Evidence to the contrary - 1835 Sicilians did not die out

[byhookorchook]

THE POULTRY BREEDERS AND FANCIER'S DIRECTORY FOR 1871

The book has arrived and it names a very prominent breeder G. W. Gleason, Rock Bottom, Massachussetts, in 1871 as having Sicilians. The first import in 1835 is considered to have died out, and with The second coming in 1892 being the stock to which credit is given for all descending buttercups IS WRONG. I have succeeded in bridging the evidence from 1835 to 1871, and subsequently the article in Farm Poultry Journal April 1890 (two years prior) states that buttercups are small in number but in the hands of several breeders. It is not plausible therefor to think anything else but that the two lines of buttercups merged and are not therefor known as seperate lines. This would be the first such claim to refute common thinking.

Actually it begs the question as to whether it was first import line of mature stock of any number whether small or large , rather than new eggs that could give rise to the American Buttercup we know today. It is more logical to suggest they were already under development before the second import.

Frank Pytellek

[goosedragon]

THE POULTRY BREEDERS AND FANCIER'S DIRECTORY FOR 1871

The book has arrived and it names a very prominent breeder G. W. Gleason, Rock Bottom, Massachussetts, in 1871 as having Sicilians. The first import in 1835 is considered to have died out, and with The second coming in 1892 being the stock to which credit is given for all descending buttercups IS WRONG. I have succeeded in bridging the evidence from 1835 to 1871, and subsequently the article in Farm Poultry Journal April 1890 (two years prior) states that buttercups are small in number but in the hands of several breeders. It is not plausible therefor to think anything else but that the two lines of buttercups merged and are not therefor known as seperate lines. This would be the first such claim to refute common thinking.

Actually it begs the question as to whether it was first import line of mature stock of any number whether small or large , rather than new eggs that could give rise to the American Buttercup we know today. It is more logical to suggest they were already under development before the second import.

Frank Pytellek G'day! I am confused are you writing about import into the USA or into Australia?

[byhookorchook]

The statement was relating to the first imports into the United States. That line was thought to have died out or "absorbed" (ala Frank Platt....All Breeds Of Poultry Circa 1926) into common stocks of poultry. This is certianly not the case. I bet if I delve into it a little longer I will find more examples of evidence, as well as other breeders named pre 1892 that would also support this thinking.

byhookorchook