The 1910 Standard Revisions
This article was taken from the May 1911 issue of American Poultry World
The word misfit is used here with two main applications. First, a large number of the Illustrations to be found in the new Standard of Perfection do not correctly interpret the word descriptions in the book; second, the pictures do not agree, one with another, i. e.. they are not consistent-in some cases the differences being so great that the effects are grossly misleading and ridiculous. Astonishing examples of both kinds of “misfit” work by the several artists are given later on in this article.
With us, for the purposes of this article, it is not a question of who the artists are, of who it was that served as president or the American Poultry Association while the new Standard was being compiled and illustrated, of who was chairman of the committee to which was entrusted the final approval of the art work and the printing and binding of the book, or of who were members of this committee.
What we have in view is not the question of who was at fault, or is to blame, but·· What are the conditions that now confront us? Just what is the present:’ situation and what can be done-what should be done for the best interests of the standard-bred poultry business of the United States and’ Canada and in justice to the eighteen or nineteen thousand persons who have bought copies of the 1910 Standard of Perfection and are using it as an authorized guide to the successful breeding of high-class fowls.
Twenty-five thousand copies of the 1910 Standard were printed last December and January, of which number eighteen thousand or more have been sold. The retail price authorized by the American Poultry Association, owners of the copyright, is a dollar and a half per copy. The wholesale price is eighty cents per copy in lots of twelve or more, f.o.b. Boston, Mass., where the books were printed, or at Mansfield, Ohio, the office of the secretary of the association.
Eighteen thousand men and women, including the leading successful poultry breeders and experienced poultry judges of the United States and Canada have bought the new Standard and now own a book that contains defective, misleading illustrations, not one or two or half a dozen such illustrations. but a large number of them -illustrations that fall far short of correctly interpreting the word descriptions of the book and, worse still, that are inconsistent, i.e., that fail to agree one with another.
What should be done? That is the main question. The illustrations here referred to are incorrect and misleading. Their retention in the American Standard of Perfection is certain to do more harm than good. Are the eighteen thousand persons who bought these books In good faith to be left with them on their hands? If not, what is to be done about it? If a book of this character had been put out by an individual or by a company, the purchasers would have the right to demand the return of their money, or that they be furnished a book such as they believed they were buying and paying for. The mistakes and inconsistencies which are so plainly evident in a large number of the illustrations in this book render It comparatively worthless, when we consider what the Standard of Perfection Is meant to be and should be-a correct guide for the expert and the novice, a trustworthy guide to be used in selecting and mating standard- bred domestic fowls and in placing awards of merit at poultry exhibitions.
A principal argument for introducing illustrations into the American Standard of Perfection was the fact that pictures appeal to the eye and therefore are definitely instructive, whereas the best word descriptions are vague and elastic-unavoidably so. The curve of a line Is difficult to describe, unless it be the segment of a circle of a given radius or diameter; so is contour. so is convexity, etc., etc., not to mention color and shades of color.
But allowing for all the difficulties of the problem, it is little enough for buyers and users of the Standard of Perfection to demand that where two curves or outlines are described by the use of the same words they shall be identical, shall duplicate one another in the Standard illustrations. Even this simple and primary requisite has not been supplied In a considerable number of the illustrations in the 1910 Standard-in pictures of the most popular breeds and varieties, those of America’s own production.
Every one who has bought and paid for a Standard of Perfection, 1910 edition, is entitled to have placed in his hands by the American Poultry Association a practically perfect book, and at the same time a correct, or at least a consistent guide to the breeding and judging of standard-bred fowls. as per the authority and requirements of this association. There can be no question but that the incorrect and defective Illustrations in the new Standard should be made right without delay-and we believe the artists will do their part without further expense to the A. P. A. No law of the land exists to compel them to do this, but they are men Who have the best interests of poultry culture at heart and it is to be expected that they will contribute the necessary time and labor to perfect their own work-work that now is sadly deficient and is certain to reflect discredit on the artists in public opinion.
The several artists performed their work, submitted a large majority of the pictures to the association in open convention. supplied all the final pictures to the chairman of the editing and publication committee or to the president of the association, and the pictures were accepted and have been paid for. These pictures should have been very closely inspected, should have been compared one with another, and a considerable number of them should have been corrected by the artists before the printing plates were made-otherwise they should have been rejected by the men who had charge of the work of supervising the editing and publication of the new Standard.
For a number of reasons, chief among which was the desire to get the new book out without further delay, proper care was not exercised by the men who had the final say-so In this highly Important task-sufficient pains were not taken to make sure that the pictures were consistent one with another. and were a safe guide to standard breeding. The total result to date is a book that is not what we want, giving rise to a situation that must be corrected in some practical -and just manner without unnecessary delay. .
Each artist should be called on to correct his work, to make it satisfactory-to make it worth what he was paid for the pictures delivered by him. While we have not consulted any of the artists on. this point. we believe each will gladly do his part in the interests of poultry culture and in fairness to all concerned. Time will be required to do this work right and a. committee should be appointed that will make sure that it is done right. This same ground was covered in 1904-1906 to good advantage and it ‘can be done again-even to better advantage.
Following this work a new lot or books should be published and every person who has bought one of the defective, comparatively worthless -copies of the 1910 Standard should be permitted to exchange it at a nominal price-practically at cost-for a new and corrected edition, for a book that he can use with safety and profit as a guide to standard poultry breeding. We suggest that this nominal sum be fifty cents and that every owner of a first-edition copy of the 1910 Standard of Perfection be invited later on to mail it to the secretary of the association, accompanied by a remittance of fifty cents, and that in exchange for his old copy. upon payment of the fifty cents extra, he be furnished. postage paid, a correctly illustrated copy. Postage on the present Standard is thirteen cents per ·copy. By this plan present owners of the 1910 Standard would be called upon to pay sixty-three cents for a new and correct edition and the American Poultry Association would receive. from these first-edition buyers. thirty-seven cents net per copy for the new book-fifty cents, less the thirteen cents for postage to send the second-edition copy to each such purchaser.
The text of the present edition or the 1910 Standard appears to be generally satisfactory. But few complaints have been heard about the text or reading matter of the book. Such errors or omissions as have been noted should of course be corrected. This, however, will not render necessary the making of many new plates. The present printing plates can be patched, as a rule, where errors are corrected, or omissions supplied; but even if a few pages of reading matter should have to be reset. the expense for this item will be small. as compared with the type-setting for the first edition.
In getting out a new edition of the 1910 Standard, such large Items of expense as the two weeks meeting of a revision committee, consisting of nine or ten members, the payment for art work, the cost of composition; etc., will not be repeated; therefore it is probable that thirty-seven cents per copy will cover cost of production, especially in view of the fact that the next edition will need to consist of not less than forty thousand copies, of which number eighteen to twenty thousand copies will be supplied to buyers of the first edition at a nominal cost per copy, leaving twenty thousand or more copies to be sold in regular course, at present prices, via, at a dollar and a half per copy retail,and eighty cents per copy in wholesale quantities.
The apparent injustice of this plan will be noted in the fact that late comers can buy the second edition 1910 Standard-a satisfactory book-for a dollar and a half. whereas those who bought the first edition will have to pay two dollars per copy. or two dollars and thirteen cents per copy. to be exact, but this injustice is not severe-is not to be compared with existing conditions. Moreover. those who bought copies of the first edition have had the benefit of the text of the new book-have used the present Standard to considerable advantage and It is probable that If they can exchange the defective book for a correct and far more valuable one. doing so at a cost of only fifty cents plus thirteen cents for return postage on their first-edition copy. they will be glad of the chance and will consider themselves quite well off.
Further objection may be made that the probable outcome of present conditions. including the publication of such articles as this one. will be to leave the American Poultry Association with five or six thousand unsold copies of the present 1910 Standard on hand. That fact is to be regretted, but we do not see how it can be avoided. in justice to all concerned, and duly considering the best interests of poultry. culture. It is not the fault of the eighteen thousand persons who have bought the present edition of the Standard that it is not what it should be, They paid the regular price for the book. doing so in good faith. and if it is true that the book is not what they want, is not satisfactory. is not a true and safe guide to the breeding and exhibiting of standard-bred fowls, then the American Poultry Association, as the owners and publishers of the book, as the organization that compiles and sells It, as the body of poultrymen In which is vested the authority to establish Standard requirements for the many popular breeds and varieties of chickens, turkeys, ducks and geese-this Association should bear a fair share of the loss rather than ask to be allowed to shift all of it upon its customers -upon men and women who trusted the association to do its work in a proper manner and to give value received.
Examples of Incorrect and Misleading 1910 Standard Illustrations
Starting at the front of the book the first inconsistency in the 1910 Standard may not be regarded as of importance, but attention is called to it as an example of haste or indifference in compiling and illustrating the new book. Plate No. I herewith shows in heavy black line the Nomenclature Diagram of fowl as published on page 12. This Nomenclature fowl represents a Silver Penciled Wyandotte male. It was not made for the 1910 Standard, but was reproduced from the 1905 edition and is an exact duplicate in size and shape outlines of the Wyandotte males that were published in the body of the Standard-over in the section where the Wyandottes are described and regularly illustrated. In other words a reader of the 1905 Standard looked at or studied the Nomenclature Diagram of fowl, in connection with the “Glossary of Technical Terms” and then turned to body of the book and examined or studied the Wyandotte males, in connection with the descriptive wording, he saw birds, or illustrations of birds, that were identical – as should be the case.
To repeat the 1905 Nomenclature Diagram of fowl in the 1910 Standard of Perfection was to invite discrepancy, because in the ordinary course of events it was not to be expected that the ideal Wyandotte male shape to be illustrated in the 1910 Standard would agree with the Nomenclature fowl and regular Wyandotte illustrations in the 1905 Standard. On the contrary, It was reasonable to assume that there would be more or less difference between the shape outlines of the transplanted Nomenclature fowl, a Silver Penciled Wyandotte male, drawn by Mr. Sewell in 1904, and the new Wyandotte male pictures made six years later by another artist for the new Standard and this was proved to be the case.
In Plate No. I herewith the heavy black line shows the 1905-1910 type of male Wyandotte shape, represented in the Nomenclature Diagram, as compared with the White Wyandotte male shape illustrated in the 1910 Standard of Perfection, on page 72. The White Wyandotte male was selected for comparison because the shape outlines of this bird were approved by leading Wyandotte specialists at the St. Louis convention, August. 1910.
An examination of Plate No. I will show the difference- the inconsistency. In this plate the beak of the Nomenclature fowl is made to overlap the beak of the 1910 regulation White Wyandotte male and the breast lines of the two birds were matched-then the outlines were drawn, exactly reproducing them. The result shows that the Nomenclature bird is taller, is longer in back and body, also somewhat longer in neck.
Reducing the size of the Nomenclature outline would not make the shape of this bird correspond with the outlines of the regulation 1910 Wyandotte male. The two outlines are alike, are quite similar in fact, but they are not identical. not by considerable. Clearly a new Nomenclature cut should have been made — -one that would have exactly duplicated the shape outlines of the 1910 Standard Wyandotte males and the size of the Nomenclature fowl should have been the same as that of the other Wyandotte males illustrated as ideal in the new Standard.
Plate No. II shows the discrepancy between the Barred Rock male, page 40 of the 1910 Standard, and the Buff Plymouth Rock male. page 46-both cuts by the same artist. Here the points of the beaks and the breast lines have been matched and a comparison of the heavy black line and the dotted line will show why the illustration of the Buff Plymouth Rock male in the 1910 Standard (page 46) is deficient in height. somewhat short in body. particularly in the length of the keel and why the Buff Rock male looks dumpy. as compared with the up-standing. vigorous-looking Plymouth Rock male illustrated on page 40. The combs are not alike and the Buff Rock male would appear to weigh a pound or two pounds less than the Barred Plymouth Rock male, whereas the word description is identical In every particular and the standard weights are the same.
Plate No. III shows the body outlines of the 1910 Standard Barred Plymouth Rock male in comparison with the supposed-to-be ideal. type of Partridge Plymouth Rock male as illustrated on page 64 of the 1910 Standard-the work of a different artist. Here we have in the Partridge Plymouth Rock male a decidedly smaller bird-a bird that would appear to weigh two pounds less than standard if we assume that the Barred Plymouth Rock male is of about the right size to represent standard weight for a mature male bird of this breed.
In the new Standard there are at least tour distinct types of Plymouth Rock male shape-one shown in the Barred Plymouth Rock male, another In the White Rock male, another in the Buff Rock male-these three by the same artist-then still another type, more slender and lighter weight in body, as represented in the Silver Penciled, Partridge and Columbian male illustrations. The three last named agree pretty well with one another. but each is conspicuously deficient in the important points here mentioned,
In making the outline plates herewith for the purpose of showing the differences in Plymouth Rock male shape, as illustrated in the new Standard of Perfection, we have not used an outline of the White Rock male, because it is conceded by all that this Illustration should not have been published in the new book-that it does not correctly represent the breed, that no one should adopt this long-backed, low-tailed. squat-looking specimen as illustrating ideal or standard Plymouth Rock male shape. The artist has repudiated the alteration of this bird’s tail-an alteration consisting of the addition of an extra sickle feather. On the other hand, the engravers and printers are said to have made affidavit that they did not change in any way the original sketch of the White Rock male, as placed in their hands. Of course, a new ideal White Rock male picture will be furnished for the next edition of the 1910 Standard, showing a bird that will more nearly agree In shape outlines with the Barred Plymouth Rock male, as illustrated on page 40 of the present 1910 Standard.
In this article we shall not undertake to point out all .the mistakes and discrepancies appearing in the illustrations of the 1910 Standard. but before leaving the Plymouth Rock’s we feel that. attention should be directed to. the differencea in the shape of the male Plymouth Rock comb-a matter of importance. because the comb is a conspicuous feature. especially in male birds of this breed.
Plate No. IV shows in outline-enlarged three times-the comb of the White Rock male in the 1910 Standard as compared with the comb of the Barred Plymouth Rock male. same book. In this case the points of the beaks are matched, also the tops of the two highest serrated points of the combs. Notice the difference in the depth of the serrations. Which is standard-which is correct? In this picture–Plate No. IV, If the lower edge of the blade (rear portion) of the White Rock comb were lowered until It matched the same point of the Barred Rock comb, the points of the three middle serrations of the Barred Rock comb would be one-fourth to one-third higher than the same points on the White Rock comb, which fact indicates the difference in the depth of the serrations on the two combs. Which is correct-which Is standard? The word description Is the same for both. Ought not these combs, therefore, be exact duplicates of each other? It would be easy to have them so-as a matter of course.
We dare say that competent Plymouth ‘Rock judges would criticize both of these combs. For example, the blade of the White Rock comb Is too short and the three front spikes appear to slant forward Instead of Inclining slightly to the rear. which would form a better looking Plymouth Rock comb-as shown on the Buff Rock male, for example. On the other hand, the third and fourth points of the Barred Rock comb are too slender, are too pointed in appearance and the line from the beak to the first point of the comb is some-what too long, etc.
In the 1905 Standard of Perfection the comb of all Plymouth Rocks, males and females respectively. were duplicates–so were the male and female shape outlines.· The same was true of all the Wyandottes, of all the Leghorns, etc. THAT WAS THE RIGHT METHOD TO ADOPT-this Is the plan that should have been followed in making the ideal shape outlines for the 1910 Standard.
If readers of these lines who own a 1905-1906 Standard will take sheets of thin paper and draw pencil outlines of any male or female Plymouth Rock. Wyandotte or Leghorn-for example-Illustrated In said Standard, it will be found that these outlines match closely every other male or female of the same variety in the book, with but few exceptions. One exception is the case of the Columbian Wyandottes. male and female. These Illustrations are the same In shape outline’s as the other Wyandotte varieties male and female respectively, but the cuts by mistake were made one-third of an inch too narrow. causing the birds to appear small in size, though of correct standard shape as compared with the other Wyandottes in the 1905-1906 Standard.
By “1905-1906 Standard” we mean this: A first edition of that Standard was published in 1905 under copyright. and a second edition in 1906 under a separate copyright. Meantime, Columbian Wyandottes were admitted to the Standard and illustrations were ordered. Right sized Wyandotte cuts were used In the 1905 edition, and these cuts were repeated in the 1906 edition. but in ordering the Columbian Wyandotte cuts a mistake occurred In giving the proper width as compared with the other Wyandotte Illustrations.
Plate No. V shows the body outlines of the Barred Plymouth Rock female, illustrated on page 41 of the new Standard, as compared with the While Rock female. shown on page 45-both pictures by the same artist. Here the beak points and breast lines were matched. The two birds are of about the same height and their breast shape agrees fairly well, but note the difference-the surprising difference- in length of body. The judge or experienced breeder may well ask which shape outline is correct for Plymouth Rock females. all varieties? As for the amateur. what show does he stand? The word description in the Standard of ·Perfection is the same for the two birds — is identical as to length of body and all other shape values.
If the difference in the length of body of the Barred and White Rock females is surprising, then we submit that the far greater difference shown in Plate No. VI might with justice be called-dumfounding! This plate shows the extreme difference which exists In the shape outlines for Plymouth Rock females, illustrated in the 1910 Standard of Perfection. The Barred Plymouth Hock female shape, as shown by the heavy black line, is by one artist ; the Silver Penciled Plymouth Rock female shape, as shown by the dotted line, is by another artist.
In this plate (No. VI) the beak points and breast lines are matched and the backs are about on a level. The black outline shows a Barred Rock female that would appear to be long-bodied enough to lay goose eggs, as compared with the short and delicate Sliver Penciled Plymouth Rock female. represented by the dotted outline.
These outlines show the relative size of the two pictures as they now appear In the 1910 Standard. The difference in the size of the two birds is incorrect and misleading. If the Barred Rock female were reduced in size, so that her body would be as short all that of the Sliver Penciled Rock female, the necks of the two birds would not match, would not be identical In outline. Also the tails are different In shape and the breast outlines are different. In each case, which Is correct? . All shape outlines of these two birds are described exactly alike in the new Standard, one description being used for all varieties of the Plymouth Rocks mate and female, point for point and section by section.
Plate No. VII illustrates the wide difference in tail carriage of four of the Wyandotte females illustrated In the 1910 Standard of Perfection-all by the same artist. The line a-b represents the top of the halftone plate. The beaks of the four females were matched In making plate No. VII and the tail of each of the four females, as outlined on this plate, is located the same relative distance from the top of the halftone plate, a and b. as is the case In the 1910 Standard. In the new Standard the tail of the Silver Wyandotte female is practically on a level with the top of her head-a ridiculous carriage, far removed from the Standard requirement. In Plate No. VII we may assume that the heavy line shows about the correct carriage of tail. What then shall we say of the carriage of tail represented by the Silver Wyandotte female?
There is uniformity of type in these four outlines and if the different positions of the birds on the four half-tone plates In the new Standard were ignored and the body outlines of the Buff, Columbian and Silver Penciled Wyandotte females (see Plate No. VII) were pushed downward and forward to a level with the White Wyandotte outline. using the matched beak points as a pivot. the tails of these birds would match fairly well and the four pairs of legs would then occupy about the same position; but to do this would throw the upper breast line of the Columbian Wyandotte out of place as compared with the same section of the White Wyandotte and would make the neck of the Columbian Wyandotte still less bulky than that of the White Wyandotte and still more lacking in curve of neck; would do the same thing to the neck of the Buff Wyandotte females; would make the body of the Buff and Silver Wyandotte females considerably shorter than that of the White Wyandotte female-in other words, no two of these outlines would agree even if the high tails were brought down in an attempt to match them.
Where judges cut a quarter of a point in a dozen or more sections for differences In type-and bearing in mind the fact that “shape makes the breed”-what is the judge to do when confronted by an irate exhibitor holding the 1910 Standard in his hands and demanding an explanation? The American Poultry Association is the accepted authority on standard requirements and its copyrighted book. the Standard of Perfection, is the guide for breeding, for placing awards, for testing the degree of excellence attained in the breeding of fine fowls. Are the differences in shape outlines, to which attention is directed in this article, of Importance, of real value-or are they not?
In Protection of Utility Values for General-Purpose Breeds and Varieties
Permit us to digress to an extent. In preparing and commenting on Plates Nos. I to VII Inclusive herewith, we have kept away from questions that are largely matters of opinion, preferring merely to direct attention to the differences in Standard pictures that are meant to show the same ideals-pictures that should duplicate one another; but it might readily be claimed, for example, that the illustration of the Buff Orpington male, page 178 of the 1910 Standard, does not correctly Interpret the Standard description and popular ideal of the male of this breed-that the artist has shown too low-down, too “beefy” a bird. While these questions are matters of opinion, yet they are highly Important and in revising or correcting the illustrations in the present 1910 Standard so that the next edition will be acceptable to expert poultry breeders and truly helpful to all concerned, proper means should be found to make sure that the artists correctly interpret the word descriptions of all breeds and varieties, in with the ascertained judgement of experienced breeders and judges. Plate No. VIII shows an American Poultry World suggestion, in the form of a different type of Orpington male, as regards body outlines. The dotted line shows a shorter-bodied bird, a bird somewhat higher on its legs, having a less beefy neck and a longer, somewhat larger comb. Which of the two birds is likely to possess the greater vigor, the greater utility value, is a question to be decided by Orpington breeders based on personal observation and definite breeding records.
The importance of color of plumage and of feather markings is not to be ignored in Standard making. Shape is held to be more important than color, but what is the amateur to do when he reads in the new Standard that the color of the neck of Columbian Plymouth Rocks, Columbian Wyandottes and Light Brahmas is identical, yet when he turns to the illustrations of the Columbian Plymouth Rocks and Columbian Wyandottes he finds the necks, including hackle feathers, illustrated as shown herewith in Plate No. IX?
Fig. I, Plate IX, shows the artist’s interpretation of the word description for head and neck of a Columbian Plymouth Rock female, while Fig, 2, same plate, shows the same artist’s interpretation of the same identical Standard wording for head and neck color of a Columbian Wyandotte female, The amateur who bas bought a 1910 Standard may well ask. Which is correct? The experienced judge and the amateur breeder probably will agree in wondering why the artist did not make these necks exactly alike in color treatment-in view of the fact that the Standard word description for the two necks is the same, word for word.
Plate No. X is an example of “from bad to worse.” Fig. 1 represents a pea comb, as understood and pictured by an unknown poultry artist discovered by President Bryant in or near Boston. Fig. 2 is a pea comb according to the Standard description. Fig. 1 is the comb and head of a Buckeye male, illustrated on page 102 of the 1910 Standard and Fig. 2 shows a “sure enough” pea comb, as illustrated in the Glossary of Technical Terms. These two combs are about as near alike as a piece of cheese and a buzz saw.
We have taken the liberty of reproducing the eye of the Buckeye male, because we think the expression of this eye indicates that the bird knew that the artist had used the wrong comb! There is a startled expression in the face of the bird which suggests “bad news from home,” ‘or a determination to get a new and better comb at any cost. One critic has pronounced this to be the true “buck” eye, though we are not informed that this was how the breed got its name. With such an eye staring at him. it is not surprising that an inexperienced artist should have invented a new style of comb, of the Heinz pickle or cucumber variety.
Perhaps one may joke in safety about the Buckeye picture. because possibly they have no friends who are righteously Indignant at the misrepresentation of the breed in the 1910 Standard, but when we come to consider the carriage of tail of so important a breed as the Minorcas, we can only express astonishment that an experienced artist should have made the mistake illustrated in Plate No. XI. Fig. 1 shows the carriage of tail of the White-Faced Black Spanish female Illustrated on page 155 ·of the new Standard and Fig. 2 shows the carriage of tail of a Single Comb Black Minorca female, page 151 of the new Standard.
The Standard description of the White-Faced Black Spanish female calls for an angle of forty-five degrees from the horizontal in carriage of tall, while the description of the Minorca female calls for an angle of forty degrees, a difference of only five degrees, but the illustrations on Plate No. XI a reproduction of the tail angles of the two birds, as pictured in the 1910 Standard-shows a difference of about twenty degrees. In other words, the tail carriage of the Minorca female Is fifteen degrees too low, as compared with the carriage given to the tail of the Black Spanish female.
Undoubtedly a new drawing should be made of the Black Minorca female, with the object of correcting the carriage of tall. also of thickening the present slim neck and adding weight and the appearance of strength to the thighs. This illustration falls far short of doing justice by a high-class Minorca female of exhibition quality.
Plate No. XII shows outline illustrations of the head and neck of the Red Pyle Game female as compared with the Silver Duckwing Game female, both outlines taken from the 1910 Standard, both being by the same artists. The word description of these two heads is IDENTICAL as to shape-is one and the same thing, word for word. The Standard says that the shape of head for these birds should be “long, lean and bony”; that the beak shall be “long, tapering, slightly curved”. Here is difference in shape outline-with a vengeance! Which is correct? Which shall the judge use in placing awards? Which is to be followed by poultrymen in mating and breeding to meet Standard requirements ?
Plate No. XIII illustrates the remarkable change (?) that has taken place during the last five years In Standard shape requirements of the Black Tailed Japanese Bantam female-if we are to believe what we see In the 1910 Standard pictures.
The heavy black outline shows to what height the body of this type of female has grown in the last few months. as compared with the Standard illustration (1906 edition) that was in full force six months ago- that was used by poultrymen and judges during the breeding season of 1910. before the new Standard was placed on sale and came into use.
The remarkable part of it is that the word description of the shape of head. neck. breast and body of the female Black Tailed Japanese Bantam was not changed by the revision committee of 1909-1910, but today is exactly the same as it was six years ago, when the dotted outline as reproduced on Plate No. XIII was made for the 1905 Standard of Perfection. Yet the Ideal female of this diminutive variety, as shown by the heavy black line on Plate No. XIII, has grown “a head taller” than her dainty little friend of the 1905 Standard-but when this surprising growth took place, or was authorized, the deponent sayeth not.
Let it be borne in mind that in preparing the foregoing Illustrations, we did not go through the new Standard with a fine-tooth comb, looking for mismeasurements, wrong feather markings, Inferior engraving or poor printing. We have meant to draw attention only to such defects and inconsistencies in the supposed-to-be ideal illustrations as are clearly apparent to anyone “with hair an eye” -mistakes that are self-evident, the existence of which make the 1910 Standard of Perfection a misnomer and the retention of which, in a book of this character, is certain to result In far-reaching harm to the standard-bred poultry Industry of the United States and Canada.