It is perfectly evident to my own mind that my Ruby dog, Marvel, is crossed with Bulldog at a comparatively recent date, though there is nothing in his pedigree to suggest it. I may say that, though I am unable to explain it, the noseless head, screw tail, and webbed feet are practically invariably co-related characters, but there are two marked types of noseless head.

As to the webbed feet, these are doubtless a throw back to the little curly King Charles Water Spaniel. I shall never believe that the noseless, screw-tailed dog was produced solely by selection within a period of fifteen years. The type changed quite suddenly from the kind of short nose which would be brought about by selection, to an outrageous deformity. In 1830 it was still "a Spaniel unrivalled for beauty." In 1842 it had a broad mouth and generally apoplectic appearance. In 1845 it had "forehead as ugly as the veriest Bulldog/' and in 1872 the show dog was established as an "apple-headed, idiotic, hydrocephalous animal," and that delightful Mr. Julius settled it by his ill-timed practical joke in 1877.

I am sure that the short face is not the outcome of a cross with Pug, as has been suggested by some writers, for four reasons. 1. The screw tail that generally accompanies the noseless face is a short "down " tail, never curled upwards over the back. 2. The underjaw is usually very strong, with a pronounced lay back. 3. There is never a black mask or trace under any circumstances. 4. The back is often arched, and the chest is abnormally wide, with elbows out and curved forelegs.

I had the misfortune to buy a Toy Spaniel which had gone astray with a Pug, and am able to state that in the litter of seven every puppy had a black mask and a weak under jaw and the black trace down the back.

It is the bull-headed puppies that make all the whelping troubles of small Toy Spaniels. Small bitches of six pounds in weight which are free from Bull crosses would probably whelp without trouble. I have had several small bitches (one only five and a half pounds) showing the Italian type in a very pronounced way, and they bred quite easily.

It is the Bulldog head and shoulders that make the danger. We have one strain of Blenheim now of which the females are useless for breeding purposes, owing to the contracted pelvis and the heavy head and shoulders.

As the Blenheim has the only long record of the short nose, it may be wondered why I have stated that the King Charles is the most constant to the short face.

This is easily explained if the abnormally smashed face is due to the Bulldog cross, as the direct Bulldog cross certainly does not occur in the Blenheim breed, the only Bull blood being filtered through the King Charles. It must be remembered that many of the present Blenheim strains have also been crossed with the Marlborough, which, in its turn, has been crossed with the Holland Spaniel, which, between 1550 and 1660, had no stop whatever.

I feel sure that, if allowed to choose my strains and use what dogs I liked, I could produce noseless, screw-tailed puppies of either of the types I have mentioned with absolute certainty.

Most of the puppies with absolutely sunken noses die of cleft palate or are choked at birth, and unable to breathe.

The ones that survive most easily are those which approximate closest to the Japanese noseless type, which apparently has not the elongated palate of the noseless Toy Spaniel.

Toy Spaniels of the present day have some very grave defects, and breeders should turn their attention seriously to them. Some of the judges are beginning to do so, and I managed to get a clause as to soundness inserted in the Toy Spaniel standard a year or two ago. Up to the present, however, very little attention has been paid to it in practise, unsoundness passing unnoticed to championship honours.

The defects are as follows:

1. Unsoundness.

2. Grotesqueness of type - ugly expressions.

3. Bad coats or no coats.

4. Excessive timidity - sluggishness or semi-idiocy.

Unsoundness is a very grave danger, especially in the black-and-tan, almost every strain of which is unsound. There are very few perfectly sound King Charles, and large numbers are entirely unfit for show on that account. That many of them win is sufficient proof that we must, indeed, be in a bad way. Crippled sires and unsound dams cannot produce sound stock, and all unsoundness should be uncompromisingly penalized by judges unless obviously due to an accident. It is no use for a judge to put down A's dog in Class 1, for unsoundness, and then proceed to put up B's dog in Class 2, forgetting that he is equally unsound. This sort of judging merely irritates exhibitors and does no good, and I must say that specialist judges are worse offenders than all-round judges in this matter, as they are apt to be carried away by wonderful head points and to forget everything else. If a judge penalizes unsoundness or any other bad point, he should do so consistently. I cannot too earnestly insist on this point of consistency, and I commend it also to reporters.

It is grossly unfair to crab one dog for a fault and pass it over in another.

Specialist judges are apt, as I said, to give undue importance to head points or technical specialist points. For instance, a good sound dog, perfect in all points, will be put back by practically any specialist judge for white on the chest, and a glaring cripple preferred to him, provided it has no white hairs. A dog that has even a few white hairs, that it takes the judge ten minutes to find, will be penalized to an absurd extent. A curly coated dog will be beaten by the most miserable of weeds, etc, etc. Now, "all rounders " have much more balance of judgment, and I would far rather trust a good specimen of any breed in its own class to an unprejudiced all-round judge than to a specialist. Specialists often have their own fads, which tend to warp their judgment on essential points. Defects of conformation should always be penalised before accidental blemishes, but it requires a very strong judge to overlook an obvious superficial blemish, such as a stain, a burn, a wounded foot or a damaged eye, or even defective markings rather than a faulty type, exaggerated jaw, or an unpleasing expression.

As a matter of fact, I think the latter would at present always win the day.