Problems of identification

Russell, p. 241, states the problem of identifying pre-improvement breeds cogently, citing four faults in modern systems, which may be summarised as follows:

1. (i) Treating early post-improvement sources such as the Board of Agriculture reports and Youatt's Sheep (1837) as primary sources.

2. (ii) Lack of system or incomprehensibility.

3. (iii) Over-reliance on modern versions of early breeds.

4. (iv) Artificial classifications, not based on biology.

It is difficult to avoid all these pitfalls, though Russell's own classification steers a fairly skilful course between the Scylla of generic chaos and the Charybdis of over-simplification. For the major discussions of the problem see Robert Trow-Smith, A History of British Livestock Husbandry to 1700, pp. 230–2, and A History of British Livestock Husbandry, 1700–1900, pp. 36–41 and 121–53; Eric Kerridge, The Agricultural Revolution, pp. 311–16; M. L. Ryder, ‘The History of Sheep Breeds in Britain’, and Sheep and Man, pp. 484–95; N. C. Russell, ‘Animal Breeding in England’, pp. 242–52.

Evidence that Dyer's ‘second sheep’ is a prototype New Leicester

In addition to the evidence I cited in the text, my evidence for identifying Dyer's ‘second sheep’ as a prototype New Leicester is largely negative. The best model available is Russell's, pp. 242–51, who (in what for the literary critic is a pleasingly Empsonian fashion) distinguishes seven types of pre-improvement sheep, with some sub-types. Dyer's phrase ‘That larger sort’ rules out his Group 7 (described as ‘Small’), and gravitates against (though does not exclude) his Groups 3 and 4, both described as ‘Small and Middle Sized’. The phrase ‘of head defenceless’ (i.e. polled rather than horned) rules out his Groups 2, 3, 5 and 6 (all horned).