Shanghae, &c. In the later edition of this choice work, the same plates are
used to adorn it (under charge of Mr. Tegetmeier) ; but in each title, under-
neath these pictures, the word “Cochin” is substituted for the original ap-
pellation. The birds are the same, however, precisely; and similar fine
illustrations of my original Gray Shanghaes are portrayed among the rest,
and are there denominated Light and Dark “ Brahmas,” to correspond with
the improved nomenclature of our time, and in conformity with the established
names for the China fowls adopted in the English and American “ Standards.”
From the Rey. Mr. Wingfield’s 1853 edition of this work, we extract the fol-
lowing information about the then called “Shanghaes.” In reference to the
history and name of this variety of the China species, the author says, —

“There is a doubt, which had better be removed at the very threshold,

32 THE CHINA FOWL.

conveyed in the question, ‘Are Cochin China and Shanghae fowls the
same?’ We have always entertained the opinion that they are; and since
we have invariably found that fowls imported from China, feathered or plain-
legged, dark-plumed or light, came hither, directly or indirectly, either from

BURNHAM’S FIRST DARK GRAY SHANGHAE HEN, SENT TO ENGLAND. (1853.)

Shanghae or its immediate vicinity, we have long since concluded that
‘Cochin China’ is a name altogether misapplied to this variety. This con-
clusion amounts to conviction, since we have received a letter from Mr.
Robert Fortune, who has passed so many years in various parts of China, in
which he says, —

SHANGHAE, COCHIN, BRAHMA. 33

“¢The man who first gave these fowls the name of “ Cochin Chinas” has
much to answer for. I firmly believe that what are termed “ Cochins” and
“Shanghaes” are one and the same. One thing is certain: the breed you
have in England now called “ Cochin Chinas” are plentiful in and around
Shanghae. They were discovered there soon after the war, and were fre-
quently brought to England by captains of trading vessels. What grounds
has any one for supposing these fowls ever saw Cochin China? This is a
breed little known in the warmer country about Canton. In fact, the South-
ern Chinese people were as much struck with the size of this breed as Eng-
lishmen were. The “Shanghaes” seem to be more common about Shanghae
than anywhere else in the north of China. The Southern breeds have long
been known both to shipmasters and English residents; but there is noth-
ing marked in the character of the Southern China birds.’ ”

At the early English poultry-show at the Zodlogical Gardens, London, in
1845, prizes were offered for “ Malays and other Asiatic breeds.” These offers
drew to the exhibition no Eastern variety, except the long-time known
Malays. Rev. Mr. Wingfield remarks upon this fact, that “at that time
the Shanghaes were unknown to the society.” No extended published notice
of Chinese birds occurred in England until 1845 or ’46, although the Queen’s
fowls, sent her by the British ambassador in China soon after the close of
the war there, reached England in 1844. These remarkable fowls (called
“ Cochin Chinas”) were exhibited by Her Majesty at Dublin first, in 1846.
Yet Dickson, the English poultry author of that time, in his noted work pub-
lished in 1847 makes no allusion even to the Queen’s fine fowls. Messrs. Moody
of Droxford, and Sturgeon of Grays, were the first prominent possessors of
the Shanghaes in England, to both of whose importations we have already
referred on a previous page. From these two consignments came all the
earlier English birds of this species, bred for many years on the other side
of the Atlantic. Referring to the Queen’s China fowls, we will add here,
_ that if the name “Cochin China” were ever appropriately applied to any
of these birds, it more properly belonged to that single importation than to
any other known; since these were smooth-legged, and of a different forma-
tion entirely, as we shall show in another place, when we come to the
“Cochin ” portion of our present book.

The Chinese attach no more importance to purity of color, or to accuracy
in breeding, than do our own farmers all over this country with their barn-

34 THE CHINA FOWL.

door fowls. Indeed, it is notorious that there are no “ poultry fanciers,” as
we recognize this term, at all in China. Large fowls and large eggs are what
the barbarians aim for. They are very careless in breeding poultry, alto-
gether; and to this circumstance are we indebted for the various colors of the
progeny of even the “ imported birds ” we get from that clime. Their fowls
are permitted to run all together, and have thus been bred for centuries.
The prevailing natural color of these birds is from pale yellow to dark brown.
The pure White and Black varieties are rarities, it is averred, upon Chinese
soil; and the Grays are very scarce there: so our own friends inform us,
whom we have interested to make search for us more than once; when they
have left this shore for the other, with our urgent orders to bring back, if
possible, upon their return, a fresh batch of the Grays, which have become so
popular in the past twenty years here and in England. '

And may we not just here appropriately refer to the remarkable fact
(wherever the original Light and Dark “ Gray Shanghaes,” at present called
Brahmas, came from in the first instance), that never since 1849 and 1850,
from any country, in any ship, to any port in England or America, has a
second clutch of these beautiful Grays chanced to reach the shores of the
Western Continent ?

In all our “importations,” in all our purchases, in all our chance posses-
sions of Chinese, Eastern, India, Calcutta, or Malay birds, never once since
the introduction by G. P. Burnham of the Gray Shanghaes to notice in
America, in 1849 and 1850, have we had any more of them. ia this variety
were so “plentiful in India” as Lewis Wright asserts they are and have
been, and if the very doubtful statement of his quoted “East Indian
officer” had any real foundation in fact, why have we not had a few more
of the original “up the Brahmapootra” birds, either in England or America,
during. all the long years that have elapsed since Burnham’s early two
importations of Gray Shanghaes in 1849 and 1850 were shown to the public,
from which seven fowls have descended direct, in Great Britain and the
United States, the myriads of Light and Dark Brahmas (now thus called)
to-day in possession of the thousands of breeders, fanciers, and poulterers
throughout the world ?

The fallacious theory of Lewis Wright —that all the multitudes of Light
and Dark Brahma fowls now in existence, and the other myriad of Brahmas

MODEL OF A “STANDARD” LIGHT BRAHMA PULLET, 15 MONTHS OLD.

As bred by J. M. Wade and W. E. Flower, Penn.; Messrs. Plaisted, Stoddard, Carpenter, etc., Conn.
Messrs. Sturtevant, Williams, Comey, Felch, Buzzell, and others, Mass , 1874

"

mY

ae ae

ene see

ee

us

SHANGHAE, COCHIN, BRAHMA. 37

which have had their birth within the last twenty-five years, in both
America and England, “have been derived from the ‘one pair’ introduced
into Connecticut by Mr. Chamberlin’? —is too ridiculous for a moment’s
serious consideration. That so many hundreds of thousands of birds, so
like each other in all their chief features of color, size, form, and common
characteristics, could have been produced from a single cock and hen and
_ their progeny, only ; or that for a quarter of a century, without the slightest
deterioration in any important particular, one pair of fowls and their de-
scendants cowld have been bred thus in-and-in, in the hands of thousands of
different persons on both sides of the Atlantic, to result thus accurately in
feather, shape, proportions, and rare quality, — is simply one of the natural
impossibilities. Therefore do I claim that the union of my original pair of
Gray Shanghaes in 1849, re-enforced with the fresh, strong, native blood
of my second lot of five Grays from Shanghae direct in 1850, more clearly
and reasonably a hundred-fold demonstrates that out of those birds come
the progeny which have been the fathers and mothers of the multiplied
numbers of so-called Light and Dark “ Brahmas” which have been pro-
duced within the last two decades of years, in England and America.

Now, I contend that this is a very extraordinary fact. And upon this point
well may the talented correspondent of Miss Watts’s London “ Poultry
Yard” exclaim, “There has, then, been no introduction of fresh blood.
Marvellous birds they are, to go on with so little appearance of degeneracy ;
and it speaks much for the purity of the breed: for, were they made up of
a cross, they would certainly throw back.” There has been no need for
crossing this fowl. They were all evidently of pure Chinese extraction.
Their “pedigree” dates back clearly to 1849 and 1850, their nativity to
China; and to-day the Gray Shanghaes breed as they did in 1851, ’52, 53,
and afterwards. They are marvellous, indeed ; and we have none of us ever
since imported any others of the species! Which is quite as “marvellous” a
fact as is the other.

Like the imported Buff, the Red, the Brown, or the Partridge, already
described, the Gray Shanghaes continue to breed their like, uninterruptedly.
And in the year 1874, at the Boston, Hartford, and Buffalo exhibitions
(especially at the two first-named shows), the identical form, color, style,
shape, and general characteristics of this “ marvellous” race were seen in
the birds there shown, as we of “ye olden time” have seen them by scores

38 THE CHINA FOWL.

and hundreds in the days when we bore away the palm over all competitors,
with our splendid adult samples of this unique variety of Shanghaes.

The White Shanghae is another variety of this fowl, which deservedly
has hosts of ardent admirers. The first of this species within our re-
membrance were in possession of Geo. E. White, Esq., of the firm of Parker

A(\

LA

————$=—

EL. CAWKSLEV STLTUS

WHITE SHANGHAE (OR “ COCHIN”) COCK AND HEN.

and White, Boston. These are portrayed in Dr. Bennett’s work (1850), and
are there described as an exquisitely beautiful variety of Shanghaes, — pure
white in color, and formed precisely similar to the Yellow and Red varieties,
better known among fanciers at that period. Mr. T. Thorpe of Cambridge,
Mass., imported, or purchased of the importer, the first of this race we had
in those days in Boston. We present a picture of a cock and hen of this
variety, which represents them very fairly. They partake of all the charac-

«

SHANGHAE, COCHIN, BRAHMA. 39

teristics of the genuine Shanghae species, in a marked degree, except the
change in color. They are a beautiful fowl in every respect, and have many
favorites among the fancy. At the present time, the White Shanghae is very
perfectly bred all over this country, and many strains have been vastly im-
proved in size since the early importations. Fine samples have been sent out
to us from England, also, in the past few years, — such as were never before
seen in this country, so far as the average weight and proportions of this
variety are considered. Mr. Mark Pitman, of Salem, has a superior strain.

The introduction of White Shanghaes into Great Britain is traceable to the
breeds of the Dean of Worcester, and Mr. Herbert of Powick. At this
period (1851~52) there were but very few in England, and large prices were
paid for good specimens for breeding purposes. Now they are plentiful in
that country, where they are bred to great perfection. They are not gen-
erally considered so hardy as are other colored Shanghaes; and the chickens
are usually more difficult to raise than the others. Nor do they reach the
weights of either the Grays or the Buffs. Mr. Bowman of Penzance, Eng.,
has, however, succeeded in raising a good many magnificent White Shang-
haes, and his strain is very popular, as are Mr. Todd’s, of Ohio, also.

The Black Shanghae is less common among us than any other variety.
In 1850, at the time we obtained through Wm. T. Porter from Shanghae
our second lot of Light Gray birds, we found an excellent trio (cock and two
hens) of the Black variety; which, with the five Light Grays then obtained,
and a splendid trio of Dark brown birds, we took to Melrose to breed. The
Black ones bred true to the originals, and were of the. best color (for their
dusky metallic hue) that we ever saw. We did not fancy them greatly, how-
ever, and bred them only one or two seasons. We give portraits of the
Black birds here; and it will be seen that, excepting the change of color,
again, they represent the same formed fowl, from beak to toes,—the true
Shanghae, though ebony-hued.

For several years, through the adoption of this title in England by the
poultry societies and clubs, all these different colored Shanghaes have come
to be called “ Cochins;” and under this name only are they now recognized
in the Standards on both sides of the water. This is quite as well; though,
as Mr. Robert Fortune insists, “this stock never saw Cochin China,” and
what we all now call “Cochins,” in England and America, are in reality
but the true northern Shanghae race.

40 THE CHINA FOWL.

But a correspondent in a late American poultry journal puts this point
sensibly.. He says, “For my part, I prefer to see men up with the times,
who have an ‘axe to grind’ in coming to the front as breeders of to-day, of
fowls as they are now, not the antiquated breeds of thirty years ago.”

= =
NANDERSOUKSO.GI,

BLACK SHANGHAE (OR ‘ COCHIN”) COCK AND HEN.

Correct! This is good doctrine; and to this, even we old ’uns will all
respond “ Amen;” while, at the same time, the “few varieties” of Chinese
fowls (alluded to by this writer), known in the antiquated time of 1847 to
1852, have not been increased, I notice, by the receipt of any one additional
or new variety from that heathen land. We still have the White, the Buff,
the Drab, the Silver Cinnamon, the Gray, the Yellow, the Partridge, the

SHANGHAE, COCHIN, BRAHMA. 41

Grouse, and the Black; and all these gentlemen, who are so commendably
“up with the times,” are now breeding from the very identical stock in their
“modern experience”’ that we ancient fogies “imported and exported and
wrote books about,”’ in the “antiquated days of twenty or thirty years ago.”
This early stock has been improved somewhat in the later time; and no-
body need now object to the change in its name to suit the modern fancy,
since the Shanghae fowl itself has never yet been changed materially in its
general good qualities and characteristics, and probably never will be. It
was good enough originally: it is good enough now. We will now call it
-“Cocuin,” therefore, contentedly, and herein follow, where in the “ days
lang syne” we led. Still this fowl remains unchanged, although some later
writers assume that both the Brahmas and the Cochins are an entirély ditfer-
ent variety from the Shanghaes.

Mere theories, like those of Lewis Wright, may be promulgated, and these
may be rendered plausible by argument. But recorded facts cannot be
ignored ; and in connection with this point let me quote briefly from the
report of the judges of the old New-England Poultry Society, made at their
third and fourth exhibitions in Boston, Mass. This exhibition was a fine
one, and the entries were very large. The Committee of Judges say, offi-
cially, “At this Boston show, the best and most faultless descriptions of
Red and Buff Shanghaes were shown by Geo. P. Burnham, Esq., of Melrose.
And, of the Cochin Chinas, the specimens exhibited by G. P. Burnham were
each and all notable, and worthy of public appreciation.” This in May,
1852. At the last show of this Society, where I did not enter any fowls for
premium, but only on exhibition, which came off the same year (1852) in
the fall, the judges, in their published report, call attention to the fact that
among the numerous fowls exhibited this season, as upon former occasions
(noticeably in 1850 and 1851), a very unnecessary practice seems to have
obtained in the misnaming of varieties, and recommend a close adherence
hereafter to recognized titles only.

In this connection they allude to cases in point. “ The largest and unques-
tionably one of the finest varieties of fowls ever shown among us, was entered
by the owner of this variety as Chittagong.* Other coops of the very same

* These were the old Gray Shanghae pair I sold to Dr. Bennett. Entered at this show
by G. W. George of Haverhill, to whom the Doctor sold them, after he bred them one
season. They were first shown by me, in 1849, at Boston. :

42 THE CHINA FOWL.

stock were labelled Gray Chittagongs;* others were called Brahma-Poo-
tras; others, from the same original birds, { were Gray Shanghaes, &c.
Your Committee are divided in opinion as to what these birds ought right-
fully be called; though the majority of the Committee have no idea that
‘Brahma-Pootra’ is their correct title. Several cages contained specimens
positively known to have come direct from Shanghae, § and none are known
to have come originally from anywhere else. Nevertheless, it is thought
proper to leave this question open for the present; and the Committee accept
for them the title of Gray Shanghae, Chittagong, or ‘ Brahma-Pootra,’ as
different breeders may elect, for the present, admitting that they are really a
very superior bird, and will be found decidedly the most valuable anions all
the large Chinese fowls, of which they are clearly a very good variety.”

This, mark, in the spring and fall of 1852, at the Boston Fowl Shows,
where I did not enter the first fowl for sompentien And, farther on in this
Committee of Judges’ Report (above quoted from), the following extracts are
to the point : —

“Samples of the China tock: imported originally from Shanghae, were
very plentiful on this occasion, “and very superior fowls, bred from G. P.
Burnham’s importations, were numerous, and were sold in four or five instan-
ces at the very highest prices paid for any samples disposed of” Among
the premiums awarded, as per report, at this fourth show (in 1852), were the
“first prizes for best trio, to H. H. Williams (Burnham’s stock) ; first for
best cock and hen, to Chas. Sampson (Burnham’s stock); second and third
prizes to Williams, same (Burnham’s stock) ; a first prize to C. C. Plaisted,
for ‘Hong Kong’ fowls, then so called by contgibutor (from Burnham’s
stock); to A. White, six best chickens (Burnham’s stock) ; to same, for best
Cochin cock and hen, first prize (Burnham’s stock); to Williams, West
Roxbury, best trio of Cochins, first premium (Burnham’s stock); to A.
White, East Randolph, for best Cochin chickens, first (Burnham’s stock),” &e.

* These were called Cornish fowls, contributed by Hatch of Connecticut; and very
good ones they were too, but all young birds.

+ These were Dr. Bennett’s first ones, bred from my old Philadelphia Grays, which I
sold him the previous year.. Shown the second time.

t These were my Light and Dark Gray fowls, and their progeny.

§ These were my oldest imported Grays, and other fowls.

SHANGHAE, COCHIN, BRAHMA. 45

All this is somewhat of a personal character; but I am now writing of the
old days, of events in chicken-history that occurred over twenty years since.
From the above data, it will be seen that several months prior to the time
(December, 1852,) when I shipped the mature “Gray Shanghaes” to Her
Majesty, Queen Victoria, to wit, in the spring of 1852, I exhibited old Shang-
hae fowls, and their progeny three, two, and one year old. In the fall of the
same year, my patrons, who had bred fowls from Cochin or Shanghae chick-
ens, or eggs purchased of me in 1850, 1851, carried away all the leading pre-
miums with this young stock of the Grays, Reds, Buffs, &c.; and not until the
year 1852 (in September) had the proper name of this fine stock been called
in question. It was rightfully “Shanghae.” But from and after this show
began the contest that resulted in naming this much-maligned race “ Brah-
mas” and “Cochins,” of different colors; though I continued to call my stock
“ Shanghaes ” for many years afterwards.

Englishmen (through the Queen’s Chinese fowls) had, previously to this
time, for four or five years, been breeding what they called “Cochin Chinas ;”
and this name had come to be accepted by the Society members and British
poultry clubs as “the thing, you know,” in the course of a few years later.
Meantime, early American. breeders of the Marsh, Forbes, and Burnham
Shanghaes had begun to find a very goodemarket in England for selected
samples of these strains, and especially of the Gray Shanghaes; and Dr. Ben-
nett, Mr. Plaisted, Capt. Williams, W. Buckminster, and myself sent hun-
dreds of pairs and trios of this Shanghae stock abroad, to the delight and
astonishment of the fanciers in Great Britain.

It has been lately stated, I observe, that in 1854 and 1857 some importa-
tions of fowls were made into England direct from Shanghae, — Partridge-
colored, I think. But the English breeders’ persisted in calling the Gray
Shanghaes they got from America (as they did these last-named birds from
that port) Cochins, or Brahmas. No longer Cochin Chinas as at first, never
latterly Shanghaes (what they were), but Cochins or Brahmas, they said.
And to-day “so say we all;” though I had always contended for the one true
name “ Shanghaes” of different colors.

The Shanghaes have been fearfully abused and maligned —on paper —in
past years. They were called homely, gawky, ravenous, clumsy, ill-favored,
long-legged monsters; and though everybody was at once astonished and

44 THE CHINA FOWL.

interested, in greater or less degree, at this novelty among chickens when it '
appeared, but few fanciers took hold of it at first with any zeal. The breed
worked its own way, however; and after a year or two, despite the abuse and
ridicule and nicknaming heaped upon it privately and publicly, it came to
be largely sought for; and a rare furore eventually succeeded, to obtain good
samples of these Shanghaes in England, as well as all over this country.

Now, the originally imported Shanghae fowl, of different colors (mot the
original Queen’s Cochin Chinas), was in no particular different from the so-
denominated Cochin of to-day. The requirements of the Standards here and
in England describe the same points possessed by the early birds, almost pre-
éisely ; and old breeders, who have watched the progress in poultry “improve-
ments” here and abroad for twenty-five years, know this. But

“ What’s ina name? That which we call a rose,
By any other name would smell as sweet.”

I notice in Mr. Wright’s latest work on poultry that Mr. Cornish, under
date of a letter to Col. Weld in 1869, states (among other gross inaccuracies
in said letter) that “in 1850 the name ‘Brahmapootra’ was established.”
And farther on, Mr. Wright says that “this was the stock fostered by Mr.
Cornish and Dr. Bennett.” Butsin Dr. Bennett’s own “ Poultry Book,” pub-
lished in Boston in 1850, the name of Brahma or Brahmapootra is not _
alluded to, once; while my original Philadelphia (Dr. J. J. Kerr) “ Gray Shang-
haes,” then called by Drs. Kerr and Bennett “Chittagongs” (precisely as
Cornish calls his stock, in his March 2d, 1852, letter), are both finely illus-
trated, and are fully deseribed by Bennett, see pp. 26, 27, 28, as “perfect
samples,” “remarkable for size and beauty,” “the jirst among domestic
varieties of fowls,” “the true gallus giganteus,” and they “excite astonish-
ment and admiration in all fowl fanciers who behold them,” &c. At the
close of this book —last page — Dr. Bennett adds, “It will be observed that
the descriptions in this work begin with Mr. Burnham’s imperial Gray Chit-
tagong,” &c. Now, if (as Cornish says) this “Brahma” name was “ estab-
lished in 1850,” why does not Dr. Bennett (who originated it) somewhere in
his extensive “ Poultry Book” :mention it? Mr. Cornish or his fowls, of
course, were not then known to anybody; for Bennett was the first man in
America to broach this subject of a new-fangled name for the fine Gray

SHANGHAE, COCHIN, BRAHMA. 45

Shanghae birds; and Wright admits this. This is but another mistake of.
Cornish’s, in the date of the year. And one word more upon this point : —
As far forward from this time as in 1854, the judges at the National Exhi-
‘bition in New York, in their official report on that Show, say, “Though we
have been governed by.the nomenclature in the lists, we by no means assent
to it as a proper classification. Shanghae and Cochin are convertible terms;
but Brahmapootra is a name for a sub-variety of Shanghaes, plainly.” And
“we earnestly insist that all ridiculous, unmeaning aliases for fowls be aban-
doned, and a simple, truthful classification in name be strictly observed in
the future,” &c. Compare this with my quotations above from the Boston
judges’ report in 1852, and then let anybody declare, if they can truthfully,
that “this name ‘Brahma’ was established in 1850.”

This, of course, could not be. But I shall explain this point further, in my
future pages. I allude to it here, because it is the Shanghae fowl that I
have now been writing of, of different colors — the Gray variety among this
class — whose name the “Tichborne claimants” of 1852, 1853 (sustained
by Lewis Wright’s sophistical theory), have for years been busy in changing
from its true title, transforming it from the original to the modern names.

Thus we may learn, that in spite of all the changes from time to time that
have occurred in the nomenclature of the China fowl, the bird itself remains
the same that first came into England or America from the principal port of
the Chinese Empire. For years, as I have already stated, no one could
declare with any confidence that “Shanghaes” were not “Cochins,” or vice
versa. At that early period in chicken-raising in the United States, very
few persons knew any thing of the real facts about this race; and we begun
to ape the Britons with the “Cochin China” title, as the most euphonious.
But when importation after importation arrived here, and all of these came
from Shanghae only, we commenced to learn to “call things by their right
names.”

And this brings us to consider the so-called Cochin variety, by itself, in
another chapter.

THE COCHINS. |

Tue “ Cochin China” fowl, as it was originally known in England and in
the United States, was altogether a different bird, in shape and characteris-
tics generally, from what is denominated at the present day “Cocutrn * by
societies and poultry fanciers of our time. This bird originated in China,
however; the first (and only exact) samples of which were procured at
Shanghae, and were shipped from that coast-port direct to England in a
British government vessel, soon after the close of the war in that country
(when the Chinese trading-ports were first opened to British and other
foreign commerce), by the then resident English ambassador to the Chinese
court, as a present to Her Majesty, Queen Victoria.

SHANGHAE, COCHIN, BRAHMA. 47

As we have already stated in these pages, these birds were really smooth-
legged Shanghae fowls. Still their precise origin is involved in mystery
not unlike that claimed by certain parties regarding the early history of the
“ Brahmapootras,” so far as any thing has ever been vouchsafed to the public
in actual detail. Her Majesty was known to evince a lively interest in
poultry matters at the “ Home Farm,” Windsor, however, as did his Royal
Highness Albert, the late Prince-Consort, in agricultural affairs. And the
British minister in 1843 secured what he supposed unquestionably to be a
very choice lot of the colossal poultry of China, which he sent to London
for the Queen’s world-renowned aviary.

Now, it is very clear that, whatever may have been the good quality of this
ambassador’s general talents, and his profundity as a statesman, he evidently
possessed very slight knowledge of the points or excellences of what fanciers
would call good poultry ; pre-supposing that this distinguished diplomatist
had any choice presented him in the selection of the birds he thus sent from
China to his queen. Jor, as we may readily see by examining the authen-
tic illustration by Harrison Weir (in 1844), which is transferred to our
pages from “The London Illustrated News,” of a trio of the “ famous
Queen’s Cochins ” (see opposite page), these long-legged, ‘smooth-shanked,
gawky gallinaceous representatives from the Celestial dominions were really
‘any thing but what would be esteemed, by the veriest amateur, a desirable
acquisition for his poultry-yard, in owr day. Still the monstrous proportions
of these fowls astonished the people of England vastly; and the English
illustrated journals were shortly occupied with pictures and accounts of these
giant chickens, which were a huge novelty to Messrs. John Bull.

They were wonderful in dimensions and carriage, extraordinary layers
(Mr. Walters, the Queen’s poultry-keeper, verifying some one’s curious state-
ment that “the hens laid two eggs in’a day frequently, and sometimes
three”) ; they were hardy, flame-colored, very quiet, and altogether were a
most valuable acquisition to the poultry of the Old Country, as everybody,
on sight of them, admitted. These “Cochins” were perfectly smooth-legged ;
and Harrison Weir’s pictures of them in “The London Illustrated News,”
“by royal permission,” were very accurate portraits of this rare consignment,
which at that time (1844) were described as belonging to the family of the
Otis tarda, or Great Bustard, from their kindred formation and immense
size, — though this early notion was erroneous, also.

48

THE CHINA FOWL.

QUEEN VICTORIA’S ORIGINAL ‘COCHIN CHINAS.” (Drawn by Harrison Weir, 1844.)

SHANGHAE, COCHIN, BRAHMA. 49

I read these accounts, saw the engravings in the London papers, and in
1848 sent to England for half a dozen of them. The Queen presented a prize
pair to Lord Heytsbury, then lord-lieutenant of Ireland; and he sent them
to J. Joseph Nolan of Bachelor’s Walk, Dublin, to breed. I communicated
with Mr. Nolan, and finally purchased two cocks and four pullets of this
Queen Victoria “Cochin China” stock, which were the first Cochins im-
ported into America by acitizen of the United States, by at least two years
in point of time. I bred these smooth-legged fowls, with others that I re-
ceived subsequently from Canton, for several years, and disposed of hundreds
of fine birds from this stock; though I never thought them equal to the Gray
Shanghaes (or Brahmas) by a long mark, from after experience.

These were the original “ Cochins,” however. They were so “called by the
English breeders, and this name, for the Queen’s stock, was never changed.
Why they were denominated “Cochin Chinas,” no one has ever yet been
able to determine. Certainly they never saw Cochin China; and nobody in
that Southern Chinese province ever saw any such fowls there. Mr. For-
tune, who was for a long time a resident and traveller in the East, says that
“whoever thus named these birds has much to answer for, since denizens of
Cochin China said of these fowls, when subsequently seen by them, that
they astonished those people quite as much as the sight had exercised Eng-
lishmen.” Still these were the first known “Cochin Chinas,” — of which, as
I have stated, I imported the first of their progeny into Massachusetts.

The Cochins of to-day are heavily feathered upon the legs, as we all know.
I received from China, fifteen or twenty years ago, three or four different lots
of variously-colored fowls, most of which were thus feathered to the toes.
In the case of my Cochins, I called them “ Royal Cochin Chinas,” to dis-
tinguish them from the others,— which I denominated White, Buff, Brown, or
Gray Shanghaes, because the latter (with the exception of one lot I imported
from Canton) all came direct from Shanghae.

In course of time other parties imported fowls from England or China; and
the poultry societies in Great Britain decided upon calling the Chinese fowls
“Cochins.” The American associations followed this lead; the “standards
of excellence” discarded the name of Shanghae altogether from their lists;
and, adopting Dr. Bennett’s name for the Grays, and the English style for
the other colors, we now have only the “ Cochins ” and “ Brahmas” for this
Chinese stock, which is quite as well, since everybody agrees to it.

50 THE CHINA FOWL.

The original “Cochin Chinas” imported into England, and first bred in
this country in my yards, were quite unlike the present fowls. bearing this
name, as I have briefly stated. The modern “Cochin” is a far better bird
in all respects. At that early day, however (near thirty years since), the
first comers were deemed very extraordinary fowls; and I sent samples of
these chickens all over this country, for years afterwards. They have quite
run out now. I have not seen a smooth-legged “ Royal Cochin” for many
- a day, though for a long period they were popular.

This first importation of “ Cochins” thus came from Shanghes As the
original illustration indicates, they were long-necked, unfeathered-legged,
big-tailed, long-shanked, rangy-formed, ill-favored specimens, but of “mon- -
strous proportions ” as compared with any fowls previously seen in England.
They laid huge buff-colored eggs, and a great many of them. The cocks
crowed sonorously in “ unearthly tones ;” the hens were quiet, indolent, and
dumpy; and royalty was the first possessor of these outlandish-looking
birds, which the English public naturally considered a big thing in its way.

And so it was. This consignment created a wondrous furore among the
lovers of poultry; and the royal “Cochin Chinas” were the town talk for
months after their arrival upon British soil. Other Chinese samples followed
this importation. Three or four merchants received clutches of these fowls
from China subsequently, and these all came with heavily-feathered legs.
The form of these latter birds was of a more compact description. They
came shorter in the leg, heavier in the breast, thicker in the thigh, squarer
in body, broader-backed, and shorter-tailed, while the general (yellow or
brownish) color was similar. The commoners sensibly called their fowls
“Shanghaes” fora time. And then arose the discussion in England about
the proper name by which they should be distinguished. Some called them
“ Cochins ” (or Cochin Chinas): others adhered to the more appropriate and
natural title, —since they came from that port, — “Shanghaes.” Thus a
contest occurred in the newspapers about the proper title for these birds, too,
which eventuated, after years of talk and argument, pro and con, in agreeing
upon “ Cochin,” for the Chinese birds of all colors, as we have it established
to-day.

Referring to the early poultry work of Dr. J. C. Bennett, published in
* March, 1850 (written in 1849), I extract from pages 45, 46, 47, the dnnexed

SHANGHAE, COCHIN, BRAHMA. 51

description of my “ Royal Cochins,” the first imported into America, which
were bred in Ireland from the Queen’s original stock, — of which Dr. Bennett
publishes an original full-page picture from life, which he thus alludes to: —

“Tt is with peculiar satisfaction that I am able to adorn this book with
the beautiful original portraits which are here presented, of G. P. Burnham’s
importation of Cochin Chinas. They are drawn from life by Mr. Durivage,
and are engrayed by Mr. Marsh, — artists of acknowledged ability and accu-
racy. This representation of Mr. Burnham’s fowls is believed to be the only
correct delineation of this species (then) extant, and I flatter myself will
henceforth be deemed the standard of comparison. Mr. Burnham’s importa-
tions are the best of any of the Cochin China race that have been brought to
this country. They are from Mr. Nolan’s (of Dublin) stock, and took the
premium at a late fair in England, while standing at the side of Her
Majesty’s original imported fowls.”

This importation consisted of six fowls, two cocks and four pullets. They
were raised by J. Joseph Nolan of Dublin, to whom the lord-leutenant of
Ireland sent, to breed, the original pair presented to that dignitary by Her
Majesty. Out of that stock (the Queen’s birds), my Cochins came direct to
me, into Massachusetts, in 1849; and the following description of these birds
appears in Dr. Bennett’s work : —

“The cocks are very promising in size. The color of one is brown and red,
the other red and black. The plumage is beautiful, both in the roosters and
the pullets. The color of three of the latter is generally a yellowish brown ”
(what we should nowadays call partridge-colored) “with black-tipped or
marked feathering; the fourth pullet is of a deeper brown. ‘The legs are
free from feathers, except a slight show on the cocks, and vary in color from
a reddish yellow to dark brown. ‘The form of the pullets is wnlike any fowls
I have ever seen; though there is some general resemblance to the pure
Dorking. They stand higher in the leg, however. The bodies are symmet-
rical, but long. The tail is also longer than that of the Shanghae, and is
very thin and tapering from the rump outwards. The head of these fowls
is quite small, the combs very small, and there are but slight signs of wat-
tles, as yet, on the pullets. The neck is long and serpent-like, the eye ex-
tremely large and brilliant, the chest is full, and the breadth of back is very
great. The frames of these fowls are ample, and the plumage lays closely to
the body. They weighed, on the average, at starting from Ireland, about
eight pounds each, the cocks about nine pounds. ... A reference to the

52 THE CHINA FOWL.

original picture in ‘The Illustrated London News’ shows a’ strong resem-
blance ; indeed, the figure in the foreground is a fair portrait of Mr. Burn-
ham’s birds,” &ec.

Why this fowl was called “Cochin China” at the outset, no one has ever
yet explained. It is beyond question the fact that no such birds were ever
produced in that southern province of the Chinese empire, which State, by
reference to our map again, the reader will perceive is located hundreds of
miles below the ports where our ships trade. And it is positively known that
no such large fowls have ever been known there, as the inhabitants of Cochin
China territory voluntarily avouch. When the real Shanghae fowls were first
seen by these people, they exclaimed at their monstrous proportions; and, as
Mr. Robert Fortune stated in 1853, “they were as greatly astonished at
sight of these enormous birds, as were the British, when they met with
them.”

We have yet to learn that there existed between the northern and south-
ern extremities of the Chinese coast, prior to the opening of the ports there
to foreign trade, any commercial communications that would warrant the
supposition that the large Shanghae fowls would be likely to be transported
thence to Cochin China. It is proved, on the contrary, by abundant declara-
tions on the part of the few English travellers and naturalists who have vis-
ited both portions of the empire, that this stalwart representative of the
gallus giganteus at any rate is not indigenous to Cochin China. This fowl
is not known atall in that part of China. And Mr. Fortune, who has resided
in and travelled extensively over the interior, at both extremes of the coast-
borders, declares emphatically that this class of domestic bird is not only
unknown there, but that the fowls of Cochin China territory are by no means
of a marked character in any respect.

We conclude, therefore, that this misnomer for the Queen’s fowls was
invented, as was the case in the instance of “ Brahma” for another mis-
called variety,—the former being coined by some British sailor, who was
ambitious to get up a little sensational nonsense in the way of a name for
these foreign birds, such as would be more high-sounding and grandiloquent,
perhaps, in his estimation, than the common-sense appellation they should
have been called by from the beginning, to wit, plain Shanghaes.

SHANGHAE, COCHIN, BRAHMA. 53

It surely will not be argued by any sensible person, that the English ambas-
sador, whose official headquarters were at Canton, Shanghae, or Pekin, in the
north, would be likely to go down to Cochin China, tep or twelve hundred
miles south, to procure the birds, when these fowls were to be had at Shanghae
(which has been proved to be their home in a hundred instances since then)
so readily. “ And, moreover, is the fact clearly established that Her Majesty’s
fowls came not from Cochin China, when we remember (as in the “ Brahma-
pootra” case) that no shipment from that same Cochin China country to
England or America has ever since been heard of; while we have ample
authority for the fact that “no such large fowls were ever known in that
region by the natives of Cochin China.”

Still Messrs. Bull are a stubborn race, and in their likes and dislikes they
adhere to habit with wonderful tenacity. Her Majesty’s fowls were originally
dubbed “ Cochin Chinas ;” and, had they subsequently been proved to have
come from Norway, her faithful subjects would have insisted upon calling
them Cochin China, at any hazard.. As in the case of the ‘“ Brahmapoo-
tras,” they shortened that title to ‘“‘ Brahmas,” however, so, in the other in-
stance, they dropped the second syllables of the original name, and estab-
lished “ Cochin” for the Chinese varieties. There is no objection to either
name, now: both are expressive and sufficiently brief. But we have never
yet been able to determine why the name of the fowls whose rightful cogno-
men we are now considering should have become established in this style;
since it is beyond doubt, that these birds never saw the country of Cochin
China (as Mr. Fortune avers), any more than did the splendid Gray Shang-
haes ever revel upon the banks of the Brahmapootra.

The reader is here requested to turn over to page 55, to examine the fine
illustration there given of “ Buff China Fowls.” This drawing is furnished
us by Jos. M. Wade, Esq., of Philadelphia, among others, and admirably
represents a fine pair of adult birds of the now called “Buff Cochins ” of
modern days. These fowls were drawn from life by J. W. Ludlow of Bir-
mingham, Eng., from a trio of “Buff Cochins” selected by Mr. Wade
of the Oak Lane Poultry Yards, during a late trip to England for that pur-
pose, the artist and breeder agreeing that they were the finest trio of
“ Cochins”’ they had seen: the cock being the same that was used for the
English “Illustrated Book of Poultry,” by Lewis Wright. The original
stock, whence these birds come, had its birth in Shanghae.

54 . THE CHINA FOWL.

The Shanghae fowls of all the different colors, from white to black, as we
have described them in a previous portion of this work, are now called “ Co-
chins,’ therefore. The English nor the American standards set down
among their “recognized breeds ” any of these “ old-fashioned titles.” We
all go for improvements nowadays; and it is just as well to fall in with the
large majority who have established these names,, and which the present
generation of poultry-breeders and fanciers have come to be accustomed to.
Yet it is also as well that the younger portion of our fraternity inform them- ©
selves as to the original title of this now Americanized and Englishized
nomenclature for fowls, and learn where the old stock first came from; since
it is not impossible, sooner or later, that some of our younger fanciers in
America may chance to find themselves in China, hereafter, — upon a pleasure-
trip, perhaps, which may be extended even to the limits of Cochin China
proper; and those who may read these lines may then remember our asser-
tions, and profit. by the hints contained in this little volume, upon this
subject.

The Cochin is minutely described by a leading authority, in terms precisely
like those used to designate the original “Shanghae ” fowl we have already
noticed at length. He must have a stout beak, round head, fine quality of
upright single comb. The eye should be red and full, for beauty and for use :
it gives a nice, brisk look to a sufficiently quiet bird, harmonizes better with
the general color, denotes more constitution, and is less liable to disease.} The
neck not too long; the body long, deep, and broad ; the shank and _ tail short.
The true carriage of the body, both in the cock and hen, should be upright
forward, with the hinder parts comparatively raised. A great depth from the
base of the neck above, to the point of the breast-bone with its weight of
flesh, tends to produce this form, and to show to advantage the fluff and
feathers peculiar to this fowl. The length of the breast-bone is to be desired
and looked to. With this form all will appreciate the neat head, full neck,
and broadness of the back, continued from across the wings to the tail; and
that redundant supply of feathers immediately before the tail, that gives the
broad, square look that distinguishes the high-caste birds, and which makes
their tails apparently so short. The small, compact wing will accompany
these qualities, and with that a peculiar bunch of feathers. On the back,
before the tail, will be found a profusion of feathers, and that fluffiness about

BUFF CHINA COCK AND HEN. Imported by Jos. M. Wade, Philadelphia, Pa.

SHANGHAE, COCHIN, BRAHMA. 57

the thighs, and about and under the tail and the hinder lower portions of the
body, that forms, with the feathered legs, one of the chief characteristics of the
race. Too much importance cannot be attached to straight, well-boned,
shortish shanks ; and, if you want appearance, weight, and constitution, they
must be wide apart.

In neither cock nor hen do we like to see the tail sticking straight up, but
forming a nice, agreeable line with the back, or slightly elevated; antl termi-
nating in nice, soft, but somewhat longer and drooping feathers in the cock;
the whole in the hen, from the feathers around it, wearing a much shorter ap-
pearance. A tinge of red on the back of yellow legs, stout and short, suits
us best. In forming a standard for them, we ought to insist on those points
that are peculiarly theirs, and to discountenance those that in any way
imply the possibility of an admixture with another breed.

They are the most domestic, amiable, quiet, and peaceable of all the varie-

ties of poultry. They are exceeded by none in their attachment to their own
houses or yards, from which they never wander fag, even when their liberty ©
is unrestricted; and in quietness they are unequalled. They are good layers,
and careful sitters and mothers ;(and, what is very important, the chickens
are hardy, easy to raise, and less liable to be affected by disease than those
of many other breeds. In short, as layers they are unequalled ; laying when
quite young, and in the coldest days of winter, as well as the finest days of
spring.
_ This breed, it is supposed, have been propagated by the Chinese -for a
special purpose, and are the result of long and persevering efforts on their
part, in the same way and by the same means that choice breeds of cattle
have been obtained with a particular end in view, —some for taking on pre-
cocious fat, others for milk, &. The object the Chinese had in view in
rearing this description of fowl, was for caponizing. His mammoth height
and lank proportions are just what are required for making a capon weighing,
when fifteen or sixteen months old, a dozen pounds or over. Yet, so far as
we are generally informed, the instances where such care in multiplying
fowls in China is practised, are but few, since the majority of the natives
raise immense numbers of chickens, only; and do not look so interestedly
after especial excellence in any particular strain or variety of poultry, when
they can so much more easily produce thousands of the medium qialities,
which answer their purpose, ordingigily.

58 THE CHINA FOWL.

The latest variety of the now so-called Cochins. is “a grand little fowl”
recently minutely described by Henry Beldon, a noted English breeder. This
is known as the Cochin Bantam. The originals of this small breed are said
to have been taken from the garden of the imperial summer-palace at Pekin,
when that royal establishment was sacked in the late Chinese rebellion.
Here, again (though we have little faith in this story by itself), we observe
the positive characteristic of the Briton, when once his mind is fixed upon
an idea, —in the persistence exhibited to prolong this “Cochin” misno-
mer for a Chinese bird avowedly admitted to have come from the imperial
garden at Pekin, distant many hundred miles north of the province of Co-
chin China. Our own opinion is, that these birds are akin to the old-style
Chinese Bantams we have had in America many years.

COCK AND HEN OF THE “COCHIN BANTAM”? VARIETY.

This diminutive bird was first brought to public notice in England, as late
as at the Crystal Palace poultry-exhibition of 1862. They were shown by Mr.
Kerrich of Dorking, who has retained and bred them in their purity, con-
stantly ; who, it is said, rears them with great success, which is accounted
for by the fact that the County of Surrey is warmer than other English dis-
tricts, according to this authority.

Mr. Beldon says of these “Cochin Bantams,” that, “as they spring from
a single pair, it is no wonder that the chicks are difficult to rear. Of course
I am aware that by crossing with other breeds a stronger bird is produced ;

ye

SHANGHAE, COCHIN, BRAHMA. 59

but the breed by crossing loses much of its beauty, the produce having longer
shanks and tail, and often spotted hackles. In fact, they are not to be com-
pared to the true breed. The real Pekin is a first-class Cochin China in
miniature. I have had them of such excellence that no large Cochin could
excel them; and, what is somewhat remarkable, the chickens from the pure
breed are always good, and they breed as true as sparrows. The chicks are diffi-
cult to rear, and are a bird of the sunshine; and, when chicks, require to be
fed often. Hard-boiled eggs, chopped up with bread-crumbs, I have found
answer well in the earlier stages of their life, then mixed up with oatmeal,
and so on to oatmeal made up into a stiff paste, ind oatmeal and thirds, and
then, with a little grain mixed in; in fact, they require to be pampered
somewhat. The chicks feather very rapidly at eight to ten weeks old, being
as pretty as paint; it is well known that, until the second year, when the
cocks get fully furnished in their feathering, the first year they are somewhat
scanty in their plumage. This does not apply to the hens. For breeding
purposes, I prefer the one-year-old cocks. I find they breed much better than
the two-year-old birds. The points of the breed are as follows: smallness
in size, — cocks weigh from sixteen to eighteen oz., hens fourteen to sixteen
oz.; shape exactly like the large Cochin; legs short and well feathered, and
may be either willow or yellow color, or even buff throughout ; comb of course
single, and as the large Cochins.”

In a late discussion held by the Massachusetts Poultry Society in Boston,
veteran breeders of the Cochin and Brahma varieties held that it is quite
time that a correct standard in shape, and appropriate characteristics of the
China varieties should be fixedly determined on in this country, in order that
fanciers may know and realize what form and points it is advisable and en’
réegle to aim to breed to, nowadays. If the best type of the true original
Shanghae fowl, imported from that city five and twenty years ago, were strictly
adhered to, admirable portraitures of which bird, in its genuine truthfulness
of delineation, is given in this volume of Mr. T. S. Cooper’s stock (on page
10), and if these were taken as a model, —in our own opinion, breeders
could not fail to approach perfection rapidly in producing birds of this type
of the now-called “ Cochins.”

On page 61 we give portraits of the original cock and hen (as illus-
trated in Kerr and Dixon); and, on page 62, portraits of a trio of six months’
old Cochins (of the Queen’s variety) from the same work. These are like-

60

THE CHINA FOWL.

PORTRAITS OF A MODERN “PARTRIDGE COCHIN” COCK AND HEN (1873), AS BRED BY

W. #H. Brackett, G. W. Bradley, Philander Williams, W. H. Todd, etc.

SHANGHAE, COCHIN, BRAHMA. 61

nesses of my early Cochin China stock, smooth limbed, taken from the birds
in my yards at Roxbury, Mass., in 1849; from which illustrations it will be
seen how much these then called “ Cochins” are like (or unlike) the so-called

NY

AWN WS

WN
WY
RS
Ws

yy Yi)

~~.
MIT aarkeetee =
Sere:

PEN =

G. P. BURNHAM’S ORIGINAL ‘COCHIN CHINAS” (1849).

62 THE CHINA FOWL.

Cochins of our time. The figures are presented for purposes of comparison
with other drawings of fowls in this volume, with the reminder that these
delineations represent the Cochin stock first had in America, and otherwise
portrayed in Weir’s picture (in 1844) of these smooth-legged birds on page
48, representing the Queen’s Cochins.

—
/

SIX MONTHS’ OLD COCKEREL AND PULLETS. BURNHAM’S EARLY “ COCHINS ” (1850).

The name of “Cochin” was afterwards generally adopted in Great Britain
for all the different colored Chinese fowls; and fine samples were bred there
of the Buff, the Cinnamon, and the Partridge especially, which were sent
out to this country, and which are now being imported thence continually,
by American breeders and fanciers, to replenish and keep up the character of
the “Cochin ” stock now in this country.

THE “BRAHMAS.”

Ir is my purpose, in this part of my present volume, to place upon record
as accurately as may be, the actual facts pertaining to the variety of fowls
mentioned in the above caption; believing that a clear statement regarding
this breed will prove, even at the present day, more or less interesting to the
poultry-breeders and fanciers of the United States, set down in concise
form, with data accompanying this account, to verify the statements in
relation to the true modern history of these CHINESE fowls imported into
and bred in America, originally known among us as “ Gray Shanghaes,” and
latterly as “ Brahmas.”

Early in 1849 I learned that a few Light-Gray fowls of extraordinary propor-
tions and remarkable qualities had been imported from China into Pennsyl-
vania. I had, previously to this time, sent to England for a clutch of the

64 THE CHINA FOWL.

Queen’s “Cochin China” fowls, which, as I have stated, had been also greatly
lauded through the English press; and which stock had been sent to Her
Majesty by the British ambassador in China, upon the opening of Chinese
ports to foreign commerce after the war there.

But some Gray fowls had reached Pennsylvania, which my friend Dr. J. J.
Kerr of Philadelphia (then known in poultry circles by his nom de plume
“Asa Rugg”) thus wrote me about: “This remarkable variety must, in my
opinion, stand at the head of the races of poultry, having the largest blood
in them of. any breed of fowls with which I am acquainted. They come here
from Shanghae, China. They are light gray or streaked white; and at seven
months old I have one pair that weigh over nineteen pounds.”

Dr. John C. Bennett’s book contains portraits of the two birds mentioned,
after I got them, which are drawn from life, and engraved by S. E. Brown of
Boston, which the author thus describes (in 1850), though this picture was
taken and this description was written in 1849, when the fowls were young, »
and while that work was in course of preparation. Dr. Bennett says, “This
breed of fowl has been imported into Pennsylvania within the last two years,
and ranks at the head of the list in that region for all the good qualities
desirable in a domestic bird. The color is a light streaked Gray, rather than
otherwise ; and the portraits given below are those of fine’ samples of this
great stock. They are designated ‘ Gray Chittagongs.’”

These were my first Gray fowls, portraits of which, from the original draw-
ings (still in my possession), taken when the fowls were quite undeveloped in
form, appear in this present book, and which for years I called “Gray Shang-
haes,” although Dr. Bennett called them at first “Chittagongs,” as we all did.

In describing the Chinese fowls, to which class of birds this brief work is
exclusively devoted, I thus make mention of my light “Gray Shanghaes ”
here because the date at which I first obtained this breed was during the
same year that I received the Queen’s “Cochin Chinas” from England; and
because, moreover (although for some little time neither of these choice
varieties were greatly appreciated), these “Gray Shanghaes,” as they were
called by me, for the reason that they came from Shanghae into Pennsylvania,
have turned out to be first in the estimation of all the admirers of good China
stock; and, in my judgment, to-day, as Dr. Kerr writes me about the old pair
in 1849, “they stand at the head of the races of poultry ” in the world.

LIGHT BRAHMA COCK AND HEN. ( Prize Birds. From Photographs.)
Owned and bred by W. HU. Todd, Vermillion, Ohio.

Ax
och
Ng
Pia
:

SHANGHAE, COCHIN, BRAHMA. 67

In 1850, in New York City, on board ship direct from Shanghae, in com-
pany with Wm. T. Porter, Esq., then editor of the New-York “Spirit of the
Times ” (who informed me of the arrival of these fowls from China), I procured
five lighter colored Gray fowls, nicely marked, and very even in pencilled
plumage, which I paid $100 for, and took to Massachusetts; and afterwards
bred with the old pair, and their first progeny. These I called Gray Shang-
haes still, because they al/ came from that port. And, though the poultry-
books denominated the original pair for one season “Chittagongs,” J had no

THE ORIGINAL **GRAY SHANGHAE” (DR. KERR) COCK, AT EIGHT MONTHS OLD.

name for this fine variety other than “Gray Shanghaes” for several years.
Knowing that all of them came from China, in vessels from the then newly-
opened port of Shanghae, I could see no reason for calling these birds after
the name of a state or province in India, — to wit, Chittagong. And, knowing
also as I did afterwards, when, where, and by whom the name “ Bramapootra”
was created (as I will shortly show), I would not assent to misnaming so
grand a fowl. And so, as I have said before, I shortly named them “ Gray
Shanghaes,” which I deemed their appropriate cognomen, since they all

68 THE CHINA FOWL.

came to this country from the Chinese port of Shanghae, and were simply
gray in color — instead of being buff, white, partridge, or black.

Fanciers immediately discovered, when I had my latest Light Grays
housed at home in their roomy quarters, that “they were too white; ” they
“were too indistinct in color;” they “were too light.” But I bred them
steadily that year, and very satisfactorily. I sold a great many eggs, mean-
time. In the summer and fall I sent away several young chickens; and’ in
1851, I exhibited at the Boston shows the old and some young stock,
though but little was said about Ng except that they were showy fowls,
and very large.

After breeding the Philadelphia birds a year, I sold my first pair of Grays
to Dr. Bennett, who then had a fine stock of sundry varieties at Plymouth,
Mass. Here the doctor first put forth the famous original “Plymouth
Rocks,’”’ which he thus described: “I produced this fine breed from a Cochin
China cock with a hen crossed between a Fawn- colored Dorking, Malay, and
Wild Indian.” *

The clever, talented doctor was noted for his enterprise and zeal in the
poultry business. He bred a great many fine fowls, and was a personal friend
of mine from as far back as in 1835, when I first met him in the western
country. He bought my two first Grays; and from them and a pale silver
Cinnamon or drab Shanghae hen (of the Forbes’ importation from China)
he produced a clutch or two of very nice Light-Gray chickens, some of which
he exhibited at the fowl-shows in Boston in 1851 and 1852, portraits of
which “ Burampootras,” taken from the birds and accurately engraved by
Fox in 1851, will be found on next page.

These first Gray chickens, thus produced by Dr. Bennett, had a small top-
knot or slight tuft of feathers at the back of the head; all of them, as will
be noticed in this picture of them, on a small scale, published in 1852. Where
this feature came from, I never knew; but I had no such “ disqualification ”
upon any of my own fowls, first or last; and upon this first lot of Grays only,
of the doctor’s, did I ever see this peculiarity.

* This is not the “ Plymouth Rock” of the present day, 1870-74. That is quite a different
fowl], and altogether better. This bird is recognized in the new American Standard as a variety,
or breed. It is a cross, however, between the Dominique and the Black Java, originating a few
years since in Connecticut and Massachusetts, and is an excellent fowl.

SHANGHAE, COCHIN, BRAHMA, |. 69

Dr. Bennett continued to breed the Grays, thereafter, very successfully. I
furnished him with several other specimens of birds out of the progeny of my
first and second lots, which I bred together; and he sent a few of these to
England in 1852 “on speculation,” to London.

In 1851, Dr. Bennett, Mr. Hatch of Connecticut, and myself all showed
the Light-Gray stock in small quantities; and the doctor had for some time
been exercising his busy brain to coin “a good name” for these fowls. He

DR. BENNETT’S ORIGINAL TRIO OF ‘* BURAMPOOTRAS.” DRAWN FROM LIFE IN 1851.

consulted me regarding this proposition; and I always contended for what I
considered to be their correct cognomen, namely, “Gray Shanghae,” for the
very good reason already given.

But this title was not sufficiently high-sounding to suit the doctor’s views.
And so I will here repeat, as I have already communicated it through another
channel, precisely what occurred regarding this name for the splendid Gray

70 THE CHINA FOWL.

Shanghaes, — as it took place in my house. I quotefrom an article I contrib-
uted to Wade’s Philadelphia “ Fancier’s Journal,” in March, 1874.

“Dr, John C. Bennett of Plymouth, Mass., in those days a shrewd and
enthusiastic breeder of all kinds of fancy fowls, made me a fabulous offer for
my pair of “Gray Chittagongs” (the Dr. Kerr Philadelphia birds), and took
them away. He bred them with a very light drab or buff Shanghae hen he
had, of the Forbes’ importation, and produced a clutch of fine, showy chickens,
which he exhibited at the second or third Boston fowl-show, to which he desired
to give a specific name. ;

“Tn those long-ago days, a good name for fowls was ‘a big thing’ towards
success, among fanciers, in disposing of the stock they produced. The doctor
first consulted me on this point, and in my own library he took down an atlas.
Turning to the Eastern countries, he pored over China, Cochin-China, Hindos-
tan, &c., and his eye lighted upon the Burrampootra River in India.

“<¢ Hureka!’ cried the amiable doctor, ‘I have found it! Here it is, and
it’s a stunner!’

“And he pointed to that unpronounceable word “ Burrampootra” upon the
map. ,

“¢What is it?’ I quietly asked.

“<The name for my birds. Do yousee ? Grand, expressive, stylish, capital !’
he continued.

“Thus it began. He shortly varied it to ‘Brahmah-pootra,’ the first por-
tion of this term being the name of the chief deity of the Hindoos. But this
compound was too lengthy. Then it was cut short to Brahmah, and finally,
by universal approval, became Brahma, — a very good name for a very good
fowl, though I continued for years to call my stock — precisely like his, and
bred originally from the same pair of ‘Chittagongs’ with the lighter birds I
got on shipboard in New York from China — what they really were, to wit,
‘Gray Shanghaes,’

“This, in brief, is the true history of the original coining of the name
‘Brahma.’ (The theory set up by one writer, that ‘ the first pair of Brahmas
were brought from Luckipoor up the Brahmapootra River, in a ship to New
York, by asailor’ whose name has never been given, is sheer romance and
nonsense.)”

Now, it should be observed just here, that Dr. Bennett’s Poultry Book, pub-
lished by Phillips & Sampson of Boston in 1850, ’51, makes no mention what-
ever of the “ Brahmapoutra” or the “ Brahma” fowl. He does mention the
“Gray Chittagong,” however; and the illustrations of this breed in his book
(which, be it remembered, is of my Philadelphia “ Gray Shanghaes”’) are the

SHANGHAE, COCHIN, BRAHMA. 71

very fowls he afterwards purchased of me; which he bred from, and the pro-
geny of which he first called “ Burampootras,” and subsequently worked down
into “ Brahmas:” while this further important fact must not be lost sight ot
just here, also, that, notwithstanding Dr. Bennett published his excellent Poul-
try Book in 1850 and 1851, this name “ Brahma” or “ Brahma Poutra”’ does
not appear in its pages at all, and no allusion whatever is made to this name
in that work by Dr. Bennett, or to Mr. Cornish’s or Chamberlin’s existence.

Now, no one has ever disputed or questioned the fact that Dr. Bennett manu-
factured this name. ‘ Thou canst not say J did it!” all others can truthful-
ly exclaim. Nobody takes any credit for this performance originally, save the
pleasant, ingenious doctor himself. Most assuredly the writer of these pages
never claimed to have applied this cognomen'to the Gray Shanghaes. Still
there has been some controversy as to when these fowls weresonamed. I have
shown that this title was in no shape applied till after 1851.

Tracing this name with these birds thus, down from 1849 to 1852, the fol-
lowing further corroborative evidence that they were identical, and just what
I have now described them, assumes importance, namely: upon page 177, in
Wingfield’s splendidly illustrated work on poultry, Dr. Wm. Custe Gwynne,
in 1853, speaking of the original Light Brahmas sent out by us from America
to England, says, “‘ Another circumstance which confirms me in this view as to
the identity of these ‘ Brahmapootra’ birds (Bennett’s) with the Shanghae
breed, is the fact that the fowls recently presented to Her Majesty by Mr. G. P.
Burnham, under the name of ‘ Gray Shanghaes,’ 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 Shanghaes’ presented to Her Majesty
were bred was imported direct from Shanghae.”

All of which is perfectly correct, as I have herein shown. The fowls I sent
to the Queen were bred from the first two Grays received from Philadelphia,
which stock Dr. Kerr informed me came from Shanghae,— and out of the second
lot I got in New York, through Mr. Porter, from on board a ship direct from
the port of Shanghae. No Dark Brahmas had then been seen, or alluded to.
Dr. Bennett’s earliest chickens were bred out of that very first Philadelphia
pair of Grays; and later birds were bred by him from the progeny of that
stock, and other younger fowls I supplied him with in 1851 and 1852, and
afterwards. He always admitted this. He had no occasion to deny or dis-

TE THE CHINA FOWL

aN \

rer WN
= RAYS ray
‘ me

| Aaa
le lh

i

Dif

EG LEAL E

x

AMERICAN DARK BRAHMA COCK AND HEN. ‘ BLACK PRINCE” AND “JOAN.”
Prize Birds, bred by Philunder Williams, Taunton, Mass.

SHANGHAE, COCHIN, BRAHMA. 73

pute it. The Doctor always gave me credit for what was then exactly true.
We differed simply in our opinions as to what name this splendid variety
should be called by. I adhered to “Gray Shanghae;” and he coined the
title of “ Burampootra,” “ Brahma-Poutra,” and finally “ Brahma,” as it now
stands-in England and America.

And this brings me to further authoritative corroborating evidence upon
this point, occurring in 1852, and referring directly to the controversy then
rife in this country, about the naming of this stock —up to this time all
being Light Brahmas — to wit : —

At the third or fourth Boston show, in the fall of 1852, the Committee
of Judges —consisting of Dr. Eben Wight, Dr. Bennett, Messrs. Andrews,
Fussell, and Balch — reported in extenso, officially, upon the Chinese varie-
ties. From that Report (of which Dr. Wight was chairman), I take the fol-
lowing extracts, which will show the fanciers of to-day how near the exact
truth my statements are, and have been hitherto, in regard to this naming
of the “Brahma” fowl. This Report, from which I now quote in detail, was
made immediately after the Boston exhibition of the “ New-England
Society for the Improvement of Domestic Poultry,” as follows :—

“ Your Committee would call your attention to the fact that, among the
numerous fowls exhibited this season, as upon former occasions (notably in
1851), a very unnecessary practice seems to have obtained, in the misnaming
of varieties. Cross-bred fowls have been called by original cognomens un-
known to practical breeders; and a host of birds well known to the Committee
have been denominated by any other than their real conceded ornithological
titles. This leads to ridicule, and should not be sanctioned by your Society.
Many honest, careful breeders may thus be deceived ; and this multiplying of
unpronounceable and meaningless names for domestic fowls is entirely un-
called for. Your Committee recommend a close adherence, hereafter, to
recognized titles only, . . . and allude to a case in point.

“The largest, and unquestionably one of the finest varieties ever shown
among us, was entered by the owner of this variety as the ‘Chittagong.’
Other coops, of the same stock, were labelled ‘Gray Chittagong ;’ others
(same stock) were called ‘ Bramah Pootras;’ and others, ‘Gray Shanghaes.’

“ Your Committee are divided in opinion as to what these birds ought
rightfully to be called; but the majority of the Committee have no ‘idea
that ‘Bramah Pootra’ is their correct. title. . . . Several of the specimens
are positively known to have come direct from Shanghae ; and none are known

74 THE CHINA FOWL.

to have come originally from anywhere else. For the present, however, the
Committee accept for them the title of ‘Gray Shanghae,’ ‘Chittagong,’ or
‘Bramah Pootra,’ as different breeders may elect,— admitting that they area
very superior bird, and believing . . . they will be found decidedly the most
valuable among all the large Chinese breeds, of which they are clearly a good
variety.” ;

This is quoted accurately from the Report published in 1852, when several
parties showed the Light-Gray stock, in competition, under the different
names aboveindicated. But the Committee of Judges—who saw at a glance
that all the birds were identical in color, shape, and characteristics — deemed
it but just to comment as they thus did upon this unwarrantable diversity of
cognomen for the same stock.

Now, all these four thus severally-named varieties, to wit, the “Chittagongs,”
the “ Gray Chittagongs,” the “ Brahma Pootras,” and the “ Gray Shanghaes,”
were then unquestionably my original fowls and their descendants. There
was at that time no question about this fact; and three of these very lots we
all positively knew were mine, or out of my stock. These ‘“Chittagongs,” as
I have already stated, were entered at this show by G. W. George of Hav-
erhill, and were the original Gray Philadelphia (Dr. Kerr) pair, then three
years old. Mr. George purchased them of Dr. Bennett, to whom, as I have
said, J first sold them. The “Gray Chittagongs,” then so called, were con-
tributed by a Mr. Hatch, and were said to have been bred in Connecticut,
The “Brahma Pootras” were Dr. Bennett’s, first shown the year before as
chickens bred from my fowls, as we were all aware, but thus so named by the
Doctor. The “ Gray Shanghaes ” were my contributions (sixty-four specimens
in all), three years old, two years old, one year old, and chickens, bred from |
the two original Grays, and my second imported five lighter Gray fowls ; —
the first from Dr. Kerr, the second through Wm. T. Porter.

And, up to that time, no other such Light-Gray fowls had been seen, or
were anywhere else known to exist, in this country. These were identical in
color, form, beauty, size, and general characteristics; and all were single-
combed birds, as far as any of us observed.

The chairman of the Committee, from whose official report I have last
quoted, Dr. Eben Wight of Dedham, Mass., was a gentleman above re-
proach or suspicion, in every respect, who could not have been induced, upon

SHANGHAE, COCHIN, BRAHMA. 75

any consideration whatever, to have given his name or sanction to any asser-
tion that he did not know to be just and truthful. He said “all these fowls
were identical; ” that “they were out of the same stock;” that “several of
the specimens were positively known to have come from Shanghae, direct ; ”
that “none of them were known to have come from anywhere else;” that
“they were a good variety of the Chinese fowl ;” that “they were the largest
and finest fowls ever shown among us; ” and, though the Committee were not
then prepared to accord them a specific name, yet “ the majority of the Com-
mittee had no idea that ‘ Brahma Pootra’ was the rightfully proper title” for
any of them. i f

Dr. Wight was one of the oldest importers then known in America, anda
very careful, conscientious man. He then bred no Gray fowls of any de-
scription. He could have had no possible object, save to do justice to all
parties, in this Report. And his language on this occasion was not only
forcible and clear, but it was truthful, just, and reasonable, as well as un-
. equivocal.

After this exhibition, the name of “ Brahmah Pootra” was adopted by
Dr. Bennett, in spite of my own arguments, and the advice of others who
were opposed to this “multiplying of meaningless names” for varieties of
fowls; and in this shape it went out to England. In course of time it came
to be reduced to Brahmah; and finally, as I have said, to Brahma. But the
fowls underwent no change. In England also they came to be called
“ Brahmas; ” and the very fowls I sent to Her Majesty, the receipt of which
were acknowledged by Hon. Col. Phipps, the Queen’s secretary, as “ magni-
ficent Gray Shanghaes,” were the following season exhibited by His Koyal
Highness Prince Albert, at the Birmingham Show (in 1853), as “ Brahmas.”
And so, after 1854, they came generally to be called by this accepted and
acceptable title, though not so by me for some years. —

In order to show how incorrect is the statement made by Mr. Cornish in
1869 (see Wright’s “ Illustrated Book of Poultry,” page 241), that “the name
of Brahma was established in 1850” (!), I set these recorded. facts down
here; and in confirmation of this I add that the first American. “ National
Poultry Society” in this country gave two annual exhibitions (in 1854, ’55)
in New York, at Barnum’s Museum; the proprietor of which establishment,
Phineas T. Barnum, Esq., was president of this society,, “ assisted by forty
managers,” — so ran the prospectus published at its formation.

76 THE CHINA FOWL.

The first exhibition of this National Association occurred in the winter
of 1854, and proved a great success. I was there with my Light and Dark
Gray Shanghaes, and other Chinese fowls, and carried away a score of the
leading premiums with my variously-colored China breeds, old and young.
A. B. Allen, Esq., the famous cattle-breeder of Western New-York State, in
“The American Agriculturist,” thus wrote of this fine Poultry Show: —

“This great show at Barnum’s, contrary to general expectation, brought
out altogether the finest, largest, and choicest exhibition ever witnessed in
‘America. Of their kinds, there were scarcely a pair of inferior birds in this
vast collection; and many fowls came five hundred miles for this occasion.
This very fact showed that poultry fanciers within striking distance of New
York had confidence in the Society, in its managers” (I was one of the
forty), “in the ability of Mr. Barnum to carry it out, and in his integrity, &e.

« As an evidence of the interest then felt among fanciers of all ranks and
all fortunes, they, sent their birds, attended themselves, and took a lively
interest in every thing that appertained to the proceedings. We saw there
highly distinguished scientific gentlemen, lawyers, statesmen of great repute,
grave divines ‘wise with the lore of centuries,’ merchants, commercial men
called by way of eminence ‘ millionaires,’ artisans, farmers, gentlemen, —sin-
gly, or with their wives and daughters and little children, all eagerly threading
their way through and by each other, to gaze at the coops and cages, intent
on seeing every thing, examining a great many birds, and not once only, but
repeatedly, day after day, during the show, did we see some of the same indi-
viduals, groups, and families.

““Now, this means something. People would not congregate at this inclem-
ent season, from fifty to five hundred miles distant, to witness a ‘chicken
show’ in New York, unless there was ‘something in it.’ There is something
in it. There is a study in it. It is a delightful contemplation in natural
history. These beautiful birds are a thing to love, to interest young minds,
and old ones too. They are among the things to make country life inter-
esting, to attach people to home, and make it pleasanter than all the world
beside,” &c.

Thus wrote Mr. A. B. Allen in 1854, about the “ National Association ” and
its first show of fowls at New York. And, even at that period, it was
charged that “G. P. Burnham of Gray Shanghae notoriety was stoutly con-
tending against the establishment of the name ‘Brahma Pootra’ for the
popular Light-Gray fowls being so largely bred in America,” which name had
not even then been adopted, not to say “established,” by us!

SHANGHAE, COCHIN, BRAHMA. (6r

A full-page cut (see page 78) gives us a drawing of a mature cock and hen
of the “Chamberlin stock,” so called, as bred by Mr. Emory Carpenter and
others in Connecticut. The bodies, plumage, and general outline of this pair
are good representations of modern Light Brahmas. The color is shown as
being considerably darker than the average birds of the light variety, nowa-
days; yet it is very nearly the tint of feathering that characterized my best
early Gray Shanghaes. This pair are too short in the leg for good breeding
stock; but, as we had the pleasure of examining Mr. Carpenter’s fine fowls
at Hartford, recently, we can vouch for the fact that his Brahmas are not
thus deficient. We have rarely seen better-fashioned broods of this race than
the samples we were shown upon Mr. Carpenter’s spacious premises, this
season, the generous size of which is especially notable.

The admirable drawings, by Ludlow, of W. H. Todd’s beautiful Light and
Dark Brahmas (see plates on pages 65 and 81) give us a truthful idea of the
general character and appearance of those two well-bred American varieties,
up to standard, in points. This cock and hen in each picture are from pho-
tographs of the winning fowls portrayed ; and Mr. Todd is well known as a
leading successful Western breeder (at Vermillion, O.), who has turned out,
in the past few years, some of the finest samples of both Light and Dark
Brahmas that have ever been produced in this country.

In all the varieties of Chinese fowls which Mr. Tedd has placed in his
breeding-runs, this gentleman has procured the best stock that money could
purchase ; and his good taste and large experience have enabled him to make
the choicest selections attainable, both in this country and in England.

The illustration, page 72, of Philander Williams’s American-bred Dark
Brahmas (younger birds, not fully developed in proportions when pictured)
also shows a fine pair of these symmetrical and favorite fowls.

The English Dark Brahma cock, figured on page 86, is described in the
London “ Poultry Review” as a bird of great rarity. It is stated that “ten
of his brother and sister chicks carried off cups in 1872, at the British shows,
this cock being the flower of the flock.” Mr. Lingwood refused 250 guineas
($1,250) for him and his five brothers, and 50 guineas ($250) for himself,
alone. Choice Brahma fowls must be “taking their place in the front,” in
England, indeed. Yet such a bird as this is for a “Dark Brahma” — with
his monumental tail and fearful “ hock ” — could never win among first-class
American competitors, assuredly. ,

‘S481 ‘LQOILOANNOO NI Gad SV ‘NaH GNV 3000 VKHVUA LHDIT

ee UM Ne
—_——

SHANGHAE, COCHIN, BRAHMA, 79

Although —as I look at the question of the origin of the Brahma fowl —
any new theory that may be promulgated in 1874 can possess no material
weight, and can have no effect upon what was so clearly written, discussed,
and published nearly a quarter of a century ago, in all its confirmatory partic-
ulars, yet I cannot pass by without notice the account of Mr. C. C. Plaisted,
published in June, 1874, in “ The Poultry World;” because Mr. Plaisted in his
“history ” states much that is true, and all that he himself dedieves, undoubt-
edly, but at the same time some points which are clearly incorrect. And here
I insert an article from a Kensington (Penn.) correspondent of Wade’s ‘“ Fan-
cier’s Journal” of a late date, which will explain itself; with the single re-
mark that Kensington (a part of Philadelphia) was the former residence of *
Dr. J. J. Kerr, of whom in 1849 I obtained my first pair of Gray Shanghaes,
and who sent Dr. Bennett also, in 1850, a trio of these birds, that Doctor
Kerr thought “quite equal to Mr. Burnham’s,” &c.

“ KENSINGTON, June 8, 1874.

“ Mr. Editor, —I noticed in a poultry magazine, lately, by a Mr. Plaisted,
in a long story he tells about the origin of Brahma-Pootra fowls, the state-
ment, that ‘G. P. Burnham, Esq., of Melrose, Mass., claims that he had the
jirst in New England;’ that ‘a ship came to New York at just the right time
for him to secure a new importation of these Gray Shanghaes,’ as he calls
them, ‘to add to his already choice stock that were never seen until after the
exhibition of 1851’ in Boston.

“This writer claims that he attempts nothing only to state facts, just as
they existed. But, as he was formerly a partner in the chicken-trade with
Dr. John C. Bennett, of famous ‘ Burrampootra’ notoriety, it is a little strange
that he doesn’t (?) know that said Dr. Bennett published his well-known
‘Poultry Book’ in 1850, with appendix (second edition) in 1851, in which Mr.
Burnham’s splendid first Gray Shanghaes (there called Chittagongs by the
doctor) are both fully described and illustrated as ‘most remarkable for size
and beauty.’ And, in appendix, the doctor adds, ‘We have just received
from Dr. Kerr, Philadelphia (the same party Burnham got his first ones
from), some of these imperial birds;’ and Dr. Kerr writes, ‘They are quite
equal to Mr. Burnham’s.’. . . ‘This is enough,’ adds Dr. Bennett, ‘to have
said more would haye been a work of supererogation.’

“This in 1850, 51, by Dr. Bennett himself — this man Plaisted’s business
partner, who writes, in the same article ] quote from, that he (Plaisted). got
a lot of somebody else’s Gray stock in 1851, which were the Simon Pure; but
in reference to which fowls not a syllable is printed in Dr. Bennett’s ‘ Poultry
Book,’ issued that year, and which stock nobody then knew any thing about !

80 THE CHINA FOWL.

“T think it must be the other stock that Mr. Plaisted says ‘were never
seen till after the 1851 exhibition.’ For how could Burnham’s fine Gray
fowls have been thus pictured and so elaborately described in Dr. Bennett’s
work in 1850 and ’51, unless they had been seen previously? as they had
been, and admired by thousands, ‘the wonder of all poultry-fanciers who be-
hold them,’ as Dr. Bennett puts it (see his book). Or, if the Plaisted fowls
were then known, why didn’t Bennett know and say something about them
in his very comprehensive ‘ Poultry Book’ issued at that time ?”

The query embodied in the above-quoted article is pertinent; but the adyo-
cates of the Cornish-Brahma origin theory are all similarly at fault in their dates.
Now, in reference to “some of the earliest Light Brahmas,” which Wright
. says, “Mr. Burnham sent to Her Majesty in 1852,” I have simply to state
that the cage of fowls I sent to the Queen was duly labelled, in large printed
capitals, “Eraur Gray Suancuass.” I wrote a brief note to His Royal
Highness, Prince Albert, in 1852, for Her Majesty, — which Hon. Mr. Inger-
soll (then American Minister to the Court of St. James) kindly forwarded, —
in which “T respectfully tendered to Her Majesty a cage of Gray Shanghae
fowls, bred from my stock imported into America from China, three years
since ;” and the Queen, through the Hon. Mr. Secretary Phipps, “ acknowl-
edged and accepted this magnificent present of Gray Shanghaes,” and subse-
quently sent me her portrait, a photographed copy of which adorns this
volume (see frontispiece).

Mr. Wright continuously evinces a lamentable ignorance of the real char-
acteristics of what is now known as the Brahma fowl. We have it upon very
recent English authority, in two instances (from reliable persons of his own
neighborhood, who know him individually), that “American poultry-men
appear to be Wright-mad, in quoting his opinions,” &c.; that “this man
never had anything but English Dark Brahmas, and, in breeding, he has
accomplished absolutely nothing with them, even, as compared with Horace
Lingwood, Mr. Boyle, Mr. Teebay, and many others.”

Again, in his last work, 1872, ’73, Wright says, “the pea-comb is the ori-
ginal American type;” which statement is known by everybody to be a gross
error; for, as all of us are aware, the Light Gray fowls were bred here three
or four years, at least, before this peculiarity was discovered or spoken of at
all. ‘Still,’ he adds in the same paragraph, “there were, till very lately,
some splendid yards of single-comb Light Brahmas in England, which would

SHANGHAE, COCHIN, BRAHMA. 81

run English competitors closely ” for the premiums offered at the shows there.
Himself thus admitting that, until a recent date, even, there were not a few
“splendid yards” of the simgle-comb variety of Light Brahmas to be seen
in Wright’s own neighborhood, — London.

i il

Ati

HII)
|
|

‘Alli
Ait (|

| HI |

i

eal
‘wD

DARK BRAHMA COCK AND HEN, BRED BY C. H. KENEGY, POLO, ILL.

Mr. C. C. Plaisted of Hartford, Conn., who is now an earnest advocate of
pea-comb birds only, —and who asserts with great assurance that the strain
of Chamberlin-Bennett Light Brahmas he breeds will throw the triple comb

82 THE CHINA FOWL.

almost invariably, —thus expresses himself in Sept. 1874, in a poultry
monthly, upon this Brahma comb question. He says, “More than three-
fourths of the Brahmas which I bred, to 1861, had the pea-comb; since that
time I have had but one single-combed bird. I do not claim that single
combs and smooth legs are marks of impurity in this breed; but it is certain
that breeders of them are behind the times, now. I am by no means the only
breeder in the country who has come to look upon the pea-comb as a settled
thing with the Brahmas; but to obtain it on al, in perfection, is something
not yet accomplished, for this triple comb takes many forms.”

Another English writer, as late as in 1866, affirms, that, “of the Light
Brahmas imported from America, and carefully bred in his hands, fully half
of his chickens showed the single comb; and especially,” he adds, “is this
formation observable in the cocks raised in my runs.”

An American fancier in Massachusetts, who has produced some of the finest
specimens reared in New England in the past twelve years, frankly states in
a leading poultry journal, in 1867, that he “has found the single comb crop-
ping out on one-fourth of the best Brahma fowls — otherwise well pointed —
bred in Ais experience.” It is most certainly the fact that all breeders of the
Light variety, from whatever “strain” it may come, have bred and continue
to breed, to-day, more or less single combs. Mr. Plaisted is correct, however,
that breeders of single-combed birds, alone, would be “behind the times.”
And a smooth-limbed Brahma would indeed be highly objectionable! But
the single and pea-comb were both a characteristic of the original stock, and
this result is inevitable — at least at present.

With the Dark Brahmas, this “ deviation ” in the comb formation has not
been frequent. Most of this variety come with the pea-comb well developed ;
and the single comb with these is decidedly the exception, not the rule; as
has been the case from the outset.

Mr. Wright stoutly contends, that the pea-comb only is the true indication
of “genuine blood,” however. And, notwithstanding this theorist’s mixed
opinions, in other respects regarding the prominent points in the Brahma
fowl, and his vehement partiality for the pea-comb only as an “ indispensable
proof of purity” in the strain, he acknowledges in his latest work, that,
up to quite recently (see his new “ Illustrated Book of Poultry”), he knew
“several fine yards of single-combed Light Brahmas in England that would

SHANGHAE, COCHIN, BRAHMA, 83

run some of the present exhibitors a close race for our prizes.” Again, in his
“ Brahma Fowl” book, he says (p. 62), “the originals had both single and
pea combs,” while Dr. Bennett says, “ the single comb is the wswal form.”

Inasmuch as the pea-comb on Brahmas is a very desirable thing to attain,
this feature has become imperative, for competition in the show-pens; and
every fancier strives to breed as large a proportion of pea-comb specimens as
is possible in his flocks, in accordance with Standard requirements in this
regard, at the present time.

I never knew this point to be publicly discussed until after 1853. In that
year, I find in the Rev. W. Wingfield’s elegant “ London Poultry Book”
the following paragraphs, which I quote from that standard work, pages 175
to 178, on this “ pea-comb question.” (I will say just here that Mr. Plaisted,
in the June “ Poultry World,” says that “all the Light Brahmas shipped
by Dr. Bennett and himself to England were bred by them or Mr. Hatch,”
&c., from the Cornish-Chamberlin fowls, “except the pair sent to Dr.
Gwynne by Dr. Bennett himself” in 1852.) Dr. Gwynne says, in the work
I now quote from, “ I obtained from Dr. Bennett of the United States five pairs
of these birds: three of these ten fowls, only, had small compressed or pea.
combs, —a feature strikingly characteristic of the Malay fowl.” ... “In
none of the other seven birds was this peculiarity found; nor could I recog-
nize in them any thing, either in points or conformation, but what would be
found in Shanghae birds of the same age.” Be it observed here, that Dr.
Gwynne’s fowls were from Dr. Bennett of the United States — five pairs (not
one pair, as Mr. Plaisted has it); that Dr. Bennett bred, with Mr. Plaisted,
Hatch, Smith, and others, only “ Nelson H. Chamberlin-Cornish fowls ;” and
that out of ten fowls of this strain so sent to Dr. William Custe Gwynne in
England, in 1852, only three then showed this pea-comb.

Further on in this same Mr. Wingfield’s volume, I find the following state-
ment of Dr. Gwynne, to whom I never sold a bird of my stock, but who
received in England, and bred, only the Cornish, Chamberlin, Bennett and
Plaisted strain, which Messrs. Felch, and other good “old breeders” of Light
Brahmas in Massachusetts to-day claim are genuine, because they breed this
coveted “pea-comb.” In further reference to which, Dr. Gwynne writes, in
1852, 753, thus (see Rev. Mr. Wingfield’s work, pp. 176, 177) :—

“The sengle comb would appear to be the usual form of that feature in

84 | THE CHINA FOWL. |

the Brahmapootra fowls; though, as Dr. Bennett admits, the true breed
do sometimes present these deviations.” . . . “In response to which,”
replies Dr. Gwynne, “I can only say, that, out of twenty chickens bred by °
the birds I reserved for myself (obtained of Dr. Bennett), I cannot detect a
single instance of this ‘deviation’ from the single combs of the parents ;”
which parents Dr. Gwynne and Dr. Bennett then, and Mr. Plaisted lately,
all affirm were sent to England, from the latter two gentlemen, to Dr. Gwynne,
out of the Cornish-Chamberlin-Connecticut stock, in 1852, ’53, “ which should
show only the ‘ pea-comb,’ if they be pure bred.”

“But,” adds Dr. Gwynne, on same page, “another circumstance which
confirms me in my view as to the identity of these birds with the Shanghaes
is the fact that the fowls recently presented to Her Majesty the Queen by
Mr. Burnham, under the name of ‘Gray Shanghaes,’ are admitted by Dr.
Bennett” (who sent him this Cornish-Chamberlin stock) ‘to be precisely
stmilar to his own,” while “Mr. Burnham assures me that the original stock
from which the ‘Gray Shanghaes’ he presented to Her Majesty were bred
was imported direct* from Shanghae,” China, not Jndia. And my fowls
sent to the Queen in 1852, I am quite confident, showed only the single comb;
though, among the pullets, the pea-comb might have existed, at that early
day, without my observing it; since this question had at that time been but
very little discussed, or this peculiar comb-formation noticed, among us in
America. ‘

Two fowls, sent to Mrs. Hozier Williams about this time, by Dr. Bennett,
had the pea-comb, I think; when Dr. Bennett immediately wrote that,
“though the wswal form of that feature was single, the true breed of Brahma- _
pootras do sometimes present this deviation” of the triple or pea-comb. —
Thus it will be seen that all our stock in the early years showed both styles
of comb, the single comb then predominating largely in my birds, as well as
in the claimed Cornish-Chamberlin strain alike, though Bennett declares, in
1852, that “the single comb is the wswal form of this feature in the Brahma-
pootra fowl,’ and that “the true bird” (whatever that was or is) “do
sometimes only present the deviation” of the pea-comb; which authoritative
statement, in 1853, by Dr. Bennett (Mr. Plaisted’s partner), simply goes to
confirm the notable fact that at that period no one among the Cornish-Cham-
berlin pure Brahma breeders knew much about this “little joker,’ the
pea-comb,

SHANGHAE, COCHIN, BRAHMA. 85

Mr. Teebay says, in Tegetmeier’s choice “ Poultry Book,” in 1867, “The
head of the Brahmas should be surmounted with a triple comb, known as
the pea-comb.” . . . “ But when first introduced into England, many of the
Brahmas had single combs. At present, those with the pea-combs are held
in higher estimation.” The editor of “The Poultry Yard,” Miss Watts, says,
“The only difficult point is the variety of comb in the Brahmapootras, viz.,
the pea-comb and the single. While we give the preference to the former,
we do not see why both may not be pure, as in the Dorkings ” (which show
the rose and the single upright comb, constantly).

Other writers agree upon the point that single and pea-comb birds among
any “original” strain of Brahmas, or Gray Shanghaes, have both from the
outset been, and are now, bred more or less in every man’s yard in this
country and in England. But the pea-comb variety is the most desirable,
as I have said, the only one now admissible in the show-room, under Stand-
ard rules, in competition for prizes, and this is being nowadays far more
generally bred than the single-comb birds.

But, for any sensible fancier who has really had a goodly experience
with these Gray fowls, to assume, in the light of to-day, that he breeds or
meets with in his breeding only “pea-comb birds” from either Burnham’s
or Chamberlin’s or Hatch’s or Bennett’s or anybody else’s stock, is entirely
unwarranted by all experience or previous facts in this case; and such asser-
tions cannot be entertained for a moment by any one who “knows the ropes ”
in this Brahmapootra-Shanghae business, from the start, as I do.

' The pea-comb is the preferable one. The single-comb birds are and should
be discarded. But when, from any strain, only the pea-combs are produced,
uniformly and unexceptionally, and I can be convinced of this fact, I want a
dozen fowls of that established, perfect, never-deviating breed of Brahmas or
Gray Shanghaes, upon my premisés ; for which I will gladly pay their owner,
for the transfer of said stock to my yards, ten times the sum that any pur-
chaser in America will pay for them; since, though I have had no difficulty in
preserving the color of my stock, in its shades of light and dark (never once
having bred from my Gray Shanghaes a buff fowl, as some old Brahma
breeders say they have from thei strains), I have not been so fortunate, in
my five-and-twenty years’ experience with this race, as to be able to avoid
breeding both the single and the pea-combs, in my flocks; and this, too, from
the very beginning down to the year 1874. While, at this time, I venture

86

THE CHINA FOWL.

HORACE LINGWOOD’S ENGLISH PRIZE “DARK BRAHMA” COCK, BRED IN 1872.

SHANGHAE, COCHIN, BRAHMA. 87

further to predict, that the day is not far distant, when, upon other colored
Shanghae varieties, or “Cochins” as we all now call them, this pea-comb
will be bred universally, in preference to the single combs; as I know, just
now, it is being successfully established by one American breeder, in perfec-
tion, in Massachusetts,* upon the splendid “ Partridge Cochins;” and this
adornment for the head of both varieties of the Brahmas, it needs not to be
repeated, is the only style of comb that fanciers should breed, to be in the
fashion. Single-comb Brahmas have no value nowadays for the shows.

In all the public discussions, the Cornish-Chamberlin-Bennett theory advo-
cates avoid alluding to the superb Dark variety of “ Brahmas” which I first
sent out to Europe, in 1855. None of these men refer to this splendid strain,
which at once surprised and interested English breeders as intensely as had
the beautiful early Light birds I sent to the Queen, &. My Dark Grays were
as fine as the Light, and were originally produced after an experimentally-
studied union of my two imported Gray Shanghae strains, and have thousands
of ardent admirers to-day; though efforts have been made in England to im-
prove upon the originals, in the specimens latterly sent back from Great Britain,
in the shape of fowls they there call “ Dark Brahmas,” but which so very
frequently show the vulture hock, and are tainted in color with drown or buff’
feathering, instead of carrying the unrivalled pure steel-gray plumage that
alone characterized my original birds; which defects plainly exhibit the Eng-
lish erossing with the Buff or Partridge Cochin, or with both, as well as with
that far more objectionable nuisance introduced on the other side of the water,
and which can never be bred off of their birds, — to wit, the unsightly “hock”
upon the thighs, as is seen upon the cock, opposite.

A somewhat extensive Light Brahma breeder in Massachusetts, who con-
tends that only the pea-comb shows itself upon Ais breeding stock, which he
traces back to the “ pure Chamberlin ” strain, has recently written a lengthy
treatise for a public journal, about breeding a “ hocked” cock to Light pul-
lets, for some purpose or other. Now, this “vulture hock” is an English in-
vention, altogether. It has been known in this country but a few years; and
upon the original Gray birds it was not seen till long after we had sent our
birds across the Atlantic. Neither in the Dark nor the Light Brahmas was

* Full-page illustrations of this choice new variety are given in this work. See pp.
133 and 143.

88 THE CHINA FOWL.

it ever discovered till the British fanciers had tried their experiments with
the early stock, to “improve” what a Yankee fancier had first so nearly
perfected, at the start. But this crossing in with hocked birds was one of
their attempts to increase the leg-feathering in England.

Never upon my stock, bred by itself, was seen the faleon hock, — this vil-
lanous excrescence, first experimented with by English breeders, to add to the
feathering on the shanks and “ middle toes.” Upon the modern English
Dark Brahmas this offensive appendage is now of the commonest occurrence.
At is in this blood, only; and I have seen no yards of the English Dark
variety latterly among us that are not generously dotted with this blemish in
the flocks. The lauded prize cock, figured upon page 86, belonging to Mr.
Lingwood, a recent champion-bird in England of this class, it will be ob-
served, shows a monstrous hock; and yet he is considered one of the finest
“Dark Brahma” cocks in Great Britain, and won first and cup at the lead-
ing shows there, in two past seasons, against all comers. But this “ hock-
feathering,” in either color, surely never cropped out upon my birds, if purely
bred, either in England or America, as every fancier will bear me witness.

Thus much for my original-imported and American-bred Brahmas. To go
back a little, in justice to other parties, having now stated my own case as I
conceive, fairly, and just as it existed from 1848, ’49 to 1852, ’53, ’54, I give
place to the following account, which was first published from Mr. Virgil
Cornish of Connecticut at a later period; though the letter I am about to quote
was dated March 2, 1852, and ran as follows : —

“No doubt you are acquainted with the relative position of the State in
India called Chittagong, and the River Brahmapootra. Chittagong is on
the eastern border, bounding west on the Bay of Bengal. The Brahma-
pootra River empties into that bay. Jf the Brahmapootra fowls came from
that region, of which I think there is no doubt, still I am unable to say by
which name they should be called with certainty.” ... “In regard to the
history of these fowls,’ continues Mr. Cornish in this same letter, “very
little is known. A mechanic by the name of Chamberlin (in Hartford,
Conn.,) first brought them here. Mr. Chamberlin was acquainted with a
sailor, who informed him that there were three pairs of large imported fowls
in New York.” (When this occurred, is not stated.) “But this sailor
dwelt so much upon the size of these fowls, that Mr. Chamberlin furnished
him with money, and directed him to go to New York and purchase a pair

7

SHANGHAE, COCHIN, BRAHMA. 89

of them for him; which he did, at a great expense.” (Of whom this sailor
bought this stray pair of Grays, is not known.) But “the sailor reported that
he fownd one pair of gray ones, which he purchased.” (Where, nobody has
ever stated.) “The second pair was dark-colored, and the third pair was
red,” continues Mr. Cornish. “The man in New York, whose name I have
not got, gave no account of their origin, except that they had been brought
by some sailors in the India ships. The parties through whom the fowls
came, as far back as I have been able to trace them, are all obscure men.”
This was Mr. Cornish’s first frank statement.

Thus far, not much has been made out, as is evident, by Mr. Cornish in
this account; though he unreservedly states that “very little is known to
him of their origin,” any way. Most certainly, there is no evidence here
that this pair of gray fowls, which Mr. Chamberlin gave a sailor money in
Hartford to go to New York to buy, were “imported” birds at all. Mr.
Cornish simply claims that Mr. Chamberlin says he “sent a sailor with money
to New York,” and “this sailor reported that he found a pair of light-gray
fowls (somewhere), which he purchased.” But, as he probably did not go to
New York; and, as neither this sailor, Mr. Chamberlin, nor Mr. Cornish then
informs us of whom these fowls were obtained; where the sailor found them;
when they came into New York; whether they were old or young birds;
what the name of the ship (or “ships”) was; who “the sailors that brought
them in the India ships” were; who “the man in New York, that could give
no account of their origin,” was; nor yet one word about the identity of “the
parties through whose hands the fowls came,” except that “all are obscure
men,” — this extraordinarily indefinite account is indeed suspicious! This is
Mr. Cornish’s simple tale, however, at that time; and he is entitled to the |
full benefit of his statement, which some one thus repeated to him.

Further on, this same letter from Mr. Cornish says, “I obtained my stock
from the original pair brought here by Mr. Chamberlin.” Not from Mr.
Chamberlin, but “from the stock brought here by Mr. C.” Now, it is clearly
stated previously in this letter, that “a sadlor brought these fowls to Hart-
ford.” Mr. Chamberlin “sent a sailor to New York, who reported he had
found a pair, which he purchased.” However, Mr. Cornish thus proceeds :
“These fowls were named ‘Chittagong’ by Mr. Chamberlin, on account of

their resemblance, in some degree, to the fowls then in the country called by
.}

90 THE CHINA FOWL.

that name. The description of these fowls exactly corresponds with that
given by travellers and sea-captains,” (who? and when?) “of the large
light-colored fowls found in the valley of the Brahmapootra, &c.,” concludes
Mr. Cornish, in his letter.

The stock shown by Mr. Hatch at the Boston exhibition in 1852 (and I
think in 1851 also), spoken of by Dr. Eben Wight in the Committee’s Report
I have lately quoted from, — then called “ Gray Chittagongs,” — were said to
have been bred from this Chamberlin or Cornish stock, which came to Con-

‘necticut in 1849, wid a sailor, vid a mechanic, vid New York, vié Hartford,
“in the India ships,” vid the hands of “ all obscure men.” And so we never
knew, and can certainly now never know, any thing further about this “ pair
of Light Grays.” Yet such is the sailor’s and Mr. Cornish’s account in
1852, which Mr. Plaisted in 1874 pronounces a falsity, an toto.

I have no more doubt to-day than I ever had, that these two fowls were
chickens out of my yards in 1850 or 1851, or that they were hatched by New
York or Connecticut parties out of eggs sent there from my original Light-
Gray Shanghae fowls, than I have that I am living now to write this para-
graph. Nobody knows and never did know any thing to the contrary, as to
this strain of stock, except that “a sailor reported to Mr. Chambertin ” (who
sent him to New York after big fowls), that “he fownd a pair of light gray
ones, which he purchased ” of a man in New York, whose name Mr. Cham-
berlin never got, and “who gave no account of their origin, except that they
had been brought there by some sailors,” &c., which statement is not a little
mixed and doubtful, upon its face, to say the least of it.

No time is fixed upon as to when these birds were thus “reported” to have
been “ found by a sailor,” in Mr. Chamberlin’s employ. Now, what became.
of Chamberlin’s stock ? Mr. Cornish says, “I procured my stock from the
original pair,” &c. Mr. Chamberlin called them “ Chittagongs.” Mr. Cor-
nish sold his fowls (or some of them) to Mr. Hatch, who exhibited them as
“Gray Chittagongs.” Whi? Because, when they were placed in the show-
room in Boston, alongside of my original Grays (then in G. W. George’s
hands), they so closely resembled the Chittagongs (as Mr. Cornish says),
that Hatch considered this their proper name. Nobody then saw any differ-

-ence between these fowls, and mine, and George’s, and Dr. Bennett’s. But
each of us had different titles for our birds, which the Committee of Judges

SHANGHAE, COCHIN, BRAHMA. 91

complained of, as I have shown; and Dr. Bennett was himself one of that
Committee, who then contended so ardently for the “ Brahmapootra”’ title,
but who was for the time being voted down in committee, three to one.

Mr. Plaisted (Dr. Bennett’s former partner), writing of the Brahmas in
1874, says that “Mr. Hatch entered his Chamberlin fowls at Boston as
‘Chittagongs.’ Dr. Bennett then announced these as ‘ Brahmapootras.’
He bought of and paid Hatch for his lot, and placed the prize cards on the
coops, with the new name and the names of the owners, among which was
Dr. Bennett’s. This transaction displeased Mr. Hatch exceedingly; and
this was his first and last connection with the New-England Society.” Mr.
Hatch preferred the name “ Chittagong” to Bennett’s proposed new title, and
left the show-room in high dudgeon, because the Doctor had thus nicknamed
what he called his “ Chittagongs.”

“Mr. Hatch had more of this stock at home,” continues Mr. Plaisted,
“‘ which by spring he was able to sell at round prices. He bred them in
1852 and 1853, and his experience with them ended about that time. He bred
those with pea-combs, and he considered them preferable to the single-combed
for this frosty climate,” — which last-mentioned fact proves again that there
were a good many “single combs” around in those days, among the “pure
pea-comb Cornish-Chamberlin-Hatch-Bennett-Plaisted ‘ Brahmapootras.’”

How long Mr. Chamberlin bred the old pair of Grays, which are thus
“reported ” to have been purchased by a sailor, from no one knows who, no
one knows where, and about which no one pretends to give any clue as to
their origin, I am uninformed.* The first of the “ Brahmapootra stock” I re-
member ever to have seen, or heard of, was that which I have now described
as having been put into the Boston show in 1852, and I think, also, the few
young birds from Bennett in 1851; though I can find no reference made
to any other entry or contribution in that year. My impression is that
there were a few shown by Mr. Hatch in 1851, or some one from Connecti-
cut, — young fowls, — though I am not certain about this.

After the exhibition of 1852, however, the mania for the Gray fowls became
rife, and everybody began to look about for good specimens of the Gray Shang-
haes or “ Brahmapootras.”” This name wassoon changed, because it proved too

* In July, 1874, Mr. Plaisted says, ‘the old pair were killed in 1851.” I am tempted to query
why? And to further ask why these old fowls were never publicly shown? — G. P. B.

92 THE CHINA FOWL.

cumbrous; and by the next year it had settled down partially towards Brahmah,
and every one who had any of this stock —from my birds, from Bennett’s,
from George’s, or from Hatch’s, made the most of their opportunity ; while
breeders generally, both in England and America, agreed upon this last cog-
nomen (dropping the terminal h), as the accepted name for this fowl. I
have never changed my opinion that it is a misnomer, however, though in
its brevity, now, it is a good title.

The fowl itself is of Chinese origin. None of the American original
stock (of any nominal strain) ever saw India, the Brahmapootra River, Luck-
ipoor, or the Bay of Bengal. Nobody in that region of country has ever seen
or reported this fowl as being known there. Notwithstanding the past five
and twenty years of excitement in America and Europe about these fowls,
when it has been freely known to sailors and shipmasters constantly coming
from and going to India, how valuable would be any fresh importation of
such stock, never but this once can it be said that “these Gray fowls came
from India.” No duplicate shipments have ever been made from “ Luckipoor
up the Brahmapootra.” No such fowls have ever since been heard of, seen,
“found,” “reported,” bought, or possessed, by anybody, anywhere, in Eng-
land or America, except this very stock (and its progeny) that I have now
described; and all of which, I solemnly believe, came from the pair of Phil-
adelphia Gray birds (1849) and the five Light Gray fowls I purchased in
New York, on board ship from Shanghae, through Wm. T. Porter, Esq., in
1850; and no honest “evidence ” to the contrary exists.

No Gray Shanghaes, no Gray Chittagongs, no Light Gray Brahmas, no such
Gray fowls of any description, have come to America or into Great Britain,
from either Shanghae or India, in the past nearly twenty-five years! AJ/ the
fowls we have had, therefore, have been bred from these two original impor-
tations —my stock —as I have clearly demonstrated, at least to my own
satisfaction. When anybody can show me any evidence that I am in error -
regarding either of the strains I have alluded to, which are al the ori-
ginal Light Grays (or Brahmas) that anybody has ever mentioned, to my
. knowledge, I shall be very glad to be corrected. Until we have something
clearer and more definite upon this subject than we ever have had thus far,
the facts, as I have now stated them, must therefore stand; and my stock
is fully entitled to the claim I have set up for its originality, in this country
and Great Britain, whether that stock be ‘good or bad.

DARK BRAHMA COCK AND HEN. (Prize Fowls. From Life.)

Bred and owned by W. H. Todd, Vermillion, Ohio.

SHANGHAE, COCHIN, BRAHMA. 95

In the face of these facts, nevertheless, almost a score of years afterwards,
a Mr. Weld “ fires off” at Virgil Cornish of Connecticut “a whole string of
_ interrogatories,” says Wright, to prove that this “ one pair of large gray fowls”
(which this man in Connecticut had first announced he received there in
1849) “came into New York in a ship from Luckipoor in India, in Septem-
ber, 1846!” For some reason best known to himself, this Mr. M. C. Weld
thus thrust himself into temporary notoriety, and fancied that he could
acquire favor with the Englishman, if he could “contrive to drag out of
Cornish some sort of testimony confirmatory of his (Wright’s) silly theory ;
but found, alas! that he had simply been “ hoisted by his own petard.” For
Cornish had unluckily forgotten his 1849 story, and fatally named the year
1846 as the time when he got his wonderful “Brahma Pootras;” which he
then (in 1869) states were so named in 1850! What name did he call
these birds by from 1846 to 1850? Can Cornish or Weld or Wright in-
form us upon this trivial point? And can either of this hopeful trio, who
are so “accurate” and “explicit ” and “ unanswerable ” in their statements
and conclusions, tell us where these remarkable birds were secreted, from
1846 or 1847 up to 1850 and 1851, that nobody knew of, or had ever seen
them? “We pause for a reply,” but fear we shall hardly live long enough
to get one from these “clearly accurate” and truth-loving gentlemen !

Upon this plainly doubtful story, when it was given to the public, the ac-
complished editor of the London Field commented very sharply, and showed
how manifestly improbable was this adroitly-concocted narrative. So far as
Mr. Cornish’s tale was concerned, this writer said : —

“ A sailor, whose name nobody knows, belonging to a ship whose name no
one remembers, and having a captain also unknown, is stated to have ‘sailed
from the port of Luckipoor’ with these original fowls. It is a pity Mr. Cor-
nish did not also forget the name of this port; for geographical truth compels
us to state that Luckipoor is not a port at all! but a small inland town in the
Himalaya Mountains, one hundred miles distant from the nearest point of
the Brahmapootra River. Luckipoor is no¢ among the ports mentioned in
the ‘Sailing Directions of British India;’ and, as far as we can learn from
naturalists, and others acquainted with that part of the world, na such race of
birds is to be found there.”

This emphatic clincher, from such authority as W. b. Tegetmeier, F.Z.S.,
is acknowledged all over the world to be, might be accepted ordinarily as a
finality. Mr. Wright shrewdly “ dismisses this subject of Luckipoor,” very

96 THE CHINA FOWL.

summarily, after reading the above from the Field (see Wright’s latest work,
p-. 243), “with the simple remark that it is scarcely matter for wonder that
the name of the ship, captain, and sailor should be forgotten,” &c. But I
will add here, that, inasmuch as no such ship ever arrived at New York,
either in 1849 first, or in 1846 afterwards (as the two Cornish letters “ accu-
rately state”), this fact will better account for all this “forgetting,” or “never
knowing the names of either sailor,* ship,.captain, or original owner ” of these
“large light-gray fowls, so reported to have been found ” somewhere (?) for
Mr. Chamberlin.

After Mr. Cornish’s two different statements were published, and fulsomely
indorsed by Wright as being “ unanswerably accurate” regarding the true
origin of this so-called Chamberlin pair of Light Brahmas, I visited New
York for the purpose of learning something about this fabulous “ India ship,”
thus said to have arrived there twice, so mysteriously, with these lauded birds
on board, from Luckipoor.

I obtained access to the old Customs’ Registers there, from a critical exam-
ination of which, though I previously knew all about this Bennett “ Brahma-
pootra” swindle, I ascertained the following two important facts, viz., that
there is not upon the records of the foreign inward arrival lists there, any
mention made of any ship or vessel from “ the port of Luckipoor, in India,”
in any month of the year 1849, first ; nor is any such arrival at New York
recorded “in September ” (or in any other month) “ of the year 1846,” after.

This finishes the sailor-Cornish story ; which, no doubt, Mr. Cornish and
Mr. Chamberlin believed when it was first told. But, as Mr. Tegetmeier
truthfully asserted, “there isn’t a particle of evidence in this to show that
these fowls ever came from India.” Dr. Bennett, one of Wright’s claimed
chief witnesses, purchased of me, for $50, the first pair of Grays I ever bred ;
from which he bred the first so-called ‘“ Brahmapootra” chickens he ever ex-
hibited (vide official report of judges at exhibition) in Boston, Mass. And
the Cornish (Hatch) fowls then shown were there called “Chittagongs,” as
see Cornish’s two letters, and the report.

When, in 1853, the Dark Brahmas were also first sent out from my yards
in Melrose, Mr. Tegetmeier in his “ Poultry Book” justly observes, “ Sud-
denly a new variety sprang upon the scene. These were the Dark Brahmas,

* Tn the fall of 1874, a Connecticut writer says this sailor ‘‘ still lives!”

SHANGHAE, COCHIN, BRAHMA. 97

which Mr. Burnham of the United States sent to Mr. John Baily of London,
which were exhibited at the Birmingham show (1853), among the extra
stock; and one pair of which were purchased of him by Mr. Taylor of Shep-
ard’s Bush, for 100 guineas ” ($500) !

Now, these Dark Brahma fowls were very choice birds. And I sent this
trio out to Mr. Baily, in response to his express order that “ they must be
finer than any thing I had yet sent to England, if it were possible.” They
were good ones, very large, in splendid condition, finely pencilled, and car-
ried off the first prize at the Birmingham show of 1853, alongside of the
splendid Light Grays I had the previous year sent to the Queen. But ald
these fowls were bred from the same stock precisely, at first. The Dark
and the Light varieties both came out of the Philadelphia Grays and the
lighter colored Gray birds I subsequently obtained from Shanghae through
Mr. Porter, at New York. And just as soon as it was discovered that the
Dark Brahmas were to become popular, and the fact was published that
the first Dark Brahmas sent to England had come out from Mr. Burnham
of Melrose, who had sent the first Light ones there, Mr. Cornish of Con-
necticut (or some one for him) published in a New-York paper the fact that
“he noticed, in course of time, as he bred his Brahmas, that they grew
darker in color.’ But neither he nor they had any Dark Brahmas to offer
from the pretended pair “ reported by a sailor” to have been “found in New
York,” the “origin of which nobody knew any thing about, except that the
first pair had been brought in the India ships, from up the Brahmapootra
River, which empties into the Bay of Bengal,” &c.;— which account might
have answered a purpose, had it been made public at any time prior to March
2, 1852, three years after J had been breeding my fine Gray fowls and send-
ing their chickens and eggs all over this country and England.

Whether my account thus gives the true origin of the Brahmas or not,
is not very material at this late day. I have now written it, however, and
furnished data to back it; and I have given the statement made by Mr.
Cornish, in his early letter, regarding the Chamberlin-Hatch fowls. I have
no doubt that Mr. Cornish — who is a very respectable and veracious gentle-
man — believed what Mr. Chamberlin told him ‘‘the sailor reported” to
Mr. Chamberlin, as having come “from the New York man, who knew
nothing of the origin of the light Gray fowls” thus “found” there. And
Mr. Chamberlin, also, might have believed what this sailor said. The sailor

98 THE CHINA FOWL.

probably believed what the man in New York (if there were any such man)
said,— to wit, that he “ knew nothing of their origin,” &c. And, though these .
New-York parties are described by Mr. Cornish as being “all very obscure
men,” it may be that “the man in New York, whose name he has not got,”
believed the story he repeated to the sailor, about what the other sailors told
him regarding these fowls coming there “in the India ships,” &e. But I
don’t. That is all the difference there is, or ever has been, between the
theory of Mr. Cornish and Wright, and the facts that I have herein related.

But this tale was utterly without foundation as to the Cornish-Chamberlin
gray fowls having “come from Jndia,” as this sailor is said to have an-
nounced; for no such arrival of the ship thus reported came into New York
from India, either in 1849, 1846, or 1847! No light “ Gray Shanghae” and
no “ Brahmapoutra” fowls ever came “from India” to Cornish, Chamberlin,
Burnham, or any other man in America. The name “ Brahmapoutra” was
concocted by Dr. Bennett, against my protest, and has been since adopted
by us all. The “ Gray Shanghaes,” or (now) “ Brahmas,” never saw India;
but I chanced to possess the jirst.of this race that were thus developed.

It is altogether too much mixed, — this theory. And, what J further be-
lieve, and ahways have believed, about this very “pair of light Gray fowls ”
which Mr. Chamberlin so got, through his “sailor” agent, who “reported
that he found them in New York,” is, that they went there from my stock ;
and that “the man in New York ” sold them to him “at a great expense,”
perhaps knowing whence they came (and perhaps not), but making the most
he could in this bargain, because they were “a very fine pair of large ones.”

What confirms me the more in this belief, is the notorious fact that none of
this splendid stock was seen anywhere until afte I had bred my Grays in Rox-
bury two seasons; and not until Dr. Bennett produced his fowls at the shows
of 1851 and 1852. Then we had young samples of this so-called Cornish-
Chamberlin-Hatch stock; but no old Gray fowls were even then shown, except
mine — a fact that cannot be disputed.

Now, tf this stock could have been shown to have existed in America prior
to my introduction of the Grays to notice in 1849, ’50,as the record exhibits in
my case, — why not then have let us know where it was, who bred it, what it
was called, and whence it had come? What need existed for all this secrecy
and ignorance and ambiguity about a single pair of fowls? It is too late to
go back now, and sayin one sentence (as some one asserted in 1873) that the

SHANGHAE, COCHIN, BRAHMA. 99

“ Light Brahmas came to this country from India in 1846,” and undertake to
explain this nonsense by stating that the said fowls were the Cornish-Cham-
berlin stock; because nobody has ever yet claimed that any of ¢haé strain of
“ Light Brahmas” were seen until 1851 and 1852, and these were only chick-
ens, or one-year-old birds. Jf “ they were brought here in 1846,” where were
they, pray, from 1846 to 1850, ’51, four or five years ? when every competing
fancier and poultry-raiser in New England — such active men as Burnham,
Bennett, Capt. Williams, Marsh, Dr. Wight, Balch, Devereux, Ad. White,
Buckminster, Jaques, Sampson, and a hundred others — were constantly on the
qui vive, in search of large fowls and novelties in poultry ; and who travelled
the country in every direction, continually looking out for something new,
which they could turn to profit, in this line, “ without regard to expense”?

Is it at all probable, if such birds were then in this country, that some of
us busy searchers for “ marvellous chickens” would not have found them, or
have known the fact of their existence, for five long years, in the midst of the
mania then current for the biggest and most extraordinary fowls to be had ?
Or is it at all likely, if any man had such fowls in 1846, that he wouldn’t
have let somebody know it in 1847, 1848, and 1849, when the rage was well
known to have existed everywhere in England and America for Shanghaes
and Cochins and Chittagongs, and prices for good specimens, their progeny,
or their eggs, were approaching the fabulous ?

If the fowls reported to have been brought to New York “by some sailors
in the India ships” were the ones that were said in 1873 to have “arrived
here in 1846,” will some one kindly prove to us where those “ three pairs of
_ imported fowls, of enormous size” were secreted — among them this ‘one
pair of Light Gray ones,” and their progeny — from 1846 to 1851, ’52? What
became of the old pair? why were they never exhibited ? where did they
live ? where did they die? and who owned them at last? Can anybody
answer these queries? I think no¢/ And Iam also quite positive that, what-
ever may be the facts as to the origin of the Cornish fowls, no “ Light Brahmas
came to this country in 1846,” to anybody. And it is quite as certain, to my
view, that no Brahmas ever “came from India,” at any time, to America.
Most certain is it that, since the début of my Light and Dark Brahmas in
the United States and England, no “ Brahmas” of any kind have again been
imported from anywhere in the East, into Great Britain or America.

It would be erroneous to assume that the modern Dark Brahmas, such as

100 THE CHINA FOWL.

have in late years been received in this country from England, from leading
breeders there, are not sometimes improved birds in their general make-up.
This is frankly conceded, especially when we occasionally meet with importa-
tions from that country believed to be any thing near the mark set forth in the
two admirable delineations in this volume, to be found on pages 93 and 101.
But these representations, though very attractive to look at, are of course very
partial, or are largely “fancy pictures.” We have bred and seen and handled -
a great many hundreds of superior Brahmas in our time; but we have yet to
see the living specimens of this race that ever equalled these “ portraits,”
as they are designated by the English breeders of them ; and we greatly doubt
if such perfect specimens are raised there, often!

Still these pictures are said to be life-likenesses of representative birds
belonging to different English fanciers, that have taken first prizes at sev-
eral of the leading Exhibitions in Great Britain in 1873 and 1874. The
nearest approach to these hens that we have ever had in America were two of
the five extraordinary Dark Brahmas shown for the Churchman prize at
Buffalo in January, 1874. The specimen that won, in that show, marked 97
points, according to the old standard, and is a very extra sample, of superb
symmetry and color. In 1873 we bred, among a considerable number of
Dark pullets, two only of the pure clear steel-gray, that at eighteen months
old proved splendid hens. But they do not equal the pictures given of the
English prize birds; and we never expect to meet with the reality which
these fine drawings represent. Both these pictures show us very perfect si
samples, however, and these are a very good pattern for ambitious fanciers to
aim to equal in form, feathering, marking, carriage, and general contour.

It is very well to place such charming specimens publicly before the readers
of the poultry-books, because they are certainly very pleasant to contemplate ;
and it may be that some of our enterprising American amateurs or fanciers will
be tempted to strive to breed quite up to such models. It may be that it has
been done in England. But we doubt if any such birds were ever produced,
through former or modern efforts. At the same time, we commend these
to the notice of the reader, as rare models indeed ; and trust that some Yankee
breeder may succeed in producing their equals, sooner or later. Of one thing
we feel pretty certain: none of us will ever contrive to excel them.

In the Light variety, we can equal the English, and “ give them odds,” yet.
No samples, to our eye, have ever been bred abroad, of this colot, such as a

Choice specimens of this variety are bred also by Wills & Peter, Bloomington, Ill; C.G. Sanford,
Providence, R.I.; E.J. Taylor, Waterloo, N.Y.; W.S. Randall, Mich., ete.

SHANGHAE, COCHIN, BRAHMA. 103

SS

SS. ES

tl
f

MODEL OF AN AMERICAN LIGHT BRAHMA HEN, TWO YEARS OLD.

dozen leading American facies have in their yards to-day, by scores; while,
at the public exhibitions of the past three or four years in the Eastern
States, as well as at Philadelphia, Penn., and at Buffalo, N.Y., individual
cocks and hens of the Light Brahmas have been shown that have never been
equalled in Great Britain, and will be hard to beat in this country, in the

104 THE CHINA FOWL.

future. And we now refer especially to the prize Light Brahmas at the Bos-
ton show in February, 1874, the contributions of Messrs. Sturtevant of Fra-
mingham, and Mr. Buzzell of Clinton, Mass., and also to the Plaisted and
Carpenter fowls, as now being bred in Hartford, Conn. :

It is not my design in these pages to argue the question of origin. I
have stated and will state only patent facts regarding the nativity of my
own stock, and shall quote such accounts as I can find, or am familiar with,
in reference to the stock of other importers. If what I record in this book is
inaccurate, the error will be unintentional; and I shall aim to be very care-
ful in my statements.

Yet, so far as I am informed at this time, I have herein set down the
exact truth, accompanied with veritable vouchers regarding the origin of my
Gray Shanghae, or now so-called “ Brahma” stock ; and I believe that the opin-
ion I have expressed and have always entertained in reference to what has been
claimed as another strain, is entirely in accordance with reason and verity. And
the more I see of this splendid stock of both colors, as it is now bredsfrom year
to year in England or the United States, the more firmly am I convinced
that it originated alone with the birds first in my possession; of which, as to
their quality, color, proportions, and leading characteristics, I give the
annexed authentic descriptions from 1849 forward, taken from the pub-
lished authorities, — which I quote below, with dates, and names of the sey-
eral authors who have hitherto described my fowls; as may be learned by
reference to the original statements, copies of which I here append : —

“This is a very superior bird, showy in plumage; and the color of mine
(the Philadelphia first pair) is gray, generally, with lightish yellow and
white feathers on pullets; the. cock gray body, tinted with stray light and
white; the tail and breast being nearly black.” —G. P. Burnham’s descrip-
tion, in Dr. Bennett's Poultry Book, of his original pair received from Dr.
Kerr in 1849.

“This fowl, soremarkable for size and beauty, is placed first among domes-
tic varieties, as the true gallus giganteus. The specimens (cock and hen)
from which the portraits here presented wete taken are in possession of
George P. Burnham, Esq., of Roxbury, Mass., and were obtained by him
from Dr. J. J. Kerr (Asa Rugg), near Philadelphia, Penn.” — Dr. J. C.
Bennett's Poultry Book,” p. 27, published in March, 1850.

“The mature fowls presented to the Queen of Great Britain left me in
December, 1852. The ‘London Illustrated News’ of Jan. 22, 1853, says,

SHANGHAE, COCHIN, BRAHMA. 105

‘A very choice consignment of domestic fowls from G. P. Burnham, Esq.,
was brought to Her Majesty Queen Victoria, by last steamer from the
United States. They are denominated “Gray Shanghaes” (in contradis-
tinction to the Red or Yellow Shanghaes). They are of mammoth propor-
tions and exquisite plumage, light silvery bodies, approaching white,
delicately traced and pencilled with black upon neck-hackles, and tips of wings
and tail. The whole of these birds are almost precisely alike, in form,
plumage, and general characteristics.’ ... ‘The color is creamy white,
slightly splashed with pale straw-color, tail black, and hackles pencilled with
black.’ ”” — Burnham’s History of the Hen Fever, pp. 102, 103, in 18585.
Extracted from London News of February, 1853.

“ Among the first Light Brahmas ever seen in England were those sent
here by Mr. G. P. Burnham,” says Mr. Tegetmeier in 1867; and, in the same
work on poultry, Dr. Wm: Custe Gwynne says, “ What confirms me in my
view as to the identity of these ‘ Brahmapootras’ (so called by Dr. Ben-
nett, who sent Dr. Gwynne his fowls) with these Shanghaes, is the fact that
the fowls previously presented to Her Majesty by Mr. Burnham, under the
name of ‘Gray Shanghaes,’ are admitted by Dr. Bennett (the author of the
name ‘ Brahmapootra’) to be precisely similar to his own.’ — Rev. W.
Wingfield’s London Illustrated Poultry Book, p. 177, 1853.

“There is not a particle of evidence to show that these fowls were ‘im-
ported from India.’ From all we can learn from naturalists and others who
have visited that part of the world, no such race of birds have ever been seen
or known there. In fact, they did not originate in India, but in America.” —
London Illustrated Poultry Book, by Tegetmeier, 1867.

“The Light. Brahmas are undoubtedly identical with those Gray birds that
in the first importation came from Shanghae ; and public attention was first
called to them by an acute fancier, Mr. Geo. P. Burnham, presenting a con-
signment of them to Her Majesty the Queen, in 1852.” ... “ These
birds were subsequently exhibited by His Royal Highness the late Prince
Albert, at the London and Birmingham shows, as ‘ Brahmapootras.’ These
Light Brahmas, with pure white or cream-colored bodies, and elegantly pen-
cilled hackles, were in great favor, and were universally admired for their
beauty, &c., when suddenly @ new variety sprang upon the scene. <A pair of
birds were shown at Birmingham (in 1853), which were sold for 100 guineas.
These were dark colored, and different from the others. They were the first
‘Dark BrAHMAS’ ever seen in this country. They were sent from Mr. G.
P. Burnham of the United States, to Mr. John Baily of London, in 18538;
and Mr. Taylor of Shepard’s Bush was the purchaser of this pair at the
Birmingham Exhibition,” at the figure above mentioned. — Tegetmeier’s
Poultry Book ((llustrated) in 1867.

106 THE CHINA FOWL.

“We have found, in our own yards, that we could soon breed black Brah-
mas (?) if such were desired; or that in three seasons, by choosing the
lightest, we could produce almost clear white ones; and, as the original
birds were somewhat darker than the ‘Light Brahmas’ now shown, either
color (Dark or Light) could have been bred from them with still greater
rapidity and ease.” — Lewis Wright, Illustrated Poultry Book, in 1870,
p. 246.

Both the Light and the Dark “ Brahmas,” as they are bred in England
and America to-day, are strong types of the true Gray Shanghae race. For

DARK BRAHMAS, BRED BY J. M. WADE, PHILADELPHIA, PA., 1873.

five-and-twenty years they have continued on in their unrivalled beauty of
form, plumage, great size, and admirable qualities for usefulness among poul-
try; and no one who breeds these varieties as they should be bred — uncon-
taminated, amongst themselves —can fail to be delighted with the results.

Mr. Plaisted says, in his recently-published history, that “the birds Mr.
Burnham sent to England he knows nothing about;” but that the birds he
and Dr. Bennett sent out there bred Buff chickens, and-he “ was more afraid
of this stock” (which he claims is the Cornish-Chamberlin strain, pure)
“throwing buff chickens,” sometimes, “after he sent his fowls to England,
than of any thing else.”

SHANGHAE, COCHIN, BRAHMA. 107

This might have been so with Mr. Plaisted’s birds; and we all know that
Dr. Bennett’s stock at the outset had the buff or light drab silver-cinnamon
cross in it. But Z never knew of the first instance, until Wright falsely thrust
niy name into a misquoted paragraph on this point in his “ Book of Poultry,”
where chickens from my fowls came of “a buff color.” And I do not believe
it ever occurred.

At all events, I can solemnly aver that I have bred thousands upon thou-
sands of my own stock, and I know of other thousands that have been bred,
in both countries, that never failed in the last quarter of, a century to
breed only pure Light and Dark Gray fowls. They are naturally a parti-
colored bird, black and white; and the range of color in chickens, for years,
was uneven, coming lighter or darker at times, — from which, in subsequent
mating, either for breeding or for selling, it was found advisable to match the
birds nearest of a color together. But never a Buff chicken have I met with,
yet, in my Gray progeny. And I have yet to learn authentically of any one
who has bred them pure, as J tried to breed them — by themselves — who has
ever encountered this variation in the true Burnham stock.

And here I reprint an article from a correspondent of “The New York
Bulletin,” Mr. Walker Waite (now of Brooklyn, formerly of Mass.), an early
patron of mine, who thus tells Ais experience with my Gray Shanghae stock,

in 1874. He says, —

“ A reeent writer (Mr. C. C. Plaisted) in a poultry monthly commences
a history of the early days of the Brahmapootra fowl, and tells us some
new things about the long-contested question as to where the first ones
came from. I don’t think it is much of an object to know this; but, whatever
is the true account, this writer has stated several glaring mistakes in his first
article on this subject. His dates are wrong and mixed; or else Mr. Cor-
nish’s and Chamberlin’s and: the ‘old salt’s’ account, and Wright, Teget-
meier, Burnham, Bennett, and twenty others, are wrong. His original fowls,
— that is, the first Chamberlin pair, — Mr. Cornish says, ‘came into Connect-
icut from New York early in 1849, and he got his stock of Chamberlin,
next season.’ Was there another pair of large Light Gray fowls got by this
same Mr. Chamberlin, through another sailor, two years before this ? —or, as
this new writer says, ‘by a Mr. Knox, in 1847, for Mr. Chamberlin.’

“T never before heard of this, if it is so. But I think it must refer to 1849,
when Cornish first tells his story (in his letter, March 2, 1852). At all
events, one other point in this article is new, and that is that this Gray stock
produced Buff fowls. This writer says indirectly, at random, that ‘ the early

108 THE CHINA FOWL.

Brahmas sent to England by himself, Dr. Bennett, Hatch, &c., which Mr.
Lewis Wright has described as “ Dr. Bennett’s pure Brahmas,” in breeding
showed many different colors; the most objectionable being pure buff, as
fine as we see to-day among the Buff Cochins.’

“TJ have bred the Light and Dark Gray birds several years. I had my first
ones from Mr. Burnham, and from eggs I bought of him, direct; and I have
had the Cornish stock since. I bred them in 1852, ’53, ’54, and after that
in 1859, ’60. But I never yet saw a Buff chicken out of either of these Gray
strains; and, if there was any one thing the Burnham “Gray Shanghae ”
stock did, it was that they bred true to color, as long as I had them. I have
no doubt a// this stock comes from one parentage, and that it is all Chinese,
and not Hast India poultry. Mr. Burnham unquestionably gave us the first
specimens, — whether they were good or poor; and the others probably came
out of the same stock his did, in some way.”

In furtherance of my opinion, I affirm that at the very last annual ex-

hibitions of poultry in Massachusetts, Connecticut, and New York State, the
first premium “ Brahma” fowls, both Dark and Light, were the exact
counterparts in color, form, and markings of the best specimens I showed in
Boston, and sent out to England to Her Majesty the Queen, to Mr. John
Baily of London, and others, in 1851, ’52, and 753.

In September, 1870, Mr. John Baily wrote me on the subject of Brahmas
these words: “I continue to breed from the progeny the old type of ‘ Brah-
mas’ which you sent me sixteen years ago, as you may have observed from
the fine birds I have sent hence to Mr. Philander Williams and ot in the
United States.” These choice Brahmas, which Mr. Baily has thus returned
to the United States (bred out of my original stock), have taken prizes re-
peatedly, as their parents did before them, at the principal exhibitions in
America, in the last half-a-dozen years, — Mr. Philander Willianis’s splendid
samples frequently bearing off the palm among the best, as everybody in this
country is aware. A Worcester (Mass.) correspondent of “The Fancier’s
Journal” thus puts it, in July 1874. He says,

“The real facts are: Dr. Bennett bought of Mr. Burnham the very old
gray pair that Dr. Kerr sent to Burnham from Philadelphia in 1849, Dr.
Bennett bred them, and in 1851 or 1852 exhibited chickens from them,
which were the first Brahmas, or then called ‘ Burrampooters’ (see Report
of show) ever shown. 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

SHANGHAE, COCHIN, BRAHMA. 109

Poultry Book in 1850, 51, illustrate and describe these fowls of Cornish’s ?
Dr. Bennett 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 descriptions of Burnham’s stock and
others, would not Dr. Bennett have been likely to know something of the ex-
istence of Mr. Cornish or his fowls? 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 called ‘Chittagong. At that time Mr. Burnham
had been breeding the Light Gray birds, which he always called ‘Gray
Shanghaes,’ I believe, for several years, according to Dr. Bennett’s authority.

“Mr. Wright is very clearly at fault in thzs respect; and his statement in
his ‘ Brahma Fowl,’ that ‘the first pair of Cornish fowls ever bred came into
Connecticut in 1849, contradicts his own 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 testi-
mony 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 ‘F. R. WY’ that Mr. Wright is acknowledged to be the best living author-
ity on this breed of fowls, is simply ridiculous. How could he, three thou-
sand miles away, know any thing on this subject. of origin, except what he
reads or hears about from this side of the water?”

Mr. Mark Pitman of Salem, Mass., an old, cautious, experienced breeder
of Chinese fowls, who knows as much about the origin of the “ Brahmas ”
as does any American fancier, has within a few years publicly stated that
“the Light and Dark Brahmas, as originally bred, have both nearly the
same origin ;” and that “they were not imported, but were bred first in this
country.” Mr. Pitman adds, that “Mr. G. P. Burnham, who surprised not
only the royal family of Queen Victoria, but all the breeders of fowls in
England (in 1852), by his present of an elegant lot’ of mature Light
Brahmas, then sent to Her Majesty the Queen, saw in the Dark variety still
greater remuneration, and disposed of them at what might even now be
termed fabulous prices. his variety at once took the lead of all others (for
a time); and from this stock many of the large breeders of England and
Ireland were supplied subsequently.” And, from the progeny of these birds,

110 THE CHINA FOWL.

which I sent to Great Britain, as in the instance of Mr. Baily of Mount
Street, London (one of the leading dealers in England), have come back to
the United States from Ireland and England during the years 1865 and
1866 down to 1873, ’74, scores of trios of choice Dark Brahma birds, again
the counterparts, with but slight variation, of the superior samples I first sent
out to Mr. Baily in 1853.

In further confirmation of this position as to priority of date in the
introduction of the Dark Brahmas to public notice, I quote from the columns
of “The New-York Poultry Bulletin,” in the month of June, 1874, this
sentence, from the advertisement of Mr. John Baily & Son of London, still
running in that magazine: “ Now ready for immediate shipment, — Brah-
mas, Light and Dark; the former from English cocks and Philander Wil-
liams’s pullets; the latter direct descent from G. P. Burnham’s original con-
signment to us” (in 1853).

The theory of the advocates of the Cornish-Chamberlin-Bennett-Hatch-
Brahmapootra origin is, first, that Chamberlin (vide Cornish in 1852)
“brought his fowls into Connecticut in the early part of 1849.” In 1869,
this same Mr. Cornish appears to have been drawn out in a second letter, by
‘a Mr. Weld (whom nobody previously had heard of), to aver that “the
Chamberlin fowls came from Luckipoor in India, up the Brahmapootra
River, into New York in September, 1846.” This goes back of his jirst
plain assertion, according to Lewis Wright, three years. The reasons for
this second. story I will explain in the closing chapter to this volume.

In 1874, Mr. Plaisted of Connecticut, who claims to be “the oldest
breeder of Light Brahmas in America” (and who was formerly a partner, in
1853, of Dr. Bennett, the author of the “ Brahmapootra” name), writes as
follows, in an article furnished to “The Hartford Poultry World,” page 124,
in June: —

“The first pair of these fowls, about which there has been so much dis-
cussion, and so much written, were brought by one Charles Knox to Mr.
Nelson H. Chamberlin, a resident of Hartford, Conn., in 1847. They were
first bred by Mr. Chamberlin in 1848. . . . Mr. Chamberlin paid for his first
pair of these fowls the sum of five dollars, — considered at that time a fabu-
lous price. . . . Charles Knox was at that time clerk on a propeller running
between Hartford and New York, and was cousin to Mr. Chamberlin’s wife.

Having been requested by Mr. Chamberlin to purchase a nice pair of fowls
in New York, — something new, — Mr. Knox soon reported seeing two pairs

SHANGHAE, COCHIN, BRAHMA. Lat

(not three pairs, as Cornish stated in his 1852 letter), one red, the other
gray, just arrived on an East-India vessel, and that he had the refusal of a
pair until the next trip. The result was the selection of the Grays at
a venture, and their removal to Hartford. Mr. Chamberlin related these
facts to me, himself.”

The final conclusions of Lewis Wright’s labored argument, put forth to
prove what never existed, and which never had the slightest foundation in
fact, are thus expressed by this English “authority,” in the last paragraph
of his “ Brahma Fowl, a Monograph :” —

“Tt will be observed that the original importation being now determined
so early as 1846,” . . . “there is not the slightest reason to question, that
both Light and Dark Brahmas may have been derived from the one stock
introduced into Connecticut by Mr. Chamberlin” (when ?) “and afterwards
fostered by Mr. Cornish and Dr. Bennett.” . .. “The testimony (Mr. Cor-
nish’s), so full and explicit, mwst be considered finally to settle this question”
—of the origin and “importation” of the Chamberlin-Cornish pair of fowls.

We have shown, in this volume, that no ship “arrived at New York from
Luckipoor in India,” either in 1849 or 1846, as Cornish states in his two
letters of 1852 and 1869. We have also shown that no such “ East-India
vessel” arrived in New York in 1847, as a later writer has it. And we have
adduced ample recorded evidence, dating long prior to the appearance of
Cornish, or his fowls in public, which shows that the Burnham “ Gray
Shanghaes” had been seen, talked about, written of, pictured, published in
the poultry papers and books; and were everywhere known, as early as in
1849, to be “at the head of the list of modern domestic varieties ” at that
period in the world. And it will thus be seen that all there is to this con-
troversy is, therefore, resolved into the following simple facts, to wit: —

The Chamberlin-Cornish-Bennett pair of large Gray fowls were first seen
“in Connecticut in the early part of 1849,” in Chamberlin’s hands. They
were stated to have been picked up somewhere, by “a sailor,” who “ bought
them at a great price” ($5.00 the pair, so Chamberlin tells Plaisted in
1874); and Cornish bought his stock the next year of Chamberlin, in 1850.
In 1851 or 1852, a Mr. Hatch exhibited a few young Light Gray chickens,
which he called “Chittagongs.’”? Cornish says the name Brahmapootra
“was established in 1850.” Mr. Plaisted says, “in all Cornish’s state-

cy a - THE CHINA FOWL.

ments to Wright, Cornish is one year earlier in date than he ought to
be.” *

But there was positively no “importation” of this pair of fowls, at all.
This is a sure thing. They were purchased for Chamberlin unquestionably
from my stock, sold into Connecticut and New York long before 1852, when
Cornish’s first letter is dated ; though this letter did not get before the public
until it appeared in “The Domestic Poultry Book” in New York (which
very few persons ever saw), and in Miss Watts’s “ Poultry Yard, ” in 1853
or 1854, in London. And I have also shown by the judges’ official reports at
the exhibitions of 1852 and 1854, in Boston and New York, that the name
Brahmapootra was not even then fixed upon; although Cornish avers, in
his last letter to Weld, “ that this name was established in 1850.”

It may possibly savor of undue curiosity in me; but J would like, for one, to
know where this fabled stock was in 1849, for instance, when the first great
fowl show took place, in the month of November of that year, at the Public
Garden, in Boston? Here is a glorious opportunity now for Weld, Cornish,
Wright, or some other “live man” (Dr. Bennett is dead, unfortunately), to give
us some new version in answer to this pertinent query, namely; if the Cham-
berlin-Cornish fowls did come “into Connecticut in 1846,” and Cornish
“bought the first brood in 1847, and the old pair t in April, 1848,” as he “ ex-
plicitly ” states he did in his second (1869) letter to Weld, — and he had then
been breeding them three years, of course, — where were all these fowls on
the 15th and 16th of the eleventh month of the year 1849, when all New
England was astir with the fowl mania when the first exhibition came off in
Boston ?

This question suggests itself to me for the first time as I write these lines,
in the month of July, 1874. And I turn once more to the printed records ~
which I find in Dr. Bennett’s Poultry Book, issued in March, 1850, and
in the Boston agricultural papers of December, 1849. I now quote from
the official report of the November (1849) show, — Col. Jaques of “Ten
Hills Farm,” President, and Chairman of the Committee of Supervision : —

“This exhibition may be said to have been in its character unprecedented

* “T do not consider Cornish’s stories wortha pin. There is nothing ‘accurate’ in his jirst state-
ment, and his last one is still worse!” [C. C. PLatsrEp, in Poultry World, 1874.]

+ Mr. Plaisted thus writes in 1874: ‘‘ Mr. Cornish did not purchase Chamberlin’s first brood;
neither did he ever own the ‘ old pair,’ at any time —as I can prove.”

SHANGHAE, COCHIN, BRAHMA. 113

_ in this country; . . . and the results have been peculiarly gratifying, both as
regards the number and variety and the quality of the different breeds of
poultry shown, and the interest manifested in this display by the public. . . .
The number of specimens of the different feathered races presented on this
occasion was 1,423; the number of exhibitors was 219 recorded. The num-
ber of people admitted to this show was not less than ten thousand. ... Of
the gallinaceous family, the display was very extensive!”. . . Several varie-
ties were offered under the names of Chinas, Cochin Chinas, Shanghaes,
Bucks County, Jersey Blues, and Javas” (ne’er a “ Brahmapootra,” a “ Chit-
tagong,” or a “ Bother’em” then in the entire category!), “and the exhibit-
ors of which were J. Giles, Providence; J. W. French, Randolph; George
P. Burnham, Roxbury; Francis Alden, Dedham; G. W. George, Haverhill;
Adm. White, East Randolph; B. W. Balch, Dedham; A. A. Andrews, West
Roxbury; T. Thorpe, Cambridge ; Rev. C. B. Marsh, West Roxbury; H. L.
Devereux, Boston; Messrs. Pierce and Osborn, Danvers; George E. White,
Melrose ; John C. Bennett, Plymouth ; Samuel Jaques, Medford; Josiah H.
Stickney, Watertown; John Eaton, Reading, and fifty-two others — all con-
tributing specimens of the Chinese, or then so-called Asiatic races... . Un-
der the head of crosses of various breeds and varieties, the committee would
mention as worthy of notice the Plymouth Rock Fowls, so called by Dr. J.
C. Bennett of Plymouth, and presented by George P. Burnham of Roxbury.”
(This was the only notable cross mentioned by the committee.) The other
contributors numbered 151, and entered the different varieties of Dorkings,
Black Spanish, Games, Gueldres, Crested Fowls, Bantams, Hamburgs, Top-
knots,” &e., &c.

Here, in November, 1849, were shown nearly fifteen hundred specimens of
the different kinds of fowls then known, from all quarters; and there were
over two hundred contributors. But there were then no Chamberlins, no
Cornishes, no Knoxes, no Welds, no Wrights, no Sailors, no “ Brahmapoo-
tras, no “ Chittagongs,” mentioned; and these men, or their so-called fowls
(which are lastly, in 1869, said to have been in Connecticut at that time over
three years, if they came in 1846), were entirely unknown, unhonored, and
unrepresented in that great New England exhibition! Verily, this zs strange,
if the 1869 statements of Cornish to Weld be ¢rwe. And Mr. Lewis Wright
can put the above facts into his pipe, and smoke them a good while, ere he
will be able to answer my reiterated query: Where were your Cornish-Cham-
berlin Brahmapootras, of which, on page 144 of your “ Brahma Fowl] History,”
you declare “the original importation is now determined” (according to your
sophistry) “so early as in 1846,” and which must thus have been in Con-
necticut fully three years, “being fostered by Cornish and Dr. Bennett.”

114 THE CHINA FOWL.

Where were they, I ask, on the occasion of this notable public fowl show in
Boston, in November, 1849? Answer me that, Master Wright !

Why all these falsehoods and contradictions and inconsistencies about “ one
pair of Light Gray fowls” should have thus ever been originated or fostered by
any or all of these people, and why Lewis Wright should thus back up this
fabrication and deception with his added nonsense and sophistry and misrep-
resentations, 1s certainly inexplicable to ordinary comprehension, when it is
beyond cavil or question that there were no “imported” birds involved in
this sailor’s story at all. There was no ship at New York, as stated; no sailor
(according to Plaisted, who says in June, 1874, they “came in the hands of
one Mr. Knox, clerk on a propeller running between Hartford and New
York”); and, over and above all, when nobody from 1846, 1847, 1849, or
1852 has ever been able to tell us who any of the Cornish-described parties
were, as at first mentioned, namely — sailor, owner, ship, captain, date, age of
fowls, or any other fact bearing upon this interesting subject! It is all myth.
It was false from the start. Dr. John C. Bennett coined this sailor’s yarn
originally, and the others tacitly agreed to it. The fowls were from my yards,
or out of my stock. And Bennett never denied this in America or England,
for he couldn’t, had he wished to do so, while J lived; and he knew this fact
as I did, which accounts for the non-mention of me in all those days!

All this occurred, according to Mr. Plaisted, in 1847 (not in 1849 or 1846,
as Cornish has it, in two different places). But on all three of these occasions
there is only one pair of gray fowls; Chamberlin is the first man who got
them; and, every time, they came either “in the Jndia ships” to New York,
“in a ship from Luckipoor in India” to New York, or lastly “just arrived on
an East India vessel” at New York.

In neither of which accounts és there one word of truth, as to the “impor-
tation ” of these fowls; as I will in another chapter further on proceed to show,
beyond the possibility of contradiction. The accounts I have quoted from
Mr. Cornish’s letters have long been before the public, and Lewis Wright
has revamped and rehashed them both (most audaciously and bunglingly, I
know,) in his two latest works. But there never was a syllable of truth in
either, as Mr. Plaisted avers in 1874, when he writes, “I would ask Mr.
Burnham what Cornish’s accounts are worth, from first to last?” To
which I can only reply, “Not much! Yet Lewis, Wright makes the most
of them, to be sure!”

PAIR OF LIGHT BRAHMAS, BRED BY DR. C. H. KENEGY, POLO, ILL.

SELECTION AND MATING,
TO BREED “STANDARD” BIRDS.

I prem it appropriate, after describing and portraying as I have done in
the previous pages of this work the general history, characteristics, shape,
color, and qualities of the China fowls we have had and now have in this
country; to add a chapter here embodying my views, and briefly offering the
results of my own experience, in the matter of mating or matching individ-
ual fowls, for the production of high-class specimens of the “Cochins” and
“ Brahmas” for the exhibition-rooms.

“ Like will produce its like,” is an old adage. As a rule, this is truthful.
It depends in a great meagure, in the reproduction of the fow/ species, how-

116 THE CHINA FOWL.

ever, upon what the character of the stock to be duplicated is; how long
the strains may have been bred in-and-in (through relations) ; how pure it
was originally; and how it is subsequently mated (the males with the
females),— whether or not success will follow, even upon the most carefully
planned experiments attempted in this direction.

Darwin, in his exhaustive work on the “Variations of Animals,” states
that “the reproductive system is highly susceptible to changes in the condi-
tions of life; but why— because this reproducing system is disturbed — this
or that part should vary more or less, we are profoundly ignorant. Yet we
can here and there catch a faint ray of light.” And among these “ faint
rays” is this important one, namely, the clearly apparent influence of the
male first having fruitful intercourse with the female, upon her subsequent
offspring by other males. In demonstration of this point, we quote the an-
nexed fact, related by Sir Edward Home: “ A young chestnut mare, of seven-
eighths Arabian blood, which belonged to the Earl of Morton, was served in
the year 1815 by a quagga,—a species of native wild ass, from Africa,
whose skin-markings are not unlike those of the zebra. This seven-eighths
Arabian mare was covered but once by this quagga (by way of experiment),
and gave birth to a hybrid colt, which had, as was anticipated, the distinct
markings of the striped quagga, in the shape of head, black bars on legs,
shoulders, &c. In 1817, 1818, and 1821, two, three, and six years afterwards,
this same mare was served by a fine black full-bred Arabian stallion, and she
threw three colts in those years. Although she had not seen the quagga
since 1816, all these colts bore his curious and unequivocal markings.”

Numerous instances of this kind could be cited, and the principle is clearly
established among horse and cattle breeders. Mr. James McGilivray, a noted
Scotch veterinary surgeon, has stated, sensibly, that “when once a pure
animal of any breed has been pregnant to an animal of another breed, such
pregnant animals a cross forever, incapable of producing pure progeny, after-
wards, of any breed.” This result — under similar treatment —in any race
of animals, is the same; whether it be horses, cattle, rabbits, sheep, dogs, or
poultry. I have proved this, beyond question, in repeated instances of care-
ful practical experiment; and I can affirm that this is so with whatever
animal it may be attempted.

The attention of Mr. Darwin was called to this fact through certain results

SELECTION AND MATING. 117

of experiments tried by Messieurs Corbie and Botard, with pigeons — and he
adds, “I was thus led to make my experiments with fowls. I selected long- ,
established, pure breeds, in which there was not a known trace of red (in
their color), yet, in several of the progeny, feathers of this color appeared.
One magnificent bird, the offspring of a Black Spanish cock, and a White
Silky hen, came colored almost exactly like the wild Bankiva cock. Now,
all who know anything of the breeding of poultry, know that tens of thou-
sands of pure Black Spanish, and of pure White Silky fowls have been
reared, without the appearance of a red feather.”

Mr. Tegetmeier speaks of the frequent appearance, in crossed fowls, of pen-
cilled, or transversely-barred feathers, like those common to many gallina-
ceous birds, the Chinese varieties, notably, as being apparently an instance
of reversion to a characteristic in color, formerly possessed by some ancient
progenitor of the family. The so-called “ Himalayan” rabbit is of a snow-
white body, with black ears, nose, tail, and feet; and it reproduces its like
perfectly true. Yet this race is known to have been formed by a union of
two varieties of silver-gray rabbits. Now, if the Himalayan doe be crossed
‘with a sandy-colored buck, a silver-gray rabbit is the product; which is evi-
dently another case of reversion to one of the original parent varieties.

In the case of poultry, take our quite modern “ Plymouth Rock” variety,
which the latest American Standard recognizes as “a breed.” We know
where and when this “breed” (or cross), was originated; and, perhaps the
best specimens we see, are those produced in Connecticut, from a union of
the Black Java with the Dominique bird. Both these original fowls breed
their like in their purity, very accurately, as is well known—and the so-
called “Plymouth Rocks,” produced in this way, from the union of the
original strong blood mentioned, prove very uniformly, good-colored specimens.
The progeny, however, bred together, come imperfect in color, and undecided
in markings of plumage, at once; “throwing back,” naturally to the Black
Java, or clear Dominique in color, in greater or less degree, and inevitably.
And the progeny of this cross continued to be bred “in-and-in,” however
cautiously we may make our selections, can never be bred satisfactorily to
produce in succession the color, at all uniform, which the first product of the
pure Java and the Dominique gives. This is a prime law of Nature, and it
cannot be changed.

118 THE CHINA FOWL.

The accompanying cut portrays a recent ideal specimen of what is called
the Felch strain of the Chamberlin stock. This picture represents a young
cock, with very dark pencilled neck-hackles, of good depth, well up on the
legs, full breasted, and of tasteful shape and carriage. Mr. Felch says, they.
have been called the “pouter-pigeon strain.” I do not see the aptness of the
title. This cock is a well-modelled bird, but the picture is again a “ fancy ”
design. Not one sample, surely, in
a hundred can be produced, so per-
fect in symmetry as this delineation
indicates; though, perhaps, such |
methodical breeders as Messrs.
Felch may occasionally find among
theirs a single cock that would ap-
proach this figure, in comeliness.

The “ pencilled” feathering upon
the Brahmas, light or dark, and the .
same characteristic observable in
the different colored Cochins of the
present day, is one of the most
marked and invariable points in
the plumage of this race that it
possesses. And no one who has
bred any variety of these Chinese
fowls, but will have observed that
this conformation is universally
prevalent, in some degree of devel-
opment, upon every specimen pro-
duced, from whatever “strain” or
stock the fancier may chance to possess, either in this country, or in
Great Britain. This “pencilling” of clear white and black was a notable
characteristic in the plumage of the original Shanghaes, of my own im-
portations, of all colors, and especially on the Light and Dark Brahmas. It
is seen to-day, in every instance, more or less prominently, in the progeny
of these importations, wherever this stock is bred; and the so-claimed
Chamberlin-Cornish variety exhibits it, invariably. The Partridge and

DARK-HACKLED “‘ LIGHT BRAHMA’’ COCKEREL.

SELECTION AND MATING. 119

Grouse Cochins show this feature as perfectly as do any variety, however
dark or light their body-plumage otherwise may be. In any and every cross
made with these varieties upon other pure breeds — say with the Dorking,
the Black Spanish, the Leghorn, or otherwise, the “pencilled” hackle, or
saddle-feathering, will inevitably show itself; and this marking can never be
bred out of stock into which it has once been introduced.

In mating for breeding birds of any particular caste of plumage, with these
varieties — that is to say, of lighter and darker pluming, or darker or
lighter hackle-feather, it is necessary towards the production of a particular
style of feathering, first to select such birds as you may have some knowl-
edge of, that are fairly established in their color in a general way. From
such strain or variety, secondly, it is requisite that you choose birds (to
furnish you with the desired colored progeny), that are properly marked in
one way for males, and in another way for females. And this is a nice un-
dertaking, altogether.

Still, the experiment is an exceedingly interesting operation. For the
show-room, to win in competition, your standard requires, for example, with
Light Brahmas, that the cock shall be of good weight, not less than 12 lbs.,
or the cockerel not less than 10 lbs., the hen 10 to 11 lbs., and the pullet 8 to
10 lbs. This variety must have the pea-comb, firm and straight; the cock’s
head broad and straight; neck long, well arched, and pencilling on hackles dis-
tinctly marked ; body plumage clean white and black; fluff rich and soft, and
heavily feathered legs, without “ hock-feathers,” &c. The hen must be similar
in color, with the pencilling of the neck flowing well down to the shoulders,
and clearly defined. Now it is desirable to produce these show-birds as near
to perfection as it is possible to attain, and the younger fancier is desirous
to know how he shall accomplish this.

As I have said, this is not easy to compass. It can result only through
careful manipulation, and it does not usually occur without repeated experi-
ments; though, with proper caution, and the exercise of fair common sense,
the chances are in favor of a successful result, at any time. I have bred a
great many birds, and I have been often disappointed ; and, on the other hand,
I have frequently realized extraordinary success, when I least expected it, in
my experimental experience.

I have found, as a good general rule, with the Light Brahmas, in order to

120 THE CHINA FOWL.

ENGLISH PRIZE “LIGHT BRAHMA” HEN, TWO YEARS OLD, 1872, ’73.

SELECTION AND MATING. saa ie |

ENGLISH PRIZE “LIGHT BRAHMA” COCK, 2 YEARS OLD, 1872, ’73.

122 THE CHINA FOWL.

breed a majority of the beautiful, so much admired, medium-pencilled-necked
pullets, in a given number of chickens, that a good vigorous ten and a half to
eleven pound light hackled cock, see p. 115, at head of this chapter, short-
legged, fully feathered on shank to the toes, with head well up, generous
wattles, short full inclining (not upright) tail, square body, and flat saddle,
coupled with longish-legged hens (or pullets) of pure white bodies, black
tipped lower wing feathers, clear black short tail, good fluffy thighs, heavily
feathered shanks to the toes, small head and wattle, and a distinct, full, well
defined neck-hackle quite dark and even in “pencilling,” are the best to mate
in male and females, for the average production of these desirably plumed
PULLETS. This union will give you more rich medium-pencilled evenly
hackled pullets than otherwise. The cocks that eventuate from such a union
will not adi be what you desire. And, if you wish to breed the more perfect
hue of MALE birds, I recommend the reverse of this plan, in the parent stock.
The hens may be lighter neck-hackled, and the parent-cock should be full
dark-necked, with the other characteristics as above described.

If the back quarters of the saddle-hackles have the slightest tinge of palest
straw-color splashed through the white depending mass, upon the breeding-
cocks, I have found it no objection. My original cocks both carried this
feathering upon the rear saddles; and I have found: that this creamy tint in
the male, at this point, gave me more evenly colored young cocks than when
bred from those having the blank white hackling, en masse, at this extremity
of the long back feathers. ~

We present on pages 120 and 121 two spirited pictures of representative
English-bred Light Brahmas, drawn by Harrison Weir of London; a mature
cock and hen. The male bird is not the style of Light Brahma we fancy in
this country, however, and we give place to the drawing simply for purposes
of comparison. Such a tail or rump as this upon a “ Brahma” cock, in an
American exhibition room, would disqualify the bird at sight, in the opinion
of a competent judge of this variety of fowl, whatever other good points he
might possess. While, for breeding purposes, he wouldn’t be worth a shilling
in a Yankee fancier’s yard. His legs are too short, also, and his neck is simi-
larly faulty. There is the evident presence of blood “foreign” to the true
American Brahma in this cock’s composition, and an unmistakable mixture
of the big-tailed, squatty white Dorking in his figure.

SELECTION AND MATING. 125

Yet this is a fair type of many of the English Brahmas bred in 1872 to
1874. The hen is better, but her legs are too short for her large-framed body ;
her neck is similarly objectionable; the head of both cock and hen are by far
too coarse for a first-class thorough-bred Light Brahma, as we produce them
now in this country; and both partake too strongly of the pattern of the duck-
legged, clumsy, badly-bred modern English “Cochin,” of late years frequent-
ly to be met with among the “importations” from Great Britain, from unre-
liable sources; of which latter variety we have seen several samples that have
been got out at high cost, which exhibited unmistakable evidence of the ad-
mixture in their breeding of the gray Dorking blood, more especially observ-
able, too, in some of the later Dark Brahmas received here from England
’ in recent years.

Upon page 126 may also be found a fine drawing by this same English
artist, of a young Light Brahma pullet at ten months old, whose general
form, in this instance, for her age, is very much more like what is deemed
in the United States about the thing; though it will be said by close breed-
ers, familiar with the nice points in this variety, that the shanks of this
young fowl are rather long in proportion to the body. The pudllet, in this
respect, we do not think could be so greatly improved. To produce good pul-
lets, we have found it indispensable that the parent hens bred from must
be longish-legged. The cock delineated on page 125 is, to be sure, pretty well
“up in the world.” But he is a young bird, and the form will naturally set-
tle down considerably with age. If his limbs were a trifle shorter, we should
like him better. In color and pencilling both these specimens are fine,
though they would not answer to mate, if the owner desired to reproduce
likenesses of this pair. For average chickens marked like these, this cock
should be bred to darker-hackled hens; and a pullet marked as this is, would
be better mated, for breeding, to a much lighter-necked cock. In the show-
pen, however, such a pair of ten-months’ old birds as these “ portraits” rep-
resent, are seldom seen; but when found together, they are pretty sure to
win, with average fair aie at exhibitions.

I am aware of the opinions of other breeders upon this subject, who differ
with me; but I speak from my own experience in the matter of the prepon-
derating influence of the male in poultry-producing. The impress of the cock
-upon the progeny is much more remarkable, within my knowledge, than that

1, THE CHINA FOWL.

of the hens, in all varieties of fowl. I incline to this opinion from the existence
of one important fact; and that is, that the male bird is alone in his harem usu-
ally. His “life-principle” is distributed among a flock of a dozen females, or
less. They are constantly in his company. They meet with no other male
birds (I am now speaking of close, clean breeding); and the stamp of this
one male operates to reproduce among his wives, as a rule, a likeness of him-
self, naturally. The power, mettle, greater strength, and sturdier character-
istics of the male, are thus brought to bear, of themselves, directly upon one
point; and his mates being continually with him, and him only, for the time
being,’ as naturally “reflect his image” in form, color, and points (in the
main) in their progeny.

A writer in “The Poultry World” says to another, “The cause of a second
litter of chicks resembling the Houdan cock” (which had been allowed to
run with Light Brahma hens a few days, carelessly, but which was then
taken away, and a Light Brahma cock substituted), “is explained by a nat-
ural law well known to breeders; viz., that, when a hen is pregnant to a cock
of a different breed, she is a cross ever after, the purity of her blood being
lost in consequence of her connection with a cock of foreign blood. She is
then a cross forever, and cannot produce a pure chick of any breed. This
law is applicable to all our domestic animals.” This is to the point; and it
will so operate, in every instance, with fowls, sooner or later, in ald cases
where a cock of a different breed or color is even permitted once to associate
with such other variety of hens; thus showing the immense preponderance
of influence of the male over that of the female, for breeding to either color
or points. wR

I have in my mind at this moment the theory of a well-known Light
Brahma breeder, who has produced a great many fine birds, who contends
that this matter of crossing a fowl temporarily does it no injury as to the fu-
ture pure breeding of the birds. This same gentleman is a stickler for “ pedi-
gree fowl stock,” too, about which he writes fluently. His notion is, in brief,
that “there is no union of circulation between the embryo-chick and the hen-
mother ;” that is, between the egg and the layer of it, I suppose: and there-
fore this principle is not, in his opinion, analogous in poultry to the relations
existing between the mother-animal and her progeny. But I do not see the
force of this position; and I feel very confident, that, whatever may be the

, SELECTION AND MATING. 125

published arguments of this breeder regarding his notions on this subject, he
would not run the risk of thus permitting any of his breeding-hens to be ap- .
proached, for a single interview, by a strange cock, particularly of a different
color or variety to that of his selected Light Brahma pedigreed males, with
any hope that he could ever retrieve his favorite female birds from the certain
contamination that would succeed such “temporary union.” It is one thing
to preach, and quite another to prac-
tice. And I am quite sure this gen-
tleman, who writes so cleverly upon
this point, is too skilful a breeder
ever to venture upon the fallacy I
have hinted at, so long as he under-
takes to produce, and sell for genu-
ine, any “pedigree Brahmas.”

The annexed illustration repre-
sents a model young cock of the
so-called Cornish-Chamberlin strain
of “ Light Brahmas,” which Mr. C.
C. Plaisted of Connecticut states, in
August, 1874, he has been breeding
from during the present season.
Having examined Mr. Plaisted’s
stock in his runs this summer, I am
constrained to say that this picture
does not do his fine birds justice, at
all. But this cut is put forth to
represent his “Chamberlin strain,”
as he has perfected. it, after breeding
this same stock steadily for some twenty years, so he affirms. The reader
can judge, by referring to other authentic drawings in this volume, how
nearly this strain (from the delineations given by different artists) is like my
original Light Grays, and Dr. Bennett’s, as portrayed in 1850, ’51, 752, on
pages 67, 69, and 137, 138. In this upright, long, rangy outline, the dis-
tinction (if there be any) presents but the slightest difference, to our eye.
And this portrait in 1874 only goes to confirm my early and “chronic”

126 THE CHINA FOWL.

A GOOD TYPE OF MODERN LIGHT BRAHMA PULLET, 10 MONTHS OLD,

As bred in the Uni'ed States, in the last seven years.

SELECTION AND MATING. 19%

opinion, that a// this stock comes from the same original parentage, — to wit,
my first two lots of “ Gray Shanghaes,” of 1849 and ’50.*

Upon the subject of the point in Brahmas known as the pea-comb, — which
fowls of both colors and sexes must nowadays have nicely developed to qualify
them to compete in the show-rooms, — I have to say that this peculiar forma-
tion was also original in America, and that Dr. John C. Bennett thus named
it at an early day. And below I give an extract from an article furnished
by me to “The London Poultry Review,” in the spring of 1874: —

“T will briefly refer in this paper to a peculiar characteristic of this race
of poultry, which has been the cause of much discussion; and that is the pea-
comb of the Brahmas. One English writer says, ‘The only difficult point
with the Brahmas is their variety of comb.’ Another asserts that ‘the pea-
combed Brahma cannot be a Shanghae fowl.’ Well, let us see about this.
A third adds, ‘If it be so, and if Brother Jonathan made it, I wish he would
make us something more.’ That Brother Jonathan did make the pea-comb
originally, nobody questions. That Dr. Bennett gave this comb its name, we
all know.

“He called my attention to this peculiarity the year after I received my
second lot of Grays from Shanghae direct; and, though we all bred both
single and pea-comb Brahmas for years afterwards, this feature originated
with my stock. And not until the third or fourth year after its first discov-
ery, did we undertake to breed the pea-comb, uniformly. The first birds you

* In regard to the names * Gray Shanghae ” and “‘ Chittagong,’’ it may be well to state, at this
point, as to the origin of my jirst pair of Grays, that some persons appear to have got the impres-
sion that these two identical birds were “‘ imported from Shanghae.” I have always stated very
clearly that this pair were obtained by me from Dr. J. J. Kerr of Philadelphia, who wrote me Sep-
tember 3, 1849, that, ‘‘although they were then called ‘ Chittagongs,’ they came out of Chinese
stock, and were bred from birds imported from Shanghae, into Pennsylvania.’’ Hence I called
them “ Gray Shanghaes,’’ after getting my second lot of lighter-colored Grays through Mr. Porter
of New York, in 1850. Mr. Cornish, Mr. Chamberlin, Mr. Hatch, Dr. Kerr, Dr. Bennett, Mr.
George, and myself called all this light gray stock ‘‘ Chittagong ”’ at first; and none of us knew
any thing about different “strains ’’ (if any ever existed) until the ‘‘ Brahma Pootra”’ title began
to be bruited, in 1851, 52. I never heard that anybody pretended that the original Dr. Kerr pair
had a history apart from this; viz., that they were the only light gray fowls then known, of thig
class of birds, and that they were bred out of stock imported into Pennsylvania, from China, some
two years before I received them; the color of which imported parent stock I never inquired about,
nor do I now know whether it was originally black, white, or blue. And I have never yet deemed
this to be of the slightest consequence; since I know how perfectly in color these Grays have bred,
from 1849 and '50 down to the present day. — G. P. B.

128 THE CHINA FOWL.

had in England were mostly single-combed; and to-day, in our best yards,
we occasionally meet with fine Light Brahmas having the single comb. But
these latter are thus disqualified for exhibition, at the present time.

“Now I propose to give you ‘something more’ akin to what the writer
alludes to above, in the way of pea-comb. The Dark Brahmas, as well as
the Light variety, must have the pea-comb to make them pass muster with
the judges at the shows, as we are all now aware. And why? Because
everybody is satisfied that this style is the best for cold climates, the pretti-
est, the neatest head-ornament for a large fowl of either sex, and, more espe-
cially, because it is a peculiarity of the Brahmas, and no other fowl carries it.
‘It is a distinguishing mark of the purity of this variety,’ writes one enthu-
siastic gentleman.” Another (in Tegetmeier’s last edition) says, ‘Mr. Burn-
ham declares they are Shanghaes (Cochins now). If they are Shanghaes,
will the advocates of this opinion tell me if they ever bred Buffs, Cinnamons,
or Grouse, with pea-combs?’- And this brings me to the point I am about
to present, in direct reply to this gentleman.

“ For four years past, I have been watching this very thing, in its perfect
development, in both the Grouse and Partridge Cochins in this town [ Mel-
rose]. A very careful breeder discovered amongst his Partridge Cochins (four
years ago) a few chickens, cocks and pullets, clearly marked with this pea-
comb. He could not account for it. He had only this breed on his premises.
He has never had any others since. He has bred from the pea-comb birds
only, selected them the second year, then culled them the third; and the
fourth season he put into the Massachusetts show (in 1874) several cages of as
perfect pea-combed Partridge Cochins as ever were grown. Nobody else that I
ever saw has this variety. From seventy-five to a hundred —old and young
—may now be seen in this gentleman’s yards, fully developed with this
‘peculiarity of the Brahmas.’

“They are not across. Never a taint of cross in any of them. The ori-
ginal stock came out of eggs laid by a Shanghae hen purchased from on ship-
board. And there they are, to speak for themselves, precisely as the pea-comb
was originally developed upon my imported Gray Shanghaes (or Brahmas)
the second year I bred them, — accurate likenesses of which choice birds will be
found upon pages 143,153. This gentleman has not yet sold any fowls, and de-
clines todo so. But he has got them, of all ages; and they are true pea-combed
Partridge fowls. What becomes of Mr. Wright’s theory on this subject, if this

SELECTION AND MATING. 129

is established in the Partridge, as we all know it now is, fairly, in the Brah-
mas? And why, as in the instance of the Brahmas, is not this a most valu-
able acquisition ?

_ “Mr. Wright has contributed to poultry literature a vast amount of plausi-
ble and solid material; and usually he writes clearly and well. But the facts
I have herein set down are at variance with much which this author has
‘penned; and they dispose effectually of the theory suggested by the other
English writer upon Brahmas, who triumphantly argues in his query, ‘ Will
the advocates of this [my] opinion tell me if they have ever bred Grouse
_ Cochins (Shanghaes) with pea-combs?’. since the fancier I speak of has
this year got out forty chickens, all pea-combed, from his stock ; whilst
a quartette of his year-old stock, placed in the hands of another person in
Norfolk County, Massachusetts, have produced sixty more chickens in March
and April, 1874, perfectly marked with this peculiar “ pea” comb.

“JT conclude this too lengthy article with these final assertions. No so-
called Brahma fowls ever came from India in 1846, or at any other time, to
America. J originated these fowls, now called Brahmas. I sent to England
the first Light and Dark purely-bred Brahma birds you ever had there (as
‘Gray Shanghaes’), or they went hence from my stock. And, lastly, the pea-
comb has been established in America upon the Grouse or Partridge Cochins,
as I have now informed you. And Brother Jonathan hasn’t yet done with
improving domestic poultry, as I trust we shall show in the future.”

In those earliest days, the “fine points ” upon our imported stock of Shang-
haes were not appreciated by us. This pea-comb question was long a debat-
able one. Dr. Bennett claimed, for years after we discovered this peculiar
formation, — which he first pointed out:to me in my yards, —that the single
comb was the true one for the Brahmas, though the deviation of this “ pea-
comb” (to which he gave this name, from its similarity in shape to a half-
blown pea-blossom), he said sometimes occurred with this fowl. He didn’t
know whether it did, or not —when this opinion was given! Nor did any
one else know, at that time. The appearance and final perfecting of this
feature of the pea-comb upon our Gray birds was a surprise to us all; and a
deal of labor followed, to establish it. It required several years of experiment
and care to produce this head-ornament with any great degree of uniformity
or success, as I have shown in the quoted opinions of all the original breeders
of this stock, possessing any nominal strain. The Queen’s birds were single-

130 THE CHINA FOWL.

combed, so far as I remember. Dr. Gwynne’s early fowls were, seven-tenths
of them, single-combed ; and these he received from Bennett and Plaisted, who
bred the Cornish-Chamberlin strain (so Mr. Plaisted says), and the Burnham
strain (so Dr. Bennett says) ; see pages 80 to 85, for these authoritative state-
ments. And even up to this day, more or less of the Light Brahmas are bred,
of anybody’s stock, in any man’s yards, with the up-right, single, serrated
comb that Bennett claimed, at first, was the proper style of comb for this breed.

Even Cornish himself says (in 1869 !) “I did notice the ‘ pea~-comb’ on my
birds. It was not so with all.”” He does not say anything about this peculiar
formation in his first account, dated March 2, 1852, I observe! And yet, ac-
cording to his last “ accurate” statement, he nee then (in 1852) have had
these birds-in his possession (from September, 1846) fully six years! Did he
“notice this pea-comb” on his birds before he wrote that first letter? If so,
why was this peculiarity not mentioned by him? It certainly was a most ex-
traordinary development! Nobody in America or England knew anything
what this rare feature meant. Tegetmeier writes, as late as 1867, “this pea-
comb was a great novelty with us in England.” Another English writer then
says, “in all our crosses, we have never met with anything like this!” Ido
not remember myself to have observed it till my second year of breeding with
the second lot of Grays I obtained from Shanghae, via New York. It was a
curious discovery, and it is decidedly a very desirable thing to breed as many
pea-combed birds among our Brahmas as possible. But the single comb will
appear, more or less, with the best families to-day, nevertheless.

This same Dr. Gwynne, whom Bennett, Tegetmeier, Plaisted, Burnham,
Wright, and Miss Watts, all agree contributed one of the two jirst pens of
Light Brahmas shown at Birmingham, England, and who himself declares,
in Rev. Mr. Wingfield’s London work, “I received from Dr. Bennett of the
United States, in 1853, five pairs of these Cornish-Chamberlin fowls, — three
only of which had the pea-comb,” also, subsequently adds, regarding the
Brahma pea-comb question, “All Z can say on this point is, that out of
twenty chickens bred for myself out of three of the ten birds received from
Dr. Bennett of the United States, I cannot detect a single ‘deviation’ among
them from the SINGLE comb of the parents.’ And yet it is claimed by Lewis
Wright that “this pea-comb alone is absolute evidence of the antiquity and
purity of the Cornish-Bennett fowls over Burnham’s mongrels !”

In mating the Buff, the White, or the Black Cochins, there are no ae

= . by Hie
2 yep il "0, aa
; <>

yy Z 7; >

PEA-COMBED PARTRIDGE CUCIIIN COCK, 2 YEARS OLD 1874.
From the original stock of C, H. Edmonds, Melrose, Mass.

oF ; hs Ae

SELECTION AND MATING. 133

~

requirements. as I have described, inasmuch as there is but one general
color, each to be sought for in these different varieties. But with the Partridge
Cochins, the pencilling of the neck and back-hackles and the markings of the
body-feathering, as in the Dark Brahmas also, comes a nice point again,
in mating for breeding, to produce the desired fashionable “Standard ”
specimens of fowls.

The Partridge Cochins, and the Grouse Cochins are very similar in general
hue, both being of a rich deep brown, with similar markings and pencil-
lings; except that one is of a reddish tinge (in the lighter plumage), and the
other golden bay, or a deep orange tint, in the more brilliant parts of the gen-
eral ground-feathering in the hens. The colors of the Partridge or the Grouse
cock (of the most acceptable character), are but slightly different in each,
Those tints that are best understood as applicable to the superb “ black and
red Game Cock,” are in the main the most desirable. The breast, thighs, and
under body-color of the male Partridge Cochin should be clear black, to accord
with the “Standard” requirement. Tail and base-feathers, metallic black.
~ Hackles “pencilled,” orange and black, &c. These for the show-birds.

But, for mating to breed them, the presence of brown feathers sparsely inter-
spersed upon the breast, flanks, and thighs, is (in my experience) the better
indication towards producing finely marked pullet chicks. And I have found,
in a large majority of cases, that a good, vigorous, well formed two year-old
cock, with this style of marking, would throw finer pullets than the dead-
black breasted birds. But to breed the others (cock chicks), the black
breasted male, and the darkest brown hens are the best, of course; and all
these, I repeat it, are nice points, resulting satisfactorily only through careful
studied experiment, oftentimes necessarily long continued. And here it is
that the theory of “constant selection” of the best birds in your breeding
stock comes in, pertinently.

I understand perfectly well that this principle is a good, if not the true
method. In all cases, whatever the opinions or experience of the fancier
may be, the swccessful breeder resorts to this mode in his breeding. I wouldn’t
give a row of pins, for example, for a Cochin or Brahma cock-bird, to breed
from, that turned the scales, in weight, at over twelve pounds. I prefer one
at eleven pounds, even; provided he be “well up on his pins,” courageous,
healthy, well pointed, not leggy, squarely framed for a Cochin, and perhaps
a little more “rangy” in form for a Bfahma. And I prefer my pullets, or

134 THE CHINA FOWL.

hens, in proportion higher on the leg considerably, to be mated to such
cocks. Both should be well marked in plumage, as I have described; and
all should be kept in “high condition,” without permitting them to get fat
while being bred. With such birds, of good stock, you may count on very
good chickens in the average.

And yet, in spite of all, you must be prepared to be often disappointed.
Why it is, that freaks in Nature occur so frequently in one’s experience, do
what the breeder may, is altogether inexplicable. Many fanciers there be who
are prone to the recounting of strange stories about their favorite strains of
stock, and of their continuous and wondrous success with certain varieties,
bred from some imaginary “early imported bloods,” which would be
counted certainly marvellous if the tales could be verified. But Z have met
with so many ups and downs in chicken-raising, and I have been so often
deceived in my anticipations, first and last, that I do not calculate very
accurately upon any thing coming exactly like its parentage, when I start out
with new bloods, of late years, that “have taken first prizes,” for example, or
that come down from “Confucius” and “ Hebe,” with a pedigree “much
longer than my arm.”

In mating such samples (and I have tried this more than once, to my cost),
the progeny do not often come up to the mark. They have been badly
mated in previous generations. The individual fowls thus purchased have
been rare samples to behold of their accredited race, frequently, and I have
anticipated “ stunning results” from the eggs laid by these fine looking speci-
mens, that had “ won first premiums;” and for which, on more than one
occasion within my remembrance, I have cheerfully paid down fifty to one
hundred dollars each, in the exhibition-room.

I have sold eggs from these very fowls, at almost fabulous rates, in
good faith, and believed, as did the parties I bought of and sold to, that we
had something rare indeed in the poultry way. Aud I have not only been
wofully disappointed myself, in the first or second hatchings from such fowls,
but I have been compelled subsequently to endure the anathemas of incon-
siderate patrons, for sending them at high cost, eggs that produced chickens
of almost any color save that of the birds which laid those eggs. But the
parent fowls had been contaminated before they reached my hands, and I
bred from them only what Nature gave me, through this impure channel.

Thus I say it is well that, in selecting your original breeding-stock, you

SELECTION AND MATING. No

pay attention to obtaining it out of a strain that you know to be as pure as
can be had, itself, first. Then by mating your birds in the way I have now
briefly indicated, you may, as a rule, calculate upon getting a majority of
chickens that will answer your expectations in color and features.

We give place to fine plate illustrations on pages 133 and 1438, of the new
Pea-combed Partridge fowls, a cock and hen —two years old — bred from
imported Chinese blood, and fostered by C. H. Edmonds, Esq., of Melrose,’
Mass., for the last four or five years. The pictures are faithful representa-
tions of these two mature fowls, which for size, color, markings, rotundity of
form, and good make-up, throughout, are excelled by no specimens of the
Cochin varieties that we have ever met with.

That the pea comb is now a desideratum upon the Brahmas, Light and
Dark, is already decided upon. The production of a new variety of the
Cochins possessing this marked peculiarity, uniformly, is certainly a grand
improvement upon the old style of single upright comb, especially for our
cold northern American climate. That the establishment of this desirable
feature has been accomplished, permanently, upon the Partridge variety, and
that it has already been transmitted from Mr. Edmonds’ original stock
through five generations, down to the summer of 1874, is a fixed fact.

The stately trio of Dark Brahmas so nicely portrayed upon page 101, the
property of Mr. 8S. H. Seamans, Wauwatosa, Wis., were imported by him in
1873, from England. The drawing is from the pencil of the celebrated J. W.
Ludlow, and these beautiful birds have been winners of first prizes at the —
American Western shows, deservedly — being very perfect specimens of their
kind, from which Mr. Seamans is now breeding, successfully.

Mr. Chamberlin himself has never “mentioned” any thing about any
fowls, that I ever heard of, and he didn’t go to New York for fowls, at all.
Mr. Cornish said (in 1852) that “the Chamberlin fowls were brought into
Connecticut in the early part of 1849.” Then this same Mr.. Cornish said (in
1869), “These fowls came in a ship” (which never arrived there) “to —
New York, in September, 1846.”

This is all that has ever been known about that mythical “one pair of
Grays,” and all that ever will be known now, except what I have elsewhere
stated in this work ; viz., that no ship “arrived at New York from Luckipoor
in India,” either in 1849, first, or in 1846; or in 1847, as a later writer puts
it. All these stories are false — as in the final chapter I will show. .

136 THE CHINA FOWL.

The advocates of this pea-combed Chamberlin-gray-fowl theory are
sadly indisposed to agree in their stories. Mr. Cornish, in 1852, as we have
seen, did not know “the sailor” who found this pair of fowls.* Even in 1869,
he says, “the sailor’s name I never noted, and cannot give.” In 1870, he
adds (according to Wright), ‘“‘my letters were written at an early day, when
the parties who brought the fowls from India to New York” (the sailors*of
course) “were living, and to be seen. They were often seen,” &e.

But, previously to this last letter, they had all died off, conveniently, at the
right time, — so it was universally contended. And nothing could be learned
further of these “all-obscure men,” who could “ give no account of the origin
of these birds,” as Cornish first avers in his 1852 letter! Yet, in 1874, we
find that Mr. Plaisted good-humoredly resurrects them. In the “ Poultry
World” for August, this writer says, “the unknown sailor, of whom Mr. Cor-
nish writes, and whom Mr. Burnham attempts to ridicule, ‘still lives,’ and
will, I trust, take an important part in this feathered drama, now having such
a remarkable run. When he comes on deck, let the unbelievers ‘look out for
squalls.’ Like Captain Cuttle, he too will ‘stand by,’ and his opponents may
be obliged to ‘take to the long boat!’”

Now, we have not “attempted to ridicule” the “unknown sailor,” at all.
He was a perfectly harmless and unoffending party in this business, and he
has been dead near twenty years! At least, so we have all been informed
repeatedly by the Cornish men. If he is alive, so much the better for him,
individually. But we think it is rather late in the day to trot this sailor out,
now ; though it may be, that, for Wright’s and Cornish’s purposes, this ven-
erable salt will prove a Bunsby, indeed; and he may be able to give us “an
opinion as 7s an opinion” on this vexing Bother-’em-Pootrum question. Still,
we submit that it is not a little strange, during all the controversy that has
occurred in a quarter of a century about the sailor-Cornish pair of Light-Gray
fowls, that this ancient mariner has never before turned up!

* In August, 1874, Miss Watts of London writes to Lewis Wright that, “early in 1853 she sent
her first order for Light Brahmas to Dr. Bennett, and specified that the fowls must be single-
combed.” .. . ‘‘ This was objected to (in America) on the score that the single comb was not
right.’’? So pea-comb birds were sent her. This lady says she bred the so-called Chamberlin-
Bennett stock, but found ‘‘no Dark Brahmas until after 1862,’’ when she crossed hers with birds
from Dr. Gwynne’s stock; and which Bennett sent to Dr. Gwynne from my yards, years before!

SMa.

a> IW
Ai

\\
Viz. \
SSX

eg,
My LA
Wty, MLL,
“Mn, ” AGG?
“a” yyy Zp
Map i 4/; WY i

IR 1 VEN
~ oN y >
MAM AV

MODEL OF “STANDARD’’ DARK BRAHMA COCK, 2 YEARS OLD, 1874.

As bred by Philander Williams, G. P. Burnham, E. C. Comey, J. P. Buzzell, T. O. Wardwell,
Jacob Graves, C. C. Loring, C. W. Chamberlin, ete., Mass.; J. Y. Bicknell, N. Y.; B. & J. Peters,
Christana, Del. ; C. G. Sanford, and H. A. Rhodes, R. I.; Dr. C. H. Kenegy, Polo, Ill.; and other
leading American fanciers who know the difference between this and English “ hocked”’ birds.

“UNCLE SAM’? AND “CORA.’? CHAMBERLIN LIGHT BRAHMAS. (1853.)

The above is an English picture of an early pair of Light Brahmas belonging
to Miss E. Watts — author of the London “ Poultry Yard” —which she im-
ported from Dr. J. C. Bennett, in 1855. In 1874, she writes that Mr. Plaisted
and Dr. B. selected all this stock bred by her, up to 1862, when she obtained a
pullet to cross with her own trom Dr. Gwynne’s importation from America;
and adds that “about the same time” when she first received hers from America,
* Mr. Baily, of Mount Street, London, received a pén of Dark Birds from Mr.
Burnham, which were not exactly to her fancy, on account of their heavy color ;
but they were very fine.”

In closing this article upon selection and mating the Brahmas, &e., for breed-
ing, I ask the reader to compare the above drawing of Dr. Bennett’s fowls of
1853 with the picture of my light Gray Shanghaes of 1852, on the opposite
page. Both these engravings were drawn by the same European artist, from
life. Is the difference (if there be any,) discoverable? J can not see it. Yet
one pair are drawn from my “ Gray Shanghaes” in 1852 °5, and the others are

eo 9

from Miss E. Watts’ birds, sent her by Dr. Bennett and Plaisted, in 1855 74.

PORTRAITS OF THE ‘‘LIGHT-GRAY SHANGHAES,” drawn in 1852.

BURNHAM AGAINST WRIGHT.

‘Life would be a perpetual flea-hunt, if a man were obliged to run down all the innuendoes,
inyeracities, insinuations, and suspicions which are uttered against him.” — Rev. Henry
Warp BEECHER. i

“ But for that blindness which is inseparable from malice, what powers of evil would it
possess! Fortunately for mankind, its venom, —like that of the rattlesnake, — when most
poisonous, clouds the eye of the reptile, and defeats its aim.” — W. GitMoRE SiMMs.

In closing this volume, I am constrained, in view of certain demonstra-
tions promulgated by Lewis Wright, of England, in a late expensive poultry
book he has issued in London, to conclude my account of the “ Cuina Fowt,
Shanghae, Cochin, and ‘ Brahma,’ ” with a brief personal protest against the
rigmarole and pointless twaddle embodied in said Wright’s recent attacks
upon me in that work, and its smaller predecessor, wherein he has so
wantonly assailed Mr. G. P. Burnham and his poultry-stock, by his utterly
senseless and groundless attempt at argument in reference to the origin of
the mythical Cornish-Chamberlin-Sailor-Hatch-Bennett-Brahmapootra ‘im-
portation of fowls from Luckipoor, in India;” which silly tale, for twenty odd
years Z have known, and which every fancier in America has been confident

138 THE CHINA FOWL.

was, in its details, one of the grossest inventions at humbug that ever was
perpetrated in the whole history of the hen fever.

The poultry press in this country and England have kindly permitted me
to reply, through their columns, to this utterly baseless attack: and I would
here express my grateful obligations to Wade’s “ Fanciers’ Journal,” Phila-
delphia; Stoddard’s “ Poultry World,” Hartford; “The Pet-Stock Bulletin,”
New York; “The Country Gentleman,” Albany; “The Turf, Field, and
Farm,” New York; “The Poultry Review,” London; “The Poultry Ree-
ord,” Farmington, Ill. ; ‘The North-Western Poultry Journal,” Minneapo-
lis, Wis.; “ The Poultry Argus,” Polo, Ill., and other American and English
journals, for the favor they have accorded me, in enabling me to set myself
“right on the record” in this affair, in reply to Lewis Wright’s unfounded,
unreasonable, and atrocious assault upon a man who never had aught to do
with the subject-matter he treats of in his abusive works, except to ridicule
this nonsense and chicanery, from first to last.

Mr. Wright commences upon a false foundation, starting out with the
assumption, in the opening paragraph of his “ Brahma Fowl” book, that the
large Light-Gray Shanghaes, Light Brahmas,— or whatever they should right-
fully be called,— were “ originally imported from India.” He then proceeds
to argue the question towards establishing this fallacy, instead of either
accepting or reciting well-known facts regarding the actual history of the
origin of this fowl. He declares that “it appeared to him possible to throw
some additional light” upon this long mooted subject, and “to point, with
Mr. Darwin’s aid, with certainty to a scientific and rational conclusion ” as to
whether these fowls came from India, or from Shanghae, in China,

When the record was so ample and so plain, at least in this country, and
the existing accounts so simple, as they have been for more than twenty
years, it does seem to the view of an American reader or fancier, who is
reasonably posted in current poultry affairs, that this pretended “labor of
love,” on the part of the Englishman has been conducted in a most singu-
larly hateful and stupid manner, from the outset; and that Lewis Wright
has evinced a most remarkable lack of foresight in the crudities he has pro-
mulgated, as well as having repeated a string of old untruths; and the course
he has in this-instance pursued, has gained him no friends in the United
States, verily! As to his affording the poultry world any reliable informa-

BURNHAM VS. WRIGHT. rah 139

tion about Brahma fowl history, or seemingly gaining any real knowledge of
the subject for himself, his late attempts have proved absolutely but most
pitiable failures.

What is the use, for instance, of citing Mr. Darwin’s phantasies to help
prove an evént that never had an existence? Hither these fowls came from
China, or India, or they didn’t! Does the shape of the skull in two indi-
vidual samples of foreign poultry, picked up in a man’s yard and found to
differ somewhat in their internal or external formation, prove what country
the birds came from? Yet this— and these —are Wright’s arguments to
establish his theory that the Gray Shanghaes (or now so-called Brahmas),
which originated in Mr. G. P. Burnham’s yards in America, were “ imported
from the port of Luckipoor, India, into New York,” on board a ship that
never arrived there!

And through two huge volumes of this sort of argument — scientific,
literary, historical, anatomical, botanical, ornithological, chemical, and un-
natural, this pedantic poultry author at second-hand strings out the details
of his “sailor-yarn,” ad nauseam, in the attempt to establish what never oc-
‘eurred, and which was never really believed by half a dozen persons on this
side of the Atlantic to have contained the first particle of truth or reason in
or about it, from beginning to end. This whole fabricated tale was notori-
ously known here to have been a regularly concocted sham from the start.

I do not feel that I can do better than to make free use of the substance
of the articles: that have appeared, in one or other of the first-class journals
named above, in thus defending myself, and in replying in these pages to
Wright, who has been most egregiously sold by some one. That he has been
deceived, through some source, is very clear: although he voluntarily
enlarges upon whatever inimical information he may have gathered to
enhance the venom of his spleen; and, with certain undeniable and patent
facts before him (which he has utterly ignored, in his persistent tirade), he
has proceded to misrepresent, malign, misinterpret, and interpolate my writ-
ings in the most disingenuous, unfair, and disgraceful manner, without one
iota of provocation for his balderdash and slang, or reason for his miserable
attack upon me and mine, in his two late books on poultry matters, and
especially in connection with the origin and early history of the so-called
“ Brahma ” fowls.

140 THE CHINA FOWL.

An officious anonymous correspondent of Wade’s Fanciers’ Journal (who,
from the nature of his calling, could much better have employed his leisure
in doing his Master’s service than in thus meddling with a personal matter
entirely outside of his province, which it was none of his business to inter-
fere with), gratuitously forwarded to the editor a long abusive extract from
one of Wrights’ books, recently, wherein the author launched his assaults
upon Mr. Burnham without stint; and which I was, for the first time, thus
made conversant with, in their particularity. I replied to this attack, that
Mr. Wright had picked me up without the slightest show of reason; and
that, in his remarks about my connection with the “ Brahmapootra” subject,
he had entirely mistaken the position J had always maintained towards
this notable humbug; inasmuch, as, from outset to conclusion, I had never, in
any way, shape, or manner, been concerned in this deception, but, from the
beginning, had steadily and consistently fought it, and ridiculed it — for
more than twenty years! I then added, that Mr. Wright in his books did not .
touch the main question at issue in this controversy, strange to say —and
that is, as to the time when, and the mode in which, this name “ Brahma-
pootra” or “ Brahma” came about, and my aversion to it.

Imprimis, you will observe, that Z (Mr. Burnham) never laid any claim
to this “ Brahmapootra” misnomer. I did not make this name. I then
called my fowls “Gray Shanghaes,” — never by any other name, and simply
for the good reason that Dr. Kerr, who sent me my first pair from Philadel-
phia, in September, 1849, in his letter, said: “Though they are called ‘ Chit-
tagongs’ (precisely as Mr. Cornish called his at first), the stock came to Penn-
sylvania from Shanghae, China.” My second lot of Light Grays were pro-
cured in 1850, through Wm. T. Porter, Esq., editor of the “ New York Spirit
of the Times,” from on board a ship at New York, direct from Shanghae,
China. I then had other Chinese fowls of different colors, but these last
were light gray. What else could I properly call them, but what I did; viz.,
“Gray Shanghaes.” And here let me quote what Dr. Gwynne, of England,
wrote in.1852: —

“T 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 any thing but what
could be found in the Shanghae birds. I had several communications from

BURNHAM VS. WRIGHT. 141

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 Shanghaes,
in shape and character, I could gather no information but that the difference ©
of color between these and other Shanghaes precluded their being thus
_classed; but I cannot accept this as adequate proof of ‘Brahmapootras’
being a ‘new breed,’ and therefore prefer the conclusion that they are
identical with the Shanghaes, 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 Shanghae breed, is the fact that the fowls recently presented
‘to her Majesty, by Mr. Geo. P. Burnham, under the name of Gray Shang-
haes, 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
Shanghaes,’ presented to her Majesty were bred, was imported by himself,
through Dr. Kerr, of Philadelphia, direct from Shanghae.”

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 at all! Thus I continued to designate my
fowls, long years after Dr. Bennett fixed “Brahmapootra” first, and then
“Brahma” for his birds; though at that very time (1852) Dr. Bennett vol-
untarily wrote Dr. Gwynne, as above, which was the true statement; but
which I do not find in Mr. Wright’s account.

Observe J did not say this. Mr. Tegetmeier did not say so. This was
Dr. J. C. Bennett’s own account, published from him direct, in Rev. Mr.
Wingfield’s early editions of his “Illustrated 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 furnished, 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. Cor-
nish 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 jirst 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

142 THE CHINA FOWL.

said, in 1852, that mine and his were the same: the latter in London, simply
uttering an ipse dixit, based on the Cornish letter, which does not mention
me or 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 any-
thing 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 false
position by quoting Cornish’s letter. This is very unfair, to say the least of
it; but, whichever way it was, surely Z had nothing whatever to do with all
this. I neither suggested, made, approved, used, or adopted this name of
“ Brahmapootra” or Brahma for my fowls —never. Yet Mr. Wright dis-
tinctly asserts that “Mr. Cornish’s statement was published long before Mr.
Burnham’s,” and that “ Burnham might have bred some very good imitation
Brahmas,” etc.; when it is so well known, and always has been, 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-
pootras.” 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.

I had then never had aught to do with naming the “Brahma” fowl.
I always opposed this bald nonsense, and would never permit-Dr. Ben-
nett, Mr. Cornish, or Mr. Anybody to thus misname my fowls. Every-
body in England and America knew this; though my name was, by others,
sometimes mentioned in this connection. But, if Mr. Cornish, Dr. Bennett,
or Mr. Wright; Dr. Gwynne, or Mr. Baily; Mr. Tegetmeier, or His Royal
Highness Prince Albert, chose (as some did, I believe, after a while) to call
my Gray Shanghaes “Brahmas,” could I help it? I never called any of
their fowls “ Gray Shanghaes,” surely !

How a sensible man, who writes so cleverly as Wright does, usually, could
have wrought himself up to penning such a tirade as he thus has, is more
than I can comprehend —since it is notorious that I opposed it in com-
mittees ; in my writings; in conventions; in public and private; first, last,
and always, — upon the ever-constant principle that my fowls were “ Gray
Shanghaes”’ from the start, and not “ Brahmapootras.”

PEA-COMBED PARTRIDGE CUCHIN HEN, 3 YEARS OLD 1874.

From the original stock of C H. Edmonds, Melrose, Mass.

BURNHAM VS. WRIGHT. 145

These had steadily been my assertions. Still, Mr. Wright kept calling me
hard names, declaring that I “never had any genuine Brahmas” (who says I
* did ?), and that “ Burnham might have bred some tolerable imitation Brahmas”
(which I didn’t). I had never even said I had any “ Brahmas ” whatever, gen-
uine or imitation ; that I ever éried to breed “ Brahmas,” or pretended I did;
I had never even called my fowls “ Brahmas,” and never.would. And I surely
made no statement, oral or written, in which Mr. Cornish’s fowls were involved,
where I was a witness “ more ” or “less reliable,” as Mr. Wright states; be-
cause his “ Chittagongs” or “ Brahmapootras,” or whatever he named them,
never interfered with my “ Gray Shanghaes” any more than did Dr. Ben-
nett’s “ Wild East-India Fawn-colored Dorkings,” at this same period
notable.

Mr. Wright lays great stress on the fact that “ Burnham vainly tried to pur-
chase this stock, but did not succeed.” Admitted, again, that Idid not. Thus,
of course, Mr. Wright is a good witness that the fowls I had (presupposing that
Tever had any) were not of this Cornish-Chamberlin, “ Chittagong ” or “ Brah-
mapootra” strain. This settles one point clearly.

But I had better ones, and this it was that troubled my competitors, as
thousands testified in favor of my birds, all over the world, in those years. I
raised over sixteen hundred of the “ Gray Shanghaes” in one year (1852 to
1853) in Melrose, and sent them all over Great Britain and the United States,
to my generous patrons’ entire satisfaction, but never once calling them by the
detested name of Brahmapootras, about which Mr. Wright has raised such a
silly fuss.

All this, be it remembered, I now state as applying in point of time to the
period when Mr. Wright got out his books. Of course, in the Jast few years
(since this “ Brahma” name has been so universally in use), I have as often
spoken of them as of my Gray Shanghaes, because everybody latterly thus _
designates this kind of poultry, for convenience. And in my “New Poultry
Book,” issued in 1871, I advertised and wrote about them as “ Brahmas,”
because we had all accepted this latest popularly established name — both in
England and America. But not previously, when Wright published his
works. And I solemnly declare that I never was concerned in making or in
sustaining this name of “ Brahma” for fowls, and never claimed it for my
stock, for I had no oceasion to do so.

146 THE CHINA FOWL.

Now, the fowls lately coming from England to the United States, in
the shape of “fresh importations” of “Cochins” or “ Brahmas,” are bred
there, and very skilfully too. The Englishmen call these birds what they
please, naturally. Our fanciers and poultry societies follow suit — though,
in the Light Brahma class, we lead them still, as we have done from the
outset. The later Dark Brahmas received here from England, are fine; but
I have never heard of any fresh stock, of this particular variety and color,
having been received by anybody in Great Britain, from China, or “ from
Luckipoor, in India,” since the advent of my first Dark Brahmas (or Dark
Gray Shanghaes) into England in 1853, as is stated at that period by Mx. W.
B. Tegetmeier. And I know of no one who has ever set up any claim to have
received from anybody, anywhere, previously, or since I sent those Dark
Brahmas to London, in that year, any similar birds from any place but
England ; while we have yet to learn, with all Lewis Wright’s platitudes, and
his rigmarole about his “ Indian officers’ reports” of the existence of these Gray
“ Brahmas ” formerly and still in that country, that there has ever, since 1853,
been a single bird of this character brought thence into British ports!

Here is another patent fact for Mr. Wright’s consideration. Does he allude
to this important circumstance in either of his ponderous books? Not he/
But I now point to this reality in earnest. If the Light and Dark “ Brah-
mas ” were, or are, so plenty out in India, with which country the Britons are
known to be so constantly in communication, why have we or they not chanced
to have had a fresh importation or two, or a dozen, within the past more than
twenty years, from this paradise of the “ Brahma” varieties ? Or, why have
not similarly-plumed birds found their way to either England or America from
China — from Shanghae, Canton, Ning Po, or Hong-Kong, even — in all
that long period? I rather think Mr. Lewis Wright will find this question a
poser to answer satisfactorily, either to himself or to the breeders and ad-
mirers of these two varieties that originated in America, and were first
owned, bred, and shown publicly in this country and in England, by George
P. Burnham of Melrose, Mass., and “ not in India.”

I do not deny, and never will dispute the fact, that this stock has been at
times improved by domestication and skilful breeding in both countries, since
I originated these birds, of either variety, asa general thing. And yet I have
never seen a finer lot of the Light variety than those I shipped to Her British

BURNHAM VS. WRIGHT. 147

Majesty in 1852, from my yards; nor have IJ ever seen a better trio of the
Dark strain than the three splendid birds I first shipped in 1853 to John

Baily, of Mount Street, London; and I never expect to see these twelve fowls
excelled for size, beauty, truthfulness in blood, markings, or general points.
To-day, Mr. Baily advertises his Dark Brahmas as being “bred from stock
descended from Mr. G. P. Burnham’s original consignment to him.” Jf the
Light and Dark Brahmas are so readily to be had, and are so “ common in
India,” why haven’t some of the Wrights, the Gwynnes, the Watts, the
Bailys, the:Bakers, the Teebays, the Beldons, and a thousand other enter-
prising leading English breeders, obtained from “the port of Luckipoor, in
India, in the valley of the Brahmapootra,” where these superb fowls are said
by Wright and his officious “ India friend ” to so abound (?) some samples of
this celebrated race of poultry, with which to “ freshen up ” the Yankee stock
or English strains that they have been breeding in-and-in so many years; but
which, in the year 1874, is as fine as it was in 1851, ’52, in every respect, and
which so “ marvellously holds out” in all_its original proportions and charac-

_ teristics, form, weight, size, and comeliness, notwithstanding the tens of thou-
sands, aye! hundreds of thousands of birds that have been bred from my “ ori-
ginal seven” and their progeny, on both sides of the Atlantic, during the last
more than two decades of years ?

Come, Mr. Lewis Wright! You know some things about poultry, though
you really know precious little about the Brahma fowl-origin, evidently. We
have in the United States, to-day, five hundred fanciers who can teach you the
A, B, C, of this business; malgré all your profundity in a general way in
the science of chickenology. Will you, for the benefit of the fancy in

_ America and Great Britain, please give your views in response to these
queries I have just herein suggested? I do not ask this upon my own
account, because I know all about this “little joker,” the “ Brahmapootra.”
Tam not a fool, if I am the deceiver you attempt, in your two books, to
make me out. And J have studied this subject “in a reverent spirit,” for the
greater part of the last quarter of a century, assiduously. I know this
Burampooter-Brahmapootra-Gray-Shanghae-Brahma subject through and
through ; although you facetiously express the opinion in your “ monograph
of the Brahma Fowl,” page 46, that “to every breeder of this fowl, it will
be evident that the amount of knowledge here hinted at is not very great,

148 THE CHINA FOWL.

and that nothing could better show Burnham’s ignorance of the fowl itself,
than his expression of opinion.”

Ah, Lewis, you have a deal to learn upon this subject, yet! And I am
sure it will not savor of boasting, when I’affirm that I have long ago forgotten
more than you can ever know about the wretched humbug of this Brahma-
pootraism; though I never was inveigled into, or implicated in it, indi-
vidually, thank heaven! except to fight and satirize it. That part of the
work I have faithfully attended to, first and last, for over twenty years, and [
have not finished yet: since such men as you are, keep rising up, like Ban-
quo’s ghost, — whom I am compelled to “lay,” — one after another; and this
keeps me busy still in this direction.

You have shown yourself pretty clever at railing, Lewis, but your recent
efforts, in terrorem, pointed at me, will not have the desired effect you evidently
aimed at. You cannot “rail the seal from off my bond” in this controversy,
through your mulish contumacy and clumsy platitudes, while these two facts
stand upon the record ; viz. 1st. “Mr. Geo. P. Burnham exhibited in Boston
the first Gray Shanghae fowls ever seen there; from which stock, bred in his
yards, Dr. John C. Bennett produced the first so-called ‘Light. Brahmas’
ever shown in the world; 2d. Mr. Geo. P. Burnham sent to England, early in
1853, the first trio of ‘ Dark Brahmas’ ever seen there, or anywhere else,
which latter (from the same original stock) went from Mr. Burnham’s yards
in Melrose, Mass., direct to Mr. John Baily, of London.”

Thus much is certain — deny it, argue it, or dispute it, who will!

Nobody shows (upon the past record) any of this now so-called Brahma
stock, of ecther Light or Dark varieties prior to those two showings. Since
then, you can point to no one fresh “importation” by anybody, either in .
England or Amefica, of a single Light or Dark Gray Shanghae, or “ Brahma ”
fowl from India, China, or other Eastern country! There have been none
since. There were none before. And I challenge you, or any man on earth
to show that this “explicit statement” of mine is not true, to the letter.

I care not who has bred this stock since then. I am indifferent as to who
has raised other Light Gray fowls since that period. It is immaterial to me
what birds have been reared since the time when I first showed and sent
those two varieties of “A NEW BREED of poultry” all over the world. And
it is of the very least importance how this may have been effected after me.

BURNHAM VS. WRIGHT. ) 149

I furnished the stock of the two original strains of now so-called Licur and
Dark Brahmas — though I called it by its rightful name at, and from, the
outset; while Dr. Bennett (first) then Cornish, with a hundred others, and,
lastly, Lewis Wright, chose to nick-name these fine birds by another title.
This Z could not control. But the facts remain, and the fowls are to-day wn-
changed — save that, in the main, they have been somewhat improved upon
by long domestication and careful breeding, in the hands of skilful fanciers
on both sides of the Atlantic. When you can show us that these assertions
are incorrect, and when you are able to satisfactorily answer the queries I
have herein propounded — it will be quite time, Mr. Wright, to talk of and
argue the points referring to the assumed pre-history of the Cornish-Cham-
berlin- Bennett-Hatch-Knox-“ imported-from-India ”-Brahmapootra strains.

Perhaps you do know sufficient about this business to reply to the ques-
tions I have proposed. Will you then please tell us, also, why it is that the two
Cornish assertions (which statements you inform me by letter dated London,
May 23, 1874, are the basis of your opinions and theory), about the arrival
of his fowls “in the ships at New York from India in 1849,” and twenty
years afterwards that “they arrived from Luckipoor, in India, in September,
1846,” are considered by you to be “accurate and conclusive evidence ” that
Burnham is a deceiver and a swindler, and that “his stock is spurious,”
when said Burnham, his fowls nor his existence is once referred to, nor hinted
at, in those two letters? And will you be kind enough, at the same time
(though I would not occasion you too much trouble at once), to inform us
ignorant and illiterate people on this side of the Atlantic, why those India
ships, arriving at New York, with the Cornish-Chamberlin gray fowls in 1849
jirst, and in 1846 afterwards, never made any “port entry” at the Custom-
house in New York, of “ship, or captain,” as our United Stafes revenue laws
imperatively require? Were fowls, ship, captain, sailor, obscure owner —
all smugyled into New York? And is this the reason why everybody so
conveniently forgot the date and the reticent parties who had to do with this
“little job”? It may be so; but I think this hardly possible. Still, this
hypothesis is a far more reasonable one than are the published conclusions
upon your premises, which you so triumphantly indulge in at my expense,
in view of the actual facts existing in this important point in the case, as I
have fairly presented them.

150 THE CHINA FOWL.

The limits of this volume will not afford me space to argue this question,
were I inclined to do so, which Iam not. And I simply present these in-
terrogatories as pertinent, in my judgment, to the issue involved. If Mr.
Wright can answer these plain queries, we shall certainly thus learn what
we do not at present know in America; and I have always believed that we
knew all that anybody did upon this “ Brahma-origin” topic. His reasoning
and sophistry are of no mortal account. His pedantic display in tautological
and technical particularities, as to the formation of the skulls of the now
so-called “Brahmas,” and the now so-called “Cochins,’ in comparison,
carries no more weight with it than would the utterance of so much Sanscrit
in the estimation of ordinary fowl-breeders; who, nevertheless, appreciate
all this “ moonshine ” at its true value. m

And so [ shall not here attempt to answer his “points,” seriatim, in kind ;
since I am only desirous to place the naked facts before my readers, in as _
plain a dress as my humble capacity to make myself understood will permit,
leaving it to their common intelligence to decide, after examining said facts,
whether Wright is wrong, or Burnham is right — or otherwise, — in this
already greatly oyer-discussed matter. I have stated that Wright has
interpolated and misquoted me and others in his books, to my personal dis-
advantage, most maliciously. Below, I give an example (out of dozens that
I might quote, had I room in this book), where Mr. Wright indulges in this
sort of contemptible wrong and distortion towards me. In the English
“Cottage Gardener,” 1853, appears this sentence, which I extract to the
letter : —

(The original paragraph.)

“Mr. P. Jones states the fact of a pair of Gray chickens he bought” (of
whom ?) ‘breeding ‘silver cinnamon’ offspring; whilst the pure unmixed
stock of Dr.. Gwynne, who had his direct from Dr. Bennett, and a Mr.
Sheenan and others,” (not Burnham!) “invariably bred pure gray.” And
again, same paper, “while what have been considered as the purest strain
of the Brahma Poutras have thrown pure chickens only, we know, on good
authority, that the produce of imported birds of equally high pretensions
have produced Buff chickens with black hackles.”

And here is the manner (italics and all) in which Lewis Wright cooks up
this paragragh, when he pretends to make this extract for his “ Poultry
Book,” see page 241, to aid him to “confound Burnham ” with !

BURNHAM VS. WRIGHT. VL

(The quotation as printed by Wright.) ‘

“ Mr. P: Jones, in the Cottage Gardener, tells of a pair of gray chickens he
bought breeding silver cinnamon offspring, — a sure sign of crossing, — while
the pure unmixed stock, obtained direct from Dr. Bennett, who had his from
Mx. Cornish, ‘ invariably bred pure gray.’ In the same year the editor himself
writes, that ‘while what have been considered the purest strain of Brahma
Poutras have thrown pure chickens only, we know on good authority that the
produce of imported birds of equally high pretensions (Burnham’s) have pro-
duced Buff chickens with black hackles. ’”

Is this — with its italics, alterations, and additions — penned by Wright ina
Christian temper? Is this “conducting the poultry fancy in a reverent
spirit?” Is this “ striving in the fear of God to do good to the community,
of which we form a part?” as Lewis Wright, in the preface to this very
“Brahma Fowl” book (first editions) cantingly claims we should do? .. .

- This entire perversion of the sense and text of the original paragraph, thus
garbled by Wright, — which in no one word refersto me or my fowls, any more
than do the two Cornish letters he similarly garbles, — I simply pronounce ut-
terly false, as wellas infamous. And Wright knew he was uttering this falsity,
and perpetrating this infamy, when he thus inserted my name in parenthesis
in, and changed the phrasing of, that paragraph, thus ignobly, gratuitously,
and designedly —as he has similarly done in other places.

This is but a single instance of Wright’s folly and contumely towards me;
and, as to the paragraph just quoted from the “Cottage Gardener,” — &
neverknew, or heard of the instance, in my whole five-and-twenty year’s ex-
perience with my Gray stock, where a “ buff chicken ” appeared among their
progeny, — in my own yards, nor in the hands of any other person who bred
my gray fowls clean, — either in America or England; and I do not believe
the case ever occurred. They did breed all shades of Light and Dark gray
birds; but never a buff one, within my knowledge, from 1849 to 1874, in-
clusive. While, on the other hand, in reference to the Cornish-Bennett
strain, prated about by Wright in this altered quotation he makes, I find
in June, 1874, in the “ Poultry World,” written by Mr. Plaisted (Dr. Ben-
nett’s business partner in the chicken trade in 1853 and ’54), these re-
markably candid words upon this very subject : —

“ Dr. Bennett removed to Iowa, in March, 1853” (from New Hampshire),
“He was unable to endure the western climate, and made me a proposition

2 THE CHINA FOWL.

to go into company in the poultry-stock business ” (at Great Falls, N. H.),
“which I accepted. He returned in October, 1853, and this plan was car-
ried out to the letter.” ... “I selected every Brahma that Dr. Bennett or
Bennett & Plaisted ever shipped to England, excepting the pair (Ae first)
sent to Dr. Gwynne.” . . . “ All these Brahmas, shipped to England, were
bred either by Dr. Bennett, 8S. O. Hatch, George Smith, or myself, excepting
the pair sent to Dr. Gwynne. I know this for a certainty, and these are the
Sowls which Mr. L. Wright has described as Dr. Bennett's “ PURE Brahmas.”
In breeding these, many different shades of color were produced, the most
objectionable being pure buff, with the exception of a pencilled neck, as fine
a color as we see to-day among the Buff Cochins.” . . . “ Deeming it best to
keep these out of the stock as much as possible, I selected those with fine
pencilled necks, black tails, &e.” ... “I had more fear of. the duff showing
itself from the stock sent to Hngland by us, than of any thing else. It was
reasonable to suppose that, if they bred all colors the first year or two, the
English fanciers would reject them, and consider that we had been playing a
‘Yankee trick.’ Whatever may be said of the early history of these ‘ Brah-
mas,’ it is an indisputable fact, that buffs were found in a// the yards where
they were bred, as well as the shades of color before mentioned.” .. . “ Mr.
Wright thinks those sent to England by Mr. George P. Burnham were
mongrels. These I know nothing about. He (Wright) gives as his reason,

that they bred buff ; yet they might have been as pure as any of the others
sent, and sti/d breed buff progeny.”

This from Mr. C. C. Plaisted, in 1874, who claims that he is writing a fresh
history for the “ World,” of the Cornish-Chamberlin-Bennett-Hatch “pure
Brahmapootras,” and who “ knows nothing about ” the gray fowls Mr.“G. P.
Burnham sent to England, which Wright falsely says “produced buff chick-
ens with black hackles.” It is pretty clear from this account, so frankly
given by Mr. Plaisted, and ‘so accurately (as I know it to be), that the
buff-chicken breeding from the Grays, in England, occurred with this very
Cornish-Bennett stock that Wright so lauds (at my expense)! And, since I
can affirm that I never sold a gray fowl in England to “ Mr. P. Jones,” to
the “editor of the Cottage Gardener,” or to “a Mr. Sheenan,” in my life,
and never knew or heard of a case where my Gray Shanghaes ever once
threw a buff chicken, anywhere, in all my experience, I declare this to be
another coined falsity of Wright, made up out of whole cloth, to serve the
dastardly purpose he had in view in thus interpolating and altering this
quotation he makes (upon this particular point) in his two densely muddled
“ historical ” chicken books.

BURNHAM V& WRIGHT. 155

et

After the foregoing pages were printed, Mr. Wright in his August Gazette
renewed his attack upon me. Instead of noting my answer to his original
assaults, he turns to the “ Hen Fever” to sustain his falsities; and starts anew
with his old crudities, in a promise “to do Mr. Burnham justice.” He says —

“T state (on page 240 of my ‘‘ Book of Poultry,’’) that, in the Hen Fever, Burnham affirms that
Light and Dark Brahmas had distinct or igins, but that he —modest man!—had made them both; ;
the Light by breeding from some pure, uncrossed Grey Cochins, the Dark by crossing Cochins with
Grey Chittagongs . . . « Late in 1852 he sent over a consignment of so-called Light Brahmas
to Her Majesty the Queen, and in the following year a number of Dark birds to various breeders.
And again on page 244, T observe: When Burnham said that the Dark Brahmas were formed by a
cross between Grey Chittagong’s and Cochins, he meant, &c., &e.’

Tn what I did write, I “meant” precisely what I said —and not what Lewis
Wright falsely “ quotes,” or affirms that I said. J have already, in these pages,
insisted that I never made the above statements, and that I never “sent over
any so-called Light Brahmas to Her Majesty.” IT sent the Queen a cage of my
“Gray SHANGHAES,” only. Then “so called” by me, always so called by me,
accepted by Her Majesty as “ Gray Shanghaes ” — and nothing else.

I now repeat that the sentences Wright pretends thus to quote from my early
hook, do not appear there. The term “ Dark Brahmas” is not once used in the
entire 325 pages of my “ Hen Fever!” Nor is the sentence that I “made the
Light Brahmas by breeding from pure, uncrossed Grey Cochins,” in that vol-
ume — anywhere. Again —the lines “ Burnham said that the Dark Brahmas
were formed by a cross between Grey Chittagongs and Cochins,” are Wright’s
words — not mine. J never said so, or penned this paragraph.

I now say that neither the Dark “ Brahmas” or the Dark “ Grey Shanghaes ”
are alluded to, in the Hen Fever. But, in order to back up his first falsities,
Wright fabricated this stuff, in his “ Book of Poultry,” and adheres to it, yet!

In the name of all that is righteous or decent, is this sort of “argument” fair
dealing towards me, on the part of Lewis Wright? On pages 150 and 151 I ex-
pose other altered and interpolated quotations made by Wright — in a similar
vein, with a similar sinister purpose. Still, in his London paper of August 22d,
‘74, he reproduces a part of Cornish’s first 1852 letter, (adroitly /eaving out the
sentence he prints from that document in his “ Brahma Fowl” in 1870, which
declares that “ Chamberlin got his Gray fowls in 1849!!”) and the whole of the
second 1869 letter, wherein Cornish says he “ got them in 1846” — to re-bolster
his previous blunders coupled with Cornish’s two accounts; which last mentioned
article he concludes with this remarkable passage: “I promise that my next
accounts from Mr. Burnham will not be heavy reading . . . and I ‘fudge,
this week, by simply giving that of Mr. Cornish.”

154 THE CHINA FOWL.

This word fudge, used by Wright, I did not at first appreceiate. Upon con-
sulting Webster, however, I find the definition of this ungraceful term to be as
follows: “FupGeE—v.¢. To devise ; to contrive ; to fabricate ; to foist ; to in-
terpolate.” In his London Gazette, page 337, Wright says—“I fudge, this
week, by simply giving the accounts of Mr. Cornish.” To which JZ add, (not-
withstanding Wright’s frank confession of his offense, in ths instance,) that he
has been constantly “fudging,” from the outset! Yet it is refreshing to see
him admit that he has devised, contrived, fabricated, foisted, and interpolated.

And here I will note the fact that the “ Poultry World” for September con-
tains a portrait of Mr. Chas. Knox, in 1847, “a clerk on a Hartford and New
York propeller” — whom Mr. Plaisted argues is “the sailor” we have heard
so much of, in connection with the Cornish-Chamberlin-Brahma-pootras. A
pleasant but indefinite letter is given from Mr. Knox, who says “ In 1847 I went
on board a ship at New York, to look at two pairs of remarkable poultry, which
were to be exhibited at Franklin Market ”— and “next trip (after reporting to
Mr. Chamberlin) I went and bought the gray pair, and took them to Hartford.”
He, too, states that he “never knew what port this vessel came from, nor her
name ;” and “this is all he can remember of the transaction.” .

I only say to this that I never before heard of Mr. Knox, who it appears was
no “sailor,” but a clerk ona propeller in 1847; now a highly respectable gentle-
man in Ohio—‘“a man of honor and alike of wealth.” I have no doubt he
“saw” and “bought a gray pair of fowls,” as he avers. J have done this same
thing, often. But I cannot conceive what this gentleman’s seeing, buying, or
writing about “ this transaction in 1847” has to do with me, or mne— since he
makes no reference to Mr. Burnham or his poultry, in this account. And surely
it can have no bearing upon “accurate” Mr. Cornish’s two stories about“ Brah-
ma-pootras.” Yet this mew theory is as plausible as Wright’s old one; though,
as I have said before, it is rather late in the day to cook this tale up, and apply
it as “ history,” thas ex post-facto.

However, I know nothing about Mr. Knox, or this 1847 pair of gray fowls.
I never saw them, or heard of them before. My affair is with Lewis Wright,
and his stupid Cornish-yarns of 1849 and 1846. In giving this letter from Mr.
Knox, dated “ Toledo, O., July 22d, 1874,” Mr. C. C. Plaisted exultingly enquires,
with King John, “ Have J not here the best cards for the game?” In answer to
which I reply, “ I think not —since you have ‘shewn your hand;’ and it does
vot look to me like a winning one. You have ‘called* too soon, friend P!”

BURNHAM VS. WRIGHT. ; 155

It is generally known among poultry fanciers in America, that Mr. Virgil
Cornish of Connecticut has written the two letters which have been published,
referring to “a pair of large light-gray fowls ” which a Mr. Chamberlin is
said to have become possessed of, mysteriously, in the early years of the
poultry mania. These two letters (nearly twenty years apart in their dates)
_are reprinted in both of Lewis Wright’s latest books; and upon these two
different accounts by Cornish, Mr. Wright tells us he bases his singular theory
of the “origin of the Brahma fowls.”

In one of these published letters, — the first, dated March, 1852, — Cornish
says, his fowls +“‘came to New York in the India ship,” and thence “into
Connecticut, in 1849;” and “it is certain they never were bred until they
reached this [his] town.” In the other letter, Cornish says, just as “definitely
and accurately ” (which second letter is dated November 9, 1869), “the ship
arrived with my fowls at New York in September, 1846! I bought the first
brood hatched out, and, in April following, the old pair!”

Now, what is there “explicit” or “accurate” in these two distinctly dif-
ferent statements of Cornish, that he jirst got his pair of fowls from the sailors
of the Zndia ships at New York in 1849,” that “ it is certain they never were
bred till they reached Connecticut,” and his “town, in that year;” then (in
1869) stating that they “arrived at New York in a ship from Luckipoor, in
India, September, 1846,” and he “ got the first brood hatched in 1847,” ete. ?

Mr. Lewis Wright’s capacity for understanding very plain language must
be most indifferent, indeed, if he cannot see the inconsistent character of these
two accounts! But, in addition to this,—not by one syllable, in either
of these letters which he quotes from Cornish, does that gentleman allude to
me, in the remotest way. Why, then, should Wright drag me into this mess?

Mr. Cornish and Mr. Burnham never once, in those years (before Wright
wrote his books), or since, ever had any dispute or “conflict.” And is it
not clear, upon a moment’s examination, in view of the above two antago-
nistic accounts, that both Mr. Wright’s false theory and Cornish’s repeated
misstatements alike “ go up in a balloon ?”

In Wright, page 17, we have it thus: Cornish says that “Chamberlin
brought his fowls into Connecticut in the early part of 1849.” Mr. Cornish
says, in the same letter, “I got my stock from Chamberlin, direct.” Then
he says (in 1869), the ship with these fowls on board arrived in 1846! Most
of the first brood came out in May, 1847, which I purchased in August, and

156 THE CHINA FOWL.

the old pair in April following.” Thus, though he asserts clearly, in March

2, 1852, that Chamberlin did not “ bring his fowls into the State until 1849,”
he “ purchased of Chamberlin the most of the first brood in August, 1847,
and the old pair in April, 1848!” And, in that same first letter (see Wright,
page 16, and Miss Watts’ Poultry Yard, page 62, printed in italics), Cornish
says, “it is certain they never were bred till they reached his town, in 1849!”

Now, I will shortly present the recent evidence of a Connecticut Light-
Brahma writer and breeder, in reference to Cornish’s two statements, who
positively asserts that “there is nothing accurate in the first one; that the
last one is still worse ; that Cornish did not purchase Chamberlin’s first
brood; and that he never owned any ‘old pair’ of Grays, at any time!”
Which assertions will be backed by three witnesses, now alive, at Hartford.

Yet Lewis Wright repeatedly insists, in his two works, that “Mr. Cornish’s
accounts are the only reliable ones published ;” that “Cornish tells the story
of the Brahma origin accurately and clearly ;” that Virgil Cornish’s state-
ments “are explicit and indisputable;” that “no one can question Mr. Cor-
nish’s accuracy ;” and that, for all the details of his stupid and utterly falla-
cious theory, he (Wright) relies upon “the unimpeachable, succinct, consistent,
truthful, clearly-narrated statements made and repeated by Virgil Cornish !”

However, I must not omit just here to repeat that in neither of the above
accounts of Mr. Cornish — whether they be false or true — does that gentle-
man once refer to me, or to my fowls, in the remotest way. And I will add
that I should not now have spoken of Mr. Cornish but that Wright goes so
far out of his way in the endeavor to sustain his nonsensical theory in his two
books as to drag Mr. Cornish and myself before the public, antagonistically ;
when the exact truth in this matter is, that Mr. Cornish and Mr. Burnham
never had a word of difference, written or verbal, until Wright thus pitted
them against each other, for his own inexplicable purposes.* And here I eall
especial attention to the pertinent extracts on pages 158 to 161.

* Since these present pages were written, — notwithstanding the fact that Mr. Burnham had
previously, through the poultry journals and by private letters, communicated the true state of the
case to Mr. Wright, in full,—this gratuitous maligner in the papers assumes new grounds of
assault, and persists in the bigoted determination to sustain his originally-invented nonsense. But,
avoiding the issues he had already made, he starts afresh upon entirely untenable grounds, and
with a totally different line of argument, to prove what ‘ Burnham did,’’ and “ Burnham didn’t,”
in the years ago. To which latest rodomontade, by Wright, entirely in the old vein, I will simply
here apply the trite but truthful apothegm, — ‘“‘ false in one, false in all.” —G, P. B.

BURNHAM VS. WRIGHT. ay

We shall find that the so-stated “importation from India” of the Cor-
nish-sailor gray fowls has mo foundation in fact; and though the young
birds, ‘shown at the early exhibitions in Boston, were very good specimens,
there can be no doubt (as there exists no evidence to the contrary) that all
the Light-Gray samples exhibited in 1850, ’51, ’?52, —as the Committees of
Judges at Boston declare officially, — came out of the same original stock, and
that this “large pair of gray fowls,” satd by the sailor to have been “ found”
by him in New York, or elsewhere, were hatched from eggs sent previously
from my yards, or were sold by me to some unknown party, as chickens;
which chanced to develop into a fine pair of birds in the hands of the person
who thus obtained them. Or, they might have come from Pennsylvania, as
mine did in the first instance — from Dr. Kerr. $

As to the first letter signed by Virgil Cornish, dated March 2, 1852, I will
add here that I am ready to take oath that Dr. John C. Bennett came to my
house and passed the night there, a few months previously to the date of that
document, when he exhibited to me and to members of my family his ready
prepared account of what was “ shortly to be forthcoming as the true history
of the origin and importation of the Brahmapootra fowls, from India,” which.
precious document (as nearly as I can now recollect it), in his handwriting,
was almost word for word this very letter, published in 1852 as Mr. Cornish’s !
During the Doctor’s visit to me that day and night, at Melrose, he informed
me that this very statement was ¢o be published, and that it would be ap-
proved by Mr. Cornish and Mr. Hatch of Connecticut. He then took up a
proof I had of the illustration of his original three “ Brahmapootra”’ fowls,
the first ever shown in the world, which may be seen on page 20 of this vol-
ume (which block was engraved twenty-four years ago, and which wood-cut
I have the original of now in my possession), and upon the margin of said
proof he wrote these words: “ Remove streamers, make the two pullets
larger, no feathers on legs ;” which directions were addressed by Dr. Ben-
nett to the artist who made the drawing, for the purpose of republishing this
cut to suit his ideas, then, of the “ Brahmapootras” he wished to delineate.
The above memoranda, in Bennett’s own hand-writing upon that proof, I have
stillin my hands. The “streamers,” as the Doctor called them, referred to
the slight top-knots which appear (see engraving) at the back of the heads
of all three of these original “ Brahmapooters.”

PRO

Extracts from Wright’s Two Poultry Books.

‘The Brahma Fowl was unquestionably first in-
troduced into England as late as the year 1852,
when two pens were shown at Birmingham by
Mrs. Hozier Williams and Dr. Gwynne. It was
said this fowl was a new breed, imported from Jn-
dia.” — Wrights “* Brahma Fowl.”

‘“‘“Mr. Burnham, of the United States, who, it
will be remembered, sent over some of the earliest
so-called ‘ Brahmas’ as a present to Her Majesty,
in 1852, affirms that he originated them.” — From
the Brahma Fowl” by Lewis Wright.

“The jirst exhibition of light Brahma chickens
took place in Boston, in Od@bber, 1850, and were
those of Dr. J. C. Bennett. This pen was con-
sidered magnificent; and Dr. Bennett’s own state-
ment was that he purchased them previously at a
very high figure from Mr. V. Cornish, of Conn.” —
« Brahm Fowl” again.

“Mr. Chamberlin, of Connecticut, sent a sailor
to New York, who reported that he found a pair
of Light-Gray fowls, which he purchased. The
man in New York, whose name we have not got,
gave no account of their origin, except that they
came over in the Jndia ships.” ‘These were said
to be originally imported from India.” — “ Brah-
ma Fowl,” pp. 9 and 16.

“Dr. Bennett stated (in 1850) that he pur-
chased his first fowls of Mr. Cornish; and a por-
tion of Mr. Cornish’s account, not quoted in his
first published letter (about these fowls), states
that ‘Chamberlin (of whom Cornish got his chick-
ens) brought his fowls into Connecticut in the
ewrly part of 1849.’” . . . “I give below all the
facts (Nov. 9, 1869,) relating to the early history of
the Brahmapootra fowls. ... Mr. Chamberlin’s
name was Nelson H. The ship arrived in New
York in September, 1846. The name of the port
from which the ship sailed was Luckipoor, in Jn-
dit. ‘I bought the first brood hatched out,.in Au-

ust, and the old pair in April following.’ The
Gratien were first exhibited in Boston as ‘ Gray
Chittagongs,’ in 1850. The name was then es-
tablished.” This is Mr. Cornish’s statement,
and is ‘‘the only account consistent with the
facts and itself, which is seen to be corroborated
in every -possible way.” — Wright’s ‘ Origin of
the Brahma,” pp. 17, 140, and 143.

*< So far as positive evidence is concerned, it must
be considered decisively the fact that Burnham’s
account is a deception, while Mr. Cornish’s is cor-
rect; and that ali the genuine ‘ Brahmas’ were
bred from the original pair first brought into Con-
necticut by Mr. Chamberlin!” (When? in 1849?
in 1846? or in 1847?) — Wright's “ Brahma
Fowl,” pp. 20, 21.

THE CHINA FOWL.

AND

CON.

Extracts from other Poultry Authorities.

*

*« The clearness of the white, and the well-defined

markings of the two contributions shown at Bir-

mingham, attracted attention. A few weeks after,

some of these birds, sent over on speculation by

Dr. J. C. Bennett, were shown in Baker Street.”
— Miss Watts’ London ‘‘ Poultry Yard.”

**T never sent over to Her Majesty any so-called
‘Brahmas,’ early or late. I never said I did. I
never pretended I did; and no one, save Lewis
Wright, has ever said, or pretended, I did!” —
G. P. Burnham, in all the Poultry journals.

‘““The Brahmas were jirst exhibited in Boston by
Mr. Hatch, of Connecticut, as ‘Gray Chittagongs,’
in 1850. I declined exhibiting, then. I preferred
to: test them further. I sold no birds to any one
until December, 1850. I sold them at first at $12
per pair.” — Virgil Cornish, Connecticut, in letier
dated Nov. 9, 1869.

“« There is not a particle of evidence to show that
these fowls came from Jndia/ The banks of the
Brahmapootra River have long been in possession
of the British, and no such fowls were ever seen in
that locality. In fact, the Brahmas originated not
in India, but in America”—[They were first
brought to public notice by Mr. Burnham. ]— “the
two varieties.” — Tegetmeier’s Poultry Book, p.55.

“Mr. Cornish being the first who has seen fit to
publish a ‘history,’ of the Brahmas, and hayin
therein made statements not easily proven, I sha
take the liberty of criticising his account. I am
unable to gather from those who first owned them
in this country, positive evidence concerning their
nativity. Some have asserted that they were ori-
ginally from Chittagong; others name the Bur-
rampooter Valley, India, as their natural home;
and Mr. Cornish, in a later account, says they
came from a port called ‘ Luckipoor,’ up the Bur-
rampooter River; none of which statements are
proven to be authentic. If Mr. Cornish had stated
that they were a ‘lucky hit,’ I should have agreed
with him. Mr. Cornish relates that Mr. Hatch, of
Hamden, Conn., exhibited Brahmas in 1850, in
Boston. Mr. Hatch resided in Franklin at that
time, and the date of his first exhibition was in
1851 (not 1850). Mr. Cornish, in all his state-
ments to Mr. Wright, goes back one year earlier
than he ought to.” — C. C. Plaisted, in 1874.

“The first pair of these fowls, about which there
has been so much discussion, were brought by one
Charles Knox to Mr. Nelson H. Chamberlin, in
Hartford, Conn., in 1847. They were jirst bred
by Mr. Chamberlin in 1848. Mr. Knox reported
them just arrived on an East India vessel, at New
York.” — C. C. Plaisted’s (Bennett’s partner) ac-
count, in 1874.

PRO AND CON.

“Tt appears, both from the statements of private
correspondence and from the various papers of the
period, that the jirst public exhibition of Light
Brahmas took place in Boston, in 1850. They
were chickens, and were shown by Dr. Bennett, of
G:eat Falls, N.H.”—‘* Brahma Fowl,” p. 17.

“This pen (shown by Dr. Bennett, in October,
1850,) was considered magnilicent tn every way,
and was the principal attraction of the show. The
question at once occurred, from whom did Dr.
Bennett procure these birds? And it is impos-
sible to doubt his own statement, made in answer
to every inquiry, that ‘he purchased them from
Mr. Cornish, of Connecticut.’ — Wright's ** Ori-
gin of Brahm,” p. 17.

“Mr. P. Jones states the fact in ‘The Cottage
Gardener,’ of a pair of Gray chickens he bought,
breeding silver cinnumon otispring, a sure sign of
crossing; while the pure unmixed stock, obtained
from Dr. Bennett, who had his from Mr. Cornish,
invariably bred pure gray.” . . . ‘* While this pur-
est strain of Brahmas have thrown pure chickens
only, we know that the produce of imported birds
of equally high pretensions (Burnham’s) have
produced Buf chickens.” — Lewis Wright's altere?
quotation, puge 241, ‘‘ Illustrated Book of Poultry.”

** All the facts strongly corroborate Mr. Cornish’s
account, proving that Connecticut was the head-
quarters of this breed, and that from the very jirst
it bred with extreme purity as regards ali the
characteristics.” ... ‘* Mr. Burnham visited this
New-England show in 1850, and endeavored to
purchase some of this ‘ Brahma’ stock, but failed.”
— Wright's * Bruhma Fowl,” p. 18.

‘““ We have thus two very definite statements by
Mr. Burnham: first, that he was the founder, or
original breeder of ‘ Brahmas ;’ and secondly, that
the Light variety were pure, uncrossed Gray Co-
chins.” — WWright’s “ Origin of the Bruhma Fowl,”
in 1870, p. 12.

‘* All Mr. Burnham’s early Brahmas were single-
combed, while the originals (Cornish’s) were all
triple, or ‘pea-combed.’ ‘The pea-comb alone is
alinost conclusive evidence of the superior an-
tiquity or purity of the Brahma fowl.” — Wrigh ’s
* Illustrated Poultry Book,” p. 247.

“The comb known as the ‘pea-comb,’ is pe-
enliar. No pure strain ought to breed a solitary
comb in which this peculiar triple character is not
perfectly distinct. I would not press a fancy point
too far; but, considering how typical the pea-comb
is, I would not breed from an imperfect one, &c.”
— Wright's ‘* Poultry Book,” p. 249, and last Lon-
don edition of * Brahmu Fowl.”

‘* Mr. Jos. Hinton commenced with the pure Light
Cornish-Chamberlin stock; and in three years’
breeding he transformed his strain from Light to
Dark; producing, from these Light Chamberlin

159

«Mr. S.O. Hatch, of Connecticut, first exhibited
these fowls in November, 1851. An erroneous
statement has been made in nearly all the leading
poultry books and papers, that the Light Brahmas
were first shown at the exhibition in Boston, in
1850.” — C. C. Plaisted, in 1874.

“This is the trio Mr. Wright has mentioned as
‘the first pure-bred Brahmas exhibited at Boston.’
They were a cross, and not of the Chamberlin
stock. They were light gray; had top-knots, and
attracted much attention. But this was in 1851,
November. At this show (1851) Mr. Hatch gave
us the jivst sight at pure-bred Chamberlin Brah-
mas.” — C. C. Plaisted, in the Hartford “ Poultry
World,” 1874.

‘My friend, Dr. Bennett, consulted me as to a
name for a brace of Gray fowls I saw in his yard,
in 1851. He entered these at our Boston show
that year, as ‘Bramapootras.’ These fowls were
bred by him from my first (Dr. Kerr) Gray Shang-
hae cock, which I sold the doctor, and a Light-Drab
(or silver cinnamon) Shanghae hen, in Massachu-
setts. Subsequently these fowls came to be called
‘Burram Pootras,’ ‘ Brahmapootras,’ and finally
Bruhmas.” — Burnham’s “ New Pou'try Book,”
1870, p. 159, quoted from another work in 1855.

“The Light Brahmas undoubtedly originated in,
and were identical with, those Gray fowls (Burn-
ham’s) that from the very first came over from
Shanghae, with the Buff and Partridge birds now
universally known as ‘ Cochins,’ and here we ap-
pend Mr. Burnham’s account of them, from his
amusing ‘* History of the Hen Fever.” — Teget-
meiers’ Poultry Book, London, 1867.

“T never had claimed to be the ‘founder,’ or
‘originator,’ of any ‘Brahmas.’ I simply said I
was the first breeder of the ‘Gray Shanghaes’ in
America (never ‘Cochins’), such as I sent to the
Queen in 1852,” &c.— @. P. Burnham, in all the
Poultry papers, 1874. ‘

“The single comb would appear to be the wsual
form of that feature in the Brahmapootra fowl;
though, as Dr. Bennett says, ‘the trwe breed do
sometimes present this deviation of the pea-comb.’”
(Sometimes!)— Rv. Mr. Wingjfield’s Poultry Book,
p. 176; published in 1853.

‘*Upon this point, J can only say that out of
twenty chicks bred for myself from a cock and two
pullets obtained from Dr. Bennett, of the United
States (of the Light Cornish-Chamberlin stock), 7
cannot detect a single instance of the ‘ deviation’
from the singie combs upon the parents, received
from Dr. Bennett.” — Dr. Wm. C. Gwynne, Eng-
land, to Rev. Mr. Wingfield, in 1853.

“Mr. R. H. Bowman’s chickens, of Rosemoran, .
which he bonght of Mrs. Hozier Williams,” sent
to her in England by Dr. Bennett & Co., in 1852,
out of the Chamberlin stock, ‘are of uniform

160

birds, his famous well-known Dark Brahma cock,
fortwo years a leading English prize bird known as
‘Champion,’ and the Dark hens as we see them
now,” the most notable strain of Dark Brahmas
to-day in all England! — Lewis IWright’s new “ Il-
lustrated Poultry Book,” 1873, ’74.

‘“‘T did notice the pea-comb on my first birds. It
was not so with ull; yet it appeared different from
the Chittagong. There was a tendency to throw
DARK chickens, but a greater tendency to become
lighter. Allfowls having dark and light feathers
can be varied either way, to darker or lighter, by
choosing always the darkest or lightest for breed-
ers. J never bred to either extreme.” — Virgil
Cornish’s second letter, ** Bruhma Fowl,” p. 143.

‘* The statement that the two varieties of Brah-
mas (Light and Dark) had ‘distinct origins,’ is
known to every breeder of these fowls to be un-
true. Miss Watts, whose (Chamberlin’s) strain is
probably the on/y English one that has not been
crossed, assured us, in the most distinct manner,
that she never had but the one stock, from which,
by selection, she has bred both the Dark and the
Light” varieties. — Wright’s latest work, p. 246. —
* Illustrated, Book of Poultry.”

“We have found in our own yards that we could
soon breed black ‘ Brahmas,’ if such were desired;
or, on the other hand, that in about three seasons,
by choosing the lightest birds, we could produce
almost clear white. And as the original birds
(Burnham’s, of course,) were somewhat darker
than the Light birds now shown, either color could
have been bred from them (the originals) with still

reater rapidity and ease.” . . . ‘* Burnham claims

or his the credit of being the original birds,* and

unfortunately found in England what he never
could in America, a writer who would adopt his
tale.”— Wright’s Illustrated ‘Poultry Book,”
1873, p. 247.

‘*As an instance of the general appreciation of
this man, we had recently an announcement from
a valued American correspondent that ‘our old
friend, Burnham, has let himself out again;’ and
were somewhat perplexed by this enigmatical in-
formation, until the receipt of ‘Burnham’s New
Poultry Book,’ published in 1871. It is the simple
fact, that not one American writer, and but one
English, ever regarded Burnham’s accounts as of
any value.” ... ‘Whether the latter may have
bred very tolerable imitations of Brahmas, is not
the question. We had seen that there were two
qualities of birds known in the early days — one
spurious, which bred mongrel progeny, and could
be traced to Burnham; the other pure, which was
always traced to Connecticut, or to Dr. Bennett,
who procured his from that State.”

* T did enter my claim, in the early days (long before Mr.
Lewis Wright began to seek for means to abuse andecry down
my fowls, which were so justly popular in England), as the
“ originator” of the Gray Shanghae stock, which 1 sent to
Her Majesty the Queen, and others,in England, as well as
all over the United States, as sucnu. I did not claim to ori-
ginute, breed or sell, own or keep, anv “ Brahmapootras”
In those years. nit none know this fact better than do
Maso. C. Weld and Lewis Wright!—G. vp. B.

THE CHINA FOWL.

color —a dusky gray, striped with black on head,
neck, and back.” Dr. Bennett wrote to Dr.
Gwynne in 1852, that “his fowls and Mr, Burn-
ham’s were precisely similar, and both were bred
from the same stock” (the Gray Shanghaes).—
Rev. Mr. Wingfield’s Book, 1858.

“ Among Americans, Mr. Burnham says, these
fowls are Shangh.wes. Dr. Bennett (and Cornish)
contends that they came from Jndia. One says
the pea-comb is decidedly preferable; the others
say it should be sing/e, upright, and well ser-
rated. This ‘pea-comb’ is a novelty with us in
England; and, in all our various crosses, we have
neyer seen anything like this.” — Tegetmeier’s
London Illustrated Poultry Book, 1867. .

“Mr. Burnham’s Light Brahmas, with pure
white or cream-colored bodies, and*elegantly pen-
cilled hackles, were in great favor” (at the Bir-
mingham Show, in ’53), ‘“when suddenly a new
variety sprang upon the scene. A pair of birds from
Mr. Burnham were shown there by Mr. Baily of
London, and sold for 100 guineas! They were Dark
gray in color, and were the jirs¢ ‘Dark Brahmas’
ever seen in this country.”— W. B. Tegetmeier,
Editor of “London Field,” in 1853.

The Dark Brahmas sent out to England first
by Mr. Burnham, in 1853, ‘‘ at once took the lead of
all others, and many fanciers in England were
supplied. But, wishing to ‘improve’ them, if pos-
sible, in size and color, these old sagacious breed-
ers crossed the hens with the black breasted
Dorking, the only bird which would give the
qualities desired. A gentleman who visited those
old establishments, a few years after the first birds
were sent there from the United States (Burn-
ham’s), was in time to detect this cross; and at
ounce observed the change in size, the black breast,
and actually saw the fifth toe.”— Mark Pitman,
in “ New York Poultry Bulletin,” in 1870.

“Our readers will find a contribution in this
week’s ‘Fancier’s Journal,’ over the signature of
S. J. Bestor, Esq., the well-known fancier and
writer —on ‘ Wright vs. Burnhum.’ Mr. Bestor is
a gentleman, a well-known old breeder, of Hart-
ford, Conn., and well read; for two years presi-
dent of the Connecticut State Poultry Society.”

Wade's Philadelphia Fancier, June 26, referring
to the following article :—

“‘T am not personally acquainted with Mr. Burn-
ham, never having met him; but have read all of
his works, and especially his later contributions to
the press. He shows very clearly that no ship ‘ ar-
rived at New York: from Luckipoor, in India,’
either in 1846 or in 1849, as is claimed; and it
does strike me that Mr. Wright has seriously erred
in his theory about the origin of the now so-called
‘Brahmas ;’ and he has plainly made a gross mis-
take in his attempts to argue Mr. Burnham out of
the deserved credit of originating this stock in
America, and of being the jirst to introduce it into
England, of both ight and Dark varieties.
Wright went a long stretch out of his way to im-
plicate Mr. Burnham in Brahmapootraism. Mr.
Burnham has recently completely vindicated him-

PRO AND CON.

‘But such, and accounts of such, published
after the pure Brahmas were publicly shown, can-
not invalidate a consistent account given from the
very first of the genuine strain, as Mr. Cornish
justly argues. It is plain that there was a strain
of real Brahmas distinct from Shanghaes, or the
fowls then known in America as Chittagongs, all
which were traced up to the birds brought into
Connecticut-by Mr. Chamberlin.” . . . ‘* And as an
aged East Indian officer writes us recently, that
‘this fowl was the Chittagong breed, of which he
had -seen hundreds in India.’ ... Mr. Cornish’s
stock might, of course, have been Shanghaes as
much as Burnham’s were. We have seen that the
Dark Brahma can be bred from the Light—or,
rather the Gray / And on this and other evidence,
we contend that the fowl is of one race.... We
assert that all the evidence we have, traces this
fowl back to Mr. Cornish’s stock, and all the facts
harmonize with this theory.” —Wright’s “Brahma
Fowl,” lust London edition.

8a “A portion of Mr. Cornish’s letter of 1852,
not quoted in the ‘Poultry Yard,’ (at first) states
that Chamberlin brought his fowls into the State
(Connecticut) in the early part of 1849.” —
Wright's “ Brahma Foul,” p. 17.

ga “The name of the port from which the ship
sailed, with these fowls on board, is Luckipoor, in
India. The ship arrived in New York, in Septem-
ber, 1846. The jirst brood I purchased.” — Cor-
nish’s second letter, 1869, p. 143, same work.

aa ‘* The first pair of these fowls were brought
by one Charles Knox to Mr. Chamberlin, in Hart-
ford, Conn., in 1847. Mr. Knox reported two
pairs, on an Hast-India vessel, at New York.”
— The latest account, by C. C. Plaisted, in 1874.

“The Brahma and the Shanghae (Cochin) fowl
being confessedly closely-related races, it is inter-
esting to estimate their relative antiquity. The
pea-comb has been found on the Malay, and on
the China fowl. The importance of this matter,
with regard to the whole subject of the origin of
this species, must be our apology for devoting so
much space toit.” ... ‘‘ While it is possible the
‘Dark’ birds, which came over in the ship * with
those here recorded, may have also been Brahmas,
there is not. the slightest reason to question that
both may have been derived from the one stock
brought into Connecticut by Chamberlin, and
afterwards fostered by Cornish and Dr. Ben-
nett!!!”— Wright's * Brahma Fowl.”

‘“‘Chamberlin’s name is Nelson H.” says Cornish.
*‘T purchased his first brood, hatched in August,
1847, and the old pair the April following.” This
testimony, so full and explicit, must be considered
finally to settle the question. Mr. Cornish’s direct
and explicit evidence is the strongest point in this
case... . ‘* I willonly say that the difficulty in my
mind is, the plain, definite, accurate statements of
Mr. Virgil Cornish, on this subject.” — Lewis
Wright in “ Brahma Fowl,” and.in a letter to G.
P. Burnham in My, 1874.

161

self against the whalesale attack of Mr. Wright,
who, evidently, is not as ‘F. R. W.’ has it, ‘the
best living authority upon this Brahma question,’
however good he may have been on other poultry
matters. As to the sailor’s tale about the ‘importa-
tion’ of Cornish’s stock ‘from Luckipoor, in In-
dia,’ Mr. Burnham efféctually disposes of that—
since no record of this ship’s arrival in New York
is to be found; which it could now be readily, upon
the old United States Customs Register, had it
occurred either in 1846 or in 1849. The result
of all is, undoubtedly, that all these ‘large Light-
Gray Fowls’ come from one parentage; and there
is no question in my mind to-day, that Mr. Burn-
ham had the first old birds in the United States, to
wit: those he imported in 1849 and 1850, from
Shanghae; and that this splendid stock (now im-
proved by long domestication among us) was
originally of CHINESE, and not-of India origin, as
Mr. Tegetmeier so clearly states.” — S. J. Bestor,
in Wade’s Philadelphia Fancier, June, 1874.

‘¢Mr. Cornish first announces in Wright’s book
that his fowls came into Connecticut from the
sailors of the India ships,in 1849. On pages 142,
1483, same work, appears Cornish’s second letter
(Noy. 9, 1869), stating that his fowls arrived in a
ship from Luckipoor, India, at New York, Sep-
tember, 1846. In June, 1874, Mr. Plaisted says,
these fowls came into Connecticut from an East
India'ship, just then arrived at New York, in
1847. In 1870, I went to New York, and carefully
searched the United States Customs Records for
this ship; and I now positively state that there is
no entry of any such ship to be found there —
either in 1849, 1846, or 1847.”— G. P. Burn-
ham, in ** Turf, Field, and Farm,” June 26, 1874.

‘‘Mr. Burnham clearly points us away back to
Dr. Kerr’s letters, in 1849, in support of his claim
to the origin of the Gray Shanghaes — now called
‘Brahmas ;’ and there can no longer be any doubt,
from all the evidence before the public, that these
Light-Gray Fowls had a common origin in this
country; and that they have been, since 1850,
°51, ’52, variously named by different parties to
suit their own tastes. We will add that, as far
back as in 1855, 56, we ourselves bred these fowls
in Massachusetts. They were then known as
‘Gray Shanghaes,’ or ‘Chittagongs,’ and, as we
recollect them, they were certainly identical with
the Light Brahmas of to-day.” — Editor Fanciers’
Journal, Philadelphia, in 1874.

‘¢T would ask what Cornish’s accounts are worth,
from first to last ? I donot consider his stories worth
one pin, after investigating the subject as I have.
There is nothing accurate in his first statement,
and his last one is still worse. Mr. Cornish did
not purchase Mr. Chamberlin’s first brood of chick-
ens, neither did he ever own the old ‘first pair’ of
those fowls at any time, as I can prove to the sat-
isfaction of the most incredulous.” — C. C. Plaisted
in his Brahma History, Hartford ‘ Poultry
World,” 1874.

+ Dark birds which came over,’in what ship? The one that ‘arrived at New York,” in 1849? or 18462 orin
4184/7? There was no sich ship arrived from India as is claimed by Wright —in either year — with either “‘ Dark
birds," or Light! “The Brahmas originated not in India,” says Mr. Tegetmeier, of the London * Field,” “ but with

Mr. G. P. Burnham, ion America,” both varieties.

162 THE CHINA FOWL.

Dr. Bennett wished to change the original cut of his three birds, and
“yemove” the top-knots. I never would allow this block to be touched.
He endeavored still to enlist me in his “ Brahmapootra” scheme; but I
steadily declined, and strove to show him how unreasonable was his preten-
sions about this Cornish-sailor story which he had hatched up; and I heard
no more of this then skilfully prepared yarn (very slightly varied, to the
best of my remembrance, in its details), until it was first made public, a year
or more subsequently to this interview between us. Dr. John C. Bennett,
himself, prepared this sailor-story in the main, originally ; he alone invented
the name of “ Brahmapootra ” for the Gray-Shanghae fowls; he also originated
the title of the “pea-comb.” The other parties in the Brahmapootra interest
in 1852, ’53 joined the Doctor in this story and the deception about the “ im-
portation of these fowls from India,” — under his lead, — and subsequently
told his tale so many times, that some of them (not all!) came at last to be-
lieve in its truth. ,

I have now upon file upwards of a score of the Doctor’s old confidential
letters, from which I could, if it were necessary, quote overwhelming corrobo-
rative “testimony,” written by Ais hand, in support of the above declarations.
But John C. Bennett is in his grave. He was my intimate friend for more
than twenty-five years. He never wrote or uttered one offensive word to, or
of, me or mine, to my knowledge. He possessed first-class natural talents,
was liberally educated, and proved himself a genial, companionable man,’
though he was a sharp competitor in. the chicken fancy, and oftentimes eccen-
tric, reckless, and erratic in his business management. But I have nothing
to offer derogatory to him; and his memory will hereafter be no farther criti-
cised by my pen. Were he alive to-day, he would cordially indorse what I
have now stated —as I have the means of knowing. And here let him rest.

If, then, this mythical “ one pair of gray fowls” were not “imported,” and
there does not, and never has existed down to this day the slightest particle
of real evidence that they ever came from India (as Mr. Tegetmeier so dis-
tinctly averred in 1867), what becomes of Mr. Lewis Wright’s elaborated and
long-spun straining to prove what the originators of this foolish story first
fabricated ? Of what mortal use is all this reiterated misrepresentation —
first or last? What has Weld gained by the “ firing off of his long string
of questions” at Cornish, except to stultify his own witness, when he makes
him repeat the details of this long-ago-played-out falsity ?

BURNHAM VS. WRIGHT. 163

And let me ask, here, Mr. Wright, where you first got your “Dark
Brahmas” from, in Great Britain? Did Mr. Cornish, Mr. Chamber-
lin, Mr. Plaisted, Dr. Bennett, Mr. Knox, Mr. Weld, Mr. Anybody, except
Mr. Burnham (whom you so wantonly vilify), ever send to England any
Dark Brahmas, that you ever heard of, in those years you have written
about so flippantly ? Can you name any other American who sent to Eng-
land, from 1852 to 1861 (when the rebellion broke out in the United States),
the first specimen of “ Dark Brahma” fowls of any strain, whatever? No,
sir! You can not. None.of these “ up-the-Brahmapootra-River men” have
ever had any thing to say about the Dark Brahmas, in the years you have
written of so disgracefully in your two late books? No one but you, Lewis
Wright, has ever undertaken to show that “doth the Light and the Dark
varieties may have been derived from the one stock,” or that “it is possible
the ‘ Dark’ birds which -came over in the ship with those recorded by you, may
also have been Brahmas !”

You know very well that no one ever pretended that there was but “ one
_ gray pair, the others being red and brown,” brought by the mythical ship into
New York. . But there was no such ship came over, as you and they claim !
Therefore, there could have been no such “ Brahmas,” of any color. And,
least of all, any “ Dark” Gray ones. This declaration of yours, at the close
of your book on the origin of the two varieties of the Brahmas, simply exposes
your wilful ignorance of this whole subject. I originated the Dark Brahma
fowl in my own yard, at Melrose, Mass., Lewis! You ought to know this, for
all England and America knows it. Nobody ever claimed or pretended to take
precedence of me, with this variety, surely. And even the Cornish-Bennett
men have never set up any theory upon this point, regarding their stock.
The Dark Brahma, or Dark “Gray Shanghae,” is my patent, Mr. Wright.
I originated it, in 1853. I never saw them till that year, but it was the re-
sult of a studied experiment of mine; and I raised a great many of these fine
Dark birds in the succeeding years. Look over the records, and see if you
ean find any “ Dark Brahmas” spoken of —anywhere on earth —until my
first splendid trio went out to John Baily of Mount Street, London, in 1853.
And tell me too, if, subsequently, at any time before the war, any body but
G. P. Burnham of the United States sent to England one single specimen of
this Dark variety, to any living man. Youcan’tname him, Sir! He doesn’t
exist. Nobody had that stock but myself, in all those years.

164 THE CHINA FOWL.

Observe, Lewis, I am not now arguing this question. I am stating facts,
simply. And “facts are stubborn things,” you know. J make no mention
of what “might have been,” or what was “possible.” I tell you that J origi-
nated, upon my premises, the fowl known from the outset (in this “history”
you have so distorted and perverted) as the “Dark Brahmas,” in the year
1853. And you nor no other man living can go behind, or before me, in this
matter, as the record clearly shows. No one, save yourself, has ever ques-
tioned this. No American breeder has ever pretended that he has ever bred
Dark birds from the so-claimed Cornish-Chamberlin-Bennett stock. From
my “Gray Shanghae” fowls, the Light and Dark birds (in my own way),
I produced the Dark Brahmas (so called) which I shipped to England, and
bred hundreds upon hundreds of, subsequently, which ‘I sent there and all
over this country. Your people have, since 1864, ’65, bred some fair “ Dark
Brahmas,” as they call them; but never a pair that equalled mine, that I
have ever yet seen.

And, notwithstanding all this truth, which you must have been cognizant
of when you penned your two abusive volumes, you give me no credit for
having done in this business what no man else has ever claimed to have
done, before or after me! Is this justice? Is it fair? Is it generous? Is
it honorable? Is this kind of treatment towards a man you never saw, and
whom you can know nothing of, pursuing a manly course of conduct “ in the
fear of God?” It may be so, in your warped opinion; but J should say you
penned these.sentences with the Fiend at your elbow.

How did I do this? No matter; I did it! I produced a strain of dark-
plumed birds which you, in England, never saw until I sent them there, and
since 1858 and ’59 which you have been striving to imitate; but which you
have not yet succeeded in reproducing like the originals, because you have
not gone about your experiments in the right way. There were no brown
feathers and no “vulture hock” in my “Dark Brahma” or Dark-Gray
Shanghae blood; but in a// the English “Dark Brahmas” we have had

‘ here, this brown feathering and hock are found (to a greater or less extent),
in every bird, male or female that I have examined, which has come from
your side of the Atlantic in the past six or seven years. There is no excep-
tion to the cropping out of this defective color in your English dark birds— .
cocks and hens alike. Therefore, I repeat it, you don’t breed them aright.

BURNHAM VS. WRIGHT. 165

Turn to the English Dark Cock, page 86. His monstrous tail and
fearful hock would disqualify him at once under the scrutiny of an Ameri-
can expert! We have attended no exhibition in the last five years where
we have not seen scores of Dark Brahma cocks that would beat this sam-
ple, out and out,—supposing it to be a likeness; and Weir is generally
very faithful in -his delineations,-as we all know. We insert the picture,
therefore, more by way of warning, than otherwise; and, as in the instance
of the large Light Brahma English bird, on page 121, we say emphatically,
“none of these styles of Brahmas for us.” They are not the thing at all.
They are an English manufactured bird, altogether. We have seen numerous
Dark samples that have been “ imported ” into America in the last half-dozen
years, not unlike this, — with the exception of the shockingly deformed tail,
—and we never saw one of them yet, in the body-plumage of which we
could not detect the brown or bay feathering (to a greater or less extent),
which comes from a cyoss with the Partridge or Dark-Cinnamon Cochin fowl,
while the chickens bred from these English importations, invariably upon
the pullets, in fluff, saddles, and sides, are spotted with the brown or foreign
feathering; and the young cocks bred from such stock, almost as invariably,
are similarly blemished in plumage upon the thighs and flanks. The pure
steel-gray (white and black) of my originals is lost, or thus clouded, and
American purchasers of these costly birds wonder why it is that they cannot
get good colored progeny from their expensive English importations! It is
simply because they don’t breed them there as they were at first bred; and
as they can only be bred, in their purity. In reference to which point, Lewis
Wright, after arguing through page upon page, in his late work, in favor of
this true color test, concludes with this vagary: “ Mr. Teebay strongly dissents
from our view, and believes there must have been another original strain (be-
sides the so-called Cornish), to produce the dark variety.” ... But “we
think little of this ‘color’ test!” <A final announcement by Wright, which
will unquestionably be fully appreciated by American fanciers, who know
that the clean, pure, Steel-gray Dark Brahmas have never been bred in this
country from any strain save my originals. No American Light Brahma
breeder to-day claims that he can produce the dark birds from what is called
the “Cornish-Chamberlin strain,” though Wright states that this has been
done in England. I deny this, too. It has never been done, and it can’t be
done, with the light stock alone. This is simply impossible.

166 THE CHINA FOWL.

In continuation of what he knows about this breed, Mr. Wright says,
“ Both Dark and Light varieties of the Brahma fowl should be precisely alike,
in size, shape, and carriage — differing only in color.” And then, to prove his
opinion that both varieties come out of one parent-stock, he adds, that “ Mr.
Joseph Hinton, whose experience goes back to the early days, informs us that
his birds were originally Light Brahmas, obtained of Dr. Gwynne, Dr. Ben-
nett, & Co. Later, he obtained a somewhat darker cock from J. K. Fowler
(also an early breeder), from which, with his darkest of the Light hens, he
bred a most beautiful Dark Brahma cock, and hens so densely dark as to be
nearly black.” Which latter statement merely repeats our own experience ;
since Mr. J. K. Fowler’s Dark bird mentioned, I am quite positive went to
England from my yard, in Melrose, and Dr. Bennett first supplied Dr. Gwynne
and Mr. Hinton from my stock direct, I know, with the dark-plumed birds.

It is clear, Mr. Wright, you can know nothing of me, except through
some malicious busybody who may have slandered me. And I repeat it,
IT am ata loss to understand why you should have thus villainously lam-
pooned me. For four years, I find (sincé your first volume was issued)
I have remained almost in ignorance of the existence of this libel! I
had only casually heard that “Mr. Wright was down on Mr. Burnham in
_his Brahma Fowl,”
in the month of May, 1874, the subject was forced upon my notice by the
publication of the long abusive extract from your books, inserted from an

and never gave the matter a thought further; till,

anonymous scribbler in a Philadelphia paper. Since then, I have endeavored
to defend myself, though I am “on the shady side of life” in years, and
know full well that I cannot do this so vigorously, perhaps, as I once could.
But I am an old man now! It may be, upon examining the extracts I
have presented upon pages 158 to 161, of this volume, that you will change
yourconclusions. It may be not/ It is idle for you to assume, as you do in
your letter to me in May, 1874, that you “did the best you could with the
evidence upon this subject that was accessible to you,” or that “ you relied
upon the statements of Mr. Virgil Cornish, publicly made” prior to 1870,
upon which your atrocious theory is based; inasmuch as, up to the date of
Cornish’s personal letter to you, in 1871, you very well know that he had
never once mentioned my name, or my fowls, in his letters published. The
malicious animus of your rodomontade against me, thrusts itself out offen-
sively in every page of your two books previously written; when, up to that

BURNHAM VS. WRIGHT. 167

period, you cannot find the slightest ground in Cornish’s “evidence,” to im-
plicate me, in any way whatever in this miserable business, of which you have
at last gratuitously involved me, or attempted to entangle me, so unrighteously.

In all candor let me say, in the language of another, that “ misrepresenta-
tions unwittingly made may possibly be construed as simple manslaughter ;
but deliberate falsehood, persisted in, with the light of truth before us, can
only be accounted downright murder, with malice aforethought.” And if
this axiom be inapplicable to your case, I am not a judge of the course you
have so causelessly pursued towards me, in the “ Brahma Fowl, a mono-
graph,” enlarged upon and extended, insufferably, in the otherwise presenta-
ble pages of your last quarto, the “ Il/ustrated Book of Poultry.” Why pile
up the agony, as you have done, in this dater volume? Was your splenetic
disposition unsatiated with the abuse you had voluntarily heaped upon my
unoffending head in that first work? Could you not be content with putting
forth edition after edition of that scurrilous volume, but you must fill your
later ponderous tome with the venomous shafts- of your spleen directed at
poor me—in page after page of slanderous speculation and bosh, about
* Burnham this,” and “ Burnham that?”

In view of all the unjust and plainly malicious vituperation and slander
thus concocted by you, in your two recent books, backed by the far-fetched
“testimony” furnished by your officious friend Weld’ (whom I never before
heard of), I am forced to the conclusion that you have heaped up this cal-
umny and abuse most causelessly and recklessly. Without a show of foun-
dation for your ill-conceived and basely considered assault, you have thus
wantonly vilified a man, who has for thirty years striven to the best of his
power, assiduously and steadily to improve and advance the interests of the
poultry fraternity ; and who has succeeded —as you cannot deny —in ac-
_complishing some small share of good in this direction, first and last.

You are welcome to all the “ pleasure and benefit ” this “ labor of love ”(?)
on your part “has yielded you.” But if, in your retired hours, you reflect
upon the evil calumnies you have put forth thus inconsiderately, embodying
the groundless assaults you have made upon me, therein, so totally uncalled-for
and so unreasonably indited, under any view of the facts in the case —I
doubt not the “still small voice” that has its home in the breast of every
honest man whom God has furnished with ordinary powers of reason, will
suggest to you that you have, in this instance, committed a grievous wrong

168 THE CHINA FOWL.

towards an inoffending fellow-man, that you will not live long enough to set
‘aright. No one ought to know better than yourself that an uttered falsity
is like the cut of a sabre, —the wound may heal, but the scar remains!

Turn you, now, Lewis Wright, to the preface of your “Brahma Fowl,”
and read these lines, penned by you in the early editions of that work —
which, I observe, you (or your publishers) have expunged from the preface of
your third edition !

“We do assert that even the poultry-fancy may be carried on in the
reverent spirit of earnest work, and that we know some who are really seek-
ing in this way, not alone to amuse their leisure, but in the fear of God to
benefit the community, of which they form a part. . . . We have thought it
worth while to give time, and thought, and labor, even to a book about
‘nothing but Brahmas.” (It certainly would have been nearer the truth,
had you here stated ‘a book about nothing but Burnham!’) “ We can truly
say it has been a labor of love (//) and it has yielded to ourselves both
pleasure and benefit in many, many ways.”

These are commendable sentiments — though, under all the circumstances,
to my mental olfactories, in your case, they “smell strongly of the shop.”
Why are these sentences left out of your latest London edition, which I
received but a few weeks ago? Those words were about the best in your
book! Restore them, in your next- edition —and leave out the heaped-up
abuse of “ Burnham,” that disgraces so many other pages of that volume.

“The worm you tread on will turn to bite,” in his poor way. Iam not a
worm, but I have been forced by your malignant assaults upon me, into this
ungracious and unjust quarrel; and I leave the public to judge if I am the
aggressor in this contest.

At all events, in closing these pages I feel assured in my own mind that
those who will take the trouble to examine the overwhelming evidence I
have in this volume presented, touching your baseless theory and discourteous
treatment of me, in your two recent elaborate poultry books, will decide justly
between us; and I do not fear the judgment that will now be accorded by
the intelligent, unbiassed reader, upon the question, Is Geo. P. Burnham right
in this controversy, or is Lewis Wright clearly and reprehensibly wrong ?

THE END.

vi AN
Wire a
int Way

|
‘5 (
wi 1, t

\) 7

a

nese Ct
ay
. i

y ‘

7 rf @ “.
Way erect aR yy

Ky uy ie
Ky