Now, even in Scotland, "setting" dogs are, after the first three weeks, of little service; so that for partridge shooting (where it is not conducted in gangs) I consider that the pointer has still, through his usefulness, a heavy claim on our regard.

Before I proceed to define the points considered necessary to make up a first-class prize winning pointer, I may just say that there can be no doubt whatever that the standard of points used to decide as to which is the best looking pointer is in some measure a fancy and an arbitrary one. It makes some points essentially necessary that are of no real practical value, because they have no direct or indirect bearing on the dog's utility. The possession of them does not render him any the more fitted to assist the sportsmen with the gun., I do not demur to the points now adopted as tests of beauty, simply because we all have our ideas of what is beautiful, and the standard may represent the framer's views of it, but I only wish to point out that in matter of minutiae the standard of points used to decide which is the best looking pointer need not be applied to dogs bred for sporting purposes alone, for whether they possess these trifling points or not does not in any way affect their usefulness; such, for instance, as that a pointer must have a deep stop between the eyes, and a well pronounced drop from skull to nose; no loose skin on his throat, called "throatings"; ears set on low, and lying flat to cheeks; a nicely tapered stern, etc.

That these are not absolutely necessary to render a pointer good at his work will be clearly understood by every sportsman, and in support of this statement I may add that many dogs remarkable for their excellence in the field do not possess them. That celebrated field trial winner Drake (sold at seven years old for 150 guineas to Mr. Price, of Bala), a marvel in his day, although possessing in a very marked degree the points of endurance, wear and tear qualities, cannot raise any claim to be considered good looking in a show-bench point of view. In general outline he is just the build that is looked for in a dog of whom a lot of hard work is required; but on critical examination - that is, taking into consideration all the little etceteras which go to make up a show-bench winner, he is found very deficient. Only compare him with his kennel companion, the celebrated show-bench winner Wagg, and then the points which make Wagg so successful will be seen to be entirely absent in him. These are the points which I would be understood to call "fancy points."

I know well that many good-looking dogs have won at field trials, but the fact that many more that are not good-looking have taken the most prominent position as field trial runners remains. Dogs that have, by their excellent qualities in the field, quite charmed me, have been most unlike what is considered a good-looking show-bred bench pointer.

I know the object of the standard of points was to combine the useful and the beautiful, and that these have not been more successfully united in the pointer of to-day is no reflection on breeders. Pointers are now, there can be no question, far better looking than in former years, but that the best for field purposes are not always the best looking is a well-established fact. In the productions of nature, and of animal nature especially, great beauty and great usefulness are very rarely combined, and that pointers possessing both are the exception, not the rule, is quite certain.

Our leading prize winners, under different, and even the same judges, so very frequently change places in the prize list, that it is almost impossible to select a dog as "the model" of what a pointer should be. In the midst of this strange conflict of opinion as to which is and which is not the ideal pointer, and in spite of the fickleness of individual judges, it must be admitted that many of the principal prize takers of to-day are dogs of striking symmetry, and such as possess all the essential qualities to make excellent sporting dogs, although their beauty may be of very different types.

As far as can be gathered from decisions given, it now appears that -

The head should be long, and that from the corner of eye to end of nose should be as long as possible. There should be a well pronounced stop between the eyes, and a good drop from the skull to nose. The space under the eye, between the eye and nose, should be cleanly cut. This seems to give character to the face; when this part is filled up it makes the head look what is called "gummy." The skull should not be too wide between the ears, nor too prominent from corner of set of ear to the eye. Dogs with wide skulls and full temples are very frequently extremely headstrong, and far too independent of their master's instructions when at work. They do not acquire in intelligence by this increased size of skull so much as a selfish liking to do as they please when beyond immediate control - a very troublesome fault. The lips should not hang down like the bloodhound's, nor yet taper up to nostrils so much as the foxhound's.

The eyes should not be sunken like the hound's, nor yet "goggle-eyed," but should be full of animation and intelligence. A sullen, hard-looking eye is to be avoided; it is frequently the indication of a headstrong, ungovernable animal, almost worthless in the field.

The ears should be thin and silky, and of such a length as to reach just below the throat, that is, when hanging in the usual position. They should be set in below the square of the skull, and hang flat to the cheeks.

The neck should be long and muscular, springing out cleanly from the shoulders, and pinned to the skull in the same way. It should be slightly arched.

The forelegs should be straight and strong, the arms muscular, the elbows well let down, and coming down well under the body, not out at elbow or pigeon-toed. The pastern should be short and well developed.