BEAVER
Transcriber’s Note
Each illustration of a beard originally faced the beard’s description. These have been moved to follow the title of the type of beard.
Footnotes have been moved to the end of the paragraph to which they refer.
Variant spelling and inconsistent hyphenation are retained.
Minor changes have been made to make punctuation consistent.
With respectful affection to the illustrious memory of Shagpat, the son of Shimpoor, the son of Shoolpi, the son of Shullum.
BEAVER
BY
JOHN KETTELWELL
An Alphabet of typical Specimens, together with Notes and a terminal Essay on the Manners and Customs of Beavering Men
LONDON:
T. WERNER LAURIE, LTD.
30, NEW BRIDGE STREET, E.C. 4
A.
IS AN ADMIRAL-BEAVER.
The specimen mounted is typical and the coat is good, harsh and not silky, a common fault in these rough-haired examples.
An Admiral-King-Beaver is unthinkable ... “derogation of God’s honour,” etc.
Though the sport is deservedly popular in the Service, it is attended by infinite risk should the specimen be of higher rank than the players. K. R. and A. I. contain no definite ruling as to the legality or otherwise of the game, but a Court-Martial would probably trip an unlucky player on “conduct to the prejudice,” etc.
In civil life (and plain clothes) it is most unusual to be able to score these specimens, hence the different values of Rear-Admirals, Vice-Admirals, etc., is not given, nor those of the various branches of the Service, Executive, Engineer, and the like.
B.
IS A BALD-KING-BEAVER.
That depicted is a magnificent specimen in full winter-coat.
They are not common, but occur frequently—the apparent paradox is explained by the fact that they are usually of an extremely retiring nature, and reside by choice in coigns and nooks.
For a specimen such as that mounted game should be claimed and nothing under three points accepted; rather call off the match and communicate with the Association.
In scoring really fine specimens in full winter-coat extra points can, and should be, claimed for purity of tint, bushiness, etc.
C.
IS A CENTAUR-KING-BEAVER.
There is no record of a specimen being scored. Probably the last person to do so may have been Jason. The best authorities assume this, adducing as contributory evidence his later, passionate quest of the Golden Fleece. Ourselves we regard it as more likely that Chiron was never scored, Jason being held back by the natural delicacy of one in statu pupillari. In fact, Chiron was, almost certainly, a “local double-fault.”
D.
IS A DOUBLE-FAULT.
This question is dealt with in the terminal essay.
The specimen is a good one, and no player who is deceived by a growth of this kind need feel the smallest depression. It is the kind of thing that might happen to anyone.
A young specimen, darker than dark brindle, has, I believe, never been scored.
E.
IS AN ECCLESIASTICAL-KING-BEAVER.
Rare in general, there are frequently to be found in Cathedral cities large coveys, not very strong on the wing.
Local rules should be consulted as to the scoring. Fine specimens count at least three points.
I myself, recently, claimed an Ecclesiastical-King, in a country town, and was awarded two games for it; a well-known local rarity of which the place is justly proud.
It was a superb specimen, in good coat, a darkish brindle, and in official robes.
F.
IS A FRINGED-GEORGIC-BEAVER.
The species is less common than formerly. Some purists refuse to score these Fringed-Georgics on the plea that the upper lip is bare and the chin partially bare and that they are, therefore, double-faults. The general ruling is that as the adornment circumnavigates the face the chin is not bare, the bareness of the upper lip is immaterial and the specimen should be scored; one point in the country, three points in London.
G.
IS A GALLIC-KING-BEAVER.
The game is almost unplayable in France. Owing to the superabundance of specimens only rarities should be scored.
A report has just been received from Cap D’Antibes of a “magnificent Wasp-Waisted-King.” Game was called. No information was sent (correspondents are deplorably slack) as to colour or coat.
Good players, in France, lay great stress on minute differences in colour and characteristic, i.e., crimped, curled, waved, rat-tail, wuzzy, wild-garden, etc.
H.
IS A HALF-BEAVER.
These delightful specimens are now, unhappily, becoming very rare.
They are still occasionally scored in the neighbourhood of places of worship and on the seashore.
Some claim increased points in ratio to the length of the upper lip.
The specimen mounted (Stockton-on-Tees, 1919), is a fine one, exhibiting all the marked features of the genus, including a most gratifying labial expanse.
I.
IS AN IMPERIAL-BEAVER.
Not common in England; when scored in this country are almost invariably migrants.
These amusing specimens are, curiously enough, commoner in winter-coat than in ordinary plumage.
There are no tricks about scoring an Imperial. Any specimen with moustache and a growth beneath the lower lip, of which the parent area does not extend to the lower edge of the chin, is an Imperial.
Score three points for a Full-Black; one point for a White.
J.
IS A JOO BEAVER.
These exotics are fairly common, and local sportsmen can be relied upon to flush a few on short notice, provided that they are allowed to choose the beat.
In many ways curiously attractive, the charm of the species is marred by the frequent lack of neatness of plumage; as a race they incline to landscape-gardening with their hirsuteness.
Carefully note their musical cry of “Oy-Yoy ... Oy Yoy.” A specimen in full song, when the moon is full, counts game.
Some experts have a very nice scale—by which they score—of the curvilinear bill. This is a pretty point and a pleasant raffinement, but too subtle for the ordinary week-end player. Of course any unusually fine frontal curve should be claimed and scored as a rarity.
K.
IS A KILLINGWORTH-BEAVER.
This specimen is mounted for instructional purposes only. Connoisseurs and collectors are, of course, entirely au fait with the deliciousness of this gorgeous creature.
George Killingworth, in the year 1555, was sent to the court of Ivan the Terrible (one of the many monarchs who have, from time to time, taxed Beavers) as the agent of Queen Mary. His beard was five feet two inches in length and it was yellow. He was without doubt the most flawless specimen of a Yellow-King ever seen.
It is considered in the highest degree unlikely that anything approaching this efflorescence will be noted nowadays, hence no score is suggested.
L.
IS A LICKED-BEAVER.
It is worthy of remark in passing that this distinguishing title is due to the genius of a child—“trailing clouds,” etc.—who, on observing the first specimen ever scored, cried, “Oh, look; he’s licked it.”
The species is very rare. Off-shoots of the old stock, in the form of Semi-Walruses, are occasionally observed, but the Licked-Beaver is generally regarded as almost extinct. Possibly the cause of this diminution, if not extinction, may be the increase in the cost of living.
The specimen mounted is a very fine one. Should a player have the good fortune to score a Licked-Beaver, let him remember that it is the density of the licking, the spear-form, the sharpness, that should be regarded rather than the length of the portion licked.
M.
IS A MANDARIN-BEAVER.
Even in plain clothes should score two games if seen in England. There is no ruling as to the points to be scored if observed in this country in full plumage.
This specimen is often wrongly catalogued in books of reference as a Mandarin-King-Beaver. Royalty or Kinghood is impossible for a species which supports a very notable gap between its central adornment and the maxillary-fringes.
The specimen mounted is, so to say, traditional, that is, it is a transcript of an early-nineteenth century Chinese brush-drawing on silk in Chinese ink representing a hero, or as we should say, a Beaver.
N.
IS A NANNY-BEAVER.
Really good specimens are very rare. They are reported to flourish in the Eastern farming states of the United States of America, but British research is lamentably behindhand, and our exact knowledge is quite fragmentary.
In any case there is one simple rule for the guidance of the amateur; no Nanny-Beaver can be claimed or scored of which the adornment does not depend a full two inches from the under-surface of the chin.
O.
IS AN ORIENTAL-BEAVER.
These strangely beautiful specimens are rarely seen in this cold country.
Those who have had the privilege of observing closely a gaggle of Orientals in indigenous plumage (the species is pathetically subject to local changes) will, assuredly, ever prize the recollection.
The most noteworthy feature, apart from the extraordinarily fine quality of coat (glossiness, sheen, etc.), is the exotic parting which lends a wistful charm to the otherwise opulent glories of these occasional visitors.
Score always two games (in England); set, if the specimen is in indigenous plumage.
P.
IS A PARTI-COLOUR-BEAVER.
These specimens are curiously attractive and are more often scored than one would think. Artists, above all others, wax well-nigh lyrical over the beauties of a well-defined Parti-Colour, one, that is, in which there is almost no shading, the black being black and the white, white. The same colouration is observed in the pelt of the Colobus monkey and justly admired.
It is not possible to distinguish between natural and artificial Parti-Colours, unless one should happen to be a relative of the specimen. All Parti-Colours are, therefore, scored. (Two points.)
Q.
IS A QUEEN-BEAVER.
It has been objected that it is not gallant to score these undoubted rarities. Theoretically it is, certainly, not pretty conduct, but, on the other hand, all is fair in love and war, and ... has any man ever refused to shoot a rhinoceros on the plea that it was a female? (I merely ask ... someone may have done so. There may even be a close time for doe-rhinoes.) Be that as it may, the scoring of Queens is an affair of lineage. Regard this eighteenth century distich:—
“Here is a Pink-Queen, very rare,
Remember to count the sixteenth hair.”[1]
Queens are always scored extravagantly. Usually game; extra-rarities two games, and so on. The Pink-Queen is, without doubt, the rarest of her kind; conversely, when found, she is usually a superb specimen, in rich coat. The question of Queens is dealt with broadly in the terminal essay.
[1] Queens cannot be scored unless they have more than fifteen hairs.
R.
IS A RED-KING-BEAVER.
I feel a very natural emotion on commenting on the sublime specimen of the Red-King, the ultimate hope of every keen collector, which is portrayed on the opposite page. Observed outside “The Goose and Gridiron,” in Slogsby-under-Hill, this noble creature deprived both my companion (an ex-local champion) and myself of speech for three minutes.
Had he been carrying a ladder (the ne-plus-ultra of Beaverhood) we had never recovered from the glory of the revelation.
Red-Kings score “Game, set, match.” A Red-King on a green bicycle, carrying a lanthorn (or lantern), scores do. do. “Local Championship.” A Red-King on a green bicycle carrying a ladder (poor old Pelion!) has never, alas! been reported up to the present.
There are dreams of scoring a Red-King, complete with fitments, on a High Bicycle ... all things are possible, even a ravishment such as that.
S.
IS A SANTA-BEAVER.
These are usually scored, though your conscientious expert demurs at so doing, as it has been held—and the view is well supported by players of repute—that they are strictly-speaking Double-Faults, the adornment being temporary.
The genuine Santa-King-Beaver, complete with reindeer, sleigh and business with chimney, has never, I believe, been scored.
Claim a game if you, a stranger adult, score one.
T.
IS A TUFTED-KING-BEAVER.
It may, perhaps, be thought that this is a fanciful, a pernickety differentiation—such are to be deplored—but there is a very distinct species of Beaver—King or ordinary—having these marked characteristics, and the best players invariably claim a Tufted, and two points, if they have the luck to espy a specimen such as that depicted.
The points to look for are the three patches of foliage in centre forehead and over either ear. The chin-growth partakes of the nature of these, but it is the tufted temple which makes your rarity.
In the last century this sub-branch of the genus Longi-Florum was fairly common; sub-title, Adolphus.
U.
IS AN URSINE-BEAVER.
The specimen mounted is, I believe, unique. A noted scientist in private life, in public life an exquisite Ursine—or (as some say) Leonine—there are no data extant to assist us in forming an opinion as to why he did it.
It is scarcely likely that this phenomenon will flower again for centuries. Should a pale reflection be observed, remember that the salient points are: (a.) great width across the cheek-bones, (b.) uniformity of foliage.
The miracle mounted opposite had tendrils, delicate, wonderful, almost on the lower edge of the eye-lids.
The osseous formation of the nasal promonotory should be carefully studied by earnest amateurs.
V.
IS A VAN DYCK-BEAVER.
Mounted as an historical curiosity: they are now extinct.
In full bloom they were, I am told, very beautiful. The finest specimens had never shaved, hence the coat was a miracle of gloss, softness, shimmer and silk.
Should anything, anything approaching this shape be observed, kindly write at once to the Association, who are only too anxious to catalogue every rarity.
Disregard cropped hair. One dare not hope for a modern specimen in trailing-coat.
W.
IS A WALRUS.
These cannot be scored when playing Beaver.
A debased form of the game called “Walrus” is—actually—played, and, occasionally, mixed Walrus and Beaver. The Walrus game usually ends in an unseemly wrangle, owing to the intense difficulty in deciding on the exact status of the specimen.
The specimen mounted is almost perfect—perhaps it is a thought regular—it was observed in 1922 in Knightsbridge; the neat bow-tie was pale blue satin, almost certainly attached by a brass clip.
X.
IS A XANTHINE-KING-BEAVER.
These specimens are only scored by specialists.
There is a perfectly distinct difference between a Xanthine, a Red and a Yellow, but it is very small, and to mark it requires a very nicely-trained eye. Xanthines are usually rather bewildered-looking, and are remarkable, in general, for profusion of crop and coarseness of coat.
The habit of insisting on minute colour-niceties is to be deplored as tending to debase the sport to the level of the philatelist’s “rose-red on carmine,” “carmine on rose-red.”
Y.
IS A YELLOW-KING.
Excessively rare.
With the exception of George Killingworth, cited on page 25, the most notable Yellow-King of whom we have record is Leo Vincey, the superlative Beaver who went, in company with his dark-brindle guardian, Mr. Holly, in search of “She” ... or should it be “Her”?
There is no record in office of a Yellow-King having been scored in the last eleven years. They are seen occasionally in France, and there are vague rumours that a certain number are bagged yearly in Germany.
Claim extravagant points if you have the fortune to light upon one. Here again sheen is most important, and the coat should be fine, soft and silky.
Z.
IS A ZEBRA-KING-BEAVER.
Excessively rare.
I, myself, have once scored a Zebra-King, but it was, and is, the only specimen of which I have heard, and it is greatly prized locally.
The colour-demarcation must be very obvious before one can claim a Zebra. There is as much difference between a Yellow and a Red-King as there is between a Zebra and a Brindle.
The King illustrated is—I speak without fear of being contradicted—literally unique. In superb coat, ideal shape of attachment, in colour—a greenish tabby with dark markings, the Zebra I have the pleasure of showing you represents the ne-plus-ultra of rarity.
He thus forms a fitting, as it were, cul-de-lampe to my “littel” guide.