Many ladies, by lavishing mistaken kindness on their pugs, do them serious harm. Over feeding, feeding too often, and on too rich diet, together with insufficient exercise, cause obesity, with a host of evils in its train, asthma among others, which make the dog's life a burden to itself and a cause of discomfort to the owner. Nothing does so well for house dogs as plain biscuits, dry bread, or well boiled oatmeal porridge, varied with a few scraps of meat from the stock pot, a little gravy, and boiled green vegetables, such as cabbage, turnips, and carrots, and occasionally large rough bones to gnaw and play with, and smaller ones to crunch and eat.

Before proceeding to give a detailed description and value of each point, I think it will be very useful to reproduce here in a condensed form a correspondence from the columns of the "Country," which created very considerable interest at the time, everyone of the writers being pug breeders, and most of them successful exhibitors. The writer, to open the ball, was Mr. Theodore Marples, and I think I cannot do better than let each writer speak for her and himself, omitting matter in the letters which had merely a passing or personal interest: -

"As an admirer of this breed of dog, which is nowadays one of, if not the, most fashionable canine appendage to the drawing room, 1 venture to make a few observations as to their points. I have procured many opinions on the pug, including 'Stonehenge,' 'Idstone,' Mayhew, etc, who differ little as to the essential points requisite in a ' perfect specimen.'I have attended many of our shows in various parts of the country, but have failed to discover the type of dog required, there being such a discrepancy in the decisions at shows. One judge seems to favour one dog and another judge prefers another, and in many instances, I will not say all, they seem to ignore altogether the points as laid down by the authors before named. At one show you will see a big dog, with a turned-up tail, not the 'curl,' win; at another, one with a long muzzle and leggy, or a black face and the coat all 'smutty,' instead of a distinct trace. Now, I think, and have no doubt most of the fancy will bear me out, that what I may term the modern pug should, in the first place, be 'small' - being a toy, the smaller the better. I adopt myself the standard weight of 121b., and if a little less all the better; but I contend if they are much over that it is a fault, and should be looked upon as such.

They should also be low on leg, with short round body, well ribbed up; shortness of muzzle also is a very important point, but how few you see really good in this respect. It is easy to breed them the other way, the head to be rather large and lofty, or high forehead if you will, with a full dark eye and set rather wide apart, ears small and to drop nicely at the side of the head, tail well-curled on the back, or what is termed ' double curled.' The old style was dogs to the right and bitches to the left, though I like to see them myself in the centre; but the important thing is that they be well-curled, and not merely turned up on the back like many street dogs. With regard to colour, the muzzle, eyebrows, ears, and centre of head only should be black, with the requisite moles on cheek and distinct line or trace down centre of back extending to root of tail. Most old writers maintain that the trace should extend to the tip of the tail, but this is seldom seen now. They also should have what is called hare feet - that is, toes well split up - and black toenails.

Inasmuch as there is a fixed number of points given by several of our best known breeders and writers on the pug whom no one disputes, I think if judges at our shows would adopt the point system to a greater extent it would assist breeders in knowing what to breed to, and so to cross the many types of pugs we have, and eventually get at the desired result."

To the above the following responses were made:

"I read with considerable pleasure Mr. T. Marples's letter about ' pugs' in your impression of last week, for, like him, I am an admirer and a breeder of these canine aristocrats; but I take exception to some of the points as he describes them.

"First as to size. Such loose expressions as 'the smaller the better' are objectionable in descriptions of our pets. Mr. Marples is quite justified in making 121b. the maximum standard for his own breeding, but he cannot tie others to it; a very small dog might be preferable if intended to be constantly nursed in a lady's lap, but others prefer a dog that can take exercise on its own legs and disport itself in park or field without being knocked up; and I do not think a 161b. pug too big for a companion and pet, and size I consider as nothing in comparison with shape, points, and markings.

"I know Mr. Marples has ' Stonehenge ' on his side in this, that eminent writer stating that a pug should weigh from 61b. to 101b.; but on this and one or two other points I think ' Stonehenge' contradicts himself, which I will endeavour to show presently; but first let me say I also take exception to the term 'low in the leg' or to their 'being short-legged,' unless it is. qualified or used relatively, and its exact meaning more clearly defined. I know a great many writers have used these terms in describing the pug, but I hold that this shortness of leg is more apparent than real, and that it is the wide and deep chest and round barrel that make the fore legs especially look shorter than they are. Meyrick, who, on the whole, gives an excellent description of the pug, also says that he should stand low on the leg; but all of these writers use similar terms in speaking of the Skye terrier, Dandie Dinmont terrier, and the dachshund, and, therefore, I do not think they should be used in describing the pug.

" ' Stonehenge' says, 'the general appearance is low and thickset,' and ' the body as close to the ground as possible,' which latter expression is, I think, absurd, as no such dog could have what he also insists on, 'an elegant outline.' The same writer adds, ' chest wide, deep, and round.' Now, I would ask, how can you have a dog agreeing to that description stand 'Stonehenge's ' maximum height of 15in., and not exceed his maximum weight of ten pounds? Meyrick, too, I consider, contradicts his own expression, 'low on the leg,' by giving as a maximum height 14in. Now, taking 'Stonehenge's' figures of height and weight, suppose a 14in. dog to weigh 91b., he would stand from 3½in. to 4in. higher at the shoulder than a 161b. Dandie Dinmont. I have just roughly measured the engravings in 'Stonehenge's' 'Dogs of the British Islands' and 'The Sportsman's Cabinet,' and should say the length from outside of hips to front of chest is not more than one-fifteenth over the height at shoulder, and such proportion will not apply to what is generally understood by a short-legged dog. I would describe a pug as a squarely built, thickset dog, standing on straight legs of moderate length, the height at shoulder and length of body being nearly equal.