view raw text
BETWEEN RACES RACESI I By Oscar Otis J JConclusions Conclusions in Shannon II MixUp Accuracy of Australian Stud Book Many Owners Name Horses Well Dictionary Offers Limitless Field FieldHOLLYWOOD HOLLYWOOD PARK Inglewood Calif June 21 Yesterday we commented at some length upon the solving of the mixup of the two mares Spaewife by Neil S McCarthy a solution which cleared Shannon II from any supposed taint of his pedigree more than 100 years ago The McCar ¬ thy research cleared up years of misunder ¬ standing on the matter It is noteworthy to cite perhaps a couple of his conclusions in the mystery This confusion concerning the Spaewifes of antiquity has had a modern day reaction that seems certain to grow in public favor in the coming years until in I time this reaction may be heard by The Jockey Club and suitable action taken But before going into that the additional background cited McCarthy in his scholarly presentation to The Jockey Club in estab ¬ lishing the right of Shannon II to enter the American Stud Book It seems to be established that the mare Ringtail by Selim had a chestnut foal in England in 1822 by Soothsayer which was unnamed when she was shipped to Australia She was named Spaewife on arriving in Aus ¬ tralia She is the mare that is called Spae ¬ wife in the Australian Stud Book and is not intended or represented to be identical with the mare Spaewife in the General Stud Book England It seems to me that the Australian Stud authorities can be depended upon and the comments of A Loddon Yuille keeper of the Australian Stud Book are pertinent Says Yuille Volume 7 of the Australian Stud Book was compiled by my late father Although I was only in my teens at that time I was aware of his painstaking efforts and I am absolutely cer ¬ tain that he and his committee would not have made the amendment in Volume 7 unless conclusive evidence had been placed before them At that time they would have had access to documents held by the sons and grandsons of early settlers and racing men in Australia A ASpeaking Speaking of Cuttysark who has caused so much heartbreak and confusion at this late date there are a number of descend ¬ ants of Cuttysark in Australia which cant race here much to the chagrin of their owners some of whom are United States citizens Wanklyn writing in the Austra ¬ lian Race Horse says of this famous or infamous mare however you look at it In the New Zealand Stud Book this family is called Ouida for local reasons Ouida 1879 by Yattendon being the maternal ancestress of that Colons branch but I have followed the practice generally adopted of giving the first taproot where there are fairly authentic returns of foaling Much has been written about the pedigree of this mare but there seems to be no doubt that her breeding is buried in oblivion It was once thought she was the unnamed chest ¬ nut mare bred in England in 1822 got by Soothsayer from a mare by Selim from Ringtail by Buzzard and the Spaewife was identical with Fortune Teller by Sooth ¬ sayer but the late P G Monaghan in a letter to the Sydney Mail of December 23 1899 explains that on turning up the files of the Hobart Gazette he found in the issue of March 1826 a record of the arrival of the Prince Regent Captain Lamb from London at Hobart and her departure for Sydney the same month The celebrated Peter Fin was on board but three mares viz Columbine by Grimaldi Joquil by Hyacinth and Fortune Teller by Sboth sayer died during the voyage This of course disposes of the theory that Spae ¬ wife was identical with Fortune Teller but is fairly conclusive that she was unnamed Soothsayer mare consequently Cuttysark is left without pedigree pedigreeA A A A AThe The Shannon II incident or what might be termed the case of the two Spaewifes has brought into sharp focus here on the Coast a growing sentiment for the abolish ¬ ment of the practice of allowing thorough ¬ bred names to be duplicated regardless of time separating the two individuals in ques ¬ tion We rather doubt if The Jockey Club would approve of another Man o War for a long time to come but as the critics point out there is a precedent set for a lot of Man o Wars in the years to come A Man o War hasnt been duplicated and probably will not be fore some time to come is just the point A check through the files of DAILY RACING FORM discloses dozens of horses of an era not too far bygone having their names carried today by rather ordi ¬ nary fellows and in some instances poor maidens and cheap performers performersA A A ATo To return to the case of the Spaewifes although the Australian Spaewife was foaled in England she was unnamed when she went to Australia The folks Down Under dubbed her that in the Aus ¬ tralian Stud Book The other Spaewife was named and registered in the English Stud Book Yet the confusion engendered by the names more than 125 years ago threatened the career of Shannon II caused a change in ownership and only by the exhaustive research of Neil S Mc ¬ Carthy was the error at long last corrected and Shannon II made eligible for our Stud Book If such an apparently minor error then could cause such repercussions today what could happen in another 150 years is a matter of conjecture Those who decry the duplication of names say the solution is simple Allow no name to be duplicated on the turf of any horse in any generation They qualify this statement by saying that if the same name be allowed then add a second a third a fourth or even a fifth to the original name The latter system has its disadvantages because horses imported from abroad carrying a name of an Ameri ¬ can horse is dubbed 2nd or 3rd Hence the latter suggestion has been discarded as untenable untenableThose Those in favor of prohibiting the adop ¬ tion of names of horses of yesteryear for our performers of this day and age frankly admit the task of naming horses would be complicated and made more difficult if such a rule were established The ingenu ¬ ity of an owner would be taxed to ever and ever find new names which had never been used before but the task is far from impos ¬ sible There are more than half a million words in any good unabridged dictionary not to mention countless others that could be coined In theory the field of names is limitless Hence the people in favor of the no duplication rule cannot be blamed too much if they become irked at seeing the handles of equine greats of yester ¬ year worn by selling platers today They argue too that the benefits to accrue to the turf in general and the owner in par ¬ ticular eventually would far outweigh any extra convenience involved in research Some owners already have pointed the way by year after year choosing names of dig ¬ nity that far transcend the frequent com ¬ bination of sire and dam place names and just pure fancy
