Article published July 2003

Sometimes it's better not to tinker with type. BRIAN KEENAN argues that cross-breeding canaries for the sake of it is a waste of time.

Generally speaking, we canary breeders are a conservative lot. A recent article (May 3rd 2003) discussed the pros and cons of cross breeding, and the relative benefits, if any. If you go back far enough, all canary varieties were produced by cross breeding, some, more recently than others.

Excellent type breeds

The Yorkshire canary was originally produced by crossing the Lancashire with the Belgian canary. That was in the late 19th century, when type canaries were nowhere near as well defined as they are today. The attributes required from the Belgian were nerve, a slender waist and a pronounced shoulder, all of which were intended to refine the large, coarse feathered Lancashire bird. Over the years, the resultant progeny were developed through selective breeding, until slim, elegant, upright birds were produced, which it was said, were capable of passing through a gentleman's wedding ring. They were totally different from their antecedents, and the vision from the original cross breeding was proven to be successful and sustainable.

Later in the Yorkshire canaries history, larger specimens were required, and during the early 1960's, much of the birds charm was lost because of this. Large, broad feathered specimens were produced with little of the character that helped define a good exhibition bird. Generally speaking, these birds were much larger than we see today, but they consisted of bulk, and little else.

Model change

Both before and after the change in the model, cross breeding was again occurring, perhaps covertly, but nevertheless, a strong infuence of Norwich canary blood was used, in an effort to gain size and increase head properties. Because the Yorkie had been defined for many generations since the original Belgian x Lancashire pairings in the 19th and early 20th centuries, the introduction of Norwich blood brought many adverse effects. The Norwich of the 1950's and 60's were far different birds than they are today, carrying very undesirable coarse feather. Birds with short legs, wrongly positioned towards the rear of their bodies, fat bellies, hinged tails, with loss of position, square browy heads, and feather lumps, were common place, and the originally conceived elegant Yorkie seemed light years away.

Thankfully, the leading judges of the day stuck to their task, and promoted birds displaying the desired type, ahead of those with an obvious dubious pedigree. Today, the Yorkie is a better bird than ever before, having regained its feather quality, type and it's typical 'swank and swagger'. Some birds do still revert occasionally, showing traces of their distant mixed origin, such as badly positioned legs, thick waists and even an occasional long, dippy neck, but in the main, more birds are resembling the model than ever before.

If we look at the breed today, few changes are needed. Perhaps a move towards promoting the production of new colours, such as dilutes, or even recessive whites to stimulate more interest, but in my humble opinion, little else.

Experimental buff cross-breeding

Although I do not advocate it, perhaps the most obvious cross would be a dimorphic paired into a Yorkie, which has certainly happened in other breeds, the Norwich once again coming to mind. Because the Yorkie show standard would require changing to take the dimorphism into account, I doubt that serious fanciers would take up the challenge, but I am sure any birds produced would provide a good deal of interest, a few years 'down the line'. As for miniatures - no thanks - they existed back in the 1960's and 1970's, and several were exhibited at the National for a few years, but failed to generate much interest. I still see a few at times, masquerading as true Yorkies, but perhaps I am being a little too cruel there!