346 Journal of Agriculture. [10 May, 1910. 



The figures in this table relate to working horses only, not to stud 

 horses, and do not throw any light on the question of hereditary influence 

 in the occurrence of sidebone. Thev support the conclusion set nut above 

 as to sidelx>ne being essentiallv an affection of draught horses, but one 

 false inference may be drawn from the figures, viz. : — that the development 

 of sidebone is consequential on the character of the work performed bv 

 the horse. Rather is it that the horses which are used for draught work 

 on hard pavements and heavy ground are of the class that are hereditarlily 

 predisposed to the development of sidebones. In support of this latter 

 view the fact must needs be mentioned that all the horses dealt with under 

 the Victorian Government scheme were stud horses. Few of them had 

 done any kind of work, and practicallv none had worked on pavement. 

 The roads travelled bv stallions when doing their season have an earth 

 surface frequently cushioned with dust or grass ; in the vicinity of the 

 larger towns only are the country roads metalled or macadamized. 



Another interesting fact as bearing on the falsitv of the view that side- 

 bones are caused by the use of calkin or high-heeled shoes, is that prac- 

 tically all the draught horses examined were shod without heels, the practice 



of shoeing stallions with flat shoes being general throughout this country. 



Evidence of Hereditary Character of other Unsoundnesses. 



Table IV. shows the total number of rejections for ringbone, bone 

 spavin, curb and bog spavin to have been respectively 60, 134, 29, and 25, as 

 against 275 cases of sidebone. The difiiculty, therefore, of revealing 

 evidence of hereditary transmission of these other unsoundnesses as com- 

 pared wdth sidebone is in ratio to the lesser numbers available for analysis 

 in each case. There is only practically one-fifth of the number of the 

 cases to work on in the case of ringbone, one-ninth in the case of bone 

 spavin and curb, and one-eleventh in the case of bog spavin. 



Nevertheless, relationship between a var\ing number of horses found 

 to have these unsoundnesses .respectively may be cited. 



Ringbone. — Of the 40 draught horses rejected for ringbone, fi\e belong 

 to one family and four to another. 



The five comprise four sons (M ■ — B , C B , 



U C and Z Q ■ — of B ) — and one g.-g- son 



(C — ■ — — K ) of the sire Q of B . In the other familv. 



the four rejects for ringlx>ne are grandsons through their dams of the sire 



B , viz., C K , D W , C K 3 



and T K . 



Bone Spavin. — Relationship between the horses rejected for bone spavin 

 has not, up to the present, been found to exist sufficientlv close as to 

 warrant the submission of any instances as evidence of hereditary influence 

 as the causation of this particular unsoundness. 



Curb. — In regard to curb, seven families have been encountered in wliicli 

 near relatives have been found affected. Particulars of these are — 



Family 1. — -Sire and one son examined both having curbs, thus — 



Sire — X U (curb). Son — S D (curb). 



Family 2. — Three sons (sire not examined) thus — 



Sire— L (N.E.). Sons— L (curb) ; 



R (curb) ; 



I (curb). 



