HERA Eden wierTs eel se eo oe SPIES ASP eee ten ec hce Se LS ares y MMR lh Cla ater n RAR Malet A Cetatetes maven Sia Ayia abe babs 949800497 84 TS VAL ead envoy (rps eran ty Mr Deca Aiea MRC AL IATAL AA Waban bsahes rir bonit ote vib Henny peers Fain Solin ie hese rattan nv) pea en bey BREAN A Hs rae tae ae faheiasstehietaetnte a need reer ees Vibert cioiist Ver) PN erica Pp White ays ae TARVER EAL PU VIERA EYE OT EP cL YivE Aetna, to HIKE Ae aA oy yal eoor Raat ss bede ahead sfeaahe i ppb ‘ letters bebe Os bokeh eri elon ds Te haa sip let eri airs i aie ISIAH Heathen ie ea S9 pn begining eared Acid Beat ka wh GER DOIa non araeavesrenbae phuZr eitseteiebeieensteie ntsteGNg ce tabe bet fie SANs a See IIE incl odie pees Moh SSBC EN ) Cia eny taly asyhahe nahh ihe teh bee a) BU aSree cheney i ou } bata etetsh conte sts haie ony Ag hale 6 Se pe said alle el ficihe Feet hehe Ue) sels Bee ERG Mir re ae ete pe ial stan etn Oe at ented? RSD a te ates Nita Rese} RS le teeter! es RawenaeneuaearEaey fate eawegescee wanton paper eh ree eengnssbemnp protease ere ea ee ee wien croc valepasnienps epaqupoaree nen te nees _ wey ae Wine ceca iege me nye RS INR E “eee wal Loner Pantene Sysop beds remcaaana nage NAS SADT NEN UIAaaE SowTaoaIe Tightanannetanonesgaraguyein wesc pyre fe leon ea Sie area a range atakaents Rank peter cee pee pare SAaHNDRIY Wav vuacy peor in mae pauNON felpe ys waeijeee Payton yeyeye im ave yepereymeine ere ene mee OU ShO SERENE SSeS ae ea Roe Brroreenss nat Srieepabea any, Tesbasnangetyaa vee g ty setecbens aes seitatoiverreeneiinwrees peace reonaeas ee se apapewaeiare vy vege oe iin yamibe wie omivw re ts eee elniidintptinnatineete steteit aS Libis jeean ion nae ANFtppewN ge Hodes aehvas aaa CNB T ANG UP SRN Geae sy Os ee Hing erie Hie EMO NTA aH HGH NTO ADENINE PN, yen aa MON ap eaten Meese Dole) Lassa Spurn gs aagaweay Fai auanitentarueteagse iene Rann tertaaces Sepietae riepertereptetecotenctstr eas = Bias “sr PiyS ne sant a ye babe pe ynljmieenpe pede Pee peshighe ater ongeine et oka natant ecataene asa ee peieamatg teat sored neg : ie : Seahetartesteagetrseeceremter ta isiardiene Tait wat yy NEIRGA ABABA 1) 5 NHN NBAAEDEOMGADH AAMT bat hese peaeDSW BIWPORDAIpAepAnTD boa mete a col Ralls SCaSAMnaMORSRAETRS NSE TAN Perera wee eseeaeegeuns SEAN AS Ere ae ne Trae Bae BN rena ER EA sain ARMA PEDRTDUNI ES MNRARORRERERESE AER CU CERES Re el RECT IO ee ra 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/cu319240738705/72 CORNELL UNIVERSITY LIBRARY Production Note Comell University Library produced this volume to replace the irreparably deteriorated original. It was scanned at 600 dots per inch resolution and compressed prior to storage using CCITT/ITU Group 4 compression. The digital data were used to create Cornell's replacement volume on paper that meets the ANSI Standard Z39.48-1992. The production of this volume was supported by the United States Department of Education, Higher Education Act, Title II-C. Scanned as part of the A. R. Mann Library project to preserve and enhance access to the Core Historical Literature of the Agricultural Sciences. Titles included in this collection are listed in the volumes published by the Cornell University Press in the series The Literature of the Agricultural Sciences, 1991-1995, Wallace C. Olsen, series editor. THE DOG BOOK 0061-L6gt wiosy sgUULM JUSUTUIOIG ¥ 49g194Y IS hQ 0104 III ‘Gd AINA NOIUNVHO ‘YALLUS HSITONA S,NACUOE “A Haasof ‘uN THE DOG BOOK A Popular History of the Dog, with Practical Information as to Care and Management of House, Kennel, and Exhibition Dogs; and Descriptions of All the Important Breeds. BY JAMES WATSON Illustrated from Photographs, Paintings, and Rare Engravings NEW YORK Doubleday, Page & Company 1909 vi CONTENTS—Continued CHAPTER V—PAGE 69 Buyinc a Doc: The Value of Pedigree—Knowledge of Earlier Generations Needed—Start on Equal Footing with Successful Breeders—Pur- chasing a Show Dog—Good Dogs Costly—Selecting a Puppy—A Good Word for Dog Dealers. CHAPTER VI—PAGE 81 Earty SpANIELS AND SETTERS: The Spaniel—The Setting Spaniel—The Individual Fields of the Setter and the Pointer—The Three Breeds of Setters: English, Irish, and Gordon. CHAPTER VII—PAGE 105 Tue Enciisu Setrer: Naworth Castle or Featherstone Castle Setters— Edmond Castle Setters—Lord Lovat’s Breed—The Southesk— Strains of the Earl of Seafield—Breed of the Earl of Derby and Lord Ossulston—Lord Ossulston’s Black Setters—Breeds of Lord Hume, Wilson Patten, and Henry Rothwell—Mr Lort’s Setters—The Welsh or Llanidloes Setter—The Laveracks and Their Breeding—Stonehenge on the Laveracks and Llewellyns— Early Importations of Laveracks—Pride of the Border’s Progeny —The Era of Mr. Windholz and the Blackstone Kennels— The Dark Days of the “Tennessee Setters’-—Return to the Correct Type—Pedigree in Field Trial Dogs—Doctor Rowe on the Llewellyns—Points of a Good Setter. CHAPTER VIII—PAGE 147 TRAINING OF A FIELD Doc. CHAPTER IX—PAGE 159 Tue Iris Setrer: The History of the Irish Setter—Its Existence Before the Nineteenth Century—Mr. Laverack on the Qualities of the Irish Setter—Stonehenge’s Excellent Description—Controversy of 1866 on the Colour of Old Varieties—The La Touche Setters— Dr. Jarvis on the Field-trials Successes of the Breed in England and America—Views of Dr. Davis and Mr. B. L. Clements— Elcho and his Descendants—Past and Present Conditions of the Breed in America. CONTENTS —Continued vii CHAPTER X—PAGE 195 Tue Gorpon Setter: Correct Facts Regarding the Sale of the Gordon Castle Setters in 1836—Colour and Early History—The Collie Cross—Improbability of the Gordon Setter’s Irish Origin—The Duke’s Intimate Connection with English Sportsmen—Attempt to Change the Type in America—Present Condition of the Breed in America—Points. CHAPTER XI—PAGE 217 Tue CLuMBER SpaNIEL: How and When the Breed Reached Clumber— First Known as the Duke of Newcastle’s or Mansell’s Spaniels— Colonel Hamilton’s Reference to the Breed—Record of the Variety Under its Modern Name-—The Clumber in America—Points. CHAPTER XII—PAGE 229 Tue Sussex SPANIEL: The Passing of the Sussex—The Rosehill Strain— The Sussex in America—Points—--Descriptive Particulars. CHAPTER XIII—PAGE 233 Tue Frecp Spaniet: A Modern Type of Dog—Mr. Jacobs’s Newton Abbot Kennel and his Successful Breeding—The Sussex Introduced in the Old Black Strains—Mixed Cocker and Field Spaniel Lines in England and America—Show History of the Breed. CHAPTER XIV—PAGE 247 Tue Cocker SPANIEL: The Name not Originally Indicative of Size—Divis- ion and Colours of the Spaniels a Century ago—Mixed Types of Cockers Before the Introduction of the Obo Strain—Wonderful Success of Obo II. as a Sire and his Transformation of the Variety— Mr. Willey’ s Enterprise and Successes—The Canadians One Time Led in the Production of the Best Cockers—Black Duke’s Intro- duction and his Career—The Swiss Mountain Kennels’ Many Good Dogs—Change in the Standard and the Steady Decrease in Size—Mr. W. T. Payne’s Good Work for the Parti-colours—The Mepal and Brookdale Kennels and Their Present Competitors. CHAPTER XV—PAGE 265 Tue Norroik Spaniet: An Excellent All-round Worker on Land or in Water—Origin of the Name—No Connection with the Duke of Norfolk, whose Spaniels were Toy Black and Tans. viii CONTENTS—Continued CHAPTER XVI—PAGE 271 THe WELsH SPANIEL OR SPRINGER: Not Entitled to be Considered as Specially Restricted to Wales—The Old Type of Leggy Spaniel Common Throughout England. CHAPTER XVII—PAGE 273 IrtsH WaTER SpaniEL: A Striking Dog Devoid of Ancient History—The First Description Found in a Scotch Book —Mr. Justin McCarthy’s Development of the Variety—Its Introduction into America and Early Popularity—Reasons for its Decline—Present Conditions of the Breed as a Show Dog. CHAPTER XVIII—PAGE 281 Tue Pointer: The Probable Origin Traced to a Dog of the Tracking Hound Type—Its Sudden Development Throughout Europe and in England Inconsistent with any Claim of Spanish Origin— Shooting Flying Called for the Use of the Hound Dog that Already Stood and Showed Where the Game was and it Became the English “Pointer”—Gay’s Poetic Reference tothe Pointer in 1711—Major Topham on the Ancient Use of the Pointer to Find the Hare for Coursing—The Russian Pointer or Setter—Colonel Thornton’s Use of the Foxhound Cross and His Remarkable Dogs—Black Pointers and Dwarf Varieties—The Pig Pointer Slut—Breeding Throughout England Preceding the Show Period—Remarkable Prepotency of Price’s Bang in Producing Show and Field Dogs and Forming the Pointer of To-day—History of the Breed in America—Westminster Kennel Club’s Early importations—The Graphic Kennels Era—The Phenomenal Beaufort—Peculiar Judging Methods before the A. K. C. was Started—Success of the Westlake and Mott Kennels—The Pointer in the Field and its Recognition Enforced by the Dexter-McCurdo Combination and the Dogs They Produced. CHAPTER XIX—PAGE 3I9 Tue RETRIEVER: A Dog More Adapted to English than American Shoot- ing Methods—Probable Relationship to the Chesapeake Bay Dog, through the Labrador—Descriptions and Points of the Curly and Wavy Coated. CONTENTS—Continued ix CHAPTER XX—PAGE 325 THe CuesaPpeEAKE Bay Doc: A Breed of American Development—Tra- ditions Regarding its Origin’ Point to the Labrador Dog—The Standard Badly Framed—Mr. Pearson’s Opinions—Descriptions and Scale of Points. CHAPTER XXI—-PAGE 333 Tue Datmatian: Ticked Dogs Known in Egypt in Ancient Times—Early Descriptions and Pictures of English Dogs Called for Marks now Declared Incorrect—A Descendant of the Hound Family—Re- quirements in Judging the Dalmatian. CHAPTER XXII—PAGE 343 Roucu-coatep Corie: A Distinct Type of Dog of Unknown Origin— Illustrations Dating from 1800 Show Same Characteristics—T he Name of Gaelic Origin—Introduction of the Collie into England with Birmingham as Headquarters—Mr. Charles H. Wheeler’s Description of Historical Dogs—The Show-bred Collie as a Worker —History of the Collie in America—Fclipse and Rutland Impor- tations—Success of the Chestnut Hills Kennel Followed by Mr. Morgan’s Winnings—Prof. Bohannan’s Table of Collie Sires— The Western Breeders’ Rivalry and its Good Results. CHAPTER XXIII—PAGE 369 Tue SmootH SHEEP Doc: A Distinct Dog from the Collie in its Origin— The Common Farm Dog or Mastiff Called the Cur, a Name of Good Repute in Olden Days—‘“‘Cur”’ not Derived from the Shortened Tail and not an Abbreviation of Curtail—A Breed whose Claim for Quality is not Properly Recognised—Well Adapted for Work in This Country. CHAPTER XXIV—PAGE 379 Tue Bos-tattep Sueep Doc: Claims as to this Breed Being an Old One not Warranted—Erroneously Supposed to Have Been the Shep- herds’ Dog, which was Smooth—Probability of its Originating from Importations of Rough-coated Russian Setters—The Furure of a Few Years Ago Led to Many Importations.—The Mistake of Favouring Large Dogs who Tire Readily. x CONTENTS—Continued CHAPTER XXV—PAGE 387 Tue Butipoc: One of the Outcomes of the Common Dog of England, Which Went by the Name of Mastiff—Akin to the Alaunt of Spain Which Assisted at Bullfights—Mr. Arthur Merritt’s Recollection of an English Bull Baiting—The Bulldog of 1800— Bill George at Canine Castle—Bulldogs of 1855-60—Turton’s Crib and the New Type Dating from the Appearance of His Son, Monarch—Early Bulldogs at New York Shows—Mr. John E. Thayer’s Importations—Later Supporters of the Breed —Good Work of the Bulldog Club—Mr. Joseph B. Vander- grift’s Short but Brilliant Career—The Chibiados Incident— Difficulties Attending Breeding—Condensed Standard and Scale of Points. CHAPTER XXVI—PAGE 401 Tue Terrier: An English Production, the Result of Selection for Specific Purposes—Ranked with Hounds by Caius—Description, When Translated, of French Bassets Doing Duty for English Terriers from 1560 to 1800—Blome’s Suggestion for Breeding Terriers—Taplin Divides the Varieties by Colour and Coat— Barlow’s Illustration of Rabbiting—Varieties Depicted from 1790 to 1850—A Very Early Use of “Terrier” by a French Writer—Sporting versus Non-sporting Breeds. CHAPTER XXVII—PAGE 415 Tue SmootH Fox TERRIER: The White Dog Began with Colonel Thorn- ton’s Pitch—“‘ Peeping Tom’s” Reminiscences Regarding Early Show Dogs—The First Class of Fox Terriers Shown in England , in 1862—Copy of the Catalogue Entry—English Exhibitors at Boston in 1878—Mr. Rutherford’s Early Connection with the Breed—Mr. Thayer’s Liberal Importations Followed by Mr. Belmont’s—Description of the Then Prominent Dogs—Large Entries of Good Dogs Made Twenty Years Ago Compared with the Present Time—Mr. Gooderham Takes the Field and Entries Decline—Mr. Farwell’s Strong Sabine Combination— The Warren Kennels’ Success with American-bred Dogs— Standard and Scale of Points. CHAPTER XXVIII—PAGE 435 THe WIRE-HAIRED Fox Terrier: An Older Breed Than the Smooth Terrier—Prominent as a Leading Variety in Paintings by Well- known Artists—Kept Back by the Popularity of the Smooth CONTENTS—Continued xi Dog—First Recognised at New York Show in 1883, but Made Slow Progress—What Meersbrook Bristles Did for the Breed —-Major Carnochan’s Prominent Importations—The Success of Hands Up—Mr. Knowle’s Selwonk, and Mr. Harley’s Wan- dee, Kennels. CHAPTER XXIX—PAGE 441 Tuer AIREDALE: Origin of the Breed—Not Generally Known in England Till 1880—Hardly . Recognised in America until 1898--Ex- hibitors Who Established the Breed and Their Judicious Impor- tations—Rapid Growth in Popular Esteem and in Breeding — The Airedale Described—Scale of Points. CHAPTER XXX—PAGE 449 THe Burt Terrter: Recognised by Name in England About 1820— Pierce Egan’s Introduction of the New Breed—Sir Walter Scott’s Tribute to Camp—Mr. Dole’s Start in the Breed —Those Who Came to His Support—The Present Prominent Exhibitors —The True Bull Terriers Described—Scale of Points. CHAPTER XXXI—PAGE 457 Brack AND Tan Terrter: Early Description of Its Exclusive Character- istics—-The Large or Manchester Variety—First American and Canadian Importations--Mr. Lever the First Systematic Sup- porter of the Breed—Dr. Foote’s Long Connection with the Rochelle Dogs—Now an Almost Exclusively Canadian Dog. CHAPTER XXXU--PAGE 465 Beoutncron Terrier: A Close Relative of the Dandie Dinmont—Never Popular in’ America: -Their Reputation for Gameness—A Breed of Extended Pedigrees. CHAPTER XXXITLE--PAGE 469 leish “Perrter: Probable Connection with the Wolfhound—Thirty Years Ago They Were a Mixed Lot—The Old-time Dogs of Mr. Jamison—Frin, and Graham’s Famed Winners—The ““Taneous” Head and the Whiskers Craze—Fooling the Moneyed Americans-—Faking and “Trimming Discussed—Milton Dro- leen, the “American Erin’--Mr. Pim’s Recollections of Dogs up to 1891—Changes in l'ype—The Tendency to Increase in Weight—Present-day Sires in England—The Breed in America xii CONTENTS—Continued and the Early Exhibits—The Roll of Merit in Later Years— Debut of Masterpiece—Mr. Brooks and Mr. Martin Lead as American Breeders—Mr. Adams’ Meteoric Connection—The Standard Discussed. CHAPTER XXXILV—PAGE 495 Dannie Dinmont Terrier: A Breed We Owe to Sir Walter Scott— James Davidson’s Connection with the Variety—Poor Support from Exhibitors in America. CHAPTER XXXV—PAGE 501 Sxye Terriers: Probably the Oldest Variety of Terrier—Referred to by Oppian at the Agasseus—Early Show Dogs Mainly Drop- eared—“ American Skyes” Usually Poor Yorkshires—A Dog not Well-suited for a Hot-weather Country. CHAPTER XXXVI—PAGE 507 ScotrisH Terrier: Not the Scotch Terrier of the Dog Books Before 1880 —First Known as a Variety of Skye Terrier and Claimed to be the Genuine Type—Stonehenge’s Curt Opinion of the New Terrier—The Aberdeen Terrier and the Fight for a Name— Ups and Downs in America Till Dr. Ewing Started the Scottish Terrier Club—Mr. Naylor the Pioneer—Success of the Wankie Kennels—Present Lead of the Craigdarroch Kennels. CHAPTER XXXVII—PAGE 515 Wetsu Terrier: The Old English Rough Terrier Under a New Name —Mr. Prescott Lawrence Imports the First Pair in 1888—Very Poor Support Till 1901 When a Club Was Organised and the Breed was Started Properly—What the Welshman Looks Like. CHAPTER XXXVILI—PAGE 521 Boston TERRIER: An American-made Breed and How It Was Started — First Known as the Round-headed Bull and Terrier—How the Name Was Changed to Boston Terrier — Rose Ears and Straight Tail Correct in 1894; Cropped Ears and Screw Tail the Proper, Thing in 1895—Bulldog versus Terrier Type—The Screw or Broken Tail a Deformity—Weight is Now the Promi- nent Question—Mr. H. Tatnall Brown on the Four Prominent Sires—A Standard for Present-day Type. CONTENTS—Continued xiii CHAPTER XXXIX—PAGE 535 Tue Great Dane: Buffon’s Description—The True Descendant of the Molossian Dog and the Alaunts—lIllustrations from 1450 to 1750—Height of the Early Danes, and Opinions of Gustav Lang and Rawdon B. Lee—Francis Butler and Prince Shown to Queen Victoria—Germans Introduce the Breed in America —Prominent Show Dogs from 1880 to Date—The Leading Large Dog of the Country—Desirable Points of Conformation— Descriptive Particulars. CHAPTER XL—PAGE 549 Tue MastirF: Meaning and Origin of the Name—French Mastiffs not Connected Except by Name and Its Application—Van Dyck’s Large Dogs not Mastiffs—Caius’s Description and Grouping of Mastiffs—Bewick’s Mastiff and Its Copies—The Baiting and Fighting Mastiffs by Howitt—Landseer’s Alpine Mastiff—Buffon’s Dogue de Fort Race—All Mastiff Pedigrees ‘Trace Back to Danes, Alpine and Thibet Mastiffs, and a Few Unknown of the Howitt Type—Pedigree of Wallace’s Turk and What It Leads Back to —The Lynne Hall Mastiff--Luckey’s Start, a Thibet Mastiff— The Thompson Line Equally Vague —Crown Prince and His De- scendants—The Breed in America, Its Popularity Twenty Years Ago and Present Low Status—Standard and Scale of Points. CHAPTER XLI—PAGE 573 . BERNARD: What the Dog’s Real Duties Are in the Alpine Passes. —A Much Mixed Race at the Hospice—Improvement First Due to Swiss Breeders and Then to English Cultivation—The Leasome Castle Mastiff or St. Bernard—Landseer’s Dogs of St. Gothard—Queen Victoria’s St. Bernards—The Breed in England—General Lafayette’s Present of Dogs to J. F. Skinner—The High-water Mark of the Sir Bedivere Period— Present Status of the Breed—Standard and Scale of Points. CHAPTER XLII—PAGE 589 Tut NewrounDianp: A Modern English Development from a Mixed Lot of Common Dogs of Various Colours, Coats and Sizes. CHAPTER XLIII—PAGE 593 Tue Hounp Famity: Lieut-.Col. Hamilton Smith’s Researches—Old Egyp- tian and Assyrian Representations—Hunting Hounds in Couples xiv CONTENTS—Continued —Buffon and the French Matin—The Origin of the Name of Greyhound—Harrier a General Term for Scenting Hounds— Brach and Its Synonyms—The Beagle not the Gazehound— Bloodhounds and Limers—The St. Huberts and Their Probable Connection with the Bassets. CHAPTER XLIV—PAGE 603 Tue Scorcn DeErHounD: Taylor’s Description of Red Deer Hunting in the Highlands—The Glengarry Crosses—Size not a Requisite in the Deerhound—Colonel Thayer’s Chieftain and Wanda— The Modern Deerhound. CHAPTER XLV—-PAGE 609 Tue Ir1isH WotFHounp: Early Illustrations Lean to a Smooth Dog of Great Dane Type—The Earl of Arundel’s Hound Painted by Rubens—Similants to the Mastin Type Painted by Snyders— Exaggerations Regarding Size—Richardson’s Estimate Exploded —The Building Up of the Present Breed and the Adopted Standard. CHAPTER XLVI—PAGE 617 Tue GreyHounpD: A Product of Breeding with a Definite Object—The Breed Name a Very General English Term for Racing Dogs of Various Countries—The Small Continental Greyhounds— Greyhounds—Greyhounds in Queen Elizabeth’s Time—Cours- ing Before the Adoption of the Duke of Norfolk’s Rules—Lord Orford the Promoter of Modern Coursing—Sir Walter Scott’s Love of the Sport—The Greyhound in America—Standard and Scale of Points. CHAPTER XLVII—PAGE 627 Tue Wuipret: A Product of the Sporting Tendencies of Yorkshire and Lancashire Workmen—Teaching the Whippet to Race— System of Handicapping—Efforts to Advance Whippet Racing. CHAPTER XLVIII—PAGE 629 . Tue Russtan WotrHounp: A Breed Illustrated as a Russian Holind About 1750—Closely Allied to the Persian and Turkish Grey- hound—Origin of Our Title of Russian Wolfhound — Russian Method of Hunting the Wolf—Descriptive Particulars and Scale of Points. CONTENTS— Continued > xv CHAPTER XLIX—PAGE 635 Tue BLoopHounp: The Present Type a Comparatively Modern Dog— African and Cuban Bloodhounds—American Descendants from Early Importations of the Lords Baltimore Time—Difficulty in Rearing Bloodhounds—Connection of Mr. Winchell, Dr. Lougest and Dr. Knox with the Breed—The Club Standard. CHAPTER L—PAGE 641 Tue Foxnounp: An Offshoot from the General Hunting Hound or Harrier—Mr. Meynell the Originator of the Fast Pace Fox Hunting—English Foxhound Packs of Note Date from Squire Osbaldeston and the Quorn Hunt in 1817—Breeding for Uni- formity in the Packs the Governing Rule in England, While Here the Individual Hound Is Promoted Irrespective of Type or Conformation—The American Foxhound Club Standard. CHAPTER LI—PAGE 647 Tue Harrier: The Name not Originally Connected with Hare Hunting —The Ordinary Scenting Hound Now Practically Extinct. CHAPTER LII—PAGE 649 Tue Beacte: Origin of the Name—The Gaelic Word for Small Was Its Probable Progenitor—Other Obsolete English Words—Queen Elizabeth’s Singing Beagles—Oppian’s Misquoted Reference to the Scotch Terrier —Strada and Castiglioni Illustrations — George III. and George IV. Patrons of Beagle Hunting —Col. Thornton’s Lap Beagles—The Breed in America—Rowett and Blue Cap Strains—The Bench-legged Dogs—Mr. Kernochan’s Importations —The Windholm and Rockefeller Packs—American Standard. CHAPTER LIII—PAGE 659 Tue Basset: Probably the Direct Descendant of the St. Hubert Limer or Bloodhound—Col. Thornton’s French Bloodhound—lIntroduced ‘ into England in 1875 as a Show Dog. CHAPTER LIV—PAGE 661 Tue DacusHunp: Now a _ Distinctively German Dog—The English ' Misinterpretation of “Hund” Leads to Their Breeding a Dog of Incorrect Type—Importations to America and Their Cross on the Delaware Beagles—The Deformed Forelegs an Essential to Correct Type—The German Standard for the Breed. xvi CONTENTS— Continued CHAPTER LV—PAGE 667 Tue Poopte: A Branch of the Spaniel Family—Trimming of All Poodles an Early Custom—The Russian Corded and the Caniche— Mr. Hunnewell’s and Mr. Trevor’s Connection with the Breed— - The Red Brook Kennels Era—Standard and Scale of Points. CHAPTER LVI—PAGE 671 Tue Cuow: Described in Rural Sports in 1801—Long Known but Only Lately Accorded Separate Dog Show Classification—Mrs. Jarrett Introduces It to the Atlantic Coast Shows—The Smooth not Fully Recognised as a Distinct Variety—Straightness of Hind Legs a Breed Peculiarity. CHAPTER LVII—PAGE 675 Tue ItTatian GreyHounD: Early Illustrations Show Its Popularity in the Sixteenth Century—Essential Individual Points of the Breed —Taint of the Terrier Cross. CHAPTER LVIII—PAGE 679 Tue PomMerRANIAN: The Large Dog First Given the Name—A Pure White Colour Then Most Valued—The Modern Toy Pomer- anian or Spitz—A Fancy of Queen Victoria—Rapid Growth of Popularity in England—The Breed in America. CHAPTER LIX—PAGE 685 Tue ScuipperKE: A Common Belgium Spitz Renamed for Foreign Exploitation—The Question of the Tail—Three Belgian Varieties, but the Antwerp Type Prevails—Fairly Popular in England but not in This Country. ° CHAPTER LX—PAGE 691 Tue Mattese Doc: No Affinity with the Terrier Family—The Shock- dog of a Century Ago, Also Called Bichon, Bouffe, and Maltese —Caius Named It the Comforter in Error—Lady Gifford’s Famous Show Dogs. CHAPTER LXI—PAGE 695 Tue Puc: An Introduction from China into Europe—Mr. Mayhew’s Early Recollections of English Pugs and Lamb and Moss from Pekin—Lord Willoughby Bred from Pugs from Russia—The Morrison Strain—The Pug’s Great Popularity in America—Dr. \ CONTENTS—Continued xvii Cryer’s Prominence as a Breeder and Exhibitor—Fashion Leaves the Pug for More Modern Toys—The Black Pug the Popular Variety in England—Standard and Scale of Points. CHAPTER LXII—PAGE 707 Tue Frencu Butuipoc: Properly the Boule-dogue Francaise and not a Bulldog—Unwarranted Changes in the French Text of the Standard—Its Great Popularity in America—The French Standard. CHAPTER LXIII—PAGE 711 THE YORKSHIRE TERRIER: A Development of the Yorkshire Mill Hands from the Common Rough Haired Terrier—Huddersfield Ben the Maker of the Breed—Visiting a Yorkshire Breeder-—How the Dogs Are Kept—Length of Coat versus Colour—Descrip- tion and Scale of Points. CHAPTER LXIV—PAGE 717 Tue Grirron Bruxettois: A Mixed Breed Evidently Closely Related to the Smoushond of Holland, a Dog Resembling the Old Scotch Terrier—Introduced to England in 1895 and to America a Few Years Ago—Descriptive Particulars. CHAPTER LXV—PAGE 719 Tue Kino Cuarves SpanieL: The Black and Tan Dog not Traced to King Charles—The Duke of Norfolk a Breeder of Small Black and Tans—Buffon’s Description of English Toys or Gredins, the Pyrame Being the “Fire Marked” or Black and Tan Variety —The Short Faced Dog a Production of the London “Fancy”’ —King Charles” a General Name for All but the Blenheims— Tricolour or Prince Charles and Ruby Varieties. CHAPTER LXVI—PAGE 729 THe BLenHeEIM SpaNniEL: Originally Known as the Marlborough and / Used as a Covert Shooting Spaniel—Idstone’s Description of the Blenheims Bred on the Duke’s Estate About 1840—The Effect of the London Fancy for Short Faces in Spaniels Alters the Blenheim as It Did the King Charles—The Pooular Variety of the English Spaniels in America. xviii CONTENTS—Continued CHAPTER LXVII—PAGE 733 THE JAPANESE SPANIEL: Commodore Perry’s Description of the Toy Spaniels of Japan—Presents to President Buchanan—Mr. Speiden’s Recollections of Dogs Presented to Members of Com- modore Perry’s Expedition—Mr. Belmont’s Description of the Pair Sent by the Commodore to His Daughter, Mrs. August Belmont—The Breed a Favourite in America—Description and Scale of Points. CHAPTER LXVIII—PAGE 739 Tue Pexinese Doc: Ancient Carvings of Dogs and Decorated Plates in the Metropolitan Museum of Fine Arts—Sleeve Dogs and Smooth “Pugs” Taken to England from the Pekin Loot of 1860—The Goodwood Strain—Mrs. Guyer’s Importations and the Breed in America—A Quaint Dog of Distinct Appearance and Type. CHAPTER LXIX——-PAGE 745 Luassa TERRIER AND TIBET SPANIEL: The Two Latest Claimants for Recognition as Toys Described by the Hon. Mrs. McLaren Morrison. A List of Technical Terms and Glossary...............0.0eeeeeeeaee 747 LIST OF ILLUSTRATIONS Mr. Joseph E. Borden’s English Setter, Champion Ruby D. IIL. Frontisprece Grecian and Assyrian Dogs . 2 FACING PAGE A oe Modelled Dog of eas ue from an Renae omb Greyhounds Coursing. Cut in Stone The Molossian Dog Near Athens ‘ A Small Dog in Terra Cotta Having a Decided Spaniel-like Appear- ance Mr. George S. Thomas’s Kennels at Hamilton, Mass. The Borthwick Kennels, Hackensack, N. J. A Comfortable, Easily Cleaned Kennel, Affording Geed Protection in Winter and Summer : ‘ Mr. Untermyer’s Kennels at Greystone, Yonkers N. y' Showing a Beagle ; Egyptian Hunting Scenes Showing Three Hound Dogs with Various Markings : Various Types of Egyptian Dogs < as Illustrated in Ancient Tombs Egyptian and Assyrian Dogs Spaniels. From “Gaston Phcebus,” or “ “La lives de Chase” “Feasant” Hawking . ; . Early Spaniels and Setters Grouse Shooting i ; : ; ; Partridge Netting The Spaniel The Setter The Gamekeeper The English Setter Mr. Edward Laverack’s English Setter, Fred IV. : ; . Mr. Edward Laverack’s “Old Blue” Dash . English Setter Barton Tory. ; : ‘i Stylish Sergeant Mr. A. Albright, Jr.’s Queen’ s Place Pride. - Mr. G. C. Thomas, Jr.’s Ulverstone Rap : i Dr. J. E. Hair’s Rumney Ranger . ; Judging a Variety Class at the Ladies’ Kennel Association Show at Mineola, L. I., 1904. oe xix xx LIST OF ILLUSTRATIONS— Continued FACING PAGE Pointing a Hare : ‘ : ‘ Irish Setter . 161 Palmerston - 176 Glenmore Kennels’ Imported Finglas 5 176 Champion Borstal Rock _. : ; = . 197 Champion St. Cloud III... : Bs . 177 _ Champion Florence II. : . Gordon Setter —. 208 Wheatley’s Painting of the Duke of Newcastle on his Favourite Shooting Pony. 209 The Only Good Illustration of the Clumber Spaniel i in the Various Editions of the Two Books by Stonehenge, Appearing in the Third Edition of “Stonehenge on the fener 1879. : 224 Clumber and Sussex Spaniels ; : Sed The Shooting Party ; : : Sussex Spaniel : . 225 Champion Bachelor . : ; : “ ; . 240 Coleshill Rufus . . : : : a : . 240 Glencairn : ; ; Field Spaniel . 241 Newton Abbot Darkie. : : : = : . 241 Champion Endcliffe Bishop : ‘ . ; . 256 Champion Black Duke ; ; Cocker Spaniel. = “B57 Champion Obo Il... : ; ; es : ey, Duke Royal. x : . 257 Champions Rock Driver and Poot Pat and Our Chance (Group of Irish Water Spaniels) : : ' 272 Duck Shooting with the Matchlock (1566) : ; ; ; 2 as Le Chasseur au Vol (1735) . : , : F a 29 The Tracking Hound . ; 2 : u ; . : . 288 Shooting Flying (1735) : ; : : ‘ . . 288 Captain Fleming and His Hawks — : ; : ; : . 289 The Pointer (by Sydenham Edwards) . ! : ; . 289 A Thornton Pointer (by Reinagle) . . ; : . 292 Dash (Colonel Thornton’s Celebrated Pointer) \ ; ; . 292 Pluto and Juno (Colonel Thornton’s Pointers) . : : +. (393 Spanish Pointer (by Stubbs) : : : . : , . 300 Slut, the Pointing Pig s : ‘ : ; f : . 300 Faskally Bragg : : Pointer. : . 301 Champion Oregon’s Jessie IL. “ : : . 301 Champion Revel III. . : : : ns : : . 301 Champion Donald. : : iy 301 Champion Sir Walter . ‘ ‘ “ ' ; » Bor Beppo III. ; ; : ' : : : . 301 Champion Bracket. ‘ ; ; ne . ‘ 304 Coronation ; ‘ , : : : ‘ . 304 LIST OF ILLUSTRATIONS—Continued “Brush, A Celebrated Retriever” . Retriever Bonnacord Darkie . i Chesapeake Bay Dogs of Maryland, Ohio, and the Pacific Coast The Dalmatian (from a painting by Reinagle) The Dalmatian (from “ Bewick’s Quadrupeds’’) King Cole . Dalmatian Windyvalley Roadster and Benrino ss Jean = A Century of Improvement of the Rough- -coated Collie (1805-1905) Ch. Charlemange ; : . Rough-coated Collie Nesta ‘ ‘ f . i Champion Cocksie = ; Some American Winners — All Imported Excepting Roslyn Wilkes Clayton Surprise and Redcar Lassie =. Smooth Sheep Dog . Cn. Bardon Venture ; : ; - Ch. Eleanor de Montfort ; ; ae : : Champion Wilberforce : ; . Bob-tailed Sheep Dog Champion Dolly Gray Bulldogs, 1625 to 1880 Ch. Glenwood Queen . ; : Bulldog Ch. Broadlea Squire : 7 Berners ie Rolyat : . : * Ch. Portland. : ‘ ‘ . Diamond Lass Bewick’s “ Terror i A Howitt Etching, 1809 ‘ Terrier “Cony Catching” C Two of A. Cooper’ s Paintings Terriers in “Stonehenge” 1868-1872 Terriers of a Century Ago Terriers from 1830 to 1860 ; Terriers by Reinagle, “Sportsman’s Cabinet,” 1803 ‘ Three Old-time English Winners, | Smooth Fox Terriers Colonel Thornton’s Pitch. : a Cleek . . Six Sabine Champions : : The Tug of War o ” oe “ Ch. Go ane. Ch. Thornfield Knockout (Wire-haired F ox Terriers) The Great Meersbrook Bristles_. ; The First Airedale Illustration ( 1879) Airedale Terriers Broadlands Brushwood : : Ms Xxi FACING PAGE 3°53 xxii LIST OF ILLUSTRATIONS —Continued FACING PAGE Ch. Clonmel Monarch 3 : Airedale Terriers . Ch. The New King. a Airedale Terrier Chasen York Sceptre ; : President and Victoria : Bull Terriers Sir Wm. Verner’s sabes : , ns Old Dutch : : < 6e Cooper’s “Brutus”. ; Ch. Maggie May . ; = Venom. i Ch. Faultless of the Point, Ch. Ajax of the Point, Ch. Edg wood Crystal, Rancocas Ginger, Edgewood J. P. II., Ch. Bie bury Burge : Bull Terriers : Ch. Broomfield Sultan, Ch. Daisy, Walkden Duke, Topsy, Ch. Raz- zle, Peggie, Ch. Perfecto, Ch. Meersbrook Maiden (Black and Tan Terriers). : Afton Wallace, Blyth Bob, Ch. Afton Jessie (Bedlington Terriers) : Ch. Erin, Ch. Sport, Ch. Playboy, Ch. Bachelor, Kathleen.. Iroquois Bencher, Full o’ Fight, ee Bandmaster (Irish Terriers) . Ch. Breda Muddler_ . Irish Terrier Ch. Breda Mixer : ee Bogie Rattler, Biddy III, Benedict: Bachelor, Bronze (Irish Terriers) Ch. Lorton Belle, Ch. Red Gem, Ch. Inverness Shamrock, Meadows Bridget, Lady Hermit, English Nell (Irish Terriers) . Red Hills Kennels Irish Terriers at Work “Highland Music,” by Sir E. Landseer . ; Seortish ‘Tattiets Milverton King, Milverton ia Ch. cau Jr. (Dandie Dinmont Terriers). : : Moorland Lass, Queen, Kelpie : _ Skye Terriers . Wolverly Wallie, Ch. Wolverly Jock — Mrs. Ripley’s Drop-eared Skyes, Sweetie Isle of Skye Terriers ees Sanderson’s Jim, Ch. Dalmeny ‘(Skye Terriers) Perfection ; Skye Terrier Lady Caroline Montague, by Sir Joshua Reynolds “The Scotch Terrier, 1829,” Stonehenge’s “Ugly Brute” Ch. The Laird . . Scottish Terrier “The Skye Terrier,” by A. Cooper, W. B. Smith’s “Scotch Terriers,” Scotch Terriers from Jardine’s Natural History The Old English Terrier, by Cooper. “ Terrier and Rabbit,” by G. Armfield (Old English « or Welsh Terriers) Senny Starlight, Ch. Senny Dragon, a as Mab, ae fr) ey (Old English or Welsh Terriers) 6e 445 LIST OF ILLUSTRATIONS—Continued Xxill FACING PAGE Barnard’s Tom, Wells’s Eph, Hook’s Punch, Hall’s Max, Weiner’s Bessie O’Brien’s Rossie, Hollander’s Pete, Atkinson’s Tobey (Boston Terriers) ‘Ch. Lady Dainty, Ch. Whisper, Ch. Kinsman Lady Dimple ( Bastion Terriers). Sunlight Viking, Gordon Boy, Junior Ti Boston Terciers Gaston Phoebus and His Dogs. . Great Danes The Alauntz. The Mastins : . Hunting Scene, by Antonius Tempesta . The Board Hunt, by Snyders : : i The Wolf Hunt, by Desportes : : . The Wolf at Bay, by Oudry ; d 7 Boar Hunt, by Ridinger ; : Pyrenean Sheep Dog ; Buffon’s Matin and Grand Danois : _ Study of a Dog, by Vittore Pisano Bronze Dog, by Benvenuto Cellini ‘ The Danish Dog, by Sydenham Edwards a Major McKinley II., Thor. H., Senta, Ch. Portia Melac, Butler and Prince, Earl of Wurtemberg, Great Danes ‘Ch. Sandor vom Inn Signa : ; bs Howitt’s Mastiffs ; : F Mastiffs ‘Ch. Minting . Bewick’s Mastiff ' ; : Le Dogue de Forte Race ‘ Reinagle’s Mastiff —. Type in Heads, 1870 to 1885 Russian Mastiff . ' , Lord Waldegrave’s Couchez a Ch. Crown Prince, Champion Beaufort, Holland Queen (Mastiff Barry, Alpine Mastiff, Alpine or St. Bernard Dog. ; Landseer’s Dogs of St.Gothard . . St. Bernards Queen Victoria’s Alp and Glory _ Merchant Prince, Marse Jeems, Prince Sylvia, Baby Beautiful, Willowmere Judge : . St. Bernards Bewick’s Newfoundland ‘ : : : Reinagle’s Newfoundland. “Original Breed,” “ Naturalist’s Library” Newfoundland ‘Cooper’s Newfoundland Head : Landseer’s Newfoundland ‘Ch. Gypsy Princess. : . site Si xxiv LIST OF ILLUSTRATIONS— Continued FACING PAGE Ch. Shelton Viking, Shelton Madge . Newfoundland Black Boy . < Mill Boy a Tsndaees Newfoundland ; Champion Bistri of Perchina : . Russian Wolfhound Tenier’s Kitchen Typical Heads by Landseer, Cooper and Hancock Lord of the Isles, Dunrobin, Olga, and Mr. Spackman’s Winning Couple at Wissahickon ; ; Deerhounds The Earl and Countess of Arundel, by Rubens : The Irish Greyhound, by Bewick; The Irish Greyhound, fron Brown’s “‘ Anecdotes”’; Irish Greyhound, by Reinagle, and Irish Wolfhound, from Jesse’s ‘‘ Anecdotes” ; Ch. Leinster Irish Wolfhounds : F “‘Greyhound’s Head,” by Old Wyck; “Coursing Fallow Deere,” by F. Barlow; Coursing, by Dodd; Major Topham’s “ Friend”; Fullerton, and Lady Glendyne . Greyhounds . : King Cob . : : : i The Bulldog Cross, Four Stages : is Ch. Bay View Prince, Ch. Bay View Pride, Bay View May, Ch. Bay View Beauty : ‘ : ‘ Whippets Ch. Northern Flyer. Whippet Racing at Waceahickon atid Adlantie City Persian Greyhound, Grecian Greyhound, Ch. Bistri of Perehina: and Alex ; : “Wareful, a Southern Hound,” * Marniion, a Celebrated Blood- hound,” Bewick’s Old English Hound, Cuban Bloodhounds, African Bloodhounds, and Druid . Konpanto, Magician, Prince Leo, Sultan, Ch. Dainty, and Blaod- hound Head, by Landseer__.. : . Bloodhounds Illustrations by Richard Blome Foxhounds. Heads—American and English Foxhounds, Middlesex Hunt Hounds . Harrier, by Gilpin; Charity, a Celebrated Harrier; King ic III. Harriers and Pennbrook Hunt . Castiglioni’s Orpheus : Beagles King George III. and His Beagles ; i A Former Winning Four of the Windholme Rensels Beagles Lap Beagles of Col. Thornton, by Roe ; a. The Beagle, by Gilpin. ' eS Ch. Queen of ‘the Geisha, Bassets ane a French Illustration, Lockly, Owned by King Edward VII, ee Bassets, and Colonel Thornton’s French Hound ; Ch. Young Phcenomen, Jr., and Hannah M. . Dachéhund sé a 592 592 593 608 609 612 613 620 621 624 625 625 628 628 629 636 637 LIST OF ILLUSTRATIONS— Continued XXV: FACING PAGE Ch. Smarty Waldine . : ; ; . Dachshund Ch. Parsifal | Hansel von Lichtenstein, German Champion : f Ch. Orchard Minstrel, Clipped to Fashion in 1817. Poodles. Four of a Kind, Ch. Shylock, Whole-coloured Chow, Ch. Kioli, A Group of Mrs. Moore’s Chows, Ch. Chinese Chum ae Italian Greyhound Tee-Dee g , Togo R. . Schipperke : Baby B., Queen, Group of Toy Poodles. Maltese and Toy Poodles . Group at Swiss Mountain Kennels, Lakewood Prim, Lakewood Ladas, Lakewood Feather, Redcroft Darkie Pomeranians Mrs. Robinson and Pomeranian, by Gainsborough i Mrs. Fitzherbert and Her Toy Poodle Mrs. Mayhew’s Click, Morrison’s Punch and Tetty, le Doguin, Reinagle’s Pug, Royal Duke Ch. Little Countess (Pugs) Ch. George, Ch. Joe, Ch. Bessie, Ch. Bob Ivy, Ding Dong, Othello Pugs Ch. tee bout, i Law’s ‘Delita, Bon Bon, Peldnese Pug Kreuger, Pair of Miss Deady Keane’s (Shanghai) Pekinese Pugs (Pugs). Diabutsu and Dimboola _. . French Bulldogs Ch. Queen of the Fairies, Ch. Ashton Previier Yorkshire Terriers Huddersfield Ben and Lady Giffard’s Katie. Group of Griffons Owned by Mrs. Whaley. : ’ Children of Charles I.,by Van Dyck. . Toy Spaniels . Children of George Iit., by Copley . ‘ Teasing the Pet, by T. Mieris ; : The Cavalier’s Pets ” Ch. Square Face, Ch.Romeo, Racoes: Perecverance ee Rose Willow. “ Ch. Rollo, Toby Beck, King Wicter: Unique Teddy, Windfall, Duke of Marlborough . . Blenheim Spaniels . Ch. Senn-Sation, Ch. O”’ Keacan, Ch. Senn-Senn, Ch. Koma, Yukie Senn . Japanese Spaniels Group of Mrs. Guyer’ s Rough and Smooth Dogs, Chaon Ching We, Li Hung Chung, Miss Keane’s Pekinese, Ting How, Chang Hi Mow : Pekinese Dogs. Lhassa Teitieis, lag sul Tasch: hase Terrier, India, Tibet Spaniel Karpo (Lhassa and Tibet Dogs) 661 661 661 668. 669 688. 688 688 689 704. 704. 795 706 7°97 718 719 719 719 724 724. 724 724 725 732. 732 733 738 739 THE DOG BOOK ASSYRIA TERRA COTTA DOG (ASSYRIA) NAMED “DAAN RIZSU” LET INTO A SLAB WITH HUNTING SCENE CHAPTER I Earty History oF THE Doc HEORIES as to the origin of the dog have been plentiful, and as unsatisfactory as plentiful. We have got little further in 3) Ke@a|| that direction than was the case a hundred years ago, when AoE y but little was known regarding the history of the world ===! beyond what was stated in the Bible and could be found in Greek or Roman, or still more modern, literature. Since then we have travelled back to full seven thousand years ago, and as far back as we find the dog represented by drawings, sculpture, or carvings, we find him a dis- tinct animal. Why the dog should not be given as much credit for originality as any other animal is almost remarkable; but some people have it that he is but a wolf, a prairie-wolf, or a jackal domesticated, and when it comes to the varieties of the dog, we have the most marvellous assumptions. There was not a dog living, according to writers of the eighteenth century, that was not a cross between two other varieties, or even impossible crosses, such as the mastiff being from a cross with the hyena, while some other breed had a dash of the Bengal leopard. The former assertion was made by such eminent naturalists as Pallas and Burchell, and even Lowe stated in his modern “Domestic Animals of Great Britain” that it was very possible. The wild dogs of India were said to be a cross between the wolf and the tiger, and other equally ridiculous statements were made. That the dog and wolf will cross, and that a cross between the fox and dog has been repeatedly claimed, are well-known facts, but these are mules and will breed only with the parent stock, whereas, no matter how widely different are the varieties of dog crossed, the progeny is fruitful inter se. At Wilton House, England, there is an epitaph, as follows: “Here lies Lupa, whose grandmother was a wolf, whose father and grandfather were dogs, and whose mother was half wolf and half dog. She died on the 16th of October, 1782, aged twelve years.”” That is the record of an experiment conducted by Lord Clanbrassil and Lord Pembroke. Others have experi- mented in the same way, but it is the interbreeding of the progeny that is the impossible and proves them to be mules. 3 4 The Dog Book Naturalists have their way of attempting to prove their claims, and point to certain resemblances and characteristics. For instance, it is almost universally claimed that the Eskimo and kindred breeds of the northern latitudes are either domesticated wolves or descendants therefrom. Mr. Bartlett, who was for many years the head of the London Zoological Gardens, in his annual report for 1890, speaks of them as “reclaimed or domesticated wolves. All wolves, if taken young and reared by man, are tame, playful, and exhibit a fondness for those who feed and attend to them.” We will take the wolf-like dogs. They are the Eskimo (which will include the husky and malamuth of our northern latitudes), Samoyede Lapland dog, Swedish elkhound, and some might include the Chow Chow and Pomeranian. Every one of these breeds possesses a feature which the wolf does not, and it is the one point that would at once strike a dog- breeder, though it apparently has never occurred to any naturalist: Every one of them has the curled tail—in most cases, curled tightly over the back. The last husky we saw was at large, outside John F. Schole’s place at Toronto, and was so wolf-like that we imagined it was a tame wolf that he might have added to his curiosities. As it moved, we thought its tail had been cut off, but, on approaching nearer, it was seen that the tail was curled so closely on the quarters of the dog as not to be noticeable from a distance. Now, it would require a lifetime, almost, to take a dog like that, and, with kin showing the same characteristic, develope the progeny into wolf-tailed dogs, and it would be equally difficult to take a lot of wolves, interbreed them, and get a ring-tailed family. To change the carriage of the tail is about the hardest thing a fancier can accomplish. How, there- fore, could the uneducated inhabitant of the arctic regions, with no mate- rial to cross with, put the tight-curled tail on his domesticated wolf? It occasionally happens that a dog of a ring-tailed breed developes a tail that hangs down, and vice versa with one of the down-tailed breeds; but dog-breeders are particularly cautious in breeding to such a dog, and will only do so when thoroughly satisfied that it is purely an individual sport, and the dog comes from a strain of good-tailed ones. So that while there is always the possibility of getting a down-tailed Eskimo, we have to take the breed as a whole, and by a recent authority it is one well described as possessing the distinctive features of a foxy head, erect ears, stand-out coat, dense undercoat, and tightly-curled tail. Early History of the Dog 5 When one turns to Darwin it is with a feeling that here at least we will have ground for whatever is suggested as probable, and it is a belief well founded, for there is sound reasoning backing up his conclusions. It will be well for those interested in this branch of the subject to read Chapter I. in “Origin of Species,” and so grasp all he says on the subject of variation of domestic animals and their character. Darwin was not a believer in mixtures of an impossible nature, nor that the wolf was the original dog. At least there is no indication of that in the chapter referred to. He says plainly that he does not believe that the entire amount of difference in breeds of dogs is due to production under domestication, but that some small part is owing to their having been descended from distinct species. The difficulty here is that the varieties of wild dogs that we know of are practically alike. They vary only to a slight degree, while preserving general characteristics, whether found in India, Africa or Australia. Every one of these wild dogs has the family resemblance which suggests a possibly common ancestry; and how one more than another could have been the ancestor of the bulldog, another of the greyhound, and either one of those or still a third variety have been the origin of the toy spaniel, it is not easy tosee. Darwin says in the next sentence that in other domesticated animals there is presumptive or even strong evidence that they descended from a single wild stock. Of course we know that all our varieties came from an original stock; and if we read Darwin as saying that as all these wild dogs were so much alike and so closely allied in type we can hardly ascribe to any one variety the sole ability to have produced the domestic dog in all its varieties, but that from any one of them might have come the “monstrosities” which man fostered into varieties, we will get at a clear understanding and place our- selves on tenable ground. This seems to have been Darwin’s opinion, for a few sentences later we read, “Looking at the domestic dogs of the whole world, I have, after a laborious collection of all known facts, come to the conclusion that several wild species of Canide have been tamed, and that their blood, in some cases, mingled together, flows in the veins of our domestic breeds.” Later on Darwin disputes the claims of some that varieties developed as a result of crossing aboriginal species. Quite right, for by such means you arrive only at an intermediate stage or else a reversal, and that reversal will be to the original stock. For instance, you can make the Boston 6 The Dog Book terrier by crossing the bulldog and the terrier, and then selecting your type, but you cannot make the bulldog type from a greyhound and spaniel. Strange to say, Darwin apparently disputes the possibility of making a Boston terrier, for he says, “to obtain a race intermediate between two distinct races would be very difficult,” adding that Sir John Sebright, who produced the Sebright bantams, experimented with this object and failed. Darwin had a similar result with pigeons, and it would really seem that the same natural law does not apply alike to birds and dogs. Darwin crossed a barb and white fantail, both tested to breed true, and had a mixed lot as a result; then he crossed a spot and a barb with a like result, and breeding from these two cross matings produced a pigeon with the colour and markings of the wild blue rock. Sebright bred back to an approach to the jungle fowl. What a similar process would yield in dogs is problematical. It is very true that in breeding from a first cross in dogs there would be no controlling the result. The puppies might throw back to either grandparents or bear a resemblance in part to the first cross. But here is where man comes in. The experimenter has an idea of what he wants to produce by this crossing and selects from the progeny what most closely approaches his ideal, and by doing this for a few generations begins the establishing of type. Youatt tells us of two sheep-breeders who started with pure Bakewell blood and made no outside introductions, yet in a few years, each working to an ideal, they had flocks entirely different from each other in type. If Mr. Barnard, who was one of the original producers of Boston terriers, had gone on breeding, without any knowledge of what the more modern terrier wants are in this breed, his Bostons would be entirely different from what we have now. His idea was the bulldog type, without the pro- truding lower jaw. The fancy went in its standard for a dog of the terrier type in having a closer front and standing on its legs, not between them as the bulldog does. Noting as we have during a pretty long connection with dogs the changes in type, the following of fashion, and the vast improvement following care in selection and care of the dogs themselves, we can see nothing impossible in the absolute statement that starting with a sport or monstrosity, as Darwin calls a radical difference from racial type, and cultivating it as a fancy, varieties are established. Then we must bear in mind that by thus continually seeking to alter and modify dogs in appearance we are Early History of the Dog 7 rendering them more plastic and easier of alteration, therefore the more liable to sport. Darwin need not have gone all over the world for a study of the development of varieties, for he had right in England one of the most interesting studies possible to be obtained, and that is the terriers, where they came from, what they were originally and how we got to the Yorkshire and the Airedale, the Scottish and the Irish, the Bedlington and the Dandie, the black-and-tan and the fox-terriers. . The footsteps of the production of all these varieties will never be traced, but here is Darwin’s elucidation of the principle of the establishing of varieties of the domestic dog: “A breed, like a dialect of a language, can hardly be said to have a distinct origin. A man preserves and breeds from an individual with some slight deviation of structure, or takes more care than is usual in mating his best animals, and thus improves them, and the improved animals slowly spread in the immediate neighborhood. But they will as yet hardly have a distinct name, and from being slightly valued their history will have been disregarded. When further improved by the same slow and gradual pro- cess they will spread more widely and will be recognised as something distinct and valuable, and will then probably first receive a provincial name. In semi-civilised countries, with little free communication, the spreading of a new sub-breed would be a slow process. As soon as the points of value are once acknowledged, the principle, as I have called it, of unconscious selection will always tend—perhaps more at one period than at another, according to the state of civilisation of the inhabitants— slowly to add to the characteristic features of the breed, whatever it may be. But the chances will be infinitely small of any record having been preserved of such slow, varying, and insensible changes.” The most prominent exponent of the wolf theory was the eminent naturalist Mr. Bell, who wrote on the subject over half a century ago. “In order to come to any rational conclusion on this head,” writes Mr. Bell, “it will be necessary to ascertain to what type the animal approaches most closely, after having for many successive generations existed in a wild state, removed from the influences of domestication, and of association with mankind. Now we find that there are several instances of dogs in such a state of wildness as to have lost that common character of domestication, variety of color and marking. Of these, two very remarkable ones are the Dhole of India and the Dingoe of Australia; there is besides a half-reclaimed 8 The Dog Book race among the Indians of North America, and another, also partially tamed, in South America, which deserve attention. It is found that these races, in different degrees, and in a greater degree as they are more wild, exhibit the lank and gaunt form, the lengthened limbs, the long, slender muzzle, and the comparative strength, which characterise the wolf; and ~ that the tail of the Australian dog, which may be considered as the most remote from a state of domestication, assumes the slight bushy form of that animal. _We have here, then, a considerable approximation to a well- known wild animal of the same genus, in races which, though doubtless descended from domestic ancestors, have gradually assumed the wild condition; and it is worthy of especial remark that the anatomy of the wolf, and its osteology in particular, does not differ from that of the dogs in general more than the different kinds of dogs from each other.” The only difference in structure which Mr. Bell admits of is the eye, the forward direction of which in the dog as opposed to the oblique in the wolf he attrib- utes to the “constant habit for many generations of looking toward their master, and obeying his voice.” He also points to the possibility of their interbreeding, and asserts that their progeny is fertile. The evidence is all on the side of the impossibility of the dog and wolf and dog and jackal crosses to breed inter se, however fertile the progeny may be when bred back to either side of the cross; but what if this inter se fertility was established, how much further would it go than merely to accord with the non-controvertible statement that while distinct they so . closely approach each other as to be capable of producing fertile hybrids. But as a matter of fact this point is still unproved. Mr. Bell’s claim that the various wild dogs are the descendants of do- mesticated dogs, or in other words are feral dogs, and that they all closely resemble the wolf, will not stand investigation. What could possibly be the origin of the Dingo. He was there when Australia was discovered by Europeans, and in no part of the country was there the slightest evidence of his being or having ever been a domesticated animal. Then again, if all came originally from the wolf, why is it that not one of the wild, untamable, irreclaimable varieties do not breed back to their origin and become wolves ? They stop at being dogs, and while wolves are gray in colour all wild dogs are reddish. The Eskimo is gray, but we hold that he is a dog and not a re- claimed wolf. There is a great deal for us to learn yet regarding these northern Early History of the Dog 9 latitude dogs, as is evident from the fact that Prince Andrew Shirinsky Shihmatoff divides the varieties found in the Russian Empire into no less than ten divisions. In 1896 he published for the benefit of a Moscow charitable institution an album full of beautiful reproductions of the various divisions of what he called Laikas. The copy we have seen had an intro- duction in English, but there was no description of the various varieties or of the photographs beyond the name of the variety. In the introduction Prince Shihmatoff stated that he had purchased hundreds of the Laikas from all over the empire and studied them carefully, with the result that he gave names to eleven species—in European Russia, the Finno, Korel, Lapland, Cheremiss, Zorian, and Vogool; and in Siberia the Samoyed, Ostiah, Bash- kir, Tunguse, and Chootch. All possessed the same general characteristics which we would. call Eskimo—that is, the dense coat, erect ears and tightly curled tail. In many of the photographs the tail was not so curled, but that is not an unusual thing in dogs standing. Any hound almost, when it stands, will drop its stern, but raise it at once to the conventional hound position when in motion. Not one of these Laikas approached any closer to the wolf than did his close relatives, so that there is a strict dividing line between dog and wolf that nature does not cross. Not alone that, but we do not find wolves attacking each other, nor dogs going on marauding parties against their kin, but between the wolf and the dog the animosity is intense. Journals of Arctic voyages give many instances of wolves attacking the dogs. Captain Parry, in the journal of his second voyage, writes: “A flock of thirteen wolves, the first yet seen, crossed the bay from the direction of the huts and passed the ships. These animals, as we after- ward learned, had accompanied the Eskimos on their journey to the island on the preceding day, and they proved to us the most troublesome part of their suite. These animals were so hungry and fearless as to take away some of the Eskimo dogs in a snow house near the Hecla’s stern, though the men were at the time within a few yards of them.” He also tells that on one occasion a Newfoundland dog was being enticed to play with some wolves on the ice, and would doubtless have fallen a victim to them had not some of the sailors gone to him and brought him back. Mr. Broke, in his record of Swedish travels, states that during his journey from Tornea to Stockholm he heard everywhere of the ravages committed by wolves. “Not,” he says, “upon the human species or the cattle, but chiefly upon the peasants’ dogs, considerable numbers of which have been 10 The Dog Book devoured. I was told that they were the favourite prey of this animal, and that in order to seize upon them with the greater ease it puts itself into a crouching position, and begins to play several antics to attract the attention of the poor dog, which, caught by these seeming demonstrations of friend- ship, and fancying it to be done by one of its own species from the similarity, advances toward it to join in the gambols and is carried off by its treacherous enemy. Several peasants that I have conversed with mentioned their having been eye witnesses of this circumstance.” In English books in any way treating of the origin of the dog, reference is always made to the breed kept by the Hare Indians of the Mackenzie River. We know nothing of them beyond what Dr. Richardson, who with Sir John Franklin took some to England from the neighborhood of the Mackenzie River, told at the time, and the description of the specimens taken to the Zotlogical Gardens in London. Dr. Richardson was of the opinion that this species was spread over the northern parts of America, but being only fitted for the chase, it had since the introduction of guns given way to the mongrel Eskimo-Newfoundland. That is guesswork, of course, but the description given of the dogs in the London gardens is not. They had an elongated, pointed muzzle, sharp, erect ears, and a bushy tail not carried erect, but only slightly curved upward, and were of general slen- derness of contour. According to those who took them to England, these dogs ran the moose and deer on the crusted ice and held them at bay till the hunters arrived. ‘They were quite fox-like in appearance, with no resem- blance to the wolf, and if crossed with anything, or descended from any wild animal, it must have been the fox. They interbred freely with the Eskimo and other varieties of dogs, so that we have to face the anomaly that as descendants of fox and wolf interbred they must be of identical species. If we turn to what we know are wild dogs, there is little help for the wolf theory. There is the Dingo, more dog-like than wolf-like in many points, and reddish, or what would pass for a “sable” in the collie. In India there are several varieties of wild dogs with which naturalists have been well acquainted for many years—in fact, it is probable that the oppor- tunities for obtaining information regarding them was better fifty years ago than now. Mr. Hodgson gave the name of Canis primevus to the Buansu of Nepal, its range being between the Sutlege and Brahmapootra. Mr. Hodgson, however, stated that with immaterial differences its range was much further extended. He had obtained many specimens and kept some Early History of the Dog II in confinement for several months in order to study them. Some of these produced young while in his possession. From the “Proceedings” of the Zoological Society for 1833 we extract as follows: “The Buansu preys at night as well as by day and hunts in packs of six to ten individuals, main- taining the chase rather by powers of smell than by the eye, and generally overcoming its quarry by force and perseverance. In hunting it barks like a hound, but its bark is peculiar and unlike that of the cultivated breeds of dogs and the strains of the jackal and the fox. Adults in captivity made no approach toward domestication, but a young one, which Mr.Hodgson obtained when it was not more than a month old, became sensible of caresses, distinguished the dogs of its own kennel from others, as well as its keepers from strangers, and in its whole conduct manifested to the full as much intelligence as any of his sporting dogs of the same age.”’ Following the account of this dog the following note appears: A letter was read, ad- dressed to the Secretary, by W. A. Wooler, Esq., giving an account of a wild dog in the Presidency of Bombay, locally known as “Dhale,”’ which was probably a misspelling of the more usual word, “Dhole.”” The habits of this dog were described by Mr. Wooler and were similar to those of the Buansu. Colonel Sykes, an extensive traveller and keen sportsman, writing in 1831, described the variety named by him Canis Duckhunensts, which he said was the wild dog of Dukhun, or Deccan. “Its head is compressed and elongated, its nose not very sharp. The eyes are oblique, the pupils round, the irides light-brown. The expression is that of a coarse, ill- natured Persian greyhound, without any resemblance to the jackal, the fox, or the wolf; and in consequence essentially distinct from the Cants Quao, or Sumatrensis of General Hardwicke. Ears long, erect, and some- what rounded at the top, without any replication of the tragus. Limbs remarkably large and strong in relation to the bulk of the animal, its size being intermediate between the wolf and the jackal.” ‘This dog was called Kolsun by the natives, and some two years later Colonel Sykes had an oppor- tunity to compare some of them with the Buansu. The report thereon appears in the “Transactions” of the Asiatic Society for 1834: “And showed that the two dogs are perfectly similar in their general form and in the -form of the cranium, and that in his specimen, as well as that of Mr. Hodg- son, the hinder tubercular tooth of the lower jaw was wanting.” ‘There was a difference in their coats, that of the Buansu being darker and denser. 12 The Dog Book We may therefore hold that these two and the dhole are of the same variety, slightly changed in accordance with the climatic conditions. Dhole is a term very generally applied to dogs of India and the East Indies. One of these also called Quidoe, and known to naturalists as Cants Scylax, is described as much more slender than the Kolsun, with a sharper muzzle and a longer and much less bushy tail. Its habits seemed to have been similar. The Cants Sumatrensis mentioned as having been described by General Hardwicke was a small, fox-like dog with smaller ears and of a reddish colour. Java had a dog as large as a wolf, of a reddish-yellow colour. Then there was the Wah, a central and southern India dhole, with a large, broad, flat head and black muzzle, a ferocious-looking, heavily built dog with a rather short tail, tan-coloured, with white underparts and dark tip to tail. This dog hunted in packs and was said to have a deep, growling bay. Colonel C. Hamilton Smith tells of an officer who had traversed the mountains of southeastern Persia, and there saw wild dogs called Beluch, which may be the Beluel, described by another writer. These dogs were of a red colour, shy and ferocious, rather low on the legs and long in the body, with a hairy tail, and powerful-looking dogs. The natives told this officer that to the west there was a larger dog, with so much white that the colour on the back appeared in spots or blotches. We also know that those who visited various parts of this continent for the first time, discovered it in fact or followed immediately after the first discoverers, found the inhabitants in possession of dogs and packs of wild dogs, “Chiens des Bots,” as Buffon calls them. Now, why did not these various wild dogs, or at least some of them, go back to the wolf, if, as some would have it, the wolf was the progenitor of the dog, and that these wild dogs are feral, descendants of animals which, originally wolves, had been domesticated? ‘The coyote is seemingly the connecting link between the dog and the wolf, but he remains a coyote, with closely-touching kin on either hand, distinct, but so closely related that interbreeding is possible, though the produce is only fertile with the parent stock. Leaving the speculative part of dog history, we will now begin with the actual records. In an Egyptian tomb of the Fourth Dynasty, somewhere about 3,500 B. c., we have clear evidence of the existence of the dog as used for hunting. This is the tomb of Amten, and in it were found many excel- lently outlined figures of animals. The dog appears in three scenes—attack- Early History of the Dog 13 ing a deer in two cases, and in the other an animal with horns which would look well on a Rocky Mountain goat. In each case the attack is at the rear, either the hock or thé buttock. These dogs are all of the same type, with large, erect ears, greyhound formation, and a tight ring-tail just clear of the back outline. This type of dog appears throughout the Egyptian series of sculptures and paintings, and is called by writers on Ancient Egypt the fox-dog, though it is unlike a fox in everything but the erect ears, which are always made very large. In this tomb, among the other animals of a dog-like appearance, are the jackal and the hyena, the former being shown with a long, pendulous tail, and the latter being easily picked out by his elevated fore-quarters and the drooping outline to the rump. The fox-dog is frequently shown with a double-ring tail, and possibly varied in size, but it is always difficult to estimate comparative size in these representations for the reason that there is a good deal of conventionality in the drawings, the light greyhound formation of body being followed for dogs that must have been of much heavier frame. Prior to the close of the Fifth Dynasty, set down by some as closing 3,333 B. C., names appear in connection with the dogs shown, such as Abu, Ken, Tarn, Akna, and many others, and it was not for many years that other domestic animals were given names in this manner. It is not quite safe to assume that, because this is the only type of dog shown, there was no other. We might with equal force assume the same at a far later stage in history, and at a time when we well know that there were many varieties. It is an assured position to take when we hold that the watch-dog for the flock must have been one of the earliest breeds, and that this would be a heavier dog than the antelope-hunter. Rawlinson holds that, in the Sixth Dynasty, terminating 3,066 B. c., a terrier-like dog is found among the relics, and he gives an illustration of it. It certainly does look a little more terrier-like than the others, with smaller ears and a hound-carried tail, but the difference is not very pronounced; though if it has been found in connection with larger dogs, it might be well to allow the claim. However, not long after this period we do find a very clear case of differentiation of type shown in the tomb of Antafee, 3,000 B. c. This monarch is represented with four dogs at his feet. Three dogs, one above the other, are shown in front of the forward leg, and the fourth between his legs. Three different drawings of this bas-relief have been examined and all differ. However, we have a specially-prepared paper by Dr. Birch, 14 The Dog Book of the British Museum, exhibiting individual drawings upon which he bases some deductions as to the breeds represented. The upper dog is a strong, hound-looking animal, with drop-ears; his name is given as Behka, and he is a white gazelle-dog. The Arabs still have light-coloured dogs for this purpose. Dr. Talcott Williams, of Philadelphia, who has travelled in the Orient and northern Africa, writes: “The earliest reference to a hunting dog that I know of in Arabia, is the large greyhound ‘Selugi.? The ‘g’ is hard. This is a large greyhound, light-coloured. I mean by that, almost as light as the lighter parts of a dark pointer, but with the short-haired greyhound coat distinctly. He stands high and is big enough to make short work of a gazelle or to drag down a wild ass. The Arab tradition is that the name of this dog is derived from “‘Seleucus Nicator,” the founder of the Syrian Monarchy of the Antiocheda. He seems to have brought there the large hunting dog of Macedonia.” Another of the dogs is Pehtes, black, which Dr. Birch puts down as a mastiff; another, according to his name, was a spotted dog or parti-coloured, and the dog between the legs both Dr. Birch and Mr. Bartlett claim to be of Dalmatian type. It is presumptuous, perhaps, to question the opinions of gentlemen who have the original at their command, but Mr. Bartlett is speaking with the sketches as his guide, and the one they say is a Dalmatian is a square-muzzled, prick-eared dog, quite of the type seen in the Assyrian relics as dogs of Asurbanipal, and shown later in the molossus at Athens. The black mastiff has a decided resemblance to the hound on the terra- cotta tablet, also an Assyrian “exhibit” on another page, which is possibly the original of the Thibet mastiff of our day. Egypt was a far-advanced, flourishing country at this time, and doubtless drew upon many distant lands for novelties. That dogs were so received is shown by a coloured painting from the tomb of Redmera at Thebes, representing the receipt of tribute from different parts of Asia. Eight dogs form part of this con- signment, and although there are four varieties, they are all very conven- tional as to shape, drawn one beyond the other, with only the outline of each dog showing in most cases. There is first one of hound type; then the prick-eared, curled-tail greyhound type, and two self-coloured, dark dogs, with blunter muzzles, while the far dog in the front line of five shows a spotted leg. The Egyptians occasionally painted their dogs fancifully: red and blue was one artist’s combination, another used a yellow for the Early History of the Dog 15 body colour and spotted it, while another showed something original in a dog with red eyes, but an emerald-green dog with a red head shown in a funeral cortége is a combination of animal colour hard to beat. When we reach the Twelfth Dynasty, 2266 B. c., we find the first greatest variance in a long, short-legged dog of dachshund type, black-and- tan seemingly, with some white markings. Wilkinson says this dog was a particular house favourite in the time of Usertssem, and he thinks the fancy of a monarch had something to do with varieties and fashions in dogs. These varieties doubtless had their origin in freaks of nature. A few years ago a toy collie was shown in Edinburgh and we had one a short time ago which the youth of the family very well described when he wrote: “It has a head like an alligator and legs like a dachshund.” It is almost unnecessary to say that the Egyptian god Anubis is shown with a dog’s or jackal’s head, and it is equally well known that the dog was looked upon with veneration in Egypt, and the death of one caused the family to go into mourning. It was this veneration of the dog in Egypt and other countries that caused it to be declared unclean by the Hebrews, who regarded it as a foreign god. That they had dogs both for practical uses and as pets in the house cannot be gainsaid, notwithstanding their employment of the name as a term of reproach. Job speaks of the dogs of his flocks. At the time of the Exodus it was promised that not a dog would move his tongue—that is, the Egyptian watch-dogs. The evidence of dogs about the house is found in the story of the woman of Canaan to whom Christ said: “It is not meet to take the children’s bread and cast it to the dogs,” to which she answered: “Truth, Lord, yet the dogs (here is used a different Greek word from that in the previous verse) eat of the crumbs which fall from the master’s table.” Mark gives the woman’s response more pointedly when he puts it: “Yes, Lord, yet the dogs under the table eat of the children’s crumbs.” The references in the Old Testament regarding the eating of dead bodies, or the curse of being devoured by dogs, probably had their origin or foundation in the funeral customs of other nations. The Iranians had rites in which the dog figured prominently in the dispersion of evil spirits, being made to follow the corpse, which was then thrown away to be devoured by dogs and vultures. Yet the dog was more highly thought of by the Iranians than by any other nation of antiquity. In the Zend-Avesta, the religious book of Zoroaster, the dog is treated of at length. 16 The Dog Book “Whoever shall smite a shepherd-dog, or a house-dog, or a Vohunazgar dog, or a trained dog [probably a hunting dog], his soul shall fly amid louder howlings and fiercer pursuing than the sheep does when the wolf rushes upon it in the lofty forest.” Penalties are set forth in detail for injuries to dogs. In the case of a shepherd’s dog the man committing the injury must pay for any lost sheep, also for the wounding of the dog. If a house-dog was killed, the killer had to pay for any lost goods and for the dog. In addition to which for killing a sheep-dog he received eight hundred stripes with the Aspahe-ashtra, and the same with the Srashé-carana. For killing a house-dog seven hundred of each. “O Maker of the Material World, thou Holy One, which is the dog that must be called a shepherd’s dog? “Ahura Mazda answered: ‘It is the dog who goes a Yugyesta round about the fold, watching for the thief and the wolf.’” Other questions are then answered as follows: “Ahura Mazda answered: ‘It is the dog that goes a Hathra round about the house, watching for the thief and the wolf.’ “Ahura Mazda answered: ‘It is the dog who claims none of these talents, and only seeks for his subsistence.’’’ No reference is made in this special part as to the trained dog previously mentioned, and we have in this last dog what may either be the vagrant or the house pet. If the former, it shows that even they were not outcasts. Penalties were prescribed as follows for giving bad food to a dog: If to a sheep-dog, a punishment similar to that imposed if such food had been given to a noble; if to a watch-dog, the same as in the case of a middle- class citizen; the third section was placed as equal to a priest—not a very high placing of the priest, and this is taken by some to indicate that these dogs were wanderers and had no settled abode, the priests being of that class. The section containing the foregoing extracts concludes as follows: “For it is the dog, of all creatures of the good spirit, that most quickly decays into age, while not eating near eating people, and watching goods none of which he receives. Bring ye unto him milk and fat with meat; that is the food for a dog.” Elsewhere we read: “Whenever one eats bread one must put aside three mouthfuls and give them to the dog . . . for among all the poor there is none poorer than the dog.” Early History of the Dog 17 Of the five sins set forth in the Avesta which caused the committer to be a Peshotanu, two concerned dogs—one for giving bones that were too hard or food too hot, the other for smiting a bitch big with young, or frighten- ing her so that she met with an accident or died. This book of the Iranians also states how puppies were to be cared for, and gives instructions as to the best method of breeding to secure healthy puppies—a method, we may remark, which would be most disastrous to breeding for a distinct type, as it necessitated the use of three different dogs. The date of the Zend-Avesta is still a matter of doubt, parts of it belong- ing to different ages and some undoubtedly very ancient. Originally it com- prised twenty-one books, but only three complete and fragments of others have been preserved. ‘The division from which the above quotations are taken is the Vendidad or Zoroastrian Pentateuch, which is divided into Fargards or chapters. The one especially devoted to dogs, as shown by the citations, is Fargard II, but the animal is mentioned a number of times elsewhere, especially in connection with the dead. According to the traditional date now more generally accepted, Zoroaster lived 660-583 B. c., but some writers assign an earlier date. However, it is very certain that these penalties and rites were not the inauguration of a new creed, but the placing on record of customs of unknown age. So ‘also in the Rig-Veda, the very oldest of Aryan literature, the dog is prominently mentioned. Brunnhofer made the claim that it was composed prior to the migration of the Aryans southward into India, and he based his argument in part on one man’s having a family name which meant dog, and must have betokened a “dog-revering Iranian.” Professor E. W. Hopkins took up the question, and from his reply, which appeared in the “American Journal of Philology,’”’ Vol. XV. No. 2, we extract as follows: “Tn point of fact in the Rig-Veda we find ‘Dog’s Tail’ as a proper name, and in the Brahmanic period we learn that a good Brahman gave this canine name in different forms to his three sons, while still later we find ‘Dog’s Ear’ handed down as a respectable name . . . Even were the animal despised, the name, then, was not objectionable. “On investigating the matter we learn that in the Rig-Veda the dog is the companion and ally of man; the protector and probably the inmate of his house; a friend so near that he pokes his too familiar head into the dish and has to be struck aside as a selfish creature. The chariot of the Maruts is pictured as one drawn by dogs, but he is, at any rate, used for hunting 18 The Dog Book (hunting dog called ‘boar-desiring,’ vara hayus), and the gift of a kennel of one hundred dogs is gratefully acknowledged. . . . Here is a lullaby from the Rig-Veda which shows on how familiar a footing the dog stood: “Sleep the mother, sleep the father, Sleep the dog, and sleep the master, Sleep may all the blood relations, Sleep the people round about.” It is in the Rig-Veda that we read of the good old monarch who on his death proceeds to heaven accompanied by his wife, his brothers and a dog. His human companions drop off one by one and he reaches the end of his journey with only the dog. The god appears: “Enter, O King!” “But not without this faithful dog.” “Desert the dog,” commands the god; “there is no lack of mercy in doing so.” “TI will either not share in your heavenly world, or share it with this faithful attendant,” is the king’s re- sponse. The god rejoins: “There is no place in heaven for men with dogs.” The king replies: “To desert a faithful friend is as great a sin as to slay a priest.” Indebtedness is acknowledged to Professor A. V. Williams Jackson of Columbia University for suggestions with regard to these books, he being the author of “Zoroaster, the Prophet of Ancient Iran.” Professor Jackson, who has visited the Iranian section of Asia and examined the remains of the temples at Persepolis and the caves in the Taht-i-Bostan valley, was of the opinion that perhaps dogs were represented on the bas-relief of the deer- hunt in the caves. This in response to our statement that, notwithstand- ing the status of the dog in ancient Persia, we had found no art reproduction of one. On referring to Kiash’s work as suggested by him we discovered that the illustration was one we had studied and rejected, having found it in another work on Persian antiquities. There are two bas-reliefs cut in the rock in this cave, one representing the king on a boar-hunt. The reproduction shows it to be a well-executed piece of work, but there is not a dog to be seen. The deer-hunt shows that the battue and carted deer are not modern inventions of the dilettante sportsman. The king accompanied by his orchestra and a troupe of sing- ing girls is shown in three different parts of a large inclosure. To the right of this are three connecting pens containing deer, which are liberated and driven into the large enclosure, and when killed are thrown over the fence Early History of the Dog 19 to the left by attendants and taken away on camels. The two animals which might be taken for dogs are quite clear and distinct and by them- selves at the lower part of the relief. They have collars with a long ribbon like a leash. One of the animals is over the fence, and no other animals but the dead ones and the camels are outside. The collars and one hav- ing leaped the fence distinguish them, but in the outline of the drawing they are exact duplicates of the does seen higher on the relief: the same heads, the same deer-like bodies, thick in the paunch, and the same short tail. It does not seem possible to our mind for an artist such as must have been engaged on this beautifully executed piece of work to have erred so conspicuously in these two animals, if he had meant them for dogs. It is a little out of chronological order to speak of Persia at this point, but as it can be dismissed as supplying no evidence it is not of much conse- quence. Turning to those prior to what Rawlinson calls the five great monarchies of the ancient Eastern world, we find fewer traces of the dog than in Egyptian antiquities. Some of the old cylinders dating from the time of the Chaldean kings, that is, some two thousand years prior to the Christian era, and the Second or Medean Dynasty, show animals which somewhat resemble dogs, but the crudeness of the engraving and the number of figures on the small space render it difficult to state with any degrce of positiveness that they are dogs. What is stated by several authorities on Assyrian relics as possibly dating from the first monarchy is the dog on the terra-cotta tablet. There are also the dogs of the time of Asurbanipal, some being shown in the act of catching the wounded wild asses, and of these a number of small clay models were found, each having the name of the individual dog in cuneiform characters on his body. The late Rev. M. B. Wynn in his monogram on the mastiff held that the tablet representation was the old mastiff, because of the heavy flews and hanging ears. With this we cannot agree, the model of the named dog of Asurbanipal being the mastiff type, until modern breeders put on the extra flews and the later-day “character,” as we will show when we come to treat of the mastiff in proper course. Howitt’s drawing of the mastiff of a hundred years ago—and he was always accurate—might have been made from this Assyrian clay model, but for the hound-tail. And as to this tail curled on the quarters as shown on the tablet, perhaps the modeller could not fashion the hound-carriage of tail in the material he was using. Com- 20 The Dog Book pare also this Assyrian model with the photograph of the molossian dog of Athens, in ‘coat, muzzle and ears, for the molossus, although his ears are broken, had them erect and had a square muzzle. It cannot pass observa- tion that these dogs of Asiatic representation differ from the types shown by the Egyptian artists, who went in for something more like the greyhound in conformation. Asurbanipal brings us to 667-625 B. c., and by this time we also have some beautifully executed gem cylinders in which dogs are shown of what can best be described as boar-hound type and possessing good sub- stance, probably a lighter form of the molossian type, for they would not all run alike. We thus have in the land of the Assyrians dogs of the Thibet mastiff type; another indicating what was later known as the molossian or mastiff; a stout dog with a small drop ear, and a boar-hound style of dog. It seems somewhat strange that we can find but one greyhound, but it is suggested in one of the books on this country that only the truly kingly sports are depicted: the killing of the lion and wild boar, antelope and hare-coursing being left to inferiors. That being the case, of course the greyhound was also omitted. Antelopes and such game were caught and kept in inclosures and tended by specially appointed servants, but the kings and monarchs are shown only when attempting or accomplishing the most heroic deeds. But one greyhound model was found at Nimrud by Layard and in the act of coursing a hare. Another author states that the hound in the leash with an attendant must have been four feet in height. We have seen this bas-relief, and in- stead of being over six feet tall, the man looks short and thick-set—more like five feet seven inches in height. The dog at the shoulder (and he has rather high withers) falls short of the man’s thigh-joint by two or three inches, which makes his height thirty inches at most. The dog on the tablet appears to be a large animal, but there is nothing to serve as a standard of comparison in deciding the point. Dogs when put under the tape shrink wonderfully, and the dog “‘as big as a calf,” Marco Polo’s dogs “as large as asses,” and Chaucer’s alauns “as big as any steers,” are only immense by reason of comparison with much smaller ones, while thirty inches would doubtless have been too much for any one of them to reach. The dog next appears as a war adjunct, and on the sarcophagus of Clazamanas is a representation of the battle between the Cimmerians and A MAN ‘Meg [PNUAD YY jo wasn ueyjodosayy ayiar ‘siqndy pod ayy yuasaidas 0) Juvaw Apqeqoig aqWNOL NVILdAt NV WOW AMAL GNNOHATAD AO DOU GATTI AILAVAA V GREYHOUNDS COURSING. CUT IN STONE Cypriote collection, Metropolitan Museum of Art, Central Park, New York THE MOLOSSIAN DOG NEAR ATHENS Photograph of the reproduction in plaster now at the Metropolitan Museum of Art, Central Park, New York Early History of the Dog 21 the Greeks, 652 B. c., wherein dogs are shown attacking cavalry horses, they having been taught to pin them by the hams. Pertaining to this period there is at the Hermitage, St. Petersburg, a silver vase, most beau- tifully decorated with an Iranian hunting-scene. One dog has attacked a wild boar, and there is another most beautifully outlined dog of boar- hound type. Greek art has supplied many dogs for illustration, but there is little diversity, which is surprising, considering that there were a fair number of varieties by that time. We have the greyhound type in plenty, a moderate- sized dog as depicted by the Greeks, as well as the molossian already re- ferred to. At the Metropolitan Museum in Central Park will be found a replica of the mural tablet at the tomb of Korallion, wife of Agatha, at the Dipylon gate, Athens. This lady is represented facing left and sitting, while facing her in a low relief is the figure of a man whose costume extends to the ground, and showing against the bottom of this flowing garment is a small dog looking anxiously up to its mistress. The head of the dog is a good representation of Pomeranian type, while the body is well covered with a tufty coat. Here again the difficulty of showing a Pomeranian coat might have been sought to be overcome by making it more like a poodle’s coat. This dog was apparently very common, for in “Die Attischen Grab- reliefs,” Alexander Conze, Berlin, 1900, Vol. II., there are about twenty representations of toy dogs, the great majority being the same small Pome- ranian type, showing more or less coat. The Cypriote collection at this museum also provided another new dog. This small model has all the look of a spaniel. The tail and feet are missing, but the head is perfect and also the body. From the wealth of coat, the low feathered ears and the expression, this dog appears to be most characteristically a spaniel. In this collection there are also two small stone carvings of a greyhound catching a hare, which seem to form a com- panion pair. Ong of the Greek type of small greyhound dogs also appears in stone, and was found at the side of a sarcophagus which has at one end in bas-relief a dog of similar type and in the same position. It might be that this was a favourite dog of the deceased magnate. The statuary of Rome at the Metropolitan Museum runs very much on the Greek order of dogs, but there is also the hound-eared dog, and on one small relief of a youth training a horse there is a very handsome dog which looks larger than the average of these greyhounds, and shows more 22 The Dog Book of the boar-hound. Diogenes is represented with one of the hanging-eared dogs much resembling a pointer in general character, and on a silver plate are two dogs, one a greyhound and the other a hound. Ganymede is shown with a dog sitting by his leg, the dog having a studded collar such as Chaucer described: “ Aboute his char ther wenten whyte alaunts, Twenty and mo, as grete as any steer, To hunten at the leoun or the deer And folwed him, with mosel faste ybounde, Colers of gold, and torets fyled rounde.” One thing could not be overlooked in examining these representations of Greek and Roman dogs, and that is that they were of the same average size, excepting only the molossian; and in this case, as the dog was a monumental one, there is no possibility of determining the size of the original in life. The dog with the youth may also be excepted. We have then at the Metro- politan Museum over half a dozen dogs of this greyhound type, and taking the men as being five feet eight inches high in life, we may estimate these dogs at about eighteen inches in height. A six-foot man measures twenty inches to his knee-pan; and with these statues taken to represent men some three inches less, and not one of the dogs standing higher than the men’s knees, makes them about the height stated. Compared with the youth and the horse the dog shown on that cast does seem taller; but what is desired‘to be shown at present is that, in order to accomplish more than the native dogs when pitted against beasts in the arena, there was no need for the dogs from Britain (particularly the one described as the Celtic greyhound) to have been what we should now call gigantic or very large. We may lay it down as an axiom that no animals of even semidomesti- cation will attain the same growth when running wild, and that at the present time all domesticated animals bred with care are larger than at even recent periods. It is the same with well-kept men. It is customary to think of knights who fought in armour in European wars as veritable giants, but when the Hon. Grantley Berkeley and a titled friend of his wished to par- ticipate in the Eglinton tournament, held some sixty years ago, they could not find in any armoury in England a suit of armour into which they could squeeze. True, they were six-footers, but so we thought must have been those doughty knights who met in tournaments of old. Travellers also mis- lead us by using similes quite out of place. The first visitors to Australia Early History of the Dog 23 wrote of the dingoes as being of the size of mastiffs. Other instances of this exaggeration in description have already been mentioned, and we had better discard them as fanciful and look at things rationally, and as far as possible take illustrations from life in place of statements. The Assyrian dogs might have been thirty inches high, and that was likely higher than those of Egypt. The shoulder-height of the ordinary gentleman’s dog of Greece and Rome was twenty inches. The late Colonel Stuart Taylor had for many years a standing offer of one thousand dollars for a dog of thirty-four inches, and did not withdraw it till he had measured the St. Bernard “Rector,” which he would not buy on account of its con- dition, coupled with the pleading of the owner’s wife. These are facts and are strongly in contrast with the frequently quoted statement in Goldsmith’s “ Animated Nature,” that the Irish wolfhounds were four feet tall. That four-footer, if he was ever measured, must have been tested with “Harry Reed’s tape.” The explanation of this remark is that on one occasion a sporting authority of that name had to referee a jumping competition in which a man had undertaken to clear a certain distance. Reed was paid to make the man lose by “faking” the tape. Fortunately for the man, Reed, in place of inserting an extra foot in the tape, cut one out, and when it came to measuring the jump, it made a difference of two feet in the man’s favour over what was intended. For years after that when there seemed anything queer with regard to a measured distance in spotting matters in England, some one would remark that they must have had Harry Reed’s tape, and most assuredly many dogs even to this day have been measured with that article in the home kennels. Research on the American continent has not yielded anything very definite, there not being the counterpart of the Egyptian or Assyrian monu- ments or the contents of palaces or tombs to ransack. Fossil remains are at best very indefinite, and geologists tell of “true dogs” without being able to say much more than what we read of the lake-dweller’s marsh-dog. It takes very little harking back to get to prehistoric times even in the oldest parts of America—only to the conquest in the sixteenth century—so that we have no knowledge as to the age of the mummy remains recovered from Colombia and the west coast of South America. If we only knew something about the dates, it would be more interesting as to the dogs found in those despoiled tombs. Reiss and Stubel in their handsomely illustrated “Necropolis of Ancon” give one plate to dog-skulls, and in the accompany- 24 The Dog Book ing brief explanatory text say that one is something of the turnspit order, another collie-like, and the third somewhat like a bulldog or pug, these being presumably the three types they recognised. From our investigations at the Museum of Natural History we found a good deal beyond that unsatisfactory summarising, and the information made the lack of dates the more to be regretted. There are two complete dog mummies, unswathed and put in a sleeping position. They are very much dried out, particularly the larger one, which is in “poor condition,” to borrow a dog-shower’s phrase. The first examined was apparently undershot—at any rate we made the memorandum in our notebook “(?) undershot,” and this prior to having seen “Necropolis of Ancon.” The query was used because of the doubt as to whether the extremity of the nose had not shrivelled up in drying out and caused the retroussé shape. The teeth were exceedingly large and the dog must have been a hard- fighting customer, if his pluck was in keeping with his teeth. The head was of ordinary size to suit the dog, which, to judge from the measure- ment of eight inches from elbow to extremity of toes, would make him out a dog of about thirteen inches at the shoulder and probably weighing about twenty or twenty-two pounds. ‘The coat on this dog was very much plain “yellow,” with but little if any red in the colour. It was short on the head, ears and legs, and ran to an inch and a half on the body and had a harsh, stiff feeling. The tail was tucked between the hind legs, but was plainly shown as far as the hocks, and was club- or wolf-like in shape with longer hair than on the body, and from its shape it was prob- ably carried down. The ears were small and with forward-falling tips like a collie’s. Whether that was their original position in life is a question it is not possible to answer definitely. They looked natural enough and very neatly carried. It is more likely that they were button ears like a fox- terrier’s than pricked and now broken down. The skull measurements were two inches from nose to eye, and the same from corner of eye to ear. Mummy number two was so large as to force the question as to its being a dog. The evidence was forthcoming in a disjointed leg-bone and foot, which quite settled the matter. The fore-legs could not be measured, nor the head, but the leg-bone detached and minus the foot was good six inches and the shank-bone was also six inches—a rather peculiar proportion, for a six-inch shank-bone is more in keeping with the lower leg-bone of some four inches. This dog must have been eighteen inches at the shoulder, Early History of the Dog 25 and a shank-bone of six inches is in keeping with a terrier of fourteen or fifteen inches, so that this particular dog must have been very straight in hind-legs. Two well-preserved skulls with coat in good condition were also seen, the ears not being on, as the skin had been severed immediately in front of the ears in each case. The first head had a lighter-coloured and longer coat than either of the mummies. The teeth were small, almost like first puppy- teeth, but the canines were of fair size and showed slight wear. The muzzle was somewhat blunt, but the teeth were perfectly level. ‘The length from eye to end of nose was two and one-half inches. The second head was quite distinct in several respects, and showed quite a lot of character. The skull was moderately wide with a well-carried-out fore-face, the type being of the fox-terrier order. The length from eye to teeth, the nose being miss- ing, was two and a half inches, and over all the head was probably seven inches. The teeth were strong and sound. The colour was a warm red- brown, almost a maroon shade, with a narrow blaze up the centre and a flick of white where the tan-spot is over the eye of a black-and-tan terrier, and white along the lips to the cheeks as with the tan on a black-and-tan. We presume these were the dog’s original colours, but we have never seen a dog so marked with white, and it was a very peculiar body colour. The half-dozen skulls also showed much difference in type. The lower jaws in each case were missing, and in most of them only some molars were still in the upper jaws. Two were from Colombia, one of ordinary appear- ance, but the other a beautifully shaped one, quite Italian greyhound in the fineness of the lines. Each head was five and one-half inches actual meas- urement of bone. From another section of the coast came a distinctly different skull. Across the only two molars left in the jaws, massive strong teeth, it measured two and one-half inches, and the length of skull was only four and one-half inches. Peluchucco yielded two medium-shaped skulls in a good state of preservation, and from Charassani came one of marked difference. Across the molars from outside to outside the width was but one inch and three-quarters, while the length of head-bone was six and one- half inches. The profile was very striking, there being not the slightest semblance of stop, but a perfectly flat head drooping slightly to the occiput —a miniature Russian wolf-hound head. From the size of the teeth it was the head of a mature dog. Taking these relics as a whole, coupled with some fragmentary bone 26 | The Dog Book remains, we are safe in saying that there were no large dogs in that section of South America, but that they ranged from twelve to eighteen inches in height, and varied in type from the square-fronted, possibly undershot jaw, to the extreme of the borzoi and the fineness of the Italian greyhound. It is much to be regretted that nothing more definite than “before the conquest” can be learned as to the possible date of the existence of these dogs, as it is the most interesting of all the “exhibits,” bringing us into actual touch with the dog and not looking at him through the eyes of a conventional painter or sculptor. : Of the dogs in Central and South America when first visited by Euro- peans we have sufficient data to prove that there were several varieties. Columbus found dogs in several of the West India islands; Alonso Harara found domesticated dogs in New Granada, and Garallasso in Peru; Fer- nandez describes two breeds, one of which is called the Alco or Michua- caneus, and by the natives Ytzcuinte Porzotli. The name as given us at the Museum of Natural History was Itz-Cuintli; the other breed was the broad- footed Alco, said to be the carrier-dog of the country. “The native name was the Techichi, or Chichi. The fat alco was early described as without hair, resembling what the old recorders called the Barbary dog, undoubtedly the hairless dog of Turkey. They said that this fat alco was eaten by the inhabitants. We have been told that the hairless dog was an importation of the sixteenth century, but he is somewhat of a cosmopolitan and is to be found in China, South Africa, Turkey, and Mexico. The Chihuahua dog, we fully believe, is one of the oldest breeds of dogs and is unique as a Mexican production. With regard to the orifice in the centre of the skull in the Chihuahua, there is in Mivart’s “Monograph of the Canide”’ an illustra- tion of a Japanese spaniel skull with a similar orifice at the junction of the four quarters of the skull. In speaking of the dogs of Central America, Mivart expressed the opinion that they might have been bred from wild species of the new continent or been brought from Asia by man at some remote period. With regard to the latter suggestion, it must not be over- looked that the dogs of Asia in ancient times, of which we have any informa- tion, were much larger and altogether different from those found among the Peruvian mummies. So also of the wild dogs. Buffon, in “Hist. Gén. des Antilles,” Paris, 1669, says, ‘Those belonging to the savages of the Antilles had the head and ears very long and resembled a fox in appearance.” Again he says: Early History of the Dog 27 “There are many species which the natives of Guinea have named Dogs of the Woods (Chiens des Bots), because they are not yet reduced, like our dogs, to a state of domestication, and they are thus rightly named dogs, because they breed together with domestic races.”’ Colonel C. Hamilton Smith, whom we have already quoted in connec- tion with the wild dogs of India, wrote also from personal observation of South American dogs: “The semidomesticated dogs of South America are sufficiently tamed to accompany their masters on the hunt in the forests, without, however, being able to undergo much fatigue; for when they find the sport not to their liking, they return home, and await the return of the sportsman. In domesticity they are excessive thieves and go to prowl in the forest. ‘There is a particular and characteristic instinct about them to steal and secrete objects without being excited by any well-ascertained motive. They are in general silent and dumb animals, and in domestica- tion others learn a kind of barking. . . . The native Indians who have domestic dogs of European origin, invariably use the Spanish term Perro, and greatly promote the increase of the breed, in preference to their own, which they consider to be derived entirely, or with a cross from the Aguaras of the woods, and by this name of Aguara it is plain, throughout almost all the interior of South America, that the whole group of indigenous canines is understood.” In addition to the common dog of the North American Indians, there seems also to have been a distinct variety in Florida which was called the black wolf dog, and Colonel Smith was of the opinion that it came from a cross of the Newfoundland dog and the common Indian dog, which he called Lyciscus Cagottis, and placed in the same genus as the prairie wolf, Caygotte being the Mexican Spaniards’ name for the Indian’s dog. Colonel Smith also put all the Aguara dogs into a group under the name of Dasicyon, with the divisions of D. sylvestris, the dog of the woods; D. canescens, the hoary aguara, and D. antarcticus, the Falkland Islands variety, and D. Fulvipes, the dunfooted aguara, which is a short-legged foxy-looking animal. This terminates the history of the dog up to the period at which he assumes breed characteristics. From here on the subjects must be treated specifically by varieties, each under its own heading, as a distinct member of the large and wonderfully differing family of the dog. Missing Page Missing Page Missing Page Missing Page A SMALL DOG IN TERRA COTTA HAVING A DECIDED SPANIEL-LIKE APPEARANCE Cypriote collection. Metropolitan Museum of Art, Central Park, New York VIEW FROM THE OFFICE DOOR AT THE EAST END Showing the main terrier room and the long passageway between the double row of kennels for larger dogs ; the doorway on the left admits to the covered or bad-weather run THE “STALL” SYSTEM OF KENNELLING Showing the movable slatted kennel bottom and the foot board removed for the purpose of cleaning the kennels; also cleaned kennels open and ready tor the dogs MR. GEORGE S. THOMAS’ KENNELS AT HAMILTON, MASS. CHAPTER II Tue Doc 1n THE House Of any beast none 1s more faithful found, Nor yields more pastime in house, plain, or woods, Nor helps his master’s person, or his goods, With greater care than doth the dog or hound.—Mo te. IN selecting a dog for the house there is ample scope for choice according to the conditions under which the animal can be kept. The first consideration for an owner is as to what accommodation he can give his dog, for there is a SSS vast difference between a city flat or home, and a country- house, where unlimited liberty can be given the pet of the household. For a city dog give preference to something of moderate size, even the smaller toy dogs, though setters or pointers do very well, if fancy runs in that direc- tion. Anything large, such as a St. Bernard, mastiff, great Dane, or the heavily coated dogs, had better be left out of the question, unless fancy is imperative for one of those breeds. ‘Terriers are good for the house, pro- vided moderation in feeding is exercised, for they are apt to eat too much, and a fat-laden terrier is an eyesore to any person who likes to see a dog as he should be in the way of condition. Heavily coated dogs are better avoided for the reason that the process of the annual shedding of coat is a prolonged one, and it is impossible to prevent the falling coat from attaching itself to carpets, rugs, or anything upon which the dog lies. Still another reason is, that during this long process of shedding and then awaiting the coming of the full ¢oat the dog does not look his best, and a house-dog should, like its owner, be fit to be seen by company at all seasonable hours. Having decided upon the dog that is most satisfactory to please indi- vidual fancy and the accommodations of the home, the next question is, what to do for the animal when it arrives. If the dog is to be the property of any member of the family in particular, it is well to allow that one to attend solely to the unpacking or receiving the newcomer. Dogs are, as a 29 30 The Dog Book tule, prone to look upon such a person as a special master, and attach them- selves accordingly, though of course, there are exceptions, and puppies and, young dogs call for more individual subsequent attention than do grown dogs who have had experience in recognising and obeying a master. Give water at once, more especially if the dog has come from a distance, or the weather is warm. Feeding is a secondary consideration, and may with advantage be preceded by a short run on the chain, followed by a light meal on the return to the house. No question is more frequently put by one who has not previously had a dog than how to feed it, and no question is easier to answer. Any clean food that the dog will eat is in the main satisfactory. Beware of the man who insists that meat must be avoided, for meat is as much a necessity as. with ourselves. Like a good many things it can be abused, however, and when a dog decidedly refuses to eat anything but meat it will be well to give him nothing until he is willing to take mush and milk for breakfast, or a din- ner of bread and vegetables with gravy. Ifa child were permitted to choose its own meals, it would subsist largely on cake and ice-cream, but it would not starve itself if those dainties were denied and good plain bread and but-- ter substituted. Neither will the dog injure itself or go too long without food, though it may refrain for quite a time, fasting not being so much of a hardship as with ourselves. There is no better or more suitable food for the house-dog than table scraps, the meat being cut fine enough to prevent its being specially picked out and the rest left. Mix this with bread and mashed vegetables, moistened with gravy or soup. Dogs are much better out of the dining-room, except in the case of a thoroughly trained one that will not beg for food. Puppies should always be excluded and food taken to them—preferably out of doors, or to some certain place always used for this purpose, so that the dog will learn that this and this only is its feeding-place. Have a dish of clean water there also, and if you wish to oblige your many advisers, you can put a piece of sulphur in the dish, or if you have not that handy, a stone will do as well, for neither is soluble in water. Sulphur is good for the dog, but it needs to be administered in another way. Take equal parts of sulphur and mag- nesia, mix thoroughly and put in the evening meal for a week as much as will cover a dime, and then discontinue. This will cool your dog off in the summer time. For anything smaller than a fox-terrier reduce the quantity one-half. Sulphur is also good for outward application for cuts, wounds. The Dog in the House 3I or sores; our almost universal remedy for these being crude petroleum and sulphur mixed to the consistency of thick cream. Stick-sulphur, however, is of no more use than a stone. How often to feed a dog depends upon age and weather. As we feed children oftener than we do ourselves, and we eat more in winter than in summer, so, too, in the case of a puppy of two months old, feed it at least five times a day—the last meal late in the evening, and the first as early as possible in the morning. In another month or so drop off the late meal, extending the time between the day meals. At the age of five months three meals a day should suffice, and in another month or so, if it is warm weather, a morning and night meal will be ample. Here again we must be governed by considerations of the breed and the individual. Some breeds you want as large as possible, while others should be of moderate size, and still others are better when as small as possible. To make a big man, it is of no use to stint the boy until he is eighteen years of age and then stuff him. His best growing age is past then, and so it is with a St. Bernard or any dog whose growth we wish to be as large as possible—collie, setter, great Dane, and others in the same category. Keep a dog of this kind grow- ing continuously from the time he leaves his dam till he is a year old, espe- cially so in the case of the larger breeds, as they are slow to attain full height, whereas collies, setters, and the like have pretty well reached their growth at ten months, after which they mature. Terriers and such as can be made too large by over-feeding should be brought to three or two meals a day sooner than large dogs. Toys it is better to feed with non-stimulating food than to limit the meals too much. Use cereals with a smaller quantity of meat, or rice and fish, the idea being not to grow a dog devoid of shape, as will be the case if it never has a full meal. For these small breeds the toy-dog biscuits are very useful when fed plain or with a little soup or gravy, there being meat enough in them for ordinary use. The exercise of a little judgment in this regard is the best advice that can be given. One should always remember that he is injuring his dog more by getting him fat than by cutting out the meat in his dish, and having him smell and leave his food. He will eat when he is hungry. Some will get along on almost nothing. We once had an Irish terrier that we took to Southport show, in England, where she was given equal first in the variety class, the judges being two well-known gentlemen. One of them, either the late Mr. Lort or the late John Douglas, said: “You would have won, 32 The Dog Book sir, if your terrier had not been so fat.”” We said that it was impossible to keep her down and that she had but one biscuit a day. “Show it to her, show it—don’t let her eat it!” On the other hand, with some dogs one might almost shovel the food into them and then they would never be more than passably fat, for, like ourselves, it is not the heaviest eater that is the stoutest person at the table. To keep a dog clean requires washing or brushing, or both. The less washing the better, and unless the dog is a white one and looks dirty or smells a little doggy, stick to the brush as long as possible. There are many dog brushes, just as we have a variety of dogs’ coats. Collies, setters, and those with a good quality of coat will do well enough with the better sort of dandy-brush, such as is used in the stable. The fibres are long enough and coarse enough to penetrate to the skin and clean that well. Then for a top polish the bristle-glove or the brush with the flexible leather and strap-back will answer admirably, polishing the coat and thoroughly separating it, so that it shows to the best advantage. The finer and shorter the coat, the finer the brush that may be used, until it comes to the long-coated toys such as those of the Pomeranians, spaniels, or Yorkshires. For Pomeranians a special brush is made, with good length of bristles and not all the same length; for Yorkshires, a fine bristle and a rounded front. As to the Yorkshire terriers such as we see at shows they are quite unsuitable for the house, as they have to be kept in the most artificial manner so as to grow and preserve the coat as we see it on exhibition specimens. ‘The toy spaniels are different, however, their coats being of moderate length, of more substance, and not so liable to break when being brushed. In all long-coated dogs be par- ticular to comb or brush the coat thoroughly at the back of the ears, and also about the hind-quarters, for it will otherwise become matted. When it is deemed necessary to wash a dog, use the best quality of soap, whether special dog-soap or toilet-soap. The strong common soaps take the polish from the coat, and it will take a day or so to come on again. Use plenty of water, regulating its warmth according to the breed of dog and its ability to stand cold water. If the dog is not averse to the bath, begin at the head and lather well, being as quick as possible in the operation and doing it thoroughly. If you are using a carbolic soap or any flea-killer of strong quality, follow immediately with a plain soap lather and wash out. Have ready another bath or sufficient water to refill the one being used, and let this be colder than the first—with more than the chill off, and The Dog in the House 29 for strong dogs in the summer-time let it be cold water. It is preferable to put the dog in the empty tub or bath, and let an attendant pour on the clean water from a jug or water-pot while you rinse out the coat with both hands so as to remove every particle of the soap. On large and hardy dogs you can use the lawn water-pipe. This cooler bath not only cleans out the soap, but to a great extent prevents colds. As it takes considerable time to soap large dogs with a cake of soap and get a good lather, it will be found more convenient to shave the soap and dissolve it in warm water, using this either by laving it on with the hand as needed or pouring it along the back and rubbing the lather down the sides. Some dogs object to being washed, but no matter how fractious they may be, a little patience and firmness never fails to quiet them. In such cases wash the body first, and when they are quieted do the head. Let them know that they must submit, and they will. The toys are more likely to be the worst, but as they know the ashamed tone of voice very well, hold the little rascals down by their forelegs and talk to them seriously. If on letting go one of the legs a toy dog does not struggle, tell him what a nice little dog he is, and he is very certain to behave himself. If he does not, then repeat the process till he does. Now comes the hardest part of the process, the drying. Here again weather and the variety of the dog create differences. A good, hardy ter- rier in the summer-time is a very different thing from a toy in the winter. Having thoroughly rinsed all soap from the coat, empty the bath, and placing the dog in it or some place where the drip from the coat will not damage anything, squeeze as much of the water out as you can, running the hands the way of the coat and down the legs, squeezing the foot. After that take a sponge and go over the coat in a similar manner. If the dog is not long-coated so as to get snarled, the sponge may be rubbed up and down in the coat and will be found to absorb much of the water. The next proc- ess is rubbing with a towel, and this should continue till the coat is well dried, more particularly in cold weather, and in the case of delicate dogs, or of those which cannot be liberated for a smart run in the warm sunshine on account of their being prepared for show. This point will be treated later. You cannot err in drying the dog well, so do it thoroughly and in the case of toys use dry, warm towels, thereafter applying a warm brush and the hands till no trace of dampness remains in the coat. In the country in sum- mer time, when one has a good lawn on which to let a dog run, the sun and 34 The Dog Book breeze will assist materially in the drying process, though one must use judgment, for some dogs are almost too delicate for this exposure unless the weather is exceedingly favourable. There is no question that strong soap will take the polish off a dog’s coat, but it is perhaps not altogether that. If a person takes a very warm bath, or washes his face in hot water, there is a very decided subsequent feel- ing of dryness about the skin, which is not the case when cold or tepid water is used. The hot water of itself takes away the natural tone of the skin, and it must have a similar effect upon the hair of the dog, hence the advisa- bility of using as cool water as the conditions will permit. Cleanliness in the house is the great essential in the house-dog, and it is very natural for a purchaser to insist upon its being guaranteed. Some people will do so readily, but others will not give a guaranty with a dog, and for a very good reason. They say, and with truth, that to a person ignorant of dogs the assurance that the dog is house-broken will cause it to be imposed upon to its possible serious injury, and the cleaner the dog the greater the likelihood of its being imposed on. Such a seller will say: “J will not guarantee this dog as house-broken, but I will tell you that he has been in my house for some time and has not misbehaved. He is always given a good run the last thing at night and liberated the first thing in the morning; and during the day he is allowed to go out whenever he seems desirous of so doing.” A dog will conform to almost any habit desired, but the responsibility of respecting the requirements of the dog falls as much on you as on the dog. No puppy is house-broken, for that is a matter of education, and hence a young puppy is better kept out of the house and permitted only to come in occasionally and never before he has had a good run, if he has been sleep- ing. Once in the house, he must be watched and put out the moment there is any indication that it is advisable or necessary, and kept out till it is safe to admit him. Of course the puppy is sure sooner or later to misbehave, and then without the least delay he must be shown what he has done, scolded, and put out-of-doors. Any further mishaps must be punished by switching; but never punish unless you can at once associate the punishment with the reason for it, otherwise he does not know what it is for. Sooner or later the puppy will learn to let you know that he wishes to go out, and whenever he makes a move to the door let him out. He soon learns that he can get out if he wishes. The Dog in the House 35 There are those who will train dogs for up-to-date flat use and accustom the puppy to use a box. Where a dog has once made use of a place, he ts prone to return. Accordingly the puppy, on being brought home or taken from his travelling-box, should be put into a shallow box with sawdust on the bottom of it, and kept there till he may be allowed to run about. If the box is then left as it is and he can get into it unaided, he will likely tumble into it in his wanderings, and the smell of the sawdust will induce him to make use of the place again, and thus the habit is acquired. Very elaborate sleeping-baskets are furnished for house-dogs, with mats, rugs, or dainty cushions. ‘These are well enough for the tiny drawing- room pet, but are out of place for a terrier or anything larger. For such a dog we recommend a plain box. It may be made of hard wood or of any wood painted and varnished if desired, but not upholstered. Have it of a size to enable the dog to lie comfortably, and on the bottom put a layer of paper—newspaper, plain wrapping-paper or, if one is fastidious, a piece of fancy paper. Tar-paper may be used in the summer-time if the smell is less objectionable than fleas. A dog will lie as comfortably on a piece of paper as on a feather cushion, and a new bed costs nothing, while a dash of boiling water around the box will kill any vermin. Keeping a yard-dog seems to be in many cases an excuse for never letting a dog off the chain. If a little exercise is thought necessary, it is attained in some cases by adding an extra length of chain strong enough to hold an ox! A very simple way to give a dog exercise on the chain is to hang a strong wire in such a manner that, with a chain of ordinary length attached to a ring on the wire, the dog can get into his kennel. The other end of the wire (supposing one end to be attached to the building near which the kennel is placed) is to be fastened to anything convenient—another building, a tree or post far enough away to give the dog a good run from one end to the other. If one end is attached to a tree or post, put it higher than at the other end. ‘Then at a distance far enough from the post to prevent the dog from going around it, fasten another piece of wire, which pass through an eyelet fixed lower down on the post and pull tight—the long wire may have a little slack to permit of this. You will thus stop the ring from coming further than is wanted. Have the wires so stretched that, if possible, one end of the run will always be in the shade, and do not forget in winter to turn the kennel to face the south, putting a piece of sacking over the entrance and a good bed of straw inside, on top of an old news- 36 The Dog Book paper. Do not think any less of your watch-dog than did those old Iranians of whom you may have read in the chapter on the ancient history of the dog. Kennet Docs When it comes to the kennelling of a small lot of dogs or the going into the business of exhibiting dogs on a large scale, we enter into a very different phase of the subject, calling for more or less outlay and systematic care, according to the number handled. Still, we have as the paramount features the three essentials—cleanliness, food, and comfort. We place them in that order. because when a number of dogs are kept together, cleanliness is the most important of all, and every effort must be put forth to keep the dogs clear of disease and infection. Food is a close second to cleanliness, as per- haps three-fourths of what is called mange is the result of stomachic trou- bles caused by injudicious feeding. The skin is in a measure a thermometer, telling us that there is excessive heat inside, and it will not get into a normal condition until the inside heat is reduced. ‘Thirdly comes the comfort and extra appearance of the kennels. Can we do better than introduce the subject with the poet Somerville’s instructions? ‘They are as follows: “First let the kennel be the huntsman’s care, Upon some little eminence erect, And fronting to the ruddy dawn; its courts On either hand wide opening to receive The sun’s all-cheering beams, when mild he shines, And gilds the mountain tops. For much the pack Roused from their dark alcoves delight to stretch And bask in his invigorating ray. ‘Let no Corinthian pillars prop the dome, A vain expense, on charitable deeds Better disposed—For use not state; Gracefully plain let each apartment rise. O’er all let cleanliness preside, no scraps Bestrew the pavement, and no half-picked bones. “Water and shade no less demand thy care; In a large field the adjacent field enclose There plant in equal ranks the spreading elm, Or fragrant lime; most happy thy design If at the bottom of thy spacious court, A large canal fed by the crystal brook, From its transparent bosom shall reflect Downward thy structure and inverted green.” The Dog in the House 37 The object of placing the kennel on a slight eminence is to secure drainage. At any rate it should not be built in a hollow, or the dogs will always be liable to rheumatic and other troubles, induced by dampness and cold. Having selected the location, the next thing to do is to decide upon what is wanted. If the kennel is a modest one of half a dozen terriers, which the owner is to look after himself, a suitable structure would be one of twelve feet square, with an elevation of six feet at the eaves and about eight feet in the centre. This will admit of a centre passageway of as much as four feet in width, and three four-feet-square divisions on each side, or enough to accommodate from six to nine terriers or anything up to setter size. Light can best be obtained by having tilting windows at either end, and these also afford necessary ventilation from the sheltered side in winter or with a clear, through draught in summer. In most kennels the indoor compartments are boarded up for about four feet between the kennels, but we have tried with success good wire-netting, and the dogs seem quieter and more comfortable than when in solitary confinement. Certainly with the netting there is less accommodation for vermin in crevices and cracks. The kennel looks lighter and airier and thus gains in appearance. Of course the netting must be small enough in the mesh and stout enough to keep quarrelsome dogs apart, but there is not so much anxiety to get at one another among terriers who see each other all the time. The com- partment doors should either open inward or slide to one side, and for two reasons: not taking any passage space, and never giving way when pushed against by the dogs. We prefer the sliding-door set to run down a slight incline and catch when it runs down. The sleeping-bench should not be too high, and must be entirely detached, so that it can be taken out, washed with some parasite-killer and sun-dried. Bedding is unnecessary in sum- mer, and in winter it is better to have boxes inverted on the sleeping-benches, part of the front being taken off and a strip of sacking nailed along the top front to drop down in excessively cold weather. Such a box, if put on the summer sleeping-bench with a layer of paper beneath the straw, makes as comfortable a sleeping-place for a dog as can be provided, and obviates the need of a fire for anything but sensitive dogs. No matter what lumber is used for the sides and roof of the kennel, you cannot get too sound and too good material for the flooring. This ought to be put down to be as tight as a drum and with just the least little bit of incline in the laying of it, so as to have it dry quickly when washed. How 38 The Dog Book to have the water run off has, of course, to be decided by the individual case as to where it had better be got rid of. No division partition should come down so close to the floor as to prevent the clear flow of water over the whole floor. . The outside arrangements for such a kennel should be a piece of ground on each side and, if possible, at the further end. With the end-piece it will be possible to give side-yards of eight feet to the first and second divisions on each side, and turn the dogs in the third kennels into the yards at the end. When we come to the large kennel of dogs for breeding or exhibition purposes, we have a case which presents quite as much difference as exists between the family horse and the stable of race-horses. A competent kennel man is now an essential, and so long as he knows his business and keeps his dogs in good condition, it is much better not to interfere with him. So also, if he is the right sort of man, when he sees his employer wishes a thing done in a certain way he will do it, for there are many ways of managing a kennel, and any one will give satisfaction if the dogs are well cared for and kept healthy. It is quite possible to keep a greater number of dogs by making an en- largement of the small kennel just described, or by building more than one. The latter is preferable, for with a large number of dogs isolation becomes a possible necessity, and the cooking should be kept separate at any rate, even if there are no patients to be cared for. All of that is merely a matter of detail and possibilities as governed by circumstances and the wishes of the proprietor. There is yet another system, which is being adopted more or less in its entirety, and which for want of a better name may be called the “stall” system of kennelling. It is the adaptation to the kennel of the method in which horses are kept. ‘The stall is the horse’s restricted’ apartment for resting and sleeping, while for exercise he is ridden or driven. The most complete kennel of this kind we have visited is that of Mr. George Thomas, at Hamilton, Mass., and a description of it will explain how one may be built, or it can be used as a model in part or as a whole. The building was in part originally the horse stable, but has been so entirely remodelled as to be practically a new building. First, at the right hand or eastern end of the building you enter the office, a conveniently fitted up room for the con- duct of the business, letter-writing and the reception of visitors. To your right, as you enter, is a door leading to the kennels, and like all the other The Dog in the House 39 internal doors it is double and slides (as do nearly all of them), so that no matter if a dog gets loose, it is confined to the one room. Passing through the doorway we enter the first of the kennel rooms. Here a door facing leads to another long kennel, while one to the left-hand admits to the rainy- day, covered exercise-yard. ‘The door in the left-hand corner gives access to a room at the back of the office for the use of the men. One cannot help noticing the perfect floor of narrow, light-coloured wood, which is scrupu- lously clean and as perfectly fitted as a piece of cabinet work. The inside fittings of this room resemble nothing more closely than the lockers of a rowing or athletic club with wire-fronted doors for ventila- tion and drying purposes. Each of these lockers or stalls is divided from its neighbours by a matched-board partition, and they are mainly thirty-six inches deep by twenty-six inches wide, though a few are slightly larger. They are meant to accommodate one dog, although two are put together when there is a lack of space. The bottom of the stall is about eighteen inches from the floor—a height convenient enough for terriers, as they can jump it without trouble. If you take out the straw you will find that the removable bottom is not tight, but has spaces between the narrow strips. The object of this is to allow whatever dirt the dog takes into his kennel to sift through the straw and these spaces to the floor,so as to form no breeding- place for vermin of any kind. It will be noted also from the photographs that the fronts of these stalls do not go down to the floor, but are so arranged that by the removal of a board at the bottom the floor can be swept as often as may be necessary to remove such dirt as sifts through the spaced floors of the stalls. The farther kennel is in part the same, but it is meant for larger and heavier dogs, and more conventional in having a bench and floor space. Here also we find the same excellent flooring that can be thoroughly cleaned and allows of no lodgment of dust or dirt. Disinfectants are used but little, reliance being placed upon the frequent washing and scrubbing with dis- infecting soft soap and hot water, and upon good ventilation. The latter is secured by having a strip of swinging-windows running the entire length of the kennel and opening at the ceiling, so that all the foul, heated air is liberated when the windows are opened. The method of exercising is as follows: When the men turn out at seven o’clock, the dogs are sent into one of two adjacent acre-fields, and it is surprising how many terriers are thus allowed at liberty together at this 40 The Dog Book kennel. We have counted over forty of all sorts, from Airedales to Bostons, playing and romping together with the men only within hearing as they set about cleaning the kennels. It takes a good hour to do the rough work of cleaning up, and to put the kennels in order for the return of the dogs, which are watered and lightly fed. The men then have breakfast, and after seeing that everything is perfectly clean and shipshape, each of the helpers starts out with from four to six terriers and takes them for a good hour’s run through the pine woods. These are close by the kennels and afford splendid exercise-grounds with the flooring of dry pine-needles on which torun. When the roads are in good condition, a run is given there by way of variety. In this way all the dogs which require special amount of exercise get it, and on their return are watered and put in their.stalls, any mud being wiped off them and the friction of the straw and the spaced flooring of the stall doing the rest in the way of keeping the dog clean. By the time all the dogs requiring it are given this running exercise, such as the terriers (except Bostons) and sporting dogs, it is necessary to set about the work preparatory to feeding, and at six o’clock the dogs have another run in the field, whereupon each lot as called is fed, till all are in their stalls again. Finally, just before the men retire, the dogs are allowed a few minutes in the covered side-yard, and then are sent to bed for the night. It may be supposed that this exercising of the dogs entails an excessive amount of labour. True, there is a good bit of work, but the dogs are always clean and neat and take plenty of exercise when they are out, being on the scamper all of the time. On the other hand, there is not half as much cleaning of kennels, and the absence of vermin and all disease is a far greater recompense. ‘The dogs are speedily kennel-broken, and if one wants liberty he lets the kennel-man know. We have seen a moderation of this stall system at the kennels of Mr. Gooderham, whose kennel manager, Charley Lynden, is famed for the con- dition in which he shows his smooth fox-terriers. Such of the dogs as are to be shown are kennelled separately in large boxes in which there is a sleep- ing bench. Enough of the door is cut out at the top to allow the dog to sit with his head through the hole. It is a rather comical sight when there are a dozen heads sticking out of as many boxes in a row. The important thing to note in this boxing is to get the hole high, so that the dog will stretch up in place of crouching to look out. We had recently to devise plans for the accommodation of about a The Dog in the House 41 dozen terriers which could not be turned in together like a lot of setters or collies. Separate kennels were a necessity, although it was quite possible to have the dogs together in pairs without permitting them to test each other’s game qualities. The basis of operations consisted of a well-built disused poultry-house, fifty feet long, about thirty feet of which was clear of obstructions, and a large barn divided by a good partition; between the stable portion and what had presumably been the coach-house end. Economy was desirable, as length of occupancy was problematical, and we proceeded to make as useful a copy of the most elaborate and expensive kennels as we could devise. The poultry-house from between the car- penter’s bench shown at the left-hand lower corner and the still remaining chicken-pen at the farther end we divided into four pens, each slightly over six by nine. The uprights along the passageway side are sunk through the brick floor, but with the exception of the foot-wide board on the near side of the first division all boards are slightly clear of the floor to permit of free flushing or sweeping. The doors slide or are pushed to the side on rollers, and the passageway is always kept clear. The lower portion of the wire partitions is half-inch mesh, while the upper three feet is ordinary two-inch poultry netting. The latter we propose changing for four-foot netting slightly stronger, and cleating it to a strip or board at the top. Some dogs can clear the five feet or climb up the netting. The floor of the house is of brick, but we had found that dogs running in and out of the house to the outside inclosure brought in dirt which clung to the bricks and made the floor very hard to clean. We therefore concluded to make a false bottom of strips, and this was done as follows: Three pieces of scantling were put down lengthwise in an inclosure and, the strips having all been cut to an equal length, two were nailed down to keep the scantlings steady and equi- distant, and the whole floor then laid down as seen in the photograph. Finally the floor was sawn into three snug-fitting sections for easy removal. It is a mere form to sweep the floor daily, and about the only dirt that accu- mulates below the strips is in the section nearest the outlet to the yard. This is taken up twice a week and the entire floor once a week and scrubbed with disinfectant. The sleeping-boxes are old travelling-boxes, and in winter a strip of sacking is nailed along the top, sufficient depth being allowed to cover the opening. ‘There is rather too much window in this house for cold nights, and we propose getting up some light frame covered with sheathing- paper, perhaps, and hinged so that it can be easily raised or lowered into 42 The Dog Book place and fastened at night. Two of these windows, which are hothouse sash and slide open, will admit enough light, and three might thus be covered permanently during the winter and give less trouble than the suggested swinging covers. The raising and lowering of the doors to the yards is controlled by the cords shown in the photograph as extending to the passage- way above the height of the wire netting. Previous to altering the interior of this house we had already put up a six-foot-high outside inclosure, sixteen by forty, with a ten-foot reserve at the far end for the chickens which might arrive. The cash outlay for two rolls of netting and lumber for that was about eleven dollars. The labour was home talent. The house altering was put into the hands of a carpenter. and in his bill of forty-eight dollars some extra work and material was in- cluded pertaining to a tennis-court whith probably offset the first outlay for the outside work, and our reckoning is that the whole business cost fifty dollars, but that of course is only alterations to the original house. The barn photograph shows an adaptation of the ideas of Mr. Thomas and the box arrangements at Mr. Gooderham’s kennels. The boxes were the travelling-boxes the dogs came across the Atlantic in. Two were cut with holes like those at the Toronto kennels, but this was abandoned because the dogs kept continually barking, mainly at each other, while it was found that dogs shut up entirely were quiet. It will be noticed that the boxes are placed on strips of four-inch stuff, and the strip in front is placed sufficiently far back to admit of the sweepings of the box to fall in front of it through an opening about two inches by six, cut in what is, as they lie on their backs, the bottom of the box. Every morning when a dog is liberated his box is swept clean, and at the left-hand corner of the front of the second box from the left may be seen the sweepings from that box. When all are cleaned the floor is swept with a broom and the business is complete. No dogs are kept continually in these boxes, but are changed with the dogs in the other kennels, or liberated into the large top floor of the barn during the day, and all have two good long walks and runs daily. Their advantage as sleeping-boxes is unquestionable, for the dogs are quiet and therefore sleep well. Another Americanism in the way of working out ideas suitable for the necessities of the case is seen in the Russian Wolfhound kennels of Dr. De Mund at Bath Beach. The most of Dr. De Mund’s dogs are kept at Saddle River, N. J., with Mr. Nichols as partner in charge, but a few are The Dog in the House 43 always at Bath Beach, and during the late summer a litter of six was most successfully reared. ‘The thing to be provided for was summer shade, and this was effected by roofing-in a good-sized portion of the yard, which had, at the kennel end, a cement floor. One view of the kennels shows the sleep- ing rooms at the rear of the roofed-in section, and close to the door at the left or coach-house end is a large tank with running water, and from this tap the hard floor can be thoroughly washed and cooled off with ease, the floor sloping to a centre drain. Another view of the entire length of the kennel inclosure shows a very essential thing for the comfort of the dogs, and that is the large, slightly-sloping elevated platform. Below this the dogs can dig into the cool earth and enjoy life with the thermometer up in the nineties, while if the sun is comforting they can bask and blink on the warm top. The idea Dr. De Mund had in mind when he built his kennel was to make it available also for winter, and to this end he had it so arranged that sections can be fitted all along the coach-house end and along the drive, while that facing the exercise inclosure and having the best sun exposure is inclosed with a good deal of glass to admit the sunshine. The view of the kennel yards at the Saddle River establishment is conventional in the arrangements, and only differs from the majority in the size of the yards, a much needed thing with dogs as large as wolf-hounds. As may be imagined, the kennels of Mr. J. Pierpont Morgan near Highland Falls, N. Y., are built with the substantiality and good taste characteristic of that gentleman. We find here a combination of kennel and living house, for the manager resides upstairs. The approach from the public road is to what is really the rear of the kennels. A flight of steps leads up to the living rooms, and a door at the bottom is one of the entrances to the kennels. The ground floor of the central section is used for an office and reception or exhibition room, with storage, bath-rooms and kitchen in the rear portion. The two wings are similar in their ground-floor arrangements. Entering at the door at the foot of the steps the visitor finds himself in a passage terminating in doors at either end, and with three doors facing him. ‘The door to the right leads to the reception-room, that to the left is an exit to the driveway shown at the rear end in the first photograph, while those facing lead into three large kennels each fitted with a wide sleeping-bench the length of the room. Collies are kept in company, 44 The Dog Book very few showing antipathy to kennel mates, and it is much better so to keep them. The first photograph shows the front exterior arrangement. Each of these rooms opens on a cement-floored, sloping yard, with a brick inclosing wall, surmounted by a substantial wired erection. The centre and wider door along this row admits to the wider yard facing the centre section. ‘There is a corresponding wide door at the office front, and here dogs are boxed for transit to shows and put on the conveyance standing at this wide central gate. The farther or western section is a replica of the eastern, except that a kennel-man’s room is provided for upstairs, with easy access to the kennel floor. Facing the driveway along the kennel fronts, as seen in the first photograph, is an irregular triangular inclosure into which the dogs are turned for exercise; shown in the second photograph. Of course this is by no means their sole exercise, for, as at all large kennels, some of the help are perpetually taking out two or three dogs fora run. In addition to this kennel there is another plainer one a little distance to the rear, where the matrons and some of the puppies are kept. There is nothing there that is uncommon: a row of kennels under one roof, each with one or two dogs, and opening each on its own small yard. A neatly-arranged kennel is seen in the photograph of Mr.Samuel Unter- myer’s collie home at Yonkers, N. Y. Internally it is well finished and has the usual sleeping-bench in each kennel, a passageway running the full length of the building. Outside we have a much more substantial inclosure fence than is customary, and it certainly gives a finished appearance. The slope of the kennel-yards is a desirable feature, and the rising board walks to the entrance-doors are good feet-cleaners. The kennels of Dr. Knox, of Danbury, for his bloodhounds are the most novel we have ever met with. The guiding principle is that of the barn- builder who arranges for the live-stock in the “cellar.” The kennel is built of stone and is banked on the wintry-blast side to the height of the rear wall. The entrance is around the corner to the left of the photograph, and the arrangement of the interior is shown in the second photograph; five roomy kennels, with cement floor sloping to a gutter in the centre, and leading to a drain at one end. The entire front of each kennel is a swing- ing gate. The sleeping-box is in two parts—the bottom and six-inch sides for the straw, and over this an upper box fits like a tall cover and in this is cut the entrance. By this plan it is possible to have an open sleeping- bench for summer use, or a covered one for winter. The Dog in the House . 45 MANAGEMENT Toy dogs, especially Yorkshires, have to be kept almost entirely on the box plan of confinement and with added precautions against injury to coats. These long-coated toys sleep on the boards, for that is not a hard- ship to a dog, and many a dog sleeps on top of his box in preference to lying on the straw provided inside. But with dogs whose value and success at shows depend so much upon the length and fine quality of a coat, the plain wooden floor is necessary. So also is the enfolding of the hind feet in linen bandages covering the toes and preventing them from tearing the valuable hairs by scratching. Some fanciers use a dressing of oil to keep the coat from getting into a tangle, but those most successful in this country do nothing but carefully brush the Yorkshire daily, or even twice a day. Toy spaniels and Pomeranians being stronger in texture of coat, do not call for quite as much care, but still it is wise to use the linen boots on the hind feet, and of course the daily brushing is absolutely essential. We have seen no toy kennels so perfect in appointments as those of the Swiss Mountain Kennels of Germantown. The toy kennel as shown is in one of the house rooms also used as an office, so that as a rule some one is about all the time. For exercise the sloping lawn in front of the pre- revolutionary house, so typical of the Germantown district, is neatly wired off from the carriage driveway to the left and along the fence in front of the house, the lawn being kept closely trimmed at all times. The slope to the fence makes the drainage perfect, while in the event of rain the extended porch to the right, shown in the photograph as under an awning, is used for exercising. The whole porch or veranda is wired to keep the little fellows either on or off as may be desired. With toys more than any other breed of dogs, perhaps, “eternal vigilance is the price of success.” An Ovutpoor KENNEL Perhaps the most unique kennel is that Dr. Foote recently had at New Rochelle, consisting of rows of empty kerosene barrels and about thirty yards of galvanised wire strung from a tree behind each barrel to a tree in a parallel line. About twenty dogs were so kept summer and winter, the barrels being sheltered from the sun by the evergreen under which it was placed, and a sack over the entrance in winter being all that was necessary 46 The Dog Book for the occupants, which were mainly fox-terriers, smooth and wire-coated. Dr. Foote’s black-and-tan terriers, of which breed he was a leading exhibitor at that time, were not constitutionally strong enough to stand that style of kennelling in the winter. This is simply carrying out the method of chain- ing a dog to an overhead wire as suggested for the watch-dog, and applying it to a number of dogs. In this case there was the starting-point of two rows of trees a suitable distance apart. Such is not always available, nor perhaps is there space enough to be had, hence an inclosure with a kennel for the dog is usually the only available plan. If left to the carpenter, he will build a kennel on the plan adopted by the original carpenter and handed down as an heirloom unto this day. Some years ago we had some kennels made to order as illustrated. They were in three sizes, being meant for cocker spaniels, terriers, and still larger for collies. All were on the same plan, the object being to afford the dog shelter and allow of easy cleaning. It is also a good one for bitches during whelping. The advantages of such a kennel, in addition to the easy cleaning, is that in winter it is very comfortable, as there is no direct chilling wind on the dog. If the dog simply wants shelter, he lies in the open front- less space, and in summer the end door may be removed entirely so that he can use either place he likes. We found, however, that with time the re- movable end shrank somewhat and was not held securely by the turn-buttons, hence we suggest either the common hook and eye screw or to sink the door and use small bolts with auger-holes through the front and rear into which the bolts may be shot. FEEDING Nearly every large kennel now relies to some extent upon one or other of the several makes of dog-biscuits, and that the demand for this convenient. form of food has grown very much of late years we have good evidence in the greater number of firms engaged in supplying the needs of dog owners, whether of small or large kennels. Usually in large kennels biscuits form the morning meal, and for the main meal of the day, given in the evening, food is cooked and fed cool or cold. Stale bread mixed with soup or meat; mush made of various condiments in which meat is either mixed and cooked together, or the mush is subsequently mixed with the soup and meat, forms this main meal of the day. It may also consist of broken biscuits, dry or The Dog in the House 47 soaked in water or soup, with or without added meat. So that it will be seen that there is a variety of methods for feeding. No matter what the material is of which the mush is made, there is one absolute rule which must be followed, or the dogs will soon get out of shape: that is, thorough cooking. What the grain is or what meal may be used is, iN our opinion, of far less consequence than the most thorough cooking. For two summer seasons we made the night meal of stale bread, mixed variously with milk, buttermilk, soup, and soup and meat. The first sum- mer we used ordinary stale bread got by the barrel. The dogs kept all right till the end of August, and then there was trouble. We should say that a variation was made in the evening meal by using broken biscuits soaked in soup or with a little meat added. The next year we decided to try oven-dried stale bread, fearing that perhaps some of the ordinary stale bread ‘had become mouldy and had thus affected the dogs. The result was the same: dogs were all right until September, and then almost the whole kennel went wrong. We decided against bread as the staple for the third summer and tried broken rice as the main food, adopting after several trials a home-made jacket-cooker con- sisting of a deep tin pail which sinks to within three inches of the top in a straight-sided galvanised-iron wash-tub. Perhaps one of those galvanised- iron ash-holders might answer the purpose. With this combination the meat can be cooked in the jacket-boiler while the rice-mixture is boiled in the pail. This third year the dogs did well all through, but were rather poor in flesh. Late in August we added half rolled oats, but there was little im- provement in condition, and in October, thinking that our béte notre, corn- meal, might be ventured, we mixed equal quantities of rice, rolled oats and ground hominy, and the beneficial result was at once apparent. The dogs put on flesh and thrived wonderfully, and so far as we are concerned we have solved the problem of feeding cooked food and keeping clear of skin troubles. Our main reliance is in the perfect cooking, and for that purpose rice in the mixture is very essential. On one occasion we even had uncracked oats put in by mistake, and tried that with some misgivings, but it cooked quite as soon as the rice, and when that is soft and fully swollen one may depend upon corn-meal or hominy being done, too. The latter, unless thoroughly’ cooked, will in a month set a kennel of dogs scratching themselves to pieces. Whatever meat you get, have it clean and sweet. Kennels in a farming country can generally procure a cow or horse, and so long as the meat keeps 48 The Dog Book sweet it is all right. With city kennels meat is an item that tells. Country kennels also get milk at a cheap rate, as a rule, and it should be known by all dog-fanciers that exhibitors of rabbits are strong believers in milk for putting a polish on the coat of their exhibition animals, so when procurable it may well be added to the kennel bill of fare. There has perhaps been more discussion as to milk for dogs, particu- larly puppies, than anything else in the dietary line. Some hold that milk is a fruitful source of worms in puppies. The fact is, that there is milk and milk. Warm milk from the cow is a very different thing from cold skimmed- milk, and even the best of cow’s-milk is radically different from the milk of a bitch. Mr. A. J. Sewall, the London veterinarian, who makes dogs a specialty, has recently drawn the attention of English dog-owners to this difference in these milks, and he gives the following analysis of the two: Cow’s milk. Bitch’s milk. Wael nt icy ota eeoadynagiexeends 87.4 66.3 DUMP sa kasie deseo ainuserbusee ees 4.0 14.8 Sugar and soluble salts........... 5.0 2.9 Casein and insoluble salts........ 3.6 16.0 When, therefore, you weaken the milk by skimming it, think of how the poor puppy must gorge itself in order to get the necessary nourishment in order merely to live, let alone thrive. In place of weakening the cow’s milk it should be enriched, either by concentration in the way of boiling and thus evaporating the water, or by adding eggs. It is remarkable how closely eggs and bitch’s milk agree in analysis, they being practically the same with the exception of the lack of sugar in eggs. Now, if one appreciates that he is substituting milk for eggs and milk, or in some cases skim-milk for eggs and milk, he will not be surprised at his puppies going wrong. A puppy has a small stomach, and what it gets from its dam is very rich food. Then, if left to herself the dam would, as soon as her flow of milk fell off, disgorge half-digested meat, and this the puppies would eat. Their food would be almost entirely half-digested meat, if she could get it, and it is thus seen how radically wrong it is to suppose that poor milk will by itself do for dogs—especially young, growing animals. Mr. Sewall’s suggestion pila apqeacuias ay Jo Aaa 03, aHaNWOS GNV YALNIM NI NOJLOILOdd GOOD ONIGHOAdY “LT yunosoe wo sal Dj ay NNAM GANVAIO ATISVA ‘AIAVLYOXWOO V sere ee An arrangement of sleeping boxes, especially adapted for a non-heatced kennel in very cold weather. Also a good preventive of noise at night t i An economical fitting-up of a chicken house, embracing the principles of cleanliness, guod ventilation and comfort for the terriers kept here THE BORTHWICK KENNELS, HACKENSACK, N. J. The Dog in the House 49 for strengthening milk is to add to each pint of good cow’s milk two and a quarter ounces of cream and two and a half ounces of powdered casein. Mix in that order and stir thoroughly till the casein is dissolved. Only about a third of the quantity of ordinary milk one would give a puppy is needed when this concentrated milk diet is used. CHAPTER III ExuisitTion Docs BEGINNER, or the ordinary onlooker when dogs are being judged, seeing that a good many of the ribbons go toa select number of those who are showing dogs, is apt to conclude that it is impossible to win against these success- ful showers. The disappointed exhibitor, chagrined at want of success, is apt to attribute it to the connivance on the part of the judge and the men who win so many prizes. But what has the disap- pointed exhibitor done to deserve success? Consider the fact that he feeds his dog till it is more fit to win at a fat-stock show; that he brings it to the show “in the rough”—perhaps with a lot of old dead coat still on it. An immense blue bow is tied to its collar, and when he is asked to walk his dog around the ring, he has to drag it through the sawdust because it does not know how to follow on the chain. On the other hand, the successful owner or kennel-man has educated his dog to show himself to the best advantage. It has been early taught to wear a collar and has been accustomed to the chain. Every day perhaps he has been led into a counterpart ring, his handler having a few little dainty pieces in his pocket. Then the youngster, if a terrier, collie, or Great Dane, is set to face his handler, who gives him a piece of meat and keeps him in expectation of more. The dog has to go through this little act so often that he is alert when he is led into the ring at a show; all his mind is on the good things he is going to get a nibble of. The result is, that the dog is full of life and animation. Then, too, he has been groomed daily, the old coat was taken off weeks before, and with every attention to his condition of flesh, he is put down “fit.” Not only is it a case of merited reward to the dog, but also to the man at the other end of the chain, just as much as the trainer of the winner of a great event on the turf is deserving of praise, where horses are said to be “in the pink of con- dition.” Another point is that these experts know where their dog is wrong, for much as it may surprise some very confident owners, there has never been a 5! 52 The Dog Book perfect dog seen yet, of all the many hundreds of prize-winners. When one knows where his dog is deficient, he is not likely to put that deficiency more prominently before the judge than he can avoid. Whereas, if the dog is particularly good in any feature, you may depend upon it, that is what the judge is most persistently invited to gaze upon. A man who does not know where his dog is wrong is likely to be unknowingly doing it all the harm he can by the way in which he is allowing it to stand. One of the first things a puppy should be taught is to follow on lead; and this should begin with the putting on of a collar. Let the youngster wear that for a few days until he ceases to pay attention to it. Sometimes a puppy that is full of play and life will almost take naturally to the lead, and others are very slow to learn. In the latter case try persuasion, remern- bering that the best. way to a dog’s heart is down his throat. Get a few Pieces of meat and drop your end of the lead. Then offer the puppy a piece of meat, and it might be well to have him hungry for this lesson. He will come sooner or later for the meat, so keep moving about and giving it in small scraps, then take off the lead when you have done. Try this again the next day, and when he has become so accustomed to the lead as to race about with it on, take hold of it and feed him as before walking about. If he balks, stop at once and get him to come naturally to you for the meat. Associate the lead with some pleasure and not with a punishment in the case of timid dogs. Also from time to time feed him with scraps when on the lead and so prepare him for showing. Even if dogs have not all to be shown as terriers and on the alert, like spaniels for instance, yet there is the association of the lead with a pleasure and the dog is livelier. Bear in mind that no dog should rely on past record to win, any more than a racehorse does, but ought to win on its merits as shown, and herein condition plays a prominent part, if the judging is done by a capable man, in a proper manner. Hence it behooves every owner, particularly of a good young dog, to show him on the first occasion in as perfect condition as possible. It is better to wait till a later show than to give him a set-back to begin with. In order to do justice to the dog, provided he has been broken to the lead and is bright and lively, and will show off to advantage, attention must be turned to having him in good bodily condition. This should not be delayed until close to the show, but must be attended to during some two months prior to the proposed time of exhibiting. Exhibition Dogs 53 Go over the dog carefully and get rid of any old coat that may be still on him. An Irish water-spaniel, for instance, carries a lot of dead, faded coat, and this should be removed by combing and with the fingers. It is not intended in any way to advocate the plucking of a bad-coated dog and the imposing of a naturally woolly-coated dog by getting him in right shape just once a year. Some bring into the ring a dog so manifestly barbered as to not deceive a blind man, though the judges too frequently fail to see the plain marks of the clipper and singeing. It is, however, perfectly legitimate to remove the old coat in early preparation, as an assistance to nature. In the case of terriers which have a rough coat, and yet should not be shown shaggy, the coat may be at its full, but would not naturally be cast for some weeks. To take that already loose coat off two months before a show is perfectly legitimate. If it is not done, the dog will not get rid of it for several weeks, and the new coat will be too short at the time of the show. In the East, if we have a wire-haired terrier shedding in November, he may be allowed to do it naturally, aided only by the daily grooming with the brush. Thus he will be ready for the spring shows of February and last till April, when, unless he is a very good-coated dog, he will go off and call for a good deal of attention. A collie is a dog that very little can be done for, as his coat cannot be forced to any appreciable extent. In the East he is too long at low-water- mark in coat, and if he is casting his coat might as well be given up for a show that is not in the near future. That is one great difficulty connected with the showing of long-coated dogs. With smooth terriers, pointers, and Great Danes this difficulty does not exist, and it is simply a question of put- ting them into bodily condition. The matter of the first preparation of the coat having been attended to, it is a good plan to give the candidate an aperient. It will do no harm if this takes the shape of a vermifuge, serving the double purpose of clearing the system together with getting rid of internal parasites, which are a fruitful source of annoyance in conditioning dogs. After that comes the daily work of grooming, giving plenty of brisk exercise and feeding well. The exercise will give a good appetite, and it is more advisable to respond to this by a more liberal allowance of meat than to give more food in the dish. Dogs that are supposed to work or to be fit to race have to be shown with good, hard muscle, hence we have more faith in the playful half- hour of sharp running when liberated from the shut-up kennel than in the 54 The Dog Book dawdling about all day in a kennel-yard in the belief that the latter is muscle- building exercise. This applies also to the prolonged road-walking on the lead. There is a good deal of the artificial in all this, but it is no more artificial than any other preparation for a competition, and it is the neglect of this preparation which has caused many an avoidable defeat. It sometimes occurs that a dog declines to eat as much as is necessary, and hence will not put on flesh. “Tape-worm should then be tried for, and if a good vermifuge properly administered to the dog after a preparatory fast is not productive of satisfactory results, it is likely that the dog is one of the kind known as a “bad doer.” ‘These dogs are very difficult to get right, for while they will eat one day very well, they are off their feed for a day or two afterward. Some proceed to dose such a dog with arsenic and strychnine, but these conditioners are bad things to resort to as a starter, and it is much better to get some tonic pills. There are none better than the following: Quinine, 12 grains; sulphate of iron, 18 grains; extract of gentian, 24 grains; powdered ginger, 18 grains. This is sufficient for twelve pills. As two may be administered daily, a sufficient quantity may as well be ordered at one time. To aid digestion give a pinch of pepsin or a little nux vomica in the drinking water with the food. When the dog will not of his own volition eat the desired quantity of food, it becomes necessary to improve the quality, and raw scraped beef, beaten eggs, and anything else he will eat must be provided. That is the customary way to treat a “bad doer,” but never when pos- sible to avoid it do I administer medicines in my own kennel, and I have always adhered to the method of the late Sidney Smith, famed in connection with St. Bernards. I called once at his house in Leeds, England, and seeing a dog under the table in the parlor, asked what he was doing there. ‘Oh, we are cake-feeding him.” That expression being a new one, I asked what it meant. Then Mr. Smith told me that when they had a dog that was hard to condition and would not eat enough, he was brought into the house and a supply of cakes was kept on the table from which he was fed all day long. A dog, even when not hungry, will feed from the hand, almost to oblige his owner; and when he has had all he will take of cake, will eat something else. Taking it in small quantities in this manner, the appetite does not get cloyed, as is the case with a hearty meal. This is a method I have tried successfully on dogs that were hard to condition. - In order to know what your dogs are doing at the trencher, it is well Exhibition Dogs 55 to feed each one separately. There is a great difference in dogs, some feed- ing nicely in company, others refusing to eat unless alone, while there are some that will only “eat jealous” —that is, they will keep on eating to deprive another dog near-by—not one that will fight, however, but one just hungry and plucky enough to show anxiety to get his turn at the dish. A dog that runs from one dish to another driving the others away, must be excluded from company and fed by himself. While there is no objection to feeding well-behaved dogs together, the better plan is to feed individually, so as to note appetites. As a final accelerant, if it is advisable to put an extra polish on the dog, there is less harm in the following than in the pure Fowler’s solution of arsenic. Take equal quantities of decoction of yellow-bark and compound tincture of bark, giving from half a teaspoon to two teaspoon- fuls, according to size of dog, in a little water twice a day, and into this drop from four to eight drops of Fowler’s solution of arsenic. Administer this regularly for three weeks prior to the show, and the benefit of the treatment will be manifest in the appearance of the coat. Having, let us hope, got your dog or dogs feeling “like fighting cocks,” the week preceding the show, it becomes a question as to washing prior to shipping. If the journey is short, and the dog has merely a one-night trip to the show, washing, if done at all, should be done some three, or at least two, days before shipping. I say, if done at all, as it is not essential for some dogs, if they have been properly groomed and cared for, and in some breeds it is detrimental to the coat, especially those which are required to be wiry-coated. All such dogs are but moderate in length of coat, and the brush and hand-glove should have been used enough to have a clean coat with a good polish on it. But when we come to breeds that are soft in coat or call for a coat showing length and bulk, such as the collie, a good wash is advisable and makes a vast difference in the quantity look of the coat. Use the very best soap, plenty of water no warmer than is absolutely necessary, rinse most thoroughly, and dry by first taking off all water possible by squeezing and with the sponge, then dry with towels. Use warm ones as the coat begins to dry, but finally use your hands, drawing them the way of the coat in short-coated dogs, and in collies and borzois, whose coat is a standing-out one, do it both ways, with the coat and the reverse, until there is not the slightest feeling of dampness. This hand-rubbing is a great polisher, and if the washing has been unavoidably delayed, it may be im- proved upon by rubbing on the hands an infinitesimal quantity of fine oil. 56 The Dog Book Only the very slightest quantity is advisable, and one should rub the hands together well, so that there is merely the feeling of oil. Then touch the coat lightly all over and gradually rub it in more completely in the same man- ner as the coat was dried by the hands. The English Kennel Club holds that this application of oil is faking, but that club has a habit of straining at gnats and swallowing camels. Polishing the coat to give it its natural appearance is a vastly different thing from using dyes or colouring materials to give the dog an appearance it has not naturally, or from the outrageous trimming which the very legislators themselves pass over when they are acting as judges. One of them even went the length of recently stating over his signature that the trimming of the dogs he had judged was shameful, but that it should not be left to the judge to take any action. If he is not the very man above all others whose duty it is to examine the dogs and pass upon them, then who is? If possible, have your dogs arrive at the show before the opening day, if they have more than a short trip. Even with an eight-hours’ journey a morning start is to be preferred, and a good night’s rest is needed before the morning of the judging. It makes a wonderful amount of difference in the snap and life of the dog, if he is journey-wearied when in the ring. Early arrivals also get best places for their boxes, and can generally find a quiet corner where they can be got at easily and their dogs are comfortably sleep- ing in their boxes the night before the judging. After that it depends upon the individual dog, for some are just as much at home and sleep as well on the bench as in their boxes, and that kind need not be worried about so much the night before the judging. By the time you have arrived at the show you ought to know your dog very well—how he feeds and how he looks best. A dog a bit long in the back or legs must not be shown unless he has a feed inside him sufficient to counteract that defect as much as possible. Such dogs are apt to be delicate feeders, and if fed a hearty meal too soon, there will be no coaxing them to eat and fill out at the right time. It is better in such a case to give little or nothing till the right moment. By that time bread and milk will likely be acceptable and is a good filler out, for the dog will usually eat it freely. For that reason the refrigerator milk is rather too cold and had better be poured out of the bottle and allowed to stand in the pan to get the chill off, or other- wise warmed. If more food is needed than the dog will take of the bread and milk, have a little chopped meat and mix in the dish, gradually increasing Exhibition Dogs 57 the quantity as he stops eating until he has had all that is necessary. As the effect of this meal is at once apparent in the shape of the dog, it should not be given until it is assured that the class will be called at once. It will also be necessary to see to the coat. If the dog has become fouled and dirty on the trip, washing may be necessary, but if the brush will suffice, try that. If the dog is not foul, but simply somewhat dirty with “clean-dirt,” as the children say, there is a better plan, and that is the use of powdered magnesia. There are special preparations, but that is good enough; it is procurable everywhere and it is cheap. Stand the dog on a newspaper—put on a box if he is not a large dog—take a handful of the magnesia and rub it well into the coat. When you brush it out, as you must, it will leave the coat clean, and really the white will be almost whiter than that of the washed dog, besides having the luster on it. Bear in mind that this is a very different thing from putting black on a black-and-tan terrier where nature has put tan hairs, or the rubbing of a red composition on an Irish terrier that is not dark enough in shade. This is a custom not alto- gether unknown in England, where a very prominent—in fact, about the most prominent—exhibitor has been disqualified for seven years. The punishment is not too severe by any means, and now if the trimmers are only dealt with in a similar way, some good may be done. . Returning to the magnesia, we may say that there is hardly a fox- terrier shown but is so treated before being taken into the ring. The same thing may be done to the white legs and frill of the collies, or for any kind of white dog. However, be sure to have it completely brushed out before showing; finishing off with the hand-glove. Your terrier is now ready for the judging. With collies and dogs required to show coat, it is advisable to over- come the heat and dryness of our dog-show halls and the sun-heat of our summer and fall shows by getting up an imitation Scotch mist or a sample of English rainy days. Two hours before your collie is likely to be called up for judgment, take him off the bench and rub a wet sponge or towel up and down his coat. Do not make him dripping wet, but have him well dampened through the coat. Let him shake himself, and put him back on the bench. The dog has to dry out and no more in order to be at his best, so keep one eye on your dog and the other on the ring. If he is not drying out quick enough, use a dry towel or take him off the bench and walk him about or turn him into the exercising-ring to run about. If you have timed 58 The Dog Book your work properly your dog will enter the ring with each hair individualised, “like quills upon the fretful porcupine,” while his unattended neighbour with his dry coat hanging flat to his side will be at a decided disadvantage. This dampening of the coat is more particularly necessary in the black-and- tans, for as a rule their coats lack the substance and the stand-out quality of the sables. ' We are now at the stage where the class may be called within a few minutes. There are certain things that are better attended to in the exer- cise-ring than in the judges’ ring, so take your dog there for a few moments, or at least walk him around for a little so that when he gets into the ring you can command his undivided attention. If you have a real good dog, one that will “stand a lot of picking to pieces,” get into the ring as soon as you can, for while the judge is awaiting the announcement, “All in, sir,” he will be looking about, and the more he sees of your good dog the better he will like him. Also, if your dog is inclined to be timid, let him get accus- tomed to his surroundings, and with such a dog do not omit to take something in your pocket that he will take interest enough in to enable him to forget that he is a little afraid. Never pull such a dog about or scold him, but humour him as much as possible. A judge can always tell when a handler is doing his best for such a dog, and will give the exhibit time to come to himself. Remember above everything that the dog is on exhibition and not you, and it is your place to show him to the best advantage. The judge may perhaps find that he is wide in front, but that is no excuse for your letting him see nothing but those straddling forelegs. Try him with the nice out- line and the good back your dog shows. On the other hand, if your exhibit is a bulldog and his strong suit is a naturally wide front with straight legs, have the judge admire that all the time if you can, for it is his business to detect any defect behind and not yours to show it conspicuously. If you are having your photograph taken and have a scar on one side of your face, you naturally turn your other cheek to the camera, not for the purpose of deceit, but to present a good appearance, or your best side. So it is in dog- showing: present the best side to the judge and minimise as much as possible the drawback of the scar or blemish. Do not keep your dog at attention all the time, for just when the judge happens to turn your way, as likely as not your dog will want a change, or is taking interest in something else, and you must shape him up again. Exhibition Dogs 59 Watch the judge, and when his back is turned or he has put you in the corner after a satisfactory inspection of your dog, let doggy be at ease. If you are not yet picked out for a mark of some kind, never lose track of the judge. As his eye travels your way, have your dog ready in his best possible pose, standing square on his legs, not struggling to get at other dogs, or back on his haunches looking up at you too much. That looks all right to you, per- haps, but the judge may have him ali out of shape from his point of view. Many make the mistake of trying to show dogs of one breed as they do of another breed, whereas there are certain characteristics pertaining to each variety which should not be overlooked. In St. Bernards, mastiffs, greyhounds, hounds, setters and pointers you want no particular keenness in expression, and the elevation or lifting of the ears is a detraction in the case of the first two breeds, the look of size in skull and dignity in expression being lost. In setters, pointers and hounds, the shape of the skull is spoilt by ears too high on the head, they being required, in their cases, to hang well down and close to the side of the head; in greyhounds and wolfhounds the symmetry is spoilt very much by a pricked or lifted ear, even admitting that the Russian fanciers speak of the horse’s ear as proper. Nothing that detracts from appearance can be beneficial—even if for fancy’s sake some call it proper. Terriers, prick-eared and cropped-eared dogs call for a keen or a smart look, and should have all encouragement to hold their ears well up if pricked or cropped, and smartly and with a keen look of the eyes in the case of natural-eared terriers. So also with the collie and his semi-erect ear when at attention. It is usual to get the collie to “throw his ears” by throwing something on the ground a short distance in front of him, but this calls for judgment. Some dogs carry a rather high ear, and in such a case do not throw too far ahead, but so that the dog will look rather more down in front than ahead. Of course, in the case of ears not quite high enough, have the dog look up slightly if possible, or well ahead. In spaniels the one great char- acteristic is a tail carried down, yet it is very common to see even spaniel men of prominence holding their spaniel’s tail slightly elevated instead of leaving it alone. Some foolish showers will, in the case of a spaniel short of lip, keep drawing the attention of the judge to this defect by pulling the lip down and holding it so. Such a course is merely saying to the judge that the dog is defective there. The less one handles a dog in the ring the better, as a rule, but some 60 The Dog Book judges seem to be at the mercy of handlers who put a dog in a fancy position he cannot assume naturally, place each foot of a setter in a particular place, hold his head just so, and then his tail straight. Now, if any man has ever seen a setter hold his tail stiff and straight naturally, he has seen a curiosity. The setter has a sickle- or sabre-carried tail, but we have got so used to this conventional fashion that we must now have the setters’ tail pulled straight out with a string when having them photographed, whereas in that sup- posedly natural easy standing position nine out of ten setters would carry a curved or down tail. Like the ladies, we must perforce bow to the decrees of fashion even in dog-showing! CHAPTER IV MANAGEMENT OF SHOWS preference to discussing the merits or demerits of shows we will simply say that we owe the excellence in conforma- tion of the dogs of the present day to shows, and give a few hints as to show management. ; It is our firm conviction that the best-managed show is that in which responsibility is concentrated. A committee of three good men is preferable to anything larger. A large committee only enables interested owners to work in a friendly judge, whereas the selection of a judge by a majority of three men gives a far better chance for merit alone to speak. We do not believe in the salaried superintendent having anything to do with the selection—not even to communicating in any way with a prospective judge. At the committee’s request he may submit suggestions, but there is far too much evidence, or has been, that superintendents’ selections are made in part with an eye to future benefits for themselves by their selecting leading officials of other clubs, who in return reciprocate by engaging the superin- tendent to manage their shows or to judge. ‘That is one of the evils of show management, and an equal one is permitting judges to pass upon each other’s dogs at the same show. Have the club secretary hold all communications with prospective judges, and in making selections endeavour as much as possible to get out of any beaten path that has been followed at preceding shows. A new man is tried, proves successful, and immediately he is in demand at a number of shows. Committeemen would do well to mark how often their con- templated judge has been out of late, for the more frequently that has been the case the more limited becomes his support, for dogs beaten under him are kept at home, whereas a new man causes owners to try again. This same over-worked man will do to try at a show six months later, or in a widely different part of the country. Look out for popular men who have had a rest and will attract entries of winners and defeated alike. In drawing up the premium list do not aim too high: more shows have 6x 62 The Dog Book been wrecked by offering an extended prize-list than from any other cause. Not all cities can repeat the New York prize-list, for it has a five-dollar entry fee and an admission charge of a dollar—which turns more money into the treasury in one day than many shows take in during an entire week. Because Smithport has an entry of twenty dachshunds, do not imagine that Blankville can give seven or eight classes for that breed. ‘That show will likely get dogs enough to take every firs prize and only receive one entry- fee per class, losing perhaps forty dollars on the breed. What is wanted is a classification warranted by the run of dogs in the section of the country from which the main bulk of the entry is to be looked for. It is not necessary to cater entirely to the professional handler, who will threaten not to make an entry unless his dogs are specially provided for, nor is it essential to pay them for bringing dogs; to say nothing of its being eminently unfair to other people. The professional handler is a neces- sity to the owner who cannot attend in person, but he is not so in any way to the show managers. Some of them make demands which should never be considered for a moment. Successful local owners bring in more money at the gate than “foreigners” or circuit-chasers. Where there is poor prospect of entries for certain breeds, either put one or two afhliated breeds together or drop them and let the miscellaneous class sufice. A committee can throw more money away in five minutes’ work at the premium-list than makes the difference between a paying and a losing show, so be careful to be liberal only where there is every good pros- pect of support. A clause stating that where any class is guaranteed such class will be opened, or if but one class for dogs and bitches is given, that a division will be made if a certain number of each sex is entered covers the ground fully, and no would-be exhibitor can then reasonably complain of a small prize-list. It must be strongly impressed upon committeemen, secretary and super- intendent that they should make themselves thoroughly familiar with the requirements of the American Kennel Club, if they are members of that club. There are not many things to look out for, but they involve fines if overlooked. A great deal of time and labour can be wasted in office work, and I knew that when I undertook to manage a show at Philadelphia in 1884. The plan I then adopted was also carried out when I had charge of shows for the Keystone and Philadelphia Kennel Clubs, and as I wanted no exclusive Management of Shows 63 copyright on the plan I made it public for the benefit of others whenever possible. The first thing necessary is an index—one of two pages to the letter will suffice for all but the largest shows. Rule it as follows: across the open two pages, as one will not be sufficient: ENTRY FORM CLASS. DATE OF z NO. OWNER AND ADDRESS BREED NO. NAME BIRTH BREEDER I Rob Roy Kennels, Boston 212 |Oarsman, 73,073\March 2,, F. Donders Englewood, N.¥. Terrier 1902 CAT. SIRE DAM PRICE. NO. WINNINGS RECBIPT NOTES Cracksman Fannie $1,500 Get one of those files which when closed permit the papers to be turned over for ready reference or an intermediate paper to be removed. Have a receipt-book for the acknowledgment of entry-fees and number each receipt. These are all that are needed for the purpose of present and future record of the show, and you proceed as follows after having distributed your premium-lists and entry-forms to all likely exhibitors. The first entry-blank received you mark as number one in the left-hand corner of the form, and taking your receipt-book you fill out number one as a receipt for the money received with number one entry, and so on with each entry-form and receipt. An entry without a remittance should never be numbered and filed, but put on one side to be attended to later, for the stub of the receipt-book has to agree with the cash turned over to the treasurer. Having sent the receipt for the money, the next process is to take the index, turn to the initial of the owner’s surname, and copy the entry as shown above. Three columns are now left without entry, those giving the number of the dog in the catalogue, the prize-money won, and the space showing the receipt for that money. When these are filled in this book, the receipt-book and the entry-forms are the complete record of the show. 64. The Dog Book In preparing the copy of the catalogue for the printer, if help sufficient can be secured to divide the work and have it done quickly, it is better to write out each entry on a separate slip, just as they are on the entry-forms, taking care to put at the top of the slip the number of each class and a con- traction sufficient to specify the breed, such as “St.B.” for St. Bernard. When a dog is entered in more than one class, put a check-mark on the slip of the first class entered in order to denote further entries, and do the same on the slips of the duplicate entry or entries. Having finished the writing of these slips, which are, of course, all mixed up as to classes, they are now sorted out by class-number and beginning with Class 1, proceed to number each entry-slip. You will now find the advantage of having marked the duplicate entries, for you can arrange them in order at the head of each class and follow with the numbers of new dogs. This is a convenience that calls for little trouble, and it saves time at the judging, when it is most valuable. If possible, have some capable man read over the copy before it goes to the printer, and by a “capable man” we mean some one with a fair knowl- edge of the names of owners and dogs, and, if possible, of pedigrees; for nothing looks so careless as a catalogue full of stupid blunders in deciphering the various writings on entry-forms. Time spent on seeing to the correct- ness of the catalogue‘is a good investment for the credit of the show. Send out the identification tickets and number tags so as to reach owners in good time. Benching and feeding is now so generally in the hands of the Spratt’s Co., that little need be said as to the making of benches and the feeding, but if benches have to be made on the spot, I offer two suggestions which were picked up at the Seattle and Portland shows of 1904. A strip of one-foot poultry-netting was run flat along the top of the centre back of the benches, the edges being tacked down on the stall partitions, thus preventing a dog from climbing up and fighting the dog on the back bench. The other novelty was a small swivel snap fastened to the back of the bench above the straw, which is more convenient for use than the cus- tomary ring attached to the bottom board. — Checking the dogs on arrival at the show is a tedious affair with us, involving a hunt for the owner's name in an index. This is not always done correctly, and seems to be of little use otherwise. A very simple and most convenient plan is to prepare a large sheet of paper with ruled columns ries ai ta Ett A mR Rg 9): MR. UNTERMYER’S KENNELS AT GREYSTONE, YONKERS, N. Y. A substantial iron fence incloses the collie yards TIMID AND AFRAID TO MR. W. H. SAXBY TRIES HIS HAND AND SHE DUES SHOW HERSELF BETTER LOOKING AT HER OWN HANDLER, MR. JOE LEWIS “DOESN'T LOOK LIKE THE SAME DOG” SHOWING A BEAGLE Management of Shows 65 in which the numbers appear and the dogs’ numbers can be quickly checked off on that. The board to which the checked record is afixed can be hung at the ring side to be referred to at once for an absentee. The dogs can also be checked out in the same way by striking a different-coloured mark through the number. An attendant should have charge of dogs arriving by express prior to the opening day, in order to have them watered, fed and exercised. As to the work of feeding, and attending to the cleaning of the building, that is very well understood everywhere. Still there are several ways in vogue. That at Boston to our mind is much the best plan. One person has entire charge of the feeding. He has a trolley on which there are a supply of clean dishes and a large tub of food. Starting at number one he goes through the entire show with remarkable celerity. He has a long slip of paper on which are put down the numbers of all dogs the owners of which prefer to feed their dogs themselves. Two men go with him, and as one pulls the trol- ley the other fills the dishes and puts them in the stalls, the work being done at a slow walking pace down one side of an aisle and back on the other side. By the time the last dog has his feed-dish, it is time to start at the beginning again and take up the used dishes and untouched food. No dishes con- taining food are in this way allowed to remain in the stalls or under the benches. The plan followed at some shows to curtain the benches below the line of stalls is a bad one, and at one | attended recently everything was thrown or swept under the curtain and left throughout the time the show lasted. It was no wonder that the last two days the help was kept busy sprinkling the aisles with disinfectant! Clean the stalls out every morning, put in clean straw, sweep the aisles as frequently as there is any need, and at least twice a day, taking all sweepings outside the show-room imme- diately. Get a disinfectant that is not worse than the original smell, and use it no more than is necessary. The broom is the thing to employ as far as possible in place of disinfectants. Little need be said about the conduct of the ring, for the superintendent, if no one else, will know that judges’ books and stewards’ books are necessary and should be prepared beforehand. The outside steward, if there are two, should use a catalogue in preference to the numbered slips from the stewards’ book. The catalogue can be worked from with a better under- standing than the mere numbered slip. At far too many of our shows one 66 The Dog Book class is judged and then the next is sent for, in place of having some one on the outside getting in readiness the class ahead. Often more time 1s lost in getting classes into the ring than in placing the dogs. Modern judging customs call for a large-numbered card slipped over the arm with an elastic, or fastened with a string in some simple manner. This number corresponds to that of the dog held by the man with the card, and enables spectators to know something of what is going on—that is, providing the ring-steward sees to it that the winning numbers are posted on the ring bulletin-board, which is a most essential feature of an up-to- date show. It was my experience to be one of many called upon to decide specials at a show held a few years ago, when, owing to the lack of all-around knowl- edge on the part of the majority, specials for the best dog and best brace, and such as best owned by a lady or best local, went very much astray. The result was that I advocated in the kennel press that special judging of this nature should be given to the best all-around judge on the staff of the show. It is gratifying to say that this is now becoming the custom, and it has given much satisfaction. Of course, this judge has to accept the regular class-judging, and must not reverse what has already been done by any of his associates. The special-prize judge should not, however, be the same indi- vidual that may have officiated at shows held immediately prior. Exhib- itors are entitled to a change, for there is plenty of room for difference of opinion in this class of specials. The judging being finished, it is necessary now to mark up the winnings on the index record book, and this is done from a correctly marked catalcegue. After which the record book is turned over to the treasurer, who, according to the custom at American shows, posts a notice specifying at what hour on the last day he will be in attendance to pay off the prizes. Those present at the show in charge of the dogs then sign opposite the names of the owners on the index-book for the money won, and when this is done the business between exhibitor and show is finished, except in the case of checks to be sent to those not represented at the show. Last of all comes the passing the dogs out on the closing night, and shipping back those which have been received by express, which are matters of detail calling for no instructions. During the past two seasons summer shows have become exceedingly popular, and as the expense is far less than at the more pretentious spring Management of Shows 67 and fall indoor fixtures, they promise to increase in number and do great good to dog interests. At shows held last summer there were entries of over five hundred dogs and not one of them had under two hundred and fifty dogs, this number calling for two points for champion honors in winners classes, five hundred calling for three points. These shows are better when of but one day’s duration, and the outlay is thus reduced to a minimum, as benching, feeding and other expenses are not always incurred. The Wissahickon Kennel Club show uses the stalls and stabling inclosure of the Philadelphia Horse Show Association, the proceeds of the show being devoted to a local charity. Judging is done in the open, in large roped rings, of which there are half a dozen or more placed at various parts of the grounds. The Ladies’ Kennel Association of Massachusetts had its show at Brain- tree at the New England Kennel Club country-house, and had the benching of that club at its disposal. ‘The Ladies’ Kennel Association of America held its show at the Mineola Fair-grounds and the dogs were benched on regular Spratts benching in two of the fair buildings and judged in the open. The Brooklyn Kennel Club held a one-day show at the Brighton Beach race-course paddock, the dogs being accommodated in the stalls around the paddock, and the judging being done below the trainers’ private stand. The Ladies’ Kennel Association and the Bryn Mawr shows of 1903 had large tents, the former show being held on the grounds of the late Mr. James L. Kernochan at Hempstead, L. I., and the latter at the grounds of the Byrn Mawr horse show. At the L. K. A. show at Hempstead, regu- lation benching was used, but at Bryn Mawr dogs were pegged down to wires laid in rows in the tent, while a number were simply chained to the fence of the show ring. It was all very simple, and a show on the lines of one or other of these can be held at any place where there is an inclosure. Water is about all that it is necessary to provide for the dogs in addition to a little straw in the case of its being called for. Less than one bag of dog-biscuits was used at the Wissahickon one-day show, though if a two-day affair is planned, feeding is then a necessity and comfortable accommoda- tions for the night must be provided. Prize money is not expected at these shows, so we do not see so much of the circuit-chasers or the fanciers who only look at the money end of the business. This is all the better for the amateur, who, after all, is the back- 68 The Dog Book bone of shows, and as a rule gets but little for his money at the circuit shows. Here he has a chance, and local interest is aroused by the success of neighbours and friends, while friendly rivalry causes the purchase of better dogs and brings here and there a new enthusiast into view. Some of these blossom into prominent fanciers and add to the success of the large shows in the spring and fall. CHAPTER V Buyinc a Doc mM OW to buy a dog is as difficult a question to answer offhand as to tell a person what dog will satisfy him. With the general custom in America of worshipping the fetish of pedigree in animals—while holding that the man must be guaged by his individual merits—it is difficult to get any person to consider the purchase of any dog that has not a number of champions in his pedigree. If he has that, you can dispose of the veriest scrub that ever lived. Pedigree has a value, but you must know the history of the dogs of the day and the most prominent of the past generation or two to enable a proper conclusion to be drawn. From a pedigree it is possible for one of the initiated to form an opinion as to what might be expected of the dog in certain characteristics and which of these characteristics he might perpetuate. It has but little to do with the future excellence of the puppy beyond the fact that a dog of good breeding has a better chance of being good-looking than one bred from scrubs. To understand this it is necessary to state that there are few breeders of prominence who do not lay stress upon some particular point in confor- mation. With one it is head, with another it is ‘‘front,” another must have a good coat, and so on. An expert fox-terrier judge would make but little mistake at an English show in picking out the Redmond, Vicary or Powell entry, all of which is in keeping with what Youatt tells us about the two sheep-breeders who purchased some pure Bakewell ewes and rams, and although there was not a drop of outside blood introduced into the flocks, they became entirely different in type within a few years, each breeder making his selections along a line of his own. Then again we find every now and then a sire that is particularly good in giving to his progeny some much wanted characteristic, such as the ability of the late Finsbury Pilot among collies to give heavy coats, while the sparse-coated collie Ormskirk Galopin was noted for heads. And it is along this line we find the value of pedigree, for an inbred Galopin 69 70 The Dog Book should be a pretty good headed dog, while one strong in Finsbury Pilot blood should be good coated, or in breeding from dogs bred that way we may expect such results. But that is not what pedigree means to the American buyer and for his purpose the form might as well be filled up at random, with Toms, Dicks and Harrys, and Marthas, Janes and Betsies, especially if you can put “Ch.” before any of the names. To him it is a pedigree, to the man who knows it is a piece of paper. It is this class of buyers that write for two puppies, not related, and start breeding dogs to win prizes with, because these puppies trace to some champions within a generation or two. Such a buyer and breeder produces pedigrees, not winners. We were at the Bir- mingham show of 1879 and chatted with the late William Graham, to whom we owe the excellence of the present-day Irish terrier. He had had a very successful time with his dogs, and swinging his stick in the direction of the row of dare-devils, he said “Some men show pedigrees; I show dogs and take the prizes.” We were among the former at that show, Vero Shaw in his report saying that the pedigree was worth more than the dog; and there are thousands of that sort bred annually and from the very best dogs we have, for it is only the very top skimming of the cream that become cham- pions of record. It is a matter for the greatest regret that this pedigree foible is sup- ported by the government and restrictions imposed which show that the responsible official has not the slightest knowledge of dog matters or how dogs rate themselves; dog-show records taking the place of cattle pedigrees. We will give a late personal experience. Having been intrusted with the purchase of a number of dogs abroad that could win prizes here, a very thorough search through Ireland and England was made and a dozen bought. I do not think I asked as to the pedigree of a single one. I was buying winners, not pedigrees, and knowing that good pedigrees are made by good dogs and not vice versa, I bought the dogs and then set the seller at work to get the pedigrees perfected to suit the Washington requirements. To do this occupied nearly three weeks, and it was necessary to expend over thirty dollars to have past generations supplied with stud-book numbers. Two pedigrees could not be so furnished, not that there was anything un- known, but the sire of these dogs was out of an unregistered dam, though as he was about the most famous dog in England and has more living descend- ants than any dog of his breed, his full pedigree is perfectly well known and has been given over and over again. The owner filled out a blank, but the Buying a Dog 71 Kennel Club would not give a registration because this owner had been suspended and had not the right to register; and the dam being dead, she could not be sold to any one having the right to register. Fortunately these were cheap dogs and the duty correspondingly light, but on the sanie steamer with them came two or three pick-up dogs of no breeding, and they passed in on payment of one or two dollars. If worthless curs were not admitted, then there would be some semblance of reason in present rules, but for them the door is held wide open, and the stringency is put on the man who pays hundreds of dollars for a dog worth having. To buy good dogs as per government regulations it is only necessary to write for pedigrees and buy the dog having the one that reads best, but if that is done the buyer might as well make up his mind that if he ever does show his pedigree dog he will find that he is beaten out of sight by men who bought good dogs and then thought of the pedigree. But, the reader asks, if pedigree amounts to nothing, how are we to buy for breeding purposes, for instance? We have already said that pedi- gree is valuable, and it is an essential in the case of purchasing for breeding, but we again repeat that if the buyer does not know something regarding the dogs in the pedigree, either personally or from reliable information, one string of names is as good as another to him. Here is a case in point as shown in the following Irish terrier pedigree: : Red Idol Kaiser Kriffel Bice ne noe Ch. Breda Mixer King’s pare? Red Inez : Breda D Masterpiece ( Balmoral Bill Be ee Killarney Lily | ( Red Idol | Saintfield Midge | ch ankill Violet Red Ire Kaj Red Idol Breda Iris aiser1100,C. : Ch. Breda Mixer Dam | Kriffel ict i The Iri Koerchion | Ch. Breda Mixer = ae eee Kindle aR | Ch. Bachelor ed. 2NeZ Breda Florence 72 The Dog Book According to the United States government test the Irish terrier that owns that pedigree is practically a mongrel, because in two generations it has but one ancestor with a stud-book number; since being imported, however, the sire, King’s Masterpiece, has earned a number by his show successes, but the others are still mongrels according to the United States government test. The seeker for champions in the pedigree discards it because he only finds Breda Mixer and Bachelor, and they are too far back. Now we will put it before the man who knows. “T see a Knox bred one. Knox has done quite a bit of good breeding in his time and they seem to come better right along, but that is to be ex- pected of course if the man knows his business; and inbred, too, and in the’ fashionable way. Did you ever notice how many good ones are by a son of a dog that gets good ones, out of a daughter? No; well, study that up a bit and get hold of a series of letters by Professor Bohannon of the University of Ohio on that subject. He shows some wonderful results in racehorses and in dogs from that system of breeding. In this case you have a son of King bred to a sister of King. “Why, man, you have a wonderful pedigree here. I have never seen anything like it before: full of Breda Muddler blood or what made him, and not once is he mentioned. Here you have King’s sire Kaiser out of Kriffel, by Breda Mixer who got Muddler, and Kaiser’s sire Red Idol was out of Breda Ins the dam of Muddler. Then King’s dam Kindle is a full brother in blood to Muddler, for Red Inez was a sister, if not a litter sister, to Breda Iris. “All that is repeated below in the pedigree of Koerchion, King’s sister. Do you know how Kriffel’s dam Knoxonia was bred? No; well, she was a Knox anyway, and we can take her as all right. King’s Masterpiece is a half-brother of our Celtic Badger, I see, for his dam is Killarney Lily. I met a man the other day who had lately been at Belfast, and he told me of his visiting Mr. Knox and spoke of his dogs very favourably. He liked King very much; and I remember his saying that it was little wonder that Badger and this Masterpiece, which he also saw, were good ones, for Killarney Lily was one much above the average. From the way he spoke of her she must be a very nice one. “If I remember rightly you won a couple of times with this bitch, but she did not strike me as one that would go on much further as she then Buying a Dog 73 was. I know, however, that if I owned her nothing would induce me to part with her until I had tried her as a brood bitch. If she does not prove a good one, then there is no value in a pedigree.” It must also be very distinctly borne in mind that while it is perfectly proper to buy a bitch with a pedigree which will bear such an investigation as the foregoing and be approved of by an expert, it is quite a different thing in a dog. No one with any knowledge of the subject will breed to a dog merely on pedigree, unless as an experiment in the case of one much inbred to a thoroughly tested strain. The vast majority of good dogs have been bred from sires individually good; so when it comes to the purchase of a dog he must be excellent as an individual, and that must take precedence over pedigree, for as we have already said, a good dog makes the pedigree good, and not the other way. Continuing with the same pedigree as the text, the fact that we find in it so many of one person’s breeding, and he a successful breeder, is a great indorsement of it. Such a person is all the time selecting which of his best to keep and getting rid of the unsuitable or what is no longer needed in his kennel. By this process the quality of the breeding stock of the kennel is gradually improved and becomes more reliable in producing. Type becomes more consistent, and in process of time we have a strain established which can be relied upon to produce good ones in greater proportion than is the case in most of the rival kennels. Let us suppose for a moment that we are considering, for instance, organising a car-line. No one in his senses would suggest that a start be made with a dinky mule-car and by a series of changes finally arrive at an up-to-date electric plant. Business is not conducted that way, but in view of the many improvements continually being introduced into the car service a most thorough investigation is made so as to avoid mistake in getting the result of the best thoughts and experiments on the subject. The line when it is opened is thereby furnished in the most up-to-date manner possible and starts on an equal footing with the improved service of the old reorgan- ised horse-cars and cable-cars. And that is just what the person intent upon entering the field as a competitive breeder must do if he desires success. Discard all idea of beginning at the bottom with puppy purchases and “champion pedigrees,” but look carefully over the results of the shows and note who are the men who have bred the winners. Having found that out do not make the mistake of purchasing puppies, for out of the many litters x 74 The Dog Book that this man may have in the course of a season he is unlikely to keep more than one or two from any litter, and then gradually disperses these as he sifts out the best for home keeping. If then you buy puppies you get what are his cast-offs. Our advice is to begin where he is at by getting such of his brood matrons as he will spare; and if they have already been bred you are starting your kennel on a level with him so far as his judgment goes in deciding upon the mating. The purchase of a dog may well be left alone, for it is a drawback to have but one, it not being probable that he is suitable for a variety of matrons, and it is much better to be entirely untrammelled in seeking the best possible sire. A good enough dog to place at the head of a kennel costs a great deal of money, and it is not only more advisable on the score of suitability to go outside, but more economical as well. If the intention is to purchase a show dog, then there are two plans to suggest. One is to buy a dog that is making a good record, but it will be found to be somewhat expensive to do so, unless the owner has an idea that his dog is going off and has another to supply its place. Now to buy a dog that is going off is the very thing that must be avoided by all means. It is the most unsatisfactory experience a beginner can have, to buy a dog that has won a number of prizes and then find that he can do so no more. The buyer is apt to think, if he does not actually say, that the change of ownership has all to do with the change in the dog’s position; but that is hardly fair, for young dogs especially change materially and begin to show faults which soon put them back in the prize-lists. The seller probably paid for his experience in detecting the signs of a dog going wrong, and if the dog is being honestly shown the buyer has every opportunity to form his own conclusion, as to the dog’s future. The second plan is to pick up a dog with a possibility of improving, or that has not been shown yet and looks like making a winner. _If the pur- chaser can do this of his own knowledge he needs no coaching, but the likeli- hood is that he does not know sufficient to warrant his undertaking the task, and in such a case the only thing to be done is to get some one of experience to act for him. ‘There is one thing such a buyer must remember, and that is that good dogs cost money and are not to be picked up as bargains except by those who have expert knowledge. No one expects to purchase a lot on upper Fifth Avenue, facing Central Park, for the price of one below Fifty-ninth Street, nor to get a stylish park-horse or a two-ten trotter for the price of a grocery wagon puller. Yet when it comes to dogs the same people Buying a Dog 75 gasp at any price over about twenty dollars. To get a dog capable of win- ning at New York in any of the fashionable breeds there would be little chance of succeeding for less than five hundred dollars, while in some breeds that amount would not be sufficient. Others not so fashionable are not so expensive. When it comes to a dog capable of winning at shows where the tip-toppers are not competitors the price suggested may be halved or even quartered and a very satisfactory dog obtained. The reason being that we have so few shows here that a dog of the first class sent on circuit stops all others from winning; and as it is the winners that cost money, the price of such dogs double up quickly compared with those they can surely defeat. The large majority of buyers are, however, in search of a puppy to bring up as a pet or house dog, and the main consideration is good health and an absence of any disfigurement. If it is of a large breed, then the largest- and best-boned one is the likeliest to hold the lead in size, providing he is properly reared. Heads grow longer and thinner in foreface as puppies develop, and as that is wanted in but few breeds a head with plenty of bulk before the eyes is recommended as the one likeliest to fill out without weak- ness. The size of the ears is in many breeds an important point. Where the ears are erect, then the smaller and neater the better. If not to be carried fully erect the very small ear is to be avoided, for a small-eared collie, for instance, is most likely to get them fully erect eventually. So much depends upon the breed that the selection is to be made from, that general directions can hardly be given upon many points; and if the buyer has no personal knowledge to guide him the better plan will be to place himself in the hands of the vendor, and if there is any difference in price between the puppies accept that as the guide and take the high-priced one, for the man who fixed the prices has had every opportunity to form the best judgment as to the choicest. It is far too prevalent an idea that to do business with a dog-dealer is to invite oneself to be robbed. We have had personal knowledge of a very large number of those who make a business of buying and selling dogs, and have investigated officially and personally many cases of alleged fraud on their part, and in the majority of cases found not the slightest reason for the charges made. In others, where there was a conflict of testimony we have always found the dealer more willing to make an honorable settlement than the buyer, and in the few cases of positive swindling the American 76 The Dog Book Kennel Club took such speedy action as to give a lesson to all that there must be no “dishonourable conduct in connection with dogs.” The penalty for that is disqualification, and that carries with it disqualification of all dogs passing through the hands of the disqualified person and the refusal to register them in the official stud-book or allow them to be shown if it is known that they were the property of the disqualified person. It is a very severe penalty, and as it practically kills off the best part of a dealer’s business they are as a class very careful to deal fairly. We have seen the most ludicrous things done by purchasers of dogs. More than once we have known of a dealer sending quite a nice white bull terrier to a purchaser only to have it returned with the demand that one with brindle markings be sent, and charging all sorts of things because such a poor dog had been sent. Of course the vendor was only too happy to make such a change and please such a knowing customer, who doubtless let it be fully known how he was too sharp to be swindled by a dealer and had made this particular one come to time in quick order. Dealers are not nomads, but it will be found that nearly every one, in the East at least, has occupied the same premises for years, or if a change has been made it has been for the better. Rogues cannot do this, for not only is the Kennel Club court open to all without a cent of expense, but the power of the police and the United States post-office can be invoked to good purpose, so that there is very good evidence in this permanency of location to say that the dealer in dogs is entitled to be above suspicion as much as any other man of a similar number of years’ standing in business. VARIOUS TYPES OF EGYPTIAN DOGS AS ILLUSTRATED IN ANCIENT TOMBS EGYPTIAN HUNTING SCENES SHOWING THREE HOUND DOGS WITH VARIOUS MARKINGS ydiaq (yy 1dh8q °D *eLssy wy idABa “7 CsaqeyL ye ST] aaye uy Jo quioy aw woly7 pue dg‘ y) “AOeI{G SavaUL Yor ‘NUtEY SEITE ‘sayeyog ZopouL “T sayqiaijavutan aynb tua; punodtiod & st pue Bey[e Aq papavaad jou st aueU puodas sy t;Exa,], 10 sey], PUL *D ‘Sop nyNyy Jo ,,30p Xoj,, Aieulpso ayy, “MueyEqy Zop oy, “gy “Sop edojayue ayy tyngepy (Aes 03 SIZE) SEITE 'eEHEYe ZopryL *H SDO0d NVIMASSV GNV NVILdADS Ay y NIP CHAPTER VI Earty SPANIELS AND SETTERS O give a complete history of the English Setter, without mixing with it a great deal of information regarding the various family connections of the breed, is so impossible that we have decided to give one comprehensive intro- ductory chapter regarding the spaniels, beginning with their earliest history and concluding with the splitting up of the family into the various sections of setters and spaniels. This will embrace a period of some four hundred years, during which the dog first known as the spaniel subsequently, in one branch, became the setting spaniel, then the setter, and finally became divided into the three breeds of setters as we know them to-day. The Duke of Northumberland, son of Queen FElizabeth’s favourite courtier, the celebrated Robert Dudley, Earl of Leicester, and his second wife, Lady Douglas Howard, whom he is said to have married in 1578, is erroneously credited with having been the first person “that taught a dog to sit in order to catch partridges,” as we shall show very clearly. Even those who have in late years given this authoritatively, at the same time quoted from “Of Englishe Dogges,” written six years after the duke’s parents were married, in which the netting of partridges is fully described, showing but little investigation on the part of the editors, who permitted this and kindred errors to receive their endorsement. Caius, who wrote this old book, called them setters, but they could not have been so styled in common, and setting spaniel and setting dogge they continued to be called until the net went out of fashion about 1800. THE SpaNIEL Our first knowledge of the spaniel is obtained from the work of the French count, Gaston de Foix, who in 1387 wrote his book called “Livre 81 82 The Dog Book de Chasse.” This was translated into English by the Duke of York about 1410, and his version was given the title of “The Master of Game.” He added a little to the original, but left the portion we will quote from as it was. Gaston de Foix lived in the South of France and was a great man in his time—one of the feudal monarchs with large estates and an immense revenue with which to maintain his kingly hospitality and take part in the wars of his times. He also followed the chase and owned hundreds of hounds of all kinds, and was therefore a man who had knowledge of what he was writing about. Living as he did close to the borders of Spain, we can accept without cavil, what some recent writers have thrown doubts upon, that the spaniel owes its name to that country; but whether it origi- nated there or whether it was bred from dogs which came with the early migrations from the East, will never be known. In our “Early History of the Dog” we mention having found in the Cypriote collection in the Metropolitan Museum of Art, a small terra-cotta model of a dog bearing a resemblance to the spaniel, but that would not indicate anything by itself. It may not be a spaniel, and even if it is, the original might have been brought to Crete. Besides which we have so altered and improved these old “Spaynels” that, beyond being descendants of these old-timers, there is no connection at all between the setters and spaniels of to-day and the dogs Gaston de Foix wrote about. For what we know of the latter, and also all information obtained from “The Master of Game,” we owe to the splendidly performed task of William A., and F. Baillie-Grohman, who have lately published a copy of this quaint old English book with a parallel-column modern English version. This present- day volume is not a copy of any single one of the several manuscript copies of the book, either in English or in the original tongue, but the accepted best copy has been compared with others, and the result is the correction of errors which crept into the various manuscript copies, and the giving us a perfect copy of what was the original but now lost manuscript dic- tated by the old French sporting nobleman. Chapter Seventeen of “The Master of Game” is devoted to spaniels and their nature, and is as follows: “Another kind of hound [the word dog was not then in general use] there is that are called hounds for the hawk, and spaniels, for their kind came from Spain, notwithstanding that there are many in other countries. And such hounds have many good customs and evil. Also a fair hound for the hawk should have a great head, a great Early Spaniels and Setters 83 body, and be of fair hue, white or tawny [Gaston de Foix did not use the word for tawny, but ‘tavele,’ meaning speckled or, as we might say, pied or mottled], for they be the fairest and of such hue they be commonly the best. A good spaniel should not be too rough, but his tail should be rough. The good qualities that such hounds have are these: They love well their master and follow them without losing, although they be in a crowd of men, and commonly they go before their master, running and wagging their tail, and raise or start fowl and wild beasts. But their right craft is of the par- tridge and of the quail. It is a good thing for a man that hath a noble goshawk or a tiercel or a sparrow hawk for partridge, to have such hounds. And also when they are taught to be couchers [Gaston de Foix says ‘chien couchant’| they are good to take partridges and quail with the net. [This was written nearly two hundred years before the time of the Duke of North- umberland.] And also they are good when they are taught to swim and are good for the river, and for fowls when they have dived, but on the other hand they have many bad qualities, like the country that they come from. For the country draweth to two natures of men, and of beasts and of fowls, and as men call greyhounds of Scotland and of Britain [Gaston de Foix wrote ‘Bretainhe,’ which many philologists consider as meaning Brittany, but the Duke of York made it Britain, and in one manuscript it is rendered ‘England and Scotland’), so the alaunts and the hounds for the hawk. came out of Spain and they take after the nature of the generation of which they came. Hounds for the hawk are fighters and great barkers if you lead them ahunting among running hounds, whatever beasts they hunt to they will make them lose the line, for they will go before now hither now thither, as much when they are at fault as when they go right and lead the hounds about and make them over-shoot and fail. Also if you lead grey- hounds with you, and there be a hound for the hawk, that is to say, a spaniel, if he sees geese or kine, or horses, or hens or oxen or other beasts, he will run anon and begin to bark at them, and because of him all the greyhounds will run to take the beast through his egging on, for he will make all the riot and all the harm. The hounds for the hawk have so many other evil habits, that unless I had a goshawk or falcon or hawks for the river or sparrow hawk, or the net, I would never have any, especially there would I hunt.” The last five words are an addition of the Duke of York’s, so that the description is that of Gaston de Foix; with that exception and the possible change from “ Brittany.” 84. The Dog Book Still another authority upon the widespread use of the net for part- ridges is no less than Martin Luther. This eminent reformer was in 1521 kept, for his own safety, a prisoner by the Elector of Saxony at Wartburg, and although we have not succeeded in getting chapter and page for the following quotation, it is from a thoroughly reliable source, for all other quotations we have been in a position to verify have been absolutely ac- curate. “I was,’”’ wrote Luther, “lately two days sporting in the country; we killed a brace of hares and took some partridges, a very pretty employ- ment for an idle man! However, I could not help theologizing amidst dogs, missile weapons and nets; for I thought to myself, do not we, in hunting innocent animals to death, very much resemble the devil who by crafty wiles, and the instrument of wicked priests, is seeking continually whom he may devour ?” Tue SETTING SPANIEL The second English book on sports of the chase is the “Book of St. Albans,” as it is called, attributed to Dame Juliana Bernes. “Spanyells” are mentioned, but with no description, and we can pass to the first real dog book in the language. Yet it was originally written in Latin, having been .prepared by Dr. John Kays (Johannes Caius), the founder of Caius College, Cambridge, for the use of the naturalist, Conrad Gesner, who had asked him for information about “such dogges as were ingendred within the bor- ders of England.” Dr. Kays, or Caius, as he is generally called, published this Latin book about 1570, and after his death it was translated into English by his friend and admirer, Abraham Fleming, and published in 1576. Fleming assures his readers in a laudatory preface that Dr. Caius spared no pains to procure all possible information and then to reduce his facts to the smallest proportion. The second part of his “discourse” is devoted to dogs used in fowling—by which was meant the taking of all manner of birds—and these dogs he divides into two kinds, those used on land and those that found game on the water. To the dog used with the net he gives the specific name of Setter; those used in hawking, he says, are called dogs for the falcon, pheasant or partridge, but that the common sort of peo- ple call them all spaniels. The third division of this section is devoted to the water spaniel or finder. The entire section is not so long that it cannot be given in full and permit readers to judge for themselves of the dogs men- Early Spaniels and Setters 85 tioned. We may state, however, that this use of the word setter to denote the dog used with the net was not followed by later writers, so that it cannot be allowed as a specific and accepted name at that period for the dog which eventually became known as the setter. Two hundred years later the “setting spaniel” was still in use for the net and called by that name, while the term setter was coming into general use for the dog employed in a similar manner with the gun. We will now give the extract from Dr. Caius “Of Englishe Dogges.” The feconde Section of this difcourfe. OF gentle Dogges seruing the hauke, and first of the Spaniell, called in Latine Hispaniolus. Such Dogges as ferue jor jowling I thinke conuenient and requisite to place in this seconde Section of this treatise. These are also to bee reckoned and accounted in the number of the dogges which come of a gentle kind, and of those which serue for fowling. There be two f The first findeth game on the land sortes _U The other findeth game on the water Such as delight on the land, play their partes, eyther by swiftnesse of foote, or by often questing, to search out and to spying the byrde for further hope of aduan- tage, or else by some secrete signe and priuy token bewray the place where they fall. The first kinde of { The aul such serue The Seconde, { The net, or, traine The first kinde haue no peculiar names assigned vnto them, saue onely that they be denominated after the byrde which by naturall appointment he is allotted to take, for the which consideration. : For the Falcon Sen be called {The Pheasant | and such like OBES; The Partridge The common sort of people call them by one generall word, namely, Spaniells. As though these kinde of Dogges came originally and first of all out of Spaine, The most part of their skynnes are white, and if they be marcked with any spottes, they are commonly red, and somewhat great therewithall, the heares not growing in such thicknesse but that the mixture of them maye easely be perceaued. Othersome of them be reddishe and blackishe, but of that sorte there be but a very few. There is also at this day among vs a newe kinde of dogge brought out of Fraunce (for we Englishe men are maruailous greedy gaping gluttons after nouelties, and couetous cormorauntes of things that be seldom, rare, straunge, and hard to get). And they bee speckled all ouer with white and black, which mingled colours incline to a marble blewe, which bewtifyeth their skines and affordeth a seemely show of comlynesse. ‘These are called French dogges as is aboue declared already. 86 The Dog Book The Dogge called the Setter, in Latine, Index. Another sort of Dogges be there, seruiceable for fowling, making no noise either with foote or with tounge, whiles they followe the game. These attend diligently vpon theyr Master and frame their conditions to such beckes, motions, and gestures, as it shall please him to exhibite and make, either going forward, drawing backe- ward, inclining to the right hand, or yealding toward the left, (In making mencion of fowles my meaning is of the Partridge and the Quaile) when he hath founde the byrde, he keepeth sure and fast silence, he stayeth his steppes and wil proceede no further, and with a close, couert, watching eye, layeth his belly to the grounde and so creepeth forward like a worme. When he approacheth neere to the place where the birde is, he layes him downe, and with a marcke of his pawes, betrayeth the place of the byrdes last abode, whereby it is supposed that this kinde of dogge is called Index, Setter, being in deede a name most consonant and agreeable to his quality. The place being knowne by the meanes of the dogge, the fowler imme- diatly openeth and spreedeth his net, intending to take them, which being done the dogge at the accustomed becke or vsuall signe of his Master ryseth vp by and by, and draweth neerer to the fowle that by his presence they might be the authors of their owne insnaring, and be ready intangled in the prepared net, which conning and artificiall indeuour in a dogge (being a creature domesticall or householde seruant brought vp at home with offalls of the trencher and fragments of victualls) is not much to be maruailed at, seeing that a Hare (being a wilde and skippishe beast) was seene in England to the astonishment of the beholders, in the year of our Lorde God, 1564 not onely dauncing in measure, but playing with his former feete vppon a tabbaret, and obseruing iust number of strokes (as a practicioner in that arte) besides that nipping & pinching a dogge with his teeth and clawes, & cruelly thumping him with y’ force of his feete. This is no trumpery tale, nor trifling toye (as I imagine) and therefore not vnworthy to be reported, for I recken it a requitall of my trauaile, not to drowne in the seas of silence any speciall thynge, wherein the prouidence and effectual working of nature is to be pondered. Of the Dogge called the water Spaniell, or finder, in Latine Aquaticus seuinquisitor. That kinde of dogge whose seruice is required in fowling vpon the water, partly through a naturall towardnesse, and partly by diligent teaching, is indued with that property. This sort is somewhat bigge, and of measurable greatnesse, hauing long, rough, and curled heare, not obtayned by extraordinary trades, but giuen by natures appointment, yet neuerthelesse (friend Gesner) I have described and set him out in this maner, namely powlde and notted from the shoulders to the hinder- most legges, and to the end of his tayle, which I did for use and customs cause, that beyng as it were made somewhat bare and naked, by shearing of such superfluitie of heare, they might atchiue the more lightnesse, and swiftnesse, and be lesse hindered in swymming, so troublesome and needelesse a burthen being shaken of. This kinde of dogge is properly called Aquaticus, a water spaniel because he frequenteth and hath vsual recourse to the water where all his game & exercise lyeth, namely, water- fowles, which are taken by the helpe & seruice of them, in their kind. And prin- cipally ducks and drakes, whereupon he is lykewise named a dogge for the ducke, because in that qualitie he is excellent. With these dogges also we fetche out of the Early Spaniels and Setters 87 water such fowle as be stounge to death by any venemous worme, we vse them also to bring vs our boultes & arrowes out of the water (missing our marcke) whereat we directed our leuell, which otherwise we should hardly recouer, and oftentimes the restore to vs our shaftes which we thought neuer to se, touche or handle againe, after they were lost, for which circumstances they are called Inquisitores, searchers, and finders. Although the ducke otherwhiles notably deceaueth both the dogge and the master, by dyuing vnder the water, and also by naturall subtility, for if any man shall approache to the place where they builde, breede, and syt, the hennes go out of their neastes, offering themselues voluntarily to the hands, as it were, of such as draw nie their neastes. And a certaine weaknesse of their winges pretended, and infirmitie of their feete dissembled, they go so slowely and so leisurely, that to a man’s thinking it were no masteryes to take them. By which deceiptful tricke they doe as it were entyse and allure men to follow them, till they be drawn a long distance from theyr neastes, which being compassed by their prouident conning, or conning providence they cut of all incon- ueniences which might growe of their returne, by using many carefull and curious caucates, least theyr often haunting bewray ye place where the young ducklings be hatched. Great therefore is theyr desire, & earnest is theyr study to take heede, not only to theyr broode but also to themselues. For when they haue an ynklin that they are espied they hide themselves vnder turfes or sedges, wherewith they couer and shrowde themselues so closely and so craftely, that (notwithstanding the place where they lurke be found and perfectly perceaued) there they will harbour without harme, except the water spaniell by quicke smelling discouer theyr de- ceiptes. It will be observed that the common spaniels of that period were the particolours, but what Doctor Caius calls red was probably liver coloured, that having always been a more common colour than red in the spaniel, so that advocates of the lately installed Welsh spaniel will do well not to take Doctor Caius’s red and white spaniel as indicative of the early origin of the dog lately given that name. The book was written at Cambridge, and no mention is made of the red and whites as confined to the principality or any section of England; he simply says they were the commonest-coloured dog of all the spaniels. The marbled or blue-belton colour mentioned as from France is in keeping with the note as to Gaston de Foix’s description of colour in the quotation from “The Master of Game.” Black and tan is also seen to be an old spaniel colour, and therefore not originating in the Gordon setters or their immediate ancestors. Following close upon the time of Fleming’s publication we come upon a very excellent book written by Gervase Markham, 1567-1637, a very voluminous writer on sporting subjects. We are not prepared to say that all he wrote was original, for it was the custom to take whole chapters from 88 The Dog Book prior writers and make no mention of the origin. Gaston de Foix was not even original in all he wrote; the Duke of York made a verbatim translation, with but the slightest mention of where he got his material, and making no distinction between translation and original chapters. Nicholas Cox and others who followed Markham, copied him verbatim without compunction, and while he might have followed the universal custom of his time, there is plenty of evidence to show that much must have been original. It is thor- oughly English in its language and terms and up to date in the instructions as to the gun or fowling piece to be used, as well as the proper ammunition for the birds, or fowls, as everything flying was called. The book we refer to bears the peculiar title “Hunger’s Prevention, or the Whole Art of Fowling by Water and Land.” All prior books which contain references to dogs, excepting the Caius treatise, are mainly devoted to hunting and hawking, the three accomplishments of a gentleman at that time being hunting, hawking and a thorough knowledge of heraldry. Indeed, all three called for study and memory, for the different terms of the chase were in- finite. Nicholas Cox as late as 1700 filled fifteen pages of The Gentleman’s Recreation with technical terms. For instance, the hart or red deer had the following names: First year, hind calf, or calf; second year, knobber;. third year, brocke; fourth year, staggard; fifth year, stag; sixth year, hart}. if it had been hunted by a king or queen, royal hart; if so hunted and had escaped entirely and proclamation made for his return, royal hart pro- claimed. Fowling, outside of hawking, was a minor sport, and Markham seems to have been the first to treat it fully, and certainly was the first to publish a book confined to this particular branch of sport. He follows Caius in the use of the English word “dogge ” in place of the Continental “hound.” Caius wrote to his friend Gesner, “Thus much also understand, that as in your language Hunde is the common word, so in our naturall tongue dogge is the vniuersall, but Hunde is perticular and a speciall, for it signifieth such a dogge only as serveth to hunt.” Markham refers. to three, but gives particulars of but two varieties,. though all are pertinent to the present subject. He treats, first of all, of water fowl as being the more important on account of their greater number compared with strictly land fowl, so we first have the “ Water Dogge,” a retrieving spaniel. ‘The word spaniel is not mentioned in connection with the dog, but we know that at that time it was a spaniel, the same spaniel Early Spaniels and Setters 89 from which we have the poodle of to-day and clipped in a similar manner, not for fashion’s sake, but for work in the water on account of the heavy coat. Markham, however, is particularly severe on the cruelty of clipping in winter, or of clipping all over, saying, “ You shall see an ordinary Spaniell, being lustily and well kept, will tyre twenty of these over shaven Curres in the could water.” As late as 1800 the water dogs in England were divided into the Great Rough Water dog (Canis aquaticus); the Large Water Spaniel (Canis inqutsitor), the name given in Caius; and the Small Water Spaniel or Poodle (Canis aquaticus minor). There is no need to go into the details of the work of the Water-Dogge as given by Markham, at least at the present time, and the description of the dog will suffice: ‘‘ The Water-Dogge is a creature of such generall use and so frequent in use amongst us here in England, that it is needlesse to make any large description of him: the rather since not any among us so simple, that he cannot say when hee seeth him. This is a Water-Dogge or a dogge bred for the water; yet because in this (as in other creatures) there are other Characters and Formes which pretend more excellencie, and figure a greater height of vertue then others doe; I will here describe as neere as I can the best proportion of the perfect Water-Dogge. “First, for the Colour of the best Water-Dogge, allbeit some (which are curious in all things) will ascribe more excellency to one colour then to another, as the Blacke to be the best and hardest, the Lyverhued swiftest in swimming, and the Pyed or Spotted Dogge, quickest of scent; yet in truth it is nothing so, for all colours are alike, and so a dogge of any of the former colours, may be excellent good Dogges, and of any, may bee most notable Curres, according to their first ordering and trayning; for Instruction is the liquor wherewith they are seasoned and if they be well handled at the first, they will ever smell of that discression, and if they bee ill handled they will ever stinke of that folly. “To proceede, then, your Dogge may be of any colour and yet excellent, and his hair in generall would be long and curled, not loose and shagged; for the first shewes hardinesse and ability to endure water, the other much tendernesse and weaknesse, making his sport grievous; his head would be round and curled, his ears broad and hanging, his Eye full, lively and quicke, his nose very short, his Lippe Hound-like, side and rough bearded, his Chappes with a full set of strong Teeth, and the generall features of his whole countenance being united together would be as a Lyon like as might go The Dog Book be, for that shewes fiercenesse and goodnesse: His necke would bee thicke and short, his brest like the brest of a Shippe, sharpe and compasse, his shoulders broad, his fore Legs streighte, his chine square, his Buttocks rounde, his Ribbes compasse, his belly gaunt, his thyes brawny, his Cam- brels crooked, his posterns strong and dew-clawde, and all his four feete spacious, full and round and closed together to the cley like a water Ducke, for they being his oares to rowe him in the water, having that shape, will carry his body away the faster. And thus you have the true description of a perfect Water-dogge, as you may see following.” Clear instructions follow as to the training of the water dog from which we extract this reference to the breaking of dogs by trainers: “It is the nature of every free meetle Dogge, and many of those which come from the best reputed teachers, that as soon as they heare the peece [gun] goe off, they will presently rush forth and flye in amongst the Fowle before you have leisure to open your lippes.” The other dog treated of at length by Markham is that called the Setter by Caius, but here named Setting-Dogge. In the instructions regarding taking partridges four methods are indicated, only one of which interests us, and is as follows: “The fourth and last way for the taking of partridges (and which indeed excelleth all the other for the excellency of the sport, and the rareness of the Art which is contained therein) is the taking of them with the setting Dogge, for in it there is a two-fold pleasure and a two-fold Art to bee dis- covered; as first the pleasure and Art preceeding from the Dogge and is contained in this manner, of ranging, hunting and setting.” . . . “Ie is meete that first before I wade further into this discourse, I shew you, what a Setting Dogge is: you shall then understand that a Setting Dogge is a certaine lusty land spaniel, taught by nature to hunt the partridges, before, and more than any other chase.” Here follow complete instructions regarding the training of the dog for use with the net, and we return once more in a special chapter to the dog and how to choose one and train him perfectly, and this is the sort of dog Markham recommends: “The first thing, therefore, that you must learne in this art is, to make a true election of your dogge, which you apply to this purpose of Setting, and in this election you shall observe, that although any dogge which is of perfect and good scent and naturally addicted to the hunting of feathers, Early Spaniels and Setters oI as whether it be the Land-Spaniell, Water-Spaniell or else the Muzigrell between either or both those kindes, or the mungrells of either of those kindes, either the shallow flewed hound, the tumbler, lurcher or indeed the small bastard mastiffe may bee brought to this perfection of Setting (as I have seene by daily experience, both in this and in other nations), yet is there none so excellent indeede as the true-bred Land-Spaniell, being of a nimble and good size, rather small than grosse, and of a courageous and ferie metal, evermore loving and desiring toyle, when toyle seems most yrksome and weary, which, although you cannot know in a whelp so young, as it is intended he must be when you first begin to traine him for this purpose, yet may you have strong speculation therein, if you choose him from a right litter or breede, wherein by succession you have knowne that the whole generation has been endowed with all these qualities, as, namely, that he is strong, lusty and nimble ranger, both of active foote, wanton tayle and busie nostrils, and that his toyle is without wearinesse, his search without changeablenesse, and yet that no delight nor desire transport him beyond feare or obedience, for it is the perfectest character of the perfectest Spaniell ever to be fearfull and loving to him who is his master and keeper. I confesse I have seen excellent, rare Setting doggs made in the Lowe-countries which have beene of a bastard tumbler kind, for indeede a true Land- Spaniell is the Gayffon [probably a misspelling of Griffon in its old form of Gryffon], and, indeed, I have found in them, if I may so term it, a greater wisdome, which indeede is but a greater fear, than in our Land-Spaniels. But comparing the whole work together—that is, the labour in ranging, the scent in finding and the arte of Setting—they have beene much inferior to our dogges. To speake then in a word touching the best choice of this Setting Dogge, let him be as neere as you can the best bredd Land-Spanieli, that you can procure, and though some have beene curious in observing of their colours, as giving preheminence to the Motley, the Liver-hude, or the White and Blacke spotted; yet questionlesse, it is but a vaine curiosity, for no colour is amisse for this purpose, provided the naturall qualities be perfect and answerable for the worke to which ende you intende them.” The third reference to dogs in this book is where the taking of pheasants by bird-limed bushes is described. Pheasants were strong enough to break away with the limed bushes, and in order to recover these birds “you shall be sure never to be without an excellent staunch Spaniell, which shall lie close to your foot without stirring, and this Spaniell must be an excellent g2 The Dog Book retriever, and one that will fetch and carry, and that by any means will not break nor bruise either flesh or feather, but having found its prey will forthwith bring it unto you, and lay it by your feet. This dogge as soon as you shall finde that any pheasants are escaped, you shall thruste into the thickets and make him hunt and bring forth all such pheasants as shall lie hidden, till by the true number of your lime bushes you find there is no more in that place.” This ordinary spaniel Markham did not consider it worth while giving an illustration of, but thanks to a little known but excellent draughtsman and engraver named Francis Barlow we have drawings of the spaniel used in hawking. Markham died in 1637 and Barlow was born in 1630 and, although we cannot tell the date of his set of prints illustrative of hunting, hawking and fishing, yet there can be no great lapse of time between the dates of the later editions of the book (1655) and the illustration we now give. (Facing page 87.) Tue InpivipuaL FIeELDs OF THE SETTER AND THE POINTER In tracing the transitions of the dog which became the setter of to-day it is impossible to overlook the potent influence which the development of the ancient fowling-piece into the flint-lock shotgun exercised, and the present seems to be the appropriate point to set that forth, as our next step will be the final one of differentiating the family into the subdivisions which prevail to this day, and they will then be taken up in detail as breeds. We have just been quoting Markham as to the setting dog used solely with the net. The gun was also in use at that period, but only for water- fowl, and that when they were not captured by netting, for the “engine” then in use was a most unhandy weapon. “Of the fowling piece you shall understand that to be the best which is of the longest barrell, as five foot and a half, or six foot, and the bore indifferent [tolerably large, we would say] under Harquebus. As for the shape and manner of it tis better it be a fire lock or snaphaunce than a cocke and tricker, for it is safer and better for carriage, readier for use and keeps the powder dryer in all weather, whereas the blowing of a coal is many times the loss of the thing aimed at.” The “cocke and tricker” gun was the old fire-lock operated as follows: A priming-pan was attached to the barrel in a manner similar to the powder- pan which all of us must have seen in the old flint-locks. The priming was Early Spaniels and Setters 93 kept covered until about to be used, when the cover had to be removed by hand. In front of this was a lighted fuse which, when the trigger was pulled, fell back into the priming-pan, igniting the powder and firing the piece. All this was very cumbersome and was only used when it was impossible to adopt some other plan of capturing or killing the game. The snaphaunce was the first of the flint-locks, being that piece in its original state. The idea was the flint-and-steel gun, but it could not be operated entirely by the trigger and the cock. It was a Spanish invention which had a rival in the wheel-lock used mainly in Germany and the north of France. The snap- haunce being much the simpler and handier weapon, survived until the flint- lock was invented, about the middle of the seventeenth century, while this book we have quoted from was first published in 1621. There was much opposition to the introduction of the flint-lock, and it was well into the eighteenth century before it was adopted by the armies of western Europe. This new weapon, with its quicker firing, though slow compared with the instantaneous work of the breechloader upon pulling the trigger, opened up a vastly larger field for the sportsman and made shooting from the shoulder without rest possible, as well as shooting on the wing. In water-fowl shooting the snaphaunce with its murderous load was only fired into the thick of the water-fowl when bunched on the water. Some misconception seems to exist as to time shooting on the wing became the custom in England, owing to the publication of a book on the “Art of Shooting Flying” about the year 1800, but that book had nothing to do with the introduction of this style of shooting. William Henry Scott in his “ British Field Sports,’ London, 1818, writes as follows in the chapter on shooting: “Tt has been advanced by several of our sporting writers, that to shoot flying is almost a novelty and that the practice is scarcely thirty or forty years old. I can only say that no such fact tallies with my recollection, which extends to a retrospect of about five and fifty years (1763) for I was a very young attendant at shooting parties and partial to the use of the gun, although for causes not necessary to detail never attained any eminence as ashot. At the period referred to, all sportsmen within the narrow circle of my view, were accustomed to shoot flying precisely as their successors now are: and he would at that time have been viewed as a sorry sports- man indeed, who should have gone into the field only to aim at sitting marks. No such drivelling practice was even dreamed of, and there were 94 The Dog Book then as now, keepers and other capital marksmen, who would bring down their small bird at fifty or sixty yards, with almost unerring aim. For my part I can have no idea of the period in our sporting annals, when, to shoot flying with the gun was an uncommon attempt, at least within the period in which locks upon the present principle have been in use.” But we can carry shooting flying still another fifty years back, and that through the poet Gay. It may be incidentally remarked that Mr. Simons, from whom we will soon quote freely, and whose knowledge covered the period from the time of the poet Gay to well after the date given as the early recollection of William Henry Scott, refers to shooting on the wing as a matter of course. His instructions to the young sportsman begins with going out with an unloaded gun, with a stiff piece of leather for the flint, so as to get accustomed to “the spring of the bird” and become uniform in his covering the birds at or very near the same distance. “Let him accustom himself not to take his gun from his arm till the bird is on the wing.” And now for the poet Gay, from whose poems, published in 1720, we get this: “See how the well-taught pointer leads the way; The scent grows warm; he stops; he springs the prey; The fluttering coveys from the stubble rise, And on swift wing divide the sounding skies; The scattering lead pursues the certain sight, And death in thunder overtakes their flight. Nor less the spaniel, skilful to betray, Rewards the fowler with the feathered prey. Soon as the labouring horse with swelling veins Hath safely housed the farmer’s doubtful gains, To sweet repast th’ unwary partridge flies, With joy amid the scattered harvest lies; Wandering in plenty, danger he forgets, Nor dreads the slavery of entangling nets.” This quotation is valuable for two things, it being the earliest mention of the pointer that we have been able, so far, to come across and the first reference to shooting on the wing, and the conclusion they thus point to is that they were introduced into England simultaneously. One would naturally suppose that the setting dog would have been made use of at once to set the game for shooting on land, but such does not seem to have been the case. The Gentleman’s Recreation, by Nicholas Cox, published about 1700—our copy is the sixth edition and is dated 1721— Early Spaniels and Setters 95 is, as far as it can go, a slavish copy of Markham. Here is how he starts his remarks upon the fowling-piece and it can be compared with the foregoing quotation: “That is ever esteemed the best fowling piece which hath the longest barrel, being five foot and a half or six foot long, with an indifferent bore, under Harquebus.” He of course omits reference to the out-of-date weapons, but says nothing regarding the flint-lock. So also respecting dogs, it is merely a copy of Markham, mostly verbatim. Presumably, there may be some scarce works which might fill in the period between Markham and our next authority, but we have not found any, nor seen any reference thereto, so that our next quotation will be from a very complete little work never mentioned in dog books, and that is the “Treatise on Field Diver- sions,” published anonymously by “A gentleman of Suffolk: A staunch Sportsman.” The author was the Rev. Mr. Simons, of Kelsoe, Saxmund- ham, Suffolk. The first edition appeared in 1776, and so highly was it esteeined that it was reprinted verbatim in 1824, having been for some time out of print and very scarce. In the preface to this reissue it is described as “decidedly the best work on the subjects on which it treats.” Mr. Simons was a gentleman of education and undoubtedly of ex- tensive experience in field sports, and his little book covers the ground from 1725, for he at one point speaks of dogs he had seen or known fifty years prior to the publication in 1776. The whole book teems with personal views and information as to the various dogs used in field sports and we would we could give longer quotations than we now do, but as this is near the splitting of the ways, and much he writes can be used in referring to the breeds in their order, only sufficient will now be given to show that the setter was still the setting dog and that the dog for shooting over on point was the lately introduced pointer, which came to England about 1700, and we are told was still being imported from Spain and Portugal when Mr. Symonds wrote in 1776. The springer and cocker were also gun dogs, as of course was the water spaniel, and in this work we first find the division of breeds of the land spaniel family. The quotations will be running ones, merely for the purpose of proving the foregoing statements. Under the caption of “Of the Setter’’ we find these remarks: “To him we are indebted for the genteelest enjoyment of the field.” This is a reference to his use with the net. For after stating that hunting is the oldest sport, he _ claims that netting followed, and quotes, “Surely in vain the net is spread in sight of any bird,” as evidence that netting was the next oldest sport, but at 96 The Dog Book what date the setter assisted first he acknowledges cannot be ascertained. Now as to the dog he calls the setter or dog to set for the net. “There are now various kinds called Setters, from their being appropriated to that serv- ice; such as between the English spaniel and the foxhound, ditto and pointer, and the pure pointer simply by himself. Whim gave rise to the first cross, very probably; but most assuredly indolence contrived the latter. None can, however, have any just claim to the appellation, but what is emphatically called by way of eminence, the English spaniel. The Irish insist—thezr’s are the true Spaniel; the Welsh contend—their’s are the aborigenes. Be that as it may: whatever mixtures may have been since made, there were, fifty years ago, two distinct tribes—the black tanned and the orange, or lemon and white. In each class I have seen the short, close coat, and the loose, soft, waved one with an equality of goodness under each description and complexion. These kinds (especially the orange and white) are fond, docile and spirited. Was I ever to break another dog to the net, I should prefer the highest hunter of that sort, to the reduced half breed by the pointer, and engage to perfect him in less time.” A little further on we find his description of what he desires in the setter: “He should be rather tall than otherwise; flat ribbed and longish in the back: for a dog, where speed is a principle requisite, must as well as a horse, in the language of the turf, ‘stand upon ground.’ A gentleman who resided some time in Wales tells me this is a true description of their finest setters.” While describing the pointer and comparing the two breeds he says: “The setter cannot be degraded into a pointer; but the pointer may be elevated to a setter, though but a second class. The setter is only of ser- vice where there is room to run a net, so must be hunted accordingly. Whole coveys are the just attention of the setter. Birds sprung and divided mostly drop in hedgerows, where there is no liberty for action, or in turnips where a horse must do considerable damage in advancing the net.” Later on, when it comes to the training of the setter, not one word is written regarding the gun, but simply the net and the use of one dog at a time. The single setter had to quarter his ground exactly as for the gun, but when he found his birds, then the net and that only was used. To show more clearly still that this is so, we turn to the instructions for the training of the pointer and read as follows: “‘After perusing the former pages some may think this a repetition, altering the name but retaining the mode of tuition. SPANIELS From “‘ Gaston Phcebus,”’ or ‘‘ La Livre de Chasse,"’ by Gaston II], Count de Foix and Bearn. This is from the copy known as ‘Ms. Bibliotheque National, Paris, f. fr, 616 '’ dating from the beginning of the rsth century “FEASANT” HAWKING By Francis Barlow (1626-1702) As ech gO PARTRIDGE NETTING By Howitt. Published Feb. 21, 1799 GROUSE SHOOTING By Howitt. Published August, 1798 Early Spaniels and Setters 97 The pointer as has been the setter, is broke from chasing we well suppose, to which the sight of the game had hitherto been the stimulus. Now, although he will hear the whirl and departure of the birds it is more than probable the report of the gun will agitate him into the forgetfulness of duty and urge to pursuit.” It would be natural to conclude from the mention of whole coveys being the aim of the setter and the uses of the net, that wholesale destruction of game was the object and the result. Such, indeed, was our opinion until we came across the following in “Sporting,” edited by “Nimrod,” Lon- don, 1837, the article being on “‘ The Setter and Grouse,” by the editor: “This mode of sporting, however, has long been out of fashion, and is what I never saw practised but by one sportsman in my life. ‘This was a Flintshire squire of the old-fashioned sort [Peter Davies of Broughton Hall], who was famous for his “setting dogs,” as they were then called, and it was a very pleasing sight to witness them in their work. “The old gentleman took the field in good style, being accompanied by a servant to hold his horse when he dismounted, and two mounted keepers in their green plush jackets and gold-laced hats. A leash of highly bred red and white setters were let loose at a time, and beautifully did they range the fields, quartering the ground in obedience to the voice or the whistle. On the game being found, every dog was down, with his belly close on the ground; and the net being unfurled, the keepers advanced on a gentle trot, at a certain distance from each other, and drew it over them and the covey at the same time. Choice was then made of the finest birds, which were carried home alive, and kept in a room until wanted, and occasionally all would be let fly again, on ascertaining their unfitness for the spit. Modern sportsmen may consider this tame sport, and so in fact it is, compared with the excitement attending the gun; but still it has its advantages. It was the means of preserving game on an estate, by equalising the number of cock and hen birds—at least to a certain extent—and killing the old ones; no birds were destroyed but what were fit for eating; and such as were destroyed, were put to death at once, without the chance of lingering from the effects of a wound, which is a circumstance inseparable from shooting.” We do not at all doubt that setters had been and were then being used as were pointers, but the point we make is that the proper division, when it came to the ethics of sport, was for the long-legged spaniel, or setter, to be restricted to ranging and standing his birds for the net, while the pointer, 98 The Dog Book working singly or in braces, hunted and stood for the gun. But that this could not long continue we can readily understand, for netting was the style of the market supplier, and as the setter could stand or set the birds as well as the pointer, it very naturally came about that with the increased use _of the shotgun the fanciers of the setter used him in place of a pointer. We incline to think that it was a very quick change, for thirty years later, 1808, an anonymously published volume of poetry with the title of “Fowling” gives quite a different complexion to the use of the different dogs with the gun. In Scott’s “British Field Sports,’ London, 1818, there are a few quotations from “ Fowling,” one of which is credited ‘“ Vincent’s Fowl- ing.” We have never seen any other mention of the book or poem. The poem is divided into five “books” descriptive of grouse, partridge, pheasant, woodcock, and duck and snipe shooting, and the manner in which each sport is handled leaves no question as to the thorough knowledge of the author, who in his preface acknowledges that Somerville’s “The Chase” was the incentive which prompted him to write on fowling. He draws attention to the fact that he has not copied Somerville in introducing foreign modes, for “it was a home scene he wished to delineate and nature and sport were the only figures in the picture.” From the book on grouse-shooting we extract as follows: “No towring trees In these rude solitudes diffuse a shade: There loss not felt, while my observant eye Follows my ranging setters. How they wind Along the bending heath! and now they climb The rocky ridge, where mid the broken crags The whortle’s purple berries peep. ‘Take heed!’ The pack is near at hand; the wary dogs Draw slowly on. They stand immovable, Backing the leader. Now my pulse beat quick With expectation, but by practice trained At once subside, that coolness may assist My steady aim. Meantime my well-trained dogs Enjoy their sett: I hie them in: the birds On sounding pinions rise, yet not so swift But that the whistling shot o’ertake their flight. One flutt’ring beats the ground with broken wing And breast distained by blood; the rest far off Urg’d on by fear, skim o’er the distant moors, *Till by the haze obscured, my eve no more Discerns their flight.” Early Spaniels and Setters 99 “Again Upstarting from the ground, where close they lie Till the reloaded gun shall give them leave, They bound along.” “There, where yon rising hillocks mark the spot, I saw the pack with wings that seemed declined, And intermitted speed; not far from thence Perchance they lie; ah no! the rising ground Must have deceiv’d my eye. Push on my dogs; Their flight was further still. But Pero stands With head erect, his fellows straight proclaim The glad intelligence, distinctly borne Upon the bosom of the adverse gale. With steady pace how they draw on, and see How short that dog has turn’d; with body curv’d Almost a semicircle there he stands.” It is well to draw attention to some of the features of these graphic descriptions. The word “pack” is of course the technical grouse term for what in partridges or quail is “covey.” We have the leader pointing, standing, not dropping as to the net, and his fellow or fellows backing the point. Then after the kill, the setters were kept at “down charge” till the tedious process of loading and priming the old-fashioned flint and steel muzzle-loader was accomplished. Pero again stands and is backed, and finally we have the excellent description of the dog wheeling to the point and arresting himself at the half turn. The poet next takes partridge-shooting, and now he sings: “My hasty meal dispatched, I seize my gun And issue forth; from their clean kennels loos’d My pointers meet me, and with unfeign’d joy Around me bound impatient, as I trace The rocky lane to yonder rising ground.” “Near yonder hedge-row where high grass and ferns The secret hollow shade, my pointers stand. How beautiful they look! with outstretched tails, With heads immoveable and eyes fast fix’d, One foreleg rais’d and bent, the other firm, Advancing forward, presses the ground.” As the quotations are merely meant to show the divisions of dogs for the gun, the foregoing will suffice for the pointer with the partridge. The 100 The Dog Book following from the description of pheasant-shooting is noticeable for several things: that while his selections of setters for grouse and pointers for part- ridges were apparently the proper and accustomed things to do, there is a question of choice in pheasant-shooting and his is the pointer, and he takes but a single dog into the woods for this sport: “‘Oft undecided is the choice of dogs To push the pheasant from his close retreat. The questing spaniel some prefer, and some The steady pointer; while the use of both Is tried by others. In the earliest days Of the glad season to the woods they lead Their noisy spaniels, whose wide ranging feet And echoing voices rouse the startled birds, E’en in their deepest holds. But when the game More shy and cautious grows, they use alone The well-bred pointer. But none other dog Shall e’er attend my steps, or late Or early in the season.” “One old and trusty pointer at my side attends.” The use of the single pointer is obvious, as the dog did not point, but put up the birds, like spaniels, and by having but one dog the shooter could be in better control of the rising birds. We will now go woodcock-shooting, to which the sportsman has been looking forward anxiously in expectation of the flight: “Impatient of restraint, he brooks no more The long delay, but to the echoing wood His loud-tongu’d spaniels takes, and toils, and tries Each ferny thicket and each miry swamp.” But success is not yet, the flight is not on, so he tips a rustic to give him early notice of the arrival of the birds. The good word arrives at evening: “Now let us with due care examine well The trusty gun; the polish’d lock explore Through all its parts, and with the fine-edged flint Fit well the bounding cock, till the bright sparks Descending fill the pan; precaution due. Next to the kennel haste, to view The spotted spaniels lap their sav’ry meal. Thence to the couch invoking sleep Oblivious.” Early Spaniels and Setters IOI “My spaniels clam’ring loud, awake the morn With notes of joy and leaping high, salute With grateful tongue my hand, and frisk around In sportive circles; till the loaded gun Breaks off their idle play, and at my heels Submiss they follow, and await the word That bids them dash into the welcome woods.” “Though silently we beat At other seasons, let our joyful cheers, In concert with the op’ning dogs, resound “Hie in.’—At that glad word away they dart, And winding various ways, with careful speed Explore the cover. Hark! that quest proclaims The woodcock’s haunt. Again! now joining all, They shake the echoing wood with tuneful notes. T heard the sounding wing—but down the wood He took his flight. I meet him there anon. As fast I press to gain the wish’d for spot, On either side my busy spaniels try. At once they wheel—at once they open loud, And the next instant, flush the expectant bird.” “arrested by the shot, With shattered wing reversed and plumage fair Wide scattering in the wind, headlong he falls. See how the joyful dogs exulting, press Around the prostrate victim, nor presume With lawless mouths to tear his tender skin. Obedient to my voice, one lightly brings The lifeless bird and lays it at my feet.” Our final quotation will be a short one from the description of duck- and snipe-shooting: “Curled on their warm and strawy beds, repose My dogs, save two, whose coats sable and white, And speckled legs, and tail well fringed and ears Of glossy silken black, declare their kind By land or water, equally prepared To work their busy way. My steps alone These follow in the depth of Winter’s reign.” The sable and white is not the mi named sable of the present-day collies, but black and white. That this poetical sportsman was correct in his thus setting aside 102 The Dog Book certain dogs for certain sports receives a very strong endorsement by that eminent engraver, S. Howitt, whose illustrations of sports are recognised as masterpieces. Very unfortunately in our copy of the extremely rare volume of seventy-two of his engravings which form the “ British Sportsman” that of the setter is one of the two missing illustrations, but this is fully atoned for by those representing netting and the five sports treated of in the poem on fowling. As further showing that the term setter applied perhaps as much to the dog that set or pointed as to the breed, we give Sydenham Edwards’s group showing the setter as one of the family of spaniels. ‘The colours of these four spaniels are: liver and white, the one to the left; black and white, the one lying down; lemon and white, the one sitting; but the far one is quite an indefinite colour, one that an Irish-setter enthusiast would claim as repre- senting that breed, and possibly it may. It is undoubtedly high on the leg and of setter formation and is self-coloured, neither liver nor lemon, so that we are perfectly satisfied to regard it as an Irish setter. We have several of Sydenham Edwards’s coloured engravirgs and all are exceedingly faithful in drawing, so that we can without hesitation accept anything he did as faithfully representing the animals indicated by the title of the engraving. The date of “The Spaniel” is January 1, 1801. Tue Turee Breeps oF SETTERS: ENGLISH, IRISH, AND GORDON Four years later Sydenham Edwards published another engraving entitled “The Setter,” in which he very distinctly shows the English, Irish, and Gordon setters as shown herewith. This engraving is coloured, as is the case of all we have seen by Edwards, so that, although it is not very clearly indicated in the reproduction, we can, on the original, see that the farther black dog has tan markings on the lips, the centre one is red, with white blaze, and the near one is white. This engraving we take to indicate clearly that these were recognised as the three varieties of the setter and that they were thoroughly established at that time, although very little evidence is forthcoming in books of the period. Through the courtesy of Mr. Cunningham, of Philadelphia, we have had the pleasure of seeing an exquisite painting by Desportes, court painter to Louis XIV. Vero Shaw in “The Book of the Dog” gives a copy of Desportes’s painting of “Dogs and Partridges,” showing three sparsely Early Spaniels and Setters 103 coated dogs close together, two setting and one pointing at a covey of partridges. This the editor took to indicate that the pointer had been used to cross with the spaniel, and when he comes to the pointer he takes Des- portes’s picture of two pointers to demonstrate that the pointer and fox- hound had then been crossed. The Desportes painting we have seen shows a well-built dog, all white except lemon ears. The dog is caught just as he has dropped hot on the scent of a pheasant, but with head up. This, Mr. Cunningham assured us, is a picture of the dog Blonde, one of a favourite brace belonging to Louis XIV., the other being named Brunette. Blonde is In many ways so dissimilar to the dogs shown with partridges that there is no doubt it is a likeness. ‘The nose tapers most decidedly to a point, without any depth of flew, and the eyes are a gorgeous yellow, but beyond these points there is not much to find fault with. Legs show plenty of bone and the body is well filled out and well coated, with plenty of feathering on the tail. These paintings prove nothing beyond what we already know, namely, that spaniels of the seventeenth century were well diversified as to size, but were not setters as we know them to-day—1. e¢. they were not the distinct breed they now are, but merely a variety of the spaniel. It has been a very difficult matter to determine at what point to break off in this general introduction to the members of the spaniel family. Per- haps, in the estimation of some readers, we might have left some of the later points to be developed in the articles on the several breeds, but it seemed to us that we must trace clearly the development from the earliest history of the dog that came from Spain to be used in hawking and questing game, until it was so split up as to leave no doubt as to what it is and what it came from. This we think we have conclusively done, and will now proceed to a consideration of the several members of this family. THE ENGLISH SETTER From an old print CHAPTER VII Tue EnciisH SETTER N the preliminary history of the spaniels we expressed the opinion that although the pointer had been the recognised dog for use with the gun before the setter became his rival, there was no doubt that many sportsmen made use of SS =S3 setters to shoot over, preferring that dog, even if it was hardly considered correct, and from these beginnings the dog speedily became as prominent a gun dog as the pointer. We may assume that this growth of the setter began about 1775 and by 1800 was fully established, and that at the latter period there were not only the setters developed from the setting spaniel by gentlemen who took pride in their kennels, but plenty of half-bred setters and pointers, droppers as they were called, and also that almost any spaniel, so long as he was a good working dog, was used by men who cared little about good looks or type and wanted something useful. That state of affairs is to be found as preliminary to the establishment of all breeds and the meeting of rivals in competition for judgment. As illustrative of this we need not do more than look at the first volume of the Stud Book issued in 1879 by the National American Kennel Club, not the present ruling body but one more interested in field trials than in dogs in general. This volume contains the registrations of fourteen hundred dogs, of which 533 are English setters of pure breeding; 260 Irish setters, also pure, and 135 Gordon setters; pointers number 165, while 65 spaniels of various kinds and Chesapeake Bay dogs make up the total. In this volume there is a division for ‘‘Cross-bred and other Setters,” at the head of which there is this note of explanation: “Owing to the indefinite character of some pedigrees it was impossible to decide to what breed certain dogs belonged. They are therefore included in the present class, under the head of ‘Other Setters’ to save discarding them altogether. In this section there are no fewer than 260 entries. And these were not dogs owned by a lot of nobodies, but by men of recognised position in the sporting-dog world, such names 105 106 The Dog Book as Jesse Sherwood, James Smith, C. T. Prince, G. C. Colburn, A. C. Waddell, Von Culin, and Everett Smith appearing on the first two pages, and as we glance further we note such leaders’ names as Wm. M. Tileston, Dr. J. S. Niven, Major J. M. Taylor (with a tricombination of English, Gordon and Irish bred by the enthusiast of the Laverack importations, Mr. Charles H. Raymond), Dr. Aten of Brooklyn, E. F. Stoddard of Dayton, George B. Raymond of Morris Plains, George Bird Grinnell, T. Foreman Taylor, Edward Dexter, Garret Roach, H. C. Glover, E. A. Spooner, Wm. Tallman, Leslie C. Bruce, Justus von Lengerke, Isaac Fiske, J. H. Whitman, Jacob Glahn of Syracuse, and many others better known only to the older generation of setter men than those we have picked out. It would be impossible to imagine any of the above-named gentlemen, who are still living, owning anything nowadays but of the purest breeding possible, yet we copy from the records of but twenty-five years ago.” With such evidence of mixed breeding in this country when so much was known regarding the higher breeding of the setter abroad, and when not only some of the choicest of the Laveracks had been here for some four or five years, but Leicester, Dart, Rock and a whole host of the “blue bloods” subsequently styled “Llewellyns” were spread about the country, can we imagine anything else of England one hundred years ago than that here and there was something akin to fancy breeding, that is, with an eye to certain characteristics, while the majority indulged in cross-breeding quite regardless of looks or type? It stands to reason that such was the case, and it is therefore only what is to be expected when we come to read the only book which 1s really historical, “The Setter, by Edward Laverack.” His knowledge of the Setter dated from early in the last century, for he went shooting in the Highlands when he was eighteen and in his introduction he acknowledges to being seventy-three years of age, while the date of the book is 1872, hence he must have had personal knowledge of setters from about 1815, and his statements are exactly in keeping with this very natural conclusion of what must have been the case. It is only proper, however, to take authors a little more chronologically, and we will begin with Daniels’s “ Rural Sports,” published at the beginning of the nineteenth century. From the references to this book in later publica- tions one would infer that it contained a most valuable contribution to dog history, but such is far from being the case, and what he says is without practical value. What is valuable, however, is that it contains three The English Setter 107 engravings from paintings of setters by different artists. The one by Reinagle shows a beautiful dog, much handsomer and of a great deal more quality than the same artist’s setter in the ‘“Sportman’s Reposi- tory,’ of twenty-five years later. The very extraordinary setter ac- companying the game-keeper is a painting by G. Stubbs, a very famous animal artist. We now take up the actual history of the making of the English setter, and we are not only indebted for all pertinent information on the subject to the late Edward Laverack, but above that we are most unquestionably in- debted to him for placing the setter in its proper position as a field dog and for the development of the type which was not only the standard of excel- lence in his day, but that upon which we have built the present-day setter. For some peculiar reason it has been the custom of a certain class of writers to belittle Mr. Laverack and what he accomplished, alleging that the incon- sistencies in his statements regarding the pedigrees of his dogs and some such small matters condemned the whole business. If Mr. Laverack had never given a single pedigree with any of his dogs, and had never told any person how they were bred, they would have been just as good workers, just as good looking and in every way as useful in building up the breed. As a strain they were unequalled in their day, and but for them Americans would. have had poor material in the way of importations with which to improve the natives of inter-variety breeding. Strangest of all, most of those who attacked Mr. Laverack and his dogs were thick-and-thin supporters of what has been named the “Llewellyn” setter, a strain made up from dogs bought, not bred, by Mr. Purcell Llewellyn, one-half of the desired pedigree being Laverack blood. On this subject we will have more to say later. But for Mr. Laverack we should know nothing of the various strains kept by sporting gentlemen of prominence throughout England and Scot- land, and in his book, “‘The Setter,” is to be found all that later. writers knew about the various strains and which they made use of without com- punction as original. Mr. Laverack’s book is now exceedingly scarce, almost, if not quite, as hard to secure as the first edition of “Stonehenge,” which many have thought did not exist. As Mr. Laverack’s text is con- densed it may be copied in full, so far as reference is made to the leading varieties of the English setter from the time his knowledge of them began, which we may set down as 1815-20. 108 The Dog Book NawortH CasTLeE oR FEATHERSTONE CasTLE SETTERS The first he mentions is the Naworth Castle or Featherstone Castle setters: “There is a very fine old breed of setters, at present but little known. It has been, and still is, in the possession of the Earl of Carlisle, Naworth Castle, Brampton, Cumberland; Lord Wallace, Featherstone Castle, Cumberland, and Major Cowan, of Blaydon Burn, Northumberland, so well known as the bloodhound authority. “This breed of setters I remember fifty years ago, when I rented the moors belonging to the Earl of Carlisle, in the vicinity of Gillesland. This moor was commonly called Wastes, a description of which is so graphically given by Sir Walter Scott in ‘Guy Mannering.’ “This rare old breed has probably been retained in the above families as long as any other strain has. “The Featherstone Castle breed has been looked after by three genera- tions of Prouds, Edward Proud (now pensioned off) and sons. “Those at Naworth Castle, by Grisdale, who has been there for forty years or more, but now a pensioner. How long the breed may have been in the family of Major Cowan, and others in Northumberland and Cumberland I cannot say. . “The distinguishing colour is liver and white, they are very powerful in the chest, deep and broad, not narrow or slaty, which some people seem to think is the true formation of the setter. “If there is any fault to find with them it is their size; they are a little too big and heavy. “There is a great profusion of coat, of a light, soft silky hair on the crest of the head, which is rather longer and heavier than the generality of setters. They are particularly strong and powerful in their fore quarters, beautifully feathered on their fore legs, tail and breeches, easily broken, very lofty in their carriage, staunch, excellent dogs and good finders. Though liver, or liver and white is not a recognised colour in shows, my belief is that there are as good dogs of this colour as of any other. “The Featherstone Castle breed was brought into notoriety by the late keeper, Edward Proud, and so much were they appreciated by shooting men that they went all over the country, and even to Ireland. This was more than half a century ago. The English Setter 109 EDMOND CaAsTLE SETTERS “There is also another celebrated breed at Edmond Castle, near Carlisle, Cumberland. This likewise is liver and white, without the tuft. These dogs are much lighter and more speedy looking than the tufted ones. They are very deep, wide and powerful in the forequarters; well bent in the stifles, so much so as to give them a cat-like crouching attitude. “Laidlaw was the keeper’s name who had charge of them. These setters were noted all over the country for being first class and very enduring. “The late Mr. Heythorn, of Melmerby Hall, near Penrith, had this breed when he shot with me—at which time I had the shooting at Pitmain, Kingussie, Inverness-shire—and first-rate dogs they were. “Mr. Garth’s Bess, a winner at the Shrewsbury trials, was from this kennel.” How far the following strains, which Mr. Laverack refers to, resembled what we call black, white and tan, or how nearly they favoured Gordons with white markings, we have no means of stating, but are inclined to the opinion that they were distinct from the latter, for the reason that Mr. Laverack put them in one chapter, devoting the following chapter to the Gordon, or black and tan alone, then a ckapter to his own breed, finishing with another devoted to the Irish setter. This seems conclusive evidence that he did not consider them allied to the Gordons, but as varieties of the general run of setters. Lorp Lovat’s BREED Lord Lovat’s breed is named as a black, white and tan: ‘“ Another celebrated, tested and well-known breed has long been in the possession of the evergreen veteran sportsman, Lord Lovat, Beaufort Castle, Beauly, Inverness-shire. This strain is black, white andtan. His Lordship shot long with Alexander, the late Duke of Gordon, and he informed me that his Grace had black and tans,'and black, white and tans, but preferred the latter. “A celebrated dog of Lord Lovat’s black, white and tan named Regent was well known in Ross-shire and Inverness-shire. Old Bruce, his Lordship’s keeper, told me this dog would never be beaten. Numbers of this strain and colour were in Lord Lovat’s kennels when I last saw them. They have long been valued by many sportsmen for their excellence and beauty. 110 The Dog Book “T think I am correct in stating that this breed has never been exhibited. at dog shows. They are very handsome, good, possessed of great powers of endurance; kept for utility and not for show. Tue SouTHESK “There is also another breed called the Southesk, belonging to the Earl of Southesk, in Forfarshire, black, white and tan. These dogs are very strong, fine animals, large in size and extremely well feathered, round bar- relled, powerful, and strong in their forequarters. “Tf any defect in their formation, they are apt to be somewhat slack in the loins and too long in the leg; notwithstanding this, they are well known to be good and staunch dogs, and highly appreciated. “The breed was well known to me when I rented the forest of Birse, adjoining the Glen of Dye, the property of Sir James Carnegie, now the Earl of Southesk.” STRAINS OF THE EarRL OF SEAFIELD The Earl of Seafield had tricolours and also lemon or orange and whites. “This is one of the most beautiful strains I have ever seen; there: are few better than that of the Earl of Seafield of Balmacaan, Urquhart Castle, Inverness-shire. Perhaps there is no breed of setters possessed of a greater profusion of coat. I should say, save Russians; they had more coat: of a glossy, silky texture, and more feather than any other strain of setters Ihave ever seen. Sheriff Tytler, of Aldoury, near Inverness, also had or has some of the same breed, as well as the late General Porter of Inchnacardoch,. near Fort Augustus, and several others in that district. “TI had many opportunities of seeing this pure and beautiful breed when I rented the Dunmaglass shootings and Boleskin Cottage on the banks of Loch Ness, Inverness. The formation of these dogs is as follows: Head rather short and light, full hazel eyes, ears well set on, of a soft, silky texture. They are similar to Toy Spaniels on a large scale, and covered with long floss like silky hair on body, and forelegs, flag, and breech; medium sized; good hunters; good dispositions and easily broken. The objection- able points are their peculiarly upright shoulders, straight hindquarters and sparseness of body, which makes them go short and stilty.” The English Setter III BREED OF THE Eart or DeRBy AND Lorp OssuLsToN “The late Earl of Derby and Lord Ossulston, when shooting at Coul- nakyle, in Strathspey, Inverness-shire, had a beautiful breed of lemon and white setters, obtained, I believe, from Lord Anson. This breed in forma- tion was very similar to my own lemon and white; ey were very powerful in the fore-quarters and remarkably handsome.” Lorp Ossutston’s Brack SETTERS We now return to the Border sportsmen for particulars regarding black setters: “Another breed"of rare excellence, and greatly appreciated by practical sportsmen was that of Lord Ossulston, Chillingham Castle, Wooler, Northumberland. These were jet black, with beautiful bright, soft, glossy coats—a colour that our fastidious judges of the present day would probably ignore and not even notice, however handsome they might be, as not being fashionable. It was certainly one of the best, most useful and beautiful strains I ever saw, and for downright hard work could not be surpassed. I have, too, seen an excellent breed of light fawns, also a self- liver coloured one. Both these strains are first rate. Breeps oF Lorp Hume, Witsex PaTTren aNnD Henry ROTHWELL “Lord Hume, of Tweedside; Wilson Patten, Lancashire; and the late Henry Rothwell (that celebrated old sportsman of hunting notoriety, who resided near Kendal, Westmoreland) had also a similar breed of blacks, well known, and eagerly sought after in those days by all the leading sports- men in that country. “Lord Hume’s strain was famous all through that district and the Lammermuir Hills, for their acknowledged good properties, stoutness and powers of endurance. The last of this beautiful breed, so far as Harry Rothwell was concerned, was a dog named Paris, in the possession of his nephew, Robert Thompson, Esq., Inglewood Bank, near Penrith, North- umberland, and who shot with me for several years on the Forse shootings, Caithness, which I rented. It is a fact that this dog, a medium-sized one,. ran almost every day for six weeks and he was, when required, as good a retriever as I ever saw. Mr. Ellis, the Court Lodge, near Yalding, Kent, who shot with us can testify to the truth of this statement. 112 The Dog Book “Wilson Patten’s breed, similar to the above, were very good, and noted for their hardy constitutions and innate love of hard work. “The colour of Lord Hume’s and the other of the named gentlemen’s breeds was a most beautiful jet black, as bright and brilliant as the blackest satin. Long, low dogs, with light heads, very strong and powerful in the forehand; well-bent, ragged, cat-like hind quarters, capital feet, hare footed, but not too much arched at the toe. They had not a great profusion of coat, but what there was, was of a first rate quality, and particularly silky. “These dogs were exceedingly close and compact in their build, and noted all through the country for their endurance; they were good rangers and very staunch.” Mr. Lorr’s SETTERS Of Mr. Lort’s setters Mr. Laverack does not speak from personal knowledge, but from information he believed that there were none better. In colour they were black and white, and lemon and white; long, silky coats; hardy, enduring and good rangers. Mr. Laverack expressed his regret that owing to Mr. Lort’s judging so constantly at shows, he seldom ex- hibited, and his setters were not known as they should have been. Tue WELsH or LLaNIDLOoES SETTER Finally we have references to the Welsh setters, of which the Llanidloes strain was then dying out. A close, compact animal, very handsome; milk- white or chalk-white, as it was called in Wales, and the coats not so soft and silky as the other breeds named. Another black strain is mentioned as equally good, hardy and enduring. “In their own country they cannot be beaten, being exactly what is required for the steep hill sides.” It will be well to supplement with the late Mr. Lort’s description in the ‘‘ Book of the Dog’’ this scanty reference to the Welsh setters. “The coat of the Welsh or Llanidloes setter, or at all events of pure bred ones, is as curly as the jacket of a Cotswold sheep, and not only is it curly, but it is hard in texture and as unlike that of a modern fashionable setter as it is possible to imagine. The colour is usually white, with occa- sionally a lemon coloured patch or two about the head and ears. Many, THE SPANIEL By Syd. Edwards, London, Jan, 1, 1801 THE SETTER By Syd. Edwards, London, 1805 gE aa a Ld THE GAMEKEEPER By Stubbs, in Daniel's ‘‘ Rural Sports,"' 1802 THE ENGLISH SETTER By Reinagle, in Scott's ‘‘ Sportsman's Repository,"’ 1820 The English Setter 113 however, are pure white, and it is not unusual to find several whelps in every litter possessed of one or two pearl eyes. Their heads are longer in pro- portion to their size, and not so refined looking as those of the English setter. Sterns are curly and chubbed; with no fringe to them, and the tail swells out in shape something like an otter’s. This breed is more useful than any spaniel, for it is smart, handy, with an excellent nose and can find with tolerable certainty at the moderate pace it goes. It usually has the habit of beating close to you, and is not too fast, being particularly clever with cocks and snipe, which they are no more likely to miss than is a spaniel.” Tue LaveRAcKS AND THEIR BREEDING It is very unfortunate that Mr. Laverack confines his comments on his own strain to a mere description of their general appearance, or what he aimed at in his breeding, and gives us no details as how he started the strain or how he progressed. He illustrates his book with likenesses of Old Blue Dash, Dash II., and Fred. IV. It is very tantalizing after reading about the other strains to find nothing about the one we desire most of all to learn how it was built up. What we do know on this score is that in 1825 he obtained from the Reverend A. Harrison, who resided near Carlisle, two setters, Ponto and Old Moll, and to these two dogs alone he traced back the Laverack setters. Mr. Harrison had kept his strain for thirty-five years and carefully guarded their breeding all that time, so that accepting the pedigrees of the Laveracks of 1870-80 as correct, the breed was in existence for nigh upon one hundred years. Mr. Laverack mentions Mr. Harrison but once, when, in naming the three most perfect setters he had ever seen, he selected Lord Lovat’s black, white and tan dog Regent, General Wyndham’s Irish setter, not named, and Rev. A. Harrison’s Old Moll. It has been claimed that this tracing back to these two dogs alone is fundamentally wrong and that Mr. Laverack brought outside blood into his strain, and as evidence of this there is a letter he wrote his friend Roth- well regarding a puppy that was liver and white saying: “The liver and white will be quite as handsome and good as any of the five in the litter. He strains back to Prince’s sire, viz., Pride of the Border, a liver and white. He strains back for thirty years to a change of blood I once introduced—the pure old Edward Castle breed—County Cumberland liver and white, quite 114 The Dog Book as pure and as good as the blues. Pride’s dam was my old blue and white, with tan cheeks and eyebrows. Why I reserved Pride was to breed back with him and my blues. He is invaluable as by him I can carry on the breed.” This was written in May, 1874, two yedrs later than the book was published, and of course is a contradiction of the pedigree he gave with that dog and every other by Dash II. out of Belle II., and indeed of all his pedigrees, for if one goes they all go, so similar are they in the interbreeding of the descendants of these two original dogs he started with. So on this allegation those opposed to the Laveracks attacked the whole structure, root and branch. But what was there in that after all? Did the excel- lence of the Laveracks depend upon whether or not all Mr. Laverack’s self- acknowledged tests to improve his strain were subsequently, as he said else- where, thrown out, or whether some mixture of some excellent blood still remained, or did their claims rest upon what they were individually ? Were they not the outcome of fifty years of his own breeding with a well-defined object in view? These are the points at issue and nothing else, except with that class of breeders who select a sire from the stud-book record of pedigrees—and never breed anything good for either show or field trials. We are far from supporting the published Laverack pedigrees—quite the reverse, in fact, for it is simply impossible that that of Countess is correct. If that one falls, they all go, at least all with any such cross as Dash II.—or Old Blue Dash as he was generally called—or that of Fred I. Usually the Laverack pedigrees are attacked upon two grounds, the presumed impossi- bility for any strain to have its origin in but one brace of dogs and to inter- breed their progeny successfully for fifty years. The other claim is that as Mr. Laverack tried some outcrosses and never gave a pedigree with such a cross in it, coupled with the statement with regard to the liver colour in Pride of the Border, he did not give correct pedigrees. There is no founda- tion for the first assumption as it would be quite possible to continue the interbreeding of descendants from one brace of dogs, exercising care to breed only from the physically sound ones. With regard to the second claim we will say, presuming that nothing further can be adduced against the given pedigrees, that a person writing an offhand reply to an intimate friend would hardly exercise the care nor make the necessary references he would if writing out a pedigree for publication. We would not take the Rothwell letter as conclusive against the testimony of the pedigree if the latter bore investigation, and that leads us to a line of discussion which we The English Setter II5 have not hitherto seen exploited, though it may possibly have been without our knowledge. Mr. Laverack obtained Ponto and Old Moll from the Rev A. Har- rison in 1825. Judging from Mr. Laverack’s naming Old Moll, coupled with the name of Mr. Harrison, as one of the best three setters he had known, it would seem fair to assume that he did not get her as a puppy, but probably obtained both as developed shooting dogs, having possibly no thought of what he subsequently went in for in breeding. We will there- fore set the date of their birth at 1823. The peculiarity in the pedigree of Countess is not really so much that all lines trace back to the original brace, but that the links are so few and each brace named has but two descendants, with but two exceptions of one additional each. Boiled down in this man- ner here is the pedigree of Countess: Main stem. Spurs—see below. (1823) Ponto—Old Moll. 1Dash I.—Belle I. Pilot—Moll II. ?Cora I. Regent—Jet I. *Rock. Rock II.—Blairs Cora. Sting — “Belle II. sire of dam of (1862) Dash II. Moll III. iclintese (1869) Spurs to the main line: 1Dash I. *Moll II. (? 1836) *Rock Peg a Rock I. ®Belle IT. Fred I. (1853) Cora I. (? 1836) Moll III. Cora II. ‘Sting. Dash IT. (1862) Countess (1869) \ 116 The Dog Book Referring to the main stem table, we have six generations from Ponto to Dash II., a period of thirty-nine years, or an average of six and a half years to a generation. According to that supposition Moll II. and Cora I. were whelped about 1836. Turning to the table of spurs, we have Fred I. recorded as whelped in 1853, by which time his dam, Moll II. was, accord- ing to the foregoing computation, seventeen years old. We next come to a veritable Sarah in brood bitches, the venerable Cora I. a full sister, possibly a litter sister to Moll II., and find that she was bred to this nephew of hers, Fred I., about 1857, and when about twenty-one years of age, she produced Cora II., dam of Dash II. who was whelped 1862. If any person desires to believe these things possible we have no objection, but we do object to any one thinking to overthrow the name of Laverack or disparage the great benefit he was to the breed because his pedigrees will not scan. What differ- ence did it make if Mr Laverack had simply stated that he had bred his setters from 1825, starting with a brace he had obtained from the Rev. A. Harrison, and interbred their progeny, that he had at various times tried outcrosses with reputable strains, but had never had satisfactory results and had come back to his old line again as closely as possible. The dogs would have been just as good individually, Countess would still have been the wonder she was, and there would have been no difference in the results of the Dan cross on the Laverack bitches, nor of the Laverack dogs on Dan’s sisters. Mr. Laverack’s setters were good because he had all the time been intent on their improvement, not because he gave with them a string of names in various order back to Old Moll and her consort Ponto. It has been said that Mr. Laverack only bred to supply his own wants for shooting dogs, and then only when his brace in use were getting old did he rear a litter, pick out a new brace and repeat the operation. The known facts do not support this supposition, for he writes about many gentleman having his strain of setters, and from the amount of shooting he did he must have had a fairly well-filled kennel from which to draw his supply. Writing to his friend Rothwell, when he was an old man, November, 1874, he tells of having lost three puppies Rothwell had sent him, also six more and two brood bitches, eighteen months old, for which he had refused fifty guineas each, besides four more young dogs. Again in the first volume of the English stud book we find seven setters registered in his name, fifteen dogs bred by him registered as the property of others, and about twice as many sa) MR. EDWARD LAVERACK’S ENGLISH SETTER, FRED IV, BY DASH OUT OF MOLL Drawn when 1s months of age MR. EDWARD LAVERACR’S “OLD BLUE” DASH, BY STING OUT OF CORA Drawn when 70 years of age BARTON TORY A prominent dog in the present-day revival of the correct type of English setters, which began four years ago STYLISH SERGEANT A leading show dog in England and America; now at Seattle, Washington The English Setter 117 more bred from his dogs by other persons. It must also be understood that it never has been the custom to register dogs so freely in England as we do in this country, but it is left to the kennel club to enter free of charge all winners at field trials or at dog shows held under certain rules of the club. Hence Mr. Laverack’s registered dogs were winners, and not one of his breeding stock was registered, as is the custom with us. Neither can we admit that his stud dogs were for the free use of every friend who wanted to breed to one of them. We do not say that he went into the business of breeding and selling to the extent that Mr. Llewellyn subsequently did, but there was no restriction of his operations merely for his own use. What improvement could a man possibly make by breeding a litter every six or seven years for fifty years? A breeder seeking to improve and build up a strain must have a surplus of stock for selection and only breed on from the best, so that we are forced to the conclusion that Mr. Laverack used a good many intermediate crosses not tabulated in his pedigrees, and felt his way along until he had his strain well established and universally acknowledged __as of great merit. Shortly after Mr. Laverack’s book appeared, the talented editor of the London Field, the late Dr. J. H. Walsh, whose nom de plume of “Stone- henge” had world-wide fame, undertook a fourth edition of his “Dogs of the British Islands,” and in this edition he personally wrote the sections on the setters, which were vast improvements on what appeared in prior editions written by contributors. This edition appeared in 1877 and covers the flush times of the Laveracks and the start of the “ Llewellyns.” Dr. Walsh knew greyhounds, setters and pointers better than he knew any- thing in the sporting world and, whenever he could, attended the field trials, and kept thoroughly in touch with what was going on. What he wrote is therefore “hot from the grid” compared with the fading recollections we have of what took place in England from 1876 to 1880. During the greater part of that period we contributed to the Field, knew Dr. Walsh personally and brought back to America an autograph letter accrediting us as his paper’s representative at the New York dog show in 1880. This letter was immediately begged by Mr. Tileston, the Westminster Kennel Club’s secretary, who, poor fellow, was killed the week prior to the date set for the show by the fall of the west wall of the old Madison Square Garden structure. 118 The Dog Book STONEHENGE ON LAVERACKS AND LLEWELLYNS The opening paragraph of Stonehenge is as follows: “Since the publication of the articles on the various breeds of dogs in The Field, during the years 1856-57, the strain of setters known by the name of Laverack, from the gentleman who bred them, has carried all before it, both on the show bench and in the public field trials which have been held annually. For this high character it is greatly indebted to the celebrated Countess, who was certainly an extraordinary animal, both in appearance and at work; for, until she came out the only Laverack which had shone to advan- tage was Sir R. Garth’s Daisy, a good average bitch. Though small, Countess was possessed of extraordinary pace, not perhaps equal to that of the still more celebrated pointer Drake, but approaching so closely to it that his superiority would be disputed by many of her admirers. Though on short legs, her frame is full of elegance, and her combined head and neck are absolutely perfect. With her high pace she combined great powers of endurance, and her chief fault was that she could never be fully depended upon; for when fresh enough to display her speed and style to the full, she would break away from her master and defy his whistle until she had taken her fling over a thousand acres or so. . . . Ona good scenting day it was a great treat to see her at work, but, like most fast gallopers, she would sometimes flush her game on a bad scenting day, and then she would be wild with shame. Nellie (her sister) was of the same size, but not so fast, nor so elegant, still she was good enough to beat the crack on one occasion at Vaynol in 1872, but on most days she would have stood no chance with Countess. She served to show that Countess was not wholly exceptional, as was alleged by the detractors of the Laveracks; and these two bitches, together with Sir R. Garth’s Daisy, may fairly be adduced as indicating that at all events the Laverack bitches are quite first class. No dog, how- ever, has put in an appearance at any field trials with any pretension to high form, but several winners have appeared half or quarter bred of that strain.” Countess, although bred by Mr. Laverack, was run by Mr. Llewellyn, who bought her from Mr. Sam Lang, who got her from Mr. Laverack. Nellie was apparently bought direct from Mr. Laverack, as no mention is made of Mr. Lang in the stud book. Hence although she gave prominence to Mr. Llewellyn’s kennel, the credit was really due to the Laverack strain. That all was not plain sailing for the Laveracks is apparent from this remark The English Setter 119 cf Stonehenge: “Before Daisy came out, Mr. Garth had produced a brace of very bad ones at Stafford, in 1867, and it was with considerable prejudice against them that the above celebrated bitches first exhibited their powers, in spite of the high character given them by Mr. Lort, Mr. Withington, and other well-known sportsmen who had shot over them for years. It is Mr. Lort’s opinion that Mr. Withington possessed better dogs than even Coun- tess, but it must not be forgotten that private trials are generally more flat- tering than those before the public.” All of which goes to show that Stone- henge was a very conservative, unprejudiced writer, and what he says has added value on that account. Stonehenge then proceeds to discuss what were the originals of what have coine to be called “Llewellyns,” and to show what this authority thought of the original title for these dogs we quote the opening paragraph: “T come now to consider the value of Mr. Llewellyn’s ‘field-trial’ strain, as they are somewhat grandiloquently termed by their ‘promoters,’ or, as I shall call them, the ‘Dan-Laveracks,’ being all either by Dan out of Laverack bitches, or by a Laverack dog out of a sister to Dan.” If there were “promoters” in England, there were also promoters in this country, and they made it their business to give the most glowing accounts of the Llewellyns, late “field-trials” strain, so that not only were the American shooting public misled at that time, but nearly every person connected with field dogs since then has been, and is still, of the opinion that they were invincible in England from 1870 as long as Mr. Llewellyn continued to run dogs in the English field trials. Nothing could possibly be further from the truth, and while we could state the facts in our own way and be thoroughly accurate, yet any person who takes that position is stil] likely to be attacked as prejudiced or untruthful. In preference to that we will quote what Stonehenge wrote from his own knowledge and from the best information, publishing it when and where the facts were well known, that is, in England, and these statements were never called in ques- tion nor were his conclusions. Even there, however, the upholders of the Llewellyns were not as accurate in their statements as they should have been. One of them who wrote over the nom de plume of “Setter” is quoted by Stonehenge as saying: “During the past two years ten of the Laveracks and ten of the Duke-Rhoebe and Laverack cross have been sent to America: the former including Petrel, Pride of the Border, Fairy and Victress; the latter including Rock, Leicester, Rob Roy, Dart and Dora, the same men 120 The Dog Book being owners of both sorts. At the American shows both sorts have ap- peared, and the Rhoebe blood has always beaten the Laverack. At field trials no Laverack has been entered, but first, second and third prizes were gained at their last field trials, in the champion stakes, by dogs of the Rhoebe blood, all descended from Mr. Llewellyn’s kennels.” In the first place, the same men did not own the setters named, Mr. L. H. Smith, of Strathroy, Ont., being the only one to possess representatives of each lot. As to the wins, the first champion stakes of record, run in 1876, had Drake, Stafford and Paris placed in that order. Drake was bred by Mr. Luther Adams and was by the Laverack dog Prince, out of Dora, who was bred by Mr. Statter and was by Duke out of Rhoebe. A very strange record of breeding to claim to have come from Mr. Llewellyn’s kennels. Stonehenge very pertinently remarks that as the two strains had not met afield there was no indication of superiority, and that without any definite knowledge he was quite prepared to admit superiority on the bench, as the Laverack dogs were heavy and lumbering, and the bitches, “though very elegant, too small and delicate for perfection.” Going on to discuss merits of the field trials performers as shown in England, Stonehenge says: “Now, although I have always regarded Duke himself as on the whole a good dog, especially in pace and range, and have estimated Dan and Dick, the result of his cross with Mr. Statter’s Rhoebe, favourably, as compared with the Laverack litters as shown in Bruce and Rob Roy, yet I never considered Dan as a good cross for the Laverack bitches, because his sire always showed a want of nose similar to the Laveracks themselves. Duke is said by ‘Setter,’ and I believe cor- rectly, to have received a high character from Mr. Barclay Field for his nose as exhibited in private, but he was notoriously deficient in this quality when brought before the public, going with his head low and feeling the foot rather than the body scent. In proof of this defect it is only necessary to say that he was beaten by Hamlet and Young Kent in this quality at Bala, in 1867, when the judge gave him only thirty-one out of a possible forty for nose, while at Stafford in the following spring Rex found birds twenty yards behind the place where he had left his point, thereby gaining the cup, Sir V. Corbett, the breeder of Duke, being one of the judges and loud in his admiration of Rex’s nose, while finding fault with that of Duke. Indeed, this defect was always made the excuse for E. Armstrong’s con- stant interference with him by hand and voice—whether rightly or wrongly The English Setter 121 T do not pretend to say, but it evidently marked that clever breaker’s want of confidence in his dog’s nose. Of Rhoebe herself I do not recollect enough to give an opinion as to this quality in her individually, and among her produce I do not remember any but Bruce and Dan that displayed even an average amount of scenting powers. Rob Roy was notoriously deficient in nose; and Dick, brother to Dan, in his second season was constantly making false points, and is so described in the report of the Southampton Trials of 1872. For these reasons, although I had always considered the Duke-Rhoebe cross superior to the two Laverack-Rhoebe litters, I never expected Dan to get such a good bitch as Norna, in point of nose and cor- rect carriage of head and flag, according to my ideas. If Nora, as alleged by her owner and ‘Setter,’ as well as by the Field reporter at Horseheath, is superior to her, I can only make my apology to Dan and admit that he has turned out a better sire than I expected, and than might have been gathered from the performances of Laura, Leda, and Druid, at the Devon and Cornwall, and Sleaford trials of 1874, which I saw. “Taking into consideration that the dogs which have been exhibited by Mr. Llewellyn have been picked from a very large kennel, and that as far as I have seen them perform, they have not proved themselves to be above the average, I can only come to the conclusion that Dan has not done any great good in improving the Laveracks, except in looks and size. Neither do I place him or any of his stock in the first rank of field trials winners, which in setters would I think include only Countess, Ranger, and Dash II., forming with the pointers Drake and Belle, a quintet in class At. Dan came out in public only once it is true, though winning three stakes at that meeting, but he met the same dogs in all, and the victory was virtually only asingle one. After this he put his shoulder out and never appeared in public again, but his brother Dick, who was coupled in the braces with him, and went equally well in the short trial accorded them, did not do anything worth speaking of next year. . . . Moreover Dan had at Shrewsbury a very narrow escape of defeat by Rake, as recorded by myself at the time, so that on mature reflection I have no hesitation in placing him below the first class, but possibly he is entitled to rank in the second class along with Plunket and his son and daughter, Kite and Music, (Irish), together with Kate, Rex and Lang (Gordons). To them may be probably added the Dan- Laveracks Norna and Nora and also Die, all more or less crossed with the late Mr. Laverack’s strain. To sum up, therefore, it may be safely alleged 122 The Dog Book that his (Laverack’s) setters have been of great service to sportsmen in giving pace and style when crossed with other breeds.” Those entitled by experience to enter into any controversy on the subject of Mr. Laverack’s and Mr. Llewellyn’s setters know only too well that the authority thus quoted cannot be gainsaid in any facts, and that the arguments with which he leads up to his opinions are exceedingly hard to controvert. That then was the position of the Llewellyns in England at the very time they were being forced upon the American market by a very much interested coterie intent on striking the financial iron while they were keeping it hot. Even in Shaw’s “Book of the Dog,” published in 1880, there is no intimation that Mr. Llewellyn had “set the Thames on fire” with his world beaters, and the only references to that gentleman are: “Mr. R. LI. Purcell- Llewellyn is one of our greatest Laverack breeders of the day, and spares no trouble or expense in perfecting his strain. . . . Count Wind’em, Countess Bear and Countess Moll are the brignt particular stars of Mr. Llewellyn’s kennel, and the first named is a great, big, useful-looking dog.” We do not advance the latter quotations as in any way conclusive, for it is very evident that the setter article in that book was a piece of patch work, written by various persons, but that there is no mention of what was at that time to Americans the most wonderful combination of ability and good looks proves that they were exciting very little attention in England compared with what the agitation in the American press had accomplished in this country. Earty ImportaTions oF LAVERACKS The success of the Laveracks in England, coupled with the interest engendered here by the publication of Mr. Laverack’s book, unavoidably inspired American progressive sportsmen with the wish to secure some of the much-to-be-desired breed, and when it was announced early in 1874 that Mr. Laverack was offering for sale a brace of his dogs, he became the recipient of many inquiries, and of several offers to purchase them. Upon receipt of a communication accompanied by a draft for the amount asked, he shipped to New York the first pair of his dogs exported to this country, where they arrived in July of that year. These dogs were Pride of the Border, and Fairy, purchased by Mr. Charles H. Raymond, of Fox The English Setter 123 x Farm, Morris Plains, N. J., Fairy coming over in whelp to Laverack’s Blue Prince, a son of Pride of the Border. In appearance the imported pair did not greatly resemble each other. Pride of the Border, although not a large dog, was somewhat heavily made, with long, low action, and liver and white in colour. Fairy, although stoutly built, was smaller, of lighter frame and quicker in movement, and was an orange Belton. Both were wide rangers, and possessed extraordinary powers of scent. In this latter particular Pride of the Border was a remark- able dog. At first he was apparently indifferent to or puzzled by the scent of our game birds, but when he became acclimated and grew accustomed to the new conditions, he developed into a most satisfactory shooting dog. When in the field his intelligence seemed always actively at work, and in getting to his birds his head saved his heels many an unnecessary rod’s travel. Like one of the blue Beltons described by Mr. Laverack, this dog displayed wonderful sagacity on running birds; for instance, pointing an old cock grouse, or a running brood, he knew by the scent when the game had left him; then, instead of footing, immediately sunk or dropped down wind thirty or forty yards and re-pointed, his sagacity telling him he could find game much quicker by taking advantage of the wind than ‘footing.’ When working on quail or ruffed grouse, Pride of the Border constantly resorted to these tactics whenever the birds ‘roaded.’ When on his game he ‘set’ instead of pointing; lying down with neck extended like a dog at ‘down charge,’ reminding one of Laverack’s expressed belief that ‘most breeders of any note agree that the setter is nothing more than the setting spaniel improved.’” Pride and Fairy showed to great advantage on the open snipe meadow, ranging widely and pointing and backing staunchly, and they would doubt- less have made an equally effective brace on wide prairies. Fairy was faster than the dog, and more animated in her work, but like him was round ribbed and deep chested. Both were thorough “gun dogs,” caring little for anything save seeking and finding game. They were never run in field trials—then in their infancy here—being reserved by their owner for his personal use in the field. Pride was never publicly advertised in the stud, but was bred to several bitches from various parts of the country, and some of his progeny were later imported by other fanciers. In 1881 we com- piled a record of the get of Pride of the Border which showed that of the fifty-six Laveracks then in this country, forty-six were descendants of this 124 The Dog Book noted dog. As quite a number of setter breeders of the present time are often at a loss to decide whether certain old dogs were or were not pure bred Laveracks, we give this record of 1881, exactly as we published it two years later in the old American Kennel Register. PRIDE OF THE BorRDER’S PROGENY—FIRST GENERATION Out of Fairy: Charm, Guy Mannering, Roderick Dhu, Brough, Ranger. Out of Petrel: Shafto, Pontiac, Pride, Petrel II., Princess Nellie. Out of Fairy II.: Thunder, Duke of Beaufort. Out of Ruby: Diamond, Daisy Dean. j SECOND GENERATION From Carlowitz (imported), out of Princess Nellie: True Blue, Carlina, Lilly, Sting II., Count Noser, Carmot. From Blue Prince, out of Fairy: Young Laverack (imported). From Pontiac, out of Fairy: Fate, Etoile. From Pontiac, out of Fairy II: Fairy Prince, Lance, Laverack Chief, Fairy III. From Thunder, out of Peeress: Dick Laverack, Prince Laverack, Mack Laverick, Maple, Coomassie, Lady Laverack, Daisy Laverack, Pet Laverack, Lu Laverack, Peggy Laverack. From Young Laverack, out of Petrel II.: Lora Laverack. From Carlowitz, out of Daisy Dean: Bonny Kate, Sir Hal, Leo X. To this second generation there was added two years later the dog Emperor Fred, sent over and first shown here in the name of Mr. Robinson, but afterward as the property of E. A. Herzberg, of Brooklyn, who returned as part payment to Mr. Robinson the dog Aldershot, a son of Emperor Fred, whose name appears in the third generation which we now give. THIRD GENERATION From Tam O’Shanter, out of La Reine: Blue Queen and Don Juan, both imported. MR. A. ALBRIGHT, JR.’S QUEEN’S PLACE PRIDE One of the many good setters imported by Mr. J. B. Vandergrift Photo by Schreiber MR. G. C. THOMAS, JR.’S ULVERSTONE RAP An imported dog and consistent winner Photo by Schreiber DR. J. E. HAIR’S ALBERTS RUMNEY RANGER A remarkably good dog in head The English Setter 125 From Bailey’s Victor, out of Blue Daisy: Fairy II. and Magnet. These were credited in the stud book to Mr. Laverack as breeder, but we satisfied ourselves at the time that they were bred by Mr. Robinson, of Sunder- land, who was the canine legatee of Mr. Laverack. From Emperor Fred, out of Blue Cora: Aldershot. All three of these dams were by Blue Frince, son of Pride of the Border, and Emperor Fred was also by Blue Prince. The foregoing were of course not all of the get of Pride of the Border, for it was only the living descendants at that time that were tabulated, and Pride had also been bred to other than pure Laverack bitches, getting that excellent show and field dog St. Elmo out of a short pedigreed bitch of Herzberg’s. In speaking to Mr. Raymond recently about the old dog and his descendants he told us that he still had some setters that traced to him, and whenever trained they were found to be excellent field dogs. Those were not pure Laveracks, however; indeed, we believe it would be impossible to find one anywhere that had such a claim. As to the controversies which have taken place regarding Laverack pedigrees, Mr. Raymond never in any way took part, he being thoroughly satisfied with the high character and excellence of the dogs themselves, without discussing old, unnecessary subjects, which had no bearing on the individuality of the dogs. Other importations followed Mr. Raymond’s and for ten years the Lave- racks had their full share of success on the show bench. The series of importations of this strain terminating with that of Emperor Fred, a remark- ably good dog that never really got his deserts in this country. He was first shown at New York in 1881, and led in the class for imported setter dogs. The term “imported” including the progeny of imported dogs, so that Duke of Beaufort and Pontiac, both by Pride of the Border, the former out of Fairy II., and the latter out of Petrel, though bred here, were in this class, and these three Laveracks were placed in the order named. When it came to the breed special, Thunder, another Laverack, beat Emperor Fred, though the latter was an immeasurably superior dog. Thunder was a big winner at that period, but very faulty in essential points, though quite a taking dog to the non-expert. The judge on this occasion was not the only one to make this blunder, but as sound judges were not by any means plentiful at that time, awards by the non-experts must be accepted with caution. Emperor Fred finally had justice done him at Washington in 1883, 126 The Dog Book when Mr. Mason placed him first in a wonderfully strong class of champions —dogs which had won first in the open class. Here he defeated Thunder, Don Juan, Plantagenet, Coin, and Foreman. So successful were the Laveracks up to that time that at this show the classification for English setters was divided into sections for Laveracks of pure breeding and “except pure Laveracks.” But this was almost the end of this short-lived division, for the glamour of the field-trial performances of certain dogs twisted the setter-judging to such an extent that Laveracks became practi- cally extinct. With the departure of Emperor Fred from the ring, Plantagenet was about the best setter of 1884. Foreman, it is true, defeated him, but while there was room for difference of opinion, we always favoured the more quality-looking Plantagenet, for Foreman was a very heavy-headed dog. short and round in skull and rather short bodied, “chucked up,” in fact, Nevertheless he was a very impressive dog, a good, vigorous mover, with superb hindquarters, and but for a slight turning out of the forefeet, and not being quite straight enough in pasterns to please the fastidious, he was a dog of grand character, and this, coupled with his superb coat, both in. quantity and quality, made him a setter that should have pleased both sections of the fancy. It soon became noised abroad that he was a good field dog, so that when he won the champion stakes at the Eastern Field Trials Club meeting he sprang into deserved popularity as a sire with beneficial results, more particularly in getting bitches of quality, such as Haphazard, Calico, Saddlebags, Daisy Foreman and others, all decided acquisitions on the score of shape and appearance, though all showing more or less the roundness of skull and shortness of muzzle, with the pinched appearance their sire displayed. We take it, however, that he was the next dog to do good to the setter following Pride of the Border. Tue Era or Mr. WINDHOLZ AND THE BLacKsTonE KENNELS We now come to an era that warms the heart of those who can recall the dogs of 1885 and following years during which the dogs of Mr. Windholz played such a conspicuous part at the leading shows of that period. This gentleman started his prominent show career with Rockingham and Princess Beatrice, and, as the former remained an unbeaten dog for some time, it is always with considerable personal satisfaction we recall the facts attending The English Setter 127 his purchase. We visited England in the early winter of 1884, and the only show of importance we had an opportunity of seeing was that at Hull. There we met our old friend Billy Graham, from Belfast, who, by the way, took the special for best four of any breed with the best matched team of Irish terriers we have ever seen benched by any person. Mr. Graham told us he had an order for a brace of setters for Mr. Windholz and wanted our opinion on a dog that was at the show. We had already had a casual glance along the benches and had noted a very likely looking dog and, remembering his whereabouts, we located the dog when Mr. Graham was trying to do so. It was the dog we had noticed. He was in very poor condition, thin as a rail and looking wretched. We took him down and in. reply to the question as to whether he could be got right, Mr. Graham said he was positive he could, as he had seen him in good shape and his condition then was the result of sickness. “Then buy him if you are sure of that, for if he can be got right he will beat any setter we have,” was our advice. So Graham bought the dog and later secured an excellent mate for him in Princess Phoebus. Rockingham was one of those dogs fitly described by one of the critics of that day who, when not exactly sure of his ground, summed up a dog as having no glaring faults—slightly strong in head, but of good type and excellent expression and needing a little more bend to the hocks and a little less flatness of back. A few changes of that sort would have been very great improvements in a dog that even without them was an excellent type all over, and with his lovely coat was one that gave pleasure to look at. He was a good dog to shoot over, and so were his get, Mr. Windholz always taking a fall shooting trip to the South in those days. Unfortunately, neither this good dog nor his sire Belthus, then in this country, were bred to to any extent, nor as men of intelligence in the breed should have done. Breeders went after strange gods in those days with results we shall soon have to touch upon. Mr. Windholz followed up these importations with those of Count Howard, Cora of Wetherall, Countess Zoe and Princess Beatrice, and could show a team the counterpart of which we never saw until Mr. Vandergrift took up the breed a few years ago. The rival to Mr. Windholz was the Blackstone Kennels of Pawtucket, and as Foreman could not defeat Rockingham, Mr. Crawford decided to import one that might do so. The result was the oncoming of Royal Albert, who finally succeeded in winning from the older dog at New York in 1887. The question was not by any means considered settled thereby, for the con- 128 The Dog Book sensus of opinion was that the setters at this show were very badly judged. We might add to that that we know they were not properly judged, but as- the awarder of the ribbons has joined the majority, this is neither the time nor the place to speak further. Another excellent importation was Royal Prince II., shown most successfully through the shows of 1887 and 1889. Tue Dark Days oF THE “TENNESSEE SETTERS” A very good American-bred dog was competing at this time named Roger, getting either first or second at a number of good shows. He was shown for three years at New York, and was second on each occasion. He was a big, sound dog, of good conformation, but failed in quality just enough to keep him out of the top rank. One would imagine that with all this education as to what an English setter should look like it would have been impossible for any person qualified to judge the breed to go wrong, but such was not the case. Judges who had seen dogs at the field trials did not seem able to forget that the sires of certain dogs shown under them in the ring had run well in the field, and it must have been on that account alone that many decisions were made by men who had placed dogs properly on prior occasions and have shown better judgment since then. As most of these singular and angular dogs came from Tennessee, those who attacked the bad judging gave them the name of the “Tennessee setters”’ and derided them to the full extent of their ability. Occasionally since then we have been asked what a Tennessee setter is, the inquirer being under the impression that it was some specially good line of the breed. As illustrative of what the “Tennessee setters” looked like we give the criticism of Mr. Mason on the dog that won first and special in a class of twenty-four dogs at a leading show of 1887, the extract being from “Our Prize Dogs” — a most valuable contribution to kennel literature, containing full descrip- tions with criticism on all the prize winners of that period: “Skull and muzzle fairly good, also eyes, ears and lips. Neck well formed and of sufficient length. Chest very defective, the ribs showing scarcely any deviation from a straight line, and being attached to the verte- bre in about the same way that the legs of a milking stool are set in. The result of this structural defect is a narrow, slab-sided chest, lacking incapacity for lodgment of heart and lungs, and a narrow, weak back. The short ribs should be much deeper and better spread, and the loin, instead of being flat, The English Setter 129 narrow and tucked up, should show strength, not only in width but in depth. The vertebra instead of protruding so as to leave a line down the back like the edge of a saw, should be well clothed on both sides with hard muscle. Quarters very light, and showing defects such as we have never seen over- looked by a judge of the breed. Thighs resembling those of a cat, being narrow and flat, and from a back view showing none of the beautiful lines which always portray speed and power, and which are indispensable in dogs which must go and stay. Hocks straight and light; they should be well bent, strong and clean. Forelegs not quite straight. Shoulders moderate. Feet fairly good. Tail long and curled over the back. Stands low at the shoulder in proportion to height at quarters. A small, weedy-looking dog, having body and limbs for which there is no standard and probably never will be.” The second to this dog was summarised as follows: “An undersized, slab-sided, light-quartered, ring-tailed and bad-headed specimen, having few if any show points. After having examined very carefully this and other dogs at this show, we can readily understand why a new standard was contemplated.” The cause of this perversion of the English setter type is to be traced to the introduction of the Llewellyns, not that the imported dogs were such weeds, but that the incompetence of breeders and the complete ignoring of anything like advisability in breeding let loose a flood of wretchedly built dogs, and judges who had knowledge of field trials did not seem able to properly place dogs descended from racing progenitors competing with true-built dogs of type, when it came to judging points in the show ring. With them the fact that a dog was descended from parents of excellent field qualifications was evidently ample reason for placing that dog high in the prize list. Their judging was very much on the order of the old game- keeper’s who, having been persuaded to don the ermine, took a glance over the candidates till his eye lighted on one that made him at once decide the placing by saying, “That looks like our old Bill, give him first.” What these “Llewellyns” were has never been lucidly determined, and later-day writers and supporters of the title acknowledge that no rule can be framed to interpret the name clearly. We all know what a Laverack was— a dog from Mr. Laverack’s kennels, or descended from such, without any outside blood; but Mr. Llewellyn had no strain at all in his kennel. He had dabbled in Irish setters, bought “cracks” of full Laverack blood, such as 130 The Dog Book Countess and her sister, and then some more winners of Mr. Statter’s breed- ing. These he crossed, not as anything new or patented by him, but merely what many other English breeders were then doing. He, however, had the very good fortune to sell some of his dogs to some Americans, who at once proceeded to exploit the “strain,” and, to differentiate them from the Laveracks, styled them Llewellyns. Now we have dogs from that breeder’s kennels which were not of the cross between the Statter setters and the Laveracks, for Mr. Llewellyn very soon introduced different blood; and on the other hand, we have had dogs of this Dan-Laverack strain, as Stonehenge called the cross, which Mr. Llewellyn never saw. That Llewel- lyn enthusiast, Mr. Joseph A. Graham, of St. Louis, in “The Sporting Dog,” frankly and honestly says that it is impossible to give a definition that will hold good. He says the exclusionists’ definition of Duke-Rhoebe and Laverack will not hold good because it shuts out “‘a large number of the most respected names in Llewellyn pedigrees;” meaning dogs bought from that breeder with later crosses of Dash II. blood. Then he says that to limit the title to dogs which had come from Mr. Llewellyn’s kennel would exclude all the Blue Beltons and several others. These exclusionists wanted to keep out the Gleam strain because of his descent from another outside cross, that of Sam; but now they have let down the bars and the Gleams are in the inner circle. Finally, Mr. Graham says it “would be as well to go further and drop the ‘pure’ idea altogether, letting Llewellyn blood stand for what it is—an influential but not separate element in English setter breeding.” But he still leaves us puzzling as to what this Llewellyn blood is. Is it everything that Mr. Llwellyn bred from all sorts of outside sources, and everything that others bred at the same time and in the same way as he did, or what? Bringing this question down to the present times, there was a special offered by Mr. Graham at the St. Louis Exposition dog show for the best Llewellyn dog and another for the best Llewellyn bitch. When it came to the judging Ben Lewis took in his regular class winners, Bracken o’Leck and Lansdowne Mallwyd Di. There was much discussion in the ring as to eligibility, and Mr. Marsh Byers, the judge, finally said as no one could give any definition or show any published condition governing the special, he could only judge the dogs claimed to be Llewellyns and the class awards were followed. We later saw the official judges’ record and there was a memorandum “disqualified” against these winners, but by whom made The English Setter 131 or for what reason we were unable to find out. Mr. Lewis told us that some of the dog’s ancestors had come from Mr. Llewellyn’s kennels, and if that is so then Mr. Graham’s own book could be cited in support of the eligibility of these two dogs. Be it understood that we have no objection to the naming, in some special way, of a branch of the setter family bred for the particular purpose of running in field trials, but we do hold that no person can purchase a bitch from one man and a dog from another and in four months the progeny cf this brace are eligible to be given his name as a distinguishing title, which is just what the so-called Llewellyns amount to. We have already referred to the manner in which they were forced to the front in dog shows, by placing crudely shaped animals, bred from dogs with field trial records, over much better setters; but it is not to be denied that the same methods were adopted in field trials, until it was almost a matter of necessity to run dogs of certain breeding to win at these contests. There is far greater latitude in field trials for the exercise of individual opinion—what Mr. John Davidson has aptly styled the judge’s “think” — than in dog shows, and this was exercised to the full in field trials. By these means all opposition was swamped and the result was most conspicu- ous in the shrunken classes of setters at the shows of the period which fol- lowed the bad work we have referred to. Not only that, but type was cast to the winds, and only at intervals were dogs of the right sort placed where they ought to be. It was, indeed, dark days for the English setter for about five years beginning about 1887. As Mr. Mason hinted in his criticisms quoted above, new standards were made to fit the new dogs; but those who held to the old cult would have none of the new idea, and the first fell flat, as has also the second; and so radically wrong was the latest “ made-to-fit standard”’ that it resulted in the formation of an English setter club which adopted a standard more in keep- ing with what an English setter really is. That this field trials strain of setters did good, we do not for a moment question. Greater interest was developed in the breeding and running of dogs at the trials, which also increased rapidly in number and importance; but any claim that our excellent class of field trials dogs is due entirely to being able to trace back through several generations to two or three dogs, is not tenable fora moment. In an article published recently in Country Life in America, we stated our opinion that if there had been no importations 132 The Dog Book to speak of, the same amount of work in breeding to notable performers, a similar number of their progeny to select the young entry from and the same amount of labour expended in their training would have made just as high a grade as we have now. If it was all mn the blood, in this particular Dan- Laverack cross, why was it that Mr. Llewellyn had to go outside for new blood, and then drop down to the bottom again with his field trials entries. It was little wonder that with bad dogs put in front breeders were all at sea in knowing what to breed to for type. Dogs went up and down in the prize lists—H. C. at some second-class show and second at New York, then back again to a commendation. The result was that every breeder could find warrant in breeding to almost any kind of a built dog, and most of them bred to dogs that had won in the field, no matter what they looked like. The natural result followed of worse mixed classes than we had had at any time since the introduction of the Laveracks and the separation of imported dogs from natives, a distinction that had long been done away with. It was not until about 1892 that we began to see daylight again, and although Albert’s. Ranger, imported at that time, was lacking in some of the essentials we deem necessary in a field dog, he was yet a dog of exceptional quality, and in some respects of type also. Almost at the same time Cincinnatus Pride appeared, a dog lacking in quality compared with those of the best type, but still of good parts and symmetry. For several years these two held sway in the show ring till Sheldon came out. This was a remarkably good son of Rockingham, and it was undoubtedly a most unfortunate thing that hardly had this grand dog been discovered than he was lost to breeders. Coming out at New York in 1896, he defeated both the dogs just named, and although the decision was much discussed, it was upheld at the four succeeding shows under different judges, one being a very severe critic of the first award. For seven shows he kept up his winning gait and then fell sick and died. He was a dog of grand formation and all a setter, while he was of great quality. Those opposed to his successes kept calling him a Laverack, possibly under the impression that that was a term of reproach, forgetting that his dam was by Belton, a Duke- Rhoebe-Laverack bred one, and eligible to the inner circles of exclusiveness; although, lamentably for the sake of the name Llewellyn, Mr. Statter bred Belton before Mr. Llewellyn ever owned Dan, with which he is claimed to have started the line of dogs given his name as originator. Sheldon’s The English Setter 133 record shows him to have been very decidedly the best American-bred dog of that date, if not up to that time. Sheldon would probably never have been shown if he had not been “discovered” by that good judge of a setter and experienced breeder, Dr. J. E. Hair, of Bridgeport, Conn. Up to that time he had been kept as a private shooting dog, with no knowledge of how good he was from a show point of view. Had he lived we are fully of the opinion that he would have done wonders for the setter, for from the few bitches he was bred to each of his get was a winner, and the second generation are to-day about the only American-bred setters that have reached the title oftchampion during the past two or three years. A setter which had a great reputation in the West now made his appearance in the East, Rodfield, and although he was anything but a good dog, he eventually got his champion title through winning three firsts in the open class under fanciers of the field trials bred dogs, and then with no opposition in the challenge class at small Western shows he got the necessary three wins, a process which could not be repeated under present conditions. A far better dog was Cincinnatus Pride, for Rodfield was short in head and thick in skull, full in eyes, with an exceedingly bad front and weak pasterns to offset his good neck, body and quarters. Because he was a field trials winner he was bred to extensively, but as any person with knowledge of the rudiments of breeding could have foretold, he got worse-looking progeny than he was himself. Cincinnatus Pride was not a good-headed dog, but nevertheless close to the best in those bad days for the breed. Still the judges of that time would not have him till one day he did well at a field trials; whereupon, although he could not be as good a dog as when younger, he at once jumped from third and V.H.C. to first place and went over dogs that should have beaten him. He was then bred to very extensively, and it 1s gratifying to say that he materially improved the field trials dogs, it being to that class of bitches he was mostly bred. It does not appear, however, that he produced anything equal to himself in general merit for show purposes. It is not so very certain that those who breed for type did not miss an opportunity when they overlooked this dog, for on his dam’s side he was wonderfully well bred, the lines running quickly to such excellent setters as Rock, Rum, Sir Allister, Belton, Fletcher’s Rock, Novel and other well-known setters of the past, and if used to good-quality bitches he might have been a success. 134 The Dog Book RETURN TO THE CorrRECT TYPE The end of the mixed-up condition of affairs seemed to be about 1898, or rather that was about the beginning of the much-to-be-desired change to something more stable. Albert’s Woodcock came over that year and won through to winners’ class at New York, followed by a dog of much similar type. These were English setters, dogs of substance, typical and showing character. Neither was a wonder, but they were nearer to the right sort than we had seen since Sheldon’s day. Quite a nice American- bred dog was also shown in Highland Fleet, though as he was from imported stock he would under the old-time rule have still been considered as imported, as opposed to native. Fleet suffered from being somewhat under the desired size, but showing much quality and was well put together. He did not do very well at his first show, but attracted the eye of Doctor Hair, so soon found another owner. His name was not changed to the ‘“Albert”’ prefix and he is known on the records as Highland Fleet, with the addition of “champion.” Like the unfortunate Sheldon, he did not live long at the Bridgeport kennels, being poisoned the following year, but not before he left some nice descendants, some of which were winners, and two champion- ship winners of 1904 are but two removes from him. Knight Errant was also a very prominent dog in 1900, though not one we altogether fancied, and when it came to placing him over Barton Tory at New York the following year we do think the judge made a mistake. Barton Tory was not a perfect dog, especially in hind legs, but his quality put him in a higher class than anything we then had. With the new century came flush times for the right sort of setters. Mr. Vandergrift took hold of the breed with the thoroughness that had characterised his connection with bulldogs and soon had a splended collec- tion of bitches and several good dogs, besides Barton Tory. The latter, while a very good dog, as already stated, was frequently rated too high in competition for specials against the best of other breeds. At Providence he erroneously won a cup for the best in the show. His poor hind- quarters were then all too conspicuous and there were several far more perfect dogs in the ring. We were one of a party of six judges on that occasion and our vote was for the mastiff Prince of Wales, the others voting for the setter or a toy spaniel. The mastiff eventually got the reserve. The setter was then mated with a far better bitch, and the toy spaniel in the The English Setter heels previous class was mated with a poorer one. The majority having decided that Barton Tory was the best dog in the show, we of course voted for him and his better mate, only to find ourselves once more in the minority, the defeated toy and his inferior mate getting the most votes. Several similar experiences fol- lowed, and we have ever since eschewed judging specials in mixed company. The gems of Mr. Vandergrift’s kennel were in the excellent collection of bitches, including Queen’s Place Pride, Queen’s Pride, Queen’s Flora and one or two others. At the same time it was not all plain sailing for even this good kennel for Mr. G. C. Thomas, Jr., of Philadelphia, was also in the ring with his Bloomfield kennels, which shortly included Mallwyd Sirdar, Stylish Sergeant, Dido B., Mepal’s Queen B., Pera, and others. Mr. Thomas was the better stayer of the two exhibitors, the Vancroft kennels being given up the following year. It looked lately as if Mr. Thomas was also preparing to go on the retired list, but fortunately it is not so, for at the close of 1904 he purchased from Ben Lewis his entire kennel of English setters and the latter will keep out of the breed, only showing for Mr. Thomas for a year from the date of sale. Mr. Barry, of Rye, is another of the standard sort, holding to his own ‘course in storm and sunshine, keeping good setters to look at and good to shoot over, and breeding a little on lines that promise well, but no one will gainsay that the stick-fast-to-type is Doctor Hair, and too much credit can- not be given him by all who value the perpetuation of an old breed in its purity of type for his consistent course for so many years. At no time since the early eighties has prospects for the English setter looked more favorable than at present. Show committees are giving exhibi- tors better judges, and whatever fear there was of offending field trials men has been overcome. Even if we do occasionally have a judge who speaks of two types and thinks it right to put one of each in the prize list, he does not do it to any extent. If a man will not judge to one type, the type he believes to be correct, he has no business in the ring, for he is obliging some exhibitors at the expense of others and against what should be his immovable opinion and verdict. PEDIGREE IN Fietp Triats Docs There seems to be far more misconception as to which line of blood we are more particularly indebted to for the excellence of the dogs bred for 136 The Dog Book field sports and with a view of possibly approaching field trials form, than any person not conversant with the facts could imagine possible. It has become so much a matter of custom to accept the dictum that we owe every- thing to the original importations from Mr. Llewellyn’s kennels and other dogs of similar breeding, that it is generally believed that Gladstone is the main reliance in pedigrees and that all modern field trials performers are of his family. We cannot make any change in the arranging of families in dogs from what is the custom in grouping other animals, and therefore take the male line as authoritative. We are indebted to Major J. M. Taylor for a vast amount of unrequited labour in getting up his book of “Bench Show and Field Trials Records,” which covers the ground up to the close of 1891, valuable statistical information being included with the plain records. Here we find, from a thorough supporter of the Gladstone family, a table of the successful get of that dog, also what Count Noble accomplished and every other sire of a field trials winner or placed dog. Gladstone, Count Noble and Roderigo are however taken out of the alphabetical sequence as being dogs of prominence as sires. Gladstone up to the close of 1891—he was born in 1876 and died in 18g0—had sired twenty-five dogs, which had obtained a place in the trials. Count Noble, imported 1880, died 1891, is credited with twenty-eight sons and daughters, and we may say that the tables show the two families as tied for honours, as each had fourteen firsts and nineteen thirds to its credit, the only difference being that Gladstone led by two points on second place and Count Noble by three as to fourth place. That, however, is the only point where there is an equality. If we had had to rely upon the male descendants in that Gladstone record for the carrying on of the family honours it would have been a broken reed, for with the exception of Paul Gladstone not one became famous, and he to a limited extent only. On the other hand, Count Noble sired such remarkable performers and sires as Gath, Roderigo, Cincinnatus, and Count Gladstone IV. It is quite true that Gladstone bitches had much to do with the success of Count Noble, and that it was probably the latter’s good fortune in that respect that led to his very great success. Had the tables been turned and Gladstone followed Count Noble, the result might have been satisfactory to the admirers of the latter family, but we cannot deal with probabilities and must take the records as we find them. Gath, who died young, left a few very good dogs to carry on his line. The English Setter 137 He was out of a Gladstone bitch and when bred back to the Gladstone bitch Gem threw the litter in which were Gath’s Mark and Gath’s Hope. This line has not been so successful of late as have others, however. Roderigo was a most successful son of Count Noble. He also was out of a Gladstone bitch, and we have from him a number of lines, prominent among them being Antonio, from whom we had Rodfield, Tony Boy and Tony Gale, and there is little prospect at present of losing tracings to Antonio and Roderigo in the best dogs at the field trials. Count Gladstone IV. is bred like Roder- igo, and he was another most successful sire, his son, Lady’s Count Glad- stone, being the phenomenal sire of 1904 in field trial records, no less than fourteen placed dogs being by him, while second to him come Count Danstone, his litter ‘brother, and Rodfield, each_with four to his credit during the year. While Count Noble was purely Dan-Laverack, he had an extra infusion of Laverack blood through his sire Count Wind’em, who was by the Dan- Laverack dog Count Dick, out of the pure Laverack Phantom, a sister to Petrel, dam of Gladstone. This makes the Count Noble and Gladstone cross very close in-breeding, for in the pedigree of Count Noble we have Count Dick, already mentioned, by Dan out of Countess, and Nora, the dam, was by Dan out of Nellie, sister to Countess. Then Phantom and Peeress the other two bitches in the pedigree are, as already stated, full sisters. Again we have the dam of Lady’s Count Gladstone and Count Dan- stone, in-bred also. This was Dan’s Lady, by Dan Gladstone, son of Gladstone out of the Druid bitch Sue; and Lady’s dam by Gath’s Mark, by Gath out of Gem, both with a Gladstone cross. In Dan’s Lady we have a cross of Dash III., a dog that is not Llewellyn according to any reasonable interpretation of what that word may mean. He was bred by John Arm- strong, and was by a Laverack dog out of Old Kate, who was by another Laverack out of the pedigreeless E. Armstrong’s Kate. Dash III. became quite prominent in pedigrees of noted performers, and it behooved the promoters of the “Llewellyns” to do something to keep the winners within their fold, so they decided to extend the pale and admit the pedigreeless Kate as worthy of becoming a progenitor of the commercial breed. This was no novelty for a similar thing was done in the case of Dash I. and Sam, dogs introduced into Mr. Llewellyn’s kennels as out-crosses; something he was always practising, and as soon as it became evident that breeders were 138 The Dog Book climbing over the fence and breeding outside of the already proscribed limits, the promoters met the emergency by extending the limits and so keep all the good dogs as “ Llewellyns.” To our mind the excellence of the American field dog is owing to the ‘concentration of effort in the securing a dog to suit the special requirements in our field trials. Breeders have bred to the winning dogs and kept on at that, and while there have been thousands bred annually not worth feeding, yet out of the great number there were bound to be some good ones. Doctor Rowe on THE LLEWELLYNS Many readers who have accepted the statements of persons no better informed than themselves regarding the Llewellyns may perhaps be of the opinion that we are either incorrect or prejudiced in what we have pre- viously stated in the article in Country Life in America, already mentioned, and also herein. We propose therefore showing upon the best authority we can find that everything we have alleged was in 1884 made the basis of Doctor Rowe’s attack upon Mr. Buckell and other supporters of what Doctor Rowe characterised as a speculative breed. The late Doctor Rowe was for many years editor of the American Field, and his name still stands on its title page as its founder, which is not quite correct, as he took over a struggling paper some two or three years old and after a few years changed its name to American Field. To-day it is the staunchest supporter of the Llewellyn cult, and in the stud book which it publishes annually there is a section entitled Llewellyn Setters as distinguished from English Setters. To paraphrase a well-known proverb, when fanciers fall out we are apt to hear some honest truths. At the close of the year 1883 Doctor Rowe announced that he would send some setter puppies he had bred on theo- retical lines to compete at the English field trials. “The result was quite a wordy warfare with some gentlemen he had been very friendly with in the matter of supporting the field trials strain. Mr. Buckell said he was not telling the truth and the Doctor claimed “he was rude and personal.” “A contributor to Land and Water declared we had been guilty of an unsportsmanlike act in trying to appropriate the puppies as American- bred dogs; another declared we knew more about Kentucky widows than of breeding setters, and another pronounced us to be a feather-bed sports- man; our theories of breeding were declared vaporous effusions; the Turf, The English Setter 139 Field and Farm assailed us and now Mr. L. H. Smith declares we are “a bottle of soda water,” whereupon the Doctor uncorked himself and told more real truths about the Llewellyn business than has appeared in that paper since then. It is impossible to quote him in the entirety as what he had to say on the subject filled a score of pages from first to last, but the following extracts are pertinent: “‘ When a breeder by any peculiar plan shall change a breed of animals, and that change is uniform and can be intelligently defined, the group admits of a new classification. But Mr. Buckell (Mr. Llewellyn’s right- hand man) ignores these facts when he writes about the Llewellyn setter as a breed. Neither he nor Mr. Llewellyn can show a title to the name, nor has any attempt been made to show what right Mr. Llewellyn has to monopo- lise the breeding of the dogs he calls Llewellyns. He bought Dan and Dick and Dora from their breeder Mr. Statter; then he purchased the Laverack setters Prince, Countess, Nellie, Lill II., and others. Dan, Dick and Dora he called Llewellyn setters. Dora’s puppies by a Laverack dog he called Llewellyn setters. He might as well have called the Laverack setters Llewellyns. If he had a right to call Dan a Llewellyn setter, simply because he owned him, any man has the right to class any dog he may purchase as of a special new breed. “But Mr. Llewellyn did not stop with so much monopoly as we have mentioned. He proclaimed, or Mr. Buckell did for him, that every dog in the land which was bred like Dan or Dick or Dora, or their progeny, out of Laverack setters were Llewellyn setters, and it mattered not where they -were owned or who bred them. He went still further, and claimed as his breed all dogs out of Rhoebe (a bitch he did not breed or own) by a Laverack dog. Dogs by Duke (a dog he neither bred nor owned) out of a Laverack setter bitch were his breed; dogs by Duke out of Rhcebe were his breed; the progeny of Duke-Rhcebe on the Laveracks were his breed. These bred back again to the Laveracks or to the other side were his breed. It does not make any difference how much Laverack blood there might be in a dog if the remotest part of the pedigree shows Duke or Rhcebe, or Dan or Dora, or any of the many Duke-Rhcebe-Laverack combinations, they are ‘his breed if no other blood is shown. On the other hand, it matters not how much Duke or Rheebe blood, or both, is present, a drop of Laverack makes it Llewellyn. ““Thus Rob Roy, a noted field trial dog which Mr. Llewellyn never 140 The Dog Book owned, a dog he did not breed, a dog whose ancestors he never owned nor bred, was according to Messrs. Buckell and Llewellyn, a Llewellyn setter. Rock, a field trial winner in England, bred by Mr. Garth, out of Daisy by Field’s Bruce, was also a Llewellyn setter, according to Mr. Llewelyln’s classification. Belton, the sire of Mr. Sanborn’s crack field trial winner Nellie, was monopolised as a Llewellyn, yet he was bred by Mr. Thomas Statter, out of Daisy (not Llewellyn’s), by Sykes’s Dash, a Laverack setter. Mr.Brewis’s celebrated Dash II., by Mr. Laverack’s Blue Prince out of Mr. John Armstrong’s Old Kate, is by Mr. Llewellyn claimed as his breed. His excellent brother Dash III. is also, according to Messrs. Buckell and Llewellyn, a Llewellyn setter; and we might go on at great length and show a long list of dogs, bred by others, from dogs not bred or owned by Mr. Llewellyn, which that gentleman claims as his breed, without a particle of reason. ; “Had Mr. Llewellyn originated the Duke-Rhcebe-Laverack cross he might have some claim on the whole strain, but the cross was made, and its excellence proven before he owned any of them. Nor is Mr. Llewellyn entitled to any special recognition for having continued to breed these dogs exclusively, for they have been bred in England and in this country by others, during the whole time he has been breeding them. “Has Mr. Llewellyn done all that it is claimed he has, and are all these dogs, whose performances go to swell the ‘Llewellyn record’ his dogs? Most assuredly not. He has no more right to their record than we have. What Mr. Laverack, Mr. Statter, Mr. Garth, Mr. Armstrong and others have done in England with their dogs, they, and not Mr. Llewellyn, are entitled to credit for. And what Mr. Smith, the Messrs. Bryson, Mr. Adams, Mr. Sanborn, Mr. Bergundthal, Mr. Higgins, Mr. Dew and many others have done in this country, they, and not Mr. Llewellyn, are entitled to credit for.”—American Field, January 19, 1884. Replying to a Canadian correspondent in the American Field of February 9, 1884, Doctor Rowe writes: ‘ Dominion’s assumptions, when brought face to face with facts, furnish striking evidence of the length and breadth of the claims of Mr. Llewellyn and his followers. Every dog that is of any consequence as a field trials performer gets to be a Llewellyn setter. A little investigation through the great mass of ‘Llewellyn setter’ assumption brings us to a very few commonplace facts.” When Mr. L. H. Smith, in the columns of the Turf, Field and Farm, The English Setter 141 took Doctor Rowe to task he was treated to a three-column reply, from which we take the following: ‘‘We have asked how it is that Dan is a Llewellyn setter when he is a Duke-Rhoebe and nothing else; how it is that dogs which are not Duke-Rheebe can be Llewellyns; and how if Duke-Rhcebe-Laverack equals a Llewellyn, Duke-Laverack, or Rhoebe-Laverack can equal the same thing. The question was asked in all seriousness, and the reply is: ‘Your statements are vaporous effusions’—‘You know more about Kentucky widows than about breeding setters’—-‘ You are a feather-bed sportsman’ —‘You are one of those talkative, effervescing little fellows’—‘ You are a bottle of soda water.’ “We now have another question to ask, and if Messrs. Buckell and Llewellyn cannot answer it, perhaps Mr. Smith can. Admitting that Mr. Llewellyn has a right to the title he claims, that all combinations of Duke- Rhcebe-Laverack are Llewellyns, how can he claim the progeny of Dash II. to be Llewellyns when they have other blood than that to which the so-called Llewellyn breed was limited by the definition? We can ask a great many other questions as difficult for Messrs. Buckell, Llewellyn and Smith to answer satisfactorily, but we have asked sufficient for the present; when Mr. Smith and his friends answer those which have been asked it will be time to ask the others.” —A merican Field, May 10, 1884. “We repeat Mr. Llewellyn has not any right to the title which he has claimed, and the idea that the term ‘Llewellyn setter’ has served as the ex- ponent of a principle is absurd. In the first place, as we have said before, Mr. Llewellin was not the originator of the plan of breeding the setters he claims as his own; he borrowed it; Messrs. Statter and Field had bred in the manner Mr. Llewellyn began to breed before Mr. Llewellyn owned any one of the dogs which he afterward bred from. “When we published the letters proposing that the title should be con- ferred on Mr. Llewellyn, we were asked to endorse the claim, which we positively refused to do and did not do for the reason that we did not con- sider Mr. Llewellyn entitled to it, and regarded it as cheap veneer, an imitation of Mr. Laverack.” . . . “That we admitted the title to the dogs and styled them by it in our columns is not any more evidence that we endorsed it than that we endorsed it when we published the letters conferring the title. We received several private letters at the time asking if we approved of it, to which we replied we decidedly did not.” . . . “The 142 The Dog Book dogs were not then popular (1878), excepting among a few who owned them, consequently there were not those who, although they ridiculed the idea, yet took sufficient interest in the matter to oppose it quickly. The title therefor came into use, and we used it and admitted it into our columns the same as we did and do many other vulgarisms, as for in- “stance the term prairie chicken for pinnated grouse.”—American Field, April 26, 1884. In the article last quoted from, Doctor Rowe said that Messrs. Buckell and Llewellyn were speculative breeders, by which he meant that they had no staple method, but brought in various outside blood. A correspondent replied to this and said that when he visited Mr. Llewellyn’s kennels, in 1875, the dogs were a mixed lot. To his eyes, there were too many extremes in size and quality to show what was being bred for. In 1882 he again visited the kennels and found that there was a vast improvement. The dogs were larger and more of one definite type. Doctor Rowe twisted his correspond- ent’s statements to suit what he had previously written and finishes his editorial foot-note to the letter with this sentence: “We know Mr. Llewellyn wrote Mr. A. H. Moore that he sent only his culls to America; that doubtless accounts for the evenness of the dogs described and the unevenness of those we have seen.” These were the pertinent and never answered statements of the editor of the most aggressive kennel journal in the country at that time, and they were penned when all the facts regarding the introduction and pedigrees as well as the giving the name were thoroughly well known to readers of kennel and sportsmen’s papers. Now, at this late date, when so many of the actors in the events of that period are no more, and others are on the non-combatant list, searchers after truth are misled on every hand and seemingly have no option but to believe what was twenty years pilloried as erroneous and without foundation in fact. Even the American Field itself, regardless of the dictum of its old editor, has switched as the following from its issue of January 7, 1905, clearly shows: “It will be remembered that a protest was made against awarding the special prize of twenty-five dollars, offered by Mr. J. A. Graham for the best straightbred [this is incorrect, there was nothing as to straightbred in the conditions announced regarding the special, simply best Llewellyn setter dog] at the World’s Fair to Bracken O’Leck. The matter was referred to the American Field, and it decided that Bracken O’Leck is not a Llewellyn setter, for the very reason that he The English Setter 143 has blood in his veins other than the Duke-Rhcebe-Kate-Laverack.”’ Of course, not being confined to those lines, he could not be a “Llewellyn.” That is true enough, but if his breeding had been within those lines the decision would have been the other way; a way that Doctor Rowe would not have decided it in 1884, when he said Mr. Llewellyn had not a particle of reason to claim the Kate line, even admitting the Duke-Rhcebe-Laverack, which was merely a borrowed idea from older breeders. There is a virtue in choosing your own referee as was done in this case, and that reminds us of a still more sudden reversal of opinions. About 1874 C. J. Foster was supplanted as editor of the Spirit of the Times by Mr. J. H. Saunders, who had had little experience in the then important duty on sporting papers of deciding wagers. The result was that he reversed certain rulings which had for years been taken advantage of by clever betters, who knew that the Spirit decided one way and the Clipper the reverse. One was the value of a certain throw with dice, and this Mr. Saunders changed to the Clipper decision, and the loser came to us about it, as we were then on the paper. Our advice was to follow the ruling of the new editor and have another question referred to the Spirit. And this he did, but in the meanwhile Mr. Saunders had received so many letters calling his attention to the “error” that when the question cropped up: next week he went back to the old decision, and the twice loser came in hot haste with the paper containing it. The advice this time was to mark both papers and send them with a note to Mr. George Wilkes, the proprietor, with a statement of the facts. This he did, and Wilkes, knowing the im- portance of this department of the paper, at once sent his check for the hundred dollars, with a strong expression of regret; then he had a talk with Mr. Saunders, and the department was turned over to us to run on the familiar lines on all questions, except to formally state that the decision regarding the man and the squirrel in the tree was to be changed, and after that the man never walked around the squirrel, dodging on the opposite side, at least in the Spzrit’s columns. Had Doctor Rowe been as firm a man as George Wilkes he would have got rid of the term Llewellyn, just as George Wilkes stamped out timing fractions in trotting records. “These would be reported in fifths and other fractions, but the office rule was that quarters could alone be used, and every report was changed to conform therewith. Other papers copied the Spirit, and sportsmen after that would buy only quarter-second timing. 144 The Dog Book watches. To be consistent, Doctor Rowe should have copied Stonehenge and called these setters Dan-Laveracks and altered the term Llewellyn in every published communication, but unfortunately he did not. Points oF A Goop SETTER The many excellent illustrations we give of dogs known for their good points is a far better education than any supposed-to-be typical drawing. In all dogs there are possibilities of improvement, and in some of our illus- trations of even the best dogs the reader, if he possesses the eye for symmetry and proportion, will be able to detect faults in conformation. They are also vastly superior to attempting to educate by the “standard” alone, however clear the description of what is desirable may be. By taking the standard and looking carefully at the illustrations, point by point, the seeker for light will surely reach the desired end. There have been several standards, more than one having been made to fit certain dogs and foist a totally wrong type of setter upon breeders. Very fortunately, these never met with support, each in turn being dropped, and the one which was lately adopted by breeders and exhibitors of the correct type, is short, concise and readily understood. It is that adopted by the English Setter Club of America: “ Head.—Should be long and lean, with a well-defined stop. The skull oval from ear to ear, showing plenty of brain room, and with a well- defined occipital protuberance. The muzzle moderately deep and fairly square; from the stop to the point of the nose should be long, the nostrils wide, and the jaws of equal length; flews not to be pendulous, but of sufficient depth to give a squareness to the muzzle; the colour of the nose should be black, or dark, or light liver, according to the colour of the coat. The eyes should be bright, mild, and intelligent, and of a dark hazel colour—the darker the better. ‘The ears of moderate length, set on low and hanging in neat folds close to the cheek; the tip should be velvety, the upper part clothed with fine silky hair. “ Neck.—Should be rather long, muscular and lean, slightly arched at the crest, and clean cut where it joins the head; toward the shoulder it should be larger and very muscular, not throaty, though the skin is loose below the throat, elegant and blood-like in appearance. “ Body.—Should be of moderate length, with shoulders well set back, The English Setter 145 or oblique; back short and level; loins wide, slightly arched, strong and muscular. Chest deep in the brisket, with ribs well sprung back of elbows with good depth of back ribs. “Legs and Feet.—Stifles well bent and strong, thighs long from hip to hock. The forearm big and very muscular, the elbow well let down. Pastern short, muscular and straight. The feet very close and compact, and well protected by hair between the toes. “TJ ail.—The tail should be set ‘on slightly below the line of the back, almost in a line with the back, to be carried straight from the body, a curve in any direction objectionable; should not extend below the hocks when brought down, shorter more desirable, not curly or ropy; the flag or feather hanging in long pendant flakes. The feather should not commence at root, but slightly below, and increase in length to the middle, then gradually taper off toward the end; and the hair long, bright, soft and silky, wavy but not curly. “Symmetry, Coat and Feathering—The coat should be straight, long and silky (a slight wave admissible), which should be the case with the breeches and forelegs, which, nearly down to the feet, should be well feathered. “Colour and Markings—The colour may be either white and black, white and orange, white and lemon, white and liver, or tri-colour, that is, white, black and tan; those without heavy patches of colour on the body, but flecked all over, preferred.” ScaLE oF Points Fle AG wi pou ne enews G5 “Valle ntgeeewngeewweds 5 Netkien Jeneeseweraeciwes 5 Symmetry, coat and Body t2cownaieaues seekers 25 feathering. ......... 20 Lens and feet siccracae cans 20 Colour and Markings... 5 CHAPTER VIII TRAINING A FIELD Doc =< =~ INNUMERABLE are the books on the subject of training mio cee dogs for shooting, yet the general principles are the same that were told more than three hundred years ago. Changes in the method of capture have called for changes in the duties of the dogs used for finding the game, but the ground plan is the same as it was probably four hundred years ago, and since then it is only additional stories of education on the old foundation. The subject is not a complex one by any means and no one method is the Simon-pure to the exclusion of all others. Like the adding of a column of figures, one man does it from top to foot and another goes up the column. It is not the method, but the care exercised in applying the method, which insures in each case the correctness of the total. So also in the training of a dog, each of a dozen books on the subject varies slightly from the others, but all arrive at the same end of obedience inculcated and certain things ac- complished. The education of a child is not attained in a year or two, nor do we expect a neglected child to accomplish solely on account of his age what another gradually educated one can do. We must approach the subject of dog training rationally and with the thorough understanding that while compared with many animals the dog is exceedingly intelligent, he is yet an exceedingly ignorant one when compared with the human family. He is an animal you cannot argue with, nor is it any use telling him why he must not do a certain thing or why he must do something in a certain way. You have to make him do the things required of him in the way desired and check him when he goes wrong til! the one way becomes habit, and he. knows he will be punished if he does anything else. In these days when well-bred dogs are so exceedingly cheap, it is well to spend a little money in getting the right sort of dog to train. A great many people imagine that because a dog has a pretty good pedigree he must necessarily prove a good field dog. It is the same in dogs as with us, and 147 148 | The Dog Book brilliant parents all too frequently have children in no ways their equals, so also well-built parents do not always have equally symmetrical children, though that is the case much more so than in dogs as a rule. Presuming that the would-be trainer is about selecting a puppy upon which to try his skill, and the breeding of a certain litter or dog suits him, as promising good results, then let him satisfy himself that the dog is shaped so that he can gallop with ease and freedom, if of an age to run at speed; or if too young for that, see that he stands straight in front, has good bone, a short back and is well crooked in hind legs. A dog straight behind is almost invariably wrong in shoulders, and anyway if he cannot reach well forward with his hind legs he will prove a poor gallopper. Stress is laid upon formation, because no matter if one sees field trials winners in all sorts of shapes, that is no argument that they do better than if they were better made, or as well. There are plenty of well-made dogs incapable of doing good work in the field just as we find many strong, muscular men quite incapable of continued exertion or of standing severe punishment. We know that certain conformations are not conducive to speed in animals and there is little use selecting a puppy with radical faults in that respect when there are plenty of others in the market. Good health is another necessity, and it will be well to find out that the parents are strong consti- tutioned dogs, vigorous and healthy. A bad constitutioned dog eats poorly and works poorly and should be left alone. In some works on training the first lessons are devoted to a good many simple things which are just as much associated with field work as is the a, b, c a hand-book for a college course. If the setter or pointer has not before he is six or eight months old been taught to come at call or become accustomed to the collar and chain, we may well ask what the dog’s owner has been thinking about. “Here, puppy; corne, puppy” was the first start in the education of the field dog, just as a-b, ab was the start of the college graduate’s education. ‘Training simply consists in the dog doing what he has been ordered to do, the recognition of the man as the director of his ways and one that must be obeyed. Not only must the puppy come promptly to his master when called, but he must get in the habit of obeying him in ways that are not quite as much to his liking, such as being taken for a walk and then ordered home, going to his kennel when so ordered, and all in obedience to order and long before any course of training is taken up. Wearing a collar and leading on chain are plain dog education and not Training a Field Dog 149 connected with field work, but in the case of setters and pointers it is essential that the dog on chain should keep slightly behind his leader. While making him take and keep that position, by switching him on the nose whenever he attempts to get ahead, and using the word “heel,” he will become accustomed to that word of usual command for a dog to take up that position and not have to learn anything new. It must be borne in mind that a dog associates a certain sound as con- nected with a certain action. “Heel” is to him nothing but a sound, and a dog used to obey that command will do so equally well if “feel” or “deal” is shouted to him. This is a point that must also be noted in the selection of words of command which should be thoroughly distinct so that the dog will not have to seek for some action to distinguish what is meant. For instance some recommend that in addition to the long established “to-ho” as a command to stop, that for going on should be “go on.” One man gives his particular rendering of these two words, and another person taking the dog out might make his “go on” very much of a “to-ho” and confuse the dog, so that the words “hie on,” being clearly distinct, are much better and they are in common use. It is almost unnecessary to add that but one phrase only should be used for any one command, for it is not the words that convey the order, that is the meaning of the words such as they are to us, but merely the sound. Presuming that the owner has a puppy of from six to eight months old which he finds to be intelligent and willing, and prompt in obeying orders such as all dogs have to obey, and is desirous of training him for use with the gun, it is necessary to go to work with system, and unless the trainer is possessed of a great deal of patience and is willing to undertake the compelling the dog to do what he is ordered .to do without in anyway getting out of temper, he had better not attempt it. It frequently arises that a bold, heady dog is averse to doing exactly what is wanted and in the way it must be done. In order to assert the trainer’s absolute supremacy the dog must be made to submit. If once the dog succeeds in defying the trainer and having his own way there is always the danger of that happening again, and the dog must never be allowed to even imagine he has succeeded in defying his master. Herein lies the secret of successful training, and while a dog undoubtedly takes great pleasure in his work, there must ever be with him the knowledge that he is doing it as he has been made to do it and must conform to order. 150 The Dog Book Whether it is advisable to gradually develop the young puppy and at an early age teach him some of the lessons pertaining to the broken dog, is a much discussed question, and those who have trained dogs differ materially in their opinions. We have seen young puppies taught to death, one might say, in yard breaking, as that part of the training is called which precedes the actual field work. Such overtrained puppies far too often lose all self-reliance and are perpetually on the look out for orders by sound or signal, the result of too early training and continual ordering. The natural spirit of the dog should be fostered and the education consist in learning the lesson of strict obedience to order when one is given, and not for the dog to be perpetually depending upon or expecting an order. For that reason many consider that it is better to leave the advanced training lessons till such time as a regular course of instruction can be given at an age when the puppy’s mental powers have been well developed and continue the series of lessons till his education is complete. This is feasible and for several reasons, the main one being that the course of training leaves no gaps during which there is likely to be a lapse and part of the work have to be gone over again, in order to bring the pupil up to the requirements of a further lesson. : As we have already stated, teaching the dog to come at call or whistle, to wear a collar or to lead on chain without pulling is simple dog education and is applicable to every dog, so that it is not to be considered part of the education of a field dog. There is only one suggestion, however, that should not be overlooked and that is that the use of the whistle should be regulated as are the words of command, and by that we mean one style for each com- mand. Now the most frequent use of the whistle while in the field is that when a dog is wanted to change his course and it is well to make one blast do for that: a simple attracting attention to be followed by the motion for a change of course. It is therefore obvious that to call a dog in, more than one blast should be given even from the first time of calling the dog in that manner. The first field dog training lesson begins with the order to stop and this should be begun with the dog on lead and at heel. Let the trainer when walking stop with the word “to-ho.” We advise the use of that word, simply for the reason that it has been the signal used from the very earliest times, has become common and it does as well as anything else, besides it is a good sonorous sound to launch at a dog at a distance. Let this be Training a Field Dog ISI repeated till it seems reasonable that the dog connects the stopping with the word as an order. Then change the ordinary lead for a longer cord and proceed with the walk and the dog at heel. Give the order, accompanied with a wave of the hand, “hie-on,” learned in teaching the dog to follow at heel. When he has gone a few strides give him the “to-ho,” and if he fails to stop, check him with a sharp tug of the cord, repeating the command sharply. Walk up to him and again send him on, and as before “to-ho” till he stops at the word, when he must at once be rewarded with some little dainty from the pocket, a few words of praise and a little petting. It need hardly be said that in order to permit nothing to distract the dog’s attention this and all other lessons should be given when no other person or dog is anywhere near. As soon as he has successfully obeyed the order two or three times give him a free run and then calling him by signal order him to heel. He is now without the check cord and the next lesson is to be given in that manner. Again he is ordered on and as before, but at a slightly further dis- tance is “‘to-hoed.”” Should he fail to obey he must be called in, rated and made to understand that he has done wrong. Try it again and if he again fails, then apply the check cord and so continue until he has learned the lesson well. This done, go no further for that day, for it is by nay stages only that the desired end can be accomplished. The next day’s lesson begins with that already learned and the dog at heel is ordered on with the accompanying wave of the hand and checked with “to-ho” and there is not likely to be much trouble in getting him to obey. If there is then the cord must be brought into use until he will stop at the word. The next step is to throw a piece of bread or biscuit at the same time ordering “hie-on,”’ although he is very sure to want to go anyway; still it is as well to let him perhaps think he is going because of the order. Before he reaches the object “to-ho” him and if he obeys and stops talk kindly to him, with an occasional “steady” and then another “hie-on” to let him get his reward. Then call him in and pet him with good words. Thus far the dog, having been facing from you, has had to obey the word, and now it is in order to teach him the signal which should accompany that word. ‘To do this the order has to be given when the dog is coming toward you on recall to heel or to come in to you. When about ten yards from you give the “to-ho,” at the same time raising the hand, palm toward the dog, a little above the level of the head. If he fails to obey and comes to you, he must be spoken to sharply and taken back to the place where 152 The Dog Book he should have stopped, turned facing you and scolded. Back away from him, holding the hand raised, with the admonition “‘to-ho” till you have got to your old position. Then call him in and check him again before he reaches you. On no account must this or any other lesson be discontinued till the dog has done what is wanted. Either the dog or you is to be master, and unless he is made to obey he will never acknowledge you as his complete master, but whenever so inclined will do or not as he pleases. Observe that as soon as the dog stops the hand should be lowered. ‘That is an accom- paniment of the vocal order and the order is not repeated if the dog stops. As the dog becomes accustomed to the voice and sign as being the same order he will next be advanced to obeying the sign without the word. Far too many amateur trainers are prone to continual ordering until the ordeal must worry the dog, hence use discretion in the training, teach the dog what you are then doing till he does it, after which gradually restrict the orders, as long as he obeys them, until they are used only when required. It was formerly the custom to almost replace the ‘“to-ho” with the “down charge,” the dog dropping prone in his tracks, but that has fallen more or less into disuse. It is true that a dog couched is not so apt to break to shot or wing as a beginner standing and in a better position to spring for- ward, but that :s something the dog must be broken from, and if a dog gets too much of the down charge education and draps at commands or signals meant for “to-ho” only, it is not so easy to locate the dog or to see what he is doing if there are weeds or brush where he is. It is something he should be taught, however, as it comes in useful when it is desirable to have the dog get out of sight or to remain down and quite near the shooter in a blind. It was really an order called for by the old time, slow loading-gun, but with the modern breechloader and filled cartridges there is not the necessity to hold dogs up and keep them quiet that existed formerly. Still it is useful at times, is easily taught and as it is frequently needed when silence is desirable, it is well to have it thoroughly learned by signal. “Down” is sufficient word of command and means what you want, while “charge” is arbitrary in this meaning. When the dog is perfect in ‘the ‘“‘to-ho,” give him that command when coming to you and but a few paces from you. Walk to him and placing the hand on the shoulders, push him down, with the command “Down.” Step back and if he attempts. to rise repeat the order sharply and again push him down, giving him a rap with your finger on his nose as you repeat the order. When he has Training a Field Dog 153 learned this he has then to learn the signal. Let him come to you as before, stop him with the uplifted hand, then order “Down” at the same time motioning with the hand. The endeavour here is to get the dog to drop to but one motion of the hand, with head up. This lesson accomplished the finishing one is when the dog is down to motion, to go to him and push his head down on his paws, with the order “Close.”” The sign motion for this is repeated downward motions of the hand. We thus have the three hand signals in unison and natural in their order and motion. The hand aloft and stationary meaning to stop and stand still, the one downward motion to drop to the ground with head held naturally, and the urgent repe- tition of the downward motion to get closer and stay quiet. Some teach the word “up” as a signal to rise, but that is needless and is better kept for the retrieving lesson. A chirrup or a snap of the fingers will start the dog from his prone position readily enough, or the “hie on” if he is to go forward or the wave of the hand as that signal. So far the education of the dog has been such that it is frequently done before the dog is taken to the field, and is therefore called yard breaking. A yard-broken dog is one that to word or signal will come to heel, go ahead, stop and drop readily and willingly. Some include retrieving as part of the yard breaking, while others leave that till the last and even until the dog has been shot over, believing that it should be the final lesson of all. En- glish dogs are not taught to retrieve, yet can learn, or have learned it after arrival in this country with no great difficulty, and as it is not positively essential toward the proper killing of game over a dog, the owner and trainer can use his discretion in the matter. We will, however, take the subject up now. Admitting that dogs innumerable have been taught to retrieve by early puppy lessons of fetching and carrying, and seeking for a hidden object, we do not accept that as the best way to teach a dog, supposing that at eight months or more he has yet to learn that accomplishment. You doubt- less will succeed if your dog is biddable by adopting the play method of education, but as previously stated, our belief is in the perfecting the dog on the lines of obedience to commands, and as a part of that the badly mis- named “force” system is the one to adopt. It is true you force the dog to obey, and use force if necessary to do so, but we like not the word and use “it merely because it has a certain vogue and meaning. The late Arnold Burgess was one of a party who made a great secret 154 The Dog Book of this force system and to read his book on the subject one would imagine it was the taming of a wild animal that he was describing. Burgess was admittedly a good dog man, but any person who advocated as he did the breaking of a dog to the chain by putting a collar on him and for the first time attaching the chain to some building and there leave the dog to fight till exhausted, may be expected to force a dog to fight by his own cruelty to the animal, and in retaliation. With Burgess brute force was more potent than patience and resolution, and he had to fight dogs because he forced them to fight him to begin with. The lesson of retrieving is the ¢rucial test of control of the dog, and for that reason we think it should be deferred till the last so as to have a pupil which has gone through the whole discipline and learned the full lesson of obedience step by step, and has found out that what he is told to do he must perform, whether or no. We fully agree with Mr. Burgess that it is frequently a hard lesson to teach, and further that each step must be taught at one lesson, so as to leave victory with the master and not the dog. Lesson number one consists in making the dog take hold of some object and retain it in his mouth, and the modus operand: is as follows: Take the dog into a room having with you a roll of cloth or an old news- paper rolled so as to be about an, inch or more in thickness and six inches long. Back the dog into a corner and make him sit up, while you seat yourself facing him with knees apart so as to fence him in as much as pos- sible. Take hold of the dog’s upper jaw as you would to administer medi- cine, that is, pressing the upper lips against the teeth, with the thumb and fingers. Put the roll in front of his nose and give the order “ Pick it up,” at the same time forcing him by pressure to open his jaws till the roll can be inserted .between the open jaws. Keep repeating the order till you get the roll in place, and there must be no let up till you do so. For this reason we deprecate the idea of starting in to make a fight and struggle all over the room to accomplish the object of forcing submission. There was no forcing a fight in the prior lessons of training, and why seek to bring one about in this? With the dog unable to back away from you, unable to get past you on either side and having a firm hold on his muzzle, he can be held in subjection without fighting him. One can be firm without resorting to cruelty to the dog. The lesson must be continued until he opens his mouth for the insertion | of the roll, or at least makes pretense enough to be an acknowledgment that Training a Field Dog 155 he has been compelled to obey. That will do for the first day if the struggle has been a prolonged one, but if not and the mouth opening is readily accom- plished at the “pick-it-up” order, then proceed to make him keep it in his mouth to the order, “Hold.” This hardly calls for any instruction, for it would naturally occur to any one that the muzzle is to be grasped while the word “hold” is repeated, and this continued till understood. The second lesson, presuming that the hold has been accomplished, consists first in repetition of what has gone before, and, likely as not, it may be as tedious as the first one, but it will have to last till the first lesson is done well, the pressure on the jaws being applied with force as punishment for refusal to obey. Each succeeding day must the teacher begin at the “pick it up” and proceed as far as the last lesson before going further. Presuming the first two lessons to have been successfully repeated, then hold the roll to one side and give the order. Now if there is one thing impossible for the dog to see in that room it is this roll, so it is very certain that his head will have to be sharply twisted so as to bring the object directly in front of his eyes, when he will probably pick it up to order. He must be tried at the other side and the roll put in various positions for the dog to turn or teach for it. This lesson accomplished with the added “hold” at each test, the next word to be learned is “give” or relinquish hold to allow the roll to be taken from the mouth. This is usually easy to learn, and of course as the dog shows signs of understanding and obeying, he must be made aware of it by pleasant words and an occasional reward, although not to the extent of giving him the idea that it is for the reward he is to get that he does it. The next step is to walk with the dog and drop the roll close in front of him. Stop and order him to pick it up, forcing him to do so if necessary. Then hold your hand and order “Give.”” Of course if he drops it the lesson must start with the pick up, followed by the hold and then the give. This is a work of patience and need not be gone into in detail, as the general principles governing the subject have already been fully given and they must be applied as necessity arises. When the pick up is done willingly from the floor the next step is to throw the roll a littlc ears.” As each of these independent delineators of the Dalmatian shows this tanned eye mark, and two of them the black ear—Reinagle shows a dark rim to the outer edge of the ear and a largish splash close behind, so that the ear was undoubtedly black in its entirety—it is simply one of the oddities of “fancy” for present-day exhibitors to say the Dalmatian must not have black ears, and must have no liver or tan if black spotted. Fully half of the show Dalmatians, notwithstanding the efforts of thirty years’ breeding to get rid of the black ears, still have them, and when you do get a dog with spotted ears he is usually lightly spotted over the body. A very good spotted dog in body is seldom near right in ear, and, if we must speak our mind, we see no objection to a black ear. It is as old as the hills with the breed, and why now assert that it is wrong? We really must say that we have very little patience with some of these modern im- provements, and when we see dogs that would tire at the end of a mile or two, owing to their faulty conformation, getting places over true-made dogs because of a little advantage in spotting, we get very tired of the fads of fancy. The Dalmatian is primarily a dog that should be able to run all day long, and that not over springy pasture land but on hard roads and paved thoroughfares; therefore he should be as nearly perfect in legs, feet, shoulders and running symmetry as possible. Then, when you have got a dog that can run, the spots should count, but not the spotting first. Take that dog of Reinagle’s; how many of our present-day winners could he not beat, “one down, t’other come on,” following a coach on an all-day run? Spot- ting is all well enough if we are merely to consider the Dalmatian as a dog about the premises, as we do a mastiff or St. Bernard, but the moment we undertake to judge him as a coach dog then the principal requirement is the conformation that will enable him to run as a coach dog is supposed to do. Really it is a very difficult thing to do justice in a Dalmatian class, or at least to give satisfaction, for if it is a judge who goes for spotting because it is easier than conformation plus spotting, the owner of a well- made dog feels aggrieved, and, vice versa, the man who must have a dog that can run has a disgruntled exhibitor in the owner of the bad-shouldered, nicely marked dog who has won a whole lot of prizes elsewhere. It is really one of those breeds where the judge should practice the art of self- defence and resort to point judging; then if he does not put the dog satis- factorily it is the dog’s fault and not his. KING COLE Owned by Mr. F. Fred Willis, Columbus, O. WINDYVALLEY ROADSTER anv BENRINO JEAN Owned by the Windy Valley Kennels Owned by Mrs, Edward Atkins, Germantown, Pa. THE CUR DOG THE SHEPHERD'S DOG By Bewick By Bewick THE SHEPHERD’S DOG (Curr) THE BANDOG By Howitt By Bewick CHAMPION SQUIRE OF TYTTON A CENTURY OF IMPROVEMENT, 1805-1905 The Dalmatian 337 The life of the Dalmatian in this country as a show dog has been brief. We have always had the Dalmatian, one may say, but only occasionally was one to be seen about New York, almost invariably about some stable. This was only what might be expected, for, whoever brought them from abroad, it is fair to assume that they were mainly coachmen or grooms, and the dogs went with them to the stables. In the early seventies we remember a Dalmatian kept at a livery stable in Charles Street, New York, and this was the first dog we ever saw running between the horses when out with a carriage and pair. The English style, when the dog was not running in advance, was for it to run underneath the carriage and close behind the horses. Bewick, in one of his quaint little tailpieces, shows a coach drawn by a pair, one horse ridden by a postilion, with the dog running by the roadside. Perhaps the most thoughtless statement regarding the development of the Dalmatian, and repeated up to the latest English dog book, is that he is a production of a cross with the bull terrier, or that the bull terrier has been used to improve the Dalmatian. How a dog that was so thoroughly established in 1800 could be improved by a dog not known at all until 1825 or thereabouts is somewhat beyond our comprehension. By a vivid stretch of the imagination one might hold that the mottling sometimes seen on the skin of the bull terrier was caused by a cross with the Dalmatian, but the bull terrier to help in building up the Dalmatian is ridiculous. To be quite up to date they ought to say it was the Boston terrier, and that with just as much foundation in fact. In looking up the career of the Dalmatian as a show dog in this country it is somewhat surprising to find New York without classes for the breed for many years after they were provided at many other shows. As far as San Francisco and Los Angeles we have records of winning Dalmatians when New York provided nothing for the breed, and it was not until 1896 that the premier show of the country opened classes for Dalmatians. There was not much support, however, until Doctor Lougest added them to his mastiff and bloodhound kennels, and, with a few passably good dogs, had matters his own way for a year ortwo. Mr. Martin and Mr. Sergeant Price, of Philadelphia, then took up the breed, and just before the first shows of the present year Mr. J. B. Thomas, Jr., of Simsbury, and Mr. H. T. Peters, of Islip, L. I., decided to add Dalmatians to those they were individually connected with—Russian wolf hounds and beagles—and formed a partner- 338 The Dog Book ship known as the Windy Valley Kennels. ‘They started in with the greatest enthusiasm, and getting together as many of the fanciers of Dalmatians as possible, a club was organised to foster the breed. This was followed by application for a good classification at the New York Show, and, Mr. Peters being on the show committee of the Westminster Kennel Club, the response was the opening of five classes, for which a surprisingly good entry resulted: eight in puppies, ten in novice, thirteen in limit, eleven in open dogs and nine in open bitches. The successful dogs were for the most part from England, and were beyond question an improvement on what we had been in the habit of seeing at American shows. The American Dalmatian Club is in good hands, and all that is necessary for its continued success is a continuation of the same spirit of enterprise which has characterised its management during its first year. It has not the easy path to success that so many clubs have had, with a membership ready to hand without the asking, for the admirers and supporters of this breed are by no means numerous and will require to be largely recruited before it is likely to be put on a secure footing, for in all clubs there are always some members who are like the seed that fell on stony ground, and they form a percentage that has to be overcome by hard work on the part of those who can get in new additions. The impetus given the breed by the club is an excellent illustration of what can be accomplished by a specialty club, which goes to work in a sportsmanlike manner. The standard which we give is that of the English Dalmatian Club, but it is not one to our liking, and not at all suitable for the purpose of letting a novice know what is really wanted. To assist in that piece of education, we will say that in our opinion the Dalmatian thould be built very much upon the lines of a good pointer, but with no more substance than gives the idea that the dog is a strongly built one and capable of travelling easily at a moderately fast pace for a distance. The standard says “heavy in bone,” as if one wanted a mastiff. You do not say heavy in bone in regard to a pointer, but good in bone, meaning that the dog must not look light in that respect; and so with this dog. The head is rather difficult to describe, but the idea can be best conveyed by saying that it must not be that of a good pointer, but more akin to what might be called weak in head in a pointer, with a little less squareness and lip. The eye should be smarter and the expression brighter than that of the pointer, with the ears higher on the head. The standard calls for spotted ears, but we think we have The Dalmatian 339 proved our case that the ears are more properly black. Of course they should be of a size to suit the dog and not appear large or heavy. The carriage of the tail is best illustrated in the Reinagle dog, that of Bewick being far too much curled and his dog rather too mastiff-like in its substance. With regard to colour, unless called upon to judge under a particular standard, we should not penalise a dog for black ears, nor for tan spots on the legs or cheeks, for these we know to have been proper Dalmatian colourings from the very first of our information regarding the breed up to the time these English clubs were started, and there is no reason why the change should have been made. Number of spots on a dog has nothing to do with the case; what counts is sharpness of outline, the evenness with which they are distributed and their regularity as to size. We have never seen any Dalmatian, to our mind, the equal of the renowned Captain in the matter of distinctness and regularity of spotting. He was unbeatable in his day, and had tan spots on his legs, which were thought most attractive too. Both Stonehenge and Vero Shaw took Captain as illustrating what a Dalmatian should be. What his weight was we do not know, but his measurements were as follows: nose to stop, 34 inches; stop to occiput, 5 inches; length of back, 21 inches; girth of forearm, 7 inches; girth of knee, 5 inches; girth of pastern, 44 inches; height at shoulders, 22 inches; height at elbow, 12 inches; height at loins, 20 inches; height at hock, 5} inches; length of tail, 124 inches. DEscRIPTIVE PARTICULARS The Dalmatian in many particulars much resembles the pointer, more especially in size, build and outline, though the markings peculiar to this breed are a very important feature and highly valued. General Appearance——The Dalmatian should represent a strong, muscular and active dog, symmetrical in outline and free from coarseness and lumber; capable of great endurance, combined with a fair amount of speed. Head.—Should be of fair length, the skull flat, rather broad between the ears, and moderately well defined at the temples, i.e., exhibiting a moderate amount of stop and not in one straight line from the nose to the occiput bone, as required in a bull terrier. It should be entirely free from wrinkle. 340 The Dog Book Muzzle——Should be long and powerful; the lips clean, fitting the jaw moderately close. Eyes—Should be set moderately well apart and of medium size, round, bright and sparkling, with an intelligent expression, their colour greatly depending on the markings of the dog. In the black-spotted variety the eyes should be dark (black or dark brown); in the liver-spotted variety they should be light (yellow or light brown). Rim round the Eyes.—In the black-spotted variety should be black, in the liver-spotted variety, brown—never flesh coloured in either. Ears.—Should be set on rather high, of moderate size, rather wide at the base and gradually tapering to a rounded point. They should be carried close to the head, be thin and fine in texture, and always spotted, the more profusely the better. Nose.—In the black-spotted variety should always be black, in the liver- spotted variety, always brown. Neck and Shoulders.—The neck should be fairly long, nicely arched, light and tapering, and entirely free from throatiness. The shoulders should be moderately oblique, clean and muscular, denoting speed. Body, Back, Chest and Loins——The chest should not be too wide but very deep and capacious, ribs moderately well sprung, never rounded like barrel hoops (which would indicate want of speed), the back powerful; loin strong, muscular and slightly arched. Legs and Feet.—Are of great importance. The fore legs should be perfectly straight, strong and heavy in bone; elbows close to the body. Fore feet round, compact, with well-arched toes (cat foot), and round, tough, elastic pads. In the hind legs the muscles should be clean though well defined; hocks well let down. Nails.—In the black-spotted variety, black and white. Tail.—Should not be too long, strong at the insertion and gradually tapering toward the end, free from coarseness. It should not be inserted too low down, but carried with a slight curve upward, and never curled. It should be spotted, the more profusely the better. Coat.—Should be short, hard, dense and fine, sleek and glossy in appearance, but neither woolly nor silky. Colour and Markings—These are most important points. The ground colour in both varieties should be pure white, very decided and not intermixed. The colour of the spots in the black-spotted variety should The Dalmatian 341 be black, the deeper and richer the black the better; in the liver-spotted variety they should be brown. The spots should not intermingle but be as round and well defined as possible, the more distinct the better; in size they should be from that of a sixpence to a florin [a cent to a little larger than a quarter-dollar]. The spots on head, face, ears, legs, tail and ex- tremities to be smaller than those on the body. Weight.—Dogs, 55 pounds; bitches, 50 pounds. ScaLeE oF PoINnTs Head and eyes.......... 16: Costksn ssexkevatanrsse 5 Ears eiesdss see eeeseres 5 Colour and markings... 30 ~ Neck and shoulders. ..... 16. “Dail eeceewueen nein. 5 Body, back, chest and loins . 10 Size, symmetry, etc...... 10 Legs and ett oc een. 15 — DOA hace peanuts ance ree daca ene anette le sie ons di be 100 CHAPTER XXII Roucu-CoaTepD COLLIE 4\HEN Buffon stated that the shepherd dog was the original dog from which all others had descended, he was a good deal nearer the truth than in a number of his theoretical assertions, many of which have been proved erroneous. One of the earliest dogs man must have had was that which took care of his property and protected his flocks from wild animals. The mistake all are likely to make in considering this claim of Buffon’s is to assume that the particular sheep dog with which each one is most familiar was the one Buffon meant, whereas every nation has its sheep dog, England alone having three, and by England we mean, of course, the British King- dom. Buffon could have known little or nothing about the sheep dogs of England, and much less of that of Scotland, hence neither of the three is a competitor for the right to be considered the most ancient of all breeds of dogs. But no matter what the age of the breed may be, there is no question as to the high rank in popularity enjoyed by the rough or Scotch collie at the present day. . If we ate to take the records of the American Kennel Club as an in- fallible guide, he is beyond question the dog of the day, Volume XX, of the “Stud Book” showing that 267 pages were required for the record of collies, while 140 pages sufficed for setters, 172 for Boston terriers and 106 for pointérs. The whole of the spaniels were put on seventy-two pages, and the dne-time leader in popularity, the fox terrier, filled the same number of pages as the spaniels. While not absolutely correct as a guide to the number, of setters, so many being bred for use only and never registered, yet thete is no throwing out the evidence of the great popularity of the Scotch ollie in this country as well as in England. Where the collie came from is and always will be a mystery. He could not have gone north from England without also having gone into Wales or Ireland, and every vestige of the breed could hardly have dis- appeared from England had it once been in use there. They ask us to 343 344 The Dog Book believe that the name is from the old English word “coll,” meaning black or dark, and that as the collies were mainly black it just meant the black dog, and then came into use for the sheep dog. ‘The objections to that are many, but here are two: the word collie, or colley, or, still older, coally, came south, and there were plenty of black dogs in England to which the ‘word collie or any of its equivalents was never applied; and secondly, there is a Gaelic or Celtic word for the dog, which is phonetically spelled callie, and with the broad “o” of the Northerner could very well be Bewick’s “coally.” Lee holds to the opinion that it came from black-faced sheep being called by that name, and thus the dog that looked after the colleys was the colley dog. To accept this we must assume that this name for the variety of sheep was universal, and that is not in evidence. Lee quotes the “ Dic- tionary of Husbandry,” 1743, which gives the word colley as being “such sheep as have black faces and legs. The wool of these sheep is very harsh with hairs, and not so white as other sheep.” It seems somewhat strange that this name for certain sheep should have died out so quickly, for it is ° found nowhere else that we are aware of, and surely persons who wrote of collies a century ago had pretty good knowledge of what was common fifty years before. Of course if there was not a more evident origin than the Highland word—which is akin to the Irish word for colleen—the black- faced-sheep suggestion would be a little better than any other, but it is not worth considering in the face of the very plain fact that \the word is Gelic or Celtic. It is probable that the word travelled south with more fiecdatn in some directions. Our knowledge of Scotland is of the east side, Edinburgh to Dunbar, and later at school at Jedburgh; good old Jethart, with\ its relics of the oldest of English in its “yow” and “mie” for you and a and its historical Jethart justice. We do not recall when we did not know! the dog as the collie, pronounced as Bewick spelled it. Undoubtedly we heard it called shepherd’s dog, and probably collie dog, but as long as we have known the dog we seem to have known him as the collie, and that ‘ course from what our elders called the variety. At the same time we have no recollection of the name as applied to sheep of any kind. : From the first drawings of the rough collie, which are those of Bewick and Howitt, we find him practically the same dog that he is to-day, and totally different from any other dog in the British Isles, hence he is a good i} Rough-Coated Collie 345 deal of an enigma. It is all very well to point to the similarity of the smooth sheep dog and the rough collies of the present, and decide off-hand that it is only a question of coat. With that we do not agree at all. As we shall show when it comes to discussing the smooth dog, the latter was developed from the common English dog of the farm, the small mastiff that went by the name of bandog because he was the dog that was kept on a band or collar and chain—a watch dog, in fact. Why we hold that need not be gone into here, for it is the rough collie that is now in the ring. No other dog exactly resembles the rough dog, the product of the Highlands; still he must have come from somewhere, for he was not a locally developed animal confined to one or two glens, but was as wide- spread as the flocks he had to guard, and of commanding blood when bred to-outside breeds. We might surmise that he was akin to some of the dogs of northern Europe, but there are only the Pomeranian, the elk hound of Norway, and the Eskimo that bear even the faintest resemblance. All of these have some likeness, but the collie has always been different in ear and tail carriage. There is much less difference between the rough collie and the dingo than anything else of dog-like resemblance, but relationship between them is of course out of the question. There is one thing with regard to the Highland collie that we might better mention here, and that is as to the coat. In looking through some Landseer portfolios and repro- ductions we were not a little surprised to note the number of collies with decidedly medium-length coats, very closely approaching to that of the smooth sheep dog. Landseer undoubtedly copied every dog most faith- fully in his drawings; that is, he made likenesses and did not make them all “‘Landseer collies” of equal beauty and differing only in colour. If he painted a short-coated collie that dog was so in the flesh. Hence, seeing several of these dogs, it led us to question whether the generally accepted supposition that the collies from the Highlands were all heavily coated is correct. We must recognise the fact that these were working dogs, not bred for coat but for work, and the best worker was used for breeding, not only by his owner but by his friends, and they probably varied in coat as in other properties, and, of course, were not always in their full winter coat. There is one characteristic we find in all the old-time drawings of collies that must then have been part and parcel of the breed, but is now seldom seen. It has been bred out, as a disfigurement or as a fault of conformation. That is the twist at the end of the tail, which every artist 346 The Dog Book gave to the collie. We find it in Bewick’s “Shepherd’s Dog;” in Howitt’s beautiful etching in Bingley’s Quadrupeds, which was entitled “The Shepherd’s Dog,” with the sub title of “Curr”; in “Brown’s Anecdotes,” published in 1829; and in an illustration of the collies, both rough and smooth, of 1843, given in “The Twentieth Century Dog.” All show the same upward curl and twist to one side of the end of the tail. Nowadays it is described as a wry tail, and is as much condemned as if it was the twisted tail of some cockerel at a poultry show. We have seen it in a good many dogs, and, all standards to the contrary, we like it and look upon it as thor- oughly characteristic. Quite a number of writers on the collie have quoted from Caius’s description of the “shepherd’s dogge” in treating of the rough collie, but he did not write of that dog at all, but the light mastiff or bandog, which was used as a sheep dog. If we recognise that mastiff meant simply mongrel or common dog, and that it included pretty nearly everything outside of hounds, spaniels and terriers, and not a specified breed such as we know mastiffs, we will the more readily understand what produced the English sheep dog, and that, as we have already said, he is not a collie proper, though now known in England as the smooth collie. As Caius wrote only of the smooth dog, he will be quoted in the chapter on that breed. We have already mentioned that it was probable the term collie was confined to parts of Scotland, and that it found headway down the east coast as far as Northumberland, where Bewick gives it as applied to both rough and smooth, and also gives the first representation of the rough dog as early as 1790. This was along the main highway from Edinburgh to England. That it was by no means universal even as late as 1825 may be proved by reference to Captain Brown’s “Anecdotes,” 1829, in which there are fifty pages of quoted stories about these dogs. We have gone through these anecdotes and found that in the first twenty pages the collie is either shepherd dog or merely dog. The first use of “colley” is in a quotation from Blackwood’s Magazine, from a communication by Hogg, “The Ettrick Shepherd.” As it is a very good illustration of the several names applied to the rough dog at that time in his section of South Scotland, we will quote two full paragraphs: “Tt is a curious fact in the history of these animals that the most useless of the breed have often the greatest degree of sagacity in trifling and useless matters. An exceedingly good sheep dog attends to nothing else but that Rough-Coated Collie 347 particular branch of business to which he is bred. His whole capacity is exerted and exhausted on it, and he is of little value in miscellaneous matters, whereas a very different cur, bred about the house and accustomed to assist in everything, will often put the noble breed to disgrace in these paltry services. If one calls out, for instance, that the cows are in the corn or the hens in the garden, the house colley needs no other hint, but runs and turns them out. “The shepherd’s dog knows not what is astir, and if he is called out in a hurry for such work, all that he will do is to break to the hill and rear himself up on end to see if no sheep are running away. A bred sheep dog, if coming hungry from the hills and getting into the milk house, would most likely think of nothing else than filling his belly with cream. Not so his initiated brother; he is bred at home to far higher principles of honour. I have known such to lie night and day among from ten to twenty pails full of milk and never once break the cream of one of them with the tip of his tongue, nor would he suffer rat, cat or any other creature to touch it. The latter sort are far more acute at taking up what is said in a family.” Hogg then went on to tell of some incidents, and in the first two the animal is mentioned merely by the sex name; the third is of a “dog” until the final sentence, which is this: “J appeal to every unprejudiced person if this was not as like one of the deil’s tricks as an honest colley’s.”” The fourth “dog” is described as “a female, a jet-black one, with a coat of soft hair, but smooth headed and very handsome in her make.” ‘The fifth is about a “dog,” though with an editorial heading of ‘The Ashie- steel Collie.” Six named contributors are then credited with anecdotes, and in three the word colley is given. In the matter of the colour of these dogs, Hogg had two that were “not far from the colour of a fox’’; these were father and son, and the grand- sire was “almost all black,.and had a grim face, striped with dark brown.” Black is the only other colour mentioned, and that in only a few instances. One of his red dogs Hogg calls a colley, and as he was a sheep farmer in a very large way—one anecdote relating to the straying of seven hundred lambs, and another to the purchase of a lot of wild black-faced sheep—it is worth notinz that he gives no evidence in any way that the word had the slightest connection with, or that there was any such name as, colley for sheep. The introduction of the rough collie into England, outside of those owned 348 The Dog Book by farmers in the Border counties, followed the development of railroad traffic; and, as much of the northern trade made Birmingham a centre for sale purposes, it early became the best-known district for dogs from the north country as far as the Highlands. London was a market for sheep for slaughter, Birmingham more of a farmers’ market, and dogs brought down by the shepherds found a sale among the shepherds and farmers of the midland counties. We can say that the collie was practically unknown in London as late as 1860. The sheep dogs seen there were mostly the tucked-up-loin smooths with no tails, as shown by Bewick, with an occasional wretched, mud-and-rain-soaked, bob-tailed sheep dog, and still more infrequently a rough collie, usually undersized and a sorry looking object. These all went under the name of drover’s dogs, being used for either sheep or cattle. The first volume of the English stud book fully bears out our own early knowledge of the conditions prevailing up to 1868. In this book there are seventy-eight “sheep dogs and Scotch collies” registered up to 1874, and but two of these were owned as far south as London. The majority were the property of owners living in Lancashire, Warwickshire, Yorkshire and Nottinghamshire. Fifteen of them had pedigrees, only three extending beyond sire and dam. Mr. H. Lacy, one of the best known and most respected of the past generation of Manchester dog fanciers, and father of the equally well-known and respected Mr. H. W. Lacy, of Boston, was then the leading exhibitor of collies, and his Champion Mec was one of the most typical collies of his time. He was a black and tan, as were most of the dogs of that day. One of his rivals was the dog Cockie, a red- coated one; and Mr. Charles H. Wheeler, the “father of the Birmingham fancy,” is our authority for saying that Cockie was the dog from which we got the sable in ‘the show dogs. Mr. Wheeler most kindly consented, when asked a year ago to con- tribute from his store of knowledge of the old-time dogs, and on being reminded more recently of his promise, replied that he was writing exactly what we had asked for the [ustrated Kennel News, and the one contribution should do for both. To Mr. Wheeler we are also indebted for most of the photographs of olden-time collies, including that remarkable on¢: of Cocksie, another dog from Cockie, which in the printed description of ‘dog and owner is specifically stated to be a photograph of the dog himself. It has never been hitherto published, neither has that of Nesta, which we owned, Rough-Coated Collie 349 as we also did her sister, Floss, who died within a few days of her arrival in New York, when heavy in whelp to Mr. Boddington’s Rob Roy Mc- Gregor. The article on old-time collies is as follows: Mr. WHEELER ON THE History oF THE COLLIE “That the strains of the majority of the early progenitors of our collies, whose pedigrees are in obscurity, emanated from Scotland, and that their blood is traceable to the pure working sheep dog, there is no reason to doubt. When the breed became fashionable as household pets, and classes were provided for them in dog shows, undoubtedly many of the most handsome specimens were obtained from the north region, and so supplied the material that founded the Warwickshire strain, which, in a great measure, forms the basis of the pedigrees of all collies that have any pretensions to prize-winning qualifications. “About the year 1860 classes were first provided for sheep dogs at the Birmingham Show, and at the show in 1863 the entries numbered six only. . However, the entries steadily increased until they reached as many as forty-five at the show held in Birmingham in 1874, and it was about this era that breeding for show points started in earnest, more especially as applied to Birmingham and the surrounding district, the principal breeders being Mr. M. C. Ashwin, Mr. J. Bissell, Mr. W. A. Walker, Mr. D. Tomlin- son, Messrs. W. H. and J. Charles, and the writer. “At this period collies were to be seen of almost every imaginable colour—buff, red, mottle of various shades, not many sables; but the commonest of all colours were black, tan and white, black and white (without tan), and what are now called blue merle but were then known as tortoise- shell. “Of the names of the old progenitors, the first to claim attention is Old Cockie, a grand dog, who in his day had no compeer, although occasion- ally in the show ring he had to give way to his inferiors. Besides being a handsome show dog, he had the reputation of being a capital worker with sheep. “‘Old Cockie was born in the year 1867, and was the winner of upward of forty prizes, including firsts and cups at Birmingham and Nottingham swo years in succession, the Border Counties’ Champion Cup at Carlisle, 350 The Dog Book and the Mayor of Maidstone’s Cup at the Southern Counties’ Show. On August 19, 1875, he was sold by auction at the Midland Counties’ Reposi- tory, Birmingham, the hammer falling to the bid of Mr. D. Tomlinson, who in a short time afterward sold him to Mr. J. Bissell, the age of the dog being then nine years or thereabouts, and the first litter begot by him for this owner marked the commencement of the show success of the Great Barr Kennels. “Old Cockie was a medium-sized dog, as compared with some of the giants of the present day, very compactly built, and sound in legs and feet. His head was consistent in length, and certainly true collie in type, ears semi-erect, coat on body not extra long but very dense, being well supplied with a wet-resisting undercoat, and the habit of his coat was such that it formed a distinct mane on the neck and a cape on the shoulders. In colour he was rich sable, with white markings, and it is an absolute fact that, at the present time, every collie of the sable colour dates back to Old Cockie as the introducer of the colour. “Carlyle, who was bred from an old Scotch strain of working collies, . came from Denbigh, in North Wales, and was first exhibited by Mr. Skid- more by the name of Garryowen. He was very good in type of head, placement of eye, and collie character; was likewise good in coat and ears. In colour he was black-and-tan, but, being heavily marked with tan similar to a bloodhound, was often called sable colour. His greatest sin, however, was an overshot mouth. “Mr. W. W. Thomson introduced Marcus, a black-and-white dog (without tan), bred in Scotland. A nice-headed dog this, with good ears and the right sort of coat. Old Mec and Old Hero, both black-tan-and- white, were good-coated dogs. The former had the better-shaped head of the two, but, being very dark in eye, just lacked the pleasing collie expression, whilst the latter’s head was wanting in character, being too square in muzzle. “Mr. S. E. Shirley brought out several black-tan-and-whites, which were bred on his estate in Ireland, and they met with success on the show bench. These were Tricolour, Trefoil, Hornpipe, Hualakin and Tartan, and, although they were long-coated animals, there was a distinct taint of the setter about them, more especially the latter, who favoured the setter type more than that of the collie. Nevertheless, the crossing of this strain with those of Old Cockie and Old Mec proved successful, as evidenced by the production of the illustrious Charlemagne. ' Rough-Coated Collie 351 “Tramp, bred in Ireland, was a good-coated dog of a red colour, a bit sour in expression and weak in front pins; he was shown at the Alexandra Palace Show in 1879 by Mr. Richardson Carr. “At the Bristol Show held in October, 1879, the Rev. Hans F. Hamilton put in competition a strong team, which consisted of Angus, Captain, Jock, Tricolour II., Eva, Ruby III., and a litter from the latter by Marcus, which contained Donald, Zulu Princess and Madge I. “Lufra, who was bred from a celebrated working strain indigenous to the district of Blair Athol, mated with.an unshown son of Old Cockie, produced Duncan, a dappled sable in colour, and the remainder of the litter were blue merles. Old Bess, black-tan-and-white, was true collie’ in type, very intel- ligent, and a clever worker with sheep. From the union of her with Duncan the ‘issue was Lorna Doon, Nesta, Floss, Varna, Bonnie Laddie, Druce, and Malcolm I., and thus the Duncan-Bess quality strain was founded. “The starting-point of Mr. Bissell’s show success was a litter by Old Cockie ex Mr. Ashwin’s Lassie, which produced Clydesdale and Cocksie, both winners of many prizes. Meg, by Old Mec, ex Clyde, visited Old Cockie, from which union came Maude, a short-legged sable bitch, rather short in head, yet nice in expression. This bitch was bred to Tartan, and produced Lorna, who was put to her grandsire, Old Cockie, and produced Wolf. The next litter from Maude was by Trefoil, and contained six, which were remarkable for their dissimilitude one to the other. The star of the litter was Charlemagne, a beautifully shaded sable with showy white markings, whose immense coat helped to give him a very attractive appear- ance, but he was built on cloddy lines. He, however, had a decent head, and although his ears were not absolutely pricked there was only a slight suggestion of a bend at the extreme'tips. ‘Trevor, another sable-and-white, was a dog of distinctly different type and conformation; head a fair length, but deep in muzzle and lippy; ears big, and carried low, was well furnished with coat, and built on racing lines; his very gay tail carriage, however, was an abomination. Topper, another dog with heavy ears, in colour black with rich tan markings, had a long coat, but in head and general appearance too much of the setter type. Bell, a black-tan-and-white bitch with one prick ear, had a good coat and not a bad type of head. Effie and Flirt, two red sable bitches, whose superiority lay in their typical heads, were cloddy in build. They, however, had good coats, and both gained distinctions in the show ring. 352 The Dog Book “Following Charlemagne, the next sensational dog to be produced was Rutland, a black-and-tan, bred by the Rev. Hans F. Hamilton. He had a very good coat, but was a bit on the small side, and his head was not long, but nice in shape and correct in expression, and his ears were small and carried in perfect manner. “Being by Wolf ex Madge I., Rutland was a combination of the blood of Old Mec, Trefoil, Old Cockie and Marcus. “The next important dog to make history was Metchley Wonder, a nicely marked sable-and-white. Just a nice-sized dog, not too big nor yet a little one, excelling in body, legs and feet, he possessed a beautiful coat and frill, and a typical head, set off with good ears. He was born in March, 1886, and was without doubt the best all-round show collie produced up to the date of his initiation to the show ring. In analysing his pedigree, it will suffice to say of his sire, Sefton, that he was by Charle- magne, out of Madge I., whilst on his dam’s side, at the starting point, is Lassie, by Bailey’s Jack, the latter a winner of second prize at Birmingham Show in 1872. Lassie was a very nice blue merle, and a real good worker with sheep. She, mated with Druce, produced Bonnie Greta, who, mated with Bonnie Laddie, produced Catrine, sable-and-white (the remainder of the litter blue merles), who was mated with Loafer, and Minnie was the result. Bonnie Laddie and Druce, being both by Duncan ex Bess, and Loafer’s granddam being Hasty, by Carlyle ex Glen, fresh blood enters into the combination at this point, with specimens of the blue merle colour in the families of Duncan and Lassie. “Metchley Wonder’s son, Christopher, was the next sire of notoriety, but it cannot be said that a change of blood was added till the phenomenal sire Edgbaston Marvel made his effort. He was by Christopher ex Sweet Marie, the latter conveying the blood of Tramp, through Smuggler, likewise the blood of Old Hero, whilst Yarrow and Comet appear in the pedigree of Edgbaston Marvel’s son, Southport Perfection. At the starting point of the pedigree of Mr. Agnew’s strain is to be found Scot, who belonged to Mr. Wright, of Birmingham. Scot was never shown, albeit a truly characteristic medium-sized collie, with a profuse coat and a most typical head, and he was a good a worker with sheep as he was handsome. Being the sire of Quicksilver, he was, of course, grandsire of Molly Swan. Besides the aforementioned, Mr. Arkwright’s blue merle strain, as well as a host of bitches of unknown pedigrees, mostly obtained from shepherds, enter CHAMPION COCKSIE This remarkable illustration is from a photograph from life FLURRY II. sea OLD HALL BEATRICE VERONA SELECTION OLD HALL ADMIRAL HEATHER MINT SOME AMERICAN WINNERS—ALL IMPORTED EXCEPTING ROSLYN WILKES Rough-Coated Collie 353 into the composition, so, after all that may be said about collies being in- bred, it is a question whether or not they suffer as much from the probable effects of in-breeding as show specimens of other breeds. “Now, with regard to the special features of the different strains, undoubtedly in head and expression claims of superiority were due to Old Cockie, Duncan, Bess, and Madge I., whilst for coat the strains of Charle- magne and Smuggler were conspicuous. “Comparing the exhibition collies of to-day with those of twenty-five years ago, a distinct improvement is manifest, and a smaller percentage of worthless mongrels appear on the show bench. “The great improvement so apparent in legs and feet is really remark- able, as years ago weak ankles and cowhocks were common faults, whereas to-day they are rarely in evidence, and to Metchley Wonder is no doubt due the advancement in that direction. . “Taking the general average of specimens, there is a noticeable im- provement in coat, but still there is a tendency to the lack of those dis- tinguishing features—mane, frill and cape—which embellished some of the old favourites, and which affords an admirable background to set off the head and ears of a collie. But how many exhibits are to be seen nowadays with the hair plucked from round the base of the ears, evidently done with the idea of helping the animal’s appearance, instead of which the opposite effect is produced, and the ears have an unnatural appearance, suggestive of a dog recovering from skin disease. “The greatest disparity observable is in type of head, and, to a great extent, no doubt the responsibility is traceable to Charlemagne; for although his own head was tolerable in shape, other members of his family were very faulty in head properties. Charlemagne’s stock was very unreliable in type and colour, some coming with short heads and big eyes, and others dished-faced and lippy, most erratic as regards ears, and in colour many white with dark markings on face and ears, and some liver and white, similar to some varieties of spaniels. “Years ago, many collies had objectionable light eyes, and their introduction came through Carlyle with specimens of the mouse colour, but such have been bred out, and now it is seldom one sees a collie with eyes approaching lemon colour. ‘The colour of eye that most suits the expression of a collie is a deep shade of hazel, a very dark eye better suiting the expression of a terrier. 354 The Dog Book “Texture of coat is often mentioned, and may be misunderstood by novices. ‘Therefore it should be worthy of note that where the undercoat is plentiful the outercoat is prevented from feeling harsh to the touch. “Then there is the question of size, and the reason why the craze for extra big dogs should exist can only be attributed to the fact that the inestim- able value of the work this breed of dog should be capable of performing on the hills is being lost sight of. Collies are not naturally such big, heavy dogs as one sometimes reads about, or they would be too cumbersome to encounter rough mountain work. “There is not the slightest reason why collies should not be judged on the exact lines that serve to suit them for the work they have to fulfl, because general appearance need not be sacrificed thereby. Therefore in giving due consideration to the important working qualities of this, the most useful of all breeds of dogs, an additional advantage should not be given to exaggeration in size (other points equal) over a competitor whose size fits him for the work of a sheep dog. “Tt is often said that a good big one can beat a good little one, but it does not apply in the case of a sheep dog’s work on the mountain. As for instance, with the sheep trial dog, Ormskirk Charlie, by Christopher, no dog could display a better exhibition of work when on the lowland, but he very often had to give way to smaller dogs when the run out was up a mountain, his extra size and weight proving a disadvantage. “The weights given below of some of the dogs that took part in laying the foundation of our present strain of collies will serve to convey an idea of the natural size of a sheep dog, but it is necessary to point out that the animals of the lighter weights were in working condition: Lufra, 30 pounds; Old Bess, 28 pounds; Lorna Doon, 28 pounds; Nesta, 28 pounds; Bonnie Laddie, 44 pounds; Druce, 44 pounds; Malcom I., 49 pounds, and Loafer, 49 pounds. “The prevailing characteristic that most strongly denotes the breed of any dog is the head and expression, and in the typical collie these features are most pronounced, the formation of head and placement of eye rendering an expression peculiar to the race which is not easy to describe. Upward of twenty years ago, Mr. J. A. Doyle described the true expression of a collie as being a mixture of “kindliness and craft,” which seems as near correct as possible. Of late years there has been too much discussion in favour of abnormal length of head, which seemed likely to have the per- Rough-Coated Collie 355 nicious effect of forcing some foreign concoction to displace the true char- acteristic collie, but quite recently has been most gratifying to observe that some of our oldest and most experienced judges have awakened to the fact, and their adjudications have pointed conclusively to their tenaciously keeping to the correct type, to the exclusion of the long, untypical-headed brigade. “Some difference of opinion exists as to the capabilities of our show breed of collies for the work of a sheep dog, but doubt need not intrude on this point, for it is a safe afirmation that hundreds of them are engaged in that occupation all over the country, and many of them very clever per- formers. One in particular, by Edgbaston Royal ex a Tottington Pilot bitch, is a winner on the show bench and a wonderfully good worker.” We can fully support what Mr. Wheeler says as to the working capa- bilities of show collies. When we were breeding from the Nesta strain at Philadelphia, Charley Raftery, a well-known stockyards drover, always had one or more of our dogs at work, and these included our best prize winners. More recently we let Mr. W. S. McClintock, of Galva, IIl., have Cavehill Cardinal, a son of Parkhill Pinnacle, which was a winner at the Collie Club and New York shows of two years ago. When we wanted him East six months later, the manager at Mr. McClintock’s farm told him the dog did two men’s work on the place and positively refused to let him go, so Mr. McClintock bought him. Then we sent him an old Parkhill Squire bitch that did not know anything about sheep, and Cardinal taught her in a few weeks nearly all he knew. Finally we left Lady Pink with Mr. McClintock when we took her to the Chicago Show, and it is only a few days ago that we got a letter from Galva in which Pink is mentioned as being in good health and proving herself a first-class stock dog. Although collies were shown at the Centennial Show and at those held in New York, Boston and elsewhere prior to 1880, they were a very ordinary lot of dogs, and with strange descriptions as to ancestry, when they had any at all. One shown at New York in 1878 laid claim to the proud distinction of having been “imported from Arabia,” and another was stated to have come from Queen Victoria’s kennels, Balmoral. They had very little pedigree, but some made up for that by considerable weight, for weights were given on the entry forms in those days. One dog named Rover was given as ninety-five pounds and thirty-eight months of age. Another was seventy-four pounds, and from that they ran down to forty 356 The Dog Book pounds. ‘Twelve of the nineteen entered at New York in 1878 were black- and-tan, four were tricolours, one black and white and one described as brown and white. Mr. Jenkins Van Schaick, who was the Collie Club’s only president up to the time of his death, was an exhibitor, as were Doctor Downey and Mr. Lindsay, names well known in later years. Mr. Allen S. Apgar, who joined the list of exhibitors in 1879, was the first to take a decided lead, and he imported quite a number of dogs that were very successful; indeed it is to Mr. Apgar we owe the first impetus given to collie importing and showing in this country. It was owing to his winning in 1879 that Mr. Lindsay decided to import a dog for New York in 1880, and as we were returning to this country in the spring of 1880 Doctor James, a noted collie man of Kirkby-Lonsdale, upon hearing of this, asked us to take out a collie. This proved to be Mr. Lindsay’s purchase, which he named Rex. We received the dog at Liverpool, and even now we recall our surprise that any person should take the trouble of importing such an insignificant-looking dog. He was a black and tan like his sire, Carlyle, and was anything but an impressive dog, and none too good in ears or tail carriage. “The description we are now giving is our impression at the time, after having been pretty well conversant with the run of dogs at the English shows, and for the purpose of giving some idea as to the strength of the classes here. Rex won at the New York Show a few weeks after his arrival, and was very much the best dog in the show, so that Mr. Lindsay’s investment of five pounds turned out a very profitable one. Mr. Apgar had also imported a few dogs for the show, and so had Doctor Downey, but Rex beat them fairly, and he seemed to improve after that, for he was able to do quite a little winning for several years. Sable dogs began to be imported, and they were variously described, some as tortoise-shell, and one a lemon and white, according to the cata- logues. Among the first was Lass o’ Gowrie, owned by Doctor Downey, . who was much the best of her sex at that time. Her kennel mate, Tweed II., a big, coarse dog, defeated Rex at New York in 1881, but Mr. Lindsay still had the best dog of the show in his newly imported Ayreshire Laddie, a grandson of Lacy’s Old Mec. ‘This was a larger dog than Rex and more of a collie. Mr. Apgar had also got a new one in Nelson, but he was not so good as Ayreshire Laddie, and Mr. Apgar tried again and got Marcus, a big winner in England. We have seen it stated that Mr. W. W. Thompson, who showed Marcus in England, is still, or was up to a few years ago, of Rough-Coated Collie 357 the opinion that Marcus was the best collie he ever saw. We do not believe he ever said any such thing, for Marcus was nothing so very wonderful. We judged him at Pittsburg in 1882 and gave him first, but he had nothing to beat, and at New York he had no opposition in the champion class. There was a good sable at this show, the best collie in the country up to that time—Mr. Van Schaick’s Guido. He was a little timid about throwing his ears forward, but he would do so now and again. Guido was the first dog in this country that showed quality. Mr. John W. Burgess, who was for a year or two very prominent at New York shows, bought Guido _ ayear later for the very moderate sum of $150, after he had defeated Marcus at the Washington Show of 1883. Guido sired very few puppies, but Marcus left quite a number, and almost every one of them was lop eared. You could pick out the Marcus puppies as soon as you saw those ears. There was one good one, however, and that was Zulu Princess, a bitch bred in England by the Rev. Hans F. Hamilton out of that grand bitch Ruby III., to whom she undoubtedly owed her good looks, as she was the only good one by Marcus ever in this country. Mr. Thomas H. Terry owned her, and he had also bought the best of Mr. Apgar’s and Doctor Downey’s kennels, to which he also: added Robin Adair and a beautiful-headed sister to the great Charlemagne, named Efe. We judged at New York when Effie was first shown, but she was shown outrageously fat, otherwise she could not have been beaten. Robin Adair won many prizes, but he was far from being a good dog, and after he had been shown at Washington he cast his coat and never got a top coat again. He should not have beaten Guido or Rex as he did that year at New York. He was largely bred to, but got nothing of any merit, and to most of them he gave his yellow eye. Mr. Van Schaick, through his son-in-law, Mr. Dockrill, of London, continued to get well-bred dogs from time to time, but not quite good enough to win. They were therefore neglected by breeders, though such dogs as Darnley, a dog close up to the prepotent Duncan-Bess cross, and Sable by Charle- magne out of Minx, ought to have produced far better collies than Robin Adair, Rex or the pedigreeless Marcus. It is easier, however, to look back and say what might and should have been done than it was to decide at the time. It was at this period that Charlemagne’s great son, Eclipse, was having such a successful career in England and siring so many good puppies, and of course our importers followed along the winning line. The first to arrive 358 The Dog Book was the bitch Meta, in whelp to Eclipse, and she was followed by Nesta, in a similar condition. From Meta came Ben Nevis, bought as a puppy by Mr. Shotwell, and Lady of the Lake. Ben Nevis was a large, sable dog, rather smutty in colour, and in that respect Lady of the Lake was much better. Nesta came to our kennels, and in this litter there was one beautiful bitch, Clipsetta, for which we refused the high offer, for those days, of $200, only to have her killed when a year old by two bob-tails who, starting a fight between themselves, turned on Clipsetta and never left her till she was lifeless. Thinking to show our confidence in the man at whose kennels this happened, we sent him Nesta, and one of the bob-tails broke out of her own kennel of inch boards, got into Nesta’s, and killed her. The bob-tails cost $25 for the two. A sister to Clipsetta, named Mavis, was the dam of a very fine young dog named Glenlivat, which also met with misfortune, being run over by a train, so that bad luck did not run singly in our effort to perpetuate this line of collies. “There were two Eclipse-Nesta litters, as she was sent back to England after her first litter and bred to Eclipse again and from the second litter came the champions Clipper and Glengarry. Mr. Van Schaick also got a son of Eclipse and old Flurry, named Strephon, and to this dog Mavis threw Glenlivat, which Mr. Mason criticised as “undoubtedly one of the grandest young dogs we have seen.” All of these that were by Eclipse or his descendants were sable-and- white dogs, and they completely settled the pretensions of all the black and tans. At the Newark, N. J., show of 1886 the Meta and Nesta litters accounted for most of the prizes, and they did well at New York also, where the Hempstead farm dogs won many prizes; it being this kennel’s last big winning, for Mr. Harrison then took up the breed and swept all before him. At this time we had a few of the get of Rutland, who was Eclipse’s great rival in England, but this strain did not last with us. They were very heavily coated dogs, but spongy, and in place of repelling the rain they became water soaked, the coat separating along the back as in a Yorkshire terrier. ‘There was also a lack of size in many of them, and Rutland himself was not a large dog, though our opportunity for seeing him was too brief and unsatisfactory as to surroundings to warrant any definite description beyond saying that he was fine in head and gave that property to some of his puppies shown in this country, but they did not compare favourably with the Eclipse collies; and it Rough-Coated Collie 359 is singular to say, but nevertheless a fact, that, notwithstanding the ex- ceedingly large number of puppies by these two dogs, that were not only bred but were exhibited and won many prizes, they produced no dog to carry on the family in the male line. We will refer to this subject later, and now return to the record of the collie in America, which we had carried up to the appearance of Mr. Mitchell Harrison as a competitor in 1886. Mr. Harrison originated the Chestnut Hill Kennel, which was sub- sequently transferred to Mr. Jarrett, who still uses the building, which was the first erected in this country with any pretensions to being any more than a place for dogs to sleep in. After dabbling in a few purchases of some rather common American-bred stock, Mr. Harrison purchased, when in England in the winter of 1885-6, a dog called Nullamore, a brother to Dublin Scot, and a few bitches. The dog was sent to the New York Show, but not exhibited, and as this purchase was not satisfactory he then got Dublin Scot and that good bitch Flurry II., and expected to sweep the decks, only to find, just before the important show at Newark, N. J., in 1887, that Mr. Van Schaick had imported two sons of the Chestnut Hill: importations, which were named Scotilla and Scotson, and the latter could beat Dublin Scot. To win it was necessary to buy them, and the two new dogs changed owners before the show opened. It was a very strong class of collies at that show. Scot was not shown in the class competitions, and in open dogs Scotilla won from his brother; we came third with Clipper, of the second Eclipse-Nesta litter; Nullamore was fourth; Glenlivat, reserve; and Glengarry, reserve. The latter had won the special for the best in the show at New York the previous year, and was a litter brother to Clipper. ‘The reason Glenlivat got so low down was owing to an accident two days before the show opened, the dog being run over and badly cut below one of his hocks. At the show we were kept so busy fighting off accusations of fraudulent pedigree, and attending meetings, that we had no opportunity to massage the dog’s leg, and on being ordered into the ring he walked lame. There were two judges, and they began with a consultation as to what to do with the lame dog, finally deciding to give him the reserve card and let him go back to his bench, the judging then proceeding without him. It was a costly accident to us, for he was in the sweepstakes, the first prize of which amounted to $250, and we had to be content with $50, even although by the time that prize was judged the dog showed not the slightest lameness. 360 The Dog Book He was certainly a wonderful puppy, and as a collie was far ahead of any dog at the show. This we say with the full knowledge that Scotilla won many prizes, but we never considered him a good, true-type collie. Dublin Scot was a large, strong dog, also deficient in character and lacking in the attractiveness seen in Scotilla, who was undoubtedly a very taking dog, but he was not collie in expression, was light in bone and not right behind. To show our opinion on Scotilla’s rank as a collie, we will repeat a story we have previously put in print. On one occasion, being asked to attend to a service by Dublin Scot, or failing that to make our own selection of a dog at the kennels, we went up from Germantown to Chestnut Hill, and, there being a failure to get Scot, we had to choose. Mr. Jarrett said that he supposed we would take Scotilla, but we asked to have Charleroi II. brought out as well, and we selected the latter. To prove that our opinion was not out of the way at all we can add that when Mr. Harrison purchased Christopher in England he sent Dublin Scot and Charleroi over to Mr. Stretch, that being part of the deal. Mr. Stretch at once got rid of Scot and kept Charleroi, eventually selling him to Mr. J. A. Long, of St. Louis. ‘His fault was slovenly ear carriage, but outside of that he was a good collie and the best in the Chestnut Hill Kennels till Christopher was imported. It has been customary to accord to Charlemagne every honour that can be given a dog for individuality and for power to improve his breed, but it is to Christopher that collies owe their great improvement when one resorts to pedigrees as proof. Professor Bohannan two years ago made a most thorough investigation into the subject of collie breeding, and the results he arrived at were that with the exception of the dogs of twenty-five years ago, which figured in his tables of great sires, these great sires were the produce of dogs averaging two years and two months of age, and that a- very large number were from sires under eighteen months of age. To more thoroughly understand the age table, that of the ancestral tree of the leading collie strains must be studied, and it is even more remarkable in what it sets forth than the age table. This table was made two years ago, and the only alteration that Professor Bohannan would be likely to make would be the lopping off of the Donovan II. line coming through Balgreggie Hope, and we doubt if he could name any standard successor of Ellwyn Astrologer, so that if these two were eliminated we would be reduced to the lines tracing to Christopher. Rough-Coated Collie 361 These tables are as follows: Tue Great CoLiie SIRES AND THE AGES OF SIRES WHEN THESE SONS WERE GOTTEN AGE YRS. MOS. SIRE SON ee eer te ere MiG ais Glee eee oie Gis alee Tee General Trefoil 5 Jisawwaesede eee MEMO Gs Wewerpapeweus Wheeos eens Charlemagne ay ere re ee Chanleinactibw dt oxivaniuateakateadteaiees Sefton Se Sta ooneeee yee General “[retoll vasesccndeusueeeeuyeeues Sir James © Ll Agesousaawans Seon MEG anacasos cee wneseurnees Guy Mannering 3 Orvasw veweresns Wellesbourne Conqueror............ Parbold Piccolo 2 Oliayeaeaa tena Metehiey Wonder. jcc acrichientiew ds Donovan II Ue eran a cree Sir | amet sa cocinwe Wad eae eae eeu agee sees Gladdie A 2 yea aes Edgbaston Marvel.............. Southport Perfection So Ovegaeraepauss Pleather Raph s veccessveenerenes Ormskirk Emerald 2 1G caecum eeanys CHTIStOPNEL sj .xcaswas i veawserwarean Ormskirk Chriss a: Crane earwe sw ees Stracathro Ralph .................. Heather Ralph 2. Odeo teusees os Guy Mannering: 6 ..0.064.06ednss' Ellwyn Astrologer Ors Rchoee Rusa aurats Old: Hall Bluchetuccosesssieass ion Balgreggie Hope 7a See Te eee Gliddié: cc essaveeuieiesesyeivekesans Sefton Hero a A aueeaer eee Finsbury Pilot: «senwcareeiekeriau ws vue Rightaway 2 Oissee eserves Rufford Ormonde................... Finsbury Pilot BN pes eels Rightaways....enisswcseveas Woodmansterne Tartan Pe © eae eer eee ee Bay Regents. joonsadcnueakareies Gid Hall Blucher 2 Ohaveepeoueues Southport Perfection........ Wellesbourne Councillor E llegevexuasscen: Donovan UT -ssgaassaguasdwdevotngaexs Bay Regent Io Sscsawen esses Ormskirk Emerald... ceacsans ovens Ormskirk Galopin a ee ee Delle. saseass cy Seemere wanes ea Metchley Wonder E Soj tense enierss Heacham Galopin.................. Wishaw Clinker EO Soy aanees Christopher i..3¢.scsliaeodigeeeis Stracathro Ralph i Daeanees ene Christopher 2ycese eeu. sedeeeuss Edgbaston Marvel Eo Vsasseeessvaces Ormskirk Galopin................ Heacham Galopin DW Dees Saati Ormskirk Chirts8ic vive caaxsncvneas Rufford Ormonde T Oscuivapavinee® Rightawayesescoatzsaseueaeeeae Barwell Masterpiece OA isuaaexapncates Metchley Wonder.............. 1... -. Christopher @ 10eks: seweuees a Wellesbourne Councillor... .. Wellesbourne Conqueror 362 The Dog Book Average for all sires, 2 years 7 months. Omitting the old-timers, Trefoil, Charlemagne and General Trefoil, on whom stud service was comparatively light, we have as the average age for modern sires, 2 years, 2 months. THE ANCESTRAL TREE OF THE LEADING COLLIE STRAINS. TREFOIL (March 19, 1873) | Charlemagne General] Trefoil (Jan. * 1879) (Dec. 21, 1878) Sefton Sir James (Oct. 10, 1884) (May 15, 1884) Metchley Wonder Gladdie (Mar. ; 1886) (Nov. 19, 1887) | Sefton Hero Christopher Donovan II (April 7, 1890) (April 16, 1887) (Jan. 12, 1890) | Guy Mannerin, Stracathro Ralph Edgbaston Marvel Ormskirk Chriss ek ) (May 12, 1894 i arch 1, 1892 (Sept. 1, 1888) (Sept. 1, 1888) (April 4, 1890) 1, 189 Ellwyn Astrologer Heather Ralph Southport Perfec- Rufford Ormonde Old Hall Blucher (Jan. 26, 1897 (April 19, 1891) tion (June 2, 1891) (May 15, 1894) (Feb. 19, 1892) I ‘Ormskirk Emerald | Finsbury Pilot Balgreggie Hope (Sept. 3, 1894) | Wellesbourne (Aug. 8, 1893) (Oct. 19, 1896) Councillor ‘Ormskirk Galopin (April 11, 1894) Rightaway (April 1, 1896) | (Nov. 27, 1895) | Wellesbourne Heacham Galopin Conqueror Barwell Woodmansterne (July 5, 1897) (April 16, 1895) Masterpiece Tartan Wishaw Clinker Parbold Piccolo eb 9e TEg7) (Feb. 14, 1898) (Dec. 6, 1898) (April 3, 1899) The deduction which the compiler of these statistics reached was that the same law which governs in thoroughbred horses and in the trotting family ruled in dogs: that there is one supreme sire-power source, and but a few dam-power sources, the proof of the latter conclusion being that of the thirty dogs named in these tables nineteen trace back to six bitches— Merry Fan, Old Hall Vera, Pepita, Parbold Dolly, Sweet Lassie, and Ruby III. Astrologer traces to the dam of Charlemagne, and Wellesbourne Councillor to a sister to General Trefoil. Rough-Coated Collie 363 Unfortunately the information obtained from these tables is of no use to the collie breeder, for it is not till many years after the work has been done that it is possible to trace back through the many lines that which is the governing one. This is what we meant when, in speaking of the large number of puppies sired by Eclipse and Rutland, we said they pro- duced nothing in the male line that continued to produce. Even more remarkable than the failure of these two in this respect are Mr. Megson’s great dogs Ormskirk Emerald and Southport Perfection. They sired thousands of puppies, yet we only reach each one of them through one son when it comes to the highest-quality dogs. All we can hope to do is to breed good-looking dogs, but which one of the many crack dogs of the day will.eventually be entitled to be incorporated in the line of producing sires we will not know for ten or maybe twenty years, and it need not worry us at the present ume. As it is not the intention to go into the question of breeding, the tables are introduced at this point to illustrate what a wonderful dog Christopher was. He was sired by Metchley Wonder when the latter was eleven months old, and in turn got his two great sons when he was fourteen months old; both of these sons, out of different dams, being born on the same day. Christopher’s influence in America was nil, but in extenuation of his leaving no worthy posterity here it should be stated that he had no brood bitches worth the name as producers, and it is only in quite recent years that we have gradually worked up to the position of having soundly bred bitches; with most gratifying results in the way of vastly improved puppy classes. Another good dog imported by Mr. Harrison was The Squire, a very shapely dog, with a good head, but as he never had enough coat when in England he naturally failed to improve in that essential when here. The one dog that might be cited in opposition to our statement that Scotilla sired nothing wonderful was Roslyn Wilkes, who came out in 1890 and was very successful for some time. He was bred by Mr. Pierpont Morgan out of Bertha, the dam of Bendigo, but was shown by Mr. Harrison and was decidedly the best American bred of his day, but his head did not last. Other good dogs owned at Chestnut Hill were Maney Trefoil and Welles- bourne Charlie, which with Christopher and a number of bitches passed into the possession of Mr. Jarrett when Mr. Harrison retired. Maney Trefoil was sold to a Denver lady, and The Squire and a few others were 364 The Dog Book bought by Mr. Sauveur, of Chestnut Hill, who exhibited in the name of Seminole Kennels. Mr. Pierpont Morgan now became more prominently connected with the breed, and Mr. Terry also started in again, so that Mr. Harrison’s withdrawal was not noticeable in the matter of support at shows. Some importations were going on all the time, but it was not until Mr. Morgan got Sefton Hero that we had one of high rank. Taking this dog for all- round qualities, it is doubtful if there has been a better one at Cragston. The English judge, Mr. Taylor, put Rufford Ormonde over him at New York in 1895, with Rufford Ormonde lame from an accident, but he also put Christopher back to third in the veteran’s class, so we did not rank him high as a collie judge. Sefton Hero was full of character and ex- pression, while his coat was of the very best texture, and he lasted till grey with age. Mr. Morgan also got some good bitches, and his Chorlton Phyllis won many prizes, besides rendering herself famous as the dam of the remarkable “Ornament litter,” so named because of the great success of Ornament. There were four winners in this litter, if we remember correctly, including that grand dog, Masterpiece, that died of distemper contracted at the New York Show, where Mr. Astley gave him four firsts. A number of new exhibitors took hold of collies at this time, and in 1898 the Verona Kennels, of California, had much success with Old Hall Admiral, Heather Mint and others. Messrs. Black and Hunter, of Harrisburg, also made a suc- cessful start, and did much good in the way of getting a great many Western persons interested in the breed. Indeed, a few years later, during the time Mr. Morgan was not exhibiting, it may be said that Chicago became the centre of the American collie world, and important purchases followed each other with startling rapidity, so that, with three champions, Rightaway, Wellesbourne Conqueror and Parbold Piccolo and Heacham Galopin in Chicago and Milwaukee, the star of the collie empire was certainly travelling westward. Mr. Behling, of Milwaukee, bought Conqueror, Piccolo and a large number of high-class bitches. Doctor McNab bought Rightaway and had also Alton Monty, a dog imported and exhibited successfully by Black and Hunter. The Winnetka Kennels also got Ballyarnett Eclipse, an exceedingly good dog which had a winning career in the East the year he came out. Other good buyers in the West were Mr. Lepman, Mr. Brown and Mr. Gardner, all of Chicago, who are still very prominent in the breed. Mr. Gardner imported some of the first of the Piccolo line, and Rough-Coated Collie 365 also got over Heacham Galopin, the sire of Wishaw Clinker. The good done for collies in this country through the enterprise and rivalry of these Western exhibitors cannot be fully estimated, but we had a foretaste of what it may amount to through the successes of a few Western-bred collies in very strong competition this year, a young bitch bred by Mr. Lepman and shown by Mr. Trench as Thorndale Baroness being a deservedly large winner. In the East we have had the return of Mr. Morgan as an exhibitor, an event he signalised by purchasing the great English winner, Wishaw Clinker, from Mr. Tait, of Scotland, and Ormskirk Olympian from Mr. Stretch, Mr. Raper judged them at New York in 1904 and placed them in the order named, but the opinion of our leading authorities on collies was that Ormskirk Olympian should have won; that is how we would have placed them, and considered it a somewhat easy win. It was a great day for the Clinkers at that show, as his daughters, Brandane Ethel and Rippowam Revelation, were the leading winners throughout the bitch classes, after Moreton Hebe. Mr. Morgan’s rival is now Mr. Samuel Untermeyer, and not content with some very nice American-bred collies, with Breadalbane and Faugh a Ballagh as leaders, he has also made some important purchases abroad and has in Southport Sculptor an extra high-class dog. Other exhibitors in the metropolitan district are Mr. M. Mowbray Palmer, the president of the Collie Club, whose prefix of Rippowam is well known; Mr. Preston, Mr. Lindsay, of the Lindsays whose names go back to the early show days; Mr. Buckle, Mr. Hall, Mr. Mayhew and Mr. Geraghty. Philadelphia has also a strong collie clan and a club of its own, and, although Doctor Jarrett seems to have retired from exhibiting, there are many good fanciers, such as Messrs. Kain, Fernandez, Heuer, Romig & Flint, Henshall, Lightfoot, Doctor Konover and others. Boston has also been for many years a good collie town, and the Copeland, Middle- brooke, Murray and Westridge kennels are always factors at the Massachu- setts shows; while Mr. Bascom, of Providence, is seldom without an entry and has done much to keep interest alive in Rhode Island. The Canadian section of colliedom has never until late years been of a dangerous character. Mr. McEwen has been for long a supporter of the breed, but his entries have hardly been of the class of those that we have received at our shows from Montreal or Ottawa. Mr. Joseph Reid, of 3606 The Dog Book Montreal, and the Coila Kennels have turned out the best native-bred Canadian dogs that we have seen, while the Balmoral Kennels, formerly of Ottawa but now of Montreal, have taken high rank with some good imported dogs; the names of such dogs as Balmoral Baron, Balmoral Rex, Balmoral Duchess and Balmoral Primrose being familiar to all versed in collie history. It will be seen therefore that collies in this country are thoroughly well established, and although we may for some years yet continue to have importations, they will have to be of the very highest class to prove winners, for we are beginning to produce home breds of better quality all the time, and just as we have ceased to make any importa- tions of consequence in pointers, cockers, St. Bernards, bull terriers and a few other breeds, so also will we be able to rely more and more upon what we breed in this country. DeEscrIPTIVE PARTICULARS Head.—Skull flat, moderately wide between the ears and gradually tapering to the eyes. There should be but a very slight prominence of the eyebrows and a very slight depression at the stop. The proper width of skull necessarily depends upon the combined length of skull and muzzle, for what would be a thick or too broad skull in one dog is not necessarily so in another of the same actual girth but better supported by length of muzzle. It must also be considered in conjunction with the size of the dog, and should incline to lightness, ac- companied by cleanness of outline of cheeks and jaws. A heavy-headed dog lacks the bright, alert and full-of-sense look so much to be desired. On the other hand, the attenuated head is most frequently seen with small Terrier eyes, which show no character. Muzzle should be of fair length and tapering to the nose, which should be black; it must not show weakness or appear snipy. The teeth of good size and even. English standard says, “Mouth the least bit overshot,” but this is by no means desirable, and if at all exaggerated should be treated as a malformation. Eyes.—There being no “brow” in which to set the eyes, they are necessarily placed obliquely, the upper portion of the muzzle being dropped or chiselled to give them the necessary forward lookout. They should be of medium size, never showing too light in comparison with the colour Rough-Coated Collie 367 of coat nor with a yellow ring. Expression full of intelligence, with a bright and “what-is-it” look when on the alert or listening to orders; this is, of course, largely contributed to by the throwing up of the ears which accompanies the “qui-vive”’ attitude. Ears.—The ears can hardly be too small if carried properly; if too small they are apt to be thrown quite erect or prick eared; and if large they either cannot be properly lifted off the head or, if lifted, they show out of proportion. When in repose the ears are folded lengthwise and thrown back into the frill; on the alert they are thrown up and drawn closer together on the top of the skull. They should be carried about three-quarters erect. A prick-eared dog should be penalised. So much attention having of late been given to securing very high carriage of ears, it has resulted ir reaching the other extreme in some cases, and that is now necessary to guard against. Neck.—Should be muscular and of sufficient length to give the dog a fine upstanding appearance and show off the frill, which should be very full. Body.—Rather long, ribs well rounded, chest deep but of fair breadth behind the shoulders, which should have good slope. Loin slightly arched, showing power. Legs.—Fore legs straight and muscular, with a fair amount of bone, the fore arm moderately fleshy; pasterns showing flexibility without weakness; the hind legs less fleshy, very sinewy, and hocks and stifles well bent. Feet oval in shape, soles well padded, and the toes arched and close together. T ail—Mboderately long, carried low when the dog is quiet, the end having upward twist or “swirl,” gayly when excited, but not carried over the back. Coat.—This is a very important point. The coat, except on the head and legs, should be abundant, the outer coat harsh to the touch, the inner coat soft and furry and very close—so close that it is difficult on parting the hair to see the skin. The mane and frill should be very abundant, the mask or face smooth, the fore legs slightly feathered, the hind legs below the hocks smooth. Hair on tail very profuse, and on hips long and bushy. Colour.—Immaterial, though a richly coloured or nicely marked dog has undoubtedly a considerable amount of weight with judges—the black-and-tan with white frill and collar or the still more showy sable with perfect white markings will generally win, other things being equal. 368 The Dog Book Size.—Dogs, 22 to 24 inches at the shoulder; bitches, 20 to 22 inches. Weight—dogs, 45 to 60 pounds; bitches, 40 to 50 pounds. Expression.—This is one of the most important points in considering the relative value of Collies. “Expression,” like the term “character,” is difficult to define in words. It is not a fixed point as in colour, weight or height, and is something the uninitiated can only properly understand by optical illustration. It is the combined product of the shape of the skull and muzzle, the set, size, shape and colour of the eyes, and the position and carriage of the ears. General Character.—A lithe, active dog, with no useless timber about him, his deep chest showing strength, his sloping shoulders and well-bent hocks indicating speed and his face high intelligence. As a whole he should present an elegant and pleasing outline, quite distinct from any other breed, and show great strength and activity. Faults—Domed skull, high-peaked occipital bone, heavy pendulous ears or the other extreme, prick ears, short tail, or tail curled over the back. The foregoing description is that of the Collie Club of America, which fixed no scale of points but added the following scale of points adopted by the Collie Clubs of England and Scotland, neither of which rec- ommends point judging, the figures merely showing on which “properties” the greater stress is laid: ScaLe oF Points English Scottish Head and expression... ... 15 PICA 5s eh os Cure ka kale k 15 Hate: coraduuaieesseteeorn HO LIVES wus enw sins oeees 5 Neck and shoulders. ..... Hee Wane cow rees. 10 Legs and Fett., ( HALF AND HALF HECATE Halfbred bulldog and greyhound Second cross from the bulldog t KING COB ~ ne HYSTERICS HECULA Fourth cross from the bulldog Third cross from the bulldog These illustrations are from ‘Stonehenge on the Dog,” 1859. The breeding experiment was made by Sergeant Major Hanley of the First Life Guards, and the drawings were made from photographs. Ki i . ql as illustrated in the same volume. ier ing Cob is used to show the ideal greyhound: The Greyhound 625 the width at hocks being to permit the hind legs to pass the forelegs when the dog is galloping. The hocks should show strength of bone and sinew and the haunches and thighs should be extremely muscular. Feet.—Stonehenge admitted both cat and hare foot, as each had its ad- vocates; personally he believed the round cat foot was more liable to ‘‘break down” than the hare foot, but what is of more importance than the form is that the feet should not be flat or open. They should be well knuckled up with good strong claws. T ail._—Fine, free from fringe, long and nicely curved toward the end. Colour and Coat.—Colour having no effect upon a dog’s speed, this is immaterial. The coat should be short, smooth and firm in texture. ScaLe oF PoINnTs Peat sie, ce Soe i ada dies 10 => Hiindquarters........... 20 INGCE: uh gooeu gyda wage 10 Beet. . coweuaeekeors 15 Chest and Fore quarters.. 20 Tail................4.. 5 Loinsand Back ribs.... 15 | ColourandCoat....... 5 "otal Giese 100 CHAPTER XLVII Tue WHIPPET |HE ever-present desire of Englishmen to be either competing personally or owning birds or animals which could take his place as a competitor was the reason for the development of . the whippet or snap dog. The ban upon dog fighting, bull baiting and, finally, upon prize fighting turned the attention _ of the mill operatives, miners and the workmen of Lancashire, Yorkshire and the North of England generally to more legitimate forms of sport in which they could participate, and resulted’ in the introduction of the world- famed Sheffield handicaps for the fast sprinters of all nations and other per- sonal contests. Many of these were purely local sports, such as the bowling on Newcastle Town Moor and the knur and spell of Yorkshire. In the way of animal contests they took up racing dogs against each other and coursed rabbits with the larger of these fast dogs. Then sport promoters introduced open handicaps and as every man could keep a running dog in his house, and the cost of racing was small, while the winning of a handicap meant a great deal, whippet racing became the home lottery of Lancashire. Whippet racing is an exaggerated development of the inclination of puppies to pull at anything that is held out to them. When very young the puppies are induced to play at pulling a rag and, little by little, they are let run at the rag across the room. When they have progressed so far as to run from the liberator to the shaking rag and pull at it they are then taken out of doors, to some convenient alleyway for choice, and at gradually increasing distances held and then let loose to run to the enticing piece of rag or towel, which their owner shakes so vigorously while he calls them with encouraging shouts. Finally the training progresses until the whippet can run the full course of 200 yards, the handicap distance. Handicaps are based mainly upon the weight of each competitor and although the system might seem very complicated it is plain and simple to those who are experts, and who can hardly perhaps read or write. In pro- portion to weight a dog of 15 pounds is faster than either larger or smaller 627 628 The Dog Book dogs. That is to say the average of performers show that, for individuals naturally differ. With nothing known as to ability shown by previous wins a 15-pound dog is asked to give 3 yards start to one of 14 pounds and will get 3 yards start, from one of 16 pounds. Then the allowance to smaller dogs increases, while that from larger dogs decreases on the pound basis. For instance a 13-pound dog will get 7 yards from one of 15 pounds and the latter will get less than 6 yards from one of 17 pounds. Then there is a sex allowance of 3 pounds and penalties for wins, with allowances for novices and beaten dogs, all tending to make it very muddled to the out- sider, while the “ Lancashire lad” or ‘“‘ Yorkshire tyke” can reel it off a good deal easier than his multiplication table. Efforts have been made by well-meaning people to popularise whippet racing here and bring it to the attention of the general public, but it is a sport which had better be left alone. The dogs are all right, but it seems abso- lutely essential to have a class of persons connected with them and the sport which will always be an insurmountable drawback to whippet racing. The dogs have to be trained and this is done by men walking the dogs along country roads. No American will do this sort of thing, so recourse must be had to those who have done it in England and such men as we have here who will do this are drawn from the class who are failures at legitimate occupa- tions. An attempt was made to elevate whippet racing in England and it was introduced at the Ranelagh club, but they could not stand the surroundings and neither can we here. It will have a lingering existence in localities where imported mill hands are found, such as at Fall River. At one time Philadelphia was an important centre, but high license and the suppression of sporting resorts killed Pastime Park games and now there are only a few places in the East where it is seen, with the exceptions of occasional exhibi- tions at fair grounds. The dogs are judged entirely on the lines of the greyhound, but it is usual to have more or less feathering on the tails. Too much evidence of a cross with the Italian greyhound is very objectionable, for there is nothing toyish about the whippet, except his size, and he should be a clean-cut little fellow. IMPORTED BAY VIEW MAY CH. BAY VIEW BEAUTY Formerly Hunt's May—winner of th:ee Higginshaw handicaps before being 18 months of age. Now 12 years of age Property of the Bay View Kennels, East Providence, R. I The best American bred whippet yet shown CHAMPION NORTHERN FLYER A most successful show dog. Property of Mr. E. M. Oldham, New York “‘spuoosas 1 ynoqe ut spiek coz UNL eeeP. asay} se Aeneas zg 3 0} ul Sunms 32, 9y} 9} Zop ayy ydesBojoy Odes B JO Y}OOg UL sem I] *APLays you sem 31 LY} ATYOINb os paswayas 19};NYS ay} pUe Pazstys aq 0} PLY BOWED ay} PUe ZuUTJOOJ 19}19q 32 1 ee ayy UL "WWauapj3as ay} pue sos ay} ‘J1e}S BY} ‘YO}EUL BY} Jo Suryeur 94} MOYs pue JOYyynE ay} Aq AWD MURTY Fe Uaye} s1aMm sydeiZojoyd puey iy saddn pure samoy 3a.ty ayy, ONIOVA LaddIHM Buq[N2g HRs oT yoyeur ay} Sure EEE ims. nee aoel ay MoyS Soq woysTyRsstAA Je Bel W CHAPTER XLVIII Tue Russian WoLFHOUND = HE marked family resemblance between the long-coated grey- “i, hounds of Eastern Russia, Persia and that section of Europe and Asia, demonstrates very clearly that there must have been for many ages a well defined type of greyhound or racing hound such as we have known for nearly twenty years as the Russian wolfhound. Being a fast racing hound it naturally is of greyhound formation, but it differs somewhat in general appearance, being leaner as well astaller. It is also apt to be more roached in back and straighter in hind legs. Stonehenge in speaking of the sweep of the hind legs of the greyhound said that without that formation speed would be impossi- ble, yet the wolfhound shows speed. We acknowledge that we have never seen racing between greyhounds and wolfhounds and are quite open to cor- rection as to what we say on this subject. Thegreyhound is much quicker in action than the wolfhound, the wolfhound’s stride being longer and in those we have seen racing the action is higher, possibly from so many being more upright in shoulder than we see in the majority of greyhounds. Quick action is often deceiving when it is not in actual competition with a slower but longer stride, but it will rather surprise us to have it demonstrated that the wolfhound can beat a greyhound, both being good ones. Certainly the better shouldered dog is much the cleverer and quicker in turning and can travel down hill without propping himself, but as the accounts of Russian wolf hunting are to the effect that wolves race straightaway, and do not turn or twist like a hare, and the hunting ground is on level plains, there is not so much necessity for good shoulders in the borzoi as in the hare courser. The type of the wolfhound or borzoi has been thoroughly established for centuries, undoubtedly. When we go away back as far as we can and yet not be shrouded in “the mists of antiquity” we find representations of racing hounds which may or may not have been meant for illustrations of dogs which were of the family now under discussion. For instance that very 629 oO The Dog Book 1 drawing reproduced from the Bronze Dog and to be found in the Great ine chapter, page 535. That has quite a borzoi look about it and at 2 same time comes somewhat near to the mastin type. This illustration was placed in the position it occupies with some mental servation as to whether it was not more entitled to be put with something the greyhound order. It bears every look of being a portrait, or modelled ym life and not merely a study, but as many of the illustrations of French astins of about the same date were not unlike this dog in many ways it was it with them, the intention being to draw attention to it as we do now. The first positive representation of the borzoi we have seen was in a lume of illustrations made of engravings from some French work. There 1s no title page nor any description of the engravings other than their titles French. A memorandum in pencil on a front blank page stated they were »m a natural history work and many of them bore marked resemblance to any of the Buffon engravings. In our edition of Buffon there is not, how- er, any particular reference to this dog, although mention is made of the © atin being connected with the Russian dog. No engraving of it appears in ir edition nor is there any mention of one as in the case of all other dogs ustrated. The fact remains, however, that it was known about 1750 and e illustration is perfect enough to stand duty as representing the breed seen at our shows. Colonel Hamilton Smith mentions them as part of e greyhounds of the Persian type. What the latter looked like is shown in sssie’s “‘Anecdotes,” 1858 edition. The author stated that several of these yunds had been brought to England from time to time and the one given ‘an illustration was a bitch bred in England, painted by Hamilton. It is only within the last twenty years or so that the Russian hound has »come known to any extent in England or America, and his career has been diversified one in this country. In England the borzoi had the advantage ‘being taken up by royalty and we recall seeing one at Mr. Macdona’s snnels when he was rector of Cheadle, near Manchester, in 1879, the dog iving been a present from the Prince of Wales, now King Edward. It was ot a large dog as we now remember tt. When they were introduced in this country there was a very animated dis- ission as to their correct name, the late Mr. Huntington leading on the side ir the name psovoi, while others held for borzoi, the name accepted in Eng- nd. As the disputants did not seem able to come to an agreement we sug- ssted using the name Russian wolfhound, as fully descriptive of what they The Russian Wolfhound 631 were, pending some settlement. The name was made use of in that way and has never been changed. _ Being a dog of striking character and typical of high breeding it is sur- prising that it has not been followed up more systematically since its intro- duction, but the records show that its support has been very spasmodic. Mr. Huntington was very enthusiastic for a year or two and then took more to greyhounds. Mr. Stedman Hanks, of Boston, was the next prominent supporter and he secured some good hounds when on one occasion he visited Russia. He kept them for a few years and then stopped exhibiting, his dogs being taken over by his kennel manager, Tom Turner, who was about the only exhibitor for several years, his kennel being at the last made up of dogs bred from Mr. Hanks’s dogs. Mr. Turner was still an occasional exhibitor ’ when Mr. J. B. Thomas, Jr., took hold in a very stirring manner. He first bought all the good dogs he could get here, those of the Turner kennel and some from Mr. J. G. Kent, of Toronto, who had the only collection of the breed in the Dominion. Not content with these dogs, Mr. Thomas con- cluded to visit Europe for something better and after inspecting the English kennels went on to Russia, where he purchased some very good ones, in- cluding Bistri and Sorva. His strongest competitor was Mr. E. L. Kraus of Slatington, Pa., who was his predecessor as an exhibitor and had a very good kennel at that time, but with the advent of Mr. Thomas his increasing business demands made it impossible for Mr. Kraus to devote the atten- tion to exhibiting dogs which he had done and he retired. With the view of putting the breed on a substantial footing Mr. Thomas, with the co-operation of Dr. De Mund, Mr. Kent and others who took more or less interest in the breed, organised the Russian Wolfhound Club and marked improvement was at once apparent in the support given the principal shows. Two years ago at New York the entry was an excellent one and the quality very good throughout. Mr. Thomas’s Valley Farm entry won the lion’s share of the prizes as it had done the previous year and has done at all shows where he has been a competitor, and we rather fear that there is a likelihood of the breed falling back, as is almost invariably the case where there is one dominating kennel taking the bulk of the prize money. We seem, however, to have got to an end of importations and if exhibitors confine themselves to home or American bred dogs and so put all on a more equitable footing there is no reason to look for decline in the breed, now that we have so much breeding material in the country. 632 The Dog Book As most wild animals are fought and killed by the dogs which hunt them it is well to state that the Russian wolfhound is not supposed to kill the wolf. When a wolf is driven into the open it is the custom to slip a brace of wolfhounds, unless the dog is a large and powerful one. ‘The dogs slipped are always well matched in speed so as to reach the wolf together if possible. They range up on either side of the fleeing wolf and pin him back of the ears, holding him till the mounted huntsman, who follows, can reach them. The huntsman then muzztes the wolf, which is taken to the kennels for use in teaching the younger dogs their business. Many wolves are killed when not so wanted, but the object of the hunt may be said not to be that of the fox hunt or hare coursing, which is the kill, but the capture of the wolf. The Russian wolfhound has been styled the aristocrat of the canine family, which is a well-earned name and a very excellent one in illustrating his distinguishing feature, as compared with other breeds. It will be seen that the descriptive particulars of the standard call for a dog on greyhound lines, the differences being a narrower skull, with an indication of angle at the brow, up to which the nasal line is carried without any indication of drop in the outline, in fact it is more often Roman nosed. From the angle at the brow the outline is fairly straight to the occiput; the other differences are the longer coat, sometimes with a curl, and the somewhat straighter hindquart- ers when the dog is standing. DEscrIPTIVE PARTICULARS Head.—Skull slightly domed, long and narrow, with scarcely any perceptible stop, rather inclined to the Roman-nosed; jaws long, powerful and deep; teeth strong, clean and even; neither pig-jawed nor undershot; nose large and black. Ears.—Small and fine in quality, lying back on the neck when in repose with the tips when thrown back almost touching behind occiput; raised when at attention. Eyes.—Set somewhat obliquely, dark in colour, intelligent, but rather soft in expression, never full nor stary, light in colour, eyelids dark. Neck.—Clean, free from throatiness, somewhat shorter than in the grey- hound, slightly arched, very powerful, and well set on. Shoulders.—Sloping, should be fine at the withers and free from coarse- ness or tumber. Chest.—-Rather narrow, with great depth of brisket. The Russian Wolfhound 633 Ribs.—Only slightly sprung, but very deep, giving room for heart and lung play. Back.—Rising a little at the loins in a graceful curve. Loins.—Extremely muscular, but rather tucked up, owing to the great depth of chest and comparative shortness of back and ribs. Forelegs.—Bone flat, straight, giving free play for the elbows, which should be neither turned in nor out; pasterns strong. Feet.—Hare-shaped, with well-arched knuckles, toes close and well padded. Hindquarters—Long, very muscular and powerful, with wellbent stifles and strong second thighs, hocks broad, clean and well let down. T ail.—Long, set on and carried low in a graceful curve. Coat.—Long, silky (not woolly), either flat, wavy or rather curly. On the head, ears, and front ot legs it should be short and smooth; on the neck the frill should be profuse and rather curly. Feather of hindquarters and tail, long and profuse, less so on chest and back of forelegs. Colour.—Any colour; white usually predominating, more or less mark- ed with lemon, tan, brindle or grey. Whole-coloured specimens of these tints occasionally appear; black to be discouraged. General A ppearance.—Should be that of an elegant, graceful aristocrat among dogs, possessing courage and combining great muscular power with extreme speed. Size.—Dogs, average height at shoulder from 28 to 31 inches; average weight from 75 to 105 lbs. Larger dogs are often seen, extra size being no disadvantage when it is not acquired at the expense of symmetry, speed and staying quality. Bitches invariably smaller than dogs, and two inches less in height and from 15 to 20 lbs. less weight is a fair average. SCALE OF POINTS Head: 04 xewewnwaweean 15 Hindquarter, Stifles and VAS ache Sema eases eek 5 HOCK Ss wise msin chee 15 Eves: eekcuen d4iaeuaas 5 lLegsand Feet .......... 10 Neck ocaucan: sedades 5 Coatand Feather... .... 10 Shouldersand Chest .... 15 Tail ................0., 5 Ribs, Back and Loins .. 15 janes CHAPTER XLIX Tue BLoopHouND HE dog to which we usually give the name of English blood- hound, to distinguish it from various dogs called blood- hounds, is a very different animal from what was called originally by the same name in England. Like the mastiff and a good many other dogs he has been improved beyond . recognition from the dog of even fifty years ago. Itis not necessary to go over the ground that we already have done in the introductory chapter re- garding hounds. Poetical descriptions are not essentially facts and to say that a dog had heavy flews and long ears does not mean that he had the ex- cess of loose skin about the head we see in our show dogs, nor their length of ears. Illustrations of bloodhounds and Southern hounds, which are generally held to have been the main progenitors of our bloodhounds, do not differ essentially from drawings by the same artists or contemporary artists, when one goes back to 1800-30, of other dogs that were called blood- hounds and were found in other countries. All of these hounds showed more flew and dewlap than the foxhound, and had natural ears, while the foxhound has had his ears rounded or trimmed for many years. At the time we speak of the efforts of foxhound breeders was to get a small-headed dog, and they were then drawn with some exaggeration in that respect, for the heads on portrait dogs are usually out of proportion to the style of dog, so as to suit the fancy for small heads then prevailing. The bloodhounds at the Tower Menagerie, as shown in the volume issued in 1829 descriptive of the animals then on exhibition—the drawings being from life by Harvey—are strikingly like some of Landseer’s. These dogs were brought from Africa by Colonel Denman, who had gone there ona hunting expedition and had been so impressed with the work of the hounds he got there that he brought back three and presented them to the mena- gerie. Cuban bloodhounds were also taken to England and they are seen to be the same type of dog. Youatt used a study by Landseer on the title page of “The Dog” and described the bloodhound as broad skulled, with long 635 636 The Dog Book ears. Hancock drew what must have been considered a typical head for the ‘‘Sportsman’s Annual” of 1829 and that is not in any way noticeable for bloodhound type as we know it. He afterwards painted a portrait of a dog called Marmion, given in Jesse’s 1858 edition. This dog shows a very wide rounded skull, with a weak foreface, but is a strong, large, well-built dog so far as can be judged. The hound in Landseer’s “Dignity and Impudence” is a more modern type of dog than any he shows in his many Highland sketches, or in the study head used by Youatt. Notwithstanding this lack of some essentials in bloodhound character we are fully convinced that bloodhound characteristics did exist in some English hounds of quite a long time ago. We do not think the narrow skull and prominent peak and bloodhound type could develop themselves naturally, as can be seen in some black and tan hounds of the old Maryland and Southern Pennsylvania type. About twenty years ago the opportunity to see this bloodhound type in these dogs was better than it is now, and so struck were we with a small black and tan foxhound bitch we saw at a Philadelphia show that we secured the promise of her from Mr. Howard Ireland, her owner, for the purpose of sending her to the Crystal Palace show, not for competition, but to show English men that there was a connection be- tween our old black and tan foxhound and their bloodhound, which must have had its origin in the hounds of two hundred years ago, for these Amer- ican dogs were undoubtedly descendants from importations made in the days of the Lords Baltimore. The bitch unfortunately died soon after the show, where she was in poor condition. She was far too small and weedy for show- ing as a bloodhound in England but she was all bloodhound in type. It was owing to the knowledge we got as to these old hounds at that time that when Mr. Strong of Cooperstown wrote to the American Kennel Club for advice as to a cross for better constitution, and the question was re- ferred to us, we advised him to have nothing to do with the suggestion of the great English authority on the breed, Mr. Edwin Brough, who recommended a Great Dane cross, but get what he wanted from these Southern Pennsyl- vania black and tan hounds. This he did with success, as he lost but little character even in the first cross and breeding back to the bloodhound again secured good type and an improved dog in constitution. This weakness in constitution and inability to stand the attacks of dis- temper, to which they seem to be particularly susceptible, is the great difficulty bloodhound breeders have to contend against. When at Danbury : SaSESSIp S} pte ,, Bog sy7,,, WO HOO £,1};ENOX UF UOPEAISNIT] UE OL vipuexaty usend ‘Ajsafeyy aszy yo Apradoid ayy aqey GQNNOHAGYD NVIOTUD XITV ERS aie uopuoT 0} 1y43No1q Sop vjo uoziwey Aq Juyuied euoryg ,,"sa}opIuy,, S,essaf ul pazesjsn][] JQUUIM sTaMUeyY we AaT[eA pajou siy} Jo mata afyoid y GNNOHAGAD NVISdad VNIHOUdd JO IaLSld “HO DRUID Property of the Hon Grantly Berkeley “MARMION (a celebrated bloodhound) ”’ “WAREFUL, A SOUTHERN HOUND” Published in the Sporting Magazine, 1831. Painted by C. Hancock about 1830 From Jesse’s ‘‘ Anecdotes.” From a painting by Willis “dU i , Me Re Ge Ue oy ie Foes AFRICAN BLOODHOUNDS From ‘‘The Tower Menagerie.’ 1829 BEWICK'S ‘‘OLD ENGLISH HOUND” CUBAN BLOODHOUNDS ey Drawn from Life by Wm Harv 1790 From Jesse’s ‘‘ Anecdotes’’ The Bloodhound 637 Dog Show in October, 1905, we saw at Dr. Knox’s kennels twenty as fine young dogs as one could imagine, from twelve to fifteen months old; large, big-boned, strong dogs, every one of them. Three months later Dr. Knox wrote us that he had been busy burying puppies for the past month and had hardly one left of all the lot we saw. Mr: L. L. Winchell, of Fair Haven, Vt., was the first American to take up the bloodhound of England, and after he had been exhibiting for a year or two Mr. Brough sent over some dogs which were shown in partnership. Dr. Lougest of Boston was the next to show bloodhounds and he has had by far the largest number of show winners of anyone in this country. Some of his dogs and some from Mr. Winchell were bought by Dr. Knox of Danbury and, as the Fair Haven kennels have long been given up, there are only the ‘ two doctors in the field, with an occasional outside entry. A numberof per- sons advertise bloodhounds but those who want to get the genuine article of English bloodhound should be exceedingly cautious in buying dogs from any person other than exhibitors. If a dog to trail a scent is all that is wanted that is a matter of education and many of these old foxhounds can be taught a good deal in that direction, but these are not bloodhounds any more than a spaniel is a setter merely because the setter once was a spaniel. In appearance the bloodhound is a strong, thickset hound with stout, rather short legs. He must not look low on the leg at all, but there is no excess of daylight under him. He had better be a little low than be leggy and light of bone. A weedy bloodhound is out of the question, speed not being wanted in this dog, for he must be followed on foot when tracking, held on a lead like the old hound that was called the limer. The distinguishing difference in this breed from all other hounds is in the depth of his hanging lips, his heavy dewlap, and the loose skin on his skull, which rolls in heavy wrinkles when the head is lowered. The hanging lips and dewlap pull down the lower eyelid and shows the haw more than in any other breed. By reference to the scale of points in the standard it will be seen that over one-third of the 100 points goes for head properties. The standard of the Bloodhound Club is as follows:- DeEscRIPTIVE PARTICULARS Head and wrinkle (value 20) is the peculiar feature of this breed, and jt is accordingly estimated at a very high rate. In the male it is large in all 638 The Dog Book its dimensions but width, in which there is a remarkable deficiency. The upper surface is domed, ending in a blunt point at the occiput; but the brain case is not developed to the same extent as the jaws, which are very long and wide at the nostrils, hollow and very lean in the cheek and notably under the eyes. The muzzle should be deep and square. ‘The brows are moder- ately prominent, and the general expression of the whole head is very grand and majestic. The skin covering the forehead and cheeks is wrink- led in a remarkable manner, unlike any other dog. These points are not nearly so developed in the bitch; but still they are to be demanded in the same proportionate degree. ; Ears and Eyes (value 10).—The ears, which should be set on low, are long enough to overlap one another considerably when drawn together in front of the nose; the leather should be very.thin, pendulous, and should hang very forward and close to the cheeks, never showing the slightest ten- dency to “prick”; they should be covered with very soft, short, silky hair. The eyes are generally hazel, rather small, and deeply sunk, with triangular- shaped lids showing the third eyelid, or “haw,” which is frequently, but not always, of a deep red colour. Flews (value 5) are remarkably long and pendant, sometimes falling fully two inches below the angle of the mouth. Neck (value 5) is long, so as to enable this hound to drop his nose to the ground without altering his pace. In the front of the throat there is a considerable dewlap. Chest and Shoulders (value 10).—The chest is rather wide and deep, but in all cases there should be a good girth; shoulders sloping and muscular. Back and Back Ribs (value 10) should be wide and deep, the size of the dog necessitating great power in this department. The hips or couples,. should be especially attended to, and they should be wide, or almost ragged. Legs and Feet (value 15).—The legs must be straight and muscular, and the ankles full size. ‘The feet should be round and catlike. Colour and coat (value 10).—In colour the bloodhound is either black-- and-tan or tan only, as is the case with all black-and-tan breeds. The black should extend to the back and sides, top of neck and top of head. It is seldom a pure black, but more or less mixed with the tan, which should be a deep rich red. There should be little or no white. A deep tawny, or lion colour, is also coveted, but seldom found. The coat should be short and hard on the body, but silky on the ears and top of the head. The Bloodhound 639: Stern (value 5) is like that of all hounds, carried gaily in a gentle curve, but should not be raised beyond a right angle with the back. Symmetry (value 10) of the bloodhound, as regarded from an artistic point of view, should be examined carefully and valued in proportion to the degree in which it is developed. The height should be from 25 to 27 inches. at the shoulder for dogs, and a little less for bitches. The weight of dogs should be about 90 pounds and upward, bitches somewhat less. ScaLeE OF Points Head, including wrinkle .. 20 Back and Back Ribs...... 10 Ears and Eyes... ....... 10 Legs and Feet.......... 15 FIGWR cxxvesceovsnaias 5 Colour and Coat ........ 10 ERK od sewed eens 5 DIS oeiekineseney weasel 5 Shoulder and Chest...... TO SYMMNMEY cars eax crvonres IO: KONPANTO (5 months) MAGICIAN (10 months) Property of Dr. Knox, Danbury, Conn. Property of Dr. Knox, Danbury, Conn. BLOODHOUND HEAD Property of Mrs. C. Chapman From a painting by Sir E. Landseer SULTAN PRINCE LEO Property of Dr. Knox, Danbury, Conn. is preg | ‘a ‘Saw } |4 eet 1) ap! og) —/ ‘Fox Hunting, viz.: Vncoupling & casting of ye Hounds" 1ONS LY RICHARD BLOME, 1640 uy ““The Death of ye Hare with F.e.t Hu LA Tt ILLU: CHAPTER L Tue FoxHounpD 'T what period the foxhound got its distinctive title in England is not very clear for as late as 1735 there is no such word in the Sportsman’s Dictionary. Under the words “ Fox hunt- ing”’ all that refers to the fox and his capture is given and here it is stated that “the fox is taken with hounds, grey- hounds, terriers, nets and gins.” Greyhounds were used to “course him on the plain,’’ and the two other methods used were fox hunting above ground and hunting the fox under ground, which was done with terriers. In the description of hunting above ground the dogs are simply called hounds and the custom then was to have them in couples and not to put the entire pack into the covert. “At first only cast off your sure finders and as the drag mends so add more as you dare trust them, avoid casting off too many hounds at once, because woods and coverts are full of sundry chases and so you may engage them in too many at one time. Let such as you cast off at first be old, staunch hounds which are sure, and if you hear such a hound call on merrily you may cast off some others to him, and when they run it on the full cry cast off the rest.”’ So also in hare hunting the word hounds is only employed and under the word “harriers” we find nothing but a hound, “some are for the hare, the fox, hart, polecat, weasel, coney, buck, badger, otter, etc., some for one, some for another. Nay, amongst the va- rious sorts of these dogs, there are some apt to hunt two different beasts, as the fox at sometimes and at other times the hare, but such as stick not to one sort of game, hunt not with that success and good disposition as the others do.” It was soon after this book was published that the celebrated Mr. Meynell established the Quorn hunt and he made a practice of entering his hounds at the hare and when perfect in that sport put them to fox hunting. It is probable that some who kept packs of hounds had individual ideas as to using the entire pack in the covert even at that time, but it could hardly have been considered the best practice or it would have been referred to in the 641 642 The Dog Book dictionary as a method some employed. Beagles are referred to in this dictionary so that we may assume that the word hound was used much as we use setter, and that they had no distinctive title any more than we give one to a setter used for pinnated grouse shooting, or for quail, or for snipe. All are setters and at the time we refer to all were hounds. These were undoubtedly slow dogs and were followed in a leisurely manner, but with the advent of Mr. Meynell a different style of fox hunting was introduced. Emulation in the field and the danger of over-riding the hounds led him to breed for faster dogs. He used large packs of hounds, sometimes as many asa hundred couples at a time, and they must have been under excellent command for even he followed the custom of drawing the coverts with a small number of selected hounds, the others being held in check by the whipper-in until cheered to the cry by Jack Raven as Colonel Gore records in his “Observations on Hunting.”’ Breeding to type had been in progress for some time at the beginning of the nineteenth century and packs kept entirely for fox hunting became num- erous throughout England, particularly in the districts where it could be and still is followed to the best advantage. Packs became famous for their ap- pearance and the sport they afforded and few of us but have at least heard of the influence Squire Osbaldeston had on fox hunting and sports in general, from the time he took the Quorn hunt in 1817. He bred uncommonly fast hounds and his desire was to get away fast after the fox and spread-eagle the field. Very large sums were given for good packs when they were placed on the market. Lord Suffield gave 3,000 guineas for Mr. Lambton’s entire kennel. Individual dogs suitable for stud, or stallions as they are called in the case of hounds or beagles, were also eagerly sought for and the annual draft was sorted so as to preserve uniformity of size, speed and, in many cases, uniformity of markings was sought for as far as possible. In this way we have in the English hound that character and confor- mation which stamps it as a breed, for all hunts aim to secure some char- acteristics common to all. Type in head, perfection in legs and feet, good shoulders and good bodies are all points where but one standard governs. The differences between the packs so far as appearance goes is very little more than that of height, some masters preferring a larger dog, others a medium one and some being better suited with dogs an inch or so smaller. It is thus we have the radical difference between foxhounds of English breed- ing and what go by the name of American foxhounds. There is no type The Foxhound 643 that governs in this country, nor can there be so long as the hound are bred so indiscriminately as is the case. It has been well said that everything is an American foxhound that is not good enough to win in an English foxhound class. At a recent dog show in the Philadelphia district there was quite a collection of “American foxhounds” half of which had been bred from an English dog from what were said to be American bitches, and others were bred the reverse way and all were called by that elastic title, “American foxhounds.” What little breeding to type there is in foxhounds bred in this country is confined to a very few hunting clubs, clubs which hunt the hounds in Eng- lish fashion as a pack, and follow them on horseback. But the leaven of this is so small as not to affect the foxhound as a whole and it is purely individual fancy, some packs being black and'tan and others white with black and tan markings. There is a National Foxhunters Association which is almost a purely Kentucky organization, nine out of the twelve officers named in the 1904 stud book being residents of that state, one in Pennsylvania, one in Alabama and one in Tennessee. It has a code of running rules and has a standard for American foxhounds. . The object of this club and others like it, such as the Brunswick Fur Club of Maine, is to decide individual merit in hunting, trailing, speed, en- durance, giving tongue and for judgment and intelligence. There is no effort made, such as is followed in England or in a few instances in America, to secure uniformity by breeding and selection. Ifa dog is much faster than the others it is to his advantage, whereas in packs a hound must keep with the pack, neither racing in advance nor failing to keep up with the others. So also in appearance, what the American hound looks like matters not so that he works, and the result is as motley a lot of dogs as one can imagine at such gatherings. There is no such thing as type, or sortiness, but: fortun- ately there are not many which resemble too much the ideal hounds drawn for the second volume of the foxhound stud book. These are most remark- able dogs mainly on account of their lack of resemblance to what a foxhound should look like. “They have good feet and that, singular to say, is where a great many of these dogs fail. We have seen some in the show ring with duck-feet, and one of the best known show dogs of recent times is the worst- footed sporting dog we think we have ever seen as a prize winner. It would please us very much indeed ‘to say a good word for the fox- hunting dog of this country outside of his hunting ability and within the 644 The Dog Book scope of this book, which treats of dogs as breeds, (established breeds as the Kennel Club has it), but what we have here is not an established breed, show- ing the uniformity of shape, type and character requisite to distinguish a breed from plain, ordinary dogs. We felt that we could say nothing else and _invited Colonel Roger Williams of Lexington, Ky., to contribute what might be considered the presentation of the other side, but the offer has not been accepted. If people do not breed for type they cannot blame any person stating that type is lacking. The standard adopted by this Kentucky club is quite good enough in itself, though far from perfect, to develop a breed dis- tinct in type, but having a standard and ignoring it altogether is not the way to get the desired uniformity. They might even do as the Boston-terrier men have done, breed a type entirely different from the standard and make the dogs show uniformity of type foreign to what is supposed to be the cor- rect thing. The same is seen in the English Newfoundland, the standard being entirely ignored, yet we have uniformity in the dogs shown and the type of dog shown is the standard which governs. In the present case we have a standard but no uniformity in type hence we have no breed of es- tablished character. What is supposed to be aimed at is shown in the des- cription and points adopted by the National club as follows: DeEscrIPTIVE PARTICULARS The American hound should be smaller and lighter in muscle and bone than the English foxhound. Dogs should not be under 21 nor over 24 inches nor weigh more than 60 pounds. Bitches should not be under 20 nor over 23 inches, nor weigh more than 53 pounds. Head (value 15) should be of medium size with muzzle in harmonious proportions. The skull should be rounded crosswise with slight peak—line of profile nearly straight—with sufficient stop to give symmetry to head. Ears medium, not long, thin, soft in coat, low set and closely pendant. Eyes soft, medium size and varying shades of brown. Nostrils slightly expanded. The head as a whole should denote hound “character.” Neck (value 5) must be clean and of good length, slightly arched, strong where it springs from the shoulder and gradually tapering to the head with- out trace of throatiness. Shoulders (value 10) should be of sufficient length to give leverage and power—well sloped, muscular, but clean run and not too broad. AMERICAN FOXHOUND BITCH ENGLISH FOXHOUND DOG TYPICAL HEADS CH. NEMESIS WINNING FIVE COUPLES MIDDLESEX HUNT HOUNDS HARRIER CHARITY From Daniel’s ‘‘Rural Sports,” 1802 A prize harrier, the property of Capt. N. Barton, of Hasketon, Woodbridge. After a painting by k. Corbet HARRIERS OF HIS MAJESTY GEO. III. From a painting by B. Marshall Photograph by Schreiber & S Philadelpht THE PENNBROOK HUNT tooth ornate The similarity between foxhounds and harriers is well shown in this photograph. The dog t 7 and the one to the left of the three front dogs, showing a side view, are Foxhounds. All others dads aee ace and the one to the extreme left was the best in the pack which was imported by Mr. Mitchell Harrison, of Philadelphia The Foxhound 645 Chest and Back Ribs (value 10). The chest should be deep for lung space, narrower in proportion to depth than the English hound—28 inches in a 24-inch hound being good. Well-sprung ribs—back ribs should extend well back—a 3-inch flank allowing springiness. Back and Loin (value 10) should be broad, short and strong, slightly arched.. Hindquarters and Lower Thighs (value 10) must be well muscled and very strong. Sttfles should be low set, not much bent nor yet too straight—a happy medium. . Elbows (value 5) should be set straight, neither 1n nor out. Legs and Feet (value 20) are of great importance. Legs should be straight and placed squarely under shoulder, having plenty of bone without clumsiness; strong pasterns well stood upon. Feet round, cat-like, not too large, toes well knuckled, close and compact, strong nails, pad thick, tough and indurated by use. Colour and Coat (value 5).—Black-white-and-tan are preferable, though the solids and various pies are permissible; coat should be rough and coarse without being wiry or shaggy. Symmetry (value 5).—The form of the hound should be harmonious throughout. He should show his blood quality and hound character in every respect and movement. If he scores high in other properties, symmetry is bound to follow. Stern (value 5) must be strong in bone at the root, of medium length carried like a sabre on line with spine, and must have good brush—a docked stern should not disqualify but simply handicap according to extent of dock- ing. ScaLe oF Points Heds jadeatwinwnecwdws 15 ENDOWS: ¢scepsersenexes 5 INGER os cueus cond sacar ee 5 Legs and Feet ......... 20 Shoulders .............. 10 Colourand Coat ....... 5 Chest and Back Ribs..... 18> ISM) ed ae cauaeetens 5 Hindquarters and Lower Back and Loin......... 10 RIBAS: @ cane yao we guns 160 BYMMICEEY oie cow na 5 LO) ¢ 4 Get eae EeeeOIA. Geared Cave teupaeeess 100 CHAPTER LI Tue HarrieER HE hunting hound of England, as distinguished from the coursing hound and the led bloodhound, went by the gen- eral name of harrier until special pains were taken to de- velop hounds solely for fox hunting, to which were given the name of foxhounds. What was left for hunting with hounds was the hare, and harriers then became solely hare hunters, the sport which at one time held precedence, now taking rank below that of fox- - hunting. The name harrier has no connection with the word hare, but owes its origin to the use of the hounds in harrying or driving the game. We have no harriers in this country, but a few have been kept in Canada, near Newmarket mainly. In England they at one time were the medium hound between the foxhound and beagle, but of late years beagles have been bred larger and have been crossed with harriers, and the same desire for size has caused the harrier to be crossed with the foxhound till it is difficult to get the pure harrier. There are a few packs which have not resorted to foreign blood, among them being the Penistone hunt in Yorkshire, where a pack of black and tan harriers has been kept for a number of years, back, it is said, to nearly the seventeenth century. ‘These are large hounds and are called harriers by reason of their not being used for foxhunting. If they had been they would have had their name changed and yet be the same hounds. According to the run of hare hunting packs the English harriers vary from 18 inches to as high as 24 inches, but we agree with Mr. Lee that from 16 to 19 inches is the proper harrier limits of height. ‘They run lighter in shape than the foxhound, more on what the American foxhound lines are supposed to be, that is, less substance and bone. Cooper’s head of the harrier which will be found in the introductory chapter to the hounds is a superb illustration of a quality head. No standard for the harrier has ever been published, reference being generally made to what is wanted in the foxhound, but a lighter dog, so here, where we have a standard for just such a foxhound, we can say that the American foxhound standard is well adapted to this breed. 647 CHAPTER LII THE BEAGLE gIHAT the terrier is to the Englishman the beagle may almost be said to be to the American, as nearly as we have a useful all-rounder in this country. There is too much genuine good about the beagle to make him a whim of fancy and as a show dog he has for long maintained a steady rating as one of the reliable breeds for an average good entry. Certainly he is far more popular here than in England and is kept within the limits of size of what a beagle should be, In England the word beagle has become a very elastic term and good-sized harriers are rated as beagles with some of the hare hunting packs. With usa proper limit of size has long been recognised both at shows and field trials, so that we have preserved at least that attribute of the beagle better than the English have. The origin of the word beagle is said to be obscure, the standard work on old English words, Murray’s Dictionary, being copied in that remark by all its successors. The earliest use of the word is quoted as being in ““The Squire of Lowe Degre,” 1475, “With theyr beagles in that place and seven score raches in his rechase.”” ‘The word is later met with as begeles and in the seventeenth century it became beagle. This variation of spelling means little, for these old writers varied spelling two or three times on a page, and sought for nothing but the sound of the word, or what would represent that. The majority of opinions hitherto expressed is that beagle came from the French word begle, but the boot is on the other leg and the best authorities hold that the French borrowed their word from the English. Murray sug- gests that it may have come from the French begeule, which meant a noisy, shouting person, from ‘‘beer,’’ to gape or open wide, and “quelle,” throat— the old French word was beeguelle. Murray then suggests that “open throat in this sense might be applied to a dog,” but admits that it was not so applied in France. That is a very far-fetched suggestion, for of all the hounds the beagle has the least voice or suggestion of the open throat. Murray is of the opinion that it cannot be Old English because of the 649 650 The Dog Book hard “g,” which would have become palatalised, such as in the case of beadle in English and beagle in Scotland for somewhat similar officials. That is worth keeping in mind, but in addition there was an old West of England word beagle, which meant a loutish fellow, a ne’er-do-well, and in Jamieson’s Scotch dictionary beagle is given as a Teviotdale expression for a man of odd appearance, such as in the case of one falling in the mire who would be said to be “a pretty beagle.” Neither of these renderings could have been the one meant by James TI. when he wrote an endearing letter to his wife and called her his “little beagle” and his “pretty beagle.”” At the same time we must not overlook the possibilities of a meaning which might be applied to the word in the West of England sense of useless. The small hound was certainly of little use for the game the mighty hunters affected, and to them the play dog of the children or pet of the ladies of the household might aptly be called a beagle in that sense. Still another possibility is the Gaelic word “beag.”’ This is a diminutive and in “beag-luach” we have a compound word meaning “of little value.” Practically the same meaning as the West of England appli- cation of the word beagle. “Beag” by itself meant a little, a small number, a small quantity. Only one authority mentions “beag”’ but he discards it as improbable. The objection to Gaelic origin is the lack of connection between where that was spoken and where beagle became definitely connected with the dog. But how about pony, for a small horse? That is Gaelic and became in some way substituted for hobby, a small horse, a word still retained in the words hobby horse, hobby hawk and hobby itself. Who first intro- duced “toy” to cover the group of pets, little dogs, and how long was it at- taining its present acceptance as defining a group of many breeds? If we take into consideration what the dogs were that got the name of beagles and really established the name as confined to the particular variety of hounds we will more readily arrive at where the name came from. The dog was first described as of most diminutive size, so small that it was called a glove beagle—gauntletted gloves, of course—its voice was so small compared with that of hounds that another name for them was “sing- ing beagles,” a pack getting the name of “a cry,” and efforts were made to get voices of different tones to chime melodiously. Good Queen Bess, who upheld bear baiting and took part in coursing deer, could hardly have treated her beagles seriously and we can well believe that these diminutive The Beagle 651 playthings were the result of many years of breeding during which little account was taken of them and no mention made of them. Finally the queen took a fancy to them as an amusement and the name came into fre- quent usage. We believe that both the dogs and the name given to them, were very well known throughout England, and being little more than pets they got a name that suited such a dog, either on account of its insignificance in the matter of animals it was fit to chase, or on account of its size, or both, for “beagle” covered both ideas. The old name for a small hound was kennet and that name appears in very old English records of dogs pertaining to the royal kennels. The beagles, if they then existed, were either considered to be kennets or were not held to be dogs of the chase. The early name of the word in the “Squire of ' Lowe Degre” shows only the fact of the word being in existence and not its general usage in the strict sporting parlance of that time. The oft-quoted translation from Oppian regarding the agasses, has no connection with the beagle, for he was describing the rough Scottish terrier. This rendition of the Gaelic word has also been confused with the agasseus, the gazehound, which we hold was the coursing greyhound. The beagle is a good enough little dog without introducing into the history of the breed a lot of far-fetched nonsense based on the confusing of two somewhat similar names, one mean- ing merely “dog” and the other referring to vision. Outside of England this little hunting dog had attained reputation enough to attract the attention of the artist Strada, and one of his many illus- trations of sporting is unique in representing what he styled in the Latin title to the engraving “the swift little dogs of the English, which leaped upon the horses.”” Here we have one of these little dogs being carried on the broad buttocks of the palfrey ridden by a lady, and another is being assisted to a similar position by her companion. The dog has reached up to his stirrup and he is stooping to take hold of it. This is very good evidence of the knowledge of them being spread beyond the limits of England before the time of Queen Elizabeth, for Strada we place at about 1560, and Elizabeth did not begin her reign until 1558. One hundred years later we have in a painting by the Italian artist Castiglione, a little dog which cannot be any- thing but one of these diminutive beagles for we have seen no Italian dog of that character. If Castiglione visited England as some think in Charles IT. reign'and if this painting of Orpheus was not done till that time it is within the limits of conjecture that he represented a dog he had seen there. 652 The Dog Book A little more than a hundred years later we find the beagle still under royal patronage and being hunted by George III. The Prince of Wales also kept beagles at Brighton. It is said that the prince was painted on horseback with his beagles, but it is possible this may be a mistake owing to the fact of his being better known as hunting beagles than was his father. We are of the opinion that the illustration we give is the one referred to as of George IV, from references to the height of the hounds made in comments on the picture. This, however, is his father, as it appears in the volume of “Sporting Anecdotes,” second edition, 1807, which leads off with a sketch entitled “His majesty, as a sportsman,” and George III. was then “his maj- esty.” Below this illustration and connected with it the page is filled out with a view of Windsor Park, with the castle in the distance, evidently added to show that it was at Windsor that the hunting was done. Of the Prince of Wales’s beagles we have a brief description in Colonel Thornton’s Sporting Tour through France, as he took passage from Brigh- ton and while there visited the kennels and described what he saw as follows: “You are perfectly aware of my partiality for everything referring to the chase, and that predeliction naturally led me to inspect the Prince of Wales’s dog kennels, but more particularly his dwarf beagles, which were originally of the same breed as my own. “Here I must observe that the beagle, in point of height, should be reg- ulated by the country he is to hunt in, but he ought, at any rate, to be very low. Ina dry country, free from walls, the beagle cannot be too low, but where there are such impediments he should be larger, to prevent being stopped by fences, as also when the waters are out he is better calculated for swimming. In the country where my pack hunts, the turf is like velvet, a circumstance much in their favour. The prince’s beagles are of a much larger growth than mine, and mixed, but it is a rule with me in the breed of all animals to get the most stuff in the least room, in consequence of which I naturally give the preference to my own pack.” That unfortunately is all he says about the prince’s beagles, and he then goes on to say more about speed in beagles. He held that the lower dog necessarily got the better scent, but in point of speed “they all go too fast.” When they sheeted well and carried a good head in a hilly, open country, there was no chance for the horses to get eased and they became speedily distressed, more so than in foxhunting, where the manoeuvres of the fox and the necessity for frequent casts enabled the horses to get occasional rests. Sona bdaa f B WINDHOLME’S ROBINO KING GEORGE III. WINDHOLME'S FATE II. With his Beagles at Windsor CH BANGLE : NEKAYAH A former winning four of the Windholme Kennels “LAP BEAGLES” Reinagle’s painting of Colonel Thornton’s beagles, THE BEAGLE From Daniel’s ‘Rural Sports,’’ 1802. From a painting by Gilpin The Beagle 653 Of course the horses used in his days were much slower than modern hunters which are nearly thoroughbreds. Colonel Thornton’s own beagles were famous and in the sketch of his life, included in the same volume of “Sporting Anecdotes” there is a list of his best known horses and dogs, including under the head of beagles this mention: “Merryman—This celebrated dog is sire of a pack, which ex- ceeds all others for symmetry, bottom, and pace. The beagles of Colonel Thornton will tire the strongest hunters and return to the kennel compara- tively fresh.”” What the Colonel’s beagles look like is admirably shown in the painting by Reinagle. The title to this engraving is “Lap dog beagles”’ but the tell-tale “T”’ denotes who they belonged to. Chalon also painted a group with the “T,” but they look like little pigs. Stubs also painted beagles, said to be Thornton’s, but they are not hounds like Reinagle’s lot. Sufficient has been said about the beagle when he was in the height of popularity in England, for after Colonel Thornton’s day foxhunting became the supreme hound-sport and beagles were neglected as time went on. What further need be said‘in connection with English dogs will appear in speaking of importations to this country. Little is known of the beagle in America before 1876, which was about the time, General Rowett of Illinois got some from England. This gentle- man had on his Carlinsville farm a collection of the highest bred horses and cattle in the United States and he took the same course in getting his dogs of the best stamp obtainable, so that Rowett beagle meant a dog of the very best type, and they were eagerly sought for by all beagle breeders. Southern Pennsylvania and Delaware with Maryland were the beagle countries best known at that time, and throughout that section there was a variety which went by the name of “bench-legged beagle” from its crooked forelegs. In some of these dogs there was a cross of the dachshund, quite a number of that breed having been imported by Dr. Twaddell and a few other sportsmen of Philadelphia for rabbit hunting. Whether all of these beagles got their crooked forelegs from this cross we cannot say, but there were plenty that did and some were said to trace to dogs from Prince Albert’s dogs at Wind- sor. If these imported dogs were not English beagles then they were likely dachshunds. Classes for these dogs were given at early Philadelphia and Baltimore shows, but with the establishment of the first beagle club by the Philadelphia breeders attention was directed in the proper direction and we began breeding the right sort exclusively. 654 The Dog Book In addition to the Rowett beagles in Illinois there was a strain kept by Captain Assheton in Virginia, imported from the kennels of Sir William Ashburnham. These were a rangier type than the Rowetts and quite a number of them were pied and mottled. One well known beagle of this strain was Blue Cap and the name of “bluecaps”’ was not infrequently given to dogs tracing to the Assheton dogs. ‘These kennels had little to do with the breeding of the large number of dogs called beagles, for these varied greatly in size, some being little toys while others ran to the height of 16 inches. Mrs. White of Cleveland showed the toy kind very successfully while Dan O’Shea was always to be depended upon to bring some good ones of the hound type from London, Ont. About the first dog to make his mark outside of O’Shea’s Rattler was imported Bannerman, which came from the pack of small beagles bred by Mr. J. Crane who hunted foot beagles as near to nine inches as he could breed them. Bannerman was, however, a good sized dog and his success on the bench made him very popular as a sire, so that hethad much influence on the breed in the way of shorter backs, but he also did away in a great meas- ure with markings, many of his get being nearly all white. Another prom- inent dog which followed him was Frank Forrest, bred by Mr. George F. Reed, of Barton, Vt., but brought out by Mr. Arthur Parry, of Linden, Mass. The great success of this dog had more to do than anything we know of in making Massachusetts a beagle state and improving the breed throughout — New England. In the early nineties beagles were bred in great numbers, but they were not of the kind we are now accustomed to see; lacking the miniature hound type of head and body, with the good legs and feet we associate with the hound. To no one more than the late Mr. James L. Kernochan is due the change which set in about ten years ago. Mr. Kernochan rode with the hounds and wanted beagles that looked like hounds. To get what he wanted he imported several very good dogs and their success set the fashion in his direction. His Hempstead beagles on more than one occasion proved al- most invincible at New York and from that time we have seen no change and only improvement in the type of American beagle. Not only are beagles of this stamp good to look at, but they are success- ful in the field at the many field trials held annually throughout the country, a state of affairs we do not find in the field trials for setters and pointers, the winners at these being in very few instances capable of taking honours at The Beagle 655 shows. The breed is noticeable in another respect and that is the number of individual fanciers who breed good dogs, so that we have advanced to the position where importations have become very scarce. The result is better values for home-bred dogs, as will always be the case when an end is put to the sending of money to England for dogs to beat the American-breds. When Mr. Kernochan gave up his beagles some of the best of them were secured by Mr. Higginson of the Middlesex Hunt, near Boston and Mr. Cas-. well of the Round Plains hunt, also a Boston institution, but it cannot be said that they had much influence in the improvement of the breed and dogs now winning have little of their blood. The most successful dogs now being shown are bred from later impor- ' tations, mainly from those of Mr. H. T. Peters and Mr. Rockefeller. The former with his Windholmes and the latter with his Rock Ridges have raised the standard very much over even what was accomplished by Mr. Kernochan, and these gentlemen are now showing dogs of their own breeding which equal anything they have imported. In addition we have many who breed on a much less extensive scale and yet manage to get a share of the prizes at even our best shows. Mr. Ernest Lester Jones, of Madison, N. J., Mr. Saxby, Mr. Shallcross and many others that might be named are always to be reckoned with as formidable opponents in the show ring as well as at the beagle trials where they compete. Mr. Barnard of Bryn Mawr is another whose entries are frequent and whose success must be gratifying when the severity of the competition is considered. Upon his shoulders now depends the upholding of interest in the beagle in the Philadelphia district, which was at one time the centre of the fancy. Perhaps it would be better if the Windholme and Rock Ridge kennels “were not so strong and so divide up the winning a little more than has been the case of late years, but so long as all rely upon American-bred dogs there is an element of equality which does not exist in breeds where the winners are purchased abroad at prices beyond the means of all but the wealthiest fanciers. No true fancier objects to being beaten by a fellow breeder, for that is very different from having one’s efforts discounted by the expenditure of several thousands of dollars in the purchase of a foreign-bred dog. The National Beagle Club of America, which took the place of the or- iginal American English-beagle Club is the one which takes care of the show section of the fancy as well as the holding of the most important of the many 656 The Dog Book field trial meetings, and the standard which the old club drew up has been slightly altered by the present club to read as follows: DescrIPTIVE PARTICULARS Head.—The skull should be fairly long, slightly domed at occiput, with cranium broad and full. Ears.—Ears set on moderately low, long, reaching when drawn out if nearly, not quite, to the end of the nose; fine texture, fairly broad—with almost entire absence of erectile power—setting close to the head with the forward edge slightly inturning to the cheek—rounded at tip. Eyes.—Eyes large, set well apart—soft and houndlike—expression gen- tle and pleading; of a brown or hazel colour. Muzzle.—Muzzle of medium length—straight and square cut—the top moderately defined. faws.—Level. Lips free from flews; nostrils large and open. Dejects.—A very flat skull, narrow across the top; excess of dome; eyes small, sharp and terrier-like, or prominent and protruding; muzzle long, snipey or cut away decidedly below the eyes, or very short. Roman-nosed, or upturned, giving a dishface expression. Ears short, set on high or with a tendency to rise above the point of origin. Body, Neck and T broat.—Neck rising free and light from the shoulders, strong in substance yet not loaded, of medium length. The throat clean and free from folds of skin, a slight wrinkle below the angle of the jaw, however, may be allowable. Defects.—A thick, short, cloddy neck carried on a line with the top of the shoulders. Throat showing dewlap and folds of skin to a degree termed “throatiness.” Shoulders and Chest.—Shoulders sloping—clean, muscular, not heavy or loaded—conveying the idea of freedom of action with activity and strength Chest deep and broad, but not broad enough to interfere with the free play of the shoulders. Defects Straight, upright shoulders. Chest disproportionately wide or with lack of depth. Back, Loin and Ribs.—Back short, muscular and strong. Loin broad and slightly arched, and the ribs well sprung, giving abundance of lung room. The Beagle 657 Defects—Very long or swayed or roached back. Flat narrow loin. Flat ribs. Forelegs.—Straight, with plenty of bone in proportion to size of the dog. Pasterns short and straight. Feet.—Close, round and firm. Pad full and hard. Defects.—Out at elbows. Knees knuckled over forward or bent back- ward. Forelegs crooked or dachshund-like. Feet long, open or spreading. Hips and Thighs.—Strong and well muscled, giving abundance of propelling power. Stifles strong and well let down. Hocks firm, symmet- rical and moderately bent. Feet close and firm. Defects.—Cow hocks, or straight hocks. Lack of muscle and propel- ling power. Open feet. T ail.—Set moderately high; carried gaily, but not turned forward over the back; with slight curve; short as compared with size of the dog; with brush. Defects.—A long tail. Tea pot curve or inclined forward from the root. Rat tail with absence of brush. Coat.—A close, hard, hound coat of medium length. Defect.—A short thin coat, or of a soft quality. Height.—Height not to exceed 15 inches; measured across the back at the point of the withers, the dog standing in a natural position with his feet well under him. Color.—Any true hound colour. General A ppearance.—A miniature fox-hound, solid and big for his in- ches, with the wear-and-tear look of the dog that can last in the chase and follow his quarry to the death. ScALE OF Points SKULL 4 axsrenkesssesews 5 Back, Loins and Ribs... 15 BAYS osveideeeneugs esas 10 Ports > sccesareenenee 10 Eves wascnewavanaeers 5 Hips, Thighs and Hindlegs 10 Miurgle cave ivavewtanes 6 RSE esate ckaemen anwar 10 Nek cabs rtexwcsaunes 5 MSR aa a hie eels re 5 Chest and Shoulders..... 1S Bhi ce area cuseiae 5 CHAPTER LIII Tue Basset HE French short-legged hound which in England has the | compound name basset-hound has never been popular in America. Why there should be the addition of “hound” to Tay the name is not easy to understand for in its native country it has always been simply the basset. The late Everett Millais was the first to introduce the dog in England and wrote the descrip- ‘tion of the breed for Shaw’s “Book of the Dog.” So far as it went his de- scription was good enough, but he made no attempt to go into old history. Buffon describes it and names two varieties, which were the crooked and the straight-legged types. But Millais makes the mistake of saying that the latter were the petit chiens courant, or small running hound. The proba- bility is that these dogs were descendants from the old breed of greffiers, the dogs bred from the white St. Hubert hounds and the hound from Italy, or else from the St. Hubert hounds direct. These were dogs used on the liam and it is easy to understand that a dog which held its nose low to the ground by reason of its short legs would be preferred to one which had to make an effort to get his nose aslow. We are very much of the opinion that the basset is the dog most entitled to be considered a direct descendant of the dogs which the Abbots of St. Hubert had to contribute annually to the king’s kennels and which were used mainly for tracking on the liam. Buffon and other old French authorities held that the crooked legs were the result of rickets. In the “ Dictionairre d’Historie Naturelle” it was stated that the crooked-legged variety were esteemed the best and that this originated in a malady similar to “achitis” which was transmitted as a deformity to their descendants. It was finally held to be indicative of purity as we find in “La Chasse au Tir,” Paris, 1827:— “Deux Bassets bien dressés, Médor avec Brissant is ekie a git ac attee eae eraser Leur baroque structure Vous announce déja qu’ils sont de race pure.” 659 660 The Dog Book As all abnormally long-bodied and short-legged dogs have a tendency to crooked forelegs in order to get balance, there is no reason to believe that the basset got his crooked legs from rickets any more than neglected short- legged dogs, where selection of straight legs is made essential, become bad fronted when selection is not attended to. Colonel Thornton on his visit to France at the close of the eighteenth century saw these bassets and called them bloodhounds, described how they were led in tracking game to their resting places, and the one illustrated in his book he bought at the St. Germains kennels and took to England with him. Mr. Millais introduced the basset to English dog shows in 1875, but it was not until Wolverhampton show of 1880 that they got their real start there. At that show Mr. Millais made a large entry and they attracted great attention. The late George R. Krehl then took up the breed and it became slightly popular, on account of its quaintness, and “There is such a lot to breed for,?’ Mr. Krehl explained. This difficulty in breeding good dogs caused many to give them up in England, and except at the large shows the basset is relegated to the variety classes. In America very few have been shown. Occasionally a new hand gets a brace or two and secures classes at New York show and then drops out after a brief trial. Mr. Higginson was the last to try them and got two couples of the rough variety to see whether they would not do as well as the beagles used by the Middlesex Hunt of Massachusetts, but they did not give satisfaction and the hunt graduated to English foxhounds. The simplest way to describe the basset is to say he is a large dachshund with a head much like a bloodhound. The illustrations we give are suffi- cient to show what the dog was and now is without any descriptive particulars. Photograph by 1. Fall, London CH. QUEEN OF THE GEISHA Owned by Mr. J. W. Proctor, England Photograph by Baker, Birmingham LOCKLY Property of H. M. King Edward VII. BASSETS From a French publication of about 1840 FRENCH HOUND bet, Purchased by Colonel Thornton during his tour in Property of ts aM He Higginson, France in 1802 and called by him a Clenier or blood- So. Lincoln, Mass. hound,” but in French a ériguet. See page 597 ROUGH BASSETS CHAMPION PARSIFAL CH. YOUNG PHCENOMEN, Jr. Property of Mr. and Mrs. Karl A. Keller, Wellesley, Mass. Property of Dr. C. Motschenbacher, New Vork . Peas mass anata CH. SMARTY WALDINE HANNAH M. Property of Mr. S. K. Gibson, Lowell, Mass. Property of Dr. C. Motschenbacher, New York HANSEL VON LICHTENSTEIN German Champion—bred and owned by F. M. Widmann, Nuremberg. the loan of these photographs, thus describes Hansel: ‘‘ He is the soundest, lowest and longest dog I know of. He has bone, true shoulders, perfect feet and a non-faddist head. Money has never been able to buy him. Mr. Muss Arnolt, to whom we are indebted for CHAPTER LIV Tue DacusuunpD =———HHE dachshund is the only dog classified as a sporting dog by fj the American Kennel Club which is neither a hound nor a dog exclusively used with the gun. That it is used occasion- ally as a hound in the sense that it follows rabbits and hares by scent as does a beagle, does not alter the fact that it is essentially a dog that goes to earth and is therefore a terrier. Its name of badger dog is all the evidence needed on that point, and that it can be made use of as a beagle does not alter the fact that it is properly an earth dog, any more than the occasional use of fox terriers for rabbit cours- ing makes them whippets. ‘They are now recognized as essentially a dog of Germany, although there can be no doubt that they were found throughout Western Europe at an early date. The description of the French dogs, given in the old French sporting books copied by early English writers as apply- ing to English terriers, leaves no doubt as to the dachshund being then a dog known and used in France. It is very true that they were called bassets, but what we know as bassets could not have gone to earth, and the name was at that time merely indicative of their being low dogs, though it must be ad- mitted that the name was also applied to the taller, rough dog. Appar- ently the French gave up the small, smooth, crooked-legged dog, and it remained for the Germans to continue his use and develop him into the teckel, or dachshund, whose peculiar formation has turned many a penny for the comic newspaper illustrator. Notwithstanding the distinctly German origin of the modern dachshund, it is due to the English fanciers to state that they were the pioneers in giving the dog the distinction of a specialty club, for as early as 1881' there was a dachshund club in England, and that was not established until the breed had been recognised for eight years as entitled to individual classification. The Crystal Palace show of 1873, not Birmingham in 1872, as given by Mr. Marples in “Show dogs,” was the first to give a class for the breed which, from 1866 up to that time, had been included in the class for foreign sporting 661 662 The Dog Book dogs. Later, in 1873, Birmingham followed the Kennel Club lead and gave its first class for dachshunds. The meaning of the German word “hund” not being so well known as it should have been in England, led to the breed being given a class in the stud book of 1874, under the title of ‘ Dachshunds _(or German Badger Hounds),” in place cf badger dogs, and this led to their being considered hounds and bred for hound heads in place of the correct terrier type. Indeed, it was not until the winter of 1883-84 that Mr. George Krehl, returning from a visit to Germany, took up the question of type and led the change to that of the German dog. We were in England in Decem- ber and well recollect his talk on the subject and his saying that they had been all wrong in England, but he doubted whether it would be possible to affect the change which he intended advocating in The Stockkeeper, which he then edited. Doubtless the dachshund had been brought to America in the early “70’s, but we think the first systematic importation of the dog for use in the field was made by Dr. Twadell, of Philadelphia, who got them for rabbiting, and there was a good deal of discussion as to their merits as compared with the longer legged beagles. Dr. Downey, of Newmarket, Md., and Mr. Seitner, of Dayton, O., then took them up, and we have always been of the opinion that the “bench-legged beagles” of Delaware and Maryland had their origin in crosses with these early importations of beagles. There use as field dogs soon died out in favour of the beagle, and after that they must be regarded as show dogs, even admitting that they are favourite dogs with many Germans who go afield after rabbits with their Waldmans and Gretchens. Whether it is that Dr. Motschenbacker, of New York, has such a very strong kennel that he has but one opponent of any consequence, we cannot say, but on his shoulders, and those of Mr. and Mrs. Kellar, has fallen the duty of upholding the breed, so far as the Eastern shows are concerned, and it is seldom that any other exhibitor gets in ahead of these exhibitors, who have done wonders in breeding and showing winners from their own kennels. The one exception in the East is Mr. R. Murray Bohlen, who has kept dachshunds for a good many years and the puppies he recently showed at the Atlantic City exhibition proved that he had some good breeding material. The Dachshund 663 by reproductions of photographs what the best dogs look like, than to convey a clear impression to any person who has never seen one. His one distinct peculiarity is also that of the basset, the crooked forelegs, which is nothing but a deformity now scientifically bred. ‘That this deformed foreleg is of any practical use in digging underground, we cannot believe. Perhaps we should say that its being better than the short, straight leg of the terriers which go to ground is not our opinion, and we put that idea away with the old-time belief that the loose dewclaw of the St. Bernard helped the dog to walk in, or on, the snow. At the present day, it appears from some recent remarks of Mr. Marples, that there is an attempt at doing away, in a great measure, with the dachshund front by English breeders. He writes as follows: “In these later days, there has been a tendency in England to moderate the crook of the dachshund . . . I cannot, however, go so far in the craze for sound fronts as to accept a straight-legged dachshund, as some judges do.”’ In this, Mr. Marples is quite correct, for it is purely a fancy breed, and whether these fronts are deformities, or not, does not matter, usage and standards have made them properties of the dachshund, and it is just as easy to breed sound fronts as straight fronts; that is, legs that are properly crooked, so that the dog stands true on his feet and does not “run over,” as a man does who fails to put his foot down squarely as he walks. We recognise it as a part of the breed, while we dissent from the claim that it is essentially useful in digging underground. The German standard goes to great length in describing the dachs- hund, indulging in technicalities and minuteness of detail such as we find in no English standard. There seems also to be considerable difficulty in getting a good translation into language common to dog standards. The combination of a dog man who thoroughly understands German and has an equally good English education, does not seem to have been secured for the translation of this standard. The English long have had a short, clearly written standard, but it differs in several points from the German code, and, as the latter is the one in use here, that alone will be of service. We have seen three translations, and the one which seems clearest to the English reader is the one we give. It is better in its divisions into paragraphs, and clearer in its phraseology. The best part of the German standard is the illustrations, which show the ideal, and the faulty, con- formation. 664 The Dog Book DeEscrIPTIVE PARTICULARS General Appearance.—Dwarfed, short-legged, elongated, but stiff figure, muscular. Notwithstanding the short limbs and long body, neither appearing stunted, awkward, incapable of movement, nor yet lean and weasel-like; with pert, saucy pose of the head and intelligent expression. Head.—Elongated, and, as seen from above and from the side, tapering toward the point of the nose, sharply outlined and finely modelled, particu- larly in profile. Skull.—Neither too wide nor too narrow, only slightly arched, and run- ning gradually without break (stop) (the less the break (stop) the better the type), into a well-defined and slightly arched nasal bone. Eyes.—Medium sized, oval, set obliquely, clear and energetical ex- pression. Except the silver colour of the grey and spotted dogs and the yellow eyes of the brown dogs, the colour is a transparent brown. Nose.—Point and root long and slender, very finely formed. Lips.—Tightly stretched, well covering the lower jaw, neither deep nor snipy, with corner of mouth slightly marked. Faws.—Capable of opening wide, extending to behind the eyes. T ceth.—Well-developed, particularly the corner teeth; these latter fit- ting exactly. Incisors fitting each other, or the inner side of the upper incisors touching the outer side of the lower. Ears.—Relatively well back, high, and well set on, with forward edge lying close to the cheeks; very broad and long, beautifully rounded (not narrow, pointed, or folded), very mobile, as in all intelligent dogs; when at attention, the back of the ear directed forward and upward. Neck.—Sufhciently long, muscular, lean, no dewlap, slightly arched in the nape, running in graceful lines between the shoulders, usually carried high and forward. Shoulders.—Long, broad, and set sloping, lying firmly on fully de- veloped thorax; muscles hard and plastic. Chest.—Corresponding with his work underground, muscular, compact; the region of chest and shoulders deep, long, and wide; breast bone, strong and so prominent as to show a hollow on each side. Back.—In the case of sloping shoulders and hind quarters, short and The Dachshund 665 back behind shoulders only slightly sunk and only slightly arched near the loins. Trunk.—Ribs full, oval, with ample width for heart and lungs, deep and hanging low between forelegs, well sprung out toward loins, loins short and tight and broad, line of belly moderately drawn up, and joined to hind quarters with loosely stretched skin. Hind Quarters—Rump round, full, broad, muscles hard and plastic; pelvis bone not too ‘short, broad and strongly developed, set moderately sloping. Fore Legs.—Upper arm of equal length with, and at right angles to, shoulders, strong-boned and well muscled, lying close to ribs, but moving _ freely up to shoulder blade. Lower arm short, as compared with other animals, slightly inclined inward; strongly muscled and plastic toward front and outside, inside and back parts stretched by hard tendons. Hind Legs.—Thigh bone strong, of good length, and joined to pelvis at right angles; thighs strong and with hard muscles; buttocks well rounded out; knee joint developed in length; lower leg short in comparison with other animals, at right angles to thigh bone, and firmly muscled; ankle bones well apart, with strong, well-sprung heel and broad Achilles tendons. Feet.—Fore feet broad and sloping outward; hind feet smaller and nar- rower; toes always close together, with distinct bend in each toe; nails strong and regularly pointed outward; thick soles. T ail.—Set on at medium height and firmly; not too long, tapering with- out too great curvature, not carried too high, well (but not too much) haired. (A brush tail is, however, better than one without, or with too little, hair; for to breed a weather-proof coat must always be the aim.) Coat.—Short, thick as possible, glossy, greasy (not harsh and dry), equall ycovering entire body (never showing bare spots). Colour.—(a) Single-coloured: Red, yellowish-red, yellow or red or yellow with black points; but one colour only is preferable, and red is better than yellowish red, and yellow. White is also allowed. Nose and nails black, red also permitted, but not desirable. (b) Two-coloured: Deep black, or brown, or grey, each with yellow or reddish brown spots over the eyes, on the sides of the jaws and lower lips, onthe inner rim of ear, on the breast, on the inside and back of legs, under the tail, and from there down one third to one half of the under side of the tail. 666 The Dog Book Nose and nails black in black dogs, brown in brown dogs, grey in grey dogs, and also flesh colour. In one and two-coloured dogs, white is permissible, but only to the smallest possible extent, as spot or small streaks on breast. (c) Spotted: Ground is a shining silver grey, or even white with dark, irregular spots (large spots are undesirable), of dark grey, brown, yellowish red, or black. Neither the light nor the dark colours should predominate. The main factor is such a general appearance that, at some distance, the dog shall show an indefinite and varied colour which renders him particularly useful as a hunting dog. The russet-brown marks are darker in darker-spotted dogs, and yellower in the lighter ones, and there may be an indication of these in the case of a white foundation. Light eyes are permitted; when the ground colour is white, a flesh-coloured or spotted nose is not afault. White marks are not desirable in dark dogs, but are not to be regarded as faults which disqualify. Height at Shoulder.—7} to 8§ inches. Weight.—Divided into three classes: Light-weight: Dog under 16 Ibs.; bitches under 154 lbs. Medium-weight: Dogs from 16} to 22 Ibs.; bitches, 15% to 22 Ibs. Heavy-weight: Dogs and bitches over 22 lbs. Defects.—Too weak or crippled, too high or too low on legs; skull too wide, too narrow, or too much arched; ears set on too high, too heavy, or too short; also set on too low and narrow, or long or slack; stop too pro- nounced and goggle-eyes; nasal bone too short or pressed in; lips too pointed or too deep; over-shot; short, developed neck; fore legs badly de- veloped, twisted, or poorly muscled, hare-footed or flat-spread toes; too deeply sunk behind shoulders, i.e., hollow-backed; loins too much arched and weak; ribs too flat or too short; rump higher than shoulders; chest too short or too flat; loins arched like a greyhound; hind quarters too narrow and poor in muscle; cow-hocked; tail set on high, and carried too high or too much curled; too thin, long, or hairless (rat-tailed); coat too thick, too coarse, too fine, or too thin; colour dead, dull, or too much mixed. In black dogs with russet-brown marks (tan), these latter should not extend too far, particularly on the ears. CHAPTER LV THe PoopLe HE POODLE undoubtedly originated from the spaniel and has quite a presentable number of varieties in its own family. The closeness of resemblance between the Maltese dog and the small white poodle, usually called the Toy French poodle 1 is too strong to admit of any question as to their being the same dog. Buffon states this as a fact, the toy poodle then going by the name of lion dog on account of his being clipped so as to show a mane and a tuft at the end of the tail. The smaller water spaniel was the poodle and the old fashioned large water spaniel was a selection from the same water- loving family of dogs. The resemblance between the Irish Water spaniel and the poodle is something no person can fail to recognise. When the custom of trimming the poodle came into use is not easily ‘determined. Markham shows his “Water Dogge” with the poodle trim- med coat, half of the body being clipped and says it was done to make it easier for the dog to swim. Clipping the dog in winter was deprecated as cruel. About the same time as the Markham woodcut, which is shown in the introduction to the Spaniel family, facing page 90, we have the similarly trimmed dog in a number of paintings an example of which is shown in the dancing dog by Stein, 1636-1678. Stein is the man seated at the table with the violin on his knee. The poodle is fancifully clipped with a ring of hair at half length of the tail and a tuft on the thigh. Buffon’s lion dog is a black dog, but as he says that this dog and the Maltese or shock dog were the same and illustrates the latter as a white dog it shows that there was variety in colour then as now. Hogarth has a clipped poodle in one of his paintings, but as already stated this dog was the water spaniel of England and was well known in his trimmed condition more than one hundred years before Hogarth was born. It is probable that his being taken up as a house dog and companion was an introduced fashion from France, where he may also have been fancifully trimmed and with no idea such as Markham advises. In the reproduction 667 668 The Dog Book of the painting of Captain Fleming and his hawks, facing page 289, a good black poodle is shown at the left hand, trimmed to fashion and we rather fancy that this was a favourite house dog, with this good old sportsman whose pointer, spaniels and horse showed that only the best would please his critical eye. A very fanciful sketch of 1817 shows a clipped poodle in ad- dition to some curiosities in the way of fashion exaggerations of that period. The only approach to the Russian or corded poodle is the old large rough water dog of England, which by care might be considered as capable of producing the length of ringlets seen in the corded dog. We are told by poodle authorities that conspicuously distinct as the curly and corded vari- eties seen to be they are nevertheless the same and if the floor dragging ropes of the corded dog are untwisted and combed out the dog becomes a curly, but if left to his own devices again will proceed to develop cords. Our personal experience with this dog is confined to seeing him benched and kenneled, but there seems no doubt when such an authority as Mrs. Crouch writes to the “Twentieth Century Dog Book”’ that her champion Pilot had cords that touched the ground and she combed him out and showed him as curly. Whether there is a distinct variety or the coats have become mixed by introduction of foreign strains we are not in a position to say as it was of continental manufacture if not English. There is no question however that what was shown here as the Caniche or French poodle about twenty years ago, were decidedly smaller than the curly dogs of to-day. They were thicker set with more width of head than the fine headed poodles we now see. That these Caniche poodles were of high class we are not pre- pared to say, but they were clever-looking dogs and were imported or brought over by persons who were of the class that want only the best. Mr. H. H. Hunnewell was the last successful exhibitor of this style of dog, and even after the advent of Mr. Trevor’s Milo and his kennel com- panions Mr. Hunnewell still won in the classes for reds, but his blacks were outstyled by the dogs shown by Mr. Trevor. The latter had several years of almost uninterrupted success and unfortunately decided to discontinue exhibiting just at the time when competition promised to become keen owing to the getting together of a strong kennel by Miss Lucille Alger, who shows as the Red Brook Kennels and who now has Miss Grace as her asso- ciate in ownership. The Red Brook kennels has not confined its aim to any colour in curly poodle, but has taken the lead in all varieties, black, white red, blue, amber and silver grey, the latter two colours not being included CH. ORCHARD MINSTREL Property of the Red Brook Kennels, Great Neck, L 1. CLIPPED TO FASHION IN 1817 The height of style in the swells of that period CH. SHYLOCK FOUR OF A KIND Property of Mrs, M. A. Raikes, Bred by Mrs. Henry Jarrett, Germantown, Pa. Windermere, Eng. Photaeradh by F. M. Sutcliffe, W hitby CH. KIOLI WHOLE COLOURED CHOW hs ' A dog ee ald WEE: showing cream shadings. Owned by Property of Mrs. B. F. Moore, Hindeiwell, Yorkshire . F. Moore, Hinderwell, Yorkshire A GROUP OF MRS. B. F. MOORE’S CHOWS CH. CHINESE CHUM Property of Mrs. Chas. E. Proctor, New York The Poodle 669 in the list given in the standard published by the Poodle Club of England nor in that of the Curly Poodle Club, which makes a few changes from the standard of the club which fosters both curly and corded. In America we have had few specimens of the corded poodle, but the small toy poodle is one that has many friends. Most of these small speci- mens are shown in natural coat but of late many are being exhibited clipped in the fashion of the larger dogs. These small poodles are frequently seen in paintings of fashionable ladies of a century ago and earlier, as is shown in the exquisite likeness of Mrs. Fitzherbert, wife of George IV. Many are seen with the longer flossy coat of the Maltese dog, which emphasises the close affinity between the breeds. DEscrIPTIVE PARTICULARS General appearance.—That of a very active, intelligent and elegant looking dog, well built and carrying himself very proudly. Head.—Long straight and fine, the skull not broad, with a slight peak at the back. Muzzle.—Long (but not snipy) and strong, not full in the cheek; teeth white, strong and level; gums black; not showing lippyness. Eyes——Almond shaped, very dark, full of fire and intelligence. Nose.—Black and sharp. Ears.—The leather long and wide, set on low, hanging close to the face. Neck.—Well proportioned and strong, to admit of the head being carried high and with dignity. Shoulders.—Strong and muscular, sloping well to the back. Chest.—Deep and moderately wide. Back.—Short and strong, and slightly hollowed, the loins broad and muscular, the ribs well sprung and braced up. Feet.—Rather small and of good shape, the toes well arched, pads thick and hard. Legs.—Forelegs set straight from the shoulders, with plenty of bone and muscle; hind legs very muscular and well bent, with the hocks well let down. T ail.—Set on rather high and well carried; never curled over the back. Coat.—Very profuse and of good hard texture; if corded, hanging in tight, even curls; if non-corded, very thick and strong, of even length, the curls close and thick, without knots or cords. 670 The Dog Book Colours.—All black, all white, all red, all blue.* The white poodle should have dark eyes, black or very dark liver nose, lips and toe-nails. The red poodle should have dark amber eyes, dark liver nose, and toe-nails. The blue poodle should be of even colour, and have dark eyes, lips and toe-nails. All other points of white, red and blue poodles should be the same as the perfect black poodle. It is strongly recommended that only one-third of the body be clipped or shaved, and that the hair on the forehead be left on. ScALE OF PoINTs General appearance and Shape of body, loin, back movement............ 15 and carriage oftail ... 15 Head andears ........... 15 Legs and feet.......... 10 Eyes and expression. .... 10 Coat, colour and texture Of COAti 6 eo aarpawernss 15 Neck and shoulders........ 10 Bone muscle and condition 10 Motal grens ta ccioudie cookie oie koe Be Min EO Ee ee 100 *[In addition to the other colours mentioned we have recently seen a very pretty well-divided- up black and white, which was a very attractive colour. There seems to be no valid reason why colour should be restricted in any way, but each colour should be sound and good of itself, the white clear, the black dense and free from rust; the blue of a good shade and even, and so with the amber and cream. — J. W.] CHAPTER LVI THe CHow =| XACTLY where the idea originated that the chow dog of @| China is the common mongrel of that country is another “Jost in the mists of antiquity.” Mongrels are common enough in that country, but the chow has long:been an estab- lished breed and one well known to those acquainted with ‘the Orient. No dog of such marked peculiarities can be a mongrel or cur dog and it was the same a hundred years ago as now. In Daniel’s “Rural Sports” (1801) there is this information: “Mr. White describes a Chinese dog and bitch, brought from Canton, where they are fattened on rice meal and other farinaceous food for the table, as being about the size of a spaniel; colour pale yellow, with coarse bristling hairs on their backs, sharp erect ears and peaked fox-like heads. Their hind legs with no bend at the hock or ham, and so unusually straight ° as to cause an awkward gait in trotting. When in motion their tails are curved high over their backs, and have naturally a bare place on the outside, from the tip half way down. ‘Their eyes are jet black, small and piercing; inside of their lips and mouths of the same colour, and their tongues blue. These dogs did not relish flesh, yet were taken on board so early from the dam that they could not acquire a preference for any particular kind of food, from her instruction or habits.” There is far too little foundation upon which to hazard speculation as to. the origin of this dog, with his dark coloured mouth and other peculiarities and there is exceedingly little history about the breed either in England or America. Specimens have been common enough in England, with its inti-. mate intercourse with China, for many years but it was not until about ten years ago that the breed emerged from the “Foreign class” at English dog shows and received an individual classification and recognition in the stud . book. With the establishment of a club to look after the interests of the breed in England it at once began to flourish and improvement set in so- that we get the best Chows from that country in place of from the land of 671 672 The Dog Book their origin. That is only natural when we recognise that breeding for points is an unknown quantity in the far East. In America the history of the chow as a show dog may be said to date from the time Dr. Jarrett went to San Francisco to judge the show there and took Mrs. Jarrett with him. That good fancier had to have some chows and it is to her we owe the promotion of the breed. Then Mrs. Proctor took a hand in exhibiting them and she was fora year or two alone as an exhibitor and having drawn her dogs from England she has had the advantage of securing better bred chows and more variety of colour than is easy to get from China direct. Mrs. Van Heusen has now joined the fancy, having bred from Mrs. Proctor’s stock and added importations thereto. In addition to variety in colour there is also a difference in coat, which is classified as rough and smooth. There seems to be some question as to this division being thoroughly sound, and from the few smooths we have seen we do not consider our opinion as of any value. In a letter from Dr. Ivy of Shanghai, he writes of the roughs and smooths as being apparently distinct. Dr. Ivy has good dog knowledge and his mention of the varieties in this manner is entitled to every consideration. At the same time what we have seen looked more like a half-bred in the way of coat, or a dog with a coat just coming in after having lost his old coat entirely. We leave the question open as chow breeders are not at all unanimous, and when author- ities are arguing it is as well for outsiders to let them settle the matter. The chow is a medium sized dog and is very stoutly built. It should not have the slightest appearance of being leggy, indeed with its outstanding body coat coming below the elbows there is a suggestion of being the least bit short on the leg. We have noticed in some of these English dogs a sus- picion of legginess which is certainly not correct. Forelegs straight as a terrier’s and somewhat heavy in bone, adding thereby to the appearance of stoutness, or sturdiness of frame. The head is short and this is made to appear still more so by the width of skull, the thickness and bluntness of muzzle, the forward pitch of the ears and the frill or mane encroaching on the cheeks and skull. The same straightness of hind legs, even to the extent of being double jointed is as evident now as it was in the case of the pair whose description was penned in 1800. Nearly all the contributors of views on the chow in “The Twentieth Century Dog” mention the proneness of the chow to take to sheep killing, which is much more serious in England than in America, for with us sheep are The Chow 673 very scarce where the chow is at all likely to be kept. It is not at all improb- able that in a few more generations of breeding this dog we may find quite a change in his disposition, one of the common traits being an aversion to strangers to a marked degree. Why this should be so in a dog from a country teeming with population is somewhat difficult to understand, but it is always a possibility for one of any litter of dogs to be entirely different in disposition from the others, even to the extent of timidity or fear of his owner or caretaker. DEscRIPTIVE PARTICULARS Head.—Skull flat and broad, with little stop, well filled out under the eye. : Muzzle—Moderate in length, broad from the eyes to the point (not pointed at the end like a fox). Nose.—Black, large and wide. In cream or light coloured specimens a pink nose is allowable. T ongue.—Black. Eyes——Dark and small. (In a blue dog light colour is permissible.) Ears.—Small, pointed and carried stiffly erect. They should be placed well forward over the eyes, which gives the dog the peculiar char- acteristic expression of the breed—viz. a sort of scowl. T eeth._—Strong and level. Neck.—Strong, full, set well on the shoulders, and slightly arched. Shoulders—Muscular and sloping. Chest.—Broad and deep. Back.—Short, straight and strong. Loins.—Powerful. T ail._Curled tightly over the back. Fore legs.—Perfectly straight, of moderate length and great bone. Hind legs—Same as fore legs, muscular, and with hocks well let down. (The standard is silent as to the straightness of hind legs and lack of bend at the stifle and hock joints, but this is nevertheless considered the proper formation of leg for the chow.) Feet.—Small, round and cat-like, standing well on the toes. Coat.—Abundant, dense, straight and rather coarse in texture, with a soft, woolly undercoat. 674 The Dog Book Colour.—Whole-coloured black, red, yellow, blue, white, etc., not in patches (the under part of tail and back of thighs frequently of a lighter colour). General A ppearance.—A lively, compact, short coupled dog, well knit in frame, with tail curled over the back. Disqualifying Points.—Drop ears, red tongue, tail not curled over the back, white spots on coat, and red nose, except in yellow or white specimens. Smooth chows are governed by the same description except that the coat is smooth. CHAPTER LVII ITALIAN GREYHOUND ROM the small running or coursing dog of the period illus- trated by Roman and Greek statuary to the small Italian greyhound was a much shorter journey for breeders to follow than the raising of the breed to the size and fame of the greyhound of England. We have not succeeded in finding any representation in old statuary of this pet hound, the ladies’ dogs which we have so far come across being Pomeranians, as we now call them, or to dogs that bore a resemblance to the Maltese dogs or French poodles. They seemed to be all long haired dogs and so distinct from the graceful outline of the Italian greyhound that if the latter was in existence at the time of the Roman Empire they were not the popular or fashionable dog. Between that period and the development of painting on canvas the Italian greyhound advanced to a leading position as a lady’s pet and appears also as the favourite of many prominent men, even associated with high church dignitaries and given prominence in paintings of important his- torical events. The weight of testimony is very decidedly in support of the correctness of the name, for these small dogs are far more often seen in Italian scenes or paintings with Italian afhliations than any other dog and are not by any means so frequently met with in paintings of other countries. A well known instance of this kind is the painting of the Italian consort of James II, by Paul Veronese. The dog is not a beauty, from our standard of quality, but he doubtless pleased Her Majesty just as well. Previous to that another royal portrait, that of Anne, the consort of James I of Eng- land has on the canvas a pet greyhound. While it is desirable to get a small Italian greyhound diminutive size is secondary to certain characteristics pertaining to the breed, which are unfortunately too frequently lost sight of by the ubiquitous all-round Judge to whom the duty of deciding upon the merits of the Italian greyhound is invariably given. It must be understood, first of all, that this is not a toy as to weight and that many of the very small dogs resembling Italians are 675 676 The Dog Book cross-bred specimens with terrier blood in them. The result of this cross is seen in the stiff ears, sometimes the button style, loss of the essential fore- action, and lack of the high symmetry in neck and carriage. There is no breed which shows more quality in conformation and movement than this one, when you get the genuine article, and you cannot blame the few who have bred and kept these dogs pure, from withdrawing from competition when their efforts are set at naught by half-bred terriers or whippets getting the prizes. We have seen at more than one show, dogs that looked like litter brothers to the whippets at the same show and these were the sort that won. A whippet or a half-bred terrier cannot show the prancing action of the true Italian and we have never allowed small size to take rank over this essential characteristic when it has been our lot to judge the breed. When you find this action and see that the ears do not indicate unde- sirable crosses then pick out as small a dog as possible that is not a physical wreck and devoid of muscle. In the matter of colour more latitude is now allowed than was the case years ago, when whole coloured fawns were about the only kind considered correct. The standard even now says that the golden fawn is preferred, but also allows red, mouse, blue, and as a less desir- able class of colours permits blacks, brindles and pied dogs. These stand- ard framers are supposed to know, but a brindle Italian—the horror of it! Could we have our way, we should draw close colour lines in this breed and make the limit fawn, cream and white, breaking down the barrier only in favor of fawn and white in the case of an exceptional dog. No blacks or blues or brindles, not even a strong red. Dr. Hoyt of Sharon, Pa. is the only exhibitor we know of in this country at the present time, all others, there never were many, having retired. The result is that no classes are now opened for the breed and when New York declines to do that then the breed is pretty nearly counted out altogether. They are not dogs one can send to shows and leave them to the help to look after, and until some person who has the inclination and the time to travel and systematically exhibit Italians there is little chance of there being any better provided for than they now are. The impression that they are very delicate dogs is erroneous and they can stand a fair amount of cold, for they are very active and scamper about as greyhounds do. They call for no more attention than do other toy dogs, are exceedingly neat in their habits and are always clean and in perfect trim when in good health and properly cared for. They have merits as drawing-room pets, far in advance of many Italian Greyhound 677 more highly fancied breeds and we commend the Italian greyhound to the attention of those seeking for something out of the hot struggles and the hurly-burly of dogdom. The Italian Greyhound Club of England has drawn up a standard and scale of points which is brief and suitable, our reservation being as to colour as explained above. DEscRIPTIVE PARTICULARS General A ppearance.—A miniature English greyhound, more slender in all proportions and of ideal elegance and grace in shape, symmetry and action. Head.—Skull long, flat and narrow. Muzzle very fine. Nose dark in colour. Ears rose shaped, placed well back, soft and delicate, and should touch or nearly so, behind the head. Eyes large, bright and full of expression. Body.—Neck long and gracefully arched. Shoulders long and sloping. Back curved and drooping at the quarters. Legs and feet.—Forelegs straight, well set under the shoulder; fine pasterns; small delicate bone. Hind-legs, hocks well let down; thighs muscular. Feet long—hare foot. Tail, coat and colour.—Tail rather long and with low carriage. Skin ‘fine and supple. Hair thin and glossy like satin. Preferably self-coloured. The colour most prized is golden fawn, but all shades of fawn—red, mouse, cream and white—are recognised. Blacks, brindles and pied are considered less desirable. Action.—High-stepping and free. Weight.—Two classes, one of 8 pounds and under, the other over 8 pounds. ScaLE OF PoINTs Head eeciucaingeeenss 20 Tail, coat andcolour ...... 15 Rody ax .touerernenens 20 IN GCEIOM suse exes dyna Seca ee Go 15 Legs and feet ........ 30 — Total. oa iweetatinaeene Sara 100 CHAPTER LVIII THe PoMERANIAN 7 IOWEVER applicable the name of Pomeranian or Spitz may g | be to the large sized dog bearing that title it is of doubtful correctness when applied to the toy dog. Long before there was any Pomerania this dog was a favourite pet of the Gre- cian and Roman ladies, and it was not until the late Queen Victoria went to Florence to spend a winter that we heard anything of the little dog which became so suddenly popular. The Queen brought Marco from Florence and it was for many years her favourite dog, while it will not be forgotten than one of her last requests was for another of her favourites, also a little Pom. It is first necessary to consider the dog originally known as the Pomeranian and the evidence points to this larger dog, weighing about 20 pounds, as almost invariably white. “Idstone”’ thirty-five years ago said that the colour should be a cold, flake-white “and frequently comes creamy and clay coloured.” He mentions that blacks have occasionally occured and instances one that he says was an undoubted specimen. Dal- ziel in his description of the breed says that the white should be a pure flake white, coloured patches, fawn, or other being objectionable and that al- though the fashion was so distinctly for a white dog he thought black, cream, fawn, red and buff should be encouraged. A much older description in the “‘Sportsman’s Cabinet,” 1802, says they were pale yellow or cream, some white, a few black, and very rarely spotted. Certainly the aim of breeders at the time of the early dog shows in England was to get a perfectly pure white dog, without any tendency to cream in the coat. All the old descriptions refer to the Pomeranian as being the sheep dog and wolf dog of their native country and it is evident that some of the breed must have been large dogs of the Norwegian elk hound type or akin to them. Considering the situation of Pomerania that is not improbable and accepting that is the origin, the variety we are considering was therefore the house dog, selected for size and bred with more care. They always had the general reputation of being snappish and as very unsuitable for children to 679 680 The Dog Book play with on that account. This reputation followed them to this country and for a year or two after 1880, there was so much talk about them as being prone to “develop” rabies that no entries of Pomeranians would be accepted at the New York show. It is so seldom that we see any of these large Pomeranians at the present time that it is unnecessary to say more about them and a good idea of what they were a century ago is shown in the Gainsborough painting of Mrs. Robinson. Such a dog is shown in the painting by Stubbs of which the quaint old gamekeeper and his peculiar setter, given in the English setter chapter, form a part. The toy Pomeranian includes dogs from 10 pounds down to about 5 pounds, but in these very diminutive specimens there is a tendency to develop the round or apple-headed skull which is too much a fault to be counter-balanced by the small size. Flatness of skull is something which should be more generally recognised as a requisite and then let size come in as desirable. In speaking of these small Pomeranians as more entitled to be called Italian even if bred throughout Western Europe it is worth while mentioning that Youatt calls them Italian or Pomeranian. Blaine does not mention the breed by either name quoting the Buffon title of Loup-Loup, which was the large dog, the sheep dog. It is not improbable that stray specimens of the small dog may have been brought to England years ago, but as we have said it was not until Queen Victoria brought Marco from Florence that the variety became at all known. There was then a rush to get the new dog and they speedily became the fashion in toys. In 1891 the Pomeranian Club of England was formed and this added zest to the fancy so that two years later at the Ladies’ Kennel Association show in London there were 422 entries of Pomeranians alone, the actual dogs being well over one hundred. American fanciers were not slow in getting some of the new breed and in 1899 the first of them were shown, the best display being at the Pet Dog Show where Mrs. Smyth of Germantown and Mrs. Williamson of New York showed some particularly nice dogs. Mrs. Avis and Mrs. Senn also exhibited at this show, and they are still exhibiting. Mr. Coombs was another early member of the fancy and he has shown some good whites for quite a number of years. The late Mr. Stedman and Mrs. Stedman were also very enthusiastic exhibitors and took great pride in their home- bred dogs. Mrs. Render, wife of Mr. Stedman’s business partner has also had a few good ones. We do not seem to have progressed to any great ex- The Pomeranian 681 tent, however, although the breed is always very well represented at the best shows. The additions to the ranks of exhibitors are not so numerous as was at one time promised, and the only ones of note have been Mrs. Mayhew, who has been very successful with the few dogs she has shown, quality rather than number being her guide; Mrs. Doran, who has a few good whites, Mrs. Macdonald of Toronto, who has lately been showing a nice one of her own breeding named Redcroft Darkie, and Mrs. Thomas. Considering the disadvantages our exhibitors have to contend against in the matter of the drier atmosphere as compared with what is the case in England the condition in which our Pomeranians are shown is very credit- able. There is no question, however, that the English climate is much better adapted for the growth of coats than is the case here and the first thing which an American visitor notices in connection with Pomeranians at English Shows is the grand quality of coat the dogs are shown in. At the present time there is much discussion in the English kennel papers regarding improper practices in preparing Pomeranians for exhibi- tion, but so far we have heard there is nothing of the kind in connection with our shows and it is to be hoped that this very unpleasant feature may never arise here. Those who follow closely and have introduced the English methods of preparing show dogs have thus far not taken to Pomeranians and as there is never likely to be the same amount of money at issue in Pomeranians as in the breeds which command their attention at the present time we are likely to have a clean bill of health for some time to come. As the large Pomeranian is never seen now it is quite unnecessary to give the old standards in vogue in the days of Stonehenge and Dalziel and that for the breed of the present day is as follows: DEscRIPTIVE PARTICULARS A ppearance.—The Pomeranian in build and appearance should be of a compact, short-coupled dog, weel knit inframe. His head and face should be fox-like, with small, erect ears that appear to be sensible to every sound. He should exhibit great intelligence in his expression, docility in his -dis- position, and activity and buoyancy in his deportment. Head.—The head should be somewhat foxy in outline, or wedge- shaped, the skull being slightly flat (although in the toy varieties the skull may be rather rounder), large in proportion to the muzzle, which should . 682 The Dog Book finish rather fine and be free from lippiness. The teeth should be level and on no account undershot. The head in its profile may exhibit a little stop, which, however, must not be too pronounced, and the hair on the head and face must be smooth or short-coated. Eyes.—The eyes should be medium size, rather oblique in shape, not set too wide apart, bright and dark in colour, showing great intelligence and docility of temper. In the white dog black rims around the eyes are preferable. Ears.—The ears should be small, not set too wide apart nor too low down, and carried perfectly erect, like those of a fox, and like the head should be covered with soft short hair. No plucking or trimming is allow- able. Nose.—In black, black and tan or white dogs the nose should be black; in other coloured Pomeranians it may often be brown or liver-coloured, but in all cases the nose must be self—not parti-coloured, and never white. Neck and shoulders—The neck if anything should be rather short, well set in and lion-like covered with a profuse mane and frill of long straight hair, sweeping from the under jaw and covering the whole of the front part of the shoulders and chest, as well as the top part of the shoulders. The shoulders must be tolerably clean and laid well back. Body.—The back must be short, and the body compact, being well ribbed up and the barrel well rounded. The chest must be fairly deep and not too wide. Legs.—The fore legs must be perfectly straight, of medium length, not such as would be termed either “leggy” or “low on the leg,” but in due proportion in length and strength to a well balanced frame, .and the fore legs and thighs must be well feathered, the feet small and compact in shape. No trimming is allowable. Tail.—The tail is characteristic of the breed, and should be turned over the back and carried flat, being profusely covered with long spreading * hair. Coat—Properly speaking there should be two coats—an under and over coat; the one a soft fluffy undercoat, and the other a long, perfectly straight and glistening coat, covering the whole of the body, being very abundant round the neck and fore part of the shoulders and chest, where it should form a frill of profuse standing-off straight hair, extending over the shoul- ders as previously described. The hindquarters, like those of the collie, The Pomeranian 683 should be similarly clad with long hair or feathering from the top of the rump to the hocks. The hair on the tail must be, as previously stated, profuse and spreading over the back. Colour.—The following colours are admissable:—white, black, blue or grey, brown, sable or shaded sable (including red, orange or fawn), and parti-colours. The whites must be quite free from lemon or any colour, and the blacks, blues, browns and sables from any white. A few white hairs on any of the self-colours shall not absolutely disqualify, but should carry great weight against a dog. In parti-coloured dogs the colours should be evenly distributed on the body in patches; a dog with a white foot or a white chest would not be a parti-coloured. Whole-coloured dogs with a white foot or feet, leg or legs, are decidedly objectionable, and should be dis- ‘couraged, and cannot compete as whole coloured specimens. In mixed classes, where whole-coloured and parti-coloured compete together, the preference should be given to the whole-coloured specimens, if in other points they are equal. Weight.—Where classification by weight is made, the following scale should be adopted by show committees:—1. Not exceeding eight pounds. 2. Exceeding eight pounds. : Colour Classification—Where classification by colour is made, the following should be adopted:—1. Black. 2. White. 3. Brown or choco- late. 4. Sable and shaded sable. 5. Blue or grey. 6. Any other colour. ScaLE OF POINTS Appearance ............. TS Body aeexssveve serene 10 Head)» conc neexede weees LOS st x adm ee mine 5 EVS pcg aacankoe: ow & “ll aera peeccenewaes 10 Bath souyaudeemabageeees S Rode apececauppese 25 Nase -w awe cowie-cmpgagae 5 COlUF ivveadweysageeys 10 Neck and shoulders ..... 5 — Tit al Asdcosha Po era kheh en eet eines dated aca cencoas ie teraiearoes 100 CHAPTER LIX THE ScHIPPERKE IHE marked resemblance between the Pomeranian and the schipperke is too obvious to make it necessary to dwell upon the origin of the little Belgian dog. If we divide fox terriers into smooth and wire-haired, and chows and St. Bernards into rough and smooth we might well have done ‘something similar with these two breeds. As to the absence of a tail making a difference between the Pom. and the schipperke, it might, if they all came into the world tailless instead of perhaps ten per cent. of them, the others having to be made tailless like the bob-tailed sheepdogs. The schipperkes run larger than the small Poms as might be expected of a dog whose place in life is useful instead of merely ornamental. Strength and activity combined with smartness (in our acceptance of the word) are the characteristics of the schipperke. Although we have only had the schipperke in dog show evidence for some fifteen years the indication is that the history of the dog is already being lost and the latest dog books are drawing somewhat on imagination for facts. The Belgian Schipperke Club was started in 1888, very shortly after the breed was introduced and in 1890 the following history of the dog and its name appeared over the signature of Mr. John Lysen, of Antwerp, the home of the breed. The letter was published in the American Field and was copied into other publications, including the American “Book of the Dog,” a work frequently quoted in England since its publication in 1891, and the statements of Mr. Lysen were never contradicted. “They are always called ‘Spits’ in Belgium, and if you were to ask a dog-dealer for a ‘schipperke’ dog, he wouldn’t know what you were speak- ing about. The name schipperke was given when a few fanciers got up the club, and when, later on, I asked the one who proposed it why they had not given the dog its proper name, he answered that the Pomeranian was already called ‘spitz’ in Germany, and moreover that a queer name would render the dog more attractive to foreigners! 685 686 The Dog Book “Until three years ago the black tailless spits had been the dog of the working class of people, especially butchers, shoemakers, and not unfre- quently he was seen on the canal boats, whence they gave him the name of schipperke, but he might as well claim the name of ‘“beenhouwerke’ (little butcher), or ‘schoenmakerke’ (little shoemaker). Until a year ago, and sometimes even now, when a wealthy man was taking a walk with his spits he was looked at with enquiring eyes by all who passed him. The only ones allowed to live among gentlemen and ladies were the toy spits and some were really very small and pretty. Now however the black Pariah is becoming a favourite and, many a gentleman takes a walk with his spits, which has taken the place of the fox-terrier.” The question of tail or tailless puppies was fully as open then as it it now and the statements by Mr. Lysen and other fanciers of Antwerp who wrote at about the same time that he did, are to the effect that old breeders said that tailless dogs were formerly produced in greater numbers and that introduction of outside blood caused this peculiarity to become less pro- nounced. These claims we are inclined to doubt, because it is not a nat- ural condition of affairs. To hold that the appearance of the dog is im- proved by the gouging out of the tail is purely a stretch of the imagination. Such a claim would apply with equal force to the Pom or the pug, or any dog with a closely curled tail, and why the English Kennel Club should prohibit ear cropping and not stop tail gouging is one of the inexplicable conditions of the dog world. On the subject of the absence of tail, the late Mr. George R. Krehl wrote as follows as a supplement to the standard of the Schipperke Club of Belgium, this being the standard adopted by the St. Hubert Schipperke Club of England: “The tailless breed theory is a myth. None of the canide were originally tailless, but some hold that the regular removal of the stern for generations will cause any breed so operated upon to give birth to tailless pups.” Mr. Krehl was by no means pledged to this supposition, but he had knowledge of schipperkes born without tails and of terriers born with stump tails and while theory against the perpetuation of a mutilation is ably supported by men of scientific research there is this experience in breeding which crops up to cast doubts upon theories. This reference to Mr. Krehl and the schipperke club reminds us that on the occasion of our calling to say goodbye to him on one of our visits to England a messenger came in and handed him a small package, which contained a letter and a The Schipperke 687 book, he read the letter and passed it over. It was a warm letter of thanks from the secretary of the St. Hubert club for his assistance in the adoption of the standard and as a mark of his appreciation he sent him the first bound copy of the standard. This copy we brought to America as a good- bye keepsake and the secretary may feel assured it is in safe keeping. When the schipperke was first introduced there was considerable difference of opinion as to the correct type, for Brussels had a local variation, wide in front and short headed, while the Louvain variety was very short coated, with long narrow ears. The third leading variety was the Antwerp dog, and there is no doubt as to its being the better looking and more attrac- tive of the three. This was the dog that had the most supporters and was accepted as the correct type and is the dog we occasionally see in our ' miscellaneous classes here. No one knew anything about the “skip” until just about twenty years. ago when a Mr. J. M. Barrie brought one to England for exhibition. Mr. G. R. Krehl who had always a fancy for anything new or continental, then took them up and helped the fancy all he could in the columns of the Stock- keeper. So much was said about them at that time that several exhibitors on this side of the Atlantic were carried away by the newspaper support and imported some. Classes were given at a few shows for one or two years but the breed never took here and if it was not for Frank Dole’s showing one for several years in the miscellaneous class the breed would have been a blank in this country. As we have more than once remarked in previous chapters, mere oddity is not an attraction to Americans, who want something more than a curiosity inadog. A good many will say that the “‘skip” has many merits in addition and that we grant, but put down a “skip” and a Pomeranian, a rough and a smooth St. Bernard, a smooth and a wire-haired fox terrier in front of a person who wants to buy a dog and ninety per cent. will take the Pom, the rough St. Bernard or the smooth terrier. It is counter attractions that stop many breeds from becoming popular, and not lack of merit in the one neglected. No doubt if we could transplant an entire schipperke dis- play from a Palace or an English L. K. A. show and put it down in Madison Square Garden at the annual February muster there might be a different tale to tell, but we are limited to write of what is and not what might be, and the schipperke can hardly be recognised as one of our show dogs. 688 The Dog Book There are two clubs which support the breed in England, each having a standard, that of the St. Hubert club being the more regular as it is a trans- lation of the one adopted by the Belgian club, and the members of that club certainly ought to know something about the dog of their own country. DEscRIPTIVE PARTICULARS Character and General appearance.—The schipperke is an excellent and faithful little watchdog, who does not readily make friends with strangers. He is very active, always on the alert and very courageous in defending objects left in his charge, but always gentle with children. A characteristic peculiarity of the breed is their exceeding inquisitiveness and lively interest in everything going on about them, their excitement being expressed by sharp barks and the bristling mane. They are game and good vermin dogs. Colour.—Self-coloured: black. Head.—¥oxy. Nose small. Eye dark brown, small, oval rather than round, neither deep-set nor prominent, lively and keen. Teeth very white, strong and quite level. Ears quite erect, small, triangular and set on high. Of sufficient substance that they cannot be folded otherwise than length- wise, and very mobile. Neck, shoulders and chest——Neck strong, full and carried upright. Shoulders sloping and with easy action. Chest broad in front and well let down. Body.—Back straight but supple. Loins broad and powerful. Body short and thickset. Ribs well spring; rather drawn up in loin. Fore legs.—Quite straight, fine and well under the body. Feet.—Small, round, well-knuckled up; nails straight, strong, short. Hindquarters—Thighs powerful and very muscular; hocks well let down. T ail.—Absent. Coat.—Dense and harsh, smooth on the ears, short on the head, the front of the forelegs and hocks (sic), and rather short on the body, but pro- fuse round the neck, commencing from behind the ears, forming a mane and frill on the chest. This longer coat loses itself between the fore legs. The back of the thighs are feathered, forming the “culotte,” the fringe of which is turned inwards. Photograph by Coombs, Sharon, Pa. SCHIPPERKE TOGO R. Property of Mrs. Geo. Ronsse, New York City ITALIAN GREYHOUND TEE-DEE Property of Dr. F. H. Hoyt, Sharon, Pa, ? id fs. Photograph by E. W. Johnson, Kansas City, Mo. QUEEN BABY B. Property of Miss Jessie Newman, Property of Miss A. Babbitt, Taunton, Mass. Kansas City, No. GROUP OF TOY POODLES Property of Mrs, C, L, Little, Taunton, Mass, SWISS MOUNTAIN KENNEL POMERANIANS Property of Mrs. H. E. Smyth, Meadowbrook. Pa. slat sisi AA a LAKEWOOD PRIM LAKEWOOD LADAS Property of Mrs. Hartley Williamson, New York iat Pent earl Soe sk REDCROFT DARKIE LAKEWOOD FEATHER Property of Mrs, A. A. McDonald, Toronto Property of Mrs. Hartley Williamenn Naw Vaorlk The Schipperke 689 Weight.—Maximum for the small size 12 pounds; for the large size 20 pounds.* : Faults.—A light coloured eye. Ears semi-erect, too long or rounded. Head narrow and elongated, or too short. Coat sparse, wavy or silky. Absence of mane and “culotte.” Coat too long. White spots. Under- shot. ScaLE oF Points Head is exevenswawave swe Oa) ‘TNGEE . setcaw ew bunn owes 5 Dat -apemmiownese Rue eues 10 Hindquarters .......... 10 Neck, shoulders and chest ..10 Coat andcolour ........ 30 BOOY vs vseeryiawneieeus 5 — eee eer eer es 10 howell. ay ieee sue xe! DOS *[This is too wide a weight limit, that of the Schipperke Club to the effect that the weight should be about 12 pounds being far preferable. No person wants a schipperke larger than a fox terrier, which is what a 20-pound dog means. — J. W.] CHAPTER LX Tue Mattese Doc IS the toy dog to which has been given the name of Mal- tese has no connection whatever with any branch of the terrier family we drop the sufhx which it is customary to add to the name. If a suffix was necessary it should be poodle or to go still farther back it might be spaniel, but never terrier. Every writer goes back to Strabo and his remark about the dogs of Melita, Sicily, but merely saying that dogs came from Melita in his days and for us to call a dog Maltese by no means carries any weight in sup- posing that our white toys were what Strabo referred to. They may be, but there is nothing to prove that they are. The name of Maltese is of comparatively recent adoption and a hundred years ago they were called shock dogs. ‘That is purely an English name, taken from the wealth of coat, probably not always combed out and even in the Standard Dictonary we find shock-dog as a second meaning of the noun “shock.” Buffon gave it the name of the Chien de Malte or Bichon and in the fuller description in his “Histoire Naturelle,” written by M. Daubenton, Bichon is the name at the head of the following description: “These dogs were very fashionable a few years ago, but at present are hard- ly seen. They were so small that ladies carried them in their sleeves. At last they gave them up, doubtless because of the dirtiness that is insep- arable from long-haired dogs, for they could not clip them without taking away their principal attraction. So few remain that I could not find one to make a drawing of and the illustration on Plate XL is a copy of a drawing in the large and beautiful collection of natural history miniatures in the print room of the library of the King. So far as we can judge from this illustration it seems that this dog has the muzzle of the petit barbet [small poodle], and the long glossy coat of the spaniel on the body. That is why they gave it the name of “Bouffe” [puffed]. It is also called the Maltese dog, because the first specimens came from Malta. There is reason to 691 692 The Dog Book believe that they belong to the family of poodles, and to that of the spaniels, as shown by the shape of the body and the coat and colour.” Caius in the third section of his treatise of English dogs gives but one breed, or one description for what we classify as toy dogs. Hesaysof them that they were the “delicate, neat, and pretty kind of dogges called the “Spaniel gentle, or the comforter, in Latin Melitaus or Fotor.” The word comforter was afterward applied to toy spaniels and as there were evidently plenty of these toy dogs in the time of Caius, the presumption is that his use of Melitzus as the name for all of them is incorrect. He was evidently writing of Spaniels of the toy order and not of the dog we know as the Mal- tese, or what was after his time called the shock dog. Of the early writers of the last century we find Youatt gives Strabo’s description of the Maltese dog, and later on there is a paragraph regarding the shock dog and he very erroneously says that Buffon made the state- ment that the head was that of the pug, the eyes large, the head round and the tail curved and bent forward. As we have just given the Buffon de- scription it will be seen that Youatt was entirely wrong. In Captain Brown’s “Anecdotes” he mentions both the shock dog and the comforter as separate breeds, but in such a manner as to leave it quite an open question as to what they were. We have seen an engraving of a small dog, bearing marked resemblance to a toy spaniel which was entitled ‘The Comforter,” and the probability is that the name was used very much in olden days as we use the term “toy.” How nearly our Maltese dogs approach the original dog of Malta is pure conjecture. The island was small enough to have ensured some con- centration of effort along certain lines, such as we see in Jersey cattle; a local fancy, which was fostered as remunerative on account of the dogs being distinct from those bred elsewhere. ‘There is very little evidence to show that our dogs had any connection with those which originated on the island and it seems more likely that the English stock came from France. They have never been at all common and if it had not been for Mr. R. Mandeville of London it is probable we would not have had any Maltese dog. The starting point in the breed seems to have been a dog called Fido, owned by aman named Tupper. Mr. Mandeville bred his Lilly to this Fido and got a Fido of his own. He also bred Fan to Tupper’s dog and got still another Fido, after which he bred from these Fidos and stuck to the name so that in the first stud book we have five of the same name all owned by him and The Maltese Dog 693 shown between 1864 and 1872. Mr. J. Jacobs of Oxford and Mrs. Bligh Monk of Reading got dogs from Mandeville and the only dogs of the twenty four in the first stud book that have any pedigree are of the Fido strain. In a very few years these exhibitors retired and Lady Giffard, who started in 1874, soon became the only exhibitor. Lady Giffard obtained her dogs from Mr. Jacobs and seemingly continued for some years to buy the best he bred, until she had a wonderful collection. For many years she was the only exhibitor of Maltese and no one who ever saw the beautiful dogs shown in her name and the condition they were always shown in will forgetthem. When Lady Giffard retired there seemed to be no one in the fancy, all having given up the impossible task of beating the Red Hill dogs. The usual revival took place after a while and now there is a Maltese club, with a standard, which makes some changes from the dogs of the type shown by Lady Giffard. Her dogs did not have low placed ears, but rather high on the head and the new idea of having a straight flat coat was never the old idea. The style of dog winning about 1880 looked quite bulky, one might say, from the wealth of coat and in keeping with that was a rather large looking head, caused by the set of the ears. ‘The new idea seems to be a Yorkshire terrier sort of dog, but that was not the old sort at all. They seem also to have got the dogs far too large. The present standard says not to exceed 12 pounds. Lady Giffard’s Hugh weighed 4 pounds 10 ounces, was 74 inches at the shoulder and had an 11-inch coat. The mystery to show goers when Lady Giffard exhibited was how she managed to grow such coats, for in place of nearly reaching the ground as the present standard calls for, her dogs had coats which swept the ground on each side, and pure in colour as the driven snow. English Maltese exhibitors cannot say they are improving the breed if their standard is set where it ought to be a mark yet to be reached. An attempt is being made to introduce coloured varieties, but it is as out of place as to introduce any variation in the black and tan terrier. The Maltese dog was always one of the colour breeds, a pure white dog. If that is correct coloured dogs can only be obtained by introducing foreign blood. Although such a thing as a good Maltese dog is all but unknown in this country and few seem to care about taking up the fancy, the briefness of the standard is an inducement to publish it. 694 The Dog Book DEscRIPTIVE PARTICULARS Head.—Should be much like that of a drop-eared Skye in miniature, but rather shorter and thicker in muzzle, not lean nor snipey. Ears.—Moderately long, set on rather low, and covered with long silky hair, mingling with that on neck and shoulders. Eyes.—Very dark and piercing, bright and alert in expression. Nose.—Pure black and shiny. Legs.—Rather short than long, with fine bone, well feathered through- out: legginess is to be avoided. Feet small and covered with hair, Body and shape.—Shoulders sloping and not too wide. Back short and cobby, rather than lanky in shape. T ail.—Short, well-feathered, particularly toward the end, and grace- fully carried over the back; its end resting on the hindquarters and side. Coat.—Long straight and silky, free from woolliness or curl; when in form should nearly reach the ground at the sides. Very profuse on neck, shoulders and _ chest. Colour.—Pure white without shade or tint. Weight.—Not to exceed 12 pounds. The smaller the better, other points being correct. General appearance.—That of a bright, sprightly, active dog of very taking character. ScaLE oF Points Head « cccoervase vacua 10 ©=>- Tailand its carriage .... 10 Eats cseecee ee Gaacns SN GAD parent nig rg pee esr 20 Eyes and nose ........... 10 COlOUE 22 vavncaws sacks 15 Lepeand feet 0. se csowes 5 Condition.............. 10 Body and shape ......... 10 BIZe pvk ders ses sh wns 5 CHAPTER LXI THE Puc S [HAT prompted the men of Holland to develop the pug and also the men of far away China? That seems rather strange, but not nearly so strange to many readers, who have be- si lieved the pug to have been an exclusively Dutch institu- tion, as for them to conceive that the Hollanders were indebted to China for the dog. We know that the Dutch were trading in the Orient in the early partof the sixteenth century. The Portuguese and Spaniards were also prominent in that trade and there was no particular objection to foreigners or foreign trade at that time. Then we have in the pug a dog which in his peculiarities has.no counterpart in any European dog. The bulldog has a short face, and was a square headed dog with cropped ears and a straight tail when the pug was first known, and had an entirely dif- ferent temperament from the pug. These two are the only European dogs with anything approaching similarity and under no circumstances can they be considered of the same family or coming from the same source. On the other hand the strong resemblance between the smooth variety of the Pekinese dog and the pug is too striking to be overlooked. That the Dutch and Chinese had very close business relations is a claim easily supported. In the Metropolitan Museum of Fine Arts there are several plates made in China to order for Hollanders bearing their coats of arms, and in the Pierpont Morgan collection there is a good sized model of a Dutch galliot. The catalogue so describes it but it has yards on both masts and no gaff mainsail and what we should say was a jury foremast would in a galliot be a mainmast; at any rate it is a Dutch vessel with Dutch sailors and is a most creditable piece of work. The ascribed date is 1662 to 1722. While we have credited Holland with the original possession of the pug we are not prepared to advance any proof of the statement. Indeed there is more reason, so far as the proofs we have seen, to suppose that it is every bit as much English as Dutch, but we need further information on the subject. What we do know, however, is that none of the Dutch school of paintings at 695 696 The Dog Book the Metropolitan Museum, nor in any reproduction of such a painting that we know of, shows a pug and it does seem as if some of the artists would have introduced one had the breed been either common or fashionable. There is no scarcity of dogs in these Dutch paintings. There is a Teniers, somewhat similar to his own kitchen, previously illustrated, the spaniels “being more pronounced in type, and in two small Teniers there are also large spaniels. David Rychaert, 1612-1661, shows a leggy spaniel in “The Stowage.” In Gillis Van Tilloigh’s, 1625-1678, “Visit of a Landlord to a Tenant” there is a beautifully modelled black and white greyhound. Kaspar Netscher, 1639-1684 has a spaniel in two of his paintings, a very pretty dark tan and white shown in a portrait of a lady, and a really exquisite small, apple-headed orange and white toy spaniel in a small painting of a card party. Rubens, 1577-1640, has a white spaniel with orange marked head in the small painting of Susanah and the Elders. This is a somewhat limited field to pronounce a decision upon, but it approaches nearly to Hogarth’s time and his painting of himself with his uncropped pug is very well known. The pug may be Dutch, but we want more evidence than we have yet seen to accept it as any more entitled to be considered exclu- sively Dutch than English in its European introduction and fostering. From the earliest illustrations of the pug he has always been the same dog that we have now, and is one of the few breeds which have shown no change, other than improvement directly caused by breeding for improve- ment and fancy. At the same time and almost as far back as we can dis- tinguish between what the Chinese meant to be a dog and what was the dog of Fo, we find the pug-headed, curled-tailed dog that was the progenitor of the Pekinese dog. There is no getting away from the obvious, the very plain indication that the pug was an oriental importation. Even if that was not the actual origin of the pug we owe a great deal to the smooth Pekinese as nearly all our pugs trace back to one particular cross of the dog from China. Of late years there has been more of this foreign blood introduced than we think English breeders will admit to be the case, particularly to help out in the production of black pugs. Prior to that, however, all the English pugs of prominence from 1865 to 1895, also all our best pugs from 1880 to 1900 trace to Click a dog of pure Chinese stock. Click belonged to Mrs. Laura Mayhew, of Twickenham, London, and this lady was one of the leading pug exbibitors at the early dog shows of England. Click is given in the stud book as “by Lamb (from Pekin) out The Pug 697 of Moss” and Mr. George Lowe (‘‘ Leatherhead”’) in one of his “ Pillars of Stud Book” contributions to the English Kennel Gazette, stated that Moss, the dam of Click was said to be a Willoughby pug. Mr. Lowe and all the English writers who copied what he said might very readily have found out from Mrs. Mayhew, who was then alive, the history of the Click breeding. It is not too late to repair their error as we have in New York Mr. Reginald F. Mayhew, Mrs. Mayhew’s son, and he has kindly favoured us with the following communication on the early show pugs and their origin:— “When shows were first promoted in England it was generally accepted that pugs had been imported to that country from Holland, Russia and China. How near or how wide of the mark were those responsible for this I will leave to others. I do know, however, that this was the opinion har- boured by such authorities as Lord Willoughby D’Eresby, Charlie Mor- rison, Mr. Rawlins, Mr. Bishop and my mother. “At the outset the winning English pugs were of Dutch origin, and among the chief breeders were my mother and Mr. Morrison, the latter being landlord of an old-fashioned roadhouse, in the outskirts of Chelsea. “In those days pugs were cropped, and in general type were tight skinned, straight faced, apricot fawn in colour, and as a rule had good, wide set eyes, which gave them a fairly good expression. “A few years afterward—in the later sixties—Lord Willoughby be- came a prominent factor in pugdom, so much so that the term Willoughby pug was as common an expression in the breed as Laverack setter in English setters. Lord Willoughby, who lived near us at Twickenham, obtained his original specimens from a tight-rope walker known as the female Blondin, who brought them from St. Petersburg. They were silver fawns, the ma- jority being smutty in colour, with pinched faces and small’eyes, but better ‘wrinkled than the Dutchmen. “ Reverting to their colour, I have seen so many born practically black in those old days, and consigned to the bucket on that account, that I have often marvelled that more recent exhibitors should have been so deluded as to consider the introduction of the black pugs a novelty. In fact, when Lady Brassey introduced the black variety her specimens had the inherent faults of the Willoughby strain—pinched faces, small eyes and legginess— plus tight skins. And so it is to-day, to a less marked degree, in specimens of this shading. In fact, the only really good headed black I have seen here was Mrs. Howard Gould’s Black Knight. 608 The Dog Book “With the advent of the smutty coloured Russians breeders mingled their blood with that of the Hollanders, with the result that faces—through Rawlin’s Crusoe, a good headed Dutchman—and Mr. Bishop’s Pompey— bred half Dutch and half Russian—showed a slight improvement, while colour and shadings were a distinct advancement. “Still, the winning specimens, typical as they were, lacked that grandeur in head which the ideal called for. Nor was it until my mother became the owner of Click that really grand heads and beautiful expressions were seen on the bench. Click has long been a household name in pugdom, as for more than twenty-five years the crack winners have traced back to him. In fact, all the grand skulls, big, appealing eyes, square muzzles and short faces are due to Click. Chiefly through his daughter Cloudy—which was also owned by my mother—and in a minor degree through his union with Gipsey, a long faced, undershot creature, belonging to Mrs. Lee, of Toy Spaniel fame, has his name become so closely associated with cham- pions. “Gipsey had three litters, containing specimens worthy of the highest praise. Unfortunately, however, Mrs. Lee, besides dogs, had in her cramped quarters a pet monkey, which in, spite of his owner’s vigilance, succeeded in either killing the offspring or mutilating them. One of these was Odin, whose name is to be found in many pedigrees. In his case, the monkey had bitten off his tail to such effect that hardly any vestige of it was left. “As to Click himself, he was an apricot fawn, with an ideal head and expression and most beautiful eyes. He was on the leg, rather narrow be- hind, and as rough in coat as Mrs. Gould’s Black Knight. In fact, alter the latter’s colour and one would have a very good sample of Click. “Click’s parents—Lamb and Moss—were Chinese beyond dispute. They were captured in the Emperor of China’s palace during the siege of Pekin in 1867 or 1868, and were brought to England by the then Marquis of Wellesley, I think. Anyhow, they were given to a Mrs. St. John, who brought them several times to our house. Alike as two peas, they were solid apricot fawn, without a suspicion of white; had lovely heads and ex- pressions; but, unlike their son, they were close to the ground, and a shade long in body. The pair were so much alike that my mother was firmly of the opinion they were brother and sister. “T have purposely referred to the colour of Lamb and Moss, because when Click became a success as a sire the story was circulated that his par- The Pug 699 ents were lemon and white Japanese spaniels, and as few breeders had seen either Lamb or Moss the rumour was generally accepted. “With the advent of Tragedy and his son Comedy the era of heads began. Both were colossal in stature, Tragedy being by a dog in Scar- borough so huge that he was called Tichborne, after the claimant. His (Tragedy’s) dam, Judy, was by Click and from Mrs. Lee’s Gipsey, while Comedy was by Tragedy from Cloudy, who, by the bye, was an exception- ally good bitch, and should never have been beaten in the ring. “T should say the best pugs I have seen are Miss Jacquet’s Tum Tum, Mr. Booth’s Comedy, Mrs. Foster’s Jennie, Mrs. Britain’s Little Count and Little Countess; Mrs. Maule’s Little Duke, Miss Houldsworth’s Dowager and Countess, and my mother’s Hebe. “T cannot leave the pug subject without expressing regret that pop- ular feeling tends to hold the breed in a contemptuous cum ridiculous light. No breed in its specimens has such distinct individuality. In character the pug is brimful of intelligence; it is consequential to a degree; is willing to take its own part; does not possess an atom of shyness, and in the old days—when I was in swaddling clothes—and my parents lived in Derby- shire, the men used to take Tootie and her sons and daughters out ratting with ferrets. Being close and short coated, pugs do not require half the attention called for by the more popular variety of toys, such as Pomeran- ians, Spaniels and Yorkshire terriers, while they are more robust in con- stitution and of a more independent spirit.” The information as to the Willoughby pugs is entirely new so far as we had any knowledge, and it rather dissipates the prevailing impression that certainly existed thirty years ago that the Willoughby pugs were an old and well established strain. We recall the name of the female Blondin, but nothing as to the date she was performing in England. Blondin, after whom she was named, was there in 1858, so that if we say the Willoughby pugs date back to 1860, that will be near enough. This is borne out by what the stud book shows as to the introduction of the Willoughby blood into outside channels, for that appears to have first taken place about 1867, though one or two older dogs are said to have been of Lord Willoughby’s strain. When it comes down to names, however, this seems to be the oldest pedigree we have—“ Mungo, born 1868, bred by Lord Willoughby, by his Ruby out of his Cora, out of his Mina. Ruby by Romeo out of Romah, out of Lady Shaftesbury’s Cassy.” This is a peculiar pedigree, but even 700 The Dog Book as it stands it is the exceptionally long one in the first volume of the stud book, which was anything but errorless as to names, breeding or reference numbers. The pedigree of Cloudy, the great brood bitch Mr. Mayhew refers to is given as by Click out of Topsy, by Lamb out of Moss, whereas that is the Click extension. Mr. Morrison was as old a breeder as Mrs. Mayhew, probably older and as his hostelry was a house of call for many persons his pugs became well known. Outside of these West end cf London breeders, there were many throughout England who owned, exhibited and bred pugs, but pedi- gree was very little thought of and very few pugs were equipped with one. We may take it however that the very great majority of the pugs, prior to the Willoughby and the Pekin introductions were descendants of Dutch pugs, or of pugs which came from China some time during the seventeenth century. In the Bloomfield Moore collection of pottery in Centennial Hall, Philadelphia, we saw a good many years ago a cropped pug with two puppies in Delft ware, which was dated as seventeenth century production, but on making enquiry regarding it, for the purpose of illustration, investi- gation was made and it was found that the date given was wrong and it is not believed to be over one hundred years old. The usefulness of the Click blood seems to have been in the produc- tion of successful dams, for outside of Odin and Toby, the sire of Dr. Cryer’s Dolly it is hardly possible to trace back to Click in the male line. On the other hand we find in that very hard-to-get and useful book Dr. Cryer pub- lished in 1891, “Prize Pugs,” his extensions of pedigrees of the leading winning dogs of America up to that time show that fifty per cent. of them, and those including nearly all the best dogs, had this Click cross. Bob Ivy, Dr. Cryer’s best production had three crosses, being inbred to Dolly on the sire’s side, and Dolly was by Toby, and on the dam’s side going back to Vic, by Click out of Leech’s or Lock’s Judy. This Vic was also the dam of Tum Tum II, a remarkably good dog by Max. Imported Othello also traces to Vic. From the Click-Gypsey cross we find Judy, dam of Tragedy, and from the Click-Topsy came Cloudy, who was dam of Comedy, also of Dowager the dam of Queen Rose and Duchess of Connaught. Queen Rose was dam of Champion Loris. Cloudy was also dam of Lady Flora, whose daughter Lady Cloudy was the dam of Kash, a prominent winner here in 1889 and 1890. There was quite a run on the get of the dog Tobv on the nart of Ameri- The Pug 701 can exhibitors after Dr. Cryer’s Dolly had made her mark, and Lord Nelson and Miss Whitney’s Young Toby were by him. Toby was by Click out of Mrs. Mayhew’s Hebe, by Crusoe out of Phyllis a part Willoughby bitch. Notwithstanding we had some close-up descendants of this inbred Pekin strain of pug, not one of the entire number that were exhibited showed any indication of the build of Lamb and Moss, the long and lowtype which Mr. Mayhew says they were and which we see in most of the long-haired Peki- nese which have come direct from China to England or here. Dr. Ivy, father of the then little boy after whom Dr. Cryer named his best pro- duction, very kindly sent us from Shanghai photographs of what the owner named Pekin pugs, and Dr. Ivy said the dog was a high class specimen. This we submitted to Mr. Mayhew to see how the dog might conform to - his recollection of Lamb and Moss, and he replied as follows: “There is no more resemblance to Lamb or Moss than to any pug of the present day. Neither Lamb, Moss nor Click had a white hair, nor had any of the lat- ter’s progeny. The dog is apparently a smooth Pekinese, just as there are smooth coated specimens in the rough coated varieties of terriers. Lamb, Moss and Click were as profuse coated as are the descendants of a certain line of smooth fox terriers. A very large proportion of Click’s sons and daughters, however, had the orthodox length of coat, nor was it trans- mitted in subsequent generations. ” The first pug of quality shown in this country was Dr. Cryer’s Roderick, a dog of nice size, handicapped by very straight hind legs to the extent of being double jointed. It was this defect that enabled Mrs. Pue’s larger dog ‘George to defeat him in the majority of cases when they met. Both of these dogs were inferior to little Banjo, which was one of the kennel of dogs brought over in 1881 by Mr. Mason, but which unfortunately was smothered while in transit to London, Ont., show that fall. He was the sire of Lovat, one of the very best show dogs and sires of his day in England. Of the bitches of that time the best by a good margin was Mr. Knight’s Effie which won in the open class at New York in 1882, beating Dr. Cryer’s Dolly, Effie afterwards won three championships at New York, but unfortunately she was anon-breeder. The next good pug was the dog which was here known as Joe, but whose proper name was Zulu II, the change of name being the result of an error on the part of the young man sent over from England in charge of Miss Lee’s dogs. The real Joe was sold as Zulu IT before the dogs went to Pittsburgh show and Zulu II was shown as Joe and got second 702 The Dog Book to Sambo. Dr. Cryer wanted to buy “Joe” and offered the catalogue price of fifteen pounds to the secretary of the show, who declined it saying that he had bought the dog. The fact is that the young man had found out his mistake and got the officials to protect him. Coming back to New York the young man got short of funds and left the dog to pay his board bill, the owner then went to Mr. Mortimer who recognised the dog and bought him, and at the New York show of a few weeks later Joe appeared in his new owners name and won. There was quite a little talk about the seeming peculiarity of these proceedings, but it was all cleared up and the bona- fides of Mr. Mortimer’s purchase thoroughly established. Joe, as he con- tinued to be called was by Comedy out a pedigreeless bitch, and he con- tinued his successful career till 1887, winning altogether twelve champion- ships, most of them for Mr. George H. Hill, of Madeira, O. He was also the sire of a number of good pugs. After Joe the next good dog imported was Bradford Ruby, a son of Lovat. An excellent pug, just a trifle large, and slightly leggy. This dog had won many prizes before being imported, but when he made his first appearance here at the New York show, the late Hugh Dalziel, who ought to have not only known what a good pug was, but also known what pug this. was, gave Bradford Ruby a v.h.c. card. There were sixteen dogs in the open class, which shows how popular pugs were at that time, but all the good. dogs were in the v.h.c. division and the three placed animals were plain, ordinary specimens, not one of which distinguished himself after that. As it. was now necessary to win three firsts in open classes before getting to the champion class Bradford Ruby’s record in the latter class is not so good as that of Joe, but he won nine firsts in the champion class. After Ruby came Master Tragedy, Othello and Lord Clover, none of them in the class of Ruby. Othello was really the best of the three, but he was rather large and his colour smutty. Master Tragedy fell far short of what we expected on his English reputation. The home-bred pugs of Dr. Cryer now became the prominent feature in the breed, beginning with his Max and Bessie, both out of imported Dolly, who was by the Click dog Toby. Then came Dude also out of Dolly, but he was sold, and finally Dude’s son Bob Ivy. “Little Bob” was a fitting culmination to the doctor’s breeding, for business now compelled him to gradually give up the fascinations of improving and showing pugs. Bob Ivy was a very nice little dog in every way, and his size was all one could The Pug 703. desire. Bessie used to beat him for the specials for best in the show, but after the little dog had matured he was hard to beat. In front of him at New York in 1890 was a very smart young imported dog, Tim, by the En- glish dog Max, but he died the same year. As the pedigree of Bob Ivy covers the ground very fully for most of the pedigrees of dogs of that time we: give it in“ full. Bob Ivy—Bred and owned by Dr. M. H. Cryer; born April 23, 1888. Pedigree: Ch. Punch (E. 6761) i Ch. Roderick........ By Lord Willoughby’s Jumbo. Imp. Dolly.......... Morris’ Judy Sire: | . Ch. Dude s:cwpseeeencenesa Click .... ) Lamb, from Pekin Moss, from Pekin f Toby. | | Crusoe Limp. Dolly....... Hebe..... _ ( Tomahawk 1 Phyllis. b ( Ch. Punch Fatima II. { ae Liz.... ‘ atima Cupi Molly, by Ch. Baron Ruby G Imp. ( Othello .... ee ef ed Othello ....... 4 Judy Max..... j Sam Dam ( Tum Tum II.... Rose Wee Stialnsriioyswcsnveats arene prayeeorenty : — TD sg Cli ; Lamb: b . ick. l Belle Petite...... Vic... § Moss Imp. Leech’s Judy | (Pedigree unknown) Pugs went on the down grade after 1890 and with the arrival of new attractions in the way of toy dogs, such as Pomeranians and the pushing of Japanese and English spaniels to the front, they became fewer by degrees and beautifully less until we have now to rely almost entirely upon one ex- hibitor, the well known Al. Eberhardt, of Camp Dennison, O. It looked at one time as if there might be a turn for the better, that being when Mrs. Howard Gould was showing a few black pugs, but they did not catch on as they should have and it is Eberhardt’s pugs or a blank at nearly all the shows for the past year or two. There is no reason why this breed should be neglected in this way. Compare the pug with any of the popular fancies and it will stand the test. Tastes differ, but to our mind the character and beauty of wrinkle in the head of such a dog as Ding Dong is far ahead of the abnormally deve- loped Japanese spaniel, for instance. Look at the care called for by these 704 The Dog Book long coated dogs, and the impossibility of making a pet and com- panion of any of the long, silky-coated toys. The pug needs no more cod- dling than a hardy terrier, nor any more care in coat. He is a dog that has always had a reputation for keeping himself clean and tidy and they used to say that he had less doggy perfume than any other house dog. He may not be quite so demonstrative as some of the effervescing little toys, but he is just as intelligent and has a dignity and composure all his own. Ere long we fully expect to see the black pugs become popular for they are certainly very attractive in their brilliant coat of black satin. As Mr. Mayhew says they are apt to be “tight-skinned” and fail to show the wrinkle such as Ding Dong displays, but a few do show improvement in that direction and it is only a matter of careful selection and breeding such as one has to carry out in all breeds to reach success. There is a good field here for those who want to take up something that is bound eventually to become a popular breed. The illustrations of old pugs are copied from Dr. Cryer’s “ Prize Pugs” the publication of which we supervised and necessarily passed upon the pen and ink drawings by Miss Cutler. These were worked over solio prints, the half tone process not having then been developed, and they stood the test of very critical examination as faithfully reproducing the originals in all detail. Considering the lack of competition and the small number of pugs being bred there has been no such deterioration in what are now shown as might be expected. We may not have pugs up to the standard of the best of the old days when classes of from ten to fifteen was the rule, but on the other hand we have not the long tail of poor ones then to be seen. We have kept closer to the ideal size than they seem to have done in England, where some pug breeders want to raise the weight to accomodate dogs of the old Comedy and Tragedy days. We formerly considered a pug of 12 pounds the ideal size, but had to put up with larger ones when he could not get that. Bradford Ruby at 16 pounds was considered as winning in spite of his being somewhat large. There is a Pug Club in England which adopted a slightly changed description and standard from that published in the Book of the Dog and in one instance at least it is not an improvement. It allows rose ears, which are not pug ears by any means. The only correct ear for a pug is the drop ear, small and very dark in colour. Twenty years ago no one ever thousht ~ ‘VY ‘Aemsos "yy Aq Zayed ayy jo Adoo & st sty} pu * A] ad10a5 Jo astm ay} SEM Yquayzyty ‘SII aTd00d AOL V GNV LYAdUuaHZL1d ‘SUN SS3atmesp [e49Ads dy} JO 1s9q ay} St Styy yng ‘syenod sq oyut Zop styy Suponposzat yo puoy A19A sem YSnosoqsures) NVINVUYANOd GNV NOSNIGOU ‘SUN PUNCH AND TETTY CLICK Mrs. hew? Los Bred and owned by C. Morrison and illustrated in rs. May ul Set ct and Moss “Stonehenge on the Dog.’’ Third edition, 1879 CHAMPION LITTLE COUNTESS 1E DOQUIN Drawn by Miss H. E. Cu:ler in pen a:-d ink over a solar print From Buffon’s “ Tistoire Naturelle ” (1750) ROYAL DUKE REINAGLE’S PUG (1805) Grand Challenge Cup Winner From the ‘‘ Sportsman's Repository ’’ The Pug 705 of such a thing as a rose ear for a pug and it should not be allowed now. The scale of points is also cut up too much so that an imperfection amounts to but little. For instance a weak, or small, pinched muzzle, which is about the worst fault a pug can have can only cause a cut of five points out of the hundred. It is better to lump the head and ears as 15 points and then a cut for a bad fault means something. Another fault of a cut-up scale is that minor points are made to equal important ones, such as in this case we have feet, muzzle, mask and wrinkles all at 5 points each, whereas the relative merits of muzzle, mask or wrinkles are 20 to 5 compared with feet. With these comments we present the standard. DeEscripTIVE PARTICULARS Symmetry.—Decidedly square and cobby. A lean pug, and a dog with short legs and long body are equally objectionable. Size and Condition.—The pug should be multum in parvo, but the con- densation should be shown by compactness of form, well-knit proportions and hardness of developed muscle. The weight recommended as being the best is from 12 to 16 pounds. Body.—Short and cobby, wide im chest and well ribbed up. Legs.—Very strong, straight, of moderate length and well set under. Feet.—Neither so long as the foot of the hare, nor so round as that of the cat, well-split-up toes, nails black. Muzzle.—Short, blunt, square, but not up-faced. Head.—Large, massive, round, not apple-headed, with no indentation of the skull. Eyes.—Dark in colour, very large, bold and prominent, globular in shape, soft and solicitous in expression, very lustrous, and when excited full of fire. Ears.—Thin, small, soft like black velvet. ‘There are two kinds, the rose and button, preference being given to the latter.* Markings.—Clearly defined. The muzzle or mask, ears, moles on cheeks, thumb-mark or diamond on forehead and back trace should be as black as possible. Mask.—The mask should be black. The more intense and well- defined it is the better. * The rose ear is certainly not correct.—J. W. 706 The Dog Book Wrinkles-—Large and deep. Trace.—A black line extending from the occiput to the tail. T ail.—Curled tightly over the hip. The double curl is perfection. Coat.—Fine, smooth, soft and glossy; neither hard nor woolly. Colour.—Silver fawn, apricot fawn or black.* Each should be decided to make contrast complete between the colour and the trace or mask. ScALE OF POINTS Symmetry ... 10 Eyes ........ me ‘Tail ves xeon § BIZS see eeass 5 Mask, sx