akoragneat haseend te sn teat Bi Or at ONY vada taiveatans eleha : ne ute ‘ Wace aires eS, elise Fetes sears seiacoglstek waa *atah hh obs Nsigarnetergoen ors sores Aah me pew ve! reaeeEs ee Perectrbststona ine aerate b, ne batt “ es use see bse Soveerenetonaw abel ieee oe ees Gees oa : ae ae eine SS if — : = a ave if nai ch i - tt at mae i — oe eae Nit HUN s ites tae = Tee iy i » ie oe iin A Naeiaaten abt o a i Baty OH 0 4 oe P ely finkat ngs o unlit} ay tieste , Wits Neat Wt i" MORAN OU RUNE Ne *y ma. aah vine iewoatt ne fe Hy sa Ne males siete eity ite i etl ats vil . ve! Pca A as “seh : , ade ib * Mire ory ae ‘ A wey ESM IIE Saket by bop reat "a : hes areca pent ere : tts : si) eins hy ess paint : Pg I Ca ‘ pi rosewhng ee BS wet bi raid posi ada pera . rng een tls Meret Te a aad Ps Ae * why tt “ mt t eres ths ie ‘ Fat ee Brie Gi ‘ ela ine Face] ne aa : Lh dtp loi * i Hennig HEN aa ed Nteage : , 6 A Meath. Die ‘ + oes é mick ts . A rok nak ge erat sormitaits ict ett ate hnad tls inate, : CMe rie ray az rar 8 “ = ae: ahaha scuren aos Ar Ohi i Reo ee : is; Ie bhatt eats ft ast seers st ci hs Piast ebat = Trai onsen Sea : ee Sima he ateata ee: = = i Logins 7h S02 ecole sei h ee ae ee teens " anaes (ot, i asec Pe a: aes C tindo art pipes pene copa Sete ees hy rena iy! ai Fs eee gee = i ee gee tina ntepaese ac a Preeresuntees : ee ee ie rego h) ws hips rh helen Bishan beaten eaten Hick ii Bien is bya HD ‘i io persanee 7 Pi chy aliens. fete a tenatesrsegees as ett Cpt y rs relies sien pel 2.52% eat Re eerere. wee ALBERT R. MANN LIBRARY New YorK STATE COLLEGES OF AGRICULTURE AND Homeg ECONOMICS AT CORNELL UNIVERSITY JAMES E. RICE MEMORIAL POULTRY LIBRARY Cornell University Library The original of this book is in the Cornell University Library. There are no known copyright restrictions in the United States on the use of the text. http://www.archive.org/details/cu31924003002486 Cornell University Library SF 489.B8A83 The Asiatics; Brahmas, Cochins and Langsh AACA 3 1924 003 002 486 mann ts the best:book oust gn howto fateh ‘chickein tieubaters and howe to rhise send bib brooders. “It contains «eG IGHTY ‘EIGHT pages; and OVER FIFTY. ILLUSTRATIONS of modern, copyrighted brooder-houses, brooders, ; ete.,etc. It contains full and cotuplete iastrictions ‘on the use and abuse of {uen- bators, from oue, machine ‘up-to fifty; on how to-hotse, care for and feed chicks and ducklings all thei way from a ‘Ruindred ‘ot two.up to. several thousand, It tells the mai or wontan.on. ‘the farm, in ‘thé village, of in the cliy, how to start right in pisiatias and ada alia ducks by sa méane and, what is more iniportaat, ert to Go RIGHT. after 2 start is made. ; Bayptian Tncubatories, ee “ Btructure of an Egg-Developmer nt oF Natural, Laws of Incubation,“ .j . Laying House with Scratehiag’ Shed. .. “Pullets vs. Hens as Profitable Layers, : . Best: Breeds ‘for Broilera. é ‘ | ° What and-How to Feea.”.. 1)’. -: Hatchable EdgsHow: to. Get: “hem, : Suggestions on Building Incubator. Cellars. Building | an .Incubator. Cellar, . - Constrietion of Brood Houxe ., Brooding House—Underneath Pip & ‘Bréoding "Honsd+-Overhesd- Piping. System. : ingle Row Reliatle Brooding House. ° - : ible’ Row Reliable Brooding House. . sane: of: SrELOUPE, for Indoor: Broodara. _meuth- Rocks, ‘Steer Leced Wyandottes, WEEE Weiedatien: Butt. Wyenasten Ligne Brah is. f0r' ne : iping. System: ee] ‘THESE. ARE THE ‘CONTENTS: OF THis. Ghekr Book. ; | Breeding Stook—Inoubatiig—Chicks. _ ‘Testing ‘Begs: for. “Hatching. - “Use -of- Thermometers in Ineubatora. The. Incubator {4 ‘Operation, .- : General. Care of. Incubator Hatehed’ ‘Chicks. S Raising ‘the. Cliickens.: aaa Howto Use Outdoor. ‘Brooders. Feeding and Forcing Broilers. — ‘Profitable. Brofier Ratsing.-_ : Incubators on-the Farm, Poultry for Market. “Rreeding and Feeding.Pekin Ducks, ‘0 Hatch ‘and: Raise Ducks. ise Profitable. Broiler Raising. - Buff C he Singie ‘Serb White Leghorna, Houdans, ‘ndian Sermas may: Paka Ducks. each and eee one of which va executed brie world's: ‘sreatest poultry : “ntiat, Pronklane hs Sewell, zs, ; ot of TIFICH bi UBATING A p BROODIN je-Sicen nts ta; b t we will jt rRee It id us two m bacription: The piles aR ld cM AL INCUBAT baal subscript jon. se cciele ean sa mp will as mule tr ena a ool liable an fae" ‘pecat mal bem ‘Tents, * ‘A jdrezs a any address THE ‘LATEST BOOK. ON THE SUBJECT a a _PRICE ONLY 25 CENTS @ F SIX 7 EE actenine Shed Pouttry House, Breeding DGEE, a Building a Poultry, House, A Convenient Hallway Plan of an Egg Farin ws Also descriptions and-i Gatidds: “of Nest Boxes, Diinkin Fountains, Feedin, Tie ‘hs, A Coops. and many. other Fixtures and Houses.” ~~ 8 ° Seu ' Chicken This book consists‘of 32 dargée. sized pages, 9x12 inches, i is printed. on super-calendéiéd paper, is™ | bound. ine handsome;. durable paper: cover. Price of Poultry Houses. and Fixtur g 5 cents; OR ee ive ou th. book q the Peaal price. ot 65 cents. : ‘ z : URDDRESS. a cma RELIABLE POULTRY JOURNAL PUBLISHING c0., QUINCY, ILLINOIS. USS, ‘Sefit postpa “to the: carina ate idto 2 Drahmas, Cochins and Langshans ... ALL VARIETIES... WW WW ZW Their Origin; Peculiarities of Shape and Color; Egg Production; Their Market Qualities. Breeding, Mating and Exhibiting, with Detailed Illus- trated Imstructions on Judging. © CONTRIBUTED TO BY LEADING BREEDERS, EXHIBITORS AND JUDGES. FULLY ILLUSTRATED. PRICE FIFTY CENTS. PUBLISHED BY THE RELIABLE POULTRY JOURNAL PUBLISHING COMPANY, = QUINCY, ILLINOIS. COPYRIGHT BY RELIABLE POULTRY JOURNAL PUBLISHING COMPANY; QUINCY, ILL. Ui ‘AouinG “og Burysiqng jeuinop Aayjnog eqeijey ey} Aq ‘g6gi ‘ys! Auenuep ‘yyusukdod So tADNING MoD NaH # ener exon ‘ALvd OL SNIHOOO 44nd THE ASIATICS. A Short History of the Introduction of Cochins, Brahmas, and Langshans—Their Origin is Veiled in Mystery, But From Data Gathered by Numerous Early Fanciers the Period of Their First Appearance is Fixed. By A. F. Hunter, Associate Editor Reliable Poultry Journal. not exist for tracing the history of the separate breeds” of fowls, and it is equally true’ that suffi- cient materials do not exist for tracing the growth dor evolution) of the domestic fowls of to-day as a whole, but from what materials we haye and by what we can sur- mise we can piece together a probable history. The domesticated fowl, according to Mr. Darwin, is said to have been introduced from the west into China about 1400 B. C., and we see in the descendants of those fowls a development in a decidedly different direction from that taken by the domesticated fowls in Europe and North Africa. Instead of the small, non-sitting, intensely nervous and active “Mediterranean,” we find the large, clumsy, placid-dispositioned and extremely broody “Asiatics.” If we suppose that quantity and quality of meat were preferred to a great egg product we would expect just such a development of the meat producing qualities as those Asiatic fowls possess. Some of us can remember the great Yellow Shanghais, Gray Chittagongs and Malays of fifty or sixty years ago; so tall that, while standing on the floor beside it, they could eat corn off the top of a barrel that was standing on end; cock birds of the descendants of those varieties are said to have reached seventeen or eighteen pounds iin weight. Much ink has been shed over the introduction of what we know as the Asiatic varieties of fowls. Wright’s “New Book of Poultry,” speaking of Cochins, says: “Books of much pretension have traced the origin of this breed to some fowls imported in 1843, which afterwards became the property of Queen Victoria under the name of Cochin China fowls. As regards the fowls themselves this is a total mistake. A drawing of those birds was given in the Illustrated London News of that date (see illustration), from which and the description it is manifest that they had absolutely no points of the Cochin at all, save perhaps yel- low legs and large size. The shanks were long and bare, the heads carried back instead of forward, the tail large and carried high, the back long and sloping to the tail, the eyes black, the plumage close and hard. Of what we may all Malay blood they probably had a great deal, of Cochin blood none, or but some trace in a cross. But one thing about them there was; these fowls were not only big, but they probably really did come from Cochin China, and from them and that fact came undoubtedly the name, which will now belong, while poultry breeding lasts, to another fowl] that has no right to it at all. “The real stock first reached this country in 1847, Mr. ‘Mocdy in Hampshire and Mr. Alfred Sturgeon of Gray’s Essex oth receiving stock in that year. Mr. Moody’s, so far aS we can learn, were inferior in character and leg-feather to Mr. Sturgeon’s but were very large and of the same broad type; M R. DARWIN tells us that “sufficient materials do and all alike came from the port of Shanghai or its neigh- borhood. “The birds were undoubtedly Shanghais and had never been near Cochin China, and for years attempts were made to put this matter straight. The first Poultry Book of Wingfield and Johnson (1853) wrote of them as Shanghais, and all American writers strove for the same name years after the attempt had been abandoned in England; but it was no use, * * * The public had got to know the new, big fowls as Cochins, and would use no other word, and so the name stuck, in the teeth of the facts, and holds the field to this day.” . Mr. Sturgeon’s stock, with subsequent importations from Shanghai has been the main source from which Coch- ins were bred in this country; America has had many inde- pendent importations. Mr. Punchard’s stock was mainly from Mr. Sturgeon, the latter keeping from choice the lem- ons and buffs, while Mr. Punchard had the dark birds which originated the Partridges.” The Brahmas were undoubtedly originated in America by selection and careful breeding of what was known as the Gray Chittagongs. Mr. Wright quotes a letter of a Mr. Virgil Cornish, of Connecticut, dated March 2, 1852, as follows: “In regard to the history of these fowls: very little is known. A mechanic by the name of Chamberlain, in this city, first brought them here. Mr. Chamberlain was ac. quainted with a sailor, who informed him there were three pairs of large imported fowls in New York, and he dwelt so much upon the enormous size of these fowls that Mr. Chamberlain furnished him with money and directed him to go to New York and purchase a pair of them for him, which he did. The sailor reported that he found one pair of light grey ones, which he purchased; the second pair were dark colored, and the third pair were red. The man -in New York, whose name I have not got, gave no account of their origin, except that they had been brought there by some sailors in the Indian ships. The parties through whose hands the fowls came, so far as I have been able to trace them, are all cbscure men. I obtained my stock from the original pair brought here by Mr. Chamberlain, and have never crossed them in the least. These fowls were named Chittagong by Mr. Chamberlain, on account of their resemblance, in some degree, to the fowls then in the coun- try called by that name; but it is certain that they never bred until they reached this town.” One strain of these fowls, according to Mr. Wright was first called “‘Burram pooters,” evidently with the intention of having it believed they ware, of a different race from the Chittagongs and’ Shanghais;.’ the name being subsequently “dropped 'and replaced by: “Brahma- Pootre,” and eventually simplified into Brahmas, by which name they were intro- 4 | duced into England by a present of a pen of the birds to Queen Victoria by Mr. Burnham. In his amusing and un- scrupulous book, “History of the Hen Fever,” Mr. Burn- ham says: “An ambitious sea captain arrived in New York from Shanghai, bringing with him about one hundred China fowls of all colors, grades and proportions. Out of this lot I se- lected a few grey birds that were very large and conse- quently very fine. I bred these with other grey stock I had at once and soon had a fine lot of birds to dispose of, to which I gave whai I have always deemed their only true and appropriate title (as they came from Shanghai), to-wit, Grey Shanghais.” It will be noted that these China fowls were of “all colors, grades and proportions,” and it will be readily un- derstood that selection and careful breeding along any one line of color, grade or proportion would ultimately develop a distinct type, which would breed true and become a vari- “Her Majesty’s Cochius; Imported in 1843.” ety. Mr. Burnham elsewhere says that the Dark Brahmas were produced by crossing Grey Chittagongs with Cochins, the Cochins probably being the ‘other grey stock” of which he speaks, and which were probably earlier importations of China fowls. The illustrations of Cochins and Light Brah- mas, which we have reproduced from Tegetmeier’s poultry book, give us a good idea of what those early Cochins and Brahmas were, and a comparison of the birds of (about) 1850 with those of to-day is full of encouragement and indi- cates what development can be attained by selection and careful breeding. The Langshans are a much more recent importation, they having first been introduced into England in 1872 and purported to come from the Langshan district in China, and Mr. Wright says of them: “It seems more than probable that birds very similar to Langshaps have been imported as Black Cochins in the early days of those fowls.” And an illustration which he gives of the early Langshans lends probability to this sup- position, as they much more resemble the Black Cochins of THE ASIATICS. that time than the popular Black Langshans of to-day. The same opinion obtained here in America, and the writer dis- tinctly remembers hearing the earlier Black Langshars cor- temptuously syoken of as “Inferior Cochins.” It is probable that the Langshans are descended from the same great par- ent stock of China fowls as are our Brahmas and Cochins, and they owe it to the skill of enthusiastic breeders «hat they are now a distinct variety. In economic quality Asiatic varieties have been chiefly ranked as table fowls, cr meat producers; they have, how- ever, been well known as magnificent layers. - When farm raised and with the free and easy manner of farm breeding and handling, they fall off materially in show qualities and develop great laying ability. Mr. Wright speaks of Brahmas which lay above 200 eggs each in a year, and Mr. Silberstein had a Light Brahma pullet that by trap nest record laid 232 eggs within a year of laying maturity. We at one time bred what we called an Reproduced from Tegetmeier’s Poultry Book. “Early Laying” strain of Light Brahmas, which were most prolific layers and pullets of which reached laying maturity at between five and six months old; an intimate friend had what he called “Practical” Buff Cochins, which were early and most prolific layers, and we know a farmer in western New York who breeds what he calls ““Farmers’ Black Lang- shans” that are likewise great layers. In all of these cases the birds develop with a fineness of bone that makes them at maturity from one te two pounds under weight, and this characteristic of great laying Asiatics would indicate that ihe show stock has beer bred to rather excessive size, and that breeding them to a finer framed type would increase their economic merits. It would seem that the same deteri- oration in economic merit has been evident in England, as Mr. Wright speaks of the Brahmas as follows: “There are various causes for the decline in laying powers, which is certainly general. Of course the one general cause of breeding merely for feather has some effect, as in all other cases; but that alone is soon recovered from in “utility” stock, such as gets about the country. In addition THE ASIATICS. 5 to that, however, the Brahma is a breed in which it is particularly desirable to keep the pullets back from laying with a view to the best show condition; and this, repeated for generations, has also had effect. But beyond even these factors, all experience goes to show that activity and close plumage are indispensable to any marked laying power, and the gradual change to looser feather, with wider and shorter body, has had probably the greatest share in the deterioration; the bird has actually been bred to a model which cannot lay so well as the older one. There are still to be found about the country flocks derived from the older stock which keep up the old reputation; but if the Brahma is desired as a layer, some effort should be made to ascertain what the character of the strain really is in that respect.” This is a strong recommendation to seek utility bred stock if we want birds of the highest economic merit, and that is undoubtedly what is wanted by the great majority of poultry breeders. Fortunately, too, the birds showing the hetter laying ability are of a desirable fine-framed stock, hence possess better table quality—carry a larger proportion of edible meat. Such stock is of great practical value. The eges of the Asiatic varieties are large of size and of the most popular brown color, which commands a premium in the markets, hence great laying ability coupled with their superior market poultry qualities insure them lasting popu- larity. A. F. HUNTER. “Light Brahmas Presented to Her Majesty, Queen Victoria in 1852, by Mr. G. Burnham,” Fae Reproduced from Tegetmeier’s Poultry Book. — py BRAHMA MALE SHAPE. Criticisms of Foremost Judges and Brahma Breeders on a Composite Ideal From Live Models, as Drawn by Franklane L Sewell—A Collection of Opinions That Are in Themselves Authority on the Ideal Shape of a Standard-bred Male Brahma. 2 From the Reliable Poultry Journal. Artist Sewell’s best individual conception - of Stan- dard Brahma male shape. These criticisms, offered in all good feeling, present strong evidente of a dis- position on the part of judges and breeders to advance the true interests of Poultry Culture. In more ways thn: ‘one they prove the existence of a sincere desire to bring about a greater uniformity of ideals in breeding and judging. We have received scores of letters expressing a deep interest in this series, and thanking the judges, breeders, the artist and the R. P. J. for the parts taken in presenting same. JR se are presented numerous criticisms of D. M. Owens, Tennessee, judge and breeder: “Comb should extend further back and conform more to shape of the head at rear. Skull hardly full enough over eyes. Wat- tles rather small. The head has too much of a feminine appearance. The concave sweep of back commences too near cape. it should slope slightly downward to the hips, then rise in concave with the saddle to tail. Saddle and tail both carried too high. Sickles should stand 4, little more upright. Little too full or ioose feathered about the thighs. The bird appears rather short from front to rear, but only slightly so.” Theo. Hewes, Indiana, judge and _ breeder: A5y like this bird. He is extra good. Head might be a little broader above the eyes, and he might stand just a trifle longer neck. I would fan the tail a little, making it more upright, and raise the sickles so as to show about half their length, making them more prominent. Too much covering to thighs. Let’s keep away from Cochins in this breed. I like plenty of feathers on their feet, but not too much on the rest of legs.” F. W. Hitchcock, Colorado, judge and breeder: ‘‘The drawing of Light Brahma male submitted to me for criti- cism is, I consider, one of Mr. Sewell’s best efforts. I can find but little to criticise about it, and what little there is is of minor importance. The comb is just a trifle short, mak- ing it look a little stubby, but in all other respects the draw- ing comes up to my ideal of éorrect Brahma shape. It is surely one of Mr. Sewell’s masterpiecés.” _#H. §. Babcock, Rhode Island, judge and breeder: “The comb is not clean cut enough for perfection; it might come farther back with advantage. ° “Tailrright for cockerel, not full enough for cock. Thighs do not stand out clearly enough and foot feathering is rather more profuse than we see in the best birds in the shows. -A bit of tendency to- - wards the Cochin type is shown in this cut.’ The bird lacks. the vivacity that the Brahma ee: Still it is a very good illustration.” Charles McClave, Ohio, judge and breeder: “Symmetry good. Head outlines good. Comb rather small compared with size of bird; serrations should commence a little nearer to beak. Wattles and ear-lobes are good.- Neck shape, front and rear, is about right. . Back,” length, medium, good, but not high enough at base of tail. The back shoulé show a little more concave sweep. Breast and wings are good. Length of tail is all right, but it looks a trifle pinched. Legs and toes have plenty of feathering, but ap- proach Cochin shape. General outlines are almost above criticism, forming a typical Light Brahma male.” W. 8. Russell, Iowa, judge and breeder: “The drawing of male shows a bird too short in body, or in other words, there is not enough of him behind the legs. Fluff is too scanty; back too short, according to my liking. I also think the head is too small and tail too short.” Sharp Butterfield, Canada, judge and breeder: “TI herewith submit the changes I think necessary in the drawing of Light Brahma male. The head is alto- gether too weak—too much on the feminine order. Where there is such a head as the one portrayed we generally find wattles almost void. The back is much too short and the tail too much pinched. The breast is quite full enough in front, but lacks depth, and the body is not deep enough nor long enough for the ideal Brahma of to-day. The rage in the east is for birds of great substance.” THE ASIATICS. 7 . J. Y. Bicknell, New York, judge and breeder: “Back is a little too short for the size of the bird. Head, trom top of skull to base of beak, is not quite full enough; the outline representing the head under the comb should b?2 convex insiead of being concave. Comb is too long, and still it does not reach far enough back on the head. It should commence at the front of the skull, rising rather abruptly in front and extend back farther over the head in- stead of commencing about half way down the beak and running back in a straighi line to the top of the serrations. All in front of the serrations should be cut out, thus allow- ing the beak to show to better advantage. Now the latter seems to be blended with the head and comb. Let the beak, head and comb show three sections, more clearly cut, rather than to appear to be swedged out of one lump, withont dis- tinction. The wing also blends altogether too much with the surface of the body, and if we were not looking for it where it should be, we might easily imagine there was no -wing there. The shape should show better.” F. J. Marshall, Georgia, judge and breeder: ‘The cut of Light Brahma male is a very good one, though the head is a little too small, neck a trifle short as is also the back, although the back is good shape. Tail is very good, but it might be carried just a trifle lower. Breast to be in keeping with what the back should be would want to be a little longer from thighs up and the fluff should show a little more behind the thighs. Thighs and shanks goad. D. ‘A. Stoner, Indiana, judge and breeder ‘In crit- icising shape of Light Brahma male I would say, he is rather too tall for size of bird and is too much of a V shape. Trim the front part of his thighs off one-fourth of an inch, and trim body up one-eighth of an inch at thighs, taper.ng forward to nothing at point of breast bone. Then trim the rear part of body or fluff at hocks one-fourth of an inch higher, tapering out to nothing five-eighths of an inch below vent. Shorten his iegs to match body and you have, in my judgment, a much better. Brahma shape.” S. L. Roberts, California, judge and breeder: ‘ Head, with lower mandible stouter, and juncture with neck a trifle depressed, I would call all right. Wattles, not large enough. By reason of hackle feathers extending too far over shoulder of wing much of the typical shape of the Light Brahma male is lost—it is a Dark Brahma hackle, and hides the shouider so much as to destroy the back prop- erties, and causes the wing to appear as if set on tuo low, and drooping a trifle. Breast is very angular. The cut is a good one—the best we have seen. Mr. Sewell has excel- lent Brahma ideas and puts them on paper.” H. B. Savage, Texas, judge and breeder: “I would like the head to be a trifle broader, crown projecting a little farther over the eye; serrations of comb to begin farther front on the beak; beak to curve just a trifle more; breast a trifle rounder opposite and a little below front of wing bow; tail a very little more upright and spread sligh‘ly more. The outer toe does not extend far enough out. The cut of male is well nigh perfect, as the defects here noted would cause but very light cuts in scoring, in my opinion, but of course looking at these well gotten up pictures is not like handling the bird itself.” John C. Snyder, Oklahoma, judge and breeder: “I think the comb is a little small for size of bird and a shade too of the neck is a quarter of an inch too jow down on neck. Wing carried too low, tail hardly upright enough. But taken all together he is good in symmetry.” F. H. Shellabarger, Iowa, judge and breeder: “The cut of Light Brahma male is, in my judgment about all that the Standard calls for. The head appears a trifle slim for a Brahma, but it fits the s'andard closely.” H. A. Bridge, Ohio, judge and _ breeder: “Head of Brahma male is just a little feminine. The comb should be just a trifle broader and the serrations brought forward more. There does not seem to be space enough between the center and outer serrations. Face below the eye has the appearance of projecting beyond the eye. The crown of the head does not project over the eye enough, but when face below is darkened up may give the crown the appearance of enough projection. Increase the length of wattle a little sc that when the lower edge is rounded up it will stand away from face a little on lower end. Bring the ear-lobe more under the ear and round up the front edge of lobe, making them just a little broader and of course have them ievel with the wattles. The arch of neck is just a little low down. The back is a trifle short and too deep in concave, this I think, when remedied will relieve the long appearance of the tail. Wings should be carried just a little higher. Upper portion of tail is a little narrow. Breast is a little fuller than necessary. Thighs should be relieved a little from their slightly Cochin appearance. F, B. Zimmer, New York, judge and breeder: “I consider the drawing of Light Brahma male perfect as far as shape is concerned. In all previous proofs of other breeds sent me I could find sections I would change, but this Brahma represents my idea of shape. Therefore your read- ers would know about where to find me on this variety.” D. T. Heimlich, Illinois, judge and breeder: “The male bird in al sections pleases me just as it is, and Mr. Sewell should have a vote of thanks from all lovers of this grand breed for the picture of the male Brahma.” Cc. A. Emry, Missouri, judge and breeder: “Head not full enough over eyes, breast not full and round enough, tail too small and pinched, legs show too much Cochin feath- ering and shape.” Li -P. Harris, Nebraska, judge and breeder: “I think the cut of Light Brahma male shape fine, except comb and wattles... The serrations in center row start too far back by the width of one serration; the side serrations are a little too far from the head, and the back point of the comb should tip down’on or nearer the head. Wattles are too smal! and short.” A. B. Shaner, Illinois, judge and _ breeder: “The Light Brahma male as submitted is a good model, and should I ever come across one as good I think I should pass him as perfect in shape outlines. He comes as near perfect as the standard calls for.” George H. Northup, New York, judge and bzveeder: “The proofs of Brahma drawings accompanying your letter of the 20th are received. I consider them very excellent in- deed and think it doubtful if we ever see a bird as near perfect in all points as these two birds are. However, re- ferring to the male bird, I think the lobes not quite large enough, and they do not extend quite low enough to com- R Noi NAY ODA \S XN AY Copy RiGhTeD BY THE 4 ELIABLE PouTRY JouRnake = % we BRAHMA MALE SHAPE—By Sewell. ‘Comprising the Best Points of Several Live Models as Illustrated by Franklane L Sewell for the Reliable Poultry Journal, and submitted to Sixty-five Prominent Judges and Breeders for Criticism Based upon Standard Requirements. OF. Sh BZ ZL fh LESS AARTRENS LLL OOS ig DALAL i Z ee CuryRighT-= BY Tre ae RELIABLE PotTRY JOURNA = ee _— - BRAHMA MALE SHAPE-—By Sewell. a, Illustrated by Franklane L. Sewell, for the Reliable Poultry Journal, under the Suggestions of Sixty-five Prominent Judges and Breeders—The Outcome of Criticism Upon the Brahma Male Shape Shown on the Opposite Page. An Ideal Brahm 10 THE ASIATICS. ‘ gare @ith wattles. The body seems ‘too short for height, that is, the distance measured in a straight line from point where the hackle divides at the front of neck, touching the highest point of wing bow and terminating in the lower part of tail, is too short. His neck and legs are perfect. Head, a little too narrow above the eye. His tail is good except that it does not spread enough, the sickles especially. O. E. Skinner, Kansas, breeder of Light Brah- mas: “Referring to the proof of Light Brahma male which you sent me, would say the cockerel does not please me at all. I want a bird with a much Jarger head, broader skull and much larger ear-lobes. His tail appears in the cut too pointed, that is, not spread enough. I should want longer shanks. His breast and back shape is good.” Mrs. B. F. Jackson, Kentucky, breeder of Light Brahmas: “I consider the etching of male Brahma excel- lent, with one exception—the head is a trifle too small and comb too large or prominent.” T. N. Smiley & Son, Indiana, breeders of Light Brahmas: “The proofs of Light Brahmas received, and we think they are excellent.. We have no criticism to make on the male. We think he is grand.” Sid Conger, Indiana, breeder of Light Brahmas: “The male is fairly good in general shape. The head is too small, narrow, pinched in the throat. It fails in the hand- some head the Light Brahma usually shows. It is not quite deep enough in the breast for an ideal. The coloring of the neck indicates smuttiness, and white lacing around the les- ser sickles is not standard. Shape of back fairly good.” W. A. Irvin, Nebraska, breeder of Light Brahmas: “The excellent proofs of the Light Brahma male and female came duly to hand. I consider the shape and outline of the male the best drawing that I have ever seen, and- when we as breeders can breed them up to the typical standard shape, as cutlined by Mr. Sewell, there will not be any cause for complaint.” George Luhrsen, Illinois, breeder of Light Brahmas: “In regard to Mr. Sewell’s drawing of Brahma male, I will say that in my judgment he is as near perfect as can be ‘drawn. Perhaps some breeders would say he is a little too deep in saddle and short in back, but I think him just about right.” Mrs. Ella Thomas, Missouri, breeder of Light Brah- mas: “In regard io the drawing of ideal Light Brahma male cockerel, as submitted by Mr. Sewell, would say I think it very good, though I would prefer the comb to extend a little further back on head, skull broader, wattles slightly longer, first row of tail coverts solid black instead of edged with white. Lesser coverts are all right. Body should be slightly longer for the breadth and depth; wings a little longer and tucked slightly higher; foot-feathering mottled well with black. The whole body is too short for true Brahma shape, according to my notion.” George Clough, Illinois, breeder of Dark Brah- mas‘ “I consider the male Brahma to be good in shape, but I think he is a little short in back; hardly flat enough at shoulders; breast not round, deep or full enough; fluff not abundant enough.” ‘high in proportion to the width and length, John H. Ryan, Illinois, breeder of Light and Dark Brahnias: “I can find but little fault with Mr. Sew- ell’s idea of Light Brahma male. He is a little too narrow across the head, hardly full enough over front of eyes; a little low at base of hackle; a trifle too much sweep to tail; hackle is too dark. Otherwise he is all right, to my notion.’"” E. BE. Marlow, Missouri, breeder of Light Brahmas: “T think the head of the male Brahma is a trifle small and the tail is not spread enough. But I wish I could raise alk my birds to be as good.” M. Mayer, Jr., Illinois, breeder of Light Brahmas: “The drawing of the male comes so near to perfection that there is very little room for criticism. The breast could be a trifle fuller, otherwise he suits me first rate.” E. Dunstan, Mississippi, breeder of Light Brahmas: “In offering my criticism on the Light Brahma male draw- ing by Mr. Sewell, would say that I think the. wattles are too small to be called medium size, and the ear-lobes are certainly not ‘large pendant,’ as required by the standard. The junction between the head and back part of the neck is not defined clearly enough. The remainder of the neck looks very sice. I consider the back too short, and the wings not being held high enough, give the back a narrow appearance instead of being broad and flat at the shoulders. And from his saddle to the vent he looks shallow enough for a Leghorn. I do not consider his tail is carried high enough to be called ‘carried tolerably upright,’ and is too contracted to be considered full; well spread and well filled underneath with curling feathers. The breast is round an@ full enough, but lacks depth. The thighs and legs are, E think, about right, but from the back of leg to vent he is too short.” Miss Hattie Winship, Illinois, breeder of Light Brah- mas: ‘‘When it comes to calling this the Standard Light Brahma for all strains and cutting every bird one or more on symmetry, which does not resemble this male or female exactly, I think it an impossibility, and would be doing: what is unjust. When it comes to this strain, the Mammoth Light Brahma, they are very good, still if my preference was for this strain, I should work for the heavier, more blocky and more heavily feathered type. The male is tom t is too long- legged; tail too high; breast might be a trifle fuller, an@ when you have the feathers looser and heavier all over you will have a bird more of the style in the March, 1896, num- ber R. P. J. frontispiece. I would not object to one or two pens of this strain; but as to a large flock or many pens, and when it comes right down to the money-making bird? (what we are after), I should not wish for them in the least. I had some of that type last year and find they are not lay-— ers; the smaller types are those where the feathers are smoother, or not so fluffy, and my customers, Jike myself, met with poorer hatches from this mammoth strain. The male which gave me the best satisfaction is of the type Miss Forbes, of California, -has- represented on page 242, May, 1896. R. P. J., and is the strain I shall work for. There is: something much richer in color and form, making them & beautiful, noble, lordly type. The large type is nothing but a rough, cnarse, lazy bird. If your birds are very small it is well to mix the larger with them to bring them up. E think we need an ideal for each of the ‘two or three strains, as some will prefer one strain whereas others will choose another. They will never all choose the same.” THE ASIATICS. J. J. Burnside, Indiana, breeder of Light Brahmas: “I think the male is all right. I cannot see where I could better it.” L. O. Berryman, Illinois, breeder of Light Brahmas: “The illustration of Light Brahma male by Mr. Sewell is a grand type of this noble breed, yet, according to the stand- ard, it is a little faulty. I think the comb should be serrated down to beak in front; the back should be medium in length —I call his short. His tail should be carried more upright, especially sickle feathers. With these changes made, I think we would have an ideal Light Brahma male.” J. A. Roberts, Pennsylvania, breeder of Light Brahmas: “The Light Brahma male is of good shape, but he might be a little longer in body. Tail might be run in line with back. I expect it is well spread. I cannot see, as he stands sideways to me. I should be satisfied if parties of whom I order would always send as good as he.” TT. R. McDonald, Kentucky, breeder of Light Brahmas: “After carefully locking over the Light Brahma male draw- ing, I have no comments to make other than that it is ex- actly my idea of what a Brahma male should be.” Casper Dice, Nebraska, breeder of Light Brahmas: “The cut of male would suit me better if comb ran up far- ther on head and lower behind. Head seems too narrow. Neck should be a little longer and fuller at base of hackle and cape. Fluff should be fuller to make bird deeper from cape to fluff, and the legs look too short.” ¥F. L. Ackerman, Michigan, breeder of Light Brahmas: “Commenting on the Light Brahma Male Shape, I would say that if we get as near perfection as this cut represents we will be very near the top of the ladder. But if back and sad- dlo were broader and tail spread out a little, with wings a trifle smaller and carried higher, it would suit me better.” R. R. Clendenen, Missouri, breeder of Light Brahmas: “Mr. Sewell’s cut of Light Brahma male is a good one. The comb might be a trifle longer and be drawn a little closer to the head at the back end.” W. S. Campbell, Illinois, breeder of Light Brahmas: “Your beautiful proofs of Light Brahmas att hand and it is hard to find fault with them. Comb on male is smaller than I like and back of neck is fuller in hackle than we see in nature. The breast is a little full, He looks too tall from bottom of left foot to middle of back for the length of body, and the fluff is a little scant.” N. Porter Brown, Massachusetts,. breeder of Light Brah- mas: “After examining the proof of the Light Brahma male, it appears to me that there is very little to find fault with, yet he appears to be short bodied. I like to see a cockerel with more length of back between neck and tail. I would also add about one-fourth inch to breast, making him fuller in that section. Most every one likes to see a short legged Brahma, yet the male for his size, looks as if he were a little too short in leg.” Mrs. T. W. Ragsdale, Missouri, breeder of Light Brah- mas: “First of all I will express thanks to you and Mr. Sewell for the beautiful engravings sent me, and to siow my appreciation I have framed them. I think both are good specimens and I have but few criticisms to make, though I have given them close study. I think the head of the male IL rather feminine for such a tmrge neck and body, ana the body from front to rear is rather too short. I like more evidence of weight, strength and vigor.” Simon Lynch, Indiana, breeder of Light Brahmas: ‘“‘This- cut is good, but the comb is too high at rear, eyes too low, ear-lobes too coarse, beak not arched enough, hackle not fine enough, legs too close together. I want a white color.” H. N. Rollins, Massachusetts, breeder of Light Brahmas: “T think the cut of Light Brahma male is very fine. I should like to see the fluff a little more developed, otherwise I like it very well.” Wililam Chamings, Illinois, breeder of Light Braumas: “IT would suggest a few changes in Artist Sewell’s cut of male. Comb should extend back farther and set closer to head. Head is a trifle small; back should be longer and fluff back of thighs fuller, so as to give a more massive ap- pearance and a much better proportioned bird. Body a little short.” John A. Meyer, director West Virginia Agricultural Experiment Station, breeder of Light Brahmas: “The excel- - lent proofs of the male and female Light Brahmas, executed by Mr. Sewell for the R. P. J., seem to me to represent very closely the ideal type of Light Brahmas. The male is very satisfactory.” ; W. W. Kulp, Pennsylvania, breeder of Light Brahmas: “T have no criticism to make on shape of male Light Brah- ma. I think if I had one like him in shape and as good in color he would have plenty of ‘blues’ to his credit. There may be a little too much tail.” E. G. Hayward, Illinois, breeder of Light Brahmas: “The body of the male should be longer and he should be correspondingly deeper in breast. At the point where he measures four and three-quarter inches in length of body I would prefer it full five inches.” Alfred Doyle, Illinois, breeder of Light Brahmas: ‘Head. is faulty in shape; eye is too low down, it should be about even with the top of upper mandible, and a little farther back. Mouth is too long; wattles should commence a little farther forward on the bill; ear-lobes should be right un- der the ear, and not at the rear. Comb could be better.: Neck is too thick; that swelling at the back should be trim- med off; the dividing line between the head and neck is not. clearly enough defined. Back is too short for a Brahma. Breast should be pared off a little in front of hocks, and also the upper part of neck, and dew lap should be cut away so as to leave a clear space under the wattles. Fluff is a trifie too abundant. Lower edge of wing should be rounding. and not form an angle as in the cut, and the wing is a trifle too short. Main tail feathers and coverts are a little too long: tail coverts should not be edged with white, as in cut. Hocks and legs are entirely too heavily feathered for the American type of Brahma. Take the bird all through, I consider it too blocky for a Brahma.” F, F. Congdon, Wisconsin, breeder of Light Brahmas: “Etching by Sewell of “Standard Light Brahma Male Shape” was duly received, and it seems a pity to criticise such a strikingly beautiful illustration, however, I think the head is a little too small, back a trifle short, the general appear- ance of the bird being too high for the length.” 12 THE ASIATICS. Cc. E. Kunze, Illinois, breeder of Light Brahmas: “We received the Light Brahma sketches, and wish to say only this: Mr. Sewell has a much better idea of what a good chicken is, and knows how to put the idea into better form than any other poultry judge or artist anywhere in the United States or foreign countries. The Light Brahma’ sketches are beauties, and we do not wish to criticise them, as any alteration might hurt more than do good.” hee James George, Kansas, breeder of Light Brahmas: “It seems to me that the back of the male is a trifle short and the tail ig carried a little high. Otherwise I can find no fault with it.” N. E. Woods, Indiana, breeder of Light Brahmas: “In regard to the excellent typical drawing of Light Brahma male, I will say I have no criticisms except ‘that there is too great leg and toe feathering, which in my opinion is against utility.” Mrs. B. G. Mackey, Missouri, breeder of Light Brahmas: “As I understand the standard it seems to me that Mr. Sew- ell has in this drawing almost reached perfection. The comb seems a trifle higher than I understand to be standard and the back looks to me short for a standard bird.” G. W. Randall, Nebraska, breeder of Light Brahmas: “Regarding the drawings of Light Brahmas submitted, I think them nearer to what the ideal Light Brahma should be than anything I have ever before seen} and 1 consider them excellent, especially the male. I think that submitting these cuts for criticism is doing much good.” ’ H. M. Uttley, Nebraska, breeder of Light Brahmas: “I am so young in the business of breeding thoroughbred poul- try that Iam hardly competent to criticise a drawing by almost any one, but I have watched and studied Mr. Sewell’s work in your estimable journal with great pleasure and shall attempt to criticise in this matter (what little I do) with a good deal of reluctance. In treating the picture of the male, in my judgment it would be an improvement to the shape of the bird to draw a line from the curve of the back across in front of the hock, lowering that part of the breast in frout of the hock, that is, give the bird a little more depth through that part, and it looks to me on the picture as though it were too much pinched behind.” Jobn H. Rohrer & Sons, Pennsylvania, breeders of Light Brahmas: “The ear-lobes are too short, not being on a level with lower edge of watiles. Back is a trifle short, also not flat enough at shoulders. Fluff a bit too scant behinn, not having the broad appearance spoken of in standard. Shanks a trifle short. We would say tthe neck hackle is toe heavy, as it has been our experience that such heavy neck hackle in males produces many cockerels with black in back. With these few corrections we believe he would be about our ideal Light Brahma.” H. M. Dawson, Tennessee, breeder of Light Brahmas: “Comb, head and wattles too small for size of bird. Comb should be a little more prominent in front, more curved at the rear and evenly serrated. Neck is a little short. He leans too far forward; should be tilted, so as to stand a little higher in front and lower in the rear. The shanks should: be shorter.” W. P. Deam (Geam & Eby), Ohio, breeders of Light and Dark Brahmas: “The male’s head is too small, body too short for the height. Point of breast not prominent enough. Very good shape to arch of neck and back.” Cc. F, Foster, Kansas, breeder of Light Brahmas: “While I think Mr. Sewell has produced for you a very fine drawing in general and I would be satisfied should I produce a large per cent as good as this cut of the Light Brahma male, still, I notice some minor points I might change. Comb should reach a little farther back on head, beak lacks a little in stoutness, wattles not quite large enough, back should be a trifle longer, saddle is too concave. The bird would show a better, more rangy Brahma shape if shanks were a little longer.” T. Cadwallader, Missouri, breeder of Light Brahmas: “The Light Brahma drawings at hand. I regard this series as the best thing that has been done to get the fanciers and judges all on one side as to shape, and I believe that the Scores will be more uniform on these lines. While these drawings are good, I will offer my criticisms on the male . as follows: Wings are carried too low (look at the stand- ard). Tail looks well, but is not quite high enough in car- riage. Shanks are rather short, the feathers on the hocks come down too far, giving a Cochin appearance. The cut does not show enough feathers just below the hock. Fluff is not quite full enough. Wattles and ear-lobes are both rather too small.” D. J. Lambert, Rhode Island, judge and breeder: “Al- though my specialties are the American classes, I see where I should cut these outlines of Brahma shape. The head of male is too small compared to size of the bird. Comb should project farther back and conform to shape of skull. Middle serrations should be a trifle larger. Breast is not deep or full enough. Body is too short and needs more fluff. Upper sickles of tail should be more developed.” Airs. L. A. McMeekin & Sons, breeders of Light Brah- mas: “Wish I could breed ag good shaped birds. Still I think the male curves out too much in front of hackle. Head 1g not strong enough.” BRAHMA FEMALE SHAPE. Criticisms of Foremost Judges and Brahma Breeders on a Composite Ideal From Live Models, as Drawn by Franklane L. Sewell—A Collection of Opinions That Are in Themselves Authority on the Ideal Shape of a Standard-bred Female Brahma. From the Reliable Poultry Journal. T IS highly creditable for the judges and breeders of standard-bred fowls to submit their criticisms on these drawings. Their doing so proves that they take an active interest in whatever is for the good of Poultry Culture; proves that they are ready and willing to do their part in the work of developing and improving the thorough- bred poultry industry along right lines. It takes a degree of courage for these friends of better poultry to write down for publication their opinions, pro and con, of Mr. Sewell’s sketeles. Located, as they are, hundreds, and in some cases thousands of miles apart, they have no way of know- ing what the other judges and breeders are going to ap- prove er object to. Each one must depend on his or her own knowledge, on his or her own _ interpreta- tion of the standard. It is a good training for all. The standard has been carefully read and re-read on account of this series! The future is bright for Poultry Culture, for the thoroughbred poultry industry so long as the foremost men and women engaged in it will do such work as this. The R. P. J. greatiy appreciates the courage and good will of the judges and breeders. We know that the many read- ers of the Journal aiso feel under obligations to them, and to Mr. Sewell.—Ed. D. J, Lambert, Rhode Island, judge and breeder: ‘Head is too small; neck is not long enough; hackle should come down more on the shoulders. The back is too long; it wants a more concave sweep to the tail. The tail is uneven; the upper feathers should be longer so as to appear more pointed. The legs and toes would look better if longer.” J. Y. Bicknell, New York, judge and breeder: “Back and body are too short for the depth of the bird. Breast shows. too much fullness; unnatural and undesirable. Head looks as if a portion in front had been cut out to make room for the comb instead of having an oval sweep, and the comb placed above as it should be. A small comb is desirable, but this one is too small. Give the head the natural oval front, make the comb a little larger, place it above the skull instead of having it crowding the latter out of the way.” L. P. Harris, Nebraska, judge and breeder: ‘I have no criticism to make on female Brahma drawing sent to me.” D. A. Stoner, Indiana, judge and breeder: “In regard to Mr. Sewell’s Light Brahma female, I would say that in shape she is overdrawn, or she shows a bird so fat that she would be of no use as a breeder. The back is too straight; eushion is not full enough to rise to tail nicely; breast is too full; body hangs too low; fluff between legs also hangs too low; too much like an over-fat goose. Too much fat, too much fat!” D. T. Heimlich, Illinois, judge and breeder: ‘The draw- ing of female shows too much of a Cochin type of body. The back is straight, not concave enough. Breast is too deep and fluff too full. Jueg and toe feathering is too heavy for a Brahma. A line should be drawn from upper edge of hackle where it joins the back to tail to the depth of one-fourth of an inch, tapering. Cut the breast away one-fourth of an inch in front of the thighs to a point, to the lines in front where breast joins the neck. Cut away a full half inch of the fluff back of hocks, tapering to the vent. Between vent and lower tail feathers fill out more fully. This would then take away the Wyandotte character of tail and make the whole harmonize with the perfect makeup of the mate.” ¥F. J. Marshall, Georgia, judge and breeder: “The Light Brahma female is not nearly so good as the male drawing; too much Cochin entirely. Head is pretty good, except comb is set too far forward. I like the shape of throat, but the neck is a little short, not much, though, if the body were not so blocky looking. Back is too high and straight from base of hackle to tail. Tail is carried too low and it is a little too long at the middle of it. The breast is decidedly too full and carried too low, looks like a pouter pigeon. Body and fluff are too well feathered, especially about the thighs. Thighs and shanks are too short and look too much like they came right out of the body like a peg.” F. H. Shellabarger, Iowa, judge and breeder: “The fe- male is not as good as the male. The neck is short in length, the back too long and not sufficiently concave in front of the tail. The breast is overdrawn and too prom- inent at point of breast bone. Legs and toes would fit a Cochin better than a Brahma, as they are too short.” H. S. Babcock, Rhode Island, judge and breeder: ‘“‘The female shows more of the Cochin than the male. Back should be more concave--too straight now, which makes tail set on badly. Body too deep for its length. Thighs too much hidden by the fluff. Leg and toe feathering too profuse. A hen with such a general shape would be markedly cushioned. I do not like the type of Brahma hen shown in this illustra- tion.” John C. Snyder, Oklahoma, judge and breeder: ‘‘The female is too short in neck; crown is too high above eyes; back is.too low in saddle; tail is rather large; fluff is too low, which makes thighs too short. Altogether she is not so good as the male.” 8. L. Roberts, California, judge and breeder: ‘The head is good with exception of beak, which is too flat at nostril ' and curves at point too near the tip. Comb appears to be 14 good. Eyes, ear-lobes and wattles all right; expression, by reason of projection over eye, Brahmistic. Neck, not of ‘medium length’ as compared with size of body, and it some- ~what deteriorates from the arch. Back, not concave nor flat enough. Breast, deép enough, round enough and full enough, in all conscience. Body and fluff good. Wings, not square at shoulders by reason of a slight droop at butts. Tail all right. Legs and toes right. All considered it is as gocd in outline as one need to wish, the foregoing exceptions ibeing made.” Theo. Hewes, Indiana, judge and breeder: “The female is not so good as the male; it is too low on the ground; too much Cochin. Head and neck are set too far back, and wher you remedy this you get the back too long. The back is too straight and too long. Tail is pinched. There is too much fluff and too much leg and toe feathering. Breast is -entirely too prominent, due to the position in which she now carries her neck. We could add a little to the length of this meck, the same as in the male.” D. M. Owen, Tennessee, judge and breeder: ‘The neck ‘is too much arched. Breast and body are both too deep through up and down. I do not like the set of tail. The ‘main tail feathers set too horizontally. The tail should -continue the even concave shape of back. Legs are too -short, and legs and feet are too heavily feathered. General -appearance of the specimen is too blocky.” H. B. Savage, Texas, judge and breeder: ‘The head is xrather too small. Comb is set back loo far from front of beak; it needs just a trifle more curve to beak. Breast is too full and prominent; neck a trifle too short. Tail is a little too low, and back is too long. I should like a little ‘better concave sweep to it. Outer toe, like that of the cock, is toe short.” F. W. Hitchcock, Colorado, judge and breeder: ‘In the ‘female there is more to criticise, as it is too gross and heavy for a typical American Light Brahma female. It looks too much like an over-fat hen. There is not quite concave sweep enough to the back. The breast and body are-too -deep and the stern altogether too heavy. It is also too heavily feathered around the thighs. Head, neck and tail are all right.” W. 8S. Russell, Iowa, judge and breeder: “I can find but little to criticise. I would prefer to see the back flat at shoulders and then rising with a concave sweep to the tail. If the tail were raised just a trifle it would add to the appear- ance of the back. I consider the thighs too short.’ Cc. A. Emry, Missouri, judge and breeder: ‘Too much ‘Cochin in legs and fluff, otherwise it suits me.” George H. Northup, New York, judge and breeder: ‘“‘The tproof of the Brahma hen seems perfect, except that the tail is a little too long and the back is too flat near the tail. The back should have a more concave sweep.” F. B. Zimmer, New York, judge and breeder: ‘What I ‘said last month applies with equal force in this connection.” H. A. Bridge, Ohio, judge and breeder: “The comb ‘s too delicately drawn and not distinct enough in formation, especially outside serrations are not prominent enough. The back at junction of tail should be raised to relieve the broken sweep. The ends of main tail feathers should be of THE ASIATICS. a length to form a gentle convex sweep from the top main tail feather to the bottom covert as they are in cut, then bring out the coverts to a little less sweep, showing the main tail beyond the coverts in unbroken lines. “T did not intend to say anything about color, and will not, except to give my fancy regarding tail and coverts. The lacing on first row is a little broad—make it clear and distinct and sharply defined. Bring out the first row as sug- gested and add another row, but overlap them just a little more and have one less covert in second row than first. Now add still another row with one less than the second. These coverts should be overlapped enough to show plainly, and at the same time give feathers of back and side the same convex outline as they finish up on the tail as the breast bas, this will give the bird a slightly rounded-up finish at both ends with the snow-white feathers. The breast is too full and the wings are carried a little too low. Legs are a little short: thighs do not show quite enough. Body and fluff are too full and in connection with the legs make the bird a little Cochiny. “In connection with the above, I wish to say that with all my faultfinding I consider these among the very best Mr, Sewell has given us in all the varieties, and as regards their merits as typical Light Brahmas they are the best pair I have ever seen drawn, and had I placed an order with Mr. Sewell for cuts of Light Brahmas and received these I should have been very much pleased. My criticism of the drawings is not so much on the work of Mr. Sewell, but rather more to give my idea of the ideal. “Sickness prevented any remarks on former drawings, but I assure you I enjoyed them very much and I hope to be favored with invitations to participate in all future criti- cisms of ideal cuts, as this worthy enterprise of the Reliable merits the support of all true fanciers.”’ Charles McClave, Ohio, judge and breeder: ‘Symmetry is good. Shape of head is good, but it is a trifle too deep from eye back, giving back of head and upper neck a heavy appearance. Back is rather long when compared with that of the cock, and too low at base of tail. The breast is plenty full and in fact, Cochin full. Tail is a trifle too low. Shanks are too shert, Cochin. type. Feathering is pretty heavy for a Brahma. General outlines are a little after the Cochin type with the exception of the tail, The Brahma and Cochin shapes seem to be drifting nearer together in females.” 0. B. Skinner, Kansas, breeder of Light Brahmas: “Re- ferring to the proof sheet of Light Brahma female I would not suggest any great changes in the bird. I would want a little larger head with broader skull and more throat wattle and ear-lobes a little more prominent. Would want quite a little longer shanks. Shape of breast, back and tail is good.” W. P. Deam (Deam & Eby), Ohio, breeders of Light and Dark Brahmas: ‘The female’s head is too small, it has not enough expression above the eyes. The neck is too short and too large at base. The body is too low between the legs. Point of breast is not prominent enough. The tail is too long: for size of bird. The cut looks too round, it does not show points that should be prominent.” C. F. Foster, Kansas, breeder of Light Brahmas: “The female is so near my ideal that I pass her, only saying that she has a too sluggish and listless expression. In my opin- ion the Reliable is to be complimented on this good work in the interest of the poultry fraternity.” THE ASIATICS. T. Cadwallader, Ohio, breeder of Light Brahmas: “While the drawing is good, I would offer the fo!lowing -criticisms: Ear-lobes are rather too small; wings are car- ried just a little too low; the back is too straight, it should ‘have a more concave sweep to tail; the neck is a little too ~short; the legs and toes are too short, giving the bird too much of a Cochin appearance; tail is too large.” T. N. Smiley & Son, Indiana, breeders of Light Brah- mas: “We think the female is a little long in back, and ‘perhaps a little full in breast, otherwise it is excellent.” W, A. Irvin, Nebraska, breeder of Light Brahmas: “I -am pleased to accept as ‘typical the shape and o.utiines of the Brahma female, as drawn by Mr. Sewell.” Sid Conger, Indiana, breeder of Light Brahmas: ‘The ‘hen is coarse, too deep and coarse for her length. She is too small up and down in front of her tail; head and neck too small and thrown back too far. Taken all in all, the ‘hen is not good and will not do at all for an ideal.” G. W. Randall, Nebraska, breeder of Light Brahmas: “The female seems to me to be a little full in the tail. Iam glad to see less tendency to stimulate breeding toward the -Cochin shape than has been shown in some previous cuts. “To put the Cochin shape and feathering onto the Brahma -would destroy its chief beauty—its grand, majestic appear- ance.” 7 H. M. Uttley, Nebraska, breeder of Light Brahmas: “I have no suggestions to offer in regard to the female Brahma -shape. Older breeders and judges may, but I should say “that a bird which fitted the picture in every respect would ‘be almost entitled to a score of 100.” Alfred Dyole, Illinois, breeder of Light Brahmas: “Head is faulty; eye should be a little higher up and a little farther back; mouth is too long; wattles should be placed -@ little farther forward; ear-lobes should be directly under the ear. Neck is too thick back of the head. Some of the ‘lower hackle feathers are entirely too large. Back is en- tirely too straight and a little too short and not rounding -enough. Breast is too full and should be cut away a little from top to bottom. The lower edge of fluff should be cut -away a little; wing is not quite long enough; tail looks to be “too narrow; middie feathers should not be longer than the “upper ones, and the upper tail coverts are entirely too large, Hock and leg feathers are entirely too heavy—they would “look well cnough on a full feathered Cochin, but are out of ~place on the American type of Brahma. Take her make-up call through and I consider it too blocky.” Mrs. B. G. Mackey, Missouri, breeder of Light Brah- “mas: “It appears to me the female is a little too flat at “pase of tail and the tail is carried rather low. Otherwise “I see no fault in the shape.” Miss Hattie Winship, Illinois, breeder of Light Brah- “mas: “The female is better than the male, still 1 should -prefer her more blocky and more heavily feathered with a ~ "back broader and not so slanting, such as you find in front- ‘ispiece of March, 1896, R. P. J.” James George, Kansas, breeder of Light Brahmas: “The meck of the female is a little full at base. The back is al- 15 most too straight; it should be a little more concave. The tail might he elevated a little.” N. E. Woods, Indiana, breeder of Light Brahmas: “The beautiful representation of a perfect type of Brahma female is almost faultless, as I look at it, except I would suggest that the back from cape to root of tail is too straight, the legs are too short and there is too much feathering to rep- resent activity and usefulness.” F. F. Congdon, Wisconsin, breeder of Light Brahmas: “I think this etching shows a bird a little too high for the length, and, as in the male shape, the head is a little small. T like to see Brahmas with a head that looks as though it were full of knowledge. I want the crown to project well over the eyes. Would like ‘a thousand of ’em,’ however, as good as the etching.” W. W. Kulp, Pennsylvania, breeder of Light Brahmas: “T do not Jike the shape of the female. The breast is too much of a circle; they do not grow that way. The standard ‘roundness’ is more around horizontally than up and down. The breast line is straighter; should not be one continuous curve. There is too much tail. I would be satisfied with less. It extends down one-third too far and is too long at the end. Fluff is too full also for a Brahma.” —« E. G. Hayward, Illinois, breeder of Light Brahmas: “I think the shape of Brahma female is all right.” H. N. Rollins, Massachusetts, breeder of Light Brah- mas: ‘The cut of Brahma female suits me very well, but { should prefer to see the back more concave.” William Chamings, Illinois, breeder of Light. Brahmas: “The Light Brahma female cut I consider extra good (much better than the male) and I suggest but two changes: Back at base of hackle should be flatter, and the ‘two upper tail coverts extend back too far over main tail feathers.” N. Porter Brown, Massachusetts, breeder of Light Brah- mas: “The proof of the Light Brahma female I consider perfect. She fulfils my ideal to a dot.” W. S. Campbell, Illinois, breeder of Light Brahmas: “The tail of the female looks too long and has a pinched appearance just in front of the coverts. The comb is smaller than I like. The hackle is a little fuller than we find in nature’s productions. Breast is a little too full.” Simon Lynch, Indiana, breeder of Light Brahmas: “This cut is excellent, but I would want the back with a shade more concave sweep. Hackle is too coarse. Fluff extends too much on hock joint. I want a white color.” Mrs. T. W. Ragsdale, Missouri, breeder of Light Brah- mas: “I can see no fault in the female Brahma unless the neck is rather short for such an immense body. She is all I could wish for. I only wish I could: raise such as this engraving represents.” T. R. McDonald, Kentucky, breeder of Light Brahmas: “IT have very little fauit to find with the cut of Brahma female. The tail might be raised a little, it gives the back the appearance of being a little too long.” ~