May 3, 1978

The reason for this picture which you have already seen is that a friend of mine was sent the Australian Catalogue of the Chinese Exhibition and it seemed to me that the picture of this pot with the chicken head spout, was in color but not as sharp and clear as this one, which appeared in the Exhibition Catalogue here. Your catalogue was in every way more beautiful more than the one we got. Ours have no color plates or cover.

About the petrogliphs, this was something a fiend visiting Hawaii brought me. I the wrote the Bishop Museum in Honolulu, and they sent me 3 copies of the things they consider chickens, but you have to use your imagination. They are just barely skeletons. I think them much older then their guess. I have pictures of a Babylonian Cylinder Seal, an ancient Hebrew seal, and the Greek and Roman mosaics, which are definitely chickens, and these are not prehistoric by any means. What we are trying to find is some representation of a prehistoric creature that is something between Archaeopteryx and Gallus bankiva. This may be as illusive as the missing link between apes and men. The chicken’s bones are so fragile, it would be a miracle if any survived.

None of that, of course, has any bearing on your search for the origin of Pekin-Cochin Bantam. We must keep searching for artefacts, and I think your discovery of the 4th century Celadon pot is splendid. Let me know what the Japanese article told.

Pardon me for not writing more today. I am still in much shoulder pain, and typing doesn’t help much. More anon.

Sincerely,

P.S. There are 2 Davenports. One is called Inheritance in Poultry 1906, and the other Inheritance of characteristics in domestic fowl 1909. I bought them way back in 1951, and I am ashamed to tell you how little I paid.

P.S. #2. Yes, Camarillo, California, is about 500 miles from here. I wrote him there, but no answer. He may be getting old, just out here get away from the frightfully cold East Cost.