It would seem that when this was written the red variety was still a novelty, and that the law as to its colour was made by the Toy Spaniel Club. The law as to the white hairs or patches upon the King Charles and Ruby is a purely arbitrary one, and is not found in Dalziel, the whole of the paragraph about the Ruby and the white hairs on the chest of a Black-and-tan being interpolated, presumably by the Toy Spaniel Club together with the laws as to what should disqualify a dog. This is not historically correct, and I see no reason why judges and breeders who are not members of the Toy Spaniel Club and therefore not bound to support its ideas should pay the least attention to it, and, in fact, the judges at other shows than those held in London, and who are not chosen by the Toy Spaniel Club, are not hampered by any such red tape, and often award the prizes to Rubies marked with white. In my opinion the unbroken Reds or Blacks are quite unnatural, and a rule prohibiting all white leads inevitably to much dishonesty and faking, and is, therefore, undesirable.

1This statement is contradicted by a coloured plate of 1810, which represents a Tricolour Toy Spaniel with a perfect spot; also a stuffed specimen I have seen of about 1800 which has a perfect spot. Mrs. Lister Kaye bred last June, by one of my dogs, a Tricolour with a perfect spot, and there is a Dutch picture of 1660 of a Black-and white with the spot. I have at present a bitch with the spot.

The Black-and-tan had originally a white breast, and, the Ruby being manufactured by crosses of Black-and-tan and Blenheim, the struggle to breed out the white does an infinity of harm to other much more important points, and is most detrimental to soundness and stamina. Beyond the white breast, the Black-and-tan should not have white on the head or body, but the Ruby should not be penalised for white on chest or feet, but a white patch on the body as well should disqualify either variety, and white on the head of a Ruby should be penalised on the lines I have already set out under "penalties," unless we decide to show all dogs with white on the head in classes for "any other colour," which I think would be best. In my opinion, the Ruby may have light shadings, breast feathering and breech-ings very light, shading off and deepening into the body colour, with or without white tips to the toes. The original King Charles, I believe, was varied by orange with white shadings.

To this I must add a word or two about the colour of the present Tricolour. Almost all our best dogs are heavily loaded with black, and until I had studied the question of colour I was inclined to think that the outcry against them was justified. It will, however, be evident from a study of my table of colours that these black-backed Tricolours are the first outcome of the cross by which the colour is create?!, and that a second and third cross back to Red-and-white eliminates the heavy markings altogether. It is, therefore, not a disaster, as it is sometimes considered, but merely shows that the breeders are exhibiting the first cross instead of the second, as the first cross is shorter in nose than the second. In the generation C there is always one heavily marked Tricolour to each well marked one (perhaps more), and the heavy markings, screw tail, and noseless head are generally what are called co-related characters. As rightly marked ones are only a question of the number of Red-and-white crosses, these heavy markings are easily got rid of. At the same time I do not consider that these heavy markings are desirable in the show ring.

These dogs are very like the chrysalis from which butterflies are to come, and should not be considered as perfect butterflies.